►
From YouTube: November 20, 2014 Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
A
Good
morning,
I'll
call
to
order
the
regular
meeting
of
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
today
is
November
of
20th
2014
I'm
Lisa
bender
I
chair
the
committee,
I'm
joined
by
committee
members,
council,
member
right,
goodman,
johnson
and
council
president
johnson.
We
have
just
one
item
on
our
agenda
today
regarding
a
text
amendments
to
allow
for
accessory
dwelling
units
in
the
city
of
minneapolis
and
we'll
start
with
a
staff
presentation
on
this
item.
B
Good
morning,
chair
bender
and
council
members
accessory
drawing
text
accessory
dwelling
units
owning
code
text.
Amendment
was
introduced
by
a
council
member
councilmember
bender
in
june
of
this
year
to
allow
a
to
use
citywide
the
Planning
Commission
at
the
November
10th
meeting
unanimously
voted
to
recommend
to
the
City
Council
approval
of
the
text
amendment.
B
So
just
briefly,
and
basically,
what
is
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
often
referred
to
as
a
garage
apartment
or
a
granny
flat
boiled
down
to
a
dwelling
unit,
locate
on
the
same
lot
as
a
principal
residential
structure,
smaller
an
area
in
the
main
unit
with
its
own
kitchen,
bathroom
and
sleeping
area.
Three
types
internal,
such
as
an
attic
or
basement
apartment
attached
or
detached
currently
Minneapolis
Edu's,
are
only
allowed
in
a
small
portion
of
the
Phillips
community
through
an
overlay
district.
B
B
You
Pro
lot
and
a
minimum
of
10
street
parking
space
for
each
dwelling
unit,
but
not
required
to
provide
an
additional
parking
space
for
that
ad.
You
regulations
for
attached
an
internal
maximum
floor
area,
800
square
feet,
with
some
exceptions
for
existing
larger
structures.
Exterior
materials
must
match
the
principal
structure
and
we're
pro
prohibiting
exterior
stairways,
leading
to
an
upper
story
for
detached
a
few
more
regulations
than
for
the
attachment.
Internal
exterior
materials
must
be
durable,
brick,
stone,
wood,
for
example.
B
B
Okay
for
height
an
area
proposing
that
ad
you
not
be
able
to
exceed
the
height
in
area
of
the
principal
structure,
see
that
the
amendments,
a
maximum
area
proposing
a
thousand
square
feet.
That
is
a
change
from
the
version
that
went
to
the
Planning
Commission,
which
we
had
800
square
feet.
The
Planning
Commission
voted
to
recommend
this
change.
B
C
B
It's
that
midpoint
between
the
ridge,
the
highest
point
of
the
roof
and
the
bottom
of
the
ease
Eve's,
a
version
that
went
to
the
Planning
Commission
was
18
feet
and
the
Planning
Commission
felt
that
a
slight
increase
was
important
to
create
more
livable
space
in
the
upper
level
and
provide
more
design
opportunities.
Cepeda
supportive
of
both
the
the
proposed
increased
height
increase
in
height
and
square
footage
or
the
floor
area.
Aaron.
A
I
just
want
to
clarify,
since
I
was
part
of
the
Planning
Commission
discussion,
that
the
maximum
area
that
was
allowed
under
the
previous
proposed
ordinance
was
1200
square
feet
because
it
did
not
count.
Thank
you.
A
significant
portion
of
the
square
footage
if
the
structure
was
was
shorter,
and
so
this
actually
limited
this
total
square
footage
to
1,000
square
feet,
which
is
smaller
than
what
was
previously
allowed
summer.
Goodwin.
C
Has
a
question
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
completely
understand
this
without
having
to
look
up
the
regulations
when
people
call
me
about
it.
The
thousand
square
feet
also
includes
the
area
where
the
garages-
yes,
so
if
it
was
only
800
square
feet
and
the
garage
was
six
hundred
and
something
square
feet,
they'd
have
200
square
feet
to
live
in
okay.
That
would
be
unrealistic,
say
so.
C
So
that's
important
to
note,
because
I
think
the
people
out
there
think
it's
a
thousand
square
feet,
plus
the
garage
like
a
thousand
square
feet
on
top
of
the
garage,
and
that
potentially
has
been
a
misunderstanding
about
how
much
living
space
there
is
right.
Really
here
you
almost
can
have
400
square
feet
about.
A
Other
thing
is:
did
was
in
practice
so
because
you
have
only
a
thousand
square
feet,
I
mean
because
you
have
a
thousand
square
feet
total,
even
though
you
can
make
the
footprint
be
676
square
feet
in
practice.
If
you
want
to
have
two
levels,
the
maximum
you
can
go
on
the
first
floor
is
500
square
feet,
because
then
you'd
have
500
square
feet
on
each
floor,
so
it
really
pushes
them
to
have
a
smaller
footprint
as
well
and.
B
D
D
B
We
are
proposing
that
the
detached
accessory
dwelling
unit
be
allowed
to
be
within
three
feet
of
the
side,
property
line
or
three
feet
of
the
rear
property
line.
If,
in
this
example,
you
see
a
garage
or
facing
which
would
be
the
alley
to
the
left
of
the
structure,
in
that
case
the
detached
ad,
you
would
have
to
be
five
feet
to
allow
for
easy
maneuvering
of
the
vehicle
into
the
alley.
Just
want
to
point
out
that,
currently
for
garages,
they're
allowed
to
go
to
one
foot
of
the
side
and
rear
property
lines.
B
So
this
was
an
ability
to
allow
for
some
windows
and
but
to
move
the
move
day
to
you,
a
couple
feet
back
from
the
lot
lines
to
allow
for
garbage
cans
and
just
a
little
more
separation,
but
felt
is
important
to
keep
it
at
the
rear.
The
lot
and
not
to
waste
the
additional
portion
of
the
rear
yard.
But.
D
Could
you
repeat
the
question
if
they
were
building
an
accessory
dwelling
unit,
that
isn't
a
garage
isn't
on
top
of
a
garage
or
attached
to
a
garage?
It's
just
a
separate
accessory
dealt
dwelling
unit.
Yes,
how
far
can
they
be
from
the
side
you're
from
the
lot
line
on
the
side
three
feet,
even
though
we
just
passed
a
change
on
the
ordinance
for
new
construction
that,
what's
a
rule
on
that,
there's.
D
B
B
A
A
B
C
C
D
D
C
That's
why
I
can
live
with
it.
I
just
can't
imagine.
With
a
lot
of
these
existing
garages,
people
aren't
going
to
tear
down
their
garage
to
build
a
new
garage
and
build
a
new
accessory
dwelling
in
it
perhaps
accepted
my
ward
or
in
13,
it's
just
not
economically
feasible
to
rent.
This
is
not
an
affordable
housing,
but
let's
be
honest
about
that.
I
mean
there's
just
no
way
that
this
is
going
to
be
providing
a
lot
of
affordable
housing.
So
it's
going
to
be
expensive
to
do
it.
A
B
I
just
want
to
end
by
talking
about
the
public
participation
was
an
important
part
of
this
project
and
had
overwhelming
support
with
over
200
completed
surveys,
those
testifying
at
the
planning
commission
meeting
and
emails
and
letters
that
we
received
from
individuals.
Letters
from
organizations
that
you
had
in
your
packet
include
letters
of
support
from
the
senior
citizen
advisory
committee,
AARP,
transit
for
livable
communities,
Minnesota
area
of
realtor's
and
preservation,
alliance
of
Minnesota
and
concludes
my
presentation.
My
colleague,
mailing
Anderson
and
I
are
here
to
answer
questions
additional
questions
you
might
have
are.
C
A
Three
there's
been
some
discussion
to
about
the
cost
of
building
a
detached
accessory
dwelling
unit,
and
then
could
you
also
talk
about?
We
have
a
State
Building
Code,
that's
a
little
bit
different
than
some
warm
weather
states,
which
I
think
impacts,
particularly
the
detached
accessory
dwelling
units
and
the
feasibility
of
converting
an
existing
garage
to
a
needy.
You
could
you
just
talk
a
bit
about
that.
Cuz
I
think
it
is
also
important
in
terms
of
thinking
about
how
many
of
these
we
might
see,
I
think
it's
actually
gonna
be
probably
more
like
three
yeah.
B
For
the
car
integra,
our
colleagues
in
plan
review,
estimating
100
at
least
100
mm
hundred
dollars
a
square
foot
would
not
be
a
problem
to
reach
that
amount,
so
it
could
exceed
that.
So
a
thousand
square
foot
structure,
you're
looking
at
at
least
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
and
for
building
code
issues,
could
remember
bender
the
specifics
on
your
question
again.
My.
B
There
it
is
it,
it
will
be
working
closely
with
our
colleagues
and
plan
review
to
allow
for
a
conversion
of
an
existing
carriage
house.
We
don't
want
to
see
those
torn
down
just
to
build
one
of
these,
so
there
is
the
possibility
of
conversions,
but
it
will
be
expensive
in
getting
engineering
reports
in
allowing
for
all
the
line,
the
utility
lines
to
come
in
and
to
make
sure
you
have
a
warm
foundation.
If
there's
going
to
be
living
space
there,
so
there
will
be
additional
expense
with
conversions
of
carriage
homes.
A
A
The
first
change
is
to
allow
for
a
variance
in
the
height,
and
this
is
to
allow
for
conversion
of
existing
carriage
houses,
some
of
which
exceed
the
maximum
height
here,
and
so
the
previous
draft
of
the
ordinance
did
not
allow
for
a
variance
of
height,
and
this
would
still
require
that
you
get
apply
for
a
variance
but
would
allow
for
that
variance
application.
The
second
change
just
directs
the
arm
height
clarifies
where
the
height
maximums
are
described
in
the
ordinance.
A
The
third
change
emphasizes
and
clarifies
that
accessory
dwelling
units
cannot
be
larger
than
the
principal
structure
they
must
be
and
sides,
and
the
fourth
change
clarifies
that
this
question
that
we
were
discussing
earlier,
that
everything
in
a
detached
accessory
dwelling
unit
is
counted
in
the
one
thousand
square
foot
total,
including
all
of
the
square
built
square
footage,
including
stairways
and
all
of
the
square
footage.
The
garage
space,
livable
space
and
everything
so
I
I've
moved
the
substitute
motion.
Is
there
any
further
discussion?
Kasimir
goodman.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
I
was
one
of
the
most
skeptical
people
about
this
around
and
my
we
talked
about
this
in
five
neighborhoods
in
my
ward
for
three
months,
every
single
name,
every
single
neighborhood
meeting
we
discussed
this-
I
demanded
staff
do
one
and
they
did
two
public
meetings.
In
my
ward,
there
were
people
who
were
skeptical
as
well,
and
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
of
consensus
about
this
now,
at
least
in
my
ward,
which
is
a
lot,
are
one
so.
C
Four
years
he's
been
in
violation
of
the
ordinance
we
haven't
done
anything
about
it,
he's
been
living
in
his
garage,
all
the
neighbors
think
it's
perfectly
fine
and
now
without
any
action,
but
this
action
will
make
his
living
situation
legal
and
eliminate
all
of
the
drama.
That's
been
going
on
with
regard
to
zoning
enforcement
and,
in
addition,
allow
him
to
live
where
he's
been
living
and
potentially
even
now,
bent
or
live
in
the
house
he's
living
in
as
well,
because
he
couldn't
live
in
two
structures
on
one
lot.
C
So
there
are
a
lot
of
unexpected
things
that
could
happen
as
a
result
of
this
and
I
feel
fairly
confident.
At
least
the
neighborhoods
that
I
represent
are
pretty
knowledgeable
about.
What's
going
on
and
generally
pretty
supportive
and
I
know,
there
was
a
little
conversation
about
this
up
from
800
to
1,000
square
feet.
But
if
you
take
into
consideration
that
the
garage
is
there
to
the
ad,
you
can
only
be
like
400
square
feet.
So
as
long
as
we're
not
spinning
this
as
affordable
housing
I'm
good
with
it,
because
it
is
not
affordable
housing.
C
This
is
going
to
happen
in
affluent
parts
of
town
where
they
can
command
much
higher
rents
or
really
beautiful,
safe
parts
of
town
like
we're,
councilmember
Johnson
lives
where
they
can
command
pretty
good
rents
and
they
will
not
be
affordable.
So,
let's
not
fool
ourselves
that
this
is
some
big,
affordable,
housing
effort
as
much
as
it
is
a
way
for
people
to
accommodate
changes
in
family
and
how
we
define
family
and
so
again,
I
councilmember
under
I
think
you've
done
some
really
good
work
here
and
I.
C
D
D
It
got
built,
it
was
being
used
for
prostitution.
The
accessory
dwelling
unit
was
being
used
for
prostitution
and
when
we
finally
had
the
own
to
go
in
there
and
actually
find
out
who
all
was
living
there,
we
had
13
unrelated
people,
some
people
living
in
the
house,
some
people
living
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
and
no
rental
license
just
another
another
story
about
how
rules
are
enforced
in
the
city
and
the
tools
that
we
have
to
deal
with
people
that
ignore
those
rules.
They
don't
work
in
some
neighborhoods.
D
So
my
citizens,
my
neighbors,
have
concerns
about
this
they're,
very
protective
of
their
single-family
neighborhoods,
and
so
I
won't
be
sorting
this
today,
but
I
I'm,
not
thinking
anybody's,
going
to
build
a
hundred-thousand-dollar
accessory
dwelling
unit
in
in
my
ward,
when
we
have
houses
that
are
selling
for
sixty
thousand
dollars,
so
I'm
not
too
worried
about
it
being
overpopulating.
My
ward,
but
I
certainly
want
better
enforcement.
When
we
see
someone
violating
our
existing
regulations-
and
we
just
don't,
have
it
Thank
you
Thank
You,.
C
You,
madam
chair,
I,
personally,
think
that
we've
taken
up
some
issues
in
this
committee,
this
accessory
dwelling
unit
being
one
the
second
one,
being
counseled
more
upon
somos
tear
down
issue
without
banding,
together
as
six
people
to
provide
two
three
four
additional
zoning
inspectors
in
this
division.
So
you
know,
council,
member
glidden
just
sent
out
this
memo
about
committee
work
plans
and
the
importance
of
putting
together
committee
work
plans.
But
I
would
urge
us
and
I
pledge
Council
President
Johnson
to
work
with
you.
C
As
I'm
sure
the
chair,
and
vice
chair
of
this
committee
will
do
if
we
pledge
in
this
budget
to
turn
around
and
fund
three
more
people
in
zoning
inspections,
and
they
can
dedicate
two
of
them
to
the
north
side,
12
councilmember,
pollen
samo
and
her
tear
down
issue.
That
could
be
one
way
that
we
could
address
the
policy
changes
that
we've
been
making
in
this
committee,
because
our
committee
has
been
making
policy
changes
that
have
allowed
for
additional
density
and
provided
for
additional
work
and
we're
constantly
fighting
the
situation
where
the
staffing
is
not
secure.
C
So
I
will
work
with
you
personally
and
hopefully
the
chair
and
Vice
Chair
and
every
other
member
of
this
committee
will
come
in
and
say
given
what
we've
seen
in
our
committee.
We
want
this
funded
in
this
budget.
We
should
make
this
a
number
one
priority,
even
if
it
means
money
coming
from
another
location,
because
I
do
think
that
it's
not
fair
and
right
to
our
staff
to
continue
to
make
policy
changes
and
then
complain
about
the
way
that
they're
enforced.
If
we're
not
providing
the
funding
to
enforce
it.
C
So,
let's
band
together,
make
a
commitment
that
we're
going
to
get
this
done
in
this
budget.
We
have
two
or
three
weeks
now
in
order
to
do
it
and
that
would
maybe
reinforce
to
staff
all
the
work
that
they've
been
doing
has
not
been
in
vain
because
we'll
be
able
to
deal
with
some
of
the
problems
as
well.
A
Okay,
thank
you
any
further
comments
from
the
committee
I'm.
Seeing
none
you
know,
I
will
just
say
you
know
a
lot
of
staff
time
went
into
this
ordinance
change.
We
had
five
public
open
houses
with
you
know,
probably
ten
staff
at
them
each
there
to
answer
questions
I
I
feel
really
proud
of
how
much
we
really
went
into
this
with
an
open
mind
and
really
truly
listen
to
people's
concerns.
A
You
know:
we've
included
here
an
occupancy
requirement
which,
in
my
ward,
only
twenty
percent
of
homes
are
owner-occupied,
so
it
really
limits
the
application
in
the
10th,
ward
and
other
places.
Where
there's
you
know
low
Homer
ownership
rates.
So
that's
a
compromise
that
I
feel
comfortable
making.
Given
that
you
know
it
was
very
important
to
my
colleagues
to
have
that
home
ownership
requirement
there.
So
you
know
I,
think
this
discussion
has
really
put
us
in
a
good
place.
A
This
I
think
will
add
a
very
small
number
of
housing
units
over
time
in
the
city,
certainly
astoundingly
last
compared
to
the
issues
going
on
in
the
13th
ward
or
the
huge
amount
of
construction
that's
happening
in
the
3rd
and
7th
Ward's
ninety-two
percent
of
new
housing
units
this
year
have
been
in
those
two
wards,
so
you
know
we're
seeing
a
lot
of
growth
across
the
city,
which
is
demanding
more
time
from
our
inspectors,
the
Viking
stadium
construction.
All
these,
you
know
the
huge
cranes
downtown
are
really
taking
staff
time
at
night.
A
You
know
with
the
time
that
they
have
so
I
wanted
to
thank
everyone
for
their
great
efforts
and
the
staff,
especially
for
gathering
all
of
the
comments
and
finding
the
sort
of
great
compromises
on
the
size
on
the
ownership
requirement
that
this
can
really
work
the
best
that
we
can
across
the
city.
So
with
that
clerk,
could
you
please
call
the
roll
on
this
item
council.