. >> WELCOME, EVERYONE, TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING COMMISSION FOR MONDAY, MARCH 10, 20. MY NAME IS CHRIS MEYER, I'M CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AT THIS TIME I'LL ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY.
>> HERE. >> CAMPBELL. >> HERE. >> CHOWDHURY IS ABSENT. CONLEY IS ABSENT. GORDON. >> HERE. >> JONES. >> HERE. >> MEYER. >> HERE. >> SKJEFTE IS ABSENT. THOMPSON IS ABSENT. WAGNER.
>> HERE. >> WE HAVE SIX MEMBERS PRESENT. >> LET THE RECORD SHOW WE HAVE A QUORUM. FIRST UP, WE'LL TAKE TH
WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MOVE. >> >>-THE MINUTES ARE ADOPTED. NEXT, WE WILL ORGANIZE THE AGENDA. SO FIRSTE'LL HAVE AN ITEM WITHOUT A HEARING. 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 AD THE TWO ITEMS FOR 6 AND 7. IF YOU WERE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST T STAFF RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE LET US
KNOW WHEN I READ THOSE OFF. THE FIRST ONE IS ITEM 6. 3333 EAST 41st STREET. WAS ANYE HERE TO SPEAK? NOT SEEING ANY. WE'LL KEEP THAT ON CONSENT. ITEM 7,
3605 44th STREET EAST, AND 4440 SMELLING AVENUE.AS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 7? ALL RIGHT. NOSEEING 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 CONSEN AND DISCUSS 8. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MOVE THAT AGENDA? >> I'LL MOVE. >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. 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?
>> I'LL MOVE FOR ADOPTION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION. >> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> 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? >> -- >> 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 THOSE?
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. S NOT SEEING ANYBODY, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY
COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION ABOUT OUR CONSENT AGENDA? ALL RIGHT. WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MOVE ITEMS 6 AND >> SO MOVED. >> APPROVAL OF THOSE. OKAY. >> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.
>> 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.
THIS IS THE HENNEPIN COTY PARKING GARAGE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON,
COMMISSIONS, 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. THE DEVELOPMENT SITE IS LOCATED AT 715th SOUTH 9, 90 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. 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 SPACEARKING 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 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
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 HE STAIR ONLY ACCESS IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER ALONG CHICAGO AVENUE. THERE WILL BE A SECURE
BIKE PARKING ARE FOR EMPLOYEES IN THE BUILDING LOCATED HERE NEAR THE ELEVATOR AND STAIR ACCESS THAT GETS INTO THE SKYWAY SYSTEM. THEPPLICANT IS PROPOSING THAT 10,220 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE ALONG CHICAGO. I'M JUST POINTING THAT
OUT HERE IN THIS, ALONG THERE. 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. HOWEVER, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO CONFM 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 AFTERON FOR THIS PROJECT. 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. T
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 ADJACEN TO CHICAGO AVENUE. THE PROPOSED REZONING IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT. CHICAGO AVENUE BEING A DESIGNATED GOODS CORRIDOR, REZONING THE SITE WOULD BEN CONFORMANCE WITH THE
POLICY. THE PROJECT DOES NEED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PARKING GARAGE WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO OR ENDANGER THE HEALTH,
SAFETY. THE PARKING GARAGE IS A CATALYST. IT'S THE FIRST STEP TO BE TAKENN 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 SIGNED THE GARAGE WITH INCREASED SEACKS FROM ALL THOSE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND HAS DESIGNED THE EXTERIORF THE PARKING GARAGE TO BE ABLE TO REDUCE IMPACTS WITH THE SPACING
OF THE LOOUFRS. THOSE LOOUFRS 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 T MINIMUM. 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
STRUCTE IS .40. CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY. AS I'VE MENTIONED, THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT GARAGE IS INTENDED TO FILITATE FUTURE GROWTH OF THE GREATER HENNEPI 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 EXCEED THE MINIMUM F.A.R. IF THE TRANSIT 20 BUILT OVERL 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 GROUNDLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE TO
ACTIVATE IT IN A MANNER THAT KEEPING WITHIN. WE ARE RECOMMENDING A VARIANCE. FOR SITE PLANREVIEW, 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 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 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 RECOMNDING 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. 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. WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU GRANT ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. THE LAST ITEM IS THAT THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE RAGE EXCEEDS THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE GARAGE. AND FOR THE REASONS THAT I'VE STATED BEFORE, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU
GRANT ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. THERE ARE TWO OTHER APPLICATIONS THAT ARE NEEDED FOR THIS PROJEC 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. E
VACATION OF CENTENNIAL PLACE FROM 9TH STREET TO 10TH STREET. 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 SE EQUIPMENT THAT'S OUT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE VACATION, THAT AND THE REZONING NE TO GO THROUGH FULL CITY COUNCIL PROCESS AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTS. THIS
CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, LARY. I HAVE ONE. SO YOU MENTIONED THE BIRD SAFE GLASS. IS THAT UNDER SITE PLAN REVIEW? >> YES. EXCUSE ME? >> WHICH NUMBER WOULD THAT FIT UNDER?
>> 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. >> GOT IT. >> ALL THE OTHER STANDAR 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. >> COMMISSIONER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP
TO THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALL RIGHT. NOT SEEING ANY, SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARIN WE CAN HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FIRST. IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO PRESENT? GREAT. YOU CAN INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONER 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 P IS THE FIRST PROJECT OF A MULTI-PHE AND MULTI-BILLION
DOLLAR REINVESTMENT THAT THE COUNTY PLANS TO MAKE IN THAT COMMUNITY AND THE HOSPITAL. THIS SUMMER, BUILDING ON LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP THE HOSPITAL HAS WITH THE ELLIOT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, WE PRESENTED THE PROJECT. WE ARE REALLY GRATEFUL FOR THEIR SUPPORT. THEY'RE
EXCITED ABOUT THE FUTURE VISION AND UNDERSTAND THAT THEARKING 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.
>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION. >> YES, PLEASE. >> I APPRECIATED THE EXTENSIVE STUDY THAT YOU HAD FOR TRAVEL DEMAND NAGEMENT. I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN SUMMARIZE WHAT YOU TOOK AWAY FROM THAT STUDY.
>> I THINK I WILL CALL -- >> LIKE WHAT STRATEGIES ARE YOU USING GENERALLY. >> PART OF OUR, WITH THE TRAVEL DEMAND, ANY CURRENT UPDAT ON THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED SINCE?
IS THAT YOUR QUESTION? >> THE STUDY MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHATOU'RE TAKING AWAY FROM IT. >> YES. WELL PART OF IT WAS THE BIKE PARKING AND THE RAMP. I KNOW WE AR THE HOSPITAL IS
WORKING ON STRATEGIC ENGAGEMENT WITH OUR EMPLOYEES ON, YOU KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN CONCERN THAT THIS PAING 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. >> TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AS WELL. TO INCENTIVIZE PUBLIC TRANSIT? >> WHATEVER WAS LISTED IN THE
PLAN. I'M SORRY. I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR. DO YOUANT TO HEAR FROM THE HOSPITAL? >> IF YOU THINK THEY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD. I DON'TKNOW. >> DO YOU HAVE -- SORRY. >> HI, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MAR 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 TNSPORTATION. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER CONLEY. >> THANK YOU, MR. AIR. ONE OF
THE THINGS I APPRECIATED WAS READING ABOUT THE ENGAGEMENT WITH THE NEIBORHOOD ORGANIZATION. A LOT OF TIMES PROJECTS COME BEFORE US AND THERE'S A BUDDING OF HEADS BETWEEN WHAT RESIDENTS HEARD VERS 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 SETBAC AND ALL THE DETAILS OF THE PLAN. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. THE QUESTION I WASOING TO ASK WAS RELATED TO BUS PASSES AS WELL. THERE ARE A LOT OF TRANSIT ROUTES THAT ALL KIND OF INTERSECT AND CONVERGE
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. >> 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 TSIDE. THAT CERTAINLY IS SOMETHING WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE LEFT A LOT OF
SPACE IN THAT FRONT AREA. AND SO WE WERE HAPPY TO WAN TO, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO COMPLY WITH THAT REQUEST. >> COMMISSIONE 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 TE ARCHITECRALLY, FACADE. TALK ABOUT HOW YOU GUYS LANDED HERE
WITH THIS AND ITS INSPIRATION AND WHY IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE FIRST STEP. >> 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 NEIGHBORHO
REALLY LOOKING AT TERRA COTTA WITH THE RED STONE, THE BROWN STONE BUILDINGS THAT ARE EXISTING. TRI 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. 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 FITTINGITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FABRIC AS BEST AS POSSIBLE. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE? ALLRIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> IF YOU WERE HERE TO TESTIFY ON THIS, CAN YOU RAISE YOUR HD 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.
>> CHAIR MEYER, IF I MAY INTERRUPT. ONCE YOU'VE SPOKEN, IFOU HAVEN'T SIGNED UP ON THE SHEET, SIGN UP. >> 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 COMMT ABOUT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. AS A RESIDENT AND SPEAKING WITH MY FLOW 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 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. WE'VE SIGNATORIES OF THIS LETTER OPPOSE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, THE
REZONING DEVELMENT OF THE LAND OF A PARKING GARAGE. WE BELIEVE SUCH ACTION WILL BEETRIMENTAL 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. 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 NATIVELY DISRUPT THE NEIGHBORHOODS THEREOF. THE CURRENT RAMP ON CHICAGO AVENUE ROINELY HAS CAR ALARMS GO OFF POTENTIALLY DUE TO BREAK-INS. MOVING THE RAMP FURTHER INTO THE
REDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD EX IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING FROM DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE ZONING REEST, THE PETITIONERS DO NOT INTEND TO DISPLACE THE RESINTIAL HOUSING LOCATION INCLUDING 900 CENTENNIAL PLACE. 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 SWITC 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.
OFFICE OF THE STATE SENATOR, OFFICE OF THE HOUSING COMMITTEE, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. THIS PERSON IS NOW HAVING TO MOVE IN WH FAMILY. GIVEN THE TIMING AND THE PETITIONERS BEING UNDER CONTRACT TO PURCHASE THE BUILDING, WE CAN
ONLY ASSUME THAT IT'S CONNECTED. 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 CENNNIAL PLACE IS A PRIME LOCATION FOR FURTHER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN ONE OF THE FEW DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS TO MOSTLY SURVIVE BAN RENEWAL. THE DESTRUCTION
OF MINNEAPOLIS' DOWNTOWN WHERE WALKABLE HOUSING OCCUPIED BY BY
BIPOC, QUEER -- INFRASTRUCTURE WITH NEW RESIDTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THIS SITE IN QUESTION IS LOCATED WITHIN WALKING STANCE OF TRANSIT, ELLIOT PARK, OTH RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, MULTIPLE SPIRITUAL BUILDINGS, AS WELL ASANY
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 CURRE 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 THE SITE THAT IT IS TO BE
SURROUNDED BY AN APARTMENT BUILDING. -- SOUTH 2ND STREET AS AN EXAMPLE OFHAT 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. >> THANK YOU. AFF, DO WE HAVE
A COPY OF THIS LETTER ALREADY? >> NO. >> 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. >> GRANTCARLSON. 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 ASSOCIION, AND PROPERTY MANAGER. I ASK YOU TO READ THAT AND PLEASE CONSIDER OUR THOUGHTS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> QUESTIONS. >> NO. >> THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT. NEXT TESTIFIER. >> I'M JUSTERE FOR SUPPORT. >> OKAY. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAKO THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. SO NOT SEEING ANY, I WOULD CLOSE THE PUBLI HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, ANY DISCUSSION OR MOTIONS? COMMISSIONER CONLEY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. IF THE APPLICANT COULD MAYBE TALK IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ABOUT HOW LO YOU'VE ENGAGED WITH ELLIOT PARK, SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS AND KIND OF THEMES THAT CAME OUT OF
THOSE CONVERSATIONS. >> YES. TH COMMISSIONERS. WE STARTED THOSE CONVERSATIONS LAST SUMMER. WE PRESENTED THE OVERALL STRATEGY, CAMPUS VISION. AND THEN WE
TALKED ABOUT SPECIFICALLY THE P 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. 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. >> ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? >> 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' GOT THE POTENTIAL BED TOWER IN THE FUTURE. NICE SQUARE SITE. 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? >> 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 PEOPLEO PARK. 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 HE REDEVELOPING THE RED AND PURPLE BUILDINGS IN ORDER T KIND OF
BRING THEM UP TO THAT SAME STANDARD. AND THEN LOOK TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES OF THE BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE DECOMMISSIONED ONCE THE NEW TOWER WAS OPENED. >> THANK YOU. SO FOR TS
PROPOSAL, IS IT -- WILL IT ALWAYS BE THAT HEIGHT? IS IT DESIGNED FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OR ANYTHING BEYOND ITS CURRENT FOOTPRINT. >> I DIDN'T -- NO. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> NO EXPANSION OPPORTUNITY. >> THANK YOU. >> THANKS.
>> COMMISSIONERS, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE ANY MOTION OR SUGGEST WHERE YOU'RE AT ON THIS? >> I WOU MOVE APPROVAL. >> IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? >> SECOND. >> ALLIGHT. THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. ANY
DISCUSON ON IT? I DON'T LOVE GIANT PARKING GARAGES, BUT IT IS 20% ALLER. 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. FULLY FREE PASSES AND PASSES TO YOUR PATIENTS AS WELL. BUT I DO SEE THIS AS A NET IMPROVEMENT. I'LL NOTE FOR THE PPLE 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 CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> AYE. >> CAMPBELL. >> ABSTAIN.
>> CHOWDHURY IS ABSENT. CONLEY. >> AYE. >> GORDON. >> AYE. >> JONES. >> AYE. >> SKJEFTE IS ABSENT. THOMPSON IS ABSENT. MEYER. >> AYE. >> WAGNER.
>> AYE. >> THAT CARRIES AND ADOPTED. NEXT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 8. 2815, 2817, AND 2821 44th STREET
WEST. STAFF IS AARON HANAUER. >> 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 FRONOF YOU. FIRST, CORNER SIDE
YARD SETBACK VARIANCE ALONG 44th STREET. AND I HOPE THESE ARROWS, THE COLOR 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 E 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. 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 6EET TO 10 FEET. THAT BEING THAT PORTION RIGHT HERE THAT'S BEYON THAT LIGHT BLUE LINE. AND RETAINING WALL THAT DON'T COMPLETELY
RETAIN NATURAL ADE, THE ORANGE ARROWS. SO FOR THIS SETBACK VARICE REQUEST, CPED DID SEE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE SITE. NO PUBLIC LEY. THERE'S A PORTION OF THE SITE THAT IS IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY. THAT
BEING ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER. THERE'S A NUMBER OF LOCATIO 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. IT'S SOMETIMES BETTER TO BE CLOSER TO THE STRE. 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. 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 Y'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 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 2 FEET THAT THE GROUND LEVEL PATIO WOULD AT ITS CLOSEST POINT TO VINCENT AVENUE BE 10 1/2 FEET FROM PROPERTY LINE. 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. THAT'S ABOUT 68 SQUARE FEET. SO
FOR THIS VARIANCE REQUEST, STAFF DID NOT SEE A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE LIKE ALONG VINCENT AVENUE. THE PROPERES, ESPECIALLY THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH, PREY 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 DECORIVE PAVERS THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING. 73% OF THE PATIO IS 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 DENSITYESIDENTIAL 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 EEPTION OF THAT WALKWAY WIDTH. DENIAL OF VINCENT AVENUE SETBACK REQUEST, AND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION. THERE'S TWO LETTERS OF SUPPORT
IN THE STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENTS. HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU. SO THE REASON THAT YOU RECOMMEND THE VARIAE FOR THE ONE SIDE AND NOT THE OTHER IS BECAUSE THE OTHER SIDE IS GOODS AND CORRIDOR.
>> 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. >> ALL R >> 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? >> SURE. WHEN THE APPLICANT COMES TO SPEAK, THEY WILL HAVE THE FLOOR TO ANSWER THAT IN MORE DETAIL. >> AND WE'LL WAIT ON THAT FOR JUST A MINUTE. >> BUT I COULD S DON'T KNOW THE EXACT PROGRAMMING
OF THAT PORTION OF THE PATIO. >> 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? >> 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
GIVENHE 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 ACK AND WHITE ANSWER ON THAT.
BUT WE DO, LE 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 ZONI CODE FOR THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. SO PERHAPS A FEW
ELEMENTS MORE THAN YOU'RE USED TO SEEING IN A VARIANCE REQUEST. AND NOW, BUT STILL WITH ALL THAT SAID, STILL SAW THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR WHAT THEY PROPOSED ALONG 44th STREET.
>> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> IT'S A PATIO BECAUSE IT'S GOT A PAVED SURFACE. DESCRIBE FOR ME JUST WHAT THE DEFINITION OF A PATIO IS.
>> 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 YARDSETBACK. AND I HOPE I 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 NEEDO COMPLY WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. >> UNDERSTOOD. I 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. >> 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. >> GHT. >> 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. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER JONES, DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? >> NO. I'LL WAIT AND HEAR THE APPLICANT'S CONVERSATION.
THANKS. >> 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. >> 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.
>> 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. >> I WILL -- I'M HAPPY TO LOOK INTO THAT MORE IF YOU GIVE ME A
COUPLE OFMINUTES. MAYBE PERHAPS LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THAT, AND THEN IF THERE'S ANYTHING TO ARIFY FURTHER, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. >> 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. >> 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 THRGH
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. AFR 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 S 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 PEOP TEND TO LIKE. WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK AND GETTING SOME OF THESE OUTOR 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 COITIONS ON THE NORTH SIDE. I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THE REST OF THE VARIANCES IF YOU WANT TO. T SINCE STAFF WAS KIND OF RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, I'LL SAVE THAT FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIT 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 UNI 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 LOO AT THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND A LOT OF NEIGHBORSLL THE WAY UP AND DOWN THE STREET HAVE LARGE PORCHES. THAT'S KIND OF THE
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 THI IS MORE VITAL TO THE STREETS IS TO HAVE PEOPLE OUT THERE. AN INTERESTING ASPECT OF THIS IS IF WE HAD A WALL OF A BUILDING AT THE PROPERTY LINE, WE COULD BUIL 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. THINK FOR THE
MARKET. AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, I DO BELIEVE THAT HAVING PATIOS EXTEND BEYONDHE FACE OF THE BUILDING IS ALSO MORE OF A PUBLIC FACE RATHER THAN BEING KIND OF SHELTERED BEHIND A WALL OF A BUILDING. SOETTING PEOPLE
JUST A FEW FEET CLOSER SO THAT YOU CAN SEE U AND DOWN THE STREET AND NOT BE TUCKED BEHIND IS ACTUALLY A WAYO MAYBE ENGAGE THE STREET IN A WAY WE COULDN'T OTHERWISE. SO THAT'S WHY I THINK MAY 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 TAILED WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT AT 10 FEET ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK. SO IT'S CLEAN. IT'S KIND OF IDENTIFIABLE A THE FRONT DOOR. AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT, IN AN IDEAL WOD,
LIKE TO SEE THAT CONDITION REMOVED. BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S A MORE GRACEFUL ENTRY TO GO FROM THAT SIDEWALK TO A CONTIOUS PATTERN IN FRONT OF THE STREET. IT HAS MAYBE MORE OF A COMMERCIAL FEEL TOWARDS IT. A LITTLE BIT MORE SIDEWALK PATIO,
AND WE THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE OO ACTUALLY HAVE THAT LARGER APRON RATHER THAN GOI FROM A 6.5 SIDEWALK TO A 6-FOOT SIDEWALK. THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING FOR THAT
FRONT ENTRY. A 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. >>HANK YOU. CAN YOU CLARIFY
WHICH ITEM THIS WAS. >> YEAH, THERE'S A CONDITION -- LET ME SEE IF I CAN --. OKAY. SO RECOMMENDED MOTION
VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE CORNER FROM 10 FEET T 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 PRORTY
LINE. >> OKAY. FOR BOTH OF THESE, DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE IMAGES THAT SHOW THEM WITH OR WITHOUT? >> I DO NOT. >> 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. >> ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE THIS OKAY? ARE WE -- WHAT DO I NEED
TO DO? >> I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. >> OH, I'VE GOT SOMETHING ON THE SCREEN HERE. >> THIS IS ALWAYS FUN.
>> RIGHT. NEW SPACE TOO. >> YEAH, WE CAN SEE THAT. >> OKAY. IS THERE A WAY TO ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT? >> IT'S PRETTY ZOOMED. >> YEAH, WE CAN SEE IT PRETTY WELL, I THINK. >> 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
ALL THE WAY THROUGHOUT. THE VARIANCE OR THE WAY IT'S WRITT MEANS THE SIDEWALK WOULD HAVE TO REDUCE TO THAT SIZE. THAT'S THE CONDION. >> OKAY. >> SO TS DIMENSION RIGHT HERE IS REQUIRED TO BE 6 FEET. WE
WOULD RATHER SEE IT AT 10 SO THAT ALL OF THIS LINES U >> OKAY. >> AND THAT'S ALL -- YEAH. >> 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? >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. A THEN HELP US UNDERSTAND THE OTHER ONE. THE RED AREA. >> 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 SARE FEET. BECAUSE WE'RE RECESSING 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 PEDESTRIAN REALM. >> TO THE LEFT OF THE BALCONY IS A STAIR WELL.
>> 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. >> GOT IT. ALL RIGHT.
COMMISSIONER GORDON, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION TO THIS ONE? COMMISSIONER JONE DID YOU? >> I WAS JUST CONFERRING WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER THAT THIS ONLY IMPACTS ONE UNIT IN THE 14-UNIT BUILDING, THAT PATIO SPACE. >> CORRECT. IT'S JUST THE GROUND
FLOOR UNIT. >> OKAY. THANKS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISONERS? 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 REGARDINGHE SIDEWALK WIDTH FOR THE VARIANCE THAT YOU ARE RECOMMENDING. THAT CONDITION TO MAKE IT 6-FEET INSTEAD OF 10-FEET.
>> 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. >> COULD YOU SPEAK TO WHY YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THAT. >> 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. TT'S WHY WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THOSE. >> OKAY. SO WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST THE
BROADER SIDEWALK, IT'S JUST THERE WASN'T ANYTHING -- >> CORRECT. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER GORDON A 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 VIENT, IF THAT IS THE PROPOSAL, I GUESS WE WOULD HAVE TO LOO AT AN
ANALYSIS ON WHETHER THAT TRELLIS WOULD ALSO COMPLY WITH ZONING CODE STANDARDS OR IF IT IS THOSE 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. IFT IS TWO ELEMENTS. AND I DON'T KNOW. I KNOW I'M PUTTIN YOU ON THE SPOT, KIMBERLY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF SOMETHING COMES TO MIND. >> I'M LOOKING IT UP RIGHT NOW.
>> WHILE YOU'RE LKING THAT UP, I'M GOING TO REVEAL SOME IGNORANCE HERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT A TRELLIS IS. >> I CAN READ YOU THE ZONG CODE DEFINITION. I PAGED AWAY FROM IT THOUGH. SO WE REFER TO
TRELLISES AND ARBORS AS ONE PERMITTED OBSTRUCTION. YOU CAN CORNER OF THIS PICTURE. I THINK IS IT THAT WOOD ELEMENT STICKING OUT? >> AND THAT IS -- AND I DO
APOLOGIZE FORHAT OVERSIGHT. IN TALKING WITH THE APPLICANT, THAT ELLIS ELEMENT IS SOMETHING THEY WOULD BE OKAY WITHOUT HAVING. SO WE WOULD JUST BE LOOKING A THAT PATIO AS PROPOSED. SO I DO APOLOGIZE
ABOUT BRINGING -- NOTING THAT WRINKLE AND CONFUSING THINGS WITH THAT PRESENTATION. >> AND JUST TO CONFIRM, SO WE DO ALLOW PERGLAS IN FRONT OR CORNER
NOT EXCEEDING 8 FEET IN HEIGHT. THE'S A WHOLE PERGOLA TRELLIS DISCUSSION TO BE HAD HERE. BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE OKAY. >> IF YOU DID OVERTURNTAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR VARIANCE B AND ALLOWED THAT PATIO TO GO
FORWARD,HEN 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. >> MR. BAXLEY. >> SO AS PETE WAS DESCRIBING, IF THERE WAS NOT AN INTENDED PATIO, THEY COULD BUILD THE PATIO, RIGHT? SO AT00 SQUARE FEET. >> HE DCRIBED IT WELL OF
THERE'S -- CORRECT. IT IS THAT ADDITIONAL. >> SQUARE FOOTAGE IS WHAT CAUSES THE -- BECAUSE IT'S I BOARD. >> YES. YES. >> BUT WE'D BE ALLOWED TO BUILD A PATIO OR 100-SQUARE FOOT PORCH
IN THE SIDE YARD. >> IN THE FRONT YARD IF IT DIDN'T EXTEND TO A CERTAIN DISTANCE TO THE STREET. >> TO THE STREET. YEAH. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. >> 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. >> 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 T REASONING BEHIND THAT SECTION IN THE CODE. >> CHAIR MEYER, COMMISSIONER WAGNER, GD 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 BLDINGS TO THE EAST, AND ALONG UPTON THAT
LIKELY HAVE THOSE WIDER WALKWAYS OR JUST AN EXTENSION OF WHERE 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 WASTAFF'S ANALYSIS. IT IS IN YOUR HANDS NOW FOR IF YOU DID SEE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE WALKWAY WIDTH. >> ONE MORE QUESTION THE PATIO
TO THE SOUTH FROM THE LAST UNIT, WHICH IS -- >> ARE YOU REFERRING TO -- >> Y >> QUITE BIG. >> IT'S NOT A FRONT YARD. IT'S A CORNER. SO HOW DO YOU CHARACTERIZE THAT ONE?
>> CHAIR MEYER AND COMMISSIONER BAXLEY, WE CHARACTERIZE IT AS BEING SET BACK BEYOND THE 15-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBK. >> BECAUSE OF THE SETBACK. >> YEAH. GO TO TOWN. >> GOT IT. INTERESTING.
>> I'LL SHARE MY THOUGHTS ON THIS AND SEE WHERE OTHER COMMISONERS 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 FOR PEOPLE TO BE OUTSIDE.
I THINK THE COMMUNAL BENITS 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 SO, 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
THOUGHTS ARE I FEEL THAT THE PRTICAL 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 BN THAT BASIS. I'M NOT PREPARED TO GO AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM A. I DO THINK REDUCING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS A RELEVANT THING FOR
US TO BE DOING. BUT OPEN TO ARGUMENTIF OTHER COMMISSIONERS DISAGREE WITH THAT. SO COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT IT? COMMISSIONER CONLEY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WAS JUST THIING 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 CON 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. >> OKAY. >> 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 ANPPROPRIATENESS TO THAT. HOWEVER, IT CAN SLANT. I THINK THERE'S A CREATIVE WAY TO GET BOTH. IUST CAN'T FIND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. WOULD
IT BE NICE? SURE. BUT I THI I'M GOING TO SIDE WITH STAFF ON THE FIRST ONE. AND SUPPORT THE AIR'S DESCRIPTION AND NOT GO ALONG WITH DENIAL FOR THE PATIO ON VINCENT.
>> WHAT'S YOUR STANCE ONTEM B? >> I'M ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL AND NOT AGREEING WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THAT. >> OKAY. >> AARON, THIS MHT BE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU, I APOLOGIZE.
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 THA VARIOUS REQUEST. IF THAT PURPOSE IS IMPERVIOUS, IS THERE A WAY TO -- >> 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 IMPERVUS SURFACE REQUIREMENTS OF HAVING A MAXIMUM OF 75%. THE
PROPOSAL IS 74.1% IMPERVIOUS. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S NOT A WAY TO DO ALTERTIVE COMPLIANCE FOR THAT WIDTH, WALKWAY WIDTH. BUT I JUST WANTED TO NOTE SCE I'M BACK UP HERE THAT IT IS COMPLIANT. THE PROJECT OVERALL
IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PERVIOUS SURFACE. >> GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERWAGNER. >> 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 NEHBORHOOD. I
THINK IT FITS THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 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 LOO AT LITTLE SMALL CLEAN UPS 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. >> SO YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION? >> I GUESS THAT WAS A COMMENT. BUT I'M HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION IF NEEDED. I DON'T KNOW. IS THERE MORE DISCUSSION? WE'LL TAKE MORE DISCUSSION IF
THERE IS ANY. OH. COMMISSIONER JONES, D YOU HAVE YOURS UP? >> NO. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. 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
COMMENDATION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SECTION B. WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY BEING SIMILAR TO PREVIOU VARIANCE REQUESTS RELATED TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES CORRIDOR THAT HAD BEEN APPLIED TO OTHER THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE APPLICATION.
DOES THAT SUFFICE? >> 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. >> YUP. IF WOULD YOU TAKE A
FRIENDLY -- PUT ON RECD WHAT THOSE ARE. IT'S THE SLOPE AND THE LACK OF THE PUBLIC ALLEY. >> SECOND. >> 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. >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> E. >> CAMPBELL. >> AYE. >> CONLEY. >> AYE. >> GORDON. >> AYE. >> JONES. >> AYE. >> WAGNER. >> AYE. >> MEYER. >> AYE. >> WE HAVE SEVEN YAYS AND ZERO
NAYS. >> TT MOTION IS ADOPTED. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT. 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 WOULDAPPEN NEXT CYCLE. OR WE COULD JUST WAIT
LIKE WE DID LAST TIME UNTIL. >> KEEP PUNTING. >> YUP. >> IS EVERYBODY WHO IS CURRENTLY -- >> YOU'RE MIC IS OFF. >> IS EVERYBODY WHO IS CURRENTLY IN A LEADERSHIP POSITION WANT TO CONTINUE? >> NO. >> NO.
>> COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL DOES NOT. >> 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 YOU SIGNATURE, AND ONLY USING IT AS NEEDED FOR OFFICIAL
CITY DOCUMENTS. THE PRESIDENT CHAIRS THE REGULAR MEETINGS. THE VICE PRESIDENT CHAIRS COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. THE SECRETY ALSO STEPS IN AS NEEDED TO FILL THOSE IF WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE ABSEN
>> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY, WOULD YOU TAKE A PROMOTION TO VICE PRESIDENT? >> I THINK I'VE ALREADY HELD THAT POSITION. VICE PRESIDENT. >> 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. >> COMMISSIONER CONLEY AND COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, COMMISSIONER CHOWDHURY. >> AND SKJEFTE.
>> AND CMISSIONER SKJEFTE ARE NOT ELIGIBLE. AND NONE OF THEM ARE HERE SO THAT MAKES IT EASY. CONLEY IS HERE. THE OTHER THREE ARE NOT HERE. >> HERE CHAIR, COULD I PROPOSE A SLATE? >> YES.
>> I WOULD PROPOSE TO HAVE PRESIDENT CHRIS MEYER -- WITH SECRETARY. >> SECRETARY WAGNER, WOULD YOU CONSIDER BEING SECRETARY? >> SURE. >> WE'LL TAKE THATS 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? >> I ALSO ACCEPT. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CONLEY. SO WE'LL HAVE THOSE NOMINATIONS READY FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
>> SURE. >> YUP. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. 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
CAMPBELL WON'T BE ABLE TO B 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. BUT THIS WILL BE A CHANCE FOR YOU TO CHAIR THE MEETING. >> IS IT FOR SURE?
>> 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 HOEKEEPING TO CLEAN UP. AND MAP AMENDMENT
TO GO ALONG WITH THAT. THAT 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 TEX AMENDMENT, THE MORE VOICES IN THE ROOM THE BETTER. >> GREAT. ANY OTHER UPDM COMMISSIONERS OR 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 A 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. 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. >> WHICH DIRECTION WAS THAT? THE
APPLICANT REQUESTING THE F.A.R. >> T APPLICANT HAD REQUESTED THE F.A.R. VARIANCE. STAFF RECOG COMMISSION DENIED. AND THE APPLICANT IS NOW APPEALING THAT DENIAL TO ALLOW THE PROJECT TO PROCEED AS PROPOSED. >> OKAY. SO THE APPEAL IS ONLY
GOING IN ONE DIRECTION. DID THE OPPONENTS ALSO APPEAL? >> THE OPPONENTS DID NOT APPEAL. >> OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER UPDATES FROM ANYONE? SEEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, WE ARE ADJOURNED.