►
From YouTube: May 27, 2021 Planning Commission Committee of the Whole
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
And
welcome
to
the
regular
virtual
meeting
of
the
city
planning
commission
committee
of
the
whole
today
is
thursday
may
27
2021.
My
name
is
alyssa
olson
and
I'm
the
vice
president
of
planning
commission.
This
meeting
includes
the
participation
of
board
members
and
staff
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statute,
section
13
d,
0
2
1,
to
due
to
the
declaration
of
public
health
emergency.
A
A
If
you
are
not
muted,
please
do
so
now.
Can
we
mute
someone
there
we
go.
B
C
Sorry,
if
I
start
olson
in
the
in
the
attempt
to
mute
everyone,
you
were
muted
also
thank
you.
A
A
C
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Ford.
E
F
C
C
That's
true,
I
thought
I
stopped
still
saw
his
phone
number
connected.
In
any
rate,
we
have
five
members
present
currently,
and
oh
commissioner
meyer,
is
that
you
I.
E
E
G
A
All
right,
so
we
have
a
quorum
next,
we'll
proceed
to
the
agenda,
a
copy
of
which
was
posted
for
public
access
to
the
city's
legislative
information
management
system,
which
is
available
at
limbs.minneapolismn.gov.
A
Today,
I'm
going
to
suggest
one
minor
change
to
the
agenda
since
the
first
discussion
item
item
number
seven
is,
regarding
the
last
consent
item
item
number:
six:
I'm
going
to
suggest
that
we
flip
the
order
of
those
two
items.
So
we
can
hear
the
presentation
on
the
program
before
we
vote
on
the
associated
land
sales.
F
A
Seeing
none
clerk,
please
call
the
roll.
C
What
is
looking
up
here
so
I'm
just
going
to
write
this
down
and
then
you'll
have
to
re-unmute
yourself.
C
C
F
C
C
C
A
All
right
that
motion
passes
and
the
agenda
is
adopted
next
on
the
agenda
is
acceptance
of
the
minutes
of
the
regular
meeting
of
may
12
2021.
May
I
have
a
motion
to
accept
those
minutes.
A
E
A
Being
none,
I
will
ask
the
clerk
to
please
call
the
role
in
the
motion.
I
C
G
C
A
All
right,
let's
see
all
right,
so
we
just
accepted
the
minutes.
That
motion
passes.
Next
up
is
the
consent
agenda
and
the
first
item
is
number
four
location
and
design
review
for
2022
through
2027
capital,
budget
requests
and
staff
is
west,
durham.
J
Good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
west
durham,
I'm
a
planner
with
community
planning.
So
this
item
is
very
much
like
a
land
sale.
I
know
some
of
you
may
not
have
not
have
seen
this
yet
in
previous
years,
so
anytime,
the
city
issues,
debt
for
the
construction
of
capital
improvements,
there's
first,
a
required
review
for
consistency
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
J
Typically,
we
bring
forward
all
projects
that
are
proposed
any
year
in
the
cip
in
one
big
batch
around
this
time
on
an
annual
basis,
and
occasionally
projects
might
pop
up
throughout
the
year
too.
For
other
reasons,.
J
So,
typically,
with
this
item,
we
make
one
of
three
recommendations.
Either
a
project
is
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
with
no
further
review
required.
That
means
there's
enough
information
to
say.
Yes,
this
is
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
it
doesn't
need
to
come
back
before
the
commission
at
a
later
date.
We
also
sometimes
recommend
projects
as
consistent
with
additional
review
required
that
meaning
that
the
general
concept
of
a
proposal
is
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
but
there's
information
that
may
not
be
available.
J
Yet
that's
important
to
be
sorted
out
before
kind
of
a
final
decision,
so
that
such
a
recommendation
would
mean
that
the
project
would
come
back
before
the
commission
at
a
future
date
when
more
information
becomes
available.
J
Of
course,
a
project
may
be
deemed
not
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
as
well,
so
regarding
what
projects
need,
location
and
design
review
this
year,
so
recognizing
the
adoption
of
an
effective
date
of
minneapolis
2040..
Last
year
we
brought
all
projects
included
in
the
21
to
26,
cip,
4
location
and
design
review.
J
So
any
project
that
was
not
included
in
the
cip
last
year,
but
is
this
year
in
the
22
to
27,
cip,
as
well
as
any
project
that
received
a
finding
of
an
additional
review
required
last
year,
would
need
location
and
design
review
this
year
so
of
the
projects
requiring
location
and
design
review
this
year.
Six
of
them
we
are
recommending,
as
additional
review
required,
with
consistent
with
additional
review
required.
The
rest
of
them
we're
recommending
is
consistent
with
no
further
review
required
of
those
six
where
we're
recommending
additional
review
required.
J
So
they
would
come
back
before
the
commission
again.
Five
of
them
do
not
have
identified
locations
for
proposed
the
construction
of
proposed
facilities,
new
police
stations,
new
fire
stations,
that
sort
of
thing,
and
then
one
project
is
for
fire
station
11.
There
is
an
identified
site,
but
there
isn't
yet
enough
information
on
the
design
of
the
project
to
determine
whether
it
meets
the
built
form
guidance
of
minneapolis
2040..
A
Thank
you,
commissioners.
Any
questions
or
discussion.
F
Sorry,
quick
question,
so
thank
you,
wes
the
things
you
named
on
there
like
the
fire
station,
the
police
station.
Those
are
things
that
would
have
to
come
back
to
this
commission
or
wouldn't
just
for
clarification.
J
J
Those
will
all
be
brought
back
for
this
same
review
in
the
future,
with
once
more
information
is
available.
So
at
the
very
least,
those
will
be
likely
be
proposals
in
the
cip
next
year
and
if,
at
that
point
a
location
has
been
identified
and
is
included
in
the
cbr,
then
we
would
recommend
them
generally
as
consistent
with
no
further
review
required.
So
it
come
up
again
in
that
way,
sometimes
throughout
the
year,
depending
on
when
they
determine
the
location.
J
That
kind
of
thing
we
might
bring
it
as
a
separate
item,
but
either
way
you
would
see
those
six
projects
again
and
then
also
just
to
to
note
if
there
is
if
the
typical
land
use
approvals
and
those
kinds
of
things
be
are
relevant
as
well.
You
would
see
the
project
through
that
separate
process
as
well.
F
F
Okay,
I
will
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
capital
budget
requests
as
right.
A
D
C
F
C
I
A
H
Good
afternoon
well,
good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
bree
golding,
I'm
a
planner
in
community
planning
and
I
will
be
presenting
a
land
sale
for
the
properties
of
1830
in
1832,
bryant
avenue,
north
and
817,
and
a
half
west
broadway
avenue
in
ward
5..
H
The
bryant
avenue
parcels
have
a
urban
neighborhood
land
use
with
the
interior
three
boat
form,
which
is
one
to
three
stories,
and
the
eight
and
eight
seventeen
and
a
half
west
broadway
avenue
parcel,
has
a
corridor
mixed
use.
Plane
used
with
a
corridor
six
built
form
which
is
two
to
six
stories.
The
cells
of
these
properties
to
construct
a
112
unit
mixed
income
building,
also
known
as
the
satori
apartments
as
proposed,
is
consistent
with
the
minneapolis
2040
plan.
D
C
A
All
right
that
motion
passes.
Thank
you
great.
Thank
you
all
right.
Next
up
is
item
number
seven.
An
overview
of
the
minneapolis
homes,
financing
program
and
staff
is
kevin
knies,
but
I
think
paul
might
be
presenting
first.
L
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Olson.
Yes
I'll,
say
just
a
couple
words
hi
commissioners,
my
name
is
paul
moguish,
I'm
the
manager
of
community
planning
in
cped
and
item
six
is
a
large
batch
of
of
reviews
of
land
sales
for
consistency
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
and
these
are
land
sales
that
that
our
colleagues
in
the
cped's
housing
division
are
recommending
to
the
city
council
for
sale
under
the
minneapolis
homes
program.
L
So
we
we
thought
that
this
would
be
a
good
opportunity
to
hear
from
kevin
about
to
just
to
get
an
overview
of
the
minneapolis
homes
program
to
provide
some
grounding
for
commissioners
in
how
it
works.
Our
colleagues
have
undergone
a
lot
of
work
to
to
bring
that
program
into
alignment
with
the
minneapolis
2040
comprehensive
plan,
since
the
plan
went
into
effect
at
the
beginning
of
last
year.
So
we
thought
this
would
be
a
good
a
good
time
to
check
in
on
that.
L
I
Great,
thank
you
paul
and,
like
you
said,
my
name
is
kevin
knace,
I'm
a
senior
project
coordinator
with
cped
on
our
minneapolis
homes,
financing
team
and
should
I
be
sharing
my
screen
or
will
somebody
else
be
sharing
a
presentation.
C
I
I
There
we
go
so,
like
I
said,
my
name
is
kevin
knace
and
I
work
on
our
minneapolis
homes,
financing
team
and
we're
going
to
be
covering
the
program
and
providing
some
context
about
who
we're
trying
to
serve
with
the
program,
how
it
aligns
with
the
2040
plan
goals,
talking
about
how
we
sell
property
and
how
we
provide
for
billy
cap
financing
and
then
answer
any
questions
that
you
have.
I
So
minneapolis
homes
financing
is
a
one
to
twenty
unit
home
ownership,
development
financing
program
developments
can
be
new
construction,
rehabilitation
of
vacant
structures
or
stabilization
of
owner-occupied
homes
or
renters
that
are
wishing
to
purchase
the
rental
unit.
Financing
is
available
for
units
that
are
affordable
to
households
at
or
below
80
of
area
median
income,
and
we
provide
deeper
subsidy
for
projects
that
serve
lower
income.
Households.
I
We
review
our
applicant
submissions
using
a
selection
criteria
based
upon
these
goals,
and
then
we
review
the
projects
for
cost
effectiveness
that
they
meet.
Our
local
housing
for
our
affordable
housing
needs
that
they
have
equitable
wealth
building
opportunities
and
that
they
incorporate
design
features
that
meet
singing
goals.
I
I
We
do
provide
deeper
financing
for
projects
that
serve
households
at
more
affordable
levels
at
60
or
40
ami
and
of
the
proposals
we're
looking
at
a
significant
number
serving
those
households.
I
In
some
cases,
the
applicant
may
have
proposed
a
proposal
that
met
those
goals,
but
neighborhoods
provided
feedback
that
they
wanted
a
property
to
be
rezoned
for
a
different
use
and
in
those
cases
we
pull
up
those
proposals.
I
In
our
homeownership
path
or
pathway,
we
are
right
sizing
our
subsidy
commitment
for
the
number
of
bedrooms
and
the
income
limit
of
the
housing
unit
that's
created,
so
the
subsidy
can
range
from
as
little
as
fifty
thousand
dollars
for
a
studio
serving
eighty
percent
ami
household
up
to
three
hundred
fifteen
thousand
dollars
for
a
four
bedroom
or
greater
sized
unit.
That's
serving
a
40
ami
household.
I
If
we
focused
in
on
an
example
that
you
can
see
in
this
box
here,
that's
a
three-bedroom
home,
that's
serving
an
80
bmi
household,
with
an
income
between
63
000
and
seventy
eight
thousand.
That
project
would
be
available
to
receive
ninety
thousand
dollars
in
max
subscribe
from
the
city
and
then
the
affordable
sales
price
that
would
need
to
be
achieved
with
that
would
be
two
hundred
fifty
three
thousand
dollars.
I
As
part
of
the
program,
we
had
a
incentive
for
sustainably
certified
building
design
and
what
that
effectively
did
is
provided
an
incentive
of
up
to
twenty
percent
of
total
development
costs
not
to
exceed
ninety
thousand
dollars
for
homes
that
or
proposals.
I
committed
to
build
projects
that
meant
one
of
three
criteria
which
two
of
those
are
two
different:
passive
home,
criterias
and
then
the
third
one
is
a
net
zero
home.
M
I
Here,
I'm
going
to
provide
a
little
bit
of
an
overview
of
two
ways:
we
provide
affordability
gap
financing,
so
we
provide
financing
both
as
profit
cap,
which
is
the
difference
between
the
total
development
cost
of
a
project
and
its
fair
market
sales
price.
And
then
we
provide
affordability
gap,
financing,
which
is
the
difference
between
the
fair
market
value
and
then
what
a
affordable
household
can
afford.
I
A
Last
chance
all
right:
well,
I'm
not
seeing
any
questions,
so
thank
you
kevin.
We
appreciate
it.
A
L
Thank
you,
commissioner
olsen.
So
now
we
have
before
you
a
recommendation
that
the
commission
find
the
the
sale
of
the
43
properties
to
come
out
of
the
minneapolis
this.
This
year's
round
of
the
minneapolis
homes
program
to
be
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
based
on
the
the
proposals
matching
up
with
the
future
land
use
and
built
form
maps
of
minneapolis
2040..
L
As
kevin
mentioned,
our
group
clerk
collaborated
closely
with
with
the
housing
group
to
make
sure
that
all
of
these
properties
were
marketed
appropriately
in
the
rfp
to
be
within
the
the
range
of
unit
numbers
and
heights
based
on
the
built
form
map
in
the
comprehensive
plan,
as
well
as
based
on
the
the
lot
sizes
and
other
and
other
factors.
L
A
B
A
A
Our
next
item
is
item
number.
Eight
como
avenue,
congregational,
church,
designation,
study,
review
and
comment
and
staff
is
rob
scalecki.
M
Good
evening,
commissioners,
again
I'm
rob
scalecki
city
planner
in
the
historic
preservation
section
of
cped.
Today,
I'm
presenting
a
designation
study
for
planning
commission
committee
of
the
whole
comment
and
review
the
property
is
the
como
avenue
congregational
church,
which
is
located
at
1035
14th
avenue.
M
The
subject
property
was
constructed
in
1886
as
the
como
avenue
congregational
church.
The
church
was
designed
by
architect
charles
sedgwick,
who
is
considered
to
be
a
master
architect
by
the
city,
and
it
was
designed
in
the
queen
anne
style,
and
it
was
clad
in
red
brick
with
the
first
story,
brick
on
the
first
stories
with
wood
shingles
in
aries,
above,
as
you
can
see
here,
from
the
historic
photograph.
M
Charles
cedric
also
designed
many
significant
minneapolis
buildings
and
frequently
worked
using
various
design
movements
of
the
era
already
designated
charles
sedgwick
buildings
include
the
george
l,
newell
house,
melrose
flats
and
the
commercial
building
at
20
256,
first
avenue
north
also
other
cedric
design
properties
are
listed
in
the
national
register
of
historic
places
that
you
might
be
familiar
with.
For
example,
the
westminster
presbyterian
church
or
dayton's
department
store
since
its
initial
construction.
M
The
planning
commission
for
review
and
comment
for
the
proposed
designation
so
in
its
review
planning
commission
can
consider
but
not
be
limited
to
the
following
three
factors:
the
relationship
of
the
proposed
designation
to
the
city's
comprehensive
plan,
the
effect
of
the
proposed
designation
on
the
surrounding
area
and
the
consistency
of
the
proposed
designation
with
the
applicable
development
plans
or
development
objectives
adopted
by
city
council.
M
The
future
land
use
for
the
property
is
identified
as
urban
neighborhood
in
minneapolis
2040.
urban
neighborhood
includes
predominantly
residential
areas,
with
a
range
of
allowed
building
types
which
may
include
small-scale
institutional
with
semi-public
uses
throughout
currently
the
area's
medium
to
low
density,
residential
and
the
proposed
recommendation
to
not
designate
the
property
would
have
no
impact
on
the
use
for
the
subject
property
or
the
identified
future
land
use
for
the
area.
M
Future
built
form
for
the
guidance
for
the
properties
identified
as
interior
2
in
minneapolis
2040..
The
interior
2
district
is
typically
applied
in
parts
of
the
city
that
developed
during
an
era
where
streetcars
were
a
primary
mode
of
transportation
and
includes
areas
between
transit
routes
and
on
select
streets
with
local
transit
service.
M
M
Additionally,
the
following
policies
of
minneapolis
2040
would
apply
to
the
designation
study
process
of
the
como
avenue
congregational
church,
and
these
three
that
we
use
frequently
are
preservation,
specific
policies.
Policy
60
is
intrinsic
value
of
properties,
increasing
the
awareness,
understanding
and
appreciation
of
economic
and
intrinsic
value
of
older
properties,
important
to
the
city's
heritage.
M
The
designation
study
process
has
allowed
for
greater
study,
awareness
and
understanding
of
the
building
in
the
context
of
the
neighborhood
and
city
heritage.
The
property
owners
may
see
value
in
retaining
and
reusing
the
building.
For
these
reasons,
however,
the
building
is
not
eligible
for
local,
landmark
designation
and
therefore
it
can't
be
afforded
the
protections
or
the
incentives
that
designated
landmarks
are
policy.
92
also
applies,
which
is
identify
and
evaluate
historic
resources.
M
The
church
was
previously
identified
by
cped's
staff
as
a
potential
historic
resource
in
a
historic
review
letter
in
march
2020.
In
that
letter,
staff
recommended
recommended
that
the
property
may
be
eligible
for
local,
landmark,
designation.
Based
on
this.
The
property
was
nominated
as
a
landmark
by
council
member
camp,
gordon
of
ward
2,
where
the
property
is
located,
and
that
was
done.
In
october
2020.,
the
hpc
heard
the
nomination.
They
voted
to
place
the
property
under
internet
protection
and
they
called
for
a
designation
study
to
be
conducted.
M
Lastly,
policy
93
applies,
which
is
stewarding
historic
properties,
preserve,
maintain
and
encourage
the
adaptive,
reuse
of
historic
districts,
landmarks
and
historic
resources,
especially
in
locations
that
have
historically
experienced
disinvestment
again.
The
property
has
been
identified
as
not
eligible
for
local,
landmark
designation.
So,
while
designation
could
potentially
aid
in
interpreting
the
collective
story
of
the
como
neighborhood,
the
building
is
not
the
best
example
of
a
church
designed
by
architect,
charles
sedgwick
or
associated
with
another
master,
and
the
church
has
not
retained
integrity
or
significance
to
be
designated
as
a
landmark.
M
A
Thanks
rob
commissioners:
are
there
any
comments
or.
B
B
Is
there
an
in
between
like
so
is
there
something
that
so
a
property
or
a
building
or
a
site
doesn't
have
any,
doesn't
carry
any
significant
value
or
it
has
to
be
identified
or
designated
as
a
historic
site,
and
there
is
nothing
in
between
because
and
when
I
think
about
a
lot
of
places
and
other
cities
that
I
have
ever
visited,
maybe
like
right
now.
B
It
doesn't
make
that
much
of
a
difference,
but
in
50
years
it
would
and-
and
it
just
feels
like
it
seems
like
without
a
historic
designation
of
a
site.
We
will
never
be
able
to
retain
a
lot
of
different
things
about
the
built
environment,
which
I
guess,
I'm
kind
of
wondering.
If
that's
something
that
is
there,
is
there
a
way
to
do
that
to
to
keep
that,
so
that
not
everything
is
built
in
the
last
like
20
to
50
years?
M
Yeah.
Thank
you.
That's
a
good
question.
Unfortunately,
for
individual
properties,
there
really
isn't
a
tool
that
we
have
at
this
time
for
some
sort
of
program
that
you're
here
describing
so
you're
right
and
saying
that
you
know
either
property
is
locally
designated
as
a
landmark
by
the
city,
or
else
it's
not
and
really
the
preservation
tools
that
we
have
and
how
we
look
at
changes
to
properties
and
protect
properties.
B
I
guess
I
can
I
just
added
follow
comments.
Is
that
I
I
guess
I
I
totally
understand
that,
and
I
understand
that
we
can't
protect
everything
and
there
is
especially
if
it
become
if
it's
a
private
property
and
people
want
to
buy
and
sell
and
build
and
rebuild
and
redevelop.
B
And
all
of
that
I
I
just
kind
of
wonder
if
there
are
times
that
we
can
lean
more
heavily
on
policies
that
that
are
calling
for
retaining
the
character
or
or
I
actually
hate
that
phrase,
but
because
it
it
says
a
lot
of
other
things
that
I
don't
want
it
to
say,
but
just
basically
saying
that
it's
representing
a
bit
of
history
and
not
necessarily
it
having
to
be
an
ordinance
that,
oh,
you
know,
you
cannot
build
this.
B
If
you
ever
want
to
change
anything
about
the
the
roof
that
is
falling,
you
have
to
go
through
an
eaw
process
because
it
is
a
designated
building
and
you
can't
even
touch
the
fencing
on
the
on
the
window
and
things
like
that.
So
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
is
that
I
would
I
would
love
it
if
we
have
that
in
between
one
way
or
another.
I
don't
know
how
that's
possible.
B
I
honestly
don't
even
know
whether
or
not
other
cities
do
anything
similar,
but
just
kind
of
like
thinking
that
those
these
bits
and
pieces,
even
even
if
they're,
not
designated
they're
still
they
still
have
meaning.
So
it's
it's
just
kind
of
a
bit
of
a
frustrating.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Smiley
commissioner
meyer
go
ahead.
G
So
you
know
I
I
thought
it
was
interesting
that
this
one
was
recommended
for
denial
by
staff.
It
doesn't
seem
to
happen
very
often
once
it
gets
this
far
in
the
process.
You
know
what
once
it
initially
gets
started.
It
seems,
like
more
reasons
are
found
later,
so
I
thought
that
was
interesting.
G
I
I
feel
like
like
there's
something
missing
in
the
way
that
we're
approaching
these
because,
like
like,
I,
I
felt
very
strongly
about
the
the
locker
in
one
right
and
for
this
one
like
if
staff
had
recommended
it
that
wouldn't
have
seemed
out
of
place
so
like
I'm,
not
saying
that
we
should
go
against
the
staff
recommendation,
but
as
I
rank
these
different
ones
in
terms
of
historical
value,
it
feels
to
me
like
this.
G
One
certainly
has
it
feels
to
me,
like
it
has
more
historical
value
than
the
locker
room
houses,
and
I
think
part
of
that
you
know,
is
just
kind
of
the
aesthetics
of
it.
G
Like
I
mean
this
isn't
like
a
super
remarkable
building,
but
it
has
some
interesting
features,
so
I
I
feel
like
that,
something
that
that's
that's
missing
is
just
like
an
aesthetic
evaluation,
and
I
know
that
that
is
very
subjective
and
but
I
I
feel
like
it's
still
important,
to
have
something
because
in
other
cities
like
I
don't
know
if
that
this
has
happened
here.
G
But
I've
read
articles
about
how,
like
you
know,
gas
stations
and
drive-through
restaurants
and
other
things
that
have
very
little
aesthetic
value
are
being
deemed
historic,
based
on
on
on
the
criteria
that
people
use
to
try
to
be
more
objective
anyway.
So
I'm
you
know
not
going
to
to
disagree
with
the
staff
recommendation
here,
but
still
think
that
still
feel
that
something
is
flawed
with
the
way
the
ordinance
is
written.
As
is
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
on
the
record.
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you.
You
said
that
I
understand
that
looking
at
the
property,
there
has
been
significant
changes
to
it,
particularly
the
you
know,
the
stucco.
What
appears
to
be
stucco
at
least
and
other
changes,
exterior
changes,
but
you
also
said
that
it
did
not.
I
can't
recall
the
exact
language
now,
but
it
did
not
rise
to
the
level
of
significance
and
I'm
wondering
what
would
have
had
to
be
what
would
have
to
exist
to
have
it
rise
to
to
significance.
E
Aside
from
the
architecture
and
the
current
status
of
it,
I
mean
you've
said
it
wasn't
a
a
recognized,
significant
architect,
for
example.
So
what
what
else?
What
was
lacking,
I
guess
in
terms
of
significance.
E
M
M
You
know
if
we
were
to
evaluate
this
property
under
that
criterion,
we
would
look
at
which
was
looked
at
in
in
the
designation
study,
the
body
of
charles
cedric's
work
in
the
city,
understanding
what's
already
designated
and
then
in
comparison
churches
comparing
this
to
what's
already
there
and
then
looking
at
the
amount
of
alterations
that
have
happened
in
the
property
and
if
it
does
retain
social
significance
to
be
highlighted
and
designated
for
its
status
as
a
community
church.
M
Does
it
have
that
level
of
significance
and
in
the
designation
study
it
was
found
that
that
just
wasn't
the
case
that
it
had
a
very
similar
history
to
many
different
community
churches
in
the
city.
So
there
were
quite
a
few
things
that
the
the
study
you
know
recommended
that
this
this
doesn't
rise
to
that
level.
That
landmarks
do
that
would
be
designated.
M
So
it
is
a
very
in-depth
research
process
and
I
I
hope
that
was
pretty
well
laid
out
in
the
designation
study
for
you
as
well.
Thank
you.
E
So,
okay,
so
have
there
been
for
just
as
I'm
just
I'm
not
challenging
you,
I'm
trying
to
understand
it
if
there
were
say
no
other
churches
by
this
architect,
then
this
perhaps
apart
from
the
the
significant
changes
in
the
in
the
building
itself,
have
there
been
no
other
buildings
by
this
arctic?
No
other
churches
by
this
architect
that
then,
might
have
risen
to
the
level
of
significance,
no
speculation,
but.
M
Potentially
I
mean,
and
it's
again
this
is
very,
very
hypothetical,
but
I
do
appreciate
this
question.
You
know
we
would
look
at
if
we
were
still
evaluating
this
under
the
architect
criterion
as
a
as
an
example
of
this
master
architect.
M
We
would
conclude
from
from
the
designation
that
you
know
it's
not
a
characteristic
example
of
its
work
because
it
has
been
altered
past
the
point
of
that.
So
again
it
is
a
bit.
You
know
I
can't
say
for
sure,
because
we're
dealing
with
the
property
as
it
is
currently-
and
you
know
I
I
can't
say
for
sure-
if,
if
we
would
or
wouldn't
it
would,
it
would
have
to
be
a
completely
different
process
at
that
point,
to
evaluate
any
property
that
would
come
to
us.
That's
under
that
situation,
so.
A
I'm
not
seeing
any
thank
you
rob.
A
N
That's
exactly
right
well
done
good
evening,
and
thank
you,
commissioner,
olson
and
and
commissioners.
I'm.
N
N
N
So
we
are
here
tonight
to
discuss
some
potential
changes
to
the
city's
critical
area.
Overlay
district
ordinance,
some
background
for
commissioners,
who
may
not
be
familiar
with
the
mississippi
river
corridor
critical
area
which
we
oftentimes
abbreviate
to
mrcca
or
simply
referred
to
as
the
critical
area.
N
So
you
can
see
on
your
screen
there,
the
location
of
the
corridor
going
through
the
city
of
minneapolis.
N
N
The
state
rules
form
the
base
of
the
city's
updated
critical
area
plan,
which
was
adopted
as
appendix
a
of
the
minneapolis
2040
plan
back
in
october
of
2019.
N
And
after
adoption
of
the
plan,
we
are
required
by
the
state
to
adopt
new
revised
regulations
for
in
the
zoning
ordinance
regulating
development
of
the
critical
area
and
our
revised
ordinance
was
adopted
in
december
of
2020
and
went
into
effect
on
january
1st
of
this
year.
N
That
ordinance
was
based
on
a
model
ordinance
that
was
drafted
by
the
dnr
and
both
jim
and
I
participated
in
that
that
drafting
process
and
the
dnr's
model
ordinance
basically
established
the
the
minimum
standards.
The
minimum
criteria
that
had
to
be
in
the
ordinance
in
order
to
meet
the
state
rules,
the
state
regulations,
and
so
we
couldn't
adopt
a
a
less
strict
ordinance.
But
we
had
the
ability
to
adopt
more
stricted
standards,
which
we
definitely
did
based
on
feedback
from
from
various
groups.
N
We
made
several
changes
to
the
model
ordinance
for
our
final
adoption,
including
things
like
adding
a
definition
of
the
mississippi
flyway,
adding
additional
findings
for
condition,
use
permits,
interim
use
permits
and
variances
related
to
impacts
on
birds
and
wildlife
in
the
critical
area,
adding
an
additional
suggested
condition
of
approval
for
those
applications
related
to
increasing
habitat
for
pollinators
birds
and
other
wildlife.
N
The
model
ordinance
had
no
requirements
for
lighting,
and
so
we
added
an
entire
new
section
related
to
that
and
adding
language
related
to
the
vegetation
management
section
relating
to
native
plantings
and
reducing
the
minimum
threshold
area
threshold
for
the
subdivision
regulations
to
apply
from
20
acres
in
the
model
ordinance
to
five
acres
in
the
final
adopted
ordinance
during
the
discussion
and
ultimate
adoption
of
this
revised
journalists
by
the
city
council
council
did
raise
some
additional
concerns
about
specifically
bird
safety
related
to
materials,
lighting
and
vegetation
management,
and
so,
while
they
adopted
the
ordinance,
they
did
direct
staff
to
come
back
with
some
proposed
additional
language
addressing
those
concerns
and
which
is
what
we're
doing
here
tonight.
N
The
recommended
changes
aim
to
address
threats
to
bird
safety
in
a
few
different
areas.
The
first
is
collisions
with
glass
due
to
reflectivity
and
transparency,
because
birds
don't
perceive
the
glass
as
an
obstacle.
N
N
During
the
day
lighting
during
migration
times,
the
proximity
of
collision
threats
to
stop
over
locations
like
habitat
and
feeding
areas,
so
the
areas
where,
where
these
migrating
birds
will
will
land
for
for
rest
or
for
feeding
and
then
the
size
and
design
of
buildings
and
specifically
the
amount
of
glass
used,
and
so
the
material
that's
here
tonight,
is
obviously
not
not
a
draft
ordinance,
but
maybe
more
the
the
base
from
which
to
to
craft
an
ordinance.
N
The
intent
tonight
is
to
get
some
feedback
and
guidance
on
a
few
key
issues.
A
few
key
things
here,
making
sure
that
we're
on
the
right
track
before
coming
forward
with
an
actual
draft
ordinance
later
this
year.
And
so
I
will
now
turn
it
over
to
jim
to
go
through
the
specifics.
K
Thank
you.
So,
as
as
chris
mentioned,
the
one
of
the
main
threats
related
to
bird
safety
for
buildings
are
the
materials,
and
there
are
many
different
approaches
to
how
that
can
be
done.
Some
of
you
may
be
familiar
with
leed
or
minnesota's
b3,
where
they
they
get
into
whole
building
threat
factors
and
they
calculate
a
threat
factor
for
every
material
and
a
percentage
of
every
material
and
then
require
that
percentages
reduce
that
threat
factor.
K
We
had
some
concern
about
the
the
technical
nature
of
doing
all
of
that
and
the
standards
for
for
going
through
every
material
and
really
when
you
get
down
to
it.
The
the
largest
threat
factor
is,
is
glass,
so
mainly
the
approach
we're
proposing
would
would,
for
a
material
standpoint,
focus
on
doing
treatments
and
we'll
come
back
to
talking
about
that
is,
but
that's
some
sort
of
pattern
on
a
glass
to
make
it
more
noticeable
to
birds,
but
first
just
some.
K
Some
thresholds
for
the
proposed
ordinance,
and
so
the
first
would
be
that
you
know
this
would
be
applying
to
buildings
in
the
critical
area.
It
could
be
applied
citywide,
but
right
now
we're
proposing
in
the
in
the
critical
area
and
then
the
thresholds
for
the
buildings
that
would
apply
to
match
closely
to
our
our
site
plan
review
standards,
so
any
new
non-residential
building
any
addition
to
a
non-residential
building
that
would
increase
the
floor,
gross
area
by
2
500
square
feet
and
then
any
residential
building
containing
10
or
more
dwelling
units.
K
Our
site
plan
threshold
is
four
units,
so
I
mean
one
could
potentially
look
at
doing
a
lower
threshold
and
we've
heard
that
some
feedback
to
that
extent,
but
staff
felt
that
10
units
would
would
be
really
capturing
more
of
the
the
bigger
buildings.
But
at
any
rate
that
you
know,
I
think
reasonable
people
could
have
different
opinions
on
what
that
that
threshold
would
be.
K
K
Then
this
so
you're
in
the
critical
area.
You
meet
these
thresholds
for
what
type
of
building
and
then
the
next
threshold
would
would
be.
For
treatments
would
be
really
the
amount
of
glass
that
you
have
on
the
building
and
this
would
apply
to
the
first
70
feet
or
five
stories
of
the
building.
So
you
know
taller
buildings
aren't
necessarily
the
issue.
The
majority
of
the
collisions
tend
to
happen
at
lower
levels,
and
so
we
see
different
standards.
The
federal
government,
I
think,
uses
40
a
lot
of
cities
use
60
feet.
K
The
reason
we
picked
70
is
is
that,
as
you
know,
our
zoning
code,
the
feet
match
with
the
the
floor,
so
we
didn't
want
to
pick
a
number
like
75,
which
gets
you
into
a
half
story,
five
and
a
half
stories.
So
you
know,
if
one
wanted
a
taller
standard,
then
you
would
probably
go
to
84
feet
or
if
one
wanted,
a
lower
standard,
you'd
probably
go
to
56
feet,
so
you
were
matching
with
the
actual
stories
to
make
calculations
be
easier,
but
but
at
any
rate,
these
standards
would
apply
to
the
lower
parts.
K
You
know
relatively
speaking,
lower
parts
of
buildings
and
then
the
first
standard
catches
buildings
with
with
a
lot
of
glass,
so
elevations,
which
would
mean
all
four
sides
of
the
building
in
the
critical
area.
K
Some
city
ordinances
do
just
facade
street
facades,
but
in
the
critical
area
we
felt
that
you
know
any
side
that
has
a
lot
of
glass,
so
more
than
50
glass,
which
is
a
pretty
pretty
high
percentage
and
again,
I
think
reasonable
people
could
have
different
opinions
on
these
percentages
and
we're
willing
to
consider
different
percentages,
but
where
it
has
more
than
50
glass
on
any
floor,
then
85
percent
of
that
glass
would
have
to
have
some
sort
of
a
treatment,
some
sort
of
a
pattern
on
it
or
other
architectural
design.
K
K
K
But
so
the
idea
is
buildings
with
a
whole
lot
of
glass
or
whether
you
know
a
standard
building
where
you
don't
see
a
whole
lot
of
glass
where
there
are
very
big
windows
and
then
a
third
area
would
be
within
15
feet
of
a
building
corner
where
there's
a
fly-through
condition,
and
so
that
means
there's
windows
on
both
sides
of
the
corner
where,
where
birds
see
see
through,
I
don't
know
from
the
background.
We
said
that
clearly
enough,
but
you
know
one
of
the
issues
with
glass
is
its
reflectivity.
K
The
other
is
it's:
where
there's
a
fly
through
or
a
see-through
condition,
like
you
see,
with
skyways
or
windows,
on
the
corner
of
a
building
or
for
glass
railings
on
a
balcony,
then
this
next
standard
is
for
anytime.
You
have
that
condition
of
large
windows,
50
square
feet
or
more,
when
they're
within
a
corner
of
a
building.
K
K
When
we
get
to
doing
the
ordinance,
then
anytime,
there's
a
glass
railing
or
a
parapet,
although
I'm
not
sure
we've
had
many
glass
parapets
building
connections,
you
know
ground
level,
building
connections
that
would
be
a
glass
skyways
at-grade
features
such
as
sound
walls
or
glass
screens.
Again,
a
lot
of
ordinances
mention
that,
although
I'm
not
sure
I've
seen
that
a
lot
in
in
minneapolis
and
then
a
third
item
would
be
anytime.
There's
an
adjacent,
green
roof,
12
feet
above
that
a
giant
green
roof.
K
All
all
glass
must
be
treated
because
birds
tend
to
to
congregate
on
those
areas
from
what
we've
read
so
then
for
the
treatments.
This
is
what
we
have
right
now
in
our
current
ordinance
for
skyways
downtown.
So
I
don't
know
if
I'm
gonna,
I'm
hoping
everybody
a
chance
to
read
this.
I
don't
know
if
I'm
going
to
explain
it
all,
but
it's
some
sort
of
a
pattern
lines
or
dots
or
architectural
features
that
that
accomplishes
these
standards.
K
Now
again,
we've
heard
from
some
that,
and
so
there
may
be
more
work
that
needs
to
be
done
in
it,
but
the
standards
may
be
more
evolved
or
strict
now,
but
this
was
done
to
to
make
sure
our
ordinance
was
being
similar
across
across
the
board.
K
So
so
those
are
the
the
suggestions
for
treatment
really
focusing
on
glass
and
focusing
on
floors
with
lots
of
glass
and
having
some
sort
of
a
treatment
in
vetting
this
with
staff.
Some
of
the
things
that
were
brought
up
and
that
people
should
be
aware
of
is
that
you
know
on
residential
buildings,
where
you
probably
have
sliding
doors
going
out
onto
a
balcony.
People
will
probably
have
to
do
well.
You
know
if
it
meets
the
standard,
we'll
have
to
do
some
sort
of
patterns
on
that.
K
K
Then,
when
we
come
to
the
next
two
items,
lighting
and
vegetation
and
the
current
ordinance,
we
put
in
a
whole
new
lighting
section,
which
was
above
and
beyond
what
the
dnr
did
not
have
any
lighting
standards.
And
so
we
put
a
lighting
section
in-
and
I
chris
and
I
don't
have
a
real
detailed
proposal
to
show
you.
But
we
will
clarify,
I
believe,
in
the
new
ordinance
that
uplighting
would
is
not
something
that
we're
intending
to
allow.
K
And
I
think
the
the
way
we
wrote
it
was
not
done
very
well,
and
so
we
will
rewrite
it
in
such
a
way
that
that
it's
much
more
clear
that
it's
not
just
an
opportunity
to
not
follow
the
ordinance.
But
it's
an
opportunity
to
get
an
exception,
because
we
always
know
that
that
comes
up
that
it's
hard
to
meet
these
ordinances.
But
that's
people
will
have
to
show
the
reasons
for
why
this
unique
use
can't
meet
the
ordinance
and
that
they're
trying
to
comply
with
it
as
much
as
possible.
K
But
we
don't
have
that
language
written
yet
and
then
for
the
vegetation.
K
There
will
be
some
clarifications
on
when
vegetation
is
removed
in
primary
conservation
areas,
which
is
a
specifically
delineated
thing
in
the
critical
area,
it
should
be
replaced
with
equal
or
greater
amounts
of
native
vegetation,
and
one
thing
that
people
should
be
clear
of
is
most
of
the
vegetation
standards
in
the
critical
area
ordinance
and
in
the
dnr's
rules
by
the
state
of
minnesota
really
apply
to
these
primary
conservation
areas,
which
isn't
every
square
foot
of
property
in
the
critical
area.
K
As
a
matter
of
fact,
most
of
the
property
in
the
critical
area
isn't
a
primary
conservation
area.
So
you
know
it's
just
something
to
be
aware
of
it's
not
going
to
apply
to
and
that
that
can
be
good
or
bad
depending
on
on
one's
perspective.
A
G
Thank
you.
So
you
talked
about
trying
to
avoid
adding
extra
burdens
to
the
small
residential
properties.
Can
you
give
us
a
sense
of
like
the
magnitude
of
these
burdens
like
how
much
does
it
add
to
the
cost
to
be
able
to
add
these
treatments
with
different
patterns,
for
example,
or
how
much
does
it
cost
to
make
other
adaptations
to
the
design
like?
I
I'm
just
trying
to
get
a
sense
of
that.
K
We
we
have
not
done
the
cost
part
of
that
yet
so
I
can't
answer
that
that
question
I
mean,
I
guess
I'll
just
leave
it
at
that,
but
that
is
something
we
can.
We
should
and
will
look
into
the
the
cost.
G
And
then
about
the
lighting,
you
said
that
there
were,
you
said
there
were
exceptions
for
recreation.
Was
that
right?
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
inadvertently
like
restrict
the
lighting
that
they
have
at
games
and
such
so.
K
What
we
have
in
the
ordinance
right
now
is
that
outdoor
recreational
facilities
and
parks
can
apply
for
a
conditional
use
permit
to
do
land
lighting
that
does
not
meet
the
standards
of
the
ordinance
and
the
city
council
passed
it
that
way,
but
concern
was
raised
that
that
just
seemed
to
be
a
get
out
of
you
know
get
it.
K
I
don't
know
if
this
is
what
I
say
but
a
way
to
get
around
the
regulations,
and-
and
you
know
we
talked
with
park
board
staff
and
they
they're
they're
very
on
board,
with
trying
to
do
lighting
in
an
appropriate
way,
so
that
that
was
not
the
intent.
But
I
think
what
I'm
saying
is,
instead
of
just
striking
that
language
and
saying
nope
it
just
always
will
have
to
meet
it.
K
That
will
say
something
to
the
effect
of
it
should
try
to
meet
it
as
much
as
reasonably
possible,
but
but
but
when
it
can't,
and
they
can
demonstrate
that
it
can't
there's
a
procedure
for
doing
it.
So
I
know
from
answering
your
question
totally,
but
the
idea
is
is
that
we
don't.
We
know
that
there's
going
to
be
some
unique
and
interesting
uses,
specifically
the
parks
and
outdoor
recreation
facilities
and
historic
properties
where
we
need
to
have
some
sort
of
avenue
to
evaluate
and
and
allow
those
things
to
have.
G
Yeah
that
does
answer
my
question
so
specifically
like
one
one
thing
I'm
wondering
it
like
is
you
know
what
it
exactly
like
counts
as
as
uplighting
and
if
it's
just
about
the
direction
or
if
it's
also
about
like
the
level
of
brightness
and
also
like
the
the
need
for
it,
so
so
an
example
that
comes
to
mind.
You
know
water
works
just
opened.
G
G
I
think
the
direction
kind
of
goes
horizontal
as
opposed
to
to
up
so
the
way
you've
written
it.
Would
that
be
affected
at
all,
or
would
it
need
to
be
modified
in
order
to
like
include
something
like
that.
K
Well,
so
we
you
know,
when
you
get
into
the
lighting,
you
can
really
get
this
technical
and
detailed
and
get
a
degree
in
it.
If
you
want,
when
we
looked
at
it
it,
it
got
to
be
very
complicated.
You
looking
at
the
illuminating
engineering,
society's
standards
and
the
bug
standard
and
all
of
that,
and
we
felt
that
that
was
a
situation
where
we
were
now
getting
into
these
debates
about.
K
What's
you
know,
luminosity
glare
and
all
of
this
stuff,
and
so
the
approach
we
took
and
that's
in
the
ordinance
right
now
is
that
all
lighting
has
to
be
cut
off
or
shielded.
And
again,
when
we
talked
with
park
board
staff
and
public
works
staff,
they
said
we
should
be
able
to
to
to
meet
that
on
all
all
projects.
K
So
if
there
is
lighting
that
isn't
cut
off
or
shielded
in
a
project
now,
then
it
wouldn't
be
allowed,
but
in
the
case
of
a
certain
park
uses,
I
I
don't
know
if
it
would
be
all
parks,
but
it
would
be
outdoor
recreation
and
that
things
like
that,
that
would
be
where
you
could
apply
for
a
conditional
use
permit,
and
you
know
I
don't
know
if
again
we're
a
little
reticent
about
getting
into
super
technical
details,
because
it's
hard
for
everybody
to
do
it,
but
that
that's
where
the
planning
commission,
in
this
case
you
know
if
it
was
a
historic
property,
it
probably
would
go
to
the
heritage.
K
Preservation
commission
would
be
able
to
to
look
at
that
and
see
whether
it
was
you
know
reasonable.
The
way
they
wanted
to
do
the
lighting.
So
if
they
somebody
came
in
and
said,
we
just
wanna
have
lights
that
shine
up
to
the
sky
as
bright
as
they
can
be.
I
I
don't
think
that
that
would
meet
the
intent
of
the
ordinance,
but
again
we
haven't
written
it.
So
that's
some
useful
feedback
for
us
to
consider
on
how
we
write
it.
But
right
now
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
do
it.
G
Yeah-
and
you
know
it
might
be
something
that's
more
applicable
to
my
role
on
you
know,
on
the
park
board
itself
as
opposed
to
the
funding
commission,
but
you
know
I,
like
the
concerns
about
lighting,
have
come
up
multiple
times
in
my
time
on
the
park
board.
G
One
time
where
I
thought
it
worked
very
well
was
for
the
lighting
for
the
survivors
memorial.
You
know
it's,
it
lights
it
up,
but
you
know
it's
it's
downward-facing
and
not
high
luminosity,
as
you
put
it,
I
I
feel
like
the
waterworks
site
is,
you
know
just
unnecessarily
bright
and
probably
not
not
great
for
birds
so
yeah
it
doesn't
have
like
a
functional
value.
G
That's
the
key
thing
so
like
I
would
like
to
preserve
the
ability
for
our
our
parks
to
keep
lighting
when
it
serves
an
important
functional
value,
and
my
my
comments
generally.
I
I'd
really
like
to
know
more
detail
about
about
the
costs
that
things
impose
if
that
information
is
available
from,
I
don't
know,
other
cities
that
have
done
comparable
things,
and
I
I
would
say
that
we
should
try
to
you
know,
take
advantage
of
the
lowest
hanging
fruit,
which
I
m,
my
guess
would
be
the
material
standards
to
add
the
patterns.
G
I
would
lean
toward
less
restrictive
on
the
quantity
of
glass.
I
mean,
I
think,
that
you
know
certainly
the
the
corner
situation
that
you
talked
about.
I
think
we
should
definitely
regulate
that,
because
that
seems
like
a
situation
that
a
lot
of
extra
birds
are
are
hitting
because
of
that,
but
like
as
a
as
a
full
percentage
of
the
building,
I
don't
know
if
I
would
want
to
restrict
that
too
heavily
and
then
the
other
thing
is.
G
I
would
say
that
this
should
probably
just
apply
to
the
mccra
and
probably
not
the
whole
city,
like
I
think,
there's
there
are
unique
circumstances
for
being
along
the
river
that
aren't
as
as
applicable
for
the
whole
city.
That
is
my
comments.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner
meyer,
commissioner
smiley.
B
Well,
actually,
I
think
my
main
question
was
kind
of
answered
which
was
about
the
coordination
with
the
park
board,
considering
how
so
much
of
the
land
that
fallen,
those
districts
are
actually
either
parkland
or
parkways,
and-
and
I
think
you
kind
of
answer
that
saying
that
there
is
a
coordination
happening,
and
I
guess,
besides
that
I
just
want
to
make
a
comment
that
I
really
appreciate
all
of
your
guys's
work
on
this.
I
personally
have
been
involved
with
in
the.
A
B
K
Thank
you,
commissioner.
I
will
say
that
we
had
I
we
have
coordinated
with
the
park
board
on
the
and
talked
with
them
about
the
original
ordinance
and
the
lighting.
We
have
not
talked
to
them
about
the
the
materials,
so
I
mean
really
what
we're
I
guess.
We
were
well
one.
K
We
were
directed
to
report
back
to
you,
but
but
two
the
idea
was
to
get
a
feel
for
whether
this
approach,
because
there
are
many
different
approaches
people
could
take-
is
something
that
people
are
comfortable
with,
and
I
think
we've
heard
from
staff
that
they
are,
and
if
we
hear
from
you
that
you
are
then
then
we
would
put
it
in
an
ordinance
form
and
we'd
have
to
do
some
outreach
to
other
constituents,
including
the
park
board,
and
probably
the
development
community
and
and
others,
and
answer
some
of
these
questions.
K
And
then
again,
when
we'd
have
a
written
ordinance,
it
would
come
to
cow
again
for
a
review
and
then,
of
course,
to
planning
commission
and
city
council
for
for
approval
and
we'd
like
to
do
that
by
the
end
the
end
of
the
year.
K
But
today's
step
was
really
just
to
see
if
there
were
glaring
issues
or
you
know
or
glaring.
I
didn't
mean
that
as
a
pun,
but
I
mean
lighting
and
material
and
vegetation.
You
know
we
felt
we
were
roughly
on
the
right
track.
There.
D
D
The
most
effective
patterns
actually
applied
on
the
outside
surface
of
the
glass
gives
the
birds
the
most
chance
to
kind
of
see
it.
So
if
I
have
an
insulated
glass
unit-
and
I
put
that
pattern
not
on
the
outside
surface,
but
one
of
the
other
surfaces
of
that
insulated
units-
it's
not
as
effective
so
maybe
some
specificity
around
which
surface
the
outside
surface
of
the
glass
is
where
the
pattern
should
be
applied.
K
D
E
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
make
the
comment
that
I
think
this
is
pretty
impressive
work
and
I
look
forward
to
the
ordinance
coming
forward,
but
I
and-
and
I
I
agree
with
commissioner
mcguire-
we
need
to
have
a
better
understanding
of
the
costs,
but
I
do
think
that
we
need
to
be
aggressive
in
this
and
I
I
you
know,
I
look
forward
to
seeing
the
further
details,
but
I
I
for
one
support
the
idea
of
being
I'm
really
going
hard
at
this
to
just
help
solve
this
problem.
A
A
All
right
next
up
is
our
final
discussion
item.
It's
item
number
ten
worth
on
the
woods
at
two:
eight:
zero:
zero.
Why
zetta
boulevard
north
and
staff
is
andrew
friends.
O
Good
evening,
commissioners,
I'm
andrew
friends,
a
planner
with
cped
land
use,
design
and
preservation
today,
for
your
preliminary
feedback
is
a
proposed
update
to
a
previously
approved
plan
unit
development
at
2800,
wysotta
boulevard,
north.
The
project
site
here
is
a
large
parcel
of
just
over
eight
acres.
Currently,
the
property
is
occupied
by
a
three-story
office.
O
Building
with
just
over
one
hundred
thousand
square
feet
of
space,
with
significant
areas
of
surface
parking,
interstate
394
is
located
to
the
south
across
western
boulevard,
the
property
directly
abuts
and
wanton
middle
school
to
the
north
and
theodore
worth
park
to
the
west.
The
neighborhood
to
the
east
is
predominantly
low
density.
O
Residential
property
is
currently
zoned
or2
and
has
the
corridor
six
built
form
overlay
district.
The
property
is
also
located
in
the
shoreland
overlay
district,
which,
in
this
area
is
drawn
off
of
wetlands
that
are
located
within
viewer
worth
the
future.
Land
use
guidance
for
the
site
is
corridor
mixed
use
in
january
2020,
this
land
use
applications
were
approved
for
the
site
to
establish
a
planned
unit,
development
consisting
of
the
existing
office
building
and
two
new
six-story
residential
buildings.
O
That
would
contain
a
total
of
199
dwelling
units
and
would
be
located
on
the
western
portion
of
the
site.
Under
this
plan,
a
large
proportion
of
the
property
was
devoted
to
surface
parking
for
the
office
building.
O
O
This
building
would
contain
109
dwelling
units
plus
amenity
space.
O
The
59
proposed
townhome
units
would
be
distributed
among
nine
separate
townhome
buildings.
Each
building
would
be
three
stories
in
height
and
each
townhome
unit
would
include
an
individual
attached
garage
at
the
rear.
The
town
home
buildings
are
proposed
to
be
clad
in
brick
at
the
first
floor
and
fiber
cement
siding
on
the
second
and
third
floors.
O
The
table
at
the
top
of
the
slide,
compares
the
basic
metrics
from
the
previously
approved
project
and
the
proposed
amended
project.
As
you
can
see
here,
the
proposed
update
would
constitute
a
significant
reduction
in
provided
parking,
especially
in
service
parking
based
on
the
submitted
preliminary
plans.
Staff
anticipates
applications
for
a
conditional
use
permit
to
amend
the
planet.
You
deve
planned
unit
development
and
we
do
not
expect
that
the
proposal
would
require
any
additional
pd
alternatives
beyond
those
which
were
included
in
the
original
application
from
2020..
O
The
project
would
also
need
a
conditional
use
permit
to
increas
increase
maximum
height
in
the
shoreline
overlay
district
and
a
variance
to
allow
development
on
or
within
40
feet
of,
the
top
of
the
steep
slope
in
the
shoreland
overlay
district
and
the
property
would
require,
of
course,
site
plan
review,
preliminary
and
final
plat
and
a
travel
demand
management
plan.
O
Staff
is
interested
in
the
planning
commission's
feedback
on
the
townhome
design,
city's
exterior
materials
standards
limit
cement,
based
siding
to
30
of
a
given
elevation
on
buildings
with
more
than
three
units.
O
Oftentimes,
though,
these
standards,
which
are
primarily
created
with
larger
buildings
in
mind,
are
not
always
the
best
fit
for
buildings
that
include
more
than
three
units,
but
are
still
relatively
small
in
scale
like
the
the
townhomes
proposed
here.
So
thoughts
on
the
materials
and
alternative
compliance
for
the
townhomes
would
be
appreciated.
O
Staff
is
also
interested
in
feedback
on
the
overall
proposed
layout
of
the
site.
Some
staff
members
felt
that
the
layout
could
be
improved
to
consolidate
surface
parking
and
provide
a
larger
green
space.
O
However,
staff
does
appreciate
that
the
proposed
update
is
a
very
substantial
reduction
in
the
service
parking
from
the
previously
approved
plan
that
each
town
home
unit
is
oriented
with
the
with
the
primary
entrance
facing
on-site
green
space
rather
than
parking
or
driveways,
and,
of
course,
that,
given
the
site's
adjacency
to
theodore
worth
and
the
improved
pedestrian
connections
to
the
park
that
are
included
in
the
project,
a
larger
green
space
may
have
less
utility.
O
In
this
project
than
in
some
other
sites
that
may
not
have
the
same
level
of
access
to
public
outdoor
space,
I
also
understand
that
there
has
been
a
significant
amount
of
community
engagement
around
the
proposed
site
plan,
which
I
believe
the
applicant
will
speak
to
and,
of
course,
staff
would
recommend
or
I'm
sorry
I
would
welcome
any
other
feedback
on
the
project
and
applications.
O
So
with
that,
I
am
happy
to
answer
any
questions
and
the
applicant
team
is
here
to
present
as
well.
Thank
you.
P
All
right,
madam
chair,
my
name
is
steve
min
I'm
with
loopy
development
partners,
nice
to
be
with
you
all
again
this
evening.
Joining
me
this
evening
is
also
david
miller
from
urban
works,
architect,
who's,
our
principal
design,
architect,
my
partner,
ned
abdul,
is
also
on
the
call,
but
I'll
do
most
of
the
presentation
from
the
applicant,
and
we
have
both
some
support
people
on
our
team.
Who
can
talk
about
some
of
our
community
work?
P
I
just
want
to
remind
some
of
the
commissioners
who
are
still
on
the
commission
from
when
we
first
presented
and
provide
a
little
bit
of
background
for
those
who
have
recently
joined
the
commission.
P
P
This
is
a
significant
site
with
significant
impacts
and
a
good
poor
portion
of
our
work
in
2018
was
the
community
design.
Charette
david
is
putting
up
sort
of
some
snippets
of
that
effort,
which
we
did
at
bryn
mawr.
Elementary
school,
we
gathered
a
fair
amount
of
input
from
folks
about
how
the
connection
to
the
park
would
work.
What
the
east
side
next
to
the
single
family,
hometown
homes,
on
the
upton
avenue
homes,
would
be
how
we
would
engage
the
street
how
we
would
engage
with
the
school.
P
P
P
We
were
pretty
clear
with
them
that
that
wasn't
part
of
our
program,
and
then
we
focused
on
the
design
of
the
townhomes
and
got
the
neighborhood
group
to
embrace
not
only
the
cement
fiber
on
top
of
brick
design,
but
the
layout
that
you
now
see
before
you
in
the
staff
report-
and
this
was
not
done
in
a
vacuum
david's-
going
to
put
some
illustrations
up.
Our
first
blush
in
the
layout
of
the
townhomes
was
not
what
you're
seeing
with
the
staff
report.
P
It
was
this
more
blocky
approach
that
tried
to
preserve
more
of
the
central
parking
and
central
green
space
orientation,
and
this
was
received
with
a
fair
amount
of
rejection
by
the
neighborhood
group
and
by
the
neighbors.
They
did
not
like
the
sort
of
a
linear
approach
to
the
single
family
homes
that
front
on
upton.
They
didn't
like
the
linear
barrier
to
the
school
property,
and
so
we
went
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
reduced
the
surface
parking
and
changed
the
town
home
orientation.
P
We
eliminated
the
surface
parking
and
put
in
tuck
under
garages,
which
was
a
considerable
investment
on
our
part,
and
I
think
the
thumbs
up
that
we
got
from
the
neighborhood
group
speaks
for
itself.
I
think
what
you're
seeing
here
is
the
byproduct
of
that
tremendous
neighborhood
input
collaboration.
P
I
I
know
it's
a
success
when
we're
down
to
picking
colors
on
the
exterior.
I
know
we've
we've
reached,
you
know
a
positive
momentum
with
the
team.
David
has
some
drawings
from
another
architecture,
firm
that
did
sort
of
an
elevation
of
what
the
tunnels
were
going
to.
First,
look
like
david,
maybe
could
put
that
up.
They
were
much
more
suburban.
P
Looking
in
my
opinion,
this
was
a
presentation
that
the
neighborhood
group
looked
at
and
said:
no,
please
don't
do
this,
and
so
we
took
that
feedback
to
heart
went
back,
came
back
with
the
design
that
now
david
has
come
up
with
which
david
maybe
have
a
magic
wand.
You
can
put
that
other
elevation
up.
P
Hang
on
we'll
get
there
coming
around
the
corner.
There
we
go.
Thank
you.
We
think
this
is
much
more
to
scale
with
the
single
family
homes.
P
I
don't
I'm
not
trying
to
pick
a
fight
with
the
staff,
but
you
know
the
the
standards
that
they
refer
to
on
exterior
materials.
We
all
know
those
are
guidelines.
P
So
with
that
introduction
david,
I
don't
know
if
you
had
anything,
you
wanted
to
add
to
the
design,
but
I've
sort
of
given
the
high
level
approach
of
what
we've
done
with
the
neighborhood
david.
Why
don't
you
speak
up.
Q
Just
a
few
additional
images
that
we
prepared
to
show
you
this
evening.
The
first
is:
if
we
are
standing
on
the
southeast
corner
of
wiseta
boulevard,
you
see
the
existing
office
building
here
in
the
distance,
with
the
addition
of
the
two
levels
on
top
of
it,
and
the
third
level
is
kind
of
out
of
view
because
it
is
stepped
back.
And
then
you
see
a
variant
of
the
town
home
design,
which
is
the
21
foot
wide
town
homes
in
sort
of
the
a
b
modulating
pattern.
Q
And
then,
as
we
move
down
the
street,
get
a
little
bit
closer
into
the
existing
office
building
with
its
addition
on
top,
and
then
you
see
the
previously
approved
senior
building
in
the
distance
and
then
from
the
other
direction.
This
is
this
as
if
we
are
in
the
southwest
corner
of
wyzeda
boulevard,
looking
back
towards
the
northeast,
the
previously
approved
senior
building,
which
has
a
complementary
set
of
materials
with
the
existing
building
and
really
we're.
You
know
trying
to
use
that
in
both
the
color
material
and
proportion
of
windows
to
kind
of
tie.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
commissioners.
Are
there
any
questions
or
comments.
F
F
I
understand
the
change
in
the
market,
so
I
think
they're
good,
looking
buildings
and
I
really
don't
mind
the
change
in
the
sighting
materials
or
the
alternative
compliance
there,
so
yeah
overall,
I
think
it
looks
like
a
good
project.
It
sounds
like
they
worked
with
the
neighborhood
a
lot,
so
I
just
want
to
say
I
was
supportive
of
it.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner
mcguire
commissioner
ford.
E
Thank
you
first
of
all,
hello,
steve,
but
yeah,
so
I
I
do
think
that
the
the
use
of
the
the
fiber
cement
in
the
way
it's
shown
is
is
quite
attractive.
I
did
have
one
question.
I
took
questions.
Actually
one
question
was:
can
you
explain
to
us
in
this
connection
to
the
park
since
you,
you
do
have
almost
no
significant
green
space?
What
is
the
connection
to
the
park.
P
P
We
are
actually
circumnavigating
our
almost
nine
acre
site
with
trails,
and
I
am
dedicating
the
entire
north
trail
to
the
public
for
public
easement
into
the
park
space
into
theater
work.
This
is
very
similar
to
the
one
earth
that
we
built.
That's
connecting
water
works
with
our
mill
city
quarter,
project
in
downtown,
and
so
we
promised
this
is
one
of
the
key
issues
that
came
out
of
the
charrette.
The
neighbors
wanted
a
direct
connection
to
the
park,
and
so
this
trail
system
that
we're
building
we
did
get
some
met,
console
funds
for
it.
P
We're
building
the
east
trail,
we're
building
the
south
sidewalk
connections
and
the
north
trail
and
the
park
board
has
agreed.
We
haven't
signed
the
paperwork,
but
we've
agreed
in
principle
we're
going
to
get
a
little
bit
of
park,
dedication,
fee
waiver
for
the
effort,
and
then
they
will
build
the
west
trail.
P
P
The
storm
system
is
undersized
in
the
area
and
the
city's
option
was
to
for
me
to
upgrade
the
entire
upton
avenue
storm
system
for
a
low
low
cost
of
10
million
bucks.
We
we
passed
on
that
opportunity.
We
got
the
school
to
agree
to.
Let
us
build
this
pond
which
solves
their
stormwater
problem
as
well
as
ours,
as
well
as
some
flooding
for
the
owners
of
single-family
homes
on
upton.
So
we've
got
an
infiltration
system
in
the
pond
that
drains
this
entire
site
and
a
trail
system
that
walks
around
the
pond.
P
E
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
The
second
question
I
have
is
from
the
the
image
of
the
town
homes.
The
it
appears
that
you
have
steps
going
up
to
the
entrance.
How
are
you
handling
the
handicap?
Access.
P
I'm
gonna
get
david's
picture
up
front.
I
think
this
is
the
one
that's
right.
Yeah,
the
townhomes
are
not
readily
ada,
they
are
not
the
office
of
the
office.
Building
conversion
is
and
the
two
senior
buildings
are,
but
the
town
homes
are
three-bedroom
three-story
and
they
are
not
readily
ada
they're
adaptable.
Q
A
Thank
you
up
next
is
commissioner
baxley.
D
Yes,
yes,
you
all
right!
Well,
you
answered
one
of
my
questions
about
the
the
storm
pond,
because
I
was
wondering
how
you
were
doing
that
outside
of
your
property
there,
but
I
think
that's
a
wonderful
solution
and
I
think,
especially
if
it's
integrated
in
with
the
trails
and
the
park
system
itself,
will
be
a
nice
amenity
instead
of
just
a
requirement.
So
I
really
appreciate
that
who
takes
care
of
that
steve.
Is
that
something
that
the
park
board
or
you
or
or
how
does
that
work?.
P
It's
it's
privately
maintained
for
the
public
benefits,
so
it's
part
of
a
maintenance
agreement.
I've
already
done
one
with
the
park
board.
Our
connection
for
the
waterworks
has
that
very
specific
template.
We
were
actually
the
first
to
do
it
under
the
park
board
ordinance
so
we're
using
that
very
same
template.
We'll
have
a
maintenance
agreement,
I'm
actually
taxing
all
three
of
the
developments,
the
town,
homes,
the
office
conversion
and
the
senior
projects
all
have
a
contribution
to
the
maintenance
fund
to
maintain
the
pond.
D
Great
great
and
again,
I
think,
the
just
getting
rid
of
all
that
parking
from
the
previous
scheme.
It's
just
it's
just
really
glorious
to
see
that
I'm
actually
wondering
if
it
can't
get
more
dense.
You
know,
though,
the
the
racket
on
the
side.
You
know
you
have
that
last
bit
of
of
parking
lot
that
faces
the
park
it
feels
like.
If
you
you
could
get
one
more
row
of
houses
in
there.
If
things
shifted
a
little
bit
even
towards
the
road,
it
would
be
worth
studying.
I
think
that.
D
Yeah,
because
it's
unfortunate
that
we,
you
know,
we
have
that
bit
of
parking
that
does
kind
of
face
the
and,
I
think,
having
building
frontage
that
face
the
backside.
It
might
be
tight,
but
hopefully
you'd,
study
that
and
see.
If
we
could,
you
know
really,
you
know
it
would
be
worth
pushing
it
as
close
to
the
street
as
possible
to
get
another,
get
it
more
dense
on
that
corner.
I
think
it'd
be
terrific.
D
I
think
that'd
be
good
again.
You
have
a
new
park
entrance
there.
The
presentation
with
with
built
form
versus
a
parking
lot
view
shed.
I
mean
there's
lots
of
good
reasons
for
it
for
getting
more
dents
on
that
corner.
So
hopefully
you
can
explore
that
and
again
I
I
think
the
the
cement
cementitious
siding
is
fine.
The
party
products
and
things
I
I
think
are
good.
D
I
actually
just
would
encourage
you
to
be
a
little
bolder
on
the
coloration
I
mean
I,
I
think
the
addition
on
top
of
the
the
office
building
is
striking.
It
really
has
a
lovely
that
sort
of
dark
panel.
I
I
wouldn't
go
so
so
almondy
on
the
rest.
I
I'd
see
if
some
of
that
darker
panel
a
little
bit
more
presence
with
that
very
simple
shape,
I
think,
could
be
really
lovely
and
make
a
little
bit
more
of
a
statement
for
the
townhomes
other
than
that.
D
I
think
it's,
it's
terrific
to
see
that
that
parking
lot
getting
filled
in
so
nice
work,
guys.
P
A
All
right
up
next
is
commissioner
meyer.
G
Thank
you,
so
I
I
agree
that
you
know
I
support
converting
the
office
usage
to
residential.
I
think
we're
going
to
see
a
lot
more
of
that
as
people
work
from
home
more
and
the
demand
shifts.
G
Commissioner
baxley
pointed
out
the
same
thing
that
I
was
going
to
that
with
that
that
corner
you're
leaving
a
lot
of
surface
parking
like
exposed
to,
and
I'm
not
sure
like
what
can
be
seen
from
where
around
there,
but
it
just
feels
to
me
like
it's
pretty
likely
that
you're
going
to
you
know,
especially
like
around
your
trail.
G
At
least
you
know,
have
you
know
a
lot
of
cars
up
front
as
you're
as
you're
walking
around
that
trail,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
it
would
be
better
to
have
to
be
able
to
walk
by
building
instead
of
parking
whenever
possible.
So
I
would
you
know
echo
commissioner
baxley's
comments
and
would
support.
G
You
know
another
row
of
town
homes
there
or
whatever
else
could
make
that
more
aesthetically
pleasing
for
people
going
by
there,
and
I
also
agree
that
it's
you
know
a
really
significant
improvement
from
the
previous
plan
put
forward
to
reduce
that
surface
parking.
So
thank
you
for
that
for
the
materials
like
my
first
reaction
when
the
images
were
displayed
was
that
it
felt
suburban
to
me.
So
it
was
interesting
that
I
I
I
guess
the
neighbors
feel
that
this
is
less
suburban
than
what
was
proposed
than
before.
G
I
don't
really
know
how
to
articulate
what
it
is
that
still
feels
suburban
to
me
about
it.
So
I
guess
you
know
I.
I
can't
really
recommend
exactly
what
to
change,
because
I
don't
know
how
to
articulate
that,
but
it
does
still
feel
a
little
suburban
to
me,
but
I
would
I
would
not
vote
against
it
because
of
that,
like.
I
still
think
it's
a
very
significant
improvement
over
the
previous
plan
and
especially
over
what's
there
now.
Thank
you.
P
Commissioner
meyer,
I
appreciate
your
input
about
that
upper
corner.
We
we
will
study
that,
and
maybe
I
think,
your
point
about
it
being
up
on
the
trail
having
a
building
rather
than
cars
is
a
an
excellent
point.
P
One
other
issue
that
we
would
like
to
consider
is:
you
know
maybe
extending
these
individual
pods
a
little
bit
to
the
west.
Taking
up
that
parking
lot
against
the
buildings
by
extending
them
a
little
bit
might
also
be
useful.
We
do
have
an
eaw
issue
to
bump
up
against.
We
don't
want
to
get
to
a
unit
count
that
would
exceed
an
eaw
limitation,
so
we
think
the
town
home
density
should
be
increased
and
it
may
end
up
reducing
some
of
the
units
in
the
office
conversion
just
to
stay
under
the
eaw
threshold.
P
G
Can
you
or
maybe
staff,
fill
me
in
with
more
detail
about
that
eiw
issue?
Is
I'm
not
really
familiar
with
that
with
what
you're
saying.
P
R
So,
commissioner,
meyer,
the
threshold
is
375
attached
units
in
the
city,
the
size
of
minneapolis
and
then
because
they're
doing
commercial,
the
commercial
trigger
for
an
eaw
is
400
000
square
feet.
If
it's
a
mixed
use
project,
you
take,
you
know
the
percentage
of
commercial,
so
whatever
they're
proposing
divided
by
400
000,
plus
the
number
of
dwelling
units
they're
proposing
divided
by
375
and
if
it
gets
above
100,
then
they
trigger
an
environmental
assessment.
Worksheet,
that's
not
necessarily
a
bad
thing
for
the
project.
It's
just
time
consuming.
G
Okay,
because
I
was
gonna
say
like
if,
if
it's
something
that
we
can
approve,
I
mean
it
feels
like
you
know,
reducing
the
the
surface
parking,
especially
on
the
areas
like
around
the
trail,
would
be
an
environmental
improvement.
G
So
it
would
be
odd
if
any
aw
regulation
was
prompting
us
to
or
prompting
the
developer
to
choose
what
may
very
well
be
a
less
environmentally
friendly
design,
but
it
you
know,
I
I
guess,
if
it's
about
avoiding
you
know
the
administrative
paperwork
that
might
be
kind
of
something
that
we
can't
really
have
any
control
over,
but
if
it
was
something
that
we
were
able
to
approve
like
a
very
institute
or
something
like
it,
it
seems
to
me
more
environmentally
friendly
to
have
less
surface
parking
and
more
aesthetically
friendly
to
have
less
of
it
exposed
to
trails.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner
meyer
back
to
commissioner
baxley.
D
To
echo
commissioner
meyer's
comments
about
the
sort
of
suburban
quality
of
this.
I
think
it
gets
more
suburban,
the
more
articulated
you
make
it.
I
think
the
images
in
the
packet
with
the
kind
of
cleaner
eve
line,
the
more
simple
art
archetectonic
almost
barn-like
forms
are
more
powerful
and
I
think
you
know
you're
gonna
have
to
deal
with
rainwater.
You're
gonna
have
downspouts
you're
gonna
have
some
some
spend
the
money
on
doing
those
well
over
the
over
articulation.
D
B
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
don't
want
to
honestly
repeat
what
everyone
has
said,
but
I
I
also
agree
that
this
design
is
much
better.
I
really
appreciate
the
reduction
of
the
surface
parking
lot
and
really
like
the
design.
B
I
do
personally
think
that
we
lack
town
homes
in
in
the
city
of
minneapolis,
so
the
differentiation
of
the
type
of
housing
unit,
I
think
is,
is
very
lovely
and
I
also
agree
with
the
potentially
adding
a
building
to
the
north
border
of
the
site,
if
possible,
and
I
understand
the
wanting
to
stay
below
the
threshold
because
of
the
cost
and
time
consuming
like
nature
of
an
eaw.
B
My
only
question
at
this
point-
and
maybe
this
is
again
a
little
personal
preference.
It's
kind
of
wondering.
I
know
that
in
the
in
the
packet
you
showed
two
color
options,
and
yet
both
of
them
are
very
dark
and
very
generic.
B
So
I'm
my
question
is:
why
don't
we
ever
think
about
brighter
colors
and
again,
with
the
winter
being
so
long?
And
it's
just
all
gray
and
it's
just
kind
of
wondering
what
that
situation
is
because
and
I'm
not
as
familiar
with
the
material
thinking
whether
or
not
the
material
itself
has
an
inherent
color
that
you're
going
with.
But
if
it's
gonna
be
painted
one
way
or
another,
why
isn't
the
color
something
brighter.
P
Madam
chair
commissioners,
molly
we
did
survey
the
neighborhood
and
gave
them
five
pallets
to
choose
from
and
we'll
go
back.
I
I
will
tell
you
that
you
know
the
the
three
highest
vote.
Getters
were
evenly
split,
so
that's
that
was
that
references
back
to
my
earlier
comment
about.
You
know
when
you're
picking
out
color
you've
kind
of
solved
all
the
other
problems.
P
I
personally
don't
have
a
color
dog
in
the
fight
and
I
think
gray
is
just
a
simple
color
to
market,
but
we
are
taking
your
input
to
heart
here
about
maybe
some
pop
and
I'm
going
to
let
david
the
design
professional
guide
me
on
this.
I
don't
my
bride.
Doesn't
even
let
me
pick
out
my
own.
Damn
ties
so
I'm
not
going
to
do
color
selection
tonight,
but
I
will.
I
think
your
points
are
well
taken
about
a
little
more
pop
and
we'll
entertain
that.
A
A
Too,
all
right
that
was
our
last
item
for
the
evening
kimberly.
Do
we
have
any
staff
updates.
R
So
I
can't
tell
who
is
all
still
on
the
call,
also
it's
a
little
noisy
in
my
house
at
the
moment,
but
I
believe
you
maybe
heard
from
paul
moguish
earlier
tonight,
as
well
as
jim
voll.
Paul
moguish
is
our
current
manager
of
our
long-range
planning
team
and
he
has
taken
another
position
and
his
last
say
with
the
city
will
be
tomorrow.
Actually,
so
he's
made
just
a
lot
of
incredible
contributions
to
the
city
over
the
years
and
we're
so
thankful
for
all
the
work
that
he's
done.
R
R
So
we
don't
have
big
staffing
announcements
like
this
often,
but
I
just
thought
it
was
worth
noting
so
the
items
that
were
on
the
beginning
of
the
agenda
today,
things
like
land
sales
tip
plans
that
sort
of
thing
I'll
go
through
our
long-range
planning
team.
So
you
may
be
seeing
more
of
jim
in
the
future.
R
A
Okay,
thank
you
kimberly
all
right
with
that.
We've
completed
all
the
items
on
our
agenda
for
this
meeting.
I
will
ask
members
and
staff
if
there
are
any
other
matters
to
come
before
this
body,
all
right,
seeing
none
or,
if
not
and
without
objection,
I'll
declare
this
meeting
adjourned.
Our
next
meeting,
our
next
committee
of
the
whole
meeting,
will
be
thursday
june
17
2021,
and
our
next
planning
commission
meeting
will
be
monday
june
14
2021.