►
From YouTube: August 1, 2019 Zoning & Planning Committee
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
Gonna
call
to
order
this
regular
meeting
of
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
for
Thursday
August
1st.
My
name
is
Jerry
Schrader
and
I'm,
the
chair
of
the
committee
with
me
at
the
dinosaur
councilmember
Ellison
council
president
bender
council,
member
Reich,
councilmember
Goodman
and
councilmember
Gordon.
Let
the
record
reflect
that
we
have
a
quorum.
We
have
a
five
items
on
the
agenda
today,
including
a
quasi-judicial
hearing
and
but
will
first
dispense
with
the
consent
agenda.
Item
number
two
is
the
approval
of
a
to
Ally
vacation
submitted
by
north
bay
companies
for
the
project.
B
B
Item
number
1
is
the
consideration
of
an
appeal
by
several
decisions
of
the
Planning
Commission
to
allow
a
mixed-use
building
with
146
dwelling
units
in
a
ground-floor
office
for
approximately
six
hundred
square
feet
for
the
properties
located
25:42
through
2554
Blaisdell
Avenue,
as
well
as
a1
1026,
Street
West
and
we'll
begin
with
the
staff
presentation.
Good.
C
Morning,
committee
members,
the
project
before
you
is
at
26
and
Blaisdell.
It's
made
up
of
three
parcels.
The
parcels
are
at
25
42
and
2554
Blaisdell
and
110
West
26th
Street
on
July
8th,
the
Planning
Commission
approved
applications
to
allow
a
new
six
story,
building
with
147
dwelling
units
at
this
location,
and
then
an
appeal
was
filed
on
July
17th
by
Thomas
to
lien,
who
is
here
as
the
appellant
regarding
the
Planning
Commission's
approvals.
C
This
is
the
site
it's
located
at
the
northwest
corner
of
26
and
Blaisdell.
So
since
the
application
went
forward
to
the
Planning
Commission,
the
applicant
has
submitted
a
revised
plan,
so
I'm
going
to
walk
you
through
some
of
those
changes.
The
applicant
had
initially
proposed
a
six
story.
Building
with
a
hundred
and
forty
six
dwelling
units
and
an
office
space.
C
On
the
first
floor,
the
plans
have
been
revised,
so
one
story
has
eliminated
its
now:
a
five-story
building
with
124
dwelling
units
and
I'll
walk
through
the
atlantis
applications
that
were
initially
proposed
and
that
are
still
required.
The
ground
floor
is
still
proposed
to
have
walk-up
units
and
the
small
office
space.
That's
proposed
to
be
used
by
the
neighborhood
organization,
so
before
you'll
see
a
table
and
I
believe
you
have
a
memo
that
should
have
been
distributed
to
you
with
the
changes
that
are
now
proposed.
C
So
there
is
a
rezoning
required
on
the
stay
at
the
site.
Currently
has
split
zoning
one
personal
zone
or
two
and
two
of
the
parcels
are
zoned
r5
with
the
initial
submittals.
That
was
the
one
application
staff
did
recommend
approval
of
to
allow
the
site
to
be
under
one
zoning
district,
which
would
allow
redevelopment
because
there
wouldn't
be
a
redevelopment,
couldn't
happen
on
a
parcel
with
both
r2
and
r5
zoning.
There
was
a
conditional
use
permit,
which
I'm
still
required
for
a
five
storey
building,
but
one
story
has
been
eliminated.
C
The
FA
our
variance,
has
been
eliminated.
The
revised
plans
show,
if
they
are
of
less
than
3.0,
the
impervious
surface
variance
has
been
eliminated.
With
the
revised
plans,
the
lot
coverage
variance
has
been
it's
still
required.
Although
the
percentage
of
lock
coverage
has
been
reduced
from
82%
to
77.7%,
there
are
no
changes
to
the
loading
variance
or
the
the
variances
required
along
the
front
yards
long,
26
and
Blaisdell.
C
However,
the
rear
yard
variance
has
been
eliminated
for
the
building
and
it's
only
required
for
the
balcony
encroachment
along
the
alley
and
then
obviously
cycle
interview
has
been
I'm
still
required,
although
the
number
of
dwelling
units
has
decreased,
so
here's
some
photos
of
the
existing
site.
The
current
the
site
is
just
over
30,000
square
feet
in
size
and
contains
two
small
commercial
buildings,
a
small
surface
parking
lot
and
two
and
a
half
story
duplex.
C
So
this
is
a
context
rendering
that
was
submitted
for
the
original
plan.
So
this
is
the
plan
that
went
forward
to
Planning
Commission
and
that
was
approved
there
and
then
you'll
see
that
the
the
rendering
has
changed
now
with
the
elimination
of
the
six
story
and
the
fifth,
the
fifth
floor
is
set
back
slightly.
So
it
does
change
the
kind
of
the
both
the
height
and
the
massing
of
the
building.
And
here
is
the
original
proposal
in
rendering
form
and
the
revised
proposal
with
five
storeys
and
I'm
gonna
walk
through
a
couple
more.
C
So
this
is
the
original
proposal,
five
story
original
six
stories
from
view
from
the
West
and
then
the
five
story
building,
and
so
this
is
the
original
site
plan
submitted.
So
you
can
see
that
the
the
rear
yard
is
close
to
the
alley
here,
and
the
revised
site
plan
does
eliminate
that
rear
yard
variance
just
for
the
building
and
brings
in
the
footprint
of
the
building
of
it.
C
This
is
the
first
floor
of
the
building,
which
has
remained
lar
largely
unchanged,
although
there
have
been
some
changes
to
the
parking
structure
and
then
all
the
amenities
to
a
that's
kind
of
shifted
over
slightly
so
sorries
comprehensive
plan
guidance
goes
the
site
under
the
minneapolis
plan
for
sustainable
growth.
This
urban
neighborhood
urban
neighborhood
areas
call
for
density
of
eight
to
twenty
dwelling
units
per
acre.
The
the
original
proposal
had
a
dwelling
units
per
acre
of
209.
C
It's
slightly
reduced
now,
but
it's
still
significantly
more
than
what
we
would
typically
see
in
an
urban
neighborhood
area.
That's
not
along
any
land
use
features.
While
this
say
is
you
know,
it's
located
a
block
away
from
Nicollet.
It
is
outside
of
the
activity
center
at
26
and
Nicollet.
Nicollet
is
a
commercial
corridor.
C
However,
you
know
that
is
located.
The
block
away
on
this
site
is
a
ways
out
of
the
activity
center.
The
other
guidance
for
the
site
under
2040
is
that
the
parcel
is
indicated
for
interior
3.
An
interior
3
districts
are
intended
to
have
one
two
three
story
buildings,
and
this
is
a
designation
in
the
twenty
forty,
a
plan
that
does
not
allow
for
a
request
to
increase
the
height,
at
least
as
it's
currently
currently
proposed
in
the
plan.
C
So
staff
at
Planning
Commission
had
recommended
denial
of
all
applications,
except
for
the
rezoning
to
allow
for
this
entire
site
to
be
brought
under
one
zoning
district
and
with
the
proposed
changes,
though
they
have
eliminated
two
variances
and
you
know,
reduce
the
intensity
of
some
of
the
other.
Variances
staff
does
not
write
a
new
staff
report
for
that
and
the
staff
recommendation
remains
the
same
with
the
Comprehensive
Plan
guidance
for
the
site,
not
changing,
and
the
proposal
not
changing
significantly
so
I
will
stand
for
questions.
Thank.
D
So
this
staff
reviewed
as
a
new
I
know
you
do
you
have
a
recommendation
in
terms
of
approving
or
not
approving
two
five-story
version
I
mean
there
were
a
lot
of
denials
over
the
six
storey
version.
That
was
really
clear
in
the
staff
report,
but
I'm
not
quite
sure
about
staff,
has
recommendations
on
the
five
story:
yeah.
C
If,
if
this
building
were
to
come
in
as
as
kind
of
a
new
proposal,
I
think
we
had
to
be
in
the
same
situation
with
staff
recommending
denial
just
based
on
you
know
the
underlying
zoning
districts
of
our
two
and
our
five
have
a
maximum
height
of
four
storeys
and
with
the
upcoming
Comprehensive
Plan
guidance
being
for
an
even
lesser
height,
and
that
is
the
biggest
concern
from
a
staff
perspective.
Thank.
D
B
E
Gonna,
try
good
morning
Tom
to
thank
the
me
and
cke
I'm,
the
attorney
for
mr.
Julian
who's
here
this
morning
as
well
and
I
believe
he
wants
to
address
the
committee.
We
join
with
the
staff.
This
is
a
fine
project,
it's
just
not
in
the
right
spot
and
I.
Don't
think
it's
a
close
call.
When
we
look
at
the
city
code,
the
issues
that
would
be
required
to
be
addressed
to
issue
a
conditional
use
permit
of
this
kind
to
put
the
extra
story.
That
I
mean
look
we're
realistic.
E
We
appreciate
that
the
builder
developer
came
down
from
six
storeys,
the
five
storeys,
but
it's
a
little
bit
like
my
kid
trying
to
stay
up
later.
Every
night
you
know
I
know
a
1308.
This
should
be.
This
should
be
a
four-story
build.
That
is
the
maximum.
You
know,
if
you
look
forward
to
2040
this,
this
area
would
be
a
1,
a
2.
Maybe
a
3
right
3
would
be
the
maximum
and
we're
not
we're
not
close
to
that.
E
We're
looking
at
5
now
to
be
fair,
of
course,
we're
not
under
2040
yet
so
so
we're
mindful
that
they're
entitled
to
build
to
4
storeys
if
they
meet
other
requirements.
But
you
know
we
need
to
take
a
look
back,
take
a
step
back
at
the
big
picture.
Of
course,
when
this
developer
bought
this
parcel,
they
were
buying
a
parcel
that
could
be
built
to
floor.
They
that's
how
things
are
priced
in
the
market
and
what
do
they
come
in
with
well?
E
How
about
we
just
go
to
6-
and
you
know
just
just
between
everyone
here
in
this
room.
I
almost
think
the
developer
was
probably
surprised
when
they
got
the
approvals
for
all
8
or
9
of
their
requests.
At
the
Commission
level,
it
was
a
very
close
vote.
I
think
it
was
like
5
to
4,
but
when
I
read
the
staff
report,
I
was
was
very
surprised
to
see
that
vote
come
out
5
to
4
in
favor
of
every
single
request
and
I
won't
belabor.
E
The
eight
points
raised
on
appeal
by
my
client
other
than
to
say
in
a
general
sense,
this
project
really
doesn't
fit
it's
it's
too
dense
for
this
neighborhood
and
that's
what
the
code,
the
comp
plan
and
the
zoning
all
tell
us,
and
and
therefore
we
would
side
with
staff
on
this.
I
really
do
like
to
change
by
the
way
on
the
alley.
Side.
I
think
that's
underrated
of
underrated
importance.
Maybe,
as
we
look
at
all
the
other
issues,
but
it
does
change
the
feel
and
the
character
and
the
intensity
and
density
of
the
project.
E
So
it
gives
it
that
more
of
a
residential
urban
residential
field,
which
is
what's
appropriate
but
to
end
up
close
to
200
individuals,
resigning
their
per
acre.
It
is
not
in
conformity
with
the
neighborhood
and
with
the
plan,
and
so
on
that
basis
we
would
ask
that
the
project
be
rejected
as
presently
proposed
and
that
the
Planning
Commission
findings
be
not
followed
but
overruled
on
a
procedural
matter.
Of
course,
this
hasn't
this
particular
plan
hasn't
gone
through
the
Planning,
Commission
and
I,
don't
know.
E
Procedurally,
if
the
committee
is
looking
at
how
to
handle
the
new
plan
or
not,
but
in
terms
of
the
decisions
that
have
been
made
by
the
Planning
Commission
mr.
Julian,
my
client
would
respectfully
ask
that
those
be
vacated
by
this
committee,
and
if
there
are
any
questions,
I'll
I'll
be
happy
to
address
those
but
I
know.
Mr.
Julian
is
here
thank.
B
F
I
am
Tom
Tulane.
My
address
is
25
43
and
45
pillsbury
Avenue
I'm
directly
west
of
the
development,
the
second
house
up
from
the
alley.
So
you
know
one
of
the
houses
along
there.
The
four
homes
that
are
most
directly
impacted,
I,
think
I
mean
you
know,
Tom
the
rink
and
sitting
city
planning
staff
I
think
have
have
made
the
case
against
the
proposal.
You
know
and
I
think
we
make
that.
F
You
know
I've
lived
in
in
Whittier
for
the
past
thirty
years
and
you
know
I've
seen
the
neighborhood
go
through.
You
know
a
number
of
dramatic
changes,
especially
from
the
late
80s
90s,
when
the
neighborhood
was
a
fairly
rough
neighborhood
to
live
in
I
mean
it's
inevitable
that
the
neighborhood's
gonna
change.
We
don't
oppose
a
development
in
the
neighborhood
me
nor
the
neighbors
who
are
supporting
this
appeal
that
we
don't
stand
in
the
way
of
development
there.
F
You
know
in
this
case
the
developer
has
the
right
to
propose
a
development
that
is,
that
is
consistent
with
the
existing
zoning
ordinances
and
the
Comprehensive
Plan.
You
know
we
don't
intend
to
to
stop
that
from
happening
if
that
would
be,
if
that
were
to
become
the
proposal,
but
what
we
are
arguing
against
is
that
what
is
currently
being
proposed
is
simply
not
appropriate
to
the
particular
site.
B
A
It's
when
we
started
look
at
the
site,
so
we
were
approached
by
the
current,
the
current
owners
of
the
property
who
that
have
had
their
business
there
for
redevelopment
we've
been
interested,
we've
been
developing
around
this
area
and
within
Whittier,
and
we
thought
this
site
was
very
unique.
So
it
is
that
you
know
essentially
the
epicenter
of
of
Whittier
so
being
26
to
Nicollet
and
then
kind
of
on
a
one-way
on
26
being
the
thoroughfare
so
connecting
to
lyndale
connecting
to
Hennepin
and
so
on.
A
Meeting
with
the
neighborhood
group.
You
know
it
was
apparent
that
they
had
a
vision
not
only
for
this
site,
but
their
neighborhood
as
a
whole
and
I
think
you
know
it's.
It's
always
been
our
approach
to
work
with
the
community
understand.
You
know
what
are
the
things
that
they
value:
it's
different
for
every
neighborhood
and
a
lot
of
your
awards
too,
but
understand
understanding
the
values
and
then
how
can
our
building
strength
in
those
values?
A
It
was
pretty
apparent
and
maybe
lumping
those
into
two
items
is
probably
community
involvement
and
attainable
Reds.
So
the
first
one
I'd
like
our
approach,
I
think
it's
it's
something
new
unique
something
that
isn't
common
in
any
neighborhoods.
Is
them
truly
wanting
to
have
our
building
with
a
community
space,
something
that
connects
not
only
our
residents
but
bring
in
you
know
a
renter
base
and
how
to
you
get
them
to
be
a
part
of
the
neighborhood.
A
A
So
by
doing
that,
you
know,
allows
and
other
means
for
organizations
to
have
a
venue
within
our
building
and
then
potentially
our
art
and
it's
also
being
part
of
that
community.
In
addition
of
that,
it
will
be
an
outpost
for
Whittier
to
manage
that
process
manage
the
use
of
the
space,
but
also
the
renter
rebate
program
that
we're
going
to
implement
in
our
building.
So
we're
we're
an
entry
point
market
rate
builder
we're
doing
every
weekend
to
you
know,
provide
spaces
to
you
know:
incomes
between
you
know,
mid-30s
and
60,000.
That's
it's!
A
The
largest
rental
base,
rental
pool
that
there
is
and
there's
very
few
people
building
to
it.
So
there's
people
that
have
you
know,
get
highly
subsidized
products
and
build
affordable
housing,
and
then
everything
else
is
high-end
luxury
market.
So
this
project,
if
it
was
open
today,
how,
though
we
don't
have
income
restrictions,
we
have
units
affordable
to
60%.
Ami
most
of
the
building
would
be
affordable
to
70%,
ami
and
all,
but
two
stacks
of
the
building
would
be
affordable
to
80%
a
money.
A
So
that's
difficult
to
do,
but
I
think
it
also
brings
true
about
the
housing
stock
and
availability
of
a
housing
option
that
Whittier
once
in
their
neighborhood
in
our
approach
to
do
that.
A
second
is
just
kind
of
the
process
of
going
through
the
formal,
the
approvals
you
know,
working
with
both
the
Planning
Commission
and
planning
staff,
our
initial
cau
meeting
there
was
there,
was
a
mixed
review
on
the
building,
but
I
would
say
the
majority
did
not
have
a
strong
comment
or
feedback
on
the
six
stories.
A
It's
something
that
you
know
a
few
blocks
north
that
are
allowed
for.
They
have
six
stories.
They
have
five
stories
on
blasdell
six
stories
kitty-corner
to
us,
it's
not
truly
out
of
place,
but
how
do
you
properly
designed
taking
into
considerations
of
the
neighbors
and
then
ultimately,
the
neighbors
moving
to
the
west
who's
here
today,
planning
staff,
I,
would
say
was
what's
similar.
We
always
knew
that
there
was
concerns
about
impervious
pay,
impervious
surface
and
lot
coverage,
but
I
we
had
some
alternate
compliance.
How
to
do
that?
A
You
know
green
roofs,
ways
that
we
can
kind
of
adjust
our
building
to
accomplish
those
concerns.
It
wasn't
until
a
week
before
our
Planning
Commission
that
we
received
for
thermal
notice
that
the
project
won't
be
supported
by
staff
kind
of
not
allowing
us
to
react
to
some
of
those
requesting
concerns
that
they
had.
So
that's
where
we
had
today.
That's
our
recommendation.
A
You
know
responding
both
to
staff,
the
Planning
Commission
Whittier
and
then
obviously
the
the
neighbors
directly
to
the
west
of
us.
It's
how
we,
you
know
revive
our
building.
You
know
getting
ready
rid
of
multiple
variances.
The
only
initial
need
for
the
valley
variance
was
for
parking.
Then
that
was
it
not
of
not
a
lot
of
Whittier,
but
more
of
the
neighbors
that
Sol
first
story
parking
was
to
provide
more
parking.
I,
don't
think
we
need
that
and
were
able
to
get
rid
of
that
variance,
but
it's
also
looking
at
you
know.
A
The
main
thing
for
us
was
getting
under
that
bulk.
That's
that's
allowed
for
Oh
Artu,
so
we're
under
the
floor
area.
That's
provided,
but
now
how
do
we
situate
at
that?
It's
not
impactful!
So
like
we're
further
away
from
the
neighbors
to
the
south.
We
also
took
some
of
that
mass,
as
you
can
see
from
the
alley
side
and
then
placed
it
on
on
28th
I'm,
sorry,
I'm
blasdell
in
26th.
H
A
G
On
that
part,
but
I'm
also
wondering
about
this
rent
or
rebate
thing.
Yes,
so
I
kind
of
I
have
to
tell
you
maybe
I'm
the
only
one
who's
gonna
kind
of
point
this
out,
but
it
feels
a
little
uncomfortable
to
me
almost
like
a
bride
like
what
will
give
you
space
in
the
building
at
below
market
rate
round
and
we'll
give
our
renters
money
back
to
give
to
the
Neighborhood
Association
and
now
the
Neighborhood
Association
is
supporting
it
and
I.
Don't
know
that
that
kind
of
dealing
over
rules.
E
A
G
Uncomfortable
to
me
and
I
had
never
seen
this
before
I
mean
there's
it's
one
thing
to
work
with
the
Neighborhood
Association.
It's
another
thing
to
give
the
neighbors
money
to
give
to
the
Neighborhood
Association
as
well
as
to
give
them
below
market
space.
Oh,
it
doesn't
feel
right
and
I
I
just
want
to
have
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
more
about
that
sure.
A
Great
a
couple
points
of
clarification:
I
do
see
those
separate
I,
see
us
the
involvement
of
the
neighborhood
and
what
we're
proposing
you
know.
I
I
still
strongly
feel
without
that
involvement.
This
project
is
something
that
is
proper.
You
know
how
its
that
back
and
where
it's
situated
the
dense,
the
bulky
regardless
there's.
G
G
A
So
our
standpoint
is
exactly
that:
how
do
you
do
that?
How
do
you?
How
do
you
have
a
public-private
partnership
and
how
do
you
not
lose
out
on
all
the
opportunities
of
people
building
in
the
city
and
say
that
we
can't
work
with
we
can't
we
can't
come
up
with
unique,
innovative
ideas
to
solve
a
problem
just
because
we're
a
private
organization
and
they
have
their.
You
know
their.
You
know
their
public
and
they
have
different
needs.
So
how
do
we
combine
those
two?
It
is
transparency.
It's
seeing
on.
You
know
what
is
provided.
A
How
is
it
provided
and
why
but
they're
there
good
things
that
can
come
out
of
that
relationship.
So
is
it
a
bribe
or
asking
we
have
other
developments
in
their
in
their
neighborhood
that
are
consistent
to
what
we
want
to
do
here,
but
it's
just
the
opportunities
that
this
have
being
at
the
epicenter
of
we
hear
that
remiel
across
from
the
farmers
market,
there's
an
opportunity
for
us
to
open
our
doors
in
this
public
private.
B
J
J
So
an
extensive,
extensive
community
engagement
process
was
conducted
by
our
housing
issues,
committee
volunteers,
to
kind
of
broaden
neighborhood
input
on
this
project,
and
while
we
weren't
able
to
reach
everyone
nearby,
our
support
of
the
project
was
crafted
and
in
large
part,
based
on
the
responses
that
we
did
receive.
We
conducted
a
survey
distributed
it
electronically
and
so
two
adjacent
blocks
there
door-knocking
being
received
eighty-three
responses
also
held
to
public
meetings.
Where
the
developer
presented,
including
a
vote
from
the
committee.
We
had
multiple
small
group
meetings
where
volunteers
met
to
discuss
the
project.
J
The
top
Community
Benefit
asks
coming
out
of
that
process
and
expressed
in
the
survey
where
support
for
affordable
housing
at
73%,
improved
environmental
features
in
the
building
at
fifty
three
percent
and
community
or
public
use
amenities.
At
thirty,
five
percent,
more
than
half
of
those
surveyed
at
59
percent,
lived
within
three
blocks
of
the
same.
J
So
ultimately,
the
developers
made
several
changes
in
response
to
community
feedback
and
also
agreed
to
partner,
with
woody
reliance
on
three
key
community
benefit
elements
to
better
integrate
this
project
and
its
residents
into
the
existing
neighborhood.
The
first
as
Rob
mentioned,
would
be
to
establish
a
program
where
tenants
can
pay
for
a
portion
of
their
rent
by
volunteering
in
the
community.
The
program
will
be
designed
in
partnership
with
Whittier
Alliance,
to
manage
the
volunteer
sign
offs
with
multiple
nonprofits
and
Whittier,
not
just
our
organization.
J
J
36
percent
of
residents
had
expressed
concerns
about
the
height
and
the
revised
proposal
further
responds
to
those
concerns
which
we
appreciate.
So
we
ask
that
you
recognize
the
level
of
engagement
done,
recognize
the
value
of
those
negotiated
community
benefits
and
ultimately
join
the
Planning
Commission
improving
this
project.
Okay,.
B
Think
we'll
have
a
public
hearing
a
little
bit
after
that
I
will
say
during
Planning
Commission
there
was.
It
was
a
very
long
presentation
by
the
applicant
I
would
try
and
tighten
it
up
a
little
bit,
maybe
really
focus
on
some
of
the
questions
that
have
been
raised.
You
know
why
why
this
building
would
make
sense,
even
though
that
there
made
a
very
convincing
case
that
our
current
ordinance
is
to
our
current
zoning,
for
it
does
not
support
council
president.
Thank.
L
You
mr.
chair,
I,
I,
just
want
to
I'm
sure
this.
Isn't
my
ward
and
I've
had
the
chance
to
talk
with
a
lot
of
the
stakeholders.
I
am
trying
to
hold
some
of
my
questions
because
I
know
their
folks
here
are
here
to
speak.
Who
needs
to
leave
and
I
know
from
where
Ellison
is
also
potentially
means
leave.
So
I
am
I.
L
B
In
light
of
that,
I
would
like
to
give
the
applicant
the
opportunity
to
kind
of
concede
time
maybe
come
back
later
after
hearing
four
more
of
the
public,
because
I
know
that
there's
folks
on
both
sides
that
might
be
helping
your
case
so
I
mean
you're.
Welcome
to
take
more
time
now.
I
guess
the
deal
is
more
time
now
or
less
time
later,
but
you
may
lose
folks
in
those
rooms
that,
if
I'm
reading
hearing
that
correct.
L
Mr.
chair
just
clarify:
I
just
wanted
to
state
that
some
I
got
an
email
this
morning
from
constituent
who
wanted
to
speak
today
and
is
or
what
their
position
is
on
this
project.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
if
there
are
folks
in
the
public
who
want
to
speak
that
need
to
leave
that,
maybe
we
could
just
offer
them
a
chance
to
speak
now
and
if
I'm
wrong,
that's
okay,
maybe
that
person
wasn't
able
to
come
today.
B
M
So
I
wanted
to
sort
of
more
I'm
sorry,
my
name
is
Stephanie
Brown
I
live
at
26
and
third
I'm,
a
member
of
Calvary
Church,
which
was
across
the
street
from
this
site
and
I'm
the
elected
chair
of
housing
issues
committee.
So
to
specifically
address
your
questions.
Councilwoman
the
we
were
also
concerned
about
conflict
of
interest
on
the
perception
of
conflict
of
interest
and
so
very
explicitly
made
sure
that
both
the
rental
credit
and
the
community
space
were
not
tied
to
a
relationship
with
the
neighborhood
organization.
M
So
in
order
to
make
it
function,
the
management
burden
of
that
is
with
the
neighborhood
organization,
but
the
volunteer
could
be
anywhere
in
any
nonprofit
in
the
community
that
is
willing
to
sign
off
on
ours
and
the
space
could
be
accessed
by
any
member
of
the
community.
They
would
just
have
to
request
it,
so
the
intent
was
to
make
a
truly
public
community
access
and
not
links
to
something
that
directly
benefited.
M
The
Whittier
Alliance
I
also
wanted
to
speak
to
some
of
the
issues
that
were
brought
up
in
the
appeal
and
that,
as
time
allows
you
other
people
who
wanted
to
speak.
More
generally,
but
the
appeal
itself
states
that
what
the
project
does
is
it
maximize
economic
return
with
providing
no
unique
benefits
of
any
kind
in
the
community?
I
fundamentally,
disagree
with
and
challenge
that
statement.
M
We
have
gone
to
great
lengths
to
make
sure
there
is
benefit
to
the
community
and
that
benefit
is
not
just
less
neighbors,
but
it's
something
that
really
gives
back
to
the
community
and
allows
a
way
to
integrate
existing
and
new
residents.
Now
they
also
challenge
that
it
is
out
of
context
and
away
from
the
major
activity
center.
I
would
say:
there's
one
block
off
of
the
major
activity
center.
It
is
a
half
block
off
the
2040s
owning
and
the
city
staff
recommended
approval.
M
The
Planning
Commission
approved
a
project
on
1st
and
27th
Street,
so
also
one
block
of
Nicolette
just
earlier
this
year
at
five
stories
that
even
required
a
variance
for
parking,
so
it
didn't
even
exceed
parking.
The
way
this
one
does
and
it
really
offered
zero
unique
benefits
to
the
community.
It
just
wasn't
an
ugly
building.
It
was
only
one
storey
above
and
that
was
handily
approved.
There's
a
building
two
blocks
off
Nicolette.
M
That's
fifth
storeys
the
chroma
building
at
cha,
so
26
and
Stevens
that
was
approved,
and
so
the
idea
that
26th
Street
is
not
a
corridor
and
they
know
what
kind
and
that
this
is
a
strictly
residential.
Our
low
density
residential
when
there
are
apartment
buildings
on
the
northeast
corner
on
the
southeast
corner
and
adjacent
to
the
church
on
the
south
southwest
corner
of
the
building
feels
disingenuous
to
meet.
You
only
look
at
the
overall
context
of
the
neighborhood,
so
we
can
speak
more
to
the
community
minute.
M
B
N
All
right,
Erin
Johnson,
with
djr
architecture,
40:53
Bryant,
Avenue
cell-
thank
you
for
being
here
today,
I'll,
be
as
quick
as
I
can
be.
With
respect
to
time,
I
would
believe
the
planner
did
a
good
job
at
summarizing.
The
changes
on
this
application
I
would
just
like
the
chance
to
run
you
through
how
we
got
to
where
we
are
and
why
it
was
important
that
we
actually
changed
the
application
for
today's
date,
because
there,
even
though
it
was
passed
in
the
Planning
Commission
there
are
concerns.
N
There
was
an
appeal
we
felt
there
was
a
need
to
respond
and
I'm
just
gonna
walk
you
quickly
through
those
changes.
So
the
first
change
was
that
we
reduced
the
height
to
five
stories
or
61.5
feet,
and
we
know
that
is.
We
were
asking
for
a
CEP.
The
allowable
height
is
four
stories
or
56
feet.
So
what
we're
really
asking
for
is
5.5
feet
above
that
allowable
height.
This
did
a
number
of
things
we're
in
the
CPC
hearing
the
Cu
p4
height
was
a
five
to
four
vote.
N
It
was
very
close
which
told
us
there
was.
There
was
great
concern
over
it,
the
other,
the
other
vote
that
was
was
very
close,
which
was
a
five
to
three
vote,
was
the
FA,
our
variance.
So
by
eliminating
this
floor,
we
also
we
reduced
to
where
we
reduced
a
variance
for
the
fa
r,
which
determines
the
bulk
of
the
building,
where
we
believe
it
was
important
that
we
address
the
concern
that
the
the
proposal
was
out
of
scale
with
the
neighborhood.
N
We
brought
it
in
to
scale
from
IFA
our
standpoint,
with
no
variance
other
than
bad
in
terms
of
votes
at
the
CPC.
The
other
variances
were
seven
to
one
and
were
not
close,
so
we
believed,
when
we
did
this
change,
we're
directly
responding
to
the
need,
even
though
that
the
application
did
pass
at
the
time.
N
We've
eliminated
completely
this
impervious
surface
variance
and
brought
it
in
within
code,
which
is
another
measure
that
we
are
addressing
the
concern
of
the
size
and
scale
of
this
building,
and
so
the
last
change
we
did
just
out
of
when
we
changed
things
things
naturally
change
around.
On
the
ground
floor.
N
When
we
were
laying
this
out,
we,
this
applicant
was
not
just
checking
the
box
meeting
with
the
neighborhood.
They
went
above
and
beyond
to
have
multiple
meetings
with
the
neighborhood
get
through
things
and
come
up
with
a
solution
that
you
know
the
neighborhood
could
be
proud
of.
That
they
had
a
direct
hand
in
they
had
you
know,
you
know,
influence
you
know
into
their
neighborhood,
which
is
the
whole
purpose
that
we
may
be
in
one.
N
A
citizen
of
Minneapolis
has
a
reason
to
be
involved
in
in
a
neighborhood
group
and
likewise
in
the
new
2040
plan,
I
believe
it's
policy
100.
That
kind
of
ensures
that
that
we
just
passed
that
we
are
protecting
by
our
new
comp
plan,
the
neighborhood's
right
to
have
influence
in
their
own
neighborhood.
N
B
Thank
you
not
seeing
any
questions
at
this
point.
I'm
going
to
open
the
hearing
to
other
members
of
the
public
would
like
to
speak.
Please
limit
your
comments
to
two
minutes
and
that
will
be
tracked
by
the
near
the
clerk
and
would
any
of
the
members
of
the
public
like
to
speak,
come
on
up
and
if
you
say
your
name
and
address
for
the
record,
please.
O
I'm
Stuart
Stevens
live
at
25,
35,
Pillsbury,
Avenue,
I,
guess,
there's
a
whole
lot
more.
That
I
can
really
say
that,
but
mr.
Devane
can
bend
time
to
and
I've
already
said
in
and
what's
in
the
appeal,
but
basically
I'm
here
to
support
the
position
of
Appeal,
even
with
the
changes
that
have
been
suggested.
I
think
it's
still
the
density.
O
The
overall
impact
on
the
neighborhood
is
more
than
what
we,
what
would
should
be
allowed
as
Tom
said
we're
not
against
development.
We
just
want
to
make
sure
that
people
play
by
the
standards
that
have
been
set
in
place
and
the
other
thing
I
wanted
to
touch
on
is
as
harsh
Steve
community
involvement
grows.
It
should
be
noted
that
that
none
of
the
homeowners
along
26th,
Street
or
Hillary
Avenue
had
been
contacted
about
this
project,
so
we
had
no
I
mean
put
on
the
amount
of
process
at
all.
Thank
you.
K
Hi,
my
name
is
Nicole
Tyler
I
am
a
Whittier
resident
at
24,
21st,
Avenue,
South
and
I'm,
a
member
of
the
Whittier
Alliance
housing
issues
committee.
So
I
am
here
to
speak
in
support
of
project
approval
as
long
as
it's
with
the
stipulations
laid
out
in
your
packet
from
the
Whittier
Alliance
I
understand
a
lot
of
folks
have
come
up
here.
Talking
about
the
creative
partnership,
so
I'm
not
going
to
focus
too
much
on
that,
though.
I
think
that
it
is
a
very
impressive
body
of
work.
K
So
I
think
that
rebate
is
the
wrong
word.
I,
think
credit
is
sort
of
what
we
should
be
looking
at
there,
because
the
return
is
coming
to
the
community
and
it's
not
getting
kicked
back
to
the
Alliance
I
work
for
st.
Stephens
Human
Services
for
many
years,
which
is
in
the
Whittier
community
and
spaces
like
that,
could
really
benefit
from
people
in
the
community
getting
to
know
folks
who
are
sort
of
coming
in
and
out
of
those
systems,
and
not
only
that.
K
Only
through
this
sort
of
creative
partnership,
and
that
would
be
without
any
subsidy.
The
jointly
use
community
space
is
also
a
really
big
benefit
to
residents
and
especially
to
people
who
sit
on
community
on
committees
like
I.
Do
I
realize
I'm
running
out
of
time
and
but
also
having
the
Whittier
Alliance
have
a
little
bit
more
of
an
office
space
that
is
centrally
located
at
that
epicenter
might
give
other
residents
an
opportunity
to
get
more
involved
with
our
Neighborhood
Association.
Thank.
B
P
Thank
You
counsel
people,
my
name
is
Shannon
Dodson
I'm,
a
video
resident
at
24:32,
Clinton,
Avenue
South,
and
a
member
of
Whittier
housing
issues.
Committee
engaged
in
the
project
for
support
development
in
our
city
in
our
neighborhood
is
not
going
away
and
we
need
more
housing
for
a
growing
population
and
the
folks
already
living
there.
The
Whittier
allowance,
Housing
Committee
Alliance
Housing
Committee,
understands
that
we
need
to
think
more
creatively
for
ways
to
identify
to
secure
broader
community
benefit
in
new
developments.
P
We
believe
that
this
is
a
reasonable
trade.
The
developer
has
further
reduced.
The
building
height
is
a
new
proposal
and
we
believe
this
is
good
and
a
reasonable
compromise.
We
aren't
supporting
this
building
because
of
the
height
or
the
number
of
units,
but
because
of
the
community
benefits
we
have
negotiated
into
the
project
and
that
I
think
could
set
precedent
for
other
developers
coming
into
our
neighborhood.
I
think
that
this
is
a
new
concept
for
the
builders
to
think
to
make
our
community
more
vibrant.
P
By
you
know,
engaging
people
to
volunteer
and
to
create
a
community
to
reduce
the
size
would
further
would
to
reduce
the
size
would
be
to
remove
the
community
benefits
from
the
project
and
a
smaller
building
with
higher
rents
and
less
Community.
Partnership
does
not
feel
like
a
better
deal
for
our
neighborhood.
We
ask
for
you
to
respect
the
effort
that
we've
went
to
evaluating
these
trade-offs
in
the
community
and
there's
to
the
input
involved.
Thank
you.
Thank.
Q
Good
morning,
Bruce
Goldstein
and
the
owner
of
the
property
involved
here
and
also
run
a
Goldstein
law
and
I'm
really
here,
with
my
developer,
had
on
more
than
the
legal
hat,
but
sometimes
we
we
wear
several
and
I,
think
it's
important
that
that
all
of
you
understand
why
we're
doing
this.
First
of
all,
the
three
parcels,
one
is
a
house
that
is
literally
falling
apart.
Q
Where
we're
doing
all
we
can
right
now
to
keep
it
put
together
with
with
band-aids
the
old
chiropractors
building
on
26th
hasn't
been
remodeled
or
done
really
had
any
improvements
for
for
over
30
years.
It's
completely
outdated.
It
needs
to
be
really
needs
to
be
torn
down.
My
law
office
was
built
in
the
early
90s.
Actually
as
a
as
an
ad
agency,
we've
done
significant
modification
of
that
to
try
to
make
it
work
for
a
law
firm.
It
really
doesn't
work
so
well
because
of
the
way
it
was
put
together
and
frankly,
we
were.
Q
L
You
mr.
chair
I
know
there
were
some
more
questions
from
from
Council
members,
so
I
don't
want
to
bypass
that.
But
I
I
will
make
a
motion
to
deny
the
appeal
for
number
one
and
to
approve
the
rezoning
on
number
three
and
I'm
happy
to
speak
to
it
or
give
Council
members
more
time
to
ask
questions
and
I
do
have
a
couple
of
questions
myself.
All.
L
We
want
neighborhood
organizations
to
do
and
I
appreciate
that
you
listened
and
that
you
took
the
time
to
do
all
of
that.
I
also
want
to
say
that
the
results
of
the
survey
and
the
door-knocking
well,
not
everyone
was
reached
and,
of
course,
there
is
a
difference
of
opinion
from
the
folks
who
live
right
there.
Who
are
very
affected
by
this
building
and
will
be
whether
it's
four
stories
or
five
those
are.
They
seem
like
the
things
that
I
hear
as
well
from
constituents
so,
for
example,
affordability
being
the
number
one
priority.
L
That
is
what
we
hear
all
the
time
and
it's
why
I'm
the
author
of
our
inclusionary
zoning
ordinance,
which
unfortunately
has
taken
a
very
large
number
of
years,
which
will
finally
be
coming
for
that
council
later
this
year.
So,
in
the
absence
of
city
policy
that
responded
to
my
constituents
concerns
about
affordability,
they
did
their
best
to
negotiate
for
what
they
could
do
in
their
own
community.
This
is
my
entire
award
is
located
within
a
quarter-mile
walking
distance
from
high
frequency
transit.
L
So
it
is
a
bit
of
a
you
know,
an
arbitrary
boundary
about
where
we
say
something
is
transit,
oriented,
I'm,
an
entire
Ward
as
transit
oriented.
So
sometimes
it's
a
matter
of
what
are
the
adjacent
land
uses
and
what's
the
context
for
any
particular
building,
all
of
the
other
things
that
we
heard
from
the
community
are
also
things
I,
frequently
hear
from
constituents.
L
So
the
lack
of
community
meeting
space
there
are
two
churches
in
in
Whittier
that
are
like
the
only
place
to
meet
for
community
meetings
and
those
have
constraints
related
to
schedule
and
when
the
buildings
are
open
and
closed
and
they
do
come
often
with
with
a
cost.
A
financial
cost
to
the
community.
I've
also
used
those
spaces
myself
and
they're.
L
Really
supportive
and
wonderful
assets
and
they've
been
really
generous
with
their
space,
but
there
isn't
really
a
community
space
in
the
neighborhood,
so
I'm
not
surprised
to
hear
that
that
came
out
as
a
priority,
the
bicycle
facilities.
This
is
adjacent
to
the
26th
Street
protected
bike
way
and
the
Blaisdell
protected
bike
way.
L
So
just
to
say,
you
know,
I
hear
a
lot
of
concern
about
this.
Particular
negotiation
and
I
think
as
council
members,
we
have
to
take
that
maybe
under
advisement,
but
that
isn't
how
we're
able
to
make
the
land-use
decisions
that
are
in
front
of
us.
But
I
did
want
to
reassure
my
colleagues
that,
after
talking
with
everyone
and
hearing
how
this
arrived,
the
way
it
did,
it
is
very
reflective
of
what
I
hear
from
my
constituents
day
in
and
day
out,
and
the
priorities
are
clear.
L
So
all
that
said
you
know,
I
haven't
lobbied.
My
colleagues
I've
talked
to
them
to
see.
If
they
had
any
questions.
I
know.
Council
members
may
land
differently
on
this
project,
but
at
this
time,
knowing
what
I
do
about
the
physical
size
of
the
building
and
how
it
has
been
changed,
I
am
supportive,
but
I
do
want
to
see
if
the
developer
can
talk
specifically
about
the
bicycle
facilities
and
their
conversations
with
Public
Works.
N
So
we
have
had
a
meeting
with
right
away
to
talk
about
the
condition
on
approval
about
the
bike
lane
and
and
potential
improvements.
The
conversation
to
date
that
happened
last
week
revolved
more
around
right.
Now,
the
the
temporary
buy
protection
plan
for
when
we
would
be
doing
construction
and
that's
where
it's
been
left
because
right
away
suggested
that
further
talks
have
to
happen,
including
traffic,
because
they
realize
they're,
not
the
only
stakeholders
but
right
away
were
the
ones
that
did
put
this
comment
on
the
PDR
report
when
we
went
through
the
PDR
process.
N
D
R
B
R
I
believe
there's
a
memo
in
your
packets
that
kind
of
goes
through
the
changes
and
what
applications
are
now
required
versus
what
was
required
when
it
went
to
Planning
Commission,
but
we
can
it's
probably
best
to
go
through
them,
one
by
one,
just
so
we're
being
clear
with
the
action.
So
the
approval
for
the
conditional
use
permit
had
originally
been
a
request
to
six
stories
or
73.5
beeps.
That
would
be
an
amended
request
to
five
stories
per
the
memo.
R
You
can
help
me
out
here:
Lindsay,
the
pervious
surface
variance
could
also
be
returned
or
considered
withdrawn
by
the
applicants.
There's
going
to
be
a
modification
to
the
action
for
the
maximum
lot
coverage
variance
because
that
has
been
reduced.
The
loading
stays,
as
is
as
as
the
front
yard,
setbacks,
and
then
the
final
modification
would
be
an
adjustment
to
the
request
for
the
rear
yard.
Setback
would
now
be
just
for
the
balconies
on
the
rear
yard,
not
for
the
building
wall
itself.
D
B
You
not
seeing
others
I'll,
add
my
own
comments.
I
was
one
of
the
dissenting
votes
at
Planning
Commission,
mainly
that
because
there's
just
so
many
variances
and
then
it
didn't
bless
you
it
didn't
make
the
zoning
just
didn't
support
the
building.
There
I
really
appreciate
the
developer.
Looking
at
the
height
and
hearing
that
loud
and
clear
I,
really,
as
I
said,
a
Planning
Commission
really
appreciate
the
work.
That's
been
done
with
the
neighborhood
organization.
I
would
love
to
set
the
precedent
today
that
you
know
by
working
with
the
neighbor
organization.
B
By
going
above
and
beyond
what
Minneapolis
says,
we
will
allow
something,
but
I
can't
do
it
with
this
project.
I
will
not
be
supporting
the
vote.
I
think
that
we,
while
we've,
set
a
very
ambitious
goal
with
the
2040
plan.
Some
of
that
is
being
transparent.
Some
of
that
is
being
clear
and
sticking
to
it
and
while
it
is
well,
we
will
have
areas
that
are
across
the
street
from
each
other.
B
L
You
mr.
chair
I
do
think
you
know
I
appreciate
the
reference
to
that
mini
Apple's
2040
plan
and,
as
you
know,
better
than
anyone
as
chair
staff,
it's
hard
at
work.
Looking
at
how
to
implement
that
plan
after
it
is
adopted
by
the
Metropolitan
Council
I,
do
think
of
all
of
the
land
use
or
the
development
intensity
classifications
that
were
created
and
adopted.
The
interior
3
is
the
one
that
needs
the
most
detailed
development
and
understanding
of
how
that
will
be
implemented.
Interior
one
is
very
clear.
L
D
I
just
feel
an
obligation
to
follow
the
current
rules
as
they
were,
dealing
with
height,
which
does
allow
a
height
increase
with
a
conditional
use
permit,
rather
than
the
future
rule,
so
I
just
I'm
noting
that
now
is
that
I'm
not.
It
seems
like
we're
obligated
to
operate
under
the
current
rules
and
restrictions,
but
I
really
appreciate
house
looking
ahead
to
the
future
and
all
the
commitments
we
just
made
as
well.
So
it's
an
interesting
discussion.
I
G
I
On
my
understanding,
I
would
assume
that
we
are
with
the
nine
appeals
on
the
agenda,
that
we
are
basically
considering
number
two
and
number
three
withdrawn
by
the
applicant,
and
then
we
would
be
approving
one
four,
nine
denying
the
appeal
with
the
appropriate
revisions
based
on
staffs
recommendations.
As.
P
B
Just
follow
up
on
the
second
part
of
your
motion,
so
council,
president
bender
has
moved
item
three.
The
rezoning
application
discussed
during
this
hearing,
I'm
gonna,
all
those
in
favor
of
the
rezoning
Police,
say:
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed.
No
the
ice
have
it
and
that
motion
carries
item
number
four
is
a
regulation
of
the
dreyfuses
facilities
ordinance.
This
was
postponed
from
our
June
27th
meeting
and
will
begin
with
a
brief
staff
presentation.
H
Thank
You,
chair
Schrader:
this
is
a
zoning
code
text,
amendment
related
to
the
regulation
of
drive-thru
facilities
at
its
meeting
of
June
3rd,
the
City
Planning
Commission
unanimously
recommended
approval
of
the
ordinance
in
front
of
you
and
they
did
so
on
their
consent
agenda.
The
amendment
would
prohibit
the
establishment
of
new
drive-through
facilities
in
all
zoning
districts.
Currently,
drive-throughs
are
allowed
in
only
six
of
our
23
primary
zoning
districts.
The
proposed
amendment
also
would
clarify,
add
some
additional
clarity
to
what
we
consider
to
be
a
drive-through
facility
or
not.
H
There
are
some
new
models
of
ordering
things
and
before
you
get
to
a
store
and
those
items
being
brought
out
to
your
to
your
vehicle
target
and
other
facilities
are
doing
that,
we
are
not
considering
that
a
drive-through.
We
are
making
that
clear
in
our
definition.
Among
other
clarifying
points,
the
issues
that
have
led
to
the
amendment,
primarily
our
concerns
about
vehicle
idling
and
noise
and
noise
being
from
both
the
vehicles
themselves
and
speaker
boxes,
as
well
as
the
curb
cuts
that
conflict
with
our
pedestrian
goals.
H
H
It's
very
difficult
to
address
things
like
noise
and
idling.
Well,
that
are
kind
of
inherent
with
drive-thru
facilities.
We
have
heard
one
concern
from
the
disabilities
community
I,
along
with
council
president
and
her
staff
have
met
with
the
Minneapolis
Advisory
Committee
on
people
with
disabilities.
We've
met
with
representative
to
several
times,
as
well
as
the
full
committee.
Once
ultimately,
we
were
not
able
to
reach
an
agreement
that
would
be
responsive
to
their
concerns.
I
understand
that
a
letter
from
the
committee
was
distributed
today,
I
have
not
seen
that
letter.
H
So
I
can't
speak
to
the
specific
contents
of
it.
It's
important
to
note
that
existing
Drive
few
facilities
would
all
be
allowed
to
remain
as
legal
non-conforming
uses
and
those
property
owners
who
have
existing
drafting
facilities
would
be
able
to
ask
for
permission
to
alter
them,
expand
them
or
even
we
can
reconstruct
them
again.
This
ordinance
was
approved
by
the
Planning
Commission
on
its
consent
agenda.
There
wasn't
nobody
present
to
speak
in
opposition
at
the
ordinance
at
the
public
hearing.
H
D
Yeah
I
had
a
question
about
maybe
about
the
definition
of
Drive
thrus
I
was
thinking
about
this
and
it
correct
me
that
some
of
the
libraries
have
booked
drop-offs
back
to
downtown
library
has
one
that's
deep
within
their
parking
ramp,
so
it's
contained
in
the
building
and
there's
one
curb
cut
to
get
in
and
out.
Eastlake
library
actually
has
one
on
the
driveway
into
their
park.
H
My
recording
that's
a
good
question.
I
would
say
we
have
not
considered
those
to
be
drive-thrus.
Drive-Throughs
have
typically
been
interpreted
as
you're
transacting,
some
sort
of
business
well
and
not
leaving
your
vehicle.
We
have
in
somewhat
similar
situation,
have
determined
and
I
think
clarified
an
ordinance
that
things
like
dropping
out
household
donations
at
a
store
that
resells,
then,
if
you're
not
leaving
your
vehicle,
that
that's
not
really
transacting
business
and
it's
not
considered
a
drive-through.
Even
though,
arguably
there
are
some
similar
impacts.
H
D
Did
see
the
letter
from
the
committee,
people
with
disabilities
and
I
think
it's
worth
reviewing
and
it
talks
a
lot
about
sort
of
you
alluded
to
some
pull
in
and
pick
up.
You
know
you
order
first
and
those
kinds
of
things
and
I
think
there
are
even
some
instances,
maybe
where
a
retailer
now
will
have
a
parking
space
reserved
for
somebody,
who's
called
ahead
of
time
and
they
maybe
bring
it
out
to
them.
D
I'm,
not
quite
sure
how
it
works,
but
they're
emphasizing
that
if
we're
losing
the
drive
thrus,
we
should
maybe
somehow
create
incentives
or
requirements
for
other
options
to
be
available
for
some
needs.
I
know
they
also
called
out
ATM
machines
as
a
particular
need.
So
something
to
look
at
I.
Don't
have
amendments
or
ideas
at
this
point,
but
it's
worth
giving
that
a
read
and
for
us
all
I
think
to
reflect
on
it.
They
raised
some
good
points.
It
was
kind
of
it.
H
Guarding
those
are
good
points.
Of
course,
businesses
will
continue
to
have
to
apply
comply
with
rather
the
Minnesota
accessibility
code,
as
well
as
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act.
When
we
talked
about
whether
the
city
should
take
on
some
responsibility
related
to
informing
businesses
of
their
responsibilities
to
comply
with
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act,
there
was
some
concern
about
that,
potentially
leaning,
leading
us
to
taking
on
an
enforcement
role.
Technically,
the
city
is
not,
you
know
in
the
role
of
enforcing
a
DA,
that's
actually
the
federal
government,
the
Department
of
Justice
that
enforces
that.
H
So
we
were
a
little
concerned
about
kind
of
blurring
some
of
those
lines,
but
clearly
businesses
will
still
have
to
comply
with
with
the
law,
on
both
Minnesota
accessibility
code
and
and
a
DA,
and
many
businesses
do
go
beyond
and
provide
accommodations
to
people
who
you
know
if
a
walk
has
not
been
sufficiently
shoveled,
for
example,
and
they're
in
their
vehicle,
businesses
will
often
bring
goods
and
services
how
it's
to
to
a
waiting
vehicle.
A
thing
I
think
make
a
phone
call.
D
And
we
don't
have
to
get
lost
too
far
down
on
this,
but
maybe
it's
even
things
like
when
we're
proving
surface
parking
lots
for
a
business.
Some
we
can
somehow
look
out.
Do
they
have
some
some
short-term
stalls
that
could
accommodate
this
or
the
right-of-way
by
businesses
when
they're
functioning?
Do
we
have
options
for
that,
like
we
I
guess,
disability
parking
is
something
people
usually
ask
for,
but
anyways
something
to
keep
in
mind.
Thank
you.
G
You
mr.
chair
for
discussion
purposes,
I'm
gonna,
move
approval
and
speak
to
this
time.
Sure
council
president
bender
also
probably
has
something
to
say
this
originally
came
up
as
a
body
of
work
as
a
result
of
a
business
wanting
to
build
a
one-story
building
with
a
drive-through
on
South
Hennepin
Avenue,
which
I
just
was
as
offended
about
as
most
of
my
constituents
look
at
that
area
and
that's
where
this
work
really
started.
G
There
is
no
doubt
that
in
my
long
tenure
on
the
council,
one
of
the
more
controversial
things
that
comes
before
us
is
neighbors
opposing
drivers.
I
rarely
have
seen
anyone
other
than
the
applicants
of
drive-throughs
come
to
speak
in
favor
of
them
and
I
think
that
this
two
threads,
the
needle
really
well,
because,
essentially
what
it
says
is
anyone
who's.
There
now
can
stay.
That
increases
the
value
of
those
properties
and
pretty
much
ensures
where
there
is
a
Walgreens
in
the
future.
G
It
might
be
a
CVS
or
vice
versa,
because
they
have
the
special
privilege
to
be
able
to
have
a
drive-thru.
So
we
should
note
that
we're
actually
increasing
the
property
values
of
the
businesses
that
have
them
currently
and
I
think
that's
fair.
It's
not
unlike
the
tobacco
work
that
we're
doing
with
regard
to
the
spacing
ordinance,
but
in
the
end,
having
multiple
curb
cuts
in
downtown
or
in
commercial
corridors
makes
absolutely
no
sense.
G
It
is
nonsensical
for
people
who
walk
or
bike
to
be
thinking
about
having
to
go
across
large
driveways
and
multiple
large
driveways
in
multiple
sites.
There
is,
there
are
a
lot
of
things.
The
city
is
doing
to
ensure
accessibility
to
people
of
all
abilities.
I'll.
Just
note
that
PV
Plaza
was
a
ten
million
dollar
investment,
making
sure
that
that
Plaza
owned
by
the
city
was
accessible
to
everybody.
The
city
takes
a
da
extremely
seriously.
There
is
nothing
about
this
that
changes
anything
that's
happening.
Currently,
the
city
is,
for
the
most
part,
a
built
environment.
G
G
So
it
sounds
odd,
coming
from
someone
like
me,
but
my
constituents
have
told
me,
especially
the
ones
living
closest
commercial
corridors
that
drive
throughs
are
a
gigantic
problem,
as
it
pertains
to
the
number
of
curb
cuts
and
the
safety
of
the
interaction
between
pedestrians
and
bikers,
which
is
why
I
partnered
with
councilmember
bender,
to
bring
this
forward
I'm
really
proud
of
this
work.
I
think
it's
something
that
should
happen
in
a
city
like
this
and
I.
L
You
mr.
chair
mr.
Wittenberg
I
wondered
if
you
have
the
map
that
shows
what
a
drive
throughs
are
allowed
today
it
is
in
our
you
know
on
limbs,
it's
available
as
the
attachments,
but
you
have
it.
That's
I
think
it
is.
Thank
you.
So
thank
you.
Custom
equipment
for
making
the
motion
and
I'll
just
echo
that
this
Walgreens
that
we
were
able
to
work
together
and
to
respond
to
our
shared
constituents
concerns
primarily
in
Ward,
7,
of
course,
right
adjacent
to
the
new
building.
L
You
know
we
had
to
negotiate
all
these
different
things
that
door
that
we
got
on
the
corner.
It's
always
closed,
I'm,
always
calling
staff
to
say
you
know
the
pedestrian
access
door
says
it's
broken
all
the
time,
I,
don't
think
it
really
is,
and
so,
but
I
do
think.
It's
important
to
note
that
you
know
the
largest
areas
here
that
are
highlighted
are
a
lot
of
industrial
areas,
but
the
places
where
drivers
are
really
allowed
today
are
you
know,
kind
of
smattering
of
sights
on
some
of
our
commercial
corridors.
L
L
Is
it
actually
just
kind
of
an
incremental
move
toward
what
the
city
has
been
doing
for
many
years,
and
we
had
discussed
a
lot
of
different
ways
to
respond
to
the
disability,
community
committees
concerns
and
partly
looking
at
this
pattern
in
this
map,
it
became
difficult
to
imagine
how
we
would
maintain
this
pattern
in
the
future
as
a
rezoning
code.
A
lot
of
all
you
know
when
we
had
talked
about
other
different
versions
of
should
we
allow
Drive
thrus
only
in
mixed-use
buildings
and
I.
Think
council
members
are
open
to
that.
L
I
will
say
that
on
the
on
the
Kmart
site
that
right
there
at
naked
lekha
Nicollet
of
the
many
iterations
of
conversation
that
had
about
that
site,
one
was
trying
to
get
a
nearby
pharmacy
in
a
mixed-use
building
and
it
seems
like
that
is
a
very
difficult
development
to
make
work.
And
so
we've
seen
a
couple
of
examples.
But
I
think
that
that
is
a
really
relatively
limited
application.
S
You
mr.
Jarrell,
a
couple
of
the
comments
of
my
colleagues
that
have
already
been
made.
This
is
clearly
sort
of
a
refinement
of
the
direction
we've
had
for
probably
over
a
decade.
This
is
not
a
dramatic
overhaul
by
any
means.
The
council
member
Goodman
points,
the
accomodation
that
we
have
existing,
is
pretty
much
well
spread
in
every
community.
I,
don't
know
one
community
that
is
not
served
by
a
drive-thru
pharmacy
and
the
things
that
we
do
value
and
that
would
serve
disabled
communities.
S
So
I
think
we're
not
doing
anything
too
dramatic
here,
but
we
are
reinforcing
our
existing
policies
and
our
pending
policies,
and
just
on
the
note
of
the
industrial
word,
it's
the
preponderance
of
areas
where
you
could
do
it,
because
outside
of
that,
it's
a
very,
very
narrow
set
of
areas
where
you
could
do
it.
This
is
exactly
the
kind
of
land-use
you
don't
want
to
have
there,
it's
the
opposite
of
what
that
land
uses
for
which
is
a
high
concentration.
S
Ideally,
a
high
concentration
of
employment
at
the
highest
possible
wages
versus
the
lowest
use
of
the
land
with
the
lowest
wages.
It's
quite
the
opposite,
and
that's
the
one
large
area
where
it's
allowed
now
and
so
eliminating
that
I
would
say.
In
addition
to
the
well
put
comments
of
my
colleagues,
it
reinforces
that
policy
as
well
and
I
wholeheartedly
endorse
that.
B
B
H
You
chase
Rader.
This
is
the
zoning
code,
excellent
work
plan
that
we're
bringing
for
your
consideration.
This
morning,
we
most
recently
brought
a
work
plan
for
your
consideration.
Last
November.
The
work
plan
currently
has
15
items.
It
consists
of
both
previously
guided
items
on
the
work
plan
from
last
November
that
have
not
yet
been
completed,
as
well
as
some
new
amendments
that
are
both
technical
in
nature
and
amendments
that
will
implement
the
policy
direction
from
Minneapolis
2040
after
the
council
confirms
our
work
plan.
H
New
amendments
that
are
that
come
up
generally
will
go
to
the
bottom
of
the
list
unless
there's
some
legal
urgency
or
other
special
circumstance.
That
means
that
an
amendment
has
to
get
done
relatively
quickly
with
fats,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
about
the
work
pant
plan
generally
or
any
specific
items
on
it.
B
All
right
are
there
any
questions
for
my
colleagues,
if
not
I'm,
going
to
move
the
approval
of
the
work
plan,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye,
all
those
opposed
say
no,
the
eyes
have
it,
and
the
motion
carries.
Thank
you
very
much
and
with
that
we
have
an
open,
seeing
no
further
business
before
the
committee.
We
are
turned.