►
From YouTube: May 13, 2019 Minneapolis City Planning Commission
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission Meeting
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/
A
A
my
name
is
Sam
Rockwell
I'm
president,
the
Commission
I'm
joined
by
commissioners,
Ellison,
Brown,
Coleman,
Swezey,
Luca,
Pierre,
Schrader
and
Olsen.
First
thing
we
do
is
take
a
motion
to
approve
minutes
from
the
last
meeting
here.
A
motion,
a
second
any
discussion,
all
in
favor
opposed
motion
carries
next
up.
I
will
take
a
report
from
the
Committee
of
the
Whole
consent
agenda
and
I'll
kick
that
over
to
Commission
eliptic
here
Thank.
A
A
Any
discussion
on
favor
and
he
posed
alright.
Our
next
task
is
to
organize
our
agenda
for
today.
I'm
gonna
walk
through
the
agenda
item
by
item.
If
there
is
a
something
you
were
here
to
testify
on,
please
raise
your
hand
and
let
us
know
otherwise
we
will
put
it
through
a
consent
agenda.
Okay,
put
that
through.
So
our
first
item
is
number
one
Malcom
yards
phase,
one
445
Malcolm
Avenue
Southeast,
and
that
will
be
continued
to
the
June
third
public
hearing
item
number
two
is
17
17
second
Street
northeast
in
Ward
3.
A
All
right
we've
got
one
person
here.
Thank
you.
We'll
just
discuss
item
number
two
item
number
three:
Ramsey
Street
northeast
vacation,
Ward,
three,
we'll
be
continuing
that
motion.
That
item
indefinitely
item
number
four
lagoon
apartments:
1721
lagoon
Avenue
in
Ward
7.
Anyone
here
wishing
to
testify
on
that
item,
seeing
no
one.
We
will
put
that
on
consent.
A
A
2015-2019
21
13
Cedar
Avenue
South
in
1820
and
1834
East
22nd
Street
in
Ward
six.
Anyone
wishing
to
testify
on
this
item
see
no
one
will
put
item
number
six.
Sorry,
seven
and
consent
item
number:
eight
Midtown
corner
29:13
and
2941
26th
Avenue
South
29
12,
28th,
Avenue
South
in
Ward
2,
several
applications
there.
Anybody
wishing
to
testify
on
item
number
eight
seeing
none.
We
will
put
that
on
consent,
item
number
nine
3443,
Lyndale,
Avenue,
south
and
Ward
8.
We
will
continue
this
item
to
June
3rd
public
hearing.
So
anyone
is
here
for
that.
A
A
D
A
E
So
Peter
Crandall
senior
city
planner,
let's
see
that
land
use
it
was
brought
to
the
planning's
test
attention
that
there
may
have
been
some
irregularities
with
the
noticing
for
that
project
and
that
some
notices
to
adjacent
property
owners
were
not
received
within
proper
time
for
tonight's
public
hearing
and
as
a
result,
staff
has
recommended
that
the
item
be
continued
to
June.
Third,
it
will
be
Reno
'test
to
all
adjacent
property
owners
and
will
consider
the
applications
at
that
time.
Thank.
A
E
If
people
have
specific
questions,
they're
welcome
to
contact
me.
My
contact
information
is
on
the
City
Planning
Commission
or
the
City
Planning
Department's
website,
and
several
people
from
the
neighborhood
organization
have
been
in
touch
with
me,
so
you
can
reach
out
to
them
as
well
for
contact
info.
Thank.
A
F
A
G
Evening,
president
Rockwall
and
commissioners,
the
project
for
you
is
just
a
rezoning
from
the
existing
zoning
district
of
our
to
be
they're,
requesting
to
put
an
art,
studio
and
gallery
in
this
property,
and
they
are
requesting
the
c1
zoning
district,
which
is
the
first
district
that
allows
that
type
of
use
its
most
recently
been
used
as
offices
for
Eastside
neighborhood
services.
This
property
was
also
constructed
in
1933
as
a
commercial
space
and
based
on
the
required
finding
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
the
rezoning.
G
A
H
A
A
I
The
property
that
they're
talking
about
is
adjacent
to
my
backyard
and
I'm
sure
you're
all
familiar
with
how
busy
it
gets,
because
that
little
neighborhood
is
turning
into
a
mini
up
town
every
weekend
during
the
summer.
There's
a
festival
going
on
lots
and
lots
of
traffic
and
foot
traffic
and
activities
behind
the
building
that
they're
taking
over
for
their
classes
is
a
big
vacant
lot.
I
You
know
grassy
and
then
to
the
side,
there's
a
parking
lot,
and
it
is
my
experience
that
they
are
going
to
fill
that
with
you
know
their
wares
to
sell
or
operate
to
other
people.
I
have
a
dog
I
have
grandchildren
that
are
very
shy.
I
feel
that
when
they
feel
that
it's
gonna
really
interrupt
my
my
activities
in
my
yard,
there's
no
way
to
avoid
it.
I
I,
don't
know
how
else
to
explain
it,
but
you
know
something
you
know
I
last
night
I
was
in
my
yard,
and
there
were
a
few
people
in
there
already
putting
plants
in
and
I
walked
over,
and
you
know
she
seemed
to
want
brush
me
off,
but
so
no,
we
won't
be
doing
that
and
my
daughter
said
well.
Maybe
next
year-
and
she
goes
oh
yeah-
maybe
next
year,
so
they
have
full
intentions
of
filling
that
space
with
lots
of
people
every
weekend
during
the
summer,
and
that's
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
out.
C
I
I
live
at
17,
23rd,
Street
and
right
behind
me
is
their
building
where
it
used
to
be
the
daycare
for
elders
and
so
there's
a
little
deck
and
then
there's
a
little
like
a
little
government
area
close
to
the
deck
and
then
there's
a
big
I
would
say
50
by
a
hundred
foot,
grassy
area.
That
notoriously
was
just
filled
with
neat
weeds,
which
I
dealt
with
and
then
right.
Next
to
that
is
a
huge
parking
lot
that
all
belongs
to
that
property.
Okay,.
C
I
A
A
J
And
area
my
name
is
Michelle
Tabor
agent
applied,
Polk,
Street
northeast,
but
I
think
she
neglected
to
say
she
talked
to
him
and
they
said
that
they
were
going
to
be
building
a
privacy
fence
and
she
wants
to
know
what
she
can
do
to
make
sure
ensure
that
that,
if
something's
gonna
happen
to
keep
her
property
pleasurable
property
for
what
she
pays.
So
that's
where
the
tax
is
going
up.
So
that's
what
she's
running
a
lot,
how
to
find
out
about
that
and
to
enforce
it.
F
I
said
I
think
in
this
case,
since
it
is
a
property,
that's
located
along
a
community
corridor,
we
can
certainly
make
the
case
that
the
commercial
zoning
is
consistent
with
the
Comprehensive
Plan.
I
also
think,
given
that
there
is
an
existing
commercial
building
on
the
property,
it's
it's
there.
There
aren't
a
lot
of
reasonable
uses
of
under
the
r2b
zoning,
for
that
use.
Just.
H
F
Address
the
testifiers
concerns
you
know.
In
this
case
we
are
simply
asked
to
consider
the
reasoning.
There
is
no
site
plan,
that's
part
of
this
application,
so
we
can't
really
attach
conditions
to
that.
I
guess
I
would
just
encourage
her
to
maybe
connect
with
that
property
owner
and
better
understand
what
they're,
looking
at
in
terms
of
screening
I,
also
believe
that
zoning
code
addresses
in
some
way
outdoor
utilization
of
commercial
property
and
screening.
So
there
may
be
some
opportunity
there
as
well
Thank.
A
E
The
project
is
current
or
the
sites
are
currently
occupied
by
two
single-family
homes
and
one
triplex.
The
property
owner
is
proposing
to
demolish
the
existing
structures
on
the
site
in
order
to
construct
a
new
three-story
residential
building
with
17
dwelling
units.
In
order
to
accomplish
that,
they
will
be
rezoning.
E
So
members
of
the
Commission
who
have
been
around
for
a
minute
may
remember
that
we've
seen
several
proposals
for
this
site
in
the
past,
including
a
four-story
condominium,
building
a
four-story
assisted
living
facility
and,
most
recently,
a
four-story
version
of
this
proposal.
As
a
residential
structure,
the
applicant
has
been
working
closely
with
city
staff
with
the
neighborhood
organization
and
with
adjacent
property
owners
to
come
up
with
provisions
to
the
proposal
that
meet
the
concerns
of
neighbors,
as
well
as
concerns
of
staff
that
the
project
comply
with
comprehensive
plan
guidance
for
the
site.
E
E
As
I
stated
previously,
the
current
proposal
is
a
three-story
48
foot
residential
proposal.
The
functional
height
of
the
building
to
the
roof
deck
is
actually
38
feet,
but
the
proposal
includes
several
stair
enclosures
that
access
rooftop
patios
and
that
the
height
of
those
is
included
in
the
overall
height
of
the
project.
E
E
E
K
E
Are
proposing
the
replacement
of
some
of
the
public
right-of-way
in
in
front
of
the
building?
I
just
received
that
letter
today
from
the
strategic
planning
director
at
the
park
board
and
we
do
have
park
board
staff
on
our
preliminary
development
review
process.
That
looks
at
all
proposals
prior
to
my
new
submissions,
so
the
Park
Board
has
seen
this
project.
They
will
have
to
coordinate
with
Park
Board
officials
in
obtaining
whatever
required
permissions
or
permits
they
need
in
order
to
do
work
in
the
public
right-of-way
along
that
Street.
A
L
My
name
is
Bhaskar
Shireen.
My
address
is
2701
Lake
of
the
Isles
Parkway
East,
so
I'm,
the
landowner
of
the
three
properties
and
my
family
actually
initially
lived
in
the
middle
unit,
30:21
that
we
lived
there
for
approximately
six
years
and
over
the
years,
sort
of
ended
up
for
various
reasons.
You
know,
buying
the
properties
on
either
side
and
when
we
moved
had
long
thought
it
would
be
a
wonderful
spot
to
have
a
development.
L
You
know
cos
it's
a
very
busy
area,
it's
across
from
the
sailing
school
and
the
former
Tim
fish,
restaurant
and
and
so
for
about
the
the
past
two
plus
years
we've
been
working
to
try
to
find
a
suitable
project
that
would
really
enhance
the
neighborhood
and
we
initially
started
with
a
five-story
condo
project
and
after
several
neighborhood
meetings.
You
know
we
realized
that
this
was
really
not
acceptable
or
not
really
appropriate
to
the
scale
of
the
neighborhood.
L
And
so
we
backed
that
down
and
went
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
and
then
put
together
a
four
story
project
which
initially,
we
decided
to
attempt
a
senior
living
facility.
But
this
required
some
zoning
up
to
r4
and-
and
that
was
an
issue,
so
we
then
sort
of
backed
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
and
found
a
sort
of
a
hybrid
of
condo
and
apartment
rental
units,
a
four
story
version
and
and
again
worked
quite
a
bit
with
the
neighborhood,
and
you
know,
heard
their
concerns
about.
L
You
know
respecting
the
shoreline
overlay,
so
we
went
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
this
most
recent
version,
I
think
is
one
we're
pretty
excited
about,
because
I
think
for
the
first
time
in
two
years,
we've
really
had
you
know
good
collaboration
with
city
staff
with
the
neighbourhood
with
the
neighbors,
and
we
actually
took
a
little
different
approach.
We
actually
the
echo
group
had
a
subcommittee
just
designated
for
the
project
and
it
was
actually
very
useful
for
us.
L
We
actually
had
them
come
sit
in
on
our
meetings
and
several
really
good
ideas
came
out
of
that,
including
how
we
actually
have
the
parking
layout
sort
of
some
of
the
nuances
of
the
building.
So
what
you
have
before
you
now
is
sort
of
come
out
of
all
of
that
collaboration,
and
it's
a
it's.
A
three
storey
building
as
Peter
mentioned,
but
the
top
floor
will
be
condos
for
sale
and
there'll,
be
three
of
those
and
then
apartment
buildings,
apartment
units
for
the
other
14
units
so
and
then
I
do
have
Scott
from
DJ
architecture.
L
A
M
M
M
M
O
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
Lee
Todd
I
live
at
31:39,
Irving
Avenue,
South
I'm,
the
chair
of
the
echo
livability
committee
and
the
subcommittee
that
worked
with
masseur
and
his
team,
and
you
have
a
letter
from
the
echo
board.
That's
been
approved
in
your
packets
I
want
to
speak
to
two
things
that
are
a
bit
unique
about
this
project.
One
is
this:
is
the
most
equitable
fair
cooperative
situation
we've
run
into
thanks
in
no
part
to
Monsieur
terrain
and
djr.
O
They've
done
a
really
good
job
at
working
with
the
neighborhood
asking
us
questions,
giving
us
a
chance
to
to
let
them
know
the
areas
that
upgrade
is
concerned,
us
not
just
the
height
issues,
but
issues
relating
to
how
we
have
children
in
that
alley.
Those
alleys
are
really
important
and
we're
trying
to
make
sure
that
the
access
was
proper
and
it
it
has
been
quite
satisfactory
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
say
it.
Thank
you.
O
The
second
part
is
that
p-ting,
the
one
concern
we
have
and
you've
probably
saw
it
in
the
packet
right
up,
is
the
fact
that
that
that
the
building
is
requesting
a
48-foot
variance
in
the
CU
p
for
height,
and
our
concern
of
that
is
the
actual
building
itself
is
38
feet,
39
feet
and
then
there's
these
little
patios,
that
they've
got
that
are
set
back,
they're,
not
visible,
and
we're
fine
with
this
building.
The
way
it
is.
Our
concern
relates
to
the
larger
issue
of
call
it
comparative
precedent.
O
We've
worked
with
a
lot
of
developers,
every
developer,
that
comes
in,
says
well,
I'm,
building
just
block
from
that
building
and
that
building
is
50
feet.
Therefore,
I
should
be
able
to
start
at
50
feet
and
go
up,
and
our
concern
is
that
we
don't
like
it.
We
don't
like
that.
We
don't
like,
starting
rather
than
negotiating
from
35
feet,
which
is
a
shoreline
ordinance
or
suddenly
positioned
to
weaken
ago.
O
So
that's
a
request:
either
write
something
in
this
one,
so
it
can
be
specific
to
this
one,
but
in
a
more
general
guideline,
you're
gonna
have
rooftop
patios
all
over
the
city
and
they're
popping
up
and
and
you,
if
you
don't,
have
a
policy
about
them
with
regard
to
height
and
the
effect
on
the
height
ordinances
they
have,
it
would
be
useful
if
you
were
one
up
so
with
that.
Thank
you.
Thank.
P
Evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
Jenny
Walter
and
I
live
at
3020
Knox,
Avenue
South,
my
home,
is
directly
east
of
this
proposed
development
site
I'm.
Also
a
member
of
the
echo
board,
my
husband
and
I
purchased
our
home
in
2015
and
started
a
family
and
now
have
two
young
boys
age.
Three
and
one
we've
been
closely
involved
with
this
development
since
its
infancy.
P
Over
the
past
year,
we've
worked
closely
with
the
Centurion
and
the
development
team
and
I
would
like
to
thank
them
for
taking
the
time
to
listen
to
our
concerns
and
for
collaborating
with
the
neighborhood,
specifically
with
those
who
are
directly
impacted
by
this
development.
I
am
pleased
with
many
aspects
of
this
current
proposal.
We
are
happy
that
the
underground
parking
entrance
exit
is
located
at
the
northern
end
of
the
alley.
There
are
young
children
that
live
a
Knox
Avenue
south
and
our
residential
alley
is
our
main
entrance
and
exit
to
our
home.
P
It
is
essential
that
our
alley
remain
a
residential,
pedestrian,
friendly
alleyway
and
one
which
neighboring
homes
can
continue
to
use
safely
by
foot
bicycle
or
while
pushing
a
stroller
down
to
31st
Street
the
lake
or
two
Knox
Avenue
South.
We're
all
so
happy
that
this
will
be
a
mixed
rental
and
condo
development
that
allows
for
larger
floor
plans.
So
hopefully
more
families
can
move
into
the
area.
P
The
height
of
the
building,
which
currently
stands
at
49
feet
remains
of
concern.
I'm,
fearful
that
this
development
will
set
a
dangerous
precedent
for
all
other
developments
along
a
Parkway
and
allowed
developers
to
plow
through
the
shoreland
overlay
district
guidelines,
an
uptown
small
area
plan
to
build
extreme
Heights
around
our
neighborhood
and
sacred
lakes.
P
I
realized
that
it
has
taken
a
lot
of
work
and
negotiations
on
the
part
of
the
neighborhood
and
the
development
team
to
get
to
this
point,
but
as
a
mother
I
want
my
children
to
grow
up
and
know
a
Minneapolis
where
they
have
access
to
our
beautiful
lakes
parks
and
wildlife
unobstructed
by
high-rises.
In
order
for
this
to
happen,
we
must
uphold,
uphold
the
shoreline
overlay
district
ordinance.
A
Q
Q
As
a
member
of
an
elector
emergency
Lakes
environmental
coalition
task
force,
the
organization
that
was
responsible
for
the
passing
of
Minneapolis
shoreline
height
ordinance
in
1987
I
want
to
share
my
thoughts
about
this
east
Calhoun
Parkway
project
elect
lobby
for
the
shoreline
height
ordinance,
which
was
passed
in
1987
to
protect
Minneapolis,
Lakes
and
parkways
from
becoming
cluttered
with
urban
structures.
They
would
interfere
with
the
natural
environment,
the
maximum
height
of
structures
in
both
the
r3
and
the
shoreline
overlay
district
is
2
five
stories
or
35
feet.
Q
This
proposed
structure
is
three
stories:
38
feet
to
the
top
of
the
roof,
deck
and
48
feet
to
the
top
of
the
roof.
Top
stair
enclosures
the
applicant
seeking
a
conditional
use
permit
from
crease
the
maximum
building
height,
which
does
concern
me.
My
concern
with
this
project
is
that,
by
exceeding
the
guidelines
in
the
shoreline
high
ordinance,
the
president
can
be
established,
and
the
next
developer
will
use
this
project
as
a
wedge
to
build,
even
hired.
I.
Think
that's
all
of
our
concerns.
We're
not
I'm
not
opposing
the
project,
but
this
one
piece
is
concerning.
R
Afternoon,
Carolyn
Dennis
I
am
their
neighbor
to
the
south
of
this
proposal.
I
live
at
30,
33,
East,
Calhoun,
Parkway
I'm,
an
owner
in
the
condo
on
the
first
floor
unit,
so
I'm
also
here
to
express
concern
about
breaking
the
shoreland
overlay,
but
from
a
different
aspect
than
what
you
might
have
heard
before
so
I'm
an
avid
sailor.
I
grew
up
sailing
on
Lake
Calhoun
at
the
Nell
Minneapolis
sailing
Center,
and
it's
the
community
that
that
building
Fosters
is
absolutely
incredible.
R
We
they
are,
they
are
no
longer
working
there,
but
they
teach
students,
teenagers,
mother-daughter
classes,
father/son
classes,
adult
classes.
It's
really
incredible.
The
amount
of
people
who
come
to
participate
and
learn
how
to
sail
in
addition
to
the
sailing
community
in
Calhoun.
One
thing
that
you
might
not
be
aware
of
that
within
sailing
there's
something
called
wind
shadows
and
when
shadows
are
where
the
wind
is
blocked
between
seven
and
ten
times
the
height
of
a
structure.
R
So
something
to
consider
with
the
shoreline
overlay
that
might
not
have
been
taken
into
account
before
is
that
if
we
break
that
you're
starting
to
create
wind
shadows
across
the
entire
lake,
if
the
president
is
set
by
this
building
that
others
can
then
right
and
build
off
of
so
that
would
be
disruptive
to
the
sailing
community.
It
would
harm
the
culture
and
the
ability
of
the
sailing
school
to
to
serve
the
community
and
the
way
that
it
does
it's
quite
difficult,
as
you
can
imagine,
to
be
sailing
and
then
not
have
any
wind.
R
A
S
D
We
reside
at
3:01
five
East
Calhoun
Parkway.
We
are
building
just
north
of
this
property.
One
of
our
largest
concerns
is
parking.
We
currently
reside
in
on
a
six
doorman
unit.
Where
we
have
20
residents.
We
only
have
five
spots
behind
our
building,
so
that
leaves
us
to
find
public
parking
on
the
streets.
Knox's
permit
parking
only
and
East
Calhoun
Parkway
between
lake
and
31st
recently
became
last
July,
no
overnight
parking
between
the
months
of
April
and
October.
D
So
that
leads
us
to
find
parking
locks
away,
and
it
is
not
uncommon
that
in
the
summer,
hi
and
left
parking
floor
blocks
away
and
it's
a
huge
safety
concern
for
all
females
in
my
building.
Now
what
concerns
me
is
with
this
proposed
unit.
There
are
17
dwellings
inside
with
only
18
spots
and
I,
know
they're,
saying
that
they're
gonna
be
using
the
transit.
Well,
as
a
millennial,
I
can
assure
you
we
have
20
cars
for
our
building.
We
may
be
taking
the
bikes
and
scooters
in
the
summer,
but
everyone
has
a
car.
D
But
it's
extremely
concerning
for
my
safety
thinking
that
I
might
are
gonna
have
to
move
out
of
the
area
they
live
there
for
three
years,
he's
lived
there
for
five
and
we
love
the
area.
We
have
been
recently
going
to
Echo
meetings
because
of
the
parking,
because
it's
a
huge
safety
concern
for
me
and
I-
don't
want
to
have
to
be
on
the
phone
with
someone
every
single
night
walking
home,
because
I
can
get
parking
out
front
or
behind
my
building,
or
at
least
on
31st,
between
Knox
and
white,
a
nice
caboose.
D
S
D
A
T
Good
evening,
I'm
Jenny
Oliphant
I'm
about
34
15,
Lyndale
Avenue,
so
I
wanted
to
echo
the
concerns
I
heard
about
the
wind
for
the
Saline
school
and
and
ensure
you
that
you
consider
these
kinds
of
environmental
impacts
that
aren't
just
about
the
number
of
people
that
don't
drive
cars
that
ride
in
buses
and
things
like
this,
but
are
actually
our
environmental
concerns
that
affect
our
entire
communities.
If
these
buildings
are
built
on,
Calhoun
they'll
be
built
around
other
areas
as
well.
As
we
know,
these
areas
are
sometimes
don't
in
the
same
similar
way.
A
U
E
We
have
a
process
for
inspections
that
generally
happens
about
two
years
after
the
approval,
the
land
use
approvals,
because
that's
how
good
that's,
how
long
the
vehicles
are
good
for
and
the
applicant
is
expected
to
have
made
significant
progress
on
the
construction
by
that
point
in
time.
So
that's
probably
the
earliest
that
we
would
be
made
aware
of
any
inconsistencies
with
that
condition.
I
did
include
in
the
condition
that,
if
the
trees
are
damaged
in
any
way
that
the
applicant
will
have
to
propose
some
kind
of
mitigation
plan,
thank.
U
A
E
The
project
qualifies
for
the
transit
reduction
incentive,
which
would
bring
the
parking
requirement
to
zero
for
a
project
of
the
size
or
that
not
the
case.
Then
the
regular
minimum
would
be
one
to
one
in
terms
of
one
parking
unit
per
dwelling
unit
and
the
applicants
proposing
18
parking
spaces
for
seven
tween.
Seventeen
dwelling
units
Thank.
N
N
N
So
I
am
happy
to
hear
from
the
echo
and
the
residents
around
there
and
I
have
concerns
that
I've
expressed
in
the
past
about
deviating
from
the
shoreland
height
district,
our
height
requirements,
and,
to
me
the
particular
failure
of
this
one
is
views
from
the
water.
While
the
staff
analysis
of
the
conditional
use
permit
talks
about
views,
it
doesn't
talk
about
views
from
the
water
and
the
shoreland.
Ordinance
also
includes
consideration
for
views
from
the
water.
I
will
say
that
I'm
also
not
I,
don't
feel
there's
no
compelling
reason
to
have
those
bump
ups.
N
They
look
a
little
odd
to
me
and
it
is
just
we
have
the
units
that
front
and
can
see
Lake
Calhoun,
and
then
we
also
have
these
bump
ups,
so
there's
no
detriment
to
the
unit
itself
to
me
from
removing
those,
since
they
already
have
wonderful
views
to
Lake
Calhoun,
so
I
am
not
in
support
and
I.
That's
why
Michelle.
C
F
And
I
I
don't
support
the
motion.
I
think
the
findings
are
lined
in
the
staff
report,
for
the
conditional
use
permit
for
height
are
are
very
well
thought-out
and
I.
Think
in
this
particular
location
because
of
its
proximity
to
the
commercial
corridor
and
language
in
in
the
small
area
plan
for
this
area.
With
respect
to
transition,
this
this
site
falls
within
that
transition
area.
I
think
when
we
look
at
one
of
the
findings
we
have
to
make
relates
to
scale
and
character
of
surrounding
uses.
F
I
think
a
building
of
this
height
is
generally
in
keeping
with
the
other
structures
we
see
in
the
immediate
area.
I
also
want
to
point
out.
You
know
we
heard
from
some
of
the
testifiers
concerned
about
precedent,
or
you
know
if
we
approve
this
condition
conditional
use
permit.
Does
that
somehow
open
up
the
floodgates
for
other
projects
elsewhere
right
I
do
think
it's
important
to
note
that
we
really
evaluate
every
proposal
on
its
on
its
own
merits,
I
think
just
because
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
48-foot
two
building
is
appropriate
at
this
location.
U
E
M
B
I
D
C
I'll
be
supporting
this
motion.
I
concur
with
Commissioner
Brown
I
I.
Don't
think
it
sets
a
precedent
because
we
do
look
at
everything
independently
and
I
think
that
the
thoughtful
request
for
us
to
add
notations
about
the
fact
that
most
of
the
overrun,
with
exception
of
three
feet,
is
due
to
these
rooftop
access
things
that
you
can't
really
see
from
the
ground
as
much
as
we'd
like
to
do
that.
A
Also
add
that
by
coming
to
this
hearing
and
testifying
you're
on
the
public
record,
so
this
is
the
public
record
and
and
I
think
you've
got
something
you
can
point
to
anybody
who
comes
and
testifies
before
the
Planning
Commission
is
is
putting
those
views
on
the
public
record.
So
something
to
consider
all
right
with
that.
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
approve
the
conditional
use
permit
item
B,
all
in
favor.