►
From YouTube: June 16, 2020 Business, Inspections & Zoning Committee
Description
Minneapolis Business, Inspections & Zoning Committee Meeting
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/
A
B
Afternoon,
everybody
welcome
to
the
regular
meeting
of
the
business
inspections
and
zoning
committee
for
June
16th
2020.
My
name
is
Jeremy
Schrader
and
I'm.
The
vice
chair
of
this
committee
and
I
will
be
chairing
today's
meeting.
As
we
begin
look,
I
will
note
for
the
record
that
this
meeting
has
remote
participation
by
members
of
the
City
Council
and
city
staff,
as
authorized
by
under
Minnesota
Statutes
sections
13d
point
0
to
1
due
to
the
declared
local
public
health
emergency.
C
D
C
D
B
C
B
Thank
you.
Let
the
record
reflect
that
we
have
a
quorum.
Today's
agenda
is
before
us
will
first
dispense
with
the
consent
agenda,
which
is
items
numbers
8
through
12
on
the
agenda
item
number
8.
Is
the
liquor
license
approvals
and
number
nine?
Is
the
gambling
license
renewals
item?
10
is
a
grant
from
Maddie's
fund
for
Animal,
Care
and
Control
foster
program.
Item
number
11
is
a
grant
from
the
Rachael
wave
foundation
to
help
you
alleviate
animal
welfare.
B
Financial
cella
challenges
associated
with
the
corona
bio
virus
pandemic
and
item
number
12
is
the
authorizing
changes
to
the
standard
facilities
use
permit
to
allow
a
mobile,
united
states
postal
service
unit
at
30
west
lake
street?
Are
there
any
comments
or
on
the
consent
agenda,
or
would
anyone
like
to
pull
anything
off
for
discussions.
D
B
B
You
that
carries,
and
the
consent
agenda
is
approved
next,
will
proceed
to
the
bulk
of
our
agenda
item
number.
One
is
an
appeals
submitted
by
james
archer
regarding
the
decision
of
the
Heritage
Preservation
Commission
had
denied
the
demolition
of
a
historic
resource
application
for
the
property
located
at
2309
Plymouth
Avenue
North.
This
item
has
continued
from
our
last
meeting
and
I'll
ask
staff
to
give
a
brief
presentation.
E
Good
afternoon,
council
members,
my
name
is
Sheila
BEMER
and
I'm.
The
senior
city
planner
with
the
historic
preservation
team
in
cpad
today
on
presenting
an
appeal
application
submitted
by
James
Archer,
the
applicant
and
appellant
of
the
May
5th
2020
heritage
preservation,
commission's
denial
of
demolition
of
a
historic
resource,
application
for
to
309
Plymouth
Avenue
north
in
the
Willard
hay
neighborhood.
Next
slide.
Please.
E
This
is
this
building
was
constructed
in
1910
and
was
occupied
by
three
congregations:
the
Homewood
Presbyterian
Church,
starting
in
1910,
the
Kenneth
Israel
congregation
in
1948
and
the
New
Salem
Missionary
Baptist
Church
in
1972
until
2006
the
building
is
currently
vacant
next
slide.
Please,
the
former
church
may
also
be
one
of
the
last
remaining
buildings
standing
after
the
Plymouth
Avenue
riots
of
1967,
a
pivotal
event
and
civil
rights
history
in
Minneapolis.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
apparent
center
of
this
event
of
civil
unrest
was
just
three
blocks.
E
East
of
this
former
Church
staff
recommended
the
former
Church
is
potentially
eligible
under
two
local
significance
criteria.
One
significant
events
and
3d
neighborhood
identity,
the
architectural,
architectural
integrity
and
material
integrity
of
the
church
is
fair.
Next
slide,
please,
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
demolish
the
building
and
construct
a
four-story
36
unit
apartment
building
with
50%
ami
affordability.
The
owner
also
purchased
the
vacant
lot
across
the
alley
to
the
west
and
is
proposing
a
four-story
27
unit.
E
Building
13
of
the
unit's
will
be
set
aside
for
housing
support
through
Hennepin
County,
for
people
experiencing
chronic
homelessness
on
May,
25th
I'm.
Sorry
next
slide
I
think
that's
the
last
one
on
May
25th,
the
Minneapolis
store,
Heritage
Preservation
Commission,
adopted
staff
recommendations
and
voted
to
deny
the
demolition
established
interim
protection
and
direct
staff
to
prepare
or
cause
to
be
prepared.
A
designation
study
for
the
24
to
three:
oh
nine,
Plymouth
Avenue
north
as
a
potential
historic
landmark.
The
appellant
is
present
and
plans
to
speak.
Thank
you
and
I'm
available
for
any
questions.
B
F
Okay,
hi
I'm,
James,
Archer
and
I
live
at
10:15,
Queen,
Avenue,
North
and
I'm,
the
owner
of
the
property
at
2309,
Plymouth,
Avenue,
North
I,
live
in
a
book,
I
love
a
block
and
a
half
down
the
street
from
the
site.
2309,
Plymouth
and
I've
lived
here
since
2008.
This
building
has
been
vacant
for
the
better
part
of
12
years.
I
watch
this
blatant
building
fall
deeper
in
guru
when
I
bought
it
I
initially
looked
to
reuse
the
existing
structure,
but
found
out
it
wasn't
feasible
to
save
the
building.
Even
given
the
degraded
condition.
F
I've
always
wanted
to
give
back
to
the
community
and
I
know.
There's
an
affordable
housing
shortage
within
the
city
of
Minneapolis
after
I
bought
the
building
I
hired
Pete
Keely
from
collage
architects
to
help
design
small-scale,
affordable
housing
on
Plymouth
Avenue
Plymouth
Avenue
has
been
highlighted
in
the
2040
plan
as
a
transit
way,
an
appropriate
site
for
affordable
housing
development.
There
has
already
been
a
lot
of
public
investment
on
Plymouth
Avenue
in
these
cross
streets.
The
next
block
to
the
east
is
SD
spear
home
completed
in
2019
across
the
street.
F
From
this
building
is
the
regional
acceleration
center
with
Hennepin
County
Alps
is
completed
in
2019
and
behind
that
is
the
U
of
M.
You
rock
building
across
the
street
from
there
is
an
urban
league
built
in
2001
with
community
spaces
and
employment
assistance.
Also
in
the
process
of
construction,
is
North
Pointe
health
and
wellness
right
on
Plymouth
Avenue
across
the
street,
from
the
building
I
own
over
the
years.
I've
seen
heard
of
many
failed
attempts
to
rebuild
the
existing
structure
prior
to
me,
owning
it.
F
I
felt
that
this
was
a
good
opportunity
to
develop
new,
high-quality,
deeply,
affordable
housing
in
my
community.
My
development
would
have
49
units
at
50%,
ami
and
another
13
units
at
30%
of
ami,
serving
high-priority
homeless
and
individuals
in
need
of
supportive
housing.
Certain
housing
services
will
be
the
service
provider
for
those
units.
F
That's
when
I
learned
that
the
city
considered
the
building,
potentially
historic
and
I,
would
have
to
ask
permission
from
the
depth
for
demolition
from
the
hpc
I
hired
a
historic
consultant,
Amy
Lucas
of
landscape
research
to
evaluate
the
property
for
the
hpc
hearing.
As
part
of
my
new
construction
development,
I'm
planning
on
adding
a
component
that
would
document
the
history
of
the
neighborhood
and
Plymouth
Avenue.
This
would
be
in
the
form
of
plaques
or
pictures
installed
in
the
interior
exterior
of
the
building
discussing
the
history.
F
Along
with
that,
I
would
also
like
to
add
art
components.
That
would
would
also
speak
to
the
history
and
relate
to
Plymouth
Avenue.
On
my
team
today,
I
am
Amy,
Lukas
historic,
consult
with
landscaper
landscape
research.
To
add
some
comments
in
terms
of
the
historical
significance
of
the
building
so
I'll.
Let
her
take
it
from
here.
G
Hi
I'm
Amy
Lucas,
with
landscape
research
and
I,
assisted
James
with
the
historic
evaluation.
This
area
has
been
surveyed
multiple
times
through
the
years
in
1997.
The
city
completed
two
historic
context
on
Jewish
settlement
in
Minneapolis,
and
the
report
recommended
related
buildings
for
designation.
This
church
was
not
one
of
them,
but
for
synagogues
and
the
cemetery
were
designated
as
a
result.
In
2002,
the
North
Minneapolis
dark
resources
inventory
was
completed
and
did
not
recommend
this
building
for
individual
listing
and,
as
James
noted
in
2017,
the
city
pursued
designation
of
the
Homewood
historic
district.
G
The
district
was
significant
as
a
Jewish
residential
community.
This
church
was
not
built
as
a
synagogue.
The
designation
lack
neighborhood
support
and
was
not
designated.
There
is
a
lengthy
history
of
this
building
in
James,
the
middle
to
the
hpc
and
as
Sheila
noted
homeless,
Batarian
Church
was
built
in
1910
for
a
predominantly
white
congregation
in
1948
chemist
Israel
left
their
building
on
lyndale
and
moved
into
the
Plymouth
building.
They
left
in
1972
when
New
Salem,
Missionary
Baptist
Church
moved
into
the
building
and
left
in
2006.
G
This
church
reflects
the
changing
community,
as
all
churches
do
throughout
Minneapolis
to
avoid
government's
validating
religious
groups.
Churches
are
not
designated
solely
based
on
their
congregations
or
religious
affiliation,
so
the
city
staff
wrote
that
the
church
met
two
criteria
for
designation
the
first
one
criteria
number
one
as
a
former
church
force
association
with
a
important
event,
but
it's
unclear
what
important
events
this
church
is
related
to.
The
staff
report
does
discuss
to
downtown
Minneapolis
and
Plymouth
Avenue
race
riots
of
July
1967.
G
The
race
riots
did
not
take
place
in
or
near
this
church,
and
the
three
congregations
in
this
building
have
never
claimed
any
association
with
the
1967
race
riot.
This
building
is
not
a
physical
marker
of
the
civil
rights
movement
in
Minneapolis,
and
the
synagogue
was
still
located
here
in
1967
staff
notes
that
Plymouth
Avenue
has
been
redeveloped,
and
this
building
is
one
of
the
older
buildings
remaining
on
Plymouth.
G
Avenue
luck
and
age
are
not
reasons
for
designating
and
have
business
or
listing
it's
a
slippery
slope
if
you
start
to
designate
the
oldest
building
on
the
street
because
lyndale
and
Hennepin
or
long
street.
The
staff
report
also
claims
as
a
property
means
designation
criteria
number
three,
because
it
is
associated
with
distinctive
elements
of
the
city
or
neighborhood,
identity,
city
or
neighborhood.
Identity
are
commonly
useful,
misused
criteria
by
the
city
staff.
This
type
of
designation
is
actually
rare.
It's
Space
Needle
for
Seattle
the
Eiffel
Tower
for
Paris,
the
Grain
Belt
brewery
sign,
meets
this
criteria.
G
Nasa
never
explains
what
neighborhood
identity
disk
building
meets,
but
there's
discussion
at
the
1967
race
right
in
urban
renewal
as
elements
of
North
Minneapolis
identity
to
be
preserved.
Urban
renewal
is
not
a
distinctive
element
of
Minneapolis
or
North
Minneapolis
identity
and
is
not
related.
This
building
isn't
related
to
that
movement.
This
church
is
not
connected
to
our
race
right
and
it
was
not
built
during
the
urban
renewal
program.
G
Finally,
the
HPC
actually
did
not
make
findings
that
this
church
met
the
criteria
for
local
designation.
Instead,
they
asked
for
more
research.
There
is
a
lengthy
amount
of
research
in
this
report
that
we
filed
with
the
city
and
attached
to
be
appeal.
Further
research
is
onerous
and
will
not
alter
the
conclusions
that
I
found
in
this
evaluation.
Thank
you
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
questions.
B
D
E
Hi
we're
usually
given
a
year
because
that's
not
the
only
project
were
dedicated
to
so
I
believe
this
one
because
most
of
the
history
behind
this
church
and
behind
the
civil
rights
movement
that
happened,
it's
going
to
be
oral
history
and
it's
gonna
take
a
lot
of
reaching
out
to
community
members
and
speaking
to
them
and
researching
the
RT
of
recorded
oral
histories.
This
is
a
different
type
of
preservation.
E
Research
already
behind
this,
so
this
would
be
something
we'd
have
to
conduct
on
our
own,
with
kovat
19,
its
thwarted,
our
approach
so
far,
but
we've
already
reached
out
and
found
many
people
willing
to
speak
up
about
their
memories
of
the
church
and
and
the
riot
that
occurred
three
blocks
away.
Thank.
E
H
Thank
you,
so
I
I
would
like
to
grant
the
appeal
so
James,
Archer
and
direct
staff
to
draft
findings
and
and
I
know
that
I've
been
working
I've
been
having
these
conversations
of
working
with
staff,
so
I
can
actually
list
out
the
findings
that
that's
needed
is
their
attorney
and
attorney
on.
The
call
who
could
tell
me
if
that's
needed.
I
Mr.
chair
and
many
members,
this
is
Joel
fusty
from
the
City
Attorney's
Office.
You
could
certainly
speak
to
any
of
the
findings
that
you
wish
to
include.
Whoever
that
definitely
is
always
a
good
thing.
You
also
could
simply
direct
staff
to
to
complete
findings.
Okay,.
H
I'll
list
them
out
just
just
so,
we
just
saw
everybody
kind
of
knows
my
thinking
along
along
these
lines.
So
you
know
I'd,
say
one.
The
arguments
for
potential
significance
under
criterion.
One
and
criterion
three
is
not
strong
enough
to
merit
a
designation
study.
The
property
is
not
associated
with
significant
events,
nor
with
distinctive
elements
of
the
city
of
the
neighborhood
identity,
to
the
historic
integrity
of
the
building
is
diminished
and
three.
There
are
no
reasonable
alternatives
to
demolition.
H
Due
to
the
fact
that
the
needed
rehabilitation
work
exceeds
the
economic
value
of
the
property
and
I'll
say
that
while
I
definitely
understand
the
the
the
desire
to
to
for
us
to
sort
of
preserve
buildings,
I
also
think
that
we
are
in
a
housing
crisis
and
we
are
looking
at
a
corridor
in
a
part
of
the
city
that
I
think
could
could
could
benefit
from
a
lot
with
the
stats
from
I.
H
Think
I
will,
however,
would
like
to
put
a
condition
on
the
in
granting
the
appeal
for
James
Archer
to
work
with
city
staff
to
create
a
mitigation
plan
that
would
include,
but
not
be
limited
to
photographic
documentation
of
the
existing
structure.
So
that
was
kind
of
a
lot.
I
hope
that's
all
captured
verbally.
I
B
D
C
C
D
C
B
B
Motion
passes
and
we
will
now
move
on
to
the
next
item.
Item
number
two
and
three
and
today's
agendas
are
appeals
of
the
Zoning
Board
of
adjustments,
decisions
related
to
properties,
525,
10th,
Avenue,
southeast
and
47:36
through
4740
Grand
Avenue,
south
respectively.
It
was
discovered
last
week
that
the
required
notices
sent
to
nearby
property
owners
regarding
this
hearing
included
an
incorrect
time
for
today's
meeting.
As
a
result,
the
staff
has
sent
out
corrected
letters
and
will
continue
these
hearings
on
both
of
these
meetings
to
our
rest.
B
Next
regular
meeting,
currently
scheduled
for
July
14th
at
1:30
p.m.
before
I
make
that
motion.
However,
I
want
to
formally
open
the
hearing
and
check
with
the
clerk
in
case
there
is
anyone
on
the
line
and
to
speak
on.
This
item
will
be
unable
to
return
for
our
July
14th
meeting.
Has
anyone
signed
up
to
speak
on
these
items.
B
D
C
B
B
That
motion
passes
and
those
hearings
are
continued
to
July.
14Th
next
is
items
number
four
through
seven
on
our
agenda
and
they're
regarding
related
Appeals
of
the
Planning
Commission's
actions
on
the
projects
on
Lake
Street
between
and
Harriet
avenues.
If
there's
no
objection
well,
we'll
first
handle
the
hearings
related
to
item
four
and
six
jointly
and
then
we'll
Adams
handle
items
number
five
and
seven
currently
so
items
number
four
and
six.
J
Good
afternoon,
council
members,
Peter
Crandall
senior
city
planner,
with
seabed
land
use,
as
Vice
Chair
Schrader
noted
we'll
be
looking
at
two
projects
today
that
are
next
to
each
other,
along
West
Lake
Street,
two
similar
projects
completed
in
conjunction
with
another
project
across
the
street
across
Harriet
that
is
currently
under
construction.
The
first
project
is
located
at
510,
West,
Lake,
Street
and
29:46,
and
29:48
Harriet
Avenue.
J
South
the
site
is
currently
occupied
by
a
one-story,
auto
oriented
commercial
use,
which
is
vacant
next
slide,
as
I
say
that
this
is
a
part
of
a
multi-phase
development
project
along
West
Lake
Street
by
the
same
applicant.
The
project
that
we're
looking
at
right
now
is
a
market
rate
development,
and
it's
at
the
center
of
this
image.
In
between
the
other
two
proposed
developments
next
slide.
J
J
The
applications
before
the
Planning
Commission
on
May
11th
were
a
rezoning
from
the
c2
neighborhood
commercial
district
to
the
c3,
a
community
activity
center
district.
A
conditional
use
permit
to
increase
the
maximum
building
height
from
four
storeys
56
feet
to
seven
storeys
78
feet
in
the
C
3a
district;
a
variance
to
increase
the
maximum
floor
area
ratio
from
three
point:
three:
seven:
five
to
four
point:
nine
one:
a
site
plan
review
for
a
new
mixed-use
building
with
95
12
units
and
1,500
square
feet
of
commercial
space.
J
One
of
those
conditions
of
approval
pertains
specifically
to
the
variance
to
maximum
floor
area
ratio.
I'm,
sorry
I
think
I
misstated.
The
number
on
that
earlier
between
the
two
projects,
the
510
application
and
variances
from
three
point.
Three,
seven,
five
to
five
point
to
a
condition
of
approval
was
placed
on
that
variance
request
that
the
applicant
meet
the
standard
for
the
mixed-use
density
bonus,
which
would
increase
the
maximum
floor
area
ratio
by
20%
on
top
of
the
20%
bonus
of
the
applicant
is
already
getting
for
providing
enclosed
parking.
J
They
would
still
require
a
variance,
but
that
would
bring
them
closer
to
compliance
with
the
maximum
floor
area
ratio.
It
will
require
them
to
implement
at
least
50%
of
the
gross
floor
area
on
the
ground
floor
as
commercial
uses.
Currently,
as
you
can
see
on
this
proposed
ground
floor
plan,
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
small
retail
spaces
on
the
southwest
corner
of
the
site,
but
that
does
not
meet
the
standard
for
50%
of
gross
floor
area,
which
is
all
the
usable
occupiable
area
on
the
ground
floor,
not
including
the
proposed
enclosed
parking
garage.
J
J
There
is
a
second
appeal
of
the
decision
of
the
Planning
Commission
to
approve
all
of
the
applications
related
to
the
development,
including
the
rezoning,
conditional
use,
permit
and
variances
and
site
plan
review
for
the
project.
That
applicant
is
a
neighboring
property
owner.
I
won't
go
too
far
into
detail
as
far
as
the
other
design
elements
and
application
conditions,
but
I
can
take
questions
from
the
Commission
related
to
those
issues.
If
there
are
any
before
we
hear
from
the
opponents,
I.
B
K
I've
got
11
large
windows
on
my
south
side
and
the
windows
measure
2
foot
4
by
6
foot,
4,
they're,
very
large
for
the
access
and
I
apologize
to
the
committee.
That
I
don't
have
an
attachment
to
present
to
you.
I
just
got
my
notice.
I
just
saw
my
notice
for
this
meeting
this
morning
and
and
then
also
I
saw
the
notice,
but
then
there
wasn't
any
specific
instructions
for
how
to
access
the
meeting,
and
there
was
no
specific
instructions.
For
you
know.
K
K
K
my
whole
first
floor
is
completely
shadowed
by
the
buildings
that
are
to
be
that
our
prom
planned
to
be
built
and
that
shadowing
that
full
shadowing
does
not
end
until
February.
First,
the
hours
of
the
full
shadowing
are
11:00
a.m.
to
2:00
p.m.
there.
It
may
be.
My
architect
didn't
include
face
one
in
the
shadow
study,
and
so
this
is
just
based
on
phase
two
and
phase
three,
but
I'll
probably
have
him
do
a
separate
one,
adding
phase
one,
because
that
would
probably
contribute
more
shadowing
and
then
the
complete.
K
So
that's
three
hours
a
day
for
three
months,
the
whole
first
floor
and
then
starting
November
20th
to
January
twentieth
for
about
the
same
amount
of
time.
During
the
day,
the
whole
second-floor
windows
are
completely
shadowed.
So
there
are
a
hundred
percent
shadowed
for
two
full
months
for
approximately
three
hours
a
day
and
on
sunny
days
during
these
hours,
the
solar
gain
I
received
through
my
windows.
Heats
my
house
so
greatly
that
I
don't
need
to
rely
on
any
indoor
heating
system
at
all.
It's
absolutely
amazing.
The
solar
gain
that
I
receive
on
sunny
days.
K
K
B
B
L
M
Ms
martinson's
appeal:
I
sympathize,
I
dodged
a
bullet
a
couple
years
ago,
when
a
new
person
bought
the
one-story
house
south
of
me
and
did
not
tear
it
down
or
build
it
up
to
the
two
and
a
half
stories
that
it
could
be
and
would
block.
My
son,
so
I
understand
the
importance
of
that
to
our
personal
living
spaces.
However,
the
entire
area
between
Lake
Street
and
the
Greenway,
including
this
Marcus's
property,
has
been
guided
as
corridor
6,
so
the
city's
intent
is
that
taller
buildings
will
be
built
here.
M
L
No
mr.
chairman
I
think
we'll
just
leave
ms
Lansing's
comments
on
the
record.
I'm
others
dad
I'm,
not
sure
estate
statute
can
be
interpreted.
The
way
miss
Martinson
would
like
it
to
be
a
solar
system
which
we
have
on
these
buildings
that
we're
building
are
intended
to
comply
with.
For
seventy
three
point:
eight
five
nine
state
statutes
way
more
specific
than
just
windows.
That
theme.
D
B
N
B
J
Mr.
chair
doesn't
just
interrupt.
My
understanding
is
that
we
were
taking
both
of
those
items
concurrently
and
that
we
would
hear
from
both
appellant
on
items
number
four
and
six
and
then
hear
public
testimony
about
the
project
in
general.
We
can
I
think
handle
them
one
at
a
time.
I'll
leave
that
up
to
you,
but
we
did
not
hear
from
the
applicant
team
about
their
appeal
and
I
remember
for
yet
I
think.
N
N
We
also
expressed
support
for
conditional
on
the
affordable
housing
building
being
built
as
well
as
we
wanted
to
see
those
as
a
parcel
to
provide
a
mix
of
using
mixed,
so
housing
types
and
price
levels
for
the
community.
So
I
would
request
the
sheet
maneuver
appeal
be
denied
speaking
as
a
community
resident,
but
also
the
chair
of
the
Whittier
housing
issues
committee
and
a
member
of
the
would
Airlines
board.
B
B
B
H
B
B
Motion
carries
and
that
appeal
is
denied,
will
now
proceed
to
items
number
5
and
7,
and
these
are
appeals
regarding
the
simple
decisions
of
the
Planning
Commission
to
approve
the
new
seven
story.
Building
with
that
was
the
mixed-use
building
with
95
developed
dwelling
units
and
1,500
square
feet
of
commercial
space.
I'll
ask
for
a
staff
presentation
on
this
part
of
it.
Mr.
J
Chair
did
we
want
to
get
to
item
number
four,
that's
related
to
the
same
project
before
moving
on
to
the
next
one
or
I.
B
B
J
Sure
so,
yes,
staffs
original
recommendation
was
to
deny
the
application
for
variants
of
the
FA.
Are
the
Planning
Commission
approved
that
application
at
their
meeting
on
May,
11th
and
attached
a
condition
of
approval
to
the
variance
that
the
applicant
meet
the
standard
for
mixed
uses
on
the
ground
floor
in
order
to
increase
their
maximum
floor
area
ratio
by
20%?
J
B
C
It
and
staff
doesn't
have
anything
if
the
applicant
would
like
to
email
the
City
Clerk's
office.
We
can
bring
that
up.
A
L
L
M
I
again,
this
is
Carol.
I
can
proceed
with
my
comments,
which
are
coming
first
in
our
presentation.
While
that
happens,
our
appeals
on
both
projects,
as
peter
noted
request
that
the
City
Council
remove
the
condition
of
approval
for
the
spot,
sar
variance
regarding
the
percentage
of
ground-floor
commercial
uses.
I'll
note
that,
as
Peter
says,
staff
recommended
denial
of
the
FAI,
our
variance
altogether
when
the
Planning
Commission
is
during
their
discussions,
indicated
that
they
intended
to
approve
the.
G
M
Our
various
staff
recommended
this
condition
of
approval
and
it
was
after
the
public
hearing
was
closed,
and
while
we
had
a
brief
opportunity
to
address
that,
we
really
didn't
have
a
discussion
with
the
Planning
Commission
and
they
didn't
really
discuss
this
condition.
The
condition
creates
similar
problems
for
both
projects,
and
the
reasons
supporting
our
request
are
the
same
for
both
appeal.
So
my
remarks
apply
to
those
appeals
and
will
be
somewhat
general
in
that
respect.
M
I'm
going
to
speak
about
how
the
proposed
FA
area
is
consistent
with
the
2040
plan,
land
use
and
built
form
guidance
and
how
the
proposed
FA
are
meets.
The
criteria
for
a
variance
and
after
my
remarks,
Steve
will
explain
to
you
why
compliance
with
the
condition
would
be
detrimental
to
the
projects
and
the
when
you
get
them
slide.
One
is
an
aerial
that
shows
you
on
three
projects.
These
two
projects
before
you
today
on
that
part
of
a
Planned
Unit
development
are
the
second
and
third
proposed
phases
of
a
coordinated
development
project.
M
M
The
2040
plan
doesn't
include
any
direction
or
guidance
on
the
percentage
of
commercial
area
at
all,
but
both
of
these
projects
do
include
retail
spaces
along
the
streets,
so
both
of
them
do
comply
with
the
guidance
for
inclusion
of
active
non-residential
use
on
the
ground
floor
seconds
of
the
height
and
that,
consequently,
the
proposed
FA
are
the
project's
comply
with
the
guidance
for
large-scale
development
in
the
community.
Mixed
use
areas
as
well
as
corridor
six
built
form
guidance.
M
Both
staff
and
the
Commission
found
that
the
project
features
justified
increase
in
height
to
seven
storeys
because
of
furthering
comp
plan
goals
and
policies.
The
2040
plan
doesn't
include
specific
guidance
regarding
SAR
limits.
However,
we
believe
it's
reasonable
to
conclude
that
the
support
for
that
it
does
support
higher
far2
buildings
that
are
allowed
increased
height
in
the
purpose
of
allowing
increased
height
over
the
course
exciting,
isn't
just
height
for
height
sake.
It's
to
allow
more
floor
area
to
allow
more
density
in
terms
of
both
area
ratio
and
holding
us,
and
that.
B
B
Sorry
to
interrupt
you
just
wanted
to
jump
in
and
let
you
know
that
your
slides
are
up
and
they're
currently
on
number
two,
and
if
you
have
some
direction
for
staff,
if
you
want
to
go
somewhere
else,
please
let
us
know.
Okay,.
M
These
are
the
proposed.
You
know
now
I'm
thinking
to
why
it's
not
just
consistent
with
my
news
guys,
but
it's
also
needs
to
required
criteria
for
granting
the
variance.
This
slide
shows
the
proposed
findings
that
we
presented
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
request
for
counsel
action
that
you
have
in
your
materials
as
well
as
our
appeal
statement
sets
forth
the
findings
adopted
by
the
Commission,
and
we
concur
in
these
findings.
L
L
This
is
the
ground
floor
plan
for
the
phase
2
project
and,
as
mr.
Crandall
noted,
the
southwest
corner
of
this
project
has
two
retail
spaces,
but
also
two
bathrooms
and
some
navigable
corridor.
Space.
I
also
would
like
to
call
to
your
attention
across
the
South
facade
you
will
see.
There
are
four
entrance
doors
on
the
street,
not
just
for
the
retail
but
to
the
right
of
the
two
retail
spaces,
our
community
room,
our
conference
room
and
some
of
our
public
spaces.
We
have
purposely
put
an
additional
door.
L
For
about
18
months
about
this
project,
not
only
are
we
doing
the
three
residential
walkout
townhomes
and
around
the
Harriett
frontage
on
the
east
side
of
the
building,
but
we
also
wanted
the
public
spaces
that
we
have
that
are
not
retail.
To
also
be
retail,
like
in
their
appearance,
have
eyes
on
the
street
and
have
the
appearance
of
activity
in
the
building.
And
where
did
we
get
this
idea?
L
We
got
this
from
the
Planning
Commission
committee
of
the
whole
itself
when
we
first
met
almost
two
years
ago
about
this
project,
staff
had
raised
the
very
point
about
the
minimum
requirements
for
this
particular
type
of
zoning.
They
raised
the
question
of
gross
floor
area
and
it
was
no
less
than
president
Sam
Rockwell
himself,
who
encouraged
us
in
the
committee
of
the
whole
that
we
did
not
have
to
hit
some
arbitrary
number
of
retail
who
reaches
ultras
compliance.
That
space
that
look
felt
and
behaved
like
detail
was
also
acceptable
under
the
twenty
forty
complet.
L
And
so
we
embraced
that-
and
it
was
a
surprise
to
us
that
staff
has
stuck
to
the
older
zoning
code.
Compliance
requirement
when
they
were
accessible
to
us
in
terms
of
behind
and
his
Carolyn
teen
has
mentioned
height
really
isn't
just
for
Heights.
Take
height
has
to
include
FA
our
and
we
believe
the
Planning
Commission
acted
independently
of
the
gross
floor
area
requirement
when
they
granted
the
additional
density
on
the
basis
of
affordable
housing
being
developed
as
part
of
this
development
I'd
like
to
turn
your
attention.
If
I
could
please
to
slide
number
six
this.
L
This
is
the
same
floor
plan
without
the
residential
walkout
units.
These
would
be
the
walkout
units
that
would
have
to
go
away
in
order
to
meet
the
staff
requirement
for
additional
retail
in
this
building,
retail
that
we,
as
developers,
do
not
want
to
provide
retail.
That
would
be
additional
to
the
twenty
five
thousand
square
feet
of
vacant
retail
space.
That's
in
the
Lynn
Lake
trade
area,
according
to
Luke
Knapp
and
retail
that
would
potentially
and
more
likely
than
not
be
vacant.
L
L
We
don't
think
that's
a
good
trade-off
and
we
don't
think
that
the
zoning
codes
intent
is
to
hit
an
arbitrary
number
it's
to
have
intent
to
have
eyes
on
the
street.
So
I
would
be
happy
to
take
questions
about
this
approach,
but
on
slide
four
we
gave
you
the
actual
calculations
of
the
retail
plus
the
publicly
accessible
space
which,
when
you
add
them
together
well
exceed
the
threshold
requirement
that
the
staff
believes
is
the
50%
gross
floor
area
requirement
around
5,000.
We
would
be
over
that.
B
K
B
N
Stephanie
Brown
I'm
at
3:02,
East,
26th,
Street
and
again
shares
all
their
housing
issues.
Many
and
member
of
the
board
so
wanted
to
speak
to
each
of
these
items
in
turn.
Item
four
regarding
side,
ten
Westlake
Street,
which
is
a
market
rate
132
dwelling
units.
We
as
a
neighborhood
had
conversations
that
requested
the
walk-up
units
that
are
in
the
project
and
also
requested
additional
retail
space.
B
You
Miss
Brown
just
to
be
very
clear
what
you're
saying
from
the
Whittier
lines
and
they're
voting,
because
we
heard
from
Lake
Street
developers
that
they
felt,
with
the
condition
of
approval
put
on
by
the
Planning
Commission,
that
they
would
not
be
able
to
continue
to
do
the
affordable
and
how
it
impacts
on
their
development.
Are
you
saying
that
you
would
be
supporting
kind
of
their
position
to
make
sure
the
development
goes
through
or
if
you
could
kind
of
elaborate
on
that
a
little
bit
more,
please
so.
N
On
item
5,
which
is
the
affordable
housing
development?
Yes,
we
would
support
their
position.
I
will
say
in
terms
of
public
vote
for
full
transparency.
The
notification
of
this
meaning
our
public
meeting
is
tonight,
and
so
I
have
had
conversations
with
Lynn
Lake
business
owners
with
woody
reliance
board
members
and
sent
a
short
survey
to
the
housing
issues
committee
and
received
about
10
responses.
But
we
have
not
held
a
public
vote
on
the
appeal
or
have
the
opportunity,
however,
supporting
the
appeal
to
remove
the
condition
on
item.
N
5
would
be
consistent
with
all
of
the
community
conversations
and
public
meetings
that
it's
unconditional,
given
the
affordability
and
given
the
bonus
they
receive
for
affordable
housing
and
that
development
in
item
performs
the
market
rate
building.
I
think
that
answer
is
not
as
clean
from
the
community's
perspective,
because
we
have
consistently
requested
and
did
on
this
project
increased
retail.
We
also
did
request
and
communicated
in
our
letter
that
we
wanted
one
cup
units,
particularly
in
comparison
with
the
apartment
wall,
and
so
as
item
four
goes
through,
as
it
goes
through.
N
I
would
say
that
neighborhood
consensus
as
best
as
I
can
distill.
Those
conversations
is
to
say
that
we
would
like
to
work
with
a
plan
that
potentially
added
additional
retail,
but
not
at
the
cost
of
the
walk-up
unit,
even
if
that
comes
at
the
cost
of
publicly
accessible
amenities,
st.
the
club
room
and
the
business
center.
If
those
went
to
the
second
floor
and
we
retained
the
walk-up
and
added
additional
retail,
that
would
be
consistent
with
neighborhood
conversation
that.
B
Clarify
it
does.
Thank
you
very
much.
All
right
just
want
to
check
if
my
colleagues
have
any
questions
for
you
not
seeing
any
I'd
like
to
actually
go
back
to
the
developer,
if
you,
if
mister
man,
if
you
wouldn't
mind
responding
to
death
with
talking
about
the
market
rate,
building
and
kind
of
some
of
the
changes
that
about
to
the
walk
up
units
and
how
that
would
kind
of
affect
the
the
retail.
L
A
L
For
these
to
be
present
in
our
design,
I
just
don't
do
walk
out
unis
generally
they're
difficult
to
lease
women,
don't
like
them
for
safety
issues.
They
end
to
be
intend
to
be
long
and
dark
and
they're
complicated
to
operate,
and
so
I
wouldn't
be
doing
them
without
the
Whittier
Alliance
asking
us
to
do
them
so
swapping
up
the
space
for
additional
retail.
L
It's
a
little
late
in
the
game
for
us
to
embrace
it,
but
I
would
say
this
and
I
and
I
and
I
just
I
want
to
I
just
want
to
put
it
in
perspective.
More
retail,
for
us
would
not
be
likely
local
retail
I.
Think
the
the
value
of
what
we're
offering
here
is.
It
will
get
small
local
retail
in
these
small
retail
spaces.
Large
retail
and
stuff
tends
to
collect
national
retailers,
and
you
know
more
franchised
operations.
L
Food
uses
I
we're
really
hoping
to
have
small
local
uses
here
and,
in
particular
with
the
phase
three
buildings.
We're
not
talking
about
right
now.
It
presents
some
financing
problems,
but
in
the
instant
case,
I
committed
to
and
built
structure
around
residential
units
to
convert
them
to
residential
will
be
a
considerable
undertaking
in
the
change
of
structure
in
housing
and
how
it
and
how
the
upper
floors
are
constructed
and
I
would
prefer
not
to
do
it.
L
Would
it
would
really
alter
my
construction
plan
considerably
and
to
lose
units
on
the
second
floor,
to
move
all
the
amenities
to
the
second
floor,
I'm
gonna
wear
up
any
apartment
building
where
you
have
to
go
to
the
second
floor
to
get
to
the
lobby
and
the
amenities
we
accept
the
very
very
high-end
and
we're
not
trying
to
be
that
and
loss
of
residential
units
on
the
upper
floor.
In
addition
to
loss
of
these
units
is
going
to
impair
my
pro
forma,
which
is
going
to
impair
my
ability
to
do
the
affordable
units
in
Phase.
B
B
Right
with
no
additional
speakers,
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
and
see
if
my
colleagues
have
any
questions
or
additional
comments
and
just
to
clarify
just
because
we've
been
a
little
on
different
things.
This
is
for
the
appeal.
The
applicants
appeal
on
510
Westlake
Street,
and
it
is
just
the
condition
of
modifying
the
ground
floor
to
meet
the
minimum
requirements.
Excuse
me
for
the
mixed
use
density
bonus
provided
at
least
50%
gross
area
on
the
commercial
space
councilmember
Goodman.
O
O
B
O
B
You
not
seeing
any
other
comments
from
my
colleagues.
I
will
weigh
in
and
Planning
Commission
approved,
adding
this
condition
I
think
it's
critical
that
we
have
commercial
as
well
as
amenities
for
buildings
that
are
not
just
the
residents
that
are
going
to
live
there,
but
for
the
bigger
community.
I
do
appreciate
the
developer,
working
with
the
Neighborhood
Association
and
with
neighbors
to
really
find
out
what
will
work.
B
There
I
think
that
overall
they've
kind
of
come
to
a
conclusion,
I'll
be
supporting
councilmember
Goodman's
motion
today
for
the
stated
reasons
that
it
really
puts
into
place
more
retail,
more
amenities
for
other
folks
that
live
there,
while
still
being
able
to
have
a
workable
project
that
brings
affordable
housing
overall
I'll
do
one
final
call
for
my
colleagues
to
see
any
if
they
have
any
other
comments.
Otherwise,
I
will
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
roll
on
council
members
motion.
D
C
C
D
B
B
Motion
passes
and
now
we
will
move
on
to
item
number
five.
Originally
we
were
trying
to
because
these
are
competing
appeals
between
number
five
as
number
seven.
We
were
taking
them
at
one
time.
I
would
like
to
go
back
to
that
if,
unless
I
have
any
objection
from
staff
or
from
other
colleagues
on
this
committee,
I'm
not
seeing
any
I
will
first
start
with
the
kind
of
staff
presentation
and
if
you
can
kind
of
just
talk
to
the
specific
parts
to
this,
this
appeal
and
this
the
appeals
of
the
two
compiles
of
five
and
seven.
J
Sure
Thank
You
mr.
chair
I'll,
try
to
be
brief
here,
because
the
issues
that
were
dealing
with
are
basically
identical
to
the
project
that
was
just
considered.
This
project
is
directly
to
the
west
of
the
project
that
we
just
looked
and
is
located
at
5:14
516
and
520
Westlake
Street
and
2949
at
Garfield,
Avenue
South,
the
applicant,
is
proposing
to
construct
a
new
step
in
the
story,
makes
these
building
with
95
12
units
in
approximately
1500
square
feet
of
commercial
space
on
the
property.
J
The
applications
are
very
similar
to
the
previous
project,
including
a
rezoning
from
c2
to
c3,
a
conditional
use
permit
to
increase
the
maximum
height
from
four
storeys
to
seven
storeys,
a
variance
of
the
floor
area
ratio
from
4.0
to
to
four
point:
nine
one
and
site
plan
review
for
the
new
structure.
This
application
also
requires
an
alley
vacation
that
will
be
considered
by
this
committee
at
a
later
date
for
that
underground
parking
garage.
J
B
E
L
But
sure
I'll
be
very
brief
if
you'll
turn
to
if
your
tech
staff
would
put
slide
number
5
up,
I
think
we
can
make
quick
work
of
this.
This
is
the
layout
with
the
two
retail
spaces
individually
entrance
on
the
southwest
corner
facing
Garfield
and
the
lake
street
corner
and
again
we
have
the
public
space
doors
for
both
the
common
entrance
of
the
building
and
the
community
room
areas.
L
This
is
the
unfortunate
outcome
in
this
buildings.
I
just
don't
have
the
square
footage
in
order
to
increase
the
retail
here,
I
would
have
to
lose.
My
entire
community
pull
up
floor
plan
other
than
the
retail
to
increase
retail
and
in
order
to
move
it
to
the
second
floor,
I
would
lose
seven
affordable
units
I
wanted
you
to
see
that
I
think
Ms
Brown
spoke
to
it
from
Whittier
Alliance.
This
is
certainly
not
the
outcome
we
are
hoping
for.
B
Thank
you
very
much.
I'm
just
want
to
check
if
my
colleagues
have
any
questions,
not
seeing
any
I
will
open
the
hearing
to
any
other
members
of
the
public
who
wanted
to
speak
on
items
number
five
or
seven
and
miss
clerk
I'll,
just
ask
if
you
there
any
speakers
in
line
I
know
it's
been.
We
have
had
folks
being
at
testifying
for
multiple
ones.
So
if
there's
no
one
set
up
just
specifically
with
this
one,
I
might
just
leave
the
line
open
and
have
see
if
people
are
anything
to
add
I.
N
Your
comments
for
clarity,
no
I'm
number
5
the
appeal
to
remove
the
conditions.
We
are
supportive
of
that
appeal
in
the
interest
of
preserving
as
many
affordable
units
as
possible
on
item
number
7
that
the
appeal
to
deny
the
conditional
use
permit
variance
we
are
not
supportive
of
epsilon
would
ask
you
to
deny
that
appeal,
believing
that
it
is
critical
to
add
more
affordable
housing
and
more
development
to
this
I
transit
quarter.
Oh
thank.
B
B
Not
seeing
any
I
will
move
to
yes,
sorry,
a
little
hard
over
the
technology
to
see
if
someone's
trying
to
jump
in
but
I
will
go
back
to
I
will
approve
move
to
approve
the
appeal
in
number
5
and
deny
the
appeal
in
number
7
with
the
clerk
will
see.
If
there's
any
discussion
on
that
motion,
not
seeing
any
could
the
clerk
please
call
the
roll.
D
C
C
B
B
Habitats,
those
motions,
Kerry
and
finally,
item
number
13
is
the
rezoning
application
submitted
by
Lake
Street
developers
for
the
properties
located
at
5:10
West
Lake
Street,
as
well
as
29:46
and
29:48
Harriet
Avenue
South,
which
is
the
project
that
was
been
dealt
with
in
a
number
of
numerous
items.
I'll
see
if
there
is
any
additional
comments
for
staff
and
staff
and
if
not
that's,
alright
and
we'll
just
kind
of
go,
go
back
to
the
public
hearing,
but
just
want
to
see.
If
there's
anything,
staff
want
to
highlight.