[0:25] Chris Meyer: WELCOME EVERYONE TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS CHRIS MEYER, I'M THE CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION. AT THIS TIME I WILL ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL. [0:35] Clerk: COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> HERE. >> CAMPBELL. >> HERE. >> CHOWDHURY IS ABSENT. [0:43] Clerk: CONLEY IS ABSENT. GORDON. >> HERE. >> JONES IS ABSENT. MEYER. >> HERE. >> SKJEFTE. >> HERE. >> THOMPSON. >> HERE. >> WAGNER. >> HERE. >> CHOWDHURY. >> Aurin Chowdhury: HERE. [0:58] Clerk: WE HAVE EIGHT MEMBERS PRESENT. [1:00] Chris Meyer: LET THE RECORD SHOW WE HAVE A QUORUM. FIRST WE'LL MOVE TO THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 2025. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THOSE MINUTES? >> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MINUTES? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [1:14] Chris Meyer: OPPOSED? ABSTENTIONS. THE MINUTES ARE ADOPTED. AND NEXT WE WILL ORGANIZE THE AGENDA. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT ITEMS 5 AND 7 BE DISCUSSED AND THAT ITEMS 4 AND 6 BE ON CONSENT OH AND EIGHT AS WELL -- SORRY. [1:39] Chris Meyer: YEAH, THAT EIGHT BE ON CONSENT. SO I'M GOING TO READ THROUGH THE ITEMS THAT WERE RECOMMENDED FOR CONSENT. IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND WHEN I CALL FOR IT. SO FIRST, LOOKING AT ITEM NUMBER FOUR, THE ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT, WAS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR? [2:04] Chris Meyer: NOT SEEING ANYONE. SO THAT WILL BE ON THE CONSENT. ITEM FIVE WILL BE DISCUSSED. ITEM 6, 2318 LOGAN AVENUE NORTH IN WARD 5, WAS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM NUMBER SIX? [2:27] Chris Meyer: NOT SEEING ANY, SO THAT WILL BE ON CONSENT. AND ITEM SEVEN WILL BE DISCUSSED. AND ITEM EIGHT 819, 825 2nd AVENUE SOUTH, WARD 7. [2:46] Chris Meyer: WAS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM EIGHT? JUST TO REVIEW, ITEM FOUR WILL BE ON CONSENT. FIVE DISCUSSED. SIX CONSENT. SEVEN DISCUSSED. EIGHT CONSENT. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THAT AGENDA? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. [3:02] Chris Meyer: ANY OPPOSED? THAT AGENDA IS ADOPTED. WE'LL MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA ADOPTION. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT THEY CAN NOW -- TO ANY OF THE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. ANYONE? [3:18] Chris Meyer: NOT SEEING ANYONE, SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ABOUT ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS? [3:33] Chris Meyer: IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT CONSENT ITEMS? ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? >> AYE. >> OPPOSED? ABSTENTIONS? THOSE ARE ADOPTED. SO IF YOU WERE HERE FOR ITEMS 4, 6, OR 8, YOUR PROJECTS WERE APPROVED, GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECTS. [3:52] Chris Meyer: NOW WE'LL TURN TO ITEM 5, 63 SAINT ANTHONY PARKWAY IN WARD 1. [4:30] Alex [Planning Staff]: THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A PROPOSAL FOR ESTABLISHING AN OUTDOOR PARKING AND STORAGE AREA INTENDED FOR LARGE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. IN THIS CASE SEMI TRAILERS, NO CAPS. THIS IS FOR THE PROJECT AT 63 AIN'T ANTHONY PARKWAY. [4:47] Alex [Planning Staff]: THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REQUIRED LAND USE APPLICATIONS INCLUDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A VEHICLE FLEET ORIENTED SERVICES USE, FOUR VARIANCES WHICH I'LL GO THROUGH IN MORE DETAIL LATER IN MY PRESENTATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW. ZONING MAP FOR THE AREA SUBJECT PROPERTY IS AT THE CORNER OF MARSHALL STREET AND SAINT ANTHONY PARKWAY. [5:07] Alex [Planning Staff]: THIS PROPERTY AND MANY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE IN THE PROCESSING ZONING DISTRICT. YOU CAN SEE THAT GRAY AREA TO THE EAST IS A TRANSPORTATION ZONING DISTRICT IN THIS AREA AS WELL. THIS SHOWS BASICALLY THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY, THIS IS FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY. [5:25] Alex [Planning Staff]: THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE IS A WAREHOUSE BUILDING WITH THE ENTRANCE FACING THE PARKWAY TO THE SOUTH. THERE ARE EXISTING PARKING AND LOADING AND CIRCULATION AREAS ON ALL SIDES OF THE BUILDING. ON THE WEST AND NORTH SIDES I'LL CALL OUT AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS VIEW, THE RECENT USE OF THE PROPERTY INCLUDES SEMI TRAILER STORAGE BUT DTHIS APPEARS TO BE RELATIVELY NORMAL. [5:53] Alex [Planning Staff]: I'LL CALL OUT SAINT ANTHONY PARKWAY, THERE IS A BIKE PATH, A STANDARD CITY SIDEWALK ON THE NORTH SIDE. BUT THERE IS NO CITY SIDEWALK ON THIS SIDE OF MARSHALL STREET. [6:14] Alex [Planning Staff]: HERE'S PART OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHOWING THE PARKING AND STORAGE AREAS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY PLUS SOME OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, A SMALL RETENTION POND THEY WOULD BE INSTALLING. THE APPLICANTS HAVE DESCRIBED THE INTENDED USE OF THESE AREAS AS SPECIFICALLY FOR SCHOOL BUSES AND SEMI TRAILERS WITHOUT CAPS. [6:32] Alex [Planning Staff]: FOR ZONING PURPOSES THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS. FOR USE PURPOSES, PARKING SCHOOL BUSES, THAT'S THE VEHICLE FLEET ORIENTED SERVICE USE I MENTIONED AND IT'S ALSO REGULATED THE SAME AS ANY OTHER TYPE OF VEHICLE PARKING. [6:47] Alex [Planning Staff]: FOR SEMI TRAILERS WHEN THEY'RE KEPT WITHOUT CAPS SPECIFICALLY, IT'S NOT REGULATED AS PARKING, IT'S REGULATED AS STORAGE FOR ZONING PURPOSES. IN TERMS OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE, THIS WOULD BE BASICALLY TWO AREAS ON THIS WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. [7:05] Alex [Planning Staff]: THE NORTHERN PORTION WOULD BE USED INTERCHANGEABLY FOR STORING SEMI TRAILERS WITHOUT CABS AND SCHOOL BUSES U BECAUSE THERE'S NO FORMAL DISTINCTION IT'S BOTH PARKING AND STORAGE FOR ZONING PURPOSES WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT SPECIFIC STANDARDS. [7:22] Alex [Planning Staff]: IN THIS CASE, THIS NORTHERN PORTION IT WOULD BE STRIPED FOR 48 SPACES INCLUDING STACKED SPACES. FOR THE SOUTHERN PORTION CLOSER TO THE PARKWAY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DESIGNATE THIS AS EXCLUSIVELY FOR STORAGE OF SEMI TRAILERS WITHOUT CABS. [7:38] Alex [Planning Staff]: THEREFORE FOR ZONING PURPOSES THAT SOUTHERN AREA NOT REGULATED AS PARKING, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE PLAN, THEY ARE STILL PROPOSING TO ESSENTIALLY STRIKE 34 SEMI TRAILER SPACES. JUST A QUICK LOOK AT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. [7:55] Alex [Planning Staff]: THERE IS SOME EXISTING FENCING ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S A 6-FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH TWO FEET OF BARBED WIRE ON TOP OF THAT. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO EXTEND THAT FENCE AROUND THE THREE SIDES OF THE SOUTHERN AREA WHERE A LOT OF THAT NEW PAVEMENT WOULD BE ADDED. [8:10] Alex [Planning Staff]: THEY ARE ALSO PROPOSING TO ADD SOME CANOPY TREES AND SHRUB SCREENING ALONG THE WEST, SOUTH, AND EAST SIDES OF THIS NEW PAVED AREA TO PROVIDE THAT SCREENING FROM PUBLIC STREETS. AGAIN, JUST TO RECAP THE REQUIRED LAND USE APPLICATIONS IN THIS CASE, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE VEHICLE FLEET ORIENTED SERVICE USE, THE SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THAT SAME USE, AND FOUR VARIANCES. [8:36] Alex [Planning Staff]: FIRST THE ZONING CODE DOES NOT ALLOW LOCATION OF OFF STREET PARKING IN THE FRONT OR CORNER SIDE LOT LINES. VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SURFACE PARKING SPACES FROM 100 TO 124. [8:52] Alex [Planning Staff]: VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM DRIVE AISLE WIDTH FOR SOME OF THE PARKING SPACES. AND VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS FROM 2 TO 0. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LEGAL FINDINGS THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED FOR DIFFERENT TYPE OF LAND USE APPLICATIONS. [9:11] Alex [Planning Staff]: THE PROPERTY IS ALSO IN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, SO THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL FINDINGS SPECIFIC TO THAT. I'M JUST GOING TO FOCUS ON THE FINDINGS STAFF FINDS WOULD NOT BE MET IN THE INTEREST OF TIME FOR MY PRESENTATION BUT I'M HAPPY TO GO INTO DETAILS FOR ANYTHING ELSE. [9:27] Alex [Planning Staff]: I WILL NOTE FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, STAFF FINDS ALL OF THOSE FINDINGS WILL BE MET AND I'M RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THAT APPLICATION. BUT I'LL SKIP OVER THAT AND GO TO THE VARIANCES AND I'LL TRY AND BE BRIEF ON THAT. THIS IS JUST A TABLE SHOWING WHAT FINDINGS WOULD AND WOULD NOT BE MET FOR EACH OF THESE SPECIFIC VARIANCES. [9:47] Alex [Planning Staff]: IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING GRANTING ANY OF THESE, I CAN BRING THESE UP SO I CAN COVER WHAT STAFF HAS FOUND. TO GO THROUGH THE ONES WE FOUND WOULD NOT BE MET AND KIND OF ALL TOGETHER. THE SUBJECT IS PRETTY TYPICAL FOR A LARGE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL TRANSPORTATION PROPERTY SIMILAR TO A LOT OF OTHER ONES LIKE IT IN THIS AREA. [10:08] Alex [Planning Staff]: FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT FIRST FINDING, THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY BEING AS LARGE AS IT IS, WE DON'T SEE THAT THAT IN ITSELF CREATES A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN COMPLYING WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE. AND SIMILARLY, WHEN IT COMES TO THE NECESSARY SCALE OF THE USE OF THE PROPERTY, WE DON'T FIND THAT THAT SATISFIES THIS FIRST FINDING REGARDING THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD CREATE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR CONTRIBUTE TO A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE. [10:41] Alex [Planning Staff]: FOR THE SECOND FINDING, THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO ADVANCE THE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION POLICIES OF THE CITY AND THAT CAN BE MORE SPECIFIC WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SPECIFIC STANDARDS. [10:56] Alex [Planning Staff]: IN THE CASE OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT A ZONING LOT HAVE NO MORE THAN 100 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES, THAT'S EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZING THAT EXCESSIVE OFF STREET PARKING FOR AUTOMOBILES CONFLICTS WITH A LOT OF THE CITY'S POLICIES REGARDING TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE AND SUSTAINABILITY AND DESIGN. [11:15] Alex [Planning Staff]: FOR THE DRIVE AISLE WIDTH REQUIREMENT, THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO ENSURE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR VEHICLE MANEUVERING ON SITE AND TO PREVENT STACKING OR OVERFLOW OF VEHICLES INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ESPECIALLY FOR LARGE FLOW OF COMMENT. [11:31] Alex [Planning Staff]: FOR THE EV CHARGING VARIANCE, THE INTENT IS TO GRADUALLY EXPAND OUR EV CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING FOR COMMERCIAL AND FREIGHT VEHICLES. FOR THE THIRD REQUIRED FINDING REGARDING THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY AND POTENTIAL FOR INJURY OR DETRIMENT TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY, THIS IN STAFF'S ANALYSIS, THIS LARGELY RELATES TO THE LOCATION OF THIS PROPERTY WHICH IS AN ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION LOCALE IN OUR CITY. [12:03] Alex [Planning Staff]: RIGHT NOW ON THAT SOUTH SIDE IT'S SET BACK OVER 50 FEET TO THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND THIS PROPOSAL WOULD ENCROACH A LOT CLOSER TO THAT WITHIN TEN FEET OF THAT SOUTH LOT LINE. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LARGE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN THIS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR. [12:21] Alex [Planning Staff]: SO CONSIDERING HOW MUCH CLOSER THIS WOULD GET TO THE PARKWAY, THAT IS WHAT IS FACTORING INTO STAFF'S CONSIDERATION FOR THIS THIRD FINDING. JUST TO GO THROUGH SITE PLAN REVIEW BRIEFLY, THERE ARE FOUR REQUIREMENTS OR FOUR STANDARDS WHICH WOULD REQUIRE ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. [12:39] Alex [Planning Staff]: WE DO FIND THAT THREE OF THOSE SHOULD BE GRANTED IS OUR RECOMMENDATION. I CAN GO THROUGH THOSE IN MORE DETAIL IF ANYONE LIKE. TO FOCUS ON THAT FOURTH ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE PIECE FOR THE PARKING AND LOADING LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, THAT IS SPECIFIC TO THE NUMBER OF SPACES WHICH ARE LOCATED MORE THAN 50 FEET FROM A TREE. [13:03] Alex [Planning Staff]: THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY TREE ISLANDS AND THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO LANDSCAPE THE CORNERS OF THE PARKING AREA WHERE PARKING WOULD OTHERWISE BE UNAVAILABLE. THOUGH THEY ARE PROVIDING LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING AROUND THE PERIMETER. [13:26] Alex [Planning Staff]: THESE STANDARDS DO RELATE TO SOME OF THE VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED AS WELL. EVEN THOUGH THIS IS INTENDED FOR LARGE EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES LIKE SCHOOL BUSES, AS STAFF WE FIND THE IMPORTANCE AND FEASIBILITY OF COMPLYING WITH THESE PARTICULAR STANDARDS OF THE ZONING CODE. [13:42] Alex [Planning Staff]: AND WE RECOMMEND ONE REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR THIS SET OF STANDARDS. WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN WITH A COUPLE OF CONDITIONS THAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY ADDRESS THESE SPECIFIC SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS. SO JUST TO WRAP UP MY PRESENTATION, I HAVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EACH. [14:07] Alex [Planning Staff]: I ALSO HAVE A SLIDE THAT LISTS THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. I'M NOT GOING TO READ THROUGH THESE, BUT IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE, I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THEM IN MORE DETAIL. THE APPLICANT AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVE ARE IN ATTENDANCE DURING TODAY'S HEARING. STAFF RECEIVED NO PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THIS ITEM. [14:23] Alex [Planning Staff]: THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, BUT I'M HAPPY TO STAND FOR QUESTIONS. [14:30] Chris Meyer: THANK YOU, ALEX. I HAVE A FEW TO START US OFF. SO FOR THE DRIVE AISLE, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS APPLICABLE TO BOTH THE PARKING AND STORAGE CLASSIFICATION; IS THAT RIGHT? [14:40] Alex [Planning Staff]: CHAIR MEYER, THAT PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT TECHNICALLY DOES NOT APPLY TO THE AREA BEING DESIGNATED AS STORAGE. IT IS STILL REQUIRED BECAUSE LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, THIS NORTHERN AREA WHICH IS REGULATED AS BOTH PARKING AND STORAGE GIVING I'M NOT MAKING A DESIGNATION, I THINK IT'S 27 OF THESE SPACES WILL NOW HAVE ACCESS TO A DRIVE AISLE. [15:02] Alex [Planning Staff]: THAT'S THE ENTIRETY OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS THOSE SPACES IN THE NORTHWEST AND NOT THE SOUTHERN PORTION. [15:19] Chris Meyer: OKAY SO OUR EXISTING REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO STORAGE; IS THAT CORRECT? [15:23] Alex [Planning Staff]: CORRECT. [15:25] Chris Meyer: AND THE NORTHERN PART IS STORAGE? [15:27] Alex [Planning Staff]: AND PARKING BASED ON THEIR PROPOSED USE OF THIS. THEY WOULD NOT BE MAKING A CLEAR DELINEATION BETWEEN WHICH SPACES ARE USED FOR PARKING OR STORAGE ON THE NORTHERN PORTION. [15:34] Chris Meyer: IF THEY DID MAKE A CLEAR DELINEATION, THEN WOULD YOU RECOMMEND GRANTING THAT? [15:38] Alex [Planning Staff]: IF THEY MADE A CLEAR DELINEATION -- [15:42] Chris Meyer: THEN THE DRIVE AISLE WOULDN'T APPLY IF IT WAS ONLY FOR STORAGE? [15:45] Alex [Planning Staff]: HYPOTHETICALLY IF THIS WAS ALL DESIGNATED AS ONLY FOR STORAGE INCLUDING FOR SEMI TRAILERS WITHOUT CABS, THEY WOULD NOT NEED THIS VARIANCE TO THE DRIVE AISLE WIDTH. [15:59] Chris Meyer: OKAY. AND THEN I WANTED TO ASK FOR MORE ABOUT THE COMPLIANCE FOR TWO PARTS FOR THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND FOR THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. PARTICULARLY FOR THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT, SO THE 775 SHRUBS ARE REQUIRED AND THERE ARE 184 EXISTING ONES. [16:23] Chris Meyer: THEY'RE PROPOSING 162 FOR A TOTAL OF 346. CAN YOU SAY MORE ABOUT WHY YOU'RE RECOMMENDING A SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED AMOUNT FOR THAT? [16:34] Alex [Planning Staff]: CHAIR MEYER, LARGELY BECAUSE WE ARE DEALING WITH A PROPERTY THAT IS ESSENTIALLY NOT ENTIRELY DEVELOPED. THERE'S STILL A LOT OF OPEN SPACE. BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME AS A PROPERTY THAT IS BEING -- IT'S NOT AN ENTIRELY NEW DEVELOPMENT ON A PROPERTY THAT HAS NO USE OR BUILDINGS ON IT. THERE ARE A LOT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH. A LOT OF THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY PAVED WITH PARKING, CIRCULATION, LOADING AREAS. [17:01] Alex [Planning Staff]: THAT DOES CONTRIBUTE TO THAT TOTAL NUMBER OF REQUIRED TREES AND SHRUBS, BUT IS NOT PRACTICAL FOR ADDING AS MANY AS WOULD BE NEEDED TO SATISFY THOSE REQUIREMENTS. SO BASED ON THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING SPECIFICALLY LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING -- SORRY IF I CAN FIND -- AROUND THE AREA WHERE THEY ARE DOING WORK, THEY ARE COMPLYING WITH OTHER SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS REGARDING DENSITY OF VEGETATION TO PROVIDE THAT SCREENING AND HAVING A CANOPY TREE FOR EVERY 25 FEET OF PARKING FRONTAGE, ET CETERA. [17:43] Alex [Planning Staff]: THEY ARE COMPLYING WITH THESE OTHER RELATED STANDARDS WE HAVE EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE STILL BELOW THE TOTAL REQUIREMENT. [17:51] Chris Meyer: OKAY. AND THEN THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ONE? [17:54] Alex [Planning Staff]: SO THAT IS REQUIRED SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THEY ARE EXPANDING THIS PARKING AREA IN BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE STREET. THE BUILDING IS WHAT IT IS, IT HAS ITS PRINCIPAL ENTRANCE TO THE SOUTH. THERE IS NO DIRECT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IN THAT AREA WITHOUT WALKING OVER THE DRIVEWAY ESSENTIALLY OR OVER THE YARD. BUT THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THAT AREA. [18:19] Alex [Planning Staff]: WHERE THEY WOULD BE MAKING CHANGES AND ADDING ALL OF THIS PAVEMENT, THERE IS NOT A PUBLIC SIDEWALK ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS MOSTLY WHERE THEY'RE DOING THE WORK. SO THERE ISN'T A LOGICAL PLACE FOR THEM TO ADD A SIDEWALK OR A WALKWAY TO MARSHALL STREET BASED ON WHAT IS THERE AND WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS TECHNICALLY NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT REQUIREMENT, BUT WE DID FIND THAT IT WAS A REASONABLE PROPOSAL BASED ON THOSE EXISTING CONDITIONS. [18:55] Chris Meyer: OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY -- COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. [19:05] Commissioner Thompson: THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. I KNOW THIS AREA VERY WELL. PROBABLY THE LARGEST STAKEHOLDER IN THIS WOULD BE THE PARK BOARD. YOU WERE SAYING THAT -- IT WAS A LITTLE HARD FOR ME TO GET OUT OF THE WOODS ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT PROPOSAL. THERE ALREADY ARE PAVED OR IT'S ALREADY BEING USED SORT OF FOR STORAGE BUT IT'S NOT REALLY PAVED AND SO THEY'RE SEEKING TO ACTUALLY PAVE IT. IS THAT WHERE WE ARE? [19:33] Alex [Planning Staff]: CHAIR MEYER, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, ESSENTIALLY CORRECT. WHAT I HAVE ON THE SCREEN HERE, THIS IS TAKEN FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY'S AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY. I THINK THIS IS 2024, MAYBE 2023. YOU CAN SEE THERE IS SOME PAVEMENT, LOOKS LIKE BLACKTOP ON THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES OF THE BUILDING WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN PARKING OR STORING SEMI TRAILERS. [20:03] Alex [Planning Staff]: I'M NOT SURE WHETHER OR NOT CABS HAVE BEEN THERE AT ANY POINT. I DON'T KNOW THE FULL HISTORY OF THIS. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHEN THE PAVEMENT WAS ADDED. BUT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO FIND ANY RECORD OF THESE TYPES OF LAND USE APPLICATIONS WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED TO LAWFULLY ESTABLISH THIS FROM A ZONING STANDPOINT. [20:22] Alex [Planning Staff]: MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE IS A LOT OF ENGINEERING BEING PROPOSED RIGHT NOW FOR THE STORM WATER RETENTION COMPONENT OF THIS. SO THAT ALSO REQUIRES PUBLIC WORKS APPROVAL. I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY THEY ARE COMING THROUGH THE PROCESS TODAY IN ADDITION TO THE ACTUAL DINE CHANGES THEY WOULD BE MAKING TO SEEK LAWFUL ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. [20:46] Commissioner Thompson: I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. A FEW MORE QUESTIONS, BUT TWO THINGS YOU JUST SAID. THEY'RE TECHNICALLY ADDING MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO THE GROUND AND THEN ARE THEY LOOKING FOR STORM WATER CAPTURE AS WE'RE THIS CLOSE TO THE RIVER OR IS THAT PART OF THE PLAN? THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I WASN'T QUITE SURE. [21:02] Alex [Planning Staff]: I WOULD DEFER TO THE APPLICANTS ON THE ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS, I GUESS. A LOT OF THAT IS SUBJECT TO PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW AND APPROVAL. [21:10] Commissioner Thompson: BUT IT IS GOING TO PUBLIC WORKS? [21:12] Alex [Planning Staff]: YEAH, THEY SUBMITTED THAT. IT CAN'T BE APPROVED WITHOUT LAND USE APPLICATION APPROVAL. AND THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK MORE TO THE ENGINEERING DETAILS. BUT THEY ARE PROPOSING A STORM WATER RETENTION POND RIGHT ON THAT WEST SIDE OF THE ALL THIS NEW PAVEMENT. IT'S KIND OF THE DARKER HASHED AREA TO THE LEFT OF THE PARKING SPACES IS MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE A RETENTION POND. [21:37] Commissioner Thompson: THANK YOU. AND THEN I JUST HAVE TWO OTHER QUESTIONS. ONE WAS I WANT CLARITY AROUND BUILDING, IT'S CURRENTLY 50 FEET THAT'S BASICALLY GREEN SPACE WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE REDUCED TO TEN; IS THAT CORRECT? AND THAT'S BEING RECOMMENDED. AND ON THIS PICTURE, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND, IT'S BEING BUILT TO THE WEST; IS THAT CORRECT? [22:00] Alex [Planning Staff]: YEAH, SO WHAT YOU SEE HERE, THE KIND OF BLACKTOP PAVEMENT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING, A LOT OF THAT WOULD BE, I BELIEVE ESSENTIALLY REPLACED AND EXPANDED A BIT ALONG THE EDGES TO SORT OF MODERNIZE IT, I GUESS FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. BUT THEY WOULD ALSO BE ADDING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PAVEMENT SORT OF IN THAT SOUTHWEST CORNER, NOT ALL THE WAY OVER TO MARSHALL, BUT SORT OF FILLING IN THAT CORNER. [22:32] Commissioner Thompson: WHERE THE TREES ARE RIGHT NOW THAT WE CAN SEE? [22:34] Alex [Planning Staff]: CORRECT. [22:36] Commissioner Thompson: OKAY, THANK YOU. MY LAST QUESTION, THIS IS THE PARKWAY AND NOW OBVIOUSLY THESE ARE GRANDFATHERED IN THOSE DRIVEWAYS, NOW YOU NEED SPECIAL VARIANCES THAT GO BEFORE THE BOARD. HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONSIDERATION HOW THIS WOULD IMPACT THOSE KIND OF HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC ON THE PARKWAY? IS THAT ANYWHERE IN THE ANALYSIS? [22:53] Alex [Planning Staff]: THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE AS STAFF HAVE CONSIDERED, AGAIN RECOGNING THAT THIS IS VERY SIGNIFICANT NOT JUST A TRANSPORTATION NETWORK, BUT THAT'S PART OF IT WHEN IT COMES TO LARGE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES NEAR BICYCLISTS, PEDESTRIANS, ET CERA. FOR ZONING PURPOSES, WE HAVEN'T DONE A THOROUGH ANALYSIS IN TERMS OF HOW MANY VEHICLES WE EXPECT ON IT PER DAY OR AT DIFFERENT TIMES OF THE DAY OR WHERE EXACTLY WE EXPECT THOSE VEHICLES TO BE COMING FROM OR GOING TO, ET CETERA. [23:37] Alex [Planning Staff]: AGAIN IT'S A PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW, THAT WOULD GO INTO SOME OF THAT FROM THE ENGINEERING STANDPOINT. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO OUR ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THOSE VARIANCES, WE'RE SEEING THE PARKWAY AS PART OF THE GRAND ROUNDS EVEN THOUGH THIS DOES GO THROUGH AN ESTABLISHED INDUSTRIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, WE'RE STILL TRYING TO LIMIT SOME OF THOSE ENCROACHMENTS CLOSER TO THE PARKWAY ITSELF. EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE NO FURTHER MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROPERTY, IT STILL GETS TO THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY AS THE PARKWAY AS A TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. [24:03] Commissioner Thompson: AS THE PARK BOARD COMMISSIONER SITTING ON THIS BODY, THAT'S MY LARGEST CONCERN. BECAUSE THAT STRETCH, YOU CAN SEE THE LITTLE CORNER, I'M STARING AT MARSHALL ALL THE WAY THROUGH INTO NORTHEAST IS THE WORST PAVED SECTION, ARGUABLY THE WORST PAVED SECTION OF THE PARKWAY AS IT STANDS AND WE'RE LOOKING TO FIX THAT AND THEN I AM JUST CONCERNED THAT THIS WOULD BRINGEN EVEN MORE HEAVY TRAFFIC TO THAT AREA. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTIONS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. [24:50] Chris Meyer: COMMISSIONER BAXLEY, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK? ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARING? NOT SEEING ANY, I'LL GIVE A QUICK REMINDER THAT WE DO HAVE A CAPTIONER WHO RECORDS THE MEETINGS. SO AS YOU'RE SPEAKING, PLEASE SPEAK CLEARLY INTO THE MICROPHONE FOR US. AND WE ALSO, I WANT TO NOTE WE'RE GOING TO LOSE THAT CAPTIONER AT 6:30 AND WE'VE GOT ANOTHER ITEM TO GET TO AFTER THIS ONE SO WE'LL TRY TO MOVE SWIFTLY. WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK TO THIS? COME UP AND INTRODUCE YOURSELVES. YOU CAN PROCEED. [25:29] Rob Binder: MY NAME IS ROB BINDER. I'M A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. WE'RE THE CONSULTANTS THAT HAVE PUT THE DOCUMENTS TOGETHER. [25:40] Rick Barton: RICK BARTON, CO-CHIEF MANAGER OF THE INVESTMENT GROUP THAT OWNS THE PROPERTY. [25:50] Rob Binder: I THINK OUR ASK TODAY IS TOUGH. WE HAVE A LOT OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DENIAL ON A BUNCH OF THESE VARIANCES. WE'D LIKE TO CHANGE THAT AND NOT HAVE THEM BE DENIED. I WANTED TO QUICKLY GO THROUGH EACH OF THEM BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS AND SOME OF OUR THOUGHTS AND OUR OPINION, I GUESS, OF WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ON ALL OF THESE. IF THAT'S GOOD. FOR THE FIRST ONE, B, THE FINDINGS, THEY'RE CRITICAL OF THE DISTANCE OF THE NEW PAVED AREA TO THE EXISTING WALK SINCE THE GRAND ROUNDS TRAIL IS RIGHT THERE. A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE, IF YOU LOOK WE SHOW A SECTION OF THAT, AND AS THE FINDINGS SAY, WE ARE 8.7 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT WE'RE MORE THAN TEN FEET FROM THE ACTUAL SIDEWALK WHICH IS A STANDARD 6-FOOT SIDEWALK. THE TRAIL, THE BIKE TRAIL ACTUALLY IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD. SO WE DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE AFFECTING THAT VERY MUCH. IN ADDITION TO THAT, ALL UP AND DOWN THAT AREA, YOU HAVE OTHER PARKING LOTS, OTHER STORAGE AREAS THAT ARE AS CLOSE IF NOT CLOSER THAN WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR HERE. WE'RE ALSO, I THINK, SCREENING THE AREA PRETTY HEAVILY AND IT IS A STORAGE AREA AND NOT A PARKING LOT, BUT WE ARE SCREENING IT. THAT'S FOR THE FIRST ONE. [27:18] Rick Barton: WE ALSO OWN THE PROPERTY KITTY COOLER ON CALIFORNIA AVENUE THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHICH IS ON THE BIKE PATH ALONG THAT SIDE. SO I KNOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD EXTREMELY WELL FROM THE AESTHETIC STANDPOINT AND THE LOOKS AND SETBACK, THE EXISTING PROPERTIES THAT ARE THERE, THIS IS A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AREA. OUR CURRENT TENANTS THAT ARE UTILIZING THIS FROM A CURRENT STABILITY LARGE RETAIL OPERATION, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR EXPANSION. THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT NEED FOR THIS EXPANSION WITHIN THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. I GET CALLS CONSTANTLY FROM PEOPLE LOOKING FOR SPACE AVAILABLE TO PARK THEIR TRAILERS ON A REGULAR BASIS. MOST OF THIS IS GOING TO BE TRAILER STORAGE UTILIZATION. WE DO HAVE A BUS COMPANY THAT CURRENTLY USES THE FACILITY ON THE BACKSIDE. BUT THEY'RE LOOKING TO EXPAND ALSO FOR THEIR BUS SERVICES THROUGHOUT THE TWIN CITIES AND PRIMARILY THE MINNEAPOLIS AREA. SO FROM THAT STANDPOINT, FROM A VISUAL STANDPOINT, IT'S GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT UPGRADE FROM WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE TODAY AND ALSO REPRESENTING WHAT OTHER PROPERTIES HAVE, IT WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT OVER WHAT'S THERE. [28:38] Rob Binder: SO FOR OUR C VARIANCE, THE FINDINGS ARE CRITICAL OF THE NUMBER OF SPACES OF PARKING. WE FELT THAT THE HUNDRED SPACE STANDARD IS NOT APPLICABLE TO LARGE INDUSTRIAL SITES. THERE'S ALL SORTS OF PARKING ARRANGEMENTS AND MODELS THAT ARE BEING USED ON THESE DIFFERENT SITES. THIS DIDN'T SEEM VERY APPROPRIATE TO US. DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE -- SO WE FELT THE 100 WAS NOT ENOUGH. WE WHITTLED IT DOWN TO 124 PLUS THE STORAGE. AND AGAIN WE'RE SCREENING THIS WHOLE AREA ON THE WEST SIDE AND THE SOUTH SIDE. ON D, THE AISLES, THE FINDINGS WERE CRITICAL OF THE LAYOUT OF THE STACKED PARKING WITH NO DRIVE BY ISLES PROVIDED ON THAT WEST SIDE OR NORTHWEST SIDE. WE FEEL IT PROVIDES THE GREATEST FLEXIBILITY IN STORAGE AND MOVEMENT IN THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY WHICH WE'RE ALWAYS TRYING TO BE EFFICIENT. AND ALSO THE LEAST PAVEMENT. SO WHAT'S CRITICAL ABOUT THIS AREA IS THAT WE HAVE PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS THAT ARE MOVING THESE THINGS ABOUT. THIS ISN'T SOMEONE OFF THE STREET WHO GETS TO PARK BACK THERE OR BE BACK THERE. ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE BEING MOVED IN AND OUT BY PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS. AND THAT MODEL IS WHAT REALLY IS EFFICIENT ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE AND WE THINK IS THE BEST WAY TO GO. [30:17] Rick Barton: QUITE FRANKLY IT'S A HAZARD IF YOU HAVE AN AISLE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A TRUCK PARKING AREA. SO FROM OUR STANDPOINT, IT WOULD BE A HINDRANCE AS FAR AS THE TRUCKS THEMSELVES MOVING THE SEMIS BACK AND FORTH. [30:26] Rob Binder: SO VARIANCE E ALSO, THE FINDINGS WERE CRITICAL OF NOT PROVIDING AN EV FACILITY AT ALL. AND REALLY, MY SUMMARY AND THE OWNER CAN GO ON ABOUT THIS, HE'S NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING POWER TO CONSUMERS OR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. WE DON'T BELIEVE WE SHOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THIS AMENITY TO THE EMPLOYEES THAT WOULD BE WORKING THERE FOR INSTANCE. AND I THINK IN ADDITION, HE'LL GO ON A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS, BUT AS THESE FACILITIES ARE NEEDED FOR COMMERCIAL TRUCKING, THEY'LL BE PROVIDED. THEY'LL BE PROVIDED WHEN THEY'RE READY. [31:08] Rick Barton: QUITE FRANKLY, THEY'RE NOT EVEN CLOSE. THERE'S NO REQUEST OUT THERE TODAY FOR HAVING PLUG INS FOR ANY STORAGE UNITS OR, WE HAVE PLUG INS FOR OUR BUSES ON THE BACKSIDE OF OUR FACILITY BECAUSE THEY NEED IT. AND SO WE SUPPLIED THE ELECTRICITY THAT THEY CAN PLUG IN DURING THE WINTER MONTHS JUST FROM A HEATING STANDPOINT. BUT FROM AN EV PERSPECTIVE, THERE'S ZERO NEED IN THE TRUCKING COMPONENT RIGHT NOW TODAY THAT WE FORESEE NOR DO WE SEE ONE COMING ON IN THE NEXT 5-7 YEARS. [31:42] Rob Binder: AND FINALLY, LOOKING AT THE CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL, MOST OF THOSE ARE FINE AND WE HAVE A PROBLEM TRYING TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES OR THOSE UPDATES. THE ONES THAT ARE PROBLEMATIC ARE NUMBER THREE AND NUMBER FOUR. AGAIN IT'S THE CORNER LOTS, IT'S THE ADDING EXTRA TREES THAT ALEX TALKED ABOUT. DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE STACKED STORAGE AND PARKING MODEL, IT'S JUST NOT VIABLE TO KEEP TREES OUT THERE, AT LEAST NOT IN THE MIDDLE. WE'RE REALLY PROPOSING TO MAXIMIZE THE PERIMETER TREES AND THE SCREENING AND THINK THAT SHOULD COVER US FOR TREES. [32:21] Rick Barton: AND QUITE FRANKLY, IT'S GOING TO BE A HUGE IMPROVEMENT WHAT'S EXISTING THERE, IF YOU GO UP AND DOWN THE BLOCK, MOST OF IT IS JUST WEEDS THAT'S GROWING WILD IS THE BULK OF THE LANDSCAPING THAT'S DONE ON THAT STREET. IT'S INDUSTRIAL SPACE. IT'S USED AS SUCH. WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SOME VERY POSITIVE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LANDSCAPING COMPONENT OF IT. WE DON'T MIND DOING THAT, WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE A GOOD CITIZEN ON THAT FRONT. BUT TO GO EXTREME BEYOND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE FOR THAT TYPE OF PROPERTY. [32:56] Rob Binder: THAT'S REALLY ALL WE HAD FOR PREPARED REMARKS. BUT WE'LL CERTAINLY TAKE QUESTIONS OR ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. WE CAN ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS. [33:12] Chris Meyer: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? GO AHEAD. [33:20] Commissioner Thompson: THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND GIVING A LITTLE MORE EXPANSE ON SOME OF THOSE VARIANCES YOU'VE REQUESTED. CAN I ASK YOU, WHAT IS, I GUESS I'LL PUT IT THIS WAY, WHAT IS A PAIN POINT AROUND 100 PARKING SPACES VERSUS 124. YOU SAID YOU TRIED TO WHITTLE IT DOWN? [33:38] Rick Barton: THIS IS THE LOWEST NUMBER THAT FROM AN ECONOMIC STANDPOINT WHEN WE GO IN AND PUT ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN AND ALL OF THE TREES AND EVERYTHING ELSE FROM THE REVENUE STANDPOINT THAT WE'RE ABLE TO GENERATE FROM THAT, THIS IS THE MINIMUM AMOUNT THAT MAKES SENSE IN DOING THIS PROJECT. IF WE GET REDUCED DOWN TO THAT 100 LEVEL, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE AND WE WOULD PASS ON DOING THAT. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE A BIG LOSS FROM OUR CURRENT TENANTS, THEY HAVE A GREAT NEED FOR IT ALONG WITH IMPROVING THE FACILITY FROM AN AESTHETIC STANDPOINT WHICH IS IMPORTANT FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE. [34:10] Commissioner Thompson: MAY I ASK, YOUR CURRENT TENANTS ARE THE ONES WITH THE STORAGE FACILITY THAT THEY WANT THAT? [34:15] Rick Barton: YES. [34:16] Commissioner Thompson: WHAT IS TO SAY THAT THEY WOULD VACATE THAT AND THEN YOU WOULD NEED SOMETHING DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT TENANTS? IS THAT EVEN IN THE REALM OF -- [34:23] Rick Barton: THEY'RE WILLING TO SIGN A LONG-TERM LEASE ONCE WE GET THIS BOOKED. AND THAT'S THE INTENT OF THIS. THAT LOCATION, THE NUMBER OF CALLS WE GET IS FOR THAT TRUCK PARKING. THAT'S THE HUGE NEED IN THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS RIGHT NOW. [34:40] Commissioner Thompson: THAT MAKES SENSE. CAN I ALSO ASK WHAT IS AGAIN LIKE THE PAIN POINT ABOUT THE DRIVE AISLE? [34:47] Rick Barton: THE WHAT? [34:48] Commissioner Thompson: THE DRIVE AISLE WIDTH? [34:49] Rick Barton: YEAH, I MEAN THAT'S JUST THE WAY YOU PARK YOUR TRUCKS AND SEMIS, YOU CAN'T HAVE AISLES WHERE YOU HAVE TREES AND THINGS IN THE MIDDLE OF THERE. YOU'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO STACK THEM VERY CLOSE TOGETHER AS YOU KIND OF MOVE IN AND OUT. SO FROM THAT STANDPOINT, THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT FROM A TRUCKING PERSPECTIVE. IT'S NOT LIKE YOU HAVE A RETAIL COMPONENT TO THIS. IT'S MUCH, MUCH DIFFERENT. THIS IS HOW YOU OPERATE AN INDUSTRIAL PARK. [35:17] Commissioner Thompson: FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU, YOU'RE BUILDING THIS ESSENTIALLY FOR THIS TENANT -- [35:22] Rick Barton: NO, THEY'RE SEPARATE. OUR CURRENT TENANT THAT MAINTAINS THE BUILDING IS SEPARATE THAN OUR TENANTS THAT ARE UTILIZING THE STORAGE. [35:30] Commissioner Thompson: AND WOULD THEY -- I'M THINKING OF LIKE OLD NEW YORK CITY PARKING LOTS WHERE THEY JUST STACK IT UP REAL TIGHT. WOULD THEY BE DOING THAT KIND OF THING WITH THE BUSES OR THE CABS OR SORRY NOT THE CABS, THE SEMI TRAILERS WHERE IF YOU NEEDED ONE WAY IN THE BACK, YOU WOULD BE MOVING EVERYTHING AROUND TO GET TO IT? [35:50] Rick Barton: IF IT'S THREE DEEP AND THEY NEED THAT BACK ONE, TYPICALLY THEY DON'T DO IT THAT WAY, THEY JUST DO LAST-IN, FIRST-OUT. [36:01] Commissioner Thompson: THAT'S THE IDEA, YOU'RE SHOVING AS MANY AS YOU CAN. [36:05] Rick Barton: THEY ROTATE ON A REGULAR BASIS. SO ON A TYPICAL WEEK THEY'LL BE FULL. AND MIDWEEK IT WILL BE SOMEWHAT EMPTY AND THEN BY THE END OF THE WEEK IT'S MORE FULL. SO THEY COME AND GRAB THEM DURING THE WEEK AND THEN REPLACE THEM DURING THE WEEKENDS. IT'S TYPICAL. [36:28] Commissioner Thompson: THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS. I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE FROM A PARK STANDPOINT, THERE'S A FIELD RIGHT ACROSS FROM YOUR PROPERTY THAT WE AS THE PARK BOARD ARE THINKING OF PLANS FOR THAT WOULD ACTIVATE THAT SPACE IN A MUCH LARGER WAY. AND AT THE SAME TIME I KNOW IF YOU JUST DRIVE ABOUT 60 FEET DOWN THE ROAD, YOU HAVE LIKE 100 ROWS OF RAILROAD TRACK AND IT'S JUST RIGHT THERE. [36:53] Rick Barton: TRIANGLE TRUCKING RIGHT BEHIND US. YOU HAVE GOT TRIANGLE NEXT DOOR. THERE'S TRUCKS GOING IN AND OUT OF THERE ON A REGULAR BASIS. IT'S A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE AREA. [37:05] Commissioner Thompson: YES, THANK YOU. THOSE ARE ALL OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR NOW. I DON'T KNOW IF OTHER PEOPLE DO. [37:12] Jamison Whiting [Commissioner]: PRESIDENT MEYER, THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APOLOGIZE TO MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HERE TODAY, I HAVE TO LEAVE UNEXPECTEDLY AFTER MY COMMENTS SO I'M GOING A LITTLE OUT OF TURN. FIRST, I WANT TO SAY THANKS TO ALEX. IT HELPED BREAK DOWN REALLY NICELY FOR US. AND I THINK I CAME IN HERE NOT KNOWING A LOT ABOUT IT AFTER READING THE REPORT AND YOUR PRESENTATION HELPED THAT SO THANKS FOR A GREAT JOB THERE. AND THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE TODAY. I REALLY APPRECIATE PEOPLE WHO ARE INVESTING IN THE CITY AND WHO WANT TO INVEST IN THE CITY AND I THINK EVERYONE HERE ON THE BOARD IS HERE FOR THAT SAME PURPOSE. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO MAKE CLEAR THAT WE ARE MAKING QUASI JUDICIAL DECISIONS HERE AND WE'RE GUIDED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CITY ORDINANCES AND LAWS. AND IN ORDER FOR US TO AGREE TO VARIANCES, THERE NEEDS TO BE CLEAR LEGAL REASONING BEHIND THAT AND I DID NOT HEAR THAT IN YOUR COMMENTS TODAY. I THINK YOU WENT THROUGH YOUR VARIANCES SAYING I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD WORK LIKE THAT OR THAT'S NOT HOW THIS WORKS IN OUR INDUSTRY, AND UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE TO HAVE FINDINGS TO SUPPORT VARIANCE REQUESTS THAT GO AGAINST CODE AND BASED ON THE COMMENTS I'VE HEARD FROM YOU TODAY, I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THOSE EXIST. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT BEFORE I LEFT. I'LL ALLOW MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO MAKE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS AFTER I LEAVE. I APOLOGIZE. THANK YOU ALL. [38:39] Rick Barton: FROM MY UNDERSTANDING THE VARIANCES ARE ASKED ARE PRIMARILY BASED ON RETAIL OPERATIONS AND THEY DON'T ALWAYS APPLY AS WE WERE TOLD TO THE INDUSTRIAL MARKET. SO FOR WHAT THAT'S WORTH. [38:58] Chris Meyer: ARE THERE FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. [39:03] Commissioner Baxley: COULD BE A QUESTION FOR ALEX ACTUALLY. [39:06] Chris Meyer: WE COULD GO TO THAT AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. [39:08] Commissioner Baxley: MAYBE I'LL TAKE ADVANTAGE AND DO -- SO IS THIS IT SEEMS WE'RE TRYING TO PARSE BETWEEN STORAGE VERSUS PARKING AND PARKING BRINGS IN A WHOLE LEVEL OF SCRUTINY AND CRITERIA THAT STORAGE DOES NOT. SO HOW DO YOU GUYS THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS IS? IS THIS A PARKING FACILITY OR A STORAGE FACILITY? [39:27] Rick Barton: STORAGE FOR SEMI TRAILERS. IT'S A STAND ALONE STORAGE STRUCTURE, BUT YOU COME IN WITH A SEMI TO MOVE IT AROUND. THEY'RE JUST STORING THOSE ITEMS. [39:41] Rob Binder: AND I THINK PART OF THE BUSINESS IS THE BUSES AND THAT'S THE CONFUSING PART IS THAT WE HAVE TO -- THAT'S A NICE EXTRA PART OF THE BUSINESS OF STORAGE IS THAT WE CAN PUT THESE BUSES ON HERE ON A TEMPORARY DAILY BASIS. AND I THINK THAT'S THE CONFUSING PART. THAT'S THE PART THAT OTHERWISE WE COULD SAY THE WHOLE THING IS STORAGE. BUT WE WOULDN'T BE TRUTHFUL BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME BUSES IN THE BACK THERE. [40:09] Rick Barton: AND THERE IS A HUGE NEED FROM THE BUSING COMPANY SAYING THEY HAVE NOWHERE TO PARK THEIR SCHOOL BUSES. THESE ARE ALL SCHOOL BUSES THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH. [40:18] Commissioner Baxley: BUT THERE'S NO PARKING LOTS OR ANYTHING ELSE BACK THERE AT ALL? JUST THE BUSES. [40:22] Rick Barton: THANK YOU. [40:24] Commissioner Wagner: THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. ONE MORE QUESTION FOR YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST A QUESTION IN REGARDS TO WHO PARKS IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. I SEE IN THE SATELLITE IMAGE THAT WAS PROVIDED A ROW OF CARS AND WHY YOU DON'T FEEL -- [40:40] Rick Barton: THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CURRENT TENANT WITHIN THERE WHICH IS EVENT SALES. [40:45] Commissioner Wagner: IN REGARDS TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE NO ELECTRIC -- [40:51] Rick Barton: IT'S NEVER BEEN, WE'VE ASKED. THEY'VE NEVER REQUESTED ONE, THEY SAID THEY WOULDN'T NEED IT ACCORDING TO THEM. WE'VE GOT IT IN OTHER BUILDINGS THAT WE HAVE WHERE IT'S BEEN REQUESTED, WE'VE PUT THEM IN. [41:04] Commissioner Wagner: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. [41:06] Chris Meyer: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? [41:10] Commissioner Skjefte: CAN I UNDERSTAND THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS, WHAT IS THE INFRASTRUCTURE? AS A BIG PARKING LOT, IS THERE A LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE THAT YOU'D HAVE TO PUT IN TO BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THOSE OR WOULD IT BE LIKE RUNNING AN OUTLET? [41:25] Rick Barton: YOU'D HAVE TO RUN ELECTRICAL LINES OUT TO THAT AREA AND THEN BUILD THE BOXES THAT GO INTO IT. [41:35] Commissioner Skjefte: SO YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT ELECTRICAL WORK DONE? [41:39] Rick Barton: YEAH. [41:40] Commissioner Skjefte: THANK YOU. THAT WAS MY QUESTION. [41:45] Chris Meyer: ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. [41:48] Rick Barton: THANK YOU. [41:54] Chris Meyer: WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM? ANYONE ELSE? NOT SEEING ANY, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, OTHER COMMENTS OR ANY MOTION ON THE TABLE? I GUESS I'LL START US OFF THEN WHERE I'M AT ON THIS. I PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED THIS AREA ON THE PARK BOARD AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, THE PARK BOARD HAS THE MOST AT STAKE ON THIS AND THEIR EFFORTS TO ACTIVATE THIS AREA MORE. I DEFINITELY STRONGLY AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS THAT STAFF WROTE, IN PARTICULAR ON THEIR REDUCTION OF VARIANCE B ABOUT THE NEGATIVE EFFECT IT WOULD HAVE IN PARTICULAR ON GRANTING THAT ONE TO THE PLEASANTNESS OF THE PARKWAY. SO I'M DEFINITELY GOING TO SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM B AS WELL AS ITEM C. FOR ITEM D AS FAR AS THE MINIMUM DRIVE AISLE WIDTH, THAT ONE I'D BE OPEN TO AN ARGUMENT ON IT, BUT I DON'T FEEL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO GO AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON IT. FOR ITEM E REGARDING THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING, I THINK YOU SHOULD DO THAT, IT'S JUST TWO SPOTS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S VERY BURDENSOME. I SUPPORT THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE REQUIRED IN THE SITE PLAN REVIEW. I AM A LITTLE SKEPTICAL OF THE ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE, IT SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF SHRUBS THAT ARE NEEDED. IT IS MAYBE SOMEWHAT OF AN IMPROVEMENT OVER WHAT'S THERE IN THE STATUS QUO, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE OUR DEFAULT REQUIREMENT WOULD BE QUITE A LOT HIGHER. BUT I THINK WHERE I'M AT IS I WOULD PROBABLY JUST GO WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND NOT GET TOO FAR INTO THE ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE UNLESS ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WOULD WANT TO GO THERE. SO THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. [44:12] Commissioner Thompson: I HAVE A LOT OF THOUGHTS ON THIS ONE BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY RIGHT BY MY HOUSE. I LIVE JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER. I APPRECIATE CHAIR MEYER TALKING ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THE PARKWAY SITUATION AND I KNOW HE KNOWS THAT PROBABLY AS INTIMATELY AS I DO. I ALSO FEEL FOR THE APPLICANT BECAUSE THIS IS A REALLY CHALLENGING SPACE IN OUR CITY THAT'S LIKE I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT'S CHANGING OVER. IT'S STILL VERY MUCH INDUSTRIAL AND YET WE'RE TRYING TO INTEGRATE DIFFERENT THINGS AND OF COURSE YOU PROBABLY KNOW ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS IS OF COURSE COLUMBIA. I WOULD BE OPEN TO WHAT AM I TRYING TO SAY, AGREEING WITH CHAIR MEYER ON THE DRIVE AISLE WIDTH IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD SORT OF GIVE BACK TO THE APPLICANT THAT WOULD MAKE IT LESS CHALLENGING TO CREATE THIS, I WOULD BE OPEN TO THAT. I'M NOT THE WORLD'S BEST EXPERT ON THESE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND HOW WE MAKE THE MOTIONS AGAINST OR WITH THAT. BUT I WOULD SIGN ON TO THAT IDEA. THANKS. [45:28] Chris Meyer: OTHER COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. [45:32] Commissioner Baxley: YEAH. THANK YOU, CHAIR. I'M KIND OF ON THE SAME PAGE. I GUESS I AM, THE DRIVE AISLE IS RELATED TO WHETHER IT'S STORAGE OR PARKING. THE DRIVE AISLE SEEMS SILLY IF I'M GOING TO STORE THE WAY I NEED TO STORE. SO I WONDER FROM ALEX IS THERE ANY BECAUSE I CAN'T FIND SOME ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE UNLESS I CALL THAT STORAGE AREA. ARE WE CALLING SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE SITE STORAGE, SOME SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE SITE PARKING OR IS IT ALL ONE WAY OR IS THERE SOME LANGUAGE HERE THAT WE CAN JUSTIFY SOMETHING LIKE THAT? [46:25] Alex [Planning Staff]: CHAIR MEYER, COMMISSIONER BAXLEY, IF I CAN BRING UP THE SITE PLAN AGAIN, THIS PARTICULAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN PARKING AND STORAGE, THIS COMES FROM THE ZONING CODE. I'VE BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES OVER A FEW MONTHS AS WE'VE APPROACHED THIS POINT AND THEY'VE DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB TRYING TO WORK WITH THE DETERMINATIONS THAT WE'RE GIVING THEM. AND THIS IS BASED ON THE LANGUAGE IN THE ZONING CODE THAT MAKES THE SOMEWHAT CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN PARKING FOR MOTOR VEHICLES AND STORAGE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT. AND IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING LIKE A SEMI TRAILER WITH A CAB THAT'S A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH EQUIPMENT, YOU CAN CALL THAT STORAGE PRETTY EASILY. THE APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN CLEAR THAT THE INTENT IS FOR THESE TO NOT HAVE CABS AS PART OF THIS COMPONENT OTHER THAN MANEUVERING, SO IT'S NOT A MONTH TO VEHICLE, SO WE NEED TO CLASSIFY IT AS STORAGE. THERE'S A LOT OF NITPICKY ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF WHAT IS THE HEIGHT REQUIRED FOR PARKING AS OPPOSED TO STORAGE. WE HAVE AGAIN FOR THE MOST PART IN THE NORTHERN AREA WHERE THEY ARE PROPOSING TO MORE OR LESS USE IT INTERCHANGEABLY WHICH I UNDERSTAND FROM AN OPERATIONAL STANDPOINT, WE ARE HOLDING THEM TO THE MOST EXTREME OF THE REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN PARKING VERSUS STORAGE AND IN THE SOUTHERN PORTION, THEY HAVE SAID THEY ARE WILLING TO DESIGNATE THAT AS EXCLUSIVELY FOR STORAGE. THEY WOULD DO SO WITH SIGNAGE IN THE AREA TO MAKE THAT CLEAR, THAT IS FOR SEMI TRAILERS ONLY. BUT REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE ABOUT THIS, BUT THIS IS THE APPROACH THAT WE'VE TAKEN AS STAFF IN TRYING TO INTERPRET AND APPLY THE ZONING CODE LANGUAGE FOR A COMPLICATED PROPOSAL LIKE THIS. [48:17] Commissioner Baxley: I APPRECIATE BOTH PARTIES BEING HONEST ABOUT THE USE. SO IS THERE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OR WHERE IS THE LINE BETWEEN STORAGE AND PARKING? LIKE IF IT'S 30%, THEY DESCRIBED HOW THE USE PATTERN GOES SO I'VE GOT A LITTLE PICTURE OF WHAT'S THERE. [48:36] Alex [Planning Staff]: YEAH, WE HAVE NOT MADE ANYTHING LIKE A TIME-BASED DISTINCTION. IT'S PURELY, I THINK THE WAY I'VE SORT OF PRESENTED IT TO THEM IS IF YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO USE IT INTERCHANGEABLY THEN WE'RE GOING TO REGULATE IT AS BOTH. IF YOU WANT TO CLEARLY DESIGNATE IT AS ONE OR THE OTHER THEN WE CAN WORK WITH YOU ON THAT. THAT HAS IMPLICATIONS LIKE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING IF THEY'RE PROPOSING TO USE ALL OF THIS INTERCHANGEABLY AND MAKE NO DISTINCTIONS THAT THE SOUTHERN AREA WOULD BE FOR STORAGE, THEN IT WOULDN'T BE A ZONING REQUEST UP TO 124, IT WOULD BE 160 SOMETHING, I DON'T REMEMBER THE NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. BUT THAT IS THE TYPE OF THING THAT CAN BE IMPACTED BY THIS DISTINCTION. SO AGAIN WHERE WE'VE LANDED AND WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS LANDED AND THE PROPOSAL THAT THEY WANTED TO BRING FORWARD IS TO DESIGNATE THAT SOUTHERN AREA AS ONLY FOR STORAGE OF SEMI TRAILERS WITHOUT CABS AND TO USE THE NORTHERN PORTION INTERCHANGEABLY. [49:45] Commissioner Baxley: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AGAIN I THINK GIVEN AS PRESENTED AND THE REPORT AS WRITTEN, ALEX IS VERY CLEAR. SO I THINK UNLESS THAT CHANGES, I'LL BE SUPPORTING STAFF RECOMMENDATION. [49:54] Chris Meyer: WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT? [49:56] Commissioner Baxley: SURE. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPORT STAFF FINDINGS. [49:59] Chris Meyer: IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> I'VE GOT THAT MOTION ON THE TABLE TO ADOPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MOTION? SEEING NONE, CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. [50:20] Clerk: BEFORE WE DO THE ROLL, I JUST WANTED TO CHECK, COMMISSIONER SKJEFTE, I THOUGHT I SAW YOUR -- [50:27] Chris Meyer: I MISSED THAT. I APOLOGIZE. CAN YOU TURN YOUR MIC ON, PLEASE. [50:31] Commissioner Skjefte: I ONLY HAD ONE QUESTION WITH REGARD TO THE DRIVE AISLE WIDTH. IF IT'S STORING THE TRAILER, HOW ARE THEY MANEUVERING IT INTO THAT SPACE AND DOES THAT DRIVE AISLE WIDTH NEED TO ASSUME THE CAB IS ABLE TO DO ALL OF THAT? [50:50] Alex [Planning Staff]: CHAIR MEYER, COMMISSIONER, THEY HAVE PROVIDED THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF I INCLUDED IT IN MY PRESENTATION, BUT THEY HAVE OTHER PLANNED SHEETS THAT DO SHOW THE MANEUVERING DIAGRAMS THAT SHOWS HOW THEY PROPOSE SOMETHING LIKE A SCHOOL BUS OR A SEMI TRUCK WOULD MANEUVER INTO AND OUT OF ALL OF THE SPACES OR SORT OF THE MOST DIFFICULT SPACES, I GUESS. AGAIN THE ZONING CODE DOESN'T MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A PARKING SPACE FOR A PASSENGER VEHICLE AS OPPOSED TO A PARKING SPACE FOR A SEMI TRUCK AND TRAILER OR A SCHOOL BUS. SO THAT MINIMUM DRIVE AISLE WIDTH IS THE SAME REGARDLESS OF WHAT TYPE OF MOTOR VEHICLE THEY'RE PROPOSING TO USE THAT SPACE FOR AND IT IS A REQUIREMENT REGARDLESS OF WHAT TYPE OF VEHICLE THAT THEY PROVIDE THE DRIVE AISLE. SO THAT DOES RELATE TO THEIR OTHER VARIANCES LIKE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE THE DRIVE AISLES, YOU COULD PUT MORE SPACES. THAT'S WHERE THE STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION COMES FROM AS TIED TO THE VARIANCES. [52:20] Commissioner Thompson: CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION OR COMMENT BEFORE WE VOTE. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING BECAUSE I THINK YOU'VE SAID IT TWICE, THAT THERE'S NO DISTINCTION IN THE ZONING CODE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL MOTORIZED VEHICLE AND A SEMI TRUCK. IS THAT TRUE? [52:33] Alex [Planning Staff]: CHAIR MEYER, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, FOR MANY OF THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT IS CORRECT. MINIMUM DIMENSIONS OF A PARKING SPACE FOR EXAMPLE OR DRIVE AISLE, THERE'S NO SEPARATE SPACE FOR A SEMI TRUCK. THE EXCEPTION IS LIKE A LOADING SPACE OR A LOADING DOCK TO A BUILDING THAT IS INTENDED FOR SOMETHING LIKE A SEMI TRUCK OR A SMALLER COMMERCIAL VEHICLE, WE DO HAVE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT SAY A LOADING DOCK OR DIMENSIONS NEED TO BE DIFFERENT STANDARDS THAN A PARKING SPACE FOR A VEHICLE. BUT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN PLAY FOR THIS APPLICATION, IT'S THE SAME STANDARD THAT APPLIES FOR ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT VEHICLE TYPES. [53:26] Commissioner Thompson: THAT IS VERY INTERESTING, THANK YOU. AND THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE FIXED SOME DAY, THANK YOU. [53:33] Chris Meyer: THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. IS THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENT? PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. [53:40] Clerk: APOLOGIES. MULTITASKING. COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> AYE. >> CAMPBELL IS ABSENT, HAS LEFT. CHOWDHURY. >> AYE. >> SKJEFTE. >> AYE. >> GORDON. >> AYE. >> MEYER. >> AYE. >> THOMPSON. >> AYE. >> WAGNER. >> AYE. >> OKAY. SEVEN AYES AND ZERO NAYS. [54:45] Chris Meyer: THANK YOU, THE MOTION IS ADOPTED. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM 7, 1302 DOUGLAS AVENUE AND 1716 FREMONT AVENUE SOUTH. STAFF IS ANDREW LISKA. [55:24] Andrew Liska: THANK YOU, CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS. AGAIN THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS 1302 DOUGLAS AVENUE AND 1716 FREMONT AVENUE. THE PROPOSAL IS A 2.5 STORY STRUCTURE, RESIDENTIAL, WITH EIGHT DWELLING UNITS. THIS REQUEST REQUIRES FOUR APPLICATIONS. FIRST THERE'S THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INCREASE HEIGHT IN THE SHORE LAND AREA. A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT. THIS PROPERTY IS UN2, URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AND BUILT FORM INTERIOR TWO. COMBINE THESE TWO PARCELS ARE 13,500 SQUARE FEET. THEY ARE LOCATED ON THE INTERSECTION OF DOUGLAS AND FREMONT, THE NORTHWESTERN SIDE THERE. THE EXISTING PLATTING OF 1716 HAS THAT AS A REVERSE CORNER, THAT'S PLATTED OFF OF FREMONT WHEREAS THE SOUTHERN PARCEL PLATTED OFF OF DOUGLAS. THAT REVERSE CORNER LOT WOULD GO AWAY AND THIS WOULD REVERT BACK TO JUST THE STANDARD PLATTING OFF OF DOUGLAS AVENUE. THE EXISTING SURVEY HERE, A FEW POINTS, THE RED BOX ON THE TOP IF YOU CAN SEE THAT, THAT IS AN EXISTING PRIVATE ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT PROVIDES ACCESS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THERE IS A CURB CUT OFF OF FREMONT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. THE GREEN CIRCLE IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT RED RECTANGLE THERE ALSO DEMONSTRATES ROUGH GRADE HERE. WE'RE LOOKING AT A GRADE OF 926. THE GRADE DOES INCREASE A LITTLE BIT MORE AS YOU GET FURTHER NORTH. BUT MORE OF A GENERAL ILLUSTRATION ON THE GRADE HERE. IF WE LOOK ON THE SOUTHERN CORNER NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF FREMONT AND DOUGLAS, YOU SEE ANOTHER GREEN CIRCLE 916. THE ORANGE RECTANGLE THERE SHOWS THAT 917 GRADE. THAT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY WHERE WE ARE MEASURING THE GRADE OF THE NEW STRUCTURE FROM BEING THAT AGAIN THE STRUCTURE IS PLATTED OFF OF DOUGLAS, THAT'S TEN FEET IN FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE TOWARDS THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY. LAST, THERE'S AN EXISTING CURB CUT OFF OF DOUGLAS THAT SERVES AS TUCK UNDER GARAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOUTHERN STRUCTURE. THE APPLICANT AGAIN IS PROPOSING AN EIGHT UNIT STRUCTURE HERE. THE 15-FOOT EASEMENT ALLEY WILL BE MAINTAINED ON THE NORTH SIDE THERE. THERE ARE SOME RETAINING WALLS THAT ARE RETAINING NATURAL GRADE BOTH ALONG FREMONT AND DOUGLAS. A TUCK UNDER GARAGE IS PROPOSED ACCESSED OFF OF DOUGLAS SIMILAR TO THAT EXISTING. AND AGAIN THAT RED X WOULD DEMONSTRATE AGAIN THE GRADE POINT FROM WHERE WE'RE MEASURING HEIGHT FROM IN THIS APPLICATION. HERE ARE ELEVATIONS OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE. AGAIN ON THE UPPER LEFT, THE FREMONT AVENUE, AGAIN HIGHLIGHTING ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE HEIGHT FROM EXISTING GRADE TO THE POINT OF THE STRUCTURE IS LESS THAN 35 FEET. HOWEVER, WE ARE MEASURING GRADE FROM THE GRADE POINT ON DOUGLAS, THAT OVAL ON THE LEFT, AND IT'S GRADED AT 41.7 FEET. THE OTHER DOUGLAS SIDE KIND OF DEMONSTRATES ACCESS TO THE LOWER LEVEL. WE SEE ON THE FREMONT SIDE SOME RETAINING WALLS THAT PROVIDE ACCESS TO THAT ENTRY AS WELL. THE PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS, THERE'S PARKING IN THE LOWER LEVEL BOTH AUTOMOBILE AND BICYCLE PARKING. THE FIRST FLOOR HAS SOME AMENITY SPACE, SOME MULTISTORY UNITS HERE, RESIDENTIAL ON FIRST FLOOR, SECOND FLOOR, AND THE HALF STORY AS WELL. AGAIN, THE APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. I'LL BREAK DOWN THE HEIGHT REQUEST BEING THAT THOSE TWO ARE PRETTY TIGHTLY BOUND TO ONE ANOTHER. THERE'S THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INCREASE HEIGHT IN THE SHORELAND. THE SHORELAND LIMITS PRINCIPAL HEIGHT TO 35 FEET AND THE HEIGHT PROPOSED IS AT 41.87 FEET. THEY'RE PROPOSING 41.87. STAFF IS ABLE TO MAKE ALL OF THE NECESSARY FINDINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THESE REQUESTS. THERE ARE DIFFERENT FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AS OPPOSED TO VARIANCES. AND STAFF IS ABLE TO MAKE ALL OF THOSE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF BOTH OF THE HEIGHT APPLICATIONS. REGARDING AREA RATIO REQUESTS, STAFF IS NOT ABLE TO FIND A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE. STAFF FINDS THAT THE SCOPE OF THIS REQUEST IS NOT A REASONABLE USE OF THIS PROPERTY. AGAIN THE VARIANCE GOING FROM .8 TO A PROPOSED 1.32. WITH THAT SITE PLAN REVIEW, DUE TO THE DENIAL REQUEST OF THAT F.A.R., A STRUCTURE THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH THAT WOULD BE SEEN AS A MAJOR CHANGE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ANYWAY. HERE ARE SOME RENDERINGS THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE AN ITERATION OF THE EXISTING AREA ALONG WITH SOME FLOOR AREA RATIOS. THIS WENT TO -- I BELIEVE LAST SUMMER. WORTH NOTING, I RAN SOME OF THE ASSESSOR'S INFORMATION ABOUT LOT SIZE AND STRUCTURE COVERAGE, AND THESE F.A.R. NUMBERS DO SEEM INFLATED TO ME. I DIDN'T RUN ALL OF THE PROPERTIES SHOWN HERE. I TOOK THE TWO LOWER ONES ON FREMONT AS WELL AS THE MIDDLE ONE ON DOUGLAS. THE 1316 DOUGLAS HAS AN F.A.R. OF .73 FROM WHAT I CAN TELL. AGAIN BASED ON ASSESSOR'S INFORMATION, THIS IS KIND OF ROUGH MATH HERE. THE PROPERTY 1768 DOUGLAS HAD AN F.A.R. OF .65 AND THEN THE 1716 DOUGLAS HAS AN F.A.R. OF .40. WORTH NOTING TOO, THIS ASSESSOR'S INFORMATION MAY INCLUDE -- A LOT OF THESE EXISTING STRUCTURES IN THE AREA ARE 1 TO 3 UNIT STRUCTURES. AND IF THIS WOULD BE A 1 TO 3, WE WOULD NOT INCLUDE ANY HALF STORY STRUCTURE IN THAT CALCULATION. AGAIN, THESE NUMBERS, THE ONES THAT I PROVIDED MAY BE EVEN LOWER IN ACTUALITY. AND AGAIN THIS DID GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION OVER THE SUMMER. THE PROJECT THAT WENT HAD AN F.A.R. OF 1.37. THE APPLICANTS WERE TOLD THAT THAT PROJECT WAS TOO HIGH BASED ON THE NOTES, COMMISSIONERS SEEMED TO HAVE NOTED THAT KEEPING F.A.R. CLOSER TO ONE SEEMED MORE REASONABLE. THE APPLICATION IS BASICALLY THAT SAME THING. SO I WILL BE HERE FOR QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PRESENT. [1:03:15] Chris Meyer: THANK YOU. SO THIS IS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, NOT YOU, CORRECT? [1:03:18] Andrew Liska: YES, THESE NUMBERS ARE FROM THE APPLICANT. [1:03:22] Chris Meyer: AND YOU'RE SAYING THESE NUMBERS ARE WRONG AND YOU READ OFF SOME OF THEM, BUT I HAVE NO IDEA WHICH ONES ARE WHICH. I'M PARTICULARLY INTERESTED TO KNOW THE ONES THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT AND THE ONES ON THE UPPER END. SO THE ONES TO THE EAST, FOR EXAMPLE 1.68, YOU'RE SAYING THAT WAS ONE OF THEM YOU WERE SAYING WAS NOT AS HIGH? [1:03:57] Andrew Liska: I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE ONES EAST THERE. THOSE PARCELS ARE VERY SMALL. THOSE ARE 3500 SQUARE FOOT PARCELS. THEY PROBABLY DO HAVE AN F.A.R. THAT IS HIGH. I DIDN'T RUN ALL OF THESE NUMBERS. [1:04:13] Chris Meyer: FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE, WHAT IS THE GENERAL F.A.R.? DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THAT? [1:04:15] Andrew Liska: NO AND HONESTLY STAFF DIDN'T REALLY GET IN THE WEEDS IN LOOKING AT A NEIGHBORHOOD F.A.R. AVERAGE. BEING THAT THE READING OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST, PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES HAVE TO EXIST WITH THIS SITE IN COMPLYING WITH CODE. IT'S NOT A BROAD NEIGHBORHOOD VIEW. YOU COULD ARGUE IT'S INCORRECTLY ZONED, THIS ISN'T THAT APPLICATION. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE F.A.R. REQUEST FOR THIS PARCEL BASED ON THIS EXISTING. [1:04:56] Commissioner Thompson: CAN I JUST CLARIFY -- BECAUSE I REMEMBER THAT COMING UP AND IT GOT BUMPED AND I COULDN'T MAKE THE NEXT MEETING. BUT THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME F.A.R. THAT WAS PRESENTED THERE, TOLD THAT IT LIKELY WOULDN'T CUT THE MUSTARD AND THEN WE HAVE IT HERE? [1:05:16] Andrew Liska: THAT IS CORRECT. ADMITTEDLY I WAS NOT AT THAT EITHER. I WAS KIND OF HANDED THIS PROJECT FROM A COLLEAGUE OF MINE. BUT THOSE NOTES FROM THAT MEETING DO SAY THAT THAT 1.37 WAS TOO HIGH AND TO GET IT DOWN CLOSER TO ONE. I THINK THAT THE PROJECT THAT WENT HAS REALLY CHANGED. IT LOOKS A LOT BETTER IN MY ESTIMATION THAN THE PROJECT THAT WENT. I STILL THINK WITH THAT SAID, STAFF CAN'T SUPPORT AN F.A.R. FROM .8 TO 1.32. [1:06:06] Chris Meyer: REGARDING THE AREA RATIO REQUESTS, IF WE WERE TO GRANT THE F.A.R. VARIANCE, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY FURTHER ISSUE WITH THE SITE PLAN; IS THAT CORRECT? [1:06:15] Andrew Liska: THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. [1:06:17] Chris Meyer: I'LL MAKE A COMMENT THAT CAN INFORM THE APPLICANT WHEN THEY DO THEIR PRESENTATION. I WAS AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AND I BROUGHT UP THAT I WOULD BE OPEN TO THE VARIANCE IF EVIDENCE COULD BE PROVIDED AROUND THE F.A.R.S AROUND THE SURROUNDING AREAS. MAYBE THE APPLICANT WILL SAY MORE TO THAT. WE HAVE LOOKED AT ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO FIND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES BEFORE ON DIFFERENT PROPERTIES IN NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. I THINK WE LOOKED AT HOW THE SETBACK ON NEARBY PROPERTIES AND FOUND THAT THAT CONSTITUTED A DIFFICULTY. SO I THINK THAT IS RELEVANT. ANY OTHER -- NOT SEEING ANY. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'M GOING TO LET THE APPLICANT GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF. [1:07:17] Tim Baylor: GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEYER, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS TIM BAYLOR. I'M HERE BEFORE YOU CHARACTERIZED AS A DEVELOPER BUT IN THIS INSTANCE I'M A HOMEOWNER. MY WIFE AND I PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY 41 YEARS AGO. WE RAISED OUR TWO CHILDREN HERE. MY GRANDCHILDREN LIVE IN THIS BUILDING FOR A FEW YEARS. OUR OFFICE IS CURRENTLY IN THIS BUILDING AND IF APPROVED AND THIS PROJECT GOES FORWARD, WE'LL BE MOVING BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY. I WILL NOTE THAT THIS PROJECT WAS PRESENTED TO THE LOWRY HILLS ASSOCIATION AND THEY UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE PROJECT. I THINK YOU HAVE A LETTER TO THAT REGARD IN YOUR PACKET. IT SEEMS THAT THE QUESTION IS F.A.R. AND I WILL REFER TO THE CODE ITSELF. WITH THE CURRENT CODE, I COULD NOT BUILD THE PROPERTY THAT'S THERE NOW. CURRENT CODES REQUEST FOR AN F.A.R. OF .8. RIGHT NOW ONE OF OUR BUILDINGS THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE IS A .96. THE SOUTH BUILDING IS 1.0. AS YOU MENTIONED, COMMISSIONER MEYER, DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE EAST RIGHT TO THE EAST ON FREMONT AVENUE, THERE ARE THREE PROPERTIES, THEIR F.A.R. IS 1.68, 1.56, AND 1.63. SO WE'RE PROPOSING WHILE IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE CURRENT CODE THAT WON'T ALLOW ME TO BUILD THE CURRENT BUILDING IS STILL IN CONTEXT WITH THE CONTINUITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMMUNITY. WITH REGARD TO THAT, I THINK ANDREW MENTIONED THAT THERE'S A ROAD TO AN ALLEYWAY TO THE NORTH. THAT'S TECHNICALLY MY PROPERTY, BUT IT'S AN EASEMENT THAT I CAN'T USE. SO THE PROPERTY IS MITIGATED, THE LOT SIZE IS MITIGATED BY THAT. ON THE SOUTH SIDE, THE CURRENT BUILDING HAS A 15-FOOT SETBACK. THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES A 20-FOOT SETBACK. SO WE'RE ACTUALLY MOVING THE PROPERTY FIVE FEET BACK AWAY FROM DOUGLAS AVENUE. IF YOU'RE TRAVELING DOWN THE AVENUE, YOU'D THINK THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SMALLER. THE DIFFERENCE IS OF COURSE WHAT IS CURRENTLY NOW A COURTYARD BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS WILL BE CONNECTED. AND IF YOU'RE TRAVELING DOWN FREMONT OR DOUGLAS AVENUE, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE, IN FACT YOU'D THINK IT WAS A SMALLER BUILDING. SO I'M GOING TO ASK THAT YOU APPROVE THE APPLICATION AND APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AT THIS POINT AND COINSIDING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD LETTER WHICH UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES THE PROPERTY AND ALSO REITERATES THAT IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONTEXT AND THE SIZE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. NOBODY LIKES AND LOVES -- WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 41 YEARS. SO WE'RE PROUD OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE'RE PROUD OF OUR TENURE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WE WANT TO SEE NOTHING BUT THE PROPERTY VALUES INCREASE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTINUE. WITH THAT, I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. [1:10:55] Chris Meyer: COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NOT SEEING ANY. [1:11:03] Tim Baylor: I WILL ASK IF I CAN MAYBE COME BACK FOR CLARIFYING QUESTIONS IF THERE'S OTHER COMMENTS AS WELL. [1:11:15] Chris Meyer: THANK YOU. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO TESTIFY TO THE ITEM? OKAY. RAISE YOUR HAND ANYONE WHO WANTS TO? SO THREE OF YOU BACK THERE. OKAY, FOUR OF YOU. JUST COME UP IN ORDER. TELL US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE. YOU EACH HAVE TWO MINUTES. [1:11:42] Craig Wilson: GOOD EVENING. COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS CRAIG WILSON AND I'M A LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND URBAN PLANNER. MY PARTNER AND I HAVE LIVED IN A DUPLEX AT 1768 FREMONT DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PAST 21 YEARS. WILD LIFE CONSERVATIONS, ARTISTS, TEACHERS, AND SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, MANY WANTED TO SPEAK HERE BUT COULDN'T DUE TO TIME RESTRAINTS. MANY ARE RENTERS AND SOME HAVE RESIDED HERE FOR YEARS, SOME DECADES. 60% OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ARE RENTERS AND MANY ARE LOW INCOME INDIVIDUALS LIVING IN NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHIN HISTORIC BUILDINGS. IN FACT 20% LIVE BELOW THE POVERTY LINE. WE FEEL WE HAVE BEEN VERY COLLABORATIVE AND REASONABLE ON THIS PROJECT. WE ARE ACUTELY AWARE OF THE NEED FOR MORE HOUSING IN OUR REGION AND SUPPORT IT. THERE ARE ASPECTS OF THIS PROJECT THAT WE ALSO SUPPORT AND WE APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPER'S EFFORTS TO REFINE THE DESIGN AS MENTIONED BY STAFF. IT'S A HUGE IMPROVEMENT FROM WHERE WE STARTED WITH THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE LAST SUMMER. HOWEVER, THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE REMAINS, THIS PROJECT IS SIMPLY TOO LARGE FOR THE SITE. A 70% VARIANCE IS EXCESSIVE AND WOULD HARM THE FABRIC OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD INCREASING THE FLOOR RATIO OF .8, I JUST LEARNED MINE IS .65 FROM STAFF, TO 1.32. ESPECIALLY WHEN BUILT ABOVE A FIRST FLOOR PARKING GARAGE. SO THAT'S THE SPACE ABOVE THE GARAGE. DOUGLAS AVENUE IS A PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR LINKING DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE CHAIN OF LAKES. A GARAGE ENTRANCE ON DOUGLAS WOULD CONTRADICT THE CITY'S STATED GOALS FOR COMPLETE STREETS AND ADDITIONAL CURB CUTS FOR PARKING WOULD FURTHER DAMAGE THE URBAN FABRIC. WHEN THE PROJECT WAS LAST BEFORE YOU AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, COMMISSIONER BAXLEY SUGGESTED THAT THE DEVELOPER PROVIDE HISTORICAL AND SCALE CONTEXT. UNFORTUNATELY THE DEVELOPERS HAVE YET TO PROVIDE ELEVATIONS RELATIVE TO ADJACENT BUILDINGS ON DOUGLAS AND FREMONT. THAT WOULD HELP EXPLAIN A LOT ABOUT THE SCALE. INSTEAD WE HAVE ONLY SEEN RENDERINGS THAT FAVOR THE DEVELOPER'S PERSPECTIVE. BASIC TRANSPARENCY SHOULD BE REQUIRED BY THE COMMISSION YET IT HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED. WE APPRECIATE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE VARIANCES AND URGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO UPHOLD THAT DECISION. WE ALSO REQUEST THAT YOU DENY THE VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. [1:14:38] Howard Ruben: HELLO. MY NAME IS HOWARD RUBEN AND I LIVE WITH MY WIFE AT 1305 MT. CURB IN A CONDOMINIUM. THIS WOULD BE JUST BEHIND THE PROPOSED PROJECT. THE PROBLEM WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS THAT IT'S SIMPLY TOO LARGE FOR THE SITE. MY FAMILY CHOSE THIS AREA FOR A HISTORIC HOME BUILT LARGELY BETWEEN 1900 AND 1920. EVEN OUR CONDO BUILT IN THE 2000S WAS DESIGNED TO REFLECT THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY FITTING IN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE, MATERIALS, AND CHARACTER. I APPRECIATE THE DILIGENCE OF CITY STAFF IN RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL OF THE F.A.R. VARIANCE REQUEST. ALTHOUGH, I AM STILL CONCERNED THAT THEY APPROVED THE HEIGHT VARIANCE. I'M ALSO TROUBLED BY SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS THROUGHOUT THE APPROVAL PROCESS. CITY COUNCILMEMBER LISA CASHMAN AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ISSUED LETTERS OF SUPPORT BEFORE THE IMMEDIATELY MOST IMPACTED MEMBERS WERE EVEN INFORMED OF THIS TROUBLING PROJECT BY THE CITY. BOTH HAVE SINCE CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAD ONLY HEARD FROM THE DEVELOPER BEFORE ENDORSING THE PROJECT. ADDITIONALLY, SINCE THE LOWRY HILL BOARD MEMBER IS THE WIFE OF THE DEVELOPER, QUESTIONS STILL REMAIN ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS EVEN A QUORUM PRESENT AT THAT MEETING. THIS ISN'T HOW THE PROCESS SHOULD WORK. A FAIR AND TRANSPARENT DISCUSSION REQUIRES INPUT FROM THE DEVELOPER, THE RESIDENTS, AND PLANNING STAFF. AND THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL MUCH LATER. THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS, MORE THAN TWO DOZEN OF US STAND WITH STAFF IN OPPOSING THE F.A.R. VARIANCE. COUNCILMEMBER CASHMAN HAS SINCE APOLOGIZED AND AGREED TO RECUSE HERSELF FROM FURTHER INTERFERENCE IN THE PROCESS. THIS IS AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION AND I HOPE WE CAN TAKE LESSONS FROM IT. THANK YOU. [1:16:51] Sarah Richter: HELLO. MY NAME IS SARAH RICHTER AND I LIVE AT 1303 MT. CURB AVENUE. HOWARD IS A NEIGHBOR. MY HUSBAND AND I LIVE AT 1303 WITH OUR THREE ADULT CHILDREN AT TIMES AND OUR LOVELY LAB. I'M HERE BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A NUMBER OF ISSUES, FOUR TO BE EXACT. FIRST, THE EXTREME SCALE AND THE REQUEST FOR THE 70% INCREASE IN VARIANCE IS BEYOND THE STANDARD FLOOR AREA RATIAL TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. FACTS STATED. TWO, THE ORIENTATION OF THE GARAGE FACING DOUGLAS. I WALK THE DOG DAILY ON DOUGLAS AS DO MANY PEOPLE. IT'S A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, AGAIN I'M SURE YOU'RE ALL AWARE OF THAT TO THE PARKS AND TO THE LAKE. THREE, THE HEIGHT WHICH IS MAYBE MOST CONCERNING, APPROXIMATELY SEVEN FEET HIGHER THAN THE PERMITTED ZONING ORDINANCE. WE ARE TROUBLED BY THE LACK OF RESIDENT ENGAGEMENT IN THIS WHOLE PROCESS AS HAS BEEN STATED BY HOWARD AND BY CRAIG. NONE OF US KNEW ABOUT THESE MEETINGS AND WHAT WAS GOING ON. I LIVE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE MET THE BAYLORS WHEN I WALKED IN AT 6:00 TONIGHT, 5:00, 4:00, WHATEVER TIME WE GOT HERE. BUT ANYWAY, WE DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT ANY OF THESE MEETINGS GOING ON. AND AS WAS STATED, WE HEARD ABOUT IT AFTER THE FACT FROM OUR COU COUNCIL MEMBER. WHEN OUR HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED, THE NEW HOMES RIGHT BEHIND THE BAYLOR PROPERTY -- IS THAT IT? I'M DONE? YOU CAN CONTINUE. CUT OFF? OKAY. OUR HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED, OUR DEVELOPER FACED THE SAME STRICT LIMITATIONS OF SIZE AND SCALE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. SO THERE'S NO JUSTIFICATION IN OUR MIND FOR EXCEPTION HERE. IN SHORT, WE'RE DISAPPOINTED, RIGHT. AND I GUESS TODAY WHEN I WAS OUT WALKING I LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY AND I THOUGHT WHY IS THERE A BRAND NEW SIGN FOR RENT, APARTMENTS THAT ARE FOR RENT ON THIS SITE AND WE'RE DEBATING ALL OF THIS. I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT AT THAT BECAUSE MY TIME IS UP. BUT THANK YOU. [1:19:56] Susan Lowry: GOOD AFTERNOON OR EVENING. MY NAME IS SUSAN LOWRY. I'VE LIVED IN MY DUPLEX AT 1308 DOUGLAS AVENUE IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SINCE OCTOBER OF 1981. AT THE TIME, MY HUSBAND AND I CHOSE THE LOWRY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OF ITS CHARMING ATMOSPHERE THANKS IN PART OF THE HISTORIC HOUSING ARCHITECTURE. WHILE MANY THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THEN, LOWRY HILLS STILL RETAINS A STRONG SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND THE CHARACTER OF A HISTORIC DISTRICT. FOR THE RECORD, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE SCALE AND THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED KENWOOD BOUTIQUE CONDOMINIUMS. AS NOTED IN THE DOCUMENTS, THE BAYLORS ARE LONGSTANDING MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY. SO AM I. AFTER RAISING THEIR FAMILY NEXT DOOR, THE BAYLORS MOVED TO A NEW RESIDENCE ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO. I STAYED BECAUSE I LOVE MY NEIGHBORHOOD. THE BAYLORS PURCHASED THE HOUSES NEXT DOOR IN 1984, RAISED THEIR FAMILY THERE AND HAVE SINCE RENTED THE PROPERTY AS ABSENTEE LANDLORDS. I HAVE WATCHED THE PROPERTY DECLINE OVER THE YEARS DUE TO DEFERRED MAINTENANCE, YET I HAVE REMAINED TOLERANT AND STRIVE TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. DESPITE THIS, I CHERISH THE CONNECTIONS I'VE MADE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH MAKES IT ALL THE MORE PAINFUL THAT THE DEVELOPER NEVER APPROACHED ME DIRECTLY ABOUT A PROJECT THAT WILL DRASTICALLY IMPACT MY QUALITY OF LIFE AFTER MORE THAN 40 YEARS IN MY HOME. IN FACT, WHEN WE REQUESTED A MEETING, IT WAS DECLINED. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ME? IT MEANS -- IT MEANS LOSING ACCESS TO LIGHT AND AIR ON THE EAST SIDE OF MY HOUSE AS THIS MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT, 70% OVER THE PERMITTED SIZE WILL EFFECTIVELY CUT OFF EASTERN LIGHT EVEN THOUGH THE DUPLEX I SHARE WITH OTHERS COMPLIES WITH THE FLOOR AREA RATIO LIMIT OF .8 FOR AN INTERIOR TWO DISTRICT. MY HOUSE IS .6 F.A.R. TO CLARIFY, WE ARE AGAINST THE HEIGHT VARIANCE. IF THIS PROJECT MOVES FORWARD AS PROPOSED, MORNING SUNLIGHT I ENJOY BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS WILL BE ELIMINATED LEAVING ME IN PERPETUAL SHADOW. THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT COMFORT, IT AFFECTS MY HEALTH AND MY HOME'S RESALE VALUE, APPARENTLY DRIVEN BY THE DEVELOPER'S PROFIT MOTIVE. I APPRECIATE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S EFFORTS TO DENY THESE VARIANCES AND URGE THE DEVELOPER AND THE COMMUNITY TO ENGAGE IN A MORE TRANSPARENT AND AUTHENTIC PROCESS MOVING FORWARD. THANK YOU. [1:23:25] Carly: HELLO. MY NAME IS CARLY. I LIVE AT 1778 EMERSON, JUST DOWN THE BLOCK. A STREET AWAY. I LIKE A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE, JUST LEARNED ABOUT THIS RECENTLY, I WAS NOT PRIVY TO THIS INFORMATION. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE INCREASE FROM 0.8 TO 1.32 IS A 65% INCREASE. THAT'S A LOT. THAT'S A BIG PORTION. IF YOU'RE CONSIDERING THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HOW THIS CHANGES PRECEDENT OF WHERE TO BUILD THINGS, WHAT THINGS LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE, IT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE. 65% IS A HUGE INCREASE. THE HEIGHT MAKES SENSE, HAVING STRUCTURES THAT ARE THAT TALL, NOT GREAT, BUT A 65% INCREASE IS QUITE A LOT. JUST POINTING THAT OUT. I'M ALSO AGAINST THIS STRUCTURE AS A CONCEPT. THANK YOU. [1:24:38] Chris Meyer: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. ANYONE ELSE? YOU ALREADY TESTIFIED. I'M GOING TO DECLINE THAT UNLESS THERE'S A QUESTION FROM A COMMISSIONER. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO TESTIFY? NOT SEEING ANY, SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER CHOWDHURY. [1:25:10] Aurin Chowdhury: THANK YOU, PRESIDENT MEYER. I HAVE TO GO HERE IN JUST A LITTLE BIT. I DID WANT TO SAY JUST IN LOOKING AT THE STAFF REPORT ON THE F.A.R., I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONCLUSIONS THERE, THIS 65% INCREASE JUST ABOUT SEEMS LIKE A MAJOR CHANGE FROM WHAT IS PERMITTED. AND I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. AND ONE THING THAT I FIND A LITTLE BIT CONCERNING HERE IS THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AND CONNECTION TO THE NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA IN EVEN KNOWING THAT THIS PUBLIC HEARING WAS HAPPENING UNTIL VERY RECENTLY. I KNOW THAT OUR STAFF PUTS OUT A NOTICE OF DIFFERENT PUBLIC HEARING TO COMMUNITY MEMBERS. SO I JUST WONDER FOR THE BODY TO DISCUSS BECAUSE I KNOW I HAVE TO HEAD OUT, IF THERE IS A CAUSE OR A WILLINGNESS TO POTENTIALLY POSTPONE THE ITEM SO COMMUNITY MEMBERS CAN BE MORE ENGAGED, POSTPONE THE HEARING SO MORE VOICES CAN BE INCLUDED IN THIS PROCESS. IT DOES FEEL LIKE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE WITHIN THE AREA. I ALSO JUST AM WONDERING IF THERE ARE ANY FINDINGS OF FACT THAT COULD BE DISCUSSED IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT ISSUE. I HAVEN'T PERSONALLY DECIDED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON THAT IN JUST GETTING THE STAFF REPORT AND HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT TODAY. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS BEFORE I HAVE TO HEAD OUT. [1:26:54] Chris Meyer: THANK YOU. AND I SHOULD MENTION AT THE BEGINNING, COMMISSIONER GORDON ALSO MENTIONED HE WILL BE ABSTAINING. SO NO ONE ELSE CAN LEAVE. OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER SKJEFTE. [1:27:06] Commissioner Skjefte: I DID HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT CLARIFYING THE F.A.R. THAT WAS ON THE INFOGRAPHIC THAT WAS SPEAKING TO THE THREE HOUSES THAT WERE 1.6 OR MORE. IF THAT WAS FACT THAT THOSE THREE ARE ALREADY AT THAT F.A.R., IF THAT WAS CONFIRMED? AND AGAIN I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM MR. BAYLOR AGAIN IN TERMS OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ELEVATION FROM THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING TO THE BACK OF THE BUILDING AND HOW MUCH THAT F.A.R. IS DIFFERENT, I GUESS. I GUESS I WOULD WANT TO ALSO SECOND WHAT MS. CHOWDHURY WAS SAYING SO WE COULD HAVE MORE COMMUNITY INPUT, IF WE'RE MAKING A DECISION, I WOULD STAND BY THAT. [1:28:15] Andrew Liska: MAY I? WE HAVE LOOKED AT SOME ASSESSOR'S INFORMATION. BUT THE NUMBERS PROVIDED ON THE SLIDE ARE CERTAINLY NOT CONFIRMED TO BE ACCURATE. IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO GO THROUGH THE ASSESSOR'S INFORMATION AGAIN, I CAN UPDATE YOU WITH MORE NUMBERS. I GUESS TOO WITH THE GRADE ON SITE, WE MENTIONED THE F.A.R. ON ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER, THE STRUCTURE IS A BASEMENT, SO THAT ENTIRE LOWER LEVEL IS NOT INCLUDED IN ANY OF THESE CALCULATIONS AS FAR AS THAT F.A.R. IS CONCERNED. [1:29:00] Commissioner Skjefte: MR. BAYLOR, DID YOU GET THAT QUESTION EARLIER? CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION. I JUST WANTED YOU TO OFFER ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THE F.A.R. VARIANCE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? [1:29:15] Tim Baylor: IN WHAT REGARD DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK? THE ARCHITECTS THAT DID THE DESIGN IS HERE. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WE HAVE DONE SOMETHING NEFARIOUS IN NOT TALKING TO THE COMMUNITY, WE'VE SUBMITTED THIS PROJECT TO THE LOWRY HILL ASSOCIATION FOR THEM TO PUT ON THEIR AGENDA, FOR THEM TO PRESENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'VE TALKED TO CRAIG WILSON FOR SEVERAL YEARS. WE'VE TALKED TO OUR NEIGHBOR FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS WHO WANTED US TO INCLUDE HER PROPERTY IN THIS PROJECT. THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH ACROSS THE ALLEY ARE PROBABLY 30 OR 40 FEET TALLER THAN OURS, THE PROPOSED SITE. I WISH WE COULD HAVE THAT CONTEXT SO YOU COULD SEE THIS FITS THE NEIGHBORHOOD. [1:30:16] [Architect]: WE USED GOOGLE EARTH AND THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX MAPS TO DETERMINE SITE, LOT AREA, AND THEN USE THE CALCULATION ON HOW YOU DETERMINE WHAT THE F.A.R. IS. ARE THEY ALL 100% ACCURATE? PROBABLY NOT, BUT WITH THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAD, THEY SHOULD BE PRETTY CLOSE. I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHY THERE'S SOMETHING THAT SEEMS TO BE OFF BY 50%. I MEAN I WOULD JUST HAVE TO RERUN THE NUMBERS AND SEE WHERE THAT, WHY IT'S SO FAR OFF. BUT I WOULDN'T THINK THAT THEY'RE THAT FAR OFF. WE JUST USE THE SITE AND FIGURE THAT OUT. [1:31:25] Tim Baylor: I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY WE HAD PROFESSIONALS THAT CALCULATED THE F.A.R. AND WE HAVE STAFF THAT DOESN'T KNOW. HE'S NOT SURE, BUT DOESN'T HAVE ANY CALCULATIONS TO REFER TO. [1:31:37] Chris Meyer: THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY IS CLOSED RIGHT? YES, CORRECT. [1:31:40] Kimberly [Planning Staff]: CHAIR MEYER, IF I MAY SINCE THIS SEEMS TO BE A TOPIC OF MUCH DISCUSSION, ANDREW GAVE YOU SOME F.A.R. CALCULATIONS WHEN HE GAVE HIS PRESENTATION. I HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL ONES IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED IN THOSE NUMBERS AGAIN FLOOR AREA RATIOS OF SURROUNDING BUILDINGS CANNOT BE USED AS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON A SPECIFIC SITE. THEY MAY BE RELEVANT UNDER FINDING NUMBER THREE ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA, BUT FOR FINDING NUMBER ONE, THAT WOULD NOT BE A RELEVANT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. SO WHEN WE CALCULATE FLOOR AREA RATIO AS STAFF USING THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US, WE HAVE A TOOL CALLED PROPERTY INFO WHICH INCLUDES ASSESSOR'S DATA ON THE BUILDINGS PER FLOOR AND TOTAL GFA. AND WE CAN ALSO GO OFF THE LOT AREA THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CITY RECORDS. SO BASED ON THAT INFORMATION, I'VE BEEN RUNNING NUMBERS AS I'M SITTING HERE, ANDREW GAVE YOU SOME. I HAVE 1308 DOUGLAS AVENUE WHICH IS TO THE WEST AT .62. 1316 AT DOUGLAS AVENUE AGAIN TO THE WEST AT .73. 1322 DOUGLAS AVENUE AT .41. 1315 MT. CURB WHICH IS TO THE NORTH AT .37. 1325 MT. CURB TO THE NORTH AT .52. I RAN 1218 DOUGLAS WHICH IS THE MIDDLE BUILDING TO THE EAST THAT'S SHOWN AS 1.56 ON THE MAP, CITY RECORDS SHOW THAT AS 1.14. AGAIN THOSE ARE THREE NEARLY IDEAL STRUCTURES ON VERY SMALL LOTS OF 3,443 SQUARE FEET. SO NOT COMPARABLE IN TERMS OF LOT SIZE, BUT THOSE WOULD BE THE LARGEST IN THE AREA FROM WHAT I CAN TELL AND THOSE ARE AGAIN 1.14. [1:33:39] Chris Meyer: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SKJEFTE, DID YOU HAVE MORE? OKAY. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND RAISED? [1:33:55] Commissioner Thompson: I DID, MOST OF MY QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED. BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THE POINT, IT WAS SAID AND I BELIEVE IT, BUT THAT IF STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS OF THE APPROVAL OF THE HEIGHT BUT DENIAL OF THE F.A.R. WOULD ESSENTIALLY MEAN THAT THE PROJECT HAS TO START OVER. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, IT FEELS LIKE WE MIGHT BE VOTING SOON. [1:34:10] Kimberly [Planning Staff]: THAT'S CORRECT. WE HAVE SOME INFORMATION IN THE ZONING CODE UNDER SITE PLAN REVIEW ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES A MAJOR CHANGE VERSUS A MINOR CHANGE. A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN FLOOR AREA RATIO OR FLOOR AREA IS CONSIDERED A MAJOR CHANGE. SO IF THE F.A.R. VARIANCE WERE DENIED, IT WOULD REQUIRE A SUBSTANTIAL REDESIGN WHICH IN EFFECT WOULD REQUIRE A NEW SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION. [1:34:36] Commissioner Thompson: THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD MY TWO CENTS TO SAY THAT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO POSTPONE THIS AT ALL. I'VE HEARD FROM PEOPLE SINCE THIS SUMMER WHEN IT CAME UP SINCE IT WAS PROPOSED. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE WAITING TO GET THIS RIGHT. SO THAT'S MY TWO CENTS. THANKS. [1:35:03] Chris Meyer: AND TO THAT I WOULD AGREE. I THINK WE SHOULD DO OUR BEST TO REACH A DECISION IN A TIMELY MANNER. COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. [1:35:10] Commissioner Baxley: THANK YOU, CHAIR. JUST AGAIN, I THINK WE HAD A REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION I THOUGHT IN THE SUMMER. I WILL COMPLIMENT THE APPLICANT ON ADVANCING THE DESIGN, BUT THOSE GUIDELINES I THINK WERE WHILE THEY WERE STILL ASKING FOR A VARIANCE WERE PRETTY REASONABLE AND I THINK WE'RE STILL AT A WIDE MARGIN FROM WHERE WE ASKED THAT TO BE IN THE SUMMER. SO I'M GOING TO GO WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. [1:35:40] Chris Meyer: ONE OTHER THING THAT I BROUGHT UP IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AND I BELIEVE NOW IS THAT THE ARGUMENT FOR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TO 1.0 IS ON A LOT STURDIER GROUND BASED ON THE EXISTING BUILDINGS. SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF ABOUT THAT, IF I WANTED TO PROPOSE APPROVING AN F.A.R. OF 1.0, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO GET SITE PLAN REVIE AGAIN RIGHT? DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATION ABOUT THAT? IN TERMS OF THE MOTION. KIMBERLY. [1:36:20] Kimberly [Planning Staff]: SO CHAIR MEYER, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. CHOOSING A DIFFERENT NUMBER OTHER THAN WHAT'S PROPOSED HERE IN TERMS OF FLOOR AREA RATIO IS ESSENTIALLY A HYPOTHETICAL APPROVAL FOR A BUILDING THAT WE WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE AT THIS POINT AND THE APPLICANT HASN'T CONSIDERED. SO I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND IN IN LIEU THEREOF WHEN IT COMES TO FLOOR AREA RATIO BECAUSE IN EITHER CASE THEY WOULD NEED TO COME BACK THROUGH FOR A NEW SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION. [1:37:05] Chris Meyer: OKAY. I'LL JUST MAKE THAT COMMENT FOR THE APPLICANT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE IF THEY DID WANT TO COME BACK THAT I THINK THE ARGUMENT FOR A 1.0 IS VERY STRONG. I DO THINK HYPOTHETICALLY I DO THINK IT WOULD WORK AS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AROUND THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS. BUT I HAVEN'T BEEN SOLD ON IT YET, SO I DO DISAGREE WITH STAFF ON THAT BASED ON A PREVIOUS ACTIONS LOOKING AT NEARBY SITES IN CONGRUENCE WITH THAT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TALKED ABOUT CONGRUENCE. BUT I'M NOT SOLD ON IT AT THIS TIME. SO I WOULD SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME, IF THEY CAME BACK I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. COMMISSIONER CHOWDHURY. [1:37:40] Aurin Chowdhury: I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE MOTION TO SUPPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND MOVE US FORWARD. [1:37:44] Chris Meyer: IS THERE A SECOND? [1:37:45] Commissioner Wagner: SECOND. [1:37:46] Chris Meyer: ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. [1:37:50] Commissioner Thompson: MAY I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION SINCE WE'RE ALL HERE, AND I'M GLAD TO THE MOTION BEFORE US. BUT FOR THE APPLICANT, I'M CURIOUS IF -- I'M TRYING TO SEE FROM THE SIDE WHEN THINGS AREN'T GOING THEIR WAY, IS THERE A CHALLENGE TO HAVE BROUGHT IT DOWN OR TO BRING IT DOWN THAT I'M JUST NOT SEEING? I'M GOING TO GUESS NO? OKAY, THAT'S FINE. [1:38:30] Chris Meyer: ANY OTHER DISCUSSION TO THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT SEEING NONE, CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. [1:38:40] Clerk: COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> AYE. >> CAMPBELL IS ABSENT. CHOWDHURY. >> AYE. >> GORDON. >> ABSTAIN. >> SKJEFTE. >> NAY. >> THOMPSON. >> AYE. >> WAGNER. >> AYE. >> MEYER. >> AYE. >> WE HAVE FIVE AYES, ONE NAY, AND ONE ABSTENTION. [1:39:03] Chris Meyer: THAT IS ADOPTED. NEXT WE HAVE NOMINATIONS FOR OUR EXECUTIVE POSITIONS. AND COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL NOTIFIED ME AS HE WAS LEAVING THAT HE WOULD NOT LIKE TO BE IN A LEADERSHIP POSITION SO SOMEONE ELSE SHOULD STEP UP TO ONE OF THE ROLES. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE ANY NOMINATIONS? COMMISSIONER WAGNER. [1:39:26] Commissioner Wagner: CLARIFYING, SO I'M LOOKING AROUND THERE'S ONLY SO MANY OF US HERE. [1:39:34] Chris Meyer: WE HAVE TO FILL PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SECRETARY. [1:39:39] Commissioner Wagner: AND I THINK WE ESTABLISHED AT A PRIOR MEETING THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THESE ROLES. [1:39:46] Chris Meyer: THE ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE NOT? [1:39:48] Kimberly [Planning Staff]: THAT'S CORRECT. AND IF WE NEED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN LOSING PEOPLE, OBVIOUSLY I'LL DEFER TO YOU, CHAIR MEYER ON HOW YOU WANT TO HANDLE THAT PIECE. ESSENTIALLY PEOPLE WOULD CONTINUE IN THEIR CURRENT ROLES UNTIL WE VOTE. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A PARTICULAR SENSE OF URGENCY OTHER THAN OUR BYLAWS TELL US TO DO IT IN FEBRUARY. [1:40:15] Chris Meyer: SO WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO TAKE NOMINATIONS, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? [1:40:22] Kimberly [Planning Staff]: I DON'T THINK BECAUSE WE'VE LOST SO MANY MEMBERS WE COULD POTENTIALLY CONTINUE THE NOMINATIONS. [1:40:30] Chris Meyer: I WOULD AGREE, CHAIR MEYER. WE LIKE TO DO IT TOWARDS THE BEGINNING OF THE CALENDAR YEAR OF THE APPOINTMENTS, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S ANYTHING PARTICULARLY TIME SENSITIVE AND SINCE WE'RE QUICKLY LOSING QUORUM AND A LOT OF PEOPLE AREN'T HERE, THAT WOULD TOTALLY BE ACCEPTABLE TO POSTPONE IT A CYCLE. [1:40:49] Chris Meyer: ALL RIGHT. SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND POSTPONE THAT, REFLECT ON WHAT LEADERSHIP POSITIONS YOU WANT TO STEP UP TO. OUR NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE MARCH 10, AND THEN WE HAVE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE THIS THURSDAY. ARE THERE ANY UPDATES FROM STAFF OR COMMISSIONERS? [1:41:05] Kimberly [Planning Staff]: YES, AT OUR LAST MEETING WE HEARD AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE WRONG ADDRESS BECAUSE THERE ARE MULTIPLE ADDRESSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE, BUT IT WAS A CUP TO INCREASE SIGN HEIGHT AND A SIGN ON A NONPRIMARY BUILDING WALL. IT WAS DENIED AND HAS BEEN APPEALED. SO THAT WILL BE GOING TO THE BIZ COMMITTEE ON MARCH 4TH. [1:41:35] Chris Meyer: THANK YOU. WE WILL SEE YOU ON THURSDAY FOR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. WE ARE MEETING TO DISCUSS THE ANNUAL REPORT. [1:41:41] Commissioner Baxley: THAT WAS THE JP MORGAN SIGN, RIGHT? [1:41:43] Kimberly [Planning Staff]: YES, CORRECT. [1:41:45] Chris Meyer: ALL RIGHT, ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT, WE ARE ADJOURNED.