►
From YouTube: October 11, 2018 Zoning & Planning Committee
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
A
A
We
have
four
items
on
today's
agenda
and
we'll
begin
with
the
consent
agenda,
which
is
item
number
two
through
four
number.
Two
is
the
passage
of
an
ordinance
amending
regulations
for
lots
containing
two
or
more
zoning
classifications.
Number
three
is
the
passage
of
an
ordinance
amending
the
definition
of
a
limited
entertainment
and
regulations,
regulate
related
to
general
and
limited
entertainment
and
number
four
is
the
pass
of
an
ordinance
amending
the
regulations
related
to
rooftop
mechanical
equipment
and
houses
and
building
height?
Are
there
any
questions
or
comments
from
committee
members
on
these
items?
A
With
that
I'm
gonna
move
item
two
through
four,
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye,
all
those
opposed
say
no,
the
eyes
have
it
and
the
motion
carries.
We
will
now
move
on
to
number
one,
which
is
the
consideration
of
the
stereotypical
of
appropriateness
and
historic
variance
appeal
regarding
424
Washington,
Avenue
North.
This
item
was
continued
until
today,
at
our
last
committee
hearing
at
the
request
of
the
applicant
before
you
open
the
hearing,
I
will
ask
the
staff
for
a
presentation
good.
B
C
B
The
side
of
the
building,
including
some
alterations
to
the
existing
loading
dock
and
then
a
new
reorientation
of
the
stairs
and
a
new
guardrail
around
it
in
addition
to
the
certificate
of
appropriateness.
The
applicant
also
asked
for
historic
variance
to
narrow
that
driveway
width.
You
can
see
pictured
here
from
zoning
code
requirement,
which
is
12
feet
down
to
9
feet,
10
inches
at
its
meeting
in
September,
the
I'm,
sorry
on
August
21st,
the
Heritage
Preservation
Preservation
Commission,
adopted
staff
findings
and
denied
both
of
these
applications.
B
Essentially,
the
issues
are
as
follows:
the
applicant
would
be
removing
portions
of
this
historic
loading
dock
to
allow
for
the
access,
even
narrow,
down
to
9
feet,
10
inches
historic
loading
docks
are
an
integral
part
of
the
minneapolis
historic
warehouse,
historic
district
and
any
alteration
to
that
staff
found
to
be
inconsistent
with
the
district
guidelines
and-
and
we
recommend
a
denial
additionally,
that
historic
variance
to
narrow,
driveway
width
from
12
feet.
Mountain
down
to
9
feet.
10
inches
is
just
too
narrow.
B
We
would
see
driveways
sometimes
for
residential,
maybe
single-family
down
to
10
feet,
but
in
this
case
this
would
be
even
narrower
than
that.
So
staff
really
found
that
the
applicants
request
should
not
be
granted,
so
in
2017
they
were
approved
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
to
access
the
the
underground
parking
garage
off
of
Washington
Avenue
North.
That
application
came
to
this
committee
and
we
upheld
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
at
this.
At
that
time.
B
From
this
area,
you
can
see
that
the
access
would
be
over
a
shared
access,
easement
that
is
held
with
the
adjacent
property
owners.
With
that
security,
warehouse
and
5th
Avenue
lofts.
There
is
some
disagreement
about
whether
or
not
that
should
be
allowed,
and
so
the
applicant
is
really
before
you
with
a
second
different
request
to
move.
B
Off
of
5th
Avenue
north
and,
as
previously
mentioned,
staff
did
not
feel
that
that
was
an
appropriate
location
consistent
with
the
historic
guidelines,
inconsistent
really
of
the
spirit
intent
to
allow
a
driveway
with
that
would
allow
for
sufficient
area
the
moon--and
over
vehicles
and
the
the
Preservation
Commission
upheld.
So
the
applicant
on
August
31st
appealed
their
decision.
It
was
continued
from
the
previous
zoning
and
planning
committee
to
today
and
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank.
E
B
Have
not
done
that
I
will
leave
it
up
to
the
applicant
and
the
adjacent
property
owner,
maybe
to
talk
about
the
current
status,
but
I
understand.
There's
some
litigation
involved
in
whether
or
not
that
shared
access,
easement
is
would
allow
for
the
underground
parking
garage
to
be
accessed
off
of
wash
so.
E
B
A
F
Morning,
Justin
Weinberg
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
first
council
member
Goodman.
You
are
correct
there.
This
was
here
last
year,
and
this
is
the
reasons
that
we're
moving
it
or
precisely
to
address
the
neighbor
concerns,
so
we've
decided
to
reorient
ate
it
onto
a
different
location
in
the
building
to
address
those
concerns
and
not
use
that
shared
access
easement
for
the
purposes
of
the
garage,
the
denial
and
reading
through
the
report
really
focuses
on
the
alteration
to
this
loading
dock
and
so
what
we
submitted
in
our
statement
of
Appeal.
F
We
really
focused
heavily
on
that
because
the
number
of
the
other
criteria
are
actually
met
relative
to
the
certificate
of
appropriateness.
We
also
included
a
couple
of
exhibits
and
principally,
what's
mainly
important,
art
exhibits,
number
two
and
number
three
that
are
included
in
the
packet
with
respect
to
the
loading
dock.
We
don't
disagree
that
the
design
guidelines
for
the
warehouse
district
state
that
preserving
existing
loading
docks
is
critical.
F
We
agree
with
that,
but
what
it
really
focuses
on
is
preserving
existing
loading
docks
from
the
period
of
significance,
and
in
this
particular
instance,
the
period
of
significance
is
or
I'm
sorry.
The
portion
that
were
actually
a
stating
that
we
should
alter
or
well
with
outside
the
period
of
significance
here,
the
portion
that
we're
altering,
which
is
actually
only
8%
of
the
total
loading
dock
square
footage,
was
actually
added
in
1998
and
the
plans
for
that
are
included,
as
exhibit
number
three.
F
So
the
eight
percent
of
the
total
loading
dock
that
were
actually
proposing
to
alter
was
that
new
portion
that
was
added
in
1998.
We
state
in
our
statement
of
appeal
that
really
that's
a
faux
loading
dock
for
the
purposes
of
historical
guidelines.
It
wasn't
created
during
the
period
of
significance
and
we're
not
proposing
to
alter
any
portion
of
that.
F
The
with
that,
we
do
believe
that
the
alteration
is
in
fact
consistent,
and
it's
consistent
with
what's
been
happening
in
the
warehouse
district
itself.
Exhibit
number
two
are
a
number
of
photographs
showing
alterations
to
existing
loading
docks
and
in
fact
the
very
first
one
are
our
neighbors,
and
if
we
know
those
loading
docks,
there
aren't
new
stairs
added
to
it.
F
The
report
hpc
found
that
the
removal
and
of
the
info
of
the
loading
dock
and
it
the
addition
of
the
concrete
stairs,
was
not
consistent
with
the
guidelines
again
for
the
reasons
that
the
alterations
are
well
with
outside
the
period
significance,
and
it's
really
only
8
percent.
Do
you
think
it
is
within
the
guidelines?
There
was
a
recommendation
that
the
new
stairs
be
orientated
so
that
they
would
be
accessed
off
the
freight
street,
which
is
actually
a
vacated
alleyway.
The
applicant
would
agree
with
that
recommendation
and
would
follow
that.
F
There's
also
a
recommendation
that
the
applicant
provide
a
horizontal
metal
guardrail
consistent
with
the
proposed
guardrail
and
again
the
applicant
would
agree
with
that
recommendation.
The
report
goes
on
to
make
a
conclusory
statement
that
the
project
is
inconsistent
with
the
Secretary
of
Interior
standards.
For
treatment
again
to
support
this,
they
cite
to
the
loading
dock.
I,
don't
want
to
repeat
myself,
but
again
we're
only
altering
that
portion
outside
and
and
the
loading
dock
itself.
F
With
respect
to
the
historic
variance
and
I
went
back
to
the
report
with
the
report
in
what
the
hpc
adopted
was
that
the
alteration
which
would
go
from
which
we
actually
go
down
to
six
feet,
eight
and
a
half
inches
would
be
insufficient
and
they
base
that
on
the
fact
that
we
couldn't
alter
the
loading
dock.
But
if
the
loading
dock
that
new
one
from
1998
is
in
fact
allowed
to
be
altered,
we
would
in
fact
have
a
nine
foot.
Ten
inch
width
driveway.
F
The
report
did
not
find
that
that
was
inconsistent
or
should
be
denied.
The
report
focused
solely
on
the
smaller
one,
which
is
the
six
foot
eight
and
a
half
inch
with
the
9
foot.
10
inch
width
is
sufficient
to
allow
a
car
to
pass.
This
is
going
to
be
a
single
lane
entry,
it's
not
going
to
be
a
dual
lane
entry
and
it
is
wide
enough
to
in
fact
allow
for
that
single
vehicle
to
enter
or
exit
in
the
drive
line.
F
So
we
find
that
the
historical
variance
or
the
denial
there
was
no
finding
that
the
nine-foot
ten
inch
wide
driveway
would
in
fact
be
insufficient
to
allow
passage.
In
addition,
the
practical
difficulties
that
are
being
alleviated
is,
in
fact,
the
small
portion
here
of
the
building
that
we
have
to
deal
with,
and
these
were
not
created
by
the
applicant
one,
we're
not
proposing
to
alter
any
portion
of
the
loading
dock
from
the
period
significance.
F
If
we
were
allowed
to
do
that,
then,
of
course,
we
could
meet
a
12
foot
drive
lane,
but
we
want
to
stay
consistent
with
historical
design
guidelines.
In
addition,
there
is
a
vacated
alleyway
that
is
causing
part
of
the
problem
as
well
and
creates
those
practical
difficulties
again
that
was
not
created
by
the
applicant
when
the
city
vacated
that
alleyway
it
created
this
this
alleyway.
F
That,
in
fact,
is
shared
between
the
two
neighbors,
so
we
don't
want
to
encroach
onto
either
a
our
neighbor's
property
or
be
on
a
shared
reciprocal
easement
that
exists
in
that
vacated
alleyway
between
the
two
property
owners.
So
we
do
believe
we
meet
the
variance
guidelines
as
well
and
that
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
should
be
granted
and
that
the
historical
variance
should
also
be
granted
any.
A
Questions,
thank
you.
Are
there
any
questions
from
Council
members
not
seeing
I
do
have
one.
So
you
did
talk
about
the
the
alley
width
and
you
talked
about
how
one
vehicle
be
able
to
go
through,
and
you
alluded
to
a
car
I
mean
the
staff
and
their
presentation
talked
about
meeting
a
twelve-foot.
This
wouldn't
do
that.
This
would
only
make
a
9
foot
10
inches.
Is
that
correct
that.
F
Is
correct
that
is
correct!
That's
why
the
variance
is
necessary.
If
we
could,
we
don't
want
to
take
out
the
loading
dock
from
the
period
significance
and
that's
why
we
can
only
have
a
9
foot.
10
inch
drive
lane,
but
that
is
sufficient
and
it's
in
our
initial
materials
from
our
architect
to
allow
passage
of
a
vehicle
look.
A
F
A
Thank
you
all
right,
not
seeing
any
other
questions
I'm
going
to
now
open
the
the
hearing.
Thank
you
to
the
public.
Please
limit
comments
to
two
minutes
per
person
which
will
be
tracked
at
the
timer
near
the
clerk.
Would
any
members
of
the
public
video
interested
in
speaking
thanks
and
just
come
up
and
say
your
name
and
address
for
the
record?
Please
good.
C
Like
the
kildall
building,
the
security
warehouse
is
historically
designated
structure
in
the
minneapolis
warehouse
district.
In
this
case
built
in
1902.
Our
association
is
committed
to
historic
preservation
and
has
spent
more
than
1
million
dollars
to
update
the
exterior
of
our
building
so
we're
we
were
disturbed
by
the
variance
the
request
for
variances
any
discussion
of
the
North
Loop
area.
C
Keep
in
mind
that
our
building-
and
that
was
one
that
the
applicant
had
shown
was
developed
in
2004
or
5
years
before
we
were
designated
as
a
historic
area
that
distinction
matters,
because
LTI
has
referenced
these
as
a
reason
for
their
for
them
to
be
allowed
to
have
changes
as
well,
but
security
warehouse
followed
the
2004
city
rules
when
it
was
developed,
just
as
it
has
the
2018
ones,
as
we
did.
Improvements
on
the
exterior
of
the
building
killed.
C
Oh,
however,
wants
to
it
ask
for
an
exception
for
this,
even
though
the
Minneapolis
guidelines
say,
the
loading
docks
are
an
important
part
of
the
character
of
the
district
and
that's
not
appropriate
to
remove
lower
and
narrow
them.
You
know,
Eric
LTI
has
also
indicated
that
they
want
to
move
the
stairs
and
those
stairs
would
be
moved
for
my
understanding.
Oh.
A
A
E
E
It's
the
same:
they
have
to
figure
out
how
to
park
this
building
inside,
and
so
they
came
in
with
a
plan,
and
you
guys
don't
like
that,
but
we
unfortunately
had
to
give
them
some
leeway
to
do
it,
so
they
could
utilize
the
building.
Now
it
sounds
like
they
haven't
been
able
to
do.
That
is
that
correct.
C
E
Because
of
that
I'm
sure
if
they
were
able
to
move
forward
on
this
side,
they
wouldn't
probably
be
asking
for
something
on
the
other
side.
So
I
just
want
to
understand,
then
you
don't
want
them
to
do
the
other
side
either.
So
that's
kind
of
backing
them
into
a
corner
to
not
be
able
to
park
their
building.
I.
C
Would
say
that
we
are
because
we're
in
discussion
about
how
that
other
property
off
of
Washington
is
going
to
be
used
once
again.
It
is
something
that's
going
to
be
decided,
hopefully
in
the
next
month
or
so
when
we,
as
we've
been
talking,
we've
been,
we've
had
mediation
over
that
in
a
and
and
another
hearing
over
that
I
would
say
that
the
historic
variance
is
an
entirely
separate
issue.
It
was.
C
I
would
suggest
that
that
there
is
no
official
right
to
have
a
parking
garage
in
the
basement
of
your
building,
that
there
are
times
that
perhaps
other
things
overrule
that
in
this
case
this
is
a
very
specific
issue.
That's
addressed
by
historic
rules
for
the
other
one
it
has
to
do
with
you
know,
working
out
to
neighbors
working
out
an
easement.
They
are
not
they're,
not
one
isn't
dependent
on
the
other.
I
would
say
I.
E
Guess
I
would
think
that
and
I'm
happy
to
ask
the
applicant
that
if
the
litigation
was
resolved
and
they
could
put
their
access
through
the
other
side,
they
probably
wouldn't
be
asking
for
this,
but
they
can
answer
that
question
if
it
was
resolved
to
their
satisfaction
or
mutually
in
a
satisfactory
way.
They
probably
wouldn't
be
asking
to
have
access
on
the
other
side,
so
it
is
intricately
combined
and
we
can
ask
them
I'm
just
trying
to
understand.
C
It
sure
I
understand
that
I
guess
I
think
that
there
are
larger
issues
regarding
the
historic
request
for
variances.
One
of
them
is
that
the
stairway
is
going
to
be
is
proposed
to
be
to
be
moved
off.
The
area
that
would
would
be
where
the
ramp
would
be
and
moved
on
to
the
the
the
drawings
were
to
have
it
moved
on
to
Fifth
Avenue
itself.
C
C
E
E
What's
going
on
and
I
clearly
understand
your
point
of
view
and
I
read
your
letter,
but
it
doesn't
eliminate
the
fact
that
you
don't
want
parking
on
one
side,
access
on
one
side,
and
now
you
don't
want
it
on
the
other,
and
we
can
make
a
determination
of
whether
or
not
we
think
that
that's
legitimate
or
not.
That
was
my
question.
You
don't
have
to
answer.
Okay
could
I?
No!
Thank
you!
Okay,
I'm!
Not
debating
you
look
I
asked
you
a
question.
Okay,.
D
Thank
You
chair
council
members,
my
name
is
Jacob
Steen
with
Larkin
Hoffman
attorneys,
8,300,
Norman,
Center
Drive,
and
we
represent
modern
love
veterinary.
That's
the
tenant,
the
business
located
in
the
subject,
building
immediately
adjacent
to
these
proposed
modifications,
and
it's
a
business,
that's
most
likely
to
be
affected
by
these
changes,
and
we
strongly
oppose
the
appeal
with
respect
to
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
and
historic
variance.
We
do
agree
with
staffs
recommendations
and
findings,
and
we
agree
with
the
HBC
s9o
vote
to
deny
this
application.
D
Removal
and
partial
destruction
of
this
loading
dock
is
inconsistent
with
the
district
standards.
A
loading
dock
is
a
historic
feature
of
this
warehouse,
historic
district
and
historic
feature
of
this
street,
and
there
are
several
explicit
guidelines
that
require
the
preservation
of
these
loading
docks.
Now.
D
This
appeal
relies
in
large
part
on
the
assertion
that
these
modifications
are
justified
by
existing
loading,
docks
that
have
been
modified
within
the
district,
but
I
think
that
that
position
is
unsupported
by
the
district
standards
and
unsupported
by
common-sense
damage
to
existing
historic
resources
does
not
justify
further
damage
to
the
remaining
historic
resources.
Those
remaining
resources
should
be
preserved
period.
D
A
G
B
Thank
you.
Cherry
tree
cherish
writer,
council
member
Gordon.
Yes,
their
approvals
were
valid
approximately
a
year
ago.
The
decision
period
is
for
two
years
and
they
can
be
granted
an
extension
for
their
preservation
approvals
up
to
an
additional
year.
They
would
be
accessing
via
shared
access
easement.
So,
as
it's
been
alluded
to
earlier,
there's
some
litigation
around
whether
or
not
that
shared
access
easement
could
actually
provide
access
to
what
has
been
approved
by
the
city.
So
far,
do.
E
Chair
I'm
interested
in
the
City
Attorney's
opinion
with
regard
to
where
we're
at
on
a
60-day
rule.
Do
we
have
the
ability
to
wait
and
see
what
the
outcome
of
the
mediation
is?
I,
don't
want
to
affect.
I,
don't
want
our
decision
to
affect
the
outcome
of
litigation,
one
way
or
the
other,
so
I
want
to
call
out
what
I
see
is
happening.
So
do
we
have
the
ability
to
delay
this
past
that
date
to
find
out
what
happens
with
that?
The.
B
E
H
Schrader
councilmember
Goodman,
the
applicant,
would
have
to
willingly
provide
an
extension
to
us,
so
it
looks
like
based
on
our
current
timeline.
We
would
have
the
ability
to
act
on
this
through
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
in
November,
8th
at
the
latest,
barring
any
further
extension
again
voluntarily
by
the
applicant.
F
Thank
you.
We
are
not
in
mediation.
We
went
to
mediation
that
failed.
So
what's
pending
is
a
motion
for
summary
judgment
in
the
Hennepin
County
District
Court
pursuant
to
Supreme
Court
rules.
All
district
court
judges
are
supposed
to
issue
an
order
within
90
days
after
taking
it
under
consideration
that
90
days
expires
on
or
around
November
17.
F
However,
if
the
judge
goes
past
90
days,
it
doesn't
happen
often,
but
it
can
so
there's
no
guarantee
that
it's
going
to
be
November,
9,
November
17th,
given
what
I
would
call
rather
contentious
litigation
and
what's
occurred
to
date.
I
can
rest
assured
that
there
will
almost
certainly
be
an
appeal,
no
matter
what
happens
at
that
on
that
decision,
because
somebody
is
going
to
win
and
somebody
is
going
to
lose
and
based
on
what
I
see
we
have
an
appeal.
F
An
appeal
can
go
another
year
or
a
year
and
a
half
and
from
there
whether
or
not
it
would
end
up
getting
taken
up
by
the
Minnesota,
Supreme,
Court
or
not
I
mean
that
could
extend
it
even
further.
My
point
being
to
give
this
body
its
full
information
is,
we
would
not
be
able
to
do.
We
most
likely
will
not
get
a
decision
by
that
November,
8th
timeline
and
even
when
the
district
court
does
make
a
ruling,
there
will
almost
definitely
be
another
process
in
that
litigation.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
I
think
I'll
just
express
my
thoughts
on
this.
It's
it's
very
much.
A
balance
of
wanting
to
preserve
historic
district
at
at
some
with
you
know
very
specific
qualifications
for
that
and
I'm.
It's
very
frustrating
to
hear
that
the
city
tried
to
work
out
a
deal
on
that
and
we're
being
stopped
by
litigation
very
successfully
and
now
that
there's
another
other
option
there.
That
is
also
being
opposed.
So
it's
it's
really
a
matter.
I
think
councilmember
Goodman
put
it's
like.
A
How
are
we
gonna
make
this
work,
and
it
is
just
trying
to
figure
that
out
and
I.
It
would
be
very
helpful
to
have
some
suggestions
from
the
neighbors.
What
they'd
like
to
see,
but
so
far,
just
judging
from
the
exchange
we
had
was
pretty
much
no
other
options
if
you'd
want
to
come
back
to
voting
I'd
love
to
your
thoughts
on
that.
C
There
is
another
option,
and
that
would
be
this
also
has
to
do
with
Washington
Avenue
and
the
the
matter
under
litigation
is
whether
to
use
a
shared
access
agreement
that
that
the
parties
have,
but
the
proper
of
the
building,
the
other
building
kildall
also
has
parking
spots
along
the
the
whole
length
of
the
building,
which
also
could
be
a
driveway
into
a
parking
garage.
We're
not
opposed
to
the
parking
garage
we're
fine
with
that.
C
B
The
driveway
here
we
would
have
to
extend
this
curb
cut
to
be
approximately
35
40
feet
along
Washington,
Avenue,
I
I
believe
we
would
be
challenged
in
in
having
such
a
wide
curve
cut
in
such
a
very
important
pedestrian
bicycle
heavy
transportation
corridor.
Additionally,
we
would
have
to
see
whether
or
not
turning
movements
could
be
accommodated
in
that
narrow
space
between
the
building
and
the
existing
property
line.
B
B
I
Mr.
chair,
if
I
may
well,
staff
is
looking
for
the
images
from
the
last
approval.
You
know,
I
would
just
say,
I
I'm
sympathetic
to
the
argument
that
we
not
you,
know
kind
of
go
above
and
beyond,
to
accommodate
parking
in
in
an
historic
district
in
downtown,
where
we
really
are
through
all
of
our
policies,
encouraging
people
to
use
alternative
modes
of
transportation.
The
county
is
invested
in
a
really
great
bicycle
infrastructure.
There
is
transit
routes,
a
past
rien
landscape.
E
One,
that's
under
litigation
is
feasible
and
we
approved
it,
but
it
involves
the
neighbors
cooperating
with
a
cross
easement
which
they're
not
willing
to
do
as
a
way
to
stop
them
from
putting
parking
spaces
in
a
building.
That
already
has
them
by
the
way
in
the
basement,
which
is
16.
I'll
also
note
that,
despite
some
of
our
objections,
the
parking
situation
is
so
bad
in
the
North
Loop
that
we're
letting
that
Abdul
build
like
a
thousand
car
garage,
so
I
mean
which
I
don't
think
was
a
great
idea,
but
that
happened
anyway.
E
So
there
is
a
pressing
parking
problem
in
this
location
and
they
have
16
spaces
in
their
basement
and
we
shouldn't
be
telling
them.
No,
you
can't
use
them
because
you
can't
access
it.
I
would
prefer
the
other
option
too,
but
the
neighbors
don't
they're
litigating
it.
So
we
have
to
then
acknowledge
that
as
a
reality
here.
B
Is
a
side-by-side
on
your
screens
on
the
left-hand
side
as
today's
proposal
on
the
right-hand
side
as
the
proposal
that
was
approved
last
year,
so
you
see
they
would
cars?
Would
access
the
shared
access?
Easement,
that's
heavy
dark
line
shows
the
existing
property
line
and
they
would
enter
the
garage
on
on
this
facade.
I
can
show
you.
B
A
Think
one
thing
I
very
frustrated
that
the
city
worked
on
a
solution
that
seemed
like
it
would
work
and
now
is
being
stopped
by
litigations
a
better
solution
than
what's
before
us
today.
So
I
don't
know
if
there's
any
thought
on
what
what
could
happen
with
the
litigation,
but
the
parties
both
here
I
mean
it's
very
much
in
where
it's
turning
into
a
no-win
situation
very
quickly.
C
I'll
watch
for
a
signal.
The
the
reason
that
the
the
litigation
is
going
on
is
because
we
have,
we
have
a
very
busy
parking
lot.
This
is
part
of
the
part
of
the
issue
it
has
to
do
with
safety.
It
has
to
do
with
the
amount
of
vehicles
that
are
coming
in
and
out
the
area
that
the
ramp,
the
entrance
to
it's.
A
C
A
C
They
can
come
up
with
a
variation
of
it.
That
would
be
that
doesn't
affect
the
historic
variance
that
that's
fine
with
us.
But
you
know
once
again,
when
you're,
when
you're
looking
at
the
safety
issues,
as
well
as
the
historic
variance,
it's
it's
a
significant
issue
and
if
you,
if
they
were
to
put
the
photo
up
again
where
those
stairs
would
have
to
be
moved
in
the
in
the
loading
dock,
and
it
goes
right
into
traffic.
Okay,.
F
Can
assure
the
city
that
if
we
were
not
stopped
by
the
litigation,
we
would
have
gone
with
the
initial
one.
This
is
costing
us
a
tremendous
amount
of
money,
not
an
outside
of
the
litigation,
but
to
do
this
because
we
have
to
create
a
rise
over
run,
we
have
to
create
a
retaining
wall.
There's
one
contractor
in
the
Midwest
that
can
put
in
that
retaining
wall,
and,
as
the
city
knows,
when
you
have
one
contractor
that
can
do
something
you
get
a
little
unbalanced
bid.
F
If
you
will
so
we
would
love
nothing
more
than
to
go
with
that
first
proposal
and
we
tried
at
councilmember
Goodman,
asked
us
to
go
and
try
to
work
it
out.
If
you
remember
the
last
appeal,
we
went
to
the
full
City
Council.
We
tried
to
work
it
out,
it
failed
there.
We
tried
to
work
it
out
with
a
third-party
mediator.
It
failed
there.
We
don't
have
any
proposal
from
the
Association
as
to
what
would
allow
that
first
proposal
to
go
so
if
we
could
make
that
work,
we
would
and
but
you're
correct.
F
We
do
need
the
cooperation
of
the
homeowners
association
and
we
have
none.
This
is
our
only
other
feasible
way
to
accomplish
parking
down
in
the
basement
and
again.
Councilmember
Goodman
is
correct.
There
are
16
existing
spaces,
but
we're
going
to
be
able
to
create
21
spaces
parking
down
below
this
building
and
alleviate
the
parking
problem
that
that
the
city
currently
has
in
this
district.
Thank.
J
Might
be
a
question
for
staff,
I
think
I
might
know
the
answer,
but
just
for
the
record
site
plan
review
includes
several
different
departments
in
PDR.
This
would
have
been
the
first
proposal,
the
one
that
we
approved
in
its
approval
process.
It
would
have
went
through
PDR
and
Public
Works
would
have
reviewed
it.
Did
they
raise
any
flags
that
this
would
be
an
untenable,
unsafe,
inappropriate
from
an
engineering
perspective
arrangement
between
the
two
parking
lots
and
the
joint
access
I'm
assuming
not
otherwise,
you
went
to
recommend
it
for
the.
B
First
project
there
were
really
no
alterations
to
the
public
right-of-way
and
there
was
no
need
to
require
a
preliminary
plan
review
or
site
plan
review
that
would
be
before
public
works
for
review.
The
the
quantity
of
traffic
is,
is
approximately
what's
there
right
now,
because
they
are
eliminating
some
of
the
parking
stalls
adjacent
to
the
building
to
accommodate
the
the
door
in
this
movie.
So
the
the
net
increase
in
parking.
If
you,
if
you
will,
assuming
that
people
are
coming
and
going
was
maybe
at
most
20
stalls
at.
J
B
Say
that's
correct
because
again
we're
between
two
private
property
owners.
I
can
comment
about
the
second
proposal.
However,
that
public
works
did
express
concerns
with
the
today's
proposal
and
that
was
again
related
to
how
the
the
sidewalk
terminates
the
retaining
wall,
the
height
of
the
retaining
wall
and
really
the
width
of
the
driveway
being
very
difficult
to
maneuver.
And
really,
if
you
look
at
where
the
property
line
is
shown
and
where
the
the
proposed
driveway
is
it's
because
there's
another
shared
access,
easement
off
of
5th
Avenue
and
that's
so.
B
E
Am
going
to
move
to
grant
the
appeal
to
allow
the
project
to
move
forward
I?
The
reason
we
have
variances
is
to
take
up
situations
where
they
are
untenable.
There
are
exceptions
to
rules.
They
should
have
agreed
to
something
on
the
other
side,
but
to
hold
them
hostage
to
not
being
able
to
use
their
parking
makes
no
sense
to
me.
E
This
has
been
through
a
number
of
iterations
where
the
parties
have
been
fighting
with
each
other
and
unfortunately,
we
have
to
make
a
decision
and
I
think
it
would
be
untenable
to
suggest
that
they
shouldn't
use
their
basement
for
parking
because
of
the
issues
addressed.
If
you
should
be
able
to
resolve
it
in
litigation,
go
to
the
other
side.
E
A
Anyone
else
I'd
also
support
that
I
lot
of
frustration.
I
would
very
much
like
to
go
with
the
other
option,
but
the
fact
that
it's
being
held
up
and
that
again,
this
kind
of
body
is
being
put
in
the
middle
is
not
how
the
city's
time
to
be
used
frankly,
so
with
all
that
all
those
in
favor
of
councilmember
Goodman's
motion
to
that
would
be
the
rant.