►
From YouTube: June 12, 2017 City Planning Commission
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission Meeting
A
Good
afternoon,
to
order
the
June
12th
meeting
of
the
Minneapolis
City
Planning
Commission,
my
name
is
Matt.
Brown
I
serve
as
president
of
the
Commission
I'm
joined
today
by
commissioners,
my
Greenough
Swezey,
Lukey,
Pierre
and
Rockwell
this
time,
if
you
wouldn't
mind
silencing
any
mobile
devices,
and
we
can
get
started
with
our
meeting
first.
Our
first
item
of
business
is
to
approve
the
actions
from
the
May
22nd
meeting.
They
have
a
motion
to
approve
those
actions.
A
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor
and
that
motion
carries
our
next
item.
Business
is
to
approve
the
agenda.
You
can
find
hard
copies
of
the
agenda
in
the
hallway
and
we'll
determine
which
items
we
will
consider
on
the
consent
agenda
and
which
items
will
be
discussed
so
starting
at
the
top
of
the
agenda
item
one
as
a
right-of-way
vacation
in
the
vicinity
of
11th,
Avenue,
south
and
south
5th
Street
there.
Anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
1.
No
one
will
put
that
on
consent.
A
Item
2
is
a
drainage
and
utility
easement
vacation
near
Franklin
and
Portland
avenues.
Is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
2
see?
No
one
will
put
item
2
on
consent
item
3
is
the
Pioneer
triangle
vacation
also
a
Street
vacation
and
the
vicinity
of
5th
Avenue,
Northeast
and
Main
Street
northeast?
Is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
items
that
we
see?
No
one
will
put
that
on
consent.
A
A
Item
5
is
that
8/15
13th
Avenue
South
East
3
variances
related
to
an
existing
multifamily
building
their
general
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
5
see.
No
one
will
put
that
on
consent
item
six
is
1,000
third
at
1000,
North,
third
Street
several
applications
for
use
of
an
existing
building.
In
addition,
there
will
discuss
item
six.
A
If
anyone
is
here
for
that
item
item
seven
is
the
mill
right
building
at
513
South
third
Street,
two
variances
related
to
signs
there
is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
7c?
No
one
will
put
that
on
consent.
Item
eight
is
the
cross
Andersson
block
redevelopment
at
816,
Portland
Avenue
and
801
817
8:23
and
831
5th
Avenue
South.
That's
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
PDF
amendment
related
to
signs
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
8c.
A
No
one
will
put
item
feet
on
consent.
Item
9
is
the
Minneapolis
armory
of
500
South
sixth
Street
couple
applications
there
for
reuse
of
an
existing
building,
we'll
discuss
item
nine
I
understand
Commissioner,
Cron's
ur.
As
a
brief
question
related
to
landscaping
on
that
project.
So
we'll
discuss
that
item.
10
is
the
shear
site
and
halls
Island
reconstruction
at
900,
civilly
Street
northeast
conditional
use
permit
to
build
an
island
there.
B
A
A
Anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
11,
yes
you're
here,
Oh
I'll
need
you
to
come
to
the
microphone,
but
we
can
pull
it
from
consent
and
ask
you
if
you
have
a
question
so
we'll
discuss,
item
11
item
12
is
at
2200
Fillmore
Street
northeast
several
applications
in
conjunction
with
a
minor
subdivision.
There
is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
12,
seeing
no
one
will
put
that
on
consent.
A
Item
13
is
at
3501
through
3509,
2nd,
Avenue
South
several
applications
for
a
new
multi-family
building.
There
is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
13.
You
know
one
will
put
that
on
consent
and
see
moving
along
item.
14
is
the
zoning
code
text,
amendment
related
to
regulations
for
live
theater
and
industrial
districts?
Anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
14,
single
and
we'll
put
that
on
consent
and
I'll
note
that
we
have
some
revised
language
for
that
text.
A
Amendment
finally
item
15
is
the
NPS
adult
education
and
transition
plus
final
plat
at
2005,
2011
2015
and
2019
East
Lake
Street,
30:13,
30,
17,
20th,
Avenue
South
and
three
thousand
eight
thirty,
twelve
and
thirty.
Sixteen
21st
Avenue
South.
That
is
a
final
flat.
Anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
15,
seeing
no
one
will
put
that
on
consent.
B
Is
just
a
note
that
on
item
number,
eight
that
were
was
the
Crouch
Anderson
sign
package
of
to
amend
the
plan
unit
development?
Just
to
note
two
planning,
commissioners,
that
the
roof
sign
that
would
have
been
viewed
from
above
that
would
be
flat
against
the
roof,
was
withdrawn
by
the
applicants.
All.
A
A
Item
4
yeah:
that's
the
time
we
can.
We
can
make
that
change
and
pull
that
from
consent
when
I
do
those
again
so
items
1,
2,
3,
5,
7,
8,
10,
12,
13,
14
and
15
will
be
on
consent
and
we'll
discuss
items.
4,
6,
9
and
11
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
agenda
as
amended
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor,
and
that
motion
carries
next
on.
A
Our
agenda
is
the
committee
of
the
whole
consent
agenda
and
at
the
May
25th
Committee
of
the
Whole
meeting
we
considered
several
things:
first,
the
location
and
design
review
for
the
2018
through
2022
capital
improvement
projects.
We
also
considered
several
land
sales
and
I
will
read
all
of
those
addresses:
1210
herbing
Avenue,
North,
1607,
Thomas,
Avenue,
North,
1826,
Avenue,
North,
46,
46,
Bryant,
Avenue,
North,
29:54,
Morgan,
Avenue,
North,
1519,
Thomas,
Avenue,
north
and
30
15,
Thomas,
Avenue,
North,
also
41
23,
Colfax,
Avenue,
north
and
3006
Russell
Avenue
north.
A
We
found
that
all
of
those
items
were
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
commissioners
may
have
a
motion.
Those
items
are
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor,
and
that
motion
carries
next
we'll
move
on
to
the
public
hearing
portion
of
our
meeting
and
at
this
time
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
for
the
items
on
the
consent
agenda.
Again,
that's
items
1
2,
3,
5,
7,
8,
10,
12,
13,
14
and
15.
A
A
We
have
a
motion
and
second
all
in
favor
and
that
motion
carries
neck.
We'll
move
on
to
our
item
for
discussion
and
our
first
item
for
discussion
is
item
for
the
NRC
house.
Rehab
staff
is
mr.
Baker
and
I
believe
we
just
had
one
person
who
had
a
question
or
comment
on
that.
Maybe
you
could
come
to
the
microphone
and
just
ask
your
question
or
you
had
a
brief
comment.
I.
C
Will
spin
through
it
and
I
own
the
two
duplexes
just
south
of
this
location,
I,
actually
owner-occupied,
one
of
those
duplexes
for
12
years,
starting
in
2004
through
2016
and
I,
know
very
much
this
lot
in
the
history
of
this
lot.
I
have
been
in
communication
with
dirt
and
I'm
cautiously
excited
about
the
opportunity
to
turn
this
into
a
community
office.
Space.
I,
guess
my
concern
and
at
what
I'm
asking
the
Commission
here
is
for
a
little
bit
of
feedback
on
your
understanding
of
the
exact
plan
and
the
funding
of
the
plan.
C
C
My
concern
would
be
if
Newark
is
unable
to
fulfill
their
hopeful
ideas
that
those
variants
will
be
have
have
been
made
and
any
other
idea
that
falls
in
line
with
this
kind
of
code
would
have
a
green
light
to
move
forward
without
a
similar
public
hearing,
and
my
reason
for
raising
my
hand
in
this
matter
also,
the
red
light
red
flag
rather
for
me,
is
seeing
that
they
have
until
June
2017
to
complete
all
of
this
work.
That's
two
years,
maybe
I've
read
this
incorrectly.
C
It
seems
like
an
awfully
liberal
timeline.
I
myself
have
been
responsible
for
five
I'm.
Sorry,
three
properties
on
that
block
being
turned
around
converted
and
stabilized
I've,
also
partnered,
with
TRG
to
do
two
other
properties
on
that
block.
I'm,
very
much
aware
of
timelines
and
I'm
just
concerned
about
the
liberal
nature
of
that
timeline.
For
this
particular
person,
all.
A
D
This
is
currently
a
single
time
in
the
residence
loaded
located
in
the
RVT
to
family
district.
It's
a
combination
of
what
were
formerly
several
Lots
a
lot
size
currently
is
about
11,000
square
feet.
Fifth
Ward.
It
is
in
the
near
North,
neighborhood
designated
feature
land
use
in
the
city.
Wide
peptides
of
plan
is
urban
neighborhood.
D
It
is
not
directly
dating
to
a
designated
land
use
feature.
However,
it
is
a
very
short
block
about
155
feet
from
the
West
Broadway
Avenue
commercial
corridor,
and
it
is
an
area
covered
by
the
West
Broadway
alive
plan
was
approved
in
2008
proposal.
Go
says,
residents
redevelopment
Council
is
proposing
to
renovate
the
single
family
home
serve
as
their
office
space
from
headquarters.
It's
about
1,500
square
feet
which
would
utilize
the
existing
building
entries
and
sentences
with
modifications
for
accessibility.
D
D
New
fencing
is
proposed
on
the
perimeter
of
the
site,
which
will
meet
the
zoning
code,
requirements
and
they've
discussed
the
range
of
other
site
improvements
kind
of
conceptually.
However,
none
of
those
are
proposed
at
this
time,
so
there
are
3-3
applications
before
you.
One
is
the
rezoning
trees
on
this
property
from
the
r2d2
family
district,
two
or
one
neighborhood
office
residence
district.
The
second
is
to
reduce
the
required
number
of
off
street
parking
spaces
from
three
to
zero.
D
They
do
qualify
for
the
one
cent
is
to
reduce
their
the
required
Brooklyn
four
to
three
and
they're,
requesting
the
variance
to
reduce
that
requirement
to
zero,
and
the
third
variance
is
to
increase
the
maximum
watt
size
of
an
office
use
in
the
or
one
neighbourhood
office
district.
The
maximum
size
is
10,000
square
feet.
This
lot
is
just
over
what
would
normally
be
the
maximum
allowed
size
for
an
office
use.
D
Again,
we
analyzed
the
the
second
variance
increase
the
maximum
want
size
of
an
office
in
this
district
from
10,000
to
11,000
square
feet.
And
again,
we
did
not
feel
that
this
we
felt
there
were
practical
difficulties
in
this
instance,
being
a
kind
of
combined
lot
with
a
lot
of
kind
of
open
space
on
the
lot.
D
No
written
comments
received
and
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
all
three
applications.
The
rezoning,
as
well
as
two
variances,
with
few
conditions
on
the
parking
variance
because
for
bicycle
parking
spaces,
must
be
provided
to
meet
that
initial
reduction
from
requirement
of
four
to
three
spaces
and
the
other
two
are
essentially
odd.
Standard
requirements,
including
the
the
two-year
time
frame
which
is
standard
under
the
ordinance.
D
F
D
E
D
D
Was
not
at
all
the
two-year
timeline
is
on
this
standard
for
all
approvals
and.
A
B
Correct
commissioners,
that
is
the
ordinance
standard.
If
there
were
some
unique
circumstances
that
you
found
here,
where
you
felt
it
was
more
appropriate
to
have
a
more
quick
turnaround,
given
the
scale
of
the
project
that
that
would
be
authorized.
Certainly,
but
generally
the
standard
is
2
years
and
for.
B
G
D
G
And
then
slide
to
kind
of
follow
up,
so
that
one
is,
can
you
go
over
some
of
the
other
allowable
uses
in
that
zoning
district
than
just
so
I
know,
and
then
my
second
question
is:
did
the
neighborhood
I
believe
this
is
located
in
all
the
Highland?
Did
they
get
a
chance
to
weigh
in
on
it
and
what
were
their
thoughts?
Should
this
not
happen
about
having
a
business?
Next
residential
leases
off
of
Broadway.
D
G
Just
in
this
looking
at
this
of
this,
when
I
say
I,
don't
know
if
I
would
be
if
over
me,
I
wouldn't
be
too
keen
about
having
a
multiple
five
unit,
dwelling
next
door
to
me
thinking
and
something
that
was
originally
a
single
family
home
but
I.
Think
in
north
we've
seen
all
sorts
of
things
so
I
just
want
to
know
if
the
neighbors,
if
there
wasn't
meaning
about
us
not
but
other
than
that,
that
would
be
my
I
mean
questioning,
concern
and
just
the
other
allowable
uses
and
whether
or
not
that
work.
D
Thanks
yeah,
we
did
not
receive
any
other
additional
comments
as
well
of
the
but
notice.
D
A
Are
there
any
further
questions
of
hearing
none
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
on
this
item,
and
we
heard
from
one
speaker
I'd
like
to
ask
the
applicant
to
at
least
give
the
applicant
an
opportunity
to
speak?
If
there's
anyone
here
who
would
like
to
speak
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
just
very
briefly
address
any
issues
that
arose.
Hi.
H
G
Hi
so
I
think
the
question
that
I
haven't.
I
smother
to
have
given
that
if
the
rezoning
is
approved
its
kind
of
with
it
forever
and
ever
is
not
feeling
pretty
confident
that
they're,
like
you,
know,
secure
the
funding
and
proceed
and
get
this
completed
in
two
years
or
yes,
sir,
and
should
it
not
I
trust
you're
in
third
neighborhood,
the
larger
neighborhood
organization?
That
is
there
any
assurance
you
can
give
to
the
neighbors
that
this
won't
be
sold
to
somebody
who's
going
to
put
selling
there.
That
would
possibly
be
detrimental
to
the
surrounding
neighbors.
H
A
A
I
A
Right
in
that
motion
carries.
That
concludes
our
discussion
on
item
for
our
next
item
for
discussion
of
item
six
1,000.
Third
staff
is
mr.
Crandall
and
I
understand
the
applicant
just
wanted
to
discuss
one
of
the
outstanding
issues.
We
obviously
saw
this
that
committee
also.
Maybe
you
could
just
address
that
one
issue.
J
There
are
four
applications
associated
with
this
project:
a
conditional
use
permit
to
increase
the
building
height,
a
variance
to
the
minimum
loading
requirement,
variance
to
increase
the
maximum
height
of
a
wall,
sign
and
then
site
plan
review.
This
is
a
renovation
and
addition
to
an
existing
warehouse
building
in
the
North
Loop.
J
Condition
number
three
under
site
plan
review,
which
is
that
the
applicant
will
implement
discontinuous
curving
in
the
parking
lots
adjacent
to
the
building.
The
the
footprint
of
the
building
is
not
changing
much
from
the
existing
footprint.
There
is
an
existing
bituminous
parking
lot
to
the
rear
of
the
structure.
That
is
somewhat
less
formalized
on
the
proposal.
J
And
the
purple
isn't
landscaping
plan
you'll
see
that
there
is
some
additional
proposed
landscaping
surrounding
the
proposed
resurfaced
parking
lots
and
our
condition
was
to
provide
discontinuous
curving
along
that
rear,
curb
to
facilitate
on-site
stormwater
infiltration,
which
is
a
common
condition
that
we
put
on
projects
when
they're
implementing
a
surface
parking
lot
to
reduce
the
impact
of
stormwater
on
the
existing
infrastructure.
So
I'll
leave
it
to
the
applicant
to
discuss
their
issues
with
that
condition,
but
just
a
little
bit
of
background
on
what
that
is
all.
J
A
K
I'm
Amanda
Jansen
project
manager,
Shaffer
Richardson,
allocated
900,
North
third
Street.
We
just
were
excited
about
this
project
of
renovating
and
otherwise
industrial
building
extended
in
the
North
Loop
past
10th
Avenue,
which
is
sort
of
a
barrier
and
an
edge
to
the
neighborhood.
You
know
we,
the
one
I,
don't
that
I
would
like
the
commissioners
to
construe.
Consider
is
to
remove
the
condition
to
provide
the
discontinuous.
Curbing
the
site
is
less
than
one
acre.
K
It's
point,
five
acres,
so
stormwater
management
is
not
required
for
the
city
scape
or
watershed,
and
also
because
we
are
reusing
the
existing
building
for
the
first
two
floors.
It's
difficult
to
modify
the
grading
to
provide
on-site
infiltration,
while
also
maintaining
accessible
slopes
and
to
the
parking
lot
and
the
main
entry.
So
those
are
the
two
reasons
why
we
would
like
to
have
that
condition
to
be
removed.
I
Hi
David
Allen
with
urban
Rick's
architecture
were
offset
901,
North
third
Street
just
across
the
way,
and
essentially
the.
If
we
were
to
open
that
up,
we
would
we
would
be
spilling
onto
the
neighbor's
property
as
well.
We
did
ever
civil
engineer
look
into
that,
but
it's
a
relative
level
site
and
for
in
so
it's
currently
drains
to
the
center.
So
we're
trying
to
maintain
that
existing
grading
without
disturbing
the
adjacent
properties
essentially
and
and
building
something,
is
really
unnatural
to
the
front
of
it
and.
E
I
That
right
now
it
would
it
would
just
overflow
into
the
street
before
it
would
get
into
the
those
green
areas
and
again
to
regrade
the
parking
lot
and
basically
degrade
everything.
The
opposite
way
that
are
currently
drains
right
now
would
mean
you'd,
be
digging
a
pit
towards
the
school
I.
Guess,
that's
the
plan
nose
Northwest
there,
and
so
it
really
is
really
not
practical
for
us
to
do
that,
and
because
we
really
need
to
maintain
the
accessible
entrances
on
the
third
Street
side
and
pardon.
E
My
ignorance,
but
it
does,
the
discontinuous
mean
you
have
to
regrade
it.
Community
forward
is.
I
He
would
I
mean
if
you
put
a
discontinuous
curve,
I,
guess
it
essentially
in
his
current
state.
It
wouldn't
do
anything.
Okay,
so
I
guess
you
know
we,
you
know
it
just
doesn't
make
sense
to
you
know,
because
it's
run
and
I'm
actually
going
to
infiltrate,
because
the
water
is
all
draining
the
opposite
direction.
It
is
really
the
point
so
I
mean
in
a
way
you
could
it
just
setting
an
expectation
for
infiltration.
It's
not
can't
be
accomplished
with
existing
grading.
I
guess
is
really
the
main
point.
Unless.
B
G
I
F
G
Just
just
I'm
just
looking
at
this
trying
to
figure
this
out
so
there's
these
landscaped
areas
along
the
perimeter
there
to
the
kind
of
north
and
west
and
whatnot,
and
right
now
on
the
aerial
it
appeared
to
be
kind
of
gravel
it.
It
seemed
like
the
asphalt
was
already
failing
along
the
perimeter.
Anyway,
are
you?
Are
you
really
rereading?
Are
you
just
patching
in
the
current
parking
lot,
or
are
you
actually
redoing
the
parking
lot
because
it
seems
like
a
lot
of
it's
not
established
anyway
right.
I
G
G
I
G
A
M
We've
already
covered
this,
but
with
the
clarification
that
three
should
be
interpreted
as
as
written
with
no
additional
text
requiring
regrading.
A
M
A
F
A
N
O
So
this
is
the
monopolist
every
site
it
is
located
in
downtown.
It
has
no
landscaping
requirement.
They
proposed
an
excessive
number
of
trees,
given
the
historical
context
of
the
property,
and
so
we
want
them
to
reduce
the
number
of
trees
which
I
know
is
I
have
normal,
probably
for
us
to
recommend,
but
it
does
not
fit
the
historical
character.
This
is
a
designated
landmark,
so
we've
asked
our
condition
that
they
work
with
staff
to
reduce
the
number
of
trees
on
site,
to
be
more
historically
appropriate
for
the
site.
N
O
O
O
It's
all
sparkly,
that's
how
the
site
has
looked,
I
mean
what
you
see
out
there,
probably
the
dead
trees.
They
were
probably
living
at.
One
point
that
is
how
the
site
has
looked
historically,
has
been
large
swaths
of
grass
on
each
side
of
the
property
and
the
small
area
plan
for
this
actually
calls
for
a
large,
open,
green
space
on
the
Portland
Avenue
side,
and
so,
while
the
majority
of
the
trees
they're
proposing
on
Fifth
Avenue,
it
wouldn't
be
historically
appropriate
to
have
it's
almost
like
an
orchard.
O
O
They
are
looking
at
really
landscaping
at
full
size
of
the
armor
to
be
more
cohesive
in
design,
and
so
we
are
I'm
working
or
waiting
for
Hennepin
County
to
provide
plans
for
what
they
want
to
do
in
their
easement
area
and
then
working
with
them
further
to
move
that
forward,
and
we
have
had
conversations
all
of
us
combined
about
not
having
so
many
trees
in
that
location.
So
that
is
how
we
got
to
the
so
report
and
again.
N
A
G
Sorry
are
the
trees
and
environmental
hazard
on
the
property.
G
G
O
G
O
L
O
G
O
Of
these
trees
are
this
over
here,
some
have
been
killed
or
have
died
from
heat
or
the
construction
that's
taken
place
over
the
last
couple
years.
There
is
a
hedgerow
here
that
will
really
and
one
of
the
conditions
that
they
would
work
with
us
on
a
fence
plan
to
rehab
the
existing
bollard
and
chain
fence
that
exists.
Historically,
there
had
been
a
hedgerow
there,
and
so
some
of
this
is
working
with
the
applicant.
O
They
were,
they
thought
they
had
her
landscaper
affirm
that
they
were
trying
to
meet
that,
so
they
just
put
a
bunch
of
stuff
on
the
place.
I
want
them
to
peel
off
some
of
that,
because
it's
not
required
and
be
it's
not
historically
appropriate
for
the
site,
given
that,
historically
most
of
this
a
few
trees
here-
and
there
has
been
just
open
yard,
so
we're
really
wanting
them
to
maintain
the
historical
nature
of
the
site.
E
The
block
that
Mill
City
is
on
had
a
similar
conversation
about
trees
and
there
were
no
trees
permitted
and
now
there's
some
beautiful
elm
trees
that
are
planted
in
a
very
highly
technically
wonderful
trench
in
an
area
that
was
traditionally
without
trees.
You
tell
me
the
difference
between
that
change
and
the
conversation
we're
having
today
I'm.
E
O
Guess
I
would
say
that
there-
maybe
we
should
look
at
this
way
if
we're
subject
to
landscape
requires
they'd,
be
required
to
ask
14
trees,
they're,
proposing
43
on
a
very
small
site,
very
small
site
for
43
trees.
If
we
want
to
have
trees,
we
can
condition
that
I
think
that's
reasonable,
even
though
it's
not
required,
but
I
would
not
suggest
that
we
require
them
to
have
43
trees,
because
I
think
it
will
detract
from
the
historical
nature
of
the
site
and
from
the
architectural
character
of
the
building
and.
O
Is
not
our
guidance?
Our
guidance
is
to
reduce
the
amount
of
trees
on
the
site.
It
was
about
to
have
a
number.
We
could
pick
a
number
we
could.
I
could
suggest
that
I
don't
have
a
number
off
the
top
of
my
head.
Oh
sure,
landscape
architect
is
here
and
that
he
is
he's
not
you
know,
if
required,
they
would
be
required
to
have
14.
I
would
suggest
something
less
than
that
and.
E
A
Commissioner
wroclaw
I
would
like
to
make
a
motion.
We
should
we
still
open
the
public
you're
over
okay,
and
then
we
can
do
that.
So
if
there
are
no
further
questions
of
staff,
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
I'd
just
like
to
ask
the
applicant
to
speak
briefly
and
maybe
touch
on
the
rationale
behind
the
number
of
trees
that
are
proposed
open.
Your.
P
David
Kelly
with
Kelly
architects,
I'm,
the
applicant
and
the
project
architect
form
armory
holding
to
answer
your
question:
there's
a
twenty
one
thousand
five
hundred
square
feet
of
open
space
according
to
the
zoning
ordinance
one
tree
for
every
500
square
feet.
So
that's
the
number
we
worked
with
43.
P
The
decision
was
made
to
leave
the
Portland
at
six
more
open,
as
it
is
right
now
with
the
war
memorial.
The
landscape
architect
was
thinking
because
we
need
a
large
number
of
trees
group
them
over
there
formally
make
that
more
of
a
formal
Avenue
on
fifth,
where
this
would
be
more
pedestrian
oriented
important,
which
generally
is
the
intention
of
Hanuman
County
to
convert
people
Portland
to
more
of
a
pedestrian
bike
pathway.
P
F
P
Inside
some
of
the
possible
uses
they've
been
discussing
is,
is
that
a
pre-event
wine-and-cheese
social
they've
mentioned
where
they
might
be
a
temporary
tents
installed.
For
a
large
event,
the
armory
can
hold
up
to
seven
thousand
people
and,
as
people
are
entering
they're
going
through
security,
there
might
be
the
need
to
stage
people
in
these
lawn.
P
F
P
Again,
inclement
weather
they
would
have
tents
out
there
as
a
last
resort.
They
might
consider
using
it
for
outdoor
smoking
when
you
have
a
large
event.
One
of
the
uses
for
the
addition
that
has
been
proposed
is
it
will
have
a
roof
deck
at
the
level
of
the
new
exhibition
wall
so
that
during
an
event,
people
can
go
and
smoke
and
not
break
security,
so
to
speak,
there's
also
a
roof
deck
on
the
roof
of
the
front
of
the
building.
P
The
five-story
building
the
military
I've
always
referred
to
it
as
the
head
house,
so
that
has
a
rope
deck,
so
people
could
go
up
onto
that
roof
and
smoke
if
they
needed
to
and
again
not
have
to
leave
the
building
there.
The
orders
assume
that
these
two
roof
X
should
be
more
than
enough
to
accommodate
all
smokers.
But
if
it
proves
not
to
be
the
case,
they
would
probably
try
to
develop
some
temporary
secure
area,
so
people
could
go
out
and
smoke
and
still
not
wander
away
or
you
know,
leave
without
a
ticket.
So
all.
G
For
something
that
I
even
know
yeah,
so
I
guess
I.
Is
there
a
number
that,
upon
hearing
that
staff
is
recommending
no
trees,
that
you
thought
would
be
a
good
balance
between
them,
or
do
you
see
as
the
architect
a
certain
way
of
planting
or
framing
the
trees?
That
would
enhance
the
architecture
of
the
building.
The.
P
One
of
the
principal
owners
is
net
up.
Dual
and
I
had
a
discussion
with
him
today
before
he
left
town.
Otherwise
he
would
have
been
here
at
this
meeting.
He
would
be
more
than
happy
to
have
most
of
the
plantings
in
if
the
area
kind
of
moved
to
the
public
sidewalk
and
up
against
the
these
parking
ramps.
P
G
P
Now
they're
both
intended,
if
they're
needed
for
smoking
and
it's
quite
possible
that
there
could
be
two
events
going
on
at
the
same
time
inside
this
building,
you
could
have
two
or
three
thousand
people
in
a
conference
in
the
main
drill
hall,
but
the
barrel
vaulted
space.
You
might
have
private
weddings
going
on
on
the
upper
levels
of
the
head
house,
so
they
would
both
probably
wish
to
have
access
to
the
smoking
areas.
G
P
E
Delighted
to
vote
for
the
staff
recommendation,
but
I'd
love
to
get
some
more
tree
advice
and
we
have
Craig
think
Ella
from
park
board
that
that
does
fit
sults
on
the
plan.
Development
review
and
I
would
love
to
have
some
more
expertise
for
the
tree
selection
and
the
the
spacing
of
the
trees.
Is
that
something
that
would
be
consistent
with
the
staff
recommendation?
I
guess
it's
a
question
for
staff
yeah.
O
O
So
we
could
ask
him,
but
they
do
have
a
landscape
consultant
I
think
it's
always
best
to
use
their
consultants
in
conjunction
with
Hennepin
County's
and
furthering
their
conversation
about
what
they're
going
to
do
in
the
corner
of
the
property
with
the
memorial,
because
they
are
looking
to
redo
that
I'm,
trying
to
Google
a
sunbeam
Ironwood
myself
right
now
and
I'm
coming
up
with
appliances
at
Kohl's.
So
I
can't.
A
O
O
E
E
O
They
grow
and
heat
to
that
45
feet.
Thank
you,
I
think
having
24
in
that
small
area
would
be
way
too
many
I
think
we
would
lose
their
behalf
of
them.
I
think
one
would
ever
take
the
other
as
they
do
in
a
forest.
I
think
they're
planted
too
too
close
I
would
want
to
confirm
that
with
our
landscape
architect,
because
I
am
that
one
but
I
just
looking
at
it
spatially,
it
seems
like
it's
too
close,
that
they
have
a
40-foot
which
are
height
unless
they
grow
upwards.
Instead
about.
A
M
Picture
Rock
well:
I'll
start
us
off
with
motion.
I'd
recommend
approval
of
staff
recommendations
on
a
and
B
with
an
amendment
to
number
three
under
B
so
that
it
would
read
the
applicant
show
revised
landscaping
plan
so
that
views
of
the
historic
armory
are
accessible
to
the
public.
Reporter
building
permits
may
be
issued.
E
G
Guess
I
would
say,
given
that
it
wasn't,
it
didn't
seem
as
though
it
was
really
thought.
Whole
landscaping
plan
as
much
as
a
misunderstanding
about
how
many
trees
they
had
to
shove
on
the
site.
I
think
some
additional
design
time
on
the
on
the
landscaping
plan
would
be
called
for.
In
addition
to
disrespecting
stretch,
I
hope
it
also
extends
into
the
memorial
in
the
corner
and
how
the
landscaping
is
either
a
backdrop
for
that
or
or
another
or
unfortunate
View
corridor
to
a
smoking
area.
G
So
I
would
like
to
see
it
be
something
that
complements
the
architecture
of
the
building
and
also
adds
green
I.
Don't
I
do
think
the
excessive
and
awfully
dense
for
for
what
we
would
meet
on
this
site,
I'm,
more
so
driven
by
those
two
factors
than
by
necessitating
annex
additional
outside
smoking
area.
So
finance
is
an
outdoor
gathering
space
I,
just
think
it.
It
should
be
done
more
mindfully
as
to
how
it
actually
helps
the
building
and
helps
the
memorial
in
the
corner
both
feel
as
though
they're
appropriately
cited
with
greenery
around
them
from.
A
L
A
B
A
A
Q
A
L
Your
president,
Brown
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
staff
reviewed
applications
for
the
expansion
of
non-conforming
use
to
allow
for
the
addition
and
recognition
of
the
duplex
as
part
of
the
campus
and
site
plan
review.
As
a
result
of
our
analysis,
we
identified
several
conditions
of
approval.
I've
had
an
opportunity
to
discuss
those
at
length
with
the
architect
and
the
applicant,
and
they
are
in
agreement
with
those
stated
conditions
of
approval.
Staff
does
not
have
any
additional
comment
free
this
afternoon.
Thank
you.
A
Are
there
any
questions
of
that
hearing?
None
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
on
this
item
and
there's
someone
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
would
like
to
speak.
If
there's
anything
you'd
like
to
add,
we
can
give
you
that
opportunity,
if
not
I,
don't
know
that
the
Commission
has
any
questions
for
you
and
is
there.
Anyone
else
would
like.
Yes,.
R
Reach
I
3,300,
Stevens,
Avenue
self,
so
I
am
the
neighbor
of
insourcing
challenge.
I
just
want
to
know
what
exactly
is
going
on
like
where's.
The
extension
is
happening
like
what
structure
they're
adding
on
to
and
if
there
is
additional
parking,
because
as
it
is,
there
are
numerous
fans
that
park
on
33rd
and
Stevens
Avenue
throughout
the
day
and
a
lot
of
the
residents
who
don't
have
other
parking
have
nowhere
depart
so
I
just
want
to
know
more
information.
Yeah.
L
Easiest
for
the
point
of
discussion,
so
here
is
First
Avenue
South
32nd
north
plan
North
is
up
on
this
particular
plan.
There's
an
area
that's
currently
devoted
to
outdoor
I'm.
Sorry
go
volleyball
courts,
so
the
addition
will
be
approximately
in
that
area.
The
addition
will
be
sixty-five
hundred
square
feet,
an
area
approximately.
L
So
here
is
a
plan
view
the
site
plan
showing
the
location
of
the
addition
due
to
the
location
of
the
addition
they're
having
to
modify
the
parking
lot
in
order
to
maintain
the
minimum
off
street
parking
that
they
currently
have
they're
already
in
excess
of
what
is
required.
I
believe
21
is
the
required
minimum
and
they
have
43
spaces
that
are
provided
on-site.
In
addition
to
that,
they
have
some
bicycle
parking.
L
So
to
answer
the
the
person's
question
about
additional
parking,
there
will
not
be
any
additional
parking
provided,
however,
they
will
be,
they
will
not
be
losing
any
parking
with
the
addition
and
I
should
say
too.
The
only
thing
that
would
trigger
additional
off
street
parking
for
community
residential
facility
is
the
addition
is
more
best.
So
in
that
case
there
is
not
an
additional
requirement
with
these.
The
additional
expansion
alright.
A
Is
there
anyone
else
would
like
to
speak
on
this
I
see
no
and
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
and
commissioners.
We
just
have
the
two
applications
before
expansion
of
not
conforming.
You
like.
Maybe
you
don't
like
to
start
us
off
with
motion
all
right.
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
approve
staff
recommendation
for
both
items.
A
and
B.
Is
there
any
further
discussion
hearing
none
clerk,
please
call
the
roll.