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