►
From YouTube: November 5, 2018 City Planning Commission
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission Meeting
A
Good
afternoon,
I
will
call
to
order
this
special
meeting
of
the
Minneapolis
City
Planning
Commission
for
a
November
5th.
My
name
is
Matt
Brown
a
serve
as
president
of
the
Commission
I'm
joined
today
by
commissioners,
Ellison,
Schrader,
Lukey,
Pierce,
Weezy
and
Rockwell
first
item
business
today
is
to
prove
the
actions
from
the
October
29th
meeting.
Commissioners
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
those
actions.
B
A
Have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor
that
motion
carries
next.
We
will
organize
the
agenda,
determine
which
items
we'll
discuss
and
which
will
be
considered
on
consent,
so
starting
at
the
top
item.
1
is
a
tool
and
216
Oliver
Avenue
self.
That's
a
rezoning
and
a
minor
subdivision.
So
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
of
1c,
no
one
will
put
item
1
on
consent
to
is
a
2030
Sheridan
Avenue
South.
A
That's
an
expansion
of
conforming
use
so
I'm
even
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
2
I
see.
No
one
will
put
that
on
consent.
Item
3
is
the
new
way:
Women's
Recovery
Center
at
2104,
Stevens
Avenue
conditional
use,
permit
and
site
plan
review
for
a
community
residential
facility.
Anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
3.
No
one
will
put
that
on
consent.
A
Finally,
item
4
as
the
Bobby
and
Steve's
AutoWorld
Nicollet
at
5801
through
5027
Nicollet,
Avenue
and
9
through
15
East,
58th
Street.
Several
applications
related
to
a
convenience
store
automotive
facility
will
discuss
item
4.
So
our
agenda
as
amended,
is
as
follows:
items
1,
2,
&
3,
will
be
considered
on
consent
and
we'll
discuss
item
four
commissioners.
They
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
agenda
as
amended.
A
We
have
no
committee
of
the
whole
consent
agenda
today.
So
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
one
two
and
three
anyone
here
for
any
of
those
items,
one
two
or
three
you
you
wish
to
speak
on
those
items
or
okay,
okay,
anyone
wishing
to
speak
see
no
one
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
for
the
items
on
the
consent.
Agenda
and
commissioners
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
consent
agenda.
C
Good
evening,
commissioners
and
president
Brown,
so
this
is
a
an
application
that
would
include
a
rezoning
for
5827
Nicollet.
That
would
include
the
that
parcel
in
the
overall
Bobby
and
Steve
site.
There's
a
conditional
use
permit,
that's
required
just
to
amend
the
existing
conditional
use
permit
for
the
auto
convenience
facility
at
minor,
minor,
auto
repair,
saline
carwash.
They
are
returning
the
variance
to
exceed
the
maximum
parking,
so
the
the
site,
planet,
they've,
provided
and
that
is
in
your
packets-
does
comply
with
the
maximum
parking
requirement.
C
There's
a
variance,
that's
required
for
the
vacuum
facility
location
which
we'll
get
into
that's
the
only
application
that
is
probably
going
to
be
opposed
by
the
applicant
that
by
the
staff
recommendation
and
then
the
site
plan
review
for
the
auto
service
use.
So
here's
a
view
of
the
site
at
58th
and
Nicollet
the
southeast
portion.
You
can
kind
of
see
in
this
aerial
that
they're
already
cars
that
are
parking
in
this
grassy
area
of
the
site.
C
Here
is
the
site
plan
on
landscape
and
plan
provided
by
the
applicant,
so
you
you
can
see
that
there's
screening
at
all
all
sides
of
the
site
staff
is
requiring
a
condition
of
approval
to
have
a
6-foot
screen
along
the
south
side
right
now,
there's
a
retaining
wall
and
also
some
shrubs
on
the
outside
of
the
retaining
wall.
So
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
it
is
fully
screened
as
above
the
retaining
wall,
so
I'll
discuss
the
vacuum
facility,
so
we're
recommending
denial
of
this
variance.
The
variance
in
particular
is
of
the
standard.
C
The
vacuum
facilities
shall
be
located
in
an
enclosed
structure
or
located
away
from
any
residential
use
to
avoid
the
impacts
of
noise.
So
currently
the
vacuum
facility
is
located
along
the
southern
portion
of
their
existing
parking
lot.
So
it's
in
between
two
parking
spaces,
and
so
it
would
just
be
relocated
toward
the
niccola
side
of
the
site.
So
you
can
see
it
right.
D
C
So
staff
is
does
not
find
that
there's
a
practical
difficulty
and
not
enclosing
it
or
keeping
it
toward
the
residential
uses.
They
could
propose
to
keep
it
in
an
enclosed
facility
or
move
it
even
further
away
from
residential
uses,
such
as
toward
the
north
end
of
the
parking
lot
and
moving
the
vacuum
facility
to
this
location
actually
moves
it
closer
to
the
residential
uses
to
the
south.
So
that's
why
that's
the
basis
of
the
staff
recommendation,
the
in
the
findings
that
the
applicant
provided?
C
They
said
that
the
all
the
screening
that
they're
doing
is
going
to
help
to
screen
the
visibility
and
then,
in
some
of
the
noise,
that's
going
to
be
an
outcome
of
having
the
vacuum
this
facility
here
and
on
the
outside
and
staff
doesn't
find
that
there
would
be
like
a
huge
impact
to
the
health
safety
or
welfare,
but
that
there
are
not
practical
difficulties
and
not
complying.
If
you
have
any
other
questions,
I'm
here
to
answer
them.
E
A
F
Our
planning
commissioners,
my
name,
is
Matt
havoc
with
a
civil
site
group.
My
address
is
224
Oakwood,
Road
and
Hopkins
we're
the
civil
engineering
Landscape
Architect
working
on
the
project
just
real
quickly.
We
concur
with
the
staffs
recommendation
for
all
of
the
approvals
for
the
site.
We've
been
working
for
a
number
of
months
with
staff
working
through
all
the
details,
and
we
think
that
the
project
ended
up
really
nice
with
the
with
the
desired
outcome
for
the
for
the
property
owner.
F
We
just
had
one
sticking
point
on
this
vacuum:
cleaner
facility-
and
it's
it's
just
a
deal
where
it
just
worked
out
better
with
the
new
site
plan
to
just
shift
it
to
a
different
location.
We
would
just
leave
it
in
your
hands
to
determine
if
you
think
it's
appropriate
or
not.
So
it's
a
it's
something
that
they'd
prefer
to
have
it's
a
nice
accent
to
their
carwash
facility.
It's
a
nice
thing
for
people
to
be
able
to
utilize
when
they
get
their
cars
washed,
and
it's
is
an
existing
condition
in
our
opinion.
F
G
Hi
I
had
a
question
just
because
we
are
required
legally
to
have
certain
findings
regarding.
Are
there
practical
difficulties
involved
in
granting
this
variance?
So
could
you
maybe
speak
to
any
of
those
if
you
think
there
are
any
practical
difficulties
that
would
necessitate
the
moving
of
this
vacuum
to
this
location
right
and.
F
I
think
the
only
practical
difficulty
that
I
can
see
from
the
design
side
is
just
the
way
that
the
site
lays
out
with
a
new
parking.
You
know
that
it
just
doesn't
it's
not
conducive
to
leave
it
where
it
is
because
of
the
circulation
to
the
car
wash
area
and
the
entrance
Drive
into
the
new
proposed
parking
lot.
That's
right
where
the
vacuum
is
now,
so
we
just
had
to
move
it.
We
couldn't
leave
it
where
it
was
so
it's
we're
kind
of
stuck.
F
A
Any
further
questions
of
the
if
they're
none
we
can
see
if
anyone
else
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item,
is
there
anyone
else
who
would
like
to
speak?
So
you
don't
want
to
close
the
public
hearing
and
commissioners
gifts,
a
role
applications
before
us,
starting
with
a
rezoning
and
conditional
use
permit
actually
I,
might
just
have
another
question
for
staff
mailing.
What
was
was
this
development
standard
related
to
vacuum
facilities?
A
B
That
there
may
have
been
a
couple
of
factors
that
play
one
being
that
there,
the
ordinance
doesn't
have
a
specific
distance.
It's
just
sort
of
a
judgment,
call
about
proximity
to
to
residential
uses
and
I
think
it's
possible
that
the
previous
location
was
judged
to
be
far
enough
away
from
that
the
residential
use
may
be
60
feet
away
or
so
that
it
that
have
met
the
standard.
Second,
the
site
was
previously
the
subject
of
a
lawsuit
where
there
were
some
issues
that
we
frankly
just
accepted,
or
had
to
accept
out
of
that
settlement.
H
A
D
I
A
D
D
E
Briefly,
you
know
it.
This
is
like
such
a
minor
thing,
but
I
do
think
we
don't
really
have
the
legal
basis
to
do
bring
a
vacuum
cleaner,
closer
to
residential,
and
you
know,
I
see
where
it
is
in
the
in
the
circulation
and
that
could
be
was
sort
of
annoying
and
would
be
would
certainly
entertain
if
he
came
back.
I
would
I,
don't
know
about
my
other
commissioners.