►
From YouTube: October 3, 2022 Planning Commission
Description
Additional information at:
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
Good
afternoon,
everyone
welcome
to
the
regular
meeting
of
the
City
Planning
Commission
today
is
Monday
October
3rd.
My
name
is
Alyssa
Olson
I'm,
the
president
of
the
Planning
Commission,
the
city
will
be
recording
and
posting
this
meeting
to
the
city's
website
and
YouTube
channel
as
a
means
of
increasing
Public,
Access
and
transparency.
This
meeting
is
public
and
subject
to
Minnesota
open
meeting
law.
At
this
time,
I'll
ask
the
clerk
to
please
call
the
roll.
C
A
All
right,
we
have
a
quorum
Welcome
to
our
new
commissioner
with
that
we
will
proceed
to
the
agenda,
a
copy
of
which
was
posted
for
public
access
to
the
city's
legislative
information
management
system,
which
is
available
at
limbs.maneapolis
mn.gov.
A
We'll
begin
with
acceptance
of
the
minutes
from
September
19th
2022
could
I
have
a
motion
to
accept
those
minutes.
A
D
A
A
Opposed
any
abstentions,
I
abstain.
Thank
you.
That
motion
passes
and
the
minutes
are
adopted
up
next,
we'll
organize
the
public
hearing
agenda,
which
again
is
available
at
limbs.
Minneapolis,
mn.gov
and
there's
also
copies
on
the
counter
by
the
clerk
over
there.
A
I'll
read
through
the
agenda
numbers
and
state
whether
the
items
is
slated
for
consent,
continuance
or
discussion
consent
items
will
be
passed
by
the
board
without
discussion
and
will
be
adopting
the
staff
recommendation
for
those
items
as
well
as
any
listed
conditions.
So
if
you
agree
with
staff
recommendation,
you
don't
need
to
do
anything
if
you
disagree
with
staff
recommendation
and
would
like
to
speak
on
an
item.
Please
raise
your
hand
and
we'll
add
that
item
to
the
discussion
agenda.
A
So
with
that
the
following
items
are
on
the
agenda
for
this
evening.
Item
number
four
is
3225
East,
Minnehaha
Parkway
and
this
item
will
be
on
consent.
There
is
no
public
hearing
for
this
item.
A
A
All
right,
seeing
none
I'll,
put
item
number
five
on
consent.
Item
number
six
is
701
Industrial
Boulevard.
We
will
be
discussing
item
number
six
this
evening
and
item
number
seven
is
4352
Zenith
Avenue
South.
This
item
will
be
continued.
One
more
cycle
to
the
October
17th
meeting
and
the
public
hearing
for
this
item
was
closed
at
our
September
22nd
meeting.
A
All
right
so
to
recap,
items
four
and
five
are
onto
consent.
We'll
discuss
item
number
six
and
continue
item
number
seven
to
the
October
17th
meeting
could
I
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
agenda
as
amended
all
moved.
A
All
right
that
motion
passes
and
the
agenda
has
been
approved.
I'll
now
open
the
public
hearing
on
the
consent
agenda,
which
is
items
number
four
and
five.
Is
there
anyone
here
who
would
like
to
speak
on
items
four
or
five.
D
A
F
A
Aye
all
opposed
any
abstentions,
all
right
that
motion
passes
so
the
consent
agenda
has
been
adopted.
If
you
are
here
for
items
number
four
or
five,
those
have
been
approved.
Good
luck
with
your
projects,
all
right!
Next,
we
are
going
to
move
on
to
the
continuance
agenda,
which
is
item
number
seven,
do
I,
have
a
motion
to
continue
item
seven:
four:
three:
five:
two
Zenith
Avenue
South
to
the
October
17th
meeting
of
the
Planning
Commission,
so
moved.
Is
there
a
second.
E
D
A
All
right
that
motion
passes
item
seven
will
be
on
the
October
17th
meeting.
A
G
You
good
evening
Commissioners
this
project,
the
staff
reporters
are
written
by
Shanna
Souther,
but
she's
not
able
to
be
here
today
so
I'll
be
presenting
on
her
behalf.
The
project
in
front
of
you
today
is
701
Industrial
Boulevard.
This
is
a
number
of
applications
to
construct
a
new
industrial
building
which
includes
a
minor
subdivision
site
plan
review
and
a
variance
for
the
maximum
number
of
surface
parking
stalls.
G
The
applications
for
the
minor
subdivision
and
site
plan
review
are
included
in
the
packet
and
the
applicant
is
amenable
to
the
conditions
that
are
recommended
as
part
of
those
two
applications.
The
only
item
for
discussion
tonight
is
the
variance
for
the
maximum
number
of
surface
parking
stalls.
So
that
is
what
I
will
address
in
my
presentation
here.
This
is
the
site.
There's
an
existing
industrial
building
and
surface
parking
lot.
This
is
a
little
confusing
because
it
is
from
the
north.
G
So
it's
a
little
upside
down
from
what
you
might
expect,
but
that
portion
at
the
corner
of
industrial
and
Broadway
is
proposed
to
be
subdivided
from
the
existing
building
and
surface
parking
lot
with
a
new
industrial
building,
a
new
Surface
parking
lot
to
be
created.
G
The
surface
parking
lot
that
is
proposed
would
kind
of
wrap
the
building
along
the
street
frontages,
and
that
surface
parking
lot
would
contain
188
surface
parking
stalls,
the
maximum
number
of
surface
parking
cells
permitted
in
a
surface
parking
lot
is
100,
and
so
that
necessitated
the
requested
variance-
and
this
is
just
a
little
bit
closer
of
the
that
person-
a
the
northern
parcel
showing
the
configuration
of
surface
parking
staff-
is
recommending
denial
of
the
requested
variants.
G
This
site,
the
proposed
site
for
that
Northern
parcel
is
over
10
acres.
So,
in
order
to
recommend
approval
of
a
variance,
we
would
need
to
be
able
to
find
the
Practical
difficulties
exist.
This
is
a
there.
You
know
this
is
a
relatively
flat
site.
With
a
large
amount
of
surface
area,
there
was
nothing
unique
to
the
site.
The
staff
could
find
that
would
necessitate
a
variance
to
provide
additional
surface
parking.
G
The
for
finding
number
two
staff
found
that
the
proposal
to
have
a
surface
parking
lot
of
188
stalls
rather
than
100
stalls
was
not
reasonable.
The
reasons
that
we
have
maximum
surface
parking
stall
requirements
in
the
zoning
code
is
to
discourage
really
large
surface
parking,
lots
that
are
going
to
have
increased
storm
water,
runoff
and
and
pollution,
and
and
that
sort
of
thing
we
don't
have
any.
G
You
know
if,
if
areas
have
a
higher
parking
demand
or
if
uses,
have
a
higher
parking
demand,
this
is
in
the
zoning
code
in
order
to
encourage
folks
to
provide
structured
or
underground
parking.
Which
is
less
likely
to
have
some
of
the
unintended
environmental
impacts
as
a
surface
parking
lot
would
so.
G
Staff
has
listed
a
number
of
policies
on
pages
three
and
four
in
the
staff
report
from
Minneapolis
2040
that
are
at
odds
with
the
request
for
an
increase
in
the
surface
parking,
and
then
staff
found
that
the
proposal
is
not
in
the
public
interest,
as
it
will
increase
those
environmental
impacts
related
to
transportation.
G
Once
again,
here
is
the
orientation
and
then
just
kind
of
a
brief
note
that
you
know
the
while
we
weren't
going
to
discuss
the
other
applications.
G
Staff
has
recommended
granting
a
large
amount
of
alternative
compliance
for
the
site
already
to
accommodate
the
the
proposed
industrial
building
and
surface
parking
area,
and
you
know
in
that
way
is,
is-
is
being
flexible
with
some
of
our
our
standards,
but
just
unable
to
make
those
findings
for
the
requested
variants,
and
one
other
thing
to
mention
is
that
that
applicant
does
not
currently
have
a
tenant
for
the
space
and
is
in
interested
in
constructing
the
building
and
then
marketing
it
to
find
potential
tenants.
G
And
then
these
are
just
the
photos
of
the
site,
which
is
like
I
mentioned
a
fairly
standard
industrial
site
of
10
acres.
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
Thank
you
Lindsay,
commissioner
Campbell.
C
Is
there
a
I,
don't
know
if
exemption's
the
right
word?
Is
there
anywhere
in
our
ordinances,
an
exception
to
the
parking
requirements
or
minimums
or
maximums
I
should
say
for
industrial
uses,
or
is
it
across
the
board
for
all
zoning
categories
so.
G
The
the
variance
that
we're
looking
at
today
is
the
a
variance
to
increase
the
number
of
parking
spaces
in
a
surface
parking
lot.
It
doesn't
have
to
do
with
the
uses
in
the
building.
It's
not
a
variance
to
increase
the
maximum
allowed
parking
for
you
know,
XYZ
uses,
because
we
don't
actually
know
what
the
uses
in
the
building
are,
but
the
applicant
has
indicated
that
they're
likely
not
going
to
exceed
the
maximum
for
what
the
uses
are.
G
But
the
the
restriction
on
on
size
of
surface
parking
lot
itself
is
Citywide,
and
that
is
not
something
that
we
have
any
kind
of
differences
for
industrial
areas,
because
it
really
has
to
do
with
the
size
of
the
lot.
The
amount
of
runoff
that's
going
to
accumulate
on
a
Surface
parking
lot
of
that
size
and
all
those
kinds
of
impacts
that
come
from
just
that
much
area
of
of
a
site
being
used
for
surface
parking
and
being
paved.
G
H
Do
not
have
the
park
plans
memorized
for
where
future
construction
might
appear,
but
I
I'm
grateful
to
the
Como
area,
residents,
Larry
and
Claudia
Crawford,
who
brought
forward
that
this
is
on
the
Park
Board
Missing,
Link
and
I
just
took
a
look
at
the
master
plan
and
I'm.
Just
wondering
do
you
happen
to
know?
Have
Park
staff
been
consulted
on
this
or
weighed
in
on
this
project?.
H
Grand
rounds
Missing.
G
Link
we
haven't
spoken.
It
I
have
a
note
here
from
Shanna
that
she
did
not
speak
to
park
staff
directly,
but
she
did
speak
with
our
public
works
department.
Who's
very
familiar
with
the
proposed
orientation
for
the
right
of
way
as
part
of
that
project,
and
the
proposed
right-of-way
is
100
feet
wide
that
accommodates
Trail
and
and
a
vehicular
circulation,
and
that
is
what
already
exists
in
the
right
of
way
today.
G
So
there
is
no
need
identified
from
Public
Works
that
there
would
be
additional
width
required
from
adjacent
privately
owned
property
for
that
project.
H
H
I
can
tell
you
in
just
a
minute:
I,
don't
know
I,
don't
want
to
lose
the
page
of
the
grand
rounds,
Missing
Link
master
plan,
and
it
includes
a
right-of-way
existing
and
proposed
and
I'm,
not
sure
which
side
is
which
on
the
on
the
street,
but
it
does
show
a
sidewalk
and
one
side
shows
a
trail
with
a
Boulevard,
so
I
I,
don't
know
I,
guess
I
guess
my
sense
is
I'm
a
little
surprised
at
this
I
know.
H
This
is
the
second
project
that
we've
had
in
like
two
two
spans
I
don't
mean
to
catch
you
off
guard,
but
there
the
the
one,
that's
other
one.
That's
getting
continued
4352
the
Zenith
Avenue
South,
that's
on
a
like
a
potential
Corridor
for
a
new
park.
Also
and
I.
Just
I
would
really
love
to
have
Park
Board
staff
weigh
in
before
having
to
make
a
call
on
on
this
project.
Overall.
I
J
Again,
in
this
case,
we
rely
on
our
public
work
staff
who
works
directly
with
the
park
board
staff
when
it
comes
to
improvements
in
our
proposed
and
public
right-of-way,
which
is
the
situation
here.
So
we
feel,
like
we've
done
our
due
diligence
on
this
particular
project
on
the
4352
Zenith
sites.
Again,
that's
not
something
that
we
believe
would
be
impacted
by
the
proposed
project.
What
the
applicant
is
proposing
right
now
is
entirely
on
their
site.
J
So
again
we
have
the
park
board
as
a
reviewer
in
preliminary
development
review,
so
every
project
goes
through
preliminary
development
review
before
it
comes
to
you,
that's
where
an
entire
set
of
civil
plans
is
reviewed
by
a
number
of
people
within
the
city
Enterprise
and
then
also
there's
a
Park
Board
reviewer
as
part
of
that
process,
so
that
occurs
on
everything
that
comes
in
front
of
you.
That's
typically
related
to
forestry,
but
when
someone
else
needs
to
be
brought
in,
that
does
occur
at
the
PDR
phase.
H
Hey
thanks
for
that,
I
and
I
appreciate
those
sentiments
on
the
the
other
project
which
I
know
that
Park
Board
staff
sent
over
a
letter
today,
which
is
not
related
to
the
project
in
hand.
But
again,
these
are
the
I,
don't
mean
to
I,
guess,
they're
kind
of
oddballs,
because
they're
not
adjacent
to
current
Park
property,
they're
adjacent
to
future
Park
property,
and
so
there
I
again
I
I,
guess:
I
just
appreciate
an
eye
from
Park
planning
staff
who
I'm
guessing.
H
That
was
not
the
staff
that
weighed
in
on
this
particular
project
at
hand.
It
probably
was
Forestry.
G
Commissioner,
Albert
I
can
also
just
you
know,
direct
you
to
the
the
site
plan.
That's
shown
here
now
where
this
building
is
not
going
to
be
built
up
to
the
property
lines,
a
setback
64
feet
from
industrial
and
95
feet
from
Broadway.
So
you
know
in
some
event
where
a
future
Redevelopment
of
the
street
needed
to
acquire
some
number
of
feet
from
the
property.
G
You
know,
there's
not
going
to
be
a
building
there.
That
would
have
to
be
torn
down
in
order
for
that
to
happen.
H
Various
parts
of
the
application,
if,
if
the
cross-section
that
I
am
looking
at,
is
on
the
the
odd
side
of
the
street,
has
it
having
the
sidewalk
or,
if
it's
the
even
side
that
you
know
I
just
opened
this
up
like
10
minutes
ago
so
or
if
it
has
a
trail.
So
if
it
has
a
trail
and
that's
what
the
applicant
is
putting
in
I
mean.
Excuse
me
if
the
master
plan
calls
for
a
trail
and
what
the
applicant
is
putting
in
is
a
sidewalk.
It
would
be
unfortunate,
in
my
opinion,.
K
Thank
you,
ma'am
sure,
I
I
just
do
have
a
few
questions
of
staff,
so
you're
you're
trying
to
decrease
the
storm
water
runoff
by
having
this
structured
parking.
But
if
it
was
a
lot,
went
to
storm
water
be
filtered
through
a
rain
Garden
or
some
type
of
retention.
Pond.
G
There
are
mitigation
strategies
for
surface
water
that
would
be
part
of
this
project,
regardless
of
whether
it
is
going
to
be
structured,
parking
or
Surface
parking.
But
generally
there
are
additional
impacts
for
surface
parking
that
are
just
reflected
in
our
zoning
ordinance
that
encourages
people
to
limit
the
size
of
a
surface
parking
lot
to
100
stalls.
K
Thank
you
and
in
to
the
earlier
question
from
the
other
commissioner:
there
there
is
no
difference
between
commercial
property
and
residential
retail.
Zoning
is
zoning.
You,
don't
you
don't
recognize
the
need
for
more
parking
for
a
warehouse
with
three
shifts.
G
So
that
would
be
reflected
more
in
the
maximum
parking
for
the
use
so
like.
If
there's
going
to
be
three
different
office,
tenants
and
an
a
warehousing
tenant
or
something,
you
know,
those
those
uses
themselves
have
a
maximum
parking
allotment,
and
my
understanding
is
that
the
applicant
is
not
proposing
to
exceed
that,
although
they
don't
have
the
tenants
identified.
Yet
it's
more
that
the
requirement
and
the
zoning
code
that's
being
addressed
here-
is
that
size
of
just
the
parking
lot
itself.
K
Okay
and
the
other
and
reading
the
applicant
they
they
gave
us
quite
a
document
here.
I,
don't
have
you
been
privileged
to
read
that.
G
Yeah,
we
reviewed
their
findings
and
did
not
find
that
the
that
the
proposed
findings
that
the
applicant
submitted
met
the
standard
for
the
findings.
The
staff
is
required
to
prepare.
K
I
G
Yep
so
when.
G
L
I
just
had
a
quick
question
for
have
any
changes
been
made
to
this
proposal,
since
we
saw
it
at
kamea
the
whole.
G
That
is
a
good
question.
Maybe
Kimberly
can
answer.
H
G
I
do
not
know
that
off
the
top
of
my
head.
I
do
know
that
this
site
need
requires
some
environmental
mitigation
which
may
be
influencing
some
of
the
site
characteristics
in
terms
of
the
design.
Okay,
the.
A
All
right
I'm
not
seeing
any
more
questions
from
Commissioners,
so
if
the
applicant
would
like
to
come
up
and
speak,
they
can
do
so
now.
Thank
you.
Lindsay.
N
Hi
Commissioners
Mike
Tobin,
with
45
North
group
I,
represent
the
owner
alcat
Minneapolis,
and
we
are
here
today.
Thank
thank
you
for
hearing
us.
Thank
you
for
your
feedback.
From
last
time.
Our
team
took
that
in
and
took
it
back
and
do
the
question
of
any
changes.
N
We
recognize
that
we're
being
held
to
staff's
recommendation
or
trying
to
overcome
staff
staff's
recommendation
of
denial
for
the
three
purposes,
and
hopefully
our
supplemental
information
gave
you
our
understanding
and
some
reasoning
why
we
feel
that
we
meet
that's
practical.
We
have
some
practical
issues
that
for
an
industrial
project,
this
makes
it
a
very
challenging
and
then
that
we
meet
the
intent
of
the
code
and
the
plan
and
we've
we've
tried
to
do
a
good
job
of
balancing.
What
we
understand
the
code
for
economic,
sustainable
development
is,
and
so
hopefully
we
Illustrated
some
of
that.
N
I
just
want
to
talk
about
a
couple
things
and
then
I
brought
the
rest
of
our
team
here
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
specifically
have
the
for
the
most
part,
we
recognize
that
designing
a
structured
parking
is
feasible
on
any
project
in
this
in
the
City
of
Minneapolis.
It
just
comes
down
to
unfortunately,
economics.
N
In
some
reason,
you're
trying
to
fit
a
into
an
asset
class
in
industrial
buildings
have
a
certain
economic
threshold
which
they
have
to
fit
into
and
at
some
point
it
doesn't
work,
and
in
this
case
we
are
in
an
empowerment,
Zone,
it's
geared
for
federal
and
state
and
highlighted
for
federal
and
state
investment
for
economic
development
and
we're
trying
to
fit
into
this
window
of
creating
an
industrial
project.
At
a
price
point,
we've
listed
a
bunch
of
practical
reasons
that
the
site
itself
constrains
our
ability
to
do
that
easily
being
on
a
corner.
N
We
can't
access
the
site
in
an
optimal
way.
Having
that
elevation
change
of
12
feet
has
issues,
we've
got
soil,
subsurface
issues
that
make
it
very
expensive
to
to
pile
and
support
the
structure
is
also
got.
We've
tried
to
optimize
infiltration,
which,
thankfully,
in
the
City
of
Minneapolis,
we
have
to
accommodate
all
of
it
on
site
which
we
do
underground,
and
so
we
have
the
underground
system.
We've
got
to
arrange
around
the
building
and
around
the
structured
parking.
N
Commissioners
also
brought
up
the
point
about
fire
access
and
some
of
the
accessibility
that
we
have
to
maintain
so
we've
studied.
We
went
back
over
the
last
couple
weeks
and
studying
great
detail
of
where
we
could
place
structured
parking,
and
we
just
couldn't
do
it
it's
very
it.
Doesn't
it
breaks
the
model
of
trying
to
fit
an
industrial
asset
on
this
site
at
this
size,
and
so
what
we?
What
we
wound
up
doing
was
look
talking
and
saying:
okay
impervious
surface.
N
If
we
take
away
88
stalls
and
make
structured
parking,
we
basically
net
the
same
impervious
surface,
so
we're
not
actually
realizing
that
decrease,
and
then
we
had
to
lose
Green
Space.
In
order
to
do
that,
because
you
have
to
you,
got
to
put
the
structure
park
in
a
certain
place,
you
got
to
have
access,
aisles
and
drive
lanes
and
all
that
and
so
balancing
that
we
saw
this
teeter-totter
effect
and
we
said:
okay
well,
let's
again
try
to
find
this
reasonableness
where
it
was
88
stalls.
You
know
it's
better
surface
for
a
lot
of
reasons.
N
We
can
see
the
advantages
for
structured,
but
we
thought
it
was
better
as
surface
parking
we
you
know
again.
The
aim
is
to
provide
an
industrial
asset.
We
think,
as
we
look
at
tenants
in
the
marketplace,
this
could
bring
in
500
jobs
into
Minneapolis,
good,
paying
industrial
jobs,
and
this
will
be
an
asset
that
is
designed
to
last
for
years
and
years
to
come
through
many
many
tenants.
It's
it's
going
to
be
cutting
edge
from
height.
It's
got
soul,
it's
going
to
have
solar
on
the
rooftops.
It's
got
a
gray
water
irrigation
system.
N
It's
got
EV
Chargers
we're
designing
to
have
truck
Chargers
so
that
the
tenants
can
install
truck
chargers
for
their
EV
trucks.
We've
got
bikes
that
we're
providing
we've
worked
with
staff
to
put
a
map
and
enhance
the
sidewalk,
and
so
we're
trying
to
fit
into
the
intent
and
spirit
of
the
ordinance
and
the
comp
plan
at
the
same
time,
designing
something
that'll
be
here
for,
like
I,
said
years
and
years
to
come,
Beyond
even
the
first
tenant.
N
The
first
tenant
is
hopefully
10
years,
but
what
this
is
a
building
that'll
last
50
7
500
years,
so
we
we've
got
to
keep
that
in
mind
as
we're.
Designing
too.
We
also,
you
know,
addressing
kind
of
the
multimodal
component
of
the
intent.
Is
we
try
to
again
we
were
located.
We
host
a
bus,
stop
so
we're
enhancing
that
we're
we're
a
block
and
a
half
away
from
another
bus.
N
N
We
we've
tried
to
highlight
two
on
that
tenant
the
lat,
the
tenants
that
have
been
placed
in
buildings
over
the
last
two
years.
We
showed
how
much
parking
stalls
they
required
for
the
buildings
that
they
entered
and
understanding
that
some
of
those
buildings
aren't
in
Minneapolis.
Those
tenants
required
quite
a
bit
of
parking,
and
that's
just
the
competitive
landscape
of
today
is:
there
is
a
a
requirement
for
parking.
What
we
try
to
highlight
is
we're
asking
for
the
very
minimum
of
all
the
tenants
that
are
asking
for
it
and
I've
got
the
RF.
N
L
Oh
sure,
yeah,
sorry,
hi,
sorry,
I
had
another
meeting
tonight.
I
had
a
quick
question,
so
I
I
remember
this
long
discussion.
We
had
with
you
at
Committee
of
the
whole
and
no
one
was
saying
that
you
had
to
make
structured
parking
that
was
not
where
we
had
landed.
It
was
really
show
us
an
exemplary
building
that
and
we'll
give
you
a
variance,
400
eight
parking
stalls,
especially
the
environmental
impact
of
this
building
right
you're,
taking
up
a
lot
more
space
with
parking.
How
can
you
do
better
rainwater
mitigation?
L
How
can
you
build
a
rain
guard?
How
can
you
have
solar?
What
are
you
doing
to
offset
that
impact
of
more
pavement
and
making
it
more
environmentally
sound,
which
is
in
keeping
with
our
comp
plan?
That's
that's
what
we
wanted
to
see
today
is
so
what
is
the
feedback
we
gave?
You
was
not
give
us
a
report
on
why
you
can't
make
structured
parking.
We
understand
it's
more
expensive
and
the
impacts
of
that
and
the
labor
and
all
of
the
uses
and
materials
and
how
much
more
expensive
it
is.
We
all
get
that.
L
N
Yeah
appreciate
the
question:
I
mean
that's
kind
of
why
we
went
back
and
challenged
ourselves.
What
more
we
could
do.
We
maximize
our
solar
output
by
maxing,
the
rooftop
solar,
we're
designing
the
entire
rooftop
be
to
accommodate
solar,
nor
the
process
of
Designing,
hopefully,
a
megawatt
of
solar
that
will
go
on
the
roof.
I
don't
have
the
exact
specs
of
that,
but
that's
the
whole
structure
can
support
solar,
so
the
entire
building
was
built
to
support
solar
on
the
rooftop,
we're
going
to
put
as
much
as
we
can
up
there.
N
The
gray
water
irrigation
system
was
in
from
the
start,
so
that's
the
entire
irrigation
system
we
plan
to
to
use
as
gray
water,
the
EV
Chargers,
the
more
green
space
than
required
by
code,
the
plantings,
the
multimodal
transportation,
all
those
things
we've
held
ourselves
to
a
very
high
level
and
so
I
hope
what
we
presented
wasn't
any
changes
but
highlighting
what
we
have
done
and
what
we
are
planning
to
do.
I,
don't
know!
L
I
think
a
lot
of
my
my
fellow
Commissioners
probably
have
great
ideas
for
you
in
the
fields
that
they
work
in,
but
I
think
that
that's
what
I
would
you
know
I'm
the
service
parking
to
me
is
not
the
big
issue.
It's
the
environmental
impact
of
creating
those
88
more
stalls
that
are
above
our
zoning
code,
so
I
think
highlighting
again
those
impacts
and
how
you
are
working
to
to
mitigate
that
is
really
important,
so
I'm
sure
between
the
park
board
and
park
planners
and
everything
else
across
the
board.
L
They
can
give
you
more
feedback,
but
I
would
be
fine
with
supporting
it.
If
there
was
a
lot
more
environmental
aspects
included.
N
That's
a
good
way
to
wrap
up
I
mean
we
think
we're
providing
something
that
is
unique
in
the
industrial
Marketplace
I.
Don't
think
you'll
you'll
find
a
sustainably
built
industrial
building
like
ours
anywhere
else,
I'm
hard
pressed
to
find
anything
else.
We're
we're
pursuing
we're
using
the
lead
guidelines
to
design
the
building.
We
think
we
can
get.
You
know
at
least
a
certified,
a
higher
level
industrial
buildings
to
get
a
lead
certification
is
extremely
hard,
but
given
what
we're
trying
to
do
this
is
something
that
we
felt
was
important.
N
The
owner
feels
very
strongly
to
include
what
we
have
included
thus
far,
so
with
that
I
think
that
was
a
good
way
to
highlight.
Hopefully
we
understand
it's
a
TR,
there's
trades,
and
this
is
that
balance.
We
we're
hoping
to
show
you
that
we've
come
with
a
reasonable
proposal
asking
for
reasonable
variance,
we're
not
asking
for
something.
That's
300
parking
stalls
we're
not
asking
to
exceed
the
Green
Space.
N
You
know
go
and
ask
for
15
green
space,
we're
at
we're
offering
26,
which
is
over
the
20
percent,
we're
offering
a
bunch
of
other
things
to
try
to
say
we
love
an
88
stall
parking
variants
and
there's
a
lot
of
practical
reasons
that
we
think
it.
It
provides
justification
and,
like
I,
said
about
the
entire,
our
team
here
architect,
civil
engineering
contractor
to
answer
any
questions
that
anybody
has.
D
Just
one
quick
question
did
I
hear
you
say
that
you're
expecting
500
jobs
on
this
thing.
Well,
I'm,
looking
at
the
the
Metropolitan
council,
local
planning
handbook,
and
it
says
that
for
in
for
a
middlely
for
a
warehouse
space
which
how
you
describe
it
it's,
it
would
be.
Typically,
let's
see
It'll
be
400
jobs
for
600
000
square
feet,
which
would
work
out
roughly
to
be
about
100
jobs
on
this
site.
So
where
is
the
extra
density
coming?
No.
N
It's
a
good
question
yeah.
So
on
that
when
we
provided
the
tenant
Matrix
or
that
list
of
tenants,
we
had
we
calculated,
you
know
percentage
of
office
and
percentage
of
warehouse
and
then
added
up
by
code.
How
many,
how
many
employees
or
occupants
you
could
have
in
the
building,
and
we
came
up
to
close
to
that
500
I
think
it
was
491
occupants,
and
so
that's
what
we
we
based
it
on
understanding
and
it.
N
We
have
said
before
that
this
is
a
spec
development,
so
we've
showed
where
I
think
CPC,
which
just
went
in
just
north
of
the
city.
There
they
went
in
with
they've,
got
close
to
650
tenants
and
they
have
a
2.73
ratio,
parking
ratio
to
square
foot,
and
so
we
hope
we're
trying
to
hit
we're
trying
to
put
a
building
into
play
that
will
attract
tennis
to
Minneapolis,
that'll,
attract
jobs
and
we
think
the
minimum
to
attract
and
what
we're
seeing
is
108
stalls
that
we
need
and
again
it
could
be
structured.
N
It
can
couldn't
be
I
understand
that
we're
trying
to
ask
for
the
variance
to
get
the
Stalls
on
the
surface,
to
keep
it
competitive
and
to
track
those
tenants
to
us.
But
I
would
love
to
say
that
we
can
definitely
get
500
I'm
saying
we
could
get
and
that's
what
we're
hoping
is
trying
to
get
attract
tenants
to
Minneapolis.
D
The
other
thing
a
question
I
have
is
well
I,
guess
comment.
I
have
is
that
you
list,
as
part
of
the
reasons
that
makes
this
different,
is
that
it's
sitting
in
a
federal
opportunity,
Zone,
but
that's
usually
regarded
as
a
benefit
as
a
tax
benefit
to
that
not
a
it's
I've,
never
heard
of
it
being
a
burden
before.
How
would
you
see
it
as
a.
N
Burden
I
see
it
as
more
of
a
unique
instance,
a
practical
reason.
It's
it's
it
to
me.
It
says
that
the
federal
and
state
have
indicated
that
this
area
is
earmarked
for
more
development.
It's
economically
challenged,
it
needs
development
and
that's
what
we're
trying
to
bring
to
the
table
and
given
the
economic
environment,
we're
in
is
the
price
point
of
building.
N
Anything
today
keeps,
as
you
may
all
know,
is
that
it
keeps
going
up
and
trying
to
put
an
industrial
asset
into
play
in
today's
market
in
an
area
that's
already
geared
for
trying
to
invest
in
to
it
that
presents
a
uniqueness
to
our
site,
as
opposed
to
other
sites,
industrial
sites
in
Minneapolis
or
in
the
state.
It
is
a
unique
characteristic
of
this
site.
That's
what
we're
trying
to
highlight.
M
Yeah,
just
I
wonder
if
anybody's
done
a
study
yet
where,
because
I
think
our
codes
may
be
ordinance
may
be
off
a
little
bit
because
I
think
when
you
look
at
the
carbon
impact
of
structured
parking
versus
surface,
it's
it's
really
skewed
I
mean
building
a
structured
parking
is,
is
much
more
detrimental
in
terms
of
that
regard.
So
for
me,
I'm
looking
at
if
we're
gonna
have
more
surface
area,
are
we
processing
the
water?
Well?
Are
we
filtering
it?
Are
we
storing
it
and
I
think
this?
M
In
this
case
they
are
and
so
I
think
the
without
reducing
the
size
of
the
building
tremendously
to
then
you
play
a
chicken
and
egg
game
about
number
of
stalls
versus
square
footage
that
the
fact
that
you're
gonna
have
to
have
a
service
road
around
this
anyway
to
have
additional
party,
it
seems,
it
just
seems
to
make
sense
in
this
instance:
I'm
I'm.
You
know
cognizant
of
precedent
and
everything
but
I
think
when
I
pile
all
those
together
given
what
is
happening
here
and
I
think
there
has
been.
M
We
can
talk
about
Aesthetics
and
and
the
building
all
day
long,
but
I
think
we're.
We
are
setting
a
really
high
bar
in
terms
of
the
things
this
client
is
bringing
to
the
table
as
far
as
environmental
positive
impacts.
M
You
know
yeah
that
I
I
feel
pretty
good
about
this.
So
I
I
get
the
100
stalls.
It
seems
in
a
way
we
had
to
make
a
number,
so
we
did,
and
but
in
this
specific
case,
I
think
I
would
support
the
variants.
E
Maguire,
okay,
thank
you
I!
Guess!
I!
Don't
disagree
with
commissioner
backslash
I
have
a
couple
questions,
so
you
said
that
the
roof
can
support
solar,
but
it's
actually
in
the
plans
to
do
the
solar
right
now
correct.
N
E
Okay,
solar's
not
on
there
gotcha
okay
are
the
renderings
and
everything-
and
it's
it's
not
in
here
so
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
the
other
thing
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
is
if
we
are
trying
to
do
a
multimodal
environmental
building
which
it
sounds
like
you
are
I
think
it's
10
parking
stalls
for
bikes
right,
only
10.!
N
E
Okay,
I,
don't
know
if
that's
I,
don't
know
if
you
have
500
staff,
do
you
think
are
gonna
be
coming
there
and
what
you're
arguing,
maybe
more
than
16?
If
we're
really
trying
to
argue
the
environmental
side
of
it,
it
doesn't
really
seem
like
a
I.
Don't
know
seems
like
we're
picking
and
choosing
things
to
point
out,
but
I
don't
know
10
parking
stalls
outside
in
16
I,
don't
know
it
doesn't
seem
like
a
lot
to
me,
commissioner,.
C
Commissioner,
Baxley
said
something
that
I
think
I
just
wanted
to
piggyback
on,
which
is
that
I'm
viewing
this
as
two
really
difficult
or
two
good
things
that
we
have
to
balance.
One
is,
in
my
opinion,
our
support
of
the
2040
plan
insofar
as
the
the
different
environmental
mechanisms
within
it
that
prevent
the
growth
of
service
parking
lots
across
our
city
juxtaposed
with
an
urban
you
or
excuse
me,
an
industrial
use
that
I
think
is
generally
considered
harder
to
fill,
has
lower
profit
margins
and
a
much
more
difficult.
C
You
know
business
climate
in
order
to
fill
it
and
whether
or
not
we
believe
that
the
code
AS
written
gives
us
the
ability
to
generate
business,
growth
and
Community
growth,
and
all
these
other
things
across
our
city
and
I.
Think
considering
many
of
the
the
aspects
that
commissioner
paxley
just
mentioned,
I
think
it's
you
it's
challenging
right,
I!
Think
we
as
a
as
a
board.
Look
at
you
know
the
staff
report
and
what
you
put
in
front
of
us,
and
you
know,
want
to
be
fair
to
both
and
I.
Think
in
this
case.
C
It's
a
question
of
some
of
these
environmental
considerations,
which
I
think
are
really
important
and
I.
Think
many
people
on
this
board
over
the
last
couple
of
months
and
years
have
been
strongly
in
supportive
of
including
myself
or
you
know,
thinking
about
the
the
broader
use
of
the
property
and
the
environment
in
which
it
exists
and
the
context
in
which
it's
being
asked
and
making
a
decision
in
that
that
regard
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
contextualize
my
thoughts
that
way
saying
that
I
think
this
the
site
does
present
some
pretty
unique
challenges.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I.
I
will
not
be
able
to
speak
as
well
as
commissioner,
Baxter
or
Campbell
or
McGuire,
but
I
I
do
appreciate
the
staff
report
and
I
think
we
have
a
great
staff.
You
know
whether
it's
Kimberly
or
the
planning
staff,
but
in
this
case
I
I,
do
not
agree
with
them.
I
I
think
we
have
to
help
this
organization
build
their
their
building
and
and
set
the
standard
for
solar
panels.
The
gray
water
usage,
the
EV
Chargers,
the
extra
Green
Space.
This
is
what
all
future
projects
should
look
like.
K
So,
as
commissioner
Campbell
said,
you
know,
we
all
all
of
us
support
the
2040
plan
in
general,
but
on
as
we
look
at
each
individual
project,
this
this
project
itself
and
again
I
appreciate
the
staff
report,
but
I
I'm
going
to
be
voting
to
allow
the
variance
for
the
188
parking
stalls.
Thank
you.
F
Fayola
I
just
want
to
add
that
you
pointed
out
the
solar
garden
and
I.
Don't
remember,
hearing
that
before
and
I'm
pretty
closely
involved
with
some
of
the
current
solar
Gardens
and
there's
a
huge
demand
so
I,
if
you
would
have
highlighted
that
from
the
get-go,
but
I
mean
that's
amazing,
but
so
there's
a
huge
demand
right
now
for
the
solar
Gardens,
there's
a
disconnect
between
Center
Point
or
excel
in
the
Solar
Gardens,
but
that's
being
worked
on
as
well.
So
thanks
for
pointing
that
out,
I
support
the
parking.
H
You
I
am
having
a
hard
time
seeing
the
Practical
difficulties,
the
non-economic
practical
difficulties
represented
by
increasing
the
number
of
surface
parking
spaces
by
almost
50
percent.
H
Frankly,
I
mean
it's
not
like
it
was
it's
100
versus
105,
it's
another,
almost
50
increase
there,
so
I
mean
the
the
things
that
I
have
I've
tried
to
go
through
what
you
put
together
and
highlight
them-
and
perhaps
this
is
more
helpful
to
my
colleagues
but
the
grade
change
along
Broadway,
I
felt
or
maybe
perhaps
the
soil
issues,
but
other
than
that.
Every
I
mean
lots
of
things
that
I
read
in
here
are
related
to
economics
in
relation
to
this
variance.
N
I
definitely
comment
on
that.
I
appreciate,
I,
think
that's
where
understanding
that
anything
can
be
built
for
any
dollar
amount.
That's
where
we
we
in
the
context
of
trying
to
fit
the
industrial
building.
We
try
to
do
as
best
we
can
to
fit
it
in
and
study
that
structured
parking
piece
and
we
tried
to
lay
out
and
we
kept
coming
back
and
the
team
challenged
ourselves
to
say.
Well,
that's
an
economic
reason.
That's
the
neck,
essentially
they
all
are
even
a
tenant
is
an
economic
reason
to
do
something.
N
D
Thank
you,
Madam
chair,
I,
I'm
gonna
be
voting
no
on
the
variance
request,
I
supporting
the
staff
request,
a
staff
recommendation,
I
I'm,
not
convinced
that
there
is
anything
particularly
unique
here.
I
mean
there
are
soil
problems,
many
construction
projects
in
the
city.
There
are
great
changes
all
over
the
city.
D
You
are
in
a
tax
benefit
property,
Zone,
I,
just
I
I,
don't
see
it
frankly
and
I
think
we're
being
asked
to
buy
a
pig
in
the
Poke
I
mean
it
might
be
that
we
will
get
500
jobs
there,
but
we
have
no
reason
to
think
that's
the
case
other
than
what
you've
you're
hoping
to
achieve,
and
that's
not
typical
of
a
of
my
understanding
of
warehouse
jobs,
and
you
do
point
out
you,
you
allocate
apparently
thirty
thousand
dollars
thirty
thousand
square
feet
rather
for
office
space
and
152
000
square
feet.
D
A
I
Hello,
my
name
is
Gretchen
Schrader
with
Westwood
Professional
Services,
we're
the
design
team
for
the
project
and
just
thought
I'd
clarify
a
couple
questions
that
have
come
up
on
the
trails
system.
Just
to
let
you
know
we
did
originally
have
a
trail
on
the
North
side,
along
Broadway,
based
on
feedback
from
Public
Works
between
the
tdmp
plan
and
the
PDR
comments.
I
We
were
asked
to
remove
that
saying
that
it
was
not
identified
as
a
gap
in
the
sidewalk
and
Bikeway
plan,
so
we
are
working
with
Public
Works
to
identify
that
just
want
to
touch
base
on
storm
water
as
well,
because
that's
been
brought
up
by
several
Commissioners.
We
are
proposing
an
underground
system
on
this
site.
It's
located
on
the
far
East
side
of
the
site
where
we
have
better
soils.
I
As
noted
in
the
doc
provided
information,
the
site
soils
are
Clay
on
the
site
or
they're
mostly
fill
the
top
six
to
24
feet
on
this
site
is
fill
and
those
fill
soils
are
clay
which
doesn't
allow
for
abstraction
of
storm
water.
However,
with
the
underground
system,
we
are
able
to
get
closer
to
that
sand,
glacial
layer
underneath
that,
and
so
that
allows
us
to
provide
the
infiltration
on
this
site
at
a
subsurface
level
that
has
the
same
benefit
of
brain
Gardens
on
a
Sandy
site
as
far
as
recharging
the
groundwater.
I
So
it's
able
to
do
that.
We
did
look
at
rain
Gardens
on
the
surface.
Typically,
that
would
be
more
beneficial.
If
you
had
a
lot
of
surface
or
I'm
sorry
parking
lot
Islands,
you
know
you
could
direct
water
to
those,
in
this
case
we're
directing
water
to
the
perimeter.
Our
Green
Space
is
largely
uphill
on
the
site
on
the
East,
where
we're
not
disturbing
the
existing
Woods.
What
area
we've
got
actually
a
retaining
wall
that
goes
up
to
that,
so
we
obviously
cannot
drain
to
that
higher
elevation.
I
So
we
thought
that
the
underground
system
was
the
best
use
to
basically
provide
handled,
storm
water
and
that's
in
real
per
the
city
regulations
to
abstract
and
infiltrate
1.1
inches
over
the
impervious
area
and
then
also
provide
rate
control.
So
we're
not
going
to
be
increasing
the
runoff
from
existing
conditions.
A
O
Is
Jennifer
Kaplan
I'm
the
project
architect,
as
we
were
looking
at
that
site
to
add
the
structured
parking
one
of
the
big
items
and
even
staff
brought
up
to
us
is
early
on
in
the
project.
Is
that
wherever
you
have
parking,
you
must
have
a
window
so
that
people
from
inside
the
building
can
look
out
onto
the
parking
lot
to
make
sure
whoever's
walking
out
to
their
cars
are
staying
safe.
O
So
we
added
a
lot
of
windows
because
we
knew
we
had
parking
along
that
side.
So
now,
if
we
have
structured
parking,
I
really
have
to
walk
700
feet
from
one
end
of
the
building
to
the
structured
parking
at
three
shifts.
So
that
means
I'm
doing
it
at
night
time
and
truthfully.
The
structured
parking
is
in
the
far
end
of
the
site,
it's
away
from
the
corner
of
the
building.
O
So
if
I
have
structured
parking
there,
how
am
I
going
to
keep
that
those
people
safe
in
that
parking
ramp?
And
we
all
know
parking
ramps
are
difficult
these
days
and
maybe
it
can
be
improved,
but
there
it's
very
difficult
to
keep
people
safe
in
parking
ramps.
So
that's
one
other
reason
that
we
wanted
to
keep
it
keep
the
parking
in
the
areas
where
we
have
Windows
and
we
can
look
out
and
see
the
people
walking
to
their
cars
at
all
times
of
their
shifts.
A
Is
there
anyone
else
who
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item
all
right,
seeing
none
I'm
going
to
close
the
public
hearing,
I
will
say
before
or
as
we
begin
discussion
on
this
item
I,
it
would
be
very
inconsistent
of
me
to
support
a
variance
for
a
SPEC
Building
to
almost
double
the
parking
and
when
there's
clearly
no
practical
difficulty
for
the
site.
A
If
we
were
to
start
seeing
a
pattern,
you
know
where
we're
having
trouble
with
parking
on
these
sites.
Maybe
I
would
listen
to
a
case
about
changing
the
zoning
code,
but
in
this
case
we
are
looking
at
the
zoning
code
and
we
are
applying
it
to
the
project
and
I.
Just
don't
think
it
I
can't
think
of
any
way.
I
could
justify
doing
that.
A
So
I
know
the
commission
appears
pretty
divided.
If
there's
going
to
be
a
motion
to
approve
a
variance,
we
of
course
need
to
come
up
with
some
findings
for
why
we
would
be
approving
that
variance.
So.
D
A
Okay-
and
we
have
a
second
from
commissioner
Maguire-
is
there
any
discussion,
commissioner.
E
Maguire,
okay,
I,
just
don't
think
that
they
I
think
I
would
have
been
open
to
a
variance
I,
really
don't
think
they
sold
it
besides
anything,
but
the
economic
considerations
of
the
site.
E
You
know
it's
a
vacant
10-acre
site,
so
I
have
a
really
hard
time
with
finding
a
practical
difficulty
there
and
state
statute
says
we
can't
do
it
for
economic
considerations,
so
I
don't
really
know
what
the
findings
would
be
and
you
guys
know:
I
love,
making
findings
I'm
your
findings,
girl,
but
I,
don't
have
any
findings
here
and
I
think
you
know
I'm,
just
I'm
not
sold
with
a
multimodal
site.
With
that
few
bike,
stalls
and
188
parking
stalls
to
me.
E
It
just
feels
very
I,
don't
know
it's
a
spec
industrial
build
and
I,
don't
think
I'm
I
would
not
be
supportive
of
the
increase.
I,
don't
think
they've
sold
it,
but
if
they
wanted
to
come
back-
and
you
know-
provide
those
88
saws
and
at
a
future
meeting
and
show
that
they
needed
it
and
do
it
then,
with
different
points.
That's
fine,
but
right
now,
I
think
Steph
made
the
best
findings.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
I
have
a
question
of
Kimberly,
so
commissioner
Maguire
had
said:
if,
if
they
come
back
to
show
the
need
it
can,
can
the
applicant
come
back.
J
Typically,
so,
there's
a
provision
in
the
zoning
ordinance
that
basically
States
they
can't
come
back
with
the
same
request
within
one
year
of
being
denied
for
a
project,
so
there
would
have
to
be
something
substantially
different
about
any
new
application
if
they
were
to
come
back
through
and
ask
for
that
variance
again,
I'm
keeping
in
mind.
The
motion
on
the
floor
approves
all
of
the
applications
except
for
the
number
of
surface
parking
stalls.
J
So
it
is
a
project
that
could
very
easily
move
forward
with
a
reduction
in
surface
parking
and
if
they
found
they
needed
more,
there
would
be
the
option
to
come
back
in
a
year
now
that
the
commission
would
feel
any
differently
at
that
time.
But
you
know
the
legal
findings
are
the
same
and
in
this
case
staff
was
not
able
to
find
under
findings
one
or
two
so
lacking
a
practical
difficulty
here
and
did
not
find
that
it
was
consistent
with
adopted
policy
or
the
comp
plan.
M
J
Yeah
I
mean
we
don't
want
to
make
up
findings,
not
knowing
what
the
site
conditions
would
be
sort
of
future
phase.
You
know,
I
think
a
point
that's
been
made
pretty
consistently
across
the
board
here
is
that
this
is
a
spec
industrial
site
and
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
data
about
uses
or
users
or
number
of
employees.
J
So
without
that
information
it
would
be
again
and
per
the
staff
findings
very
difficult
to
make
a
case
for
practical
difficulty.
It's
possible
time
would
give
them
more
information
and
more
data,
but
that's
pure
speculation.
At
this
point.
A
Commissioner,
oh
unless
commissioner
backs
is
not
done.
Okay,
commissioner
marwa.
L
J
The
zoning
code
right
now
restricts
the
number
of
surface
parking
spaces
to
100
city-wide,
except
for
downtown,
where
we
restrict
it
to
20..
So
if
they
got
if
they
built
100
parking
spaces,
any
additional
parking
spaces
on
the
site
would
require
a
variance
in
the
future.
A
Commissioner
rainville
did
you
have
a
question
again
or
okay?
No,
that's.
L
A
Right
all
right,
I'm,
not
seeing
any
more
discussion,
so
I'll
ask
the
clerk
to
please
call
the
roll
on
the
motion.
B
M
N
A
Right
that
motion
passes
and
staff
recommendation
has
been
adopted
on
that
item.
That
was
our
last
item
for
the
evening.
Are
there
any
announcements
from.
J
Staff
we
did
have
some
discussion
before
the
meeting
started,
just
a
reminder
that
our
first
meeting
in
November
is
going
to
be
on
a
Tuesday.
So
instead
of
having
a
meeting
on
Halloween
we'll
have
a
meeting
on
Tuesday
November
1st,
we
have
one
item
at
Committee
of
the
whole.
This
coming
Thursday
and
I
will
send
a
reminder,
but
I
will
be
absent
for
the
October
17th
meeting
and
Hillary
Dvorak
will
be
sitting
in
for
me
at
that
meeting.
All.
A
Right.
Thank
you
any
other
comments
from
the
commission
before
we
adjourn
all
right.
If
not
and
without
objection,
I'll
declare
this
meeting
adjourned.
Our
next
Planning
Commission
meeting
will
be
Tuesday.
Oh
wait,
no
Monday,
October
17th
and
our
next
Committee
of
the
whole
meeting
will
be
Thursday
October
6th.
Thank
you.