►
From YouTube: November 9, 2017 Zoning & Planning Committee
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
A
Good
morning,
thanks
for
bearing
with
us
as
we
get
settled
in
I
will
call
to
order.
The
regular
meeting
of
our
zoning
and
planning
committee
today
is
November
9th
2017
I'm
Lisa
bender
I
chair
the
committee.
We
have
a
quorum
present
with
councilmember
Goodman
Andrew
Johnson
in
Council
President
Johnson.
Today's
agenda
is
a
bit
packed
with
11
items.
A
We
start
with
the
consent
items
and
then
we
will
return
back
to
the
public
hearings
that
gives
us
item
number
five,
which
is
approving
a
rezoning
at
714,
30th,
Avenue
north
and
that's
to
allow
for
an
addition
to
a
place
of
assembling
a
church.
There
item
number
six
is
approving
an
application
for
a
street
vacation
at
3500,
Cedar
Lake
Avenue.
Item
number:
seven
is
the
local
historic
landmark
designation
of
the
Messiah
Evangelical
Lutheran
Church
I've
been
asked
by
council
member
of
our
zombie's
office
to
move
to
postpone
this
item.
A
He
was
not
able
to
make
it
today,
and
this
is
in
his
ward
item
number
eight
is
passage
of
an
ordinance
amending
our
zoning
code
related
to
exterior
building
materials.
Item
number
nine
is
regulation
passing
an
ordinance
related
to
parking
garages.
Item
number
10
is
passing
an
ordinance
that
updates
our
land
use
fees
and
related
standards.
An
item
number
11
is
referring
to
staff
the
subject
matter
of
an
ordinance
amending
our
code
for
limited
entertainment,
so
I
will
go
ahead
and
see
if
anyone
wants
to
pull
any
of
those
items
off
for
discussion.
A
So
I
will
then
pull
item.
8
I
will
move
approval
for
items,
5,
6,
9,
10
and
11,
and
moved
to
postpone
item
7
for
one
cycle,
any
discussion,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say:
aye
aye
any
opposed
those
items
carry,
and
so
that
means
that
we'll
discuss
item
eight
at
the
end
of
the
meeting
so
item
number
one
is
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
appeal
for
a
building
at
424,
Washington,
Avenue,
North,
we'll
start
with
the
staff
presentation
and
then
move
to
the
public
hearing.
C
So
the
property
is
located
in
the
warehouse,
historic
district.
You
can
see
it
highlighted
here
on
the
map,
there's
a
shared
drive
and
access
amongst
the
properties.
So
here
are
your
security
and
5th
Avenue
lofts.
The
subject
property
is
here
at
4:24,
Washington
Avenue
north.
The
access
to
the
existing
surface
parking
is
off
of
Washington
Avenue
north,
and
this
is
a
shared
access
easement
amongst
the
property
owners
of
the
three
properties.
C
The
proposal
would
be
to
adjust
the
surface
parking
lot
and
then
provide
a
ramp
down
near
the
center
of
the
building.
Additionally,
there
would
be
some
landscaping
here
because
of
this
ramping
down.
They
have
to
create
retaining
walls
in
order
to
traverse
the
property
into
the
building
that
accesses
the
lower
level
from
the
side
elevation.
This
is
what
it
would
approximately
look
like
with
the
overhead
door
that
would
roll
up
here.
You
can
see
the
as
well.
C
Here
is
the
existing
condition,
including
that
two
windows
that
would
be
removed
from
this
facade
staff
was
not
able
to
identify
any
historic
photos
of
this
facade
of
the
building.
So
it's
we're
unable
to
determine
whether
or
not
these
are
original
windows.
But
staff
felt
as
though
this
is
a
not
a
primary
facade,
and
therefore
the
loss
of
these
windows
to
provide
the
garage
door
would
not
make
the
property
incompatible
with
the
historic
district.
C
D
C
Here
is
a
another
photograph
of
the
existing
condition
and
then,
as
proposed,
this
isn't
rendering.
So,
as
I
mentioned,
there
would
be
landscaping
here.
Staff
has
asked
that
it
be
more
of
a
hedge
like
shrubbery,
to
allow
for
some
visual
screening,
and
then
it
would
be
one
canopy
tree
so
from
the
public.
Realm
you'll
basically
see
these
walls
that
are
retaining
in
order
to
also
allow
for
the
separation,
the
door
would
not
be
as
visible
because
the
door
is
quite
a
bit
lower
on
the
building
as
its
accessing
the
basement.
A
E
Morning,
I'm
Lea,
Dean
I'm,
president
of
the
board
of
directors,
for
the
homeowners
association
for
the
true
loft
buildings
that
are
impacted
by
the
by
this
proposal,
we're
located
directly
across
from
the
parking
lot
from
the
kildall
building.
Anyone
using
the
ramp
would
have
to
go
through
our
parking
lot
to
get
to
it
now.
E
The
proposal
also
notes
are
also
would
be
adding
what
is
really
the
equivalent
of
a
loading
zone
in
the
form
of
a
ramp
in
an
area
of
a
historic
building
where
there
was
none
prior,
our
association
is
committed
to
the
preservation
of
historic
buildings.
In
fact,
security
warehouse,
which
was
built
in
1902,
is
in
the
midst
of
more
than
a
half
million
dollar
tuckpointing
project.
Many
of
our
residents
have
lived
in
these
buildings
since
they
were
repurposed
or
built
twelve
years
ago.
E
Many
have
moved
there
specifically
because
of
the
historic
nature
of
the
neighborhood
to
propose
a
change
in
a
historic
building
to
accommodate
20
to
24
people
in
their
cars
while
adversely
affecting
300-plus
residents.
It
seems
like
an
unreasonable
trade-off
and
an
incredible
stretch
to
say
that
the
parking
is
being
added
in
a
quote,
thoughtful
and
concealed
way.
There
are
also
issues
of
the
landscaping
that
are
being
proposed.
That
would
hide
this
ramp.
Of
course,
it's
only
going
to
hide
it
from
the
people
who
are
on
Washington
Avenue.
E
It's
not
going
to
detract
it's
not
going
to
help
the
situation
for
the
300
residents.
More
importantly,
the
plan,
the
way
it
is
proposed
right
now
has
landscaping
and
a
tree
in
an
area
where
no
irrigation
is
being
recommended
or
where
the
plan
does
not
include
any
irrigation,
and
there
is
also
a
a
plastic
pipe
that
that
goes
down.
Washington
Avenue
along
the
sidewalk
there
that
we
at
our
association
stumbled
onto
that
prevents,
has
prevented
in
the
past
a
tree
from
going
in
in
front
of
the
Kotel
building.
E
So
we
don't
think
it's
going
to
help.
In
other
words,
we
don't
believe
that
the
attempts
to
hide
the
ramp
or
to
provide
in
the
words
of
the
Heritage
Guidelines
natural
elements
that
promote
livability
will
be
sufficient
to
meet
its
stated
purpose.
In
fact,
we
don't
think
that
this
project
promotes
livability
at
all,
whether
it's
for
aesthetic
or
for
practical
reasons.
We
have
all.
E
We
also
have
one
more
concern,
which
is
a
little
bit
unusual
for
a
historic
project
and
that's
my
concerns
safety
when
the
proposal
is
in
effect,
narrowing
a
drive-through
area
and
it's
also
increasing
traffic,
and
this
would
make
our
parking
lot
more
hazardous.
We
have
30
plus
children
who
live
in
our
two
buildings,
and
just
this
past
summer
alone,
we
had
serious
construction
going
on
between
the
kildall
building's
changes
and
then
also
our
own
with
our
tuckpointing
project.
E
We
already
had
one
car
accident
there
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
no
one
is
hurt
that
there's
no
more
accidents.
So,
for
all
these
reasons,
we
ask
you
to
support
our
effort
to
maintain
the
look
of
the
neighborhood,
as
well
as
the
safety
of
it
by
voting
against
the
proposal
for
a
parking
ramp.
Thank
you.
Thank.
F
Hello,
my
name
is
Sarah
commerce,
I
own
commerce,
custom
jewelers,
which
is
located
in
the
Kindle
building
at
207
Fifth
Avenue,
North
I'm
in
favor
of
this
parking
structure,
because
I've
already
been
a
tenant
and
a
resident
in
the
neighborhood
for
four
years
and
parking
is
going
to
be
continually
a
problem,
as
it
has
been
with
all
the
new
development,
more
residents,
more
businesses
moving
to
the
neighborhood
we
already
accessed
that
driveway
to
park
along
the
backside
of
it.
I
have
one
parking
spot
there
we're
going
to
continue
to
access
it.
F
This
way
it
allows
us
to
park
underground,
alleviating
some
of
the
pressure
and
the
tension
of
all
the
people
that
are
driving
through
that
parking
area.
I
think
it
would
just
add
value
to
the
building
and
add
value
to
where
people
need
to
park,
and
it
wouldn't
be
extra
disruptive
to
people
since
we're
already
accessing
it.
Thank
you
thank.
A
You
for
a
testimony
I'll
just
note
for
my
colleagues
and
folks
here
that
we
do
also
have
all
of
the
testimony
and
discussion
from
the
Heritage
Preservation
Commission
in
front
of
us.
So
our
next
speaker
please
come
on
up.
Would
anyone
else
like
to
speak?
Is
the
applicant
here
like
the
owner
of
the
building?
Would
you
like
to
address
some
of
the
you
know
the
impetus
for
this
project
or
how
you
your
position.
G
Thank
you.
My
name
is
Justin
Weinberg
I'm,
with
law
firm
at
Briggs
Morgan
here
representing
the
owner
with
me,
is
Paul
to
Zubin
our
who
actually
is
one
of
the
principals
of
the
owner
as
well.
I
think
the
record
is
pretty
clear
here:
nothing's
changed
since
the
Heritage
Preservation
Commission
and
when
they
made
their
decision
concerning
safety
and
I
heard
that
piece
addressed.
One
I
don't
think
it's
appropriate
when
we're
talking
about
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
on
whether
or
not
it
meets
the
historical
guidelines.
G
Staff
is
found,
and
it's
a
very
clear
record
that
this
project
checks
all
the
boxes
for
certificate
of
appropriateness,
but
with
respect
to
that
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
clear
is
that
we're
talking
about
22
stalls
underneath
or
the
tenants
of
this
building?
It's
removing
three
stalls
from
the
outside.
So
we're
talking
about
a
difference
of
19
parking
stalls.
That's
it
for
an
increase!
G
So
it's
not
a
very
significant
increase
when
you
consider
the
number
of
residents
that
live
at
the
appellant
property
and
we're
talking
about
tenants
only
in
this
building
and
their
office
tenants
so
we're
it's
9:00
to
5:00
Monday
through
Friday.
That's
it
there's
one
retail
component
outside
of
the
jewelry
and
it's
fronting
Washington
Avenue.
So
we're
not
talking
about
a
drastic
increase
here.
We
do
have
shared
parking,
it's
a
matter
of
public
easement,
there's
an
easement
agreement,
and
so
that
isn't
really
a
concern
either
in
this
particular
instance.
G
I
G
That
we're
doing
it
with
some
retaining
walls
we're
putting
the
door
as
far
down
as
possible
to
try
and
mitigate
whatever
aesthetic
concerns
that
they
may
have.
Regarding
safety
again,
I
think
the
fact
that
we're
removing
three
stalls
we're
not
adding
that
many
new
stalls
is
a
mitigating
factor,
I
mean
if
they
could
add
more
stalls.
G
I
Thinking,
like
you
know,
additional
greening
or
some
sort
of
markings
that
people
know
that
cut
more
cars
are
going
to
be
passing
through
here
or
some
sort
of
pavement
differentials.
I
mean
I
mean
it
sounds
like
what
you're
saying
is
yet
they
got
concerns
I,
don't
care
because
we
cuz
we're
not
really
doing
that
much
I,
don't
actually
I.
Think
it's
good
that
you're,
adding
more
parking.
I,
don't
have
any
objections.
I
Just
wondering
why
there's
this
kind
of
Cavalier
point
of
view
about
it
with
regard
to
the
neighbors
concerns,
can't
you
do
something,
can
you
add
more
greening?
Can
you
make
the
pavement
different?
Can
you
pave
the
entrance
to
it?
There
are
four
hundred
some-odd
residents
that
live
adjacent
to
this,
that
it
might
be
a
new
condition,
they're
unaware
of
sure.
G
G
Some
of
the
signage
and
the
pavement
concerns
I
think
you
know
we
could
certainly
talk
to
them
about
that.
But
again,
this
is
shared
parking,
so
the
property
that
we're
talking
about
and
in
terms
of
where
you
would
actually
have
to
change
the
pavement,
it's
actually
their
property.
It's
not
necessarily
our
property.
We
have
an
easement
agreement
before.
A
L
A
L
I
You
about
I'm
sure
I,
appreciate
your
comments.
Council
president
Johnson
I
think
the
only
way
they're
going
to
do.
That
is,
if
we
don't
approve
it
so
at
a
minimum
I
suppose
we
should
suggest
supporting
this
without
recommendation
towards
the
council
meeting.
Next,
we
could
see
what
they
come
up
with.
I
Move
to
move
this
forward
without
recommendation
and
ask
that
the
developer
and
the
neighbors
sit
down
and
come
up
with
something
that
can
be
a
little
bit
better
for
both
attempting
to
create
some
sort
of
win-win
if
possible
and
if
it
happens,
we'll
move
on
it
on
Friday
and,
if
not,
maybe
we'll
postpone
it
on
the
floor,
a
cycle
or
two
and
see
how
long
it
takes
to
come
up
with
something.
That's
a
little
bit
more
acceptable.
I
do
want
to
note
to
the
residents.
They
have
the
right
to
put
a
parking
lot
here.
I
We
want
them
to
do
that.
We're
good
with
that.
So
well,
maybe
we're
not
all
good
with
that.
I
shouldn't
say
that
I
don't
know,
but
I
think
we
are.
We
want
the
tenants
to
have
more
parking.
We
want
the
building
this
historic
building
to
be
successful,
so
we
need
you
to
come
to
a
win-win
on
your
own.
If
that's
possible,
I'll.
A
So
that's
the
balance
I
think
we're
trying
to
strike.
I
did
note,
too,
that
the
discussion
at
Heritage,
Preservation
Commission,
was
also
a
lot
around
the
landscaping
and
mitigation,
and
there
still
wasn't
a
conclusion
there.
So
I
think
this
is
a
good
way
to
get
that
finalized
before
next
Friday.
Any
more
discussion,
seeing
none
all
approval,
please
say
aye
aye
any
opposed
that
carries
that
completes
item
1
move
along.
We
have
quite
a
lot
on
the
agenda.
Item
number
2
is
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
appeal
at
200,
University,
Avenue,
southeast.
N
N
O
N
The
property
in
question
is
significant
under
criterion
1,
which
is
that
the
property
is
associated
with
significant
events
or
with
periods
that
exemplify
broad
patterns
of
cultural,
political,
economic
or
social
history,
and
this
has
to
do
with
the
Falls
of
the
st.
Anthony,
obviously
being
a
center
of
development
and
cultural
heritage
in
the
founding
and
developments
of
Minneapolis.
N
The
project
in
question
falls
within
the
University
Avenue
transition
area.
That's
a
character,
sub
area
of
the
larger
district,
the
scene
of
knee
Falls
historic
district
design
guidelines
give
some
context
and
direction
for
this
particular
character
area
and
mentioned
that
it
transitions
from
an
industrial
and
commercial
development
along
Main
Street
to
what
was
formerly
an
eclectic
mix
of
commercial
building
single
into
family
dwellings
and
factories.
Although
much
of
that
historic
infrastructure
has
been
lost
to
this
day,
the
area
has
also
experienced
some
significant
change
in
development
over
recent
years.
N
N
This
is
also
included
in
the
staff
report,
but
the
the
largest
change
was
that
the
tower
was
made
significantly
narrower,
so
it
has
a
smaller
floor
plate
along
the
University
Avenue
southeast
frontage.
As
a
result
of
that,
it
got
somewhat
taller
going
from
22
to
26
stories.
There
were
some
changes
in
materials
to
simplify
the
material
pallets
and,
additionally,
some
changes
in
the
number
of
townhome
units
lining
the
other
block
frontages.
N
This
is
highlighting
where
the
taller
portions
of
the
structure
are
located.
So
this
is
the
26
story
portion
of
the
project
and
then
a
five
to
six
story.
Apartment
structure,
the
26th
Horry
portion
of
the
project
is
set
back
continuously
from
University
Avenue
southeast
by
18
feet
from
the
public
right-of-way
and
the.
N
N
Some
additional
renderings
of
the
structure
and
then
getting
into
the
historic
district
design
guidelines
the
Heritage
Preservation
Commission
denied
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
based
on
several
findings.
One
was
design
that
it
does
not
need
to
sign
guideline
nine
point:
nine
that
the
overall
height
of
the
buildings
shall
be
compatible
with
the
character
area
that
it
does
not
meet.
Design
guideline
requirement.
9.10
that
taller
portions
of
a
structure
should
be
positioned
away
from
neighboring
buildings
of
Lord
scale
that
it
does
not
meet
design.
N
Guideline
ten
point:
eight
in
the
University
Avenue
transition
area,
the
maximum
height
should
not
it's
stories,
and
that
does
not
meet
the
intent
of
the
character
area
that
the
grain
elevators
should
also
continue.
Their
visual
prominence
over
the
rest
of
the
district
I
wanted
to
highlight
a
few
of
the
design
guideline,
directives
and
caveats
that
are
contained
with
the
missing
item.
He
follows
a
store
district,
while
the
overall
height
of
buildings
are
directed
to
be
compatible
with
the
character
area
there.
N
The
design
guidelines
do
allow
that
a
building
height
that
exceeds
the
height
range
established
in
the
context
will
be
considered
where
it
is
demonstrated
that
the
additional
height
will
be
compatible
with
adjacent
properties
within
the
character
area.
Taller
portions
are
setback,
access
to
light
and
air
for
surrounding
properties
is
respected.
N
There
was
a
long
discussion
at
HPC
about
where
the
most
appropriate
location
for
the
taller
portion
of
the
project
would
be,
and
some
general
consensus
that
the
taller
portion
is
probably
in
the
right
area
in
terms
of
it
not
encroaching
on
the
historic
infrastructure
as
much
as
possible.
So
that
is
where
staff
came
to
their
conclusion
to
recommend
approval.
N
Additionally,
we
requested
that
the
applicant
work
to
continue
to
simplify
the
material
palate
and
unify
the
design
such
that
the
building
reflects
the
historic
character
of
the
district
more
accurately
and
blends
with
the
historic
infrastructure
more
seamlessly
and
that
had
to
do
primarily
with
window
design
and
material
palette.
I
know
that
the
applicant
may
has
a
presentation
for
you
today
and
may
highlight
some
additional
changes
that
they're
proposing
to
the
project
but
I'm
happy
to
take
any
questions.
Otherwise,.
A
N
A
N
The
underlying
zoning
is
I
1
and,
as
the
industrial
living
overlay
district,
the
applicant
will
be
seeking
a
Planned
Unit
development
for
this
project,
which
then
allows
for
certain
exceptions
to
zoning
rules
regarding
height
and
bulk,
but
asks
for
specific
concessions
in
terms
of
site
amenities
and
enhancements.
That
need
to
add
up
to
a
certain
number
of
points,
essentially
as
a
that
Landis
application,
and
that
would,
as
I
said,
only
happen
with.
A
L
J
L
I
I
Share
accounts
of
President
Johnson,
it
was,
and
at
the
time
we
sold
it
to
Cunningham,
and
he
would
they
were
supposed
to
build
something
where
a
lattice
is
now
building
uh-huh,
but
we
did
have
a
long
conversation
about
the
future
of
this
properties
properties
even
years
ago
about
this
area
being
redeveloped
and
of
being
a
redevelopment
site.
Thank
you.
A
Q
Thank
you
Peter
and
good
morning,
Council
and
chair.
My
name
is
Rebecca
green
I'm,
a
senior
associate
at
Doran
companies.
The
applicant
I'm
here
with
my
colleagues
Toni
Keithley,
who
is
senior
vice
president
of
development
and
John
Ferrier
vice
president
of
architecture
at
CSM,
I
will
briefly
cover
the
regulatory
framework
governing
this
site,
as
well
as
the
evolution
of
the
project.
Tony
will
cover
the
basis
for
the
hpc
denial
and
John
is
available
to
answer
any
questions,
as
it
relates
to
the
design.
Q
In
2009,
the
comprehensive
plan
targeted
activity
centers,
including
the
East
10,
upon
activity
center,
where
this
site
is
located
for
very
high
density
development,
which,
according
to
the
comp
plan,
is
outlined
as
120
to
200
units
per
acre.
Our
proposed
development
is
well
below
this
targeted
density
at
147
units
per
acre
in
2016.
The
city
reaffirmed
its
commitment
to
promoting
density
in
the
East
Hennepin
activity
area
by
quadrupling
its
targeted
density
to
allow
up
to
800
units
per
acre,
we're
not
close
to
800
units
per
acre.
Q
We
have
worked
extensively
with
city
staff,
as
Peter
outlined
very
well
to
design
a
project
that
both
fulfills
the
city's
goals
for
growth,
as
well
as
seeks
to
honor
the
st.
Anthony
Falls
historic
district
guidelines.
Our
initial
design
was
a
six
story
bona.
It
was
a
building
that
had
114
units
per
acre.
Yet
given
its
location
within
the
activity
center,
we
were
encouraged
by
city
staff
to
think
bigger
and
add
density.
A
revised
plan
showed
a
tower
and
a
six-story
apartment
building
in
one
mass
and
Peter
did
show
an
illustration
of
this.
Q
However,
after
receiving
feedback
from
the
city
and
the
neighborhood
we
made
a
skinnier
Tower
create
a
distinct
massing
between
the
buildings
and
added
retail
to
a
prominent
corner.
These
are
few
of
the
changes,
though
they're
quite
notable
on
the
screen
that
we've
made
and
the
city
notes.
City
has
notes.
Excuse
me
noted
several
other
important
changes
that
are
outlined
in
the
report.
K
As
Peter
Ruth
said,
the
staff
recommended
approval
of
our
application
with
conditions
we've
already
incorporated
those
conditions
and
submitted
that
into
for
planning
consideration.
Mr.
Crandall
did
a
great
job
on
the
staff
report
in
addressing
how
we
meet
all
the
guidelines
of
the
st.
Anthony
Falls
historic
district
I'm.
Just
gonna
highlight
you
know
we
work
extensively
with
city
staff
coming
up
with
a
project
that
they
could
support,
that
they
felt
melt
that
met
those
guidelines.
K
The
HPC
Commission
different
with
them
on
really
four
points.
All
related
to
the
height
of
the
tower
Peter
mentioned
this
as
well:
nine
point:
nine,
nine,
ten,
ten,
eight
and
the
design
intent
I
want
to
just
address
these
four
reasons
for
denial.
The
guidelines
actually
allow
for
increasing
the
height
when
meeting
certain
conditions,
we
felt
we
met
these
conditions
and,
more
importantly,
city
staff
has
felt
we've
met
these
conditions.
K
K
We
divided
the
mass
into
two
distinct
sections:
a
six
story
project
in
the
25
Story
Tower
26
story
tower
this
created
large
openings
on
second
and
third,
that
really
break
up
the
massing
and
keep
pride
this
variation
in
height
as
you're,
going
from
taller
as
it
relates
to
the
far
northern
district
guidelines
or
far
northern
portion
of
the
district
down
to
the
more
historic
area
of
the
district.
By
creating
a
this
skinnier
Tower,
we
respect
the
light
and
air
surrounding
the
project's.
K
Now,
in
the
context
of
the
guidelines,
we
actually
don't
have
any
surrounding
projects,
because
we're
bounded
by
streets
on
all
four
sides,
so
the
guidelines
were
actually
written
to
build
adjacent
to
existing
structures
which
we
have
none.
Like
I
said
we
place
the
the
tower
on
the
far
northern
end
of
the
district,
preserving
any
key
views
down
to
the
river
and
we've
set
back
the
taller
portions
from
the
street.
We're
actually
38
feet
back
from
University
Avenue,
which
includes
the
setback
with
the
8
foot.
K
Guideline
910
states
that
position
tall
portions
of
the
structure
away
from
the
neighboring
buildings
of
a
lower
scale.
Once
again,
there
are
no
buildings
of
a
lower
scale
within
the
district,
as
it
relates
to
this
project.
Now
there
are
some
smaller
scale
buildings
on
the
north
side
of
University
Avenue,
but
they're
outside
of
the
district.
K
We
wanted
to
put
the
tower
up
on
University
to
really
anchor
it
to
where
the
major
transit
and
commercial
corridors
are.
It
also
sets
this
building
as
far
as
way
as
possible
from
any
of
the
historic
structures
which
are
across
2nd
Street
within
the
districts.
The
setbacks
for
this
project
are
actually
greater
than
the
setbacks
of
taller
and
comparable
towers
approved
within
the
existing
East
Hennepin
activity
center.
K
10.8
the
guideline
that
the
University
Avenue
transition
area
will
have
a
maximum
height
not
not
to
exceed
8
storeys.
The
c-pen
report
already
addressed
this
and
said
the
proposed
project
will
not
materially
impair
the
significance
or
the
integrity
of
the
property
or
the
surrounding
properties,
and
we're
guessing
that
the
city
must
have
a
desire
to
create
heightened
density
within
this
area.
The
lattice
Tower,
which
is
adjacent
one
block
over
from
this
project,
was
approved
and
is
actually
within
the
same
sub
area
of
this
historic
district.
K
The
design
intent
that
the
grain
elevator
should
be
continued,
their
visual
prominence
over
the
rest
of
the
district,
the
guidelines
state
that
you
know
his
experience.
This
district
has
actually
experienced
significant
changes
and
the
most
of
us
historic
fabric
has
already
been
lost.
Furthermore,
to
the
extent
that
narrative
seeks
to
confirm
the
height
of
the
new
development
in
that
sub
area,
it's
clear
that
this
goal
is
purely
submissive
or
permissive.
The
guidelines
make
it
clear
when
the
term
should
is
used.
The
guidelines
give
way
so
in
the
city
determines
that
they
are
not
applicable.
K
The
new
buildings
should
reflect
the
massing
of
the
other
historic
buildings
within
the
sub
area,
and
not
that
of
the
grain
elevators
and
the
grain.
Elevator
should
also
continue
their
visual
prominence
for
the
rest
of
the
district.
The
prominent
views
of
our
proposed
building
will
actually
be
from
the
downtown
side
and
across
the
river,
so
some
perspective
views
here
of
our
project,
and
this
is
from
gold-medal
Park,
and
you
can
see
our
structure
right
here
right
behind
the
Phoenix,
so
it
fits
within
the
context
of
the
neighborhood
and
the
district.
K
K
So
this
the
staff
considered
this
requirement
and
concluded
that
the
proposed
project
would
not
materially
impair
the
significance
or
the
integrity
of
the
property
or
the
surrounding
properties.
A
couple
other
key
findings
from
the
report.
The
project
would
not
negatively
impact
the
design
integrity
of
the
district.
The
master
plan
does
not
contain
specific
guidance
for
height,
but
indicates
that
higher
density
residential
development
is
appropriate
at
this
location
because
it's
along
a
transit
and
transportation
corridor
and
you're
a
commercial
center
at
147
drawing
units
an
acre.
K
It's
consistent
with
the
city's
comprehensive
plan,
and
it's
also
consistent
with
the
Murphy
homes
neighborhood
plan
and
even
though
the
proposed
building
would
be
taller
than
other
buildings
on
the
east
bank
of
the
river.
The
massing
and
the
scale
would
not
be
out
of
character
with
the
East
Hennepin
activity
center
and
which
is
located.
There
are
a
lot
of
conflicting
goals
within
the
regulatory
framework
of
the
site.
K
Our
approach
was
the
work
with
staff
and
come
up
with
a
design
that
they
could
both
support
and
met
these
guidelines,
in
which
they
did
the
guidelines
make
clear
that
when
a
specific
guideline
is
phrased
in
the
terms,
what
should
happen
those
guidelines
give
way
to
a
way
when
the
city
determines
that
they
are
not
applicable.
In
this
case,
the
city
has
clearly
stated
its
intention
that
growth
in
the
East
had
pimping
activity
center
is
expressed
through
the
Comprehensive
Plan
and
should
control
over
the
more
conservative
guidelines
of
the
scene,
Anthony,
Falls,
historic
district.
K
Thank
you
and
I'm
here
to
answer
any
questions.
One
thing
I
actually
like
to
address
we
received.
We
want
to
acknowledge
a
letter
received
last
night,
the
National
Park
Service
I.
Don't
think
we
need
to
go
it
in
detail,
there's
nothing
new
or
novel,
and
it
doesn't
raise
any
other
newer
or
particular
points.
However,
I
would
like
to
object
to
the
fact
that
the
National
Park
Service
fairly
unfairly
suggests
that
the
city
staff
report
was
lacking.
A
J
Just
hoping
I
get
it
one
more
man,
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
Marcy
Hamels
Neighborhood
Association
good
morning,
chairman
during
council
members,
my
name
is
Chris
Lawton
flogger
I'm,
the
executive
director
of
the
Marcy
homes,
Neighborhood
Association,
at
508,
Avenue,
South
East.
Our
organization
supports
replacing
a
surface
parking
lot
with
a
high
density
development
in
the
st.
Anthony
Falls
historic
district.
We
feel
a
development
on
this
site
is
an
opportunity
to
improve
the
residential
character
of
University,
Avenue
and
2nd
Street
and
improve
pedestrian
connections
to
the
riverfront
along
2nd
and
3rd
avenues.
J
Our
comments
today
are
guided
by
the
Minneapolis
comprehensive
plan.
Our
City
Council
approved
master
plan
from
2014
and,
most
importantly,
the
st.
Anthony
Falls
historic
district
guidelines,
to
which
I
will
refer
frequently.
A
month
ago,
at
the
meeting
before
the
HPC
Marcie
Holmes
presented
some
suggestions
to
improve
this
project.
We
are
pleased
to
see
two
of
them
incorporated
into
the
design
before
you
today.
One
improvement
is
the
relocation
of
the
mechanicals
from
the
corner
of
third
and
university
avenues.
J
They
have
been
replaced
by
two
retail
spaces
that
will
bring
mixed
use
and
more
street-level
activity
to
that
corner.
The
second
improvement
was
the
reduction
of
curb
cuts
along
third
Avenue.
This
will
improve
pedestrian
experience
as
one
walks
from
Holmes
Park
to
the
riverfront.
Allow
me
to
briefly
highlight
four
other
suggestions.
We
have
to
improve
this
project
suggestion
1
limit
the
height
of
the
tower
to
the
height
of
the
retina,
the
height
of
the
nearby
red
tile
elevator.
J
The
design
guidelines
suggest
a
limit
of
8
stories
for
this
block,
but
in
order
to
achieve
the
appropriate
high
density
for
the
site
without
creating
solid
blocks
of
apartments,
the
adjacent
standard
of
no
taller
than
the
red
tile
elevator
should
apply
to
allow
for
some
variety
in
masse.
The
guidelines
do
allow
for
additional
height
when
design
is
compatible
with
the
context.
A
slim,
Tower
or
even
two
towers,
one
noticeably
lower
than
the
first.
Both
setback
from
University
Avenue
could
be
acceptable.
Suggestion
to
set
the
front
wall
5
feet
back
from
the
University
Avenue
property
line.
J
The
guidelines
do
call
for
a
continuous
street
wall
with
building
fronts
at
the
street
edge.
Allow
it
for
some
variation,
however.
University
Avenue
is
a
much
wider
roadway
than
other
nearby
streets,
and
we
would
prefer
that
the
continuous
street
wall
will
be
set
back
5
feet
to
allow
for
more
green
space
for
this
residential,
but
very
busy
street.
This
will
set
the
pattern
for
all
3
blocks
from
2nd
to
5th
avenues.
J
Suggestion
3
setback,
the
tower
30
feet
from
the
front
wall
on
University
Avenue.
According
to
the
guidelines,
billions
exceeding
the
height
limit
will
be
considered
when
taller
portions
are
setback
significantly
from
the
street.
When
discussing
the
University
Avenue
transition
area,
the
guidelines
specifically
recommend
that
taller
portions
of
buildings
should
be
set
back
from
the
street
edge
and
a
variety
of
Heights
may
be
appropriate.
J
A
setback
of
30
feet
will
ease
the
transition
from
the
much
lower
residential
buildings
to
the
north
and
reduce
how
much
the
tower
looms
over
University
Avenue
and
our
last
suggestion
work
with
cpad
staff
to
create
fewer
but
more
pronounced,
horizontal
and
vertical
articulations.
On
the
second
Street
and
third
Avenue
facades
of
the
six
story,
apartment
block
the
guidelines
state,
a
new
facade
should
reflect
the
established
range
of
building
with
a
block
on
facade
is
not
appropriate.
J
The
guidelines
recommend
variation
of
building
height
in
a
large
development
which
this
is
and
that
a
large
development
be
divided
into
modules
in
order
to
reduce
the
perceived
mass.
A
larger
building.
Marcie
Holmes
recommends
that
the
architects
continue
to
work
with
your
staff
on
a
design
with
fewer
but
more
pronounced
articulations
and
create
a
roofline
solution
that
meets
the
design
guidelines.
To
conclude,
since
the
original
unveiling
of
these
plans,
there
have
been
several
improvements.
Still,
we
urge
the
council
to
add
the
conditions
required
requiring
the
design
to
more
closely
follow
the
design
guidelines.
J
As
this
surface
parking
lot
is
transformed
into
a
more
appropriate
use.
The
current
proposal
involves
only
one
block
of
the
three
block
site
that
General
Mills
has
sold.
What
is
built
on
this
block
will
become
a
president
for
the
other
two.
This
is
especially
true
along
University
Avenue
Marcie
Holmes
is
on
record
supporting
more
dense
residential
growth
on
this
block,
but
they
store
a
character
of
the
area
as
detailed
in
the
design
guidelines,
and
the
needs
of
the
neighborhood,
as
expressed
in
our
council,
approved
master
plan
must
be
taken
into
account
when
evaluating
this
development.
A
You
very
much
and
I
think
these
are
very
helpful
suggestions.
Do
you?
Did
you
I'm,
I'm?
Sorry,
if
you
emailed
us
I
haven't
seen,
did
you
eat?
Okay,
I
think
it
would
be
very
helpful
if
we
could
get
copies
of
those
detailed
suggestions
to
the
committee
members
as
we
listen
to
the
rest
of
the
testimony.
R
Good
morning,
council
members,
my
name
is,
and
Higgins
and
I
live
at
a
two
to
two
second
Street
southeast
in
the
Phoenix,
my
husband
and
I
own
two
units.
There
we
live
in
one
and
our
son
lives
in
the
other
in
both
of
our
units
face.
Second
Street
southeast
I
support
the
heritage
preservation
commissions.
You
met
the
Animus
decision
that
the
building
does
not
fit
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
We
love
the
neighborhood
and
have
appreciated
the
way
it
has
developed.
R
In
the
six
years
we've
been
here
I
as
I
walked,
my
dog
along
Main
Street
and
2nd
Street
southeast
yesterday,
I
took
note
of
the
varied
blocks
along
Main,
Street
and
2nd
Street.
I
love
the
mix
of
the
old
and
the
new,
and
the
variety
of
size
and
shapes
of
the
buildings
with
green
spaces
and
trees
in
between.
There
are
buildings
that
run
a
whole
block
and
there
are
buildings
that
are
tall,
but
no
building
takes
up
a
whole
block
and
is
tall.
R
The
mass
of
the
building
will
overwhelm
will
be
overwhelming
compared
to
the
skull
smaller
scale
of
the
buildings
in
the
area.
This
design
is
not
appropriate
for
the
st.
Anthony
Falls
historic
district
and
iron
Jew
to
uphold
the
unanimous
decision
of
the
Heritage
Preservation
Commission.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
T
J
S
Copies
here,
if
not,
the
letter
is
our
most
complete
version
of
our
comments,
but
I
was
hoping
to
just
highlight
a
few
of
them
here.
This
morning.
The
project
in
question
is
located
within
a
unit
of
the
National
Park
System
Congress
created
this
National
Park
in
large
part
because
of
the
nationally
significant
resources
that
are
present
here,
including
the
st.
S
Anthony
Falls
historic
district,
which
is
listed
in
the
National
Register
of
Historic
Places
and
the
Pillsbury
a
mill
and
the
Washburn,
a
mill
which
have
both
been
designated
national
historic
landmarks
when
it
comes
to
protecting
historic
properties
within
the
corridor.
Cities
play
a
key
role.
Cities
that
have
chosen
to
become
certified
local
governments
as
the
city
of
Minneapolis
has
are
particularly
important,
because
you
pledged
an
extra
commitment
to
Historic
Preservation
by
agreeing
to
adopt
and
enforce
local
heritage
preservation,
ordinances
and
one
example,
of
course,
of
how
you
carry
out.
S
That
commitment
is
through
your
enforcement
of
the
st.
Anthony,
Falls
historic
district
guidelines
and
I
think
we
can
all
agree
that
the
the
guidelines
were
adopted
not
with
the
intent
to
serve
as
suggestions
to
be
incorporated
when
it's
convenient
to
do
so,
but
rather
as
clearly
defined
parameters
developed
prior
to
any
specific
project
to
ensure
designs
are
compatible
with
the
historic
district
and
to
ensure
that
the
significance
and
integrity
for
which
they
were
designated,
you
know
remain
true.
S
While
a
good
portion
of
the
guidelines
do
relate
to
this
project,
it
seems
that
there
are
a
few
requirements
in
particular
that
are
most
relevant
to
today's
discussion
and
they
have
been
discussed
but
I
think
some
of
them
weren't.
Necessarily
details
were
left
out
of
at
least
one
of
them,
so
I
hadn't
plan
to
read
them,
but
I
will
9.9.
S
The
overall
heights
of
a
new
building
shall
be
compatible
with
the
character
area
if
it
exceeds
the
height
range.
It's
demonstrated
that
the
additional
height
will
be
compatible
with
adjacent
properties
within
the
character
area
as
a
whole
and
for
the
historic
district
at
large
and
I'll.
Just
repeat
that
last
part
that
it
would
need
to
be
compatible
with
the
historic
district
at
large
10.8
states
that
in
the
University
Avenue
transition
area,
the
maximum
building
height
should
not
exceed
8
stories.
S
Mid
rise,
low-rise
and
very
low-rise
building
Heights
are
most
appropriate
and
the
character
area
in
ten
states
that
the
grain
elevators
should
continue
their
visual
prominence
over
the
rest
of
the
district
and
a
few
statements
that
were
just
made
this
morning
about
that.
There
are
no
adjacent
properties,
because
the
whole
block
is
being
developed.
I
think
it
might
be
reasonable
to
assume
if
you're
developing
the
whole
block
you'll
want
to
take
in
adjacent
blocks,
properties
across
the
street
and
the
character
area,
and
that
and
the
district
as
a
whole
into
consideration.
S
S
It
was
inadequate,
however,
in
its
ability
to
jump
scales
and
to
consider
the
project's
implications
on
the
character
area
or
the
historic
district
as
a
whole,
especially
as
it
relates
to
building
height.
We
believe
introduction
of
such
a
dramatic
building
height
would
diminish
the
integrity
of
the
historic
district
and
especially
the
pillsbury,
email
and
NHL,
and
for
decades
the
email
was
known
as
the
largest
flour
mill
in
the
world,
and
so
allowing
buildings
in
close
proximity
to
loom
over
it
and
to
dwarf
its
size
would
would
likely
diminish
its
integrity
and
I'm
wrapping
them.
S
And
if,
if
the
committee
would
anticipate
the
need
to
exceed
the
allowable
building
height
of
8,
storeys
more
time
would
allow
for
more
rigorous
analysis
of
what
would
be
an
appropriate
height
and
the
National
Park.
Service
would
be
happy
to
to
contribute
to
such
analysis.
If
the
city
would
find
it
helpful.
So
without
we
look
forward
to
continuing
to
work
with
you
as
a
certified
local
government
to
protect
nationally
significant
historic
resources
with
this
within
the
city,
and
we
thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
come
in.
Thank.
A
O
Chair
been
through
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Edna
Bruce
eius
I
live
at
4,
Grove
Street
in
Minneapolis
and
while
I'm,
not
speaking
for
them.
Many
of
you
know
that
I'm
on
the
board
of
preserve
Minneapolis
and
serve
on
the
st.
Anthony
Falls
Heritage,
Board
I,
also
own
a
historic
property
in
the
historic
district
in
the
need.
O
Nickname
the
neighborhood
I
worked
on
these
guidelines
and
I'm
very
familiar
with
the
issues
I'm
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
our
neighboring
organization,
the
Marcy
homes
Neighborhood
Association,
perhaps
because
of
their
their
proximity
to
the
University
they're,
just
known
as
above
average,
and
so
when
you
see
a
document
from
them
or
analysis
as
you've.
Seen
today,
you'll
know
that
it's
very
sophisticated
and
forward-thinking
long
ago.
It
saw
the
development
potential
and
opportunity
at
the
general
mill
site
to
bring
density
to
the
neighborhood.
O
It
approached
this
opportunity
just
the
same
as
it
did
with
the
Amiel
property
and
developed
a
one-page
description
of
the
goals
they
sought
with
the
development
way
ahead
of
any
project.
Any
proposed
Mercy
homes
is
proud
of
being
one
of
the
oldest
neighborhoods
in
the
city,
and
it's
used
to
work
working
with
developers
on
complicated,
sophisticated
projects
on
the
historic
district
and
coming
up
with
good
solutions.
It
previously
worked
with
Schaffer
Richardson
and
then
mr.
Duran,
on
the
email
site.
Mr.
O
darienne
has
modified
his
project
to
meet
some
of
the
salient
concerns
of
the
city
and
the
neighborhood.
However,
more
work
needs
to
be
done.
I
urge
you
to
uphold
the
hpc
decision,
denying
the
certificate
of
appropriate
appropriateness.
This
will
allow
mr.
Duran
to
continue
his
work
with
the
neighborhood,
the
city
on
issues
that
would
help
the
project
better
meet
the
guidelines
for
st.
Anthony
Falls
historic
district.
Thank
you
thank.
P
P
So
this
morning,
I'm
speaking
on
I'm,
a
member
of
the
bar
see
homeless,
Neighborhood,
Association,
land
use
and
development
committee,
Marcy
homes,
neighborhood,
board
member
elect,
but
today,
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
neighbors
trees,
bank
livability
and
the
hundreds
of
individuals
that
are
supporting
our
efforts
to
preserve
the
integrity
of
the
st.
Anthony,
Falls
historic
district,
and
it
ask
that
you
today
uphold
H,
P,
C's
denial
of
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
this
project.
P
P
They
talked
about
compatibility
with
adjacent
buildings,
the
building
height,
yet
the
General
Mills,
a
Mel
site
is
three
times
closer
to
the
proposed
project
than
the
than
the
tall
buildings
referenced
as
as
being
in
the
area.
I
would
I
would
think
that
the
ongoing
opposition
to
the
latus
project,
they're,
going
on
two-year
legal
challenge
and
the
opposition
that
that
is
coming
forward
to
this
project
would
be
an
indication
to
the
value
that
the
community
puts
on
preserving
the
st.
Anthony
Falls
historic
district.
P
The
city
is
tasked
with
stewardship
of
this
historic
district
and
is
accountable
for
maintaining
its
integrity
through
enforcement
of
the
agreements
spelled
out
in
the
st.
Anthony
Falls
history.
Our
guidelines,
given
the
significance
of
the
district
as
it
relates
not
only
to
Minneapolis
history,
but
also
statewide
national
importance.
P
This
is
a
commitment
to
not
be
taken
lightly
and,
furthermore,
speaking
on
behalf
of
beleaguered
working-class
residents
of
the
city
as
a
ct/pet
has
gone
to
the
cherry-picked,
the
comp
plan
for
to
encourage
the
density
on
the
site,
I
would
also
call
out
the
commitment
in
the
comp
plan
to
providing
affordable
housing
in
the
city.
I
asked
that
you
honor
this
commitment
addressing
the
issues
of
availability
of
affordable
housing
by
requiring
that
see.
Pet
development
review
incorporate
an
analysis
on
any
projects
impact
on
housing,
on
adjacent
housing,
affordability
across
the
city
and
across
the
nation.
P
P
A
U
Good
morning,
chair,
bender
and
council
members
very
nice
to
be
able
to
address
you
a
couple
of
things.
The
handy-dandy
guide
line
from
our
various
plans-
I
have
just
four
copies,
but
I'd
be
happy
to
hand
those
out
to
members.
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that
our
our
first
meeting
seeing
this
proposal
was
back
in
May
and
we
had
a
hundred
neighbors
there
to
look
at
the
proposal
and
evaluate
it.
U
We
asked
for
people's
concerns
the
the
biggest
one
was
affordable
housing
which
I
understand
is
not
before
you
today,
but
certainly
is
an
issue.
The
council
will
be
dealing
with
a
great
deal.
The
other
big
concerns
were
about
massing
hi
aye,
particularly
the
block-long
six-story
buildings,
which
we
see
popping
up
all
over
the
place,
and
people
wanted
that
broken
up.
Some
people
actually
combined
the
height,
but
most
thought
it
was
excessive.
U
So
we
did
have
this
survey,
but
we
didn't
base
our
evaluation
on
that.
We
based
it
on
established
policy
and
that's
what's
summarized
in
the
sheets
that
I
just
handed
out
plenty
of
guidance
there,
and
let
me
just
summarize
the
guidance
it's
been
evaluated
by
Marci
Holmes
executive
director
and
by
the
Park
Service,
and
it
just
comes
down
to
this.
U
A
K
Just
want
to
start
by
saying
I
think
you
saw
the
card
we
conducted
our
own
neighborhood
survey.
We
sent
we
sent
out
just
shy
of
5,000
invites
to
everyone
within
the
Marci
Holmes
Neighborhood
Association,
to
attend
a
neighborhood
meeting
regarding
the
project.
At
that
meeting
we
had
them
fill
out.
A
survey
I
gave
a
copy
of
that
survey,
and
so
you
guys
can
all
look
at
it
and
I
just
have
just
a
quick
summary
of
that
survey,
but
I
think
it
was
included
in
your
package.
I
The
city
recognizes
the
Marcy
homes,
Neighborhood
Association,
as
the
official
organization
that
we
rely
on
to
deal
with
land
use
issues.
Are
you
suggesting
you've
kind
of
created
your
own
process
outside
of
the
Marcy
homes
process
and,
as
a
result,
we
should
pay
attention
to
your
responses
that
you
got
from
people.
I
K
Just
a
slight
distinction
here
we
met
with
the
Land
Use
Committee
a
couple
times
then,
because
I
believe
our
obligation
is
actually
me
with
the
Narcy
homes,
Neighborhood
Association,
who
we've
reached
out
to
multiple
times
and
I.
Think
all
that
correspondence
actually
is
in
your
package
about
meeting
together
to
discuss
this
project
and
not
necessarily
just
the
Land
Use
Committee.
But
we
wanted
to
garner
feedback
from
the
neighborhood.
So
that's
why
we
elected
to
go
out
and
have
our
own
neighborhood
meeting
regarding
the
project
and
not
that
just
of
the
Land
Use,
Committee
and
I.
K
A
Okay,
so
I
think
you
would
actually
just
appreciate
the
question
I
think
if
you
do
have
a
specific
response
to
these
conditions,
I
mean
I'm
just
going
to
say,
I
think
the
committee
is
going
to
be
very
likely
to
want
to
honor
the
fact
that
we
have
any
road
organization
that
is
supportive
of
a
pretty
significant
project
here
and
willing
to
help
continue
to
move
the
dialogue
along
to
get
to
something
that
can
be
supported.
There's
a
pretty
significant
change
to
the
site.
So
maybe
you
want
to
take
that.
A
K
K
We've
looked
at
adding
two
towers
to
the
site.
It
was
hard
enough
to
get
a
consensus
that
one
tower
in
one
location
would
actually
be.
You
know
best
best
for
this
site
by
adding
two
towers.
Now
we're
introducing
you
know
another
location:
where
does
that
go?
Does
that
actually
go
closer
to
the
store,
the
historic
buildings?
K
We
in
our
mind,
addressed
this
by
actually
increasing
kind
of
the
human
scale
of
our
project
by
creating
an
eight-foot,
landscaped
Boulevard
and
an
eight-foot
sidewalk,
and
then
along
University
Avenue.
We
added
some
commercial
space
to
that
as
well,
and
then
we,
we
positioned
our
bike,
lounge
bike
lobby
and
front
entrance
along
there
to
activate
that
street
frontage
setback
the
tower
30
feet
from
the
front
wall
of
University
Avenue.
Once
again,
we've
pushed
our
tower
back
into
the
project.
K
As
far
as
we
can
to
maintain
that
livability
to
preserve
the
parking
that
we
need
to
meet
the
University
Avenue,
University
overlay
district
and
we're
actually
I
believe
thirty.
Eight
feet
from
the
back
of
the
curb
of
University
Avenue
work
was
he
pets
to
have
to
create
fewer,
more
pronounced,
horizontal
and
vertical
articulations
on
the
second
Street
and
third
Avenue
southeast
facades
of
the
six-story
apartment
block?
K
M
Good
morning,
I'm
John
Ferrier
with
CSM
corporation,
so
as
Tony
said
we're
looking
at
the
lumion
model.
So
this
is
at
the
street
level
along
University,
where
we
have
a
lot
of
our
amenities
space.
We
reference
a
bike.
Lounge
one
thing
we
did
do
is
we
pulled
the
the
six
story,
elements
away
from
the
tower
to
reduce
the
masking
of
that
and
create
some
new
views
through
the
space
you
can
see
the
tenant
space.
Is
there?
The
retail
tenants
faces
long
university
as
we
go
up
the
other
side.
M
Here
you
see
some
more
tenant
space
and
then
we
get
into
our
townhomes.
We
created
those
townhomes
along
the
street
scape
to
activate
the
street
and
to
reduce
it
to
bring
it
down
some
more
of
a
human
scale
and
provide
that
layering
in
differential
in
ins
and
outs
that
there
was.
We
were
asked
to
create
right
here.
You
see
the
the
access
to
the
parking
ramp
and,
as
we
wrap
around
again,
you're
gonna
see
the
two-story
townhomes
right
here.
So
we
also
have
a
variety.
M
We've
sent
five
the
color
palettes.
We
were
asked
to
simplify
the
material
and
color
palette,
to
not
make
it
so
busy,
so
we're
using
one
brick
color,
a
main
brick
color
with
an
accent
brick
and
then,
as
we
wrap
around
here.
Looking
at
more
of
those
two-story
townhomes
and
as
you
can
see,
we've
heavily
landscaped
the
boulevard.
As
Tony
said,
we
have
an
8
foot,
sidewalk
8
foot
landscape,
Boulevard
to
to
dress
up
the
streetscape
for.
M
T
A
A
I
Summer
Goodman,
thank
you.
Ma'am,
chair
I
am
going
to
move
to
grant
the
appeal
with
the
conditions
that
have
been
outlined
by
the
Marcy
homes,
Neighborhood
Association,
so
grant
it
condition
that
they
limit
the
height
of
the
tower
to
the
height
of
the
red
tile
elevator.
The
second
tower
noticeably
lower
would
be
acceptable
that
they
set
the
front
wall.
A
I
Think
density
in
this
location
is
good
and
we
sold
the
city
ramp.
Knowing
that
that's
going
to
be
what
would
happen
so
I
don't
object
to
the
number
of
units
or
the
density
in
this
location.
But
I
do
believe
that
we
asked
the
neighborhood
associations
to
adopt
small
area
plans
for
a
reason,
and
you
are
going
to
be
looking
for
significant
variances.
I
I
I
We
could
be
sitting
here
today,
madam
chair,
with
a
room
full
of
people
opposing
a
development
based
on
density,
height
parking
traffic
and
all
of
the
other
things
we
see.
Instead,
we
have
a
whole
room
full
of
people
who
are
basically
saying
we're
good
with
the
development
if
it
meets
this
condition.
These
conditions
and
I
don't
think
that
that's
an
unacceptable
request
at
this
point.
I
The
city
believes
in
density
at
this
site,
I
believe
the
council,
member
of
the
Ward,
does
as
well,
and
it
sounds
like
most
of
the
people
on
this
panel
do
as
well
or
can
learned
about
what
the
building
will
look
like
and
how
it
will
impact
the
area.
But,
most
importantly,
we
ask
these
neighbors
to
work
on
the
small
area
plans
and
we
want
to
be
able
to
honor
them
and
I
think
that
we
need
to
do
that
today.
So
I
would
ask
for
your
support.
All.
V
Bender
I'm,
sorry
to
interrupt
the
the
conditions
of
approval
would
result
in
a
substantially
different
project
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
understand.
The
committee's
intent
is
that
those
revisions
that
would
be
made
to
comply
with
the
conditions
of
approval
would
be
something
the
staff
would
look
at
administratively
and
not
go
back
to
the
Heritage
Preservation
Commission
I.
I
Would
love
the
chairs
thinking
on
this,
but
this
is
one
tiny
step.
This
property
is
zoned
i1.
In
order
to
build
anything,
that's
dense,
you're,
going
to
need
a
lot
of
variances
I
can
see
what's
going
to
happen
next,
which
is,
if
you
don't
do
these
things,
you're,
never
going
to
get
the
zoning
change
or
the
variances
in
a
way
that
the
neighbors
support
I,
don't
can't
read
whether
or
not
you'll
get
a
variance,
but
I
can
read
what
will
happen
with
the
neighbors.
I
A
V
J
I
Madame
sure
I'm,
okay,
if
it
doesn't
go
back
through
the
hpc
they're,
not
gonna,
like
anything,
that's
tall
in
this
location.
So
we
know
what
the
results
gonna
be.
So
we're
trying
to
get
to
yes,
I'm
building
a
hide
that
highly
dense
project
in
a
location
where
there's
a
support
for
density,
with
a
sensitivity
to
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
I.
Don't
want
to
on
my
intense
not
to
try
to
stop
them
from
doing
something,
but
to
try
to
make
it
more
aligned
with
the
neighborhood.
Absolutely.
A
A
You
know
that
in
order
to
have
this
PUD
approved
and
this
project
go
forward
when
the
next
step
comes
with
the
land
use
applications
that
we're
going
to
need
to
be
able
to
hear
from
the
neighbors
that
they're
comfortable
with
the
project.
So
is
there
any
further
discussion,
seeing
none
all
in
approval?
Please
say
aye
aye,
any
opposed
that
carries.
We
are
now
in
item
3.
Thank
you
all
for
your
patience,
so
that
will
begin
with
our
staff
presentation.
W
Good
morning,
good
morning,
chair
bender
and
committee
members,
my
name
is
Mei
Ling
Smith
I'm,
representing
seat
head,
and
this
presentation
is
for
an
appeal
of
a
project
that
was
approved
by
the
City
Planning
Commission
at
their
October
16th
meeting.
It
affects
four
parcels:
okay
in
the
Linden
Hills
neighborhood,
the
subject
site
is
zoned
r4
and
it's
also
located
within
the
shoreland
overlay
district.
W
It's
one
block
east
to
of
the
43rd
and
Sheridan
neighborhood
commercial
node,
and
the
surrounding
area
contains
a
wide
variety
of
uses
and
residential
densities
and,
of
course,
there's
the
commercial
node
that
contains
most
of
the
commercial
uses
in
the
neighborhood
Lake
Harriet
is
380
feet
to
the
east.
Here's
an
aerial
view
of
the
subject
site.
W
The
existing
site
is
bounded
on
the
north
by
curved
alley
and
it
faces
44th
Street
to
the
south.
As
you
can
see,
there
is
an
existing
one
story
or
one
and
a
half
story:
bungalow,
that's
part
of
the
development
site
and
as
a
result
of
that,
because
they're
more
than
two
residential
structures
proposed
on
this
site,
it
came
in
as
a
cluster
development.
W
So,
as
I
mentioned,
it's
a
conditional
use
part
to
allow
a
cluster
Abell
to
allow
a
cluster
development.
The
applicants
proposal
also
was
to
increase
the
maximum
height
allowed
in
the
shoreland
Orly
district
and
for
a
cluster
development
above
two
and
a
half
stories.
The
applicants
proposal
was
for
a
four-story
building
site
plan.
Review
is
required
for
the
new
building
and
then
a
preliminary
and
final
plat.
W
This
is
the
view
from
the
east,
so
this
this
is
the
elevation
that
would
be
facing
Lake
Harriet
per
se.
You
know
in
in
theory,
so
that
would
be
near
the
East
property
or
face
towards
the
East
property
line,
and
this
would
be
the
elevation
view
from
the
West
property
line.
Here
is
a
cross-section
that
shows
the
underground
parking
area
and
the
proposed
materials
for
the
development
would
be
Handley,
brick,
primarily
and
also
glass,
so
the
City
Planning
Commission
did
approve
this
project
at
their
actual
16th
meeting.
W
They
approved
the
conditional
use
permit
from
two
and
a
half
stories
to
three
stories,
not
the
four
stories
that
was
requested
by
the
applicant.
So
this
results
in
a
building
that
would
be
11
feet
shorter
than
what
was
requested
originally,
and
that
would
be
a
half
story
taller
than
what
is
allowed
by
right
in
the
shoreland
overlay
district
and
as
for
cluster
development,
and
then
the
City
Planning
Commission
also
attached
several
conditions
of
approval.
W
W
And
here's
where
the
shoreland
district
appears
throughout
the
city.
So
it's
1,000
feet
from
the
ordinary
high
water
mark
of
all
of
our
lakes
ponds
and
wetlands,
and
then
it's
within
300
feet
from
our
rivers.
So
you
can
see
it's
throughout
the
city
widespread
and
here's
where
the
subject
site
falls
within
the
shoreland
overlay
district
in
this
particular
area
of
the
city
which
you
can
see
in
the
orange.
W
So
I'm
just
going
to
summarize
our
staff
findings
and
the
findings
that
were
adopted
by
the
City
Planning
Commission.
So
one
a
one
category
of
findings
that
we
look
at
is
the
context
of
the
conditional
use
permit
request.
So
staff
found
that
and
the
City
Planning
Commission
found
that
there
are
varying
building
heights
and
densities
and
uses
in
the
area,
as
you
may
remember,
from
the
aerial
they're
their
commercial
buildings
and
also
high
density
residential
buildings
in
the
surrounding
area
and
because
of
the
variation
of
the
grade
in
the
natural
grade
of
this
particular
area.
W
The
proposed
building
would
actually
be
shorter
than
some
of
the
other
multifamily
buildings
within
a
block
as
measured
above
sea
level,
and
the
applicant
has
submitted
some
exhibits
that
show
this.
The
existing
three
and
four-story
buildings
within
a
block
actually
exceed
the
two
and
a
half
stories
that
are
that
that's
the
height
requirement
for
the
shoreline
overlay
district
and
would
be
taller
than
the
proposed
building
at
four
storeys.
W
In
addition
to
approve
the
conditional
use
permit
for
height,
we
look
at
what
is
the
impact
of
the
overall
height
of
the
building,
so
staff
found
that
additional
height
would
not
prove
detrimental
to
the
public
health,
safety
or
general
welfare
or
be
injurious
to
other
property
and
of
I'm
sorry
or
be
injurious
to
other
property
in
the
vicinity.
So
the
proposed
building
is
is
a
very
narrow
profile.
W
However,
staff
did
find
that
there
there
are
some
general
impacts
that
can
staff
found
that,
because
of
the
overall
height
of
the
building
at
4
storeys,
and
then
combining
this
with
the
overall
length
of
the
building,
which
is
151
feet
along
the
east
and
west
property
lines.
This
this
could
result
in
some
negative
impacts
to
properties.
So
that's,
why
is
the
staff
recommendation
was
for
three
storeys
and
the
City
Planning
Commission
adopter
that
and
also
approved
the
building
at
three
stories.
W
And
also
the
shoreland
overlay
district.
Whenever
we
look
at
approving
a
conditional
use
permit
or
analyzing
a
conditional
use
permit
for
height,
we
look
at
what
what
the
impact
or
the
shoreline
will
be,
and
some
of
the
findings
don't
apply
directly
because
the
the
proposal
is
not
connected
to
the
protected
water
of
Lake
Harriet.
There
is
a
finding
that
there
be
limited
visibility
of
the
structure
from
the
protected
water.
It's
not
that
it
has
to
be
invisible,
but
that
there
is
limited
visibility
and
staff
found
that
there
would
be
a
lot
of.
W
I
want
to
mention
that
Minnehaha
Creek
Watershed
district
provided
a
letter
that
you
may
have
seen
in
your
packets,
and
they
suggested
that
the
applicant
provide
full
storm
water
mitigation
on
the
site
and
the
applicant
has
provided
a
plan
that
shows
that
stormwater
would
be
fully
mitigated,
even
though
this
site
is
not
subject
to
the
storm
water
mitigation
requirement,
because
it's
under
an
acre
and
here's
again
where
the
site
falls
in
relation
to
Lake
Harriet
and
here's
a
view
looking
toward
the
site
from
the
lake
area.
Parkway.
W
So
the
the
Linden
Hill
zoning
and
planning
committee
is
in
opposition
to
the
conditional
use
permit
for
height
request
and
the
East
Calhoun
community
organizations.
Livability
committee
also
is
in
opposition
to
the
the
height
request.
You've
received
numerous
comments
in
opposition,
but
also
in
support
of
the
conditional
use
permit
for
height
both
for
the
three
and
for
Surrey
proposal
and
with
that
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you.
Any.
A
X
Hi
Thank
You,
council
members,
andrew
commerce
and
I
are
partners
on
this
development,
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
One
thing
I
wanted
to
touch
on
very
quickly
because
I
know
you've
had
a
long
day
and
a
lot
going
on
is
our
background.
Just
that
andrew
has
worked
for
art
space
for
ten
years
before
going
on
his
own
I've
done
a
lot
of
development,
that
is,
they
have
to
reuse
and
I.
X
Think
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
we
face
as
developers
especially
trying
to
do
things
in
a
neighborhood
like
this
I've
lived
in
linen
hills
across
the
street
for
23
years
directly
across
the
street
from
this
is
there's
a
perception
that
developers
come
in
and
they
take
something
neutral
or
good
and
make
it
neutral
or
horrible,
and
we
spent
our
entire
careers
and
every
cent
of
our
money
trying
to
do
beautiful,
thoughtful
projects
this
site.
If
we
were
just
going
to
buy
right
development,
we
could
squash.
X
You
know
21
units
at
two
and
a
half
stories.
It
would
be,
in
my
opinion,
horrible.
Instead,
we've
hired
snow,
Karluk,
architects
and
Jewish
nor
self
designed
this
and
the
intent
was
to
not
only
create
lighten
air
as
we
go
up,
but
as
we
go
across.
So
what
you
see
is
a
four-story
building
two
units
per
floor
and
they
were
keeping
the
bungalow
as
part
of
the
condominium
units.
So
it's
basically
nine
units,
but
given
the
amount
of
land
there's
just
a
tremendous
amount
of
light
and
air
as
it
fills
in
that
space.
X
So
today
the
issue
really
is
the
shoreland
overlay.
We
need
a
conditional
use
permit
for
the
cluster,
but
we
don't
have
to
cluster
this.
We
could
change
the
design
and
not
closure,
so
we'd
still
come
back
to
Cheryl
and
overlay,
and
here
in
Lansing
Rancic
air
Lansing
just
to
touch
on
those
points,
because
there
very
important
to
us
and
I
think
as
Mei
Ling
has
pointed
out,
it's
a
2.5
story.
X
Unless
you
seeking
are
granted
a
higher
use,
but
the
critical
part
there
is
there's
many
overlays
in
our
city
that
are
particular
to
an
area
like
the
Harmon
overlay
and
those
kind
of
things.
This
is
a
statewide
initiative
that
is
intended
for
the
entire
state.
So
if
you're
in
a
quiet
river
on
the
st.
X
It's
not
something
you
can
see
from
the
lake
or
the
middle
of
the
lake,
even
if
you
go
all
the
way
across
the
lake.
You
might
see
this,
but
in
the
context
of
much
taller
buildings.
So
looking
to
that
test,
we've
done
as
thoughtful
job
as
we
could
possibly
do
the
site
for
us.
The
reason
we're
requesting
four
stories
is
it's
not
viable
at
three
stories.
So
whatever
would
happen
next,
we
don't
know,
but
it
wouldn't
mean
something
we
just
make
work
like
that
and
we
wouldn't
leave
the
developers.
Y
I
just
have
a
brief
minute.
Good
morning,
I'm
Andrew
commerce,
we've
been
working
on
this
project
for
18
months
and
I'm
really
excited
about
it
enthused
to
have
the
opportunity
before
you
today
to
request
your
recommendation
for
council
approval
not
just
for
3/4
of
a
project
which
cannot
be
done,
but
for
the
whole
project.
An
approval
condition
to
three
storeys
is
really
a
denial
because
it
is
not
economically
feasible.
The
shoreland
overlay
does
not
prohibit
buildings
over
two
and
a
half
stories.
Y
It
allows
requests
for
height
greater
than
two
and
a
half
stories
to
be
evaluated
on
a
case-by-case
basis
on
the
criteria
for
su
P.
Our
proposed
four-story
building
meets
those
criteria
which,
as
John
mentioned
Carol,
will
go
through
in
more
detail.
People
have
argued
that
to
approve
the
requested,
Co
P
would
be
changing
the
rules
for
the
developer,
and
that
simply
is
not
the
case.
It
isn't
a
change
in
the
rules.
It
is
following
the
rules
to
approve
a
Co
P
for
a
project
that
meets
the
Cu
P
criteria.
Y
Also,
briefly,
we
took
storm
water
mitigation
very
seriously.
With
our
proposed
system,
the
runoff
rates
will
be
less
than
the
existing
rates.
We
will
increase
on-site
filtration.
The
system
is
sized
to
hold
in
excess
of
one
inch
of
runoff
rain
volume
from
all
impervious
surfaces
and
in
other
words,
our
project
improves
the
situation,
keeping
the
lake
clean.
One
last
thing
just
on
the
site
plan,
when
we're
looking
at
there
are
a
few
pieces
that
we've
tried
to
really
do
address,
trees
and
other
green
stormwater
elements.
Y
H
H
Talking
about
first,
this
is
the
zoning
map
for
this
area,
and
this
is
a
distinct
and
sizable
area
of
higher
density
zoning
on
Lake
Harriet.
It
is
not
something
that
exists
around
the
lake.
This
is
the
site
and
the
proposed
building
would
be
on
this
inner
lot.
You
can
see
that
there's
quite
a
lot
of
r4
and
r5
near
it.
Approval
of
a
four-story
building
is
in
you
know
in
this
context,
is
consistent
with
the
zoning
and
the
character
of
the
area,
and
that's
not
something
that
would
happen,
though,
around
the
rest
of
the
lake.
H
Many
projects
in
Shore
land
areas
in
the
city
have
been
approved
at
six
and
seven
storeys,
and
these
are
not
all
on
commercial
corridors
and
we're
not
asking
for
six
and
seven
here
that
wouldn't
be
appropriate.
In
this
context,
we're
only
asking
for
four:
we
went
through
all
the
criteria
for
a
CU
key
in
our
letter
and
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
all
of
them.
I'm
going
to
focus
on
the
key
ones,
and
I
think
the
first
one
is
visibility
from
the
lake
really
kind
of
sums
up
most
people's
concerns.
H
This
and
mei-ling
went
over
the
purpose
of
the
shore
land,
it's
about
environmental
protection
and
protection
of
the
water
quality,
and
we
are
doing
that
with
erosion,
control
and
stormwater
management,
and
it's
about
the
experience
of
people
from
the
lake
shore
land
standards
there
she
said
don't
require
new
construction
to
be
invisible.
Only
that
it
be
visibility,
be
limited,
so
in
I
want
to
show
you
some
of
the
exhibits
we've
put
in
the
packet
that
talk
about
visibility.
H
This
is
from
the
west
shore
and
because
of
the
topography
going
up,
there's
hillsides
a
lot
of
vegetation
and
other
development
that
rises.
This
is
one
place
where,
if
you
peek
through
right
here,
we're
showing
a
rendering
of
the
building,
if
you
were
standing
over
here,
you
wouldn't
see
it
at
all
same
with
other
locations.
But
here
you
can
just
see
it
and
you
can't
see
the
top
of
it
because
of
existing
vegetation.
H
This
is
a
view
from
couple
views
from
sort
of
the
middle
and
across
the
lake
and
photographic
versions.
It
would
be
right
in
here
you
can
see
from
the
distance
where
you
could
start
seeing
this
building.
It
would
blend
in
quite
a
bit
and
not
be
the
tallest
thing
you
see
and
then
also
in
your
packet
is
this
exhibit,
which
shows
you
sight
lines
from
different
places
on
and
across
the
lake,
and
these
show
that
most
of
them,
your
views,
are
going
to
be
blocked
by
existing
vegetation
and
by
other
existing
development.
H
But
even
if
you
could,
if
there
was
nothing
in-between
it,
the
most
that
would
be
visible
would
be
just
a
small
portion
of
the
top
of
the
building.
So
the
extent
to
the
extent
that
this
building
is
visible,
it
will
be
minimal,
see
UK
standards,
also
evaluate
impact
on
surrounding
properties.
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
the
height
limits
of
the
shoreland
aren't
intended
to
provide
more
benefits
to
neighboring
properties
than
exists
elsewhere
in
the
city,
they're
focused
on
shore,
land
impacts,
and
by
this
I
mean
our
one
properties
exist.
H
Next
to
our
four
throughout
the
city
and
no
Cu
key
would
be
required
for
a
four-story
building,
just
because
it's
next
to
a
spar,
one
district.
But
one
of
the
standards
that
address
impacts
of
surrounding
buildings
are
not
being
injurious
to
surrounding
properties
and
being
part
of
the
orderly
and
normal
development.
In.
H
In
the
area
and
the
C
ped
report
noted
several
factors
why
this
is
consistent
with
that
Cu
P,
finding
natural
grade
and
other
development
is
in
the
area
is
consistent.
There
are
several
other
four-story
and
some
three-story
buildings
in
the
area.
The
change
of
elevation.
To
make
this
not
the
tallest
thing
you
would
see
in
terms
of
elevation,
so
it
is
consistent
with
those
findings
and
I'd
like
to
note
that
the
staff
report
specifically
said
the
development
wouldn't
compromise.
H
The
shoreland
area,
there's
also
CP
standards
relating
to
access
to
light
and
air,
and
this
exhibit
is
included
in
your
packet
to
show
that,
with
this
being
the
proposed
development,
just
how
separated
it
is
from
the
gr1
zone,
which
is
both
single
family
and
multiple
family
homes,
other
apartment
buildings
in
the
area.
So
there's
quite
a
lot
of
distance
and
separation
between
what's
proposed
here
and
surrounding
properties.
There
will
be
no
negative
impacts
on
access
to
light
and
air
and
staff
report
also
noted.
The
shadowing
will
be
minimal
again.
H
We've
talked
what
there's
a
standard
about
scale
and
character
of
surrounding
development
and
I
think
we've
talked
about
that
quite
a
bit
and
it
won't
block
any
views
of
landmark
buildings,
significant
open
spaces
or
water
bodies.
So,
in
conclusion,
just
wanted
to
echo
what
Andrew
said
that
this
is
not
a
situation
where
you're
changing
the
rules.
It
is
following
the
rules
to
grant
a
Cu
P
for
a
proposal
that
meets
the
criteria
in
the
ordinance,
and
this
project
is
at
four
storeys,
consistent
with
all
of
those
criteria.
A
A
Z
Q
Z
Z
This
is
my
home
at
43,
34,
West,
Lake,
Harriet
Parkway,
it's
a
two-story
home.
They
don't
even
have
a
two
and
a
half
story.
There
isn't
an
attic.
That's
a
two-story
home
the
proposed
building
they're,
calling
it
four
stories
that
is
a
misnomer.
The
lower
level
is
11
feet,
8
inches.
That
is
four
inches
shy
of
a
full
story.
So
what
they're?
Referring
to
as
a
four
story
building,
is
actually
practically
speaking,
a
five
story
building
directly
behind
my
home.
So.
Z
That
high,
so
if
we're
gonna
say
that
the
test
is
from
the
water
here,
you
have
it
I'm
a
sailor.
I'm
a
kayaker
I'm,
a
runner,
Lake
Harriet
is
critical
not
only
to
my
daily
life,
but
also
to
my
family's
financial
well-being.
We
have
invested
in
this
property
and
there
is
going
to
be
a
looming.
Five
story
structure
proposed
behind
us.
That
seems
like
a
gross
abuse
of
the
shoreland
overlay
districts
intentions.
Z
All
they
look
into
is
my
backyard
and
with
my
three
kids
and
two
dogs
I'm,
not
sure,
that's
the
view
that
they're
going
for
unless
they
have
that
full
five
storey
building
I
want
you
to
know,
please
that
I
am
in
support
of
development.
I
enjoy
what's
happening
in
Lindon,
Hills
and
I
am
in
full
support
of
responsible
development
development
that
adheres
to
the
shoreland
overlay
district
recommendations.
Z
D
Good
morning
my
name
is
Laurie
Busch
mom
and
I
live
at
4249
Linden
Hills
Boulevard
I've
been
a
20-year
homeowner
there
I'm
about
three
blocks
away
from
the
proposed
building.
As
the
PERT
there's,
a
woman
who
spoke
before
my
boy
do
not
know.
I
wish
that
what
was
going
into
this
area
was
affordable,
homey
housing.
We
know
the
city
of
Minneapolis
is
in
a
crisis
of
affordable
homes
that
we've
lost
about
10,000,
affordable
home
units.
We
need
to
be
building
affordable
housing.
We
do
not
need
more
luxury
homes
in
Lindon
Hills.
D
We
need
to
make
this
area
accessible.
Aside
from
that,
I
oppose
any
additional
an
increase
in
the
height
it
because
I
think
it's
out
of
scale
through
the
neighborhood
area
plan
the
neighbors
have
live,
linen
hills
have
spent
hundreds
of
hours
articulating
the
vision
for
neighborhood.
The
city
staff
has
given
its
recommendations
to
keep
this
at
three
stories.
I
oppose
the
sense
of
entitlement
by
the
developers
that
their
financial
gain
on
this
development
of
luxury
homes
take
precedence
over
the
Overland
Shore
district,
the
city,
staff's
recommendation
and
the
neighborhood
vision.
D
I,
do
also
understand
that
the
city
of
Minneapolis
has
made
a
commitment
to
more
housing
density.
Each
neighborhood
each
neighborhood
will
have
to
do
its
part.
I
prefer
that
this
was
affordable
housing,
but
the
building
is
recommended
by
city
staff
if
three
storeys
already
has
significant
density.
That
seems
like
a
reasonable
compromise
to
me.
D
Just
because
the
Overland
Shore
district
has
been
violated
by
other
buildings
in
the
area,
does
not
mean
it
should
be
violated
yet
again
ice
except
the
building,
though
I
don't
love
it
I
accept
the
building,
as
approved
by
the
city
staff,
and
oppose
any
additional
height
request.
Thank
you
so
much.
Thank
you.
Next.
AA
Good
morning
my
name
is
pepper:
Tharp,
I'ma,
Linden,
Hills
resident
and
I
would
like
to
ask
you
if
I
could
how
many
I
saw
in
the
packet
out
there
about
60
articulate
letters
in
opposition
of
this?
Maybe
there
was
three
in
support,
so
I'm
wondering
if
you
all
have
taken
into
consideration
what
the
neighborhood
has
asked,
what
the
Planning
and
Zoning
from
link,
which
is
a
recognized
charter.
AA
You
know
what
the
neighborhood
has
asked
you
to
do,
and
much
like
the
wonderful
gentlemen
of
the
National
Park
Service,
our
city
lakes,
are
gems
they're,
a
vision
of
our
designer
Frederick,
Law,
Olmstead
and
I.
Don't
believe
that
it
is
our
job
to
find
loopholes
to
a
vision
and
something
that
is
so
precious
that
it
seems
to
be
a
theme
throughout
all
of
us
here
that
these
things
are
we
value
them.
We've
worked
on
them,
we're
stewards
of
them
and
to
just
let
an
economic
advantage
for
a
few
citizens
kind
of
trump.
AA
AB
I'll
be
quick,
my
name
is
Kelly
Noble
I
live
at
43,
40
West,
Lake
area,
Parkway
I
am
immediately
east
of
the
property.
I
have
a
couple
things
that
I
want
to
reiterate
and
I
guess
I'd
be
remiss
if
I
wasn't
up
here
to
say
that
I'm
in
opposition
to
the
height
increases
on
the
on
the
buildings,
the
the
developers
have
a
right
to
build
a
multi-use
building
or
multi
dwelling
unit
on
that
space.
AB
I
know
that
I
bought
my
house,
knowing
that
the
developers
also
bought
that
property,
knowing
that
there
were
restrictions
on
that
space
and
they
have
presented
absolutely
nothing
except
their
own
sale
ability
and
their
own
profitability
as
a
reason
for
why
they
should
be
allowed
to
have
this
increase
in
height
I
think
their
building
is
beautiful.
I,
especially
appreciate
that
they've
left
the
bungalow
in
place.
That's
a
beautiful,
beautiful
home
and
it
would
be
a
tragedy
for
that
to
be
torn
down.
They
can
tear
it
down
if
they
want,
but.
AB
AB
I
am
immediately
behind
it
and,
and
then
lighting
and
other
things
will
also
impact
the
livability
of
my
house
and
the
saleability
of
my
house,
so
I'd
be
lying
if
I
didn't
have
a
vested
interest
in
this
I
do
the
other
buildings
that
are
in
the
area
we're
all
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge,
and
somebody
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
that
exceed
the
shoreland
overlay
district
heights
were
all
in
place
before
the
shoreland
overlay
district
was
promulgated
and
there's
a
reason.
It
was
promulgated
if
we
continue
to
make
exceptions
to
it.
AB
The
the
west
side
of
Lake
Harriet,
the
linden
hills
area,
look
like
the
North
End
of
Lake
Calhoun.
In
no
time
now
it's
a
pristine,
fairly
pristine
anyway,
shore,
land
and
I'd
like
to
see
it
stay
that
way.
I
ask
that
the
committee
protect
the
shoreland
overlay
district
as
it's
written
and
at
a
minimum
approve
the
compromise
that
the
City
Planning
Commission
put
in
place.
Thank.
T
T
One
is
that
this
project
is
a
precedent-setting
proposal.
No
project
of
this
height,
this
close
to
Lake
Harriet,
has
been
built
since
the
shoreland
overlay
district
was
instituted
in
the
eighties.
So
this
will
set
a
precedent
right
now,
along
44th
Street,
coming
west
from
the
intersection
with
West
Lake
Harriet
Parkway.
T
T
T
Other
thing,
I'd
like
to
point
out,
is
that
this
block
I'm
pretty
sure
this
block
contains
the
densest
development
of
any
block,
inland
and
Hills
already,
even
with
the
teardown
of
the
single-family
home
that
was
on
this
property.
I.
Think
this
block
already
is
the
densest
development
in
the
in
the
neighborhood.
T
A
T
AC
My
name
is
Larry
Lachman
I
live
at
6:05
West
44th
Street
across
the
street
from
this
project.
I
live
with
my
friends
and
I
appreciate
their
concerns
and
I.
Don't
disagree
with
their
concerns.
I
do
want
to
indicate
that
how
the
shoreline
overlay
rules
or
whatever
they're
being
used
a
wrong.
They
were
started
in
1980.
My
home
was
built
in
1986
and
is
clearly
visible
from
the
lake.
AC
In
addition,
it's
part
of
a
condo
association,
the
third
floor
at
4400,
Lake,
Harriet
Parkway,
was
also
built
in
1986
and
is
visible
from
anywhere
on
the
lake,
so
visibility
land
use.
All
of
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
this
project
aesthetics,
privacy.
All
that
I
have
no
quarrel
with
people's
complaints
about
that.
I
don't
agree
with
them,
but
you
can't
use
the
shoreland
overlay
as
an
excuse
for
denying
this.
That's
all
I
have
to
say
thank.
A
I
I
You,
madam
sure,
I'm
gonna
move
to
deny
the
appeal
I
think
the
compromise
by
staff
was
the
right
decision.
I
do
think
the
building
is
beautiful
and
I
like
modern
architecture.
A
lot
I
think
that
does
fit
into
the
area,
but
I
just
think.
It's
simply
too
big
in
the
sight
line
and
I
think
the
staff
came
to
a
very
elegant
compromise
and
the
Planning
Commission
concurred
with
it
and
I
would
urge
us
to
uphold
those
decisions.
A
For
their
discussion,
okay,
seeing
none
all
and
approval-
please
say
aye
aye,
any
opposed
that
carries.
Thank
you
for
everyone
who
came
I
wanted
to
note
that
council
report
Asano
is
here
she's,
not
on
the
committee,
but
your
council
members
here
tracking
this
for
you.
That
brings
us
to
item
number
four.
That's
an
interim
use
permit
on
behalf
of
Minnehaha
Academy
I
will
start
with
the
staff
present
Chinn
welcome
to
swats.
AD
Good
morning,
hello
members,
the
application
before
you
today
is
an
interim
use
permit
for
the
South
Campus
of
Minnehaha
Academy,
located
at
4200
West
River
Parkway.
You
may
be
familiar
that
the
North
Campus
of
Minnehaha
Park
Way,
located
at
3101
/
Parkway,
experienced
a
gas
explosion
on
august,
2nd
2017,
which
rendered
the
building
unusable
for
the
school
year.
All
the
classes
that
were
located
at
the
building
have
been
relocated
to
a
temporary
campus.
AD
The
application
for
the
interim
use
permit
is
to
allow
temporary
office
pod
to
be
placed
on
the
south
campus
to
provide
space
for
19
administrative
offices.
There
is
not
space
for
administrative
offices
in
the
temporary
school
building
or
the
existing
building
on
the
site.
The
zoning
for
the
areas
are
one
single-family
with
the
Mississippi,
River
and
shoreland
overlay
districts
on
the
site
is
occupied
by
the
existing
building,
that
an
Ice,
Arena
baseball
field,
tennis
courts
and
a
football
and
track
field
on
the
site
is
over
12
acres
in
size.
So
it's
quite
substantial.
AD
AD
There
would
be
an
accessible
entrance
into
accessible
restrooms
and
the
applicant
has
proposed
the
interim
use
permit
for
five
years
and
the
pods
have
actually
already
been
constructed
on
the
site.
So
here
is
a
photo
of
the
existing
building
and
the
pod
structure.
Here's
a
closer
view
of
the
structure,
as
you
can
tell
they're,
located
quite
close
to
the
public
sidewalk
and
in
fact
the
office
pod
encroaches
into
the
public
right-of-way
about
1.6
feet.
AD
So
if
this
was
a
permanent
use
of
would
require
variances
both
for
the
front
yard
setback
as
if
it's
located
entirely
in
the
required
front
yard
and
due
to
the
fact
that
all
the
mechanical
equipment
for
the
pod
is
facing
the
public
streets
and
does
not
comply
with
our
mechanical
screening
requirements.
However,
since
this
is
a
temporary,
is
the
City
Council
can
waive
some
of
those
requirements
finding
that
the
temporary
use
will
eliminate
the
adverse
effects.
AD
So
staff
has
found
that
the
proposed
temporary
offices
would
take
up
a
relatively
small
portion
of
a
large
Lots
staff
has
recommended
conditions
of
approval
that
the
office
pod
will
need
to
be
reviewed
by
cydia
minneapolis
plan
review
staff
to
determine
that
the
pod
is
a
state
licensed
modular
building.
They'll
also
need
to
apply
for
an
encroachment
permit
from
Public
Works
and
staff
eyes
that
the
the
traffic
impacts
of
the
temporary
structure
would
be
minimal
and
would
not
add
to
the
minimum
required
parking
for
the
fight.
AD
And
as
I
mentioned
previously,
it
does
not
comply
with
two
requirements
of
the
zoning
code,
including
the
front
yard
setback
and
mechanical
screening
requirements,
and
so
staff
is
recommending
a
condition
of
approval
to
require
landscaping
around
all
four
sides
to
mitigate
the
aesthetic
impact
staff
also
finds
that
the
proposal
for
the
interim
use
for
five
years
was
excessive,
as
applicant
expects
all
the
renovations
to
the
the
North
Campus
to
be
completed
within
three
years.
So
staff
is
recommending.
Approval
of
the
interim
use
permit
for
three
years
and
I
will
stand
for
questions.
Thank.
O
A
B
You,
madam
chair
I'd,
like
to
go
ahead
and
move
approval
of
the
staff
recommendations
on
this
and
just
say
that
this
has
been
a
horrible
tragedy
within
the
community
and
it's
been
amazing
to
see
the
community
really
come
together
and
we
understand
the
need
for
these
temporary
pods
and
I
know
it's
not
ideal
and
it's
not
pretty,
but
it's
something
that
needs
to
be
done
well.
We
support
our
neighbors
and
help
get
this
great
asset
in
the
community
back
up
on
its
feet.
A
Thank
you.
Any
further
discussion
just
underscore
everything
that
comes
on
member
Johnson,
just
side
and
our
thoughts
have
been
with
the
community,
not
all
those
in
favor,
please
say:
aye
aye
any
opposed
that
carries.
Then
we
have
one
final
item,
which
is
on
article
from
consent,
which
is
the
exterior
building
materials
ordinance.
A
N
N
As
a
result
of
that
three
years
ago,
the
city
and
cpad
worked
to
develop
some
materials
guidance
based
on
a
stipulation
in
our
site
plan
review
regulations
that
calls
for
materials
to
be
durable
and
we've
been
implementing
that
guidance
for
the
last
few
years
on
larger
scale,
projects
that
are
subject
to
site
plan
review.
This
is
what
that
looks
like
today.
N
The
staff
report
outlines
some
of
the
evaluation
criteria
that
we
use
to
establish
materials
classification
system,
which
consists
of
three
classes
of
materials,
so,
instead
of
assigning
a
percentage
to
each
material,
we're
now
grouping
them
into
three
different
categories
based
on
durability,
aesthetic
compatibility
and
then
those
classes
are
allowed
in
certain
percentages
based
on
building
type
and
on
scale,
and
this
is
coming
out
of
a
lot
of
discussion
with
our
development
partners,
affordable
housing,
colleagues
and
architectural
partners.
That's
particularly
with
the
scale
question.
N
There
are
certain
economies
of
scale,
especially
in
the
affordable
housing
industry
that
allow,
for
a
higher
degree
of
high-quality
building
materials
on
larger
scale
projects.
Additionally,
those
projects
have
a
higher
impact,
a
higher
public
impact,
and
so
that
was
one
reason
for
making
that
distinction.
N
This
would
apply
to
exterior
building
materials.
It's
it's
an
alternative
compliance
category
that
is
routinely
granted
in
applications
and
would
allow
for
the
possibility
that
designer
or
developer
might
come
up
with
a
material
solution
or
material
product
that
were
unfamiliar
with
and
that
they
then
can
demonstrate
that
that
product
or
design
solution
meets
the
intent
of
our
standards.
I
A
I
You
thank
you
but
I'm
sure
so.
I
don't
really
want
to
be
the
expert
on
rain
screens
as
it
pertains
to
fiber
cement,
board
and
I
think
this
is
something
that
probably
should
have
been
handled
at
the
staff
level,
but
has
not
been
handled
with
the
staff
level
to
the
satisfaction
of
many
of
the
players,
including
those
at
MCCD
who
have
contacted
me
with
regard
to
the
additional
cost
from
for
affordable
housing
developers.
So
I
would
like
to
make
the
following
change.
I
I
would
like
to
under
section
five
thirty
point:
one:
twenty
five
exterior
materials
under
section
one
class:
one
item
G
remove
the
word
rain
screen
under
Section
two
class
to
eliminate
single
skin
metal
panel,
siding
and
also
under
Section
theta
C,
remove
the
word
rain
screen
and
then
lastly,
change
item
C,
where
it
says
where
feasible,
exterior
material
shall
be
installed
with
the
rain
screen
principles
to
mitigate
moisture
substitute.
The
word
all
material
shall
be
installed
to
manufacturer
specifications
and
I
would
like
to
be
able
to
speak
to
why
I'm
suggesting
this?
I
Surely
I
don't
want
to
be
the
expert
on
rain
screens
and
I
love,
Hardy,
board,
siding
and
I?
Have
it
on
my
house
and
I've
had
it
on
a
previous
house
I'd
built
too
so,
but
there
are
products
other
than
Hardy
board
and
those
products
other
than
Hardy
board
have
a
different
way
of
dealing
with
rain
and
they
can
use
some
sort
of
under
layer
dappling
to
be
able
to
move
rain
away
and
I.
I
Just
don't
think
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
for
us
to
choose
our
friends
at
hardy
board
over
someone
else
by
saying
rain
screens
are
more
important
than
that.
I
do
think.
I
absolutely
agree
with
the
chair
that
we
cannot
have
a
situation
where
in
wealthy
parts
of
town
everything
is
all
brick
in
other
places,
it's
efis
or
something
that's
not
good,
but
I
have
been
hearing
about
this
from
Jim
Roth
roasting
Becky,
Landon
people
who
I
respect
in
the
affordable
housing
community
who
have
concerns
about
treating
products.
I
One
is
preferential
over
another
and
in
this
situation,
I
would
have
wanted
to
see
this
worked
out
by
staff.
But
it
sounds
like
there's
just
not
going
to
be
a
way
to
get
it
worked
out
by
staff.
I
appreciate
the
fact.
Mr.
Crandall
said
that
there's
going
to
be
alternative
compliance,
but
if
the
alternative
compliance
doesn't
work,
then
they're
gonna
be
coming
us
anyway.
I
want
to
avoid
that,
because
I
don't
want
to
be
contradicting
what
staff
has
negotiated
with
regard
to
additional
compliance.
I
So
I
think
that
this
should
solve
the
problem
of
not
picking
one
kind
of
product
over
another
while
still
maintaining
a
very
legitimate
moisture
mitigation
solution.
There
are
products
that
have
different
kinds
of
moisture
mitigation
than
rain
screens
and
I
think
we
have
to
take
those
into
consideration.
N
It's
a
architectural
principle
that
it's
a
design
principle
by
which
an
exterior
building
material
is
held
away
from
the
surface
of
the
interior
wall
assembly,
there's
usually
a
moisture
barrier
on
the
exterior
that
wall
assembly
and
it
allows
for
air
to
enter
the
wall
system
and
thereby
eliminate
any
moisture
that
might
build
up
cap
over
time
and
that
can
be
achieved
as
councilman
Goodman
noted
in
any
number
of
ways
by
any
number
of
different
material
manufacturers.
We're
not
trying
to
say
that
James
Hardy
is
the
only
you
know
rainscreen
product
now.
N
I
Crandall,
but
they
are
the
only
one,
but
there
are
other
products
that
don't
use
rain
screen
that
use
dappling,
and
you
don't
give
any
consideration
for
that
in
this.
So
you
are
essentially
saying:
Hardy
is
the
one
you
should
use,
because
you
don't
take
consider
it
into
consideration
those
that
use
dappling
share.
N
I
Should
have
no
disagreement,
then,
by
changing
this
language
to
take
out
the
word
rain
screen
and
and
just
acknowledging
that
there
has
to
be
a
moisture
mitigation
effort
and
it
could
be
rain
screen
or
dabbling
would
satisfy
those
that
use
the
product
that
is
dabbling
so
I
don't
understand
what
the
pushback
is.
I
guess.
N
A
I,
just
just
to
clarify
to
you,
there
is
significant
pressure
from
folks
who,
so
the
like.
A
number
of
planning
commissioners
are
unhappy
even
with
the
staff
proposal,
as
it
is
now
because
they
feel
it
doesn't
go
far
enough
to
enhance
the
materials
on
buildings
that
they're,
seeing
coming
through.
So
I
think
staff
has
been
trying
to
balance
these
two
pretty
strong
opinions
from
both
sides
about
concerns
over
low-quality
buildings,
whether
they
are
or
not.
That
is
the
stated
concern
versus
making
sure
that
we're
not
creating
barriers
for
affordable
housing.
N
Sure
under
I
would
also
point
out
that
the
proposal
before
you
today
represents
a
quite
dramatic
departure
from
where
we've
been
implementing
material
regulations.
For
the
last
few
years,
we've
been
limiting
most
fiber
cement
products
to
only
30
percent
of
building
elevations.
The
proposal
before
you
today
would
allow
100%
higher
cement
on
larger
scale
products
projects,
and
we
just
want
to
ensure
that
the
language
we're
using
to
regulate
those
materials
delivers
the
performance
criteria
that
will
allow
them
to
be
successful
over
time.
We.
X
A
Had
a
follow-up
question
on
that
point
because,
again
having
attended
I,
don't
know
how
many
Planning
Commission
meetings.
It
is
very
common
for
neighbors
to
come
in
and
oppose
a
full
side
of
a
product
that
isn't
brick
or
something
that
they
perceive
to
be
a
higher
quality
material.
Since
we're
now
codifying
what
used
to
be
an
suggested.
A
Approach
to
building
materials,
what
is
our
opportunity
to
make
those
changes
in
response
to
neighbors
if
it's
in
encode?
So
if
our
zoning
code
says
you
can
do
100%
of
these
materials
on
the
side
of
the
building
and
neighbors
come
in
and
say
we
want
this
building
to
be
brick.
How
have
we
now
changed
our
opportunity
to
influence
the
building
materials
in
response
to
neighborhood
concerns.
N
Chair
bender
committee
members
I
believe
that
the
Planning
Commission
and
and/or
zoning
and
planning
committee
could
still
condition
projects
based
on
other
site
plan,
review
criteria
or
adopted
city
policy
with
regard
to
exterior
building
materials
as
a
condition
of
approval
and
I
can
be
corrected
on
that.
If
that's
not
right,
but
we
are
attempting
to
set
up
more
clear
expectations
in
the
beginning
of
the
process
so
that
that
becomes
less
necessary
in
the
sort
of
negotiating
that
happens
in
and
around
land
use,
applications
and
approvals,
and.
A
So
I
imagine
too
that
staffs
perspective
includes
the
fact
that
council
members
often
call
staff
and
say
we
want
different
materials
and-
and
so
this
would
in
some
ways
weaken
your
ability
as
staff
to
negotiate
with
a
developer
for
higher
quality
materials
because
we're
lowering
the
initial
standard.
That's.
A
V
Vendor
committee
members
I
think
you
asked
an
excellent
question
and
I
think
generally.
We
would
have
a
limited
ability
to
kind
of
handle
materials
on
a
kind
of
site-by-site
basis
unless
the
applicant
is
asking
for
some
kind
of
alternative
compliance.
That
is
in
some
way
tied
to
materials.
That
would
allow
us
to
have
greater
expectations,
then
is
that
is
actually
in
the
ordinance,
so
I
mean
ordinance,
says
you
can
have
a
hundred
percent,
then
we
better
have
a
very
good
reason
to
say
that
it
can't
be
that.
L
Chair,
what?
What
is
the
rationale
for
doing
that
for
going
to
this
hundred
percent
of
one
material
and
a
on
a
side?
Cuz
I,
you
know,
I
shared
the
chair
is
concerned.
I
I
see
a
future
where
I
hear
everybody
talking
about
affordable
housing.
I
want
affordable
housing.
You
know
it's
not
going
to
go
on.
Lake
Harriet
Parkway,
it's
good.
L
L
N
Thank
You
chair
bender
council,
president
Johnson,
that's
like
that's
a
great
question.
I
should
point
out
that
the
original
staff
recommendation,
when
this
amendment
went
to
the
Planning
Commission,
was
to
maintain
basically
the
same
level
of
allowable
fiber.
Cements
you'll
note
that
in
the
staff
report
that
was
before
you
with
some
actual
additional
flexibility
based
on
these
stipulations
that
we
have
in
terms
of
implementing
products
with
appropriate
moisture
mitigation,
because
that
is
the
issue
that
fiber
cement
runs
into
is
that
it
is
sometimes
subject
to
moisture
infiltration
and
failure.
N
So
we
added
language
about
rain,
screen,
design,
principles
thickness
and
density
as
they
correlate
to
different
systems
that
allow
fiber
cement
to
mitigate
moisture
after
adoption
by
the
City
Planning
Commission.
There
was
some
additional
discussion
with
council
members
with
members
of
the
fiber
cement
industry
and.
N
A
A
Thank
you
everyone
for
being
here
today
and
this
I
mean
I
just
want
to
know
this
conversation
has
been
going
on
for
a
year,
so
thank
you
staff
for
all
of
your
work.
This
is
shows
it's
a
tricky
one
council
member
Johnson
did
you
want,
say
something
yeah
yep,
okay,
so
we
have
a
motion
to
postpone
all
those
in
favor.
Please
say:
aye
aye
and
you
opposed
that
carries
we
are
adjourned.
I
will
be
happy
to
follow
up
with
everyone
who
came
today
to
talk
about
this.