►
From YouTube: May 18, 2017 Zoning & Planning
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
A
Good
morning,
I'll
call
to
order
the
regular
reading
of
our
zoning
and
planning
committee
today
is
May
18th,
2017,
I'm,
Lisa,
bender
I
chair
the
committee,
and
we
have
a
quorum
of
the
committee
today
with
councilmembers
Reich,
Goodman
and
council
president
Johnson.
We
have
eight
items
on
our
agenda
today.
We
typically
go
through
the
consent
items
first
and
that's
items
3
through
6
I'll.
Just
note.
We
have
two
public
hearings
and
then
the
two
discussion
items
that
are
listed
are
related
to
those
two
public
hearing
items
and
that's
why
they
are
on
discussion.
A
So
item
number
three
is
approving
your
rezoning
for
Minnehaha
Crossing
to
allow
for
a
new
school
item.
Number
four
is
approving
an
application
for
the
malcom
yards,
comprehensive
plan
amendment
to
allow
for
which
is
extending
the
boundary
of
the
southeast
minneapolis
industrial
employment
district.
To
exclude
nine
point,
four
four
acres
of
property
item
number
five
is
referring
to
a
staff
and
ordinance
related
to
zoning
regulations
for
sexually-oriented
uses
and
places
of
adult
entertainment.
An
item
number
six
is
referring
to
staff
an
ordinance
amending
our
code
related
to
the
regulation
of
Telecom,
attend
antennas.
A
A
One
is
a
land
use
application
appeal
for
4:19,
Washington,
Avenue,
North,
we'll
start
with
a
brief
presentation
from
staff
and
then
how
many
people
would
like
to
speak
on
item
number
one:
okay,
so
then
we'll
open
the
public
hearing
after
the
staff
presentation
and
then
I'll
just
note
that
item
number
seven
is
related.
That
correct!
Yes,
item
number,
seven
is
related.
So
the
item
so
we'll
likely
pick
up
two
together.
B
Good
morning,
chair,
bender,
councilmembers
I
will
be
brief.
This
morning.
This
was
an
appeal
by
back
Chevron
for
the
for
19
Washington
Avenue
North
project.
This
project
was
approved
by
the
Planning
Commission
on
the
consent
agenda
at
the
April
20th
2017
public
hearing.
You
did
see
this
item
before
in
an
appeal
from
the
Heritage
Preservation
Commission
former
staff
member
Lisa
Steiner
was
the
planner
at
the
time
I
took
over
when
she
left
of
the
city
for
the
applications
that
was
before
the
Planning
Commission
back
in
April
were
three
conditional
use
permit
for
parking
garage.
B
A
conditional
use
permit
increased
the
height
of
the
building
from
the
permitted
ten
storeys
or
140
feet
to
13
stories,
140
feet
and
then
site
plan
review.
As
I
mentioned,
all
of
those
items
were
approved
on
consent
without
any
discussion.
The
the
design
that
was
before
the
Planning
Commission
did
meet
the
conditions
of
approval
that
came
out
of
the
City
Council
action
on
the
appeal
for
HPC
and
that
mostly
had
to
do
with
the
height
of
the
building,
and
this
is
the
approved
site
plan.
B
Nothing
on
the
approved
site
plan
had
changed
and
the
focus
for
the
discussion
really
on
the
appeal.
The
previous
appeal
was
on
the
height.
The
height
of
the
building
has
been
reduced,
there's
the
13
stories,
but
was
another
140
foot,
height
limitation
that
was
placed
on
them
as
a
condition
from
that
and
they
do
meet
that.
The
appellant
is
appealing
the
decision
of
the
Planning
Commission,
seeing
that
he
believes
the
city's
zoning
regulations
and
guidelines,
the
districts
are
not
being
met.
I
will
stand
for
any
questions.
A
C
B
C
But
I
did
go
through
the
148
page
report
of
the
sheephead
staff
and
I
know:
we've
been
through
a
lot
of
these
issues,
but
considering
we're
now
kind
of
refacing
this
in
a
different
way.
I
just
thought
I
needed
to
address
what
they're
trying
to
prove
now
and
the
conditional
use
permits.
Sorry,
no
one
else
can
see
this,
but
if
you
then
look
on
to
obviously
we're
appealing
the
conditional
use
permit
for
the
parking
garage,
do
you
have
okay.
C
My
first
question
is:
how
did
we
end
up
in
the
same
place?
I?
Don't
blame
the
developers,
of
course,
they're
going
to
do
anything
they
can
to
avoid
having
to
make
changes
to
the
plan,
but
I
can't
believe
after
you
guys
appeal
this
already
in
concept.
C
peds
has
rerouted
us
back
to
this
exact
same
position
and
we
haven't
even
moved
an
inch
as
I
stand
here
and
appealed
it.
It
makes
me
wonder
what
the
validity
of
me
even
doing.
C
D
C
To
the
zoning
and
planning
commission
I
find
it
kind
of
appalling
that
the
only
Avenue
the
community
has
to
take
to
draw
attention
to
this
is
an
appeal.
Does
it
make
comments,
there's
a
to
point
out
common
sense
that
nothing
has
changed
and
that
it
takes
800
dollars
to
come
here
and
basically
experience
deja
vu
and
I
feel
like
waste
everyone's
time.
C
That
isn't
alone.
Sorry,
sorry,
sorry!
So
where
are
we
now?
Actually,
the
building
was
reduced
in
height
by
40
and
mechanical
by
10
feet.
The
math
is
still
grossly
out
of
context
and
not
140
feet.
The
developers
did
not
make
site
plan
changes
to
fit
the
requirements
by
reducing
stories
and
height
to
code.
Seif
Eddin
developers
are
again
just
attempting
ways
around
the
zoning
requirements
with
variances
and
basically
through
semantics,
on
C
pad
and
developers
believe
if
they
simply
get
the
building
to
140
feet.
C
It's
acceptable,
and
that
was
basically
reiterated
in
my
converse
with
them
and
now,
instead
of
reducing
the
stories
to
code
for
density
issues
were
to
believe
that
the
stories
will
play
no
factor
in
the
impact
to
its
surroundings
as
they
are
trying
to
increase
the
stories
and
parking
was
minimally
reduced
from
480
spaces
to
408.
It
remains
8
stories
which
is
still
extremely
excessive
for
the
area,
it's
detrimental
to
congestion
and
it
doesn't
help
alleviate
the
parking
needs
in
the
way.
The
proponents
believe
it
will
and
I'll
get.
C
C
So
what
really
changed?
Nothing?
The
building
has
not
changed
in
concept.
The
height
mats
and
parking
experience
remain
the
same.
They
do
not
fit
the
requirements
or
solve
any
parking
needs.
The
impact
to
the
neighborhood
livability
aren't
changed
and
will
only
worsen
by
allowing
building
these
buildings
to
be
out
of
scale.
So,
as
I
said,
I
went
kind
of
through
these.
These
cups
that
they're
looking
for
to
increase
the
height
of
the
building
from
the
permitted
10
to
13
stories
and
also
to
allow
principal
parking
garage.
C
They
both
use
the
same
requirements
so
I
kind
of
did
a
mash
up
to
address
the
seated
staff
report
for
both
of
them.
The
first
requirement
in
fining
is
to
establish
the
establishment,
maintenance
and
operation
of
the
conditional
use
will
not
be
detrimental
to
or
endanger
the
public,
health,
safety,
comfort
or
general
welfare.
In
relation
to
the
height,
the
CFS
staff
report
says
the
proposal
to
increase
the
height
for
the
10
to
13
stories,
but
remain
at
140.
Feet
will
not
be
detrimental
to
those
factors.
C
So,
basically,
as
long
as
140
feet,
those
three
stories
don't
matter
in
regards
to
parking.
They
just
say
it
will
be
below
grade
and
establishment
of
this
principal
parking
garage
will
not
be
detrimental
to
the
public
safety
comfort,
general
welfare.
So
I
guess
because
it's
below
grade
it
won't
be
detrimental.
C
C
C
If
we've
made
a
20-story
building
the
7th
foot
floor
plates
or
that
works
for
parking
garage,
I'd
argue
density
is
the
major
contributor
to
a
neighborhoods
public
health,
safety,
comfort
and
welfare,
together
as
a
principle,
parking
garage
and
accessory
parking,
every
additional
story,
as
people
and
forking
and
incrementally
impacts,
our
comfort
and
general
welfare
with
increased
congestion,
scale
and
density
are
only
controlling
factors.
This
will
also
start
a
new
and
dangerous
precedent
that
any
site
plan
anywhere
would
be
approved
as
long
as
it's
140
feet.
Why?
C
Because
if
this
is
a
13
story
building
and
it
contains
8
stories
of
parking
and
it
can
be
improved
in
a
5
story
of
vicinity,
what
wouldn't
be
approved-
and
also
one
thing
that's
never
been
answered-
is
the
developer
could
have
plans
to
abandon
the
parking
altogether
for
office
space,
making
the
parking
issues
worse
if
it's
solely
for
parking,
why
are
they
10
foot
4
plates
and
why
can't
they
be
as
at
7
feet
like
other
ramps?
This
has
never
been
addressed,
that
it
will
be
guaranteed.
C
The
next
requirement
and
finding
is
that
adequate
measures
have
been
or
will
be
taken
to
minimize
traffic
congestion
in
the
public
street.
In
relation
to
Heights
because
says,
increase
in
height,
the
building
will
have
no
impact
on
traffic
congestion
in
relation
to
parking.
They
say
they
perform
the
travel
demand
management
plan.
That
concludes
that,
overall,
the
proposed
development
will
have
minimal
impact
on
intersection
operations
that
they
all
have
adequate
capacity
and
therefore
the
existence
the
impact
on
existing
operations
is
minimal.
C
C
Logically
speaking,
eight
of
the
13
stories
is
parking
increase
in
height.
To
allow
more
stories
directly
correlates
with
more
traffic.
To
say
to
has
no
impact
is
sent
to
us
the
parking
garage
more
than
doubles
the
amount
of
parking
spaces
and
potential
vehicle
traffic.
How
is
the
to
time
increase
minimal?
The
parking
spaces
will
not
cover
the
full
building
needs.
We
need
to
keep
that
in
mind.
The
daily
vehicle
trips
will
far
exceed
the
480
parking
spaces
and
the
public,
transit
and
bicycles
won't
significantly
minimize
traffic.
C
What
you've
introduced
in
the
number
of
people
and
a
lot
of
vehicles
to
an
area
is
what
you're
going
to
get
and
also
another
important
factors.
Washington
Avenue
has
been
reduced
to
two
car
lengths
and
two
bike
lanes,
which
just
further
complicates
these
issues.
This
is
adding
significantly
to
suggestions
so
as
I
go
to
try
to
reference
this
traffic
demand
management
plan
to
figure
out
how
they
can
justify.
This
has
no
impact
on
traffic.
The
first
thing
I
stumbled
upon
was
in
the
preliminary
development
report.
C
So
to
see
what
they
had
to
say
about
it,
they
first
analyze
development
traffic
volumes.
They
used
the
Institute
of
Transportation
engineers
to
do
this,
the
gener
trip
generation
ninth
edition.
They
also
say
that
they
did
a
literary
search
and
had
discussions
with
city
staff
and
then
just
reduced
the
gross
trips
by
35%,
based
on
these
discussions
with
city
staff.
So
if
you
look
at
Table
two,
you
can
see
the
weekday
trip
generation.
This
simply
highlights
the
AM
and
PM
peak
hours.
C
C
So
the
existing
use
of
794
weekday
daily
trips
and
the
new
proposed
net
total
is
27
84,
which
can
compare
the
two
that
the
250%
increase.
If
you
don't
include
the
35%
reduction,
it's
40
283
weekday
daily
trip,
which
is
a
four
hundred
and
thirty
nine
percent
increase
to
the
area.
So
I
want
to
know
how
we
came
up
with
a
35%
reduction
basically
says
to
me
that
more
than
one
and
three
people
are
going
to
use
public
transit,
it
also
doesn't
meet
the
multiplet
goal
that
they
laid
out
for
it.
C
I'd
like
to
know
how
this
increase
in
chip
generation
is
minimal
impact
and
also
the
ite
trip
generation.
Ninth
edition
was
released
in
2012,
so
if
they're
not
doing
research
on
the
intersections
themselves-
or
maybe
it's
been
updated
since-
but
I
think
it's
important
to
note
if
this
isn't
current,
these
impacts
could
be
far
worse
than
we're
saying
so
to
come
up
with
these
numbers.
They
looked
at
every
intersection
and
they
compared
against
existing
the
20/20,
no
build
as
if
the
building
wasn't
built
in
2020
build
scenarios.
C
You
can
just
see
they
have
those
three
numbers
going
in
every
which
direction
for
it
the
first
one
I
totaled
these
up.
If
you
look
at
the
AMT
cour
on
Washington
Avenue,
that's
an
extra
three
hundred
and
twenty
four
cars.
It's
a
twelve
point.
Two
percent
increase
Fifth
Avenue
is
268
at
a
40%
increase.
Third
Street
is
144.
Third
Avenue
is
fifty
four
cars
during
the
PM's
peak
hour,
379
cars
at
a
14
point,
four
percent
increase
Fifth
Ave
is
210
cars,
a
28%
increase
third
369
for
third
Avenue
89
cars.
I,
don't
know!
C
C
The
other
thing
they
do
is
they
look
at
those
intersection
impacts
from
that,
and
they
conclude
in
a
capacity
analysis
comparing
an
existing
twenty
twenty
and
twenty
twenty
thousand
Aereo's.
They
measure
this
in
level
of
service
grades
from
A
to
F
in
level
of
service
a
it
represents
the
best
intersection
operation
and
an
F
represents
the
worst
with
an
operation
of
excessive
delay
on
Washington
have
and
third
Avenue
the
peak
hours
for
both
a.m.
p.m.
is
level
of
service.
D,
Washington,
Avenue
and
5th.
C
Avenue
is
also
level
service,
D
on
Fifth
Avenue
and
third
Street
during
the
AM
and
PM
peak
hours.
It's
love
of
service
C,
all
of
which
they
say.
No
improvements
are
necessary
to
accommodate
the
proposed
use
and,
frankly,
I
wonder
what
can
even
be
done
to
build
it.
That's
what
you
get
so
as
I
read
that
the
capacity
analysis
does
not
compare
intersection
impacts
between
the
existing,
the
2020
no
build
or
the
2020
build
scenarios.
It
only
broadly
describes
the
intersections
in
terms
of
level
of
service.
C
So
we
need
to
know
the
time
variances
between
A
to
C,
D
or
F
T,
even
know
what
those
impacts
are,
nor
doesn't
even
compare
them
and
if
LSO
D
grades
are
acceptable
to
only
intersections
of
lol,
OSF
require
improvement,
and
if
the
ite
data
isn't
current,
as
I
said,
is
this
far
worse
than
D?
Because
of
this
growth
that
is
happening
constantly
in
the
neighborhood.
C
In
my
mind,
the
TDM
T
does
nothing
to
prove
the
proposed
use
has
minimal
impacts
on
intersection
operations.
It
simply
states
the
data
to
represent
the
impacts
without
providing
standards,
and
then
it
concludes
in
a
brief
analysis,
that
operations
are
adequate
when
I've
looked
at
the
increases
in
the
daily
trip
to
teach
our
people
intersection,
impacts
in
the
ellow
as
d
grades.
That
shows
a
large
discrepancy
to
me
in
the
current
operation,
in
the
impact
of
the
proposed
use.
So
does
common
sense.
As
I
said.
C
C
Beyond
traffic,
they
also
look
at
the
parking
impact
to
come
up
with
how
this
the
amount
of
parking
in
the
building
is
warranted.
They
also
use
the
ite
data
to
do
this
and
they
also
adjust
this
35%
to
account
for
the
motorists
site
they're
saying
during
the
peak
weekday
hours,
the
peak
time
period
for
parking
domain
is
11
a.m.
to
2
p.m.
and
they're
saying
that
parking
demand
during
that
time
is
550
spaces
also
down
at
the
bottom
under
14
operation.
C
C
So
the
numbers
they
got
to
arrive
at
that
conclusion.
You
can
see
where
I
highlighted
up
above
the
550
peak
parking
that
was
adjusted
by
35%.
It
shows
that
the
restaurant
is
going
to
require
112
parking
spots
and
the
office
building
parking
demand
needs
is
438,
that's
where
they
get
the
total
550.
If
you
don't
adjust
it,
the
gross
total
parking
is
846
and,
in
my
mind,
there's
no
way
to
defend
lease,
a
that
won't
be
the
demand
or
close
to
peak
times
or
find
some
middle
ground
in
between,
but
we
can't
guarantee
it's
550.
C
Also,
the
208
spots
will
not
serve
neighboring
businesses,
residents
or
other,
as
proponents
believe.
The
site
plan
alone,
as
you
can
see,
could
cannibalize
the
parking
while
introducing
more
spillover
in
furthering
congestion
and
parking
issues,
leaving
us
in
the
same
or
worse
position.
We
are
only
netting
in
extra
105
spots
from
the
surface
on
the
surface.
Slide
has
103
spot
that
additional
105
spot
is
already
evaporated
by
the
restaurant
alone.
This
building
and
the
site
claim,
is
going
to
create
more
parking
headaches
than
people
believe.
C
C
Course,
okay,
so
skip
through
to
the
conclusion
of
the
traffic
demand
management
plan.
Did
it
determine
the
transportation
implications
mostly?
Did
it
develop
solutions
to
resolve
these
impacts
know
that
it
meets
the
city's
goal
to
reduce
automobile
traffic,
no
to
implement
ways
to
increase
alternative
transportation
modes?
Maybe
they
do
promote
ways
to
use
public
transit,
I
guess
I
just
asked
to
agree.
This
has
no
impact
on
traffic
congestion
and
the
site
plan.
Take
measures
to
minimize
traffic
congestion
and
how
does
the
site
plan
toll
parking
issues.
C
The
next
big
issue-
I
just
want
to
go
over
is
the
scale
land-use
policy.
One
point
two
point:
one
says
that
it
needs
to
be
in
scaled
massing
in
the
setbacks
of
the
context
of
the
surrounding
area.
Sheephead
in
regards
to
this
say,
the
site
is
locating
district
D
and
that
structures
and
myths
include
two
to
ten
stories,
and
this
is
generally
consistent.
We've
already
heard
those
arguments
and
the
last
appeal
there's
no
buildings
of
ten
storeys.
The
height
of
the
surrounding
buildings,
is
one
to
six
stories.
C
This
is
a
quick
first
mapping
concept.
I
want
to
point
out
from
them.
This
is
provided
in
djr.
The
first
one
is
the
base
height.
They
show
one
point
one
you
can
see
the
line
going
across
Western
container.
The
base
height
of
the
building
alone
is
the
same
height
as
the
surrounding
buildings.
The
middle
and
top
exceeded
number
two
I
just
want
to
point
out.
They
say
the
stock
Skyway
is
connecting
a
historical
connection
and
it
is
not
and
then
three
just
quickly.
C
They
have
step
back
and
roof
amenities
to
allow
for
downtown
views
and
I.
Think
part
of
this
was
just
to
get
a
building
tall
enough
so
that
they
can
sell
these
premium
office
spaces
at
downtown
views.
The
second
one
to
give
a
good
comparison.
This
is
for
nineteen
washout
on
the
next
page.
It's
thirteen
stories,
it's
four
hundred
and
nineteen
thousand
square
feet
and
Western
container.
Next
to
it
is
six
stories,
eighty
five
feet
and
only
fifty-five
thousand
square
feet.
C
C
The
next
ones
are
just
simply
factors
they
talk
about
access
to
light
and
air
will
not
be
effective.
They
say
that
won't
be
because
public
streets
and
alley
in
a
roadway
trend
separate
it
I,
don't
understand
how
that's
an
argument.
If
you
build
a
building
of
that
mass,
just
because
they're
streets
separated,
doesn't
mean
it
can't
diminish
light
in
there.
C
The
next
one
is
I
only
want
to
point
out
it's
about
scale
and
character,
but
steep
Ed's
own
report.
Right
here
says
it's
one
in
six
stories
and
while
it
will
be
taller
than
the
existing
surrounding
buildings,
there
are
other
buildings
of
similar
Heights
doesn't
matter
if
there's
a
other
go
into
similar
Heights
there's
not
first
of
all,
but
this
is
surrounding
in
this
one
and
six.
C
C
They
say
it
meets
historical
preservations
just
because
it
approves
a
certificate
of
appropriate
propria.
True,
we've
already
appealed
one
based
on
that
decision.
The
skyward
connection
is
not
allowed
under
HPG
heritage
preservation
guidelines
because
it
used
to
connect
the
Heywood
building
and
self
storage,
and
it
also
says
to
consider
the
scale
the
surrounding
buildings
of
which
we've
been
over.
C
C
The
last
thing
I
want
to
point
out:
I
almost
hate
to
do
it
because
I
don't
find
140
feet
to
be
relevant
to
the
surrounding
vicinity,
but
as
I
look
through
this
they're
only
measuring
the
building
on
3rd
Street
I,
don't
know
if
that's
appropriate
or
not,
but
they're,
adding
an
additional
story
by
measuring
on
that
corner.
The
only
corner
is
a
building
that
gets
under
140
feet.
Is
there
on
3rd
Street,
another
graph
or
rendering?
C
C
In
my
last
point,
you
can
see
it
here
too,
at
the
bottom.
It's
just
floating
up
in
midair
above
the
parking
entrance
and
the
roof
amenity
floor
is
well
above
140
feet.
I
know
rooftop
mechanics
can
be
above
140
feet
as
long
as
they
replace
one
foot
back
to
every
10
feet,
but
in
the
last
appeal,
mrs.
Goodman
said
that
nothing
should
ever
be
over
140
feet,
including
mechanics
at
the
lowest
grade,
whether
that
applies
or
not.
I
don't
see
this
as
mechanical.
C
So
to
summarize
here,
the
site
plan
does
not
meet
zoning
requirements.
The
findings
for
these
conditional
use
permits,
provide
subjective
and
broad
analysis,
they're,
often
misleading
or
falsely
representing
the
data,
because
they
can't
be
rationalized
simply.
They
should
be
adhering
to
all
these
requirements
not
trying
to
find
ways
around
them.
The
developers
in
C
fed
treat
these
factors
and
guidelines
as
if
they
were
relevant
or
can
be
disregarded.
C
Why
are
they
written
if
they're
not
intended
to
be
followed?
They
should
be
required
in
all
circumstances,
unless
unavoidable,
and
this
is
not
one
of
those
cases.
This
does
not
assist
the
neighborhood
parking
in
the
manner
people
believe
it
will
they're
taking
an
advantage
of
the
need
to
use
it
as
an
asset.
To
get
this
approved,
and
this
will
just
create
more
parking,
headaches
and
congestion
and
it
can
negate
plus
they
could
bite
that
minor
change
and
converted
to
office
space.
The
original
plan
they
proposed
was
a
10-story
office.
C
Space
building
with
three
below
grade
parking
levels
sounds
pretty
familiar
if
they
got
rid
of
it
and,
frankly,
no
logical
person
could
ever
say
this
size
of
this
building
is
in
historic
context
of
the
surrounding,
and
it's
what
these
regulations
and
guidelines
intended
proof
is
in
that
Haywood
manufacturing
building
that
used
to
sit
in
that
spot.
That
is
only
four
stories
high.
C
This
is
the
largest
proposed
building
and
stories
and
mass
it's
the
most
out
of
proportion
into
its
surrounding
building
context
in
the
neighborhood.
There
have
been
many
developments
in
recent
years
and
not
one
of
them
is
out
of
proportion
to
its
surroundings,
they're
requiring
variances
and
conditional
use
permits
to
rewrite
these
rules
and
precedents,
and
once
this
domino
falls,
there's
no
turning
back
keeping
and
scale
is
the
only
thing
we
have
to
control
the
issues
from
rapid
growth
in
this
neighborhood,
the
traffic,
the
livability,
the
comfort,
the
general
welfare.
C
These
exact
things
or
trying
to
protect
what
these
rules
are
already
being
impacted
when
we're
keeping
in
scale,
and
it
will
only
get
worse.
This
is
two
buildings
in
one:
it's
an
8
story,
parking
garage
and
a
5
story.
Office
building,
each
of
them
alone
are
larger
and
mass
than
the
surrounding
vicinity
and
I
just
questioned
believe
and
approve
an
eight
story,
parking
garage
in
that
site
plan.
You
just
break
it
up
and
look
at
it.
We
need
to
choose
if
they
want
office,
space
or
parking
and
abide
by
the
minneapolis
rules
and
regulations.
C
So,
as
mrs.
Goodman
said
last
time
we
may
want
parking,
they
may
want
an
office
space.
The
two
is
one:
you
don't
get
to
do
whatever
you
want.
They
just
see
this
neighborhood
as
an
8
to
5
cash
cow
and
they
have
no
care
how
it
impacts
the
neighborhood
or
the
it.
We
need
someone
to
be
able
to
mandate
simply
that
they
follow
the
rules
where
we
could
quickly
become
a
business
district
and
I
just
want
to
highlight
last
a
few
of
these
proposed
buildings.
You
see
at
the
top.
This
is
a
new
one.
C
It's
13
stories.
It's
four
hundred
nineteen
thousand
square
feet
it's
by
far
the
largest.
If
you
go
down
to
the
United
properties,
one
down
at
7:29
Washington,
it's
one
of
the
ones
that
have
received
them,
some
of
the
most
push
back
to,
and
we
ask
them
in
the
meetings
that's
going
to
have
a
thousand
employees
and
another
400
parking
spots.
My
biggest
concern
is
no
one
is
looking
at
the
neighborhood
as
a
whole.
We
look
at
each
one
of
these
in
a
vacuum
and
improve
it
without
looking
at
the
impact
to
the
entire
neighborhood.
C
C
We
have
been
to
countless
neighborhood
meetings.
We've
been
to
HPC
we've
been
here.
We've
appealed
this
once
we've
been
through
this
again.
All
of
our
arguments.
All
of
us
simply
stating
that
these
rules
and
regulations
are
not
being
met,
have
been
avoided.
We've
been
disregarded,
you
may
have
been
left
high
and
dry,
but
that
doesn't
mean
we're
wrong,
but
doesn't
mean
we
should
stop
fighting.
C
We
are
not
the
one
standing
here
asking
for
your
sympathy
or
saying
that
the
rules
and
regulations
are
not
fair
to
us
as
residents
we're
not
arbitrarily
trying
to
interpret
what
of
what
a
guideline
says
and
shift
it
to
our
narrative.
All
we're
doing
is
simply
saying
here's
the
rules
you
set
out
all
of
them.
It
should
be
basic
common
sense.
I
shouldn't
have
to
be
here
today
to
do
the
baseline
of
the
job
so
as
they're
not
willing
to
move
on
their
position.
I
can
tell
you.
C
There's
people
like
me
lined
up
out
the
door
to
come
back
here
as
many
times
as
it
takes,
because
in
our
minds
were
not
wrong.
There's
nothing,
we're
saying
other
than
do.
Is
you
set
out
to
do
the
city
and
what
you
say
needs
to
be
done
so
we'll
be
here
as
long
as
we
take,
we
all
want
to
see
the
building
go
up.
We
all
like
it.
C
C
G
Point
so
my
name
is
Matt
Galland
Fifth,
Avenue
loss,
401,
North,
2nd
Street,
yeah
I
was
going
to
make
some
points
with
access.
I
don't
need
to
take
all
the
time,
but
definitely
agree
with
a
lot
of
his
comment.
I
mean
the
main
use.
The
main
question
is:
why
should
this
building
get
preferential
treatment-
and
you
know
I-
have
not
heard
any
reasons
why
it
should
and
I
definitely
sympathize
the
developer,
trying
to
just
get
the
most
auto
life
in
the
project.
It's
really
the
government's
job.
You
all
have
fulfilled
that
role.
G
G
You
know
it's
very
clear
what
the
rules
say.
The
intention
of
the
rules,
councilman
Goodman,
did
point
out
why
it's
ten
stories
140
feet
last
time.
The
last
time
it
was
appealed
to
give
room
for
the
roof
top
equipment,
I
believe
it
was
and
shouldn't
correct
me
if
that's
wrong.
So
it's
very
clear.
It's
not
like
the
rules
are
arbitrary,
like
Oh
13
stories
and
140
feet
are
the
same
as
10
stories.
140
feet,
it's
not
including
that
rooftop
equipment
and
the
light
it
just.
G
It
is
frustrating
to
have
the
rules
written
down
that
are
made
by
consensus.
Why
are
there
you
know
a
ton
elected
commissioners,
breaking
it
multiple
times.
Why
have
the
rules
at
all?
If
that's,
okay,
there's
not
extenuating
circumstances
here,
I've
not
heard
any
extenuating
circumstances.
The
rules
were
built
exactly
for
the
reason
for
this
building,
you
know,
I,
don't
see
why
there
should
be
exceptions.
G
I
mean
as
an
example
I.
Let
me
Fifth
Avenue
law.
There
are
six,
it's
a
six
story:
building
five
or
six
depending
on
grade
three
to
four
floors.
Are
underground
I
mean
one
suggestion
just
bring
more
of
these
floors
underground
instead
of
building
them.
Above
ground
there's
only
a
couple
stories:
fifty
percent
of
my
building
is
underground
and
this
building
is
twice
as
tall
more
than
twice
as
tall.
So
that's
certainly
one
suggestion
I
mean
just
generally,
if
you
just
believe
in
you
know,
government
kind
of
applying
equality
and
fairness
to
all
the
buildings.
A
H
F
Good
morning
committee
members
councilmember
Goodman,
there
are
mechanical
units
above
140
foot
level,
but
those
do
not
count
by
the
rules
how
the
rules
are
applied.
You
do
not
include
the
height
of
the
mechanical
units
on
the
road
for
the
stair
and
elevator
overrun,
depending
on
their
placement
and
their
overall
height,
so
long
as
they
are
less
than
14
feet
above
roof
level
and
setback
from
the
rough
edge
of
certain
amount.
They
don't
count
in
the
height
in
140,
foot,
height
limit,
that's
the
rule
and
that's
part
of
the
revisions
that
were
made.
H
F
F
I
F
They
specifically
like
the
public
parking,
which
is
the
low
grade,
and
this
project
would
be
ten
stories,
except
that
it
added
public
parking
and
needed
to
then
find
a
way
to
also
accommodate
accessory
parking.
At
the
request
of
the
neighborhood
organization.
I
will
point
out.
There
is
no
minimum
parking
requirement
here,
but
there
is
need
and
demand
for
it.
So
the
arguments
and
concerns
about
traffic
impacts
and
parking
impacts
are
being
mitigated
by
including
parking
in
this
building.
F
The
traffic
tdmp
is
a
standard
requirement
if
it
was
not
unusual
for
this
building
and
it
concluded
that
streets
have
capacity
to
accommodate
the
traffic
that
it
will
generate.
This
project
is
what
the
b4n
district
is
intended
to
do,
which
is
to
promote
density
in
the
neighborhoods
surrounding
downtown.
There's,
no
f,
AR
limit
the
size
of
the
building
is
not
exceeding
any
size
limit.
The
height
of
the
building
in
the
v4n
is
ten
stories
or
140
feet,
whichever
is
less,
but
in
this
case
it
appears
like
a
ten
story.
Building
it's
the
same.
J
F
Could
be
if
it
were
ten
stories
in
13,
it's
technically
13
because
of
the
additional
parking
levels,
but
you
would
have
to
find
in
order
to
deny
this
to
you
P
that,
because
it's
technically
a
13
story
building
it
has
some
adverse
impacts
that
a
ten
story,
building
of
the
same
height
would
not
have
and
there's
no
facts
or
rationale
to
support
that
see
the
immediately
surrounding
buildings
r126.
But
there
are
ten
story,
buildings
in
the
area
and
ten
story.
Buildings
are
allowed
by
the
code.
F
F
F
A
A
H
I'm
going
to
move
to
deny
the
appeal
I
hate
to
have
to
do
this
because
I
don't
like
this
at
all
and
I'm
very
sympathetic,
sympathetic
to
the
applicants,
but
here's
how
I
view
it
140
feet
is
a
hundred
and
forty
feet,
no
matter
how
they
make
it
up
within
the
building.
I've
had
this
issue
in
my
ward
as
well,
where
I
have
it
right
now
on
West,
Lake,
Street
and
I
believe
that
they
can
put
ten
foot
ceilings
in
they
could
put
twelve
foot
ceilings
in.
H
They
could
have
sixteen
on
some
floors
and
ten
on
others,
but
the
way
the
neighborhood
views
it
is,
as
is
it
140
feet,
and
what
we're
looking
at
here
is
a
conditional
use
permit,
which
is
a
really
easy
thing
to
get.
I
want
to
be
clear,
conditional
use,
permit
means
allowed
with
conditions,
and
it
seems
to
me
as
though
they
met
the
conditions
as
much
as
I.
Don't
like
it.
H
I
do
think.
They've
met
the
conditions,
and
so
I
could
be
a
brat
and
vote
against.
It
decides
with
the
neighbors
to
be
popular,
but
I.
Just
don't
think.
That's
the
right
thing
to
do
here
as
much
as
I
would
prefer.
It
was
a
smaller
building
and
completely
agree.
There's
nothing
in
the
area.
That's
ten
storeys
and
I
would
not
want
to
start
a
precedent.
Myself,
I
believe
they've
met
the
conditions
for
the
conditional
use
permit
and
that's
really
how
we
have
to
judge
it.
H
A
Thank
you
for
any
discussion
on
the
motion
to
deny
that
appeal
for
the
three
items.
I'll
just
note
that
I
do
appreciate
said
the
Zion
care
that
has
been
taken
to
max
up
parking.
It
would
not
be
my
personal
preference
to
put
in
so
much
parking
to
be
frank,
but
I
will
note
that
we
have
a
building
in
my
ward.
A
This
is
an
area
for
growth
and
new
development.
To
maintain
that
flexibility,
I,
just
I,
think,
does
add
some
values
to
all
right.
Then
any
discussion
on
item
number
one,
seeing
none
all
those
in
approval.
Please
say
aye
hi
any
opposed,
and
then
I
will
also
go
ahead
and
move
item
7,
which
is
the
alley
vacation
for
this
project
as
well.
Any
discussion
on
that,
seeing
none
all
in
approval,
please
say
aye
aye
any
opposed.
A
That
item
carries,
and
that
brings
us
to
item
number
two,
which
is
a
conditional
use
permit
in
various
appeal
for
a
project
on
Marshall
Street,
north
east,
we'll
begin
again
with
the
staff
presentation.
How
many
people
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item?
Okay,
great,
thank
you
so
again,
we'll
just
have
a
staff
presentation
and
a
chance
for
questions
from
Council
members
and
then
we'll
open
the
public
hearing
and
hear
from
folks
about
the
project.
K
K
Okay,
good
morning,
chair
bender
committee
members,
my
name
is
Peter
Crandall
I'm,
a
Senior
Planner
with
cpad.
The
appeal
before
you
today
is
regarding
a
development
proposal
at
14th,
Avenue,
Northeast
and
Marshall
Street
northeast.
The
appeal
was
filed
by
Joe
a
small
field
on
behalf
of
the
Sheridan
neighborhood
organization,
regarding
an
approval
that
was
made
by
the
City
Planning
Commission
on
April
10th
of
this
year
to
approve
several
land
use
applications
for
this
development
project.
K
K
This
is
a
map
showing
where
activity
centers
are
located
throughout
the
city.
You'll
see
that
the
Greenbelt
is
circled
at
the
top
there
generally
activity
centers
are
guided
to
intersect
with
some
of
the
more
important
corridors
olicity,
those
included,
opted
commercial
corridors
and
community
corridors.
K
The
grain
builds
activity
center
is
at
or
near
the
intersection
of
four
community
corridors,
including
Marshall,
Street,
northeast
and
Broadway
northeast
and
then
across
the
river
directly
from
the
West
Broadway
commercial
corridor,
so
that
was
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
designation
of
this
area
as
an
activity
center
in
the
Comprehensive
Plan.
This
is
the
site,
as
it
tends
today,
largely
vacant
partially
used
for
parking
for
the
dusties
bar
and
then
the
proposed
site
plan
for
the
project.
K
I'll
note
that
this
this
plan
is
not
changing
as
a
part
of
the
proposed
changes
that
the
applicant
is
bringing
forward
today.
You'll
see
that
the
parking
is
all
accommodated,
accommodated
within
an
enclosed
parking
structure
at
grade
along
Marshall
Street
north
east.
The
building
is
mined
with
active
uses,
including
tool
is
working.
It's
and
amenity
space
for
the
project.
This
is
to
comply
with
our
site
plan
review
requirements
that
buildings
be
lined
with
active
uses
of
the
street
front.
K
K
This
removes
a
number
of
units
and
serves
to
transition
the
building
somewhat
more
towards
the
residential
property.
At
the
back.
It
also
eliminates
the
requirement
for
a
variance
to
the
parking
requirement
and
to
the
loading
requirement.
The
project
is
qualifying
for
our
50%
reduction
in
minimum
parking
requirements
because
of
its
proximity
to
high
frequency
transit.
K
Additionally,
because
the
unit
count
has
dropped
below
100,
they
no
longer
require
a
loading
space
for
the
zoning
code,
so
the
remaining
applications,
then,
are
the
rezoning
from
c1
to
c3
a
conditional
use
permit
to
increase
the
maximum
building,
height,
variance
of
the
rear
yard,
site
plan
review
and
preliminary
and
final
plat
there's
also
a
variance
to
the
subdivision
standards
within
that.
I
will
note
that
there
was
a
question
raised
at
City,
Planning,
Commission
and
subsequently
about
when
this
site
received
its
current
zoning
designation
and
a
question
about
whether
there
had
been
a
recent
rezoning.
K
A
A
L
Thank
You,
chair
bender
and
committee
members,
my
name
is
Jenny
Portman
and
I
live
at
1515,
Grand
Street
in
Sheridan,
neighborhood
and
I
am
speaking
on
behalf
of
Sheridan
neighborhood
organization,
the
city
recognized
representative
for
Sheridan
neighborhood,
as
well
as
the
coke
appellant,
who
are
the
13th
Avenue
Business
Association
Karen
Folliard,
the
food
building,
separate
of
all
of
the
businesses
within
the
food
building
and
multiple
other
adjacent
businesses
and
residents
who
wish
to
be
sign,
honest
appellant.
You
can
find
that
list
at
the
back
of
the
above
the
appeal.
L
It
couldn't
have
been
more
than
five
years
ago
to
help
allow
music
in
the
industy
fire
and
it
required
a
rezoning
which
we
had
to
actually
push
our
complication
at
the
time
to
do
so.
It
was
originally
it
was
originally
zoned,
r1,
I
believe
and
all
the
parcels
had
to
be
rezone
to
c1.
In
order
to
allow
the
entertainment
at
Dusty's,
so
I
don't
understand
how
it
wasn't
found,
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
at
the
time.
L
It
was
around
the
same
time
as
our
small
area
planning
was
happening,
and
so
the
community
did
discuss
the
c1
designation
for
that
site
and
agreed
that
it
was
appropriate
for
the
vision
we
have
there.
I
guess
I
should
start
with
the
fact
that
shared
a
neighborhood
organization
in
the
community
have
a
long
track
record
of
working
with
developers
and
encouraged
developed
in
the
community,
commercial
and
residential
multi-unit
rental
homeownership,
and
we
encourage
a
lot
of
reuse
of
existing
buildings.
L
So
in
this
case,
when
you
look
at
the
building
being
a
blank
slate,
the
lot
being,
essentially
a
vacant
lot
and
a
blank
slate,
it's
hard
to.
We
disagree
with
staff
assessment
that
there's
some
kind
of
unique
circumstance
here
that
should
require
any
rezoning
or
variance
or
conditional
use
for
that
matter.
So,
starting
with
the
rezoning,
it
was
a
discussion
within
the
last
five
years
that
that
be
a
c1.
L
L
Our
small
area
plan
is
considers
this
area
appropriate
for
mixed-use,
so
commercial
and
residential
mixed
together,
the
developers
proposing
a
single
use,
the
you
know
it
does
it
basically
conflicts
with
the
policies
and
the
intent
and
spirit
of
the
small
area
plan
which
envisions
this
mixed-use
and
13,000.
Excuse
me,
14th,
Avenue,
remaining
a
more
calm
Street.
L
Our
plan
actually
shows
14th
Avenue
being
the
place
where
you
can
come
off
of
the
Mississippi
River
bike
system
and
have
a
calm
Avenue
into
the
neighborhood,
as
opposed
to
taking
13th,
which
is
more
congested
and
it's
much
more
active,
so
adding
extensive
density.
There
is
not
in
the
interest
of
the
neighborhood
we're
looking
for
more
of
a
medium
density.
The
square
block
itself
has
about
has
ten
homes
and
for
businesses
the
ten
homes
are
mostly
duplex.
L
So
we're
looking
for
a
c1
zoning,
a
building
that
is
more
within
three
to
four
storey,
more,
like
a
thirty
units
with
commercial
use.
The
impact
of
the
parking
for
this
much
density
is
detrimental
to
the
area.
The
small
business
across
the
street,
which
did
reuse
an
old
building
and
houses,
four
or
five
different
businesses
and
over
30
employees
would
be
hurt
by
this.
Some
of
the
building
has
no.
L
There
is
no,
it
was
associated
parking
and
the
restaurant.
The
draft
horse
would
be
directly
in
front
of
where
they're
proposing
to
put
their
parking
entrance.
So
there's
there's
no
parking
for
the
restaurant
plus.
The
entry
for
parking
lot
is
right
in
front
of
the
building.
The
height
also
affects
the
draft
arts
and
the
food
building,
in
that
the
food
building
has
solar
panels
on
the
roof
and
the
patio
for
the
draft
horse.
If
chef
is,
it
would
be
actually
shaded
and
is
you
know
it's
well
used
and
and
liked
for
its
sunny
spot?
L
The
parking
variance
I
know
that
they
are
actually
now
have
figured
out
that
they
can
just
simply
reduce
the
number
of
buildings.
I
mean
this
is
part
of
our
point.
There
they're
creating
the
own
their
own
hardship
on
this
site,
I
mean
it
could
require
four
variances
and
that
conditional
youth,
you
know
they
can
just
design
a
building
that
would
actually
fit
there
and
that's
actually
going
to
not
have
such
an
intensive
impact
on
the
community
surrounding
it.
L
So
we
feel
that
the
one
car
per
unit
is
a
more
appropriate
requirement
for
parking.
We've
learned
from
working
with
the
Grain
Belt
area
apartments.
They
did
do
one
site
per
unit,
but
they
intended
to
use
half
of
it
for
visitors.
They've
now
had
to
convert
it
all
to
resident
parking
because
of
the
demand,
and
there
are
still
extra
cars
on
the
street.
L
These
people
do
use
transit,
which
means
their
cars
are
left
on
the
street
during
the
day
and
when
our
the
architects
employees
come,
they
have
nowhere
to
park
because
they
have
inadequate
parking
as
well.
In
fact,
when
we
did
our
small
area
of
planning
five
years
ago,
this
was
a
major
concern
of
the
businesses
along
13th
Avenue.
That
parking
was
already
an
issue,
and
that
was
before
we
have
this
200
unit
apartment
complex,
so
we
would.
L
We
know
that
the
developer
has
other
pro
formas
that
can
work
at
this
site
they're
using
their
most
intensive
I
mean
we,
you
can
see
all
over
town
CPM
have
six
storey
buildings
with
almost
exactly
this.
This
model
I
mean,
obviously
it
works
for
them,
but
we,
but
we
know
from
the
fact
that
they
need
so
much
variance
to
get
their
building
on
this
site
that
it's
really
too
intensive.
They
have
other
pro
forma.
There
are.
L
They
are
building
three
and
four-story
buildings
in
other
parts
of
the
city,
and
that
would
be
much
more
appropriate
to
the
site.
We're
not
against
working
with
them.
We're
not
trying
to
kill
the
development.
We
are
trying
to
just
get
something:
that's
more
appropriate
to
the
site.
There's
a
movement
north
east.
You
know
people
concerned
about
uptown
in
our
northeast,
and
this
wood
feels
kind
of
like
the
first
domino
to
fall,
where
you
know
all
of
a
sudden
there's
a
different
feel
to
our
community.
There's
nothing
wrong
with
uptown,
but
Northeast
wants
to
be
northeast.
L
The
loading
requirement,
even
if
they
don't
require
it,
parameter
100
units
it
still
pushes
the
moving
in
and
out
into
the
public.
Right-Of-Way
14th
is
a
pretty
narrow
street
and
then
they're
also
asking
to
reduce
the
setback
on
the
alley
which
the
alley
itself
is
three
feet
narrower
than
a
normal
alley.
L
L
The
alley
is
narrow
that
part
of
Marshall
Street
actually
narrows
due
to
to
the
historic
building
and,
and
so
there's
difficulty
in
safely
navigating
the
terms
and
that
kind
of
thing
we
also
have
to
snow
emergency
routes
at
13th,
Avenue
and
at
Marshall
Street
and
then-
and
we
also
have
a
fire
department
through
blocks
away.
So
maintaining
clear
and
free
streets
is
critically
important.
L
L
We
expect
that
they
mitigate
as
much
of
the
impact
that
they're
going
to
have
on
their
own
site,
so
that
we
can
have
the
opportunity
to
maintain
more
affordable
business
and
homes
by
using
exist,
existing
buildings
and-
and
we
look
forward
to
working
with
the
developer,
to
try
and
create
a
site.
That's
building,
that's
appropriate
for
the
site.
Thank.
J
I'm
Karen
and
I
own
a
building
at
1509,
Marshall,
Street
and
I.
Think
what
I
want
to
talk
about
is
a
few
things
quickly.
One
is
I'm
a
layperson
and
I've
read
through
some
of
the
city
documents,
and
one
of
the
things
that
strikes
me
is
that
the
planning
and
zoning
has
a
responsibility
to
have
orderly
development
and
I
would
like
to
make
a
case
that
this
particular
project
with
the
number
of
variances
and
CPUs
and
rezoning,
isn't
exactly
orderly
development.
J
Know
you're
you're
all
familiar
with
it,
but
when
I
go
out
and
look
at
these
other
activity,
centers
I
see
commercial
and
it's
a
center
where
people
come
to
do
neighborhood
business
and
it's
not
just
a
large
residential
area.
It
specifically
says
activity:
centers
are
for
a
mix
of
uses
and
commercial
is
one
of
the
uses
that
all
other
activity
centers
have
so
I
have
a
in
my
head.
J
This
isn't
orderly
because
it's
residential,
it's
a
single
use
in
an
activity
center
and
that
doesn't
make
sense
to
me
and
it
doesn't
make
sense
that
it's
orderly
development,
it
seems
disorderly
development.
The
other
point
is
that
I
think
that
the
developer
is
asking
for
a
more
intensive
commercial
zoning,
specifically
just
for
his
own
pocketbook
gifts,
as
you
will,
because
the
youth
that
he's
proposing
exists
in
a
c1
zoning
district
he's
not
proposing
anything
that
needs
a
c3,
a
zoning.
He
can
build
residential
on
this
vacant
lot.
J
The
other
issue
is,
it
is
a
vacant
lot.
He
can.
He
can
ask
for
many
variances
and
claim
that
the
proposal
I
want
to
build,
doesn't
fit
on
this
lot.
But
I
would
ask
you
to
say,
make
your
development
fit
on
this
lot.
It
doesn't
work
the
other
way
around
unless
you're
just
giving
him.
You
know
a
monetary
advance,
so
more
intensive
zoning
is
a
monetary
advance.
No
other
c3,
a
zoning
exists
anywhere
on
plot
number:
nine,
which
is
the
northeast
sector.
None
c1
exists
in
many
locations
that
is
consistent
and
orderly
development.
J
So
the
other
issue
I
have
with
the
orderly
development,
is
that
you
wisely
ask
for
these
kind
of
developments
to
fit
within
the
neighborhood.
I
understand
that
the
Planning
Commission
does
not
require
a
schematic
drawing
that
needs
to
be
in
scale,
and
in
fact
the
developer
has
provided
a
schematic
drawing
of
his
proposal
in
the
neighborhood,
but
it
is
not
drawn
to
scale,
which
means
he
can
make
his
building
look
much
smaller
than
it
is
so
because
I'm,
an
artist
I,
understand
some
things
about
perspective.
J
J
The
developers
building
has
a
different
scale,
as
you
can
see,
it
meets
in
some
space
in
the
pink
or
red
asterisk,
which
means
the
two
buildings
are
drawn
in
different
scales.
Now
he's
not
required
to
show
you
it
in
scale,
that's
not
one
of
the
requirements
for
the
Planning
Commission
papers,
but
this
stuff
used
to
be
called
shenanigans,
and
now
it's
called
alternative
facts.
J
But
how
are
we
to
judge
if
this
building
sits
within
the
scale
of
the
neighborhood
if
it's
drawn
out
of
scale
I
stacked
in
my
next
picture,
I
stacked
three
Dusty's
buildings,
which
would
be
six
storeys
tall,
which
is
his
building,
is
a
six-story
tall
building
and,
as
you
can
see,
his
building
a
century
is
a
four-story
tall
building.
Now
this
is
what
the
shenanigans
do.
It
looks
like
it
fits
in
the
neighborhood
and
he's
building,
but
in
fact
it
doesn't
I,
don't
know
how
you
trust
the
developer,
who
does
alternative
facts
or
shenanigans?
J
J
The
last
thing
is
I
understand.
Variances
are
something
that
I
think
they're
a
tool
to
allow
excellent
development
if
they
need
to
be
used.
Specifically,
they
are
tools
if
there
is
a
constraint
on
a
property,
a
pre-existing
building,
something
very
odd
than
yes
apply
for
a
variance
and
demand
that
that
development
in
all
aspects,
I
think
this
development
is
one
that
is
going
to
cause
problems
for
the
neighborhood
that
we
will
be
dealing
with
four.
J
Specifically
I
understand
the
loading
zone
has
been
not
required
anymore,
because
there
are
less
than
100
spaces,
but
there
is
still
a
variance
for
the
alley
setback
which
is
asking
it
to
be
reduced
by
1/3
in
an
already
small
alley.
So
1/3
is
a
large
variance.
If
you
asked
him
to
say
no,
we
need
that
setback
again.
There
would
be
fewer
units
and,
from
my
perspective,
less
problems
down
the
road
for
the
neighborhood
in
terms
of
parking.
J
M
Enjoy
small
field
1414
6th,
Street,
northeast
and
I
just
want
to
speak
a
little
bit
about
whether
or
not
our
small
area
plan
is
even
considered
when
we're
talking
about
development
and
the
work
that
the
neighborhood's
do
in
order.
The
extensive
work,
the
neighborhood
to
do
in
order
to
present
a
plan
to
the
city
that
says
this
is
this
is
where
we
see
different
different
uses.
What
we
want
our
neighborhood
to
look
like
and
with
the
direction
of
which
we
want
development
to
happen
with
on
within
our
neighborhood.
M
These,
the
conditional
use
permit
in
the
variances
all
benefit
a
developer.
Only
there
are
going
to
create
hardships
on
the
small
businesses
and
artists
that
we
are
trying
to
promote
within
our
neighborhood.
We
have
a
strong
working
class
artists,
small
business
group
of
people
who
live
in
the
neighborhood
and
this
kind
of
development
is
only
benefitting
benefiting
them.
So
there's
another
point
that
they
say:
there's
a
you
know
because
of
the
proximity
to
the
mass
transit
that
they
have
a
reduction
in
the
parking.
But
actually
there
is
one
bus
line
that
runs
I.
M
Think
three
blocks
away
from
this
development,
which
I
would
consider
intensive
mass
transit
and,
like
Jenny,
said
the
Greenbelt
had
one
flat
for
per
unit
and
has
had
to
extend
their
visitor
parking
to
to
the
residents
that
live
there
and
I
think
the
others
have
touched
on
the
point.
So
I
appreciate
your
time.
Thank
you.
N
Ted
Abramson
1427,
Marshall
Street
northeast
I'm,
an
owner
of
multiple
small
apartment
buildings
in
the
neighborhood
and
I,
see
this
development
as
a
positive
for
the
neighborhood
in
its
current
state
and
I.
Think
they've
made
some
moves
to
bring
the
unit
count
down,
which
I
don't
necessarily
agree
with
that
I
think
more
units
are
needed
in
that
neighborhood,
so
I
support
some
of
the
variances
they
have
in
their
development
and
think
that
it's
an
aspect
of
the
neighborhood
that
needs
to
continue
growing
further
down
into
the
core
of
Northeast.
Thank.
O
O
How
there
was
in
a
quarter
mile
of
it,
but
one
of
my
neighbors
are
saying
they
are,
but
so
I
don't
think
they
meet
that
requirement
they're
also
in
the
new
green
zone
that
the
city
passed.
So
it's
a
stop
gentrification,
which
is
exactly
what
this
is
because
thousand
dollars
for
a
500
square
foot
apartment
is
not
the
affordable
housing
she's.
Not
thank.
A
I
F
Again,
committee
members
carol
lansing
bakery
baker
daniels
representing
the
development
team.
I
did
want
to
go
to
the
plan
revisions
with
you
to
explain
a
bit
more
on
how
they
mitigate
the
height
of
the
building,
so
for
this
wing
of
the
building.
The
sixth
floor
is
then
removed
that
seventy
three
foot
depth
of
that
is
now
only
five
stories.
Adjacent
to
this
are
for
neighborhood
this.
While
it's
currently,
the
half
of
the
block
is
occupied
with
one
two
three
unit
buildings.
It
is
zoned
r4.
F
F
The
floor
area
was
increased
here
to
business,
so
this
is
what
the
original
plan
was.
There
was
an
increase
in
floor
area
here,
where
its
interior
to
the
site
not
close
to
the
neighborhood
to
help
make
up
for
some
of
that
last
floor
area
and
although
not
a
change
from
the
previous
plan,
I
did
want
to
point
out
as
another
mitigation
of
height
that
this
part
of
the
building
this
wing
is
set
back
from
the
street
ten
and
a
half
feet,
so
that
also
helps
transition.
F
Other
factors
that
mitigate
the
impact
of
the
building
on
on
the
street
in
the
neighborhood-
this
is
a
long
marshall.
This
is
not
a
change,
but
this
the
building,
facade
along
marshall,
is
that
that
five
and
a
half
to
six
and
a
half
feet
from
the
property
line
there
is
lots
of
articulation
windows
balconies,
multiple
students's
centered.
Is
that
all
enliven?
What's
now
a
a
vacant
lot
in
live
on
the
street
ad
engagement
with
the
public
streets,
the
context
of
the
area?
F
This
will
be
a
taller
building
in
the
area,
but
it
will
be
shorter
than
the
Greenbelt
and
it
is
consistent
with
the
goals
of
activity
centers.
We
submitted
a
shadow
study
to
you,
a
new
one
that
was
done
since
we
heard
about
concerns
of
shadowing
on
that.
The
draft
horse
patio.
This
is
the
draft
horse
patio
and
between
April
and
September
mid
April
mid-september.
F
F
The
setback
from
the
alley
here,
there's
20
feet
between
the
building.
We
are
asking
for
setback,
variance
on
only
one
and
on
that
side
along
the
alley
losing
you
know,
reduced
or
increasing
the
setback
wouldn't
just
mean
a
loss
of
units.
It
would
also
mean
either
a
loss
of
parking
or
a
loss
of
active
uses
along
the
streets,
because
it
would
compress
the
floor
area
where
we
currently
have
parking
regarding
parking
and
traffic
impacts.
We
don't
need
a
variance
now,
but
a
travel
demand
management
plan
was
performed
or
a
study.
F
F
It
needed
those
in
order
to
get
a
license
that
would
allow
the
music
or
for
them
to
continue
to
do
the
music
that
they
were
doing
it's
non-conforming
in
a
c1
district
as
a
nightclub,
it
will
be
performing
in
a
c3
district,
but
it
wasn't
a
rezoning
application
that
was
brought
to
the
city.
The
small
area
plan
does
not
have
any
specific
guidance
for
c1
district
or
height
in
it.
F
The
only
guidance
that
applies
to
this
site
or
the
most
directive
that
it
acknowledges
it's
in
an
activity
center
and
it
repeats
the
guidance
from
the
Comprehensive
Plan
about
activity
centers
that
they
are
to
promote
identity
and
mixed-use.
These
parcels
were
not
added
to
the
activity
center
for
the
benefit
of
the
developer
activity,
centers
and
c3.
A
zoning
are
like
the
perfect
fit
the
c3.
A
zoning
title
is
community
activity.
Centered
district
they're
intended
to
promote
high
density
and
a
mix
of
uses,
not
a
mix
necessarily
in
every
building,
but
in
the
area.
F
The
purpose
of
having
this
around
the
Grain
Belt
complex
is
to
support
the
uses
and
the
historic
reuse
of
those
buildings,
both
commercial
uses
and
others
it's
to
promote
more
commercial
uses,
but
also
to
promote
a
lot
of
residents
coming
to
this
area
to
support
those
businesses
and
the
other
businesses
around
the
activity
center,
like
the
food
building
and
the
artists
and
the
other
organizations
in
the
neighborhood.
So
bringing
these
residents
will
be
a
good
thing,
won't
just
redevelop.
The
vacant
site
will
just
increase
tax
base.
F
It
will
bring
vitality
and
support
for
what's
already
there,
please
just
to
show
you
the
transit
resources.
This
is
the
site
and
here's
where
the
highest
frequency
bus
transit
is
about
two
to
three
blocks
away.
There's
also
bus
lines
on
Marshall
I
mean
on
Broadway
a
couple
blocks.
Oh
there's
a
nice
ride
bike
station
is
the
Mississippi
east
bank
trail,
there's
bike
lanes
on
Marshall,
south
of
Broadway
and
they're
being
studied
to
go
further
north.
So
this
also
has
the
alternative
transit
area,
alternative
transit
resources
that
are
synergistic
with
the
density
being
proposed.
F
This
Peter
showed
you
this
earlier.
Here
is
the
Greenbelt
activity
center.
The
point
of
me
putting
this
up
for
you
is
that
it
is
suitable
to
have
areas
of
increased
density
throughout
the
city
and
in
the
Northeast
area,
and
particularly
this
part.
This
is
one
of
the
prime
areas
for
that
density
to
come
so
sort
of.
If
not
here,
where
and
and
did
you
know
what
the
city
policies
are
set
up
to
do.
E
A
P
Thank
You,
chair
bender
and
council
members,
my
name
is
Pamela
Lee
and
I
live
at
11:17
3rd
Street
northeast
I've,
been
in
these
chambers
before
for
a
similar
building,
and
very
similar
situations
are
coming
to
mind
and
I'd
like
to
speak
to
the
parking
issue.
Unless
you
live
in
the
area,
you
may
not
see
all
of
the
parking
congestion
that
goes
on
in
Northeast
and
I.
Don't
want
to
see
a
businesses
suffer
as
a
result
of
not
having
that
parking.
P
It
would
be
great
if
everybody
that
walked
and
rode
a
bus
would
go
to
those
different
businesses,
but
parking
people
are
the
ones
that
come
in
and
help
to
support.
Secondly,
it
would
be
wonderful
if
we
could
have
public
transit
all
over
city.
We
have
a
state
that
if
the
legislature
is
voting
down,
a
billion
dollars
in
monies
that
are
supposed
to
go
to
metro,
tant,
transit
and
our
state
is
being
cut.
40%
for
Metro,
transit
and
I
feel
recruiting
the
cart
before
the
horse,
we're
building,
building,
building
and
putting
lots
of
dancing
in.
P
But
how
are
we
funneling
it?
What
are
we
doing
for
the
infrastructure
for
getting
these
pirates
in
and
out,
and
people
that
need
to
take
public
transit
I
can
give
myself
as
an
example
they're
seniors
my
age,
and
that
percentage
is
rising
in
this
city
and
I
have
nine
grandchildren
that
live
in
four
different
directions
and
buses?
Don't
always
go
to
those
directions,
but
I'm
still
going
to
go.
So.
Thank
you.
Thank.
D
My
name's
Heidi
cyd
brass
ball
I
would
like
to
start
by
thanking
Pat
for
looking
for
somebody
to
actually
take
care
of
Dusty's
I.
Think
a
lot
of
us
with
neighborhood
do
appreciate
that.
However,
I
also
feel
that
this
project
doesn't
totally
fit
into
the
neighborhood,
as
stated
by
other
people,
the
people
that
are
going
to
be
renting.
Those
apartments
are
going
to
have
cars.
They
are
not
going
to
be
using
public
transportation
time
in
the
parking
is
an
issue.
D
If
you
want
the
parts
that
cannot
be
an
issue
then
make
these
houses
these
rentals,
low-income
houses
or
low-income
rentals,
where
the
people
will
not
have
cars,
but
that's
not
what's
happening.
I
just
really
feel
it's
out
of
place
and
that
it's
not
fitting
with
the
neighborhood.
The
neighborhood
is
traditionally
known
as
being
a
working-class
neighborhood,
and
at
this
point,
projects
like
this
are
taking
all
those
people
out
of
the
neighborhood,
and
it's
really
not
fitting
with
the
neighborhood.
So
that's
why
I
say
thanks.
Thank.
A
Q
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
to
all
of
those
that
were
here
to
to
speak
and
testified
today.
I
do
appreciate
your
time
and
your
presence
to
to
jump
to
the
conclusion
that
I'd
like
to
get
to
I
I,
do
think
we're
going
to
need
a
little
bit
more
time.
Madam
chair,
to
sort
some
of
these
details
out
into
and
to
negotiate
something
that
functions
and
that
is
within
all
of
the
acceptable
conditions.
Q
So
I
would
ask
that
there
be
a
continuance
of
one
cycle,
but
I
would
also
like
to
speak
to
into
each
of
the
individual
issues.
So
I
think
what
we
are
seeing
here
today
and
actually
with
the
Washington
development
that
came
just
prior,
is
the
constant
push
and
pull
you
have
when
any
time
these
developments
come
forward.
There's
the
first
I
can
tell
you
that
when
I
first
learned
of
this
project,
the
the
first
priority
for
me
and
my
number
one
initial
concern
was
the
retention
of
dusties
for
the
long
haul.
Q
Although
I
haven't
done
my
research
on
the
historical
significance
of
the
building
itself,
I
doubt
that
it
is
historic
which
means
that
any
subsequent
developer
that
comes
down
the
pipeline
could
potentially
get
rid
of
the
business
and
then
demolish
what
I
think
a
neighborhood
legacy
and
I
would
like
to
see
dusties
remain
there
for
the
long
haul.
So
that
was
that
was
the
first
priority.
Q
So
I
think
it's
really
important
that
as
we
look
to
see
what
the
goals
are
of
this
project
that
we're
also
considering
what
might
come
next,
if
this
one,
if
some
form
of
this
development
ultimately
doesn't
come
through
and
I,
know
that
the
neighborhood
understands
that
second
I'll
talk
about
the
parking
and
I
do
agree
with
the
neighbors
that
there
and
and
some
of
the
local
businesses
that
at
times
there
is
a
dearth
of
parking
in
the
area
and
as
significant
density
goes
up.
I.
Q
Don't
necessarily
think
that
every
single
person
there
will
be
riding
a
bike
or
driving
a
car.
I
also
believe
that
the
while
the
transportation
network
along
2nd
Street
is
somewhat
significant.
We
are
fighting
off
attempts
at
the
state
legislature
to
reduce
the
budget
for
busing
by
as
much
as
40%,
and
that's
something
that
we
need
to
consider
now.
That
being
said,
you
can't
argue
for
additional
parking
and
simultaneously
argue
for
affordability.
Q
Every
additional
parking
space
that's
required
to
get
put
in
does
add
to
the
per
unit
cost.
That's
not
an
opinion,
that's
a
fact,
and
if
we're
arguing
for
affordability,
additional
parking
is
quite
simply
not
the
way
to
go,
and
so
I
think
we
need
to
be
looking
at
the
push
and
pull
of
that
dynamic,
I
think
one
individual
I
believe
was
Heidi.
Q
We
mentioned
the
possibility
of
having
low
income
before
affordable
housing
there
and
and
absolutely
that,
would
that
would
that
would
absolutely
be
something
that
I
would
consider
for
this
location
and
then,
finally,
just
to
you
know
this,
this
overarching
topic
of
gentrification
and
what
are
the?
What
are
the
things
that
we
want
to
prevent
moving
forward
this?
This
is
presently
a
surface
parking
lot,
and
what
we
know
right
now
is
that
this
neighborhood,
because
of
the
work
of
the
Association
and
the
people
that
live
in
it,
is
rising
very
quickly
in
value.
Q
If
we
simply,
it
is
a
surface
parking
lot,
do
not
add
any
density
and
I
realize
it's
not
the
goal
of
the
neighborhood,
not
to
add
any
density,
but
if
we
keep
it,
as
is
what
will
continuously
happen?
Is
the
demand
will
creep
up
while
the
supply
remains
stagnant
and
that
will
do
nothing
but
add
to
the
values
and
ultimately
displace
people
of
lower
incomes
so
and
then
I'll,
finally,
add
the
concept
of
live
workspace.
You
know
the
concept
that
this
is
an
activity
center
and
there's
a
request
to
be
rezone.
Q
Daz
c3a
would
lead
me
to
say:
well,
maybe
there
should
be
some
retail
or
some
aspect
of
activity
in
the
building
itself
and
there's
presently
not
there's
not
the
belief
that
live-work
space
will
be
retail
I,
don't
agree
with.
We've
done
live
workspace
in
the
past
and
it
just
ends
up
being
live
space,
and
so
I
do
have
a
concern
about
that.
So,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
you
can
see
that
I'm
kind
of
I
do
think
that
there
is
a
compromise
that
can
be
struck
here
we
can
retain
dusties.
Q
R
So,
in
my
opinion,
so
that's
an
important
thing,
but
I
would
I,
don't
know
its
current
designation
I
believe
it
may
not
be
currently
designated
but
to
say
that
it
couldn't
be
I.
Think
that
might
not
be
accurate
and
I
would
encourage
staff
to
look
at
a
designation
for
this
for
this
particular
building
and
here's.
Why?
Again,
it's
not
just
missed,
alter
a
personal
connection
to
it,
or
that
is
a
quaint,
little
stack
of
bricks.
R
This
is
part
of
the
history
of
the
Northeast
brewing
District
period,
as
we
know
the
little
pubs
that
would
go
up
throughout
the
fabric
of
Northeast
Minneapolis
aren't
there
just
by
accident,
they're,
often
sponsored
by
the
Brewers
themselves,
and
this
one
in
particular.
It
was
sponsored
by
the
obvious
sponsor
Grain
Belt,
and
so
this
is
the
one
tight
house,
the
little
pub
that's
right
across
the
street
from
its
sponsor.
R
It
makes
a
visual
connection
to
that
historical
connection
that
can't
be
replicated
by
a
dozen
other
or
so
of
pub
houses
throughout
North,
East
and
other
liquor
districts.
There's
Glick
houses
that
Club
Jaeger
was
a
good
example
of
a
glitch
and
I.
Think
we've
even
had
some
conversation
about
preservation
of
these
home
are
these
buildings
that
have
that
story,
but
none
of
them
several
doesn't
matter
throughout
Minneapolis.
It
still
exists,
are
right
across
the
street
from
their
sponsor
and
I.
R
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm,
glad
that
you
we
had
the
public
hearing
today,
because
I
learned
something
in
the
public
hearing
that
I
would
just
like
to
throw
out
there
for
whatever
negotiation
happens
from
here
to
there,
and
that
is
the
young
lady
that
got
up
and
pointed
out
that
there
is
no
other
c3a
zoning
in
the
entire
sector
and
I.
Think
that
says
something
I
have
an
activity
center
in
my
ward
and
it's
not
Zone
c3a
either,
and
so
it
seems
to
me
as
though
this
is
a
case
of
empty
lot.
H
What's
our
pro
forma
that
will
fit
not
what
fits
best
within
the
neighborhood
I'm,
not
sure.
Well,
if
that
was
so
obvious
to
me,
actually
that
that's
the
case,
this
block
doesn't
have
c3a,
then
you
do
a
ring
around
it.
There's
no
c-38
and
you
look
at
the
entire
planning
sector.
There's
no
c3a
they've
decided
what
they
wanted
to
build
and
they
determine
what
the
zoning
was
going
to
be
and
they
came
in
and
said
the
city
watts
density.
H
Do
it
here
and
I
really
reject
that
idea
that
they
should
just
do
whatever
they
want,
because
we
want
density,
they
should
do
something
here.
I
agree,
I,
think
it's
better
than
a
surface
parking
lot
without
question,
but
it
has
to
be
something
that
fits
in
if
not
to
the
existing
zoning,
then
similar
zoning
within
the
area.
I
think
that
makes
the
most
sense.
I
also
would
urge
us
to
look
at
designating
dusties.
Certainly
councilmember
fry
could
suggest
that
designation.
H
Then
we
won't
have
to
be
worried
about
what
developer
comes
in
in
the
future
and
potentially
threatens
to
tear
down
dusties
unless
they
can
get
a
six
story
building.
So
I
do
think
that
we
should
be
looking
at
suggesting
dusties
as
a
potential
building
for
designation
anyway,
so
that
we
don't
have
to
face
in
the
future.
What
would
happen
if
this
development
doesn't
happen
with
this
pro
forma,
but
it
would
be
the
baseline
for
what
would
happen
going
forward.
A
Okay,
so
I
will
go
ahead
and
move
to
postpone
this
item.
One
cycle
to
the
next
zoning
and
planning
committee
meeting
I'll
keep
the
public
hearing.
Oh
I,
close
the
public
hearing,
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
reopen
a
public
hearing
next
time
as
well
and
I
do
want
to
remind
everyone
who
spoke
to
please
check
in
with
a
clerk
and
sign
in
please
we
have
some
of
you,
but
not
all
the
signs
folk
I'll
just
mention
to
you
know.
A
I
spoke
about
this
at
Planning,
Commission
and
I
am
I,
look
forward
to
seeing
the
changes
that
come
forward
from
more
time
with
a
developer
in
the
neighborhood
organization.
I
do
think
it's
important
to
note
that
we
have
one
of
the
lowest
rental
vacancy
rates
in
housing
in
the
country
right
now,
and
so
every
single
time
we
look
at
a
project.
A
We
are
deciding
whether
or
not
we're
going
to
address
and
allow
for
more
housing
in
our
community
or,
if
we're
going
to
maintain
this
dysfunctional
II
and
dangerously
low
rental
vacancy
rate,
and
what
that
really
means
is
it
doesn't
mean
people
are
going
to
stop
moving
to
the
neighborhood.
It
means
the
choice
between
people
moving
into
a
new
building
or
moving
into
an
older
building
and
displacing
current
residents,
and
we've
seen
that
in
City,
after
City
after
city
across
the
country.
A
So
I'm
excited
to
hear
that
that
the
neighborhood
organization
has
a
history
of
being
supportive
of
new
housing
in
the
community,
because
we
do
need
it
and
we
have
these
areas
of
the
city
called
activity
centers
that
we've
left
lower
zoned.
It
means
that
we
do
have
to
rely
on
more
rezoning
every
time,
so
they
obviously
all
other
policy
choice,
would
be
to
rezone
our
activity
centers
to
a
higher
zoning.
Then
we
would
have
less
discretion
each
time
it
would.
A
It
would
look
like
we
were
allowing
less
rule-breaking,
because
our
rules
would
be
more
consistent
with
our
policies.
So
all
that
said,
I
again
look
forward
to
seeing
the
changes
come
forward,
and
that
is
art
so
well.
Go
ahead
and
vote
on
postponement
of
items
2
and
8
all
those
in
favor,
please
say:
aye
aye
any
opposed,
there's
Cary!
That's
our
last
item
and
we
are
adjourned.
Thank
you.