This transcript is for a **Bloomington Planning Commission** meeting. While your list provided City Council members, the individuals speaking are members of the Planning Commission and City Planning staff. Based on the dialogue and the roll call, the Commission members are: **Chair Solberg, Commissioner Bennett, Commissioner Goodrum, Commissioner Goldsman, Commissioner Korman, Commissioner Roman, and Commissioner Albrecht.** [1:52] [Music] [3:37] **Chair Solberg:** Good evening and welcome to the April 9th Bloomington Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission advises the City Council on development proposals, development standards, long-range planning, and transportation issues. Some items the Planning Commission has final authority for and others the City Council will make the final decision. The Planning Commission is made up of seven volunteers that are appointed by the City Council to serve for up to three years at a time. Tonight we have six items on our agenda, but before we begin we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag... one nation under God, indivisible... [4:29] **Chair Solberg:** As you can see, things look a little bit different in the council chambers tonight. In response to the pandemic that is facing the United States right now, we have changed the operations in which we're taking place, but we still fully intend and are trying to serve the public in the best way possible. And tonight with a short synopsis of how things will work, Mr. Markegard, would you outline that? [5:17] **Glen Markegard (Planning Manager):** Sure, Mr. Chair, members of the public. So in Bloomington, given the pandemic situation, the Advisory Commission meetings have all been canceled through April 15th, but there's an exception if time-sensitive action must be taken. And we did confer with our applicants this evening and concluded that we do have time-sensitive items on the agenda, so that's why we're moving forward with tonight's meeting. Luckily, there's a statute that addresses—state statute that addresses meetings during a pandemic situation; somebody had some forethought there. And that statute says that under a health pandemic or an emergency, public meetings may be conducted by telephone or other electronic means. So that's what we're doing tonight. Everybody pretty much is remote except for Commissioner Solberg and myself, and we also have somebody in communication staff in the control room. So we only have three people here at City Hall in the council chambers. Joining remotely are planning commissioners, staff, applicants, and members of the public. I would note that because we have a remote meeting, all of the votes must be conducted by roll call. [6:54] **Glen Markegard:** In terms of communicating this unusual meeting type, we did send an E-Subscribe out last Friday when the packet came out; it was sent to over 1,900 subscribers. And then we also posted the information on our website and communicated it with anybody that's communicated with us on items on tonight’s agenda. That communication explained how to participate remotely, and that could be either watching the meeting online or on cable television, or participating via computer or phone. It also explained where to find the agenda in the packet online and where to send public comments via email. And we did receive several comments via email that we've provided to the planning commissioners and we'll talk more about those. If you are watching live tonight and would like to testify, you can call the number on the screen which is 952-563-8926 or you can email planning@bloomingtonmn.gov for instructions and we'll be able to get you on the WebEx call so you can provide live testimony if you would like to do so. We’ll have that information scrolling across the screen tonight if you are watching via cable television or if you're watching via the online feed. However, if you're watching via YouTube Live, that scrolling feature does not work, and it will also not work if you're watching when you're not live after the fact. So just look for the scrolling information if you'd like to participate live in the meeting. We have heard from one member of the public that wants to participate live and I see that he has joined, so we'll be able to hear from him on item number one. And then we also received five comments via email as well. So that's all I have in terms of a summary. [8:27] **Chair Solberg:** All right, thank you, Mr. Markegard. Before we start, I think it's probably appropriate to do a roll call to make sure again all the commissioners and Planning Commission members can hear us and we can hear them. I'll start with Bennett. Can you respond please? [9:16] **Commissioner Bennett:** Here. **Chair Solberg:** Commissioner Goodrum? **Commissioner Goodrum:** Here. **Chair Solberg:** Commissioner Goldsman? **Commissioner Goldsman:** Here. **Chair Solberg:** Commissioner Korman? **Commissioner Korman:** Let me unmute... there we go, here. **Chair Solberg:** Okay, there we go. Commissioner Roman? **Commissioner Roman:** Here. **Chair Solberg:** And Commissioner Albrecht? **Commissioner Albrecht:** Here. **Chair Solberg:** All right, so we got all the commissioners here and so with that I think we can go to our first item which is a plat. Can we have the staff report please? [10:02] **Mike Centinario (Associate Planner):** Certainly. Good evening commissioners, this is Mike Centinario, one of the planners. When I have the ability to share my screen, I'll go ahead and do that. **Glen Markegard:** Sorry Mike, I'm working on transferring that control to you. I think I have to stop sharing mine first. **Chair Solberg:** And I just asked the public to bear with us as we're trying to learn new electronic means and keep everything going during high peak time of internet usage right now. So thank you. [10:54] **Glen Markegard:** All right Mike, you should have it now. **Mike Centinario:** Okay, great. Can everyone see the first line of the presentation? **Chair Solberg:** Yes, I can see it. [11:22] **Mike Centinario:** Okay, great. So the first item on my agenda is for a preliminary and final plat, more specifically a Type III preliminary/final plat to subdivide an existing lot into three lots. The address is 2915 Overlook Drive. We have this—this is an aerial image of the property outline... Mike, we lost your audio. Let’s see... what about now? Can you hear me? **Chair Solberg:** Yeah, now we can. We lost you right away at the beginning. **Mike Centinario:** Okay, moving on to a little more detailed view of the property. This image is zoomed into the property at 2915 Overlook Drive. So the area that we're really focusing on is the area near Overlook Drive itself. The existing home is set back substantially from the street itself and the applicants are looking to subdivide the property to allow residential development near Overlook Drive itself as well. I turned on the contours or the elevations on this drawing. You can see the area in front of the existing house is quite flat, but behind the home is really where there's a lot of slope. This lot is very much a bluff lot and the land behind the home is not developable, but the area in front of the home is where the applicant is focusing. [13:45] **Mike Centinario:** I have a couple images of some existing conditions. This is looking east or southeast from Overlook Drive. As you can see, Overlook Drive itself is on the lower left-hand side of the image. We can see the area that is vacant of any buildings along the street itself. There are a lot of mature trees on the site and that's a characteristic of the entire neighborhood. This particular home on this property was built in 1968 I believe, and a lot of the homes in this neighborhood are about that same age, so we're certainly talking about an established neighborhood. This is the existing home as it sits a couple days ago, but the applicant has been doing quite a bit of renovations to the home and is proposing to retain this home. I'll provide some more detail on how they would accomplish retaining the existing home and providing access to that property while creating new developable lots along Overlook Drive. [14:33] **Mike Centinario:** This is the final plat itself, the document that would get recorded to create new residential lots. This is the entire plat and so you can see just the scope of this piece of land; it's quite large. But the lots that we're focusing on today are near Overlook Drive. You can see Lot 1 and 2, but I'll zoom in here. These are the two lots that are being proposed as new lots. So the existing home would occupy the southern lot, whereas the new residential lots are shown here as Lot 1 and 2. Well, for code requirements, there's quite a few requirements that we have to review when thinking about residential plats. We did an analysis of these code requirements including a site area; the minimum is 11,000 square feet. I have the proposed lots: Lot 1, 2, and 3. Lot 3, of course, is quite large because that's the remainder of the lot with the existing home, so it does meet the lot area requirements. The code minimum for a lot width is only 80 feet, but we do have something called "median lot width" which tries to blend new residential lots within an existing neighborhood. We do a calculation and the median lot width—or the minimum lot width for this—is 80% of the median lot width within 500 feet. Doing that calculation, the code requirement is 97 feet (17 feet larger or wider than the minimum). The proposal exceeds that, so that's also compliant. [16:52] **Mike Centinario:** I'll provide a little more detail in terms of the building setbacks, but we have reviewed something called "prevailing setbacks," which again tries to blend new buildings or new homes within established neighborhoods where we average adjacent properties. But the maximum enforceable setback is 65 feet; in this case, the setback is 65 feet. A couple additional items: building setback along Overlook Circle, which is to the east and would serve or apply to the existing home—that is also compliant, as well as rear setbacks. One thing we don't know until a building permit is submitted is what the lot coverage or impervious surface coverage is for a particular property, and that's something that we would review as part of like a certificate of survey when someone applies for a building permit. For a new home, for example, they provide a certificate of survey that shows the footprint of the home, the grading of the lot, and then it would also provide some detail on what the impervious surface coverage is, and at that time we would review to make sure that it's within standard lot coverage. [18:28] **Mike Centinario:** Well, going on to the preliminary plat, the preliminary plat is much more detailed. It has contours, topography, and other existing conditions type information that is not included in the final plat. One thing that the applicant would like to do ultimately is to construct a single-family home but then also construct a two-family dwelling. They would like to ultimately develop three new residential lots and that's depicted on the preliminary plan. Again, zooming in on Lot 1 to the east, they would like to develop a two-family dwelling, and on Lot 2, a single-family home. It's important to note that we're not asking the Planning Commission to make a recommendation on the two-family dwelling. The applicant has been transparent that that's what they'd like to do ultimately, but what's before you today is really a three-lot plat to create two new residential lots. Should this plat be approved, the applicant would then have the ability to go through an additional review process to have a two-family building approved. [19:13] **Mike Centinario:** We want to make sure that's clear now. We have had, like Mr. Markegard mentioned, feedback from members of the public and I think there's at least one individual who would like to provide some testimony to you. They expressed some concerns with additional residential development in an area that is quite established. If I could make a generalization, I think there was some concern about the duplex (the two-family dwelling) that would ultimately be built should it be approved. That felt like one of the significant concerns, as some neighbors would rather see only single-family homes. I'll address some of the code requirements that we have to review relative to the two-family dwelling. I understand there's a lot of text on the slide, but I think it's important given the concern that we heard from members of the public. [20:47] **Mike Centinario:** One of the pieces of concern related to a two-family dwelling was the increased density and how that could change the character of this neighborhood. The code actually deals with that quite specifically. We have a number of performance standards related to two-family dwellings. The purpose section of the two-family dwelling performance standards says that it's intended to accommodate two-family dwellings within predominantly single-family areas. So the intent of the code is to try and allow some two-family dwellings within predominantly single-family neighborhoods provided that they meet the performance standards. In this R-1 zoning, the minimum site size for a two-family dwelling is 15,000 square feet; the proposed is just under 20,000, so that standard is met. The site width for a two-family dwelling is 100 feet and in this case, they're proposing a little over 120 feet. Those are just a few items that we look for in reviewing two-family dwellings. Again, we're not asking the Planning Commission to take action on the two-family dwelling tonight, but given the feedback we heard from the public, we wanted to at least address those standards. [22:19] **Mike Centinario:** Going back to the preliminary plat, the graphic here shows the red line on the east part of the existing home's property. One unique feature about this lot is that Overlook Circle actually extends to this lot's boundary, and so that's how the applicant is able to propose a new driveway to Overlook Circle and not have access directly from Overlook Drive. You can see on this drawing how the existing driveway would be removed to make way for the new single-family home. This is an image from Overlook Circle and you can see the house in the background and a small shed as well as the existing detached garage. The fact that this property is adjacent to right-of-way allows there to be access. One thing to note is the shed as well as the garage would have to be removed or relocated because essentially this area would become the front yard for this property, and detached accessory buildings are not permitted between the home and the front yard. [23:53] **Mike Centinario:** I'll touch on prevailing setback briefly. Again, for new development or additions of homes in established neighborhoods, you have to average the setback of adjacent properties. In this case, we exclude corner lots. The lot to the east is a corner lot so we don't count that. The lot to the west—the setback there is over 200 feet. In order to create an average, we essentially take the code minimum of 30 feet and then average it. The prevailing setback for this property is 117.5 feet; however, the code has a maximum enforceable setback of 65. Because of that, the setback here is 65 feet. [24:40] **Mike Centinario:** Moving on to tree preservation. This plat is subject to tree preservation standards. However, the code does allow a fair amount of removals. The threshold is 50% significant trees before there has to be a reforestation plan. Based on the tree plan that was submitted, they would not exceed that threshold. The tree plan is something that we think could evolve because they don't have final designs on the homes yet. Nonetheless, the tree plan as initially proposed would remove exceeding 30% of the significant trees on the site, whereas the threshold is 50%, so they're within the threshold. [25:27] **Mike Centinario:** Now, for single-family neighborhoods or really any development along public rights-of-way, we want there to be sidewalk. But there are some exceptions and one of those allows the City Council to waive a sidewalk requirement in certain instances, such as where there is no sidewalk network in the existing neighborhood. That's the case in this particular location. We're supportive of the City Council waiving the sidewalk requirement for several reasons. One is there isn't a sidewalk network within this neighborhood. Second, Overlook Drive is intended to be reconstructed in 2020 and while the road would be reconstructed, a sidewalk would not be included. Over several decades, the city would not be engaged in constructing sidewalk along Overlook Drive, so we feel that having a small section of sidewalk in isolation doesn't represent the public's best interest. We are recommending approval. We do believe that this is a compliant preliminary/final plat. We recognize the concern from neighbors regarding increased density; however, given the code requirements, we feel that would be acceptable provided those performance standards are met. I do have a recommended motion on the screen. [27:47] **Chair Solberg:** All right, thank you Mr. Centinario. I just a couple of questions before I open it to the other commissioners. One: just the process for reviewing the twin homes—is that an administrative function or is that a formal Planning Commission type process? [28:33] **Mike Centinario:** Thank you, Mr. Chair. The two-family dwelling process requires final site and building plan approval, but the review process is with the Planning Manager. In other words, the Planning Manager has the ability to approve two-family dwellings. There's a very prescriptive set of performance standards in the city code that we review. Provided that it's code-complying, the Planning Manager has the ultimate approval authority. [29:49] **Chair Solberg:** Thank you. And the second question I had was just a little bit about the calculation—the median setback—and is that just on one side of the road that that's calculated or is it calculated on both sides of the road? **Mike Centinario:** Mr. Chair, it's on one side of the road—the side of the road of the subject property, so in this case, it would be the south side. **Chair Solberg:** Okay, thank you. Are there other commissioners—Commissioner Albrecht, you have a question? [30:34] **Commissioner Albrecht:** Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Centinario, do we know what the prevailing setback is on the other side of Overlook Drive? **Mike Centinario:** Mr. Chair, Commissioner, I don't know the exact setback. The homes on the north side of the street aren't—they don't have the same level of setback. For example, the property to the west has a 200-plus foot setback. I'm not aware of any properties on the north side of the street that have that significant setback, primarily because the lots are not as large. The bluff lots on the south tend to be much larger and extend all the way down the block, so a number of the homes have those really large setbacks. **Commissioner Albrecht:** Thank you. [31:22] **Chair Solberg:** Commissioner Goldsman, you have a question? No? All right. Commissioner Bennett, do you have a question regarding a setback? **Commissioner Bennett:** Regardless of what the other prevailing setbacks are, this is already at the maximum setback allowed under the code, right? The 65 feet is the maximum that can be required, is that correct? [32:06] **Mike Centinario:** Mr. Chair, that's correct. The 65-foot maximum was essentially designed for a scenario where you have really large setbacks which, in some cases, can make it impossible to do any sort of building addition or new construction without a variance. So while we want to acknowledge and respect greater than minimum setbacks, the city wants to have a maximum requirement. That number is 65 feet, which is more than twice the city code minimum of 30 feet. It's essentially trying to find a balance between the minimum while trying to respect the character of neighborhoods that might have larger setbacks. **Commissioner Bennett:** Thank you. [33:41] **Chair Solberg:** Are there any additional questions for staff? Yes, this is Commissioner Goodrum. **Commissioner Goodrum:** I have one question for staff. Regarding drainage alterations with what looks to be a two to three-foot drop from Overlook Circle... when we cut that driveway into the circle, are we going to have drainage alterations from the existing site to the new development with that driveway cut through, and would there be impacts to the neighborhood? **Mike Centinario:** Mr. Chair, Commissioner, certainly there would probably be some modifications of drainage. Our engineering division, as they review any sort of driveway permit, would need to make sure that the grade is acceptable. In their review, they didn't find it to be a potentially adverse impact. **Commissioner Goodrum:** Okay, thank you. [34:28] **Chair Solberg:** Any other commissioners have questions for staff? Seeing none, at this point we will go to the applicant. Is the applicant online, Mr. Markegard? **Glen Markegard:** Yes, Mr. Chair, I notice Steve Furlong is online. Mr. Furlong, I am going to unmute you. [35:48] **Steve Furlong (Developer/Applicant):** Good evening commissioners. Is Andrew Dibble also available to speak? Just a few comments: the owner and I conducted a neighborhood meeting last fall and at that time we had proposed two two-family dwellings. The preconceived notion from the neighborhood was that it was to be an affordable housing development and we didn't hear any concerns about density at that time. Because of city code and the inability to do two two-family dwellings here, we have changed to this plan of a single-family and one two-family dwelling. Just to clarify, there are no plans here for affordable housing; all the development will be market-rate and it will conform to the overall appeal and design of the neighborhood. We're not planning any 6,000 or 7,000 square foot "McMansions" here. The exterior design and appeal from the street should conform to the rest of the street. And just to close, development in the city needs to be surgical as we're completely built out and in need of additional housing options. This is one way of providing additional options. Thank you. [37:57] **Chair Solberg:** Thank you. Is there anyone else from your group, Mr. Furlong? **Glen Markegard:** Mr. Chairman, I will unmute the caller from the 612 area code... **Andrew Dibble (Property Owner/Applicant):** Yeah, that's me, I'm Andrew Dibble. I think Steve did a good job of outlining what the plan is. We're doing this to make the best use of the land. [39:32] **Commissioner Albrecht:** Thank you Mr. Chair. My question is related to the neighborhood meeting. What was the reception from the neighborhood regarding affordable housing, and what is the general price point for the new house and duplex you're looking at? **Steve Furlong:** I can answer the second question. The two-family dwelling—each side approximate market price would be in the mid-$400,000 range. We haven't settled in on the single-family yet, but likely somewhere near $800,000. Regarding the neighborhood meeting, the only adverse response we had was a concern about affordable housing. I think one of the neighbors thought we were going to be building affordable housing there and it became apparent that that was not desired. **Commissioner Albrecht:** Thank you. [42:46] **Commissioner Roman:** Thank you Mr. Chair. To be clear, Mr. Dibble, you are the property owner and you intend to continue living there? **Andrew Dibble:** Yep, I'm the property owner and I will live on the property as soon as I'm done with the inside renovations, which should be shortly. I'm moving in because I'm never moving again. **Commissioner Roman:** Thank you. [43:35] **Commissioner Goldsman:** Thanks Mr. Chair. What is your intention with those two new properties? Are you planning on selling them once development is complete or renting them? **Steve Furlong:** Commissioner Goldsman, the two-family dwelling will be built on spec for sale, and our hope is that we can market the single-family as a custom to-be-built for sale product. **Commissioner Goldsman:** Great, thank you. [44:22] **Chair Solberg:** Any other questions for the applicant? Seeing none, I will go ahead and open it up to the public. I understand we have at least one individual that wanted to speak tonight. **Glen Markegard:** Yes Mr. Chair, Mr. Nathan Reder is on the phone call. [51:48] **Nathan Reder (Public):** Hello, can you hear me? This is Nathan Reder. I am the neighbor to this lot. I've lived here for 15 years and we love the neighborhood. Putting two new lots changes the characteristics of the neighborhood, particularly the south side of Overlook. It would add density that's not really there now. I think that's the main concern, not really about affordable housing; it's really just about putting a duplex right now where there's one house. It just really changes the characteristic where people have yards and we don't have neighbors right on top of each other. I think if you start putting duplexes in, it would set a precedent. **Chair Solberg:** Thank you, Mr. Reder. [58:49] **Dennis Mahalo (Public):** My name is Dennis Mahalo, I'm a homeowner in the neighborhood. I also have a concern about the density impact. I think I would be perfectly comfortable with two single-family homes in this plan, but my concern is the twin home. Once this gets approved, the approval process for the duplex is an administrative action that will not have another public review. I think there's a disconnect there; these two things ought to be joined. That's really the end of my comments. [1:02:47] **Steve Furlong:** If I could just respond to a few things. City ordinance limits the number of two-family dwellings within a certain area, so if we built one here, we couldn't build another one two blocks down the street. We did notify all of the owners within a 500-foot radius last fall. And I want to note that this is not a "duplex"—it's a two-family dwelling, two separate individual homeowners. The only difference is that they are attached on a zero lot line. [1:05:09] **Commissioner Goldsman:** One question I have for the applicant is about the property immediately to the west. It is currently for sale and advertised with the ability to divide that lot into three as well. Have we heard anything from the public regarding that lot? **Andrew Dibble:** I can answer that. It's my understanding from the agent that they have an accepted purchase agreement on it and the people buying it are not buying it to split it up. Furthermore, 3001 Overlook isn't wide enough to meet the 96-foot width requirement, so they would have to go through a variance process. [1:07:12] **Chair Solberg:** Is there a motion to close the public hearing? **Commissioner Roman:** So moved. **Commissioner Bennett:** Second. **Chair Solberg:** Roll call vote... [Unanimous approval to close public hearing]. [1:07:58] **Commissioner Goldsman:** I think we've heard from the applicant, the neighborhood, and staff. One area I'd like to discuss is the sidewalk. I use that neighborhood quite a bit and I would be in favor of waiving the sidewalk instruction just for the sake of there is no other sidewalk on that street. Overall, I think the applicant has met all their requirements and I'll be supporting that tonight. [1:09:11] **Commissioner Roman:** Thank you Mr. Chair. I will echo what Commissioner Goldsman mentioned regarding sidewalks. I think it's a mistake on the part of the city to fail to put sidewalks in as we rebuild streets, and I'd like staff to take that back. As far as the actual application, our job as a Planning Commission is to see if it meets the conditions of the code, and it does. I find myself in support of it. [1:10:34] **Commissioner Albrecht:** I just want to echo what Commissioner Roman said about the role of the Planning Commission and my intention is to be in support of this project. [1:12:09] **Commissioner Bennett:** In Case PL2020-38, I move to recommend the City Council waive the sidewalk construction requirement along Overlook Drive for the final plat. **Commissioner Goldsman:** Second. **Chair Solberg:** [Roll call vote - Unanimous 7-0]. **Commissioner Bennett:** In Case PL2020-38, having been able to make the required findings, I move to recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat and adopt a resolution approving the final plat subject to the conditions. **Commissioner Korman:** Second. **Chair Solberg:** [Roll call vote - Unanimous 7-0]. This will go to the April 22nd City Council meeting. [1:15:16] **Glen Markegard:** For Item 2, the applicant requests a continuance to the May 21st Planning Commission meeting. **Commissioner Bennett:** I moved to continue Case PL2020-08 to May 21st. **Commissioner Albrecht:** Second. **Chair Solberg:** [Roll call vote - Unanimous 7-0]. [1:16:47] **Commissioner Roman:** I move to continue Case PL2020-31 to the May 7th meeting. **Commissioner Albrecht:** Second. **Chair Solberg:** [Roll call vote - Unanimous 7-0]. [1:17:37] **Michael Palermo (Planner):** Mr. Chair, commissioners, I'm here tonight to talk about a privately initiated sign code amendment. In tall office buildings (7 stories or more), we used to require that signs be in the top 20 feet of the building. We changed that to also allow them in the bottom 20 feet. The proposal is to reallocate that freestanding sign allowance to wall signage in that lower 20 feet. The total signage is not changing; we're just reallocating. [1:22:58] **Matt Swanson (Applicant):** I don't have anything to add beyond what Mr. Palermo just summarized. [1:24:34] **Commissioner Roman:** In Case PL2020-40, I move to recommend approval of the ordinances to amend the city code to allow an additional wall sign in lieu of a freestanding sign for office buildings with 7 stories or more. **Commissioner Korman:** Second. **Chair Solberg:** [Roll call vote - Unanimous 7-0]. This will move to the May 4th City Council meeting. [1:27:17] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** Good evening. This is a continued application for a four-story self-storage facility at 8901 Lyndale Avenue South (U-Haul). There were a number of outstanding conditions from the March 19th meeting. U-Haul has submitted revised plans. They increased the RV storage area to be code-complying, provided code-complying parking islands, and added a sidewalk along Halsey Lane. Regarding building materials, they provided continuous windows along the first floor of the western elevation as requested. They also swapped some materials for uniform precast concrete. [1:40:34] **Nick Johnson:** Staff is still recommending approval. [1:43:14] **Christopher Ulman (Applicant - U-Haul):** We made the changes requested. **Commissioner Albrecht:** I noticed the revised language regarding the use of the property—it eliminated the word "pickup" of rental trucks. Is there a plan to use the site for pickups? **Christopher Ulman:** It gives us the opportunity to help as the exception, not the rule. For example, helping a handicapped person who can't migrate across from the other site. [1:45:59] **Commissioner Goodrum:** I noticed the removal of the brick veneer. Why was that removed? **Christopher Ulman:** Brick veneer is very expensive, and with the cost of adding the additional windows on Lyndale, we had to be fiscally responsible. It was a compromise. [1:49:01] **Commissioner Goodrum:** I want to thank the applicant for pulling this together on short notice. I think the changes made it more code-compliant. [1:50:32] **Commissioner Roman:** I will echo those comments. This is a much-improved application. I’m glad we were attentive to the lighting. For those reasons, I’m ready to support this. [1:52:06] **Commissioner Goodrum:** In Case PL2020-26, I move to adopt a resolution approving a conditional use permit for a 4-story self-storage facility at 8901 Lyndale Avenue South. **Commissioner Albrecht:** Second. **Chair Solberg:** [Roll call vote - Unanimous 7-0]. That is a final decision unless an appeal is received. [1:53:37] **Commissioner Roman:** I move to approve the minutes of the March 19th meeting. **Commissioner Goodrum:** Second. **Chair Solberg:** [Roll call vote - Unanimous 7-0]. That ends our April 9th, 2020 virtual Planning Commission. Thank you. [Music]