►
From YouTube: July 6, 2020 Planning Commission
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission Meeting
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Board/Agenda/CPC/1741
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/
B
C
D
E
D
F
G
D
G
B
H
I
D
B
That
motion
carries
our
next
item
of
business.
Is
to
organize
the
agenda
for
this
hearing,
for
those
of
you
on
the
line
will
walk
through
the
entire
agenda
item
by
item
and
if
you
wish
to
testify
against
staff
recommendation,
then
please
let
your
your
presence
known,
and
we
will
we'll
discuss
that
item
and
hear
that
testimony.
Otherwise
we
may
place
that
item
on
the
consent
agenda
and
not
discuss
it.
B
B
B
G
A
B
B
Are
six
onions
there?
No
one
will
place
out
of
number
ten
on
a
consent
agenda.
We
will
discuss
item
number
11,
which
is
336
second
Street
northeast
and
Ward.
Three
item
number
twelve
is
North
Star
at
625,
Marquette,
Avenue,
608,
618
and
618,
and
a
half
second
Avenue
south
in
Ward
7.
Is
anybody
wishing
to
testify
against
staff
recommendation
for
item
number
12.
B
B
B
B
B
K
A
L
B
B
B
B
H
B
B
B
E
D
G
D
H
D
B
O
O
Thank
you
so
before
you
today
are
three
applications
for
a
new
mixed-use
development
at
1200,
Central,
Avenue
Northeast.
The
applicant
is
seeking
a
conditional
use
permit
to
allow
111
dwelling
units
in
the
industrial
living
overlay
district.
A
conditional
use
permit
to
increase
maximum
height
in
the
i1
district
from
four
stories
or
56
feet
to
six
stories
and
sixty
point
six
feet
and
site
plan
review
next
slide.
Please.
O
The
property
is
located
at
the
northwest
corner
of
Central
Avenue,
north
east
and
12th
Avenue
Northeast.
It
is
currently
occupied
by
two
commercial
buildings
which
were
originally
associated
with
a
lumberyard
that
historically
existed
in
the
area.
Properties
border
the
West
by
a
railroad
right-of-way
into
the
North
by
a
truck
parts
distributor
which
shares
an
access,
easement
and
curb
cut
on
Central
Avenue
with
the
subject
property
next
slide.
Please,
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
construct
a
new
six
storey
mixed-use
building
on
the
site.
O
O
The
building
would
contain
one
level
of
below
grade
parking,
as
well
as
some
adjacent
covered,
but
not
fully
enclosed
parking
on
the
basement
level
go
one
more
slide.
Please,
the
main
level
would
include
additional
enclosed
parking,
as
well
as
the
industrial
space,
the
commercial
space
and
the
residential
lobby.
Pedestrian
access
to
the
residential
and
commercial
uses
would
be
from
central.
Well,
access
to
the
industrial
use
would
be
from
12
next
slide.
Please,
the
upper
five
floors
would
contain
the
dwelling
units
and
the
residential
amenity
space
on
the
top
floor.
Could
we
go
two
slides
forward?
O
Please,
the
exterior
materials
would
be
primarily
brick
on
the
first
floor
and
primarily
metal
panel
on
the
upper
floors.
Although
some
fiber
cement
would
be
included
as
well,
I
have
to
go
to
the
last
slide.
Please
three
sets
of
public
comments
were
received
regarding
the
applications
and
the
first
of
which
was
included
with
the
staff
report
when
it
was
published
with
the
agenda
and
the
other
two
you
should
have
received
today,
staff
has
found
that
both
conditional
use
permit
applications
meet
the
required
findings
and
is
recommending
approval
of
those
regarding
site
plan
review.
O
There
are
two
needed
alternative
compliance
requests
if
we
could
go
back.
One
slide,
please.
The
first
alternative
compliance
request
is
for
a
blank
wall
on
the
North
elevation,
as
shown
here.
This
blank
wall
is
adjacent
to
covered,
but
unenclosed
parking
on
the
exterior
and
enclosed
parking
at
the
interior.
Beyond
the
covered
parking
to
the
north
is
a
large
drive,
aisle
and
maneuvering
space
between
this
property
and
the
truck
parts
distributor
to
the
north,
which
is
regular
utilized
for
freight
truck
maneuvering.
O
O
Alternative
compliance
is
also
required
for
general
landscaping
and
screening.
The
project,
as
proposed
exceeds
the
required
tree
and
shrub
counts,
but
is
short
of
the
required
landscaped
area
by
approximately
160
square
feet,
given
that
the
applicant
is
exceeding
the
tree
and
shrub
requirements,
and
that
this
this
project
has
somewhat
unique
access
and
maneuvering
needs
in
that
it
includes
an
industrial
loading
dock
on
a
mixed-use
building
of
the
scale
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
this
alternative
compliance
request
as
well.
O
B
P
Hi
good
evening
Commission,
my
name
is
Pete
Keeley
with
collage
architects
working
with
Josh
Hal,
the
owner
of
the
property
on
this
project
and
I.
Think
andrew
kind
of
succinctly
said
it
there's
a
lot
of
truck
maneuvering
issues,
whereas
we're
trying
to
combine
housing
and
a
production
space
in
this
location.
I.
G
P
There's
been
continuing
conversation
with
the
adjacent
property
owner
to
the
north.
That
currently
is
a
easement
that
goes
through
this
property,
and
both
parties
have
access
and
easement
rights.
Those
easements
are
in
discussion
and
negotiation.
Those
are
actually
private,
easements
I,
don't
believe
effect
the
city
we
have
paid
off
those,
except
for
some
landscaping
that
is
shown
on
the
front
side,
I
believe
that's
what
the
next
person
they
may
end
up
talking
about,
but
I'm,
not
sure.
P
B
L
Name
is
Craig
Andreessen
I'm,
an
attorney
from
the
lowman
Abdullah
firm
I
represent
es
investments.
The
neighboring
properties
does
business
as
libsyn,
auto
truck
city.
Auto
I'll
refer
to
them
as
Lisbon.
The
landscaping
plan
has
submitted.
If
someone
could
pull
up
the
landscaping
plan,
I
think
the
commissioners
could
see
it
better.
It
doesn't
doesn't
correspond
with
anything
that
the
developer
can.
The
applicant
can
actually
offer
the
city
in
terms
of
landscaping.
L
The
applicant
is
submitting
a
plan
that
exceeds
tree
and
shrub
cover
it
coverage
and
that
that
tree
and
shrub
coverage
is.
Is
it
really
something
that
they
can
actually
offer
because
they
don't
have
the
right
to
put
two
things
here?
If
you
look
at
near
Central,
Avenue
Northeast,
there
is
a
couple
of
large
trees
that
are
depicted
on
the
landscaping
plan
and
in
a
pretty
small
entry
and
exit
point
there.
L
My
client,
libsyn
twin
city,
auto
needs
access
via
some
pretty
large
semi
trucks
to
gain
access
to
their
loading
dock,
which
is
located
on
the
southernmost
point
of
their
building.
It's
on
the
south
side,
so
they
have
to
allow
these
trucks
to
pull
into
this
50
foot
wide
easement
area
and
then
unload.
You
know,
Auto
Park
trucks,
truck
types
of
things.
These
are
large
heavy
pieces
of
you,
know,
transmissions
and,
and
and
and
things
like
that,
they're,
not
something
that
comes
in
on
a
smaller
truck.
It's
it's,
it's
pretty
large
stuff.
L
The
traffic
in
and
out
of
that
parking
area.
I
know
that
the
applicant
has
has
suggested
that
that
cars
will
come
in
and
out
of
there,
those
cars.
We
blocked
for
up
to
two
hours
at
a
time,
so
I'm
not
sure
how
they
plan
to
accomplish
that.
There's
also
because
of
the
landscaping
that's
being
proposed.
Trucks
approaching
from
the
from
the
honest
all
that
going
on
South
southbound
trucks
will
not
be
able
to
simply
turn
into
into
the
into
the
parking
area.
G
L
Going
to
have
to
pause,
assess
the
situation,
we're
worried
about
traffic
stacking
on
Central
Avenue,
based
on
that
we're
worried
about
potential
accidents
with
people-
and
you
know-
maybe
you
know
approaching
a
fast
moving
or
a
slow
moving
truck
and
a
fast
moving
vehicle.
There
are
some
concerns
there
and
in
the
plan
that
was
submitted,
just
doesn't
reflect
reality,
we're
not
asking
for
the
Planning
Commission
to
to
to
enforce
the
terms
of
our
easement,
that's
a
private
easement
and
it's
between
our
two
parties
and
we'll
enforce
it
as
needed,
our
selves.
L
But
what
we're
asking
for
is
for
the
city
to
go
in
knowingly
to
understand
what
their
what's
really
being
proposed
here
and
to
understand
that
that
that
this,
if
it
were
approved
and
if
it
were
built,
could
actually
put
my
client
out
of
business
after
15
years
of
being
at
this
location.
The
line
depicted
of
its
construction
limits,
for
instance,
is
a
is
if
they
were
to
fence
that,
so
that
they
could
accomplish
their
construction,
they
couldn't
we
couldn't
operate.
We
simply
couldn't
have
a
truck,
pull
in
and
deliver
or
pick
up
things
I
guess.
L
We
predict
that
what
will
happen
here
is
the
applicant
will
be
back
before
this
body
or
our
staff,
if
they
had
staff,
has
the
authority
to
to
grant
relief
the
question
relief
from
these
landscaping
provisions
and
you're
really
not
going
to
get
what
you
think
you're
getting
at
a
disdain.
So
we
would
urge
the
Planning
Commission
to
reject
a
proposed
omission
and
ask
them
to
come
back
with
something
that
actually
can
accomplish.
B
B
O
Commissioners,
so
this
this
is
an
easement
between
it's
a
recorded
easement
between
the
two
property
owners.
The
city
does
not
have
a
role
in
enforcing
private
easements.
It's
up
to
the
property
owners
to
enforce
the
easement
themselves
and
I.
Think
are
the
public
comments
addressed
that
as
to
you
know
what
specifically
is
and
isn't
allowed
by
the
easement?
That's
not
something
that
is
is
really
part
of
our
jurisdiction
in
reviewing
a
land
use
application.
You
know
I
we
haven't.
O
You
know
reviewed
the
exact
text
of
the
easement
and
in
this
case
it's
a
situation
where
the
applicants
attorney
and
the
attorney
of
the
property
owner
to
the
north
disagree
on
what
is
allowed
and
not
allowed
under
the
terms
of
the
easement,
and
my
understanding
is
that
there's
ongoing
litigation
and
they
go
creation
between
the
two
property
owners
as
to
how
the
easement
will
function
moving
forward.
But
we,
as
the
city,
do
not
have
any
role
in
enforcing
and
he's
meant
between
two
private
parties
and.
B
O
B
B
G
D
B
S
Good
evening,
commissioners
I
am
actually
going
to
present
for
item
11
and
13
together,
because
these
projects
are
similar
projects
that
are
on
adjacent
parcels.
So
if
you
could
pull
up
the
presentation,
I
submitted
I'm
gonna
go
through
the
presentation
for
both
projects
together
and
then
we
can
have
the
public
hearing
for
each
one.
Anyone
who
signed
up
to
speak
as
welcome
just
then
speak
individually
about
a
tour
honor,
could
also
combine
their
comments
as
I'm
doing.
B
S
So
these
two
projects
are
located
at
336
and
400
second
Street
northeast.
They
are
separate
projects
under
separate
ownership
using
the
same
architect.
The
sites
are
adjacent.
They
will
share
a
driveway
that
will
be
located
over
the
previously
vacated.
Fourth
Avenue
Northeast
right-of-way.
There
are
utilities
in
that
space
that
are
the
subject
of
an
existing
easement
and
though
that
utility
easements
proposed
to
be
vacated,
the
associated
entities
shishun
is
under
the
336
a
project,
so
the
subject
site
serves
owned,
r5,
which
that
zoning
has
been
in
place
for
some
time.
S
S
So
the
each
project
requires
a
front
yard
setback,
variance
the
step
backs
are
determined
by
the
existing
properties
on
the
Block
face,
and
that
is
19
actually
I
think
it's
19
feet.
8
inches
might
have
a
typo
there
216
feet
for
the
building,
they're,
also
proposing
canopies,
balconies
and
patios,
which
do
not
quite
comply
with
the
requirements
for
the
setbacks
or
for
the
obstructions
in
required
yards.
S
So
here's
this
the
site,
the
two
sites
side
by
side,
that
the
336
site
is
slightly
larger
than
the
400
site.
I've
also
highlighted
there
in
blue,
roughly
the
location
of
that
previously
vacated.
Fourth
out
in
a
right
of
way
where
there
are
city
sewer
utilities.
Next
slide,
please
so
here
the
here's,
the
site
plan,
showing
both
buildings
of
a
printable,
both
buildings.
There's
a
proposed
shared
driveway
between
the
two
buildings.
S
There
will
be
two
around
Shores
on
each
building
accessing
small
garage
ticket
to
get
some
additional
parking
along
those
kind
of
shared
walls,
so
the
336
property
has
proposed
30
parking
spaces
and
the
401
has
24
parking
spaces
next
slide,
please
and
so
I'm
just
going
to
go
through
them.
I
thought
it
was
easier
to
visualize.
If
we
look
at
400
and
then
we
look
at
336
just
so,
you
can
visualize
it
as
going
north
to
south.
S
So
this
is
the
northern
property
ground
floor,
showing
the
lobby
a
ground
floor
unit
in
the
parking,
as
well
as
mechanical
trash.
Next
slide.
Please
and
here's
the
first
floor
of
the
336
project,
which
has
also
a
ground
floor
unit
lobby
and
some
small
amenity
space,
as
well
as
the
parking
next
slide.
Please
and
I'll
go
through
this
quickly,
so
you
can
see
from
the
the
floor
plan
the
second
floor
plan
that
there
are
balconies
that
are
encroaching
into
the
public
right-of-way
or
into
sorry
into
the
required
setback
by
more
than
four
feet.
S
They're
proposed
to
encroach
five
feet,
and
then
there
are
balconies
on
the
sides
that
are
more
like
Juliet
balcony
is
to
reduce
the
requirement
for
a
setback,
variance
on
those
sides.
Next
slide,
please
that's
the
same
situation
on
this
project
as
well,
where
there
are
larger
balconies
on
the
front
and
back
the
front.
Balcony
is
projecting
to
the
front
yard
setback
and
then
the
side
balconies
are
smaller
to
avoid
requiring
a
setback
on
both
sides.
Next
slide,
please
here
are
the
elevations
for
the
400
project.
S
The
the
proposed
exterior
materials
for
both
buildings
are
a
mix
of
5/8
inch,
fiber
cement,
brick
and
less
than
five
eighths
inch
fiber
cement
panels
next
slide,
please.
These
are
just
the
other
elevations
for
400
and
next
slide.
Please,
and
this
is
a
336
project
where
you
can
see
that
they're
very
complementary
materials
next
slide.
Please.
S
S
S
So
the
only
requested
application
beside
site
plan
review
is
front
yard
setback,
variances,
they're,
the
front
yard
setback
in
the
r5
district
is
15
feet
and
that
is
increased.
We're
adjacent
properties
are
add
an
increased
step.
Back
often,
we
see
that
where
an
entire
block
face
is
kind
of
a
standard
setback
and
the
district
setback
is
less
than
the
existing
front
yard
setback
of
the
block.
However,
this
is
a
unique
block
with
unique
circumstances.
The
front
yard
setbacks
on
this
block
vary
widely.
S
There
are
a
large
there's,
a
large
variation
on
the
block
in
terms
of
years
of
construction.
In
addition,
the
property
immediately
to
the
south
of
the
336
project
is
actually
exempted
from
that
front
yard
setback
determination
because
its
setback
so
much
farther
than
the
other
properties
on
the
block.
So
there
is
significant
variation
there
already
and
the
applicant
has
proposed
a
16
foot
setback,
which
is
still
increased
over
the
required
15
foot
setback
in
the
archive
district.
S
The
the
requirement
for
providing
affordable
housing
under
the
inclusionary
zoning
policy
starts
at
50
units,
and
so
there
were
some
concerns
about
whether
this
was
a
whether
it
was
allowed
to
have
40
or
249
unit
buildings
next
door
to
each
other,
and
there
is
no
restriction
in
the
inclusionary
zoning
policy
that
prohibits
the
construction
of
249
built
about
49
unit
buildings
adjacent
to
each
other.
I
know
that
this
was
discussed
as
that
policy
was
created,
but
there
there
wasn't
anything
adopted
into
the
policy
that
specifically
prohibits
that.
S
In
addition,
those
the
properties
are
under
separate
ownership.
They
are
using
the
same
architect.
The
same
civil
engineering
firm,
some
in
the
neighborhood
have
have
commented
that
you
know
what
these
should
be
considered
jointly,
but
for
the
purposes
of
this
evaluation
they
are
considered
to
be
separate
sites.
In
addition,
the
sewer
utility
that's
located
under
the
vacated
4th
Avenue
right-of-way
is
it
precludes
the
possibility
of
one
larger
building
on
the
site.
S
So
even
if
these
were
under
the
same
ownership-
and
it
was
one
site,
though,
that
you-
those
utilities-
cannot
be
built
upon
and
would
be
prohibitive
to
relocate.
I
know
there
were
some
other
comments
and
concerns
about
the
parking
requirements
and
how
there's
a
greater
parking
requirement
for
buildings
of
15
units
or
more
and
I
just
wanted
to
comment
that
that,
while
the
these
buildings
have
no
parking
requirement
do
to
be
in
49
units
and
located
in
proximity
to
high
frequency
transit.
S
They
they
are
perking
the
336
project,
just
providing
30
parking
spaces
and
the
400
project
is
providing
24
for
a
total
of
54
spaces.
If
there
was
theoretically
at
98
unit
building
here,
the
parking
requirement
would
be
49
spaces.
So
so,
even
though
there
is
no
parking
requirement,
they,
the
two
projects
together,
would
be
meeting
the
parking
requirements
of
a
larger
building.
B
C
Danny
Perkins,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
we
can.
Thank
you,
hello,
okay,
yeah!
Thank
you
I'm,
one
of
the
owners,
my
name's
Daniel
Perkins
of
the
336
second
Street
side.
Thank
you
all
for
your
time.
Today,
Lindsey
did
a
great
job,
describing
the
project
and
I
think
her
for
all
the
hard
work
that
she
has
put
into
it.
As
she
mentioned,
we
share
the
same
architect
as
the
400
sides,
so
I'm
gonna,
let
Sheldon
describe
some
other
details
to
the
project
as
well.
So
I
just
wanted
to
introduce
myself.
I
C
C
C
F
Yes,
Sheldon
Berg
with
DJ
architecture
and
I
am
representing,
or
we
are
the
architect
for
both
parcels,
and
we
are
looking
at
them
individually
with
different
clients
and
perspectives.
Anyhow,
they
did
as
clients
wanted
to
work
together
to
add
some
efficiencies
and
and
how
they
proceeded
with
the
projects.
At
this
point,
we
are
only
looking
to
proceed
from
a
construction
standpoint.
F
She
went
through
the
materials
the
active
uses
that
we
have
fronting
the
streets
as
well
as
giving
some
background
on
some
of
the
site,
elements
that
were
key
to
how
we've
developed
the
site
plan
and
what
both
units
herbal
projects
work
together
to
to
make
a
pedestrian
friendly
street
frontage,
certainly
by
having
a
single
curb
cut
for
two
properties
versus
a
couple
of
curb
cuts,
that's
something
we
went
through
with
some
detail
with
Lindsay
at
the
very
beginning
and
had
worked
at
that.
This
would
be
a
more
beneficial
scheme.
B
T
Hi
I
guess
this
question
is
kind
of
for
both
of
the
way
that
the
site
and
the
configuration
is
done
and
kind
of
reveal
the
architect
in
that
regards.
Looking
at
both
of
these
are
going
to
be
49
units.
It
seems
you
know
strategic
that
this
falls
right
below
the
levels
you
have
to
include
affordable
housing
and
then
the
inclusionary
zoning
is
there
any
thought
about.
You
know
how
one
of
these
could
be.
You
50
units
to
take
out,
keep
coming,
I
guess
why?
Why
is
it
that
before
you
might
hear
that
Center?
Yes,.
F
Sure
I
believe
I
can
answer
that.
I
think
that
the
the
49
units
was
a
function
really
of
a
couple
of
things
on
the
obviously
the
scale
of
the
site
and
what
was
allowable
with
the
setbacks
that
we
have
and
the
physical
characteristics
of
the
properties,
as
well
as
trying
to
be
a
having
reasonable
amount
of
parking.
Even
though
parking
is
not
a
high
high
driver
on
the
project,
the
high
frequency
transit,
we
did
still
want
to
have
a
modest
level
to
at
least
meet
the
in
the
real
life
sort
of
needs
of
the
site.
F
As
far
as
squeezing
another
unit
end
to
get
to
50
I
think
that
we
kind
of
got
to
a
level
where
there
was
a
comfort
level
with
the
efficiency
of
the
units
going
up
and
with
the
amount
of
you
know
at
least
a
modest
amount
of
amenities
on
the
ground
floor
to
make
that
makes
sense
for
these
buildings
that
you
know
add
another
one.
Two
three
four
units
was
was
not
really
working
for
us
or
for
the
projects,
and
so
that's
kind
of
where
it
left
us
I
mean.
H
N
I
just
have
a
quick
question
kind
of
wondering
and
pardon
me
or
any
included
in
the
application.
I
would
like
to
hear
from
the
applicant
about
considerations
for
energy
saving
and
energy
efficiency
practices,
as
well
as
any
potentially
renewable
energy
used
on
site,
I
guess
with
proximity
to
the
Mississippi
River.
It
just
seems
like
such
a
prime
opportunity
to
potentially
include
those
best
practices
in
the
sidelines.
C
Going
on
for
a
month,
yes,
you
know
Danny
Perkins,
one
of
the
owners
are
going
to
336.
Second
Street
northeast,
in
addition
to,
we
are
working
with
Excel
on
the
rebate
program
as
well
to
set
up
best
practices
and
then
also
in
addition
to
that,
we
are
looking
into
providing
a
green
roof.
On
the
second
floor,
where
there's
an
overhang
there
too,
so
again,
I
include
in
part
of
our
best
practices,
and
then
maybe
you
can
elaborate.
Oh
sure,.
F
Sure
yep,
we
are
involved
with
the
336
project,
with
energies
and
assistance
with
Excel
and
CenterPoint
Energy,
and
what
that
does
is
helps
us
I
guess
accentuate
the
amount
of
energy
efficiency
that
we
can
use.
We
can
we
can,
you
can
incorporate
into
the
project
and
the
if
you
have
some
specific
examples
of
that
would
be
higher
installation
values
for
walls
and
groove
loan,
LOI
windows,
energy,
star
appliances,
LED,
light
fixtures.
F
As
far
as
from
a
site
standpoint,
we
have
we're
using
drought,
tolerant
native
plantings,
trying
to
you
know,
maximize
the
amount
of
plantings
that
we
actually
do
have
and
to
allow
a
fair
amount
of
natural
infiltration
into
the
into
the
into
the
site.
The
the
patio
that
we're
using
is
pervious
paving
as
well
and
I.
A
B
Alright,
with
that,
we'll
continue
on
our
list
for
testifiers
test,
a
test
that
we're
taking
testimony
again
reminders
to
the
test
barriers
on
both
11
and
13.
A
lot
of
folks
are
signed
up
to
testify
on
both.
Please
you
only
get
one
chance
to
testify,
then
taesik.
If
you
testify,
please
press
star
six
to
unmute
yourself.
Yes,.
U
Let
me
start
out
Commissioner
thank
you
for
taking
my
comments
regarding
both
of
these
proposals
that
would
be
planned,
109,
seven,
nine
and
plan
one
one,
four,
one
on
behalf
of
the
st.
Anthony
West
neighborhood
organization
star.
My
name
is
Dan
Kulik
I'm,
a
member
of
this
Donnell
board
of
directors
and
I
reside
at
two
to
one
second
Street
northeast
here
in
Minneapolis,
I.
Think
if
I
could
just
briefly
start
out
by
articulating
the
purpose
of
Astana,
was
defined
in
our
organization's
bylaws
I'll
take
just
a
just
a
moment
here.
The
purpose
of
the
st.
U
U
So
I
think
that
something
that
you
can
have,
and
as
your
background
for
this,
based
upon
the
directions
of
these
bylaws
star,
no
request
that
the
Planning
Commission
deny
the
proposed
variances
and
not
approve
the
site
plans
for
the
to
development
proposals
presented
here.
Let
me
briefly
amplify
a
rationale
for
our
request.
First,
regarding
the
variance
request
by
the
developer,
we
ask
that
you
deny
the
variances
front:
yard
setbacks
from
approximately
19
feet
to
16
feet
and
then
to
deny
further
encroachments
of
12-foot,
canopies,
11,
foot,
balconies
and
eight-foot
patios.
U
We
feel
that
these
encroachments
are
excessive
and
their
own
right,
but
even
more
so
when
connected
to
mass
before
story
building
in
a
neighborhood
of
much
shorter
structures.
The
post
setbacks
are
also
inconsistent
with
the
setbacks
along
2nd,
Street,
northeast
and
I
believe
that
lucy
has
given
you
some
materials
and
if
you
look
at
page
3
you'll
see
that
we
presented
curb
distances
from
current
homes,
but
from
curb
to
the
home,
and
that
was
calculated
by
a
fluke,
4160
distance
meter.
U
Secondly,
we
request
that
he
deny
these
plans
for
the
following
reasons:
1,
the
site
plans
failed
to
include
affordable
housing
units,
as
required
by
the
minneapolis
inclusionary
zoning
policy.
How
this
policy
speech
the
developments
of
50
or
more
units?
We
feel
these
proposals
should
be
viewed
as
a
total
campus
of
98
units
and
two
buildings.
Supporting
our
contention
is
the
fact
that
there
is
a
close
affiliation
between
these
two
developers
and
the
very
fact
that
these
developers
proposed
a
shared
common
driveway
are
using
the
same
architects
and
are
using
the
same
engineering
firms
to
us.
U
It's
obviously
a
way
to
sidestep
the
proposals
and
the
requirements
for
affordable
housing
to
our
neighborhood.
Boundaries
have
seen
unprecedented
development
over
the
past
several
years,
with
all
projects
being
brought
forward
and
market
rates
and
none
that
can
be
identified
as
affordable
housing
3.
While
snarl
recognizes
the
need,
as
a
mix
of
rental
units
in
a
given
area
currently
built
and
proposed,
developments
in
our
neighborhood
would
result
in
a
lopsided
effect
of
72%
of
developer
owned
rental
units
versus
only
28%
of
owner-occupied
units
4,
since
our
neighbor
that
has
almost
no
vacant
parcels.
U
The
trend
of
tearing
down
owner
occupied
housing
in
favor
of
rental
developments
will
continue
at
this
at
this
proposed
scale
that
we've
seen
5
the
Stano
small
area
plan
created
transition
to
sustainability
and
healthy
density,
and
we
continue
to
support
that
direction.
We
are
not
taking
an
MV
approach
to
density,
however,
we
support
that
sustainable
density
for
our
boarder
streets
like
Broadway,
and
we
have
supported
that
type
of
development,
even
in
the
face
of
opposition
from
our
own
constituents.
In
addition,
let
me
focus
a
bit
more
on
the
deliverables
of
the
smaller
area
plan.
U
Small
garlands,
2nd
Street
was
designed
in
the
plan
for
a
maximum
2.5
units,
also
connection
to
the
environment
and
acuity
value,
but
the
current
proposals
failed
to
have
green
or
sustainable.
Designing.
Also,
landscaping
has
limited
benefit
to
the
pollinator
effect,
and
the
tree
canopy
is
diminished.
Our
neighborhood
sits
on
the
banks
of
the
Mississippi
River
and
the
environment
cannot
be
ignored.
Also
walkability
connection
of
neighborhoods
and
safety
is
not
improved.
Instead
of
proposal
for
a
harsh
47
foot
wall
sits
almost
on
top
of
the
public
sidewalks.
U
An
addition
lighting
plays
an
important
role
in
improving
the
social
and
safety
experiences,
but
no
lighting
plan
is
part
of
these
proposals
also
proposed
a
driveway
location
is
in
a
public
safety
hazard.
We
feel
as
a
four-way
intersection
results
at
2nd,
Street
and
4th
Avenue
Northeast.
In
closing
this
evidence
of
the
above,
that
proposals
do
not
meet
the
city's
land
use
requirements
nor
improve
the
livability
of
our
neighborhood.
We
seek
your
help
in
this
matter
and
request
an
isle
of
the
variances
and
that
the
plant
sites
not
be
proved
as
presented.
U
B
G
B
J
A
J
H
B
V
A
G
B
J
A
J
There's
no
parking
allowed
on
a
good
portion
of
2nd
Street
until
you
hit
4th
Avenue,
and
so
those
spots
are
generally
full.
There's
been
a
little
bit
of
a
reprieve
with
coal
Goods
and
people
working
from
home,
but
but
those,
but
it
can
be
very
difficult
to
find
parking
spots
within
a
couple
blocks
and.
G
J
C
J
C
B
Q
A
H
V
F
V
I
live
at
83,
6th,
Avenue,
Northeast
and
I
just
want
to
say
that
really
the
Planning
Commission
is
being
fooled
on
this
project,
and
it's
been
stated
many
times
before
that.
Even
it
was
even
noted
by
the
representative
Sheldon
Berger
to
Stan
on
June
25th
presentation
that
they
are
a
collective,
his
exact
words.
It
would
not
have
been
done
separately.
This
project
would
not
have
been
done
separately
and
I'm
suspect
that
the
owners
are
working
together,
and
maybe
it's
just
not
official
I,
don't
know
that,
but
they
are
thinking
in.
V
This
has
two
projects
to
avoid
the
regulation
for
affordability
and
it
is
a
98
apartment
project,
and
this
is
a
systemic
racism
that
is
done
to
house
wealthy
white
people
and
our
neighborhood
doesn't
want
to
continue
to
add
these
one-bedroom
units
has
been
done
before
on
a
street
and
the
Julia
and
the
serene.
We
want
to
add
diversity
to
our
area
and
that's
been
part
of
our
small
area
plan.
This
is
among
hate
unit,
not
a
49
unit
and
I
appreciate
the
comment
about
adding
one
more
unit,
but
it's
very
calculated
that
this
was
done.
V
It's
very
calculated
that
this
was
done
at
49
years,
so
I
do
respectfully
think
it
urged
you
to
not
to
reject
this
setback
and
I
appreciate
the
work
that
Stano
did
and
they're
very
articulate
documentation,
but
further
I
wanted
for
your
edification.
Just
remember
the
planning
history
of
Minneapolis
and
that
you're
you're
creating
in
2020
what
the
Whittier
neighborhood
did
in
the
1960s
and
during
that
time
through
they
build
huge
stick-built,
one-bedroom
apartment
buildings
covering
lot
London
lot
line
with
no
livability
and
no
green
space,
which
this
has
no
livability
or
green
space.
V
Those
three-story
walk-up
destroyed
that
sense
of
community
and
took
millions
of
dollars
later
on
in
the
80s
and
90s
for
the
federal
government
and
the
Dayton
Hudson
sound
ation
that
funded
the
Whittier
Alliance
to
read,
alter
and
take
back
and
safely
renovate
that
whole
community.
This
proposal
is
a
slab
on
grade
development
for
parking
with
three-story
apartment
building,
plus,
on
top
of
it,
going
close
to
50
feet.
It's
built
in
two
phases.
The
materials
are
as
poor
as
the
ones
used
in
Whittier
5/8
inch,
fiber
channel.
V
This
is
housing,
hence
for
quiet,
healthy
white
renters,
and
it
does
not
reflect
the
many
one-bedroom
and
efficiency
units
that
have
been
added
to
our
neighborhood
in
the
last
five
years.
There
is
no
affordability
for
family.
This
is
one
project,
that's
being
done
to
avoid
those
affordability
regulations.
V
Kyani
would
have
been
better
if
it
was
one
structure
with
underground
parking
that
could
have
been
done.
I
urge
you
to
consider
this
and
to
not
want
to
approve
this
at
that
and
and
to
really
rethink
this,
because
it
feels
very
duplicitous,
even
if
they
stay
there
as
separate
ownership.
So
sorry
to
take
so
long
and
I
really
hope,
you'll
consider
this
for
the
future.
To
not
do
these
wall-to-wall
really
only
have
story,
walk-up
beliefs
that
are
popped
up
for
four
storeys
high.
Thank
you
so
much.
B
B
All
right
is
there
anybody
else
wishing
to
testify
on
items
11
or
13,
so
item
13
is
400.
Second
Street
northeast
and
item
number
11
is
336
second
Street
northeast
and
Ward
3.
If
anyone
is
wishing
to
testify
I
know
there
is
one
just
the
testifier
who's
trying
to
unmute,
but
if
there's
anybody
else,
please
press
star
six
to
unmute
yourself
and
let
us
know
you're
here.
B
I
B
M
Marcus
Gatto
I
live
at
4'o
second
407
second
Street
north
E
and
I
have
no
affiliation
other
than
I
am
a
resident
in
the
strano
neighborhood
I'd
like
to
thank
the
Commission
for
allowing
me
to
present
today.
I
just
I
want
to
reiterate
a
couple
of
things
that
we've
heard
that
were
already
presented
gold
size,
a
representative
of
our
local
board
and
by
Sally
and
I,
appreciate
the
comment
that
they
gave
so
I
won't
highlight
anything
they
had
already
said,
but
they
have
covered
a
lot
of
the
tactical
elements
that
are
concerned.
M
As
larger
project
as
possible
and
actually
to
exceed
basically
the
size
of
items
that
they
could
otherwise
use
into
its
fate,
that
won't
actually
hold
it
and
there's
not
really
anything
that
you
city,
the
neighborhood,
the
community
is
getting
back
other
than
increased
density,
there's
no
there's
no
housing.
The
ownership-
that's
coming
in
we've
already
talked
about
that.
This
won't
meet
the
inclusionary
zoning
plan,
so
there
won't
be
projects
offered
for
sixty
percent
is
less
of
a
my
at
any
point.
We
understand
that
it's
not
going
to
visually
match
with
the
area.
That's
around
it.
M
A
M
So
the
question
I
think
that
the
Commission
needs
to
ask
itself
is
when
we
are
looking
at
this
project
and
you're
looking
to
be
granting
a
tool
for
this
project.
Why?
Why
should
this
project
be
given
special
consideration
to
allow
it
to
violate
the
rules,
and
that's
really
what
a
very
intense
variance
is:
a
violation
of
law?
Why
is
it
that
this
project
should
be
allowed
to
violate
the
rules?
And
then
the
question
comes
back
and
says:
what
is
the
tangible
benefit
that
this
project
is
providing?
M
What
is
unique
and
good
about
this
project
that
stands
out?
That's
that
we
should
say
we
want
this
project.
Instead
of
the
rules
and
I
can't
see
and
I
haven't
seen
it
presented
at
any
point
by
the
developer,
the
architects,
the
owners
and,
by
the
way,
I
think
it's
worth
noting
that
we
see
these
same
architecture.
We
see
these
same
applicant,
we
seem
matching
projects,
you
seek
matching
materials.
This
is
one
project
masquerading
as
to
what
is
being
offered.
What
is
the
community
getting
in
exchange
for
granting
that
variance
for
granting.
M
There
needs
to
be
something
else,
provided
that
is
a
tangible
benefit
to
the
community
to
the
neighborhood,
which
is
gone
unless
it
does
not
and
to
the
area
that's
immediately
shrunk.
I
would
I
would
rest
based
on
that
and
the
comments
that
I
have
placed
in
the
public
comment
that
I
submitted
earlier.
Thank
you
very
much.
B
N
N
I
do
have
a
hard
time
with
the
feeling
of
that.
These
two
are
very
connected
and
I
guess.
My
question.
The
question
that
comes
up
here
for
me
now
for
staff
is
that
are
there
any
policies,
and/or
considerations
from
the
city
that
potentially
addresses
that,
like
I
understand
the
two
applications
are
separate,
but
is
there
any
bet
any
point?
Is
the
question
possible
to
be
asked
that?
Are
you
two
together
is?
Q
Once
we
hit
500
units
between
20
and
50,
so
in
buildings
with
between
20
and
50
units,
then
the
trigger
is
20
units.
So
right
now
we're
in
that
interim
phase
where
the
trigger
is
50.
We
did
take
into
consideration
the
fact
that
it's
possible
that
a
developer
could
come
in
with
two
side-by-side
projects
and
not
trigger
the
policy.
Q
You
know
it's
something
that
one,
because
this
is
a
temporary
condition,
that's
being
phased
in.
You
know
the
number
of
units.
So,
yes,
it's
500
overall
permitted
units
in
the
city.
So
far
since
the
policy
has
been
in
place,
we
have
permitted
30
units,
the
more
49
unit
buildings
we
get
or
the
more
buildings
we
get
in
that
range
between
20
and
49,
the
closer
we
get
to
500
and
the
closer
we
get
to
bringing
the
threshold
down
to
20
units.
Q
So
it
you
know
it's
not
something
that
wasn't
considered.
These
two
are
not
one
zoning
lot,
because
they're,
not
under
common
ownership
and
with
that
they
cannot
be
considered
as
one
project.
If
we
were
to
change
the
you
know
to
include
some
language
that
said
that
side
by
side
projects
at
49
units
would
trigger
it.
Q
So
you
know
you
can't
have
two
residential
buildings
on
one
lot.
There's
a
lot
of
factors
that
went
into
this
staff
actually
encouraged
them
to
have
a
single
access
point
instead
of
two
separate
access
points,
because
that's
more
in
line
with
the
zoning
code,
and
with
that
you
know
it
does
make
it
look
more
like
the
two
property
owners
are
in
cooperation
with
one
another,
but
that
was
intended
to
reduce
the
number
of
curb
cuts
and
the
impact
to
the
pedestrian
environment
in
front
of
the
two
projects
as
a
direction
from
staff.
N
Thank
You
Kimberly
for
explaining
what
you
just
did
I
now
know
a
lot
more
than
they
did
five
minutes
ago.
My
only
question
about
the
500
is
that
now
I
understand
that
a
citywide
but
I
also
want
to
know
what
is
the
time
limit
on
the
500?
Is
it
between
now
and
is
it
for
the
next
ten
years?
Is
it
up
to
2040?
Is
it
like?
When
does
that
500
restart?
If
you
will
it
never
restarts,
oh
okay,
so
moving
forward?
If
we
do
the
500,
we
reach
the
500
moving
forward.
Q
I
Thank
you
just
I
wanted
to
follow
up
to
the
commissioners.
Those
are
those
are
great
questions
and
some
of
it
besides
kind
of
how
I
can
really
really
explained
how
we
set
that
limit.
There
was
always
going
to
be
a
1-under
problem.
You
know
see
what
we're
seeing
here,
50
of
49
units
instead
of
50,
when
we
looked
at
the
data,
it
was
going
to
be
what
they
were
suggesting
was
inclusionary.
Zoning
for
15,
above
anything
from
20
to
50,
was
going
to
be
pretty
hard.
I
It
is
something
that
we
weren't
really
sure
what
would
happen
so
now
we're
kind
of
starting
to
see
how
many
Tummie
units
will
be
developed
and
still
having
a
commitment
to
making
sure
there's
affordable
housing.
Also,
there
was
a
lot
of
thought
into
where
this
could
actually
happen.
Where
would
you
build
a
side-by-side,
you
know,
building
that
would
get
under
that,
and
there
were.
There
was
a
pretty
limited
amount
of
spaces
that
they
could
do
that
throughout
the
city.
B
R
Q
Again,
there
are
a
number
of
ways
to
comply
with
the
unified
housing
policy.
One
way
to
comply
with
it
is
on-site
production
which
would
be
8%.
There's
also
now
that
we're
past
the
June
1st
deadline
for
phasing
in
the
other
ways
you
can
do
an
in
lieu
fee
or
off-site
production,
so
it
would
depend
on
how
the
applicant
would
choose
to
do
that.
But
again,
in
this
case,
it
is
not
required.
R
Ok,
so
I
guess
you
know
what
I
agree
with
other
commissioners.
I
mean
it
seems
clearly
that
the
intent
of
the
number
of
units
being
at
49
is
to
sidestep
the
inclusionary
zoning
ordinance,
I
I
guess
I
want
to
see
I'm
looking
for
guidance
from
staff
like.
Is
that
an
acceptable
reason
to
reject
a
site
site
plan
or
reject
a
setback?
You.
Q
Know
what
it's
not
so,
what
you
have
the
site
plan
review
standards
that
you're
required
to
evaluate
that
do
not
have
anything
to
do
with
site
planner
with
the
inclusionary
housing
policy
or
the
unified
housing
policy.
You
also
have
a
setback,
variance
for
each
project
to
consider
which
has
the
three
required
findings
based
on
practical
difficulties,
unique
to
the
parcel
whether
or
not
the
variance
proposed
is
consistent
with
the
adopted
policy
and
the
intent
of
the
ordinance
and
the
impacts
on
the
surrounding
properties.
Q
So
none
of
the
applications
before
this
Commission
are
asking
you
to
evaluate
whether
or
not
this
project
is
consistent
with
the
unified
housing
policy
or
should
trigger
any
requirements
for
affordable
housing.
It's
also
worth
noting
they
are
not
asking
for
increased
height,
so
we
are
not
doing
the
evaluation
under
this
Ups
to
whether
or
not
there
the
reasonable
needs
for
further
achieving
complan
goals.
We
only
have
the
site
plan
review
and
the
variance.
R
You
know
I
thought
for
council
member
trader
is
you
know,
I
mean
you're,
always
gonna
have
some
degree
of
under
one,
but
they
could
have
been
smoother
like
you
could
have,
instead
of
like
a
steep
cliff
that
you
have
for
49
to
58
could
have
been
maybe
more
spread
out
and
so
that
you
have
you
have
to
do
a
couple
more
40
or
whatever,
but
I
don't
know.
That's
maybe
something
to
consider
in
the
future,
but
I
mean
if
that's
not
an
a
reason
that
we
can
reject
it
than
I
guess.
I.
R
B
E
E
Yeah
I
just
think
that
you
know
we
kind
of
touched
on
this
and
I
appreciate
the
conversation
about
the
you
know,
one
under
concern,
but
I
think
what
we're
being
asked
to
consider
today
is
much
narrower
than
that.
We're
looking
at
a
variance
for
the
front
yard,
setback
and
I.
Think
staff
have
laid
that
out
very
clearly
and
I
agree
with
their
analysis.
B
G
B
B
Good
testimony,
you
know
around
of
the
complications
of
this
project,
I
believe
that
staff
and
our
discussion
kind
of
covered.
Most
of
our
points
addressed
in
testimony,
but
I
do
want
to
note.
You
know
particular
that
on
these
projects
we
really
are
limited
to
the
conditions.
Other
started
to
the
applications
that
are
before
us
and
so,
and
also
limited
to
consideration.
Consistent
with
zoning
code
and
2040
plan
was
kind
of
incorporates
the
guidance
from
small
area
plans.
We
heard
several
items
about
small
area
plans,
but
thought
guidance
in
the
2040
plan.
B
That's
what
governs
the
the
bulk
and
the
allowable
density
here,
ultimately,
and-
and
there
is
work
to
do
on
on
some
of
the
elements
on
walkable
neighborhoods,
which
we
have
in
the
2040
plan-
there's
work
to
do
on
pollinator,
friendly
habitat
and,
but
you
know,
I
think
that
that
the
purview
of
this
commission
in
these
decisions
are
the
applications
before
us.
Please
call
it
all.
D
N
G
A
D
B
S
Good
evening
again,
commissioners,
this
project,
which
the
presentation
should
should
be
up
shortly,
is
proposal
for
a
three-story
five-unit
building
at
35
Groveland
Terrace.
The
spagett
is
currently
occupied
by
a
3
story:
single
family
home.
There
was
an
application
before
the
Heritage
Preservation
Commission
regarding
the
demolition
of
this
home,
which
was
approved
as
it
is
a
potential
historic
resource
list,
Ida
sonar
and
in
the
2040
plan
it
just
guided
for
interior
to
an
urban
neighborhood,
and
the
the
proposed
building
is
three
stories
with
5g
units.
S
Next
slide,
please,
the
application
or
the
project
requires
the
following:
applications:
petition
residual
property
from
our
to
district
to
the
our
three
district
conditional
use
permit
to
increase
the
maximum
height
in
our
three
district
for
two
and
a
half
stories
or
35
feet
to
three
stories
or
44
feet
and
site
plan
review
next
slide.
Please
here
is
a
site
plan
of
the
site.
The
site
has
a
significant
grade
change
to
orient
yourself.
S
Next
slide,
please
so
the
applicant
has
proposed,
with
this
one
level
of
underground
parking
with
11
parking
spaces
and
by
parking
on
this
level
as
well.
Storage
next
slide,
please
and
then
due
to
the
great
change
on
entire
level,
it's
going
to
cut
into
the
hill
and
would
not
be
visible
from
the
street.
So
this
is
the
first
floor.
Both
the
first
and
second
floors
would
contain
two
units.
Each
and
the
top
floor
would
just
contain
one
unit
next
slide.
Please
Adam.
S
Here's
the
second
floor
and
next
slide
and
here's
the
third
floor
with
the
one
unit
and
some
outdoor
green
roof
area
next
slide.
Please,
so
here
are
elevations
of
the
structure,
so
the
the
fact
that
it
is
on
a
hill
and
kind
of
built
into
the
hill
doesn't
change
staffs
determination.
Those
three
stories
is
measured
from
a
point
10
feet
in
front
of
the
structure
towards
the
street,
which
is
farther
down
the
hill.
S
It
has
these
taller
ceilings
and
is
not
you
know
full
that
doesn't
is
not
kind
of
fully
embedded
in
that
hill.
For
that
first
floor,
it
is
considered
to
be
three
storeys
next
slide,
please.
So
the
applicant
is
submitted
more
images
than
this,
but
I
thought
this
was
a
good
kind
of
demonstration
of
the
building
and
context.
The
building
is
three
stories
the,
but
the
existing
building
is
also
it's
a
single-family
home,
but
it
is
also
three
storeys.
S
So
the
applicant
had
submitted
some
of
these
drawings
to
show
that,
while
the
proposed
building
will
be
bulkier
than
the
building,
that
is
there,
it
will
actually
be
shorter
at
the
peak
than
the
existing
building.
So
I
did
include
this
image
and
next
slide,
please
so
here's
a
rendering
of
the
building
the
third
floor
is
set
back
from
the
street
and
do
to
kind
of
the
hill
condition
and
may
not
be
very
visible
from
the
rear
of
the
site.
S
The
building
will
appear
to
be
two
storeys
and
does
have
that
driveway
cut
more
cut
into
the
hill,
whereas
the
the
present
condition
includes
a
really
large
railway.
That
kind
of
goes
up
the
hill
to
the
existing
building.
Next
slide.
Please
so
staff
evaluated
the
three
applications
for
this
project.
S
The
site
is
guided
for
urban
neighborhood
and
interior
to
there
are.
The
residential
use
is
consistent
with
urban
neighborhood,
and
the
proposal
to
rezone
the
site
from
r2
to
r3
is
consistent
with
the
guidance
and
interior
to
the
the
kind
of
assessment
of
interior.
To
is
that
it
could
be
consistent
with
r3,
because
it
does
r3
does
allow
a
little
bit
additional
or
a
little
more
density
than
in
r2.
S
In
addition,
the
r3
district
does
have
a
maximum
height
of
two
and
a
half
stories
which
is
consistent
with
the
interior
to
destination
in
the
Comprehensive
Plan
in
the
r2
district
there
would
not
a
building
of
more
than
two
units
would
not
be
permitted,
so
staff
does
find
that
the
proposed
rezoning
is
consistent
with
the
Comprehensive
Plan.
Next
slide.
Please,
however,
the
proposed
height
is
not
consistent
with
the
adopted
policy
in
the
Comprehensive
Plan.
S
An
applicant
has
proposed
to
increase
the
height
from
two
and
a
half
stories
or
35
feet
to
three
stories
or
44
feet.
The
interior
two
districts
typically
calls
for
maximum
of
two
and
a
half
stories
or
thirty
five
feet,
and
it
does
not
include
any
mechanism
for
increasing
the
height.
Unlike
some
of
the
higher
density
districts,.
S
Will
allow
for
height
increases.
This
district
does
not
allow
for
that
and
because
the
site
plan
review
applications
for
a
three-story.
Forty
four
foot
tall
building
staff
is
recommending
denial
of
both
applications.
Next
slide,
please
so.
Staff
is
recommending
approval
of
the
rezoning
application
and
denial
of
the
conditional
use,
permit
and
site
plan
review,
applications
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
N
S
The
rezoning
were
to
be
approved
they
and
the
other
half.
So,
basically,
if
the
conditional
use
permit
site
plan
review,
applications
were
denied
that
would
effectively
deny
the
building.
Has
it's
presently
proposed?
The
approval
of
the
rezoning
application
would
stay
with
the
property,
so
the
property
would
be
rezone
to
r3,
which
would
allow
for
the
applicant
to
potentially
revise
the
proposal
and
come
back
with
a
two
and
a
half
story
building
or
a
two
story.
Building
that
would
comply
with
the
height
requirement
and
interior
without
having
to
go
through
the
rezoning
process.
At
that
time,.
B
L
Thank
you.
This
is
a
good
evening,
commissioners.
This
is
Craig
Martin
with
Pearson
Kelly
architecture,
I'll
start
by
introducing
the
applicant
in
the
homeless
of
35
Groveland
Terrace,
and
then
we
can
discuss
the
design
and
application
request
a
little
bit
further.
Kara
Lansing,
with
beggary
Drinker,
Biddle
and
wreath,
is
also
part
of
the
team
and
she'll
be
touching
base
on
the
2040
comprehensive
plan
and
how
this
project
proaches
that
so
to
start
the
staff
with
pulped
the
presentation
I
provided
while
the
homeowners
speak,
will
then
jump
into
those
exhibits.
A
W
P
W
Name
is
marcin
Siddiqui,
my
wife,
Julie
and
I
purchased.
The
property
in
1975
can
have
sense,
would
endless
amount
of
energy
money
and
love
into
the
house
to
make
it
a
functional
for
our
family
needs.
Over
the
last
44
years
we
have
operated
the
small
business,
raised
three
children
and
created
countless
memory
in
the
house.
However,
we
have
reached
the
point
in
our
lives
where
the
home
is
no
longer
able
to
meet
our
needs.
W
W
When
we
thought
about
the
possibility
of
new
construction
for
our
needs,
the
neighborhood
and
the
city,
we
think
that
building
a
multi-family
dwelling
rather
than
a
large
single-family
home
is
the
right
choice.
It
would
add,
density
in
near
downtown
and
set
the
context
of
neighboring
homes
in
size,
height
and
use
of
quality
building
material.
W
We
think
contemporary
flat
roof
design
is
more
attractive
and
appropriate
for
our
times
and
compatible
with
the
existing
very
architectural
character
of
the
block.
We
want
to
replace
the
three-story
residence
with
the
new
three-story
residence,
but
we
need
the
COP
to
do
that.
We
hope
you
will
approve
the
zoning
and
the
conditional
use
permit.
Thank
you.
L
L
Long
Grove,
on
Terrace
as
you'll
see
in
the
first
picture,
and
if
you
can
go
to
page
two,
please,
the
property
is
neighbored
by
an
older
home,
converted
into
an
apartment,
building
to
East,
there's
a
home
conversion
into
a
gallery
business
and
then
even
further
east
than
that.
There's
a
large
church
building
to
the
west
is
a
new
u2
unit,
condominum
condominium
building
and
then
kitty-corner
is
a
large
60
condominium.
L
Building
the
Walker
Art
Center
is
directly
north
across
Brooklyn
Terrace
and
behind
the
property
up
higher
on
the
hill
and
overlooking
the
existing
home,
our
single-family
residences
and
home
converted
into
condominiums
as
well
page.
Three,
please
so
35
Groveland
Terrace
is
a
single-family
home
right
now
with
one
apartment.
It
was
a
business
at
one
point
in
its
history
and
it's
been
added
on
to
multiple
times.
L
So
in
lieu
of
remodeling,
the
saudis
and
the
design
team
felt
it
was
beneficial
to
pursue
new
construction
that
could
maximize
the
property,
size,
location
and
also
utilize,
energy-efficient
practices
promoting
the
2045
page
for
please
so.
The
designs
you'll
see
in
a
minute
is
influenced
by
local
landmarks,
such
as
the
basilica's
light
stone
and
the
dark
metal
roof.
High
contrast,
some
of
the
forms
were
inspired
by
the
Walker
Art
Center,
and
the
simple
exterior
stone
cladding
is
reminiscent
of
many
nearby
structures.
L
Page
five,
please
so
use
of
masonry,
large
porches
and
decorative
railings
off
the
front
facade
create
an
active
and
vibrant
streetscape.
The
scale
in
the
height
of
the
building
is
such
that
complements
the
neighboring
structures.
We're
not
trying
to
go
above
low
structures
or
too
far
below
we
really
want
to
mirror
what
is
currently
on
the
site,
so
it
doesn't
tower
over
again
property
or
block
views
from
behind
either,
but
rather
it's
nestled
into
the
hillside
is
intentionally
designed
to
have
we'll
fight
to
what
I'll
call
kind
of
the
skyline
of
Hill
there.
L
L
It's
essentially
what
you
see
in
these
images
we're
respecting
the
concept
of
a
two
and
a
half
storey
building
by
stepping
back
the
third
floor,
but
continuing
that
that
two-story
facades
along
Grove
on
Terrace,
page
seven,
please
and
sustainable
practices
were
also
at
the
forefront
of
the
Saudis
request.
They're
interested
interested
in
reducing
the
amount
of
asphalt
driveway
on
the
lap
of
polling
vehicles
indoors
below
great.
L
Page
eight
please
so
the
map
you'll
see
come
up
on
the
screen
here
mirrors
the
concept
of
the
2040
plan
by
showing
just
how
promoting
dense
in
areas
close
to
downtown
help
facilitate
walking
biking,
riding
public
transportation
throughout
the
city.
So
this
is
a
prime
location
to
promote
densification
in
a
responsible
manner,
while
still
maintain
the
character
of
single-family
homes.
The
saudis
fit-up
chosen
to
build
up
to
nine
units
based
on
the
lot
area.
L
However,
they
chose
to
build
five
units
so
as
to
maintain
the
character
and
style
of
a
single-family
home
along
Larry,
Hill
and
page
nine,
and
it's
coming
up
here.
So
the
elevations
that
you'll
see
show
the
building
nestled
into
the
hillside
and
design
designed
to
match
midpoints
of
neighboring
refines.
It
also
shows
how
the
entire
first
floor
is
buried,
integrate
at
the
rear,
allowing
second
floor
units
to
walk.
Oh
it's
grade,
and
then
page.
L
L
L
And
then,
as
the
slides
you
catching
up
here,
page
15.
So
what
is
the
ask?
The
owner
asking
for
the
issue
at
hand
is
building
measurement
taking
from
10
feet
in
front
of
the
proposed
building
off
natural
grid,
so
the
natural
grade
is
a
15%
slope,
which
means
the
first
floor
is
approximately
6
feet
above
the
measurement
point,
and
the
rear
of
the
first
floor
is
completely
below
grade
and
page
16,
so
great
is
actually
35
feet
taller
at
the
rear
of
the
site
than
it
is
at
the
front.
That's
that's.
L
L
Well,
if
it
was,
it
would
be
about
38
feet,
tall
and
still
three
stories,
so
we
would
still
have
that
request
and
we
request
be
requesting
3
feet
as
opposed
to
or
38
feet,
as
opposed
to
a
44
just
for
reference
and
then
page
18.
We
also
want
you
to
consider
what
is
a
two
and
a
half
story
in
regards
to
modern
architecture
with
flat
roofs
so
flat.
Roofs
are
technically
not
allowed
to
be
considered.
Half
stories
do
zone
in
poor
language.
This
diagram,
though,
is
illustrating
that
nearly
half
the
first
floor
is
below
grade.
L
Well,
only
two
stories
are
completely
above
grade,
so
one
could
argue
perhaps
that
the
first
floor
is
a
half
story,
and
if
you
like,
a
page
19
when
that
pops
up
here,
if
a
flat
roof
were
to
be
consider
the
half
story,
what
would
that
look
like?
Well?
This
diagram
is
showing
that
we're
pulling
back
the
third
floor.
L
L
B
B
Q
L
K
Thank
You
commissioners,
mr.
Lansing
I'm,
an
attorney
with
sacred
record
Biddle
and
wreaths,
and
working
with
sadeghi
and
TJ
on
this
project.
If
you
could
pull
up
page
26
of
the
slide.
So
as
you
can
tell,
the
key
issue
for
your
decisions
tonight
is
whether
a
proposed
three-story
height
of
the
building
is
consistent
with
the
2040
plan.
K
It
is
guidance,
not
regulation
states
that
building
heights
should
should
be
1,
2,
2
4,
5
stories,
it's
not
a
maximum,
but
if
they
should
be,
the
interior
districts
do
not
include
that
language
found
in
court
or
in
other
districts
that
request
to
exceed
the
height
guidance
may
be
evaluated
on
the
basis
of
whether
or
not
a
faller
building
is
a
reasonable
means
for
achieving
comprehensive
plan
goals.
But
again
it
does
not
prohibit
consideration
of
increased
types.
K
So
my
understanding
is
that,
in
discussing
how
the
built
form
overlay
districts
will
be
implemented
will
implement
the
2040
plan.
Staff
is
considering
specifying
an
ordinance
that
the
height
of
structures
in
the
interior
built
forum
districts
may
be
increased
by
variants.
That
approach,
if
it
is
adapted,
is
not
a
prohibition
on
height
above
2.5
stories
and
recognizes
request
for
greater
height
may
be
appropriate
and,
like
a
c
UT,
a
variance
must
also
be
evaluated
on
the
basis
of
consistency
with
the
comp
plan.
K
But
under
the
current
zoning
ordinance,
the
mechanisms
are
requesting
an
increase
in
height
of
multiple
family
structures.
It's
still
by
a
conditional
use
permit,
and
so
that's
why
we're
applying?
For
a
TDP
people
do
the
proposed
three-story
project
is
consistent
with
several
policies
of
the
2040
plan
and,
as
it
is,
what's
displayed
on
your
slides.
K
So
first,
the
interior
to
a
guidance
specified
specifically
allows
multiple
family
dwellings
with
more
than
three
units
on
larger
life
and,
as
we
discussed
in
our
submission
peak
roof
design,
something
that
is
you
know
compatible
with
a
2.5
sir
at
high
tide
is
not
a
typical,
efficient
or
practical
design
for
new
construction
of
even
a
low
density.
5
unit,
multiple
family
dwelling.
Like
this.
As
noted
in
the
staff
report,
the
project
is
consistent
with
2014
plan
policies.
K
Supporting
increased
access
to
housings
in
particular,
the
proposed
building
has
housing
density
near
downtown
their
high
Sigma
C
transits,
and
in
a
neighborhood
that
already
has
a
mix
of
dwelling
types
sizes
and
architectural
styles,
as
Craig
showed
you,
the
height
massing
and
design
of
the
proposed
building
sits
beautifully
within
its
context.
There
are
other
2040
plan
policies.
I'd
also
like
to
highlight
that
show
the
project
consistency
with
the
plan.
The
project
also
promotes
policy
5
related
to
visual
visual
quality
of
new
development.
K
K
The
proposed
design
incorporates
the
energy
efficiency
and
sustainability
steps
encouraged
by
policy
68
an
efficient,
in
addition
to
efficiencies
achievable
through
new
construction,
the
flat
roof
design
and
steps
back
third
floor
facilitates
the
incorporation
of
the
glue
green
roof
components
all
and
by
pointing
out
that
there
are
several
circumstances
specific
to
this
site
that
will
not
apply
generally
throughout
the
interior
to
district.
So
you
should
not
view
approval
of
this
three-story
project
as
dictating
approval
of
any
or
all
future
requests.
K
These
circumstances
includes
a
large
lot
size
that
is
conducive
to
greater
density
fact
that
the
existing
resisting
structure
is
not
conducive
to
renovation.
To
add
that
density,
the
extreme
slope
of
the
site
and
forty
five
foot
front
yard
requirement
constrain
the
design
options
for
increased
density.
K
For
example,
cluster
design
was
evaluated,
but
it's
not
feasible
in
this
topography
and
due
to
the
shape
of
the
lot
and
the
proposed
three-story
building
will
replace
an
existing
three-story
building
a
two-story
flat
roof
building
would
actually
be
incompatible
with
the
height
of
scale
of
New
Zealand
buildings,
which
are
primarily
three
storey
buildings.
I
think
those
circumstances
distinguish
this
site
staff
agreed
that
the
project
that
three
storeys
meets
all
the
criteria
for
Co
P
other
than
consistency
with
the
two
and
a
half
story
guidance.
K
We
believe,
there's
more
flexibility
and
how
that
guidance
can
be
applied.
We
hope
we've
shown
you
that
the
proposed
three
story
building
is
consistent
with
many
policies
and
action,
steps
of
the
2040
plan
and
with
the
spirit
and
ten
of
both
the
interior
to
district
and
the
plan
as
a
whole.
So,
thank
you
for
your
attention
and
please
let
us
know
if
you
have
any
questions.
B
R
L
R
B
B
K
Fall
hi,
I'm,
Colleen,
Clark
I
am
the
owner
of
fifty-seven
Groveland
Terrace,
two
doors
down
from
the
property
in
question.
I
appreciate
you
taking
my
call.
My
concerns
are
twofold:
one
for
the
future
of
this
historic
neighborhood,
as
well
as
personally
as
a
neighbor.
I,
really
appreciate
the
extensive
thought
and
time
that
the
city
of
Minneapolis
spent
on
the
2040
plan
designating
this
historic
Larry
Hill
area
as
interior,
and
the
proposals
to
increase
the
height
and
increase
the
unit's
go
against
that
2040
plan.
K
It's
not
consistent
with
the
2040
plan,
otherwise
there
wouldn't
be
an
asked
for
variance.
I
would
just
really
ask
that
the
Planning
Committee
consider
what
is
the
benefit
of
making
this
allowance
I'm
concerned
about
changing
courses
on
the
zoning,
the
height
the
number
of
units
when
clearly
so
much
time
has
already
been
put
into
planning
for
this
area.
Personally,
I
am
concerned
about
the
proposed
plans.
I
received
a
lot
of
information
from
Lindsay.
K
Thank
you
very
much
showing
that
the
second
and
the
third
levels
of
this
proposed
unit
come
out
much
farther
towards
the
street
than
the
existing
structure.
The
existing
structure,
only
the
first
level
comes
out
much
further
and
this
new
structure
blocks
my
view
from
my
home,
specifically
of
the
beautiful
Hennepin
Avenue
United
Methodist,
Church
I.
Think
it's
been
presented
that
the
home
will
only
be
as
high
as
the
third.
Not
excuse
me
not
quite
as
high
as
the
current
structure,
but
that's
just
the
very
back
part.
The
new
structure
comes
out
really
far.
K
K
The
apartments
they
handful
of
to
building
excuse
me
to
family
condos,
the
modern
aspects
of
the
Walker,
rather
than
the
overwhelming
majority
of
the
historic
single-family
homes
that
are
the
true
makeup
of
this
neighborhood
I
reached
out
to
Lindsay,
as
well
as
the
main
architect
back
in
May
and
they're,
really
very
helpful
and
giving
me
some
information
to
try
to
understand
this.
This
project
I
was
supposed
to
be
put
into
contact
with
the
owner,
but
she
did
not
get
back
in
contact
with
me.
K
K
I'm
asking
that
the
committee
continue
with
their
recommendation
to
deny
the
height
and
unit
allowance
on
this
seems
to
be
more
of
a
personal
investment
property
rather
than
what's
in
the
best
interest
of
the
neighborhood,
the
current
safety
issues
with
the
driveway
and
where
the
kitchen
is
located.
Those
can
be
addressed
in
another
way.
That's
a
personal
issue
in
my
opinion,
and
not
really
an
issue
that
serves
the
neighborhood
and
the
city
by
allowing
the
experiences.
Thank
you.
B
B
B
K
V
V
X
Thank
You
mr.
president,
I
just
wanted
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
this
project
in
particular
and
and
how
I
understand
what
our
role
is
with
respect
to
each
project
that
comes
before
us,
that
you
know
it's
important,
that
we
treat
them
separately
because
they
do
stand
on
their
own.
That's
our
responsibility
and
that
there
are
different
laws
and
requirements
of
the
2040
plan
that
applied
to
these
different
different
projects,
and
it's
that
way
for
a
reason
because
of
the
size
and
the
location.
And
we
keep
in
mind.
Also.
X
The
2040
plan
was
a
parcel
by
parcel
examination
of
the
properties
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis
with
respect
to
future
development
and
what
I
find
particularly
concerning
about
this
project
and
I
will,
by
the
way,
be
supporting
all
three
of
the
staff
recommendations,
particularly
the
denial
of
the
conditional
use
permit
and
the
site
plan
review.
What
I
find
particularly
concerning
about
this
project
is
what's
being
offered
as
the
justification
for
bringing
it
forward.
Is
that
the
the
built
form
project,
that
is
on
the
property
at
the
moment,
no
longer
works
for
the
owner
and
I?
X
X
What
is
contemplated
and
what
is
allowed-
and
it's
very
obvious
to
me
that
this
is
not.
This
is
not
what's
contemplated
by
it,
and
it's
also
not
in
the
best
interest,
I.
Think
in
this
location.
For
this
neighborhood
again,
the
2040
plan
was
a
property
by
property.
You
know
specific,
laying
out
looking
at
the
neighborhoods
looking
at
what
was
already
had
the
most
density,
with
a
view
toward
actually
putting
more
density
in
areas
that
had
been
overlooked.
X
Perhaps-
and
things
like
that
so
unbalanced
I-
think
that
this
is.
This
is
a
project
that
clearly
doesn't
meet
the
goals
of
the
2040
plan,
let
alone
the
law
and
I
can't
support
it.
For
these
reasons
and
I
think
I
would
encourage
other
commissioners
to
do
the
same
and
be
very
wary
of
supporting
things
based
on
the
spirit,
because
I
don't
think
this
reflects
the
spirit
of
the
2040
comp
plan
at
all.
Thanks.
E
S
T
R
You
know
mine
was
the
same.
The
Commissioner
Wilson
brought
up
with
like
how
you
treat
the
slope
and
I
guess
the
question
is
expanding
on
the
question
would
be,
and
you
know,
does
the
slope
present
a
practical
difficulty
in
this
case?
That
would
be
something
that
you
would
consider.
I
mean
I'm,
like
you
know,
appreciative
staff
could
say
more
for
why
they
recommended
denial
in
this
case.
S
B
T
S
The
that
is
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
It
may
be
the
case
that
there
might
be
a
different
proposed
proposal
here.
That
would
include
you
know
three
four
or
five
units
that
would
be
consistent
with
the
Comprehensive
Plan
when
we
have
rezoning
applications.
These
are
applications
that
tend
to
take
longer.
They
have
to
go
before
the
City
Council.
B
N
Thank
you,
I
just
I
wanted
to
follow
up
to
the
commissioner
and
my
last
question,
which
also
it's
at
my
very
beginning,
comment
that
I
made.
So
if
the,
if
we
do,
approve
the
rezoning
and
deny
the
conditional
use
permit
and
the
site
plan
review,
as
recommended
by
staff,
it
is
possible
that
the
returning
application
could
be
something
that
will
again
ask
for
rezoning
right
like
bring
it
back
to
what
it
was.
Is
that
a
possibility,
or
do
you
think
that
that
the
chances
of
that
happening
are
actually
variable
so.
S
When
we
think
about
that
comprehensive
plan
which
was
adopted
in
January,
there
are
guidelines
for
Heights
and
densities
and
these
districts
all
across
the
city.
But
we
haven't,
as
you
know,
adopted
the
built
form
district
overlays.
Yet
so
we
did
identify
that
r3
is
consistent
with
interior
and
I'm.
The
r3
does
allow
single
family
family
structures
as
well,
so
I,
don't
I
can't
anticipate
that
someone
would
want
to
rezone
to
a
more
restrictive
district
when
there's
nothing
that
you
can
do
and
are
that
you
can't
do
in
r3.
B
I
B
G
H
B
N
I
Q
A
brief
update
on
the
Lake
Street
projects
that
I
had
mentioned
went
to
the
biz
many
of
the
City
Council
on
appeal
off
the
top
of
my
head.
No
I
can't
remember
those
addresses,
but
between
502
and
510
West
Lake
Street.
They
were
two
projects
across
the
street
from
one
another.
The
appeals
on
those
were
related
to
the
requirement
that
the
amount
of
ground-floor
commercial
space,
the
increase
to
50%
that
appeal
was
granted,
and
so
that
condition
of
approval
was
effectively
removed
from
the
variance
application
and
those
projects
will
proceed
beyond
that.