►
From YouTube: March 7, 2019 Zoning & Planning Committee
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
A
Good
morning,
I'm
gonna
call
the
order
this
regular
meeting
of
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
for
Thursday
March
7th.
My
name
is
Jeremy
Schrader
and
I'm.
The
chair
of
this
committee
with
me
at
the
diaster
councilmember
Ellison
council,
president
bender
councilmember,
Reich,
councilmember,
Goodman
and
Councilman
in
recordin.
Let
the
record
reflect
that
we
have
a
quorum.
We've
got
five
items
on
the
agenda
today
and
we'll
begin
with
the
consent
agenda,
which
is
number
two
through
four
item.
A
Two
is
the
referring
to
staff
the
subject
matter
of
an
ordinance
amending
entitled
20
of
the
minneapolis
quote
of
ordinances
relating
to
the
zoning
code
authorizing
the
use
of
residential
uses
up
to
three
units
on
properties
with
lower
density,
zoning
districts
and
amending
the
standards
related
to
building
bulk
its
lot
size
required,
Yards
setback
and
other
development
standards.
Item
number
three:
is
the
environmental
assessment
worksheet
for
the
proposed
Portland
and
Washington
mixed-use
development
located
at
505,
30,
South,
third
Street
and
2042?
A
Excuse
me
240,
Portland,
Avenue
and
number
four
is
the
setting
of
the
public
hearing
for
our
next
meeting
on
March
21st
in
order
to
consider
two
mayoral
reappointments
to
the
City
Planning
Commission?
Are
there
any
questions
or
comments
from
committee
members
on
these
items
or
at
anyone
like
to
pull
these
off
for
a
discussion?
A
No,
the
eyes
have
it
and
the
motion
carries
well
then,
move
on
to
our
quasi-judicial
hearing
item
number
one,
which
is
the
consideration
of
an
appeal
submitted
by
jeff
elder
on
behalf
of
all
companies
regarding
the
Planning
Commission's
condition
of
approval
number,
seven
to
a
site
plan
review,
approving
a
Planned
Unit
development
at
4:45,
malcom,
Avenue,
southeast
419
and
through
405,
through
504
29th,
Avenue,
South,
East
and
501
30th,
Avenue,
South,
East
and
we'll
begin
with
the
staff
presentation.
Thank.
B
It's
the
north,
south
and
east
elevations
that
exceed
that
30%
and
45%
46%
and
67%
respectively.
The
opulent
yeah,
the
applicant
accurately
notes
the
intent
and
the
guidance
of
exterior
materials,
exterior
building
walls
and
materials
being
for
durability
and
compatibility,
and
in
that
hierarchy
of
exterior
materials.
B
Brick
and
stone
are
allowed
to
be
a
hundred
percent
and
that
those
are
and
and
those
are
more
durable
materials
than
cement
board
siding.
Just
as
an
example
regarding
compatibility
again,
we
feel
that
that
fiber
cement
is
not
as
compatible
with
the
neighboring
historic
fabric
of
this
area
and
all
throughout
the
city.
I
would
feel
like
the
lime
apartment,
29th
and
lyndale
is
a
good
example.
B
That's
being
built
prior
to
the
guidelines
being
implemented
in
2014
that
fiber
cement
siding
its
provides,
it
not
being
the
part
in
gray,
metal
panels,
the
orange
and
we
don't
regulate,
color
or
advocating
for
the
orange
and
other
projects.
But
with
this
cement
board
siding
its
it
could
be
flat,
and
then
it
also
reduces
the
ability
to
have
to
it
dictates
where
the
windows
are
gonna
be,
and
so
that
adds
to
the
flatness
of
a
building
when
they're
flush
with
that
cement
board
siding.
B
So
there
are
dozens
of
projects
each
year
that
have
been
able
to
they've
been
approved,
that
we've
proved
that
comply
with
the
guidelines
for
exterior
materials
in
the
five
years
that
the
guidelines
have
been
in
place,
including
affordable
housing
projects.
Just
another
image
of
the
line
building
we
have
higher
ground
on
12th
Street,
the
hook-and-ladder,
affordable
project
in
Northeast
and
the
showing
the
exterior
materials
proposed
in
and
what
was
approved.
B
East
Towne
apartments
in
downtown
and
I'll
also
note
that
there
have
been
two
recent
appeals
that
that
those
appeals
were
denied
when
asking
for
an
exceeding
when
the
applicant
requested
to
exceed
the
maximum
percentage
of
fiber
cement
panels,
not
being
901
Winter
Street
in
510,
West,
Lake
Street.
So
in
summary
of
the
in
summary,
an
adjust.
This
is
an
important
in
visible
sight.
It's
phase
one
of
the
Malcolm
Yards
development,
so
we
really
want
to
set
the
bar
at
just
maintaining
that
minimum
bar
of
what's
allowed.
B
We
don't
want
to
lower
our
standards
for
affordable
housing
projects
on
what
they
look
like
from
the
exterior,
and
we
really
don't
want
to
open
up
this
request
to
allow
for
deviation
from
these
guidelines
that
we
really
feel
have
worked
well
in
the
past
five
years.
And
finally,
this
is
part
of
a
plan,
unit,
development
and
part
of
the
purpose
of
a
plan.
Unit
development
is
to
have
those
buildings,
be
cohesive
and
work
together
and
by
maintaining
that
minimum
threshold.
We
really
feel
that
gets
to
that
that
go
on.
C
I
guess
my
question
is:
how
often
do
we
review
this
policy?
You've
said
we've
if
this
has
been
in
place
for
five
years,
and
it
does
seem
like
we're
hearing
about
this
issue
more
and
more
with
more
projects
coming
forward
and
I.
Remember
the
last
time
we
deny
one
of
these
there
there
were
was
purported
expert
in
front
of
us
with
lots
of
information
saying
that
the
way
these
are
built
now,
things
are
changing.
Do
we
have
any
plans
I'll,
just
let
let
folks
know
I'm
very
much
inclined
to
stick
with
our
policy.
C
If
we
have
a
policy
I,
don't
like
changing
it,
but
I
also
want
our
pop
I
mean
changing
it
on
one-off
projects,
but
I
won't
have
a
good
policy.
Are
we
in
the
process
of
reviewing
and
analyzing
this
or
when
might
we
take
another
look
at
it
to
make
sure
that
it's
still
consistent
with
with
what
we
would
do
it
five
years
ago,
but.
D
Sure
comes
to
mind
Gordon.
This
is
an
issue.
That's
on
our
text,
amendment
work
plan,
it's
not
high
on
the
work
plan
at
the
moment,
but
it
is
something
that's
certainly
on
a
radar.
We
did
attempt
to
formulate
an
ordinance
within
the
past
couple
years
that
there
was
some
disagreement
about
that
and
that
that
stalled.
Essentially
it's
a
complicated
issue
with
a
lot
of
different
opinions
and-
and
there
are
cost
implications,
of
course,
but
it
is.
D
C
A
E
Thank
You
mr.
chair
council
members
good
morning.
My
name
is
Jeff
Ehlert
and
with
the
wall
companies
811,
LaSalle,
Avenue,
Suite
210
in
Minneapolis,
the
wall
companies
with
our
partner,
loopy
development,
have
created
more
than
a
thousand
units
of
affordable
housing
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis
can
see
our
projects
in
many
different
neighborhoods
and
we're
proud
of
our
efforts
to
produce
that
affordable
housing
in
the
city.
E
We
believe
we
meet
the
spirit
of
the
guideline
with
three
materials,
as
is
shown
on
the
elevation.
That's
currently
on
your
screen.
We
have
some
different
colors
on
there,
but
we
believe
we
meet
the
intent
on
that.
We
also
have
gone
through
an
extensive
process
with
Planning
Commission
went
to
committee
of
the
whole
twice
redesigned
this
building
to
change,
how
it
looked
and
how
it
tied
into
the
larger
Planned
Unit
development.
E
We
are
unaware
of
any
studies
that
show
a
difference
in
durability
or
performance
from
a
3
H
to
a
5
inch
cement
fiber
panel.
We
don't
believe
that
that
that
that
information
is
out
there
cement
panel
fiber
panel
is
an
industry
accepted
standard
building
material
dirt
with
their
unknown
durability,
known
performance
that
that
works
in
the
urban
setting.
E
The
difference
in
thickness
of
those
panels
can
largely
be
attributed
to
transitions,
building
methods
and
types
to
allow
for
facades
to
match
better
and
I
would
argue
that
if
you
look
at
the
elevations
that
you
see
on
your
screen,
we
have
made
a
building.
That
is
interesting
that
it's
not
flat
and
monochromatic
similar
to
what
you've
seen
on
the
other
pieces
there.
E
If
you
know
a
building,
affordable
housing
is
challenging,
adding
cost
to
it
means
you
either
have
to
find
additional
subsidy
to
try
and
meet
that
gap,
or
you
have
to
remove
some
other
amenity
with
inside
the
building
to
to
allow
that
to
occur.
We
would
ask
your
consideration
that
we
provide
hi
interior
level
of
Finnish
kitchens
cabinets
bathroom
fixtures,
all
those
things
we're
providing
balconies
or
Juliet
balconies
on
many
of
these
units.
We
believe
those
are
better
amenities
to
this
building,
then
adding
the
additional
cost
burden
related
to
meeting
the
standard.
E
F
E
A
Keltie
appeared
looking
that
up.
I
can
also
I
have
some
comments
to
make
to
if
there's
another
for
mother
council
member,
that
I
was
gonna,
say
this,
but
I
wanted
to
be
the
opportunity
to
talk
about
it
like
I.
Think
that
is
ongoing
discussion.
We'd
have
my
preference
I
think
that's
a
discussion
we
should
be
having
both
the
discussion
about
material
should
go
through.
Planning
Commission
I
know
that
there's
a
lot
of
expertise
that
I
think
we'd
be
smart
to
use
they're
also
affordable
housing
is
near
near
to
to
mine.
A
I,
know
a
lot
of
other
council
members
heart
that
we
need
to
be
thinking
about
that
in
the
city.
So
I
very
much
understand
the
fact
that
when
we
put
these
requirements
on,
we
are
adding
to
the
cost.
But
the
issue
is
that
is
currently
the
ordinance
we
may
disagree
on
whether
or
not
that
should
be
it.
But
I'd
like
to
see
that
budgeted
for
it
to
come
to
the
City
Council
and
say
we
aren't
going
to
be
able
to
do
affordable
housing
because
of
ordinances
that
you
knew
about
ahead
of
time.
A
E
G
Of
course,
Charl
Lansing
favored,
Baker
Daniel,
is
working
with
the
applicant
just
to
clarify
the
materials
percentages.
Are
a
guideline
they're,
not
in
ordinance,
and
just
so
just
like
sometimes
comp
plan
guidelines
need
to
be
adapted
to
individual
cases,
and
I
did
also
want
to
clarify
that
there
have
been
appeals
on
this
issue
that
have
been
granted
for
affordable
housing
projects,
so
it
by
this
council
recently.
Thank
you.
F
Mr.
chair
I
think
I
would
feel
more
comfortable
with
a
total
ordinance
change,
not
a
case-by-case
basis
that
doesn't
seem
to
make
a
ton
of
sense.
To
me,
I
mean
some
people.
Do
it
some
people,
don't
so
are
the
people
who
have
the
ability
to
appeal
get
a
change
and
those
that
don't
I
mean
I.
Think
it's
probably
something
that
maybe
should
move
up
in
the
work
plan,
but
I
hate
to
hear
like
buildings
that
are
affordable
should
look
different
and
not
as
good
as
others.
F
H
You
mr.
chair
just
a
comment
on
the
ordinance
I
was
the
author
of
a
proposed
ordinance
last
term
that
by
some
measures
would
have
reduced
our
overall
standards
for
building
materials.
Citywide
and
the
former
council
president
had
a
lot
of
concerns
about
how
that
would
impact
development
in
lower-income
parts
of
the
city,
including
North
Minneapolis,
where
she
represented,
and
so
we
pulled
out.
We
pulled
back
the
ordinance
because
one
trade
off
of
having
a
standard
citywide,
which
I
support
by
the
way,
is
that
it
makes
it
harder
for
us
to
do
a
case
by
case.
H
You
know
response
to
community
concerns,
and
so
we're
kind
of
getting
into
policy
here.
But
what
we
see
now
with
status
quo
using
a
guideline
in
my
experience
on
the
Planning
Commission
last
term,
was
that
projects
in
wealthier
parts
of
town
get
brick
and
glass
and
very
expensive,
very
high
quality
materials
which
are
supported
by
the
market
and
their
rents
and
and
buildings
in
my
ward
and
the
10th
Ward
get
what
you
saw
in
that
picture.
H
I
mean
it
because
it
has
become
a
symbol
of
the
kind
of
that
we
don't
want
to
see
in
Minneapolis
and
so
I
think
that
there
is
an
important
value
in
making
sure
that
there's
consistency
and
materials
across
the
city
and
that
we're
not
just
supporting
really
high
quality
materials
and
the
wealthiest
neighborhoods
and
bad
materials
in
lower
income
parts
of
the
city.
But
you
know
how
we
define
what's
good
and
quality
became
a
source
of
debate
that
we
weren't
able
to
reach
consensus
on
last
term.
H
So
that's
the
background
of
the
status
of
the
ordinance,
and
so,
if
other
I
think
comes
from
a
Schrader
has
taken
this
up.
If
others
want
to
jump
in
and
get
involved
a
lot
of,
it
had
to
do
with
how
we're
defining
quality
materials
and
what
that
standard
looks
like
and
at
the
end
where
we
were
landing
last
term,
it
was
at
least
in
our
own
staff's
estimation,
sort
of
watering
down
the
guidelines
that
we're
using
now
I
wasn't
comfortable
with
that.
That
wasn't
my
intention.
H
E
Mr.
Sheffield
I
would
like
to
offer
that
as
part
of
this
project,
it's
a
Planned
Unit
development,
we're
developing
three
buildings,
and
we
also
own
more
than
10
acres
of
land
north
of
here
that
we're
going
to
also
develop
so
to
the
the
side.
The
side
of
are
we
building
a
lesser
product
here
we
need
it
to
be
look
good.
We
need
it
to
be
aesthetically
pleasing.
E
We
need
it
to
be
high
quality
because
we're
gonna
build
a
building
north
of
it
in
our
next
phase
that
we're
gonna
want
to
attract
the
highest
quality
tenants
in
there.
So
I
would
push
back
a
little
on
the
the
lack
of
quality
or
that
or
the
lack
of
architectural
interest,
because
we
have
every
interest
every
intent
of
building
a
high
quality
building,
because
we
want
it
to
look
good
because
I
have
you
know
future
stake
in
what
happens
after
so.
A
I
think
I
think
just
to
add
to
that
I
think
we're
also
thinking
20
30
years
from
now.
How
is
that
same
standard
of
style
bricks
withheld
to
test
of
time
and
it's
hard
to
compete
with
that
for
a
reason.
Thank
you
all
right,
so
there
aren't
any
other
comments.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you.
Now
open
the
hearing
to
the
public
and
we'll
be
keeping
track
that
will
you'll
have
two
minutes
to
speak
and
we'll
be
keeping
to
a
track
by
the
that's
of
the
clerk.
A
C
Thank
you
very
much.
I
think
I'll
just
note
that
this
is
a
project
that
my
office
has
been
very
involved
in
which
certainly
this
area
of
the
city
has
come
up
to
our
committee
before
and
this
project
itself.
We're
also
going
to
be
approving
some
zoning.
Hopefully,
some
zoning
changes
so
I'm,
very
supportive
of
the
project.
C
I've
been
looking
for
ways
that
I
can
help
roles
that
I
can
play
kind
of
bridging
the
divide
between
the
University
and
the
property
owners
and
those
kinds
of
things,
and
there's
lots
that
we've
been
working
out
here
so
I'm
incredibly
sympathetic
and
want
to
be
supportive.
But
my
intention
is
to
in
fact
I'll
move
to
deny
the
appeal,
because
I
also
think
we
should
be
consistent
with
actions
we
just
recently
took
so
I'll
be
curious
to
dig
into
the
times
we've
granted
these
kinds
of
Appeals
and
I
don't
feel
like
I.
C
Have
the
expertise
to
make
these
judgment
calls
to
go
against
staff
recommendation
and
Planning
Commission
recommendations
for
every
project
that
comes
forward,
one
to
use
some
kind
of
different
materials
we
actually
on
the
council.
Here
we
sometimes
hear
criticism
from
our
constituents
about
the
kind
of
buildings
that
are
going
in
all
over
the
city.
Now
people
are
worried
about
it,
they're
worried
about
the
quality
they're
worried
about
how
they
look.
A
Thank
councilmember,
Gordon's
motion
is
before
us
all.
Those
in
favor
say
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed
say
no
dyes
have
it
and
that
motion
carries.
Our
final
agenda
item
is
number
5,
which
is
the
rezoning
application.
This
is
the
part
of
the
same
project
discussed
during
our
just
completely
quasi
judicial
hearing.
I
will
move
for
approval
of
this
application.
All
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed
say
no.
The
ice
habit
and
that
motion
carries
seeing
no
further
business
before
the
admitting
weird.