This transcript is from a meeting of the **Minneapolis Planning Commission**. Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the text, here is the formatted transcript with speaker names. *** [0:13] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** WELCOME, EVERYONE, TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING COMMISSION FOR MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2025. MY NAME IS CHRIS MEYER, I'M CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AT THIS TIME I'LL ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL. [0:26] **City Clerk:** COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. [0:29] **Commissioner Baxley:** HERE. [0:29] **City Clerk:** CAMPBELL. [0:30] **Commissioner Campbell:** HERE. [0:30] **City Clerk:** CHOWDHURY IS ABSENT. CONLEY IS ABSENT. GORDON. [0:34] **Commissioner Gordon:** HERE. [0:35] **City Clerk:** JONES. [0:35] **Commissioner Jones:** HERE. [0:36] **City Clerk:** MEYER. [0:37] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** HERE. [0:38] **City Clerk:** SKJEFTE IS ABSENT. THOMPSON IS ABSENT. WAGNER. [0:46] **Commissioner Wagner:** HERE. [0:46] **City Clerk:** WE HAVE SIX MEMBERS PRESENT. [0:48] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** LET THE RECORD SHOW WE HAVE A QUORUM. FIRST UP, WE'LL TAKE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2025. [1:01] WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MOVE. [1:05] **Commissioner Baxley:** I'LL MOVE. [1:06] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** THE MINUTES ARE ADOPTED. NEXT, WE WILL ORGANIZE THE AGENDA. SO FIRST WE'LL HAVE AN ITEM WITHOUT A HEARING. [1:16] ITEM 4. AND THEN STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING THAT WE DISCUSS ITEMS 5 AND 8. AND THAT 6 AND 7 BE ON CONSENT. SO I'M GOING TO READ THE TWO ITEMS FOR 6 AND 7. [1:32] IF YOU WERE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE LET US KNOW WHEN I READ THOSE OFF. THE FIRST ONE IS ITEM 6. 3333 EAST 41st STREET. WAS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK? NOT SEEING ANY. WE'LL KEEP THAT ON CONSENT. ITEM 7, 3605 44th STREET EAST, AND 4440 SMELLING AVENUE. WAS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 7? ALL RIGHT. [2:03] NOT SEEING ANY FOR THAT ONE EITHER. SO TO REVIEW, THERE WILL BE NO HEARING ON ITEM 4. WE'LL DO THAT FIRST. WE'LL DISCUSS 5, HAVE 6 AND 7 ON CONSENT. AND DISCUSS 8. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MOVE THAT AGENDA? [2:22] **Commissioner Baxley:** I'LL MOVE. [2:23] **Commissioner Campbell:** SECOND. [2:24] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. **Commissioners:** AYE. **Chris Meyer (Chair):** OPPOSED. THAT AGENDA IS ADOPTED. FIRST WE'LL DO ITEM 4, 1400, 1406, 1412, AND 1418 8TH AVENUE NORTH. ANY DISCUSSION, QUESTIONS, OR PRESENTATION ON ITEM 4? WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MOVE THE MOTION ON THAT ONE? [2:48] **Commissioner Baxley:** I'LL MOVE FOR ADOPTION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION. [2:53] **Commissioner Wagner:** SECOND. [2:54] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. **Commissioners:** AYE. **Chris Meyer (Chair):** OPPOSED, ABSTENTIONS? ITEM 4 IS ADOPTED. NEXT, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR OUR CONSENT ITEMS. IF YOU WERE HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT 6 OR 7, JUST WANTED TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT, YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO THAT NOW. WAS ANYONE HERE INTERESTED IN SPEAKING TO ITEMS 6 OR 7? [3:18] **Resident (Unidentified):** [Inaudible] [3:20] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** SURE. SO NUMBER 6 IS 3333 EAST 41st STREET. AND NUMBER 7 IS 3605 44th STREET EAST, AND 4440 SMELLING AVENUE. IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE? [3:39] ALL RIGHT. AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE COPIES OF THE AGENDA. WHATEVER YOU CAME TO SPEAK FOR, YOU'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO DO THAT. ALL RIGHT. SO NOT SEEING ANYBODY, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. [3:55] COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION ABOUT OUR CONSENT AGENDA? ALL RIGHT. WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MOVE ITEMS 6 AND 7? [4:04] **Commissioner Baxley:** SO MOVED. [4:05] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** APPROVAL OF THOSE. OKAY. [4:06] **Commissioner Wagner:** SECOND. [4:07] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [4:13] **Commissioners:** AYE. [4:14] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** OPPOSED, ABSTENTIONS? ITEMS 6 AND 7 ARE ADOPTED. IF YOU CAME HERE FOR THOSE TWO, GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECTS. FIRST DISCUSSION ITEM, ITEM 5, 715 SOUTH 9th STREET, ET CETERA. [4:34] THIS IS THE HENNEPIN COUNTY PARKING GARAGE. [4:40] **Hilary Dvorak (CPED Planning):** GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS, I'M HILARY DVORAK, THE PLANNING DIVISION OF CPED. I AM HERE TODAY TO SPEAK ABOUT THE HENNEPIN COUNTY HEALTHCARE SOUTH REPLACEMENT RAMP. THE DEVELOPMENT SITE IS LOCATED AT -- EXCUSE ME. SORRY. [5:14] THE DEVELOPMENT SITE IS LOCATED AT 715th SOUTH 9, 908 TO 920, ALL OF THE PROPERTIES ARE CURRENTLY USED FOR SURFACE PARKING CENTENNIAL PLACE, WHICH IS A PUBLIC STREET, SEPARATES THE PROPERTIES FROM ONE ANOTHER. [5:30] AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO VACATE THIS RIGHT OF WAY. A PUBLIC ALLEY RUNS ADJACENT TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT SITE. BUT THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROPOSING TO USE THAT FOR ACCESS INTO OR OUT OF THE PARKING RAMP. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SIX-STORY 1,046 SPACE PARKING GARAGE WITH A GROUND LEVEL COMMERCIAL ON THE SITE. THIS GARAGE WOULD SERVE THE HENNEPIN HEALTH CARE HOSPICE. THE EXISTING PARKING GARAGE WOULD BE DEMOLISHED ONCE THIS NEW PARKING GARAGE IS CONSTRUCTED. AND WHERE THE EXISTING PARKING GARAGE IS [6:18] LOCATED, LOOKING TO BUILD A HOSPITAL THERE IN THE FUTURE. THIS IS A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE PRINCIPLE VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE SITE IS ALONG SOUTH 9th STREET. I'M JUST GOING TO ORIENT EVERYONE IN THE ROOM. THIS IS SOUTH 9TH STREET. THIS IS THE ACCESS POINT TO THE PARKING GARAGE IN THE SAME LOCATION AS WHERE CENTENNIAL PLACE IS TODAY. [6:45] THERE WILL BE THREE ACCESS POINTS INTO THE GARAGE FOR PEDESTRIANS. ONE HERE AT THE CORNER OF 9TH AND CHICAGO. ONE OVER HERE IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE ALONG 9TH STREET. AND THEN ONE DOWN HERE STAIR ONLY ACCESS IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER ALONG CHICAGO AVENUE. THERE WILL BE A SECURE BIKE PARKING AREA FOR EMPLOYEES IN THE BUILDING LOCATED HERE NEAR THE ELEVATOR AND STAIR ACCESS THAT GETS INTO THE SKYWAY SYSTEM. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THAT 10,220 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE ALONG CHICAGO. I'M JUST POINTING THAT OUT HERE IN THIS, ALONG THERE. [7:26] AND I GUESS JUST TO SHOW YOU THE COMMERCIAL AND A LITTLE BIT BETTER, THERE IT IS HIGHLIGHTED IN PURPLE. AS I MENTIONED, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONNECT THE PARKING GARAGE TO THE HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE. HERE IS A SECTION SHOWING WHAT THAT SKYWAY DESIGN WOULD BE. THE SKYWAY DOES MEET OUR STANDARDS. [7:52] HOWEVER, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO CONFIRM THE FOOTING ON THE GLASS FOR BIRD SAFETY. SO WE DO HAVE A CONDITION SITE PLANNER REVIEW PERTAINING TO THAT. THERE ARE SEVERAL APPLICATIONS BEFORE YOU THIS AFTERNOON FOR THIS PROJECT. [8:07] ONE OF WHICH IS BEING RETURNED. I ERRONEOUSLY TOOK A VARIANCE FOR ELECTRICAL VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS, AND THAT IS NOT NEEDED. SO THAT ONE IS BEING RETURNED. BUT THE OTHER APPLICATIONS ARE NEEDED, AND TO BE ACTED ON TODAY. THE FIRST IS A REZONING. THE APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSING TO REZONE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CENTENNIAL FROM THE DT1 TO THE DT2. STAFF FINDS THAT REZONING THE SITE TO THE DT2 WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND POLICY OF THE PLAN. [8:49] THIS REZONING IS INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE EXPANSION OF THE HOSPITAL CAMPUS WHICH SERVES THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE WEST SIDE OF THE SITE IS GUIDED FOR PUBLIC OFFICE INSTITUTION, AND THE EAST SIDE IS MIXED USE, MINNEAPOLIS 2040. THE WEST HALF IS ADJACENT TO CHICAGO AVENUE. THE PROPOSED REZONING IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT. CHICAGO AVENUE BEING A DESIGNATED GOODS CORRIDOR, REZONING THE SITE WOULD BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE POLICY. THE PROJECT DOES NEED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PARKING [9:35] GARAGE WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO OR ENDANGER THE HEALTH, SAFETY. THE PARKING GARAGE IS A CATALYST. IT'S THE FIRST STEP TO BE TAKEN IN ORDER FOR THAT HOSPITAL VISION TO COME TO REALITY. THE PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE HAS BEEN SITUATED ON THE SITE AS NOT TO IMPEDE ON THE STRUCTURES. THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH OF THIS. THE APPLICANT HAS DESIGNED THE GARAGE WITH INCREASED SETBACKS FROM ALL THOSE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND HAS DESIGNED THE EXTERIOR OF THE PARKING GARAGE TO BE ABLE TO REDUCE IMPACTS WITH THE SPACING OF THE LOUVERS. THOSE LOUVERS [10:22] WILL BE CLOSER TO SCREEN THE LIGHTS. WHERE THEY AREN'T, THEY CAN BE FURTHER APART. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE NEXT APPLICATION THAT THEY NEED IS A VARIANCE OF THE MINIMUM FAR FROM THE REQUIRED 2.0 WHICH IS MINIMUM IN THE REZONING DISTRICT 2.7. FLOOR AREA DEVOTED TO PARKING AND LOADING DOES NOT COUNT TOWARDS THE MINIMUM. [10:50] HOWEVER, IT DOES COUNT TOWARDS THE MAXIMUM. I WENT THROUGH THE MATH IN THE REPORT FOR YOU. THE PARKING GARAGE -- OR THE F.A.R. OF THE BUILDING WITH JUST THE COMMERCIAL IS .27. IF YOU TOOK THE WHOLE STRUCTURE OF THE WHOLE, THE F.A.R. OF THE STRUCTURE IS .40. CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY. AS I'VE MENTIONED, THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT GARAGE IS INTENDED TO FACILITATE FUTURE GROWTH OF THE GREATER HENNEPIN HEALTH CARE CAMPUS. IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE CAMPUS GROWTH, THE PARKING GARAGE IS THE FIRST STEP THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN. THE OVERALL CAMPUS AS A WHOLE WOULD GREATLY [11:36] EXCEED THE MINIMUM F.A.R. IF THE TRANSIT 20 BUILT OVERLAY DISTRICT AND REPLACED ONE PARKING GARAGE -- WOULD HAVE A NEUTRAL IMPACT ON THE OVERALL AMOUNT ON THE CAMPUS. THE PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE IS REPLACING A SIMILARLY SIZED PARKING GARAGE AND WOULD PROVIDE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE TO ACTIVATE IT IN A MANNER THAT KEEPING WITHIN. WE ARE RECOMMENDING A VARIANCE. FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW, THERE ARE FIVE ITEMS THAT NEED ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. THE FIRST IS REPLACEMENT OF THE PARKING GARAGE. THE BUILDING HAS BEEN PULLED BACK FROM THAT FRONT LINE ALONG CHICAGO. THE HEAVY DARK [12:22] LINE IS THE PROPERTY LINE. AND THE BUILDING IS BETWEEN 15 AND 20 FEET BACK FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE. THE SPACE BETWEEN THAT BUILDING AND THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE IS GOING TO BE USED FOR THEIR ON SITE STORM WATER SYSTEM. WE ARE RECOMMENDING -- BUILDING REPLACEMENT. THE NEXT TWO ITEMS THAT NEED ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE ARE WINDOWS. THEY DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM WINDOW REQUIREMENTS ON THE UPPER LEVELS OF THE PARKING GARAGE FACING CHICAGO. AND THEN THERE IS NO ACTIVE LINER ALONG CHICAGO AVENUE ON THOSE UPPER FLOORS. WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU GRANT ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. THE [13:09] MINIMUM WINDOW REQUIREMENT IS BEING MET ON THE GROUND FLOOR. THEY EXCEED THE MINIMUM WINDOW REQUIREMENT. THEY HAVE 100% WINDOWS ON THE GROUND FLOOR. AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE INCLUDING WINDOWS OR COMMERCIAL SPACES ON THOSE UPPER FLOORS WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL FOR THE PROPOSED USED OF THIS BUILDING IS MEANT TO BE A PARKING GARAGE. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ANYTHING ELSE. [13:38] THE TOP LEVEL OF THE PARKING GARAGE IS NOT ENCLOSED OR SCREENED FROM VIEW. THIS IS A FLOOR PLAN THAT SHOWS THE SIXth LEVEL. THIS AREA THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN THE DARKER BLUE IN THE MIDDLE IS WHERE THE SOLAR RAY SYSTEM WILL BE, EFFECTIVELY SCREENING THE TOP OF THE GARAGE. [13:59] WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU GRANT ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. THE LAST ITEM IS THAT THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE GARAGE EXCEEDS THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE GARAGE. AND FOR THE REASONS THAT I'VE STATED BEFORE, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU GRANT ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. [14:14] THERE ARE TWO OTHER APPLICATIONS THAT ARE NEEDED FOR THIS PROJECT. ONE IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT, WHICH MEETS ALL OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE ZONING CODE. AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THAT. AND THE OTHER APPLICATION IS THE VACATION OF CENTENNIAL PLACE FROM 9TH STREET TO 10TH STREET. [14:34] WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH PUBLIC WORKS. PUBLIC WORKS SUBMITTED A LETTER OF SUPPORT OR RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE VACATION WITH EASEMENTS FOR WATER, SEWER, AND TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING SERVICES DIVISION FOR SOME EQUIPMENT THAT'S OUT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE VACATION, THAT AND THE REZONING NEED TO GO THROUGH FULL CITY COUNCIL PROCESS AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTS. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. [15:04] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** THANK YOU, HILARY. I HAVE ONE. SO YOU MENTIONED THE BIRD SAFE GLASS. IS THAT UNDER SITE PLAN REVIEW? [15:10] **Hilary Dvorak (CPED Planning):** YES. EXCUSE ME? [15:13] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** WHICH NUMBER WOULD THAT FIT UNDER? [15:16] **Hilary Dvorak (CPED Planning):** NUMBER 4 UNDER SITE PLAN REVIEW. SO E4, THE SKYWAY SHALL BE DESIGNED TO CONFIRM THE STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 550 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. SKYWAYS OF THE ZONING CODE. [15:29] ALL THE OTHER STANDARDS THAT WERE REQUIRED -- THIS IS LAID OUT IN THE FIRST FEW PAGES OF THE STAFF REPORT WHERE I TALKED ABOUT THE SKYWAY, REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE AND WHETHER THEY DO OR DON'T. -- I AM SURE THAT IT WILL BE MET AND WILL NEED TO BE MET WITH THIS CONDITIONAL OF APPROVAL. [15:53] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALL RIGHT. NOT SEEING ANY, SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE CAN HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FIRST. IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO PRESENT? GREAT. YOU CAN INTRODUCE YOURSELF. [16:07] **Yvonne Forsythe (Hennepin County Facility Services):** GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS, YVONNE FORSYTHE WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FACILITY SERVICES. WE ARE REALLY PLEASED TO BE HERE TODAY. WE ARE WITH OUR PARTNER HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE. WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO MOVING THIS PIVOTAL AND CRITICAL PROJECT FORWARD. IT REALLY IS THE FIRST PROJECT AS HILARY MENTIONED OF AN OVERALL REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR THE HOSPITAL. THE SOUTH PARKING RAMP IS THE FIRST PROJECT OF A MULTI-PHASE AND MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR REINVESTMENT THAT THE COUNTY PLANS TO MAKE IN THAT COMMUNITY AND THE HOSPITAL. THIS SUMMER, BUILDING ON A LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP THE HOSPITAL HAS WITH THE ELLIOT PARK [16:52] NEIGHBORHOOD, WE PRESENTED THE PROJECT. WE ARE REALLY GRATEFUL FOR THEIR SUPPORT. THEY'RE EXCITED ABOUT THE FUTURE VISION AND UNDERSTAND THAT THE PARKING RAMP IS AGAIN, THAT FIRST STEP TO TAKE IN THE OVERALL REDEVELOPMENT. SO WE, AGAIN, ARE PLEASED TO BE HERE. WE STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS, AND THAT'S OUR OPENING REMARKS. SO THANK YOU. [17:15] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** I DO HAVE A QUESTION. [17:17] I APPRECIATED THE EXTENSIVE STUDY THAT YOU HAD FOR TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT. I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN SUMMARIZE WHAT YOU TOOK AWAY FROM THAT STUDY. LIKE WHAT STRATEGIES ARE YOU USING GENERALLY. [17:38] **Yvonne Forsythe (Hennepin County Facility Services):** PART OF OUR, WITH THE TRAVEL DEMAND, ANY CURRENT UPDATES ON THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED SINCE? IS THAT YOUR QUESTION? [17:48] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** THE STUDY MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE TAKING AWAY FROM IT. [17:54] **Yvonne Forsythe (Hennepin County Facility Services):** YES. WELL PART OF IT WAS THE BIKE PARKING AND THE RAMP. I KNOW WE ARE, THE HOSPITAL IS WORKING ON STRATEGIC ENGAGEMENT WITH OUR EMPLOYEES ON, YOU KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN CONCERN THAT THIS PARKING RAMP IS ACTUALLY SMALLER THAN THE RAMP THAT'S COMING DOWN. AND HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE MANAGED. AGAIN, I THINK THE HOSPITAL WILL LEAN HEAVY ON THAT STRATEGIC PLAN WHILE THE PARKING RAMP IS BEING BUILT TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION. [18:27] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AS WELL. ARE YOU DOING ANYTHING ADDITION TO INCENTIVIZE PUBLIC TRANSIT? [18:43] **Ma Margot (Hennepin Healthcare):** HI, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MA MARGOT, I'M THE FACILITIES DIRECTOR FOR HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE. AS YVONNE SAID, WE'RE DOING EXTENSIVE ENGAGEMENT WITH OUR RESIDENTS. SO THERE ARE NINE BUS ROUTES THAT GO PAST OUR HOSPITAL. AND SO WE'RE WORKING TO ENGAGE OUR STAFF TO USE THOSE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION. [19:20] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER CONLEY. [19:25] **Commissioner Conley:** THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. ONE OF THE THINGS I APPRECIATED WAS READING ABOUT THE ENGAGEMENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION. A LOT OF TIMES PROJECTS COME BEFORE US AND THERE'S A BUDDING OF HEADS BETWEEN WHAT RESIDENTS HEARD VERSUS WHAT THE PROJECT IS ABOUT FROM DEVELOPERS. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU TOOK THE EXTRA EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD WAS INVOLVED, AND THE SETBACKS AND ALL THE DETAILS OF THE PLAN. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. THE QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK WAS RELATED TO BUS PASSES AS WELL. THERE ARE A LOT OF TRANSIT ROUTES THAT ALL KIND OF INTERSECT AND CONVERGE [19:59] WHERE THE HOSPITAL IS. AND SO GLAD TO HEAR THERE'S WORK BEING DONE THERE. EVEN MORE INCENTIVIZING WOULD BE GREAT TO GET MORE WORKERS TO TAKE MODES OF TRANSIT THERE. JUST ONE QUESTION I HAD ABOUT THE BIKE PARKING. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A MINIMUM OF THREE SPACES. BUT THAT COULD GO UP TO. [20:21] **Yvonne Forsythe (Hennepin County Facility Services):** SO THERE WILL BE A BIKE INSIDE THE GARAGE. LIKE A SECURED SITE THAT WILL HAVE MORE THAN THREE. BUT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS HILARY HAD ASKED THAT AS PART OF THE, THAT THERE BE SOME EXTERNAL BIKE PARKING. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE BEING ASKED TO ADD THREE BIKE PARKING SPOTS ON THE OUTSIDE. [20:47] THAT CERTAINLY IS SOMETHING WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE LEFT A LOT OF SPACE IN THAT FRONT AREA. AND SO WE WERE HAPPY TO WANT TO, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO COMPLY WITH THAT REQUEST. [21:03] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. [21:05] **Commissioner Baxley:** THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU, YVONNE. THIS MAY BE A BIT OF ESOTERIC QUESTION. SINCE THIS IS THE FIRST PROJECT OUT OF THIS RETHINKING, IT SETS THE TONE ARCHITECTURALLY, FACADE. TALK ABOUT HOW YOU GUYS LANDED HERE WITH THIS AND ITS INSPIRATION AND WHY IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE FIRST STEP. [21:32] **Yvonne Forsythe (Hennepin County Facility Services):** WHEN WE -- AND WE HAVE OUR DESIGN TEAM HERE TOO IF WE GET IN TOO MANY OF THE DETAILS. BUT I THINK WHAT WE REALLY WANTED IT TO BLEND IT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT TERRA COTTA WITH THE RED STONE, THE BROWN STONE BUILDINGS THAT ARE EXISTING. TRIED TO MAKE IT BLEND IN AS WELL AS POSSIBLE. NOW WHEN I -- WHEN WE GET TO THE DESIGN OF THE NEW IN-PATIENT BED TOWER, WE MAY WANT TO PRESENT SOMETHING THAT IS MORE -- IT'S DIFFERENT. [22:05] IT'S REALLY LIKE THIS IS YOU'RE COMING TO A NEW IN-PATIENT BED TOWER, AND MAYBE IT WILL BE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF THINKING AT THAT TIME. BUT WE'RE NOT THERE YET. BUT FOR THIS, IT'S A PARKING RAMP. WE WANTED IT TO BE AS BEAUTIFUL AS FITTING WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FABRIC AS BEST AS POSSIBLE. [22:24] **Commissioner Baxley:** ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. [22:25] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. [22:42] IF YOU WERE HERE TO TESTIFY ON THIS, CAN YOU RAISE YOUR HAND SO I HAVE AN IDEA HOW MANY THERE ARE. JUST THREE. OKAY. GREAT. SO YOU CAN COME UP. INTRODUCE YOURSELF. TELL US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE. [22:47] **City Clerk:** CHAIR MEYER, IF I MAY INTERRUPT. ONCE YOU'VE SPOKEN, IF YOU HAVEN'T SIGNED UP ON THE SHEET, SIGN UP. [22:50] **Steven Shore (Resident):** HELLO. MY NAME IS STEVEN SHORE. I AM A RESIDENT. I'M HERE TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY. AND WOULD JUST LIKE TO MENTION SINCE IT WAS MENTIONED IN PREVIOUS COMMENT ABOUT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. AS A RESIDENT AND SPEAKING WITH MY FELLOW RESIDENTS, NONE OF US HAVE BEEN CONTACTED ABOUT THIS. AND I ONLY FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS ON SATURDAY. AND GIVEN THAT TIME FRAME I'M HAPPY WITH MY RESULTS OF WHAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO. [23:29] BECAUSE WHAT I HAVE BROUGHT HERE TODAY IS A SIGNED LETTER WITH 41 SIGNATURES, THAT INCLUDES NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS, MINNEAPOLIS CITY RESIDENTS AS WELL AS METRO RESIDENTS WHO ALSO WORK IN DOWNTOWN. THAT IS WHAT I HAVE HERE TO READ FOR YOU TODAY. [23:47] WE'VE SIGNATORIES OF THIS LETTER OPPOSE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, THE REZONING DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND OF A PARKING GARAGE. WE BELIEVE SUCH ACTION WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS STRUCTURE AS WELL AS THE CITY AS A WHOLE. WE BELIEVE THAT OTHER SUITABLE LOCATIONS DO EXIST FOR HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE CENTER TO REPLACE ITS PARKING ON CHICAGO AVENUE. WE BELIEVE THE ADJACENT PARKING LOT ON PARK AVENUE WOULD BE A MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR HOSPITAL PARKING EXPANSION. THIS LOCATION ALREADY SHARES A BLOCK WITH A HOSPITAL PARKING RAMP LIMITING THE DISRUPTION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. [24:28] THIS LOCATION ALSO APPEARS TO BE SIMILAR IN SIZE TO THE SUGGESTED SITE BY THE PETITIONERS FOR THE ZONING CHANGE. THIS LOCATION IS ALSO ALREADY USED FOR SURFACE PARKING. WE BELIEVE THAT SUCH A STRUCTURE ON THE PROPOSED SITE WOULD DRASTICALLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NEGATIVELY DISRUPT THE NEIGHBORHOODS THEREOF. THE CURRENT RAMP ON CHICAGO AVENUE ROUTINELY HAS CAR ALARMS GO OFF POTENTIALLY DUE TO BREAK-INS. [24:55] MOVING THE RAMP FURTHER INTO THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD EXACERBATE THE NUISANCE. WHILE IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING FROM DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE ZONING REQUEST, THE PETITIONERS DO NOT INTEND TO DISPLACE THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING LOCATION INCLUDING 900 CENTENNIAL PLACE. [25:15] WE THE SIGNATORIES DO BELIEVE THIS NOT TO BE THE CASE IN WHOLE OR IN PART. ONE RESIDENT WAS OFFERED A 12-MONTH LEASE RENEWAL IN AUGUST. BEFORE THEY WERE ABLE TO SIGN IT, THAT OFFER WAS RETRACTED AND REPLACED WITH A SIX-MONTH LEASE IN FEBRUARY. IF THEY DIDN'T SIGN THE SIX-MONTH LEASE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SWITCH MONTH-TO-MONTH, NOT BEING ABLE TO LEAVE UNTIL JANUARY. HARDLY EVEN BETTER GIVEN THE MINNESOTA CLIMATE. THIS RESIDENT WAS ONLY ABLE TO SECURE AN 8-MONTH LEASE. [25:50] OFFICE OF THE STATE SENATOR, OFFICE OF THE HOUSING COMMITTEE, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. THIS PERSON IS NOW HAVING TO MOVE IN WITH FAMILY. GIVEN THE TIMING AND THE PETITIONERS BEING UNDER CONTRACT TO PURCHASE THE BUILDING, WE CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT IT'S CONNECTED. [26:10] THE PROPOSAL -- SORRY, THE PROPOSAL IS ALREADY DISPLACING RESIDENTS AND CONTRIBUTING TO THE HOUSING CRISIS. WE BELIEVE THAT THE LAND SURROUNDING CENTENNIAL PLACE SHOULD INSTEAD BE DEDICATED TO MIXED RESIDENTIAL USE. WE ARE SHORT OVER 100,000 HOUSING UNITS. THE LAND SURROUNDING CENTENNIAL PLACE IS A PRIME LOCATION FOR FURTHER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN ONE OF THE FEW DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS TO MOSTLY SURVIVE URBAN RENEWAL. THE DESTRUCTION OF MINNEAPOLIS' DOWNTOWN WHERE WALKABLE HOUSING OCCUPIED BY BY [27:01] BIPOC, QUEER -- INFRASTRUCTURE WITH NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THIS SITE IN QUESTION IS LOCATED WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF TRANSIT, ELLIOT PARK, OTHER RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, MULTIPLE SPIRITUAL BUILDINGS, AS WELL AS MANY SERVICES DOWNTOWN. WE DO PLEAD WITH THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPERS THAT IF THEY DO IGNORE OUR REQUEST TO MOVE THE INTENDED RAMP TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION, THAT THE CURRENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT IS MODIFIED TO INCLUDE INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. WE APPRECIATE THE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THIS PROPOSAL. WE WOULD ALSO REQUEST THAT THE CITY GO FURTHER. WE REQUEST THAT IF A PARKING RAMP IS TO BE BUILT ON [27:46] THE SITE THAT IT IS TO BE SURROUNDED BY AN APARTMENT BUILDING. -- SOUTH 2ND STREET AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE WOULD LIKE THIS DEVELOPMENT TO REFLECTS IF IT IS TO GO FORWARD. WE BELIEVE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE REASONABLE AND THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY AS A WHOLE. WE THUS PETITION THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS TO DENY THE ZONING REQUEST, AND ZONING VARIANCE, AND THAT THE CHANGES AND THAT THE DEVELOPERS CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVES WE HAVE RECOMMENDED. [28:19] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** THANK YOU. STAFF, DO WE HAVE A COPY OF THIS LETTER ALREADY? [28:23] **Hilary Dvorak (CPED Planning):** NO. [28:24] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** IF WE CAN GET IT TO THEM, WE CAN GET IT SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD. NEXT TESTIFIER. TELL US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE. AND YOU CAN PROCEED. [28:38] **Grant Carlson (Resident):** GRANT CARLSON. I'M REALLY JUST HERE BASICALLY ASKING YOU GUYS TO READ SOME THREE LETTERS THAT WERE SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ELLIOTT COMMUNITY. STAFF SHOULD HAVE SHARED A LETTER FROM MY LLC, CONDO ASSOCIATION, AND PROPERTY MANAGER. I ASK YOU TO READ THAT AND PLEASE CONSIDER OUR THOUGHTS. THANK YOU. [29:08] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** THANK YOU. QUESTIONS? NO. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NEXT TESTIFIER. [29:19] **Resident (Unidentified):** I'M JUST HERE FOR SUPPORT. [29:21] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. SO NOT SEEING ANY, I WOULD CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, ANY DISCUSSION OR MOTIONS? COMMISSIONER CONLEY. [29:38] **Commissioner Conley:** THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. IF THE APPLICANT COULD MAYBE TALK IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ABOUT HOW LONG YOU'VE ENGAGED WITH ELLIOT PARK, SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS AND KIND OF THEMES THAT CAME OUT OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS. [29:49] **Yvonne Forsythe (Hennepin County Facility Services):** YES. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. WE STARTED THOSE CONVERSATIONS LAST SUMMER. WE PRESENTED THE OVERALL STRATEGY, CAMPUS VISION. AND THEN WE TALKED ABOUT SPECIFICALLY THE PARKING RAMP. AND THEN THE HOSPITAL MEETS BI-MONTHLY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP. THERE HAVE BEEN PERIODIC UPDATES ABOUT WHERE THIS PROJECT IS IN THE PIPELINE AS FAR AS HOW SOON ARE WE GOING TO BE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND SO THOSE WERE -- WE'VE ALSO HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH SEVERAL NEIGHBORS. [30:23] OBVIOUSLY, WE DIDN'T HIT ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS, AND FOR THAT, WE DO HAVE REGRETS, I GUESS. AS FAR AS THE PROPERTIES, THE COUNTY WILL REPLAT THE PROPERTY ONCE WE -- FOR THE PARKING RAMP. BUT THERE'S NO INTENDED USE OF PUSHING PEOPLE OUT OF THE APARTMENT. AND SO WE WILL TAKE THOSE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE EARLIER AND SPEAK TO WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE PROPERTY MANAGERS. WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THAT. [31:01] **Commissioner Conley:** YEAH. SORRY. THANKS, MR. CHAIR. YVONNE, ONE MORE QUESTION. I KNOW we TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS AT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. COULD YOU EXPLAIN AGAIN. I MEAN, WE'VE GOT THE POTENTIAL BED TOWER IN THE FUTURE. NICE SQUARE SITE. [31:23] EASY TO PARK. PROBABLY GET MULTI-LEVELS UNDERNEATH THAT RAMP. WHY IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THIS RAMP HAPPEN NOW AS OPPOSED TO WITH OTHER FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AS PART OF THE MASTER PLAN? [31:36] **Yvonne Forsythe (Hennepin County Facility Services):** SO THE EXISTING SITE OF THE NEW IN-PATIENT BED TOWER HAS A PARK SIDE BUILDING, AND ALSO THE EXISTING PARKING RAMP. AND SO IN ORDER TO TEAR DOWN THE EXISTING RAMP AND PARK SIDE BUILDING, WE NEED A PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO PARK. [31:53] NOW AGAIN, I THINK THE PARKING RAMP, THE NEW RAMP IS TECHNICALLY 20% SMALLER THAN THE EXISTING RAMP. BUT THERE HAS TO BE A PLACE. THIS IS A 24/7 FACILITY. THERE HAS TO BE A PLACE FOR PARKING FOR STAFF AND FOR PATIENTS AND FAMILY VISITORS. THAT REALLY IS WHY THIS HAS TO BE THE FIRST STEP IN A MULTI-PHASED APPROACH. AND REALLY, MULTIPLE BILLION DOLLAR PROJECTS THAT WILL BE MOVING FORWARD. WE'RE LOOKING AT A NEW IN-PATIENT BED TOWER, AND POTENTIALLY A NEW BEHAVIORAL HEALTH BUILDING. AND REDEVELOPING THE RED AND PURPLE BUILDINGS IN ORDER TO KIND OF BRING THEM UP TO THAT SAME STANDARD. AND THEN LOOK TO [32:38] FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES OF THE BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE DECOMMISSIONED ONCE THE NEW TOWER WAS OPENED. [32:49] **Commissioner Conley:** THANK YOU. SO FOR THIS PROPOSAL, IS IT -- WILL IT ALWAYS BE THAT HEIGHT? IS IT DESIGNED FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OR ANYTHING BEYOND ITS CURRENT FOOTPRINT. [32:57] **Yvonne Forsythe (Hennepin County Facility Services):** I DIDN'T -- NO. NO EXPANSION OPPORTUNITY. [33:04] **Commissioner Conley:** OKAY. THANK YOU. THANKS. [33:14] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** COMMISSIONERS, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE ANY MOTION OR SUGGEST WHERE YOU'RE AT ON THIS? [33:16] **Commissioner Baxley:** I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL. [33:18] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? [33:20] **Commissioner Wagner:** SECOND. [33:21] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** ALL RIGHT. THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. ANY DISCUSSION ON IT? I DON'T LOVE GIANT PARKING GARAGES, BUT IT IS 20% SMALLER. I DO APPRECIATE THE EFFORT THAT WAS MADE IN THE TDM STUDY. I WOULD STILL URGE, AS I ALWAYS DO, TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PROGRAM THAT COUNCIL PROVIDES WITH LARGE EMPLOYERS. [33:47] FULLY FREE PASSES AND PASSES TO YOUR PATIENTS AS WELL. BUT I DO SEE THIS AS A NET IMPROVEMENT. I'LL NOTE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO CAME TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS TODAY, THIS IS NOT THE LAST STOP FOR PART OF THIS. AS STAFF MENTIONED, THE REZONING DOES HAVE TO GO TO THE COUNCIL. SO YOU CAN REACH OUT TO YOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS IF YOU HAVE MORE FEEDBACK ON THAT. WITH THAT, ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE GO TO A VOTE? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. [34:25] **City Clerk:** COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. [34:26] **Commissioner Baxley:** AYE. [34:27] **City Clerk:** CAMPBELL. [34:28] **Commissioner Campbell:** ABSTAIN. [34:31] **City Clerk:** CHOWDHURY IS ABSENT. CONLEY. [34:34] **Commissioner Conley:** AYE. [34:35] **City Clerk:** GORDON. [34:37] **Commissioner Gordon:** AYE. [34:38] **City Clerk:** JONES. [34:40] **Commissioner Jones:** AYE. [34:43] **City Clerk:** MEYER. [34:44] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** AYE. [34:45] **City Clerk:** WAGNER. [34:46] **Commissioner Wagner:** AYE. [34:47] **City Clerk:** THAT CARRIES AND ADOPTED. [34:58] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** NEXT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 8. 2815, 2817, AND 2821 44th STREET WEST. STAFF IS AARON HANAUER. [35:24] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. YOU READ THE ADDRESS. WE HAVE A PROPOSED 15-UNIT CONDO BUILDING, FOUR STORIES ALONG 2815 TO 2821 44th STREET WEST ALONG GOODS AND SERVICES CORRIDOR. IT'S RM1 ZONING WITH CORRIDOR 3 BUILT FORM DESIGNATION IN LINDEN HILLS. THREE APPLICATIONS IN FRONT OF YOU. FIRST, CORNER SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE ALONG 44th STREET. AND I HOPE THESE ARROWS, THE COLORS HELP WITH THE PRESENTATION. REDUCE THE SETBACK OF THE BUILDING FROM 10 FEET TO 9 FEET. THE LIGHT YELLOW LINE IS THE SETBACK AT 9 FEET. TO REDUCE [36:13] THE SETBACK FOR BALCONIES THAT ARE GREATER THAN 50 SQUARE FEET FROM 10 FEET TO 7 FEET. AND SO ON THE RIGHT-SIDE FLOOR PLAN SHOW HIGHLIGHT IN RED THE PORTION OF THE BALCONY THAT THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED. 10 FEET TO 1 FOOT FOR THE TRANSFORMER. [36:33] THE GREEN RECTANGLE ON THE RIGHT SIDE IN THE SITE PLAN. AND THEN ALSO THIS CORNER SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE ENCOMPASSES THE PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE WIDTH OF THE WALKWAY FROM 6 FEET TO 10 FEET. THAT BEING THAT PORTION RIGHT HERE THAT'S BEYOND THAT LIGHT BLUE LINE. AND RETAINING WALLS THAT DON'T COMPLETELY RETAIN NATURAL GRADE, THE ORANGE ARROWS. SO FOR THIS SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, CPED DID SEE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE SITE. NO PUBLIC ALLEY. THERE'S A PORTION OF THE SITE THAT IS IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY. THAT BEING ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER. [37:20] THERE'S A NUMBER OF LOCATIONS WITHIN THE SITE THAT HAVE 10% GRADE DIFFERENCE. AND A DEEP 8 1/2 FOOT SETBACK OR A BOULEVARD ALONG 45th STREET. THE BUILDINGS ARE SETBACK EVEN FURTHER FROM THE SIDEWALK. AND SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO SEE BUILDINGS ENGAGE, NEW BUILDINGS ENGAGE WITH THE PUBLIC REALM. [37:45] IT'S SOMETIMES BETTER TO BE CLOSER TO THE STREET. ALWAYS, FOR THIS VARIANCE REQUEST, JUST I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS SET BACK 7 FEET FURTHER THAN THE NEIGHBORING CONDO BUILDING EAST. [38:05] THAT IS LESS THAN 2 FEET FROM THE 44th STREET PROPERTY LINE. THOSE PROPOSED BALCONIES WILL ADD EYES ON THE STREET WHEN THERE'S A LARGE SURFACE PARKING LOT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 44th STREET. AS YOU'LL SEE IN THE RECOMMENDATION, CPED IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE 10-FOOT WALKWAY. I KINDA HIGHLIGHTED THAT ON THESE RENDERINGS IN ELEVATION. AND WANTING TO SEE THE WALKWAY MEET THE SIX-FOOT REQUIREMENT THAT IS BEYOND THE SETBACK. HOWEVER, CPED DOES RECOGNIZE THAT THIS SITE IS ALONG THE GOODS AND SERVICES CORRIDOR. THERE ARE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, ESPECIALLY AS YOU GET CLOSER INTO THE DOWNTOWN PORTION OF LINDEN HILLS, THAT YOU HAVE [38:50] WALKWAYS JUST LEAD OUT TO THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK THAT ARE LARGER THAN 10-FEET IN WIDTH. WE DO SEE HOW THIS WALKWAY DESIGN IS A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY, AND GIVEN THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING. MOVING TO VINCENT AVENUE, THERE'S THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A GROUND LEVEL PATIO GOING FROM 15-FOOT SETBACK TO 10 1/2 FEET THAT THE GROUND LEVEL PATIO WOULD AT ITS CLOSEST POINT TO VINCENT AVENUE BE 10 1/2 FEET FROM PROPERTY LINE. [39:29] GROUND LEVEL 100 SQUARE FEET NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. AND THIS PROPOSAL IS A 233-SQUARE FOOT PATIO. SO I'VE HIGHLIGHTED ON THE RIGHT SIDE THE FLOOR PLAN. THAT PORTION OF THE PATIO THAT IS BEYOND THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. [39:45] THAT'S ABOUT 68 SQUARE FEET. SO FOR THIS VARIANCE REQUEST, STAFF DID NOT SEE A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE LIKE ALONG VINCENT AVENUE. THE PROPERTIES, ESPECIALLY THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH, PRETTY UNIFORM IN MAINTAINING A FRONT YARD SETBACK. ABOUT 15, 16 FEET FROM VINCENT AVENUE. SO EVEN WITH THIS, STAFF DOES SEE THAT THE PATIO DESIGN IS DESIGNED IN A REASONABLE MANNER, IT WILL BE KEEPING THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPRECIATE THE DECORATIVE PAVERS THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING. 73% OF THE PATIO IS [40:32] IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. IT'S JUST THAT RED PORTION THAT IS NOT. WE ALSO APPRECIATE THAT AT ITS CLOSEST POINT, THE PATIO WOULD BE 70 FEET FROM THE NEAREST LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO THE SOUTH. NOT REALLY SEEING THAT THIS WOULD HAVE ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. TO SUMMARIZE, CPED IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE 44th STREET SETBACK VARIANCE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT WALKWAY WIDTH. DENIAL OF VINCENT AVENUE SETBACK REQUEST, AND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION. [41:10] THERE'S TWO LETTERS OF SUPPORT IN THE STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENTS. HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. [41:15] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** THANK YOU. SO THE REASON THAT YOU RECOMMEND THE VARIANCE FOR THE ONE SIDE AND NOT THE OTHER IS BECAUSE THE OTHER SIDE IS GOODS AND CORRIDOR. [41:30] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** THAT'S PART OF THE REASONING, CHAIR. AND JUST WANTING THOSE BUILDINGS TO REALLY ENGAGE WITH THE PUBLIC STREET. AND THEN FOR VINCENT AVENUE, MORE OF A UNIFORM SETBACK WITH THOSE HOMES TO THE SOUTH. DIDN'T SEE THOSE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES APPLYING TO THAT SETBACK VARIANCE. [41:51] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** COMMISSIONER JONES. [41:53] **Commissioner Jones:** THANK YOU. I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE INTENDED USE OF THE PATIO. IS IT FOR THE RESIDENTS? ARE THERE GOING TO BE CHAIRS AND FIREPLACES, ACTIVITIES? HOW DO THEY INTEND TO USE THAT SPACE? [42:06] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** SURE. WHEN THE APPLICANT COMES TO SPEAK, THEY WILL HAVE THE FLOOR TO ANSWER THAT IN MORE DETAIL. [42:15] BUT I COULD SEE JUST -- I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT PROGRAMMING OF THAT PORTION OF THE PATIO. [42:25] **Commissioner Jones:** ONE MORE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. SO IF THE PATIO WAS PROPOSED ON THE GOODS AND SERVICES SIDE, FIRST, IS THERE SPACE TO EVEN DO THAT? AND IF THEY DID, WOULD YOU RECOMMEND A VARIANCE IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE? [42:40] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** WE DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL, CHAIR, OF -- WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THOSE UPPER FLOOR BALCONIES. THE PART ON THE RED. AND THERE'S A CHANCE THAT WE COULD HAVE RECOMMENDED SUPPORT GIVEN THE DESIGN. DON'T HAVE THAT DESIGN AND HOW IT IS PLAYED OUT. THAT'S NOT WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US, SO WE DIDN'T RECOMMEND. I COULDN'T GIVE YOU A COMPLETE BLACK AND WHITE ANSWER ON THAT. [43:11] BUT WE DO, LIKE I SAID, WITH THE OTHER VARIANCE REQUEST LOOKING FOR ELEMENTS THAT HELP ENGAGE WITH THE PUBLIC STREET GIVEN THAT IT IS A GOODS AND SERVICE CORRIDOR. I SHOULD MENTION WE REALLY APPRECIATE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT ON THIS. IT WAS MY MISREADING OF -- AND I THINK WE WORKED TOGETHER ON SETBACKS. IT WAS LATER IN THE REVIEW, JUST NOT MISREADING AN ELEMENT IN THE ZONING CODE FOR THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. SO PERHAPS A FEW ELEMENTS MORE THAN YOU'RE USED TO SEEING IN A VARIANCE REQUEST. [43:52] AND NOW, BUT STILL WITH ALL THAT SAID, STILL SAW THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR WHAT THEY PROPOSED ALONG 44th STREET. [44:06] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. [44:09] **Commissioner Baxley:** IT'S A PATIO BECAUSE IT'S GOT A PAVED SURFACE. DESCRIBE FOR ME JUST WHAT THE DEFINITION OF A PATIO IS. [44:17] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** SURE. GROUND LEVEL PATIO THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALLOWING 100 SQUARE FEET. I'LL SHOW YOU HERE. SEEING IT ON THAT FIRST FLOOR NOT BEING THOSE -- AND THE BALCONIES ABOVE THAT ARE SET BACK A LITTLE MORE THAN WHAT IS PROPOSED ON THE FIRST FLOOR. THE ALLOWANCE FOR THAT GROUND LEVEL PATIO IS 100 SQUARE FEET. IF WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT PATIOS THAT EXTEND BEYOND THAT FRONT [44:54] YARD SETBACK. AND I HOPE IN THIS -- IN THESE DRAWINGS HERE, SHOWING THAT IT IS JUST -- IT IS 68 SQUARE FEET THAT IS PROPOSED TO EXTEND BEYOND THAT. BUT GIVEN THAT THE PATIO IS 233 SQUARE FEET, THEY NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. [45:14] **Commissioner Baxley:** UNDERSTOOD. I'M ASSUMING GREEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET HERE. BUT IF THERE WAS A SIDEWALK OF THAT WIDTH THAT WAS ALL ALONG THE EDGE OF THAT BUILDING, HOW WOULD YOU -- EVEN THOUGH IT RAN IN FRONT OF THE PATIO, WOULD YOU STILL CONSIDER THAT A PATIO OR A WALKWAY? I'M NOT TRYING TO BE CUTE HERE. [45:37] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER BAXLEY, THAT WOULD GET TO LIKE THE WALKWAY OR THE SIDEWALK THAT'S PROPOSED ALONG 44th STREET. THAT REQUIREMENT FOR A WALKWAY WHEN IT'S WITHIN THE SETBACK IS A MAXIMUM OF 6-FEET IN WIDTH. [45:54] SO I WOULD SAY THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, THE ANALYSIS WOULD BE THAT THAT WOULD NEED TO BE SLIMMED DOWN IF IN THAT SCENARIO. [46:10] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** COMMISSIONER GORDON. [46:13] **Commissioner Gordon:** THANK YOU. JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. PER THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, WITHIN THE AREA THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, IT INDICATES AN OVERHEAD TRELLIS, STEEL STRUCTURE, PIPE OR OUTDOOR KITCHEN. IS THAT STILL THE PLAN AS IT DID NOT COME UP IN YOUR DESCRIPTION. THANK YOU. [46:42] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** CHAIR, COMMISSIONER GORDON, IS THAT PATIO IN THIS AREA HERE OR IN THE BACK. GIVEN THAT PATIO IS SET BACK BEYOND THE FRONT YARD SETBACK ALONG VINCENT, THEY ARE, AND IT'S NOT WITHIN A SETBACK, THEY'RE ABLE TO HAVE THE PROPOSAL AS IS. [47:06] **Commissioner Gordon:** THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. THE NOTE THAT I'M REFERENCING IS WITHIN THE PATIO I'M DISCUSSING, I BELIEVE. BUT IT'S IN THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. SO I WASN'T SURE IF THAT WAS STILL PART OF THE DESIGN OR NOT. [47:29] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** I WILL -- I'M HAPPY TO LOOK INTO THAT MORE IF YOU GIVE ME A COUPLE OF MINUTES. MAYBE PERHAPS LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THAT, AND THEN IF THERE'S ANYTHING TO CLARIFY FURTHER, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. [47:33] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GO ON TO THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. NOT SEEING ANY, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THE APPLICANT CAN COME UP AND GIVE YOUR PRESENTATION. [47:47] **Pete Heely (Applicant/Owner Rep):** GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS PETE HEELY, I ALSO HAVE THE OWNERS HERE. SO FIRST OF ALL, I WANT IT THANK STAFF FOR WORKING THROUGH A NUMBER OF KIND OF SOME TRICKY ISSUES, AND GOING BACK AND FORTH ON THIS. YOU MAY HAVE SEEN THIS PROJECT A FEW YEARS AGO. IT WAS A MARKET RATE APARTMENT PROJECT. [48:11] AFTER KIND OF GOING THROUGH MAYBE SOME OF THE HEADWINDS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT HAS CHANGED TO A 14-UNIT CONDOMINIUM. AND AS SUCH, IT'S KIND OF I'D SAY MORE LUXURY HIGHER END WITHIN LINDEN HILLS. SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS OR FOR WHAT THAT IS NEEDED TO BE SUCCESSFUL. ONE OF THE BIG ONES IS OUTDOOR SPACES. THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE TEND TO LIKE. WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK AND GETTING SOME OF THESE OUTDOOR PATIOS. I'M GOING TO TALK MAYBE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT TWO ITEMS NOW. ONE IS THE VINCENT SIDE, AND ONE IS THE 10-FOOT ON THE NORTH SIDE, THE SIDEWALK WHICH IS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS ON THE NORTH SIDE. [48:50] I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THE REST OF THE VARIANCES IF YOU WANT TO. BUT SINCE STAFF WAS KIND OF RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, I'LL SAVE THAT FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. COMMISSIONER JONES, AS FAR AS THE -- I THINK IT WAS YOU THAT RAISED THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING OUT THERE. SO THESE ARE FOR THE RESIDENTS. THE INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS. THEY'RE INDIVIDUAL UNITS. SO PEOPLE WOULD KIND OF -- THAT PERSON FOR THAT SPECIFIC UNIT COULD USE THAT SPACE. IT WOULD BE THINGS SUCH AS OUTDOOR FURNITURE, SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO IT IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT ONE UNIT. I THINK WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS SITE, WE WANT TO PROVIDE THE LARGER PATIOS. WE LOOK AT THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND A LOT OF NEIGHBORS ALL THE WAY UP AND DOWN THE STREET HAVE LARGE PORCHES. THAT'S KIND OF THE [49:37] HISTORIC PATTERN IS TO HAVE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT OUTDOOR SPACE. WE WANTED TO A, REPLICATE THAT. BUT REALLY IS TO HAVE PEOPLE SIT OUTSIDE, BE OUTSIDE, ON THE FRONT, ON THE STREET, WHICH WE THINK IS MORE VITAL TO THE STREETS IS TO HAVE PEOPLE OUT THERE. [49:56] AN INTERESTING ASPECT OF THIS IS IF WE HAD A WALL OF A BUILDING AT THE PROPERTY LINE, WE COULD BUILD A 100-SQUARE FOOT PATIO. SO BECAUSE WE'RE PULLING IT BACK, AND CREATING MORE OUTDOOR SPACE AND MORE ABILITY TO CONNECT WITH NEIGHBORS, THAT'S WHERE IT BECOMES A VARIANCE. NOT THE 100-SQUARE FEET WITHIN THE SETBACK. SO 100-SQUARE FEET IS NOT A LOT. I THINK FOR THE MARKET. AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, I DO BELIEVE THAT HAVING PATIOS EXTEND BEYOND THE FACE OF THE BUILDING IS ALSO MORE OF A PUBLIC FACE RATHER THAN BEING KIND OF SHELTERED BEHIND A WALL OF A BUILDING. SO GETTING PEOPLE JUST A FEW FEET CLOSER SO THAT [50:44] YOU CAN SEE UP AND DOWN THE STREET AND NOT BE TUCKED BEHIND IS ACTUALLY A WAY TO MAYBE ENGAGE THE STREET IN A WAY WE COULDN'T OTHERWISE. SO THAT'S WHY I THINK MAYBE WE'RE LOOKING FOR THAT AS A VARIANCE, AND THE NEED FOR DOING IT IS TO PROVIDE THAT ADDITIONAL SPACE. ON THE CONDITIONS ON 44th, THE GOODS AND SERVICES CORRIDOR, IF THAT WERE A COMMERCIAL BUILDING, NON ISSUE. RIGHT? BECAUSE IT'S A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, IT HAS THAT SIX-FOOT. SO WE WILL HAVE, AS WRITTEN OR AS SHOWN, AS A 10-FOOT SIDEWALK. IT'S FAIRLY WELL DETAILED WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT AT 10 FEET ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK. SO IT'S CLEAN. [51:26] IT'S KIND OF IDENTIFIABLE AS THE FRONT DOOR. AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT, IN AN IDEAL WORLD, LIKE TO SEE THAT CONDITION REMOVED. BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S A MORE GRACEFUL ENTRY TO GO FROM THAT SIDEWALK TO A CONTINUOUS PATTERN IN FRONT OF THE STREET. [51:42] IT HAS MAYBE MORE OF A COMMERCIAL FEEL TOWARDS IT. A LITTLE BIT MORE SIDEWALK PATIO, AND WE THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE OF A GOODS AND SERVICES CORRIDOR TO ACTUALLY HAVE THAT LARGER APRON RATHER THAN GOING FROM A 6.5 SIDEWALK TO A 6-FOOT SIDEWALK. [52:02] THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING FOR THAT FRONT ENTRY. AND WHY THAT EXPLAINS WE'RE UP HERE LOOKING FOR THE VARIANCE ON THE PATIO. WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THOSE TWO ITEMS, ANY OTHER VARIANCES AND WHAT NOT. [52:18] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** THANK YOU. CAN YOU CLARIFY WHICH ITEM THIS WAS. [52:21] **Pete Heely (Applicant/Owner Rep):** YEAH, THERE'S A CONDITION -- LET ME SEE IF I CAN --. OKAY. SO RECOMMENDED MOTION VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE CORNER FROM 10 FEET TO 9 FEET. IT GOES ON TO THE DIFFERENT VERSIONS WITH THE PROPOSED CONDITION. NUMBER ONE, THE PROPOSED WALKWAY SHALL BE REDUCED TO 6 FEET IN WIDTH OR LESS. THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE BETWEEN THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND THE PROPERTY LINE. [52:57] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** OKAY. FOR BOTH OF THESE, DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE IMAGES THAT SHOW THEM WITH OR WITHOUT? [53:02] **Pete Heely (Applicant/Owner Rep):** I DO NOT. [53:04] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** OKAY. SO CAN YOU DO YOUR BEST TO DESCRIBE THEM WITH THE IMAGES? BECAUSE I'M NOT TOTALLY FOLLOWING WHERE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 6 AND 10 FEET IS GOING TO BE ON HERE THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING. MAYBE COMMISSIONER BAXLEY CAN HELP. [53:40] **Pete Heely (Applicant/Owner Rep):** ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE THIS OKAY? ARE WE -- WHAT DO I NEED TO DO? [53:47] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. [53:49] **Pete Heely (Applicant/Owner Rep):** OH, I'VE GOT SOMETHING ON THE SCREEN HERE. [53:52] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** THIS IS ALWAYS FUN. [53:53] **Pete Heely (Applicant/Owner Rep):** RIGHT. NEW SPACE TOO. [53:54] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** YEAH, WE CAN SEE THAT. [53:55] **Pete Heely (Applicant/Owner Rep):** OKAY. IS THERE A WAY TO ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT? [54:09] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** IT'S PRETTY ZOOMED. YEAH, WE CAN SEE IT PRETTY WELL, I THINK. [54:12] **Pete Heely (Applicant/Owner Rep):** OH, THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. IF YOU CAN SEE THAT PRETTY WELL. SO RIGHT NOW THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE PROPERTY LINE RIGHT HERE. RIGHT. WE CAN BUILD THIS PORTION, WHICH IS THE FRONT DOOR. WE'RE REQUESTING TO BUILD THIS PORTION SO THIS ALL LINES UP ALL THE WAY THROUGHOUT. THE VARIANCE OR THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN MEANS THE SIDEWALK WOULD HAVE TO REDUCE TO THAT SIZE. THAT'S THE CONDITION. [54:41] SO THIS DIMENSION RIGHT HERE IS REQUIRED TO BE 6 FEET. WE WOULD RATHER SEE IT AT 10 SO THAT ALL OF THIS LINES UP. AND THAT'S ALL -- YEAH. [54:57] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** SO THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK ISN'T EFFECTIVE EITHER WAY. BUT THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK YOU HAVE, YOU'RE ASKING IT TO BE 10-FEET WIDE INSTEAD OF 6-FEET WIDE? [55:05] **Pete Heely (Applicant/Owner Rep):** CORRECT. [55:06] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** OKAY. AND THEN HELP US UNDERSTAND THE OTHER ONE. THE RED AREA. [55:14] **Pete Heely (Applicant/Owner Rep):** ON THIS SIDE, ACTUALLY, IF WE BUILT A WALL RIGHT HERE, WE'RE ALLOWED 100 SQUARE FEET. IF WE WANTED TO PUT A PATIO RIGHT HERE, AND I'LL LOOK TO KIMBERLY TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT WE COULD BUILD 100 SQUARE FEET. [55:31] BECAUSE WE'RE PULLING THE PATIO BEYOND THE PATIO LINE AND THE SETBACK LINE, NOT THE PROPERTY LINE, THEN THAT REQUIREMENT IS THAT THAT GETS ADDED IN TOTAL. IT STARTS TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT WE CAN DO WITHIN THE OUTDOOR SPACE. WHEN YOU LOOK UP AND DOWN VINCENT OR THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS, IS THOSE PATIOS TEND TO RUN THE FULL WIDTH. THEY CAN BE ANYWHERE FROM 6 TO 12-FEET DEEP. BUT THEY'RE QUITE A BIT LARGER THAN JUST THE 100-SQUARE FEET. TO PROVIDE THAT KIND OF LIVING SPACE IN A MULTI-FAMILY WHERE THAT IS WHERE THEIR OUTDOOR SPACE IS IS APPROPRIATE, AN APPROPRIATE USE OF THAT PUBLIC STREET IS THAT THAT KIND OF ACTIVATES THE [56:17] PEDESTRIAN REALM. [56:22] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** TO THE LEFT OF THE BALCONY IS A STAIR WELL. [56:24] **Pete Heely (Applicant/Owner Rep):** YEAH, THIS IS AN ACCESS. IT'S ABOUT A 10-FOOT GRADE BREAK. RIGHT NOW THERE'S A LARGE RETAINING WALL. BUT THERE'S ABOUT 10-FEET ACROSS HERE. THE STAIRWAY IS TO KIND OF ALIGN TO GET UP TO THAT PATIO. [56:40] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER GORDON, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION TO THIS ONE? COMMISSIONER JONES, DID YOU? [56:52] **Commissioner Jones:** I WAS JUST CONFERRING WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER THAT THIS ONLY IMPACTS ONE UNIT IN THE 14-UNIT BUILDING, THAT PATIO SPACE. [56:57] **Pete Heely (Applicant/Owner Rep):** CORRECT. IT'S JUST THE GROUND FLOOR UNIT. [57:02] **Commissioner Jones:** OKAY. THANKS. [57:03] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. DID ANYONE ELSE COME HERE TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. NOT SEEING ANY, SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND ASK AARON TO COME BACK UP. CAN YOU JUST REPEAT WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS REGARDING THE SIDEWALK WIDTH FOR THE VARIANCE THAT YOU ARE RECOMMENDING. THAT CONDITION TO MAKE IT 6-FEET INSTEAD OF 10-FEET. [57:46] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** YEAH. SO WE HAVE AS MR. KEELY NOTED, FOR THE VARIANCE, A, THE PROPOSED WALKWAY SHALL BE REDUCED IN WIDTH FROM 10-FEET AS PROPOSED, TO 6-FEET WITHIN THAT SETBACK ALONG 44th STREET. [58:13] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** COULD YOU SPEAK TO WHY YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THAT. [58:16] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** WE DIDN'T SEE THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES APPLYING TO THIS WALKWAY. THAT STANDARD APPLYING TO THIS PART. BUT FOR ALL THE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT ARE IN THAT SETBACK, WE DID SEE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES TO THE SITE THAT WERE APPLICABLE. THAT'S WHY WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THOSE. [58:37] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** OKAY. SO WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST THE BROADER SIDEWALK, IT'S JUST THERE WASN'T ANYTHING -- [58:40] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** CORRECT. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER GORDON AND COMMISSIONER JONES, FOR THAT PATIO, TO NOTE TO KIMBERLY, THANK YOU FOR NOTICING THE TRELLIS AND THE GRILL AREA WITHIN THAT. WITH THE TRELLIS ON TOP OF THE PATIO ALONG VINCENT, IF THAT IS THE PROPOSAL, I GUESS WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT AN ANALYSIS ON WHETHER THAT TRELLIS WOULD ALSO COMPLY WITH ZONING CODE STANDARDS OR IF IT IS THOSE [59:23] TWO ELEMENTS, THAT PATIO AND THEN THAT TRELLIS. I COULD JUST SEE THAT BEING SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO ANALYZE IN CLOSER DETAIL OF COMPLYING WITH A TRELLIS ON TOP OF A PATIO. SO I'M JUST WONDERING OF WHAT TO CONSIDER THAT ELEMENT ON THE PATIO. IF IT IS TWO ELEMENTS. [59:54] AND I DON'T KNOW. I KNOW I'M PUTTING YOU ON THE SPOT, KIMBERLY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF SOMETHING COMES TO MIND. [1:00:10] **Kimberly Holien (CPED Staff):** I'M LOOKING IT UP RIGHT NOW. [1:00:11] WE REFER TO TRELLISES AND ARBORS AS ONE PERMITTED OBSTRUCTION. YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT-HAND CORNER OF THIS PICTURE. I THINK IS IT THAT WOOD ELEMENT STICKING OUT? [1:00:33] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** AND THAT IS -- AND I DO APOLOGIZE FOR THAT OVERSIGHT. IN TALKING WITH THE APPLICANT, THAT TRELLIS ELEMENT IS SOMETHING THEY WOULD BE OKAY WITHOUT HAVING. SO WE WOULD JUST BE LOOKING AT THAT PATIO AS PROPOSED. SO I DO APOLOGIZE ABOUT BRINGING -- NOTING THAT WRINKLE AND CONFUSING THINGS WITH THAT PRESENTATION. [1:00:58] **Kimberly Holien (CPED Staff):** AND JUST TO CONFIRM, SO WE DO ALLOW PERGLAS IN FRONT OR CORNER NOT EXCEEDING 8 FEET IN HEIGHT. THERE'S A WHOLE PERGOLA TRELLIS DISCUSSION TO BE HAD HERE. BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE OKAY. [1:01:20] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** IF YOU DID OVERTURN STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR VARIANCE B AND ALLOWED THAT PATIO TO GO FORWARD, THEN THEY WOULD WORK WITHIN THE ZONING CODE AND THE PROVISIONS THAT KIMBERLY NOTED TO HAVE A PATIO THAT COMPLIED WITH EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE SETBACK VARIANCE AS NOTED. [1:01:45] **Commissioner Baxley:** SO AS PETE WAS DESCRIBING, IF THERE WAS NOT AN INTENDED PATIO, THEY COULD BUILD THE PATIO, RIGHT? SO AT 100 SQUARE FEET. [1:02:00] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** HE DESCRIBED IT WELL OF THERE'S -- CORRECT. IT IS THAT ADDITIONAL. [1:02:05] **Commissioner Baxley:** SQUARE FOOTAGE IS WHAT CAUSES THE -- BECAUSE IT'S IN BOARD. [1:02:08] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** YES. YES. [1:02:10] **Commissioner Baxley:** BUT WE'D BE ALLOWED TO BUILD A PATIO OR 100-SQUARE FOOT PORCH IN THE SIDE YARD. [1:02:15] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** IN THE FRONT YARD. IF IT DIDN'T EXTEND TO A CERTAIN DISTANCE TO THE STREET. [1:02:25] **Commissioner Baxley:** TO THE STREET. YEAH. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. [1:02:25] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** AND COMMISSIONER BAXLEY, JUST ANOTHER WAY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. SO IF YOU HAVE A GROUND LEVEL PATIO THAT'S MORE THAN 100 SQUARE FEET, IF IT'S NOT JUST 100 SQUARE FEET IN THE REQUIRED YARD. IF IT'S MORE THAN 100 SQUARE FEET AND ANY PORTION OF IT ENCROACHES INTO THE YARD, THEN IT'S NOT A PERMITTED ENCROACHMENT. [1:02:54] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** COMMISSIONER WAGNER. [1:03:00] **Commissioner Wagner:** THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE VARIANCE A1 FOR THE 6-FEET VERSUS 10-FEET. COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE REASONING BEHIND THAT SECTION IN THE CODE. WHEN I THINK OF ALL THE NICE BUILDINGS AROUND TOWN, YOU NEVER APPROACH A MASSIVE NICE BUILDING ON A NARROW SIDEWALK IN MY EXPERIENCE. SO COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE REASONING BEHIND THAT SECTION IN THE CODE. [1:03:18] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** CHAIR MEYER, COMMISSIONER WAGNER, GOOD QUESTION. POINT TAKEN. ESPECIALLY YOU CAN SEE SOME LARGER STRUCTURES THAT WOULD HAVE THAT WALKWAY MATCH THE WIDTH OF THE STAIRS. THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN THERE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND IN LARGE PART, I THINK IT IS TO PERHAPS REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FOR A SITE. FOR ALL THE REASONS WE ARE RECOMMENDING DENIAL, BUT WE TRIED TO NOTE THE CONTEXT OF THE SITE BEING REALLY CLOSE TO THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, AND A NUMBER OF OTHER NEIGHBORING BUILDINGS TO THE EAST, AND ALONG UPTON THAT LIKELY HAVE THOSE WIDER WALKWAYS OR JUST AN EXTENSION OF WHERE [1:04:03] THAT DOOR TO THE BUILDING EXTENDS TO THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK. SO IT'S JUST -- IT IS SEEN AS WIDER THAN 10 FEET. BUT THAT WAS THE STANDARD AND WE JUST DID NOT SEE THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES APPLYING. THAT WAS STAFF'S ANALYSIS. IT IS IN YOUR HANDS NOW FOR IF YOU DID SEE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE WALKWAY WIDTH. [1:04:28] **Commissioner Wagner:** ONE MORE QUESTION. THE PATIO TO THE SOUTH FROM THE LAST UNIT, WHICH IS -- [1:04:40] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** ARE YOU REFERRING TO -- [1:04:41] **Commissioner Wagner:** YEAH. HOW BIG IS THAT ONE? [1:04:45] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** QUITE BIG. [1:04:46] **Commissioner Wagner:** IT'S NOT A FRONT YARD. IT'S A CORNER. SO HOW DO YOU CHARACTERIZE THAT ONE? [1:04:50] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** CHAIR MEYER AND COMMISSIONER BAXLEY, WE CHARACTERIZE IT AS BEING SET BACK BEYOND THE 15-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. [1:05:01] **Commissioner Wagner:** BECAUSE OF THE SETBACK. YEAH. GO TO TOWN. GOT IT. INTERESTING. [1:05:08] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** I'LL SHARE MY THOUGHTS ON THIS AND SEE WHERE OTHER COMMISSIONERS ARE AT. FIRST, I WANT TO SAY IT'S GREAT SEEING SOME CONDOS BEING PROPOSED. WE DON'T SEE THAT OFTEN. IT'S GREAT TO SEE SOME HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES COME UP ONLINE. I ALSO THINK BALCONIES AND PATIOS ARE THINGS THAT WE SHOULD ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE. ESPECIALLY AFTER THE PANDEMIC. A LOT OF THESE REGULATIONS WERE MADE BEFOREHAND. BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAN EVER TO PROVIDE SPACE FOREOPLE TO BE OUTSIDE. [1:05:40] I THINK THE COMMUNAL BENEFITS OF THE PATIO ARE IMPORTANT. AND I FEEL THAT THIS PATIO IS CLOSE TO THE GOODS AND SERVICE CORRIDOR. IT'S NOT ON IT BUT IT'S VISIBLE FROM IT. AND I THINK THAT WOULD HELP ACTIVATE THAT STREET. AND I THINK IT'S ALSO, UNFORTUNATE WITH THE WAY THE REGULATIONS ARE WRITTEN THAT YOU'RE BEING PUNISHED FOR RECESSING THE PATIO. I DON'T SEE ANY PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT POLICY. SO I THINK THAT WAS WELL TAKEN FROM [1:06:28] THE APPLICANT. SO I GUESS MY THOUGHTS ARE I FEEL THAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT STAFF RECOMMENDED FOR ITEM A ARE ALSO APPLICABLE TO ITEM B REGARDING THE SLOPE AND THE LACK OF AN ALLEYWAY. SO I THINK I WOULD MOVE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE FOR ITEM B ON THAT BASIS. I'M NOT PREPARED TO GO AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM A. [1:07:02] I DO THINK REDUCING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS A RELEVANT THING FOR US TO BE DOING. BUT OPEN TO ARGUMENTS IF OTHER COMMISSIONERS DISAGREE WITH THAT. SO COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT IT? COMMISSIONER CONLEY. [1:07:22] **Commissioner Conley:** THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT THAT ONE, TOO. THE A1, THE WALKWAY WIDTH. I COULD SEE LINING IT UP WITH THE ENTRANCE. AND I ALSO DON'T RECALL WALKING PAST A LARGE APARTMENT OR CONDO AND NOT SEEING THE ENTRANCE LINE UP. BUT I ALSO, THE FIRST THING THAT CAME TO MIND WAS PLANT SOME FLOWERS OR SOME BUSHES. SO I CAN SEE WHERE A SMALLER WIDTH WALKWAY COULD BE WORKED WITH, WITH SOME PERENNIALS. I DON'T KNOW. I WAS TRYING TO THINK OF A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AND COULDN'T OTHER THAN JUST KEEPING IT THE LENGTH, OR THE WIDTH OF THE WALKWAY. SO I GUESS I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU THERE ON THAT. [1:08:14] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S CHALLENGING TO FIND A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR THAT. ALTHOUGH I DO ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT THOSE THINGS ARE SCALED TO BUILDINGS AND THERE'S AN APPROPRIATENESS TO THAT. HOWEVER, IT CAN SLANT. [1:08:28] I THINK THERE'S A CREATIVE WAY TO GET BOTH. I JUST CAN'T FIND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. WOULD IT BE NICE? SURE. BUT I THINK I'M GOING TO SIDE WITH STAFF ON THE FIRST ONE. AND SUPPORT THE CHAIR'S DESCRIPTION AND NOT GO ALONG WITH DENIAL FOR THE PATIO ON VINCENT. [1:08:52] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** AARON, THIS MIGHT BE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU, I APOLOGIZE. [1:09:10] I'M ASSUMING IF THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS YES, YOU WOULD HAVE INCLUDED IT IN HERE. BUT IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR ALTERNATIVE WITH THAT VARIOUS REQUEST. IF THAT PURPOSE IS IMPERVIOUS, IS THERE A WAY TO -- [1:09:20] **Aaron Hanauer (CPED Planning):** CHAIR MEYER AND COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL. THERE IS NOT. THIS IS OUTSIDE OF THAT STANDARD. THE PROJECT DOES -- I'LL JUST NOTE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT THAT IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENTS OF HAVING A MAXIMUM OF 75%. THE PROPOSAL IS 74.1% IMPERVIOUS. [1:09:50] UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S NOT A WAY TO DO ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR THAT WIDTH, WALKWAY WIDTH. BUT I JUST WANTED TO NOTE SINCE I'M BACK UP HERE THAT IT IS COMPLIANT. THE PROJECT OVERALL IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ITS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. [1:10:09] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER WAGNER. [1:10:11] **Commissioner Wagner:** THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. I AGREE WITH BASICALLY EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID BY COMMISSIONERS IN DISCUSSION SO FAR. I THINK THIS IS A GREAT PROJECT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK IT FITS THE NEIGHBORHOOD. [1:10:25] I THINK THAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, LIKE OTHERS HAVE SAID, IS HARD TO FIND. I WOULD HOPE THAT AS A CITY THAT WE CONTINUE TO LOOK AT OUR ZONING CODE ON A CONSISTENT BASIS BECAUSE A SIX-FOOT SIDEWALK APPROACHING A BUILDING LIKE THIS DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT TO ME. IT'S JUST LIKE SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN IN CITIES, LIKE, JUST BROADLY SPEAKING. AS WE CONTINUE TO THINK ABOUT OUR ZONING CODE, LIKE WE SHOULD LOOK AT LITTLE SMALL CLEAN UPDATES WHEN POSSIBLE, IN MY OPINION. BUT I AGREE WITH THE DISCUSSION FROM CHAIR MEYER AND BAXLEY. AND I'M HAPPY TO MOVE THE DIRECTION THAT THE DISCUSSION IS GOING. [1:11:02] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** I GUESS THAT WAS A COMMENT. BUT I'M HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION IF NEEDED. I DON'T KNOW. IS THERE MORE DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER JONES, DO YOU HAVE YOURS UP? [1:11:15] **Commissioner Jones:** NO. [1:11:17] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL. [1:11:21] **Commissioner Campbell:** I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE A MOTION IF COMMISSIONER WAGNER DIDN'T. THIS IS ALWAYS REALLY FUN. A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SECTION B. WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY BEING SIMILAR TO PREVIOUS VARIANCE REQUESTS RELATED TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES CORRIDOR THAT HAD BEEN APPLIED TO OTHER THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE APPLICATION. DOES THAT SUFFICE? [1:11:48] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** YES. I THINK WE CAN WORK WITH THAT. I HAD, AND PER COMMISSIONER MEYER'S COMMENTS, ESSENTIALLY A COPY AND PASTE FOR THE FINDINGS FOR A. IT'S THE SLOPE AND THE LACK OF THE PUBLIC ALLEY. [1:12:09] **Commissioner Baxley:** SECOND. [1:12:11] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. DOES STAFF NEED ANY OF THAT REPEATED? NOPE. OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. [1:12:26] **City Clerk:** COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. [1:12:27] **Commissioner Baxley:** AYE. [1:12:28] **City Clerk:** CAMPBELL. [1:12:28] **Commissioner Campbell:** AYE. [1:12:31] **City Clerk:** CONLEY. [1:12:31] **Commissioner Conley:** AYE. [1:12:34] **City Clerk:** GORDON. [1:12:35] **Commissioner Gordon:** AYE. [1:12:36] **City Clerk:** JONES. [1:12:37] **Commissioner Jones:** AYE. [1:12:40] **City Clerk:** WAGNER. [1:12:41] **Commissioner Wagner:** AYE. [1:12:43] **City Clerk:** MEYER. [1:12:44] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** AYE. [1:12:45] **City Clerk:** WE HAVE SEVEN YAYS AND ZERO NAYS. [1:12:44] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** THAT MOTION IS ADOPTED. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT. [1:12:50] YOU'VE HAD WEEKS TO REFLECT ON NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICERS. DO PEOPLE FEEL READY TO MAKE NOMINATIONS? THE NOMINATIONS WOULD HAPPEN NOW AND THE ELECTION WOULD HAPPEN NEXT CYCLE. OR WE COULD JUST WAIT LIKE WE DID LAST TIME UNTIL. [1:13:03] **Commissioner Baxley:** KEEP PUNTING. YUP. [1:13:05] **Commissioner Conley:** IS EVERYBODY WHO IS CURRENTLY IN A LEADERSHIP POSITION WANT TO CONTINUE? [1:13:14] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** NO. [1:13:15] **Commissioner Campbell:** NO. COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL DOES NOT. [1:13:19] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** AND YOU'RE THE VICE CHAIR? VICE PRESIDENT? YEAH. SO TO CONFIRM, WE HAVE PRESIDENT MEYER, VICE PRESIDENT CAMPBELL, AND SECRETARY BAXLEY. THE SECRETARY IS PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR SIGNING ALL OF OUR DOCUMENTS. BUT WE MAKE THAT EASY BY GETTING AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF YOUR SIGNATURE, AND ONLY USING IT AS NEEDED FOR OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS. THE PRESIDENT CHAIRS THE REGULAR MEETINGS. [1:13:55] THE VICE PRESIDENT CHAIRS COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. THE SECRETARY ALSO STEPS IN AS NEEDED TO FILL THOSE IF WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE ABSENT. [1:14:09] **Commissioner Conley:** COMMISSIONER BAXLEY, WOULD YOU TAKE A PROMOTION TO VICE PRESIDENT? [1:14:13] **Commissioner Baxley:** I THINK I'VE ALREADY HELD THAT POSITION. VICE PRESIDENT. [1:14:15] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HOLD A POSITION MORE THAN ONCE. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE A POSITION ARE THOSE WHO ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS. [1:14:26] COMMISSIONER CONLEY AND COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, COMMISSIONER CHOWDHURY AND COMMISSIONER SKJEFTE ARE NOT ELIGIBLE. AND NONE OF THEM ARE HERE SO THAT MAKES IT EASY. CONLEY IS HERE. THE OTHER THREE ARE NOT HERE. [1:14:54] **Commissioner Conley:** HERE CHAIR, COULD I PROPOSE A SLATE? I WOULD PROPOSE TO HAVE PRESIDENT CHRIS MEYER WITH SECRETARY. [1:15:10] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** SECRETARY WAGNER, WOULD YOU CONSIDER BEING SECRETARY? [1:15:13] **Commissioner Wagner:** SURE. [1:15:15] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** WE'LL TAKE THAT AS A NOMINATION. ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK WE WAIT A CYCLE NOW, RIGHT? YES, IS COMMISSIONER BAXLEY ACCEPTING HIS NOMINATION? [1:15:26] **Commissioner Baxley:** I ALSO ACCEPT. [1:15:27] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CONLEY. SO WE'LL HAVE THOSE NOMINATIONS READY FOR THE NEXT MEETING. OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING IS MONDAY, MARCH 24TH. WE DO MAYBE HAVE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON WHO IS ABLE TO SHOW UP. COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL WON'T BE ABLE TO BE THERE. I'M NOT SURE I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE THERE. SO YOU HAVE FOUR WHO ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE THERE? OKAY. I MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE. WE'LL SEE SOONER TO IT. [1:15:58] BUT THIS WILL BE A CHANCE FOR YOU TO CHAIR THE MEETING. [1:16:04] **Kimberly Holien (CPED Staff):** YES. SO WE DID HAVE ITEMS WE WERE HOLDING OFF ON PUBLISHING THE AGENDA UNTIL WE MADE SURE WE HAD A QUORUM. TO COMMISSIONER WAGNER'S EARLIER POINT QUITE RECENTLY ABOUT CONSTANTLY MAKING MINOR UPDATES TO THE ZONING CODE. THAT'S WHAT'S BEING BROUGHT TO YOU AT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. WE HAVE OUR HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENT THINGS THAT DETERMINE TO BE HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS. NOT MAJOR POLICY CHANGES, BUT HOUSEKEEPING TO CLEAN UP. AND MAP AMENDMENT TO GO ALONG WITH THAT. [1:16:39] THAT'S WHAT WILL BE IN FRONT OF YOU AT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON THURSDAY. AND ACTUALLY, THE AGENDA WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING PUBLISHED SO YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THAT. SO YES, I HAVE FOUR CONFIRMED IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO MAKE IT, PLEASE LET US KNOW. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE QUORUM IS ONLY THREE. BUT OBVIOUSLY FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT, THE MORE VOICES IN THE ROOM THE BETTER. [1:17:05] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** GREAT. ANY OTHER UPDATES FROM COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF? [1:17:10] **Kimberly Holien (CPED Staff):** YES. I THINK I TOLD YOU LAST TIME WE HAD RECEIVED AN APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF THE J.P. MORGAN SIGN THAT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE BHZ COMMITTEE LAST WEEK AND FORWARDED WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION. SO THAT WILL GO TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL ON FRIDAY, THE 14th. AND THEN WE DID RECEIVE AN APPEAL LAST WEEK OF THE DENIAL OF THE F.A.R. [1:17:36] VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN AT 1716 FREMONT AVENUE SOUTH. THAT WILL BE GOING TO THE BHZ COMMITTEE AT A SPECIAL MEETING TIME NEXT WEEK. IT'S ACTUALLY BEING HELD ON THURSDAY, THE 20th AT 10:30 A.M. [1:17:55] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** WHICH DIRECTION WAS THAT? THE APPLICANT REQUESTING THE F.A.R. [1:17:59] **Kimberly Holien (CPED Staff):** THE APPLICANT HAD REQUESTED THE F.A.R. VARIANCE. STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED. AND THE APPLICANT IS NOW APPEALING THAT DENIAL TO ALLOW THE PROJECT TO PROCEED AS PROPOSED. [1:18:11] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** OKAY. SO THE APPEAL IS ONLY GOING IN ONE DIRECTION. DID THE OPPONENTS ALSO APPEAL? [1:18:16] **Kimberly Holien (CPED Staff):** THE OPPONENTS DID NOT APPEAL. [1:18:18] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER UPDATES FROM ANYONE? SEEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, WE ARE ADJOURNED.