A couple reasons. One of the big ones too is that it's a little bit unique to be having a accessory dwelling unit being built at the same time as a home. That's something we don't really run into a whole lot. So that size, those are sort of things we thought about when we brought on to put it on to take it off the consent agenda.

I agree with the staff's recommendation to approve to approve it. Um and tree removal. There will be no significant trees impacted whatsoever. And they were out today. Luke uh something or other with natural resources that's already been approved and it's already all uh all the significant trees are already all marked and protected.

I'm in support of this one. I think it it makes logical sense, Drew. I think it was a very good uh presentation and and packet. I thought it was very straightforward. I get why we would put it on the uh non-consent agenda. I was really just curious if there was any public feedback, which there isn't, but so I agree with everything you said. I mean, no variances. Um large lot, plenty of screening. This makes a ton of sense, and I know the city is supportive of ADUs.

And this is the probably unique most unique part of this application which we had a lot of conversations with the applicant about this and how they're going to add on some sort of drive-through component. Uh and this was actually staff's first recommendation was to go over the top of this garage with a bridge.

The only reason that's being a variance is required is because they again are on the same elevation. Um, after looking through, there's a couple other things too that I wanted to add that were not in your staff report. Um, just to get a little bit more of the visual understanding of what's going on out there. So, here's a look at that building from Weisetta Boulevard. You can see the existing Aramark sign. Uh, again, the applicant would be allowed to have a sign on this elevation, but as you move farther away to the east, uh, that that elevation really gets blocked pretty by that vegetation.

Chair Maxwell, Commissioner Henry, I can feel our city attorney breathing down my neck. And the answer to that would be no. We do not have the ability to add on addition conditions like those.

A lot of the goals with this project are related to kind of that uh presence that they want to create here in the Twin Cities. And this is really honestly a marketing opportunity for them as a company to be so close to the interstate. Um and they they really do invest in their facilities um and the customer experience.

The second logo that you see there, Kodapay, is a a separate company that's owned by First International Bank and Trust, and they will occupy a portion of this building. So really that honestly was the main driver for the desire to have two separate signs is there will be the you know first international bank is the main occupant and the owner of the building but they also own this code of pay company which will be in the building as well.

The one thing I was thinking about for this project was the signs and just just because you take a sign off one face doesn't mean you should just automatically be allowed to put move it to the other face. Um so thank you for pulling together that um example of a similar project in the area. Um and the fact that there's multiple tenants in the building helps me feel okay with that.