►
From YouTube: January 22, 2018 City Planning Commission
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission Meeting
A
Good
afternoon,
I
will
call
to
order
the
January
22nd
meeting
of
the
Minneapolis
City
Planning
Commission.
My
name
is
Matt
Brown
I
serve
as
president
of
the
Commission
we're
joined
by
a
new
commissioner.
Today,
Jeremy
Schrader
is
our
new
City
Council
representative
also
present.
Today,
our
commissioners
krons
or
slacks
wheezy
and
silenced
any
mobile
devices,
and
we
can
get
started
with
our
meeting
first
item.
Business
is
to
approve
the
actions
from
the
January
8th
meeting.
They
have
a
motion
to
approve
those
actions.
A
You
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor
and
that
motion
carries
next.
We
will
approve
the
agenda.
Will
you
can
find
hard
copies
of
the
agenda
in
the
hallway,
we'll
determine
which
items
will
be
discussed
which
will
be
on
consent
and
which
will
be
continued
to
another
meeting
so
starting
at
the
top
item?
1
is
a
25
26
Emerson
Avenue
South.
That
is
an
alley
vacation
on
the
vicinity
of
Jefferson
Elementary
School.
Is
there
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
1
see?
A
No
one
will
put
item
1
on
consent
item
2.
Is
it
52?
Excuse
me
4200
for
Drew
Avenue
self,
that
is
a
variance
and
a
minor
subdivision,
sir.
Anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
2
item
2
on
consent
item
3
is
a
408
4th
Street
southeast
several
applications
for
a
new
multi-family
building,
say
no
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
the
read.
A
Seeing
no
one
will
put
item
3
on
consent
item
4
is
the
shopping
center
renovation
of
2425
West
Broadway
will
discuss
item
4.
If
anyone
is
here
for
that
item,
5
is
recs
26
at
2601,
through
26:21
Lyndale,
Avenue
South,
several
applications
for
a
new
mixed-use
building
there
will
discuss
item
5
and
just
so
I
have
an
idea.
Is
there
anyone
wishing
to
speak
on
item
5
there
isn't
anyone,
although
will
we'll
discuss
that
item
six
is
an
Islamic
Center
at
2824
13th,
Avenue
South.
A
That
is
a
while
several
applications
for
a
building
addition.
There
is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
6c.
No
one
six
on
consent
item
7
is
the
cottages
on
Lake
Harriet,
a
4324
West
Lake
area
Parkway,
several
applications
for
a
new
residential
building.
There
will
discuss
item
seven
and
also
I
have
an
ideas
or
anyone
here
to
speak
on
item
7
on
West
Lake,
Erie
Parkway.
There
is.
B
A
A
Yes,
figured
we'd
have
some
people
for
that,
so
we'll
discuss
that
a
little
later
in
the
meeting
and
then
finally
item
10
is
a
zoning
code
text.
Amendment
related
to
billboards
that
item
will
be
continued
to
the
February
5th
meeting.
If
anyone
is
here
for
that
item,
it's
my
understanding
that,
because
that
amendment
was
introduced
last
year,
it
needed
to
be
reintroduced
by
the
new
council
and
it's
the
intent
of
the
author.
Not
to
reintroduce
that.
So
we'll
take
formal
action
on
February
5th.
But
it's
likely
that
that
proposal
will
not
go.
D
A
E
A
F
G
A
I'll,
take
that
as
a
motion
to
approve
the
2018
calendar
is
there
a
second
and
I'll
just
note
that
there
is
one
correction
on
that
calendar?
The
meeting
committee,
the
whole
meetings
shown
on
August
29th,
will
actually
be
on
August
30th.
So
with
that
correction
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor,
and
that
motion
carries
next
may
have
a
motion
to
continue
item
10
to
the
February
5th
meeting.
A
H
Good
evening,
members
of
the
Commission,
this
is
a
request
for
a
zone
change
to
go
from
EC
one
district
to
the
C
2
district
and
a
conditional
use
permit
to
allow
a
shopping
center
at
24,
25
West
Broadway,
an
aerial
image
showing
the
existing
building.
It
was
constructed
in
1860
as
a
drive-through,
laundry
or
dry
cleaners.
H
H
The
site
is
currently
zoned
c1
as
as
much
of
the
area.
The
CVS
Pharmacy
located
just
to
the
north
is
the
only
c2
zoning
and
back
in
2009
as
part
of
the
West
Broadway
alive
rezoning.
This
area
remained
C
1
because
the
CVS
had
just
been
constructed.
They
left
that
as
C
2
zoning,
but
the
intent
was
really
to
focus
development
at
Penn
and
Plymouth,
which
you
can
see
some
downloading's
to
comply
with
that
and
so
the
existing
site
plan
here.
The
parking
lot
will
remain
in
the
same
configuration
as
it
is
today.
G
A
J
A
J
As
with
all
and
I've
got
a
rezoning
later
this
evening,
which
we'll
talk
about
that
that
same
issue
and
so
I
think
that's
where
the
inconsistency
in
at
least
my
perspectives
on
on
these
come
from.
It's
not
that
that
you
know
there
should
be
it
tobacco
shop,
some
places
and
not
in
other
places
and
so
on
and
so
forth,
but
that
it's
it's
really
about
that.
Rezoning
and
I
think
it's
just
important
for
us
to
relay
that
message,
because
I'm
sure
we'll
see
more
of
these
as
well.
All.
A
G
A
G
A
L
So
the
amendment
plans
for
26
to
1
to
26
21,
Lyndale
Avenue
South
in
July
of
2017.
This
body
approved
the
project
seen
in
the
top
rendering
eighty
six
units
five-story
building
and
a
21,000
square
foot
grocery
store.
Construction
is
underway
with
the
footings
and
foundation
permit
approved.
The
applicant
is
requesting
some
changes
to
their
approved
plans
that
you
can
see
in
the
lower
rendering
that
would
add
approximately
11,000
square
feet
to
that
fifth
floor
and
11
a
total
of
11
units,
but
they
be
keeping
that
height
at
62
feet.
L
That
height
would
not
be
changing
from
what
they
were
previously
approved
for
just
a
couple
more
images,
I
know
in
a
packet
there's
eight
comparisons
of
approved
and
and
now
proposed,
but
just
highlighting
where
that
additional
square
footage
or
bulk
would
be
located
here
on
to
portions
along
lyndale.
You
can
see
that
portion
that's
closer
to
the
alley.
That
would
be
added
when
comparing
the
images
and
another
vantage
point
this
from
the
Garfield
Gables
building
or
from
the
east.
L
So
the
same
applications
that
you
see
in
front
of
you
that
you'd
be
voting
on
were
the
ones
that
you
voted
on
before,
but
since
there
is
that
additional
square
footage
added
those
applications
needed
to
be
in
the
play
that
square
footage.
Those
are
the
reasons
why
they
needed
to
reapply
for
those
variances.
M
L
The
condition
use
permit
from
the
height
just
highlights
and
those
things
that
haven't
changed
since
the
previous
approvals.
Like
I,
said
the
building
height
staying
at
62
feet
the
footprint
to
stay
in
the
same
exterior
materials,
which
was
a
condition
of
approval
that
was
modified
by
this
commission
they're,
not
showing
any
magic
pact,
equipment,
they're,
doing
a
different
heating
system
which
does
impact
the
design
of
the
building
and
just
the
overall
design.
We
feel
a
similar
and
vehicle
access
and
circulation
the
applicant,
and
they
can
talk
to
this
more
openly-
admits
that.
L
L
It
was
looking
at
the
findings
or
the
conditioning
is
permanent
and
the
variances,
and
we
saw
that
the
project
was
still
in
compliance
with
a
small
area
plan
wanting
greater
density
and
intensity
and
people
and
businesses
between
26
and
28th,
Street,
complan
guidance
for
commercial
corridor
with
same
same
goals,
and
that
the
design
still
relates
to
the
area.
With
keeping
that
first
floor
at
20
feet,
a
previous
person
was
taller
than
that
and
the
u-shaped
design.
L
There
are
a
number
of
letters
in
your
addendum
packet
from
the
public
that
do
you
express
concerns
about
the
project,
there's
also
a
letter
from
the
neighborhood
association
that
does
recommend
support
of
the
project
with
conditions
of
approval
and
one
of
those
I
do
want
to
draw
your
attention
to
that
was
the
affordable
housing
element
or
request
either
wanting
20
units
or
20%,
and
that
does
come
into
play
with
density
bonuses,
but
in
consultation
with
our
attorney.
This
is
the
direct
quote
outside
the
applicant
availing
themselves
of
the
density
bonus
or
voluntarily
providing
affordable
units.
L
The
city
does
not
have
the
legal
authority
to
require
or
mandate
as
proposed
through
an
imposed
condition.
So
we
strongly
encourage
not
looking
at
adding
a
condition
that
would
that
talks
about
speaks
about
affordable
housing,
but
with
that
said,
the
applicant
in
their
application
does
talk
about
their
intent
in
their
attempts
to
look
at
having
some
affordable
housing
component.
L
A
A
N
D
G
L
O
A
P
Well,
as
with
a
little
preamble
here,
as
with
many
things
in
life,
urban
development,
notwithstanding
the
goals
they
ask
enough,
questions
seek
enough
help
and
continue
undauntedly
with
a
process
that
really
never
loses
of
making
a
better
project
it.
Each
step
along
the
way,
as
I
have
repeatedly
stating
returning
multiple
times
to
cow
and
the
neighborhoods
and
seeking
input
from
staff
always
makes
a
better
project
with
better
suggestions.
So
this
projects
no
different.
Actually
it
could
be
said
if
this
project
comes
around
again,
we've
probably
used
up
all
the
ideas.
P
I've
also
heard
it
said
that
there's
a
certain
amount
of
deal
fatigue
with
this
project
and
people
are
tired
of
me
requesting
changes
honestly,
I'm
tired
of
me
too,
but
moving
forward.
Really
this
project
and
I've
been
doing
this
a
long
time.
This
project
is
a
poster
child
for
the
complexities
that
come
with
development
of
good
quality,
urban
mixed-use
projects
that
have
superior
design
and
functionality.
This
is
a
project
that
brings
new
housing
needed
grocery
options
and
long
term
benefit
to
the
neighborhood.
P
The
issue
at
hand
is
the
design
team
has
had
a
constant
and
ongoing
challenge
to
manage
the
necessary
architectural
changes
driven
by
two
things,
but
more
most
exclusively
by
the
need
to
accommodate
the
requirements
to
the
grocery
channel.
Now
the
site
has
its
challenges,
as
we
all
well
know,
because
the
back
of
the
site
on
the
alleys
5
feet
hired
in
the
street
or
the
intersection.
P
So,
but
the
reason
we're
here
today
with
these
structural
changes
and
the
tenant
requirements,
they
were
unknown
yet
the
previous
project
approvals
last
you
initially,
the
project
was
designed
to
industry
standards
for
any
conventional
retail
user.
However,
the
grocery
tenant
has
required
major
design
modifications
in
excess
of
industry
standards
to
meet
their
operational
needs,
implanting
the
structural
changes
made
the
project
not
feasible.
Under
the
previous
approvals,
we
are
not
asking
for
any
consideration
or
change
to
the
previous
building
design.
P
Regarding
the
building
footprint,
the
building
height,
the
exterior
building
materials,
the
project
will
have
the
same
traffic
circulation
and
the
same
building
elevations,
which
includes
fourth
and
fifth
floor
setbacks
at
both
lyndale
and
26th
intersection.
The
only
requested
change
from
the
previous
86
unit
development
is
a
request,
a
request
for
an
increase
in
FA
R
by
adding
11
additional
units
to
the
previous
design.
These
units
will
be
considered
a
horizontal
expansion
and
will
be
limited
only
to
the
fifth
floor.
P
P
Erin
alluded
a
little
bit
to
some
opportunity
for
affordable
housing.
Returning
to
what
I
said
earlier
about
the
process
of
development
and
continually
asking
questions
through
our
lender,
the
project
is
perhaps
found
an
alternative
form
of
financing
which
may
also
contribute
to
solving
some
of
the
current
project
issues
or
challenges.
A
financing
option.
We're
very
interested
in
pursuing
is
the
2018
new
market
tax
credit
program.
P
Under
this
program,
the
project
will
be
able
to
set
aside
20%
of
the
units
as
affordable
housing
at
80%
of
the
ami
recs
26
is
in
the
process
of
applying
to
the
appropriate
CDE
entities
in
the
marketplace.
For
this
new
market
tax
credit
program,
please
understand
the
allocation
of
the
tax
credits
and
a
CDC
recipients
has
yet
to
occur.
The
federal
government
will
not
release
the
2018
allocations
until
late
January,
which
is
at
the
end
of
this
month.
We
will
only
know
at
that
time
which
CDC's
will
get
allocation.
P
However,
despite
the
tentative
nature
of
these
unknown
allocations,
we've
learned
from
good
sources
that
the
project
will
rank
quite
high
as
a
qualifying
candidate
for
the
program
based
on
the
site,
location
and
providing
multiple
neighborhood
grocery
and
an
affordable
income
qualifier
as
it
relates
to
the
housing
component.
Again,
please
understand
that.
There's
no
guarantee
that
Rex
will
be
successful
in
getting
the
tax
credits
until
they're
officially
allocated.
N
P
Q
F
F
P
P
A
N
P
The
structural
changes
which
were
required
by
their
the
retail
tenant
is
a
sheet
pile,
deep
foundation
system
to
be
stalled
to
be
installed
along
the
South
property
line.
There
were
major
changes
in
the
precast
structural,
concrete
beams,
the
columns,
the
precast
plank
components,
and
that
was
driven
by
as
I
referred
to
earlier.
The
conventional
design
of
the
structure
for
floor
loading
was
essentially
doubled
by
this
tenant
for
operational
reasons,
and
that
requirement
for
additional
live
and
dead
loads
is
what
drove
the
redesign
for
thicker
beams,
thicker
plank
longer
spans
and
that's
what
drove
our
cost.
P
E
O
P
As
we
continue
to
work
with
the
tenant
after
our
last
approvals,
that's
when
the
project,
engineers
and
architects
became
more
specifically
involved
with
the
tenants,
engineers
and
architects.
It
was
a
process.
It
was
an
iterative
process
as
we
work
through
this
and
those
became
known
only
after
our
last
approvals.
P
K
R
A
L
L
N
L
L
A
All
right
well
we're
passing
around
some
hard
copies
of
those
potential
changes.
I
understand
that
our
expected
speaker
has
arrived,
so
I
think
I
actually
closed
the
public
hearing,
so
I'll
reopen
the
public
hearing
and
give
him
an
opportunity
to
speak.
So,
if
you'd
like
to
come
to
the
microphone
and
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record,
that'd
be
great.
S
S
I'm
sorry,
I,
missed
Aaron's
presentation
and
I
assumed
he
went
through
the
basics.
I
sent
a
letter,
hopefully
all
have
had
a
chance
to
review
it.
I
have
a
number
of
concerns
about
this
project.
I
was
here
at
the
previous
application
and
voiced
those
concerns
and
I
have
concerns
about
the
history
of
the
project
and
the
tearing
down
with
harvest
on
all
these
things,
which
I
reviewed
in
the
my
comments
and
I'll
skip
that
part
of
of
and
Frisco,
because
no
I
think
is
most
pertinent.
S
Now
the
developer
in
this
project
didn't
engage
in
the
community
process.
There
was
no
conversation
with
neighbor
association
beyond
basics
and
an
early
stage
of
the
project.
There
was
no
in
reach
to
the
neighboring
business
owners
or
residents.
I
didn't
hear
from
this
developer
until
until
I
asked
for
a
meeting
after
the
project
had
been
approved.
There's
very,
very,
very
basic
things.
S
With
the
with
the
first
floor.
So
when
we
first
heard
this
project
as
years
ago,
probably
about
three
years
ago,
all
these
was
the
tenant.
So
the
idea
that
this
is
a
new
and
unplanned
Abul
and
foreseeable
thing
is
hard
for
me
to
believe.
I
also
know
that,
like
when
this
was
first
floated.
This
was
a
six
story
project
that
had
a
floor
area
ratio.
S
There's
approximately
it's
three
point
three,
and
then
we
went
down
to
two
point:
eight
after
twenty
feedback,
then
we
went
for
three
point,
one
with
the
with
the
last
draft
that
was
approved
now
we're
up
to
three
point:
four,
which
is
right
where
we
started
on
the
economic
necessity
and
this
unavoidable
thing:
that's
not
unique
to
the
to
this
society.
I'm
sorry,
I
literally
just
walked
in,
but
the
language
is,
it's
not
unique
to
the
site
was
not
created
by
the
applicant
or
someone
related
the
applicant
and
is
not
for
purely
economic
means.
S
This
is
a
requirement
by
that
they've
said
is
because
the
tenant
they
selected
and
had
previous
relationship
with
has
asked
them
to
do
something.
So,
if
that's
not
an
economic
necessity,
that
is
that
is
defined
by
their
their
control,
I,
don't
know
what
is
they're
the
ones
that
are
picking
the
tenant
unless
they've
done
something
that
doesn't
make
any
sense.
They
negotiated
the
lease
with
the
tenant,
it's
in
their
control,
so
they're
saying
in
their
point
that
that's
why
they
need
this
variance
for
which
is
purely
economic
reasons
purely
under
their
control.
S
They
didn't
engage
in
a
neighbor
process.
They
didn't
have
a
conversation
with
us
about
what
we'd
like
to
see.
They
didn't
talk
with
neighbor
association.
They
sent
a
basic
letter
and
I
would
really
like
to
see
if
this
variance
goes
through,
that
it
only
goes
through
with
real
real
support
for
things
that
are
good
for
neighborhood
and
those
things
are
things
like
affordable
housing,
which
I
think
this
developer
could
do.
They
introduced
it
in
the
last
letter
that
they
sent
to
the
Neighborhood
Association
and
in
conversations
I
had
with
them.
S
They
said
the
same
thing:
I,
don't
think
it's
real
I,
don't
think
that
they're
really
gonna
get
approval
and
what
they're
talking
about
is
it'll
look
very
low
level,
but
they
introduced
the
idea.
Affordable,
housing.
I
think
that
we
should
take
them
up
on
that
idea
and
I
think
we
should
make
it
real
and
meaningful
in
a
level
that's
impactful
to
the
community.
S
I,
don't
know
what
that
will
take,
because
the
developer
has
an
engaging
conversation
about
it
and
at
this
point
all
I've
said
is
an
idea,
but
they
won't
know
before
this
meeting
so
I.
Think,
if
that,
if
that
factors
in
your
decision-making,
we
should
delay
this
decision
until
they
have
that
plan
in
place.
They've
had
years
to
work
on
this
plan,
they
should
be
able
to
tell
us
the
truth
about
what
this
projects
gonna
look
like
before
they
get
approval
they've
already
started
construction.
This
is
pretty
pretty
unreasonable.
S
In
my
opinion,
I'd
also
like
to
see
environmental
features.
The
developer
floated
those
early
on
I
cited
those
in
my
letter,
I,
clearly
they're
doable.
They
aren't
concluding
the
project
and
concerned
about
the
scale
of
a
five-story
wall.
That
is
a
significant
addition.
They
say,
there's
no
major
changes
in
the
project.
They
added
11
units
and
10,000
square
feet
on
the
fifth
floor
and
they
sold
the
fifth
floor,
which
wasn't
going
to
be
there
and
an
earlier
draft
as
being
stepped
back
and
not
really
visible
from
the
street,
and
that's
obviously
no
longer
the
case.
S
So
for
me,
I
think
that
that
I
asked
you
all
and
would
say
greatly
appreciate
your
taking
the
community
concerns
to
heart
and
pointing
out
when
a
developer
does
something
as
egregious
as
apply
for
variances
for
purely
economic
reasons.
Three
months
after
they
have
started
construction
that
we
say
no
short
of
real,
meaningful
community
engagement
and
real,
meaningful
community
compromises
and
I'd
be
happy
to
engage
further
this
conversation
and
a
date
if
you'd
like.
Thank
you
all
right.
Thank.
N
N
L
In
in
comparing
the
two
I
don't
see
that
much
noticeable
in
difference
between
between
both
the
projects,
I
mentioned
the
height
staying
the
same
and
it
another
thing
to
point
out
is
as
a
bright.
The
project
would
be
allowed
for.
Stories
are
56
feet
in
height,
and
this
project
is
at
62
feet,
so
just
a
few
feet
over
what
they
be
allowed
for
in
terms
of
linear
feet
above
sea
level.
They
are
asking
for
that
fifth
floor.
That
is,
that
is
definitely
beyond
what
is
a
lot
by
right
and
and
and
allowed
through.
G
N
T
The
reasons
I
voted
against
it
back
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
or
that
I
thought
that
the
size
of
the
apartment
building
was
too
big
compared
to
the
scale
of
other
things
around.
It
I
remember
very
much
the
discussion
from
the
neighborhood
groups
at
that
time
complaining
a
lot
of
complaining,
but
stating
that
they
didn't
get
sufficient
notice.
Then
it
doesn't
appear
that
that's
changed.
T
I
was
also
concerned
about
whether
a
grocery
store
of
this
size
was
the
right
kind
of
tenant
for
that
for
that
spot
and
at
that
location
and
just
the
way
it
fit
into
the
neighborhood
in
general
and
I.
Think
these
repeated
requests
to
change
the
project
or
evidence
that
my
concerns
were
right
to
a
certain
extent,
so
I'll
be
voting
against
it.
J
J
I
think
that
a
building
of
this
right
here
can
work
and
and
support
before
I
am
I'm
still
thinking
about
the
FA
are
a
rich,
no
difference
because
I,
you
know
that
there's
a
different
matter
and
I
mean
maybe
we'll
discuss
that
in
the
next
round,
but
but
I
think
this
is
this
parses
out
into
these
different
applications?
We
have
before
us
in
a
complicated
way:
hey.
U
We
have
a
motion
on
the
table
right
now,
but
I
wonder
if
the
potential
for
having
an
affordable
housing
component
of
this
is
a
real
proposal.
That
might
actually
happen
if
it
might
make
sense
to
potentially
continue
this
one
cycle.
If
that
is
something
that
you're
supposed
to
know
by
the
end
of
the
month,
I
think
adding
the
affordable
units.
This
would
make
it
a
little
bit
more
compelling
of
a
project
and
I
think
it
would
also
get
the
the
variance
the
math
of
changing
the
variance
a
little
bit
I.
G
A
F
Two
of
hello
up
on
Commissioner,
Rock,
well
I
agree
with
the
Cu
P.
You
know,
we've
talked
about
this
for
a
year
now
and
I
think
the
Cu
P
is
appropriate,
but
I
do
struggle
with
the
FA
are
only
because
we
spend
a
lot
of
time
thinking
about
again
how
this
building
relates
to
the
street
frontage,
how
it
relates
to
its
adjacent
seeds
and
I
feel
like,
even
though
we
have
a
better
building
higher
quality
materials.
We've
gone
360.
V
F
G
A
A
J
Considerations
and
without
something
giving
back
to
the
community
in
some
way
and
specifically
whether
that's
for
housing
or
you
know
there
are
other
suggestions
in
this
in
public
letters
testimony.
There
are
things
that
are
not
listed
here,
which
I'm
sure
would
also
sway.
Maybe
because
trying
to
achieve
those
things
for
the
for
the
public.
U
U
If
this
were
the
first
time
that
we
saw
it
and
so
I'm
trying
not
to
hold
that
against
the
applicant
and
then
I
think
adding
a
grocery
store
right
here
at
26
of
lyndale
is
something
that
would
be
a
pretty
significant
amenity
to
kind
of
a
greater
Whittier
flower,
Hill
East
area
and
would
certainly
help
you
know
cut
down
on
the
number
of
car
trips
that
are
going
to
be
happening
and
kind
of
that
greater
areas.
People
are
able
to
walk
up
to
a
grocery
store.
That's
right.
U
There
don't
have
to
maybe
drive
to
the
coven
uptown
or
drive
somewhere
else.
It
also
has
a
lower
cost
grocery
option,
not
that
we
are
necessarily
considering
that
it's
an
Aldi,
specifically
so
I
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion,
though
again
I'm.
You
know
this
obviously
isn't
the
best
way
to
do
a
project.
G
K
K
M
A
That
motion
fails.
Would
someone
like
to
make
an
alternate
motion
and
that
motion
is
to
deny?
We
should
be
sure
to
include
some
findings
for
the
reason
for
that
denial,
we
can
find
the
findings
that
need
to
be
made
for
a
variance
in
the
staff
reports.
Would
someone
like
to
make
that
motion
Commissioner.
J
J
A
G
A
F
A
J
K
Q
K
K
G
N
L
L
C
A
A
E
A
M
R
This
site
is
located
on
the
western
along
the
western
shore
line
of
Lake
Harriet
separated
from
the
lake
by
West,
Lake
Harriet
Parkway.
It's
located
one
long
block
from
the
main
Linden
Health
commercial,
node
and
the
nearby
properties
consist
of
a
range
of
residential
densities.
You
can
see
from
the
zoning
map
that
the
property
is
surrounded
to
the
west
by
an
r4.
R
The
site
is
6260
support
feet
and
they
will
draw
your
attention
to
the
fact
that
the
cover
page
on
the
staff
report
had
an
error
from
previously
submitted
square
footage.
So
the
square
footage
was
correct
in
the
other
parts
of
the
staff
report,
but
just
that
cover
sheet
had
a
smaller
store.
The
square
footage,
so
the
site
is
currently
occupied
by
a
non-conforming
duplex
in
the
existing
zoning
is
our
one
with
the
shoreland
overlay.
So
here
is
the
site.
It's
wider.
R
At
the
front
of
the
lot
and
the
narrows
and
curves
to
the
rear
of
the
lot,
the
applicant
has
proposed
to
establish
a
cluster
development
of
four
units
on
the
site.
That
would
include
retaining
the
existing
duplex
at
the
front
of
the
site
and
constructing
a
new
building,
which
it
consists
of
six
garage
stalls
on
the
first
floor
and
a
second
floor
with
two
dwelling
units
for
a
total
of
four
dwelling
units.
R
The
applications
required
for
this
application
are
rezoning
from
r1
single-family
district
to
r4
multiple-family
district
conditional
use
permit
to
allow
a
cluster
development
and
a
number
of
variances
relating
to
the
yards,
including
a
variance
to
both
of
the
interior
side
yards
at
the
north
and
south
and
to
the
rear
yard
at
the
west
and
then
a
very
two
variances
to
allow
a
patio
that
exceeds
50
feet
to
encroach
into
the
north
and
south
anterior
side.
Yards
and
site
plan
review,
here's
a
rendering
of
the
front
and
back
inside
of
the
structure
and
the
site
plan.
R
R
I
will
draw
your
attention
to
the
fact
that
there
are
public
alleys
to
the
north
and
south
of
the
site
so
immediately
to
them
immediately
on
either
side
of
the
interior
sides
of
the
public
alley,
and
so
staff
has
confirmed,
with
Building
Code
plan
review
that
there
wouldn't
be
any
life
safety
concerns
about
building
this
close
to
the
property
lines
due
to
public
right-of-way.
That's
immediately
adjacent
here's,
a
floor
plan
of
the
garage
and
the
proposed
two
apartment
buildings.
On
the
second
floor,
so
the
applicant
has
proposed
to
rezone
the
site.
R
It's
identified
as
urban
neighborhood
on
the
future
land
use
map,
and
while
urban
neighborhood
isn't
primarily
intended
to
accommodate
significant
new
population
growth.
Adding
some
additional
density
in
this
area
does
meet
City
goals
of
supporting
density
near
natural
amenities
and
commercial
areas,
and
it
would
also
promote
a
range
of
residential
housing
types
in
the
area,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
safa
considered
a
couple
two
different
pathways.
We
consider
both
r4
and
r3
zoning
for
this
project.
R
However,
r3
zoning
would
have
required
three
additional
variances
lot
area
lot
coverage
and
impervious
surfaces,
so
staff
determine
that
r3
was
not
a
good
fit
for
this
project
to
allow
it
in
its
current
form,
and
so
there
have
been
some
concerns.
You
have
a
packet
of
additional
information,
some
letters
submitted
by
neighbors
concerned
about
the
height
limit
in
the
base.
Zoning
of
our
four.
However,
the
limits
for
Heights
of
a
cluster
development
and
r4
is
two
and
a
half
stories
or
35
feet,
which
is
also
the
limit
that
the
shoreland
overlay
imposes.
R
So
this
is
the
future
land
use
map.
So
in
your
staff
report
have
been
identified
that
this
project
it
was
or
this
site
was
part
of
the
linden
hills,
small
area
plan
and
while
it
while
it
is
in
the
area
of
influence,
I
just
wanted
to
draw
your
attention
to
the
fact
that
the
goals
and
guidelines
for
the
small
area
plan
are
not
meant
to
apply
to
the
area
of
influence.
R
R
R
The
applicant
has
applied
for
a
conditional
use
permit
to
allow
the
cluster
development
and
staff
has
found
that
there
are
no
expected
detrimental
impacts
on
the
neighborhood
from
the
proposed
cluster
development
and
then
the
yard
variance
as
I
previously
mentioned,
they
do
get.
The
proposed
yards
are
pretty
narrow.
Then
north
property
line
would
be
reduced
to
one
foot.
R
That's
required
for
a
cluster
development
and
staff
found
that
that
could
potentially
lead
to
more
active
uses
in
between
those
public
alleys
and
contribute
to
public
safety.
In
that
way,
so
the
site
is
within
the
shoreland
overlay
district
and
has
proposed
to
retain
the
shoreland
overlay
district.
Zoning
overlay
and
I
just
wanted
to
draw
your
attention
to
the
fact
that
the
Minnehaha
Creek
watershed
district
submitted
a
letter
setting
some
concerns
about
proximity
to
the
lake
and
that
the
shoreline
overly
limits
all
structures
for
35
feet.
A
R
Just
that
the
applicant
shall
work
with
C
pads,
you
ensure
that
appropriate
stormwater
management
is
taking
place
on
site
both
during
and
after
constructions.
Soils
are
being
stabilized
during
construction
and
that
those
chimney
stacks
need
to
be
limited
to
35,
feets
and
so
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
all
applications.
There
are
some
conditions
of
approval
that
you'll
find
in
your
staff
report.
Specifically
those
related
to
the
shoreline
overlay
and
I
will
stand
for
questions.
A
Commissions,
are
there
any
questions
of
staff?
Commissioner
Rockwell?
You
have
a
question:
no
okay,
anyone
else
if
there
are
no
questions,
I'll
open.
The
public
hearing
on
this
item,
I'd
like
to
ask
the
applicant
to
speak
first,
if
there
is
someone
here
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
yes
and
please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
My.
B
Name
is
Maggie
Tarr
and
then
my
address
is
30
36
West,
Lake,
Street,
Minneapolis,
Minnesota
I'm.
Speaking
on
behalf
of
my
client,
brian
ferrill.
We
initially
started
this
project
as
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
project,
but
due
to
the
limitations
of
only
one
accessory
dwelling
unit
lot,
we
changed
see
if
we
met
with
the
city
to
see
if
we
could
change
the
zoning
or
how
to
make
this
go
forward.
So
that's
kind
of
how
this
project
came
to
be.
B
We
feel
strongly
about
it
because,
right
now
it's
kind
of
a
dilapidated
old
house
with
a
dead
trees
and
a
facing
in
alleys.
We
really
wanted
to
bring
more
walkability
to
the
alley,
so
we
felt
that
putting
eyes
on
the
alley
putting
more
units
on
the
alley
would
allow
greater
aesthetic
for
that
space.
A
W
Loren
Mehta
I
live
at
43,
34
West,
Lake,
Harriet
Parkway,
my
home
is
to
lots
to
the
south
of
this
property
and
we
share
a
common
ally.
So
I've
talked
with
the
owner
with
Brian
I've
talked
to
the
architects.
I
want
you
to
know
that
I
am
in
support
of
adding
density.
I
purchased
my
home
on
that
highly
dense
block,
in
fact,
probably
the
most
dense
block
in
Lindon
hills,
knowing
that
we
were
embedded
within
multi
structured
housing.
However,
that
block
is
all
our
one.
W
It
presents
a
single
family
homes
overlooks
the
lake,
and
my
concern
with
this
project
is
the
up
zoning
three
steps
to
our
for
when
this
project
is,
my
understanding
could
be
done
with
our
three
and
I
spoke
with
Lindsay
last
week
about
this.
My
understanding
is
that
this
could
be
done.
Our
three
with
three
additional
variances.
W
W
Well,
$1,500
to
to
preserve
the
shoreland
overlay
seems
like
a
small
price
to
pay,
but
I
stand
in
support
of
Brian
the
owner
because
he
was
given
the
wrong
information
at
the
outset
of
this
project.
With
the
initial
measurements
done
by
the
city,
it
indicated
our
four
well
that
was
an
erroneous
measurement
with
the
new
incorrect
measurement
and
our
three
is
a
viable
option.
W
W
The
neighbors
are
confused.
I
want
you
to
know
that
the
neighbors
up
in
because
of
the
weather,
many
people
couldn't
be
here
and
in
fact,
my
snow
boots
in
park.
Five
blocks
away
and
run
here
to
get
here,
but
the
neighbors
are
confused.
You
know,
we're
told,
are
four
and
now
we
realize
it
could
be
our
three.
We
have
not
been
given
enough
time.
We
feel
like
this
is
being
jammed.
This
is
being
pushed
through
without
good
analysis
of
this
project
and
as
a
homeowner
two
doors
down.
W
I
will
tell
you
I'm
very,
very
concerned
about
an
r4
going
up
on
the
black
I'm
Lake
Harriet,
and
while
the
current
owner
claims
that
he
will
not
sell
or
raise
the
building
and
put
in
a
four-story
building
who's
to
say
that
zoning
at
r4
doesn't
incentivize
somebody
else
to
do
that
in
the
future,
and
it's
not
in
keeping
with
the
shoreland
overlay.
I
would
like
to
say
that
in
r3
zoning
is
a
win-win
proposal.
W
W
A
J
One
more
point
of
clarification:
lipfird
Lindsey
regarding
that
counters
questions
or
points
about
the
shoreline
overlay
with
the
shoreline
overlay
applies
regardless
of
the
zone
right
and
your
proposed
condition
would
ensure
that
we
are
in
fact
meeting
all
of
the
conditions
of
the
Charlotte
overlay
with
this
project,
and
that
would
continue
to
exist
if
there
were
ever
a
redevelopment.
That's.
R
R
As
it
stands
now,
the
the
height
limit
for
the
structure
would
be
would
have
to
comply
with
the
requirements
for
the
cluster
development
and
sorrell
and
overlay,
both
of
which
are
two
and
a
half
stories
or
35
feet.
What,
and
so,
with
the
the
four
unit
cluster
development,
that's
proposed
over
the
site
right
now,
the
you
know,
a
future
project
would
be
even
with
a
variance
to
a
lot
area
would
be
limited
to
seven
units
due
to
the
size
of
the
lot.
I
A
J
J
Briefly,
you
know
I
think
the
there
I
hear
this
concern
and
I
know
that
this
Commission,
just
gently
took
the
shoreline
overlay
district.
Very
seriously.
You
know
application
by
Lake,
Harriet
I
think
there
are,
you
know
the
different
lakes
and
the
different
areas
in
our
city.
You
have
different
characters
and
Lake
area,
it's
about
because
I
think
a
very
important
piece
and
has
a
very
different.
You
know
feel
the
Mississippi
River
or
or
lake
Mikasa,
and
you
know,
and
so
I
feel
confident
that
the
Commission
and
and
council
isn't
in
the
future.
A
A
D
Good
evening,
commissioners,
Peter
Crandall
senior
city
planner
with
cpad
land,
use
the
applicant
the
application
before
you
is
located
at
several
parcels,
fronting
on
West
Lake,
Street,
Humboldt,
Avenue,
South,
Holmes,
Avenue,
South
and
31st
Street
West.
This
is
an
application
for
a
Planned
Unit
development.
D
The
project
site
today
is
occupied
by
these
sons
of
norway
office
building
along
west
lake
street
and
the
rest
of
the
site
is
largely
occupied
by
surface
parking.
The
site
shares
the
block
with
several
single
and
two
family
homes
and
an
additional
apartment
building
in
between
the
sons
of
Norway
and
the
surface
parking
lot
to
the
south
for
some
land
use
contacts.
D
The
proposed
development
is
for
a
319
unit,
mixed-use
project.
This
is
a
plan
unit
development
with
23,000
square
feet
of
commercial
uses.
As
you
can
see
from
the
aerial
here,
the
project
is
made
up
of
three
primary
building
masses
along
Lake,
Street
and
Humboldt.
Avenue
are
defined
as
seven
stories
per
the
zoning
code
definition
of
height,
and
then
there
is
a
South
building
on
the
southern
personal
facing
Holmes
Avenue.
That
would
be
a
proposed
five-story
structure.
D
This
is
a
rendering
of
a
previous
proposal
that
you
saw
at
the
committee
of
the
whole
on
some
number
of
months
ago
and
you'll
notice
that
some
modifications
have
been
made
to
the
proposal
before
coming
before
you
tonight,
most
significantly
that
southern
building
has
been
reduced
from
six
stories
to
five
stories.
So
also,
then,
some
exterior
building
material
changes.
So
this
is
showing
that
original
condition
along
Holmes
Avenue
South
with
the
six
storey
proposal
and
then
the
proposal
for
agent
name,
which
is
five
stories
for
that
southern
building
personal.
D
So
the
land
use
applications
before
you
are
a
rezoning
from
our
four
to
our
six.
That's
for
the
South
parcel
along
owens
avenue,
south
conditional
use
permit
for
a
Planned
Unit
development,
as
the
Commission
is
aware
of
conditional
use.
Permit.
Our
plenty
of
development
rather
allows
the
applicant
to
a
lot
to
ask
for
certain
exceptions
to
the
zoning
rules
in
exchange
for
amenities.
D
The
exceptions
that
this
application
is
asking
for
are
to
allow
more
than
one
principal
structure
on
the
site,
to
increase
the
building
height,
to
reduce
the
minimum
required
yard
requirements
and
then
an
exception
to
the
pedestrian-oriented
overlay
district
requirement.
The
PIO
district
applies
only
to
the
c3a
portion
of
the
project,
there's
a
variance
to
increase
the
maximum
lot
coverage,
the
site
plan,
review
application
and
Ally
vacation
and
then
a
preliminary
and
final
plat.
D
The
lot
area
for
that
portion
of
the
site
is
approximately
48
thousand
square
feet
under
the
current
art
for
zoning.
The
maximum
density
requirement,
which
is
1,250
square
feet
per
dwelling
unit,
would
be
38
units.
The
maximum
fer
would
be
one
point:
eight,
seven,
five,
that's
with
a
twenty
five
percent
density
bonus
for
enclosed
parking,
the
maximum
height
under
the
r4
is
four
stories
or
fifty
six
feet.
I'm
gonna
propose
our
six
zoning.
Our
six
does
not
have
a
density
requirement.
D
The
maximum
fer
would
be
three
point
six
again,
that's
with
a
25%
bonus
for
enclosed
parking
and
then
I
proposed
our
that's
right.
The
maximum
height
under
our
six
would
be
six
stories.
Eighty
four
feet
and
to
clarify
the
applicants
proposed
FA
are
for
the
South
portion
of
the
building
is
two
point:
eight,
eight
so
and
five
stories
fifty
nine
feet,
both
of
which
are
under
what
would
be
approvable
in
the
are
six
and
over
what
would
be
approvable
in
the
are
four,
although
only
slightly
in
the
case
of
the
height.
D
This
is
a
figure
showing
the
proposed
alley
vacation,
which
is
highlighted
in
the
blacked
hatch,
on
the
northern
portion
of
the
site
and
then
and
exhibits
illustrating
the
proposed
amenities
that
the
applicant
is
proposing
for
painting
the
exceptions
to
the
zoning
code.
Those
include
a
public
open
space
at
the
center
of
the
site,
a
plaza
they're,
also
meeting
the
requirements
for
active
liner
uses
in
the
parking
garage
and.
D
In
addition
to
those,
they
are
proposing
several
pedestrian
improvements,
including
that
additional
connection
to
Westlake
streets,
enhanced
exterior
lighting
and
a
recycling
storage
area
together,
would
meet
the
required
amenity
points
for
those
zoning
exceptions.
There's
a
landscape
plan
showing
some
of
the
pedestrian
enhancements
and
landscaping
enhancements
to
the
sites.
D
The
project
is
proposing
to
have
an
enclosed
parking
garage
that
spans
the
entirety
of
the
site
at
a
sub
grade
level,
so
one
level
of
underground
parking
and
then
one
level
of
at
grade
parking
for
the
southern
portion
of
the
building
I
won't
go
through
all
of
the
floor
plans,
but
this
is
the
site
plan
for
the
north
portion
of
our
sorry.
The
North
Building
you'll
notice
that
the
commercial
uses
are
concentrated
along
West,
Lake,
Street,
the
adapted
commercial
corridor.
D
There
is
a
proposed
retail
space
in
the
somewhat
rounded
portion
of
the
building
at
the
corner
of
Humboldt
and
Westlake
Street,
an
additional
retail
space
across
the
plaza
from
that
on
the
ground
level
and
then
an
office
space
at
the
corner
of
homes
in
Westlake
Street
that
will
be
occupied
by
current
tenant
of
the
Sons
of
Norway
building
and
then
on.
The
Humboldt
facing
portion
of
that
building.
There
are
proposed
walk-up
residential
units
facing
both
humbled
and
the
interior
public
open
space.
D
Some
metal
panel-
this
is
the
rendering
of
the
South
building,
as
seen
from
31st
again
that
sub
grade
level
of
enclosed
parking
stretches
between
the
two,
both
in
North
and
the
South
building.
And
then
this
is
the
site
land
showing
that
level
of
enclosed
at
grade
parking
in
the
South
portion
of
the
project
that
enclosed
parking
is
lined
with
walk-up
residential
units
facing
31st
and
Holmes
Avenue
South,
and
then
the
primary
entrance
to
both
the
at
grade.
Enclosed
parking
and
the
subgrade
enclosed
parking
is
off
of
Holmes
of
New
South.
D
Elevations
of
that
portion
of
the
building
again
primary
materials
are
brick
fiber,
cement
and
metal
panel.
The
staff
has
recommended
a
condition
of
approval
and,
with
regard
to
this
portion
of
the
building
that
the
applicant
simplify
the
material
palette
to
bring
the
three
portions
of
the
building
further
in
line
with
each
other
to
present
a
more
unified
design
scheme
versus
having
three,
or
rather
two
different
material
palettes
for
this
portion
of
the
building.
D
So
again.
In
summary,
the
applications
are
the
rezoning
the
conditional
use
permit
for
a
plan
unit
development,
variance
to
increase
the
maximum
lot
coverage
and
I
should
specify
that
that
variance
is
for
the
South
portion
of
the
project
specifically,
and
that
variance
I
believe
is
from
70%,
which
is
the
maximum
under
the
proposed
are
six
to
80%
lot
coverage
the
site
plan
review
the
alley
vacation
and
the
preliminary
and
final
plat
I.
Don't
believe.
D
D
N
N
D
N
G
X
Cheer
Brown
members
of
the
Plan
Commission,
my
name
is
Tony
Bronco
from
Ryan
companies.
My
address
is
47
16
Colfax
Avenue
South
in
Minneapolis
in
the
Lyndhurst
neighborhood
I'm
joined
tonight
by
a
couple
of
my
colleagues
to
my
right,
Katie
Breen,
strand,
Carl
tetra
and
my
associates
from
her
civil
engineering
department.
Chet
Lockwood
behind
us,
Katie,
Carl
and
Chad
have
all
been
with
me
as
we've
engaged
in
the
neighborhood
process,
the
last
six
or
seven
months,
and
so
I
thought
it
would
be
important
to
have
them
here
as
well.
X
On
behalf
of
our
project
team
Sons
of
Norway
Ryan
companies
in
Widener
pleased
that
you're
here
with
us
and
want
to
thank
Shenzhen
worried
for
their
trust
and
helping
us
figure
out
what
to
do
with
their
parcel
in
the
next
generation
of
Sons
of
Norway.
I
also
want
to
thank
and
acknowledge
the
neighbors
that
have
come
out
and
participated
in
numerous
open
houses.
X
Neighborhood
meetings
in
others,
we've
conducted
over
or
attended
over
a
dozen
meetings
with
echo,
with
wedge
with
the
Uptown
Association
and
other
stakeholders
and
neighbors
in
the
areas
we've
gathered
feedback
about
the
project
being
hopeful
to
communicate.
The
impacts
of
what
this
development
may
do
a
couple
special
thanks,
Monica
Smith
from
echo
in
Suzy
Goldstein,
have
done
a
lot
to
coordinate
meetings,
and
so
I
want
to
express
my
gratitude
for
their
coordination
at
the
time
we've
spent
I
also
wanted.
X
Now
it's
the
fact
that
this
is
a
large
site
and
a
site
that's
effectively
been
in.
It
say
it's
same
forum
for
50
years
and
any
fully
developed
urban
city
in
a
great
pocket
like
uptown.
Certainly,
this
is
one
thing
we
wanted
to
get
in
front
of,
and
that's
why
we
got
in
touch
really
with
the
neighbors
I
also
found
out
personally,
there's
no
better
way
to
bring
a
community
get
together
than
to
find
a
site
like
this
and
to
bring
a
development
plan.
So
I
appreciate
you
listening
a
couple
things
about
current
conditions.
C
X
Know
the
sons
of
Norway
site
sits
on
about
2.3
acres
of
undeveloped
property
right
now.
It's
currently
the
majority
of
it
is
surface
parking.
Many
of
it
hasn't
been
repaired
for
the
last
two
decades
and
there
is
an
antiquated
office
building.
That's
on
one
corner
of
the
site,
as
described
in
the
staff
report.
A
couple
of
the
project
goals
that
this
will
accomplish
will
be
cleaning
up
a
site
that
has
a
long
history
of
contamination,
including
some
gas
station
and
other
uses
prior
to
its
existence
as
sons
of
Norway.
X
Obviously,
this
project
adds
tax
based
employment,
jobs,
Park
medication
fees
and
other
great
things,
but
also
it
retains
an
important
date
to
date,
daily
employer
and
Uptown
Sons
of
Norway
that
has
enjoyed
being
in
Uptown
for
almost
80
years
and
really
our
goal
is
to
reenter
gize
and
support
them
in
building
a
new
on
a
great
site.
To
address
a
couple
of
commissioner
crowns.
There's
questions.
There
is
a
Metro
Transit
bus,
shelter
on
the
site.
That's
currently
located
just
a
little
bit
east
of
the
intersection
of
Humboldt
and
Lake.
X
Since
the
committee
of
the
whole
project
that
we
attended
in
October,
we
have
made
some
changes
in
response
to
the
neighborhood
feedback
that
we've
gotten.
We
wanted
to
share
with
you.
Some
of
those
I'll
try
not
to
go
past.
Some
of
the
comments
that
Peter
had
in
his
rapport
wanted
to
make
sure
to
highlight
these.
Since
our
last
visit.
X
First
of
all,
one
of
the
things
that
we've
been
trying
to
do
is
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
of
Uptown
we've
been
trying
to
keep
the
building
focused
on
small
bits
of
density,
as
opposed
to
doing
a
large
monolithic
mass
of
building
we're
looking
at
breaking
it
into
smaller
pieces
to
keep
some
individual
style
and
character,
which
are
really
customary
in
and
around
Uptown.
In
order
to
address
one
of
the
big
neighborhood
concerns
that
we've
had.
X
We
made
a
big
decision
to
reduce
an
entire
story
of
the
South
building
of
the
site,
as
Peter
described,
we
heard
a
lot
of
feedback
that
the
transition
to
the
neighborhood
as
addressed
in
the
small
area
plan,
was
not
being
met
with
the
Pratt
with
a
prior
plan
and
we're
hopeful
that
a
meaningful
move
and
reduction
of
height
in
that
area
will
take
strides
to
do
that.
We
also
changed
our
roofline
in
the
South
building
of
the
site.
Some
of
you
may
have
remembered
that
we
came
with
a
mansard
style
roof.
X
There
are
mansard
conditions
both
on
the
north
and
south
of
that
we
ended
up
swapping
to
a
more
traditional
straight
roofline
with
a
more
simple
cornice,
because
it
was
one
of
those
elements
that
we
had
a
few
folks
that
liked
it.
But
many
came
and
didn't
like
that
that
style
and
condition
to
further
reinforce
a
step
back
along
31st
we've
also
lowered
the
corner
features
into
a
softer
Bay
expression.
X
If
you'll
notice,
on
the
plan
on
the
board,
you
can
see
both
in
the
east
and
the
west
side
of
the
site,
we
have
taken
out
the
corners
to
further
reduce
the
visual
impact
of
these
these
buildings,
one
of
the
other
notable
items
that
we've
had
and
we
purchased
or
agreed
to
purchase
the
3014
homes
apartment
building.
That's
on
the
site,
you'll
note
that
it
is
not
included
in
the
application,
and
it's
not
our
intention
to
do
anything
but
keep
the
building
in
its
current
form.
X
We
feel
as
though
buildings
like
that
provide
an
important
option
for
naturally
occur
before
affordable
housing
in
our
city.
It
also
provides
a
great
staccato
character
of
the
different
different
design
features
that
are
prevalent
in
and
around
up
a
couple
of
other
big
changes
that
we've
had
since
their
last
the
middle.
We
really
simplified
our
color
palette.
In
the
prior
plan.
We
had
different
red
colors.
We
had
a
very
white
brick
along
Lake
Street
in
a
corner
feature
that
was
actually
clad
in
in
metal
or
copper.
X
We've
simplified
both
to
a
stone
and
we've
kept
the
white
brick
in
the
building
that,
as
it
curves
alongside
humble
we
had
in
a
gray,
Emery
brick.
We
hope
we've
matched
that
to
the
front
building
to
be
in
white.
So
we've
reduced
a
couple
different
materials
out
to
really
simplify.
That
I'd
also
note
that
we
are
we've
heard
staffs
comments
related
to
further
simplification
of
the
building
in
the
south
and
we're
open
to
working
with
staff
on
making
sure
that
that
project
has
a
consistent
exterior.
X
Since
our
last
plan,
we've
had
a
small
reduction
in
our
unit
count
from
325
units
to
319.
We've
also
done
some
significant
enhancement
of
our
ground
level
programming.
Some
images
which
I'm
able
to
show
you
today
I'm
certainly
interested
in
your
comments.
After
this
testimony
as
to
whether
or
not
some
of
these
objectives
have
been
achieved
well,
there
have
been
fewer
neighborhood
comments
related
to
our
building
in
the
north.
X
X
What
we
are
proposing
in
the
current
South
building
is
a
59
foot
high
building
our
building
contains
about
a
hundred
and
thirty-eight
thousand
square
feet
of
space,
and
the
Delta
that
we're
talking
about
compared
to
our
for
zoning
is
a
fifty
six
foot
high
building
that,
if
you
calculate
your
density
bonus
is
in,
there
could
be
a
building,
that's
about
a
hundred
thousand
square
feet.
So
what
we're
really
talking
about
is
the
request
to
add
about
thirty-eight
thousand
square
feet
of
building
area
and
three
feet
of
height
to
that
building.
X
The
reason
why
we're
making
this
request
is
because
we
feel,
as
though
the
community
benefits
of
the
green
space
that
we're
adding
far
outweigh
this
request
for
additional
density
disproportion
on
that
site.
We
could
make
a
decision
to
carry
more
density
over
in
and
on
the
c3
area.
We
just
don't
think
that
that's
the
best
plan
for
the
project
and/or
for
the
community
and
that's
why
we're
making
this
request
a
few
things
I'd
like
to
note
as
you'll,
see
on
your
monitors.
X
X
The
small
area
plan
was
one
of
the
first
documents
that
we
sought
guidance
from
as
we
began
the
development
process
and,
as
stated
on
68
page
68
of
that
plan
and
reinforced
in
the
staff
report,
the
oldest
of
the
Southside
elaichi
Street
should
contain
residential
entrances
and
limited
retail
and
step
down
and
scale
as
they
approach
the
existing
residential.
Our
plan
has
throughout
taken
seriously
that
guidance
and
we're
confident
that
we've
made
adjustments
to
achieve
the
intent
of
the
plan.
A
couple
of
the
things
I'd
like
to
note
about
the
plan.
X
The
plan
itself
does
not
provide
mandates
for
zoning.
It
is
a
tool
that
guides
the
underlying
development
and
we
feel
as
though
again
we're
achieving
that
intent
of
the
gradual
transition
work
for
the
small
area
plan
was
began
in
2008.
Excuse
me:
2006
adopted
February
1
2008
about
10
years
ago.
This
was
before
we've
seen
a
significant
transition
in
development
within
our
city
before
significant
urbanization
trends
that
have
happened.
You
know
the
the
decade
between
2000
and
2010,
so
the
greatest
increase
of
residents
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis
since
the
1920s.
X
We
also
started
this
plan
before
the
creation
of
things
like
uber
and
lyft
before
Twitter,
before
the
iPhone
and
before
other
major
disruptors
that
affect
the
way
that
people
get
around
town
and
certainly
live
work
and
play
within
cities
like
Minneapolis
and
again.
While
we
are
looking
for
additional
density
in
the
r6
site,
we've
carefully
weighed
the
community
benefit
of
adding
in
our
green
space
and
looking
at
all
the
other
project
components,
and
we
feel
as
though
this
is
the
best
for
the
city
and
for
the
area.
X
X
This
is
a
current
view
of
the
area
that
will
become
the
fewer,
which
is
the
split
between
the
masses
on
Lake
Street
you'll
notice,
that
this
is
intended
to
be
a
retail
lined
open
public
area.
We
envision
that
there'd
be
a
coffee
shop,
a
restaurant
on
each
side
of
this,
and
people
able
to
go
back
and
forth
between
here
and
the
rear
area.
X
X
So
with
that,
I
am
here
to
tell
you
I'm
really
excited
about.
This
is
a
resident
of
the
city.
Here
we
get
few
opportunities
to
have
the
opportunity
to
submit
a
project
that
really
changes
a
neighborhood,
and
we
think
that
this
is
going
to
become
the
new
backyard
of
Uptown,
and
while
it
is
a
big
change
and
we're
acknowledging
that
I
can't
tell
you
how
excited
we
are
to
bring
this
project
forward
for
your
consideration.
A
If
there
are
none,
we
can
move
on
to
some
other
speakers
and
I
know.
There
are
a
lot
of
you
who
are
here
to
speak
on
this
item
tonight.
I
will
ask
that
I
won't
enforce
a
strict
time
limit,
but
I
will
ask
that
you
keep
your
remarks
to
just
about
a
couple
of
minutes.
If
you
start
to
go
longer,
I
might
ask
you
to
wear
a
pop,
also
be
mindful
of
providing
new
information,
not
simply
repeating
things
that
others
have
saddle.
A
Don't
we
received
a
large
stack
of
emails
and
have
had
the
opportunity
to
go
through
those
as
well
so
I'll
ask
for
an
initial
public
hearing
period
of
about
45
minutes.
We
can
see
how
things
go
and
decide
if
we
need
extent
beyond
that,
but
you
can
decide
who
goes
first
and
please
come
to
the
microphone.
Each
person
will
need
to
state
their
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Y
My
name
is
Susie
Goldstein
I'm,
a
echo
resident,
a
homeowner
in
East,
Calhoun
I
live
at
1805,
West,
Lake,
Street
and
I
am
currently
the
liveability
chairperson
for
the
echo
board.
As
you
know,
East
calhoun
is
a
neighborhood
that
is
highly
desirable
in
Uptown
made
up
of
single
and
multi-family
dwellings.
It's
a
uniquely
vibrant
part
of
our
city,
balancing
a
long-established
neighborhood
on
the
shores
of
the
foot
of
the
lake,
with
a
vibrant,
commercial
and
entertainment
area.
In
an
effort
to
control
and
plan
the
evolution
of
this
area,
the
town
small
area
plan
was
created.
Y
This
plan
took
special
care
to
identify
where
denser
developments
should
occur
and
how
to
integrate
increased
density
with
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
Managing
the
transitions
between
stable,
residential
neighborhoods
and
ever-changing
corridors
is
the
essence
of
the
small
area
plan.
This
proposal
for
the
sons
of
norway
parcel
seeks
to
build
a
new
seven
storey
319
unit
mixed-use
development.
The
echo
board
has
voted
against
approving
this
project
twice
in
both
of
its
form.
There's
the
letter
that
went
out
to
neighbors
that
I
think
should
be
in
your
packet
also
postcards.
That
should
also
be
part
of
your
packet.
Y
The
physical
effect
on
the
neighborhood
of
this
proposed
building
massing
with
the
rezoning
from
r4
to
r6
will
not
only
create
a
canyon
effect
on
homes
Avenue,
but
will
dramatically
increase
traffic
and
increase
the
population
of
echo
by
approximately
25%
we're
adding
500
new
residents
into
one
square
block.
We
are
currently
experiencing
excessive
traffic,
a
lack
of
on
street
parking,
poor
air
quality
due
to
Eiling,
as
well
as
rents,
increasing
out
of
reach
for
most
of
minneapolis
residents.
Now
echo
is
made
up
of
76%
of
renters.
Y
Our
only
affordable
housing
is
what
we
have
right
now
in
in
echo,
and
it's
not
very
affordable.
How
does
this
development
with
proposed
rents,
starting
at
$1,000
for
374
square
feet,
for
an
efficiency
accomplished?
Our
new
mayor
and
the
City
Council's
stated
goal
of
affordable
housing
in
all
areas
of
Minneapolis.
Y
Doesn't
it
make
more
sense
to
hold
to
the
current
zoning
honor
a
true
transition
to
the
established
neighborhood
and
go
back
to
the
drawing
board
with
a
plan
that
makes
this
development
a
win
for
both
the
city
and
for
the
current
eco
neighbors
Peter
Crandall
staff
report
states
reasonable
uses
exist
for
the
property
in
question
that
are
permitted
under
the
existing
zoning
classification,
including
medium
density
housing.
I.
Ask
you
to
consider
this
question
in
approving
this
rezoning,
granting
a
PUD
granting
a
variance
for
increased
maximum
lock
size.
Y
Can
you
give
rationale
as
to
why
these
changes
are
in
anyone's
best
interests?
Who
does
this
project
serve?
It
doesn't
serve
those
who
need
affordable
housing.
It
doesn't
serve
current
longtime
taxpayers,
homeowners
and
renters
in
Echo.
Who
will
see
the
population
increase
by
up
to
500
new
residents?
It
doesn't
serve
those
who
travel
on
the
lake
street
via
car
on
foot
or
bike
traveling
through
the
Hennepin
and
Lake
intersection
notorious
for
pedestrian
accidents
and
also
known
as
being
one
of
the
busiest
intersections
in
the
state
of
Minnesota
I.
Y
Ask
you
to
send
this
project
back
to
the
developer,
to
comply
and
honor
the
Minneapolis
plan
for
sustainable
growth,
the
uptown
small
area
plan
and
consider
the
desired
goal
of
affordable
housing
in
all
parts
of
Minneapolis.
Again
reasonable
uses
exist
for
the
property
in
question
that
are
permitted
under
the
existing
zoning
classification,
including
medium
density,
housing,.
V
So
I
guess
first
I
want
to
just
talk
about
I
want
to
talk
about.
The
zoning
and
I
also
want
to
talk
about
the
existing
context
right
now.
Just
so
we
know
what
we're
talking
about
I,
don't
know
if
many
of
you
are
familiar
with
the
street
surrounding
this
project,
so
this
proposal
is
outside
of
the
activity
center
and
I'm
just
going.
C
Z
V
Pictures
here
sure
it's
this
right
side
up
guys,
okay,
so
this
shows
directly
across
the
street
from
this
project
proposal
on
31st
Street.
This
you
can't
quite
see,
but
in
the
middle
there
is
a
Boulevard.
There
also
is
the
first
building
is
a
duplex,
no,
the
duplex
four-plex.
So
this
is
all
sort
of
you
know.
The
density
that's
been
incorporated
in
our
neighborhood
for
a
very
long
time.
If
you
look
at
the
north
side
of
31st
Street,
you
could
see
that
there's
a
Boulevard
down
the
middle.
V
Everything
here
is
for
traffic
calming,
and
these
are
supposed
to
be
fingers
of
green
extending
from
the
parkland
into
the
neighborhood.
If
you
go
on
the
east
side
of
Hennepin
you'll
see
that
there's
a
lot
of
new
Street
throating,
again
traffic
calming
so
people,
don't
just
use
that
residential
street
as
an
entrance
ramp
to
35w.
So
there's
been
a
lot
of
effort
for
livability
to
bring
a
lot
of
people
here.
This
is
a
regional
draw,
of
course,
because
of
the
lakes
and
because
of
Uptown.
V
Finally,
if
you
look
further
down
homes,
this
is
basic.
These
are
duplex.
Most
of
these
are
duplexes
and
some
single-family
homes.
So
again
we
have
a
lot
of
integrated
density
into
the
neighborhood.
We
are
not
opposed
to
renters.
We
are
not
opposed
to
density,
but
what
we
want
to
really
see
is
some
planning
that
makes
things
work
for
everyone
now.
I
just
cited
some
zoning
stuff
here.
I
just
want
to
make
it
clear
that
it
isn't
just
a
small
area
plan
that
talks
about
medium
density
on
the
31st
Street
site
as
one
point
10.5.
V
So
what
the
small
area
plans
did
just
so
we're
clear.
So
everybody
understands
is
that
it
was
a
way
to
articulate
the
comprehensive
plan
to
every
unique
context
of
the
city.
So
what
we
try
to
figure
out
through
the
uptown
plan
is
how
to
apply
the
principles
and
the
goals
of
the
Comprehensive
Plan
to
our
unique
context,
just
like
every
other
neighborhood
did
and
so,
and
we
want
an
American
Planning
Association
award
for
excellence
for
integrating
density
into
an
existing
neighborhood.
V
So
first
we
see
the
encourage
development
of
high
density
housing
on
commercial
corridors,
and
that
is
what
we've
got
on
Lake
Street,
we're
not
happy
about
the
height.
We
think
it's
excessive,
but
but
that
is
the
zoning
does
support
some
high
density
there,
but
it
also
says
encourage
the
development
of
medium
density,
housing,
improper
adjacent
to
properties
on
commercial
corridors.
So
this
is
where
the
originally
are
for.
Zoning
came
from
to
begin
with,
it
was
to
be
in
compliance
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
so
medium
density
residential
at
r4.
V
That's
about
35
units
per
acre
dwelling
units
per
acre
medium
density
is
20
to
50,
with
pewdie
bonus
or
whatever
you're
still
in
the
ballpark,
so
that
it's
not
just
the
scale.
It's
the
impact
of
this
development
on
traffic
on
air
quality,
on
just
busyness,
on
safety
trying
to
get
across
streets
and
frankly,
these
are
residential
streets.
V
We
don't
have
really
good
ways
to
move
that
much
traffic
through
our
neighborhood
in
this,
and
then
we
also
have
to
prove
through
the
stability
and
diversity
of
the
city's
neighborhoods,
while
alarm
for
increased
density
to
attract
and
long-term
residents.
Well,
unfortunately,
the
scale
and
the
price
point
of
these
suzie
mentioned
a
thousand
I've
heard
anywhere
from
a
thousand
to
twelve
hundred
as
a
beginning
price
and
the
smallest
units
or
375
square
feet,
and
then
we
have
a
bunch
that
are
like
five
hundred
square
feet.
V
So,
if
you
do,
you
know
again,
the
affordable
housing
is
the
stuff
we
have
is
the
housing
that
we
have
now
so
these
other
findings
just
talk
about
promoting
the
growth
and
encourage
overall
city
vitality,
focusing
on
the
corridors,
but
also
respecting
the
transitions,
and
that
was
always
the
main
concern.
Nobody
wanted
to
say
you
know,
look,
we
don't
want
any
growth
in
Oaktown.
What
we
wanted
to
do
is
in
the
way
mayor,
wright
back
when
he
funded
the
plan.
V
It
said
you
know,
this
is
the
three-legged
stool,
the
vibrant
commercial
district,
a
well-appointed,
you
know
an
established
residential
district
and
then
the
park
system,
so
for
the
sustainability
for
that
and
how
that
all
tied
together
and
that
we
need
to
have
all
of
them
to
make
uptown
work
for
everyone
so
anyway,
that
basically
covers
everything
on
here.
The
one
thing
the
other
thing
I
just
wanted
to
mention
was:
if
you
look
at
their
rental
average
rental
rate,
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
about
affordable
housing
and
we
support
that.
V
But,
for
instance,
the
average
rental
rate
first
studio
in
minneapolis
is
nine
hundred
fifty
seven
dollars
a
month
for
a
five
hundred
square
foot.
That's
a
dollar
eighty,
eight
per
square
foot,
a
lot
of
the
duplexes
in
echo,
are
at
a
thousand
square
feet
and
right
around
$1,800.
That's
again
a
dollar
eighty
per
square
foot.
So
but
the
rapper
wait
for
studios
in
this
thing.
V
If
we're
talking
the
rates
that
they've
mentioned
in
several
public
meetings,
we're
up
to
three
hundred
and
three
dollars
and
20
cents
per
square
foot,
so
you
can
say
that
individual
unit
is
affordable,
but
you
can't
get
a
roommate
in
a
375
square
foot
place.
So
it
seems
to
us.
You
know
it's
kind
of
moving
things
in
the
wrong
direction.
It's
making
our
neighborhood
more
exclusionary
and
what
we're
worried
about
if
this
is
the
base
rent
for
our
unit
this
size?
What
does
this
do
to
rents
everywhere
else?
Going
up?
V
It's
gonna
push
things
up
and
not
only
an
echo.
It's
gonna
push
it
in
other
parts
of
our
town
and
by
that
through
that
by
the
other
through
other
parts
of
the
city.
So
what
we're
we're
really
opposing
the
rezoning,
because
we
feel
like
this
just
sort
of
feeds,
a
speculative
interest,
not
long-term
interest.
There's
been
a
lot
of
studies.
If
you
guys
follow
Colliers
magazine,
they
have
an
international,
they
did
a
big
focus
on
Minneapolis
and
st.
Paul,
how
we're
really
right
for
national
and
international
speculators.
V
These
speculators
tend
to
turn
properties
over
much
faster,
there's
a
lot
of
data
about
all
this
stuff
and
they
were
saying
what
was
once
a
fairly
stable
500
million
to
750
million
annual
apartment
sales.
It's
double
since
2013,
and
they
don't
see
any
pullback
in
sight
and
they
have
like
three
pages
of
sales
that
have
gone
on.
A
lot
of
them
are
buildings
that
have
been
built
since
2010.
So
what
we're
asking
is
you
know
to
keep
with
reasonable
similar
to
what
we
talked
about
on
the
lyndale
project?
You
know
figure
out.
V
What's
reasonable
we'd,
like
some
modern
increases
in
density,
we'll
have
other
people
talking
about
parking
and
traffic,
and
things
like
that,
so
we're
not
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
figure
out
what
can
be
win-wins.
What
can
work
for
everyone?
What
can
allow
more
people
to
be
in
our
community,
but
in
a
way
that
does
it
trash
the
community
and
also
push
rents
in
a
direction
that
none
of
us
want?
Thank
you
very
much
all
right.
Thank.
A
AA
And
address
okay:
my
name
is
blue
della
quani
I'm
at
three
four
zero
for
Emerson
Avenue
South
I
am
a
freelancer,
which
is
why
I've
been
able
to
spend
an
hour
on
a
bus
to
get
here.
I
am
a
renter
and
I
have
lived
in
both
the
wedge
neighborhood
and
caring
for
the
last
five
years,
and
I
would
like
to
continue
to
do
so
as
long
as
I'm
not
pushed
out.
I
would
like
to
talk
about
being
in
support
of
the
proposed
up
zoning
from
our
Florida
r6
for
the
Sons
of
Norway
redevelopment.
AA
This
is
already
an
extremely
livable
neighborhood
that
and,
as
has
been
brought
up
earlier,
the
amount
of
areas
that
are
available
to
turn
into
you
know,
strip
flexes
or
area
similar
to
triplexes
are
slim.
There
are
not
a
lot
of
opportunities
to
create
more
spaces
in
the
this
area,
the
Uptown
area
for
increased
apartments,
and
it
is
not
easy
for
people
like
me
to
professionals
who
you
know.
Maybe
one
out
of
five
of
us
have
a
car
to
continue
to
afford
living
in
Uptown.
AA
A
AB
My
name
is
Christine
Vincent
I
live
at
three
one:
two:
five
homes
of
inner-self
apartment
2a,
one
I'm,
a
renter
I,
have
been
a
renter
at
this
address
for
27
years,
I'm,
a
full-time
employee
at
the
University
of
Minnesota
I
work
in
the
administration
for
the
med
school
I've,
been
there
for
13
years
and
I'm
a
daily
commuter
by
bus,
I,
Drive
less
than
3500
miles
a
year
in
the
27
years.
That
I've
been
a
part
of
echo
I.
Guess
now
is
the
day.
AB
Mccosker
I
have
always
felt,
welcome
I've,
always
felt
part
of
a
community
despite
the
fact
that
I
rent
I
rent,
because
I
simply
can't
afford
to
buy
in
neighborhood
I
love.
My
neighborhood
and
I
feel
very
deep
ties
to
it.
I
signed
my
first
lease
shortly
before
my
21st
birthday
spent
all
of
my
20s,
all
of
my
30s
in
it.
This
put
very
nearly
all
of
my
40s
at
this
address.
I
used
to
work
in
the
neighborhood
and
I'm
a
regular
customer
at
local
businesses.
I've
lived
on
deep
roots
in
this
neighborhood.
AB
This
is
my
home.
This
is
the
only
home
that
I've
really
known
as
an
adult.
The
result
of
the
recent
changes
in
the
variances,
the
increased
sort
of
luxury
housing.
The
difference
in
rents
that
we're
looking
at
this
new
development
are
pretty
significant.
For
me,
my
building
has
been
flipped
twice
in
the
last
three
and
a
quarter
years.
It's
a
28
unit
building.
My
branch
has
gone
up
from
eight
hundred
and
thirty-five
dollars
a
month
to
one
hundred
and
twenty
dollars.
Sorry,
a
thousand
and
twenty
dollars
a
month
for
a
one
small
one-bedroom
apartment.
AB
This
is
a
rate
that,
as
a
single
middle-class
gal
working
at
the
University
of
Minnesota,
one
of
our
leading
employers,
I
can't
compete
I
can't
over
the
last
three
years,
I
haven't
had
a
22
percent
increase
in
my
salary,
this
increase
in
rent
has
come
with
a
reduction
of
services,
a
reduction
of
maintenance
and
without
any
improvements
to
my
apartment,
it's
made.
The
building
most
livable
I
am
really
concerned
that
the
sons
of
Nora
project
is
bringing
in
a
density
and
kind
of
an
arbitrary
manner.
AB
That's
not
considering
its
effect
on
people
like
me,
who
you
know
this
is
affordable
living
for
me.
The
sets
of
Nora
project
is
not
affordable
living
for
me,
I,
don't
know
what
else
to
do
if
I
want
to
stay
in
my
neighborhood
I'm
at
the
point
where
I
need
to
get
a
part-time
job
to
subsidize
my
rents.
AB
You
know
this
is
going
to
decrease
the
economic
diversity
of
our
neighborhood.
If
someone
who's
a
middle-class
working
gal,
full-time
employee
of
the
University
of
Minnesota
can't
afford
a
small
one-bedroom
apartment
I'm,
not
certain.
You
know
where
we
have
to
go
with
that
in
terms
of
economic
diversity.
AB
So
what
I'm
asking
you
tonight,
the
City
Planning
Commission
buddy
asked
that
you
honor
code
policy
1.8
of
the
Minnesota
plan
minneapolis
plan
for
sustainable
growth.
This
is
quote
to
preserve
the
stability
and
diversity
of
the
city's
neighborhoods,
while
allowing
for
increased
density
in
order
to
attract
and
retain
long
term
residences
residents
and
businesses,
then
maintaining
the
r4
zoning
on
the
south
side
of
this
development
will
help
to
honor
this
policy
you'll
help
to
make
this
living
in
this
neighborhood.
AB
A
AC
Good
evening,
I'm
Sharon
I
didn't
Pranay,
live
at
3039,
humble
doubt
the
noose
off
for
the
past
27
years,
I'm,
one
of
the
five
homes
that
shared
block
the
sun's
on
our
way,
I'm
addressing
the
Planned
Unit
development
points
requested
by
Ryan
companies
and
recommended
by
the
city
staff.
The
developer
and
the
city's
own
staff
applied
the
subjective
point
system,
awarding
the
development
25
points
I'm
here
to
share
with
you
by
the
city's
own
report,
how
this
development
only
receives
two
points,
one
for
enhanced
exterior
lighting
and
one
for
recycling.
AC
I
support
the
ground
level,
design
of
this
building
residential
landscaping
office,
retail,
they
would
add
to
the
neighborhood,
but
the
recommended
high-density
will
destroy
their
own
design
elements.
The
proposed
design
has
323
parking
spaces.
The
entrance
suggested
on
Holmes
Avenue.
Due
to
the
high
density
of
the
proposal.
The
city
staff
has
recommended
that
the
developer
and
I
quote.
We
would
prefer
the
access
drive
spanning
between
homes
and
humbles,
be
two-way
and
that
entrance
to
be
to
the
underground
parking
off
that
drive.
AC
This
will
create
a
teep
traffic
pattern
within
the
block
the
east
to
west
exits
of
the
parking
ramp
shared
with
the
alley
going.
South
Holmes
and
humble
are
already
gridlocked
daily,
so
this
will
promote
traffic
down
the
alley
behind
the
development
and
the
five
homes
the
city
planner
refers
to
the
current
alley
in
the
report
and
I
quote
a
shared
Street.
AC
The
developer
in
the
city
planner
award
three
points
for
pedestrian
improvements.
A
quote
proposed
design
neighbors
to
the
south
of
site,
currently
use
the
alley
and
the
existing
parking
lots
to
access
Lake
Street
and
runs
by
early
store.
This
pathway
commonly
referred
as
lungs
out
the
subject,
will
maintain
the
pathway
through
the
site
as
an
exceptional,
accessible
pedestrian
access
connecting
the
alley
to
Lake
Street
through
open
space
and
Plaza
amenities.
These
amenities
are
intended
to
provide
an
enhanced
pedestrian
experience.
It
will
be
unsafe
to
walk
around
the
building,
let
alone
within
the
300
3000
block.
AC
The
T
traffic
pattern
does
not
promote
walkability.
The
T
traffic
pattern
does
not
propose
protect
new
residents
of
the
development
or
the
established
neighborhood
safety.
It
will
be
unsafe
to
walk
bike
to
the
proposed
retail
space.
Ground-Level
homes,
outdoor
space
and
Plaza.
20
points
quickly
goes
away.
The
pedestrian
amenities
is
now
zero.
In
fact,
due
to
the
density
of
this
proposal,
it
goes
against
Minneapolis
plan
for
sustainable
growth
policy.
AC
110
support
development
along
the
commercial
corridors
that
enhance
the
street
character
fosters
pedestrian
movement,
expands
the
range
of
good
services
available
and
improves
the
ability
to
accommodate
automobile
traffic.
The
amenities
the
Ryan
is
providing
is
for
resale
value
on
only
not
for
the
public
good.
The
outdoor
space
and
Plaza
will
only
be
used
by
the
residents
while
the
developer
maximizes
access
to
sunlight
on
their
property.
The
development
casts
large
shadows
along
the
established
neighborhoods
to
the
east
and
the
west
side
of
the
property.
AC
In
winter
months,
these
neighbors
will
receive
less
than
6
hours
of
sunlight
per
day
by
the
city's
own
shadowing
study.
The
development
achieves
a
Planned
Unit
development
score
of
two
I'm
for
development
of
the
Sons
of
Norway
site,
but
only
if
it
follows
our
own
award-winning
uptown
small
area
plan
and
the
city's
own
plan
for
sustainable
growth
policy.
One
point
ten
point:
six
encourages
the
development
of
median
density
housing
on
properties
adjacent
to
the
properties
on
commercial
corridors;
keep
this
property
this
current
zoning
as
our
four
multifamily
medium
density.
Thank
you.
A
AD
Name
is
Carol
Dean's
I
live
at
30
to
45,
curving,
Avenue,
south
and
I'm
here
to
talk
about
the
traffic
study.
The
Minneapolis
plan
for
sustainable
growth
last
updated
in
2016
States
ensure
that
land
use
regulations
continue
to
promote
development,
that
is,
it
is
compatible
with
nearby
properties,
neighborhood
character
and
natural
features.
Minimizes,
pedestrian
and
vehicular
conflict
promotes
street
life.
Connectivity
reinforces
public
spaces
spaces
and
visually
enhances
development.
It
also
states
that
huge
increases
in
car
traffic
from
high-density
development
creates
more
pedestrian
vehicular
conflicts
with
increased
public
health
concerns.
AD
Regarding
the
predicted
large
number
idling
cars
I'd
like
to
draw
your
attention
to
the
two-page
review
of
the
wheat
Narayan
traffic
study,
authored
by
Ellen
Cleveland
from
Minneapolis
Public
Works
questioning
conclusions
and
rationale
for
many
aspects
of
this
development.
These
questions
should
be
addressed
before
the
city
can
fully
evaluate
much
less
approve
the
proposed
building
of
323
unions
units.
AD
One
issue
raised
in
this
review
of
the
traffic
study
is
that
it
did
not
take
into
consideration
seasonal
traffic.
Anyone
who
understands,
but
a
maka
Scott
knows
that
our
traffic
is
doubled
in
summer.
We
believe
the
traffic
numbers
are
inherently
biased
because
the
traffic
study
was
done,
mid-october
and
did
not
take
into
consideration
much
higher
traffic
from
May
to
September
the
lake
and
uptown
form
a
regional
destination.
Five
months
of
the
year
for
recreational
activities,
many
of
those
people
bring
boats,
water
boards,
canoes,
coolers
strollers
and
they
park
in
our
neighborhood.
Moreover,
uptown
hosts
events.
AD
AD
There
isn't
time
to
go
into
all
the
questions
and
concerns
raised
in
the
traffic
study
review,
but
to
highlight
a
few
high
queues
for
cars
waiting
at
lines
and
stop
signs
a
need
for
clarification
on
the
allotted
parking
spaces
for
non-resident
office
workers,
visitors
and
house.
Shared
parking
spaces
will
operate.
Remember
the
323
parking
spaces
are
also
for
the
office
workers,
the
rest
run,
the
numbers
don't
add
up.
AD
AD
The
traffic
study,
as
is
pointed
out
in
cloutman22,
take
into
consideration
two
new
buildings.
One
is
the
Dilek
plant
building
on
the
corner
and
the
other
is
a
new
building
going
up
with
micro
units
and
only
a
third
parking
spaces
for
the
number
of
tenants.
They
will
be
sharing
the
same
street
as
the
only
exit
and
entrance
into
this
huge
development.
AD
It
also
raises
questions
about
the
flow
of
traffic
in
and
out
of
that,
one
exit
on
homes,
whether
it
might
create
more
congestion
in
the
neighborhood
and
the
question
questionably
high
numbers
were
shared
and
buying
past
trips,
which
were
automatically
deducted
in
the
traffic
study
but
were
never
made
clear.
As
has
already
been
said,
echo
is
already
a
neighborhood
that
is
60
to
70
percent
rental
and
many
of
the
renters
live
happily
in
duplexes
triplexes
and
multifamily
apartments,
and
they
rely
on
on
street
parking.
AD
Nine
parking
meters
on
Lake
Street
are
not
sufficient
that
most
buildings
of
this
size
should
have
visitor
parking.
So
if
the
weed
Narayan
project
goes
through,
with
its
current
plan
offering
inadequate
parking
for
renters
and
their
visitors
office
workers
patrons
of
the
restaurant,
we
believe
the
spillover
will
highly
impact
our
neighborhood
with
parking
issues
and
traffic
and
more
congestion,
more
cars,
circling
and
looking
for
parking
spots,
adding
to
traffic
congestion
and
poor
air
quality
in
the
residential
area
around
the
lakes.
AD
AE
My
name
is
Ryan
Brown
I
live
at
14,
35
West
31st
Street
the
apartment
right
on
the
corner,
so
all
those
little
side
views
you
saw
of
the
South
building.
That's
what
I
look
at
well.
Actually
right
now,
I,
look
at
the
surface
parking
lot.
A
couple
of
comments.
First
about
the
staff
plan,
I'd
like
to
say
that
I
do
like
the
diverse
materials
that
are
used
on
the
South
building,
as
proposed
by
the
developer.
I.
AE
Think
that
provides
additional
visual
interest
and
I
also,
like
the
point
addressed
that
adding
some
parking
access
or
directing
the
parking
access
onto
Humboldt
makes
sense,
because
both
the
North
and
South
Humboldt
are
controlled
intersections,
whereas
homes
and
thirty-first
is
a
non
controlled
intersection.
But
now
to
address
the
hot
button.
AE
In
response
to
the
neighbors
feedback,
the
developer
took
the
time
to
redesign
the
proposed
South
building
to
reduce
the
height,
which
I
believe
does
meet
the
Uptown
small
area
plans,
requirement
of
transitioning
from
the
activity
center
to
the
single
and
single
family
residences
and
duplexes
that
predominate.
The
Echo
neighborhood,
the
uptown
small
area
plan
is,
of
course,
a
recommendation
and
it
is
dated,
as
it
was
created
in
2008,
and
there
have
been
numerous
city
policies
adopted
since
that
time.
AE
This
is
a
spot
that
density
makes
sense.
It
is
an
area
that
is
rich
with
amenities,
both
from
shops
and
restaurants,
to
the
natural
amenities
at
Betty
McCusker,
and
is
adjacent
to
the
activity
center
and
located
within
blocks
of
transit
bikeways
and
is
in
a
highly
walkable
area.
I
would
also
like
to
reiterate
or
point
out
that
31st
Street
is
part
of
the
Minneapolis
bicycle
master
plan
and
will
have
dedicated
bike
lanes
on
it
at
some
point
in
the
future.
Further
enhancing
the
access
to
alternative
modes
of
transportation.
AE
Aside
from
driving
this
project
really
does
enhance
and
encourage
walkability
not
only
for
current
residents,
but
also
for
the
persons
who
would
live
at
this
building.
Minneapolis
needs
housing.
Adding
more
rental
units
will
help
meet
the
demand
in
the
city
and,
as
the
city
meets,
that
demand
that
will
help
ease
rental
price
points
that
we
see
increasing,
currently
well,
there's
no
way
to
compel
the
developer
to
add
a
designated,
affordable
housing
I
believe
that
this
project,
by
adding
additional
Serpa
or
additional
supply,
will
help
preserve
existing
a
naturally
occurring,
affordable
housing
in
areas
of
Uptown.
AE
The
OCO
neighborhood
has
very
limited
areas
for
development
and,
more
importantly,
for
increasing
housing
due
to
its
current
zoning,
which
is
predominantly
single-family
and
duplexes.
This
project
adds
density
in
the
right
location
for
this
neighborhood
and
for
the
Uptown
activity
center
opening
access
to
more
residents
to
a
highly
desirable
area.
Thank
you.
Thank.
M
Thanks,
my
name
is
Heather
Wolfsburg
and
I
live
3300
homes.
I'm
echo,
longtime,
echo,
resident
and
I
want
to
encourage
you
to
keep
the
current
zoning.
Therefore,
in
place
and
I
have
a
young
family
we've
been
in
the
neighborhood
for
a
long
time
and
I'm
raising
my
children
there
and
I'm
concerned
about
the
environmental
impact
of
this
density.
I'm,
not
against
this
project
and
I,
see
it
as
density,
but
I
want
appropriate
density
and
I.
Think
our
4
will
give
us
appropriate
density
I'm
concerned
about
that
transition.
M
Point
on
the
southern,
the
South
Percel
and
making
it
integrate
into
Echo,
neighborhood
and
I
feel
that
you
know
I
have
these
two
kids
I
love
to.
Let
them
run
free
into
uptown.
With
this
addition,
this
change
from
our
Ford
r6
Italy
tripling
the
amount
of
units
that
can
be
in
that
parcel
and
that's
a
lot
more
cars,
a
lot
more
people
and
I,
don't
think
it's
as
safe.
M
It's
gonna
have
back
up
problems
with
the
traffic.
As
I
said
they
were
just
the
traffic.
It
gets
a
flawed
study
and
you
know,
being
a
mom
and
seeing
this
this
property
go
in.
I
just
would
like
to
see
that
there
is
some
consideration
to
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
the
homeowners
who
and
the
renters
be
considered
as
well
we're
not
against
density,
and
it's
there's
density
happening
in
this
area.
You
guys
can't
you
know,
there's
an
accumulative
density
with
the
other
persons
on
this
proposed
normal.
M
G
I
Name
is
Yana
Matson
I
live
at
30,
33,
Humboldt
Avenue
south
on
the
block
in
question.
With
this
proposed
development,
I
have
been
an
uptown
resident
off
and
on,
but
primarily
on
for
my
entire
life.
I
came
home
from
Abbott
hospital
to
32nd
urban,
and
my
parents
were
there
for
47
years.
Within
the
last
few
years,
we
all
together,
moved
to
a
duplex
I
think
it's
a
special
situation.
It's
a
multi-generational
home
I
feel
very
fortunate
that
we
have
that
opportunity
in
a
neighborhood
that
we
have
called
home
for
so
long
and
through
generations.
I
I
We
knew
this
was
I
mean,
even
though
it's
been
a
parking
lot
and
I
learned
how
to
ride
my
bicycle
in
that
parking
lot.
We
knew
this
was
right
for
development
and
that
that
made
sense
for
where
we
need
to
go
as
a
city.
The
health
and
vitality
and
the
density
of
our
urban
environment
and
I
act
a
little
absolutely
on
board.
I
knew
we'd
be
dealing
with
some
construction
at
some
point.
I
That
I
feel
that
they
could
do
what
they're
trying
to
do
within
the
existing
zoning
that
they
could
shift
their
density,
that
they
could
make
it
work
and
still
and
still
respect
the
work
that
has
already
been
done
by
the
people
who
are
so
invested
in
living
in
this
area.
We
do
not
want
to
lose
what
makes
it
a
gem
of
a
neighborhood
I
mean
I've
lived
in
San,
Francisco
and
Seattle,
and
out
east
and
I
come
back
to
Minneapolis
because
of
the
character
of
this
community
and
the
neighborhoods.
I
We
live
in
the
integration
of
the
parks
and
I.
Don't
understand
why
we
have
to
have
this
density
bomb
in
this
one
space
that
has
the
potential
to
disrupt
the
enjoyment
of
just
those
amenities,
not
only
for
the
history
and
the
people
who
have
lived
there,
but
for
the
new
energy
and
the
people
that
can
come
in
I
think
there
are
ways
to
bring
in
new
people
that
don't
diminish
the
experience
we
have
of
Uptown.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
A
C
My
name
is
Erick
darling,
I
live
at
32,
17,
humboldt,
south
and
I've
lived
there
for
forty
years
came
into
the
neighborhood
when
it
was
a
very
mixed
neighborhood.
We
had
a
electrician
down
the
street
I
had
a
teenage
runaway
halfway
house
across
the
street
on
Lake
Calhoun,
now
named
bidet
Mikasa.
If
I've
got
that
correct,
we
had
a
drug
rehab
facility,
so
I've
spent
some
40
years
as
a
community
college
teacher
ploud.
C
It's
very
character
is,
what's
pulling
in
big
money
to
develop
things
like
this
site
without
any
concern
for
the
livability
of
the
neighborhood,
for
the
neighbors
or
for
the
long
term
uses
of
the
lake
I'd
like
to
note
that
this
so-called
fjord
will
not
become
the
new
backyard
of
Uptown.
That's
the
lake!
That's
the
lake
so
think
very
critically
about
these
so-called
amenities
that
will
justify
this
kind
of
crowding
and
I
would
call
it
crowding,
not
diversity.
C
One
last
note:
in
the
last
five
six
seven
years,
I've
seen
an
explosion
of
high-rise
apartments
from
lyndale
down
Lake
Street
to
Hennepin
out
past
the
Calvin
Beach
hotel
into
st.
Louis
Park,
and
right
now
we
already
have
congestion.
This
is
not
something
that
Ryan
company
will
create
its
there.
They
will
simply
make
it
worse
at
this
point
for
me
to
take
a
trip
after
three
o'clock.
Suddenly,
what
used
to
be
a
10
or
15
minute
drive
might
be
double
or
triple
that
people
are
filling
that
area.
C
This
is
the
way
it's
going
to
be,
and
it
will
get
worse
and
last
you,
gentlemen
and
lady
think
carefully
about
what
to
permit
by
the
developers
who
are
coming
in
with
big
money.
No
interest
in
the
communities
that
they
are
going
into
properties
are
being
flipped
and
flipped
again,
so
please
reconsider
or
don't
consider
any
up
zoning
and
look
very
carefully
at
the
PUD
that
the
variances
requested.
Thank
you.
AF
Except
for
8
years
in
California,
I've
been,
as
we've
been
going
through
this
and
and
working
with
Tony
and
the
folks
I
hate.
It
seems
like
I'm,
going
to
talk
about
message,
sending
and
economics
the
it
seems
like
if
I
reconstruct
this
process,
sonson
our
way
decides
to
sell
the
site.
Things
been
on
there
for
a
long
time
and
there's
existing
zoning
in
place.
Tony
and
weiner
proposed
a
price
for
that
land
and
and
a
project
every
time
that
we've
talked
to
the
developer.
AF
The
indications
are
that
if
we
stay
within
the
existing
zoning,
it's
not
economical.
We
can't
make
it
work
and
I
started.
Thinking
about
that
and
it
occurred
to
me.
Where
is
their
original
cost?
Well,
it's
in
the
cost
of
the
land,
so
you
pay
a
price
for
the
land
and
then
you
put
a
project
together.
That
makes
economic
sense,
considering
how
much
you're
having
to
pay
for
the
property.
AF
Some
are
another
they've,
the
state.
That's
determined
that
in
order
to
do
that,
they
need
it.
Our
six
zoning
on
the
south
end
and
a
significant
height
variance
on
the
north
end.
It
seems
to
me
that
by
accepting
this
effectively,
the
city
is
saying
they're
sending
a
message
to
anybody
that
says
you
don't
need
to
worry
about
the
existing
zoning,
hey
whatever
you
need,
and
you
can
get
the
project
developed
to
your
specification.
I
think
that's
a
terribly
dangerous
precedent
to
set
and
I
ask
you
to
consider
staying.
B
AF
That
integrity
of
the
zoning,
that's
what
it's
for
the
way
you
control
development!
You
can
control
development
through
your
zoning
and
people
will
build
very
good
projects
within
the
constraints.
I'm,
an
engineer
you
give
me
a
problem,
you
tell
me
the
constraints.
My
job
is
to
figure
out
a
way
to
make
it
work.
These
guys
from
Brian
are
really
smart.
They
can
put
beautiful
stuff
up
there,
but
not
within
the
current
price
and
I
suspect
that
the
price
that's
been
negotiated
for
that
land
has
a
heck
of
a
lot
to
do
with
what
we're
seeing.
AF
So,
please
give
it
a
try,
hold
that
zoning
control
it
and
see
what
comes
as
it
may.
Surprise
you,
thank
you
very
much
and
I
did
ask
all
the
people
that
are
opposed.
If
you
will
I
would
like
you
to
stand
up,
and
these
are
folks
that
came
out
on
a
really
difficult
night,
it
doesn't
even
represent
a
tenth
of
the
neighborhood.
We
canvassed
the
neighborhood
I
talked
to
a
lot
of
people,
and
so
did
all
these
folks
and
the
uniform
opinion
was
that
sorting
should
stay
there.
Let's
see
what
comes.
A
A
AG
That
I
can
say
I
just
want
to
be
a
person
in
front
of
you,
a
person
of
color,
which
there
are
very
few
not
only
in
this
community,
but
here
this
room
today
to
say:
who
is
this
development
actually
for
who
is
it
going
to
benefit
and
the
questions
not
about
density?
It's
about
what
density
is
appropriate
and
I.
Think
you've
heard
compelling
arguments
today
that
the
proposed
addition
or
the
change
of
zoning
is
just
not
appropriate.
It's
just
not
right.
AG
It's
not
in
line
with
everything
that
you've
heard
what
today
and
with
mayor
Frey,
who
I
bumped
into
into
the
building
on
the
way
into
this,
this
hearing
and
many
on
City
Council.
So
this
leadership
of
the
city,
so
I
just
ask
you
to
maintain
the
current
zoning
as
it
is,
and
we
will
still
see
development
and
density
happen
in
an
appropriate.
AG
AH
My
name
is
Jack
Zipes
and
I
live
past,
30
to
45
curving
Avenue
South,
a
retired
professor
from
the
University
of
Minnesota.
My
wife
dragged
me
here
from
the
east
coast
to
live
in
Siberia
and
I'm
still
trying
to
adjust
and
I
must
say
that,
thanks
to
her,
we
found
a
place
about
25
years
ago
in
the
echo
neighborhood
I
just
want
to
say
that
when
I
first
moved
here,
the
uptown
was
like
a
village.
It's
no
longer
like
a
village.
AH
AH
I
just
want
to
say
a
very
practical
thing
that
I'm
concerned
about,
particularly
since
I've
just
recently
turned
80
I've
had
about
in
just
the
last
three
to
four
years
about
five
accidents
from
cars
that
hit
me
and
my
dog
in
the
area
on
31st
and
quite
quite
close
to
Lake.
Not
only
that
I've
been
hit
by
two
bikes
as
well
because
of
the
congested
traffic
that
has
occurred
and
that
people
no
longer
sort
of
take
their
time
and
are
careful
on
the
Main
streets
on
Lake
on
and
then
on
the
office
streets
as
well.
AH
So
I'd
like
to
like
you
to
consider
the
fact
that
a
development
like
this
is
definitely
going
to
create
more
cars.
More
difficulty
for
pedestrians,
I
now
quite
often
have
to
use
a
cane
when
I
walk
because
of
the
accidents
and
I.
Just
beg
of
you
to
really
consider
that
we
want
this
community
is
an
amazing
community
and
we
really
want
the
very
best
not
only
for
our
community
but
for
the
city
because
of
town
has
always
been
a
wonderful
area
to
come
to.
AH
O
My
name
is
Mary
sabaki,
3420,
Avenue
South
and
we've
lived
there
for
35
years
and
10
years
before.
That
I
would
just
like
to
say,
because
I
live
sort
of
at
the
end
of
the
neighborhood,
as
opposed
to
right
next
to
the
development,
but
the
impact
we
feel
will
be
for
us,
and
that
is,
as
the
gentleman
just
spoke
about
the
village
of
what
uptown
is
partly.
But
traffic
is
an
incredible
concern
in
our
neighborhood
and
for
those
of
you
who
maybe
travel
around
in
the
summertime.
O
O
Driveway
lots
of
times
so
I
think
we
have
to
understand
that
what
the
impact
of
this
development
will
be
and
I
think
really
the
what
we
talked
about
over
and
over
again
here
is
this
transition
to
medium
density
on
the
31st
Street
31st
Street
is
a
Boulevard.
It
is
not
a
trap,
it
should
not
be
a
traffic
problem
and
if
they
are
going
to
be
putting
bike
lanes
on,
it
will
also
mean
probably
taking
parking
off
on
one
side
which
will
make
it
even
more
problematic.
O
Q
My
name
is
Eric
Hendrickson
I
live
at
3045
on
both
Avenue
had
for
the
last
16
years,
with
my
wife
Anya,
my
daughter,
Annabelle
and
I'll
get
this
short
in
20
seconds.
So
all
I
would
like
to
point
out
to
the
council
is
that
at
a
previous
project
about
an
hour
ago,
you
heard
a
woman
get
up
and
say
we're
very
confused
about
this
project,
the
neighbors
sort
of
wanted
to
go
forward,
but
we
don't
know
how
to
do
what
the
right
zoning
is.
Q
I
hope
that
it
should
be
eminently
clear
at
this
point
that
in
fact,
the
people
of
Echo
are
not
confused.
Okay,
98,
99
percent
of
us
do
not
want
you
to
approve
the
project.
That's
before
you
right
now.
Everybody
here
wants
something
developed.
We
just
don't
want
this
project
at
this
density.
There
is
complete
clarity
here.
Thank
you.
A
Z
Just
like
to
add
one
point
as
Tamara
Kaiser
and
I
live
at
32:17
humble
and
the
only
thing
I'd
like
to
add
to
all
the
wonderful
things
my
neighbors
have
already
said
is
that
the
fjord
amenity
that
is
supposedly
a
public
property
in
the
plan,
is
listed
as
a
private
public
amenity
and
as
far
as
I
know
as
soon
as
the
residents
of
that
place
complain
because
of
unruly
behavior
from
neighbors
or
other
people
coming
in
that
place
will
be
closed
down
or
is
likely
to
be
closed
down.
It
is
not
a
guaranteed
public
amenity.
Z
G
G
G
B
A
M
U
That
applicant
about
the
few
word,
which
I
did
laugh
at
the
first
time,
I
heard
about,
is
there
a
way
I
mean?
How
are
you
going
to
ensure
that
that
is
marked
as
public
and
that
people
are
able
to
use
it?
Is
it
going
to
be
clear
walking
by
that
that's
a
space
that
people
are
able
to
walk
through
and
enjoy.
X
Sure
commission
degree
note
the
reason
why
it's
labeled
on
the
plans
is
a
privately
owned.
Public
space
is
for
the
designation.
We
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
plan
commissioners
knew
it
was
not
being
allocated
to
the
city
as
parkland
or
a
park
space.
So
it's
a
very
precise
definition,
but
it's
important
to
know
that
it
will
be
owned
privately,
but
publicly
accessible.
There
won't
be
any
fences
or
gates
in
and
around
it,
and
for
that
reason
it
will
remain
remain
publicly
open.
X
A
D
Sure
so,
as
was
presented
in
my
presentation
and
I,
believe
the
applicant
had
some
visuals
that
kind
of
spoke
to
that
issue.
The
art
for
zoning
has
a
somewhat
lower
fa
our
maximum,
so
we
could
expect
that
we
would
see
some
reduction
in
the
floor
area.
It
has
a
height
restriction
of
four
storeys
or
56
feet.
The
proposal
is
five
stories,
but
just
three
feet
over
the
maximum
height
limit.
So
while
it
would
be
limited
to
four
storeys,
the
the
height
of
the
building
under
the
r4
zoning
would
be
could
be
quite
similar.
D
Of
course,
there's
the
variance
to
the
maximum
lot
coverage,
which
allows
for
some
increased
FA
are
also
on
the
zoning
district.
If
that
were
removed,
you
could
expect
to
see
a
smaller
building
footprint.
Those
are
the
main
differences
and
then,
of
course,
the
density
requirement.
So,
while
we
might
see
anywhere
from
twenty
to
thirty
percent
reduction
in
the
gross
floor
area,
we
would
see
a
significant
reduction
in
the
allowed
number
of
residential
units
from
what
is
the
proposed
145
to
I
believe
38
under
the
r4.
N
N
N
So
maybe
just
commenting
that
something
we
talked
talked
about-
that
the
Camellia
whole
median.
That
song
feels
like
a
year
ago,
was
to
take
those
masses
of
the
south,
build
and
actually
break
them
up
in
the
three
distinctive
masses,
only
allowing
them
be
connected
by
a
walkway
very
similar
to
seeing
the
renderings
for
the
North
Building.
What
that
does
is
allow
light
to
transmit
through
that
mass
that
building
is
roughly
three
hundred
and
sixty
feet
long,
which
is
a
very
long
building
to
long
in
my
mind,
without
some
actual
break.
N
You
know
that
massing
above
a
first
floor.
So
that's
that
that
would
be
conditioned
to
condition
three,
that
the
fifth
floor
of
the
South
building
be
setback,
a
minimum
of
ten
feet
all
sides
facing
the
public
street,
so
that
would
be
31st
and
homes
which
you
know
gets
back
to
eleven
light.
It
pulls
more
mass
off
of
the
public
streets.
N
The
Westside
is
all
already
fairly
articulated
it's
as
we
see
it's
in
a
capital
e
shape,
with
pretty
massive
setbacks
and
parts
of
that
building,
but
stepping
back
that
fifth
floor,
which
is
a
common,
a
common
thing
either
that
is
brought
to
us
as
a
commission
or
applicants,
propose
I.
Think
it's
highly
appropriate
in
this
condition.
N
N
We've
approved
for
conditional
use
permits
and
floor
area
ratio
permits
side
note
on
that.
One
Metro
Transit
tells
me
that
a
cost
of
adding
light
and
heat
the
bus
shelters
is
connecting
electricity
up.
It's
not
the
cost
of
electricity
itself.
So
if
we
can
get
developments
to
add
the
actual
power
connection,
it
greatly
helps
with
the
transit
ridership.
A
A
A
Condition
to
that
commissioner
Conger
is
added,
relates
to
creating
three
distinct,
distinct
masses
to
the
South
building
that
are
connected
and
the
second
through
fifth
floors
by
transparent,
walkways
condition.
Number
three
involves
stepping
back
the
fifth
floor
of
the
South
building
at
least
10
feet
from
public
streets
and
condition
for
relates
to
supplying
electricity
to
the
bus.
Shelter
on
Lake
Street
can
I
call
one
thing.
N
J
N
A
All
right,
so
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
approve
item
B.
The
conditional
use
permit
with
the
one
stated
conditions,
adding
three
more
conditions.
Is
there
further
discussion
on
that
Commissioner
Cron's
er
provided
a
lot
of
background
on
those
recommended
conditions,
since
it
does
involve
changing
the
design
of
the
building
a
bit.
I
would
like
to
give
the
applicant
an
opportunity
to
respond.
There's
anything.
You
would
like
to
add.
A
X
Cheerio
commissioners,
in
response
to
the
request,
we
still
some
architecture
and
some
details
to
figure
out
so
without
knowing
the
full
extent
getting
the
general
condition
of
the
going
and
in
a
middle
back
order
of
the
fifth
floor.
Setback
on
the
area
along
31st,
Street
and
on
homes
can
be
accommodated.
Typically,
when
doing
these
setbacks,
the
setback
size
is
around
six
feet.
X
If
we
did
a
10
feet,
setback
that
it
will
interrupt
where
center
core
and
our
elevators
get
located,
so
we
potentially
request
for
a
setback
and
allow
us
to
work
with
staff
to
coordinate
more
final
details
on
that,
we'll
have
to
study
the
construct
ability
and
the
build
ability
of
the
glass
corridors
through
the
middle.
But
that
is
something
we
will
be
burdened
with
and
again
work
with
staff
to
support
the
glass
see-through
corridor
connections,
and
we
aren't
really
provide
electricity
to
the
bus
shelter
as
requested
by
Commissioner
Cochran.
Sir,
all.
A
AI
Commissioner
Krauser
the
six
foot
setback
would
effectively
be
about
the
depth
of
a
balcony,
including
a
parapet
condition,
and
we
can
usually
accommodate
that
within
a
unit
mix
and
overall
density
without
jogging
the
corridor
walls
and
the
double-loaded
corridor.
So
it
takes
significant
square
footage
out
of
the
units
along
Holmes
and
31st
Street
and
provides
a
visual
setback
that
I
believe
you're.
Looking
for
without
really
unraveling
the
entire
density
and
mix
that
we've
proposed.
AI
N
A
G
A
N
A
G
K
G
A
J
So
I
are
for
has
a
density
limit
that
I
think
is,
is
not
appropriate
and
not
in
not
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
point
in
this
area.
This
is
you
know.
We've
talked
about
this
in
other
context
on
this
on
this
podium.
This
is
this,
is,
I
think,
one
of
the
most
urban
and
walkable
places
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis
is
right
at
a
Transit
Center.
It
is
right
off
the
Midtown
Green
Mile,
with
some
of
the
highest
biking
rates
in
the
city.
J
J
F
First
off
I
want
to
thank
everybody
who
came
out
tonight
because
it's
a
it's
a
beautiful
evening
out
there
I
can't
wait
till
we
leave
to
engage
in
this
conversation
about
your
neighborhood.
Obviously
you
are
all
really
passionate
about
where
you
live
and
that's
important,
I
think
for
the
livability
of
the
Varsity,
and
so
with
that
you
know,
I
made
the
motion.
I
agree
with
emotion,
I
wanted
staff
to
get
up
and
tell
us
exactly.
You
know
to
talk
about
the
FA
R
and
the.
G
F
On
the
site
and
I
also
don't
think
it's
appropriate
I
do
think
that,
as
we
shift
our
paradigm
as
we
start
to
look
at
sort
of
the
influx
of
new
residents
of
this
neighborhood,
this
is
the
one
site
in
the
Uptown
area.
That
needs
to
be
denser.
I.
Think
that,
with
the
with
the
recommendation
that
was
made
by
Commissioner,
Cron's
er
I
think
that
that
helps
the
massing
piece
of
it,
so
I'm
a
little
less
worried
about
the
overall
building
and
and
how
it
kind
of
integrates
and
connects
with
its
with
the
adjacencies.
F
But
this
this
site
wants
to
be
denser,
I,
really
really
thankful
for
your
impassioned
comments.
Obviously
you're
well
organized
I
think
everybody
did
a
really
good
job
to
really
focus
on
specific
elements
of
this
proposal.
I
do
have
some
concerns
about
traffic.
I
do
have
concerns
about
accessibility
from
a
pedestrian
standpoint,
but
I
do
hope
that,
with
this
project,
some
of
those
issues
can
be
solved.
Traffic
is
going
to
be
an
ongoing
issue
throughout
our
city.
F
Every
proposal
that
we
see
nowadays
or
I
will
say
just
about
every
proposal
that
we
see
come
in
front
of
us.
Traffic
is
the
biggest
issue,
traffic
and
parking,
and
so,
as
a
community,
we
need
to
figure
out
better
ways,
and
some
of
it
includes
more
walkability,
more
bikeability,
better
transit
systems.
All
the
things
that
we're
going
to
need
to
focus
on
in
the
coming
years
to
shape
a
better
Minneapolis.
U
U
Thank
you.
So
if
you,
if
you
check
the
city's
traffic
count
management
system,
I,
think
it's
it's
reflected
on
there,
so
I
just
wanted
to
throw
that
out
there
and
I
know
as
we've
had.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
and
so
I
know
that
there's
been
sort
of
other
areas
in
the
city
where
there's
sort
of
a
similar
situation
where
there
is
a
parking
lot
there.
U
There
is
a
vacant
lot
there
and
you're,
adding
things
to
it,
and
so
there's
obviously
going
to
be
more
trips
generated
by
that
specific
site,
but
adding
more
housing
in
an
area
that
is
is
full
of
amenities.
Is
this
where
you
can
walk
to
a
grocery
store
where
you
can
walk
to
you
know
the
new
target
express
down
the
street
drugstores
recreational
amenities.
You
can
take
the
bus
downtown
serve
in
the
whole
system
of
car
trips.
There's
fewer
car
trips
happening.
U
You
know
compared
to
if
this
was
319
units
of
housing
that
was
added
somewhere
else
in
the
metro
area,
and
so
I
think
this
is
an
important
project
for
meeting
the
city's
climate
goals.
We're
kind
of
at
the
point
now,
where
transportation
is
the
largest
contributor
to
carbon
emissions,
and
this
is
something
that
I
think
we
should
be
paying
attention
to
and
so
I'm
supportive
of
the
rezoning
request.
All.
A
K
A
A
G
J
K
J
A
quick
explanation,
land
tenure
and
I
would
like
the
applicant
adjust
to
work
with
staff
on
awarding
the
sign
and
and
I
understand
that
they
it's
likely
appropriate
to
have
that
space.
You
know,
have
a
open,
appropriate,
open
hours
again
differing
staff,
but
I
think
it
is
important
that
I
can
see
that
space
not
being
read
by
a
passerby
as
open
to
the
public
and
I
want
to
ensure
that
staff
works
with
the
applicant.
Do
it
cheap
that.
A
N
Terms
of
the
condition
number
five
about
the
building
design,
how
my
support
I
just
encourage
the
applicant
to
think
about
how
to
articulate
that
fifth
floor.
Maybe
it's
all
darker!
Maybe
there's
not
a
cornice
above
the
fourth
floor
and
a
cornice
at
the
third
floor,
just
as
you're
developing
that
look
to
simplify
and
minimize
that
that
messy.
A
D
A
Alright,
so
we'll
add
that
that
is
Public
Works
approval.
Is
there
any
further
discussion
on
that
seventh
condition?
If
there
is
none,
we
can
just
do
a
voice
vote
all
in
favor.
Any
opposed
motion
carries
going
back
to
our
original
motion
to
approve
the
site
plan
review.
Is
there
any
further
discussion
that
is
a
motion
to
approve,
with
the
five
stated
conditions,
adding
a
sixth
condition
related
to
signage
for
the
open
space,
seven
condition
related
to
a
pedestrian
bump
out
hearing
no
further
discussion
clerk?
Please
call
the
roll.