►
From YouTube: August 23, 2018 Zoning & Planning Committee
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
A
Good
morning,
I'm
gonna
call
to
order
this
regular
meeting
of
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
for
Thursday
August
27th
its
23rd.
Excuse
me.
My
name
is
Jeremy
Schrader
and
I'm.
The
chair
of
this
committee.
Well
with
me
at
the
Dyess,
our
council,
member
Ellison,
councilmember,
Ike
and
councilmember
Gordon.
Let
the
record
reflect
that
we
have
a
quorum.
A
We
have
seven
items
on
today's
agenda
when
we'll
begin
with
the
consent
agenda
items
1,
&
2
are
referring
to
staff
to
ordinances
introduced
at
Council
last
week
regarding
the
limited
entertainment
and
the
regulation
of
an
existing
off-site
off-premise
advertising
signs
and
billboards
near
regional
sporting
facilities.
Item
4
is
the
approval
of
a
drainage
and
utility
easement
vacation
applications
submitted
by
Leonhard
multifamily
communities
for
the
property
at
1
to
0,
5th
Street,
northeast
and
number
5
is
an
alley
vacation
application
submitted
by
project
for
pride
in
living.
After
speaking
with
the
staff,
it
appears.
A
This
project
is
not
ready
to
move
forward.
So
I'm
will
make
a
motion
to
delete
this
item
from
the
agenda
item.
6
is
the
approval
of
the
rezoning
application
submitted
by
yellow
tree
Corp
to
rezone
a
property
at
23:23,
Jackson
Street
northeast
from
an
r4
multi-family
district
or
an
r5
multi-family
district
to
construct
a
new
four-story
65
unit
residential
building
there
any
questions
or
comments
by
community
members
on
any
of
these
items:
council,
member
Ike.
Mr.
A
B
Thank
You
mr.
chair
I'll
be
moving
this
without
recommendation,
and
the
purpose
of
that
is
that
there's
been
significant
movement
on
some
key
issues
between
the
Community
Association
and
the
proposed
development.
Most
significantly,
some
progress
is
made
in
terms
of
site
water
management
and
in
the
next
week
we
should
be
able
to
finalize
that
and
memorialize
that
activity,
which
I
think
will
be
to
the
satisfaction
of
all
parties
and
I've,
discussed
this
with
the
developer
and
all
other
parties.
A
You
councilmember
Ike's
motion
is
before
this
number:
six,
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye
aye,
aye
aye,
all
those
posts
dies
have
it
and
that
motion
carries
well
now
with
that
we're
going
to
move
on
to
the
quasi
judicial
hearing
portion
of
the
agenda
item.
One
is
the
consideration
of
an
appeal
submitted
by
at
least
a
gage
on
behalf
of
carvanha
regarding
the
decision
of
the
City
Planning
Commission
condition
to
approve
approve
eight
approval,
eight
to
a
site
plan
review
of
approving
a
motor
freight
terminal
located
at
1,300
new
brighton.
C
C
In
order
for
the
proposed
use
as
the
motor
terminal
motor
vehicle
terminal
to
be
permitted
on
the
site,
they
would
have
to
rezone
the
property
from
i1
to
i2,
which
is
later
on
today's
agenda
on
July
30th,
the
City
Planning
Commission
adopted
the
seven
conditions
of
approval,
as
recommended
by
staff
and
added
an
eighth
condition,
and
it
reads:
the
applicant
shall
work
with
C
ped
staff
and
park
board
staff
to
maximize
the
number
of
trees
on
the
site
up
to
the
proportional
amount
required
for
the
entire
site
area.
So
here's.
D
C
Of
the
site
indicates
the
leasehold
area
for
carvanha.
They
would
be
parking
vehicles
here.
They
would
retain
the
existing
structures
here,
there's
additional
parking,
hair
and
then
sufficient
room
to
maneuver
the
large
vehicles
that
will
be
transporting
the
motor
vehicles
to
the
site.
The
site
has
well-documented
contamination
issues.
The
applicant
can
speak
to
that
has
happened
since
the
Planning
Commission
on
July
30th,
as
it
relates
to
the
Minnesota
Pollution
Control
Agency,
and
so
this
condition
of
approval
would
require
approximately
33
additional
trees.
C
The
Planning
Commission
was
not
specific
to
say
that
those
33
trees
would
be
located
within
the
leasehold
area,
but
somewhere
on
the
property
as
a
whole.
The
applicant
has
appealed
this
condition
of
approval
and
it
is
asking
for
consideration
to
alleviate
or
eliminate
that
condition
of
approval
in
the
site.
Plan
review
application
and
with
that
I
can
take
any
questions.
A
E
A
chair,
Schrader
councilmembers,
my
name
is
Jacob
Steen
with
Larkin
Hoffman
attorneys
and
IRS's
8300
Norman
Center
Drive.
We
represent
carvanha
LLC.
The
applicant
staff
has
done
a
good
job
of
summarizing
the
issues
and
I'm
sure
you've
reviewed
the
staff
report.
This
is
a
unique
sight
to
say
the
least
as
historically
it
was
a
quarry
part
of
a
much
larger
quarry
that
was
subsequently
landfilled
and
then
capped.
A
large
portion
of
the
quarry
has
been
remediated
to
the
north,
in
particular
associated
with
the
interstate
94
project,
as
well
as
the
quarry
development.
E
However,
the
soil
borings
on
this
site
indicate
that
it's
still
a
capped,
landfill
and
the
debris.
The
sub
surface
debris
documented
is
anywhere
from
one
to
two
feet
to
ten
feet
below
the
surface,
and
it
includes
construction
debris,
concrete
metal,
glass,
plastic,
anything
you'd
find
in
a
demolition
landfill.
E
So
for
these
reasons,
carvanha
has
sought
to
really
minimize
the
impacts
to
the
soil.
Historically,
this
property
had
a
variance
to
the
surfacing
requirements.
For
these
exact
same
reasons,
however,
this
condition
requires
between
33
and
38
trees,
canopy
trees,
and
these
aren't
little
trees
and
not
the
one-inch
caliper
tree.
Is
there
two
and
a
half
inch
caliper
trees
that
would
require
for
each
tree
approximately
two
a
little
over
two
cubic
yards
of
soils
to
be
disturbed,
and
when
you
have
a
site
of
this
level
of
contamination
those
soils
have
to
be
removed.
E
We
can't
just
move
them
elsewhere
on
the
site.
We've
got
to
remove
them
and
dispose
of
them
in
a
landfill
as
well,
and
our
calculations
have
over
24
require
over
2,400
cubic
feet
of
soil
removed
just
to
meet
this
tree
requirement.
Now
we
don't
think
that
those
trees
are
going
to
necessarily
thrive
or
even
live
in
these
soils,
because
it's
it's
subsurface
debris
I
and
what
we're
looking
at
is
approximately
8
to
10
dump
trucks
worth
the
soil
that
would
just
have
to
be
removed
so
that
we
could
put
these
things
in
the
ground.
E
Now
there
is
a
portion
of
the
site
which
you
can
see
along
New
Brighton
Boulevard,
where
we
are
going
to
be
planting
about
30
to
35
trees
or
shrubs
they're
gonna
be
arborvitae.
They're
gonna
be
along
the
fence
line
to
meet
the
screening
requirement,
so
we
are
going
to
try
to
maximize
what
we
can
put
in
there
and
we
can
do
it
there
because
that's
former
right-of-way,
so
that's
not
actually
part
of
the
old
dump.
E
So
we
can
we
can
put
those
in,
but
we
really
can't
do
much
else
in
that
area
because
that's
where
all
of
the
stormwater
treatment
is
and
the
in
the
subsurface
utilities,
as
well
as
overhead
utilities,
which
preclude
the
planting
of
trees.
So
we're
trying
to
do
everything
that
we
can
on
the
site
without
disturbing
it,
which
would
create
significant
liability
and
risk
for
this
site
and
again
we
don't
control
the
entire
site.
It's
only
about
a
third
of
the
property.
E
So
what
we're
seeking
to
do
is
get
approval
of
the
site
plan,
as
recommended
by
staff,
with
alternative
compliance
to
the
tree
requirement
and
we're
specifically
asking
the
committee
to
to
approve
our
appeal
request
and
remove
condition.
Number
eight,
so
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
and
I've
also
got
Ryan
Phipps
with
him.
We
horn
our
engineer
and
Christian
or
from
carvanha
thank.
A
E
Is
a
safe
plan,
it's
a
site
plan
review,
a
requirement
or
or
and
the
manner
in
which,
through
the
site,
plan
review
process,
the
city
can
grant
relief
to
these
requirements
and
staff
did
recommend
alternative
compliance
with
respect
to
landscaping
and
tree
requirements
in
the
staff
report
and
at
Planning
Commission,
but
effectively.
By
adding
this
condition,
even
though
I
suppose
they've
adopted
the
alternative
compliance
they've
negated
in
an
alternative
compliance
by
putting
that
requirement
back
in
as
a
condition
of
approval.
E
E
A
Will
now
open
the
the
hearing
to
the
public?
Please
limit
comments
to
two
minutes
per
person
and
which
will
be
tracked
on
the
timer
near
tho
by
the
clerk.
Would
any
members
of
the
public
here
to
speak?
Is
anyone
here
to
speak
anybody
here,
seeing
no
one?
The
hearing
is
now
closed
and
now
we'll
open
it
up
for
discussion
and
motions
council
member
ayk,
Thank.
B
You
mr.
chair
I'm
inclined
to
move
that
we
deny
the
appeal
and
adopt
the
conditions
as
submitted
staff,
including
the
one
that's
contented
today.
You
know
I,
understand
and
appreciate
that
there's
a
challenge
site
and
that
would
you
know,
challenge
the
implementation
of
what
we
would
require
of
almost
any
other
site.
But
those
challenges
aren't
our
problem.
It's
the
problem
of
the
development
and
I.
Don't
think
it's
a
good
precedent
to
say:
okay,
we're
going
to
sort
of
slough
on
our
our
goals,
because
it's
a
challenge
site
these
challenge
sites
should
actually
be
remediated.
B
I
mean
this
is
a
blight
on
the
community
in
its
current
condition
and
anything
that
we
can
chip
away
and
it's
plated
condition
is
what
we
should
be
encouraging,
not
passing
over
and
set
up
its
super
polluted.
So
we
don't
want
to
have
the
typical
amenities
applied
to
it.
So,
with
that
reasoning,
I'm
willing
to
move
as
stated
denial
comes.
F
Like
I
would
like
to
support
customer
rights
motion,
I
think
that
you
know
if
we're
gonna,
be
serious
about
environmental
justice
and
cleaning
up
environmental
impacts
in
the
city.
We
shouldn't
be
looking
to
kind
of
mask
some
of
these
soils
that
were
contaminated
over
time,
but
yeah
to
remediate
them
so
I
just
wanted
to
affirm
that
and
that
counts
were
right
for
is
motion.
Oh.
A
Well,
yeah,
seeing
no
others
I'd
kind
of
like
to
add
my
comments.
I
wholeheartedly
agree
with
what
both
council
members
have
said,
and
that
reflects
what
the
Planning
Commission
had
talked
about
as
well,
just
that
we
have
these
goals
and
I
when
I
was
hoping
for
with
the.
If
the
appeal
was
for
alternative
compliance
to
find
some
other
way
to
do
the
X,
we
certainly
understand
the
cost
that
is
going
to
be
to
the
developer,
but
I
agree
with
what
the
council
members
have
said
and
with
that
comes
member
rights
motion
is
before
us
all.
C
Thank
you
so,
as
I
previously
mentioned,
this
will
be
the
other
item
for
discussion.
So
the
legislative
decision
before
you
today
is
the
rezoning
to
rezone
1,300
New
Brighton
Bowl
are
from
the
light
industrial
district
I
won
to
the
medium
industrial
district.
I
to
staff
has
stated
findings
in
the
original
staff
report,
starting
on
pages
three
through
four.
In
order
to
approve
a
rezoning,
we
have
to
find
that
the
proposed
rezoning
is
consistent
with
our
comprehensive
plan
in
any
small
area
plans.
C
In
this
case,
the
only
additional
plan
that
is
relevant
is
the
industrial
land
use
and
employment
plan.
So
staff
has
stated
policies
under
finding
one,
that
is
on
pages
three
and
four
of
the
staff
report.
The
rezoning
was
recommended
for
approval
by
the
City
Planning
Commission
and
is
not
before
you
today
and
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
or
clarify
any
of
the
findings.
Thank.
A
B
B
We
can
very
easily
satisfy
our
employment
goals
with
the
existing
zoning,
and
so
it's
a
legislative
act
too,
to
have
an
incentive
on
our
end,
why
we
would
be
guided
to
upzone.
Furthermore,
we
typically
have
a
policy
of
sort
of
a
concentric
circle.
If
you
will
of
radiating
uses,
you
know
with
I
2
I
3
being
our
strongest
buffer
zones,
transition,
commercial,
high-density,
typically
a
residential
at
that
point
and
then
into
our
medium
zoned
areas,
and
so
this
would
go
against
that
sort
of
dominant
pattern.
B
Furthermore,
I
would
suggest
that,
with
the
existing
zoning
again,
we
could
achieve
our
employment
goals
and
with
the
Giza
scene
proposal,
I,
don't
think
it
gives
us
any
real
incentive
in
terms
of
job
creation,
particularly
as
it
pertains
to
jobs
per
density
of
square
footage.
So
with
that
sensibility,
I
moved,
you
deny
the
up
stoney
and
let
it
remain.
I
won.
Thank.
D
D
B
A
Thank
you.
Seeing
no
other
comments.
Mr.
chair,
just
real
quickly.
I
would
just
suggest
that
the
motion
should
be
paired
with
a
staff
direction
to
draft
findings
in
support
of
the
motion.
Should
it
be
successful?
Okay
with
that
council
member
reich's
motion,
as
before,
that's
paired
with
staff
direction,
findings,
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye,
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed
the
ice
have
it
and
that
motion
carries
if
and
with
that
we
have
no
further
business
before
us
at
this
time.
We
are
adjourned.