►
From YouTube: July 14, 2020 Business, Inspections & Zoning Committee
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
Good
afternoon
welcome
to
the
regular
meeting
of
the
business
inspections
and
zoning
committee
for
today,
which
is
july
14th,
I'm
lisa
goodman
and
I'm
chair
of
this
committee.
As
we
begin
I'll
note
for
the
record
that
this
meeting
has
remote
participation
from
members
of
the
city,
council
and
city
staff
is
authorized
under
minnesota
statute,
section
13d
.012
due
to
the
local
public
health
emergency.
At
this
time
I
will
politely
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role,
so
we
can
court
verify
a
quorum
for
this
committee.
D
E
B
There
are
15
there
are
five
members
present
and
probably
at
least
15
other
people
on
the
call
we'll
then
move
forward
with
the
consent
agenda.
The
consent
agenda
includes
items
three
through
ten
on
the
agenda
item.
Three:
are
the
liquor
license
renewals
item
number
four
or
the
liquor
license
fee
schedule?
This
is
setting
a
public
hearing
for
august
4th
item.
Five
is
a
lease
with
northstar
community
rowing
for
a
portion
of
the
upper
harbor
site
item
number.
B
Six
is
funding
recommendations
for
the
2020
b
tab
program,
and
I
do
just
want
to
note
that
those
grants
are
going
to
the
african
development
center.
B
Out
of
that
location.
Item
number
eight
is
a
change
to
the
built
form
guidance
in
our
comp
plan
through
a
comp
plan.
Amendment
item
number:
nine
is
the
rezoning
of
lake
street
at
514,
516
and
520
west
lake
street
and
2149
garfield
avenue
south
and
item
number
10
is
referring
to
staff
the
subject
matter
of
a
commercial
property
sale
ordinance.
Are
there
any
items?
Anyone
would
like
to
pull
off
of
the
agenda
three
through
twelve
saying.
None
I'd.
Ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role
on
items
three
through
twelve.
F
G
G
Six
of
those
dwelling
units
have
areas
which
are
dens
offices,
storage
areas
that,
according
to
materials
submitted
by
the
applicant,
have
been
being
used
as
bedrooms
by
their
tenants,
they're
seeking
permission
to
legalize
those
as
lawfully
established
bedrooms.
G
G
By
increasing
the
number
of
lawfully
established
bedrooms,
they
would
be
increasing
the
required
off
street
parking
stalls
to
19..
There
are
11
parking
stalls
which
exist
on
the
site.
That
was
the
the
entitlement
and
their
initial
variance
was
from
14
down
to
11
they're,
now
requesting
from
19
down
to
11,
so
they're
not
proposing
to
add
any
additional
parking
on
the
site.
G
If
we
can
advance
the
slides
please,
this
is
the
floor
plan
that
was
provided
by
the
applicant.
The
space
in
question
is
highlighted
on
the
center
of
the
floor
plan
and
if
we
could
advance
an
additional
slide,
please
this
was
the
approved
floor
plan
pulled
from
city
records.
You
can
see
again
highlighted
in
the
middle.
Those
are
sort
of
large
open
spaces,
which
is
what
was
initially
approved
to
be
constructed
next
slide,
please.
G
This
is
the
approved
site
plan
for
the
building,
showing
the
outline
of
the
building
and
the
11
parking
stalls,
as
well
as
some
amenity
space
and
some
accessible
units.
This
is
the
the
main
floor
plan
of
the
building.
G
We
could
advance
an
additional
slide
please.
So,
with
regards
to
the
the
variance
findings,
staff
found
and
the
board
of
adjustment
upheld
that
there
are
not
practical
difficulties
that
are
unique
to
the
site,
which
prevent
the
applicant
from
complying
with
the
ordinance
proximity
to
transit
is,
thankfully,
neither
a
unique
condition
in
this
city,
and
it's
also
not
a
difficulty.
These
are.
This
is
the
sort
of
thing
that's
viewed
as
an
amenity
for
a
site.
G
The
request
is
not
it
meets
the
intent
and
policies
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
but
does
not
meet
the
spirit
or
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance
which
recognizes
that
there
are
different,
different
demographics
and
different
household
makeups
in
the
university
area,
such
that
it
has
a
different
parking
requirement
than
a
dwelling
unit
elsewhere
in
the
city.
The
zoning
ordinance
does
allow
for
a
similar
scale
of
buildings
which
are
close
to
transit,
but
outside
of
the
university
area
overlay
district
to
exempt
their
parking
requirements.
G
G
The
proposed
the
proposal
will
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
and
could
potentially
have
a
positive
effect
on
health
safety
and
welfare
by
legalizing
sleeping
areas
that
are
already
being
used
as
non-lawfully
established
bedrooms
by
requiring
them
to
go
through
a
permitting
and
inspection
could
have
a
positive
effect
on
health
safety
or
welfare.
H
H
G
Thank
you
care
goodman,
councilmember
fletcher,
the
original
approver
for
this
building
was
back
in
2013,
but
the
approved
floor
plans
from
seven
years
ago
when
the
property
got
its
initial
entitlements,
do
very
clearly
show
that
it
was
not
approved
for
those
bedrooms
kind
of
located
in
the
central
part
of
the
floor
plan,
so
they
are
requesting
to
legally
establish
those
as
bedrooms
which
therefore
increases
their
parking
requirement.
G
D
And
I
just
having
been
around
back
then
and
following
this
process
at
the
time
there
was
very
clear,
I
believe,
understanding
from
everybody
that
bedrooms
would
not
be
allowed
there
and
there
was
also
well-voiced
suspicion
that
somebody
might
try
to
create
them
after
the
approvals
happen.
So
this
is
just
irritating.
D
B
Thank
you,
councilmember
gordon.
Are
there
other
questions
or
comments,
seeing
none
miss
brandt?
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
report.
I'm
going
to
proceed
to
open
the
public
hearing
with
this
type
of
public
hearing.
We
give
the
appellant
the
opportunity
to
make
their
case.
First
is
mr
woolf
or
another
representative
of
the
appellant
on
the
line,
and
perhaps
the
clerk
could
instruct
us
as
to
how
to
get
off
of
mute
when
you're
on
the
line
it
has
something
to
do
with
sex.
E
Have
started
matthew
wolfe
is
is
present
here
for
appellant.
First
off
I'd,
I'd
like
to
just
correct
the
the
agenda,
which
is
I'm
not
appearing
for
endeavor
investments,
which
is
a
different
owner
of
the
property
I'm
appearing
on
behalf
of
525
10th
avenue,
southeast
llc,
owner
of
the
property.
E
And
to
address
the
comments
that
were
just
made,
the
I
think
there's
a
distinction
here
that
there
are
these
areas
in
the
center
of
the
building
that
have
already
been
created
and
were
created
back
in
2013.
E
By
tenants,
by
and
large,
as
additional
sleeping
areas,
even
though
there's
been
actions
to
try
to
prevent
that
use
by
the
property
owner
and
property
manager,
students
have
traditionally
you
know
essentially
seen
an
extra
room
in
the
space
and
said
we
can
fit
one
more
one,
more
roommate
or
one
more
buddy
in
there
and
split
the
rent.
You
know
an
extra
for
you
know
another
way.
E
E
Conformity
with
with
city
code
here
and
then
the
as
articulated
in
my
statement
of
reasons
for
appeal,
you
know
essentially
our
argument
and
our
position
is
that
there
have
been
a
number
of
other
applications
in
recent
years
that
are
substantially
similarly
situated.
E
That
have
asked
for
variances
that
are
even
lower
parking
counts,
as
a
ratio
of
parking
spaces
to
bedrooms
than
what
we're
requesting
we're
requesting.
0.28
and
there's
been
recent
applications
of
0.24
and
0.25
parking
ratios
that
have
been
approved
and
we've
stated
the
same
reasoning
for
the
request
for
the
the
variance,
including
citing
practical
difficulties
that
were
the
same
arguments
asserted
in
those
applications,
both
of
which
were
approved
and
and
this
one
has
been
denied
and
we're
essentially
just
bringing
to
light.
E
That's
there's
the
inconsistency
here,
and
it
appears
that
similarly
situated
applications
are,
are
being
treated
inconsistently
and
and
that's
the
basis
for
our
appeal.
B
Thank
you
very
much
for
that
report
with
no
additional
speakers.
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
council
member
gordon.
D
Thank
you.
I
just
had
a
question
and
I
don't
know
if
anybody
necessarily
has
the
answer
here
or
maybe
that
is
an
attorney
who
can
help
us
looking
at
the
diagrams,
I
can't
even
figure
out
if
all
those
rooms
are
legally
bedrooms
based
on
the
fire
code
or
the
housing
maintenance
code,
some
of
them
looks
like
they
have
one
way
in
and
one
way
out,
they're
in
the
interior
building,
there's
no
windows
did
we
have
an
opportunity
to
vet
that
issue
at
all,
and
if
not
I
understand
it.
D
I
just
wanted
to
raise
it
because
it
potentially
seems
pretty
significant
with
what's
been
going
on
in
here
and
if
these
are
illegal
bedrooms,
they're
illegal
for
a
reason,
beyond,
potentially
the
parking.
B
G
Chair
goodman
councilmember
gordon,
this
has
not
been
formally
reviewed
by
our
construction
code
services
team.
I
did
sort
of
casually
run
it
past.
One
of
them
who
took
a
quick,
look
and
said
that
he
didn't
see
kind
of
any
glaringly
obvious
concerns,
but
they
would
be
required
to
to
get
a
permit
and
to
do
a
full
and
thorough
ccs
review
if
the
variants
were
to
be
approved.
H
Thank
you
sure,
goodman.
I
have
one
question
and
then
I
think
I'm
ready
to
make
a
motion,
I'm
hoping
that
staff
can
clarify
for
me
just
procedurally,
we
are
in
a
place
where
we
have,
in
fact,
council
member
gordon
and
I
have
opened
up
the
parking
minimums
to
get
that
into
conformity
with
the
2040
plan.
H
You
know
six
months
from
now
when
we've
completed
that
work,
and
so
I
guess
I'm
wondering
is-
is
this
something
where,
as
we
consider
it
today,
we
need
to
be
considering
the
ordinance
as
it
exists
today,
knowing
that
there
is
work
in
progress
that
might
lead
to
a
different
outcome
in
the
future.
Is
this?
Is
this
something
that
I
think
we
would
need
to?
H
It
seems
like
deny
the
appeal,
based
on
staff's
recommendation,
based
on
what
the
current
ordinance
is
or
are
we
functioning
under
guidance
from
the
2040
plan
that
suggests
a
different
treatment
of
the
minimum
parking
requirement.
G
Thank
you,
chair,
goodman,
councilmember
fletcher.
The
the
2040
plan
doesn't
have
specific
recommendations
with
regards
to
parking
in
the
university
area.
Overlay
district,
it
does
have
you
know,
sort
of
the
blanket
goal
of
eliminating
parking
minimum
parking
requirements.
G
How
the
zoning
ordinance
will
be
changed
if
there
will
be
a
dispensation
for
the
university
area,
overlay
district,
that's
different
than
the
rest
of
the
city
or
not,
so
I
don't
have
a
specific
answer
for
you
on
that.
K
Yes,
I
was
just
going
to
clarify
the
point
about
whether
or
not
that
needs
to
be
taken
into
consideration
with
the
findings
that
you
would
need
to
make
today.
So
the
comp
plan
language
can
be
considered
under
finding
number
two,
but
for
finding
number
one.
You
still
need
to
find
whether
or
not
there's
a
practical
difficulty
in
complying
with
the
parking
regulations
for
this
location
without
making
finding
number
one
on
the
practical
difficulty.
K
B
Thank
you,
councilmember
fletcher,.
B
B
L
C
L
F
B
That
motion
passes.
Thank
you,
miss
brat,
for
your
report.
We'll
move
on
to
item
number
two,
which
is
an
appeal
submitted
by
eric
takashita
regarding
the
zoning
board
of
adjustments,
decision
to
uphold
the
zoning
administrator's
determination
that
the
changes
submitted
by
the
applicant
after
the
project
at
4736
and
4740
grant
avenue
south
receives
site
plan
approval
by
the
planning
commission.
If
that
constitutes
a
minor
change,
I
will
recognize
staff
to
give
the
report
on
this
item.
B
M
Afternoon,
chair
goodman
members
of
the
committee,
I
do
have
a
presentation
that
I
think
should
be
up
shortly.
M
The
project
site
is
4736
and
4740
grand
avenue
south
in
south
minneapolis,
as
you
may
have
recognized
that
it
is
a
mouthful
kind
of
what
we're
determining
right
now
so
I'll
walk
through
all
the
steps,
all
the
actions
that
have
been
taken
with
regards
to
this
project
in
the
last
six
months-
I
guess
more
than
six
months
at
this
point
so
on
october,
7th,
the
planning,
commission
or
applications
for
this
site
came
before
the
planning
commission.
Those
applications
were
a
parking
variance
and
site
plan
review.
M
The
parking
variance
was
to
reduce
the
parking
requirement
from
23
spaces
to
10
spaces.
To
then
have
a
parking
ratio
of
10
parking
spaces
to
23
dwelling
units.
Those
applications
were
approved
by
the
planning
commission.
An
appeal
was
then
filed
on
october
16th
by
eric
takashida
regarding
the
planning
commission's
decision
to
approve
the
parking
variants.
M
M
So,
as
I
mentioned,
the
site
plan
review,
application
became
final
and
and
as
a
reminder,
site
plan
review
is
the
comprehensive
review
of
new
buildings
where
we
analyze
the
building
bulk
height,
exterior
materials,
landscaping,
parking
access,
pedestrian
access,
all
manner
of
requirements
in
chapter
530
in
the
zoning
code,
so
that
that
process
for
the
building
itself
became
final,
but
the
proposed
parking
ratio
was
denied
which
then
led
to
a
result
of
needing
to
provide
a
one-to-one
parking
ratio
in
order
to
comply
with
the
zoning
ordinance.
M
As
a
note
site
plan
review
approvals
are
valid
for
a
period
of
two
years,
with
the
option
of
a
one-year
extension.
I
make
note
of
that
because,
while
the
the
when
the
project
was
approved,
it
was
prior
to
2040
implementation.
M
Those
approvals
remain
final
and
are
not
affected
by
the
adoption
of
the
2040
plan
which
occurred
after
these
approvals
happened.
In
addition,
the
r5
zoning
district,
which
allows
a
force-free
building,
is
still
in
place
on
the
site
and
a
four-story
building
would
even
today
be
allowed
on
the
site
as
a
new
project,
and
that
remains
the
case
until
the
zoning
code
has
changed
to
comply
with
the
2040
plan.
M
So
earlier
this
year,
the
applicant
revised
their
plans
to
provide
a
one-to-one
parking
ratio
and
staff
determined
that
to
be
a
minor
change
and
on
april
14th.
Eric
takashita
appealed
staff's
determination
that
the
proposed
changes
constitute
a
minor
change.
I
do
have
a
typo
here.
It
was
actually
on
may
21st
at
the
board
of
adjustment
denied
the
appeal,
which
was
then
again
appealed
next
slide,
please
so
the
proposed
changes
in
the
building-
and
I
I
do
have
before
and
afters
that
we
can
walk
through
of
all
the
major
plans
after
the
slide
here.
M
But
the
major
changes
was
that
the
number
of
dwelling
units
decreased
from
23
to
18.
the
number
of
parking
spaces
increased
from
10
to
18
and
the
way
that
they
accommodated
that
additional
parking
was
because
there's
a
unique
grade.
Change
on
the
site
where
the
front
of
the
site
is
at
street
level,
but
the
alley
level
of
the
site
is
would
be
equivalent
to
the
second
story
of
the
proposed
building.
M
So
they
were
able
to
propose
a
new
garage
door
at
the
rear
of
the
building
to
allow
eight
parking
spaces
in
the
rear
of
the
second
floor
of
the
building.
So
there's
basically
two
levels
of
somewhat
upgrade
parking
where
this
building
is
kind
of
nestled
into
the
hill.
So
there
are
parking
spaces
on
the
first
floor,
ten
spaces
accessed
by
a
shared
driveway
and
then
eight
spaces
access
on
the
second
second
floor
from
the
alley.
M
So
there's
those
two
points
and
there's
no
internal
circulation
between
the
two
floors,
so
that
change
also
did
made
some
changes
to
the
vehicular
vehicular
axis.
So
there
is
now
a
garage
door
that
opens
to
the
alley
the
applicant
did
propose
to
move
the
garage
door
facing
the
shared
property
line
facing
that
shared
driveway
on
the
south
side
slightly
to
the
east
next
slide.
Please.
M
These
are
the
proposed
second
third
and
fourth
floor
plans,
as
they
were
originally
proof.
So
you'll
see
that
the
second
floor
plan
includes
all
dwelling
units
next
slide.
Please,
and
then
here
are
the
floor.
Plans
as
approved
under
the
revised
plan
and
you'll,
see
that
the
second
floor
plan
includes
the
eight
parking
spaces
that
are
accessed
via
the
alley
and
obviously
fewer
units
in
total
in
the
building
next
slide.
Please
here
are
the
elevations,
as
they
were
originally
proposed.
M
You'll
note
that
the
rear
elevation
between
this
plan
and
the
the
next
slide
that
I'll
show
actually
appears
to
be
significantly
shorter
because
they
are
not
proposing
kind
of
a
a
retaining
wall.
To
kind
of
allow
that
bottom
floor
to
be
visible.
M
So
so,
but
you
will
see
also
this
rear
elevation.
It
appears.
J
M
M
They
have
also
moved
that
garage
door
on
the
south
elevation
farther
towards
the
street
and
then
that
rear
elevation
now
does
appear
to
be
three
stories
because
they
are
maintaining
what
is
currently
a
significant
grade:
change
on
the
site
to
allow
ali
access
next
slide.
Please.
M
So
the
the
issue
before
you
is
whether
the
proposed
changes
constitute
a
minor
change
or
a
major
change.
M
The
definition
of
minor
change
in
the
zoning
code
has
five
specific
elements
that
one
at
least
one
of
which
has
to
be
met
in
order
for
the
the
the
change
to
not
be
considered
a
minor
change,
so
number
one
is
the
proposed
changes
would
not
represent
a
substantial
redesign
of
the
project
and
are
consistent
with
the
attempt
of
this
chapter
and
the
findings
made
by
the
city,
planning,
commission
and
zoning
administrator
in
connection
with
the
approval
of
the
state
plan.
M
Staff
has
determined
that
the
proposal
for
a
four-story
building
with
a
similar
footprint
or
with
the
same
footprint
and
a
reduced
number
of
units
increase
number
parking
spaces
does
not
represent
a
substantial
redesign
of
the
project.
Number
two
is
that
the
proposed
changes
will
not
create
the
need
for
additional
alternative
compliance
or
land
use
applications.
M
These
additional
changes
do
not
require
additional
internal
compliance
or
land
use
applications
actually
next
slide.
Please.
M
I
think
I
might
have
this
written
out
for
you
too
yep
and
then
number
three
is
that
the
the
changes
cannot
result
in
additional
building
bulk
and
the
proposed
changes
would
actually
reduce
the
building
bulk
as
counted
by
staff,
because
an
additional
2000
square
feet
of
area
would
be
parking
which
is
not
counted
in
the
overall
growth
of
our
area
and
then
that
it
would
that
the
building
height
would
not
change
by
more
than
five
percent,
and
there
are
no
changes
proposed.
M
The
building,
height
and
then
height
and
bulk
cannot
change
if
they
were
achieved
by
variance
or
conditionally
permitted.
But
no
additional,
bulk
or
height
is
proposed
as
part
of
this
project.
So
staff
determined
that,
because
the
proposed
changes
are
specifically
limited
to
reducing
the
number
of
units
and
increasing
the
number
of
parking
spaces
to
comply
with
a
one-to-one
parking
ratio.
M
The
overall
design,
bulk
height
materials
of
the
building,
its
orientation
on
the
site
have
not
changed.
No
additional
land
use
applications
or
alternative
compliance
is
required.
Staff
determined
that
the
proposed
changes
can
be
considered
a
minor
change
which
does
not
require
a
new
application
before
the
planning
commission,
and
I
will
also
note
here
that
this
project
was
the
site
plan
review
for
this
project
was
approved
in
october
at
the
planning
commission.
It
was
not
appealed.
There
is
no
there's
no
retroactive
way
to
retract
those
approvals.
M
So
even
if
this
project
was
considered
to
be
a
major
change,
the
one
step
would
be
that
it
would
go
back
to
planning
commission
for
a
new
for
an
amendment
to
an
already
approved
site
plan
review
application
next
slide.
Please.
B
Miss
silas,
could
we
just
see
if
there's
any
questions
at
this
point
and
then
and
then
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
point?
Are
there
any
questions
from
members
of
the
committee
council,
member
schroeder.
F
Thank
you,
chair
goodman,
and
thank
you,
ms
silas,
for
this
presentation.
Just
to
go
back
to
your
earlier
point.
I
just
wanna.
I
have
gotten
a
lot
of
emails
from
constituents
and
most
of
them
want
to
stop
the
development,
and
I
want
to
kind
of
highlight
the
point
you
made
that
this
appeal
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
development
with
the
site
plan.
A
four-story
building
with
this
bulk
can
go
up
for
the
next
two
years.
F
The
developer
has
that
approval
from
the
city,
so
I
just
want
to
be
very
clear
and
kind
of
get
your
make
sure
that
I'm
right
according
to
staff
too,
that
that's
that
is
basically
where
things
are
now
and
that
this
appeal,
even
if
it
go
if
it
either
way
it
goes,
there
can
be
a
building
built
and
number
two
just
on.
You
know
what
are
the
specifics
if
this
becomes
considered
a
major
change
and
it
goes
to
planning
commission,
they
would
just
have
to
what
would
the
options
be
then,
for
planning
commission.
M
Sure
so,
yes,
you're
correct
that
the
site
plan
review
approvals
are
valid
for
two
years,
with
the
option
of
a
one-year
extension.
One-Year
extensions
are
granted
for
legitimate
reasons.
That
could
very
well
include
lengthy
appeal
processes
such
as
the
one
that
it
is
in.
So
when
we're
thinking
about
the
project
itself,
it
the
the
site,
planner
view
was
approved,
and
that
is
valid
for
two
years.
M
If,
if
the,
if
the
committee
determined
that
the
proposed
changes
are
a
major
change,
the
project
would
go
back
before
the
planning
commission
as
an
amendment
to
site
plan
review.
At
that
point,
it
would
be
coming
in
as
a
as
a
building
that
only
requires
site
planner
view
with,
I
think
no
alternative
compliance
required.
So
the
zoning
is
still
in
place
for
r5
allowing
a
four-story
building
here.
M
It
would
only
be
an
amendment
to
an
already
approved
plan
and
and
it's
not
requiring
any
alternative
compliance
or
any
other
land
use
applications
that
you
know
would
be
more
subjective.
M
So
you
know,
obviously
there
would
be
some
addition,
some
significant
additional
time
associated
with
putting
the
project
back
before
the
planning
commission
at
this
stage.
For
an
amendment
to
site
plan
review,
but
I
I
would,
I
wouldn't
anticipate
that
that
there
would
be
any
significant
outcome
that
would
that
would
there
my
understanding-
and
perhaps
the
city
attorney,
could
weigh
in
as
well.
M
Is
that
there's
no
way
to
retroactively
repeal
that
approval
that
was
already
granted
to
this
project,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
note
also
that
that
so
this
site
is
two
and
a
half
guided
for
interior
two,
which
is
a
maximum
of
two
and
a
half
stories
in
minneapolis
2040..
However,
the
r5
zoning
district
has
been
in
place
on
the
site
for
a
long
time
that
allows
four
stories,
and
this
project
came
in.
M
You
know
last
quarter
of
last
year
and
was
approved
under
that
existing
zoning
district,
which
is
still
in
place
today,
which
will
likely
not
be
changing
until
built
form
overlays
are
adopted,
which
is
looking
like
late
2020
at
this
point,
so
so
council
member
schroeder,
you
are
correct
that
that
that
this
project
is,
it
would
just
be
an
amendment
to
an
already
approved
plan
and
that
site
point
of
view.
Approval
is
valid
for
two
years
with
the
option
of
a
one-year
extension
next
slide.
Please.
B
M
So
staff
recommends
that
the
business
inspections
and
zoning
committee
adopt
staff
findings
and
deny
the
appeal
of
the
decision
of
the
board
of
adjustment.
To
deny
to
deny
the
appeal
of
the
decision
of
zoning
administrator
to
approve
preliminary
development
review
for
an
18
unit,
building
with
18
parking
spaces
at
47.36
and
47.40
grand.
B
I
am
going
to
proceed
to
open
the
public
hearing
with
this
type
of
public
hearing.
We
give
the
appellant
the
opportunity
to
make
their
case
first.
Mr
takashida,
I
believe,
is
on
the
line
I'm
wondering
if
the
clerk
could
tell
me
how
many
others
other
than
mr
takashita
are
on
the
line
to
testify.
After
him,.
B
Okay,
thanks,
that's
a
lot
for
me
as
people
would
say.
I
appreciate
it.
So
I
just
because
there's
not
25
people
lined
up
to
speak
next,
and
so
I'm
just
noting
your
presentation,
starting
at
207,.
N
N
We
love
our
city
and
we
welcome
new
neighbors
and
we're
really
grateful
to
the
zoning
planning
committee
for
upholding
an
appeal
that
we
had
to
file
last
fall
about
the
same
project
as
the
committee
members,
I'm
donating
planner
will
remember
at
that
time.
You
urge
the
developer
to
work
with
us
as
he
revises
his
plans.
Unfortunately,
he
chose
not
to
do
so,
and
here
we
are
again.
N
O
O
So
what
we
are
asking
the
council
to
do
is
obviously
to
approve
this
appeal
of
the
decision
of
the
zoning
administrator,
because
the
changes
submitted
by
the
applicant
to
the
site
plan
are
major
changes
requiring
a
formal
site
plan
amendment
and
planning
commission
review
and
to
try
to
avoid
us
stepping
on
each
other's
toes
with
everybody
speaking.
I
just
want
to
address
a
couple
of
the
comments
initially
that
ms
silas
made
and
I
think
that
she
is
minimizing
what
occurs
when
there
is
a
site
plan
amendment.
O
They
applicants
understand
that
likely
this
isn't
going
to
stop
anything
from
being
built
on
that
site,
but
there
is
a
procedure
that
is
required
to
be
followed
under
the
city
code
and
at
its
heart.
This
appeal
is
about
fundamental
fairness
and
the
procedure
established
by
the
city
code
under
the
city
code.
It's
the
planning
commission
that
is
tasked
with
the
authority
and
the
obligation
for
site
plan
review.
O
The
zoning
administrator
has
the
discretion
to
approve
minor
changes
to
a
site
plan
after
it
has
been
approved
by
the
planning
commission,
but
that
discretion
is
further
limited
by
the
requirements
of
the
city
code
that
each
of
the
five
factors
listed
in
the
code
under
530.100
are
met,
and
I
think
that
ms
silas
kind
of
stated
it
backwards
and
saying
you
know.
The
implication
that
I
got
from
her
words
was
that
you
kind
of
only
needed
one
of
these
criteria,
but
actually
you
need
all
five
of
the
criteria
stated
in
the
city
code.
O
It
says
that
each
of
them
must
be
satisfied
now,
in
this
particular
case,
the
the
focus
and
what
the
city
council
has
to
focus
on
is
the
first
criteria
under
a1,
which
says
that
the
proposed
changes
would
not
represent
a
substantial
redesign
of
the
project
and
are
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
chapter
and
the
findings
made
by
the
city
planning
commission
at
the
time
the
plans
were
approved
now,
just
in
listening
with
ms
silas.
It
seems
it
just
defies
logic
to
hear
what
she
was
describing
and
find
that
those
are
not
substantial
changes.
O
O
O
The
grade
change,
if
you
recall
some
of
the
council
members
were
president
when
the
when
the
variance
was
being
discussed
and
the
grading
or
the
grade
change
came
up
at
that
time.
It's
as
it's
a
significant
issue
in
terms
of
the
grade
change
between
this
property
and
and
the
neighbors.
O
So
it's
not
a
matter
of
whether
or
not
these
would
be
things
that
might
that
the
planning
commission
might
not
approve
later
or
that
you
know
we
don't
know.
I
there's
no
way
to
necessarily
judge
that.
The
fact
of
the
matter
is
that
these
are
significant.
O
Substantial
changes
in
the
common
sense
of
the
word
substantial
and
the
and
the
point
of
the
city
code.
Is
that
then,
when
there
are
substantial
changes,
it
goes
back
to
the
planning
commission
for
review
public
hearing
process
so
to
say
that,
oh
well,
it
doesn't
really
matter.
It's
just
just
an
amendment
to
the
site
plan.
O
O
The
the
other
point.
I
don't
think
it's
it
doesn't
seem
quite
correct,
either
to
say
that
the
zoning
code
that
this
project
would
be
approved
under
the
zoning
code.
It's
it
is
true
that
the
city
has
not
yet
amended
the
zoning
ordinance,
but
under
the
law
the
zoning
ordinance
is
required
to
be
brought
into
conformance
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
Comprehensive,
the
2040
plan
went
into
effect
in
january.
O
The
zoning
code
isn't
consistent
with
the
2040
plan,
so
you
know,
under
the
the
two
have
to
be
brought
into
conformance,
to
say
that
well
we're
going
to
do
it
later
in
2020.
I
don't
think
that
necessarily
makes
the
zoning
code
valid,
but
in
you
know
in
any
case,
the
changes
that
the
applicant
is
proposing
here
are
major
changes
from
the
site
plan
that
was
approved
by
the
planning
commission
in
the
fall.
O
So
it
is
what
we
are
asking
the
city
council
to
look
at
is
to
follow
what
the
procedure
is
in
the
city
code.
This
is
not
something
that
is
if
these
type
of
changes
are
not
authorized
for
administrative
review.
There
are
major
changes
and
it
requires
a
formal
amendment
of
the
site
plan
and
review
by
the
planning
commission.
O
And
that's,
I
think,
that's
it
for
my
comments
at
this
time,
unless
there's
follow-up
after
mr
takashita
or
the
other
people.
N
The
interest
of
time,
I
think
paul,
has
covered
all
the
points
right.
This
is
a
substantial
change
right
as,
as,
as
miss
hawaiian
said,
you
can't
go
past
the
first
criteria
right.
This
is
a
substantial
change.
It
is,
there
are
substantial
changes
to
the
overall
project.
One
second
is
that
it's
not
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
site
plan
review.
N
These
are
outlined
in
the
statement,
but
the
planning
commission
found
there
would
be
no
new,
curb
cuts
and
now
suddenly
there
are.
The
planning
commission
found
that
the
vehicular
access
would
only
be
to
grand
avenue
from
an
existing
driveway,
but
now
there's
a
second
vehicle
access
with
a
new
driveway
to
the
alley,
and
the
planning
commission
found
that
the
alley
was
not
quote
accessible,
but
now
it
is
right.
N
So
you,
the
city,
needs
to
have
findings
on
record
to
be
able
to
have
a
site
plan
approved
and
it
doesn't
all
we're
asking
for
here
is
an
opportunity
to
share
our
concerns.
That's
all
we
want
the
developer
to
file
an
amendment
and
we
want
a
chance
to
share
our
concerns
with
the
planning
question.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
I
will
stand
for
questions.
B
Thank
you
for
your
testimony,
both
of
you
for
your
testimony.
It
sounds
like
there
are
five
or
six
other
people
on
the
line
who
would
like
to
testify.
I
believe
the
clerk
will
call
on
folks
one
at
a
time
based
on
their
phone
number.
If
we
don't
have
their
name,
and
I
would
ask
the
clerk
to.
B
C
Yes,
next,
we
have
stephen
ward.
If
you
could
please
press
star
six
and
meet
yourself.
I
I
live
in
47
32,
pleasant
avenue
and
I
am
you
know
one
block
away
from
this
proposed
property
and
I
want
to
state
that
as
an
engineer
myself,
that
the
change
of
adding
the
parking
under
the
alley
when
it
wasn't
there
before
is
not
a
minor
change
and
it
should
be
reviewed
and
that's
pretty
much
all.
I
have
to
say,
because
all
my
other
concerns
have
already
been
addressed.
A
Thank
you,
council
members
for
allowing
time
for
me
to
speak
today.
I'll
be
brief,
my
name
is
jeff
miller
and
I
have
resided
at
4744
grand
avenue
south
for
the
past
14
years,
and
this
is
the
property
that
shares
a
driveway
with
the
current
single-family
home,
located
at
4740
grand
I
own,
one
of
the
units
in
this
triplex
and
living
it
with
my
wife
and
our
12
year
old
son.
A
So
our
biggest
concern
with
the
developer's
proposed
redesign
of
this
project
is
the
placement
of
the
garage
exit
on
the
south
side
of
the
building.
The
developer's
original
plan
for
the
site
was
to
have
the
garage
exit
located
at
the
rear
of
the
building
opposite
our
garage,
as
this
is
a
normal
placement
of
a
garage
within
a
residential
neighborhood.
J
A
A
This
is
simply
not
a
logical
location
for
a
garage
exit,
especially
when
the
property
shares
a
driveway
with
existing
neighbors.
This
substantial
change
to
the
garage
location
in
and
of
itself
is
reason
enough
to
consider
the
proposed
changes
to
the
site
plan
as
major,
not
minor.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
I'm
counting
on
you
to
vote
in
favor
of
this
appeal.
B
B
L
Yes,
chair.
Thank
you.
L
Thank
you,
joshua
segal,
5414,
washburn
avenue
south
and
I'm
the
developer
and
owner
of
the
project,
and
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
a
couple
things.
B
Hang
on
a
sec,
so
you're
the
developer
and
owner,
so
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
take
up
time
during
mr
takashita's
period
of
time.
L
B
B
B
N
B
N
N
B
B
L
Okay,
so
for
the
record,
the
address
is
5414
washburn
avenue
south.
I
just
wanted
to
quickly
clarify
a
couple
of
things
per
council
member
schrader's
hope
that
we
would
engage
the
community
after
the
initial
parking
variance
denial.
We
did
and
we
sat
down.
We
had
numbers
of
calls
and
meetings
going
to
the
neighborhood
group
as
well.
Councilmember
schroeder
was
present.
L
B
J
B
B
B
Thank
you,
madam
clerk,
given
that
there
are
no
bill.
J
J
patrick
next
door
to
us
who
owns
a
fourplex
has
owned
that
building
since
sometime
in
the
mid
80s,
I'm
a
little
distressed
only
because
everything
so
far
has
been
happening
behind
closed
doors.
We
got
notified
late,
very
late
on
this
whole
process,
and
now
the
zoning
commission
is
turning
to
us
and
saying
that
you
know
what
you
you
didn't.
Do
you
you
didn't
fight
the
site
plan.
Well,
I
know
ignorance
of
of
the
law
is
not
the
law,
but
the
city
has
to
be
responsible
to
the
neighborhood
to
inform
what's
happening.
B
B
B
Anyone
all
right
sing,
none
I'm
going
to
close
the
public
hearing
and
ask
if
anyone
on
the
council
would
like
to
speak
and
we'll
start
with
council
member
schroeder.
F
Thank
you,
chair
goodman.
I
just
had
a
couple
questions
for
the
the
zoning
administrator
like
like
I
said
earlier.
You
know
I've
gotten
a
lot
of
communication
there's,
but
there's
also
been
a
lot
of
miscommunication.
People
have
been
very
confused
about
how
this
project
has
gone,
and-
and
I
understand
a
lot
of
that-
so
I
think
the
the
questions
I'd
have
if
the
zoning
administrator
could
talk
a
little
bit
more
and
elaborate.
F
F
When
the
you
know,
the
denial
of
the
parking
variants
for
the
developer
requires
them
to
build
on
a
one-to-one
ratio
and
how
they've
had
to
change
those
plants,
and
then,
second,
just
to
to
answer
some
of
the
questions
from
mr
takashita.
You
know
how
it
this
meets
the
criteria,
how
this
has
kind
of
gone
through,
not
just
this
project,
but
I
think
it'd
be
helpful
to
give
some
context
to
say.
F
This
is
why
we
have
a
minor
with
something
is
considered
a
minor
change,
and
why
give
some
examples
of
minor
changes
through
this
process
that
have
previously
come
through
just
to
provide
some
context
for
folks
that
you
know
don't
see
this
process
all
today,
oh
right
now
and
those
are
my
questions
for
now.
B
Okay,
thank
you,
council,
member
schrader
and
ms
silas.
I
really
appreciate
your
report,
but
given
this
is
an
issue
of
the
zoning
administrator,
we
would
ask
the
zoning
administrator
to
see
if
he
can
answer
councilmember
schroeder's
questions.
P
Great
chairman,
goodman
and
councilmember
schroeder,
I'm
actually
working
from
the
office,
which
surprisingly
has
poor
lighting
under
this
arrangement.
So
forgive
me,
but
I'd
just
like
to
address
some
of
the
questions
so
some
time
ago,
when
the
city
revised
its
code
back
in
1999,
we
first
looked
at
what
types
of
changes
would
be
minor
and
major.
P
We
looked
at
that
for
both
conditional
use
permits
and
for
site
plans,
so
we've
actually,
in
spite
of
what
we're
hearing
today,
we've
actually
tried
to
bring
more
regular
rule
of
order
around
these
changes
that
we
routinely
see,
and
so
under
the
current
zoning
code
under
530,
we've
gone
through
the
five
findings
that
we
look
at
that
set
the
parameters
for
major
and
minor
changes.
P
What
I
would
like
to
tell
the
public
is
is
that
we
actually
see
changes
through
the
development
process
quite
frequently
often
there
they
relate
more
to
building
code
issues
and
minor
changes
in
floor
plans,
maybe
exiting
some
stairwells
windows,
things
of
that
nature
on
occasion,
floor
plans
and
and
design
issues,
though,
do
affect
a
site
plan,
and
so
that's
why
we
go
back
and
kind
of
look
at
these
changes
in
concert.
P
Often
often
changes
are
unforeseen.
There
may
be
conditions
that
weren't
identified
through
the
planning
commission
process
that
needs
some
minor
adjustments
and-
and
so
again,
I'd
just
like
to
say
that
these
these
changes
to
projects
are
not
uncommon.
P
The
history
around
this
project
and
the
opposition
to
it
may
amplify
what
some
of
these
changes
look
like
to
the
public,
but
the
staff
they're,
not
particularly
unusual.
P
If
there
was
binding
conditions
of
approval,
then
we'd
have
to
bring
it
back
to
planning
commission
absent
that
we
we
go
back
to
53100
and
look
at
the
guidance
that
those
points
give
us
so
here
the
developer
went
back
to
the
drawing
board,
looked
at
what
changes
they
might
make,
that
would
be
able
to
be
approved
administratively
and
so,
as
we've
said,
they've
reduced
the
number
of
dwelling
units.
P
Historically,
as
I
know
the
chair
knows,
the
addition
of
dwelling
units
often
was
a
big
point
of
contention
and
that
was
brought
back
to
planning
commission,
particularly
around
conditional
use
permits
the
city
changed
that
some
time
ago,
so
again,
they've
diminished
the
number
of
dwellings
not
increased
it.
We
look
at
the
envelope
of
the
building.
The
envelope
of
the
building
is
primarily
not
that
much
different,
in
fact,
is,
has
decreased
in
some
aspects.
P
Historically,
the
city
has
looked
at
increases
in
the
bulk
as
being
a
big
red
flag
to
say
you
know
within
reason
and
some
small
parameters
can
they
do
that?
So
again
it
met
that
test.
P
We
looked
at
the
access,
so
one
of
the
parts
of
the
development
process
is
the
preliminary
development
review
which
involves
public
works
folks.
So
when
this
project
went
back
through
the
preliminary
development
review
for
the
relocation
of
one
of
the
entrances
into
the
the
attached
parking
or
underground
parking
and
the
alley
public
works
reviewed
that
they
determined
that
that
would
be
acceptable
under
their
guidelines
and
review
and
so
planning
the
planning
function
knew
that
that
process
would
that
project
could
be
approved
through
pdr.
P
So
by
the
time
the
city
of
council
approves
it.
They
know
both
both
prongs
of
that
approval
are
solid.
We
often
have
seen
projects
also
come
in
with
which
to
some
folks
may
look
fairly
substantial.
P
Often
these
were
materials,
so
we've
had
substantial
buildings
downtown
that
have
gone
through
the
planning
process.
They've
been
approved
for
their
parking
elevations,
but
the
materials
change
substantially.
600
portland
is
an
example,
and
sometimes
there's
no
binding
condition
on
on
the
on
the
materials,
but
they
to
the
public
would
look
substantially
different.
But
again,
following
the
guidance
in
the
zoning
code,
we
found
the
ability
to
approve
those,
sometimes
those
materials
either
become
cost
prohibitive
or
aren't
available.
P
What
would
be
the
uses
on
some
of
those
floors?
I
think
417
washington
comes
to
mind
where
there
are
some
issues
there.
P
Excuse
me,
I
would
finally
say
that
you
know
the
city
has
given
strong
signals
to
staff
that
we
we
should
try
to
work
to
work
with
developers,
be
mindful
of
public
engagement,
but
I
would,
I
would
suggest
we're
always
under
a
charge
to
not
have
too
much
red
tape
and,
and
our
developer
community
is
is
one
half
of
the
equation.
P
The
public
is
another
side,
and
so
we
try
to
find
a
balance
between
not
over
regulating
our
development
community
but
also
being
very
sensitive
to
the
neighbors
who
live
around
these
projects,
and
I
know
the
council
struggles
with
this
balance
as
well,
and
so
again,
when
staff
reviewed
this
project,
we
went
to
the
guidance
that
we
found
in
530
100.
P
We
went
through
the
five-pronged
analysis
and
at
the
end
of
the
day
we
figured
or
we
determined
that
it
did
fall
in
the
parameters
of
an
approving
minor
site
plan
changes.
P
B
F
P
Oh,
thank
you
chair
schrader.
First,
I
just
wanted
to
mention
one
other
point.
That
kind
of
relates
to
the
city
attorney
is.
There
is
a
requirement
that
the
city
gets
its
zoning
code
in
line
with
the
2040
plan,
but
that
time
has
not
come
yet.
I
don't.
The
city
attorney
wants
to
speak
to
that
and
it
does
present
an
awkward
situation
for
staff
when
we're
writing
staff
reports
under
the
current
zoning
code.
P
Being
very
mindful
that
in
some
parts
of
town
the
2040
guidance
is
very
different
but
and
again
I'll
defer
to
the
city
attorney.
But
but
I
think
we've
been
advised
that
we
need
to
stick
what's
legally
defensible
on
the
zoning
code
and
not
what's
the
aspirations
of
2040
before
those
built
form
guidelines
are
adopted
as
to
the
parking
they
provide.
The
parking
is
not
in
an
outside
parking
lot.
It's
an
interior
lot
interior
parking
area
there.
P
They
were
able
to
to
add
that
parking
at
the
cost
of
some
dwelling
units,
apparently
typically,
and-
and
I
know
the
chairs
wear-
this-
we've
treated
exterior
parking,
often
slightly
differently
than
interior
parking.
P
So
in
this
case,
it
falls
with
our
tradition
about
the
enclosed
parking,
apps
and
circulation
issues,
not
being
a
matter
to
consider
that
we've
allowed
for
those
changes
exterior
parking
in
in
outdoor
parking.
Lots
has
been
treated
more
strictly
over
the
years
that
has
to
do
with
the
amount
of
impervious
surface
and
landscaping
and
some
other
issues,
but
historically
the
changes
that
were
approved
for
the
interior.
The
interior
parking
is
in
line
with
what
we've
looked
at
in
the
past.
P
I
will
say
we
are
seeing
more
of
these
types
of
situations
with
interior
parking
than
we
had
in
the
past,
because
we're
trying
to
eliminate
outdoor
parking
when
possible
and
we've
been
obviously
moving
in
that
direction
with
our
policy
on
reforming
off
street
parking
requirements.
F
I
know
it
that's
a
good
explanation,
but
I
do
have
it
just
to
be
a
little
more
clear.
The
first
initial
site
plan
was
allowed
10
parking
spaces.
They
are
the
developer.
You
know
having
by
having
their
variants
denied
by
the
zoning
planning
committee
has
now
come
back
with
a
one-to-one
ratio
of
18.,
and
so
one
of
the
issues
was
in
going
from
10
parking
spots
to
18
parking
spots.
There
was
no
public
hearing
on
that.
F
P
Mr
poor
yeah,
chairman
goodman
or
excuse
me
chair,
schrader,
councilmember,
goodman,
chair
schrader,
vice
versa,
forgive
me
so
we
don't
have
the
same
parking
requirements
in
this
part
of
town
as
we
might
be
downtown
about
maximums
and
again,
historically,
we've
looked
at
changes
to
exterior
parking
lots
slightly
differently.
These
these
parking
are.
These
parking
stalls
are
enclosed.
P
We
don't
have
strict
rules
that
say
by
adding
interior
off-street
parking
in
the
r5
district
that
you
need
to
come
back
for
approvals.
There's
no
overarching
guiding
language
that
says
that
we're
compelled
to
bring
those
changes
back
under
chapter
541.,
and
so
again
it's
it's
allowed.
Under
the
code.
There
was
no
other
ordinance
compelling
us
to
to
bring
back
the
increase
in
parking
for
this
particular
project.
In
this
setting
and
again
I
I
can
understand
the
neighbors
concerns,
but
it's
not
we're
not
giving
guidance
on
that
on
the
zoning
code.
P
K
So
this
is
kimberly
helene.
I
can
maybe
just
add
to
that
a
little
bit
as
the
manager
of
laney's
design
and
preservation.
You
know
really.
What
we're
looking
at
here
is.
Is
this
a
major
change
under
chapter
530
site
plan
review?
There
is
nothing
in
chapter
530
that
says
that
the
addition
of
interior,
structured
parking
spaces
within
a
building
is
a
major
change.
K
There's
also
nothing
that
says
a
reduction
in
dwelling
units
is
a
major
change.
This
is,
in
fact
the
opposite
of
what
530
says.
An
increase
in
a
number
of
dwelling
units
at
a
certain
point
is
considered
a
major
change.
We're
not
dealing
with
an
increase
here,
we're
dealing
with
a
decrease
and
an
increase
in
parking
stalls.
Similarly,
is
not
a
major
change
and
does
not
trigger
any
of
the
other
five
factors
under
the
major
change
guidelines
which
actually
we
looked
at
in
2017.
We
actually
have
refined
this
fairly
recently
to
make
things
more
clear.
K
P
And
sure
goodman,
if
I
may,
that
that
is
consistent
with
the
approach
that
we've
had
in
the
zoning
office
for
for
many
years
again.
I
just
want
to
stress
for
those
of
maybe
newer,
the
committee
we
used
to
have
very
strict
rules
around
changes
to
exterior
parking,
but
we've
often
been
very
silent
on
interior
parking
and
that's
reflected
in
what
what
ms
hollen
just
described.
B
Okay,
are
there
council
members
schrader,
have
your
questions
been
answered
by
staff.
B
H
Thank
you,
chair
goodman,
and
I
I
actually
just
want
to
thank
staff.
I
I
I
think,
and
and
and
thank
councilmember
schroeder,
for
sort
of
setting
up
this
conversation
to
make
sure
that
it
really
is
informative
of
the
way
that
we
approach
this.
I
think
it's
valuable
for
us
to
have
a
public
discussion
about
our
framework
and
about
how
we
make
these
decisions,
and
you
know
I'm
persuaded
that
we
have
a
system
for
analyzing
these
projects
and
for
making
decisions
about.
H
You
know
when
and
where
it's
appropriate
for
staff
to
intervene
through
the
zoning
administrator's
judgments
and
where
it's
not.
And
so
I
will
move
denial
of
the
appeal
and
just
express
my
appreciation
for
the
clarity
that
this
conversation
provided.
F
Thank
you,
chair
goodman.
I
just
have
a
brief
one
to
talk
briefly.
I
think
one
of
the
biggest
things
I
kind
of
hit
from
people
that
are
not
you
know,
and
zoning
and
planning
is
just
kind
of
the
misunderstanding
that
you
know
the
city
approves
projects
like
we
don't
approve
projects.
What
we
do
is
we
make
sure
that
they
conform
to
state
law,
to
federal
law,
to
the
city
law,
and
that's
that's
the
limitation,
we're
under
we're,
not
saying
yes
to
this,
and
no
to
that.
F
We
have
very
specific
things
that
we
need
to
do.
I
think
what
we've
heard
today,
I
think,
just
did
give
you
some
kind
of
context
from
the
from
the
area.
A
lot
of
this
would
be
easier
if
you
know
the
neighbors
and
the
developers
were
having
more
of
a
conversation.
I
I
understand
those
are
very,
very
hard,
but
they're
needed.
You
know
we're
all
going
to
be
neighbors.
We
all
want
to
have
the
developers
moving
into
a
great
neighborhood.
F
We
want
to
keep
it
that
way,
so
I
hope
that
more
efforts
to
engage
the
community
will
can
those
will
continue
and
hopefully
increase,
as
we
get
closer
to
what
this
development
will
look
like
and
all
that
said,
I
think
I
will
also
be
supporting
council
member
fletcher's
motion.
I
believe
this
is
a
minor
change
and
under
that
I
believe
that
the
city
has
met
that
very
specific
kind
of
point
of
law
to
make
that.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you
for
your
comments.
Is
there
anyone
else
who
would
like
to
speak
to
council
member
fletcher's
motion
anyone
anyone
seeing
none
council
member
fletcher's
motion
is
in
front
of
us
I'll
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
roll.
D
B
Eyes
so
councilmember
fletcher's
motion
passes
the
appeal
has
been
denied.
Are
there
any
further
questions
or
comments
from
the
committee
members
about
anything
on
the
agenda
today,
seeing
none
and
no
further
business
before
us
without
objection
I'll
declare
this
meeting
adjourned.