►
From YouTube: March 5, 2020 Zoning & Planning Committee
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/
A
Good
morning,
I'm
gonna
call
to
order
this
regular
meeting
of
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
for
Thursday
March
5th.
My
name
is
Jeremy
Schrader
and
I'm.
The
chair
of
this
committee
with
me
at
the
dinosaur,
Council
members
right,
councilmember,
Goodman
and
councilmember
Gordon.
Let
the
record
reflect
that
we
have
a
quorum.
A
Applications
submitted
by
Lake
Harriet
development
at
three
150
31:15
East
42nd
Street
item
number:
three
is
a
Street
vacation
application
submitted
by
the
park
board
related
to
the
project
at
404
and
for
2015
Avenue
South,
as
well
as
1417,
South,
fifth
Street
and
item
four
has
several
appointments
to
the
Heritage
Preservation
Commission
before
I
move
these
items.
I
know,
though,
I've
heard
the
word
been
joined
by
some
of
the
appointees,
so
they
heard
such
preservation.
B
C
Good
morning
my
name
is
Andrew
Johnson
on
the
other
appointee.
I
am
share
her
enthusiasm
and
I'm
honored
for
this
opportunity.
It
really
mixes
my
passion
and
for
both
architecture
and
history,
I
serve
as
a
project
manager
for
the
General
Services
Administration
GSA
has
a
vast
portfolio
of
historic
buildings
throughout
the
country,
I'm
involved
in
national
level
and
state
and
local
level.
Strategic
discussions
on
the
historic
preservation
of
those
buildings
and
I'm
really
excited
to
be
able
to
bring
that
practical
knowledge
to
the
city
of
Minneapolis.
Well,.
C
A
Seeing
any
questions
or
motions
I
will
move
approval
of
the
consent
agenda.
All
those
in
favor
say
aye,
all
those
opposed
say.
No,
the
ice
have
it
and
that
motion
carries
item
number.
One
is
the
consideration
of
an
appeal
submitted
by
the
Prospect
Park
Neighborhood
Association,
regarding
the
decisions
of
the
Planning
Commission
to
amend
previous
appeals
for
a
new
14
story,
mixed-use
development
to
add
additional
dwelling
units
to
the
property
located
at
33,
26,
33,
28,
33,
50,
University,
Avenue,
southeast
and
we'll
begin
with
the
staff
presentation.
D
Good
morning
committee
members,
Peter
Crandall
senior
city
planner,
with
cpad
land
use
the
application
before
you
is
an
amendment
to
a
series
of
approvals
that
was
before
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
City
Council
in
the
summer
of
2018.
At
that
point,
the
applicant
had
applied
to
rezone
the
three
subject:
parcels
to
the
c3a
activity
center
district,
as
well
as
to
construct
a
new
14
story:
mixed-use
building
with
208
dwelling
units,
an
approximately
34,000
square
feet
of
commercial
space.
Those
applications
were
also
included.
D
A
conditional
use
permit
for
a
Planned
Unit
development,
as
well
as
a
variance
to
the
rear
yard
setback,
site
plan
review
and
preliminary
and
final
plat.
Those
applications
were
eventually
approved
on
appeal
by
the
Minneapolis
City
Council.
The
application
before
you
is
to
amend
two
of
those
applications.
The
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planning
of
development
and
the
site
plan
review
application
for
several
changes
that
are
being
proposed
to
the
project,
so
the
rezoning
was
approved
and
is
in
place.
All
three
sites
are
currently
zoned
for
the
c3a
activity.
D
Center
district
I'll
briefly
go
through
some
of
the
proposed
changes
and
how
they
effect
the
applications,
and
then
the
design
team
here
is
also
here
to
answer
any
additional
questions
that
you
might
have.
So
the
changes
are
primarily
being
driven
by
a
move
away
from
condominium
units
to
rental
units
in
the
tower
portion
of
the
project,
which
has
increased
the
unit
count
from
208
to
256
units.
So
that's
400
or
1648.
Additional
dwelling
units
site
plan
review
by
ordinance
requires
an
amendment
to
the
site
plan
review
for
ten
or
more
additional
dwelling
units.
D
So
that's
the
primary
change.
That's
driving
a
return
to
the
Planning,
Commission
and
council.
Additional
changes
to
the
proposed
project
are
a
reduction
in
the
overall
building
height
for
the
tower
portion
of
the
project,
from
approximately
one
hundred
one
hundred
and
sixty
two
feet.
Two
hundred
and
fifty
feet:
a
reduction
in
the
overall
proposed
commercial
space
from
approximately
thirty
four
thousand
to
twenty-seven
thousand
five
hundred
reduction
in
the
total
vehicle
parking
spaces
from
two
hundred
and
sixty-seven
to
two
hundred
and
thirty
seven
and
a
reduction
in
the
total
fer.
From
three
point.
D
Eight
two
to
three
point:
five
one.
Additionally,
there
are
some
structural
proposed
changes.
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
remove
the
rooftop
amenity
spaces,
which
reduces
some
of
the
height
on
the
tower
portion,
and
then
a
larger
portion
of
the
art
and
architecture
building,
which
is
the
existing
building
on
the
site
that
the
applicant
had
been
proposing
to
preserve,
is
now
being
proposed
to
be
demolished.
D
D
It's
the
two
proposed
amendments
to
the
conditional
use
permit
for
Planned
Unit
development
and
site
plan
review
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
both
of
those
proposed
changes,
subject
to
a
number
of
conditions
that
were
placed
on
the
project
in
the
last
cycle
when
it
was
approved,
the
Planning,
Commission
and
Council
the
City
Planning
Commission,
approved
these
changes
at
their
meeting
two
weeks
ago.
I
can
take
any
questions.
E
F
A
G
G
G
Councilmember
Goodman
I
will
touch
on
that
idea
that,
although
the
project
is
in
its
overall
mass
being
slightly
reduced
its
the
other
aspects
of
it
that
trouble
us
so
the
neighborhood
does
not
approve
of
this
project
as
it
is
currently
being
promoted
or
proposed.
It
is
higher
than
the
witch's
hat
observation
deck.
It
has
an
adverse
impact
on
adjacent
neighbors,
the
immediate
adjacent
neighbors.
They
will
speak
to
that
in
more
detail
and
housing
diversity.
G
G
G
He
was
not
identified
as
a
change
in
the
staff
report
and
when
called
out
in
the
Planning
Commission
hearing,
there
was
a
dissenting
and
mistruths
told
about
the
the
genesis
and
timeline
of
that
change,
so
in
particular
this
is
the
site
plan
overall,
as
shown
on
the
submitted
demolition
and
removals
plan
and
trust
me.
If
you
were
to
go
in
there,
it
is
not
indicating
that
the
art
and
architecture
building
is
being
demolished.
In
any
part.
G
So
we
produced
this
drawing
overlay
to
try
and
articulate
a
little
bit
more.
What
is
being
kept
in
what
is
going
away
on
the
art
and
architecture
building
it
comes
out
to
about
72
percent
overall
or
70
percent
of
the
lower
building
envelope,
which
is
how
the
the
ordinance
reads
so
in
in
rough
terms,
five
of
seven
bays
are
being
demolished.
Well,
demolition
just
simply
does
not
equate
to
conservation.
G
The
definition
in
your
ordinance
on
demolition
is
60%
of
the
building
and,
as
I
just
indicated,
it's
about
70%.
Here
conservation,
on
the
other
hand,
is
a
structure
for
amenity
points.
Significant
renovation,
rehabilitation
and
adaptive.
Reuse
of
an
existing
building
rather
than
demolition
is
the
point
there.
G
So
conservation
does
not
equate
to
demolition,
and
it
shouldn't
equate
to
the
conservation
points
amenity
of
five
in
that,
in
that
scenario,
the
gamesmanship
of
putting
the
numbers
together
to
do
a
PUD
project,
you
don't
have
the
numbers,
so
the
developer
has
not
heard
the
points
to
either
buy
the
alternate
of
the
desired
tower
height
or
on
the
alternative
to
buy
the
back
yard
setback
variance.
So
it's
a
choice
of
where
to
go
with
that.
G
In
our
view,
focusing
for
a
moment
on
the
back
yard
setback-
variance
if
you
were
to
do
it
by
the
book,
it'd
be
a
31
foot
setback,
we're
crunching
up
against
the
boundary
of
a
historic
neighborhood,
we're
crunching
up
against
the
boundary
of
private
two-story
home
owners,
with
a
14
story
tower
now
granted.
Most
of
that,
you
know
the
base
of
that
towers
a
little
lower
in
elevation,
but
still
adding
up
to
something
substantially
more
than
single
family
homes
or
even
three
or
four
plexes
right.
G
The
alternate
that
was
bought
with
these
amenity
points,
which
we
contest,
is
a
10-foot
setback.
This
is
on
a
1.8
acre
site
and
I
would
just
ask
if
anyone
has
the
clarity
here
to
understand
why
we
have
to
actually
position
that
tower.
In
that
very
place,
the
argument
would
be
and
I
think
we
shared
this
back
in
the
last
appeal
by
private
individuals.
Now
this
is
on
behalf
of
the
Association
today
that
there
is
room
to
move
on
the
site.
G
I'll,
just
I
just
need
to
read
this
because
of
the
larger
site
size
of
sites
and
the
provisions
of
this
chapter
provide
the
flexibility
in
the
use
of
land
and
the
placement
and
size
of
buildings
in
order
to
better
utilize.
The
special
features
of
sites-
and
this
has
special
features
blooming
on
this
site
and
to
obtain
a
higher
quality
of
development.
G
Then
that
incorporates
high
level
levels
of
amenities,
then
might
other
wise
occur
under
the
strict
applications
of
zoning
regulations
for
the
users
of
the
site,
the
neighborhood
or
the
city
as
a
whole
in
which
meets
public
objectives
for
protection
and
preservation
of
natural
historic
features.
Now,
maybe
those
historic
features
aren't
specifically
on
this
site,
but
they
are
certainly
abounding
in
the
immediate
vicinity
around
the
site.
The
regulations
are
intended
to
encourage
innovation,
housing
design
in
order
to
meet
the
housing
needs
of
the
city's,
diverse
population
and
I.
G
But
when
what
went
off
the
table
was
more
availability
of
multi
used
unit
housing
options
and
an
ownership
scheme
that
allowed
members
of
our
neighborhood
at
large
the
opportunity
to
maybe
downsize
go
into
whether
these
units
and
still
have
equity,
that
is
not
being
provided,
and
that
was
one
of
the
premises
by
which
the
neighbors
originally
bought
into
this.
It's
been
withdrawn,
sort
of
bait-and-switch,
perhaps
about
economic
issues,
but
those
aren't.
The
economics
is
not
the
driver
for
why
we
should
make
these
development
decisions.
I
did
that
one
did
I.
G
G
So,
although
kudos
for
bringing
down
the
height
of
the
project
somewhat,
it's
still
blocks
of
view
shed
of
towards
the
east,
the
built
form
transit
10,
which
is
abstence
ibly.
The
current
development
scheme
for
this
site
is
the
second
line,
and
the
original
proposal
brought
before
PPA
by
developer
was
in
and
around
7
or
8
storeys.
G
So
then
the
attaboy
for
bringing
it
down
it
didn't
it
still
would
be
the
preference
of
the
majority
of
the
neighborhood
as
through
a
public
process
that
it
is
outside
the
are
below
the
observation:
deck
tower
height,
okay,
to
wrap
up.
So
if
the
the
application
for
the
amended
plan
is
denied,
the
options
are
proceed
with
the
previous
plan,
as
approved
the
one
that
is
just
a
scotch
larger
I.
Don't
think
we
would
be
here
today
if
that
was
what
they
can
do
economically.
G
I,
think
that
I
think
we're
here,
because
the
developer
needed
a
different
scheme
in
order
to
proceed.
On
the
other
hand,
a
better
plan
could
be
resubmitted,
one
that
better
aligns
with
the
majority
neighborhood
view
and
envisioned
one
that
better
aligns
with
the
Comprehensive
Plan
policy,
one
the
access
to
housing
that
I
just
spoke
about
on
my
diverse
housing
stock.
That's
that
serves
our
community
better
and,
with
that
I
hand
over
for
a
few
more
remarks
of
by
our
second
board
secretary.
Thank
you.
H
Mr.
chair
members,
thank
you.
My
name
is
Laura
price
I'm,
a
resident
of
Prospect
Park
and
a
PPA
board
officer.
I
also
lived
in
Prospect
Park
when
I
was
a
student
at
the
University
of
Minnesota,
getting
my
doctorate
degree
I'm
a
20
year
public
servant
with
the
state
of
Minnesota
and
I,
really
love
my
state,
my
city
and
my
neighborhood,
and
as
a
public
servant
myself.
I
can
appreciate
how
difficult
it
is
to
really
try
address
many
differences
towards
the
common
good,
so
I
sincerely.
Thank
you
for
the
challenging
work
that
you
do.
H
A
H
I've
worked
hard
to
make
it
brief.
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr.
chair,
Prospect,
Park
Association
is
an
active
Neighborhood
Association
working
hard
towards
Minneapolis
as
complan
goals.
Recently,
we've
been
working
on
topics
like
those
listed
here:
community
building,
a
climate
action
plan,
affordable
housing,
tenants,
rights
projects,
land
use
and
more
all
in
the
last
year,
and
a
half
we've
really
been
delivering
on
the
comp
plan.
We
also
note
that
in
the
comp
plan
it
states,
the
city
alone,
cannot
implement
the
policies
in
the
comprehensive
plan.
H
H
It's
not
predictable
or
trustworthy,
it
limits
our
progress
and
our
ability
to
work
together.
So
we
can't
say
on
the
one
hand,
as
a
neighborhood
organization,
how
hard
we're
working
towards
the
complan
goals
and
then,
on
the
other
hand,
when
we
raise
our
hand
and
say
wait
a
second
something's,
not
right
here,
then,
if
we're
dismissed,
this
starts
to
fall
apart.
We
lose
our
standing
and
our
trust
in
how
we
can
work
together
towards
these
goals.
So
this
is
why
this
is
important
to
all
of
us
in
our
partnership
working
together.
H
Let
me
tell
you
about
a
briefly
PPS
role
with
a
project
in
a
way
that
informs
this
appeal
in
2018,
the
developer
and
a
PPA
task
force
worked
on
this
project.
Once
people
more
broadly
learned
about
the
project,
it
became
highly
contentious.
Ultimately,
an
MoU
agreement
was
voted
on
and
signed
between
the
developer
and
PPA.
Shortly
after,
however,
that
same
PPA
board
found
that
a
grievance
submitted
about
this
process
had
merit.
But
by
that
point
the
project
had
been
approved
by
the
city
and
was
moving
forward
that
fall.
H
H
Then,
later
after
time
and
work
in
the
Association
in
2019,
the
developer
provided
written
notice
to
PPA
that
the
condominium
financing
for
the
project
had
failed.
They
provided
information
about
a
new
altered
project
and
PPA
really
took
notice
of
this,
because
this
new
project
was
different
than
the
MOU
and
it
had
been
a
highly
contentious
project
because
of
these
significant
differences
in
the
new
altered
project,
PPA
felt
that
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
were
addressing
this
openly
with
our
community.
H
Let
me
tell
you
briefly
what
we
heard
from
people,
one
of
the
things
that
was
really
moving
for
me.
Was
we
heard
how
people
at
the
first
hearing
in
2018
and
that
first
MOU
vote?
They
felt
that
they
heard
that
they
had
to
vote
yes
in
order
to
at
the
table
with
a
developer.
They
also
felt
that
they
heard
that
they
had
to
vote
yes,
because
if
they
didn't
the
city
of
Minneapolis
was
going
to
approve
everything
anyways
with
extensive
variances.
It
was
a
really
disempowering
moment
for
our
neighborhood.
H
Then
we
heard
from
those
same
people
coming
back
to
the
new
Altered
project
that
in
fact
they
had
felt
really
let
down
there
hadn't
been
the
effect
of
working
together.
The
new
project
was
different
than
they
felt
that
they
had
been
sold
on,
and
so
they
no
longer
supported
this
project
for
very
legitimate
reasons.
H
There
was
clear
motions
and
directions
from
the
community
about
this,
and
then
the
PPA
board
voted
to
ratify
it.
After
that,
we
also
met
with
a
developer
and
had
a
respectful
conversation,
but
we
were
told
that
they
were
not
able
to
change
those
meaningful
design
elements
that
we
heard
so
very
clearly
that
we
cared
about
from
the
community.
H
So
in
some
about
the
project,
then-
and
now
the
project
was
sold
as
condominiums
for
family
at
about
1,400
square
feet,
as
sold
as
conserving
the
art
and
architecture
building
working
effectively
with
property
owners
and
being
more
comprehensive.
In
addition,
I
think
it's
really
important
to
reiterate
what
what
president
amel
said.
I
remember
at
one
of
the
hearings
when
it
was
asked.
Why
is
this
getting
so
close
to
the
ten
feet
to
the
property
owners?
H
Specifically
in
that
hearing,
it
was
stated
because
of
the
condominium
owner
and
ownership
structure,
it
was
necessary
to
have
that
tower
in
that
location.
That
was
a
selling
point
for
it
at
that
time
and
part
of
the
reason
it
was
approved
now
we're
looking
at
rental
units
that
average
about
eight
hundred
square
feet,
it's
different.
It's
not
the
diversity
of
ownership
structure
that
we
were
hoping
for
related
to
families
and
what
we're
looking
for
trying
to
expand
this
diversity
of
housing
in
our
neighborhood.
H
It
demolishes
the
art
and
architecture
building
and
while
it's
being
tight
touted
as
slightly
lower
and
slightly
narrower,
if
you
again,
as
president
amel
said,
look
at
the
scope
of
the
whole
project
relative,
it's
still
10
feet
from
property
owners
and
it
doesn't
hit
those
meaningful
changes.
Also,
what
about
inclusionary
housing?
The
project
came
in
and
squeezed
in
before
these
requirements
took
effect
and
then
immediately
was
asked.
For
extension,
our
neighborhood
has
emphasized
the
importance
of
inclusionary
housing.
It's
not
in
this
project.
H
H
So
to
sum
up
about
the
comp
plan,
it
would
be
easy
to
take
a
narrow
interpretation
and
say
well.
This
project
has
more
units
by
the
transit
line,
so
it
supports
the
comp
plan.
However,
and
I
have
it
in
my
bag
there
it's,
you
know
hefty
a
lot
of
goals
there.
We
know
that
really
there's
a
more
comprehensive
interpretation
to
our
comp
plan.
They
address
diversity
of
housing,
types,
inclusivity,
affordability,
history,
sustainable
practices
and
more
the
project,
and
some
total
goes
in
the
wrong
direction
for
the
neighborhood
in
the
city.
H
They
received
unjust,
rewards
and
amenity
points
for
missing
information
and,
ultimately
producing
a
lesser
project.
This
is
why
PPA
did
not
support
the
new
project.
In
conclusion,
this
project
does
not
meet
the
requirements
as
president
mo
laid
out.
It
also
has
problems
with
the
conditions
we
haven't
even
gone
into
all
of
those
and
out
of
respect
of
time.
I
won't
extensively
go
into
that,
but
there's
problems
with
the
historic
condition
and
problems
with
the
condition
related
to
property
owners.
H
Another
key
point
here
is
that
the
Planning
Commission
did
not
have
all
of
this
relevant
information
in
front
of
them.
Working
with
government
I
know
how
this
can
go.
It's
hard
for
a
body
to
want
to
go
back
against
what
a
previous
body
already
decided,
but
there
was
key
information
that
they
didn't
have
that
wasn't
presented
that
you
now
have
before
you.
So
we
are
asking
the
zoning
and
planning
to
work
with
us
to
really
review
the
details,
asking
you
to
ask
questions
and
address
the
concerns.
H
It's
not
supported
by
the
PPA
organization
and
for
my
last
slide
with
our
appeal.
We
are
really
asking
you
to
help
Minneapolis
abide
by
these
rules
and
strive
towards
a
set
of
comprehensive
goals.
This
new
altered
project
should
not
be
approved.
It
doesn't
go
in
the
right
direction
for
that.
The
key
elements
that
we've
heard
about
from
our
community
are
the
adjacent
property
owner
issues
that
are
real
and
serious.
H
We've
heard
about
the
limit
to
the
10
stories
and
the
legacy
and
the
issue
with
our
neighborhood
inclusionary
housing
is
also
really
important,
and
it's
not
going
in
that
direction.
I've
said
about
us
being
partners
in
collaborating
towards
it
comp
goals,
and
we
really
mean
it.
We
believe
that
we
can
do
better
together
on
this,
we're
asking
for
your
help.
We
want
to
do
great
things
together
for
our
city
in
our
neighborhood,
and
this
altered
project
is
not
it
there's
technical
reasons
and
a
good
reason
to
listen
to
PPA
voice.
A
I
Council
members,
my
name
is
Ari
parrots
I
represent
Vermillion
development,
I
live
at
1026,
Portland
Avenue
in
st.
Paul
I'm
gonna
start
by
addressing
kind
of
how
we
got
here
today
and
and
from
our
perspective,
the
process
that
we
went
through
and
I
expect
that
you'll
probably
hear
elements
of
this
echoed
by
others
who
have
joined
us
today
to
confirm
the
way
that
we
experience
these.
I
This
specific
set
of
events,
the
one
thing
that
I
want
to
address
from
the
appellant
before
I
begin,
though,
is
that
key
info
that
you
have
in
front
of
you
today
was
not
in
front
of
the
plant.
Commission
I
have
listened
to
every
word
that
was
spoken.
I
read
every
one
of
the
57
pages
in
their
appeal.
There
is
nothing
in
there
that
was
not
in
front
of
the
plant
Commission.
In
fact,
there
was
an
extensive
dialogue
between
commissioner
Lukey
Pierre
and
ourselves
about
the
art
and
architecture
building.
I
All
of
this
information
was
well
before
them,
so
I
just
wanted
to
get
that
out
of
the
way.
Generally,
the
proposed
change
in,
but
when
I
say
change,
I
mean
the
unit
count.
Change
to
the
project
comes
from
market
forces
that
made
it
impossible
to
develop
the
previous
plan
for
the
project.
The
market
forces
are
not
unique
to
our
project.
I
Other
projects,
including
prominent
ones
in
neighborhood,
neighborhoods
adjacent
to
Prospect
Park,
have
experienced
the
same
pressure,
and
this
is
specifically
with
developing
for
sale,
residential
I
believe,
as
of
today,
there's
a
single
project
of
scale
that
is
for
sale
being
developed
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis.
This
is
not
something
unique
to
us.
This
is
not
a
micro
economic
issue
or
a
profit
margin
issue
or
anything
of
that
nature.
It
is,
we
believed
at
the
time
that
it
was
possible
to
develop
for
sale
condominiums.
I
We
tried,
we
spent
almost
eight
months
working
with
financial
partners
to
make
that
happen,
and
it
couldn't
happen,
and
so,
rather
than
throw
our
hands
up
in
the
air
and
walk
away
and
do
something
else,
we
said
well,
let's
try
to
find
a
way
to
make
this
project
work
and
that's
why
we're
here
today
the
request
to
increase
the
project's
unit.
Count
by
48
units
is
consistent
with
a
variety
of
2040
plan
goals,
as
outlined
in
the
staff
report,
which
include
policy
1,
increasing
the
supply
of
housing.
I
This
is
obviously
increasing
the
supply
of
housing
over
what
we
had
previously
proposed
policy
for
improving
access
to
goods
and
service
through
walking
biking
and
transit
policy,
5,
high
quality
and
distinctive
physical
environment
in
all
parts
of
the
city
policy,
6,
pedestrian,
oriented
building
and
site
design
policy.
8
public
safety
through
environmental
design
focused
on
open
spaces
with
eyes
on
the
street.
That
was
in
a
an
essential
element
of
our
program.
The
increase
in
units
does
not
result
in
any
increase
in
massing
or
built
form.
I
As
you've
now
heard
a
few
different
times,
we
are
reducing
the
height
of
the
building,
we're
narrowing
the
height
of
the
building.
Both
of
those
were
a
combination
of
neighborhood
goals.
We've
been
hearing
those
for
two
and
a
half
years.
We
want
a
shorter
slend,
more
slender
Tower,
it's
like
we
got
it,
and
we
think
that
we've
been
able
to
deliver
on
that,
certainly
not
to
the
extent
that
the
neighbourhood
would
like
in
an
ideal
state,
but
we've
certainly
made
progress
on
that
voluntarily.
I
There
was
nothing
in
our
previous
approval.
That
said,
you
must
further
reduce
the
height
of
the
tower
and
narrow
it.
We
did
that
voluntarily
and
it
came
out
of
a
change,
as
I've
now
said,
between
for
sale
units
and
for
rent
units,
where
we
were
able
to
shrink
some
of
this
space
to
create
well
designed,
thoughtful
and
successful
rental
units.
I
Historically,
few
opportunities
for
new
people
to
Vinh
and
the
opportunities
that
existed
up
until
2014
or
2015
were
primarily
single-family
homes,
which
very
few
people
have
access
to
to
purchase
at
price
points
that
prevail
in
Prospect,
Park,
new
market
rate
housing
provides
more
people
the
opportunity
to
live
in
the
neighborhood,
especially
in
a
rental
model,
which
tends
to
be
more
flexible
for
many
folks
today,
the
additional
units
are
generating
another
eighty
thousand
dollars
in
park.
Dedication
fees,
which
sort
of
a
happy
outcome
of
the
additional
units
that
are
coming
part
of
the
project.
I
That's
not
a
decision
that
we're
making.
That's
just
I
wanted
to
call
your
attention
to
another
factor
there
and
then,
as
it
related
to
the
parking
count
reduction.
We
commissioned
our
parking
consultant
to
review
this
right.
We
don't
want
to
build
a
building
that
doesn't
have
enough
parking
spaces
to
accommodate
the
demand
from
the
uses
that
we're
putting
in
the
parking
consultant
came
back
and
said.
The
proposed
change
that
you
have
is
appropriate
again.
I
It
does
not
serve
our
interest
to
provide
fewer
than
necessary
parking
spaces
and
I
know
that
it's
broadly
consistent
with
2040
plan
goals
across
the
city
to
minimize
the
number
of
on-site
vehicle
parking
spaces
to
the
extent
practically
possible
okay
process.
How
did
we
get
here
in
the
summer
and
fall
of
2017,
so
this
process
started
before
the
spring
of
2018,
as
was
previously
mentioned
in
the
in
this
summer
and
fall
of
2017,
while
the
art
and
architecture
project
which
is
now
called
the
Wallace,
was
just
a
spark
in
our
hearts.
I
We
began
consulting
with
the
war
two
office
in
the
PPA
on
the
community's
vision
for
this
site.
This
is
before
the
2040
plan
had
really
taken
hold
and
much
of
what
we
understand
today
wasn't
in
existence
back
then
at
their
joint
direction
between
the
PPA,
with
the
board
that
exists
in
membership
that
existed
at
the
time
in
the
ward
2
office.
Before
any
project
concept
was
established
before
there
was
7
stories
or
13
or
14
stories
or
anything.
We
began
working
with
a
task
force
comprised
of
neighborhood
volunteers.
I
We
didn't
select,
who
was
part
of
this
task
force.
Anybody
who
showed
up
could
participate
on
the
development
of
our
project
concept,
which
then
unfolded
between
January
of
2018
in
approximately
May
of
2018.
The
part
of
this
process
included
11
public
meetings
and
a
neighbourhood
wide
Q&A
session
that
was
a
10
by
over
a
hundred
and
sixty
people
or
every
individual
person,
all
160
people
for
hand
in
a
microphone
and
said
what
do
you
think
about
this
project?
What
questions
do
you
have
for
the
developer?
I
Share
your
thoughts
and
concerns
160
people
throughout
the
task
force,
work
and
throughout
the
public
meetings.
Our
concept
evolved,
massing
and
height
elements,
shifted
public
spaces
were
defined
and
input
into
many
of
the
other
project.
Factors
were
worked
into
our
project
concept,
much
of
it
in
real-time
right,
so
we're
meeting
with
folks
suggestions
are
coming
in
the
architects
are
making
modifications,
because
the
state
of
our
architecture
at
the
time
could
accommodate
so
a
lot
of
these
real-time
massing
accommodations.
Could
you
show
me
what
this
would
look
like?
I
Could
you
show
me
what
this
would
look
like?
We
did
it.
This
essential
element
of
the
public
process
was
truly
defined
by
compromise.
The
the
version
of
the
project
that
you
see
here
today
was
not
what
we
started
with.
It
was
a
true
outcome
of
real
public
engagement
that
took
a
long
time
and
was
not
always
perfectly
clean,
but,
as
we've
looked
back
on
it
and
as
we've
consulted
with
the
folks
who
were
involved
in
the
first
and
the
folks
who
were
observing,
it
is
still
held
up
as
a
truly
deep
and
meaningful
public
process.
I
Engagement
that
other
neighborhoods
should
look
to
to
try
to
follow
similar
things,
maybe
not
the
same
things
that
followed,
but
at
least
that
first
part
of
the
process
when
it
became
clear
that
parts
of
the
neighborhood
disagreed
with
the
task
force's
work.
As
a
related
to
the
height
of
the
tower
on
the
west.
I
Over
on
the
west
side
of
our
site,
we
worked
collaboratively
collaboratively
with
our
task
force
to
reduce
the
height
twice
and
making
up
for
this
lost
area
in
other
parts
of
the
project,
to
the
extent
that
we
were
able
to
do
it
at
the
time.
This
again
was
driven
by
live
input
from
the
neighborhood,
and
that
is
the
reason
why
the
setback
was
reduced.
From
31
feet
to
10
feet,
that
reduction
did
not
come
from
anything
to
do
with
condominium
units.
I
That
reduction
came
from
squishing
the
tower
down
from
17
to
what
is
technically
14
and
is
now
13
feet
all
that
area.
Getting
pushed
down
then
resulted
in
a
deeper
building.
This
wasn't
we
didn't
do
this
in
a
dark
room
all
on
our
own.
We
did
this
live
with
input
from
the
neighborhood
and
I
under
stand
that
the
neighbor,
whose
property
was
the
adjacent
portion
of
this,
is
not
happy
with
that.
I
totally
understand
it
and
I
sympathize
with
it,
but
we
were
talking
to
the
neighbor.
I
Do
you
want
a
taller
tower,
or
do
you
want
a
deeper
Tower
and
what
we
heard
was
we
want
a
deeper
tower
that
is
shorter
than
17
feet.
17
stories,
that's
what
we
did!
That's
what
we
put
forward,
that's
what
was
approved,
and
that
is
then
what
we
designed
on.
We
relied
on
those
approvals
in
the
fall
of
2018
to
then
create
our
project
after
an
active
plant
commission
and
appeals
process
in
the
summer
of
2018,
our
original
PUD
was
approved
by
council
in
August
of
18,
but
weaned
August
of
18.
I
In
january
of
nineteen,
we
worked
hard
to
put
together
the
financing
for
the
project.
The
for
sale
component,
which
I've
already
mentioned,
proved
to
be
an
insurmountable
obstacle.
We
then
began
exploring
modifications
that
would
enable
our
project
to
move
forward,
and
we
discussed
these
modifications
proactively
with
c-pen.
I
They
refused
to
go
down
that
route,
and
so
we
decided
that
the
only
thing
we
could
do
was
work
on
this
with
C
ped
and
make
sure
that
the
changes
that
we
were
proposing
were
consistent
with
the
approvals
that
we
got
and
the
result
of
that
work
was
the
unit
count
needed
to
go
back
for
a
public
review.
The
other
changes
that
we
were
proposing
were
acceptable
and
viewed
as
minor
administrative
changes
that
C
fed
could
handle
internally.
I
J
E
Policy
is
now
8%.
This
is
dragged
into
this
year
and
I
mean
it's
not
like
you're
asking
for
ten
more
units
you're
asking
for
forty,
something
that's
the
size
of
an
entire
project
and
some
of
the
smaller
projects
around
the
city.
So
why
don't
you
just
include
8%
to
abide
by
our
inclusionary
zoning
policy,
so
this
is
not
about
making
money.
It's
just
about
making
more
money.
I.
I
Would
respectfully
disagree
with
that
last
conclusion:
it's
not
about
making
more
money.
It's
about
making
project
metrics
at
a
bare
minimum
works
of
the
project
can
move
forward
and
if
the
project
had
to
comply
with
the
eight
percent
requirement,
which
it
was
never
designed
to
comply
with
the
whole
way
that
we've
designed
and
programmed
this
building
was,
did
not
account
for
the
eight
percent
cuz
it
didn't
exist
and
we
were
designing
the
building.
I
The
project
would
not
be
able
to
move
forward,
and
so
we
did
what
we
needed
to
do
to
not
have
to
comply,
because
we
there
was
no
way
to
incorporate
that
into
the
scope
of
the
project.
We
care
deeply
about
affordable
housing.
We
are
in
fact
affordable
housing
developers.
We
have
almost
a
thousand
beds
of
affordable
housing
across
the
Midwest,
focused
on
seniors
seniors
with
physical
needs.
In
this
particular
project
we
could
not
make
them
fit
and
make
them
work.
It
is
not
about
want
or
desire
or
more
or
less
profit.
E
E
I
Doing
that
sure
well,
I'll
tell
you:
we've
we've
done
this
in
the
past
in
other
cities,
not
in
Minneapolis
that
had
policies
in
place
that
we
were
asking
for
a
variance
from,
and
when
we
asked
for
a
variance,
we
submitted
our
financials
and
said
here's.
Why
we'd
like
to
seek
a
variance
that
I
don't
understand
to
be
the
case
here
we
are
not
seeking
a
variance
from
inclusion
in
the
inclusionary
housing
policy.
We
are
complying
with
the
policies
that
were
in
place
when
our
applications
were
submitted.
I
E
I
I
could
maybe
ask
ask
Peter
to
comment
on
the
timing
thing,
because
we
we
didn't
invent
this
ourselves.
We
followed
the
rules
that
we
were
asked
to
follow
and
made
sure
that
I
mean
our
project
was
originally
approved
in
2018.
As
you
know,
our
amendment
was
was
filed
before
the
end
of
2019,
as
you
may
not
know,
but
it
was
filed
before
the
end
of
2019.
We
again
we
did
what
we
had
to
do
in
order
to
make
sure
that
this
project
could
proceed
in
a
financially
viable
way,
but.
A
E
Now
you're
asking
for
something
totally
different
and
you're
into
2019
now,
and
so
you
could
you
2020,
you
could
live
with
the
current
plan.
Then
I
mean
you're
coming
back
to
us
and
asking
us
for
something,
I
think
it's
legitimate
that
we
would
ask
for
something
back
so
I'm,
just
wondering
why
there
is
this
aversion
to
anyone
looking
at
your
numbers
to
verify,
if
it's
not
financially
feasible,
it'd
be
different.
E
F
E
I
E
You've
had
approved
and
move
forward,
but
you're
asking
for
something
different
now
so
I
think
I
have
the
right
to
ask
why
you
wouldn't
abide
by,
or
at
least
include,
affordable
housing.
It
sounds
like
you're
you're
not
open
to
doing
it.
So
you've
answered
my
question,
but
I
want
to
remind
you,
you're
in
front
of
us
asking
for
something
different
I.
E
A
L
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
be
clear:
I
think
what
councilmember
Goodman
is
saying.
Would
you
voluntarily
put
in
affordable
housing
and
she's,
also
pointing
out
that
our
housing
staff
could
talk
to
you
about
how
we
can
use
affordable
housing
trust
fund
money,
how
you
could
work
with
minneapolis
public
housing
authority
so
that
you
could
do
so?
How
we
could
even
use
tax
increment
financing
to
support
that
for
you,
so
you
could
get
the
assistance.
You
would
need
to
know
that
your
financial
financial
would
work
and
then
you'll
be
addressing
some
concerns
of
people.
L
Who've
been
raising
about
this
project
that
there's
not
the
kind
of
diversity
that
the
first
version
had
and
there's
all
these
other
issues.
So
she's
not
saying
you
should
be
required
to
do
it
because
everybody
understands
you
got
in
under
the
wire.
So
our
inclusionary
zoning
ordinance
doesn't
impact
you,
because
you
were
able
to
get
this
application
amendment
in
in
December
and
then
ask
for
an
extension.
So
you
can
keep
working
on
it.
You
could
have
waited
to
January
and
then
you
would
have
been
required
to
do
it.
I
L
Is
K
so
just
to
be
clear,
the
inclusionary
zoning
ordinance
does
not
apply
to
you,
so
there's
no
kicking
to
twenty
or
eight
you're
not
required
to
do
eight,
because
you
know,
and
your
team
knew
what
you
were
doing
when
you
got
the
application
in
in
December.
I
just
want
to
ask
our
attorneys
or
the
planning
staff.
How
close
are
we
to
this
sixty
day?
I
mean
if
he
says,
he's
willing
to
work
on
something,
and
we
have
obviously
hadn't
had
any
to
work
on
this.
M
M
You
mr.
chair
I
mean
I
wish.
We
would
have
seen
this
much
passion
for
inclusionary
zoning
last
term
when
I
first
introduced
the
idea,
because
then
we
would
have
had
it
in
place
for
thousands
and
thousands
of
housing
units
that
have
come
before
us
since
2015.
But
we
didn't.
We
didn't,
have
the
policy
in
place
last
year,
because
so
many
council
members
and
our
own
staff
said
that
there
would
be
problems
with
project
financing
that
would
become
so
impossible
that
we
couldn't
even
have
a
policy
at
all.
M
M
We
have
developments
in
front
of
the
body,
the
the
committee
that
council
members
may
not
support,
but
I'm
not
sure
how
we
are
here
as
a
zoning
and
planning
committee
of
the
City
Council,
we're
very
far
along
in
a
projects
process.
Now,
by
the
time
a
project
is
appealed
to
us.
I
said
you
know
so
I'm,
starting
to
see
a
trend
of.
M
I
know
that's
under
development,
I
know,
I,
just
I
walked
into
a
meeting
the
other
day,
the
guys
talking
about
that
and
it's
going
to
take
some
time
and
some
work
to
get
those
policies
in
place,
but
I
I'm,
just
you
know,
I
I
think
asking
the
developer
to
go
back.
I
can
talk
to
the
banks,
talk
to
the
financers
talk
to
our
housing
staff,
about
adding
20%
with
our
TIF
financing,
trying
to
understand
how
long
that
would
add
to
the
project
timeline.
I,
think
all
those
things
are
fine,
I'm.
E
You
mr.
chair
I,
don't
think
it's
helpful
for
anyone
on
the
committee
to
criticize
others
and,
quite
frankly,
I
think
it's
kind
of
hurtful
to
suggest
that
I
had
didn't
support.
It.
Therefore,
I
can't
ask
any
questions
today.
So
I'll
lay
that
out
there.
It's
hurtful
to
be
criticized
publicly
and
and
to
have
my
intentions
questioned
I
asked
if
they
would
show
us
their
financials
to
show
us
that
it
wasn't
possible.
E
A
F
N
N
A
O
Okay,
my
concern
has
come
out
of
a
better
understanding
of
how
this
project
has
unfolded
and,
to
be
honest,
my
own
personal
learning
around
this
process
I
think
the
phrase
drinking
water
out
of
a
firehose
is
very
applicable
in
the
situation,
as
I
tried
to
balance
navigating
protection
of
my
property
with
the
demanding
job
is
a
public
high
school
principal
and
father
to
two
very
active
teenagers.
Part
of
this
project.
An
approval
process
has
struck
me.
O
The
most
is
that
through
the
PIO
deep,
rot
PUD
process,
Minneapolis
Planning
Department
gave
the
stamp
of
approval
to
a
variance
that
allows
a
structure,
in
this
case
14
stories
to
be
constructed,
10
feet
off
the
property
line,
variance
is
31
feet
in
normal
situations
and
actually
two
feet
off.
The
property
line
is
a
retaining
wall,
so
two
feet
from
property
line
about
a
third
or
a
third
of
this
desk
is
where
the
property
line
and
the
retaining
wall
come
together.
O
A
O
Okay,
so
the
area
that
we're
talking
about
is
right
in
this
areas:
the
largest
incline
of
space.
This
is
the
demo
plan
that
the
developer
submitted.
We
are
talking
about
this
point
here
to
here.
The
distance
here
is
right:
around
40
to
50
feet
from
house
to
property
line.
Okay,
and
so
my
main
concern
that
I'm
here
today
about
is
this
next
drawing
which
is,
and
you
give
it
a
sense.
These
are
the
properties
right
and.
A
O
P
K
I'll
take
over
where
you
left
off
Dave
good
morning,
chair
members,
my
name
is
Amanda.
Her
gun,
Dale
and
I
live
at
29
Clarence
Ave,
as
a
one
of
a
few
Prospect
Park,
owe
homeowners
most
impacted
by
this
I'm
gonna
share
my
truth
with
you
for
a
moment.
I
am
so
proud
to
be
able
to
say
that
I
love
where
I
live
and
I
want
to
share
with
you.
Why
that
is
I
really
want
my
home
to
be
here
in
Prospect,
Park
forever.
K
First
off
I
want
you
to
know
that
I'm
speaking
as
a
mexican-american
woman
daughter
of
two
parents
who
immigrated
to
the
u.s.
I
grew
up
with
one
of
the
most
in
one
of
the
most
dense
areas
of
the
United
States
owned
Hearst,
New
York,
which
is
in
Queens
and
I,
grew
up,
and
I
lived
in
a
one-bedroom
one-bathroom
apartment
on
the
top
floor
of
a
building
that
housed
people
from
literally
all
over
the
world,
I'm
the
oldest
of
five
girls.
K
So
seven
of
us
inhabited
this
space,
a
rented
space
of
no
more
than
650
square
feet.
You
could
say
that
the
for
the
first
18
years
of
my
life
I
lived
density
and
have
come
to
truly
appreciate
its
positive
and
negative
aspects,
while
83
30-meter,
Avenue
apartment
number
713
was
an
incredible
place
to
live
in
many
respects.
I
also
desperately
desire
to
have
my
own
space.
One
thing
I
never
had
growing
up
with
it
was
a
space
to
call
mine
a
place
to
do
homework
be
alone,
have
quiet
and
a
mental
respite.
K
I'm
talking
to
mental
health,
I
felt
suffocated,
Boxton
and
suffered
bouts
of
depression,
so
at
18,
I
moved
out
and
I
moved
far.
I
was
the
first
in
my
family
to
graduate
from
high
school
in
college,
but
I
sacrificed
a
lot
and,
in
the
end,
losing
connections
with
dear
friends
and
family.
Eventually,
I
landed
in
Minnesota,
a
place
known
for
its
national
natural
beauty
and
space.
I
have
grown
roots
here
and
currently
in
my
profession,
I'm
an
in
a
position
where
I
work
to
develop
well-rounded
middle
schools
for
students
that
look
like
me.
K
Just
want
to
say
that,
therefore,
I
should
not
be
the
one
sacrifice
for
a
project
that
has
been
described
as
the
best.
We
will
get
take
a
moment
and
imagine
a
14-story
hire
eyes
with
balconies
breathing
down
on
you.
A
mere
20
feet
from
your
safe
haven
from
your
home.
I
have
no
doubt
that
we're
smart
enough
to
demand
a
better
solution
that
doesn't
impact
any
Prospect,
Park
homeowners.
Let's
work
together
on
this
because,
as
they
say,
if
you
don't
have
a
seat
around
the
table,
then
you're
on
the
menu.
Thank.
J
Q
To
date,
the
developer
has
provided
a
memo
from
a
firm
called
new
history.
They
state
there
is
known
negative
impact.
That
is
their
opinion.
They
provided
no
analysis
or
any
conclusion
as
to
how
they
came
to
that.
They
just
said
no
negative
impact.
The
neighborhood
acquired
another
document,
which
was
the
opinion
of
dr.
Gregg
de
novo
University
of
Minnesota
School
of
Architecture,
who
heads
up
their
conservation
and
preservation
Department
in
he
claims
it
does.
Q
He
has
very
strong
documentation,
long
history
in
New
York
on
the
Preservation
Commission,
so
we
requested
of
the
city
that,
since
we
have
very
competing
statements,
that
we
get
an
opinion
from
your
city,
preservation,
staff
and
or
an
opinion
from
the
state
Preservation
Office
that
has
never
been
provided.
So
in
my
opinion,
the
condition
has
not
been
met.
Thank.
P
All
the
details
in
our
letter,
so
I'll
just
have
a
request
for
the
zoning
and
planning
committee.
The
gray
area
between
the
ideals
of
Minneapolis,
2040
and
current
policy
makes
it
really
hard
to
attract
quality
developers
like
this
and
hard
for
citizens
to
really
understand
land
use
and
inclusionary
zoning.
So
waiting
for
clarification,
risk
disputes
over
every
new
building
that
goes
up
and
whatever
side
you're
on
here
I
think
we
can
agree.
That's
not
desirable
so
clear
of
the
implementation
of
2040,
along
with
new
training
for
neighborhoods
on
how
land
use
actually
works.
P
It
will
be
critical
next
steps,
as
Minneapolis
continues
to
grow,
so
this
is
a
spectacular
project
that
will
add
vibrancy
to
University
Avenue
offer
a
significant
community
benefits
such
as
Park
dedication
fees
and
respects
historic
resources
and
has
broad
support
across
the
neighborhood,
and
we
urge
you
to
support
this
application.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
R
Council
members,
my
name
is
Richard
Adams
I
have
resided
at
220,
Cecil,
Street,
southeast
and
Prospect
Park
for
35
years
and
have
been
involved
with
Prospect
Park
Association
for
almost
20
years
as
a
director
and
as
an
officer.
My
support
for
this
development
goes
beyond
it.
The
project
itself.
It
is
standing
on
the
shoulders
of
two
important
neighborhood
efforts.
Each
years
in
the
making
one
is
the
response
of
the
Prospect
Park
Association
to
the
reality.
R
The
Green
Line
LRT
in
the
face
of
the
real
threat
that
the
underutilized
acreage
along
University
Avenue
would
be
developed,
would
be
developed
as
poorly
divine
designed
and
cheaply
built
monoculture
most
likely
student
housing.
The
PPA
Land
Use
Committee
worked
long
and
hard
to
engage
developers
who
would
help
create
a
vibrant
and
diverse
addition
to
the
neighborhood
and
a
gateway
to
the
city.
R
The
other
20
year
was
a
20-year
effort
for
historic
designation,
which
ultimately
involved
the
very
difficult
process
of
removing
the
neighborhood
from
consideration
at
the
local
level,
when
it
became
clear
that
that
designation
would
seriously
limit
property
owners
choices
and
impede
creative
development.
Both
of
these
efforts
enjoyed
broad
neighborhood
engagement
and
support.
The
Wallace
Development
is
an
excellent
example
of
what
we,
as
a
neighborhood,
hope
to
achieve.
The
developer
came
to
the
neighborhood
in
good
faith
and
worked
with
a
PBA
Land
Use
Committee
for
months.
R
S
Hi,
my
name
is
Dan
Bryan
2007
Avenue
southeast
I,
strongly
support
the
project
does
proposed.
I
am
a
renter
who
lives
several
blocks
from
the
post
project.
Trucks
me
is
that
the
project
is
hourly
essentially
the
same
as
the
project
proved
in
2018
and
fits
within
the
footprint
of
the
building
that
was
approved.
The
changes
that
ask
for,
namely
increasing
account,
decreased
parking,
a
lower
height,
all
helped
to
bring
the
project
further,
in
conformance
with
2040
goals,
and
the
trend
has
had
built
form
the
site
has
in
that
plan.
R
S
Station
and
the
two
template
story,
buildings
that
are
located
within
two
blocks
in
the
site
I'm
pleased
the
developer
is
adding
density,
managing
a
density
to
a
site
while
still
preserving
the
front
portion
of
the
art
and
architecture
building,
which
is
the
most
visible
portion
and
I
work
where
others
have
said
that
the
developer
made
extensive
engagement
efforts
when
developing
this
project.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Please
support
the
project
and
deny
the
appeal
thank.
A
J
Name
is
Richard
Gilder
I
lived
in
Prospect
Park
at
194
Milliken
for
the
past
20
years.
I'm
a
past
member
of
the
board
of
directors
of
Prospect
Park,
Association
I
was
chair
of
the
master
planning
committee
and
I
was
on
the
task
force
that
worked
with
the
developer
and
the
architects
of
the
development
and
the
shaping
of
this
project.
I
support
this
project
because
I
believe
it
is
a
model
of
21st
century
transit,
oriented,
Urban
Redevelopment.
It
replaces
three
automobiles
related
automobile
service
facilities
to
garages
and
what
was
a
Superamerica
gas
station.
J
It
retains
the
fabric
of
the
streetscape
by
preserving
the
most
significant
portions
of
the
art
architecture.
Building.
It
is
an
assemblage
of
buildings
rather
than
a
single
300
foot
long
block
of
buildings.
The
separation,
the
massing
of
the
buildings,
allow
sunlight
to
University.
Avenue
is
its
first,
its
first
level
shops,
restaurant,
respond
office,
commercial
jobs,
related
spaces,
bring
activity,
light
and
vibrancy
to
the
Avenue.
It
provides
homes
for
hundreds
of
people
within
300
feet
of
a
green
line.
Light
rail
station
there's
your
continued
support
of
this
project.
Thank
you.
Thank.
T
Council
members,
thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
speak
about
the
project.
I
live
at
17
Seymour
and
my
name
is
Martha.
Joy,
I've
been
there
for
30
plus
years
former
board
member
of
PPA
and
I
just
want
to
emphasize
something
that
you've
heard
before,
but
is
something
that
I,
don't
think
can
be
overly
emphasized,
and
that's.
The
majority
of
the
neighborhood
is
against
this
project
that
has
been
seen
through
multiple
community
meetings.
The
majority
of
the
neighborhood
is
against
this
project
and
you've
heard
various
reasons
why
this
is
lack
of
exclusionary
housing.
T
U
Council
members,
my
name
is
David
Frank
I
live
at
48
Clarence
I
support
the
2040
plan.
Excuse
me:
I
support
the
2040
plan
as
I
believe
many.
My
neighbors
do.
I
am
in
favor
of
increased
density.
My
neighborhood,
but
I
cannot
support
the
Wallace
project
in
its
present
form.
For
the
reasons
previously
mentioned.
Thank
you.
V
R
V
76
Clarence
Avenue
southeast
we
bought
our
house
in
1963
I,
just
heard
that
this
was
a
model
of
was
a
twentieth
century
or
21st
century.
It
doesn't
matter,
it's
still
very
upsetting
if
this
means
that
what
we
have
to
look
forward
to
that,
we
only
listen
to
one
side
which
has
happened
here.
We
ignore
the
experts,
we
ignore
the
rules,
we
ignore
everything
we
ignore
the
people
who
are
affected.
V
If
that's
what's
going
to
be
going
on
the
rest
of
the
century
on
the
next
century,
this
is
going
to
be
a
very
unpleasant
place
to
live,
we've
been,
we've
been
lied
to
it's
been
bait-and-switch
and
it
really
needs
more
time.
No
one
objects
to
more
housing,
but
we
want
housing
that
is
diverse
and
we
want
housing
that
isn't
impinging
on
everybody
else.
We
were
even
told.
Well.
Why
should
we
stop
a
plan
just
for
three
homeowners?
V
That
is,
that
the
way
we're
going
to
behave
to
each
other
and
being
lied
to
is
nothing
new
around
here
around
here,
particularly
when
you
don't
want
to
show
your
financials.
We
know
other
people
who
do
that
also,
and
a
lot
of
people
suspect
that
so
I
really
urge
you.
Let's
look.
Let's
get
some
of
the
people
who
know
about
historic
preservation
involved
in
this.
V
We
have
people
who
don't
planners
are
not
generally
trained
in
historic
preservation,
and
it
doesn't
seem
to
be
very
important
in
this
context,
but
it
is,
they
could
build
a
building
that
would
meet
requirements
and
the
original
building
was
going
to
be
six
to
eight
stories.
They
could
build
something
that
would
work
that
everyone
would
support
and
I
think
we
should
go
back
and
do
that.
Thank
you.
Like
25
seconds
left,
I
didn't
know,
I
did
I.
V
I
could
speak
that
fast.
I
should
have
spoken
more
slowly,
but
I
do
urge
you.
We
have
an
expert
at
the
University
of
Minnesota
who
really
went
over
that
I.
It's
long,
I
wish.
You
would
read
that
and
I
know
you're,
tired
and
bored
of
us,
but
this
is,
you
are
I,
can
tell
from
your
faces
and
I
understand
that
I
probably
would
be
too
but
I
wish.
You
would
go
out
there
and
look.
This
is
an
important
thing.
It's
not
that
we're
against
the
housing.
V
W
Okay,
so
much
to
say
I'm
heartened
here,
my
name
is
Gayle.
Lint
I
live
at
one
seamer,
which
is
the
house
that
Toby
Rapson
grew
up
in
and
I
I'm
carrying
on
the
legacy
of
Ralph
Rapson
and
what
he
cared
about
in
terms
of
the
environment.
Here,
the
physical
environment,
the
PUD
ordinance,
if
you,
if
you're
familiar
with
the
PUD
art,
ordinance
and
I,
am
it
allows
you
to
put
more
restrictions
on
this
project,
the
PUD
ordinance.
W
The
purpose
of
that
is
that
it's
it's
all
about
making
a
project
by
compiling
more
on
sites
than
otherwise
would
happen
and
which
meets
the
public
objectives
for
protection
and
preservation
of
natural
and
historic
features.
This
is
part
of
the
PUD.
The
PUD
also
says
that
if
you
have
changes
especially
changes
to
amenity
the
Nate,
they
need
to
come
back
to
the
Planning
Commission.
It
also
says
that
that
the
requirements
for
that
thing
coming
back
to
the
Planning
Commission
are
the
same
as
any
other
requirements.
W
It
also
says
that
there's
a
concurrent
review
that
if
you
have
more
than
one
application,
they're
all
supposed
to
be
taken
together,
so
I
just
want
to
say
this
idea
of
somehow
focusing
only
narrowly
on
units.
That's
simply
not
the
case
here.
I
also
want
to
bring
us
back
a
little
bit
to
what
came
before
the
Planning
Commission.
The
staff
report
did
not
even
acknowledge
the
change
in
the
demolition
it
listed.
Major
changes
unit
count
it
listed
minor
changes,
one
two,
three,
four
five,
maybe
six.
W
If
you
look
at
the
documents
that
are
included
in
your
packet
in
2018,
it
says
that
the
first
three
floors
of
that
art
and
architecture
building,
which
is
the
the
essential
core
of
the
masonry
volume,
are
to
remain,
and
now
we
know
that
they're
demolishing
five
sevenths
of
it
and
lastly,
I
want
to
say
that
the
conservation
is
different
from
preservation,
doing
a
facade
ectomy
and
somehow
saying
that
this
is
all
about
preserving
the
history.
When
were
the
priorities
in
the
neighborhood
have
been
very
clear
about
what
is
the
historic
value?
W
It's
the
witch's
hat,
it's
the
the
residential
district.
So
please,
with
all
due
respect
project
momentum,
especially
when
that
momentum
is
based
on
inaccurate
or
uncertain
information,
is
not
the
criteria
by
which
a
project
is
approved
or
not
approved,
and
please
be
willing
to
expect
more
from
developers
proposing
your
project
in
any
neighborhood.
That
does
not
respect
the
defining
features
of
that
neighborhood
that
doesn't
respect
the
prime
directive
of
Minneapolis
2040,
which
is
about
affordable,
diverse
housing,
along
transit
corridors,
and
that
takes
advantage
of
diverse
of
adjacent
property
owners.
They
have
nearly
two
acres.
X
Good
morning
my
name
is
Gary.
Gardner
I
live
at
21
Seymour
Avenue
southeast
across
the
street,
from
the
tower
I
want
to
address
two
issues.
The
second
one
was
I
mentioned
quickly
is
the
issue
that
Johnson
councilmember
Goodman
mentioned
affordability
and
they'll,
and
the
lack
of
low
this
project
in
any
form
has
never
had
any
low-income
housing
in
it,
and
the
new
units,
roughly
hundred
square
feet,
are
basically
going
to
be
high
cost
units
for
students
at
the
University
of
Minnesota
and
that
will
lead
to
increased
student
debt.
X
The
other
ratio
I
want
to
talk
about
is
neighborhood
support
of
the
project
prior
to
the
Land
Use
Committee
meeting
in
2018
there
was
a
petition
that
got
over
800
signatures
to
request
that
the
height
of
the
tower
be
that
any
any
building
be
below
the
observation
deck
of
the
tower,
in
the
view
toward
st.
Paul
and
the
for
the
interview
toward
Minneapolis
at
that
infamous
venues
committee
meeting,
as
mr.
parrots
refer
to,
they
were
probably
over
150
people
there.
The
vote
was
two
to
167
to
34.
X
Approximately
most
of
the
people
were
were
cowered
by
the
arguments
from
the
developer.
That
this
was
the
best
way
through,
and
this
was
the
only
way
that
we're
going
to
move
forward
after
that
meeting,
the
Friends
of
Tower
Hill
Park,
which
was
formed
in
June
of
2018
I,
gathered
a
citizen's
position
over
Labor
Day
weekend
and
got
244
signatures
asking
that
the
city
asking
the
state
was
referred
to
the
city
file
on
ee-aw.
X
The
city
decided
you
didn't
have
to
do
that,
and
then
this
last
at
Land,
Use
Committee
last
fall
had
reviewing
the
new
project
had
a
vote
that
said
89
to
12,
with
two
abstentions,
and
mr.
Paris
was
at
that
meeting
that
we
did
not
approve
the
revised
project.
So
this
project,
as
has
been
mentioned
before,
really
does
not
have
neighborhood
support.
Thank.
L
Well,
I'm
happy
to
let
that
the
people
discussing
weigh
in
on
this
but
I
also
feel
a
burden
and
responsibility,
because
it's
in
the
second
Ward
to
try
to
get
us
through
this
in
a
I,
don't
know
as
efficient
manner
as
we
can
as
war,
also
being
deliberative.
As
my
know,
my
colleagues
can
imagine-
and
probably
everybody
out
there
can
imagine.
This
is
just
the
kind
of
situation
that
council
members
would
have
nightmares
about.
This
is
a
very
challenging
project,
its
head
along
on
challenging
history.
L
It's
at
a
number
of
bumpy
roads,
especially
if
you're
a
council
member
that
wants
to
look
for
a
win-win
and
make
sure
that
you
keep
all
your
constituents
happy
and
satisfied.
This
is
impossible
to
in
the
situation,
but
I'm
continuing
trying
to
work
to
do
so
and
figure
out
how
we
can
do
I've
had
a
lot
of
discussions
with
the
attorneys
about
what
we
can
and
can't
do
with
this
situation
right
now
what
I
like
to
to
lower
it?
L
N
L
That's
what
he
said
in
discussions
with
me
as
well,
so
I
don't
know
what
chances
there
would
be
for
me
to
get
committee
approval
if
I
tried
to
say
something
against
the
City
Attorney's
recommendation
so,
and
can
I,
it
was
also
clear
to
me
that
I
can't
require
some
of
the
apartments
to
be
ownership,
maybe
rather
than
the
line
on
the
audience
here,
to
help
affirm
or
not
affirm
my
understanding.
So
maybe
staff
could
also
weigh
in
on
that.
Can
we
require
some
kind
of
home
ownership
in
these
units.
F
A
I'm
gonna
jump
in
real,
quick
and
I'll
hand
it
back
to
you
councilman
garden.
We
have
what's
before
us
today
and
I
think
that
that's
very
difficult.
We
had
a
very
long
process
when
this
originally
went
through
I.
Think
that
there's
a
lot
of
good
questions,
I
would
kind
of
try
to
I
would
if
we
could
focus
on
that
part
of
it.
We
appreciate
it
all.
L
Right
and
maybe
I
won't
ask
for
staff
to
weigh
in
on
everything,
but
also
I.
Think
in
our
discussion.
It
was
pretty
clear
that
we
don't
have
the
authority
to
require
affordable
units
in
this
either
in
its
current
situation.
Right
now,
because
it
is
there,
but
there
are
things
that
we
can
talk
about,
and
there
are
things
that
we
could
maybe
make
a
change
in
the
province
of
positive
direction,
and
I
would
like
to
propose
some
conditions
to
be
put
on
this.
That
I
understand.
L
L
Part
of
this
is
amending
actually
an
old
condition,
the
condition
that's
already
existing
says
the
developer
shall
work
with
the
property
owners
of
directly
adjacent
property,
implements
screening
and
other
measures
to
reduce
the
visual
impact
of
the
proposed
14-story
mixed-use
building,
and
then
I
would
like
to
add.
This
screening
sale
include
coniferous
trees
on
the
developers,
property
between
the
development
and
the
parcels
located
at
25
and
29
Clarence
Avenue
southeast
of
a
similar
size
and
spacing
to
those
shown
in
the
proposed
plant
schedule.
L
L
This,
the
second
condition
is
unrelated
to
much
of
what
we've
heard
about,
but
I
think
it's
a
condition
that
will
be
appreciated
broadly
by
everyone.
This
is
adding
a
new
condition.
That
would
say
the
applicant
shall
work
with
the
relevant
utilities
to
bury
powerlines
in
the
public
right-of-way
along
the
street
facing
elevations
of
the
proposal.
The
third
motion
is
a
condition
that
deals
directly
with
this
issue
of
conservation
of
the
built
environment
and
how
that
change
probably
wasn't
reviewed.
It
probably
wasn't
looked
at
it
probably
wasn't
considered
properly
by
the
Planning
Commission.
L
If
you
review
the
tapes
and
you
look
at
it
and
it
was
and
I
looked
at
the
two
ordinances
and
it
actually
looks
like
there's
kind
of
a
contradiction,
I
understand
I'm,
not
saying
this
should
set
a
precedent
that
there
shouldn't
be
some
flexibility
in
amenity
points,
because
I
know
that's
a
whole
different
thing
there.
But
writing
where
it
says
what
you
get
an
amenity
points
for.
L
It
says
it
should
be
conserving
something
rather
than
demolishing
and
then
later
on,
as
you
guys
saw
if
you
read
the
appeal,
there's
something
in
our
code
or
maybe
it's
before,
but
in
the
code
that
defines
demolishing
as
removing
60%
or
more
of
a
building,
and
so
this
condition
would
say
in
order
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
conservation
of
the
built
environment
amenity,
the
applicant
shall
retain
at
least
41
percent
of
the
exterior
of
the
art
and
architecture
building
consistent
with
the
zoning
code.
Definition
of
demolition.
L
Just
to
make
that
crystal
clear
and
the
last
condition
that
wasn't
on
the
original
three
that
I
passed
out
is
something
that
I
saw
was
in
the
was
a
Memorandum
of
Understanding
that
the
developer
had
with
the
community.
It's
a
rather
simple
requirement,
but
somebody
reached
out
to
me
recently
and
suggested.
Maybe
that
should
be
a
condition
with
the
city
that
the
developer
shall
provide
a
central
point
of
contact
to
provide,
updates
and
respond
to
neighbor
concerns
during
the
construction
process.
L
N
L
F
L
Hey
can
I
just
determine
sit
speaking
to
the
larger
motion.
I
think
I
should
provide
a
little
bit
of
a
rationale.
Besides
just
my
explanation
of
the
conditions,
I
will
say
that
one
of
the
big
concerns
I
have
about
this
project.
If
we
don't
allow
these
changes
is
that
we'll
fall
back
to
the
building?
That
I
think
there
was
a
bigger
consensus
that
it's
even
larger,
that's
even
gonna,
be
harder
to
deal
with.
I
know
that
we
haven't
necessarily
heard
that
and
I
know.
L
People
won't
necessarily
believe
that,
but
they
absolutely
would
have
the
rights
to
build
the
larger
building,
and
even
if
we
approve
this,
they
would
have
absolutely
the
right
to
listen
harder
if
their
neighbours
and
come
in
and
modify
whether
they
make
a
minor
change
or
a
major
change
to
modify
the
proposal
too.
So,
rather
than
having
the
two
things
we
saw
in
the
slide.
That
said,
build
the
bigger
thing
or
modify
it.
We'd
have
to
build
this
smaller
thing
or
modify
this
thing
in
the
future.
L
So
I
know
that's
not
what
the
appellant
wanted
precisely
they
were
looking
at.
What
that
was
on
the
slide
about
falling
back
to
the
older
thing,
but
I
that
concerns
me
because
I
think
all
those
people
who
are
so
worried
about
the
the
views
and
the
height
of
the
first
project
and
the
massing
of
it.
This
actually
will
have
less
density.
So
that's
the
concern
where
that's
coming
from
and
I
thought
I'd
at
least
make
that
statement
here
and
I'm
sure
we'll
have
a
lot
more
opportunities
to
make.
A
Think
you
can't
smile
right.
I
will
add
that
I
think
what's
very
difficult
about
this.
Is
that
it's
it's
not
that
the
city
gets
to
say
yes
or
no
on
a
project.
We
get
to
say
that
this
conforms
or
doesn't
conform
to
the
law
and
we're
being
presented
with
a
very
specific
case
right
now.
Asan,
appeal
and
I
think
that's
being
reflected
in
how
we're
trying
to
add
adding
conditions
while
still
denying
the
appeal
so
councilmember,
bender
Thank.
M
M
We'll
hear
a
lot
of
desire
from
community
members
to
see
more
affordability
that
was
included
in
that
policy.
So
you
know
I
think
each
time
we
hear
from
communities,
passion,
passionate
support
for
things
like
affordable
housing
or
environmental
sustainability
or
extra
greening.
It
helps
guide
our
policies
moving
forward.
As
you
said,
mr.
chair,
we
are
subject
to
the
laws
that
are
in
place
at
the
time
that
the
applications
come
forward
so
again
support
these
specific
changes
that
customer
coordinate
has
brought
forward.
E
You
mr.
chair
I
also
support
changes
that
councilmember
Gordon
brought
forward
and
I
guess
I
should
be
a
little
bit
more
specific
I
also
support
the
plan.
The
developer
brought
forward,
despite
my
reservations
with
regard
to
the
affordable
housing
issue.
I,
don't
think
we
should
get
into
the
business
of
saying
homeownership
or
rental
is
good
or
bad.
It's
like
saying,
CVS
is
better
than
Walgreens.
E
E
For
the
most
part,
I
had
a
concern
about
the
preservation
issue
and
kind
of
what
I
view
as
a
lack
of
transparency
surrounding
it,
but
I
think
that
councilman
Gordon
figured
out
a
way
to
strengthen
that
as
well
as
the
immediate
neighbor
I
have
great
empathy
for
so
between
the
fact
that
we're
constrained
by
what
we
would
want
to
do.
I've
already
voted
for
this
project
once
and
I,
don't
see
that
these
changes
are
changes
that
are
necessarily
bad.
There
could
be
a
difference
of
opinion.
E
E
A
Y
Chair
commissioners,
again
this
item
before
you
is
a
zoning
code
text,
amendment
amending
regulations
for
accessory
structure
height,
this
ordinance
was
introduced
by
councilmember
Gordon.
The
councilmember
was
hearing
from
constituents
who
are
looking
for
additional
flexibility
on
accessory
structure
height
around
the
same
time,
staff
was
also
hearing
from
garage
builders
and
Adu
designers,
also
looking
for
some
additional
height.
Y
L
Yes,
so
and
I
believe
all
committee
members
have
been
briefed
on
this
issue,
so
I'm
moving
an
amended
version
before
you.
I
will
just
give
a
little
bit
of
the
con
for
how
we
got
to
this
and
and
that
it's
rather
complicated,
but
this
certainly
was
looking
at.
How
can
we
make
garages
opportunities
for
people
to
have
more
space
to
function
and
do
things
potentially
in
garages?
L
This
is
just
to
the
537
point
50
portion
of
it,
so
the
other
portion
of
the
amendments
are
the
same,
but
I'm
amending
this
section
and
essentially
what
I'm
amending
it
to
do
is
to
allow
garages
to
be
higher
in
three
different
categories.
The
two
that
currently
existed
were
13
feet
by
right.
The
second
one
is
16
feet.
If
the
primary
exteriors
and
the
roof
pitch
match,
this
change
is
to
give
that
by
right
with
no
relation
to
the
size
of
the
house,
because
the
old
rules
were
that
or
the
height
of
the
principal
structure.
L
Whichever
is
less,
that
was
what
was
there.
You
can
see
that
broke
out,
and
then
it's
creating
a
third
category
which
would
be
a
low,
a
maximum
height
of
20
feet
where
the
primary
materials
match
the
principal
structure,
but
there
were
also
other
design
features
that
were
demonstrated.
That
would
make
it
look
more
like
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
or
a
home.
This
would
can
include
width
of
trim
matching
the
primary
structure.
L
A
Seeing
any
other
questions,
I
will
kind
of
chime
in
I'm.
Supportive
of
this
I
think
my
main
concern
was
the
ability
to
build
up.
You
know
hired
Roger
Adu
as
a
right
without
having
to
go
through
some
form
of
public
process,
but
I
do
very
much
appreciate
kind
of
the
the
highlighted
in
yellow,
like
the
thoughtfulness.
That's
come
to.
A
It
I
think
the
main
concern
folks
with
what
we've
heard
is
just
are
you
gonna,
build
some
ugly
garage
and
to
be
able
to
say
no
we're
gonna
build
a
really
nice
structure
is
something
very
different
and
we've
we've
continually
hit
this
where,
for
folks
that
are
trying
to
be
more
sustainable,
put
on
a
green
roof
on
an
Adu
or
on
a
garage.
So
I
think
that
I
really
appreciate
your
work.
To
make
this
hire
and
again
I'll
be
supportive.
Us.
L
I'll
move
I'll,
move
this
amendment
and
I
actually
just
add
that
the
approach
to
this
came
from
Planning
Commission
Committee
of
the
whole.
So
we
had
some
discussion
about
it
and
they
offered
me
some
guidance
on
which
way
to
go.
But
I'm
also
really
excited
about
this,
because
it
could
open
some
real
opportunities
for
people
who
live
in
really
small
houses
throughout
the
city
of
Minneapolis.
L
There's
some
very
small
one-story
one
and
a
half
story
houses
and
they
have
garages,
and
so
it
was
actually
a
gentleman
who
came
to
me
and
who
said
I'm
retiring
now.
I
would
just
like
a
place
to
do
some
painting
and
I
wanted
to
build
this
on
something
on
my
garage
and
I
was
told
that
if
I
created
an
Adu
and
put
in
all
this
plumbing
and
everything,
then
I
could
have
my
little
studio,
but
that's
so
much
working.
L
It
wasn't
what
you
needed
and
I
just
think
this
is
some
gonna
allow
some
people
to
to
make
better
use
of
their
properties
longer
and
actually
be
better
for
the
city
and
I'm
hopeful.
It
will
be
I'm
not
expecting
that
flood
of
requests
to
do
this
at
first,
because
it's
still
gonna
be
an
expense
but
I
think
it's
a
move
in
the
right
direction
and
I
appreciate
the
support
all.