►
From YouTube: October 14, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting
Description
Planning Commission Meeting
A
B
Good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
october
14
2021
planning
commission
meeting,
the
planning
commission
advises
the
city
council
on
development
proposals,
development
standards,
long-range
planning
and
transportation
issues.
Some
of
the
items
the
planning
commission
has
final
decision
authority
and
others.
The
city
council
will
make
the
final
decision
planning
commission
is
made
up
of
seven
individuals
that
are
appointed
on
three-year
terms
by
the
city
council.
C
C
Sure,
mr
chair
members
of
the
planning
commission,
we
are
in
person
here
for
the
meeting
tonight
and
we
have
audience
members
who
can
definitely
testify
in
person
as
well,
but
we
will
also
be
using
webex
this
evening
to
allow
remote
testimony
should
somebody
prefer
to
testify
remotely.
Let
me
share
the
screen
here.
C
So
the
number
two
call,
if
you
would
like
to
testify
remotely
is
four
one:
five,
six,
five,
five:
zero,
zero,
zero
one
and
then,
once
in
you
would
enter
the
conference
code,
which
is
two
four
six
four
six,
three
five
one,
two
three
nine
and
I
would
mention
that
we
had
to
make
a
last
minute
change
tonight.
So,
if
you're
watching
remotely
this
is
this
number
was
on
the
agenda
materials.
But
there
were
two
numbers:
we
were
hoping
to
use
intercall
tonight
they
are
having
server
problems.
B
B
D
We're
not
able
to
hear
me
this
little
better,
okay,
not
projecting
enough
item.
One
is
related
to
a
partial
redevelopment
of
the
clover
center.
It
includes
three
entitlements:
one
rezoning
to
apply
the
plan,
development
overlay
and
then
preliminary
development
plans
to
establish
plans
for
future
development
phases
and
final
development
plans
for
a
partial
redevelopment,
which
predominantly
includes
a
a
new
24
000
square
foot
grocery
store.
D
So
I
think
everyone
in
the
in
the
room
or
on
the
commission
is
very
familiar
with
clover
center.
It's
just
to
the
east
of
us
here.
Starbucks
is
very
popular
with
city
staff,
but
certainly
includes
other
tenants,
and
it's
it's
been
around
for
quite
some
time.
D
I
think
it
was
originally
constructed
in
the
late
50s
and
largely
has
the
same
development
pattern
as
it
did
in
the
late
50s,
and
so
this
this
project
will
go
through
the
development
plans
in
a
moment,
but
here's
just
another
image
of
of
the
shopping
center,
where
it
very
traditional,
suburban
development
pattern,
where
you
have
a
building
and
then
front
field
parking
between
the
the
street
and
the
building
itself.
D
D
D
You
know
it
really
is
an
outmoded
development
pattern
and
design
and,
for
example,
the
we
have
requirements
related
to
parking
islands
and
landscaping
within
parking
lots
lighting
requirements
and
when
we
have
older
development
like
this,
it's
pretty
universal
that
a
lot
of
our
current
development
standards
are
not
met,
and
so,
when
we're
reviewing
new
development,
either
a
complete
redevelopment
or
partial
redevelopment
like
we
have
tonight,
we're
really
looking
at
trying
to
improve,
improve
that
development
quality
and
bring
it
closer
to
compliance.
D
This
image
is
along
lindale
and
the
parking
along
this
side
of
the
shopping
center
would
remain
the
same.
There
are
some
facade
improvements
which
I'll
detail,
but
largely
this,
this
portion
of
the
shopping
center
would
remain
pretty
much
the
same.
D
This
image
is
along
98th
street
and
between
the
35w
interchange
and
the
main
drive
lane,
the
the
pedestrian
environment
isn't
great,
and
so
we
have
a
a
curb
lock
and
then
a
retaining
wall
which
was
installed
as
part
of
I
believe
it
was
part
of
a
mndot
project,
but
it
does
create
a
very
uncomfortable
environment
or
feeling
for
for
folks
who
are
walking
or
biking
and
as
you'll
see
in
the
plans
that
would
be
improved
dramatically.
D
This
is
just
the
other
side
of
that
image.
Looking
south
towards
that
retaining
wall.
There
is
several
feet
of
grade
change,
but
thankfully
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
regrade
the
parking
lot
to
remove
that
retaining
wall
entirely
so
touch
on
the
the
rezoning
proposal,
the
applicant's
not
looking
to
change
the
base
zoning
district.
That
would
remain
as
b4,
but
they
are
requesting
to
apply
the
plan,
development
overlay
district
and
the
need
for
that
is
to
allow
the
city
council
to
prove
development
flexibility,
especially
with
partial,
redevelopments
or
redevelopments
of
older
properties.
D
As
I
mentioned,
a
lot
of
those
current
standards
aren't
being
met,
and
so
we
try
and
play
a
balancing
act
of
making
sure
that
the
the
development
is
closer
to
code
compliance,
but
we
do
want
to
allow
some
flexibility
when
you
have
a
partial
redevelopment,
it's
very,
very
challenging
to
be
entirely
code
compliant
for
for
these
types
of
sites,
so
going
on
to
the
preliminary
development
plan
or
pdp.
So
this
is
the
long-term
vision
of
clover
center.
With
future
redevelopment,
you
can
see
phase.
D
One
is
the
grocery,
of
course,
and
then
you
have
the
parking
lot
between
the
grocery
and
98
street,
but
some
other
elements
of
the
pdp
that
are
noteworthy
is
a
north-south
road
or
access
road
that
leads
to
where
freeway
forward
is
today.
That
was
a
really
central
component
of
the
lindo
retrofit
plan
or
the
green
spine.
D
I
believe
it
was
called
the
plan
so
that
that
is
a
key
element
of
the
pdp
that
that
we'd
like
to
see
and
then
future
redevelopment
of
the
northeast
corner,
with
a
high
density,
mixed
use,
building
between
with
retail
space
and
then
a
number
of
residential
units
in
the
southeast
corner.
Where
you
have
the
the
bank
today,
there
would
be
they're
proposing
two
future
retail
spaces.
Although
we
had
some
comments
on
the
size
and
making
sure
that
the
those
future
phases
are
identified
are
co-compliant
in
size.
D
With
pdps,
we
do
require
a
massing
graphic.
You
know
with
the
grocery
phase,
they
obviously
have
the
architecture,
architectural
detail
which
was
included
here,
but
for
future
phases.
We
really
want
to
see
at
least
the
massing,
and
so
you
see
a
high
density
building
where
the
residential
component
would
be,
and
then
the
the
single
level,
retail
and
the
southeast
corner
so
getting
into
the
site
plan,
so
we're
moving
from
the
pdp
to
the
fdp.
D
So
the
site
plan
is
what
the
applicant
is
looking
to
build
and
again
you
see
the
roughly
24
000
square
foot
grocery
store
the
the
parking
facilities
that
would
be
so
essentially
reconstructing
the
parking
lot,
adding
in
parking
islands,
removing
the
retaining
wall
and
I'll
have
a
little
more
detail.
Graphic
from
that,
but
removing
the
tank
retaining
wall
along
98th
street
and
adding
a
code
complying
sidewalk.
D
The
difference
between
the
the
city
code
requirement
and
the
proposed
supply
is
about
10
and
a
half
percent
and,
as
part
of
a
traffic
study,
independent
engineer
took
a
look
at
parking
demand
and
found
that
the
proposed
parking
supply
226
was
more
than
more
than
adequate
for
the
proposed
uses.
So
we're
very
much
supportive
of
that
deviation,
and
it's
it's
well
within
the
kind
of
the
range
that
we've
seen
within
the
last
few
years.
D
So,
to
provide
a
little
more
detail
on
the
southwest
corner
of
the
site,
where
that
retaining
wall
is,
there
have
been
some
improvements
to
ped
ramps
and
not
by
the
applicant,
but
I
believe
by
the
state-
and
you
can
see
in
this
image
how
the
how
the
parking
lot
would
be
graded.
D
So
you
can
see
in
this
image
how
you
the,
how
the
kind
of
the
southern
end
of
that
green
spine
would
be
established
within
clover
center
and
as
a
code
requirement.
They
they
do
have
a
compliant
sidewalk
that
connects
the
public
sidewalk
along
98th
street
to
the
building
itself.
D
And
so
this
kind
of
re-emphasize
that
that
central
green
spine,
but
then
also
provides
accommodates
pedestrians
where
there
isn't
a
sidewalk.
On
this
side
of
the
building
today,.
D
Landscape
plan
does
does
show
compliant
trees
within
parking
islands,
they're
they're
a
little
low
on
the
tree
count,
but
that's
a
pretty
minor
change.
I
think
there's
plenty
of
space
to
accommodate
some
more
trees.
With
one
of
the
comments
that
we
had
was
we
wanted
to
see
some
landscaping
immediately
south
of
the
grocery
building
itself.
Right
now,
it's
proposed
to
just
be
a
lot
of
concrete
and
then
asphalt
of
the
driveline,
so
I
think
we
can.
D
We
can
improve
that
and
meet
the
the
the
requirement
based
on
a
disturbance
area,
so
the
number
of
shrubs
were
were
compliant
with
disturbance
area,
but
well
we
would
need
to
see
some
additional
trees
which
which
we
think
can
be
easily
accommodated
within
the
site
plan.
D
One
of
the
notable
features
is
all
the
glass
along
the
south
building
elevation-
that's
something
we
do
want
to
see,
especially
in
some
of
our
mixed-use
districts,
where
we
want
to
have
that
transparency,
especially
along
streets.
So
it
was
great
to
see
that
and
other
materials
would
be
a
mixture
of
brick
metal
panels
and
architectural
panels
or
fiber
cement
panels,
so
very
similar
mix
of
materials
that
we've
we've
been
seeing
lately.
So
in
terms
of
the
material
palette,
you
know
there's
a
little
more
detail
that
we're
looking
for
in
terms
of
percentages.
D
We
have
primary
versus
secondary
allowances
and
a
little
more
work
is
needed
on
the
west
elevation,
where
you
know
some,
some
concrete
masonry
units
are
identified
and
that's
not
a
permitted
material
in
the
in
a
commercial
district
beyond
that
secondary
allowance.
So
there's
a
little
work
to
do,
but
in
terms
of
the
the
mix
of
materials
we
think
we
can,
we
can
work
it
work
within
the
code
and
and
find
something
that's
compliant.
D
Now
I
well,
I
said
the
the
eastern
half
roughly
eastern
half
of
the
building
the
existing
building
would
remain
the
same.
They
are
proposing
facade
improvements,
and
so
we
have
some
fairly
antiquated
the
green
roof
that
we're
pretty
familiar
with
that
would
be
removed
to
make
way,
for
you
know
a
much
more
attractive
facade
for
the
shopping
center.
B
Thank
you,
mr
centenario.
Any
questions
from
commission
members
for
staff
go
ahead.
Commissioner,
goldsman.
E
Thanks,
mr
chair,
could
we
bring
up
a
pic
the
overlay.
E
Of
the
walking
paths
so
with
the
green
arrows,
I
think
sure
that
one
will
be
good
yeah.
So
one
of
the
questions
I
have
on
this
is
if
a
pedestrian
is
walking
from
the
west
on
98th
street
from
the
west
going
east,
so
they're
crossing
35
to
come
to
this
location.
E
D
Sure
the
great
question,
commissioner
goldsman,
if
they
wanted
to
walk
on
a
sidewalk,
they
would
have
to
go
to
that
that
north-south
spine
to
get
towards
the
building.
D
Certainly
there
could
possibly
be
a
secondary
sidewalk
between
the
the
public
sidewalk
and
the
the
parking
lot.
That's
not
something
that
was
included
in
the
development
plans,
but
I
think
it's
it's
a
good
idea.
If
there
isn't
there's,
probably
an
informal
path
that
would
be
established
over
time.
E
D
Sure,
commissioner
goldsman,
I
believe
the
parking
study
contemplated
cart
corrals.
However,
there
was
a
pretty
big
delta
between
what
the
study
thought
was
the
demand
and
what
the
supply
was.
So,
yes,
probably
the
result
is
probably
a
smaller
or
a
couple
stalls
are
going
to
be
eliminated
for
cart,
corral
or
something
reorganized
to
to
provide
that
space.
But
even
if
a
few
stalls
are
lost,
we
still
don't
have
an
issue
or
concern
with
the
parking
supply.
E
Okay
and
then
one
last
question:
femi
okay,
so
one
of
the
things
that
I
see
is
unique
about.
This
is
the
driveway
around
the
current
property
to
the
back
side
of
the
building.
Today,
that's
used
for
donations
for
the
salvation
army,
and
so
I'm
thinking
with
this
new
development
is
that
still
going
to
be
an
allowed
use
to
have
people
drive
on
the
west
side
of
the
building
all
the
way
around
to
the
back
to
donate
like
they
do
today,.
D
Commissioner
goldsmith
the
or
mr
chair,
commissioner
goldman
the
there
would
be
a
drive
lane
behind
the
behind
the
building.
It
would
actually
be
in
the
opposite
direction
going
from
east
to
west,
so
you
can.
I
don't
know
if
you
can
kind
of
make
out
this
little
arrow.
E
D
But
the
salvation
army
is
at
least
for
now
is
intended
to
remain,
and
so
the
donation
facility,
I
think,
would
would
also
remain
there's
a
little
bit
of
cleanup.
That
has
to
happen.
Maybe
some
reorganization,
because
a
lot
of
times
the
donations
kind
of
find
their
way
into
that
drive
lane
and
create
a
pinch
point,
which
is
obviously
something
that
doesn't
look
very
good
but
then
also
is
potentially
an
issue
for
emergency
services.
So
there's
some
cleanup
that
needs
to
happen,
but
the
direction
of
flow,
if
you
will
would
be
in
the
opposite
direction.
D
B
And
mr
centenary,
I
just
I
I
know
the
the
parking
deviation
is
10
and
a
half
percent.
I
I
missed
the
number
of
stalls
that
that's
equivalent
to.
B
Somewhere
around
25,
roughly
okay,
that's
all
that's
all!
That's
all
I
need
to
know.
Thank
you
go
ahead,
commissioner.
Thank
you.
F
Mr
chair,
mr
cincinnario,
in
on
page
four
of
the
staff
report,
we
where
we
typically
get
the
overview
of
requirements
for
a
specific
for
the
code.
We
talk
and
you
and
you
always
give
us
information
about
whether
it's
compliant,
whether
there's
deviation,
requests
etc
in
table
one.
We
have
the
list
of
requirements.
F
D
Sure
yeah,
mr
chair,
commissioner,
roman.
No,
that's
a
great
question.
It's
something
that
we
had
to
deal
with
as
part
of
our
development.
G
D
And
it
gets
into
a
a
little
bit
of
a
challenging
a
non-conformity
issue
with
equivalency
or
substantially
equivalent.
You
know,
and
essentially
what
that
means
is
the
but
to
answer
question
there's
there
is
a
maximum
setback
in
the
b4
district
and
that's
40
feet.
D
That's
not
what
the
applicant
ultimately
proposed
ultimately,
and
the
issue
at
hand
is
whether
or
not
the
proposed
grocery
store
is
substantially
equivalent
to
the
existing
building,
as
it
is
today.
So
in
our
under
our
non-conformity
standards,
a
property
owner
can
replace
an
existing
building
in
it,
even
if
it's
not
compliant,
and
we
call
that
substantially
equivalent.
So
it
wouldn't
be
subject
to
the
maximum
setback
requirement
in
the
b4
district.
D
So
while
it
would
be
our
preference
that
it's
cold
complying,
that's
not
what
the
applicant
applied
for,
and
we
do
believe
it
it.
Our
interpretation
was
that
it's
substantially
equivalent.
F
Okay,
and
could
you
very
high
level
background
on
the
substantially
equivalent
is
that
something
we've
had
for
a
long
time?
Is
that
something
that
we
initiated,
something
that
was
initiated
elsewhere.
D
C
Sure,
mr
chair,
commissioner,
roman,
not
too
long
ago,
I'm
guessing
five
to
ten
years
ago.
The
state
statutes
were
amended
in
regards
to
non-conformity.
C
There
was
new
language
that
said
that
a
non-conforming
or
non-conformity
in
general
can
be
continued
through,
among
other
things,
replacement.
So
the
question
is
what
is
replacement
and
our
city
code
uses
the
term
substantially
equivalent
to
get
a
replacement.
So
if
the,
if
the
square
footage
is
very
similar,
the
placement
is
very
similar.
We
consider
it
to
be
substantially
equivalent
and
therefore
eligible
to
be
replaced
under
the
non-conformity
statute.
F
D
Mr
sheriff,
commissioner
roman,
you
know
the
the
phase
one
with
the
grocery
is
in
the
future
independent
of
of
those
future
phases.
So
in
this
particular
case
I
don't,
I
don't
think
it
has
an
impact
on
that
interpretation.
Thank
you.
That's
all
for
now.
E
Thanks
mr
chair,
one
other
question
that
came
up
when
commissioner
roman
was
talking
is
really
around
that
packet
information
and
it
came
to
mind,
is
there
was
a
letter?
I
think
it
was
from
hennepin
county
who
had
proposed
for
the
sidewalk
to
be
ten
feet,
not
eight
feet.
Can
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
differences
and
how
we
came
up
with
the
current
design.
D
Sure,
mr
chair,
commissioner,
the
city
standard
is
for
eight
feet,
and
so
one
of
the
comments
that
the
county
had
was
they
also,
I
think
they
requested
a
much
wider
boulevard
with
a
six-foot
sidewalk
and
six
foot
sidewalk
would
not
have
been
compliant
with
the
city
code.
So
it
really
was
trying.
This
design
is
trying
to
balance
having
some
boulevard
where
there's
none
today
and
having
a
code
compliant
sidewalk.
D
B
All
right,
any
other
questions
comments
from
commissioners.
First,
half
not
seeing
any
is
the
applicant
available
tonight.
If
you
would
like
to
speak,
the
table
is
yours:
just
please
identify
yourself
and
write
your
name
down
and
and
then
we
can
begin.
H
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you,
commissioners.
My
name
is
tim,
marco,
I'm
a
director
of
development
with
kraus
anderson
development
company.
I
just
want
to
introduce
myself
kind
of
give
a
little
bit
of
background.
We've
been
working
for
a
couple
years
more
intensely,
probably
almost
for
a
decade
prior
on
this
shopping
center
ideas,
thoughts,
kind
of
how
we've
gotten
to
where
we
are
today.
H
I
can
address
a
couple
of
things
that
have
come
up
so
far.
If
that's
okay,
you
know,
we've
we've
looked
at
orienting
the
building
in,
I
would
say
just
about
every
single
capacity
we
could
to
try
and
balance
where
things
are
going
to
go,
how
it's
going
to
play
today
into
the
future
phases
the
site
constraints
with
the
stormwater
management
system
to
the
southwest.
H
The
importance
of
eventually
aldrich
kind
of
going
through
the
site
landed
us
into
the
position
we're
in
right
now
on
the
south
or
on
the
northwest
corner
of
the
site,
with
the
with
the
potential
grocery
store.
We
are
very
hopeful
that
this
is
going
to
be
the
catalyst
for
the
future
phase.
We
have
quite
a
bit
of
work
left
to
do
beyond
this
meeting.
We've
got
to
work
with
our
existing
tenants.
H
We've
got
to
work
with
city
staff
to
finalize
the
design
and
get
all
of
our
ducks
in
a
row
essentially
to
actually
get
to
the
next
city
council
meeting.
So
I
think
hopefully
this
is
received
as
a
a
good
first
step
and
we'll
continue
to
get
back
to
work
with
city
staff
and
organizing
our
components,
we're
not
ready
to
break
ground
if,
if
there's
any
questions
there
until
next
year,
sometime,
so
we
intend
to
to
continue
our
planning
stages
and
get
organized
in
our
effort
to
bring
this
development
to
the
community.
B
I
H
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chair.
Mr
commissioner,
I
personally
worked
on
a
previous
plan
that
had,
I
believe,
five
over
two
with
a
grocery
store.
H
H
I
would
say
anxious
that
the
building
the
residential
building
along
lindale
would
bring
more
activity
once
the
grocery
store
is
actually
in
place,
so
that
first
phase
would
be
the
catalyst
to
bring
the
rooftops
into
our
site
and
then
kick
off
the
mixed
use
phase
that
we
showed
in
the
preliminary
development
plan.
As
you
saw,
there
was
some
retail
that
would
play
into
that
too.
We
would
change
some
of
the
access
points
as
well
and
kind
of
finish
off
the
rest
of
the
shopping
center.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Mr
marco,
you
mentioned
all
the
different
permutations
and
I
know
that
many
considerations
go
into
site
design,
especially
in
a
reuse.
H
Yes
great
question,
mr
chair,
commissioner,
I
think
the
biggest
issue
from
the
orientation
along
98th
street
is
honestly
the
stormwater
management
system
that's
in
place
to
the
southwest
the
the
grade.
Changes
are
significant.
H
Then
we
have
a
loading
issue
that
comes
in
as
well,
because
we
can't
load
along
98th
so
to
load
along
the
back
side
of
there
and
that's
where
the
primary
source
of
parking
would
have
been
as
well.
It
just
became
a
continuing
mounting
issue
to
try
and
solve,
and
that's
how
we
got
back
to
where
we
are
today.
B
I
I
do
thank
you,
mr
chair.
Mr
marco,
you
said
you've
been
working
on
this
for
a
long
time
and
in
that
time
I
would
say
we
approved
the
lindell
avenue
retrofit
plan,
which
I'm
sure
you're
familiar
with.
Can
you
talk
about
how
that
may
or
may
not
have
changed
your
site
design
and
what
considerations
may
have
been
modified
based
on
that.
H
H
We
heard
feedback
at
the
drc
that
you
know
we
could
get
a
little
bit
more
creative.
That
that
plan
that
we
put
forward
is
something
we
think
works
for
the
area
plan,
the
overlay
district.
You
know,
I
think
the
biggest
the
biggest
change
that
we
brought
out
was
having
those
two
phases
play
off
each
other.
I
would
say
originally.
The
aldrich
idea
was
a
little
bit
of
a
an
obstacle
for
our
project
to
draft
a
road
through
the
middle
of
it.
I
Mr
cincinnati,
could
you
flip
to
the
pdp?
If
you
don't
mind-
and
I
just
want
to
be
clear
with
the
aldrich
connection-
is-
this
is
pretty
much
what
you're
envisioning
for
the
the
final
site
development
here
is.
That's
that's.
How
our
sort
of
that
curved
connection
to
aldrich
is
what
that
would
look
like.
H
I
would
say
that
likely
those
parking
stalls
would
not
exist
in
that
plan.
I
think
we
would.
We
would
try
and
straighten
that
out,
so
that
there
isn't
that
curve
that
comes
around
those
five
or
six
parking
stalls
there.
So,
instead
you
would
have
a
little
bit
of
a
curb
along
that
adjacent
retail
bay
and
the
just
for
clarity.
The
the
the
importance
or
the
reason
that
that
singular
retail
bay
exists
is
because
that
will
be
new
construction
along
with
the
grocery
store.
B
C
B
Okay,
all
right
so
seeing
that
there
are
no
other
people
from
the
public
online
or
in
the
room
that
would
like
to
speak
to
this
item
and
entertain
a
motion
close
public
hearing.
It's
all
moved
all
right.
We
have
a
motion,
closed
public
hearing.
Is
there
a
second?
Second
all
right?
Commission
members,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
close
public
hearing
any
further
discussion.
All
those
in
favor,
say
aye
aye.
B
E
Thanks
mr
chair
I'll
go
first.
First
of
all,
I'm
really
excited
to
see
that
there
is
new
development
in
this
corner.
I
think
it
is
our
downtown
and
and
seeing
that
there's
new
life
and
development
is
exciting,
especially
with
the
new
orange
line
and
then
obviously
with
the
lindell
avenue
retrofit.
E
So
a
few
comments
that
I
have
is,
you
know
I
mentioned
the
walkway
or
the
sidewalk
from
the
west
to
the
east.
I
live
on
the
west
side
of
35
and
I
could
see
myself
walking
to
this
grocery
store
and
not
having
a
sidewalk
on
the
west
side.
E
I
understand
that
there's
challenges,
obviously
with
moving
the
building
further
to
toward
98th
street,
but
I
think
what
they've
done
is
really
just
heightened
the
visibility
under
we
understand
that
there's
water,
storm
storm
water
retention
and
mitigation.
So
I
I'm
okay
with
the
placement
of
it.
I
think
it
retains
the
existing
character,
but
with
the
second
phase
I
think
that's
where
we
can
really
shine
and
then
the
last
thing
I
had
is
I
really
enjoy
that
they're
building
in
the
street
for
aldrich.
E
You
know
using
that
green
spine
that
we've
talked
through
having
that
street
go
through
is
really
going
to
add
value,
especially
for
those
residents
that
get
off
the
orange
line,
maybe
live
in
the
area
and
then
utilize
places
like
veep,
which
is
right
on
the
other
side
of
aldrich,
that
this
road
will
hope
will
go
to
eventually.
So
the
only
thing
I
have
to
say
is
on
the
eldris
aldridge
road
is:
let's
make
it
as
green
as
we
can.
E
You
know
looking
at
the
designs
here,
it
does
look
like
there's
quite
a
bit
of
you
know,
cement
and
and
hardscape.
So
how
can
we
make
it
as
green
as
possible
with
planters,
or
you
know
baskets
and
things
like
that,
just
to
to
liven
it
up
and
make
it
pedestrian
friendly?
So
those
are
just
some
comments
that
I
have,
but
overall,
I
think
it's
great.
I'm
I'm
excited
to
see
some
new
life
in
the
clover
center
and
we
will
just
plant
culver
everywhere
and
in
lieu
of
the
the
name.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Goltzmann
any
other
comments
from
commissioners.
I
Thanks,
mr
chair,
I
have
a
number
of
thoughts
and
I
think
a
lot
of
them
go
back
to
the
lindell
avenue
retrofit
plan,
which
was
sort
of
something
this
commission
and
city
council
worked
on
for
a
long
time
and
it's
something
that
has
a
lot
of
momentum
right
now
and
it's
something
that's
very
fresh
in
our
minds
because
we
just
approved
it
six
months
ago
or
so,
and
this
is
at
the
heart
of
the
lindell
avenue
retrofit
plan.
I
This
is
right
across
the
street,
from
the
orange
line
and
and
it's
giving
us
a
lot
of
potential
for
redevelopment
and
it's
very
important
that
we
do
a
good
job
and
providing
access
to
that
new
amenity
that
we're
that's
being
given
to
our
residents.
And
so
I
went
back
and
looked
at
the
lindell
avenue
retrofit
plan
and
tried
to
understand
what
what
was
the
intent
of
that
plan
and
what
were
what
were
the
recommendations
and
what
were
they
trying
to
to
push
us
to
do
as
we
reimagined
that
corridor?
I
One
of
the
big
things
that
we've
already
talked
about
was
the
old
aldrich
green
spine,
the
connection
of
98th
street
via
aldrich,
and
giving
people
access
to
the
new
brt,
the
bus,
rapid
transit,
stop
and
when
I
look
at
the
final
development
plans
for
sure
we're
not
there
yet
with
the
connection.
But
maybe
you
can
overlook
that
if
we're
seeing
what
we
were
hoping
for
in
the
preliminary
development
plan
sort
of
the
future.
Look
at
it
and
that's
what
we
have
up.
I
Well,
that's
what
I
have
up
on
my
screen
still
and
that
doesn't
look
like
how
I
imagine
the
aldrich
green
spine.
To
look.
I
mean
it
was
sort
of
envisioned
as
a
green
tree-lined
oasis
for
pedestrians
and
cyclists
to
get
to
the
brt
station
from
future
residential
uses
to
the
north
and
what
I'm
seeing
in
this
plan.
It
looks
a
lot
more
like
a
parking
lot
connection
which,
although
transversable
I
mean
we
all
walk
from
our
cars,
to
target
right,
there's
nothing
terrible
about
it.
I
I
don't
think
it's
an
amenity
and
when
we're
talking
about
the
lindell
avenue
retrofit
plan
and
what
we
can
do
as
a
city
to
catalyze
new
development,
we're
talking
about
amenities
and
making
things
more
than
and
really
trying
to
spur
new
development
by
creating
amenities
for
our
residents,
and
I
don't
think,
a
connection
through
a
parking
lot
to
the
new
bus.
Rapid
transit.
Stop
is
what
is
what
we
had
in
mind
with
the
lindell
avenue
retrofit
plan.
So
I
I
have
problems
with
that.
I
Going
back
to
the
lindell
avenue
retrofit
plan,
what
what
that
plan
was
trying
to
tell
us-
and
I
just
made
a
few
notes
of
the
the
major
themes
of
that
I've
talked
about
the
eldritch
green
spine,
the
other
things
we're
parking
interior
to
the
site,
increased
density,
ground
level,
activation
and
walkability,
and
as
much
as
I
like,
the
idea
of
the
amenity
of
the
grocery
store,
I
don't
think
we're
accomplishing
any
of
those
goals:
the
parking's
not
interior.
I
To
the
site,
we're
not
increasing
the
density,
we're
not
activating
the
ground
level
near
the
sidewalk
and
we
are
hardly
making
it
more
walkable
in.
In
my
opinion-
and
so
I
think
I
think,
we've
missed
the
mark
on
this
and
I
I
certainly
appreciate
their
challenges
and-
and
I
I
guess
I
have
more
comments,
but
maybe
I'll
stop
there
for
now.
I
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
you
know
I'm
going
to
build
on
the
things
that
commissioner
cookton
has
said
and
being
you
know,
as
I
move
farther
up
the
row
here
becoming
one
of
the
old-timers
here
now.
F
This
also
goes
back
further
than
the
lindeal
avenue
retrofit
to
when
we
worked
on
the
98th
street
station
area
plan,
which
those
elements
are
in
the
lindell
avenue
retrofit,
but
we
were
talking
three
years
ago
about
which
is
when
we
rezoned
this
this
area,
and
maybe
it's
my
own
naivety
and
I
should
have
dug
deeper,
but
I
would
not
have
envisioned
that
the
b4
would
have
led
to
a
b4
with
a
with
a
building.
F
That's
allowed
to
be
set
back
anywhere
from
six
to
25
times
as
far
as
we
intended
with
that
and
again
that
no
no
knock
on
the
applicant.
This
is
their.
This
is
what
the
code
allows,
and
so
they
can
propose
that
there
and
then
we
we
are
tasked
with
finding
if
it's,
if
it's
a
match
right-
and
I
think
the
area
that
it
doesn't
fit
for
me
as
well
is-
is
in
the
comprehensive
plan.
Part
with
that.
F
You
know
the
the
sea
of
parking,
which
is
in
itself
would
be
one
thing,
but
when
you
have
it
immediately
adjacent
to
a
six
lane,
freeway
plus
a
half
clover
loof,
it's
just.
You
have
a
broad
stretch
of
what
we've
talked
about
in
some
of
these
plans,
especially
in
the
station
area
plan
about
not
being
a
pedestrian
friendly
area,
and
then
we
go
into
another,
almost
the
block
of
not
improving
that
situation.
So
you
know
there's
a
lot
of
great
stuff.
In
this
proposal
I
mean
the
housing,
the
the
refreshed
retail.
F
You
know
another
type
of
grocery
we
have
grocery
in
this
area,
but
this
is
a
different
kind
of
market
of
grocery,
and
so
you
know
perhaps
again,
I'm
not
I'm
not
a
designer,
I'm
not
a
developer,
but
you
know,
even
if
the
grocery
was
where
the
housing
is
and
the
housing
later
came
along
and
went
with
the
parking
I
mean
again,
I'm
not
the
designer,
but-
and
I
appreciate
that
there's
challenges,
but
I
too
do
not
find
that
this
is
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
part
of
it,
and
so
again
all
the
things
that
I
like
about
this.
F
I
just
can't
get
past.
This
is
one
of
those
times,
and
you
know
many
of
you
hear
me
talk
about
when
I
go
on
about
sidewalks
and
residential
and
every
time
we
rebuild
a
street,
that's
a
50-year
decision
that
we've
decided
not
to
put
a
sidewalk
somewhere
in
a
neighborhood
for
50
years,
essentially
well,
that's
kind
of
what
this
is.
You
know
the
the
current
center's
been
there
for
sounds
like
65
years
and
and
that's
a
good
life
for
a
building.
You
know
this
grocery
store
goes
here
in
this
location.
F
That's
a
60,
50
60
year
decision
to
have
on
this
corridor
that
we've
said
is
should
be
a
certain
way.
It's
not
so
that's
where
I'm
at
right
now.
B
All
right
anybody
else.
G
D
I
can
certainly
bring
up
our
our
gis
system
to
have
a
broader
view.
If
that
would.
G
Be
helpful,
I
guess
what
I'm
trying
to
get
at
is
like
this
is,
I
think
enough
too,
and
I
think
I
drove
by
here
coming
and
I
do
stop
by
starbucks
too,
and
I'm
glad
that
that's
staying
first
of
all,
I'm
really
excited
about
the
all
the
uses
that's
coming
to
the
site
and
and
the
density
that
is
coming
to
the
site,
especially
the
housing
component.
G
But
there
is
a
sea
of
parking
right
at
the
four
corners
of
this
area
and
to
maybe
refresh
staff
presentation,
is
the
entire
building
going
away
and
it's
a
refresh
in
development
or
is
there?
I
think
I
heard
the
applicant
or
staff
say
that
a
portion
of
the
building
will
stay
so
the
skeleton
of
the
use,
the
building?
G
D
Commission
robbie,
so,
roughly
speaking,
the
west
west,
half
of
the
existing
building
would
be
demolished
and
rebuilt
with
new
construction.
D
The
east
half
would,
if
the
bones,
if
you
will,
would
remain
as
they
are
today,
with
with
new
facades.
G
G
So
if
this
was
a
complete
teardown
and
the
applicant
were
to
propose,
you
know
a
new
development
with
the
uses
as
proposed,
then
I
feel
like
I
would
have
had
a
much
stronger
push
to
moving
the
grocery
to
the
street
and
you
know
kind
of
encouraging
for
more
street
level
pedestrian
friendliness,
but
also
recognizing
that
one
obviously
they're
working
with
an
existing
building
partially,
but
also
recognizing,
there's
already
a
sea
of
parking
loading
around
the
intersection.
So
I'm
not
sure
what
what
does
f
pedestrian
friendliness
actually
mean.
B
I'll
take
it
for
what
it
was,
commissioner
abdi
and-
and
I
guess
go
with
some
of
my
thoughts
and
I
can
certainly
appreciate
commissioner
cookdown
and
commissioner
roman's
thoughts,
I
think
in
if
we
were
to
the
point
of
redeveloping
the
whole
parcel.
I
I
I
don't
see
this
as
passing.
I
really
don't,
but
the
fact
that
this
is
only
a
partial
redevelopment.
B
I
think
where
I'm
at
with
this
is
there
is
benefit
to
the
city.
Just
even
mentioning
this.
To
my
wife,
for
instance,
the
discussion
was
oh
yeah,
that's
a
terrible,
walking
place
that'd
be
great
to
have
a
wide
sidewalk,
so
I
think
from
the
layman's
terms.
Yes,
it's
a
little
bit
better.
Is
it
the
greatest
thing
in
the
world?
No,
probably
not,
but
I
think
where
the
applicant
is
going
to
have.
B
A
real
challenge
is
getting
to
what
the
commission
wants
to
see
for
the
next
phase,
because
I'm
looking
at
this
and
what
they've
kind
of
provided
in
that
that
east
the
corner,
I
don't
think
that
does
it
the
building
in
the
future
phases,
that's
along
glendale
yeah.
I
I
think
you
know,
there's
some
benefit
there
and
again,
I'm
keeping
in
context
to
some
degree
that
the
interstate
is
right.
Next
to
this,
the
interstate
is
in
a
walkable
area
and
it's
never
going
to
be
a
place
that
people
enjoy
being
around.
B
So
what
we
can
do
with
this
corner,
I
think,
is
beneficial
the
trees.
I
think
his
staff
have
mentioned,
making
an
88
and
I'll
say
ada
compliant
connection
at
the
signal
to
the
parking
to
the
building
would
help
facilitate
and
certainly
understand
that
there's
a
upcoming
study
to
look
at
the
interchange.
I
think
that
plays
a
big
part
in
this,
because
we
don't
know
what
that
might
kick
out
or
what
that
may
push,
but
if
that
were
to
affect
a
potential
location
of
the
store
itself
right
so
there's
a
whole
nother.
B
B
That's
leaving.
Some
of
the
existing
facility
is
certainly
a
lot
better
than
what
we
have.
It's
not
ideal.
I'd
like
to
see
the
green
spine
as
a
green
spine
as
well.
I
think
that's
I
remember
looking
at
this
and
thinking
so
as
a
green
spine
you're
going
to
drive
by
a
in
the
future
phase.
What
would
be
a
ramp
down
into
the
basement?
Well,
that'd
be
a
lot
of
fun
right
I
mean
as
a
walkable.
No,
it's
not
so
I
think
what
ultimately
I'm
saying
here
for
commission
members.
B
So
with
that,
I
would
support
the
current
with
the
addition
of
a
condition
for
an
ada,
compliant
sidewalk
connection
or
connection
to
the
parking
lot
at
the
very
least
at
the
signal
location,
because
I
think
to
the
point
coming
from
the
west.
B
Not
only
do
you
have
to
walk
across
the
interstate,
you
have
to
walk
across
the
parking
lot
across
the
entrance,
which
I
think
the
county
already
kind
of
had
some
comments
about
cars
and
conflict
and
some
of
that
for
the
future,
but
then
to
walk
up
and
then
walk
back
to
the
west
to
get
into
the
entrance
of
the
grocery
store
doesn't
make
any
sense
to
me.
People
won't
do
that
not
not
able-bodied
they'll
cut
across
so
commission
members,
commissioner
cookton.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
want
to
touch
on
something
commissioner
roman
said,
because
I
had
the
same
note
on
my
list
very
hard
to
redevelop
this
and
it's
going
to
be
a
long
time
with
a
commercial
note
and
and
with
the
usage
we're
seeing
here,
a
grocery
store,
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
put
anything
in
that
lot,
because
you're
going
to
hide
the
grocery
store
and
that's
never
going
to
work
for
that
applicant
and
so
to
commissioner
roman's
point
this.
I
This
is
a
60-year
decision
here
and
in
60
years,
commissioner
abdi
and
I
will
be
in
our
90s
and
my
fellow
commissioners
may
they
may
not
go
there.
So
that's
a
that's
a
big
decision
and
we
got
to
think
about
the
precedent
we're
setting
here.
I
This
is
the
very
first
application
we're
seeing
after
the
lindell
avenue
retrofit
plan
and
we've
got
a
long
ways
to
go
on
that
plan
and
I
hope
we're
thinking
about
precedence,
precedent
our
former
commissioner
gudrum
would
always
remind
us
of
that
and
being
that,
I'm
in
his
seat.
Now,
I
guess
I
should
advise
the
same-
that
we
do
need
to
think
about
the
president
we're
sitting
here,
but
there
are
a
lot
of
existing
buildings
on
on
lindale
they're
all
going
to
have
challenges,
and
I
think
it's
us
for
for
us
to
decide.
I
What
do
we
want
that
vision
to
be
are,
and
I'm
not
going
to
try
to
sway
or
advocate
for
anybody
else,
but
from
my
position,
I'm
not
ready
to
set
the
precedent
that
we're
going
to
bend
here
and
bend
over
here,
and
you
know
it's
death
by
a
thousand
cuts
and
we
we
don't
end
up
with
what
we,
what
we've
envisioned
and
that's,
why
I'm
unable
to
make
required
finding
number
one.
We
have
a
vision
for
this
plan
to
be
to
be
totally
blunt.
I
F
Thanks
I
just
had
well
one
is
not
a
comment
about
this
project
specifically,
but
I
was
you
know
I
had
some
background
on
this,
the
the
part
of
our
code
that
allows
essentially
this
this
kind
of
a
redevelopment,
and
I
just
I
need
to
be
on
the
record
that
once
again,
you
know
the
state
has
usurped
local
control
for
something
that
really
is
not
at
all
in
the
state's
interest,
and
so
I
think
I
just
need
to
be
on
the
record
about
you
know.
F
We
have
this
conversation
every
time
we're
asked
to
approve
a
small
cell
tower
for
a
cellular
and
it's
a
it's
a
procedural
use
of
time,
because
we
have
no
authority
over
that.
So
here's
another
example
where
the
state
has
come
in
and
said
that
the
legislature
knew
better
than
us
what
our
city
needed
again.
This
is
not
a
reflection
on
the
applicant.
F
This
is
a
reflection
on
how
our
government
does
and
doesn't
work,
but-
and
I
heard
some
of
my
fellow
commissioners
talk
about
being
able
to
support
this
because
it
was
a
partial
redevelopment
of
the
of
the
building,
but
in
in
my
view,
the
there
is
a
full
development
plan
and
the
full
development
plan.
This
is
not
part
of
the
other
building.
This
is
a
separate
building
as
part
of
a
development
plan.
So
for
me
I
I
can't
make
that
that
leap
to
it's
a
redevelopment
of
a
partial
building.
F
I
think
it
may
be
connected
to
there
now
to
make
that
more
of
a
convenient
argument,
but
I
guess
again
for
me,
I'm
with
commissioner
cook-
and
I
don't
find
this
to
be
consistent,
but
you
know
we
have
a
body
with
different
opinions
and
we'll
go
where
the
votes
go.
B
And
this
is
a
city
council
final
public
hearing,
so
we
are
a
recommending
body
go
ahead.
Commissioner
abdi,
I.
G
G
If
we
were
to,
if
I
were,
to
support
something
like
a
partial
development
for
the
grocery
store
and
not
the
entire
development,
I
guess
my
support
for
this
would
be
for
the
grocery
phase.
I'd
be
okay
with,
as
is
but
the
new
development
being
more
pedestrian
friendly
and
actually
being
in
compliance
with
the
plan
that
were
adopted
just
for
clarification,
but
for
the
other
activities
that
are
surrounding
this
site,
the
other
parcels
I
should
say
that
have
huge
parking
spots
on
the
front.
G
Should
they
come
back
and
say
I
want
to
do
a
partial
redevelopment
for
consistency
in
approving
documents.
I
should
say
and
plans
if
they
were
to
come
back
and
they
say
hey.
I
also
want
to
redevelop
this
site
and
add
I
don't
know
multi-stores
to
my
one
story
whatever
building
and
they
have
but
not
necessarily
change
the
layout.
G
But
do
add
landscaping
and
all
this
other
stuff
that's
required,
but
the
sea
of
parking
is
still
there
and
nothing
is
changing,
but
we
would
be
allowing
development
and
redevelopment
or
retrofitting
of
existing
buildings
to
densify
the
sites,
but
not
necessarily
changing
to
meet
the
approved
plan.
So
then
what
would
be
the
purpose
of
the
approved
plans
if
we
are
able
to
bend
and
say
we
are
comfortable
with
partial
redevelopments
and
not
necessarily
putting
our
foot
down
as
city
and
saying
partial?
G
G
I
guess
is
what
I,
the
guidance
that
I
would
be
looking
for
in
the
future
is
to
be
consistent
in
improving
projects
for
me
to
be
comfortable
with
the
partial
demo
and
partial
reuse
of
the
existing
building
for
the
grocery
store
and
ensuring
the
the
next
phases
of
this
larger
scale.
Development
meets
with
a
plan
is
what
we're
approving
today,
just
for
the
grocery
store
for
this
phase,
or
are
we
approving
for
the
larger
context
of
this
site?
Is
the
clarification
that
I
guess
I
would
ask.
C
Sure,
mr
chair,
commissioner
abdi
you
are
being
asked
to
review
and
take
action
on
both
the
preliminary
development
plan
and
the
final
development
plan.
So
the
you
know
the
final
development
plan,
which
is
phase
one,
is
shown
here
on
the
screen,
but
you
are
also
asked
to
review
and
approve
that
preliminary
plan,
which
is
the
future
phases
so
you'll
want
to
consider
both.
D
Mr
chair,
commissioner,
cook
done
so
preliminary
development
plan.
You
know
I'm
not
sure,
legally
the
what
that
entitlement
entails
in
terms
of
property
property
rights,
it
does
set
the
the
general
scheme
of
future
phases:
development
intensity.
D
D
It's
quite
often
that
you
have
an
evolution
of
pdps
over
time,
but
unfortunately
I
don't
know
how
much
rights
are
vested
with
the
pdp
approval,
because
the
city,
we
don't
have
the
authority
to
to
force
a
future
phase
of
a
pdp
within
a
particular
timeline,
but
I'll
glenn.
If
you
could
expand
on
that.
C
Sure,
mr
chair,
commissioner
cookton
it
does,
it
sets
the
stage
for
the
future
and
while
an
applicant
can
apply
to
amend
the
plan,
that
would
become
the
starting
point
for
any
future
discussions.
If
there
were
a
request
down
the
road
to
to
change
it,
we
would
refer
back
to
what
was
acted
upon
tonight
or
or
ultimately,
by
the
city
council
soon.
E
Thanks,
mr
chair
back
to
the
question
about
what
what
substantiates
re
redevelopment
versus
tear
down,
I
think
that's
a
really
good
question.
So
one
question
that
I
had
is
I'm
looking
at
the
site
plan
here
and
we've
got
24
000
square
feet
for
the
grocery
and
then
1800
for
the
new
retail.
Can
you
tell
us
what
is
the
remaining
square
footage?
That's
the
original
building
that
will
be
standing
until
the
second
development
takes
place.
D
Mr
chair,
commissioner,
I
think
I
can
find
that
I
think
it's
roughly
well.
Let's
see
I,
I
don't
want
to
tell
you
something,
that's
inaccurate,
so
let
me
see
if
I
can
find
it
quick.
E
Equivalent,
if
it's
less
than
50,
then
I
can
see
where
that
logic
kind
of
rolls
in
right,
because
it's
using
the
same
footprint
or
the
same
building
size
but
they're
redeveloping
more
than
half
of
the
existing
building
by
square
footage,
and
it's
essentially
doing
a
new
building.
I'm
just
trying
to
put
some
numbers
around
this
to
to
frame
it
up
for
other
developments
and
setting
precedence.
So
if
they
wanna,
you
know,
put
two
more
stories
on
then
you're
doing
you
know
that
would
be
thirty
percent
versus
fifty
percent.
See
what
I'm
saying.
B
C
C
You
can
do
so,
even
though
it's
not
conforming,
even
if
it's
a
hundred
percent
of
the
building.
So
really
the
the
one
precedent
I
can
think
of
is
the
wendy's
on
american
boulevard
in
the
pan
american
district.
C
There
was
an
older
wendy's
there
that
was
torn
down
and
replaced,
and
there
again,
given
the
state
law
was
interpreted
to
be
substantially
equivalent
and
we
weren't
able
to
say.
Oh
now,
you
need
to
move
the
building
up
to
the
street,
so
yeah,
even
at
a
100
or
50
or
20
percent.
It
would
be
the
same
situation.
G
B
Any
other
thoughts
commission
members
you're
starting
to
get
me
to
think
here
I
mean
my
little
speech-
was
I
I'm
okay
with
the
grocery
store
based
on
the
preliminary
plan,
but
we
are
truly
approving
the
starting
point.
As
you
said,
for
future
development,
and
that
I
mean
part
of
it
is
the
existing
plan
or
the
the
new
grocery
store
would
fit
in
with
the
plan?
Okay,
yeah.
I
think
it
does
with
the
plan,
but
I
don't
think
the
plan
is
right.
The
preliminary
plan.
G
I
am
flip-flopping
like
I
don't
know,
but
I
recognize
I
understand
development.
I
understand
the
zoning
code.
I
recognize
the
challenges
the
developer
would
have
to
go
through
to
coming
back,
but
I
also
try
I'm
trying
my
best
to
not
think
a
hardship
of
redeveloping
the
site
or
reconfiguring
this
site,
the
hardship
being
the
financial
reasons
I
don't
think
we
are
as
commissioned.
G
I
don't
think
one
of
the
findings
says
does
not
say
that
we
have
to
consider
the
applicant's
financial
burden,
but
I
do
empathize
with
that
fact
that
you
have
to
reconfigure
that
I
guess
just
for
final
clarification
on
my
part.
The
non-conformity
part
for
the
site
is
this
site
currently
non-conforming
and
is
the
alterations,
and
I
know
that
they
can
keep
and
change
and
modify
their
non-conforming
uses
without
completely
changing
it
correct.
G
B
G
This
site,
non-conforming
and
based
on
the
staff
recommendation
for
approval.
How
is
this
continuing
to
being
consistent
with
the
non-conformity?
Mr.
C
Mr
chair
commissioner
abdi
when
well
first
of
all,
this
site
was
developed
many
many
years
ago
in
the
1950s,
but
even
more
recently,
probably
up
until
three
years
ago.
I
think
we
rezoned
to
b4
the
previous
zoning
allowed
buildings
to
be
built
with
parking
in
front
and
set
back
quite
a
ways,
so
this
building
was
legally
conforming
at
the
time
it
was
built,
but
once
it
was
rezoned,
it
became
legally
non-conforming
because
the
new
zoning
b4
requires
buildings
to
be
built
close
to
the
street
parking
to
the
side
and
rear,
and
so
as
proposed.
C
The
proposed
building
is
definitely
non-conforming.
However,
state
statute
does
allow
that
non-conformity
to
continue
to
exist
through
replacement
and
it
talks
about
other
factors.
It
says
maybe
continued,
including
through
repair
replacement,
restoration,
maintenance
or
improvement,
but
in
this
case,
replacement
is
the
key
term.
G
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
it
kind
of
helps
me
ground
it,
I'm
back
to
square
one,
I'm
in
support
of
as
proposed.
My
only
question
goes
back
to
the
larger
context
of
the
plans
that
we
have
adopted
and
the
non-conformity
of
a
lot
of
these
properties
that
are
surrounding
this
area.
G
I
guess
that's
the
challenge
that
I'm
having
right
now
is:
how
do
we
stick
to
the
plans
that
we
have
adopted
and
continue
to
create
that
vision
that
we
have
established,
while
also
not
chasing
away
development
that
is
knocking
on
our
door?
So,
sticking
to
my
guns,
I
am
comfortable
supporting
this
plan,
as
proposed.
B
Okay,
I'm
just
going
to
go
back
to
this
a
little
bit
from
my
standpoint
again.
B
There's
a
little
bit
of
this:
that's
if
you
have
a
grocery
store,
you
have
to
have
parking
and
I
certainly
understand
that
and
maybe
how
that
works
on
the
site.
That's
not
for
us
to
necessarily
determine,
but
I
think
the
other
part
is
I'm
okay
with
parking
where
it
is,
but
I'm
not
okay
with
the
density
and
what
I'm
trying
to
rectify
here
in
my
head.
Commission
members
is
to
understand
what
each
of
us
may
or
may
not
support
in
this.
B
So
whichever
way
this
decision
may
go,
the
city
council
hears
that
loud
and
clear,
and
so.
B
If
we
can
go
through
that
one
more
time-
and
maybe
with
a
little
more
brevity
just
to
make
sure
we're
all
very
clear
as
this
moves
forward
again
right
now,
I
think
the
plan
for
the
grocery
store.
It
is
what
it
is
they're
they're
doing
as
best
they
can,
with
the
plan
that
they've
provided.
B
I
don't
agree
with
the
preliminary
plan
all
right,
so
commission
members,
if,
if
you
can
I'd,
appreciate
going
through
that
prior
to
any
larger
discussion
about
emotion
or
anything,
commissioner
goldsman.
E
Thanks,
mr
chair,
I
would
agree
with
you
I
I
I
am
okay
with
the
grocery
store
as
it
as
it's
laid
out.
I
do
understand
the
parking
and
and
the
challenges
I
I
do
want
to
see
a
walkway
from
on
from
the
west
to
the
east,
just
for
people
to
walk
to
the
grocery
store
versus
having
to
go
all
the
way
to
the
aldrich
and
then
the
other
thing
is
so
talking
about
the
overall
development
plan.
This
is
where
I
get
stuck
is
the
overall
development
plan.
E
E
I
think
the
housing
is
great,
the
retail
will
be
fine,
but
the
the
corner
is
what
sticks
out
to
me
as
being
a
challenge,
but
the
grocery
store,
as
it
is,
I
think,
will
be
a
good
asset
for
the
community
and
and
for
residents,
and
it's
on
it's
on
35.
It's
going
to
be
industrial
and
nature
anyways,
so
that's
just
my
my
feedback.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
think
my
issues
are
all
about
relationship
to
the
street
and
so
whether
that
be
the
grocery
itself
again
understand
challenges
the
site
challenges
with
whatever
you
know
but,
and
I
know,
there's
cost
associated
but
structured
parking
underneath
is
an
option
I
mean
just
because
anyways,
I'm
not
I'm
not
here,
to
redesign
it
for
the
applicant
so
and
and
in
the
in
the
final
development
or
the
preliminary
development.
F
H
F
Of
our
goals,
that
was
back
when
we
talked
about
the
stationary
plan
and
so
again
that
changes
you
know
right
now,
that's
a
race
track.
It
comes
into
it's
a
dedicated
lane.
You
just
fly
through
there
at
full
speed,
so
that
changes
what
that
corner
would
become
as
well
so
yeah.
So
for
me,
it's
just
about
what
we're
presenting
at
as
commissioner
cookton
talked
about
right
across
the
street
from
our
prime
station
in
the
area
and
the
heart
of
what
was
once
considered
to
be
bloomington's
downtown.
G
Hopefully
I'll
remember
what
I
said,
because
I
don't
remember
what
I
said.
I
I
think
I'm
fine
with
the
grocery,
as
is
due
to
the
non-conformity
definition.
I
think
we're
bound
by
that
to
some
extent
and
when
we
say
you
know
buildings
to
the
street,
I
feel
like
the
two,
the
apartments
and
the
other
retail
and
then
the
corner.
G
Which
can
we
should
see
more
a
little
bit
more
density
at
the
corner,
but
when
it
comes
to
the
language
that
I'm
hearing
about
you
know
closer
to
the
street,
I
think
the
other
two
two
developments
on
the
on
each
side,
the
apartment
and
the
corner-
technically
meets
the
building
to
the
street
level.
Almost
I
don't
know
what
the
setbacks
are
from
this
view
here
without
nitpicking
too
much
I
feel
like.
G
I
would
be
in
support
of
this.
I
don't
know
what
the
view
would
be
like
from
the
lindell.
Is
it
the
lindell
side?
So
I
don't
know
what
this
view
would
be
like,
because
we're
still
in
the
very
early
stages
of
the
development.
So
I
we're
only
looking
at
the
aerial
view
right
now
and
we're
having
a
lot
of
conversations
about
the
street
level.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
My
primary
concerns
are
how
this
relates
to
the
lindell
avenue
retrofit
plan.
I
believe
the
lindell
avenue
retrofit
plan
called
for
walkability,
increased
density,
ground
level
activation
and
parking
interior
to
the
site.
I
don't
see
any
of
those
here.
I
have
concerns
that
this
is
not
the
vision
we
had
for
the
aldrich
connection.
It's
neither
tree-lined
nor
particularly
green,
and
it's
not
a
street.
It's
a
parking
isle
yeah.
I
don't
like
the
proximity
to
the
streets.
I
want
to
see
something
that's
next
to
the
streets.
B
Okay,
all
right
all
right,
commission
members,
I
think
we're
finding
ourselves
in
a
position
here
of
there's
some-
maybe
approval
of
the
where
the
grocery
store
is,
but
I'm
hearing
in
general
that
the
preliminary
plan
is
not
necessarily
the
best
plan
across
the
board
for
the
most
part.
Commissioner
abdi,
I
think
you
mentioned
the
corner.
You
know,
maybe
that
could
be
redeveloped
in
your
own
right.
B
Thinking
about
that
and
again,
I
think
we're
holding
this
up
as
the
lindale
retrofit
plan
and
thinking
about
what
were
the
primary
tenants
of
that.
The
walkability,
as
you
mentioned,
commissioner
cook,
done
the
street
level
activation,
which.
B
You
gotta
say
the
only
there's
one
less
than
one
quarter
of
this.
That
does
that
and
I
think
overall,
the
proximity
to
what
we
think
will
be
a
very
successful
transit
development
that
this
should
be
providing
those
tenants
all
the
way
through
the
the
development.
If
I'm
reading
the
commission
right
so
with
that,
would
anybody
like
to
make
a
motion-
and
I
fully
expect
we
well
there's
five
of
us,
so
there
will
be
one
motion
one
way
or
the
other
compared
to
when
we've
had
an
even
number
commission
members.
B
Now
keep
in
mind
again
the
planned
there.
We
go
the
plan
development
zoning
overlay
allows
for
planned
development.
That's
one
thing,
but
the
second
one,
I
think,
is
where
I
hear
the
most
division
amongst
the
commission
here
tonight
regarding
the
preliminary
and
final
development
plan
so
craft.
Your
motion
accordingly.
I
D
Mr
commissioner
cook,
there
are
no
specific
findings
for
rezoning,
rezonings,
so
they're,
you
know,
generally
speaking
with
rezoning,
we're
we're
thinking
about
what
sort
of
development
we
wish
to
see
within
a
particular
area.
D
I
B
Any
other
questions
or
comments
yet,
commissioner
goltzmann,
it
looks
like
you're
trying
to
touch
the
microphone
but
weren't
sure
I
haven't.
E
Decided
yet
thanks,
mr
chair,
a
question
for
the
second
motion,
so
just
to
clarify
if
we
were
to
approve
it's
both
for
the
grocery
and
this
and
the
future
development,
which
we
kind
of
don't
have
the
details
for
yet,
but
I'd
be
approving
it
if
we
approved
it
as
it's
written
today,.
D
Mr
mike,
commissioner,
that
that's
correct
yeah
you're
being
asked
to
to
make
a
recommendation
on
the
preliminary
development
plan.
The
commissioners
have
had
comments
on
some
elements
that
could
be
improved
with
that
plan.
But
ultimately,
you
are
being
asked
to
make
a
recommendation
on
what's
presented
to
you.
F
B
Commission
members,
if
I
don't
hear
anything
else,
entertain
a
motion.
Mr
commissioner,
roman.
F
B
All
right,
commission
members,
we
have
a
motion
in
front
of
us.
Is
there
a
second
second
commissioner
abdi?
Thank
you
all
right.
Commission
members,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
in
front
of
us
to
recommend
city
council,
adopt
an
ordinance
to
apply
the
planned
development
zoning
overlay
to
9728
lindell
avenue
south.
Is
there
any
further
discussion,
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye
aye
all
right
motion
passes
that
will
move
on
to
the
november
15th
city
council
meeting
all
right.
Commission
members,
we
have
another
motion.
B
In
front
of
us
to
at
this
point
on
our
screens
to
recommend
approval,
or
we
can
go
the
other
way,
so
commission
members
or
modify
commissioner
crookton.
I
Mr
chair
will
take
the
first
crack
out
of
motion
if
there's
no
further
discussion,
mr
sharon
case
pl
2021-191,
having
been
unable
to
make
the
required
findings,
I
move
to
recommend
city
council
deny
preliminary
and
final
development
plans
to
partially
redevelopment
the
clover
center
shopping
center
to
accommodate
an
approximately
24
000
square
foot
grocery
store,
as
well
as
establish
future
retail
and
mixed
use
development
phases,
subject
to
the
conditions
and
code
requirements
attached
to
the
staff
report.
B
All
right,
thank
you,
commissioner
cook
down.
Commission
members,
we
have
a
motion
in
front
of
us
to
deny
the
recommend
denial
of
the
preliminary
and
final
development
plans.
Is
there
a
second?
B
Second
all
right,
commissioner
members,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
in
front
of
us
to
having
not
been
able
to
make
the
required
findings
to
move
that
the
city
council
deny
preliminary
final
development
plans
to
partially
redevelop
the
clover
center
shopping
center
to
accommodate
an
approximately
24
000
square
foot
grocery
store,
as
well
as
establish
future
retail
mixed-use
development
phases,
subject
to
the
conditions
and
code.
B
I
guess
we
don't
need
to
necessarily
and
add
that,
but
I
will
repeat
it
since
you
said
it
conditions
and
code
requirements
attached
to
the
staff
report,
all
right,
commission
members
again
in
front
of
us.
We
have
a
motion
any
further
discussion,
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor
of
recommending
denial
to
the
city
council
say
I
I
all
those
against
same
sign,
nay,
all
right,
so
that
will
move
forward
to
the
city
council
with
a
recommendation
of
denial
with
a
vote
of
three
to
one
four
to
one
I
can
count.
B
I
promise
all
right
commission
members.
That
concludes
item
number
one
in
front
of
us
tonight
that
will
again
move
forward
to
the
november
15th
city
council
meeting
as
a
public
hearing
all
right.
Moving
on
to
item
number
two,
and
I
see
that
we
have
a
request
to
continue
that
by
the
applicant
to
the
october
28
2021
planning
commission
meeting
planning.
Commission
members.
I
would
entertain
a
motion
to
continue
item
number
two
to
the
october
28
2021
planning
commission
meeting.
Commissioner
goldsman.
B
All
right,
thank
you.
Is
there
members
we
have
a
motion
in
front
of
us
to
continue
item
number
two
to
the
october
28th
planning
commission
meeting.
Is
there
a
second.
G
B
All
right,
commission
members,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
in
front
of
us
to
continue
the
city
code,
amendment
high
density,
auto
sales
to
the
october
28th
2021
planning
commission
meeting.
Is
there
any
further
discussion,
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye,
aye,
aye.
All
right
motion
carries
that
item
will
move
forward
to
the
october
28th
planning
commission
meeting.
All
right
next
item
is
a
change
of
condition,
request
by
nine
mile
brewing
mr
johnson
staff
report.
Please.
J
Thank
you,
chair,
solberg
and
good
evening,
commissioners.
This
is
a
conditional
use
permit
that
was
before
you
not
so
long
ago,
just
in
june,
so
it
should
be
fairly
fresh
in
your
memory
and
in
fact
I
think
there
was
some
discussion
about
the
sidewalk
connection
in
question
for
tonight's
change,
of
condition.
Application
at
that
meeting
so
we'll
provide
some
slides
for
you
and
hopefully
not
confuse
you.
J
South
tech
number.
Two
south
tech
plaza
is
located
at
james
and
96th,
so
again,
you're
familiar
with
the
site.
This
is
just
north
of
city
hall.
This
is
the
building
in
an
oblique
view
and
the
subject.
Tenant
space
is
highlighted
in
yellow
the
tap
room.
Brewery
and
restaurant
is
currently
under
construction.
The
last
I
heard,
I
believe,
they're
targeting
an
opening
period
of
late
november
early
december.
J
So
that's
the
last
information
that
I
had
on
it
what's
before
you
this
evening.
Is
that,
as
with
any
conditional
use
permit,
either
the
planning
commission
or
the
city
council,
has
the
authority
and
ability
to
add
conditions
of
approval
on
the
basis
of
city
code
requirements,
but
also
on
some
discretionary
level
on
the
basis
of
public
health,
safety
and
welfare?
J
So
that's
that's.
What
informed
condition
number
eight
just
just
to
have
a
quick
discussion
about
code
trigger
versus
discretionary
actions
on
the
part
of
a
decision
making
body
there
is,
as
we
on
your
last
item,
you're
talking
a
lot
about
non-conformity,
not
having
a
sidewalk
connection
to
a
building
is
what's
considered
a
non-conforming
site
characteristic,
there's
actually
specific
triggers
in
code
of
when
you
have
to
provide
that
by
code,
whereas
it's
not
a
discretionary
action,
but
rather
it
just
has
to
happen.
J
J
J
You
also
have
civic
plaza,
which
of
course
includes
the
fine
arts
center,
which
has
certainly
a
number
of
plays
either
before
or
after
activities
and
then
yeah,
and
then
you
have
certainly
large
employers
like
donaldson,
where
you
could
have
a
large
happy
hour
or
other
type
activities,
so
we're
fairly
confident
that
the
the
pedestrian
and
bicycle
traffic
to
this
site
is
going
to
increase
on
the
basis
of
some
of
the
surrounding
uses.
J
J
Unfortunately,
the
area
that
would
be
the
most
logical,
pedestrian
connection
to
west
96th
street
to
the
tap
room
itself
would
not
likely
meet
both
the
vertical
and
cross-slope
requirements
for
the
american
disabilities
act
ada.
J
So,
in
order
to
provide
an
ada
compliant
connection,
you
would
either
have
to
do
switchbacks
along
the
roadway
or
do
some
very
significant
and
disruptive
grading
to
the
site
to
kind
of
regrade.
This
whole
area
to
flatten
and
level
it
out
so
it'd
be
a
very
costly
intervention
and,
as
with
anything
with
land
use
law,
there
always
has
to
be
a
nexus
of
kind
of
what
you're
requiring
the
property
owner
to
do
to
what
to
what
is
being
required
of
them.
J
In
this
case,
just
the
occupancy
not
building
new
buildings,
but
just
creating
an
occupancy
so
either
by
creating
a
sidewalk
connection
at
this
island,
which
kind
of
shown
to
you
in
this
left
image-
and
these
are
exhibits
from
the
applicant's
materials
that
would
not
meet
the
ada
requirements.
If
they
push
it
further
to
the
west,
you
would
also
have
to
disrupt
a
private
retaining
wall
and
again
have
doing
a
direct
connection
like
being
shown
in
the
yellow
lines.
J
There
also
likely
would
not
comply
with
ada
requirements
because
of
the
the
slope
that's
being
shown
there.
That's
often
where
you
see
some
of
these
switchback
type
sidewalk
scenarios,
so
it's
a
challenging
scenario
and
staff
concedes
or
concurs
is
in
full
agreement
with
the
applicant
that
that,
ultimately,
is
probably
not
the
best
solution
here.
J
J
You
know
in
further
discussion
upon
receipt
of
that
application
staff
to
identify
some
sidewalk
connection,
alternatives
which
you
can
see
here
on
this
slide
is
kind
of
being
shown
in
the
green
option.
What
is
labeled
as
option
three
and
we'll
talk
about
what
the
different
options
mean,
but
this
this
solution,
while
it
is
a
shorter
connection,
while
it
is
a
much
flatter
area
within
the
site,
it's
not
without
its
own
warts.
It's
you
know
it's
a
very
long
distance
away
from
the
nine
mile
brewing
occupancy.
J
J
Right
now,
we
have
anecdotal.
We
have
what
our
training
suggests.
We
have
what
most
people
assume
to
be
true
as
far
as
a
tap
room
and
restaurant
is
concerned,
but
we
don't
have
any
data
to
operate
off
of,
and
so
in
order
to
kind
of
answer
that
final
question,
then
this
is
an
approach
upon
with
meeting
with
the
applicant,
who
is
on
the
call,
and
certainly
can
speak
to
your
questions
if
you
have
any.
J
But
in
order
to
address
that
very
question
staff
proposed
to
him
a
little
bit
of
an
innovative
solution
in
this
case,
and
it
would
be
similar
to
a
proof
of
parking
type
solution.
Whereas
it'd
be
a
proof
of
sidewalk
connection
solution.
Whereas
the
applicant
similar
to
a
proof
of
parking
would
enter
into
an
agreement
with
the
city,
they
would
record
it
against
the
property
and,
ultimately,
what
it
would
seek
to
establish
is
what
are
some
of
these
triggers
or
thresholds
of
pedestrian
and
bicycle
activity.
J
And
so,
ultimately,
as
staff
and
the
applicant
were
kind
of
discussing
this
idea,
it
became
more
and
more
in
in
concert
that
this
would
be
kind
of
the
best
solution
to
get
everyone
on
the
same
page
and
get
over
the
hump.
J
So
that's,
ultimately,
what
what
we
where
we
arrived.
The
applicant
is
supportive
of
that
approach
from
my
understanding,
just
in
getting
to
the
the
staff
report
laid
it
out
as
options.
So
I
will
briefly
just
just
describe
that
to
you
option.
One
is
the
status
quo.
It's
you
have
to
provide
a
connection
to
the
the
front
door
to
the
to
the
sidewalk
connection,
which
we
think
is
challenging
from
a
construction
standpoint.
J
That's
what's
kind
of
shown
in
red
on
that
exhibit
there
option
two
would
be
to
strike
the
condition
altogether,
which,
for
the
reasons,
I've
stated
increased,
pedestrian
bicycle
activity
associated
this
use
is
also,
you
know,
has
some
warts
or
is
not
ideal.
J
This
third
option
gets
us
to
this
proof
of
sidewalk
connection
idea
where
we
can
revisit
this
at
a
later
date
after
collecting
enough
data
to
make
a
more
informed
decision-
and
I
think
the
the
property
owner
was
more
supportive
of
that
approach.
J
I'm
just
getting
to
the
agreement
itself.
I
already
kind
of
discussed
some
of
these
bullet
points,
so
maybe
I
won't
go
too
long
on
this,
but
idea
of
adopting
it
prior
to
january
31st,
again,
as
I
said,
establishes
thresholds
that
are
agreed
upon
by
both
city
staff
and
the
property
owner
revisiting
the
situation
in
18
months.
Following
the
opening
of
the
tap
room
and,
as
I
said,
the
applicant
has
provided
verbal
support
of
this
in
our
prior
meetings
and
correspondence.
So
that
is
what
is
informing
the
staff
recommendation
in
this
case.
J
So
I'm
happy
to
take
any
questions.
The
the
motion
before
you
provides
revised
condition
language
do
note
that
it
does
change
the
timing
of
it
from
prior
to
cfo
to
ongoing
just
given
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
it,
and
this
is
what's
reflected
in
the
resolution
that
was
included
in
your
packet,
so
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
B
Thank
you,
mr
johnson,
commissioner,
abdi.
G
To
can
you
go
back
to
your
previous
slide,
please?
I
know
the
one
after
the
yeah
for
bullet
point
three.
Who
would
be
the
one
to
do
the
analysis
after
some
time
like?
Would
it
be
staff
the
applicant
self-reporting,
or
would
it
be
a
you
know
like
some
of
the
developments
you
see,
that
traffic
analysis
or
who
would
actually
do
that
to
for
staff
to
re-examine
the
condition.
J
Yep
chair
commissioner
abdi,
so
we
do
have
a
couple
methods.
The
traffic
staff
does
to
collect
this
type
of
data,
so
more
than
likely
it
would
be
city
doing
the
data
collection.
We
certainly
would
include
the
the
property
owner
in
those
efforts
and
make
sure
that
they're
comfortable
and
understand
what
the
methodology
is
again.
As
I
said,
we
want
to
work
hand
in
hand
with
him
through
this
process,
so
certainly
that
will
be
part
of
drafting
that
agreement.
But
from
my
perspective
it
would
be
our
city's
traffic
staff
who
would
be
collecting
that
data.
B
All
right
any
further
questions
for
staff.
Commissioner,
roman.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Sorry,
mr
johnson,
on
actually
come
back
to
this
one.
On
the
previous
slide,
the
option,
one
alternate,
the
one:
that's
the
furthest
east
that
alternate,
we
believe,
would
meet
grade
standards.
It
looks
like
what
I
can
see
from
from
a
map
that
that
does,
but
it
doesn't
have
the
same
grade
issues
as
the
initial
connection
is
that
accurate.
J
Chair
commissioner
roman
option-
one
as
it's
currently
being
shown
likely,
would
not
meet
ada
requirements.
The.
J
J
B
J
Yeah
so
either
solution
you're,
probably
you're
either
creating
a
switchback
in
the
west,
the
left
hand
on
one
you're
doing
some
type
of
switchback
sidewalk
on
the
right
or
lifting
raising
up
the
site.
Somehow,
on
the
right
hand,
on
the
eastern
solution,
you're,
probably
doing
some
significant
grading
and
repaving
to
flatten
all
that
out
and
given
the
grades.
It's
it's
a
lot
of
intervention.
Sure.
J
Yeah,
the
the
thank
you
that,
for
that
question,
the
reason
being
is
that
the
one
that's
being
shown
just
from
doing
the
site
visit.
That's
the
easiest,
less
disruptive
connection,
it's
the
flattest
area.
It
wouldn't
require
the
removal
of
any
trees.
You
know,
potentially
root
systems
could
be
slightly
disturbed,
but
there's
also
a
a
parking
stall
there.
J
F
J
F
And
my
last
question
is
on
the
next
slide:
I'm
curious
about
it's
actually,
the
same
bullet
point
that
commissioner
abdi
was
asking
about.
Can
you
explain
why
bicycle
trips
are
part
of
a
factor
in
a
sidewalk.
J
Some
some
bicyclists
use
sidewalks,
not
all
bicyclists.
It
would
be
preferred.
I
think,
if
they
did
not
use
sidewalks
it'd
also
be
preferred
if
all
drivers
respect
and
observed
bicyclists,
but
I
I
think
the
the
purpose
by
just
including
bicycle,
is
that
we
just
want
to
capture
all
the
forms
of
alternative
mode
of
transportation
that
people
are
utilizing
to
visit
the
site.
J
We
want
to
be
able
to
capture
what
are
the
increases
if
there
is
a
pretty
resounding
data
point
of
evidence
that
it's
increased
significantly,
I
think
it
just
provides
more
urgency
or
emphasis
to
provide
a
connection
into
the
site.
That's
not
the
drive
aisle
right
at
it,
but
every
bicyclist
different
myself.
I
would
be
comfortable
utilizing
a
driveway,
but
I'm
also
recognized
that
other
people
are
less
comfortable
being
in
mixed
traffic.
Thank
you.
Yeah.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
mr
johnson,
when
we
talk
about
ada,
often
that's
a
a
requirement.
It's
it's
not
an
option,
but
you
mentioned
this
as
sort
of
a
discretionary
condition
on
the
original
application.
Can
you
just
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
why
this
is
optional
or
discretionary
or
not?
This
is
ada
code.
You
have
to
meet
it.
J
Yeah
so
chair,
commissioner,
cooked
and
there's
kind
of
two
different
things:
one
is
the
design.
Ada
is
now
the
standard
of
design.
It's
not
well.
I
want
to
be
careful
that
I
don't
do
this
incorrectly.
Getting
back
to
your
first
discussion
point
there's
going
to
be
development
from
all
areas
of
development
in
the
city,
70s
80s
90s
that
weren't
did
not
meet
the
current
standard.
J
So
the
reason
why
I
mentioned
that
it
was
discretionary
in
this
case
is
because
it
did
not
trigger
the
classic
touch
points
in
the
sidewalk
and
non-conformity
ordinance
that
are
identified
in
city
code.
However,
that
being
said,
there
is
a
discretionary
allowance
to
include
conditions
on
the
basis
of
public
health
safety
welfare.
I
E
J
J
So
you
know
both
of
them
are
very
close
and
accessible
to
the
building.
They
both
have
their
own
specific
entrances
and
would
allow
for
egress
within
that
within
the
patio
two
that's
allowed,
but
you
know
they're
they're
in
close
proximity
to
the
front
door,
both
of
them.
Okay,
thank
you,
yep.
They
can't
extend
out
into
the
drive
aisle,
so
they
shouldn't
disrupt
vehicle
or
theoretically,
pedestrian
or
bicycle
traffic.
That
would
be
navigating
the
parking
lot.
E
E
So
for
the
the
path
that
is
on
my
screen
on
the
right
hand,
side,
I
think
that's
the
east
side
so
just
to
understand
there
would
be
a
walkway
to
a
parking
stall,
but
really
there's
no
path
from
that
that
walkway
to
the
front
door
or
would
they
have
to
block
out
all
of
those
parking
spots?.
J
Yeah,
that's
a
it's
a
good
question
chair,
commissioner
goldsmith.
They
would
have
the
opportunity
to
add
sidewalk.
Currently
the
island
is
non-conforming,
you
know.
Ideally
we
would
have
a
street
tree
within
that
island.
But
if
you're,
not
if
you
striped
off
another
stall,
is
no
parking,
you
you
couldn't
create
some
sidewalk
or
pedestrian
way
to
the
front
door.
More
than
likely.
J
I
can't
recall
offhand
how
much
landscaping
is
in
that
immediate
area
and
what's
planned
for
the
site,
but
yeah
I
mean
this
is
a
scenario
that,
given
all
the
constraints
back
to
what
I
said,
I
think
no
can
no
condition
is
ideal.
It's
probably
an
improvement,
but
it's
not
going
to
be
ada
compliant
and
would
require
significant
disruption
to
be
so.
I
K
E
I
J
B
All
right,
not
seeing
any
mr
marker
guard,
is
the
applicant
on,
and
would
you
like
to
speak.
C
Yeah
mr
chair,
mr
steve
hoyt
is
here
and
mr
hoyt
you're
able
to
speak
at
this
point.
C
A
Great
yeah,
we.
A
When
I
look
at
this
brew
pub,
the
couple
things
jump
out
at
me,
one
is
that
there's
a
lot
of
parking
and
we
we
located
this
this
tenant
at
the
at
the
end
cap.
So
we
can
take
advantage
of
all
the
parking
on
the
end
cap,
which
extends
into
the
the
the
u-shaped
area
and,
of
course
we
we
also
have
enhanced
the
lighting
at
a
significant
expense
to
make
sure
that
we've
got
a
safety
that
our
safety
issue
is
covered.
A
The
the
thing
that
I
that
I
think
is
obvious
is
that
people
probably
aren't
going
to
be
day
drinking
and
they're,
at
least,
I
hope
not,
and
I
think
they'll
probably
use
this
after
working
hours,
they're
after
4,
30
or
5
o'clock
and
there's
plenty
of
parking
available.
A
I
would
I
would
say
that,
in
my
opinion,
judging
from
my
visit
to
the
to
the
broken
hill
brew
pub,
which
is
a
very
similar
situation
in
the
edina
industrial
park,
except
that
that
building
doesn't
have
a
lot
of
parking
and
the
yeah
and
the
and
the
and
the
pub
is
actually
located
in
the
middle
of
the
building.
A
I
think
that
I
think
that
there
probably
won't
be
a
lot
of
bicycle
traffic.
I
I
think,
generally
speaking,
people
people
don't
drink
a
lot
of
beers
and
and
ride
their
bike,
home
and-
and
also
I
I
don't.
I
don't
think,
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
pedestrian
traffic
coming
in
here.
I
think
it's
going
to
be
car
traffic
and
you
know
that's
why
we
have
handicapped
spots
in
front
of
the
building
so
that
people
can
come
in
if
they're
handicapped,
if
they
have
a
wheelchair,
it's
really
easy
for
them
to
get
in.
A
We
don't
think
it's
the
right
thing
to
do
to
deposit
people,
pedestrians
or
people
in
wheelchairs
or
bicycles,
in
a
heavily
trafficked
area
by
cars
and
trucks,
especially
during
the
winter
months
or
or
or
inclement
weather
months.
We
just
we
just
don't
think
it's
the
right
thing
to
do,
and
and
and
I
think
I
think
that
people
have
plenty
of
great
ways
to
get
to
the
brewery,
and
you
know,
even
if
they're
not
walking
on
a
sidewalk,
they
can
walk
three
feet
away.
They
can
walk
on
a
an
asphalt
paved
driveway.
A
So
I
I
you
know
to
me
it's
a
non-issue,
but
I
think
that
we,
I
guess
we
don't
know
and
we'll
see-
and
you
know
maybe
12
months
18
months
from
now.
We
we
take
a
look
at
it
and
we've
got
the
city's
data
and
we
yeah
and
we
say
that
there
should
be
a
sidewalk
connection,
but
for
right
now
I
think
it
I
just
I
just
I
just
don't
think
it's
the
right
thing
to
do.
B
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
hoyt,
commissioner
members
anything
for
mr
hoyt,
not
seeing
any.
Thank
you,
mr
hoyt,
for
being
with
us
tonight.
We
have
no
additional
questions
for
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
You're
welcome
all
right
at
this
time
we'll
go
ahead
and
open
up
the
public
hearing
on
this
particular
subject
and
again,
mr
marker
guard,
if
you
can
check,
if
there's
anybody
online,
nobody
in
the
chambers
at
this
point
so.
C
B
Okay,
thank
you
appreciate
that
commission
members
with
that.
I
would
entertain
a
motion
to
close
the
public
hearing.
Commissioner
coltzman.
B
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
in
front
of
us
to
close
public
hearing.
Is
there
a
second
second
all
right
in
a
second
by
commissioner
cook,
then
all
right
committee,
commission
members,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
in
front
of
us
to
close
public
hearing
any
further
discussion,
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor,
say:
aye
aye
public
hearing
is
now
closed
on
this
particular
matter.
B
All
right,
commission
members.
Any
discussion
on
this
request
in
front
of
us
to
revise
condition.
Number
eight,
commissioner,
roman.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
thank
you
to
the
staff
for
thinking
creatively
with
the
applicant
about
how
to
look
at
this.
I
think
this
concept
of
proof
of
connectivity.
I
is
I
appreciate
that
people
have
thought
outside
the
box.
F
If
anyone
here,
I'm
usually
the
one
who
says
sidewalk
sidewalk
sidewalk
anyway,
I
think
at
the
time
we
reviewed
this
application
back
in
june,
we
kind
of
questioned
what
this
was
this
stub
into
a
parking
lot.
So
because
I
don't
find
you
know
even
option
three
to
be
all
that
compelling
so
and
given
that
it's
that
not
that
far
around
the
end
to
walk
on
in
the
drive
aisle
which
you're
going
to
have
to
walk
in
the
drive
aisle
on
any
of
those
options.
F
My
only
recommendation-
and
I
don't
know
how
others
feel
is-
I
would
not
be
in
support
of
including
bicycles
in
that
count.
I
understand
that
bicycles
do
like
to
use
the
sidewalk.
I
don't
believe
it's
the
right
thing
and
we
shouldn't
encourage
it
so
using
that
in
account
that
triggers
a
requirement
for
a
sidewalk
connection,
I
would
not
be
supportive
of
other
than
that.
I'm
happy
to
bike
there
someday
and
day
drink.
E
Thanks,
mr
chair,
I
will
echo
commissioner
roman's
comment
on
being
creative.
I
love
that
we
have
you
know,
proof
of
parking
is
a
constant,
and
so
let's
do
proof
of
sidewalk.
I
think
it
makes
really
a
lot
of
sense.
Just
something
that
kind
of
I'm
a
little
bit
apprehensive
about
is
the
concept
of
establishing
a
threshold,
because
today
it
is
not
a
walkable
neighborhood.
E
I
I
was
was
actually
employed
across
the
street
from
where
this
brewery
will
be
for
many
years
and
really
isn't
a
lot
of
things
to
walk
to,
and
so
this
will
will
generate
more
walking
traffic.
So
I
think
one
thing
we'll
we'll
need
to
talk
through,
or
maybe
just
to
understand
is
when
we
say
set
a
threshold.
What
what
does
that
mean?
Does
it
just
mean
it's
increasing?
E
Well,
it's
going
to
increase,
or
is
it
increasing
by
x
percent
and
if
it's
zero,
then
x
percent
is
a
lot
right.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
mindful
of
what
that
that
threshold
means.
E
The
only
other
thing
I
have
a
comment
on
is,
you
know,
looking
at
the
parking
lot
in
general,
if
we
could
pull
up
the
overhead
again,
is
there
plans
to
do
just
striping,
so
I
understand
putting
a
sidewalk
in
isn't.
You
know
realistic,
at
least
without
having
good
data,
but
would
it
make
sense
to
put
some
more
striping
in
in
place
just
painted
to
just
direct
the
flow
of
those
pedestrians
without
putting
a
a
sidewalk
in.
G
E
That
is
that
something
that
could
be
done
or
maybe
just
a
comment,
and
I
know
we've
got
public
comment
and
and
questions
are
done
so
just
two
things
that
I
look
at,
but
I
think
overall,
having
this
proof
of
sidewalk
connection
makes
a
lot
of
sense,
but
we
just
need
to
make
sure
we
have
the
the
right
thresholds
and
measurements
in
place.
B
All
right,
commissioner,
cookton.
I
I
I
My
comments,
however,
are
a
bit
of
a
departure
from
that.
I've
talked
more
than
once
on
this
commission
that
we
are
the
body
of
practicality,
that
we
look
at
every
item
that
comes
before
us
as
in
its
own
application,
and
we
are
the
closest
thing
to
the
streets
and
we
can
see
when
a
deviation
is
is
practical,
and
so
you
might
expect
I
would
be
in
favor
of
this,
but
I'm
I'm
actually
not.
I
I
I
see
this
as
a
plate
that
was
brought
on
by
choosing
this
site.
This
is
not
a
you
know.
This
is
not
like
a
funky
shaped
lot
or
something
that
the
applicant
didn't
have.
Control
on.
This
is
the
site
they
chose,
and
this
was
the
condition
of
approval
that
we
gave
to
them,
and
that's
that's
what
they've
run
with
and
that's
you
know:
that's
that's
the
situation
that
that
they're
in
now
and
I
I
don't
think
I'm
inclined
to
to
change
it.
You
know
I.
I
I
work
professionally
in
a
in
the
design
world
and
it's
not
uncommon
for
us
to
have
to
go
to
great
lengths
to
achieve
ada
and
we
do
it
and
I'm
not
accusing
the
owner
of
not
doing
it,
but
we
do
it
because
it's
the
right
thing
to
do
and
we
we
care
about
the
folks
that
are
in
our
building
and
if
it
costs
us
a
ton
of
money
or
a
lot
of
time
or
a
lot
of
effort
on
the
design
team.
I
We
we
meet
ada
and
we've
we've
gone
a
long
ways
to
do
that
in
my
line
professionally,
and
I
think
we
could
do
it
here
and
even
if
it's
only
three
people
in
a
wheelchair
a
year
that
would
be
utilizing
this
ramp.
For
me,
that's
worth
it
to
be
a
city
that's
accommodating
to
those
folks,
and
so
again
I
want
to
stress-
I
don't
think
the
applicant
is,
you
know,
trying
to
buck
ada
or
something
like
that.
But
in
my
opinion
this
is
the
site
they
bought.
This
is
the
site
they
chose.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner,
cookton
anybody
else
from
the
planning
commission
with
any
comments
or
I'll,
maybe
throw
in
a
couple
things
here.
B
So
I
remember
when
we
we
approved
this
and
I
went
out
to
the
site
and
I
was
like
there
is
no
way
that
we're
going
to
be
able
to
make
ada
compliant
to
the
front
door
from
the
sidewalk.
That's
immediately
in
front
of
it.
There
I
mean
there
would
be,
but
it
you
would
be
substantial
involvement,
changing
that
landscape
yard
and
everything
in
front
to
considerable
expense.
Much
to
your
your
point,
commissioner,
cook
done
ada
can
be
achieved
if
you
try,
but
there
is
a
reasonable
extent
level.
B
That's
within
ada
as
well.
I
think
here
in
my
mind
it
makes
sense
to
make
the
connection
to
the
property.
I
I'm
not
sure
that
it
makes
sense
to
make
it
to
the
front
door.
B
B
I
personally
believe
that
there
will
be,
I
think,
maybe
even
to
our
staff's
own
slip
that
they
mentioned
during
the
during
the
presentation
that
it
will
drive
more
activity.
One
of
the
things
I
struggle
with
in
this
particular
item
is
just
what
makes
sense
right.
B
We
tend
to,
I
think,
use
a
lot
of
that
in
this
planning
commission
to
try
and
drive
what
makes
sense
in
the
process
the
right
now,
the
sidewalk
to
the
east
stops.
So
if
we
had
a
full
sidewalk
going
to
the
east
I'd
say,
maybe
there
should
be
one
from
that
direction.
B
We
do
have,
of
course,
humboldt
avenue
to
the
south,
but
that
doesn't
have
sidewalk
either
and
then
really
you
think
about
okay
well
coming
down
on
james
avenue.
There
is
a
sidewalk,
but
there
is
no
ada
compliant
sidewalk
connection
to
anywhere
in
south
tech
plaza,
but
the
the
of
course
what
we
expect.
B
Maybe
a
pedestrian
destination
is,
of
course
nine
mile
brewing
so,
and
you
look
at
again
back
to
where
some
of
the
residential
are
and
some
of
that
I
I
do
think
that
that
southeast
corner
probably
makes
a
lot
of
sense
and
I'm
willing
to
to
go
with
this
idea
that
they
show
that
there's
pedestrian
activity.
B
B
I
know
that
exists
in
some
locations,
but
from
that
standpoint
I
I
just-
I
think
mr
hoyt's
just
gonna
have
to
bite
the
bullet
in
18
months
and
put
in
the
sidewalk
connection,
because
I
to
the
point
you
get
people
that
can't
walk
down
some
of
these
slopes,
their
mobility
impaired
in
some
form
or
fashion
they're,
not
all
gonna
drive.
I
and
quite
honestly.
I'd
rather
have
people
walk
than
drive
after
going
to
the
brewery.
B
So
from
that
standpoint
I
can
support
the
amendment
or
the
change
for
for
the
applicant
here,
but
fully
realizing
in
some
ways.
I
almost
think
that
we
should
just
require
it
and
it
has
to
be
to
the
property
not
to
the
front
door.
Because
again,
I
think
everything
on
the
property
from
that
connection
is
probably
ada
compliant
as
a
private
entity.
They
have
their
own
responsibility,
that's
outside
of
the
public
entities
responsibility.
G
You
said,
and
I
would
be
in
support
of
moving
this
proposal
forward-
actually
force
facilities
like
these
that
are
non-conforming
to
some
extent
to
ada
requirements
based
on
what
mr
johnson
described
in
terms
of
like
the
different
levels
of
ada
requirement,
whether
it's
existing
new
or
refurbishing
is
in
this
case.
Would
it
be?
I
know
that
mr
hoyt
is
a
tenant,
or
did
he
buy
the
the
chunk
of
space
that
he's
operating
in
he's.
B
All
right,
commissioner
members,
commissioner
cookton.
I
And
so
I'm
a
little
torn,
but
I
can
count
noses
as
well
as
anybody.
So
I
think
I'll
offer
up
a
perhaps
a
middle
ground.
Can
you
go
back,
mr
johnson,
to
the
site
plan
or
any
type
of
overhead
view?
That's
fine
for
those
who
can
walk
and
are
going
to
use
the
sidewalk
system.
I
still
don't
like
the
egress
and
access
of
this.
It
went
in
from
the
health
safety
welfare
checkpoint,
and
although
I
wish
it
was
fully
ada
compliant,
I
don't
think
I'm
going
to
win
out
on
that.
I
I
I'd
like
other
commissioners
thoughts
if
they'd
be
willing
to
put
in
a
stair
up
that
grade
there
to
the
sidewalk
that
provides
access
to
the
front
door.
E
I
actually
like
that
idea.
I
think
that
it
does
allow
for
access
the
stair,
it's
not
ideal,
but
it
seems
practical.
The
only
thing
I
think
about
stairs
is
in
the
winter
and
obviously
slipping
and
and
falling,
but
I
think
it
it
might
be
an
interesting
compromise
for
lots.
Now
it
doesn't
fix
the
bike
because
going
down
stairs
on
a
bike
might
not
be
so
great,
but
it's
an
interesting
idea.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
had
a
similar
thought
earlier,
but
then
I
presume
that
a
stare
would
be
a
connection
that
would
be
non-compliant,
and
I
don't
know
enough
about
the
code.
I
know
enough
to
be
dangerous,
which
is
not
good,
so
would
a
would
a
stair
be
acceptable
or
would
we
have
just
created
a
connection?
That's
non-compliant.
B
Yeah,
let's
see
if
staff
has
some
thoughts
on
that,
if
you're
creating
a
new
non-compliant
connection.
F
B
Yes
is
miss
miss
long.
Would
you
like
to
maybe
throw
in
on
this
or
give
us
some
thoughts.
E
Sure
I
think
once
upon
a
time
up
at
lindale
and
84th
in
front
of
the
cub,
and
I
can't
remember
the
name
of
the
private
development-
they
did
build
a
stair
in
to
make
that
connection.
If
you
go
out
there
now
that
staircase
has
been
removed.
E
B
All
right
appreciate
that
good
guidance
go
ahead.
Commissioner,
roman,
this.
F
Long
do
we
know,
was
it
removed
by
the
property
owners
because
it
wasn't
being
used
or
what
did
it
want
to
be
maintained,
or
was
it
we
moved
at
the
city's
direction.
F
B
Fine
sorry,
just
another
question,
and
I
know
you
probably
may
not
know
this
or
maybe
we
don't
have
it
on
the
graphic
only
because
I
know
enough
to
be
dangerous,
but
where
is
the
property
line
on
this
parcel
because
I
do
know
the
owner
of
the
property
is
responsible
for
ada
compliance.
J
Yeah
thanks
chair.
It's
right.
The
property
line
is
according
to
gis,
which
you
know
can
be
off
by
a
foot
or
two,
but
it
appears
that
the
property
line
is
on
the
south
side
of
the
sidewalk.
The
sidewalk
in
bloomington
is
typically
constructed
within
a
sidewalk
bikeway
easement,
which
starts
right
at
the
property
line.
B
All
right,
so
I
just
again
creating
a
ada
compliance
issue
for
the
city
is
certainly
not
something
we
want
to
do.
We
certainly
don't
want
to
necessarily
do
it
for
landowners
either
by
requiring
something
that's
non-compliant,
but
I'm
wondering
if
we
could
craft
a.
B
B
All
right,
I
I
yeah
you.
I
think
you
bring
up
a
good
point,
though,
and
it's
about
usability
of
the
property
and
getting
customers
to
this
of
all
abilities.
Much
like
we
don't
want
to
put
88
compliance
ramps
in
driveways.
Why
would
we
want
to
put
able-bodied
people
in
driveways
to
the
same
piece,
and
I
understand
your
desire
to
to
want
to
do
that?
I
just
don't
want
to
put
the
city
in
a
position
of
requiring
a
landowner
to
build
something
that
doesn't
meet
federal,
ada
compliance.
B
Okay,
all
right,
I
don't
know,
commissioner
roman.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
One
potential
path
forward,
maybe
to
advance
the
proof
of
connectivity
and
leave
open
the
resolution
of
what
that
connectivity
is.
Should
it
be
required
that
it
would
have
to
come
back?
F
I
don't
know
if
we
want
to
do
that
or
not,
but
rather
than
try
to
design
on
the
fly,
yep
right
one
option
to
pursue
or
advance
the
proof
of
connectivity
concept
and
should
the
the
finding
be
made
that
connectivity
needs
to
happen
then
either
it
comes
back
here
or
we
can
defer
to
the
staff
on
their
good
judgment
on
that
either
way,
but
rather
than
try
to
figure
out
the
right
solution,
I
think
we
either
think
there
should
be
a
solution
now
or
we're
open
to
the
idea
of
assessing
to
see
if
there
should
be
a
solution.
F
B
Very
good
point,
commissioner
roman.
I
think
you're
right
we're
kind
of
jumping
to
the
solution
with
these,
rather
than
allowing
the
analysis
taken
by
the
city
right,
because
what,
if
and
I'm
you
can
go
through
the
scenarios
that
all
these
pedestrians,
walking
and
rolling
and
biking
are
coming
from
humboldt,
it
wouldn't
make
much
sense
to
put
an
ada
compliant
ramp,
any
other
way
or
any
other
location.
So
is
there
enough
flexibility,
mr
johnson,
in
the
current
scenario
or
the
current
language,
that
the
connection
is
not
so
limited
to
number
three.
J
Yeah
thanks
to
solberg
neither
the
condition
itself
or
the
resolution
that
you
would
be
potentially
adopting
this
evening
zeroes
in
on
the
solution
that
would
be
achieved
through
the
this
agreement
that
the
applicant
would
enter
in
with
the
city
in
consultation
with
the
city's
traffic
staff
and
planning
staff
and
all
the
staff
that
are
involved
in
that
type
of
decision
making.
Okay.
B
I
Mr
johnson,
would
we
would
we
know
from
this
data
collected
how
many
folks
are
in
a
position
where
they're,
wheelchairing
or
other
means
other
than
walking
or
is
it
just?
Somebody
here
was
across
the
threshold.
J
Yeah
chairman
commissioner
cook
done
julie
or
kirk
could
probably
answer
that
question
better
than
I
could,
but
my
understanding
is,
it
does
use
video
technology,
so
it
does
probably
provide
the
nature
of
the
pedestrian
trip,
but.
E
I
Thank
you.
That
makes
me
a
lot
more
comfortable.
I
sure
would
like
to
see
this
as
a
planning,
commissioner
again
if
they
cross
cross
whatever
threshold.
I
would
certainly
be
interested
in
house
having
this
discussion
again,
because
it's
going
to
be
a
judgment
call
well,
it
was
was
it
six
wheelchairs
or
nine
wheelchairs
or
what's
that
threshold?
And
I
think
we
should
have
that
conversation
as
a
planning
commission,
because
it's
kind
of
a
judgment
thing.
I
B
Just
ask
here,
mr
marker
guard
thoughts
on
what
what
that
would
be,
because
I
think,
is
the
current
condition
as
written.
That
would
just
be
a
staff
staff
resolved
issue.
C
B
I
guess
the
thought
would
be
if
there's
a
after
18
months,
you're
essentially
requesting
them
to
come
back,
and
I
mean
with
I
just
trying
to
think
about
this
through
the
the
city
process.
Would
that
be
a
public
hearing?
C
Yeah,
mr
chairman,
mr
johnson,
could
you
advance
to
the
condition
I
just
want
to
see
the
the
languages
drafted
and
how
we
might
refine
that.
C
C
And
I
could
say,
planning,
commission
city
staff
and
the
applicant
must
meet
and
discuss
pedestrian
connectivity
requirements
at
a
planning
commission
meeting.
B
All
right,
okay,
just
trying
to
make
sure
we
have
an
avenue
moving
forward
if
that
was
desired
by
the
commission.
I
think
I'm
a
little
reluctant
myself,
commissioner
cookdown,
to
bring
this
back
as
a
planning
commission
item
from
the
standpoint
that
one
we
have
staff
that
are
well
very
well
versed
in
ada
to
understanding
that
your
desire
is
to
understand
that
people
are
making
a
connection
to
it
to
the
property
that's
convenient
and
safe.
B
I
Yeah
after
hearing
more
about
it,
it's
not
a
deal
breaker
for
me.
I
I
think
it's
something
staff
could
handle.
I
think
they've
heard
what
we're
trying
to
say
there.
If
there's
people
in
wheelchairs,
we
need
to
really
focus
on
an
ada
compliant
ramp.
I
B
I
I'd
like
to
make
sure
we've
settled
as
a
commission
on
the
threshold
piece.
Is
that
something
we
are
trying
because
kind
of
what
we
were
just
talking
about
if
there's
no
threshold,
now
after
18
months
boy,
it's
it's
hard
to
it's
hard
to
have
any
teeth
on
what
you
want
to
do
without
a
threshold,
and
it's
it's
tough
for
us
to
decide
that
tonight.
I
C
L
If
we
find
that
there's
that
percentage
of
pedestrians,
then
they
need
to
go
ahead
and
make
those
accommodations,
and
so
the
number
would
put
out
there
is
something
between
eight
to
20.
Pedestrians
in
an
hour
would
would
be
about
five
to
ten
percent
of
the
trips
that
this
site,
the
vehicular
trips,
that
this
site
is
supposed
to
generate
or
predicted
to
generate
so
I'd
use
that
as
an
opening
criteria
for
a
threshold
can.
B
L
L
There
is
an
ordinance
in
bloomington
that
is
very
legal
to
ride
your
bicycle
on
sidewalks,
so
that
can
be
done
and
you
do
need
to
yield
to
pedestrians
and
things
like
that
and
from
experience.
We
know
that
there
are
a
lot
of
people
that
actually
do
ride
their
bikes
on
the
sidewalk,
if
not
for
the
duration
of
their
trip
for
the
end
point
of
their
trip.
B
So,
mr
roberts,
just
so
just
to
clarify,
could
could
you
clarify
how
you
would
evaluate
that,
so
that
would
be
an
average
over
the
18
months.
That
would
be
number.
L
You
know
for
a
month
or
whatever
we
typically
take
that
sample
over
a
few
days
and
how
would
evaluate
that
is
just
if
it
were
found
in
those
in
that
period,
that
we
have
the
data
being
collected
that
that,
in
a
given
hour,
you
had
up
8
to
20
pedestrian
bicyclist
trips,
that
they
would
meet
that
threshold
criteria
and
be
asked
to
go
ahead
and
make
those
accommodations,
and
we
would
do
it
in
a
time
when
pedestrian
activity
is
known.
So
we're
not
going
to
go
put
those
cameras
out
in
the
middle
of
february.
B
Okay,
thank
you
all
right,
commission
members
that
just
been
advised
on
this
as
well.
If
we
continue
to
talk
about
this,
we
really
should
involve
the
applicant
in
the
discussion
so
just
hearing,
maybe
some
of
the
conversation
I'm
going
to
ask
mr
hoyt.
If
he
would
comment.
A
Sure
I'm
online,
you
know,
I
think,
that
people
in
wheelchairs,
my
observation,
is,
and
I
and
I've
got
a
and
I've
got
a
parent
who
who's
disabled
been
in
a
wheelchair.
I
think
I
think
that
they
they
don't,
they
don't
wheel
for
blocks
and
blocks
and
blocks.
A
They
usually
come
in
a
in
a
van
and
that's
and
that
and
that's
why
we
have
a
handicapped
spot
there,
and
I
and
I'm
I
I
expressed
to
londell
and
to
glenn
that
I'm
willing
to
this
isn't
a
money
issue
for
us.
That's
a
public
safety
issue
and
I'm
willing
to
go
along
with
alternative
number,
three
and
and
deposit
all
those
people.
A
B
Okay,
thank
you.
Mr
hoyt
appreciate
your
feedback
to
our
question
on
that.
Thank
you
all
right,
commission
members,
we
have
an
ongoing
discussion
with
you.
I
think
pretty
clear.
We
heard
mr
hoyt
that
this
is
really
from
his
standpoint.
This
is
more
of
an
issue,
a
safety
issue
from
his
standpoint,
not
a
I
won't.
I
can't
do
it.
I
can't
accomplish
it
scenario
so
further
thoughts,
commissioner
roman.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
like
I
said
earlier,
I
think
the
question
for
me
is:
do
we
require
a
connection
somewhere
now
or
are
we
open
to
this
proof
of
connectivity?
F
And
I
guess
for
me,
I
am
open
to
this
proof
of
connectivity
as
something
to
try.
I
think
staff
have
laid
out
what
their
criteria
are.
I
hear
their
judgment
about
bicyclists
again
bicyclists
on
the
sidewalk.
Isn't
the
deal
breaker
it's
the
question
is:
are
bicyclists
going
to
be
the
trigger
for
a
connectivity
and
that
that's
for
me?
That's
that's
the
defining
piece
there,
because
a
bicyclist
cutting
through
perhaps
whether
it's
option
three
or
option
one,
a
substantial
expense
versus
a
bicyclist
going
around
the
corner
through
the
driveway.
F
Even
if
they
came
on
the
sidewalk
again,
I'm
trying
to
think
of
what's
reasonable
to
trigger
this
for
the
applicant,
I'm
supportive
of
pursuing
the
proof
of
connectivity
thing.
You
know,
given
those
numbers
eight
to
twenty,
it's
a
range.
I
don't
know
how
again
staff
have
ways
that
they
determine
eight
to
twenty.
Is
that
a
negotiation
when
you
know
it
eight?
If
we
want
to
enforce
eight,
it's
twenty,
if
we
don't
wanna
twenty
so.
B
I
don't
know
yeah
interesting,
you
know.
B
And
I'm
trying
to
think
what
what
the
premise
is,
why
why
we
would
require
a
connection,
and
it
really
is
again
to
provide
a
safe
access
into
a
facility,
not
necessarily
the
building
but
the
property,
and
so,
while
our
ordinance
talks
about
the
building
or
the
the
specific
location,
we
found
understand
that
that's
not
easily
accommodated.
B
So
then
we're
kind
of
going
back
on
this
whole
question
of
if
all
the
users
are
from
humboldt.
Why
would
you
put
something
because
it's
easy
to
construct
down
on
the
opposite
corner
right
and
if
we're
talking
about
safety
because
we're
doing
it
because
of
safety
or
you're,
providing
it
and
access,
you
want
to
make
sure
it's
for
all
users
right,
not
just
those
that
can
walk,
and
so
it
has
to
be,
in
my
mind,
an
ada.
B
That's
why
ada
comes
up
because
you
you're
making
it
for
all
users,
because
that's
the
federal
law,
so
the
number
the
threshold
is.
I
I
get
I'm
a
little
bit
stuck
on
it
honestly,
because
what?
If
that
one
user
is
a
wheelchair
user,
it
doesn't
meet
the
threshold.
So
we
don't
get
an
ada
a
safe
way
for
that
user
to
enter
the
property.
E
Thanks,
mr
chair,
I
think
I
I
wrote
this
down
when
they
were
talking
about
the
threshold,
so
it
was
eight
to
ten
pedestrians
per
hour,
but
it
was
actually
a
percentage
of
the
number
of
trips.
Did
I
write
that
down
correctly,
so
we're
actually
looking
at
it
from
a
percentage
of
how
many
cars,
how
many
people
and
what
is
the
percentage?
So
I
think
that
range
just
comes
in
from
what
they
expect
and
what
the
actual
reality
from
their
study
would
be.
A
concrete
number
based
on
that
percentage
of
total
trips
is
that
correct.
B
L
Roberts,
mr
chairman,
commissioner
goldsman,
the
the
number
that
I
used
was
simply
a
percentage
of
the
auto
trips
that
are
generated
and,
as
we
talked
about
earlier
in
the
meeting
here,
we're
not
sure
what
that
number
number's
gonna
be
the
you
know.
We've
heard
that
no
one's
gonna
show
up
there
at
all
unless
they're
in
a
car-
and
I
don't
believe,
that's
true
and
it
sounds
to
me.
The
commission
also
believes
that
there's
going
to
be
some
people
walking
and
biking
to
the
site.
L
What
that
number
is,
though,
is
a
little
harder
to
get
to,
and
so
what
I
proposed
was
merely
just
a
percentage
of
the
auto
trips
just
to
start
with
a
number
there
and
that's
about
five
to
ten
percent
of
the
trips
that
we're
going
to
get
in
the
peak
hour
of
this
use.
L
There's
it's
expected
to
generate
a
certain
percentage
of
trips
or
a
certain
number
of
trips.
Excuse
me
in
its
peak
hour,
when
it's
really
really
busy,
and
so
the
number
I
threw
out
was
just
a
percentage
of
those
in
terms
of
the
bikes
and
pedestrians.
E
Thank
you
for
the
clarification,
so
I
think,
based
on
what
I'm
hearing,
I
think,
there's
a
methodology
of
identifying
who
is
coming
to
the
brewery
or
this
location
by
walking
by
bike
by
scooter.
However,
but
it's
a
methodology
to
understand
the
number
of
trips
and
percentages,
but
we
don't
know
right,
so
I
I
think
in
my
mind,
to
move
this
forward.
I
I
really
like
the
idea
of
let's
see
what
it
is.
G
B
Commissioner
goldsmine,
are
you
suggesting
that
we
would
use
the
percentage
users
peak
hour,
as
mr
roberts
had
mentioned,
because
that
would
be
in
addition,
then,
I
think
to
this
condition.
E
We
should
just
follow
the
staff's
recommendations
based
on
what
we've,
what
we've
talked
about:
yeah,
okay,
so.
B
I
just
want
to
clarify,
because
right
now,
that
number
is
is
not
obligatory
through
the
condition.
That's
something
staff
would
decide
on
as
part
of
the
as
you
see
here,
between
city
staff
and
the
applicant,
that
would
be
the
recommendation
from
them.
I
heard
commissioner
cookdown
say
we
should
have
a
threshold.
B
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
we're
all
talking,
apples
and
apples,
not
apples
and
oranges.
Commissioner,
commissioner,
roman
thank.
F
You,
mr
chair,
I
think
that
yes,
there
should
be
a
threshold.
I
think
that,
yes,
that
can
be
the
staff,
would
I
I
shouldn't
assume,
but
I
would
presume
that
that
would
be
part
of
the
proof
of
connectivity
agreement
that
the
city
enters
into
with
the
property
owner,
so
that
it's
clear
what
the
city
is
going
to
expect
it's
clear
what
the
property
owner
can
expect.
I
I
was
going
to
say
exactly
what
commissioner
roman
just
said:
I'm
supportive
of
a
threshold,
but
I'm
okay
with
it
being
a
percentage
of
trips,
and
I
don't
want
to
take
our
conversation
backwards.
But
back
to
your
point,
the
thing
that
makes
me
a
little
uncomfortable
about
a
threshold.
I
Is
you
know
if
we're
four
percent
and
I
don't
want
to
play
the
one
percent
game,
but
if
even
if
it
is
a
very
small
percent,
if
trying
to
put
myself
in
the
position
of
someone
who
is
in
a
wheelchair
and
I'm
sitting
at
home,
going
what
the
heck?
Just
because
there's
not
more
people
in
a
wheelchair,
I
don't
get
access.
B
So
that's
what
I
struggle.
I
see
our
beloved
megan
rogers
is
online
with
us
miss
rogers.
Would
you
like
to
impart
your
wisdom
on
the
planning
commission.
K
Yes,
mr
chair
and
commissioners,
I
think
it
might
be
helpful
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
sort
of
the
origin
of
this
particular
condition,
the
the
sort
of
surrounding
conversation
about
it
and
how
this
proof
of
connectivity
agreement
can
address
the
needs
of
both
the
city
and
the
concerns
that
you've
raised
tonight,
as
well
as
the
property
owner.
So
this
item
is
before
you,
because
this
type
of
use
often
generates
pedestrian
use,
but,
as
was
previously
mentioned,
we
don't
have
a
similar
facility
in
the
city
of
bloomington.
K
That's
immediately
walkable,
and
it
has
you
know
many
of
those
industrial
characteristics,
and
so
while
we
believe
that
there
will
be
a
pedestrian
element
to
this,
that
information
is
not
before
us,
based
on
sort
of
what's
presented,
based
on
the
existing
setup
of
the
building
and
because
the
the
simplest
connection,
the
one
that
draws
you
right
to
the
front
door
of
the
building,
is
difficult
to
accomplish
the
appropriate
grade
and
because
the
least
expensive
and
grade
grade
compliant
connection
is
at
the
other
end
of
the
building.
K
We
think
this
proof
of
connectivity
agreement
gives
us
the
flexibility
number
one
to
measure
the
actual
pedestrian
access.
That's
happening
on
the
site
number
two
to
make.
You
know
referencing
back
to
where
people
actually
are
walking
across
the
parking
lot
and
walking
across
to
access
the
brewery
and-
and
you
might
find
in
other
properties,
where
there's
a
more
significant
redevelopment
of
an
existing
site,
that
you
would
see
these
connections
mandated
as
a
code
compliant
issue.
K
But
in
this
case,
because
this
is
actually
only
a
small
component
of
what
is
actually
in
the
building
as
a
whole,
you
don't
have
that
as
a
code
requirement.
Rather
it's
this
sort
of
discretionary
condition.
That
is
added
simply
because
we
know
this
about
the
youth
in
general
and
so
in
terms
of
the
nexus
between
the
request
to
have
the
conditional
youth
permit
and
to
operate
the
facility
at
this
site.
You
know,
I
think
this
proof
of
parking
agreement
or
proof
of
parking.
K
This
proof
of
connectivity
agreement
really
gives
you
the
ability
to
have
strong
legal
standing
to
require
this
if
it
is
needed
based
upon
the
professional
estimation
of
your
traffic
staff,
you
know
when
one
that
data
is
collected
and
to
put
it
in
a
place,
that's
safe
and
meet
the
property
owner's
concerns
about
safety
for
people
accessing
his
site.
B
K
And
and
so
what
what
I
would
so
we
can.
We
can
start
from
the
beginning
that
any
connection
must
be
ada
compliant,
and
so
so
we
know
that
as
our
starting
point.
K
But
then
the
question
is
how
the
site
is
is
used
and
how
its
use
is
demonstrated,
and
I
think
the
flexibility
this
agreement
gives
you
is
to
say
that
you
know
if
staff
is
seeing
a
significant
increase
in
the
pedestrian
access
to
this
site,
but
then
there's
a
good
reason
and
there's
a
market
driven
reason
for
the
property
owner
to
install
this
additional
disconnection.
K
And-
and
you
know,
I
think
that
mr
roberts
gave
a
good
analysis
between
those
eight
to
20
trips
that
can
be
included
and
negotiated
with
a
property
owner
and
staff
in
in
the
agreement
itself.
But
I
think
that
the
direction
that
you've
given
staff
is
very
clear
in
terms
of
what
you
want
to
see
demonstrated
in
this
agreement.
I
mean
you've
been
very
clear
about
what
the
expectation
is
for
the
property
owner
as
well.
B
B
Okay,
mr
mr
roberts,
just
maybe
an
explanation
of
what
those
two
numbers
represent
right.
L
L
What
I
would
recommend,
if
those
are
being
put
to
an
agreement,
is
that
we
just
use
the
range
of
trips,
not
the
percentages,
because
that
gets
into
what
some
other
factors
that
would
that
are
going
to
add
more
details
that
are
unnecessary.
So
the
the
reason
I
gave
the
range
18
up
to
20
is
to
give
the
commission
some
sense
of
of
how
many
trips
would
be
significant
there
and
to
give
you
maybe
a
working
start.
L
I
L
Eight
was
the
the
low
end.
That's
about
five
percent
of
the
expected
vehicle
trips
up
to
ten
percent
is
the
higher
number
up
to
twenty,
so
that
will.
B
You
hearing
that,
and
I
think
the
council
or
the
commission
understanding
those
numbers,
that's
something
you
would
use
to
negotiate
the
agreement
got
it.
Thank
you
all
right,
commissioner
roman.
I.
F
Was
I
think
we
exhausted
I've
exhausted
most
of
this?
I
don't
know
if
others
have
thoughts.
You
know,
I
think
the
only
my
only
other
comment
and
it's
more
of
a
comment.
It's
not
really
it
doesn't
affect
this.
Is
you
know
the
question
that
the
applicant
raised
about
you
know
whether
or
not
it
was
safe
to
walk
from
the
other
end
of
the
well?
If
it's
not
safe,
then
it's
not
safe
to
walk
to
your
car,
then
either.
C
D
F
Again,
I
defer
to
staff's
judgment
on
this.
I
think
we've
covered
it.
I
think,
as
ms
rogers
said,
we've
made
it
clear
what
we
would
like
to
see
out
of
this
from
both
sides
of
this.
So
if
there's
no
objection
from
my
colleagues,
I
would
be
willing
to
make
a
motion
in
case
pl2021-193.
F
Move
to
adapt
a
resolution,
revising
condition
of
approval
number
eight
in
case
pl,
two
zero.
Two
one
dash
one:
zero
nine
to
the
following
number:
eight
ongoing
by
january
31
2022,
the
property
owner,
must
enter
into
a
proof
of
pedestrian
connectivity
agreement
with
the
city
18
months
after
a
certificate
of
occupancy
is
issued
for
the
tap
room
city
staff
and
the
applicant
must
meet
and
discuss
pedestrian
connectivity
requirements.
B
All
right,
commission
members
is
there
a
second
commissioner
goldsmith
all
right.
Commission
members,
we
have
a
motion
in
front
of
us
in
a
second
to
adopt
a
resolution,
revising
condition
of
approval
number
eight
in
case
pl
2021-109
in
the
following
to
the
following
number:
eight
ongoing
by
january
31st
2022.
The
property
owner
must
enter
into
a
proof
of
pedestrian
connectivity
agreement
with
the
city
18
months
after
a
certificate
of
occupancy
is
issued
for
the
tap
room,
city
staff
and
the
applicant
must
meet
and
discuss
pedestrian
connectivity
requirements.
B
Is
there
any
further
discussion
on
that,
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye
aye,
all
those
nay,
no
one.
No
all
right
motion
passes
four
to
one,
and
that
is
a
final
decision
unless
an
appeal
is
received
by
4
30
p.m.
On
october,
19
2021.
B
C
Sure,
mr
chair,
just
looking
forward
at
your
next
three
planning
commission
meetings,
next
meeting
will
be
in
two
weeks
october
28th.
C
So
that's
october,
28th
and
then
november.
4Th
would
be
the
meeting
after
that
kind
of
a
transportation
night.
Three
items
update
on
the
494
project.
C
C
We
have
the
review
of
the
capital
improvement
plan
for
compliance
with
a
comprehensive
plan.
We
have
a
st
secondly
study
item
to
discuss
residential
livability
standards.
So
thinking
about
things
like
generators,
chillers
things
like
that
near
residential
and
that's
all
we
have
on
november
18th.
So
far,.
B
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
mark
guard
and
mr
markguard.
I
don't
know,
do
you
want
to
give
an
update
on
our
item
from
last
meeting
regarding
the
next
10
or
sorry
neck
network?
Next.
C
Network
next
sure,
mr
chair
recall,
the
planning
commission
requested
the
city
to
prepare
a
letter
to
transmit
to
metro,
transit
and
met
council.
We
did
prepare
that.
I
believe
you
have
a
copy
of
that
letter
was
discussed
yesterday
evening
or
late
afternoon,
and
ultimately,
the
met
council
did
move
forward
with
the
network
next
recommendation,
which
would
remove
american
boulevard
from
that
list,
setting
the
stage
for
potential
removal
from
the
transportation
policy
plan,
the
update
of
which
is
just
starting.
C
B
Yeah,
thank
you
all
right,
commission
members,
any
issues
or
policy
or
direction
for
staff
to
think
about
for
upcoming,
not
agenda
items
but
in
general,
and
we
had
a
lot
of
discussion
tonight
about
what
what
things
could
happen.
But,
commissioner,
abdi.
G
G
G
G
B
G
I'd
say
just
both:
I'm
not
sure
what
the
end
result
would
be
at
the
end
of
the
day.
I
think
we're,
because
we
are
the
ones
making
these
recommendations
moving
forward
and
the
council
has
the
final
say
as
the
decision
making
body
you
know
I,
what
I
would
be
looking
for
is
one
consistency
and
two.
What
is
the
purpose
of
a
plan
that
we
have
worked
hard
enough
to
adapt
it
and
we
see
beautiful
expectations
of
how
our
corridors
should
look
like,
and
yet
we
have
things
like
non-conformity.
G
That
would
be
a
hurdle
to
accomplishing,
and
I
know
the
non-conformity
is
out
of
the
city's
scope
to
say
we
need
to
change
it
there.
You
know
for
it
to
match
our
plans,
but
when
it
comes
to
reviewing-
and
I
know,
staff
has
made
recommendations
to
move
forward
the
applications,
considering
that
there
was
non-conformity,
but
also
there
was
recognizing
that
there
were
adopted
plans
that
were
not
being
met
based
on
the
design
guidelines
that
were
in
the
plan.
G
So,
if
plan,
if,
if
staff
is
recommending
these
approvals,
recognizing
these
challenges,
then
should
we
I
get
I'm
questioning
myself
here
is
then:
what
are
what
guidelines
are
we
setting
in
terms
of
like
future
applications
and
by
you
know,
15
10
years
from
now?
Is
the
corridor
still
going
to
be
the
same
and
is
the
plan
useless
to
some
extent,
so.
B
It
makes
sense
commissioner
abney-
and
I
might
even
I
might
just
suggest
as
a
starting
point-
maybe
just
a
a
staff
overview
of
of
how
those
two
mix
a
little
better
as
a
study
item
at
some
point
in
the
future,
to
give
more
clarity
to
the
planning
commission
in
order
to
make
good
informed
decisions
moving
forward.
B
So
we
could
start
with
that
and
then,
if
there's
and
that's,
why
we're
adding
these
in
at
the
end
of
our
meetings
so
that
we
can
grow
as
a
planning
commission,
so
all
right
any
other
thoughts
or
clarifications
questions
from
commission
members.
B
Otherwise
that
is
the
end
of
item
number
four
and
concludes
the
october
14th
2021
planning
commission
meeting.
Thank
you
all.