►
From YouTube: September 20, 2021 Planning Commission
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
Hello
and
welcome
everyone
to
the
regular
meeting
of
the
city
planning
commission
for
monday
september,
20th
2021,
my
name
is
raya
smiley.
I'm
the
president
of
the
commission
and
I'll
be
chairing
this
meeting
as
we
begin.
I
want
to
note
that
this
this
meeting
has
the
remote
participation
of
members
of
this
commission
under
minnesota
statute.
D
E
C
F
B
B
B
G
B
Thank
you
that
motion
passes
and
the
minutes
are
adopted.
Our
next
order
of
business
is
to
organize
the
public
hearing
agenda.
Again
the
agenda
is
available
at
limbs.minneapolism.gov.
B
B
B
If
there's
anyone
out
there
who
would
like
to
make
that
kind
of
determination,
star
six,
is
what
unmutes
you
with
that.
The
following
items
are
on
the
agenda
for
this
evening.
B
B
H
This
is
chris
murphy.
I
would
like
to
discuss
that
item
if
this
is
the
appropriate
time
to
weigh
in
on
it.
B
B
Okay,
then
we
will
put
item
number
four
on
discussion.
Sorry
item
number.
Five
on
discussion.
Item
number
six:
636
broadway
street
northeast.
This
item
is
being
recommended
for
consent.
Is
there
anyone
to
speak
against
this
item.
B
Okay,
not
hearing
anyone.
Item
number
six
is
on
consent.
Item
number:
seven
11,
12,
16
avenue,
southeast
staff
is
recommending.
This
item
for
discussion.
Item
number.
Eight
three
thousand
east
bidet
mccoska
parkway
staff,
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
Is
there
anyone
to
speak
to
speak
against
that
recommendation?.
I
B
Correcting
that
and
catching
that,
commissioner
ford,
I
was
just
going
through
it
automatically
item
number
eight
will
be
continued
to
the
next
cycle.
So
moving
to
item
number
nine
2313
13th
avenue
south
this
item
is
being
recommended
by
staff
for
consent.
Is
there
anyone
to
speak
against
that
item.
B
B
B
Okay,
not
hearing
anyone,
item
number
11
is
put
on
consent
and
finally,
item
number
12
commemorative
street
name
is
going
to
be
discussed
so
just
to
quickly
review
the
items
on
the
agenda
items
number
four:
six,
I'm
sorry,
sorry
number
items
number
four
6,
9
and
11
are
put
on
consent.
B
B
The
question
is
whether
item
number
nine
is
on
consent.
Yes,
question
number
item
number
nine
is
on
consent.
B
F
B
Thank
you
with
that
motion
passes
and
the
agenda
has
been
approved.
So
now
we
will
proceed
to
our
consent
agenda.
I
am
going
to
open
the
public
hearing
for
our
consent
items
and
then
we
will
approve
those
and
then
afterwards
we
will
proceed
to
the
other
items.
So
now
the
public
hearing
for
the
consent
agenda
is
open.
If
there's
anyone
who
would
like
to
speak
to
items
number
4,
6,
9
and
11,
you
can
press
star
6
to
unmute
yourself
and
continue
with
your
name
number
and
statement.
A
Yes,
yes,
madam,
madam
president,
my
name
is
steve
weimer,
I'm,
the
president
and
ceo
of
the
minneapolis
downtown
council,
also
a
city
resident
in
ward
11..
I
just
wanted
to
comment
briefly
on
item
number
four
and
thank
the
staff
for
their
recommendation.
A
Thank
you.
I
hope
for
for
your
positive
vote
and
most
of
all
thank
deluxe
corporation
for
their
decision
to
invest
in
the
city
of
minneapolis
and
to
move
into
downtown,
I
think
in
the
crush
of
normal
city
business.
A
Sometimes
when
things
just
go
the
way
they're
supposed
to,
we
don't
take
time
to
stop
and
say
this
is
really
significant,
but
at
least
in
my
mind,
I
think
this
is
a
really
important
decision
that
a
fortune
1000
company
made
to
move
its
headquarters
from
a
suburban
location
into
downtown
minneapolis,
and
I
just
want
to
thank
you
and
the
staff,
as
I
said,
and
deluxe
for,
for
moving
it
forward.
Thank
you
for
the
time.
B
Yes,
please.
K
K
Yes,
my
name
is
ben
oz,
I'm
a
resident
in
saint
paul,
1792,
eigelhart
avenue
and
I'm
an
architect
and
the
principal
at
city,
death
studio
and
I'm
working
with
children's
dental
service
on
item
number,
six,
which
is
at
636
broadway
avenue,
and
I
just
want
to
thank
the
the
staff
and
the
board
for
considering
this
variance
to
expand
the
the
services
for
children's
dental
service
within
a
larger
building.
K
As
you
know,
they've
they've
been
there
almost
20
years
and
they're
hoping
to
to
be
there
a
lot
longer
they're
an
anchor
in
that
community
and
we
were
really
excited
to
to
revamp
and
rehab
the
existing
building
almost
fully
and
then
to
to
hopefully
expand
that
footprint,
so
they
can
continue
to
provide
their
incredible
services
there.
I'm
we're
here
to
answer
questions
if
any
of
those
come
up.
Thank
you.
B
Okay,
not
hearing
anyone.
I
will
not
close
the
public
hearing
for
the
consent
agenda.
May
I
have
a
motion
to
adopt
items
number
four,
six,
nine
and
eleven
on
the
consent
agenda,
commissioner
olsen
so
moved.
Thank
you,
emotion
has
been
made.
Is
there
a
second
commissioner
maguire?
Second
great
emotion
has
been
made
and
seconded?
Is
there
any
discussion.
F
G
B
Thank
you
and
that
motion
passes
for
again
items
number
four,
six,
nine
and
eleven,
as
recommended
by
staff,
with
the
stated
conditions
next
on
our
item
on
our
agenda
is
item
number
eight.
This
is
again
3
000
east
bidet,
mccoska
parkway.
B
B
B
Okay,
not
hearing
anyone.
I
am
now
closing
the
public
hearing
for
item
number
eight
and
I
am
looking
for
a
someone
to
make
a
motion
to
continue
item
number
eight
to
the
october
18th
planning
commission
meeting.
Do
I
have
a
motion
for
that.
B
F
F
B
Thank
you
and
that
motion
passes.
We
are
now
moving
on
to
our
discussion
items
which
will
be
presented
by
staff
and
discussed
by
commissioners,
and
then
we
will
also
have
public
hearings
on
these
items.
L
You,
president
ismaili
commissioners,
item
number
five
is
for
the
properties
located
at
4418
and
4422
beard
avenue
south
the
project
was
a
recent
construction
for
a
new
multiple
family
dwelling
with
41
dwelling
units.
The
building
is
known
as
linden
flats.
L
L
L
In
2019,
a
project
for
site
plan
review
was
approved
by
the
city
planning
commission
to
allow
for
the
new
multiple
family
dwelling.
The
approved
site
plan
indicated
that
the
electrical
transformer
would
be
mounted
on
a
pole.
Existing
electrical
utility
pole
located
at
the
north
west
corner
of
the
property
during
construction
of
the
proposed
structure.
Excellent
energy
determined
that
the
proposed
project
was
not
eligible
for
a
pole
mounted
transformer
and
the
transformer
was
then
located
at
the
northwest
corner
of
the
property.
L
L
Staff
has
received
two
public
comments
regarding
the
requested
variants.
They
have
been
included
in
the
dropbox
for
today
because
they
were
received
after
the
staff
report
went
down.
L
Staff
is
recommending
approval
of
the
requested
variants
with
conditions
based
on
the
following
findings.
Staff
finds
that
practical
difficulties
exist
that
are
unique
to
the
prop
project
and
property
due
to
the
lack
of
alley
and
the
location
of
the
transformer
at
the
direction
of
excel
energy.
L
The
site
plan
review
application
approved
in
2019
stated
that
it
was
going
to
be
a
pole
mounted
structure
during
construction.
I
had
heard
from
both
the
architect
and
the
contractor
that
excel
had
determined
that
the
proposed
project
was
no
longer
eligible
for
a
poll
on
a
transformer,
and
then
there
were
limited
locations
remaining
on
the
site
for
a
transformer
to
be
located.
L
The
transformer
was
then
constructed
2.7
feet
from
the
north
property
line,
where
the
five
foot
setback
is
required.
Staff
evaluated
this
applica
or
the
the
plan
with
the
applicant
and
determined
that
there
are
limited
locations
in
part
due
to
the
lack
of
a
public
alley.
So
staff
finds
that
these
are
unique
circumstances
not
created
by
the
applicant.
L
The
for
finding
two
minimum
yard
requirements
are
established
to
provide
for
open
areas
at
to
allow
for
adequate
light,
air
open
space
and
a
separation
of
uses.
L
So
the
zoning
code
also
authorizes
permanent
obstruction,
so
encroachments
into
those
setbacks
on
the
side
yard,
for
things
such
as
an
air
conditioning
system
or
for
hvac
equipment,
as
long
as
they
are
located
at
least
two
feet
from
the
property
line.
The
zoning
code
does
not,
however,
authorize
an
exemption
for
transformers,
and
so
therefore
the
variance
is
required.
L
B
B
B
B
Okay,
well,
we
will
move
on
to
the
next
person
who
has
been
registered
for
public
testimony.
Chris
murphy
are
you
here?
If
you
are,
please
press
star
six
state,
your
name
and
address
and
continue
with
your
comment.
H
Chris
murphy,
I
am
at
4000t
queen
avenue
south,
and
I
am
sitting
here
with
with
my
wife
martina.
She
and
I
are
the
owners
of
the
five
unit
apartment
building
that
is
immediately
to
the
north
of
4418
dash
4422.
H
H
Before
I
launch
into
the
some
sort
of
highlights
of
input
that
we
provided
to
shanna
on
friday.
Can
I
assume
that
most
of
the
commissioners
would
have
reviewed
that
prior
to
this
meeting?
As
regards
like
how
much
detail
I
should
get
into.
H
Yeah,
I'm
going
to
provide
an
overview
of
the
input
that
we
provided.
I'm
I
just
I'm
just
doing
sort
of
a
sound
check
here
on.
B
Yeah,
if
you
can
provide
some
overview,
even
though
you
submitted
something,
it
would
be
good
for
the
rest
of
the
public
as
well
to
hear
what
you
have
gathered.
H
Okay,
well,
I
will,
I
will
be
as
brief
as
possible
and
provide
details
that
I
think
are
adequate
to
the
tap
before
I
do
just
one
quick
question
on
scope:
the
the
application
was
looking
for
a
variant
on
a
side,
yard
setback
and,
I
think,
a
rear,
a
rear
yard
setback
and
that
doesn't
appear
in
the
recommendation
was
that
resolved
outside
of
the
context
of
the
discussions
today
and
in
the
recommendation.
H
I
I've
been
out
there
as
shanna
as
you
may
have
gleaned
from
the
input
that
I've
provided,
but
I've
been
out
there
any
number
of
times
in
the
last
several
days
as
near
as
I
tell
the
transformer
currently
sits,
approximately
four
feet
off
the
rear
property
line,
and
in
making
that
assessment,
I
have
based
that,
on
other
things
that
I've
seen
in
the
survey,
in
particular
the
location
of
the
property
line
and
the
location
of
the
fence,
so
the
fence
in
the
rear.
H
It
does
not
appear
to
sit
directly
on
the
property
line
per
the
survey.
But
if
you
measure
to
the
fence,
the
transformer
is
four
feet
off
the
fence
and
the
fence
is
almost
certainly
not
a
foot
off
the
property
line.
B
Okay
is:
is
there
something
that
you
can
clarify
there
shanna
by
any
chance.
L
Mike,
could
you
go
up
two
more
there?
We
are
oh
sorry,
one
more
down.
L
If
you
can
see
at
the
northwest
corner
of
the
property,
I'm
not
sure
like,
if
you're
able
to
zoom
into
that
corner,
but
it's
showing
that
the
transformer
itself,
so
not
the
concrete
pad,
but
the
structure
itself
is
measured.
Five
feet
to
the
rear
property
line.
So
that
is
the
information
that
was
provided
to
staff,
and
that
is
the
information
for
which
we
we
based
our
calculations
on
our
and
our
notification
for
public
hearing
and
our
staff
report
as
well.
H
I'll
just
comment
on
that.
Thank
you
shanna.
I
indeed
did
measure
off
of
the
transformer.
So
from
the
transformer,
not
the
pad
to
the
fence
is
four
feet.
I
suggest
that,
in
addition
to
other
concerns
that
I'll
raise
that,
that
alone
is
a
reason
to
revisit
the
recommendation
and
the
current
status
of
this
variance
request.
B
H
H
Let
me
let
me
first
just
say
that
the
recommendation
concludes
that
these
circumstances
were
not
brought
upon
the
owner
by
themselves
and
I'm
I
I
just
simply
don't
have
the
evidence
to
prove
that
that's
the
case,
in
other
words,
the
alleged
excel
date
and
switch
suggest
excel,
indicated
the
initial
acceptability
of
a
full
mount,
but
later
reversing
himself.
I
haven't
seen
that
shannon
may
well
have
that
in
hand,
but,
but
I
haven't
seen
it
in
a
discussion
with
excel.
H
However,
I
will
say
that
the
excel
representative
with
whom
I
spoke,
who
is
who
is
responsible
for
this
area?
He
deals
in
placement
of
such
electrical
installations.
H
He
said
that
the
information
is
is
out
there
and
published
on
the
on
the
internet,
and
it's
called
the
excel
standard
for
electric
installation
and
electrical
installations
in
use
and
the
acceptability
in
this
location
of
a
full
transformer
for
the
excel
representative,
with
whom
I
spoke,
can
easily
be
ascertained
from
that
document,
indicating
that
it
was
knowable
by
all
parties
well
in
advance
of
the
timing
of
the
identification
of
its
current
location
as
an
issue.
H
In
fact,
in
about
the
same
time
frame
last
last
year,
they
submitted
a
request
for
an
essentially
identical
transformer
variants,
for
a
different
property
and
for
different
owners,
but
this
conspicuous
element
to
that
is
that
one
it
was
nullable
by
virtue
of
excel
design.
Two
of
two.
It
was
certainly
notable
by
virtue
of
having
had
the
same
experience
with
another
property.
H
Furthermore,
per
the
again
following
along
in
the
analysis
of
the
recommendation
from
staff,
the
indication
from
the
owner
slash
applicant
architect,
is
that
excel
is
on
record
saying
that
it's
the
transformers,
current
location
is
as
tight
to
the
building
as
as
can
be
achieved
again
when
I
spoke
with
the
excel
representative
just
this
last
week,
and
he
pulled
up
the
details
on
the
property.
He
indicated
that
there
may
well
be
options
for
moving
this.
H
That
shows
that
that
they
they're
on
record
saying
that
it's
not
and
then
I
guess
foremost
in
terms
of
this
first
pointed
line
how
the
owner
may
have
brought
these
circumstances
upon
themselves.
H
H
They
were
aware
that
a
variance
for
that
location
would
be
required
in
about
the
june
2020
timeline,
and
I
think
that
variance
was
never
actually
requested,
even
though
the
transformer
was
obviously
placed
there
until
an
inspector
from
the
city
on
whatever
is
the
rounds
that
they
tend
to
perform,
went
out
and
identified
that
it's
in
a
problematic
location,
so
they
they
were
informed
by
the
city
that
that
proposed
location
was
unacceptable
and
required
of
variance
and
they
never
sought
one.
H
So
that's
my
my
first
point
again
following
along
in
the
recommendation
analysis.
The
second
point
is,
with
regard
to
injurious
use
and
injurious
loss
of
enjoyment
with
regard
to
injurious
use,
the
doors
on
that
transformer
open
to
the
north.
That
is,
they
open
towards
our
property
and
in
fact,
they
open
onto
our
property,
which
implies
that
any
maintenance
that
needs
to
happen
on
that
transformer
by
presumably
excel
personnel.
H
H
I
I
suspect
that
the
location
of
that
transformer
as
it
stands,
if
it
doesn't
outright,
impair
our
ability
to
expand
our
garages
to
within
one
foot
of
our
southern
lot
line
if
it
doesn't,
if
it
doesn't
impair
that
it
certainly
impairs
our
ability
to
apply
for
a
future
variant
where
we
might
expand
those
garages
all
the
way
to
the
southern
lawn
line,
and
that
is
already
taking
into
account
that
the
current
location
may
be
a
violation
anyway
with
respect
to
the
proximity
of
those
garages.
But
what
more?
H
As
for
possible
risk
to
health
and
safety
again
in
the
discussion
with
the
excel
representative,
the
garage
doors
on
our
garage
stalls
could
be
construed,
he's
not
on
record
suggesting
that
this
is
a
certainty,
but
he
said
that
the
standards
group
may
construe
those
doors
as
egress,
in
which
case
there's
an
absolute
clear,
undeniable
violation
with
respect
to
current
to
proximity
to
the
current
location
of
that
transformer.
H
So
indeed
the
standards
group
may
conclude
that
maybe
they're
egress,
but
maybe
it
isn't
frequent
enough
or
often
enough,
that
a
transformer
fire
warrants
moving
it.
But
I
suggest
that
that
is
a
suggests
that
that's
a
fact
of
the
point
that
needs
to
be
verified
because
again
the
excel
representative
suggested
to
me.
They
may
consider
that
it's
eager
and-
and
you
can
imagine
a
scenario,
however,
unlikely
where
someone's
in
that
garage
and
a
transformer
fire
starts
and
the
issues
that
could
ensue
from
that
final,
you
know
sort
of
big
picture
point.
H
H
H
So
I'm
just
I'll
just
wrap
it
up
by
saying
that,
in
june
of
2019
ownership
of
that
development
lyndon,
flatts
stood
before
this
group
and
presented
to
this
group
that
people
outside
of
the
city
are
seeking
to
live
in
the
city
and
therefore
the
commission
should
approve
the
construction
of
linden
flats.
H
Well,
people's
desire
to
live
in
the
city
is
true
for
our
building
as
well,
and
the
current
location
of
that
transformer
could
compromise
the
quality
of
that
experience
with
regards
to
our
desire
to
expand
and
may
even
compromise
safety
under
certain
circumstances
pending,
you
know,
if
not,
if
not
if
we
can't
conclude
that
on
our
own,
certainly
pending
input
from
excel
the
conclusion
of
that
planning,
commission
meeting
was
enthusiastic
and
I
use
that
word
intentionally
enthusiastic
approval
for
this
project
on
the
basis
that,
unlike
many
that
come
before
you,
it
required
not
a
single
variant.
H
And
yet
here
we
are
today
looking
for
a
variance
for
that
project,
and
maybe
it
was
noble
at
the
time
that
the
project
was
presented
before
you
excel
is
on
record
saying.
Certainly
it's
noble.
The
design
criteria
are
published
openly
to
the
public,
so
you
know
the
suggestion
that
there's
a
bait
and
switch
with
excel
here,
just
wrangles
a
little
bit
given
how
enthusiastic
the
commissioners
were
previously
for
a
construction
project
that
did
not
at
the
time
allegedly
require
variance
so
I'll
I'll
pause
there.
Maybe
there
are
questions
or
follow-ups
to
that
input.
B
Yeah,
I
actually
want
to
ask:
maybe
it
might
be
better
if
you
continue
and
finish
your
comments
so
that
we
can
follow
up
on
all
of
it
at
once.
Actually
is
there
any
additional
comments
that
you
want
to
make.
H
B
That
okay
great
well!
Thank
you
so
much
for
that
comment.
Before
we
jump
into
the
questions,
I
do
want
to
make
sure
that
there
isn't
anyone
else
on
in
the
queue
for
the
public
hearing.
We
don't
have
any
additional
registered
speakers.
I
was
informed
that
the
applicant
has
been
trying
to
join
the
meeting
but
has
been
unsuccessful
to
this
point,
but
sorry
did.
M
B
M
Yeah,
I
believe,
yeah.
I
believe
that
we've
been
unmuted
at
this
point.
This
is
pete's
only
at
college.
B
M
Yeah
absolutely
my
apologies.
We
had
some
technical
difficulties,
p
kelly
college
architects
representing
the
applicant.
You
know
we
met
with
excel
when
we
started
this
project
and
we
met
with
them
out
on
site
kevin
jones.
We
had
walked
through
transformer
locations.
It
was
one
of
the
first
things
that
the
contractor
did.
They
told
us
at
the
time
it
was
pad
mounted.
M
We
went
through
the
process.
We
did
the
initial
application
with
the
expectation
that
that
was
going
to
be
a
pad
mounted
transformer.
So,
regardless
of
publications
that
are
out
there,
I'm
sorry
pull
mounted
not
pad
mounted
pole
mounted
transformer.
M
We
went
through
the
process
with
the
expectation
that
xl
would
actually
do
what
we
had
met
on
site
to
do
during
that
process.
However,
that
changed,
and
so
when
they
got
out
there,
whoever
was
in
the
site
versus
whoever
was
initially
meeting
with
us,
changed
those
parameters
after
this
was
under
construction.
After
the
we
had
gone
through
the
variant,
so
that
is
really
the
reason
for
the
second
application.
We
don't
necessarily
have
a
lot
of
control
over
what
excel
can
do
or
not.
M
That
was
in
consultation
with
excel
and
the
contractor
to
put
it
in
the
location
that
it
was
at
at
the
closest
proximity
we
believe
could
go
to
the
building,
so
that
is
where
the
where
it
was
cited,
and
so
as
far
as
some
of
the
other
dimensional
issues,
this
was
all
done
electronically
on
the
site,
using
survey
equipment
to
actually
place
the
transformer
and
the
property
line.
So
those
are
the
numbers
we
have
from
the
survey,
crews
from
the
contractor
and
believe
that
those
are
to
be
correct.
So
I
guess
with
that.
M
You
know
we
wish
we
had
known
this
before.
We
could
have
brought
you
the
same
information
the
first
time.
However,
that's
that's
not
where
we
are,
and
that
is
unfortunate,
but
it's
also
something
that
that
really
was
not
knowable
to
us.
So
I
guess
with
that.
I
ask,
for
you
know,
request
that
you
would
approve
that
location
as
that's
kind
of
the
situation
that
we
are
in.
Thank
you.
B
Okay,
not
hearing
anyone.
I
close
the
public
hearing
now
and
I
do
want
to
ask
the
commission
if
there
are
any
discussions
or
questions
that
you
would
like
to
bring
forward.
B
I
did
ask:
I
did
have
a
question
for
staff,
I'm
hoping
that
they
can
just
make
a
clarification,
and
that
is
basically
in
terms
of
the
information
receipt
of
information
and
confirmation
of
information
on
these
applications
kimberly.
If
you
can
speak
to
that,
and
the
steps
on
that,
that
would
be
great.
Yes,.
I
I
believe
the
question
is
just
verifying
the
actual
numbers,
so,
as
the
applicant
also
just
stated
on
the
record,
a
survey
was
done
and
that
scaled
and
dimension
survey
that
was
signed
by
license
surveyor
was
provided
as
part
of
the
application
materials.
That's
what
we
base
our
information
off
of.
I
B
Great
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
I
would
like
to
ask
any
other
commissioners
who
would
like
to
bring
forward
a
question
commissioner,
ford.
E
L
Thank
you,
commissioner
ford
for
the
question.
In
this
particular
case,
we
were
measuring
the
the
zoning
inspector
identified
that
the
transformer
was
too
close
to
the
north
interior
side
property
line
and
we
did
not
have
a
door
swing
dimension,
provided
so
that
information
was
not
provided
to
staff
nor
to
the
zoning
enforcement
inspector.
L
But
the
structure
itself
is
where
we
measure
to
the
property
line.
So,
as
I
mentioned
before,
the
minimum
interior
side
yard
setback
notwithstanding
excel
separation
between
uses
and
needing
to
get
access
is
five
feet.
So
they're
2.3
feet
short.
E
But
what
thank
you
but,
as
I
understand
that
that
when
there's
a
variance,
then
the
inspector
will
go
out
and
later
on
and
recheck
various
items
is
that
correct.
L
If
the
variance
is
approved-
and
there
are
conditions
of
approval
attached
to
such
a
variance
request
or
any
land
use
application,
they're
verifying
the
location
is
accurate
and
the
conditions
were
out
here
too.
E
So
what
I'm
getting
at,
thank
you
is
is
the
assertion
by
mr
murphy
that,
notwithstanding
the
the
dimensions
that
the
doors
of
the
transformer
will
open
into
his
property
and
potentially
the
injury,
his
use
of
the
property?
Does
that
get
checked
anywhere
along
the
line
or
or
not?.
I
Commissioner
iv,
in
this
case,
the
door
would
be
treated
as
a
fence
or
the
door.
The
gate
would
be
treated
as
a
fence,
which
is
a
permitted
encroachment
actually
on
the
property
line.
The
door
swing
is
something
that
you
could
potentially
condition
as
a
condition
of
approval.
You
could
condition
that
the
gate
that
is
screening
the
transformer
not
swing
over
the
property
line,
and
that
would
give
the
applicant
options
for
a
sliding
door
or
different
access
or
different
type
of
screening
along
the
side
of
the
transformer.
N
You
have
a
comment,
I
don't
mean
to
jump
places
here,
but
potentially
what
mr
murphy
is
arguing,
not
that
the
swing
of
the
doors
would
impede,
but
the
servicing
of
the
transformer
now
the
transformer.
Typically
on
the
service
side,
they
want
10
feet
clear
on
all
side
of
that.
If
they
are
what
they
call
hot
sticking
the
transformer,
if
they
are
not
hot
sticking,
the
transformer
that
can
be
reduced
to
5
feet.
N
Fine,
but
this
thing
has
to
end
the
that's
the
business
side
of
a
transformer,
that's
the
dangerous
part,
and
so
I
would
think
it
would
be
a
reasonable
expectation
that
my
neighbor
is
not
going
to
create
a
situation
where
I
potentially
have
a
problem.
When
this
thing
gets
serviced
and
that
would
be
about
you
know,
can
are
the
doors
can
they
face
a
public
way?
Is
there
another
place
to
so?
It's
not
just
the
location
of
the
thing.
It's
this
sort
of
service
segment
that
I
think
would
need
to
be
considered.
E
Well,
I'm
inclined
to
make
the
motion
that
kimberly
suggested
about
adding
a
condition
to
this,
but
I'm
interested
interested
to
know.
If,
if
I
am
well,
I
mean
I,
I
guess
I
will
make
that
I
make
the
most.
G
B
Okay,
okay,
perfect
I'll,
come
back
to
you,
commissioner
marwa
and
then
commissioner
mcguire.
O
Yeah
hi,
I
my
question,
I
guess
is
for
for
staff,
but
you
know
when
this
was
deemed
that
it
couldn't
be
pull
mounted
and
had
to
be
on
the
ground.
This
is
a
new
construction
project.
Why
did
the
plans
just
not
change
from
an
architectural
standpoint
to
accommodate
this
transformer?
So
it's
not
only
2.7
feet
away.
I
mean
I
understand
if
it
was
like
some
super
special
project
that
you
know
that
it
wouldn't
be
impossible,
but
it
seems
like
it's.
It's
a
new
construction
new,
build
project.
Why
weren't?
Just?
L
B
If,
if
the
applicant
is
available,
you
can
press
r6,
unmute
yourself
and
jump
in
that
would
be
great.
M
Okay,
p
keely
the
applicant
again.
Yes,
essentially
when
we
approach
the
site
when
we
met
with
excel
when
the
contractor
met
with
excel
it
was
a
pole
mounted
transformer.
M
We
went
with
that
piece
of
information
that
we
could
do
all
this
all
the
pull
mount,
which
meant
no
variance,
was
needed,
meant
that
any
service
was
existing
as
normal
all
of
those
items.
That
is
what
has
changed
and
we
really
have
no
control
over
what
excel
will
do
or
not
do
regardless
of
publications.
M
Whatever
they
put
out,
we
still
rely
on
meeting
with
them
out
on
site
to
tell
us
the
information
we
would
not
have
gone
for.
We
don't
want
to
be
in
this
situation
either.
So
had
we
known
this
piece
of
information,
we
certainly
would
have
been
included
the
first
time
through
and
made
accommodations
for
it,
but
that's
not
the
information
that
we
were
given.
M
Well,
that's
what
we're
here
now
we
are
getting
approval.
Yes,
it
did
go
into
place,
but
during
construction
to
try
to
get
this
hooked
up
and
things
on
track.
It
was
installed
and
from
my
understanding
from
the
meeting
with
the
contractor
and
with
excel,
this
was
kind
of
the
one
place
that
it
could
go.
So
I
don't
know
if
service
ability
was
actually
discussed
at
that
time.
I
would
have
to
you
know:
I'd
have
to
look
further
into
that
fact.
M
But
that's
again
we
were
kind
of
told
that
this
is
the
place
that
it
needs
to
happen
so
and
then,
once
we
found
that
out,
yes,
it
was
installed
and
that's
partly
getting
excel
in
sight
is
problematic,
getting
them
performing
that
work
in
a
time
frame
that
actually
worked
with
the
rest
of
the
building.
Once
we
did
that
we
started
the
process
to
go
through
and
get
a
new
survey
and
to
go
through
the
variance
application,
which
is
where
we're
here
now.
B
B
Okay
before
commissioner
baxley?
Are
you
are
you
good?
Did
you
make
the
comment
that
you
want
to
make?
I
didn't
mean
to
skip
over
you.
N
No,
I
I
think
I
it's
really
about.
N
Making
sure
we
create
a
safe
situation
here
for
both
parties
and
the
public,
and
it
appears
that
we
have
a
condition
here.
That
may
not
be
the
case,
so
that's
that's
all
I'm
interested
in
and
I
think
for
for
pete
and
collage.
You
know
rethinking
when
we
had
the
information
you
know
probably
totally
understand.
The
momentum
of
a
construction
site
and
scheduling
excel
is
challenging.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Mcguire.
J
So
I
mean
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things
it's
two
feet
which
I
I
don't
think
is
a
huge
deal,
but
can
we
just
turn
it
around
like?
It
doesn't
really
make
sense
that
the
doors
are
facing
the
north
side
and
then
putting
shrubs
along
the
north
side,
because
then
the
shrubs
are
just
gonna
block
the
doors.
J
J
H
H
Yeah,
I
mean
just
a
couple
thoughts
on
things
that
I've
heard
I
mean.
First
of
all,
it
feels
disingenuous
to
me
for-
and
I
and
I'm
sensing
from
some
of
the
commissioners
that
maybe
this
is
a
similar
sentiment
for
collage,
to
come
and
and
by
the
way
for
the
owner,
not
to
even
be
here
on
this
call,
but
for
collage
to
come
forth
and
say
excel.
Did
a
bait
and
switch
there's
really
nothing.
We
could
do
about
it.
H
I'm
telling
you
the
excel
representative
that
I
spoke
with
with
who
deals
with
this
stuff
on
a
daily
basis,
says
one.
This
happens
all
the
time,
because
people
are
maximizing
lot,
space
and
two
that
information
is
knowable
by
way
of
their
published
guidelines
to
any
architect.
That
cares
to
go
out
and
look
at
it.
So
what
I
heard
was
that
there's
verbal
evidence
there's
there
was
a
verbal
discussion
of
a
pole
mounted
transformer
that
later
was
converted
to
a
pad
mounted,
but
I've
seen
no
evidence
as
for
flipping
it
around.
H
The
same
is
true
of
our
property
and
and
after
the
fact,
disingenuous
coming
before
this
commission
to
seek
approval
for
a
variance
does
not
do
justice
to
the
injury
that
will
be
done
to
our
property.
If
this
is
approved,
I
feel
very
strongly
that
there
are
any
number
of
reasons
by
way
of
the
information
that
I've
provided
today,
that
this
should
be
denied.
B
Thank
you
for
your
comment.
I
do
want
to
go
back
to
the
applicant.
I
do
also
want
to
say
that
it
is
pretty
pretty
normal
for
architects
to
represent
the
applicant
so
because
they
can
provide
the
most
amount
of
information.
So
if
there
is
anything
that
the
applicant
would
like
to
add
to
that,
because
I
know
the
commissioner
maguire
had
a
question
about
rotating
the
the
direction,
if
at
all
possible,.
M
I
I
don't
know
if
those
transformers
can
be
reversed
or
not,
and
so
I
mean,
if
they're,
if
there's
some
kind
of
condition
about
you
know
serviceability
on
adjacent
property,
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
so
I
think,
as
commissioner
backley
said,
there's
there's
two
parts
of
this
one
is
you
know
the
location
of
the
pad?
The
second
one
is
the
serviceability.
M
So
truthfully
I
don't
know
what
rights
xl
has
or
does
not
have
servicing
equipment,
and
I
don't
know
the
ability
to
switch
that
transformer,
but
it's
possible
that
there
could
be
a
condition
put
on
it
about
how
this
can
be
serviced.
So
it's
not
interest.
We
would
not
want
it
injurious
to
a
neighboring
property
either.
M
So
I
guess
I
really
don't
know
that
answer,
but
it's
something
that
could
be
found
out
relatively
simply
and
then,
as
far
as
being
disingenuous,
it's
you
know,
I'm
you
know
certainly
do
take
offense
with
that,
but
I'm
not
gonna
go
anywhere
with
it.
So
we
tried
to
present
all
the
information
that
we
couldn't
be
as
forthcoming.
So.
B
Yes,
thank
you,
commissioner
mcguire.
Did
that
satisfy
your
question?
Do
you
want
to
add
something
to
that.
J
No,
I
don't
really
have
anything
to
add.
It
sounds
like
there's
a
third
party
of
this
excel
kind
of
entity
that
is
beyond
the
government's
control
that
nobody
really
knows
how
to
get
a
hold
of,
and
we
need
power.
So,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I
I
don't
want
people's
power
to
get
shut
off,
so
I
would
recommend
that
we
exhaust
all
options
to
make
it
the
best
for
the
neighbor
to
the
north.
N
Thank
you
manager.
I
think
that
I
think
there
is
a
solution
to
this
issue,
and
so
I
I
think
I
would
like
to
recommend
that
we
take
this
back
to
the
applicant
and
work
through
both
with
excel
and
the
neighbor
there's
a
solution.
Here,
that's
not
going
to
be
interest
to
mr
murphy
that
services,
the
transformer
in
a
correct
way
we're
just
we
don't
have
it
in
front
of
us
right
now.
B
I
know
you're
heading
towards
some
kind
of
a
motion,
and
I
know
that
commissioner
ford
also
wanted
to
make
a
motion.
I
do
want
to
bring
us
back
to
the
motion
that
is
currently
in
front
of
us,
though,
and
that
is
about
the
interior
side
yard
setback,
as
opposed
to
any
additional
pieces
of
you
know
like
we
can
still
put
conditions
on
additional
steps,
but
doesn't
necessarily
impact
the
one
that
is
right
in
front
of
us.
E
Maybe,
commissioner,
thank
you
along
the
that
commission
of
actually
his
comments.
I
do
think
there
are
a
bunch
of
questions
here
that
I
I
can't
resolve
today.
I
don't
know
what
the
whether
or
not
it
can
be
moved
around
or
with
with
some
ease
and
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
questions.
I
can't
answer
today.
I
think
it
is
appropriate
to
continue
this
to
the
next
meeting
and
encourage
all
the
parties
to
at
least
provide
us
with
solid
information
and
hopefully
with
a
solution.
B
B
I
would
okay,
commissioner
olsen:
do
you
have
a
comment.
P
P
Go
ahead,
I
guess
I
would
just
be
more
inclined
to
make
a
motion,
I'm
not
making
a
motion,
but
I'm
just
saying
a
motion
to
approve,
with
a
condition
that
you
know,
staff
and
the
applicant
would
work
together
to
ensure
that
the.
Q
I
would
just
second
those
comments,
and
I
would
second
emotion
to
that
extent,
so
I'll
vote
no
on
this
one,
and
then
I
would
if
it.
If
this
carry
motion
on
the
floor
fails
then
I
would
vote
in
favor
of
that
alternative.
E
I'd
like
to
remember
yeah,
I
I'm
just
not
comfortable,
but
I
know
enough
that
the
issue
is
simply
the
direction
of
the
of
the
the
box
or
or
or
where
the
vegetation
is,
and
I
just
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
let
it
you
know,
wait
one
two
one
cycle
and
to
hear
back
and
and
presumably
if
the
parties
are
smart,
they
will
work
with
staff,
but
I'm
not
prepared
yet
to
accept.
I
don't
know
what
conditions
to
even
attach
right
now.
N
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
commissioner
ford.
I
echo
those
comments
not
wanting
to
agree
to
something
that
potentially
a
solution
without
variances
is
possible.
So
again,
I
support
moving
this
to
the
next
cycle.
B
B
Thank
you.
I
I
would
make
a
comment
myself
that
I
am
not
sure
whether
or
not
moving
this
one
cycle
would
fix
anything,
because
if
there
was
another
solution
it
would
have
been
before
us
and
I
don't
think
anyone
moves
for
variance
as
the
first
resort.
N
Thank
you,
man,
I'm
sure,
potentially,
but
the
cycle
of
how
this
happened
maybe
flies
in
the
face
of
that
a
bit
I
will
say,
I
think
this
brings
up
just
sort
of
editorializing
here
a
little
bit.
The
pressure
to
create
density
and
provide
power
and
service
is
a
really
interesting
one,
and
you
can
see
how
it
manifests
itself
here
on
this
lot,
where
potentially
not
located
correctly
transformer
and
the
service
requirements
affect
the
one's
ability
to
create
the
density
that
we
desire.
N
So
I
do
think
it's
a
it's.
Other
cities
have
wrestled
with
this
in
terms
of
being
on
the
public
way
to
access
transformers
or
otherwise
to
try
to
not
have
that
be
an
impingement
on
getting
you
know,
really
appropriate
numbers
of
units.
So
just
a
sort
of
general
comment
about
these
things
go
hand
in
hand.
We
want
the
density
and
we
also
want
a
safe
environment
with
power
requirements,
and
they
require
careful
planning
to
do
so.
So
thank
you.
B
B
Okay,
not
seeing
anything
emotion
has
been
made.
The
motion
is
to
table
this
item
or
continue
it
to
the
next
cycle
so
to
the
next
meeting
of
the
commission,
which
would
be
on
gosh
october
4th
with
no
discussion,
I
asked
the
clerk
to
please
call
the
role
on
that
motion.
F
C
C
Thank
you
very
much,
commissioner
marwah
hi,
mr
mcguire,
nay,.
Q
B
Thank
you
that
motion
fails,
and
so
this
will
not
be
continued.
I
think
was
it.
Someone
else
wanted
to
make
a
motion
on
this,
potentially
with
additional
conditions.
Commissioner
olsen.
B
Thank
you
motion
has
been
made
well
actually
connection.
H
Hi,
I'm
sorry
this
is
chris
murray.
Can
I
ask
her
again
if
this
isn't
appropriate?
Let
me
know,
but
can
I
ask
for
clarification
on
that
condition,
because
if
the
condition
is
truly
to
be
interpreted
literally
as
it
was
shared,
I
do
not
approve
of
people
on
my
property
to
maintain
that
transformer
and
therefore
that
condition
is
unachievable.
B
Thank
you
for
the
comment
that
you
made,
but
the
public
hearing
is
closed.
However,
if,
if
needed,
we
can
try
to
clarify
the
condition,
it
is
left
to
some
extent
for
interpretation,
but
at
the
same
time
I
would
look
for
stat
to
staff
for
any
additional
language
that
can
potentially
clarify
that.
But
let
me
ask
steph:
yes,
go
ahead,
kimberly
before.
I
As
long
as
it
still
meets
commissioner
olson's
intent,
perhaps
you
could
add
some
language,
so
the
condition
would
be
that
the
applicant
shall
work
with
staff
to
ensure
that
the
transformer
can
be
safely
accessed
without
encroaching
on
the
neighboring
property.
B
P
Yes,
I
will
accept
kimberly's
modification
to
the
language.
B
Thank
you
for
that.
So
emotion
has
been
made.
I'm
actually
gonna.
Ask
commissioner
mcguire.
Did
you
want
a
second,
or
did
you
have
this
different
different
motion?
Otherwise
I
will
go
to
commission
meyer.
I
will
second
it.
Okay,
great
motion
has
been
made
and
seconded
now.
Is
there
any
discussion
on
this
item
on
this
motion
again?
This
is
a
the
same
motion.
That's
on
the
agenda
plus
an
additional
condition
for
further
work
with
between
staff
and
the
applicant
to
ensure
safe
service,
with
no
encroachment.
F
G
F
B
Right,
thank
you.
That
motion
passes
with
the
additional
condition
now
moving
on
to
the
next
item
on
the
agenda,
and
that
is
item
number
seven
11
12,
16th
avenue,
south
east
and
staff
is
mailing
smith.
R
R
So
the
lot
itself
is
on
the
corner
of
the
southeast
corner
of
the
intersection,
and
the
lot
is
9497
square
feet
in
size.
There
are
industrial
uses
and
commercial
uses
to
the
north.
The
house
on
which
it's
located
is
primarily
single-family
homes
that
maintain
a
fairly
consistent
setback
along
that
side.
R
R
The
and
I'll
go
to
the
next
slide.
Please,
and
so
the
applications
that
are
required
are
rezoning
from
r1a
to
r5.
Staff
is
recommending
approval
of
that
rezoning,
a
variance
to
reduce
the
front
yard
requirement
from
26
feet,
1
inch
to
20
feet,
8
inches.
We
are
recommending
a
denial
of
that
variance
and
then
site
plan
review
for
multiple
family
drilling
with
ford
four
units.
R
Next
slide,
please
so
here's
the
site
plan
provided
by
the
applicant
it
is
not
the
site
is
not
adjacent
to
an
alley,
so
they
are
providing
a
new
curb
cut
or
they're
moving
a
curb
cut
on
the
site
to
the
south
end,
and
then
that
would
lead
to
a
parking
area
with
six
parking
spaces.
R
R
So,
as
I
mentioned,
the
variance
that
is
in
question
would
be
for
the
building
wall
to
be
located
six
feet
closer
than
the
required
setback.
R
Next
slide,
please,
and
so
just
to
go
over
some
of
the
findings
that
we're
considering
the
first
one
is
that
practical
difficulties
must
exist
in
complying
with
the
ordinance
because
of
circumstances
unique
to
the
property
not
created
by
the
applicant
and
they're,
not
based
on
economic
considerations
alone.
Staff
does
not
find
that
a
practical
difficulty
exists.
R
The
site
is
9497
square
feet
in
size.
We
believe
that
the
variance
conditions
have
been
created
by
the
applicant,
the
unit
size,
the
layout
of
the
units
and
the
parking
area
could
all
be
redesigned
or
modified
in
a
way
to
accommodate
the
six
foot.
Five
inch
setback
difference
next
slide,
please
and
then
the
second
finding
is
related
to
whether
it's
a
reasonable
use.
R
R
It
could
vary
a
little
bit,
but
this
would
be
set
in
front
of
that
line,
and
so
the
the
reason
that
the
ordinance
is
worded
as
such
is
to
maintain
orderly
development,
and
we
find
that
locating
the
building
closer
than
the
26
to
the
26
foot
setback
would
not
be
in
keeping
with
the
sphere
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
and
I'll
just
we
can
click
through
the
next
slides.
Please,
and
these
are
the
elevations
this
is
face.
R
This
is
the
front
elevation
facing
16th
next
side,
please
facing
hennepin
avenue
next
slide,
and
then
this
is
another
side
elevation.
I
think
this
is
facing
the
on-site
parking
and
then
the
next
slide
that's
facing
the
driveway
and
I'll
end
there
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you.
B
Okay,
not
seeing
anything
before,
okay,
we,
I
guess
we'll
just
go
to
the
public
hearing
we
do
have
okay
hold
on.
I
am
now
officially
opening
the
public
hearing
on
this
item
and
we
have
william
wealth
who's.
The
applicant,
if
you
are
on
the
line,
if
you
can
please
unmute
yourself
and
speak
any
additional
to
any
additional
comments
that
you
have
on.
This
would
be
great.
B
S
Well,
I
am
the
architect
and
I
work
with
the
miles
group
on
this
project.
I
do
have
a
presentation
that
I
would
like
to
show
to
the
planning
commission.
We
have
five
slides
prepared
that
I
would
ask
the
clerk
to
pull
up,
so
we
could
just
go
through
some
site
photos
and
go
through
the
site
plan
to
discuss
this
project.
S
Perfect,
thank
you.
So
what
I'd
like
to
point
out
is
the
what
you're,
seeing
in
the
photo
on
page
one
of
five
slides
you're,
seeing
the
existing
house
to
the
south
of
the
property?
That's
in
red,
you
can
see
a
almost
a
fully
enclosed
porch
and
then
our
site
is
that
blue
house.
That's
just
to
the
north,
and
the
house
currently
on
site
is
a
single
family
home
with
some
very
serious
soil
conditions
on
site
that
are
very
bad
soils
and
the
house
is
really
leaning
and
sort
of
beyond
repair.
S
S
So
that's
what
we're
proposing
tonight
and
I
wanted
to
just
point
out
briefly
that
the
setback
existing
setback
on
the
house-
you
can
see
right
now
that
the
front
porches
of
these
two
houses
almost
line
up
perfectly.
There's
a
20
foot,
eight
setback
right
now
to
our
property
and
there's
21
one
to
the
front
porch
right
now.
So
it
lines
up
as
you
go
down
the
street,
it's
important
to
sort
of
keep
in
mind
the
sort
of
existing
context.
S
That's
out
there
on
site
when,
when
we
go
through
these
this
project
tonight,
I'd
like
to
look
at
just
slide
two,
please
that
is
a
a
rendering
of
what
we
are
proposing
to
do
on
site.
You
can
see
the
house
in
white
the
the
four
unit
development
that
we're
proposing
black
windows,
barn
wood
around
the
entrances,
really
nice
roof.
It's
a
really
significant
improvement
over
what's
currently
on
site
and
a
really
nice
upgrade
two
unit.
Space
16th
and
two
units
will
face
hennepin
avenue.
So
it's
really.
S
This
project
maintains
a
residential
scale
with
a
pitched
roof,
so
it
fits
in
nicely
to
the
neighborhood
and
then
also
addresses
hennepin
avenue,
which
is
really
sort
of
quite
nice.
If
you
look
at
the
next
slide,
which
would
be
page
three
of
the
applicant
slides-
and
it
says
this
is
what
the
applicant
wants-
we
are
proposing.
S
20
20
foot
eight
inch
step
back
to
the
house
and
then
194
to
the
front
porches,
and
you
can
see
that
the
existing
front
porch
to
the
south
that
neighbor
once
again
is
about
21
feet,
so
we're
trying
to
line
up
with
that,
but
we're
also
trying
to
deal
with
maximize
the
amount
of
off-street
parking
behind
the
building,
because
these
are
townhomes.
We
want
to
attract
really
good
tenants.
S
S
They
told
me
to
maximize
the
austria
parking.
That
was
the
direction
I
received
from
the
neighbors
the
neighborhood
group
telling
me
they
didn't
want
parking
on
the
street
maximize
off
street
parking.
That
is
what
we
were
doing
here:
keep
the
cars
off
the
street
maximize
the
parking.
So
this
is
what
we
are
proposing
to
do
tonight.
S
The
applicant
does
have
a
hardship,
we
have
no
alley
and
we
have
no
parking
allowed
on
hennepin
avenue,
and
we
have
a
very
strange
irregular
shaped
lot.
So
we
do
have
some
hardships
and
context
matters.
I
would
also
ask
the
planning
commission
to
keep
in
mind
where
this
is.
There
is
nothing
walkable
from
this
site
where
it
is,
you
can't
walk
to
the
grocery
store.
You
can't
walk
downtown
where
this
is
there's
nothing
walkable.
These
families
are
going
to
have
cars.
S
S
If
you
look
at
this
two
things,
I
wanted
to
point
out
and
I'm
on
page
four
right
now,
the
slides
we
would
have
to
go
down
to
three
parking
spaces,
and
this
is
what
it
says
in
the
staff
report.
It
says,
rotate
the
parking.
This
is
what
it
looks
like.
We
get
three
parking
spaces
with
four
units:
that's
not
good
and
then,
if
you
look
at
the
front
yard,
look
at
how
the
building
would
be
behind
the
other
buildings
on
the
street.
S
So
from
the
front
porch
right
now
is
21
feet
to
the
neighbor's
front,
porch.
Well,
that
would
put
our
front
porch
at
24
feet.
If
we
did
what
zoning
staff
want,
the
porches
won't
line
up.
We
think
that
that's
going
to
look
very
strange,
very
strange
as
you
drive
down
the
street
and
then
this
parcel
the
porsche
doesn't
line
up
with
this
project
versus
all
the
other
portraits
on
the
street,
but
there's
a
design
issue
here
with
the
porches
and
then
there's
a
design
issue
with
the
parking.
S
So
the
applicant
just
doesn't
agree
with
what
zone
staff
wants,
and
we
appreciate
the
planning
commissioner's
time
to
look
at
this
and
talk
to
us
about
this,
maybe
come
up
with
something
based
on
the
information
that
I've
received.
This
is
my
final
slide.
I
would
like
to
propose
a
compromise
to
all
the
parties.
S
This
is
I'm
on
slide
number
five
right
now.
This
is
a
site
plan.
Nobody's
ever
seen
this
site
plan
to
be
fair
with
sony
staff.
They've
never
seen
this.
Maybe
what
we
do
is
we.
We
focus
on
aligning
the
front
porches,
I'm
on
the
page,
five,
the
last
slide
right
now.
You
just
focus
on
aligning
the
front
porches,
which
would
put
us
at
a
23
foot.
Setback
in
the
front
yard
get
the
front
porches
through
a
line
and
then
do
four
parking
spaces
behind
the
building.
S
S
I
still
don't
think
this
is
enough
parking,
but
we
could
probably
make
this
work
on
the
site
and
still
make
it
look
good.
So
I
think
this
will
probably
work
for
everybody
as
a
good
compromise.
S
One
of
the
questions
I
did
have
for
staff,
as
I
don't
understand
their
condition
of
approval
number
five,
their
condition
of
approval
regarding
the
curbs
they
say
condition
5
says
discontinuous
curbing
and
then
it
says
or
continuous
curving.
That's
confusing.
We
don't
understand
that
so
could
zonia
staff
please
address
condition
five
approval
condition.
Five,
and
could
we
have
some
discussion
about
the
site
plan?
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you
for
your
comment.
I
will
come
back
to
staff
for
that
clarification,
but
before
I
do
that
we're
going
to
ask
the
commissioners
for
questions
and
yet
before
I
do
that,
I'm
going
to
actually
hand
off
the
rest
of
the
chairing
of
the
rest
of
this
meeting
to
vice
president
olsen.
P
All
right,
commissioner
smiley,
the
public
hearing
is
open,
correct.
B
Yes,
it's
open.
Okay,.
B
There
are
no
there's,
no
one.
P
P
P
G
P
I
will
close
the
public
hearing,
so
that
is
all
of
our
speakers.
N
Thank
you,
commissioner.
This
is
a
question
for
maylie.
How
do
we
just
kind
of
looking
at
the
aerial
of
this
block,
certainly
understanding
the
pattern
of
orderly
development,
but
there
appear
to
be
several
houses
south
of
the
block
that
do
not
comply
with
that
requirement
that
they
are
sitting
proud
of
the
sort
of
massing
of
other
buildings.
How
does
staff
sort
of
evaluate?
Is
it
only
neighbors
or
do
we
you
know?
Is
it
the
the
general
sense
here?
It's
it's.
It
appears
to
be
a
bit
of
a
gray
area.
There
yeah.
R
Commissioner,
baxley
is
a
good
question:
it
is
kind
of
a
gray
area,
but
the
way
that
the
exact
setback
is
determined
is
just
by
the
neighboring
building
to
the
south
and
measuring
that
to
the
building
not
to
the
unclosed
porch.
If
the
porsche
were
actually
enclosed,
then
it
would
be
a
shorter
setback,
distance
requirement
kind
of
referring
to
what
was
shown.
Mr
walls
was
showing
with
the
the
image
with
the
the
porch
and
the
distance
to
that,
so
we're
just.
R
We
are
really
just
looking
at
that
to
determine
what
the
exact
setback
variance
number
is,
but
then
we're
looking
at
the
character
of
the
area
and
the
site
itself
had
or
currently
has
a
building
on
it.
That's
set
back
26.3
feet.
R
N
Great,
thank
you
yeah.
I
mean
it
is,
there's
some
consistency,
but
I
think
the
there
are
several
that
take
that
porch
position
even
on
two
stories
and
pull
it
all
the
way
forward.
A
kind
of
mid-block,
even
the
last
building
on
the
block
before
talmadge
seems
to
sit
quite
proud
of
that.
N
E
Thank
you,
I'm
trying
to
find
the
in
the
in
the
staff
report.
The
gentleman
the
applicant
talked
about
the
being
confused
by
by
the
curbs
language
and
I'm
trying
to
find
it
in
here
and
I
can't
find
it
so
could
staff
perhaps
help
me
get
to
it.
R
Ford,
so
the
the
wording
of
that
is
found
on
page
14.,
it's
just
the
last
page
of
the
staff
report
and
it's
in
reference
to
page
8
of
the
staff
report
under
concrete
curbs
and
wheel
stops.
If
this
is
just
a
standard,
cyclone
review
requirement
we
didn't
have.
R
Sometimes
we
do
receive
detail
in
advance
about
the
curb
design
and
just
like
how
stormwater
is
going
to
be
managed
on
the
site,
and
so
we
would
just
ask
that
in
the
final
plans
that
they're
specifying
how
some
of
the
curbing
is
going
to
address
onsite
infiltration.
R
So
it
doesn't
have
to
be
you
know
it
doesn't
have
to
meet
really
the
exact
wording.
I
would
say
of
that,
but
it
would
have
to
meet
the
overall
intent
of
trying
to
to
not
just
wash
it
into
the
street.
E
F
Q
Q
J
I
tend
to
agree
with
commissioner
meyer
on
that
point
and
would
be
inclined
to
grant
the
variance
for
the
setback
and
then
approve
the
site
plan
as
well,
so
I'd
be
supportive
of
either
the
original
condition
or
the
compromise
scenario.
Thanks.
E
S
E
I
I'm
sure
in
fact
the
the
letter
from
southeast
como
southeast
minneapolis
says
that
we
feel
that
the
two
additional
parking
spaces
provided
in
the
variance
requests
are
insufficient
to
significantly
address
these
issues.
Q
I
will
begin
by
moving
approval
of
items
a
and
c
with
all
stated
conditions
consistent
with
staff
recommendation.
So
that's
you
know
the
two
that
staff
are
recommending.
P
P
All
right
will
the
clerk.
Please
call
the
roll.
F
Q
Sorry,
approval
of
item
b
to
approve
the
variance
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
requirement
from
26
feet.
1
inch
to
20
feet,
8
inches
to
allow
the
building
wall
on
the
basis
that
it
is
not
injurious
to
nearby
property
owners
consistent
with
the
2040
plan
and
that
they
have
the
practical
difficulty
of
not
having
an
alley
and
no
parking
access
on
end
of
an
avenue.
B
K
E
F
J
J
I
don't
have
the
exact
measurement
for
the
same
reasons
as
previously
recommended,
because
there's
no
parking
in
front
there's
no
alley
in
the
back
and
the
letters
from
the
neighborhood
were
really
concerned
about
traffic
in
the
area,
so
a
finding
that
this
would
allow
additional
parking
in
the
back,
but
it
would
still
conform
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood,
as
well
as
achieving
the
city's
goals
of
creating
housing
on
site.
P
All
right,
thank
you.
Is
there
a
second
commissioner
meyer?
P
Second,
all
right,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
is
there
any
discussion?
G
E
F
P
Four
days,
all
right,
so
that
motion
also
fails.
Would
anyone
like
to
make
a
different
motion.
E
O
G
Q
P
All
right
that
motion
passes,
we
will
move
on
to
our
next
item,
which
is
item
number
10,
3128,
bryant
avenue,
south
and
staff
is
mailing
smith.
R
Hello
there
again,
so
this
one
is
located,
as
you
said,
3128
bryant
avenue,
south
right
across
from
bryant
square
park.
It's
currently
zoned
r2b
and
quarter
four,
and
it's
located
along
bryant
avenue
south,
which
is
a
goods
and
services
corridor.
Next
slide,
please,
and
here's
a
better
ariel
that
there
is
more
variation
in
the
building
type
along
this
blog
there's,
a
mix
of
low
density
and
medium
density.
Housing
next
slide,
please.
R
R
This-
and
I
should
mention
this-
was
continued
from
the
previous
planning
commission
meeting.
So
there
there.
G
R
Some
confusion
about
some
of
the
drawings,
so
everything
has
been
consolidated
now
into
one
one
in
one
design
and
then
you
can
see
on
the
rooftop.
There
is
an
outdoor
amenity
area
for
the
residents
next
slide.
Please.
R
So
the
applications
required
are
rezoning
from
r2b
to
r5,
a
variance
to
reduce
the
interior
side
yards
along
the
north
and
the
south
to
allow
for
three
ground
floor
patios
and
then
site
plan
review
for
the
new
dwelling
unit,
the
new
dwelling
with
12
units
next
slide.
Please,
we
are
recommending
denial
of
the
variance
applications
to
reduce
the
interior
side
yard
requirements.
R
We
find
that
a
practical
difficulty
does
not
exist
due
to
circumstances
unique
to
the
property.
The
ordinance
does
allow
for
ground
floor
patios
in
the
front
or
rear
of
a
property
of
this
height
and
density,
but
they
are
not
allowed
in
the
required
interior
side
yards
in
any
shape
or
form
next
side.
Please,
the
code
does
allow
for
about
these
balconies
decks
and
ground
level.
R
The
patio
along
the
north
property
line
would
be
20
20
and
a
half
feet
from
the
existing
home
to
the
north,
and
only
three
and
a
half
feet
from
the
existing
property
line.
The
patios
along
the
south
would
be
six
feet
and
three
and
a
half
feet
from
the
neighboring
garage
and
a
total
of
three
feet
from
the
property
line.
R
R
They
are
proposing
all
the
bike
parking
within
the
building.
On
the
first
floor,
there
is
a
temporary
drop-off
space
along
the
alley
side,
which
is
on
the
west
side
of
the
property,
and
that
is
a
requirement
in
our
site
plan
review
standards
and
the
applicant
has
the
rear
yard
patio,
just
the
north.
Of
that
temporary
drop
off
space.
R
You
can
see
where
the
patios
would
be
located
so
there's
one
along
the
north
and
then
two
two
along
the
south,
and
then
there
is
kind
of
like
a
larger
walkway
and
bike
parking
in
the
front
yard
area.
Next
slide
please
and
then
here's
another
colored,
rendering
and
then
close-ups
of
the
materials
that
are
proposed
and
I'll
end
there
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you.
P
All
right,
I'm
not
seeing
any
so
I
will
open
the
public
hearing.
If
there
is
someone
on
the
line
from
the
applicant
team
who
would
like
to
speak,
they
can
go
ahead
now,
press
star
6
to
unload
yourself
and
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
D
P
Sorry,
yes,
please
go
ahead.
D
Okay,
so,
as
meyling
pointed
out,
we
are
asking
for
variants
to
provide
these
side
yard
patios.
I'd
just
like
to
note.
We
had
originally
provided
two
rear
yard
patios
for
those
two
rear
units,
but
after
we
met
with
a
neighborhood
group,
they
requested
that
we
provide
more
space
for
off
of
the
alley
for
loading.
So
we
went
and
we
pushed
that
south
patio.
D
Sorry,
the
southwest
patio
down
to
the
south
side
to
accommodate
that
temporary
drop-off
zone
and
then
on
the
two
front
units
we
just
sort
of
followed
suit
and
have
a
similar
side
yard.
Patios
shown
there.
D
On
the
south
side,
the
patio
on
the
west
is
adjacent
to
the
neighbor's
garage,
so
we
felt
that
that
was
a
pretty
good
separation
there
and
wouldn't
impact
the
adjacent
neighbor
and
then
on
the
east,
southeast
patio,
we're
proposing
a
screened
and
screened
and
planted
wall
that
would
screen
that
patio
from
the
neighbor
on
the
north
side.
The
neighbor
currently
has
a
four
foot
fence
that
extends
the
entire
property
line.
D
P
All
right,
thank
you
is
there
I
see
there's
three
names
listed
as
applicants,
so
if
there's
anyone
else
from
the
applicant
team
who
would
like
to
speak,
you
could
go
ahead
now.
U
Oh
great,
okay!
Well,
I
do
jessica.
Thank
you
for
that.
I
don't
really
have
much
more
to
add
other
than
you
know,
as
a
2040
plan
has
encouraged
us
to
increase
density
in
some
of
these
neighborhoods,
our
meeting
with
the
south
upton
neighborhood
association.
U
They
had
a
concern,
as
we
increased
density
in
these
neighborhoods
that
it
would
create.
I
guess,
a
a
bit
of
sort
of
take
the
life
of
sort
of
the
interactive
sort
of
outdoor
living
of
the
tenants
and
that
they
encouraged
us
to
provide
outdoor
space,
and
I
believe
we,
the
south
upton
association,
provided
a
letter
in
support
of
approval
of
the
variants
to
provide
these
side
yards
in
this
project.
P
P
All
right
well,
thank
you
all
for
your
comments.
I'm
not
seeing
anyone
else,
so
I
will
close
the
public
hearing.
E
A
quick
question
of
staff:
I
don't
see
any
communication
from
the
neighborhood
association.
Am
I
missing
it
somewhere.
R
R
N
Thank
you
man,
I'm
sure
I
you
know,
I
think,
the
in
the
comment
of
the
side,
your
access
to
outdoor
space,
I
think,
when
you're
creating
long
linear
units,
it's
the
intention
that,
just
from
good
planning
that
you
would
put
those
outdoor
spaces
on
the
short
end
of
the
units,
not
the
long
ones,
I
think
intent
here
is
for
eyes
on
the
street.
I
get
southern
exposure.
I
do
believe
there's
a
way
to
do
that
without
incurring
this
proximity
for
neighbors,
as
the
zoning
allow.
P
Or
would
someone
like
to
commissioner
meyer.
Q
Yeah,
so
I'm
trying
to
understand
so
the
neighborhood
association
says
that
the
alley
right
away
is
narrow,
so
they
asked
them
to
change
the
original
plans,
so
there
could
be
a
bigger
drop-off
area,
but
in
the
presentation
mailing
you
said
the
drop-off
area
was
required
anyway.
So
I
just
want
clarification
on
that.
Q
R
Commissioner
meyer
excellent
question
so,
as
you
may
remember,
with
the
20
with
the
parking
ordinance
that
just
went
through
an
addendum
to
the
ordinance
went
through
also
at
the
city
council
level,
that
requires
temporary
drop-off
spaces
for
multi-family
units
with
more
than
four
units.
R
R
So
what
the
applicant
is
proposing
is
in
line
with
what
site
plan
review
standards
are
calling
for.
So
I'm
not
sure
that
the
south
uptown
neighborhood
is
asking
for
anything
above
and
beyond
what
the
zoning
code
is
actually
calling
for.
Anyway.
R
This
was
missed
in
the
original
application,
so
it
wasn't
proposed
in
the
original
application
and
unfortunately,
staff
did
miss
that
as
an
alternative
compliance
item
as
well,
because
there
was
no
temporary
drop-off
loading
space
with
the
original
september
9th
proposal.
So
that's
why
this
application
is
here
today
to
clarify
that
there
needs
to
be
a
loading
zone
if
they
don't
want
to
have
alternative
compliance
to
provide
that,
and
it
sounds
like
that's
consistent
with
what
the
neighborhood
is
also
asking
for.
But
there
is
no
specific
size
requirement
per
se.
Q
R
Thank
you
yep.
They
have
moved
their
bicycle
parking
to
the
front
of
the
building,
so
they
have
all
of
their
required
bicycle
parking
already
within
the
building,
and
that
was
already
there
in
the
original
proposal
too.
But
they've
moved
their
outdoor
bicycle
racks
to
the
front
of
the
building
and
they're
allowed
there.
P
Sorry
so
you
mean
items
a
b,
c
and
d
with
all
the
conditions.
P
Okay,
all
right,
commissioner
baxley.
P
All
right,
seeing
that
I'll
ask
the
clerk
to
please
call
the
roll.
F
C
E
C
F
P
All
right
that
motion
passes,
we
will
move
on
to
our
final
discussion
item
this
evening.
Item
number
12
and
it's
the
street
renaming
plymouth
avenue
north
between
penn
avenue,
north
and
oliver
avenue.
North
and
staff
is
matt
henan.
T
Good
evening,
vice
president
olson
and
commissioners,
my
name
is
matt
hannon
with
public
works,
transportation,
engineering
and
design.
Is
there
a
presentation
available
with
this
should
be
a
couple
of
slides
there
we
go.
Thank
you.
T
T
So
this
map
shows
the
street
segment
being
considered
for
commemorative
naming,
and
a
few
items
to
note
related
to
commemorative
street
names
include
that
commemorative
street
names
do
not
affect
the
addressing
along
the
street
segment
and,
if
approved,
a
secondary,
distinctive
sign
would
be
added
along
with
the
existing
street.
Sign
next
slide.
Please
public
works
staff
reviewed
the
application
to
determine
whether
it
complied
with
the
city's
street
naming
ordinance.
T
This
slide
highlights
the
two
criteria
that
this
proposed
naming
does
not
meet
street
renaming
or
commemorative
naming
should
not
identify
a
living
person
and
should
not
and
should
be
done.
Excuse
me,
posthumously,
to
honor
and
commemorate
noteworthy
persons
associated
with
the
city.
Excuse
me
next
slide.
Please.
T
T
P
Thank
you
for
your
presentation,
commissioner
ford.
You
have
a
question.
E
My
inclination
is
to
move
to
approve
the
naming
the
renaming
of
the
street
for
mr,
mr
copeland,
I
I
worked
with
him
on
a
number
of
city
projects,
but
I
I'm
curious
to
know
if
either
public
works
or
planning
staff
can
tell
me
what
does
what
are
the
guiding
documents
suggest
as
the
role
for
the
planning
commission?
In
this
case,
the
the
comments
I
saw
from
kimberly,
I
think
I'm
saying
it
properly
kimberly-
were
that
the
item
was
requires
a
city
council
approval
and
I
I
read
into
that.
I
So,
commissioner,
ford,
this
is
a
legislative
action,
so
it's
an
action
that
is
made
by
the
city
council
upon
recommendation
from
the
planning
commission,
and
the
planning
commission
is
where
the
public
hearing
is
held.
So
we
do
have
a
public
hearing
to
be
held
here
tonight
and
the
action
of
the
planning
commission
and
any
comments
received
during
that
public
hearing
will
be
forwarded
on
to
the
biz
committee
of
the
city
council,
for
consideration.
V
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
I
can
think
of
a
number
of
reasons
why
it's
a
good
idea
to
not
name
things
after
living
people,
and
I
suspect
that
that
is
a
rule
that
has
been
in
place
for
quite
a
long
time.
V
I
don't
know
if,
if
staff
is
able
to
tell
us
how
long
that
rule
has
been
in
place,
but
my
hunch
is
that
it's
been
in
place,
I
don't
know,
mr
copeland,
I
don't
know
anything
about
him,
I'm
sure
he's
a
lovely
person,
but
you
always
have
to
think
in
a
case
like
this.
What
precedent
are
you
setting
when
you
bend
or
drive
through
a
rule
that
is
existed
like
this
and
I
think
generally
the
thinking
on
it?
I
think
the
rule
is
same.
It's
the
same
for
stamps.
V
You
don't
name
things
after
living
people
because
their
lives
aren't
over
yet,
and
you
sort
of
don't
have
the
record
to
look
back
on
that.
You
want
to
do
that.
V
You
want
to
name
something
after
and
I
think
it's
it's
a
wonderful
tool
that
the
city
has
for
people
who
have
contributed
a
lifetime
of
you,
know,
civic
action
and
good,
and
something
like
that
when
they're
done
with
their
lives,
I
I
really
think
that
this
is
with
all
due
respect
to
mr
copeland,
not
a
good
idea,
not
a
good
place
to
change
precedent.
I
have
to
wonder.
V
Also
I
mean:
is
this
one
of
the
important
matters
at
our
city
right
now
renaming
streets
for
living
people
when
there's
clearly
precedent
and
rules
against
that?
I'm
not
sure
that
this
is
even
a
good
use
of
this
commission's
time.
Right
now,
let
alone
the
whole
city
council
to
decide
that.
So
with
all
due
respect
to
mr
copeland,
I
would
urge
other
members
to
think
about
this,
and
is
this
the
time
place
and
exception
if
an
exception
is
even
necessary
for
something
like
this.
Thank
you.
P
Thank
you
for
your
comment.
Is
there
anyone
else
in
the
commission
before
I
open?
The
public
hearing
would
like
to
comment
all
right,
I'm
not
seeing
any.
So
I
will
now
open
the
public
hearing
and
I
believe,
council
member
jeremiah
ellison
is
the
applicant.
So
if
you
would
like
to
go
ahead
and
speak
on
this
item,
you
may.
P
W
You
hello,
commissioners,
and
thank
you
for
your
time
tonight.
Like
I
mentioned,
my
name
is
danny
hans.
I'm
a
senior
policy
for
council
member
ellison,
as
was
stated
he's
the
applicant
for
the
commemorative
street
sign.
He
was
planning
to
speak
in
support
of
it
tonight.
He
stayed
on
the
call
as
long
as
he
could.
G
W
W
Thor's
impressive
work
includes
many
twin
cities,
major
sports
venues
and
their
client
list
includes
mgm
target
excel
energy.
The
minneapolis
public
housing
authority
and
the
university
of
minnesota
soar
also
achieved
major
accolades,
including
being
named
minnesota
entrepreneurial
success
of
the
year
by
the
u.s
small
business
administration.
G
W
P
All
right,
I'm
not
seeing
any
so
I'll
move
on
to
the
list
of
registered
speakers
for
this
item
and
I
believe
there
is
just
one
more
carlo
bachmann
singh.
I
hope
that's
how
to
say
your
name.
If
you're
on
the
line,
you
can
press
star
six
state,
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
then
go
ahead
with
your
comments.
P
All
right
is
there
anyone
else
on
the
line
who
was
not
a
registered
speaker
who
would
like
to
go
ahead
and
speak
now?
If
so,
you
can
press
star,
sticks,
update
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
X
Madam
chair,
we
can
hear
you,
madam
chair
yep,
go
ahead.
Okay,
my
name.
My
name
is
alfred,
babington
johnson,
and
to
you
and
the
members
of
the
planning
commission,
I
am
a
minneapolis
resident,
the
founder
and
the
ceo
of
the
stair
step
foundation
and
initiative,
and
I'm
appreciative
to
council
member
ellison
for
putting
forward
the
petition
under
consideration
today.
The
matter
you're,
considering
is
more
important
than
surface
consideration
might
reveal.
X
X
X
Regrettably,
I
think
all
of
us,
those
of
us
in
the
community
know
richard
are-
are
struggling
with
the
fact
that
he
is
living
now
with
a
sentence
that
a
doctor
gave
him
about
his
his
cancer
situation.
That
is
incurable,
but
I
asked
the
planning
commission
to
join
with
myriad
members
of
this
community
that
want
to
acknowledge
the
remarkable
contribution
that
mr
copeland
has
made
in
my
community
too.
Many
of
our
young
people
are
making
decisions
about
their
lives
and
their
prospects
that
don't
embrace
service
and
civic
accomplishment
as
part
of
their
aspiration.
X
We
want
to
mark
the
powerful
contributions
that
richard
has
made
by
acknowledging
the
richard
copeland
way.
He
is
a
mentor.
He
continues
continues
to
be
an
advocate
for
inclusion
and
economic
advance
for
people
with
the
least
access
to
the
levels
of
power.
He
took
a
huge
risk
in
building
a
landmark
and
a
takeoff
point
for
future
dreamers
and
doers.
Please
join
me
in
marking
his
spirit
and
pointing
future
generations
to
the
richard
copeland
way,
a
bold
adventurous
and
generous
spirit
willing
to
take
risk
to
move
his
people.
P
Forward,
thank
you
for
your
comments.
Is
there
anyone
else
on
the
line
who
would
like
to
make
a
comment
or
speak?
P
All
right,
I'm
not
hearing
anyone
else,
so
I'm
going
to
close
the
public
hearing.
Is
there
any
discussion
or
questions
by
the
commission
related
to
this
item?
E
Well
I'll
wait
for
discussion.
I'm
going
to
make
a
motion
to
recommend
the
the
council
renamed
the
the
the
street,
but
I'll
wait
for
any
comment.
First,.
E
The
ceo
of
stair
step,
badminton
johnson,
gave
his
his
short
story
about.
E
Mr
copeland's
contributions
to
minneapolis,
I
have
known
him.
E
I
knew
him
rather
from
when
I
worked
for
the
ncda
and
we
were
trying
to
get
projects
going
around
the
city
and
several
times
we
worked
with
mr
copeland,
particularly,
I
worked
with
him
when
on
when
I
was
on
a
team
that
was
managing
the
expansion
of
the
civic,
the
convention
center,
and
he
was
one
of
the
contractors
and
I've
known
him
to
be
a,
I
mean
he
has
been
a
both
a
a
mentor
and
a
leader
in
his
community
and
he's
particularly
been
aggressive
in
trying
to
recruit
women
and
minorities
into
the
building
trades
and
have
been
successful
at
doing
it,
and
I
think
that's
one
of
his
great
legacies
also
regarding
the
the
particular
location
between
penn
and
oliver
on
plymouth,
I'm
old
enough
to
have
been
involved
in
having
to
deal
with
well
in
in
the
late
60s.
E
E
So
and
he's
been.
Mr
copeland
has
been
a
really
really
terrific
supporter
of
minneapolis
and
its
people,
and
then
particularly
north
minneapolis,
and
I
noted
that
commission
that
mr
babington
johnson
noted
that
mr
copeland
is
not
well,
to
put
it
mildly,
and
I
think
this
represents
not
only
council
member
ellison's
desire
to
recognize
him,
but
it
is,
it
represents.
E
I
think,
the
greater
community
in
north
minneapolis
to
recognize
the
work
and
contributions
of
mr
copeland,
and
I
think
it's
it's
worth
was
you
know
worth
making
a
change
just
one
time,
at
least
to
the
existing
ordinance
to
make
make
this
permissible
possible
to
to
recognize
his
his
his
work
for
our
city.
E
So
I
I
will
make
I'll
make
the
motion
that
the
planning
commission
recommend
to
the
city
council
that
we
find
that
mr
copeland
has
been
a
leader
in
north
minneapolis
and
indeed
the
city
has
worked
on
numerous
iconic
buildings
in
minneapolis
and
has
been
instrumental
in
the
real
rebuilding
of
plymouth
and
pen
and
that,
for
those
reasons,
we
recommend
that
the
council
permit
the
naming
of
the
plymouth
avenue
between
olsen
between
penn
and.
P
All
right,
commissioners,
is
there
a
second.
O
I
second
that
I
think
in
this
instance,
the
the
north
side
person
who
spoke-
I'm
sorry.
I
forgot
his
name
made
a
good
point
that
I
think
celebrating
someone
who
has
contributed
so
much
to
that
corridor
would
be
really
well
suited.
So
I
would
second
commissioner
ford's
motion
on
that.
P
All
right,
I
believe
we
have
some
comments
and
discussion
before
we
move
to
a
vote
on
that,
but
that
so
that
is
the
motion
on
the
table
and
I'll
go
to
commissioner
mcguire.
J
I
don't
think
it's
the
right
precedent
to
set,
but
I
do
think
that
the
city
needs
to
recognize
people
for
their
hard
work
and
perhaps
there's
you
know
some
other
sort
of
award
or
something
to
recognize
him
for
all
of
his
hard
work,
because
I
do
think
recognition
is
important
but
based
on
the
policies,
I
don't
think
this
is
the
right
choice
right
now,
but
I
do
agree.
He
sounds
like
an
amazing
person,
so
I
think
some
recognition
is
should
happen.
This
just
might
not
be
the
right
time.
Thank
you.
P
Thank
you,
commissioner
meyer.
Q
Yeah,
so
I
agree
with
what
commissioner
sweesey
said
as
well.
The
staff
recommendation
was
to
forward
this
without
any
recommendation,
and
I
was
comfortable
doing
that.
You
know
either
saying
that
you're
not
saying
the
council
should
or
should
not
change
its
policy.
I
would
still
be
comfortable
doing
that,
but
I
don't
want
to
tell
the
council
that
they
should
be
attending
their
policy,
because
I
think
there
are
probably
good
reasons
for
it.
So
I'm
going
to
vote
no
on
the
motion,
but
I
would
vote
in
favor
of
the
staff
recommendation.
P
All
right
seeing
none,
I
will
ask
the
clerk
to
please
call
the
role
on
the
motion.
E
Q
C
P
All
right
so
that
motion
fails.
Commissioner
meyer,
would
you
like
to
make
another
motion.
Q
Yes,
I
moved
to
forward
without
recommendation
the
petition
to
add
the
commemorative
name
of
richard
copeland,
way
to
plymouth
avenue
north
between
ben
avenue,
north
and
oliver
alberta
north.
D
Q
Yep,
I'm
just
reading
it
straight
from
the
staff
report.
So
it's
there.
It's
the
recommended
motion
that
the
staff
put
forward,
which
reads
as
follows:
to
forward
without
recommendation
the
petition
to
add
the
commemorative
name
of.
I
think
it
repeats,
there's
a
mistake
on
there,
but
to
add
the
commemorative
name
of
richard
copeland,
way
to
plymouth
avenue
north
between
penn
avenue,
north
and
oliver
avenue
north.
P
All
right,
I'm
not
seeing
any
other
discussion
so
clerk.
Please
call
the
roll.
G
F
P
All
right
that
motion
passes,
and
that
concludes
our
final
public
hearing
item
for
tonight.
Are
there
any
updates
from
staff.
I
Yes,
thank
you,
commissioner
olsen.
I
did
just
want
to
give
the
commission
an
update
on
the
exterior
materials
text
amendments
that
was
at
the
biz
committee
of
the
city
council
last
week,
and
the
biz
committee
did
make
a
motion
to
add
fiber
cement
as
a
class,
one
material,
and
it's
my
understanding
that
includes
both
fiber
cement,
lap
and
fiber
cement
panel.
So
that
will
be
going
forward
to
the
full
city
council
this
friday
and
that's
a
change
from
what
this
commission
approved.
I
So
I
wanted
you
to
be
aware
of
that,
and
I
think
that's
all
I
have
for
you
tonight,
thanks
for
sticking
with
us
and
being
engaged
for
what's
a
longer
meeting
than
what
we've
been
having
lately.
Thank.
P
You,
commissioners,
any
announcements.
P
All
right
with
that
we've
completed
all
the
items
on
our
agenda
for
this
meeting
and
if
there's
no
objection,
I
will
declare
this
meeting
adjourned.
Our
next
planning
commission
meeting
will
be
monday
october,
4th
2021,
and
our
next
committee
of
the
whole
meeting
will
be
thursday
september
23
2021.
Thank
you.