►
From YouTube: June 22, 2017 Zoning & Planning
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
A
Good
morning,
I'll
call
to
order
our
regular
meeting
of
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
today
is
June
22nd,
2017,
I'm,
Lisa,
bender
I
chair
the
committee,
and
we
now
have
a
quorum
with
councilmembers,
Reich,
Goodman
and
Andrew
Johnson.
Today
we
have
eight
items
on
our
agenda.
We
usually
start
with
the
consent
items.
A
Today
there
are
two
which
are
items
five
and
six
and
then
we'll
return
back
to
the
four
items
that
are
on
the
public
hearing
and
then
I'll
just
note
that
items
seven
and
eight
that
are
listed
under
discussion
are
the
rezoning
applications
for
the
two
projects
that
are
on
the
public
hearing
agenda,
so
items
five
and
six
the
consent.
Our
item
number
five
is
approving
an
application
for
an
Ali
vacation
for
Rana
village.
A
An
item
number
six
is
a
rezoning
at
1303,
Golden
Valley
Road
to
allow
for
conversion
of
us
has
been
existing
1500
square
foot,
single-family
dwelling
to
an
office
use
and
I'll
move
items.
Five
and
six.
Is
there
any
discussion
seeing
none
all
in
approval?
Please
say
aye
aye
any
opposed
and
those
carry.
So
that
brings
us
back
to
the
public
hearing
items.
We
have
four
items.
The
first
is
a
variance
of
teal
at
8:07,
Broadway,
Street,
northeast
and
we'll
start
with
the
staff
presentation.
B
Good
morning,
chair
bender,
under
and
committee
members
on
May
18th
2017,
the
Zoning
Board
of
Adjustment
denied
a
variance
by
Jay
Schneider
of
quality,
signed
solutions
to
increase
the
maximum
height
of
an
attached
wall.
Fine,
the
applicant
has
appealed
that
decision,
so
the
properties
that
it
applies
to
is
807
Broadway,
Street,
northeast,
it's
located
on
the
north
side
of
Broadway
Street
northeast
and
it's
one
block
west
of
Central
Avenue
located
in
the
I
1
light
industrial
district
and
the
industrial
living
overlay
district.
B
The
site
is
large,
it's
four
it's
over
or
acres
in
size.
It
includes
two
buildings
plus
an
onsite
parking
lot.
The
sign
would
be
located
on
the
west
elevation
and
it'd
be
visible
from
Quincy
Street
northeast
the
sign
would
serve
sports
engine,
which
is
one
of
27
tenants
in
the
building,
and
it
occupies
the
entire
third
floor
of
the
red
section.
As
outlined
on
the
floor
plan.
B
Here's
a
rendering
of
the
proposed
wall
sign.
It
would
be
forty
six
point,
seven
five
square
feet
in
size,
so
that's
17
feet
wide
and
two
feet:
nine
inches
tall.
It
would
be
illuminated
with
LED.
The
variance
is
to
increase
the
next
sign
height
from
28
feet
to
46
feet
from
the
top
of
the
sign.
The
applicants
reasoning
is
that
it
would
be.
C
B
Here's
another
view
from
Quincy
looking
self,
and
this
is
a
you
from
Broadway.
So
one
of
the
key
things
that
that
applicant
is
stating
is
that,
in
order
for
visitors
to
find
the
building
entrance,
you
need
to
have
the
sign
height
as
tall
as
it
as
they
are
proposing
at
46
feet.
This
is
how
you
would
be
able
to
see
the
building
wall
if
you're
heading
eastbound
on
Broadway.
B
Staff
did
recommend
denial
and
the
board
voted
to
adopt
the
staff
findings.
Staff
did
not
find
a
practical
difficulty
in
complying
with
ordinance.
We
found
that
28
feet
would
be
feasible
and
would
allow
for
sufficient
sufficient
wayfinding,
as
you
can
see
in
the
renderings.
Even
if
you
have
the
attached
wall
sign
lower
on
the
building
it
would,
it
would
indicate
which
building
entrance
was
appropriate
for
sports
engine
for
finding
number
two
other.
The
use
of
the
property
is
reasonable.
B
Staff
found
that
the
that
there
would
be
it
would
be
a
reasonable
use,
but
it's
not
related
to
the
practical
difficulties.
We
did
have
concerns
about
visual
clutter,
considering
that
this
is
one
of
27
tenants
in
the
building
and
we've
encouraged
the
applicant
to
explore
other
options,
including
a
multi-tenant
monument
sign
closer
to
the
street,
to
accomplish
better
wayfinding
for
the
forespore
tension
and
other
tenants
in
the
building,
just
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
see
a
an
accumulation
of
other
attached
wall
signs
for
other
building
tenants
and
because
the
proposed
sign
is
illuminated.
B
Steph
found
that
this
could
have
adverse
effects
on
nearby
properties
due
to
its
proposed
scale
and
height.
It
would
be
visible
from
residential
uses
that
are
across
the
parking
lot
and
across
the
street
from
Quincy
Street
northeast,
and
this
could
be
also
distracting
to
eastbound
traffic
on
Broadway,
but
not
likely
detrimental
to
the
health
safety
or
welfare
of
the
general
public.
B
Jeff
found
that
the
finding,
whether
the
sign
relates
that
architectural
scale
and
compatibility
of
the
property
that
we
found
that
the
signing
is
met
as
the
colors
and
the
the
materials
would
relate
to
the
existing
property
and
the
other
signs
on
the
property.
It
is
a
very
large
building
wall
and
the
the
individual
letters
would
only
be
about
15
feet,
tall
or
15
inches
tall.
Excuse
me,
they'd,
be
individually.
Litton
they'd
be
mounted
onto
an
aluminum
raceway,
that's
compatible
with
the
brown
brick
building.
B
However,
staff
did
find
that
the
time
could
be
relocated
to
also
comply
with
the
maximum
sign
height
requirements.
The
applicant
has
appealed
as
I
mentioned,
and
their
statement
reiterates.
The
fact
that
the
sign
would
improve
wayfinding
for
those
visiting
the
site
that
they're
between
40
and
60
visitors
per
day
and
given
that
their
four
entrances
to
the
building
the
sign
would
help
direct
traffic
to
this
particular
entrance.
We
have
received
one
comment
from
a
community
member
who
is
opposed
to
the
sign
because
of
its
potential
visual
impact.
With
that
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
B
A
A
D
Here,
basically,
to
answer
any
questions
you
guys
might
have
regarding
this
again
we're
literally
I'm.
It's
really
a
sightline
thing,
first
and
foremost,
to
get
people
to
go
to
the
right
door
right
away
for
sports
engine.
There's
a
parking
lot
across
from
Quincy
that
this
sign
would
be
visible
from
that
the
able
Brewhouse
blocks
and
then
secondly,
and
one
other
thing
that
I
wanted
to
note
when
I
submitted
the
variance
if
I
move.
D
Doesn't
seem
very
fitting
to
us,
you
know
it's
kind
of
placed
in
the
middle
of
building.
It's
just.
You
know,
first
and
foremost,
being
that
we
need
to
get
the
visibility.
Secondly,
is
to
make
it
look
like
the
sign
belongs
one
just
when
it's
really
to
write
that
so
any
questions
or
anything
that
I
can't
describe.
A
E
F
Good
good
morning,
my
name
is
Charlie
nester,
with
Hillcrest
development
and
development
and
leasing
manager
for
Hillcrest
and
we're
the
owner
of
807
Broadway,
we're
here
to
support
our
client
sports
engine,
whose
primary
tenant
at
the
building
we
worked.
Sports
engine
has
approximately
400
employees
that
come
in
on
a
daily
basis
and
they
have
sixty
to
a
hundred
clients
who
visit
on
a
daily
basis
when
the
I
think
everybody
here
remembers
what
it
used
to
look
like
and
we
completed
renovation,
the
building
is
100%
occupied.
F
We
have
approximately
700
clients,
tenants
who
who
come
in
and
out
is
building
on
a
daily
basis,
and
so
what
we've
worked
hard
at
in
all
of
our
buildings
in
the
Twin
Cities
are
primarily
Minneapolis.
Is
we
don't
like
clutter?
We
like
our
buildings,
relatively
clean.
We
don't
like
to
hang
a
lot
of
signage,
so
we
work
very
hard
to
minimize
signage
on
the
on
the
building
initially,
and
we
worked
with
staff
to
work
with
kind
of
the
attributes
that
were
there.
F
So
when
we
first
started,
we
had
the
banding
lonna
along
this
side,
which
is
the
historic
signage.
We
did
the
corner
signage
on
Broadway,
and
then
we
have
able
C
did
a
painted
sign
on
their
building
and
we
have
a
Meyer
coffee
and
bakery
has
a
small
sign
right
by
their
entrance.
We
have
a
few
because
we
now
have
27
clients
in
the
building
and
we
have
four
entrances
that
can
be
used
on
any
given
day,
all
of
them
really
in
the
core,
not
on
the
outside
of
the
building
or
on
Jackson.
F
It
helps
with
their
brand
which,
when
they
started
as
by
tenants
with
us
over
in
our
mid
C
and
L
trio,
building
and
now
they're
over
400,
we
certainly
want
to
help
them
grow.
The
jobs
at
Northeast
Minneapolis
would
like,
and
it
also
is
a
wayfinding
both
to
get
from
the
parking
lots
as
well
as,
if
you're
coming
east
on
Broadway
there.
There
are
a
number
of
sections
of
the
building.
I
go
over
four
stories
and
there's
a
it's.
F
A
busy
street
people
can
get
to
the
buildings,
but
they
don't
necessarily
find
an
easy
way
to
find
the
entrance,
and
we
believe
that
the
signee
is
a
2-fold
for
for
both
sports
in
tunis.
As
for
the
rest
of
the
of
the
tenants,
and
also
with
all
the
activity
going
on
to
the
north
on
that
street,
it
will
only
get
busier
and
we
think
we're
all
in
the
neighborhoods
all
working
to
maintain
the
legacy
streets
and
the
nature
of
it
while
working
out
all
together.
F
A
So
I
I
noticed
that
again
at
the
Board
of
Adjustment
meeting,
there
was
some
discussion
about
for
future
applications
of
science
and
concern
about
the
overall
amount
of
clutter
that
might
occur.
If
all
27
businesses
in
the
building
wanted
to
put
up
exterior
signs.
Could
you
speak
to
that
as
the
property
owner
and
how
you're
approaching
that
I
know?
There
was
also
discussion
about
the
constraints
of
the
site
for
putting
up
a
monument.
F
Is
we
when
we,
when
we
first
were
working
on
signage
for
the
building?
We
had
talked
to
the
city
about
a
monument
sign
and
I
think
everybody
walked
away,
saying
a
monument
signs,
not
the
appropriate
thing
to
place
on
Broadway,
it's
already
busy
enough.
We
don't
want
people
kind
of
slowing
down
to
see
if
that's
the
right
rate
spot,
because
all
the
end
we've
moved
all
the
entrances
from
the
property
into
that
inner
ring.
So
to
speak,
that's
really
where
the
best
wayfinding
signage.
Once
you
get
into
the
area,
it
we
feel
is.
F
We
do
have
a
small
signage
by
the
doors
and
we
do
not
anticipate
any
additional
or
larger
signs.
That
being
said,
I
can't
speak
five
years
from
now.
If
another
client
grows
and
takes
a
whole
floor
of
the
building,
would
we
look
at
other
we're,
certainly
open
to
working
with
staff
on
an
overall
signage
plan?
I
know
overall
were
way
below
our
signage
allotment.
F
It's
really
about
the
height
and
one
of
the
concerns.
When
one
of
the
neighbors
was
concerned
about
the
the
lighting,
we
would
certainly
look
at
and
I
can't
believe.
Our
client
would
be
open
to
having
the
sports
engine
sign,
be
on
a
timer.
So
in
evening,
or
after
hours,
after
10:00
p.m.
to
6:00
a.m.
I,
think
we
can
work
figure
out
a
way
and
make
that
work.
A
G
And
it's
actually
caused
lots
of
accidents
on
on
Broadway
as
well,
because
they
they
pulling
the
Jackson
and
they
pulling
the
Quincy
and
they
think
it's
around
the
corner
and
making
left-hand
turns
and
there's
been.
Numerous
accidents
reported
on
that
Quincy
in
and
Broadway
intersection.
So,
with
the
sign
height
being
up
at
that
46
foot
proposed
height,
you
can
easily
see
it
when
you're
on
Broadway
and
as
you're
approaching
the
building,
especially
with
you
know,
a
large
amount
of
our
visitors
coming
from
94.
G
So
that's
that's
really
the
reason,
obviously
for
the
height
and
then,
secondly,
is
you
know
we
do
a
lot
of
community
events
at
night
as
well,
and
you
know
we're
certainly
open
to
you
know
putting
that
sign
on
a
timer.
You
know
during
a
late
evening
hours,
so
it
isn't
a
distraction
to
any
of
the
nearby
neighbors.
That
would
maybe
see
it
as
very
you.
Actually,
if
you
look
at
just
across
the
street
on
Quincy,
there
I
think
there's
five
or
six
houses
and
we
were
standing
over
there.
G
H
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
think
the
case
has
been
pretty
well
made.
It
may
not
be
technical,
practical
difficulty,
but
there's
certainly
a
unique
context
and
circumstance.
Also
the
track
record
of
the
property
owner
is
not
a
many
buildings.
Not
a
lot
of
clutter
is
matter
of
fact.
We
have
proud
of
more
clutter
in
some
of
my
commercial
corridors
than
any
of
the
buildings
that
they
upgrade.
Also
I
would
say
that
you
know
in
terms
of
precedent.
I
You
know
if
they
don't
have
a
unique
circumstance
in
my
eyes,
I
can
say
no
to
the
next
applicant
if
I
feel
it's
not
fitting
for
the
area.
Also,
if
the
context
means
a
lot
as
well,
I
mean
this
sign
would
be
dwarfed
by
the
big,
huge
G
that
looms
behind
it.
I
in
this
particular
area,
so
I
will
move
to
a
gravity
field.
Thank.
A
A
A
A
Alright,
any
further
discussion
we'll
make
sure
the
clerk
gets
a
written
version
of
that
any
further
discussion
being
on
all
an
approval.
Tuesday
aye
aye
any
opposed
that
carries.
That
concludes
item.
1.
Ok,
that
moves
us
along
to
item
2
I
did
I
just
want
to
know
that
items
2,
&
3
are
separate
land
use,
applications
and
appeals,
but
they're
very
close
in
proximity
to
each
other
geographically.
So
I've
asked
staff
to
just
begin
briefly
before
starting
with
item
2.
A
Just
give
us
some
of
the
overview
and
context
of
how
these
sites
orient
to
each
other.
So
mr.
Crandall
I
believe
we'll
start
with
that
and
then
he'll
move
into
item
number
2
will
hold
the
public
hearing
for
item
number
2
and
then
we'll
move
separately
into
the
third
item.
So
I
know
some
folks
are
probably
going
to
want
to
speak
on
both
of
the
projects,
the
differences
our
applications
will
handle
them
as
two
separate
items
all
right.
Thank
you.
Welcome
mr.
green
good.
J
Morning,
chair
bender
committee,
members,
Peter
Crandall
senior
city
planner
with
steep
ed
land-use
I,
will
provide
some
brief
context
on
the
two
appeals
that
will
be
before
you
today.
The
two
sites
are
shown
here,
they're
located
in
the
Sheridan
neighborhood
of
Northeast
Minneapolis
on
a
block
that
is
facing
Marshall,
Street,
northeast
and
bounded
to
the
north
and
south
by
14th,
Avenue,
Northeast
and
13th
Avenue
Northeast.
This
is
kitty
corner
from
the
Greenbelt
brewery
complex
and
contained
within
the
green
belts
activity
center,
which
is
an
adopted
activity
center
in
the
Minneapolis
Comprehensive
Plan.
J
J
J
J
J
Prior
to
this
one.
First,
the
applicant
is
seeking
a
rezoning
from
the
c1
neighborhood
commercial
district
to
the
c3,
a
community
activity
center
district.
You
can
see
the
parcels
outlined
here
on
the
zoning
map
in
relationship
to
their
context,
the
policy
language
around
activity,
centers
calls
for
a
mix
of
uses
with
citywide
and
regional
draw
high-intensity
abuses,
employment,
commercial
office
and
residential
ESA's
are
all
appropriate
and
it
calls
for
high-density
to
very
high
density
development
and
a
done
context
just
some
context
in
the
policy
for
what
that
means.
J
High-Density
housing
is
defined
as
between
50
and
120
dwelling
units
per
acre,
very
high
density,
housing
120
to
200
million
units
per
acre.
A
proposal
before
you
today
is
calculated
up
at
about
171
billion
units
per
acre
so
right
in
between
those
two,
the
maximum
floor
area
ratio,
which
is
the
way
that
we
regulate
bulk
in
the
zoning
code
today
in
the
c3a
district,
is
2.7
with
a
20%
bonus
for
enclosed
parking.
That
brings
the
maximum
floor
area
ratio
for
this
project.
J
To
three
point:
two:
four
and
the
proposed
floor
area
ratio
is
two
point,
nine
six.
So
within
those
guidelines
this
shows
the
grainbelt
activity
center.
Within
the
context
of
other
adopted
activity,
centers
in
Minneapolis
outlined
in
red
here,
activity
centers
generally
coincide
with
some
of
the
more
important
corridors
in
Minneapolis,
including
adopted
commercial
and
community
corridors.
The
Greenbelt
activity
center
is
at
the
intersection
of
four
different
adapted
community
corridors,
including
Marshall
Street,
northeast,
which
the
property
fronts
on
this
map
shows
the
two
project
sites
within
the
Greenbelt
activity
center.
J
It
also
identifies
the
metro,
transit
11
bus
line,
which
is
a
high
frequency
bus
line
and
illustrates
the
quarter
mile
distance
that
we
use
to
measure
the
transit
incentive
to
reduce
the
minimum
parking
requirement
for
both
projects.
So
both
projects
are
qualifying
for
our
reduced
parking
transit
incentive,
which
allows
projects
that
have
greater
than
50
units
to
reduce
their
minimum
requirement
by
50%.
J
So
this
graphic
illustrates
some
of
the
differences
between
the
original
land
use
application
that
was
approved
by
the
City
Planning
Commission
on
April
10th
and
a
proposal
before
you
today.
That
includes
modifications
that
the
applicant
has
made
to
the
project
after
collaboration
with
the
neighborhood.
So
the
the
number
of
billing
units
is
the
same
at
110.
J
He
required
parking
stalls
are
the
same
in
the
original
application.
The
applicant
was
seeking
a
parking
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
parking
to
47
stalls.
The
applicant
has
added
additional
parking
to
the
enclosed
parking
within
the
building.
That
brings
the
total
parking
spaces
up
to
67,
which
is
12
space
surplus
to
the
requirement.
J
The
dusties
parking
lots
is
proposed,
as
was
originally
proposed
in
the
lenders.
Complication
and
the
applicant
additionally
has
added
a
small
retail
space
along
Marshall
Street
northeast
after
the
neighborhood
expressed
interest
in
the
project,
including
some
commercial
space,
and
to
comply
with
land-use
guidance
with
the
project
fee
of
mixed-use
character.
J
This
these
changes
have
resulted
in
the
applicant
requesting
the
withdrawal
of
the
variance
to
the
minimum
parking
requirement,
so
that
would
leave
the
rezoning
application.
The
conditional
use
permit
for
building
height,
a
variance
to
the
minimum
loading
requirement,
a
variance
to
the
rear
yard
requirements
and
then
the
preliminary
and
final
plat
before
you
today.
J
So
again,
the
applications
before
you
today
are,
after
a
request
for
withdrawal
for
the
minimum
parking
variance,
a
rezoning
application
from
c1
to
c3
a
conditional
use
permit
to
increase
the
maximum
building
height,
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
loading
requirements,
a
variance
to
the
rear
yard
requirement
and
the
preliminary
and
final
Platts
take
any
questions.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
questions
for
staff
I'll,
just
note
that
we
did
have
a
public
hearing
about
this
on
May
18
and
then
it
was
postponed
at
today's
meeting.
So
okay
I'll
go
ahead
and
open
the
public
hearing.
Then,
and
let's
see
why
don't
we
start
with
the
project
team,
just
kind
of
describing
the
changes
that
have
been
made
based
on
the
feedback
from
the
last
public
hearing
and
then
as
we
do,
we
would
reserve
the
opportunity
for
you
to
respond
to
anything
that
you
hear
during
that
comment.
K
A
couple
slides
for
orientation
again:
this
is
the
zoning
map.
This
is
the
site
for
the
14th
project
that
we're
talking
about
what
I
wanted
to
point
out
is
that
we're
requesting
c3a
zoning,
which
has
a
four-story
height
limit
and
this
site,
is
surrounded
by
our
for
industrial
and
close
to
o
r2,
all
of
which
also
have
a
four-story
height
limit.
So
it
is
consistent
in
that
respect
with
the
surrounding
zoning.
K
This
probably
have
to
zoom
in
a
little
bit
on
Peter
did
show
you
the
location
of
the
activity
center
that
we're
talking
about
I
just
wanted
to
add
that
this
area
here
along
13th,
is
a
neighborhood,
commercial,
node
and
I'll
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
the
differences
on
those
and
I'll
also
be
rough.
Some
of
the
other
projects
in
the
area
so
just
wanted
to
point
those
out
to
you
on
this
aerial.
This
is
actually
the
other
project
item
number
three,
but
I
like
the
aerial.
K
K
So,
as
Peter
pointed
out,
the
height
is
reduced
in
this
wing
to
five
storeys.
I
also
wanted
to
say
that
so
the
back
height
now
adjacent
to
the
alley
is
just
under
55
feet.
So
it's
you
know.
56
feet
is
allowed
as
a
right
across
the
alley,
and
this
part
of
the
wing
is
also
set
back
ten
and
a
half
feet.
So
there
is
a
good
transition
between
the
six
storey
height
along
Marshall
and
the
residential
neighborhoods
and
the
smaller
scale
red
non-commercial
across
the
street.
K
Yep,
thank
you.
I
did
mention
this
lesson,
but
it's
good
to
point
out
bulk
without
it
here.
So
you
see
there's
no
units
coming
off
of
this
Marshall
wing
on
the
east
side,
so
the
apartments
were
added
there.
It's
not.
As
close.
You
know,
it's
said
that
quite
a
bit
from
the
residential
neighborhood,
so
doesn't
really
push
mass
towards
the
alley
or
towards
the
r4,
but
it
does
allow
them
to
recoup
some
of
their
residential
density.
K
Crescent
trace
is
a
five
storey,
62
feet
tall
property
and
this
public
housing
apartment
building
is
seven
stories,
so
this
will
not
be
like
the
first
building,
that's
going
to
be
over
four
storeys
in
this
neighborhood
and
it
is
situated
away.
You
know
the
height
of
it
is
situated
away
from
the
lower
density,
neighborhood.
K
In
terms
of
elevations
are
also
useful
because
above
sea
level,
because
of
these
grade
changes,
and
so
I
wanted
to
point
out
that
at
888
in
elevation,
it's
only
six
feet
higher
than
the
four-story
Greenbelt
department
here
at
882,
and
it
is
shorter
than
the
Grain
Belt
and
particularly
it's
67
feet
shorter
than
than
the
towers.
So
it's
not
out
of.
L
K
So
at
the
last
hearing
there
were
additional
revisions,
and
peter
has
mentioned
that
there's
more
parking
in
the
way
that
was
achieved
was
realizing.
The
project
team
got
creative,
that
there
was
enough
span
height
span
on
the
lower
level
of
this
building
to
do
mezzanine
parking,
and
so
now
we
are
12
stalled
over
the
parking
requirement
in
our
discussions
with
the
neighborhood.
It
just
keeps
coming
back
to
parking
and
that's
where
the
discussions
tend
to
end.
So
this
is,
you
know,
a
really.
K
K
Unit
they're,
currently
advertising
it
for
1,400,
so
not
quite
$200
more
so
these
units,
because
of
their
smaller
size
and
because
of
not
having
to
spend
as
much
on
the
building,
because
there's
less
parking
will
be
more
affordable,
and
that
was
one
of
the
goals
of
the
parking
reduction.
Another
hope
was
that
it
would
encourage
people
to
not
need
cars,
and
we
have
some
information
about
that
too.
K
In
other
CPM
projects
they
are
that
have
similar
unit
sizes
and
locations
near
transit,
their
actual
parking
demand
is
less
than
0.5,
so,
for
example,
the
chroma
project
at
26th
and
Stevens.
It
has
a
point:
three,
seven
parking
ratio
there-
ninety
percent
leased
in
that-
and
they
still
have
a
couple
spots
left.
So
you
know
it's
not
close
to
one
to
one:
it's
not
even
point
five.
Another
example
is
spectrum
apartment
in
Marcy
homes.
Some
people
think
that
student
housing,
but
seventy
percent
of
its
release
to
non
students
and
their
parking
ratio
is
0.34.
K
There
are
65%
pre-leased
and
only
half
the
available
parking
is
booked,
so
it
is
true.
Their
experience
is
that
what
they're
saying
here
is
that
the
size
of
units
we
have
with
its
proximity
to
transit,
and
maybe
with
just
some
change
in
the
culture
they're,
confident
that
this
parking
will
actually
be
more
than
they
need
and
maybe
be
able
to
share
some
with
others
in
the
area.
Councilmember.
M
You
Brown
chair
I
support
the
idea
that
you'd
have
less
parking
close
to
a
transit
quarter,
but
what
I
don't
support
is
this
assertion
that
this
is
going
to
be
some
sort
of
affordable
housing
and
therefore
they
should
be
able
to
reduce
the
cost
by
reducing
the
cost
of
parking,
is
mr.
over
pillar
willing
to
guarantee
that
a
percentage
of
these
units
are
going
to
be
actually
affordable
for
a
period
of
time.
How
do
we
know
that?
What
is
twelve
hundred
and
thirty
five
dollars
when
he
opens
doesn't
turn
into
fourteen
hundred
within
a
year?
M
M
So
I
get
offended
when
you
suggest
that
that
he
should
save
money
and
because
these
units
are
more
affordable
and
he
shouldn't
have
to
put
in
the
parking
because
it
will
cost
more,
it
will
help
them
keep
down
rent
when
there's
no
promise
or
commitment
to
make
any
of
this
housing
affordable.
At
all,
correct
comfort.
K
M
Affordable
for
like
what
he's
saying
in
front
of
us
right
now,
but
in
terms
of
what
the
actual
rents
are
when
this
building
is
rented
up
and
what
they
increase
year
after
year,
there's
no
requirement
there's
no
commitment,
there's
no
promise
that
these
units
are
going
to
be.
At
this
rate,
that's
what
you're
saying
right
now
so
I
would
urge
you,
I
I,
buy
your
argument
on
the
parking
actually,
so
I
can.
N
O
K
K
The
purpose
is
that
the
amendment
was
made
for
and
in
terms
of
true
affordable,
as
that's
defined
for
it
by
city
ordinance
when
you're
looking
for
subsidy,
that's
something
we
can
talk
about,
but
these
units
will
be
more
affordable
than
the
Greenbelt
and
with
some
that
have
to
provide
more
parking.
It's
just
the
economics
and
there's
a
competitive
reason
for
CTM
to
try
to
keep
rent
lower.
P
M
Would
throw
around
affordable
only
if
you're
willing
to
commit
to
it,
so
mister
over
pillars
will
get
up
here
and
say
yep
right
now,
I'll
commit
to
20%
of
the
units
being
affordable
at
60%
of
the
metro
ride
median.
Then
that's
something
to
chew
on
in
terms
of
whether
or
not
he
needs
the
extra
density.
Well,.
K
M
I
bought
that
argument
time
and
I
wouldn't
have
brought
up
the
affordable
argument.
If
I
were
you,
if
you
could,
if
you
couldn't
actually
follow
through
on
it,
I
already
buy
the
argument
and
support
the
point
that
you
should
have
less
parking
if
you're
close
to
transit
I
would
have
left
it
at
that,
not
suggest
that
this
would
be
affordable.
All.
K
A
Thinking
looks
about
discussion,
I.
Think
I
would
just
note
that
I
mean
I
think
that
it's
clearly
a
fact
that
parking
is
expensive
to
build
I
think
that's
what
Goodman
is
also
pointing
out
that
market
rents
are
set
by
the
market,
and
so
it's
unpredictable
in
the
future.
You
might
argue
that
a
building
that
has
fewer
amenities,
including
parking,
would
stay
lower
in
the
market,
but
anyway
it's
kind
of
a
philosophical
discussion
we're
having
here
and
probably
get
back
to
this.
We
appreciate
the
comments,
but
the.
K
Other
change
was
addition
of
this
retail
area,
because
there
were
comments
that
mixed
uses
in
this
building
was
also
important
to
the
neighborhood.
And
so
what
were?
Live-Work
units
have
been
replaced
with
retail,
and
the
goal,
as
Peter
mentioned,
is
to
provide
a
very
active
engagement
with
the
street.
There's
the
one
retail
but
there's
also
not
just
a
bike
shop,
but
it's
kind
of
a
hobby
shop
with
garage
doors
that
open
up
the
fitness
in
the
lobby
too,
to
as
much
possible
to
bring
the
residents
and
activity
to
the
street.
K
Than
the
other,
another
area
of
discussion
that
we
had
last
time
was
what
zoning
district.
At
the
last
hearing
I
talked
about
house
III,
a
zoning
district
works
hand
in
hand
with
an
activity
center,
land-use
guidance
designed
to
excuse
and
residential
density.
The
number
of
residents
that
will
be
in
these
projects
and
both
these
projects
are
going
to
do
they're
going
to
be
a
boon
to
the
existing
restaurants
and
small
businesses,
artists,
studios
that
are
in
the
greenbelt
and
will
attract
more
activity.
K
But
it
was
also
pointed
out
last
time
that
all
activity,
centers
are
not
councilmember.
Goodman
I
got
uniformly
zone
c-38.
Sometimes
the
change
to
seek
to
be
a
zoning
will
happen
with
a
rezoning
study.
Most
often
it
happens
on
a
project-by-project
basis
and
most
often
an
application
for
CTA
in
an
activity
center
is
approved.
K
This
is
not
that
the
only
thing
c1
zoning
will
do
here.
As
I
said
in
the
letter,
is
preservation
parking
lot
and
an
auto
related
use.
You
can't
artificially
create
that
environment
and
it's
not
feasible
to
redevelop
at
that
low
intensity,
so
I
do
think.
Well,
there
are
differences
between
activity.
Centers,
in
this
case,
for
these
site,
c1
would
be
detrimental
and
not
do
what
it
sometimes
can
doing.
In
other.
F
K
K
It's
also
been
said
that
the
developer
just
designed
the
building
they
wanted
and
plopped
it
down
here
without
consideration
of
land-use
plans,
their
neighborhood
interests
and
that's
not
true.
It's
consistent
with
the
land
use
plans,
planning
staff
agree
with
that.
The
Planning
Commission
agreed
with
that
it
is
an
excuse
in
its
identity,
residential
and
that
is
what's
called
for
by
the
city
plans.
K
The
zoning
scale
density
and
the
number
of
applications.
Types
of
applications
required
for
this
project
are
are
in
line
with
what
you
see
for
similar
projects
and
that
are
routinely
approved
by
the
city.
And
finally,
we
were
talking
about
parking
that
really
has
been
kind
of
a
stop
issue
in
discussions
with
the
neighborhood,
but
we're
exceeding
the
parking
requirement,
and
so
concerns
about
parking
can't
be
a
basis
to
deny
any
of
the
applications
for
this
project.
M
Perhaps
this
is
a
question
for
mr.
Crandall
and
I
wasn't
paying
close
enough
attention
to
it?
There
is
a
small
area
plan
adopted
in
this
area,
and
the
activity
center
is
called
out
specifically
by
the
neighborhood,
and
there
was
a
neighborhood
process
that
determined
that
this
should
be
an
activity
area
which
would
facilitate
the
increase
in
change
in
zoning.
J
J
J
J
A
Thank
you,
okay,
okay,
all
right
settled,
okay,
so
continue
with
the
public
hearing.
I
think
I'll
ask
if
there's
anyone
who'd
like
to
speak
in
favor
of
the
project.
First,
okay,
come
on
up
please
and
then
we'll
give
each
speaker
three
minutes
after
the
sort
of
main
presentation
welcome
and
please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
My.
Q
R
Q
We
have
in
the
neighborhood,
it
reduces
sprawl
to
the
suburbs,
which
is
good
environmentally,
and
the
hope
is
that
more
residents
who
live
in
the
neighborhood
that
there's
more
support
for
neighborhood
businesses,
like
with
previously
mentioned
increasing
parking,
increases
the
cost
of
housing.
It
promotes
driving.
It's
not
an
environmentally
friendly
solution
toward
transportation
needs.
We
do
have
wonderful,
transit
and
bike
paths
in
the
neighborhood
and
that
the
hopefully
that
will
remove
some
cars
from
our
streets,
so
we
can
make
them
a
little
safer
as
far
as
the
the
brought
up
with
setbacks
there.
Q
My
opinion
waste
of
space
that
could
be
used
for
the
housing
people
or
a
commercial
space
and,
more
importantly,
hopefully,
that
this
will
bring
some
relief
on
some
rents
at
certain
price
points.
It's
not
a
silver
bullet
for
affordability
in
the
neighborhood,
but
it
does
start
that
way,
and
hopefully
we
as
a
city
should
support
places
for
people
to
live
instead
of
places
for
cars
or
other.
P
P
It's
like
an
iconic
place
and
we
we
want
to
keep
it
that
way.
We've
been
meeting
with
Pat
the
current
owner
and
he's
assured
us.
We've
assured
him
that
will
continue
to
run
vesties
as
it
has
been
and
I'm
in
favor
of
the
project
as
far
as
building
up
and
in
developing
Minneapolis
and
keeping
residents
in
the
apples
instead
of
moving
to
the
suburbs
and
that
we
just
fully
intend
to
keep
dusties
buyer
the
iconic
historic
place
that
it
is.
Thank
you
thank.
A
You
anyone
else.
Okay,
with
that,
why
don't
we
switch
over
them
to
this
folks?
Who've
appealed
the
project
know
someone
would
like
to
get
kind
of
a
main
presentation
to
begin.
We'll
give
you
a
little
extra
time
just
noting
again
that
we
did
have
an
the
previous
public
hearing
about
this,
but,
of
course
our
design
changes
now
so
I'll
just
watch
the
cause
I'll
give
you
a
little
extra
time
and
then
just
like
we
did
we'll
give
each
other
speaker
three
more
minutes.
Thanks.
S
Thank
You,
chair
bender
and
council
members
and
Jenny
Portman
I
live
at
1515,
Grand,
Street
and
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
Sheridan
neighborhood
and
the
appellate
for
the
dis
appeal.
I
will
actually
kind
of
combine
both
so
that
when
it
comes
to
the
second,
we
won't
need
as
much
time,
probably
and
I'm,
going
to
kind
of
go
point
by
point.
So
hopefully
I'll
cover
everything.
If
other
people
have
things
to
say,
then
you
know
maybe
they'll
just
see
something
I
forgot,
or
hopefully
we're
not
too
redundant
so
I.
S
S
You
know
we
have
had
many
discussions,
we've
given
each
other
quite
a
lot
of
time
actually,
but
in
that
time,
unfortunately,
we
have
not
succeeded
in
finding
something
that
is
mutually
beneficial
I.
We
do
recognize
that
in
the
last
10
minutes
of
our
last
meetings,
they
did
come
up
with
some
solutions
that
moved
in
the
direction
of
the
community,
and
we
do
appreciate
that
on
total.
S
So
it's
not
that
Sheridan
is
anti-development
in
any
way.
We
actually
are
interested
in
adding
density
to
these
sites,
adding
housing
to
our
community,
especially
affordable
housing.
You
know
we
are
grateful
that
that
there's
interest
in
investing
in
our
community
and
I.
You
know,
20
years
ago
the
city
of
Minneapolis
called
shared
and
neighborhood.
The
neighborhood
in
decline.
S
It's
just
that
in
the
area
of
you
know
new
urbanization.
We
do
share
a
lot
of
those
concepts
we
do
believe
in
pedestrian
scale
and
bike
infrastructure
and
adding
density
the
community.
It's
just
that
one
size
does
not
fit
all,
and
this
does
seem
to
be
trying
to
put
a
one-size-fits-all
solution
into
what
is
you
know
what
is
just
not
quite
fitting
in
Chariton
neighborhood
we
did
a
mailer
in
about
mid-2000s
and
we
have
1700
doors
in
the
neighborhood
at
that
time.
S
I
noticed
that
every
time
they
take
a
picture
of
of
the
site,
they
use
a
fisheye
lens
to
make
it
look
larger,
but
I
guess
I
have
some
very
low-tech
images
to
show
you,
but
just
to
kind
of
go
on
a
little
bit.
It
is
one
of
the
oldest
neighborhoods
in
the
city.
The
houses
of
the
lots
are
smaller,
the
houses
are
very
close
together,
most
of
them
are
duplex
and
triplex.
We
are.
S
We
are
over
50%
rental.
Already
many
of
the
streets
do
not
have
alleys,
and
so
either
people
rely
on
curb
cuts
in
the
road
which
reduces
the
number
of
street
parking
available
or
they
have
they
rely
on
the
street
altogether
for
being
able
to
park
a
car
and,
being
a
you
know,
price
of
predominantly
blue-collar
neighborhood.
Traditionally,
in
a
very
immigrant
neighborhood,
you
know
my
husband
can't
go
to
work
without
a
car,
so
he's
a
contractor
anyways,
and
there
are
many
people
like
that.
So.
S
If
I
show
ice,
it's
the
sheer
scale,
that's
really
a
problem
is
well,
let's
speak
to
this,
so
this
is
Sheridan
neighborhood
zoning
map,
and
if
you
see
it's
actually
predominantly
all
this
peach,
color
is
r3,
which
is
I
mean
we
have
almost
no
r1.
Almost
the
whole
neighborhood
is
duplex
or
multi-unit
housing
of
a
smaller
scale
and
we're
open
to
adding
some
density.
S
S
We
discussed
adding
density,
certainly,
but
not
not
to
not
this
level.
So
I
remember
thinking
that
activity
center
meant
you
could
qualify
for
great
Street
grants,
and
that
was
about
it
and
if
you
do
read
just
the
first
paragraph
herb
of
what
p3a
is,
it
says,
I
believe
it
says,
meet
high
to
medium
density,
maximum
for
story.
So
this
is
actually
substantially
different
from
that
and
then,
with
regard
to
our
developers,
attorney
mentions
the
C
for
SIA
right
here,
C
for
behind
us.
S
S
As
you
can
see,
this
is
shared
and
there
is
nowhere
with
C
3
a
in
it,
and
here
is
all
of
Northeast
again
there
is
nowhere
with
C
3
a
in
it.
It's
our
understanding
that
in
fact,
there's
nowhere
with
t-38
zoning
anywhere
in
all
of
platinum,
which
is
where
the
flat
that
shared
and
located
on
and
C
3
a
is
jumped
to
rung
from
C
1,
which
we
would
prefer
in
which
the
14
sites
already
is
I
mean
it
jumped
up
two
times
not
just
one.
S
So
I
just
want
to
speak
a
little
bit
to
the
scale,
understanding
that
the
neighborhood
is
already
a
little
more
tightly
packed
than
most
and
that
we
already
have
fewer
Street
spaces
and
that
we
have
actually
rejuvenated
the
business
district
on
the
business
district
on
13th
Avenue,
which
is
here-
and
this
is
all
C
one.
We
actually
envision
c1
going
all
the
way
down
to
the
river
to
activate
the
street
and
draw
the
business
district
down
to
the
river.
S
So
we
would
like
to
see
this
industrial
go
to
c1
in
this
remain
c1
the
businesses
that
are
there
they're
old
buildings
that
we
have.
You
know
kind
of
helped
bring
back
to
life
and
bring
new
light
to,
and
they
do
not
have
parking
associated
with
them.
S
S
So
right
now
the
grain
bell
departments
are
we're
shown,
that's
a
little
hard
to
see,
and
you
see
that
this
is
the
grain
Bell
Department.
They
are
150
units.
There
are
150
parking
spaces
and
they're
on
the
groundskeeper
estimates.
It's
four
acres
there.
They
do
actually
already
push
cars
out
onto
the
street,
which
I
mean
we're
not
saying
none
of
the
Associated
vehicles
can
share
the
public
street,
but
the
fact
is
a
one
to
one
ratio
already
has
proven
to
not
be
sufficient,
and
we
know
that
there's
are
all
least
the.
In
fact
they
had.
S
They
were
trying
to
do
a
50%
visitor
parking,
but
they
had
their
convert
them
to
resident
parking
based
on
demands.
I'd
like
to
mention
that
too,
in
terms
of
CPM
ratio
of
cars
in
being
used
in
their
their
available
parking,
I
mean
they
charge
for
the
available
parking.
So
it's
not
really
a
fair
comparison
to
say
they
haven't
leased
them
all.
That
doesn't
mean
that
those
people
don't
have
cars.
It
means
that
they
haven't,
they
haven't
paid
extra
for
parking
and.
S
S
So
it's
not
unrealistic
for
us
to
think
that
people
own
and
drive
cars
here
you
see
here
and
here
are
the
two
sites
for
the
Greenbelt
development.
I
know
they're,
visible,
they're,
so
small,
but
this
is
150
units.
This
is
100
units.
This
is
110
units,
the
scale
the
size
of
the
lot
and
the
number
of
units
they're
trying
to
put
on
it
are
really
where
we're
running
into
problems,
because
every
time
we
did
figure
out
a
potential
solution
with
the
developer,
some
other
problem
was
created.
It's
just
it's
just
the
sheer
size.
S
S
Run
apartment
this
whole
area
right
here
there
are
74
100%,
affordable
housing
units
that
face
the
river
sheridan
neighborhood
organization
was
instrumental
in
getting
them
there
and
we
think
they're
a
great
asset
to
the
community
and
would
like
to
see
more
of
that.
But
if
you
look
at
the
size
of
this
compared
to
the
size
of
this,
this
is
74
units.
This
is
110,
it
says:
74
Plus
parking
spaces.
S
This
is,
they
want
to
add
10%
in
these
two
sites.
This
is
10%
of
Sheridan
neighborhood
right
now.
So,
if
you
took
any
one
of
these
streets,
this
happens
to
be
Washington
and
six
back
to
back.
But
if
you
took
any
of
these
streets
from
Broadway
to
17th
and
condense
them
down
into
the
size
of
the
place
where
six
houses
exists,
that's
what
they're
trying
to
do-
and
it
is
that
that's
making
this
very
challenging
in
terms
of
the
parking
reduction.
S
The
50%
parking
reduction
we
are
near
I
mean
clearly
we
qualify
currently
forth
the
50%
reduction,
but
in
2015,
when
Sheridan
did
our
small
area
plan,
this
would
not
have
been
something
we
discussed
because
it
didn't
exist
and
even
in
2015,
this
area
was
not
part
of
the
parking
50%
parking
reductions,
because
the
the
line
had
to
add
service
like
a
few
minutes
closer
together.
So
that
was
the
change
and
I
did
Google
map
from
the
address
to
the
bus
stop
and
it's
a
third
of
a
mile
in
both
cases.
S
So
it's
really
for
us,
I
mean
that's
part
of
what
we're
saying
it's
really
on
the
edge
of
being
super
accessible
in
most
people's
minds,
a
transit,
but
regardless
people
I
take
the
bus
and
still
have
a
car.
You
know
and
not
everybody
works
downtown.
So
what
we're
looking
at
is
you
know
the
potential
of
you
know,
considering
that
this
is
a
roughly
$1,200
unit,
which
is
the
cost
of
a
2-bedroom,
duplex
and
Sheraton
there's
a
good
possibility.
S
These
are
going
to
be
double
occupancy
if
they're
double
occupancy
are
supposed
to
take,
half
of
them
are
double
occupancy
and
three-quarters
of
the
piece
people
drive
cars
and
that
is
100
cars
and
onto
the
street,
and
and
that
you
know
if
the
buildings
were
simply
smaller.
We
just
wouldn't
be
dealing
with
those
sign
of
number.
We
just
were
just
asking
that
the
size
be
reduced
and
when
by
size,
I
guess
we
need
units,
they
reduce
the
size,
but
they
didn't
change.
The
number
of
units.
S
They
talked
about
the
activity
centers,
so
what
we
know
is
that
the
city
has
not.
What
we
don't
know
is
that
the
city
has
never
done
a
transit
study,
but
Sheridan
has
been
studying
this
neighborhood
for
twenty
years,
and
this
this
zoning
just
feels
wrong.
We
don't
really
want
to
set
the
precedent
for
Morphy
3a
in
Sheridan
its.
It
seems
to
have
kind
of
a
cookie
cutter,
one-size-fits-all
approach
to
it
and
Northeast
would
like
to
see.
Like
you
know,
we
would
like
to
see
Northeast
develop
in
a
more
organic
manner.
S
It's
the
developers
attorney
to
mention
that
she
thought
that
it
was
not
feasible
to
redevelop
at
c1.
We
wholeheartedly
disagree.
We've
seen
many
unusual
buildings
become
very
interesting
things
in
our
neighborhood,
and
that
is
much
more
desirable
than
than
just
kind
of
cramming
in
as
many
people
as
possible.
S
So
what
we
would
like
is
to
ask
you
to
honor
our
request,
honor
our
appeal
and
and
then
rezone
both
sites
to
c1,
at
which
time
we
would
hope
to
come
back
to
the
table
with
the
developer
and
find
something
that
is
beneficial
to
all.
They
had
mentioned
that
they
that
that
they
have
too
much
invested
to
walk
away
and
snow
feels
exactly
the
same,
so
we
would
be
happy
to
come
back
to
the
table
with
them
and
and
work
towards
a
development
that
would
work
for
everyone.
Thank.
A
You
thanks
for
taking
all
the
time
as
well.
Okay,
so
now
we
will
continue
along
with
the
public
hearing
in
for
three
minutes
to
each
additional
speaker,
so
the
next
person
come
on
up.
Please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
I
do
want
to
know
that
there
is
no
longer
a
parking
variance
application
and
so
well
I
understand
that's
a
part
of
the
bigger
picture
here.
A
U
One
of
them
is
the
variance
for
a
one-third
reduction
in
setback
on
a
Marshall,
Street
and
14th
side,
so
that
abuts,
the
alley
which
we've
already
talked
about
is
very
narrow,
I
think
it's
12
feet,
I'm,
not
really
sure,
but
I
have
12
feet,
so
the
setback
requirement
is
15
feet
and
in
the
developers,
plan
5
feet
of
that
setback
is
the
alley
which
and
I
want
to
show
some
pictures
of
that
alley.
So
you
can
understand
what
that
means.
O
U
U
So
if
you
have
a
12
foot
alley
and
you
have
cars
going
through
it
at
the
amount
that
would
be
I,
don't
see
where
you
would
put
the
snow
if
you're
asking
for
a
setback
reduction.
This
also
has
garages
right
near
the
property
line,
another
garage
right
near
the
property
line.
This
is
the
corner
of
14th
and
this
house
is
on
14th,
so
they
are
asking
for
a
1/3
reduced
setback
here.
This
is
the
house
somebody's
home,
already
they're
going
to
be
using
this
le
I.
U
Just
think
the
setback
is
inappropriate
for
a
number
of
reasons.
One.
It
affects
these
people
and
I
mean
all
these
cars
driving
by
that
window,
but
to
presumably
some
of
these
properties
would
become
developed,
they
would
sell
and
you'd
have
another
developer
and
then
you
would
need
to
have
another
building
and
the
fact
that
I
believe
is
to
keep
people
from
looking
in
each
other's
windows.
U
This
also
brings
up
another
issue
for
me
that
I
haven't
talked
about
with
the
Sheridan
neighborhood
organization,
but
that
is
the
facade
on
Marshall,
Street
and
13th,
and
actually
14th
Street,
and
that
is
this
is
a
nascent
activity
center.
All
the
other
activity,
centers
in
Minneapolis,
are
sort
of
fully
developed
with
a
lot
of
retail
and
a
lot
of
activity.
U
This
is
kind
of
an
artificial
activity
center,
because
the
activity
doesn't
really
exist
yet
and
what
you're
going
to
put
here
is
going
to
affect
how
that
activity
center
develops
and
the
neighborhood
had
a
vision
for
it,
which
was
mixed
use
and
something
that
worked
for
the
businesses
and
the
hopefully
commercial
businesses
and
stuffing
this
much
residential
on
this
activity
center
is
artificial.
Before
this
place
can
even
become
the
thing
that
we
hope
it
will
become.
I
think
this
was
yes
add
people,
but
also
create
a
lot
of
problems
and.
U
Mia
and
already
very
hype,
there's
a
lot
of
ins
and
outs
for
this
project
and
I
mean
I
have
wanted
to
say
one
of
the
things
I
want
to
talk
about
it
after
this
is
what
happens
with
us.
We
shared
and
but
I
think
the
entrance
to
all
the
parking
should
be
in
the
alley,
because
this
is
one
of
the
reuse,
businesses
but
successful
called
the
drafters.
U
For
some
of
these
businesses
to
remain
a
pedestrian
friendly
place
where
people
can
stroll
and
feel
comfortable
and
safe
and
not
interact
with
cars.
This
is
the
view
looking
down
14th
from
the
corner
of
Marshall
and
14th
streets
and
on
14th
Street.
We
have
commercial
buildings
that
could
get
reused
in
other
ways
also
are
being
used,
but
you
actually
have
a
direct
line
to
the
Sheridan
Park
into
some
land.
That
I
think
the
city
is
going
to
put
out
a
request
for
proposal
soon,
and
so
you
would
come
down
there.
U
Teens
go
to
Sheridan
Park
visit
the
river
walk
back
up,
14th
I
don't
want
to
have
to
deal
with
cars
coming
in
and
out
of
a
parking
garage
on
14th,
because
we
have
an
opportunity
here
to
make
it
more
pedestrian
friendly
and
the
kind
of
activity
center
with
the
shirt
and
small
area
plan
had
in
mind
one
other.
This
is
a
technicality,
but
in
the
developers
plan
I,
don't
know
what
the
zoning
is,
but
it's
not
properly
labeled,
it's
not
really
even
labeled.
U
This
is
our
three
there's
a
tiny
little
sliver,
a
triangle
shape
of
our
three
here,
but
that
makes
it
look
like
this.
Is
our
three
I?
Don't
know
what
that
zoning
is,
but
it's
a
lighter
color
which
to
me
means
it's
a
less
intensive
zoning
and
they
all
look
like
single
family
homes.
To
me-
and
this
is
the
developer
site,
so
this
is
not
labeled
correctly.
It
looks
like
it's
our
three,
but
that's
incorrect
here
is
the
developers
plan.
U
Here
is
the
alley,
and
here
is
the
plot
property
line
and
they're
asking
for
that
setback
and,
as
you
can
see,
this
is
the
property
line
for
the
house,
which
is
two
feet
away.
Basically,
and
now
you're
going
to
put
this
mass
of
a
building
here
and
grant
a
variant
one-third
reduction,
that's
inhumane.
U
Another
point
that
I
want
to
make
is
this:
is
the
picture
of
the
grainbelt
brewery
the
heights
of
all
of
these
that
they
went
through
to
talk
about
the
sea
level
height?
This
tower,
of
course,
is
taller,
but
you
can
see
what
a
small
portion
of
the
Grain
Belt
brewery
that
Tower
is.
The
majority
of
the
Grain
Belt
brewery
is
lower
than
I.
Think
four
storeys
here
is
the
figuring
for
them.
They
have
893
as
an
absolute
value.
You
from
above
sea
level.
A
U
I
had
done
some
drawings
in
perspective.
This
is
I,
guess
an
old
plan,
but
it's
hard
to
keep
up.
This
is
just
to
show
you
that
the
scale
in
their
schematic
drawing
is
incorrect
and
I
do
not
think
you
can
make
a
an
informed
decision
when
the
scale
is
not
drawn
correctly.
It
looks
like
it's
a
three-story
building.
U
If
you
put
the
house
here,
you
can
see
that
it
isn't
to
scale
I
mean
I
can
go
through
this,
it's
very
complicated,
but
if
I
were
to
do
the
scale
that
these
buildings
are
shown
in,
you'd
have
to
stretch
their
building
and
it
would
become
that
tall
and
that's
the
actual
scale
if
you
were
to
draw
it
in
scale.
This
is
complicated
perspective
drawings,
but
that's
what
it
would
look
like.
I
think.
That's
it.
Thank.
A
N
N
Cars
and
when
they
take
off
the
garbage
from
the
grain
bulk,
they
have
to
actually
pull
the
garbages
out
onto
the
street
in
order
to
unload
them.
The
fire
trucks
have
actually
had
to
take
detours
that
they
should
be
able
to
come
all
the
way
down
13th
and
go
it
get
to
marshal
in
order
to
respond
to
emergencies,
but
because
of
the
congestion
they
actually
have
to
detour.
This
is
only
going
to
get
worse
fourteenth.
It's
been
a
major
problem
in
the
neighborhood
in
terms
of
the
building.
N
She
had
shown
you
a
picture
of
the
two
businesses
leading
towards
the
river,
the
business
on
as
you're
going
towards
the
river.
On
the
left
hand,
side
has
pylons
that
actually
had
to
be
installed
because
the
building
had
done
hit
so
many
times.
I
actually
witnessed
a
car
riding
hood
or
the
top
of
a
car
down
Marshall,
because
if
you
look
at
the
road
right,
where
14
hits
the
road
curved
and
it's
a
very
dangerous
spot,
we
as
a
community
I,
always
thought
that
14th
would
be
a
entrance
to
our
beautiful
new
park.
N
That's
coming
up
and
our
Memorial
Park.
That
is
there
and
businesses
like
the
draft
horse.
Add
to
that
add
to
that
kind
of
welcoming
glide
into
our
Park,
but
with
the
increased
congestion,
I
can
only
say
that
I
think
this
is
going
to
be
a
very,
very
dangerous
corner,
and
so
that's
what
I
have
to
say.
Thank.
A
H
Riskin
I
live
at
11:17
3rd
Street,
northeast
and
I
just
want
to
say
that
while
I'm
not
right
there
on
the
corner,
I
have
witness
just
an
incredible
increase
in
visitors
to
the
area.
Northeast
has
become
quite
a
destination
and
a
lot
of
people
come
from
the
suburbs.
A
lot
of
people
come
from
in
the
city
to
Northeast,
to
frequent
the
wonderful
restaurants
and
and
brew
pubs
and
and
retailers
that
are
there
and
there's
no
place
for
them
to
park
frankly,
and
they
are
displacing.
H
All
of
these
visitors
will
displace
current
residents,
plus
the
the
Grain
Belt
Apartments.
There
are
more
people
who
parked
on
the
street
than
pay
for
parking
spots
in
the
Grain,
Belt
and
I
would
challenge
you
to
come
in
the
early
morning,
hours
or
after
work
hours
and
just
see
how
crowded
it
is.
I'm.
H
Think
we
need
to
take
the
potential
of
additional
crime
into
consideration
when
you
consider
this
type
of
density
and
the
likelihood
that
there
will
be
more
cars
in
the
area
and
with
a
bike
lane
that
is
scheduled
to
go
on
Marshall,
that's
going
to
decrease
parking
availability
on
Marshall
alone.
On
top
of
these
two
developments.
And
finally
my
question
is
so
where's
all
the
snow
been
ago
when
you
know
you're,
you
have
this
alley.
H
That's
going
to
be
right
up
against
the
buildings
and
I,
don't
know
where
you
know
the
plows
are
going
to
push
all
the
snow
when
there's
when
there's
no
border
and
with
all
the
cars
on
the
street
I,
just
wonder
where
the
plows
are
going
to
put
all
the
snow
when
they
come
and
follow
the
streets.
So
those
are
my
concerns.
H
I
think
this
development
is
is
too
high,
too
close
too
dense
for
the
area
and
I'd
like
to
ask
the
Planning
Commission,
when
they
plan
to
put
up
a
public
parking
ramp
for
the
residents
of
the
area,
so
that
these
kinds
of
developments
could
be
more
viable
right
now
without
a
public
parking
ramp,
everybody
is
confined
to
street
parking
and
they're
all
fighting
for
spots
and
they're
going
to
get
worse.
If
you,
if
you
approve
this.
Thank
you
thank.
A
O
Tim
Kennedy
I
live
at
11:21,
third
Street
and
I.
Guess
I
just
want
to
talk
about
what
they
were
talking
about.
The
developments
the
public
housing
has
been
here
since
I.
Don't
know
the
70s
he
for
101
was
Jacobs
101
now
was
it
a
condos
or
condos
people
live
in
those
they
buy
him
live
there.
This
is
apartments
affordable.
O
We
don't
know
yet.
There's
already
been
a
raise
in
rents
on
that
block
for
people
living
there
already
so
I'm
not
sure
they
said
that
they
fought
about
this.
People
are
fighting
about
this
on
the
Greenway.
We
don't
have
a
Greenway,
the
Greenway
was
built,
and
then
they
built
these
buildings
down
the
Greenway,
so
both
the
Green
Lane
with
the
buildings
on
it,
that's
fine
I'm
opposed
to
it.
Thanks.
O
E
Thank
you
for
the
couple
of
minutes,
I'm
going
to
speak
on
the
other
side
on
the
pro
side
here,
mainly
a
couple
of
points
as
far
as
the
height
variance.
Oh
sorry,
I'm
Shane,
Peterson
I
live
in
south
Minneapolis,
so
I'm
having
attended
a
few
of
these
and
seeing
the
changes
around
the
city.
I
know
a
lot
of
times
and
developers
submit
their
plan.
The
immediate
thing
is
well,
it's
too
tall,
it's
too
tall
and
then
once
these
buildings
are
built,
you
look
at
it
when
you
go
I.
E
Think
it'd
have
been
two
stories
higher,
but
it
made
really
wouldn't
have
been
any
different
than
what
it
was
and
really
it's
a
concession
to
a
neighborhood
group.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
the
city
of
Minneapolis,
looking,
you
know,
bigger
picture
of
kind
of
where
we
want
to
move
to
when
we're
trying
to
lure
businesses
to
the
city,
we're
trying
to
lure
more
people
to
the
city.
O
E
Really
I
mean
right
now:
it's
a
surface
lots
I
think
you
know,
obviously,
with
all
due
respect
to
the
neighborhood
group.
I
think
it's
ripe
for
development
and
just
the
changing
face
of
the
city
and
I
think
we
shouldn't
I
get
caught
up
in
these
small
details
in
the
name
of
progress.
Thank.
T
K
T
Mary
Katherine
e,
homer
and
I've
EV
on
485,
new
North,
East
and
I
own
a
business
on
Thursday.
The
third
listening
to
the
discussion
here
has
been
very
enlightening
in
a
lot
of
ways:
I
think
when
I
first
opened
my
business,
it
was
because
I
loved
the
community
I
loved
the
friendliness
of
it.
I
love
the
hearing
of
each
neighborhood.
T
T
I
think
my
concern
and
it's
a
huge
concern,
is
that
it
has
to
be
done
with
the
consideration
of
those
people
who
founded
that
community
who
have
invested
in
that
community
who
have
grown
at
communities
who
have
made
it
right
for
investment
and
are
kind
of
ignored
in
our
part
of
the
shadow
world
and
I.
Think
that
the
notion
of
the
fact
that
were
secondary
to
progress
is
unsettling
I.
T
Think
the
notion
of
working
together
to
do
it
so
that
it
is
to
scale
so
that
it
is
affordable,
so
that
it
is
a
part
of
the
old
school
value
system
that
we
do
take
care
of
our
neighbors
and
we
don't
cause
harm
to
our
neighbors
by
making
profits.
I
think
there's
a
better
way
to
do
this,
I'd
like
to
see,
if
act
as
good
neighbors
and
to
be
considerate
in
how
we
develop.
Thank
you
thank.
A
You
all
right
anyone
else
to
speak.
Anyone
else,
I
think
we
need
to
wrap
up
here
and
have
the
other
item
as
well.
Okay,
so
seeing
them,
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
hearing
and
see
if
there's
any
motion
or
comment
from
my
colleagues
and
I
just
want
to
note.
So
we
do
have
two
separate
items
for
this
project
and
one
is
the
rezoning
which
is
item
number
seven
and
then
the
item
two
is
all
of
the
additional
land
eise
applications.
I
suggest
that
we
take
up
item
seven.
A
M
We're
going
to
thank
you
manager,
while
you're
waiting
for
someone
to
make
the
motion,
so
that
I
just
want
to
say
I
will
not
support
the
rezoning.
I.
Think
that's!
The
crux
of
the
issue
here
is
that
the
neighborhood
is
unclear
about
what
the
change
to
c3a
means.
We've
had
this
problem
in
my
ward
as
well
and
c3a
zoning
is
very
intensive
zoning.
To
be
honest,
it
means
hotels
could
be
built
in
that
zoning.
I'm
quite
sure.
Maybe
mr.
M
Crandall
can
correct
me
I,
think
that
that's
where
liquor
stores
are
allowed
if
they
meet
the
spacing
requirement
and
also
gun
shops,
so
isn't
that
correct,
but
okay,
but
a
conditional
use
means
allowed
with
conditions,
so
I
mean
c3a.
Zoning
is
really
intensive
zoning
and
there
isn't
any
other
c3a
zoning
in
this
entire
map.
That
might
be
an
argument
to
do
it.
But
to
me
it's
not
and
I
think
that's.
M
The
crux
of
the
issue
here
is
the
rezoning
to
create
an
activity
area
I
like
the
idea
bringing
more
people
to
the
location
and
I
I.
Think
having
housing
in
this
location
would
bring
more
things
that
would
create
it.
An
activity
area
but
I
think
the
c3a
zoning
is
too
intensive.
Perhaps
the
step
to
c2
would
be
appropriate,
but
that
wouldn't
make
the
developer
happy
because
they
couldn't
build
as
densely
as
they
would
like.
So
I'm
sure
someone
will
make
the
motion,
but
I
just
want
to
speak
out
against
a
change
in
the
zoning.
A
V
So
I
have
activity
activity
centers
in
my
ward
as
well
and
I,
think
about
c3a
zoning,
and
you
know
no
projects
ever
perfect.
It's
not
always
the
right
height
that
we
want
or
the
right
size
of
the
right
level
of
density,
but
this
seems
consistent
with
the
other
areas
that
I've
had
a
lot
of
arguments.
I've
heard
against
this
mostly
deal
with
parking
in
the
area
and
what
I'm
hearing
is
a
lot
of
I
parked
on
the
street
for
free
I?
V
V
The
street
is
free
for
everybody,
and
there's
going
to
be
competition
for
it
and
I'm
completely
in
disagreement
with
this
notion
that
when
people
have
to
walk
further
from
their
cars,
that
we
don't
want
people
to
walk
further
from
their
cars,
because
it's
an
opportunity
for
people
to
take
advantage
of
them
and
for
them
to
be
victims
of
crime.
If
that's
the
case,
then
why
are
we
it's
first
up?
It's
not
the
case.
Second
off
we
want
people
to
be
walking
in
the
city.
We
want
more
eyes
on
the
street.
V
We
want
more
activity
in
the
activity
center.
We
don't
want
people
going
from
one
garage
to
another
garage
and
sneaking
in
and
out
locking
their
doors
on
the
way
with
their
windows
rolled
up,
because
we're
perpetuating
this
notion
that
it's
unsafe
to
walk
out
on
the
streets,
I
just
want
to
say
wholeheartedly,
disagree
with
that
kind
of
mentality.
A
P
A
A
The
underlying
zoning
the
same,
even
when
we
make
policy
change
and
it
does
put
all
the
decision
into
each
project,
and
we
do
that
because
it
gives
us
more
control
over
each
project
and
that's
just
kind
of
a
trade-off
we
make
but
I
think
the
staff
arguments
about
why
the
c3a
is
the
appropriate
zoning
for
activity
center.
I've
heard
them
a
million
times
the
Planning
Commission.
They
do
tend
to
make
sense
and
I.
Think.
A
As
we
look
through
the
beyond
the
Comprehensive
Plan
Update
into
other
policy
changes,
we
might
make
I
think
that
we
could
probably
do
better
with
more
nuance
to
how
we're
doing
activity
center
zoning.
We
have
been
moving
more
and
more
toward
a
form-based
code
anyway,
but
part
of
the
problem
with
c3
a
versus
C
2.
A
Is
that
there's
a
lot
of
use
differences
in
them
and
so
the
C
2
zoning
allows
for
a
lot
of
uses
that
neighbors
tend
not
to
like,
and
so
that's
why
the
C
3
a
zoning,
even
though
it
is
technically
more
intense.
It
is
also
more
restrictive
in
a
lot
of
ways
and
it
tends
to
be
that
sort
of
more
pedestrian
oriented
use
that
neighbors
typically
say
they
want
to
have
and
he's
kind
of
walkable
transit,
oriented
neighborhoods.
A
A
L
A
A
W
W
I
think
miss
Lansing.
So,
as
you
are
aware,
the
project
has
gone
through
several
different
iterations
since
the
original
proposal,
which
was
at
six
stories
one
of
the
iteration,
so
that
the
present
iteration
in
front
of
us
for
14th
project
has
six
stories
in
the
front
five
stories
in
the
back.
There
was
a
previous
proposal
as
well
that
had
five
in
the
front
four
in
the
back
is
that
still
on
the
table
in
any
way
shape
or
form.
K
T
K
The
building
footprint
the
extended
designs
of
dusties,
where
the
currently
is
just
parking
for
dusties
we
went
that
way
to
for
discussion
to
see.
If
you
know
height
was
something
that
we
could
address
and
in
our
discussion
height
really
wasn't
didn't
seem
to
be
the
prime
concern,
but
we
also
learned
and
talking
with,
and
it
also
would
have
meant
if
parking
variance
for
dusties,
we
landed
in
a
place
where
we
have
no
parking
variance
for
dusties
and
surplus
parking
in
the
project.
K
L
W
You
and
is
there,
is
there
any
form
of
I
recognized
that
the
Grain
Belt
apartments
are
going
for
somewhere
in
the
range
of
14
is
1500
at
the
moment
for
a
560
square
foot
unit?
Is
there
any
form
of
assurance
whatsoever
that
these
are
going
to
remain
somewhere
in
the
range
of
1200
per
month
for
the
same
amount
of
square
footage?
So.
R
Maybe
I
can
take
that
question.
Daniel
were
perler
CPM,
Minneapolis
Minnesota,
the
unit
type
in
the
Grain
Belt
building
has
very
few
550
square
foot
units
or
or
lower
at
the
time
that
the
building
was
built.
It's
more.
It's
designed
it's
more
of
a
traditional
apartment
building
per
se
in
the
last
20
years
of
development.
W
I
apologize
for
interrupting
mr.
overfilled,
but
so
my
question
is
specifically
about
the
pricing
as
opposed
to
the
parking
we
can
get
to
the
parking
later
yeah.
So
in
other
words,
for
I
mean
the
the
advertisement.
Yeah
is
that
the
apartments
are
going
to
rent
for
somewhere
in
the
range
of
about
$1,200
for
the
550's
square
foot.
R
W
In
it,
okay
is
there
I
mean
I
guess
so.
My
question
at
this
point
is,
and
I
am
Korea.
I
am
concerned
about
the
affordability
and
I'm
going
to
make
an
additional
pitch
about
that
after
I'm
done
asking
you
questions,
but
is
there?
Is
there
the
will?
We
have
the
ability
by
next
Friday
to
have
some
form
of
assurances
as
to
what
the
rent
will
be
and
by
how
much
it
will
increase
by
well.
R
O
W
Here's
here's
what
I'm
going
to
do
so
I
I
appreciate
it.
It's
not
on
any
further
questions.
Right
now
and
I'll,
just
kind
of
give
a
you
could
sit
down.
W
So
I
want
people
to
be
just
keenly
aware
as
to
the
conflict
in
some
of
the
arguments
that
I've
heard
and
to
be
fair
from
both
sides
and
because
you
know,
effects
are
important
and
I
think
it's
important
that
we
relay
the
facts
in
public
so
that
things
are
transparent
and
that
we're
all
aware
of
exactly
what
is
happening
and
why
so,
first,
the
project
that
is
before
us
today
is
not
the
project
that
it
was
originally
proposed.
The
project
is
originally
proposed
with
six
storeys.
W
In
fact,
I
believe
both
proposals
for
14th
and
13th
were
in
the
range
of
of
six
storeys,
and
that
is
no
longer
the
case.
The
the
height
has
been
dropped
by
a
floor
in
in
the
backside,
keeping
the
front
side
at
six
storeys,
but
there
was
a
proposal
out
there
that
reduced
parking
that
dropped
it
by
two
floors
on
the
backside
and
one
floor
at
the
front
side
for
every
additional
floor
that
you
drop.
W
Two
things
happen
one:
it
inhibits
the
ability
to
have
additional
units
and
two
it
inhibits
the
ability
to
have
additional
parking,
so
those
that
are
arguing
for
more
parking.
The
lower
it
gets
more
difficult,
it
is
to
do
additional
parking,
but
here's
the
second
thing-
and
this
is
the
most
important-
that
I
really
wanted
people
to
recognize
the
play
between
these
two
concepts.
It
costs
twenty-five
thousand
dollars
per
parking
space
to
build
I'll,
say
that
again,
it
cost
twenty-five
thousand
dollars
per
parking
space
to
build.
W
Now
you
can
advocate
absolutely
for
additional
parking,
but
if
you're
advocating
for
additional
parking,
you
are
advocating
against
affordability.
I
want
to
make
that
exceedingly
clear.
It
is
absolutely
true
if
you
are
advocating
for
more
parking
at
twenty
five
thousand
dollars
for
first
all,
you
are
advocating
against
affordability,
all
things
being
equal,
a
unit
that
has
an
additional
parking
space
with.
It
is
more
expensive
than
a
unit
that
does
not
have
that
additional
parking
space
with
it,
because
it
costs
money
to
build
the
parking
space
and
the
infrastructure
to
retain
the
parking.
W
W
W
That
was
the
first
thing
that
was
asked
for,
and
they
they
did
do
that.
The
second
thing
that
was
requested
by
the
neighborhood
was
retail
retail
was
also
added.
The
third
thing
that
was
requested
was
additional
parking.
The
previous
proposal
was
seeking
a
variance.
This
one
is
no
longer
seeking
a
variance
and
it
added
20
parking
spaces
and.
W
Finally,
there
was
a
request
that
actually
came
from
me,
which
was
to
make
sure
that
we
retain
dusties
for
the
long
haul.
This
is
a
neighborhood
staple
I
think
it
does
add.
A
tremendous
amount
to
the
community
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
both
that
building
as
well
as
the
business,
if
possible,
remains
now.
You
know
I
I
do
share
a
councilmember.
W
Goodman
is
concern
regarding
the
affordability
and
it
does
make
sense
that
you
can't
just
call
something
affordable
when
you
can
advertise
1200
and
then
simply
raise
the
rents,
then
even
higher
than
that
and
so
I.
You
know
what
I
want
to
see
ultimately
is
I
wanted
I
wanted
to.
We
I
want
to
get
to
into
an
answer
that
is
satisfactory
and
functions,
but
I
would
also
like
to
see
some
form
some
form
of
assurance,
that
the
rents
are
not
going
to
rise,
sky-high
and
so
I.
W
K
M
Goodman,
thank
you,
madam
chair
I'm,
not
comfortable
with
that
I'm
comfortable
with
postponing
it
one
more
cycle,
but
I'm
not
comfortable
with
some
behind
the
scenes.
Negotiation
with
the
developer
and
council
members
were,
the
neighborhood
doesn't
know
what's
going
on,
and
then
you
come
back
to
the
council
meeting
on
Friday
with
some
deal
already
worked
out
that
no
one
knows
what
it
is,
so
myself
included.
M
So
if
you
want
to
continue
so
that
we
close
the
public
hearing,
I'm
sure
councilmember
bender
would
appreciate
that
we
could
close
the
public
hearing
and
or
we
can
keep
the
public
hearing
open
and
continue
on
cycle,
but
either
one
of
those
is
preferable
to
moving
it
forward
without
recommendation,
because
we
have
20
people
sitting
here.
We've
received
70
contacts
on
this
at
least
and
I.
M
C
K
W
W
This
is
not
an
extension.
That's
built
around
an
agreement
to
tank
the
project.
Right
now
we
have
a
massive
housing
shortage
and
because
of
that
housing
shortage,
rents
are
rising
through
the
roof.
Gentrification
is
happening,
people
are
getting
displaced
and
specifically
in
areas
of
Northeast,
it
is
happening.
I
mean
whether
we
like
it
or
not,
whether
we
want
to
admit
it
or
not,
it
is
happening
and
without
the
additional
supply
to
accommodate
some
form
of
demand.
W
A
M
A
Thank
you
so
I
think
I
have
some
questions
any
of
your
best
beans
or
bites
laughs,
so
basically
already
acted
on
item
seven.
Some
assumption
is
that's
going
to
cancel
now
and
okay,
so
I
wanted
to
be
clear
on
that.
The
rezoning
has
been
approved
by
the
committee
and
then
would
be
acted
upon
by
the
council.
If
we
postpone
this
item,
I
just
want
to
ensure
that
our
city
attorney
and
staff
are
comfortable
with
the
verbal
commitment
that
we
have
now.
I
don't
want
to.
You
know
feel
like.
X
Of
hundred
so
with
Miss
lannen
seems
voluntary
acquiescence
to
the
extension
on
the
record,
but
she
will
follow
up
with
a
written
extension
which
is
required
by
the
law
as
well.
If
we
don't
get
that,
of
course,
we
will
take
notify
the
committee
and
take
appropriate
measure
so.
A
Then
just
be
clear
in
that
case,
which
I
don't
expect
to
be
the
case,
then
we
would
act
on
at
the
council
meeting,
okay
and
then
I
just
wanted
to
raise
the
question
on
behalf
of
everyone
here.
Who's
come
now
many
times
to
City
Hall
on
both
of
these
projects.
I'm
happy
to
take
up
the
next
item
and
hold
the
public
hearing,
but
I
just
want
to
do
kind
of
a
check
here
to
see
if
we
think
we're
landing
at
another
postponement.
A
Perhaps
we
should
save
ourselves
a
couple
of
hours
and
then
have
the
public
hearing
when
we
feel
like
there
is
more
agreement,
but
I
just
wanted
I,
don't
know
who
could
speak
to
that
best,
but
I'll
ask
the
question:
maybe
councilmember
fry
or
staff.
If
you
have
a
sense
of
where
this
project
is
that
or
I
don't
know,
I
saw
some
sort
of
nodding
in
the
crowd,
but
I
don't
know
if
it
of
maybe
perhaps
of
spokesperson
wants
to
weigh
in.
A
H
Risk
and
again
I
just
wanted
to
ask
by
rezoning
to
c3
a
is
there
a
potential
for
if
this
development
does
go
through
at
some
point
five
years
down
the
road
that,
whether
it's
viable
or
not
another
owner
comes
in,
decides
to
tear
down
these
buildings
and
put
up
a
hotel
or
a
tower
or
some
other
thing
is
that
potential
with
rezoning
to
see
create?
Yes,.
A
No,
so
that
the
c3,
a
zoning
allows
for
four
storeys
as
of
right
up
to
six
of
the
conditional
use
permit
and
then
staff
Gideon's
are
the
sort
of
bulk
and
setback
requirements,
but
they're
they're
kind
of
within
the
range
of
what
this
building
has
been
designed
to
be
a
typical
c3
building
is
six
storeys
and
many
of
them.
Yes,
so
I'm,
sorry
that
I
have.
H
A
Y
A
I
I,
maybe
mr.
Nielson
and
so
I
think
we
have
two
options
regarding
the
rezoning
I'm,
not
sure
the
committee
is
comfortable
going
forward,
the
rezoning
ahead
of
the
post
now
that
we've
decided
to
postpone
the
rest
of
the
actions.
So
can
the
committee
take
an
action
now
to
resources
it
item
seven,
otherwise,
I
would
indicate
that
perhaps
we
would
do
that
at
Council,
and
so
then
we
would
be
asking
the
project
team
to
also
commit
to
that
postpone
this
right.
X
A
A
Is
that
the
vote?
All
those
in
favor?
Please
say
aye
aye
any
opposed.
So
then
we
are
reconsidering
item
7,
which
is
the
rezoning
of
the
property
at
14th
and
Marshall.
So
I
will
just
go
ahead
and
move
to
postpone
this
item.
All
those
in
favor,
please
say:
aye
aye.
That
motion
carries
and
then
I
will
then
I'm.
A
Just
given
our
informal
discussion,
which
I
appreciate
everyone
hanging
on
there
with
that,
I
will
move
to
postponed
as
well
by
one
cycle
items
two
three
and
eight,
that
is
the
Landy's
applications
and
their
rezoning
for
the
other
for
the
bulk
of
the
rest
of
the
applications
for
these
two
projects.
Any
further
discussion
on
those
all
approval,
please
say:
aye
aye
any
opposed
that
carries
okay,
so
that's
includes
items
2,
3,
7,
&,
8
I
just
want
to
offer
again.
A
This
is
very
unusual
to
have
so
many
meetings
on
one
or
two
projects,
so
I
just
appreciate
everyone
continuing
to
come
back
again
and
again
and
I
hope
we
can
get
to
a
resolution
here
soon.
We
do
still
have
one
item
left.
It's
item
number
for
the
interim
use
permit
for
Verizon
Wireless
Wireless
at
24:07,
University
southeast.
So
that's
about
to
come
up
on
this
one-
and
this
is
a
this-
is
a
item
that
we
have
seen
before
in
this
committee
and
I.
Don't
know
this
tab
with
your
panel.
C
A
Z
Get
your
breath
baby
and
my
tickle
a
lot
of
times.
You
know
get
started
I'm
good
morning,
I
think
it's
one
morning,
so
this
is
the
right
class
for
an
extension
of
an
interim
use
permit
at
the
property
of
24:07
University
Avenue
south
east.
This
is
a
request
from
Verizon
using
violet
and
they
have
these
kind
of
have
a
temporary
telecommunications
tower
there.
As
of
the
state,
is
here
it's
about
a
block
from
the
TCF
stadium
and
that
temporary
facility
is
located
on
the
north
west
corner
of
the
site
and
a
parking
area.
Z
Z
One
second,
oh
boy:
oh
yeah,
it's
just
taking
a
while
catch
my
breath.
Oh
okay,
yes
yep,
it
was
another
extension
was
granted
last
year
and
it
was
to
allow
them
time
to
find
a
permanent
location.
This
is
very
temporary.
I
know.
You're,
asking
for
looking
for
a
permanent
location.
Is
this:
when
such
growth
in
this
area,
they
have
more
demand
than
what
their
existing
coverage
kind
of
accommodate.
So
the
an
extension
now
expires
at
the
end
of
this
month
and.
Z
All
of
that
so
what's
here
currently
as
proposed
to
say
the
same,
including
the
screening
that
they've
added
staff
hasn't
been
aware
of
any
issues
with
it
being
they're
currently
asking
for
the
same
exceptions
that
they
had
asked
for
previously,
and
therefore
things
they're
having
to
do
is
step
back
synergies
and
property
compatibility.
It's
not
really
chemical,
as
in
anyway,
there's
no
permanent
landscaping
or
screening
at
the
base
and
which
is
the
height
of
the
antenna
about
the
mast,
requires
an
extension.
So
that's
all
seem.
L
A
We're
pretty
familiar
with
the
details,
I
guess.
The
underlying
question
is
why
why
do
we
keep
having
to
extend
it?
What
is
what's
the
issue
with
finding
a
permanent
location
because,
ostensibly
the
reason,
we're
a
prevented
temporary
condition
that
is
not
ideal
in
many
ways
that
you
were
starting
to
describe
ostensibly
been
waiting
for
a
permanent
location,
but
really
probably
the
third
time
we've
listened
soldered
hearing.
Z
A
A
Z
The
other
has
said
that
they've
been
talking
to
several
property
owners
that
haven't
actually
come
to
an
agreement
at
any
one
location
that
actually
thank
you.
There
are,
of
course,
you
know
a
lot
of
properties
in
this
area
and
there's
some
development
going
on.
So
at
this
time,
they're
asking
for
a
three
year
extension
to
again
more
time
to
secure
a
permanent
place
staff,
but
that
was
a
bit
too
long
so
concerned
being
on
this
temporary
appearance,
but
also
this
site
itself
could
potentially
be
redeveloped.
There's
a
lot
of
surface
parking.
Z
L
AA
Again,
unfortunately,
we're
here
today,
because
we
were
unable
to
secure
our
permanent
location
in
time.
That,
of
course,
was
not
our
intention
when
we
received
the
last
extension,
a
typical
brand-new
installation
of
antennas
or
building
a
tower,
for
example,
is
a
12
to
18
month.
Process
on
the
good
side
can
be
longer
than
that
for
any
number
of
delays.
AA
So
with
that
where,
unfortunately,
I
have
to
come
back
and
ask
for
an
additional
extension
again
hindsight,
it
may
have
been
best
to
ask
for
the
full
extent
of
the
temporary
use
which
allows
up
to
five
years.
But
our
objective
is
a
still
is
to
find
a
permanent
solution.
So
at
the
time
that
didn't
seem
didn't
seem
like
the
best
course
of
action.
AA
So
nonetheless,
here
we
are
I
did
want
to
add
that
having
a
temporary
asset
deployed
for
this
length
of
time
is
not
advantageous
for
us
at
all.
It
takes
that
out
of
our
fleet
for
emergencies
or
other
weather-related
instances
where
we
need
these
temporary
assets.
So
there's
not
and
there's
a
cost
associated
with
having
it
there
because
rent
from
the
property
owner
and
usually
the
structure
of
a
temporary
agreement
is
different
than
our
permanent
sites.
So,
from
a
business
standpoint,
there's
not
a
lot
of
incentive
for
us
to
want
to
stay
we'd.
AA
Y
AA
A
Me
then
I'll
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
hearing,
I'm
going
to
I,
was
going
to
move.
My
motion
is
to
grant
the
application
for
a
period
lasting
until
September
30th
2017.
That
gives
three
months
to
reach
an
agreement.
If
you
have
an
agreement
at
that
time,
but
need
more
time
for
the
temporary
tower
to
stay
in
place,
I
would
then
consider
an
extension
but
I
feel
like
I
am
speaking
for
myself
here.
I
would
I'm
reticent
to
extend
it
beyond
that
myself,
17
I'm,
giving
them
three
months
kept.
M
Smoke
ribbon.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
strongly
support
that
I
would
have
said.
Take
it
down
now,
so
I
strongly
support
what
you're
suggesting
this
is
the
moment
where
a
can
extend
it
again,
I
mean
first,
it
was.
We
need
to
do
it
during
the
viking
season.
Then
it
was.
We
couldn't
find
a
location
now
which
we
worked
with
one
landlord
who
now
it's
followed
through
the
only
way
you're
going
to
be
motivated,
move.
This
thing
is
to
have
to
so
I
would
say,
move
it
immediately
hideous.
M
M
Have
them
all
over
downtown
and
they
go
up
relatively
quickly,
and
it's
not
that
big
of
a
deal
so
I'm
not
sure
why
it's
such
a
big
deal
over
here,
but
mainly
I,
think
it's
a
big
deal
because
you've
allowed
to
have
been
allowed
to
have
this
interim
situation.
So
I
would
not
come
back
and
ask
for
a
further
extension.
Unless
you
have
a
sign
lease,
you
can
show
us
where
you've
started
construction.