City of Minneapolis, MN 2014 Minneapolis City Planning Commission, 19 Feb 2014

Previous Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: February 19, 2014 Minneapolis City Planning Commission Meeting

Description

Minneapolis City Planning Commission Meeting

A

Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the febrile nineteen twenty fourteen meeting of the Minneapolis City Planning Commission, my name is Ted Tucker I serve as president of the Planning Commission joining me today. Our commissioners cron zur, Brown lippy peer and slack and joining us today for his first meeting. Reply from my hennepin county is benji suleman.

A

So we will welcome him here. Then joining us means that we have had one departure. That's a Dan Cohen who served here how many years was at four years? Okay. So what I would like to do is offer up a resolution, noting noting her dance service here.

A

Let me just read this resolution of appreciation for Dan Cohen for his dedicated service to the Minneapolis City Planning Commission, whereas Dan Cohen has served on the city of Minneapolis City Planning Commission representing the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, since 2009, and whereas dan has participated in over 100 Planning Commission public hearings, making decisions and recommendations on over 1,700 land use, applications and adoption of small area plans and policy plans, and whereas the Minneapolis City Planning Commission wishes to formally recognize Dan's dedicated service to the City Planning Commission n city.

A

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Planning Commission and the staff to the City Planning Commission of the city of Minneapolis, that we extend our gratitude and appreciation to Dan Cohen for his faithful and constructive service to the city of Minneapolis, and that we extend him our best wishes for good health and happiness. Trusting that the friendships and understanding built in our mutual undertakings will be with us always approve City, Minneapolis, Planning Commission on this 19th day of februari 2012, so I will move the adoption 14.

A

Oh 2014, moved seconded okay, all in favor, say: aye opposed. Okay. We will send that resolution along to damn. Thank you very much. Our next order of business is to prove the actions from the meeting of februari. Third 2014 may have a motion to approve those actions.

A

Any discussion all in favor say aye opposed. The next item is to sort out our agenda that you find on the green sheet. I'll go through the item by item and it will decide which go on consent to be discussed or to be continued item. Number one is 916 second street south, an 801 West River Parkway, we'll put that on consent. Unless someone watches to speak in opposition to or modify staff report. Anyone for item one that goes on consent item number two is 27 groveland Terrace.

A

That too will go on consent unless one someone wants to speak in opposition to or modify staff recommendation, seeing no one that also will go on consent. Item number three is la reve condominium association, 110, Bank Street. That will go on consent. Unless someone wishes to speak in opposition to or modify a staff recommendation.

A

Seeing none item three will go on consent. Item number four is a rezoning at 29-24 grand avenue south we'll put that on consent. Unless someone wishes to speak in opposition to or modify the staff recommendation, seeing no one will put that on consent as well. Item number: five is the Hmong American partnership bus maintenance facility, 732, 30th avenue southeast will put that on consent. Unless someone wishes to speak in opposition to or modify the staff recommendation, seeing no one I'll put that on consent and item number 6.

A

The zoning code text amendment about sale of goods outside of businesses is to be continue to our next public hearing March third 2014.

A

So, let's see, may I have a motion to approve the agenda as amended, which is all items on consent, except for number six, which is to be continued.

A

Second, okay,.

A

They have a motion to move number six zoning code text, amendment to the meeting of March third 2014.

A

Okay, any discussion all in favor say: aye. Okay, that item is continued. I will open the public hearing again for items: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 again, as anyone here wishing to speak in opposition to or modify the staff recommendation on any of those five items. Yes, sir.

A

Okay, I'm sorry I that I didn't catch you the first time around.

B

A

What did you want to talk about.

A

Ok, then, we will pull that off a consent agenda and put it under discussion on the remaining items, two three four and five anyone else wishing to speak on any of those items. If not, I will close the public hearing and asked the Commission.

A

Let's see how a motion to approve those items, / staff recommendation, they have a motion to approve okay, any discussion, if not all in favor, say: aye opposed, okay items, two three four and five or approved, as recommended by staff applicants for those, should talk staff after the meeting to learn about next steps.

A

We will then move to our one item for discussion. Item number one.

A

Kimberly alleyne is staff for that uh briefly, I suppose.

C

So the item before you is a minor subdivision affecting the property at 916 second street south in 801 west river parkway. The proposal, as shown on the screen here, is to create two parcels out of one existing parcel parcel one, which is the smaller parcel, would be retained by the Guthrie Theater foundation for potential future expansion. Although nothing is planned at this time and then parcel to will be conveyed to the park development foundation for permanent use as park and that being part of gold medal park, so I guess I'll. Keep it brief at that.

C

If anyone has any questions, I'd be happy to answer those at this time.

A

Commissioners, any questions of staff at this point, I see none. Thank you very much. Okay, I'll open the public hearing you make come up and give your name and address for the record please and tell us about your concerns.

B

Yes, my name is Bob. Do. May I live at nine, oh one, second, which is the zenith in unit 602. I also happen to be recently elected as president of the zenith association board. My concern and I think if this has not been well publicized, if, if our residents knew it, they would have the concern as well the the way the lots are split up and I should back step. I, think everyone at the zenith.

B

Everyone in that area is in favor of the overall goal of this splitting of the lot, which is into a way to make a reasonable compromise with the Guthrie and, at the same time be able to have the longest preservation of what is a park that that at least is only guaranteed right now, until the 2016 under under a lease, so I think everybody would like to have the goal of this arrangement achieved the concern that I have it.

B

You don't see it here, but the zenith happens to be right across from the the you know, at least a significant portion right across the the second street, so our second street, from the the new parcel that's being split off as well as a parking lot. Now. We all know that the Guthrie needs to at least have retained some right to expand, but should it expand should a desire to expand what this arrangement does?

B

Is it freezes the Guthrie into expanding out to the east, effectively and write and to block the views of significant people in the zenith, and it also takes I would say a significant chunk of what is a very active portion of that park, whereas I would suggest that at least an arrangement that said it went a little bit less out to the east and actually then went more toward the river.

B

It actually would serve the purpose of maintaining the best portions of the usage of the park, and it would also maintain the best views for the folks in the zenith and and at least have the least burden on the residents of the zenith on those views, and my only concern is by setting it this way that really freezes where the Guthrie would do an expansion, as opposed to either doing nothing.

B

And then the issue all comes up when the Guthrie wants to do the expansion or having an arrangement that at least set this took less to the east and then went more toward the river saying. Okay, if you are going to expand, there's at least an opening to expand toward the river or decide where you're going to expand. So my objection is simply that the way that the parcel is but right now it actually freezes the guthrie to expand in a way that's most harmful to the views of the Cena. Thank you. Okay,.

A

Oh before we see if anybody else want to speak Kimberly, could you put the map up there just just refresh our memory? Is anyone else wishing to speak on this matter? Please come on up and give your name and address for the record. Please.

D

Good evening, I'm Carol Lansing a attorney at vagary Baker Daniels, representing the Guthrie in processing. This minor subdivision application.

D

You know there would be pros and cons of any arrangement here, because it's currently all park and and loved that way. If you preserved more area closer to the river road, some people would be concerned that that you know more negatively impacts. They use an enjoyment closer to the river road in the parkway and the river I guess. The key point here, though, however, is that the subdivision proposed does comply with the subdivision criteria and and ask you to support it. If you have any questions, though, I am here: okay,.

A

Any questions Commissioner looky here I'm.

E

Sensing, yet can you just talk, maybe briefly about how the determination of where that line fell, how that came about, so we can have a better understanding of why it is where it is and and why it might be not located elsewhere. I.

D

Have a this helps maybe a little bit, because this entire area is is the entire park. This part is owned by the city and under lease. The green is the lot that we're splitting and the yellow is the. It would be one parcel the parcel division. You know in part we're not going to go into this mound so that that's kind of and and how far you go to the east is really controlled by the mound.

D

So part of it is we're not going further east because of that an access to the mound I in terms of the size. It's really is speculative, it's just preserving something that they think would be a reasonable amount for future development. Arguably they could. They could want more, but but they're making this deal, I think where these sidewalks and and this access to the river parkway. And I think that the I was not part of all these discussions.

D

But I have heard that that the park foundation is interested in creating and enhancing the gateways between the public areas, which is another reason to keep it to the road as well as access, because you'd rather have this development closer to the public street than then the parkway in terms of driveways and all that.

A

Commissioner has anyone else with a question? Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item number one minor subdivision. If not I, will close the public hearing. Commissioners, we have just the one application for a minor subdivision staff recommends. Approval may have a motion.

A

Okay, second, please: okay, any discussion, I, don't see any okay. All in favor of that motion, please say a I posed. Okay, that minor subdivision is approved, and that concludes our regular business. I forgot to deal with our committee. The whole consent agenda from our previous committee of the whole I will move that we find consistent with the Minneapolis plan.

A

The proposed land sales listed on the agenda, the green homes North round three, adding a comment from the commission that ppl GMHC in the Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity consider more innovative architectural designs in future rounds. I have a second any discussion. If not all in favor, say: aye, okay come into the whole agenda is approved and our meeting is concluded. We get together again next regular public hearing scheduled for march through 2014. Thank you very much.

A