City Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome everyone to the regular meeting of the Minneapolis Planning Commission for January 5th, 2026. My name is Chris Meyer and I'm chair of the commission. I want to welcome back all of our newly appointed commissioners who just got sworn in and our newest commissioner, uh, Jason Garcia from the park board. Jason, would you like to introduce yourself?

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Jason Garcia. I'm proud to be representing the park board here in with the city planning commission. Um, I represent park board district 4, which is the central and western um district in the city. My district extends from Brownie Lake and Cedar Lake in the west all the way over through um downtown and includes such wonderful parks as Lake of the Isles, Luring Park, um park properties like the Stone Arch Bridge, um and West River Road. So, I am very honored to be here and excited to see how we can all work together to move the city forward. Thank you and welcome. All right, with that I will ask the clerk to please call the role.

Commissioner Connley present. Garcia present. Gordon present. Jones here. Shepy is absent. Uh Shepard here. Wagner here. Vice President Baxley here. And President Meyer here. There are eight members present. That is a quorum. Uh, first we'll go to the minutes to of December 8th, 2025. Is there a motion to adopt those minutes? So, right. All right. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Opposed. Abstensions. Those minutes are adopted. Uh, next we'll organize our agenda. We have just one item and I would like to discuss it. Um, so that's all we've got. Is there a motion to adopt that agenda?

Some move. Is there a second? Second.

All right. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. opposed. That is adopted. All right. So, our first and only item is 4755 Longfellow Avenue and staff is Alex Kohhas. Okay. Thank you, Chair Meyer and commissioners. Before you today are land use applications for a proposed office building and parking lot within the existing Hayawa service center which is near Lake Hayawa, the Hayawa Golf Course and Minihaha Parkway. Uh the applicant is the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. Uh and they're represented by HCM Architects as well. Uh this slide I'm showing a portion of the proposed site plan. I'm going to go over the property and the the proposal in a lot more detail in a second. Uh but just to briefly go through the specific applications that are before you today. There are three variances, all of which are specific to the parking lot component of this proposal. First is a variance to increase the maximum number of surface parking spaces on a zoning lot. Second, a variance to reduce the minimum required corner sideyard and third a variance to the parking location standards. Then there's also an application for site plan review which is required for any uh new non-residential building. So this is a map of the broader area around Lake Hayawa. A lot of which would not be impacted directly by this proposal, but I'm just showing this for a little bit of context and obviously many of you may be very familiar with this area and uh a lot of different components of it and and discussions that have taken place uh over the past few years around different parts of this. Um but the area of specific focus for this project is towards the bottom left. It's approximately circled in red there. Um which is within this much

larger collection of lands owned and operated and maintained by by the park board. Uh the black outline just again a little bit of context in terms of how uh the zoning code operates on on areas like this. Uh this black outline includes it's a number of individual parcels that are all owned by the park board. They're all contiguous to each other. And uh for zoning purposes, this is all considered one zoning lot. It's treated like one big property even though it uh consists of multiple individual parcels that are all uh owned by the park board. This is also adjacent to Minihaha Parkway which is at the very south. That parkway area is technically outside of this property line that I'm talking about, but it is obviously relevant for this proposal and I'll talk about that um in in a few minutes. Uh a couple of other things to touch on here. what you see the the lighter shaded area that is the flood plane overlay district which aligns with the regulatory flood plane. I'm just calling this out because everything that's proposed that's in front of you today is located entirely outside of the flood plane. It doesn't require any uh flood plane protections. Um another thing to call out just because it's not relevant here, historic preservation. Uh many of you may remember a few years ago when uh the Hayawa Golf Course was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. that's specific to the golf course area. That doesn't include the area that we're actually talking about here, which I'll I'll zoom in on uh in a second. So, there's no preservation review or approval required uh for the proposal that's before you today. So, I'm going to zoom in a bit more and and look at an aerial photograph. Again, just providing some context for the area that we're looking at. Uh the park board calls this the Hayawa service center, which uh they use for uh parkboard staff for maintenance of uh parklands. And this covers not the broader area, not just the golf course itself, not just uh around Lake Hayawa, as I understand it. Uh there are a few existing buildings in this area, which uh my understanding is

they're primarily used for storage of u equipment or materials. And there are also some staffing areas here as well. And then again just labeled some of the surrounding features that are outside of the picture, but just to provide some context for what's going on around uh the area proposed work. Some more context to Google Street View. This is from a few years ago uh taken from the parkway and generally looking towards the project area. So you get a sense of what this looks like uh present conditions. Uh last bit of of context, this is part of an existing condition survey. There's a lot to look at here. don't focus on any of the individual data points, but you can see again those existing buildings mostly along the west property line um along Longfellow and an existing building uh down at the southwest corner kind of holding that corner of Longfellow Avenue and uh and the Parkway. The uh the gray shaded areas, that's existing gravel uh that is in this area and you can see a number of existing mature trees um in the area. I'll also call out the the heavier black line that runs down the lefth hand side and across the bottom. This is u this is a property line. I'm focusing on that that bottom portion here. Uh this is regulated as a corner side uh property line for uh for zoning purposes. The area south of that bottom property line that is the uh Minihaha Parkway which is technically outside of the boundaries of this property but is still uh owned and uh controlled by the park board. So finally here we have the proposed site plan again focusing on that area of proposed work in uh that heavy black tangled black rectangle excuse me that is the proposed office building. It would be one story a little over 1500 square ft in floor area and they're also proposing uh this parking lot with 48 spaces which would be accessed from an existing curb cut along Longfellow Avenue uh to the west. Uh you can also

see that same property line running down the left uh and across the bottom of uh the screen here. Uh this building the the new building would be set back about uh 279 ft from the west property line and set back 56 ft from that south property line along the parkway. And you can also see the proposed parking lot would uh further extend another 33 feet south of that property line into the parkway area. uh much of this uh existing Haywata service center area would not uh be impacted by this proposal but they are proposing some additional site work related to uh storm water functions in in this area here just to show the proposed landscaping plan briefly. You can see some proposed plantings uh focused on the south side of the new parking lot. So um near the existing sidewalk uh within the parkway area. Um what you see here in terms of what's proposed, I'll just mention it's broadly consistent with what we expect to see for our uh landscaping and screening standards for uh site plan review applications. Uh and they again they're proposing to retain a lot of the existing trees in this area. Uh quickly showing other parts of what's proposed, focusing on the building, you have the the floor plans on the left for this one-story building. uh towards the top right that is the west elevation which would face uh a portion of their new parking lot and ultimately would be uh directed towards Longfellow Avenue to the west and uh to the bottom right that is the south elevation drawing which again is facing the other portion of the new parking lot and ultimately facing uh the parkway further south. So to reiterate the uh specific applications that are before you today, these are not all of them, but um there are three variances that are required based on the specifics what they're proposing here. First, uh for each zoning lot, so again, the entire all of

the parcels around uh Lake Hayawa and north of the parkway here in this case, uh for each zoning lot, the zoning code limits to no more than 100 parking spaces total in all surface parking lots. In this case, the subject property already has 123 existing parking spaces in a surface lot around the golf course clubhouse, which is about 1,000 ft to the north of the project area. So, the existing property is already non-conforming to that 100 space maximum. And they are proposing to add the 48 new spaces in this new uh parking lot for the service center, which would bring us to a total of 171 proposed uh parking spaces in service lots. So they're requesting a variance to that 100 space maximum. The second required variance uh there is a minimum required corner sideyard of 8 ft which is applied from that uh south property line. Um and the again the parking lot would uh basically run with that parking or with that um that property line right down the middle. Um and the third variance is to the parking location standards which prohibit the location of on-site parking facilities in between a principal structure and a front or quarter side lot line. And so technically this parking lot would be between the new building and both the front and corner side lot lines along Longfellow and uh along the parkway. Um as the commissioners are aware all land use applications are subject to required legal findings based on state law and articulated in the city zoning code. Uh I am happy to go through the staff analysis in more detail if anyone is is interested in um sort of how we were looking at each of these variance applications but in the interest of time I'm just going to focus on the staff recommendation which is for approval for each of these uh and we do uh have some conditions of approval uh that uh the same condition of approval that we would recommend for each of these variances which I'll I'll show on my last slide excuse me for their site plan review application.

There are also a number of requests for alternative compliance. Uh I'm again just going to read through these quickly. This might be a little bit out of order uh from how they're laid out in the uh in the staff report. Uh and again, staff does recommend approval of each of these uh requests for alternative compliance under their site plan review application. So for the site plan review standards regarding building placement, the specific issues would be that this building would not be located uh within 15 ft of the front or corner side lot lines and the area in between the building and the front or corner side lot line would include a surface parking lot. For the pedestrian access standards, there would be no clear hard surface walkway from the building entrance to uh adjacent public sidewalks or or the street. Uh for the general landscaping and screening requirements, uh the code requires that a minimum of 20% of the site not occupied by buildings shall be landscaping in compliance with some specific standards of the code. And again, this applies across the entire zoning lot around Lake Hayawa, not just the specific area of work. Uh and some of those specific standards are that there be a minimum of one canopy tree for each 500 feet and uh at least one shrub for each 100 square ft of required landscaped area. And then the uh additional landscaping and screening requirements specifically for parking lots. The code requires that they provide a 7-ft landscaped yard in between the parking lot and a public street or sidewalk or pathway. And in this case, they do have seven feet of landscaping in between the parking lot and uh that north sidewalk along the parkway, but that required 7 foot landscaped area would be located entirely in the right of way. So, we don't consider that to be in strict compliance with uh the standards. Typically, we expect that to be within the property lines. So, that's another uh need for alternative compliance there. A few more alternative compliance

items. There would be a 35.8 8 foot blank wall on the rear elevation which faces east and that's uh at the top of your screen here. Um the window requirements, the uh code requires that they provide at least 30% windows on the south elevation which in this case would again face uh face Minihaha Parkway and they're proposing to provide 0% windows on that elevation. And then the finally the ground floor active functions requirements. Uh it's that same south elevation that we're looking at and we're also looking at the the bottom of the floor plans on the right hand side. Uh per the site plan review standards, no more than 30% of the building wall facing a public street, sidewalk or pathway can be dedicated to non-active functions like a mechanical room or storage. And in this case, uh that entire south wall would be a mechanical room. So they need alternative compliance for that as well. Uh in conclusion, this is just a slide again reiterating the the staff recommendations for each of the require the requested land use applications and listing conditions of approval. Most of the conditions that we list here are pretty standard common conditions that we include on a lot of applications. One that I'll call out is the the last one uh the last condition that we list for site plan review. It talks about our electric vehicle charging standards. This is something we've already discussed with the applicants. We don't expect it to be um an issue in this case but uh it's not shown on the plans that uh were provided for these applications. So we just covered that in a condition of approval. Uh there was one written public comment which was received uh by staff and I think it came in after the staff report was published but that two comments sorry um but those should have been forwarded along for uh for your consideration and uh the applicants are in attendance as well. This concludes my presentation, but I will stand for questions.

Thank you. I have quite a few questions, most for the applicant, but before we go to the public hearing, um just a few things to go over. So, um, so yeah, we we received the two emails in opposition and they mentioned um complaints about the bike parking that they said that uh the bicycle parking staff finds it compliant even though it's located much further away on the northeast side of the 185 acre zoning lot. So, I I wanted to ask, can you show where the bike parking would would be on here for us? Yeah, I'm not sure if I can show like with my cursor or anything, but uh northeast side of Lake Hayawa. I'm not sure the exact name for that building, but I think it's like a public facing recreation building for the park. Yeah. And I believe there are some bike racks there that um would satisfy that five space minimum that is required. Where that code requirement comes from, if I can maybe anticipate a follow-up question. Um there have been some changes to the zoning code recently over the last few years um that were intended to and this all would have gone through the planning commission along with all of the code amendments. Um, but we have tried to be more lenient with some parks projects in terms of how the zoning code applies and specifically when it comes to if you have the the principal use of the property as a public park and there can be a lot of different components of that and a lot of accessory uses within that park. So even though in this case we have multiple different kind of components of what you would think of as a public park, we also have a golf course. We also have this maintenance area. Okay, we have tennis courts and basketball courts. All these things are considered accessory to the principal use as a public park. And when it comes to determining something like the minimum bike parking standards, it's based on that principal use. And in this case, for a public park, it's not based

on the size of the property. It's just um in this case, it's five spaces that they need. So, uh reasonable people can think maybe there should be additional parking either in this specific location where the project is or elsewhere on the property. for zoning code purposes. We don't have a mechanism to require that under this application. Okay. So, there would be no bike parking in the red circle on there. Is that correct? That's my understanding. Correct. Okay. And to help us out, is the clubhouse like you can see it kind of on there, but I don't know. Is the clubhouse halfway through on this image or is it on the bottom quarter? It's uh on the northeast corner of the lake that you see here. There's a little building. Oh, that building. The rec center.

There's a little building footprint there. Yeah. Oh, sorry. Yeah, I was getting confused. I was Okay. Oh, my Yeah, my apologies. No, not not the golf course. The uh the Yeah, the recreation building on the northeast uh side of the lake. So, is there any bike parking at the clubhouse, which is the one I think it's midway on the left hand side? Uh not that I'm aware of, but I could be mistaken there. So, I would defer to the applicants if they have any information about that.

Okay. Um, can you go back to the site plan? Yeah. So, when when I first looked at this, I was I was struck because normally we require like that the the buildings be close to the sidewalk and that the parking be in back. Um, so what what are the existing policies that that require that building placement and what what exactly are the exemptions that they have here? So it has to do with the the corner side. Can can you explain what what that what that is?

Yeah. Yeah. There are a few different zoning code requirements that might speak to this question broadly. Um the most direct is in our site plan review standards is a requirement and this applies for any if any new non-residential construction is happening. Um it the building needs to be located within 15 ft of the front or corner side lot line and that would not be satisfied for for either of those. The the west side facing Longfellow is technically the front. South side facing the parkway is a corner side. So that's the most direct uh mechanism to what you're talking about and that is one of the requests for alternative compliance is to that standard. Okay.

Which I'm happy to speak to in more detail if you want. Yeah, I'm gonna ask the applicant as well, but I want to understand staff's perspective of why like in in in the park board's letter, they they mentioned tree placement, but why couldn't the building just be further south and west like in the corner of where the parking is so that it would be, you know, that the parking would be hidden from from view on Miniha Parkway? Yeah, I would defer to the applicants if they want to speak to kind of their design intent. The city ced staff are not involved in the design process here. Um, but in terms of staff analysis and why we are recommending approval for for example that request for alternative compliance and uh some of the variances also are somewhat related to this topic uh based on a few things. One, the the large size of the property. This is an extremely large zoning lot. This is probably one of the largest sets of land of of parcels that are owned by a single party in in the entire city. And if every building that was built was strictly held to that 15t maximum, that would result in a large underutilization of space. Speaking generally, obviously every every individual proposal could be evaluated on its own merits. Part of it is just the extremely large size of the property. uh the fact that there are some existing buildings in this area including usually what we want to see on a corner parcel is a building holding the corner and there is that existing building that is closest to the corner. It's maybe not as close as we might otherwise require. I think that building is pre-1940 as best as I could see. So um 29 I'm hearing maybe behind me. Um, so even though this new building is not as close to the property lines as we would otherwise want to see, they do

have some buildings that do somewhat satisfy that requirement, at least in spirit. Um, also just the nature of the proposed use of this specific portion of the property. Again, we'd consider it kind of an accessory to the the overall use of the property as a park. Um, but this is a maintenance area. This is not uh a public facing or publicly accessible by intent. Um and uh it's an existing maintenance area going back at least a few decades I think into the 80s. Um and so by necessity we we understand the the desire to have this somewhat oriented towards the the site interior. Um which is on on some level that's necessary when you have other buildings in between. uh uh in between this building and the property lines or some of them at least on the Longfellow side. Obviously the long or the parkway side is a little bit different. Um we are we are also sympathetic to I think you mentioned their focus and their statement on preserving existing trees. Uh everyone could look at that a little bit differently, but that is something that we do sort of appreciate. And if you look at say uh the parking lot in particular, they're required to have tree islands every every so far and they have placed those tree islands specifically around some of those existing trees that they're trying to retain. So um that is an argument that we're sympathetic to.

Okay. And then one more from me. Um so this is within the shoreland overlay ordinance and lakewa is one of the most polluted bodies of water in the city. Um so I just wanted to understand I mean you know that just means that there should be a higher level of scrutiny about any pollution coming from this. So what measures are we taking to address that? I see the storm water um pond and we have the condition about erosion. Is there anything else that will help alleviate pollution from this site? Um, I would say I'm trying to think if I have a slide just kind of showing. I had a couple of other slides ready, but these are maybe not ideal. Again, this is showing that flood plane overlay, but if you kind of look beneath that, you can just see the we aren't able to to do a precise calculation of how much of this property is impervious or or not. that would require the applicants to provide a lot more information than what we think is really necessary here to actually do that that math. Um but in terms of this particular portion of the property, it is relatively flat. Uh so there is not an existing something like a steep slope leading directly to a protected water which is a lot of times what we are focusing on in terms of the shoreland over uh shoreland overlay regulations. Uh this is also part of an uh an application for preliminary development review which is another city process. It's it's primarily administrative and involves other parts of the city including multiple components of public works uh reviewing you know from an engineering standpoint in terms of their storm water design. Um, so even though that's not directly incorporated into uh these land use applications, it is a component of the city's control, for

lack of a better term, over something like storm water runoff. And uh our our colleagues in public works, they do have additional tools that they might be able to use to guide the design or mitigate any potential harms. Okay. Commissioners, are there any other questions for staff before we open the public hearing? Not seeing any. Thank you. We'll open the public hearing and I see the applicant is here with us. Tyler, would you like to present your point of view on this?

Uh, Chair Meer, uh, commissioners, uh, thank you very much for, uh, allowing me to speak here today. Um for the last 140 years uh the park board has p been piecing together properties uh across our city and and beyond our city uh to make uh Minneapolis parks the the best park system in our in our in the US really. Um and um because of that this is this is a very unique parcel um and I guess it's a collection of parcels um it's even a collection of parks if you think about it. So this is within the Ncomomas Haywa regional park. Um that's one park. Uh there's also within that uh subsets. Uh we have Ncomomas um uh recreation center which is focused more on uh neighborhood parks. Uh we have the Hayawa uh Lake Hayawa Recreation Center which is also uh uh within the uh regional park but it focuses on those neighborhood uh park type things. Uh we have a golf course um uh that is uh within the regional park um but it's it's a separate thing and then we have this maintenance facility which um is technically within the regional park but again it's it's its separate thing. It has its own address. Um it has a fence around it around a good portion of it. Um parkboard needs um are expanding in terms of um how we maintain things. Um this site uh the the service center itself um uh houses uh three different uh groups um within the park board. Uh we have the forestry uh department uh within the asset management division. Um and they manage uh regional and neighborhood park trees in this area of South Minneapolis, including uh Boulevard trees on street right away. A lot of folks don't know that, but that's that's a fact that the park board doesn't manage just its own

trees, but we manage uh city rightaway trees. Um we also have uh uh golf course uh uh maintenance out of this facility uh which services the golf course right to the north of it. Um and then we have um asset management who manage uh and service uh several regional and neighborhood parks uh in South Minneapolis. So this is this is a very big and important facility for us. Um it is uh it's out ofd. It's old. Uh that building on the corner is from 1928 or 29 I believe. Um and it so it's been a it's been a maintenance facility for the last 100 years essentially. Um and um our needs um are growing. Um the buildings that are there now are are old. U one of them is a double wide trailer that uh doesn't have a foundation. It's just kind of sitting there on blocks. Uh it was a temporary solution years ago. Um, and we need to formalize that. And so, uh, we're taking a phased approach at, um, at creating, uh, a more, um, uh, easy to use, um, more efficient, uh, uh, maintenance facility. Um, and, uh, quite frankly, a more dignified place to work for our employees. Um, right now, uh, there's one toilet. Um, there's, uh, the double wide trailer. Uh, has HVAC issues. It, it needs to be replaced. And so this is uh uh the first of um several phases of work that will happen um at this site over the next um several years, decade or so. Um the organization of the buildings on site um are a little bit haphazard today. U we're trying to reorganize that. So even though it looks like on the plan that it's kind of randomly chosen, uh it's not random. It's very very purposely placed. Um last last summer we hosted or or sorry we uh we conducted a um a tree survey, tree inventory and

survey and assessment of uh the trees on this site uh working with our forestry division or excuse me department and um uh we we basically val evaluated them put dollar amounts to them um and it helps us uh say hey we should build here or we should build here. Um there's a big tall sand stand of spruce trees um that are uh in the exact spot that we actually wanted to place the the building. Um and uh we negotiated uh and spoke with our our uh internal stakeholders, the forestry division, assets management and golf staff and the most logical location is um the location at which there's uh a gravel parking lot right now or a gravel um yard area. Um, so we're not removing any trees because of the building. Um, we're able to kind of squeeze in the parking lot because we can take out some of those little nooks and crannies of it um to kind of go in in and out of those more um uh desirable trees. Um, some of the trees that we are removing um are not desirable. Um, they're great. They're awesome trees, but um we uh we need to make some sort of sacrifice to actually make this site function better. Um it just so happens that the parking lot straddles uh a parcel line. Um, as I said earlier that those parcels were kind of piece meal together um um over over a century. Um the uh the the park board um owns fee title the the land underneath Minihaha sorry uh uh oh yeah Miniha Parkway. Sorry. Um it is not right ofway. It is not city rightofway. It is parkboard property that we own and operate um as a park. Um and uh the city uh planning staff um

have uh have identified that still as a corner lot. Um but if you if you look up and downstream of that um uh there's no shortage of of parking stalls uh parking um parking lots that are in a similar location to this. So, the park board um and our architects and engineers um took uh uh a look at, you know, what the uh cadence and rhythm of of of uh the other parking lots along the stretch uh look like. Um we wanted to match um match those as best as we can. Um, I realize that's that's a hard argument to make against uh uh zoning ordinances, but um um that's where we're at. And um in terms of the parking numbers, um you know, technically there's no parking lot here yet. Um and we need to provide um a secure location for folks to park uh for park staff to park um not only their personal vehicles, but also um their um fleet vehicles. Um, we are adding in the EV parking stalls, two of those. Uh, we're happy to do that. Um, and we're also happy to throw in a few uh uh bike um um bike parking uh loops. Uh that's that's that would be an easy change order um that we can very easily do. Um the location of the fence um is is important here because it it needs to surround uh the the improvements u to make it a secure facility. So there's there's less chance of of breakins and and broken windows like we saw last summer uh in this part of the city. Um several of our employees were were hit pretty bad. Um what else can I say? Um the the the location of the building

um and how the the maintenance uh um uh section within that that building is on the south side. Um, it's a little odd, but um, really our our our focus is on the interior of that site. Um, so it's almost flipped a little bit backwards than what you might see on a on a residential or commercial lot. Um, you know, uh, storefronts, they obviously want to be facing the public area. In our case, uh, this is not a public facility. Um, uh, we're screening that that kind of blank wall, um, with a fence and, um, over 60 ft of Parkway Boulevard. Um you don't you don't see that in regular commercial um uh developments. Um the offices um are specifically uh placed on the north and west sides of that building with windows facing the yard. Um that was a big requirement of our um of our managers and supervisors here. They need to have eyes on that yard. Um if all those windows and offices were facing the parkway, they'd have their backs to their employees. um they wouldn't have that that um that connection um to the to the workspace at the uh at the site there. So I I I thank you for uh your time and and and listening and uh if you do have questions, I'm I'm happy to speak up.

Thank you. I do have several questions. Um, so first, can you give some context about how this interacts with the rest of the long-term adopted plan for Hayawa Golf Course? Like, um, when when the the plan is fully adopted, how many parking spots will there be on the entire site?

Um, Chair Meer and Commissioners. Um, so we are um currently underway uh with developing a 30% schematic design for Iowa at the golf course. Um I'm also the project manager for that project. I've been working on it for the last decade. Um it's been in the news. Uh so uh with that um we're we're trying to limit the amount of parking um with that project. However, we do need to be realistic with um uh how people are going to use it and ensuring that it is successful. Um the the uh park board approved uh the uh the park plan or the master plan in 2022. uh for that um for that project. And uh within that plan um there was a uh a slight increase in parking um due to the the increase in um in uh in uses at that at that kind of golf course clubhouse site. Um so no longer uh would that site be a golf course clubhouse, but it would also have um you know event type things there. Um and that would require um a bit of extra parking. Not as much as we want or as much as the market would would tell us that we need to have a successful space, but um enough to uh offset um you know, some of the demand. Um the the parking um uh you know, pertinent to our our site here. Um you know, our our staff uh come from um they don't live in South Minneapolis. You know, some of them might for sure, some of them might bike there. Um, but we have staff that live in other counties, other suburbs, um, other areas of the city, and it's it's just not logical for them to uh, bus or bike um, in and, um, there's there's definitely a need for for employee parking at this site.

So, so there are 123 spots currently. Are those all at the clubhouse? I believe so. The last time I quickly ran a number, it was about 121 at the clubhouse, but 123 is about the same. And in the adopted plan, it goes to how many at the clubhouse?

Um, you know, I I'm not sure. We're still in design, and I I honestly not sure how that applies to this project. Um, we are uh the park board sees these two sites as fully separate. Um, they have separate addresses. One, they're actually both fenced off between each other. Um, you know, it's it's um I I we're not going to be doubling the the amount of parking that's at at the golf course clubhouse. I can say that.

Yeah. I'm I'm I'm trying to fully understand this because the application that you're making doesn't just apply to the part by the service center. It gives you a variance for the entire site to to go up to 171 parking spots. So, um, when when the parking lot at the clubhouse gets reconstructed, you know, as it stands, that wouldn't be in compliance. We would likely be here again. Yes. For the for for whatever additional amount, but you could rebuild it if if we if we approve this today, you could approve you could build 123 without having to come back to us at that site.

You know, I I I think that's something that we would have to more fully understand at that time. Um but if the if the if you do approve this uh variance today um and say we only build half of the stalls uh you know at um at the maintenance facility um I I I would suppose that that would give us room to build them elsewhere. But um we're already running up against a very very tight budget with this. Um our maintenance uh groups um see tight budgets every year. they don't see the type of uh um investment um um in in in maintenance type facilities as we do in u you know more prettier capital projects. Um so we are running um we're running low on on money with this project. Uh we're trying to squeeze this in. Uh we're trying to shoehorn it in to make it work with several different um aspects. And um you know, like I said, we we really appreciate the consideration of of the commission here and and um staff's staff's help.

So for the employees of the service center, where do they park now? Uh they mostly park on Longfellow. Um there are a few uh kind of um exterior spots that mostly fleet vehicles take up. Um but for the vast majority of staff members here, they park on Longfellow, uh which which um as you know, um there's new development there. Um it's it's a very um active area. Um and um you know, businesses, uh there don't want our employees clogging up their their parking lot, so they park on the street. Um and uh that's essentially where they go.

Okay. And you mentioned what the market would support. So I just want to be clear. Are are you charging for any of these spots or are all the spots at the clubhouse and the service center going to be free? Um Chair Meer, um it's it's free parking. Um the the the golf course already charges um uh folks to play around of golf or to hit a bucket of balls. Uh we don't charge our staff uh to park um to do their work.

Okay. So I just want to point out the markets don't have much to do with it. the fear land if the price is zero. Right? Okay. Um uh I wanted to understand this line from the letter. Um so the proposed location is advantageous to the retention and preservation of trees when compared to to a location that avoids the need for a variant. So what what was the alternative location that you would have in mind that wouldn't need a variant? uh you know I I don't know because we at that time we weren't going through a variance application process so I can't say exactly where we might have needed one uh or we would be required to have one. Um we did look at several different locations. Um this this is the this is the appropriate spot.

Okay. And Alex, I don't know if you can bring up the site plan map again, but I I just wanted to understand, you mentioned like a grove of spruce trees. Like are those in the are those in parking islands? Because I'm I'm only trying to understand like the placement your choice of placement within the areas that you're proposing to develop. So, and I just want to understand your perspective of why can't the building be in the the southwest corner of it? Are there is that where the spruce trees are or something? Yeah. So, um we can't see the image yet. Alex, we here we go.

Oh, okay. So, the um the spruce trees are uh kind of the darker um well, spruce colored evergreens kind of in the middle of the um the middle left of the u the horizontal uh plan view image there. Um they're trees that we we are we're not willing to cut down. And how does So how does this placement help them? Like they're in islands that's like within the parking system.

Nope. They're they're they're fully separate. Uh we would not put a uh uh a parking lot around a evergreen tree. Um you know, unless it was uh much older and was not a spruce. Spruce generally drape right to the ground. um you know, if it was a a different type of tree, more canopy tree, um we would we would do that around a parking lot. So, we're we're trying to avoid those spruce trees um al together. Okay. Can you go to the site plan?

Okay. So why why can't the building be like I

So there's um uh south of the building um by about 20 ft um there's a very large hackberry tree. Um the inside L of the uh the the parking lot um is wrapping around that hackberry tree. Um the other uh uh two or three trees there um are uh um deciduous trees. There's one coniferous um but it is limmed up quite a bit. Um and then towards the end of the parking lot towards the east the far east side of of the parking lot there's another hack barrier that's kind of limiting our our eastward expansion of it. Um the park board takes uh um tree uh protection very seriously. Uh we have a tree preservation coordinator um that like I said did a uh a full assessment of this site. Um he actually did all 160 acres of the uh the golf course as well and he did it in like under two weeks which is pretty remarkable. Um uh uh we these these are these are parks and uh we we treat trees um and and open space uh very seriously. So, could the building be placed where the parking is like around on the map it shows the number 33 in small print I know, but um like the southwest corner of it and and and the reason I'm asking is is because like the way it's fig configured now like you if you wanted to walk um to it like you you walk through the parking lot which makes it you know not very very walk friendly. And normally we we you try to get the building as close to the the sidewalk and put the parking behind it. And that would also have the impact of um having it the building facing Minhaha um

parkway. I mean, I'm not objecting to the the blank walls or the windows window placement at all, but just the building itself being there instead of the parking facing the Miniha Parkway would be more aesthetically pleasing. So are are any of the trees in that section of parking? Um uh yes. So Oh, they are. Okay.

So um as I mentioned earlier, the building placement is very strategic. Uh the location of the offices within that building um look out over uh the yard area. If we were going to pull that building back and uh go strictly by uh uh by the ordinance, um you know, we'd be uh a few feet off of uh the parcel boundary. Um and in that location, we would not have um the protections of trees that we're trying to aim for, and we would not have um um you know, oversight uh of of of staff there. Okay. Um, and then I I wanted to bring up one other thing that I had asked staff because in the letter you said um that MPB considers the golf course and the main maintenance facility spaces to be separate and I I agree. Um, and I was asking if there's a way for us to approve just this without approving the rest um of the variance. for example, by look, I I asked if we could split it into two different zones and and the response from staff was that that wouldn't change what's required. Um, so, um, I guess I just want to ask, uh, staff again, it, um, is there a way for us to approve, um, just the 40some parking spots by the service center without having to also bring the 123 by the clubhouse into compliance? Is there any way to do that? Chair Meer, commissioners, the short answer is not that we can think of for for a design like this. Um, you you basically need all three of these variances to address different aspects

of the zoning code that all are impacted by this proposal. And again, um, I mentioned towards the beginning sort of talking about the the site as part of a large zoning lot which has multiple individual parcels uh, that are all owned by the park board. They're all directly adjacent to each other, all north of uh the parkway and on all sides of Lake Hayawa. That's multiple parcels, but it meets our zoning code definition of one zoning lot. It's regulated as one big property for zoning purposes. So there's no feasible way that we can imagine for you to draw new property lines around this parcel or around this area with the service center and get around any of these zoning code requirements or kind of break the connection between, you know, these interacting zoning code requirements because it's still part of the one overall zoning lot whether it's one big parcel or 10 smaller parcels.

Okay. And last one for me. Um, is the park board doing anything to encourage either its employees or its patrons to bus, walk, bike to this facility to to the golf course and the whole site?

Um, uh, Chair Meer, commissioners. Um, yes. Uh, we we generally, uh, want to, uh, position our parks as, uh, as accessible as possible. Um, most of our parks are bike facilities. Um, 55 miles of the grand rounds. Um, we've got bike we've got more bike racks in our system than I probably in any system in Minnesota. Um, you know, this is this is uh this is a maintenance facility is not public facing. We don't expect anybody uh who is not working here to bus to this parking lot or this this service center. um perhaps if they had a complaint or something and they didn't know to go to either headquarters or southside um they might come here but um generally this is for employees only. Um it is controlled access um it's just like um your own Hayawa facility at uh for the city of Minneapolis or the new east side facility. Uh people can't just drive right on in there um and and go and access the yard area. U we're taking public safety very seriously here. That's why we have a fence. That's why it's uh got gates. Um we don't want random people walking through this site. There's uh big back loaders or excuse me, front end loaders, uh giant forestry trucks with big grappler hooks, um all those nasty things. Um there's a shed there called the saw shed and there's there's hundreds of of chainsaws in there. Um so this is this is a very unique um project. Um and we are going through the steps um that are required of us. Um that's why there are alternative compliance um uh uh paths pathways. That's why there are variance pathways. Variances are meant um you all know this. They're they're meant to apply to unique situations that we are in.

All right. Any other questions from commissioners? Sheepard. Oh, go ahead. Finish. Can you u thank you for your presentation. Can you walk me through again I think what gets us excited is the proximity of parking to the path on along Minha Parkway and when I hear fleet vehicles that that gets my blood pressure up yet higher. Can you walk us through the 48 spot spots for a 1600 foot building?

Yeah. Um uh uh Commissioner Shepard. Um yes. So uh certainly there aren't going to be 48 people working in a 1500 foot building. Um the building has um uh three 10 by10 tiny office spaces. Don't tell our employees they're tiny. Um and um kind of an open office area. So at most there's probably 8 to 10, maybe 12 if we need to squeeze more folks in um who would be using um this uh uh on a on a daily basis throughout the day. Um and generally their managers or supervisors of other staff people. Um this is also uh as I mentioned a site where uh we manage um uh uh uh forestry as well as asset um assets within um this service area. Um the most of the people parking in this L-shaped brand new L-shaped parking lot um are going to park their personal vehicle here. Um they're going to uh drop off their lunch, maybe use the restroom. um uh and then go off and and do work in our parks. They aren't actually going to be using this building. Um there's also um four other buildings on the site that this parking lot um uh would uh um uh would would service. So people may not even go into this building. They might go over to uh the 1929 building. Uh the golf war superintendent works out of there. Um the uh like I said, the saw shed. um they they sharpen saws in there. And then there's the double wide and then there's uh a very moderatelysized um uh essentially a pole barn type building um that folks who are coming to this site might park and go to um and and do various maintenance type things.

I think the essence of my question is am I looking at a row of chippers? Looking at what? A row of chippers? No. No, you're not. You're going to look at uh personal vehicles. Uh, probably an a fancy F250, something like that.

Okay. Um, it's easy. I I'm always at pains not to design your project for you because somebody really good has already done that and I appreciate the kind of reflection of the existing 1929 building in terms of the brick facade and the pitch of the roof and some care and attention has been taken to that. That 1929, I think it was a church originally uh does what we like buildings like that to do, which is hide everything behind it. And I'm sympathetic to Chair Meer's perspective on that. I think what what I would my ask would be, is there really no way to double load the north south parking and single load the east west parking to pull us a little farther away from the parking lot? Can that be looked at?

Uh, Commissioner, sorry, west side there. And I think maybe

Commissioner Shepard. So, uh, we we did um we looked at how close we could actually shove that building to the west. Um, and uh uh uh building construction like this is going to require foundation. It's going to require um u probably an 8ft deep trench um that has to be at a certain angle out for OSHA standards, etc. And so there there just literally isn't enough room um to uh to dig that ex uh to to make that excavation, to pour that foundation, to set up the uh um the foundation formwork um uh safely uh for uh for those construction workers and to not impact those those spruce trees. Uh the image on the screen here right now um the size of those little star-shaped spruce trees are not indicative of the uh drip line um or the root uh the um the area that which the the roots uh extend um and the the further out roots are the important ones. They're the feeder roots.

Oh, I was actually referring to west of the of the parking lot. Uh so okay so uh toward the old building.

Yep. Okay. Thank you. So uh there's uh there's a very large 30 some odd inch uh like heritage oak tree that we're not going to mess with. Um we've we've actually put uh jay barriers around it um thanks to our forestry guys um and gals. And uh um that's that little um that's that little kind of uh U-shaped um cutout uh just just south of the uh the handicap stalls there. Um beyond that, there is um other infrastructure there um that uh is not totally shown on the the uh the survey. Um there's a a um a cartwash station um things like that.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. You're welcome, Commissioner Jones. Uh, again, thank you for the presentation and for the information. So, so the parking is primarily for your employees. It's not to, uh, store equipment that's stored in the existing buildings. Where's the equipment stored now? And what is the plan for the 1929 building?

Uh, Commissioner Jones, um, thank you. Uh so um the plan for the 1929 building is to eventually be um uh renovated. Um there would there we're looking at how we can put an addition on to the back side of it. Um that would kind of fill in uh the the Lshape. Um that's one portion of it. Um like I it's a concept so it's not really design quite yet. Um and then those three buildings um that uh face uh Longfellow Avenue on the west side um those would be replaced by um a much larger building. Um and um we would retain that uh Longfellow uh you know um public friendly frontage um so that it's uh it's it's not a parking lot there. we'd be blocking views to the interior of the site, which is uh kind of the the darker gray grally area shown on the on the the image here. Um all that kind of uh messy equipment uh um unsafe areas would be internal to the site. Um, and we'd be we'd be expanding um buildings along Long Longfellow essentially and making modifications to the existing uh older building.

And going back to Commissioner Meyer's comments then, so you anticipate there'll be other parking um variances coming along with the plans that as they unfold for for the the service center here. Well, just for the consolidations of the buildings and the improvement of the existing building. I'm just curious about again like right now the parking is primarily for employees, right? Yep. Okay. And the vehicles are stored somewhere else out of sight.

Yep. So, um, uh, Commissioner Jones, Chairmire, um, the the the gray area, kind of the the exterior portion of that, um, are are for fleet vehicles, large forestry trucks, um, dumpsters. We do a lot of composting here, um, or movement of compost, I should say. We don't actually compost here. Um, there's it's a receiving site for, uh, trash and other stuff like that. Um we're trying to keep those interior to the site um and keep the more public facing friendlier things to the outside.

Right. So it's which is perfectly reasonable but the parking itself is for the convenience of your staff at this point. Um I uh Chair Meer Commissioner Jones um I don't believe it's it's it's warranted out of convenience. I think it's warranted out of u safety. Um thank you. Anyone else? Yeah, Commissioner Baxley.

Yeah, thank you again for the presentation and um I guess for me I I have no problem with the additional parking. I think I understand the whole context there. I I think I just am struggling with this site plan and absent a understanding of you said there's a master plan for this whole area being an architect like you know there's so many potentials that doesn't do what you're trying to do here. So I guess we're just really struggling with um this seems um like a real invasion into the park. I know it's your property. I know it's the park but it's our property too. But um an invasion there. I don't quite understand the there's a a context of parking lots pushing towards paths that we're trying to mimic which you mentioned earlier. Um this seems to be a real invasion towards that uh park area. It's going to have light poles. It's not going to have a great fence. Understand security. Um and if we're truly stitching around trees, giving them a, you know, a 10-ft drip line, those trees have much greater drip lines than that. And we're taking threequarters of them and putting pavement on top. So I again it's heroic. I think that's great. We're trying to stitch that in there. But if we're truly concerned, especially that heritage oak, if it's a truly a 30-in thing and you're giving it 15 ft up between two curbs, um you're covering up a lot of that drip line already. So I just feel like that building could go in so many different spots here and parking shaped around it. Um, this this feels like a um, and I know it's not the case. As Commissioner Shepard said, I'm sure you guys have been studying the hell out of this for a long time. Um, it just feels like there are so many additional options that could be viable without doing this. I I have a real problem with the 8oot setback variance on this parking all day long, but uh, that one really bothers me. So,

um, Chair Meer, Commissioner Baxley, um, sounds like there's some designers, uh, on on on the, uh, commission here. Um, we're we're we're dealing with a public space, a taxpayer funded space. Um, we are not a a rich developer um, who's trying to squeeze every every penny. Well, I guess we're squeezing pennies, but uh, we're not trying to squeeze every bit of profit out of it. We're not making money on this. We're dealing with a very tight budget. Mhm. Um if we if we were a developer, we'd clear cut the whole thing and and do like what you all did with excuse me, what the city did um at at um East Side on on on University and Northeast Minneapolis.

I actually think there's you can do this removing less trees, not taking more trees. That's not what we're talking about here. So, okay. I I um I I dis I respectfully I I

You guys have been for a long time. We we we have been we're we we're very sophisticated landscape architects uh architects um and engineers um our tree preservation specialist um does a remarkable job. Um we're dealing with several different uh inputs here um trying to output the best possible product for the end user which is um public staff um who are uh doing the best that they can do with with the dollars that they have. And um uh you know this is a taxpayer funded project. We don't we don't have um another bucket of money that we can grab and and do something even more substantial here. Um I think if we had our brothers we' we'd do it all in one phase but that's just not realistic in in today's economy and with the budget that we have.

Yeah. Do you is there a place where we can see the site plan or when when will we understand kind of why that building and that location is exactly where it needs to be for the future?

Uh Chair Mark, Commissioner Baxley, I I I wish I could take you all out to the site and see it in real person. We could start pointing at stuff like designers love to do. Um but uh in this case uh we have a uh a very um utilitarian uh site plan and and set of documents. We do have a 100% set of documents. I can certainly share those with you through Alex uh uh city planning staff. Um um I'm happy to do that, but we um this is this is more of an internal maintenance type project that we aren't going to develop um really fancy uh illustrations and graphics and things like that.

We're pretty sophisticated. I think we could understand what that and I think this I totally the staff needs this. This is great, but it has a it does whether you like it or not has a public face. And I think that's what we're concerned about. Yeah. Okay. I agree. And it's not about money. That's not about making it pretty. That's about rules that are put in place that we try really hard to make sure that all the constituents of the city park board or otherwise follow. So that's that's all our why we're being hardline on this is we don't want to u I'm going to turn to other commissioners first, but um if there are I'm done. Okay. Were you done also? I was I was going to respond if that's all right. Chairman. Yes.

Um, so Chair Meer, Commissioner Baxley. Um, we uh Oh, no. I can't remember where I was going with it. Sorry. I don't want to give every commissioner a chance first. Did anyone else want to ask any other questions? All right. Commissioner Jones. Uh, just why did you What's that uh number? How did you land on the actual number of parking spots that you believe are uh needed for your facility?

Um, Chair Meer, Commissioner Jones. Um, how we arrived at that is um we looked at uh the number of employees that might use this site. Uh we looked at the physical physical constraints of the site and that was really the constraint is um how far east we could go uh with the parking lot. um where we could actually place the parking lot without impacting uh trees on the site. Um as I said, this is a 100-year-old site. Um it's grown significantly and um we as a park board, we love planting trees. We love having an urban canopy. We know all the benefits of it. Um and um as we have grown um the uh those heritage trees, those trees that are 100 years or older um are really what is driving u the shape of this site and how it's uh being developed. Right. Anyone else? All right. I have I have a few more. So So how many employees are using this site at the service center? Uh, Jeremiah, I don't have that that number off hand right now.

Okay. Um, is it too long for them to walk from the clubhouse? Like if they were like would it be an option to designate some of the parking spots at the clubhouse for employees and be able to walk there?

Termar, yes. Uh, these these are uh public employees. There's no sidewalk on Longfellow. Um this uh this golf course and this site predates any requirement for a sidewalk. Um uh it would be unreasonable to ask our staff um um to walk uh over 1,000 ft um especially uh at 6:00 a.m. when they arrive or 5:30 a.m. when they arrive. Um you know, if it's 10 degrees below zero, um nobody wants to walk a quarter mile to get to work.

Okay. Um, and then you said you wouldn't have a problem with having a few bike spots adjacent to the service center. Um, like two or three. Would that be uh, Jerem, I'm happy to do a little change order for a thousand bucks and uh, throw in some some uh um, bicycle parking. All right. Any other questions before we proceed with the rest of the public hearing? All right. Thank you, Tyler.

Oh, sorry. I missed Commissioner Garcia. Um, I guess just to do my due diligence, if the planning commission votes to deny these variances that you've requested, um, what would that do to the nature of the project in terms of extending the timeline, incurring any extra costs or things like that?

Uh, Chair Meer, Commissioner Garcia, um, uh, thank you for asking that question. Um, the park board has been working on, uh, planning this site. um not only physically but also uh financially. How do we budget it? Uh for uh longer than I've probably been working at the park board, but in earnest for the last uh five or six years, we've been planning this site. You know, how do we move forward? How do we get the budget uh aligned here um and uh working with our own staff, our forestry divi uh department um and and and other employees uh to to make something that works for everybody. Um and um if we were if if if uh this this body were to deny um one or any of these variances, uh we'd be set back several years. Um and uh I would I would say over $100,000 at least has been spent on this in not you not counting staff time um but in consulting time. Uh we'd be looking at um rearranging uh the site to better better fit uh the the code as written um and uh quite possibly not being able to do anything here because of it.

Any additional questions, Commissioner Garcia? All right.

All right. Thank you. All right. Um, for the rest of the public hearing, anyone who would like to speak can have up to two minutes. Would anyone else like to speak to this item? I see a few people in the audience. Did you come here to testify today? I'm taking it no. Okay. Seeing no other commenters. Um, we will close the public hearing. Commissioners, what are your thoughts? You have any motion? I'll share mine. Um, if no one else wants to start. Um, so I was involved in this project as a park commissioner when we were reviewing uh the Hayawa plan. Um, and I I know from that experience that the the at least the plan as it was presented um in 2020 and 2021 uh added more parking at the clubhouse site. I don't know if that changed in the final adoption in in 2022. Um, but I don't think it did. Um, and I remember objecting to it at the time and um, and some other commissioners agreed that it was unfortunate to have a lot of extra parking to not do some of the other things to mitigate it. Um, but there wasn't really the appetite because, you know, they just wanted to get the the plan passed. But I do feel like at the clubhouse it was a pretty excessive amount of of parking and there are just a lot of other things that the park board could be doing to reduce that. They don't do anything right now to incentivize other uh transportation uses. I don't have so much of an objection to the parking near the service site. Um I I mean I don't think a thousand feet is unreasonably long long for people to walk. There is a sidewalk on the other side of the street. Um

certainly people with disabilities wouldn't be able to do that, but I I don't think you know that all of the employees need to be parking um immediately next to it. I think they could be parking at the clubhouse. I think the park board could do more to manage that. Um and and so my my biggest objection to this is that by approving the the parking at the surface site will be also approving uh the non-conforming parking at the clubhouse. Um so I I I don't feel I can vote for this. I I I don't um feel that it has a practical difficulty. I feel that it has harms. Um I don't know where the rest of the commission is, but I I want to propose like three different levels. So I I I can't vote for it, but um for those who do who want to um push for a a a different um reconfiguration, I would ask the staff how they could accomplish that. So would that just entail denying the variance for the um for the corner side?

Yeah, Chair Meer, I think um you know generally we don't want to get into the business of redesigning projects on the fly as part of this commission. So the most appropriate action would be to deny whatever variances that you don't think are supportable, make the appropriate findings, and then it would be up to the applicant to make changes in order to um bring forward a project that fits with the action of today's meeting.

Okay. Um so maybe that wouldn't work. I mean um but then the the last thing if if um if the rest of the commissioners are going to approve it, I would propose adding a condition for some bike parking spots near the service center because I do think you know at least a few employees might want to use that. We want to prepare the site so that they can um and they the applicant was receptive to that. Um, other commissioners, Mr. Ter, just a just a question. Chair Meer and staff, would a continuence also be an appropriate way of pursuing?

Uh, that would be an option. Um, you know, the issue with a continuence, we would likely need two cycles in order for the applicant to have the amount of time they need to make meaningful changes to the plan and have those reviewed by staff. If those changes result in additional land use applications, we would need to send new public hearing notices. Thank you, Commissioner Wagner.

Uh, thank you, Chair Meer. I have a question, a procedural question. Um, even though I've been here two years and also just sworn in for another two years. Um, I still am working through like quasi judicial verse, uh, I don't even know the other type of votes do, but like whatever the opposite that is. And my question would be, so we have a, it seems to me we have a quasi judicial vote on the variances. Is that a fair statement? All of the items in front of you for this application are quasi judicial.

Got it. And then as a continuation of that question, thank you, Kimberly. Is it fair to say that a no vote on the variance like we decide not to find staff findings is essentially us saying that we are not convinced by the findings in the report? Is that a fair assessment of the situation? Correct. However, you are required to make findings that would support the action that you take. So you can adopt the staff findings which is you know one set of proposed findings for the series of applications in front of you or you can adopt your own findings. Um so you know for the variances finding you know perhaps there are no unique circumstances here that res necessitate a deviation from the setback requirement or the maximum parking or you know whatever that looks like. Um site plan review is the only one that you don't really need to make findings for.

Got it. So, so if we were to vote no on a variance, we would essentially just say we are not convinced there are unique circumstances as written in the staff report or whatever it may be. Yes, there are the three required findings. Um, and you know, you could work those out as you go, but it would need to be part of the motion. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to have that in mind as we approach this discussion. Um, I'm I'll have a few more thoughts later, but I'm still kind of ruminating over here. Okay. Commissioner Jones.

Yeah. So, um, yeah, this is a really, you know, complex one and, um, as you can hear by our discussion, um, I I'm inclined to support staff's motion or recommendations with the addition of the pipe the the bike parking, but also I would, and maybe this is where you're going, Commissioner Myers, but I also am not convinced that we need all that parking, especially on the face of the parkway. Um because I appreciate staff safety, but there are many many city employees that don't have uh private parking or not private parking but parking so adjacent to their buildings, all the downtown employees, many of the pl people who work in other facilities. Um so that that's where I'm go coming from. Um I I think you should have parking there. I think I appreciate the park boards wanting to improve the facilities for everyone. Um but I don't I'm not convinced we need that much parking um on the close to the parkway and and I would like to see more um bicycle parking. So, Kimberly, um, would it be possible to deny aspects of alternative compliance or to make a condition to the site plan review that would accomplish the effect of changing or would it require or denial of the variance in order to reconfigure the site in order in order to compel them to I mean, we wouldn't say how it get gets reconfigured, but to compel it. It would likely be a combination of those two things. I mean, if you deny Did these come through weird? If you deny um C or I'm sorry, B, which is the corner sideyard setback variance, you

know, basically that means that the parking has to comply with the 8oot setback and it's up to the applicant to figure out how to reconfigure the site to comply with that 8oot setback. Okay. Um, under the site plan review, um, you know, if you wanted to add conditions about additional landscaping or something like that, you could. Um, I don't have the full report up at the moment, so I don't know what all aspects of alternative compliance they needed related to the parking lot, Alex, but certainly adding conditions of approval that would negate granting alternative compliance is something that you could do. You look like you have something to say. Did you want to add more? I'm

I'm available if there are any questions about the specific. I just figured Alex had all the alternative compliance in front of him, but Okay. As you do, I'm sure. I'm just not on that page. If we um denied varian variance B, like what I want to see is the the parking be placed behind the building. Could that be a condition? We could deny alternative compliance under the site plan review, which you would effectively do by adding a condition of approval that says that there should not be any surface parking between the building and the street.

So, is that on starting on page seven, the the building placement, or is that somewhere else? Uh, Chair Meer, commissioners, if I may,

if you're looking at the staff report, starting on page seven and continuing on to eight, there's discussion of the site plan review standards for building placement, which addresses this topic, and it mentions the need for alternative compliance based because they're more than uh 15 ft away from the property lines. And then on page 18 uh starts another section of the report that focuses on all the alternative compliance items and goes through staff analysis for those. And to to Kimberly's point, yes, if the commission were inclined to if if you are interested in seeing the building being placed closer to the parkway and the parking on the north side of the building, one way to do that through your decision could be to if it is to uh include an additional condition of approval to the site plan review application that it shall comply with the building placement standards regarding distance to property lines and location and parking. This does also relate to like Kimberly mentioned the variance to the 8oot setback requirement because functionally those two topics interact here. And the third variance is to the separate uh parking location standards of the zoning code which is outside of site plan review but is an additional language in the zoning code that prohibits location of um a vehicle parking a surface parking lot in between a building and a front or corner. there. Where I'm going with this is there could be multiple aspects of this that you could amend and it does depend on the specifics of if there are particular things you are wanting to see here or wanting to to prohibit through your decision, you would need to touch one or more aspects of this and we can help talk you through that if if the commission is so inclined.

Okay. So is it if if we deny alternative compliance for building placement in the site plan review, is it also necessary for us to deny variance B? So yes. Okay. You you would not want to approve a variance to allow parking. Yeah. Okay. In that location. Um and under site plan review, the action would not be to deny alternative compliance. It would just be to add a condition of approval that they comply with that section of the ordinance.

Okay. Um so that condition of approval would be that that comply with the building placement code. I I think we would want it to say um my computer's not cooperating with me today, but I think we would want that condition of approval to um instead of just like cart blanch under building placement. Um, we would just want it to say that the area between the building and the front or corner side lot line shall not contain a surface parking lot.

And if I may, Chair Meer, I I think we would specifically recommend because the discussion is around the Minhaha Parkway side, the south side. We're not worried about Longfellow or you are I I understand are not worried about Longfellow. So really, it's the corner side lot line is what needs to be addressed. Uh and also the a it could be a separate condition of approval but also within the building placement standards that the building shall be located within 15 ft of the corner side lot line um in addition to just the location of the parking lot relative to the building. Okay. So can we repeat those two? So I can write them down. So the building shall be within 15 ft of the corner corner lot sideline

corner corner side lot line corner corner side lot line. Those are the two aspects of building placement that needed alternative compliance under site plan review. So if you're the first one,

if you're only concerned with the parking between the building and the street, you would only need to add a condition of approval about that. If you are concerned with the location of the building and the parking, then that would likely be two conditions. one that requires the building to be within 15 ft of that corner property line and one that states that there shall be no parking between the building and the corner side lot line. And this is in the um alternative compliance section of the staff report starting on page 20.

I was going to do both. All right. Is anyone interested in making a motion to that effect with those conditions?

I'll I'll move that.

Okay. Second. So, there's a motion and a second. So just to clarify, this would be to approve staff findings for variance A and C, deny variance B, and then approve site plan review uh with three conditions. One, that there would be three bike parking spots adjacent to the service center building. That there would be no parking between uh the service center building and the corner um sideline and the building shall be within 15 ft of the corner sideline. Is that accurately reflected?

Okay. And chair meer, we also need findings for uh the denial of variance B.

All right. Um, so I would I would say that there's not a practical difficulty re relevant to that variance that they're fully um able to fit the the um the the building and the parking within uh their existing space. And um the there are harms to um walkability and to um the aesthetics from u people going on Miniha Parkway are the the findings that I would propose. you want Commissioner Baxley, do you want to read what you were going to say?

Yeah, I think just to add to that, maybe the um the question of verdance do not meet the required findings that they're in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance uh that they will not be injurous to the use or enjoyment of nearby property. the addition of 8,000 square feet of new impervious surface adjacent to the parkland and protected waters within the shoreland overlay district with the ordinance anticipated minimizing environmentally sensitive issues such as surface parking combined with the fencing along the parkway edge and the lack of pedestrian access. The project shifts the character of this area away from park adjacent setting toward an autooriented service use. For those reasons, variance B should be denied. All right.

If you could uh hand that to the clerk just so we have it. If the motion passes, that would be great. Sure. Commissioner Wagner. Uh thank you. I know there's been a motion in a second. I believe I'm still allowed to make a comment or ask a question.

Absolutely. So there's a lot of architects and smart people on this board and I am not a landscape architect or an architect but I look at this site plan and I see we are proposing that the building must go between Miniha Parkway and the parking lot and I look at the site plan and I know the applicant mentioned the grove of spruce trees to the north of the parking lot. So, if we are shifting the building between the parking lot and the street, inherently the the parking lot would need to move to the north. And when I see this site plan, I struggle to see a way to do that without knocking down more trees. And I think that perhaps that is fine. And if that's what we decide to do, that is fine. But I think we need to at least be cognizant of what our variance results in or like what our vote results in. So, I'd be curious to hear um Commissioner Baxley or Shephard or Gordon or really anyone on the board, but those are the architects that I'm aware of um their thoughts on that comment.

Commissioner Shepard. Yeah, thank you. And I I agree with you that that I think we we are trying to control too many variables, particularly with the last alternative compliance to to require that the building be within 15 ft. I I don't know that we can accomplish both of those things. So I in my mind we're trying to get the parking away from any parkway. Um and if the building gets foregrounded as a result that's a that's that's a happy result and I think you understand that but I don't know that we can control both of those. So I would like to strike that if that is a friendly amendment.

Okay. So for for um just for my position I'm I'm going to be voting no on the entirety of of the application. Um, so, uh, but Commissioner Jones and Commissioner Maxim made the original motion. Do you want to have both conditions or do you want to accept Commissioner Shepard's amendment to make it just one? Or sorry, there are three conditions. The bike parking um parking between the building and the corner lot side um and and the building required to be within 15 ft. Which one did you want to start? It said last one, which I find too prescriptive. Okay. I I would agree with that.

I'm fine with that. I I also again, and I kind of mentioned it in my comments, I'm not convinced that you need all 43 parking spots and that there's a way to deal with this with just reducing the number of parking. Oh. Oh, yeah. So, it's 48 48 48 by the service center, 123 existing ones. I'm focusing on the the ones that by are by the service center,

right? Um in the application, they're not separated out. So, um, the the variance is just to allow more than the 100 maximum surface parking spots for the entire site. So, they're asking for 171 total. So, if you'd like to um reduce that, you could um propose uh a variance in lie of whatever number you wanted to propose. So, if you think it

Yeah, that's a I don't actually have a number. I was just problem solving with that as a as a way to deal with the the conditions which is look at the number of parking spaces. Um but I realize that that's also part of the the variance. So that could be a possible outcome but I don't think we need to control that nor do we need to control the placement of the building. So I

Okay. So do so Commissioner Jones accepts the amendment. Except Commissioner Baxley, do you accept the amendment? Okay. Okay. So then we can take that as a friendly amendment. So to clarify, we are striking condition three or I guess it would be seven from site plan review regarding the building placement within 15 ft. Okay. And just to clarify, the building would still be required between the parking and the street just not within 15 ft of the property line. No, I think that's right.

Correct. So, the result would be that there would be no parking allowed between the building and Minihaha Parkway, but the building placement uh would not need to be within 15 ft of that cornerside property line. The applicant could work that out.

Yeah. And I I'm happy to proceed to a vote. I know we've been talking about this for a long time. I still would be curious if someone could explain how that doesn't result in the knocking down of more trees because the parking lot still seems to me like it is going to need to ship northward directly into where the trees are. So I think if I may because we're not designing or redesigning, we're just acting on the applications in front of us. It shouldn't be assumed that the parking lot in this exact configuration just gets moved. It would be up to the park board to redesign to reflect the actions of the planning commission today.

All right. Are there any other comments before I move to a vote? All right. Seeing none, clerk, please call the role. Commissioner Chowry. No. Connley is absent. Uh, Garcia, no. Gordon, hi. Jones, hi. Shy is absent. Uh, Shepard, no. Wagner, no. Vice President Baxley, I. And President Meyer,

no. Uh there are four oops five sorry there are three I's and five nazs correct okay so that does not carry would anyone like to propose an alternative motion

alternative motion I don't have an alternative motion and I'm not certain um where this is going to go in what direction it's going to go I personally am in the same place as you um chair meer that I won't be able to support this tonight and I don't know if that warrants us going the continuence route and having an opportunity for the park board to propose something differently. Um we do have a new representative here to kind of carry the conversation with the park board and check in with their colleagues. Um, so that's something I'll just like set on the table for us to consider um as we as we figure out what we're going to vote on and decide to move forward or not move forward.

Okay. Um I'm always reluctant to continue things but I would be happy to put forward a motion uh to fully deny the application if if that's where other commissioners are at. Um, I'd like to hear from other other commissioners. Um, would anyone like to make any motion? Commissioner Wagner?

Um, I'm I'm happy to make a motion if if needed. Um, this is a this is a tricky one and I I appreciate Kimberly's comment about us not dictating what the applicant does, but I think like we appoint architects and uh people with the backgrounds they have to the planning commission in order to think through like the first order and second order effects of our votes, right? Like if we vote to deny this application, they are going to have to redraw their plan. They're going to have to incur taxpayer dollars to redraw their plan. I don't know if that's in the perview of this conversation or not, but that is a fact in my opinion at least. And there to me, and I look at this, and I'm not a trained architect, I I see trees where the parking lot is going to need to go. So, I would be inclined to support the work that the staff has put into this. I'm convinced by the variances. We have a 180 acre parcel here. We have a one small corner of this parcel. Um, it is a maintenance facility. We cannot write our zoning code to handle every scenario for every piece of land in our in our city. And there's a reason that variances exist. And there's a reason that staff writes up variances and needs to find findings in order to support a variance. And in my estimation, the findings are met here. It's it's close. I'm not I'm not a fan of how close the parking lot is to Miniha Parkway either, but it's it's marginal to me and it's close and it's close enough to me that I would support staff findings as written. So, I'm happy to make that motion if if that moves us forward. Um, I obviously know there's people on this commission that have said they're not going to be voting yes, but those are my thoughts and I'm happy to make that motion if if it helps us.

I would second that motion if you made it. Before we consider the second, would you accept the condition for the three bicycle parking spots adjacent to the service center building? Uh, can we increase it? Yes. Three seems pretty low. I I mean, how many would you three bike spots is like this big? Like, there's room on the plan for three. I'd make five. Okay. I don't know. I don't know if the applicant would be open to that or not, or if we if we want I know the public the public the public hearing is closed officially, so we're not asking the applicant to answer, but

So, I'm I'm hearing Commissioner Wagner make a motion to approve staff findings with the condition of five bike bike parking spots adjacent to the service center building. Do you want to second that?

I second that. All right. Um, so I I'm going to speak against the motion just because um I I do think it's worth the time and the taxpayer funds and and having been involved in the program. I mean, they would have to reconsider things, but I don't think it's a huge expense to to um take another look at this. And even even if we do approve this today, I would en encourage the park board not to take full advantage of this. And the the best remedy would to be to just build fewer parking spots adjacent to the service center. I I think you can come up with other um ways to to mitigate um the the demand for it. um we don't have the the authority to say like you need to give your employees some bike park or some bus passes or you know um or other incentives but that is what they really should do. Um, so I I think the consequence if we we deny this is that we'll we'll push the park board to come up with um a better plan. And I think that they should do that one way or the other um even if we approve this. But um that's why I'll be voting no because I I feel we have a very great park board um who are sensitive to these issues and I think they would come up with a better plan than what we're seeing now. Any other thoughts before we move to a vote on Commissioner Wagner's motion? Commissioner Todd.

Yeah, I'll just comment. Um, for me, uh, it's less about like the adjacency to Minihaha Parkway. It is about the increased amount of parking spaces and pvious surface in this park specifically. Um the the in the impact of the pollution on Lake Hayawa Park is felt widely through out the 12th ward and um just the entire watershed. And I think just creating such a significant parking increase kind of goes against some of the principles that many community members and elected leaders have been pushing forward for this park. And so for that reason, I just can't support the plan as is today.

Thank you. Any other Are you raising your hand, Commissioner Shepard? This may this may be out of order and thank you for that. But I but I did read and it was not part of your submission and not part of your report, but I did notice that your civil engineer published a storm water management report back in late November which indicated the addition of this new BMP which will improve storm water management on this site. I just wanted to point that out for the record. All right. I'm not seeing anyone else. Clerk, please call the RO. Commissioner Chowry, no. Garcia, yes. Gordon, no.

Jones, I Shepard, no. Wagner, yes. Uh, Vice President Baxley, nay. And President Meyer, no. There are three eyes's and five nazs.

That does not carry. Um so with that I would propose to uh deny um the application with the same findings I um mentioned earlier um you know cross apply um on practical difficulty that we we don't um don't find a practical difficulty for any of of the three variances and um that there would be harms um to um the aesthetics to the water quality um for for Lake Hayawa and Minhaha Creek. And Commissioner Baxley, did you want to add any part of this that was this just specific to that one variance or is it specific to variance B, but it applies to all?

Um I think I would just leave it at the ones that I've mentioned if that's sufficient. Um, so I'm going to make that as a motion. Would anyone like to second it? Okay. Not seeing any second. Would anyone like to make an alternative motion? Yeah. To to fully deny. I'll second it. Okay. All right. There's a motion and a second to deny the application. Is there any discussion? All right. Seeing none, clerk, please call the role. Commissioner Chowri, I. Garcia, nay.

Gordon, I. Uh, Jones, nay. Shepard, hi. Wagner, no. Uh, Vice President Baxley. Hi. And President Meyer. I. There are five eyes and three nazs.

All right, that is adopted. All right, so that concludes our business uh for the evening. Our next we have no committee the whole this week. No agenda items. So our next full planning commission will be January 20th and the next committee the whole will be January 22nd. Are there any updates from staff or commissioners? Uh the only update is the planning or the city council had their organization meeting earlier today and adopted a calendar uh for the rest of 2026. We will use that to now bring forward a full planning commission calendar for 2026 and hope to have that in front of you at your January 20th meeting. Excellent. Thank you. We are adjourned.