►
From YouTube: February 7, 2019 Zoning & Planning Committee
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
A
Good
morning,
I'm
gonna
call
the
word
of
this
regular
meeting
of
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
for
Thursday
February
7th.
My
name
is
Jeremy
Schrader
and
I'm,
the
chair
of
the
committee
with
me
at
the
Dicer
councilmember
Allison,
councilmember,
Ike
and
council
member
Goodman.
Let
the
record
reflect
that
we
have
a
quorum.
A
We've
got
six
items
on
the
agenda
today
and
we'll
start
with
the
consent
agenda
agenda,
which
is
items
3
through
4
item
3
is
the
approving
of
a
reappoint
of
Maryland,
thus
Underberg
in
the
Heritage
Preservation
Commission
and
item
4
is
a
Street
vacation
application
submitted
by
Graco
and
the
minneapolis
park
board
for
a
portion
of
10th
Avenue
Northeast
between
Sibley
Street,
northeast
and
the
Mississippi
River.
Are
there
any
questions
or
comments
from
the
committee
members
on
this
items
or
would
anything
like
anyone
like
to
pull
any
of
these
items
off
for
discussion?
A
Not
seeing
anything
I
will
now
move
3,
&
4
for
approval,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye,
all
those
opposed
say.
No,
the
ice
have
it
and
that
motion
carries
we'll.
Then
move
on
to
the
quasi-judicial
hearing
portion
of
our
agenda
item
number
1
is
the
consideration
of
an
appeal
submitted
by
today
of
David
Goya
regarding
the
decision
of
the
Heritage
Preservation
Commission,
to
deny
the
demolition
of
a
historic
resource
application
and
we'll
begin
with
a
staff
presentation.
A
B
Chair
I
just
want
to
note
that
I
am
scheduled
to
be
in
a
settlement
conference
day,
starting
at
11:00
at
10:15,
but
I'm
going
to
stay
for
the
first
item,
because
it's
a
critical
item
and
my
ward,
but
then
I'll
need
to
leave
so
hopefully
we
will
achieve
quorum.
So
I
can
cover
the
council
on
a
settlement
conference.
Don't.
C
Good
morning,
councilmembers
I
wanted
to
give
a
brief
background
on
the
demolition,
historic
resource
application,
since
this
is
a
a
petition
that
you
often
haven't
seen
and
with
this
body.
So
I'll
keep
this
brief,
but
Minneapolis
has
175
local
landmarks
and
18
historic
districts,
local
historic
landmarks
and
18
historic
districts
and
those
are
designated
for
one
of
seven
different
criteria:
either
social
significance,
association
with
the
sitting
of
a
person,
architecture
or
landscape
design
being
with
a
master
architect,
builder
craftsman
or
archeological
significance.
C
The
hpc
may
not
agree
with
staff's
initial
thoughts
that
the
property
rises
to
the
level
of
being
a
historic
landmark
or
a
historic
district,
or
that
it
is
necessary
to
correct
an
unsafe
or
dangerous
condition,
or
that
there
are
no
reasonable
alternatives.
If
the
HPC
finds
that
one
of
those
criteria
are
not
match,
then
it
is
likely
that
a
designation
study
is
commenced,
so
a
demolition,
historic
resource,
if
it
is
denied,
does
not
unlucky
become
a
landmark.
C
It
goes
back
to
the
HP
to
staff
to
write
a
report
to
outlay
how
the
property
is
or
is
not,
which
which
criteria
are
the
most
important
and
relevant
for
that
for
that
property
we
bring
that
report
back
to
the
HPC
and
they
recommend
to
the
council
if
the
property
should
be
a
historic
landmark.
So
again,
your
question
when
reviewing
this
application
is
not.
C
Is
this
a
historic
landmark,
but
do
you
want
to
give
staff
more
time
to
study
this
for
historic
significance,
write
that
full
report
and
bring
it
back
to
you
for
that
question
of
being
a
landmark
at
a
later
date?
Having
troubles
with
my
information,
but
the
property
in
question
is
the
Oakland
Apartments
at
215,
ninth
Street,
south
I
have
the
map
here
the
aerial
you
can
see
right
now.
There
is
not
much
left
on
that
block
face
and
an
in
my
block,
but
they
the
Oakland
apartments,
is
here
and
it's
next
to
the
another
building.
C
The
Oakland
apartment
building
is
three
and
a
half
story:
brownstone
walk
up
and
it
has.
The
last
use
was
having
rights
to
21
to
22
units
in
2016.
There
was
a
severe
fire
that
that
took
place
at
the
building
and
the
building
has
sat
vacant
since
the
property
owner
shortly
after
that,
fire
did
apply
for
a
wrecking
permit
and
that
wrecking
permit
that
administrative
record
permit
was
denied
and
it
went
to
the
level
of
being
requiring
a
demolition,
historic
resource
application
to
allow
for
the
demolition.
C
Since
that
time,
I
I
do
want
to
credit
the
property
owner
for
not
rushing
to
submitting
that
demolition,
historic
resource
application
and
allowing
potential
of
owners
and
people
interest
in
the
property
to
purchase
the
property
and
Rehab
it,
and
so
I
do
want
to
commend
them
for
doing
that,
there
has
been
little.
There
has
been
little
work
to
protect
the
building,
including
a
roof.
C
I
know
the
applicant
is
quick
to
say
that
they
didn't
want
to
spend
the
initial
with
tens
of
thousand
dollars
to
put
that
roof
on
if
they
knew
that
this
building
was
to
be
coming
down,
but
it
has
continued
to
set
to
sit
vacant
now.
Staff
recommended
and
the
HPC
upheld
the
decision
to
deny
the
designation
study
and
commence
that
destination
study.
For
the
following
reasons.
C
We
felt
that
the
property
does
rise
to
a
level
of
being
a
historic
resource.
It
could
be
the
first
department
building
of
this
style
and
this
design
built
in
Minneapolis.
It's
a
quality
example
of
the
Richardson
and
Romanesque
architectural
style
and
designed
by
a
master
architect
of
record
hairy
wild
Jones.
It's
been
on
the
radar
for
local
designation
for
decades
and
there's
a
number
of
reasons.
C
I
can
answer
those
questions
if
you
have,
if
you
have
questions
about
that,
but
we've
been
aware
of
this
property
being
an
important
historic
resource
for
a
long
time
and
there's
other
properties
throughout
the
city.
Event
are
known
to
be
important
resources
that
haven't
been
officially
designated.
This
is
one
of
them,
so
going
back
to
those
correct
those
findings
of
what
else
could
allow
the
hpc
or
you
to
allow
the
demolition.
C
Is
this
in
an
unsafe
or
dangerous
condition
staff
stated
and
that
no,
it
is
not
in
an
unsafe
or
dangerous
condition
and
that's
being
communication
with
our
Building
Code
official,
and
it
is
true
problem
properties.
Unit
within
the
city
did
write
a
letter
stating
that
they
wanted
the
building
raised
or
removed,
but
within
that
application
that
the
applicant
did
receive
it's
it.
There
is
an
appeal
process
to
that,
so
it's
not
automatically
problem
properties
unit
stating
that
the
building
has
to
demolished
or
that
basically,
the
CPD
and
pom
properties
are
at
complete
odds
over
this.
C
C
So
economic
value,
the
the
applicant
has
been
upfront
of
what,
with
the
property,
what
they
receive
from
a
insurance
settlement
about
approximately
six
hundred
thousand
dollars
and
that
they're
still
approximately
six
hundred
thousand
dollars
left
in
the
land
value,
and
that's
approximately
what
their
asking
price
is
public
comments
you
in
the
agenda
packet.
There
are
a
few
letters
stating
that
there
are
people
that
are
interested
in
buying
the
property
and
also
the
neighborhood
did
support
the
request
for
demolition
and
that
relied
in
the
applicants.
C
Partial
story
of
problem
properties
units
stating
that
they
wanted
this
property
demolished.
So,
in
summary,
I
just
want
to
state
again
we're
not
looking
for
you
to
make
the
answer.
The
question
is
this:
a
landmark
today
we're
asking
we're
staff
recommended
an
HPC
upheld.
The
decision
of
we
were
looking
to
deny
the
demolition
permit
to
commence
the
designation
study
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
a
questions
you
may
have
don't.
A
Thank
you
first
I
just
want
to
have
the
record
like
what
we've
been
joined
by
Tom's
brother
and
councilmember
Gordon
there.
Any
questions
for
staff
all
right.
Thank
you
at
this
point,
we'll
open
the
hearing
and
I'll
first
give
the
applicant
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
the
committee
is
the
applicant
here.
We
could
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
D
Dave
ganya
6:32,
City,
View,
Drive,
Minnetonka
I
am
one
of
the
partners.
Our
family
owns,
half
the
property
and
the
Meijer
family
owns
half
the
property,
both
our
fathers
purchases
dead
back
in
the
60s
and
both
have
since
passed
away.
So
there
was
there,
turned
into
having
10
owners
one
passed
away
and
now
there's
nine
owners
and
the
property.
D
So
you
know,
along
with
the
issues
that
dealing
with
trying
to
sell
the
property
as
is
or
vacant
land.
We
have
no
interest
in
doing
anything
with
it.
We
kind
of
either
want
to
get
it
sold.
There's
a
vacant
lot
you
know,
or
to
somebody
they'll
rehab,
the
building.
You
know
the
building
department
issued
us
a
letter.
D
I
don't
know
if
we
were
clear
on
that
to
tear
the
building
down
and,
as
you
know,
part
of
the
process
a
lot
of
these
guys
looking
at
the
building,
because
it's
not
you
know
that
high
appraised
building
there's
some
smaller
people
looking
at
it
and
none
of
them
none
of
those.
You
know
they
need
to
get
historic
tax
credits
for
total
housing
credits,
cetera
they
need.
You
know
a
contingency
period
of
12
months
or
so
the
building
department.
We
just
had
a
meeting
with
them
three
weeks
ago.
D
You
know
they
will
they
will
not.
You
know
we
can't
go,
sell
the
building
to
somebody
contingent
where
they
might
close
in
a
year
in
the
building
department,
but
the
letter
we
have
and
we
just
met
with
them
with
Aaron
two
weeks
ago.
They
could
come
in
in
30
days
and
say
this
is
getting
to
be
a
bigger
problem.
We're
tearing
the
building
down.
You
know
now
we
got
a
purchase
agreement
with
somebody
and
we're
gonna
get
sued
because
they
were
supposed
to
buy
this
building.
D
That's
no
longer
there
so
that
you
know
the
only
real
way
for
us
to
sell
the
building
is
someday
by
non-contingent,
as
is
start
the
rehab
process.
Even
if
somebody
does
that
after
meeting
with
the
building
officials,
you
know
they
got
a
show,
pretty
rapid
progress
and
getting
it
fixed
up
and
getting
a
roof
on.
You
know
in
order
for
them
to
get
rid
of
their
order.
Now
that
may
be
something
like
council
can
do.
D
The
other
issue
with
the
roof
and
I
think
it's
part
of
their
condition
at
the
preservation.
They
want
us
to
preserve
the
building
for
a
year
and
they
could
extend
it
for
six
months,
which
is
18
months
and
I
would
assume
none
of
you
have
been
in
the
building.
But
it's
you
know
the
hole
on
the
roof
it
they
can
see
from.
The
aerial
is
probably
a
third
of
the
roof
when
that
fire
started.
D
There's
a
4-foot
attic
in
that
roof
and
the
fire
department
couldn't
get
it
out
and
backed
off
for
a
couple
hours
or
hour
and
a
half
and
let
it
burn
and
the
whole
entire
rough
structure
even
under
what
still
looks
like
there's
a
roof.
There
is
all
charred
and
real,
not
in
good
shape.
So
I
you
know
putting
the
roof
on
is
not
anywhere
near
a
$10,000
deal,
there's
a
flat
roof,
you
know
with
a
hold
snow
and
water
and
I
mean
the
whole
rough
structure
even
to
be
a
temporary
roof.
D
I
you
know,
and
we're
in
the
building
business
and
stuff
is
probably
at
least
50
grand
to
redo
the
roof
right
and
put
a
new
roof
on
it's
probably
a
hundred
grand.
So
if
somebody
was
to
rehab
it
they're
not
going
to
spend
fifty
grand
a
temp
up
a
roof
and
put
a
new
flat
rubber
roof
on
and
then
tear
that
all
that
off
and
spend
another
hundred
grand.
D
So
if
it
was
as
simple
as
five
ten
grand
to
drive
this
building
in
you
know,
I
did
that
wouldn't
wouldn't
been
an
issue
for
us,
even
probably,
but
it's
a
lot
bigger
project
than
that.
It
isn't
the
you
know
a
little
hole
in
a
six
twelve
roof
on
your
house.
You
can
put
a
tarp
over
and
some
temporary
plywood
there's
a
lot.
You
know
bigger
structural
problem
that
the
building
is
not
in
the
condition
that
it
probably
should
sit
that
way
for
another
year.
D
You
know,
I,
don't
think
we
want
it
to
sit
that
way.
You
know
that
bricks
falling
off
and
the
parking
lot
next
door.
There's
you
know
issues
if
you
drive
around
and
look
at
it,
so
I
don't
think
if
the
decision
is
for
us
to
wait
another
12
to
18
months,
something
we
can
live
with.
You
know
because
I
think
there's
too.
E
F
D
Out
there
and
we're
not
looking
to
do
anything
with
the
property,
we'd
rather
sell
it
to
somebody
they
would
want
the
land
or
the
building
is.
Is
you
know,
we've
offered
the
building
for
sale
for
20
percent,
plus
less
than
the
assessed
value
of
the
land
itself?
You
know
it
isn't
like
word
trying
to
rip
somebody
off
of
it
or
anything
and
I.
You
know
at
some
point.
The
land
you
know
could
be
worth
double
what
it's
appraised
at
if
they
want
to
build
a
big
building
there
someday.
D
So
we're
not
holding
out
for
anything
like
that.
We're
trying
to
move
on-
and
you
know,
we've
got
a
lot
of
individuals
involved
in
it.
They're
not
you
know,
they're,
it's
not
something.
I'm
gonna
be
able
to
get
people
on
board
to
give
away
for
fifty
or
hundred
grand.
You
know
because
I
you
know,
people
like
some
of
the
neighbors
would
buy
the
land
for
maybe
not
this
full
assess
land
value,
but
probably
eighty.
Ninety
percent
of
that
so
we'd
like
to
get
some
resolution
and
move
it
along.
D
You
know,
and
then
we
still
continue
to
try
and
get
somebody
to
buy
it
to
rehab.
It
would
probably
be
our
first
choice.
Does
that
be
the
quickest
cleanest
easiest
deal,
but
you
know
we
want
to
know,
there's
an
alternative
to
do
something
else
and
I.
You
know
the
part
about
it
being
historic
and
stuff.
It's
a
needle
building
and
I
understand
all
that,
but
even
if
you
had
a
designated
historic
building
that
burn
that
substantially
there
is
you
know,
issues
with
it
and
sometimes
probably
can't
be
rehabbed.
You
know.
D
A
F
Good
hello,
my
name
is
Eric
Brown
I
live
at
210,
North,
2nd,
Street,
Dave
ganya
was
nice
enough
to
show
me
the
building
a
while
back
two
weeks
ago,
and
we
looked
at
it
so
I'm,
also
familiar
with
the
Journal
structure.
I
came
here
today
just
to
express
the
desire
to
see
that
the
city
uphold
its
its
its
rules
and
its
desires
and
these
historic
buildings.
This
is
a
an
important
property
to
the
history
of
Minneapolis
and
I.
F
Don't
want
to
see
the
lack
of
maintenance
or
the
historic
I
would
say,
neglect
of
a
building
reflect
on
the
way
its
present
value
is
judged
and
the
way
that
it
seemed
to
be
financially
viable.
I
think
that
it
would
be
wrong
to
circumvent
the
law
and
the
rules
in
that
way
and
that,
with
a
little
bit
more
time
and
with
a
little
bit
more
effort
from
the
community
I
think
we
can
find
a
way
to
make
this
building
a
place
that
is
providing
housing
to
the
people
of
Minneapolis
and
also
remaining
historically
important
structure.
F
A
B
B
Believe
that,
should
the
preservation
team
look
to
designate
this
as
a
landmark,
it
would
achieve
that
landmark
status,
thus
allowing
it
to
be
eligible
for
historic
tax
credits.
So
there
is
clearly
a
reasonable
alternative.
I
will
note
that
we've
been
fielding
calls
in
our
office
for
the
better
part
of
six
months,
and
certainly
after
the
article
appeared
in
the
Star
Tribune
from
people
who
wanted
to
step
forward.
B
So
clearly,
there
isn't
a
motivated
owner
to
build
something
on
that
large
surface
parking
lot
and
that
to
add
to
it,
I
think
would
be
unbelievably
wrong
as
it
pertains
to
the
city's
goals
and
objectives
in
terms
of
building,
affordable
housing
and
preventing
the
use
of
surface
parking.
So
I
have
seen
buildings
in
worse
shape
than
this.
I
will
note
that
the
Milwaukee
Road
Depot
was
in
a
lot
worse
shape
than
this.
B
Those
buildings
were
rehabbed,
I
am
reluctant,
but
will
point
out
a
constituent
in
the
room
was
sitting
in
the
back
who
took
a
building
at
300
Clifton,
which
was
essentially
about
some
of
the
worst
shape
I've
ever
seen
and
turned
it
into
the
one
of
the
city's
most
beautiful
air,
B&B
and
party
spaces
in
the
city,
and
it's
in
a
tremendous
asset
on
Clifton
Avenue.
So
people
do
it
all
the
time
and
this
building
is
eligible
for
designation.
B
There
are
reasonable
alternatives
and
I'm,
hoping
that,
once
we've
now
clarified
that
we're
not
going
to
allow
the
demolition,
the
family
will
work
with
any
of
the
people
who
have
come
forward
and
lots
of
them
have
perhaps
a
non-contingent
offer
would
be
seen
most
favorably
and
those
who
want
to
buy
the
building
probably
need
to
think
about
that.
I
will
note.
The
city
does
not
have
resources
to
put
into
this
building.
So
anyone
thinking
the
city
is
going
to
pay
you
to
do
it.
B
That's
not
going
to
happen,
but
at
the
right
price,
I
think
someone
can
do
something
really
great
with
this
building
and
hopefully
turn
it
back
into
some
level
of
housing,
so
I,
usually
when
owners
are
in
front
of
us,
their
attitude
is
not
what
this
owners
is.
This
owners
attitude
has
been
pretty
circumspect
about
the
entire
thing.
B
They've
been
pretty
good
to
deal
with
and
not
bombastic
or
bratty,
and
we
appreciate
that-
and
hopefully
your
calm
demeanor
combined
with
those
who
want
to
do
something
with
the
building
will
come
to
a
very
successful
resolution
with
regard
to
getting
the
building
rehabbed
and
hopefully,
two
years
from
now
we'll
be
sitting
here.
Knowing
we
did
the
right
thing.
H
H
I
Good
more
good
morning,
my
name
is
Mei
Ling
says
I
will
be
presenting
the
appeal
for
901
Winter
Street
Northeast,
and
this
is
a
project
that
went
to
Planning
Commission
on
January
14th.
The
staff
recommended
denial
of
all
of
the
requested
applications,
but
the
Planning
Commission
overturned
the
staff
recommendation,
and
now
the
applicant
is
appealing
to
specific
application
conditions
of
approval,
so
I'll
just
briefly
go
through
what
the
project
is
and
then
what
those
conditions
of
approval
that
are
that
are
requesting
being
appealed.
I
So
here's
the
zoning
map
showing
the
location
it
is
a
site,
that's
located
at
at
a
corner,
a
lot
front.
A
Winter,
Street
northeast
and
Fillmore
Street
northeast
in
Northeast
Minneapolis
Hennepin
Avenue
is
about
a
block
and
a
half
to
the
south
of
the
site.
Here's
more
context,
so
the
existing
site
contains
a
one-story
industrial
building
that
was
most
recently
used
as
a
metal
finishing
plant.
I
Here's
a
larger
aerial.
There
is
one
curb
cut
proposed
off
of
Winter
Street
northeast
and
there
would
be
a
surface
parking
area
and
a
20
unit.
Apartment
building
here
are
some
renderings,
showing
the
view
of
from
the
corners
so
just
to
really
provide
a
brief
overview
of
the
City
Planning
Commission
actions.
The
rezoning
was
approved,
not
withstanding
staff
recommendation,
so
the
they're
recommending
approval
of
going
from
the
r2p
district
to
the
r4
district.
I
They
approved
the
variance
to
allow
the
minimum
front
yard
to
be
reduced
to
allow
grant
ground
for
patios.
They
recommended
approval
of
the
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
lot
area.
So
I'll
go
into
a
little
bit
more
detail
about
this
in
a
second,
but
basically
the
our
four
district
does
have
a
minimum
lot
area
requirement
and
the
applicant
is
requesting
a
total
of
20
units.
Normally
16
would
be
allowed
by
right,
because
they're
requesting
to
also
qualify
for
the
density
bonus
they're
allowed
up
to
19
units
by
right.
I
So
the
applicant
would
like
to
discuss
two
of
the
conditions
of
approval,
one
that
is
related
to
the
density
bonus
that
is
required
for
the
minimum
lot
area
variance,
and
so
that
is
that
they
would
like
to
limit
the
amount
of
time
that
is
being
required
for
affordability
to
ten
years
and
that
we
should
specify
that
the
unit's
could
be
sold.
They
could
be
condos
or
rentals,
and
the
second
condition
of
approval
is
that
they
would
like
to
strike
the
requirement
that
they
comply
with
the
minimum
durability
requirements.
I
Turn
in
site
plan
review,
but
they're
amenable
to
the
condition
that
they
would
eliminate
the
blank
walls
so
to
discuss
the
deed
restriction,
condition
of
approval.
As
I
mentioned,
they're
allowed,
a
total
of
16
dollar
use
buy
right.
They
can
achieve
19
dwelling
units
if
they
achieve
the
density
bonus
in
the
zoning
code.
In
the
2019
zoning
code,
we
don't
specifically
clarify
what
affordable
housing
means.
I
It
refers
back
to
the
unified
housing
policy
now
and
so
I
thought
that
this
would
be
an
opportunity
to
actually
clarify
what
we
did
intend,
based
on
the
2018
definition
that
this
condition
of
approval
was
was
applicable
to
so.
The
bonus
for
affordable
housing
is
achieved
if
you,
if
you
achieve
20%
of
your
Dola
units,
if
20%
of
the
units
meet
the
definition
of
affordable
housing,
and
so
they
are
proposing
to
do
that
because
for
their
20
units
would
be
affordable
and
so
here's
the
2018
definition
of
affordable
housing.
I
Those
are
separate
issues
so
anything
that
we
apply
in
the
zoning
code.
They
might
have
to
go
above
and
beyond
just
to
meet
their
their
requirements
of
their
specific
housing
programs,
or
vice
versa
and
I
would
like
to
make
an
amendment
to
the
staff
recommendation
and
there
and
actually
an
edit
to
this
language,
because
I
did
not
specify
in
this
language
that
the
ami
should
be
50%.
So
if
council
does
choose
to
adopt
this
recommendation,
I'd
like
the
opportunity
to
try
to
finesse
that
a
little
bit,
but
anyway
we
are.
I
We
are
proposing
to
amend
the
original
condition
of
approval
that
was
suggested
to
the
City
Planning
Commission
and
require
that
at
least
20%
or
four
of
the
units
would
remain
at
50%,
ami
Ferno,
no
less
than
15
years
and
then
to
move
on
to
the
exterior
materials
condition
of
approval.
We
recommended
not
approving
the
alternative.
Compliance
in
the
city.
I
So
if
we
split
those
out,
they
would
need
alternative
compliance
for
the
engineered
wood,
siding
on
all
four
of
the
elevations,
so
they
are
exceeding
the
30%
maximum
that
we
use
and
third,
in
the
site
plan
review,
we
found
that
the
proposed
alternatives
that
they're
suggesting
would
not
sufficiently
offset
the
appearance
and
the
durability
of
the
proposed
exterior
materials.
I
have
a
material
sample
board
here
to.
If
anybody
would
like
to
look
at
it
along
with
some
spec
sheets
and
hear
how
the
elevations
appear,
so
you
see
that
there
is
the
engineered
wood
siding
panel.
I
H
H
I
I
And
so
I
have
a
copy
of
the
hardcopy
of
the
material
sample
board
if
you
are
interested,
but
the
all
of
the
products
on
the
top
are
engineered.
Wood,
siding
based
products
and
we're
just
recommending
that
the
original
planning,
commission
condition
of
approval
be
be
set
and
I'm
here
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank.
A
J
Morning,
council
members,
my
name
is
William
Wells,
I'm,
the
architect
and
also
the
applicant
I,
wanted
to
thank
the
council
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
for
supporting
this
project
unanimously
at
the
public
hearing
on
January
14th.
My
appeal,
you
know,
is
not
any
amount
of
disrespect.
We
just
were
asking
for
some
clarification
and
more
communication
on
two
of
these
items
with
it
were
conditions
of
approval,
the
property
owner
and
I
were
very
concerned
about
a
permanent
deed
restriction.
J
We
thought
that
was
unreasonable,
but
now
zoning
staff
has
changed
their
position
and
they're
asking
for
a
15
year,
deed
restriction.
We
are
asking
for
a
10
year,
but
I
guess
there's
not
really
that
much
difference
between
10
or
15,
so
I'm
not
going
to
spend
that
much
time
on
item
1
appeal
because
staffs
changed
their
position.
So
there's
there's
no
sense
to
really
talk
about
item
1
anymore
item.
2
is
our
request
for
alternative
compliance.
It's
not
about
reducing
the
durability
of
the
siding.
J
We
asked
for
alternative
compliance
on
the
project
to
go
with
a
different
type
of
siding.
The
purpose
of
that
request
is
to
save
the
applicant
some
money
such
that
they
can
reallocate
funds
and
reinvest
in
other
parts
of
the
project.
That's
the
purpose
of
why
we're
doing
alternative
compliance.
We
want
to
spend
the
funds
on
doubling
the
amount
of
landscaping
building
a
fence
around
the
property.
J
J
So
we
are
trying
to
work
with
the
neighborhood
group
and
the
city
to
spend
money
in
that
direction
and
that's
a
very
expensive
thing
to
do,
because
the
power
lines
run
on
two
sides:
the
property
run
here,
but
then
they
also
run
behind
the
property,
so
bearing
in
it
is
probably
gonna
cost
us
about
a
hundred
thousand
dollars.
That's
a
very
significant.
J
This
right
here
is
a
stucco
panel
that
we
want
to
use.
That
is
this
material
right
here,
this
stuff
that
we
want
to
use
I
can
pass
this
around.
This
is
the
LP
smartside
een
that
we
want
to
use
here.
That's
the
brown
material
here
that
one
use
here.
This
requires
alternative
compliance.
It's
a
wood,
composite
material.
If
we
go
exactly
with
what
staff
is
requesting,
we'd
have
to
use
this
material.
This
is
a
fiber
cement
panel.
J
It's
thicker
by
every
cement
panels,
double
the
cost,
but
this
is
not
more
durable
than
this,
and
that's
his
only
staffs
position
that
you
should
deny
my
request
for
alternative
compliance,
because
this
is
more
durable
than
that.
That's
actually
not
true.
I
have
an
expert
witness
here
that
would
like
to
testify.
That's
done
some
testing
that
would
like
to
speak
today
to
this
issue.
Zoning
staffs
position
that
my
request
is
for
something
that's
less
durable,
because
that's
not
true.
I
also
wanted
to
just
talk
briefly
about
that
elevation.
J
Councilman
bender
is
to
the
north
of
the
facade
and
it
is
facing
a
neighbor's,
driveway
and
house
that
neighbor
came
to
a
lot
of
the
neighborhood
meetings.
They
did
not
want
a
lot
of
windows
and
balconies
facing
their
backyard
in
the
house.
They
told
me
keep
the
facade
simple,
do
not
put
balconies
and
windows
facing
my
house.
Okay,
so
that's
what
we
have
that's.
Why
I
did
that
so
I'd
like
to
ask.
J
G
So
my
name
is
Lance
Olson
I'm,
with
Louise
and
Pacific
I'm,
the
technical
director
for
field
sales
for
LP,
been
with
LP
for
30
years
and
I've,
been
in
the
siding
part
of
LP
for
30
years,
working
on
equality
and
Technology
side
of
the
business,
so
I've
been
intimately
involved
in
the
engineering
and
design
and
testing
and
validation
of
the
product.
So
I
guess
I,
think
I,
understand,
probably
with
a
question
or
concern
is
coming
from.
G
When
you
look
at
our
products,
they're
wood,
composite
products,
I
think
when
people
hear
about
what
wood
composites
they
think
about
past
products
like
masonite
or
inner
steel
products
that
haven't
been
very
durable
and
haven't
performed
as
well
as
they
should
have
performed
in
the
marketplace.
So
I'll
first
say
this
is
definitely
not
masonite.
It's
definitely
not
intersil.
It's
definitely
not
wood
composites
of
the
past,
so
part
of
that
packet
there's
a
durability
piece
in
there,
so
that
durability
piece.
G
You
can
see
it's
been
touched
by
by
the
hands
of
marketing,
but
I
can
tell
you,
as
the
as
the
person
responsible
on
the
technical
side
working
with
our
legal
department,
everything
that
we
claim
and
that
ability
piece
is
substantiating
by
data
years
of
testing
performance,
testing,
accelerated
testing
worst
case
testing
in
some
places
like
Hilo,
Hawaii,
very
wet
environment.
Do
you
think
about
wood
products
and
what
they're
vulnerable
to
its
water,
its
weather,
its
waters
rains
humidity,
so
we
tested
under
the
worst
conditions
and
evaluated
some
of
it.
G
We've
been
evaluating
over
20
years,
looking
at
how
it's
performing
now.
What
makes
this
product
durable
is.
The
controls
are
on
our
manufacturing
process
and
the
binders
and
the
materials
that
we
put
into
it
to
tie
it
all
together
as
a
composite,
and
in
addition
to
that,
we
work
with
the
building
science
corporation
and
other
third
parties
to
make
sure
that
the
product
is
applied
in
a
way
that
is
a
functional,
functional
part
of
the
building
envelope,
so
that
it's
managing
moisture
the
way
that
it
should.
But
on
top
of
that,
it's
not
real
world.
G
So
it's
treated
with
zinc
boy
bori,
which
is
a
safe
wood
preservative.
It's
I'm
sure
a
lot
of
us
are
familiar
with
borax
and-
and
you
know
it's
it's
used
in
all
paints
as
a
preservative.
So
it's
a
safe
commonly
used
preservative.
So
we
use
that
that
product
is
a
wood
preservative
for
our
product,
so
it
is
treated
homogeny
throughout
the
thickness
of
the
product.
It's
sparingly
soluble
and
it's
getting
into
the
science
side
of
why
we
have
a
50
year,
warranty
on
our
product.
G
So
we're
we're
canceling
out
that
failure
mode
it's
common
to
to
other
past
wood,
composites
or
solid
wood.
So
we
can
look
at
that
data
over
time
and
that's
what
the
basis
of
that
50
year
warranty.
We
know
over
50
years
that
boron
levels
still
going
to
be
an
effective
level
to
resist
fungal
decay.
So
there's
a
science
behind
the
product.
There's
a
science
behind
those
marketing
claims
that
we've
saw
I've
provided
some
standards
in
there
and
I
provided
some
independent
reports
as
well
through
the
icy
CES.
G
You
know
demonstrating
that
the
products
that
we
manufacture
are
are
qualified
and
manufactured
to
independent
standards
to
make
sure
that
they
are
suitable
or
fit
for
their
intended
use.
So
there's
that
as
well
so
I
guess
the
final
thing
I'll
say
is
we
have
you
know:
we've
been
in
this
business
over
20
years,
our
claims
are
almost
are
nearly
0
over
20
years,
22
years,
I
think
going
on
23
we're
having
a
huge
success
with
the
product,
our
customers,
our
customers,
are
using
the
product,
they're
loyal
the
product.
G
They
like
the
product
when
you
compare
it
against
fiber
cement,
fiber
cements,
a
good
product,
I,
would
say
bias
or
not.
We've
got
a
better
product.
You've
got
fewer
joints
with
our
product.
It
gives
you
better
shadow
lines
because
it's
a
little
bit
thicker
and
then
they're
5
16s
product
on
top
of
that
I'd
argue
that
we're
actually
more
durable
so
with
with
fiber
cement.
You
do
have
to
worry,
and
efflorescence
is
one
issue.
G
If
you
got
salts
bleeding
to
the
syrup
that
can
cosmetically
affect
the
quality
of
the
appearance
of
the
product,
you
can
also
run
into
freeze-thaw
situations
and
climates
like
this,
where
the
product
has
a
very
high
absorption
rate
and
it
can
laminate
that
water,
if
it's
containing
a
high
level
of
water
and
then
it
freezes.
So
there
are
some
vulnerabilities
with
fiber
cement.
On
top
of
that,
they
have
something
that
we've
been
testing
over
the
last
10
years
and
really
studying,
and
it's
really
impact
resistance.
So
we've
had
a
lot
of
customers.
G
Come
to
us
saying
you
know
we're
looking
for
something
that
is
it's
more
impact
resistant
might
be
a
golf
development
on
a
golf
course.
It
might
be
something
where
it's
just
a
past
hail
event.
So
you
know:
we've
tested
against
hitting
a
factor.
Mutual
for
473
was
his
test
method.
We've
tested
our
product
competitively
against
Piper
Smith
and
we've
been
able
to
demonstrate
consistently
that
we're
far
more
superior
in
something
that
is
actually
relevant
when
it
comes
with
durability.
G
A
I
The
present
trainer,
so
we
kind
of,
are
trying
to
be
consistent
with
how
we
look
at
other
site
plan
review
reviews.
So,
if
we're
concerning
this
to
be
similarly
substantially
similar
to
a
fiber,
cement
based
product
would
be
limited
to
30%
on
each
elevation,
depending
on
the
material
because
of
the
thickness
of
the
product,
so
thicker
fiber
cement
products
are
allowed
to
have
more
coverage
over
the
entire
building,
whereas
the
thinner,
fiber
cement
products
are
subject
to
a
maximum
of
30%
because
of
our
concerns
about
durability,
but
also
aesthetics.
I
A
A
Anybody
here
to
speak
all
right,
not
seeing
anybody.
I
am
going
to
close
the
hearing
and
see
if
there's
any
comments
or
questions
from
my
colleagues.
Okay,
I
will
jump
in.
He
just
give
a
little
background
from
Planning
Commission,
just
to
say,
I
do
want
to
commend
the
developer
for
reaching
out
to
the
neighborhood
I.
Think
they've
done
a
very
excellent
job
of
doing
that.
I
think
some
points
that
they
didn't
highlight.
A
That
I
would
like
to
just
the
amount
of
kind
of
environmental
remediation
that
they're
looking
at,
because
this
was
a
metal
finishing
area
and
the
neighbors
actually
made
comments
that
they
didn't
know
was
that
bad
until
they
started
seeing
the
pictures.
So
that's
something
to
be
commended.
I
also
think
the
affordable
housing
was
a
big
deal,
I'm
glad
to
see
that
the
new
condition
won't
be
in
if
I'm,
understanding
right.
A
It
won't
be
an
issue
with
the
developer,
because
I
think
that
is
an
important
part,
especially
because
that's
that,
just
to
put
it
very
frankly
when
that
part
was
being
appealed
had
planned
the
Planning
Commission.
Look
at
that
affordability
and
adding
that
to
make
this
development
possible
so
then
to
come
back
and
appeal.
A
The
affordable
housing
part
of
that
and
duration
was
going
to
be
somewhat
of
an
issue
but
I'm
glad
to
see
that
that's
been
worked
out
to
cap,
that
at
15
well,
15
and
10,
but
the
issue
of
the
durability
of
the
materials
like
I
am
concerned
about
the
cost.
But
I
think
that
that's
something
you
know
the
Planning
Commission
had
a
big
discussion
about
and
how
this
will
affect
buildings
throughout
the
whole
city.
So
that's
an
obscene.
If
there's
any
other
questions
or
comments
from
my
colleagues
council
president
bender
Thank.
H
You
mr.
chair,
in
the
spirit
of
just
moving
us
along
I'll,
you
know
I'll,
move
to
deny
the
appeal
and
stick
with
the
staff
recommendation.
Other
council
members
may
feel
strongly
or
differently,
but
I
do
mr.
chair,
I.
Think
your
comments
about
the
additional
costs
related
to
other
elements
of
the
building
are
are
totally
valid.
I
think
one
of
the
reasons
we
have
building
standards,
though,
is
to
make
sure
that
we
have
consistency
across
the
city
in
the
future
that
our
buildings
are
durable
and
lasting.
H
I
H
A
Fantastic,
not
seeing
any
other
questions
or
comments.
Councilmember
benders
motion
is
before
us
all.
Those
in
favor
say:
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed
the
eyes
have
it,
and
the
motion
carries
as
we've
already
dispensed
with
the
consent
agenda.
The
next
time
on
the
agenda
is
item
number
five
relating
to
a
rezoning
application
at
a
901
Winter
Street
northeast
comes
president
ender.
Mr.
A
K
Afternoon,
thank
you,
council
members.
We
have
a
street
renaming
for
you
today.
Street
renaming
x'
are
typically
either
done
as
a
full
street
renaming
or
commemorative.
So
in
this
case
we
were
commemorating
the
life
of
Richard
st's,
who
is
the
owner
and
operator
of
st's
funeral
home,
which
has
been
located
in
North
Minneapolis
for
many
decades
at
the
formerly
of
the
north
east
corner
of
Penn
and
Plymouth
our
northwest
corner.
K
Now
it
has
just
recently
finished
construction
at
the
northwest
corner
to
allow
for
the
North,
Point
health
and
wellness
center
to
expand
later
this
year,
and
we
had
a
request
by
councilmember
Allison
to
do
the
tomato
street
name
to
Richard
s
sees
way,
after
speaking
with
mrs.
s
T's.
The
request
today
before
you
is
to
alter
from
Richard
ESPYs
way
to
Richard
s,
T's,
Avenue
and
I
believe
she's
here
to
speak
as
well.
Thanks
very
much
thank.
L
I'm
April,
it's
just
and
I
live
at
1606
Xerxes
Avenue
North
in
Minneapolis
and
I
am
now
the
owner
of
s.
T's
Funeral
Chapel,
the
only
african-american
female
Chapel
in
Minneapolis,
but
we've
been
in
North
Minneapolis
for
62
years,
and
my
husband,
who
passed
away
six
years
ago,
was
the
founder
and
of
HD
screen,
which
Apple
I
can't
say.
I
was
a
founder
because
I
was
a
I'm,
a
retired
nurse
with
Hennepin,
County
and
I
never
did
visit
the
Funeral
Chapel,
but
I
want
to
keep
his
legacy
going.
He
deserves
it.
L
He
has
helped
people
all
over
Hennepin
County,
so
I
we're
asking
that
he
met
you
approve
of
section
there
in
North
Minneapolis
as
Richard
Estes
Avenue
he'll
never
be
forgotten,
but
we
still
want
to
just
keep
him
and
if
you
ever
North
Minneapolis,
you
should
come
over
and
visit
the
new
chapter
and
that's
all
I
got
to
say.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
M
M
I'll
just
I'll
just
say
a
few
words
I
wasn't
I
didn't
have
the
fortune
of
knowing
or
having
personal
encounters
where
Richard
Estes
but
I
know
a
Vestas
way,
because
I
was
born
and
raised
in
North
Minneapolis
and
there
are
countless
stories
from
community
members
from
you
know:
constituents
from
people
that
I
have
known
not
only
the
excellent
service
that
that
that
the
SS
is
provided
for
the
north
side,
but
also
the
the
amount
of
care
that
Richard
Estes
brought
to
the
north
side.
When
people
were
going
through
hard
times
could
not
afford.
M
You
know
if
you
could
imagine
in
your
toughest
time,
you're
getting
ready
to
bury
a
family
member
or
a
loved
one.
You
can't
afford
it,
and
and
and
Richard
was
always
willing
to
step
up
and
work
with
families,
and
so
I
will
make
the
motion,
on
behalf
of
April,
to
change,
to
approve
the
land,
use
application
and
add
the
commemorative
street
name
of
Richard
Estes
Avenue,
as
opposed
to
way
to
Plymouth
Avenue
North
between
Penn
Avenue,
north
and
Queen,
Queen,
Avenue
and
I.
Think
my
colleagues.
A
A
We're
now
gonna
go
back
to
number
five,
and
so
we've
already
dispensed
with
part
of
it
in
the
consent
agenda,
and
so
this
will
be
the
rezoning
application
at
901,
Winter
Street
northeast.
This
application
was
part
of
the
same
deal
from
our
previous
item
and
so
I'll
move
the
approval
of
this
application.
All
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed
say
no,
the
ice
habit
and
that
motion
carries.
The
second
part
is
also
the
same
project
and
could
staff
give
the
committee
if
staffs
around
you
can
tell
me
if
I
messed
up
aye.
E
Committee
members
I
think
staff
just
assumed
that
we
covered
the
covered
item
sufficiently.
That
and
number
five
is
a
rezoning
request
and
the
rezoning
does
does
facilitate
the
project
happening,
so
it
has
two
parts
simply
because
it's
also
a
passage
of
an
ordinance
technically.
So
that's
the
that's.
The
action
that.