►
From YouTube: July 19, 2021 Planning Commission
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
B
B
C
C
B
B
E
B
A
B
Emotion
has
been
made
and
seconded.
Is
there
any
discussion?
F
C
F
B
B
I
will
also
briefly
explain
which
one
is
which
so
consent
items
are
those
that
that
we
will
go
through
and
pass
them
without
any
discussion,
and
we
will
adhere
to
the
staff's
recommendation
that
was
listed
and
that
is
listed
on
the
agenda
under
recommended
motion
section
and
any
conditions
that
the
staff
have
mentioned
there.
B
B
If
there
is
someone
to
speak
against
that,
please
press
star
six
to
unmute
yourself
and
then
proceed
with
with
saying
so.
Okay
hearing,
no
one
item
number
four
is
placed
on
the
consent
agenda
item
number
five
12th
street
north
vacation
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
Is
there
anyone
to
speak
against
that.
B
B
B
Okay,
seeing
none
item
number
seven
is
also
put
on
consent:
item
number,
eight
holden
street
north
and
royalston
avenue.
North
vacation
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
Is
there
anyone
to
speak
against
that.
B
B
G
B
I'm
just
asking
if
you
would
like
this
item
to
be
discussed
then,
which
I
would
like
to
okay.
Okay,
great
item
number
10
is,
will
be
discussed.
B
B
A
F
H
B
Great
thank
you
that
motion
passes
and
the
agenda
has
been
approved.
So
now
we
will
proceed
to
handle
the
public
hearing
agenda.
First,
we
will
open
the
public
hearing
for
the
consent
items
and
then
approve
those,
and
then
we
will
move
on
to
the
discussion
items
which
were
items
10
and
12..
B
B
If
there's
anyone
who
would
like
to
say
something
about
any
of
those
items,
you
can
just
press
star
six
to
unmute
yourself
and
proceed
with
your
name
and
address.
B
B
F
H
B
Zero
nice.
Thank
you.
That
motion
passes.
If
you
were
here
for
items,
I'm
gonna
say
it
one
more
time:
four:
five,
six,
seven,
eight,
nine
and
eleven
that
application
has
been
approved.
As
with
the
recommendation,
as
the
staff
had
mentioned
in
the
staff
report,
so
now
we're
moving
on
to
our
discussion
items,
we
will
hear
the
presentation
from
staff.
We
will
take
public
hearing
on
these
items
and
then
we
will
make
a
will
make
motions
and
and
take
action
on
those
items
accordingly.
B
The
first
item
that
we
have
is
item
number
10,
50th
and
france,
development
and
staff
is
mailing
smith.
Mainly
please
go
in.
J
Hi
good
evening,
commissioners
and
president
of
smiley,
I
am
presenting
5011
and
5015
france
avenue
south.
This
is
located
at
the
southeast
corner
of
the
intersection
of
50th
and
france,
and
the
development
includes
two
parcels
they're
located
in
the
c1,
the
pedestrian-oriented
overlay
district
and
the
corridor
for
built
form
overlay
district
next
slide.
Please.
J
J
J
As
long
as
the
findings
are
met
and
premiums
are
provided
and
I'll
discuss
that
more
in
a
second,
the
applicant
is
also
requested
to
increase
the
allowed
far
the
floor
area
ratio
allowed
in
the
corridor
four
district
from
2.4
to
3.51,
and
they
have
proposed
three
premiums
for
which
staff
is
recommending
approval
as
well,
and
the
the
premiums
that
cover
both
the
height
and
the
far
include
an
environmental
environmental
sustainability
premium
that
entails
strict
energy
and
carbon
reduction
standards,
the
mixed
use
premium
for
commercial
and
residential
development,
and
so
this
mandates
a
certain
size
requirement
for
the
commercial
use
on
the
ground
floor
and
the
third
one
is
enclosed
parking.
J
So
this
is
the
first
floor
layout
showing
some
of
the
landscaping
on
site.
The
there
is
8450
square
feet
of
commercial
space
that
you
can
see
on
the
southern
portion
of
this
site
plan
and
then
the
rest
would
be
residential
lobby
and
amenity
space
and
then
the
driveway
access
off
of
the
alley
to
the
underground
parking.
J
There
would
also
be
some
bike,
racks
and
landscaping
along
france
avenue
next
slide,
please.
So
this
is
an
example
of
one
of
the
floor
plans
provided
by
the
applicant.
This
is
level
two
and
you
can
see
how
the
building
the
building
floor
plan
varies
and
then
stepped
back
from
the
property
lines.
Next
slide.
Please
and
here's
kind
of
the
outline
of
all
of
the
floor
plans
in
in
the
building,
including
the
the
lower
levels.
J
J
Okay,
so
to
approve
the
administrative
height
increase
that
I
referenced
before
the
zoning
administrator
is
required
to
make
four
findings
that
are
found
on
page
pages,
eight
through
nine
of
the
staff
report
included
in
your
packets,
and
these
findings
relate
to
the
human
scale,
design
and
massing
of
the
proposed
building,
and
so
we've
responded
to
those
findings
in
the
staff
report.
But
I
can
say
a
little
bit
about
that
here.
J
This
development
is
located
in
c1
and
it's
not
directly
adjacent
to
residential,
it's
adjacent
to
an
alley
opposite
of
residential
and
there
are
no
required
step
back.
There
are
no
setback
requirements
for
the
building,
so
it
could
be
lot
line
to
lot
line
if
they
wanted
to,
but
they
have
proposed
a
building
massing
that
is
very
varied
and-
and
you
can
see
you
know
if
we
could
go
closer.
J
For
instance,
you
would
see
that
levels
two
through
five
of
the
building
are
stepped
back
approximately
10
feet
from
the
south
property
line.
The
sixth
level
is,
is
actually
31,
31
feet,
5
inches
from
the
south
property
line
and
that's
in
the
corridor
three
districts.
So
that's
one
built
form
district
below
what
we're
looking
at,
which
is
corridor
four
and
then
along
the
east,
which
is
opposite.
The
interior
two
district
levels,
one
through
four,
are
set
back
between
six
and
nine
feet
from
the
east
property
line
and
then
levels.
J
Five
and
five
through
six
are
thirty
feet
from
the
alley,
and
the
staff
finds
that
this
change
in
massing
really
helps
to
minimize
the
negative
impacts
on
adjacent
properties
through
shadowing
and
the
building
itself.
Next
slide,
please
so
here's
an
elevation
provided
by
the
applicant.
It
shows
the
west
elevation
facing
france
avenue.
J
It
does
have
some
built-in
awnings
to
help
with
the
pedestrian
scale,
and
you
can
see
also
how
it's
rendering
next
to
the
adjacent
neighboring
properties,
the
scale
the
scale
of
the
proposed
building
is
designed
to
be
compatible
with
the
those
floor
heights
of
the
adjacent
structures
and
and
overall,
the
pedestrian
character
along
france
avenue
supported
by
this
building.
Next
next
slide,
please.
J
This
is
just
the
east
elevation
facing
the
alley,
there's
a
stairway
entrance
and
also
the
entrance
to
the
parking
garage
here.
Next
slide.
Please.
J
This
is
facing
the
north
next
slide
and
here's
the
south
one.
So
there
are
only
two
things
in
the
application
that
require
alternative
compliance
and
site
plan
review,
and
one
of
these
is
the
blank
wall
provision.
So
there
is
a
blank
wall
facing
the
south
side
and
that's
another
commercial
building.
J
B
K
I
had
a
quick
question:
we
saw
a
lot
of
comments
that
came
through
about
kind
of
concerns
about
parking
in
this
area.
Is
this
deck
by
any
chance
or
the
server
or
the
parking
that
they're
building
with
this
project
able
to
be
shared
with
any
of
kind
of
the
neighboring
businesses?
J
Staff
isn't
necessarily
evaluating
that
aspect
of
the
development
they're
in
compliance
with
their
maximum
parking,
so
there
there
are
a
lot
of
spaces
that
are
kind
of
dedicated
for
residential
or
commercial,
but
it's
within
maximum
limit,
so
that's
kind
of
what
we're
looking
for,
but
that
would
be
a
better
question
for
the
applicant
okay.
Thank
you.
B
Any
other
questions
for
staff.
Okay,
seeing
no
other
question
for
staff,
I
am
now
opening
the
public
hearing
on
this
item.
Is
the
applicant
here
to
speak
about
this
item?
If
you
are,
please
press
star
six
to
unmute
yourself
and
then
continue
with
your
name
and
and
everything
else.
L
This
is
james
howard,
the
snow
cry
like
architects,
hi,
I'm
the
applicant
on
behalf
of
the
developer,
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
the
question
about
parking.
Is
that
what
you'd
like
me
to
do?
First,.
B
Sure
either
answer
the
question
or
if
you
have
any
additional
pieces
of
information,
that's
part
of
the
presentation
either
either
way.
Please
go
ahead.
L
Okay,
I'll
just
begin
with
a
short
summary.
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
work
with
the
city
on
this
project.
We've
been
in
discussions
with
mayling
for
a
number
of
months
now
and
our
goal.
Our
team's
goal
is
really
to
align
the
project
with
the
city's
new
2040
plan,
which
does
encourage
a
higher
density
and
increased
height
in
this
area.
L
We
feel
that
the
project
has
provided
and
met
all
of
the
requirements
that
the
city
has
to
fit
within
that
plan.
It's
a
very
sustainable
project,
so
it
improves
the
energy
performance,
the
management
of
site
stormwater,
and
we
feel
really
is
going
to
be
a
great
asset
to
the
neighborhood
and
improving
the
character
and
quality
of
the
experience
on
france
avenue.
L
With
regard
to
the
question
about
parking,
the
two
parcels
currently
existing
have
private
parking
off
of
the
alley,
so
we're
not
removing
any
public
parking
with
this
project,
but
we
are
providing
additional
parking
beyond
what
is
there
currently
in
the
below
grade
garage
for
retail
use
and
also
for
the
tenants
of
the
parking
garage
or
for
the
tenants
of
the
condominiums.
Excuse
me.
K
So
just
to
clarify,
when
you
say
retail
parking,
that's
public
parking
for
other
businesses
on
the
strip
or
just
for
the
tenants
of
the
building.
L
B
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
questions,
additional
questions
for
the
applicant
from
the
commission
at
this
point.
B
Okay,
well,
thank
you
for
for
making
the
comments
and
answering
the
question.
We
will
continue
with
our
list
of
registered
speakers.
I
do
have
two
other
members
of
the
applicant
team.
I
I
don't
know
if
you
would
like
to
make
any
additional
comments.
John
waninger
and
thomas
mclin,
I'm
just
going
to
see
if
you
would
like
to
add
anything.
Otherwise
we
can
move
on.
M
Presentation
was
pretty
thorough.
B
B
Okay,
we
will
move
to
the
next
next
registered.
Speaker
is
charlene
robinson.
If
you're
on
the
line,
please
press
star
six
to
unmute
yourself
and
continue
with
your
name
address
and
comment
hello.
I
believe
you
can
hear
me
now.
N
N
N
Okay,
thank
you
for
taking
time
for
my
comments.
I
I
support
a
better
use
of
the
area
and
building
in
general,
it
looks
very,
very
nice.
The
cons
is
with
the
administrative
height
increase.
You
have
addressed
it
some
in
your
comments
and
certainly
the
setbacks.
N
Excuse
me
create
less
of
a
monolithic
look
which
could
occur
with
a
building
that
did
not
have
those
setbacks,
but
in
looking
at
the
plans,
even
though
you're
saying
it's
a
six
story
building,
it's
really
almost
a
seven
story:
building
with
the
outdoor
roof
deck
and
the
structures
on
that
and
for
me,
even
across
the
street,
in
a
forest
jury
building.
N
Of
course,
I
I
know
I'm
going
to
lose
business,
but
I
anticipated
that
when
I
moved
in
because
I
knew
there
would
be
redevelopment
down
the
line,
but
even
six
really
right
now
to
me
seems
high
when
there
are
maximum
other
than
our
building
two-story
buildings
around
except
for
ours-
and
I
know
the
height
is
growing.
Nolan
names
is
at
five,
but
there
are
no
close
by
residents
there
and
it's
not
just
one
building,
it's
several.
N
So
it
was
really
more
of
a
complex
that
was
being
built
that
I
think
assisted
the
49th
and
develop
street
development.
N
That
I
believe
your
planning
commission
approved
was
only
for
five
stories,
and
even
the
fifth
story
is
the
variance
was,
was
set
back
quite
a
bit
much
more
so
than
than
these
setbacks
are
going
to
be,
and
really
the
major
setback
isn't
until
the
seventh
story
roof
deck.
N
I
just
feel
that
zoning
has
reason
for
limits
to
maintain
a
continuity
and
balance,
and
I
I'm
concerned
about
the
next
end
of
that
block.
Is
it
going
to
be
eight
stories
or
ten
stories?
It's
you
know
at
some
point.
This
zoning
has
to
be
observed
a
little
bit
more.
My
main
personal
concern
for
my
building
is
with
light,
and
even
though
I
know
the
setbacks
will
provide
a
little
bit
better.
I'm
not
sure
how
many
of
you
have
been
in
this
building,
but
all
of
our
light
comes
from
the
eastern
windows.
N
There
are
no
west
windows
in
the
units
in
this
building,
so
all
of
the
light
that
comes
into
our
apartment
is
coming
in
from
the
france
avenue
road
and
I
feel
like
it's
really
going
to
create
a
major
light
restriction
for
our
building
and
having
one,
that's
quite
so
so
tall.
In
closing,
I
feel
like
the
five
stories
seems
to
be
a
fair
variance
and
that's
what
the
newer
buildings
around
have
adhered
to,
and
I
would
like
to
ask
you
to
reduce
the
height
of
the
building.
B
G
I
also
am
a
resident
of
5000
france
directly
across
the
street,
from
the
development
proposal
and
just
echoing
some
of
the
things
charlene
said
and
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
a
lot
of
people,
I'm
president
of
our
homeowners
association.
You
know
we
expected
a
four-story
development
there.
I
we
all
feel
that
the
height
is
way
different
and
very
abrupt
in
relationship
to
any
structures
in
not
only
the
immediate
block
but
the
the
full
area
it
just
doesn't
feel
like.
Well,
it's
a
nice
looking
building
and
you've
all
seen
the
pictures.
G
It's
with
that
black
and
white
look
for
me
personally,
it's
not
consistent
at
all
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
what
has
generally
been
done
on
all
sides
of
50th
and
france
kind
of
the
four
corners.
G
We
understand
the
aims
of
the
2040
plan.
It's
not
clear
to
me
at
all
how
giving
this
administrative
exemption,
which
allows
two
more
stories
to
a
real
estate
developer
who's
selling.
Probably
these
will
be
two
million
dollar
units-
is
meeting
any
objective
that
that
needs
to
be
accomplished
by
that
particular
variance,
and
I
know
it's
not
technically
variants
I'll
use.
The
word
variant
to
sell
anyone.
G
I
know
so
it
we
we'd
like
to
ask
you
to
reconsider
and
not
allow
that
the
building
they
can
build
a
very
nice
building
without
going
to
six
stories.
It
will
totally
change
the
character
of
this
neighborhood.
It
will
block
sun
permanently.
We
won't
ever
see
the
sky
from
anywhere
in
this
building
and
again
we
there.
This
isn't
housing,
that's
addressing
an
unmet
need.
This
is
16
2
million
dollar
units
or
something
in
that
neighborhood
and
we're
just
asking
that
it
be
constrained
to
the
four
stories
that
was
always
planned
there.
B
Thank
you
for
your
comment.
Our
next
speaker
is
nate
wissink.
If
I'm
saying
your
last
name
correctly,
if
you're
on
the
line,
please
press
star
six
unmute
yourself
and
then
continue
with
your
name
number
and
comment.
B
B
Okay,
not
hearing
anything
go
back
to
sarah
vermeer
is
sarah
vermeer
on
the.
B
B
B
Okay,
well
not
hearing
any
anyone.
This
actually
completes
the
list
of
the
registered
speakers.
Is
there
anyone
else
on
this
call?
Who
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item?
Who
wasn't
able
to
register
in
advance?
If
there
is,
you
can
press
star
six
to
unmute
yourself
and
then
continue
with
your
name
address
and
comment.
B
O
Thank
you.
I
feel
that
this
is
a
pretty
straightforward
one
and
just
to
clarify
something
for
some
of
the
people
who
spoke
during
the
hearing
I
mean
it
is
really
relevant
that
there
are
no
variances
being
requested
of
us
today.
O
There
are
premiums
that
were
I
mean
they
can
build
up
to
four
stories
by
right,
and
if
they
do
certain
things,
then
they
can
go
up
to
to
six,
and
I
think
it's
deliberate
that
we
allow
staff
to
you
know
handle
that
administratively
and
it
would
be
inappropriate
for
us
to
interfere
with
that
and
it
does
provide
a
public
benefit
that
these
premiums
are
being
adopted,
that
they
really
meet
our
climate
goals
of
really
climate
friendly
construction.
O
B
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Meyer
has
moved,
and
commissioner
ford.
B
P
Hi
everyone,
so
I
I'm
gonna
vote
for
this,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
this
clear
for
the
record.
I
do
feel-
and
I
know
we're
not
talking
about
our
feelings,
but
I
think
it's
important
that
I
say
this
that
sunlight
is
is
important
and
I
can't
stand
it
when
I
have
to
turn
on
the
lights
in
order
to
get
some
kind
of.
You
know
light
in
any
space
that
I
utilize.
P
I
just
got
lights
in
my
office
today
and
it's
just
it
made
it's
so
much
more
of
a
a
great
day,
so
I
feel
for
the
folks
that
are
going
to
be
losing
that
that
sunlight
and
it's
unfortunate
that
this
building's
gonna
already
these
developers
are
already
gonna
make
architects
are
gonna,
make
a
bunch
of
money
right.
So
it's
really
unfortunate
that
it's
not
being
taken
into
consideration
to
maybe
utilize
some
of
that
commercial
space.
P
For
you
know
the
housing
piece
so
that
they
could,
you
know,
maybe
lose
a
level,
but
I
know
that
that's
not
going
to
happen,
but
I
just
wanted
the
folks
that,
on
the
call
that
expressed
their
concerns
about
losing
their
light,
I
I
feel
you.
A
F
C
B
Q
Q
This
site
was
up
until
recently
occupied
by
a
medium
scale,
three-story
apartment,
building,
an
older
apartment,
building
that
was
damaged
during
the
construction
of
the
adjacent
project
along
franklin
and.
Q
Sorry,
along
franklin
and
lindell
avenue
south
and
had
to
be
demolished.
So
again
the
site
is
currently
vacant.
We
can
go
to
the
next
slide.
Q
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
construct
a
new
six-story
building
with
46
dwelling
units
on
the
site.
The
site
is
currently
guided
for
the
corridor,
mixed-use
land
use
category
and
the
corridor
6
built
form
category
corridor.
Mixed
use
allows
for
commercial
uses,
but
does
not
require
them,
so
single
use,
residential
structures
are
allowed
and
six
stories
is
allowed
by
wright
in
the
built
forum.
District
franklin
avenue
is
a
adopted
goods
and
services
corridor
in
this
location.
Q
This
shows
you
the
site
in
context.
There
is
a
recently
constructed
six
story,
project
immediately
to
the
east
along
lindale
and
franklin,
and
then
this
site
fronts
along
aldrich
avenue
south
with
corner
side
yard
frontage
along
west
franklin
avenue
next
slide
is
a
graphic
site
plan
depicting
the
building
placement
on
the
site.
Q
The
applicant
is
proposing
a
50-foot
front
yard
along,
although
japanese
south,
which
aligns
with
both
the
underlying
zoning
requirements
and
the
established
setback
of
the
building
immediately
to
the
south
next
slide,
and
then
this
slide
illustrates
the
parking
access.
So
the
applicant
is
proposing
one
level
of
partially
underground
parking
with
11
parking
spaces
that
would
be
accessed
off
of
a
curb
cut
from
franklin
avenue
and
then,
as
the
site
slopes
upwards.
Q
Most
of
this
first
level
would
be
below
grade
along
the
aldrich
avenue.
Frontage
there's
also
bike
parking
proposed
at
this
underground,
partially
underground
level
next
slide
and
then
the
first
level
floor
plan
showing
the
principal
entrance
to
the
building
off
of
aldrich
avenue
facing
the
front
lot
line,
and
then
the
first
level
residential
units
with
balconies
facing
west
franklin
I'll
note
that
the
setback
along
that
west
franklin
frontage
is
proposed
at
one
foot,
which
is
one
of
the
variances
that
the
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
yard
requirement
on
the
corner
side
along
franklin.
Q
There
I'll
also
point
out
in
this
slide
that
the
applicant
is
showing
balconies
along
the
south
interior
side
lot
line.
This
is
also
a
part
of
their
variance
request
for
those
balconies
to
encroach
on
the
interior
side
yard
next
slide,
and
then
these
are
sections
showing
the
building's
relationship
to
both
the
sloping
grade
and
that
adjacent
project
immediately
to
the
east.
Q
Q
Exterior
materials
proposed
are
a
mix
of
brick
and
metal
panel
and
cementitious
fiber
cement
next
slide,
and
then
these
are
elevations
of
the
proposed
structure
that
top
north
elevation
shows
you
that
sloping
grade
along
west
franklin
avenue,
along
with
the
proposed
parking
access
to
that
one
level
of
underground
parking,
partially
underground
parking
next
slide,
and
then
the
rear
and
front
elevations
along
alt
ridge
and
along
the
rear
property
line
next
slide.
Q
And
then
this
is
in
elevation
of
the
project.
As
seen
from
the
corner
of
aldrich
and
franklin,
showing
that
principal
entrance
next
slide
and
then
the
west
franklin
at
the
new
frontage
showing
the
underground
parking
garage
access,
you
can
see
a
little
bit
more
clearly
the
relationship
between
this
proposed
structure
and
that
structure
immediately
to
the
east
next
slide.
Q
So
the
recommendation
for
that
variance,
which
was
noticed
would
be
to
return
the
variance
to
increase
the
maximum
lot
coverage
and
the
remaining
applications
are
a
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
corner
side
yard
from
14
feet
to
one
foot
along
that
franklin
avenue.
Frontage
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
that
application.
Q
There
is
a
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
of
your
yard
from
11
feet
to
six
feet.
Staff
is
recommending
denial
of
that
application
and
I'll
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
that
in
a
minute
variance
to
the
minimum
interior
side
yard
for
balconies
the
applicant
is
complying
with
the
interior
side
yard
setback
for
the
building
wall
in
that
location.
However,
the
balconies
encroach
into
the
interior
side
side
yard
further
than
is
allowed
by
ordinance.
Q
The
ordinance
would
require
that
there
be
at
least
10
feet
of
separation
between
the
balconies
and
that
south
interior
side
lot
line
and
they
are
requesting
to
reduce
that
from
10
to
7
feet
4
inches,
and
then
there
is
the
site
plan
review.
If
we
could
just
go
back
to
the
site
plan,
that
would
be
page
sorry.
One
second.
Q
Q
Q
There
is
a
minimum
required
yard
of
11
feet
for
a
project
of
this
size
along
the
rear
staff
could
not
determine
a
practical
difficulty
with
meeting
that
requirement,
so
that
is
part
of
why
we're
recommending
denial
of
that
application.
Q
So
that's
a
little
bit
more
about
that.
That
concludes
my
presentation.
I
can
take
any
questions
from
the
commission
if
there
are
any.
B
I
Thank
you,
sorry.
For
being
late
there
I
was
looking
at
the
site
plan
review
and
the
the
comment
that
the
the
the
project
is
is
visually
interesting.
You
know
I
have
a
hard
time
buying
that
it
looks
like
just
every
other
building
in
town.
I
Q
Sure
so,
commissioner,
ford,
that's
not
smiling,
visual
interest
doesn't
necessarily
refer
to
a
style
so
much
as
to
a
lack
of
what
we
would
call
blank
wall
conditions.
Q
So
there's
a
limit
on
the
amount
of
square
or
linear
footage
that
you
can
have
for
blank
walls.
We
usually
require
that
there
be
windows
or
some
other
kind
of
architectural
articulation
to
alleviate
those.
Q
But
you
know
I
would
say
it's:
it's
not
so
much
about
variety,
and
you
know
design
language
as
much
as
it
is
about
just
avoiding
kind
of
emptiness.
In
a
publicly
facing
facade.
I
I
understand
that.
Thank
you.
I
this
gives
me
the
opportunity
to
just
complain
again
about
we've.
Had
you
know
how
many
millions
upon
millions
of
dollars
spent
on
redevelopment
and
new
construction
of
our
condominiums
and
archit
and
apartments,
and
so
many
of
them
look
so
exactly
the
same.
It's
it's
really
sad.
The
opportunity
we've
lost
with
all
this
money
being
spent,
and
it's
really,
I
think,
pretty
boring
it.
It's
what
made
the
last
one
we
looked
at
on
france
avenue
so
refreshing.
It
was
different.
I
At
least
I
understand
it
was
multi-million
dollar
condos.
But
anyway
I
just
expressing
my
continuing
regret
about
the
the
nature
of
development
that's
occurring
in
minneapolis.
Thank
you.
P
Yes,
thank
you,
president
smiley,
and
I
appreciate
commissioner
ford's
comments.
You
know
when
you
were
gosh,
I'm
so
sorry,
I've
forgotten
your
name,
patrick.
Is
that
your
name?
Is
it.
Q
P
Peter
I'm
so
sorry
peter.
I
apologize
for
getting
your
name
incorrect
when
you
were
speaking
of
the
requirements.
I
I
appreciate
that
and
every
time
we
have
these
meetings,
I
get
excited
so
much
about
how
much
more
I'm
learning
and
what
I'm
seeing
happen
throughout
the
city,
and
you
know
there's
so
many
requirements
so
many
things
that
that
have
to
be
done
a
certain
way,
and
it's
just
really
disappointing
that.
Yes,
that
a
lot
of
our
buildings
do
look
alike
and
that
there's
for
a
city
that
speaks
to
diversity.
P
I
find
it
really
interesting
that
in
that
particular
area,
there's
there's
no
affordable
housing
in
that
property
and
we
don't
have
a
requirement
of
developers
to
or
give
them
incentives
to
to
to
provide
our
city
with
affordable
housing
within
some
of
these
units.
There's
a
school
right
down
the
road
from
there
and
you
know
we
talk
about
wanting
to
squash
out.
P
You
know
racism
and
and
acceptance
of
others
and
reconciling
differences,
and
all
of
that-
and
I
find
that
what
what
I'm
learning
or
actually
what
I'm
beginning
to
feel
comfortable
expressing,
because
I
already
knew
it
is
that
a
lot
of
the
the
the
ways
that
we
do
things
are
completely
backwards
to
what
we're
saying
about
what
we
want
for
a
city
that
has
the
potential
to
really
provide
opportunities
for
for
all
families
throughout
many
of
our
neighborhoods
and-
and
I
speak
specifically
of
this
particular
project.
P
Considering
I
think
if
you
shook
a
stick
in
the
air
you
might
hit
like
four
or
five
or
six
schools
in
that
area.
So
I'm
disappointed
and
I
realized
that
the
birth
rate
has
declined,
but
it's
going
to
start
to
increase
again
and
I'm
just
really
disappointed
that
this
isn't
a
project
that
the
developers
didn't
weren't,
given
some
kind
of
incentive
to
provide
some
more
for
affordable
housing.
So
I
I'm
disappointed
and
those
are
communications.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner
caprini
commissioner
marwa.
K
Hi,
thank
you
for
taking
my
comments.
President
smiley.
My
comments
are
similar
to
commissioner
ford's.
I
mean
you
guys
have
heard
me
speak
on
this
topic.
I
don't
understand
why
this,
where
is
like
the
excitement
and
the
interest?
This
is
such
a
congested
already
kind
of
neighborhood
and
area
of
these
exact
same
looking
buildings.
So
it's
either
that
the
wedge
is
just
going
to
be
kind
of
these.
You
know
cut
and
paste
buildings.
K
I
think
there's
so
much
room
for
opportunity
from
the
developer
to
to
add
some
visual
interest
in
this
building
and
to
really
make
it
kind
of
a
cool
kind
of
hold
that
corner
where
it
does.
I
do
want
to
just
better
understand:
are
there
affordable
units
in
this
I'm
reading
the
the
wedge
letter
from
the
neighborhood
association
that
says
that
they
like
that,
the
supporting
that,
since
this
building's
replaced
25
affordable
housing
units
that
they
will
be
affordable,
rents
on
this?
Can
you
sorry
peter?
Q
This
building
is
not
subject
to
inclusionary
zoning
requirements,
as
it
doesn't
meet
that
threshold,
which
is
set
at
50
units
currently
so
there
there
won't
be
requirements
to
incorporate
a
certain
number
of
affordable
units,
and
I
don't
believe
that
the
units
will
be
income
restricted,
but
I
do
think
that
the
applicant
intends
to
make
them
affordable
at
a
rate
that
would
be
equivalent
to
a
subsidized,
affordable
project
in
terms
of
the
percentage
of
ami
that
someone
might
be
able
to
afford
one
of
these
units
at
but
I'll,
ask
that
maybe
they
can
elaborate
on
that
when
they
speak.
K
Q
B
Okay,
in
that
case
again,
public
hearing
is
open
and
we
will
go
to
the
applicant
pete
keely.
If
you
are
on
the
line,
you
can
press
star
6
to
unmute
yourself.
R
Yes,
hello,
everyone
good
evening,
members
of
the
commission,
this
pete
keeley
collage
architects.
I
am
here
with
the
applicant
applicant
john
slitterman,
rsrc,
randall
street
realty,
and
just
kind
of
kind
of
go
through
some
of
the
thoughts
and
ideas
behind
the
project
and
some
of
the
thoughts
and
ideas
behind
the
variants.
R
One
of
the
main
things
on
this
site
is:
there
is
a
considerable
grade
change
to
the
site
about
seven
and
a
half
feet,
and
so
we're
using
the
opportunity
on
that
area
on
the
low
portion
of
it
to
actually
access,
what's
essentially
kind
of
an
underground
portion
of
it.
We
did
split
the
level
of
the
building
so
that
the
first
floor
lobby
space
is
about
a
story
and
a
half
which
holds
the
corner.
That
is
fully
glass
with
canopy.
It's
open,
you'll,
see
into
that.
R
There
is
kind
of
a
stairway
that
accesses
up
to
the
corridor,
all
of
which
will
be
visible
from
the
street.
So
I
see
that
portion
of
the
building
actually
being
very,
very
lively,
very
pedestrian
firmly
and
not
necessarily
what
is
is
typical.
R
I
would
also
say
that
one
of
the
main
things
on
this
building
was
to
tie
it
into
the
fabrics
of
along
franklin
avenue
on
the
north
edge
here,
and
so
the
massing
and
the
proportions
of
the
existing
building
on
the
east
side
had
broken
it
down
into
kind
of
two
buildings.
So
we
took
a
similar
approach
to
break
it
down
into
two
buildings,
with
the
seam
down
the
middle
and
and
being
comparable
materials,
so
that
this
kind
of
created,
essentially
kind
of
a
continuous
street
wall.
R
That
makes
looks
like
four
buildings
in
a
row
and
that's
essentially
the
reason
for
two
of
the
variances,
the
one
along
franklin
avenue,
the
front
yard
setback
and
the
rear
yard
setback
on
the
east
side.
So
the
front
yard
setbacks.
If
this
is
corridor,
sick
buildings
should
be
held
to
the
street.
I
think
staff
is
in
support
of
that,
and
that
was
part
of
it.
R
I
won't
go
into
detail
on
that,
but
happy
to
answer
questions
about
it,
but
I
do
believe
that
also
goes
hand
in
hand
with
the
setback
on
the
east
side,
which
is
if
we
are
trying
to
build
corridors,
transit
corridors
and
pedestrian
friendly
corridors.
We
don't
really
want
gaps
between
buildings
and
the
gaps
between
buildings,
create
areas
that
are
problematic
to
maintain
they.
They
don't
really
grow
anything
they
don't
really
lend
on.
R
I
don't
think
to
a
pedestrian
experience,
so
we're
trying
to
tighten
that
gap
up
as
much
as
we
can
and
and
still
meet
the
building
code,
so
we're
still
meeting
kind
of
the
health
safety
welfare
on
both
sides
of
that
for
the
building.
The
existing
building
obviously
met
that
when
it
was
first
built-
and
this
one
does
as
well
on
the
east
side,
so
that
is
the
request
for
the
variant
on
the
east
side
is
to
actually
create
a
to
really
kind
of
strengthen
that
idea
of
the
corridor.
As
we
go
along
franklin
avenue.
R
On
the
south
side,
the
balconies
there
is
an
exchange
exception
for
40
square
feet.
This
does
extend
into
that
area
by
one
foot.
Four
inches,
so
the
variance
is
for
two
foot,
eight
inches
of
extension
of
that
that
that
balcony
and
that's
really
to
to
make
those
units
a
little
bit
more
livable
with
some
outdoor
space,
and
we
think
that
that's
an
appropriate,
appropriate
area
to
add
the
balconies
on
the
back
side.
R
So
that's
really
kind
of
the
the
variances
that
we're
looking
at.
I
think
mr
crandall
had
mentioned
that
the
lot
area
we
will
be
complying
with,
and
so
those
are
the
three
variances
and
if
the
applicant,
if
john
sliderman,
the
applicant,
wants
to
discuss
the
affordability,
I
know
he's
on
at
this
point
as
well.
Otherwise
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
E
S
S
So,
while
those
those
price
points
are
across
mostly
across
the
board,
except
for
maybe
at
the
high
end
of
that
consistent
with
60
ami
pricing
per
the
city.
So
that
is
our
perspective
that
we're
building
affordability
into
the
base
project
and,
despite
whatever
the
city
requirements,
are
that
that
it
is
a
lower
price
point
project.
B
Thank
you.
I
know
that
commissioners
have
questions
commissioner
meyer
and
then
commissioner
marwa.
O
I
had
a
question
about
the
maximum
lot
size
coverage.
Why
is
it
that
you
chose
not
to
pursue
that
anymore
like
what
are
you
dropping
that
you
had
proposed
originally,
and
and
would
you
still
want
it
if
it
was
approved
or
did
you
not
did
you
decide
not
to
pursue
it
because
you
didn't
think
you
would
get
it
or
just
clarify
your
thoughts
on
that?
Please
sure.
R
Absolutely
it
was
a
discrepancy
between
the
architectural
plans
and
the
landscape
plans,
so
last
minute
coordination.
We
know
that
we
are
still
in
the
appropriate
lot
coverage.
Unfortunately,
the
landscape
plans
actually
calculated
the
balconies,
which
are
actually
not
part
of
the
lot
coverage
and
they
calculated
the
rest
of
that
slightly
incorrectly,
so
they
were
off
by
a
fraction,
and
so
we
know
that
we
can
comply
and
the
intent
was
to
comply.
K
Yeah
hi
my
my
questions
for
the
applicant,
so
you
mentioned
that
the
intention
is
to
keep
these
at
an
affordable
price
point.
What
is
the
one,
the
guarantee
that
those
would
remain
an
affordable
price
point
say
you
guys,
sell
the
building
in
a
few
years?
How
will
that
kind
of
that
know
that
this
is
for
the
neighborhood
at
that
affordable
price?
But
I
think
I'm
just
a
little
bit
struggling
with
what
are
the
parameters
set
around
that?
K
S
S
If
that
is
something
that
we
need
to
discuss,
then
I
encourage
you
to
discuss
it
with
me,
but
currently
the
unit
size
and
the
pricing
in
this
neighborhood
is
what
is
keeping
everything,
affordable
and,
of
course,
that's
always
open
to
interpretation,
but
we
at
the
low
end
or
under
a
thousand
dollars
a
month
for
new
construction
is,
is
underneath
your
60
of
ami.
K
S
S
Which
the
majority
of
the
building
the
majority
of
the
46
units
we
have
all
but
13,
are
between
500
and
540
square
feet.
K
Okay,
I
mean
I'm
not
talking
about
20
years
out,
I'm
talking
about
three
years
out
how
how
do
we
know
that
this
building
remains
affordable
for
the
or
at
that
price
point
without
any
kind
of
parameters
in
place
I
mean
at
46
units
is
cutting
in
really
close
to
the
50
threshold.
It
once
again
kind
of
we
see
this
often
that
developers
come
in
right
under
that
threshold
and
then
there's
no
way
to
really
enforce
that
that
housing
stays
affordable
for
the
future.
So
that's
just
a
little
bit
of
my
my
question
with
it.
K
My
other
comment
was
on
the
design.
I
think
there
are
so
many
ways
that
you
guys
can
add
more
interesting
elements.
I
think
you
could
do
some
cool
artist
design
balconies,
you
could
do
a
lot
of
you
know
really
interesting
kind
of
streetscaping
things
that
involved
to
make
that
corner
just
a
little
bit
more
interesting,
especially
since
you're
holding
it
really
tight
with
where
the
where
the
light
line
is.
K
T
Yeah,
so
I
know
we
have
this
conversation
a
lot,
but
again
just
a
reminder.
You
know
the
city
spent
almost
two
years
establishing
parameters
for
when
inclusionary
zoning
would
be
triggered
on
projects
and
what
the
affordability
requirements
would
be
we're
still
in
the
phase-in
period,
where
50
is
the
threshold,
so
this
project
does
not
have
any
requirements
to
provide
affordable
units
because
they're
under
that
50
unit
threshold.
T
However,
because
we
are
seeing
a
lot
of
buildings
that
are
between
25
and
50,
the
phase-in
period
is
getting
closer
to
phasing
out
so
the
more
buildings
that
we
get
between
20
and
50
units,
the
closer
we
get
to
the
threshold
dropping
to
20..
So
again,
this
is
one
that
is
not
subject
to
inclusionary
zoning,
and
that's
not
one
of
the
considerations
tonight.
B
Applicant
okay,
seeing
none,
we
actually
don't
have
anyone
else
who
has
registered
in
advance
to
speak
on
this
item.
So
if
there's
anyone
else
on
the
line
who
was
unable
to
register,
you
can
just
go
ahead
and
press
star
six
to
unmute
yourself
and
then
continue
with
your
name
address
and
a
comment
on
item
number.
B
E
B
Okay,
maybe
not,
then,
with
that
I
will
now
close
the
public
hearing
on
this
item.
O
Yeah
first,
I
would
remark
that
I
I
feel
there
is
attention
at
least
probably
attention
between
what
commissioner
ford
is
asking
for
and
what
commissioner
caprini
is
asking
for,
because
commissioner
ford
is
asking
for
diversity
in
building
materials.
Commissioner
copini
is
pushing
diversity
in
people
right.
O
I
think
there's
a
reason
that
most
you
know,
building
materials
of
any
given
time
are
pretty
similar
to
each
other,
like
you
can
identify
that
you
know
a
building
was
likely
built
in
the
20s
or
something
because
of
the
the
type
of
building
materials
that
were
used,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
that
you
know
the
the
builders
are
most
likely
to
build
with
whatever
materials
are
most
affordable
at
any
given
time.
O
So
if
we
mandate
that
they
have
to
use
different
materials,
I
mean
that
that
could
I
mean
I
assume
likely,
would
would
drive
up
the
cost,
which
makes
it
harder
for
the
building
to
be
kept
affordable.
So.
O
To
point
out
that
out
the
that,
I
think,
there's
a
tension
there,
I
think
there's
also
a
tension
in
the
type
of
things
that
you
know.
I
really
push
for
all
the
time
with
the
type
of
thing
that
we
just
approved
in
the
previous
application,
with
really
high
quality
environmental
provisions.
You
know
those
drive
up
costs
as
well,
so
I
I
think
that
should
just
be
something
that
we
acknowledge,
as
we
ask
for
different
things.
Is
that
the
different
things
that
we
ask
for
are
competing
with
each
other
with
each
other.
O
So
with
that
comment
made
to
the
specific
variances
that
are
being
requested
today,.
O
So
I
support
the
staff
finding
for
the
first
variance
and
I
I
feel
that
the
same
practical
difficulties
that
they
identified
there
should
apply
to
their
rear
variants
as
well,
so
they
they
found
for
the
first
one
that
practical
difficulties
exist
in
complying
with
the
minimum
corner
side
in
this
location
that
are
unique
to
the
site
and
not
based
on
economic
conditions
alone.
The
applicant
has
designed
the
site
to
reflect
the
plan
of
the
previously
existing
structure,
which
was
built
with
no
setback
along
with
franklin
avenue
frontage.
O
The
original
structure
was
configured
with
a
principal
entrance
along
franklin
avenue.
Additionally,
the
slope
of
the
site
from
west
to
east
creates
a
practical
difficulty
with
the
vehicle
access
to
the
proposed
structured
parking.
The
historic
configuration
of
the
site
and
the
slope
of
the
site
are
unique
conditions
not
created
by
the
applicant.
Well,
I
feel
that
it
applies
also
to
the
other
one,
because
there
was
previously
no
setback
at
all.
Just
a
you
know,
a
zero
foot
setback
as
stated
later
in
the
report.
O
So
for
that
reason,
I
I
think
that
that
reasoning
should
be
cross-applied
to
to
both
setbacks,
and
I
feel
that
we
should
also
approve
the
balcony
variants,
because
I
think
providing
that
extra
access
to
sunlight
and
outdoor
access
is
is
consistent
with
our
plans
so
I'll.
Let
other
commissioners
speak,
but
I'm
going
to
propose
to
approve
all
the
requested
variances,
and
I
can
do
that
as
a
slate
or
as
individual
emotions
once
other
commissioners
have
spoken.
Thank
you.
P
Oh,
thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
something.
My
tension
is
with
the
city
of
minneapolis,
not
with
the
applicant
or
the
developer.
You
know,
typically,
if
someone
is
going
to
be
able
to
to
to
do
something,
that's
how
can
I
put
this
nicely.
P
Oh,
my
gosh,
okay,
so
I'm
just
gonna
give
you
something
that
my
mom
would
have
said.
No,
I'm
not
going
to
do
that!
P
I'm
not
going
to
do
that
that
that
I
don't
want
that
on
on
the
record,
I
have
a
problem
with
the
city
not
providing
and
providing
incentives
for
folks
who
want
to
come
in
under
the
radar
and
and
not
support
or
to
to
accommodate
folks
for
with
for
for
affordable
housing
and
when
it
comes
to
diversity.
P
It's
not
even
so
much
just
that.
It's
about
families!
It's
about
folks
who
have
chosen
to
have
one
or
two
children
that
that
can
enroll
in
our
schools
in
the
city.
I
just
see
us
going
in
a
direction
and
I
realize
you
know
I'll
be
taking
a
dirt
nap
by
the
time
things
are
going
to
change
again
in
maybe
20
30
40
years,
I'm
not
sure,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day.
P
I
just
want
to
make
it
clear
that
my
issue
in
my
comments
earlier
we're
not
with
the
developer
as
much
as
it
is
just
with
the
city
that
we
can't
somehow
provide
an
incentive
for
someone
to
go.
Oh,
you
know
what
I
just
need
to
have
four
more
units:
okay,
so
we're
going
to
like
do
this.
Instead
of
that,
and
then
we
would
be
able
to
provide
some
affordable
housing
because
I'm
tired
of
hearing
about
how
that's
what
we
need
to
do-
and
you
know
time
and
time
again
we
get
some
folks
said
50.
P
No,
let's
do
48,
let's
do
46,
but
I
I
get
it
it's.
You
know
they
can
do
that,
because
the
20
40
plan
says
that
they
can
and
I'm
beginning
to
no
I'm
going
to
stop
there
yep
I'm
done.
I
Well,
I'm
I'm
happy
to
step
aside
for
a
minute
and
have
people
finish
this
discussion
about
affordability
and
come
back
back
to
design
later
on.
I
see
commissioner
schroeder
has
jumped
in
so
I'll
step
aside
for
now,.
H
Thank
you,
chair
yeah.
I
did
want
to
address
the
affordability.
I
think
that
commissioners,
if
they
have
questions
to
check
with
staff,
there's
a
lot
of
programs
that
the
city
already
does,
I
think,
there's
a
huge
difference
between
what
the
property
owner
and
the
developer
of
a
property
can
do
on
their
own.
H
They
can
decide
what
the
rents
are
they're,
basing
it
all
on
a
very
calculated
structure
and
business
plan,
of
what
they're
going
to
be
able
to
make
money
on
and
that's
how
the
inclusionary
zoning
policy
came
about.
You
know
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
figuring
out.
What
is
the
most?
We
can
ask
ask
of
developers
when
we,
we
frankly,
don't
have
any
leverage
as
as
a
city.
H
What
other
cities
have
done
is
they've
been
able
to
trade
parking
to
be
able
to
say
we
will
reduce
parking
for
if
you're
able
to
increase
affordability.
I
am
really
proud
as
one
of
the
authors
of
the
inclusionary
zoning
policy,
but
that
was
based
on
the
data
that
we
had
at
that
time.
It
will
continue
to
be
evaluated.
My
my
guests,
guess
is
that
in
the
next
couple
years,
like
most
cities
that
have
been
have
adopted,
inclusionary
zoning,
they
have
upped
their
standards.
H
The
current
base
that
we
are
on
now,
as
staff
pointed
out.
The
big
fear
was
that
this
would
the
market
we
haven't.
Seen
that
happen,
we
haven't
seen
the
world
collapse,
we
haven't
seen
developers
go
to
every
other
city,
but
minneapolis
affordability
is
critical
in
the
city
and
we
are
doing
everything
we
can
to
make
sure
that
it
stays
that
way.
B
Thank
you.
I
guess
I'll
go
back
to
commissioner
ford
now.
I
Thank
you.
Well,
I
want
to
swing
back
to
design
and
and
the
issue
of
affordability
and
commissioner
maya's
comments,
and
I
appreciate
what
he
was
saying,
but
I
I
was
not
talking
specifically
about
building
materials.
I
was
talking
about
the
the
visual
interest
of
buildings
and
that
certainly
building
materials
is
part
of
that.
But
I
and
you
talked
about
buildings
that
materials
that
are
available
at
a
time.
I
My
wife
and
I
have
spent
last
several
months
touring
the
city
looking
at
historic
buildings
are
on
the
national
historic
register
and
on
the
city,
historic
register
and
they've
managed
to
be
pretty
interesting
and
pretty
diverse,
and-
and
I
might
imagine
that
their
palette
of
building
materials
was
less
than
what
we
have
now.
I
do
think
that
you
know
it
would
be
nicer
to
see
a
architectural
community
in
minneapolis
and
twin
cities
find
more
interesting
ways
to
provide
affordable
housing
and
it
needn't
all
be
looking
the
same.
I
We
we're
just
now
coming
out
from
this
suffering
for
years
of
decades,
on
the
ugly
two
and
a
half
story,
walk-ups
that
we
allowed
back
in
the
70s,
and
I
plead
guilty
to
that.
But
I
I
do
think
that
it's
it's
difficult.
I
know
to
use
this
process
here.
Basic
gives
me
a
bit
of
a
soap
box
to
say
I
wish
we
had
architects
who
were
trying
harder
at
providing
more
interesting
buildings.
K
Thank
you,
commissioner
report.
I
also
just
want
to
echo
that-
and
I
want
to
restate
that
this
is
not
an
affordable
housing
project,
as
we
all
learned,
because
it's
46
units
and
there's
no
guarantee
in
the
affordability
of
it.
So
the
the
excuse
to
use
the
cheapest
materials
possible
to
be
building
550
square
foot
units
for
950
dollars
to
me
is
a
very
poor
one.
I
think
I'm
holding
ourselves
to
higher
design
guidelines
is
really
important
in
the
city.
I
think
asking
for
those
kind
of
interesting
elements
and
projects.
K
I
work
for
an
affordable
housing
developer
and
our
projects
are
a
lot
prettier
than
these.
So
it
is
it's
just
really
frustrating
we
see
these
week
after
week
after
week,
and
the
architectural
standards
of
these
are
just
are
not
interesting
and
if
you're
going
to
claim
that
it's
because
of
affordable
housing,
then
there's
but
there's
no
affordable
housing
in
there.
So
I
think
I
just
want
to
what
the
echo
commissioner
ford
was
saying
too.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
peter
has
a
comment,
and
then
commissioner
swayze.
Q
Thanks,
I
just
wanted
to
add,
and
I
don't
want
to
distract
too
much
from
the
project
at
hand
or
the
applications,
but
since
we're
talking
about
exterior
materials
and
design,
you
know,
I
think
we
struggle
with
that
as
staff
as
well.
You
know
this
commission
and,
and
we
as
staff,
have
limited
ability
to
regulate
design,
we're
not
a
design
review
board.
Some
cities
do
have
that
we
don't
have
that
so
site
plan
review
is,
you
know,
are
one
of
our
limited
tools
in
regulating
how
buildings
look
and
their
exterior
expression.
U
Thank
you,
president
ismaili
yeah.
I
want
to
support
a
little
bit
what
mr
crandall
was
just
saying
about
not
distracting
from
the
project,
that's
in
front
of
us
and
the
approvals
and
the
work
here
that
we're
here
to
do.
I
think
this
project,
for
some
reason,
is
getting
for
lack
of
a
better
term
picked
on
a
little
bit.
U
In
my
opinion,
we
we've
been
approving
things
for
a
long
time
that
come
in
under
you
know,
under
the
limit
for
exclusionary
zoning,
commissioner
schroeder
is
exactly
right
that
there's
a
limit
and
some
some
developers
do
projects
that
are
bigger
than
that
and
we'll
be
subject
to
that
and
some
won't
as
for
the
way
the
building
looks
just
going
back.
U
The
last
several
meetings
in
my
head,
we've
approved
many
things
that
look
exactly
like
this
and
we
didn't
sort
of
you
know
all
pounce
on
the
developer
about
the
way
this
one
building
look.
I
actually
don't
think
it
looks
that
bad,
they
all
look
alike.
They
all
look
alike
in
some
other
cities
that
you
go
to
too.
U
I
don't
know
what
the
solution
is
for
that,
but
I
think
my
opinion
that
for
some
reason,
this
project
in
particular
seems
to
have
gotten
under
people's
skins
a
little
bit,
and
I
think
you
know,
while
the
comments
about
design
and
all
that
are,
are
appropriate,
maybe
that's
better
suited
for
a
committee
of
the
whole
discussion
and
not
not
a
place
where
we
have.
U
V
Right,
you're,
muted,
but
I'm
assuming
you
called
on
me,
I
did
thank
you
yeah.
I
was
just
going
to
say
something
pretty
similar
to
what
commissioner
sweesey
was
saying,
so
I
I
agree
with
with
that
and
then
for.
Commissioner
meyer,
if
you
can
take
your
motions
individually,
I
would
appreciate
that.
I
Yes,
I
wanted
to
just
comment.
First
of
all,
on
what
peter
was
saying.
I
Seth
was
saying
I
I
fully
understand
the
limits
that
the
staff
has,
and
in
fact
the
city
has
my
my
plea
for
better
design
was
to
was
to
the
developer
development,
community
and
the
architectural
community,
and,
as
for
picking
on
this
particular
project,
I
you
know,
I
will
happy
to
complain
about
other
ones
too,
but
I
do
think
that
this
you
know
I
I
don't
think
this
is
any
worse
or
any
better
than
many
others
we've
seen,
but
thank
you.
B
E
B
Heard
that
there
is
a
desire
to
separate
the
motions-
and
there
was
also
one
correction
from
staff
on
12d-
am
I
correct
to
return
that
one?
Can
you
confirm
that
please
peter.
B
Okay,
perfect,
commissioner
meyer.
O
Thank
you
first,
just
a
quick
comment
about
the
affordability,
so
you
know
I
I
recognize
that
they're,
not
income
restricting
it,
but
what
they're
building
you
know
they're,
building
at
the
prism
price
point
of
about
60
of
mi.
So
that's
you
know
that's
middle
class
and
I
I
feel
like
for
the
questions
that
are
actually
before
us
about
whether
to
provide
these
setbacks.
You
know
that
means
you
know.
If
we,
if
we
decline
the
setbacks,
that
means
a
few
extra
units.
O
You
know
four
extra
units
or,
however
many
fewer
of
of
this
middle-class
housing,
and
if
we
oppose
the
balconies
you
know
be
lower
lower
quality
housing
for
people
that
are
living
there.
So
I
I
feel
that
the
practical
difficulties
exist
and
it
makes
sense
for
us
to
approve
these.
O
So
unless
there's
an
objection
to
grouping
these
together,
I'm
going
to
move
to
approve
items
a
and
e
which
are
the
two
staff
recommended
ones.
So
that's
approving
a
in
the
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
corner
side
yard
setback
along
the
earth
property
line
from
14
to
1
foot
and
e.
The
site
plane
review
with
the
stated
conditions
and
to
return
item
d.
B
I
Yeah,
could
I
ask
commissioner
maya
to
restate
that
please
thank
you.
P
P
B
Okay
about
the
other
two
that
you
are
gonna
make
a
separate
motion.
Commissioner
meyer.
O
O
B
O
I
I'm
not
sure
where
the
confusion
came
in,
but
I
I
said
that
they.
O
Yep
okay,
so
my
motion
is
to
approve
item
a
and
item
e
and
to
return
item
d
so
that
those
are
the
ones
that
staff
has
recommended.
F
I
Just
excuse
me
just
so
I'm
clear
so
so,
commissioner
mai,
you
are
voting.
You
are
approving
the
motion
to
deny
the
variance
for
item
b
no.
O
I
D
Question
think
I
did,
but
I
think
commissioner
meyer
just
answered
it
in
terms
of
procedurally
how
he
was
going
to
handle
b
and
c.
So
thank
you.
F
B
O
So
I
moved
to
approve
the
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
rear
yard
setback
from
11
to
six
feet
with
the
following.
Finding.
Let's
see
findings
that
there
are
practical
difficulties
because
of
the
small
lot
size
because
of
the
historical
configuration
of
the
site
and
because
of
the
slope.
B
T
I
think
we
heard
the
practical
difficulty
finding
that
would
be
sufficient
and
honestly
we
might
just
have
to
go
back
and
re-watch
it.
I
was
trying
to
take
notes
really
quickly,
but.
O
O
So
I
mean
this
is
basically
those
two
I'm
taking
them
right
from
number
one
for
the
staff
recommendation
for
the
previous
setback
that
we
just
approved
and
then
for
the
2040
plan.
I
believe
that.
O
Let's
see
so,
I
think
it
enhances
goal
number
one:
access
to
housing
goal,
number,
six,
pedestrian,
oriented,
building
design
and
goal
number
seven
for
public
realm.
D
F
F
H
B
O
Go
ahead,
I
moved
to
approve
item
c.
Sorry,
sorry,
I
moved
to
vitamin
c
to
approve
the
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
interior
yard
setback
from
11
feet
to
7
feet.
4
inches
four
balconies
and
cross
apply
the
same
practical
difficulties
and
20
40
goals.
B
Okay,
emotion
has
been
made.
Is
there
a
second.
E
K
Hey
thank
you.
I
had
a
quick
question.
I
think
this
might
be
first
staff.
Is
there?
Is
there
any
way
within
a
with
a
motion
like
this?
That's
at
the
table
where
you
could
ask
for
the
balconies
to
be.
You
know
a
nicer
design
per
se,
or
something
like
that
that
we
could
add
an
aesthetic
aspect
that
way
since
they
need
this
disapproval.
Q
Commissioner
marwa,
I
I
don't
think
so.
I
don't
really
understand
what
you
mean
by
nicer
design,
but
if
you
wanted
to
specify
like
a
different
material
or
something
that
might
be
possible
based
on
material
standards,
but
typically
the
the
variance
would
only
be
conditioned
in
a
way
that
related
to
the
request.
So
the
the
setback
and
the
potential
hardship
that
it
might
impose
on
the
neighboring
property
and
not
so
much
on
design
itself.
But.
K
K
You
know
elements
that
people
put
in
them
or
their
trellis
or
just
interesting
elements,
and
I'm
wondering
if
through
since
there
has
to
be
an
approval
anyway
for
these,
if
this
is
a
way
that
we
can
have
the
developer
add
in
kind
of
an
element
of
interest,
but
it
sounds
like
if
it's
not
directly
correlated
to
what
they're
asking.
Maybe
not
is
that
right.
Q
I
think
it's
it's
difficult
to
elaborate
on
that
in
this
setting,
and
you
know
without
more
clarity
in
the
code
about
what
we
mean
when
we
say
interesting
design,
I
think
it
would
be
difficult
for
staff
to
interpret
that
direction
post
hearing,
so
I
would
discourage
that
kind
of
a
condition
on
this
application.
Q
Sure
yeah,
I
think
committee
of
the
whole,
is
a
great
place
to
talk
about
that
stuff.
E
A
Mcguire,
thank
you.
Maybe
this
was
just
answered
by
staff,
but
could
one
of
I
guess
what
commissioner
marwa
was
getting
at
is
just
adding
visual
interest
because
it's
going
to
be
closer,
could
we
add
a
number
of
materials
like
would
that
get
at
what
you
were
thinking,
commissioner
marwa,
like,
instead
of
one
material
having
a
mix
of
materials
for
visual
interest?
That
is
something
that
staff
could
point
to
during
the
review
process
of
saying:
okay,
there's
a
mix
of
two
to
three
materials
or
additional
articulation,
or
something
like
that.
I'm
not
an
architect.
A
So
perhaps
commissioner
baxley
is
a
better
person
to
ask
for
some
of
those,
but
those
would
be
concrete
things
we
could
say
instead
of
just
visual
interest,.
K
Yes,
something
like
that
would
be.
You
know
what
whatever's
kind
of
allowable
if
the
developer
will
bring
in
creativity,
kind
of
which
are
other
ways
that
we
could
see
it
in
there.
O
Yeah
I
I
would
accept
something
to
that
effect
as
a
friendly
amendment.
If
you
want
to
stay
the
condition,
if
that,
if
that
works
for
staff,
then
I'm
happy
to
accept
that,
but
I
I
would
need
a
commissioner
marwa
to
state
it
for
me.
K
I'll
probably
need
your
the
the
legalese
language
in
there,
but
if
there's
a
way
for
varied
materials,
was
that
chloe.
K
I'm
sorry,
my
dog
there's
no
way
for
for
a
change
of
materials
or
something
with
this
additional
approval
for
the
balconies
that
they're
asking
for.
Q
I
think
if,
if
you
were
to
add
a
condition
and
just
leave
the
language
very
open
such
that
staff
could
come
up
with
solutions
in
collaboration
with
the
applicant
team.
That
would
be
fine,
so
something
to
be
effective.
B
Okay,
as
long
as
the
language
was
captured,
so
your
commissioner
meyer
accepting
this
as
a
friendly
amendment.
O
B
And
and
commissioner
mcguire,
since
you
seconded
that
confirming
you
that
commissioner
meyer's
original
motion,
are
you
also
accepting
that.
B
A
I
would
like
to
hear
commissioner
sweesey's.
B
A
Thank
you.
I.
U
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
I
you
know
a
similar
concern
and
I
think
we're
getting
a
little
bit
far
afield
here
with
the
conditions
for
what
is
or
is
not
when
you're,
you
know,
when
you're
approving
a
variance.
U
This
seems
a
little
bit
like
leverage,
we
don't
have,
and
I
I
would
discourage
other
commissioners
from
supporting
this.
I
I
don't
think
there's
in
any
way
a
common
definition
of
what
visual
interest
is.
I
think
that
that's
been
established
already
tonight
and
I
don't
I
don't
I'm
worried
about.
You
know
things
like
saying
that
these
balconies
have
to
look
cool
or
have
this
kind
of
interest
or
have
this
kind
of
materials
in
them
in
order
to
get
them
approved
when
staff
has
already.
U
You
know,
made
a
recommendation
here
that
the
findings
for
a
variance
actually
don't
exist,
and
I
I
really
have
a
problem
with
scope
and
where
we're
headed
down
this
here
and
I
I
just
think
it's
you
know
well,
you
can
have
the
balconies,
even
though
there's
maybe
not
basis
in
the
law
to
do
that.
The
way
it's
written.
If
they
look
good,
you
can
have
them
and
who
decides
what
looks
good?
U
D
I
would
agree
with
commissioner
suisia
as
much
as
our
commentary
about
aesthetics
is
highly
subjective.
It
is,
is
doubly
hard
when,
in
the
context
of
a
of
a
variance-
and
I
think
for
this
particular
one-
I'm
not
going
to
support
the
balcony
variants
because
of
the
pressure
puts
on
the
adjacent
property,
I
think
it's
one
thing
in
the
rear
yard,
where
windows
can
be
aligned
so
they're
not
facing
each
other.
D
I
think,
in
this
case,
a
balcony
six
feet
from
the
face
of
the
existing
property
line
is
a
bit
is
a
bit
close,
so
I'm
I
won't
be
supporting
this
thanks.
T
T
P
Hi,
I
just
wanted
to
thank
commissioner
sweezie
for
her
comments.
I
completely
agree
with
what
she
stated
about
kind
of
going
down
a
rabbit
hole
with
with
what
what
our
responsibility
is
here
with
this
particular
project
or
projects
period.
So
I
will
not
be
supporting
the
friendly
amendment.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner
caprini.
I
am
just
based
on
the
comments.
I
just
want
to
confirm
that
the
friendly
amendment
was
accepted,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
whether
commissioner
marwa
still
would
like
to
keep
that
or
withdraw
it
by
any
chance
just
giving
that
opportunity
here.
B
Okay,
commissioner
meyer,
go
ahead.
B
Sure
so
that
makes
sense
to
me:
okay,
so
commissioner
marwa
you're,
making
a
motion
to
them
to
making
an
emotion
to
the
to
add
an
amendment
to
the
other
motion.
Is
that
correct.
K
Yeah,
you
know,
I
think
I'll,
withdraw
the
amendment.
I
think
we'll
talk
to
peter
about
this
on
thursday,
just
trying
to
figure
out
a
little
bit
more
where,
where
we
can
discuss
these
items,
so
I
think
we'll,
let's
bring
this
up
on
thursday
when
we
chat
with
them
so
I'll
be
trying.
B
C
F
H
B
That
motion
fails.
Would
someone
like
to
make
another.
B
A
B
Now
that
that's
fine
emotion
has
been
made,
is
there
a.
B
F
B
B
That
concludes
all
of
our
public
hearing
items.
Are
there
any
updates
or
announcements
from
staff.
T
T
I
know
that
you're
probably
all
very
curious,
nothing
concrete
to
report
right
now,
but
we
will
certainly
keep
you
in
the
loop
as
that
conversation
progresses
and
try
to
give
you
as
much
notice
as
possible
on
that
so
other
than
that
we
did
have
an
appeal
go
to
biz
last
week
for
the
parking
lot
accessory
to
the
hotel,
minneapolis
or
the
hyatt
centric
hotel.
T
The
biz
committee
did
grant
the
appeal
so
essentially
overturning
the
planning
commission's
motion
to
deny
that
accessory
parking
lot
and
that
will
go
to
council
on
friday.
I
believe,
if
I
have
my
calendar
correct,
so
I
will
let
you
know
what
the
final
decision
is
on
that
and
other
than
that.
Just
a
reminder
that
we
have
two
text
amendments
at
committee
of
the
whole
on
thursday
this
week,
thanks.
B
Okay,
well
with
that,
we
have
now
completed
all
the
items
on
the
agenda
and
now,
if
with
no
objection,
I
declare
this
meeting
adjourned.
Our
next
planning
commission
meeting
is
on
monday
august
2nd,
and
our
next
committee
of
the
whole
meeting
is
this
thursday
july
22nd
2021,
and
thank
you
and
hope
you
have
a
good
evening.