►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
A
Good
afternoon
welcome
to
the
regular
meeting
of
the
business
inspections,
housing
and
zoning
committee
for
today
april
20th
2021,
I'm
lisa
goodman
and
I
am
the
chair
of
the
committee.
As
we
begin
I'll
note
for
the
record,
this
meeting
has
remote
participation
from
members
of
the
city,
council
and
city
staff.
That's
authorized
by
minnesota
statute,
section
13d
.2021,
due
to
the
declared
local
public
health
emergency.
The
city
bill
will
be
recording
and
posting
this
meeting
to
the
city's
website
and
youtube
channel
as
a
means
of
increasing
public
access
and
transparency.
A
C
E
F
A
Agenda
for
today's
meeting
is
before
us
and
we
have
a
quorum
I'll
begin
with
the
consent
agenda,
which
includes
items
four
through
eighteen
on
the
agenda.
Item
number
four:
are
the
liquor
license
approvals
and
item
number
five
or
the
liquor
license
renewals
I'll
note
that
there's
a
very
large
number
of
them
up
in
front
of
us
today?
The
total
being
60.
A
item
number
six
is
a
cooperative
funding
agreement
for
our
fair
housing
planning.
Item
number:
seven:
is
the
2021
minneapolis
hud
consolidated
action
plan?
This
will
be
setting
a
public
hearing.
Item
number.
Eight
is
the
local
unified
plan
for
our
workforce,
innovation
and
opportunity
act.
Programs:
item
number:
nine:
are
grants
from
deed
their
redevelopment
plan
for
projects
which
most
members
of
the
committee
are
fully
aware
of.
Item
number
10
are
applications
for
environmental
grant,
funding
for
the
spring
2021
brownfield
round.
A
That's
in
items
number
one
two
and
three
item:
11
is
the
upper
harbor
terminal,
exclusive
development
rights
extension
and
appropriation
and
item
number
12?
Is
the
alternative
area-wide
review
process
for
the
upper
harbor
terminal
item?
13
is
b
tab
funding
recommendations,
I'll
note
for
members
of
the
committee
and
the
public.
There
are
many
almost
over
a
dozen
really
great
organizations
that
are
going
to
be
getting
grants
from
our
b
tab
program.
Item
number
14
is
setting
a
public
hearing
for
the
tif
plan
for
the
satori
boutique
departments.
A
Complex
item
15
are
grants
with
kci
conservation
and
midwest
arts
conservation
for
a
pool
of
art.
Conservators
item
number
16
is
exclusive
development
rights
to
sherman
and
associates
for
a
property
at
1,
500
4th
street
south
item.
17
is
exclusive
development
rights
to
the
john
buck
company
for
a
property
at
250,
4th
street
south
and
309
second
avenue.
South
item
number
18
is
a
rezoning
at
125
lowry,
avenue
northeast
and
2512
2nd
street
northeast,
and
that
is
the
consent
agenda.
A
G
You
I
would
like
to
pull
off
16.
I
got
some
calls
about
it.
This
morning
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
talk
to
my
colleague,
councilmember
osman,
but
we
also,
we
both
served
the
cedar
riverside
area
and
I
think
we
might
wanna
well
I'm
interested
in
tabling
it.
A
A
H
F
A
A
So
why
don't?
We
first
start
with
item
number
one
which
is
cafe
cirrus
and
we'll
ask
mr
velasquez
to
give
his
report.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
committee
members,
enrique
velazquez
manager
of
licenses
and
consumer
services
presenting
an
application
from
5400
barbecue
llc
doing
business
as
cafe
ceres
cafe,
ceres
is
located
at
5401,
penn
avenue,
south
in
ward,
13
and
they're
requesting
two
licenses.
The
first
is
an
on
sale,
liquor
with
sunday
sales
and
no
live
entertainment
license.
The
second
is
a
sidewalk
cafe
license
the
business
offers
indoor
seating
for
40
and
outdoor
seating
for
20
in
this
on
the
sidewalk
cafe.
C
Their
proposed
hours
of
operation
are
sunday
through
saturday
from
7
a.m,
to
10
p.m,
and
on
occasion
the
indoor
space
will
remain
open
until
midnight.
On
march
26th,
public
hearing
notices
are
sent
to
residents
and
property
owners
within
600
feet
of
the
premises
to
the
armadich
neighborhood
association
and
the
council.
Member
palmisano
we've
received
five
responses.
All
in
support
of
this
application,
the
licenses
and
consumer
services
division
recommends
approval
of
both
the
on-sale
liquor
with
sunday,
sales
and
sidewalk
cafe
licenses.
A
Are
there
any
comments
or
questions
for
staff
on
item
number
one
seeing
none!
Thank
you,
mr
velasquez.
I'm
going
to
proceed
to
open
the
public
hearing
and
ask
the
clerk
if
there
are
any
speakers
in
queue
for
this
item,
it
looks
like
there
are
no
speakers
in
queue
for
this
item
I'll
just
give
it
one
more
shot.
If
there
anyone
is
anyone
who
happens
to
be
on
the
call
for
item
number
one,
this
would
be
the
time
to
speak,
seeing
none
I'm
going
to
close
the
public
hearing
and
call
on
councilmember
schroeder.
A
G
E
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
committee
members,
enrique
velazquez
manager
of
licenses
and
consumer
services
once
again
presenting
an
application
for
wooden
ship
brewing
company
wooden
chip.
Brewing
company
is
located
at
3340
street
west
in
ward
13,
and
they
request
two
licenses.
The
first
is
an
on
sale,
liquor
tap
room
with
sunday
sales
and
limited
entertainment.
C
The
second
is
an
off
sale.
Malt
liquor
growler
license
the
business
offers
indoor
seating
for
56
and
outdoor
seating
for
26
on
a
private
patio.
The
proposed
hours
of
operation
are
wednesday
and
thursday
from
4
pm
to
8
pm
friday
from
4
pm
to
10
pm
saturday
from
noon
to
10
pm
and
then
sunday
noon
to
8
pm.
C
On
march,
26th
public
hearing
notices
were
sent
to
residents
and
property
owners
within
600
feet
of
the
premises,
to
the
lyndon
hills,
neighborhood,
council
and
to
council
member
palmisano.
We
received
six
responses
back
to
the
public
hearing
announcement.
Five
are
in
full
support
of
this
application
with
the
final
respondent
in
support
of
the
tap
room
license
and
opposed
to
the
limited
entertainment
component
of
the
license.
C
H
Yeah,
so
thank
you
for
inviting
me
to
speak
at
this
meeting.
I
did
want
to
speak
to
just
very
quickly
like
our
motto
and
our
goal,
so
our
motto
is
to
create
community
and
drink
creatively,
and
that
is
in
a
very
specific
order.
We
want
to
join
the
link
in
hills,
community
and
sort
of
partner
with
the
neighborhood
instead
of
sort
of
butting
our
way
in
here
and
sort
of
making
everybody
do
what
we
want.
I
am
actually
a
resident
of
the
linen
hills.
H
Neighborhood
and
we've
received
very
positive
feedback
on
the
opening
of
our
establishment
and
to
speak
to
the
noise
abatement
concerns.
Those
are
totally
valid
concerns.
Actually,
as
that
concern
was
being
noted,
I
just
wrote
down
isolation,
hood,
and
so
that
is
a
an
additional
piece
of
equipment
that
we
can
purchase.
That
goes
on
the
chiller,
which
is
the
white
box
at
the
rear
of
our
space,
and
that
should
serve
some
noise
basement
purposes.
However,
we're
very
open
to
suggestion
or
screening
that
in
or
providing
additional
noise
abatement.
H
Additionally,
on
the
outdoor
patio
side
of
things,
our
ener
limited
entertainment
will
be
limited
to
indoor
musical
performances
and
they
will
be
occasional.
Additionally,
we
don't
have
any
speakers
on
the
outside
of
our
building,
so
there
is
no
amplified
music
on
the
outside
of
the
space.
H
A
way
that
music
could
get
outside
would
be
through
the
garage
door
that
we
have
on
one
side
of
our
building.
However,
just
like
a
personal
testimony
when
I've
been
working
outside,
I
actually
can't
hear
the
speakers
very
well
inside.
However,
if
there
are
concerns
in
the
future,
we
are
very
open
to
closing
that
door
or
turning
music
down
and
again
all
of
it
is
in
the
name
of
creating
community.
A
A
Thank
you
on
council
member
schrader's
motion
on
item
number
two,
which
is
a
motion
to
approve
I'll.
Please
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role.
I
C
A
J
Thank
you,
chair
goodman,
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
alex
kolhas.
I
am
a
city
planner
in
the
cped
zoning
administration,
section
I'll,
try
to
be
brief
in
my
presentation,
but
there
are
a
few
important
topics
for
for
me
to
address
the
staff.
So
with
that
for
you
today,
as
you
stated
as
an
appeal
of
the
decision
of
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment
regarding
the
property
at
5116,
vinson
avenue
south
this
property
is
in
the
r1a
zoning
district
in
the
interior.
J
The
appellants
in
this
case
are
stephanie
and
mike
stevenson,
who
are
the
current
owners
of
the
subject
property
and
they
were
the
applicants
for
the
variants
they
have
been
represented
by
john
waninger
for
both
the
variance
and
the
appeal
next
slide.
Please
the
appellants
of
stevenson's.
They
purchased
the
subject
property
in
2019,
but
the
issue
at
hand
actually
began
well
prior
to
their
ownership
or
interest
in
the
property.
The
it's
used
as
a
single-family
dwelling
as
a
principal
use
in
the
current
dwelling
was
constructed
in
2017.
J
This
was
replacing
a
previous
single-family
dwelling
in
the
property
and
in
the
new
housing
garage
were
designed
and
constructed
on
behalf
of
a
previous
property
owner.
So
this
photo
shows
the
site
in
the
spring
of
2018,
and
so
this
is
the
the
new
house
and
garage.
So
the
site
work
remained
outstanding
at
the
time
of
this
photo
again
after
construction
was
substantially
completed.
J
J
The
appellants
before
they
were
involved
in
this
property
again
is
when
that
the
garage
specifically
was
constructed
with
a
proposed
rear
setback
of
five
feet
and
vehicle
tours
directly
facing
the
alley,
which
is
the
minimum
setback
requirement
for
this
type
of
garage
design.
Shortly
after
the
building
permit
for
the
garage
was
approved
in
september
2017,
a
building
inspector
noted
a
failed
garage
inspection
because
the
property
on
property
lines
excuse
me
were
not
clearly
marked
to
identify
that
the
garage
was
being
constructed
in
the
correct
location.
J
J
This
is
a
photo
of
that
existing
garage
as
constructed
taken
from
from
standing
in
the
alley
next
slide.
So
the
actual
as
built
location
of
the
garage
relative
to
the
property
line
was
not
formally
confirmed
until
august
of
2019.
So,
almost
two
years
later,
when
the
builders
submitted
their
final
as-built
survey
required
for
the
standard
inspections
process
for
site
plane
review
for
construction
of
a
new
single
family
dwelling,
and
this
shown
in
my
presentation.
J
This
is
that,
as
built
survey
from
august
of
2019,
showing
that
the
garage
was
built
with
a
rear
setback
of
4.7
feet
at
the
northwest
corner
and
4.9
feet
at
the
southwest
corner,
both
below
that
minimum
five
foot,
rear
setback,
city
staff
and
inspectors
had
originally
attempted
to
work
with
the
builder
for
for
some
time
to
try
and
come
into
compliance
on
their
own,
but
he
eventually
became
non-responsive,
after
which
the
current
property
owners
of
stevenson's,
who
are
the
appellants
in
this
case,
had
already
purchased
the
property
in
august
of
2019.
J
So
we
had
to
switch
enforcement
activities
over
to
to
them.
This
survey
on
on
your
screen
from
august
of
2019
was
shared
with
the
appellants
for
use
as
part
of
their
variance
application.
Next
slide,
please,
however,
the
opponents
also
elected
to
have
their
own
survey
of
the
property
prepared
for
their
variance
application,
and
that
is
what.
J
One
on
the
screen
now
so
this
is
a
a
newer
survey
from
february
of
2021,
prepared
specifically
on
the
appellant's
behalf,
and
this
shows
a
as
built
rear
setback
of
4.9
feet
at
the
northwest
corner
of
the
garage
and
five
feet
exactly
at
the
southwest
corner.
There
are
some
slight
differences
in
the
notes
for
these
two
surveys.
J
I'll
just
note
that
staff
has
continued
to
use
the
4.7
foot
measurement
in
reference
and
in
the
staff
report
and
in
my
presentation
I'm
only
going
back
to
the
4.7
foot
measurement
because
it's
the
more
extreme
of
the
two,
although
we
have
this
more
recent
survey
prepared
on
behalf
of
the
appellants,
which
shows
a
4.9
foot
measurement
instead.
Ultimately,
both
surveys
show
the
garage
is
constructed
as
non-conforming
to
that
minimum
rear
setback
requirement.
The
appellants
made
their
variance
request
for
a
waffle
establishment
of
the
garage
as
constructed.
J
I
do
want
to
provide
just
some
additional
context
about
the
overall
timing
of
the
situation
as
well,
and
I
don't
mean
to
speak,
speak
for
the
applicants,
but
some
of
this
relates
to
to
their
experience
in
this
situation,
so
I'll
just
for
additional
context.
J
The
building
inspector
did
pass
a
final
inspection
for
the
garage
permit
in
august
of
of
2019,
even
though
the
garage,
the
the
garage
location
had
been
flagged
as
a
potential
issue
and
had
not
been
resolved
and
had
actually
been
been
verified
as
an
issue
around
the
same
time
that
this
that
the
inspection
was
passed
in
august
of
2019,
a
separate
certificate
of
occupancy
was
also
issued
for
the
property
around
the
same
time,
which
called
out
the
garage
approval
and
the
past
inspections
for
the
garage
as
well.
J
Building
permanent
inspections
like
this
are
the
inspection
results
for
individual
properties
and
specific
permits
are
generally
available
for
public
viewing
on
the
city's
website.
Although
specific
inspection
notes
are
are
not
necessarily
included
for
for
public
viewing,
so
a
prospective
buyer
might
have
been
able
to
see
that
past
inspection
result
for
the
garage
in
august
of
2019,
but
without
any
specific
notes
left
from
the
inspector
which
would
sort
of
elaborate
or
qualify
that
result.
J
So,
even
though
the
the
location
of
the
ish,
the
location
of
the
garage,
was
still
an
issue
as
far
as
the
city
was
concerned,
this
was
this.
Information
was
not
available
to
to
to
prospective
buyers
if
they
were
more
interested
in
trying
to
look
on.
The
city's
website
also
note
that
the
building
inspector
later
marked
another
final
inspection
of
the
garage
as
a
fail.
This
is
around
september
of
2020
after
they
had
earlier
passed
it
and
passed
that
final
inspection.
J
There
was
a
time
before
2019
when
someone
could
look
on
the
city's
website
and
find
information
about
open
code
enforcement
cases
so
not
necessarily
tied
to
a
specific
building
permit
inspection
but,
for
example,
a
verified
zoning
code
setback
violation
and
they
also
could
have
seen
things
like
neighbor
complaints
about
a
property
at
some
point
prior
to
to
the
appellant's
purchase
of
the
subject:
property
in
2019
those
service
requests
and
code
enforcement
cases
were
separated
into
distinct
things
in
in
the
city's
record,
keeping
and
as
listed
on
the
city's
website
for
public
viewing.
J
The
service
requests
like
neighbor
complaints.
They
remained
available
on
the
city's
website,
but
the
code
enforcement
cases,
something
like
this,
where
we're
dealing
with
a
zoning
code
setback
violation
at
some
point
before
2019
became
unavailable
for
public
viewing
on
the
website.
So
there
might
not
have
been
a
way
for
prospective
prospective
buyers
like
the
appellants
to
find
out
about
the
garage
issue,
despite
their
attempts
to
do
so
I'll
transition
to
talking
about
the
required
variance
findings.
J
The
proposed
plans
showed
that
it
would
have
met
that
minimum
rear
yard
requirement
of
five
feet,
but
the
non-conformity
in
this
case
is
just
due
to
an
error
during
construction
by
by
the
builder,
who
was
acting
on
behalf
of
the
previous
property
owner.
J
The
rear
lot
line
is
to
allow
sufficient
views
for
pedestrians
and
drivers
as
vehicles
are
maneuvered
in
and
out
of
the
garage
and
to
allow
enough
space
for
maneuvering
vehicles
in
and
out
of
the
garage,
using
only
the
subject,
property
and
the
public
right-of-way,
and
not
requiring
the
use
of
neighboring
properties,
for
example
across
the
alley
for
making
the
turn
into
the
garage.
So
again,
the
staff
finding
that
this
is
not
met
is
based
on
a
strict
reading
of
that.
J
The
third
finding
regarding
essential
character
of
the
locality
and
potential
for
injury
to
use
or
enjoyment
of
other
persons
or
property
in
the
area.
Staff
does
not
find
that
the
proposed
variants
that
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality,
where
detached
garages
with
vehicle
doors
facing
the
alley
directly,
are
not
uncommon.
Again.
J
Staff
recognizes
that
we're
just
talking
about
one
to
two
inches
here,
but
as
a
sort
of
logical
extension
of
that
spirit
and
intent
of
the
code
to
provide
a
minimum
of
five
feet
for
for
visibility
and
maneuvering
safety
concerns
staff
found
that
there
is,
you
know,
potential
for
for
detriment
to
persons
or
property
based
on
not
meeting
that
minimum
five
foot
threshold.
J
Findings
that
I
just
went
over
staff
recommends
that
the
committee
uphold
the
decision
of
the
board
and
deny
the
appeal,
though
again
I'll,
reiterate
and
recognize
the
additional
context
regarding
you
know,
inspections
and
availability
of
information
or
lack
of
available
availability
of
information
on
on
the
city's
website,
and
otherwise
there
were
two
written
public
comments
received
for
this
item
way
back
before
its
original
scheduled
hearing
for
the
board
of
adjustment
in
november
of
2020..
J
There
were
also
a
number
of
written
public
comments
submitted
and
received
by
staff
after
the
board
of
adjustment
hearing
but
prior
to
today's
appeal,
all
of
which
should
be
available
for
you
and
all
those
written
comments
were
in
support
of
of
the
appellants
their
their
appeal.
I
believe
the
appellants
and
their
representative
are
in
attendance
during
this
hearing
as
well.
This
concludes
my
presentation,
but
I'm
available
for
questions.
A
K
Okay,
please,
I
think
alex
did
it
yeah,
I
think
alex,
did
an
excellent
job
of
setting
out
the
situation,
and
I
I
don't
really
have
anything
else
to
add.
I
think
it
was
very
well
done.
Thank
you
for
considering
the
appeal.
A
Okay,
thank
you
we'll
call
on
stephanie
stevenson.
Next,
ms
stevenson,
are
you
on
the
call.
L
On
the
call,
can
you
hear
me
we
can
all
right.
Thank
you
for
hearing
our
appeal
today.
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
the
main
sticking
point
for
the
denial
by
the
zoning
board
was
that
we
did
not
do
our
due
diligence
when
we
bought
our
house
and
at
that
point
we
were
muted
and
weren't
not
allowed
to
address
their
concerns.
L
A
I
I
Thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
express
my
support
for
the
appeal
of
the
board's
decision-
and
I
just
really
want
to
say
from
a
climate
environmental
perspective
that
that
decision
was
extremely
disappointed,
and
this
is
especially
sad
because,
in
my
experience,
the
city
strives
to
lead
in
these
areas.
As
you
all
know,
in
2014
the
city
committed
to
reduce
80
percent
of
its
greenhouse
gas
emissions
by
2050,
and
the
2040
plan
calls
for
maximizing
waste
reductions.
I
I
So,
in
closing,
thank
you
for
your
thoughtful
consideration
of
this
item
in
comparison
to
the
city's
overall
goals
about
climate
and
environment
and
about
equitable,
equitable
participation,
because,
as
you
know,
the
2040
plan
also
calls
for
community
members
to
feel
like
they
have
a
voice
and
that
they
can
influence
the
decisions
of
the
city.
So
to
successfully
achieve
these
goals,
I
think
collectively
it's
important
to
listen
to
each
other's
voices,
and
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
be
here
and
to
share
my
perspective
today.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
A
So
with
that
I
will
close
the
public
hearing,
I'm
going
to
move
to
grant
the
appeal.
I
believe
that
the
fact
that
the
information
that
was
not
available
to
the
applicant
makes
this
a
questionable
level
of
enforcement.
I
do
not
think
we
should
be
tearing
down
a
garage
over
one
or
two
inches
when
they
made
a
reasonable
attempt
to
see
if
there
was
anything
wrong
in
advance
of
purchasing
this
house.
I
would
move
both
to
grant
the
appeal
and
ask
the
staff
to
draft
findings
of
fact
consistent
with
that
council
member
schroeder.
F
Thank
you,
chair
goodman.
I
will
be
supporting
your
motion.
I
I
agree
with
that.
I
just
wanted
to
also
add
there.
There
just
was
an
extensive,
showing
that
there
was
no
bad
faith,
and
that
was
very
difficult
to
do
your
due
diligence.
So
I
really
appreciate
staff
pointing
that
out
and
especially
putting
this
in
the
context
of
really
looking
at
how
this
would
not
set
a
precedent
and
how
you
know
the
the
buyers
did
everything
they
could
and
we
are
talking
about
inches
in
this
case.
A
F
F
F
A
That
appeal
has
been
granted
we'll
then
move
back
to
item
number
16,
which
is
an
item
on
our
consent
agenda
and
note
that
eric
hansen
is
on
the
call.
This
is
authorizing
exclusive
development
rights
to
sherman
and
associates
for
a
property
located
at
1,
500
4th
street
south
for
a
period
of
24
months
for
the
purchase
and
development
of
this
property.
I
will
ask
if
mr
hansen
is
available
to
speak
to
this
issue
now.
D
Yeah
good
afternoon,
chair
goodman
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
eric
hanson,
I'm
the
city's
economic
development
director.
This
is
this
is
a
matter
in
front
of
you
to
allow
for
the
developer,
who
responded
to
a
request
for
proposals
a
few
years
ago
to
continue
to
do
engagement
with
the
community
and
to
find
resources
he
needs
in
order
to
come
back
with
a
multi-use
or
mixed-use
development
in
the
cedar,
riverside
neighborhood.
A
B
G
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
can
defer
to
council
member
osman
too.
I
think
I
was
most
interested
in
tabling
it
and
I
want
to
understand
exactly
when
I
think
there
was
some
preliminary
approval
given
to
this
developer
earlier
and
now
those
those
rights
of
development
might
be
evaporating
and
that's
why
the
extension
is
coming
up.
G
I
wouldn't
mind
hearing
some
details
about
that,
but
actually
I
think
maybe
the
best
thing
for
us
to
do
is
for
me
to
defer
to
council
member
osman
in
case
he
has
a
motion
prepared
that
I
can
support.
E
Oh,
thank
you
dear
goodman.
This
project
is
one
that
everyone
see
the
riverside
knows
about.
It's
been
controversial,
let's
start
by
saying:
what's
what
what
it's
not
today?
This
is
not
giving
the
final
ownership
to
sherman
and
associates.
E
This
is
not
going
to
result
shovels
on
the
ground,
and
this
is
not
going
to
be
the
end
of
sherman
engagement
and
involvement
with
the
community
about
this
project.
What
it
is
is
we
are
giving
sherman
associates
the
ability,
the
ability
to
go
in
line
and
get
money
to
put
affordable
housing
aspects
of
this
project.
So
we
know
that
we
need
a
lot
of
affordable
housing
here
in
this
community.
E
What
works
for
them
is
not
just
one
or
two
bedroom.
It's
a
large
family,
especially
the
riverside,
so
we're
talking
about
three
four
bedroom
units.
This
is
also
the
next
step
in
the
engagement
with
this
project.
E
It's
clear
that,
up
to
this
point,
the
community
benefits
and
proposed
market
on
this
site.
We're
not
well
defined.
E
E
I
have
spent
last
several
weeks
talking
to
business
owners
and
residents
along
see
the
riverside
neighborhood.
I
have
started
I'm
sorry.
I
have
shared
with
my
goal
and
expectation
that
this
step,
my
office,
along
with
sherman
with
the
support
of
the
mayor,
will
pause
and
engage
with
the
see
the
riverside
area
and
the
west
bank
association
and
the
rest
of
the
stakeholders
in
the
area.
E
Together,
we
must
identify
how
to
ensure
that
any
market
or
any
other
potential
community
benefit
its
own
and
reflected
by
the
community.
What
the
community
wants
it's
something
that
they
can,
they
can
have
ownership
with.
So
since
I've
been
here,
I
have
been
discussing
and
talking
to
community
members
and
making
sure
that
we're
making
this
happen
along
with
lot
f,
that
are
variety
of
land
and
that
we
must
work
actively
to
get
services
and
the
community
ownership
we
want
to
see
receive
the
riverside.
E
So
I
would
say
this
is
not
the
final
moment.
This
is.
This
is
one
relatively
minor
step
towards
holistic
development
and
that
that
will
benefit
the
whole
community.
E
The
most
important
steps
are
the
ones
that
will
come
next
to
the
community
meeting
and-
and
I
will
be
doing
reach
out
to
the
community
members
and
stakeholders
soon
to
establish
and
listen
in
engagement
and
productive
process
that
will
ensure
that
this
is
not
some
development
or
some
outside
person
is
coming
in
to
do
a
development
here,
but
outgrow
what
the
community
needs
and
that
the
east,
african
and
west
bank
west
bankers
and
see
the
riverside
can
benefit
all
so
since
I've
been
here,
I've
been
here
a
very
short
time.
E
This
lot
a
has
been
on
the
conversation
and
eric
can
talk
about
more.
What
the
what
that
plan
is.
My
approach
was
to
go
back
to
the
community
and
make
sure
that
we
are
talking
about
it
because
we
we
we
need
affordable
housing
and,
as
I
mentioned,
this
is
not
giving
exclusive
developments
for
sherman
and
ownership.
C
G
I
was
hoping
that
we
could
hold
it
in
committee,
so
we
could
give
an
opportunity
for
the
business
association
and
the
neighborhood
association
to
express
their
concerns
and
understand
that
a
little
bit
better-
and
I
was
wondering
if
tabling
it
for
one
cycle,
would
somehow
jeopardize
this,
as
I
don't
see
that
it
necessarily
would.
It
sounds
like
councilmember
osmond,
and
I
aren't
all
that
far
apart,
but
I
wasn't
necessarily
hearing
a
motion
to
table.
I
I
don't
feel
ready
like
that.
G
It
gives
kind
of
exclusive
rights
for
24
more
months,
so
we're
not
going
to
go
out
and
look
for
anybody
else,
and
so
hopefully,
if
this
does
go
forward,
we'll
have
some
pretty
high
bars
of
what
we
expect
to
see
in
the
24
months
and
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
councilmember
osman,
because
maybe
we
do
need
to
have
a
like
a
a
different
focus
on
the
affordable
housing
and
change
the
project
more
than
we
think.
G
But
I
don't
think
I'll
make
a
motion
at
that
point
and
my
question
and
I
don't
know
that
we
is
just
that
if
we
tabled
it
for
two
weeks,
I
guess
maybe
mr
hanson
could
answer
that.
Would
that
make
any
big
difference
either
way
on
what's
happening.
D
Yes,
chair,
goodman
councilmember
gordon,
the
request
we
got
from
sherman
was
without
city
support
for
some
some
exclusivity,
some
psych
control.
They
were
having
trouble
getting
the
access
to
the
resources.
They
would
need
to
do
an
ambitious
project.
As
you
know,
high-rise,
affordable
housing
is
expensive
to
finance
the
market's
expensive.
The
structured
parking
is
expensive
and
their
funders
wanted
a
nod
from
the
city.
Two
weeks
is
up
to
you
it's
to
your
purview.
D
I
don't
see
that
to
be
a
significant
material
change,
but
again
it's
up
to
you
guys.
If
you
wanted
to
wait
two
more
weeks.