►
From YouTube: March 25, 2019 City Planning Commission
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission Meeting
A
Good
afternoon,
I
will
call
to
order
the
March
25th
meeting
in
the
Minneapolis
City
Planning
Commission.
My
name
is
Matt
Brown
I
serve
as
president
of
the
Commission.
Today
we
have
a
new
commissioner
joining
us.
Alissa
Olson
is
our
new
mayoral
representative.
Also
here
today
our
Commissioner
is
Luke
P
Pierce
we
Z
Rockwell
and
Alison
this
time,
I'll
ask
that
you
silence
any
mobile
devices
and
we
can
get
started
with
our
meeting
before
we
begin
with
our
normal
business
today.
I
want
to
mention
that
today
is
Jason.
A
Wittenberg's
last
meeting
he's
served
as
staff
liaison
for
about
the
last
14
years
and
is
moving
to
new
role,
heading
up
zoning
code
development.
So
we'll
still
be
seeing
a
lot
of
him
on
this
commission
and
wish
him
the
best.
With
that
I
know
we
have
seep-
or
here
would
like
to
make
a
few
remarks.
Good.
B
He
is
going
to
be
using
all
that
experience
and
expertise,
including
all
the
public
engagement,
a
real
understanding
of
how
this
commission
works
with
the
public
and
has
gathers
public
comment
and
works
projects
through
the
process
and
he's
going
to
be
overseeing
a
new
code
development
section
where
he
gets
to
make
a
lot
of
substantial
changes
to
the
zoning
code
and
help
implement
the
comp
plan.
That
sounds
really
restful
good.
B
For
you
glad
you
go
into
greener
pastures,
he's
going
to
be
replaced
by
kimberly
alleyne
who's
with
us
here
and
she's,
been
with
us
since
2008
april
impact
soul
just
about
eleven
years.
So
we're
looking
forward
to
that
I
just
wanted
to
say
a
couple
of
things.
Jason
aside
from
staffing
that
the
Commission
is
is
still
a
heavy
lifter
he's
drafted.
Ordinances
is
responsible
for
a
lot
of
our
work
on
reforming
our
parking
regulations.
B
B
Working
with
the
code
development
and
they
see
we're
joined
by
our
chairman,
councilmember
Schrader,
so
he'll
be
working
close
with
the
chair
of
zmp
as
well
and
others.
So
thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
recognize.
Geez
recognize
Jason's
contribution
to
the
Planning
Commission
he's
done
over
well
over
300
meetings.
I,
don't
know
what
the
real
number
is,
but
it's
somewhere
between
330
and
300,
something
but
he's
been
just
a
tireless
work
horse
on
the
Commission.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
taking
this
moment
all.
A
So
thanks
again,
and
we
look
forward
to
Kimberly
joining
us
at
our
next
meeting,
Jason
has
done
a
great
job
of
really
leading
all
of
the
staff.
I
will
say
that
they're
all
really,
second
to
none
and
I,
think
you've
done
a
good
job,
advising
us
certainly
open
during
the
time
that
that
I've
been
on
this
commission.
Thank
you.
A
C
A
Have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor
motion
carries
next.
We
will
sort
through
the
agenda.
You
can
find
hard
copies
of
the
agenda
in
the
hallway,
we'll
determine
which
items
we'll
discuss
which
will
be
considered
on
consent
and
which
will
be
continued
to
another
meeting
so
starting
at
the
top
item.
One
is
green
on
4th
at
2949
for
three
southeast
and
its
variants
related
to
signage.
It's
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
1
see.
A
No
one
will
put
item
1
on
consent
item
2
is
the
Royal
foundry
craft
at
241,
Fremont
Avenue,
north
and
1207
Glenwood
Avenue
conditional
use
permit
for
outdoor
recreation
facilities.
So
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
2.
You
wish
to
speak
on
item
2.
We
can.
We
can
discuss,
item
2,
then
moving
along
to
item
3.
That's
the
Glenwood
building
expansion
at
10:15,
Glenwood,
Avenue
North,
several
applications
for
a
reuse
of
a
building
at
that
location.
We'll
discuss,
item
3.
A
If
anyone
is
here
for
that
item,
4
is
the
mini
kata,
Club
clubhouse
and
pergola
at
3205,
Excelsior,
Boulevard
and
35
22
and
1/2
Zenith
Avenue
South.
These
applications
related
to
a
clubhouse
expansion
at
that
location.
Is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
4c?
No
one
will
put
that
on
consent.
Item
5
is
C
HDC
workforce
housing
at
8:15
to
8:27,
South,
sixth
Street
in
south
73
and
601
Chicago
Avenue
to
applications
for
a
new
residential
building
at
that
location.
A
Is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
5c?
No
one
will
five
on
consent
item
six
is
waterworks
mezzanine
phase,
one
at
304,
306
336
and
420
South,
first
Street,
as
well
as
five
third
Avenue
South
several
applications
for
a
park
facility
at
that
location.
Anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
six
I
see.
No
one
will
put
item
six
on
consent
item
seven
is
at
sixty
22
Pillsbury
Avenue
to
applications
related
to
an
event
center.
A
Is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
7c?
No
one
will
put
that
on
consent.
Item
three
is
at
10:30
through
10:40
como
Avenue,
southeast
1100,
Como,
Avenue,
southeast
and
901
11th
Avenue
southeast
several
applications
for
a
new
residential
building
at
that
location.
A
Is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
eight,
eight
on
consent
and
finally,
item
nine
is
at
30
1730
21
at
30
25
East,
Calhoun
Parkway,
several
applications
for
a
new
residential
building
at
that
location
and
that
item
will
be
continued
to
the
April
29th
meeting.
If
anyone
is
here
for
that
item,
so
our
agenda
as
amended,
is
as
follows:
items
1,
4,
5,
6,
7,
&
8,
will
be
on
consent,
will
discuss
items
2,
&,
3
and
item
9
will
be
continued
to
the
April
29th
meeting.
A
D
A
C
A
A
Seeing
no
one
else.
Close.
The
public
hearing
and
commissioners
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
consent
agenda.
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor.
That
motion
carries
next
we'll
move
on
to
our
two
items
for
discussion.
We'll
start
with
item
2
at
241,
Fremont
Avenue,
north
1207,
Glenwood,
Avenue,
North
staff.
It
is
mr.
Han.
E
As
you
may
be
aware,
there
are
currently
two
permitted
uses
that
are
operating
right
now:
Royalle
foundry
distillery
on
the
south
side
of
the
building
and
the
ladonna
brewery
on
the
north
side
of
the
building.
What's
in
front
of
you
today,
is
the
condition
he's
permit
to
allow
to
outdoor
recreational
uses
a
cycle
track,
a
mini
cycle
track
on
the
south
side
and
then
a
soccer
field
on
the
north
side
of
the
building.
I.
E
E
This
project
with
will
meet
or
exceed
the
requirements
that
the
neighboring
property
has
expressed
a
concerned
about
the
cycle
track
will
maintain
a
five
foot
distance
from
that
Western
property
line.
236
s
rear
property
line.
The
lighting
will
have
to
comply
with
our
lighting
regulations
of
chapter
535
for
light
pollution
or
light
crossing
over
the
property
line
and
also
the
height
of
the
light
poles,
and
one
of
the
public
comments
is
from
the
owners
of
the
real
foundry
and
they've
specifically
said
that
they
are
not
planning
on
e
stadium-style
lighting.
E
A
restaurant
with
alcohol
I
would
have
to
comply
with
and
that
being
that
they
maintain
the
product,
the
premises,
all
adjacent
streets,
sidewalks,
all
sidewalks
and
alleys
within
100
feet,
she'll
be
on
site,
inspected,
regularly
for
purposes
of
removing
any
litter
found
thereon
and
then
finally,
screening.
The
applicant
is
proposing
a
4-foot
decorative
fence
along
that
mini
track
all
along
the
perimeter
of
the
track,
and
they
are
willing,
with
the
added
memo
that
we
have
today,
to
put
a
six-foot
hedge
along
the
Western
property
line
here
to
buffer
from
those
residentially
zoned
properties.
E
There's
also
a
letter
of
support
from
the
letter
of
no
objection.
Here's
a
rendering
or
image
of
the
soccer
field
on
the
north
side,
but
there's
a
few
public
comments,
one's
a
letter
stating
they
have
from
a
neighboring
property
or
say
it's
dating:
they
don't
have
any
objections,
but
with
that
I'll
just
also
add
in
one
of
my
last
emails
with
the
someone
from
the
public
that
they
brought
up
this
potentially
being
an
athletic
field
staff.
Just
that
is
a
specified
use.
This
is
not.
Staff
does
not
see
this
as
an
athletic
field.
E
This
is
an
outdoor
recreational
use
and
you'll
see
the
outdoor
recreational
uses
with
breweries
and
Tap
Room's
happening
more
often
with
being
pass
or
just
being
outside
and
wanting
to
be
outside
and
take
advantage
of
the
outdoor
weather
when
it
is
nice.
So
we
are
supportive.
This
seeing
this
as
a
positive
for
this
area,
that's
kind
of
developing
into
a
commercial.
E
Understanding
is
those
athletic
fields
would
be
more
within
the
park
system
and
that
there
would
be
that's
more
specified
for
that
correct
and
Ron
Jason.
But
then
it's
I
will
admit
to
the
outdoor
recreational
use,
use
being
general
and
broad,
but
there's
just
a
lot
of
things
that
that
can
go
within
that
category
and
in
a
cycle
track
being
the
example.
That's
in
front
of
us
today,
okay,.
E
E
E
A
F
F
Originally,
the
the
land
was
actually
full
of
truck
trailers
for
well
over
10
plus
years,
everybody
in
the
neighbor,
that's
neighborhood
that
was
spoken
to
you-
have
been
really
Oh,
receptive
and
open
to
what
we're
gonna
be
doing
and
for
most
part
it's
it's
along
the
lines
of
a
lot
of
dynamic
establishments
throughout
Minneapolis.
So.
F
A
And
commissioners,
are
there
any
questions
of
the
applicant
hearing,
none
we
can
move
on
to
other
speakers
and
how
many
of
you
like
to
speak
on
this?
We
have
at
least
one.
So
you
can
come
to
the
microphone.
You
can
decide
who
goes
first
and
come
come
to
the
microphone
state.
Your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
G
G
What's
going
on,
I
think
the
Royal
400
people
have
made
a
big
investment
and
I
think
it's
appreciated
by
the
neighborhood
and
the
surrounding
businesses
and
I
also
want
to
thank
Aaron
who's,
been
my
point
of
contact
at
the
city
for
his
accessibility
and
availability
and
trying
to
communicate
with
me
prior
to
this
hearing,
so
that
we
could
try
to
talk
about
some
of
the
points
that
were
maybe
sticking
points
and
I
think
that
we
definitely
moved
the
needle.
So
I
want
to
thank
him
too.
G
So
my
goal
isn't
to
get
in
the
way
of
progress,
but
being
the
director
Jason
owner,
my
building
was
owned,
light
industrial
and
it
was
only
about
five
years
ago
that
it
was
changed
to
r3.
I
was
pretty
upset
at
that
time,
because
it's
a
commercial,
it's
a
business
and
being
used
commercially
and
voiced
my
opinion
of
the
RS
rezoning
at
that
time
to
the
council,
and
it
fell
on
deaf
ears.
G
That
was
that
was
the
plan
at
the
time,
so
I've
had
that
r3
status
since
then,
and
tell
now,
and
though
the
future
may
change.
If
I
were
to
build
a
structure
or
do
something
productive
with
that
property.
Today,
I
would
probably
be
constrained
by
that
zoning,
or
else
I
would
have
to
apply
for
a
conditional
use
myself.
G
I
guess
a
couple
of
the
the
points
that
I
would
like
to
make
today
is
that
I'm
concerned
about
the
buffer
between
the
two
property,
since
they
share
a
property
line
and
that
I
am
r3
respectfully
I
had
asked
for
some
sort
of
barrier
in
previous
plans.
There
was
only
the
shrubbery
and
no
offense.
They
did
come
forward
with
the
four-foot
fence
with
air
which
I
appreciate,
but
I
had
requested
a
six-foot
fence,
since
this
is
property
line
with
a
potential
residential
property.
G
This
business
is
its
primary
business
is
in
the
manufacturing
and
consumption
of
alcohol,
which
is
also
next
to
a
residence,
so
I
think
having
a
barrier
other
than
something
that
can
be
stepped
over
would
benefit
our
land.
You
know
for
them
to
continue
to
develop
and
go
forward
with
what
they're
planning
on
doing
the
other
concern
that
I
had
had
was
if,
in
fact,
this
is
a
residence
to
discuss
about
the
noise
and
the
hours
of
use.
I
know
that
they
have
limited
to
10
p.m.
G
yeah
and
I
understand
that
on
non
school,
non
work
nights,
that's
totally
acceptable
by
me.
I
had
requested
something
earlier
for
the
other
nights.
If
there
were
residents
and
there
were
workers
or
children
or
something
who
are
trying
to
sleep
along
with
that
are
the
conditions
of
the
lights
and
sound
and
other.
G
I've
also
talked
with
Iran
goldstein
in
the
applicant
and
some
of
the
other
principles
with
the
foundry
and
they've
they're.
Great
people
I
want
to
be
a
great
neighbor,
but
I
also
need
to
protect
myself
and
and
my
property
rights,
so
essentially
I
support
what
they're
doing,
with
the
exception
of
having
a
barrier
that
will
discourage
any
laundering
or
trespassing
between
the
two
places.
I
know
that
the
food
and
beverage
consumption
is
limited
to
the
deck,
but
the
sound
isn't
defined
by
the
deck.
G
If
there's
peering
and
noises,
my
belief
is
that
these
are
athletic
fields.
I
mean
it's
for
soccer
leagues
and
it's
for
competitive
bike
racing
and
in
Chapter.
Three
five
36.0
and
athletic
field
defines
that
it
should
be
within
50
feet
of
a
property
line
and
minimize
noise
and
like
to
the
restarting
properties
and.
G
My
request
is
more
specifically
about
regulating
the
time
of
use
and
having
an
adequate
boundary,
so
that
I
don't
have
trespassing
or
other
things
that
could
happen
additionally,
if
I
so
need
to
put
a
fence
around
the
rest
of
my
property,
because
there's
some
problems
and
public
on
the
street
in
and
around
the
establishment.
If
they
have
a
four-foot
fence,
it
doesn't
make
sense
for
me
to
put
a
six-foot
fence
up
on
the
other
three
sides
and
again
that's
why
I
came
back
with
this
extra
question.
I
rest
with
that.
Thank
you
all.
A
G
H
But
this
is
a
close
neighbor
of
mine
and
I
am
a
member
of
the
redevelopment
Oversight
Committee
from
Basset
Creek,
Valley
and
I'm,
not
speaking
on
their
behalf,
because
because
I
didn't
know
that
I
was
going
to
talk
to
you
this,
but
we
we've
been
enthusiastic
about
this
establishment
and
what
they're
doing-
and
we
think
that
this
is
great.
We
love
it
for
the
neighborhood
and
this
corner
has
with
deaf
gross
ins.
Help
frankly
has
his
going.
H
It
has
a
great
deal
of
potential
for
Harrison
neighborhood
and
for
bath
Creek
Valley
and
we're
very
happy
about
all
of
that
and
the
one
suggestion
that
I
might
have
and
really
everything
they're
doing,
I'm
good
with
all
of
that.
But
we
had
discussed
several
times
at
the
at
the
rock
that
a
four-way
stop
at
that
corner.
Wouldn't
it
was
very
low
traffic
up
until
the
this
establishment
went
in
and
we're
glad
to
see
that
they're
successful,
but
now
I
think
that
second
Glenwood
or
a
second
and
a
van
white
needs
a
four-way.
H
A
G
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
conditional
use
permit
with
the
five
stated
condition
and
adding
a
sixth
and
that
six
is
what
Aaron
handed
out
here.
I'll
read
it
here,
a
hedge
or
a
fence
along
the
Western
property
line
shall
be
provided
to
screen
the
cycle
track.
That
will
be
at
least
six
feet
in
height
and
at
least
95
percent,
opaque.
D
A
Right,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
approve
item
a
the
conditional
use
permit
with
the
five
stated
conditions
and
adding
a
sixth
related
to
providing
a
hedge
or
fence
along
the
west
property
line.
That's
that's
at
least
six
feet
in
height
and
at
least
95
percent
opaque.
Any
discussion,
Commissioner
RocketBallz.
I
To
my
recollection,
the
park
by
my
house
painter
park,
the
basketball
courts
have
a
sign
that
says:
please
don't
play
basketball
after
10
p.m.
Arizona.
It's
10
p.m.
a
kind
of
a
common
time
that
much
my
my
thinking.
If
the
that
is
kind
of
what
we've
got
throughout
the
city
of
Minneapolis
and
so
today
won't
be
consistent.
Yes,.
E
I
A
I
A
E
E
There
are
six
applications
seat
pros,
recommending
approval
of
five
of
the
six
those
applications,
a
condition
use
permit
for
height
for
variances
of
the
PIO
standards
and
site
plan
review.
The
one
variance
that
that's
recommend
denial
is
to
allow
the
building
not
to
be
oriented
without
one
principal
entrance
facing
the
public
street.
E
E
The
in
regards
to
the
entrance,
here's
Glenwood
Avenue
when
the
cursor
is
the
west
side
of
the
building
is
where
they
have
their
I
proposed
to
have
their
main
entrance,
their
new
main
entrance
and
their
accessible
entrance,
and
they
have
building
permits
to
complete
that
elevator
corridor
at
this
location.
Already.
E
E
So
why
why
record-low
recommending
denial
of
this
application?
A
few
reasons,
the
purpose
of
the
pedestrian
oriented
overlay
district,
is
to
encourage
pedestrian
activity
and
promote
street
life
by
regulating
regulating
building
orientation
and
design.
We
want
to
make
it
easy
for
pedestrians
to
travel
from
whoever
that
surface
parking
lot
or
downtown
to
get
to
this
building.
E
If
you
parked
on
this
east
side
of
the
building,
it
could
be
a
long
ways
to
travel,
to
get
to
the
other
side
and
also
just
making
it
like
I,
said
easy
for
those
traveling
in
the
area
there
is
previous.
There
hasn't
been.
This
building
has
been
as
photographed
as
many
others,
but
it's
a
it
is
a
neighborhood
landmark
and
there's
versions.
E
Throughout
the
decades
of
there
being
entrances
on
Glenwood
Avenue
I'll
be
Utley
accessible,
but
they
have
been,
they
have
been
there
and
those
Bay's
have
been
modified
and
the
last
point
I
made
in
I'll
making
this
presentation
is.
You
saw
a
presentation
or
a
proposal
for
this
building
a
couple
years
ago
and
within
that
there
was
plans
for
an
entrance
I'm
at
Glenwood.
Avenue
elevation
in
that
I
believe
that
their
intentions
were
to
have
the
accessible
entrance
modifications
take
place
within
within
the
building
instead
of
having
a
large
ramp
on
the
outside
of
the
building.
E
So
we
really
feel
like
it
can
be
done.
We
know
that
requiring
this
may
require
another
accessible
entrance
on
Glenwood
Avenue,
so
that
that
could
modify
and
impact
their
proposal
for
the
plans.
So
the
conditions
of
approval
that
I
believe
that
the
applicant
would
that
takes
issue
with
our
to
comply
with
the
section
5
31
10
building
placement.
The
applicant
shall
install
principal
entrance
on
the
North
Glenwood
Avenue
elevation
that
is
equal
or
greater
importance
to
the
main
entrance
proposed
on
the
West
elevation
and
within
that
I
meant
the
design
of
the
entrance.
E
They
have
the
sidelights
large
glass
windows,
the
glass
within
the
door
and
the
other
condition.
The
applicant
shall
install
direct
walkway
from
Glenwood
Avenue
to
the
staff
recommended
entrance
on
Glenwood
Avenue
in
a
section
that
provides
a
more
direct
pedestrian
connection
to
the
main
building
entrance
and
at
a
minimum,
a
painted
crosswalk
shall
be
provided
through
the
parking
lot.
E
There
is
a
letter
support
from
the
Bassett
Creek
Valley
redevelop,
Oversight
Committee,
and
this
project
does
have
to
go
through
PD.
A
preliminary
development
review
before
final
approvals
will
be
will
be
had
we
encourage
the
applicant
to
get
there
and
they're
really
close
and
I.
Think
it's
on
the
agenda
to
go
to
PDR.
So
there
might
be
some
slight
modifications
to
the
site
as
well.
A
G
E
A
J
J
J
J
J
K
J
J
If
you
had
a
main
entry
here
and
the
kind
of
controlled
access
that
you
have
to
schools,
the
people
would
be
coming
to
this
building
teacher
students
and
parents
would
be
familiar
with
how
to
win
their
way
through
the
building
to
get
back
there.
But
that's
not
really
practical
location,
or
you
know,
route
to
have
a
main
entrance
upon
Glenwood
and
then
expect
the
visitors
to
the
building
to
easily
traverse
the
building
to
get
back
there.
J
The
so
the
school
proposal
is
not
going
forward
because
there
was
significant
opposition
and
concern
in
the
neighborhood
about
putting
that
type
of
a
use
on
the
Glenwood
commercial
corridor,
and
the
applicant
now
has
shifted
years
and
on
a
speculative
basis,
is
moving
forward
with
renovation
of
this
building
for
commercial
use.
So
they
don't
know
who
the
tenant
will
be.
They
don't
know
if
it'll
be
a
single
building
tenant
like
the
school,
they
think
it's
most
likely.
It
will
be
multiple
tenants
and
and
as
as
I
noted
for
multiple
tenant
uses.
J
What
we
propose,
as
findings,
are
that
practical
difficulties
exist
in
placing
a
main
multi-tenant
entrance
facing
Glenwood
because
of
the
elevation
of
the
existing
first
floor.
It
is,
it
is
above
grade,
it
would
require
accessibility,
but
also
we're
going
to
continue
to
need
to
have
that
entrance
by
the
existing
elevator
shaft
and
so
the
location
of
the
the
structure
where
we're
facilities
are
in
the
building
just
stairs
of
practical
difficulty.
J
Now,
if
the
variance
is
denied,
if
it's
granted
as
I
said,
we'd
need
to
also
request
elimination
of
condition
3
to
the
site
plan
review.
But
if
it's
denied,
if
you
do
believe
that
it's
important
to
have
an
entrance
to
Glenwood,
we
are
requesting
that
the
condition
number
3
be
modified
to
eliminate
that
the
entrance
needs
to
be
of
equal
or
greater
importance.
That's
vague!
It's
subjective!
It's
going
to
be
very
hard
to
apply.
J
I
think
it
would
lead
to
confusion
as
I
indicated,
because
there's
still
gonna
need
to
be
that
main
entrance
in
the
southwest
corner.
If
there
are
going
to
be
entries
in
to
Gerrard
they're,
most
likely
to
be
individual
tenant
entries,
so
they're,
not
the
kind
that
you
would
consider
to
be
of
equal
importance.
There
might
actually
end
up
being
more
than
one
on
Gerrard
when
you
know
who
the
tenant
mix
is.
J
So
we
think
it's
important
that
even
with
denial
of
variance
that
you're
not
trying
to
balance
the
importance
of
these
entries,
and
that
is
it
being
what
the
code
requires.
The
code
requires
a
principal
entrance
unless
you
get
alternative
compliance
or
variance,
it
doesn't
require
that
the
most
important
one
be
facing
a
public
street
and
then,
as
I
noted
we'd
like
to
modify
the
condition
for
Austrian
pathway.
J
Second
one:
this
is
what
I
had
in
mind
that
a
connection
B
from
the
sidewalks
to
the
north-east
corner,
there's
an
existing
sidewalk
that
goes
out
to
the
parking
it's
the
shortest
distance.
Through
the
parking
lot,
it
does
spread
the
these
pedestrian
pathways.
We
have
one
that
complies
with
the
standard
over
here,
so
the
standards
that
this
would
be.
E
J
My
understanding
is,
the
school
project
was
not
going
to
demolish.
The
building.
Sorry
was
not
going
to
demolish
the
the
metal
sheds
and
the
other
two
buildings
additions
that
are
going
to
be
demolished
and
it
wasn't
adding
that
parking
area,
so
it
wasn't
required
to
get
the
site
plan
review
or-
and
it
wasn't
gonna
add
a
fourth
floor,
so
it
wasn't
required
to
go
through
site
plan
review
or
get
all
these
variances.
J
So
work
has
been
done
on
the
building
with
the
idea
of,
if
we're
just
renovating
this
building,
they
got
building
permit
review
of
the
elevator
and
the
stairwell
and
where
the
restrooms
would
be
before
they
came
forward
with
these
applications.
That
now
will
require
PDR
because
of
the
addition
and
the
and
the
parking
lot
so
is.
G
J
G
I
G
J
E
J
L
What
I
like
to
kind
of
expand
on
those
are
my
concerns
as
well.
I
mean
I,
get
that
this
is
an
adaptive
reuse
of
it,
but
to
hear
that
the
other
elevators
being
made
now-
and
the
argument
is
that
we
need
to
have
a
the
entrance,
be
where
the
elevator
is
but
you're
building,
where
the
elevator
is
now
I'd
love
to
hear
or
if
there's
been
some
thought
to
maybe
moving
the
elevator,
knowing
that,
ideally,
we
have
something
that
have
an
interest
on
the
Avenue,
then,
would
that
make
sense?
Yeah.
J
I
mean
I
think
if
so,
you
know
I
think
you
could
talk
about
having
an
accessible
entrance
on
the
Glenwood
side
without
it
being
the
major
entrance
and
and
saying
that
you
have
to
have
the
main
entrance.
I
think
that's
you
know
we
could
address
accessibility
to
say,
have
an
accessible
route
to
the
building
without
going
through.
The
parking
lot
is
different
than
saying
you
have
to
have
a
main
entrance
there.
Okay,.
L
L
Think
I
would
have
liked
to
see
a
little
bit
more,
knowing
that
you
know,
there's
a
very
large
parking
lot
before
the
street,
knowing
that
we
would
want
some
kind
of
pedestrian
area
if
there
could
be
done
or
done
with
landscaping
or
something
just
take
this
opportunity
to
do
more
with
that
area,
even
though
I
know
that
we
have
we're
set
with
the
building.
Does.
D
M
M
What
were
the
applicant
so,
basically
the
we
we
went.
We
were
in
front
of
Planning
Commission
six
months
ago
on
this
school
application,
which
got
ultimately
approved,
and
we
were
moving
that
forward
that
road.
After
that
application,
we
got
a
lot
of
pushback
from
the
neighborhood
groups,
the
council,
member,
the
the
surrounding
council
member,
and
we
we
thought
to
reevaluate
that
and
regardless
of
the
approvals
so
sure
we
are.
You
know,
charter
schools
are
hard
to
place
in
the
city
as
I'm
sure
you
guys
know
it's,
it
would
have
still
been
an
option.
M
That's
that's
not
the
direction
that
we're
going.
The
reason
why
this
building
was
attractive
to
charter
schools
was
because
of
this
big
warehouse.
You
know
this
big
on
the
I.
Guess
would
be
the
the
east
side
of
the
building
and
which
was
they
were,
ought
to
be
gonna
run
a
bit
into
a
gym.
You
know
was
a
high
high
warehouse.
It
will
allow
them
to
do
that
with
the
purple
of
all
we're
hearing
that
down
and
turning
out
of
the
surface
part,
because
we
need
the
additional
parking
if
we're
gonna.
M
D
Cuz
I
would
just
have
really
serious
concerns
about
the
drop-off
pick
up
bus
stacking,
all
those
things
in
regard
to
where
the
entrance
is
currently
shown
if
it
were
to
become
a
school
I,
think
we'd
almost
need
to
revisit,
regardless
of
what
happens
today,
an
approval
process,
but
it
I
just
think
that
for
absolutely
I
mean
I'm
glad
to
hear
that
it's
probably
not
likely,
but
it
still
is
knowing
that
it's
possibly
on
the
table
in
their
futures
can
be
giving
me
a
pause.
Correct.
M
And
that
was
the
reason
why
that
the
entrance
was
put
in
the
front
just
for
that
specific
reason
with
them
with
the
bus,
drop-off
and
so
on.
I
mean
I
think
what
a
couple
of
the
questions
that
some
of
the
commissioners
have
asked,
Carol
that
maybe
she
wasn't
totally
privy
on-
is
Amina
regardless,
whether
there's
a
door
on
Glenwood
or
the
the
the
doors
on
me
on
the
side
where
we're
proposing
I
mean
you,
because
it
was
the
setback
of
the
existing
building.
M
Now
this
building
is
three
and
a
half
feet
above
grade,
so
I
mean
to
do
an
exterior
ramp
you're
talking
about
a
70
70
foot
round
and
for
the
building's
only
you
know,
85
90
feet
wide,
so
it
you
know
it
would
be
very
difficult.
Do
you
know
Beit
to
make
this
one
on
twenty
slope
without
really
adding
the
elevation
of
the
building
etc?
G
So
this
building
reminds
you
a
lot
of
the
warehouses
on
first
day
of
your
birth
and,
if
you're
familiar
with
those
which
I
know
most
of
us
all
are,
and
some
of
us
might
own,
then
the
the
strategy
to
solve
this
problem
is
to
put
an
insurance
at
great
level
into
into
the
building
and
then
provide
stairs
either
a
short
lift
or
a
ramp
inside
of
the
building
to
month
the
monetarily
that
three
four
feet
shift
difference.
If
we
did
this
here,
that
would
be
no
need
to
move
the
elevators.
M
That's
kind
of
what
was
done
with
this
elevator,
this
elevator
core,
it
stops
at
grade
and
then
it
stops
a
half
of
three
feet
up
at
the
lobby
level,
so
that
was
kind
of
a
thought
process.
You
know
this
isn't
a
very
large
floor
plate,
and
that
was
a
reason
that
originally
we
tried
to
take
advantage
of
this
additional
addition
that
was
built
on
the
rear
to
try
to
you
know
to
try
to
use
that
that
area
for
this
vertical
transportation
and
and
the
end
the
form
of
egress
you
know.
M
Ultimately,
this
is
a
commercial
corridor
and
we'd
altima
like
to
see
retail.
You
know
on
this
corridor
and
my
other
concern
about
putting
the
main
entrance
of
the
building
on
Glenwood.
Is
you
know,
based
on
where
the
this
core
is
now?
Is
you
know
we
would
be?
We
would
somehow
have
to
bifurcate
this
floor
and
whether
it's
on
this
cycle,
you
know
a
tenancy
or
the
Neth
cycle
of
tenancy.
Eventually,
this
corridor
does
what
we
all
think
it's
going
to.
A
M
M
Well,
you
could
probably
still
leave
your
accessible
entrance
where
it
is
and
we
we
just
end
up
losing
you
know
to
create
around
and
your
ramp
would
be
as
wide
as
the
building.
This
building
is
80
feet.
Deep,
your
ramp,
it
out
to
be
a
70
60,
70
foot
around
I
mean
I'm
sure
you
could
do
a
switchback
and
but
it
just
would
be.
You
would
have
to
pretty
much
cut
up.
Half
the
you
know.
The
whole
first
floor
would
end
up
having
to
be
modified.
Sure.
G
Well,
you
can
use
a
lift
and
set
up
a
ramp
and
then
to
have
you
had
conversations
about
the
building
code
requirement.
That's
sixty
percent
of
your
public
introduces
need
to
be
accessible.
Yes,
because
this
doesn't
meet
that.
If
you
have
two
entrances,
you
need
to
accessible
entrances
right
now.
See
percent
captures
both
of
those
entrances
correct.
M
G
M
And
then,
like
I
said,
we
already
have
a
permit
for
this
from
from
a
base
building
standpoint
for
this
work.
Pre.
This
application,
for
you
know,
modifying
the
building
a
little
additionally,
so
I
believe
that
they
looked
at
these
two
entrances,
the
one
with
the
stairs
and
the
one.
Next
to
this,
one
I
just
believe:
that's
the
way
that
they
looked
at
it
from
historic
standpoint,.
A
G
K
H
From
this
from
this
from
this,
this
address
and
I
was
one
of
the
really
strong
voices
against
the
previous
usage
of
this
building
and
I
I
really
want
to
say
that
I
really
thank
these
people
for
listening
to
the
neighborhood
and
our
vision
of
what
this
neighborhood
is
hope,
hopefully,
will
be,
and
and
and
and
we're,
we're
very
really
enthusiastic,
and
we're
really
happy
that,
with
the
changes
they're
made,
I
know
that
the
that
the
the
entrance
issue
is
thorny
and
it
certainly
is
way
above
my
pay
grade.
But
everything
else
that's
going
on
here.
H
H
A
A
G
Like
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
item
B,
the
variance
for
the
PIO
district
setback
increase
with
the
two
stated
conditions
item
C,
the
variance
to
the
PIO
district
to
increase
the
street
furniture
accessories
service
parking
lot
and
item
D.
The
variance
for
the
Pima
district
to
a
lot
of
accessories
for
a
parking
lot
in
the
front
of
our
principal
building.
D
A
A
A
G
Ariana
I
think
we
had
the
guts
of
this
conversation
earlier.
I
think
this
is
a
developing
corridor.
It's
great
to
see
the
reuse
of
this
building,
but,
in
my
opinion
and
my
professional
opinion,
this
ability
this
proposal
doesn't
make
the
building
call
it
first
of
all,
and
we
can
do
better
from
an
accessibility
standpoint.
These
changes
required
are
not
that
drastic
to
this
building.
Commissioner.
D
Know
every
second
that
I
think
from
an
accessibility
and
way
find
a
standpoint,
because
it's
not
always
about
just
fitting
through
a
doorway,
but
it's
about
being
able
to
get
to
an
entrance
and
visually
recognizing
it.
The
fact
that
the
existing
location
is
only
two
stories
tall,
so
they
have
to
modify
it
anyway.
It
seems
to
me
a
minor
change
more
than
any
situation
where
there's
an
existing
situation,
that's
just
being
utilized
so
I
will
support
the
motion.
A
G
A
I
Question
on
for
staff:
do
we
know
what
how
we
define
principal
entrance
I
mean
I,
assume
that
our
additional
language
here
greater
in
importance
in
equal
or
greater
importance,
is
a
reaction
to
some
unfortunate
past
principal
entrances,
which
were
then
just
blocked
entrances.
So
you
know
we're
trying
to
make
up
for
for
miss
interpretation
of
that
term.
Do
we
have
a
definition
of
that
term
and
in
a
way
that
would
I
don't.
E
E
I
So
one
could
have
an
entrance
that
serves,
but
you
could
conceivably
have
a
ground
floor
tenant
in
this
building.
They
fill
a
full
ground
floor.
The
full
footprint
the
entrance
on
the
bun
Woodside
would
interject
into
that
defense
space
and
then
tenants
on
the
upper
floors
would
enter
on
the
other
edges.
Yes,.
A
C
A
That
motion
carries.
That
concludes
our
discussion
on
item
three
I
also
wanted
to
note
on
item
eight.
There
was
an
addendum
in
our
packet
that
involved
a
modification
to
conditions.
Six,
so
I
will
just
know
for
the
record
that
we
will
accept
that
addendum
and
under
commission
updates
tonight
we
will
select
our
officers
for
2019
and
we
had
a
nominating
committee
that
included
commissioners
Lukey
Pierce,
Weezy
and
kögel,
and
would
one
of
you
like
to
provide
an
update,
Commissioner
Swezey.
K
A
Right
and
I
will
take
that
as
a
motion
to
appoint
those
officers.
Is
there
a
second?
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
any
discussion
on
that
hearing.
None
all
in
favor
any
opposed,
and
that
motion
carries
congratulations
for
our
new
officers.
I
am
especially
excited
to
pass
the
baton,
so
I
look
forward
to
moving
down
the
dais
and
and
voting
once
again.
So
we
can
look
forward
to
that
at
our
next
meeting
in
April.
So
our
next
meeting
is
April
15th.
We
have
committee
of
the
whole
this
Thursday
and
we
are
adjourned.