►
From YouTube: May 23, 2016 City Planning Commission
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission Meeting
A
A
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor
and
that
motion
carries
our
next
item
of
business
is
to
organize
the
agenda.
You
can
find
hard
copies
of
the
edge
and
then
the
hallway
will
decide
which
items
will
be
on
consent
which
we
will
discuss
in
which
we
will
continue.
So
starting
at
the
top
item.
Number
one
is
the
comal
neighborhoods
small
area
plan,
that's
a
new
plan
or
comprehensive
plan
amendment.
Is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on?
A
That
item
see
no
one
will
put
item
one
on
consent.
Oh
excuse
me,
we
do
have
someone
we
can.
We
can
discuss
that
item
item
two
is
the
new
horizon
Academy
of
103
west
lake
street.
That's
a
site
plan
approval
for
a
building
edition.
So
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
that
seeing
no
one
we
will
put
that
on
consent.
Item
three
is
advanced:
auto
parts
at
7-10,
West
Broadway,
that's
a
rezoning
at
a
variance
for
a
new
related
to
a
new
use
in
an
existing
building.
A
A
5
is
the
702
North
first
Street
Apartments
at
70
to
North
first
Street
will
continue
those
applications
to
the
jun
27th
meeting.
So
if
anyone
was
wishing
to
speak
on
that,
we
will
consider
that
on
jun
27
in
order
to
accommodate
and
appeal
of
an
of
a
Heritage
Preservation
Commission
action
related
to
that
project
and
item
6
is
the
legacy
at
twelve-twenty.
South,
first
read
and
one
2112
avenue
south
several
applications
related
to
a
new
multifamily
building.
A
There
is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
that
item,
seeing
no
one,
we
will
put
item
6
on
consent,
and
so
our
agenda
as
amended,
is
items
two
three
and
six
will
be
on
consent.
We
will
discuss
items
1
and
4
and
item
5
will
be
continued
to
the
jun.
27Th
meeting
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
agenda
as
amended.
A
B
A
A
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor,
and
that
motion
carries
next
we'll
move
on
to
the
public
hearing
portion
of
our
meeting
and
at
this
time,
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
for
the
items
on
the
consent
agenda.
That's
items
two
three
and
six:
is
there
anyone
wishing
to
speak
on
item
23
or
six,
seeing
no
one
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
and
may
have
motion
to
approve
the
items
on
the
consent
agenda.
A
C
Thank
you,
as
you
were
I,
think
the
whole.
You
realized.
We
are
even
get
another
small
area
plan
through
the
approval
process,
this
one
for
the
southeast
como
neighborhood.
This
plan
was
initiated
by
and
large
a
staff
by
the
southeast,
como
Improvement
Association
see
Kia,
and
there
are
several
representatives
here
today
of
the
steering
committee
and
the
work
group
who've
been
working
on
this.
The
plan
before
you
is,
is
for
the
entire
neighborhood.
It
covers
a
couple
community
corridors
couple,
neighborhood
commercial
node
areas
and
is
part
of
the
University
of
Minnesota
growth
centre.
C
The
plan
recommends
the
development
of
higher
medium
density
development
along
the
corridors
while
protecting
the
core
areas
of
the
neighborhood.
There
is
different
section
too
late
that
relate
to
many
of
the
different
parts
of
comp
plan
I
since
I
cover
before
in
more
depth
I,
I
will
pause
and
see
if
there's
any
questions
or
places
you'd
like
to
have
more
discussion
on
all.
D
A
D
My
name
is
Natalie
recip
UT
and
I
live
at
8,
7,
6,
eighteenth
avenue,
southeast
in
como
neighborhood.
I
chaired
the
como
blueprint
steering
committee
and
I'm
not
here
in
opposition
to
it
I'm
here
in
support
of
it
and
I
just
wanted
to
thank
a
number
of
people,
because
this
plan
was
done
entirely
by
volunteers
from
the
neighborhood
and
it
took
us
four
years,
but
we
finally
managed
to
get
it
done.
D
We'd
like
to
thank
the
author,
Chad
McGwire,
who
cannot
due
to
illness,
be
here
tonight,
but
he
was
so
helpful
in
guiding
us
through
this
as
well
as
high
Lemay's,
so
we'd
like
to
thank
both
of
them.
There
are
two
other
committee
members
here
that
were
on
our
steering
committee,
Colleen
Odell
and
Katie
Fournier
I,
just
like
to
thank
all
of
you
for
helping
us
get
this
plan
launched.
D
We
followed
your
directions
and
the
various
handouts
that
you
had
and
that's
what
we
had
to
go
on
and,
as
I
said,
we
were
amateurs
but
I
think
we
did
a
good
job.
I'd
like
to
thank
the
city
for
considering
the
plan
and
I'd
like
to
thank
the
everybody
that
was
involved
in
creating
the
plan.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
A
F
E
F
A
G
Good
evening,
this
is
a
project
that
we've
seen
that
committee
of
the
whole
before,
so
the
only
objections
that
I'm
aware
of
our
the
applicants
objections
to
our
recommendation
for
the
sign
variances,
so
I
was
just
going
to
focus
on
that
it
needed
I
can
cover
more
information
about
the
project,
but
these
site
as
reminders
at
2200
smelling
this.
The
zoning
is
industrial
with
the
industrial
living
overlay
in
the
pedestrian
oriented
overlay
district
in
the
surrounding
area,
I'm,
it's
kind
of
an
area
in
transition.
G
It
was
industrial,
but
we
have
some
residential
developments
to
the
south
on
the
west
side
of
snowing,
and
it's
not
too
far
from
the
Franklin
Avenue
LRT
station.
The
Y
Hiawatha
bike
trail
goes
right
along
the
west
side
of
the
property
and
the
LRT
line
runs
longer
as
well.
What
they're
proposing
to
do
is
install
several
signs,
including
to
projecting
signs
one
facing
the
bike
trail
and
the
other
face.
Installing
Avenue
they'd
also
have
a
small
address
sign
over
the
front
door.
The.
G
G
So
the
request
variance
request
is
for
size
for
the
bike
trail
facing
sign,
that's
not
a
primary
building
wall,
so
they
do
need
to
request
variances
to
allow
the
location
on
a
non-primary
building
wall
as
well
as
any
size
allotment,
and
in
this
case
the
sign
would
be
48
square
feet
in
area
and
then
lastly,
this
would
be
really
was
36
square
feet
above
the
adjacent
grade.
So
height
is
another
variance
requested.
G
G
So
they
did
include
a
couple
of
pictures
along
the
bike
trail
for
that
that
one
projecting
sign-
and
this
is
the
adjacent
cooperage
property
just
for
reference-
they
were
allowed
to
put
in
a
20
square
foot-
sign
that's
28
feet
above
grade
or
that
hate
might
not
have
been
28
feet
is
pretty
close.
I
think.
G
So
when
looking
at
the
bike
trail
sign,
we
weren't
staff
wasn't
concerned
about
the
locating
a
sign
on
that.
Was
it
noted
on
the
adjacent
development.
The
cooperage
has
a
similar
sign,
but
at
20
square
feet
in
area,
but
we
did
not
find
any
practical
difficulties
for
size
or
height
in
that
location.
The
industrial
districts,
as
I
mentioned,
allow
only
20
20
square
feet
for
projecting
sign
and
that
height
is
limited
to
28
feet
to
allow
a
sign
of
the
similar
size
or
the
height
you'd
have
to
go
to
the
c3.
G
A
district
also
looking
at
downtown
zoning
signs
are
limited
to
a
height
of
28
square
or
28
feet.
So
this
type
of
sign
is
not
characteristic
for
a
resident
residential
development
outside
of
downtown
or
activity.
Centers
with
a
staff
concluded
that
a
20
square
foot
sign
that's
28
feet
in
height
would
provide
sufficient
visibility
on
the
side
of
the
building
and
therefore
just
recommended
that
the
variances
to
allow
the
location
be
approved,
but
that'd
be
limited
to
20
square
feet
and
28
feet
in
height.
G
So
then,
looking
at
the
sign
adjacent
to
snelling
avenue
again
some
of
the
similar
concerns,
this
would
again
be
48
square
feet
and
area.
The
height
was
okay,
but
it's
again
exceeding
what's
allowed
in
the
industrial
districts
along
selling,
Avenue,
that's
being
a
primary
building
wall,
they
would
be
allowed
to
have
up
to
420
square
feet
of
sign
area
and
individual
wall
size
can
be
up
to
180
square
feet
in
area.
So
we
did
note
that
this
Snelling
Avenue,
this
section
of
stone
avenue,
does
have
low
traffic
counts
and
somewhat
limited
visibility.
G
I
G
F
J
J
K
Kimbra
theme
architect
with
LHP
regarding
the
two
items
that
the
staff
is
regard
recommended
as
being
denied.
First
on
the
issue
of
the
having
two
signs
and
two
sides
of
the
building,
one
of
the
key
differences
about
the
site
is
that
it
it's
not
a
one
sided
site.
It
has
two
sides,
one
traditional
street
side
and
one
the
transit
side
both
for
bike
transit
and
for
light
rail
access.
The
franklin
street
station
is
very
close
to
this,
so
we
are
trying
to
create
a
primary
orientation
both
to
the
transit
side
and
the
traditional
street
side.
K
K
I
K
I
I
J
K
So
the
light
rail
is
on
this
side
the
bike
path.
We
are
building
a
new
public
connection
from
the
corner
of
cedar
in
20
seconds.
It
would
extend
make
the
connection
from
cedar
in
20
second
up
to
the
hiawatha,
and
then
from
that
trail
you
can
come
in
there's
a
bike
parking
area
inside
as
well
as
extra
bike
garden.
So
this
is
a
primary
entrance
for
people
coming
from
the
lightrail
side
and.
J
K
D
A
F
Name
is
Brian
Miller
from
chaudhary
design.
I
guess
one
of
the
things
I
would
emphasize
is
that
it
is
at
the
request
of
the
neighborhood
that
we're
treating
the
light
rail
side
of
the
building,
as
as
a
primary
face
of
the
building,
and
also
trying
to
provide
access
for
residents
in
for
the
neighborhood
to
and
from
the
light
rail
path
had.
F
We
have
had
some
comments
from
people
about
the
sign
on
the
cooperage
not
being
large
enough,
but
two
foot
by
10
foot
limitation
is
is
quite
small
both
for
the
scale
of
building
in
for
the
visibility,
the
sign
from
a
distance,
its
primary
for
people
to
see
from
a
distance
not
for
people
to
see
right
as
they're
up
against
the
building.
So
it
is
for
identification
of
the
building
in
for
wayfinding,
primarily.
A
Are
there
any
questions
of
the
speaker?
Is
there
anyone
else
who
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item?
Si?
No,
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
commissioners.
We
have
several
applications
for
us,
seven
of
them.
Are
there
any
further
questions,
or
would
someone
like
to
start
off
the
discussion
with
emotion?
A
B
And
so
this
is.
This
is
a
pretty
unique
area
and
I
only
wish
that
there
was
maybe
a
little
bit
more
mixed-use
Tod
on
the
site.
But
that's
that's
a
problem
for
the
developer.
So
what's
interesting
is
that
this
is
really
a
two
sided
development
and
I
I
do
see
the
value
in
having
the
signage
on
both
sides.
I
don't
know
if
I
can
actually
justify
the
size
of
the
signage
because,
as
mr.
crowns
are
pointed
out,
Commissioner
krauser
that
it
probably
is
more
geared
towards
passer
by's
on
hiawatha
vs.
B
C
B
A
A
A
E
B
A
F
A
F
G
A
The
one
static
addition,
and
is
there
a
second
you
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
approve
variance,
or,
I
should
say,
approve
staff
recommendation
on
variance
f,
that
is
approving
the
variance
for
allowing
signage
on
and
on
primary
building
wall
and
denying
the
variance
to
increase
the
maximum
allowed
height
of
the
projecting
sign,
push
your
answers.
Yeah.
I
I
A
A
G
A
G
J
G
F
A
H
F
H
F
J
It
kind
of
nicely
said
36,
because
I
was
kind
of
doing
some
quick,
math
and
thought
that,
if
they
stander
the
28
feet
and
but
above
the
10-foot
that
we
seem
to
refer
for
4
percentage,
that
it
gives
us
the
or
two
by
18,
which
is
36
so
I
do
like
to
allow
up
to
36
square
feet
for
signage
on
that
side.
Instead
of
the
requested
48,
things
are
kind
of
a
good
compromise.
I.
J
L
A
A
Right
so
we're
still
denying
the
height
variance,
and
I
can
restate
that
a
moment
and
Commissioner
Breeland
second
pivot.
Is
there
any
further
discussion
on
that
amendment?
If
there
is
none,
we
can
do
a
voice
vote
on
the
amendment
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
and
any
post
so
that
motion
a
kit
that
motion
carries.
A
We
can
move
back
to
our
original
motion,
which
is
now
to
approve
the
variance
to
allow
signage
on
the
nam
primary
building
wall
and
increase
the
allowed
sign
area
from
0
square
feet
to
36
square
feet
and
to
deny
the
variance
to
increase
the
maximum
allowed
height
from
28
to
36
feet
for
the
projecting
sign
there.
Any.