This is a transcript of the **Minneapolis City Planning Commission** meeting. Note: While the transcript text says "July 31, 2021," the internal references to the "July 1, 2023" zoning code update and the day of the week (Monday) indicate this meeting actually took place on **July 31, 2023**. Based on the context of the municipality and the specific project details, here is the identified transcript: *** **[0:30] Alissa Olson:** GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY WELCOME TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR MONDAY, JULY 31, 2023. MY NAME IS ALISSA OLSON, PRESIDENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE CITY WILL BE RECORDING AND POSTING THIS MEETING TO THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND YOUTUBE CHANNEL AS A MEANS OF INCREASING PUBLIC ACCESS AND TRANSPARENCY. **[0:50] Alissa Olson:** THIS MEETING IS PUBLIC AND SUBJECT TO THE MINNESOTA OPEN MEETING LAW. AT THIS TIME I'LL ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL. **Clerk:** COMMISSIONER ALPER. **Commissioner Alper:** PRESENT. **Clerk:** COMMISSIONER BAXLEY IS ABSENT. COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL. **Commissioner Campbell:** HERE. **Clerk:** COMMISSIONER CONLEY IS ABSENT. **[1:08] Clerk:** COMMISSIONER EMERICK. **Commissioner Emerick:** HERE. **Clerk:** COMMISSIONER FORD. **Commissioner Ford:** HERE. **Clerk:** COMMISSIONER KOSKI IS ABSENT. COMMISSIONER MARWAH IS ABSENT. COMMISSIONER MEYER. **Commissioner Meyer:** HERE. **Clerk:** COMMISSIONER OLSON. **Alissa Olson:** HERE. **Clerk:** WE HAVE SIX MEMBERS PRESENT. **Alissa Olson:** WE HAVE A QUORUM. WE'LL PROCEED TO THE AGENDA, A COPY OF WHICH WAS POSTED TO THE PUBLIC ACCESS AT LIMS.MINNEAPOLIS MN.GOV. **[1:40] Alissa Olson:** WE'LL BEGIN WITH ACCEPTANCE OF THE MEETING MINUTES FROM JULY 17. MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES? **Commissioner:** SO MOVED. **Alissa Olson:** WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. **Commissioners:** AYE. **[1:57] Alissa Olson:** ALL OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS. THE MINUTES HAVE BEEN ADOPTED. WE'LL NOW ORGANIZE OUR AGENDA FOR THE MEETING, WHICH IS. **[2:13] Alissa Olson:** I'M GOING TO READ THROUGH THE ITEMS AND STATE WHETHER THEY ARE SLATED FOR CONSENT OR DISCUSSION. CONSENT ITEMS WILL BE PASSED BY THE BOARD WITHOUT DISCUSSION. SO IF YOU AGREE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR AN ITEM, YOU DON'T NEED TO DO ANYTHING, BUT IF I READ OFF AN ITEM AND YOU DISAGREE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THAT ITEM, YOU CAN RAISE YOUR HAND OR SAY SOMETHING AND WE'LL PUT THAT ITEM ON OUR A DISCUSSION AGENDA. **[2:42] Alissa Olson:** WITH THAT, WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING. ITEM FOUR, 2648 MARSHALL STREET NORTHEAST. WE WILL DISCUSS ITEM 4. ITEM 5 IS 625 THROUGH 751 VAN BUREN STREET NORTHEAST AND 901 SUMNER STREET NORTHEAST. **[3:03] Alissa Olson:** STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS ITEM FOR CONSENT. IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM 5. WE'LL DISCUSS ITEM 5. ITEM 6 IS 1500 JACKSON STREET NORTHEAST. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS ITEM FOR CONSENT. **[3:18] Alissa Olson:** IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM 6? SEEING NONE, WE'LL PUT ITEM 6 ON CONSENT. ITEM 7 IS 1201 THROUGH 1318 JACKSON STREET NORTHEAST AND 807 BROADWAY STREET NORTHEAST. **[3:36] Alissa Olson:** WE'LL BE DISCUSSING ITEM 7. ITEM 8 IS 900 20TH AVENUE SOUTH. STAFF RECOMMENDS FOR CONSENT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM 8? **[3:51] Alissa Olson:** WE'LL DISCUSS ITEM 8. ITEM 9 IS 2432 CHICAGO AVENUE AND WE WILL DISCUSS ITEM 9. ITEM 10 IS 1407 NICOLLET AVENUE STAFF RECOMMENDS FOR CONSENT. **[4:12] Alissa Olson:** IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM 10? ALL RIGHT, SEE NONE WE'LL PUT ITEM 10 ON CONSENT. TO REVIEW, WE HAVE ITEMS 6 AND 10 ON CONSENT. AND WE'LL DISCUSS ITEMS 4, 5, 7, 8, 9. **[4:41] Audience Member:** [OFF MIC] **Alissa Olson:** WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THAT ITEM. SO WE WILL -- **Audience Member:** [OFF MIC] **Alissa Olson:** RIGHT. WHEN WE GET TO THAT ITEM YOU'LL HAVE THE CHANCE TO COME UP AND TALK ABOUT IT. **[4:56] Alissa Olson:** THANK YOU. OKAY. SO ITEMS 6 AND 10 ON CONSENT. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 ON DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONERS, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OR CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. **[5:19] Commissioner:** [MOTION] IS THERE A SECOND? **Commissioner:** SECOND! **Alissa Olson:** ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? THAT MOTION PASSES SO THE AGENDA HAS BEEN ADOPTED. WE'LL MOVE ON TO CONSENT AGENDA FOR ITEMS 6 OR 10. **[5:34] Alissa Olson:** SO IF YOU ARE HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT 6 OR 10 I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. YOU CAN COME TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THE ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. PROCEED WITH YOUR COMMENTS. OKAY. I'M NOT SEEING ANYONE SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSENT AGENDA. **[5:55] Alissa Olson:** COMMISSIONERS, CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA. **Commissioner:** SO MOVED. **Alissa Olson:** WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED? **[6:12] Alissa Olson:** ANY ABSTENTIONS? THAT MOTION PASSES. IF YOU WERE HERE FOR ITEMS 6 OR 10, THOSE ITEMS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. GOOD LUCK. WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST DISCUSSION ITEM. JUST SO YOU KNOW, WHEN WE OPEN OUR DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR PUBLIC HEARING, EVERYONE WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK ON THOSE ITEMS. **[6:35] Alissa Olson:** WE WILL HAVE A TIMER OUT THAT WILL SHOW YOU HOW MUCH TIME YOU HAVE AND IT WILL COUNT DOWN. SO PREPARE YOUR REMARKS ACCORDINGLY. STAFF IS LINDSEY SILAS. **[6:50] Lindsey Silas (Senior City Planner):** GOOD EVENING. THE PROJECT IN FRONT OF YOU IS 2648 MARSHALL STREET NORTHEAST. YOU MAY REMEMBER THIS FROM A PROJECT THAT CAME THROUGH IN 2021. THIS IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE PROJECT EVALUATED AT THAT TIME. AND I'LL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND. THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG THE EAST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER. **[7:06] Lindsey Silas:** IT IS OVER 20,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE. THE SITE HAS A DUPLEX ALONG MARSHALL STREET AND DETACHED GARAGE CLOSER TO THE REAR OF THE SITE. THE APPLICANT HAS APPLIED FOR THREE APPLICATIONS IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A NEW CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE WHICH WILL CONSIST OF THREE DWELLING UNITS. **[7:26] Lindsey Silas:** THE EXISTING DUPLEX WOULD ACCOUNT FOR TWO OF THOSE DWELLING UNITS AND ONE NEW SINGLE UNIT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE REAR OF THE SITE, AS WELL AS NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND WORKSHOP. SO THE -- IN 2021 THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED PLANS -- AT THAT TIME THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATION AND THERE WAS AN APPEAL THAT WENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. **[7:55] Lindsey Silas:** THE APPLICATION WAS DENIED UPON APPEAL. SO WE ALLOW APPLICANTS TO RESUBMIT APPLICATIONS AS LONG AS AT LEAST A YEAR HAS PASSED SINCE THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION. AS YOU ALL ARE AWARE, THERE HAVE BEEN CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS AND A NEW ZONING CODE ADOPTED IN THAT TIME, SO SOME THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE APPLICATION WAS REVIEWED IN 2021. **[8:20] Lindsey Silas:** SO THIS SITE IS A UNIQUE SITE. WE HAVE SOME SITES THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT CONTAIN UNDERLYING DEDICATION FOR PARKS. THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH ARE ALSO DESIGNATED FOR PARKS AND MARSHALL TERRACE PARK IS LOCATED JUST ONE PARCEL BEYOND THE ADJACENT PARCEL SO THERE IS A LONG-TERM VISION FOR THE PARK BOARD TO ACQUIRE THIS LAND. **[8:51] Lindsey Silas:** THE PARK BOARD DOESN'T PRESENTLY OWN THE LAND ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SITE AND THE DESIGNATION GRANTED IN THE -- UNDER THE LAND USE REZONING STUDY WAS PR1. THIS APPLICATION WAS DEEMED COMPLETE PRIOR TO JULY 1. **[9:07] Lindsey Silas:** IN PR1 THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON A SITE SO THE CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED IF SUBMITTED AFTER JULY 1. THE APPLICATIONS AT HAND ARE A CUP FOR A CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT OF THREE UNITS AND VARIANCES TO THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT AND MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA) OVERLAY DISTRICT. **[9:40] Lindsey Silas:** THOSE ARE ALMOST OVERLAPPING REQUIREMENTS WHERE THERE ARE STRUCTURE SETBACKS AND THE BLUFF AND BLUFF IMPACT ZONES. SO HERE IS THE APPLICANT SITE PLAN. **[9:55] Lindsey Silas:** YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING DUPLEX. THREE SURFACE PARKING STALLS PROPOSED AT THE REAR OF THE DUPLEX, THE GARAGE AND NEW STRUCTURE, WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE A SINGLE STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE THAT WILL NOT HAVE A BASEMENT AND IS JUST ONE LEVEL. **[10:13] Lindsey Silas:** THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THIS SHADED DIAGRAM SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE OUTLINE OF THEIR NEW PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS AND THEN WHERE THE TOP OF THE SLOPE AND SHORELAND AND THEN THE SLOPE SETBACKS WOULD FALL ON THE SITE. **[10:33] Lindsey Silas:** THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THE HISTORIC PHOTOS OF THE SITE. YOU'LL NOTE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS A LARGE MULTIFAMILY DWELLING AND TO THE SOUTH THERE IS INDUSTRIAL USE WHICH IS CONCRETE CRUSHING. THIS IS A UNIQUE PARCEL WHICH IS NESTLED BETWEEN THESE TWO HIGH INTENSITY USES. **[10:50] Lindsey Silas:** THESE PHOTOS FROM 1967 THROUGH 1974 SHOW THERE'S BEEN A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT KIND OF DRIVEWAY AND MANEUVERING AREAS AND DOCKS AND THINGS ON THE SITE. HISTORICALLY IN ADDITION, THE EXISTING SITE -- THE DETACHED GARAGE IS LOCATED AT THE STEEP SLOPE OR BLUFF. **[11:10] Lindsey Silas:** HERE IS A COUPLE RENDERS OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE. STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR 2021 AND THE APPLICATION TODAY. **[11:27] Lindsey Silas:** THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED A SHARED SPACE FOR RESIDENTS AND IF SUBMITTED AFTER JULY 1, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH TWO PRINCIPLE DWELLING STRUCTURES ON THE SITE. WHEN IT COMES TO THE VARIANCES, SO THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED TO LOCATE THE STRUCTURE ON THE SLOPE AND ON TOP OF THE STEEP SLOPE WHICH HAS TRIGGERED THESE TWO VARIANCES. **[11:51] Lindsey Silas:** AND JUST AS A NOTE, STAFF HAD INITIALLY NOT TRIGGERED THE MRCCA VARIANCE WITH THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE SLOPES WERE CALCULATED. AND AFTER CONTACT WITH THE DNR AND NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, WE HAD A MEETING WITH DNR AND DISCUSSED WITH THEM THAT WE SHOULD TRIGGER THE MRCCA AS WE HAD IN 2021 WHICH IS WHY THE APPLICATION WAS CONTINUED ONE CYCLE. **[12:19] Lindsey Silas:** STAFF HAS EVALUATED THE PROPOSED VARIANCES AND FINDS THAT THE -- WHILE THIS IS A LONG SITE, THE VARIOUS SLOPE, BLUFF LINE AND STRUCTURE SETBACKS RESULTS IN ELIMINATING 46% OF THE BUILDABLE AREA AS MEASURED FROM THE RIVER FRONT. **[12:38] Lindsey Silas:** THAT IS ONLY THE STRUCTURE SETBACK NOT ACCOUNTING FOR ANY OTHER FRONT YARD OR SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS. THE FINDING FOR A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY VARIANCE IS THAT A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY EXISTS IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY. **[12:56] Lindsey Silas:** THE BLUFF LINE ON THE SITE CUT INTO THE SITE MUCH MORE THAN NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ARE INTENSIVE USES, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND INDUSTRIAL USE, BUT THE BLUFF LINE IS LOCATED MUCH CLOSER TO THE RIVER. **[13:14] Lindsey Silas:** IF IT WASN'T A PARK AND WAS A SINGLE FAMILY SITE, THE SETBACK WOULD BE FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE. SO STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE VARIOUS STRUCTURE SETBACKS REALLY DOES SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE BUILDABLE AREA OF THE SITE AND CREATES A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN LINE WITH WHAT WE LOOK FOR IN THIS FINDING. **[13:38] Lindsey Silas:** STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSAL IS REASONABLE AND WON'T HAVE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH OR SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THOSE HISTORIC PHOTOS AND THE USE ON THE SITE TODAY INDICATE THERE HAVE BEEN VARIOUS USES OF THIS SLOPE AND BLUFF LINE OVER TIME WITH PARKING AND MANEUVERING AREAS. **[13:58] Lindsey Silas:** AND THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED TO DO SOME MITIGATION ON THE SITE, ADDING NATIVE PLANTINGS, REMOVING CONCRETE DEBRIS THAT'S BEEN ON THE SITE SINCE -- FOR A LONG TIME DUE TO THE NEIGHBORING INDUSTRIAL USE. **[14:16] Lindsey Silas:** THE PROPOSED SET BACK FROM THE HIGH WATER LINE IS 96 FEET AND THEY ARE PROPOSING SOME CONSTRUCTION METHODS TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT. THERE IS NO BASEMENT, THAT SORT OF THING. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. **[14:35] Alissa Olson:** ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. COMMISSIONER ALPER. **[14:50] Commissioner Alper:** THANK YOU FOR THIS BACKGROUND. I AM WONDERING IF YOU COULD GIVE US A LITTLE BACKGROUND WITH THE MRCCA. WHEN WAS IT ADOPTED? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF IT? **[15:10] Lindsey Silas:** I BELIEVE THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS WAS ONE OF THE FIRST CITIES TO ADOPT THE MRCCA, FROM STATE LAW TO IMPLEMENT IT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. KIMBERLY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW THE YEAR. I DO REMEMBER THIS WAS -- WHEN THIS CAME THROUGH IN 2021, THIS WAS ONE OF THE FIRST VARIANCES WE ANALYZED THROUGH THE MRCCA. **[15:34] Kimberly Holien (Land Use Manager):** I CAN LOOK UP THE EXACT DATE. IT'S RELATIVELY NEW, BUT YES, IT IS ONE OF THOSE ORDINANCES WHERE A DRAFT ORDINANCE IS PROVIDED BY THE DNR, THE CITY WORKED WITH THEM EXTENSIVELY OVER SEVERAL YEARS TO MODEL OUR ORDINANCE. 2019, 2020 MAYBE. WE CAN GIVE YOU AN EXACT DATE. **[15:50] Commissioner Alper:** THAT IS FINE. IT APPLIED TO THE PROJECT PREVIOUSLY ALSO. AND THE PURPOSE OF IT -- AM I CORRECT IN SAYING THERE SHOULD BE NO CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE AND THAT THERE'S A 40-FOOT SETBACK. COULD YOU DESCRIBE -- **[16:10] Lindsey Silas:** IF YOU THINK ABOUT KIND OF, LIKE, THE ZONING CODE AS A WHOLE, VARIANCES ARE JUST VARIATIONS FROM WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS. THE MRCCA IS A VERY COMPLEX ORDINANCE THAT REALLY MANAGES KIND OF WHERE STRUCTURES CAN BE PLACED, ACCESSORY TO STEEP SLOPES AND THE WATER. THE MRCCA REQUIREMENTS ARE IN PLACE TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF IMPORTANT HISTORIC CULTURAL AESTHETIC VALUES AND NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROVIDE FOR THE WISE USE OF THESE AREAS. **[16:43] Lindsey Silas:** SO THE STRUCTURE SETBACKS ARE IN PLACE TO PROHIBIT DEVELOPMENT ON STEEP SLOPES OR BLUFFS. AND THAT IS A PROHIBITION. SO THAT IS WHY WE NEED THE VARIANCE. **[17:03] Commissioner Alper:** BY THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER, RIGHT? THAT'S THE FOCUS, RIGHT? **[17:03] Lindsey Silas:** YEAH, THE MRCCA DISTRICT RUNS WITH THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND IS GUIDED BY STATE STATUTE AND LOCAL ORDINANCES TO IMPLEMENT THE MRCCA. **[17:22] Commissioner Alper:** AND THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT, CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT THAT TOO? **[17:38] Lindsey Silas:** YEAH, SO BOTH OF THESE ORDINANCES—THERE WAS A LOT OF OVERLAP WITH THEM. WE WERE WONDERING IF WE COULD SIMPLIFY THE ORDINANCE TO NOT HAVE THE DUPLICATION IN THE FUTURE, BUT THAT IS ALSO TO MANAGE THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF SOIL EROSION AND IMPLICATIONS ON NATIVE PLANTINGS AND NATURAL AREAS THAT MIGHT BE NEAR SHORELINES. **[18:02] Commissioner Meyer:** YEAH, JUST BUILDING OFF THAT. SO IF WE WERE TO APPROVE ONE VARIANCE AND NOT THE OTHER, HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE IS THERE BETWEEN THEM? SUPPOSE YOU WERE TO APPROVE THE SHORELAND OVERLAY, BUT NOT THE MRCCA ONE, WHAT KIND OF THINGS WOULD THEY DO IF -- WHAT WOULDN'T THEY BE ABLE TO DO IF WE DIDN'T APPROVE BOTH? **[18:17] Lindsey Silas:** YEAH, SO I THINK IN THIS CASE THE SHORELAND IS THE MORE CONSERVATIVE ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT REQUIRES 40 FEET TO BE SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF THE STEEP SLOPE, WHEREAS THE MRCCA BLUFF SETBACK IS 20 FEET. IF YOU ONLY APPROVED THE MRCCA VARIANCE THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE 20 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE BLUFF AREA. IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DNR, THE BLUFF MAY NOT COVER THE ENTIRE SITE. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE SLOPE OVER TIME. **[18:58] Lindsey Silas:** SO IT IS REALLY MAYBE JUST THE KIND OF INTERIOR PORTIONS OF THE SITE THAT ACTUALLY HAVE A BLUFF LINE ON THEM. SO IT IS PROBABLY A CONVERSATION IF THAT WAS THE WAY THE COMMISSION WANTED TO GO THAT WE'D WANT TO HAVE THE APPLICANT SURVEYOR REALLY KIND OF COME UP WITH DIFFERENT MODELING TO SHOW WHERE THE BLUFF LINE EXISTS AND MEASURE 20 FEET BACK FROM THAT. **[19:24] Lindsey Silas:** BASICALLY IF THE SHORELAND OVERLAY SETBACKS ARE MORE CONSERVATIVE, IF THAT ONE THEORETICALLY WERE APPROVED BUT THEN THE MRCCA ONE WAS NOT APPROVED, THERE WOULD BE A 20 FOOT DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF PLACEMENT RELATIVE TO THE TOP OF THE SLOPE AND THE RIVER. **[19:45] Commissioner Meyer:** AND WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT IF WE DENIED BOTH THE MRCCA AND SHORELAND VARIANCES, BUT APPROVED THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SINCE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE APPROVED NOW IF THEY REAPPLIED ANYWAY? WOULD THAT BE POSSIBLE WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS CURRENTLY APPLIED? **[20:05] Lindsey Silas:** MY INCLINATION IS THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON THE SITE WHEN THEY COULD JUST RESUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION THAT WOULD JUST BE ALLOWED. SO IF THE VARIANCES WERE DENIED, THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO DO SIGNIFICANT REVISION TO THE PLAN TO REMOVE THE STRUCTURE. THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO THEN JUST RESUBMIT FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW FOR A NEW ONE UNIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND IT WOULDN'T NEED ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING. **[21:20] Commissioner Alper:** I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE RIGHT TIME OR NOT, BUT WE HAVE A LETTER IN OUR PACKET FROM THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE THAT RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE MRCCA VARIANCE. AND I'M WONDERING, THEY SAY THERE ARE NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. SO BUT STAFF HAS COME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION FROM THE CITY. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCY? **[22:06] Lindsey Silas:** SURE, YEAH. SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT STAFF FROM THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND DNR ARE EVALUATING PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES UNDER A DIFFERENT LENS. WHEN WE IMPLEMENT THE ADOPTED ZONING FROM CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, WE APPLY A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY LENS EQUALLY TO ANY APPLICATION. WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THERE IS NO POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE AT ALL WITHOUT GRANTING THE VARIANCES. **[22:22] Lindsey Silas:** WE ARE SAYING THERE IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE ON THE SITE THAT IS SIGNIFICANTLY RESTRICTING THE BUILDABLE AREA, UNIQUE TO THE SITE, EVEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BLUFF LINE TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE RIVER. AND THAT IS UNIQUE. AND THAT IS THE STANDARD APPLIED TO ANY VARIANCES. THERE IS SOMETHING UNIQUE THAT IS -- WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THIS AT DOZENS OF SITES THROUGHOUT MINNEAPOLIS. IT IS UNIQUE TO THIS SITE, THIS PARTICULAR PLACE THAT IS CAUSING A CHALLENGE IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE. AND THAT'S WHAT STAFF FOUND HERE. **[23:30] Kimberly Holien:** THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTERING THE MRCCA ORDINANCE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. SO DNR AND NATIONAL PARK SERVICE HAVE BOTH COMMENTED AS ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC COULD. IT IS UP TO YOU HOW MUCH WEIGHT YOU WANT TO GIVE TO THE COMMENTS. WE CAN'T DEFER TO THE DNR TO IMPLEMENT OUR OWN MRCCA REGULATIONS. **[24:39] Alissa Olson:** I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THE APPLICANT HERE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. **[24:45] Andy Wattenhofer (Applicant):** I'M ANDY WATTENHOFER, THE PROPERTY OWNER FROM MARSHALL TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD. AS STAFF INDICATED THIS IS A RESUBMISSION OF A PLAN FROM 2021 THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND OVERTURNED ON THE APPEAL. WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN THIS RESUBMISSION IS TO INCLUDE THE INFORMATION TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT CASE. **[26:02] Andy Wattenhofer:** THERE HAS BEEN A HISTORY ON THE RIVERWARD SLOPE ON THIS PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERED THE COMPOSITION OF THE SLOPE HERE. ON OUR PROPERTY, THERE'S BEEN THE ADDITION OF THIS DRIVEWAY THAT'S BEEN PAVED FROM MARSHALL STREET ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE RIVER. THAT'S A VEHICLE STORAGE PAD THAT'S BEEN PAVED BY 40 FEET BY 30 FEET IN SIZE THAT'S ROUGHLY MID-WAY UP THE SLOPE. **[27:56] Andy Wattenhofer:** THERE IS A LOT OF CONCRETE HERE. IT DOESN'T SUPPORT NATURAL AMENITIES. SO WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE DESIGN AND CHOOSING THIS LOCATION, WE DECIDED THAT THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST LOCATION FOR THE FACT THAT NUMBER ONE, THERE IS ALREADY A BUILDING THERE—A GARAGE. SO WE ARE NOT PROPOSING A NEW USE FOR THAT PART OF THE LOT. SECOND, BECAUSE THAT PLACE IS NOT ABLE TO SUPPORT A NATURAL USE IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT ALTERATION. **[28:50] Andy Wattenhofer:** THE ALTERNATIVE, IF WE LOOK AT THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, DOES REDUCE BUILDABLE AREA OF THE PROPERTY BY ALMOST HALF. IT ALSO FORCES THE LOCATION OF ANY STRUCTURES TO BE IN WHAT IS THE LAST REMAINING GREEN SPACE ON THIS PROPERTY. THAT IS THE YARD THAT'S BEHIND THE CURRENT DUPLEX. **[32:50] Andy Wattenhofer:** IN MY ROLE AS A MINNESOTA WATER STEWARD, I'M AN ADVOCATE FOR ISSUES AROUND FRESH WATER BODIES INCLUDING THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER. I KNOW THAT THROUGH THAT ROLE, THAT WHEN WE HAVE ALL THESE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES, THEY CAUSE PROBLEMS WITH STORM WATER RUNOFF. OUR AIM IS TO NOT ONLY DEAL WITH THE STORM WATER RUNOFF THAT WE GENERATE THROUGH THIS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, BUT ALSO TO HOPEFULLY BE ABLE TO SEQUESTER OR HANDLE MORE OF THE STORM WATER OVER WHAT CURRENT CONDITIONS ARE ON THE PROPERTY. **[42:34] Andy Wattenhofer:** FINALLY, I WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT THE PARK FUTURE. THE MINNEAPOLIS 2040 PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PLACE AS A PARK. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT MY WIFE, DAWN AND I, HAVE CONSIDERED DEEPLY BECAUSE WE AGREE WITH THAT OUTCOME. WE BELIEVE THIS PLACE SHOULD BE A PARK. THE OTHER PART OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR US, THOUGH, IS WHEN DO WE BELIEVE IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THIS TO BECOME A PARK. **[43:39] Andy Wattenhofer:** WE BELIEVE THE BEST CASE SCENARIO WHERE THIS COULD TRANSITION INTO A PARK IS 30 OR MORE YEARS AND WE BELIEVE THAT IS OPTIMISTIC. IN THE INTERIM WE BELIEVE WE CAN MAKE PRODUCTIVE USE OF THIS PROPERTY. WE CAN ADD HOUSING. **[45:17] Alissa Olson:** COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? **[45:40] Commissioner Emerick:** THANK YOU FOR COMING TO SPEAK BEFORE US TODAY. IS THERE POTENTIAL TRANSITION TO PARKLAND, HAS THAT BEEN SIGNED OR APPROVED? IS THAT A DONE DEAL? **[45:59] Andy Wattenhofer:** WE HAVE WITHIN TALKING WITH THE PARK BOARD. AT THIS POINT WHILE THIS IS GOING ON, WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY SIGNED THE MOU, BUT IT IS OUR INTENT TO DO THAT. **[47:07] Commissioner Meyer:** I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID. I THINK YOU SAID IT WOULD BE A TIMELINE OF 30 YEARS, PRESUMABLY IN 30 YEARS, THEN THE STRUCTURE YOU'RE ASKING PERMISSION TO BE BUILT WOULD BE DEMOLISHED IN ORDER TO CREATE THE PARK, IS THAT A CORRECT UNDERSTANDING? **[47:26] Andy Wattenhofer:** YES. THE THINKING IS THE PARK SYSTEM CAN'T USE THOSE STRUCTURES THAT ARE THERE. THEY COULD BE MOVED. IT'S A HOUSE SITTING ON CONCRETE PIERS AND I BELIEVE IT COULD BE MOVED TO ANOTHER LOCATION. **[48:36] Alissa Olson:** I WANT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WAIT, IF THERE IS ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, COME TO THE PODIUM NOW. **[48:45] Whitney Clark (FMR):** PRESIDENT OLSON AND MEMBERS, MY NAME IS WHITNEY CLARK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FRIENDS OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER. I'M HERE TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST FOR THIS VARIANCE TO THE MRCCA OVERLAY AND SETBACK. THIS APPEARS TO BE THE EXACT SAME REQUEST THAT WAS DENIED UPON APPEAL IN 2021. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT ONLY FAILED TO MEET THE VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS, BUT MADE NO EFFORT TO DO SO, DESPITE THE FACT THE PROPERTY HAS SUFFICIENT BUILDABLE AREA TO BUILD THE PROJECT WITHOUT A VARIANCE. **[50:52] Andy Huffman (National Park Service):** I'M THE VISITOR USE AND PLANNING PROGRAM MANAGER FOR THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. ON THE HARDSHIP: THE BLUFFS ALONG THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER ARE VARIED. LOOKING AT THIS PARCEL HERE, VERY LITTLE EFFORT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO COMPLY WITH THE SETBACKS IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. THE IDEA THAT COVERING A BLUFF IS PROTECTING IT DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE IMPORTANT WILDLIFE, SCENIC AND OTHER IMPORTANT PARTS THAT A BLUFF SERVES. WE'D LIKE TO SEE THE BLUFF PROTECTED AND THE GREEN YARD AREA PRESERVED FOR BUILDABLE AREA. **[53:15] Ed (Public Speaker):** HELLO, MY NAME IS ED, I'M HERE FROM FRIENDS OF THE RIVER FRONT. AND I AM RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENY THE VARIANCE REQUESTS AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE APPLICANT'S PLIGHT WAS CREATED BY HIS VOLUNTARY DESIGN CHOICES. THESE PREFERENCES DRIVE THE NEED FOR VARIANCES, RATHER THAN ANY ALLEGED TOPOGRAPHICAL NEED. YOU HAVE A SPECIAL PIECE OF PROPERTY. YOU SHOULD DENY THIS APPLICATION. **[55:26] Public Speaker:** HELLO, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MARSHALL TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION. WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT THE COMMISSION DENY OUR APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL. WE BELIEVE THAT PAST USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT WAS DETRIMENTAL TO THE RIVER FRONT DOES NOT MAKE IT PERMISSIBLE TO HAVE THE APPLICANT RECEIVE A VARIANCE. **[56:42] Greg (Architect):** MY NAME IS GREG, I'M AN ARCHITECT, PART OF THE DESIGN TEAM. THIS PROJECT WASN'T JUST ABOUT BUILDING THE HOUSE, BUT IMPROVING THE PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THAT IS THE CASE, AS WE ARE INCREASING NATIVE PLANTING, RAIN WATER RETENTION HAS BEEN DESIGNED. THE IDEA IS FOR THE STRUCTURE TO FLOAT ON PIERS AT ITS CORNER. **[59:01] Alissa Olson:** I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL. **[59:17] Commissioner Campbell:** MY OPINION ON THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION IS THAT IT MEETS THE OBJECTIVES OF THE 2040 PLAN. I AGREE WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES FOR THE VARIANCE AND THAT THE SITE PLAN MEETS CITY CODE. WE HAVE TO CALL BALLS AND STRIKES. THAT SAID, I'LL BE VOTING TO SUPPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION. **[1:01:03] Commissioner Meyer:** I WAS ON THE COMMISSION WHEN THIS CAME BEFORE US BEFORE. I WAS VERY SKEPTICAL. AFTER THE COUNCIL VOTED TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND TURNED IT DOWN, THAT SIGNALS TO ME WE SHOULD BE ADHERING TO THE COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL FOUND IN 2021 THAT THE PROPOSED BUILDING LOCATION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO OVERTURN THE COUNCIL'S VERDICT ON THAT. **[1:03:11] Alissa Olson (President):** THIS ONE IS TRICKY. I'M A PARK PLANNER. I THINK THAT IF WE GO TO THE CODE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT THE CITY, I WOULD ALSO SAY I THINK THERE IS VALUE IN A STEWARD OF A PROPERTY TAKING CARE OF THE LAND UNTIL IT IS TIME FOR IT TO BECOME A PARK. **[1:05:18] Commissioner Alper:** I DO BELIEVE THAT WATER IS SACRED. WE HAVE A NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT RIVER HERE WE NEED TO PROTECT. I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE VARIANCES AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. **[1:10:36] Alissa Olson:** COMMISSIONERS, I DON'T SEE ANYMORE QUESTIONS. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? **[1:10:52] Commissioner Campbell:** I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF FINDINGS [FOR APPROVAL]. **[1:10:52] Commissioner Olson:** SECOND. **[1:11:07] Clerk:** COMMISSIONER ALPER: NAY. CAMPBELL: AYE. EMERICK: NAY. FORD: NO. MEYER: NO. OLSON: AYE. THAT'S TWO YEAS, FOUR NAYS. **[1:11:24] Alissa Olson:** OKAY. THAT MOTION DOES NOT PASS. COMMISSIONER MEYER? **[1:14:39] Commissioner Meyer:** I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BUT DENY VARIANCES B AND C ON THE BASIS THAT THE PROPOSED BUILDING LOCATION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE MRCCA ORDINANCE, THE SHORELAND OVERLAY ORDINANCE OR MINNEAPOLIS 2040 PLAN. **[1:16:01] Commissioner Ford:** SECOND. **[1:17:32] Clerk:** COMMISSIONER ALPER: AYE. CAMPBELL: NO. EMERICK: AYE. FORD: AYE. MEYER: AYE. OLSON: NO. WE HAVE FOUR YEAS, TWO NAYS. **[1:18:06] Alissa Olson:** ALL RIGHT, THAT MOTION PASSES. SO ITEM NUMBER 4 IS COMPLETE. WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM 5, THE REZONING OF VAN BUREN STREET. STAFF IS ANDREW FRENZ. **[1:18:31] Andrew Frenz (Principal City Planner):** GOOD EVENING, PRESIDENT OLSON AND COMMISSIONERS. BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A PROPOSED REZONING OF 20 PROPERTIES LOCATED ON VAN BUREN STREET NORTHEAST. THE CITY IS BRINGING FORWARD THIS PROPOSED REZONING TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, WHICH AMENDED THE BUILT FORM GUIDANCE FROM CORRIDOR SIX TO INTERIOR THREE. THIS IS JUST A REZONING TO IMPLEMENT THE APPROVED COMP PLAN AMENDMENT AND RESOLVE THE REGULATORY AND POLICY CONFLICT THAT EXISTS TODAY. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. **[1:20:41] Conrad (Public Speaker):** PRESIDENT OLSON AND COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS CONRAD. I'M ASKING YOU NOT TO AMEND THIS REZONING BECAUSE IT IS COUNTER TO THE MINNEAPOLIS 2040 GOALS ORIGINALLY OF INCREASING AVAILABILITY OF HOMES NEAR TRANSIT. WE CAN'T HAVE ALL OUR INVESTMENT BE WASTED ON A REZONING THAT REDUCES HOUSING OPTIONS. **[1:22:20] Alissa Olson:** SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. **[1:22:40] Commissioner Meyer:** I WAS STRENUOUSLY OPPOSED WHEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CAME FORWARD IN THIS AREA. I FEEL IT WAS A TERRIBLE DECISION TO DOWN ZONE AN AREA NEAR HIGH QUALITY PUBLIC TRANSIT. HOWEVER, THE POLICY DECISION HAS BEEN MADE. THE DECISION BEFORE US IS TO ALIGN THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK WITH ADOPTED POLICY. I WILL VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT. **[1:24:09] Clerk:** [ROLL CALL ON ITEM 5]. THAT FIVE YEAS, ONE NAY. **[1:24:25] Alissa Olson:** THE MOTION PASSES. WE HAVE COMPLETED ITEM 5. WE'LL MOVE ON NEXT TO ITEM 7, WHICH IS 1201 THROUGH 1318 JACKSON STREET NORTHEAST. STAFF IS ANDREW FRENZ. **[1:24:46] Andrew Frenz:** GOOD EVENING. BEFORE YOU TODAY ARE THREE APPLICATIONS TO ALLOW A NEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD). THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING NEW THREE STORY PARKING RAMP AND TO CONVERT THE FORMER GRAIN MILL TO ACCOMMODATE NEW COMMERCIAL USES, PRIMARILY A NEW MUSEUM AND ENTERTAINMENT VENUE USE. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS. **[1:46:59] Charlie Nester (Hillcrest Development):** GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS CHARLIE NESTER, WITH HILLCREST DEVELOPMENT. THERE ARE A VARIETY OF ITEMS THAT GO INTO THE BUILDING. OUR GOAL IS TO RESOLVE THE LARGE BLOCK OF LAND WE OWN ON QUINCY STREET. WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL CLIENTS AND TENANTS THAT WILL BE COMING HERE. THEY ARE ARTS BASED. **[1:51:19] Alissa Olson:** I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. [DISCUSSION ON PARKING RAMP AND LANDSCAPING]. **[1:57:23] Clerk:** [ROLL CALL ON ITEM 7]. FOUR YEAS, TWO NAYS. **[1:57:40] Alissa Olson:** THAT MOTION PASSES. ITEM 7 IS COMPLETE. ITEM 8, 900 20TH AVENUE SOUTH. STAFF IS AARON HANAUER. **[1:58:12] Aaron Hanauer (Principal City Planner):** GOOD AFTERNOON. PATHWAY TO RECOVERY REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A MEDICATION ASSISTED TREATMENT FACILITY WITH LODGING FOR UP TO 16 ADULTS. CPED RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. **[2:00:57] Applicant Representative:** I'M WITH BLOOMENTHAL'S ARCHITECTURE. WE FEEL THIS FITS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. **[2:01:28] Dr. (Applicant Team):** GOOD EVENING. OUR PROPOSED PLAN IS A PARTIAL HOSPITALIZATION CLINIC. WE ARE DEALING WITH AN OPIATE CRISIS IN THIS COUNTRY. THIS PROGRAM WILL ALLOW US TO BE ABLE TO SEND OUR PATIENTS TO A DETOX SITE. I THINK THIS IS A UNIQUE EXPERIENCE. **[2:03:08] Dylan Jennings:** MY NAME IS DYLAN JENNINGS. WE ARE A DAYCARE CENTER ABOUT 50 YARDS FROM THIS PROPOSED PLACE. WE FEEL THAT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR THIS FACILITY. THANK YOU. **[2:04:36] Alissa Olson:** I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. **[2:06:34] Clerk:** [ROLL CALL ON ITEM 8]. FIVE YEAS, ONE ABSTENTION. **[2:06:49] Alissa Olson:** ITEM 8 IS COMPLETE. OUR FINAL ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 9. STAFF IS LINDSEY SILAS. **[2:07:10] Lindsey Silas:** GOOD EVENING. THIS PROJECT IS AT 2432 CHICAGO AVENUE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW FIVE-STORY MIXED USE BUILDING CONTAINING 20 DWELLING UNITS AND COMMERCIAL SPACE. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE VARIANCES FOR SIDE YARD SETBACKS AS WE HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED ANY SORT OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY UNIQUE TO THE SITE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH THE CONDITION THAT THEY COMPLY WITH SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. **[2:12:33] Evan Hall (Architect):** HI, MY NAME IS EVAN HALL. AS OPPOSED TO COLLECTING LOTS AND TEARING DOWN RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, WE ARE PROPOSING MISSING MIDDLE MEDIUM DENSITY. IF WE WERE TO SHORTEN THE BUILDING, WE'D BE LOSING FOUR STUDIO UNITS AND THREE ADA UNITS. OUR ARGUMENT IS THAT THERE IS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY DUE TO THE UNIQUE CONFIGURATION OF THE PROJECT. **[2:21:37] HOA President (City Homes on Park):** I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE CITY HOMES ON PARK AVENUE OWNERS ASSOCIATION. WE SEEK TO INCREASE DENSITY, BUT CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO TENANTS TRESPASSING ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. WE REQUEST FENCING TO CLEARLY GUIDE PEDESTRIANS. **[2:23:51] David (Public Speaker):** I'M A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF CITY HOMES ON PARK. THE REAR DRIVE IS A PRIVATE DRIVE AND NOT AN ALLEY. THE ASSOCIATION REQUESTS ALL ROOFTOP RAIN WATER FLOW TO CHICAGO AVENUE AND NOT OUR PROPERTY. **[2:31:46] Alissa Olson:** I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. **[2:31:46] Commissioner Meyer:** THIS PROJECT IS ZONED FOR CORRIDOR 6. IT'S AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR DENSITY. I DON'T SEE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TO JUSTIFY THE VARIANCES IN THIS CASE. I WOULD MOVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION [TO APPROVE SITE PLAN BUT DENY VARIANCES]. **[2:36:10] Clerk:** [ROLL CALL ON ITEM 9]. FIVE YEAS, ZERO NAYS. **[2:36:26] Alissa Olson:** THAT MOTION PASSES. THAT COMPLETES OUR LAST ITEM FOR THE EVENING. WITHOUT OBJECTION I DECLARE THIS MEETING ADJOURNED.