►
From YouTube: November 8, 2018 Zoning & Planning Committee
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
A
Good
morning,
everybody
sorry
for
that
being
very
loud.
I'm
gonna
call
the
order.
This
regular
meeting
of
a
zoning
and
planning
committee
for
Thursday
November
8th,
my
name
is
Jeremy
Schrader
and
I'm.
The
chair
of
this
committee
with
me
at
the
dynastar
councilmember
Allison,
consul,
Mareike
and
councilmember
Gordon.
Let
the
record
reflect
that
we
have
a
quorum,
we're
also
joined
by
councilmember
Johnson.
A
Thanks
for
coming
to
the
committee.
Today
we
have
seven
items
on
today's
agenda
and
we'll
begin
with
the
consent
agenda,
which
is
items
3
through
7
number.
Three
is
the
referring
to
staff
the
subject
matter
of
an
ordinance
related
to
the
law,
combinations
and
lower-density
is
owning.
Districts
referred
several
other
chapters
as
staff
at
our
last
meeting,
but
missus
one
due
to
a
clerical
error.
Number
four
is
the
approval
of
the
utility
easement
at
277
12th
Avenue
north
number.
A
Five
is
the
approval
of
a
rezoning
and
vacation
application
submitted
by
Plymouth
Christian
Youth
Center
to
allow
for
a
theatre
edition
item
number
six
is
the
approval
of
a
rezoning
at
2801
and
2801,
o
half
and
a
half
California
Street
northeast
an
item.
Seven
is
the
approval,
rezoning
and
vacation
applications
submitted
by
Shaffer
Richardson
to
allow
for
a
new
residential
structure
in
art
studio
in
a
Planned
Unit
development.
Are
there
any
questions
or
would
come
as
from
committee
members
on
any
of
these
items
or
word
and
will
like
to
pull
anything
off
with
that?
A
Not
seeing
anything
I
will
move
items
3
through
7
for
approval,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye,
all
those
opposed
say.
No,
the
eyes
have
it,
and
that
motion
carries
will
now
move
on
to
number
1,
which
is
the
consideration
of
a
conditional
use,
permit
appealing
the
project
at
501
and
511
Avenue
South
and
we'll
begin
with
the
staff
presentation.
B
Good
member
good
member
good
morning
and
come
some
hearse
now.
This
is
an
appeal
submitted
by
pissant
kabandha
regarding
the
decision
of
the
Planning
Commission,
denying
a
conditional
use
permit
for
an
accessory
surface
parking
lot
in
the
b4n
zoning
district
in
the
downtown
parking
overlay
district
for
the
properties
at
501
and
511
11th
Avenue
south
the
City
Planning
Commission
had
also
denied
a
variance
to
increase
the
number
of
parking
spaces
in
the
proposed
parking
lot
from
20
to
30,
but
that
denial
was
not
appealed.
B
So
the
only
item
before
you
today
is
the
action
on
the
conditional
use
permit
when
the
Planning
Commission
saw
the
project.
This
is
the
site
plan
that
was
provided.
So
there
is
an
existing
146
space
surface
parking
lot
on
the
site.
This
line
follows
the
edge
of
the
pavement.
If
you
will
of
the
existing
parking
lot,
this
portion
of
the
existing
site
is
currently
grass,
so
this
was
the
expanded
parking
lot
that
was
proposed
at
the
Planning
Commission
meeting,
and
this
is
where
those
additional
30
parking
spaces
were
provided.
B
This
is
a
commercial
parking
lot,
meaning
that
the
applicant
has
a
class
a
license,
so
they
can
lease
to
whomever
they
want.
This
would
be
an
accessory
parking
lot,
because
you
cannot
expand
commercial
parking,
lots
downtown.
That
is,
and
it's
nothing
you
cannot
expand
its
commercial
parking.
Lots
excuse
me,
so
this
would
be
an
accessory
lot
to
the
use
of
the
building,
for
so
for
only
the
tenants
within
in
the
building.
B
We
had
recommended
denial
of
both
a
conditional
use
permit
in
the
variance
as
there
are
already
146
parking
spaces
in
the
surface
parking
lot,
and
there
is
also
a
550
space
commercial
parking
garage
on
the
property.
Adding
more
surface
parking
to
the
site
goes
against
the
intent
to
reduce
the
amount
of
surface
parking
in
the
downtown
overlay
district,
the
land
or
the
applicant
would
like
to
expand.
B
The
parking
lot
is
currently
landscaping
and
serves
its
grass
I
should
say
it's
not
trees
and
shrubs
and
perennials
or
whatnot,
but
it
is
a
landscaped
in-services,
a
buffer
between
the
park
and
then
the
public
straightened
sidewalk,
which
is
also
includes
a
Matar
crossing
which
comes
across
from
Cedar
Riverside
and
was
recently
opened
this
year
and
then
the
Comprehensive
Plan
in
the
downtown
East
North
Loop
neighborhood
master
plan
do
not
support
adding
additional
surface
parking.
So
those
two
items
are
the
conditional
use
permit
to
add.
A
accessory
parking
lot
was
denied.
B
Since
the
Planning
Commission
meeting,
the
applicant
has
revised
the
site
plan
to
show
only
a
20
space
surface
parking
lot,
and
this
is
shown
as
just
landscape
Rock
area.
If
you
were
to
approve
the
appeal
and
then
subsequently
approve
the
conditional
use
permit
to
allow
that
20
space
Steffes
parking
lot,
we
have
added
and
they
are
listed
in
the
request
for
council
action.
Five
conditions
of
approval
that
we
would
request
that
you
approved,
which
gives
guidance
to
staff
for
landscaping
and
fencing
on
the
site.
A
B
Would
the
denial
from
the
Planning
Commission
the
parking
lot
could
not
be
expanded.
The
site
would
have
to
stay
as
it
is.
If
you
approve
the
conditional
use
permit
or
if
you
prove
the
appeal
today,
you
approve
the
conditional
use
permit
to
add
that
surface
parking
lot,
that
accessory
surface
parking
lot
on
the
site,
so
the
site
would
then
be
reconfigured,
and
then
this
additional
parking
would
be
added.
Okay,.
C
B
C
A
D
D
So
before
I
begin,
I
want
to
show
you
just
how
small
the
area
is,
and
we
have
been
working
with
Hilary,
obviously,
and
with
the
counts
and
with
the
neighborhood
groups.
This
is
the
other
thing
can
see
it
well,
but
thank
you
thank
you.
So
that's
the
area
that
is
we're
looking
to
surface
lines,
just
the
area
in
the
green,
so
the
surface
that
already
goes
all
the
way.
This
is
north.
When
we
put
this
new
plan
out,
if
you
overlay
the
two,
you
can
kind
of
see
that
this
is
the
line.
D
D
We
did
all
these
things
to
make
the
whole
area
more
functional
and
looking
better,
so
we're
actually
taking
part
of
the
existing
lot
with
the
class
a
license
and
moving
it
over
dropping
a
curb
and
then
calling
this
area
tenant
parking
only
so
we're
actually
taking
our
own
area
and
giving
it
to
this
side
to
make
it
more
squared
off.
If
that
makes
sense,
you
can
see
an
original
drawing
here,
how
much
smaller
that
would
be
so
we're
reshaping
both
the
areas.
D
The
other
thing
I
wanted
to
explain
was
that
we
definitely
want
to
put
up
the
fence
up
and
we
want
to
match
both
the
the
neighborhood.
We
want
to
highlight
the
separate
our
crossing,
which
we
were
advocates
for
so
we
want
to
look
make
the
area.
Look
more
appealing,
I
actually
have
the
fencing
design
here.
I
believe
you
have
sorry
the
tree
design
is
here
and
then
it
also
be
a
fence
up
to,
as
Hillary
mentioned.
I
believe
you
have
most
information.
I
can
answer
questions
as
I
talk.
If
you
have
any
questions
right
now,.
D
So
the
tree
design
looks
pretty
good,
the
only
limitation
would
be-
and
we
kind
of
mentioned
this
before
might
be
the
depth
of
the
roots,
so
that
might
inhibit
some
of
the
larger
trees
and
we've
kind
of
taken
into
account.
But
you
can
see
that
the
larger
ones
are
more
towards
the
south
side
here
and
here,
because
there's
less
underground
utilities
in
that
area,
one
is
CenturyLink
and
such
that
curve
cut
comes
right
over
here.
D
A
denial
would
mean
that
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
utilize
the
land
which
we
purchase
from
the
city,
and
it
would
mean
a
stay
this
way
and
tell
about
2020,
because
that's
the
next
time
we
can
take
the
opportunity
to
to
clean
this
up
advantages
if
we
get
the
appeal.
If
we
are,
if
it's
approved,
is
that
we
can
clean
this
up
for
the
n-c-double-a
that's
coming
up,
we
were
hoping
to
get
this
done
even
before
the
Super
Bowl,
but
we
lost
that
one.
D
A
You
thank
you
not
seeing
any
other
questions.
I
would
open
the
now
open
the
rest
of
the
hearing
to
the
public.
Please
limit
your
comments
to
two
minutes,
which
will
be
tracked
by
the
timer
by
the
clerk.
Would
any
members
of
the
public
like
to
speak
on
this
project
come
on
up
you
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
E
Good
morning,
Tom
Schmid,
700
South
second
Street
I
am
a
member
of
the
Land
Use
Committee
of
the
downtown
Association,
and
we
have
written
a
letter
presenting
our
argument
on
this
case.
I
would
just
like
to
supplement
that
by
saying
that
we
support
this
appeal,
despite
our
general
opposition
to
surface
parking
and
despite
the
fact
that
no
residents
live
in
this
immediate
area,
our
concern
is
with
the
is
with
the
public
space
surrounding
this
area,
most
particularly
this
amateur
crossing.
We
think
this
is.
This
is
a
fundamentally
important
space
for
the
for
the
city.
E
We
we
on
this
I'm
watching
the
clock
here
on
this
end
of
the
of
the
of
the
project
were
particularly
concerned
with
the
sort
of
visual
image
that
it
presents
to
people
using
that
we
believe
this.
This
landscaping
does
present
a
greening
opportunity
for
the
city
to
to
clean
this
up
a
bit.
We
encourage
you
to
grant
the
appeal
and
also
to
encourage
the
developer
in
any
way
you
can
to
to
really
deliver
a
vibrant
landscape
plan
at
this
end
of
the
of
the
crossing.
Thank
you.
They
give.
A
A
F
Morning,
chair,
Schrader
and
councilmembers
before
you
today
is
an
appeal
of
the
action
of
the
Zoning
Board
of
adjustments
on
two
variance
applications
to
allow
the
lawful
expansion
of
an
existing
outdoor
dining
area
at
4357
Minnehaha.
As
you
can
see
here,
the
subject
property
is
located
in
the
c1
district.
It's
a
reverse
corner
lot:
that's
surrounded
on
all
sides
by
residential
uses.
F
The
southern
portion
of
this
patio
is
currently
in
use
legally
as
outdoor
dining
and
the
applicant
is
looking
at
lawfully
expanding
the
outdoor
dining
to
cover
the
entire
patio
space,
because
the
property
directly
borders
residential
property
to
the
north
and
the
east.
It
is
subject
to
several
reflective
setbacks,
including
a
reflective
front
yard
setback
located
at
the
northwest
corner
of
the
property.
F
That
setback
is
20
feet
in
depth
and
extends
for
the
northern
25
feet
of
the
property
there
and
then,
in
addition
to
that,
there's
also
a
20
foot
separation
requirement
between
outdoor
dining
and
adjacent
residential
uses
or
residential
property
lines.
So
the
applicant
has
sought
variances
to
both
of
those
provisions
to
allow
the
expansion
of
the
outdoor
dining
into
that
area,
so
that
it
would
extend
the
full
width
of
the
property
adjacent
to
Minnehaha.
F
This
application
went
to
public
hearing
at
the
October
meeting
of
the
Zoning
Board
of
Adjustment
in
general
staff
found
that
the
applications
met
the
required
findings
due
to
the
property's
unusual
location
as
a
reverse
corner
lot,
entirely,
surrounded
by
residential,
his
own
property.
The
fact
that
that
patio
space
has
been
paved
for
at
least
80
years,
the
separation
between
the
patio
space
and
the
adjacent
residential
use,
which
is
just
under
22
feet
and
the
the
mixed-use
residential
and
small-scale
commercial
character
of
this
stretch
of
Minnehaha.
F
The
board,
however,
denied
the
applications
based
on
the
findings
that
are
contained
in
their
actions
here,
namely
that
outdoor
dining
is
still
possible
on
the
property
without
variances
that
the
proposal
does
not
meet
the
intent
of
the
20-foot
separation
requirement
and
that
the
expansion
could
have
some
off-site
impacts
on
the
adjacent
residential
property.
So
the
applicant
has
appealed
that
decision,
based
primarily
on
their
response
to
some
concerns
raised
by
the
neighbors
and
their
plan
to
mitigate
those
impacts
and
they'll.
Explain
that
but
I'm
happy
to
address
any
questions.
You
have
thank.
A
G
You
mr.
chair,
this
is
just
a
question
for
staff.
Was
this?
Is
this
a
new
expansion
of
the
patio,
or
was
this
something
that
was
in
use
as
a
patio
and
if
it
was
in
use
prior
as
a
patio
to
an
enforcement
action?
Was
it
since
the
current
tenant
has
been
there,
and
why
was
the
enforcement
action
taken?
Was
it
based
off
my.
F
A
chair,
schraeder
council
member
Johnson,
this
patio
area
has
been
paved
since
some
time
prior
to
1938
until
the
current
tenant
occupied
the
building
I'm,
not
sure
that
it
was
ever
in
use
for
lawfully
established
outdoor
dining
and
there
had
previously
been
tables
set
up
there.
But
there
was
not
a
license
for
outdoor
dining.
The
applicant
has
held
a
business
license
for
outdoor
dining
on
the
southern
part
of
the
patio.
For
several
years
they
were
using
the
northern
part
of
the
patio
for
at
least
a
portion
of
that
time.
G
F
I
Hi
Sam
nesting
in
Parkway,
pizza,
43:57,
Minnehaha,
I,
guess,
I,
didn't
know
what
to
expect
today.
So
I
feel
like
I,
maybe
should
have
brought
some
paper
I'm
feeling
very
ill
prepared,
but
is
what
we're
looking
to
do
is
use
the
full
it's
about
50
feet
and
right
now
we're
using
this
other
in
30
feet.
We're
looking
to
use
the
full
50.
We've
been
doing
that
for
about
five
years
now,
I
didn't
know.
I
wasn't
supposed
to
do
that.
That
was
an
honest
oops
I
mean
we
it's
sitting
there.
I
It
looks
like
it
should
be
used.
We
used
it,
we
got
told
by
Julie
Casey.
We
were
not
supposed
to
be
using
it.
We
ceased
using
it.
We
put
up
some
caution
tape
very
attractive,
but
we
gave
the
setback
and
then
I've
been
going
through
this
process
and
I
feel
in
part.
We
are
projected
by
the
board
because
I
didn't
show
up
to
that
meeting.
I
didn't
know,
I
thought
this
was
more
like
a
permit
application,
where
you
give
all
the
paperwork
to
the
city,
and
then
the
city
gives
you
a
permit.
I
I
didn't
realize
that
it
wasn't
like
just
a
formality:
I
guess
and
I
was
ill
prepared
and
that's
100%,
my
fault,
but
so
anyway,
part
of
why
I'm
appealing
their
decision
is
that
I
didn't
realize
that
neighbors
had
problems
with
us
and
the
neighbors
are
they
are
here
and
I
have
made
great
efforts
to
assuage
their
concerns
and
I've
demonstrated
to
them.
I
mean
willing
to
do
whatever
they
want
and
I
would
have
been
willing
to
do
that,
whether
or
not
we
had
this
patty
of
dispute,
because
I
sincerely
want
to
be
a
good
neighbor.
I
So
we've
improved
the
fence
between
our
yards
already
I've
dimmed
the
lighting
out
in
front.
If
you
guys
have
read
their
letters,
those
are
two
big
problems
that
they
had
I
put
those
lights
up,
this
spring
I
could
just
as
easily
have
taken
them
down.
You
know:
I,
wasn't
aware
that
there
was
an
issue
with
those
lights
and
as
soon
as
a
I
was
made
aware
of
an
issue
I
resolved
it
like
within
a
week.
You
know
it's
not
like
I'm
dragging
my
feet
here
and
to
any
of
their
other
issues.
I
You
know
I
know,
there's
there's
a
little
bit
of
concern
with
they
say:
well,
it's
permanent!
So
what
happens
Sam
when
your
business
leaves
in
20
years
and
the
next
business
comes
and
then
they
can
create.
You
know
noise
and
havoc
and
whatever
right
in
our
yard.
You
know
right
next
to
our
yard.
I,
don't
know
if
you
guys
can
do
this,
but
I'm
willing
to
okay
I,
take
the
variance
with
me.
I
So
when
I
sell
the
property
I,
don't
you
know
get
the
monetary
benefit
of
having
a
variance
that
allows
for
full
use
of
that
patio?
I'm.
Not
you
know
this
isn't
for
not
a
property
developer,
I,
don't
care!
The
other
thing
that
we
could
do
would
be
something
like
a
10
foot.
Maybe
maybe
you
give
us
10
feet
if
the
neighbors
are
really
opposed?
I
A
J
J
The
biggest
concern
that
we
have
with
the
patio
is
the
noise
it's
generated
in
the
spring
the
summer,
the
fall
and
the
hours
go
from
11
a.m.
till
10
p.m.
and
it's
just
a
lot
to
ask.
50
people
two
doors
down
to
keep
it
down.
I
mean
how
would
you
guys
feel
if
your
neighbors
had
a
party
every
single
night
and
spring
summer
and
fall
until
10:00
p.m.
it
would
just
be
too
much?
I
would
also
like
to
address
the
three
part
test
for
granting
a
variance.
J
My
my
husband
and
I
and
my
neighbor
all
maintain
that
the
first
two
parts
of
the
three-factor
test
have
not
been
met.
The
first
part
regarding
uniqueness,
the
the
applicant,
contributes
to
their
own
problem.
They
have
pool
tables
and
foosball
tables
inside
they
can
easily
add
additional
seating.
This
is
also
not
similar
to
the
Foursquare
restaurant
that
was
mentioned
earlier,
in
which
the
the
restaurant
was
given,
the
variance
because
without
they
would
have
not
been
able
to
have
any
outdoor
dining.
This
is
not
the
same
situation.
J
Regarding
the
second
part,
reasonableness
to
consider
their
request,
one
would
step
through
a
series
of
progressive
questions.
First,
how
would
they
like
to
use
their
property
when
he
wants
to
use
it
as
patio
space?
Second
question:
is
he
currently
able
to
do
so?
Yes,
Park
Way
is
currently
able
to
see
approximately
40
people
under
the
rules
of
the
ordinance
question
3.
Is
it
reasonable?
No,
we
believe
the
applicant
still
has
reasonable
use
of
their
property,
because.
C
H
Hi
and
my
name
is
barb
Olson
and
I
live
directly
north
of
the
patio
or
the
pizza
place
and
I
do
appreciate
all
the
things
that
Sam
has
done
for
us
the
last
few
weeks
and
we
did
have
some
issues
with
the
building
and
he
was
made
aware
of
them
and
he's
tried
to
help
that
the
patio
in
the
front
that's
a
different
story
and
the
issues
that
I
had-
and
you
mentioned
that
asked
the
question
earlier.
You
know:
was
there
any
complaints
earlier?
Well,
I'm,
not
the
type
of
person
that
complains
about
things.
H
So
I
had
issues
with
it,
but
I
never
went
to
him
because
I
just
dealt
with
it
because
I
didn't
think
I
had
any
legal
legal
response
to.
You
know
that
they
would
do
anything
about
it.
The
problem
is
the
patio
and
it
wasn't
used
for
a
patio
up
until
Sam
used
it.
It
was
always
just
a
paved
surface.
I've
lived
in
the
house
since
1957.
It's
never
been
used
for
an
outdoor
patio
until
Sam
started
using
it
for
that
purpose.
H
So
up
until
then,
it
was
just
a
sidewalk
and
the
main
thing
that
we
have
it.
It's
the
noise.
It's
my
driveway
is
right
where
the
patio
is
so
there
check,
tables
and
chairs
are
right
within
a
foot
of
my
property
and
that's
where
I
have.
The
issue
is
with
that
and
then
it's
the
people
coming
back
and
forth.
My
driveway
is
right.
There
it's
hard
to
back
and
back,
go
in
and
out
when
you've
got.
You
know
large
amounts
of
people
that
are
going
across
your
sidewalk
all
the
time.
A
A
K
Thank
You
mr.
chair
and
obviously
we
were
joined
by
council
member
Johnson
who's
on
the
committee,
but
in
consultation
with
him,
and
course
he
can
add
the
background
that
he
shared
with
me
in
terms
of
the
local
context.
As
he
understands
it,
I
believe
he
also
had
communications
with
some
of
the
conversation
that
happened
at
the
Board
of
adjustments,
to
give
some
context
of
that
as
well
and
also
in
consideration
of
issues
and
concerns
that
have
been
raised
had
formulated
some
conditions.
K
If
we,
if
the
committee
were
so
to
approve
the
appeal
that
would
be
tied
to
some
conditions,
I
have
those
printed
out,
or
here
and
I
will
submit
them
to
the
clerk.
If
that
were
to
prevail,
I
will
share
them
with
the
committee
for
our
consideration.
These
four
conditions
again
construed
in
consultation
with
the
council
member
of
the
area
screen
in
a
three
feet
in
height
at
least
95
percent
opacity,
to
be
obtained
between
the
outdoor
dining
area,
adjacent
to
the
residential
use.
K
Screening
of
six
feet
in
height
at
least
95
percent
opacity
shall
be
maintained
along
the
north
property
line
in
the
rear
of
the
building
lighting.
Shall
be
arraigned
so
it
not
to
caused
illumination
or
glare
to
access
a
1/2
of
a
foot
candle
measured
by
the
property
line
of
the
residential
use
north
of
the
lighting
fixtures
to
excess
of
2000
lumens
shall
be
shielded
from
the
property
line
of
the
residential
use
to
the
north,
as
required
by
a
certain
code.
That's
listed
in
the
requirement
here.
K
I'll
also
note
that
there
are
several
different
licensing
regulations
that
control
noise
and
other
sort
of
activities
that
would
be
in
full
force
in
effect
and
I,
believe
the
good
neighbor
approach
of
the
business
would
be
compliant
with
that
without
much
prompting
is
my
understanding
so
with
that
I
will
move
these
conditions
and
move
a
granting
of
the
appeal
subject
to
the
committee's
kind
of
concurrence.
Thank
you,
council.
G
You
mr.
chair
and
I
want
to
thank
the
residents
as
well
for
their
thoughtful
letters
that
they
submitted.
That
was
very
helpful
with
the
Zoning
Board
of
Adjustment.
Looking
at
those.
In
fact,
these
conditions
are
a
direct
result
of
recommendations
that
residents
made
in
their
letters
and
I
want
to
leave
you
with
the
message
as
well
that
there
are
other
ways
we
can
address.
Other
issues
related
to
quality
of
life
living
next
to
a
business,
and
so
this
conversation
does
not
end
here
today
with
any
committee
action.
G
Whatever
the
committee
acts
on,
but
I
would
encourage
you
to
keep
working
with
the
business
owner
working
in
good
faith
when
you
have
issues
and
try
to
work
through
those
together,
but
also
please
keep
my
office
in
the
loop
because
there's
other
mechanisms
as
well
that
the
city
has
and
we
try
to
strike
that
balance
for
residents
living
next
to
businesses
and
it's
hard,
there's
inevitably
things
that
come
with
living
next
to
businesses
as
well.
But
there
are
ways
that
the
city
can
better
strike
that
balance
and
help
residents
out
to
it.
G
We've
done
it
for
a
lot
of
businesses.
A
lot
of
residents
in
the
Ward,
where
they've
had
impacts
to
the
quality
of
their
lives
and
where
it's
crossed
that
line
from
reasonableness
of
living
next
to
a
business
into
being
unreasonable.
The
city
has
helped
restore
the
balance
there
and
bring
some
peace
for
residents
as
well
living
next
to
the
businesses.
So
thank
you
for
the
very
thoughtful
and
really
helpful
letters.
I
think
it.
It
really
puts
in
perspective
to
for
those
of
us
that
don't
live
right
next
door
to
a
business,
the
many
different
ways.