►
From YouTube: July 20, 2020 City 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).
A
B
Very
good:
we
have
quorum
next
up
on
our
agenda,
our
acceptance
of
the
july
6,
2020
planning,
commission
minutes
and
and
approval
of
the
consent
agenda
from
july
9
2020..
So
those
are
items
number
three
and
five
do
I
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
minutes
and
the
consent
agenda.
D
E
B
That
motion
carries
next
up.
Is
adoption
of
the
agenda
for
today's
hearing
for
those
on
the
phone
members
of
the
public.
I
will
walk
through
the
agenda
item
by
item
naming
the
item.
If
you
wish
to
testify
on
the
item,
please
make
your
presence
known.
Otherwise
the
item
will
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda.
If
you
wish
to
testify
against
staff
recommendation
or
to
modify
that
staff
recommendation,
please
let
your
presence
be
known.
Star
6
unmutes
you
and
the
agenda
is
available
at.
B
Lims.Minneapolismn.Gov
in
the
planning
commission
page,
so
the
first
item
on
up
for
potential
discussion
is
item
number
six
minneapolis
park
and
rec
board
portions
of
39th
street
west
and
colfax
avenue
south
in
ward
10..
Is
there
anybody
wishing
to
testify
on
item
number
six.
B
B
B
B
B
B
Very
good
I
will
place,
and
I'm
sorry
that
is
item
number
nine
that
cornerstone
town
homes.
F
B
And
item
number
10
801
15th
avenue,
southeast
808,
14th
avenue,
southeast
and
1415
8th
street
south
east
in
ward
3.
Anyone
wishing
to
testify
against
or
to
modify
staff
recommendations
on
item
number
10.
Please
press
star
6
to
unmute
yourself
and
let
us
know
if
you
wish
to
testify.
B
And
item
number
11
is
the
13th
and
tyler
apartments
at
9,
50,
13th
avenue
northeast
in
ward
1,
several
applications
for
production
and
residential
structure.
There
is
anybody
wishing
to
testify
against
staff
recommendation
or
to
modify
staff
recommendation
on
item
number
11
press
star
6
to
unmute
yourself?
If
you.
B
H
B
That
motion
passes
next
up.
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
on
the
consent
agenda.
If
anybody
wishes
to
testify
in
favor
of
any
of
the
meeting
any
of
the
items
on
the
consent
agenda,
please
press
star
six
to
unmute
yourself
and
presence
known.
B
Hearing
no
one,
I
will
close
the
public
meeting
of
the
consent
agenda.
Commissioners,
do
I
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
consent
agenda?
B
B
That
motion
carries
next
up.
Is
our
discussion
items?
We
have
one
item
on
the
discussion
agenda
item
number
nine
cornerstone,
town,
homes,
1800
and
1806,
como
avenue,
south
east
and
staff
is
shanna.
Report
is
yours.
I
Thank
you
very
much
good
afternoon,
commissioners.
I
might
just
wait
a
moment
for
that
presentation
to
come
up
for
item
number.
Nine.
I
I
I
And
next
slide,
please
thank
you.
The
property
is
currently
zoned
r
to
b
multiple
family
district,
and
it
is
also
located
within
the
university
area
overlay
district
next
slide.
Please.
I
I
I
I
I'm
going
to
walk
through
the
staff
recommendation
with
findings
so
for
the
proposed
rezoning
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
the
petition
to
resell
the
properties
from
r2v
to
r4
the
pro
the
subject
properties
have
a
future
land
use
designation
of
neighborhood
mixed
use,
which
allows
for
residential
uses
on
all
floors.
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
rezone
the
property
to
allow
for
greater
residential
density.
I
The
property
is
also
located
on
a
goods
and
services
corridor,
como
avenue,
southeast
goods
and
services
corridors
encourage
greater
residential
density
and
support
in
order
to
support
nearby
commercial
uses,
goods
and
services.
Corridors
encourage
frontage
along
streets
that
is
consistent
with
commercial
zoning,
as
the
proposed
application
is,
while
the
applicant
is
not
seeking
commercial
zoning.
This
additional
residential
density
will
support
the
goods
and
services
nearby
along
commercial
or
on
como
avenue
southeast
next
slide.
Please.
I
The
proposed
rezoning
from
r2b
to
r4
will
allow
for
building
heights
from
one
to
four
stories
in
height,
so
the
built
form
guidance
for
these
properties
along
como
avenue.
Southeast
is
corridor.
Four
additional
stories
up
to
six
may
be
considered
if
top
of
a
taller
building
is
needed
in
order
to
achieve
comprehensive
plan
goals,
and
the
proposed
building
before
you
today
is
three
stories.
I
Staff
further
finds
that
the
proposed
rezoning
is
consistent
with
policy
one
for
access
to
housing
policy,
four
for
access
to
commercial
goods
and
services
and
policy,
six
pedestrian,
oriented
building
and
site
design,
so
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
the
proposed
rezoning,
because
staff
finds
that
the
proposed
rezoning
is
consistent
with
the
aforementioned
goals
and
policies
in
the
minneapolis
2040
plan.
The
city's
comprehensive
plan
next
slide,
please,
the
applicant
is
seeking
two
setback
variances,
so
you
can
see
on
the
slide
before
you
today.
Those
setbacks
are
drawn
in
black
lines.
I
The
setback
is
increased
along
como
avenue,
southeast
due
to
the
location
of
adjacent
residential
structures
and
then
also
is
increased
from
the
minimum
15
feet
along
18th
avenue
southeast,
so
that
we
call
this
type
of
line
of
reverse
corner.
So
I'm
sorry,
were
there
questions?
I
Okay,
okay,
so
in
the
case
of
a
reverse
corner
lot,
we
have
adjacent
structures
facing
the
opposite
streets,
therefore
increasing
the
required
yards
along
both
street
frontages.
So
in
this
case
we
have
two
front
yard
requirements
instead
of
a
front
yard
or
in
a
corner
side
yard,
as
we
would
see
with
a
typical
lot
with
two
street
frontages.
I
So
the
applicant
is
seeking
variances
to
reduce
both
setbacks
along
como
avenue,
southeast
and
along
18th
avenue.
Southeast
staff
finds
that
the
increased
setback
requirements
due
to
the
location
of
adjacent
dwellings
and
the
type
of
the
log
being
a
reverse
corner
lot
create
a
practical
difficulty
in
complying
with
the
ordinance.
I
Minimum
yard
requirements
are
established
in
order
to
provide
for
orderly
development
and
use
the
plan
and
to
minimize
conflicts
with
other
land
uses
by
regulating
the
dimension
and
the
use
of
yards
in
order
to
provide
adequate
light,
air
open
space
and
separation
of
uses,
the
proposed
building
and
parking
lot.
Setbacks
are
reasonable
to
allow
for
sufficient
separation
of
uses.
The
placement
of
the
building
nearest
to
the
corner
at
southeast,
cuomo
and
18th
will
not
interfere
with
access
to
light
and
air
and
open
space
for
surrounding
uses.
I
In
addition,
the
public
alley
creates
additional
separation
between
the
proposed
structure
and
the
existing
low-density
residential
uses
to
the
south
along
18th
avenue
southeast.
The
subject
properties
are
located
along
a
goods
and
services
corridor,
como
avenue
southeast,
where
commercial
zoning
would
be
appropriate
and
setbacks
would
be
allowed
to
be
further
reduced
than
the
proposed
r4
district.
I
I
The
applicant
is
also
seeking
two
parking
variances.
The
first
is
to
reduce
the
minimum
off-street
parking
from
20
spaces
to
eight.
The
property
is
located
within
the
university
area
overlay,
where
parking
is
determined
based
on
the
count
of
bedrooms
and
not
the
minimum
or
not
the
number
of
dwelling
units.
I
I
I
The
minimum
parking
requirement
for
this
project
would
be
zero
due
to
proximity
to
high
frequency,
transit
parking
regulations,
promote
flexibility
and
recognize
that
excessive
off-street
parking
conflicts
with
the
city's
policies
related
to
transportation,
land
use,
urban
design
and
sustainability.
I
The
immediate
area
is
well
served
by
transit
and
bicycle
lanes.
The
properties
have
access
to
the
number
three
metro,
transit,
high
frequency,
bus
and
dedicated
bike
lanes
along
como
avenue
and
15th
avenue
southeast
the
applicant
is
providing
the
minimum
40
bicycle
parking
spaces
or
one
per
bedroom.
I
Additionally,
the
allowed
number
of
compact
spaces,
the
aveline,
is
also
seeking
that
variance
to
go
to
100
the
way
staff
evaluated.
That
variance
is
that,
if
we
had
two
four
plexes
here.
I
The
applicant
is
also
seeking
alternative
compliance.
Let's
see,
I
think
I'm
missing
one
slide.
Can
we
go
back
one
slide
there?
It
is
sorry
about
that.
So
the
applicant
is
seeking
alternative
compliance
for
windows
facing
the
on-site
parking
area.
I
On
the
first
floor,
staff
is
recommending
that
the
planning
commission
grant
alternative
compliance
based
on
the
increased
visibility
on
the
that's
the
canopy
tree
requirement,
but
is
suggesting
that
alternative
compliance
be
granted
to
provide
a
larger
number
of
trees
for
parking
lot
screening
the
applicant
is
not
proposing
proposing
a
three-foot
screen.
Staff
believes
that
the
applicant
can
provide
that
so
we're
recommending
that
they
bring
the
arborvitae
kind
of
from
the
rear
around
the
corner.
I
Thank
you,
commissioner
lupi
here
they
are
it's
to
the
depth,
so
anything
less
than
eight
and
a
half
feet
in
width,
but
no
it
has
to
be
greater
than
eight
feet.
So
anything
between
eight
and
eight
and
a
half
feet
in
width
would
be
considered
compact
and
anything
from
15
feet,
but
less
than
18
feet
in
depth,
that's
considered
to
be
a
compact
stall.
I
So
in
this
case
the
depth
is
where
they
were
a
little
bit
short
again,
trying
to
maximize
the
number
of
parking
spaces
on
the
site
and
not
trigger
any
additional
setback.
Variances.
Thank
you.
Shannon.
B
See
none
I'll
ask
the
applicant
to
introduce
themselves.
Add
any
further
detail
briefly,
if
there
is
anything
to
add
star
six
unmute
yourself
from
the
public
hearing
for
the
applicant
to
introduce
themselves.
B
G
F
B
B
All
right,
we'll
ask
mike
sweet
all
the
applicant
to
introduce
yourself
and
add
any
further
details.
If,
if
you
wish
stand
for
questions.
E
Yes,
thanks
again
commissioners
for
having
this
shanna
for
presenting
it.
Basically,
what
shanna
said
is
kind
of
what
we're
looking
for
is
a
great
city,
type
urban
townhouse
development,
we're
trying
to
upgrade
the
living,
and
it's
like
she
said
it's
on
a
bike
lane.
E
It
has
the
number
three
transit
we're
trying
to
do
multimodal
transportation,
which
is
part
of
the
2040
plan,
we're
trying
to
keep
with
the
2040
plan
in
rezoning
it
and
building
it
up
for
what
we're
looking
at
and
the
parking
we
tried
to
maximize
as
much
as
we
can.
We.
I
F
E
Bike
storage
system
that
we
have
on
the
plan,
I
think,
is
be
great
for
the
people
that
have
the
houses
there
and
as
far
as
what
she's
recommending
for
the
site
stuff,
we
can
comply
with
that
we
can
add
more
canopy
trees
and
we
can
abide
by
with
the
sidewalks
and
whatever
we
need
to
do
so,
not
a
problem
here.
E
G
Good
afternoon
planning
commissioners,
I
am
katie
fournier,
a
resident
of
the
como
neighborhood
of
southeast
minneapolis,
I'm
not
a
member
of
the
neighborhood
board,
but
I
do
chair
the
southeast
como
improvement
association,
livability
committee.
I
also
represent
the
improvement
association
on
the
university
district
alliance
board,
a
coalition
of
the
city,
the
university
and
the
four
university
district
neighborhoods.
G
G
The
planning
commission
needs
to
honor
its
policies.
Policy
99,
creates
the
university
special
district
and
among
among
other
goals,
it
calls
for
an
increase
to
increase
and
improve
and
improve
the
affordability,
quality
and
variety
of
the
housing
stock
to
help
broaden
the
socioeconomic
and
demographic
makeup
of
the
residents
and
attract
a
stable
community
of
ethnically
and
age.
Diverse,
short-term
and
long-term
renters
and
homeowners
for
the
university
district
and
como
neighborhood
is
one
of
the
four
neighborhoods
in
the
university
district.
G
The
proposed
development
will
not
broaden
the
socioeconomic
and
demographic
makeup
of
the
residents,
nor
will
it
attract
a
stable
community
of
ethnically
and
age
diverse
new
residents.
One
of
the
proposer
names
for
this
site
plan
is
go
gophers
rental
and,
as
the
name
suggests,
this
developer
and
management
company
markets
only
to
students
always
a
very
transient
group.
G
We
appreciate
your
listening
to
our
concerns
and
taking
the
requests
in
our
letter
into
consideration,
and
we
are
also
asking
that
the
developers
resubmit
the
plan
with
improvements,
the
improvements
that
we're
suggesting
and
that
the
developers
meet
with
the
southeast
como
improvement
association
representatives
before
returning
to
the
planning
commission
with
an
improved
proposal.
B
Thank
you.
Next
up
is
cody
horning
star
six
unmute.
C
Thank
you,
commissioners.
Sorry,
I
had
a
bit
of
trouble
on
muting,
I'm
a
graduate
student,
the
graduate
student
representative
for
the
southeast
como
improvement
association
and
I'm
a
graduate
student
at
the
university
of
minnesota,
along
with
katie,
I'm
also
a
member
of
the
cks
executive
committee.
I
work
closely
with
katie,
but
also
the
whole
district
on
zoning
issues
and
development
issues
in
the
district.
I
do
want
to
just
point
out
that
katie
is
correct.
We
worked
very
hard
to
get
the
university
district
overlay
into
the
2040
plan.
C
We
also
work
to
get
our
small
area
plan
into
the
2040
plan.
C
The
reality
is
is
that
putting
and
the
reason
that
we
made
a
change
for
a
half
parking
spot
per
bedroom
is
because
the
reality
of
it
is
is
that
eight
parking
spots
compact
parking
spots
in
an
area-
that's
already
high
density
for
40
bedrooms
is
just
not
enough.
These
streets
are
being
flooded
by
students
whenever
there's
sports
games
whenever
there's
class
in
the
in
session.
C
These
students
are
parking
in
this
area
and
it's
making
it
very
congested
and
very
dangerous.
In
addition,
the
parking
lot
with
eight
compact
parking
spaces
is
just
not
sufficient.
Many
students
are
bringing
their
cars.
Our
rates
are
above
50
not
at
what
is
that
eight
out
of
forty,
that's
twenty
percent
or
less
that
that
is
just
not
realistic.
People
will
be
parking
on
the
street
from
this
building.
C
In
addition,
you
know
I
I
know
mike's
company
and
his
affiliate
go
go
for
very
well.
These
are
student
oriented
housing.
This
is
exactly
what
the
university
district
overlay
relates
to,
and
I
just-
and
this
is
going
to
be
very
much
so.
Student
oriented
and
students
are
going
to
bring
cars
and
they
are
going
to
want
to
park
and
they're
going
to
park
on
our
streets.
The
three,
as
was
mentioned,
is
a
very
high
transit
way
as
well
as
bikeway.
C
There
is
no
plans
for
delivery
vehicles.
18Th
is
on
the
corner,
is
also
a
bikeway,
a
protected
bikeway.
There's
no
plan
for
delivery
vehicles,
there's
no
bump
outs.
There's
no.
Addition
to
the
public
realm
in
this
plan
at
all
mike
did
not
even
come
to
us
asking
for
community
feedback,
and
this
is
a
plan.
That's
maximizing
profits.
Minimizing
costs
and
it's
high
density
for
quality
student
housing,
so
I
really
dislike
this
plan.
C
B
Very
good,
thank
you
very
much.
Next
up
is
stephen
fuss.
If
there's
a
steven
boss
on
the
line
star
six.
B
B
B
B
E
Hello,
it's
mike
yes,
see.
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
the
as
far
as
some
of
the
the
comments
made
yeah
hold
on.
E
B
All
right,
shannon
do
we
know
if
stephen
bus
is
on
the
line
of
quantity.
I
I
don't
believe
I
I
have
spoken
with
stephen
bess
so
far
and
I'm
not
sure
that
he
is
on
the
line.
B
All
right,
I'm
going
to
close
the
public
hearing.
If
steven
bus
is
able
to
unmute,
then
we
can
reopen
it
briefly,
I'm
going
to
close
public
hearing
and
if,
if
folks
have
clarifying
questions
for
the
applicant
by
folks
I
mean
commissioners,
then
you
can
address
those
but
we're
gonna
hold
to
one
testify.
Testimony
per
per
folks,
commissioner,.
H
Thank
you.
I
was
wondering
if
you
could
have
the
applicant
speak
to
the
loading
situation
and
also,
if
they've
worked
at
public
works
to,
if
there's
a
possibility
of
putting
a
bump
out
there
in
response
to
one
of
the
testifiers
points
that
they
brought
up.
B
B
Or
would
somebody
like
to
commissioner
smiley.
D
Thank
you,
and
I
just
wanted
to
ask
the
applicant
related
to
one
of
the
comments
that
was
made
about
basically,
a
lack
of
engagement
with
the
university
group.
I'm
just
kind
of
wondering
what
type
of
communication
has
gone
back
and
forth
if
any.
If
you
can
elaborate
on
that
a
little
bit.
E
Yeah,
no,
I
apologize
for
that.
I
assumed
when
we
were
going
in
just
for
the
land
you
experienced,
I
wasn't
sure
of
sending
out
the
letter.
I
thought
I
had
sent
out
a
letter,
but
apparently
I
did
not
so
it's
not
that
I
don't
want
to
communicate
with
them.
I
just
didn't
know
time
wise
when
we
were
sending
out
a
letter
if
it
was
pre-variants
or
pre-construction.
B
K
Hi,
I
had
a
quick
question
just
wanted
to
better
understand,
shayna
about
the
university
overlay
district
that
the
neighborhood
was
just
referring
to.
Do
you
mind
kind
of
just
explaining
what
exactly
that
overlay
district
is
and
and
does,
and
how
this
could
is
this
in
any
way
not
aligning
with
that.
I
just
want
to
better
understand.
Thank
you.
I
Thank
you,
commissioner.
The
property
is
located
within
the
university
area
over
lake
district,
which
allows
for
it's
more
permissive
in
some
ways.
So,
for
example,
the
parking
location
and
the
ability
to
do
more
compact
parking
spaces
are
allowed,
and
it
also
includes
includes
some
more
restrictive
ordinances.
I
So,
for
example,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
if
this
eight
unit
building
were
outside
of
the
university
area
overlay
with
proximity
to
high
frequency
transit,
as
is
the
site,
the
off
street
parking
requirement
would
be
zero,
but
because,
in
the
university
area
district
we
regulate
parking
based
on
the
number
of
bedrooms.
The
parking
requirement
increases
from
0
to
20.,
and
so
that
is
one
of
the
variances
that
is
sought
today
is
because
the
proposed
project
is
does
not
comply
with
that
particular
ordinance.
B
And
I
would
add
this
is
sam.
You
know,
I
would
add
that
that
I
think
my
understanding
was
when
we
were
putting
together
the
kind
of
parking
reduction
for
the
city-wide
that
the
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
product
of
history.
Here,
commissioner
marwa,
which
is
that
initially
the
university
overlay
district,
was
a
less
restrictive
parking
requirement
because
it
was
put
in
place
first
and
then
later
the
rest
of
the
city
shifted,
and
so
now
we
have
these
sort
of
funny
scenarios
where
sometimes
the
parking
requirements
are
the
same
and
sometimes
they're
different.
D
Thank
you,
and
I
just
wanted
to
ask
shanna
related
to
the
engagement
that
was
just
talked
about
and
kind
of,
like
misunderstanding,
slash,
confusion
in
terms
of
the
order
or
pieces
of
the
work
that
need
to
be
done.
Is
there
still
any
opportunity
for
engagement,
or
would
you
say
that
at
this
point
it
it
kind
of
has
passed
that
benchmark?
I
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Marwa.
We
have
a
copy
of
a
letter
that
was
sent
to
the
neighborhood
association
provided
by
the
applicant
as
they
are
required
to
do
it's
dated
june
4th.
So
I'm
not
sure
if
the
applicant
misspoke
earlier,
but
we
have
a
copy
of
that
notification
so
ahead
of
making
a
general
land
use
application
as
the
one
we
have
before
you
today.
I
The
applicant
is
only
required
to
notify
the
neighborhood
association
in
writing,
so
it
could
be
done
in
a
letter
or
an
email
or
attaching
a
letter
to
an
email
and
that's
part
of
our
completeness
review
so
before
we
can
deem
an
application
complete.
We
have
to
have
the
applicant
provide
some
information
that
they
they
have
notified
that
neighborhood
association.
I
So,
in
addition
to
that
notification,
the
city
also
provides
a
number
of
notifications,
so
we
notify
the
neighborhood
association
21
days
prior
to
today's
date,
with
the
listed
land
use,
applications
that
are
required
and
also
my
my
contact
as
a
staff
member.
If
there
are
any
questions
and
southeast
como
followed
up
with
me
directly,
and
we
had
a
few
email
exchanges
to
make
sure
that
we
could
have
representation
today
in
our
virtual
hearing
and
then
we
also
included
their
letter
in
the
packet
today.
I
The
applicant
is
not,
however,
required
to
attend
a
neighborhood
association
meeting
and
directly
provide
or
implement
feedback
from
from
the
neighborhood
association.
The
the
regulations
are
really
out
of
what
we
review
in
our
staff
report.
So
in
this
case
we
review
rezoning
for
findings
of
fact
related
to
comprehensive
plan
policies
and
goals
for
variances.
It's
the
the
three
required
findings
and
then
site
plan
review.
I
Is
our
our
consistent
way
of
applying
landscape
building
placement
parking,
lot,
location,
etc
to
sites
city
wide,
so
the
applicant
would
be
required
to
comply
with
chapter
530.,
certainly
that
we
always
encourage
the
applicant
to
work
with
the
neighborhood
association
and
the
neighbors
to
kind
of
really
find
the
best
fit
for
our
project,
making
sure
that
it's
it
complements
the
neighborhood,
and
you
know
specific
feedback
could
be
provided.
I
I
would
say
that,
based
on
the
based
on
the
recommendations
from
staff,
if
the
applicant
were
to
meet
with
the
neighborhood
and
go
above
and
beyond
the
conditions
of
approval,
that
would
be
certainly,
I
think,
in
everyone's
interest.
But
as
far
as
what
the
regulatory
obligations
of
the
applicant,
those
have
been
met.
F
Excuse
me,
could
I
provide
some.
B
I'm
sorry
we
can't
the
public
hearing
is
closed.
Thank
you,
commissioner,
smiley
here.
Oh
sorry,
commissioner
luke
here.
J
J
I
You,
commissioner,
lipkeep
here,
so
I
will
point
back
to
the
staff
report
staff
found
that
there
were
unique
circumstances
to
this
particular
site,
given
the
constraints
of
those
increased
setbacks
and
the
type
of
lot
being
a
reverse
corner
lot,
it
really
reduced
the
build
ability
of
a
building,
particularly
if
it
had
any
surface
parking.
I
think
at
one
point
with
with
20
spaces
that
would
be
required.
The
buildability
of
the
site
was
somewhere
in
the
20
of
the
site
range.
I
So
it's
the
setbacks
that
create
the
practical
difficulty
for
the
location
of
the
building
and
the
off
street
parking.
I
would
probably
add.
The
comprehensive
plan
also
gives
direction
to
take
a
look
at
minimum
off
street
parking
requirements
and,
as
I
mentioned
earlier
recently,
council
member
fletcher
has
given
a
notice
of
intent
to
introduce
subject
matter
and
I
believe
that's
going
to
the
business
inspections
and
zoning
committee
tomorrow
afternoon,
directing
staff
for
subject
matter,
introduction
for
off-street
parking
and
loading,
including
the
university
area.
B
H
Thank
you.
I
moved
to
approve
items
a
through
f,
as
recommended
by
staff.
A
B
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
approve
items,
a
b
c
d,
e
and
f,
consistent
with
staff
recommendations
and
with
with
the
suggested
conditions
conditionally
here.
J
Yeah,
I
just
had
one
comment
on
in
regard
to
variance
e
with
the
approval
of
the
100
compact
stalls.
I
just
question,
given
the
fact
that
it's
their
length,
not
their
width,
that's
being
proposed
in
my
op.
In
my
opinion,
looking
at
the
site
plan,
it
looks
as
though
they
really
all
that
will
result
in
is
a
much
reduced,
double
loaded
corridor
for
actually
maneuvering
vehicles
in
and
out,
because
larger
cars
will
park
there,
but
they
will
just
stick
further
into
what's
actually
a
vehicle
circulation
space.
J
So
I
guess,
if
we're
intent
on
improving
this,
I
would
be
inclined
to
only
approve
50
of
the
spaces
as
compact,
so
only
one
half
of
the
double
loaded
corridor.
That
way
it
maintains
and
a
drivable
corridor
down
the
middle
to
actually
park
vehicles.
Otherwise
it
seems
as
though
we're
not
really
we're
not
giving
them
compact
stalls
we're
actually
approving
a
compact
dry
vial,
and
that
seems
to
be
a
recipe
for
disaster
in
a
dense
area.
So
I
I
would
be
looking
to
amend
the
variance
e
to
say
from
25
to
50.
B
So
I'll
take
that
as
a
motion
to
amend
a
motion
to
amend
is
there
a
second
on
the
motion
to
amend
and
then
shannon
there's
there's
a
staff
staff,
clarification
and.
I
Really
then,
I
should
have
zoomed
in
a
little
bit
closer
into
the
plan.
That's
my
eye
is
not
working
great
on
my
little
laptop
right
now,
so
my
apologies.
They
are
eight
feet
in
width
so
to
require
them
at
eight
six
in
in
width.
They
would
have
to
make
some
changes
to
the
building
in
order
to
allow
for
appropriate
separation.
My
apologies-
I
just
I
misread.
J
The
number
shannon
just
real
quick-
that
is
the
length
also
still
compact,
then
or
is
that
actually
a
traditional
sized
parking
stall
lengthwise
then,
as.
I
J
B
I'm
sorry,
commissioner
wikipedia
is
the
motion
then,
to
to
reduce
the
number
of
compact
stalls
or
to
condition
the
compact
stalls
length.
J
I
guess
I
could
be
open
to
either
in
reality,
it's
four
stalls
which
at
six
inches
each
as
the
deficits,
only
two
feet
to
the
building
design.
I
I'm
not
sure
I
I
I'm
not
the
architect,
I
don't
know
if
two
feet
off
of
one
part
of
the
building
will
really
jeopardize
the
project
or
not,
but
I
I
certainly
think
that
the
length
of
the
stalls
needs
to
be
longer
and
they
seem
to
have
the
space
heading
toward
18th.
That's
it
to
accommodate
it.
L
B
Where
are
we
on
that
60-day
rule?
I'm
really.
I
Sorry
too
many
buttons
to
push
just
a
moment.
Please,
let's
see
there
we
go
so
we
have
already
extended
the
decision
period
to
the
full
120
days
because
of
the
petition
to
rezone,
so
the
the
planning
commission's
decision
or
any
subsequent
appeal,
the
these
at
a
minimum.
The
rezoning
would
have
to
go
on
to
the
city
council,
so
the
60
day
is
set
to
expire
on
august
22nd.
I
The
120
day
is
set
to
expire
on
october
21st.
So
we
are
well
within
the
amount
of
time
needed.
I
can
continue
to
work
with
the
applicant,
but
I
I
believe
be
correct
that
trying
to
provide
deeper
stalls
here
without
triggering
a
new
variance
may
be
a
challenge,
but
I
will
leave.
B
I
So
then
a
drive-out
variance
may
be
required
or
it
could
push
some
of
the
features
closer
to
the
front
yard
setback
along
18th
avenue,
southeast
or
into
the
interior
side
yard
setback
to
the
east.
The
dumpsters
cannot
move
for
example,
so
I
I
don't
know
the
dumpsters.
Then
the
enclosure
would
be
sufficient
size
to
provide
the
sizes
that
are
required
for
these
types
of
uses.
So
what
we
can't
change
is
that
is
the
lot
width
and
and
the
amount
of
setbacks
that
are
required.
J
Yeah,
so
I
it
and
when
I
looked
at
the
site
plan,
it
looked
as
though
there
was
space
toward
the
street
that
that
that
we
could
expand
those
four
parking
styles
on
one
side,
just
just
the
three
feet,
and
I
understand
it
would
eat
into
the
the
landscaping
a
little
bit,
but
it
I
really
think
that
if
we
don't
at
least
give
this
some
some
thought
we're
actually
just
going
to
end
up
with
a
six
foot
narrower
dry,
vial
unintentionally.
J
Unofficially,
because
cars
will
park
there
and
there
the
butts
of
the
cars
will
stick
into
the
drive
aisle
on
both
sides,
regardless
of
the
fact
that
they're
supposed
to
be
compact.
So
I
I
guess
I
would
I'm
fine
varying
the
width.
I
just
think
the
length
needs
to
be
more
or
else
we're
really
just
giving
them
a
dry
valve
variant
instead
of
a
compact
stall
thing.
So
that's
that's
my
two
cents
on.
J
L
So
this
is
kimberly
again.
I
guess
I
would
just
caution
the
commission
that
perhaps
maybe
a
condition
of
approval
to
work
with
staff
on
increasing
the
length
of
those
stalls
or
something
to
that
nature.
If
we
just
require
that
the
compact
stalls
be
the
full
length,
it
is
very
likely
that
we
are
going
to
be
triggering
additional
variances
and
bringing
this
application
back
to
the
planning
commission.
B
All
right,
so,
okay,
I
think
we
have
enough
information
which,
which
includes
a
lot
of
uncertainty
about
about
what
the
next
steps
are
here.
So
I
would
ask
commissioner
luke
here
to
clarify
your
amendment
with,
if
you,
if
you
wish
and
then
I'll
ask
for
a
second
on
that
and
a
vote
on
that
amendment,
to
the
original
motion.
J
Thank
you,
chair
rockwell
yeah,
so
I
guess
my
clarified
amendment
would
be
in
regard
to
variance
e,
to
approve
the
variance
to
increase
the
maximum
percentage
of
compact
parking
stalls
from
25
to
50,
for
the
length
requirement
only,
but
still
allowing
the
minimum
or
the
maximum
width
of
8
feet
for
compact
stalls
for
on
100
of
the
stalls
in
the
lot.
B
Okay,
so
is
there
a
second
to
the
the
amendment
to
the
motion
as.
B
K
A
second,
the
oh
luke,
appears
amendment
to
the
motion.
B
D
Actually,
I
will
go
after
commissioner
meyer,
I
think
he's
in
the
queue
before.
D
Okay,
okay,
okay.
That
sounds
good.
I
guess
my
only
question
clarifying
question
because
I'm
still
a
little
unclear
on
the
motion
and
that's
I
was
typing
when
you
were
calling
my
name
for
a
second
is
whether
or
not
so
the
commissioner
lucky
pierre,
take
kimberly's
suggestion
or
not
really,
so
we
are
still
asking
for
a
very
specific
reduction
or
sorry,
not
reduction,
increase,
very
specific
length
increase
and
not
quiet
kind
of
open-ended.
As
in
let's
work
with
staff,
see
what's
possible.
B
J
Sorry
so
the
only
reason
I'm
hesitant
to
go
that
route
is
because
it
it
seems
as
though,
if
if
it
turns
out
that
that
the
variance
of
the
side
yard,
for
example,
is
needed,
then
it
won't
be
required
when,
in
reality,
if
it's
needed
I'd
rather
see
that
we
have
cars
able
to
park
without
having
a
bunch
of
scratches
and
dents
and
and
being
able
to
get
out
of
the
parking
lot,
then
that
and
have
to
have
a
variance
than
not
so
so.
J
B
All
right,
why
don't
we
take
a
roll
call
vote
on
the
amendment
to
the
motion
and
we'll
get
back
to
the
original
motion
and
comments
on
the
motion
unless
there
are
any
further
comments
or
discussion
on
the
amendment
compact
cars,
commissioner
meyer.
H
Yeah
I
was
just
going
to
speak
against,
requiring
you
know
larger
spaces,
just
reiterating
what
has
already
been
noted
that
the
2040
plan
calls
for
eliminating
parking
requirements
altogether,
and
that
is
soon
to
be
implemented,
and
you
know
I
I
think
that
smaller
vehicles
are
in
line
with
the
climate
goals
that
are
spelled
out
and
requiring
accommodation
for
larger
vehicles
would
go
against
that
objective.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Any
further
discussion
on
this
amendment
all
right
clerk,
please
call
the
roll
on
the
amendment.
A
B
A
A
L
B
All
right,
so
the
amendment
fails
we're
now
back
to
our
original
motion,
which
is
approval
consistent
with
staff
recommendations
and
conditions
of
items.
A
through
f
are
there
any
further.
B
All
right
see
seeing
none.
You
know
we
did
hear
a
little
bit
about
how
this
project
does
or
does
not
fit
into
the
2040
plan.
You
know
I
took
the
point
of
the
folks
who
testified
that
we
have
goals
in
the
university
area
to
to
encourage
more
diverse
housing
types,
and
I
think
that
they're,
you
know
in
order
for
the
the
city,
to
do
that.
B
The
city
has
to
develop
the
tools
to
do
that
and
we're
kind
of
in
a
process
right
now
where
we
are
developing
a
variety
of
tools
and-
and
so
you
know
right
now-
we
don't
have
the
tools
with
which
to
to
require
that,
and
you
know
further
on
the
parking
and
transportation
you
know,
as
commissioner
meyer
pointed
out,
our
20-40
plan
for
stuck
in
consistency
with
the
2040
plan.
B
2040
plan
calls
for
reducing
vehicle
miles,
traveled
by
38
percent,
to
meet
our
carbon
reduction
goals
and
eliminating
parking
requirements
all
together
and-
and
so
I
think
that
the
approval
of
this
project-
I
think
it's
a
townhouses-
are
a
good
type
of
product
that
we
don't
see
enough
of,
and
I
think
this
does
in
fact
do
kind
of
a
reasonable
job
for
a
staff
recommendation
on
seeing
some
of
that
clerk.
Please
call
the
role
on
the.
A
H
B
That
motion
carries.
That
concludes
our
business
for
today,
unless
there
are
any
staff
announcements.
L
No
announcements
just
a
reminder:
we
have
committee
of
the
hole
on
thursday
and
it
will
be
maybe
a
tip
or
a
longer
than
typical
meeting
as
the
co-development
team
brings.
The
first
piece
of
the
built
form
work.
So
just
take
a
look
at
the
memo
that
jason
prepared
in
advance
of
the
meeting.
B
Very
good,
thank
you
very
much,
and
the
meeting
is.