►
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission Meeting
A
Good
afternoon
everyone
and
welcome
to
the
minneapolis
city
planning
commission
meeting
of
december
1
2014.
My
name
is
Ted
Tucker
I'm,
president
of
the
Planning
Commission
joining
me
today.
Our
commissioners
chron
zur,
Brown,
Gilman,
slack
and
Forney.
At
this
time,
please
be
sure
all
your
electronic
devices
are
set
to
silent.
Our
first
item
of
business
is
to
approve
the
actions
from
the
meeting
of
November.
10
2014
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
those
actions.
A
Moved
and
seconded
any
discussion
all
in
favor,
say
aye
pposed,
ok,
those
actions
are
approved.
Next
item
on
our
agenda
is
to
approve
the
agenda.
I'll
go
through
the
four
items,
one
by
one
decide
if
they
should
be
on
consent
or
be
discussed.
Item
number
one
is
Broadway
flats,
2220,
west
broadway
and
2313
penn
avenue
north
2508,
queen
avenue
north
and
22
1526
avenue.
Is
there
anyone
here
wishing
to
discuss?
Item
number
one?
Anyone
for
item
number
one.
If
not,
we
will
put
that
on
consent.
A
Item
number
two
is
big:
Hoss
Calhoun,
Greenway
subdivision,
3140,
chowin
avenue
south
again.
Is
there
anyone
wishing
to
disagree
with
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
for
item
number
two
seeing
none?
We
will
put
that
on
consent.
Item
number
three:
is
Broadway
equipment
company
2701,
humboldt
avenue
north
again?
Anyone
wishing
to
disagree
with
a
staff
recommendation
on
item
number,
three
we'll
put
that
on
consent
and
item
number
four
is
Carmel
plaza
and
square
2910
2936
Pillsbury,
you
ain't.
Anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
number
four.
Mr.
B
A
We
will
put
item
number
four
on
our
discussion,
so
our
agenda
will
be
items
1,
2,
&,
3
for
consent.
Item
44
discussion
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
agenda
as
amended
any
discussion
all
in
favor
say
aye
posed.
Okay,
that
is
our
discussion.
We
moved
to
the
report
of
the
Committee
of
the
Whole
Commissioner
Brown.
C
Yes,
thank
you.
Mr.
president,
at
the
November
13th
Committee
of
the
Whole
meeting,
we
considered
a
couple
of
infrastructure
projects,
one
the
eighth
Street
southeast
reconstruction
and
street
lighting
project
and
second,
the
seventh
Street
ramp
over
35
w
and
found
that
both
of
those
projects
are
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
So
I'll
move
that
those
two
items
are
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
Okay,.
A
Moved
is
there
a
second
okay,
any
discussion
seeing
none
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
opposed
okay,
but
those
recommendations
are
accepted.
We
now
move
to
the
public
hearing.
We
will
start
with
the
items
on
the
consent
agenda,
I'll,
open
the
public
hearing
for
items,
1
2,
&,
3.
Again
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
items,
one
two
or
three
seeing
none
I
will
close.
The
public
hearing.
I
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
staff
recommendation
on
those
items.
A
A
A
B
E
Deeply
involved,
but
hopefully
not
the
cause
of
any
of
the
confusion,
Thank
You
commissioners.
As
you're
aware,
this
is
not
the
first
time
this
project
has
been
in
front
of
you
in
some
form.
This
is
a
site
plan
review
application
for
the
properties
located
at
twenty
nine
ten
and
twenty
nine
thirty
six
pillsbury
avenue.
On
august,
eleventh
of
this
year,
you
approved
a
similar
expansion
to
allow
a
small
first
floor
expansion
as
well
as
third
and
fourth
floor
expansions
for
project.
E
Unfortunately,
since
the
Commission's
last
approval
of
the
project,
a
series
of
events
resulted
in
construction
taking
place.
That
was
not
consistent
with
the
conditions
of
approval
that
were
adopted
by
the
Commission
first,
the
city
issued
a
permit
in
error.
There
was
a
misinterpretation
of
some
of
the
conditions
of
approval
by
some
staff
that
were
had
not
been
real
closely
involved
with
the
writing
of
the
staff
report
and
the
Planning
Commission's
action.
So
that
was
an
unfortunate
mistake
on
the
city's
part.
E
So
this
is
the
site
plan
Pillsbury
Avenue,
on
the
east,
pleasant
avenue
on
the
west.
I
believe
it's.
The
exact
same
footprint
proposed
that
you
saw
in
august
with
just
a
small
recycling
center
edition
proposed
on
the
first
floor
once
again,
as
approved
by
the
Commission
in
August
staff
is
recommending
a
12
foot
setback
from
the
proposed
recycling
center
addition
to
the
north
property
line
along
the
town,
green
wire.
E
And
here
are
the
building
elevations
you'll
note
in
the
recommend
recommended
conditions
of
approval
that
the
proposed
third
and
fourth
floor
expansion
is
proposed
to
have
a
different
set
back
than
the
remainder
of
the
third
and
fourth
floor.
Sorry
that
the
easternmost
portion
of
the
third
and
fourth
floor
would
have
a
different
requirement.
That
is,
that
section
there,
which
essentially
the
third
and
fourth
floors,
would
be
constructed
more
or
less
straight
up
from
the
first
and
second
floor,
which
is
I,
believe
42
feet
from
the
North
property
line
along
the
Midtown
Greenway.
E
The
trail
is
going
to
be
essentially
out
of
the
shadow
of
the
proposed
building
expansion,
and
it's
worth
noting
that
my
understanding
is
that
the
applicants,
previous
shadow
studies,
notwithstanding
the
fact
that
we
had
incorrect
site
plan
dimensions
from
the
property
line.
Those
shadow
studies
were
based
on
Google
Earth,
which
the
relationship
between
the
building
and
all
the
elements
around
it,
including
the
midtown
greenway,
was
actually
accurate
and
they
have
submitted
both
as
approved
and
as
proposed
shadow
studies
that
are
that
are
in
your
packet.
E
E
The
remainder
of
the
third
and
fourth
floors
would
be
stepped
back,
22
feet
from
the
edge
of
the
building
or
a
68
feet.
I
believe
it
is
always
at
62
now
I
want
to
make
sure
I'm
not
mixing
up
the
previous
and
current
proposal
62
feet
from
the
North
proper
line
with
that.
I
will
stand
for
any
questions
that
the
Commission
has.
B
You,
mr.
president,
mr.
Wittenberg
items
are
on
the
subject.
Sorry
I
have
long
budget
hearing
today
on
the
conditions
of
approval
numbers.
One
into
those
dimensions
are
now
being
measured
from
the
property
line
and
I
understand
that
we
do
now
have
what
we
think
is
a
more
accurate
survey,
but
I
wondered
if
we
might
just
for
clarity,
add
additional
language
to
those
conditions
that
describes
the
setback
from
the
building
line
as
well,
not
replacing
it,
but
to
just
clarify
what
is
meant
by
the
setback
from
the
first
and
second
floors
of
that
building.
E
Commissioner
bender
I
think
that
would
be
fine,
I.
Think
one
of
the
things
that
led
to
some
confusion
previously
was
that
we
had
one
condition
of
approval
that
was
dimension
from
the
edge
of
the
building
and
we
had
a
separate
condition
of
approval
that
was
from
what
was
thought
to
be
the
dimension
to
the
North
property
line.
E
E
This
building
has
undergone
a
number
of
additions
over
the
years,
and
if
that's,
we
have
a
condition
of
approval
that
says
the
20.
What's
set
back
from
the
second
floor,
property
line,
our
second
floor
floor
building
wall.
What
does
that
mean
if
that
second
floor
building
wall
changes?
So
it
seemed
to
me
to
be
a
more
durable
condition
to
have
that
measure
from
the
property
line.
E
A
B
F
F
F
A
G
G
A
7
east
lake
street
truly
I.
It
was
a
confusion
and
I'm
not
going
to
point
any
fingers
at
anybody.
But
I
I
really
want
to
thank
mr.
waterberg
for
being
a
magnificent
and
very,
very
helpful
staff
to
walk
us
in
work
with
the
Councilwoman,
bender
and
and
us
to
work
the
whole
situation
out.
It
was
a
little
over
complex,
but
again
it
was
not
a
bad
intent
on
anybody
and
not
blaming
anybody
or
ourselves
for
any
of
the
mistakes.
The
the
bottom
line,
like
mr.
G
Wittenberg,
have
shown
your
approval
was
based
on
the
42
feet,
sit
back,
which
shows
the
study
of
the
shadowing
that
you
have
before
you.
So
the
difference
in
the
changes
right
now
is
not
going
to
make
a
difference
in
what
you
have
already
been
approving
previously
on
the
set
back
of
the
shadowing.
I.
G
Also
would
like
to
remind
you
all
that
you
have
previously
approved
other
properties.
That's
much
closer
a
lot
higher
than
this,
probably
and
again,
I
don't
want
to
go
back
and
say
we
are
treated
differently,
but
we
are
treated
a
lot
differently
and
I
got
pictures
of
those
properties
that
you
guys,
commissioners,
approved
in
the
past
few
years,
but
I
think
we
don't
want
to
have
selective
enforcement
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis
and
we
want
to
be
treated
fairly.
G
Welcome
came
to
this
country
for
being
treated
fairly
and
I
know
it's
boring
for
you,
but
this
is
very
important
as
it's
more
important
than
development
itself
for
me,
because
as
a
Palestinian
I
can
build
the
house
or
in
model
a
house
in
Jerusalem
well
in
Israeli.
Next
door
can
and
we
talk
about
this
project.
G
Mr.
Tucker,
but
that's
very
important
that
we
all
treated
fairly
and
equally
in
this
beautiful
country
and
beautiful
city
of
equal
opportunity,
so
I
think
we've
we
meet
the
setbacks.
We
coming
back
here
with
all
these
delays
and
extra
expenses,
architect
and
extra
fees
to
come
and
talk
to
you
guys
and
and
I'm
happy
that
you
are
listening
to
us
at
least
but
I
appreciate
if
we
approve
project
across
the
board
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis.
Equally.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
B
You,
mr.
president,
so
just
you
know,
by
way
of
a
little
background
here,
some
of
my
constituents
contacted
me.
I
represent
the
10th
ward,
where
this
building
is
located
and
in
the
whole
third
and
fourth
floors
were
being
built
flush
with
the
second
floor,
at
least
that's
how
it
appeared,
and
so
the
property
owner
came
in
and
spoke
with
CPS
staff.
Many
times
there
was
a
lot
of
confusion
about
the
two
conditions
of
approval
that,
as
mr.
Wittenberg
described
as
well
as
the
you
know,
existing
distance
between
the
property
line
and
the
existing
building.
B
So
there
was
some
confusion
about
whether
or
not
that
had
been
approved
or
not
so,
I'm
really
thankful
for
all
of
the
work
that
C
ped
staff,
mr.
Wittenberg,
as
well
as
mr.
poor.
Our
zoning
administrator
have
done
to
clarify
some
of
these
issues.
We
are
allowing
for
a
portion
of
this
building
to
come
flush
to
the
second
floor.
That
is
in
a
part
that
had
already
been
under
construction.