►
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission Meeting
A
Good
afternoon
and
welcome
to
the
minneapolis
city
planning
commission
meeting
of
september
15
2014.,
my
name
is
ted
tucker.
I
serve
as
president
of
the
planning
commission
joining
me
today.
Are
commissioners
kronzer
brown
lipki
peer,
gesselmann,
slack
and
forney
at
this
time.
Please
be
sure
that
all
your
electronic
devices
are
put
on
silent,
as
I
will
do
right
now.
A
A
Any
discussion,
none
all
in
favor,
say
aye
opposed
those
are
approved.
The
next
item
on
our
agenda
is
to
prove
the
agenda.
I
will
go
through
the
10
items
on
the
blue
agenda
that
I
hope
you
have
found
outside
on
the
table
and
find
out
if
people
want
to
speak
to
any
of
these
I'll
go
through
them.
One
by
one
item
number
one
cedar
cultural
center,
plaza
416,
cedar
avenue
north
will
be
continued
to
the
meeting
of
october
14.
2014.
A
item
number
two
street
vacation
at
1100
through
1112
quincy
street
north
east.
Is
there
anyone
here
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on?
Item
number
two:
if
not
we'll
put
that
on
consent.
Item
number
three
is
omar's:
auto
repair
118
through
122
east
lake
street.
So
anyone
here
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
number
three.
A
If
not,
that
also
goes
on
consent.
Item
number
four:
we
will
discuss
item
number
five
item
number
four.
By
the
way
is
neighborhood
health
source
clinic
and
corporate
offices,
2301
central
11,
northeast
item
number,
five
kraus
anderson
corporation
headquarters,
501
8th
street
southeast
502,
9th
street
south
and
811
fifth
avenue
south
has
been
withdrawn.
So
we'll
deal
with
that
in
due
course,
item
number
six
is
the
niclette
island
east
bank,
small
area
plan
beyond
consent.
Unless
someone
wants
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation,
okay,
that
will
be
on
consent.
A
Item
number:
seven
is
the
saint
anthony
east
neighborhood
small
area
plan
same
thing,
that'll
be
on
consent.
Unless
someone
wishes
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation,
I
don't
see
anyone
and
number
eight
another
small
area
plan,
sheridan
neighborhood
again
that
will
be
on
consent.
Unless
someone
wishes
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation,
seeing
no
one,
they
will
put
that
on
consent.
A
Number
nine
is
a
zoning
code
text
amendment
about
second
hand:
goods
in
the
c3a
district.
Is
there
anyone
here
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on?
Item
number
nine
we'll
put
that
on
consent
as
well
and
item
number
10?
Is
zoning
code
text
amendment
to
revise
off
street
parking
in
the
university
area
overlay
district?
Is
there
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on?
Item
number
ten?
A
A
A
A
Any
discussion
all
in
favor
say:
aye.
Okay.
That
item
will
be
continued.
We'll
move
now
to
the
items
on
the
consent
agenda.
Once
again,
items
number
two:
three,
six,
seven,
eight,
nine
and
ten.
Is
there
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
those
items
seeing
none?
I
will
close
the
public
hearing.
I
ask
for
a
motion
to
approve
staff
recommendation
for
those
items
on
the
consent
agenda.
A
Any
discussion
all
in
favor
say:
aye
opposed
the
consent
agenda
is
approved
and
we
move
now
to
our
one
item
for
discussion.
That's
item
number
four
neighborhood
health
source
clinic
and
corporate
offices.
B
B
I'll
go
back:
okay,
okay,
sorry,
there
are
eight
applications
for
you
tonight
for
the
neighborhood
health
source
clinic
at
2301,
central
avenue,
northeast
and
9
49
23,
23rd
avenue
northeast,
there's,
seven
variances
in
site
plan
review.
The
applicant
is
proposing
a
thirteen
thousand
seven
hundred
and
fifty
square
foot
two
story
clinic
building.
B
B
Their
their
on-site
parking
would
be
located
to
the
rear
of
the
building
about
eight
spaces
would
be
there
and
then
associated
parking
lot
across
the
alley
that
949
23rd
avenue
northeast
parcel
would
also
have
eight
spaces.
B
So
this
proposal
requires
seven
variances.
The
first
variance
is
to
increase
the
maximum
size
of
a
commercial
use
in
the
c1
district
from
eight
thousand
square
feet
to
thirteen
thousand
seven
hundred
and
fifty
six
square
feet.
The
next
variance
is
to
decrease
the
minimum
off
street
parking
requirement
from
the
required
19
spaces
to
the
proposed
16
spaces.
There's
also
a
variance
of
the
pedestrian
oriented
overlay
district
standards
to
allow
the
building
to
be
set
back,
9
feet,
8
inches
from
their
corner
lot,
line
on
23rd
avenue,
northeast
and
then
there's
three
variances.
B
Let's
get
this
in
the
right
spot
for
this
proposed
sign
which
would
be
on
and
on
the
north
elevation
of
the
building,
which
would
be
the
non-primary
building
wall
and
then
there's
one
variance
of
the
sign
area
for
this
heart
decorative
heart.
That's
part
of
the
logo
sign
on
the
south
elevation,
so
staff
has
recommended
approval
of
the
first
two
variances.
B
B
The
po
district
requires
that
buildings
must
be
placed
within
eight
feet
of
their
property
line
and,
if
you're
on
a
corner,
but
then
you
have
to
be
eight
feet
from
both
street
facing
both
corn
lot
lines
and
in
addition,
as
you're
familiar
with
the
site
plan,
review
standards
also
require
that
buildings
be
placed
within
eight
feet
of
their
property
line.
B
So,
as
you
know,
there's
three
findings
that
are
required
to
grant
variance,
the
first
of
which
is
practical,
that
practical
difficulties
exist
in
complying
with
the
ordinance
because
of
circumstances
unique
to
the
parcel.
As
you
read
in
the
staff
report,
staff
did
not
find
that
there
were
any
practical
difficulties
in
complying
with
the
ordinance.
There
is
also
significant
policy
and
ordinance
guidance
for
that
eight-foot
standard.
B
So
staff
thought
that
there
were
many
redesign
options
that
could
achieve
the
eight
foot
standard.
They
could
either
shift
the
building
south
20
inches
or
change
the
indented
entrance
design
to
meet
that
eight
foot
standard.
B
B
The
intent
for
that
standard
is
that
the
c1
district
is
a
smaller
scale,
neighborhood
commercial
use,
which
our
commercial
zoning
district,
which
would
not
require
large
signage
staff,
also
didn't
find
that
there
were
any
practical
difficulties
in
meeting
that
maximum
sign
area
and
in
your
packet.
I
also
included
this
diagram,
which
shows
where
45
square
feet
would
leave
that
sign.
If
you
were
to
shrink
it,
staff
found
that
it
would
be
reasonable
to
meet
the
standards
and
the
ordinance
and
is
recommending
that
the
planning
commission
deny
that
variance.
B
Finally
to
discuss
the
site
plan
review
items
and
just
to
be
clear
in
the
agenda.
I
think
item
h
is
listed
as
a
variance,
but
it's
cycling
review.
Obviously,
so
the
applicant
is
requesting
three
items
of
alternative
compliance.
The
first
is
that
building
placement,
so
that's
also
the
requirement
of
the
po
overlay
district.
B
B
The
building
is
mostly
precast
concrete
panel
and
brick.
However,
on
the
east
facade
the
side
that
faces
the
on-site
parking
lot,
the
applicant
has
not
incorporated
any
brick,
although
all
the
other
sides
of
the
building
incorporate
brick.
So
staff
is
also
not
recommending
that
the
planning
commission
grant
alternative
compliance
for
that
and
instead
has
included
a
condition
of
approval
that
10
percent
of
that
elevation
be
brick
or
at
least
ten
percent.
Finally,
the
window
requirement.
B
As
you
know,
thirty
percent
of
the
first
four
walls
facing
a
on-site
parking
lot
are
required
to
be
windows.
The
applicant's
proposal
is
only
26
windows.
On
the
first
floor,
however,
because
the
applicant
is
providing
windows
in
excess
of
the
requirement
for
the
second
floor,
as
well
as
along
the
north
elevation
and
additional
landscaping,
staff
found
that
it
was
reasonable
to
grant
alternative
compliance
for
that
standard.
So
with
that,
I
can
take
any
questions.
B
D
B
It
would
be
about
200
square
feet
of
brick
and
the
10.
We
evaluated
all
the
percentages
around
all
the
different
elevations
of
what
they
had
already
proposed
and
I
believe
the
north
elevation
was
approximately
eleven
percent
brick,
and
so
ten
percent
was
just
an
even
number
to
be
similar
to
that
north
elevation.
E
Commissioner
slack,
thank
you
a
quick
question.
Does
this
sound
really
loud,
maybe
I'll
just
yell
public
works?
Have
they
reviewed
the
parking
layout
for
the
proposal.
B
They
have
reviewed
they've
gone
through
preliminary
development
reviews,
so
they've
taught
the
applicant
has
talked
to
public
works
from
our
initial
talks.
Public
works
was
not
supportive
of
the
introduction
of
a
new
curb
cut
to
enter
the
park
on-site
parking
lot.
E
I'll
try
not
to
be
too
loud,
but
the
the
adjacent
personal
parts
will
be
seems
woefully
inefficient
from
how
automobiles
access
and
then
subsequently,
probably
back
out
into
the
alley
to
get
out
of
that
space.
How
does
that
parcel
be
currently
function?
Now.
B
That's
mostly
the
existing
condition:
it's
not
striped
right
now,
so
the
only
proposal
to
change
is
to
do
the
striping,
where
they've
placed
it
on
the
site
plan
and
because
these
are
the
parcels
are
separated
by
the
public
alley.
It's
not
considered
one
zoning
lot,
so
the
site
plan
review
was
really
focused
on
the
2301
central
parcel
and
then
it's
essentially
just
an
accessory
parking
lot
that
we
brought
we
considered
based
on
our
design
and
maintenance
standards
of
parking
lots.
E
And
then
my
last
question
is
partially
the
reason
for
the
building
to
be
set
back
increased
because
of
the
the
need
for
accessible
entries.
B
A
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
Just
for
those
who
arrived
a
little
after
4
30.
We
have
now
dealt
with
all
items
except
for
item
number
four,
which
we
are
discussing,
so
everything
else
has
been
approved
for
staff
recommendation.
F
Mr
president,
members
of
the
commission,
my
name
is
darren
lozano,
with
landform
professional
services.
We
actually
are
the
applicant
on
the
item
before
you
tonight,
but
we
represent
neighborhood
health
source
and
central
clinic
in
their
quest
to
build
a
new
clinic
with
me
tonight
as
well.
Are
members
of
the
design
team,
rsp
architects,
bill,
whit
rocks?
Are
any
questions
about
the
building
come
up
also
steve,
knutson
and
matt
parton
are
in
attendance
as
well
they're
the
executive
director
of
neighborhood
health
source
and
the
project
manager
on
the
project.
F
I
first
wanted
to
take
an
opportunity
to
thank
staff
for
their
work
on
this
project.
Actually,
lisa
has
been
tremendous
to
work
with.
We
have
a
very
challenging
schedule,
very
challenging
budget
and
a
very
challenging
site,
and
it's
been
really
a
pleasure
to
work
with
her
on
this
specific
project
and
want
to
thank
her
for
her
time
on
that.
F
Neighborhood
health
source
has
a
roughly
50-year
history
in
the
in
the
area,
specifically
in
northeast,
providing
health
care
to
the
underinsured
and
under
uninsured
and
underinsured
in
the
community.
They
are
a
non-profit
organization.
F
F
I
wanted
to
be
respectful
your
time,
so
maybe
just
quickly
address
the
items
in
the
variances
and
then
stand
for
any
questions.
First
and
foremost,
the
site
plan,
review
or
site
plan
approval.
We
agree
with
all
the
conditions
that
staff
has
added
to
that.
We
can
accommodate
the
brick
on
the
back
and
and
deal
with
those
conditions.
F
We
have
essentially
two
sets
of
variances
one
for
the
signage
and
one
for
the
setback
that
I'd
like
to
address.
First
being
the
signage
the
owner
we
had
after
receiving
the
staff
report,
we
had
a
considerable
amount
of
time.
We
spent
reviewing
lisa's
findings
and
working
through
the
conditions
and
and
the
owner
has
specifically
requested
that
we
present
our
argument
for
the
signage
on
the
north
side
of
the
building,
specifically
because
of
their
relocation
from
the
north.
The
tremendous
amount
of
their
traffic
comes
pedestrian
and
transit
they're
going
to
be
three
blocks
south
there.
F
There
is
a
fair
amount
of
concern
with
their
relocation
that
folks
need
to
find
them
and
they
felt.
For
that
reason,
the
signage
on
the
north
face
of
the
building
was
critical
to
their
mission,
providing
that
those
services
to
the
community.
So
we
we
respectfully
request
your
consideration
of
those.
We
can,
however,
bring
that
square
footage
down
to
45
square
feet.
The
required
max
square
footage,
so
I
think
we
can
drop
one
of
those
variances
if
I'm
not
mistaken
from
that
request.
F
So
we
would
do
a
45
square
foot
sign
on
that
north
edge.
If
the
planning
commission
was
so
inclined
to
approve
our
variants.
The
second
is
for
the
site
plan
component
discussed
earlier.
F
Sorry
and
again,
we
met
at
a
fair
amount
of
discussion
on
that
component,
the
owner
again
and
and
actually
the
neighborhood
associations,
both
both
holland
and
windham,
had
fairly
strong
support
for
a
couple
of
our
variances.
This
signage,
one
in
particular
in
our
setback
as
well,
which
I'll
address
in
a
minute.
But
we
did
go
back
and
look
through
that
again
when
the
architect
worked
through
a
number
of
configurations
and
we
actually
came
back
with
a
slightly
smaller
component
and
I
have
an
exhibit
of
that
as
well.
F
Reducing
that
to
a
little
under
60
square
feet,
so
I
guess
we
would
respectfully
request
your
consideration
of
a
reduced
variance
on
that
item
to
60
feet,
which
is
a
15
foot
increase
over
the
allowable
45.
So
we
would
have
three
signs
on
that
face
two
compliant
signs:
the
central
clinic
sign
and
the
neighborhood
l
source
sign
and
one
in
excess
of
the
45
square
feet
allowed.
So
I
believe,
that's
just
one
variance
for
that.
One
sign.
F
Last
item
that
we're
asking
for
your
consideration
on
tonight
is
this
setback
issue,
and
we
would
like
to
raise
what
we
believe
again
in
careful
consideration.
I
can
tell
you
we
spent
a
tremendous
amount
of
time
working
through
the
site
plan
in
this
regard,
and
we
do.
We
believe
we
have
a
demonstrated
practical
difficulty
with
meeting
that
setback,
the
first
being
the
fact
that
our
south
and
west
boundaries
are
not
right,
angles,
they're,
acute
angles,
they're,
tighter
than
90
degrees.
F
F
We
have
to
hold
that
four
foot
grade,
which
requires
a
fair
amount
of
ramps
and
compliant
ramps
to
get
access
to
the
front
door.
So
you
see
the
predominant
space
south
on
the
south
side
of
the
building
are
those
accessible
ramps.
They
travel
down
from
the
parking
lot
to
the
public
way
back
up
again
to
the
front
door
after
those
ramps
come
in.
You
have
not
a
lot
of
leftover
space
in
our
configuration
today.
F
If
we
were
to
give
up
the
one
foot,
seven
again,
we'd
have
even
less
to
make
that
transition,
so
we
feel
that
the
topography
of
the
site
is
a
practical
difficulty
in
compliance.
The
third,
to
a
lesser
extent,
is
the
use.
This
is
not
a
storefront
coffee
shop
or
otherwise.
These
this
is
a
healthcare
facility.
F
I
don't
think
it's
all
that
conduces
to
have
that
immediate
relationship
between
the
sidewalk
and
the
exam
room,
so
we
think
it
becomes
difficult
to
provide
that
street
front
connection
and,
finally,
the
intent
of
the
ordinance
we
believe
is
to
create
that
hard
urban
edge.
And
if
you
look
at
the
elevations
in
place,
sorry,
I'm
back
again.
F
F
We
believe
we
have
met
the
intent
of
the
ordinance
to
provide
a
little
harder
urban
edge
at
that
corner,
and
I
did
not
delve
much
into
the
architecture
we
can,
if
you
have
questions
or
interest
there,
but
the
majority
of
the
of
the
budget
on
architectural
exterior
architectural
finishes
was
spent
at
this
corner.
This
glass
piece
that
atrium
the
canopy,
the
brick,
those
architectural
components,
including
the
walls
out
at
the
property
line.
That's
where
the
the
bang
was
that's
where
the
dollars
were
spent
and
that's
where
that
energy
is
so.
F
A
Let's
see
if
we
have
any
questions
here,
commissioners,
commissioner,
kronzer.
F
A
Okay,
other
questions,
other
questions.
I
don't
see
any.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you.
Okay.
Are
there?
Others
wishing
to
speak
on
item
number
four
come
on
up
and
give
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please
anyone
else
wishing
to
speak
on
item
number
four:
oh!
You
need
to
speak
up
here
at
the
microphone
please.
So
we
can
get
you.
C
G
So
my
name
is
mikhaila
bawa
and
I'm
actually
right
on
the
east
side
that
would
face
their
parking.
G
A
lot
of
trash
is
seen
daily
on
the
street
that
has
to
be
picked
up.
My
driveway
is
right
on
the
fence
of
the
east
side
of
that
building.
So
I'm
very
concerned
about
my
property
value,
my
neighbours.
I'm
also
concerned
about
the
fact
that
a
residential
neighborhood
might
turn
into
be
too
commercialized.
G
And
I
also
went
to
the
neighborhood
meeting,
of
course.
Another
concern
that
raised
up
for
me
afterwards
was
the
hours
of
the
clinic.
I
believe
the
hours
of
the
clinic
are
meant
to
be
longer
than
5
p.m
in
the
afternoon,
I'm
not
exactly
sure
what
the
new
hours
will
be,
but
I
do
believe
that
this
is
quite
a
strain
to
take
for
the
neighborhood.
A
Okay
are
any
questions,
commissioners,
I
don't
see
any
anyone
else
wishing
to
speak
on
this
matter
come
on
up
now.
This
is
the
public
hearing.
A
Now,
let's
see
we
do
have
eight
applications
in
front
of
us,
the
size
of
the
commercial
space,
the
parking
requirement,
the
setback
of
the
building
more
than
eight
feet,
three
dealing
with
one
sign
another
with
another
sign:
the
the
heart
and
the
site
plan
review
with
seven
conditions,
which
we've
heard
the
applicant
is
okay
with.
A
So,
commissioner
brown.
I
Thank
you,
mr
president.
I'll
start
with
items
a
and
b.
That
is,
the
variance
for
the
square
footage
and
the
variance
for
the
off-street
parking
requirement
and
I'll
move
approval
of
items.
A
and
b
b,
with
one
condition
for
a
minimum
of
seven
bicycle
parking
spaces.
A
Okay,
moved
in
second
at
a
and
b
per
staff
recommendation.
Any
other
discussion
on
that.
Okay,
I
don't
see
any
clerk.
Please
call
a
roll
on
a
and
b.
A
Okay,
those
are
approved,
mr
brown,
on
maybe
the
next
three
variances.
I
A
Okay,
moved
in
seconded
discussion
on
that?
Did
you
want
to
speak
to
that.
I
Yeah,
I'm
just
a
little
bit
concerned
since
it
is
a
fairly
small
amount.
I'm
I'm
concerned
about
the
precedent
we
might
set,
I
think,
in
the
pedestrian
overlay
district.
We
really
want
to
encourage
buildings
framing
the
street
and
if
we
get
too
far
beyond
eight
feet
beyond
the
property
line,
we
start
to
move
away
from
that.
K
I
actually
had
a
question
for
staff
really
briefly:
can
you
explain
where,
since
the
street
appears
to
go
at
an
angle,
to
the
building
where
the
setback
is
measured
from,
is
it
from
the
corner
or
is
it
a
is
strictly
parallel
to
the
street
edge
or
what
is
the
setback.
B
The
setback
is
to
the
property
line,
so
yeah
the
property
line,
kind
of
skews
I'll
try
to
zoom.
D
B
B
K
B
Well,
the
setback
would
be
parallel
to
the
property
line.
Okay,.
K
B
Yes
from
here
to
like
around
here
and
if
it
it
appears.
K
As
though,
like
excuse
me
from
this
from
my
perspective
that
the
the
building
still
kind
of
is
can't
cancel
a
little
bit
off
the
property
line
through
the
for
the
rest
of
the
building,
so
it
starts
out
as
being
at
the
mark
and
then
it
kind
of
tapers,
greater
and
greater.
Until
I
get
to
that
point,
is
that.
B
Yeah,
that
would
be
accurate.
I
think
they
might
be
a
little
bit
even
closer
than
eight
feet
at
the
very
end
of
the
building
or
the
very
east
side.
K
So
then,
is
it
possible
to
for
you?
I
don't
know
if
you
know
this
or
not.
What
is
the
actual
setback
of
the
glazed
lobby
from
the
brick
facade
of
just
the
building
itself
like
if
it
if
it
had
been
continuous
with
the
brick,
for
example,
it
still
wouldn't
meet
the
setback
at
that
corner,
but
how
much
farther
is
it
because
it's
set
in.
B
F
Sorry
about
that
so
appreciate
the
opportunity
that,
because
I
think
it
gets
fairly
complicated
so
that
the
angle
of
this
street
is
at
a
right
angle,
so
it
gets
closer
and
closer
to
our
building
as
we
go
down
the
street.
So
we
started
with
this
point
right
here
and
set
that
on
the
eight
foot
mark
and
then,
as
you
travel
east,
it
gets
closer
and
closer
and
closer
to
the
street
where
it
finishes
at
about
six
roughly
six
feet
here.
So
the
average
setback
along
that
entire
edge
is
well
under
eight
feet.
F
F
A
While
you're
up
here
question,
the
the
canopy
sticks
out
a
little
bit
beyond
the
the
brick.
Is
that
correct,
correct.
F
F
D
I
I
do
think
that
the
the
skew
of
the
property
is
a
practical
difficulty.
Sorry,
I
was
trying
to
not
move
the
microphone.
I
do
think
the
skew
is
is
a
is
an
issue
here,
especially
with
the
the
canopy
and
the
retained
walls
holding
that
edge.
I
I
hate
to
see
just
a
plain
box
of
a
building.
If
we
deny
this
variance
request.
K
I
concur
with
commissioner
cronzer
on
this
one.
I
think
that
the
intent
is
there.
I
think
that
there
is
a
little
bit
of
a
special
circumstance
here,
given
the
skew
of
the
property
line
in
the
street,
and
I
I
think
that
it
meets
the
intent
based
on
the
wall
and
the
canopy
and
and
the
setback
just
at
that
corner
actually
might
make
for
a
more
inviting
pedestrian
experience.
Given
that
transparency,
the
glazing,
so
I
will
be
not
supporting
this
motion.
A
Okay,
are
there
other
comments,
commissioner?
Gesselman.
C
A
The
commissioner,
the
second
just,
gets
the
item
up
for
discussion.
Doesn't
you
don't
have
to
stick
with
it?
So
other
comments
on
the
motion
to
deny
on
application.
C.
A
Okay,
please
call
the
role
on
that.
Unless
someone
wants
to
suggest
a
substitute
motion,
I
guess
not.
J
A
Okay,
that
fails,
should
we
try
it
again,
this
time
approving
the
setback.
Sure.
I
I'll
make
a
motion
right
there
to
approve
variant
c,
that
is
the
setback
variant.
A
And
I
think
we
have
findings
of
the
the
acute
angle
at
the
corner
and
the
intent
to
hold
the
corner
with
the
wall
and
the
canopy.
Is
that
sound,
sufficient?
Okay
clerk?
Please
call
the
roll
on
that?
Oh,
do
I
have
a
second
on
that?
Do
we
okay
any
other
discussion?
A
Okay,
please
call
a
roll.
A
Okay,
the
the
setback
is,
is
approved,
as
is
applied
for
commissioner
brown.
You
want
to
continue
with
d
e
and
f.
I
I
Yeah
and
variances
d,
e
and
f,
those
all
pertain
to
the
proposed
sign
on
the
north
wall
and
I'll
move
denial
of
all
of
those
d,
e
and
f.
A
Okay,
moved
deny:
is
there
a
second
on
that
okay
moved
in
seconded
mr
kronzer,
okay,.
B
So
would
they
still
be
allowed
to
put
a
sign
on?
Yes,
there
would
be
it's
based
on
each
building
wall
separately.
I
Yeah,
I'm
just
a
little
bit
concerned
about
the
precedent
this
might
set
for
other
properties
in
the
c1
district.
Not
only
is
the
proposed
sign
a
little
bit
larger
than
what
the
code
allows,
but
I
I
don't
think
there's
a
practical
difficulty
there
just
because
they
do
have
an
opportunity
to
display
signage
on
the
central
avenue
frontage,
not
only
a
45
square
foot
wall
sign,
but
also
a
projecting
sign
that
could
be
visible
from
traffic
coming
from
the
north,
and
that
would
be
similar
to
what
other
properties
along
that
corridor
are
allowed
and
have.
A
Okay,
further
discussion,
I
don't
see
any
the
motion
is
to
deny:
let's
see
what
are
we
at
d
e
and
f
clerk?
Please
call
a
roll.
A
Okay,
those
are
denied
application
g.
Commissioner
brown.
I
Yes,
and
and
as
with
the
other
sign
variants,
I'm
I'm
just
a
little
bit
concerned
about
allowing
a
significantly
larger
sign
than
the
code
allows.
I
don't
think,
there's
a
practical
difficulty
there.
I
think
a
45
square
foot
sign
on
that
wall
is,
is
sufficient.
A
D
I
have
another
question
for
staff
how'd.
You
guess
all
right,
so
there's
ten
percent
on
the
east
side.
Can
we
go
back
to?
Can
you
pull
up
the
elevation
for
us,
the
colored
one?
D
D
Close
enough,
okay,
I
guess
my
sense
is
that
we
should
have
more
brick
on
the
east
side
and
maybe
that
it
should
engage
the
corner
on
the
north
side,
I'm
hesitant
with
the
gray
standard,
color
concrete.
It's
we
live
in
minnesota
and
in
this
in
the
winter
time,
that's
going
to
look
abysmal
as
as
we
all
know,
but
so
I
would
advocate
for
more
brick
on
the
east
side
and
maybe
a
little
more
brick
on
the
north
side.
A
Is
that
is
that
what
your
intent
is
15
on
the
north
and
20
on
the
east?
Okay,
commissioner
brown,
you
have
a
comment.
I
Yes,
I'd
just
like
to
modify
my
motion
on
related
to
condition
number
three
on
the
site
plan
review.
I
have
proposed
that
we
strike
that
because
we
did
approve
the
variance
for
the
setback
of
greater
than
eight
square
feet.
A
Okay,
I
think
that
makes
sense.
We
will
do
that.
You
have
a
motion
to
change
the
percentages
on
item
condition,
four
right
to
15
and
20..
A
Did
we
get
a
second
on
that
changing
the
percentages
moved
and
seconded.
D
D
With
the
intent
to
incorporate
brick
around
the
corner
of
the
northeast
corner,.
A
A
F
Motion
not
the
public
hearing
is
closed.
I
I'm
just
asking
if
we
could
consider
alternate
materials
and
not
specifically
brick
if
there's
green
wall
opportunities
or
other
materials
understand
the
concern
to
break
up
the
concrete
wall.
It's
just.
We
leave
with
that
site
plan
approval
contingency
and
we're
stuck,
we
architecturally
there's
it
becomes
difficult
to
manage
that.
So
is
there
another?
F
A
D
I'm
certainly
sensitive
to
budgets
on
non-profits
and
and
small
organizations,
but
I
think
this
is
a
facade,
that's
facing
residential
and
it's
very
visible,
given
the
fact
that
you
have
the
parking
lot
on
this
property
the
alley
and
then
another
parking
lot.
So
it's
very
visible.
So
I
think
I'm
going
to
stick
with.
A
H
That,
mr
president,
that
the
the
site
planner
view
standard-
that's
really
being
reinforced
here-
is
that
call
for
compatibility
on
all
sides
which
commissioner
kronzer's
motion
gets
at.
A
Okay,
so
we're
at
the
15
and
20
percent
motion
is
that
correct
any
further
discussion
on
that
all
in
favor
say:
aye
opposed,
okay,
that
is
approved
and
added
or
condition.
Four
is
modified.
Any
other
discussion
on
the
site,
plan,
review
and
seven
conditions.
H
A
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
That
concludes
our
business
for
tonight,
mr
wittenberg,
any
announcements.