►
From YouTube: May 3, 2018 Zoning & Planning Committee
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
A
Good
morning,
I'm
going
to
call
the
order,
this
regular
meeting
of
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
for
Thursday
May
3rd.
My
name
is
Jeremy
Schrader
and
I'm.
The
chair
of
this
committee
with
me
at
the
Dyess,
our
councilmember
right
and
councilmember
Goodman,
will
be
joined
shortly
by
two
other
council
members.
We
have
six
we
right
now.
We
do
not
have
a
quorum,
but
we
will
shortly
on
the
agenda
today.
We
have
six
items,
be
what
we're
going
to
do
today
before
we
go
into
our
closet.
A
Judicial
hearing
we'll
be
handling
a
consent,
agenda
items
number
two
and
three:
our
environmental
assessment
worksheet
for
the
Calhoun
towers,
development
at
34,
30
list
place
and
for
the
Malcolm
Yards
mixed-use
residential
development
at
419,
29th,
Avenue,
South,
East,
404,
504,
29th,
Avenue,
South,
East,
501,
30th,
Avenue,
southeast
and
445
Malcolm
Avenue
for
501,
Malcolm,
Avenue
and
518
Malcolm
Avenue.
Let
the
record
reflect
that.
We
now
have
a
quorum
and
thank
council
member
Gordon
for
joining
us
number.
Four
on
the
a
consent
agenda
is
the
approval
of
it.
A
B
Environmental
impact
statement,
but
I
did
want
to
acknowledge
that
we
got
a
very
thoughtful
thorough
letter
from
the
University
of
Minnesota
discussing
repercussions
that
might
come
up
in
that
neck
of
the
woods
with
all
this
development,
that's
coming
forward
and
there's
some
missing
streets
and
infrastructure
and
signals,
and
they
have
a
transit
way
that
they're
very
sensitive
to
and
I'm
sensitive
to.
Those
needs
too
and
I
think
that
our
staff
is
in
public
works
is
looking
at
that
and
we
need
to
be
working
on
that
as
this
moves
forward
and
development
continues
in
the
area.
B
A
If
not
I
will
move
items
two
through
five,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye,
all
those
opposed
say
no
dyes
have
it,
and
the
motion
carries
we'll
now
move
on
to
number
one
quasi-judicial
hearing,
considering
the
appeal
submitted
to
the
land
from
the
Land
Use
Committee
of
the
st.
Anthony
East
Neighborhood
Association,
regarding
several
decisions
of
the
City
Planning
Commission
related
to
the
construction
of
a
new
four-story
16
unit,
multifamily,
building
dwelling
located
at
1757
of
scuse
me,
seven,
seven,
fifty
seven,
fifty
four
and
1756
Jackson
Street
northeast
and
we'll
begin
with
the
staff
presentation.
A
A
D
Proposed
project
at
Jax
is
Jackson
lofts
and
it
is
at
7:50
through
756
Jackson,
Street
Northeast.
The
African
is
proposing
a
four-story,
multiple
family
dwelling
with
sixteen
dwelling
units
and
six
off-street
parking
spaces.
The
property
is
located
less
than
a
quarter
mile
to
the
high
frequency
transit
metro
transit
number
ten,
as
shown
here.
Therefore,
the
project
qualifies
for
a
full
reduction
of
parking
and
therefore
there
is
no
minimum
off
street
parking
required
for
the
proposed
multiple
family
dwelling.
D
The
units
identified
on
the
first
floor
are
shown
as
live
work
units
there's
three
of
them
proposed
as
a
point
of
clarification.
These
are
dwelling
units,
so
any
commercial
operation
within
those
units
would
have
to
comply
with
the
home
occupation
standards
in
Chapter
535
of
the
zoning
code.
The
parcel
located
at
7:56
Jackson
at
the
very
north
under
the
site
is
an
existing
public
alley,
which
you
can
see
right
here.
D
It's
seven
and
that
that
parcel
is
also
owned
by
Community
Planning
and
economic
development
as
part
of
the
updated
see
pet
housing
policy,
any
land
transfers
that
occur
to
private
development
will
have
to
include
affordable
dwelling
units,
at
least
20%
of
them
that
meet
the
maximum
of
sixty
percent
of
the
area.
Median
income
based
on
the
proposed
project
of
sixteenth
all
units
three
of
those
units
would
have
to
meet
the
affordable
requirement.
The
applicant
has
agreed
to
that
and
the
duration
would
be
for
30
years
transferable
to
any
future
ownership.
D
There
were
some
questions
about
the
order
of
operations
putting
the
land
use
applications
before
the
land
sale.
The
complicating
factor
in
this
particular
project
was
that
public
alley
and
the
need
to
have
the
vacation
of
the
public
alley
the
new
alley
constructed
in
order
to
allow
for
that
easement
to
be
released
for
that
public
alley.
So
this
is
not
something
we
typically
would
see
at
the
city
yeah
as
far
as
the
order.
Typically,
the
land
sale
would
occur
first,
but
in
this
case
we
have
the
land
use
applications.
D
Variances
were
also
granted
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
along
Jackson
Street
northeast
the
front
yard
was
increased
due
to
the
location
of
residential
dwelling
to
the
south,
so
a
portion
of
the
structure
and
that
handicap
parking
stall
were
located
in
that
required
front
yard
and
the
Planning
Commission
approves
that
variance.
There
is
also
a
variance
to
allow
for
maneuvering
in
the
new
alley,
so
it
was
a
drive,
aisle,
variance
and
then
finally
site
plan
review
with
stated
conditions
for
which
the
applicant
has
agreed
to
all
of
those.
D
An
appeal
was
filed
by
the
Land
Use
Committee
of
the
st.
Anthony's
Neighborhood
Association
on
April
19th.
The
appellant
statement
was
included
in
your
original
packet.
Their
addendum,
the
addendum
packet
today
includes
a
more
robust
statement
of
from
the
appellant.
In
addition
to
that
staff
received
updated
elevation
drawings.
D
That
would
require
an
amended
application
for
the
conditional
use
permit
so,
whereas,
before
the
height
was
increased
to
41
feet,
4
inches
and
45
feet,
the
applicant
has
now
removed
those
stair
towers
and
that
roof
deck
on
top
and
is
now
proposing
an
elevator
and
that
elevator
over
run
would
not
count
towards
the
maximum
height.
So
the
amended
COP
request
is
to
increase
from
two
and
a
half
stories
35
feet
to
four
stories:
40
feet
70
or
insert
seven
and
a
half
inches.
That
concludes
my
presentation.
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
A
D
Today,
our
the
committee
is
reviewing
particularly
related
to
the
quasi
judicial
proceedings,
so
that
is
the
conditional
use
permit
to
increase
the
maximum
height.
The
variance
reduce
the
front
yard
back
along
Jackson
variants
to
allow
for
those
six
parking
spaces
to
maneuver
in
that
proposed
alley,
and
then
also
the
site
plan
review
later
on
the
agenda.
We
have
the
discussion
related
to
the
rezoning
request
and
the
alley
vacation.
D
D
B
Where's
autumn
Street
northeast
on
this
I'm
sorry,
the
I'm
reading
a
letter
here
that
says
the
site
is
located
at
the
intersection
of
autumn
Street
northeast
and
Jackson
Street,
not
Broadway
Street.
So
is
there
an
autumn
Street
you
can
show
us
on
the
map.
So
we
can
understand
this
confusion.
Absolutely.
D
So
Jackson
does
not
travel
all
the
way
through
to
Broadway
and
there
it's
curved
and
then
there's
a
public
sidewalk.
So
there
is
an
access
from
Broadway
or
from
Jackson
to
themselves.
Autumn.
Street
historically
was
a
public
alley.
There
was
actually
residential
dwellings
where
autumn
Street
exists
today
and
the
alley
was
extended
and
became
a
public
right-of-way.
So
it's
now
known
as
autumn
Street
northeast
and
that's
to
allow
for
that
interior
circulation
for
vehicles
in
the
neighborhood
so
autumn,
Street
northeast
would
essentially
be
directly
east
of
the
the
subject
property.
So
it
is.
A
E
My
name
is
Sara
Robert
Jones.
My
address
is
six
to
five
Van
Buren
Street,
but
I'm
here
as
the
voice
of
the
senior
from
the
East
leonie's
committee,
we'll
be
presenting
findings
this
morning
that
refute
the
findings
adopted
by
the
Planning
Commission
and
why
the
application
by
djr
architects
is
not
consistent
with
his
own
change
of
variance
conditional
use
and
the
street
alley
standards
of
the
city
of
Minneapolis.
This
project
was
presented
to
I'd
like
to
briefly
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
history
of
this
project.
This
project
was
presented
to
the
st.
E
anthony
East
community
meeting
scheduled
February
20th
27th
2017,
our
neighborhood
roughly
has
about
2,200
residents,
and
this
meeting
was
one
of
the
most
well
attended
community
meetings
we've
had
in
a
in
a
while
residents
voiced
concerns
and
questions
regarding
this
project
over
traffic,
affordability,
parking,
zoning
and
really
the
overall
impact
this
project
would
have
on
our
neighborhood.
The
developers
consistently
showed
their
lack
of
concern
for
our
neighborhood
by
complaining
at
the
meeting
that
there
was
really
no
way
for
them
to
change
the
project
for
it
to
be
profitable
for
them.
E
This
left
many
of
us
with
the
impression
that
the
developers
had
no
interest
in
the
betterment
of
our
community
and
solely
on
the
betterment
of
their
investment.
So
from
the
result
of
this
meeting
residents
and
were
invited
to
formally
induce
committee,
we
formed
and
drafted
a
letter
to
the
developer
on
May
8th,
which
is
included
in
the
original
staff
report
attachments.
It
is
on
page
45.
In
that
letter
we
stated
and
I
quote,
we
cannot
support
the
current
proposed
development.
E
We
have
a
few
comments
and
concerns
regarding
your
most
recent
proposal,
many
of
which
are
what
I'm
presenting
today.
We
still
have
those
same
concerns.
We
requested
a
meeting
with
the
developers.
We
also
requested
a
second
meeting
sometime
in
October
after
they
submitted
their
application
to
the
city
and
our
requests
were
met
with
silence.
So
why
am
I
telling
you
this?
Well,
let's
fast
forward
to
present
day
when,
in
the
application,
multiple
times
have
stated
that
the
app
can
from
the
applicant
that
st.
E
Anthony
East
neighborhood
reviewed
the
project
several
times
and
were
in
support
of
zoning
conditional
use,
and
that
is
just
not
true.
The
staff
reported
originally
at
the
meeting
that
there
was
a
50/50
Pro
against
this
development
and
I
just
wanted
to
dissect
that
a
little
bit
for
you,
this
project
actually
for
residents
in
st.
Anthony
East
20.
There
were
23
people
that
responded
to
the
staff.
22
were
against
and
one
were
for
so
that
other
50
percent
were
outside
of
st.
anthony
neighborhood.
E
This
is
how
we
see
this
property
Thank,
You
councilman
Gordon,
for
bringing
this
up.
This
is
autumn
Street
facing
the
property,
so
we
see
this
parcel
of
land
being
on
autumn
Street
and
Jackson
Street,
not
Broadway
in
Jackson.
Potentially,
you
know
it's
City
wise
that
that
is,
that
is,
but
we
see
autumn
as
a
street
there's
a
house
to
the
left.
This
is
a
photo
of
it
during
the
day.
This
is
overflow
parking
from
a
commercial
building.
The
highlight
Center,
which
is
on
the
other
side
of
Broadway,
not
in
st.
B
E
E
So
the
st.
Anthony
is
land
use
community.
We
do
support
the
land
use
policy
and
are
open
to
accommodating
new
growth
in
response
to
the
need
of
affordable
housing
in
Minneapolis.
We
understand
general
land
use
policies
are
a
balancing
act
right.
They
are
trying
to
encourage
new
development
while
moderating
impacts
on
the
existing
community.
We
are
appealing
the
rezoning
of
the
properties
located
at
750,
750,
4
and
756
Jackson
street
from
our
1a
district
to
or1
district.
E
The
minneapolis
plan
for
sustainable
growth
defines
land
use,
features
and
density
levels
for
urban
neighborhoods,
as
intending
which
is
what
we
are
is
an
attending
for
predominately
low-density,
not
generally
intended
to
accommodate
significant
new
growth
other
than
replacement
of
existing
buildings
and
those
with
those
of
similar
density.
The
risk
ideas
put
out
for
community
corridors,
which
is
that's
where
we're
at
right
to
use,
features
and
density
levels
to
encourage
the
development
of
predominantly
medium
density,
20
to
50
dwellings
per
acre
transitioning
to
low
density
in
surrounding
areas.
E
So
if
the
city,
planner
and
Commissioner
so
I'm
on
page
7
of
our
appeal
would
like
to
utilize
our
small
area
plan,
then
it's
important
to
call
out
all
areas
of
that
plan
in
relation
to
the
proposed
development,
not
just
the
ones
that
favor
the
proposal.
For
example,
in
our
small
area
plan
on
page
36,
we
highlight
design
features
of
any
new
higher
density,
mixed-use
residential
developments
as
needing
self-contained
parking
to
ensure
that
adjacent
residential
streets
are
not
impacted
by
the
development
of
parked
cars.
E
So
I'd
like
to
refer
you
to
page
5,
which
is
from
our
small
area
plan
and
I
apologize
when
I
formatted
this
my
star
got
offset.
So
it's
really
here
right.
This
is
what
we're
talking
about.
This
is
the
site
there's
no
thoroughfare
to
Broadway.
This
is
not
a
major
intersection
in
our
in
our
neighborhood,
so
we
understand
this
development
to
be
a
high
density
project.
The
proposed
high
density
project
offers
little
to
no
transition
to
the
immediate
residential
neighborhood
low
density.
Low
excuse
me,
low
medium
density
is
appropriate
to
transition
to
surrounding
residential.
E
We
feel
that
over
zoning
with
foot
note,
restrictions
is
unnecessary
for
approval
of
the
proposed
development
and
does
not
represent
clear
guidance,
that's
readily
administered
by
future
endeavors
and
projects.
These
units
are
not
considered
to
be
commercial
because
they
are
there
they're.
You
know,
as
she
had
mentioned,
the
zoning
code
regulations
are
for
home
occupation
for
those
first
floor
units.
E
So
we
in
a
manner
that
allows
again
for
integration,
is
the
existing
neighborhood.
So
we
believe
that
the
zoning
from
r-11
allure
density,
single-family
and
duplex
residential
on
autumn
on
Jackson,
on
Quincy
and
on
Van
Buren,
due
to
the
nature
of
Jackson,
Street
being
a
dead
end
with
no
thoroughfare
to
Broadway
Street
the
approval
of
oh
one.
Our
zoning
exceeds
the
requirements
of
the
proposed
project.
The
approval
is
conditional
upon
a
restriction
of
commercial
activity
being
limited
to
existing
restrictions
on
home
businesses,
so
the
comprehensive
plan
and
the
small
area
plan
should
be
considered.
E
We
believe
holistically
and
not
just
a
part
of
it-
somes
I'm
on
page
nine,
but
many
of
the
staff
findings
related
back
to
the
Comprehensive
Plan
and
our
small
area
plan
that
this
development
fit
those
which
is
why
I
keep
bringing
that
up.
These
plans
are
not
legal
standards.
There's
small
snippets
of
these
plans,
like
I,
said
we
relied
upon
during
this
decision
to
rezone
the
property
with
much
of
the
outcome
we
believe
being
in
the
sole
interest
of
the
single
property
owner.
E
Their
rezone
and
variance
is
granted
at
seven
fifty
seven,
fifty
four
and
seven
fifty
six
from
our
1-800
r1
allow
for
construction.
Again,
we
believe
of
high-density
housing.
That's
inconsistent
with
city
planning
guidelines
to
the
intent
of
our
small
area
plan.
We
believe
our
three
zoning
would
be
sufficient
to
proceed
with
the
project.
We
request
that
the
site
be
zoned.
Our
three
are
concerned
with
the
o1
zoning
would
be
the
justification
for
either
further
expansion
in
the
future.
E
Having
a
larger
impact
on
our
surrounding
neighborhood,
now
I'd
like
to
address
the
conditional
use
permit,
we
are
appealing
that
as
well.
The
proposed
development
resulting
from
establishment
of
this
conditional
use
creates
a
sexing
section.
Excuse
me
of
a
dead-end
alley
that
has
not
been
considered
in
the
staff
report
approvals
granted
elsewhere,
I'm
on
page
10
of
our
appeal
approvals
granted
elsewhere
in
the
staff
report,
our
dependent
on
the
alley
being
relocated
along
the
south
side
of
the
project
property.
Oh
just.
A
E
Yep,
so
if
you
go
to
page
eleven,
we
were
showing
you
the
section
of
the
alley
that
would
be
converted
into
a
dead-end
alley
which
currently
provides
access
to
the
residence
at
7:53,
Quincy
Street
for
sanitation,
snow
removal
and
emergency
services.
So
we're
concerned
that
this
is
disrupting
the
access
to
existing
Sanitation
snow,
emergent
and
emergency
services.
E
No
consultation
with
emergency
services
has
been
recorded
in
the
staff
report,
although
we
recognize
that
the
project's
vicinity
is
to
a
high
frequency
bus
line,
and
that
removes
the
requirement
for
parking
we're
contending
this,
because
we
believe
it
does
remove
the
requirement
to
consider
the
impact
from
the
reasonable
estimate
of
new
traffic
that
this
development
would
bring.
So
if
you
have
the
16
use
its
units,
some
of
them
being
2
bedrooms,
that's
about
22
residents.
So
that's
including
delivery,
sanitation
and
maintenance
to
those
new
units.
In
you
know,
household
delivery
and
and
traffic
itself.
E
So
we
feel
that
no
consideration
of
either
impacts
or
mitigation
measures
are
reported
in
this
finding.
So
that's
referring
to
standard
four
so
again
referring
to
figure
five.
This
proposed
project
is
only
accessible
to
vehicles
from
Jackson
Street.
All
the
local
er
access
to
the
project
will
require
use
of
a
series
of
at
least
three
separate
residential
streets,
because
again
you
cannot
access
this
by
vehicle
from
Broadway.
E
The
comprehensive
plan
provides
clear
guidance
for
transitions
in
the
higher
density
to
minimize
impacts
on
existing
residential
low
medium
density
are
specifically
identified
as
appropriate.
The
small
area
plan
requests
that
the
approvals
for
this
project
conform
to
this
guidance
and
be
limited
to
many
medium
density
development
I'm
on
page
12.
We
refer
to
land
use
policy,
1.2
and
land
use
policy
1.95
in
to
support
that,
as
well
as
the
comprehensive
plan
for
land
use
maps.
E
So,
while
the
staff
does
report
the
site,
our
small
area
plan
in
support
of
the
claim
for
consistency,
we
contend
that
the
staff
findings
have
failed
to
considered
the
intent
of
the
plan
as
a
whole.
Oh
one
district
small
scale,
so,
according
to
the
planning,
guidance
and
I'm
sure
you
guys
already
know
this.
The
over
aren't.
Oh,
when
our
district
allows
for
small-scale
mixed-use
development
of
low
to
moderate
density
dwellings
and
office
uses.
So
we
believe
that
the
this
again
should
be
used
as
a
transition
point.
E
The
specific
parcel
of
land,
most
development
in
a
transition
point,
according
to
the
planning
guidance,
should
occur
at
no
more
than
two
and
a
half
stories.
So
we
believe
that
the
staff
is
giving
undue
weight
to
the
presence
of
the
four-story
high
light
center
across
Broadway
Street.
In
its
analysis
of
the
surrounding
neighborhood,
the
high
light
Center
is
located
outside
of
st.
Anthony's
neighborhood
and
is
across
a
busy
street
and
in
a
commercial
zone.
So
we
believe
that
the
conditional
use
cannot
be
granted.
E
May
I.
Please
talk
about
the
alley.
Okay,
we're
appealing
the
petition
for
making
the
portion
of
the
public
alley
I'd
like
to
turn
your
attention
to
page
15,
not
response
to
standard
one
and
the
staff
finding
for
that.
The
property
owner
purchased
both
the
parcel
containing
the
duplex
and
the
parcel
containing
the
alley.
The
property
owner
has
designed
a
building,
much
larger
than
which
would
be
allowed
for
those
parcels
by
the
zoning
code
through
a
combination
of
rezoning,
conditional
use,
permit
and
other
related
variances.
So
these
practical
difficulties
were
not
presented
there.
E
The
use
of
the
parking
lot
has
not
been
expressed
by
the
property
owner
to
the
st.
Anthony
East
land
use
committee.
It's
unknown.
If
these
parking
spaces
the
sex
would
be
reserved
by
individual
renters
or
if
this
lot
would
be
shared
by
the
renters.
So
our
concerns,
if
they
were
shared
by
the
renters
in
a
16
unit,
multi
dwelling
unit,
the
cars
that
would
use
the
lot
and
the
alley
have
the
potential
to
be
much
greater
than
of
a
four
unit.
On-Site
bowling
family
dwelling.
E
We're
also
concerned
about
the
movement,
maneuvering
clearance
reduction
from
22
to
zero.
It's
eliminating,
basically
the
maneuvering
space,
entirely
the
22
to
0-4
parking
maneuvering
for
a
16
unit.
Multi
filming
dwelling
will
take
place
at
the
end
again
of
this
l-shaped
alley.
There's
not
a
lot
of
clear
sightlines
there,
and
so
this
we
believe
the
alley.
Relocation,
especially
negatively,
affects
as
well.
That's
have
the
residents
at
7:53,
Quincy,
Street
or
dead-end
is
so
you
know
we
just
want
to
restate
that
this
is
not
an
in
be
situation
at
all.
This
is
a
neighborhood
association.
E
The
people
who
live,
work
and
play
here
were
part
of
writing
and
adopting
the
neighborhood
plan,
who
believe
the
application
has
approved
by
the
Planning
Commission
does
not
meet
the
standards
that
have
to
be
met
for
their
reasons,
the
conditional
use,
variances
and
the
alley
vacation.
We
urge
this
committee
that,
if
the
rezone
will
be
approved
on
this
property,
that
are
three
zoning
is
more
consistent
with
the
plan
and
the
neighborhood.
E
A
F
D
Our
three
is
a
medium
density
district.
It's
allows
for
multiple
family
Owings
at
a
square
footage
requirement
of
1,500
square
feet,
a
lot
area
per
dwelling,
so
it's
on
the
lower
end
of
medium
density.
How
does
it
compare
to
our
for
density?
Our
far
4
is
1,250
square
feet
of
lot
area
per
dwelling
unit,
so
it's
it
allows
for
a
slightly
higher
density
based
on
the
size
of
the
lot.
Do.
D
G
Ovilus
DJ
architecture,
333
wash
Andrew,
north
Minneapolis,
Minnesota
I'll,
be
more
shortness,
because
just
one
sort
of
cover
a
couple
points
and
so
correct,
so
I'm
an
actress
in
the
statement
that
was
presented.
First
of
all,
that
was
a
presenter
at
the
neighborhood
meeting,
along
with
Eric
and
statements
of
we
don't
care
about
the
neighborhood
or
we
do
not
listen.
A
road
is
inaccurate.
That
was
never
stated
nor
never
implied,
and
if
it
was
done
accidentally,
our
apologies,
but
that
was
never
the
case.
G
We
have
revised
a
project
in
respect
to
the
neighborhood
in
which
we
eliminated
retail,
which
would
have
caused
I'll
see
a
great
parking
impact
went
to
a
little
work
scenario.
We
eliminated
the
rooftop
deck,
which
some
people
can
consider
invasion
property.
So
that's
been
taken
out
of
the
project
and
we
had
an
elevator
to
please
ensure
that
it
becomes
a
high-quality
project
and
has
that
essence
to
it.
So
we
have
worked
with
the
neighbor.
The
letter
referenced
that
helper
never
received
near
those
who
are
unaware
of
this
additional
request
for
meetings.
G
So
that's
new
sauce
outs
of
today
and
then.
Finally,
the
last
point
I
want
to
make
if
you
look
at
the
client,
if
you
look
through
overall
guidance
of
Minneapolis
near
a
high
transit
court
corridor,
which
we
consider
Samia
amid
density
project,
four-story
16
units,
it's
very
appropriate
with
the
what
I
consider
the
neighbor
comprehensive
plan.
As
you
can
see
here,
our
parcel
is
right
there,
so
it
fits
with
their
guidance
and
that's
what
we
use
to
develop
this
and
develop
sort
of
the
scale.
G
As
we
talked
about-
and
you
know
our
belief,
it's
appropriate
for
the
overall
Minneapolis
compliance
and
direction.
Locating
a
high
density,
I,
transit
quarter
opposite
other
major
commercial
buildings,
but
as
a
scale,
provides
a
residency
and
it
provides
affordable
housing.
You
know,
I
think
this
is
a
very
appropriate
mixed-use
project,
really
primary
residential
live
work
that
really
helps
enhance
the
neighborhood
Hance,
the
the
viable
and
lovely
the
commercial
streets
and
works
with
generally
creating
the
energy
and
activity
neighborhood
without
imposing
a
great
amount
of
traffic
or
intense
in
in
the
area.
G
B
G
B
G
D
B
C
D
D
The
building
is
intended,
as
shown
as
live
work.
What
uses
would
be
allowed
in
the
or
one
district
would
allow
for
office
and
and
residential,
so
it
wouldn't
allow
for
necessarily
commercial
mixed
use,
but
it
could
allow
for
office
mix
used
as
I
mentioned
earlier.
The
minimum
off
street
parking
requirement
for
the
residential
is
zero,
so
it
certainly
would
allow
for
revision
in
the
future
if
they
did
want
to
add
mixed-use
component
with
it
with
an
office.
D
B
I,
don't
mind
our
three
zoning
either
I
see
our
three
zoning
as
more
medium
density
and
I.
Also
look
at
this
building
and
I.
Think
of
it
as
medium
density
I
know,
you
were
estimating
ten
units
which
feels
like
medium
density
to
so
maybe
I
mean
I.
Appreciate
that
sixteen
might
be
it's
all
a
little
bit
relative,
but
in
your
professional
opinion,
would
you
consider
this
a
medium
density
or
a
high
density
building?
I.
D
Have
to
go
back
to
the
staff
report,
but
one
of
the
other
components
of
the
planning
that
we
referenced
and
I
sorry
I,
probably
should
have
covered
this
during
the
staff
presentation,
but
I
saved.
The
rezoning
for
later
is
the
highlighted
text
here
is
that
the
plan
calls
for
a
comparatively
higher
density
along
this
stretch
and
including
this
property.
So
staff
used
this
as
an
additional
guidance.
If
you
will
to
encourage
something
that
may
be
between
medium
and
high
density.
A
C
Jones
I'm
at
625,
Van,
Buren
I'm,
also
the
president
of
the
Neighborhood
Association.
Currently
so
I've
looked
through
everything
I
just
want
to
say
a
couple
things
just
to
clarify:
3
over
16
isn't
is
less
than
20
percent.
So,
if
we're
going
to
talk
about
that
percentage,
it
actually
should
be
4
units
and
I
also
don't
know,
based
on
your
guys's
guidance
or
what
I
see
in
the
city.
C
E
C
It's
it
I,
don't
think
it's
a
question
of
subjective
of
whether
the
numbers
fall
in
what's
subjective
is
whether
you
want
to
give
them
leeway,
because
it
seems
like
a
smaller
unit
right.
It's
only
16
units.
It's
only
this,
so
it
seems
to
fall
in
this
category.
The
math
says
what
it
is.
That's
all
I
want
to
say
that
we'd
love
to
have
something
something
here
on
this
spot
being
locked
from
Broadway.
It's
super
difficult
to
develop.
I
want
to
acknowledge
that.
C
But
this
to
me
is
a
perfect
spot
for
one
of
the
four
plexes
we're
talking
about
putting
across
the
city
everywhere
else,
like
maybe
it's
multiple
bedrooms,
maybe
it's
something!
That's
transitional
from
people
coming
from
a
loft
in
downtown
over
into
our
neighborhood,
with
a
great
school
and
Webster
right
like
what
are
these
other
uses,
that
the
neighborhood
would
love
to
work
on
and
go
through
on
would
be
sensitive
things.
So
that's
what
I
want
to
say
it's
just
that
we
can
be
more
clear
about
those
numbers.
If
we
want
to
thank.
A
D
I
will
do
my
best,
because
this
is
not
my
area
of
expertise,
so
I
checked
in
with
my
colleagues
and
see
pet
housing
when
you
do
the
multiplier
for
16
units,
you
come
up
with
3.2
and
according
to
their
staff,
the
conventional
wisdom
of
rounding
up
versus
down
was
applied,
so
3.2
rounds
down
to
3
dwelling
units,
and
so
that
would
be
the
the
requirement
for
the
affordable
units
and
then
for
30
years.
That
would
be
so
that
that's
applied
to
the
project.
D
A
Yeah
I
would
also
just
say
that
30
years
is
pretty
remarkable.
Most
cases
it's
15,
but
definitely
the
area
is
moving
to
30.
But
that's
just
been
the
work
of
kind
of
community
members
and
folks
pushing
for
that.
It's
I
think
I'm
very
excited
to
see
that
that's
what's
the
standard
in
this
project,
are
there
any
others
here
to
speak
to
the
project?
A
A
H
A
B
A
I
F
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
you
know
we
have
this
condition
in
so
many
spots
in
Minneapolis,
where
it
really
depends
on
which
side
of
the
building
you're
looking
at
what
the
context
is.
So
on
the
one
side
of
the
building,
you
have
a
really,
in
my
opinion,
very
very
wide
corridors
to
lie,
probably,
and
with
probably
pretty
fast,
moving
traffic
across
the
street.
You
have
a
beautiful
old,
historic,
brick
building,
which
is
about
the
same
scale.
F
F
I
mean
I
hope
that
this
is
very
likely
to
provide
housing
for
folks
who
want
to
enjoy
the
great
school
in
the
neighborhood
and
want
to
enjoy
the
amenities.
The
park
is
very
nearby.
It's
a
really
great
place
to
live
it's
right
near
downtown
and
as
a
city
we
are
growing.
This
scale
seems
appropriate
to
me
and,
as
you
go
down
and
look
through
the
legal
question
before
us,
you
know
the
conditional
use
permit.
That
is
a
different
standard,
which
is
that
it's
allowed
as
long
as
it
meets
the
condition
of
approval.
F
In
this
case,
the
the
inclusion
you
know,
I
think
is
supported
by
the
staffs
report,
the
variance
to
the
front
yard
setback
I
mean
on
a
wide
commercial
corridor
like
Broadway
I.
Don't
think
we
would
want
the
building
set
farther
back.
It
would
leave
like
a
lot
of
space
and
would
feel
probably
awkward
with
the
development
that's
likely
to
come
in
the
future.
F
The
minimum
Drive
aisle
you
know,
I
think
we
heard
from
staff
a
bit
more
about
the
circulation
I
do
I
am
very
sensitive
to
traffic
coming
through
the
alleys
like
how
the
waste
hall
is
is
happening
and
I
know.
Public
Works
is
always
involved
in
those
discussions
with
staff.
I,
don't
know
if
folks
have
more
questions
about
that
I'm
satisfied
by
what
we've
heard
from
staff,
and
then
you
know,
the
difference
between
nine
or
ten
units
in
16
I
think
is
not
probably
very
noticeable
on
the
day-to-day.
F
On
this
block,
I
mean
I
live
on
a
block
that
it
has
lots
of
mix
of
single-family
homes
and
buildings
about
this
scale,
and
it's
a
lovely
place
to
live.
I've
never
been
bothered
by
having
buildings
about
this
size
across
the
street
from
my
house.
So
with
all
of
that,
it
seems
like
again
going
back
to
the
legal
context,
I'm
very
comfortable,
supporting
the
motion
and
I
feel
that
staff
did
a
good
job
of
backing
up
their
arguments
for
the
conditional
use
permit
and
the
variances
and
the
site
plan
review.
Thank
You
mr.
chair
Thank,.
B
I
I,
totally
respect
that
there
are
a
lot
of
people
who
love
to
live
in
neighborhoods
that
have
single-family
homes
and
for
flexes
and
duplexes
and
four-story
buildings
I'm,
not
one
of
them.
He
chose
to
live
where
I
live
because
of
the
single-family
nature
and
I.
Don't
think
that
there's
any
reason
to
suggest
that
people
who
have
that
point
of
view
aren't
progressive
or
interested
in
building
a
good
city.
I
Therefore,
this
zoning
is
just
not
appropriate
and
it's
not
like
they're
putting
in
commercial
they're
putting
in
live
work
which
would
be
allowed
under
an
hour
three
and
would
be
allowed
under
an
hour
four
and
to
go.
200
r1
seems
high
and
that's
why
they
can
put
in
16
units
I
respect
the
fact
that
they
put
in
affordable
housing,
I
heard
you
say
they
had
to
because
they
bought
the
land
from
us.
So
yay
for
you.
I
You
did
what
you
had
to
do,
but
that's
because
it's
a
requirement
and
we're
moving
in
the
direction
is
requiring
it
more
anyway.
So
I,
don't
think
you
get
a
lot
of
extra
bonuses
for
doing
something.
You
had
to
do
so,
therefore,
I
think
it
would
make
more
sense
to
deny
the
project
grant
the
appeal
and
give
the
neighborhood
and
the
neighbors
an
opportunity
to
back
to
us
with
something
by
extending
the
60-day
timeline
and
seeing
what
they
could
come
to
consensus
on
I.
Think
that
makes
the
most
sense.
A
Any
other
discussion
from
council
members
or
I
will
jump
in
for
myself
what
I
said
just
to
clarify
in
the
original
plan
there
was
retail
and
that
was
taken
out
as
I
understand
it
from
negotiations
with
the
Neighborhood
Association,
for
why
I
am
supportive
of
this
I
have
to
say
this:
has
change
is
hard.
I
live
in
a
single-family
neighborhood
where
the
transit
corridors
are
starting
to
to
bump
up,
and
what
I
hear
from
my
neighbors
is.
We
want.
You
know
more
diversity
of
businesses.
A
We
want
a
lot
of
things
that
our
low-density
will
not
allow,
and
so
it's
really
a
matter
of
all
of
us
and
where
I
live
in
other
parts
of
the
city.
Understanding
that
balance
that
you
can't
have
one
without
the
other
I
see
this
as
a
medium
density
project.
I
see
this
as
I
think
councilmember
Goodman's
up
great
to
point
out
that
this
is
a
lot
of
ways
where
we're
headed
I
want
to
see
that
developers
are
working
with
the
neighborhood.
A
That
doesn't
necessarily
mean
agreeing
I
think
we
rarely
see
that
in
this
committee
for
projects
that
get
to
this
level
I
think
we
also
always
hear
from
the
developer
that
they
didn't
receive
a
letter.
So
I
think
that
it's
something
that
we
are
always
kind
of
on
the
we're
always
illusive
looking
for
the
red
flags,
but
for
me,
I
believe
that
that's
been
been
satisfied
and
that's
why
I'd
be
supporting
this
project.
B
I
thought
we
clarified
that
the
plan
for
this
site
was
mixed
use
on
the
small
area
plan.
Yes,
not
so
so
so,
on
the
small
area
plan
the
ramp
that
we
saw
and
I
remember:
I'm
I
distracted
us
all
to
have
to
look
at
the
colors
on
the
key
and
everything
it
was
as
mixed-use.
So
this
isn't
actually
mixed-use.
Although
the
or1
is
an
excuse,
zoning
so
that
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
just
to
get
that
out,
there
I'm
also
wondering
if
we
could
divide
it
out.
B
H
I
I
J
Mr.
chair
just
just
again
for
clarification
because
it
sort
of
sense
where
we're
going
in
each
instance
where
you
would
be
where
you
would
be
denying
the
appeal
you
would
be
agreeing
with
the
Planning
Commission's
action
and
the
staff
findings.
So
adoption
of
staff
findings
would
be
appropriate
in
each
in
each
of
those
instances.
A
I
A
I
A
A
I
A
J
Mister
Karen
on
items
both
the
first
variance
and
the
site
plan
with
the
tie
vote.
There's
it's
it's
a
denial
effectively,
so
we
a
you,
can
entertain
a
new
motion
or
you
know
consider
for
being
without
recommendation
into,
can
repeat
that
again.
So
there
was
no
effective
action
on
to
or
for
based
on
the
I
vote.
So
you
can
entertain
a
new
motion
of
some
sort
or
consider
perhaps
fourteen
without
recommendation
those
two
items.
I've.
A
B
B
I
You
just
explain
to
the
public
what
that
means,
so
they
have
an
understanding
or
do
you
want
me
to
just
quick
yeah,
so
what
that
means
is
we
couldn't
decide?
So
now
the
entire
council,
including
your
council
member,
will
decide
on
those
items
just
want
to
make
sure
they
understand,
and
that
would
be
at
the
council
meeting
a
week
from
Friday.
A
All
right,
so,
thank
you
very
much
councilman.
Forgive
me
for
that
for
staff.
We're
going
to
move
on.
We
have
a
one
final
discussion
item,
the
rezoning
application
and
Ally
vacation
that
are
part
of
the
the
Jackson
lofts
project
and
considering
the
committee's
actions
on
the
appeals
before
us
today.
If
you
can
kind
of
take
that
into
consideration
as
you're
explaining
everything,
yes.
D
Thank
you.
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
rezone
the
properties
at
750
through
756
Jackson
Street,
northeast
from
our
1a
to
the
older
one
district
staff
recommended
approval
and
the
Planning
Commission
adopted
those
findings
and
forward
them
on
to
the
City
Council
to
rezone
these
properties
to
the
r1
district.
D
The
Broadway
Street
northeast
is
a
community
corridor
which
encourages
medium
density.
Although
the
the
existing
comprehensive
plan
calls
the
properties
urban
neighborhood,
the
small
area
plan
guidance
supersedes
because
it's
more
relevant
and
more
recent
than
the
adoption
of
the
comp
plan,
so
mixed-use
would
really
be
the
classification
for
the
property
for
consideration.
The
residential
zoning
classifications
would
not
allow
for
mixed
use
of
the
property
so
or
r1
is
the
very
first
zoning
classification,
and
that
would
allow
for
any
mixed
use
consistent
with
the
Comprehensive
Plan
and
thereby
the
scene
anthony
east
master
plan.
D
F
D
I
have
not
received
an
answer
to
that
question.
R3
was
the
first
time
I
had
heard
earlier
today
from
the
the
neighborhood
association
or
Land
Use
Committee
of
the
Neighborhood
Association,
that
that
was
the
desired
classification
staff
would
say
generally
that
is,
may
be
allowed
in
mixed-use,
but
would
not
be
consistent
with
their
comprehensive
plan.
So
as
I
mentioned,
or
one
is
really
the
first
zoning
classification
that
allows
for
mixed-use.
D
Just
briefly
on
the
alley,
so
there
were
some
conversations
earlier
about
creating
a
dead-end
alley.
That
is
not
the
case
here.
The
alley
presently
comes
through
the
site
and
then
travel
southbound.
This
will
be
a
public
alley
dedicated
and
prior
to
recording
the
resolution,
if
approved,
for
the
existing
alley
over
756
Jackson,
the
new
alley
must
be
constructed
and
approved
by
Public
Works.
So
essentially,
what
the
Public
Works
Department
does
is
hold
that
resolution
from
the
council,
if
approved
until
that
alley
is
built.
Therefore,
there
should
be
no
disruption
and
service
for
those
utilizing.
D
The
alley
I
did
have
a
conversation
with
the
with
one
of
the
occupants
at
7:53
Quincy
across
the
alley
from
the
proposed
project.
They
have
a
garage
here.
The
door
faces
north
towards
Broadway
Street
northeast,
so
they
were
concerned
that
the
entire
alley
behind
the
project
was
going
to
be
removed
and,
as
you
can
see
as
proposed,
that
alley
will
remain
so
if
I
can
following
cursory
the
alley
will
the
public
gallery
will
be
here
along
kind
of
within
750
Jackson,
and
the
existing
alley
will
remain
here.
They
were
generally
satisfied
by
that
response.
D
D
D
D
So,
as
you
received
in
your
attendant
packet
today,
Public
Works,
the
Director
of
Public
Works,
has
approved
the
alley,
location
and
design.
Therefore,
staff
is
again
reiterating
our
recommendation
for
approval
for
both
the
rezoning
and
the
alley.
Vacation
and
consistent
with
the
findings,
as
well
as
the
the
Planning
Commission's
recommendation
to
this
committee
and
the
full
council
on
those
two
items
and
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
more
questions.
I
D
I
D
Evaluation
for
the
zoning
classification
is,
irrespective
of
the
development
the
development
applications
were
handled
under
the
first
item,
so
when
solely
looking
at
the
rezoning
application,
it's
not
necessarily
the
project
in
front
of
you,
but
to
allow
for
the
property
to
move
towards
consistency
with
the
Comprehensive
Plan,
which
in
this
case
is
the
master
plan.
Great.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
I'm.
F
You
mr.
chair
and
I
think
this
could
happen
for
any
number
of
reasons.
It's
not
meant
as
our
criticism
of
any
time,
but
it
seems
like
the
current
position
of
the
neighborhood
organization
is
at
least
in
this
particular
case,
inconsistent
with
what
the
small
area
plan
says,
which
is
that
this
is
calling
from
excuse
and
the
folks
who
are
on
the
board
now
or
who
are
here
today.
Don't
agree
with
the
small
area
plans
request
that
this
be
small
mixed-use,
which
is
a
little
bit
of
our
push
and
pull
that
we
have
as
policymakers.
F
F
You
know
I'm
reading
it
now
so
anyway,
I
think
we
just
try
to
do
our
best
to
see
what
the
plan
guidance
says
and
I
you
know,
I
could
I
could
I
could
continue
to
read
from
the
small
air
plan
which
I
think
if
you,
if
you
read
the
small
area
plan,
it
I
find
it
sort
of
shocking
that
we
would
try
to
argue
that
this
building
doesn't
fit
into
the
vision
that
the
neighborhood
articulated
in
the
plan.
That's
my
reading.
B
D
This
case,
residents
to
an
office
residence
district
is,
is
exempt
from
the
consent.
Signature
required
all.
So
it's
only
when
we
rezone
residential
or
office
residential
to
a
classification
such
as
commercial
industrial
downtown
or,
if
we're
going
to
add
the
transitional
parking
overlay
so
consent
signatures
are
not
required.
B
D
B
J
I
yeah
I
listening
the
Jana's
answer,
which
I
thought
was
really
good
and
I'd
miss
the
last
part,
but
it's
a
state
law
requirement.
Actually
the
rezoning
consent,
petition
and
cheese
correct.
It
only
applies
when
a
request
is
to
go
from
a
residential
to
a
non-residential
classification
are
to
or1.
You
know
they
are
not
required
to
get
signatures,
so
we
have
no
authority
over
that
via
ordinance,
I.
B
F
Thank
You
mr.
chair
I
support
the
rezoning
for
this
site.
I
think
that
staff
has
identified
the
zoning
classification
that
most
correctly
captures
the
vision
that
I'm
reading
in
the
small
area
plan.
Some
of
that
language
said
I
mean
it
I
actually
appreciate
this.
This
often
doesn't
get
captured
in
in
final
documents,
but
it
talks
about
how
the
neighborhood
was
divided
between
those
who
favor
strengthening
st.
Anthony
East
as
a
low-density,
single-family,
neighborhood
I,
think
that's
a
perspective
we're
hearing
here
today
and
those
who
favor
higher
density
and
development
of
townhomes
and
multi-family
housing.
F
The
Land
Use
Plan
is
a
compromise
that
was
struck
among
neighbors
features
of
the
Land
Use
Plan
include
comparatively
higher
density
mixed-use
development
along
North,
East,
Broadway
Street
between
Washington
and
Jackson.
The
mixed-use
developments
would
provide
commercial
and
retail
space
at
the
ground
floor,
which
has
been
negotiated
away.
I
guess
here,
but
four
to
five
story.
Buildings
are
envisioned
and
then
it
goes
on
to
talk
about
other
places
where
dense
development
is
supported.
F
F
A
very
wide
corridor
is
exactly
where
this
plan
and
our
comprehensive
plan
envision
that
kind
of
growth
being
welcomed,
so
I
am
very
supportive
of
the
rezoning,
so
very
moderately
skilled
building,
I
think
it's
designed
well
in
the
context
and
again
the
other
Langone
and
going
into
the
future
I
think
is
the
appropriate
one.
Given
the
mixed
use
classification
in
the
plant.
F
I
You
mr.
chair
I
agree
with
council
president
bender
and
staffs
analysis
regard
to
the
rezoning,
and
the
bottom
line
is
that
the
small
area
plan
gives
guidance
to
rezone
to
that
specific
zone,
whether
we
like
it
or
not,
and
I
actually
I'm
a
stickler
on
these
small
area
plans
and
I
think
it's
important
to
be
consistent
and
for
me
it
does
ask
for
mixed
juice
on
this
corridor.
It's
very
clear.
It's
all
in
yellow
I,
don't
know
how
we
get
around
that
as
much
as
I
understand
that
people
don't
appreciate
it.