►
From YouTube: February 4, 2016 Zoning & Planning
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
A
A
Good
morning,
I'll
call
to
order
our
regular
meeting
of
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
today
is
februari.
Fourth
2016,
I'm
lisa
bender.
I
chair
the
committee.
We
have
a
quorum
today
with
council
members,
Reich
Goodman
and
Andrew
Johnson.
We
have
nine
items
on
today's
agenda.
I'll
begin
with
the
consent
items
before
returning
to
public
hearing,
and
then
we
do
have
one
discussion
item.
A
At
the
end,
the
consent
agenda
is
starts
with
item
number
two,
which
is
approving
an
application
for
a
rezoning
at
3200,
Bryan
Avenue
south
and
from
our
to
be
to
see
one
item
number
two
is
a
rezoning
for
3255
garfield
avenue
south
from
are
to
be
20.
Are
one
item
number
four
is
a
rezoning
application
approving
a
rezoning
at
30,
30,
41
homes,
avenue
south
from
0
r
2,
I'm
sorry
from
are
420
are
too
and
that's
for
a
residential
project.
A
A
Item
number
eight
is
referring
to
staff
an
ordinance
amending
our
code
related
to
regulation
of
drive
to
drive
through
facilities
and
those
are
the
consent
items.
I
will
move
items
2
through
8.
Is
there
any
discussion
seeing
none
all
those
in
approval,
p,
say
aye
aye
any
opposed
and
those
carry
so
item
number.
One,
then,
is
an
interim
use
permit
for
a
telecommunications
tower
2407
university
avenue
southeast
mr.
giant
good
morning,
I.
B
Think
your
board
chair
member
or
board
chair
vendor
members
of
the
council.
My
name
is
joe
giant
I'm,
city,
planner
and
zoning
administration.
The
application
before
you
today
is
for
an
interim
use
permit
authorizing
an
18
month
extension
for
a
temporary
telecommunications
tower.
If
this
looks
familiar
it's
because
we
looked
at
the
identical
application
last
summer,
the
initial
application
was
for
this
60-foot
monopole
tower
with
antennas
at
the
top
of
it
to
be
located
in
the
parking
lot
of
the
day's
hotel,
which
is
right
across
the
light
rail
tracks
from
tcf
bank
stadium.
B
But,
as
you
probably
know,
there's
been
a
little
bit
of
growth
in
that
area
so
and
college
kids
and
their
cell
phones,
telecommunications
demand
has
gone
up
quite
a
bit,
so
the
existing
infrastructure
over
there
is
not
substantial
enough
to
keep
up
with
the
increased
demand.
So,
while
verizon
has
to
look
for
a
more
permanent
site,
they've
asked
for
an
18
month,
extension
they're
in
the
process
of
site
selection,
with
University
of
Minnesota
and
potentially
some
other
landowners.
But
this
is
something
that
would
not
be
permanent.
This
is
an
18th
month
extension.
B
The
purpose
of
the
18
month,
rather
than
something
longer
or
shorter,
is
this
is
a
realistic
timeline
to
plan
for
something
like
this.
So
it's
not
going
to
be
done
in
a
you
know,
a
haphazard
manner,
because
when
we're
trying
to
push
these
things
through
it,
it
can
kind
of
the
longer
term
efforts
like
approving
a
six-month
term
use
permit
when
you
need
longer
so
on
application
before
you
today
would
authorize
an
interim
use
permit
until
I
believe
is
june.
C
B
C
B
Speak
speaking
from
experience,
I
know
that,
like
you
have
to
address
the
property
that
you
can
find
the
site
at
first
and
you
have
to
go
through
environmental
reviews,
historic
reviews
and
then
City
reviews,
and
it
it
takes
a
long
time
to
do
and
it
it
doesn't.
They
never
look
good,
but
it's.
It
seems
in
my
experience
to
be
a
realistic
timeline.
B
A
D
Real
estate,
it's
basically
reiterating
what
he
has
already
stated
just
addressed
in
your
question
about
why
we
didn't
know
in
the
initial
piece
from
the
six
months
why
we
didn't
ask
for
a
longer
period
of
time.
At
that
point
we
didn't
know
that
this
become
about.
We
were
working
on
temporary
permanent
solutions
at
that
time,
hoping
that
would
speed
along
the
process,
knowing
that
we
would
need
those
down
the
line,
hoping
that
this
would
cover
that
gap
during
the
time.
D
That's
why
I'm
asking
for
longer
permanent
for
now
I
know
that
that
will
cover
that
gap
and
we
can
be
done
in
two
years.
We
started
in
2014
working
on
this
solution,
working
with
the
University.
It's
very
we're
pushing
as
hard
as
we
can
we'd
love
it
to
go
faster.
We
try
as
hard
as
we
can
to
get
to
that
point,
but
there's
only
so
much.
We
can
do
so
we're
getting
pushed
back
from
that
we're
meeting
with
them
this
week
again
and
trying
to
get
as
far
as
we
can
ahead
of
that.
D
A
You
yep
would
anyone
else
like
to
speak
on
this
item.
Anyone
else
seeing
none
I
will
close
the
public
hearing,
and
so
we
know
they
need
to
have
a
period
of
extension.
So
they've
asked
for
18
months
could
make
it
a
year
that
seems
more
appropriate,
but
otherwise
I
would
I
would
move
the
18
month
extension
as
recommended
by
staff.
The
discussion,
none
all
those
an
approval,
p
say:
aye
aye
any
opposed.
C
A
A
E
Have
a
brief
presentation
here
to
go
over?
Why
the
rationale
of
the
mid
and
then
and
where
it
had
the
process
has
gone
to
date
in
terms
of
the
review
of
it.
The
reason
for
this
amendment
was
that
we
have
there's
two
main
things
that
brought
about
the
need
to
bring
this
before
you
today.
One
is,
there
is
an
inconsistency
in
the
way
our
comprehensive
plan
guides
are
very
highest
density
areas.
E
Very
highest
density
is
defined
in
the
comprehensive
plan
as
being
certain
specific
areas,
not
the
entire
above
certain
specific
areas
of
growth,
centers
and
activity.
Centers,
currently,
there's
two
different
places:
that's
the
densities
are
mentioned
in
one
place
is
described
as
120
units
and
up
another
place.
122
200,
that
is
not
ever
been
a
problem
in
past
years,
but
in
recent
years,
has
become
more
of
an
issue
we've
had.
E
E
The
scope
of
amendment
this
was
introduced
by
councilmember
fry
in
May
this
past
year.
It
is
not
directly
related
to
the
approval
of
any
project.
I
note
that
some
of
the
discussion
around
this
and
a
lot
of
public
comments
has
centered
around
concerns
around
specific
development
projects
based
on
the
timeline
you'll
realize
that
these
this
process
predated
that
a
question
might
be.
Why
did
it
take
the
Brooklyn
says,
because
we've
had
an
extensive
discussion
process
with
the
Met
Council
staff.
E
The
Met
Council,
as
required
by
law,
will
review
and
needs
to
approve
this
amendment
ultimately
before
it
is
approved.
Finally,
the
Council's
approval
respectively
is
contingent
on
the
Met
Council
action
on
it.
It's
meant
to
be
this.
Amendment
is
meant
to
be
limited
in
scope.
However,
we
are,
as
you
all
know,
we
are
untaken
a
more
a
comprehensive,
thorough
evaluation
about
comprehensive
plan
over
the
next
couple
years.
That
won't
be
done
till
the
end
of
2018.
E
The
thought
was,
if
we're
developing
the
these
projects
are
happening
now,
waiting
that
long
would
really
miss
an
opportunity
to
affirm
some
good
projects
in
the
in
the
meantime,
so
that
the
amendment
is
very
limited.
It's
only
a
few
words
effectively,
and
that
is
because
we
do
intend
this
to
be
opened
up
and
discussed
more
thoroughly
as
part
of
the
overall
process.
This
is
just
an
interim
fix.
E
The
scope
of
this
is
not
drawn
on
a
map,
but
I
just
have
here
the
map
of
our
land
use
features.
You
will
notice
that
the
set
of
the
land
there
are
only
four
growth
areas:
bassett
creek
valley,
downtown
for
university
minnesota
and
the
wells,
fargo
hospitals
area,
there's
also
a
number
of
activity
centers
shown
in
pink
on
this
map,
which
are
kind
of
embedded
or
near
that
our
growth
centers
do
not
have
boundaries
they're,
just
areas
described
in
the
text
of
the
comprehensive
plan
this
plan.
E
This
amendment
refers
specifically
to
these
for
growth
centers
into
the
activity
centers
that
are
in
the
men's
and
immediately
surrounding
them.
These
this
core
area,
as
we've
been
seeing
from
the
projects
that
come
in
as
the
area
that's
most
appropriate
for
these
high
densities
and
already
has
seen
some
of
those,
and
also
in
our
conversations
with
met,
console
they've,
affirmed
that
this
is
the
area
with
the
most
capacity.
E
But
in
all
our
regional
networks,
it
makes
sense,
as
we
see
the
transit
and
transportation
network
building
out
the
downtown
and
university
area
and
the
nearer
in
bassett,
creek
and
wells.
Fargo
areas
are
best
served
by
water,
also
by
transit
and
sewer,
and
a
number
of
other
infrastructure
needs
so
that,
if
we're
going
to
have
these
very
highest
projects,
intuitively
makes
sense
that
it's
in
this
area,
here's
the
language
as
it
stands.
I
understand
that
maybe
an
amendment
but
as
in
the
staff
report
and
as
the
Planning
Commission
acted
a
few
weeks
ago.
E
This
is
how
it
currently
reads:
the
existing
language
stops
at
a
density
and
is
up
to
200
unique
values
per
acre
depending
on
context.
The
new
language
would
say
up
to
100:
800
billion
users
per
acre
are
allowed
in
certain
areas:
the
growth
centers
and
the
following
designated
activity.
Centers,
and
this
list
is
just
a
list-
the
activity
centers
in
and
around
the
growth
centers.
It's
there's
no
special
Alliance
behind
them.
It's
just
looking
at
the
map
and
see
which
ones
are
closest.
The
820
is
per
acre
as
we
had
a
discussion.
E
Planning
Commission
is
not
going
to
be
achievable
in
a
lot
of
projects.
In
some
cases,
that's
only
achievable
in
projects
that
effectively
have
lower
than
typical
parking,
because
they
have
a
lot
of
other
advantages
and
possibly
smaller
than
typical
units.
Just
to
give
an
example,
the
project's
been
approved
above
that
the
Soo
Line
project
was
one
of
those
in
downtown,
and
it
goes
to
you
familiar
with.
It
know
that
the
parking
was
accommodated
in
a
separate
building
so
effectively.
You
didn't
have
building
both
being
taken
up
by
parking
and
therefore
entities
were
higher.
E
It's
that
type
of
situation
that
makes
these
the
very
cap
level.
I
know
that
that's
a
high
number,
but
there
are
projects
that
approach
it
and
again
it's
that
type
of
situation
that
makes
this
possible
other
more
achievable
densities.
When
you're
trying
to
park
everything
based
on
sort
of
more
standard,
things
are
going
to
be
a
lot
closer
to
the
to
300,
400
million
per
acre
range
still
above
200,
but
not
that
far
above
public
review.
This.
The
comments
from
the
public
are
including
the
packet
and
handouts.
E
They've
been
trickling
in
so
you've
got
a
few
more
handed
out
to
you
today,
because
some
of
them
came
in
late,
including
one
from
couple
from
the
community
and
one
from
the
University
Minnesota.
There
has
been
a
60-day
interjurisdictional
review
that
is
required
by
Met
Council
under
their
statute
requirements,
and
that
is
complete.
E
We
said,
set
it
up
to
30
different
jurisdictions,
all
our
surrounding
cities
and
counties
all
our
watershed
districts,
all
the
school
district,
the
park
board-
everybody
got
it,
we
got
got
no
negative,
are
really
actually
any
substance
comments
from
any
of
them,
except
just
acknowledgement
thanks
for
sending
it
we're
okay
with
it.
So
nobody
in
that
way
didn't
with
anything
that
suggested
change,
as
I
mentioned
before,
I
met
council
staff
of
an
actively
involved
in
this
review.
E
We've
been
working
with
them
over
a
number
of
months
and
effectively
on
their
time
frame
to
ensure
that
what
we're
bringing
forward
to
you
today
is
a
portable
and
they
understand
it
and
we
can
work
towards
it.
Frankly,
they
aren't
usually
pushed
on
the
upper
levels
of
density.
It's
usually
the
other
jurisdictions
the
other
way
around,
so
the
outer
ring
suburbs
prefer
to
try
to
get
lower
lower
densities.
E
E
These
come
out
of
the
comments
that
before
you
today
and
and
also
some
of
the
discussions
we've
had
at
the
public
hearing
at
Planning,
Commission,
which
the
minutes
are
also
available,
I
believe
in
the
website,
along
with
the
comments,
not
all
the
areas
in
these
in
these
activity:
centers
and
growth.
Centers
are
guided
for
high
density,
and
we
know
that
very
high
density,
and
we
realize
that
and
that's
important.
E
The
staff
report
calls
out
and
goes
into
some
detail
in
terms
of
the
fact
that
we
have
good
small
area
plan
coverage
for
pretty
much
this
entire.
The
area
addressed
in
this
and
the
small
area
plans
provide
more
detailed
guidance,
and
this
no
wait
says:
oh
we're
tossing
those
out
the
window.
This
ain't
just
saying
when
it's
consistently
smaller
your
plans,
we
don't
want
the
comprehensive
plan
language
to
stand
in
the
way
of
those
very
high
densities.
E
However,
course,
those
do
you
familiar
with
these
areas,
know
that
there's
a
lot
of
areas
that
it
wouldn't
be
appropriate
and
our
small
area
plans
make
that
clear.
The
other
question
was
this
restriction
on
very
high
density
of
projects
that
might
not
be
appropriate,
of
course,
not
all
the
morganii
appropriate.
We
called
out
the
fact
that
this
this
is
no
way
over
rules,
any
other
requirement
about
policy
or
growth
envelopment.
The
whole
regulatory
process.
E
People
who
have
concerns
or
issues
with
the
project
can
bring
that
before
are
still
are
still
can
be
able
to
bring
that
before
the
city
and
have
those
addressed
they're
still
eat
w
requirements
out
there
there's
still
historic
districts
this
only.
This
is
only
one
piece
in
a
much
larger
regulatory
process,
which
you
are
all
very
familiar,
so
it
does
not
in
any
way
say
all
of
a
sudden.
We
will
not
have
any
restrictions
on
these.
E
We
certainly
will
continue
to
have
a
rigorous
review,
especially
of
our
largest
in
census
projects,
and
just
one
more
note,
and
that
is
that
there's
why
there
are
projects
that
this
will
impact
that
are
their
pending
now.
The
amendment
now,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
does
not
in
any
way
without
any
way
I
tag
on
or
specifically
about
any
one
project.
As
I
mentioned,
we
have
up
now
upwards.
C
E
Basically,
it's
not
a
regulatory
document,
of
course
of
policy.
It's
a
more
like
guidelines
and
there's
a
lot
of
qualifying
language
taking
depend
upon
context.
We've
had
attorneys
at
the
city,
specifically
Eric
Nielsen
spend
some
time
with
us
interpreting
at
say
it's
it's
a
general
realm,
it's
fuzzier
than
regulatory
by
review,
but
that's
that
is
the
way
it
was
written
and
largely
that
I.
Don't
think
that
when
it
was
done,
was
meant
to
say
that
we
think
300
million
units
per
acre
are
bad
projects.
E
C
C
I
guess
I'm
just
wondering
about
some
of
these
projects
in
my
ward,
that
have
happened
already,
so
they
just
basically
happened
in
the
comp
plan.
Didn't
address
them
so
I
mean
I
have
a
project
we
just
approved
today.
That
has
great
support.
The
cross
Anderson
block
that's
going
to
have
almost
400
units
on
it,
and
people
love
that
I
think
it's
great,
and
what
about
110
grant
or
marketplace
that
have
lots
of
units
and
they're
on
a
part
of
a
block?
C
E
C
Well,
I
can
think
of
like
four
things
going
out
of
my
word
right
now.
The
handicraft
kill
bill.
It's
only
at
a
teeny,
tiny
portion
of
blocks,
it's
probably
under
an
acre
but
they're
doing
a
lot
of
micro-units,
there's
lots
of
units
on
a
small
space
and
it's
downtown
and
for
the
most
part,
people
in
downtown
and
there's
39,000
of
us
living
downtown.
Think
it's
great.
So
if
this
is
just
simply
kind
of
correcting
in
the
big
picture,
while
we're
looking
at
a
micro
level
in
every
project,
I
think
it's
a
great
change
to
make.
A
G
Briefly,
thank
you,
madam
chair
yeah.
The
overarching
purpose
here
is
one
to
eliminate
inconsistencies.
As
you
know,
our
zoning
clattuc
code
up
operates
off
of
floor
area
ratio,
whereas
the
Comprehensive
Plan
operates
off
of
numbers
of
of
units
per
acre
and
those
two
classifications
can
come
up
with
significantly
different
results,
not
to
mention
with
the
issue
with
eew.
We
are
the
aw
being
required,
we're
already
significantly
out
of
compliance
with
with
several
buildings,
including
form,
our
collaborative
and
several
others
that
have
exceeded
the
200
units
per
acre.
G
I
believe
for
mark
is
somewhere
in
the
range
of
this
maze.
You
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
it's
700
units
per
acre
and
it's
because
it's
more
of
a
point
style
tower
and
when
the
units
are
substantially
smaller.
So
when
we
talk
about
wanting
to
increase
our
density
as
well
as
accommodating
some
of
these
younger
populations
that
are
looking
for
not
a
whole
lot
of
space,
that's
that's
the
entire
reason
reason
behind
this
and
you
know
to
a
certain
extent.
G
You
know
if
we're
really
going
to
grow
the
city
to
a
world-class
stature,
you
can't
just
be
the
the
council.
Member
for
those
that
live
here,
you
also
have
to
be
the
council
member
that
for
those
that
don't
live
here
yet,
and
this
makes
sure
that
we're
we're
moving
in
that
direction.
So
it's
a
then
by
the
way.
The
reason
the
800
that
particular
number
is,
is
somewhat
arbitrary.
It
could
be
700,
it
could
be
900.
G
G
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
I
and
I
just
can't
help,
but
take
advantage
of
the
moment
where
the
Met
Council
concern
is
obviously
a
really
good
way
to
highlight
our
capacities,
a
city
to
grow
and
support.
The
den
see
where
it's
appropriate
is
contingent
on
having
the
infrastructure
that
supports
it,
and
so
it's
not
always
the
showstopper
part
of
development,
but
I.
Think
as
we
move
forward
with
the
city's
goals
of
growth
that
we
really
take
in
consideration.
Inoue
our
infrastructure
needs
for
that
future
growth.
A
Great
just
to
kind
of
recap,
this
discussion
as
well
as
we
did
have
over
an
hour
of
testimony
about
this
at
the
Planning
Commission
and
a
robust
discussion
among
planning
commissioners,
because,
although,
as
customer
Goodman
said
and
councilmember
fry
you
know,
this
is
really
a
technical
change.
That's
you
know
adjusting
our
policy
to
keep
up
with
the
market.
It's
really
scoring
a
lot
of
discussion
along
with
counsel
number
I
explains
about
how
our
city
is
growing.
A
There
was
testimony
at
Planning
Commission
about
the
need
to
make
sure
we're
investing
in
infrastructure
in
high-density,
neighborhoods
and
I
know
we're
both
excited
to
tackle
those
issues
in
the
Comprehensive
Plan
Update.
That's
coming
up
so
at
thank
you
to
staff
for
for
your
work
on
this
and
that
I
think
the
amendment
is
very
appropriate
I'm
just
clarifying
the
language
as
it
was
proposed,
originally
so
no
further
discussion,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say:
aye
aye
and
you
post
that
carries.
That
is
our
final
items.
We
are
adjourned
on.