►
From YouTube: January 10, 2019 Zoning & Planning Committee
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
A
Good
morning,
I'm
going
to
call
to
order
this
regular
meeting
of
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
for
Thursday
January
10th.
My
name
is
Jeremy
Schrader
and
I.
Am
the
chair
of
this
committee
with
me
at
the
dice?
Are
council
member
Ellison,
councilmember,
right,
councilmember,
Goodman
and
councilmember
Gordon?
Let
the
record
reflect
that
we
have
a
quorum.
A
We
have
17
items
on
the
agenda
for
today,
including
a
public
hearing
continue
from
our
final
meeting
of
2018
and
for
quasi-judicial
HIPAA
hearings
will
begin
with
the
consent
agenda
agenda,
which
is
items
number
6
through
17
number.
Six
is
the
referring
to
staff,
our
intentional
communities
and
cluster
development.
Ordinance
number
seven
is
the
rezoning
application
for
lutheran
Social
Services
at
2200
and
2201
Fremont
Avenue
North
number
8
is
the
rezoning
application
from
djr
architecture
at
9:34
and
nine
3815
Avenue
South
East.
Let
the
record
reflect
have
been
joined
by
the
council.
President
bender
items.
C
Thank
you
so
from
June
2017
to
September,
2018
I
served
as
serve
a
an
inventory
technician
with
the
Minnesota
State
Historic
Preservation
Office,
where
I
worked
in
managing
the
digital
inventory
of
all
historic
properties
in
the
state
previously
between
June
2016
and
May,
2017
I
interned
with
the
st.
Paul
Heritage
Preservation
Commission,
both
researching
and
documenting
the
city's
historic
structures
and
landscapes.
This
included
not
only
identifying
potential
historic
sites,
but
also
regularly
attending
the
HP
C's
public
hearings
and
business
meetings.
C
This
internship
took
place
while
I
was
a
student
at
Macalester
College,
where
I
majored
in
geography
with
particular
interest
in
historical
and
cultural
geography.
Currently
I
am
working
as
a
freelance
consultant
in
historic
preservation.
Most
recently,
I
have
been
working
with
landscape
research
on
their
Merriam
Park
reconnaissance
survey
in
st.
Paul.
The
positions
I've
held
in
the
Twin
Cities
preservation
sphere
have
made
it
clear
to
me
that
I
want
to
work
in
preservation.
C
Long
term
and
I
have
developed
a
strong
passion
for
the
cause
of
preservation
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis
as
a
resident
of
the
city
with
a
zeal
for
local
history
architecture
and
urban
design.
I
have
spent
a
great
deal
of
time,
learning
about
Minneapolis
history
and
architecture
and
exploring
the
city's
urban
landscape.
C
A
C
A
That
I'd
like
to
move
item
six
and
17
through
17
for
approval
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed
say
no,
the
eyes
have
it,
and
the
motion
carries
we'll
now.
Move
on
to
item
number
one,
which
is
a
public
hearing
regarding
the
application
submitted
by
Doran
CMS
M
for
an
inner
interim
use
permit
to
allow
a
temporary
commercial
surface
parking
lot
on
the
property
located
at
311.
A
D
Morning,
committee
members,
Peter
Crandall
Senior
Planner
with
sheephead
land
use
I'll,
be
brief
because
we
went
over
this
at
our
last
meeting,
but
this
is
an
application
for
an
interim
use
permit
to
establish
a
commercial
surface
parking
lot
at
311,
2nd
Street
southeast.
This
is
the
former
General
Mills
Riverside
technical
facility
that
is
currently
being
planned
for
redevelopment
by
the
applicant,
as
that
is
a
somewhat
large-scale
redevelopment.
D
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
convert
what
is
currently
a
accessory
parking
watch,
the
existing
technical
facility
into
a
commercial
lot
so
that
it
can
be
used
to
serve
the
neighborhood
while
the
rest
of
the
site
is
redeveloped
they're
seeking
an
interim
use
permit
for
up
to
five
years,
while
the
site
is
under
redevelopment,
I
can
take
any
questions
and
the
applicants
also
here
to
answer
questions.
Thank.
A
E
Good
morning,
chair
and
committee
members,
my
name
is
Cody
D,
Turk
and
I'm,
with
Doran
company's
Bloomington.
I
just
want
to
thank
Peter
for
his
staff
report
and
say
that
we
generally
agree
with
was
proposed
in
staff
report
and
for
approval
and
the
recommendation
in
the
future.
We're
plan
to
redevelop
this
site.
Is
there?
Okay?
Okay?
E
In
the
future,
the
plan
will
be
to
read
about
this
site
so
and
as
part
of
that
planning
process,
we've
met
with
the
neighborhood
and
different
committees,
and
the
concern
has
been
about
parking
in
the
neighborhoods.
So
as
this
is
going
through
the
different
phases
and
they'll
take
some
time
to
build.
This
there'll
be
a
benefit
to
add
this
to
the
neighborhood,
so
they
have
some
additional
parking
for
the
area.
Otherwise,
I
just
put
this
here
for.
E
A
Right
with
that,
I
will
reopen
the
the
public
hearing.
Was
there
anyone
here
to
speak,
anyone
here
to
speak
all
right
with
that
I
will
see
no
one
else,
and
now
close
the
the
hearing
and
I
will
move
number
one
for
approval.
Is
there
any
discussion
all
right,
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye
hi,
all
those
opposed,
they
know
the
eyes.
Have
it
and
the
motion
carries
I.
A
A
I'm
actually
going
to
change,
if
that's
all
right
with
the
clerk
move
on
to
to
number
three
the
because
of
this
because
of
the
in
light
of
what's
been
happening.
If
that's
all
right
with
all
my
committee
members,
okay,
I'd
like
to
move
on
to
number
three
next,
which
is
a
consideration
of
appeal,
submitted
by
Gary
Bacchus
regarding
the
Zoning
Board
of
adjustments,
decision
to
uphold
the
determination
of
the
Zoning
Administrator
to
deny
a
building
permit
at
1100,
Franklin,
Avenue
East,
and
if
there
can
be
a
very
short
staff
presentation.
F
Yes,
thank
you.
Council
members
are
Kimberly
wholly
with
zoning
administration,
so
the
before
you
is
an
appeal,
the
Zoning
Administrator
that
was
sent
to
the
Board
of
Adjustment,
the
Board
of
Adjustment,
upheld
the
staff
recommendation
and
denied
the
appeal.
So
this
is
an
appeal
of
that
appeal.
That's
before
you
on
this
agenda.
Today,
staff
is
requesting
that
we
do
a
one
cycle,
continuance
to
the
January,
24th
zoning
and
planning
committee
meeting,
just
to
take
a
look
at
some
additional
information
on
this
application.
A
G
G
There
were
last
to
be
455
parking
spaces
located
on
three
levels
of
underground
parking,
and
there
will
be
a
Plaza
anchoring
the
corner
of
Washington
and
Nicollet
Mall,
and
that
Plaza
has
been
designed
to
accommodate
a
future
streetcar
line
so
to
orient
everyone
to
the
site.
Hennepin
Avenue
is
up
and
Washington
is
to
the
right.
This
is
that
Plaza
space-
and
you
can
see
here
and
in
some
of
the
other.
G
Drawings
I'll
show,
you
will
show
the
plazas
are
the
delineation
for
the
future
streetcar
line
that
is
being
planned
as
part
of
the
project,
and
this
is
3rd
Street
and
then
Nicollet
Mall
and
you
can
see
the
orange
is
retail
space.
And
then
there
is
a
branch
bank
here.
This
is
the
office
lobby,
the
hotel
lobby
in
the
middle
and
then
the
residential,
lounge
and
entryway
here
and
then
along
3rd
Street.
You
have
access
to
the
underground
garage,
along
with
the
loading
space
functions
for
the
building
and
along
Hennepin.
G
G
The
applicant
is
appealing
to
conditions
of
approval
and
also
the
decision
of
Public
Works
staff
to
deny
the
park
has
shared
this
morning.
The
applicant
had
originally
appealed
the
third
condition
relating
to
your
having
an
entrance
for
that
branch
bank
within
60
feet
of
the
intersection
of
Washington
and
Hennepin.
However,
they
have
withdrawn
that
aspect
of
the
appeal,
as
they
have
designed
the
site
to
meet
that
condition
of
approval,
the
conditions
that
are
being
appealed
today.
G
G
Reasons
for
the
condition
that
were
placed
on
the
approvals
so
that
the
Minneapolis
skyline
does
not
have
a
proliferation
of
signage
near
the
top
of
its
tallest
buildings,
and
allowing
a
sign
at
this
height
could
be
precedent-setting
and
does
not
align
with
a
sign
adjustment
criteria
in
the
zoning
code.
It
is
true
that
the
city
has
approved
signs
at
the
top
or
near
the
top
of
the
buildings.
However,
none
have
been
at
484
feet.
The
Wells
Fargo
signs
that
were
approved
as
part
of
the
downtown
use
project
had
an
overall
height
of
199
feet.
G
The
other,
the
second
condition
that
they
are
appealing,
is
conditional
permit
number
conditional
use
from
a
condition
number
six,
which
states
that
the
building
shall
be
designed
without
the
vertical
vehicle
ramp.
I
Washington
had
to
pin
down
to
the
below
grade
parking
at
the
north
end
of
the
Porte
cochere
and
be
replaced
with
a
sidewalk
and
accessible
Plaza
space.
G
G
C-Pod
had
recommended
to
the
Planning
Commission
that
the
building
be
designed
without
a
Porte
cochere
and
therefore
no
access
Drive
to
the
underground
garage.
The
porte-cochere
has
been
designed
with
two
12-foot
wide:
curb
cuts
along
Hennepin
Avenue
and
the
width
of
the
parking
area
in
this
space
is
22
feet,
which
is
the
dimension
that
we
require
for
a
two-way
drive
aisle.
So
that
would
allow
two
lanes
of
cars
to
pull
into
and
out
of
the
site.
G
Both
Public,
Works
and
Siva
have
concerns
about
the
per
crusher
and
Hennepin
Avenue,
and
the
impact
that
it
will
have.
These
concerns
are
based
on
observations
of
existing
park
co-chairs
in
downtown
at
peak
times
for
hotel
arrivals
and
departures
ordering
large
ballroom
events.
Park
fissures
tend
to
get
congested
with
vehicles
queuing
out
of
the
perk,
assure
and
instructing
the
public
right-of-way.
G
G
This
is
another
picture
that
shows
the
cars
in
those
porkers
shares.
This
was
taken
this
past
Tuesday
at
the
Loews
Hotel.
This
is
251
keys
and
there
were
10
cars
in
the
driveway
that
was
taken
at
approximately
11
a.m.
on
a
Tuesday,
and
these
are
the
Hilton
Hotel
or
this
is
the
Hilton
Hotel.
Excuse
me.
This
was
also
taken
around
that
same
time
on
January
8th.
So
just
this
past
Tuesday.
H
Mark
have
you
have
the
observed,
concern
that
those
cars
would
just
be
on
the
street
and
in
bike
lanes
parking
I
mean
people
are
gonna,
get
out
at
a
hotel
so
to
assume
that
people
aren't
going
to
just
do
what
they
do.
That
also
means
we
could
have
better
regulation
in
that
area.
We
certainly
could
have
traffic
control
out
there,
monitoring
that
I
mean
I'm
I'm
confused
by
you're.
Showing
me.
H
Those
pictures
gave
me
the
idea
that
we
would
need
a
porter
to
share,
because
otherwise
those
cars
would
be
in
the
bike
lane
had
you
given
that
or
on
Nicollet
Mall,
where
they're
not
supposed
to
be
here
in
the
Loess
situation
and
the
bike
lane
so
I'm
confused
by.
That
is
your
point
that
that
would
be
better
for
them
to
be
on
the
street,
because
they're
gonna
be
there
correct.
G
H
G
The
city
of
Minneapolis
is
in
the
process
of
reconstructing
Hennepin
Avenue
between
Washington
Avenue
and
12th
Street,
beginning
in
2019
so
beginning
this
year.
This
is
the
cross
section
for
Hennepin
Avenue
reconstruction
that
has
been
approved
by
the
city
and
includes
the
14
foot
wide
sidewalk,
a
furnishing
zone,
a
5-foot,
wide
off
street
bike
way
and
four
Drive
lanes
and
at
the
corner
of
Hennepin
and
Washington.
There
will
also
be
a
left
turn
lane.
The
inclusion
of
a
porte-cochere
will
have
a
negative
impact
on
Hennepin
Avenue
traffic
flow
bicycles
and
pedestrians.
G
The
park
assure
will
allow
vehicles
to
cross
over
that
off
off
street
bike
way
and
sidewalk
in
this
high
activity
area,
not
just
once
but
twice.
The
purchaser
will
also
allow
vehicles
to
pull
in
and
wait
for
people
either
entering
building
or
leaving
the
number
of
vehicles
that
can
pull
into
the
park
or
share
without
blocking
the
sidewalk.
The
off
street
bike
way
or
the
street
is
510
of
both
lanes
of
the
Perkis
are
fully
utilized
and
actively
managed.
G
So,
for
those
reasons
see,
ped
had
recommended
that
the
building
be
designed
without
the
park
has
share
in
the
actions
of
the
Planning
Commission
approved
a
building
with
a
park
assure,
but
without
the
access
Drive
to
the
underground
parking
garage.
Supid
agrees
with
the
applicant
that
by
eliminating
the
access
drive
to
the
underground
garage,
the
negative
impacts
on
Hennepin
Avenue,
the
bike
lanes
by
traffic
flow
and
pedestrians
would
be
accelerated.
If
there
is
a
pork
assure
then
there
should
also
be
an
access
Drive
to
the
underground
garage.
G
However,
supe
does
not
think
that
there
should
be
a
poor
cashier
and
therefore
no
access
Drive
to
the
underground
garage.
So
the
reasons
already
stated,
the
third
item
in
the
appeal
is
the
third
item
that
is
being
appealed.
Excuse
me,
buddy
applicant
is
regarding
the
decision
of
Public
Works
staff
to
deny
the
porte-cochere
notice
through
the
preliminary
development
or
review
or
PDR
process,
and
both
Paul
Miller
and
Alan
Klugman
from
Public
Works
are
here
to
speak
to
that.
So
I
will
step
aside
and
let
them
discuss
I'll
be
here
for
any
questions.
All.
I
Chairman
Schroeder
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Paul
Miller
I'm,
a
project
manager
with
the
transportation
planning
and
programming
division
and
Public
Works,
and
my
role
is
a
development
coordinator
representing
the
Public
Works
Department.
My
familiarity
with
this
project
goes
way
back
in
fact
to
December
of
2014,
so
I'm
very
familiar
with
this
project.
I
would
like
to
say
that
public
works
position
on
protocol
shares
in
general.
I
Is
we
we
give
these
high
scrutiny
they're
generally
not
considered
consistent
with
our
construed,
streets
policy
and
access,
Minneapolis
design
guidelines,
we're
always
going
to
work
with
a
developer
and
their
consultants
to
hopefully
find
alternatives
to
portico
share
access
on
this
particular
project.
Our
position
and
opposition
to
the
portico
share
dates
back
to
2014.
I
More
recently,
Hennepin
Avenue
has
gone
through
a
redesign
process.
The
Hennepin
Avenue
redesign
process
made
a
concerted
effort
to
do
consolidation
and
elimination
possible
of
curb
cut
access
to
Hennepin,
Avenue
and
I.
Think
we've
been
very
successful
with
that.
That
was
all
with
an
intent
to
enhance
pedestrian
and
bike
safety
along
Hennepin
Avenue.
I
The
portico
share
and
Public
Works
position
on
this
particular
project
supports
the
Hennepin
Avenue
design.
I
would
also
like
to
say
that
we
do
side
with
the
applicant
as
far
as
we
do
would
not
be
approving
of
the
removal
of
the
the
ramp
that
would
a
serve
8.
The
the
situation
with
the
portico
share
in
Hennepin
Avenue,
with
that
I'm
available
for
questions.
I
I
J
K
Jeremy
straighter
councilmembers
members
of
committee.
Again,
my
name
is
Alan
Klugman
empathetic
engineer
with
the
public
works
traffic
and
parking
services.
Division
to
the
question
about
other
hotels
in
downtown.
We
have
a
few
different
arrangements.
Maybe
I'll
just
talk
through
a
few
of
those
We
certainly
have
some
that
have
what
we'd
call
AB
a
kind
of
a
cut-in
where
the
access
is
more
parallel
to
the
street.
We
also
have
others
that
are
more,
maybe
a
courtyard
type
arrangement,
for
example
the
new
HC
Hotel,
which
is
right
in
hand
put
it
forth.
H
You
mr.
chair
I
want
to
note
that
just
sitting
here,
thinking
about
it,
the
Lowe's
has
won.
The
Hilton
has
won,
the
Radisson
has
won,
the
Hyatt
has
won,
they
all
have
portico
shares
every
one
of
them
all
the
competitive
set
hotels
have
them,
residents
have
them
to
the
Carlyle.
Has
one
lat.
45
has
one
even
the
Buckingham
owned
by
CC
HT
an
affordable
housing
project
has
one.
So
it's
not
uncommon,
and
in
most
of
those
places
you
have
less
interaction
between
people
parking
in
the
bike
lane
and
people
parking
in
a
moving
Lane.
I
Schroeder
councilmember
Goodman
I
agree.
There
are
numerous
examples
throughout
downtown,
as
you
pointed
out
again,
public
from
a
public
works
standpoint.
We
do
consider
these
to
be
disruptive
to
traffic
and
they're,
always
I'll,
say
problems
to
be
solved
operationally
and
we
do
always
scrutinize
these
types
of
drop-off
eval
a
portico
shares
as
it
relates
to
pedestrian
safety.
So
we
we
do
put
a
lot
of
scrutiny
into
these
proposals.
I.
A
A
B
As
you
know,
we've
already
responded
in
a
great
deal
about
this
project.
Up
to
this
point-
and
my
intent
here
is
not
to
rehash
all
of
those
comments
here,
but
to
selectively
provide
some
additional
context
for
your
consideration
and
then
touch
on
a
few
of
the
key
points
here
that
we're
talking
about
on
this
appeal.
We
hope
that
in
doing
so,
it
will
provide
clarity
for
you
to
make
a
final
decision
on
these
matters
before
I
turn.
B
My
attention
to
that
I
wanted
to
acknowledge
the
great
work
that
the
city
and
our
team
and
the
city
staff
and
the
city
leaders
have
done
to
get
us
to
this
point.
This
is
a
very
exciting
and
very
visible
block,
and
there
have
been
numerous
challenges
here
and
it
is
important
that
we
get
it
right
and
the
city
has
given
us
a
significant
amount
of
time
on
our
redevelopment
contract
to
get
this
right,
and
we
are
very
appreciative
of
what
you've
done
for
us
here.
B
Every
project
does
reach
a
point
where
a
decision
needs
to
be
made,
and
we
also
recognize
this
is
really
your
decision
at
this
point.
We
have
done
everything
we
can
here.
We
believe
to
bring
a
great
project
forward.
First,
as
a
matter
of
context,
when
we
initially
responded
to
the
city
RFP,
we
were
selected
based
on
a
number
of
considerations
that
were
important
to
these
to
the
city
and
really
reflected
your
core
values
for
this
important
block.
Those
are
all
outlined
in
our
required
energy
development
contract.
B
The
property
had
been
a
surface
parking
lot
for
many
many
years
in
to
our
knowledge,
we
were
the
only
respondent
to
the
RFP,
responded
and
acknowledged
and
has
brought
forward
all
of
the
core
values.
As
outlined
in
your
RFP.
We
agreed
that
these
values
will
make
the
project
great,
and
we
did
this
because
we,
like
you,
recognises
this
block
as
a
gateway
into
the
city
of
Minneapolis
from
other
key
districts.
I'll
specifically
cover
those
key
project
values
for
you,
and
the
project
must
be
a
minimum
of
30
stories.
B
The
project
must
have
a
mix
of
uses.
Third,
it
must
activate
Hennepin
Avenue
and
the
corner
if
they're
in
Hennepin,
as
well
as
other
Street
funds
with
active
uses,
for
it
must
place
all
parking
below
grade.
Fifth,
it
must
accommodate
a
future
streetcar
transit,
easement
and
system,
which
is
an
important
element
for
the
city
as
it
continues
to
grow.
Lastly,
it
must
incorporate
iconic
design.
We
believe
we've
accommodated
all
of
these
requirements
in
our
proposed
development
in
front
of
you
and
I'm
going
to
touch
on
the
number
eight
key
points
here
in
more
detail.
B
Secondly,
and
additionally
for
context
when
we
responded
to
this
RFP,
we
at
the
time
too
did
not
know
the
exact
location
or
route
of
the
transit
easement
through
the
site.
Initially,
we
had
favored
Hennepin
Avenue
for
that,
so
that
it
did
not
significantly
impact
the
site
and
constrain
us
on
an
entry
and
access
points
to
the
site
about
a
year
into
the
planning
process.
We
learned
that
the
the
only
route
for
that
streetcar
system
that
the
city
could
support
would
be
across
the
eastern
portion
of
the
site
and
that
required
us
to
focus
on
Hennepin.
B
Avenue
is
our
front
door
initially.
I
have
to
say
that
I
was
reluctant
to
accept
Hennepin
as
the
front
door
of
this
project,
but,
as
time
has
come
to
pass,
I
really
believe
that
that's
actually
one
of
the
great
things
this
project
delivers
on
as
a
front
door
to
help
make
end
up
an
Avenue
prominent
again
in
location
where
it
needs
it,
and
I
really
truly
believe
that
in
bringing
a
front
door
to
this
project
at
that
that
key,
landmark
corner,
we
have
changed
the
block
and
in
a
great
way,.
B
Thanks
Hilary
on
the
north
end
of
the
site,
we
have
Washington
Avenue.
We
cannot
take
vehicles
in
the
site
and
out
on
Washington
Avenue
because
of
the
future
streetcar
transit
route
on
3rd
Avenue.
We
have
a
number
of
significant
things
happening
for
the
building
the
in-and-out
ramp
for
the
park
below
grade
parking
and
the
loading
functions
of
the
building.
We
cannot
bring
a
front
door
to
the
building
on
3rd
Street
at
left.
B
Hennepin
Avenue
was
the
front
door
and
the
reality
is
the
site
has
challenges
and
constraints
that
we've
worked
with
in
arriving
at
the
site
plan
in
front
of
you
today.
I
will
note
that,
with
regard
to
the
Porte
cochere
and
I'll
talk
about
this
a
little
more
detail,
we
looked
at
a
number
of
alternatives
for
coming
in
off
Hanna
Penn
Avenue
and
exiting
out
on
Washington
Avenue
when
the
ball
crosses
the
streetcar
transit
future
easement,
it
cannot
be
done.
B
Subject
can
reach
subsequent
to
resolving
the
transit
issue.
We
didn't
take
on
the
obligation
to
put
the
streetcar
infrastructure
into
the
foundation
of
our
building
at
a
cost
of
approximately
two
million
dollars.
So
we
want
you
to
know
that
we
have
taken
that
on
in
our
balance
sheet.
Additionally,
we
took
on
the
responsibility
of
connecting
this
property
into
adjacent
properties
through
a
Skyway
system,
at
our
cost,
approximately
five
million
dollars.
B
As
you
also
know,
the
proposed
interest
for
this
project,
our
RBC's
wealth
management
u.s.
headquarters-
and
they
are
here
today
to
talk
about
the
importance
of
this
project
to
them,
and
it
also
brings
a
highly
regarded
Four
Seasons
Hotel
to
the
city
of
Minneapolis,
and
we
think
that
these
brands
have
special
excitement
for
this
project.
Rbc
has
a
deep
history
in
working
with
and
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis,
and
we
have
the
chance
to
capture
their
organizational
growth.
B
Not
every
organization
is
growing
in
our
city,
and
this
is
one
that
is
and
is
looking
for,
a
new
home
to
do
just
that.
We
also
have
a
chance
to
capture
an
internationally
recognized
hotel
brand
and
we
think
that's
an
important
tool
for
our
downtown
and
for
the
greater
state
of
Minnesota
to
attract
and
retain
tourists,
events
and
also
attract
national
and
international
events
to
our
city
and
state.
That's
a
huge
win
in
short,
turning
their
attention
to
the
specifics
of
the
appeal
items
today.
I
would
like
you
to
please
consider
the
following
relevant
points.
B
First,
as
you
know,
we've
removed
one
item
of
appeal
already,
we'll
cover
that
in
the
little
detail
a
little
further
detail
here,
and
that
was
the
the
lack
of
a
access
into
the
site
off
the
intercession
of
Hennepin
Washington
Avenue.
We
have
now
addressed
that
concern
and
removed
our
appeal.
That
leaves
the
the
first
appeal
item
being
the
top
of
the
building.
Well
sign.
At
this
point,
I'll
ask
Rick
to
place
a
diagram
up
here,
come
on
up
just
get
in
the
record
a
number
of
important
things.
B
B
You
no
that's.
Okay.
The
plan
unit
development
should
allow
for
a
developer
to
gain
flexibility
on
certain
project
components
in
exchange
for
providing
a
unique
and
attractive
design
to
the
city,
and
we
believe
this
project
has
done
it
specifically.
Within
the
plan
unit
development
ordinance.
It
allows
the
city
to
approve
alternatives,
the
sign
code.
If
the
developer
is
able
to
provide
a
minimum
number
of
points,
amenity
points,
15
is
that
number
and
this
project
delivered
17.
So
we
believe
we've
earned
the
flexibility
for
for
signage
here,
I
won't
go
over
each
of
the
points.
B
B
We
fully
understand
staffs
reluctance
to
create
a
precedent
with
this
with
a
sign,
but
we
do
not
agree
that
granting
this
condition
sets
a
precedent
for
you
because
of
the
PUD
context.
The
flexibility
we've
earned
and
what
you've
achieved
and
in
return
for
providing
a
sign
flexibility
we'll
consider
it
there
for
approval.
The
top
of
the
building
wall
sign
does
not
create
a
new
precedent.
B
Existing
buildings
would
need
to
go
through
a
zoning
change
the
PUD
in
order
to
even
be
considered
for
such
flexibility,
and
they
have
no
such
basis
for
a
rezoning
request
and
any
new
development
will
either
need
to
be
a
have.
This
approved
under
a
PUD
context
as
we're
asking
for
or
a
conditional
use
permit,
which
in
fact
you
just
did
ran
for
and
financial
for,
their
type
of
building
sign.
B
Lastly,
on
the
issue
of
signage
RBC
is
here
this
morning
to
talk
about
how
important
this
is
to
their
decision
to
relocate.
There
have
not
been
a
lot
of
large
scale,
new
office
projects
and
launched
in
downtown
Minneapolis,
and
the
reality
of
today's
marketplace
is
that
corporations
are
looking
to
partner
with
cities
to
elevate
their
brand
recognition,
and
this
is
exactly
that
case.
B
B
We
have
a
an
exciting
hotel
brand
here
and
we
have
residences
on
top
and
we
wanted
to
concentrate
these
arrival
points
to
one
entry
that
can
be
shared,
which
we've
done
along
Hennepin,
Avenue
I
believe
that
we
have
enlivened
Hennepin,
Avenue
and
in
a
big
way
by
providing
our
point
of
entry
for
the
entire
project
there.
There
are
many
examples
within
Minneapolis
of
more
variations
of
it
for
port
to
share
entries
such
as
this
and
I
would
like
to
point
out
a
couple
of
key
differences.
B
First
of
all,
ours
is
completely
covered
and
under
the
superstructure
the
building
does
not
protrude
from
the
structure
versus
all
the
examples
that
you've
seen
this
morning.
It's
been
integrated
into
our
project
design
and
it's
as
to
the
extent
a
drive
lane
can
be
fully
screened.
It
is
fully
screened.
The
section
between
the
arrival
departure
on
Hennepin
Avenue
is,
has
a
screen
wall
and
landscaping
in
front
of
it.
So
it
will
not
have
the
exposure
that
the
other
examples
you've
seen
have.
B
Examples
were
made
of
hotels
that
have
work
to
shares
and,
quite
frankly,
all
full-service
hotels
in
downtown
Minneapolis
have
some
sort
of
pork
to
share,
or
they
have
something
very
similar,
which
would
be
a
drop-off
and
pickup
zone.
With
a
curb
cut.
We
work
with
staff
and
engineering
and
Public
Works
quite
a
bit
here
to
make
sure
that
we
avoided
a
dedicated
drop-off
and
that
comes
on
and
had
a
penny
Avenue
and
integrated
this
project
into
the
base
of
the
building.
It's
Kundun.
B
There
are
other
examples
of
projects
that
aren't
hotels,
it
and
I.
Think
councilmember
Goodman
is
highly
touched
on.
Those
I
won't
rehash
them,
but,
frankly
that
is
a
not
an
uncommon
situation
in
downtown
Minneapolis.
It
is
our
conclusion,
then,
that
absent
having
a
fully
functional
arrival
point
for
the
hotel.
We
cannot
meet
the
minimum
30-story
requirement,
and
that
is
why
we
are
appealing
this
issue
as
part
of
our
port.
Cashier
functionality
are
you've
heard
from
Public
Works
and
staff
at
our
site.
Design
incorporates
a
valet
ramp
that
takes
most
of
that
traffic
below
the
building.
B
We
feel
it's
very
important
to
include
that
ramp
and
one
of
the
conditions
placed
on
us
earlier
was
to
aesthetically
improve
the
appearance,
this
building
from
the
corner
of
Washington
and
Hennepin
Avenue.
This
depiction
shows
that
we
have
now
covered
as
much
of
that
ramp
as
we
can
possibly
cover
from
the
corners
and
become
an
extension
of
our
public
plaza
to
the
northeast
of
the
site,
and
it
integrates
a
sidewalk
from
that
corner,
leading
into
the
lobby
of
the
office.
Building
from
where
you
can.
B
B
In
consideration
of
the
uses,
the
density
and
the
limitations
of
the
site
configuration,
this
is
where
we
are
at
with
this
project,
and
we
would
ask
your
support
of
the
park
to
share
in
the
valet
ramp
in
this
location.
We
believe
we've
addressed
Planning,
Commission's,
aesthetic
objection,
and
we
agree
that
the
Planning
Commission
and
Public
Works
and
planning
staff
that
this
intersection
deserves
something
that
we
have
addressed
and
we
believe
appropriately.
B
We
have
also
run
flexibility,
we
believe
for
bringing
for
something
that
exceeds
expectations
initially
set
for
for
this
block
in
terms
of
minimum
height
and
iconic
design
and
the
mix
of
uses,
and
we
believe
the
city
has
reasoned
to
make
findings
at
this
project
and
can
proceed
as
designed.
I
would
also
like
to
thank
the
neighborhood
group
that
downtown
business
leaders,
the
downtown
Council
and
the
building
trades
and
labor,
who
have
all
written
letters
of
support
for
this
project.
B
The
summary
united
properties
has
worked
extensively
with
the
city
planning
and
engineering
departments
to
move
this
project
forward,
including
meeting
all
of
the
conditions
in
the
redevelopment
agreement
that
make
this
project
something
truly
unique
for
the
city
of
Minneapolis.
We
believe
that
we
are
delivering
a
project
that
meets
our
collective
vision
for
this
block
and
activates
a
North
End
of
Nicollet
Mall,
in
a
way
that
very
few
projects
probably
could.
B
We've
also
accommodated
an
important
transit
easement
route
through
the
site,
which
is
something
very
significant
in
the
city's
plans,
and
we
have
also
reactivated
Hennepin
Avenue
in
an
important
manner
here,
which,
frankly,
is
why
we
call
this
the
Gateway
project.
It
is
a
gateway
into
the
north
end
of
the
city
and
completes
a
transition
from
the
North
Loop
in
the
Northeast
district
in
the
CBD
district.
Here
with
respect
to
Commissioner
Gordon's
and
councilman
Gordon's.
B
Request
about
how,
where
we're
at
with
a
labor
and
neutrality
on
the
hotel,
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
hotel.
Feasibility
and
financing
is
a
hardest
single
thing.
We've
had
to
accomplish
on
this
project,
I'm
not
going
to
share
the
details
with
you
as
it
stands.
Today
we
have
a
financing
commitment
for
the
hotel,
but
what
it
has
not
introduced
is
operating
as
a
union
hotel.
B
We
have
made
a
commitment
to
the
both
Dan,
McConnell
and
Wayne
Lindberg,
or
both
here
that
if
we
were
able
to
obtain
a
union
investor
to
support
the
financing
of
the
hotel,
that
we
will
neutrality
agreement,
and
so
that's
where
that
stands
today
and
that's
as
transparent
as
I
can
be
about
that
issue.
If
I
hope
that
answers
your
question
with
Adil
I'll
turn
it
over
for
questions.
B
A
You
I
also
want
the
red
thing,
calls
Myra
Fletcher
for
joining
us.
I,
don't
know
if
that
would
be
a
good
time.
If
you
have
anything
to
say,
or
do
you
want
to
wait
till
later
as
we
go
through
this
okay?
Thank
you
all
right
with
that,
I
will
now
open
the
public
hearing.
Please
limit
your
comments
to
two
minutes
per
person,
which
will
be
tracked
by
the
timer
near
the
clerk.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
like
to
speak
and
if
you
can
state
your
name
for
the
record
chair.
M
Schrader
members
of
committee,
my
name
is
Corey
Heppner
I'm,
a
managing
director
and
co
head
of
the
affordable
housing
development
business
for
RBC.
So
it's
my
pleasure
to
be
here
today
and
I
just
want
to
say
we
are
committed
to
maintaining
our
US
Wealth
Management
headquarters
in
Minneapolis,
and
we're
really
looking
forward
to
this
project.
I
want
to
underscore
what
bill
just
got
done
running
through
with
respect
to
the
critical
nature
of
the
sign
from
a
brand
identity
and
development
standpoint,
the
recruitment
and
retention
of
talent
I.
M
Think
we
hear
this
time
and
time
again
in
this
market.
There
are
a
lot
of
great
things
and
a
great
reasons
to
come
to
Minneapolis.
You
know
we
just
came
off
of
the
bold
north
branding
and
we
see
that
time
and
time
again
with
the
young
people
we're
trying
to
recruit
to
come
work
for
RBC
global
financial
services.
Company
we've
been
in
this
community
since
1909.
N
Chairman,
my
name
is
Steve
Kramer,
the
minneapolis
town
council
and
I've
said
many
times
it's
great,
that
the
11th
ward
finally
has
competent
representation,
Thank
You.
Mr.
chairman
members
of
the
committee,
you
know
the
history
of
this
cycle
is
back
speaking
of
my
time
here
back
to
that
time.
So
it's
not
just
the
United
properties
chapter,
but
it's
it's
a
long,
a
long
history
and
we're.
Finally,
at
a
point
where
this
site
can
be
developed
and
just
quickly
the
value
of
the
project
from
downtown
business
perspective
and
I
want
to
acknowledge
that
that
mr.
N
Wayne,
Hagen
and
I
are
see
this
very
similarly,
it's
kind
of
Jonathan's
giving
me
his
portfolio
to
speak
on
our
collective
behalf.
Tax
base
tax
base.
Expansion
in
downtown
is
6%
of
the
land
area,
the
city
40%
of
the
tax
base,
and
this
will
contribute
to
that
job
retention
as
corageous
discussed
five-star
hotel,
which
our
market
lacks,
but
will
be
a
huge
benefit
building
out
the
north
end
of
Nicollet
privately
owned
public
space,
the
plaza,
which
also
accommodates
the
the
streetcar
designed
so
many
many
positives,
as
I
said
in
my
letter
to
you.
N
What
these
appeals
come
down
to
in
a
simple
way
is
weighing
the
key
business
imperatives.
Are
these
tenants
against
kind
of
standard
city
policies,
standard
city
policies
that
have
been
varied
already
many
times
throughout
our
downtown,
whether
it's
the
signage
and
I?
Guess
one
perspective
for
me
on
on
signage,
whether
it's
the
RBC
signage
you're
driving,
is
that
these
companies
want
the
world
to
know
that
they're
in
our
downtown,
and
we
should
be
happy
that
they
want
the
world
to
know
that
there
are
downtown.
N
We
embrace
historic,
signage,
great
signage
of
all
types
and
I-
think
that's
reflective
of
this
incredibly
vital
and
environment
downtown
that
we
in
our
hands
these
days.
I
should
note
that
you
know
our
organization's
position
on
the
on
the
RBC
side
has
been
known
now
for
a
couple
of
months
as
the
Planning
Commission
I've
gotten
exactly
one
call
from
another
business
inquiring
about
well,
can
we
move
our
site
as
well,
and
the
answer
is
you're
not
entitled
to
do
it?
You
can
apply
and
you
have
to
go
through
the
same
rigorous
process
that
mr.
N
The
reality
is
that
design
which
you
have
approved
is
a
great
design
and
it's
going
to
have
to
be
varied
in
a
couple
of
different
places
to
accommodate
commerce
on
Hennepin
Avenue,
and
this
is
one
of
those
examples
and
I
have
absolute
confidence
in
the
problem-solving
capacity
of
the
department
to
to
solve
that
issue.
So
with
that,
I
couldn't
speak
more
strongly
in
favor
of
this
project.
Thank.
I
O
Wanted
to
express
what
I've
heard
from
constituents
in
Ward
3,
which
is
a
pretty
overwhelming
support.
You
know,
with
a
couple
of
exceptions:
there's
no
unanimity
on.
You
know
lots
of
these
things,
but
but
in
general
the
neighborhood's
been
very
supportive.
I
think
that
it's
important
that
we
not
allow
this
to
become
a
sense
of
precedent-setting
I,
don't
want
people
to
get
a
signal
that
they
should
all
design.
Porque
shares.
I,
don't
think!
That's
the
direction,
we're
going!
O
In
fact,
I
think
we've
heard
quite
the
opposite
as
we're
moving
in
a
policy
direction,
trying
to
minimize
card
cuts
trying
to
minimize
you
know,
points
of
conflict
with
pedestrian
rights
away,
I
think.
At
the
same
time,
this
project
has
developed
in
a
way
where
this
makes
sense.
It
makes
sense
to
complete
this.
O
It
makes
sense
to
get
this
project
moving
and
so
I
am
encouraging
support
and
also
encouraging
us
to
express
generally,
as
developers
are
beginning
to
envision
projects
that
are
that
are
at
an
earlier
stage
in
the
pipeline
to
start
really
looking
at
our
transportation
planning
and
and
not
assume
that
poor
co-chairs
are
going
to
be
the
direction
that
we're
going
moving
forward.
But
that
being
said,
I
really
appreciate
the
spirit
of
collaboration
with
the
community
that
we've
seen
I
think
it's
very
important.
O
If
we're
allowing
a
sign
variance
that
it
becomes
a
part
of
our
skyline,
it
becomes
a
part
of
our
identity,
and
so
we
really
want
to
see
the
values
of
the
building
align
with
with
with
that
identity
and
so
I
think
it's
very
important
that
we
continue
to
see
community
investment
that
we
continue
to
see
labor
at
the
table
with
with
the
projects
inside
and
so
I
appreciate.
The
negotiations
that
have
happened
so
far
I
want
to
encourage
that
to
happen.
O
A
H
H
In
fact,
it
was
so
long
ago
that
I
see
Carol
Lansing
in
the
audience
and
I
think
she
was
the
Zoning
Administrator
at
the
time
that
we
were
trying
to
make
this
happen.
This
has
been
something
that
the
city
has
wanted
to
do
in
terms
of
development
for
the
better
part
of
20
years
and
I'll
remind
everybody
that
this
isn't
the
first
RFP
that
we
went
through
for
development
of
the
site,
in
fact
I
believe
it's
the
second
or
perhaps
third
RFP
that
we
went
forward
with
and
during
that
period
of
time.
H
Many
many
things
changed
the
mayor.
At
the
time
RT
Rybak
decided
we
were
going
to
have
a
streetcar
that
then
made
the
site
even
smaller.
At
the
time
we
determined
that
better
greening
and
bike
lanes
on
Washington
Avenue
made
more
sense.
So
we
installed
those
bike
lanes
and
up
the
greening,
making
it
more
difficult
to
access
Washington
Avenue.
During
that
time,
the
federal
the
the
Federal
Reserve
buildings
sold
the
building
across
the
street
and
a
park
was
developed
on
that
site
in
cooperation
with
the
city,
as
well
as
a
100
year,
land
lease.
H
In
order
to
ensure
that
that
park
made
sense
and
as
councilmember
Frey
came
into
office,
we
redeveloped
Nicollet
Mall
and
figured
out
a
way
to
make
Nicollet
Mall
not
be
a
barrier
between
the
streetcar
site
and
plaza
and
the
park
across
the
street,
but
to
allow
it
to
become
more
focused
and
more
of
a
collective
site
where
pedestrians
could
be
happy.
So
that
is
some
of
the
context
at
which
we
sit
here
today.
H
H
We
would
have
had
something
built
here
and
at
this
point
in
time
when
we
haven't
seen
a
new
class,
a
office
building
built
in
the
city
in
my
recent
memory
to
have
any
organization,
including
one
as
well
as
homegrown
to
us
as
RBC,
moved
their
headquarters
to
this
site
and
build
hundreds
of
thousands
of
feet
of
Class
A
office.
Space,
which
I
will
note,
is
taxed
at
the
highest
rate
possible
in
the
city
and
still
have
them.
Invest
in
the
city
and
move
to
this
location.
H
I
think
is
an
incredible
achievement
and
it
says
something
about
the
strength
of
the
city
and
our
jobs,
as
the
leaders
of
the
city
is
to
ensure
that
we
can
make
these
things
happen.
And
often
that
involves
compromise,
and
sometimes
it
means
we
don't
get
everything
we
want,
and
sometimes
the
planning
and
the
way
that
it's
laid
out
isn't
ideal.
But
in
this
particular
case,
I
personally
believe
that
the
requests
they're
making
are
reasonable.
Given
the
site
location.
H
If
we
had
not
said
we
want
a
streetcar,
if
we
not
put
in
a
bike
lane
on
Washington,
if
we
had
not
added
greening
on
Washington,
if
we
had
not
said
we
wanted
to
have
the
residential
Lobby
on
the
corner,
we
want
a
restaurant
on
Nicollet.
We
want.
If
we
had
no
listed
all
of
these
things,
they
maybe
could
have
put
their
entrance
somewhere
else,
but
it
just
doesn't
make
sense
at
this
late
date.
H
We
have
the
ability
to
do
that.
I
have
asked
a
number
of
questions
about
that.
I
have
not
gotten
the
answer
that
I
would
like
to
be
getting
from
Public
Works
as
it
pertains
to
the
timing
of
these
projects
and
I'm
going
to
throw
that
out
there
now,
because
this
is
the
kind
of
thing
that
people
bring
up
when
they
say
the
city
is
not
cooperative.
P
Mr.
chair
all
speeches
briefly,
whenever
works
best
for
you
is
now
a
good
time.
Certainly
thank
you.
The
accompany
councilmember
from
Ward
11.
We
have
at
the
time.
Thank
you,
colleagues
as
well
for
your
consideration
on
this
very
important
issue.
I
will
be
as
brief
as
possible
as
the
two
council
members
speaking
in
front
of
me.
Councilmember
Goodman
and
councilmember
Fletcher
articulated
the
reasons
why
I
believe
all
three
appeals
should
be
granted
in
and
I
am
supportive
of
all
three
Appeals
as
councilmember
Goodman
mentioned.
P
P
This
is
a
Gateway's
was
mentioned
not
just
really
to
downtown,
but
to
the
entire
western
half
of
the
country
and
Hennepin
Avenue
being
the
first
bridge
to
cross
the
river,
and
it
is
a
parcel
that
deserves
to
be
highlighted
and
an
extraordinary
amount
of
work
has
gone
into
highlighting,
and
it
wasn't
just
an
RFP
that
was
issued.
Saying
do
what
you
want
with
the
land
and
the
word
work
we,
the
city
are
out.
P
There
were
a
number
of
both
restrictions,
as
well
as
clear
visioning
that
was
set
to
what
would
happen
as
far
as
the
building
goes,
which
is
is
an
impressive
design.
The
use
is
within
the
building,
from
from
hotel
to
commercial
to
residential
space,
to
the
public
realm,
which
is
perhaps
what
I'm
most
excited
about,
and
the
possibility
of
connecting
cancer
survivors
Park,
which
is
indeed
a
public
space,
but
is
not
utilized
that
way
down
to
the
street
and
then
across
to
the
public.
P
Realm
improvements
in
the
Nicollet
Hotel
parcel
is
something
that
I
think
could
really
be
an
incredible
final
product
for
our
city.
I
appreciate
all
of
the
work
that
has
been
done
both
by
our
city
staff,
as
well
as
the
you
know,
from
RBC
to
the
Four
Seasons,
the
United
properties,
I
appreciate
the
council
members
work
on
this
and
I
appreciate
the
time.
Thank
you
so
much.
Q
Q
Some
supportive
of
the
motion
team
at
councilmember,
Goodman
I,
think
this
addition
will
help
us
make
sure
that,
as
the
final
details
get
you
know
developed
and
in
coordination
with
staff
that
wouldn't
come
back
to
this
body
or
anything
just
in
coordination
with
staff
that
we're
keeping
that
those
policies
in
mind
and
I
think
you
know
just
a
comment
on
that.
But
you
know
by
the
time
these
large
complex
projects
get
to
us
as
a
council.
Q
A
Q
R
You
mr.
chair
I
didn't
want
to
kind
of
lean
into
customer
Gordon's
point
I.
Wasn't
all
that
satisfied
with
the
answer
to
the
question
regarding
labor
neutrality
and
it
kind
of
felt
like
it
amounted
to
well
building
a
hotel
is
really
hard
which
I'm
sure
it
is,
but
I
wondered
if
you
could
maybe
clarify
the
you
all
stance
or
where
you
all
stand
with
with
with
coming
to
that
agreement
are
working
a
right
to
that
agreement.
Yeah
that'd
be
really
helpful.
B
Councilmember
Ellison,
thank
you
for
raising
that
point.
So
to
be
clear,
the
project
will
be
constructed
with
all
union.
Labor
I
think,
is
that
part
of
your
question
you're
asking
and
then
secondly,
with
respect
to
the
hotel
operations,
I
think
you're,
asking
the
best
way
to
say
this
in
the
most
transparent
I
can
be.
Is
that
my
first
order
of
business
if
this
project
is
approved,
is
to
make
sure
I
have
financing
to
build
it?
And
at
the
moment,
it's
not
clear
to
me
whether
I
can
get
financing
by
agreeing
to
a
neutrality
agreement?
B
A
J
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
appreciate
all
the
comments
and
I'm
supportive
of
the
motions.
I
also
really
appreciated
the
presentation.
I
thought
it
was
very
clear
and
I
think
I
understood
everything
that
you
said
accurately
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
thought
that
I
heard
was
that
the
the
third
appeal
item
was
withdrawn
and
the
debt
condition
was
something
that
the
project
was
going
to
go
forward
on
and
it
sounded
like
the
motion
included
all
three
conditions,
so
I
just
want
to
get
clarity
on
that
we're
just
dealing
with
it.
First
to.
S
J
A
There
right
Thanks,
all
right,
not
seeing
anyone.
I
do
have
a
couple
of
comments.
I
myself
am
it's
been
a
long
road,
but
I'm
supportive
of
the
project.
I
do
have
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
are
concerning
for
me,
and
you
talked
a
lot
about
that.
I
am
worried
about
this.
Creating
precedent
I
understand
the
argument
that
this
would
not,
but
in
the
process
of
going
forward
to
help
developments
going,
I
thought
it'd
be
helpful
to
kind
of
go
through
where
my
kind
of
concerns
stem
from
kind
of.
A
First
and
foremost,
you
know
seeing
this
it
Planning
Commission.
There
was
not
as
much
a
conversation
about
the
about
the
sign
and
you
know
at
at
Planning
Commission.
We
have
a
lot
of
expertise
that
we
could
have
that
discussion
and
I
literally,
would
have
liked
to
have
a
robust
conversation.
We
had
a
very
robust
conversation
about
the
Parker
chair,
but
not
as
much
on
the
sign,
so
I
think.
A
If,
for
me,
whether
the
reason
that's
a
big
deal
is
that
if
you're
asking
to
have
something,
that's
gonna
be
a
part
of
the
Minneapolis
skyline
I
want
it
to
represent
the
Minneapolis
identity,
things
that
show
that
if
you're
you're,
that
company
and
you're
building
a
building
are
you
building
that
building
sustainably?
Are
you
what
kind
of
long-term
environmental
effects
are
you
thinking
about?
Are
you
thinking
about
who's
going
to
work?
There
are
those
union
jobs
and
just
make
sure
that
this
is
like
going
with
the
identity
of
the
city.
A
That
said,
I
do
appreciate
how
much
the
applicants
been
willing
to
to
work
with
the
city
and
work
with
City.
Council
I
do
believe
it's
a
beautiful
building
and
with
that
I
will
actually
go
forward
with
councilmember
Goodman's
two
motions
and
the
council
president's
motion.
Can
we
do
that
as
one
vote?
T
T
The
applicant
is
appealing
two
of
the
applications
to
allow
for
a
new
85
unit,
six
story:
multiple
family,
residential
building
on
December
3rd
2018,
the
City
Planning
Commission.
Notwithstanding
the
staff
recommendation
denied
two
of
the
three
requested
applications.
The
first
application
is
a
conditional
use
permit
to
increase
the
maximum
height
from
two
and
a
half
stories
not
to
exceed
35
feet
to
what
was
an
amended
plan
shortly
before
the
Planning
Commission,
which
came
out
to
six
stories
85
feet,
the
City
Planning
Commission
approved
the
variance.
T
The
project,
as
proposed
has
three
points
of
height.
Why
that's
relevant
is
because
in
the
shoreland
overlay
we
don't
measure
height
just
to
the
the
roof
deck
but
to
the
highest
point,
so
just
to
call
out
the
different
sections
that
would
be
relevant
to
the
application
before
you
today
is
the
roof.
Parapet
is
proposed
now
at
69
feet,
9
inches
approximately
there
was
a
new
canopy
added
to
the
roof
deck
there's
a
roof
amenity
for
residents,
that
measures
276
feet,
7
inches
and
then
to
the
top
of
the
elevator
and
stair
overrun
is
85
feet.
T
At
the
committee
of
the
whole
for
the
City
Planning
Commission
on
September
30th
2018,
the
Planning
Commission
asks
of
the
applicant
be
prepared
to
provide
information
specific
to
views
from
from
the
Miss
Earth
from
the
Minnehaha
Creek,
and
so
the
applicant
included
that
in
the
packet
and
I
would
say
that
was
probably
the
most
relevant
information
which
led
the
City
Planning
Commission
to
overturn
the
staff
recommendation
and
to
deny
those
two
applications.
So
this
was
included
in
the
packet
and
it
includes
views,
as
shown
by
the
applicant
for
the
proposed
structure.
T
So
I've
tried
to
highlight
kind
of
in
the
red
boxes
because
they're
a
little
hard
to
see,
but
hopefully
a
little
bit
better
in
your
packet.
Some
of
the
views
from
the
Minnehaha
Creek,
the
City,
Planning,
Commission
and
staff
have
both
commented
that
the
project
was
more
visible
than
we
had
initially
expected
at.
The
committee
of
the
whole
here
are
some
additional
views
from
the
Creek.
T
And
then,
finally,
those
so
the
City
Planning
Commission
on
a
vote
of
4
to
3
denied
as
a
conditional
use
permit
to
increase
the
maximum
height
based
on
the
following
findings,
one
that
the
proposed
height
does
not
meet
the
intent
of
the
shoreland
overlay
district
and,
second,
that
the
proposed
height
would
have
a
significant
visual
impact
for
site
plan
review.
The
denial
of
the
conditional
use
permit
to
increase
the
height
rule
related
to
the
site
plan
review
and
therefore
could
not
be
the
site
plan
review
could
not
be
approve
as
proposed.
A
L
T
Had
a
recommendation
of
five
storeys
and
the
way
that
we
got
to
70
feet
is
the
same
way
that
we
arrived
at
stories
in
feet
in
the
other
zoning
districts
and
that
is
to
multiply
the
maximum
height
of
a
floor,
which
is
14
feet
by
the
number
of
storeys.
So
in
this
case
14
times
5
equals
70.
So
the
staff
recommendation
essentially
was
to
five
stories
70
feet.
The
applicant
has
proposed
less
than
70
feet
to
the
top,
but
a
six
story
building
just
for
clarification.
U
A
Q
Q
You
know
often
when
we're
considering
a
co
P
for
height
its
within
the
context
of
the
design
of
the
building
overall,
and
so
you
know,
is
the
height
increase.
You
know:
does
the
design
of
the
building
mitigate
the
height
increase
or
how
does
the
design
of
the
building
with
that
height
fit
into
the
context,
including
the
natural
environment,
here
that
we
have
in
this
context,
so
I
just
want
to
make
that
point.
Q
T
T
A
V
So
the
crux
of
your
decision
today
as
I,
see
it
is
whether
you
are
going
to
give
priority
to
preservation
of
the
status
quo
or
to
the
development
policies
that
have
been
adopted
by
the
City
Council.
That
call
for
change
and
for
the
increased
density
in
height
and
the
Hiawatha
corridor.
That
we're
proposing
staff
recommended
is,
as
Shanna
indicated,
a
building
height
of
five
stories
and
seventy
feet.
V
They
did
not
recommend
denial
and
they
indicated
that
that
I
would
still
be
visible
from
the
creek
we're
asking
as
she
said,
to
comply
with
the
staff
recommendation
of
70
feet,
but
to
allow
six
storeys.
We
don't
feel
that
there's
a
difference
in
visual
impact
based
on
the
number
of
stories
and
really
what
we're
talking
about
today.
What
the
concerns
expressed
have
been
about
visual
impact
on
a
split
4-3
vote.
V
The
sure
land
area
is
not
just
the
creek,
it's
not
just
the
water,
so
this
policy
says
we
need
to
consider
as
well
as
the
natural
characteristics,
the
economic
and
use
aspects
of
those
areas
in
the
shore
land
that
our
policies
intend
to
promote
some
of
the
precedents.
Most
recently,
six
stories
or
more
are
mostly
outside
of
the
downtown
there's
many,
but
mostly
they're
on
Lake
Street,
which
is
historically
been
a
developed
and
more
active
corridor
than
Hiawatha
has
been,
but
it
is
more
what
Hiawatha
is
intended
to
become
the
six
story.
V
Edgewater
was
quite
controversial,
but
I
think
people
on
the
shores
of
bidet,
amicus
gaya
think
it's
quite
attractive
and
a
benefit
to
the
area.
Now,
most
more
recently,
an
eight-story
Lake
residents
was
approved
that
within
the
shoreline
of
both
Lake
of
the
Isles
and
Padilla
Marcus
Scott,
and
is
very
visible
from
like
the
de
Marcus
Scott
and
most
recently,
a
nine-story
building
was
approved
a
little
further
away
on
Lake
Street,
but
still
in
the
shore
land
and,
as
I
said.
V
Commissioners
on
the
Commission
today
were
not
participants
in
the
discussion
of
those
projects
and
how
height
in
the
shore
land,
but
also
in
areas
like
this
urban
corridors
has
been
approved.
The
shoreline
standards
don't
require
that
a
building
be
invisible.
It
seeks
to
the
limit
visibility,
but
you
have
to
consider
that
mitigation,
both
in
context
of
the
natural
environment,
the
existing
character,
but
also
the
context
of
as
I've,
been
indicating.
V
Also
have
on
this
overhead
some,
the
key
policies
under
the
currently
applicable
plan,
the
Minneapolis
plan
for
sustainable
growth,
note
that
both
hiawatha
and
midi
high
avenues,
our
community
corridors,
the
project
site,
is
in
an
activity
center
and,
most
importantly,
it's
within
the
46th
Street
Station
transit
station
area.
All
of
those
current
policies
support
increased
height
even
with
the
overlap
of
the
shoreland.
V
Then
we
also
have
the
2040
plan
and
I
have
been
focusing
a
lot
on
the
future,
because
this
is
a
first
project
in
an
area
for
which
development
is
sought
and
if
you
stick
to
the
status
quo,
if
you
say
the
existing
character
of
the
area
is
short,
then
you'll
never
get
what
you're
looking
to
achieve.
This
is
an
aerial
of
what
you've
got
now.
This
is
the
project
site.
V
This
is
a
site
where
the
70-foot
cap
apartments
is
being
developed,
it's
just
outside
of
the
shoreline,
but
that's
also
70
feet,
and
this
area
is
Hiawatha.
You've
got
your
surface
parking
lot.
You
got
your
strip
centers
of
one
and
two
stories.
So
yes,
this
six
story,
six
story
building
will
be
out
of
character
with
the
existing
development
and
that's
a
good
thing.
V
This
is
the
2040
plan
and
what
you
want
to
see
sorry
I'm
so
old-school.
This
is
an
x
marks,
the
spot
of
the
project
site
and
all
of
this
turquoise
is
guided
transit.
Ten.
So,
instead
of
surface
parking
strip
malls,
you
want
transit.
Ten
and
all
of
this
area
is
also
within
the
shore
land.
We're
not
talking
about
just
affecting
one
corner
projects
that
we're
talking
about
this
entire
area
from
46th
to.
V
The
Greenway
there
are
the
like.
I
also
wanted
to
note
for
you
that
other
areas,
which
are
these
areas
here,
north
of
the
creek
and
so
the
forty-sixth,
are
also
guided
for
height
more
than
two
and
a
half
stories,
they're
guided
for
six
and
four
and
other
areas
around
the
site
are
guided
for
six
and
four.
So
the
goal
is
for
this
not
to
continue
to
stick
out
is
the
only
building
of
that
height
and
seem
out
of
character
but
to
become
the
character.
V
W
It
seems
that
height
should
be
the
guiding
factor,
as
opposed
to
the
number
of
stories
as
it
is
height
that
affects
the
massing
of
the
building
and
how
its
viewed
from
the
creek
in
this
case,
I,
would
also
just
like
to
note
and
I'll
point
this
out
on
a
drawing
later,
Shannon
made
a
comment
that
we
added
a
rooftop
trellis
structure
that
actually
that
has
been
in
our
proposal
since
the
time
of
community
of
the
whole
I.
Don't
know
where
that
disconnect
came
from,
but
that
has
been
in
our
proposal.
W
W
So
this
is
a
site
aerial.
Our
project
is
right
here
and
along
the
western
portion.
Here
is
the
Creek.
We
took
photos
from
all
of
these
different
locations
where
these
arrows
are
located
and
the
direction
of
the
arrow
news
shows
the
direction
of
the
of
the
photo
that
was
taken.
The
numbers
are
nearly
impossible
to
read
on
the
screen,
but
I
want
to
point
out
arrow
number
one
and
arrow
number
five,
because
those
are
on
either
side
of
the
land
bridge
and
also
closest
to
Hiawatha
and
the
traffic
on
the
land
bridge
and
they're.
W
The
most
urban
points
of
the
creek
I
think
that's
relevant
when
discussing
the
context
of
this
site,
so
on
the
next
page,
I
will
get
into
the
individual
views
which
I
know.
You
saw
briefly
earlier
this
first
picture
here.
This
is
the
image
of
the
building
from
the
creek
from
point
1,
which
is
just
south
of
that
land
bridge
and
the
most
urban
one
of
the
most
urban
settings.
The
building
is
visible.
There
is
fully
ocking
it.
Partly.
It
was
noted
that
these
were
not
taken
in
the
dead
of
winter.
W
However,
they
also
were
not
taken
at
the
time
of
year
when
foliage
was
thickest.
This
was
at
the
end
of
October
I.
Think
it's
worth
noting,
especially
in
some
of
these
later
pictures,
you'll
see
how
thin
some
of
the
foliage
is.
So
it's
quite
a
I
think
it's
a
more
representative
time
of
year
as
opposed
to
taking
it
when
everything
is
as
thick
as
it
could
be
this.
So
as
we
move
south,
then
we
have
view
number
two
and
again,
we've
outlined
the
building
here,
because
without
having
done
so
you
couldn't
see
the
building
view.
W
Number
three
and
and
four
over
here
are
the
same
things.
So
as
soon
as
we
move
immediately
south
and
into
the
more
vegetative
and
natural
portions
of
the
Creek,
the
building
is
no
longer
visible.
Then
we
start
north
of
the
land
bridge
and
we
have
something
similar.
We
have
an
image
of
that
view
today
and
an
image
below
of
a
view
with
our
building.
This
I
actually
feel
is
the
most
urban
portion
of
the
creek.
Where
we
already,
we
have
overhead
power
lines
which
aren't
very
visible
on
this
image,
but
they're
there.
W
There
are
transformers
telephone,
poles
and
other
things
like
that,
and
even
the
single-story
strip
Center
is
visible.
Also
in
the
future
has
Carol
referenced.
There
will
be
a
70-foot
building
constructed
kind
of
on
the
northern
portion
of
the
site.
Here
it's
not
visible
at
this
point,
but
it's
currently
under
construction
and
then,
as
you
move
north
from
the
land
bridge.
Again
we
have
images
of
our
building
or
I
should
say
outlines
of
our
building,
as
it
really
cannot
be.
Viewed
as
you
move
away
into
the
more
natural
portions
of
the
creek,
so.
W
That
concludes
my
presentation
regarding
the
height
of
the
building.
Again
we're
asking
for
the
approval
of
a
conditional
use
permit
that
is
nearly
identical
to
what
was
recommended
for
staff
approval
at
the
Planning
Commission
hearing,
and
also
the
site
plan
approval
with
all
of
the
conditions
that
were
recommended
at
Planning
Commission
as
well.
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
at
this
time.
A
A
A
Q
You,
mr.
chair,
you
know
I'm
gonna,
move
to
deny
the
appeal
well,
I
appreciate
the
reference
to
our
long
term
policies.
I
really
don't
feel
compelled
to
disagree,
both
with
the
staff
recommendation
and
the
findings
of
the
Planning
Commission,
particularly
given,
as
the
chair
referenced
earlier,
just
the
expertise
and
then
Planning
Commission
and
their
ability
to
take
a
lot
of
time
with
each
project.
Q
A
You
anyone
else
before
just
to
explain
a
little
bit.
I
think
this.
The
reason
this
is
a
little
bit
more
difficult
is
right
on
the
transit
and
so
while
listening
to
there's
all
the
issues
with
the
Planning
Commission
brought
up
and
I
appreciate
everything
that
the
applicant
has
brought
up.
I
mean
I.
Think
we'll
now
take
it.
The
most
president
vendor's
motion,
all
those
in
favor
of,
could.
Y
T
Is
so
staff
had
an
alternative
recommendation
to
be
fair
to
the
applicant?
The
applicant
had
originally
requested
six
stories.
I
think
it
was
something
like
eighty
six
feet:
nine
inches
to
the
top
of
that
roof
of
the
the
stair
tower,
so
staff
have
an
alternative
recommendation
kind
calling
out
the
heights
more
specifically,
but
we
did
make
findings
to
approve
the
conditional
use
permanent
site
plan
review.
Thank
you.
Q
So
then,
my
motion
then,
and
told
withdraw
my
motion.
I
mean
I
would
draw
and
remake.
My
motion
just
be
totally
clear
that
my
motion
is
to
deny
the
appeal
you
know
then,
to
to
clarify
my
reasoning,
you
know
was
to
stay
in
line
with
what
the
Planning
Commission
discussed
in
their
decision
to
deny
this
the
height,
but
the
additional
hate
here.
Thank.
A
A
Item
number
will
now
move
on
to
item
number
five,
which
is
the
consideration
of
conditional
use,
permit,
variance
and
site
plan
review
for
appeal
submitted
at
4040
Washington
LLC
you
regarding
the
project
at
forty,
forty
and
forty.
Fifty
one-half,
Washington,
Avenue
north
and
we'll
begin
with
the
staff
presentation.
X
Good
morning
a
chart
trader
community
members.
The
appeal
before
you
is
related
to
the
property
is
over
forty,
forty
Washington
and
forty
fifty
and
a
half
Washington
Avenue
North
the
appeals,
the
decision
of
the
Planning
Commission
decision
to
deny
the
shoot's
permit.
Instead,
let
me
give
you
chill
out
owing
service,
as
well
as
a
variance
for
servicing
requirements,
and
this
is
an
appeal
of
the
original
applicant,
so
just
them
background
for
the
site.
The
zoning
of
site
is
i2
is
also
in
the
Mississippi
River
critical
area
overlay
district.
X
This
area
has
a
history
of
being
mostly
industrial.
The
site
here
has
an
existing
building
and
there
you
can
see
the
buildings
around
it
lower
corridors.
Then,
as
you
move
to
the
east,
you
have
the
North,
Mississippi,
River,
Park,
and
the
park
board
does
own
this
property
here
and
they're,
currently
using
it
as
a
maintenance
facility.
And
of
course
we
have
the
river,
although
further
east.
So
there's
also
I
should
note
here
an
access
easement
that.
X
Access
along
the
back
to
the
river
properties,
so
unless
resistant
sites
are
actually
currently
a
towing
service
there,
that
was
approved
in
2014,
but
they
just
occupied
the
property
of
4040
Washington.
This
40-50
Washington
parcel,
which
is
pretty
much
it's,
runs
along
the
boundary
of
the
railroad
quarter,
but
to
not
include
these
grain
elevators
that
has
been
newly
acquired
by
the
applicant
just
this
year
or
last
year.
Now,
so
it's
unapproved,
but
it
has
access
to
that
access.
Easement.
X
The
proposal,
as
indicated
by
the
applications,
is
to
use
this
area
behind
the
40/40
Washington,
building
for
temporary
storage
or
and
or
leasing
it
to
a
towing
service
to
temporarily
park.
Our
the
approximated
150
cars
could
be
located
back
there,
and
this
pop
site
plan
on
the
left
is
what
was
reviewed
by
the
Planning
Commission.
So
at
that
time
they
had
not
proposed
improvements
other
than
putting
a
fence
around
the
easterly
boundary
of
the
site,
to
give
it
definition
and
then
on.
The
right
here
is
the
updated
plan.
X
That's
been
submitted
for
this
appeal,
so
you
can
see
they
are
proposing
some
landscaping
along
the
perimeter
and
then
they
are
proposing
to
add
paving
here
and
applicants
indicated
that's
as
false.
The
applications
that
are
needed
for
this
proposal
were
the
two
people
trying
service
on
the
site
plan
review
and
then
the
variance
of
the
parking
where
of
the
surfacing
requirements
for
the
parking
where
the
parking
would
be
located,
which
is
now
been
mostly
eliminated,
except
this
area
here,
north
of
the
Belden.
Some
cars
have
been
parked
there
before.
X
So
that's
why
it's
still
included
looking
at
the
Planning
Commission
decision,
they
did
adopt
the
staff
recommendation
to
deny
these
applications
and
there
were
two
main
reasons
in
the
staff
findings
for
the
denial.
The
first
thing
that
that
proposal
is
inconsistent
with
the
Comprehensive
Plan
and
the
proposed
site
plan
would
not
comply
with
state
plan
review
standards.
X
So,
looking
at
our
comprehensive
plan
policies
as
guided
for
mixed
use
on
the
site
and
the
surrounding
area,
the
choice
service
as
the
type
of
use,
is
not
supported
by
the
Comprehensive
Plan.
It
has
a
little
job
density
and
its
associated
with
adverse
visual
impacts.
This
site
is
located
within
the
boundaries
of
two
small
area
plans
above
the
falls
and
the
Mississippi
River
critical
area
plan.
X
So
in
the
above
the
Falls
plan,
it
calls
for
this
industrial
area
to
be
transitioning
from
industrial
to
mixed-use.
It
does
recognize
that
this
transition
is
probably
not
gonna
happen
for
another
ten
years
and
that
short
term
will
remain
industrial.
So
for
that
short
term,
it
provides
some
and
for
supporting
those
interim
industrial
uses
that
they
should
be
compatible
with
the
river
that
they
should
create
positive
economic
development
and
also
results
in
terms
of
improvements
to
the
character
of
the
area.
X
So
for
this
type
of
use,
your
main
impacts
would
be
environmental
and
public,
realms,
and
so
looking
at
this
site,
there
are
opportunities
to
implement
sustainable
stormwater
management
solutions,
doing
public,
well,
improvements
adjacent
to
Washington
and
looking
at
any
potential
screening
that
can
be
done
for
views
from
the
river
and
the
state.
Primary
standards
would
help
with
meeting
some
of
those
improvements.
X
X
No
changes
to
the
building
proposed
so
we're
really
looking
at
the
area
of
the
rest
of
the
site
around
the
building
and
needing
to
be
brought
up
to
compliance
with
the
second
review
standards
and
the
applicant
adapts
for
alternative
compliance
of
reduction
of
impervious
surfaces.
Looking
at
the
general
landscaping
requirements
for
the
site
over
on
landscaping,
trees
or
shrubs,
and
so
on,
and
those
specifics
parking
and
screaming
or
premise,
as
well
as
not
proposing
a
new
carving
or
on
the
parking.
X
As
you
can
see
the
updated
plan,
they
did
add
more
landscaping
and
that
still
didn't
eliminate
the
request
for
alternative
compliance.
So
that
there's
a
little
bit
more
landscaping.
They
still
need
the
alternative
compliance
so
looking
at
the
requirements
and
why
we
have
them
looking
at
compatibility
with
natural
areas
such
as
River,
some
of
your
plans
and
we
just
don't
eat
a
heat
island
effect
and
then
visually
enhancing
the
development.
X
We
didn't
find
that
those
conditions
had
been
addressed
for
the
reasons
I
did
mentioned
and
that
they're
not
meeting
the
criteria
for
alternative
compliance
and
that
it
would
be
feasible
to
make
some
more
improvements
and
be
more
consistent
with
adopted
policies
of
the
plan
so
and
that's
why
the
recommendation
was
to
deny,
but
the
conditions
permit.
Those
most
of
the
findings
could
not
be
met
as
well.
X
For
those
reasons
and
then
going
to
the
variants
which
I
mentioned
is
largely
not
needed
now
we
still
did
not
identify
a
practical
difficulty,
so
I'll
leave
with
the
final
Planning
Commission
decision.
They
did
unanimously
deny
that
condition
is
permanent
site
plan
review
and
that
was
seven
to
one
on
the
variance,
but
they
did
give
the
applicant
some
direction.
I'm
saying
that
more
consideration
needs
to
be
given
to
meet
the
intent
of
the
ordinance
and
the
requirements,
but
they
could
consider
some
alternatives.
X
R
T
A
U
U
That
area
husband,
industrial
from
the
beginning
of
the
city,
has
been
here
and,
as
you
see
on
the
map,
it's
still
all
industrial.
It's
the
city
itself
owns
an
industrial
property
right
behind
us
between
us
and
the
river.
We
just
want
to
use
our
property
for
our
use
and
for
our
tenants
use-
and
we
are-
we
know
that
the
future
it's
going
to
change.
If
you're
gonna,
you
can
put
the
amphitheater
for
phase
one
for
both
the
Falls
things
are
going
to
change,
but
we
want
to
use
our
property
now.
U
We
originally
did
not
approve
to
pave
that
area,
because
personally
I
don't
think
it's
appropriate
to
pave
that
close
to
the
river
I
mean
it's
it's
basically,
a
hardpan,
gravel
or
dirt
along
there,
you're
not
going
to
get
items
really
soaking
in
that.
Well
we're
behind
the
railroad
track.
So
our
elevations
are
lower
water
surface
waters
not
going
to
flow
directly
to
the
river
from
our
site,
and,
if
you
look
at
that
photo,
the
area
that
the
city
is
operating
is
all
unpaved
and
on
forested
grass
to
whatever
it's.
U
You
know
that
makes
the
size
the
property
that
much
smaller
to
be
able
to
maneuver.
So
that's
why
originally
we
didn't
offer
to
put
landscaping
back
there.
We
are
with
the
new
site,
drawing
that
she
has
on
know.
If
you
see
this
on
your
computer
as
well,
we'll
put
the
little
soldier
a
bur
vitaes
around
there
to
try
to
screen
it.
But
you
know
there
are
a
lot
of
buildings
around
here.
U
You
really
don't
have
direct
sight
views
from
the
river,
because
the
the
building
that
the
city
owns
right
behind
us
and
if
you're
worried
about
the
people
to
the
north.
Well,
then
it's
all
forested
and
there's
a
fence
along
there
too.
So
nobody
to
or
that
forested
area
is
it's
going
to
be
able
to
see
our
site
as
well,
there's
other
industrial
businesses
that
are
all
along
there.
They
use
that
same
access,
road
that
we
might
use
to
get
behind
there.
U
H
U
H
U
X
The
industrial
use
district
at
this
site
is
located
and
does
allow
for
a
variety
of
industrial
uses,
but
when
you
have
an
auto
oriented
use,
there
are
additional
departments
that
go
along
with
that.
So
by
not
meeting
that
you
know
yeah,
we
would
be
saying
it
would
not
be
appropriate
to
allow
this
use.
A
Oh
at
this
point,
I'll
open
the
the
public
hearing.
Please
limit
the
comments
to
two
minutes
per
person
which
will
be
tracked
by
the
timer
by
the
clerk.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
be
interested
in
speaking
all
right,
since
we
know
everybody
in
the
room
I'm
going
to
assume?
No
one
else
wants
to
speak
and
it
will
close
the
public
hearing
I'd
like
to
recognize
a
councilmember
right
now,
Thank.
L
You
mr.
chair
and
I
think
I
concur
with
staff
on
this
one,
but
I
do
want
to
make
a
couple
clarifications,
one
as
we
contemplate
what
well
actually
we're
eliminating
the
whole
term
industrial.
We
now
have
protected
production
and
processing
and
in
our
mixed
use
areas
before
the
90s
version
that
makes
you
spent.
You
know,
sort
of
a
coffee
shop
with
some
senior
housing
above
that
sort
of
thing.
Now
we're
talking
about
mixed
uses
in
a
much
more
robust
sense.
L
But
we
actually
want
to
create
places
that
create
jobs,
and
we,
we
judge
them
by
their
ability
to
create
jobs
and
their
low
impact.
We
have
a
dual
purpose
and
that's
not
being
accommodated
by
what's
being
proposed
here
so
I.
Think
staff
has
it
right
with
existing
plans,
but
it
certainly
has
it
right
looking
forward
to
how
we
contemplate
both
the
river
first
area
and
how
we
contemplate
mixed-use
as
a
robust
area
for
both
housing,
commercial
and
hopefully,
production
jobs.
L
R
Have
it
I
tend
to
say
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
do
empathize
with
the
business
owner
just
trying
to
you
know,
make
use
your
property,
but
you
know
we've
got
sort
of
the
the
the
analysis
or
staff
there
from
the
Planning.
Commission
know,
I
think
that
it's
clear
and
I
will
speak.
You
know
on
behalf
of
one
of
the
representatives
of
the
north
side.
R
You
know
I,
think
that
we
want
to
not
have
set
this
precedent
that
you
know
it's
we're
going
to
have
a
hard
standard
everywhere
else
in
the
city
and
the
north
side.
It's
the
Wild
West
right
like
we
need
to
be
meeting
these
standards,
and
so
I
really
appreciate
everything
else
that
councillor
right
had
to
say
and
I
will
support
his
motion.