►
From YouTube: January 21, 2016 Zoning & Planning
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
A
Good
morning,
everyone
I
will
call
to
order.
The
regular
meeting
of
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
today
is
January
21st
2016
I'm,
Lisa
bender.
I
chair
the
committee.
We
have
a
quorum
that
includes
council
members,
Reich
Goodman,
Andrew,
Johnson
and
Council
President
Johnson
councilmember
war,
samia's
absent
because
he
just
had
a
little
baby
girl.
So
congratulations
to
councilmember
war,
Sami
and
his
family
that
we
have
five
items
on
our
agenda
today.
The
first
two
are
public
hearings
and
then
I'll
move
through
the
consent
agenda
first
and
then
return
back
to
the
public
hearings.
A
So
starting
with
item
number
three.
This
is
a
rezoning
application
for
1844
central
avenue.
Northeast
item
number.
Four
is
an
alley
vacation
at
eight
4801
france
avenue
south
to
vacate
a
portion
of
an
alley
at
a
Lutheran
Church
there
on
france
avenue
an
item
number
five
is
referring
to
staff,
an
ordinance
amending
the
zoning
code
relating
to
regulations
for
inclusionary
zoning,
and
that
work
is
just
beginning.
A
A
We'll
move
item
number
32
discussion
will
return
to
that
after
the
public
hearing
items.
So
I
will
move
items
four
and
five
for
approval.
Is
there
any
discussion
seeing
none
all
those
an
approval,
p
say:
aye
aye
any
opposed
and
those
two
items
carry
so
then
we're
turning
to
the
public
hearings.
I'm
actually
going
to
take
up
item
number
two.
First
distance.
A
We
have
our
zoning
board
of
adjustment
and
folks
here
so
item
number
two
is
to
approve
council
reappointments
for
three
returning
Zoning
Board
of
Adjustment
members
for
terms
beginning
january
first
2016
and
ending
december
31st
2018.
We
have
three
excellent
commissioners
who
are
returning
thankful
ease
and
each
of
them
is
here
and
we'd
be
happy
to
hear
from
you
if
you
would
like
so
that's
amy
thompson,
erik
johansson
and
and
dick
Sandberg,
and
so
thank
you
for
your
service.
I'm
happy
to
open
the
public
hearing
if
you'd
like
the
same
thing.
A
C
You,
madam
chair,
I,
think
it's
really
gracious
of
you
to
actually
open
the
public
hearing
and
have
people
talk
about
these
folks.
I
only
know
one
of
them
really
well.
So,
since
he's
not
going
to
get
up
and
say
anything
about
himself,
I
just
want
to
thank
dick
Sandberg
for
your
service
and
for
agreeing
to
continue
to
participate.
C
I
think
you
and
the
others
bring
incredible
credibility
to
our
process
and
the
truth
of
the
matter
is
I've
served
on
zoning
and
planning
for
18
years,
and
we
see
less
and
less
Appeals,
which
means
someone
at
those
levels:
the
staff.
First,
then,
the
board
of
adjustment
and
the
Planning
Commission
are
getting
it
right
and
that's
how
we
know
it's
a
it's
a
measurement.
Really.
C
If
people
were
thinking
you
weren't
getting
it
right,
we
would
have
many
many
more
Appeals
and
so
I
think
it's
amazing
that
citizens,
who
sometimes
don't
even
have
a
background
in
planning
they
weren't
trained
at
the
Humphrey
Institute,
like
our
wonderful
staff
or
other
really
great
schools
of
planning,
have
learned
this
process
and
have
represented
the
city
so
well.
So
I'm
just
ecstatic
that
dick
Sandberg
has
agreed
to
continue
on
in
this
capacity
and
I
assume
I
just
make
the
assumption.
C
A
You
councilmember
Goodman.
I
would
add
my
thanks
to
each
of
you.
We
actually
did
interviews
for
all
of
the
returning
members
just
to
give
an
opportunity
to
chat
with
myself
and
staff
who
staffs
the
zoning
board,
and
I
was
just
so
impressed
with
each
of
you.
We
also
had
other.
We
had
other
candidates
that
we
couldn't
a
point,
so
it's
just
we're
lucky
to
have
so
much
interest
in
a
board.
That
probably
is
a
little
bit
unsung.
A
You
know
who
deals
with
some
of
the
really
important
details
of
variances
in
people's
yards
and
but
has
also
helped
inform
our
policy
changes
over
time,
especially
you
know
with
we're
seeing
a
lot
of
you
interest
in
residential
development
in
our
lower
density
single-family
areas,
the
work
that
you're
doing
really
has
informed
policy
change,
so
we're
lucky
to
have
each
of
you.
Ms
thompson
brings
a
wealth
of
knowledge
about
the
environment
and
a
real
passion,
for
you
know
making
sure
that
development,
large
and
small
really
protects
our
shore
land.
You
know
mitigates
erosion.
Mr.
A
Johanson
is
the
only
architect,
I
think
on
the
Zoning
Board
right
now,
so
his
skills
I
know
have
been
really
appreciated
by
staff
and
his
fellow
zoning
board
member.
So
our
zoning
board
puts
in
an
enormous
amount
of
time,
so
we
thank
you
very
much
for
your
service
and
I
will
move
to
reappoint
at
r3
zoning
board
candidate.
Any
further
discussion,
seeing
none
all
approval,
p,
say
I
I
and
you
posed,
and
that
carries
thank
you
again
for
coming
today
now
we'll
go
to
item
number
one
and
begin
with
staff.
D
The
item
before
you
an
item
number
one,
is
an
appeal
that
was
submitted
by
Mount
Olivet
care
of
you
home
regarding
the
denial
of
a
side
yard
setback,
variance
for,
in
addition
to
their
property
at
5517,
lyndale
avenue.
South.
The
existing
facility
is
a
skilled
care
facility
with
153
beds
of
those
137,
our
long-term
beds
and
16
our
transitional
care
beds.
D
The
applicant
submitted
an
application
to
the
Planning
Commission
back
in
December
for
an
addition
on
the
back
side
of
the
building
as
this
of
their
site
here
outlined
it
fronts
along
lyndale,
also
long,
55th
and
56,
and
it
has
a
little
bit
of
frontage
along
Garfield
Avenue
on
the
east
side.
I
am
holding
the
let's
see
if
this
worse
there
we
go
so
the
addition
that
you're
seeing
here
this
is
on
the
back
side
of
the
building
I
can
give
you
a
little
more
context
as
we
zoom
out.
D
That
sort
of
thing,
so
the
Planning
Commission
upheld
staff
recommendation
to
deny
that
variance
again,
the
request
was
to
go
from
13
feet
to
six
staff
on
that
practical
difficulties
do
not
exist
in
complying
with
the
setback
requirements
in
this
location
and
that
there
are
no
unique
circumstances
to
justify
the
request.
This
is
the
site:
that's
over
two
acres
in
size
and
has
received
numerous
additions
over
time
since
they
were
established,
I.
Think
back
in
the
1960s
in
this
location.
D
The
subject
property
is
large
enough
to
accommodate
the
additional
square
footage
in
a
manner
that
would
keep
it
off
of
that
interior
side
yard
setback
I'll
go
here
too.
I'll
go
back.
Well.
Actually,
let's
go
here,
so
you
can
see
the
single-family
homes
at
front
along
Garfield,
this
single-family
home,
that's
immediate
jason
to
the
mount
olivet
property
is
actually
under
common
ownership
with
mount
olivet.
That
was
formerly
used
as
a
child
care
center
by
Mount
Olivet,
but
I
believe
it
is
actually
now
rented
out
as
a
single-family
home,
regardless
of
ownership.
D
We
can't
guarantee
that
that
house
will
be
owned
by
mount
olivet
forever.
They
have
volunteered
to
even
put
a
deed
restriction
on
the
property
saying
that
they
would
maintain
ownership
of
it
forever,
but
that's
actually
not
something
that
we
can
regulate.
So
the
staff
concern
here
is
really
about
the
impact
both
to
that
home
and
to
the
other
single-family
homes
to
the
south
and
west
or
south
and
east
of
the
property,
the
two
properties
again
currently
under
common
ownership,
but
you
can
see
how
close
that
single-family
home
is
to
the
lot
line
to
the
north.
D
The
parking
lot.
That's
shown
here
on
the
east
side
of
the
building
is
going
to
be
modified
slightly,
but
there
really
isn't
much
of
a
transition
here,
so
the
setback
requirements
in
the
zoning
code
are
really
intended
to
maintain
access
to
lighten
air
for
adjacent
properties
and
to
allow
for
an
adequate
separation
between
uses
staff
found
that
the
proposed
step
back
here
at
six
feet
doesn't
allow
for
either
one
of
those
things.
So
the
impact
on
light
and
airy
here
could
be
significant
with
that.
D
Five-Story
addition
that
close
to
the
property
line
and
there's
really
no
transitional
space
left
over
to
provide
that
that's
actually
a
specific
development
standard.
That's
called
out
for
board
and
care
facilities
is
that
there
be
inadequate
transition
space
between
this
type
of
use
and
uses
of
a
smaller
scale.
D
Let's
see
the
portion
of
the
site
where
the
addition
is
basically
allowing
that
addition
right
now.
This
is
a
single-story
connection
between
the
two
under
current
conditions,
so
the
five-story
addition
is
an
infill
that
goes
over
that
single-story
piece,
but
also
extends
quite
a
bit
further
back
to
the
east.
There
are
a
few
pieces
of
correspondence
and
your
packets
from
neighbors
who
have
said
they
actually
do
support
the
variance
that
support
references,
an
option
B
that
mount
olivet
has
presented.
D
They
presented
that
at
the
planning
commission
meeting
and
I,
unfortunately,
don't
have
a
copy
of
that,
but
I'm
sure
they
have
it
with
them
today.
Basically,
a
lot
of
the
correspondence
from
the
neighbors
say
if
they
have
to
choose
between
the
setback
variants
that
you're
see
here
or
option
B,
which
was
a
larger
footprint,
that
they
would
prefer
option.
D
B
I
just
want
to
clarify
if
this
setback
variance
is
denied,
that
does
not
mean
that
they
get
to
build
option
B
option
B
would
require
a
new
set
of
land
use
applications
and
a
new
public
hearing
before
the
Planning
Commission
I,
don't
know
exactly
what
those
applications
would
be.
It
would
get
rid
of
the
side
yard
setback,
but
it's
possible
that
there
would
be
other
applications
required
as
part
of
that
so
I'll
close
there
and
I
can
answer
any
questions
you
might
have.
Okay,.
A
E
E
So
in
addition
to
what's
required,
we
are
have
heavy
restrictions
by
the
Health
Department
the
state
to
have
a
certain
number
of
square
footage,
a
certain
number
of
things
in
each
application
to
them,
and
these
are
both
based
on
that
and
so
the
option
a
and
option
B
work
option.
A
is
us,
is
a
smaller
footprint
to
toward.
As
you
can
see,
the
building
moves
quite
dramatically
by
15
feet
to
our
Garfield,
so
the
area
right
in
here
is
longer
than
it
was
here
on
this
option.
E
E
A
E
See
there
is
a
bit
of
a
difference
in
the
length
and
it's
15
feet
is
the
difference
between
those
two
in
length
toward
Garfield.
It
also
makes
the
Garbage
more
difficult
to
pick
up
and
it
is
possible.
It
just
takes
more
maneuvering.
It
takes
two
more
times
to
maneuver
and
we
have
to
face
it
in
the
direction
toward
Garfield.
So
those
two
elements
alone
and
the
openness,
the
feel
of
the
whole
project.
We
actually,
as
the
architects,
prefer
option
a
over
B
only
because
it
fits
into
the
bigness
the
size
of
Garfield.
E
A
F
My
name
is
michael,
graham
and
I
live
on
garfield
I'm.
Actually
here
representing
myself,
gemstones
Karen,
Graham,
Angie,
Hollis,
Angie,
big
Matt,
Oh,
pink,
Oh,
clink
and
Courtney
blowing
belong,
I
can
say
long
again
and
say
your
name,
sorry
what
they.
What
they
kind
of
presented
here
was
great.
We
just
kind
of
saw
the
the
the
option
recently
as
well,
and
we
really
kind
of
bought
the
option
because
we
didn't
want
the
building
built
at
all.
F
So
we're
here
to
do
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
never
just
kind
of
say
you
know
we
would
prefer
that
plan
B
option
which
or
plant
a
option
which
was
to
go
into
the
side.
Variance
the
mat,
who
is
actual
an
architect,
wrote
some
interesting
things
about
this,
while
approving
the
variance
to
reduce
the
size
of
a
lama
LG
but
closer
to
the
popul
ideal
of
a
lot
of
them
keep
the
building
further
from
the
existing
house
that
is
adjacent
to
the
south.
F
There
seems
to
be
no
question
that
a
building
will
be
built,
although
many
neighbors
will
impacted
by
this
project.
My
house
is
actually
directly
across
from
the
building
site.
I
will
be
greatly
impacted
by
the
obstruction
of
view
increased
shadowing,
increased
noise
and
traffic
as
delivery
trucks,
attempt
to
renew
ver
the
street
in
front
of
my
house
into
the
new
loading
zone,
the
invasion
of
privacy
asunder
the
end
on
the
invasion
of
pricey
privacy
as
the
new
building
would
look
directly
into
my
front
yard.
A
A
Approve
the
variance
for
the
side,
yard
setback.
I
know,
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
with
the
immediate
neighbors
I,
hear
staffs
analysis
and
I.
Thank
you
for
the
careful
work,
but
I
do
think.
We
will
also
direct
staff
to
prepare
findings
to
support
the
variance
application.
I
think
the
applicant
made
some
good
arguments
related
to
the
three
standards
that
must
be
met
for
a
variance
to
be
granted
and
given
the
support
of
the
neighbors
for
this
option,
I
think
it's
very
reasonable
to
approve
the
variance.
A
Is
there
any
discussion
seeing
none
all
those
approval,
please
say
aye
aye
any
opposed,
and
that
carries
thank
you
for
coming
today.
We
have
then
the
last
item,
which
was
item
three
called
from
consent.
This
is
a
rezoning
at
1844
central
avenue
northeast,
except
with
give
a
brief
presentation
that
would
be
helpful.
G
The
existing
building,
two-story
mixed-use,
building
with
commercial
establishments
on
the
first
floor
and
residential
units
on
the
floor
above
in
the
back
of
the
lot
there's
an
auto
garage.
That's
been
there
since
the
1950s
and
a
nineteen
space
surface
parking
lot.
No
changes
are
proposed
for
the
building
or
the
site
as
part
of
the
rezoning
application.
G
G
The
comprehensive
plan
supports
allowing
more
intensive
commercial
uses
on
commercial
corridors
that
comes
with
C
to
zoning,
allowing
greater
sized
retail
establishments,
and
it
does
allow
more
permissive
of
auto-related
uses.
The
Central
Avenue
commercial
quarter
extends
from
the
northern
portion
of
it
extends
from
18th
Avenue
to
31st
Avenue.
So
this
is
just
a
block.
North
of
the
southern
extent
also
found
that
the
rezoning
request
is
consistent
with
the
Central
Avenue
small
area
plan
built
form
and
land
use
recommendations.
G
Just
two
other
points
we
want
to
make
the
reasonably
primarily
in
the
interest
we
see
that
of
the
property
owner.
However,
we
feel
that
the
rezoning
would
support
the
small
area
plan,
built
form
and
land
use
recommendations,
I
just
previously
mentioned,
and
then
finally,
the
zoning
classification
of
property
within
general
area
that
the
requesting
situ
is
compatible
with
the
proposed
zoning
classification,
more
than
half
of
the
parcels
within
this
map
area
rc2
and
the
it's
the
corner
of
19th
and
central,
that
is,
the
sole
c1
zoning
classification.
G
The
one
public
comment
has
been
received,
a
letter
from
the
neighborhood
not
supporting
the
conditional
use
permit.
That
is
not
part
of
this
application
or
this
project
the
it's
can
explain
that
if
you
have
questions
about
it,
but
what
we're
talking
about
now
and
what
the
project
that
is
before
you
in
the
decision
before
you
is
the
rezoning
from
from
c1
to
c2
so
be
happy
to
answer
questions
you
may
have
thank.
A
You
just
to
clarify
the
application
for
rezoning
is
related
to
the
use
of
the
building
the
existing
building
to
allow
for
a
new
use,
which
would
be
tobacco
sales
correct.
So
it's
not
related
to
an
application
for
redeveloping
this
site.
No,
no
just
wanted
to
clarify
okay,
Thank
You
councilmember
rake.
Is
there
any
other
cuts
on
my
break?
Thank.
B
You,
madam
chair
and
yeah
I,
think
the
community
group
doesn't
want
tobacco
sales,
so
they
went
for
the
use
application
more
than
the
underlying
zoning,
but
they
are
interrelated.
You
wouldn't
have
one
consideration
without
the
other,
and
I
can
appreciate
how
one
can
you
know,
derive
a
legitimate
approval
process
for
an
OPS
owning,
but
in
the
spirit
that
this
is
a
legislative
decision,
we're
not
compelled
to,
particularly
as
you've
noted
that
it's
the
sole
interest
of
an
individual
party
for
a
sole
purpose
of
one
sale.
This
isn't
for
redeveloping
Central
Avenue.
B
This
isn't
for
trying
to
create
a
main
street
sort
of
character.
This
is
for
one
purpose,
and
one
purpose
only
and
as
the
chair
noted
not
for
redevelopment
or
expanded
retail
uses
or
mix
whatsoever.
Furthermore,
there's
no
hardship.
This
property
has
enjoyed
commercial
activity
for
probably
around
100
years
now,
with
the
current
zoning,
it's
not
consistent
with
what
most
people
would
consider
the
character.
B
I
would
say
it's
a
consistent
patchwork-
is
that
it
protects
the
Main
Street
character,
particularly
around
auto-related
uses.
You
have
contiguous
stretch
of
C
to
you
now
opened
up
to
a
much
more
intense
set
of
uses
that
would
not
otherwise
be
allowed
and
which
certainly
be
inconsistent
with
the
main
street
pedestrian
character
of
that
area
and
is
also
inconsistent
with
our
policy
17,
which
is
a
citywide
policy
to
not
encourage
new
auto-related
uses,
which
this
would
potentially
allow.
B
It's
interesting
you
note,
the
the
garage
in
the
back,
the
garage
and
back
has
been
operating
illegally
on
and
off
for
the
last
several
years
as
an
illegal
operation,
and
so
I
don't
even
know
why
you
mentioned
that.
But
it
is
interesting
that
this
is
a
very
auto-related
uses
that
we're
trying
to
not
have
be
part
of
our
main
street
commercial
court
character
of
this
area.
B
Furthermore,
because
it
is,
this
is
not
my
main
set
of
interests,
but
it
certainly
has
been
an
interest
of
the
city
too,
since
2008
to
not
have
cigarette
sales
at
corner
stores.
This
is,
where
all
purposes
a
corner
store
throughout
the
city.
We
have
shut
these
problem
properties
now,
for
that
very
reason,
again,
not
my
big
thing,
I'm
more
libertarian
on
these
issues,
but
certainly
is
something
that
the
city
has
consistently
applied
in
other
areas.
B
For
the
health
reasons
that
have
been
noted
also,
I
would
say
that
we
always
have
caution
when
we
have
so
on.
We
cannot
guarantee
the
future
uses.
We
have
a
use
of
force,
you
might
like
it.
We
might
not
like
it,
but
there's
always
a
consideration
that
we
will
be
more
liberal
with
uses
that
we
cannot
control.
B
This
is
important
when
we
consider
that,
within
a
few
months,
we'll
have
a
new
comprehensive
plan
and
believe
me,
the
nature
and
character
of
central
lab
of
main
street
downtown
northeast
is
going
to
be
a
key
feature
of
my
community's
consideration
for
our
comp
plan.
We
are
now
interjecting
ourselves
for
know
good
reason
and
not
compelled
to
do
so.
Yet
here
we
are
with
this
decision
before
us,
and
so
with
that.
I
would
really
encourage
my
colleagues
to
deny.
A
Thank
you.
Cats,
mareike
I'll.
Take
that
as
a
motion
to
deny
the
application
to
rezone
this
property
I'll
see.
If
there's
any
other
comments
you
know,
I
would
just
like
to
state
that
you
know
well
before
this
I've
had
the
chance
to
hear
councilmember
right
talk
about
the
planning
efforts
that
he
was
very
involved
in
on
Central
Avenue,
and
if
you
want
to
hear
councilmember
right,
get
really
excited
about
something
you
could
you
know.
A
That's
that's
one
of
the
topics
and
I
know
how
much
effort
went
into
that
planning
effort
by
the
council
member
in
his
office
in
the
community,
with
really
careful
detail
to
the
desired
places
where
there
were,
you
know,
desire
for
redevelopment
and
change
and
the
places
where
the
community
really
felt
that
they
wanted
to
preserve
what
was
there
and
so
I
think
to
go
in
and
rezone
piece
by
piece
in
a
way.
That's
you
know
inconsistent
with
all
of
that
effort
I
think,
is
inappropriate,
so
I'm
supportive
of
councilmember
Rex
motion.