►
From YouTube: August 13, 2018 City Planning Commission
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission
A
Good
afternoon,
I
will
call
order
the
August
13th
meeting
of
the
Minneapolis
City
Planning
Commission.
My
name
is
Matt
Brown
I
serve
as
president
of
the
Commission
I'm
joined
today
by
commissioners,
Alison
krons,
Irma,
green
Oh,
schrader,
Lukey,
Pierce,
Weezy
and
Rockwell
I'm
Leslie
silence
any
mobile
devices
and
we
can
get
started
with
our
meeting.
Commissioner
Coleman
is
also
here
for
the
record.
Our
first
item
business
today
is
to
approve
the
actions
from
the
July
30th
meeting.
They
have
a
motion
to
approve
those
actions.
B
A
A
second
motion,
and
a
second
all
in
favor
and
that
motion
carries
our
next
item-
is
to
approve
the
agenda,
we'll
sort
through
the
agenda,
determine
which
items
will
be
considered
on
consent
which
will
be
discussed
and
which
will
be
continued
to
another
meeting.
I
can
find
hard
copies
of
the
agenda
in
the
hallways,
so
starting
at
the
top
item.
One
is
the
gas
and
snack
tobacco
store
at
640
East
Lake
Street,
that
is
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
shopping
center.
A
Is
there
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
1
see
no
one
I'll
put
item
1
on
consent
item
2?
Is
the
cup
foods
tobacco
shop
at
37:59,
Chicago
Avenue
South?
That's
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
shopping
center
as
well
as
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on.
A
That
item
see
no
one
will
put
tulle
on
consent
item
3
is
mosaic
phase
3
of
13
2011
Avenue,
1350,
Lagoon
Avenue
in
2900,
Fremont
Avenue,
south
conditional
use
permit
for
a
Planned
Unit
development
related
to
signs
will
continue
that
item
to
the
August
27th
meeting.
If
anyone
is
here
for
that
item,
4
is
a
vehicle
storage
facility
at
3:45,
Industrial
Boulevard,
that's
a
conditional
use
permit
for
outdoor
storage.
You
call
rental
and
site
plan
reviews
anyone
here
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
4.
A
No
one
will
put
four
on
consent
item.
5
is
the
minneapolis
impound
facility
at
52,
Avenue,
north
and
100
herbing
Avenue
North.
Several
applications
for
an
impound
facility
will
discuss
item
five.
If
anyone
is
here
for
that.
No
commissioner
Rockwell
had
a
question
about
that
item.
6
is
the
Marshall
apartments
at
1625,
Marshall
Street
northeast?
Is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
6?
So
we
have
someone
here
for
item
6.
We
can
discuss
that.
Also
item
7
next
door.
A
A
Item
8
is
the
Ox
op
gallery
and
residences
at
11:07
through
1111
Washington,
Avenue,
South,
1100
3rd
Street,
South
variance
and
site
plan
review
for
a
new
mixed-use
building
at
that
location.
Anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
8c
no
and
we'll
put
8
on
consent
item
9
is
the
7th
and
Portland
mixed-use
development
at
505,
12
and
528
7th
Street
south
that
application
has
been
withdrawn.
A
So
if
anyone
is
here
will
not
be
considering
that
item,
10
is
Oaks
Minnehaha
53,
1018,
22:26,
30
34
and
38
Minnehaha
Avenue
53:29,
48th,
Avenue
South,
three
applications
for
a
new
residential
building
at
the
application.
Senator
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
10c.
A
No
one
will
put
item
10
on
consent
item
evan
11
is
oaks,
long
follow-up,
53,
63,
67
and
71
Minnehaha
Avenue
and
49:12
he's
54th
Street
several
applications
for
a
new
mixed-use
building
at
that
location.
As
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
11.
So
we
do
have
someone
here
for
that.
We
can
discuss
I'm,
11
and
finally,
item
12
is
the
zoning
code
text
amendment
and
that
item
will
be
continued
indefinitely,
so
we
will
not
discuss
that
today.
A
So
our
agenda,
as
amended,
is
as
follows:
items
1,
2,
4,
8
and
10
will
be
on
consent,
we'll
discuss
items,
5,
6,
7
and
11
item
3
will
be
continued
to
August,
27th
and
item
12
will
be
continued
indefinitely.
Also
item
9
has
been
withdrawn.
Commissioners
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
agenda
as
amended.
A
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor
and
that
motion
carries.
We
have
no
committee
of
the
whole
consent
agenda.
Today's
so
next
may
have
a
motion
to
continue
item
3
to
the
August
27th
meeting
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor.
That
motion
carries
next,
may
have
a
motion
to
continue
item
12
indefinitely.
A
If
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor
that
motion
carries
next
may
I
have
a
motion
to
accept
the
withdrawal
of
item
9
that
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
2,
4,
8
and
10.
Anyone
here
see
no
one
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
and
commissioners
may
I
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
consent
agenda,
a
motion
and
a
second.
C
A
F
F
There
you
go
451
existing
trees
and
so
the
applicants
who
go
to
the
site
and
did
like
a
survey
of
it
and
only
included
trees
like
not
scrub,
invasive
species
but
actual
trees,
and
that's
noted
on
the
SE
plan.
The
partner
51
for
those
existing
trees
and
then
90
for
our
new
on
site
and
35
would
be
located
in
the
public
right-of-way
and
that
actually
totals
537.
So
on
site.
There's
for
554
trees
and
some
are
additional.
Trees
are
located
in
the
public
right-of-way.
So
at
the
spacing
requirement.
F
All
of
the
parking
spaces
in
the
public
parking
lot
and
the
staff
parking
lot
are
within
50
feet
of
an
on-site
tree.
The
areas
that
are
not
within
50
feet
of
an
on-site
tree
would
be
the
drop-off
area
in
front
of
the
building
and
staff
is
recommending
that
they
comply
with
that
requirement,
but
then
most
of
those
most
of
the
storage
areas
so
anywhere
where
you
are
with
over
50
feet
from
these
landscaped
areas
that
are
shown.
F
So
that's
most
of
this
storage
area
on
the
east
side
of
in
white,
as
well
as
most
of
the
area
on
west
side
of
in
glades.
You
do
have
some
tree
stands
here
in
the
center
and
then
along
the
southern
border.
There's
a
stand
of
trees
there
as
well,
but
pretty
much
that's
liver
as
you
go
across
east
to
west.
It's
not.
A
Right
any
further
questions
of
staff
doesn't
ruffle
you.
No
no
further
questions
doesn't
look
like
anyone
else.
Has
questions
either
so
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
at
this
time.
I
don't
know
if
the
applicant
has
anything
further
to
add
to
Janelle's
presentation.
Not
we
can
do
one
more
check.
Is
anyone
else
here
for
item
seeing
no
one
I'll
close
public
hearing
and
commissioners
we
have
three
applications
before
us.
Would
anyone
like
to
start
things
off
with
a
motion?
Commissioner
Rockwell.
E
My
concern
is
the
heat
island
effect
of
not
having
trees
in
those
Lots,
but
it
strikes
me
that
the
security
concern
is
really
a
budget
concern
right
I
mean
if
we
had
unlimited
budget,
we
could
as
I
sent
did
you
know
earlier
today
we
could
hire
a
security
guard
per
tree
and
it
would
be
very
secure
so
somewhere
between
that
and
our
current
security
budget
wise,
a
practical
way
of
managing
security.
On-Site.
I
Thank
You
Commissioner,
commissioners
and
chair,
my
name
is
Robert
riddle
and
director
of
design
and
construction
for
property
services
for
City
properties
and
worked
with
clever
architects
and
as
RF
engineers
on
the
architectural
and
civil
and
landscape
design.
In
this
project
very
closely,
along
with
our
security
manager,
our
Thomas
in
property
services,
security
at
this
site
is
provided
through
a
variety
of
means.
We
have
a
secure
fence
perimeter,
we
have
cameras
stationed
throughout
the
site
and
we
have
patrolling
security
guards.
E
I
E
A
B
A
H
L
You
I'll
be
voting
no
on
the
motion
because
of
the
addition
of
the
seventh
condition.
I
found
very
persuasive
the
arguments
for
the
the
statements
regarding
the
need
for
security
in
that
parking
lot
and
the
need
to
see
it
I
think
sometimes
and
I
think
actually
that
the
city
has
done
a
good
job
of
trying
to
compensate
for
the
fact
that
the
trees
can't
go
exactly
maybe
where
they
should
by
code.
L
What
gets
my
attention,
particularly
is
the
integrity
of
evidence
seized
by
the
Minneapolis
Police
Department
and
the
State
Patrol.
Most
evidence
in
cases
is
kept
securely
at
the
police
department
and
cars.
Obviously,
we
can't
do
that
for
and
cars
have
to
be
parked
somewhere
and
they
have
to
be
in
spaces,
and
they
have
to
be
in
spaces
where
they
are
as
secure
to
the
best
we
can
do.
L
M
My
question
runs
along
the
same
line:
I
wanted
a
question
for
staff
that
there's
another
way
to
get
to
commish
Rockwell's.
You
know
stated
goal
I'd
very
much
share
that
that
goal,
but
we
do
have
kind
of
to
the
balance
of
added
expense,
as
well
as
being
able
to
kind
of
maintain
sight.
So
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
way
to
do
this
through
compliance
through
shrubs
or
other
ways.
E
I
can
just
expand
a
little
bit
on
that
sort
of
that
stated
intent
of
the
motion
since
its
referenced.
You
know,
I
think
that
that
having
the
number
of
trees,
the
right
number
of
phrase,
in
effect,
more
trees,
is
great
and
in
having
landscaping
and
stormwater
management.
It's
great
as
well
and
I
served
a
gut
check
today
am
I
like
how
much
does
tree
cover
with
the
distribution
over
a
site
matter,
and
you
know
the
Cooperative
Extension,
which
is
all
land-grant
universities.
Extensions
combined
together,
pulled
all
that
review
where
you
know
in
summers.
E
Afternoons
temperature
difference
between
shaded
and
unshaded
ground
can
be
as
much
as
36
degrees,
Fahrenheit
and
the
ground
that
holds
that
temperature
releases
that
at
night
making
that
neighborhood
a
hotter
neighborhood,
and
so
you
know,
I-
think
the
intent
of
the
motion
is
to
be
really
respectful
of
that
heat
island
specifically,
and
not
just
the
number
of
trees,
which
I'm
glad
to
say
that
you
have
worked
down
a
bit,
and
you
know
in
the
initial
I
the
applicants.
Initial
testimony
you
know
sounded
like
security
was
a
budgetary
issue
not
so
to
Commissioner
squeezies
question.
E
You
know
if
we
add
more
cameras
and
poles
that
we
can
achieve
the
same
level
securing
the
same
eyes
and
we
and
the
Planning
Commission
are
not
in
charge
with
budget
and
we're
not
allowed
to
consider
financial
considerations.
And
if
it's
a
budgetary
consideration
you
know
my
feeling
is.
We
should
hold
the
line.
A
G
A
question
for
applicant,
so
not
that
I
need
you
to
like
explain
on
the
public
record
exactly
where
the
vehicle
start
as
evidence
are
stored,
as
opposed
to
people
who
are
parked
illegally
in
a
small
emergency.
But
is
it
a
situation
where
perhaps
not
all
12
acres
need
to
be
devoid
of
trees?
Is
there
a
place
where
we
can
find
balance,
or
maybe
a
portion
of
the
lot
could
at
least
have
some
judicious
use?
Trees
I
mean?
Is
there
an
opportunity
to
maybe
find
compromise
where
we
can?
I
It's
it's
possible.
The
staff
Public
Works
and
the
impound
facility
prefers
to
have
the
greatest
flexibility
as
possible,
with
location
of
the
impounded
of
the
police.
Hold
vehicles
in
particular,
and
they're
generally
kept
closer
to
the
police
forensic
building,
but
they
don't
the
the
number
of
them
goes
up
and
down
over
time,
and
so
they
can't
have
a
separate
area.
That's
more
secure
for
those
for
one.
I
There
is
it's
it's
a
very,
very
large
site
and,
as
I
said,
we've
concentrated
the
new
landscaping
in
areas
that
screen
views
from
public
right
of
ways.
If
I
could
just
maybe
degress
for
a
second
and
come
back
to
you
and
factor
Commission
over
Rocco's
comments.
The
exceptions
that
are
allowed
also
allow
for
the
site
plan
to
be
consistent
with
character
of
the
surrounding
area.
So
I'll
note
that
to
the
north
is
a
bus
facility
with
bus
storage.
Parking
lots
to
the
east
is
a
power
substation
to
the
south.
I
G
So
can
I
quit.
Can
I
quick
just
interject
for
a
second
and
say
so?
For
example,
if
commission
rock
walls
condition
number
seven
was
applied
to
a
certain
percentage
of
say,
like
I'm,
assuming
that
50
percent
of
the
site
isn't
evidence
storage
but
like
let's
just
say
we
were
super
conservative
and
our
number,
and
we
said
you.
N
G
I
Think
I
think
that
I
could
say
that
it's
doable
I
think
the
idea
that
the
area
west
of
Van
White
is
an
overflow
area.
That's
primarily
going
to
be
used
during
spring
and
fall
sweeps
and
winter
snow
emergencies.
That
area,
then
other
parts
of
the
year
may
not
be
used
much
at
all,
and
so
that's
an
area
that
could
potentially
see
a
little
more
vegetation
within
the
parking
area.
Great.
G
I
That
could
be
the
case.
A
little
bit.
I
also
wanted
to
point
out.
We
do
have
this
large
retention
pond
that
has
rain
WA
rain
garden
type
plantings
that
don't
qualify
towards
our
landscaping.
They're
not
considered
shrubs
they're,
not
considered
trees
under
the
particular
landscape
zoning
requirements.
So
we
have
a
very
large
landscaped
area
in
the
northwest
corner
of
the
site.
That's
not
helping
us
meet
minimum
requirements.
F
And
also
note
that
the
landscaping
that
is
proposed
where
it's
located
it
was
also
tied
to
other
alternative
compliance
requests
such
as
the
shrub
requirement,
reducing
that
and
the
building
placement.
So
it
would,
you
know,
you'd
have
to
come
with
different
reasons
for
approving
alternative
compliance
for
those
standards.
If
the
ultra
landscaping
were
drastically
changed.
J
B
E
A
E
H
H
K
I
Thank
You,
commissioner,
at
this
polls
and
cameras,
would
be
a
additional
cost
consideration.
I
guess
the
question
is:
would
we
be
moving
trees
that
we
currently
have
meeting
the
minimum
requirement
for
the
site
to
a
location
that
meets
the
requirement
for
distance
from
parking
spaces
or
would
be
adding
trees
and
I
guess
the
board
would
have
to
or
the
Commission
would
have
to
direct
us
to
exceed
the
minimum
requirements
for
landscaping
to
add
trees
that
we're
already
exceeding
a
little
bit?
But
we
would
want
clarification
from
the
Commission
on
that.
A
G
Just
a
couple
things
that
I'm
trying
to
get
clarity
on
here,
so
it
seems
to
me,
given
how
different
funding
mechanisms
work
for
civic
projects
that
delaying
the
planting
of
trees.
Is
that
necessarily
going
to
be
the
straw
that
breaks
the
camel's
back
on
this
there's
a
sort
of
thing
where
we
delay
it?
You
get
an
extra
year.
It
really.
It
actually
makes
the
funding
more
difficult,
because
all
some
it's
not
tied
into
the
same
package
I
mean.
Is
this
gonna
even
matter
I
mean
or
is
it?
G
Does
it
really
just
come
down
to
trees
or
no
trees
period,
because
I
have
to
tell
you
I'm
a
little
bit
like
you
know,
given
how
different
things
work
when
it
comes
to
public
funny,
it
seems
like
sometimes
delaying
things
means
it
has
to
come
out
of
a
future
pot
of
money
that
has
to
be
yet
to
be
allocated
so
I
mean.
Is
that
really,
if
we
delayed
it
and
added
in
new
years,
I
can
solve
all
the
budgetary
woes?
G
I
All
right
so
I'll
have
to
answer
that
in
two
parts
one
would
be
with
Commissioner
Rockwell's
amendment,
which
would
require
the
relocation
or
addition
of
trees
within
50
feet
of
every
parking
space,
which
would
require
a
number
of
additional
poles
and
cameras.
Presumably,
we
also
have
lighting
that
has
to
be
considered
and
how
the
trees
might
obstruct
the
lighting
so
to
come
back
and
do
that
later
will
be
an
inconvenience
in
a
number
of
ways.
I
You
generally
don't
look
at
our
project
budgets
and
and
take
that
into
consideration,
but
we've
been
working
with
a
budget.
That's
grown
considerably
over
the
design
period,
since
we
moved
the
building
from
where
it
is
now
at
the
east
side
of
the
site
to
the
west
side
of
the
site,
where
the
land
is
more
polluted,
we've
had
to
drive
pilings,
deeper
and
and
restore.
H
G
Then
just
some
clarity
from
janela,
because
I
interpreted
your
answer
earlier
to
mean
that
if
it
meant
diverting
trees
from
the
existing
proposed
planting
or
landscape
plan
to
fill
in
this
lot,
that
that
would
actually
trigger
other
alternative
compliance
needs.
So
in
fact
the
if
we
made
them
less
emotional
with
the
seventh
condition
it
would
be
in
addition
to
what
is
currently
in
front
of
us.
Is
that
am
I
understand
this
correctly.
That's
correct!
Thank
you.
Just
wanted
some
double
check
on
that.
G
G
No
idea
how
many
vehicle
I
don't
know
whether
fifty
percent
is
reasonable,
whether
30
percent
allows
them
to
have
sight
through
drive
aisles,
I,
don't
know.
If
you
have
a
number,
you
want
to
propose
a
percentage
or,
if
you
just
want
to
say
the
area
to
the
west
of
you,
know
the
overflow
parking,
but
it
seems
as
though
we
might
actually
be
able
to
achieve
a
compromise
that
works
for
everyone.
If
we
come
up
with
a
number
just.
I
G
E
A
Right
so
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
amend
the
proposed
condition:
number
7,
that
each
parking
space
is
located,
no
more
than
50
feet
from
a
deciduous
tree
in
the
area
west
of
been
white
Boulevard.
So
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
any
discussion
on
that.
We
can
just
add
that
make
that
amendment
on
a
voice
vote
so
on
favor
any
opposed,
and
that
motion
carries
so.
B
J
B
A
A
O
Good
evening,
members
of
the
Commission
item-
16
7
R,
1625,
Marshall,
Street,
northeast
and
16
27,
Marshall
Street,
northeast
they're,
located
just
north
of
the
railroad
tracks
on
the
east
side
of
Marshall
Street,
which
is
a
community
corridor.
An
aerial
image
here,
just
east
of
the
river
and
currently
the
site
has
the
northern
parcel.
Has
a
single-family
dwelling
in
the
southern
parcel?
Just
has
a
garage
on
it
shared
driveway
down
the
middle.
They
would
be
demolished
to
make
way
for
two
for
unit
buildings,
one
on
the
north
side,
one
on
the
south
side.
O
O
Rendered
images
showing
these
structures,
both
of
them
need
to
be
rezone
from
are
to
be.
Two
are
three
to
allow
the
four
unit
buildings,
as
I
mentioned,
the
increase
in
height
variance
on
the
front
yard
setback
for
the
buildings.
The
established
setback
is
actually
30
feet
because
of
the
building
north
of
16th,
seven
and
so
I'd.
Go
down
to
fifteen
point
five
to
seventeen
point
five
because
of
the
angled
front
lot
line
and
then
to
nine
point.
Four
to
an
eleven
point:
five
for
the
second-story
balcony.
O
The
applicant
submitted
shadow
studies
showing
that
the
increase
from
two
and
a
half
to
three
stories
would
be
pretty
negligible
and
difference
on
shadowing,
and
it
mainly
just
be
during
the
winter
months
and
then
the
two
additional
applications
would
be
for
1625
and
it's
to
allow
an
increase
in
pervious
services
from
60%
to
65%
and
then
to
reduce
the
interior
side
yard
setback.
So
that's
the
southern
setback
along
the
railroad
property,
which
is
vacant
to
go
from
9
feet
to
5
feet.
3,
inches
and
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Tech.
A
C
C
A
A
P
P
Four
in
each
building
times
total
of
eight
bedrooms
at
64
people
per
bedroom,
you
put
one
per
bedroom
and
then,
if
there's
two
per
better
and
that's
128
people
in
this
small
little
area
now
the
Planning
Commission
said
that
well,
this
Marshall
Street
is
what's
called
a
community
corridor
and
because
this
is
a
community
corridor
that
justifies
going
from
only
you
can
have
two
family
to
this
big
multi-family
difference.
But
you
know
Marshall
Avenue
is
a
very.
It
is
a
very
busy
corridor,
that's
correct,
but
it's
actually
the
East
River
Road
to
Minneapolis.
P
So
if
you
think
about
it,
if
you
are
on
the
West,
River
Road
and
South
Minneapolis
or
the
East
River
Road
and
st.
Paul
I,
don't
think
anyone
would
think.
Let's
have
this
a
community
corridor
like
Lexington,
Avenue
or
Industrial
Boulevard,
which
would
be
a
reason
to
justify
changing
zoning
from
where
there'd
only
be
two
families
per
parcel.
So
now
there's
going
to
be
almost
triple
there
and
the
justification
for
that
is
well.
P
P
There
and
they're
acquiring
the
property
to
tear
all
the
down,
so
that
can
be
found
property
across
from
Marshall
they're
on
the
Mississippi
River
side,
and
it
just
doesn't
seem
like
it
would
make
sense
to
me
that
you
would
want
to
increase
substantially
the
density
in
that
area.
If
it's
going
to
be
part,
barred
and
Parkview
stuff
on
on
the
other
side
of
the
river.
P
So
so
so
so
that
didn't
seem
to
me
to
make
sense-
and
that
was
the
recommendation
that,
because
this
was
a
community,
a
busy
corridor,
that
you
can
put
more
density
in
there
and
then
the
study
says
about
two
and
a
half
blocks
south
of
there
there's
a
three-story
building,
so
that
justifies
putting
in
this
three-story
building
or
three
and
a
half
story
building
in
an
area
that
has
totally
just
one
and
a
half
stories,
two
story,
buildings
and
another
thing
about
the
plan.
Is
it's
a
beautiful
design?
P
It
looks
like
a
beautiful
planet,
just
in
my
mind,
the
wrong
lot
to
put
it
on,
but
in
addition
to
having
the
three
stories
they're,
also
proposing
that
there
be
basically
a
patio
on
on
what
would
be
the
fourth
story,
which
would
really
you
know
if
it
closed
that
in
it
would
be
a
then
a
four
story:
building
not
a
three
story:
building
there
are
little
balconies
or
they
each
unit
already
on
the
first
and
second.
But
then
they
want
to
put
this
balcony
on
the
on
the
what's
basically
a
fourth
floor.
P
So
now
you're
way
up
over
all
of
the
existing
and,
of
course
you
get
those
people
looking
down
not
just
from
the
windows
but
from
the
whole,
almost
a
horse
store,
so
that
didn't
really
seem
to
make
sense.
I
noticed
you
know,
and
the
plan
is
a
nice
plan.
I
just
think
it's
the
wrong
piece
of
property
you'll
see
in
the
back
where
there
have
in
the
parking
and,
of
course,
there's
only
a
I
guess
they
only
need
eight
units,
but
there's
11
parking
stalls
for
what
potentially
could
be.
P
If
you
do
the
math,
if
you
put
two
people
in
a
bedroom
which
sounds
kind
of
reasonable,
these
have
four
bedroom
units
in
them.
You
know
that's
128
people
with
eight
hours
or
11
cars.
You
know
and
I
have
to
write
all
the
way
over
in
second
Street
and
17th,
there's
a
there's
a
bus
line,
but
that's
two
and
a
half
blocks
away.
That's
not
right
next
door
right
outside
so
I
think
you
know
a
really
question
that,
but
but
like
in
the
back
on
the
ground,
they'll
put
that
they
recognize
would
be.
P
It
would
be
appropriate
to
put
a
privacy
fence
between
our
property
and
their
property,
but
up
I'm,
not
on
this
patio
up
on
the
very
top,
which
I
think
is
basically
a
fourth
floor.
There's
no
privacy
fence
up.
There
is
just
open
fencing
where
it
does
really
look
over
on
its
and
it's
not
really
three
stories.
It
really
almost
four
stories
when
you
think
about
it,
and-
and
you
know
that's
a
lot
different
than
all
these
one
and
a
half
two
story-
buildings
that
are
around
it.
You've.
P
Don't
know
this
is
kind
of
like
a
legal
question.
I
was
wondering
about
my
uncle
owned
the
property
before
we
bought
it
in
the
1980s
or
1990s.
The
current
owner
then
needed
an
easement
to
get
a
refinancing
and
he
gave
it
to
him.
So
you
know:
does
that
and
that
now
they're
proposing
moving
the
building
over.
So
it's
about
nine
feet
or
88.9
feet
off
of
our
property.
Does
that
easement
go
away?
Then?
If
it's
November.
A
P
Just
to
sum
it
up,
I
I,
just
think
you
know
it's
a
beautiful.
The
pictures
are
gorgeous
it's.
What
looks
well
designed
property,
it's
just
that.
It's
really
gonna
put
a
lot
more
density
in
there
only
because
this
is
what
they,
the
planner
says,
is
a
community
corridor
which
can
take
higher
density,
but
it's
higher
density.
P
A
L
A
B
O
C
A
L
A
E
A
M
J
A
K
C
K
L
A
J
A
K
A
A
Q
Good
evening,
commissioners,
this
is
the
Oaks
Longfellow
development
located
at
or
on
Minnehaha
Avenue
and
51st
students
on
the
north
east
corner
of
that
intersection.
In
just
south
of
these
54th
Street
you
get
into
the
VA
hospital
owned
land
and
related
facilities.
There
are
three
variances
before
you
tonight,
psycho
interview
in
the
Diploma
Narine
final
plant.
Q
Excuse
me,
Baron
street
is
the
off
street
parking
requirement
for
the
commercial
use
and
building
from
two
spaces
down
to
zero,
and
then
you
have
site
plan
review
for
68
Jolan
units
and
a
1,400
square
feet
square
foot,
commercial
space,
that
commercial
space
Sun
was
located
in
the
corner
and
then
your
main
entrance
to
the
residential
building
is
located
not
quite
mid
block
along
Minnehaha
Avenue.
This
is
that
the
site
plan
for
the
project,
here's
these
54th
Street
and
then
Minnehaha
Avenue.
Q
Q
We
are
recommending
approval
of
all
applications
and
they
we
they
don't
need
alternative
compliance,
but
we
are
recommending
that
they
meet
the
on-site
three
requirement
of
two
and
they
were
proposing
one
and
ornamental
tree
and
we're
asking
that
they
provide
two
canopy
trees
and
I
will
stand
for
any
questions.
Okay
and.
A
R
My
name
is
norm
yarnÃs
and
the
principal
and
the
folks
Properties
LLC
the
developer,
we're
here
to
answer
any
questions.
This
is
a
project
that
we'd
like
to
do
in
continuance,
with
our
Tod
focus
for
be
ours,
I
think
7th
and
8th
Tod
projects,
the
fourth
and
fifth
in
Minneapolis,
and
we
have
three
more
in
Dallas,
Fort
Worth.
The
architect
is
here
we're
both
here
to
answer
questions.
If
you
happen,
I
intend.
A
D
D
D
A
N
N
Yeah
I
mean
I,
guess
I'll
just
say
generally
about
the
project.
You
know
this
is
in
a
spot,
that's
obviously
very
close
to
the
Metro
blue
line.
It's
a
good
use
of
site.
That's
currently
vacant
I
would
I
think
I
said
it
committee.
The
hold
of
this
probably
even
could
be
a
little
bit
larger,
but
I
think
this
is
certainly.
J
A
A
J
K
A
Just
add
it,
since
the
requirement
would
normally
be
only
two
with
spaces,
I
think
it
would
kind
of
create
an
awkward
site
plan.
There
were
a
couple
parking
spaces
carved
out
and
I
would
agree
that,
especially
for
a
small
commercial
use
like
this.
That
is
really
near
an
LRT
station.
It
would
tend
to
be
something
that
is
very
locally
oriented
and
and
wouldn't
require
a
lot
of
big
vehicular
traffic.
So
there's.