►
From YouTube: May 11, 2020 City Planning Commission
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission Meeting
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/
B
D
D
E
F
D
F
D
F
G
B
H
B
C
I
J
D
K
F
B
That
motion
carries
our
next
order
of
business.
Is
to
organize
the
agenda
for
today's
hearing.
I
will
walk
through
the
items
on
the
agenda
and
I
I'm
not
sure
if
there
is
the
ability
for
folks
to
fund
unmute
if
they
are
on
the
phone
to
pull
something
off
for
consent.
But
if
you
wish
to
unmute
by
signaling
star
six,
our
agenda
is
available
for
those
listening
are
watching
on
youtube.
At
limbs,.
B
B
B
B
H
B
B
B
B
All
right,
we'll
replace
item,
number
nine
consent.
Item
number
10
is
1127
4th
street
southeast
and
411
12th
street
southeastern
ward.
3..
That
item
will
be
continued
to
the
june
1st
2020
city
planning.
Commission.
Hearing
item
number
11
is
200
at
12th
avenue,
south
and
11
11
second
street
south
in
ward.
Three
we'll
discuss
item
number
eleven
item
number
twelve
is
five.
Fourteen
five:
sixteen
and
five
twenty
west
lake
street
at
twenty
nine,
forty,
nine
garfield
avenue
south
and
ward.
Ten,
we'll
discuss,
item
number
12.
M
C
H
N
E
E
D
E
O
G
D
B
M
C
H
E
E
D
E
B
P
P
P
R
P
P
The
5th
street
plaza
will
be
a
pedestrian
friendly
zone
activated
by
outdoor
seating
and
daily
activity.
The
plaza
will
have
its
own
entrance
from
north
fifth
street
and
will
serve
as
the
drop-off
and
pick-up
zone
for
residents
office
users
as
well
as
west
restaurant
patrons.
This
function
is
necessary
to
ensure
the
pedestrian
and
driver
safety
is
north.
Fifth
street
is
a
two-way
street,
with
no
ability
for
drop-off
on
the
street.
P
P
P
P
The
character
of
the
area
will
be
enhanced
by
this
development,
including
the
green,
the
variants
for
the
plaza
standards.
They
are
seeking
exceptions
to
those
through
aerial
obstructions,
seeding
and
trash
and
recycling
receptacles,
and
we
are
asking
that
you
support
those
variances
next
slide,
please
applicant
or
the
excuse
me.
The
development
meets
almost
all
of
our
state
pound
review
standards.
They
are
seeking
alternative
compliance
for
building
placement.
The
building
is
located
more
than
eight
feet
from
north
fifth
street.
P
The
office
portion
of
this
pud
is
located
190
feet
back
and
that
is
to
accommodate
the
drop
off
along
north
fifth
street.
In
order
to
allow
cars
to
move
off
of
the
streets
and
onto
the
development
site
to
drop
off
and
pick
up
people,
they
need
alternative
compliance
for
visual
interest
and
there
are
blank
spaces
around
the
mechanical
areas.
P
They
are
not
meeting
window
requirements
on
the
parking
garage
sides
of
the
building
along
the
cedar
lake
trail
and
then
also
the
on
straight
parking
at
the
green
or
on
site
parking.
I
should
say,
and
then
they
also
need
alternative
compliance
for
ground
floor,
active
functions
and
then
ground
floor,
active
functions
within
the
parking
garages
and
again,
those
are
for
the
levels
that
are
facing
the
cedar
lake
trail
and
then
unscent
parking.
We
are
recommending
that
you
support
all
the
alternate
compliance
that's
needed
for
tonight
or
for
this
development.
O
Thank
you.
I
wanted
to
ask
about
the
44
surface
parking
spot,
so
the
downtown
parking
overlay
district
limits
it
to
to
only
20.,
and
I
kind
of
wanted
to
ask
the
developer
if
they're
available,
to
get
a
sense
of
what
would
the
alternative
be?
What
would
that
space
be
used
for
if
the
variance
was
denied?
I
know
it
can't
be
used
for
structures,
but
could
it
be
used
for
landscaping
or
something
else.
B
B
B
B
M
M
If
you
look
at
the
the
plan
and
I'm
not
sure
which
page
it's
on
with
what
you
have
in
front
of
you.
For
some
reason,
the
slides
are
not
showing
up
on
my
video
feed
here,
but
there
is
a
site
plan
of
the
green
and
you'll
see
the
the
parking
that
was
incorporated
into
the
green
space
is
strategically
located
at
the
perimeter
of
the
park,
and
a
lot
of
that
has
to
do
with,
as
hillary
had
mentioned,
access
to
those
spaces
for
short-term
use
for
patrons
of
the
park.
M
If
there
are
activated
events
and
the
intention
with
this
green
space,
there
is
to
really
have
it
a
highly
activated
space
so
that
it
it
is,
you
know,
not
just
a
place
to
stop
and
sit.
It
will
be
that
as
well,
but
it'll
also
be
a
place
to
have
events
and
engage
and
create
a
little
urban
oasis
off
the
cedar
lake
trail
and
for
the
entire
neighborhood
in
the
city.
M
So
regarding
if
the
spaces
were
not
parking,
you
know
I
I
guess.
To
that
extent,
they
they
might
not
be
part
of
the
green
space
at
all.
Much
of
that
additional
parking
is
on
mndot
land,
and
the
intention
was
to
make
sure
that
we
had
enough
to
service
the
area
and
still
provide
the
flexibility
and
functionality
to
have
things
whether
they
are
food,
food,
truck
events,
farmer's
markets
and
have
us
a
flexible
space
to
be
able
to
put
those
without
necessarily
impinging
on
the
green
space
itself
within
the
body
of
the
park.
T
M
I
hope
that
asks
answers
the
the
question,
but
we're
looking
at
it
and
and
as
we
see
the
the
need
for
some
parking
there,
some
people
and
the
intent
is
mostly
will
be
people
in
the
neighborhood
that
might
walk
or
bike
there.
But
certainly
some
people
are
not
ambulatory
enough
to
be
able
to
get
there,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
also
enough
spaces
for
people
that
might
be
coming
with
families
and
others
to
be
able
to
stop
in
and
bring
their
dog
or
whatever.
B
B
B
E
B
All
right,
so
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
item
a
conditional
use
permit
for
pud
in
b,
conditional
permit
for
surface
parking
with
44
spaces,
item
c
variants
for
the
surface
parking
item,
d,
variants
of
the
plaza
standards
and
e
site
plan
review
and
item
f,
the
the
preliminary
and
final
platform
so
items
a
through
f.
Commissioner
loop
keep
here.
B
C
C
H
E
B
B
U
U
U
U
The
applications
needed
for
the
project,
a
conditioning
use
permit
to
allow
for
residential
units
in
the
industrial
living
overlay
district
conditioning
this
permit
to
allow
for
an
increase
in
height
from
eight
stories.
108
stories
112
feet
to
12
stories,
132
feet,
variance
to
increase
the
floor
area
ratio
from
4.8
to
6.7
and
site
plan
review
and
I'll
just
note,
as
you
see
in
the
report,
that
the
variance
to
reduce
the
off
street
loading
requirement
has
been
withdrawn.
U
There
have
been
a
lot
of
public
comments
with
this
project.
Approximately
40
letters
submitted
some
supportive,
but
those
not
would
summarize
those
concerns
into
three
categories:
traffic
height
and
not
having
commercial.
On
the
first
floor
for
traffic,
specifically
concerns
of
congestion
at
the
washington
avenue
intersections
at
11th
and
12th
and
staff's
comments
are
the
following.
The
applicant
will
continue
to
work
with
public
works
and
cped
to
get
to
an
approvable
traffic
demand
management
plan.
Staff
will
continue
to
encourage
the
applicant
to
have
to
support
alternative
modes
of
transportation.
U
Also
note
another
positive
for
pedestrians
and
bicyclists
is
the
removal
of
a
curb
cut
on
second,
a
popular
bike
and
pedestrian
route.
Moving
on
to
the
height
for
the
condition
use
permit
to
allow
for
the
additional
height
12
stories
132
feet.
This
is
similar
in
size
and
height
to
neighboring
buildings,
applicants
stepping
back
that
upper
floor
and
all
the
developments
that
I've
mentioned
and
others
have
required,
have
gone
beyond
the
base
zoning
and
have
required
a
condition
use
permit
for
height
next
slide.
U
U
And
staff
has
continued.
The
last
thing
I
wanted
to
mention.
There
was
comments
about
not
having
commercial
on
the
ground
floor.
Staff
is
definitely
would
be
supportive
of
a
mixed
use
building,
but
it
is
not
a
requirement
at
this
location
so
with
all
that
staff
support
of
all
the
requested
applications
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
questions
that
you
may
have.
B
V
Thank
you,
commissioners
and
aaron
for
that
overview.
As
I
said,
my
name
is
kyle
brasser,
I'm
with
reuter
walton
the
applicant
on
this
project.
I
appreciate
the
time
to
speak
at
this
at
this
moment.
I
just
thought
it'd
be
helpful
to
provide
a
brief
background
on
our
project,
especially
because
I
know
not
all
the
commissioners
who
are
on
the
planning
commission
now
were
at
the
time
that
we
started
committee
the
whole
so
just
for
a
brief
overview.
V
We
received
overwhelmingly
positive
feedback
from
the
committee
at
that
time
on
all
aspects
of
our
design
and
did
receive
a
couple
questions
from
committee
members
about
whether
or
not
we
would
consider
going
taller,
considering
as
aaron
mentioned,
that
the
guidance
in
the
area
actually
under
the
comp
plan
would
provide
for
up
to
20
story
buildings.
We
also
met
with
dmna
three
separate
times
initially,
just
before
our
committee
of
the
whole
presentation
and
then
twice
subsequently
as
well.
V
At
that
initial
meeting,
with
the
m
a
we
presented
an
11
story,
202
unit,
building
the
same
as
what
we
presented
at
the
committee
the
whole
and,
more
recently,
we
have
updated
our
plans
to
a
12-story
225
unit.
Building
that
you
see
in
front
of
you
today,
I
I
would
like
to
just
address
I've.
Seen
some
of
the
public
comments.
That's
been
received
and
there's
a
little
bit
of
confusion.
I
think
there's
been
a
couple
letters
that
have
mentioned
that
we
presented
an
eight
story
building
at
one
point:
we
we
didn't.
M
V
Building
from
the
beginning,
and
then,
as
mentioned
recently,
did
update
it
to
an
11
story
built
or
receiving
a
12-story
building,
and
we
received
some
really
good
constructive
feedback
from
dmna
throughout
the
process,
and
I
just
want
to
list
a
couple
of
the
things
that
they
suggested
that
we
incorporate
into
our
plans
that
we
we
did
and
feel
that
it
makes
for
a
much
better
building.
We
eliminated,
as
aaron
mentioned,
the
request
for
an
off-street
loading
variant.
We
added
a
pet
walk
pet
relief
area
on
our
site.
V
We
increased
the
side,
yard
landscaping,
we
added
screening
around
our
transformer
and
generator,
and
we
added
architectural
variation
to
a
large
exposed
concrete
wall
along
one
of
the
facades
of
our
building.
And
again
I
really
really.
We
feel
that
this
has
been
a
it's
been
a
constructive
relationship
with
with
dmna
and
appreciate
their
feedback
in
making
our
design
improved.
V
V
K
V
So,
what
we've,
what
we've
done
since
that
time
is?
We
have
improved
the
landscaping
along
that
blank
wall,
we're
considering
some
taller
taller
landscaping
that
will
help
break
up
that
facade
and
also
precast
concrete
that
will
have
some
architectural
variation
to
it,
so
that
it's
not
just
a
blank
concrete
wall.
So
those
are
the
the
two
main
improvements
we've
made
to
that
to
softening
and
improving
the
aesthetic
of
that
facade.
K
T
I'm
the
president
of
the
homeowners
association
at
the
stonebridge
lofts,
which
is
directly
across
the
street
from
the
proposed
project,
and
we
have
not
had
any
negative
comments
in
the
past
about
the
various
projects
in
our
neighborhood
legacy.
11
and
the
like.
But
as
we
see
the
change
from
11
floors
to
12
floors
on
this
particular
proposal.
W
W
I
guess
we've
submitted
a
letter
that
the
board
has
which
urges
our
position,
but
I
would
like
to
emphasize
our
opposition
to
a
statement
in
the
in
the
staff
report,
and
this
has
to
do
with
the
code
section
551.850,
which
says
that
the
planning
commission
shall
consider
the
following
factors
when
determining
maximum
height
increases
and
the
second,
the
first
one
is
access
to
light
and
air
of
surrounding
properties.
I
don't
think
that's
directly
applicable
somewhat,
but
the
second
one
is
shadowing
of
residential
properties.
W
So
I
think
the
applicant
and
the
staff
have
both
said.
It's
minimal
impact
and
I
think
the
staff
comment
is
outside
of
winter
afternoons
and
evenings
shadowing
of
neighboring
residential
buildings
will
be
minimal
and
I
think,
as
steve
londenberg
just
indicated
that
and
this
the
shadow
studies
they
produce
only
shows
shadows
at
the
equinox
and
at
the
first
day
of
summer
and
the
first
day
of
winter.
W
B
E
E
V
N
Okay,
yeah.
I
agree
that
the
change
from
11
stories
to
12
stories,
whether
it's,
whether
it's
one
additional
floor
or
one
lesser
floor
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things,
has
a
relatively
negligible
effect,
and
I'd
also
note
that
even
even
the
maximum
height
allowable
in
this
district,
which
is
eight
stories
or
112
feet,
even
112
foot
building,
would
be
significantly
shadowing
at
at
certain
times
of
the
day
and
and
for
instance,
the
three
o'clock
in
the
afternoon
at
march,
21st
and
september
22nd,
and
also
note
that
we
did
there.
N
There
are
some
subtle
things
in
the
massing
of
the
building
that
do
slightly
less
than
the
shadowing.
The
top
floor
of
the
building
is
set
back,
10
feet
which,
which
lessens
the
shadowing,
and
then
there
are
also
the
main
body
of
the
building,
is
set
back
between
6
feet
and
16
feet
from
the
street,
particularly
on
the
west
side,
which
which
incrementally
improves
the
impact
of
shadowing
in
the
afternoon.
L
Question
maybe
about
the
south
and
unless
allegations
because
this
blank
seems
a
bit
extreme,
I
know
we
focus
quite
a
bit
at
committing
the
whole.
So
can
you
maybe
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
this?
I'm
having
a
really
tough
time
with
that
portion
of
the
site
plan
review
number
six.
If
you
could
address
that
a
little
bit.
N
N
N
Which
appears
to
be
page
13
of
this
34-page
drawing
set
and
there
you
can
see
the
river
birch
continue
on
the
south
side
along
the
south
side,
with
the
exception
of
where
the
pet
relief
area
is
and
the
second
area
well
for
garage
ventilation,
and
the
thing
that
we
like
about
that
design.
Is
that
the
we
think
that
the
the
white
bark
of
the
river
birch
tree
will
create
a
nice
striation
against
the
rather
dark
concrete
background
and
create
a
nice
abstract
pattern
where
it's
not
covered
by
foliage.
K
And
then
bob
I
saw
that
on
that
landscaping
sheet,
which,
thanks
for
pointing
it
out,
you
guys
have
some
shrubbery
screening,
the
generator
it
appears
on
the
west
side.
But
I'm
wondering
is
there
any
sort
of
shade
or
screening
for
the
pet
area?
Just
you
know.
I
mean
animals
get
hot
too
kind
of
thing.
N
Good
question:
as
of
as
of
right
now,
there
is
not
a
an
architectural
or
landscape
element
that
helps
shade
that,
but
that's
that's
a
good
thought.
It
might
be
something
that
we
consider.
We
typically
don't
plant
trees
within
pet
relief
areas
because
they
get
really
abused,
but
we
could
try
to
maybe
squeeze
in
another
tree
to
the
east,
closer
to
the
east
entrance
to
that
pet
relief
area
which
might
provide
some
some
shade.
N
H
J
O
G
B
Very
good.
That
concludes
our
business.
With
item
number
eleven,
I
believe
we
recorded
commissioner
loop
appears
I,
which
is
a
question
of
the
chat
we'll
move
on
to
item
number
12,
514,
516,
520,
west
lake
street
2949,
garfield
avenue
south
in
ward.
10
staff
is
peter
crandall
peter
I'll
hand
it
over
to
you.
A
A
A
A
The
exterior
materials
the
applicant
is
proposing
are
brick
metal
panel,
fiber
cement
and
a
wood
look
metal
panel.
The
project
would
be
in
compliance
with
this
site
plan
review
standards
for
exterior
materials,
except
for
the
north
elevation,
for
which
the
applicant
is
requesting
alternative
compliance
to
exceed
the
maximum
amount
of
fiber
cement.
A
A
A
A
A
X
A
Steph
is,
in
general,
supportive
of
a
high
density
mixed
use
project
in
this
location,
but
it's
really
a
matter
of
being
able
to
make
the
legal
findings
for
the
far
variance
which
we
don't
feel
like.
We
can
do
in
this
case
in
particular,
because
the
applicant
is
not
achieving
all
of
the
available,
far
bonuses
under
the
current
zoning
code,
including
most
specifically,
the
bonus
for
mixed
uses
on
an
adopted
goods
and
services
corridor
and
in
a
land
use
category
that
calls
for
commercial
space
at
the
ground
floor.
K
A
It
wouldn't
necessarily
be
visible
from
the
neighboring
property,
either
as
there's
a
similar
condition
proposed
for
that
project
in
terms
of
the
ground
level
uses
and
then
along
the
north
property
line.
There
is
again
the
ground
floor
of
that
elevation
is
enclosing
the
parking
there's,
the
proposed
dog
run
at
that
elevation
on
the
ground
level
and
then
some
enclosed
and
screened
mechanical
equipment.
F
A
Staff
is
open
to
a
reasonable
variance,
in
this
case
above
the
minimum,
primarily
because
the
current
code
is
designed
around
a
four-story
maximum
for
the
c3a.
So
we
would
expect
that
a
six-story
proposal
that
meets
the
intent
of
the
land-use
guidance
would
reasonably
have
a
higher
far
than
what
would
have
been
previously
allowed
under
the
previous
comprehensive
plan.
But
we
feel
like
the
request,
primarily
because
it's
a
seven
story,
building
that
doesn't
incorporate
a
lot
of
changes
or
modulation
to
the
massing
to
reduce
the
additional
bulk.
A
G
G
I
think
it's
more
a
comment
on
as
we're
starting
to
re,
really
look
at
the
next
version
of
the
the
code
and
what
that's
going
to
be
it's
a
little
bit
easier
to
say
to
compare
height
but
far,
which
has
a
lot
of
the
same
effects.
It's
really
hard
to
kind
of
qualify
to
people
and
a
lot
of
what
we
do
with
the
planning
commission
is
really
make.
G
Some
of
these
things
make
some
of
these
decisions
and
trade-offs
more
accessible,
and
I
feel
like
we're
just
not
there
yet
with
with
far
I'm
not
sure
how
to
how
to
do
that.
So
I
think
it's
more
just.
I
really
appreciate
what
mr
crandall
did
in
this
instance,
really
explaining
it
and
kind
of
saying
here.
All
the
trade-offs
in
here
are
the
ways
to
get
to
get
the
bonuses.
Y
B
I
would
well,
I
guess
I
would
defer
to
peter.
We
need
to
take
these
individually
as
projects
in
terms
of
our
voting.
Commissioners
all
have
the
packets
and
have
reviewed
those
packets
as
well.
So
I
think,
if
you
wanted
to
provide
the
context
of
both
buildings,
that
would
be
fine
with
with
all
of
us.
B
R
F
B
A
B
A
If
I
could
win
casey's
weighing
in
on
the
chat
here
and
says
that
there's
no
restriction
in
us
doing
a
joint
presentation
and
consideration
as
long
as
we
vote
on
the
items
separately,
so
I'll
leave
it
up
to
you.
If
you
think
they
are
very
similar
projects
with
similar
applications
and
similar
issues.
So
I
could
go
through
the
second
project
briefly
and
explain
staff's
position
on
those
applications
and
then
let
the
applicants
speak
to
both
at
the
same
time.
And
then
you
can
take
the
actions
individually
if
you'd
prefer
that.
A
A
A
A
A
A
Off
of
the
harriet
avenue
elevation
at
the
ground
level,
the
applicant
again
similarly
is
proposing
two
small
retail
spaces
and
some
residential
amenity
space.
In
this
proposal.
They
are
also
incorporating
three
walk-up
residential
units
along
the
harriet
avenue
elevation
and
then
the
remainder
of
the
at-grade
space
is
occupied
by
amenity
and
circulation
space
and
bicycle
parking.
A
A
A
A
And
then
required
applications
here
and
I'm
sorry.
I
failed
to
include
one
application
on
this
list,
but
the
applicant
would
be
requesting
a
rezoning
from
c2
to
c3a
conditional
use,
permit
to
increase
the
maximum
building
height
and
that's
to
go
from
four
stories:
56
feet
to
7
stories,
78
feet,
variance
to
increase
the
maximum
floor
area
ratio
from
3.375
to
5.2.
A
A
So
again,
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
the
rezoning
the
conditional
use
permit
and
the
variance
to
minimum
vehicle
parking
requirements
for
this
project.
We're
recommending
denial
of
the
variance
to
the
maximum
far
into
the
site
plan
review,
for
the
same
reasons
that
I
stated
in
our
discussion
of
the
adjacent.
A
M
B
A
B
B
Y
Y
So
in
this
first
slide,
the
view
is
looking
northwest
within
and
it's
showing
uptown
in
the
distance.
So
the
phase
one
building
like
peter
mentioned
is
at
410
west
lake
street
and
that's
under
construction
and
that
will
deliver
a
hundred
and
eleven
affordable
housing
units.
This
october,
in
phase
two
located
located
at
500
west
lake
street,
that
includes
132
market
rate
units
and
55
parking
spaces
and
then,
lastly,
phase
three
at
550
west
lake
that
has
95
affordable
units
and
55
parking
spaces.
Y
So
in
this
image
you
can
see
a
number
of
multi-family
housing
projects
that
have
been
constructed
west
of
lindale
over
the
last
decade
and
more
recently
there
have
been
multi-family
projects
constructed
just
north
of
our
project
site.
So
if
you
go
to
slide
number
two,
you
can
see
those
projects
more
closely,
so
the
lindy
apartments
are
along
the
midtown
greenway
between
grand
and
harriet
and
that's
a
six-story
building.
Y
Many
commissioners
encouraged
us
to
redesign
the
exterior
of
phase
two
so
that
they
weren't
twin
buildings
and
we've
done
that.
So,
with
those
comments
in
mind,
we
changed
the
color
palette
to
be
lighter
on
phase
two
and
we
also
modified
the
roof
line
to
be
different.
It's
a
seven
story
building
which
provides
a
visual
stepping
of
materials
along
lake
street,
and
then
you
can
see
that
in
slide
number
four.
Y
If
you
go
to
slide
number
six,
you
can
see
that
we've
also
moved
the
outdoor
amenity
terrace
to
the
southeast
corner
of
the
building
on
seventh
floor
and
that
will
provide
more
massing
relief
at
the
harriet
intersection
on
slide.
Number
seven
you'll
see
that
as
you
move
north
along
the
harriet
elevation,
then
you
have
a
building
recess
of
more
than
55
feet
for
a
courtyard
and
that
courtyard
is
32
feet
wide
and
on
slide
number
eight.
Y
This
is
an
image
when
you're
standing
at
the
street
at
lake
and
harriet,
and
from
that
sidewalk
the
building
is
perceived
as
a
six
story.
Building
next
slide,
please
at
the
cal
meeting
we
talked
actually
quite
a
bit
about
the
ground
floor
uses
and
we
talked
about
commercial
versus
publicly
accessible.
What
was
the
definition
things
like
that,
so
we
revised
the
ground
floor
plan
in
both
buildings
to
include.
Y
Active
uses
on
slide
number
nine,
that's
phase,
two
building,
all
of
the
spaces
highlighted
in
blue,
are
publicly
accessible,
so
there
are
two
retail
spaces
with
just
over
1700
square
feet,
and
then
the
club
room,
business
center
and
conference
room
are
all
available
for
public
use
so
to
help
facilitate
the
easy
use
of
those
spaces.
We've
added
exterior
doors,
as
well
as
access
from
the
vestibule
very
similar
on
slide.
Y
Y
Each
building
will
incorporate
green
roof
elements
that
help
to
capture
storm
water.
Composting
will
be
available
for
residents,
and
this
was
something
that
was
very
important
to
the
whittier
residents
when
we,
when
we
met
with
them.
So
we've
included
composting
within
the
projects
and
I'll
just
note
that
there's
a
letter
of
support
from
whittier
in
your
packets
for
the
projects,
we'll
have
an
our
car
vehicle
available
and
I'm
saying
within
the
campus,
because
it's
really
the
three
buildings
and
we'll
have
one
car
that
can
be
used
by
any
residents.
Y
R
L
Y
B
B
Y
B
G
Commissioner
schrader,
oh
thank
you
just
I,
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
keeps
coming
up
around
these
buildings,
just
how
how
bulky
they
are
like
how
big
the
difference
is,
and
in
far
from
what's
there
could
you
help
kind
of
give
an
idea
of
what
what
it
would
mean
to
have
a
a
less
bulky
building?
What
would
be
sacrificed
to
you
know
what
would
be
would
be
gained.
J
I
had
trouble
keeping
track,
fakery,
drinker,
biddle
and
reese,
and
working
for
the
applicant
I'm
going
to
speak
about
how
we
view
the
2040
plan,
land
use
and
built
form
guidance
applying
to
the
projects.
The
first,
the
community
mixed
use,
future
land
use,
designation
calls
for
large-scale
mixed-use
development
and
active
non-residential
uses
are
required
at
the
street
level,
but
the
2040
plan
does
not
require
that
they
constitute
50
or
more
of
the
ground
floor
area.
J
So
then,
second
issue,
the
height
and
the
proposed
far
of
the
projects
we
believe
comply
with
the
corridor.
Six
built
form
guidance
requests
to.
As
you
know,
requests
to
exceed
six
stories
will
be
evaluated
on
the
basis
of
whether
or
not
a
taller
building
is
a
reasonable
means
for
further
achieving
account.
Plan
goals
and
staff
concurs
that
the
project
does
that
it
does
further
com
plan
goals
and
therefore
they
are
recommending
approving
a
seven-story
height
building.
J
However,
I
think
it's
reasonable
to
conclude
that
the
plan
implicitly
supports
higher
far
for
buildings
that
justify
increased
height
and
the
purpose
of
allowing
increased
height
over
corridor
six
guidance
or
other
built
home
guidance
isn't
just
height
for
height
sake.
It's
to
allow
more
floor
area,
it's
to
allow
more
density
in
terms
of
both
far
and
for
projects
like
this
number
of
housing
units
or
size
of
housing
units.
R
J
Projects
but
there's
been
no
public
discussion
or
vetting
of
any
proposed,
far
limits
yet
or
any
discussion
about
the
different
publicly
about
the
different
types
of
bonuses
that
might
be
available,
and
so
it's
you
know
it's
my
view
that
far
that
can
be
considered
appropriate
for
projects
in
in
this
example.
The
corridor
six
area
that
are
also
going
to
have
greater
height
should
have
far
or
be
reasonable
for
them
to
have
far
that's
greater
than
the
prior
projects
that
have
been
built
along
lake
street.
J
J
So
we
have
the
slide
that
gretchen
has
to
be
put
up
proposed
findings
to
support
the
far
variance.
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
staff
has
you
know.
In
this
case
staff
said
we
don't
see
how
the
far
variance
can
meet
the
legal
findings
for
practical
difficulties.
But
it's
important
to
note
that
staff
is
routinely
recognized
as
a
practical
difficulty,
supporting
an
far
variance
that
the
existing
zoning
limits
prevent
compliance
with
city
land
use
policies
that
encourage
greater
density
than
the
the
current
zoning
district.
J
Only
qualified
for
one
far
bonus.
So
as
you
see
on
the
side,
we
believe
you
know
we're
we're
showing
our
proposed
findings
and
with
the
focus
on
this
discussion
being
on
2040
plan
and
gold.
We've
highlighted
that
this
increased
far
allows
significant
production
of
affordable
and
accessible
housing
on
a
transit
corridor.
J
It
promotes
a
complete
neighborhood
by
adding
walkable
retail
uses
in
place
of
existing
are
auto
oriented
uses.
I
I
wouldn't
poo
poo
these.
You
know
a
number
of
additional
retail
spaces
where
currently
we're
talking
auto
and
that
it
promotes
construction
of
sustainable
buildings,
as
gretchen
has
described,
to
improve
the
city's
climate
change
resilience.
I
I
So
I
appreciate
your
time
this
evening
and
appreciate
your
flexibility,
letting
us
present
globally.
The
two
projects
you're
all
aware,
we're
in
a
different
regulatory
scheme
than
we
were
even
12
months
ago
and
inclusionary
zoning
is
one
of
the
most
important
regulatory
schemes
that
have
changed
the
landscape
of
at
loopy
development.
I
We're
trying
to
embrace
that
and
demonstrate
to
you
how
density
in
a
transit
oriented
quarter
can
be
one
of
the
more
useful
tools
in
solving
the
affordable
housing
crisis
and
we're
trying
to
demonstrate
to
you
how
we
believe
it
can
be
applicable,
and
I
have
a
couple
of
slides
that
we
prepared
I'm
hopeful
that
your
technology
team
can
put
those
up.
I
have
five
panels.
Hopefully
they
can
be
put.
I
I
I
If
you
could
turn
to
the
next
panel
number
two
we've
devised
a
scheme
with
phase
two
and
phase
three,
where
phase
two
provides
some
economic
subsidy
to
phase
three.
It
was
more
efficient
for
us
to
do
a
market
rate
building
in
an
affordable
building
separately,
rather
than
a
blended
approach,
because
we
have
some
expertise
in
the
affordable
housing
business
and
we
know
how
to
do
that.
I
It
was
a
demonstrate
you
where
these
efficiencies
are,
first
and
foremost,
with
a
little
bit
of
a
land
transfer.
We've
saved
about
400
000.
The
way
we've
designed
the
garage
structures
where
we
enter
from
phase
two
and
do
not
have
to
provide
an
entrance
in
phase
three.
We
save
about
three
quarters
of
a
million
dollars
in
infrastructure
cost
and
then
the
alley
construction.
I
That's
650,
000
of
wall
structure
that
phase
3
does
not
have
to
bear
so
that's
a
little
over
1.8
million
of
direct
subsidy
to
the
affordable
building
and
then
there's
the
economies
of
scale
that
we
achieve
by
doing
two
separate
buildings,
there's
roughly
twelve
additional
parking
spaces
over
the
ten-year
value
of
phase.
Three.
That's
worth
about
three
hundred
thousand
of
income
to
the
building
and
the
management
efficiencies
about
20
percent.
Less
staffing
is
needed,
so
we
save
about
230
thousand
dollars
there.
I
If
you'll
turn
to
the
third
panel
on
my
presentation
sheet,
I'd
like
to
briefly
discuss
what
we
think
is
the
real
nub
of
far
here,
the
the
question
is:
can
far
be
used
to
fill
the
allowable
height.
I
think
miss
lansing
has
pointed
that
out
that
if
you're
going
to
allow
seven
stories
and
84
feet
in
corridor
six,
you
know
we're
under
the
84
foot
limit
here.
I
I
So
we
took
him
at
his
word
and
we
calculate
5.2
over
what
staff
thought
was
reasonable
at
4.35,
and
we
calculate
that
as
a
19
increase
in
far
for
500
west
lake
and
only
12.8
increase
for
the
550
west
lake.
We
think
that's
a
reasonable
ask
when
you're
increasing
the
amount
of
affordable
housing
that
would
otherwise
be
available
to
the
project.
If
we
were
to
do
these
just
on
a
market
rate
basis
and
I'll
show
you
what
that
looks
like
on
the
next
panel
page
four.
I
I
So
we,
we
think
you're
getting
a
lot
of
bang
for
the
buck
here
and,
mr
president,
I
think
council
member
schrader
asked
what
would
be
the
impact
if
we
weren't
able
to
achieve
these
fars.
Well,
there's
just
no
simple
solution:
we'd
have
to
take
a
floor
off
of
each
building,
so
that
would
be
22
units
less
on
500
and
roughly
15
units
left
or
60
units
less
on
550
and
under
those
scenarios
the
economics
are
such
that
we
would
not
be
able
to
do
the
affordability
mix.
I
I
think
we've
covered
that
gretchen's
covered
that
we
have
green
roofs
for
both
buildings.
We
have
plenty
of
bicycle
parking
for
both
buildings,
we're
in
a
transit
zone.
We
purposely
have
zoned
this
project
designed
this
project.
To
take
advantage
of
the
future
brt,
that's
going
to
be
built
near
the
35w
lake
street
interchange.
I
Commissioner
rockwell,
you
asked
specifically
about
pv
solar.
I've
done
pv
solar
in
every
one
of
our
buildings,
since
it's
always
important
to
catch
which
tax
credit
program
we're
using,
but
we'll
do
it.
My
commitment
to
you
is
this:
we
want
it
we're
doing
it
on
phase
one
we're
doing
it
on
phase
two
and
we
just
haven't
even
applied
for
it
in
phase
three
yet,
but
it's
our
commitment
to
do
it.
I
We
believe
it's
important
and
the
totality
of
our
project
here
would
be
206,
affordable
units
between
phases,
one
two
and
three
it's
hard
to
get
a
better
bang
for
your
buck
than
to
give
a
little
bit
of
density
to
get
that
kind
of
impact
on
our
affordable
housing
crisis.
I'm
happy
to
stand
for
questions,
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
Q
Q
B
Z
Hello,
this
is
stephanie
brown.
I
live
at
302,
east
26th
street
in
whittier,
and
I'm
speaking
today
as
the
chair
of
the
housing
issues
committee
committee
and
for
the
whitney
alliance
and
a
woody
alliance
board
member,
we
wrote
letters
in
support
of
both
projects,
two
separate
letters.
I
think
you
may
have
identical
letters
in
your
packets.
Z
Ultimately,
poor
whittier,
the
question
of
affordability
has
reigned
supreme
for
us.
As
I
look
at
the
staff
concerns,
there
are
staff
concerns
that
echoed
early
feedback
that
was
given
by
community
members
on
the
project
regarding
the
bulk
regarding
a
desire
to
have
just
additional
commercial
space.
Z
R
Z
For
the
item
number
two,
the
affordable
project,
the
decision
for
us
was
very
clear
and
unanimous
that
the
affordability
of
the
project
justified
the
variances
around
the
density
and
that
that
made
a
lot
of
sense.
I
think
the
and
number
13
was
slightly
more
complex
for
the
neighborhood
and
ultimately
had
a
tighter
vote.
The
question
is
whether
both
buildings
and
both
variances
are
needed
to
support
the
affordability
in
the
community
again
on
one
building
clear
on
the
second.
Z
It's
I
understand
all
the
questions
at
play.
I
think
we
see
this
as
a
neighborhood
that
is
facing
a
lot
of
transition
and
that
the
comps
and
goals
around
affordability
and
mixed
income
were
very
much
written
for
neighborhoods
like
this,
that
are
facing
a
lot
of
development
pressures
and
have
a
large
number
of
residents
below
the
median
income
who
need
affordable
options.
Thank
you
very
much.
B
AA
M
AA
AA
Affordability
is
incredibly
important
to
our
community
at
this
time
and
I
believe
that
this
project
is
in
the
spirit
of
the
new
comprehensive
plan
and
that
to
achieve
affordability,
we
are
going
to
need
to
compromise
in
in
other
areas
to
make
that
happen,
and-
and
so
I
would,
I
would
urge
support
for
this
proposal.
Thank
you.
B
B
All
right
hearing
on,
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
commissioners.
We
will
first
open
up
our
discussion.
Well,
I
suppose
our
discussion
can
go
on
both
projects,
but
then
we
will
focus
on
project
number
12
and
accomplish
our
votes
and
motions
on
project
number
12
first
and
then
item
number
13..
Commissioner
meyer,
I
know
that
you
had
a
question.
O
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
ask
like:
are
we
allowed
to
consider
the
impacts
of
one
project
on
another,
because
the
affordability
argument
is
very
compelling
to
me?
But
I
don't
know
if
it's
something
that
we're
allowed
to
consider
as
a
legal,
finding
we're
just
like
clarification
from
staff
on
that
like
can.
We
use
the
the
effect
on
affordability
of
one
project
to
justify
the
second
project.
R
S
AB
I
Okay,
so
for
the
existing
first
building,
which
is
under
construction,
we
have
10
units
at
30
percent,
adjusted
median
income
which
is
rather
low.
We
have
a
total
of
40
percent
of
the
units,
ones
twos
and
studios
at
50
percent,
ami
or
below,
and
then
the
balance
is
at
60
percent.
Ami
and
all
of
those
units
are
guaranteed
affordable
for
no
less
than
30
years,
and
that's
roughly
the
same
schema
that
we
would
apply
to
the
550
west
lake
street
building.
I
There
is
a
there's:
a
plan
for
a
dedicated
number
of
units
at
30
percent,
an
overall
goal
of
at
least
40
percent
at
50,
ami
or
lower,
but
we
actually
have
increased
it
to
almost
half
and
then
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
change
in
the
federal
law
that
allows
us
to
have
a
little
bit
more
at
higher
rents
and
that
allows
us
to
have
more
of
the
lower
rents.
It's
called
income
averaging.
So
that's
what
creates
the
affordability
component
and
all
of
our
units
are
a
30
commitment
for
that
affordability,.
X
X
I
know
I
heard
what
the
applicant
had
to
say
and
I
unders
I
understand
how
the
project
has
changed
and
all
of
that,
but
in
terms
of
really
meaningful
architectural
changes
or
setbacks,
or
something
like
that,
we're
not
seeing
it.
So
you
know
we
can
talk
about
whether
things
comply
with
the
spirit
of
something
or
are
consistent
with
other
goals,
but
for
a
variance
in
order
to
grant
that
we
do
need
to
have
those
practical
difficulties
that
are
unique
to
the
property
and
I'm
not
hearing
or
seeing
anything.
B
B
E
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
president.
I
have
a
quick
question.
It
is
more
procedural
at
this
point
and
I
apologize
part
of
it
comes
from
my
being
new
on
the
commission.
I
just
want
to
know
if
you
can
clarify
with
denying
the
site
plan
and
or
denying
the
variance
and
whatnot
what
the
next
step
is
for
the
applicant
and
if
they
will
be,
this
project
will
basically
be
coming
back
to
the
planning
commission.
A
Sure
the
the
project,
commissioner
smiley
the
project
could
not
move
forward
without
an
approved
site
plan.
So
the
applicant
could
come
back
to
the
commission
with
revisions
to
the
project
that
would
make
changes
to
the
site
plan
and
to
the
proposed
far
in
order
to
try
to
gain
the
approval
of
staff
and
or
the
commission.
B
And
I
would
add
a
commissioner
smiley.
You
know
there
is
also
an
appeal
process,
so
there
is
both
a
kind
of
a
revision
process
to
come
back
with
an
altered
project
to
the
planning,
commission
and
there's
an
appeal
process
that
would
take
an
appeal
up
to
the
city,
council
and
potentially,
ultimately,
the
courts.
So
we're
kind
of
the
first,
the
first
stage
of
judicial
or
quasi-judicial
review
here.
B
H
F
F
S
Goals-
and
this
is
kimberly-
wang
in
whoops
I'll
turn
on
the
camera.
Just
it
sounded
like
those
were
findings
that
commissioner
olson
made
as
part
of
that
discussion,
but
just
to
clarify
we
will
need
findings
if
the
commission
is
to
vote
in
opposition
to
the
staff
recommendation.
That
was
prepared,
and
I
believe,
if
the
commission
does
go
that
route.
Mr
crandall
has
some
preparedness
conditions
of
approval
for
the
commission
to
consider
as
part
of
any
approval.
B
AB
Yes,
I
I
have
a
question
I
think
for
peter
or
for
the
applicant,
but
it's
if
this,
if
this
was
to
you
know,
be
sick
stories
instead
or
be
less
dense,
as
it
may
be,
the
kind
of
imposing
feeling
that
it
kind
of
looks
like
what
is
the
trade-off.
I
guess
what
is
what
will
the
building
have
to
lose
to
be
able
to
do
that.
I
I
F
K
A
Z
E
Thank
you,
president
rockwell,
and
actually
this
is
a
follow-up
to
the
previous
question.
I
exactly
had
that
same
question
and
I
just
want
the
clarification
from
staff.
Is
that
so
we're
in
that
weird
space
that
the
comp
plan
has
been
adopted,
but
the
zoning
code
hasn't
been
updated
yet
to
be
consistent
with
the
comp
plan
for
the
implementation
of
its
goals
and
policies.
E
S
Yes,
just
to
clarify,
as
commissioner
smiley
noted,
we
are
currently
in
a
situation
where
the
comp
plan
has
been
adopted,
but
the
zoning
code
has
not
been
updated
yet
to
come
into
conformance
or
to
eliminate
inconsistencies
between
the
comp
plan
and
the
zoning
code
per
state
law.
We
have
nine
months
to
get
that
work
done
it's
underway.
S
We
aren't
to
a
point
right
now,
where
we're
ready
to
publish
any
proposed,
far
numbers
for
our
built
form
districts,
but
you
know
the
team
that's
working
on
it,
and
the
current
line
of
thinking
is
that
it
would
not
be
4.9
or
5.2
as
our
proposed
for
these
two
projects
in
the
corridor.
Six
belt
form
district.
B
Motion
maker
and
and
second
on,
this
clarify
if
this
is
not
articulating
your
intent
here,
but
that
we
are
not
seeing
an
alteration
of
the
character
of
the
area.
It's
a
it's
a
busy
area,
high
frequency,
transit
area,
it's
right
by
an
activity
center
and
there's
a
fair
amount
of
height
and
density
in
this
area
already,
so
we're
not
altering
the
essential
character
or
harming
health
and
welfare.
B
This
helps
build
out
a
complete,
neighborhood,
pedestrian
oriented,
complete
neighborhood,
and
there
was
also
a
note
of
the
climate
change
resilience
boosted
by
this
project
and
the
green
commitments
of
the
project
and
perhaps
also
the
density
of
the
project
transit
oriented
location,
which
is
a
part
of
the
comprehensive
plan.
In
addition
to
density
and
height
guidance,
and
then
on
the
practical
difficulties.
B
It
is
that
the
comprehensive
plan
is
designed
in
particular
for
locations
like
this
high
density
intersection,
like
this
kind
of
main
street
of
the
city,
creating
a
unique
difficulty
for
this
site,
or
at
least
this
area
that
is
not
shared
by
all
projects.
Is
that
a
fair
summary
of
your
points
here
reviewing
my
notes.
B
Mr
olson
says
yes
in
the
chat
for
public
record,
all
right
with
that,
and
seeing
no
other
comments
from
commissioners
and
sorry
and
to
clarify
the
findings
of
the
of
the
variance
item
c
were
the
basis
of
the
findings
for
denial,
site
plan
review
so
with.
Unless
I
am
mistaken
with
the
findings
here,
the
site
plan
review
could
be
approved.
E
B
R
M
B
A
A
So
I
can
explain
a
little
bit,
maybe
with
regard
to
the
variance
to
increase
the
maximum
floor
area
ratio,
we're
suggesting
a
condition
that
the
applicant
meet
the
standard
for
the
mixed-use
density
bonus
by
providing
at
least
50
percent
of
the
gross
floor
area
as
commercial
space
on
the
ground
on
the
ground
floor
and
then
for
site
plan
review.
Several
of
the
proposed
conditions
are
kind
of
boilerplate
conditions
that
we
apply
to
most
projects
regarding
approval,
specifically
the
approval
timeline
for
how
long
an
application
is
valid.
A
A
I
think,
the
north
elevation
and
the
south
elevation
on
this
particular
project
and
then
we're
suggesting
that
the
applicant
provide
for
pedestrian
scale
lighting
along
the
west
lake
street
elevation
and
garfield
elevations
that
they
screen
any
mechanical
equipment
to
meet
the
standards
of
the
zoning
code
that
any
proposed
signage
conform
to
the
chapter.
543
of
the
code
in
relationship
to
approvable
signs
for
the
c3a
district,
that
the
applicants
submit
a
tax
parcel
combination,
form
which
is
required
of
any
project
that
combines
several
existing
parcels
and
that
the
project
comply
with
requirements
for
inclusionary.
Zoning.
R
B
B
B
B
AB
B
K
S
I
Mr
president,
thank
you.
This
is
stephen
speaking,
so
there
are
two
parts
to
the
answer.
The
first
part
of
the
answer
is
as
long
as
we're
approved,
with
both
the
market
rate
building
at
seven
stories,
132
units
and
the
affordable
building
at
seven
stories.
95
units,
the
diversity
of
unit
mix,
is
accounted
for
in
the
550
building.
I
We've
tried
to
point
that
out
to
the
staff
that
the
footprint
of
the
parcel
in
the
building
are
relatively
small.
The
residential
and
parking
uses
on
the
main
floor
of
both
buildings.
Take
up
a
good
portion
of
the
ground
floor
area
already
and
pushing
the
amenities
to
an
upper
floor
would
just
simply
eliminate
units
and
I'm
not
sure,
that's
the
intent
of
the
commission
or
the
iz.
So
we
would
encourage
either
the
commission
to
acknowledge
the
areas
in
addition
to
retail
as
commercial
or
reject
that
portion
of
the
staff
findings.
I
B
All
right,
seeing
none
to
refresh
voting
on
item
c
and
d,
the
far
variance
and
site
plan
review
for
item
12
to
approve
both
with
the
findings,
as
articulated
earlier
with
the
one
stated
condition
on
the
far
variance
and
the
nine
state
condition
conditions
on
a
site
plan
review
clerk.
Please
call
the
roll.
C
D
M
D
E
S
B
B
B
F
B
All
right,
we
have
not
voted
on
the
first
motion
yet
so
sorry,
oh
that's
all
right!
So
we
have.
Our
first
motion
is
items
a
b
and
I
was
articulated
items
a
b
and
e,
and
I
just
want
to
articulate
for
everybody
that
that
when
we
say
item
e,
that's
a
motion
to
approve
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
vehicle
parking
requirement
from
66
to
55
spaces.
B
C
B
B
B
Very
good
all
right,
so
we
see
one
stated
conde
or
one
recommended
condition
for
item
c
and
nine
for
item
d
and
commissioner
olson.
I
want
to
clarify
that
you
are
anticipating
or
you
are
using
the
same
findings
as
were
used
on
item
number
12
for
this.
This
item
here
correct
all
right,
so
we'll
use
the
same
findings
as
for
items
c
and
d
and
items
number
12
for
item
number
13
here.
Is
there
any
further.
C
M
F
B
S
Yes,
thank
you,
commissioners.
For
another
successful
virtual
meeting.
We
will
have
our
first
virtual
committee
the
whole
meeting
on
thursday
of
this
week.
It
was
on
the
calendar
as
a
joint
cpc,
hpc
committee
of
the
whole
meeting,
but
we
didn't
have
any
joint
items,
so
it
will
just
be
the
planning
commissioners
and
it
should
function
pretty
similarly
to
how
we're
doing
this
meeting
tonight
and
hopefully
we'll
go
just
as
smooth.
B
B
I
appreciate
everybody's
everybody's
assistance
and
making
sure
that
these
meetings
flow
and,
as
always,
it
is
difficult
to
to
manage
all
of
us
commissioners
and
difficult
to
figure
out
who's.
Trying
to
talk
when
and
everybody
is-
is
doing
a
great
job
on
this.
So
thank
you
and
with
that
the
meeting
is.