►
From YouTube: January 9, 2017 City Planning Commission
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission Meeting
A
Good
afternoon
I
will
call
order
the
january
9th
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,
magrinha,
sweezy,
luke,
appear
and
Rockwell.
Our
first
item
of
business
is
to
approve
the
actions
from
the
December
5th
2016
meeting
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
those
actions.
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
agenda
in
the
hallway
will
determine
which
items
will
be
on
consent,
which
items
we
will
discuss
and
which
will
be
continued
to
another
meeting.
So
starting
at
the
top
of
the
agenda
item
number
one
is
metro
transit
that
is
a
vacation
in
the
vicinity
of
63,
north
and
seventh
avenue
north.
A
Is
there
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
ramada
phi
the
staff
recommendation
on
that
item?
Seeing
no
one
will
put
item
one
on
consent.
Item
two
is
a
21-20
20
for
marshall
street
northeast.
That's
a
conditional
use
permit
to
allow
an
existing
doc.
We
have
a
slight
modification
to
the
motion
language
on
that
item
and
revising
condition.
Number
two:
is
there
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
to
see.
B
A
One
will
put
that
on
consent
as
well.
Item
three
is
that
32
16
lyndale
avenue
south,
that
is
a
conditional
use,
permit
to
increase
the
maximum
of
height
of
a
building
to
allow
a
dormer
addition?
Is
there
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
three
seeing.
A
Put
that
on
consent,
item
4
is
at
glenwood,
which
is
at
22
to
25.
Excuse
me
to
97
and
301
Thomas
Avenue
North,
2601,
glenwood
avenue
north
2700
second
avenue
north
and
110
russell
avenue
north.
That
is
a
rezoning
and
conditional
use
permit,
site
plan
review
and
minor
subdivision
related
to
my
no
auto
repair
facility
in
the
existing
building
there.
Some
modifications
to
the
parking
lot
is
there.
Anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
that
I
don't
see.
No
one
will
put
item
for
on
consent.
A
Item
5
is
the
4700
cedar,
retail
addition
and
renovation
located
at
4,700
through
4714,
cedar
avenue
south
that's
a
site
plan
review.
The
applicant
has
requested
that
we
continue
that
application
to
the
january
twenty
third
of
meeting.
So
item
number
five
will
be
continued.
If
anyone
is
here
for
that
item,
we
will
consider
that
again
in
two
weeks
item
six
is
a
spur
auto
sales
at
1300
eastlake's
create
a
conditional
use,
permit
and
site
plan
review.
A
B
A
Wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
for
items,
6c,
no
one
will
put
item
six
on
consent
item
seven
is
at
401
nicollet,
mall
and
47
south
fourth
street.
That
is
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
surface
parking
lot.
We
also
have
a
slight
change
to
the
motion
language
in
the
site
plan
review
application
related
to
that
pertaining
to
the
width
of
the
planter
that
is
required
as
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
seven
seeing.
A
Put
item
seven
on
consent:
item
8
is
the
aberdeen
at
1321
fifth
avenue
south
several
applications
for
a
new
residential
building.
There
is
there
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
eight
seeing
no
one
will
put
that
on
consent
and
finally
item
nine.
Is
the
homes
Avenue
apartments
at
three
thousand
nine
through
33
homes,
avenue
south
several
applications
for
a
new
residential
building?
There
is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
9,
seeing
no
one
will
put
that
on
consent.
A
A
B
Just
wanted
to
make
a
quick
comment
about
item
7
on
there.
The
conditional
use
permit
for
the
parking
lot
by
the
Excel
building
I
actually
had
like
a
half
written
email
to
mr.
wittenberg
in
my
drafts
box
for
like
six
months
about
that,
because
they're
using
a
parking
on
the
side,
they've
been
using
the
side
of
the
building
for
parking
for
a
while
and
I
mean
it's.
B
It's
fine
and
obviously
I
think
meets
the
findings
for
a
conditional
use
permit
but
I
in
retrospect,
I
think
of
when
that
had
gone
through,
and
they
had
left
like
a
50-foot
alley
between
the
two
buildings
downtown,
and
maybe
it
was
kind
of
clear
that
they
were
going
to
ultimately
use
it
for
parking
and
so
in
the
future
of
them
are
looking
at
site
plan
reviews.
I
hope
we
think
a
little
bit
more
about
leaving
a
huge
space
between
two
big
buildings
downtown.