►
From YouTube: December 7, 2020 Planning Commission
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
C
D
C
C
E
B
Very
good
we
have
quorum.
Next,
I
will
ask
for
a
motion
to
approve
items
three
and
four
on
our
agenda,
which
is
the
acceptance
of
the
november
16
2020
planning,
commission.
G
E
Thank
you.
So
I
want
to
split
off
the
minutes,
because
I
I
wanted
to
talk
about
them
and
propose
to
to
table
those,
because
I
I
guess
we
haven't
been
recording
motions
that
fail.
E
So
at
the
last
meeting
there
were
there
was
at
least
one
motion
that
failed
and
I
went
back
to
look
that
up
and
you
know
there
was
no
documentation
about
it.
I
feel
that
we
should
be
recording
those,
and
I
was
really
surprised
that
we
haven't
been
up
to
now.
So
I
would
I
would
move
to
table
the
november
16th.
B
E
H
B
Take
that
then,
as
a
motion,
not
enough
full
suggested
motion,
but
about.
H
B
E
B
If
we
continue
does
that,
does
that
sound
good?
Yes,
all
right,
so
we
have
a
motion
to
continue
the
approval
of
minutes.
Is
there
a
second.
I
B
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
in
a
second
to
continue
approval
of
minutes
to
discuss
regular
what
is
regularly
included
in
those
minutes.
Any
further
discussion.
D
E
C
D
C
C
K
B
D
D
B
All
right
that
motion
carries
our
next
order
of
business
is
to
organize
and
arrange
the
agenda
for
tonight's
hearing.
For
those
of
you
on
the
line,
I
will
walk
through
the
full
agenda.
If
you
wish
to
speak
against
staff
recommendations
or
to
amend
a
staff
recommendation,
please
speak
up,
otherwise
we
will
likely
place
the
item
on
our
consent
agenda
and
approve
as
a
block.
So
if
you
wish
to
testify
against
staff
recommendation
or
to
amend
staff
recommendation,
please
do
speak
up.
B
You
need
to
hit
star
6
to
unmute
yourself,
and
you
also
need
to
check
that
you
are
unmuted
on
your
own
device.
So
item
number
five
is
the
snelling
yard
redevelopment
3601
44th
street
east
in
ward
12.?
That
is
approval
of
final
flat.
Anyone
wishing
to
contest
staff's
recommendation
on
item
number
five.
B
Hearing
no
one
will
place
item
number
five
on
consent.
Item
number:
six
is
1300
west
lake
street
in
ward
10.,
a
an
rls
registered
land
survey
on
that
project.
Is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
against
staff
recommendations
on
item
number
six.
B
F
B
Of
this
one
cycle-
item
number
eight
thirty,
one
fourth
avenue
south
and
four
eleven
thirty
first
street,
east
and
ward
nine.
Is
anybody
wishing
to
speak
to
thirty
one?
Oh
one,
four
seven,
except.
B
D
B
I'm
sorry,
yes,
would
you
like
to
speak
on
the
jefferson
street
northeast
of
spring
street,
northeast
7th
division.
B
No
okay:
item
number
nine.
B
B
B
Slash
new
construction
is
part
of
the
carmel
complex.
Is
anybody
wishing
to
speak
to
against
staff
recommendations
on
item
number
12.
B
All
right,
so
our
agenda,
as
amended,
is
item
number
11
on
our
discussion
agenda.
B
D
A
motion
to
approve
the
agenda
as
amended
with
item
7
continuing
to
january
11th
and
discussing
item
11
and
on
consent
all
the
rest
of
the
items
very
good.
I
E
B
Yeah
very
good:
the
agenda
is
approved
next
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
on
the
consent
agenda.
Does
anybody
wish
to
speak
to
any
of
the
items
on
the
consent
agenda?
5,
6,
8,
9,
10
and.
B
B
Agenda,
commissioner,
is
that
a
commissioner
olson,
or
am
I
looking
at
your
health
commissioner,
smiley.
B
D
E
B
Very
good
that
motion
carries
and
next
I've
got
a
motion
to
continue
item
number
seven
one
cycle
to
january
11,
2021.
D
E
B
Very
good
that
motion
carries
next
we'll
move
to
our
discussion
agenda.
First
up
is
3308
lindell
avenue.
South
number
10
staff
is
peter.
Peter
flor
is
yours.
A
Good
evening,
commissioners,
this
project
is
located
at
3308,
glendale
avenue
south
in
the
south,
uptown
neighborhood
adjacent
to
the
glendale
neighborhood,
with
frontage
along
lindell
avenue
south
and
with
access
to
a
shared
residential
alley
at
the
rear.
A
A
A
This
is
the
landscape
plan
showing
the
layout
of
the
proposed
structure
on
the
site.
As
you
can
see,
the
two
existing
homes
to
the
north
and
south
are
set
back
significantly
from
the
property
line,
creating
an
established
front
yard
of
25
feet
which
the
applicant
is
requesting
to
vary
to
reduce
to
16..
A
A
This
is
a
survey
showing
the
placement
of
that
existing
single
family
home
on
the
site
next
slide
and
elevations
of
the
proposed
structure.
The
applicant
is
proposing
fiber
cement
as
the
primary
exterior
building
material
and
is
requesting
alternative
compliance
to
the
siphon
review
standards
to
use
more
fiber
cement
than
would
typically
be
allowed
by
the
exterior
building
material
standards.
A
Just
to
see
a
rendering
of
the
proposed
structure
so
again
three
stories,
four
units,
the
units
are
somewhat
larger,
so
the
structure
is
somewhat
larger
than
you
might
expect
for
a
four
unit.
L
Yeah
peter,
I
had
a
question
regarding
that:
alternative
compliance,
well,
actually
two
questions
and
number
one,
because
the
rendering
doesn't
quite
match
the
elevation,
so
I'm
wearing,
which
is
the
current
version,
but
secondly,
regarding
the
alternative
compliance
about
exterior
building
materials.
I
didn't
see
that
listed
on
the
applications.
At
least
it
didn't
pop
out
to
me
our
staff
recommending
approval
of
that
request,
or
is
staff
recommending
that
we
stick
to
the
required
guidelines.
A
Yes,
alternative
compliance
would
be
listed
under
the
site
plan
review
standards,
so
it's
a
part
of
the
site
plan
review
application.
A
We
are
recommending
approval
of
that
for
this
building,
given
that
it
is
somewhat
smaller
in
scale
than
many
of
the
multi-family
buildings
that
we
apply
these
standards
to
and
is
integrated
within
a
context
of
largely
single
and
two
family
homes
on
which
fiber
cement
is
a
much
more
common
material
and
site
plan
review
standards
for
those
smaller
scale.
Buildings
would
allow
for
an
all
fiber
cement
exterior.
So
we
felt
that
this
was
character
appropriate
and
would
work
with
this
scale
of
building.
L
Okay
and
then
peter,
because
I
guess
I'm
looking
and
on
my
copy
of
the
agenda,
it
actually
the
site
plan
review
conditions.
It
starts
at
condition,
number
nine
and
it
goes
through
14,
but
I
don't
have
one
through
eight.
So
my
apologies,
it's
not
showing
up
on
my
agenda,
so
that
would
be
maybe
why
I'm
not
seeing
it.
L
L
B
Commissioners,
any
further
questions
for
staff
over
here
from
the
african
I
was
gonna,
say,
commissioner
baldwin
honorary
commission
involvement.
C
You're
funny,
regarding
list's
comments
about
the
agenda.
I
just
looked
at
mine
too,
and
the
conditions
do
start
at
like
nine.
It's
there's
nothing
missing,
it's
just
it
got
misnumbered
when
it's
copied
and
pasted.
It
looks.
I
B
Right
yeah,
there
should
be
only
six
six
conditions:
total.
L
A
H
B
H
B
Okay,
there
are
a
number
of
people
who
pressed
it.
So
if
you're,
not
the
applicant,
if
you
can
re-mute
yourself,
I
think
the
feedback's
coming
from
your
ends
here
and
then
we
can
only
have
one
person
unmuted
or
everyone
has
to
have
their
headphones
in.
A
All
right
this
is
this
is
peter.
I
I
checked
in
with
the
applicant
to
see
if
they
were
able
to
register.
I
didn't
hear
back
and
I
I
don't
see
them
on
the
the
list.
So,
unless
they're
on
the
line
now
I
don't
have
confirmation
that
they
have
registered.
B
Got
it
okay,
then
we
will
take
our
lack
of
applicant
piping
up
as
an
indication
that
they
are.
K
B
In
fact,
aligned
and
we
will
move
on
to
our
other
public
testimony
first
up
is
barbara
meyer,
barbara
meyer,
if
you
can
unmute
yourself,
if
you're
on
the
line
by
pressing
star
six
and
introduce
yourself
name
and
request
for
the
record
and
go
ahead
and
provide
your
comments.
M
Hello,
this
is
barbara
meyer.
I
live
at
3312,
lindo
avenue
south,
and
I'm
calling
in
just
with
some
concern
about
this
project.
The
structure
proposed
to
be
built
at
3308
as
a
homeowner
directly
next
door.
M
So
I
would
like
to
say
about
that:
a
three-story
building
extending
almost
to
the
alley
next
door
would
certainly
create
a
safety
issue
impeding
our
ability
to
see
the
alley
and
call
out
substitute
behavior,
which
has
happened
a
number
of
times.
The
crime
rate
in
our
area
has
been
increasing.
So
this
is
this.
Is
a
big
concern
for
me,
the
large
footprint
of
the
plan
reduces
green
space,
offers
very
limited
area
where
tenants
might
hang
out
and
interact
with
neighbors
there's
no
storage
area.
So
where
will
tenants
store
things
like
bikes
and
strollers?
M
I
would
prefer
to
be
able
to
work
with
the
builder,
and
maybe
he
can
build
a
structure
within
current
codes
without
needing
three
variances
and
a
conditional
use
permit
a
duplex
or
even
a
triplex
adds
density
without
overstepping
the
small
lot
size
again.
I
refer
to
zoning
ordinance,
525
500
number
one
practical
difficulties
existing
complying
with
the
ordinance,
because
a
circumstance
is
unique
to
the
property.
The
unique
circumstances
were
not
created
by
persons
presently
having
an
interest
in
the
property
and
are
not
based
on
economic
concerns
alone.
M
I
would
argue
that
every
eight
acre
site
in
minneapolis
would
have
difficulty
in
complying
with
the
ordinance
to
densify
this
much.
So
it
is
not
a
unique
situation.
Circumstances
were
directly
created
by
the
developer,
wanting
to
put
a
16
bedroom
building
on
an
8th,
acre
property.
So
this
appears
to
me
to
be
indeed
driven
by
economic
considerations.
M
M
B
Thank
you
for
that.
Testimony
next
up
is
chadley
copenhauer.
B
Go
ahead,
please
state
your
name
in
the
rest
of
the
record
and
let's
go
ahead
and
provide
your
comments.
G
Well,
greetings
everyone
and
thank
you
for
letting
me
speak.
I
appreciate
that.
I
also
appreciate
mr
crandall
helping
me
out
with
getting
the
information
and
being
very
quick
to
respond,
and
I
do
respect
that
and
appreciate
it.
G
F
G
I
am
barbara's
husband.
I
live
in
3312,
which
is
just
the
south
of
3308,
and
I
wanted
to
give
you
a
little
background.
I
did
send
an
attachment
and
I'm
just
going
to
kind
of
quickly
go
through
these
points
that
barbara
barbara
made
some
very
good
points
and
I'm
just
going
to
add
on
a
couple
more
details,
but
the
history
of.
H
G
Us
and
myself
is
that
we
bought
this
house
about
25
years
ago
and
they
were
trying
to
get
the
single
family
homes
bought
up
and
we
had
the
city
even
had
a
take
kickback
credit
thing
that
we
took
advantage
of
and
saved
us
a
lot
of
money.
So
basically,
what
we
wanted
to
do
was
fix
up
this
house
and
that's
what
we've
been
doing.
G
Looked
at
one
side:
traffic
up
in
the
hennepin
corridor
of
south
hennepin,
looked
at
putting
in
more
lights
at
bryant
square
park
was
not
involved,
but
I
did
see
some
of
the
workings
of
lindale
avenue
and
some
of
the
reasons
why
they
did
the
remodel
on
lindale
and
from
our
perspective
it
was
to
make
a
distinct
change
from
a
commercial
zone
to
a
more
of
a
neighborhood
zone
calming
the
traffic.
G
G
So
I'm
concerned
about
about
the
city's
decision
making
and
it's
ability
to
react-
and
I
also
was
a
public
school
teacher,
so
I
understand
the
money
piles
and
how
quickly
things
move
within
the
government.
So
I'm
not
that
naive
to
think
that
we
can
do
good
things.
So
that
being
said,
some
of
the
projects
that
I
have
been
a
part
of
or
have
come
witness
of
seem
to
just
I
don't
know
they
didn't
get.
G
They
don't
get
to
pan
out
and
then
something
else
comes
along
and
basically
it's
just
the
flavor
of
the
month
and
it
causes
a
lot
of
problems
for
people
who
actually
live
here.
So
I
have
some
concerns.
I'd
like
to
say
that
I
really
appreciate
the
work
that
mr
singh
put
into
the
plans.
G
I
find
some
of
the
renderings
they're
appealing
but
they're,
not
realistic,
they're
renderings
and
they
don't
show
the
houses
next
to
it,
which
would
show
that
the
size
of
this
is
a
little
bit
of
an
abrupt
trans
transition
in
our
neighborhood.
So
I
have
a
concern
about
the
height
variants,
and
my
concerns
are
just
the
environment
that
we
live
in
and
how
that's
going
to
get
closed
on.
G
My
biggest
concern
about
the
height
is
the
fact
that
we
basically
will
be
losing
the
privacy
of
our
backyard,
and
I
don't
know
what
I
guess
a
question
would
be
to
the
board.
Is
what
what
what
value
to
put
on
my
personal
right
to
my
privacy
that
I
have
obtained
and
so
that
that
price
that
value?
I
don't
know
what
that
is,
but.
G
So
that's
one
of
the
conditional
use
and
I
think
the
roof
line
has
to
be
moved
up
and
that's
why
they
have
to
go
up
that
high
to
put
living
space
in
that
area.
But
I'm
not
sure,
but
I
think
part
of
that
reasoning
is
the
building
is
too
big
for
what
is
sized
there.
G
B
Returned
to
the
applicant,
which
means
that
it's
not
it's,
not
it's
not
going
through,
so
things
have
been
adjusted
so
so
that
is
actually
a
kind
of
a
moot
point.
At
this
point.
B
Can
we
can
have
staff
talk
to
that
in
a
little
bit
once
you
finish
yourself.
G
Okay,
I'm
sorry
I'll
move
on
okay
and
then
the
variance
c
is
was
discussed
briefly
by
barbara.
But
our
sight
lines-
and
you
know
the
reality
of
where
we
live-
is
those
set.
Setbacks
are,
are
wonderful
there,
because
glendale's
loud
and
busy
and
dirty
and
for
us
to
live
here
comfortably
with
the
sound
and
all
of
the
increased
density.
G
My
concern
for
variance
d
are
exactly
as
as
spoken
by
barbara,
but
my
concern
is
that
if
that
goes
forward,
it's
going
to
set
a
precedent
for
all
of
our
lots
in
this
neighborhood
and
and
once
that
goes
then
you're
going
to
see
the
incentive
to
build
giant
apartment
buildings
in
our
neighborhood
and
that's
going
to
change
it
and
the
ramifications
of
that
I'll,
be
people
will
move
out.
G
The
way
that
they're
planned
out
without
storage,
small
bedrooms,
no,
no,
no
real
plan
for
where
you're
going
to
put
garbage
containers
and
recycling,
containers
and
compost
containers,
there's
no
plan,
as
far
as
I
can
see,
of
where
the
air
conditioning
units
are
or
the
hvac
units
will
be,
if
they'll
be
on
the
roof
or,
if
they'll
be
in
the
yard,
making
noise
next
to
our
house.
G
I'm
not
clear
about
that,
and
I
have
concerns
about
that
stuff
because
it
will
affect
myself
and
yeah
I'm
kind
of
drifting.
So
I'm
I'm
kind
of
emotional
about
this,
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
on
on
number
d,
I
there
is
some
confusion
that
I
think
the
board
can
speak
to
on
on
the
reality
that
if
mr
singh
did
want
to
compromise
and
possibly
build
a
duplex
or
a
triplex
and
make
it
fit
in
there
without
any
of
the
variance
breakage
or
adjust
it
in
a
more
transitional
way.
G
He's
still,
I
think
from
my
understanding
I
still
think
he's
going
to
have
to
pull
a
permit
to
make
because
of
all
the
lot
sizes
of
for
for
or1
or
5000.
And
I
don't
know
if
that's
just
a
you
know,
throw
just
round
it
up
to
a
5000
or
if
it
actually
is
mathematically
equated
out
to
the
property
size
appropriation
for
people
to
live
on.
So
I'm
not
sure
where
that's
coming
from,
but
it
is
rather
confusing
and
that's
a
big
part
of
variance
d
that
I'm
concerned
with.
I
mentioned
the
site.
G
There
is
some
issue
with
the
board
recommending
some
barriers
between
the
parking
area
and
the
neighbors
to
the
south
and
to
the
north.
G
That
needs
to
be
discussed,
I
think,
with
mr
singh
and
ourselves
as
far
as
like
the
reality
of
actually
pulling
a
car
in
without
running
the
fence.
Up
to
the
alley,
I
think,
there's
there's.
I
would
like
to
work
with
them
on
on
those
kind
of
things.
Let's
see
the
lighting.
B
G
Said
please.
B
Wrap
up
as
well
there's
a
few
other
people
on
us
to
testify
to
yourself.
G
Okay,
okay,
so
yeah,
I'm
concerned
about
that.
And
then
my
questions
are.
G
Why
they
weren't
brought
up
in
the
initial
process
of
this
I'm
concerned
about
the
water
runoff
by
an
increase
of
70
percent,
more
impervious
and
just
to
conclude,
the
project
goal
is
too
aggressive
in
meeting
the
needs
of
the
2040
plan
and
pushing
this
project
the
open
precedence
of
approving
projects
that
force
change
and
nullify
previous
attempts
of
making
needed
change
for
our
city.
G
We
have
a
petition
that
has
about
137
signatures
that
are
pushing
back
against
this,
so
I'm
chadli
copenhaber
and
that's
what
I
have
to
say
currently.
Thank
you
for
listening.
B
Thank
you
very
much.
Next
up
is
jerome
chateau.
F
Yes
good
evening,
thank
you
for
letting
me
speak.
I'm
jerome
chateau,
I'm
at
33
or
for
dupont
in
south
africa
and
and
the
chair
of
the
land
use
committee
of
our
neighborhood,
and
we
saw
that
project
coming
to
to
us
in
last
october.
Unfortunately,
mr
singh
never
showed
up
to
give
us
any
any
feedback,
so
we
just
had
a
discussion
with
the
elements
we
had
and
actually
we
had
the
impression
that
it
was
approved
by
right
and
therefore
it
was
just
a
very
theoretical
discussion.
F
It
seems
that
it's
not
exactly
the
case.
I
won't
dwell
on
to
into
the
details,
but
I
will
give
you
the
gist
of
our
discussion.
We
didn't
take
a
position
to
prove
it
is
approved
on
this
project,
and
and
so
we
don't
have
a
a
a
joint
statement
to
a
laboratory
segment
to
pass
on
so,
but
we
had
mixed
feelings
about
it.
Many
of
us
thought
it
was
very,
very
massive
and
too
massive
for
this
type
of
situation.
F
On
the
other
hand-
and
I'm
switching
my
now
to
my
more
of
my
personal
visions,
but
that
I've
already
explained
to
this
commission
in
the
past.
Actually,
I
I
think
in
this
blocks
the
the
what's
what's
been
a
lot
and
what
will
be
allowed?
It
is
really
problematic
and
these
structures,
this
massive
railroad
structure,
that
go
from
front
to
end,
are
really
going
to
create
a
very
poor
land
use
model,
given
the
the
future
needs
of
our
cities.
F
Again,
I
went
to
reiterate
that
I'm
told
in
favor
of
density
and
story
is
our
committee,
but
this
succession
of
the
model-
we're
going
for
towards
right
now
is
a
is
an
accumulation
of
this
type
of
structure
next
to
each
other,
destroying
the
green
space
and
in
the
back
and
creating
this
recreating
the
new
jersey,
suburban
model
of
the
50s,
with
only
one
or
two
yards
between
two
two
structures:
that's
where
we're
heading
right
now,
and
this
is
the
beginning
of
it,
and
it's
probably
not
exactly
what
we
all
wish
for.
F
I
think
we
all
want
more
density,
but
we
want
something
more
more
measured,
more
dense.
I
think
it
would
have
been
better
to
merge
two
houses
and
even
possibly
build
higher.
I
don't
know
possibly,
I
think.
Actually,
I
think
so
in
the
meantime,
we
are
facing
this
situation
as
unfortunate
as
it
is.
So
I
am.
F
F
We
start
creating
each
time
all
this
aggravation
and
acrimony
within
within
neighborhoods.
I'm
afraid
we're
going
to
see
more
and
more
of
that
and
it's
all
the
more
frustrating
for
someone
like
me,
interested
in
land
use
and
and
obviously
more
density
in
the
city,
because,
while
in
the
meantime,
this
city
is
sitting
with
surface
lots
all
over
downtown
all
over
the
neighborhoods
and
nothing
is
happening
there.
There's
no,
no
rules
and
no
provisions
to
change
that.
F
F
So
it's
again
bringing
all
this
stress
all
this
density
in
what
are
still
neighborhood
and
residential
neighborhoods
with
low
density.
Why,
in
the
meantime,
we
have
clearly
a
land
that
is
completely
underused.
It
is
a
problem.
I
understand
this
is
not
what
you're
going
to
vote
today,
but
this
is
something
to
keep
in
mind
and
and
as
you're
going
to
vote
on
this
project.
I
think
I
invite
you
to
look
at
the
whole
thing
on
one
hand
and
also
the
life
of
these
people
in
this
block
and
how
we're
going
to
transition.
F
So
I'm
urging
you
to
reduce
the
size
of
this
building
as
much
as
possible.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you
very
much
for
that
testimony.
Next
up
is
colleen.
B
H
H
Oh
hi,
hello,
hello,
my
name
is
colleen
day.
My
house
is
3304
lindale
avenue
south,
and
I
have
been
listening
to
the
comments.
I
really
like
what
barbara
and
chadley
had
to
say
and
the
former
gentleman
I'm
very
sad
that
this
is
aya
and
august's
legacy.
H
H
I
have
many
reasons:
safety,
the
sight
lines,
the
traffic,
the
congestion,
the
parking,
the
variances,
the
pushbacks,
the
density
four
times
the
people
there
for
those
plans.
What
I
see
is
four
spots
for
approximately
a
quarter
of
that
gigantic
building.
I
don't
know
where
all
those
people
are
gonna
park.
H
H
How
about
the
sight
lines
blocking
our
sun
so
that
our
snow
can't
cannot
melt
off
our
rooftops
and
we
can't
see,
like
barbara,
said,
the
crime
in
the
city:
how
about
digging
and
excavating
we
have
old
homes.
Our
homes
were
built
in
the
early
1900s.
What
is
that
going
to
do?
What's
that
going
to
do
to
our
foundations?
H
I'm
also
concerned
about
not
wanting
to
live
next
to
a
gigantic
wall
at
all.
I
don't
think
anyone
does.
I
don't
think
anyone
would
like
that.
It's
not
in
keeping
with
the
quaint
uptown
neighborhood
charm.
It's
gonna
decrease,
in
my
opinion,
decrease
our
property
value,
which
I'm
very
concerned
about,
because
I
once
again
I'm
vested
like
the
other
neighbors.
H
I
I
wonder
how
much
of
a
lot
can
can
be
covered
by
this
structure.
There's
there's
restrictions
in
st
louis
park.
Why
can
this
guy
just
take
up
the
whole
entire
lot?
It
doesn't
make
any
sense
to
me.
I
I
I
just
I'm,
I'm
really
upset
about
this.
It
feels
to
me
that
you're
going
to
move
solid
homeowners
out
to
the
suburbs
and
put
people
in
that
aren't
vested
and
and
able
to
watch
the
neighborhood.
H
It
just
feels
like
that
to
me:
there's
a
lot
of
vacant
business
buildings
due
to
the
pandemic
and
the
and
and
the
environment,
and
excuse
me
the
pandemic
and
the
economy.
Why
can't
he
go
get
out
one
of
those
buildings
and
do
this
not
everyone
rides
a
bike,
and
so
I'm
not
sure
how
this
is
all
gonna
work,
people
that
go
to
work,
people
to
go
to
the
doctor,
parents
with
children,
picking
them
up
from
a
swim
meet
they're,
not
all
gonna,
get
on
a
bicycle
that
doesn't
make
any
sense.
H
So
I
I'm
sorry
I'm
very
upset
about
this.
I
am
really
really
upset
about
this.
This.
This
does
not
seem
like
a
good
plan
at
all
four
times.
The
density.
My
house
has
four
people
in
it.
It
is
not
a
traditional
duplex,
it's
very
small.
It
has
a
very
small
footprint,
two
thousand
square
feet
or
less.
It
is
not
seven
500
square
feet.
This
is
ridiculous.
B
You
very
much
is
there
anyone
else
wishing
to
testify
on
this
item
on
the
line.
Please.
A
B
A
B
Yes,
please
introduce
yourself
and
if
you
wish
to
provide
any
further
context,
go
ahead.
K
B
Very
good
was
there
anything
in
particular
that
you
wanted
to
provide
to
the
commission
by
as
information,
just
as
we
consider
your
applications,
if
not
peter
gave
an
overview
before
you
were
able
to
join.
We
obviously
all
read
your.
B
Very
good,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
introducing
yourself.
B
Unmute
all
right
hearing,
nobody,
I
will
close
the
public
hearing.
Commissioners,
we
have
five
applications
before
us.
Any
any
discussion
of
comments
by
commissioner
mike.
B
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
and
return
all
the
various
staff.
Sorry,
the
various
applications
consisting
of
staff
recommendation.
Do
we
have
a
second
commissioner
olson.
D
E
Yeah,
so
this
is
zoned
corridor
four
in
the
the
2040
plan,
which
means
that
once
that's
fully
implemented-
which
it's
not
yet
we're
in
an
interim
period,
but
once
that's
fully
implemented,
then
they
would
be
able
to
build
four
stories
by
right
and
that
that
entire
street
from
lake
street
to
38th
is
owned.
Cordov4
in
the
2040
plan.
E
B
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Caprina
question.
N
Hi,
thank
you.
So
I'm
I'm
just
curious
about.
Where
will
the
trash
be
located?
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
a
great
question.
I
just
want
to
know
and
then
how
will
the
water
be
diverted
properly?
I
mean
it's,
it's
a
pretty
massive
building,
but
I'm
just
curious
about
that.
So
so
can
somebody
tell
me
give
me
an
answer.
B
A
Sure
the
applicant
did
indicate,
on
their
site
plan
a
small
area
for
trash
collection
at
the
rear
of
the
site.
We
didn't
feel
that
the
detail
on
that
was
appropriate
to
meet
the
screening
standards,
so
there
is
a
condition
attached
to
the
site
plan
review
application
that
the
applicant
update
that
plan
to
meet
the
minimum
standards
there
for
trash
recycling,
collection
and
screening.
A
That
may
mean
that
they
have
to
adjust
their
parking
plan
I'll
point
out
that
this
project
does
not
have
a
minimum
parking
requirement,
so
they
could
potentially
even
reduce
the
number
of
parking
spaces
to
make
that
work.
That's
one
possible
outcome.
A
As
far
as
the
water
management
on
the
site
goes.
We
don't
require
any
special
storm
water
management
on
sites
of
this
size
and
for
projects
of
this
size
they
are
meeting
the
minimum
impervious
surface
requirement,
which
is
the
main
sort
of
regulation
that
would
apply
to
that
concern
for
a
project
like
this
and
then.
A
Oh
and
then,
lastly,
on
the
interior
side
yard,
the
the
minimum
requirement
under
the
current
code
is
nine
feet.
The
applicant
had
originally
proposed
a
seven
foot
setback
along
the
north,
but
they
are
adjusting
their
plans
to
meet
that
minimum
nine
yards
or
nine
foot
setback.
N
Right
so
so
I
guess
my
last
question
because
I'm
just
curious,
so
when
plans
are
being
developed
for
buildings,
this
size
that
are
so
close
in
proximity
to
single
family
homes,
or
I
guess
a
home-
that's
built,
like
the
one
of
the
speakers,
said
in
1900.
N
How
can
we
be
sure
that
it
wouldn't
adjust
the
land
to
the
to
a
point
where
it
would
upset
the
the
house
next
door
to
it?
Do
you
you
know
what
I
mean
like
the
yeah?
I
don't
know
I
just
would.
Could
that
be
an
issue
I
mean,
would
wouldn't
that
be
a
city
concern
the
foundation?
That's
what
I'm
trying
to
say
the
foundation
of
the
house.
J
B
That
is
a
question
that
comes
up
every
once
in
a
while
for
sure.
So,
thanks
for
raising
it
all.
B
L
Yeah
I
had
a
couple
questions
for
peter
and
then
some
comments
so
peter.
What
is
the
maximum
impervious
surface
coverage
for
this
lot?.
A
L
Okay,
thanks
peter,
so
that's
it.
For
my
my
question,
I
I
did
want
to
comment
on
the
motions
that
are
are
in
front
of
us
right
now.
I
I
wish
the
emotions
were
split
because
some
I
would
support,
and
some
I
don't.
I
guess
I
would
say
right
now,
given
the
fact
that
it's
currently
zoned
or1,
I'm
not
sure
that
I
can
make
the
legal
findings
for
a
cup
given
that
it
acts
as
asking.
It
asks
us
to
consider
additional
standards
regarding
increases
to
maximum
height
and
three
of
the
four.
L
L
One
is
shadowing
of
residential
adjacent
properties
and
one
is
the
scale
and
character
of
surrounding
uses,
and
we
already
know
it's
on
a
scale
of
surrounding
uses,
just
because
it's
it's
already
asking
for
a
height
increase,
but
I
do
think
the
the
structure
itself
is
80
feet
long.
I
mean
it's
an
80
foot,
long
wall.
L
That's
that's
quite
a
bit
wide
along
the
pretty
much
most
of
the
lot
it
it.
So
I
I'm
having
a
hard
time
thinking
that
those
three
three
of
the
four
additional
standards
are
related
to
maximum
height
cups
are
being
met
because
it
seems
as
though
those
are
actually
very
much
not
being
met.
L
So
I
can't
I
can't
support
the
conditional
use
permit,
I
will
say
in
addition,
I
have
a
hard
time
supporting
variant
c,
just
given
the
fact
that
the
adjacent
structures
have
greater
setbacks
of
28
feet
and
19.3
feet,
they're
asking
for
16
feet
and
then
on
top
of
that,
another
four
feet
into
that
will
be
the
porch,
which
means
that
in
reality,
they're
they're,
the
fielder
setback
will
be
12
feet.
L
L
The
third
one
I
I
probably
could
be
convinced
of
just
because
it's
so
close
to
the
multi-family
minimum
lot
area.
You
know
it's
not
that
far
off,
so
a
variance
d,
I
probably
would
approve
site
plan
review.
I
I
do
have
problems
with.
I
do
think
that
the
parking
in
the
back
is
really
egregious.
It's
40
feet
long
and
18
feet
plus
deep.
I
mean
that's.
L
That's
just
a
lot
of
surface
parking
and
and
really
18
feet
is
like
just
barely
a
parking
stall.
So
I
hope
none
of
their
tenants
have
overly
large
vehicles
because
they'll
stick
in
the
alley,
so
I
I'm
a
little
bit
suspected.
I
just
think
it's
too
large
for
the
lot
and
maybe
because
they're
trying
to
squeeze
four
four
bedroom
units
onto
it.
I
think
it's
it's
too
big.
I
just
simply
the
porches.
You
know
my
feeling
about
four
foot
porches
in
general
on
every
other,
multi-family
building
or
even
single-family
homes.
L
It's
kind
of
the
cheap
thing.
That's
done
on
a
lot
of
our
speculative
infill.
It's
a
it's
a
useless
porch
depth
on
the
back.
Maybe
it
makes
sense
because
it's
really
just
a
walkway
access
to
the
rear,
but
in
the
front
four
feet
is
again
a
person
and
a
chair,
not
a
person
or
a
chair,
and
so
I
I
think
that
that's
that's
just
a
sign
that
this
is
too
much
for
this
size
slot.
L
It
needs
to
be,
it
needs
to
be
reduced,
and
if
that
means
some
of
the
bedrooms
have
to
go,
I
I
don't
care
that
it's
a
fourplex.
To
be
honest,
I
just
feel
like
maybe
it's
too
much
of
a
program
for
this
site,
so
I
cannot
support
a
c
and
e
applications
like
it
could
be
convinced
to
support
variance
d.
However,
thank
you.
B
Very
good,
thank
you,
commissioner
of
the
future
commissioners.
I
B
I
I'm
not
going
to
repeat
what
commissioner
loopkey
pearce
said,
but
I
find
her
remarks
extremely
persuasive
and
also
feel
that
this
project
is
at
a
scale
not
appropriate
for
the
lot
that
it's
on.
So
I
won't
be
supporting
the
motion.
B
B
Stopped
working
exercising
my
mouth
puzzles,
silently
no
smiley
go
ahead.
D
I
also
agree
with
commissioner
luke
pierre
and
commissioner
sweesy,
the
one
variance
that
I
have
a
very
hard
time
with
is
variance
c,
because,
with
a
I
understand
like
similar
to
what
commissioner
maya
brought
up,
I
don't
I
don't
see
how
I
think
that's
reasonable
and
but
variancy
I'm
having
a
hard
time
understanding
this,
just
it
just,
doesn't
seem
aligned
with
what's
going
on
in
the
neighborhood,
so
I
won't
be
able
to
support
this
motion
either.
E
Question
for
peter,
can
you
just
let
us
know
like
if
this
were
to
get
denied
today,
which
of
the
different
variances?
Would
they
be
approved
to
get
by
right
after
the
2040
plan
is
implemented,
because
I
assume
that
you
know
for
the
conditional
use
permit.
They
wouldn't
need
to
get
one
after
after
that's
implemented.
Is
that
correct,
or
am
I
mistaken
about
that.
A
Commissioner
meyer,
that's
correct,
the
the
cep
for
height
would
not
be
necessary
under
the
new
built
form
overlays,
the
other
two
variances
would
still
be
necessary,
so
we
we
still
have
the
established
front
yard
to
contend
with,
and
the
minimum
lot
area
is
not
well.
We
don't
know
exactly
where
that
will
land,
but
in
the
staff
proposed
version
of
the
code.
The
minimum
lot
area
for
multiple
family
structures
is
not
changing,
so
that
would
still
require
that
variance.
E
Okay,
thank
you
and
then
I'm
perfectly
open
to
revision
to
the
motion
to
split
it.
However,
people
think
makes
the
most
sense.
B
Chris,
if
you
want
to
withdraw
the
motion
and
just
take
each
application
individually,
that
certainly
could
certainly
accept
that
withdrawal.
E
Sure
so
I'll
withdraw
the
motion
and
I
think
the
ones
that
we
had
consensus
on
were
so
moved
to
return.
Item
b,
approve,
item
d
and
approve
item
e,
consistent
with
staff
recommendations,
and
then
we
can
take
a
and
c
separately.
B
All
right,
so
we
have
a
motion
for
items
b,
d
and
e,
so
you
are
including
site
plan
yeah.
K
B
D
B
Second,
for
items
b,
d
and
e
consistent
with
staff
recommendations.
Commissioner,
look
keep
here.
L
Yeah
I
I
guess
I
still
have
I'm
struggling
because
I'm
not
on
board
with
e.
So
I
I
guess
I'd
prefer
if
the
motion
was
just
to
move
forward
with
b
and
d
at
the
moment
and
then
take
the
other
items
individually.
But
if,
if
commissioner
meyer
wants
to
proceed
with
all
three,
then
I
will
be
voting
now.
E
I
hadn't
heard
that
you
had
objected
to
e,
but
I
can
revise
the
motion
to
remove
that.
We
can
have
a
separate
vote
on
that
as
well.
B
B
L
Yeah,
I
just
want
to
say
I
will
be
supporting
obviously
b.
It's
a
return
of,
I
think
it's
housekeeping,
but
d.
I
will
be
supporting
the
variance
for
d.
I
do
find
that
there
are
practical
difficulties,
mainly
related
to
the
fact
that
the
real
reason
this
rule
exists
has
to
do
with
profiteering
from
land
sales
and
whatnot
in
the
future,
and
given
that
this
is
already
an
established
lot
and
the
zoning
for
the
lot
changed
from
when
it
was
originally
constructed,
but
it
still
is
a
constructed
site.
L
I
find
that
that
and
the
fact
that
the
square
footage
is
so
close,
I
find
it
and,
in
fact
does
have
practical
difficulties
that
would
allow
me
to
support
this
particular
variance.
N
Just
so
I'm
clear
we're
voting
on
variants
b
and
d
right
now,
so
we've
separated
see
any
okay.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
heard
that
correctly.
B
And
we'll
take
all
of
the
others
individually
there.
So
folks
can
debate
and
and
vote
on
those
individually.
Okay.
D
So
any.
E
K
A
B
That
motion
carries
commissioner
meyer.
Did
you
want
to
proceed
yeah.
E
E
Yep,
so
I
would
move
to
approve
item
a
the
conditional
use
permit.
B
I
B
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second,
very
good,
any
further
discussion
on
this.
B
All
right,
please
call
it
all.
C
Caprini
no
smiley,
I
lift
keep
here.
No
marwa.
D
J
E
Yeah
I
moved
it
yeah.
I
moved
to
approve
item
c
to
reduce
the
front
yard,
set
back
from
25
feet
to
16
feet.
B
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
item
c,
consistent
with
staff
recommendations.
Any
further
discussion,
commissioner
meyer.
D
B
Do
we
have
a
second
to
the
motion,
commissioner?
Olson.
D
E
Yeah,
I
just
have
a
question
for
staff,
so
in
the
report
you
know
it
says
that
the
minimum
front
yard
setback
for
a
multi-family
building
in
the
or1
district
is
15
feet.
So
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
why
it
is
that
this
is
required
in
the
first
place,
if,
if
it's
already
at
15
feet-
and
if
you
can
just
speak
to
your
recommendation,
please.
A
Sure
so
the
the
minimum
setback
in
the
underlying
zoning
district
is
15
feet,
but
the
established
front
yard
is
still
the
minimum
based
on
the
setbacks
of
the
two
properties
on
either
side
of
the
property.
A
You
know,
we've
we've
had
a
lot
of
discussion
about
this
along
corridors
like
lindale,
where
the
land
use
has
changed.
Land
use,
guidance
has
changed
significantly
and
that
there
will
be
significant
practical
difficulties
with
implementing
the
the
future
land
use
and
built
form
guidance
in
areas
of
the
city
that
have
a
very
different
character
and
built
form
character.
E
Okay-
and
I
I
agree
with
staff's
analysis
of
of
that-
that
we
should
bring
this
in
line
it
with
the
changing
character,
and
I
think
that
makes
sense
for
a
busy
corridor
like
this.
I
mean,
if
we
think
about
what
the
function
of
these
setbacks
are
supposed
to
be
like
it's
it's
to
give.
E
You
know
space
for
people
to
like
to
have
kids
playing
the
artist
things
like
that,
but
for
a
really
busy
corridor
like
glendale,
then
it
is
often
space
that
that
wouldn't
be
used
because
there's
so
much
traffic,
so
much
noise.
So
I
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
approve
this
variance.
B
Very
good
commissioner
or
luke
here.
L
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
just
chime
in
here
for
a
second.
I
understand,
commissioner
meyer's
frustration,
because
I
I've
been
honest
professionally-
have
run
into
frustration
with
the
kind
of
the
string
pest
setback
as
opposed
to
the
underlying
zoning
setback
and
wondering
why
it
isn't
just
oh
for
this.
It's
20
feet,
for
this
is
15
feet
so
on
and
so
forth.
But
I
I
I
do
know
that
we,
you
know
as
much
as
I
am
frustrated
by
it.
L
It
is
the
current
rule
until
we
change
it,
and
on
top
of
that,
though,
I
do
want
to
say
that
it's
almost
too
bad
that
we
would
just
kind
of
like
dismiss
it
as
nothing,
because
it
would
kind
of
imply
that,
in
that
the
zoning
of
the
future
is
going
to
happen,
regardless
of
the
context
around
it,
which
would
actually
mean
that
it's
really
resulting
in
the
demolition
of
existing
structures
along
the
avenue,
which
is
a
huge
sustainability
concern
in
my
mind,
in
terms
of
trying
to
be
more
environmentally
aware
of
of
just
the
embodied
energy
of
those
structures,
as
well
as
their
current
uses.
L
So
I
I
think
it's
an
interesting
dichotomy
of
choice
and
preference
of
where
our
values
are,
if
we
have
to
demolish
an
entire
block,
to
bring
it
into
compliance
with
it.
So
I
just
I
guess,
I'm
just
waxing
a
little
philosophical
about
what
the
implications
of
this
are
in
the
future
and
thinking.
L
Maybe
the
commission
needs
to
tackle
setbacks
based
on
underlying
zoning,
at
least
to
have
a
maximum,
perhaps,
instead
of
allowing
other
structures
to
pull
them
back
even
farther
than
what
you
would
would
require
or
want
in
that
zoning
district
going
forward,
but
for
now
this
is
I'm
kind
of
the
way
I'm
looking
through
it.
B
All
right,
then,
we
have
a
motion
in
a
second
on
item
c,
the
front
yard
setback.
B
M
D
C
D
C
E
C
B
All
right
that
motion
fails,
and
I
also
we
need
to
understand-
thank
you,
lisa.
We
need
to
have
enough
an
affirmative
motion
to
deny
the
cup
for
height
as
it
were,
so
I
would
entertain
a
motion
from
someone
to
deny
item
as
your
p
for
height.
B
B
C
B
B
Oh
you're
right:
okay,
yep,
all
right!
Why
don't
we
do
item
e
then
and
then
we'll
we'll
circle
back
here.
E
Okay,
thank
god.
It's
like
it
makes
more
sense
to
figure
out
whether
item
e
is
going
to
be
approved,
and
then
you
can
have
a
motion
to
deny
all
the
ones
that
didn't
get
approved,
but
very
good,
very
good.
Okay,
so
I
moved
to
approve
item
e
site
plan
review
with
the
680
conditions,
in
accordance
with
staff
recommendations.
B
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
to
a
previous
excellent
review.
Do
we
have
second
questions.
I
E
Yeah
you
know
I
I
didn't
hear
what
the
objections
are
to
any
of
these,
so
I'd
be
interested
to
deal
with
other
commitments
have
against
this
one.
B
Oh,
very
commissioner,
peter.
A
Hi
yeah
just
a
comment
on
item
e.
You
know
with
that.
Without
approving
the
conditional
use
permit
for
height
and
not
approving
the
variant
setback,
there's
really
no
way
to
approve
the
site
plan
as
proposed.
It
would
need
to
be
significantly
altered
to
meet
those
standards,
to
the
point
that
it
would
essentially
be
a
new
application.
Probably
at
that
point,
so
approving
the
site
plan
without
those
applications
is
kind
of
a
a
fruitless
exercise.
At
this
point,
if
those,
if
those
applications
don't
pass.
L
Yeah,
I
was
actually
gonna
say
that
as
well
and
say
that
I
hope
in
the
future
plan
we
actually
see
where
garbage
recycling
and
compost
is
accommodated
on
the
site
in
a
realistic
way
and
yeah.
So
that's
I
that's
gonna,
see.
B
Very
good,
okay:
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
approve
site
plan.
If
we
want
to
move
forward
on
that
motion
or
if
we
don't
given
the
intertwining
of
items,
a
and
c,
we
could
fill
the
withdrawal.
Commissioner,
like
you
care.
L
Just
really
quickly
peter
then,
given
the
fact
that
it
really
negates
item
e.
Would
you
just
suggest
that
we
return
this
item
or
would
you
just
recommend
we
either
approve
or
deny
it
based
on
its
current
merits,
and
then
they
can
resubmit
with
their
updated
application
in
the
future.
A
I
think
a
denial
would
probably
make
most
sense
at
this
point.
You
could
also
continue
that
application,
if
you,
if
you
wanted
the
applicant
to
make
modifications
to
meet
those
other
application
standards
for
the
the
setbacks,
but.
B
B
All
right
we'll
accept
the
withdrawal
of
the
motion
to
approve
item
e
site
plan.
Would
anybody
like
to
make
a
motion
to
deny
items
a.
B
Thank
you
for
the
group
effort
on
getting
me
to
some
sort
of
robert's
role.
Sense
here.
B
All
right
clerk,
please
call
the
wall.
C
C
D
B
All
right
that
motion
carries-
and
that
concludes
our
business
with
item
number
11
and
all
of
our
discussion
items
kimberly.
Are
there
any.
B
J
One
update
for
you,
the
built
form
regulations,
are
going
to
the
biz
committee
of
the
city
council
tomorrow
afternoon,
so
you
all
put
a
lot
of
time
and
a
lot
of
meetings
and
work
into
that.
I
will
report
back
on
the
conclusion
when
we
meet
for
committee
of
the
whole
on
thursday,
but
I
believe
that
meeting
is
tomorrow
at
1
30.