►
From YouTube: March 29, 2018 Zoning & Planning Committee
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
A
Good
morning,
I'm
gonna
call
to
order
this
mediate
regular
meeting
of
a
zoning
and
planning
committee
for
the
Thursday
March
29th.
My
name
is
jeremy
Schrader
and
I'm.
The
chair
of
this
committee
with
me
at
the
Dyess,
our
council
member,
Ellison,
councilmember
right,
councilmember
Goodman.
Let
the
Dynes
reflect
that
we
have
a
quorum.
We
have
five
items
on
the
agenda
today
before
going
into
our
before
going
into
our
public
hearings,
I'd
like
to
handle
the
consent
agenda.
A
A
A
B
B
A
Thank
you
and
I
would
just
like
to
take
this
opportunity
to
the
second
counts,
president
Bender's
words
and
also
thank
Commissioner
Posner
for
reaffirming
and
all
the
work
that
he's
already
put
in.
We
look
forward
to
your
appointment
with
that
I'd
like
to
move
the
these
three
appointments
for
the
Planning
Commission,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye,
all
those
opposed
say
no
in
the
ice
habit
and
the
motion
carries.
A
We
will
now
move
on
to
our
quasi
judicial
hearing.
This
is
number
two
and
we
will
be
considering
appeal
submitted:
Nancy
aleck
on
the
behalf
of
3°
ministries,
regarding
the
decision
of
the
zoning
and
planning
a
Board
of
adjustments
to
overturn
the
determination
of
the
Zoning
Administrator.
That
3°
ministry
is
a
religious
institution
place
of
assembly
and
therefore
does
affect
the
spacing
requirements
for
sexual
orientation,
as
outlined
in
section
five.
Four
of
nine
of
three
thirty-five
350
of
the
minneapolis
Municipal
Code,
we'll
begin
with
the
staff
presentation,
good.
C
Morning,
council
members
item
number
two
is
an
appeal
of
the
decision
of
the
Board
of
Adjustment
regarding
the
spacing
requirements
of
549
350
B,
we'll
go
over
the
background
here
briefly.
So
in
2003,
the
Zoning
Administrator
determined
three
degrees
ministries
at
the
time
to
be
a
nightclub.
They
were
operating
a
Christian
nightclub
at
the
time
and
they
had
been
granted
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
nightclub
for
extended
alka
extended
hours
as
they
were
a
non-alcoholic
nightclub
and
then
in
2006.
C
Three
degrees
appealed
the
sighting
of
a
sexually
oriented
use
that
was
within
500
feet
of
their
location.
At
the
time
that
went
forward
to
council
as
part
of
the
license.
Application
hearing
and
council
did
agree
with
the
zoning
administrators
determination
at
that
time,
then
I
will
note
then
in
2008,
three
degrees
eliminated
the
nightclub
portion
of
their
use
reincorporated
as
a
non-profit
and
that
asserted
that
they
met
now.
C
To
begin
this,
in
2017
we
denied
a
section
oriented
use
portion
of
a
class-a
entertainment
license
at
4:15
1st
Avenue
north,
that
the
applicant
at
that
time
appealed
the
zoning
administrators
determination
and
on
March
1st,
at
its
hearing,
the
Board
of
Adjustment,
granted
the
appeal
5-4,
stating
that
3°
church
was
not
did
not
meet
the
definition
of
a
religious
institution.
Place
of
assembly.
3°
Church
appealed
that
decision,
asserting
that
they
are
actually
a
religious
institution
place
of
assembly,
and
we
have
that
before
us.
So
you
should
have
all
the
public
comments.
C
There
were
additional
comments
submitted
after
the
publishing
of
the
report.
Hopefully
has
all
that
so
findings
for
the
staff
are
the
proposed
use
at
4:15.
First
Avenue
South
includes
adult
entertainment
and
therefore
is
subject
to
the
spacing
requirements
of
the
sexually
oriented
uses.
That
three
degrees
ministries
now
meets
are
substantially
similar
to
the
definition
of
our
religious
institution
place
of
assembly
and
has
been
since
2008,
currently
located
at
119
fourth
Street
north
since
2011,
and
that
any
possible
entrance
from
415
1st
Avenue
north
is
less
than
500
feet
from
any
possible
entrance
at
119.
C
A
D
Good
morning,
council
members,
my
name
is
Carol
Lansing
I'm,
an
attorney
at
fakery
Baker,
Daniels
I'm,
representing
3°
Church,
also
known
as
three
degrees
ministries,
Nancy
Alexa
is
here,
and
she
will
would
like
to
speak
to
you
after
I
make
my
remarks.
I
have
put
the
definition
at
issue
here
on
the
screen.
This
is
the
issue
before
you
whether
three
degrees
Church
is
a
religious
institution
place
of
assembly,
as
defined
in
the
zoning
code.
D
Yesterday,
I
sent
you
a
letter
with
exhibits
that
support
the
conclusion
that,
in
fact,
it
is
the
religious
purpose
and
affiliation
of
3°
church
is
clear
in
the
materials
I've
submitted
and
in
the
statements
that
have
been
made
by
Nancy
to
the
Board
of
Adjustment,
and
it
hasn't
been
questioned
that
they
are
religious,
a
fairly
affiliation.
It's
institutional
status
is
also
clear.
D
Now
three
degrees,
Church,
is
also
a
place
of
assembly.
Their
location
that
their
current
location
is
a
place
of
assembly
for
this
religious
institution.
It's
located
in
a
space
that
it
leases
in
a
multiple
tenant
building.
There's
no
dispute
that
this
space
is
within
500
feet
of
the
proposed
location
of
a
new
sexually
oriented
use.
The
zoning
codes
definition
of
a
religious
institution
place
of
assembly
includes
a
church
or
other
facility
that
is
used
for
prayer
by
persons
of
similar
beliefs.
D
D
There
are
multiple
church
services
and
prayer
group
meetings
and
other
meetings
of
groups
for
spiritual
purposes
in
that
location
throughout
the
week,
3°
Church
and
the
space
it
leases
in
a
multiple
tenant
building
is
undoubtedly
a
place
of
assembly
for
religious
purposes,
there's
no
basis
in
the
zoning
code
to
conclude
that
it
does
not
meet
the
definition,
a
religious
place
of
assembly,
because
it
does
not
occupy
an
entire
building
or
a
building
originally
designed
for
as
a
church
or
more
traditional
religious
place.
The
zoning
code
does
not
define
Church
by
its
physical
characteristics.
D
D
But
it
does
not
limit
the
idea
of
Church
or
the
facility
to
that
particular
use
or
tower
type
of
facility,
and
the
use
of
the
codes
term
facility
is
considered.
Religious
place
of
assembly
is
consistent
with
how
that
term
facility
is
used
throughout
the
zoning
code.
There
are
multiple
types
of
uses
that
are
defined
as
facilities,
I
included
in
my
letter
to
you
a
list
of
some
of
those
several
of
them
and
that's
not
all
of
them.
For
example,
one
is
a
sports
and
health
facility.
D
None
of
the
facilities
that
are
as
uses
in
the
code
are
required
to
occupy
a
whole
building.
The
term
facility
is
not
used
in
that
way,
and
in
fact
many
of
those
types
of
uses
do
occur
in
multiple
tenant
buildings,
the
city's
2006
decision.
It
supports
the
conclusion
today
that
3°
Church
in
its
current
location,
with
its
current
activities,
is
a
principal
use
and
is
does
meet
the
definition
of
religious
institution
place
of
assembly.
As
mr.
D
Ellis
described
to
you
in
2006
3°
church
was
an
outreach
ministry
associated
with
another
church
and
its
activity
in
club
3,
it's
called
Club
3
degrees
was
as
a
nightclub
with
religious
activities
associated
with
it.
At
that
time,
the
city
determined
that
its
primary
use
was
as
a
nightclub
and
that
religious
tivities
were
accessory
and
it
based
its
distinction.
Its
determination
on
that
distinction
between
principle
and
accessory
uses
in
its
current
location.
That
does
not
operate
as
a
nightclub.
Its
principle
use
is
for
religious
assembly.
D
D
3°
Church
does
not
meet
the
definition
of
accessory
use,
which
I
pull
out
two
key
characteristics
that
an
accessory
uses
incidental
to
and
customarily
associated
with,
the
principle
use
or
structures
served
and
that
it
contributes
to
the
comfort
convenience
or
necessity
of
the
occupants
of
the
principle
user,
structured,
serve
structure
served
three
degrees.
Church
is
not
incidental
to
any
other
uses
in
this
building.
D
It's
not
customarily
associated
with
them
and,
although
other
occupants
of
this
building
as
members
of
the
public
are
welcome
to
come
and
be
congregate,
three
degrees
church
is
not
accessory
to
those
other
uses
in
the
building
and
I'll
note
that
in
2006
the
City
Council's
decision
did
not
focus
on
the
fact
that,
even
at
that
time,
three
degrees
club
three
degrees
was
one
tenant
in
a
multiple
tenant
building.
It
was
in
an
eight
story,
building
that
the
findings
did
not
say
its
accessory,
because
it
doesn't
occupy
a
whole
building.
D
This
buffer
is
not
to
protect
the
building
from
another
building
or
an
inanimate
objects.
It's
about
the
impact
on
people
who
are
going
to
these
places.
Nance,
the
Alexa
will
tell
you
about
why
they
why
3°
Church
chose
to
be
in
the
warehouse
district
and
why
this
spacing
of
crime
is
important
to
them.
D
E
So
my
husband
and
I
are
the
pastor's
of
three
degrees
church
and
we've
been
a
ministry
and
a
church.
Prior
to
our
15
years.
In
the
warehouse
district,
we
were
located
in
Northeast
Minneapolis
for
about
14
years
before
moving
into
downtown.
We
did
have
two
principal
uses.
The
the
concerts
and
the
outreach
that
we
ran
was
definitely
in
the
forefront
of
the
public
eye
when
we
moved
and
we're
looking
for
larger
facilities.
E
We
really
felt
that
our
mission
as
a
church
to
take
the
gospel
to
places
in
our
city
that
are
typically
underserved
where
church
uses
are
concerned
really
weighed
in
on
our
decision
to
look
for
space
in
the
warehouse
district.
We
felt
that
both
of
our
uses
as
a
church
and
as
a
concert
ministry
would
be
complementary
in
that
area.
E
However,
we
were
very
mindful
of
the
spacing
requirements.
I
in
particular,
spend
a
lot
of
time
ministering
to
women
and
have
for
the
past
thirty
years
and
am
very
sensitive
to
women
in
particular,
that
have
come
out
of
abusive
situations,
sexual
abusive
situations
and
as
well
as
the
adult
entertainment
industry,
while
I
respect
the
rights
of
individuals
to
operate
those
businesses
and
for
people
to
patronize
those
businesses.
E
So
there
was
kind
of
a
clear
path
of
traveled
that
direction
the
bus
stop
and
in
1st
Avenue
and
and
then
in
our
current
location,
we're
on
the
corner
of
2nd
Avenue
and
4th
Street
a
lot
of
our
families
that
drive
in.
So
we
have
quite
a
few
members
in
our
congregation
live
in
Minneapolis.
They
take
the
bus
I,
take
the
train,
they
walk
down.
First
Avenue
to
get
to
church
the
proposed
strip
club
location
is
is
right
there.
E
So
it's
really
to
me
and
to
us
about
protecting
their
rights
as
well.
The
city
is
a
long
tradition
and
a
lot
of
cities
have
traditions
of
enforcing
or
having
those
spacing
requirement.
We
believe
that
that
the
rights
of
parents
with
young
children
that
park
along
First,
Avenue
or
Park
along
2nd
Avenue
should
be
able
to
get
to
church
without
being
confronted
with
sexually
aren't
'add.
Yes,.
G
Thank
You
members
of
Planning
Commission,
my
name
is
Dennis
Johnson
I'm,
with
chestnut
camber
own
law.
Firm
I
represent
Peter,
hey
Fitz
who's
here
with
his
daughter.
As
you
may
know,
Peter
owns
about
seven
establishments
in
downtown
Minneapolis
employs
over
400
people.
I
was
very
familiar
with
downtown
Minneapolis
and
there's
been
a
big,
a
good
business
person
for
Minneapolis.
But
that
is
not
the
issue
here
today.
Nor
is
the
issue
in
my
mind
whether
or
not
three
degrees
is
actually
a
church.
G
We're
not
disputing
the
fact
that
it's
a
legitimate
ministry
we're
not
saying
that
they
haven't
filed
the
proper
documentation,
I
think
what
what
the
original
zoning
decision
as
I
read
it.
When
we
went
to
the
Board
of
Adjustment
focused
on
whether
or
not
three
degrees
was
a
church
I,
don't
think
it
focused
on
the
definition
of
religious
institution
place
of
assembly.
G
In
that
definition,
I.
Don't
think
anybody
can
dispute
I.
Think
a
common-sense
look
at
this
definition
says
that
the
four
buildings
identified
in
the
first
part
of
the
definition
church,
synagogue,
temple
mosque
really
deal
with
mainstream
religions
that
were
all
very
familiar
with
the
second
part
of
that
definition
or
other
facility
has
to
relate
back
to
what
they
referred
to
in
the
first
part
of
the
sentence
and
that's
buildings.
That's
a
church,
synagogue,
mosque,
temple,
they're,
not
talking
about
organizations
they're,
not
talking
about
Catholicism
they're,
not
talking
about
Jewish
faith.
They're.
G
Talking
about
actual
facilities,
buildings,
and
then
they
refer
to
another
facility
and
I
think
the
best
way
to
talk
about.
That
would
be
if
whether
there
was
the
Church
of
Denny
or
or
three
degrees
if
they
had
a
specific
institution
where
they
had
a
free-standing
building.
I
think
that
that
is
what
this
is
meant
for.
It's
not
meant
to
preclude
someone
from
putting
in
a
business
with
someone
who
has
6,000
square
feet
of
a
hundred
and
twelve
thousand
square
foot
building
in
downtown
Minneapolis.
H
I'm
sorry,
but
I'm,
just
not
sure,
I
understand
exactly
what
you're
saying.
So
let
me
rephrase
it
in
real
part
people's
terms,
and
you
can
tell
me
if
I'm
incorrect,
okay,
we
think
they're
a
church,
but
they
don't.
We
don't
think
they're
our
church
under
the
code
because
they
don't
have
a
building
that
makes
them
a
church
separate
from
itself
and
that
we
should
define
them
is
not
a
church
because
they
don't
have
a
building.
That's
separate
on
its
own.
Is
that
essentially
your
argument?
No.
G
H
G
Not
my
area,
my
argument
is:
is
they're,
not
a
religious
institution
place
of
assembly,
as
defined
in
your
code
they're
a
church
I
have
no
problem
with
that
as
far
as
their
what
they
have
filed
and
what
they
do
and
no
different
than
the
Catholic
Church.
However,
they
do
not
come
under
the
definition
that
this
city
has
defined
as
a
religious
institution
place
of
assembly
based
upon
how
it's
set
up
in
the
code
and
how
it's
defined
in
the
code.
That's
what
my
argument
is
and
I'll
leave
that
that's
I'm.
G
They
don't
fit
into
the
definition
that
this
city
has
set
forth
in
their
own
code,
which
relates
to
specific
buildings
or
a
special-purpose
building,
specifically
designed
for
people
to
come
together
in
the
same
faith.
I'm
saying
that
that's
what
this
code
was
designed
for.
It
was
designed
for
people
to
put
in
a
storefront
ministry
all
around
town,
keeping
in
mind
that
downtown
Minneapolis
is
the
only
place
where
you
can
put
sexually
explicit
entertainment
venues
and
that's
been
zoned,
and
that
was
decided
by
the
Supreme
Court
years
ago.
G
H
No
I
think
it
actually
was
the
intent,
but
that
happened
before
I
got
here.
I
have
a
business
that
used
to
be
my
ward
called
corner
coffee,
it's
in
the
North
Loop
right
now
there
they
are
in
a
commercial
building,
they
sell
coffee,
they
have
ministry
on
Sundays.
They
do
a
number
of
other
counseling
pastoral
counseling
religious
things
throughout
the
year.
Would
you
suggest
that
they're
not
a
church
or
a
religious
place
of
assembly
under
our
code,
Your.
G
H
I,
don't
think
that's
a
winning
argument,
but
you
can
continue
to
make
it
I.
I
personally
think
this
line
of
argument
is
just
not
legitimate
at
all,
so
keep
making
it,
but
you
haven't
been
able
to
convince
me
and
I'm
pathetic
and
and
sympathetic
to
the
applicant.
But
if
that's
the
argument,
I
don't
see
how
we
would
ever
agree
to
that.
Your.
G
I
would
contend
that
a
6,000
square
foot
leasehold
on
the
fourth
floor
of
a
building
does
not
fit.
This
definition
and
I
appreciate
the
comments,
but
I
guess
that
I
would
stick
to
my
argument
that
the
definition
that's
defined
in
this
particular
code
does
not
preclude
the
Davidson
from
putting
in
the
establishment
where
they
seek
to
put
it
in.
F
Chair
Schrader,
councilmember
Goodman,
you
stated
it
correctly.
The
zoning
staff
and
their
report
stated
it
correctly.
A
multi-use
building
can
have
multiple
principal
uses
within
it,
and
just
because
there
are
principal
uses
in
this,
building
that
are
separate
lease
holds
does
not
make
one
particular
use,
regardless
of
the
size,
does
not
make
that
particular
use
accessory
to
the
other
use
or
somehow
accessory
to
the
building
as
a
whole
and
in
terms
of
the
definitions
and
statutory
interpretation.
Mr.
F
Johnson's
correct
about
the
principles
of
statutory
interpretation,
but
in
this
case
the
definition
is
is
said
that
the
two
clauses
of
the
definition
are
separated
by
an
or,
and
so
you
don't
have
to
meet.
Both
the
the
proportion
of
the
definition
at
issue
is
just
the
first
portion,
which
was
the
portion
discussed
by
miss
Lansing,
and
that
does
reference
other
facility
and,
as
the
staff
stated
in
their
findings,
that
the
code
does
not
regulate
the
nature
of
religious
practice,
but
it
does
regulate
where
it
can
occur,
and
so
that's
that's.
I
Good
morning,
members
of
the
zoning
and
planning
committee-
my
name
is
Gary
Schiff,
and
it's
good
to
be
here
with
you
all
this
morning
to
talk
about
this
issue
that
I
have
spoken
about
previously
in
these
chambers
and
that
the
City
Council
has
previously
ruled
on.
There
is
precedent
for
the
city
of
Minneapolis
to
decide
that
three
degrees
ministry
does
not
fall
under
definition,
a
religious
place
of
assembly,
and
indeed,
was
a
nightclub
that
happened
in
2006.
I
At
that
time,
their
activities
were
looked
at,
their
marketing
materials
were
looked
at,
the
decision
was
made
and
on
a
10
to
3
vote,
the
City
Council
agreed
that
they
were
more
closely
associated
with
the
definition
of
a
nightclub.
Now
they
have
changed
their
business
practice
since
then,
I,
don't
think
they
still
host
touring
concerts
and
shows
as
much
as
they
used
to
or
make
cover
charges.
So
it
does
come
down
to
plain
word.
I
Definitions
and
I
want
to
walk
you
through
this
very
clearly,
because
for
me
this
is
a
very
easy,
clear
decision
when
looking
at
the
intent
behind
these
words.
First,
as
mr.
Nilsson
said,
the
second
half
of
this
sentence
does
not
apply
and
I
agree.
It
doesn't
and
here's
why
this
is
the
facility
that
we're
talking
about,
if
you
can
zoom
in
on
that.
I
This
is
a
photos
from
their
Facebook
page,
showing
the
building
that
they're
in
and
the
space
that
they
have.
This
was
dated
2014
on
their
Facebook
page
and
when
you
see
the
photos
of
the
rest,
you'll
see
drywall,
you
see
the
original
posts
of
the
building.
You
see
standard,
HVAC,
standard
overhead
lighting,
you
see,
chairs
that
are
movable.
You
see,
plastic,
podiums,
so
clearly,
I
think
these
photos
show
that
we
are
not
talking
about
a
specially
designed
facility
that
has
been
architectural
II
designed
for
the
purpose
of
conducting
regular
basis
religious
services.
I
It's
a
nice
space,
don't
get
me
wrong.
It's
a
nice
space
but
under
our
definition,
we're
talking
about
a
special-purpose
building
architectural.
He
designed
mr.
Nelson
pointed
to
the
word
or
and
I
want
to
point
out
that
the
word
or
is
a
conjunction
that
introduces
a
synonym
or
explanation
of
a
preceding
word
or
phrase.
I
It
doesn't
have
to
be
an
alternative,
it
means-
or
in
other
words
it
doesn't
need
to
mean-
or
in
contrast
to
so
I
right
there
or
is
a
conjunction
introducing
a
synonym
or
explanation
of
preceding
words
or
phrases,
and
obviously,
when
we're
defining
a
use,
we
don't
want
to
send
conflicting
messages.
You
don't
want
to
have
a
definition
that
says
well,
you
could
be
this
or
you
could
be
that
what
you
want
to
do
is
send
a
very
clear,
specific
instruction.
I
That
says
here
is
what
it
is,
and
you
want
to
use
examples
for
what
it
is.
The
appellant
today
is
trying
to
use
the
word
facility
to
tease
that
out
to
say
that
means
any
space
where
religion
is
practiced.
That
is
not
what
your
zoning
code
intends.
In
fact,
after
the
zoning
code
was
adopted,
and
these
definitions
were
adopted,
the
law
of
known
as
the
religious
land
use
has
passed
by
Congress,
signed
into
law
by
President
Bush.
The
religious
land
use
explicitly
prohibits
local
governments
from
regulating
religious
activity
in
their
zoning
code.
I
I
want
to
repeat
that
the
religious
land
use
a
prohibits
us
from
regulating
religious
activities
in
our
zoning
code.
So
nothing
today
says:
3°
can't
exist.
Nothing
today
says
they
can't
continue.
What
they're
operating.
What
we're
debating
is
whether
or
not
the
constitutional
guarantees
write
in
the
1972
Supreme
Court
case
California
versus
LaRoque.
That
said,
that
stripping
is
a
form
of
protected
free
speech.
Whether
or
not
the
Constitution
gets
suspended
in
a
500-foot
radius,
because
a
religious
organization
has
rented
a
space
in
a
building.
That
is
nonsense.
I
The
US
Constitution
does
not
operate
in
little
circles
where,
wherever
somebody
moves,
it
gets
suspended,
and
so
I
do
want.
To
point
to
the
example
of
that
councilmember
Goodman
mentioned,
we
have
ministries
throughout
downtown.
We
have
all
sorts
of
faith-based
organizations,
we
have
chapels,
we
have
all
sorts
of
things
in
other
buildings,
but
that
doesn't
meet
this
definition.
The
first
four
words
are
building
types,
a
church,
a
synagogue,
a
temple
or
a
mosque.
I
I
New
Google
Church:
that's
what
pops
up
pictures
of
a
mosque
pictures
of
a
synagogue.
These
are
building
types
that
are
being
regulated.
The
zoning
code
used
to
refer
to
ministries
it
used
to
refer
to
a
whole
lot
of
other
religious
activities
that
was
taken
out
in
the
2001
definition
when
the
definition
was
updated,
it
used
to
just
say
churches,
and
it
was
made
to
be
more
culturally
inclusive
of
other
building
types
and
other
major
world
religions.
I
I
So
again,
we're
not
here
to
judge
whether
or
not
this
is
a
legitimate
ordination
certificate
and
whether
or
not
somebody
ordained
in
the
Universal
Life
Church
is
legitimately
a
minister,
because
the
zoning
code
doesn't
regulate
that
type
of
religious
activity.
We
don't
want
to
go
down
this
road
of
who's,
legitimate
who's,
not
legitimate.
In
the
original
staff
presentation.
The
Zoning
Board
of
Adjustment
staff
made
a
statement
that
I
think
is
very,
very
problematic
for
staffs
position,
and
that
was
we
generally
agree
and
I
want
to
make
sure
to
get
the
direct
quote
from
mr.
I
Ellison's
staff
report
directly.
So
I
don't
scrotum
it's
long
lines
of
your
church.
If
you
say
you're
a
church,
we
accept
people
at
face
value
if
they
say
they're.
A
church.
Well,
you'd
have
to
change
your
zoning
code.
Definition
to
match
that
you'd
have
to
say
this
category
is
open
to
anyone
who
claims
to
be
a
church,
and
we
wouldn't
be
here
today
or
you
could
say
the
definition
applies
to
anyone
who's
filed
as
a
non-profit
and
st.
Paul.
That
could
be
your
definition,
but
it's
not
there.
I
The
City
Council
has
ruled
consistently
that
this
has
not
been
seen
as
a
religious
place
of
assembly
30
degrees
in
the
past,
and
it's
even
less
so
today
because
they
are
simply
a
tenant.
They
are
mobile.
They
move
and
constitutional
protections
cannot
be
summarily
changed
with
the
lease
from
somebody
who
is
frankly
gaming
in
the
system
moving
into
the
only
district
where
adult
uses
are
allowed
and
then
seeking
to
repeal
and
repeal
those
uses
from
their
radius.
I
The
phrase
of
a
clear
path
of
women
who
are
coming
to
the
church
must
be
met
has
been
said.
There
is
no
clear
path.
Anybody
getting
off
that
light.
Rail,
even
blinders,
wouldn't
help
to
avoid
the
fact
that
you're
now
in
an
adult
entertainment
district.
This
idea
that
people
deserve
to
have
anything
that
they
find
offensive
or
anything
that
they
find
against
their
religious
morals
is
not
the
basis
of
zoning
code
regulation.
That's
not
what
this
is
intended
to
do.
It's
intended
to
protect
people
who've
invested
in
a
neighborhood,
that's
the
basis
of
property
rights.
I
That's
the
basis
of
the
whole
zoning
code
is
to
protect
people.
Who've
invested
in
these
buildings
again,
not
religious
spaces.
There's
nothing
here
that
says
any
space
where
people
pray
is
a
religious
place
of
assembly.
That's
not
the
definition
I
heard
councilmember
Gordon
mentioned
the
word
facility.
Does
that
the
word
facility,
as
used
by
facility
management
people,
is
meant
to
refer
to
a
building?
The
word
facility
refers
to
a
building
it
again.
It's
in
context
with
the
rest
of
the
words
we
cannot
pull
out.
I
A
F
I
Registration
of
religious
churches,
a
church
can
choose
to
incorporate
as
a
non-profit
and
in
fact
it's
the
nonprofit
Articles
of
Incorporation
that
are
cited
in
the
staff
report
as
evidence
that
they
are
a
church,
whether
they're
a
for-profit
pyramid
scheme,
as
some
religions
are
or
whether
they
are
a
non-profit
religion,
is
immaterial
to
the
zoning
code.
Today,.
I
You
can
up,
as
you
go
through
the
comprehensive
plan
work
in
the
year
ahead.
You
can
update
your
zoning
code
and
you
can
change
the
definition
to
make
it
more
clear
in
the
future,
and
we
won't
be
here
arguing
this
point.
If
you
say
as
long
as
you
claim
to
be
a
religious
place
of
assembly
and
you're
incorporated
as
a
non-profit
or
for-profit,
then
you
qualify
for
the
spacing
rule.
Then
that
would
settle
this
issue,
but
until
then
we've
got
this
definition
on
the
books
and
it
specifically
speaks
to
buildings.
Okay,
thank.
A
You,
mr.
Schiff,
are
there
any
other
questions
from
the
committee
seeing
none.
Thank
you
with
that
I'm
going
to
open
the
the
public
hearing.
Is
there
any
members
of
the
public
that
are
going
to
speak
and
I'd
also
like
to
say
a
note
that
we'll
be
using
the
timer
as
well?
So
please
come
forward
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
sure.
J
Schraeder
members
of
the
committee
council
members,
my
name
is
Dan
Collison
senior
pastor
of
first
covenant,
Church
located
at
810,
South,
7th,
Street
and
I
have
served
in
that
capacity
for
close
to
nine
years
as
well
as
partnered,
with
the
interfaith
coalition
called
downtown
congregations
to
end
homelessness
and
I've
been
a
pastor
for
more
than
25
years.
I'm
here
out
of
deep
concern
that
3°
Church
located
in
warehouse
district
is
having
their
status
and
rights
as
a
church
challenged
on
the
grounds
of
being
located
in
a
multi-tenant
commercial
building.
J
There
are
religious
institutions
and
many
kinds
with
places
of
sembly
across
the
entire
city
that
are
in
diverse
building
typology
is
ranging
from
schools,
coffee
shops,
event,
centers
and
commercial
spaces
to
name
a
few.
The
minnesota
buddhist
center
is
located
at
1201
harmon
place,
5
v
403
in
a
corner
retail
space
of
a
two
store,
half
block
commercial
building
corner
Church
is
mentioned
by
councilmember
Goodman.
J
It's
located
in
North
Loop
at
5:14,
North
3rd
Street,
on
the
ground
floor
of
a
multi-tenant
commercial
building
in
a
coffee
shop,
mocchi,
dar
Al,
Farraj
mosque
and
Islamic
Civic
Society
is
located
at
500.
Cedar
Avenue
south
directly
adjoining
the
Palmers
bar
in
Andrew
Riverside
Presbyterian
Church
at
403,
southeast
eighth,
Avenue
near
the
University
of
Minnesota,
on
the
ground
level
of
large
multi-family,
housing
project
and
I
might
add
as
well.
J
The
description
of
3°
church
of
having
a
podium
and
drywall
and
entrances
looks
exactly
like
the
inside
of
first
covenant
church
that
just
has
a
different
skin
and
that
in
the
times,
we're
in
even
churches
that
have
largely
gone
empty
in
some
spaces
have
become
hosts
to
commercial
and
nonprofit
spaces.
There's
an
intermingling
and
it
is
about
real
estate.
J
And
yet
this
conversation
is
not
as
much
about
real
estate
as
it
is
religious
assembly
and,
in
my
opinion,
and
on
a
personal
level
having
known
of
the
Alexus
and
3
degrees
for
nearly
two
decades
and
15
years,
as
this
unique
congregation
that
it's
an
asset
and
I'm
troubled
that
have
you
called
into
question
and
I
asked
to
see
this
overturned
so
that
they
may
continue
their
work
according
to
statute.
Thank
you
very.
A
K
Just
speak
in
support
of
that.
I
didn't
really
appreciate
the
the
arguments
and
the
efforts
to
make
the
case
for
why
the
spacing
requirement
shouldn't
apply
here,
but
I
am
think
that
they're
there
they're
wrong.
When
I
read
the
the
language,
it's
really
clear
to
me
that
it
could
be
a
church
or
a
mosque
or
a
synagogue
or
something
else
or
a
facility.
I
actually
took
it
upon
myself
to
Google
images
of
facilities.
You
see
little
sports
places
inside
large
buildings.
You
see
little
laboratories
in
classrooms
that
are
inside
office
buildings.
K
The
facility
is
clearly
intended
to
mean
a
variety
of
things,
including
portion
of
a
building
and
even
less
than
that.
I
also
looked
up
the
definition
and
it
talked
about
spaces
and
places,
and
so
it's
definitely
very
loose
and
it's
very
clear
that
doesn't
have
to
be
a
mosque
and
a
church
and
a
synagogue
and
a
facility,
or
that
it
has
to
be
a
standalone
building.
K
I
also
think
that
it's
supposed
to
protect
the
neighborhood
amenities
or
people
who
bought
real
estate
in
neighborhoods,
while
her
downtown,
is
getting
to
be
more
residential
and
more
like
a
neighborhood
and
I'm
sure.
There
are
businesses
down
there
who
consider
it
a
neighborhood
and
they
probably
even
give
it
a
special
name.
K
So
I
think
that
if
we're
gonna
apply
this,
it
has
to
be
clear.
I'll
also
note
that
I
was
here
earlier
when
we
weren't
sure
about
what
this
three
degree
was
and
we
did
look
up
their
promotional
material,
their
calendar,
all
its
information
that's
available
now
and
it
looks
very
different
now
what
what
what
you
see
when
you
look
up
and
you
look
at
the
images
and
the
calendar
and
what
they're
doing
I,
don't
it
doesn't
even
occur?
They
do
concerts
too
many
times
so
I
think
it's
clear.
B
You
mr.
chair
I,
don't
want
to
belabor
this,
but
I
think
this
is
just
such
a
clear
case
of
a
religious
institution.
The
calendar
is
filled
with
Bible
studies
and
services
and
a
very
traditional
definition
of
what
we
imagine
a
religious
facility
to
be
and
I
think
it's
important,
because
I
mean
I
can
think
of
a
number
of
places,
in
my
word
that
weren't
mentioned
yet
as
examples
of
religious
institutions
that
are,
you
know
a
mosque
at
the
that's
in
a
commercial
building
or
a
church
that
meets
in
a
coffee
shop.
B
If
we
were
interested
in
protecting
the
downtown
space
as
a
place
for
adult
entertainment,
you
know
we
would
have
to
change
our
policy
to
do
that.
But
the
policy
is
very
clear
to
me
that
we
have.
The
intention
of
the
policy
is
to
create
spacing,
and
this
is
very
clearly
a
religious
institution,
so
I'm,
very
supportive
of
the
motion
by
the
chair.
B
H
You
mr.
chair
I
also
agree.
This
is
a
religious
institution
place
of
assembly
and
I.
Think
the
only
difference
between
all
of
the
other
arguments
that
have
been
made
is
that
sexually-oriented
uses
already
concentrated
in
one
part
of
town.
So
by
saying,
there's
additional
spacing
requirements
like
club
3°
is
within
a
thousand
feet
of
residentially
zoned
areas.
There's
a
church
on
Hennepin
on
the
border
of
councilmember
bender
and
my
ward.
H
That's
also
within
a
thousand
feet
of
a
residential
area,
and
sex
users
are
not
allowed
in
any
of
those
areas,
and
so
I
think
we
have
this
careful
balancing
act
to
not
amortize
out
these
businesses.
Despite
our
distaste
of
them
and
be
careful
to
allow
them
to
operate
in
certain
areas,
it
might
bring
to
question
whether
or
not
we
should
have
a
spacing
requirement
for
religious
places
of
assembly
from
sex
uses,
given
the
amount
of
space
that
sex
uses
are
already
lot
allowed.
H
Remember
they're
not
allowed,
even
in
most
of
my
ward
now
it's
mainly
in
councilmember
Fletcher's
Ward,
so
the
amount
is
being
constantly
restricted.
So
to
have
a
spacing
requirement
could
prove
to
be
problematic.
That
is
probably
a
question
for
another
day,
but
that's
what
kind
of
comes
to
mind
to
me
is
the
bigger
problem.
Is
that
the
they're
not
going
to
be
in
the
North
Loop
they're,
not
gonna,
be
in
Loring
Park
that
I?
H
Could
it
be
an
uptown
because
they're
not
allowed
there,
but
this
is
the
area
where
they
are
allowed
and
I'm
sure
the
reason
we
have
not
made
changes
to
our
code
is
this
area's,
fraught
with
litigation
and
any
time
we
make
one
move
in
one
direction
were
sued
in
another,
and
so
in
this
particular
situation,
given
the
code
that
we
have
adopted
I
believe
we
can
judge
that
this
is
a
place
of
religious
assembly
and
it's
not
allowed
under
the
code.
That
does
not
mean
the
code
couldn't
or
shouldn't
be
changed.
L
You
I
think
I
will
concur
with
some
of
the
points
being
made.
I
think
councilmember
Goodman
does
bring
up
a
broader
conversation,
that's
timely.
We
are
looking
at
our
comp
plan
and
I
think
when
you
have
one
very
circumscribed
set
of
protections
in
terms
of
a
very
restricted
area
for
certain
uses,
that
that
is
the
single
protection
that
might
you
might
use,
because
I
mean
mr.
Schiff
brought
up
a
really
good
argument,
so
we
can
practically
speaking
find
difficulties
that
are
actually
way
more
intrusive
in
our
restrictions
than
what
we
intent
and
I
think.
L
To
that
extent
that
practical
extension
of
our
policy,
which
is
unintended,
we
should
be
looking
for
corrective
action,
at
least
contemplating
that
that
dynamic
I'm
not
necessarily
trained
in
these
sophisticated
semantics
that
were
brought
up,
but
in
my
days
of
watching
Schoolhouse
Rock
in
conjunction
or
does
created
this
or
that
dynamic.
So
it's
all
being
going
with
the
prevailing
motion
before
us.
A
There
any
other
questions
from
Council
members
well,
I'd
also
want
to
just
give
some
explanation
why
I
made
the
motion
I
also
feel
the
codes
very
clear-cut
I'm,
also
as
a
person
of
faith
I
think
we
have
to
be
very,
very,
very
careful
about
questioning
and
saying
what
is
a
religion
and
what
is
not
I
think
that
I
also
concur
that
mr.
Schiff
brought
up
some
great
points
about
Arizona
current
zoning
policy
and
what
that
could
mean.