►
From YouTube: October 16, 2017 City Planning Commission
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission
A
Good
afternoon,
I
will
call
to
order
the
October
16th
meeting
of
the
Minneapolis
City
Planning
Commission.
My
name
is
Matt
Brown
I
serve
as
president
of
the
Commission
I'm
joined
today
by
commissioners,
Magri,
no
slack
Swezey
and
a
Freeland
at
this
time.
I'll
ask
that
you
silence
any
mobile
devices
and
we
can
get
started
with
our
meeting.
Our
first
item
of
business
is
to
approve
the
actions
from
the
October
2nd
meeting.
A
They
have
a
motion
to
approve
those
actions
if
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor
and
that
motion
carries
next,
we
will
organize
the
agenda.
You
can
find
hard
copies
of
the
agenda
and
the
hallway
will
determine
which
items
will
we
will
discuss
today,
which
will
be
considered
on
consent
and,
if
any,
are
continued
to
another
meeting
or
withdrawn
we'll
consider
those
as
well
so
starting
at
the
top
of
the
agenda
item.
1
is
a
vacation
in
the
vicinity
of
Chicago
Avenue
that
application
has
been
withdrawn.
A
Moving
along
item
2
is
also
a
vacation.
That's
in
the
vicinity
of
23rd
Avenue
north.
We
will
discuss
item
2
if
anyone
is
here
for
that
item,
3
is
another
vacation.
That's
in
the
vicinity
of
Humboldt
Avenue
north.
We
will
continue
that
item
to
the
October
30th
meeting,
so
if
any
want
to
ski
or
for
that
that
will
be
considered
on
October
30th
item
4
is
a
25
27
Girard
Avenue
North.
That's
an
application
for
a
change
of
non-conforming
use.
A
Anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
4,
seeing
no
one
will
put
item
4
on
consent
item
5
is
the
Cedar
Lake
South
Beach
improvements
at
3500
Cedar
Lake
Avenue,
that
is
a
conditional
use
permit
and
a
variance
as
well
as
a
vacation.
Is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
for
item
5c?
No
one
will
put
that
on
consent.
A
Item
6
is
at
11:20
West
Broadway.
That's
a
rezoning
will
continue
that
item
to
October
30th.
So
if
anyone
is
here
for
item
6
that
will
be
considered
on
October
30th
item
7
is
a
48
16
Nicollet
Avenue,
that
is
a
chain
of
non-conforming
use.
Anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
her
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
seven.
A
We
can.
We
can
we'll
still
pull
it
from
consent
and
we'll
give
you
an
opportunity
to
speak
on
that.
So
all
right
so
item.
Seven
we
will
discuss
item
H
is
the
Brea
Missionary
Baptist
Church
at
7:04,
through
714
30th
Avenue
north
to
applications
of
rezoning
and
site
plan
review
related
to
a
building
addition.
There
is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
8c.
No
one
will
put
item
eight
on
consent
item
nine
is
eight
on
44th
at
26
14
and
a
half
26
16
26.
A
Sixteen
and
a
half
and
26
20
West
44th
Street
several
applications
for
a
new
development
there
and
we'll
discuss
item
nine
I
assume
many
of
you
are
here
for
that
item.
Can
I
just
see
a
show
of
hands
by
that
sense?
How
many
people
might
want
to
speak
on
it?
So
several
of
you
will
discuss
item
nine
item.
10
is
a
zoning
code
text
amendment
and
that
is
related
to
land
use
application
fees.
A
As
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
10,
let's
see
no
one
will
put
item
10
on
consent.
Finally,
item
11
also
a
zoning
code
text.
Amendment
that
relates
to
parking
garages
will
discuss
item
11.
So
if
anyone
is
here
for
that,
we
will
discuss
it.
So
our
agenda
as
amended,
is
as
follows:
items
4,
5,
8
and
10
will
be
on
consent
will
discuss
items
2,
7,
9
and
11
items.
3
&
6
will
be
continued
to
the
October
30th
meeting
and
item
1
has
been
withdrawn.
A
B
You
president
Brown
at
the
October
5th
2017
committee,
the
whole
we
heard
one
item:
it
was
a
series
of
land
acquisitions
at
nine,
three,
eight,
nine,
four,
two,
nine
four:
six:
nine
five
295
or
nine
five,
eight,
nine,
six,
four,
nine
six,
six
Lowrey
Avenue
Northeast
and
the
recommended
motion
was
to
approve
the
staff
report
that
the
item
was
consistent
with
the
Minneapolis
plan
for
sustainable
growth.
All.
A
A
If
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor
that
motion
carries
next
may
I
have
a
motion
to
accept
the
withdrawal
of
item
1.
It's
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor,
and
that
motion
carries
next.
We'll
move
on
to
the
public
hearing
portion
of
our
meeting
and
at
this
time
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
for
the
items
on
the
consent
agenda.
Again,
that's
items
4
5,
8
and
10.
Anyone
here
to
speak
on
any
of
those
items.
Seeing
no
on
I
will
close.
A
A
Okay,
you're
you're,
you,
you
didn't
necessarily
want
to
speak.
So
if
item
4
is
considering
on
consent,
it
will
simply
be
the
staff
recommendation
will
simply
be
approved.
So
if
no
one's
here
to
speak
on
it
or
has
any
concerns
we
we
don't
need
to
discuss
it.
So
anyone
for
any
of
those
items
if
there
is
no
one
close
public
hearing
and
commissioners
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
consent
agenda.
C
They
are
requesting
that
this
area
be
vacated
so
that
they
can
use
it
as
a
private
road
and
continue
to
use
it
as
for
truck
parking
waiting.
Staging
loading
and
unloading
of
material
they've
stated
that
this
portion
of
the
right-of-way
is
not
currently
used
by
through
traffic,
because
there
are
railroad
tracks
directly
to
the
east
of
the
site
along
1st
Street
north
they've
also
say
that
the
road
is
an
important
dition
and
that
they
would
privately
maintain
it
if
it
were
vacated.
C
C
Now
that
the
upper
harbour
terminal
has
been
decommissioned
and
is
is
less
active
at
this
point,
Public
Works
is
also
stated
that
they
have
existing
water
mains,
sanitary,
sewers
and
storm
water
connections
in
this
right-of-way.
So
they
would
also
like
to
preserve
this.
This
area
for
utility
purposes,
as
well
as
for
transportation
purposes
in
the
future,
that's
about
all
I
have
for
the
staff
presentation
but
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Commissioners.
A
F
E
So
we're
requesting
to
vacate
23rd
Avenue
North
for
two
reasons.
First,
it's
important
to
the
continued
operation
of
our
business,
which
has
operated
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis
for
33
years
now
we
would
continue
to
maintain
and
operate.
The
street
is
a
private
roadway
for
use
in
staging
loading
and
unloading
of
vehicles.
Secondly,
we
would
undertake
the
maintenance
and
plowing
of
that
roadway.
23Rd
Avenue
north
is
currently
in
poor
condition
and
rarely
plowed
during
the
winter.
For
many
years
now
we
have,
we
have
plowed
that
Road
ourselves
and
continue
to
patch
it
as
needed.
E
We've
reached
out
to
the
city
several
times,
both
for
plowing
and
patching,
and
it's
still,
in
our
opinion,
maintained
in
poor
condition,
which
is
part
of
the
reason
part
of
the
bargain
I
guess.
We've
reviewed
staffs
report
for
the
above,
the
fall
and
the
above
the
Falls
master
plan
in
detail
and
would
like
to
make
the
following
notes.
E
The
staff
report
provides
two
central
reasons
for
recommending
the
denial
of
our
request
for
first,
the
Department
of
Public
Works
recommends
denial,
this
right
away
vacation
in
order
to
preserve
the
street
right
away
grid
for
future
transportation
purposes
and
for
existing
and
future
utility
purposes.
Second,
cpad
staff
finds
that
the
section
of
public
right
away
is
close
to
the
river
and
it
has
been
identified
as
part
of
the
street
grid
and
transportation
network
that
has
connections
to
the
Mississippi
River
and
the
above.
The
Falls
master
plan
updated
2013.
E
Additionally,
cpad
makes
note
that
the
BNSF
Railway
spur
line
could,
at
some
point
in
the
future,
be
decommissioned,
creating
a
future
connection
to
first
Street,
north
or
through
traffic.
It
is
our
belief
that
the
road
has
no
future
use
as
a
connecting
Road
to
the
river
or
anywhere
else
due
to
the
existence
of
both
natural
and
man-made
barriers
to
both
the
east
and
the
west.
I
have
two
separate
aerials
here.
E
As
you
can
see,
I've
noted
the
area
to
be
vacated
along
23rd
Street
two
blocks
to
the
west
is
a
one
block
to
the
west
is
interstate
94,
which
creates
a
man-made
barrier
to
extending
23rd
any
further
to
the
west
without
a
very
costly
project.
If
you
look
to
the
east,
there
is
an
active
railroad
track
immediately
east
of
that
property
and
to
the
east
of
that
there
is
a
newly
constructed
in
the
past
few
years,
life
source
building
which
the
footprint
of
which
sits
exactly
in
the
extension
path,
a
23rd.
E
E
E
First,
three:
as
I
understand,
it
only
extends
approximately
one
blocked
in
the
north
and
one
block
to
the
south.
So
even
then,
if
the
railroad
tracks
ever
were
vacated,
we
do
believe
that
there's
limited
connectivity
from
23rd
to
1st
to
any
other
major
arterials
we'd,
also
like
to
note
that
the
above
the
Falls
master
plan
does
not
include
any
future
expansion
of
23rd
Street
north.
It
does
show
it
as
a
road
which
is
how
we
continue
would
continue
to
operate.
It
I'll
be
at
a
private
road.
E
Additionally,
our
property
is
in
that
plan
noted
for
industrial
use
both
currently
and
in
the
future,
which
is
consistent
with
our
current
use.
The
plan
does
also
show
several
pedestrian
and
bike
paths
through
the
corridor.
One
of
these,
which
already
exists,
there's
a
long,
North,
2nd
Street.
We
believe
that
this
approval,
this
request,
would
take
heavy
truck
traffic
off
of
North,
2nd
Street
and
away
from
bike
and
pedestrian
traffic,
which
would
be
in
the
interest
of
public
safety.
E
As
a
final
note,
we
have
told
both
planning
and
public
works
that
we
are
amenable
to
any
necessary
easements
for
maintenance
of
any
public
utilities
or
private
utilities
that
currently
exist
along
or
underneath
23rd
Avenue
north.
We
feel
granting
of
these
easements
should
allay
any
concerns
of
utility
access
or
maintenance
going
forward
for
as
long
as
I
discussed
mentioned.
Maintenance
here
are
a
couple
pictures
of
the
current
state
of
23rd
Avenue,
as
you
can
see,
there's
pooling
of
water
due
to
potholes
and
cracking
throughout
the
road.
E
We
would
continue
to
operate
it
as
a
roadway
for
use
in
operating
our
business,
which
we've
happily
operated
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis
for
the
past
33
years,
we'd
also
provide
any
necessary
utility
easements
to
provide
for
any
existing
utility
lines
along
23rd.
Our
proposed
use
now
and
in
the
future
we
believe
is
consistent
with
the
above,
the
Falls
master
plan
and
the
vacation.
A
23rd
would
allow
us
to
continue
operating
as
an
employer
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis
for
years
to
come.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
All.
A
H
Prepared
to
speak
because
I
sent
an
email
a
few
days
ago
and
I
thought
that
they
would
read
the
email,
but
we
are
the
owners
of
the
property
on
that
block
22:06
and
22:08
North
7th
Street.
So
we
are
on
the
corner
of
22nd
and
2nd
and
we
own
the
first
property,
which
is
a
vacant
lot
and
the
building
next
to
it,
which
weren't
really
shown
very
well
in
those
diagrams.
But
we
are
the
only
other
property
on
the
block
besides
North
2nd
street
steel.
H
So
you
can
use
our
property
and
the
alley
behind
it,
as
you
has
he
wishes,
but
they
have
indicated
they
may
not
renew
their
lease
with
us
when
this
lease
expires,
and
our
concern
is
that
if
we
have
a
new
tenant,
they
may
need
to
use
the
alley
behind
our
building
and
behind
their
property
to
go
out
through
23rd.
You
know:
go
in
22nd
out,
23rd
tenants
prior
to
them.
H
You
know
you
that,
and
this
le
was
vacated
to
not
allow
public
traffic
many
years
ago
and
I
I
can't
tell
you
exactly
what
year,
but
it
was
way
before.
Larry
Rosen
started
leasing
from
us
and
it
allowed
shared
use
by
the
surrounding
property
owners.
At
that
time,
that
was
the
property
owned
by
us,
the
Jacobson
family,
Midwest
industrial
owned
by
George,
George,
heaven
and
nor
second
street
still
owned
by
Larry
Rosen.
H
It
was
agreed
that
all
parties
could
use
the
vacated
alley
in
May
of
2005
when
North
second
Street
steel
was
applying
to
build
his
first
addition
behind
22:12
North
second,
which
is
his
office.
The
city
asked
for
and
we
both
Midwest
and
ourselves
had
to
give
North
second
Street
steel,
a
written
letter
of
approval
to
use
the
alley
for
for
for
trucks
and
forklifts.
We
still
have
no
objection
to
this,
but
we
do
not
want
to
give
up
our
rights
to
also
use
the
vacated
alley
behind
our
properties,
if
needed.
H
If
a
potential
tenant
did
not
have
use
of
the
alley
entering
on
22nd
exiting
on
23rd,
this
would
possibly
hurt
or
hinder
our
chances
of
finding
a
new
tenant,
and
it
may
also
decrease
the
overall
value
of
our
property.
Please
consider
our
ability
to
use
this
section
of
23rd
Avenue
connected
to
the
alley,
especially
if
we
no
longer
have
north
2nd
street
seal
leasing,
our
property.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
I
So
I've
been
working
on
the
boat,
the
Falls
master
plan
for
20
years
now,
and
the
the
right-of-way
is
a
really
important
piece
of
the
future
of
actually
getting
people
to
and
from
the
upper
Harbor
terminal.
So
to
say
that
it
won't
happen
is
something
that
I
believe
is
untrue
and
again
the
the
way
to
get
the
trail
through
is
in
that
current
railroad
corridor.
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
out.
J
No
I
just
wanted
to
also
add.
It
may
not
seem
super
intuitive
right
now,
given
the
uses
that
are
in
the
area
to
keep
this
public
right
away,
but
I
think
there's
a
whole
lot
of
examples
about
15
or
so
blocks
south
of
here
in
the
North
Loop,
where
we
have
a
pretty
disjointed
Street
grid
and
I,
don't
think
people
would
have
imagined,
40
or
50
years
ago.
That
now
would
be
a
problem
that
we
are
missing.
A
Have
a
question
for
staff:
it
has
there
been
any
discussion
between
the
applicant
and
public
works,
for
you
know
some
sort
of
maintenance
agreement
or
lease
arrangement,
something
that
you
know
would
allow
the
street
right-of-way
to
remain
in
place,
but
may
give
the
applicant
an
opportunity
to
maintain
it.
I
realize
they've
been
doing
some
maintenance,
but
to
kind
of
knowledge
that
existing
arrangement
is
that
a
possibility.
A
A
F
A
L
Good
evening,
commissioners,
the
application
before
you
is
a
change
of
non-conforming
use
at
4816,
Nicollet
Avenue.
The
site
is
currently
occupied
by
a
building
that
does
resemble
a
single-family
home
that
has
never
operated
as
such.
It
was
created
in
the
1950s
as
a
YMCA
and
I
split
up
into
offices
in
the
main
area.
It
also
does
not
include
a
kitchen.
The
existing
area
or
much
of
the
surrounding
areas
are
1a.
L
L
A
Right,
commissioners,
are
there
any
questions
of
staff
if
there
are
none
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
on
this
item?
I,
don't
know
if
the
applicant
is
here.
If
there's
anything,
you
would.
Is
there
anything
you'd
like
to
add
to
staffs
presentation
if
all
right-
and
please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
way.
M
M
A
D
My
name
is
Wanda
Ackerman
and
I
live
at
ten
rustic
lodge
West,
which
is
right
next
door
that
I
think
of
the
building
is
for
rustic
lodge
because
it
faces
rustic
lodge,
and
that
was
one
of
my
questions.
I,
don't
think
it's
even
maybe
this
is
even
the
proper
place
to
ask
it,
but
I
will.
Why
is
it
now
I'm
48
16
Nick
late'
when
it
faces
rustic
lodge?
Why
was
the
address
changed
to.
A
D
D
A
D
Some
that
another
one
of
our
neighbors
pearl
Johnson
is
at
48:12
Nicollet
and
that's
really
her
question.
She's,
she's,
elderly,
meaning
she's
older
than
me
a
hand
on
that.
Couldn't
make
it
so
I
said:
I
will
go
I'll.
Ask
that
question:
hey
hon,
dum,
I'm,
sure
everybody's
aware
that
it's
a
little
one
way
street.
So
parking
is
always
an
issue
I
park
in
the
driveway
I'm
right
next
to
you.
D
So
there's
a
couple
spaces
there,
but
it
is,
it
is
crowded,
I'm,
guessing
that
there
won't
will
there
be
about
ten
new
cars,
probably
probably
not
that
many
so
I
guess
I
wanted
to
say,
welcome
and
I
hope.
I
did
so
lovely
little
Street
close
to
other
shops
and
stuff
and
I
know
that
Mary
Lou
peas
of
fifteen
rustic
lot.
D
A
L
L
And
then
you
can
see
from
this
photo,
this
is
oriented
towards
rustic
lodge,
so
there
is
the
the
main
entrance
is
off
of
rustic
lodge.
Although
the
applicant
has
proposed
some
additional
landscaping
and
a
new
pathway
off
of
Nicollet
to
access
the
front
entry
along
with
some
additional
landscaping
and
screening
all.
F
A
A
A
C
So
the
project
before
you
is
four
parcels
centered
on
2620
West,
44th
Street
in
linden
hills,
the
site
is
owned,
r4
and
it's
also
located
in
the
shoreland
overlay
district.
The
surrounding
area
includes
the
neighborhood
commercial
node,
just
one
watch
to
the
west
that
shared
in
and
up
and
I'm
sorry,
43rd
and
Sheridan,
and
within
that
note
there
commercial
zoning
districts
such
as
c1
and
c2,
and
the
general
area
also
contains
a
range
of
residential
densities,
including
r1
r1,
a
r2,
r2
B
and
then
up
to
R
3
as
well.
C
C
The
proposal
includes
four
applications,
there's
also
a
fifth
law
there's
also
a
fifth
application
for
the
variance
for
Shore
land.
That's
when
the
staff
report,
but
we're
returning
that
application.
It's
not
necessary,
so
the
applications
before
you
today
are
to
conditional
use
permits.
One
is
for
a
cluster
development
and
then
the
other
one
is
a
conditional
use
permit
to
increase
the
maximum
height
of
a
cluster
or
for
a
building
in
the
shoreland
overlay
district,
where
the
maximum
height
is
two
and
a
half
stories
or
35
feet.
C
C
C
C
C
In
order
to
prove
our
idea
of
housing
types
and
efficient
use
of
land,
the
applicant
is
proposing
a
significant
amount
of
open
space,
so
about
a
quarter
of
the
of
the
overall
land
area
would
be
dedicated
to
buildings.
This
is
their
common
space
plan
that
they've
provided,
showing
that
the
the
green
areas
would
be
the
common
space
and
also
the
surface
parking
is
able
to
be
included
in
that
open
space
area.
C
It
shows
that
there
are
21
parking
spaces
for
the
site.
Both
enclosed
and
surface
parking
staff
finds
that
this
is
reasonable
for
addressing
traffic
mitigation
measures,
also
in
combination
with
the
bicycle
parking
that's
recommended,
and
the
proximity
to
the
route
six
bus.
The
comprehensive
plan
does
encourage
medium
density,
housing
adjacent
to
neighborhood,
commercial
nodes
and
also
flexible
zoning
code
tools
that
promote
high
quality
development,
so
Steph
finds
that
this
would
be
consistent
with
those
policies.
In
addition,
the
Linden
Hill
small
area
plan
applies
to
the
site.
C
In
that
plan
the
site
is
guided
for
medium
density,
residential
development,
which
is
20
to
50
dwelling
units
per
acre,
and
the
proposed
development
would
be
a
density
of
14
polling
units
per
acre
staff
does
have
some
concerns
about
whether
this
development
meets
the
true
intent
of
a
cluster
development
which
is
encouraging
grouping
buildings
together
and
preserving
open
space
as
much
as
possible.
The
the
proposed
development
would
include
one
existing
single-family
home
and
then
a
multiple
family
home.
So
we
just
would
like
to
point
that
out.
C
Secondly,
the
conditional
there's
a
conditional
use
permit
to
increase
the
maximum
height,
as
I
mentioned,
the
maximum
height
for
both
a
cluster
development
and
for
a
building
in
the
shoreline
overlay
district
is
two
and
a
half
stories,
so
the
one
application
can
cover
both
of
those.
The
proposed
building
height
is
four
stories
or
53
feet.
10
inches,
as
measured
from
10
feet
out
from
the
adjacent
natural
grade.
C
This
is
not
actually
the
length
of
one
building,
while
this
is
all
of
the
building
walls
combined
into
one,
and
it
shows
you
how
much
of
the
building
is
above
grade
versus
below
grade
and
based
on
based
on
the
plans
that
have
been
submitted
by
the
applicant
staff
has
determined
that
that
lower
level
that
includes
the
parking
area
in
residential
lobby
is
not
considered
a
full
story,
because
less
than
50%
of
the
total
perimeter
is
more
than
6
feet
above
grade.
And
no
point
is
no
1.
C
Point
is
more
than
12
feet
above
grade
at
any
point,
so
I
just
wanted
to
cover
that
and
then
just
to
go
over
what
the
shoreland
district
purpose
is.
Reading
from
the
zoning
code,
it's
established
to
preserve
and
enhance
the
environmental
qualities
of
surface
waters
in
the
natural
and
economic
values
of
Shore
land
areas
within
the
city
to
provide
efficient,
beautiful
utilization
of
those
waters
and
Shore
land
areas
and
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
state
law.
C
Here
is
a
map
of
the
city's
shoreline
overlay
district
in
the
darker
blue
color,
so
Shore
land,
this
Shore
land
overlay
district,
applies
to
any
area
within
a
thousand
feet
of
a
protected
lake
and
300
feet
within
a
within
within
300
feet
of
a
protected
River
here
is
where
the
shore
land
applies
within
the
area
of
the
subject
site
and
the
subject
cited
is
of
course,
highlighted
in
the
yellow,
so
staff
finds
that
this
the
conditional
use
permit
for
height
is
supportable.
Staff
is
recommending
a
lower
overall
height
of
three
storeys
or
I'm.
C
Which
is
11
feet
shorter
than
the
four
storeys
53
feet?
10
inches
that's
been
proposed
by
the
applicant,
so
it
finds
at
the
age
of
light
would
not
prove
detrimental
to
the
public
health,
safety,
comfort
or
general
welfare,
and
it
would
not
be
injurious
to
other
property
in
the
vicinity.
There
are
varying
building
heights
and
densities
and
uses
in
the
area,
and
in
addition,
this
area
has
a
lot
of
variation
in
the
natural
grade
which
results
in
the
proposed
building
being
relatively
shorter
than
some
of
the
other.
C
So
we're
recommending
that
the
overall
height
be
lowered
by
11
feet
and
additionally,
I'd
like
to
point
out
the
the
building
itself
from
the
street
view
is
51
feet
wide
and
it's
on
a
105
feet
lot,
which
could
help
it
read
as
a
narrower
building.
It
also
helps
with
the
minimizing
some
of
the
shadowing
effects
on
other
property
in
the
area.
C
It
would
be
a
significant
distance
from
other
single-family
homes,
so
it'd
be
28
feet
from
the
single-family
home
to
the
west
and
140
feet
from
the
property
to
the
east
and
there's
a
multiple
family
home
directly
across
the
alley
to
the
north,
and
it
would
be
65
feet
at
its
closest
point
from
from
that
property
and
staff
also
notes
that
the
subject
site
is
separated
from
Lake
Harriet,
which
is
the
protected
water
by
mature
trees,
existing
homes,
the
public
street
and
a
Parkway.
So
it
would
have
pretty
limited
visibility
from
the
parkway
itself.
C
This
is
from
the
Parkway
right
now.
Here's
an
exhibit
provided
by
the
applicant
showing
how
the
proposed
building
would
fit
in
at
four
storeys
within
all
the
other
buildings
that
are
already
existing
in
the
area.
Here's
another
view
looking
south
and
here's
a
cross
of
44th
Street.
So
you
can
see
the
proposed
building
right
here.
C
Staff
recommends
approval
of
the
cluster
development,
with
the
condition
that
it
comply
with
all
of
the
applicable
regulations
governing
stormwater.
So
this
site
is
less
than
is
less
than
one
acre
and
is
not
and
they're
not
required
to
implement
full
storm
water
mitigation,
but
they've.
The
applicant
has
submitted
a
plan
and
also
an
analysis,
that's
found
on
your
staff
reports.
C
We're
also
recommending
that
for
bicycle
parking
spaces
be
provided.
I
wanted
to
make
note
of
one
thing.
That
was
a
an
oversight
in
the
staff
report,
so
the
the
action
that
is
listed
on
your
agenda
shows
that
site
that
were
recommending
for
stories
for
the
site
plan
review.
But
that
should
be
revised
to
reflect
that.
C
The
recommendation
for
the
conditional
use
permit
for
three
storeys
and
42
feet
and
then
also
we
are
not
recommend
I
just
want
to
ensure
that
we
are
not
recommending
approval
for
alternative
compliance
of
the
window
requirement,
we're
recommending
that
they
be
expected
to
fully
comply,
but
that
was
not
listed
as
a
specific
condition.
It
was
just
mentioned
in
an
alternative
compliance.
C
So
if
the
Planning
Commission
wishes
to
approve
the
site
plan,
review
staff
would
recommend
adding
in
that
condition
that
no
fewer
than
four
square
feet
of
additional
window
area
be
added
to
the
lower
level
facing
40
fourths
and
with
that
I,
oh
I
I
should
mention
there.
There
have
been
a
number
of
comments
submitted
tonight,
as
you
can
see.
C
The
Lynn
Hills
neighborhood
councils,
zoning
and
Housing
Committee
has
voted
to
oppose
the
project
on
the
basis
of
the
conditional
use
permit
for
height
request
and
the
Minnehaha
Creek
Watershed
district
has
submitted
a
letter
expressing
their
concerns
with
storm
water
mitigation,
and
then
the
applicant
has
responded
in
return
with
their
storm
water
mitigation
plan.
So
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
All
right.
N
C
K
O
C
So
the
proposed
floor
area
ratio
is
1.0
where
they're
allowed
1
and
1.5
and
so
we're
looking
at
the
overall
site.
The
overall
site
area
is
27,000
195
square
feet.
The
proposed
girls
floor
area,
which
is
all
of
the
buildings,
so
all
so
all
of
the
existing
building
gross
floor
area
and
all
of
the
proposed
building
girls
floor
area
we're,
including
a
portion
of
the
lower
level
it
within
the
girls
floor
area
calculation.
So
any
of
the
accessory
parking
is
not
included,
but
the
lower
level
like
residential
lobby
areas.
C
N
C
So
this
there's
a
there's
a
walkway
leading
from
the
public
sidewalk
to
the
residential
lobby,
with
the
with
the
door
facing
44th
Street
and
we're
just
recommending
that
the
walkway
and
then
that
lat
that
entry
area
be
reduced
to
meet
the
definition
of
a
permitted
obstruction.
Right
now,
the
size
within
the
required
yard
is
exceeding
what
would
be
allowed
with
50
square
feet.
So
they
would
have
to
shrink
that,
and
the
applicant
is
amenable
to
that
condition
of
approval.
Okay,.
B
Mailing
in
the
site
plan
review
section,
see:
item
13
talks
about
additional
landscaping,
that's
required
to
meet
the
the
code,
what
how
does
staff
balance
sort
of
tree
loss
with
landscape
requirements,
because
it
just
appears
that,
at
least
on
the
removal
plan,
there's
a
lot
of
mature
trees
that
are
being
removed
as
part
of
the
plan
and
not
sure
exactly
how
the
code
actually
applies
to
landscaping.
Additional.
B
C
I
can
try
so
we
wouldn't
regulate.
You
know
how
much
they
can
remove
on
the
existing
site,
but
they
are
certainly
welcome
to
keep
trees,
because
those
would
count
towards
their
minimum
tree
and
shrub
requirements.
So
we're
always
encouraging
that
whenever
possible,
but
it's
not
part
of
our
overall
site
plan
review
analysis
to
say
well,
they've
preserved
this
many
trees.
That's
not
part
of
the
equation.
C
A
P
Perfect
hi,
I'm
julie,
snow,
snow,
chronic
architects
and,
let's
see
I'm
a
resident
across
the
lake
period
and
I'm
here
representing
snow
crellick
architects.
A
couple
of
my
colleagues
here
and
the
developers
and
following
me
will
be
Carol
Lansing,
who
will
follow
up
with
some
more
technical
information.
P
So
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
simply
introduce
the
project
and
I
have
Carol
then
step
up
I
have
to
admit
that
Commissioner
crunchers
question
is
beyond
my
knowledge
of
the
project
and
what
I'm
prepared
to
address
so
apologies
there,
and
the
other
piece
of
that.
I
really
want
to
address
is
how
delighted
I
am
to
be
working
on
this
project
and
to
be
working
with
developers,
John
and
Andrew
that
are
so
willing
to
build
a
very,
very
high
quality
project
and
they're.
P
P
This
is
more
or
less
a
summary
of
the
project
we
wanted
to
show
a
combination
of
the
two
units
per
floor
shown
on
the
site
and
the
sort
of
density
that's
created,
but
also
to
look
at
how
how
much
open
space
is
retained
on
the
site
and
to
me,
one
of
the
most
important
pieces
of
this
is
that
sort
of
beautiful
green
space
that
happens
behind
the
Craftsman
bungalow
that
sits
at
the
front
of
the
site.
I
think
saving
the
Craftsman
bungalow.
It's
almost
at
least
for
me
when
I
come
around
the
lake.
P
That's
that's
this
little
gem,
this
little
iconic
building
and
to
save
it
I
think
really
is
a
testament
to
the
interest
of
this
developer
in
doing
a
project,
that's
really
the
best
for
the
neighborhood.
In
addition,
we've
got
the
four
storey
condo
building
which
are
seeing
laid
out
in
white
here,
so
that
would
give
us
a
total
of
nine
units
on
the
site.
Eight
units
plus
the
craftsman.
So
this
is
an
image
we're
again
narrowing
the
sidewalk
into
the
building.
P
So
this
shows
the
front
of
the
building
a
little
bit
of
the
screening
that
will
we'll
make
we'll
use
to
make
the
entry
private
and
to
make
some
of
the
terraces
between
the
two
buildings
private
and
also
the
trees
that
we
intend
to
keep
on
the
site.
I
I
would
say.
I'm
gonna
go
back
once
to
this
that,
if
you
see
the
sort
of
bolder
outline,
that's
about
a
30-foot
wide.
P
P
This
is
the
let's
see
what
each
facing
facade
that
addresses
the
bungalow
and
then
this
is
the
west
facing
facade
with
two
of
the
trees
that
we
would
intend
to
retain
and
we
would
be
planting
additional
beyond
them,
and
then
this
is
the
back
of
the
building.
Where
you
see
in
their
little
garage
entrance.
P
So
this
is
a
the
slide
that
was
also
shown
in
staff
report
and
our
our
interest
here
is
really
comparing
how
far
back
we
are
from
the
street
and
the
relative
Heights
of
various
buildings
in
the
neighborhood.
And
so
you
can
see
at
the
top
of
the
hill
you're,
seeing
buildings
that
are
at
963
and
946
and
then
from
this
side,
you're,
seeing
ours
it
and
at
9:27
in
the
red
and
then
further
up,
nine
29:34
I
think
is
the
tallest
and
so
really
in
terms
of
relative
building
elevations.
P
This
was
almost
painful
for
me
to
show,
because
that
it's
just
not
a
nice
way
to
go,
here's
again,
a
slide
showing
our
building
materials
and
and
what
I
think
is
impressive-
is
the
ability
of
use
masonry
we're
using
wood
windows
on
the
inside
and
aluminum
on
the
outside
and
the
sort
of
residential
high
quality.
This
is
a
concrete
building.
So
it's
a
concrete
frame.
It's
not
the
typical!
P
You
know
stick
on
concrete,
so
it
has
a
much
much
higher
quality,
building
volume
and
I
think
that's
a
huge
asset
to
the
neighborhood
into
the
city,
so
high-quality
construction
materials,
a
lower
fa
are
8,000
square
feet
of
landscape
common
space
and
the
retention
of
the
craftsman
house
being
I.
Think
the
key
points
so
Carol
will
come
up
and
talk
some
more
about
important
stuff.
Thank
you
for
your
attention.
I'm
gonna
go
sit
over
there
and
then
answer.
A
Q
Good
evening,
commissioners,
I'm
Carol
Lansing
I'm
an
attorney
at
Frank,
beggary,
Baker
Daniel's,
working
with
the
development
team
with
respect
to
the
stormwater
management.
We
don't
have
the
civil
engineers
here
to
give
you
professional
details,
but
they
did
respond
to
the
letter
from
the
watershed
district.
That
said,
in
fact,
we
do
meet
the
requirements
that
you're
putting
it
in
your
letter,
although
I
don't
believe
those
are
technically
the
requirements
of
the
code,
they
are
using
stormwater
infiltration
on
a
site,
that's
less
than
an
acre.
Q
The
only
condition
of
approval
that
we
are
objecting
to
is
the
condition
that
the
height
of
the
building
be
reduced
to
three
stories.
The
site
zoning
is
our
four
which
allows
four
stories
as
right,
but
there's
two
reasons
why
we
need
the
CEP
to
increase
height
to
four.
One
is
because
the
site
is
in
the
shoreland
overlay
district
and
the
other
is
because
it's
an
application
for
a
cluster
development,
which
also
has
a
two
and
a
half
story.
Q
The
city's
required
to
have
a
shore
land
overlap,
overlay
district
by
state
statute,
and
there
are
state
rules
that
provide
guidance
on
what
those
regulations
should
be,
but
both
the
state
guidance
and
the
city's
ordinance
recognize
that
the
conservative
two
and
a
half
story
starting
point
for
height
in
a
shoreline
district
which
applies
statewide,
is
not
always
appropriate
and
that
you
should
be
able
to
look
at
context.
So
context
is
what's
important
and
the
yupi
process
generally
requires
you
to
evaluate
context
and
first
I'd
like
to
emphasize
this.
Q
Would
this
would
not
be
the
first
multiple
family
dwelling
approved
in
a
shoreland
overlay
district,
since
the
adoption
of
the
ordinance
that
is
not
on
a
commercial
corridor
there
have
been
laguna
is
in
a
six
story.
Building
on
lagoon?
That's
not
a
corridor.
A
project
surrounding
Loring
Park,
blurring
the
lake
at
Loring
Park
as
a
shoreland
overlay
district
and
projects
have
been
approved
that
are
taller
than
two
and
a
half
stories
there.
Some
considerably
mil
and
Maine
and
other
projects
along
the
river
have
also
been
approved
since,
as
that
ordinance
was
adopted.
Q
So
while
a
commercial
corridor
along
Lake
Street
has
been
one
context
for
approving
height
greater
than
two
and
a
half
stories
in
the
shoreland.
There
are
others,
and
those
include
the
underlying
zoning,
which
in
this
case,
is
our
for
the
height
of
existing
development
and
impact
on
views
from
the
lake
and
how
a
project
blends.
In
with
that
existing
context,
and
as
Julie
told
you,
there
are
existing
three
and
four-story
buildings
right
on
Lake
Harriet
and
an
hour
for
district
right
on
Lake
Harriet.
Q
This
is
a
block
back,
it's
in
a
larger,
our
four,
our
five,
our
six
district,
and
there
are
existing
taller
buildings
and
buildings
of
similar
height
there.
The
change
in
grade
the
trees.
All
of
this
will
screen
the
the
project
from
someone
at
the
lake
and
it
will
blend
in
with
respect
to
the
cluster
development
staff.
Has
indicated
they
have
concerns
about
whether
this
meets
the
intent
of
a
cluster
I.
Q
That's
a
classic
concept,
but
it's
not
the
only
one
and
this
project
does
meet
the
intent
that
they
specific
development
standards
for
clusters.
I
think
that's
an
indication
that
it
meets
the
intent
of
the
cluster,
and
you
know
the
purpose
of
doing
a
cluster
here
is
that
allows
us
to
have
the
lot
area
to
provide
some
additional
density,
but
preserve
a
single-family
house.
That's
in
great
condition.
Q
You
know,
and
as
Julie
said,
if
you
demolish
the
single-family
house,
you
could
do
a
a
single,
multiple
family
dwelling
that
didn't
need
to
be
a
cluster,
but
wouldn't
have
all
the
same
benefits.
I.
Think
in
the
context
of
what's
around
here
that
single-family
house
is
gonna.
Look
like
it's
part
of
the
single-family
neighborhood
to
the
east
and
the
multiple
family
dwelling
is
gonna.
Look
like
it's
part
of
a
multiple
family
dwelling
district,
which
it
is
because
there's
several
of
those
in
the
area
and
I
think
fact
that
cluster
developments
are
allowed
in
an
r4.
Q
In
addition
to
context,
increases
in
height
should
be
evaluated
based
on
their
impacts
and
the
staff
report
and
mailing
has
indicated
that
there
are
no
identified
adverse
impacts
in
terms
of
light
and
air
shadows
impact
from
on
the
Shore
land
values.
And
it's
been
noted.
The
floor
area
ratio
here
is
actually
less
than
what
would
be
allowed,
as
are
the
number
of
dwelling
units
per
acre.
22
dwelling
units
per
acre
would
be
allowed
and
and
14
are
proposed
so
based
on
appropriateness
of
contact
context
and
lack
of
adverse
impacts.
A
You
and
commissioners,
are
there
any
questions
of
the
applicants?
If
there
are
none,
we
can
move
on
to
some
other
speakers.
I
know
there
are
a
number
of
you
who
would
like
to
speak
tonight.
So
I'll
I
won't
cut
anyone
off,
but
I'll.
Ask
that
you
keep
your
remarks
to
about
two
or
three
minutes.
If
you
start
to
go
too
long,
I
might
ask
you
to
wrap
up
and
also
be
mindful
of
not
simply
repeating
things.
A
R
Address
my
name
is
Walter
Pitts
I
am
the
among
the
a
link
board
and
I'm.
The
zoning
and
housing
committee
chair
I
wanted
to,
and
someone
mentioned
earlier,
that
we
opposed
this
project
because
it
didn't
meet
the
the
conditional
use
permit
of
limiting
the
visibility
of
the
building
from
the
lake
and
also
that
it
doesn't.
It
doesn't
fit
the
the
shoreland
overlay
requirements.
R
So
I
just
wanted
to
say
one
thing
about
what
Carol
Lansing
said
and
I
believe
someone
could
correct
me
here
for
sure
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
believe
she
misstated
the
zoning
for
this,
these
properties
and
it's
an
r4
/or
land
overlay
that
leigh
district
and
the
shoreland
overlay
district
when
they're
in
conflict
with
the
r4.
It's
the
shoreland
overlay
district
that
governs
so.
If
someone
wants
to
correct
me
on
that
feel
free,
but
I
believe
that
that
is
the
zoning
for
the
for
the
property.
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
sure.
R
Can
we
pull
it
up,
maybe
of
what,
across
from
the
lake
right
here,
you
see
what
it
actually
looks
like
from
across
the
lake.
This
building
right
here
is
907
height
from
sea
level.
The
proposed
building
is
supposed
to
be
927
from
sea
level.
The
site
is,
as
you
know,
is
taking
the
trees
out
between
the
site,
building
site
and
the
lake.
If
you
look
at
this
building,
these
are
two
floors
so
that
20
feet.
This
is
an
approximation.
R
I
drew
a
line
here,
but
I'll
put
this
here,
so
you
can
kind
of
see
what
it
will
be.
Approximately
so
it'll
be
approximately
20
feet
above
sea
level
for
that
from
that
Billy's
in
front.
So
this
picture
is
taken
from
a
bit
of
an
angle
from
the
other
side
of
the
lake,
and
this
is
the
one
residence
in
front
directly
in
front
of
the
house
and
there's
another
residence
here.
R
So
I
just
want
to
say
a
couple
of
things
and
I
won't
take
very
long
like
I.
Usually
do
I
expect
the
liberty
of
visibility.
Okay,
the
things
is
so
one
thing:
that's
troubling
about
this
property,
which
is
from
the
front
picture,
is
it
appears
to
me
to
be
five
storeys
and
the
first
floor
is
11
feet.
Lleva
feet,
8,
inches
tall
they're,
calling
that
it's
partially
a
basement.
Basically,
but
it's
not
really
a
basement.
R
It's
a
entry,
it's
the
main
entryway
for
to
the
building
for
people,
and
it's
that
they're
saying
they
want
more
glass
on
it.
It's
also
so
at
11
feet,
8.
Each
story
that
goes
up
is
11
feet.
So
it's
also
the
largest
story.
So
when
you're
on
the
sidewalk
it'll
appear
that
it's
a
five
story
building
and
each
floor
will
consist
it
be
consistent,
so
I
wanted
to
let
you
know
that
and
that's
actually
what's
Yvette
is
proposing
at
was
there
42
feet,
10
inches,
which
is
also
from
the
sidewalk,
is
actually
48
feet
tall.
R
R
I
also
wanted
to
let
you
know
quickly
that
the
east
calhoun
community
organization,
their
livability
group,
also
sent
a
a
letter
in
opposing
or
supporting
our
opposition
at
linden
hills
full
against
this
property,
so
that
one
thing
I
wanted
to
say
about
the
the
cups
for
height
it
is,
is
the
in
the
end.
This
is
really
about
benefit.
It's
like
who's
benefit.
Is
this:
we
have
a
shore,
land,
district
overlay
and
that's
a
public
benefit,
it's
a
state
statute
and
a
city
ordinance,
and
so
it's
something
that
is
given
to
the
public.
R
So
when
they're
on
the
lake,
they
don't
see
buildings
eclipsing
the
trees
and
going
up,
that's
the
really
the
purpose
of
it
all
so
to
mitigate
stormwater,
while
they've
mitigating
there's
some
of
their
storm
water
issues,
you're
also
putting
a
parking
lot
on
the
hill
on
the
slope
there.
So
we've
been
hearing
all
the
time
that
we
don't
want
parking
in
Minneapolis.
We
don't
want
parking
in
Minneapolis,
Bend
and
lo
and
behold
here
we
have
a
parking
lot
being
put
on
the
shore
of
Lake
Harriet.
R
This
building
will
be
the
first
building
like
this
on
Lake
Harriet
and
the
other
buildings
that
the
Carolina
scene
mentioned,
which
may
be
in
the
context
of
this
building
from
my
understandings.
The
context
of
the
zoning,
the
buildings
they
keep
mentioning
are
in
the
low
are
three
farther
up
on
towards
the
node.
Then
there's
an
r6
which
comes
down
from
the
node,
then
there's
an
R
for
even
the
building's
up.
R
The
hill
from
this
is
there's
a
three-story
building,
so
this
is
taking
the
envelope
of
the
the
shoreland
overlay
district
and
actually
raising
it,
as
goes
towards
the
lake.
So
I
hope
that
when
you
look
at
your
materials,
you
actually
look
into
the
pictures
really
carefully
and
that
you
actually
try
to
understand
the
context
of
what's
what
is
actually
there.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you.
O
I'm
Constance
Pepin
and
my
address
is
four
zero.
Three
one
Zenith
Avenue
South.
My
first
comment
is
just
more
or
less
a
question
to
myth
because
she
mentioned
in
a
presentation
that
this
area
is
covered
by
the
Linden
Hill
small
area
plan
and
I.
Don't
know
if
that's
really
true
I,
don't
think
it
really
matters
for
this
situation.
But
my
understanding
is
that
it
was
not
the
44th
Street
all
the
way
down
there.
Lake
area
was
not
part
of
this
at
the
project
study
area
for
the
Lynda
Neil
small
area
plan.
O
I
think
over
two
dozen
mature
non
ash
trees
were
gonna,
be
taken
down,
and
yet
the
pictures
show
a
lot
of
trees
around
the
site,
so
I
think
that's
really
confusing
and
I'm
thinking
that
maybe
some
changes
have
been
made
in
the
intentions
by
the
developer.
That
they're
really
going
to
retrain,
you
retain
more
than
three
trees
and
maybe
they're
gonna
plant
more
than
eight.
But
that's
not
many.
O
When
you
are
taking
when
you've
got
30,
trees
and
I,
don't
know
I,
don't
know
the
exact
number,
but
it's
certainly
at
least
two
dozen
and
you
take
down
two
dozen
and
plant.
One
third
is
many
back:
that's
not
my
definition
of
green
space,
so
I
really
don't
feel
they
should
be
able
to
say
wow.
Look
at
all
the
green
space.
The
pictures
show
lon,
you
know
lawn
does
not
really
absorb
stormwater
very
well,
it's
kind
of
known
as
green
concrete,
especially
if
it's
gonna
be
your
conventional
Kentucky,
blue
grass,
that
we
would
really
hope.
O
No
one
is
planting
anymore,
but
it's
very
confusing.
I.
Don't
think
that
the
the
green
you
should
feel
good
about
the
green
space
when
they're
taken
down
over
two
dozen
healthy,
mature
trees
that
are
providing
shade
oxygen,
habitat
beauty
and,
hopefully,
screening
the
building
from
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood
as
I
understand
it.
So
many
trees
are
going
to
come
down.
It's
not
really
gonna
screen.
O
Well,
my
understanding
is
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
the
shoreland
overlay
was
enacted
was
there
were
so
many
already
there.
So
to
me,
that
is
really
convoluted
and
misleading
and
all
those
other
buildings,
whether
they're
3
stories
or
4
stories,
should
not
be
used
to
justify
a
five-story
building,
which
this
really
is.
O
It
it
it
it's
bigger,
it's
a
five-story
building
and
it
is
going
to
be
very
visible
from
most
directions,
because
most
of
the
trees
will
be
gone.
It
is
going
to
affect
access
to
light
of
surrounding
properties.
It
has
to
it'll,
be
the
tallest
building
on
the
black.
It
will
shadow
residential
properties
it
has
to
because
it's
gonna
be
taller
than
any
other
buildings
on
the
block
the
scale
and
character
of
surrounding
uses.
O
S
S
S
Well,
over
every
whatever
trees
that
they
plan
to
keep
I
used
to
be
a
landscape
contractor
the
the
the
the
these
projects
where
they
end
up
trying
to
save
the
trees.
Usually
they
they
tell
you
they're
going
to
do
that
and
they
actually
make
some
cursory
attempts
to
do
so.
But
what
happens
ten
fifteen
years
after
the
project
is
done,
it's
known
as
construction
damage
and
the
roots,
and
this
type
of
thing,
especially
on
older
trees.
They
just
can't
seem
to
bounce
back
and
you
end
up
seeing
them
decline.
S
You
know,
after
a
while,
and
it
ends
up
being
a
real
problems,
whatever
trees
that
they
plan
to
keep
I'm,
not
saying
that
they're
not
making
an
attempt,
but
you
generally
see
him
just
kind
of
wither
away
also
on
these
lands
on
this
drawing
here,
the
landscape
plan
I've
seen
this
type
of
drawing
all
the
time
and
you'll
excuse
my
expression,
but
it
just
kills
me
to
see
all
these
time.
You
always
see
these
types
of
drawings,
but
when
the
job
is
done,
this
form
is
reference
to
landscaping.
It
never
looks
like
that.
S
The
tree
that's
off
to
the
left
is
is
a
very
mature
tree
and
it
I've
never
seen
a
project
yet
that
ever
ends
up
looking
like
the
the
the
image
that
they're
presenting
so
concerned
about
the
trees
and-
and
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
any
clear
message
as
to
how
many
mature
trees
are
there
and
how
are
going
to
come
down.
You
know
it's
a
priority.
We
do
have
some
oak
trees
and
stuff,
but
we've
been
decimated
with
Dutch
elm
disease,
Anna,
yellows
and
so
I
think
that
that's
a
concern
all.
A
P
P
So
we're
taking
out
a
number
of
trees
that
are
in
the
footprint
of
the
building,
but
we're
also
going
to
be
replacing
trees
with
maybe
more
robust
trees
that
are
earlier
in
their
life,
so
we're
retaining
six
trees
and
we're
taking
out
a
number
that
are
like
volunteer
trees.
The
the
lot
has
not
been
well
maintained
along
the
back
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
volunteer
trees
like
hackberry
or
just
not
great
trees,
buckthorn.
K
A
T
Metra
43
34
West
Lake,
Harriet
Parkway.
My
property
is
immediately
east
of
the
development
site.
We
are
living
on
the
alley
and
I
want
you
to
know
that
I
am
in
favor
of
development.
I
love
what's
happening
in
Linden
Hills,
it's
a
vibrant!
It
feels
urban
that
that
we
are
in
favor
of
development.
However,
this
is
not
consistent
with
our
property.
It
is
going
to
dramatically
affect
how
we
live
day
to
day
it's
twofold.
T
Okay,
so
what
we
see
here
this
is
the
development
that
happened
before
the
overlay
plan
was
in
place
and
on
an
otherwise
pristine
lake.
Pristine.
That's
aside
to
live
on
the
east
side
is
pristine
over
there
we
have
a
hodgepodge
of
buildings-
and
this
is
my
home
right
here,
this
bit
of
white
pop
it
out
right
there.
T
These
trees
are
all
coming
down.
That's
the
view
from
my
second-floor
window.
All
of
those
trees
are
coming
down,
they
are
have
berries,
they're
beautiful,
they
do
create
screening
and,
in
the
absence
of
those
trees,
this
new
home
this
new
at
Masari.
This
new
development
is
going
to
be
readily
visible
from
Lake
Harriet.
I
know
this
is
a
sailor.
I
know
this
has
a
kayaker
I
know
this
is
somebody
who
walks
the
lake
every
day,
so
it's
not
consistent
with
the
overlay
project.
T
T
You
talk
about
the
desire
to
screen.
Nothing
is
going
to
screen
a
fifth
story,
because
I
do
believe
it
is
five
stories
high.
Nothing
is
going
to
screen
that
view
from
the
floor-to-ceiling
windows
coming
into
my
backyard
and
going
directly
into
my
home,
and
so
much
of
the
talk
has
been
about
this
view
from
44th
Street
I'm
concerned
about
the
view
from
the
east
side
I'm
concerned
about
the
view
from
my
property
and
from
we're
trying
that
we're
safe
guarding
these
single-family
homes,
unlike
Harriet
and
from
our
property.
The
view
is
unacceptable.
U
Hi
I'm
Kelley
Noble,
my
address
is
four
three:
four:
zero
West
Lake
Harriet
Parkway
immediately
next
door
to
learn.
My
property
is
also
directly
on
the
east
side
of
the
alley
on
the
east
facade
of
the
proposed
building.
If
you
look
at
a
couple
things
I'd
appreciate
if
we
could
see
but
I'll
put
this
up
just
to
give
you
a
little
bit
of
orientation.
U
U
There
are
many
things
that
I
actually
really
do
like
about
this
project.
I
really
appreciate.
Actually,
the
fact
that
they've
chosen
to
save
the
bungalow,
it's
a
beautiful
home,
made
me
sick
to
my
stomach,
to
think
of
that
house
being
demolished,
I
think
that's
a
waste,
and
so
I
was
really
glad
to
see
that
my
concerns
are
with
the
height
of
the
project.
I
cannot
support
a
building.
That
would
be
that
tall,
even
the
city's
recommendation
well
better
than
what
the
developers
are
proposing.
U
It's
still
too
tall
for
the
overlay
district
and
it
will
be
visible
from
the
lake,
which
is
exactly
the
purpose
of
why
that
statute
was
put
in
place.
I'd
like
to
show
you
another
couple
of
pictures.
This
is
from
my
back
door
facing
the
proposed
development
site.
Where
you
see
air
and
Sun
entries,
you
will
see
building
period
that
will
be
gone.
Where
you
see
darkness
other
than
my
garage
door
or
my
garage
light,
you
will
see
building
lights,
there's
no
way
around
that
I
understand
that
there's
going
to
be
a
building
built
here.
U
U
The
art
here
was
the
architects
yeah.
It
was
there.
We
go,
that's
the
one
okay,
so
another
big
issue
is,
and
I
haven't
seen
this
picture
before
this
isn't
one
that
was
on
the
website,
but
you
see
some
greenery.
This
would
be
basically
the
view
along
my
alley.
The
other
thing
that
is
of
concern
is
with
whether
or
not
this
along
here
it.
The
plans
is,
as
I
can
read
them
and
I
love
to
hear.
U
U
Basically,
you
know,
I'm,
not
sure
how
at
this
point
garbage
trucks
don't
even
come
down
the
alley,
even
as
it
is
I,
don't
know
how
you
plow
it.
So
it's
a
major
concern
and
if,
if
what
we're
gonna
have
is
something
more
open,
not
a
wall,
not
a
non
offense
may
be
a
lot
better
for
everybody.
It
would
feel
a
lot
better
and
bigger
and
open
so.
U
In
some
I'd
like
to
hope
that
the
code
that
the
Commission
takes
into
account,
the
fact
that
the
developers
purchased
these
properties,
knowing
that
there
was
an
overlay
and
that
there
were
restrictions
on
the
height
and
that
it
does
impact
not
only
me
as
a
private
property
owner,
but
all
of
us
who
use
this
use
the
lakes
and
enjoy
the
city.
Thank
you.
Thank.
V
Okay,
my
name
is
Bill
Karns
and
I
live
at
43,
44,
West,
Lake,
Harriet
Parkway,
so
I
look
out
my
back
window
directly
at
the
bungalow
in
question
and
I.
Think
a
couple
of
the
people
that
have
gone
before
me
have
expressed
many
of
my
concerns.
I
think
the
building
is
way
out
of
scale
for
my
immediate
neighborhood,
which
is
I,
live
on
West
Lake,
Harriet,
Parkway
and
that's
all
I
live
in
a
five
unit,
condo
building,
which
was
which
was
originally
built
as
a
duplex,
but
the
scale
of
that
building.
V
It
could
easily
masquerade
as
a
single-family
house.
So
it's
much
smaller
in
scale
and
all
of
the
buildings
along
there
are
of
that
scale.
The
bungalow
is
of
that
scale.
The
house
just
to
the
west
of
the
proposal
is
of
that
scale.
I
think
there's
a
four-plex
which
is
just
to
the
west
of
that
which
is
also
roughly
of
that
same
scale.
This
proposal
is
not
of
that
same
scale.
We
have
seen
a
lot
of
pictures
of
the
neighborhood
that
illustrate
the
height
above
sea
level,
of
a
lot
of
buildings
that
have
been
cherry
picked.
V
Many
of
the
buildings
are
the
buildings
that
are
on
the
very
top
of
the
hills
and
linden
hills,
and
so
they
are
of
course
tall.
What
didn't
see
on
those
diagrams
was
the
heights
of
any
of
the
buildings
immediately
adjacent
to
this
proposal.
We
didn't
see
the
height
of
any
of
those
houses.
This
thing
is
way
taller
than
any
of
the
houses.
Nearby
I
would
actually
like
to
see
what
those
elevations
are.
V
They
have
to
be
all
at
least
20
feet
below
this.
In
contrast
to
what
you
saw
in
the
illustrations,
I
was
I
was
reading
through
some
of
the
material
in
the
in
the
zoning
review.
In
the
preliminary
development
review,
I
saw
the
statement
that
the
lower
level
is
considered
a
full
story
for
the
definition
of
a
story
in
Section
five,
twenty
point
one
sixty
and
it
goes
on
to
describe
what
that
is,
and
so
in
that
review
it
says
the
lower
level
is
a
full
story.
V
V
Some
quotes
from
the
Minneapolis
plan
for
sustainable
growth
and
in
there
it
says
we
are
trying
to
conform
to
land
use
policy
1.2,
which
is
to
ensure
appropriate
transitions
between
uses
with
different
size,
scale
and
intensity.
I,
don't
believe
that
this
is
an
appropriate
I.
Don't
think
there
is
an
appropriate
transition
again
from
the
buildings
that
surround
this
proposal
to
what
is
being
proposed.
This
is
way
out
of
scale
to
the
immediate
neighborhood
and
finally
I
just
like
to
say
that
we've
we
heard
during
the
initial
presentation
a
couple.
V
Well,
somebody
used
the
term
a
more
aggressive
developer
and
there
was
a
comment
about
what
we
could
do
if
we
on
this
on
this
plot
of
land.
If
we
built
the
building
that
conformed
to
the
35
foot
height
restriction,
that's
mandated
by
the
shoreland
overlay,
district
and
I
guess
what
I'm
hearing
is
the
suggestion
that
developers
are
asking
for
an
exception
to
the
zoning
rules,
so
that
somebody
else
won't
build
something
that
does
conform
with
the
zoning
rules
and
to
me
that
seems
like
a
perversion
of
what
the
zoning
rules
were
intended
to
accomplish.
A
I
A
A
I
I
have
a
rather
lengthy
stack
of
folks
that
have
written
to
us
on
double-sided,
paper
and
folks
are
rightly
concerned
about
our
lakes
and
there's
a
park
board
Commissioner
the
view
from
the
lake
matters
to
me
and
I
think
there's
a
number
of
other
issues
that
folks
have
raised.
But
the
shoreland
overlay
ordinance
really
means
something
to
me
and
it's
a
way
that
we
have
enhanced
our
city
development
by
taking
a
step
back
from
the
edges
of
our
Lakes
and
making
sure
that
the
public
benefit
is
more
important
than
the
private
benefit.
F
I
To
warrant
a
change
in
something
that
is
a
state
statute
and
something
that
is
meaningful
to
the
state
to
the
city
and
certainly
to
the
Park
Board
and
the
constituents
that
would
like
to
enjoy
a
lake
without
having
to
see
taller
and
taller
buildings
added,
because
the
rules
can
be
changed.
If
there's
folks
that
can
get
us
to
change
the
rules,
I
do
not
want
to
change
the
rules
for
this
one.
Thank.
A
A
B
Yeah
I'll
just
make
some
comments
this
this
one's
a
real,
interesting
challenging
project
I,
had
to
take
my
family
out
on
a
beautiful
Sunday
to
take
a
look
at
the
site
and
I
was
I
was
really
impressed
with
the
overall
tree
coverage.
You
know,
I
think
that
the
landscape,
as
it
transitions
to
the
lake
is
this
is
a
really
beautiful
area
and
I
know
that
we've
had
a
lot
of
conversations
about
projects
like
these
and
linden
hills
and
adjacent
areas
to
the
lakes
and
I
feel
like
in
in
most
of
those
cases
contextually
we
could.
B
People
don't
necessarily
consider
great
trees.
But
you
know
hackberries
the
native
Minnesota
tree
and
there's
boxelder
again
native
Minnesota
tree,
and
the
amount
of
trees
that
are
taken
out
and
the
proposed
trees
are
going
back
in,
is
not
even
close
to
being
comparable
and
so
I'm
going
to
vote
in
favor.
Commissioner
of
relearn's
motion
all.
I
And
and
I
don't
have
specific
language
related
to
the
findings,
but
staff
has
already
noted
that
this
building
is
I
and
I
would
say
that
those
findings
are
accurate
and
supported,
and
that
this
would
be
in
addition
to
those
findings
that
there
is
no
particular
need
to
increase
the
height
with
the
findings.
The
staff
have
come
up
with.
X
G
A
Again,
those
those
findings
would
relate
to
that
conditional
use
being
detrimental
endangering
the
public
health
safety,
general
welfare
injurious
to
the
enjoyment
of
other
property
in
the
vicinity,
Exce,
adequate
utilities,
roads,
drainage,
necessarily
public
facilities,
traffic
congestion.
So
we
should
outline
those
Commissioner.
K
F
Will
also
have
to
provide
findings
to
support
it,
even
though
there
is
the
state
law
and
a
city
ordinance
that
subs
35
feet
or
two
and
a
half
stories,
and
very
good
reason
for
that
ordinance.
I
moved
here
from
Texas,
where
there's
absolutely
zero.
Zero
protection
of
Lakes
zero
people
build
around
so
there's
hardly
any
public
access,
there's
no
public
appreciation.
That
is
one
of
them
amazing
gifts
of
Minneapolis
and
the
state,
and
why
I
believe
we're
the
number
one
park
system
in
the
country?
One
of
the
reasons
is
that
it
is
protected.
F
X
Your
decision
does
have
to
be
articulated
through
a
rational
basis,
and
that's
done
through
findings
of
fact
and
I've
heard
some
references,
including
from
commissioners
Weiland
and
slack,
that
sort
of
start
to
get
us
there.
So,
yes,
when
someone
is
asking
for
departure
from
a
rule,
for
example,
we
can't
just
point
to
the
rule,
as
as
the
reason
for
denial,
there
actually
has
to
be
articulated
rational
basis
and
again
I've
heard
that
some
commissioners
start
down
that
path
of
articulating
that
increasing
the
visibility
of
the
structure
from
the
lake,
for
example.
I
I
mean
I
I.
Think
that's
that's
my
major
objection
again.
The
finding
that
I
would
recommend
is
that
the
the
this
building
has
visibility
from
they
carry
it
rather
than
limited
visibility
and
it's
380
feet
from
the
subject
site
well
within
the
thousand
feet,
parameters
and
the
separations
of
the
public
street
and
trees,
especially
if
the
trees
are
removed.
They're
not
sufficient
to
shield
this
property
from
the
intent
of
the
shoreland
overlay.
J
Once
said,
that
I
will
be
voting
against
the
motion
and
it
was
actually
kind
of
initially
inclined
to
support
the
applicants.
Request
for
four
storeys
I
think
sap
did
a
pretty
good
job
outlining
legally.
Why
we
can't
grant
the
request
for
the
conditional
use,
permit,
I,
guess
I
would
just
say
sort
of
editorially.
J
J
Well,
just
ok!
Ok!
This
is,
it
is
again
it's
we
we've.
Definitely
we've
definitely
granted.
We
have
granted
conditional
use
permits
in
other
areas
that
are
not
this
affluent
and
have
not
been
able
to
organize
against
things
and
I
feel
that
this
is
an
example
of
privilege
in
the
city,
and
it
is
again
it's
just.
It's
very
frustrating.
W
You
I
agree
with
Commissioner
Morrey
no,
but
for
different
reasons:
I'm
stuck
on
the
part
about
the
findings
and
and
I.
Just
don't
think
that
we
can.
We
can
support
and
make
findings.
I
know
it's
it's
not
the
neighbors
choice
that
this
be
next
to
where
they
live.
I
know
some
people
don't
like
that.
You'll
be
able
to
see
it
from
other
areas
of
the
lake,
but
I
certainly
don't
think
that
qualifies
as
detriment
or
endangering
Public,
Health
safety,
comfort
or
general
general
welfare
welfare,
and
so
I
too,
will
be
voting
against
the
the
motion.
W
N
Excuse
me,
I,
too,
will
be
voting
against
the
motion
in
just
a
couple
of
simple
points.
Is
there
buildings
visible
from
the
lake
at
this
exact
location,
I?
Think
staffs.
Compromise
is
an
interesting
one.
The
shoreline
overlay
district
does
have
a
CEP
process
built
into
it
as
to
take
projects
as
they
come
and
look
at
the
specifics
of
each
project,
and
also
the
applicant
is
in
terms
of
stormwater.
N
B
For
additional
facts
of
findings,
since
we
need
to
include
them
a
land
use
policy,
one
point
to
ensure
appropriate
transitions
between
uses,
different
size,
scale
and
intensity,
even
though
I
do
believe
that
this
is
a
really
beautiful
project.
I,
don't
think
that
it
actually
meets
that
land
use
policy.
B
Additional
ones
include
under
additional
factors
to
be
considered,
determining
maximum
height
scale
and
character
surrounding
uses.
I,
don't
think
the
staffs
recommendations
are
appropriate:
their
preservation
of
using
landmark
buildings,
significant
open
spaces
and
water
bodies.
I
think
the
case
can
be
made
by
numerous
people
who
have
presented
here
tonight
that
those
significant.
B
S
B
B
A
J
B
A
Right,
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
item
B
the
conditional
use
permit
for
maximum
height,
and
that
is
staff
recommendation,
which
is
a
maximum
height
of
three
stories
or
42
feet.
10
inches,
whichever
is
less.
Is
there
a
second
I'm?
Sorry,
oh
excuse
me,
you
did
item
a
okay
conditional
use
permit
for
the
cluster
development.
A
A
A
J
K
A
A
A
Motion
carries.
Finally,
we
have
item
D.
The
site
plan
review
I'll
note
that
if
we
to
be
consistent
with
our
approval
of
item
B,
we
may
want
to
make
sure
that
that
language
is
revised
to
reflect
the
three-story
maximum
height.
Also
I
know
staff
had
recommended
a
15th
condition
related
to
compliance
with
the
window
requirements.
Would
someone
like
to
make
a
motion.
A
Right,
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
item
D
the
site
plan
review,
noting
that
the
building
height
is
three
stories,
also
adding
a
condition
that
the
applicant
complies
with
the
window
requirement
in
the
zoning
code.
Also
adding
the
condition.
Thirteen
Commissioner
slacks
additions
for
landscaping
to
mitigate
against
tree
loss,
and
we
could.
B
K
A
A
X
Good
evening
planning
commissioners
in
front
of
you,
you
have
a
zoning
code
text
amendment
introduced
by
councilmember
Frey.
The
proposed
changes
would
re-examine
the
way
we
regulate
principal
and
accessory
parking
garages
in
the
city.
I've
displayed
a
summary
of
kind
of
three
different
general
areas
of
change
that
we're
looking
at
related
to
parking
garages,
and
you
recall
that
the
amendment
was
discussed
at
the
Committee
of
the
Whole
meeting
on
September
19th.
There
have
been
a
few
changes
since
the
September
19th
meeting,
some
both
substantive
and
kind
of
minor
technical
changes.
X
I'll
just
run
through
again
a
summary
of
the
language
that
you
have
in
front
of
you.
The
text
amendment,
one
of
the
drivers
of
the
amendment
is
that
the
amendment
would
eliminate
the
requirement
that
principal
parking
garages
in
the
downtown
districts,
below-grade
or
integrated
into
a
transit
facility.
X
X
The
first
would
be
some
strengthened
language
regarding
screening
of
vehicles
as
well
as
lighting.
Sometimes
lighting
spill
over
from
within
a
garage
can
be
a
significant
issue
for
nearby
properties
above
the
first
floor
recall
that
we
have
quite
strict
standards.
On
the
first
floor
above
the
first
floor,
we
would
limit
the
percentage
of
street
frontages
that
can
be
parking
on,
and
that
is
on
each
floor.
One
of
the
issues
that
councilmember
aqua
or
Commissioner
Rockwell
had
mentioned
that
committee.
X
X
X
Parking
garages
to
other
uses
and
I've
had
a
fair
amount
of
discussion
about
that
with
architects
and
developers,
and
we
have
retained
our
recommendation
to
encourage,
rather
than
require
that
parking
garages
be
designed
in
a
manner
that
would
help
facilitate
future
conversion
and
those
kinds
of
features.
The
one
that
is
referenced
in
the
ordinance
is
flat
floor,
which
obviously
helps
facilitate
future
conversion.
X
Wayne
staff
presented
to
chew
that
you
down
to
Minneapolis
Neighborhood
Association
Land,
Use
Committee.
They
didn't
take
a
formal
vote
on
the
proposal,
but
generally
expressed
appreciation
and
support
for
the
changes
as
I
mentioned
I
did.
It
have
had
some
discussions
with
both
developers
and
architects
about
the
changes.
I
would
say
there
was
general
support
for
the
concept,
but
some
concern
about
the
kind
of
execution
and
the
potential
for
increased
costs.
X
A
couple
of
the
issues
that
were
raised,
for
example,
are
that
if
we
require
sort
of
really
heavy-duty
screening
or
active
functions
on
all
sides
of
a
parking
garage
that
is
likely
going
to
in
many
cases
trigger
the
need
for
venting
of
a
parking
garage,
whereas
right
now
a
more
of
an
open-air
garage,
you
just
obviously
get
natural
ventilation
under
the
building
code.
A
certain
degree
of
enclosure
requires
mechanical
ventilation,
which
is
both
significant
upfront
cost,
as
well
as
an
ongoing
energy
cost.
X
There
was
some
concern
about
the
requirement
of
top
level
screening
with
some
of
the
feedback
there.
Being
that
is,
is
the
top
level
really
where
we
want
that
level
of
investment
to
be
going
in
on
a
parking
garage.
There
was
some
suggestion
that
increasing
the
costs
on
the
top
level
of
a
parking
garage
may
take
away
from
the
kinds
of
investments
that
would
go
more
at
the
pedestrian
level
street
level.
You
have
a
parking
garage.
X
See
I'm
trying
to
recall
the
other
concerns
that,
as
I
mentioned,
there
were
significant
concerns
about
the
practicality
of
encouraging
more
especially
if
we
were
to
require
that
garages
be
designed
to
to
facilitate
future
conversion
to
other
uses.
I
can
go
into
that
and
more
depth
if
the
Commission
is
interested,
but
suffice
it
to
say
that
structural
loading
requirements,
for
example,
are
much
different
for
parking
garages
than
other
uses.
I
think
it's
somewhat
counter-intuitively.
X
X
We
did
look
at
best
practices
and
I
saw
some
standards
in
the
fifty
percent
range
in
a
couple
of
cities.
So
I
recognize
that
the
30
percent
limitation
is
relatively
strict.
I
think
if
you
look
at
the
200
central
project
that
a
lattice
and
ESG
designed
as
an
example
staff
and
the
Commission
really
pushed
the
applicant
in
that
case,
to
design
more
active,
Street,
frontages,
I
think
on
all
levels.
X
You
know
my
recollection
is
correct
that
we
ended
up
with
a
completely
active
functions
on
all
levels
facing
central
and
a
long
second
I
believe
we
were
able
to
get
to
sort
of
a
60
percent.
Active
40
percent,
non-active,
splits,
I
think
one
thing
that
provides
some
level
of
comfort
for
the
development
community
is
that
alternative
compliance
is
an
outlet,
certainly
on
smaller
sites.
It
will
not
be
a
surprise
to
me
if
we
see
a
fair
number
of
alternative
compliance
requests.
X
X
Certainly,
that
site
is
small
enough,
that
underground
parking,
probably
probably
would
not
have
been
feasible
and
there
may
not
have
been
a
practical
alternative
to
doing
what
they
did
on
the
parking
podium
levels
as
well.
So
that
probably
would
be
an
example
where
there
would
be
few
alternatives
to
granting
alternative.
N
I
missed
the
commuter
hold
mean
that
this
was
discussed,
so
Jason's
been
trying
to
get
me
up
to
speed.
So
I
do
have
just
a
couple
of
questions
and
the
second
page
of
text
edits
it's
d
parking
garages,
so
Jason
you've
got
number
one
design.
All
additions
comply
with
what's
below
so
a
B,
C,
D
and
E
and
F
are
all
of
those
except
for
what's
noted
in
a
those
apply
to
all
zoning
districts.
N
B
X
X
N
X
Actual
active
uses,
that's
as
the
ground-floor
of
principle
and
accessory
parking
garages
shall
have
commercial
residential
office
or
hotel
uses
located
between
the
parking
garage
and
any
public
sidewalk,
except
where
frontage
is
needed
to
provide
access
to
the
facility.
So
again,
those
are
standards
that
have
no
authorized
variance
from
then
and
the
downtown
districts
you
simply
just
have
to
meet
that
requirement
and
what.
I
I
So
you
go
down
the
street
and
you
see
the
butts
of
every
car
because
they
they
back
up
the
car
till
a
wheel,
hits
the
stop
in
the
back
of
the
car
punches
out,
I'm,
not
suggesting
that
as
our
new
policy,
but
there
are
different
views
of
parking
ramps
and
what
they
should.
Look
like.
I
didn't
have
a
question
about
the
top
level:
enclosed
and
screened
and
I
used
to
go.
The
Dayton's
flower
shows
and
Christmas
shows,
and
we
used
to
build
things
on
the
floor
ramp
and
it
was
kind
of
cool.
I
X
Breeland
I
think
that's
a
really
good
question.
In
my
view,
when
a
residential
developer
encloses
the
top
level
of
their
parking
garage,
it's
partly
it's
partly
that
it's
a
natural
place
for
a
kind
of
an
outdoor
amenity
deck,
but
I
think
it's
also
a
recognition
that
units
that
kind
of
directly
overlook
that
top
level
of
parking
garage.
If
it's
just
open-air
parking
are
going
to
be
more
difficult
to
rent
at
a
price
that
you'd
be
able
to
get
otherwise
it's
it's
just
similar
to
how
we
restrict
surface
parking
and
the
downtown
zoning
districts.
You.
J
Gyrich
is
talking
to
the
commissioner
concert.
I
was
just
gonna,
make
sure
of
a
general
comment.
I
think
this
is
definitely
step
in
the
right
direction.
I
would
kind
of
add,
though,
because
you
know
we
are
talking
a
lot
about
design
and
like
I
was
so
that
we've
got
these
two
examples
here
on
the
projector
and
like
obviously,
it's
not
ideal
and
there's
a
lot
of
talk
about
podiums
that
don't
look
great,
but
I
do
I
live
a
block
from
LPM
there
and
it
definitely
was
pretty
ugly
for
the
first
year.
J
It
was
there,
but
then,
after
a
while,
you
don't
really
notice
it.
You
know
the
trees
get
a
little
bit
bigger
and
there's
two
different
places
with
sidewalk
seating
and
it's
actually
fairly
pleasant
to
walk
by
and
so
I
think.
As
long
as
we're
doing
a
good
job
with
the
street
level,
I
tend
to
not
want
to
get
too
concerned
about
the
podium
part.
Sometimes
that
kind
of
becomes
a
proxy
for
being
unhappy
about
a
building
in
general
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
general
comment.
B
I
still
think
it
looks
ugly
I,
the
the
text
language
that
Commissioner
of
reelin
was
talking
about
is
interesting
because
I
find
it
sort
of
this
duality
with
us
pushing
parking
to
Center
developments.
Wrapping
you
know,
developments
all
four
sides
and
then
having
to
require
the
the
center
parking
area
to
be
covered.
I
do
think
that
covering
it
is
appropriate.
I
just
think
that
there's
some
interesting
push
and
pull
there.
X
Commissioners
related
to
that
I
just
put
on
the
overhead.
What
is
was
a
the
milk
order
ramp
built
in
the
early
2000s
I
believe
that,
as
far
as
these
kinds
of
rules
that
we're
talking
about
in
terms
of
masking
a
parking
garage,
that's
probably
the
gold
standard
among
more
recent
parking
garages
in
the
city
and
clearly
they
did
not
cover
their
top
floor.
I,
don't
know
that
I've
ever
been
on
the
top
floor
or
noticed
whether
they're,
whether
the
units
on
the
backside
of
those
dwelling
units
look
down
on
that
garage
or
not.
K
A
You
know
I,
think
I
think,
since
we
do
have
the
option
of
granting
alternative
compliance,
maybe
it's
fine
to
be
more
conservative
and
go
with
30%
I.
Think
you're,
probably
right
in
an
instance
like
for
mark
where
you
have
a
very
small
site
and
there
just
aren't
a
lot
of
other
practical
options.
You
know
we
still
have
the
opportunity
to
allow
that
I.
Think
alternative
compliance
would
also
kind
of
give
us
a
little
more
leverage
to
ensure
that
the
screening
of
that
parking
garage
maybe
looks
a
little
better
than
that
one,
for
instance,
I.
A
You
know
the
parking
podiums
are
something
we've
seen
a
little
bit
more
of
in
the
last
few
years
and
I
think
there
are
some
good
examples
of
how
those
have
been
done
and
some
that
are
that
are
maybe
less
good.
So
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
address
that.
But
still
we
leave
ourselves
a
little
bit
of
flexibility.
A
J
So
it
sounds
like
you
all
had
this
discussion
at
least
a
little
bit.
It
might
make
some
sense
just
looking
like,
for
example,
at
this
soar,
a
lot
we
have
right
there.
If
somebody
were
to
build
a
building
with
a
parking
podium
on
that
remaining
parking
lot,
you
know,
would
we
want
them
to
sort
of
focus?
J
The
30
percent
of
the
the
frontage
in
one
area
that
looks
really
good
or
you
know,
I
have
to
imagine
a
situation
like
that
they
probably
sort
of
do
you
know
the
corner
on
Washington
there,
and
then
second,
they
have
like
a
stairwell
or
something
like
that.
It's
not
just
thinking
of
like
a
lot
of
the
the
types
of
projects
that
end
up
getting
or
end
up
having
parking
podiums.
It
might
be
hard
to
really
make
use
of
30%,
and
so
you
know
one
thing
we
could
do
is
in
the
design
area
there
in
be.
J
If
we
were
to
change
it
to
no
more
than
30%
of
a
linear
frontage,
I'm
strike
each
floor
and
just
put
like
the
structure
facing
a
public
street
public,
sidewalk
or
public
pathway
I
feel
like
it
would
give
architects
a
little
bit
more
to
work
with
there
and
they'd
actually
use
that
space
and
maybe
put
some
housing
units
on,
say
the
Washington
Avenue
side
and
the
Park
Avenue
side.
If
we
were
using
this
example
in
front
of
us,
I
don't
know
if
people
are
amenable
to
that
or
not.
J
No
go
ahead,
I
was
gonna,
say
so
like
hypothetically.
If
somebody
were
to
build
a
new
building
on
the
sort
of
the
left
side
here
and
they
were
to
do
sort
of
like
a
you
know,
Nick
on
fifth
type
building,
where
there's
a
tower
and
a
parking
podium
right
there
requiring
say
the
second
Street
side
to
be
30%
active
uses
above
the
ground
floor.
J
You
know,
wouldn't
it
maybe
make
more
sense
to
concentrate
that
30%
I
think
people
would
actually
use
the
30%
and
maybe
put
liner
housing
on
one
side
rather
than
you
know,
doing
like
a
stairwell
or
something
along
the
back
of
the
building.
Does
that
kind
of
make
sense,
I
think
we
would
get
more?
We
would
get
actual,
we
would
get
active
uses
if
we
allowed
them
to
to
concentrate
it
in
one
area
rather
than
having
30%
on
each
block
base.
W
G
W
I
live
in
a
building,
that's
like
this
one,
and
if
this
one
is
like
the
one
I
live
in,
you
can't
see
the
rooftop
parking
from
inside
all
the
windows
go
the
other
way.
It's
actually
a
pretty
nice
way
to
do
it
if
you
have
to
have
uncovered
parking
which
I
now
wish
we
didn't
have
now
that
I've
heard
this
discussion
about
covering
it.
A
N
A
J
F
J
J
A
A
N
Q
J
So
my
the
intent
was
I
feel
like
it'd
be
easier
to
draw
it.
So
if
you
know
for
requiring
30%
of
the
frontage
on
on
each
of
each
floor,
you're
gonna
end
up
with
you
know
and
say
an
example
like
they've
gone
fifth
or
Nicola
through
65.
You
know:
they're
gonna
have
to
run
a
hallway
like
back
through
the
parking
garage
from
like
the
main
area
where
they
have
units
or
some
kind
of
acted
use.
Like
it's
going
to
be
separate
and
I.
J
X
K
V
J
X
G
J
Think
I
kind
of
Oscar
you're
going
with
that
too.
Maybe
all
maybe
I'll
withdraw
the
the
amendment
I
think
I
might
have
misread
this
to
say:
I
thought
that
this
was
reading
sort
of
the
other
way
around
that
there
had
to
be
at
least
30
percent
active
functions
on
each
side
and
it
I
think
it's
the
other
way
around.
Now
that
I'm
looking
at
a
little.