►
From YouTube: August 27, 2018 City Planning Commission
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission Meeting
A
Good
afternoon
I'll
call
to
order
the
August
27th
meeting
the
Minneapolis
City
Planning
Commission.
My
name
is
Matt
Brown
I
serve
as
president
of
the
Commission
I've
joined
today
by
commissioners,
Ellison,
Schrader,
Sweezy,
kögel
and
Rockwell
first
item
business
today
is
to
approve
the
actions
from
the
August
13th
meeting.
Commissioners
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
those
actions,
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor,
and
that
motion
carries
next.
A
We
will
sort
through
the
agenda
determine
which
items
will
be
considered
on
consent
which
we
will
discuss
and
which
will
be
continued
to
another
meeting.
You
can
find
hard
copies
of
the
agenda
in
the
hallway,
so
starting
at
the
top
item.
One
is
a
good
grocer
registered
land
survey,
2644
Nicolette
Avenue,
that
is
a
registered
land
survey.
Is
there
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
1
see?
No
one
will
put
that
on
consent.
A
Item
2
is
mosaic
phase
3
at
1320
and
1350
Lagoon
Avenue
2900,
Fremont
Avenue
South.
That
item
will
be
continued
to
the
September
17th
meeting
item.
3
is
a
tobacco
shop,
a
2606
Penn
Avenue,
North
rezoning
and
conditional
use
permit
for
a
shopping
center.
We'll
discuss
item
3
item
4
is
a
30
to
15
33rd
Avenue
south.
That's
a
rezoning,
we'll
discuss
item
4.
Finally,
item
5
is
the
701
Central
Apartments
at
701,
through
705
Central
Avenue
North
East,
several
applications
for
a
new
multi-family
building
at
that
location?
A
Is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
5c
no
and
we'll
put
that
on
consent.
So
our
agenda
as
amended,
is
as
follows:
items
1,
&
5
will
be
on
consent,
we'll
discuss
items
3,
&,
4
and
item
2
will
be
continued
to
September.
17Th
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
agenda,
as
amended
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor,
and
that
motion
carries
next.
A
We
will
move
on
to
our
committee
of
the
whole
consent
agenda
and
at
the
August
16th
meeting
we
considered
some
land
acquisitions
related
to
the
emergency
stabilization
pilot
program,
also
a
land
sale
at
3950,
Thomas
Avenue
north.
We
found
that
those
items
were
consistent
with
the
minneapolis
plan
for
sustainable
growth
and
commissioners
may
have
a
motion
to
find
those
two
items
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor,
and
that
motion
carries
next
may
have
a
motion
to
continue
item
2
to
the
September
17th
meeting.
A
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor,
and
that
motion
carries
next
we'll
move
on
to
our
public
hearings
and
at
this
time,
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
for
the
items
on
the
consent
agenda.
Again,
that's
items
1
&
5.
Is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
on
any
of
those
either
of
those
items,
seeing
no
one
I'll
close
public
hearing
and
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
consent
agenda
if
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor
and
that
motion
carries
next,
we
will
move
on
to
our
items
for
discussion.
B
Good
evening,
members
of
the
Commission,
this
request
is
a
petition
to
rezone
the
property,
from
c1
to
c2,
a
total
out
to
back
rishabh
and
for
a
conditional
use
permit
to
allow
a
shopping
center
at
this
location.
It's
located
at
the
intersection
of
26th
Avenue
and
Penn
Avenue
north
surrounded
mainly
by
single-family
dwellings,
soand
our
1a.
There
is
an
apartment,
complex
and
r5
caddy
corner
to
it
the
existing
site
plan.
They
do
have
extensive
landscaping.
It
is
a
automobile
convenience
facility
that
is
not
conformed
or
existing.
B
With
the
current
c1,
zoning
staff
does
find
that
they
propose
supey
for
a
shopping
center
would
be,
would
not
be
a
detriment
or
endanger
the
public
or
impede
the
enjoyment
abuse
of
adjacent
property
and
that
there
are
adequate
facilities
provided
and
no
additional
traffic
congestion
is
likely
to
result
from
the
conditional
use
permits
and
with
that
I'd,
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Commissioners.
C
B
C
A
D
Yes,
let's
say
on
the
twenty
six
or
six
Penn
Avenue
and
we'd
like
to
you,
know
open
like
different
company.
We
have
space
at
the
our
location
and
we
would
like
to
like
what
she
said
from
c1
to
c2
to
be
able
to
open
a
tobacco
shop.
We
have
like
separate
private
entrance
for
that
place
and
everything
is
going
to
be
private
and
protected
and
everything.
So
we
would
like
your
permission,
to
approve
it
if
it's
possible
and
I
don't
know
what
else
to
say.
This
is
my
first
time
it's
like
it.
Alright.
A
And
are
there
any
questions
of
the
applicant?
If
there
are
none
we
can
see
if
anyone
else
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item,
is
there
anyone
else
here
to
speak
on
item
3
and
C?
No
one
I'll
close
the
public
hearing.
Commissioners.
We
have
the
two
applications
before
us.
The
rezoning
it
followed
by
the
conditional
use
permit
Commissioner,
Rockwell
I
have
another.
C
B
C
C
A
C
C
You
know,
I
I
do
think
that
the
presence
of
bus,
rapid
transit
means
something
it
is.
It
changes
the
district.
A
bit
I
also
looked
into
the
West
Broadway
rezoning
study,
which
you
know,
provides
a
map
of
the
policy
basis
for
the
rezoning
and
in
that
map
there
is
a
light
pinkish
color
assigned
to
this
site,
and
it's
also
a
sign
to
a
number
of
sites
nearby
along
Broadway
itself,
between
Penn
and
Logan.
C
E
Thank
You
mr.
chair
I,
right
now,
I'm
leaning
toward
not
supporting
that
I
think
that
these
are
these
have
been
really
hard.
I
know
the
Commission's.
You
know
look
to
council
to
see
to
answer
the
bigger
policy
question
and
that
that
work
is
starting.
Councilmember
Cano
has
introduced
kind
of
the
the
order
to
really
look
at
that.
E
But
it's
not
it's
not
before
us
today,
where
I
land
is,
you
know
we
just
voted
against
one
in
my
own
in
my
ward,
I
think
Commissioner
Rock
will
make
some
great
points
about
the
transit
and
look
into
how
the
map
that
is
different,
but
I.
Don't
think
that
that's
enough
for
me,
it's
it's
very
persuasive,
but
it's
just
not
enough.
G
I'll
say
so:
I'll
support
the
motion.
I
there
have
been
a
few
of
these
and
I
am
a
little
bit
concerned
about
sort
of
approving
or
denying
them
a
little
bit
haphazardly,
but
I
think
in
this
case
it
does
matter
that
you
know
one
of
the
reasons
to
be
a
little
bit
wary
of
expanding
c2
zoning
is
the
potential
for
auto
oriented
uses
that
you
know
might
not
necessarily
be.
G
A
You
also
addressed
finding
number
five
that
the
addition
of
bus,
rapid
transit
to
this
corridor
does
in
fact
change
the
character
of
the
trend
of
development
in
this
area
and
because
of
that
enhanced
service,
perhaps
the
area
can
support
more
intense
uses
that
would
be
allowed
by
C.
Is
there
anything
else
you
wanted
to
add.
C
No,
you
know
I
I,
think
I,
think
that
captures
it.
Yes,
it's
the
proximity
to
other
intense
uses
directly
across
the
street
and
and
the
BRT
coming
in
and
and
the
fact
that
the
policy
guidance
for
this
area
as
articulated
then
the
West
Broadway
rezoning
study
has
been
interpreted
to
both
be
so.
You
want
to
see
I
think.
A
G
F
G
I
F
F
A
I
A
I
A
A
F
A
I
A
A
J
Commission,
so
the
proposed
rezoning
from
r1
to
r2
be
for
32:15
33rd
Avenue
is
to
allow
for
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
in
the
upper
floor
of
the
existing
building.
There's
no
exterior
changes
proposed
as
part
of
this
project,
the
surrounding
area,
as
you
can
see,
all
our
1a
within
the
context
of
this
map.
However,
staff
does
well
not
recognize
that
the
project
site
is
two
blocks
or
just
like
a
block
and
a
half
south
of
East
Lake
Street
and
about
three-quarters.
A
mile
from
the.
J
You
have
the
addendum
packet
with
letters
of
support,
and
there
is
also
letters
of
support
of
the
rezoning
from
r18
are
to
be
likely
the
most
letters
of
support,
I've,
seen
for
a
project
like
this
there's
also
a
letter
of
support
from
a
neighborhood
organization
that
references
the
accessory
dwelling
unit,
ordinance
as
a
reason
for
supporting
or
being
in
support
of
this
project
and
the
rezoning
there.
There
were
no
letters
of
opposition
and
just
kind
of
point
out.
J
The
staff
recommendation
for
denial
was
based
on
uniform
Arwen
a
zoning
within
that
area
and
that
there
wasn't
small
area
plan
guidance.
That
would
be
supportive
of
the
rezoning.
However,
like
the
neighborhood,
we
do
want
to
recognize
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
text
amendment
just
a
few
years
ago.
That
would
that
wants
to
see
developments
like
this
in
most
cases
that
there
are
two
family
homes
around
it
with
an
area
and
that
the
applicant
doesn't.
J
F
A
L
I
K
K
K
We
were
required
to
get
a
variance
because
it
is
a
duplex,
not
a
single-family
dwelling
and
we
applied
and
we're
granted
variants.
This
was
a
four
month
process
and
then
we
used
it
as
an
art
studio
and
when
we
retired,
we
moved
up
into
the
Attic
about
a
year
ago,
and
our
retirement
goal
is
to
volunteer
at
home
with
refugees
and
immigrants
as
English
teachers
and
we'd
also
like
to
volunteer
abroad
in
refugee
camps
and
in
third-world
countries,
and
in
order
to
facilitate
that
goal.
K
As
retirees
we'd
like
to
rent
both
duplex
units
and
live
in
the
Attic
as
an
Adu.
And
we
have
talked
to
many
of
our
neighbors
and
we
have
come
upon
no
opposition
to
our
Adu
proposal
and
our
neighbors
say
that
they
want
owner-occupied
homes
in
the
neighborhood
which
this
would
facilitate
and
they
would
like
higher
density
to
help
support
our
city's
infrastructure.
L
Hi
I'm
Denise,
rocky
and
I'm
the
other
corner
of
this
property,
32:15
thirty-third.
As
you
know,
our
entire
neighborhood
is
sewn
into
a
single
family,
although
12%
of
the
immediate
neighborhood
is
to
family
dwellings
that
were
built
prior
to
the
1960s
rezoning,
both
r1a
and
I
are
to
be,
as
you
know,
are
classifications
for
low-density
neighborhoods.
Our
proposal
does
not
propose
a
high
density
zoning
classification,
just
a
zoning
that
would
reflect
how
it
has
been
used
for
95
years
and
allow
us
to
legally
establish
an
Adu.
L
We
disagree
with
the
analysis
portion
of
a
staff
report
in
several
areas,
I'd
like
to
elaborate
on
to
consistency
with
the
2018
plan,
Minnesota
Minneapolis
plan
for
sustainable
growth
and
benefit
to
the
public,
the
first
one
consistency
while
we're
quite
new
to
learning
about
the
land,
use
and
housing
policies
in
the
current
comprehensive
plan,
many
of
the
policies
in
the
planet
appear
to
be
in
full
support
of
our
proposal.
First,
for
example,
the
land
use
policy
policy,
1.8
says
preserve
stability
and
diversity,
while
allowing
for
increased
density
in
order
to
attract
and
retain
long-term
residents.
L
We've
lived
in
our
duplex
for
27
years.
In
our
tenants,
our
long-term
policy,
one
point,
eight
point:
one
promote
a
range
of
housing
types
and
residential
densities,
even
more
relevant
are
the
housing
policies
in
that
comprehensive
plan,
and
they
were
only
slightly
mentioned
in
the
staff
report.
Yet
six
out
of
eight
appear
to
be
supportive
of
our
proposal.
L
Policy
3.1
role
by
increasing
the
supply
of
housing,
3.2
support,
housing
density
and
locations,
well-connected
by
transit
and
close
commercial,
cultural
and
natural
amenities
were
close
to
LRT
bus
and
major
bicycle
corridors,
shopping
library,
entertainment.
We
and
our
tenants
routinely
bike
to
work
and
use
public
transportation
policy,
3.3
increased
housing
that
is
affordable
to
low
in
low
and
moderate
income.
Households.
Our
rental
units
are
high-quality,
two-bedroom
units
affordable
at
30%
of
a
household
income
of
$45,000.
L
3.8
preserve
and
strengthen
community
livability
by
enforcing
high
standards
of
property
management
and
maintenance.
Our
Tier
one
rental
licenses
indicate
a
high
level
of
maintenance
and
safety
measures
and
we
continually
work
towards
environmental
sustainability.
Through
recent
installation
of
solar
raised
bed
garden,
plots
inherits
to
recycling
for
all
units
and
lands
Jaypee.
The
second
point
of
disagreement
is
whether
the
amendment
is
in
the
public
interest
and
is
not
solely
for
the
interest
of
a
single
property
owner.
Of
course,
the
proposal
benefits
us
as
property
owners.
L
L
However,
it
also
benefits
the
neighbors
in
the
environment,
the
community
in
the
city,
our
neighbors,
like
that
we
add
a
few
more
people
in
the
immediate
area
to
look
out
for
everyone's
safety
pets
and
packages
and
help
us
shovel
in
15
inches
of
April
snow.
An
Adu
would
provide
additional
assurance
that
the
house
is
owner-occupied,
something
that
our
neighbors
understandably
value,
highly
extremely
positive
response
in
our
proposal,
as
well
as
the
number
of
signs
in
support
of
Minneapolis
2040
in
our
neighborhood
means
our
neighbors
welcome
the
kind
of
housing
we
provide.
L
L
The
city
benefits
are
in
addition
to
the
fees
that
the
city
gets
from
our
rental
licenses.
We
perform.
We
provide
quality,
affordable
housing
with
no
increase
to
the
outlet,
as
evidenced
in
a
duplex
two
blocks
from
us
that
just
got
rezone
to
our
TV
and
added
an
Adu.
This
might
be
a
very
effective
and
acceptable
way
to
increase
density
in
single-family
zoned
neighborhoods.
L
Finally,
Minneapolis
has
changed
since
the
1960s
when
our
neighborhood
was
zoned
as
our
1a,
and
it
has
even
changed
since
2008
when
the
minneapolis
plan
for
sustainable
growth
was
updated.
This
is
reflected
in
the
2014
amendment
of
zoning
code
to
allow
a
to
use
in
single-family
and
to
family
dwellings
and
the
need
for
a
new
comprehensive
plan
now
drafted
as
Minneapolis
2040.
Our
proposal
is
consistent
with
the
vision
and
goals
of
both
of
those
initiatives.
Thank
you.
Thank.
M
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
Aaron
Novick
Dvorsky
I
live
at
32,
16:33,
Avenue
south
right
across
the
street
when
Margaret
and
Janice
first
talked
to
us
about
this.
My
main
concern
was
that
there
be
owner
occupation
of
the
property
in
its
entirety
that
stays
with
the
property.
My
understanding
of
the
Adu,
it
is
then
stays
with
the
property.
Is
that
correct?
If
they
were
to
sell
it
stays
with
the
property?
And
that
also
then
says
that,
and
it
would
always
be
owner
occupied,
correct.
M
M
M
What
Margaret
and
Jenice
are
doing
is
actually
solidifying
our
neighborhood
fabric
by
having
an
owner-occupied
requirement,
but
also
getting
all
of
their
needs
met
and
the
needs
of
the
fabric
of
the
neighborhood,
so
I
am
opposed
to
what
the
staff,
the
staffs
denial
of
this
and
I
hope
that
you
vote
in
support
of
this
zoning
change
with
ATU.
Thank
you
right.
A
N
I'm
Lori
Barr
I'm,
thirty-two
1634,
a
veneer
south
and
their
alley
neighbors,
and
they
you
see
the
picture.
Their
property
has
always
been
maintained
impeccably.
They
always
have
the
best
tenants.
You
cannot
have
neighbors
as
landlords
with
more
integrity
than
this
and
I.
Don't
think
that
there's
anybody
up
and
down
the
block,
even
though
we're
not
all
here
that
does
not
support
what
they're
trying
to
do.
Thank
you
thank.
F
O
Let's
see
I'm
a
social
worker
in
Hennepin
County,
so
I
see
the
work
of
the
homeless
team
for
the
city
and
the
county,
and
you
know
you're
always
trying
to
preserve
inclusivity
and
trying
to
make
it
affordable
for
all,
and
the
rates
of
the
housing
are
high
and
we're
all
you
know,
painter
taxes
to
support
everybody
else.
Along
with
us
and
they've
been
stellar
neighbors
and
it's
a
so
I
support
them
right.
A
H
Name
is
Peter
birch
Ernie
I
live
at
30:55,
22nd
22nd,
Avenue,
South
I'm
on
the
other
side
of
Hiawatha
Avenue
about
a
mile
away
I'm,
also
in
support
of
the
applicant
to
rezone
I.
Think
the
applicants
made
a
lot
of
really
good
points,
probably
most
of
the
ones
I
was
going
to
make
so
good
job.
But
the
one
thing
I
want
to
say
is
that
the
staff
report
is
as
written
as
if
this
isn't
already
a
duplex.
You
know
it
talks
about
how
you
know.
Is
this
going
back
to
character
the
neighbor
above
a
lot?
H
H
So
you
know
you're
not
really
making
this
rezoning
decision
to
allow
an
ad
you
or
not,
because
that's
not
how
the
edu
ordinance
is
written,
you're,
making
a
decision
if
this
makes
sense,
as
are
to
be
and
I
think,
there's
been
a
really
good
case
that
it
is
and
then
after
that's
done
and
they're
just
allow
the
radio
and
they
don't
need
to
go
through
this
again.
So
thank
you.
Thank.
A
C
C
C
C
In
terms
of
whether
the
amendment
is
in
the
public
interest,
you
know
we
have
increasingly
discussed
the
benefits
of
walkable
communities
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis
from
a
climate
perspective
and
both
from
having
heat
transfer
between
units
then
and
having
the
ability
to
not
own
a
car
or
commute
without
a
car.
This
certainly
in
a
walkable
area,
a
couple
blocks
from
Lake
Street
in
terms
of
the
existing
uses
of
the
property
and
zoning
classification.