►
From YouTube: December 5, 2019 Zoning & Planning Committee
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
Good
morning,
I'm
gonna
call
to
order
this
regular
meeting
of
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
for
Thursday
December
5th.
My
name
is
Jeremy
Schrader
and
I'm.
The
chair
of
this
committee
with
me
at
the
dinosaur,
councilmember
Ellison,
councilmember,
Wright
and
councilmember
Goodman.
Let
the
record
reflect
that
we
have
a
quorum.
A
We've
got
nine
items
on
today's
agenda,
including
a
public
hearing,
a
quasi-judicial
hearing,
three
discussion
items
but
we'll
first
handle
the
consent
agenda,
which
is
items
number
three
through
six
number.
Three
is
an
ally,
vacation
application
submitted
by
North
Central
University
number
four
is
several
rezoning
and
vacation
applications
submitted
by
the
family
partnership.
Number
five
is
the
several
appointments
to
the
Arts
Commission
and
number.
Six
is
a
local
historic,
landmark
designation
for
the
Oakland
apartments.
So
any
of
these
discussion
items
or
anything
that
the
committee
members
like
to
pull
anything
off.
Councilmember
Goodman,
Thank.
B
I'll
just
remind
my
committee,
colleagues
and
members
of
the
audience
that
we
weren't
sitting
here
more
than
a
year
ago,
when
the
application
to
demolish
this
building
was
in
front
of
us,
and
this
was
the
one
where
Public
Works
said
it's
a
fire
hazard.
It
should
be
demolished
and
planning
said
it's
it's
a
potentially
worthy
of
historic
designation,
but
no
one
will
rehab
it
and
the
cost
will
be
too
high
and
the
problems
will
be
too
great
and
it's
worth
saving.
B
Can
you
find
somebody
and
John
and
norm
who
have
saved
another
house,
and
my
ward
at
300
Clifton
came
in
and
are
working
to
save
this
building?
What's
incredible
about
it
is.
Although
they've
had
some
challenges
with
the
construction
of
the
building,
they
still
are
moving
forward
with
landmark
designation.
So,
despite
the
conflict
that
they've
had
with
building
officials
and
others,
they
still
believe
in
the
value
of
the
designation
they've
restored
historic
stained-glass
windows.
They
have
done
some
incredible
work
over
there.
B
I
think
everyone
who
has
been
involved
in
it
knows
that
and
very
rarely
to
owners
of
buildings
in
the
middle
of
construction.
Come
to
us
and
say
we
care
so
much
about
this
landmark
designation
that
we're
going
to
move
forward
with
it.
So
it's
just
really
a
huge
deal,
not
just
in
my
ward
but
for
the
whole
city.
If
you
are
interested,
you
can
contact
mr.
B
So
they
could
have
done
it
into
six
luxury
flats,
instead
they're
doing
20
for
smaller,
affordable
units
to
bring
it
back
to
what
it
was
in
its
last
iteration.
So
it's
a
really
proud
day
for
our
office
and
I
know
the
planning
department,
the
city
and
John
and
norm
I'm
shocked
they're,
not
here,
they
probably
thought
this
wasn't
a
big
deal,
whereas
the
words
the
Heritage
Preservation
designation
was
the
bigger
deal,
but
it's
just
really
overwhelming
emotionally
to
see
it
happen.
B
A
You
and
also
it
comes
wherever
thank
you
for
your
work
on
this
as
well.
Also,
the
record
reflect
we've
been
joined
by
a
councilmember
Gordon.
Is
it's
not
seeing
any
other
discussion?
I'll
move
all
of
the
consent
agenda,
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed
say.
No,
the
ice
have
it
and
that
motion
carries
next.
We're
gonna
move
on
to
item
number.
One
is
an
application
submitted
by
Hennepin
County
of
facility
services
for
an
interim
use.
Permit
I
performed
this,
but
I've
been
informed
by
the
staff
that
the
applicant
has
been
requested.
A
Continuance
of
this
application
for
to
allow
more
discussion
with
the
community
on
the
operation
of
the
proposed
emergency
shelter,
as
notices
were
sent
out
for
this
public
hearing.
We
do
need
to
open
it
up
and
give
anyone
here
today
the
speak
to
the
issue
and
address
the
committee
when
we're
done.
It
will
not
close
the
public
hearing,
but
I'll
rather
continue
it
to
our
next
meeting,
which
will
be
on
January
9th
of
next
year.
2020
2020
I
will
now
open
the
hearing.
Would
anyone
like
to
speak
to
item
number
one?
A
Anyone
interested
in
speaking?
Not
seeing
anyone
I'll
no
move
to
continue
the
public
hearing
to
our
January
9th
meeting,
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed
say.
No.
The
ice
habit
and
the
motion
carries
item
number
2
is
a
consideration
of
an
appeal
by
a
Dalton
Scott
regarding
the
Zoning
Board
of
adjustments,
denial
of
two
variances
for
a
new
detached
accessory
dwelling
unit
for
the
property
located
at
1309,
5th,
Street
northeast
and
we'll
begin
with
the
staff
presentation.
C
C
C
C
There
is
a
green
roof
associated
with
this,
so
the
applicant
did
need
a
little
bit
extra
room
to
make
that
work,
and
that
is
a
need
for
that
height
variance
request
again,
when
issuing
variances,
several
findings
must
be
met
first
binding
is
a
practical
difficulty
has
to
exist
on
the
site.
So
when
looking
at
a
standard
size
lot,
that's
flat,
is
there
a
reason
that
the
new
proposed
detached
accessory
dwelling
unit
cannot
comply
with
that
676
square-foot
maximum
or
the
20-foot
maximum
to
the
peak
height
staff
is
unable
to
make
any
of
those
variance
findings.
C
The
next
the
property
owner
is
proposing
to
use
the
property
in
a
reasonable
manner.
Again,
staff
cannot
make
these
findings.
The
intent
of
Cote
is
to
regulate
the
built
environment.
This
is
a
new
structure.
It's
a
flat
locked
standard
size.
The
design
of
this
structure
is
creating
the
need
for
this
variance
for
both
variances
and
last.
The
essential
character
of
the
area
may
be
disrupted.
C
A
D
A
E
My
name
is
Dalton
Scott
addresses
1309,
fifth
Street
northeast.
Thank
you
very
much
for
taking
the
time
today,
so
I
understand
that
my
lot
is
pretty
standard.
So
when
we
were
designing
this,
there's
a
couple
different
element
into
going
into.
Why
I
wanted
to
appeal
this
decision
and
bring
it
before
you
guys.
The
first
one
is
around
the
cloudiness
of
the
code
right
now
and
I
totally
understand
that
this
is
something
that's
new
accessory
dwelling
units,
so
there
is
gonna,
be
some
back
and
forth
that
goes
into
it.
E
We
had
multiple
design
iterations
on
on
this
and
each
time
we
iterated
on
the
design
we
hit
a
new
or
seemingly
new
roadblock
with
this
code,
particularly
with
the
footprint
of
the
area
as
footprint
is,
is
defined.
Our
original
thought
and
the
thought
that
was
communicated
to
us
was
that
the
footprint
of
a
building
is
kind
of.
What's
on
the
ground
of
the
of
the
unit.
The
actual
footprint
in
that
definition
is
well
below
the
allotted
footprint.
That's
a
little
over
600
square
feet.
E
If
you
count
in
the
snare,
whoops
stairwell
landing
with
this,
so
the
the
things
that
we
really
went
up
against
with
this
design,
where
the
the
overhang
of
the
second
floor
and
then
the
exterior
stairwell
to
get
into
the
dwelling
unit.
That's
really
what
put
us
over
to
that
that
limit
and
if
you
eliminate
the
exterior
stairwell
and
the
and
the
landing
we're
almost
right
there,
if
not
just
a
couple
square
feet
over
with
that
overhang,
so
the
actual
like
garage,
that's
sitting
on
the
ground,
that's
600
square
feet.
E
The
reason
why
we
did
the
overhang
over
the
second
over
the
garage
is
to
make
this
a
livable
dwelling
unit,
a
lot
of
accessory
dwelling
units
that
have
been
built
to
date.
Our
kind
of
office
like
spaces
pretty
hard
to
live
in
spaces
unless
you're
into
living
in
a
micro
into
a
micro
unit.
So
we
wanted
to
make
something
that
was
actually
livable,
I
personally
I'm
going
to
be
moving
over
to
this
and
be
turning
my
unit
into
housing,
long-term
rental
housing.
So
that's
that's!
E
Really,
what
I've
been
trying
to
do
with
this
I've
gotten
approval
from
the
majority
of
my
neighbors,
as
well
as
my
neighborhood
council?
They
really
like
this
because
the
the
stats
are
60%
of
accessory
dwelling
units
turn
into
affordable
housing
that
aren't
subsidized
or
anything
like
that.
It's
developed,
affordable,
housing
from
neighbors.
This
is
keeping
our
neighborhood
looking
similar,
and
the
really
cool
thing
about
this
structure
is
I
did
add
a
parking
spot
for
every
unit.
E
If
we
were
to
move
this
stairwell
inside,
which
is
arguably
the
easiest
way
to
make
this
conforming,
and
it
makes
it
a
nicer
experience
for
myself,
because
I
don't
have
to
go
up
and
down
stairs
in
the
winter.
The
problem
with
that
is,
if
we
put
that
inside
we're
gonna
have
to
eliminate
a
parking
space
and
it
eats
up
like
somewhere
in
the
70
to
100
square
foot
of
livable
space
upstairs
so
it's
taking
an
already
small
unit,
it's
making
it
a
lot
smaller.
E
Just
for
you
know,
moving
a
stairwell
inside
so
I
opted
to
have
the
the
worst
stair
hotel
in
our
winters
to
increase
livability
and
add
another
parking
space
in
my
neighborhood
parking
is
increasingly
becoming
an
issue,
and
it's
definitely
an
issue
that
the
neighborhood
council
cares
about.
As
for
the
height
portion
of
this
building,
really
we're
asking
for
an
additional
foot
and
a
half
because
I'm
putting
a
real
green
roof
on
the
top
of
this.
This
won't
be
a
tray
system.
This
is
gonna,
be
somewhere
between
six
inches
and
a
foot
worth
of
dirt.
E
E
Currently,
there's
a
parking
pad
there,
so
I'm
actually
increasing
the
permeable
space
on
my
property
by
approximately
700
square
feet
with
this,
so
it's
gonna
drastically
soak
up
a
lot
more
of
the
rainwater,
definitely
going
to
be
a
little
bit
more
expensive.
I,
know
that
and
that's
that's
part
of
like
what
I
want
to
put
into
this.
Additionally,
with
this
and
I
apologize,
my
designer
had
an
emergency
and
can
come
today
so
I'm
working
off
my
phone,
but
I
just
wanted
to
show
here
this
diagram
right
there.
E
If
you
can
see
that
these
three
buildings
right
here
are
that
this
is
a
traditional
conforming.
Thank
you,
whoever
zoomed
in
for
me,
so
the
one
on
the
right
is
a
traditional,
conforming
roof.
The
one
in
the
center
is
a
flat,
conforming
roof
and
the
one
on
the
left
is
my
proposed
roof.
So
you
can
see
that,
like
I'm
drastically
under
what
the
peak
of
a
traditional
roof
would
be
anyway,
with
the
flat
roof,
because
you
take
the
midline
of
the
traditional
peak.
E
So
that's
something
I
wanted
to
point
out
to
you
in
terms
of
shadowing
and
stuff
is
like
this
is
gonna,
be
a
better
design
for
that,
just
because
it
is
gonna
be
shorter.
Additionally,
with
the
layouts,
this
is
kind
of
just
highlighting
like
what
a
layout
could
be
that's
conforming
and
my
layout
of
the
top
floor.
What's
what's
neat
about
my
design
here?
Is
you
can
see
these
two
little
dashed
areas
on
either
side?
E
It's
kind
of
hard
to
see
with
my
phone,
but
essentially
I've
put
two
green
roofs
along
the
edges
of
this
building
as
well.
It
steps
back
from
the
bottom
floor.
So
that's
additional
space
that
like
if
we
were
to
bump
out
and
make
this
up-down
rectangle
sure
it
would
be
easier
to
conform.
But
these
additional
green
roofs
are
gonna,
add
aesthetic
value
for
both
of
my
neighbors
and
the
alleyway
on
both
sides.
E
Just
additional
wildflower
habitat
I'm,
really
trying
to
make
something:
that's
sustainable
and
and
really
beautiful
and
is
something
that's
totally
different
than
what
a
lot
of
design
is
doing
right
now,
yeah
in
terms
of
fitting
image,
the
neighborhood
I,
don't
think,
that's
a
super
valid
point.
There
aren't
a
lot
of
flat
roofs
in
my
neighborhood,
so
I
could
see
that
being
something
that
doesn't
fit
in,
but
we
live
in
the
arts
district
like
there's
a
lot
of
weird
stuff
that
happens
in
Sheridan
neighborhood,
like
that's
the
point
right
so
like
I'm,
trying
to
make
something.
E
A
I'm,
not
singing
I
just
want
one
of
my
questions.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
all
the
work
you're
doing
to
make
a
green
roof
and
I
appreciate
the
thoughtfulness.
I
do
a
question
of
just
about
the
height
like
it.
If
you
went
through
many
iterations
of
the
design,
this
is
a
foot
now
Foer.
Could
you
have
dropped
some
of
the
the
height
and
some
of
the
other
two
floors
or
why
would
that
be
an
issue
so.
E
So,
throughout
the
iterations,
our
height
actually
never
changed,
something
that
was
communicated
through
the
process
and
actually
what
was
that?
This
is
something
that
the
city
would
like
to
see.
I
know
that
there
was
an
initiative
to
have
like
150
green
roofs
by
2015
or
something
like
that
through
the
sustainable
initiative
and
I'm,
not
I
from
from
what
my
research
I
don't
think,
we
met
that
so
I
know.
This
is
something
that
we
want
and
that
we
want
to
see
the
reducing
the
the
floors
within
the
other
two,
it's
probably
possible
on
in
the
garage.
E
The
the
one
thing
that
I
guess,
I
didn't
mention
that
I
want
to
do
with
the
garage
is
still
have
it
to
be
a
habitable
conforming
height,
so
that
if
in
the
future
we
don't
need
cars
or
renters,
don't
need
cars
that
could
potentially
be
turned
into
a
larger
unit
for
living
space
or
potentially
even
another
unit
of
affordable
housing.
So
I'm
trying
to
future-proof
this
building
in
a
way
that's
really
sustainable.
E
Additionally,
the
height
question
from
what
I've
heard
has
come
up
multiple
times
from
people
who
are
building
a
to
use.
So
this
is
something
that
I
also
I
talked
to
my
council
member
Fletcher
about,
and
we
are
hoping
that,
even
by
just
bringing
it
forward,
this
kind
of
like
helps
move
the
needle
to
make
accessory
dwelling
units
even
more
accessible
and
usable
for
people.
It's
a
lock
strike
great.
A
Thank
you,
alright,
I'm,
not
seeing
any
other
questions
thanks
so
much.
Thank
you
now
going
to
open
the
hearing
to
the
members
of
the
public,
anyone
that
would
like
to
speak
to
the
committee
now.
Please
limit
your
comments
to
two
minutes,
which
will
be
tracked
by
the
clock
by
the
clerk.
Would
any
members
of
the
public
like
to
speak?
F
F
Think
if
someone
wants
to
spend
the
kind
of
money
he's
talking
about
spending
on
a
really
beautiful
building
and
minimizing
the
environmental
impact
that
that's
huge
for
our
city,
because
we're
losing
trees
and
our
storm
drains
are
incredibly
overflowing,
and
so
I
really
appreciate
his
thoughtfulness
with
that.
So
I
want
to
look
bought,
be
known
as
well,
and
adding
a
unit
is
huge.
We
are
short
30,000
units
in
our
city
and
I.
A
G
Thank
You
mr.
chair
and
I
think
the
points
were
well
made
and
it's
rather
consistent
with
an
intentional
project.
We
did
where
we
really
were
trying
to
push
the
envelope
for
future
structures
in
the
name
of
environmental
sustainability
and
the
build
form
that
we
contemplate
in
our
current
comprehensive
plans.
G
This
might
not
have
been
an
intentional
partnership,
but
you
intuitively
struck
a
lot
of
our
policy
chords,
not
where
we
necessary
at
now,
but
where
we're
going
from
a
technical
evaluation,
standpoint
and
I
think
when
we
have
minimal
trade-offs
in
the
name
of
our
environmental
goals,
that's
where
we
want
to
be,
and,
of
course,
I
know,
staff
is
diligently
doing
our
pilot
projects
like
we
did
in
Waite
Park.
Taking
examples
like
this,
where
we
might
make
some
compromise
in
the
name
of
our
future
goals
to
Hart
and
codify
that.
B
Thank
you.
Mr.
chair
I
support
this
I'm
gonna.
Try
to
give
you
a
practical
difficulty.
It's
as
the
kind
of
leader
of
the
Green
Roof
movement
at
the
city
for
many
many
years.
I
think
that
having
a
green
roof
on
this
building
is
a
top
priority,
and
if
they
were
to
have
the
pitch
the
loud
pitched
roof
which
would
be
allowed
under
the
code,
they
couldn't
have
the
green
roof.
B
So
the
practical
difficulty
in
my
opinion,
would
be
that
they
we
want
them
to
put
in
a
green
roof
and
they
can't
both
meet
the
pitched
roof
standard
and
the
flat
roof
height
for
the
green
roof.
So
I
believe
the
practical
difficulty
is
the
environmental
consideration
with
regard
to
adding
the
green
roof.
What
do
you
think
of
that?
We're
assuming
you're
trying
to
come
up
with
a
practical
difficulty?
B
That
seems
like
one,
because
he
showed
us
and
I
thought
that
was
a
good
argument,
actually
that
he
could
have
had
a
peaked
roof
that
was
taller
and
met
the
code.
So
I
wouldn't
probably
encourage
staff
to
be
coming
up
with
practical
difficulties
like
this,
but
it
seems
in
an
appeal
and
the
really
well
done
presentation
we
had
from
the
applicant.
That
seems
like
a
legitimate,
practical
difficulty.
H
Don't
think
I'm
gonna
discuss
that
at
all,
because
I
don't
know
that
we
have
to
analyze
it
a
whole
lot.
I
just
wanted
to
call
out
that
I
think
this
is
a
great
example
for
us
to
take
into
consideration
as
we're
amending
the
ordinance
and
we're
going
forward
in
the
future.
So
this
is
a
good
lesson
for
all
of
us
to
remember
the
discussion,
the
meeting,
the
priorities,
what
the
policymakers
were
thinking
and
how
important
is
pitched
consistency
with
flat
roofs
and
not
and
I
think
it
is.
H
A
Thank
you,
nothing
any
other
of
my
I.
Don't
have
anything
to
add
to
the
great
conversation
from
my
colleagues
I'll
just
ask
the
city
attorney
to
kind
of
draft
findings.
Assuming
this
vote
goes
a
certain
way
with
that.
Councilmember
Wright's
motion
is
really
for
us
all.
Those
in
favor
say
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed
say
no,
the
eyes
have
it,
and
that
motion
carries.
I
Currently,
occupancy
is
regulated
in
both
the
zoning
code
and
the
housing
maintenance
code
in
the
zoning
code,
occupancy
is
regulated
by
a
definition
of
family
as
well
as
the
number
of
unrelated
persons
and
housing
maintenance
code
is
regulated
by
a
definition
of
family
as
well
slightly
different
than
the
zoning
code.
Definition
in
the
total
square
footage
of
the
dwelling
unit
in
each
sleeping
room.
The
intents
are
slightly
different
for
the
zoning
code.
I
The
idea
is
to
maintain
the
residential
character
of
certain
areas
of
the
city,
whereas
in
the
housing
maintenance
code
it
is
to
ensure
the
health,
safety
and
welfare
of
residents.
There
are
some
issues
with
the
current
zoning
occupancy
regulations.
First
of
all,
the
definition
of
family
doesn't
recognize
certain
household
types
with
unrelated
persons.
Among
oh
sorry,
about
that
among
peers.
City
is
it's
not
typical
for
them
to
at
least
recognize
some
number
of
unrelated
persons
as
a
family
or
a
household.
I
Also,
the
maximum
occupancy
is
determined
by
the
number
of
unrelated
persons
and
occupancy
regulations
apply
to
all
districts
for
residential
uses
are
allowed.
The
lowest
density
districts
are
the
most
restrictive,
but
there
is
no
City
know
that
there's
no
limit
on
the
number
of
related
persons
that
could
live
together,
there's
also
no
authorized
variance
of
the
occupancy
regulations.
I
Having
occupancy
regulations
in
the
zoning
code
has
resulted
in
a
significant
amount
of
staff,
time
being
spent
on
processing
requests
for
a
reasonable
accommodation
under
the
federal,
fair
housing,
Amendments
Act.
Under
this
act,
the
persons
with
disabilities
seeking
fair
and
equal
access
to
housing
have
to
request
modifications
or
waiving
of
zoning
regulations.
All
of
our
almost
all
of
our
reasonable
accommodation
requests
are
related
to
occupancy,
and
that
comes
out
to
about
twenty
or
so
a
year.
For
each
of
these
requests,
you
have
to
write
lengthy
reports
and
then
all
almost
all
these
requests
are
approved.
I
There
are
some
additional
reasons
for
the
amendment.
Starting
with
there
are
residential
structures
in
the
city
that
could
safely
accommodate
additional
occupants
and
what
the
zoning
code
allows
as
far
as
best
best
practices
go.
Occupancy
is
best
addressed
in
housing
and
building
codes
and
the
zoning
code
should
it's
better
at
regulating
uses
than
users.
It's
also
an
impediment
to
fair
housing.
Choice.
I
will
get
into
more
background
about
that
in
a
bit
in
both
the
current
and
our
new
comprehensive
plan.
I
We
have
policies
that
call
for
removing
housing
barriers
and
given
the
recent
growth
trends
in
the
city
and
the
need
to
provide
additional
housing
application
options
to
accommodate
that
growth
and
the
low
vacancy
rate
in
recent
years.
This
amendment
is
very
timely,
so
the
Minneapolis
zoning
occupancy
regulations
were
identified
as
an
impediment
to
fair
housing
choice
by
the
addendum
to
the
2014
regional
analysis
of
appointments
to
fair
housing.
I
This
was
a
report
prepared
by
the
Fair
Housing
implementation
council,
and
it
was
required
of
communities
that
receive
certain
funds
from
the
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Development.
It's
a
regional
study
that
included
22
metro
area
cities
and
in
light
of
the
addendums
findings,
the
city
is
required
to
examine
its
land
use
and
zoning
policies
and
take
appropriate
actions
to
ensure
that
our
policies
are
furthering
fair
housing.
I
So
within
the
amendment
it
would
include
eliminating
the
zoning
district,
maximum
occupancy
requirements,
removing
other
references
to
those
district
requirements
and
then,
lastly,
amending
the
definition
of
family
to
refer
to
the
housing
maintenance
code
definition
and
that's
to
prevent
any
inconsistencies
between
the
two
codes
at
the
Planning
Commission.
They
recommended
approval
of
the
amendment
it
was
approved
on
consent
and
with
the
adoption
of
this
amendment
we
would
still,
of
course,
have
the
housing
maintenance
code
occupancy
regulations.
There
was
a
amendment
introduced
for
the
oxygens
or
housing
maintenance
code.
I
J
You
mr.
chair
I'm
happy
to
move
this
item
forward
and
thank
you
all
for
your
support.
We've
been
working
on
this
and
talking
about
it
for
a
number
of
years.
This
is
another
legacy
of
exclusionary
zoning
that
had
sought
to
I
think
really
as
staff
described,
limit
and
decide
who
can
live
together
and
who
can't,
through
zoning
and
I.
Don't
think
this
form
of
you
know
dictating
people's
living
arrangement
belongs
in
our
zoning
code
and
in
fact
this
is
one
of
the
steps
that
was
recommended
to
us
through
complying
with
federal,
fair
housing.
J
A
You
nothing
any
other
discussion.
The
council
president's
motion
is
before
us
all.
Those
in
favor
say:
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed
say
no,
the
eyes
have
it
and
that
motion
carries
Hyper.
Number
eight
is
an
ordinance
amending
regulations
related
to
inclusionary
zoning
and
we'll
begin
with
a
staff
presentation.
D
Good
morning,
Tara
Trainor
councilmembers
your
before
status
before
you
today
to
discuss
the
permanent
inclusionary
zoning
ordinance
amendment
to
the
existing
interim
regulations.
The
proposed
changes
will
occur
in
the
zoning
code
in
chapters
five,
thirty
site
plan
review
and
chapter
five,
thirty,
five
regulations
of
general
applicability.
In
addition
to
those
two
chapters,
the
north
of
introduction
included
chapters,
five
twenty
and
five
twenty
five
staff
is
recommending.
D
Returning
those
back
to
the
author
this
morning
on
September
27th,
2019,
Council
members,
trader
and
council
president
bender
introduced,
subject
matter
to
amend
our
current
inclusionary
zoning
or
housing
ordinance.
Inclusionary
housing
is
intended
to
promote
affordable
housing
and
to
fulfill
the
city's
housing
policy
goals
by
ensuring
moderately
priced
housing
is
provided
within
a
mixed
income
development
in
2017,
a
city
engaged
with
consultant,
grounded
solutions,
network
to
conduct
a
financial
feasibility
analysis
and
policy
research
regarding
national
best
practices
to
inform
recommendations
for
both
the
unified
housing
policy
and
the
city.
D
Zoning
ordinance
to
implement
inclusionary
zoning
in
the
city
last
year.
Just
about
a
year
ago,
on
December
7th,
the
City
Council
approved
the
updates
to
the
unified
housing
policy
and
the
zoning
code
to
reflect
an
interim
strategy
to
capture
projects
shortly
that
were
coming
in
shortly
after
the
initial
review
of
the
the
Minneapolis
2040
plan.
So
during
that
time
we
had
a
total
of
five
projects
that
would
have
been
subject
to
inclusionary
zoning
to
were
exempt
because
they
already
were
seeking
some
other
additional
City
subsidy.
D
D
There
was
another
proposal
that
would
trigger
the
inclusionary
zoning.
The
land
use
applications
were
approved
at
Planning
Commission
and
then
the
the
full
council
will
reviewed
the
proposed
rezoning
for
that
project
in
2020
in
early
2019
city
conducted
a
request
for
a
proposal
again
and
engaged
with
ground
solutions
network
to
assist
in
the
development
of
the
permit
inclusion
area,
policy
and
Zoning
program.
So
yesterday,
at
our
housing
and
policy
and
development,
meaning
the
ground
solutions,
Network
presented
policy
recommendations
that
will
be
reflected
in
the
unified
housing
policy.
D
So
today,
we're
here
to
discuss
the
the
changes
in
the
in
the
zoning
code
again
just
reminding
the
goals
of
the
proposed
text.
Amendment
is
to
ensure
that
production
and
feasibility
are
not
compromised
with
providing
affordable
housing
on-site
to
encourage
mixed
income
communities.
Because
again,
the
intention
of
using
this
tool
is
to
take
what
would
otherwise
be
a
market
rate
development
and
in
add
moderately
priced
affordable
units
that
are
accessible
to
individuals
or
families
of
lower-income
and
then
also
for
simplicity
and
for
implementation.
D
So
what
we
will
be
doing
as
a
staff
is
calculating
buildings
that
come
in
again
either
residential
romiska
mixed-use,
with
units
between
twenty
and
forty
nine
units,
and
once
we
receive
once
building
permits,
are
issued
for
up
to
five
hundred
units
and
buildings
of
those
sizes.
Then
we
will
kick
off
a
six-month
time
period
for
which
that's
the
expiration
of
that
six
months,
the
the
threshold
will
be
solidified
at
twenty
twelve
units.
It's
written
this
way
into
the
zoning
ordinance,
so
there
will
be
no
need
to
come
back
before
committee
for
an
ordinance.
D
D
This
was
presented
yesterday
by
a
Stephanie
Reyes
from
granite
solutions,
Network
that,
based
on
our
limited
experience
recently
with
condominiums,
either
newer
conversions,
we're
planning
to
implement
a
phased
in
approach,
so
there
will
be
no
recommend
or
no
inclusionary.
Zoning
requirement
until
at
least
500
units
have
been
permitted
in
six
months,
passes
at
four
percent
of
the
units
at
80
percent
ami
for
the
first
round,
and
then
once
we
hit
on
the
next
year
of
a
thousand
units
permanent,
then
the
recommendation
is
to
go
to
eight
percent
of
the
units
at
80
percent
AMI.
J
So
thank
you
very
much
for
that
partnership
and
I
know
we
were
balancing
a
lot
of
competing
priorities
in
this
ordinance,
and
so
it
really
helped
us
ask
a
lot
of
really
important
questions
about
how
as
our
city
grows,
we
can
both
support
the
kind
of
housing
development
that
our
constituents
want
to
see
as
well
as
make
sure
that
the
affordability
is
included
so
I
appreciate
so
much
again.
The
partnership
and
work
working
together.
A
All
right,
well
not
seeing
anything.
I
just
have
a
couple
words
again
just
want
to
thank
staff,
and
all
the
stakeholders
is
a
really
complex
and
I
think
really
thoughtful
policy.
That's
going
forward,
I!
Think,
like
the
council
president
talked
about.
This
is
really
about
balancing
priorities
and
really
we
won't
know,
what's
gonna
happen
till
this
passes,
and
so
I
really
again
want
to
kind
of
think
the
the
stakeholders
like
that
gauged
with
the
city
to
come
up
with
kind
of
a
wide
range
of
options.
A
A
As
we
talked
about
this,
this
isn't
going
to
be
the
thing:
that's
going
to
save
us
and
find
all
the
affordable
housing
this
policy,
but
how
does
it
fit
in
with
all
the
other
product
things
that
we're
working
on
and
if
there's
a
way
to
maximize
what
we
get
out
of
this
policy?
We
can
adjust
around
that
so
with
that
council
presidents
motion
is
before
us
all.
A
K
Morning,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
so
this
application
was
heard
last
on
November
14th
and
we
were
directed
by
Council
to
meet
with
the
applicant
again
and
discuss
whether
any
compromises
were
available
to
the
proposal
here.
So
the
application
is
for
a
new
drive-through
for
Starbucks
and
staff
had
recommended
two
conditions
to
limit
left
turns
into
and
out
of
the
site
and
the
applicant
had
appealed
those
two
conditions
we
did
meet
with
the
applicant
on
November
21st.
It
was
myself
and
Allen
from
Public
Works
and
discussed
their
proposal.
K
However,
the
the
applicant
is
not
comfortable
with
any
proposal
that
does
not
allow
left
turns
into
and
out
of
the
site.
Many
of
the
proposals
that
they
have
shown
in
require
increasing
the
length
of
the
crossing
distance
and
the
width
of
the
roadway,
which
we
heard
at
the
last
timing.
A
planning
committee
meeting
was
not
an
acceptable
solution
and
staff
is
not
able
to
support
any
of
the
designs
that
allow
left
turns
in
tune
out
of
the
site
whether
they
widen
the
roadway
or
not.
K
So
at
this
point,
staff
is
still
recommending
approval,
with
the
conditions
condition
number
nine,
which
requires
the
applicant
to
design
the
curb
cut
to
limit
the
left,
turns
in
tune
out
of
the
site
and
condition
number
10,
which
requires
the
applicant
to
work
with
Public
Works
to
limit
left
turns
into
and
out
of
the
site
and
and
from
the
staff
perspective.
A
lot
of
that
is
just
concerns
about
traffic
and
safety.
Here,
the
additional
peak
demand
for
a
coffee
shop
drive
three
years
and
significant
concerns
about
safety.
K
A
Thank
you,
I'm,
not
seeing
any
questions.
Thank
you
very
much,
so
ask
the
applicant
to
come
up
this.
We
have
the
public
hearing
already,
so
I
will
give
the
outcome
three
minutes
just
to
respond
and
kind
of
go
over
anything,
but
the
time
will
be
carefully
kept
with
the
clock.
Thanks
to
the
clerk
yeah.
L
I'm
ready
here
to
answer
why
to
the
city
staff,
at
the
conditions,
9
and
10
after
issuing
a
report
with
autumn,
are
they
trying
to
prevent
deaths
and
serious
injuries
according
to
vision,
zero?
Are
they
trying
to
stop
at
drive-thru
and
house,
a
development
that
doesn't
have
current
housing
or
both
you
know,
as
vision,
zero
was
adopted
in
2017
2018.
We
submitted
the
same
plan
with
43
apartments
and
conditions
done
and
10
were
never
a
part
of
it.
L
Why
couldn't
Public
Works
tell
us
of
any
other
issue,
any
other
places
we're
at
our
meeting
where
they
you
couldn't
do
left-hand
turns
into
and
out
of
the
site
that
they
have
recommended.
We
even
asked
them
to
send
us
a
list
afterwards
they
couldn't
haven't,
provided
us
with
a
list
of
where
they've
done
that
you
know
the
Hiawatha.
Our
intersection
is
not
prone
to
accidents.
It's
not!
It's
the
low
zone,
Louis
zone
for
traffic
crashes.
No
one
died
at
our
intersection
that.
L
Lindsay
basically
mentioned
so,
and
we
were
supposed
to
get
together
the
postponement
to
see
if
we
can
work
out
a
solution
at
the
meeting.
Allen
said
he's
not
gonna
accept
any
solution
that
doesn't
have
conditions,
9
and
10.
So
it's
basically
a
non-starter.
Our
solution
works.
All
we
are
asking
for
is
a
day
at
750
square
feet
of
road
and
that
lindsey
at
the
meeting
said
they
have
three
votes
in
their
favor.
So
basically
they
weren't
too
willing
to
work
out
a
solution
in
direct
conflict
of
what
you
said.
L
In
fact,
they
allen
told
us
they
had
not
done
any
traffic
calculations
and
in
when
they
decided
to
add
conditions,
9
and
10
and
I
even
asked
Allen.
If
we
did
a
full
transportation
demand
management
study,
he
wouldn't
support
it,
even
if
it
showed
that
the
solution
worked.
He
disagrees
with
these
numbers
that
Starbucks
provided
I
had
Starbucks
provide
us
a
letter
that
says
they
are
real
numbers.
L
The
examples
they're
using
the
Starbucks
on
Snelling.
Only
stats
11
to
12
cars
are
stacks.
21
to
the
street.
Lyndale
Avenue
is
way
busier
than
42nd
Street.
And
if
you
look
at
the
developments
that
have
happened
and
the
on
Hiawatha
Avenue,
it's
all
happened
around
the
light
rail
stations,
one
rehab
in
two
apartments,
there's
lots
of
many
storage.
The
site
across
the
street
from
us
was
bought
by
you,
help
for
more
mini
storage,
and
the
vast
majority
of
Hiawatha
remains
industrial,
which
is
why
we're
not
proposing
housing
at
this
time.
L
A
H
Yeah
you
should
have
before
you
a
couple
of
conditions.
I
still
have
grave
concerns
about
this
intersection
there.
Definitely
according
to
the
Star
Tribune
and
all
other
indications
and
reports
we
have.
There
was
a
fatality
because
of
a
pedestrian
accident
recently,
so
I
just
want
to
defend.
Staff
in
that
comment
appears
to
be
accurate
from
all
the
research
that
I
found.
H
I
think
that
we,
it's
perfectly
fine
for
us
to
get
new
information
to
study
things
more
between
some
approvals
somewhere
and
some
staff
recommendation
and
the
way
of
the
council
not
only
have
the
opportunity
to
be
able
to
refine
conditions
and
projects,
but
we
also
have
a
responsibility
and
an
obligation,
as
should
have
been
obvious
to
everybody
at
the
last
meeting.
I
have
serious
grave
concerns
about
the
traffic
that
will
be
happening.
The
peak
conditions
that
happen
here
and
I
think
that
we
shouldn't
be
messing
with
the
left
turns
at
this
intersection.
H
I
think
we've
made
mistakes
in
the
past
because
we
haven't
thought
about
it.
More
and
I
think
we
can
look
to
instances
and
complaints
that
we're
getting
in
the
past
from
projects
that
were
approved
where
we
didn't
make
this
condition,
and
so
I
think
it's
it's
great
that
we're
flexible
and
nimble
enough
as
a
city
to
say,
we
need
to
do
more
to
make
sure
to
prevent
these
kind
of
problems
in
the
future
as
new
projects
come
forward.
H
So
I
would
like
to
amend
condition
10
that
would
read
the
applicant
shall
work
with
Public
Works
to
modify
the
street
design
at
42nd
Street
to
prohibit
left
turns
into
the
site,
that's
removing
the
words,
if
required
and
also
to
add
a
condition
11.
The
applicant
shall
obtain
an
approved
transportation,
demand
management
plan
prior
to
the
issuance
of
any
building
permits
or
business
licenses,
and
shall
maintain
compliance
with
the
plan
for
the
life
of
the
drive
through,
including
but
not
limited,
to
providing
traffic
enforcement
as
deemed
necessary
and
I.
B
You
I'm
just
wondering
mr.
chair
staff
can
explain
to
us
under
what
conditions
a
TDM
would
be
required
now.
It
feels
like
we're
piling
on
and
becoming
more
punitive
and
I'll
keep
the
rest
of
my
comments
to
myself,
because
I'm
sure
I'll
be
subpoenaed
in
court
once
they
sue
us
over
this,
but
I'm
interested
in
fro
drive-through
Starbucks.
Is
that
normally,
when
a
TDM
is
required,
can
you
tell
me
what
other
drive-through,
Starbucks
or
coffee
shops
had
to
do
a
TDM
yeah.
M
Again,
good
morning,
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Ellen
Clubman
with
public
works,
traffic
and
parking
services
division.
A
few
comments
on
tedium
pee
travel
demand
management
plan
in
ordinance.
There's
a
square
footage
amount,
a
hundred
thousand
square
foot
of
our
hire
of
commercials,
a
mandatory
tdmp.
We
also
have
authority
to
do
discretionary
tdmp
when
we
feel
traffic
conditions
or
traffic
concerns
warrant.
One
to
the
question
of
other
drive-throughs
I'm,
just
kind
of
going
through
my
memory
banks.
Here
we
did
have
a
study
done
for
the
one
that's
at
47th
and
cedar.
M
M
Chair
members
of
the
committee,
if
we
have
a
travel
demand
management
plan,
one
of
the
things
we
focus
on
are
the
management
strategies
and
the
commitments
by
the
applicant
to
manage
control
and
manage
traffic,
and
so
we
can,
through
that
vehicle,
put
additional
conditions,
for
example,
evaluation
monitoring,
counting
observing
things
like
that
we
can
set
triggers
where
certain
thresholds
are
met
in
terms
of
operational
difficulties,
then
another
set
of
mitigation
needs
to
need
to
be
provided
or
executed.
B
M
Chair
members
of
committee,
I
think
we're
less
concerned
about
I
think
what
you're
referring
to,
which
maybe
would
be
stacking
and
not
have
enough
stacking
on
space
and
cars
backing
out
into
the
public
right
away.
I
think
what
we're
most
concerned
about
is
potentially
I'll,
say
problematic
or
difficult
or
unsafe
movements.
M
If,
for
example,
people
were
to
try
to
violate
the
median
and
get
around
if
there
were
backups
that
we're
not
anticipating,
if
there's
maybe
neighborhood
cut
through
traffic
or
some
other
thing
that
we
have
an
anticipated
that
we
think
could
be
ameliorated
through
some
more
active
management.
Those
are
the
sorts
of
commitments
we'd
be
looking
for.
We
have
done
this
in
the
past
with
other
sites,
for
example
valet
operations
and
things
of
the
sort
where
we
tie
it
to
the
business
license.
M
So
we
have
a
bit
of
an
enforcement
mechanism
once
we
sort
of
sign
off
on
the
site
plan,
there's
some
follow-through
with
observation
monitoring
and
then
some
almost
prescribed
what-if
steps
that
we
would
take.
If
we
see
things
happening,
we
sort
of
already
anticipated
that
together
at
the
applicant
and
come
up
with
a
strategy
that
we
could
then
deploy
six
months
out
12
months
out
of
foreseen
problems.
Mr.
M
Chair
members
of
the
committee,
I,
don't
have
the
exact
housing
count
in
my
head,
I
think
it's
40
to
50,
it's
a
rather
modest
house
in
town,
so
the
traffic
vibes
I'm,
just
going
to
say,
were
largely
the
same.
I
just
want
to
point
that
out
and
I
think
the
largest
changes,
councilmember
Gordon
referred
to
its
I
would
say
some
evolution
and
change
of
philosophy
and
I
spoke
about
this
at
the
last
meeting,
with
an
even
increased
emphasis
on
safety
in
ongoing
safety
operations
at
a
site
like
this.
Thank.
I
M
A
A
A
I
will
move
denial
of
the
consideration.
All
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye.
Excuse
me.
Excuse
me:
I
will
move
appeal
with
the
added
conditions,
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye,
all's
opposed
you
guys
have
it
and
that
motion
carries
seeing
no
further
business
before
the
committee
for
this
year.
We
are
adjourned
happy
new
year.