Despite concerns about height and neighborhood planning mechanisms, the controversial St. Anthony Mill development will be going forward as planned.

In a series of votes Thursday, a key City Council committee voted to allow the project to proceed. The project’s developer, Shaefer Richardson, will be asked to make some design adjustments, but none of those issues are considered to be contentious enough to derail the development.

Though the height of the three towers, which will rise from 20 to 27 stories above the riverfront on Main Street between Second and Sixth avenues, has sparked criticism from some residents, the only voice heard in opposition to the plan at the Zoning and Planning Committee public hearing came from a rival developer. Michael Norton, an attorney representing the nearby Flour Sack Flats, told the committee that the project “massively exceeds all guidelines” and would impinge on his client’s “solar rights” by blocking 90 percent of the sun from the green roof and solar panels currently under construction at Flour Sack Flats.

“That’s a whole new argument,” said Council Member Lisa Goodman (Ward 7). “Are you saying a developer can block any other developer from building near them if they put a green roof and solar panels on their buildings?”

Because the city approved the project, said Norton, it must protect those solar rights. “There’s ample precedent for this.”

Norton also argued that because the city had limited the height of Flour Sack Flats to 63 feet, it should also limit the height of all other developments in the historic district. Anything over 84 feet, he said, “eviscerates the impact of the historic buildings.”

Both Goodman and Ward 10 Council Member Ralph Remington noted that the proposed heights of the towers exceeded guidelines set by the Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood Master Plan, and wondered why the neighborhood didn’t oppose the project. “If we ignore the current plan, what message are we sending the citizenry?” asked Remington.

The neighborhood is looking at this on a case-by-case basis, explained Jo Radzwill, chair of the Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood Association’s Land Use Committee. “The developer has helped the neighborhood achieve its goals in spite of the height,” she said. “The gains of having this development outweigh the negatives of going against the plan.”

It was a similar trade-off that made the project palatable to Goodman and the majority of the committee. “My biggest concern is the preservation of the ‘A’ Mill,” said Goodman, who represents the downtown ward. “If height is a trade-off for historic preservation, I can live with that.”

But Goodman first wanted to receive assurances from Schafer Richardson representatives that they would develop the ‘A’ Mill before any of the other buildings in the project. Kit Richardson, a principal in the firm, replied that the developer was “committed” to the ‘A’ Mill project and would make it a priority. He added that he had been approached by several developers who were interested in acquiring the development rights for the rest of the site and would likely sell off one or two of the parcels. “We’re probably not capable of developing the entire project all at once,” he said.

Shafer Richardson had appealed a denial of a certificate of appropriateness from the city’s Heritage Preservation Commission last month and came to the Zoning and Planning Committee to receive another hearing. The committee considered separately the ‘A’ Mill component as well as three appeals regarding the Bluff Street Development to the east of the historic mill. The ‘A’ Mill appeal was granted on a 4-2 vote, with committee chair Gary Schiff and Ward 2 Council Member Cam Gordon voting against. The Bluff Street appeals were all granted on identical 5-1 votes, with Gordon voting against all three.

The City Council is expected to take up the matter at its February 24 meeting.