►
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
Good
afternoon
well
welcome
to
the
regular
meeting
of
the
business
inspections,
housing
and
zoning
committee
for
today
october
12th,
I'm
lisa
goodman
and
I'm
chair
of
the
committee.
As
we
begin
I'll
note
for
the
record
that
the
meeting
has
remote
participation
for
members
of
the
city,
council
and
city
staff
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statute,
section
13
d
.021
due
to
the
declared
local
public
health
emergency.
The
city
will
be
recording
and
posting
this
meeting
on
the
city's
website
and
youtube
channel
so
that
we
can
increase
public
access
and
transparency.
B
D
A
B
The
record
reflect
that
we
have
a
quorum
I'll
begin
with
the
consent
agenda,
which
includes
items
six
through
sixteen
on
the
agenda
today.
Item
six
are
the
liquor
licenses
recommended
for
approval
item
number.
Seven.
Are
the
gambling
licenses
item
number
eight
is
a
contract
with
hennepin
county
for
our
mfip
training
program.
B
Item
number:
nine
is
an
additional
grant
for
minneapolis
public
housing
due
to
a
shortfall
with
their
sprinkler
system.
Installation
project
item
number
10
is
a
trust
fund
loan
for
the
west
broadway
west
building
beam
project.
This
is
an
additional,
affordable
housing
trust
fund
allocation
item.
11
is
a
contract
amendment
with
minneapolis
public
schools
for
stable
homes,
stable
schools,
item
12
are
applications
for
environmental
grant.
B
Funding
in
the
fall
2021
brownfield
grant
round
I'll
note
that
these
are
deed
awards
that
we're
applying
for
as
well
as
hennepin
county's
environmental
response
fund
item
13
is
the
inclusionary
zoning
fee.
Ordinance
14
is
a
rezoning
at
11,
12
16
avenue
southeast
item.
15
is
a
rezoning
at
3128
brian
bryant
item
number
16
is
setting
a
public
hearing
for
the
license
fee
schedule.
We
also
have
a
postponed
item,
which
is
item
number
17..
Is
there
any
discussion
or
any
items?
Anyone
would
like
to
pull
for
further
discussion,
seeing
none.
D
C
B
B
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
committee
members,
enrique
velazquez
manager
of
licenses
and
consumer
services
presenting
an
application
from
brother
justice,
whiskey
company,
located
at
3300
fifth
street
northeast
in
ward
1.
brother
justice,
whiskey
company,
moved
to
this
location
in
2020
after
operating
from
451
taft
street
northeast
a
location
it
had
called
home
since
2017..
F
Currently,
brother
justice
holds
an
on
sale,
liquor,
cocktail,
room,
limited
entertainment
with
sunday
sales
license,
as
well
as
an
off
sale,
distilled
spirits
license
the
applicant
requests
a
permanent
expansion
of
premises
so
that
they
may
increase
the
size
of
their
outdoor
patio
space
from
1
100
square
feet
to
1560
square
feet.
This
will
increase
the
available
seating
capacity
from
56
guests
to
80
guests
on
the
exterior
space.
The
current
hours
of
operation
for
both
interior
and
exterior
spaces
are
4pm
to
10
pm
daily,
with
no
expectation
that
they're
going
to
change
those
hours
of
operation.
F
On
september,
24th
public
hearing
notices
were
sent
to
residents
and
property
owners
within
300
feet
of
the
premises
to
the
columbia
park,
neighborhood
association
to
the
northeast
chamber
of
commerce
and
to
council
member
reich.
We
have
received
no
comments
from
the
community
in
response
to
the
public
hearing
notice,
a
review
review
of
311
cases
and
police
calls
for
service
revealed
no
issues
attributable
to
this
business
licenses
and
consumer
services
recommends
approval
of
an
expansion
of
premises
for
brother
justice,
whiskey
company.
This
concludes
my
presentation
and
at
this
time,
I'll
stand
for
any
comments
or
questions.
B
Thank
you
for
your
report,
mr
velasquez,
we'll
see
if
there
are
any
questions
for
staff
seeing
none.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
that
report
and
we'll
open
the
public
hearing
on
item
number
one
I
see
there
is
one
speaker
signed
up
that
is
phil
steeger,
mr
seeger,
you
are
welcome
to
speak
now.
Please
press
star
six
to
unmute.
G
Okay,
thank
you.
Sarah
goodman
council
members,
mr
velasquez
and
everyone
at
the
inspection
office
appreciate
this
opportunity
to
speak
in
favor
of
our
request
for
a
expansion
of
our
on-premise
license
to
include
a
larger
patio
space
and
to
make
that
permanent.
We
really
appreciated
the
the
city's
action
and
granting
temporary
patio
licenses
during
the
pandemic.
G
B
B
H
A
H
H
Next
slide,
the
minneapolis
city
council
approved
an
interim
use
permit
for
this
tower
on
january
5th
of
this
year,
which
is
slated
to
expire
on
november
30th
of
2021.
next
slide.
Please,
the
existing
tower
is
100
feet
tall
and
has
ground
mounted
base
equipment
near
the
base
of
the
tower
next
slide.
Please
att
is
still
looking
for
a
permanent
location
for
this
tower
next
slide
and
until
they
are
able
to
do
so,
they
have
requested
an
extension
to
the
interim
use
permit
for
one
year
or
until
november.
30Th
of
2022.
B
I
B
B
D
A
B
J
You
have
before
your
request
to
authorize
issuance
of
up
to
200
million
dollars
in
tax
exempt
and
taxable
revenue
bonds
for
a
line
of
health
care
systems.
Alaina
is
requesting
revenue
bond
financing
to
construct
a
transportation
hub
and
central
utility
plant
at
the
abbott
northwestern
campus.
The
transportation
hub
project
is
located
on
the
south
side
of
the
campus
at
2801
chicago
avenue.
J
J
Cooperative
energy
futures
will
install
and
operate
a
one
megawatt
community,
solar
garden
on
the
roof
of
the
new
ramp,
and
the
hub
will
also
include
an
employee
bike
center
with
storage
for
up
to
200
bikes
with
lockers
and
shower
facilities.
Adjacent
to
the
employee
bike
center
will
be
a
cafe
retail
store
and
bike
repair
shop.
Two
additional
spaces
are
available
for
lease
to
nonprofit
agencies.
J
The
central
utility
plan
will
be
constructed
on
the
north
side
of
the
campus
at
2601
chicago
avenue.
Two
existing
buildings
will
be
demolished
to
construct
a
69,
000
square
foot
utility
plant,
the
building
will
house
heating,
cooling
and
energy,
generating
equipment
for
abbott,
northwestern
hospital
campus,
replacing
boilers
and
emergency
generators
with
new
energy
efficient
models.
J
B
B
B
G
F
C
B
Are
five
eyes
yes
would
like
to
be
recorded
as
voting
I
with
that
the
motion
carries
and
is
approved,
we'll
move
on
to
public
hearing
number
four,
which
is
the
malcolm
yards.
Housing
tax
increment
plan,
as
well
as
their
revenue
bond
issuance,
and
I
believe
jamie
riddell
is
online
to
give
this
report
welcome.
K
Thank
you,
chair
goodman
and
the
rest
of
the
business
committee.
I'm
jamie
rado,
a
senior
project
coordinator
with
the
residential
finance
team
at
cped.
Today
I
will
be
presenting
the
malcolm
yards,
affordable
housing
project
located
at
495,
malcolm
avenue,
southeast
in
the
prospect
park
east
river
road
neighborhood.
This
project
represents
the
third
component
of
the
initial
phase
of
redevelopment
at
malcolm
yards.
K
This
phase
also
includes
the
recently
opened
malcolm
part
of
the
market
at
malcolm
yards
food
hall
and
a
planned
mixed
use.
Building
that
will
include
210
market
rate
housing
units.
The
city
council
has
seen
the
affordable
project
several
times
over
the
last
few
years,
including
prior,
affordable
housing,
trust
fund
awards
and
pass
through
grant
approvals.
K
Today
I'll
be
pres
I'll,
be
presenting
requests
from
the
developer
for
the
following
actions:
authority
to
issue
up
to
30
million
dollars
in
housing,
revenue
bonds,
the
creation
of
the
malcolm
yards
housing
to
increment
financing
district
authority
to
issue
two
notes
to
malcolm
yard's
housing
project
lp,
to
support
the
development
of
the
affordable
housing
project,
an
issuance
of
an
additional
150
000,
affordable
housing
trust
on
loan.
Before
I
get
to
those
requests,
I
will
provide
the
committee
with
some
background
on
the
affordable
housing
project.
K
K
The
developer
determined
that
this
project
was
more
feasible
as
a
traditional,
low-income
housing
tax
credit
project
and
eliminated
the
use
of
income
averaging.
This
change
resulted
in
47,
more
units
affordable
at
or
below
60
percent
of
60,
ami,
increasingly,
overall,
affordability
for
the
of
the
project
of
those
40
to
47
units.
Five
units
are
affordable
at
or
below
50
of
area.
Median
income
in
its
final
form,
the
malcolm
yards.
K
Affordable
housing
project
is
a
143
unit
project
with
11
efficiencies,
117
1-bedroom
units
and
15
2-bedroom
units
all
affordable
at
or
below
60
of
area
median
income.
This
project
will
include
16
units
of
hennepin
county
housing,
support
that
will
be
filled
through
the
coordinated
entry
process.
Simpson,
housing
services
will
be
providing
services
to
those
households.
K
The
developer
has
applied
to
the
city
for
up
to
30
million
dollars
in
tax
exempt
and
taxable
housing
revenue
bonds.
This
amount
represents
23
million
in
tax-exempt
housing
revenue
bonds,
including
18.7
million
in
new
volume
cap
and
40,
and
4.3
million
in
recycled
volume,
cap
and
7
million
in
taxable
bonds.
K
K
Moving
on
to
the
tax
increment
financing
district,
the
developer
has
requested
creation
of
a
housing
tax,
increment
financing
district
to
finance
the
funding
gap
in
on
the
affordable
housing
project
staff
has
prepared
the
tip
plan
and
provided
the
required
45-day
notice.
We
have
not
received
any
comments
on
this
plan
as
proposed.
The
district
includes
both
the
affordable
and
market
rate
buildings.
The
city
will
issue
two
pay-as-you-go
notes
to
the
developer,
with
an
approximate
principal
value
of
6.5
million
dollars.
K
Finally,
we
have
a
request
for
an
additional
150
000
loan
from
the
affordable
housing
trust
trust
fund,
which
would
help
close
the
remaining
funding
graph
created
by
volatile
labor
and
materials
pricing,
as
described
earlier.
This
project
now
has
five
additional
units
at
50
area,
immediate
income,
making
it
eligible
for
an
additional
150
thousand
dollars
in
trust
funds
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
all
three
requests.
A
representative
of
the
project
has
called
into
the
public
hearing
and
is
available
to
answer
any
questions.
B
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
report.
I
am
going
to
see
if
there
are
any
questions
from
anyone
on
the
council.
I
don't
see
any
questions,
so
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
open
the
public
hearing.
There
are
two
people
signed
up
to
speak
steveman
and
jeff
ellard,
we'll
start
with
mr
men.
You
are
welcome
to
speak
now.
Please
press
star
6
to
unmute.
L
Afternoon,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
steve
min
with
loopy
development
and
part
of
the
malcolm
yards
team,
mr
ellert,
and
I
are
here
simply
to
ask
answer
questions.
If
you
have
any
for
this
particular
project.
I
think
ms
radel
has
done
a
fine
job,
not
only
guiding
us
to
this
point
where
we're
getting
approvals,
but
has
been
an
extremely
effective
advocate
for
our
pulling
other
partners
into
the
project.
So
we'll
just
stand
for
questions
with
your
tolerance
for
whatever
answers
we
might
be
able
to
provide
you.
B
D
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair.
I'm
happy
to
move
approval
of
this.
I
just
want
to
express
my
thanks
to
staff
and
to
the
project
team
for
all
the
work
that's
gone
into
this.
I
was
actually
gratified
to
see
it
move
to
100
percent
affordable
the
143
units.
All
of
them
will
be
affordable
at
60
percent
or
below,
and
actually
a
good
chunk
of
those
I
think
it's
16
are
affordable
at
30
or
below.
This
is
a
major
milestone
among
many
milestones
up
here
in
the
towerside
area.
This
is
the
university
innovation
district.
D
B
D
D
A
B
Four
eyes
that
carries
and
the
motion
is
approved
next,
we'll
handle
the
quasi-judicial
public
hearing
on
our
agenda
today.
This
is
an
appeal
submitted
by
chris
murphy
and
martina
sagayam
regarding
the
decision
of
the
planning
commission
with
regard
to
a
variance
at
4418
and
4422
beard
avenue
south
I'm
going
to
call
on
miss
suffer
to
give
that
presentation.
B
M
Welcome.
Thank
you
very
much
good
afternoon,
chair
goodman
and
members
of
the
committee
item.
Number
five
is
an
appeal
filed
of
the
decision
of
the
city
planning
commission,
approving
a
variance
to
reduce
the
north
interior
side
yard
setback
to
allow
for
a
transformer
accessory
to
a
newly
constructed
multiple
family
dwelling
located
at
4418
and
4422
beard
avenue
south
subject
to
two
conditions
of
approval.
M
The
appellants
are
chris
murphy
and
martinez
sayam,
and
they
are
the
adjacent
property
owners
of
the
apartment
building
located
at
4414
beard
avenue.
South
the
applicants
are
collage
architecture.
Both
are
present
today
to
give
testimony
the
site
plan
review
application
for
the
new
multiple
family
dwelling
was
approved
by
the
city
planning
commission
in
2019
and
the
applicant
completed
construction
of
the
building.
Earlier
this
summer,
the
previously
approved
site
plan
indicated
that
the
electrical
transformer
would
be
mounted
to
the
existing
electrical
poles
northwest
of
the
property.
M
According
to
the
applicant
excel
energy,
determined
that
the
proposed
project
was
not
eligible
for
the
pole
mounted
transformer
during
the
construction
of
the
project.
The
applicant
then
placed
the
transformer
on
the
ground
2.7
feet
from
the
north
property
line,
and
that
is
where
a
five
foot
setback
is
required.
So
the
applicant
applied
for
the
variants
to
reduce
the
setback
from
five
feet
to
2.7
feet.
M
On
september
20th,
the
planning
commission
adopted
staff
findings
and
approved
the
variants,
with
the
one
stated
condition
to
provide
trumps
along
the
north
property
line
to
screen
the
transformer
and
the
planning
commission
added.
A
second
condition
of
approval,
stating
the
applicant
shall
work
with
staff
to
ensure
the
transformer
can
be
safely
accessed
without
encroaching
on
the
neighboring
property
on
september
30th,
the
adjacent
property
owners
appealed.
B
B
B
Seeing
none
I
understand
there
are
three
folks
signed
up
for
the
public
hearing.
Thank
you
for
signing
up
today.
Each
of
the
folks
who
have
signed
up
will
be
each
side
will
be
given
10
minutes
total
to
present
your
side
of
the
case,
and
I
don't
have
the
names
of
the
people
who
are
signed
up,
because
I
can't
sign
on
to
the
system.
So
I'm
going
to
ask
the
appellant
to
speak
first,
I
will
note
that
the
appellant
is
often
given
the
opportunity
to
present
their
case
first.
B
N
B
N
N
N
N
N
We
we
would
like
to
humbly
suggest
that
laying
blame
would
excel
does
not
satisfy
the
requirement
which
requires
that
the
you
know
the
matter
be
a
function
of
features
and
characteristics
of
the
property,
and
you
know
further
claim
that
you
know
that
that
there
were
no
options
made
by
the
applicant
in
their
application
is
inaccurate
and
I'll
come
back
to
that.
When
I
talk
about
some
solutions
to
this,
but
indeed
the
claim
that
there
were
no
other
options
is,
is
inaccurate?
Unique
circumstances
need
to
be
unique
to
the
property
again,
not.
O
N
Projects
like
the
one
that
was
the
development
next
door
to
our
property,
take
on
the
risk
of
managing
these
outcomes,
particularly
when
choosing
to
maximize
with
regards
to
subsection
3
of
the
of
the
noted
municipal
code
that
the
proposed
variance
shall
not
be
injurious
to
the
use
or
enjoyment
of
properties
in
the
vicinity,
naturally
being
right
next
door.
You
know
we
are
well
well
within
the
realm
of
vicinity,
staff
concluded
that
there
was
no
injury
on
the
country
there
are.
There
are
two
that
like
to
shine
a
light
on
here
today.
N
More
significantly,
the
placement
of
the
pad
transformer
constitutes
a
current
encroachment.
One
of
the
doors,
a
40
inch
door
swings
onto
our
property,
that's
very
easy
to
determine,
by
virtue
of
the
2.7
foot
setback
and,
furthermore,
excel
having
to
service
that
transformer.
That
servicing
would
have
to
happen
from
our
property
as
well
and
other
encroachments.
N
So
let
me
move
on
to
the
next
really
sort
of
ordinance
non-compliance
that
that
we've
experienced
as
part
of
this
process
that
has
to
do
with
the
burden
of
proof.
Not
only
was
the
burden
proof
not
in
evidence
from
our
perspective,
proof
did
not
even
seem
to
be
requested
on
a
couple
of
fronts
in
the
appeal
we've
noted
a
number
of
open
key
questions
of
facts
that
were
not
known
and
resolved
at
the
time
of
the
hearing
before
the
planning
commission.
N
So
frankly,
it
was
impossible
to
even
determine
whether
the
requirements
were
what
were
met
with
those
open
points
and
as
a
side
note,
I
would,
I
would
shine
a
light
on
the
fact
that
a
motion
to
defer
the
variance
request
to
a
later
hearing
on
the
basis
of
the
need
for
more
information
lost
did
not
succeed,
but
it
only
lost
five
to
four.
There
was
a
significant
number
of
planning
commission
members
that
felt
that
more
information
was
needed.
That
was
voiced
on
that
call.
N
The
external
allegations,
however,
irrelevant
they
are
to
the
uniqueness
of
the
property,
as
we've
suggested,
should
not
have
been
treated
as
proof
without
additional
information.
Also
troubling,
frankly,
is
the
tone
in
the
june
26
2020
message,
which
was
again
really
the
first
awareness
that
was
brought
before
staff
of
the
setback
violation.
The
tone
of
that
message
was
excel
is
insisting
on
locating
the
transformer
in
the
easement,
and
there
are
two
problems
with
that.
From
my
perspective,
one
is
the
verb
tense.
N
N
We
feel
that
there
was
unfair
treatment
of
our
interests
on
a
number
of
fronts.
With
regard
to
the
handling
and
and
outcome
of,
this
variance
request,
so
I'll
just
run
through
a
short
list
quickly,
there's
naturally
more
in
the
appeal,
but
staff
did
not
know
the
door
orientation
on
the
transformer.
Nor
did
they
note
the
encroachments
that
was
not
in
the
recommendation.
It
was
not
noted.
It
was
noted
on
the
call
indeed
that
staff
did
not
have
that
information
and
was
not
aware
of
it.
N
Those
are
fairly
significant
points
that
I
think
should
have
been
very
weighty
in
consideration,
whether
that
variance
request
should
have
been
approved
or
not.
Furthermore,
there's
there
was
a
condition
in
the
initial
version
of
the
recommendation
from
staff
which
said
that
shrubs
needed
to
be
planted
on
the
north
side
in
an
effort
to
screen
the
transformer
from
our
property.
That
condition
cannot
be
met,
because
the
north
side
of
the
transformer
is
indeed
the
doors
that
face
our
property.
N
During
the
planning
commission
meeting,
there
was
a
second
condition
as
generalism.
There
was
a
second
edition
condition,
added
that
the
encroachment
onto
our
property
needs
to
be
resolved
and,
and
frankly,
the
logic
of
that
escapes
me,
because,
essentially
that
results
in
a
variant
that
says
we
approve
your
variance,
provided
that
you
move
the
transformer
and
that
just
seems
like
a
conflict.
I
don't
think
you
can
have
both
of
those
things.
N
Finally,
in
the
theme
of
just
sort
of
lack
of
due
process,
we
we've
had
fairly
little
time
to
prepare
for
this
appeal.
There.
There
were
10
days
given
to
us
and
by
comparison,
the
applicants
already
had
over
a
year
and
a
half
to
resolve
their
their
situation,
either
by
way
of
actually
truly
resolving
it
in
the
manner
that
should
be
done,
or
by
at
least
applying
for
the
variance
that
they
ultimately
did
only
when
their
situation
was
found
out
by
city
inspections.
N
So
let
me
move
on
to
what
I
think
the
solution
to
this
ought
to
be.
My
wife
and
I
have
had
multiple
conversations
with
the
excel
distribution
designer
that
supported
the
property
development.
The
project,
as
well
as
his
man
on
site,
the
designer
who
supported
the
project,
said
with
little
hesitation
that
that
transformer
could
be
pivoted.
So
that's
one
option
that
wasn't
discussed
at
all
by
the
applicant,
the
manager
in
a
call
to
us
later
confirmed.
N
Indeed,
there
are
many
options
they
will
fix
this
in
the
spring
with
the
owner
and
that
could
possibly
include
a
pole.
Mount
outcome,
which
was
dismissed
as
a
possibility
by
the
applicant,
even
potentially,
including
a
new
poll
and
overhead
wired
with
new
pole,
would
be
on
the
owner's
property.
So
again,
this
thing
can
be
pivoted
moved.
Potentially
pole
mounted,
and
at
least
two
of
those
options
do
not
require
any
setback,
variance
whatsoever
and
just
to
put
a
bit
of
a
fine
point
on
the
scale
of
what's
being
discussed
here,
excel
the
distribution.
N
The
design
distribution
manager
told
me
that
the
downtime
for
pivoting
is
probably
four
to
six
hours
and
the
down
time
for
a
move
is
probably
six
to
eight
hours.
So,
in
summary,
we
feel
there
are
multiple
legal
issues
with
the
content
of
the
various
requests
in
the
manner
of
its
handling.
There
was
questionable
due
process.
N
The
transformer
as
it
sits
today
encroaches
on
our
property
troubling
that
the
application
the
applicant
said
there
were
no
options
when
indeed
excel
has
confirmed
by
way
of
the
work
that
we've
done
in
the
limited
time
available
to
us,
that
there
are
multiple
options
and
that
this
is
going
to
be
resolved,
implying
that
the
original
placement
was
either
simply
mismanagement
or
aesthetics
or
time
schedule
driven
separately.
I'd
like
to
just
highlight
that
we've
done
all
analysis
on
transformer
setback,
variance
requests
in
the
last
six
years
and
I
believe
off
the
top.
N
I
had
it's
in
the
appeal,
but
I
think
there
were
29
of
them
of
those
100
were
approved
and
that's
fine.
I
don't
object
that.
I
don't
want
to
do
it
for
that
point,
but
I
do
want
to
shine
a
light
on
the
fact
that
of
those
we
went
and
visited
14
that
had
conditions
applied
to
them
as
part
of
their
approval
and
more
than
half
of
those
were
not
compliant
with
the
conditions
which
leads
me
to.
I
don't
want
to
be
lusting
less
holding
the
bag
in
this
in
the
future.
N
B
E
Like
afternoon,
chairman
goodman
and
members
of
the
commission,
this
is
pete
keeley
collage,
architects
alex
skeezy.
The
owner
is
also
on
the
line,
but
I'll
be
speaking.
At
this
point,
I
think
there
are
a
number
of
things
that
maybe
were
mischaracterized
by
the
appellant,
but
let
me
kind
of
back
up
to
where
all
this
started
and
we
had
met
out
with
excel
on
the
site
when
this
project
started,
and
they
had
indicated
that
they
would
be
using
a
pole
mounted
device.
Chris
sandberg,
we
met
with
him.
E
E
E
E
We
don't
have
a
lot
of
say
in
being
able
to
tell
excel
what
to
do
or
not
to
do,
and
I
think
one
of
the
unique
characteristics
about
this
property
is
that
it
does
lack
a
rear
alley.
But
one
of
the
other
odd
things
about
this
property
is
that
there
was
a
rear
alley
that
was
vacated,
and
so
the
situation
which
arises
is
that
there
are
utility
poles
and
there
are
power
lines
that
are
going
through.
B
B
C
B
P
A
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
don't
have
a
question.
Well,
I
guess
I
might
have
a
question
for
staff,
but
we
have
a
question
for
the
developer
and
the
architect
some
of
the
proposals
by
the
appellant
saying
that
they
had
research
and
they
talked
to
excel
that
a
poll
would
be
an
option
going
forward
or
that
they
could
pivot
the
transformer.
A
Can
you
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
those
options
about
if
that's
possible?
If
there's
any,
you
know
further
talks
that
you
mentioned,
you
know
going
forward
to
comply
with
some
of
the
additional
requirements
from
the
planning
commission.
Is
this
something
that's
possible
and
that
you're
going
to
do
in
the
future.
A
No,
no,
I
was
asking
your
question
to
pete
and
alex
to
see
you.
You
had
mentioned
other
alternatives
and
I
wanted
to
see
you
know
what
the
feasibility
is.
We
heard
a
little
bit
about
the
easement
that'll
be
my
follow-up
question
is
on
the
easement
that
excel
has
on
the
property,
but
to
first
see
what
the
feasibility
is
of
the
options
you
proposed.
A
E
You
so
yeah
pete
keeley,
so
we
were
told
originally
that
a
pole
mount
was
an
option,
which
is
why
we
move
forward,
and
so
I
do
understand
that
there
is
maybe
a
case
that
a
cold
mount
would
still
be
an
option.
You
know
it's
it's
hard
for
us
to
direct
excel.
We
can
ask
questions.
We
can
ask
opinions
whether
they
would
go
and
change
that
from
a
pad
mount
to
a
pull
mount.
E
A
Okay,
thank
you,
and
maybe
this
is
a
question
for
staff.
If
that's
the
best
way
forward,
I
mean
I
think
it
sounds
like
everybody
would
like
something
different
to
be
happening
there,
but
we
can't
force
excel.
To
do
that
is
the
appropriate
way
to
force
excel.
Is
to
grant
this
appeal,
or
is
it
to
deny
this
appeal
with
some
additional
conditions.
M
Thank
you
for
the
question
council
members
trader.
The
additional
condition
was
placed
by
the
city
planning
commission
in
response
to
the
neighbors
concerns,
so
the
I
guess
the
question
is:
if,
if
the
appeal
is
granted
and
the
variance
is
denied
the
transformer
itself,
the
green
box
has
to
be
located
at
a
minimum
of
five
feet
from
the
north
property
line
and
a
minimum
of
five
feet
from
the
rear
property
line
to
the
west.
M
If
the
variance
is
approved,
but
the
applicant
cannot
comply
with
one
or
both
of
the
conditions
having
the
shrub
screen
the
north
property
line
or
not
being
able
to
maintain
the
transformer
completely
on
the
subject
property,
then
we
will
have
to
make
sure
we
work
with
the
applicant
to
look
at
the
other
options.
It
could
be
rotation,
it
could
be
adjustment.
So
when
that
condition
of
approval
was
placed
in
my
mind,
it
was
that
might
not
be
the
final
location.
Is
it
2.7
feet?
M
Is
it
you
know
three
feet
or
is
it
a
rotation?
We
would
have
to
explore
those
options
at
length
with
the
applicant
to
see
what
what
works
best,
but
the
approval
is
not
granted
just
to
the
2.7
fee,
meaning
it's
status
quo.
The
applicant
would
absolutely
have
to
comply
with
both
of
those
conditions
of
approval.
A
Thank
you,
that's
very,
very
helpful.
I
just
had
a
question
for
the
the
architect
and
the
developer.
You
mentioned
the
easement
by
excel.
Could
you
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
that?
I
had
a
chance
to
look
at
the
property
and
it
is.
It
is
unique,
but
I'm
not
sure
I
understand
your
point
about
the
easement
for
at
least
from
excel's
point.
E
Yeah
pete
keeley
again
according
to
excel
there's
a
seven
foot
access,
easement
agreement
in
the
deed
on
all
these
properties.
I
do
know
it
exists
on
this
property
that
alex
owns
and
that
seven
foot
is
a
joint
service
access
agreement.
So
multiple
small
utilities
and
even
owners
can
access
it
for
for
service
agreement.
E
E
N
I
was
just
going
to
comment.
The
the
variance
application
itself
shows
clearly
that
at
best
one
third
of
the
mass
of
the
transformer
sits
in
the
easement,
the
rest
of
it
is
not
even
in
the
easement
the
easement
does
exist,
but
the
transformer
is
not
fully
in
it.
The
encroachment
exists
outside
the
easement.
A
B
E
E
E
So
it's
not
it's
on
their
property,
but
in
that
easement,
so
there's
an
overlap
of
two
feet
from
the
five
foot
where
the
pad
is
to
the
seven
feet
and
then
to
the
north.
It's
2.7
feet
and
the
door
to
the
transformer
which
is
on
the
west
side
is
approximately
30
inches
it's
about
one-third
of
the
the
length
of
that
transformer,
the
main
door.
E
M
B
M
M
M
Then
you
see
a
five
foot
separation
from
the
west
property
line
to
the
transformer
itself,
so
that
is
the
structure
for
which
the
variance
is
not
that
dotted
line
just
to
the
right.
So
seven
feet
from
the
property
line
is
where
the
easement
is
drawn
on
on
the
on
the
site
plan,
and
it
really
is,
you
know,
an
overlay
from
the
survey,
so
you
can
see
that
approximately
one
third
of
the
transformer
is
located
within
that
easement
area
and
the
transformer
itself.
E
E
B
M
E
E
P
D
P
Determined
to
place
the
transformer
where
they
did,
I
think
a
solution
now
is,
as
as
I
understand,
and
with
respect
for
mr
murphy,
that
there
may
be
a
solution
to
rotate
the
transformer
which
would
which
would
comply.
But
we
could
then
comply
with
the
variant
and
the
two
conditions,
which
is
to
provide
shrubs
on
the
north
side
of
the
transformer
and
open
the
doors
in
such
a
way
that
they
don't
encroach
into
mr
murphy's
property.
B
Okay,
so
please
council,
member
trader,
jump
in
if
you
think
I'm
incorrect,
then
there's
no
motivation
for
excel
to
work
with
the
applicant.
If
we
do
not
grant
the
appeal
we're
saying:
okay,
well,
there's
a
practical
difficulty
which
would
then
be
given
excel
a
way
out
versus
granting
the
appeal,
and
then
they
have
no
choice
but
to
move
it,
and
so
maybe
I'm
wrong.
A
Man,
I'm
sure,
there's
a
council
member
I'll
jump
in.
I
I
think
too,
the
the
chair's
point
you
know,
mr
keely,
mr
gizi
it'd,
be
helpful
to
hear
like
how
it's
been
going
with
excel,
because,
frankly,
I
think
the
chair
is
a
great
point
of
if
you
haven't
talked
to
excel
and
they
haven't
been
very
forthcoming
about
moving
it.
E
This
is
pete
keeley
we
can
com,
we
can
comply
with
the
conditions
by
rotating
the
transformer
and
the
city.
Xl
will
be
motivated,
we're
motivated
because
that's
the
condition
of
approval
it's
already
on
us,
because
if
we
can't
service
the
access
side
and
the
door
overhangs-
and
we
can't
plant
bushes
on
the
north
side,
then
essentially,
what
the
variance
I
I
believe
is
saying
is
that
the
transformer
in
terms
of
its
location
can
be
closer
to
the
property
line
than
the
five
feet.
However,
the
doors
and
the
axis
cannot
be
on
the
north
side.
A
Mr
keeley,
this
my
my
my
concern
from
what
I'm
hearing
is,
and
I
I
appreciate
your
your
answer
that
you
want
to
comply
with
that.
My
concern
is:
what
is
excel
going
to
do.
My
concern
is:
if
we
deny
this
appeal
and
you
go
forward
and
excel
is
not
willing
to
make
that
change.
Then
then,
what
are
what's
going
to
be
the
next
steps
and
what
an
easier
way
in
respect
to
all
the
parties
be
to
just
grant
the
appeal
and
then
have
you
come
back
after
talking
to
excel.
K
B
M
B
P
Sure
thanks,
I
would
just
suggest
you
know
one
issue
with
approving
the
appeal:
is
that
then
we're
back
to
square
one,
and
we
have
to
start
all
over
with
a
new
variance
request
which
could
be
you
know
the
the
outcome
of
which
we
could
be
accomplished.
If
you
deny
the
appeal
and
extend
this
and
we
work
with
excel
to
rotate
the
transformer-
and
I
believe
mr
murphy
even
suggested,
based
on
his
conversation
with
excel,
that,
that
is
something
they
could
do.
B
A
Hand,
I
did
thank
you,
yeah,
and
I
think
that
venom
chair
your
suggestion
of
postponing
for
two
cycles,
I
think,
is
a
good
one.
I
I
think
it
is
to
be
fair
to
all
parties.
I
I
would
like
to
see
excel's
action
on
this.
I
think
we
can't
just
rely
on
one
side
saying
they've
had
a
good
conversation
and
I
think
postponing
it
would
allow.
You
know
the
talks
with
excel
to
go
a
little
bit
and
also.
A
B
M
B
B
B
You
can
move
it,
and
so
I
would
urge
you
to
work
in
this
two
month
period
or
two
week
period
to
get
this
done,
because
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
to
be
any
reason
why
they
wouldn't
other
than
no
one
felt
any
level
of
urgency
to
get
it
done,
and
I
am
I'm
empathetic
to
the
appellant
who
said
this
has
been
going
on
for
a
year
and
he
can't
get
anyone
to
hear
him
or
his
wife
or
get
any
relief
on
this.
So
this
could
be
a
win-win.