►
From YouTube: July 18, 2016 City Planning Commission
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission Meeting
A
Good
after
and
I
will
call
to
order
the
July
eighteenth
meeting
of
the
Minneapolis
City
Planning
Commission.
My
name
is
Matt
Brown
I
serve
as
president
of
the
Commission
I'm
joined
today
by
commissioners,
Kron,
sorry,
no
slack,
sweezy,
Breeland
and
rockwell.
Our
first
item
of
business
is
to
approve
the
actions
from
the
jun
27th
meeting.
They
have
a
motion
to
approve
those
actions.
B
A
Have
a
motion
on
a
second
all
in
favor
and
that
motion
carries
next,
will
organize
the
agenda
and
find
hard
copies
of
the
agenda
in
the
hallway
will
determine
which
items
will
be
considered
on
consent
in
which
items
will
be
discussed
so
starting
at
the
top
of
the
agenda
item
number
one
is
a
minor
subdivision
of
a
parking
area
at
3201,
20th
avenue,
south
3205,
20th
avenue
south
and
two
thousand
nine
thirty
second
street
east.
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.
Item
two
is
the
cross
Anderson
block
redevelopment
at
50,
150,
75,
15
and
5
23,
South,
eighth
Street,
as
well
as
50
2
and
5
18,
South,
ninth
Street
and
8
11,
fifth
avenue
south?
That's
a
registered
land
survey
as
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
that
item.
Seeing
no
one
will
put
item
2
on
consent.
Item
three
is
a
right-of-way
vacation
on
seventh
avenue
north?
A
Is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on?
That
item
see
no
one.
Will
put
that
on
consent?
Item
4
is
the
here
on
an
Essex
hotel
at
501
here
on
Boulevard
and
2510
essex
street
southeast
several
applications
for
a
hotel
project,
they're,
actually
amending
making
some
amendments
to
applications
that
were
previously
approved.
Anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
that
item,
seeing
no
one
will
put
item
for
on
consent.
A
A
Item
6
is
the
embassy
suite
signage
at
12,
south
632,
several
applications
related
to
signage
on
an
existing
building
there.
So
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
that
item,
seeing
no
one
will
put
item
6
on
consent.
Item
7
is
at
347
through
359,
harrison
street
northeast
and
980
winter
street
northeast.
That's
a
conditional
use,
permit,
variance
and
site
plan
review
related
to
a
bus
garage.
They
are
as
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
that
item.
Seeing.
A
D
A
Wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
that
them
see,
no
one
will
put
item
9
on
consent.
Finally,
item
10
is
the
zoning
code
text
amendment
related
to
the
definition
of
a
half
storey?
It's
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on.
That
item
see
no
one
will
put
item
10
on
consent.
So
our
agenda
as
amended,
is
as
follows:
items
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
9
and
10
will
be
on
consent
and
we
will
discuss
item
8.
A
A
F
You
president
brown
at
the
june
30
2016
committee,
the
whole
we
heard
two
items
first
item
was
a
series
of
wine
sales,
4754
camden
avenue
north
and
4611
colfax
avenue
north.
The
second
item
was
a
series
of
line
sales
at
2101
emerson,
avenue
north
in
1816,
queen
avenue
north.
The
recommended
motion
for
both
items
was
approval
staff
recommendation
that
these
items
were
consistent
with
the
Minneapolis
plan
of
her
sustainable
growth.
Okay,.
A
We
have
a
motion
finding
those
land
sales
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
Is
there
a
second
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor,
and
that
motion
carries
next
we'll
move
on
to
the
public
hearing
portion
of
the
meeting
at
this
time?
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
for
the
items
on
the
consent
agenda.
So
again,
that's
items,
1
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
9
and
10.
Anyone
wishing
to
speak
on
any
of
those
items
seeing
no
one
I
will
close
the
public
hearing.
A
F
A
C
Evening,
commissioners,
before
you
tonight
is
a
rezoning
request
at
33,
33
44
street
eats
some
background
on
the
property.
The
property
is
currently
zoned,
r5
multiple-family
district,
it's
a
little
bit
smaller
than
an
acre
and
it
is
located
a
few
blocks
south
of
the
38
Street
Station
near
Hiawatha.
The
proposal
is
to
rezone
the
property
from
our
five
to
the
I
one
light
industrial
zoning
district
and
then
to
add
the
industrial
living
overlay
district.
There's
no
specific
use
proposed
for
the
property
right.
C
As
you
can
see
on
the
page,
the
rezoning
study
for
the
area,
which
was
intended
to
implement
the
policies
of
that
stationary
plan,
was
completed
in
2012.
This
property
was
Ruiz
owned
at
that
time
from
I
12
are
five,
however,
and
while
many
of
the
other
industrial
properties
had
similar
land,
whose
guidance
in
the
small
area
plan
those
actually
those
other
industrial
properties,
actually
retained
their
industrial
zoning
during
the
retail
rezoning
study
with
the
addition
of
the
Iowa,
the
industrial
living
overlay
district.
However,
this
property
was
reasonable
to
our
five.
C
Like
I
said,
I
was
going
to
talk
about
the
property
history,
so
it
was
built
in
nineteen.
Thirty
in
the
nineteen
sixty-three
zoning
code,
it
was
put
in
the
light
manufacturing
district
when
we
adopted
the
1999
zoning
kodos
put
in
the
I
one
light.
Industrial
district,
like
I,
said
before
the
stationary
plan
was
adopted
in
2006
in
2008.
C
So
to
summarize,
the
staff
analysis
in
this
staff
report
an
important
thing
to
note.
There
was
the
station
area
plan
kind
of
foreshadow
this
issue,
the
issue
of
rezoning
all
these
industrial
sites
and
said
because
of
the
site
specific
site
conditions
of
these
type
of
building,
specifically
grain
elevators,
which
are
very
built
for
one
purpose.
Rezoning,
could
discourage
the
reinvestment
and
the
reuse
of
the
site
and
that
at
that
time,
continued
investment
in
the
property
might
actually
be
more
feasible
than
more
important
than
rezoning
to
be
consistent
with
the
land
use
guidance.
C
That
are
consists
more
consistent
with
the
station
area
guidance
for
this
property.
Also,
we
found
that
rezoning
is
in
the
public
interest
to
allow
for
the
property
to
utilize
right
now,
rather
than
left
bacon,
as
it
has
been
for
the
last
eight
years,
and
also
just
to
note
that
the
industrial
vehicle
intent
of
the
industrial
living
overlay
district
is
to
encourage
the
rehabilitation
and
reuse
of
existing.
C
That's
real
structure
is
for
many
different
uses
and
then
for
the
finding
about
whether
reasonable
uses
exists.
Under
the
current
zoning
district,
the
archive
zoning
significantly
limits
the
potential
uses
of
this
property,
like
I,
said
without
demolition
or
alteration
as
no
non-conforming
rights
have
been
retained.
C
So
Steph's
conclusion
essentially
was
that
rezoning,
the
property
to
the
I
one
district
with
the
eyelid
will
allow
for
light
industrial
uses
that
have
a
limited
impact
on
the
surrounding
properties,
while
also
retaining
the
option
for
future
residential
uses,
as
the
stationary
plan
recommends.
As
far
as
public
comments
we
did
receive
and
you
should
have
in
your
packets
one
letter
of
support
from
the
Longfellow
Community
Council,
which
supports
the
rezoning
and
then
I'll
just
end
with
the
staff
recommendation,
which
we're
recommending
that
you
approve
the
rezoning.
The
applicant
is
here
in
Kentucky.
E
That
is
eligible,
correct,
okay
and
it
is
within
the
station
area
for
the
38th
Street
Station
grant
blueliner,
and
I
also
have
a
kind
of
legal
question.
So
the
applicant
was
able
to
obtain
signatures
from
the
surrounding
parcels
as
required.
Is
that
somehow
steer
us
as
a
commission
one
way
or
the
other,
or
is
that
just
one
of
the
steps
along
the
way?
So.
C
E
And
then
today
is
only
recently
there's
no
specific
development
proposal.
If
we
were
to
read
his
own
today,
an
applicant
shows
the
tortoise
structure
down,
they
would
have.
They
could
do
that
and
then
it
could
be
a
vacant
site
for
any
allowed
use
within
the
industrial
district.
Is
that
correct
that.
C
A
G
So
I'm
just
looking
a
little
bit
what
the
dustrial
living
overlay
district
requires
and
I
was
wondering
if
you
could
explain
that
just
sort
of
briefly
I
mean
it
says
that
dwelling
units
are
allowed,
but
only
in
certain
types
of
structures
that
says
drove
up
to
heights
of
two
and
a
half
stories,
and
so
I'm
running
with
that
precludes
eventually
converting
the
building
to
residential
or
would
it
need
to
be
Ruiz
owned?
Okay,
so.
C
The
intent
of
the
industrial
living
overlay
district
is
to
allow
for
the
rehab
of
existing
industrial
structures.
I
think
the
two
and
a
half
storey
limitation
is
for
single
or
two
family.
Let
me
check
yeah,
it
would
just
be
for
single
or
to
family,
and
cluster
developments
would
be
two
and
a
half
stories.
So
you
do
what
you
have
to
obtain
a
conditional
use
permit
for
dwelling
units
in
the
I
log,
but
that
would
be
the
limitation.
Are
those
standards
associated
with
the
conditional
use?
Permit
would
be
the
limitations
on
that.
C
A
Are
there
any
further
questions?
Lisa
I
have
a
quick
question
when,
when
the
properties
in
this
area
were
rezone
in
2012
was
the
rationale
for
changing
the
zoning
on
this
property
to
residential
based
in
part
on
the
existing
industrial
uses
of
other
properties,
and
since
his
property
had
been
vacant,
or
maybe
it
was
viewed
that
it
was
going
to
redevelop
sooner
rather
than
later,
or
did
it
have
more
to
do
with
kind
of
the
land
use
policies
for
for
that
area
that
that
this,
this
area
has
slightly
different
policies
than
closer
to
hiawatha.
C
B
C
In
the
plan,
the
only
retained
industrial
uses
that
were
shown
in
the
plan
were
actually
a
long
hiawatha
and
then
everything
along
date
was
supposed
to
be
townhomes
or
mix
lots.
But,
as
you
can
see
from
the
zoning,
all
of
those
other
parcels,
except
this
block,
retained
the
i1
zoning
and
the
applicant
can
speak
more
because
they
included
in
their
application
materials
kind
of
their
speculation
about
why
that
happened.
H
Afternoon,
carol,
lansing
I'm
an
attorney
at
fakery
Baker
Daniel
I'm
representing
the
applicant,
which
is
M
LJ
enterprises,
which
is
owned
by
Adam
Mackey.
He
is
in
Washington
DC,
but
originally
from
Minnesota
and
owns
a
property
here,
and
when
this
property
came
up
the
public
auction,
he
thought
because
he
had
seen
grain
silos
converted
in
Europe
when
he
was
stationed
overseas
into
housing.
What
a
great
idea
that
would
be
and
he
bought
it.
H
He
thought
for
a
great
price,
but
as
he
looked
into
it
more
and
learned
the
excessive
costs
to
actually
convert
these
silos
to
housing
and
install
floors
at
Lee
as
a
guy
just
doing
it
on
his
own
without
subsidies,
a
lot
of
planning
he's
now
looked
to
make
some
interim
use
of
the
property
that
will
create
some
money
to
do.
Maintenance
security,
pay
the
taxes
on
this
previously
tax
forfeited
property.
H
H
So
all
the
properties
around
the
station
area
would
be,
you
know
some
kind
of
mixed
juice,
commercial
and
all
of
these
properties,
including
the
subject
site
and
going
north,
would
be
residential,
and
that
was
the
original
staff
recommendation.
But
a
number
of
property
owners,
including
a
couple
I,
was
representing
like
a
DM,
General
Mills
other
smaller,
both
commercial
and
industrial
owners,
said
look
that
will
make
us
non
performing
in
to
such
an
extent
that
it
will
impair
our
ability
to
invest
in
our
property
and,
and
so
what
resulted
is
just.
H
This
is
the
subject
site
these
parcels
that
are
guided
residential
are
still
I
won
and
they
have.
If
you
look
at
the
overlay
map
and
I
lied,
these
parcels
up
here
that
are
guided
commercial
are
still
I
to
with
an
eyelid
and
yes
for
this
property
there.
There
just
wasn't
a
present
owner
to
participate
in
that
study
and
make
the
same
case
so
we're
asking
and
the
council
did
change
the
guidance
for
those
properties,
so
we're
kind
of
asking
for
a
redo
to
go
back
to
where
it
was.
H
It
will
not
allow
because
there's
been
a
loss
of
nonconforming
rights.
In
this
case
it
will
not
allow
a
grain
elevator
used
to
resume,
and
you
know
this
is
an
unusual
case.
This
is
one
of
the
few
cases
where
that
fourth
criteria,
whether
there's
a
reasonable
use
of
the
property
under
the
existing
zoning,
where
the
realistic
answer
is
no
with
a
demolition
cost
of
2
million.
That's
not
going
to
happen.
Unless
there
really
is
a
development
proposal
ready
to
go
and
it
would
get
reviewed
for
demolition.
H
H
They
have
looked
at
a
range
of
issues,
but
you
don't
get
historic
tax
credits
without
a
lot
of
other
funding
leading
up
to
there
and
it's
and
they
haven't
been
able
in
the
time
that
they've
looked
at
it,
to
be
able
to
come
up
with
a
feasible
redevelopment
scenario.
I
think
the
thinking
is
that
the
the
most
likely
long-term
solution
will
be
to
assemble
the
rest
of
the
parcels
on
that
block
that
are
currently
zoned
are
five.
Maybe
do
the
housing
component
there
and
see
if
there's
a
feasible,
complimentary
reuse
of
the
silos?
Those.
H
Jeff
locks
is
here:
he
is
working
with
the
property
owner
and
I.
Don't
you
know
they
have
reached
out
to
some
of
the
other
properties
about
buying
them,
which
is
kind
of
a
one
step
at
a
time.
There's
not
a
lot
of
money
to
that
make
sense
to
invest
in
this
site
when
the
zoning.
Currently
it
doesn't
allow
you
to
do
anything.
A
E
E
All
right,
so
here's
right
where's
my
rationale.
In
my
opinion,
this
is
in
a
stationary.
Small
area
plan
is
within
arguably
2,000
feet
of
the
LRT
station.
The
rezoning
to
an
industrial
zoning
which
allows
for
a
lots
of
stuff
I,
don't
think
there's
any
harm
waiting
to
get
an
actual
proposal.
A
design
proposal
site
plan
review
those
kinds
of
things
that
go
along
with
the
rezoning.
It's
very
rare
that
we
actually
see
just
blind
rezonings
without
a
proposal
attached
to.
C
E
E
D
First,
a
concert
I
agree
in
principle,
but
I
think
the
what
were
what
we
always
talk
about
when
we
are
rezoning
in
this
come
up
in
rezoning
discussions
when
we
have
a
specific
proposal
in
front
of
us
is
that
the
rezoning
is
not
about
specific
proposal
I.
So
this
this
is
clearly
not
about
a
specific
puzzle.
It's
about
a
hypothetical.
D
A
B
G
B
H
A
G
I
do
kind
of
a
growth
what
Commissioner
rachal
said
earlier.
I
mean
this
is
sort
of
unfortunate,
because
I
feel
like
we
have
a
lot
of
these
opportunities.
We
have
like
a
land
near
train
station
and
we
don't
end
up
utilizing
it
as
much
as
we'd
want
to,
but
I
think.
In
this
case
it
is
pretty
compelling
with
what's
on
the
site
right
now
that
there's
not
really
a
practical
use
for
the
structure
and
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
say
in
the.
A
Further
discussion
I'd
like
that
I,
do
think
the
addition
of
the
industrial
living
overlay
does
help
us
through
this
rezoning,
continue
to
at
least
in
a
very
long
term,
implement
the
plan
for
that
station
area.
I
think
when
we
look
at
these
individual
properties,
it
is
important
to
look
at
you
know,
based
on
the
current
use,
based
on
the
current
structures
that
are
there.
What
is
going
to
be
the
approximate
timing
of
reuse
or
redevelopment
I?