►
From YouTube: July 28, 2016 Zoning & Planning
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
A
A
Eight
different
items
here
we
do
have
six
of
those
items
on
consent
items
three
four
three
through
eight
and
I
will
go
ahead
and
move
the
consent
items
and
see
if
there's
any
discussion
on
those
items
before
we
get
to
our
public
hearings
in
discussion,
seeing
none
all
those
in
approval,
please
say:
aye
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed
great
the
consent
items
pass
with
that.
We
will
go
ahead
and
open
up
our
public
hearing
for
the
item
number
one
that
enter
in
an
interim
use
permit
for
Grade
Center,
portable
classrooms,.
B
The
applicants
proposing
for
the
trailer
to
be
there
for
two
years
to
accommodate
two
schools
that
are
within
the
building
currently
that
are
going
to
at
time
of
transition.
One
is
proposing
to
leave
the
site
when
is
put
a
frozen
to
consolidate
at
the
site.
We
feel
that
this
proposal
will
meet
the
findings
for
the
interim
use
permit
and
including
the
off
street
parking
requirement.
There's
been
a
couple
public
comments
that
have
been
received
after
the
publication
of
the
report,
including
a
letter
of
support
from
the
neighborhood
association.
A
A
C
A
C
A
A
D
Good
morning,
chair,
Johnson
and
council
members,
the
application
before
you
is
two
appeals
of
actions
taken
by
the
City
Planning
Commission
on
jun,
27th
related
to
a
mixed-use
building
with
53
dwelling
units
along
38
Street.
It
includes
a
three
properties
that
are
outlined
here
in
bold.
The
first
item:
that's
appealed
is
a
denial
of
a
variance
to
a
rear
yard
setback
requirement
for
parking
spaces.
D
Here,
this
row
of
parking
stalls
encroaches
into
the
required
rear
yard.
There's
an
adjacent
single-family
home
here.
The
original
request
by
the
applicant,
which
is
demonstrated
here,
was
a
reduction
to
that
rear
yard
requirement
from
five
feet
to
one
foot
to
allow
for
parking.
The
appeal
that
the
applicant
has
submitted
is
requesting
a
reduction
from
five
feet
to
three
feet:
to
allow
for
a
row
of
compact
stalls
in
that
location.
D
Much
of
the
discussion
at
Planning
Commission
actually
revolved
around
getting
to
that
3-foot
mark
to
allow
the
compact
stalls
I
don't
want
to
speak
exactly
for
what
their
intent
was,
since
this
was
the
action,
but
it
kind
of
seemed
like
that.
Perhaps
just
got
lost
in
the
motion,
so
the
applicant
is
requesting
a
reduction
to
three
feet:
there's
a
condition
of
approval
related
to
that
on
the
site
plan
review
that
I'll
get
to
here
in
a
moment.
D
So
there
are
several
conditions
of
approval
that
were
adopted
for
the
site
plan
review
application
on
this
project
as
well.
The
conditions
of
approval
are
outlined
in
the
staff
report
that
I
submitted,
but
the
applicant
has
also
submitted
an
additional
document
that
I
believe
was
in
your
packets
this
morning
related
to
some
changes
to
those
conditions.
So
there
were
originally
ten
conditions
of
approval
that
we
repealed.
The
applicant
is
withdrawing
the
appeal
on
condition
for
six,
seven,
ten
and
twelve,
which
leaves
us
with
five
conditions
of
approval
to
consider
on
appeal
this
morning
condition.
D
Approval
number
three
relates
to
the
first
floor
of
the
South
elevation,
where
it
faces
the
parking
lot.
So,
as
you'll
note
on
the
site
plan
here,
the
building
is
kind
of
l-shaped
and
there
are
portions
that
face
an
interior
parking
lot.
There
are
commercial
spaces
at
front
on
38
streets
that
back
up
the
parking
area
and
then
residential
spaces
that
fronts
on
28th
avenue
that
also
back
up
to
the
parking,
because
those
front
on
the
parking
lot.
D
Both
sections
of
building
had
of
ground
floor
window
requirement
of
thirty
percent
the
applicant
at
the
Planning
Commission
that
they
be
considered
or
allowed
to
consider
twenty
percent
glazing
on
those
sections
of
the
building.
The
Planning
Commission
did
agree
with
that,
in
condition
that
they
apply
with
a
20-percent
glazing
requirement.
The
apple
can
has
indicated
that
they
can
meet
that
and
actually
provide
about
twenty-nine
percent
glazing
on
the
residential
part
of
the
building.
D
Condition
number
five
relates
to
blank
walls
that
face
the
cupcake
building
at
the
corner
of
38
and
28.
So
that's
this
two-story
mixed-use
building
in
this
location,
there
are
blank
walls
on
the
east
side
of
this
retail
portion
and
the
north
side
of
the
residential
portion,
see
if
I
can
get
to
those
quickly.
So
you
can
see
those
blank
walls.
Here
is
what
faces
cupcake
on
the
east
side
and.
C
D
D
And
I
can't
find
right
now
here,
so
the
applicant
is
requesting
that
that
condition
of
approval
be
removed
from
the
site
plan
review
application.
Admittedly,
there
is
limited
visibility
of
those
blank
walls.
The
applicant
is
going
to
provide
a
window
on
the
fourth
floor
of
the
East
elevation,
which
is
going
to
be
the
most
prominent
portion
of
that
elevation.
They
have
withdrawn
their
condition
or
their
appeal
of
that
condition
of
approval.
D
So
it'll
just
be
the
portions
of
the
building
that
are
obstructed
by
the
cupcake
building,
where
they're
now
asking
that
the
appeal
be
granted
condition.
Number
nine
relates
to
a
landscaped
yard,
abutting
the
alley
and
the
west
side
or
east
side
of
the
parking
lot.
Excuse
me.
So
this
condition
of
approval
is
asking
that
these
portions
of
the
landscaped
yard
be
increased
to
seven
feet,
their
proposed
at
four
and
a
half
feet.
D
The
site
plan
review
chapter
calls
for
seven
foot
landscape
yards
where
parking
lots
about
an
alley
across
from
a
residential
district,
which
is
the
case
here.
There
are
residential
uses
across
the
alley
that
condition
of
approval
was
recommended
by
staff
and
agreed
to
by
the
Planning
Commission,
primarily
because
there
seems
to
be
some
additional
sidewalks
face
up
next
to
the
building.
That
would
allow
them
to
achieve
the
additional
landscaped
yard
without
reducing
the
number
of
parking
stalls.
D
Let's
see
so
condition
number
or
that
was
actually
condition
number
11,
so
condition.
Number
nine
relates
to
landscaped
yard,
along
that
South
property
line
where
they're
asking
for
the
change
to
the
variance
on
the
parking,
so
the
condition
of
approval
that
was
adopted
by
planning
commission
that
relates
to
where
you're,
seeing
this
yellow
line
here.
Because
of
the
way
the
variance
was
denied,
the
Planning
Commission
adopted
a
condition
of
approval
asking
for
a
four-foot
landscaped
yard
in
this
location.
D
If
you
were
to
grant
the
appeal
on
the
variance
today
to
reduce
that
to
three
feet,
then
the
succumbing
condition
of
approval
should
be
reduced
to
three
feet
as
well,
and
the
last
one
is
condition
number
14.
This
is
one
that
was
added
by
the
plan.
Commission.
It
reads
that
the
applicant
shall
work
with
staff
to
revise
the
painted
gray
metal
panel
color
and
reconsider
the
full
glazing
on
the
fourth
floor
facing
28
Street,
the
applicant
is
requesting
that
the
word
revised
be
changed
to
reconsider.
D
Think
portion
that
is
being
referred
to
is
in
this
location
here,
so
the
applicator
or
the
applicant
is
just
requesting
a
simple
word
change.
Their
do
not
require
the
revision,
but
essentially
ask
them
to
look
at
those
two
aspects
of
the
building,
so
I'll
close
there
and
can
stand
for
any
questions.
Do.
A
E
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
Today
we
are
the
architects
for
the
project.
I
think
Kimberly
did
a
great
job
of
summarizing.
Some
of
the
conversations
that
we
had.
It's
obviously
very
complex
assemblage
of
four
different
sites
bookended
by
existing
building.
So
we
very
much
appreciate
the
time
and
consideration
that
has
gone
into
this
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
couple
points
on
the
first
levels
where
we
are
providing
glazing
with
the
views
on
to
the
parking
lot.
E
It
is
24.9
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
was
clear,
so
it
wasn't
29
it's
24.9,
so
we
still
exceeded
along
that
elevation,
and
we
are
also
going
to
be
installing
security
cameras,
and
our
goal
is
to
be
able
to
keep
that
commercial
activity
really
focused
on
the
street
front
and
really
activate
that
area
of
the
building
and
I.
Believe
that
is
it
everything
else
presented.
We
were
in
agreement
with
unless
anyone
has
any
questions
all.
E
A
There
anyone
else
who'd
like
to
speak
on
this
item,
anyone
else.
Anyone
else
with
that
I
will
close.
The
poll
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
make
a
motion
pass
this
out.
This
is
actually
a
little
complex
as
you
noted
from
the
site.
So
I
appreciate
staff
and
the
appellant
working
with
us
on
trying
to
understand
the
different
conditions
here
and
put
this
together.
So
first
I'll
move
on
item
number
two
to
grant
the
appeal
and
amend
the
variance
setback
requirement
from
five
feet
to
three
feet
and
direct
staff
to
draft
findings.
A
Any
discussion
on
that
all
those
approval,
police
say
I.
I
well
as
opposed
say.
No,
that
motion
carries
all
right
and
then
on
the
second
motion,
I
move
to
accept
the
withdrawal,
the
appeals
on
conditions,
number
4,
6,
7,
10
and
12,
and
then
grant
the
appeals
with
regard
to
number
three
requiring
this
condition.
Just
for
the
residential
portion
of
the
project.
A
Number
nine
adjusting
this
condition
to
three
feet:
number
11,
adjusting
this
condition
to
4.5
feet:
number
14,
replacing
the
word
revised
with
the
word:
reconsider
and
granting
out
right
number
five
and
to
direct
staff
to
renumber
the
conditions,
if
necessary,
any
discussion
on
that
motion
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor,
please
say:
aye
aye
opposed.
They
know
that
motion
carries.
Thank
you
very
much
with
that.
We
are
adjourned.