►
From YouTube: July 31, 2023 Planning Commission
Description
Additional information at:
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
Submit written comments about agenda items to: councilcomment@minneapolismn.gov or https://www.minneapolismn.gov/government/meetings/public-comment/online-comment
A
A
Good
evening
everybody
Welcome
to
the
regular
meeting
of
the
City
Planning
Commission
for
Monday
July
31st
2021.
My
name
is
Alyssa
Olson
and
I
am
the
President
of
the
Planning
Commission.
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.
This
meeting
is
public
and
subject
to
the
Minnesota
open
meeting
law.
This
time,
I'll
ask
the
clerk
to
please
call
the
roll.
C
C
A
E
A
A
Our
next
order
of
business
is
to
organize
our
public
hearing
agenda
for
the
evening,
which
again
is
available
at
limbs.minneapolis
mn.gov
I'm,
going
to
read
through
the
items
on
our
agenda
and
state,
whether
they're
slated
for
consent
or
discussion
consent
items
will
be
passed
by
the
board
without
discussion.
A
So
if
you
agree
with
the
staff
recommendation
for
an
item,
you
don't
need
to
do
anything.
But
if
I
read
off
an
item-
and
you
disagree
with
the
staff
recommendation
and
would
like
to
speak
on
that
item,
you
can
just
raise
your
hand
or
say
something
and
we'll
put
that
item
on
our
discussion
agenda.
A
All
right
so
with
that
we
have
the
following
items
on
our
agenda.
For
this
evening.
Item
number
four
is
2648
Marshall
Street
Northeast.
We
will
discuss
item
number
four
item
number
five
is
625
through
751
Van,
Buren,
Street,
Northeast
and
901
Sumner
Street
Northeast
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
Is
anyone
here
to
speak
against
staff
recommendation
on
item
number?
Five?
Okay,
we
will
discuss
item
five
item
number
six
is
1500
Jackson
Street
northeast
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
A
Is
there
anyone
here
to
speak
against
staff
recommendation
for
item
six,
seeing
none
we'll
put
item
six
on
consent?
Item
number
seven
is
1201
through
1318
Jackson,
Street
northeast
and
807
Broadway
Street
Northeast.
We
will
be
discussing
item
seven
item
number.
Eight
is
900.
20Th
Avenue
South
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
Is
there
anyone
here
to
speak
against
staff
recommendation
for
item
eight?
A
A
A
We're
going
to
discuss
that
item,
so
we
will
right
and
when
we
get
to
that
item,
you'll
have
the
chance
to
come
up
and
talk
about
it.
Thank
you.
Okay.
A
A
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
is
there
any
discussion
seeing
none
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
aye
all
opposed
any
abstentions.
All
right
that
motion
passes.
So
the
agenda
has
been
adopted,
we'll
move
on
to
our
consent
agenda,
so
that
is
for
item
six
or
ten.
So
if
you
are
here
and
would
like
to
say
anything
about
item
6
or
10,
I'll
open
the
public
hearing,
you
can
come
up
to
the
podium
state,
your
name
and
neighborhood
for
the
address
for
the
record
received
with
your
comments.
A
Okay,
I'm,
not
seeing
anyone
so
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
for
the
consent
agenda.
Commissioners
can
I
have
a
motion
to
adopt
the
consent
agenda.
A
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
in
a
second.
Is
there
any
discussion,
seeing
not
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye
all
opposed
any
abstentions,
all
right
that
motion
passes.
So
if
you
were
here
for
item
six
or
ten,
those
items
have
been
completed.
Good
luck,
all
right,
so
we
will
move
on
to
our
first
discussion
item.
A
Just
so
you
guys
know
when
we
open
up
our
discussion
items
for
public
hearing,
everyone
will
have
two
minutes
to
speak
on
those
items.
We
will
have
a
timer
out
that
will
show
you
how
much
time
you
have
and
it'll
count
down
so
prepare
your
remarks.
Accordingly
and
staff
is
Lindsay.
Silas.
F
Good
evening
president
Olsen
members
of
the
commission,
the
project
in
front
of
you,
is
2648
Marshall,
Street
Northeast.
You
may
remember
this
from
a
project
that
came
through
in
2021,
and
this
is
very
substantially
similar
to
the
project
that
was
evaluated
at
that
time
and
I'll
get
more
to
that
in
a
second.
So
the
site
is
located
along
the
east
Bank
of
the
Mississippi
River.
It's
over
20
000
square
feet
in
size.
The
site
has
a
duplex
along
Marshall
Street
and
a
detached
garage
closer
to
the
rear
of
the
site.
F
The
applicant
has
applied
for
three
applications
in
order
to
establish
a
new
cluster
development
on
the
site,
which
would
consist
of
three
dwelling
units.
The
existing
duplex
would
account
for
two
of
those
dwelling
units
and
one
new
single
unit
would
be
constructed
at
the
rear
of
the
site,
as
well
as
a
new
detached
garage
and
workshop.
F
So
the
in
2021,
the
applicant
submitted
identical
or
almost
identical
plans
to
be
evaluated
by
the
Planning
Commission.
At
that
time,
the
Planning
Commission
recommended
approval
of
the
applicant's
application,
and
there
was
an
appeal
that
went
to
the
city
council.
The
application
was
denied
upon
appeal,
so
we
we
allow
applicants
to
resubmit
applications
as
long
as
at
least
a
year.
A
year
has
passed
since
the
previous
application
and,
as
you
all
are
aware,
there
have
been
city
council
elections
and
a
new
zoning
code
adopted
in
that
time.
F
So
so
some
things
have
changed
since
the
application
was
reviewed
in
2021,
so
this
site
is
a
unique
site
and
we
have
some
sites
throughout
the
city
that
contain
underlying
dedication
for
Parks,
the
the
properties
to
the
North
and
South
here,
I'll
get
to
as
I
plan
all
right.
The
the
properties
to
the
north
and
south
of
the
site
also
are
designated
for
parks
and
Marshall.
F
Terrace
Park
is
located
just
one
parcel
Beyond,
the
the
adjacent
parcel,
and
so
there
is
kind
of
a
long-term
Vision
to
for
the
park
board
to
acquire
this
land.
The
park
board
does
not
presently
own
the
land
on
either
side
of
the
site,
and
the
designation
granted
in
the
under
the
land
use.
Rezoning
study
was
pr1.
F
This.
This
application
was
deemed
complete
prior
to
July
1st,
so
it's
being
evaluated
under
the
old
code
on
in
pr1.
There's
no
restriction
on
number
of
dwelling
of
principal
residential
structures
on
a
site,
so
the
cluster
development
application
would
not
have
been
required
if
submitted
after
July
1st,
so
the
applications
at
hand
are
a
cop
for
a
cluster
development
for
a
cluster
development
of
three
units
and
then
variances
to
the
Shoreland
overlay
district
and
Mississippi
River
Corridor
critical
area
overlay
District.
F
Those
are
almost
overlapping
requirements
where
there
are
structure,
setback
requirements
because
from
steep
slopes
and
tops
of
steep
slopes
in
the
Shoreland
and
the
bluff
and
Bluff
Impact
Zone
in
the
merka.
F
F
Also
just
worth
noting.
As
the
applicant
also
submitted,
these
historic
photos
of
the
site,
so
you'll
note
that
the
neighboring
properties
of
the
north
is
a
large
multi-family
dwelling
and
to
the
South
there's
an
industrial
use
which
is
concrete
crushing.
So
this
is
a
very
unique
parcel
kind
of
nestled
between
these
two
high-intensity
uses,
and
so
these
historic
photos
from
1967
through
1974
show
that
there
have
been
a
variety
of
different
kind
of
driveway
and
maneuvering
areas
and
docks
and
things
on
the
site
and
historically.
F
F
So,
as
I
noted
before
staff
is,
staff
is
recommend,
staff
recommended
approval
in
2021
staff
is
recommending
approval
today
of
all
applications
for
the
conditional
use
permit.
The
applicant
has
proposed
kind
of
shared
space
for
the
residents
and,
if,
if
submitted
after
July
1st,
a
conditional
use
permit
would
not
be
required
to
establish
two
two
principal
dwelling
structures
on
the
site
when
it
comes
to
the
variances.
So
the
applicant
has
proposed
to
locate
the
structure
on
on
the
slope
and
on
top
of
the
Sleep
steep
slope.
F
So
that
is
what
has
triggered
these
two
variances
and
just
just
as
a
note
staff
hadn't
had
initially
not
triggered
the
murka
variants.
With
the
misunderstanding
of
how
the
the
slopes
were
calculated
and
after
contact
from
the
DNR
National
Park
Service,
we
had
a
meeting
with
the
DNR
discussed
with
them
that
we
should
have
triggered
America
and
as
we
had
in
2021.
So
so
that
is
why
that
application
was
continued.
One
cycle
staff
has
evaluated
the
the
proposed
variances
and
finds
that
the
structure.
F
So,
while
this
is
along
site,
the
various
slope,
Bluff
line
and
structure
setbacks,
result
in
eliminating
46
percent
of
the
buildable
area
as
measured
from
the
riverfront,
and
that's
only
that
structure
setback.
That's
not
accounting
for
other
side
yard
and
front
yard
setback
requirements.
So
you
know
the
fine.
F
The
finding
for
a
difficult
variance
is
that
a
practical
difficulty
exists
in
complying
with
the
ordinance
due
to
circumstances
unique
to
the
property,
so
the
bluff
line
on
the
site
really
does
cut
into
the
site
much
more
than
neighboring
properties
and
as
I
noted,
the
neighboring
properties
are
intensive,
uses
a
high
density
residential
structure
and
a
industrial
use.
But
even
if
you
look
farther
north
to
Marshall
Terrace
Park,
the
bluff
line
is
located
much
closer
to
the
river.
F
So
you
know
if
that
wasn't
a
park,
and
it
was
a
single
family,
a
site
the
there
would
not
be
such
great
structure
setbacks
when
measured
from
the
ordinary
high
water
line.
F
So
staff
has
found
that
the
compliance
with
the
very
structure
setbacks
really
does
significantly
reduce
the
buildable
area
of
the
site
and
constitutes
a
practical
difficulty
in
line
with
what
we
look
for
for
this
finding.
In
addition,
staff
finds
that
the
proposal
is
reasonable
and
it's
not
going
to
have
any
negative
impacts
on
public
health
or
surrounding
properties.
F
Those
structure
or
those
historic
photos-
and
you
know
the
use
on
the
site
today
indicate
that
there
have
been
various
uses
of
this
slope
and
Bluff
line
over
time
with
parking
and
maneuvering
areas,
and
the
applicant
has
proposed
to
do
some
mitigation
on
the
site,
adding
native
plantings,
removing
some
concrete
debris
that
has
been
on
the
site
since,
for
a
long
time
due
to
the
neighboring
industrial
use,
the
proposed
setback
from
the
ordinary
high
water
line
is
96
feet
and,
and
they
are
proposing
some
construction
methods
to
mitigate
the
impact.
G
Thank
you
for
this
background.
I
am
wondering
if
you
could
give
us
a
little
background
with
the
mrcca.
G
It
adopted
what's
the
purpose
of
it,.
F
That
is
a
great
question
I,
so
the
the
I
believe
the
City
of
Minneapolis
was
one
of
the
first
cities
to
adopt
the
markout.
You
know
from
state
law
to
kind
of
implement
that
at
the
local
level,
Kimberly
I,
don't
know
if
you
know
the
year.
F
I
do
remember
that
this
was
when
this
came
through
in
2021.
This
is
one
of
the
first
experiences
that
we
analyzed
with
through
the
mirka.
H
I
can
look
up
the
exact
date.
It's
relatively
new,
but
yes,
it's
one
of
those
ordinances
where
a
draft
ordinance
is
provided
by
the
DNR.
The
city
worked
with
them
extensively
over
several
years
to
model
our
ordinance.
After
that
we
did
so
and
Jim
bull
is
here
who
also
works
on
it,
2019
2020.
F
Yeah
well
so,
if
you
just
think
about
kind
of
like
the
zoning
code
as
a
whole
right,
like
variances,
any
type
of
variances
are
just
variations
from
what
the
code
allows.
So
the
merka
is
a
very
complex
ordinance
that
really
manages
kind
of
where
structures
can
be
placed
accessory
to
steep
slopes
and
the
water.
F
I
can
read
to
you
this
that
the
mrcca
regulations
are
in
place
to
regulate
the
subdivision,
use
and
development
of
designated
critical
areas
and
thus
preserve
and
enhance
the
quality
of
important
historic,
cultural,
aesthetic
values
and
natural
systems
and
provide
for
the
wise
use
of
these
areas.
So
so,
yes,
the
you
know
the
the
structure.
F
Setbacks
are
in
place
to
prohibit
development
on
sleep
slopes
or
Bluffs,
and
that
is
a
Prohibition
right.
So
that's
why
we
need
the
variance
and
then
by
the
Mississippi
River.
G
F
Right,
yes,
yep,
the
merka
district
kind
of
runs
with
the
Mississippi
River
and
is
is
Guided
by
State
Statute,
and
so
then
local
Juris
addictions
that
have
properties
that
border
the
Mississippi
River
have
all
adopted
local
ordinances
to
implement
the
merka
great.
G
And
then
the
Shoreland
overlay
District,
that's
can
you?
Can
you
tell
me
about
that
too?.
F
Yeah,
so
you
know
both
of
these
ordinances.
There
was
a
lot
of
overlap
between
them.
That
was
kind
of
one
of
the
discussions
with
DNR
is
whether
we
can
kind
of
simplify
the
the
ordinance
to
not
have
this
kind
of
duplication
potentially
in
the
future,
but
that
is
also
to
kind
of
manage
the
potential
impacts
of
like
soil
erosion
and
implications
on
like
native
plantings
and
natural
areas.
That
might
be
near
shorelines.
D
Yeah,
just
building
off
that,
so
if
we
were
to
approve
one
variance
and
not
the
other
like
how
much
difference
is
there
between
them?
So,
like
suppose,
you
were
to
approve
the
shoreline
overlay
ordinance,
but
not
the
merko
one
like
what
things
would
they
be
able
to
do
that
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
do
if
or
you
know,
or
what,
what
wouldn't
they
be
able
to
do
if
we
didn't
approve
both
yeah.
F
So
I
think
in
this
Shoreland
is
actually
the
more
conservative
ordinance
that
requires
40
feet
to
be
set
back
from
the
top
of
the
steep
slope,
whereas
the
murka
Bluff
setback
is
20
feet.
So
you
know,
if
you
only
approved
the
mirka
variants
and
they
could
you
know
they
would
have
to
comply
with
that
20-foot
setback
from
the
bluff
area.
In
our
discussions
with
the
DNR,
it's
the
bluff
may
not
cover
the
entire
site,
it's
it's.
F
It
has
to
do
with
kind
of
the
slope
over
time,
and
so
it's
really
maybe
just
the
kind
of
interior
portions
of
the
site
that
actually
have
a
bluff
line
on
them.
So
it's
probably
a
conversation.
If
that
was
the
the
way
the
commission
wanted
to
go,
that
we
would
want
to
have
the
applicant
surveyor
really
kind
of
come
up
with
different
modeling
to
show
where
the
blood
fan
exists
and
then
to
be
able
to
measure
the
20
feet
back
from
that.
F
But
if,
if
the
so,
basically,
if
the
Shoreland
overlay
since
the
Shoreland
overlay
setbacks
are
more
conservative.
If
that
one
theoretically
were
approved.
But
then
the
merka
one
was
not
approved
and
then
there
would
be
a
20-foot
difference
in
terms
of
placement
relative
to
the
top
of
the
slope
in
the
river.
D
And
more,
what
would
be
the
impact
if
we
denied
both
the
America
and
and
Shoreland
variances
but
approved
the
conditional
use
permit,
since
that's
something
that
would
be
approved
now,
if
they
reapplied
anyway,
so
would
that
be
possible
with
the
conditional
use
permit
as
it
is
as
they
currently
applied?.
F
So
if
the
variances
were
denied
the
applicant's
going
to
have
to
do
significant
revision
to
the
plan
to
move
the
structure,
and
so
they
they
would
be
able
to
if
they
were
complying
with
the
variances,
they
would
be
able
to
then
just
resubmit
for
an
administrative
review
for
a
new
one
unit,
residential
structure,
and
that
would
be
administratively
reviewed
and
it
would
not
need
another
public
hearing.
F
So
my
guess
would
be
that
there
would
probably
be
you
know
the
restrictions
on
on
needing
to
record
the
conditional
use
permit
with
the
county
may
make
that
not
very
appealing
if,
if
the
applicant
could
just
submit
as
they
would
have
to
anyway,
with
a
new
with
a
new
structure
that
is
in
a
different
space
on
the
lot.
Thank.
D
A
G
Yeah
I
don't
know
if
this
is
the
right
time
or
not,
but
I
guess
you
know
we
have
a
letter
in
our
packet
from
the
National
Park
Service.
That.
G
That
recommends
denial
of
the
Mississippi
I
can
never
say
the
name
of
this
merka
merka
variants
and
I'm
wondering
you
know
they
say
there
are
no
practical
difficulties
so.
C
F
Yeah,
so
it's
possible
that
staff
from
the
National
Park,
Service
and
DNR
kind
of
evaluating
practical
difficulties
under
a
different
lens
right,
like
when
we're
imp
implementing
the
adopted
zoning
code
from
the
City
of
Minneapolis.
We
kind
of
apply
a
practical
difficulty
lens
equally
to
any
application.
We're
not
saying
that
there's
there's
no
possible
development
on
the
site
at
all.
Without
granting
the
variances
we're
saying
that
there
is
a
unique
circumstance
on
the
site
that
is
significantly
restricting
the
buildable
area
that
is
unique
to
the
site.
F
Even
when
you
look
at
the
bluff
line
to
the
north
and
south
of
the
river,
and
that
is
unique
and
that's
kind
of
the
standard
that
we
apply
to
any
variances
any
variants.
Is
there
something
unique
that
is
that
is
you
know
we're
not
going
to
see
this
at
dozens
of
sites
throughout
Minneapolis,
it's
Unique
to
this
site.
This
particular
place
that
is
causing
you
know
a
challenge
in
complying
with
the
ordinance
and
that's
what
staff
found
here
and
so
you
know
DNR
staff,
NPS
staff.
F
They
are
experts
in
many
different
things
than
than
City
staff
is
and-
and
we
were
fortunate
to
have
been
able
to
meet
with
them
and
kind
of
learn
a
little
bit
more
about
the
merka
recently.
But
when
we're
looking
at
the
Practical
difficulty,
the
Practical
difficulty
finding
is
the
same
for
a
variance
in
the
mirka
and
in
the
Shoreland,
as
it
would
be
for
in
any
variants
that
would
be
applied
throughout
the
City
of
Minneapolis.
A
setback
variants.
F
That
sort
of
thing,
so
you
know,
is
there
something
causing
the
situation
that
is
unique
and
putting
pressure
on
the
applicant
that
is
above
and
beyond
what
we
would
expect
on
other
sites.
H
Kimberly
I
also
just
want
to
clarify
along
those
lines.
The
City
of
Minneapolis
is
charged
with
implementing
and
administering
the
merka
ordinance
within
the
city
limits,
so
the
DNR
and
the
National
Park
Service
have
both
commented
as
any
other
member
of
the
public
could,
and
you
know,
certainly
it's
up
to
you
how
much
weight
you
want
to
give
to
those
comments
and
I
believe
we
have
someone
present
tonight
who
will
testify
to
the
letter,
that's
included
in
your
packets,
but
ultimately
it's
up
to
the
city
to
administer
this
ordinance.
A
Any
other
questions,
I
don't
see
any.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
So
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
for
this
item
is
the
applicant
here
and
would
they
like
to
come
speak?
Please
come
forward
state,
your
name
and
neighborhood
for
the
record
and
proceed
with
your
comments.
I
Yes
and
Andy,
watno
from
the
property
owner
from
the
Marshall
Terrace
neighborhood
first
could
I
get
clarification.
I
was
under
the
impression
that
the
setback
requirement
in
the
mrcca
ordinance
is
actually
20
feet
from
what
is
called
the
bluff
Impact
Zone,
which
itself
is
a
20-foot
Zone
from
the
top
of
the
bluff.
So
if
that
is
the
case,
I
believe
that
would
make
the
setback
requirements
identical
between
the
two
ordinances.
Is
there
a
way
we
can
verify
that.
I
So,
and
am
I
capped
at
two
minutes.
For
my
comment.
Okay,
as
as
staff
indicated,
this
is
a
resubmission
of
a
plan
from
2022
that
was
approved
by
the
Planning
Commission
and
then
overturned
on
appeal
with
the
finding
a
fact
being
that
we
had
failed
to
substantiate
that
development
had
occurred
on
the
slope
in
this
location.
So
what
we've
done
in
this
resubmission
is
to
include
the
information
to
substantiate
that
case,
and
so
I'd
like
to
talk
about
three
topics:
the
first
being
the
the
history
of
development.
I
So
on
that
first
topic
of
development,
there
has
been
a
history
on
the
on
the
riverward
side,
the
Riverwood
slope,
on
this
property
and
the
property
to
the
North
and
the
South
of
development
that
has
significantly
altered
the
composition
of
the
slope
here
and
the
shape
of
it
at
the
properties
to
the
north.
I
There
has
been
retaining
walls
that
have
been
built
up
and
out
to
the
Mississippi
River
at
these
locations,
such
that
they
rise
20
feet
above
the
level
of
the
water
at
those
locations
and
dominate
any
riverward
views
in
those
places
on
our
property.
There
has
been
the
addition
of
this
driveway
that
has
been
paved
from
Marshall
Street,
all
the
way
down
to
the
river
there's,
a
vehicle
storage
pad.
I
That
is
roughly
two-thirds
the
width
of
the
property
and
then
continuing
up
the
slope
from
there.
Yet
another
retaining
wall
that
has
been
constructed
parallel
to
where
the
driveway
runs.
These
two
last
retaining
walls,
sort
of
form,
a
boxed
area
that
has
been
filled
in
with
chunks
of
concrete
waste
material
that
was
typically
brought
into
these
locations
to
build
up
the
usable
area
on
them
and
I
expect
that
what
the
the
material
that
is
in
this
in
this
built
up
area
is
the
same
stuff
that
was
used
to
build
up.
I
What
is
now
the
parking
lot
for
the
apartment
building
to
the
north,
and
so,
as
far
as
I
can
tell
the
point
of
this
sort
of
built
up
area
is
one
to
contain
that
material
and
two
to
to
support
that
retaining
wall
structure
that
forms
that
parking
lot
such
that
it
cannot
come
in
and
Cave
into
the
property.
I
I
It's
mostly
just
sparse
vegetation,
small
diameter
trees,
most
of
them
them
these
non-native,
Siberian
elm
species,
the
sorts
of
things
that
are
able
to
make
a
go
of
it
in
the
cracks
and
crevice
is
in
concrete,
and
so
when
we
were
looking
at
the
design
in
choosing
this
location,
we
decided
that
this
is
probably
the
best
location
on
that
sort
of
built
up
retaining
wall
structure
for
the
fact
that
number
one
there's
already
a
building
there,
there's
already
a
garage
there,
so
we're
not
proposing
a
new
use
for
that
part
of
the
lot.
I
It's
it's
keeping
with
the
original
use
in
that
location
and
second,
because
that
place
is
not
able
to
support
a
natural
use
in
its
current
condition,
without
significant
alteration:
to
remove
concrete
material
and
and
establish
native
plants,
let's
say,
and
so,
if
we,
if
we're
to
start
removing
material.
Unfortunately,
that
creates
a
condition
where
we
need
significant
engineering
work
to
reinforce
that
wall
so
that
it
doesn't
want
to
come
down,
and
so
that,
in,
in
our
opinion,
makes
this
the
best
location
on
the
property
to
locate
a
new
structure,
largely
because
the
alternative.
I
Now,
when
we
talk
about
the
Practical
difficulty
in
locating
structures
here,
if,
if
we
look
at
the
setback
requirements
of
the
ordinances,
as
staff
indicated,
that
does
reduce
the
buildable
area
on
this
property
by
almost
half,
it
also
forces
the
location
of
any
structures
here
to
be
in
what
is
the
last
remaining
Green
Space
on
this
property.
So
that
is
the
yard,
that's
behind
the
current
duplex
and
we
would
locate
a
building
in
there.
I
These
factors
together
then
create
additional
difficulties
in
complying
with
requirements
for
for
impervious
surfaces
around
in
impervious
surfaces
in
the
ordinances.
They
are
the
first
of
those
being
the
impervious
surface
coverage
on
the
lot,
which
is
limited
to
60
percent
of
the
lot
coverage.
I
The
house
that
we're
proposing
is
roughly
eight
percent
of
the
total
size
of
the
lot.
It's
not
a
big
house
at
1674
square
feet.
We
deliberately
chosen
a
smaller
design
so
when,
when
we
add
that
house
to
the
to
the
behind
the
the
bluff
setback,
we
increase
the
impervious
surface
coverage
to
above
60
in
that
location
on
this
property.
The
second
difficulty
we
run
into
is
with
cluster
developments,
where
we
cannot
meet
the
requirements
for
non-imperious
surface
on
in
the
common
area.
I
For
the
two
dwelling
units,
where
there's
a
limit
of
50
percent
of
coverage
for
parking
and
driveway
we
uses,
we
simply
cannot
comply
with
that.
Given
the
tightness
of
space
in
this
area,
and
then
the
last
one
is
probably
the
one
that's
most
important
to
me-
and
this
is
where
I
like
to
introduce
myself
as
a
Minnesota
water
Steward,
which
is
a
certification
program
administered
by
the
freshwater
society,
and
in
that
role.
I
am
an
advocate
for
issues
around
water
quality
in
the
freshwater
bodies
in
the
state
of
Minnesota,
including
the
Mississippi
River.
I
I,
know
that
through
that
rule
that
when
we
have
all
of
these
impervious
surfaces,
they
caught,
they
cause
problems
with
stormwater
runoff
into
the
Mississippi
River.
Those
Waters
bring
with
them
pick
up
sediments
and
pollution
from
cars
and
and
roofs,
and
wash
it
right
into
the
Mississippi
River,
especially
at
a
location
like
this,
where
there
is
so
much
impervious
surface
and
there's
a
literal
conduit
in
the
form
of
a
driveway
that
runs
down
to
the
river
I.
Think
the
the
problem
is
exacerbated
by
the
fact
that
the
neighboring
properties
also
have
these
problems.
I
The
the
apartment
building
to
the
north
has
mostly
impervious
coverage.
It's
a
big
apartment
building
and
then
a
big
parking
lot
and
there's
not
really
much
space
to
to
channel
water
in
there,
and
so
most
of
it
ends
up
running
down
the
side
yard
down
the
parking
lot
and
directly
into
the
river
and
then,
of
course,
with
the
on
the
south
side
of
the
lot.
We
have
the
concrete
Factory
that
is
nearly
100
percent
concrete
surface
there.
I
Over
what
the
current
conditions
are
on
the
property
and
those
stormwater
structures
that
we
would
have
to
put
in
place,
those
are
also
required
by
the
ordinance
and
so
I
would
further
note
that
locating
those
structures,
let's
say
on
the
riverward
side
of
the
slope
itself,
would
require
a
variance,
and
so
that
is
not
a
solution
and
taking
any
of
these
three
any
single
one
of
these
three
difficulties
with
impervious
surface
I
think
we
could
easily
say
that
these
can
easily
be
mitigated
that
there's
a
solution
or
a
workaround
for
every
one
of
them.
I
It's
the
combination
of
the
three
that
is
really
insurmountable
here,
there's
just
not
enough
space
to
change
it
so,
for
example,
the
example
where
we,
instead
of
doing
a
single
story
family,
we
choose
some
single
story.
Dwelling
we
choose
something
that
is
two
levels
with
a
smaller
footprint
that
might
solve
the
impervious
service
surface
coverage
problem.
It
does
not
solve
all
of
those
problems,
so
that
is
our
practical
difficulty.
I
Now,
I
want
to
speak
about
the
compliance
with
conditions
for
variants
in
the
ordinances,
starting
with
the
Shoreland
ordinance.
The
Shoreland
overlay
has
four
requirements
for
for
variants,
the
first
of
which
is
easy.
It
requires
that
there's
development
currently
existing
on
the
slope
I
believe
we've
shown
that
there's
a
garage
there
there
are
retaining
wall
structures
there.
The
second
is
that
the
foundation
and
underlying
material
shall
be
adequate
for
the
slope,
condition
and
soil
type.
I
The
slope
condition
and
soil
type
for
most
of
this
property
is
concrete
and
dirt,
and
so,
as
I've
talked
about
being
careful
not
to
disrupt
that
slope,
the
design
we've
actually
picked
for
the
house
is
a
single
story
with
no
basement,
because
building
Excavating
to
put
a
basement
in
there
would
actually
disrupt
that
slope,
and
so
we
have
a
system
that
builds
the
house
on
Piers
instead
and
so
there's
no
disruption
of
the
slope.
I
I
And
the
fourth
point
is
that
the
view
from
the
developed
slope
from
the
protected
water
shall
be
consistent
with
the
natural
appearance
of
the
slope,
any
historic
areas,
and
with
this
with
the
surrounding
physical
context,
on
the
first
matter,
the
natural
appearance
of
the
slope
is
debatable.
I
think
because,
as
I've
indicated,
I
think
multiple
times.
This
is
not
really
a
natural
looking
slope,
it
has
been
heavily
modified.
I
There
is
a
lot
of
concrete
on
site,
and
so
and
then
we
have
the
situation
with
those
neighboring
retaining
walls
that
are
built
up
to
the
River's
Edge
that
truly
do
dominate
any
riverward
views
here
and
so
I
I
would
say
that
we're
compliant
in
the
sense
that
there
isn't
much
natural
appearance
to
be
had
here
and-
and
we
would
actually
like
to
with
the
approvals-
also
move
forward
on
improving
on
those
conditions,
so
we're
compliant
on
that.
There
are
no
historic
areas
that
I
I,
don't
think
that
have
been
identified
here.
I
So
we
don't
have
to
concern
with
that
one
and
then
the
the
surrounding
physical
context,
I
think
that
we're
doing
a
good
job
of
of
actually
complying
with
that.
Because
we're
placing
a
structure
in
between
these
big
neighboring
retaining
walls
and
all
this
development,
it's
a
single
story.
It
sets
in
there.
It
does
not
Tower
above
anything
and
so
I
think
we're
compliant
in
that
part
too,
and
so
that
is
the
requirements
for
variants
in
the
Shoreland
overlay
and
then
I
would
move
to
the
mrcca
requirements.
I
When
we're
talking
about
primary
conservation
areas,
that's
the
at
this
location
in
this
context
would
be
the
bluff,
Impact
Zone,
and
that's
where
we
have
that
bluff
line
identified
at
the
top
of
the
slope
and
then
from
there
I
believe
20
feet
on
either
side
of
that
forms
a
strip,
that's
considered
the
bluff,
the
Impact
Zone
and
then
what
I
understand
is
that
the
setback
requirement
is
actually
20
more
feet
from
that,
so
it
totals
40..
I
I
I
believe
that
damage
has
already
been
done
on
this
property
and
there's
not
really
much
more
that
we
can
do
to
make
it
worse,
we're
actually
seeking
to
improve
upon
those
conditions,
and
so
I
don't
believe
that
there's
much
that
we
would
be
violating
if
we
talk
about
preserving
that
in
in
on
the
topic
of
preservation
of
that
primary
Conservation,
Area
public
River
Corridor
views
I've
already
spoken
to
that
point,
I,
don't
believe,
there's
really
a
lot
of
view
to
be
had
here
and
so
again
we
can't
really
cause
further
harm.
I
I
Those
things
again,
as
I've
demonstrated,
don't
really
exist
at
this
location
in
any
substantive
form
that
we
would
consider
valuable
and
I
would
also
point
out
that
the
enforcement,
the
strict
enforcement
of
the
bluff
setbacks
here,
would
have
the
opposite
of
the
intended
effect
in
that
it
would
be
protecting
the
existing
conditions.
The
existing
unnatural
conditions,
and
that
gets
me
to
the
intent.
I
The
purpose
and
intent
of
the
mrcca
ordinance
as
it
is
written,
is
to
protect
those
kinds
of
features
from
development
to
protect
the
slope
from
development
that
would
cause
landslides
or
a
collapse
of
the
slope
to
protect
any
native
plantings
and
those
conditions
don't
exist
in
any
substantive
form
in
this
property.
So
I
believe
that
we
are
keeping
with
the
intent
and
purpose
of
the
ordinance
by
not
causing
further
harm
to
those
things.
I
I'm
sorry,
I
am
nearing
completion.
I
just
want
the
on
the
last
point
to
speak
of
the
park
future
that
we've
planned
for
this
because
I
know
it
is
something
that's
on
people's
minds,
especially
because
it
is
part
of
the
the
Minneapolis
2040
comprehensive
plan
that
designates
this
place
as
a
park.
That
is
something
that
my
wife,
Don
and
I
as
the
property
owners
have
considered
deeply,
because
we
agree
with
that
outcome.
I
We
believe
that
this
place
should
be
a
park,
and
the
other
part
of
the
con
of
the
consideration
for
us,
though,
is
when
do.
We
believe
that
it
is
possible
for
this
to
become
a
park,
and
that
is
where
we
look
at
the
trajectory
of
development.
That's
that's
already
occurred
along
the
riverfront
here,
starting
with
the
shear
Brothers
Lumber
site,
which
I
believe
was
announced.
I
The
acquisition
was
announced
in
2010,
and
it's
just
now,
13
years
later,
that
we're
starting
to
see
the
development
of
that
into
a
park
applying
that
sort
of
development
scope
to
the
rest
of
as
we
move
up
the
river.
I
We
see
that
there
are
Acquisitions
that
have
happened
in
the
intervening
years,
but
there's
still
no
new
developments
of
parks
in
there
and
that's
because,
as
we've
talked
to
the
park
board
about
this
they've
indicated
that
they
can't
actually
make
Parks
out
of
these
properties
without
some
kind
of
contingent
other
properties,
so
that
there's
enough
space
for
a
partner
so
that
we
believe
that
the
best
case
scenario
really
where
this
could
be
become
start
transitioning
into
an
actual
Park,
is
30
or
more
years
and,
and
we
believe,
that's
being
optimistic
and
so
noting
that
there's
a
concrete
Factory
on
one
side
of
the
property
and
there's
a
productive
apartment
building
on
the
other
side.
I
I
A
You
Commissioners
any
questions
for
the
applicant
before
we
move
on
I,
don't
see
any
oh.
G
Let's
go
ahead,
hi.
Thank
you
for
Coming
to
speak
before
us
today.
Is
this
a
potential
transition
to
Parkland?
Has
that
been
signed
approved
is
that
is
that
a
done.
G
I
Right,
okay,
so
the
process
is.
C
I
Way
that
works
and
we've
we've
been
talking
with
Adam
arvidson,
who
I
believe
might
have
talked
to
you.
The
way
that
process
works
is
that
we
have
to
enter
into
formal
agreement
with
the
park
board.
We
had
done
that
once
prior
and
then
pulled
out
when
the
when
the
appeal
happened,
but
we
would.
We
would
sign
this
memorandum
of
understanding
to
commit
to
that
process
and
then
the
park
board
has
to
actually
approve
or
ratify
that
to
authorize
staff
to
actually
talk
to
us.
I
So
at
this
point,
while
this
is
going
on,
we
haven't
actually
signed
that
mou,
but
it
is
our
intent
within
coming
weeks
that
we
would
actually
do.
G
That
but
there's
there's
no
commitment.
It's
just
it's
just
people
who,
at
this
present
moment
what's
before
us
today
is,
is
just
shall
we
say
a
back
room
deal
that
that's
it.
It's
been
talked
about.
It's
not!
It's
not
signed
on
paper
that
this
is.
I
Correct
I
can
tell
you
that
we
have
a
commitment
to
it
and
we
are
100
committed
to
that.
Future
Okay.
D
You
I'm
pleased
that
you
share
the
opinion
that
this
place
should
become
a
park
and
I
just
want
to
understand
what
you
said.
So
you
think
that
it'd
be
a
timeline
about
30
years,
so,
presumably
in
30
years,
then
the
structure
that
you're
asking
permission
to
be
billed
would
be
demolished
in
order
to
create
the
part.
Is
that
a
correct
understanding.
I
Yes,
I
I,
think
30
years
is,
is
really
optimistic,
honestly,
just
based
on
what
I
know
about
the
neighboring
properties
that
that's
the
time
frame
not
for
Park
acquisition
but
for
actual
work
on
a
park
to
begin
and
I
know
that
there
are
no
plans
with
the
neighboring
properties
on
any
of
this
to
make
that
possible.
So
the
the
I'm
thinking
I
I,
guess
what
I'm
assuming
would
happen
if
the
park
system
can't
actually
use
those
structures
that
are
there,
that
they
could
be
moved.
I
It's
a
house,
that's
sitting
on
concrete,
piers
and
I
believe
it
could
just
be
moved
to
another
location,
and
so
that's
I
guess
a
problem
that
would
have
to
be
figured
out
at
the
time.
Thank
you.
A
Sorry,
thank
you
we're
going
to
move
on
in
our
public
hearing.
So
if
there's
anyone
else
here
who
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item,
you
are
welcome
to
come
to
the
podium
now.
You
can
state
your
name
and
neighborhood
for
the
record
and
proceed
with
your
comments.
J
Gotcha
gotcha
president
Olson
and
members.
My
name
is
Whitney
Clark
I'm,
the
executive
director
of
friends
of
the
Mississippi
River.
We
are
an
organization
that
worked
to
to
get
the
merka
legislation
passed
at
the
state
legislature
and
work
closely
with
the
DNR
to
develop
these
murka
rules
and
work
very
closely
with
City
staff
to
develop
really
what
we
think
is
really
a
a
fine
ordinance,
a
very
well
developed
and
and
sensitive
ordinance
I'm
here,
to
testify
in
opposition
to
the
request
for
this
variance
to
the
America
overlay
district
and
the
bluff
setback.
J
The
applicant
requests
zero
foot
setback
where
40
is
required,
as
you've
heard,
making
a
mockery
of
the
standard
when
really
no
hardship
exists.
This
is
obviously
inconsistent
with
the
required
finding
that
the
extent,
location
and
intensity
of
the
variance
being
substantial
compliance
with
the
merka
plan
to
the
requested
variances
regarding
Park
planning,
we
believe
the
the
variance
variances
are
inconsistent
with
the
2040.
J
plan
by
foreclosing
the
goals
of
the
plan
relating
to
environmental
systems,
Parts
open
space
and
Equity.
The
2648
Marshal
is
a
critical
link
for
completing
the
continuous
Riverfront
trails
that
are
envisioned
in
the
plan,
and
this
would
foreclose
that
opportunity
as
you've
heard.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
K
Hello
president
Olson
and
Planning
Commission,
thank
you
for
having
me
here
today.
My
name
is
Forrest
eidbell
I
am
the
visitor
use
and
planning
program
manager
for
the
National
Park
Service
Mississippi,
National
River
and
Recreation
Area,
we're
headquartered
in
St
Paul,
now,
you've
heard
a
lot
about
merka
and
just
real
quick
merka
was
established.
The
idea
of
it
way
back
in
the
70s
and
now
we're
all
the
way
here
today.
K
K
K
Looking
at
this
parcel
here,
as
the
previous
speaker
mentioned,
very
little
effort
has
been
given
to
comply
with
the
setbacks
in
any
meaningful
way.
Actually
they're
extending
the
structure
over
the
bluff,
Impact
Zone
and
the
idea
that
covering
a
bluff
is
protecting.
It
does
not
take
into
account
the
important
Wildlife,
Scenic
and
other
important
parts
that
a
bluff
serves
on
the
Mississippi
River,
especially
when
we
consider
that
there
is
still
buildable
area.
K
So
those
are
my
two
quick
points
I'd
like
to
thank
you
again
and
remember
that
the
National
Park
Service
we're
here
because
of
the
national
significance
of
this
resource
and
we'd
like
to
say
that
that
it
is
very
important
that
is
protected,
even
though
this
may
seem
like
a
small
person,
a
small
parcel.
The
impacts
of
approving
this
variance
could
have
long
lasting
effects
throughout
the
city.
Thank
you.
K
L
L
Hello,
my
name
is
Edna
bursitis
I'm
here
from
Friends
of
the
riverfront
and
I
am
respectfully
request.
The
Planning
Commission
to
deny
the
variances
in
the
conditional
use
permit
I
was
I,
have
been
very
actively
involved
in
this
project,
and
I
can
say
that
I'm
going
now,
I'm,
sorry
but
I'm
choking
here
I
appreciate
that
the
city
has
noticed
that
there
is
no
change
from
the
previous
proposals.
That's
important,
because
when
the
city
reviewed
it
they've
had
findings
which
I
am
passing
out
in
case.
You
are
interested.
L
It
says,
with
regard
to
the
findings
applicable
to
both
variances,
the
applicant
failed
to
establish
so
their
practical
difficulties
in
complying
with
the
zoning
code.
The
applicant's
Plight
was
created
by
his
own
voluntary
design
choices.
These
design
preferences
drove
the
need
for
the
variances,
rather
than
any
alleged
topographical
feature
of
existing
Bluff
on
the
site.
So
that's
really
important.
L
He
could
have
changed
it.
He
has
said
he
could
change
it
and
he
could
make
something
that
will
work
and
would
comply
with
this
very
important
ordinance
and
law,
and
what
you
should
take
into
account,
too
is.
This
is
maybe
a
very
a
very
unique
and
special
part
of
the
shore
of
the
Mississippi
River.
The
parts
on
the
side
that
he's
saying
are
different
or
where
they
say,
there's
a
different
slope
have
been
filled.
Marshall
Terrace
was
filled,
I
think
it
was
dredged
things
from
the
upper
Harbor
Terminal.
L
This
may
be
a
natural
slope,
and
that
was
the
What
doug
Snyder,
who
is
had
been
the
head
of
the
Mississippi
water
management
organization
conveyed
when
he
looked
at
the
the
maps
for
this.
So
you
have
a
very
special
piece
of
property.
If
this
was
not
a
heavy
lift
for
the
city
council
to
turn
this
down,
only
one
person
voted
against
it.
It
was
a
person
who
had
been
in
the
Planning
Commission.
You
should
deny
this
application.
Thank
you.
A
M
Hello,
my
name
is
Tegan
Vale
and
I
am
here
on
behalf
of
the
board
of
directors
of
the
Marshall
Terrace
neighborhood
organization.
We
would
like
to
ask
that
the
commission
deny
our
applicant's
proposal.
We
believe
that
past
use
of
the
property
that
was
detrimental
to
the
riverfront
and
neighboring
detrimental
use
of
the
riverfront
does
not
make
it
permissible
to
have
the
have
the
applicant
receive
a
variance
for
this
and
detrimentally
impact
our
riverfront.
M
We
have
substantial
interest
in
the
neighborhood
as
a
whole
to
support
each
and
every
resident's,
access
to
clean
water,
to
a
protected
River
and
to
Future
expanded
Park
use,
while
it
could
be
30
years
50
years,
maybe
even
100
years
before
the
Minneapolis
Parks
Board
takes
over
that
land
to
turn
it
into
a
park
for
our
neighbors.
That
should
not
matter
because
that
land
is
dedicated
to
the
use
of
every
Minneapolis
resident
and
every
neighbor
every
neighborhood
Marshall
Terrace.
M
N
Hi,
my
name
is
Greg
elsner
I'm,
an
architect
with
shelter,
architecture,
I'm
part
of
the
design
team
that
worked
on
the
house.
I
said
part
of
the
team.
We
also
heavily
assisted
by
Metro
blooms,
landscape
architecture
and
Aquatica
civil
engineering,
who
did
the
site
plan
for
the
project
when
we
first
met
with
Andy
and
Don,
they
came
to
our
office
with
this
unique
idea
of
building
on
this
pretty
peculiar
strip
of
land.
N
So
their
goal
on
this
house
was
to
have
a
light
touch
both
on
where
the
house
is
sat
on
the
on
the
site
in
a
broader
touch
or
a
broader
view
of
footprint
of
a
small
house.
Small
energy
use.
N
As
we
said
before,
it's
a
1600
square
foot
house-
that's
been
cited
by
the
civil
engineers
and
landscape
architect
to
sit
on
top
of
that.
Existing
heavy
chunk
of
concrete
that's
been
added
to
the
site
and
and
that
I
guess
what
I
wanted
to
speak
to
you
about
was
when
we
first
met.
Don
and
Andy
was
super
compelling
was
that
this
project
wasn't
just
about
building
a
house
but
about
actually
improving
the
property,
and
you
can
see
that
that's
the
case.
As
you
know,
we're
increasing
native
planting
rainwater
retention
has
been
designed.
N
And
then
again
talking
to
this,
the
structural
system
using
a
light
touch
of
helical
peers
and
a
great
beam,
the
idea
of
it
just
sitting
above
everything,
that's
kind
of
been
added
to
the
site
through
industrial
use,
encasing
it
and
just
letting
the
small
single
story
structure
float
at
its
corner.
So
thank
you.
Thank.
E
So,
thanks
to
everybody
who
came
out
here
tonight,
I,
we
appreciate
all
the
public
comments.
We
learned
much
more
about
these
proposed
developments
by
hearing
from
you.
So
thanks
for
the
the
dialogue
tonight,
I
also
really
respect
many
of
the
organizations
who
have
been
here
today
and
the
work
that
you've
done
across
the
Twin
Cities
to
support
the
river.
So
thank
you
for
all
of
your
your
efforts.
E
Ultimately,
my
opinion
on
this
particular
application
is
that
it
meets
the
objectives
of
the
2040
plan.
I
agree
with
the
Practical
difficulties
required
for
the
variants
and
that
the
site
plan
meets
the
city
code,
I
appreciate
the
merka
conversation
and
about
the
designation
that
it
has.
Ultimately,
this
is
a
private
landowner
who
is
seeking
to
make
a
a
private
decision
about
his
property
that,
in
my
belief,
he
should
be
a
lot.
He
and
his
family
should
be
allowed
to
do.
E
We
are
you
know
we
are
in
a
difficult
position
here
in
the
Planning
Commission,
because
we
have
to
call
balls
and
Strikes.
We
don't
get
to
make
decisions
about
Properties
or
developments
because
we
don't
like
them.
We
have
to
make
decisions
about.
What's
put
in
front
of
us
and
whether
it
meets
whether
the
staff
recommendation
meets
what
we
think
is
in
the
in
the
essence
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
documents
and
city
code?
That's
in
front
of
us
and
so
I
appreciate
the
conversation.
E
I
I
also
appreciate
the
gentleman
who
owns
the
property
saying
he
is
willing
to
consider
this
as
Parkland
in
the
future.
To
me,
if
this
is
a
publicly
available
meeting
that
will
be
is
on
the
record.
I
hope
you
continue.
Those
conversations
with
the
park
board
follow
through
on
that
mou.
That
I
think
would
go
a
long
way
in
assuring
many
people
that
this
land
will
be
used
for
that
purpose.
When
the
time
comes,
that
said,
I
will
be
voting
to
support
staff
recommendation.
D
Thank
you,
I
was
on
the
commission
when
this
came
before
us
before
I
was
very
skeptical
about
it,
and
conflicted.
I
did
ultimately
vote
for
it
at
the
time
after
the
public
hearing
and
and
the
presentation
from
a
staff,
but
I
was
very
conflicted.
Afterward
and
after
the
council
voted
to
uphold
the
the
appeal
and
turn
it
down.
D
I
mean
that
signals
to
me
like
when
you're
calling
balls
and
Strikes
I
feel
like
we
should
be
adhering
to
the
council,
because
we're
subordinate
to
the
council
and
also
during
that
meeting
the
last
time
around.
As
was
was
noted
in
some
of
the
liters
we
received,
we
didn't
have
all
of
the
feedback
from
some
commenters.
D
At
that
time
it
came
the
day
of
and
but
the
meeting
couldn't
be
delayed,
but
I
feel
like
some
of
that
material
was
really
relevant
and
probably
played
into
the
reasons
why
the
council
upheld
the
appeal.
D
D
You
know
the
the
council
found
in
2021
that
the
proposed
building
location
is
not
consistent
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
related
to
the
Mississippi
River
Corridor
critical
area.
Building
on
the
edge
of
the
bluff
line
has
the
potential
for
detrimental
impacts
in
the
critical
area,
including
potential
impacts
on
the
stability
of
the
bluff
and
other
areas
prone
to
erosion.
I,
don't
see
any
reason
to
overturn
the
council's
verdict
on
that,
so
I
guess
I
would
propose.
D
We
can
have
commissioner
Campbell
make
the
motion
in
support
of
of
of
the
application,
and,
if
that
fails,
I
will
propose
to
deny
it
on
the
basis
that
I
just
named
I,
don't
have
any
objection
to
the
conditional
use
permit
and
don't
have
an
additional
finding
for
that.
My
I
think
my
finding
might
only
apply
to
the
other
two
variances,
so
I'll
seek
guidance
from
staff
if
or
when
commissioner
Campbell's
proposal
fails.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Meyer
I'm
just
gonna,
so
this
one
is
tricky
I'm
a
park
planner,
but
I
think
that
it's
hard
to
understand
how
our
what
is
it
mrcc
is
sort
of
inherent
like
if
it's
subject
to
a
practical
difficulty,
a
bluff
is
going
to
be
a
practical
difficulty
and
there's
Bluffs
All
Along,
The
River,
but
I
do
agree.
That
I
mean
it
does
meet
the
Practical
difficulty
requirements.
If
this
was
any
other
lot
in
the
city,
there
would
be
no
question
that
it
meets
the
Practical
difficulty.
A
So
I
guess
I
guess
my
point
is
you
know?
Maybe
there
is
another
way
another
way
to
give
this
teeth,
but
in
this
case
I
mean
I.
Think
that
if
we're
going
to
be
consistent
and
apply,
the
zoning
code
and
the
comprehensive
plan
consistently
throughout
the
city,
I
would
be
supporting
commissioner
Campbell's
motion.
A
Yeah
I
would
also
say
that
I
think
there
is
value
in
a
steward
of
a
property
taking
care
of
that
land
until
it
is
time
for
it
to
become
a
park.
I,
don't
know
how
much
you
know
teeth
there
are
in
in
an
mou
or
whatever
that
agreement
is,
but
if
that
is
the
case,
I
think
that's
a
great
way
to
eventually
bring
this
property
into
the
Minneapolis
Park
system.
So,
commissioner,
Campbell
I
can
make
a
motion
unless
you
want
to
oh
I'm.
Sorry,
commissioner
alpher.
G
Thank
you,
I
just
wanted
to
take
the
opportunity
to
speak.
I've
been
in
first
of
all,
I
think
I
wanted
to
say
that
I
I've
talked
with
Park
Board
staff.
Today
to
let
you
all
know
review
the
letter
in
the
packet
and
I
I
want
to
say
that
I'm
especially
excited
should
this
proceed
with
the
idea
of
pursuing
land
dedication
in
a
case
like
this,
as
as
part
of
our
Parkland
dedication
ordinance.
G
So
I
do
want
to
say
that
that
would
be
more
immediate
than
30
years
from
now
and
to
me
that
feels
important
as
we
think
about
the
importance
of
the
river
and
we've
talked
about
it
touched
upon
it
a
little
bit
today,
but
you
know
it's
water
is
so
important
and
our
river
is
so
important
and
I
appreciate
I
I
definitely
can
we
have
a
nationally
significant
River
here
that
we
need
to
protect,
and
so
that's
something
that
I'm
keeping
in
my
mind,
I
think
the
plans
they
look
gorgeous.
G
But
to
me
to
me,
we
really
need
to
protect
what
we
have
and
we
see
water
in
so
many
countries
around
the
world
is
causing
huge
issues
of
strife
and
I
think
we
need
to
protect
the
Mississippi
so
I.
What
I
am
seeing
here
is
in
line
with
what
commissioner
Meyer
is
has
noted
before
I
would
also
say
it
seems
to
me
to
be
a
design
preference,
not
a
hardship.
G
G
The
dates
are,
throwing
me
a
little
bit,
but
okay,
that's
from
the
DNR
from
an
old
letter,
but
a
new
letter
from
from
the
National
Park
Service
from
today,
as
well
as
some
new
information
about
the
2021
application
and
to
me
that
really
sways
me
that
it's
it's
it
that
the
the
what
the
park
board
staff
are
saying
you
know
ultimately
is
about
future
Parkland.
So
for
me,
I
guess:
I!
G
Don't
think
that
it
needs
a
everything
is
difficult
along
the
river.
But
when
do
we
have
to
start
protecting
the
river
and
I
think
that
day
starts
today,
so
I
won't
be
supporting
the
the
variances
as
as
recommended
by
staff.
A
Okay,
Ford,
Emerick
and
Meyer
in
that
order.
Oh
okay,
commissioner
Ford
you
want
to
go,
and
then
commissioner
emmerich.
O
O
Well
without
the
variances,
but
I
understand
staff's,
saying
that
we
have
to
use
the
same
standards
across
the
city
with
regards
to
the
to
the
substantial
difficulty,
so
I
think
we
can't
use
that
as
a
reason,
but
I
do
think
that
there's
a
problem
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
and
with
merka.
So
thank
you
I'll
be
voting
against
the
of
against
the
variances.
P
My
question
and
I
don't
know
who
might
be
able
to
answer
this,
for
me
is
the
existing
structure
on
that
part
of
the
property,
the
garage
that's
there
and
I
know
there
was
mentioning
of
a
driveway
that
potentially
contributes
to
runoff
into
the
river.
Is
the
the
the
plan
proposed
by
the
applicants
when
looking
at
merka
likely
to
have
a
less
detrimental
impact
on
the
bluff
compared
with
what
is
currently
there?
If
it
were
to
be
left,
as
is?
Is
that
a
question
that
anyone
can
provide
information
about.
H
Yes,
so
the
question
is,
if
you
know
I
honestly,
I
think
everyone
may
have
a
differing
opinion
about
whether
or
not
the
existing
conditions
are
more
detrimental
than
the
proposed
conditions.
You
know,
staff
did
use
the
existing
conditions
in
a
way
under
finding
number
three
which
talks
about
the
character
of
the
area
and
whether
or
not
it
would
have
an
impact
that
way.
No
modifications
are
really
proposed
to
that
existing
driveway.
That
goes
down
at
this
point
in
time.
So
with
that
in
mind,
it
would
be
you
know,
status
quo.
A
Oh
wait.
Do
we
have
I'll,
make
a
motion
to
adopt
staff
findings
and
we'll
see
what
happens
all
right?
Is
there
any
discussion
all
right,
seeing
none
I'll
ask
the
clerk
to
please
call
the
roll.
C
C
D
H
So
the
yeah,
if
you're
looking
so
the
variance
findings
are
and
I
just
want
to
make
a
point
of
clarification
because
we're
in
kind
of
a
unique
situation
here,
the
new
zoning
code
was
adopted
on
July
1st
2023.
That
has
new
variance
findings.
The
first
finding
and
a
lot
of
terms
have
been
used
here
tonight.
Hardship
is
not
a
finding
anymore
under
the
zoning
code
for
the
variance
findings.
The
first
binding
right
now
is
currently
about
whether
or
not
there's
a
practical
difficulty
in
complying
with
the
zoning
code.
H
This
application
was
deemed
complete
before
July
1st,
so
the
first
finding
for
the
variance
for
this
application
is
still
whether
or
not
there's
a
practical
difficulty
in
complying
with
the
zoning
code
due
to
circumstances
unique
to
the
site,
so
that
findings
would
need
to
be
made
to
the
contrary
of
what
the
staff
findings
include
in
the
staff
report
going
forward.
H
So,
just
if
you
hear
us
say
something
else,
you
know
on
a
different
item
later
there
are
projects
before
you
tonight
that
were
deemed
complete
before
July
1st
and
projects
that
were
deemed
complete
after
July
1st,
so
that
it
might
get
confusing
and
I'm,
not
probably
even
helping
answer
your
question
I'm
just
making
it
more
confusing
right
now.
So
clarification
on
that
for
the
variance
findings.
You
know
the
Shoreland
and
the
merka
findings
were
evaluated
together
in
the
staff
report.
H
You
could
do
the
same
in
making
alternate
findings
and
then
the
conditional
use
permit
findings.
You
know
you
can
adopt
staff
findings
and
approve
the
conditional
use
permit.
You
wouldn't
need
to
do
anything
with
that.
If
you
are
compelled
to
deny
the
conditional
use
permit,
then
you
would
need
to
make
a
summary
of
findings
against.
D
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
clarification
about
the
changes
that
come
after
July
1st.
It's
still
my
understanding
that,
in
order
to
reject
the
application,
we
only
need
to
dispute
one
of
the
findings.
We
don't
necessarily
need
to
find
that
there's
not
a
practical
difficulty,
because
I
am
persuaded
that
there
is
practical
difficulty
right.
D
D
Location
is
not
consistent
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
related
to
the
Mississippi
River,
critical,
Mississippi,
River,
Corridor,
critical
area,
then
I
would
add
there
or
the
Shoreland
overlay
ordinance
or
the
Minneapolis
2040
plan
and
building
on
the
edge
of
the
bluff
line
has
the
potential
for
detrimental
impacts
in
the
critical
area,
including
potential
impacts
on
the
stability
of
the
bluff
and
other
areas
prone
to
the
erosion.
D
D
One
but
I
think
we
can
just
approve
the
conditional
use
parameter,
if
that's
the
case,
so
yeah
that'll,
so
I'll
reread
it.
So
let
me
pull
up
the
agenda
again,
so
I
move
to
approve
the
conditional
use
permit,
deny
variances,
B
and
C
on
the
basis
of
the
finding
that
the
proposed
building
location
is
not
consistent
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
related
to
the
Mississippi
River
Corridor
critical
area,
the
Shoreland
overlay
ordinance
or
the
Minneapolis
2040
Plan
Building,
on
the
edge
of
the
bluff.
O
E
O
I
commissioner
Campbell
you're
correct.
They
are
guidelines
to
us
and
we
can
be
guided
by
them
and
I
think
that
they
can.
It
can
guide
us
in
interpreting
the
intent
and
spirit
of
America
of
the
city's
ordinance,
America
and
and
and
take
the
advice
of
the
of
the
DNR
and
of
the
Interior
departments.
A
All
right,
commissioner,
Meyer.
D
I'm,
just
gonna
repeat
that
I
feel,
like
the
council
isn't
hard
to
do
that
and
they
they
made
a
decision
and
I
think
my
motion
is
consistent
with
what
the
council
has
already
adopted.
Thank
you.
C
C
A
All
right
that
motion
passes
so
item
number
four
is
complete
and
we
will
move
on
to
item
number
five,
which
is
the
rezoning
of
Van
Buren,
Street
and
staff
is
Andrew
friends.
Q
Foreign
good
evening,
president
Olson
and
commissioners
before
today
is
a
proposed
rezoning
of
20
properties
located
on
the
east
side
of
Van
Buren
Street
Northeast
between
Spring
Street,
Northeast
and
Autumn
Street
Northeast
18
of
these
properties
are
developed
with
single-family
homes
and
two
are
developed
with
duplexes
they're
located
one
lot
off
of
Central
Avenue
to
the
east.
The
city
is
bringing
forward
this
proposed
rezoning
in
order
to
implement
An
approved,
comprehensive
plan
Amendment,
which
amended
the
built
form
guidance
for
the
subject
properties
from
Corridor
6
to
Interior
three.
Q
This
comp
plan
amendment
was
approved
by
the
city
council
on
January
12
2023
and
became
effective
with
it,
with
its
acceptance
by
the
Metropolitan
Council
on
February
21st
2023..
So
the
city
is
now
bringing
forward
the
corresponding
rezoning
application
to
implement
the
approved
comp
plan
amendment
by
rezoning
these
properties
from
the
corridor
6-built
form
overlay
District
to
the
interior.
Three
built
form
overlay
District,
retaining
the
urban
neighborhood
to
primary
District
No
development
is
proposed
at
this
time.
Q
This
is
just
a
reasoning
that
the
city
is
bringing
forward
to
implement,
that
adopted,
comprehensive
plan
Amendment
and
resolve
the
Regulatory
and
policy
conflict
that
this
today,
with
the
conflict
between
the
adopted
comp
plan
Amendment
and
the
current
zoning,
there
was
one
public
comment
received
in
regard
to
this
application,
which
you
should
have
received
today,
I'm
happy
to
talk
through
any
of
the
specific
findings.
If
you
have
any
questions
and
staff
is
recommending
approval.
Thank
you.
A
We'll
open
the
public
hearing
for
this
item
as
the
applicant
or
the
city
is
the
applicant
right
for
the
neighborhood
is
yeah.
Okay!
Well,
we'll
open
the
public
hearing
to
anyone
who
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item.
You'll
have
two
minutes
state,
your
name
and
neighborhood
for
the
record.
Please
hey.
R
Thank
you,
president
Olson
and
Commissioners.
My
name
is
Conrad
Lane,
zabakowski
and
I
live
in
ward
3
and
travel.
This
Corridor
of
Central
Avenue
Northeast,
often
I'm
asking
you
today
to
vote
to
oppose
and
not
recommend
this
comprehensive
plan
Amendment
rezoning,
because
it
is
counter
to
Minneapolis
2040
goals
originally
of
increasing
availability
of
homes,
especially
more
affordable
homes
near
Transit,
you'll
notice
that
in
the
map
there's
two
gaps
where
Apartments
were
already
approved.
R
As
you
may
know,
the
Metro
Transit
10
bus
route
currently
stops
in
the
corner
of
Spring
Street
Northeast
and
Central
Avenue
Northeast
in
August
this
year.
Actually,
tomorrow
or
whatnot,
Route
10
will
see
improved
headways
to
every
10
minutes
with
new
investments
in
transit
and
Metro.
Transit
is
planning
to
upgrade
those
stops
to
full
aprt
service
in
the
next
few
years
with
the
Metro
f-line
Bus
Rapid
Transit.
There
are
also
plans
in
the
works
to
add
dedicated
Transit
Lanes
with
the
MnDOT
reconstruction
of
Central
Avenue.
R
A
lot
is
happening
with
Transit
and
we
can
have
all
the
invested
investment
be
wasted
on
our
rezoning
that
reduces
housing
options
and
makes
living
in
Minneapolis
more
expensive,
not
more
affordable.
Please
vote
to
oppose
and
not
recommend
this
comprehensive,
planned,
Amendment
rezoning.
You
do
have
a
choice
in
this.
It's
coming
before
you,
you
have
a
choice.
Thank
you.
A
D
I
testified
against
it
multiple
times
as
a
regular
citizen
and
I
feel
it
was
a
terrible
decision
to
down
Zone
an
area
near
very
high
quality
public
transit
and
with
the
f-line
coming
even
better
Transit
soon.
But
that's
really
not
the
question.
That's
before
us
today,
the
the
policy
decision
has
already
been
made.
The
comp
plan
has
been
passed.
The
decision
before
us
today
is
basically
to
decide
whether
you
know
interior
three.
Zoning
is
consistent
with
the
the
comp
plan
that
the
council
adopted.
The
Planning
Commission
is
subordinate
to
the
council.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Meyer.
A
lot
of
us
didn't
support
that,
but
we
need
to
align
the
zoning
code
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
Commissioner
Ford.
A
Q
Foreign
good
evening,
president
Olson
and
commissioners
before
you
today
are
three
applications
to
allow
a
new
planned
unit
development
at
1201
through
1318
Jackson,
Street,
northeast
and
807
Broadway
Street
Northeast.
This
property
consists
of
six
Parcels,
which
total
approximately
6.8
acres
in
area.
Q
The
1201
Jackson
Street
northeast
parcel
is
currently
developed
with
a
five-story
Grain
Mill
and
a
grain
elevator
which
were
formerly
operated
by
General
Mills
and
are
currently
vacant,
and
the
807
Broadway
Street
Northeast
parcel
is
developed
with
two
former
industrial
buildings
that
have
been
adaptively
reused
for
commercial
uses,
including
about
150,
000
square
feet
of
office,
space,
a
food
and
beverage
use
and
a
brewery.
There
are
four
smaller
Parcels
included
in
the
project
site.
That's
up
at
the
the
Northern
end
that
are
currently
undeveloped.
Q
All
six
properties
are
located
in
the
pr1
production,
mixed
use,
primary
district
and
the
corridor
six
built
form
overlay
District.
The
applicant
is,
as
I
mentioned
before,
proposing
to
establish
a
new
planned
unit
development
consisting
of
these
parcels
and
they're,
proposing
to
construct
a
new
three-story
parking
ramp
and
to
convert
the
former
Grain
Mill
to
accommodate
new
commercial
uses,
primarily
a
new
Museum
and
entertainment
venue
use
along
with
space
for
office,
food
and
beverage
uses
and
retail
space.
There
are
three
land
use
applications
before
you
today.
Q
The
first
is
a
conditional
use
permit
to
establish
the
planned
unit
development
consisting
of
these
six
Parcels.
The
applicant
is
not
seeking
any
PUD
Alternatives,
so
they
are
just
required
to
earn
the
base
number
of
PUD
points
of
10
and
staff
has
recommended
awarding
PUD
points
for
conservation
of
the
built
environment
with
the
existing
buildings
that
they
are
adaptively
reusing,
as
well
as
for
The
Pedestrian
improvements,
PUD
points
and
I
would
draw
your
attention
with
that.
To
condition
number
two
on
the
conditional
use.
Q
The
second
application
is
site
plan
review
for
the
proposed
parking
ramp,
as
well
as
two
small
additions
to
the
the
former
Grain
Mill.
Building.
Those
additions
are
circulation,
stack
editions,
one
on
either
side
of
the
building.
That
would
allow
new
staircases
and
a
new
elevator
in
order
to
allow
the
proposed
uses
of
the
building
under
the
building
code,
and
then
the
third
application
is
a
preliminary
plant
to
consolidate
those
six
existing
Parcels
into
two
resultant
parcels.
Q
In
addition
to
the
three
applications
that
are
before
you
today,
there
is
also
one
administrative
land
use
application
associated
with
this
project.
The
applicant
is
Seeking
a
discretionary
travel
demand
management
plan,
the
proposed
uses
and
and
their
sizes
for
this
project
require
a
minor
tdmp
under
the
zoning
code,
but
in
consultation
with
Public
Works.
Q
Really
the
public
works
department
determined
that
a
discretionary
tdmp
should
be
required
for
the
Project,
based
on
the
potential
for
Unique
Travel
demand
associated
with
the
museum
and
entertainment
venue,
so
the
staff
has
required
a
discretionary
tdmp,
including
a
formal
traffic
study
and
earning
six
TDM
points
under
the
zoning
code.
Q
I'm
happy
to
walk
through
the
findings
and
I
know,
commissioner
findings.
If
you
have
any
questions
on
them,
I
know,
commissioner
Meyer
requested
some
more
detailed
information
on
the
alternative
compliance,
so
I
will
run
through
that
now.
There's
quite
a
few
alternative
compliance
requests
and
I
can
I
can
walk
through
all
of
those.
The
first
one
is
is
for
blank
walls,
so
the
proposed
parking
ramp
would
include
blank
walls
of
25
feet
or
more
in
length
on
its
first
and
second
floor,
north
south
and
west
elevations.
Q
The
blank
walls
here
are
proposed
in
areas
where
firewalls
are
required
by
the
building
code,
where
openings
are
are
not
permitted.
So
if
we
look
at
the
location
of
the
parking
ramp
here,
you
see
that
there
are
some
locations
where
it's
very
close
to
other
existing
buildings
on
the
site
and
other
locations.
Q
Where
it's
close
to
the
property
lines
with
the
adjacent
property
to
the
Northwest,
so
in
those
locations,
they're
required
by
the
building
code
to
have
firewalls
with
no
openings
staff
has
you
know
recognizes
that
the
applicant
is
working
very
hard
to
adaptively
reuse,
the
existing
buildings
on
the
site
and
the
ramp.
You
know
the
location
of
the
ramp
is
really
driven
by
the
location
of
those
existing
buildings,
and
with
that
you
know
they
have
these
requirements
in
order
to
comply
with
the
building
code.
Q
So
staff
has
recommended
approval
of
the
alternative
compliance
related
to
blank
walls,
but
has
also
recommended,
as
a
condition
of
approval,
that
all
of
those
blank
walls
be
mitigated
through
some
combination
of
metal
screens
living
walls
or
murals.
Q
There
is
also
alternative
compliance
required
for
exterior
materials
if
I
can
get
there.
The
proposed
Edition
here
we
go.
The
proposed
Edition
on
the
southwest
side
of
the
building
is
shown
in
their
application
materials
as
being
constructed
of
plane
faced
concrete
block
which
is
not
permitted
facing
the
public.
Q
Right-Of-Way
staff
found
that
you
know,
given
this
location
visible
from
the
12th
Avenue
Northeast
right
of
way
adjacent
to
the
primary
entrance
to
the
museum
at
kind
of
the
most
active
portion
of
the
site
plane
face,
concrete
block
was
not
appropriate,
so
staff
is
recommending
denial
of
that
can
of
that
alternative
compliance
request
and
a
condition
of
approval
that
the
plane
face
concrete
block,
be
replaced
with
a
permitted
exterior
material
like
a
metal
panel
or
a
different
masonry
product.
Q
The
project
also
requires
alternative
compliance
for
window
coverage
in
three
locations,
so
one
of
those
is
well
two
adjacent
to
each
other.
Are
the
food
and
beverage
spaces
on
the
south
elevation
adjacent
to
12th
Avenue
Northeast?
So
you
can
see
those
that's
kind
of
the
is
going
to
show
up,
but
it's
not
going
to
show
up.
But
if
you
look
in
the
upper
left
hand
on
the
screen,
that's
the
South
elevation.
So
it
would
be
the
the
first
floor
there
that
length
of
Windows
that
that
match
there.
Q
So
the
those
those
spaces
would
be
at
16
and
29.2
percent
window
coverage
where
30
is
required
and
then
on
the
upper
floors.
On
the
North
elevation,
so
that
would
be
the
the
elevation
shown
in
the
upper
right
hand.
Corner
of
your
screen.
Q
10
window
coverage
is
required
there
and
they're
at
4.2
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
these
alternative
compliance
requests.
You
know
this
existing
building
is
is
well
below
all
of
its
existing
window
requirements
and
the
applicant
is
adding
a
lot
of
new
window
area,
they're
reopening
a
lot
of
historic
windows
that
have
been
infilled
and
given
the
given
the
type
of
building,
it's
adaptive,
reuse
and
the
variety
of
window
requirements
that
it's
subject
to
staff
thinks
that
the
windows
as
proposed
by
the
applicant
are
appropriate.
Q
There
is
also
alternative
compliance
required
to
the
site
plan
review
standards
for
parking
garages
to
a
couple
of
those
different
standards,
one
related
to
active
functions
and
the
proportion
of
the
garage
that
can
be
the
frontage
of
the
garage
that
can
consist
of
of
parking.
So
normally
that
is
limited
to
30
percent.
Q
Q
You
know
in
this
case
the
parking
ramp
is
located
primarily
at
the
interior
of
the
site,
so
it
has
two
frontages.
It
has
a
very
short
section
on
Quincy
and
it
has
a
very
short
section
at
the
Johnson
and
12th
intersection,
and
that
section
at
Johnson
12th
is,
is
set
back
into
the
site
in
both
locations.
The
the
width
of
the
parking
ramp
is
just
the
width
of
a
double
loaded,
Drive
aisle-
and
you
know
these-
these
Provisions
were
created
with
the
intent
of
mitigating
long
Garage
frontages
on
public
right-of-ways.
Q
When
you'd
have
you
know
if
this
ramp
were
were
oriented
so
that
one
of
the
lengths
of
it
was
was
fronting,
Quincy
or
or
12th?
That
would
be
where
we
would
want
to
see.
You
know
parking
constitute
no
more
than
30
of
that
front
edge
in
this
case.
Q
They
just
have
the
end,
and
certainly
in
this,
in
this
case,
the
the
length
of
that
parking
Frontage
is
less
than
what
we
might
see
in
a
ramp
that
complies
with
this
standard
that
that
has
a
longer,
you
know,
has
a
more
typical
length
of
Frontage.
Q
The
the
parking
garage
also
does
not
comply
with
the
standard
that
requires
that
vehicles
and
garage
lighting
be
fully
screened.
It
would
be
open
in
along
much
of
its
length.
Staff
has
recommended
denial
of
that
request
for
alternative
compliance.
Complying
with
that
standard
is
reasonable,
and
staff
has
recommended
as
a
condition
of
approval.
The
metal
screens
or
living
walls
be
installed
along
all
open
areas
along
the
ramp.
Q
And
the
project
does
also
require
alternative
compliance
for
General
Landscaping,
based
on
the
number
of
canopy
trees.
In
this
case,
you
know
it's
a
it's
a
planned
unit
development,
the
Landscaping
metrics,
are
measured
across
the
entire
site
as
a
whole.
Q
The
807
Broadway
site
is
about
half
of
the
Project's
total
total
site
that
property
went
through
a
review
process.
It
went
through
PDR
and
had
Landscaping
improvements
done
about
six
years
ago
and
there's
very
little
work
proposed
to
that
property.
So,
if
we
were
to
evaluate
you
know
under
the
zoning
code,
we
evaluate
the
site
as
a
whole,
but
if
you
were
to
evaluate
just
this
proportion
of
the
site,
you
know
the
the
resultant
lot
too.
Q
They
would
be
in
compliance
with
those
General
Landscaping
requirements,
and
so
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
that
alternative
compliance.
Although
I
would
note
that
for
the
parking
and
loading
Landscaping
screening
requirements,
there
are
just
a
couple
additional
trees
required,
and
so
we
have
a
condition
requiring
a
couple:
more
canopy
trees,
reflecting
those
parking
and
loading
landscaping
and
screening
requirements,
and
that
would
be
the
next.
The
next
request.
Q
In
this
case
you
know
they
they
are.
They
have
this
parking
area
proposed
along
12th,
and
then
there
is
a
loading
area
at
the
far
Southeast
corner
of
the
property.
Q
The
parking
area
along
12th
has
a
landscaped
yard
that
meets
the
required
depth
of
a
landscape
yard,
but
it
does
not
provide
a
vegetative
screening
of
three
feet
in
height
or
60
opacity,
and
it
does
not
well
neither
you
know
the
parking
and
loading
area
as
a
whole
does
not
meet
the
standard
that
requires
one
canopy
tree
for
every
25
feet
of
parking
or
loading
Frontage
on
12th
and
then
for
the
loading
area.
There's
no
landscape
yard
at
all,
because
that's
accessed
by
maneuvering
into
it.
Q
There's
no
area
other
than
maneuvering
area
between
that
loading
area
and
the
right-of-way.
So
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
alternative
compliance
related
to
not
providing
a
landscaped
yard
adjacent
to
that
loading
area,
but
is
recommending
denial
of
alternative
compliance
related
to
the
screening
adjacent
to
the
parking
area
and
the
number
of
canopy
trees
relative
to
the
parking
and
loading
Frontage
and
has
recommended
conditions
of
approval
corresponding
to
that.
Q
So
that
is
all
of
the
alternative
compliance
I
know
it's
a
lot
but
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
other
questions
or
highlight
anything
else,
and
staff
is
recommending
if
I
can
get
to
the
end
again
approval
of
the
three
applications
subject
to
the
conditions
of
approval,
as
listed
in
the
staff
report.
Thank
you.
Thank.
D
D
The
alternative
compliance
for
the
blank
walls
and
the
Landscaping
this
is
in
the
Northeast
Arts
District,
so
I
mean
I
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
you
know
we're
doing
everything
we
can
to
improve
the
visible
appearance
around
there.
I
don't
know
I,
don't
know
if
there
are
any
murals
proposed
or
if
that
would
be
compatible
with
it.
If
that's
something
that
we
could
require,
as
as
part
of
the
alternative
compliance
and
then
for
the
Landscaping
I
I
would
appreciate
it.
If
you
can
repeat
it
and
expand
on
it
like.
D
Q
I
I
appreciate
that
commissioner
Meyer,
when
it
comes
to
the
blank
walls,
denying
alternative
compliance
for
the
for
the
blank
walls
would
require
some
form
of
articulation
or
materials
change
in
the
ramps
exterior.
The
ramp
is
already
as
narrow
as
it
can
be,
while
complying
with
the
building
code
and
meeting
their
intended
circulation
for
the
ramp.
So
we
could,
you
know
I
mean
you,
you
could
deny
that
you
have.
Q
You
have
the
ability
to
do
so,
but
understand
that
the
the
result
of
that
would
be
a
very
substantial
change
to
the
design
of
the
ramp.
That
would
have
a
significant
impact
on
its
functionality
and
its
cost.
Q
So
the
you
know,
the
the
presence
of
the
of
those
blank
walls
there
is
is
is
is
inherent
to
the
the
the
the
footprint
of
of
the
ramp
and
so
staff
staff
did
recommend
as
a
condition
of
approval
that
all
of
those
blank
walls
be
mitigated
I,
you
know
covered
with
some
type
of
metal
screen
living
wall
or
mural.
You
know
I
think
the
applicant
can
potentially
speak
to
their
intent
or
their
their
their
tenants.
Q
Intent
to
you
know
how
they
might
comply
with
that,
but
that's
what
staff
has
recommended
and
then
on
the
Landscaping.
So
it's
the
canopy
tree
requirement
that
they
are
not
fully
meaning
and
63.
Canopy
trees
are
required
for
the
site
as
a
whole.
They've
proposed
24.
Q
Q
That
tree
requirement
is
calculated
across
the
entire
site,
which
includes
the
807
Broadway
parcel,
which
went
through
landscaping
and
screening
when
it
was
converted
from
MPS
into
the
applicant's
current
use
of
the
property,
so
that
went
through
PDR
and
and
went
through
the
you
know,
landscaping
and
screening
administrative
review,
and
there
are
no
changes
proposed
to
that
property,
except
at
the
Northern
end.
If
we
were
to
look
only
at
the
portion
of
the
site
that
is
proposed
to
be
significantly
altered
as
part
of
this
project,
the
canopy
tree
requirement
would
be
I
know.
Q
20
would
be
23.,
which
is,
which
is
what
they
have,
but
they've
they've
only
proposed
11
canopy
trees
on
that
northern
part.
So
you
know
they're
not
necessarily
fully
meeting
it
for
for
that
portion
of
the
property,
but
you
know:
they've
also
proposed
five
coniferous
trees
and
seven
ornamental
trees
on
that
portion
of
the
property.
You
know
the
their
their
site
plan
is,
is
really
driven
by
the
location
of
these
existing
buildings.
Q
And
you
know
the
resultant
site
plan
creates
areas
that
are
between
buildings
that
are
not
really
well
suited
for
canopy
tree
growth
in
the
long
term,
and
so
staff
staff
is
supportive
of
of
the
alternative
compliance
request.
You
know
we
do.
We've,
we've
recommended
27
canopy
trees,
because
we've
recommended
those
three
additional
ones
for
the
parking
and
loading
Frontage,
but
that's
how
staff
has
approached
it.
Thank
you.
G
Yeah
I
do
have
a
question
and
it
pertains
to
this
application,
but
I've
also
seen
this
come
up
several
times
where
I
see
pedestrian
improvements
being
used
to
get
TDM
points
and
pedestrian
improvements
for
Planned
unit
or
plan.
Yes,
planned
unit
development
plan,
PUD
points
there
we
go
and
honestly
to
me.
G
That
seems
like
a
little
bit
like
double
dipping
like
getting
getting
points
for
doing
one
set
of
things
and
that
just
something
you
know,
I,
don't
know
if
you
could
speak
to,
are
they
substantially
different
The
Pedestrian
improvements
that
are
qualifying
for
TDM
points
as
opposed
to
the
Pud
s.
Q
Yeah,
thank
you,
commissioner
Alper.
Yes,
they
they
are
different,
so
the
The
Pedestrian
Improvement
PUD
points
are
pretty
open-ended.
They
allow
the
applicant
and
staff
and
the
commission
to
to
look
kind
of
kind
of
broadly
at
at
pedestrian
improvements.
They
don't
have
specific
standards.
Q
The
TDM
pedestrian
improvements
are
very
specific,
they're
restricted
to
the
right
of
way,
and
they
require
meeting
two
out
of
two
out
of
three
standards
related
to
widening
a
substandard
sidewalk
or
providing
a
sidewalk
where
there's
an
existing
sidewalk
Gap,
providing
appropriate
Street
furniture
and
providing
an
enhanced
Landscaping
Zone,
always
within
the
right-of-way,
and
then
the
beauty
points
can
be
can
be
broader.
In
this
case,
they
are
eliminating
a
sidewalk
gap
on
the
north
side
of
12th
Avenue
Northeast.
Q
That's
that's
in
the
right-of-way
they're
constructing
a
new
public
sidewalk
along
the
length
of
their
property.
That's
what
they're
doing
for
the
for
the
TDM
pedestrian
Improvement
points,
and
with
that
you
know
they.
They
have
not
shown
enhanced
Landscaping
here,
but
they
they
will
need
to
do
so
and
get
approval
of
it,
both
by
planning
staff
and
by
Public
Works
before
the
the
TDM
will
get
final
approval
for
the
Pud
points.
Q
We've
considered
that
elimination
of
that
sidewalk
Gap,
as
well
as
primarily
the
through
block
pedestrian
connection
that
would
would
cut
you
know
almost
through
the
middle
of
this
of
this
super
block.
G
Thanks
for
that,
it's
great
to
hear
the
standards
for
TDM
points,
but
also
it
does
sound
like
there
is
some
some
credit
being
applied
from
That
Sidewalk
with
the
PO
dew
points
too,
did
I
understand
that
correctly.
Q
Commissioner
Alper
I
mean
we.
We
mentioned
it
in
our
findings.
If,
if
the
Planning
Commission
wanted
to
exclude
it,
I
think
I
think
they
would
in
staff's
opinion
they
would
still
be
meeting
the
standards
for
the
beauty
points.
So
I
don't
know
that
it.
It
makes
a
difference
in
in
the
outcome,
but
the
Planning
Commission
could
make
an
alternate.
G
A
All
right
so
could
we
amend
the
beauty
points
specific?
Well,
maybe
we
should
get
into
the
public
hearing
first,
the
commission
has
the
ability
to
amend
the
findings
on
the
conditional
use.
Permit
wait,
correct.
Q
President
Olson,
that
is
correct,
yes,
okay
and
and
because
that
standard
is
is
relatively
open-ended.
You
certainly
could
come
up
with
a
different
condition
than
staff.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you,
I,
don't
see
any
more
questions,
so
we
will
move
on
to
the
public
hearing
I'll
open.
The
public
hearing
is
the
applicant
here,
and
would
they
like
to
come
forward
and
speak
on
this
item.
S
Good
evening
my
name
is
Charlie.
Nestor
I'm,
with
Hillcrest
development
address
is
2424.
Kennedy
Street
Northeast
represent
the
ownership
of
both
807
and
1201
Jackson
in
combination
and
we're
here,
it's
a
difficult
site
and
we
specialize
in
bringing
buildings
back
to
life
and
that's
what
we've
tried
very
hard
to
do
with
both
the
Highlight
Center,
which
was
the
former
School
District
headquarters,
as
well
as
with
the
former
Purity
oats
and
General
Mills
facility.
S
There
are
a
variety,
as
we've
seen,
a
lot
of
items
that
go
into
building
the
getting
the
conditions
permit
to
begin.
The
next
phase,
which
would
be
some
off
street
parking
which
ultimately,
our
goal
is
to
resolve
the
large
block
of
land
that
we
own
on
Quincy
Street,
which
everybody,
including
ourselves,
wants
to
see,
see
something
a
little
denser
out
there
in
the
future.
So
we're
excited
about
the
potential
clients
and
tenants
that
will
be
coming
here.
They
are
Arts
based.
S
We
fully
expect
that
they
will
have
strong
opinions
on
providing
artwork
and
murals
on
the
the
walls,
I
hope,
you'd
answer
any
questions.
A
D
Can
you
say
more
about
about
the
murals
like?
Do
you
have
any
diagrams
about
where
they
would
be
placed
or
I
mean
sure
you
know
I've
gone
through
the
staff
report
and
just
Stone
say
as
much
detail
as
I
was
hoping
for
it
for
a
project
of
this
magnitude,
yeah.
S
So
when
we
talk
about
that
pedestrian,
the
splitting
the
super
block,
I
think,
is
how
we
phrase
it
between
the
building
and
the
parking
ramp.
I.
Think
that's
where
we'll
look
to
have
the
most
active
use,
putting
in
some
artwork
and
living
walls,
but
you're
also
on
the
North,
so
we're
fighting
mother
nature
in
terms
of
what
can
grow
there.
It
will
be
a
walkway,
so
the
the
group
that
we're
working
with
is
talking
about
doing
some,
some
digital
and
some
more
visual
virtual
artwork,
the
walls
that
face
the
North
or
the
West.
S
Since
that
is
a
very
tight
sight,
we
want
to
create
and
put
something
that
will
be,
that
will
be
sturdy
enough
and
that
won't
become
a
an
area
for
tagging.
So
I
think
a
combination
of
Steel
will
work
with
the
the
staff
on
the
right
material
so
that
we
don't
have
to.
We
want
to
place
the
murals
as
opposed
to
somebody
else,
placing
murals
on
the
on
the
building.
So
we've
done
many
other
things
in
the
in
the
area,
including
highlight
Center
and
Crown
Center
1201
1209,
the
Davis
Frost
Lindsay,
Doyle
Factory.
S
So
the
I
mean
if
we
can
put
more
more
Landscaping
on
the
site.
We
certainly
will
the
the
area
in
question
where
we'll
be
doing
we'll,
be
working
with
Public
Works
to
build
a
new
new
sidewalk.
Essentially,
our
building
is
a
zero
lot
line
along
the
South
edge
of
of
12th.
So
much
like
what
we
did
when
we
redeveloped
the
Highlight
Center
we
put
in
a
a
new
corridor
from
the
corner
of
Broadway
to
the
end
of
our
property.
That
was
a
sidewalk.
S
We
worked
with
the
city
staff
and
Public
Works
to
build
in
that
easement
area.
There's
some
green
space
and
our
desire
would
certainly
be
to
try
and
do
that
in
that
same
area
along
12th,
but
we're
also
fighting
kind
of
depth
of
the
area
and
traffic
mother
nature
and
snow.
Where
we
can
we'll
certainly
do
more.
We
have
green
roofs
over
at
807
Broadway.
We
haven't
really
looked
at
that
at
12
1201,
just
because
they're
they're
difficult
to
manage
and
maintain
thank.
D
A
Thank
you
we'll
move
on
in
the
public
hearing.
If
there's
anyone
else
here
who
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item,
you
can
come
forward.
You
have
two
minutes
to
speak
on
this
item.
A
O
Report
I
want
to
comment
to
Hillcrest
development
has
been
a
long
time
partner
in
the
City
of
Minneapolis.
They
were
working
in
Minneapolis
at
redeveloping
Old
buildings
and
building
new
buildings.
At
a
time
when
we
could
not
find
developers
willing
to
do
that
in
Minneapolis
and
so
I
commend
the
history
you've
had
in
Minneapolis
and
I.
Thank
you
for
it.
D
I,
don't
feel
ready
to
vote
for
the
motion.
Yet
you
know
this
is
a
major
project
with
significant
negative
externalities
on
the
community,
and
you
know
I
feel,
like
I
said
that
it
should
have
gone
to
the
committee
of
the
whole.
It's
the
developer's
Choice,
whether
they
choose
to
do
that.
D
They
can
choose
to
not
take
the
time
to
come
to
the
committee
hole
of
the
whole,
but
it
is
a
risk
for
them
if
they
don't-
and
you
know,
views
some
of
the
discussion
that
could
have
happened
otherwise
to
get
into
more
detail
about
things
like
murals
and
trees
and
windows,
and
things
like
that,
I
don't
feel
ready
to
Grant
alternative
compliance
for
each
of
them
and
we
have
the
regulations
that
we
do
to
protect
against
the
negative
effects
and
especially
in
an
area
which
has
very
little
landscaping.
D
That's
part
of
the
Northeast
Arts
District
I'd
really
like
to
see
more
detail
before
before
we
grant
that
alternative
compliance,
so
I'm
not
going
to
vote
for
the
motion,
as
is
if
it
was
modified
to
strike
some
of
the
alternative
compliance
I
would
be
willing
to.
But
yeah
I
can't
vote
it
for
it,
as
is.
Thank
you.
G
Thank
you,
yeah
I,
too
notice
lots
of
alternative
compliance,
kind
of
feel
like
it's
putting
trying
to
put
a
square
peg
in
a
round
hole
here.
G
I
want
to
mention
some
things
here
before
you,
which
impact
my
my
thoughts
on
this.
You
know
our
city.
We
declared
a
climate
emergency
in
2019
in
2022
as
part
of
the
park
board.
We
chose
a
strategic
direction
of
act
boldly
for
climate
future.
G
We
are
as
a
city,
we
just
passed
the
climate
Equity
action
plan
and
then
the
hottest
day
on
Earth
ever
recorded
was
July,
6
2023.
So,
given
all
those
things,
I
I'm
disappointed,
frankly
to
see
a
net
increase,
almost
double
the
amount
of
parking
at
this
site.
G
You
know
I
just
noted
that
it,
our
Max
vehicle
parking
for
surface
parking,
calls
for
100
surface
parking.
It's
currently
at
274,
going
to
down
to
201.
So
that's
in
the
right
direction,
but
with
this
parking
ramp
it
goes
up
and
of
course,
the
parking
ramp
calls
for
lots
of
alternative
compliance.
So
at
this
point,
I
also
am
not
ready
to
vote
in
support
of
the
motion
as
made
and
would
be
interested
in
alternative
striking
some
of
those
alternative
compliance
pieces.
A
I
I
think
that
I
would
some
more
support.
Commissioner
Ford's
motion
I
would
like
to
suggest
or
state
of
friendly
Amendment,
commissioner
Ford,
if
you're
willing
to
hear
it
on
the
conditional
use.
Permit
item
number
two,
which
is
the
through
block
pedestrian
connection.
A
J
A
Said
I
think
the
seconder
would
also
have
to
accept
it.
Okay,
I
just
think
that
you
know
this
is
a
big
change,
but
it's
exciting
to
see
this
space
developing.
It
sounds
like
there's
some
cool
things
that
would
be
going
in
here.
The
maximum
number
of
parking
spaces
here
is
900,
something
so
I.
Don't
love
to
see
a
giant
parking
ramp
go
in,
but
I
think
that
you
know
they
are
accommodating
a
lot
of
uses.
A
lot
of
sort
of
intense
uses
so.
A
All
right
any
other
discussion,
or
should
we
vote
on
the
motion.
B
A
All
right,
seeing
nine.
D
D
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
expand
a
little
bit
on
my
alternative
to
the
motion
would
be
so
I
I
would
propose
to
deny
alternative
compliance
to
the
blank
walls,
to
the
windows
and
to
the
Landscaping
requirements,
noting
that
the
applicant
could
return
and-
and
you
know,
submit
the
application
again
with
more
detail
about
what
they
would
provide
and
that
would
give
them
the
opportunity
to
hear
from,
for
example,
commissioner
marwa,
who
is
in
a
has
a
lot
of
expertise
on
that.
But
that's
just
wanted
to
clarify
that.
That
would
be
my
alternative.
Thank
you.
C
A
T
T
Staff
does
not
see
the
the
use
to
be
detrimental
or
injurious
to
the
surrounding
area.
There's
a
management
plan
in
place.
That's
been
submitted
to
you,
24
7,
Staffing
versus
social
workers,
counselors
and
mental
health
practitioners.
All
activities
will
take
place
in
the
building.
There's
the
waiting
room,
a
control
area
within
the
building
where
patients,
where
just
rate
rare
patients,
enter
the
building,
and
there
are
site
improvements
planned
to
bring
the
site
closer
to
compliance
with
zoning
code
requirements.
Landscaping
bike,
parking
and
screening
of
mechanical
areas
complies
with
zoning
code
requirements.
T
There's
specific
development
standards
for
a
meta
medication,
assisted
facility
like
this,
they
meet
the
spacing
the
nearest
hospital
use,
0.37
miles
away.
Maximum
number
of
beds,
they're
complying
with
that
standard
of
16
beds
and
having
a
management
plan
that
that
in
place
that
defines
the
use
and
and
Order
of
the
area
also
sees.
The
staff
also
sees
the
project
being
the
comprehensive
playing
goals
of
including
providing
health
care
and
emergency
services
to
those
in
need.
There's
a
letter
of
support
from
the
Seward
neighborhood
organization.
A
I,
don't
see
any
thank
you.
We
will
move
on
to
our
public
hearing,
so
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
is
the
applicant
here,
and
would
they
like
to
speak
on
this
item?
If
you
would
like
to
you
can
come
forward.
U
Hello
president
Olson
and
Planning
Commission,
my
name
is
Daniel
with
blumenthal's
architecture
and
I'm
here
with
Dr
siddique
Who's,
the
Visionary
for
this
and
we've
been
working
extensively
with
Aaron
on
getting
this
project
to
to
fit
within
the
community.
We
feel,
of
course,
it
does
with
the
conditional
use
permit.
So
that's
why
we're
here,
Dr
Siddiqui.
V
Good
evening
everybody
hi
I'm
Dr
Ali
I'm,
with
Mayo
Clinic
I
grew
up
here
in
Minnesota
in
Minneapolis,
I
went
to
high
school
here
and
I
did
my
undergrad
here
as
well.
Our
proposed
plan
is
that
we
have
a
partial
hospitalization.
Actually
it's
going
to
be
the
first
one
in
Hennepin
County.
The
way
it
works
is
that
we
have
a
matte
Clinic
the
outpatient
side
and
we
have
enhanced
treatment
where
we
do
the
Psychotherapy
and
and
so
when
we
initiate
treatment.
V
Typically,
patients
go
into
withdrawal,
and
so
most
of
the
time
we
lose
them
too
EDS
and
then
we
send
them
elsewhere
and
then
so
there's
that
you
know
disconnect,
and
so
this
program
here
will
allow
us
to
be
able
to
send
our
patients
to
our
detox
side
and
then,
while
they're
in
there,
we
can
continue
giving
them
enhanced
treatment,
whether
it's
counseling
Psychotherapy
and
then
we
can
then
connect
them
to
lodging
I
think
this
is
a
unique
experience.
It's
the
evidence-based
medicine.
V
Now
the
trend,
as
you
know,
we're
dealing
with
an
opiate
crisis
in
this
country.
One
in
seven
Americans
are
dealing
with
substance
use
disorders.
One
in
ten
are
actually
seeking
treatment
for
it
and
we're
spending
over
8.5
billion
dollars
in
the
US
just
treating
for
opiate
use
disorders,
there's
been
a
35
increase
in
Minnesota
in
opiate
use
disorders
and
overdose
in
2021,
and
then
since
then,
with
the
old
covet
pandemic,
the
Gap,
the
the
disparity,
the
lack
of
medical
access,
has
kind
of
widened.
V
We
do
have
the
support
of
the
community
surrounding
us,
as
you
know,
so
it's
supporting
us,
Sierra,
tenant
association
is
supporting
us,
there's
a
huge
need
and
it's
a
crisis
and
I
think
every
one
of
us
should
do
our
part.
Thank
you.
A
W
Thank
you.
My
name
is
Dylan
Jennings
e19
Minnehaha
Avenue,
a
new
dimension,
child
Enrichment
Center,
where
a
child
care
facility,
housing,
81
children
in
the
Seward
neighborhood
about
50
yards
from
this
proposed
place.
W
The
addicts
and
whatnot
that
come
through
there
I
know
that
there
is
a
16-bed
facility,
there's
also
mention
of
125
clients
or
up
to
125
clients
in
that
neighborhood.
If
you
haven't
been
in
that
area,
I
do
understand.
You
know
that
there
is
a
need
for
medication
and
some
sort
of
treatment,
but
in
that
area
we
are
a
daycare
center.
We
deal
with
the
people
in
that
area
every
day
there
is
a
school
across
the
street
and
we
just
feel
that
that
is
not
the
place
for
this
facility.
A
Have
you
spoken?
Oh
if
it's
the
applicant
team,
well,
we'll
ask
if
there's
questions
Commissioners
can
ask
you
sorry
all
right.
Is
there
anyone
else
here
who
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item,
who
hasn't
already
spoken
all
right,
I'm,
seeing
none
so
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
Commissioners?
Is
there
any
discussion
or
would
anyone
like
to
make
a
motion,
commissioner
Meyer.
D
G
A
A
discussion
I
just
have
a
question
for
staff.
Typically,
certain
uses
have
like
well,
some
uses
have
a
distance.
They
need
to
be
from
like
a
school
like
I,
don't
know
like
a
tobacco
sales
or
something
or
is
there
any
type
of
standard
for
something
like
this.
B
P
I
would
just
say,
as
the
representative
on
this
body
who
stays
in
the
school
board
for
Minneapolis
public
schools,
I
I
know
that
what
our
kids
need,
our
healthy
adults
who
are
getting
the
care
they
need,
and
so
this
is
very
helpful
to
me
and
I.
Just
thank
you
for
your
application.
C
C
A
F
Good
evening
again,
this
project
in
front
of
you
is
at
2432
Chicago
Avenue.
The
site
is
currently
vacant
in
France
on
Chicago,
which
is
the
goods
and
services
Corridor.
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
construct
a
new
five-story
mixed-use,
building
containing
20
dwelling
units
and
2400
square
feet
of
commercial
space.
F
This
is
an
interesting
situation
in
which
the
applicant
had
submitted
an
application
prior
to
the
implementation
of
20
of
the
land
user,
designing
study
and
then
upon
discussion
with
staff,
ended
up
withdrawing
and
resubmitting
to
be
evaluated
after
the
effective
date
of
the
of
the
rezoning.
So
the
land
use
applications
required
under
the
the
updated
zoning
code
include
a
side
yard
setback
variances
to
the
North
and
South
interior
side
yards
to
reduce
the
setback
requirement
from
nine
feet
to
seven
feet
and
site
plan
review.
F
So
here
is
a
photo
of
the
site
and
I'm
going
to
go
through
some
of
the
plans.
I
do
want
to
note
that
the
most
of
the
applicants
materials
show
the
the
rear
of
the
site
of
budding
an
alley.
So
staff
relies
on
the
applicant
surveyor
and
the
submitted
applications
from
the
architect
to
indicate
surrounding
properties
and
features.
F
Later
on
after
the
Public
Notices
had
gone
out,
the
homeowners
association
located
to
the
west
of
the
site
contact
a
staff
and
notified
us
that
that
is
not
an
alley.
That
is
a
private
drive.
So
that
was
an
error
on
the
on
the
submitted
applicant
materials,
and
it
is
something
that
may
arise
later
as
as
we're
taking
public
comment.
F
So
that
is
not
an
alley,
and
that
is
private
property,
and
so
that
has
influenced
one
of
the
conditions.
The
staff
has
revised
onto
the
application
and
will
because
even
Public
Works
under
the
PDR
review
had
had
assumed
that
this
is
an
alley
based
on
the
submitted
survey
and
civil
plans.
F
All
the
all
of
those
indications
will
have
to
be
revised
upon
resubmittal
for
PDR.
So
here
is
the
the
proposed
building
on
the
site.
The
side
yard
setback
variants.
There
is
a
provision
in
the
zoning
code
that
requires
that
the
the
side
yard
step
back
be
increased
when
the
building
exceeds
75
percent
of
the
depth
of
the
lot.
So
that
is
what
is
triggering
a
nine
foot
setback
on
the
North
and
South
sides,
rather
than
a
seven
foot,
zip
back,
which
we
would
tend
to
see
for
a
five-story
building.
F
So
the
applicant
has
proposed
that
seven
foot
setback
given
the
length
of
the
building
the
building
would
have
to
be
shortened
a
little
bit
more
than
10
feet
in
order
to
comply
or
in
order
to
not
exceed
that
75
percent
provision.
So
the
the
first
floor
would
be
2400
square
feet
of
commercial
and
a
small
Lobby
for
the
apartment,
as
well
as
some
circulation
and
a
bike
room.
F
Then
here's
a
floor
plan
for
the
upper
levels.
Each
upper
floor
plan
includes
five
units
and
some
elevations
as
well,
so
there's
no
parking
proposed
on
the
site.
It's
just
entirely
pedestrian
access
and
with
a
bicycle
room
and
a
rendering
submitted,
so
staff
is
recommending
a
denial
of
the
variances.
The
the
condition
of
the
depth
of
the
building
is
a
condition
created
by
the
applicant.
So
when
we're
looking
at
the
site,
it
is
a
very
standard,
City
lot,
it's
128
feet
deep
and
there's
nothing
substandard
about
the
depth
of
the
lot.
F
That
would
result
in
the
building
taking
up
more
of
the
lot
than
than
usual,
and
so
you
know
if,
if
the
building
was
revised
to
be
10
slightly
over
10
feet
shorter,
the
the
variances
will
not
be
required
and
so
staff
has
not
identified
any
sort
of
practical
difficulty
unique
to
the
site.
F
That
would
result
in
a
need
for
the
variance,
so
staff
is
recommending
denial
of
both
variances,
giving
the
lack
of
unique
circumstances
on
the
site
and
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
the
site
plan
review,
with
the
condition
that
the
applicant
either
revise
the
setbacks
or
the
depth
of
the
building
to
comply
with
the
setback
requirements,
and
we
have
nine
additional
conditions
that
are
applied
to
the
site.
F
Plan
review
application
and
I
just
wanted
to
note
that
if
the
applicant
were
to
revise
the
depth
of
the
building,
it
would
probably
reduce
the
number
of
units
and
units
of
less
than
or
buildings
with
less
than
20
units
can
be
with
no
other
applications
can
be
reviewed
fully
administratively,
so
staff
is
recommending
that
we
condition
the
application,
so
the
applicant
doesn't
then
have
to
go
reapply
for
a
new
administrative
application
after
this,
but
they
they
would
be
able
to
do
that
in
the
event
of
not
not
receiving
approval
of
this
site
plan
review
application
at
hand
today,
so
I
am
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
Lindsay,
oh
no
I,
don't
see
any
questions
from
staff
so
we'll
continue
on
with
the
public
hearing
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
as
applicant
here,
and
would
they
like
to
speak.
X
Hi,
my
name
is
Evan
Hall
good
evening
president
Olson
and
Commissioners
I'm,
representing
Wilson
Molina
of
Molina
Realtors.
X
This
this
lot
is
currently
vacant
and
what
we're
proposing
is
a
little
bit
different
than
what
you've
typically
seen
around
Minneapolis,
as
opposed
to
collecting
Lots
similar
to
what
the
hospital
does
similar
to
what
lots
of
larger
apartments
are
doing
and
tearing
down
all
the
residential
structures
in
the
neighborhood.
We're
proposing
mixed
used,
missing
middle
kind
of
medium
density
project,
so
I
just
have
a
few
slides.
I'll
be
very
brief.
X
On
this
I
know
there
are
a
lot
of
people
that
are
here
to
discuss
this
today,
as
I
mentioned
I'm
here
representing
Wilson,
Molina
who's,
the
owner
and
the
contractor.
He
grew
up
within
one
block
of
the
site,
there's
a
an
amenity
for
bike
storage,
which
is
required
by
the
City
of
Minneapolis.
That
is
internal
to
the
structure,
and
it
takes
up
quite
a
bit
of
the
first
floor
level,
commercial
I'm
Andy's
plan
for
a
small
grocery
store.
X
There
are
currently
one
Ada
unit
per
floor
above
the
main
level,
so
488
units
planned
if
we
were
to
shorten
the
building
from
the
current
length
to
a
shorter
length.
We'd
only
have
the
capacity
to
create
one
Ada
unit,
which
is
the
minimum
required
by
by
code
for
this
sort
of
structure,
so
we
will
be
losing
four
studio
units
and
three
Ada
units
would
would
be
lost
as
part
of
that
reduction.
There's
a
brick
facade
on
the
main
level.
X
It
is
a
type
1A
Concrete
Construction
on
the
main
floor
and
type
5A
with
construction
above
there's
an
elevator
that
has
access
to
all
floors
that
the
quality
of
the
building
is
is
quite
High
compared
to
some
of
similar
projects
around
town.
So
we're
really
excited
with
some
of
the
the
plans
here.
This
is
the
ground
floor
plan.
It's
a
little
bit
easier
to
read
than
the
black
and
white
ones
that
you
have.
You
can
see.
X
The
green
on
the
left
of
the
plan
is
the
bike:
storage
amenity,
two
Ada
restrooms
and
then
a
ground
floor,
commercial
space
in
blue.
We
have
a
mechanical
room.
There
is
no
basement
we're
trying
to
do
a
light
touch
on
the
the
property
so
doing
a
basement
would
be
beneficial
Financial,
but
we're
not
proposing
a
basement,
and
then
you
can
see
on
the
right
and
the
yellow
is
the
other
stair
Corridor,
the
main
entry
and
the
Elevator
Shaft.
On
the
second
floor,
this
is
the
same
plan
proposed
for
the
second
floor.
Through
the
fifth
floor.
X
Each
of
the
four
of
the
five
units
per
floor
are
one
bedrooms
and
then
there's
two
there's
one
studio
in
the
lower
left
that
studio
would
be
removed
if
we
were
to
yep
I
mentioned
that
okay,
so
here
are
the
numbers
that
Lindsay
presented.
So
the
lot
is
50
feet
by
128
feet,
which
is
substantial
for
a
duplex
or
a
Triplex,
or
a
normal
development
on
this
lot.
X
However,
because
this
type
of
building
is
kind
of
a
prototype
for
for
future
missing
metal
buildings,
it
is
a
constrained
lot
and
we
would
make
the
argument
that
there's
craft
practical
difficulties
due
to
the
unique
configuration
of
the
project
with
this
part
so
not
being
combined
with
other
Parcels
so
there
in
order
to
meet
the
75-foot
requirement,
which
would
get
rid
of
the
two
variances.
We
would
need
to
make
the
building
10
feet.
X
10.5
feet
shorter,
so
I
just
have
a
few
really
quick
diagrams
showing
what
that
would
look
like
it's
a
pretty
minor
in
terms
of
the
modifications
here,
so
you
can
see
an
elevation
there's
a
red
line.
That's
10
feet,
shorter
kind
of
go
back
and
forth
than
that.
Our
arguments
is
the
exterior
is
not
a
major
change.
We're
under
the
Florida
area
ratio
under
are
both
configurations.
X
This
is
some
recent
projects
within
a
block
of
the
site.
I
just
showed
this
because
it
is
it's
kind
of
different
than
some
of
the
development
happening
that
we're
proposing.
This
is
directly
kitty
corner
from
the
property.
The
the
Children's
Hospital
great
neighbor
to
have,
but
I
lived
within
a
half
block
of
of
the
this
site
for
several
years
and
they're
they're
a
wonderful
neighbor,
but
they
didn't
actually
their
their
facade,
doesn't
have
any
windows.
I
guess
is
my
point
here.
X
This
is
looking
across
the
street
on
the
southern
in
the
northern
Direction,
which
is
a
really
an
amenity
to
the
neighborhood.
There
are
lots
of
people
walking
their
dogs,
and
this
is
a
good
development.
I
originally
had
commercial
slate
for
the
first
floor
and
now
is
entirely
residential.
This
is
the
proposed
structure
you
can
see.
It
is
on
the
left
image
to
the
left.
Side
of
it
is
on
a
rapid
bus
route
to
get
downtown.
X
Minneapolis
is
just
a
few
minutes
from
here
and
we're
not
able
to
notch
the
building
if
we
were
able
to
notch
the
building
just
two
feet
in
any
part
of
it.
Based
on
my
understanding,
Lindsay
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
If
we're
able
to
notch
the
building
two
feet,
we
would
be
able
to
keep
the
building
longer
than
75
percent
of
of
the
length.
Is
that
no
that's
not
so
that.
H
X
Okay,
thank
you
just
my
final
point.
If
we
were
to
reduce
the
the
side
yard
setbacks
to
nine
feet
on
either
side,
we
would
have
to
single
core
single
load
the
corridor,
and
we
would
lose
quite
a
bit
of
floor
space.
We
did
have
alternate
plans
that
were
exploring
that
option
and
they
were
not
As
Nice
in
terms
of
light
quality
right
now
we're
getting
Windows
all
along
the
units
and
the
previous
design.
X
There
were
just
a
singular
Corridor
with
light
one
window
on
the
end
of
each
unit,
which
was
kind
of
difficult.
So
with
that,
in
summary,
we
we
really
do
want
to
work
together
with
the
neighbors
I
know.
They
made
a
few
suggestions
and
really
were
helpful
in
providing
documentation
that
our
surveyor,
who
had
some
missteps
on
his
survey.
They
were
grateful
enough
to
provide
information
that
we
did
not
have.
X
X
Oh,
what
I
meant
by
notching
I'll
just
is:
if
the
building
didn't
go
straight
back,
if
it
were
to
notch
in
and
go
back,
I
was
under
the
misunderstanding
that
that
would
allow
the
length
to
be
more
than
75
percent
of
the
lot,
but
that
that
appears
not
to
be
the
case.
I
misunderstood
that
that
was
a
misstatement
on
my
behalf.
D
And
then
can
you
go
over
the
difference
and
what
was
it
about?
What
the
consequences
are
between
a
single
loaded
and
double
loaded
corridor.
X
A
single
load
of
corridor
would
provide
windows
on,
for
example,
the
sell
side
only
only
along
the
corridor,
so
by
double
loading.
The
corridor
we're
able
to
get
units
on
both
the
North
and
the
South
of
the
corridor,
which
is
a
little
bit
more
efficient
and
allows
in
more
natural
light
than
if
we
were
to
do
a
quarter
on
one
side
of
the
building
and
then
all
units
on
the
other
side
of
the
building.
O
I
understand
that
you're
saying
that
that
you
couldn't
have
Windows
on
the
either
one,
the
North
or
South
side,
because
of
it.
Because
of
what
oh.
X
In
the
hypothetical
situation
that
we
were
trying
to
make
a
five-star
building
with
nine-foot
set
box
on
the
North
and
the
South,
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
get
the
width
enough
for
doing
a
double
loaded.
Corridor.
X
And
then
to
answer
your
question,
we
could
put
Windows
in
the
corridor,
but
they
wouldn't
be
Windows
serving
units
they
would
just
be
Windows
serving
the
corridor
which
we
feel
is
is
a
waste
of
of
material
for
for
not
us,
you
know
our
current
Corridor
doesn't
have
any
windows
in
it,
but
at
least
now
all
the
windows
are
are
operable
by
the
the
tenants
and
not
by
staff
maintenance.
Thank
you.
Thanks.
A
All
right,
I'm
not
seeing
any
more
questions.
Thank
you
we'll
move
on
in
our
public
hearing.
So
if
there's
anyone
else
here
who
would
like
to
speak,
you
can
come
to
the
podium.
Everyone
will
have
two
minutes
on
the
timer
and
you
can
state
your
name
and
neighborhood
and
proceed
with
your
comments
and
if
you
guys
want
because
there's
a
lot
of
you,
you
can
just
line
up.
Just
don't
make
me
ask
every
time
yeah.
Y
Thank
you,
chair
Olson
and
Commissioners.
I
am
the
President
of
the
city
homes
on
Park,
Avenue,
Owners
Association.
We
are
the
largest
occupant
of
the
block
between
24th
and
25th
and
Chicago
and
parked
we
have
29
units
and
I
would
like
to
read
our
request
for
the
perimeter
fence:
42432
Chicago
Avenue.
Y
Let's
see
I'm
gonna
be
quick
here.
So
with
the
implementation
of
the
city's
new
2040
plan,
zoning
classifications
and
building
codes,
we
seek
to
increase
which
seek
to
increase
density.
Some
considerations
should
be
taken
regarding
the
increased
flow
of
people
to
and
from
high
density
buildings,
with
respect
to
tenant,
trespassing
on
neighbor
neighboring
properties
and
becoming
a
nuisance
to
those
who
live
nearby.
This
is
of
concern,
especially
for
the
lots
that
have
only
a
single
side
street
with
site
with
site
access,
but
which
are
required
to
provide
more
than
one
exit
door.
Y
I'll
skip
ahead
because
you
should
have
this
in
your
packet
from
Lindsay
am
I
correct.
The
zoning
code
in
these
circumstances
actually
requires
fencing,
and
this
is
zoning
code.
530.260,
crime
prevention
through
environmental
design,
site
plans
shall
employ
best
practices
to
increase
natural
surveillance
and
visibility.
To
control
and
guide
movement
on
the
site
and
to
distinguish
between
public
and
non-public
spaces
site
plans
shall
include
the
following:
crime:
prevention
elements,
territorial
territorial
reinforcement
and
space
elimination,
locate,
landscape,
sidewalks
and
lighting.
Y
Fencing
and
building
features
to
clearly
guide
pedestrians
to
movement
through
the
site
and
to
control
and
restrict
people
to
appropriate
locations.
Natural
Access,
Control
locate
and
natural
Access
Control
locate
entrances
exercise,
fencing,
Landscape
and
Lighting
to
distinguish
between
public
and
private
spaces
control
access
and
to
guide
people
coming
in
to
and
from
the
site.
Z
My
name
is
my
name
is
David
aselstein
and
I'm,
a
member
of
the
board
of
City
Homes
and
park,
I'd
like
to
say
that
City
Homes
on
Park
Avenue
objects
to
all
variances,
which
would
result
in
increasing
the
number
of
units
in
the
building
and
or
occupants
also
during
construction.
All
construction
activity
must
enter
the
site
from
Chicago
Avenue
I
personally
contacted
Wilson
Molina
by
phone
on
January
23rd
and
informed
him
that
the
rear
drive
was
a
private
drive
and
not
an
alley.
Yet
on
all
the
drawings
it's
listed
as
an
alley.
Z
The
association
requests
that
all
rooftop
rainwater
flow
from
Chicago
to
Chicago
Avenue
and
not
off
the
back
of
the
property
onto
our
property,
and
my
last
point
is
that
one
part
of
the
staff
recommendation
regarding
residential
developments
without
off-street
parking
or
loading
concludes
the
site
qualifies
for
the
exemption
that
a
temporary
drop-off
and
pickup
space
is
not
required
when
a
curb
cut
went
other
B
wise,
be
provided
I'd
like
to
point
out
that,
in
your
the
staff
recommendations
packet
on
page
16
and
28,
there
are
drawings
there
showing
the
existing
and
existing
driveway
apron.
Z
So
the
curb
cut
is
already
there
and
since
the
property
has
an
existing
driveway
apron
curb
cut,
we
request
the
site
plan
review
guideline
530.155
requirement
for
one
temporary
drop-off
and
pickup
space
be
required.
Thank
you.
AA
Hello,
I'm
Paul,
dunker,
Greenbaum
I'm,
the
house,
that's
to
the
left
in
that
photo
on
the
south
side
and
I
think
the
2040
plan
is
great
and
I'm
glad
that
we're
increasing,
more
affordable
housing
in
Minneapolis
is
certainly
needed.
So
I
I
like
the
idea.
AA
However,
the
variance
is
it's
really
close
to
our
house
like
it's
not
really
functional,
and
you
know,
I
would
hope
that
there's
some
consideration
just
like
what
they're
saying
with
the
flow
of
traffic
moving
through
having
a
fence
around
it
would
be
really
great
that
way.
They
don't
go
back
to
the
alley
which
is
fenced
off
with
other
properties
that
don't
have
access
and
also.
AA
AA
All
the
parking-
that's
so
Chicago,
it's
very
across
from
the
hospital.
There
are
many
places
to
park.
If
there's
an
amendment
or
something
that
could
be
made
to
maybe
include
underground
parking
for
them
because
I
mean
this.
Isn't
this
doesn't
look
like
it's
going
to
be
cheap,
affordable
housing?
It
looks
like
it's
probably
going
to
be
a
more
expensive
side,
so
people
are
going
to
own
cars
that
live
here
and
there's
already
a
lot
of
crime
in
our
neighborhood.
One
of
us
had
a
car
stolen
from
our
driveway.
AA
So
if
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
cars
that
are
more
expensive
on
Chicago
I
think
this
is
going
to
increase
crime
with
that,
but
if
they
have
a
private
parking
garage,
I
think
it'll
help
a
lot
and
it'll
also
help
with
the
parking
problems,
especially
if
they're
going
to
be
putting
a
restaurant
or
something
on
the
first
floor,
then,
where
the
people
are
going
to
come
for
the
commercial
space
where
they're
going
to
park
and
also
the
other
the
tallest
building
on
the
Block
is
that
four-story
apartment
City
Apartments.
AA
This
is
five
stories.
This
is
pretty
high.
I
would
also
recommend
amendment
to
maybe
make
it
a
little
bit
lower
three
stories.
Maybe
let's
match
all
the
other
houses
appreciate
it.
Thank
you.
AB
I'm
part
of
the
association,
so
I
just
heard
that
he
wants
to
build
a
store
and
the
reason
has
there
used
to
be
a
store
there
right
across
the
by
the
children
hospital,
and
that
was
such
a
like
a
drug
crime.
It
was
crazy.
We
are
very
close
to
Chicago
and
Franklin,
which
is
a
really
terrible
crime
going
there.
But
if
we
build
a
story
that
would
be
terrible,
there's
no
parking
anywhere,
literally
there's
no
parking.
That's
why
the
Atlanta
hospital
has
their
own
parking.
They
build
their
own
parking,
there's
no
parking
there.
AB
It's
too
big.
They
say:
there's
going
to
be
enough
lights
to
provide
around
the
side,
but
there
is,
and
there's
going
to
be
weights.
Too
Tall,
their
their
neighbors
are
going
to
have
enough,
there's
no
light
for
them
to
have,
and
we
also
have
in
our
association
there's
a
beautiful
Park.
We
have.
We
have
worked
so
hard
on
that
Park
we
build,
we
put
up,
trees,
gardeners,
everything,
it's
so
beautiful.
AB
Sorry,
you
can't
be
in
our
property,
you
have
you
have
to
leave
and
we
don't
want
to
be
that
kind
of
people,
and
so
we
just
want.
Hopefully
they
can
build
a
fence
that
blocks
everything,
so
they're
not
allowed
to
go
back
there,
and
so
we
can
have
our
beautiful
gardeners
and
our
beautiful
trees.
Good.
Sorry,
thank
you.
AC
My
name
is
Doug,
sweet
and
I
own
the
property
across
the
street,
from
that
building
and
I
can
just
reiterate
what
the
other
two
gentlemen
have
have
told
you
on
my
way
here.
I
thought
I
might
stop
at
my
place,
which
is
directly
across
from
there.
AC
No
parking
I
came
here
instead,
I
think
it's
much
too
big
for
the
area.
Every
other
structure,
except
the
the
large
apartment
building
which
is
on
the
corner
of
24th
on
the
north
side,
was
built
close
to
the
turn
of
the
century.
My
building
was
1896..
AC
This
would
be
a
jarring
ugly
structure.
In
my
opinion,
parking
would
be
difficult.
Now
would
be
close
to
Impossible
later
it's
unfortunate
I
think
everyone
on
the
Block
probably
had
an
expectation
that
a
structure
similar
to
this
one
on
the
south,
which
is
what
it
would
have
replaced,
would
be
very
appropriate,
but
this
is
just
much
too
big
for
this
tree.
AC
A
D
Yeah,
so
this
project
is
zoned
for
quarter
six,
it's
close
to
several
major
bus
stops,
so
it's
an
appropriate
place
for
densities
to
be
located
and
just
for
the
public.
The
city
is
out
of
the
business
of
pushing
for
more
parking.
If
anything,
we
push
for
Less
parking
when
we
can
to
reduce
traffic
and
to
meet
our
climate
goals
for
the
city.
D
I
also
don't
feel
like
we
should
push
for
offense
as
a
policy
matter.
I
would
support
changing
our
setback
requirements
so
that
a
building
like
this
could
be
on
this
location.
D
However,
I
don't
see
the
Practical
date
of
the
difficulty
to
justify
them
in
this
case,
with
the
policies
that
we
have
on
the
books.
The
proposed
practical
difficulty
that
the
applicant
suggested
could
apply
to
literally
any
lot
in
the
city,
because
every
lot
you
know,
isn't
combined
with
the
lots
that
are
next
to
it,
so
it
just
seems
like
and
unviable
practical
difficulty.
So
with
that
I
shared
the
same
opinion
as
the
staff
and
would
move
the
staff
recommendation.
O
Let's
say
I
can
concur
with
commissioner
Maya
and
it's
a
handsome
building
and
and
providing
wonderful
services,
but
the
difficulties
that
the
developer
has
here
are
ones
that
he
has
chosen
and
has
caused
himself
and
he
could
build
a
smaller
building
that
will
comply
so
I
agree.
We
can't
I
think
we
cannot
find
a
difficulty.
That's
not.
You
know.
G
Yeah
I
guess
I
have
a
question
for
staff
about
this
project,
because
if
the
length
is
reduced,
then
the
then
the
interior
yard
setback
of
seven
feet
would
be
allowable,
correct,
right,
yep.
F
So
the
if
the
building
exceeds
75
percent
of
the
depth
of
the
lot,
then
you
have
to
increase
the
side
yard
setbacks
by
two
feet
on
each
side.
So
if
the
building
is
not
exceeding,
then
the
seven
foot
setbacks
would
be
appropriate
here.
F
Well,
so
setbacks
are
determined
by
the
height
of
the
building,
so
they
do
plan
a
little
bit
in
that
there
are,
you
know,
different
brackets
of
height
that
result
in
different
side
yard
setback
requirements,
so
the
height
alone
would
result
in
a
seven
foot.
Interior
side
yard
set
back
on
each
side
a
six-story
building,
because
it
would
likely
be
more
than
I.
Think
it's
50
three
feet
would
probably
have
the
the
go-to
setbacks
of
nine
feet
right
because
it
would
be
going
up
into
that
next
bracket.
G
So
is
this:
is
this
an
example
just
for
my
own
education
of
something
that
was
brought
up
to
us
during
the
zoning
code?
G
F
Believe
that
that
provision
was
adopted
when
built
form,
the
built
form
overlay
districts
were
adopted
in
I,
believe
2021,
so
that
would
have
been
a
provision
as
part
that
would
have
been
part
of
that
whole
package
that
would
have
come
through
at
that
time.
Okay,
thank.
A
A
Okay,
I'll,
say
I
I
agree
with
commissioner
Meyer,
but
I
hope
that
you
can
make
it
work
with
the
setbacks
that
we
require
all
right.
Any
other
discussion
seeing
nonetheless
the
clerk
to
please
call
the
roll.