2026-09-28 - City Planning Commission

00:08Welcome everyone to the regular meeting

00:09for the Minneapolis Planning Commission

00:10for September 28th, 2026. My name is

00:13Chris Meyer and I'm chair of the

00:14commission. At this time, I will ask the

00:16clerk to call the role.

00:19>> Commissioner Baxley is absent. Tori.

00:28[laughter]

00:29Yes,

00:29>> I heard Toby.

00:31>> Chowry, sorry. [laughter]

00:33>> I was like, I don't know. Present.

00:37>> Connley

00:38>> present.

00:39>> Garcia is absent. Gordon is absent.

00:43Jones is absent. Shepy is absent.

00:48Shepard

00:49>> here.

00:50>> Vice President Wagner

00:51>> here.

00:52>> And chair, I'm sorry, President Meyer

00:55>> here.

00:55>> There are five members present.

00:57>> We have a quorum. First, we'll go to the

00:59minutes. We have two of them. I would

01:01like someone like to move the adoption

01:02of the minutes for August 24th and

01:04September 14th.

01:05>> So, move.

01:06>> Second.

01:06>> Is there any discussion?

01:08>> All in favor say I. I. Opposed.

01:10Abstensions. The minutes are adopted.

01:13Next, we're going to organize our

01:14agenda. We have four public hearing

01:16items. Staff are recommending that all

01:18four of them be put on our consent

01:19agenda. I'm going to read through each

01:21one of them. If you came to speak

01:24against the staff recommendation for one

01:25of the items, raise your hand when I

01:27call on it. If you wanted to speak in

01:29support or make neutral comments, you'll

01:31have a chance to do that in just a

01:32minute. But we want to look now for just

01:34people who are against the staff

01:36recommendation. Uh so first item four,

01:39356144th

01:40Street West and 4409 Chowan Avenue

01:43South. Was anyone here to speak against

01:45that? Okay. So we will discuss that one.

01:50Uh second is 3200 KO Avenue Southeast.

01:53Was anyone here to speak against the

01:55staff recommendation for item number

01:57five?

02:00All right, we'll keep that on consent.

02:03Third, we have 800 Fifth Street

02:04Southeast. Was anyone here to speak

02:06against the staff recommendation for

02:08item number six?

02:12All right, we'll keep that on consent.

02:15And last, we have 700 Xerxes Avenue

02:17North. Was anyone here to speak against

02:20the staff recommendation for that one?

02:24All right. So to review, we will discuss

02:26item four and we'll have items five,

02:29six, and seven on our consent agenda. Uh

02:34so I will open up the hearing for our

02:36consent items. If you wanted to speak to

02:38any of them to items five, six, or

02:40seven, you can do so now. Did anyone

02:41want to speak? Go ahead.

02:46Welcome. Introduce yourself and you have

02:48two minutes.

02:51>> Thank you, Chair Meer. My name is

02:52Monnique McKenzie. I'm the director of

02:53campus planning at the University of

02:54Minnesota. Um I'm just here to speak yes

02:57in favor of the uh staff recommendations

02:59for item 5, which is the property at

03:013200 KO Avenue Southeast. But I am here

03:04also and I believe you're in receipt of

03:06our letter to recommend some additional

03:08consideration for that site plan review

03:10in particular. And this specifically

03:11relates to the topic of storm water

03:13management. Um this property that you're

03:16considering is a 10acre site. It's

03:17immediately adjacent to the University

03:18of Minnesota's land where we have a lot

03:20of our operations. As noted in your

03:22staff report, um we have really three uh

03:25requests for you to consider under your

03:26site plan review findings that your

03:28staff have prepared. We have worked with

03:30this land owner actually since the early

03:322000s, but in 2017 with the current land

03:34owner on how to manage for storm water

03:36runoff conditions, which are not good on

03:38the site you are considering. Um and

03:40that property owner has been very um

03:43engaged with us about how to remedy the

03:45situation. Unfortunately, the treatment

03:47at the southwest corner of this site

03:48does not do that. It is a landscape

03:50feature as noted in your staff report,

03:52but it does not address the grading nor

03:54any of the engineering you would expect

03:55to see. So, we can actually see storm

03:57water managed at that site. You may have

03:59seen in our letter that we enclosed some

04:01pictures uh on the last page of that. Um

04:04the conditions are better today because

04:05the university made some decisions to

04:07manage for storm water. That connection

04:09was permitted by the city. Um we

04:11specifically dedicated land and

04:12resources so we would not be wiped out

04:14by the flooding conditions that were

04:16occurring there. So, our three requests

04:19for you at the city um in terms of your

04:21site plan review as the final versions

04:23of these advance is to redesign that

04:25snow storage area in the southwest

04:26quadrant of the site as a storm water

04:28BMP. That is to avoid the risks we have

04:31already experienced in terms of damages

04:33and to prelude future risk. Uh there may

04:36be some considerations about putting a

04:37fueling station at that site,

04:39particularly if the storm water is not

04:40addressed, whether an incidental spill

04:42or a flooding caused spill will cause

04:45sheet drainage across to our property

04:47and eventually overwhelm the city's

04:48infrastructure at that location.

04:51That's really what I wanted to say.

04:52Commissioners, I'm happy to answer more

04:54questions. Uh we are dedicated to work

04:55with this land owner and of course

04:57within the city, we both hold MS4

04:58permits. We both have responsibilities

05:00to the state of Minnesota to uphold the

05:03storm water management and we ask the

05:05city I'm sorry the commission to um

05:07consider these reasonable and preventive

05:09measures in the site plan review

05:10component of this project application.

05:13Thank you.

05:14>> Thank you. Would anyone else like to

05:16testify to our consent items?

05:21>> All right. Uh not seeing anyone else. Um

05:25can we have so so I'll close the

05:27hearing. Um, can we have Aspen

05:30just speak to the testimony we just

05:32heard? And,

05:34um, I'm wondering if we can incorporate

05:36any of of the recommendations from the

05:38university or if you would recommend

05:39that.

06:03Thank you, Chair Meyer. Um, good

06:05afternoon, commissioners. My name is

06:06Aspen Flands, city planner on the land

06:09use design and preservation team. The

06:12application um before you at 3200 KOMO

06:15Avenue Southeast is an expansion of an

06:18existing bus maintenance and storage

06:20facility that's currently operated by

06:23Transdev. That applicant um has

06:27contracts with the University of

06:29Minnesota as well as the city of

06:32Plymouth um to and metrotransit to

06:36provide bus services in our city. They

06:40have been on the site since 2007. The

06:42request now is simply to take outdoor

06:47storage and put it within the existing

06:48warehouse building now that that

06:50adjacent tenants has vacated the site

06:53which was a pallet management company

06:54called 4840.

06:56Um, and I'm showing here the proposed

06:59site plan. So, it's a fully developed

07:0295% imperous site. Um, and with the site

07:06plan review that's required for our

07:09vehicle fleet oriented services uses,

07:11you can see that some additional

07:13landscaping is being proposed as well as

07:15a fuel station that doesn't currently

07:17exist on the site. Um, where this orange

07:23boxes and that is the side of the

07:25property that shares a property line

07:26with the University of Minnesota's um,

07:28property that you just heard about. In

07:31the southwest corner, there's a snow

07:33storage site proposed that staff is

07:35recommending be landscaped um just to

07:38add additional pvious surface. Their

07:41impervious their landscaping requirement

07:44for a site of this size is over 66,000

07:47square ft. They currently have around

07:5028,000. They are proposing 35,000.

07:54staff is recommending that that 10,000

07:56square foot corner um because it is the

07:59lowest grade on the site and it does um

08:03all drain to adjacent properties that

08:04that also be landscaped to retain some

08:06of that storm water. As you heard from

08:09the testimony um they do have an

08:12industrial storm water permit that's

08:13active with the addition of this fueling

08:16site. public works because this has

08:18already gone through the first round of

08:19PDR has indicated that an update to the

08:22site's industrial storm water permit is

08:24likely needed given that addition of the

08:26fuel site. So most of the concerns that

08:30you just heard would hopefully be taken

08:34care of by that permitting process.

08:37Additionally, if half of an acre is

08:39disturbed, our public works um storm

08:42water chapter requires a storm water

08:44management plan. And so if the applicant

08:47does exceed more than half an acre of

08:48disturbance with their proposed upgrades

08:50to the site, there are approvals that

08:53they will go through with public works

08:55rather than our planning department to

08:58make sure that that's taken care of.

09:00>> Great.

09:02Thank you. Uh commissioners, are there

09:04any questions or discussion about our

09:06consent agenda?

09:08>> Commissioner Shepard,

09:09>> just want to thank you for that

09:10presentation. Is this just landscape or

09:12is this a BMP that we're looking at in

09:14that corner?

09:16>> Thank you for the question. Um staff's

09:18recommendation is just to landscape that

09:20corner. I am not sure if if this

09:23proposal does trigger a storm water

09:25management plan or those updates to the

09:27industrial storm water permit, how if

09:30this area could also be used as a BMP,

09:33but in terms of the zoning code, we

09:35don't have specifics to require that.

09:38>> And I think it's section 54, I think.

09:40>> Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

09:45>> All right. Um, so if any commissioner

09:48wants to take, you know, an item off

09:50consent, we can do that. But we weren't

09:54we weren't, you know, explicitly asked

09:55to do that. So I would suggest just

09:56moving to adopt this and encourage um

09:59the applicant to work with the

10:00university and hopefully have those

10:02resolved when the peritting process goes

10:03through. Is there a motion uh to adopt

10:05staff findings for our consent items?

10:09>> Motion. All right. Is there a second?

10:12>> All right. Any discussion? All in favor

10:15of adopting our consent items, say I. I.

10:17Opposed. Absentions.

10:19>> All right. Those are adopted. If you

10:20were here for items five, six, or seven,

10:22uh, those are passed. Good luck with

10:24your projects.

10:26All right. Now, we'll move uh to item

10:29number four. And staff is Andrew Fence.

10:53Good afternoon, Chair Meyer and

10:54commissioners. Uh before you today is an

10:56application for a reasonzoning and site

10:58plan review to allow the construction of

11:00a new four-story mixeduse building with

11:0218 dwelling units and approximately

11:042,000 square ft of commercial space at

11:073561

11:0844th Street West and 4409 Chowan Avenue

11:11South. The subject property consists of

11:14two parcels at the southeast corner of

11:1644th in Chowan. Um 356144th

11:20Street West is currently developed with

11:22a singlestory auto repair use and 4409

11:25Chowan is currently developed uh with a

11:27duplex. The property includes a narrow

11:29strip of land that extends out to 44th

11:32Street. That's what's uh that that uh

11:34sort of narrow flag in in red on the

11:36right there. Um

11:39uh and that's that constitutes one half

11:41of a shared driveway that's used by

11:43seven properties on this block. Uh the

11:45shared driveway functions much like a

11:47public alley but it is not public right

11:49ofway um and is instead uh private

11:52property um and the shared driveways

11:54established by private easements. Um the

11:57applicant is proposing to demolish both

11:59of the existing buildings and to

12:00construct a new four-story mixeduse

12:02building with 18 dwelling units and

12:04about 2,000 ft of commercial space. All

12:06of the proposed units would be two bed,

12:08two bath units. Um the commercial space

12:11would be oriented um towards 44th Street

12:14while the residential entrance would

12:15face Chowin. Um

12:19uh there would be an 18 space uh parking

12:22garage on the first floor accessed by a

12:24single curb cut on Chowan. Um there'd be

12:26a total of 24 long-term bikes bike bike

12:29parking spaces um and four short-term

12:31spaces um in the Chowan Avenue right

12:34away. Um the building has been designed

12:36to have a zero lot line uh urban street

12:38wall adjacent to 44th Street. Um and

12:40then on the Chowan frontage to

12:42transition between that um kind of

12:44commercial context and built form to the

12:46residential context of the neighborhood

12:48interior to the south with a series of

12:50steps uh back as as you move south along

12:53Chowan. Um the building would be clad

12:55primarily in brick um adjacent uh to um

13:00to the street where it presents a

13:02traditional street wall. Um and then on

13:04the interior elevations, it would be uh

13:06primarily burnished block at the first

13:08floor. Um and then uh stucco on the on

13:12the upper floors. Um in addition to the

13:16uh site plan review application and

13:18resoning that are before you today, the

13:20project also requires two administrative

13:23F premiums. Um the project as proposed

13:25is meeting the F premiums uh for

13:28mixeduse residential and commercial um

13:30as well as for enclosed parking.

13:34the uh 35 um 61 uh 44th Street parcel is

13:39located in the corridor 2 mixeduse

13:41district. That's a commercial zoning

13:43district. Um while the 4409 Showan

13:46parcel is in the UN3 urban neighborhood

13:48district both of these parcels are in

13:50the corridor 4 built form overlay

13:52district. Because these properties are

13:54in different primary zoning districts,

13:56in order to allow their combination and

13:59their development together as one

14:01project, um the SZ split zoning overlay

14:05district needs to be added uh to the

14:07properties to allow that. Um the SZ uh

14:10district defines the conditions under

14:12which properties with different zoning

14:14designations can be developed together.

14:16Um and lays out how um uh conflicting uh

14:22zoning regulations between those primary

14:24districts are are dealt with. Um so in

14:26this case they are proposing that

14:27resoning to add the split zoning

14:29overlay. Um and by adding the split

14:31zoning overlay here, they're allowing

14:32the properties to be developed together

14:35um while maintaining uh the existing

14:38boundaries between the commercial zoning

14:40and the residential zoning on the site

14:41and in the neighborhood. Um these

14:43applications were previously continued

14:46from uh the October 24th meeting. Um I'm

14:49sorry, the August 24th meeting. Um the

14:52purpose of that continuence was to allow

14:53for the applicant to make some changes

14:56uh to accommodate the building's

14:57transformer uh while complying with both

15:00um the uh driveway easement that's in

15:02place as well as the required yards. Um

15:05the proposed building footprint has been

15:07reduced slightly from what was first

15:09before you um to accommodate that

15:11proposed transformer near the northeast

15:13corner of the site. Um there have been

15:15several sets of public comments that

15:16have been received regarding this

15:18project. Those are all included um in

15:20your packet. Um and I'm happy to go into

15:23detail on any of the required findings,

15:25alternative compliance um or conditions

15:27of approval, but staff is recommending

15:29approval subject to the conditions lift

15:31listed in the staff report. Um and I'm

15:33happy to address any questions. Thank

15:34you.

15:36>> Thank you. Uh first I want to note that

15:37the website is down for us. Um

15:40Commissioner Shepard was smart enough to

15:41download everything beforehand. So if

15:43commissioners want to take a peek at his

15:45laptop, they can. But I believe Kimberly

15:46is going to try to I'm almost certain

15:49this email is not going to go through to

15:50you. Um I'm going to try, but if you're

15:53logged in with your city email

15:54addresses, I may be able to give it to

15:57you through SharePoint. Um I'll be

16:00working on that.

16:01>> Okay.

16:02>> Uh in the meantime, I'm hitting send

16:03right now, but it's 32 megabytes and I

16:05don't expect you to receive it.

16:07>> Okay. Um, so I I do have a question and

16:11it might be for the applicant as well,

16:13but so this was a gas station at a time

16:16when leaded gasoline was used. So I just

16:19want to understand, you know, is there a

16:22lot of pollution in the soil there? And

16:24if if so, what is being done to mitigate

16:26that so that it's, you know, lead gets

16:29in the soil and um I'm just concerned

16:31that during construction could get into

16:33the houses nearby and what what's being

16:34done to mitigate that?

16:36>> Sure. Uh thanks for the question, Chair

16:37Meyer. Um uh dealing with um existing

16:41contamination on a site is not something

16:43that's regulated by the zoning code or

16:45something that we uh require

16:47documentation of at at this stage in the

16:49process. Um there are um standards for

16:52environmental investigation that include

16:54soil testing and vapor monitoring um

16:57that are out there. Um and then uh you

16:59know if there are issues there's you

17:02know mitigation that can be required. Um

17:04in some situations uh the environmental

17:07health group in uh at the city you know

17:09conducts review of that and and monitors

17:11it it during construction. Um at this

17:13point you know maybe the the applicant

17:15may have information to share about what

17:17they know about the soil conditions on

17:18the site but um that's not something

17:20that uh the zoning code regulates or

17:23that we we require information on at

17:25this point.

17:25>> Okay.

17:27Commissioners, do we have questions

17:28before for staff before we move to the

17:30public hearing? Commissioner Shepard,

17:32>> just a few. Thank you, Chair Meer. Um,

17:33thank you. The presentation that the

17:35documents say that the transformer

17:37location shown is not properly screened

17:39on the submitted diagram. So, is that

17:41something which has been rectified?

17:44>> Uh, uh, Commissioner Shepard, no, it

17:46hasn't. That's a recommended condition

17:48of approval. Um, so that is um,

17:53>> it's on page 14.

17:54>> Condition. Yeah. Uh, condition number 10

17:56on site plan review is is requiring that

17:58they add appropriate screening

18:00>> as well as a lighting plan and I believe

18:02we had us to move some short-term

18:04bicycle parking and those are still

18:06conditions.

18:06>> Yes, those are all recommended

18:07conditions of approval.

18:08>> Thank you.

18:09>> Y

18:11and the email did go through. So, check

18:12your inboxes if you need to to access uh

18:15the the application.

18:18>> All right. Any other questions before we

18:20proceed to the public hearing? All

18:22right. Thank you.

18:24So I will open the public hearing. Do we

18:26have the applicant with us?

18:29>> Question.

18:29>> Are you the applicant?

18:31>> No.

18:31>> Okay.

18:33>> Go ahead. Welcome. If you'd like to

18:35present your project, you can have 10

18:38minutes.

18:40>> Okay.

18:44>> Hi. Good afternoon. Uh Evan Williams, uh

18:46one of the owners of Elliot Capital

18:48Group, the developer. Um as uh Mr.

18:52friends already presented. Uh this is a

18:54project we've been working on for almost

18:562 years now uh with the seller. Um and

18:59so you know pleased to present this

19:01today. Our four-story mixeduse building

19:04with 18 units, 18 uh enclosed uh garage

19:07parking spaces, 2,000 square ft of

19:10retail commercial space on 44th. Um and

19:15um yeah, so just excited to uh to be

19:18able to present this to you. We think

19:20it's uh you know um this particular area

19:23in Lynen Hills, I know it's been

19:25wellreceived the additional retail space

19:27that's there. It's a very hightraic

19:28area. There's lots of other great um

19:31small businesses there, you know, coffee

19:33shops, restaurants, um other retail

19:36stores, and so we think this will be a

19:38very positive benefit. Um the building

19:40itself is uh you know, I would call it

19:42kind of a medium density building. It's

19:45um you know, we could have added more

19:46units, but we wanted to be respectful of

19:49trying to keep uh a parking ratio as

19:51close to possible with the with uh the

19:53number of units that we're uh building.

19:56So, it's a 1:1 ratio to provide uh

19:59people with um ability to park uh

20:01vehicles off the street. And we've also

20:04added um uh as uh Andrew mentioned 26 um

20:10parking or bike stall bike uh stall

20:14spacing. Uh so that's um over and above

20:17what we were required to to include in

20:19the bu in the building. Um

20:23and um yeah uh you know it's a

20:26four-story building. We think the mix of

20:28materials that we're using also

20:30corresponds well with the general area.

20:32It's a lot of brick that we're using.

20:34Um, everyone has outdoor patio space,

20:37um, which we think is great. Lots of

20:39natural light, um, you know, large

20:41windows, and so we think it's a, you

20:43know, it'll be a a great addition to

20:46this particular area in Lynen Hills.

20:49>> Thank you.

20:50>> Thank you. Any questions?

20:52>> Yes. So, are you familiar with this

20:55status of the soil on the site? Are

20:56there any lead issues with it? We have

20:59done a um I think we've I believe we've

21:03done a phase one. There was a soil

21:07contamination back in the 90s. Uh, which

21:10I do still I have all the paperwork from

21:11the seller on that that um I cannot

21:15remember the government agency that

21:17comes out and handles that cleanup, but

21:19they they send a satisfaction letter

21:21that everything was uh corrected and you

21:24know really it's just kind of a

21:25continuation of like monitoring um it.

21:29>> Good. I'm glad that's being monitored

21:31and and addressed. And then did you say

21:35like if if you built less parking that

21:38you could build more units?

21:42>> Um no, we we we could have added

21:44additional density, but we wanted to um

21:48we wanted to provide as much uh we

21:51wanted to keep the parking as close to a

21:531:1 ratio as possible. So 18 uh

21:57residential units and 18 parking spaces.

21:59So, but if you had chosen to build fewer

22:01parking spots, you could have built more

22:03units. Is that right?

22:04>> Yes. Or we could have just uh uh chosen

22:08to make smaller units.

22:09>> Okay.

22:10>> Mhm.

22:10>> All right. Those are my questions. Other

22:12commissioners.

22:15>> All right. Thank you.

22:15>> Okay. Thank you.

22:18>> All right. Anyone else would like to

22:20speak?

22:21Come on up. You have two minutes. And

22:24introduce yourself.

22:26Can I have the remainder of Evans 10

22:28minutes?

22:30>> Uh, no. We give the applicant extra time

22:32to explain their projects, but each

22:33subsequent speaker gets two minutes.

22:35>> Okay. All right. Um, I'm Chris Murphy. I

22:37am an owner of a five-unit building on

22:39the same city block that uh the

22:42development is proposed on. Um, I am not

22:46I provided a lot of input. I've

22:48corresponded with Andrew a great deal.

22:50I'll just assume that everybody's read

22:51that in detail. Um, but I would like to

22:55lend some further credibility to it

22:56hopefully by way of some added comments.

22:59Just focusing in on a few things. Before

23:01I do that, I want to say that um I don't

23:04object to the development. I'm fine with

23:06the development per se. I'm pro density.

23:09I hope that it is ultimately a success.

23:11But by virtue of experience that I have

23:14had with that five-unit building on the

23:17same city block and immediately adjacent

23:19construction, I've spent the better part

23:21of 3 to 5 years of my life cleaning up

23:23after that, including damage, including

23:26uh variance applications for

23:27transformers. All of my input has been

23:30in the vein. I hope to avoid that this

23:33time. I'm trying to help. In fact, um,

23:35this was supposed to initially have been

23:37heard, I believe, on August 14th

23:40thereabouts, and it would have come

23:42before you, and it would have said that

23:44the planning department approves it. And

23:46that approval would have occurred

23:47without any knowledge whatsoever of the

23:50private alley easement that exists on

23:53that property and several adjacent

23:55properties that that use that alley

23:57space. And I brought that to everybody's

23:59attention, to Evan's attention, to Ad's

24:01attention. I think I'm doing merely the

24:03same thing here with a a raft of

24:05questions. If you've read it, you've

24:07seen them that have to do with property

24:09rights, storm water uh handling, and in

24:12particular the the current placement of

24:14the transformer, which I don't think is

24:16viable. So, let me just kind of read

24:18through my notes as quickly as I can.

24:21Um, I think the pad transformer has has

24:24issues. I don't know if I can place

24:26things here, but you would have seen the

24:27input in in some of the written

24:29comments. Excel can't stand in a pool of

24:32water and hot stick a pad transformer.

24:34Furthermore, it's it's a a public safety

24:36issue because traffic drives a foot away

24:39from that transformer. In fact, pulls

24:41out towards it. I don't know that that

24:43has been addressed. If Excel mandates

24:45there need to be ballards to protect

24:47that transformer. There is no place to

24:49put them because it sits today that the

24:52transformer sits squarely on the private

24:55alley easement. There's no room to put

24:57ballers in front of them. I've got more

24:58to say, but I'll stop in respect of the

25:00time that I'm

25:00>> I have a question. So, you that'll give

25:03you some time. Um, so I I thought that

25:06after the continuence and after the

25:08changes that were made to that that that

25:09was addressing the concerns that you

25:11brought up and thank you for for

25:13bringing those up, but are are you

25:14saying that your

25:16concerns are even with the condition

25:18that's been added?

25:20>> That's correct. the the plan that would

25:22have come before you on the 14th of

25:24August had the pad transformer sitting

25:28in a private alley easement. encroached

25:31upon that space and again I'm not trying

25:34to find find fault I'm trying to help so

25:36that there is a better outcome than the

25:38other experience that I've had and I

25:40said hey there's a private alleyman I

25:41had to go on to prove that doing my own

25:43research on recordies to show that it

25:45exists providing my own title to the

25:47five unit building that I've mentioned

25:49the result of that was indeed to move it

25:51out of the private alley easement uh in

25:54my opinion Evan unfortunately lost some

25:56space in so doing I don't think that the

25:59current position is still supportable. I

26:02don't think that the property rights

26:04support it. I'm not sure that the public

26:05safety concerns support it. I'm pretty

26:08sure Excel won't support it when they

26:09see the actual picture that you will

26:11have seen which shows a virtual lake

26:15well within the 10-ft space required by

26:18Excel to do maintenance on a on a pad

26:21transformer.

26:22>> And what is the remedy you're seeking?

26:24the remedy I'm seeing I'm sorry I don't

26:26know if I know how to use this correctly

26:27but I have a photo here of a pole

26:31transformer that was put in place about

26:34now I've lost track but about 2 three

26:36years ago as a result of having to

26:39appeal a variance application on an

26:42after the fact request for a variance

26:44for a pad transformer that Excel put on

26:46the ground um this is a brand new

26:49three-phase pole transformer um by way

26:53of the research that I'm capable of

26:54doing. I'm not an Excel employee. I'm

26:57not an engineer, but it seems that this

26:59doesn't have the capacity to support the

27:01new uh property that is adjacent to me,

27:05but can be upgraded a and in and the new

27:09property that's being proposed as well,

27:10but can be upgraded to do so. That

27:13photo, and I'm sorry if I'm not using

27:14this right, but that photo shows the

27:17pole transformer about

27:204 ft north of where the pad transformer

27:23is being proposed. Okay, thank you.

27:27All right. Are there any other speakers?

27:33Welcome. Come on up. Introduce yourself

27:36and you have two minutes. Y Thank you.

27:42Hello, I'm Martina Sagai. I'm a co-owner

27:45of the uh property in question that

27:48utilizes the easemen. Um, and I

27:51previously lived in one of the apartment

27:52units for 15 years. Uh, I echo the prior

27:57comments regarding the concerns

27:59surrounding the easement and what I

28:01believe is a reasonable request that the

28:05commission place conditions on the

28:07approval conditions that uh are beyond

28:10uh that uh expressed by staff.

28:14Um, similarly, I have no objections to

28:17the proposed development, but merely

28:18requests that parameters be put in place

28:21to ensure the construction does not

28:23impinge on the existing rights of the

28:25alley easement users. The private

28:28easement was created a 100 years ago for

28:30vehicular access. A proposed pad

28:33transformer should not constrain that

28:35access in any way, nor put alley users

28:38at risk. Similarly, the potential for

28:41added storm water runoff in an alley

28:44that already has significant drainage

28:45issues suggests that the planning

28:48process does not fully weight the

28:50development's impact on the current uses

28:53of the alley. Both the pad transformer

28:56and storm water concerns appear

28:58remediable.

28:59I'd like to understand if the developer

29:01has taken any steps to engage Excel on

29:04pole transformer discussions and whether

29:06the developer has plans to address or

29:09participate in resolving the alley

29:10drainage issues.

29:14You know the concerns do not center

29:15around the usual you know height of the

29:18building or uh you know sunlight is you

29:21know impacting the or the character of

29:24the you know building is not suitable to

29:25the neighborhood. This actually is about

29:29private uh it it impacts private

29:32property. So while I understand it is

29:35not the commission's perview to assess

29:37or interpret private easements, any

29:40action taken by the commission with

29:42knowledge that it may impact existing

29:45private rights can only be construed as

29:47a conscious decision by the commission

29:49to favor a new development over the

29:52rights of existing property owners and

29:54renters. At a minimum, the commission

29:57should place appropriate conditions

29:58should it vote to proceed with approval

30:00of the development.

30:02>> I do have a question for you. So, you're

30:04saying appropriate conditions. Do you

30:05have a specific condition that you would

30:06like us to consider?

30:07>> Um, I would refer the commission to the

30:11uh written input provided by the prize

30:14speaker.

30:15Um, uh he laid out uh in a specific

30:19section the recommended suggestions uh

30:22uh recommended conditions for approval.

30:23I'm happy to reiterate it. Um, but it is

30:26in written form.

30:29It was submitted to staff.

30:30>> Okay. Thank you.

30:32>> Are there any other questions?

30:34>> I don't see any hands raised. Thank you.

30:37>> Thank you.

30:38>> Next speaker, if there is one.

30:43All right. Um, not seeing any. I'm I'm

30:47going to leave the hearing open just in

30:48case we have questions. Um um Andrew,

30:52can you um come up and tell us um

30:56your thoughts on the testimony that we

30:59heard and if there's a condition that

31:01might satisfy them?

31:15>> Uh yes, Chair Meer and commissioners. um

31:18you know when it comes to

31:21transformers and and their placement um

31:24you know the the city we do our best to

31:27work with XL and we reach out to Excel

31:30to um try to get ahead of of issues um

31:34and you know I'm very appreciative of uh

31:38of Chris bringing information uh to our

31:41attention in August um you know related

31:44to the the shared driveway here um and

31:47us, you know, having the development

31:49team make changes to the building

31:51footprint to accommodate the transformer

31:53outside of the easement. um at that

31:56time. Um the the concerns that um have

32:01been raised about the transformer

32:04potentially being hit by vehicles um

32:07that are exiting the easement and and

32:10going onto the private property or about

32:12Excel having concerns about um the the

32:17the

32:19drainage in the in the shared driveway.

32:22Those are concerns that I think um a are

32:26are not things that are regulated by the

32:29zoning code or the site plan review

32:31standards um and and b are resolvable

32:35through

32:37um through through grading and through

32:40work with Excel that and very likely

32:42would not require changes to the

32:44building footprint. Um when it comes to

32:47the the drainage concerns,

32:50um uh final grading and drainage is

32:54reviewed primarily by public works

32:56surface water and sewers. They do that

32:58as part of the PDR process. Um Chris uh

33:01very I think I think accurately and I

33:04also appreciate this uh you know

33:05identified um that their proposed

33:08grading plan um does not have uh

33:11positive drainage the entire way around

33:12the building. there is an area um at the

33:15southeast corner of the property um that

33:18does not drain, you know, as as shown on

33:20their on their grading plan does not

33:22drain to the alley easement or sorry, a

33:26shared driveway um and then out to 44th

33:29Street. It would drain onto the adjacent

33:30property to the south. Now, that's a

33:32parking lot that, you know, very likely

33:33goes across, but um that was that was

33:35helpful feedback and I I flagged that uh

33:38for the PDR reviewer from Surface Waters

33:40and Sewers. But ultimately, you know,

33:42the the review of the final grading here

33:46is in is in the purview of public works

33:49surface water and sewers. It's not a

33:52site plan review standard.

33:53>> Okay. Thank you,

33:56commissioners. Are there any questions

33:57for staff or anyone or anyone else

33:58before I close the hearing?

34:01>> All right. Thank you. I'll close the

34:04hearing. Um

34:08I I'll give some general thoughts.

34:09First, first I think this is a a a great

34:11project. It looks good and want to point

34:14out that it's right next to the Eline.

34:16Um so I think it'd be nice if you chose

34:20to put in fewer parking spots and more

34:22units, but um

34:26you still like the project and I think

34:30um you know the zoning and the um

34:35the other things on it are are pretty

34:36straightforward. Um, I'm inclined to go

34:39with the staff recommendation. Um, you

34:41know, I think they're they're valid

34:42concerns that people have brought up. It

34:44just doesn't seem like it's in our uh

34:47purview today, but those are things that

34:49would come up with um with the grading

34:51with with Excel. Um, so my position

34:55would be to adopt staff findings today.

34:58Um, any other thoughts from

35:00commissioners?

35:04Would anyone like to make a motion?

35:10Um, I'm happy to move staff findings as

35:12it relates to uh item number four.

35:15>> All right. Is there a second?

35:18>> We have a motion to second. Is there any

35:20other discussion?

35:24All right. Not seeing any. So, I'll ask

35:26staff to please take the role.

35:29>> Commissioner Chowry.

35:30>> I.

35:32>> Connley.

35:33>> I.

35:34Sheepard. I

35:36>> Vice President Wagner

35:37>> I

35:38>> and President Meyer

35:40>> I

35:40>> there are five eyes.

35:42>> That is adopted. Thank you everyone for

35:44coming. So that concludes our business

35:45for the day. Um our next uh planning

35:48commission will be October 13th. It's a

35:51big one. We're going to have the

35:53discussion on data centers. So bring

35:56snacks and diapers and anything else you

35:57need.

36:00We have asked for the captioner to stay

36:02until 8:30 that night. Um, we are

36:05expecting a very [laughter] large public

36:07turnout. Um, so do plan accordingly. Um,

36:13with the timeline with the moratorum, we

36:15cannot continue that item at planning

36:17commission. We need to get that through

36:19the commission on the 13th.

36:21>> Great. And then we do also have

36:23committee the whole this Thursday.

36:25All right. Any other updates from staff

36:27or commissioners? Could I just ask

36:30what's what are the topics covered at

36:32committee of the whole on Thursday?

36:35>> Yes, the two items we have one project

36:37discussion and one zoning code text

36:39amendment. So the project discussion is

36:42for a proposed six-story 185 unit

36:44building at 2825 Cedar 185128th Street

36:48and 185528th Street East. And then we

36:52have the 1 to3 amendment which had been

36:55previously scheduled for a committee of

36:56the whole meeting and then was

36:58rescheduled. Um

36:59>> good.

37:00>> So you'll be seeing that as well.

37:03>> Great. All right. Not seeing anyone

37:06else. So we are adjourned. Thank you

37:07everyone.