![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi_webp/Jm-TdbjraUA/mqdefault.webp)
►
From YouTube: April 9, 2018 City Planning Commission
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission
A
First
item
business
today
is
to
approve
the
actions
from
the
March
19th
meeting.
They
have
a
motion
to
approve
those
actions.
That's
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor,
and
that
motion
carries
next.
We
will
sort
through
the
agenda
will
determine
which
items
will
be
considered
on
consent
and
which
we
will
discuss.
You
can
find
hard
copies
of
the
agenda
in
the
hallway,
so
starting
at
the
top
item.
One
is
the
Minnesota
Gastroenterology
at
sign
of
3001
Broadway
Street
northeast.
That
is
a
conditional
use
permit
for
sign
height.
A
Is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
1?
So
you
know
anyway
put
that
on
consent.
Item
2
is
the
mid-city
stormwater
pond
at
12:30
New
Brighton
Boulevard
in
1815
Broadway
Street
northeast,
that
is
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
stormwater
pond
and
a
site
plan
review.
Anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
2
see.
No
one
will
put
that
on
consent.
A
Item
3
is
the
East
End
Apartments
at
240,
Chicago
Avenue,
that
is
a
conditional
use
permit
or
a
PUD
amendment.
Is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
3
3
on
consent
item
4
is
premier
storage
at
28,
45,
Harriet,
Avenue,
South,
site
plan
review
and
a
variance
for
self
storage
facility?
Commissioner,
Connor
I
know
you
had
a
question
on
that
one.
So
we'll
discuss
item
for
item
5
is
1717
mini
storage
at
1717,
West,
River,
Road
north.
That's,
a
site
plan
review
will
discuss
item
5.
A
I
understand
discuss
that
item.
6
is
the
Dinkytown
McDonald's
improvements
at
5,
407
15th,
Avenue,
South
East.
Several
applications
related
to
signs
there
we'll
discuss,
item
6
item
7
is
the
Marshall
apartments
at
829,
Marshall
Street,
North
East,
several
applications
for
a
new
residential
building?
Is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
seven
item,
seven
on
consent.
A
A
No
one
will
put
item
8
on
consent
item
9
is
the
Russian
Orthodox
Church
expansion
at
138,
Emerald,
Street,
southeast
and
20
to
10,
Franklin,
Avenue,
Southeast,
Mitchell
use
permit
and
a
variance
related
to
a
church
addition,
zhenya
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
9
we'll
put
that
on
consent
item
10
is
Minnehaha
Academy
in
North
Campus
reconstruction
at
3100,
West,
River
Parkway.
Several
applications
for
a
new
school
building
will
continue
that
item
to
the
April
23rd
meeting.
So
anyone
it's
here
that
will
be
considered
on
April
23rd.
A
A
No
one
will
put
that
on
consent
and
item
12
is
the
Jackson
lofts
at
7:50
through
756
Jackson
Street
northeast
several
applications
for
a
residential
building?
Is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
12,
so
we
have
at
least
one
person
would
like
to
speak
on
that.
So
we
will
discuss
item
12,
and
that
is
the
end
of
our
agenda.
A
So
our
agenda
as
amended,
is
as
follows:
items
1,
2,
3,
7,
8,
9
and
11
will
be
considered
on
consent,
we'll
discuss
items,
4,
5,
6
and
12
and
item
10
will
be
continued
to
the
April
23rd
meeting.
Commissioners
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
you
as
amended
the
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor,
and
that
motion
carries.
We
have
no
committee.
The
whole
consent
agenda
today,
so
we'll
move
on
to
our
public
hearings.
So
at
this
time,
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
for
the
items
on
the
consent
agenda.
A
Again:
that's
items
1
2,
3,
7,
8,
9
and
11.
It's
anyone
wishing
to
speak
on
any
of
those
seeing
knowing
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
consent
agenda.
A
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor
motion
carries
next
may
I
have
a
motion
to
continue
item
10
to
the
April
23rd
meeting
and
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor,
and
that
motion
carries
next.
We'll
move
on
to
our
items
for
a
discussion
and
our
first
item
for
discussion.
A
B
Couple
of
things,
one:
the
treatment
of
the
north
side
of
the
building,
how
it
relates
to
the
property
to
the
north,
a
little
more
information
with
the
exterior
metal
panel,
colors
I
didn't
hit
a
black-and-white
copy,
so
I
didn't
quite
follow
the
alternating
pattern
and
it
did
they
submit
a
lighting
plan
as
well
and
then,
finally,
what
is
our
code
say
about
solar
panels
in
the
solar
system?
That's
on
adjoining
properties,
I
like
to
understand
I.
C
C
Just
to
show
you
the
color
rendering
it
is
alternating
colors
of
grayer
like
metallic
silver.
So
there
there
was
the
metallic
silver,
then
a
darker
gray,
kind
of
in
the
column
area
of
the
building.
So
that
was
the
color
palette
that
was
being
proposed.
I
apologize
for
the
black
and
white.
There
were
colored
renderings
in
there.
So
I
think
that
was
the
first
answer
as
far
as
the
so
and
here's
the
site
plan,
so
the
large
building
on
the
site
exists
today
and
then
it
is
being
used.
C
It
has
been
used
for
approximately
ten
years
as
a
storage,
self-service
storage
facility.
There
have
been
some
other
smaller
scale
residential
uses
in
the
building
and
the
whole
building
now
has
been
converted.
They
received
building
permits
to
convert
the
rest
of
the
existing
building
into
storage
locker,
since
it
is
a
permitted
use
in
the
i1
zoning
district.
The
proposed
building
that
they're
looking
to
build,
then
is
located
here.
C
So,
as
you
can
see,
the
majority
of
the
site
is
currently
covered
by
an
existing
building,
and
this
is
the
footprint
of
the
new
building,
and
then
there
is
some
parking
around
it.
This
is
a
public
alley
here
in
this
location,
the
part
of
the
house
that
has
the
solar
on
it
is
what
circled
this
is
a
one-story
commercial
addition,
I,
don't
know
when
it
was
constructed
on
the
front
of
the
house,
but
it
is
one
of
those
homes
it
looks
like
it
may
have
had
a
business
or
something
in
it
at
some
point.
C
As
far
as
the
ordinance
and
solar
we,
we
specifically
talked
about
solar
access
and
when
sneaking
a
conditional
use
permit
to
increase
height,
which
this
project
is
not
doing.
What
allowed
for
height
is
four
stories
or
56
feet,
and
this
is
a
three
story.
Building
the
building
is
also
meeting
its
required
setback
of
the
nine
feet
from
that
north
interior
property
line.
We
do
talk
about
shadowing.
It
will
not
shadow
the
solar
100%
of
the
time.
There
will
be
some
impacts
at
certain
times.
C
The
day
during
certain
periods
of
the
year,
but
it's
we
found
that
it
was
minimal,
shadowing
impacts
there
isn't
a.
There
is
a
very
large
or
robust
shadow
analysis
that
the
applicants
provided
as
a
result.
Actually,
if
the
questions
from
the
adjacent
property
owner
that
are
in
the
packet,
we
typically
don't
ask
for
a
shadow
study
unless
they
are
seeking
that
CEP
very
increased
height
and
since
they
weren't
they,
they
hadn't
submitted
one
initially,
but
they
did
do
one
as
a
request
of
staff.
Based
on
that
conversation,.
C
Has
a
six-foot,
solid
wood
fence
around
his
property,
and
this
is
proposed
to
be
green
space.
We
are
as
a
condition
of
approval
suggesting
a
recommending
that
they
double
the
amount
of
landscaping
on
this
site,
and
so
this
would
be
the
area
where
we'd
be
looking
to
see
that
additional
landscaping,
given
that
it
is
adjacent
to
a
single-family
home
and
is
just
open
lawn
as
proposed,
and
so
that
is
where
we
were
thinking
at
least,
that
the
additional
landscaping
it
would
be.
B
D
C
C
B
A
F
F
F
Over
the
years
we
have
made
significant
investment
to
this
property,
including
a
complete
new
roof,
all
new
mechanical
and
plumbing
all
new
electrical,
including
energy-efficient,
LED
lighting,
all
new
windows
throughout
the
building,
and
we
did
make
significant
repairs
to
the
existing
very
large
retaining
wall
on
the
south
side
of
the
building,
which
forms
the
I
guess
the
north
wall
of
the
Greenway.
So
those
are
some
of
the
improvements
that
we've
completed
to
date.
F
F
We
believe
that
the
curb
appeal,
this
property
with
this
project
and
all
the
related
upgrades,
will
significantly
enhance
the
curb
of
bill,
this
property
and
we're
pleased
to
be
proposing
it.
As
staff
has
pointed
out,
self
storage
is
a
permitted
use
in
this
industrial
zoning,
and
the
zoning
was
one
of
the
key
elements
in
our
site
selection
back
some
years
ago,
when
we
bought
this
with
respect
to
traffic,
our
use
is
an
extremely
low
traffic
generator.
In
fact,
some
say
that
our
use
is
the
lowest
trip
generator
of
all
commercial
or
industrial
properties.
F
Generally
speaking,
when
a
customer
rents
from
us
they'll
come
in
to
move
their
stuff
in
and
then
eight
months
later,
which
is
the
average
length
of
stay
at
this
facility,
they'll
come
back
in
the
remove
their
stuff.
No,
that's
not
her
percent,
but
that's
generally
what
happens
and
that's
why
our
trip
generation
is
just
super
low
at
these
at
these
properties.
In
comparison,
if
this,
if
this
became
a
residential
development,
I
would
suspect
that
the
traffic
counts
would
be
10
20,
maybe
times
more
traffic
than
that
of
which
we're
generating.
F
We
do
provide
a
needed
service
to
the
community.
The
vast
majority
of
our
customers
come
from
a
2
1
to
2
Mile
ring
around
the
property
because
of
that
I
always
call
this
a
neighborhood
business,
because
that's
who
our
customers
are,
in
addition
about
10
percent
of
our
customers
are
small
businesses
from
the
area
that
that
use
this.
For
a
variety
of
reasons,
about
15
months
ago,
we
hired
extra
space
storage
to
manage
the
entire
property
and
self
storage
operation.
On
our
behalf,
Extra
Space
Storage
is
the
second
largest
self
storage
operator
in
the
world.
F
The
really
smart
guys
they're
based
out
of
Salt
Lake
City,
and
they
have
a
reputation
of
being
very
quality
operators,
so
we're
very
pleased
to
have
them
on
board
to
manage
this
location
for
us.
I
know,
there's
been
some
concern
raised
by
our
neighbor
to
the
north.
Regarding
of
solar
panels,
our
new
building
design
has
been
sensitive
to
our
neighbor
to
the
north.
F
F
While
zoning
allows
for
56
feet,
we
are
proposing
a
height
that
is
40%
less
than
what
is
loud.
We
did
have
collier's
international
architecture,
produce
a
shadow
study
of
the
property.
I'll
summarize
the
results
as
follows,
but
it
is
the
package
that
we
reviewed
is
in
your
package
as
well.
First
of
all,
I'll
tell
you
that
the
impact
is
very,
very
low
in
the
summer
months,
no
shadowing
zero
in
the
fall.
There
is
no
shadowing,
however,
in
very
late
fall
or
specifically
on
November
10th,
there's
a
slight
shadowing.
F
If
you
go
to
the
very
worst
day,
winter
solstice,
which
is
December
21st
21st,
which
I
understand
is
the
day
with
when
the
Sun
is
at
the
absolute
lowest
on
that
particular
day
at
8:30
in
the
morning,
the
panels
that
we
will
be
15%
sheeted
at
9
o'clock
will
be
5%
sheeted
from
9
to
1
there'll,
be
no
no
shadowing,
you
know
so
on
and
so
forth.
At
2:30
it'll
be
5%.
Shading
at
3:30
goes
up
to
20,
however,
by
4
o'clock,
it's
five
percent
and
four
thirty
one
percent.
F
So
again,
this
is
the
absolute
worth
day
of
the
year
when
the
Sun
is
add
as
Louis.
So
the
conclusion
is
that
the
impact
is
very
limited
minor
and
then
we
have
acted
neighborly
and
responsible
with
our
design,
with
all
due
respect
to
our
neighbor
mr.
white
Bert
I
think
he
needs
to
understand
that
what
we
are
proposing,
Esmond
says
sensitive
to
his
system
and
the
impacts
of
the
result
of
what
we're
doing
our
minor
we're
pleased
to
have
staffs
recommendation
for
approval
subject
to
conditions
which
conditions
we
do
agree
to.
E
A
G
My
name
is
Leo
Marcus
white
bird
I
am
the
neighbor
in
question
at
28,
25
Harriet,
Avenue,
South
I
am
here
today
to
address
proposal.
Five.
Nine,
eight
six
from
premier
storage
I
oppose
this.
For
several
reasons,
this
company
has
been
a
bad
neighbor
and
their
facility
is
a
blight
on
the
neighborhood
garbage
issues,
violent
incidents
that
go
unreported
dope
deals,
etc.
These
are
synopsized
in
my
letter
on
file,
so
I'm
not
going
to
belabor
it
at
this
time.
G
This
building
does
not
fit
in
with
a
changing
face
of
the
area.
An
expansion
of
this
building
would
exacerbate
all
of
these
issues.
The
management
is
fairly
hostile
for
the
neighborhood
and
it's
not
a
contributor
to
the
community
by
any
stretch
of
the
imagination.
Furthermore,
this
building
is
going
to
be
in
violation
of
Minnesota
statute.
Four.
Seventy
three
point:
eight
five,
nine
recently
revised
in
to
seven
2017
and
it
states
in
subdivision
to
Section
B
Part
B
land-use
plans
shall
contain
a
protection
element
as
appropriate
for
historic
sites.
G
G
If
the
laws
to
provide
protection
for
these
things
that
must
be
applied
here
or
it's
just
lip
service
and
it
has
no
teeth
whatsoever
and
I
will
litigate
if
this
is
approved,
this
building
is
not
needed,
except
for
premieres
continued
exploitation
of
the
renters
in
the
area
and
profit
for
premiere
storage
who
wants
facilities
all
over
the
Metro.
It
has
no
place
in
this
neighborhood
and
and
it's
an
aesthetic
insult
to
boot.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank.
A
H
The
Commission,
my
name,
is
Jacob
Steen,
with
Larkin
Hoffman
8,300
Norman
Center
Drive
in
Bloomington.
We
represent
premiere
stores.
The
applicant
I
will
keep
my
comments
brief
and
in
short
here,
this
is,
as
you've
heard,
an
existing
facility.
It's
currently
a
hundred
percent
impervious
and
the
proposed
improvement
is
a
significant
investment
in
the
site.
It
will
not
only
replace
all
of
the
current
surfacing
but
it'll
result
in
a
significant
improvement
or
increase
and
landscaping.
You've
also
heard
that
it
is
designed
and
intended
to
minimize
noise
light
traffic
impacts,
particularly
shadowing
impacts
on
the
adjacent
property.
H
It
is
characterized
by
low
density,
residential
uses
adjacent
to
industrial
uses,
and
it
has
been
this
way
for
as
long
as
the
city
has
had
zoning
going
back
to
the
initial
zoning
map
in
1924
of
the
city
of
this
property.
The
subject
property
was
owned,
white
industrial
and
it
has
been
so
for
almost
a
hundred
years.
So
this
is
not
a
new
use.
An
industrial
use,
but
self-serve
storage
is
a
particularly
innocuous
permitted
use
in
the
light
industrial
district.
It
could
certainly
be
a
more
intense
use,
but
it
is
not.
H
This
is
not
a
question
of
whether
or
not
this
is
a
permitted
use
or
inappropriate
use
even
here,
because
it
is
a
permitted
use
it's
allowed.
As
of
right.
It's
a
question
of
whether
or
not
this
project
meets
the
required
findings
under
site
plan
review
and
the
variance
findings,
and
this
staff
has
done
a
very
good
job
of
describing
how,
with
the
required
conditions
of
approval,
it
does
meet
these
findings,
so
it
asks
that
you
adopt
staffs
recommendations
and
approve
the
applications.
Thank.
A
I
J
B
Like
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
a
site
plan
review
with
the
nine
stated
conditions
and
I'd
like
to
add
to
and
modify
one
so
two
condition
for.
Let
us
read
the
replacement
phrase
here
to
emphasize
the
pedestrian
scale.
Comma
all-metal
means
shall
be
lowered
to
align
with
the
tops
of
the
first-floor
windows
and
doors.
B
No
new
a
dish,
new
condition:
number
10.
The
applicants
shall
install
full
cut-off
lighting
onto
the
first
story
of
the
building
on
all
elevations
and
work
with
staff
to
install
lower
light
level.
Fixtures
adjacent
to
the
dwelling
to
the
north
condition
number
11.
The
applicant
shall
work
with
staff
to
install
decorative
fencing
to
prevent
passage
through
the
space
between
the
building
and
the
north
property
line
along
Harriet
Avenue
and
at
the
parking
lot.
A
We
have
a
motion
to
approve
item
B
the
site
plan
review,
with
revision,
to
condition
for
related
to
metal,
the
medic
lowering
the
metal
awnings
to
line
with
the
first
floor
windows
and
doors,
adding
a
tenth
condition
related
to
full
cutoff
lighting
with
a
lower
light
level
on
the
north
side
and
an
11
condition
related
to
decorative
fencing
the
property.
Is
there
a.
L
B
Just
real
quickly,
you
know,
obviously
this
this
project
is
allowed.
As
of
right.
It's
meeting
the
height
requirements,
it's
meeting
the
setback
requirements,
you
know,
should
this
project
be
proposing
a
condition
use
permit
or
some
other
variances
we'd
have
a
little
more
authority
to
shape
this
building,
but
it
as
it
is
it's
not
proposing
those
things
and
to
my
modifications,
you
know
this
is
a
rapidly
changing
environment.
There's
lots
more
pedestrians.
The
Greenway
is,
you
know,
just
several
feet
from
this
property.
A
M
A
N
Hi
I'm
very
sorry
about
the
weight
there.
My
name
is
Mei
Ling
Smith.
The
project
before
you
1717
West,
River
Road,
the
site
is
an
existing,
has
an
existing
building
on
the
site.
It's
a
vacant
industrial
office,
warehouse
building.
It
has
frontage
on
two
public
streets,
West,
River,
Road,
north
and
also
17
Avenue
north.
The
Mississippi
River
is
right
across
West,
River
Road
from
this
site.
N
N
The
you
can
see
2
different
views
here,
so
one
is
from
the
West
River
Road
and
one
is
from
17th
Avenue
north
to
the
south.
There's
an
existing
surface
parking
area
between
the
building
and
17
Avenue
north
and
the
applicant
would
be
filling
in
this
area
to
lot
for
the
building
addition,
the
site
plan
review
is
required
for
the
40,000
square
foot.
Two-Story
addition
to
the
existing
building
and
a
self-service
storage
facility
is
what
is
being
proposed
that
it's
permitted
use
in
the
i2
district.
N
As
you
can
see,
the
as
I
mentioned
before
to
the
addition
would
mostly
be
on
the
southern
end
of
the
existing
building,
but
there
would
also
be
a
portion
added
to
the
west
side
of
the
building.
There
are
30
parking
stalls
proposed.
The
minimum
requirement
is
29
based
on
the
size
of
the
addition
and
the
existing
use,
and
there
are
3
loading
spaces
that
are
required
by
the
ordinance
and
the
applicant
is
showing
3
loading
spaces.
The
applicant
is
also
proposing
to
mitigate
some
of
the
environmental
contamination
and
also
stormwater
runoff
on
the
site.
N
N
Staff
is
recommending
granting
all
sort
of
compliance
for
also
a
number
of
items
like
the
building
placement
and
principal
entrance
locations,
and
then
we're
also
recommending
some
conditions
of
approval
to
mitigate
some
of
the
the
negative
effects
of
having
some
other
alternative
compliance
items
such
as
blank
walls
and
windows.
So
we're
recommending
enhanced
landscaping,
an
additional
site
and
building
lighting,
but
we
do
have
a
few
conditions
of
approval
that
the
applicant
is
concerned
about
so
I'll
present
those
so
in
particular
condition.
N
We
are
recommending
that
a
walkway,
a
series
of
walkways
even
would
be
installed
here
instead
and
also
landscaping
so
that
this
driveway
area
would
be
removed
and
that
there
would
be
safer
pedestrian
access
right
now.
The
only
way
for
pedestrians
to
access
the
parking
lot
is
by
the
painted
striping
that
you
see
from
the
building
entrance
to
the
West
parking
lot
condition.
Number
five
is
also
a
concern
for
the
applicant,
so
the
loading
requirement
is
three
loading
spaces
that
could
be
either
within
the
building
or
outside
of
the
building.
N
N
N
This
area
might
be
reconfigured.
There
are
two
parallel
parking
stalls
here.
One
option
that
we've
presented
as
an
option
is
taking
out
some
of
the
landscaping
in
this
area
and
adding
parking
stalls
in
this
area,
maybe
reconfiguring
something
internally
or
externally,
to
accommodate
an
additional
loading
space.
Also,
this
is
an
internal
floating
area
that
doesn't
meet
the
full
12
by
50
dimension,
but
they
could
possibly
do
something
with
the
building
well
here
to
accommodate
more
internal
loading.
So
we've
talked
about
a
few
different
options:
okay,.
N
E
A
O
Thank
you
for
having
me
tonight.
This
is
an
exciting
project
for
for
us,
it
is
our
our
third
extra
space
facility.
We
actually
delivered
the
the
first
facility
to
the
Twin
Cities
in
in
st.
Louis,
Park
right
off
of
seven
and
100,
and
what
we
found
so
appealing
about
that
brand
is
that
it
really
aims
to
provide
a
retail
experience
to
what
can
otherwise
become
very
industrial
feeling,
and
so
in
the
context
of
all
the
new
rooftops,
and
quite
frankly,
you
know
small
businesses
trying
to
find
little
spots
to
make
what
they
do
this.
O
This
particular
location
fits
quite
well.
So
what
you
have
is
a
40,000
square
foot
existing
facility
that
has
quite
a
rich
history
and
environmental
conditions.
It
was
previously
a
lumberyard
and
sawmill
and
then
most
recently,
a
plating
site.
So
from
an
environmental
standpoint,
it
is
about
as
contaminated
contaminated
as
it
gets.
The
proposal
in
front
of
you
tonight
doesn't
request
or
or
contemplate
receiving
any
deed
funds
to
remediate
that
and
and
I
think,
as
mailing
referenced.
O
Ordinance
requirements
in
the
sense
that,
in
an
I
to
zone
space,
we
need
to
accommodate
truck
movements
on
site,
not
within
seventeenth,
have
and
and
so
keeping
those
truck
movements.
Internal
to
our
site
obviously
requires
certain
impervious
surface,
and
so
with
that,
well
we're
reducing
the
total
amount
of
impervious
surface
on
this
site.
Overall,
what
we've
designed
is
something
that
includes
an
aisle
for
folks
to
pull
into
the
site
and
then,
ultimately,
back
into
one
of
the
various
truck
positions
now
mind
you.
O
What
we've
designed
here
is
for
an
over-the-road
semi
and
more
often
than
not
we're
not
receiving
over
the
road
semis.
You
can
see
with
this
internal
loading
bay,
we
more
often
accommodate
the
largest
u-haul,
which
would
be
26
feet
so
as
an
accommodation,
one
of
the
things
that
we
had
proposed
right
now,
the
the
thought
process
was
that
this
entire
section
of
95
feet
would
be
removed
and
and
changed
into
landscaping,
which
you
know
over
the
series
of
discussions
with
with
planning
staff.
O
O
So
one
way
that
we
might
be
able
to
kind
of
reach
a
middle
ground
is
in
this
case.
You
can
see
how
the
trucks
can
come
in
and
back
up.
This
would
be
a
WB
40,
which
is
you
know,
a
more
modest-sized
truck
that
you
might
see
us
foods
driving
around
the
city
to
deliver
product
in
it
would
allow
us
to
reduce
the
amount
of
impervious
surface
and
it
would
ultimately
kind
of
land.
O
O
The
reality
is
no
in
our
facility
in
Minnetonka
we
don't
have
a
single
full
loading
bay
in
the
product
or
store
that
we
delivered
in
st.
Louis
Park
right
off
of
seven
and
a
hundred
there
were
three
loading
bays
full
semi
dock
I
and
those
actually
do
get
used
quite
frequently.
So,
as
we've
thought
about
this
site,
we
like
the
ability
to
have
a
diverse
set
of
loading
options,
largely
because
it
is
on
the
larger
side
of
facilities,
but
then
also
just
the
diverse
types
of
uses
that
we
get.
J
M
O
We
could
accommodate
a
WB
67
in
all
three
locations.
The
caveat
that
mei-ling
had
mentioned
in
modifying
some
of
that
vehicle
parking
is
something
that
we
could
live
with
from
a
condition
of
approval,
because
what
we
would
end
up
doing
is
exactly
what
was
suggested
by
staff,
which
is
to
increase
some
of
the
parking
to
the
north
and
then
provide
another
dock
position
so
to
speak.
E
O
Can
tell
you
that,
from
my
experience
with
our
facilities
of
similar
size,
the
truck
traffic
is
materially
less
than
industrial
products.
So
we
have
we
own
200,000
square
feet
of
distribution
centers
and,
in
this
context,
that
our
truck
traffic
at
st.
Louis
Park
is
nowhere
near
what
we
would
see,
ordinarily,
in
an
industrial
use
so
by
comparison
to
pioneer
metals
who
had
previously
occupied
the
space
in
a
plating
industry,
so
product
coming
in
and
then
ultimately
plated
and
shipped
out.
This
truck
traffic
is
materially
less.
M
I
D
A
N
N
This
would
still
be
a
question.
I
think
that
the
Commission
needs
to
answer
whether
you
want
to
leave
that
that
pavement,
where
it
is
between
the
building
and
the
walkway
or,
if,
if
you
prefer,
to
see
landscaping
there,
if
you
think
that
the
truck
turning
movements
could
occur
without
that
pavement.
N
M
M
A
B
Q
O
The
area
noted
here
this
is
the
original
plan,
so
this
this
is
the
full
95
feet.
You
can
see.
We've
incorporated
the
connection
north-south
/,
staffs
recommendation
and
request
now
would
be
continued
in
the
final.
This
is
again
that
WB
67
movement.
This
would
be
what
you'd
see
in
the
event
that
it
was
just
a
WB
for
it.
O
We
would
be
perfectly
fine
modifying
that
that
v
condition
or
fourth
condition
rather
of
approval
to
state,
rather
than
remove
the
95
feet.
If
we
wanted
to
reduce
that
by
65
feet,
that's
something
that
we
could
certainly
live
with,
and
in
doing
so
you
tenants
have
green
space
through
here.
We'd
still
have
that
north-south
connection,
we'd
be
reducing
the
impervious
surface,
but
we'd
still
be
able
to
accommodate.
You
know,
semi
trucks
and
and
quite
frankly,
something
that's
almost
double
what
you
would
ordinarily
see
in
in
a
u-haul
truck.
O
R
M
The
parking
surface,
the
impervious
surface,
you'd
put
a
sidewalk
I,
said
I,
guess
essentially
a
north-south
sidewalk
that
connects
that
front
entrance
out
to
the
sidewalk
on
the
street,
and
then
you
would
landscape
or
do
whatever
you
want
in
that
area.
I
guess
I'm
struggling
to
understand
the
need
for
the
third
loading
dock
way
at
the
north,
especially
if
you
could
get
sixty
seven
footers
in
in
here,
which
may
I
don't
know,
may
require
you
to
pull
out
into
the
into
the
curb
cutter
or
something
to
back
up
which
I
know.
M
O
E
M
M
Commission
members
do
we
do
we
feel
comfortable
with
the
item
number
four
and
staff
recommendation
based
on
this
alternate
design
of
taking
out
that
whatever
the
the
dimension
was
sixty
some
feet
of
paved
area
and
putting
in
landscaping
and
creating
a
more
direct
connection,
it
seems
like
it
appease.
Is
that
I
don't
know
if
we're
ever
be
able
to
solve
the
connectivity
issue
within
the
parking
lot?
There's
there's
you
know
it's
it's
you.
M
You
have
to
completely
rethink
where
parking
would
go
and,
and
unfortunately
they
probably
put
it
on
the
river
side,
which
is
nobody
wants
that
so
so
that
challenge
is
really
difficult
on
the
site
and
then
for
me
I,
you
know
I
find
I'm
finding
it
hard
to
really
know
why
there
needs
to
be
three
loading
docks,
so
maintaining
or
keeping
the
condition
was
at
number
six
or
no
I
would
be.
I
would
be
open
to
keeping
that.
L
For
staff,
so
so,
if
I
mean
I
would
be
open
to
keeping
the
number
five
I
also
agree
that
three
semi
trucks
is
is
probably
overkill
and
sounds
like
they
accommodated
that,
because
of
that,
that's
what's
at
the
code.
My
question
is,
if
worse,
if
we're
saying,
let's
keep
condition
number
five
with
the
sort
of
implicit
intent
that
they
not
have
to
build
any
third
loading
dock
I.
If
that
possible,
that's
not
possible
because
they
would
have
to
apply
for
an
application,
see
if
you're,
very
various
or
something
right,
correct.
J
A
M
Make
a
motion
to
approve
item
a
site
plan
review
with
the
nine
stated
conditions
just
like
to
modify
item
condition.
Number
four
with
the
obviously
replacing
the
95
with
the
sixty
has
been
discussed
and
proposed
by
the
applicant
I'd.
Most
also
like
to
add
some
language:
I,
don't
know
what
it
is
at
this
point,
but
some
language
about
creating
a
direct,
north/south
pedestrian
connection
from
the
sidewalk
to
the
building
entrance.
M
M
A
I
A
R
Good
evening,
president
Brown
and
commissioners
before
you
tonight
are
several
applications
related
to
modifications
of
the
Dinkytown
McDonald's
located
at
407
15th
Avenue
southeast.
This
project
has
four
main
components
and
the
first
is
adding
a
new
pedestrian
connection
between
the
building
and
the
sidewalk
on
15th.
Avenue,
second,
is
replacing
the
drive-thru
signage.
Third
is
a
during
adding
a
second
ordering
location
within
the
existing
drive-through
lane,
and
the
fourth
is
updating
the
facade
and
signage
of
the
building
itself.
There
are
six
land
use
applications
as
part
of
this
project.
R
The
first
one
is
an
expansion
of
non-conforming
use
to
allow
the
proposed
alterations
to
the
drive-through.
Second
is
a
conditional
use
permit
to
allow
a
dynamic
sign.
Then
there
are
four
variances
one
to
the
dynamic
science
standards
to
decrease
the
minimum
static
message:
duration
from
60
seconds
to
7.5,
one
to
increase
the
maximum
number
of
freestanding
signs
from
one
to
two
one:
to
increase
the
maximum
height
of
menu
boards
from
6
feet
to
7.5
feet
and
then
one
to
increase
the
maximum
height
of
a
wall
sign
from
14
feet
to
26
feet.
R
And
there
were
some
comments
that
came
in
after
the
publication
of
the
staff
report,
one
from
the
neighborhood
group
and
a
couple
from
the
general
public
that
you
should
have
received.
I'll
walk
through
the
plans
quickly
and
then
come
back
to
the
recommendation.
So
the
northern
portion
of
the
site
is
occupied
by
the
surface
parking
lot
and
the
restaurant
building
sits
at
the
intersection
of
4th
and
15th,
and
then
the
drive-thru
itself
sits
along
15th
and
adjacent
to
the
to
the
restaurant
building.
R
So
currently,
there
is
not
an
accessible
pedestrian
route
between
the
sidewalk
and
the
ground
floor
of
the
building
and
there's
about
a
four
and
a
half
foot
grade,
change
between
the
ground
floor
of
the
building
and
the
sidewalk
fifteen
that's
in
front
of
the
building,
so
the
current
pedestrian
route
has
stairs
on
it.
I'm.
Currently,
the
only
accessible
route
into
the
ground
floor
is
to
enter
through
the
curb
cut
and
go
through
the
drive
aisle
of
the
parking
lot.
So
this
new
pedestrian
access
would
seek
to
address
that.
R
R
So
here
are
some
views
of
the
proposed
signs,
and
the
two
menu
boards
would
be
digital
screens
like
those
shown
here
and
then
the
pre
browse
board
would
be
a
smaller
digital
screen,
just
a
rendering
of
the
menu
boards
and
how
they
would
appear
on
the
building
itself.
There
are
two
proposed
wall
signs
both
would
be
located
on
parapet
extensions
that
would
extend
up
above
the
roof
surface,
because
the
building
contains
a
non-residential
use
above
the
ground
floor.
R
They're
allowed
one
wall
sign
of
up
to
twenty
eight
feet
in
height,
just
beyond
the
regular
14
feet
allowed
in
the
c1.
Yeah
is
indicated
that
there
are
purposes.
That's
gonna,
be
the
sign
shown
on
the
left
here,
the
one
on
the
fourth
street
elevation
and
then
the
sign
shown
on
the
right
here
is
the
one
that
they've
applied
for
variances,
for
it's
just
the
other
elevations
here.
R
So
for
the
expansion
of
non-conforming
use,
sign
or
I'm
sorry,
application
staff
finds
that
the
application
does
meet
all
the
required
findings.
The
addition
of
the
accessible
walkway
from
the
building
to
the
sidewalk
and
the
reduction
in
hewing
vehicles
that
should
be
made
possible
by
the
second
ordering
location
should
result
in
the
use
becoming
more
compatible
with
the
surrounding
area
than
it
is
in
its
current
condition,
and
the
reduction
in
menu
board,
Heights
and
updated
materials
should
improve
the
aesthetics
of
the
property
and
the
improved
pedestrian
facilities.
R
Plus
the
approved
appearance
of
the
property
should
have
a
positive
impact
on
the
surrounding
staff
is
concerned
about
the
effectiveness
of
the
product
proposed
pedestrian
crossings
of
the
drive-through
lane
and
is
recommending
as
a
condition
of
approval
that
staff
work
with
the
applicant
to
increase
their
visibility.
Our
preference
would
be
for
raised
crosswalks
there,
but
there
are
some
grading
issues
related
to
the
drainage
that
I
think
the
applicant
might
be
able
to
elaborate
on,
but
either
a
raise,
crosswalk
or
some
type
of
signage
is
what
we
would
like
to
see.
R
Staff
also
finds
that
the
conditional
use
permit
request
and
the
three
variances
related
to
the
drive
through
signage
meet
the
required
findings.
I
can
go
deeper
into
those
findings
if
you'd
like,
but
in
general,
we
find
that
the
great
change
between
the
sidewalk
and
the
drive-through,
as
well
as
the
fact
that
all
of
these
signs
are
oriented
towards
the
interior
of
the
site
rather
than
to
passing
traffic,
is
relatively
unique
condition
that
meets
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance.
R
We
recommended
a
couple
conditions
there
to
ensure
that
the
sign
faces
aren't
visible
from
the
adjacent
right-of-way
and
that
the
pre
browse
or
to
be
modified,
to
meet
the
definition
of
a
monument
sign
regarding
the
variance
to
increased
wall
sign
height
staff
finds
that
that
request
does
not
meet
the
required
findings
and
staff
finds
the
due
to
the
allowance
of
the
28
foot
tall
wall.
Sign
as
well
as
the
non-conforming
pole.
Sign
that's
34
feet
in
height.
The
site
does
not
have
any
unique
identification
needs
that
could
constitute
practical
difficulty.
R
We
also
find
that
the
science
position
on
an
extended
parapet
above
the
building's
roof
would
not
be
particularly
compatible
with
a
small-scale
commercial
character
of
the
c1
district
and
would
not
meet
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
other
than
the
non-conforming
Pole
sign.
This
would
be
the
tallest
sign
in
the
immediate
area.
R
Additionally,
the
proposed
sign
would
be
pretty
close
to
the
non-conforming
pole
sign
and
allowing
two
signs
which
greatly
exceed
the
regular
maximum
height
in
this
district,
so
close
to
each
other
might
create
an
appearance
of
sign,
clutter
at
the
property,
so
staff
is
recommending
that
Commission
approve
the
expansion
of
non-conforming
use
application.
The
conditional
use
permit
and
the
three
variances
related
to
the
drive
through
signage,
with
the
stated
conditions
from
the
staff
report,
and
that
the
Commission
deny
the
variance
related
to
the
height
of
the
wall.
Sign
I
am
available
for
any
questions.
Thanks
Thank.
M
Some
questions
about
accessing
queuing,
so
the
queuing
is
improved
because
there
are
two
essentially
two
points
where
you
can
order
food,
that's
correct,
so
that
that's
what
improves
the
queuing?
How
do
you?
How
do
you
have
two
cards
so
everything's
on
the
on
the
driver
side,
but
they're
they're,
relatively
close
I
mean
they
look
like
they're,
not
not
any
more
than
20
some
feet
apart.
So
literally,
is
it
just
it
improves
it
because
there's
two
cars
ordering
at
the
same
time
and
then
they
move
forward.
R
G
M
Get
in
front
of
the
window,
you
know
say
so:
the
guy
who's
on
what
would
be
what
the
the
right-hand
I
don't
know
if
that's
north,
but
assuming
it's
north,
he
he
finishes
before
the
guy
in
front
of
him.
Does
he
go
around
him
and
then
cuts
in
front
of
it
I'm
just
trying
to
envision
how
it
actually
works
with
both
on
the
same
side.
You
know
pretty
much
stack
next
to
each
other,
so
I,
guess
that
would
be
a
question
for
them
or
they
haven't
come
for
me.
L
L
R
L
Because
we
don't
have
a
pedestrian
connection
which
they
could
Institute
right
now
without
coming
to
us,
we
have
a
difficult
time
reaching
the
door
as
a
accessible
pedestrian,
because
there's
queuing
in
the
parking
lot
that
makes
it
harder
to
drive,
there's
sort
of
a
lot
of
layers
to
that,
but
I
think
I
got
what
I
get
okay.
Thank
you
all.
A
B
You
so
the
the
variance
for
the
dynamic
sign
is
really
for
a
menu
board,
not
a
not
a
traditional.
We
see
as
a
dynamic
sign
so
have
we
acknowledged
the
fact
that
this
is
a
variance
for
a
menu
board,
not
a
traditional
dynamic
sign.
Well,
the
reason
I'm
asking
that
is
you
know
I
could
see
the
next
applicant
see
and
while
you
gave
McDonald
7
1/2
seconds,
I'm
wondering
if
maybe
if
this
does
move
forward,
need
to
make
it
clear
that
this
was
part
of
the
variance
was
because
it
was
a
menu
sign.
R
Crowns
are
we
made
the
determination
that
this
was
not
a
menu
board,
because
you
don't
actually
view
it,
while
you're
ordering
that
it's
just
a
sign,
that's
directed
at
the
drive-thru
traffic
and
to
your
point
about
this,
hopefully
not
becoming
justification
to
changing
the
dynamic
sign
standards
in
a
situation.
That's
different
than
this
I
think
that
the
findings
are
findings
that
are
in
the
staff
report
specifically
address
the
fact
that
this
is
directed
internal
to
the
site
and
not
at
passing
vehicular
and
pedestrian
traffic.
So
I
think
that
accomplishes
that.
B
R
S
S
O
S
S
First
of
all,
I
thinks
that
for
they're,
generally
favorable
conditions
and
recommendations,
I
would
just
like
to
address
on
the
wall.
Sign
height.
S
We
have
prepared
some
exhibits
tonight
for
you
related
to
the
wall
sign
height,
so
as
Andrew
presented
to
you,
those
are
two
parapet:
walls,
one
with
an
M
logo
on
the
4th,
Street
elevation
and
one
with
the
M
logo
on
the
15th
Street
elevation.
This
rendering
on
here
shows
the
as
proposed
prior
to
staffs
recommendation.
S
S
This
is
what
it
would
look
like
if
we
put
the
sign
at
fourteen
feet
to
be
code
compliant.
The
reason
we
are
requesting
the
increase
in
height
is
to
create
consistency
between
the
two
parapet.
Walls,
we
are
allowed.
One
sign
up
to
28
feet
in
height
by
code
and
the
second
or
in
consequence
inés,
would
require
to
be
14
feet
or
less
in
sign
height.
As
you
can
see,
it
does
look
a
little
bit
weird
with
the
two
at
different
heights.
Mcdonald's
is
allowed
on
this
site,
114
square
feet
of
wall
signage.
S
S
These
are
colored
renderings
of
what
the
building
will
actually
look
like
with
the
sign
as
we
proposed,
and
this
is
a
colored
rendering
of
the
sign
to
meet
staffs
recommendation
of
the
14
feet.
We
got
if
we
were
denied
the
application.
It
does
limit
the
amount
of
visibility
from
the
adjacent
streets
due
to
the
fact
that
the
site
is
some
24
and
a
half
feet
into
lower
than
the
street
grade.
S
M
M
S
M
The
raised
crosswalks
is
a
great
idea,
but
again
I,
don't
think
that
stops
somebody
from
pulling
forward.
You
know
to
the
car
in
front
of
them
and
being
on
the
crossing,
and
so
you
know
I,
don't
know
if
it's
as
simple
as
really
small
scale.
You
know.
Maybe
these
are
four
feet
high
right
at
the
eye
level
of
the
driver.
That
says,
you
know
don't
park
in
the
in
the
crossing,
because
otherwise
otherwise
you're
gonna
have
people
parking
on
both
ends
during
busy
times
and
and
they
won't
be
accessible.
M
M
A
condition
I
just
you
know
for
going
through
all
this
effort
to
improve
pedestrian
connectivity
and
then
still
allowing
cars
to
just
park
wherever
they
want.
Can
you
explain
just
the
stacking
for
my
previous
question
about
how
that
actually
happens
when
the
two
cars
are
literally
behind
each
other
and
I
can
understand
how
it
improves
movement
or
stacking
frequency?
Because
then
you
know
two
people
can
cars
can
move
through
that
at
a
time?
But
how
does?
How
does
that
even
work?
I
mean?
Is
it
just
those
two
cars
pulled
together?
The.
S
Same
time,
and
as
you
mentioned,
we
do
prefer
to
do
the
side
by
side
as
what
we
call
it,
where
you
have
two
lanes.
It's
just
not
feasible
in
this
location
due
to
the
site
size,
but
you
know
what
we
call
this
as
a
tandem,
Drive
Thru,
and
they
would
have
to
pull
up
together
and
say
the
first
person
in
line
at
the
first
ordering
board
finishes
after
the
person
behind
them.
They
would
just
have
to
wait
and
go
together
forward,
there's
no
way
to
pass
them
or
go
around
them.
U
S
S
S
It
functions
it
functions
that
we
have
done
this
on
other
sites.
It
is
typical
when
there's
limited
site
size
and
they
could,
due
to
the
constraints
that
they're
not
changing,
moving
the
structure
or
moving
the
layout
of
the
function
of
the
circulation
of
the
parking
lot.
This
is
a
one-week
that
functions
as
an
alternative
to
the
side-by-side
drive-thru.
I
J
S
Feasibly
they
could.
We
are
trying
to
use
the
parapet,
walls
to
break
up
the
building,
facade
and
add
some
visual
aesthetics
to
the
site,
feasibly
they
could
put
them
on
other
sides
of
the
elevations
they
have
the
south
east
and
north
are
the
three
elevations
the
West
is
attached,
so
there
is
no
feasible
location
to
put
that
there,
so
they
could
put
it
on
an
alternate
elevation.
Yes,.
B
Along
those
lines
couldn't
could
you
just
lower
the
red
pilaster
to
have
the
same
relationship
if
the
M
is
lower
and
you
have
a
lower
I
mean
that
would
look
better
I
agree.
That's
too
great,
but
you
know
if
you're
required
to
have
a
lower
sign.
Couldn't
you
lower
the
whole
thing
and
make
it
look
good
for.
S
A
On
this
item
is
anyone
else
who
would
like
to
see?
No
one
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
we
have
several
applications
for
us
all
of
six,
starting
with
the
expansion
of
a
not
conforming.
You
there
any
further
questions,
or
would
anyone
like
to
start
off
the
discussion
with
emotion,
mr.
Rockwell.
L
L
You
know:
we've
had
similar
instances
before
similar
examples
before
and
I
give
this
a
lot
of
thought.
You
know
for
the
Planning
Commission
to
approve
an
expansion
of
a
non-conforming
use.
We
are
asked
to
find
the
enlargement,
expansion
and
so
forth
to
be
compatible
with
adjacent
property
and
with
a
neighborhood.
So
you
know
thinking
on
that
for
a
minute.
This
isn't
about
whether
the
proposed
alteration
is
like
more
palatable
than
the
current
use.
L
It's,
whether
it's
consistent
and-
and
you
know
we
have
grandfathering
in
of
uses
in
the
cities,
so
that
we're
not
shutting
down
businesses
with
an
eminent
domain
like
power
when
we
rezone
and
of
course
all
all
non-conforming
uses
are
some
of
them
are
compatible
with
the
neighborhood.
You
know
you
think,
of
I,
think
of
a
neighborhood
corner
store
that
might
be
rezone
to
an
r1
and
a
in
a
blanket
zoning.
L
You
know
a
streetcar
or
a
store
that
is
an
important
piece
of
the
neighborhood
and
and
I
can
see
how
that
would
be
how
we
could
see
that
as
consistent
with
the
history
and
with
the
use
of
that
neighborhood.
So
in
thinking
about
this
particular
project
in
Dinkytown,
you
know
think
about
thinking.
Town
and
pinkey
town
is
very
walkable.
Is
historic:
neighborhood,
it's
adjacent
to
the
University
of
Minnesota
and
I
called
some
of
the
stats
on
the
you
area.
L
You
know
the
total
student
staff
faculty
population
of
campuses
80,000
every
day,
once
everybody's
on
campus,
according
to
it
14
University
of
Transportation
studies,
63%
of
all
trips
to
and
from
campus
are
made
without
a
car
and
then
once
you
get
to
campus,
only
4%
of
trips
on
and
around
campus
are
made
in
the
car.
74
percent
of
trips
are
made
on
foot,
so
it's
an
incredibly
walkable
area,
car,
independent
area
and
I.
Just
don't
think
that
a
drive-through
is
appropriate.
L
I
also,
you
know,
as
we
think,
through
some
of
the
data
we've
received
in
the
comprehensive
planning
drafting
process.
We
know
that
our
city
plans
for
climate
action
call
for
an
80%
reduction
of
greenhouse
gas
emissions
and
we
were
told
by
staff
that
you
know
research
shows
we're.
Gonna
have
to
reduce
vehicle
miles,
traveled
car
trips
by
37%,
if
we're
gonna,
hit
that
and
includes.
L
If
we
have
electric
vehicles
on
the
roads
by
2050,
so
37%
I
mean
that's
a
huge
drop
in
car
trips
and
if
we
are
going
to
do
that,
we
need
to
stop
investing
in
a
car
infrastructure,
and
this
is
a
place
which,
which
really
specifically
gives
about
walkability
it's
one
of
the
most
walkable
neighborhoods
in
the
city.
If
not
the
and
and
the
state
I
think.
If
a
mcdonald's
existed
here
with
no
drive-thru,
it
would
survive
just
fine.
Given
those
statistics,
you
know
I
also
think
about
the
80%
reduction
goal,
and
you
know
that's.
L
The
city
of
Minneapolis
is
target,
but
it's
also
the
global
target.
So
it
means
we
all
collectively
have
to
get
there
and
Minneapolis
always
tells
its
best
of
lists.
It
tells
its
economy,
it
counts.
Its
civic
engagement
and
pride
and
I
think
that
we,
if
we
just
get
an
80%
reduction,
are
really
getting.
You
know
C
grade.
We
have
to
be
beyond
that,
because
we
can.
L
We
have
the
resources
to
do
that,
and
that
means
making
action
taking
action
now
where
we
can-
and
this
is
certainly
a
place
that
success
to
explore,
what's
appropriate,
what's
compatible
in
this
area.
So
you
know
McDonald's,
as
a
corporation
has
actually
done
a
lot
on
climate
change
recently
they
commit
it
to
a
37
percent
reduction
in
co2
by
2030,
which
is
huge.
A
Would
like
to
motion
and
a
second
to
deny
the
expansion
of
a
non-conforming
use
any
further
thoughts
on
that,
and
since
we
are
making
a
motion
that
is
different
from
staff
recommendation,
we
should
probably
just
articulate
our
findings
so
Commissioner
Rockwell
I
understand.
You
were
speaking
quite
a
bit
to
finding
number
two
that
the
enlargement
expansion,
relocation
intensification
will
be
compatible
with
adjacent
property
in
the
neighborhood
and
you're.
Saying
that
it's
it's
not
because
it
is
a
walkable
area
with
very
high
pedestrian
activity,
so
promoting
more
vehicular
traffic
in
that
area
is
not
compatible.
A
Finding
number
three
that
the
enlargement
our
expansion,
will
not
result
in
significant
increases
of
adverse
offsite
impacts
such
as
traffic,
always
dust
odors
and
parking
congestion.
You're
saying
that
the
changes
will
create.
Maybe
an
awkward
vehicular
circulation
provide
potential
conflicts
with
pedestrians,
maybe
a
significant
amount
of
signage
that
isn't
really
compatible
with
the
surrounding
area
and,
finally,
an
item
finding
number
four:
that
the
improvements
will
improve
the
appearance
and
stability
of
the
neighborhood.
A
A
L
A
I
A
L
A
L
A
S
D
A
V
V
The
other
two
properties
to
the
south
one
is
a
duplex
that
is
not
occupied
presently
and
the
the
lot
at
the
south
and
750
Jackson
is
half
of
a
virginal
platted
lot,
and
that
is
a
vacant
parcel.
As
I
mentioned
a
lot
at
the
north
at
756,
Jackson
Street
northeast
is
owned
by
the
city
of
Minneapolis
and
is
in
the
sea
ped
inventory
in
the
future.
A
land
sale
process
will
take
place
and
come
back
through
the
committee
of
the
whole
of
the
Planning
Commission
with
recommendations.
V
At
that
time,
staff
has
communicated
to
the
applicant
that,
in
compliance
with
the
city's
requirements,
that
the
project
on
sitio
lands
are
required
to
provide
a
minimum
of
20%
of
the
project's
total
units
at
an
affordable
rate
at
60%
of
the
ami
or
lower.
So
that
equates
to
about
3.2
dwelling
units
on
the
property.
I'm,
not
sure
that
rounds
up
arounds
down,
but
it
will
be
a
requirement
through
the
land
sale
process
and
the
applicant
is
currently
working
through
that
with
our
colleagues
in
cpad
single-family
housing.
V
The
site
is
at
the
intersection
of
Jackson
Street
and
Broadway
Street
northeast.
However,
Jackson
Street
northeast
doesn't
connect
to
Broadway
it's
at
a
bite
of
a
cul-de-sac.
If
you
can
kind
of
see
on
the
civil
plan,
and
so
the
property
doesn't
have
direct
access
to
Broadway
Street
northeast
the
property
south
of
Broadway
are
predominantly
low-density
residential
properties
to
the
north,
the
Broadway,
our
combination
of
commercial
and
office
spaces,
art
studios
and
somewhat
low-density
residential,
as
do
move
towards
Logan
Park
to
the
northwest
of
the
site.
V
The
site
is
also
located
within
a
quarter
mile
of
the
intersection
at
Central
and
Broadway.
That
will
be
important
to
note
because
there
is
less
than
a
quarter
mile
distance
from
the
project
site
to
high-frequency
transit.
The
number
10
runs
north-south
and
has
stops
at
the
north
east
corner
in
the
southwest
corner.
V
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
construct
a
four-story
16
unit,
multiple
family
dwelling
with
a
rooftop
deck,
and
it
would
be
located
about
12
feet
from
the
Broadway
Street
northeast
side.
The
first
floor
floor
plan
shows
one
accessible
dwelling
unit
off
the
front
off
of
Jackson
Street
northeast
and
three
units
labeled
live
work.
These
are
not
commercial
uses.
These
will
be
residential
dwellings,
so
any
use
of
a
commercial
nature
would
have
to
be
harmonious
with
the
residential
character
and
comply
with
the
home
occupation
standards
found
in
the
zoning
code.
V
The
applicant
is
requesting
the
following
land
use.
Applications
first
is
to
rezone
the
subject
properties
from
the
Arwen,
a
single-family
district
to
the
or1
neighborhood
office.
Residence
district
second,
is
to
increase
the
maximum
allowed
height
in
the
proposed
Orr
one
district
from
two
and
a
half
stories
or
35
feet.
Whichever
is
less
to
four
stories
45
feet
for
the
structure,
and
that
essentially
is
measured
to
this
projection
right
here
that
you'll
see
on
both
the
north
and
the
south
sides
of
the
elevations.
V
The
applicant
is
also
seeking
a
variance
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
along
Jackson
Street
northeast,
as
shown
here.
It's
about
15
feet,
5
inches
for
both
the
structure
and
the
first
parking
stall
here,
the
front
yard.
It's
increased
due
to
the
adjacent
residential
structure
to
the
south
to
25
feet,
1
inch,
so
portions
of
the
structure
and
that
accessible
parking
stall
would
be
located
in
that
front
yard
setback
and
require
the
variance
the
applicant
had
originally
shown
us.
V
11
foot
setback
on
the
corner
side
yard
is
now
showing
12,
so
we
returned
that
application
to
the
applicant.
Additionally,
staff
had
noticed
for
a
variance
to
increase
the
maximum
compact
stalls,
because
the
site
is
located
within
a
quarter
mile
of
high
frequency
transit
for
the
bus
and
because
the
unit
mixes
between
three
and
50
units.
There
is
no
off
street
parking
required
for
the
proposed
project.
V
The
site
is
subject
to
say,
plan
review,
also
the
applicant
seeking
of
variance
to
allow
for
maneuvering
of
these
parking
stalls
utilizing
the
alley
for
for
that's,
Drive
aisle,
so
typically
22
foot,
maneuvering
aisle
for
two-way
traffic
would
be
required.
The
applicant
has
about
two
feet
for
the
compact
stalls
and
it's
zero
feet
for
the
accessible
stall.
V
The
application
includes
a
new
planted
easement
for
I
shouldn't
say
planted.
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
adjust
the
public
alley
and
provide
an
easement
along
the
South
here.
These
lines
that
you
see
here
are
turning
radiuses
to
demonstrate
maneuvering
for
trash
vehicles.
The
applicant
is
in
communication
with
the
property
owner
to
the
south
to
provide
more
of
that
turning
to
occur
on
the
property
to
the
south
and
provide
an
easement
over
that
property
if
they
are
able
to
achieve
that,
they
would
be
able
to
increase
the
Austria
parking
from
the
proposed
six
stalls.
V
V
So
we
identified
policies
related
to
that
and
here's
a
direct
quote
from
the
master
plan
for
the
st.
Anthony
East
neighborhood,
comparatively
high
higher
density
mixed-use
development
along
North,
East
Broadway
Street
between
Washington
Street
and
Jackson
Street
mixed-use
developments
would
provide
commercial
retail
space
at
the
ground
level
and
residential
space
above
45
story.
Buildings
are
envisioned,
so
staff
finds
that
the
proposed
project
in
the
proposed
rezoning
to
the
or1
district.
V
It's
consistent
with
the
minneapolis
plan
for
sustainable
growth
and
the
master
plans,
future
land-use
goals
for
Pritchett,
and
specifically
that
was
to
call
out
for
preserving
and
protecting
lower
density,
single-family
and
duplex
residential
by
locating
the
higher
density
along
the
corridor
along
Broadway,
Street,
north
east
and
all
along
the
edges
of
the
neighborhood
for
the
conditional
use.
Permit
staff
believes
that
the
proposed
height
would
not
be
detrimental
to
or
endanger
the
public,
health,
safety,
comfort
or
welfare.
E
V
The
set
backs
to
the
adjacent
structures
are
pretty
substantial.
There's
47
feet
proposed
between
the
South
building
wall
and
the
property
line
to
the
south
and
74
feet
to
the
adjacent
structure
would
be
over
a
hundred
feet
to
the
adjacent
structure.
That
would
be
look.
This
is
their
garage
here
and
their
home
is
approximately
in
this
location,
but
it
would
be
over
100
feet
away.
V
V
The
subject
properties
out
the
north
end
of
the
block
that
reduces
the
the
shadowing
impacts
on
the
adjacent
properties,
the
properties
north
of
Broadway
or
a
combination
of
commercial,
and
so
the
highlight
Center,
for
example,
is
also
a
four
story.
Building
immediately
to
the
north,
the
property
has
the
great
deal
of
step
back
between
the
adjacent
structures
to
the
south
and
to
the
south
west
of
the
property.
V
Therefore,
staff
finds
that
the
height
increase
would
not
negatively
impact
the
access
to
light
and
air
for
surrounding
properties.
The
applicant
has
provided
shadow
studies
which
were
included
in
your
packet
that
again
emphasize
the
limited
shadowing.
We
only
saw
shadowing
really
occurring
in
the
earliest
part
and
the
latest
part
of
the
day
during
the
summer
solstice,
where
we
would
expect
the
greatest
amount
of
solar
exposure
during
the
day
for
scale
and
character
surrounding
uses.
The
subject
property
will
be
taller
than
the
adjacent
structures
to
the
South.
V
Those
are
predominantly
one
in
two
story
structures,
but
it
would
be
consistent
with
what
we
see
to
the
north.
The
highlight
Center
again
being
four
stories
in
height
staff,
took
a
look
at
our
existing
solar
energy
systems
and
didn't
find
any
an
immediate
area,
and
there
are
no
designated
landmark
buildings,
significant
open
spaces
or
water
bodies.
That
would
be
impacted
by
the
additional
height,
as
proposed
for
the
variance
to
reduce
the
front
yard.
Setback
along
Jackson
Street
northeast
staff
again
noted
the
location
of
the
existing
structure
to
the
south.
V
Air
open
space
and
separation
abused
for
the
variance
to
reduce
the
distance
for
the
maneuvering
space
from
22
feet
to
0
feet
for
that
accessible
stall
and
2
feet
for
the
compact
stalls
staff
found
it
was
a
unique
circumstance
to
have
to
provide
a
public
alley
on
the
property.
Of
course,
it
needs
to
go
another
location.
It's
not
well
demonstrated
on
this
plan,
but.
V
Maybe
we'll
use
this
one
so
originally,
when
staff
took
a
look
at
the
alley,
this
parcel
here
is
also
owned
by
the
city
of
Minneapolis.
We
had
thought.
Perhaps
there
was
an
opportunity
to
carry
the
alley
out
this
way.
Unfortunately,
Quincy
streets
to
the
west
is
also
a
cul-de-sac
that
actually
terminates
further
south
than
it
does
on
Jackson
streets
of
Northeast.
So
it's
not
really
a
possibility.
This
alley
here
is
going
to
continue
to
be
maintained.
V
As
you
can
see
here,
this
is
the
paved
portion,
but
the
easement
carries
all
the
way
to
the
public
sidewalk
I
kind
of
strange
some
emails
with
the
property
owner
immediately
to
the
west
about
accessing
that
garage.
They
were
concerned
that
the
alley
right-of-way
would
be
completely
removed
behind
the
building.
So
we
indicated
that
no,
in
fact,
this
portion
here
is
remain,
is
going
to
remain.
This
will
be
open
for
public
use.
V
V
Landscaping
to
end
screening
for
the
parking
lot
to
Jackson,
Street
northeast
and
then
also
some
additional
landscaping
to
the
residential
structure
to
the
South
staff
is
also
asking
for
additional
trees
and
shrubs
to
fill
in
along
the
rear
property
line
in
the
corner
side
yard,
as
well
for
the
alley,
vacation
staff
see
pet
staff,
has
approved
or
is
recommending
approval
of
the
alley
vacation
and
at
the
time
of
preparing
the
staff
report.
Public
Works
was
also
in
support
of
the
alley
vacation
of
756
Jackson
and
relocating
it
to
750.
What
has
to
occur.
V
Timewise
is
the
new
alley
will
have
to
be
constructed
before
the
city
of
Minneapolis
will
release
the
easement
of
7:56
Jackson
to
ensure
that
even
during
construction
that
that
alley
is
open
and
available
to
the
residential
properties
who
use
the
alley.
So
with
that
staff
hat
is
recommending
approval
of
the
applications
with
conditions
of
approval
listed
on
pages,
17
and
18,
and
returning
to
of
the
variance
as
I
mentioned
previously.
With
that
I'd
be
happy
to
take
any
questions.
All.
A
B
V
V
V
V
Yes,
so
the
path
would
be
connecting
mmediately
here
from
brought
to
Broadway
Street
northeast
following
the
public
sidewalk
southbound.
The
number
10
picks
up
here,
the
southwest
corner
of
Central
and
Broadway,
and
then
the
northbound
picks
up
here.
The
number
30
also
runs
here
as
well,
but
as
far
as
it
relates
to
the
zoning
code
reduction
for
residential
uses,
we
are
looking
specifically
at
I
had
high
frequency
transit
that
has
midday
service
serving
at
least
15
minutes
or
less
which
the
number
10
complies
with.
V
V
E
V
M
V
Show
it
in
the
middle,
it
was
noted
in
the
staff
report
that
this
location
of
the
bicycle
parking
is
is
not
preferable
that
we
want
to
see,
and
you
can
see
that
the
applicant
adjust
to
the
plan
to
show
the
bicycle
parking.
This
will
allow
for
a
clear
and
open
walkway
connecting
to
the
public
sidewalk
and
then
either
to
the
ramp
or
to
the
front
door.
There
are
also
entrances
to
these
units
here
along
that
same
yes,
this
is
not
the
preferred
look.
This
is
not
the
allowed
location
by
that
conditions.
A
Q
Q
Q
Presented
to
them,
one
time
and
prior
to
that,
we
had
met
with
members
of
their
Council,
and
the
original
proposal
for
the
project
was
working
within
just
the
site
that
we
had.
They
said
we
want
you
guys
to
be
a
little
more
aggressive
and
do
something
that
really
works
better
with
our
small
area
plan.
Can
you
look
at
pushing
that
building
up
on
to
Broadway,
and
so
your
billing
address
is
Broadway
and
starts
to
be
a
little
more
difficult
urban
street
front
that
it
works
better
with
that
with
that's
hitting
or
with
that
Street.
Q
A
U
U
We
are
now
considering
building
on
to
our
house
and
staying
in
the
neighborhood,
because
this
is
an
incredible
community
that
are
really
proud
to
be
a
part
of
you're
gonna
feel
that
kind
of
running
vain.
Through
some
of
my
comments
here,
it's
a
community
really
takes
pride
in
their
ownership
of
their
of
their
own,
their
own
neighborhood.
We.
U
U
U
Here
so
I
think
this
kind
of
comes
down
to
two
primary
things:
there's
there's
a
logistical
component:
there's
a
community
identity
component
so
logistically,
and
these
have
been
brought
up
a
little
bit
by
Shanna,
but
primary.
This
is
a
narrow
streets,
so
Jackson
Jackson's,
narrow,
it's
common
for
cars,
be
parked
on
most
of
the
block
on
both
sides.
U
To
sit
there
and
wait,
this
is
not
not
something.
That's
increased
traffic
would
have
a
minimal
impact
on
now
when
it
comes
to
wayfinding.
The
developer
has
not
listed
in
the
neighborhoods
has
not
listened
to
the
neighborhood's
concerns
about
having
commercial
space.
On
the
first
floor
of
the
building,
it
changed
the
labeling
on
the
drawings,
from
commercial
space
to
live,
slash,
work
space,
but
the
intent
is
the
same.
Jackson
Street
is
effectively
a
dead-end
streets.
Despite
the
property's
proximity
to
Broadway
and
central,
it's
not
possible
to
travel
directly
from
either
to
the
property.
U
It
is
necessary
to
drive
through
the
residential
neighborhood
to
get
there.
Wayfinding
of
the
property
is
problematic.
At
best.
There
are
areas
of
the
neighborhood
that
are
appropriate
for
commercial
development,
with
wide
streets,
logical,
wayfinding,
etc.
But
this
is
unfortunately,
not
one
of
them.
U
I've
been
to
three
to
four
community
meetings
where
this
has
come
up,
in
fact,
I
think
only
one
or
two
of
them
are.
It
was
intended
to
come
up.
The
community
feels
very
strongly
about
this.
I
will
not
say
that
I
know
for
a
fact
that
it
is
different
than
an
even
split,
but
I
did
spend
some
time.
Canvassing
the
neighborhood
in
preparation
for
this
meeting,
trying
to
get
people
to
give
some
feedback,
Shanna
and
I
would
say
from
the
three
to
four
blocks
that
I
covered.
U
It
was
one
person
who
was
four
at
one
person
who
said
he
was
moving
and
didn't
care
and
everybody
else
was
almost
unilaterally
opposed.
So
again,
there
may
be
different
things
that
came
in
via
email,
but
that
was
my
experience
when
we're
talking
about
a
lot
of
these
comparisons
to
the
properties
north
of
Broadway.
I
want
to
make
a
distinction
here.
U
Broadway
is,
and,
as
many
of
you
know
is,
is
a
pretty
significant
thoroughfare
and
especially
with
the
raised
intersection
between
Broadway
and
central
there's,
a
pretty
significant
division
between
the
types
of
businesses
and
buildings
that
are
north
of
Broadway
and
South
Quay.
So
what
may
be
an
acceptable
for
four-story
building
north
of
Broadway
would
would
stick
out
quite
sorely
in
a
neighborhood
of
story
and
a
half
and
two-story
homes.
U
Really
really
what
I
think
from
a
community
perspective
we're
less
concerned
with
apartments.
We
already
had
multiple
apartment
buildings
and
they're
they're
great
members
of
our
community.
That's
not
really
the
argument
being
made
here.
I
would
say
the
business
business
aspect
and
increased
traffic
aspect
on
a
regular
basis.
It's
probably
the
largest
concern.
So
just
in.
U
We
may
be
talking
in
terms
of
building
Heights
parking
and
traffic,
but
in
its
heart
this
is
a
community.
This
is
our
community.
Every
time
every
item
you've
heard
discussed
relates
to
a
real
concern.
This
real
neighborhood
has,
with
making
itself
better
as
a
community
I
asked
you
please
consider
our
community
in
your
choice,
to
allow
us
to
move
forward
as
it's
currently
planned.
U
W
And
Dan
have
a
lot
of
the
points.
Things
are
just
sort
of
concerns
and
things
that
we
want
to
make
sure
accounted
for.
So
I
think
the
end
answer
at
that,
but
this
doesn't
necessarily
fit
with
our
neighborhood,
but
I
think.
The
other
concern
stems
from
the
fact
that
if
you
look
around
Northeast,
there's
been
a
tremendous
about
of
development
for
luxury
market
rate
housing
of
one
in
two
bedrooms,
which
is
what
this
is.
W
So
you
know,
there's
mart
house,
there's
right:
20,
there's
the
Greenbelt
building,
those
are
huge
buildings
and
they're
not
full,
and
they
quite
some
time
and
they
continue
to
not
people
so
we're
just
a
little
confused.
Why
we
need
to
be
building
something,
that's
kind
of
invasive
and
not
really
in
keeping
with
the
neighborhood.
When
it's
not
meeting
it's
not
there's.
No
one
mint
need
there.
W
I
think
that's
really
important
and
I
think
the
other
things
I'd
like
to
kind
of
having
heard
more
of
this,
it
wasn't
clear
on
the
plan,
haven't
heard
a
little
bit
more
about
the
alley
and
pleased
to
hear
that
it'll
continue
to
connect
through
Broadway
for
walking.
So
thank
you
for
that,
but
going
into
the
kind
of
the
setback
concern.
I
think
the
other
issues
is
we're.
W
Looking
at
that
setback
from
Broadway
being
the
variance
to
decrease
that
were
a
little
bit
concerned
there,
because
one
of
our
sort
of
goals-
and
something
that's
also
part
of
our
small
area
plan-
is
that
we
increase
pedestrian
safety.
Minneapolis
assigned
our
vision,
zero
to
decrease
pedestrian
deaths
and
increase
pedestrian
safety
and
putting
a
building
closer
to
the
road
like
Broadway
does
not
facilitate
increasing
safety.
That
version
of
Broadway
actually
has
like
light
posts
embedded
in
the
sidewalks
and
things.
W
So
it's
already
very
narrow,
there's
members
of
our
community
that
can't
even
walk,
walk
their
child
strollers
through
those
areas
clearly
and
safely
so
moving.
Something
like
these
steps
onto
that
area
is
also
kind
of
a
big
concern
for
us
and
then,
as
we
look
at
sort
of
this,
this
commercial
thing
I
think
there's
a
couple
other
concerns.
You
know
one
that
it's
not.
You
know,
that
is
that
those
will
also
be
accessible
via
the
pedestrian
walkway
and
that's
not
a
desirable
place
to
be
walking
at.
W
W
It's
kind
of
been
you
know
mentioned
before
that
the
height
is
not
really
in
keeping
with
the
neighborhood,
but
I'm
also
a
little
bit
surprised
to
see
that
there
wasn't
a
lot
addressed
about
the
roof
deck
plan.
So
that's
something
that
kind
of
dramatically
changes
things
for
a
lot
of
the
neighbors,
because
they're,
basically
looking
into
people's
yards
from
up
there,
then
and
I.
Can
you
know
we're
not
allowed
to
have
roof
decks
on
our
houses?
W
You
know
those
are
just
those
are
some
of
the
concerns
that
we
have
and
we
recognize
that
there's
probably
something
going
to
be
built
here,
and
we
just
really
hope
that
it's
something
that
fits
a
little
bit
better
with
our
neighborhood
I
know.
There
are
also
concerns
that
there
were
things
like
there's.
An
the
size
doesn't
require
an
environmental
impact
study,
so
they
so
we
were
essentially
told
like
no
we're
not
going
to
do
permeable
pavement.
W
We
don't
have
to
do
anything
here
that
kind
of
thing
and
they're
trying
to
put
a
really
big
amount
of
people
on
a
really
small
lot,
without
sort
of
making
concessions
in
the
opposite
direction.
So
it
was
just
a
little
bit
sort
of
disappointing
to
hear
that,
and
you
know
it
feels
like
they're
just
kind
of
trying
to
have
it
both
ways
and
so
well.
We
recognize
that
this
higher
density
housing.
This
is
a
more
appropriate
place
in
the
neighborhood.
W
A
X
X
I've
got
some
stuff
to
read.
Then
I'd
like
to
make
some
comments
about
stuff,
I've
heard
earlier,
as
well
so
I'm
here
to
stand
in
opposition
to
this
project,
partly
as
I
feel
the
neighborhood
has
been
greatly
shut
out
of
the
process
they
presented
and
I.
Believe
last
February
to
the
neighborhood
we
formed
a
Land
Use
Committee
gave
them
initial
findings
from
Land
Use
Committee
asked
him
for
a
follow-up
meeting
and
word
never
responded
to
again.
X
Additionally,
up
until
about
two
weeks
ago,
I
feel
the
people
who
are
contacting
found
out
that
this
was
an
incomplete
application.
So
in
a
couple
weeks
they
went
from
an
incomplete
application
to
a
staff
report
to
being
in
front
of
you.
So
essentially,
we
felt
like
I
felt
I've
had
five
days
to
kind
of
like
review
and
be
able
to
go
through.
X
This
I
am
glad
that
they
brought
up
the
small
neighborhood
plan,
because
not
only
are
there
these
bits
and
pieces
that
they
brought
up,
but
there
was
eight
goals
of
the
small
area:
small
area
plan
from
the
neighborhood,
so
opportunities
I'm
gonna,
go
through
them
quickly
in
summarizing,
but
identify
opportunities
for
future
mixed-use
development
which
this
doesn't
do
because
it
doesn't
have
a
location
where
businesses
can
develop
and
hands
how
opportunities
for
homeownership.
It
does
not
do
that.
X
Provide
opportunities
for
the
development
of
commercial
and
retail
uses,
especially
the
commercial
node
at
the
neighborhood's
core,
which
this
does
not
do
as
well
improve
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
this
as
you've
heard
from
other
people.
This
doesn't
meet
with
the
kind
of
character
of
our
neighborhood,
reinforce
the
hierarchy
of
the
neighborhood
streets,
where
some
provide
local
access
and
others
provide
for
transit
because
of
the
landlocked
area
of
this,
everybody's
gonna
have
to
go
through
the
neighborhood.
To
get
to
this.
X
This
is
just
not
the
right
location
for
someplace
to
increase
traffic,
improve
accessibility
by
expanding
transit
and
bike
facilities.
That's
kind
of
neutral
enhance
the
visual
appeal
and
design
character.
One
of
the
things
we
did
brought
up
with
bring
up
was
even
the
materials
used
in
talking
about
matching
the
highlight
Center,
which
is
the
old
main
office
for
Minneapolis,
Public
Schools,
and
talking
about
more
brick,
we
didn't
get
anywhere
even
on
something
like
that.
I'd
also
like
to
point
out
from
the
neighborhood
small
area
plan
from
page
36.
X
It
specifically
calls
out
this
parcel
of
land.
I'll
read
from
that
now.
The
introduction
of
comparatively
higher
density,
mixed-use
residential
developments
along
North
East
Broadway
Street
at
the
intersection
of
Monroe,
the
design
features
of
any
new
higher
density
mixed-use
residential
development
should
include
attractive
and
functional.
X
So
I
would
also
like
to
point
out
that
the
2040
draft
plan,
if
you'd
review,
that
it
even
includes
in
that,
if
you
look
at
the
map
in
the
next
slot
to
the
south,
knowing
that
a
four-story
building
is
too
big
to
go
on
that
small
a
lot.
So
this
would
already
be
kind
of
before
we
even
completed
the
2040
plan,
putting
in
a
development
that
wasn't
aligned
with
the
way
they've
created
their
land
use
maps.
I'm
super
concerned
about
the
variance
of
a
drive
aisle
from
22
to
0
feet.
X
X
So
this
would
create
a
dead-end
alley
which
will
create
an
unfair
nuisance
for
the
people
who
live
on
the
street.
I
feel
like
we've
gotten
a
lot
of
generalizations
like
Oh.
Some
people
are
okay
with
this
or
some
people
are.
We've
talked
to
I've
talked
to
the
people
who
live
to
the
south
of
it
and
if
they're
not
in
the
room,
I,
don't
think
we
should
be
saying
they're
ready
to
sell,
because
my
conversation
they're
not
interested
in
selling.
X
X
Also,
in
my
brief
review
of
the
site
plan
portion
of
the
staff
report,
planner
just
makes
a
generalised
statement
about
the
ten
urban
plan
policies.
This
plan
with
me,
in
the
only
finding
is,
is
that
they
are
met
or
could
be
met
with
conditions
of
a
variance,
but
not
how
I
would
like
to
review
the
plan
against
those
ten
urban
plan
policies
as
well
to
make
comments
and
whether
this
application
meets
exceeds
them
a
rich,
protect
the
existing
characteristics
of
the
neighborhood
and
I
want
to
be
sure
this
project
does.
X
This
is
my
neighborhood
and
it's
before
I
plan
to
stay
and
raise
my
family,
so
I
would
ask
you
guys.
This
is
just
not
enough
time.
There's
a
lot
more!
That's
going
into
this.
This
is
trying
to
put
a
square
peg
into
a
too
small
of
a
square
hole,
and
it's
gonna
create
an
unnecessarily
burden
on
the
burden
on
the
neighbors
that
live
there,
and
this
is
without
a
doubt,
not
an
Indian
thing.
Everybody
I
talk
to
you,
I'll
say
not.
My
type
of
thing
is
interested
in
development.
X
Y
K
K
I
would
also
like
to
take
point
of
garbage
trucks
and
services
and
also
fire
trucks.
I
know
that
mark
and
I
were
talking.
He
is
also
my
neighbor
and
right
now,
when
we
see
the
garbage
trucks,
there's
not
enough
room
to
accommodate
for
them
Turney
and
they
can
barely
make
it
as
is
right
now,
and
also
it
really
would
be.
High
restriction
is
a
little
bit
of
a
bother.
K
We
do
have
the
high
light
center
across
the
street,
but
that
was
you
know,
kind
of
grandfathered
in
with
with
the
old
construction
of
the
building,
and
so
just
like
to
state.
My
points
and
I
know
it
is
a
growing
area.
I
know
that,
because
my
taxes
has
rover
rose
about
twenty
four
percent
this
year,
so
I'm
going
to
fight
that
one
too,
but
I
just
like
to
appreciate
your
consideration
from
a
residential
aspect.
So
thank
you.
Thank.
P
My
name
is
Joel
binder
I
live
at
631,
Quincy
Street,
northeast
I
really
love
this
idea
on
paper
when
I
first
saw
it
I
was
thinking
of
maybe
moving
out
of
the
place.
A
man
was
looking
for
a
place
nearby
in
the
community
is
a
lifelong
Minneapolis
resident
to
go
find,
and
so
it
looked
good
and
it
appeared
to
conform
with
the
Saint
Anthony's
master
plans.
Minneapolis
master
plan
closed
all
the
transit
that
I'd
like
and
all
the
amenities,
also
kind
of
addresses
the
missing
middle
I.
Didn't
like
Nordhaus,
it's
big,
it's
ugly.
It's
perfect!
P
And
within
the
frame
of
of
neighbors
is
a
little
bit
nicer:
they
don't
require
parking
but
they're
providing
extra.
So
overall
I
don't
hate
it,
but
one
thing
that
I'm
a
little
bit
worried
about
is
its
closest
Broadway
and
how
people
actually
realistically
will
engage
with
it
off
of
that
Street
like
just
a
quick
show
of
hands
anybody
that
does
Amazon
orders,
rideshare,
lyft,
uber
or
maybe
gets
heard
it's
a
food
delivered
from
vine
or
takeout
bites
quad.
P
If
you
look
around
I,
just
don't
see
those
drivers
pulling
in
and
point
on
to
the
streets,
still
hurrying
off
at
the
front
and
be
another
way,
I
think
they're
gonna
stop
on
Broadway.
It's
just
what's
gonna
happen.
It's
a
lot
easier.
You
could
call
this
building
812
Broadway
and
though
you
mentioned
earlier,
the
timing
and
the
different
kind
of
requirements
needed
so
call
to
Broadway
streets
and
that's
essentially
what
it's
gonna
be
for
people.
The
height
of
the
building,
is
four
stories.
P
If
you
look
nearby
over
at
Spring
Manor,
it's
a
lot
taller,
but
a
lot
of
days
when
you
get
snow
at
verse,
whether
it
covers
the
roadway
cars
go
over,
it
turns
I
see,
then
people
walk
on
it
and
they
trip
and
they
fall.
I've
helped
multiple
people
up
out
up
front
of
the
spring
Manor,
which
is
a
little
bit
out
of
sisal
and
I'm,
worried
that
something
similar
like
that
might
happen
in
front
of
this
place,
especially
if
somebody
stops
in
front
to
drop
something
off
by
the
front
door.
P
Ice
is
gonna,
accumulate
behind
them
and
the
people
are
gonna,
come
up
and
slam
on
the
brakes
and
slide
right
into
him
be
able
to
be
an
empty
car
and
people
get
their
dinner
late,
but
maybe
it'll
be
a
little
bit
more
serious,
so
I
think
there's
a
real
danger
to
health
and
safety,
and
on
that
basis
alone,
I
should
evaluate
some
of
the
Sun
maps,
see
what
might
be
the
impact
to
our
neighborhood.
The
goals
for
pedestrian
safety.
Y
Y
Y
Man
and
I
know
a
lot
of
them
that
work
for
the
city
and
they
have
a
hard
time
turning
the
corner
where
the
existing
le
is
and
now
you're
gonna,
move
to
and
I
and
I
reverb
everything
that
my
neighbors
have
said,
and
you
talk
about
moving
an
alley
and
making
it
narrow
and
talking
about
getting
acquiring
some
property
from
ma.
My
neighbors
behind
me
and
I
know
their
stand
on
this.
Like
you,
someone
said
they're
not
here
right
now,
so
we
shouldn't
be.
Y
You
know
I
mean
but
I
know
other
stand
on
this
development,
and
my
concern
is
the
safety
of
all
the
people
up
and
down
this
alley.
You
know
I
mean
for
whether
it
be
garbageman
emergency
vehicles
getting
up
and
down
it,
and
then
my
neighbor
to
the
north
of
me
also,
you
know
there's
some
concerns
there
about
his
access
and
I.
Think
you
guys
addressed
him
in
that
program.
Y
But
for
the
most
part
you
talk
about
parking,
it's
a
huge
issue
already
and
I'm
sure
you're
worried
about
it
several
times
and
there's
no
access
from
Broadway
as
you've
heard
before.
So
all
the
axes
is
going
to
come
up,
Quincy,
Street
or
Jackson
Street,
which
is
already
overloaded,
so
I'm,
just
dumb
I'm
here
to
I
oppose
it.
I
am
open-minded
about
a
lot
of
things.
You
know
I
mean,
but
this
individual
project
does
not
fit
for
several
reasons.
You
know
and
they've
all
been
addressed.
So
that's
where
I
stand.
I
think
thank
you.
A
A
A
A
T
T
L
L
L
And
then
this
is
something
a
little
bit
off
and
maybe
adjacent
and
shadow
you
can
or
cannot
answer
this.
But
what
is
the
intersection
of
this
project?
It's
it
before
us
and
the
land
sale
I'm,
just
I'm
a
little
bit
unclear
of
then
I
know
that
plenty
of
times
a
developer
will
you
know,
get
an
option
on
a
piece
of
property
without
actually
owning
it
come
before
us.
L
We
don't
know,
and
it's
not
our
business,
but
but
the
fact
that
it's
a
city-owned
parcel
I
think
is
somewhat
relevant
and
given
the
amount
of
application,
so
it
is
there
any
relevance
to
that.
I,
don't
exactly
know.
My
question.
Is
it
just
feels
like
a
funny
scenario
where
we
have
the
city
on
lot,
where
it
hasn't
gone
up
for
sale
or
or
has
it?
Where
are
we
in
that
process?
What's
going
on
so.
V
This
project
has
been
around
for
about
a
year
now
the
applicant
made
a
purchase
offer
last
year
was
not
accepted.
There
were
some
of
the
materials
that
were
required
as
part
of
the
purchase
offer
that
were
not
submitted
to
the
city,
and
so
essentially,
they
determined
that
they
do
not
have
an
application
before
them.
We
have
an
interesting
situation
with
the
ally
in
that
public
works
will
not
release
the
easement
of
the
alley
over
756
Jackson
without
providing
a
new
ally,
some
routes
or
improving
the
existing
alley.
V
So
the
timing
is
such
that
the
applicant
had
made
the
decision
to
make
the
land
use
applications
for
the
entire
site
area,
as
we've
been
describing
so
far
today,
knowing
that
they
would
adjust
the
alley
and
again,
of
course,
have
to
construct
the
alley
before
the
city
would
have
released.
The
easement.
V
In
order
to
make
an
application
to
the
city
of
Minneapolis
for
property,
that's
not
under
their
own
ownership,
they
need
to
have
authorization
from
the
current
property
owner
to
make
that
application
that
was
granted.
So
it's
not
it's
not
an
approval
of
a
sale.
It
has
no
relationship
really
to
the
sale.
It
just
is
the
applicant
to
make
the
application
and
knowing
the
condition
with
the
ally
and
the
existing
easement.
The
developer
had
made
the
decision
to
follow
the
process
in
these
steps.
V
L
V
L
I
mean
I,
guess
I
bring
this
up
because
we
have
sometimes
have
these
discussions
on
the
diocese
of
consistency
with
the
comp
plan
on
the
comp
plan
has
a
lot
of
policies
and
our
job.
You
know,
according
to
the
my
understanding
of
the
ISO
Supreme
Court
case
law,
is
we
sort
of
you
know?
We
weigh
it
right.
We
weigh
the
different
parts
of
the
comp
plan
and
we
determine
what
is
and
what
isn't.
L
Consistent
with
that-
and
you
know
and
I
in
general
I
think
it's
a
good
project,
but
I
also
think
there
are.
You
know
there
are
elements
that
I
think
we
could
see
more,
more
consistency
and
I.
Don't
know
they
said:
that's
not
our
jurisdiction
per
se.
It's
just
a
little
bit
of
a
fun
scenario.
When
it's
a
city
lot
I
tend
to
be
over
the
philosophical
persuasion
that
we
should
be
pushing
for
the
highest
possible.
D
Have
a
question
both
I
guess
for
the
owner
and
the
gentleman
from
the
Neighborhood
Association.
The
letter
from
the
Land
Use
Committee
in
in
our
packets
isn't
dated,
and
the
gentleman
said
that
I
think
that
you
came
to
the
neighborhood
committee
once
and
then
didn't
come
back
or
something
I'm
just
wondering
how
this
letter
figured
in
when
that
was
sent
and
was
that,
before
or
after
a
meeting
or
instead
of
a
meeting
or
I.
X
D
X
A
There's
no
further
discussion.
I'll
just
quickly
add
you
know,
I
think
or
one
is
generally
an
acceptable
zoning
district
along
a
community
corridor
like
Broadway.
In
this
instance,
we
do
have
the
neighborhood
master
plan
that
also
supports
somewhat
higher
density
along
that
corridor,
so
that
I
think
that
really
reinforces
the
case
for
higher
zoning
than
the
current
r1a
againö
or
one
is
generally
compatible
in
locations
like
that
across.
I
J
I
M
A
B
A
A
L
L
J
L
Those
are
requirements
that
are
based
in
exactions,
which
are
which
are
related
to
items
outside
of
the
building
itself.
So
in
all
of
the
case
law
on
exactions,
the
Supreme
Court
level,
at
least
those
those
relate
to
a
pathway
right.
Those
relate
to
some
sort
of
public
invasion
of
private
space,
so
the
Supreme
Court
case
law
on
conditions
on
a
building
is,
is
in
what's
called
the
Penn
Central
test,
which
is
a
test
that
was
applied
to
a
historic
designation.
L
L
So
for
that,
for
them
to
achieve
more
than
that,
we
can
look
to
the
comprehensive
plan
which
is
part
of
our
finding
us
under
our
conditional
use
departments.
We
need
to
look
at
a
comprehensive
plan
and
consider
the
comprehensive
plan
way,
the
comprehensive
plan
as
a
whole
and
and
when
we
look
to
the
comprehensive
plan.
L
T
T
Having
a
discretionary
approval
in
front
of
us
does
not
give
us
the
ability
to
kind
of
cherry-pick
any
policy
from
the
Comprehensive
Plan
and
attach
it
to
that
discretionary
approval.
So
I
would
exercise
caution
in
making
the
relationship
between
the
height
and
number
of
bedrooms
required
in
units
within
the
building
and.
L
Know
happy
to
defer,
but
the
policies
are
policy
1.8
preserve
the
stability
and
diversity
of
the
city's
neighborhoods,
while
allowing
for
increased
density
to
attract
and
retain
long
term
residents
and
businesses,
and
one
point
in
point,
one
says:
promote
arranged
housing,
types
and
residential
densities
policy.
Three
point:
six
foster
complete
communities
by
preserving
and
increasing
high
quality
housing
opportunities
suitable
for
all
ages
and
household
types.
I
A
Discussion
on
adding
this
condition
and
I
think
we
can
just
do
a
perhaps
a
roll
call
vote
on
adding
the
condition.
I
will
add
just
to
kind
of
reiterate
what
mr.
Wittenberg
said.
I
and
I
agree
with
Commissioner
Rockwell
that
our
comprehensive
plan
does
support
or
does
encourage
the
city
to
increase
the
variety
of
housing
types,
particularly
and
I.
Think
it's
well
known
and
documented
that
there's
a
shortage
of
larger
rental
units
out
there,
I
guess
I-
do
have
some
concern
about
tying
that
to
building
height
I.
Think
for
the
condition
use
permit.
A
You
know
we
we
do
have
to
have
that
Nexus,
so
things
that
might
be
addressed
by
an
increase
height
of
a
building
might
be
looking
at
shadowing
on
neighboring
structures
or
adjusting
setbacks
to
account
for
that
increased
height
or
as
if
we
get
into
some
of
those
other
policies
of
the
Comprehensive
Plan
that
are
closely
related,
I'm
a
little
concerned,
we're
kind
of
getting
outside
of
of
what
what
is
appropriate
there.
So
I
I
would
not
support
it's
motion,
so
committee
Iraq
vote.
I
J
I
M
A
B
Wanted
to
say
that
you
know
this
project
is
taller
than
the
surrounding
buildings,
they're
generally
single
store,
or
you
know,
family
two
and
a
half
some
duplexes.
This
project
is,
on
the
north
end
of
the
alley,
with
significant
distances
between
the
existing
homes
with
most
of
the
shadowing
back
flowing
onto
the
street.
So
it's
not
impacting
much
of
the
existing
homes.
I
think
that's
an
important
point.
As
we
try
to
grow.
Our
city
is
where
these
taller
buildings
are
located.