►
From YouTube: August 28, 2017 City Planning Commission
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission Meeting
A
Our
first
item
business
today
is
to
approve
the
actions
from
the
August
14th
meeting.
They
have
a
motion
to
approve
those
actions.
I
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor,
and
that
motion
carries
next.
We
will
organize
the
agenda,
will
determine
which
items
will
be
considered
on
consent,
which
we
will
which
items
we
will
discuss
and
which
will
be
continued
to
another
meeting.
You
can
find
hard
copies
of
the
agenda
in
the
hallway,
starting
at
the
top
of
the
agenda
item.
One
is
2550
Pillsbury
Avenue.
That
is
a
rezoning.
A
It's
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
1
see.
No
one
will
put
that
on
consent.
Item
2
is
an
Islamic
Center
of
2824
13th
Avenue
South
several
applications.
There
will
continue
that
at
action
to
the
September
18th
meeting.
So
if
anyone
is
here
for
that
will
consider
it
on
September
18th
item
3
is
at
301
through
311
east
late
Street
several
applications
for
an
addition
to
a
shopping
center.
There
is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
3c.
A
No
one
will
put
item
3
on
consent
item
4
is
a
28
29
27th
Avenue
South
several
applications
for
a
new
residential
building.
There
will
discuss
item
4
if
anyone
it's
gear
for
that
item.
5
is
at
29,
12,
30th,
Avenue
south
also
several
applications
for
a
new
residential
building.
There
will
discuss
item
5
item
6,
29,
21,
29th,
Avenue
South,
several
applications
for
a
residential
building.
There
will
also
discuss
item
6
and
finally,
item
7
is
ultimate
a
nine
seventeen
through
9
27
and
1001,
2nd
Street
northeast
several
applications
for
a
new
residential
building.
A
There
is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
7,
seeing
no
one
will
put
item
7
I
consent.
So
our
agenda
as
amended,
is
as
follows:
items
1,
3,
&
7,
will
be
on
consent,
we'll
discuss
items,
4,
5,
&,
6
and
item
2
will
be
continued
to
the
September
18th
meeting.
They
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
agenda
as
amended.
A
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor
and
that
motion
carries.
We
do
not
have
a
committee
of
the
whole
consent
agenda
today.
So
we'll
move
on
to
the
public
hearing
portion
of
our
meeting
and
at
this
time
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
for
the
items
on
the
consent
agenda.
That's
items
1,
3,
&
7,
seeing
no
one
I
will
close.
The
public
hearing
and
commissioners
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
consent
agenda.
A
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor,
and
that
motion
carries
next
may
have
a
motion
to
continue
item
2
to
the
September
18th
meeting
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor,
and
that
motion
carries
next.
We'll
move
on
to
our
items
for
a
discussion
and
we'll
start
with
item
4
28
29
at
27th,
Avenue,
South
and
staff.
Is
mr.
Crandall
I
understand
that
items
4
5
&
6
have
some
similarities
so
perhaps
you'd
like
that
touch
on
those
as
well
presentation.
A
B
Good
evening,
commissioners,
Peter
Crandall
senior
planner
with
cpad,
we'll
be
talking
about
three
projects
located
in
the
Longfellow
neighborhood
in
South
Minneapolis
tonight.
The
three
projects
are
located
on
similar
sites
and
are
essentially
identical
projects.
So
the
only
thing
that
will
be
changing
between
the
three
is
some
site
conditions
and
a
couple
of
or
one
application
for
one
of
the
proposals.
So
the
first
property
is
28
29,
27th,
Avenue
South.
B
The
property
is
currently
zoned
r4
and
is
located
a
block
and
a
half
off
of
East
Lake
Street
East
Lake
is
a
high
frequent,
a
transit
corridor.
So
these
projects,
all
of
them,
are
within
1/4
mile
of
that
and
qualify
for
a
reduced
parking
requirement
which
will
bring
their
parking
requirement
to
zero.
B
So
the
proposal
is
for
a
six
unit.
Residential
building
the
structure
is
organized
in
such
a
way
that
each
unit
has
its
own
principal
entrance.
Four
of
the
units
will
be
accessed
from
the
front
and
rear
elevations
at
the
building
are
rather,
two
of
them
will
be
accessed
from
the
front
and
two
from
the
rear,
and
then
there
are
two
ad
a
accessible
units
in
what
is
functionally
the
basement,
but
technically
the
first
floor,
as
the
zoning
code
defines
a
story,
so
the
structures
basement
level
extrudes
more
than
four
feet
out
of
the
ground.
B
Additionally,
we
have
recommended
some
conditions
of
approval
having
to
do
with
the
exterior
design
most,
notably
that
the
structure
is
currently
not
complying
with
the
window
requirement.
At
the
second
level,
where
the
principal
entrances
are
on
the
front
and
rear
elevation
and
to
incorporate
some
design
elements
on
the
rear
elevation
that
bring
it
in
line
with
the
front
elevation,
since
both
are
principal
entrances
to
the
structure.
B
B
Currently,
it's
proposed
at
7
feet.
Zoning
code
would
require
nine
feet
for
a
structure
of
this
height
and
then
the
applicant
had
requested
a
variance
to
reduce
the
bicycle
parking
requirement
from
three
to
zero
and
staff
is
recommending
denial
of
that
application.
So
I
think
go
conclude
the
summary
of
this
project
and
then
I'll
address
any
of
the
differences
between
the
other
two
when
we
get
to
those
on
the
agenda.
Unless
there
any
questions.
A
C
D
B
C
B
B
C
C
For
or
surahs
fence,
or
some
kind
of
screening,
minimum
height
of
6
feet,
which
you
explained
on
door,
the
north
side,
which
is
where
the
entrances
are
and
then
in
under
site
plan,
review
around
north-south
and
alley
facing
sides
of
the
surface
parking
area.
Could
you
just
point
to
where
those
are
or
explains
that
they
wear
that?
That's
this,
but
would
be
going
and
it's
six
feet
in
code
that
just
you
thank
you,
victories
right,
yeah.
B
So
I
believe
the
conditions
are
to
incorporate
a
landscaped
yard,
not
a
fence.
Necessarily,
although
fences
decorative
fences
can
meet
the
screening
requirement,
but
the
two
locations
or
the
locations
that
ap
art
are
at
the
north
along
the
elevation
were
the
principal
entrances
to
the
ad.
Eight
units
would
be
yep
and
then
basically
that
any
surface
parking
incorporated
at
the
rear
of
the
site
would
meet
our
screening
requirements
that
we
require
of
all
surface
parking
lot.
B
C
E
F
D
F
F
Would
it
work
if
and
I
know?
The
reason
is:
is
cars
pulling
in
and
out
of
the
alley?
Would
it
work
to
add
a
little
bit
of
bituminous
in
the
alley
or
at
the
back
end
of
a
lot
or
for
car
movements
as
a
way
to
sort
of
appease
that
eye
or
or
maybe
reduce,
go
down
to
four
stalls
and
provide
some
buffering
I?
Don't.
B
F
E
A
D
A
For
the
maneuvering
on
site,
that's
correct,
okay,
and
it
would
require
an
additional
variance
because
that's
not
a
site
plan
review
standard.
If
you
know
if
there
was
appetite
for
approving
something
in
the
configuration
yes
similar
to
what
Shawn?
Yes,
okay,
thanks
if
there
are
no
further
questions
of
staff,
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
on
this
item
and
I'd
like
to
yeah,
that's
fine
I'll
have
the
applicant
speak
first
in
Commissioner
of
real
and
I
think
you
have
a
question
for
staff,
so.
G
E
C
A
I
Nick
Huber's
and
I
guess
the
parking
issue
based
on
Peters
recommendation
I
think
we're
gonna
just
eliminate
the
parking
to
the
back
I
guess
on.
If
I'm
supposed
to
speak
on
the
bike
parking,
our
intent
is
to
give
the
residents
options
to
have
hooks
on
the
inside
of
their
units.
You
know
no
exterior
building.
It
seems
more
likely
that
there
could
be
potential
for
break-in
and
bikes
getting
stolen.
That's
our
reasoning
behind
that.
A
A
A
G
H
C
You
some
fence
fence
question
again:
are
you
planning
were
you
planning
otherwise
to
be
putting
any
kind
of
fence
or
screening?
You
know
to
define
the
backyard
you
know
with
both
the
side
yards
asking
for
variances
to
reduce
those,
and
it
could
be
important
to
provide
some
up
sides
basically,
can
that's
that
feels
use
them
all
uncomfortable
yeah.
I
Our
intent
was
to
screen
with
trashes
and
then
probably
well,
it's
probably
it's
a
change
now,
because
we
thought
we're
gonna
have
parking
in
the
back
there,
but
we're
gonna
put
a
fence
along
there
as
well.
You
know
screening
the
alleyway
from
the
parking
spaces,
but
know
that
we're
not
going
to
have
any
parking
space
to
be
honest,
I
have
thought
about
it
a
whole
lot.
So
we
thank.
C
G
A
A
H
H
C
I
am
NOT
weighing
in
on
what
it
is
it
doesn't
matter.
What
it
is
that
my
intent
there
is
is
tying
this
to
the
faculty.
There
are
requests
for
smaller
yard
side
yards
and
therefore
I
think
the
remaining
space
should
be
more
defined,
more
usable
and
I.
Think
athlete
can
work
with
staff
to
find
a
hedge
or
a
fence
or
whatever
it
is
to
create
a
sense
of
definition.
Space.
A
E
B
One
one
issue
that
did
just
come
to
mind
with
that
particular
condition
is
that
technically
the
first
floor
is
or
the
basement
is
considered
a
first
floor
and
it
has
a
window
requirement
on
that.
Primary
elevation
and
I
think
that,
as
currently
designed,
there
are
windows
behind
the
stairs
underneath
the
porch
with
accessible
wells
and
so
adding
that
additional
screening
between
the
porch
and
the
ground
would
essentially
block
that.
A
That
motion
has
been
withdrawn.
Going
back
to
our
original
motion.
We
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
site
plan
review
with
an
amendment
to
condition
number
four:
is
there
any
I
just
wanted,
since
we're
changing
a
conditions
just
want
to
make
sure
if
the
applicant
is
comfortable
with
that
or
at
anything
else
they
had
he's
nodding
so
seems,
like
that's
fine
hearing,
no
further
discussion
clerk,
please
call
the
roll.
J
A
B
B
However,
there's
still
a
variance
to
allow
for
the
principal
ad
entrances
on
the
north
side,
variance
to
reduce,
requested
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
bicycle
parking
requirement
and
then
the
site
plan
review,
site
plan,
review
requirements
are
the
same
and
we
are
also
recommending
denial
of
the
bicycle
parking
variance
on
this
particular
property.
I'll
show
you
the
zoning
map.
Just
you
know.
A
E
A
Right
any
further
questions
of
the
applicant:
if
there
are
none
is
there,
anyone
else
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item.
No
one
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
and
commissioners.
We
just
have
the
three
applications
before
us
on
this
item.
Are
there
any
further
questions,
or
would
someone
like
to
make
a
motion.
A
A
D
D
A
B
Okay,
so
this
is
again
a
exact
same
design
on
a
very
similar
site.
This
site
is
similar
in
size
to
the
item
number
4,
and
so
the
project
incorporates
or
requires
that
additional
variance
along
the
south
side
yard.
So
the
requested
variances
are
four
principal
entrances
along
the
north
property
line,
reducing
the
site,
south
side
yard
requested
reduction
in
the
bicycle
parking
requirement,
and
then
the
site
plan
review
and
again
this
is
actually
just
on
the
other
side
of
the
block
from
the
previous
one
that
we
looked
at
our
for
zoning.
A
A
C
A
C
A
H
J
Gonna
say:
I
think
it's
cool
that
you're
doing
three
Tom
are
scho
buildings
like
this.
It's
been
encouraging
in
the
past
queers
we've
seen
smaller
projects
like
this
and
it's
a
good
sign
that
we're
doing
something
right
with
our
zoning
code.
I
know
it
was
probably
still
a
little
bit
to
work
with,
but
any
case
I
think
these
will
be
good
additions
to
the
area.
A
All
right
any
further
discussion,
I'll
just
echo,
Commissioner
agree.
You
know
it's
comments
now,
I'll
point
out
too,
that
you
know
some
of
the
changes
to
our
parking
requirements
a
few
years
ago.
I
think
helped
make
projects
like
this
happen,
probably
wouldn't
have
been
possible
before
that
we'd
be
stuck
with
having
kind
of
a
drive
aisle.
You
know
the
whole
backyard
taken
up
with
parking
which
isn't
the
most
conducive
to
an
infill
area.