►
From YouTube: August 24, 2017 Zoning & Planning
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
A
Good
morning,
Euler
meeting
of
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
today
is
August
24th
2017
I'm
Lisa
bender
I
chair
the
committee.
We
have
a
quorum
today
with
councilmembers
Reich,
Goodman,
Johnson
and
Warsaw
me.
We
have
six
items
on
our
agenda
today.
The
sixth
of
this,
an
addendum
added
to
our
consent
agenda
item
number
one
is
part
of
the
public
hearing
and
we'll
return
to
that
regarding
a
sign
at
2831,
Stevens
Avenue.
South
item
number
two
is
approving
an
application
for
BC
properties
at
1001.
North.
A
Third
Street
item
number
three
is
an
alley
vacation
from
Minneapolis
public
housing
authority
on
fifth
on
5118
East,
54th
Street,
and
that
is
for
an
easement
for
Xcel
Energy
item
number
four
is
approving
a
rezoning
at
3450,
Grand
Avenue
south
to
allow
for
a
triplex
item
number
five
is
referring
to
staff
and
ordinance
amending
our
land,
use,
application
fees
and
regulations
related
to
site
plan
review
and
I'll.
Just
note
that
this
also
includes
considering
second
tier
of
plan
review
modifications.
A
So
right
now,
profit
has
to
go
back
through
the
entire
process
and
this
would
potentially
add
a
different
tier
of
changes
to
approved
projects.
When
item
number
three
is
referring
to
staff,
an
ordinance
relating
to
the
regulation
of
short
term
rental
service
provider
providers
and
so
I'll
move
the
consent
items
which
are
two
through
six.
Is
there
any
discussion
seeing
none
all
our
vote?
Please
say
aye
aye,
any
opposed
that
carries
those
carry
and
then
item
number
one
is
back
to
the
Clear
Channel
issued
on
Stevens
Avenue.
B
Good
morning,
chair
bender
and
committee
members,
mei-ling
Smith
from
C
ped,
an
appeal
has
been
submitted
by
Matthew
Weiland
of
Clear
Channel
outdoor
of
the
City
Planning
Commission's
decision
on
July
31st
to
approve
a
conditional
use
permit
to
increase
height
of
an
existing
off-premise
I
at
28
31,
Stevens,
Avenue
South.
So
at
their
meeting,
the
Planning
Commission
approved
the
conditional
use
permit
for
up
to
60
feet
to
the
top
of
the
sign
rather
than
75
feet,
which
was
proposed
by
the
applicant
clearchannel.
B
B
B
Here's
a
view
from
35
W,
so
as
part
of
the
I-35w
transit
access
project
which
started
this
month.
The
project
will
be
cutting
into
the
existing
site,
removing
the
one-story
commercial
building
and
also
cutting
into
the
existing
properties
directly
to
the
north,
to
make
way
for
a
new
exit
ramp,
an
alley
to
provide
access
to
East
Lake
Street,
to
answer
it
Wesley
extreme,
and
so,
as
a
result,
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
relocate
the
existing
sign
on
the
commercial
building
50
feet
to
the
northwest
of
its
current
location.
B
We
relocating
the
sign
50
feet
to
the
northwest,
would
result
in
this
sign
not
being
visible
at
its
current
height
52
feet.
So
that's
why
50
23
foot
height
increase
would
retain
the
visibility
from
I-35w
northbound
traffic
and
that's
also
because
of
a
new
transit
station
that
is
proposed
on
the
highway
and
the
40
foot
sound
walls.
The
dimensions
of
the
actual
sign
face
would
not
change
it
with
sylvie
14
feet
by
48
feet,
and
it
would
continue
to
be
illuminated
and
again
facing
only
northbound
traffic.
B
Here's
an
elevation
showing
the
sign
height
at
75
feet.
The
sign
would
be
mounted
on
an
architectural
column
on
the
currently
vacant
lot.
It's
similar
to
these
examples,
that's
how
the
architectural
column
would
look.
This
is
provided
by
the
applicant
staff
recommended
approval
of
the
conditional
use
permit
to
increase
height
from
52
feet
to
75
feet
above
grade,
based
on
the
findings
of
fact,
it
contained
in
the
staff
report,
including
the
fact
that
the
lunate
illumination
would
not
change.
B
It
would
still
be
in
compliance
with
the
zoning
code
having
greater
illumination
during
the
day
and
less
at
night,
noting
that
the
single-family
homes
directly
to
the
north
are
non-conforming
in
the
eye.
One
district,
and
also
noting
that
the
sign
height
is
compatible
with
the
scale
of
the
new
ramp
and
highway
and
platform,
but
that
it's
generally
a
little
taller
than
the
buildings
in
the
immediate
vicinity.
B
A
C
Good
morning
committee
chair
committee,
members,
my
name
is
Matthew
Allen
with
clear
talent,
or
only
a
few
comments
with
me
here
today
is
the
property
owners
in
our
lesser,
the
wolves,
their
attorney
Howard
Rolston,
and
my
attorney
Marvin
lists
to
start
off
by
thanking
their
staff
I
think
they
did
a
real,
thorough
job
they've
been
a
pleasure
to
work
with.
Certainly,
we
agree
with
the
recommendation
of
granting
the
Cu
P
to
75
feet.
We've
been
working
on
this
project
for
probably
three
to
four
years,
we've
known
about
a
long
time.
C
We
know
it's
a
very
important
project,
its
impact,
the
project,
and
we
worked
really
hard
to
find
what
we
think
is
a
real
win-win
solution
for
all
the
parties
for
ourselves,
for
the
county,
for
the
city,
for
the
project
and
for
our
landowners.
All
we're
trying
to
get
with
the
co
P
today
is
getting
back
to
what
we
have.
You
know
for
relocation
as
you're
trying
to
get
back
to
a
similar
business.
In
our
case,
it's
a
similar
view
shed
the
value
in
our
businesses,
location
in
the
visibility.
C
We've
done
a
number
of
studies,
and
this
is
what
we
came
up
with-
we
think
is
still
reasonable.
The
sign
we
have
done
on
a
day
is
is
one
of
our
about
signs.
It's
got
great
visibility
for
a
lot
of
reasons,
but
we
think
it's
beneficial
that
we're
able
to
relocate
it
and
we're
happy
with
that
new
view.
Staff
pointed
out,
in
addition
to
the
sign
going
up
on
a
column,
it
is
gonna,
be
an
architectural
column.
C
A
C
It's
probably
my
best
example
again
that
the
value
in
the
sign
is
really
on
the
visibility
and
how
long
it's
not
only
how
far
you
can
see
it,
how
long
you
can
see
it
so,
every
foot,
every
foot
that
I'm
lower,
is
less
visibility.
Right
now,
I
see
that
sign
well
over
a
thousand
feet
at
my
75
foot
request:
I,
don't
even
see
the
sign
until
880
feet.
C
It's
just
it's
just
a
value
thing
in
our
business,
so
even
when
I'm
asking
for
I'm
already
getting
less
than
I
have,
but
we
want
to
be
good
partners
in
this.
We
want
to
find
a
solution.
Would
much
rather
relocate
our
business
then
just
have
our
business
condemned.
So
that's
why
there's
a
lot
of
factors
that
go
in
our
our
product
is
valued
and
how
it's
sold,
but
the
longer
you
can
see
it
has
a
direct
impact
on
the
value
of
the
side.
Thank.
D
Good
morning
committee
chair
bender
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Howard
Rostand
I'm,
an
attorney
at
Frederickson
and
Byron.
Since
the
clerk
is
asking
for
information,
the
last
name
is
spelled
ro
sto
and
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
I
do
represent
Jim
and
Nancy
Wald
in
connection
with
this
there's.
Just
a
few
points
I'd
like
to
make
here
one
mr.
and
mrs.
wold
were
longtime
business
owners
at
this
property
for
35
years
40
years
45
years,
I
was
off
a
decade
in
this.
D
In
this
area
they
were
business
owners
and
operated
a
small
business
in
the
city.
This
income
from
this
sign
from
Clear
Channel
quite
candidly,
is
the
lion's
share,
a
significant
share
of
the
world's
retirement
income.
And
so,
as
you
make
your
decision,
we
ask
you
to
keep
in
mind
that
what
the
wolves
are
trying
to
do
here
is
just
maintain
what
they
already
have
here
and
what
they
rely
upon
for
their
their
income
on
a
yearly
basis
in
their
retirement.
D
The
other
thing
I'd
like
to
point
out
and
I'll,
certainly
leave
the
technical
side
of
this
to
mr.
Whelan.
If
there's
more
questions,
I
Drive
this
route
on
a
fairly
regular
basis,
I,
don't
know
if
the
council
members
do
what's
what's
always
caught
my
eye
about
this
particular
sign
recently.
Is
that
the
fact
it's
being
used
by
iNDOT
and
other
entities
for
informational
purposes?
D
Mndot
is
putting
a
fair
amount
of
information
about
this
35
project
on
this
specific
sign,
so
motorists
understand
what
is
going
on
and
I
can
I,
don't
certainly
know
for
sure
if
that's
going
to
continue,
but
I
would
anticipate
that
that
MnDOT
will
continue
to
use
this
sign
for
the
projects.
I
think
it's
important
for
for
the
public,
in
addition
on
this
sign
of
other
signs,
I've
seen,
Clear
Channel
put
up
Amber,
Alerts
and
other
types
of
information
that
are
also
good
for
for
us
in
the
public.
D
So
I
would
just
ask
that
the
committee
take
this
all
into
consideration.
Again.
We
have
been
working
on
this
I'm
relatively
new
to
this,
and
I've
only
been
working
on
it
for
two
and
a
half
years,
and
that's
so.
We
would
ask
the
committee
to
take
all
that
into
consideration
I.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
The
worlds.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration
and
happy
to
answer
any
questions
from
the
world's
perspective.
Thank.
E
E
It's
allowed
with
conditions
I'm,
not
a
big
fan
of
signs
to
be
honest
and
I
would
argue
that
you
don't
argue
thin
message
is
good,
because
the
message
could
also
be
bad
and
we
wouldn't
like
it
and
they'd
have
the
same
right
to
do
it,
but
I
don't
see
us
having
any,
maybe
I'm
wrong,
and
that's
why
I'm
asking
the
lawyer
for
the
worlds
as
well
as
our
attorney.
Do
we
even
have
a
choice
here?
I
mean
we
pretty
much,
but
isn't
there
a
condemnation
issue?
E
Otherwise,
and-
and
this
is
a
Cu
P
anyways-
it's
not
like
they're,
getting
a
variance
or
something
specific
we're
taking
something
from
them
if
they
already
had
permission
to
have
the
sign
in
this
location.
So
perhaps
it
sounds
like
mr.
pork
clarify
I
do
I
do
find
this
job
fascinating.
For
this
reason,
because
you
learn
something
new
every
day
and
I
bet,
the
Planning
Commission
was
prying,
probably
trying
to
do
something
good,
but
we
might
might
have
to
look
at
the
legality
here
as
well.
D
Certainly,
wouldn't
be
giving
legal
advice
to
this
committee,
I
wouldn't
presume
to
do
that.
I'll
tell
you
that,
from
the
from
the
from
the
from
the
world's
standpoint
honestly
from
the
world
standpoint,
it's
this
or
the
right
to
engage
in
litigation
over
condemnation
which
I
can
tell
you
is
not
an
option.
The
wolves
would
prefer
to
pursue
if
they
can
avoid
it.
D
F
Morning,
chairman
bender
councilmember
Goodman
I've
been
involved
with
this
project
that
day
I
think
more
like
five
years
or
longer,
and
so
the
issue
about
granting
a
condition
having
the
right
to
grant
a
conditional
permit,
use,
permit
or
deny
it
we
can
grant
it
with
conditions.
I
think
the
Planning
Commission
was
challenging
the
notion
that
had
to
be
that
high,
and
so
they
made
they
made
the
decision
they
did.
F
But
to
be
clear,
it's
always
been
the
case
that,
if,
if
the
sign
was
not
able
to
be
relocated
in
a
way
that
was
satisfactory
to
both
parties,
that
would
probably
enter
into
a
condemnation,
and
so
we've
worked
diligently
over
the
years
to
find
a
kind
of
path
forward
that
changed.
Quite
frankly
when
the
transit
station
came
in,
so
with
all
due
respect
to
the
appellant,
they
didn't
seek
an
additional
height.
F
Originally,
it
was
only
when
that
the
project
had
kind
of
changed
over
time
that
that
became
necessary
and,
in
fact
that's
why
they're
even
before
you,
it
might
have
been
the
case
that
it
would
have
just
been
relocated,
but
because
of
the
changes
which
we
think
are
a
good
thing.
These
are
these
are
positive
things,
but
it
also
required
for
them
to
feel
whole
and
not
go
into
some
type
of
condemnation
that
they
would
have
to
request
an
additional
height
and
we
we
displayed
it
straight
and
put
them
through
the
process.
F
So
I
think
this
committee
can
make
a
decision.
The
Planning
Commission
was
in
the
rights
to
put
some
conditions
on
it
and
make
it
challenge
the
notion
it
had
to
be
that
tall
so,
but
it
is
the
case,
I
think
and
I.
Think
we've
heard
that
today
that
if
both
sides
don't
feel
like
they're
taking
care
of
whole,
they
can
go
back
and
go
into
a
condemnation
and
that
and
does
put
the
project
at
some
risk
and
uncertainty,
and
so
I
guess
that's
a
way
out.
If
you
have
any
additional
questions.
A
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
further
questions
from
staff
or
the
project
team?
Would
anyone
else
like
to
speak
before
I
close
the
public
hearing?
Anyone
seeing
none
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
so
go
ahead
and
move
approval
of
the
appeal,
and
that
would
allow
the
original
proposal
to
go
forward
as
approved
with
a
conditional
use.
Permit
I'll
just
note,
I
appreciate
the
question.
A
This
is
part
of
a
long,
an
important,
huge
discussion
about
this
project,
one
of
the
many
very
little
but
important
details
that
had
to
get
worked
out
and
just
honoring
the
negotiation
that
happened
between
our
staff
and
the
county
staff
and
the
private
property
owners.
I
think
to
the
points
that
were
made
by
staff
and
councilmember
Goodman,
really
within
our
purview,
to
just
look
at
the
legal
context
of
the
conditional
use
permit
here.