Excerpt from the CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Minneapolis Community Planning & Economic Development (CPED) 250 South Fourth Street, Room 300 Minneapolis, MN 55415-1385 (612) 673-3710 Phone (612) 673-2526 Fax (612) 673-2157 TDD

MEMORANDUM

DATE: May 17, 2018

TO: Zoning and Planning Committee

FROM: Jason Wittenberg, Manager, Community Planning & Economic Development – Land Use, Design and Preservation

SUBJECT: Planning Commission decisions of April 23, 2018

The following actions were taken by the Planning Commission on April 23, 2018. As you know, the Planning Commission’s decisions on items other than rezonings, text amendments, vacations, 40 Acre studies and comprehensive plan amendments are final subject to a ten-calendar day appeal period before permits can be issued. Committee Clerk Lisa Kusz - 612.673.3710 Commissioners present Matthew Brown, President | Alissa Luepke-Pier, Vice President | Sam Rockwell, Secretary Jono Cowgill | Kim Ellison | Ryan Kronzer | Nick Magrino | Jeremy Schroeder | John Slack | Amy Sweasy

6. Minnehaha Academy – North Campus Reconstruction, 3100 River Pkwy W, Ward 2 This item was continued from the April 9, 2018 meeting. Staff report by Shanna Sether, PLAN6054 The City Planning Commission adopted staff findings for the applications by Cuningham Group Architecture. A. Conditional Use Permit for an existing K-12 school. Action: Approved the conditional use permit to allow for an addition to an existing K-12 school, subject to the following conditions: 1. The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Hennepin County as required by Minn. Stat. 462.3595, subd. 4 before building permits may be issued or before the use or activity requiring a conditional use permit may commence. Unless extended by the zoning administrator, the conditional use permit shall expire if it is not recorded within two years of approval. Excerpt from the City April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Not Approved by the Commission

2. The applicant shall comply with all requirements as a result of the Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan. City staff shall review the site and strategies within one year after completion of the addition to audit performance and operations identified within the approved TDM plan. 3. A gate shall be maintained at the north property line to prevent vehicular access to and from the site via 47th Ave S. This gate shall be maintained through any future expansion of the school as a dead-end condition only to be used for emergency vehicles. 4. The applicant is required to prepare a campus master plan identifying any proposed additions or major alterations over the next 10 years, engaging the neighbors in that process. Aye: Cowgill, Ellison, Kronzer, Magrino, Rockwell, Schroeder, and Sweasy Nay: Luepke-Pier and Slack B. Conditional Use Permit to increase the height of the building in the R1 Single-Family District. Action: Approved the conditional use permit to increase the maximum height in the R1 Single-Family District from 2 ½ stories, not to exceed 35 feet, to 4 stories, 53 ft. 8in. for the addition and 64 ft. to the top of the steeple, subject to the following condition: 1. The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Hennepin County as required by Minn. Stat. 462.3595, subd. 4 before building permits may be issued or before the use or activity requiring a conditional use permit may commence. Unless extended by the zoning administrator, the conditional use permit shall expire if it is not recorded within two years of approval. 2. The applicant shall work with CPED staff to identify areas on the first 40 feet of the building addition where bird safe glazing, as defined in Minneapolis Code of Ordinances Chapter 535.890, shall be incorporated. Aye: Cowgill, Ellison, Kronzer, Magrino, Rockwell, Schroeder, and Sweasy Nay: Luepke-Pier and Slack C. Variance to decrease the front yard setback. Action: Returned the variance to reduce the front yard setback along W River Pkwy. D. Variance to decrease the corner side yard setback. Action: Returned the variance to reduce the corner side yard setback along 32nd St E. E. Variance to allow parking between the building and front lot line. Action: Approved the variance to allow for surface parking to be located between the principal structure and the front lot lines, facing W River Pkwy and 46th Ave S, subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall provide screening, at least three-feet in height, consisting of a masonry wall, fence, berm, hedge, or combination thereof that is at least 60 percent opaque, between the east parking area and W River Pkwy. Aye: Cowgill, Ellison, Kronzer, Magrino, Rockwell, Schroeder, and Sweasy Nay: Luepke-Pier and Slack F. Site Plan Review. Action: Approved the site plan review for an addition to an existing school, subject to the following conditions: 1. All site improvements shall be completed by April 23, 2020, unless extended by the Zoning Administrator, or the permit may be revoked for non-compliance. City Planning Commission Meeting – Minutes excerpt 2

Excerpt from the City April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Not Approved by the Commission

2. CPED staff shall review and approve the final site, elevation, landscaping, and lighting plans before building permits may be issued. 3. The plant materials, and installation and maintenance of the plant materials, shall comply with sections 530.200 and 530.210 of the zoning code. 4. The applicant shall provide a minimum of 143 canopy trees on the site, including one additional canopy tree at the north end of the west parking lot. The applicant shall provide not less than 1 shrub for each 100-sq. ft. of required landscaped yard, or 711 shrubs on the site. 5. The applicant shall provide screening, at least three-feet in height, consisting of a masonry wall, fence, berm, hedge, or combination thereof that is at least 60 percent opaque, between the parking areas and the public streets, including W River Pkwy and 32nd St E. 6. The applicant shall implement recommendations from the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization to design and incorporate stormwater management best practices. 7. Exterior building lighting shall be limited to security, entry location and building identification purposes and will not include building lighting on the exterior surface of the façade, steeple, or other building components. Parking lot and other site lighting will be focused, down-lighting, and of a color consistent with International Dark Sky Community Guidelines. The applicant shall reduce light pollution by minimizing use of interior lights after 8:00 p.m. and fully shading exterior windows on the building addition as feasible. 8. The applicant shall work with neighborhood stakeholders to facilitate public accessibility to any memorial green space included on the site. Aye: Cowgill, Ellison, Kronzer, Magrino, Rockwell, Schroeder, and Sweasy Nay: Luepke-Pier and Slack

**THERE WAS AUDIO DISRUPTION THROUGHOUT THE MEETING**

Staff Sether presented the staff report.

Mike Berg (Cuningham Group Architects): This diagram shows an overlay of the existing property. It shows the overlay of the new building. We show this to illustrate that the parking is not extending beyond the existing paved surfaces. We’ve had a lot of dialogue with the neighborhood and advocates for the parkway about making sure we maintain trees along the parkway. This image shows some of the setback requirements, all of which we’re complying with. There’s one variance for parking between the existing building and the parkway. That parking was existing, it’s just a reconfiguration of that parking layout. This shows some of the dimensions from the parkway to the new building and how we’re exceeding some of the dimensions of some of the neighbors of the school. It also shows the building setbacks, which we’re within. It shows the parking setback along the south edge of the property. There was some concern about parking lot screening and some landscape screening elements and how we could enhance some of those features, maybe beyond what’s required by ordinance. During the dialogue with neighbors, we did move the new addition 12 feet to the north to create additional space there for landscape screening. We are also planning to have additional landscape screening alone the east side of the parking lot to further mitigate the view of those cars from the parkway. There was a lot of talk about traffic and access to the site. This diagram shows where the cars that are dropping kids off and the staff cars are going to be parking in the east lot and then the expansion of the west lot where this green line is showing how ongoing operational deliveries would access the site and a new loading dock location which is important for the servicing of the new school and the ongoing operations of the existing buildings. We’ve had lots of conversations about trees and trying to do everything we can to protect some of the larger trees on the property. When we first started this process we

City Planning Commission Meeting – Minutes excerpt 3

Excerpt from the City April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Not Approved by the Commission were intending to remove a number of trees that were in the interior courtyard between the chapel building and athletics building. You can see that the trees noted in orange are the trees we’re going to endeavor to save as part of our construction process. We met with an arborist. They gave us some advice on which trees were salvageable, which ones were recommended for removal based on building proximity. Since that meeting we’ve made some adjustments to the site plan to create some more space between the trees that are in the courtyard closest to where the new building is shown in white. We also looked at a couple of larger trees that are along the west edge of the parking. We will attempt to save those trees and balance the idea of adding additional parking with what those trees need as far as water and nutrients and how we’re able to pave around those. There are two larger trees we’re showing for removal. One is right up against the existing building. We won’t be able to save that tree. The other one is up in northwest corner of the site by the loading dock. That tree will need to be removed in order to regrade for access to that loading dock. A number of environmental points that have come up in conversation and we’ve agreed to continue to work with the neighborhood and the advocates for this site. We will be working with the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization. We’re basically reconfiguring the existing underground stormwater management system that exists. There’s a series of underground vaults. Because it’s under the new building location, we’ll be removing that and relocating it underneath the new southeast parking lot. Those systems are intended for stormwater collection, filtration, and discharge. There was lots of discussion about landscaping and we talked about screening of parking lots and the additional trees that will be planted. We talked about using native plants and pollinators and some of the landscape elements that would be more native to the area. We will continue to develop those landscape plan. There is no firm planting plan at this time, but we plan to meet the city requirements and beyond based on conversations with the neighborhood. We talked a lot about bird safe glass on the building. We’ve agreed that we’re going to continue to work with the Audubon Society to talk about what those bird safe design features might be on the building. We have a number of thoughts on that and look forward to more conversation with the Audubon Society. The buildings lost in the explosion were about 100 years old. The way those schools were designed and constructed is not the way we would design and construct buildings today for a school environment. They lack sufficient daylight. They were inflexible. They didn’t have the types of collaborative spaces and crossover teaching support spaces that we’d put in a school today. That’s one of the reasons that the building area is larger than what the existing space was. These spaces are intended to foster collaboration, creativity, and a sense of community. The new buildings are about three feet lower than the original building that was lost in the explosion. We also have the steeple element that you can see in this image. That steeple has been a large topic of conversation. Since the beginning of the process, that steeple was 68 feet in height. It was reduced to 64 feet in height. Recently, based on some of the Park Board feedback, we’re actually going to reduce it to 59 feet and six inches. It’s the height of the existing steeple on the cross tower on campus. The existing building is primarily brick and stucco. The new building, we’re showing it as a glass fiber composite panel. You can see some of the sun shades we’re using, both for daylight control and to control our mechanical systems, but also those features will help with the bird safe glass issues. This is a slide provided by the Park Board. These were taken to give an indication as to what’s visible from the Lake Street Bridge. The steeple is not visible from those areas. We also took some pictures last week from Lake Street. We heard the neighbor’s request for desire to have more on-site parking to limit the amount of street parking so we have increased the parking counts to try to get as much on-site as we can, including maximizing the stalls in the west parking lot.

Carol Lansing: You received a submission from us today with some conditions of approval that we believe address some of the dialogue we’ve been having with the task force and community. They have also submitted some, they don’t match up exactly. We’ve been in discussion with the council members office on trying to reach some further consensus on that. And there’s also been discussion that some of these may be more appropriate as part of a memorandum of understanding than necessarily conditions of approval on these applications. So, I won’t to go through all of what we submitted to you. But a couple of things I did City Planning Commission Meeting – Minutes excerpt 4

Excerpt from the City April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Not Approved by the Commission want to point, in the description of the CUP for increased height, it should now say, as Mike pointed out, that the height of the steeple is 59 feet 6 inches, not the taller height of 64 that’s on the agenda. With respect to bird safe glazing and treatments, Minnehaha Academy is committed to working with professionals and experts and addressing those concerns. We have not wanted to adopt the language that you may have seen that the task force put forward of; you will comply with the skyway standards, because this isn’t a skyway, it’s a building. And there are different conditions and things that need to be taken into account. But I think in working with the council member’s office we also have a condition that provides staff the oversight that they should have to make sure it’s being practically applied. Just wanted to make those points, and if you have any questions for us, Donna Harris, the president wanted to say a few words and then we’ll stand for questions.

Donna Harris: I ask that you approve our application. Honestly that’s why I’m here to speak before you. We’re eager to begin our rebuilding process and to return to our home. And also, I wanted to publicly apologize, I’ve done that quite a few times in the last few weeks. We’ve participated in five neighborhood meetings, and I acknowledge that those meetings have been in a very compressed time period. The reality is that the circumstances of August 2nd have been unprecedented and a tragedy that we are facing and we gave more attention. We didn’t balance the attention that we gave to those complexities, dealing with those complexities to having a timely interaction with our neighbors. But we did have those five meetings in that compressed time period. It was not our intention to convey a disregard for the important interaction with our neighbors. We participated in the meetings in good faith, and with the strong desire to have meaningful dialogue, and to find common ground, I think we found some of that. I’m looking forward to engaging our neighbors and the Longfellow Community Council in an ongoing basis. I’m hopefully that Minnehaha can forage a stronger and mutually beneficial relationship as we look forward to the future. So, thanks again for the opportunity to speak.

Chair Brown: Thank you. Commissioners are there any questions of the applicant? Commissioner Magrino.

Commissioner Magrino: I’m wondering, I don’t know if this is for the architect or Ms. Lansing, but, with regards to the bird safe glass, without getting into all the standards in the skyway chapter, are you opposed to doing ?? glass on the whole building? Maybe just sort of head off some of the concerns we may have as we get into public testimony.

Mike Berg: We’re more than willing to look at all of the options available to us. I guess I would have a hard time committing to saying we would put fretted glass on the entire building but we’ve talked about some of the areas that are significant concern. Specifically, where you can see through two layers of glass and the birds might feel like they could fly right through. On the east side of the building, there’s a one-story addition that happens to house the library and that part of the building we’ll be paying specific attention to. Along with all of the facades that face the River Parkway. So, I guess I’d say that we are more than interested in all of the options that are available and hearing more from experts and balancing that with the design of the building.

Commissioner Magrino: I guess without being a bird or school expert, other than cost is there a reason to not want to do that? Does it detract from anything?

Mike Berg: We’re trying to balance issues of cost, issues of views and daylight and design. So, all of these issues come into play. And finding a way that we can make all of those things work together.

Chair Brown: Commissioner Sweasey.

City Planning Commission Meeting – Minutes excerpt 5

Excerpt from the City April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Not Approved by the Commission

Commissioner Sweasey: I’ll direct this to whoever the appropriate person is to answer. A number of our comments that we’ve received from citizens have to do with concerns over, in some cases, doubling the student population at the new site. Is it correct that increasing the number of students relates to the now tabled or discarded phase two? That we’re not considering tonight. I just want to make sure I understand where those concerns are coming from.

Carol Lansing: Commissioner Sweasey, the school population, high school population is currently, if people will correct me, 350 approximate students. The aspirational goal for the high school is 540 and that’s what’s been studied in the traffic study. The traffic study doesn’t address phase two or any further expansion. And if that does move forward, it will have to be studied. Just to note that historical student population has been as high as 810.

Chair Brown: Any further questions of the applicant? If there are none we can move on to some other speakers. And I know we have a lot of people who’d like to speak on this tonight. So, I’ll set an initial public comment period of 45 minutes. I’ll ask that individual speakers take no more than about two minutes. I won’t cut you off but I might ask that you wrap up. I ask that you be mindful of simply repeating things others have said and bringing new information. And make sure to keep your comments to the applications that are before us. We can start over on this side of the room, if someone would like to come to the microphone and please state your name and address for the record.

Irene Jones (101 E 5th St): I also sent a letter. It was written based on the proposal before there were changes made. So, some of that does not apply. And I’ve summarized some of my comments and I have a couple of other comments based on things that were said. But if you’re not familiar with us, we work throughout the metropolitan area and we focus a lot on the National Park, the Mississippi National River and recreation area. And so, with regards to the Minnehaha Academy expansion, our perspective is aimed at making sure that the public resources of the National Park, which is also a city park, and regional park are preserved for current and future generations. You’ve probably read in a few of the letters and perhaps are already familiar that this is a very unique and special part of the river along the Mississippi gorge. The only gorge on the entire river in our continent. And with protected park land on both sides, it provides recreational opportunities for millions of people who use the parkway. Who are impacted by things that are built along the parkway such as this. And it also provides highly significant habitat for birds. We appreciate that Minnehaha Academy reconfigured their project to reduce the number of mature trees that will be lost. But we remain concerned that the proposed new buildings will have significant negative impacts on the Mississippi River Boards and the National Park. The primarily visual scenic impact and then also the impact of the migration and the glass. The height limit in this area is 35 feet for a good reason. It’s to preserve the surrounding character of the neighborhood and to protect the river gorge. Almost a decade of stakeholder discussions and deliberations around new rules for the critical area, which are coming online as early as 2019 in Minneapolis, was that 35 feet was reinforced as the height limit in this area. We’re really concerned that they want to go up to 55 feet. There are other buildings might be that high behind them but we’d like to see the building step down as they get closer to the river. I believe that’s part of your own critical area plan and goal to have that. To match the character of the river gorge and the river valley. Basically, we just feel that 54-feet with a 64-foot steeple is too tall for how close they want to be to the river. They’re going to be moving into this space, so what is now a visually appealing buffer of open space will be replaced by tall buildings that would oppose on the (Chair Brown: Start wrapping up). Basically, I think one of the big questions that we have not had answered is why does a three story building (inaudible). There is a five-story building across the river that is 50 feet tall. They haven’t really explained that, they haven’t justified that. I have some more about birds ??? when I just heard the architect suggest that one of the reasons they don’t want to do the bird safe glass is to balance it because of views. They’re talking about their view of the river from the school as being something that has to be City Planning Commission Meeting – Minutes excerpt 6

Excerpt from the City April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Not Approved by the Commission balanced against the survival of migratory birds on the Mississippi River. I was shocked, some people may have even heard me gasp because I did. I haven’t heard that argument before and that’s very disturbing to me. I feel like cost is one thing but if you’re worried about your own view, that’s obviously why they want to be so tall. I would ask that you reduce the height and then they can go back and work with the neighbors on trying to figure out a way to make the height a little bit lower and I think a lot of people would be happy about that.

Sharon Sayles Belton (3332 Edmund Blvd): I’ve lived in my home for the last 22 years. I’m here today to ask the Planning Commission to deny the CUP and the variances that have been requested by Minnehaha Academy. I’m saying that but at the same time I want to express my support for the expansion but not as they proposed it. We welcome the 350 students into our neighborhood. And probably could accommodate the 500 plus students that they’d like to bring to our neighborhood. But not without addressing the traffic and the parking issues that the neighbors consistently have been presented in the meetings. I also think it’s important for me to go on the record expressing my support for the protection of the public parkway, the preservation of the Mississippi River Corridor. I probably spent 25 years of my life working to protect and preserve the Mississippi River. And I would really like to have that work respected and honored. I did not do that alone. I’ve been joined by lots of citizens in our community who every year, even right now, on the river, cleaning buck thorn and doing everything that we can do so that the visitors into our area can enjoy our community. My major concern about this project and where we are today, is that as a resident, because I didn’t live 350 from the building, I received no notice of the discussion about the expansion. I’m not along. All of my neighbors who live outside of 350 feet didn’t know anything about this until April 4th when my neighbor across the street sent me an email and said, you’ve got to tell your neighbors that this is going on. My concern of course is that this is not how good neighbors respect each other and work together. It’s not how a guest in a R1 neighborhood, and again the school is a guest in the R1 neighborhood. It requires a CUP and the planning staff reported that. This is not how a guest in a residential neighborhood treats their host. We’re not there yet, we’ve had a lot of conversation about what we can do to resolve our differences. My concern is that Minnehaha Academy has said to us, we’re not making any substantial changes in this project, we’ve done enough. Well, they may believe that they have, but we’re here today to tell you that there’s more that they can do. One of the two last points, Mr. Chair, that I’d really like to make is that if we really wanted to protect the parkway and the Mississippi River corridor, we could simply do that by pushing the building a little bit to the west. And then we wouldn’t be talking about building materials to protect the birds and the wildlife who have been traveling down this Mississippi corridor for longer than all of us combined are living. These are not frivolous request that we’re making. These are request that really protect the integrity of our Mississippi River, of our neighborhood and our community. And this is not just about Minneapolis. This Mississippi River is a natural treasure. It is internationally known. The Grand Rounds have won awards all over this country affirming what we’ve been building here for a number of years. I really don’t want the CUP to disrupt that. I will also say in closing, I’ve only lived in my neighborhood for 22 years, I was not a part of the debates and discussion that my community has had with Minnehaha Academy in the past but all my neighborhood’s residents have told me, is that in the past when the CUP was requested from the Planning Commission and granted by you and the City, many of the provisions that they had hoped would be honored and respected were reneged upon. I don’t want to be in another situation where soft commitments are made in the CUP and are not honored and we find ourselves, (recording glitch) council talking about how do we protect our neighborhood, how do we protect our community?

Dan McConnell (3317 47th Ave S): I live less than two blocks south of the proposed project. In addition to being a neighbor, I am also the business manager of the Minneapolis Building Trades Union. We represent 25 affiliated local construction unions and 14, 000 construction workers. And most importantly I’m the parent of a second grader who goes to Minnehaha Academy. I would like to speak in favor of the proposed project. City Planning Commission Meeting – Minutes excerpt 7

Excerpt from the City April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Not Approved by the Commission

Minnehaha Academy has been part of the community I grew up in. ??? opened at 3107 47th Ave in the fall of 1913. Coincidentally my great-grandparents Gustaff and Maria Hardinoff moved into the neighborhood that same fall. My family has lived in the Longfellow neighborhood continuously since, along Minnehaha Academy for the last 105 years. I can say without hesitation that for the last 105 years Minnehaha Academy has been (recording glitch) and a part of our (recording glitch). One of their core values is being a caring community and the belief that we share our unity based on care for one another rather than conformity. My first direct MA was when I was a junior in high school and I took my ACT test at this school. Later in life, I served two terms on the Longfellow Community Council. This is where I’ve learned that Minnehaha’s always willing to allow neighbors to use their space for meetings and activities. And most recently as a parent I’ve gained a new appreciation for Minnehaha Academy and for the part they play in our community as neighbors. An example of this is how they have handled this process. Minnehaha Academy’s staff and board members are not experts in this process when building buildings. They are experts in educating kids within buildings. They quickly realized they needed to work with the surrounding residents on the plan for the rebuild. They’ve done so with a true desire to do better. Since initial plans were designed, Minnehaha has listed to neighbors and made substantial changes. They’ve decreased the buildings height and scale, increased landscaping screens, opened the memorial gardens to the public. They’re looking into the bird safe issue, they really want to figure that out. In 1979, following the four-alarm fire that destroyed the chapel, Breck school made the decision to leave Minneapolis for the suburbs. Despite the challenges of running an inner-city school, Minnehaha Academy didn’t follow the lead of their neighbor to the south. Instead they saw an opportunity, they bought the south campus and invested in our community. Nearly 40 years later after another tragic event, history is repeating itself. And like they did following the 1979 fire, Minnehaha is redoubling their commitment to our community. Instead of leaving, they want to stay. Their proposing to invest tens of millions of dollars in our neighborhood. They’re doing this because they have a core value of being an urban school that believes strongly in educating the students in the urban core. Minnehaha Academy is the kind of neighbor I want. And it’s exactly the kind of neighbors (recording glitch). And I would respectfully ask you to support this plan.

John Lauber (3220 Edmund Blvd): I’ve lived within one block of Minnehaha Academy for 33 years. I also want to say something that I think is universal in the neighborhood, which is everyone expected the Academy to rebuild after the explosion this summer and everybody supports that. We do not support the way they are going about it at the moment. I’m going to address one of the issues. In their efforts to justify the scale of the reconstruction and expansion project currently under consideration by the Minneapolis Planning Commission, Minnehaha Academy and its design team have repeatedly cited two things; we respect the river, and we’ve been on this site since 1913. I think it is important to note that 30 years earlier than that, before Minnehaha Academy existed, and when the city limits of Minneapolis extended only as far as 38th Street South, a group of local visionaries hired HWS Cleveland, a renowned landscape architect from Chicago to draw up a frame work for a citywide park system. Among the first things to attract his attention was a strip of land that ran along the west bank of the Mississippi River gorge from the heart of the city to the river’s confluence with Minnehaha Creek. The significance of that strip of land as a natural and cultural resource has been reinforced many times since then, you’ve heard some comments on that already. The City acquired the land, created it into its park (recording glitch). Today the area is designated as a national scenic byway, it’s included in the Mississippi River (recording glitch). It is protected under state law as part of the Mississippi River Corridor critical area. It is internationally recognized as a fly way for over 300 species of migratory birds. According to the Minneapolis Park Board, it has been known as the nation’s pre-imminent urban park way system for more than a century. At the local level, the West River Parkway has been considered eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Grand Rounds Historic District nomination. It is zoned for low intensity use for virtually its entire life and it is part of the Mississippi River Critical Area Overlay District. In theory the zoning ordinance, the City’s zoning ordinance, is intended to protect the character of City Planning Commission Meeting – Minutes excerpt 8

Excerpt from the City April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Not Approved by the Commission the area by imposing certain restrictions on new development. Including the provisions that buildings in the area should not exceed a maximum height of 2 ½ stories or 35 feet. (recording glitch) created a design that conflicts with these requirements. If the current design is approved, the new Minnehaha buildings will exceed the theoretical height limit by nearly 19 feet. Making the Academy buildings the tallest structures between Minnehaha Park and the Mill District. It will detract from the visual character of the parkway and it will be there for the next 100 years. With an 11-acre site to work with, it seems as though there could have been better way to meet Minnehaha’s space needs. In my opinion, the team’s unwillingness to explore alternatives that meet established height requirements will create a building that does not respect the river at all. At best, the design is inappropriate for such a high significant setting. And at its worst, it is just plain arrogant. If the rules don’t apply in this case, it’s hard to see when they ever would. The conditional use permit for height exception should be denied.

John Blaire: (Recording glitch) …...The circumstances around this rebuild are tragic and everybody here supports a rebuild. But I believe the plans and analysis before you tonight should feel (recording glitch). Regarding the plans, usually fast-tracked plans avoid conditional use permits and variances to avoid time needed for public reconciliation. This plan is unusual because the initially submitted design had five. (Recording glitch) support from groups like LCC. It is unusual however that LCC had no meetings, nor an open comment period to record concerns. LCC’s board still felt it appropriate to issue a letter of support for this project on behalf of the public. Accepting LCC’s endorsement as one of public support is usual. Today it would be unresponsive. Regarding the CPED report, it is unusual that TDMP suggest that a traffic cop, standing on West River Parkway is an acceptable traffic management strategy. It is unusual to me that CPED acknowledges in their report that among other impacts, traffic will quote, be an issue for the neighborhood. But finds that there will be no impact on safety, comfort or general welfare for the neighbors. (Recording glitch) haven’t been addressed. After two weeks, the only changes made to the plan were either acquired by City staff or reduce the variances needed for Minnehaha Academy. I sent you a letter this weekend through Cam Gordon, I hope you’ve had time to review our concerns. (recording glitch), conditional of approval. I know this time has been short for you. I appreciate any ?? given. It has also been very short for us. Without the help of the LCC organizing ??? has been the only process for public input and feedback. (Recording glitch) working as hard as we can, nights and weekends, not because we don’t want Minnehaha Academy to rebuild. We want them to rebuild. We want them here. I’d ask for understanding of parents and staff about this issue. We just want out streets to be safe, natural resources to be protected, and the whole neighborhood to flourish. Not just Minnehaha Academy but its neighbors too. We had hoped for a two-week delay to finalize some of the legal solutions to some of our concerns. After the planning staff report and LCC endorsements were received last week, we were told that time was off the table. Accordingly, we ask that you take the very reasonable step of denying the conditional use permit as submitted and providing more time to address the issues. Thank you.

Nathan Johnson (3428 36TH Ave S): Longfellow resident and one of the scores of Minnehaha Academy teachers, hundreds of alumni and families who live in the neighborhood. And this is our neighborhood too and it’s been my neighborhood for 13 years. I speak to the commission and also to my neighbors, many of whom are here. Of course, the building is the discussion here, I’d like to talk a little bit about education. And how the structure speaks to that. And I speak not on behalf of the school but myself as an educator and a neighborhood resident. So, who are we educating? Each year hundreds of kids are in our building, that’s who we’re teaching. Its increasingly socially economically diverse group of kids. Its increasingly racially diverse group of kids. Increasingly ideologically diverse group of kids. Large majority of them are Minneapolis and St. Paul kids. Yes, we have kids that live on the (recording glitch) …small apartments along Lake St. And we have an increasingly diverse set of Minneapolis kids that are in our building. As to how we do it, we are educating not just for career skills, but we do that, but for big questions that I think we can uniquely address. Questions City Planning Commission Meeting – Minutes excerpt 9

Excerpt from the City April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Not Approved by the Commission like, what humans are, what community means, what justice is, how love can transform peoples lives. And small classes where (recording glitch). I believe this is a unique type of education that we can offer and its essential to our community. As to the controversy over things like massing, location on the river. I can’t see how parking affects education. But those other things do. As to the massing (extended recording glitch). And I ask that you consider this as a move to connect kids with nature in terms of the location on the site plan. Thank you.

Doug Braithwaite (3100 47th Ave S): The closest neighbor to Minnehaha Academy. (Recording glitch) relocating back into Minneapolis last year after the tragic passing of my sister, who by the way, we had her memorial service in the Minnehaha Academy chapel. Literally a week in a half to two weeks before the explosion. Minnehaha Academy has been a jewel and an asset to our neighborhood. But I’m also an alumni. My sister, 1967, my (inaudible) 1978, myself 1983. I’m coming here in two different aspects. Number one, the most immediate concern is, I got a call Friday morning that there’s a proposal to move the current dead-end location at 47th Ave, just off of 31st St to the northern most (recording glitch) which literally is 18 inches from my driveway. That is prohibitive of me to be able to back in except backing from 31st St. I have a van, I have trailers for personal use, I have equipment that comes in and out periodically. My dad operated a business out of there in 1952, (recoding glitch) since the spring of 1944. My number one, obviously, as the most effected, I mean the whole neighborhood is affected by this proposal, but I’m greatly concerned about the setback. My access to my driveway as the tax payer for that street that’s in front of me. Even concerned with the disruption to the street that I’m paying an assessment for with the diggings in the street. And adequately so to (recording glitch) the gymnasium after the explosion. (Recording glitch) and as alumni, Minnehaha Academy had a tragic event. But the whole neighborhood, and literally the first two people on scene, to help somebody were literally, neighbors. Before even emergency people were there on the 47th Ave side. You got a lot of outpouring support from the City of Minneapolis and from the neighbors. But then I’ve seen this totally eroded just in the last month. Because how this is being incredibly rushed through. This is going way too fast. As an alumni, I’m saying, I would rather, and you guys can talk to alumni and they’ll support this school even if it extends it another year into 2020 to do this right. And not rush it through. And to keep this jewel in the neighborhood, because it is, but it’s getting tarnished. But as an alumni, I cannot support the current plan as it totally stands. There’s just so many aspects of it I don’t care for. Its having a loading dock, literally trucks will be pulling in where it’s going to be shining into my house. You’re talking about moving a dead-end, which needs to be honored, an agreement that was made 42 years ago. And to have it as an access. A gate that’s only meant to be open for emergency vehicles as came to fruition very sadly, was needed. Firetrucks were out in front my house. Two rows of firehoses down the street. It came that it was required to have that open for emergency vehicles. So, from the standpoint as a neighbor, my number one concern about that setback, (inaudible). How that’s going to (inaduble), I’m really concerned about that. That you’re limiting the access to my property. It affects my property tremendously as the, literally the closest building. Yes, I might be a hundred and forty something feet from the new building but I’m literally 18 inches from the property, my driveway is 18 inches from the northwest conference building line. And so, I have great concern with that. I would like to ask the council here that you guys slow this process down. This is going way too fast. And Minnehaha Academy, you’re squandering so much resources of neighbors. Because we love you. I do. My sister’s memorial service was there a week and a half before the explosion. I literally thought about Donny when I saw the picture on T.V. because I know he works on the boiler system. And I don’t want to see this go away but I’m also seeing, I’m opposed to this because I’m seeing a building that’s not L.E.E.D certified, maybe it is. I’m seeing a building that doesn’t have green roof or skylights. Their putting something that looks like a corporate building in a corporate campus. This is a neighborhood. This is an education system. The new building can be strictly used for education for biology, science, and engineering. And you could have used the same footprint of the old buildings with additions, close to the river and whatever you needed to do and probably be able to get this done starting in June which you want to do. But City Planning Commission Meeting – Minutes excerpt 10

Excerpt from the City April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Not Approved by the Commission

I’m asking you, please slow this process down, it is going way too fast. And again, as the property tax owner, and as the closest one, that my driveway is going to be affected. For the past 42 years we’ve had issues with snow removal with the City on that corner. Minnehaha Academy has been good through different times. And I’ve been involved with snow removal with you guys. I shoveled northwest conference. I’m wrapping up. As an alumni, I’m very disappointed with how this whole process has happened. And to just say that we’re educators, we’re not builders, well let’s work on that. And please, slow this process down.

Commissioner Luepke-Pier: I had a question for the last speaker. Just to clarify, in your quest to slow the process down, can you possibly succinctly identify like maybe two or three goals you would hope to achieve if the process were slowed down.

Doug Braithwaite: Number one, communication with the neighbors and by the way alumni. Because I will speak from an alumni standpoint, nobody has received anything with the exception of dates. The arts department is going to open the spring of this year. The goal is to have the gymnasium back open by the fall of this year and to start construction in June of this year to be completed by the school year next year. That is way too fast. Communication, number one. I mean that’s a huge thing. And again…..

Commissioner Luepke-Pier: I didn’t mean to put you on the spot, I’m just trying to figure out what the goals would be.

Doug Braithwaite: And parking and issues and stuff like that. They could have designed using the same footprint, you know 80% of it. And where the STEM lab used to be and actually extend out farther and still maintain the current parking, still maintain the tennis courts, still maintain the parking on the 47th Ave side. Which now is going to be at least 1/3 larger.

Commissioner Luepke-Pier: So, can I summarize? Communication, parking and building design. Are those the three areas that…

Doug Braithwaite: And building design, yes.

Michelle Coady (3236 48th Ave S): We live roughly 400 feet from the campus depending on where you measure from. Might I add that on 46th Ave, the whole north south street adjacent to the soccer field, never got a letter. Nobody got a letter. And I’m twelve houses away, I never got a letter. I found out about this ten days ago, got on the task force eight days ago. And to the last question, I’ve actually got three ask. I want to be really clear because it’s not that the task force wasn’t clear. It was on page four and five of the note that went to you guys of the five-page note. And then after the meeting on Wednesday, it was overwhelming to us what we heard from the neighbors. They need three things. They need the building to be setback, moved west and shortened. Take the height down. We need to address their parking issue and the traffic issue. So, let me just start with the building placement, reduce the planned height of the proposed building and move the proposed building west off of the critical river corridor. Our neighbor created, you have a handout in front of you, and I think two people got shorted on it, a handout on the second page, and there’s a little post- it note that allows you to move the rectangular buildings and see whether or not do they fit in the space that currently exist. Could it be moved slightly? The designers, we are not architects, the designers have done a nice job but we know this building mass, you have 10.6 acres on sight, could be moved west and the height could be reduced. We’re not suggesting the design needs to be changed as a result, most of the budgeting doesn’t need to change, but move it. And this could be done with the necessary square footage needed to support their aspirational enrollment of 540. Plus, the design doesn’t change, only placement and elevations, greatly reducing the time to redesign. Please see if we can help Minnehaha achieve their dreams and truly City Planning Commission Meeting – Minutes excerpt 11

Excerpt from the City April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Not Approved by the Commission respect the river, the neighbors, the State of Minnesota law, the 35 feet, and comply with City code. Related to parking, they’re currently two numbers out there. There’s 249, those are what the students, staff and faculty have access to. There’s also a number that is 69, which is actually on site. 20 of them are at the Conference Center. The students, faculty and staff have current access to 249. We would ask that Minnehaha redesign to this number of parking spots. Because even with this number of on campus parking spots, the neighborhood consistently experiences overflow into the neighborhood, particularly two to three nights a week. Maybe up to four nights a week where people are parking in all of the streets one block on all sides of it, and probably particularly in the north. So those north residents have a serious issue. This problem will only be exacerbated when you add 190 students along with whatever faculty and staff is required to support that. And we ask that Minnehaha develop and incentivize a plan to encourage and support more carpooling. Perhaps give spots closest to the building for those that do carpool. Help students get go-to cards. They can park out at Fort Snelling and take the light rail into the 21 straight down Lake St. Use city transportation and bike. According to the principal, he said roughly ten people bike, I think that’s a pretty high number. I live very close and I’ve lived there for 30 years. Traffic, when Minnehaha was in session at the north campus, for at least again one block all around the school, it is unsafe at all of the times where students come and go. My neighbors, all of us, on our block really come ?? a lot of our alley a block south of there. Because trying to enter or exit off of 32nd St has become too unsafe and congested. And there was transportation study done, the Travel Demand Management Plan, and that was released in a draft form just six days ago. So, a lot to digest there but frankly it is completely and wholly inadequate. Especially compared to a study that was done 17 years ago when there was a Minnehaha remodel where they gave the lowest rating possible for all of the intersections studied. Now they’ve got a rating of C, before it was an F. We ask that with the neighborhood input this study be redone now. Again, in the fall of 2020, before Minnehaha can request anything additional related to changes on the north campus. As we all know they have a phase two that has been communicated, they have submitted it, it’s in drawings. Why is this study flawed? The study relied on visual counts and was done at key intersections. Apparently, that was partially designed between Minnehaha and the City. But there were no Minnehaha students there, and Minneapolis Schools were on spring break the week of the visual counting of students. So, we know that the numbers used for modeling can’t be right and when you plug in mathematical models there’s no way to currently factor in 16 to 18-year-old driving habits. The study also did not include key areas for studying Edmund Blvd, which is a major north south route between the campuses. And the reason that’s important is, your major biggest sports of high school students actually happen on the south campus. So, all those kids are zipping down Edmund Blvd. It wasn’t, the 47th St was not studied and that’s a new egress for student parking. And 33rd and W River Pkwy where all the neighbors now are trying to get onto the Parkway has not been studied. The traffic study did suggest, and John mentioned this earlier, the consideration of the school staff member directing traffic at the east parking lot driveway and off the W River Pkwy intersection is completely unsafe for teachers and staff. And in my opinion and unprofessional ask of the consulting firm to mitigate congestion concerns. So, we have three ask in the neighborhood. There’s a lot of important ask that Minnehaha has come to the table for them, but nothing has happened on these three, with building placement and height, parking and traffic. Thank you.

Blake Christensen (3349 47th Ave S): I live a little less than two blocks south of the north campus. I love my neighbors. I love my school. I’m a teacher at Minnehaha. I’ve been there for 18 years. And I love my kids. I have four kids; a fourth grader who’s in my class this year, a sixth grader, a ninth grader and a tenth grader who go to the north campus. And I want to tell you something that happened this weekend. On Saturday, we went to the final performance of Minnehaha’s production of Working the musical. As with the fall production, Minnehaha had to find performance space outside of Minnehaha. And Minnehaha gratefully accepted the University of Minnesota’s offer to use the Rarig Center free of charge. The performance was amazing and show cased many of the talented actors, singers, musicians, and filmmakers at Minnehaha. One scene featured a mason building a wall using 31 bricks, representing the address 3100 saved from the City Planning Commission Meeting – Minutes excerpt 12

Excerpt from the City April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Not Approved by the Commission demolished Minnehaha buildings; carried one by one by the cast and crew. After the performance, the cast and the crew did the traditional strike to remove all of the objects used for the set, props, costumes and all that. A number of the students, I think most of them including our oldest son together with some faculty and parents drove back to the building at 3100 W River Pkwy to bring the items back to the stage and theater storage areas. For many of the students, this was the first time that they had been back in the building since the explosion. Maybe it was the exhaustion and emotion from their final performance but many of these students experienced significant emotions seeing the spaces that were so familiar and yet forever changed. Students had an opportunity to wander around some of the spaces and the adults later found many of them huddled together or alone in tears, missing their school and wanting to be back. As parents of Minnehaha students, and a neighbor, and a dad, and a teacher, I support the plans that Minnehaha has developed for their rebuilding at 3100 W River Pkwy because we are in a building, we are in a park, a business park, where it is way crowded with good faculty, and good staff, and good kids that are putting up with this. And I think if we wait longer, we might not survive. Thank you.

Wendy Haan (3824 47th Ave S): I’m a neighbor of the school, I’m also the co-founder of Minnesota Citizens for the Protection of Migratory Birds. I’m also here to represent the Audubon Chapter of Minneapolis and the Friends of Roberts Bird Sanctuary. I’m also representing many people in the neighborhood who are bird watchers. I’m very sympathetic to the last speaker and I feel that the things that are brought to the neighborhood task force were environmental stewardship, which is very important. I’ve heard from some of the parents that there’s a bird program taught at Minnehaha in the 5th grade to all the 5th graders. Which I think is wonderful. But when ?? is talking about views of the river and embracing the outdoors, I think that’s wonderful. But at the same time embracing the outdoors, do they want to be destroying the bird population that migrate through? Everyone knows it’s a very important migratory fly way, the Mississippi River. This is right next to it. As to opposed to the US Bank Stadium is six blocks from the river. Our group grew very instrumental in working with them to get them to use the bird safe fretted glass. They were instructed to work with Audubon Minnesota to discuss the problem and alleviate it. We all know what happened. Now it’s the main bird killer in our city. (In audible) working with them to retrofit it. It’s not complicated, bird safe glass is not complicated. The Minneapolis city code that we would like to use insert as part of the conditions of approval was worked on by bird experts. It is not just for skyways, it’s for all glass. It can be applied to any glass building. This building is a lot of glass. It has the, the bird safe glass has to be applied up to 40 feet to be effective. It doesn’t need a lot of discussion. The school has said it, (inaudible) meetings, the only two and the public meetings, we will make the building bird safe. That went over very well with the neighborhood. But as much as I try to get them to use the proper language, which is standard bird safe glass language, they resisted that and say that they won’t let you discuss it. Now hearing that they’re going to consider design reviews makes me very skeptical. And so, I leave it up to you commissioners to ensure that we preserve the bird populations for the future generations. For the same students of that school. Thank you very much.

Lisa Fink (3144 46th Ave S): When we saw the pictures of the campus and on the left side we could see the green soccer field, and I look out at the soccer field every day. And I’m here today, people have very articulately I would say explained my point of view. But I wanted to say that I’m here because so many times in life I have not stood up and raised my voice and it was too late to do so later. And we have time to stop and pause and look at all the things people are saying, the neighbors, to make this a successful rebuild. And I’m very aware, I looked at the building that was, looked like a bombing site for eight or nine months from August 3rd. In fact, I was one of those that ran out onto the field because I was home and I stood with the soccer players as we looked at the fire and the smoke and heard the….it was terrible. So, I feel for getting this done fast. But it’s too fast as several people have said. To not include relationships as the school has so, so focused on. And they mean it. I think relationship building, together we rise. This is not together. And I think that even though people want to be there by the fall of 19. Students can learn that for the greater good, it is City Planning Commission Meeting – Minutes excerpt 13

Excerpt from the City April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Not Approved by the Commission worth delaying for six months, a year, whatever to get it more right. Thank you and I would request that there be a, that you deny or delay the conditional use permit and variances.

Ty Thomas (3300 46th Ave S): Born and raised in South Minneapolis, just a short block away. I have three kids that currently attend Minnehaha and I just wanted to come up here and share my perspective, which is a real-life perspective. I currently work in corporate American; my wife works at the State. I do have a small business which allows me to work from home twice during the week. So, I’m very familiar with the area. I take my kids to and from school. So just to give you a real-life concept. My kids definitely want to get back into the school. We’re displaced right now. They want to me back in their normal environment. And having that experience at Minnehaha in our neighborhood where we live. The school has done a great job facilitating in such a short amount of time, trying to create that futuristic educational work space. We want that for our kids. I think it only adds value to the walkway, to the community, and it looks beautiful. So, there’s no objections. I completely object to any delay for building the school. We want to make sure things move forward. We want that new learning environment for our kids. We want to make sure we’re back to normal. We’re able to go on and start our healing process by being in the school. Because that’s when our process starts, being back where we started and moving forward as a community at Minnehaha. Thank you for your time.

Edna Brazaitis (Nicollet Island): The reason I’m here is to tell you that right now, improvements on the recreational aspects of the river are going at warp speed. Believe it or not, we may be taking out dams, we may be creating natural resource recreation areas in the gorge itself that are fantastic. And this is from a symposium just this Saturday that Dr. ??? spoke at. So, I’m here to talk about the issue of height. I want to support the National Park Service, the Friends of the Mississippi and the Sierra Club (recording glitch). I appreciate the idea of (recording glitch) of the steeple, but I when I looked at, I think they talked about that it would reduce it to the top of the cross on the chapel. And the cross is just a small metal structure if you look on figure two. And as you know, usually what steeples look like, its, here’s the church, here’s the steeple. It’s something, it’s a (inaudible) it becomes narrower. It looks like also that it might have glass in it. So, it’s a different kind of thing. It has a different kind of visual impact than a block structure. Why I’m also (recording glitch) talk after listening to everybody is, my neighbor is DeLaSalle High School. DeLaSalle High School has been on Nicollet Island for longer than Minnehaha Academy. DeLaSalle High School has suffered through fires and tragedy. And just two years ago, DeLaSalle High School wanted to make educational improvements in their Innovative Learning Center. And maybe some of you were here and approved that design. It was brilliant. They were able to deal with the constraints on Nicollet Island, which are also very tight as far as height and what you can do. They slid their new center in there and didn’t get a word from any of the neighbors. In fact, they got support and appreciation for what they’re doing. It is a Christian school but it doesn’t need a tower or a steeple to (inaudible) its devotion. (Recording glitch) after hearing everybody speak, one of the problems here is, its rushed. There are ways to do it. Cuningham Architects is just as clever as the people that DeLaSalle used. But they have been challenged to do what they have to do. To fit in with the Critical Area. So, I’m asking you to deny the CUP (conditional use permit). It’s definitely, it does not meet the Critical Area part of the Comprehensive Plan, which talks about how you have to preserve and enhance the area while the public recreation experience is improved. And strong statements like the City will prevent development to block (inaudible) has a significant negative impact on key scenic views. These are strong statements. We’re at a point now where we’re going to make great progress on what this area’s going to be. These small things can make a negative difference. Thank you very much.

Anne : I’m actually not a resident of the neighborhood anymore. My sister (recording glitch) we’ve lived in 65 years. Half a block from (recording glitch) and when I visit, parking is an issue. More from Lake St along (recording glitch) perhaps from the students. I want to address the issues about parking and traffic. The City Planning Commission Meeting – Minutes excerpt 14

Excerpt from the City April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Not Approved by the Commission principal said there was still plenty of, there was more parking spaces that students could take advantage of. What I think is the problem with that is that there was also a discussion from the traffic study that there’s quite a delay in getting in and out on 32nd St and probably students if they have to hurry for work or wherever they’re going after school, don’t choose to be in a parking lot and be in that delay, so they park on resident streets. The other thing is that there was a gentleman at the last meeting who talked about, there was already a (recording glitch) at Minnehaha, (recording glitch) prevent more by having a different way of handling the traffic than other people have talked about. I would like to say that it was actually a Minnehaha Academy graduate who died on 36th St and the River Rd. And it was after that that a stop sign was placed at that corner. I haven’t heard anyone mention yet that a stop sign could be one solution. Placed at 32nd St and the River Rd. I’m not sure how, I know that traffic flow is interrupted but it might also be a safe alternative for people trying to get out onto the River Rd. The other thing I want to say is, this agenda states that Minnehaha Academy is an existing school of K through 12, but I want to make the point that what we’re talking about is a high school from 9 to 12. And what we learned at the first neighborhood meeting was that the building was placed, the phase I building was placed as it is (recording glitch) to the river because they had hoped to put a phase II building for a middle school. I thought about this. I am much opposed to having a middle school based on all of the issues you’ve already heard about. I’ve thought about it, I thought, maybe if they want to do a more building for the high school but not to add the problem of a middle school. I know that’s in the future but (recording glitch) let you know that was my perspective of that. (Recording glitch) I understand their need to get the students back on campus. (Recording glitch) understand that you want to preserve history as well as show their forward thinking in their education. I think that it’s not necessary to show their (recording glitch) on the outside of the building. I wanted to apologize to the architect Mike because I told him after our meeting that it was an ugly building. And I do apologize to you because it’s not necessarily the building. It’s the idea that the building could be very beautiful but it’s in the wrong place. It doesn’t belong on the River Pkwy. And I spoke up and I was told that they would look at other faces for the outside of the building but we don’t have any way of knowing what will happen if you go ahead and approve the plan as stated. So, thank you for your time.

Kim Gordon (3249 47th Ave S): I’m less than a block away from the campus. I would like you to please deny the CUP (conditional use permit) request. The building was likened by one of the other speakers to a corporate campus and that is very much what the new look would be. It would be very, very close to the river. It is going to be the largest new structure on the gorge in the face of these coming zoning restrictions and rethinking of the critical corridor and I think those values are more important than the Academy having an artificially set emergency deadline for having the students back on the school. I think the future plan for the river and the corridor is much more important than their determination to have students (recording glitch) in fall of next year. I don’t think that’s a reasonable excuse. That expediency does not trump the State’s and the City’s view for the river gorge. And the community of the school is being presented as sort of the neighborhood school. It’s not. It’s a commuter campus. According to their website they want to draw from the entire metro area and throughout the world. People drive to this school. Students drive to this school. people do not bike to this school. Parking is going to be an incredible problem and the traffic and the critical streets has not been studied. The potential for having a F rated intersection at the parkway where cars will have about a one minute per car wait with at least a 15 car stack up is not acceptable. We cannot mitigate the traffic flow on W River Pkwy which is a main downtown transportation route for commuters. And their solution to this has been to say that they will have a monitor from the staff stand there and talk to students about safe driving. That is not adequate to cause people to spend 15 minutes waiting to get their car through an intersection. These are genuine problems that have not been addressed. They have not given us time to absorb their rapid changes that have been dropped as recently as this afternoon. I would like you to reject the CUP until the community and the school can come together and make reasonable plans.

City Planning Commission Meeting – Minutes excerpt 15

Excerpt from the City April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Not Approved by the Commission

(156 Bedford St SE): I just wanted to say that it isn’t expediency as the reason for the timeline for this project. There are families whose lives are upended right now with children attending different campuses and driving all over. It is something that is going to have a long-lasting effect on families and children in Minneapolis, in St. Paul, and the surrounding area for longer than a year. I know that many people think of Minnehaha as a commuter campus but I just want to reiterate again that there is approximately 60% of the students who live in Minneapolis and St. Paul. And more than half of those are in zip codes that touch the boundaries of where the school is located. I think there is a lot the school can do to encourage other forms of transportation that haven’t been done in the past. Thanks.

Chair Brown: I will close the public hearing. Thanks everyone for your comments. Commissioners we have several applications before us, starting with the conditional use permit for a K12 school. Are there any further questions? Commissioner Schroeder.

Commissioner Schroeder: Thank you Mr. Chair. I’d like to make a motion to amend the staff recommendation. You’ll be getting a copy right now. These amendments reflect from the Ward 2 office. They’ve been working with the stakeholders on both sides. Many of these recommendations you’ve heard from the testimony that’s been given. There still may be disagreements on other points but the Ward 2 office believes this is what (recording glitch) general agreements already are. If it’s helpful I’m happy to point out the differences in the staff recommendations. So, to (application) A (condition) 3, the amendment would be to cross out the applicant shall prevent through traffic from the school north to 47th Ave S and instead add a gate shall be maintained at the north property line to prevent vehicular access to and from the site via 47th Ave S. This gate shall be maintained through any future expansion of the school as a dead-end condition only to be used for emergency vehicles. Change (application) B (condition) 5, to add to the sentence the application shall work with CPED staff to identify areas on the first 40 feet of the building addition where bird safe glazing as defined by Minneapolis Code of Ordnance Chapter 535.890, and for everyone’s reference, that’s the ordinance on the skyway, shall be incorporated. The next is in (application) F, I would like to add three numbers. So, you’ll have a number 12, 13, and 14. Number 12 would be, the applicant shall implement recommendations from Mississippi Watershed Management organization to design and incorporate stormwater management best practices. The additional number 13, of the exterior building lighting shall be limited to security, entry location, and building identification purposes and will not include a building lighting on the exterior surfaces of the façade, steeple, or other building components. Parking lot and other street lighting would be focused downlighting and of a color consistent with the International Dark Skies Community guidelines. The applicant shall reduce lighting pollution by minimizing the use of interior lights after 8pm and fully shading exterior windows on the building additionally as feasible. Number 14 would be, the applicant shall work with the neighborhood stakeholders to facilitate public accessibility to any memorial green space included on the site. I’d be happy to answer any questions.

Chair Brown: Thank you Commissioner Schroeder. Are there any further questions on the alternative motion language that has been presented? Commissioner Luepke-Pier. Commissioner Rockwell.

Commissioner Rockwell: I wanted to say just to the last comment and based on, I support these changes. I also wanted to state on the few of part on transportation. I think there are more things the school can probably do. I think of Minneapolis Public Schools decision to have Metro Transit passes available. They just give them to students. I know that Minnehaha has a bus system of their own but that would be something certainly to consider playing with the numbers that we heard from Minneapolis and St. Paul.

Commissioner Luepke-Pier: I have a question regarding (recording glitch) because it a (recording glitch) tying into what we have on the (recording glitch) what was published. So, the (recording glitch) given conditional City Planning Commission Meeting – Minutes excerpt 16

Excerpt from the City April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Not Approved by the Commission use permit item B where it says number 5 but I think that’s perhaps supposed to be number 2. I’m not sure. My question related to that, are you saying the first 40 feet of the building addition and just one of the two higher wings or each of the two wings? I just want some clarity because it could be construed as being (inaudible) 20 feet or 40 per building. Just some more clarity.

Commissioner Schroeder: Sure. I believe one of the speakers mentioned it as 40 feet (recording glitch).

Off microphone statement.

Commissioner Luepke-Pier: Okay. Got it. Thank you.

Chair Brown: Other questions or comments. Commissioner Kronzer.

Commissioner Kronzer: I just want to ask staff related to the gate at 47th and just have a discussion with the neighboring property owner to understand his concerns and kind of work those in. We certainly don’t want to limit access. Unless you already understand it.

Staff Sether: So, I was doing my best to look at the survey. It looks as though as proposed; the gate would be south of that north property line. But the amended plan would move the gate north to the shared property line. It would be nearly adjacent to that driveway. The gate is truly intended to only be used, as my understanding, in emergency vehicle use operation only. The gates will open in towards the property and (recording glitch) will block the driveway adjacent to the north.

Commissioner Magrino: So, do we have a motion and a second for all of these?

Chair Brown: We don’t yet. Certainly, someone could make a motion.

Commissioner Schroeder: I’d make that motion.

Chair Brown: So, we have a motion, Commissioner Schroeder, to I assume adopt the revised motion language if I can quickly summarize. So, modifying the third condition to item A of the conditional use permit for an existing K12 school to add some language about the gates at the north property line to prevent vehicular access. And the gate is maintained through any future expansion of the school. Modifying the second condition on item B, the conditional use permit for building height, adding some language related to additional bird safe glazing. And finally, on the site plan review, add three conditions to the staff recommendation. One, related to implementing the recommendations from the Mississippi Watershed Management organization on stormwater management best practices. Another on exterior building lighting and parking lot lighting consistent with the Dark Skies Community guidelines. And finally, a third condition added, that the applicant shall work with neighborhood stakeholders to facilitate public accessibility to any memorial green space. Is there a second? (Second) We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Sweasey.

Commissioner Sweasey: Thank you Chairman Brown. I’m looking at Commissioner Schroeder’s amendments and it looks to me roughly that five of them correspond to the conditions of approval to be incorporated that was submitted by the applicant that Ms. Lansing referenced earlier. I haven’t read them all word for word but it looks like five of these in Commissioner Schroeder’s amendment match some of the nine things that it looks like the applicant would agree to. The reason I bring that up is that, so the applicant proposed nine things that may or may not be appropriate to add. A commissioner now recommended these changes. The Community Council’s letter, it has three conditions that are very broad and might even be unenforceable, I’m City Planning Commission Meeting – Minutes excerpt 17

Excerpt from the City April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Not Approved by the Commission not sure about that. My point is that, there’s a lot coming at us here, pretty fast on these things. And I think that the fact that the applicant suggested nine things, we’re looking at an amendment to add five. The Community Council wants three suggest to me that there is much room for further discussion on this. And that what’s happening here with this amendment is just a symptom of what people are complaining about, is that this whole thing feels rushed. Some I’m not going to be able to support that. It just, I’m not sure why these five are in here and the other four aren’t. And it’s just, I just can’t get behind it. I find very persuasive these (inaudible) of the community members that this is just going way too fast. Fewer than thirty days that they’ve had to review it, just doesn’t feel right.

Commissioner Schroeder: I just liked to respond to that. I think it’s a little bit of an overstatement. To clarify, these five are in here because of the work of the Ward 2 office has done. And they sound familiar because they’ve been working with both stakeholders. Where you have some that are on one side and one on the other, they’ve been integrated into five. There’s still some disagreement that has happened. I would urge folks to agree to these to these amendments as a step forward regardless of how you feel about the (inaudible). This is a way to show that there has been a lot of work to bring both sides together.

Commissioner Magrino: I’ll say, (recording glitch) once. And I think in general, I don’t know that we really have a compelling argument to continue this another time. I guess we’re just discussing the entire project right now. It’s a fairly clear-cut case here that there’s a school that’s in a R1 district which is a conditionally permitted use. And we’ve added a whole lot of conditions to try to make sure it’s as appropriate as possible for the area. I think I’d point out that technically they could build a considerable larger building, about 33% larger. If they just knock the steeple down a few feet, they wouldn’t need the conditional use permit for height. And they’re already allowed, given the density allowances for this site, a significantly larger building. But one thing I did want to add, back in 2015 we had, and sometimes it’s kind of a similar case with a senior home in South Minneapolis where they’d been adding to it over a few years. And there was a little bit of uncertainty with the folks who lived around it. They’re adding an addition here, something there. Sounds like this is sort of a similar situation where we’re not sure if they’re eventually going to move the middle school to this site. And people are wondering what’s going on. So, I would like to make a motion to add to the conditional use permit for the school, a fourth stated condition, that the applicant is required to prepare a campus master plan identifying any proposed additions or major alterations over the next ten years, engaging the neighbors in that process.

Chair Brown: So, we have a motion to add a fourth condition to the conditional use permit for the existing K12 school that the applicant prepare a campus master plan addressing any modifications over the next ten years. Is there a second? We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? No discussion. I might just ask the applicant just to verify their comfort level with that or if there is anything they wanted, their nodding so they’re comfortable with that recommendation. Any further discussion on that amendment? Commissioner Luepke-Pier.

Commissioner Luepke-Pier: (inaudible)

Chair Brown: If there is no further discussion on that amendment we can vote on that by voice vote. All in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. We’ve added that fourth condition. Going back to the original motion. I think Commissioner Ellison; do you have something to add? And then Commissioner Luepke-Pier.

Commissioner Ellison: I can support this because it sounds familiar. Because it is what I’ve been hearing some of the concerns raised. But it is a lot to, I’m not sure if the neighborhood feels, I mean I understand that City Planning Commission Meeting – Minutes excerpt 18

Excerpt from the City April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Not Approved by the Commission there were neighborhood meetings held. Notices were sent out to anyone who lived within 350 feet. But for such a large structure I’m not sure that included enough neighbors. And so, and I don’t know how this (inaudible) but I think there needs to be more discussion with the neighbors.

Commissioner Luepke-Pier: I’m struggling with this a little bit as well just because, the one thing I heard consistently was that it was too fast and too rushed. And I know as an architect they’ve been working on this for a long time. So, from their point of view, it’s been a probably a really through designed process. But the community feels as though they weren’t involved enough to feel as though they were part, on that ride. They got kind of brought in at the end. So, I’m hesitant to move forward with this because we only just got it. And it feels as though the community hasn’t even had a chance to look at this, much less respond to it. And as much as I’m really happy to see the bird safe glazing add, because I think that’s really important. I feel as though maybe it’s, I feel like we just put our foot on the gas here a little bit, without having any, this isn’t what was noticed. It’s not a few minor changes, it’s a lot of changes. So, I feel as though I don’t want to prolong the process to prevent them from staying on their construction schedule because I’m sure budgeting and everything is on that. But at the same time, I feel as though a little bit of goodwill could go a long way. And give them a chance to kind of work with the community. At least another cycle to at least discuss what their feedback is on this before we decide to yea or nay it. I just feel like it’s really rushed. And it’s unfortunate that the community wasn’t brought in sooner in this process so they can feel as though they had a contributing hand in crafting it. But I think even the questions about why are three stories over 50 feet. I mean it’s a simple question about floor to ceiling heights and plumbing spaces. But they don’t know why it is that way. And I’m not sure there isn’t a section in our packet to be able to answer it either but I would imagine there is hopefully a good reason for it other than to get good views. So, I don’t think I could support this today. I think I could possibly support it the next cycle, but I’d want to hear feedback. I mean so far, we’ve heard our thoughts on it but we haven’t really given anybody from the community a chance to weigh in on this. And this all of 20 minutes notice. So, I’m torn because of that.

Chair Brown: Any further discussion? Alright, Commissioner Rockwell.

Commissioner Rockwell: I guess I indicated earlier that I would support these. I think we did see these in the Minnehaha Academy memo submitted today. Most of them verbatim. One of them is stricter on the school than the school was on themselves about the bird safe glass. So, I feel comfortable (inaudible).

Chair Brown: If there is no further discussion. So, we have a motion and a second once again for staff recommendation with some amendments on all items. So again, that’s any of the conditional use permit school with a change to condition number 3 item B. The conditional use permit for height with some changes to condition number 2. Returning variances C and D. Approving variance E. And approving the site plan review with the addition of three conditions. So, if there is no further discussion, clerk please call the roll.

Aye: Cowgill, Ellison, Kronzer, Magrino, Rockwell, Schroeder, and Sweasy Nay: Luepke-Pier and Slack 7-2

City Planning Commission Meeting – Minutes excerpt 19