►
From YouTube: June 7, 2018 Zoning & Planning Committee
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
A
Good
morning,
I'm
going
to
call
to
order
this
regular
meeting
of
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
for
Thursday
June
7th.
My
name
is
Jeremy
Schrader
and
I'm.
The
chair
of
this
committee
with
me
at
the
diner
councilmembers
Ellison,
Reich,
Gordon
and
Goodman.
Let
the
record
reflect
that
we
have
a
quorum.
A
We
have
three
items
on
today's
agenda
before
we
go
into
our
public
hearing,
I'm
going
to
move
our
consent
agenda,
the
consent
agenda
is
just
one
item
today
approving
an
application
submitted
by
Paul
Halverson
for
the
rezoning
property
located
at
2535,
Aldrich
Avenue
south,
from
an
our
two
beasts
to
family
district,
to
an
r3
multifamily
district
to
convert
from
a
duplex
to
a
four-plex.
Is
there
any
discussion
items
discussion
on
this
item?
A
Seeing
none
I'm
going
to
move
this
item?
The
motion
is
before
us
all
in
favor,
say:
aye,
all
those
opposed
say.
No,
the
eyes
have
it
and
the
motion
carries
we'll
move
on
to
item
1,
which
is
a
public
hearing
a
regarding
an
amendment
to
the
city's
comprehensive
plan
to
amend
the
future
land
use
map
for
the
properties
located
at
1,000,
North,
3rd
Street
and
1001
Washington.
Avenue
north
to
remove
the
industrial
employment
district,
andrí
Gide,
the
sites
from
industrial
or
transitional
industrial
land
use
in
order
to
allow
for
a
residential
development.
B
Good
morning
committee
members
Peter
Crandall
Senior
Planner,
with
cpad
land-use.
There
are
a
couple
applications
before
you
this
morning
regarding
a
project
at
1,000,
North
3rd
Street.
The
first
is
a
future
land
use
map
amendment.
That's
an
amendment
to
the
Minneapolis
Comprehensive
Plan,
the
current
one
adopted
for
1,000
North
3rd
Street
and
1001
Washington
Avenue
north.
B
This
is
the
site
that
the
related
project
will
be
located
on,
and
this
reflects
the
project
site
as
it
is
located
within
that
industrial
employment
district
in
the
North
Loop
neighborhood,
the
North
Loop
small
area
plan,
which
was
adopted
in
2010
by
the
City
Council,
also
guides
the
site
to
remain
as
industrial
land
use,
with
the
industrial
employment
district
remaining
on
the
site.
This
is
a
map
reflecting
where
we
currently
have
industrial
employment
districts
adopted
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis.
B
As
you
can
see,
it's
a
relatively
small
portion
of
the
land
uses
in
the
city
and
then,
of
course,
we
were
going
through
the
update
to
the
comprehensive
plan
for
Minneapolis
2040.
There's
a
current
draft
plan
that's
been
released
to
the
public
long-range
planning
has
chosen
to
keep
the
industrial
land
use
guidance
for
this
site.
B
In
that
current
draft
plan,
which
is
a
was
a
main
driver
of
staffs
recommendation
to
deny
the
future
land
use
map
amendment
I
won't
get
too
far
into
the
project,
but
I
will
say
that
at
its
meeting
on
May
7th
of
this
year,
notwithstanding
staffs
recommendation,
the
City
Planning
Commission
approved
the
future
land
use
map
amendment
the
rezoning
application
and
then
several
land
use
applications
related
to
this
development
project.
The
development
is
a
new
six
storey.
B
Mixed-Use
building
with
129
dwelling
units
and
10,000
square
feet
of
commercial
space
staff
did
recommend
a
number
of
conditions
of
approval
for
the
City
Planning
Commission.
Should
they
have
approved
the
project
which
they
did.
They
adopted
those
conditions
of
approval
and
approved
the
project.
So
I
will
end
my
presentation
there
and
taking
questions.
Thank.
A
C
Maureen,
michelle
ski
Schafer
richardson
as
well.
Thank
you
for
concerning
the
company
on
amendment
consideration.
I
just
wanted
to
say
a
few
quick
items
of
why
we
are.
We
have
applied
for
the
complan
amendment.
The
location
of
the
this
site
is
in
the
industrial
employment
districts,
but
we
seem
that
the
the
area
is
has
been
trimmed
transitioning
to
other
uses
the
sites
currently
that
there
are
not
industrial.
So
there
would
not
be
preservation
of
industrial
in
the
future.
C
So
there's
currently
this
vacant
soukara
building,
which
would
be
the
redevelopment
site,
there's
also
the
minneapolis
public
housing
authority
headquarters.
There
is
a
charter
school
and
a
parking
ramp.
So
just
given
the
transition
users
of
the
area
and
transitioning
into
this
housing
residential
area,
you
know
we
think
that
housing
would
be
a
good
use
of
the
site.
At
the
Planning
Commission
meeting
on
May
7th,
we
did
show
a
commitment
to
for
housing
and
particularly
particularly
100%,
affordable
housing,
and
we
are
still
committed
to
that.
C
So
we're
still
committed
to
104,
affordable
units
at
60%
area
median
income.
We've
also
are
working
with
the
adjacent
minneapolis
public
housing
authority
to
work
with
them.
On
project-based
section,
8
vouchers,
whereby
residents
would
pay
30
percent
of
their
income,
so
we
want
to
reiterate
that
it
would
be
the
housing
and
particularly
affordable
housing.
C
A
B
Sorry
can
I
just
make
one
clarification.
I
should
have
mentioned
this
in
my
presentation,
but
I
just
want
to
make
it
explicitly
clear
that
the
future
land
use
map
amendment
includes
the
Schaffer
Richardson
parcel,
as
well
as
the
minneapolis
public
housing
authority
parcel.
They
have
given
the
applicants
their
permission
to
seek
a
future
land
use
map
amendment
for
their
property
as
well,
because
they
intend
to
redevelop
that
property
in
the
future
for
residential
uses.
So
just
wanted
to
make
that
explicitly
clear
thanks.
Great
thanks
come
on.
A
D
Thank
you.
You
know,
I'm
going
to
be
speaking
against
the
approval
of
this,
for
pretty
simple
reasons:
I
think
on
the
record
strongly
trying
to
support
preserving
our
workforce
land
use,
and
we
created
these
planning
sort
of
areas.
You
have
to
draw
the
line
somewhere.
Otherwise,
there's
no
line-
and
here
we
have
plenty
of
lines
reinforced
over
several
decades,
a
decade
of
decision
making.
We
created
these
industrial
zones
because
they
were
shrinking
and
shrinking
fast,
and
we
did
the
analysis
some
ten
years
ago.
D
That
said
that
it's
shrinking
unabated,
and
even
with
with
those
protections
in
mind,
the
areas
were
kind
of
soft
on
the
transitional
component.
There's
not
been
an
increase
in
industrial
in
those
areas,
it's
all
been
transitioning
away.
So
these
last
sort
of
last
stands
as
you
were,
or
the
only
areas
where
we've
been
able
to
protect
this
type
of
land
use
its
reinforced
in
the
old
plan,
its
reinforced
in
the
community
plan,
its
reinforced
in
our
proposed
plan.
This
is
the
line
when
you
nibble
away
it's
death
by
a
thousand
cuts.
D
We
will
not
be
a
working
City,
and
so
this
has
not
been
vetted
in
parallel
with
our
our
housing
staff.
You
do
not
believe
that
this
is
a
legally
binding
commitment.
I
will
actually
refer
to
our
legal
staff.
It's
a
great
gesture,
but
in
terms
of
its
legality
and
binding
document
in
terms
of
what
the
outcome
would
be,
I
would
defer
to
our
legal
expert.
If.
A
E
Can
get
them
in
by
some
comfort
mr.
chair,
councilman,
break
I,
see
me
referring
to
the
mints
that
have
been
expressed
by
the
applicant
on
the
record.
Correct,
no
you're
correct!
It's
at
this
point
today
with
a
comprehensive
plan
amendment,
which
is
a
policy
decision
and
a
rezoning
which
is
a
legislative
decision.
E
The
council
has
no
ability
to
impose
conditions
on
those
decisions.
The
commitments
expressed
are
just
that
it's
a
it's
an
expression
of
intent,
although
they've
stated
it
publicly
and
on
the
record
that
so
the
public
is
aware,
and
the
political
sphere
is
aware,
there's
pressure
to
be
brought
to
bear
in
that
way.
But
you
are
correct
that
it
is
likely
not
legally
binding,
or
at
least
you
could
not
impose
it,
be
a
condition
of
approval.
Thank.
D
You
and
I
would
further
concur
that
with
that
and
also
I
would
say,
we
currently
do
not
have
the
funding
mechanisms
to
assure
affordability,
and
unless
this
is
going
to
be
all
out
of
pocket
I'm,
assuming
that
it
would
go
through
our
processes
of
securing
the
funds
to
make
sure
the
affordability
would
take
place
again.
That
has
not
been
worked
out
in
parallel
with
our
housing
staff,
as
of
today,
so
there's
kind
of
an
if
a
big.
If
in
terms
of
getting
an
outcome
that
we
all
of
course
want,
we
want
affordable
housing.
D
You
want
great
projects,
we
all
work
with
great
developers,
all
which
is
before
us,
but
we're
giving
an.
If
to
a
certainty.
We
are
certainly
basically
saying
our
lines
to
protect
workforce,
housing,
current
reinforced
and
even
future.
Don't
really
mean
that
much
because
it'll
be
death
by
a
thousand
cuts.
Every
zoning
decision,
I've
seen,
has
been
a
read
from
a
more
intense
used
to
a
less
intense
used,
every
single
one.
D
So
it
almost
begs
the
question:
what
kind
of
protection
have,
furthermore
flexible
spaces
that
we
contemplate,
because
we
do
really
appreciate
those
flexible
uses,
but
market
dynamics
as
such
those
will
be
wiped
out
for
all
residential,
and
even
the
air
is
that
we've
said,
will
not
be
residential.
Well,
they're,
gonna
get
nibbled
away
as
well.
I
think
I've
made
my
own
little
sermon
for
the
day.
Mr.
chair
thanks
for
indulging
me
well.
F
Thank
You
mr.
chair
I
have
a
lot
of
respect
for
councilmember
Ike's
position
on
this
issue,
and
we've
talked
that
length
about
it
and
you
know,
while
I
disagree,
I
think
that
I
want
I'm
gonna
approve
the
this
project.
I
want
to
move
to
approve
this.
This
amendment
I
think
that
several
things
went
into
my
consideration
as
I
was
having
this
conversation.
F
F
G
You
mr.
chair
I,
unconfirmed
with
council
member
Ellison
I,
do
agree
with
councilmember
Reich's
point
of
view
with
regard
to
industrial,
but
I
just
want
to
add
a
little
bit
of
context.
So
I
represented
this
area
for
ten
years,
and
in
that
ten-year
period
there
was
not
any
momentum
for
an
additional
industrial
uses
at
this
location.
G
In
fact,
what
we've
seen
is
quite
the
opposite
and
I
think
it's
important
to
preserve
industrial
uses,
and
there
are
some
industrial
uses
actually
in
this
area
further
to
the
east
right
in
the
middle
of
some
of
the
burgeoning
high-end
housing.
That's
happening
in
this
location,
but
the
truth
of
the
matter
is
public
housing.
Has
this
building
it's
in
a
really
hot
location,
I'm,
not
sure
that
they
should
even
be
located
here,
and
maybe
they
should
be
focusing
on
building
a
new
public
housing
building
in
that
location,
and
this
would
facilitate
that.
G
H
So
I
appreciate
both
sides
of
this
quite
a
bit
and
I
commend
councilmember
Wright
for
holding
his
ground
on
this,
and
we
talked
about
it.
Another
area
and
I
know
that
one
of
the
industrial
zones
in
my
ward
got
nibbled
away
at
when
we
put
it
in
the
light
rail
station
right
by
it.
So
I'm
also
sympathetic
to
councilmember
Allison's
position
and
do
see
this
on
the
border
and
I
think
I'll
be
supporting
the
the
rezoning.
But
what
I
wanted
to
use
my
time
to
say
is:
maybe
zoning
it
industrial,
isn't
enough.
H
Apparently,
there's
massive
market
failure
or
there's
some
disconnect,
because
I
have
held
I've
been
part
of
a
group
of
us
who
have
held
land
for
industrial
for
decades
and
we
haven't
been
able
to
attract
something
to
come
in
there
and
provide
the
jobs.
So
we
can
think
we're
doing
great
because
we
have
land
to
provide
jobs,
but
then
years
and
years
go
by
when
no
jobs
are
actually
being
provided
or
sometimes
it's
something
like
storage,
which
must
have
the
minimal
amount
of
jobs
and
I've
also
had
a
lot
in
my
area.
H
That's
been
picked
off
for
religious
places
and
religious
assembly
in
schools,
which
aren't
quite
the
vision
we
usually
think
of
when
we're
doing
our
employment
zones.
So
I
don't
know
what
the
answer
is,
but
hopefully
in
our
compliment
process
and
everything
else,
we're
going
to
figure
out
how
we
can
package
some
things
and
I
think
we're
heading
in
that
direction
as
we're
thinking
about
production
and
processing
and
other
kinds
of
manufacturing.
H
That
might
make
more
sense,
but
so
I
just
want
to
say
that
let's
also
dig
in
and
look
at
where
we've
been
holding
the
land
and
it
hasn't
been
giving
us
the
jobs.
We
want
and
see
what
it's
going
to
take
to
help
push
the
normal
economy,
the
market
or
whatever.
It
is
to
actually
do
that
and
in
the
meantime
this
might
be
a
greater
and
better
use
for
this,
especially
in
light
of
the
fact
it's
providing
affordable
housing
and
what
I
think
is
really,
by
and
large,
a
very
expensive
place
for
people
to
live.
A
I'm,
just
looking
for
I
just
want
to
add
to
that
I'm
very
supportive
of
this,
but
to
be
a
very
clear,
just
reiterate
what
I've
said
at
the
Planning
Commission
like
I
I'm,
more
in
line
with
the
council
member
rec,
that
we
need
to
preserve
these
areas.
But
we
need
to
be
mindful
that
there
there
is
a
bar
that
we
have.
A
We
need
affordable
housing
throughout
all
parts
of
the
city
just
like
we
would
need
industrial
access
throughout
all
the
parts
of
the
city
to
offer
equal
opportunity
and
I
think
this
project
has
done
that
with
a
proven
developer.
That
is
this.
Isn't
your
first
affordable
housing
project,
so
I
think
that
these
are
the
things
that
we
look
forward.
I'm
happy
to
support
this
project.
F
B
A
Thank
you
finally,
we'll
move
on
to
the
last
item,
which
is
an
application
submitted
by
1000
and
bulk
storage
to
rezone
the
property
located
at
1009
third
Street
and
to
add
to
the
industrial
living
overlay
district
they'll
be.
This
was
contingent
on
the
last
moment
the
last
item
which
you
just
approved,
and
so
we
have
recommended
the
comp
plan,
approval
I'll,
move
the
approval
of
this
application
as
well.
Is
there
any
discussion
among
council
members,
councillor
Gordon,
just.
H
E
B
Chair
Schrader
councilman
regarding
the
land
use,
applications
related
to
the
specific
development
project
were
approved
at
the
City
Planning
Commission.
They
were
not
appealed
and
then
so,
therefore,
those
are
considered
final.
The
applications
before
you
today
are
just
the
future
land
use
map
amendment
and
the
rezoning.
So,
okay.