►
From YouTube: October 7, 2019 City Planning Commission
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission Meeting
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
All
right,
the
time
is
4:30
one
will
call
to
order.
The
October
7th
2019
Minneapolis
Planning
Commission
hearing
I
am
Sam
Rockwell
I
serve
as
president
of
the
Commission
I
am
joined
today
by
Commissioner
Brown,
kögel
Sweezey,
the
pier
trader
and
Olson.
Our
first
order
of
business
today
is
to
approve
the
minutes
of
December
in
actions
of
the
summer.
23Rd
2019
Minneapolis,
Planning
Commission
meeting
do
I
have
a
motion.
A
We
have
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor
and
any
opposed
motion
carries
all
right.
We
do
not
have
any
community
of
the
whole
report
up
today,
and
so
we
will
move
on
to
organizing
our
agenda
for
today's
hearing.
For
those
of
you
here
in
the
audience
we're
going
to
work
through
the
agenda
quickly.
Right
now,
please
indicate
if
you
wish
to
testify
on
an
item
against
an
item
or
to
modify
staff
recommendation
on
an
item.
Otherwise
you
may
testify
on
that
consent
agenda
all
right.
A
Our
first
item
is
the
Starbucks
and
office
development
at
41:59
Hiawatha
Avenue
in
Ward
12.
We
will
be
continuing
that
item
to
the
October
21st
2019
Planning
Commission
meeting,
and
the
second
item
is
a
commemorative
street
name
edition
in
Ward
8
of
3rd
Avenue
South
between
36th
and
42nd
streets,
east
to
Clara,
clarissa
Walker
way.
Anyone
here
to
speak
on
that
item
are
you
here
to
speak
in
favor
of
that
item,
so
we'll
have
we'll?
Have
you
come
up
for
our
consent
agenda
testimony.
Thank
you.
A
Our
next
item
is
item
number
three
for
a
commemorative
street
name
edition,
also
in
Ward
8
Avenue
South,
also
between
36th
Street,
East
and
42nd
Street
East
for
Ilona
Newman.
Why
is
anyone
here
to
testify
against
that
item
or
to
modify
that
all
right?
We
will
place
items
number
two
and
three
on
consent.
Item
number
four:
is
the
memo
said
housing
limited
partnership
at
16,
4th
Street,
north
and
Ward
3
site
plan
review?
Is
anybody
here
to
testify
on
item
number
4,
seeing
none
will
place
item
number
4
on
consent.
A
Item
number
5
is
home
to
2800
University
Avenue
South,
East,
hotel,
rezoning,
conditional
use
permit
and
a
variety
of
variances
and
site
plan
review,
as
anybody
here
to
testify
on
item
number
5,
seeing
none
will
place
at
number
5
on
the
consent
agenda.
Item
number
6
is
the
yes
yoga
at
101
26th
Street
East
in
Ward,
10
variance
in
site
plan
review
and
I'll
note.
Before
commissioners
we
have
a
supplementary
memorandum
adjusting
site
plan
review
to
include
a
suggestion
of
a
mural
as
it
one
of
the
alternatives
for
blank
wall
condition.
A
A
A
A
Item
number:
nine
is
the
gateway:
mixed-use
development,
250,
Nicollet,
Mall
and
Ward
3
some
amendments
to
the
Planned
Unit
development.
There
is
anyone
here
to
speak
on
item
number
line,
see
no
one
will
place
item
number
nine
on
consent.
Item
number
ten
is
portico
47
21
and
47:37
Minnehaha
Avenue
in
Ward
12.
We
will
discuss
item
number
ten
item
number.
Eleven
is
the
Jackson
lofts
at
752
756
Jackson
Street
northeast
in
Ward?
Three.
We
will
continue
item
number
11
to
the
October
21st
Planning
Commission.
A
Meeting
item
number
12
is
the
Fullerton
flats
at
forty,
seven,
thirty
six
and
forty
seven
forty
Grand
Avenue
south
in
Ward.
Eleven.
We
will
discuss
item
number
twelve
item
number
13
is
the
free-standing
solar
energy
system
at
1600,
Park
Avenue
in
Ward,
six
conditional
use
permit
and
a
couple
of
variances.
Is
anybody
here
to
speak
item
number
13,
seeing
no,
we
will
place
item
number
13
on
consent
and
item
number.
14
is
zoning
code
text
amendment
which
we
will
discuss
so
our
agenda
as
amended.
A
If
a
motion
in
a
second
all
in
favor
aye
motion
carries
all
right.
Next
could
I
have
a
motion
to
continue
items
number
1
and
11
to
the
October
21st
planning
committee,
a
motion
in
a
second
all
in
favor
aye.
That
motion
carries
next.
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
on
our
consent
agenda
and
for
those
of
you
here
to
speak
on
the
street,
renaming
x'.
A
B
Mr.
chair,
my
name
is
Nico
Walker
I
am
the
proud
seventh
child
of
Clarissa
Walker
I'm
here
quickly,
just
to
say
on
behalf
of
my
six
living
children
of
my
mother,
five
were
over
there
my
nephew,
it's
a
great
honor
and
a
privilege
with
giving
thanks
to
commence
councilmember
Jenkins
for
this
honor
and
opportunity.
B
For
those
that
don't
know
my
mother
set
out
fifty
years
ago
to
help
create
sabatham
community
center
and
develop
it
from
the
ground
up
living
across
the
street
fits
for
40
of
those
years
and
so
to
be
able
to
have
our
street
be
named
after
our
mother
is
a
great
honor,
Mary
McLeod
Bethune
said
believing
yourself
learn
and
never
stop
wanting
to
build
a
better
world.
My
mother
started
50
years
ago
with
nothing
with
only
the
desire
to
help
build
community,
my
nephew's
wearing
a
shirt.
B
You
could
call
my
mother
on
any
day
and
her
what
she
would
answer
the
phone
saying.
How
can
I
help
nothing
wanting
nothing,
not
wanting
anything
from
you,
but
trying
to
figure
out
how
she
can
help
you
at
any
given
time,
and
so
it's
a
great
honor,
especially
with
the
great
opportunities
that
I've
had
in
this
city,
to
be
able
to
lift
up
the
woman
that
created
my
opera
suit.
My
opportunity
to
have
a
legacy
in
the
state
of
Minnesota
without
her
I
would
not
be
here.
B
I
would
not
have
been
able
to
be
your
first
black
elected
official
in
the
state
of
Minnesota.
I
would
not
have
been
able
to
move
on
to
have
great
things
and
so
to
honor,
Clarissa
Rogers
Walker
isn't
just
to
honor
the
street.
It
isn't
just
the
honor
Sabath
aney.
It
is
a
great
honor
on
the
back
of
her
children
and
her
grandchildren
who
live
and
thrive
every
day
and
breathe
her
legacy
in
memory,
and
now
the
community
will
never
forget
what
she
was
able
to
do
in
south
Minneapolis.
Thank
you.
C
D
D
We're
both
here
today,
my
you
know
in
addition
to
mrs.
Walker's,
Nick
Street,
being
named
in
honor
of
my
grandmother's
name
being
honored
in
recognition
of
her
right
on
the
same
street
that
our
building
sits
on,
which
is
on
37th
and
4th
Avenue.
So
it's
a
great
honor
to
be
able
to
have
the
eunich
you
Newman's
name
on
that
street,
where
a
lot
of
people
who
still
may
or
may
not
be
familiar
with
the
paper
now.
D
E
C3
Newman
Hubert
Humphrey
with
the
best
of
friends.
Here
we
got
to
the
White
House
and
he
calls
Cecil
every
week
how
about
this
season?
How
about
that?
How
much
is
he'd
help
him
get
through
some
of
the
issues.
I
know
because
I
was
there,
but
the
disgrace
was
putting
his
name
behind
Walmart
supper
on
Main
Street,
one
block
new
addresses,
so
this
has
to
be
yes
about
time.
Thank
you.
D
F
F
G
Here,
for
something
else,
my
name
is
Donna
nasty
and
I've
lived
in
the
neighborhood
for
almost
30
years,
and
I
worked
at
Mount
Olive
Lutheran
Church
for
30
years
as
a
neighborhood
ministries,
coordinator
and
I
have
to
say.
Clarissa
was
like
a
mentor
to
me
and
when
I
started
there
were
times
I
didn't
know
what
to
do,
but
I'd
send
him
to
Clarissa
and
she'd
help
them.
So
that's
all
I
want
to
say.
A
A
All
right,
we
are
moving
on
to
item
number
10
before
we
enter
the
public
hearing.
Could
I
see
how
many
people
are
here
to
speak
on
item
number
10,
a
couple
of
people?
How
many
here
to
speak
on
item
number,
12,
okay,
okay,
very
good!
Thank
you
well
will
recall.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
everybody
stays
cognizant
of
everybody
else's
time,
and
so
we
we
stay
efficient
with
our
comments,
but
we'll
we'll
play
it
by
yours.
We
go
through
Peter.
The
floor
is
yours,.
H
Good
evening,
commissioners,
Peter
Crandall
Senior
Planner
with
cpad
item
number
10
before
you
tonight,
is
located
at
47,
21
and
47:37
Minnehaha
Avenue.
This
is
two
parcels,
one
of
which
contains
an
existing
duplex.
The
other
contains
an
existing
auto
oriented
use.
One
of
the
residential
parcel
is
currently
zoned
r2b
and
the
auto
uses
currently
is
known
for
the
c1.
The
applicant
is
here
today
to
propose
a
new
four-story
residential
building
on
the
two
parcels,
which
would
include
rezoning
both
parcels
to
the
Oh
r2
office,
residence
district.
H
H
The
proposal
includes
several
walk-up
residential
units
along
the
Minnehaha
elevation,
as
well
as
along
the
nevada,
high
boulevard
elevation,
you'll
notice
that
nevada
boulevard
in
this
location
is
coldest
act,
so
it
does
not
connect
through
to
Minnehaha
Avenue.
H
H
The
project
requires
several
land
use
applications
as
a
stated
previously
rezoning,
both
parcels
from
the
RTP
and
c1
districts
to
the
ort
office,
residence
district,
a
variance
to
the
minimum
established
front
yard
along
Minnehaha
Avenue
from
17
feet
to
3
feet.
That
yard
is
established
by
the
residential
building
to
the
north
of
the
parcel,
and
should
we
noted
that
Minnehaha
is
actually
a
reverse
corner
on
this
parcel.
The
front
yard
is
actually
Nevada
hub
Boulevard.
H
Additionally,
there's
a
variance
of
the
rear
yard
requirement
to
allow
a
transformer
in
the
rear
yard
and
then
cycle
and
review.
You
can
see
those
variances
denoted
here
on
the
site
plan.
I
will
note
that
the
applicant
has
made
some
proposed
modifications
to
their
site
plan
that
would
reorient
the
driveway
at
the
rear
of
the
site.
H
So
the
second
site
plan
shows
that
the
driveway
proposed
modification
would
basically
Center
out
the
proposed
entry
and
exit
to
that
underground
garage,
and
that
was
in
response
to
some
Public
Works
feedback
about
circulation
in
the
alley
and
then
that
transformer
would
be
moved
to
the
other
side
of
the
closed
driveway
for
ease
of
access.
But
it
still
requires
that
rear
yard
variance
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
all
of
the
applications,
with
the
exception
of
one,
which
is
the
rear
yard,
variance
for
the
patios
that
exceed
the
maximum
size.
H
Basically,
if
any
part
of
the
patio
encroaches
on
the
rear
yard
requirement,
it
needs
to
be
50
feet.
The
entire
patio
needs
to
be
50
feet
or
less,
so
the
applicant
could
pull
the
patios
back
into
or
beyond
to
the
required
yard
and
keep
them
the
same
size
if
they
modified
the
design.
So
we
don't
see
a
practical
difficulty
with
complying
with
that
and
staffs
recommending
denial
of
that
one
variance,
but
approval
of
all
the
others
with
some
conditions
of
approval,
one
of
which
has
to
do
with
exterior
materials.
H
The
staff
is
recommending
a
condition
that
the
applicant
work
with
us
post
approval
to
simplify
the
design
such
that
there
are
no
more
than
three
principal
or
primary
materials
per
elevation
and
then,
additionally,
that
each
elevation,
or
that
the
side
and
rear
elevations
resemble
the
front
elevation
and
design
which
is
a
site
plan
review
standard.
The
applicant
did
make
some
proposed
changes
between
the
original
submittal
and
today,
including
modifying
the
proposed
rear
stucco
such
that
it
is
white
now,
instead
of
gray,
so
that
it
matches
the
front.
H
I
H
On
the
front,
elevation
you'll
see
that
there's
brick
proposed
on
the
south
end
of
the
four-story
proportion
and
then
a
white
stucco
proposed
among
those
walk-up
units
is
on
the
blue,
lap,
fibre
cement
on
the
upper
portions
and
then
the
proposed
corrugated
metal
panel
on
the
upper
level.
In
addition
to
that
wood
material
at
the
principal
entrance.
H
So
it
would
be
reducing
that
to
no
more
than
three
primary
materials
and
that
allows
for
a
certain
amount
of
accent,
materials
to
be
utilized
in
detailing,
and
things
like
that,
and
then
that
the
rear
elevation
would
probably
be
need
to
be
modified,
such
that
it
resembled
the
front
a
little
bit.
One.
J
Hello,
commissioners,
my
name
is
Beth
Pfeiffer
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
4737
Minnehaha
LLC,
and
we
are
looking
forward
to
bringing
this
condominium
project.
So
we
were
looking
at
this
as
a
for
sale
project
to
this
neighborhood.
This
is
a
neighborhood
that
we
recognize
has
seen
a
lot
of
recent
construction
and
a
lot
of
apartment
buildings
in
this
neighborhood,
and
we
think
this
is
a
great
site.
It's
a
great
opportunity
for
some
for
sale
housing.
J
One
of
our
strong
focuses
for
this
project
was
providing
a
variety
of
price
points,
so
we've
worked
really
hard
in
the
design
of
the
building
to
include
some
more
entry-level
for
sale
product.
As
you
probably
know,
a
lot
of
the
product
in
the
in
the
new
condo
industry
is
first
of
all,
there's
not
a
lot
outside
of
the
downtown
core
and
what
there
is
is
extremely
expensive
does
not
make
it
easy
for
first-time
buyers
to
afford
anything
in
a
condo
product.
J
So
one
of
our
key
focuses
here
was
making
sure
that
we
have
a
variety
of
price
points,
a
variety
of
floor
plans
and
also
really
continuing
to
keep
the
context
of
this.
Within
the
context
of
the
neighborhood
keeping
the
three
story
form
with
a
two-story
porch
along
Minnehaha,
and
we
are
excited
to
bring
it
forward
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Yeah
Thank.
A
You
commissioners,
are
there
any
questions
for
the
applicant
at
this
time?
Thank
you
very
much.
Anybody
else
who
wishes
to
speak
on
this
matter.
Please
come
forward
to
microphone
state,
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
if
everyone
could
who
does
wish
to
speak,
put
the
line
up
if
you
are
able
that
would
be
great.
Thank.
K
K
Our
main
problem
that
is
an
existing
problem,
is
that
the
area
that
they
want
to
the
alley
that
they
want
to
route
the
traffic
through
goes
into
the
42nd
to
44th
cul-de-sac
caused
by
the
dead-ending
of
Nevada.
So
I
just
used
my
high
school
geometry,
I
didn't
I
was
thinking,
I
should
get
a
PowerPoint,
but
it
might
be
overkill
so
using
a
ruler
and
what
I
remember
from
geometry.
The
surface
area
of
that
cul-de-sac
is
about
three
city
blocks.
Now
three
city
blocks,
basically
currently
as
it
exists,
were
short
half,
so
we
should.
K
We
have
four
exits
and
there
should
be
eight,
so
it
creates
traffic
congestion.
That
is
really,
you
know,
really
can
be
very
bad.
I
sent
you
a
memo
on
behalf
of
the
67
folks
who
signed
a
petition
in
support
of
what
I'm
articulating
I
do
have
a
correction
to
make
for
that.
I
mentioned
the
deaf
child
is
a
safety
issue
in
neighborhood.
K
K
K
K
K
Our
objection
very
simply
is
the
fact
that
the
traffic
would
be
routed
into
the
cul-de-sac
and
very
very
seriously
adversely
affect
the
neighbors
in
that
area.
I've.
Given
you
a
more
complete
argument
in
the
memo,
I
tried
to
get
maps
to
demonstrate
the
size,
but
you
could
talk
to
the
planning
people
about
the
the
ingress
and
egress
capacity
of
that
cul-de-sac
and
how
it
compares
to
other
blocks.
K
We
would
urge
you
to
ask
for
modifications
before
you
provide
any
variances
or
any
zoning
changes
for
this
project
and,
subject
to
your
action,
will
reserve
through
their
activities.
So
if
anybody
has
any
questions
for
me,
I'm
certainly
happy
to
answer
them.
If
I
can
otherwise
I'll
sit
down
and
be
quiet.
L
Evening,
Chris
Pettit,
4624,
42nd,
Avenue
South,
apparently
a
neighbor
of
two
or
three
people
here,
thanks
for
the
time
item
here,
not
necessarily
turn
this
into
a
negative
conversation
I'm
here
to
talk
about
safety,
safety
for
the
children
and
safety
for
the
pedestrians
who
live
along
that
alley.
I
am
one
of
those
that
live
directly
on
that
alley.
We,
my
wife
and
I,
moved
there
just
two
years
ago,
we're
not
opposed
to
development
and
the
right
opportunities
right
situations,
in
this
case
I'm,
okay,
to
having
a
development
of
that
Gregg's,
auto
property.
L
But
the
exit
of
their
property
into
the
alley
is
an
unsafe
situation
for
the
kids
going
to
school
in
the
morning
for
people
going
to
work
in
the
morning
coming
back
in
the
afternoon
or
just
going
through
the
alley
in
general.
We
all
those
of
us
who
live
along
and
Alley
know
that
neighbors
don't
necessarily
drive
slowly
they're
dark
there
narrow
right
now,
just
counting
on
Google
Maps,
the
number
of
houses
that
are
on
that
alley.
There
are
30,
properly
properties,
give
or
take
figure
two
cars
per
property
you
ever
take.
L
If
you
look
at
their
property,
as
we
already
mentioned,
there's
a
curb
cut
already
on
to
Minnehaha,
it's
an
easy
no-brainer.
If
you
look
at
the
map
of
the
property
and
oversight
to
an
overview,
they
could
do
a
curb
cut
on
Nevada.
Both
of
those
properties,
you
may
say,
is
unsafe
for
pedestrians
going
to
and
from
the
park
or
through
the
neighborhood
on
those
streets.
But
I'll
tell
you:
those
streets
were
built
to
accommodate
car
traffic,
not
pedestrian,
traffic's
or
cars
going
to
their
garages.
L
So
please
consider
the
safety
of
our
children,
the
safety
of
everybody
else
walking
through
that
alley.
I
know
the
developer
does
not
want
to
lose
the
development
space
at
a
curb
cut
to
either
street
will
entail,
but
they
won't
be
living
there.
It's
the
36
additional
cars
and
traffic
that
are
going
to
cause
the
problems
for
the
those
people
that
are
living
there.
Thank
you
thank.
M
Evening,
my
name
is
Dan
Sheehan
I
live
at
4322,
Nevada
Boulevard,
so
about
two
blocks
down
from
the
proposed
development
yeah,
where
we're
located
it's
right
on
the
park
of
Minnehaha
Falls
in
our
neighborhood
is
basically
where
people
park
to
go
to
the
park.
It's
go
to
eat
it's
ooh,
salt
and
on
a
summer
night
or
really
any
weekend.
It's
not
uncommon
that
all
parking
spaces
are
taken.
M
Add
into
that
in
the
winter
the
streets
are
very
congested
in
one
car
in
the
summertime
even
is
almost
not
able
to
get
down
the
street
when
both
sides
are
filled
at
snow.
It's
nearly
impossible
for
two-way
traffic
to
exist.
Just
on
the
streets.
I
walked
out
my
back
door
and
down
both
alleys,
which
this
project
would
use.
M
One
of
them,
which
was
in
our
south
I,
can
tell
you
if
you
haven't
been
there,
you
need
to
because
it's
not
suitable
for
two-way
traffic,
even
with
the
capacity
now
and
adding
36,
more
cars
or
whatever
it
is.
It's
just
not
going
to
work
and
I
pity
the
people
that
would
live
on
that
alley.
So
then
add
some
snow
in
the
mix
and
you
have
an
impossible
situation.
It's
not
just
hey,
I,
don't
want
it.
M
It's
you
know
we're
talking
about
safety,
we're
talking
about
people
just
being
able
to
get
to
work
in
the
morning
and
yeah.
It
would
be
a
catastrophe,
basically
the
solution
that
is
really
just
to
move
it
out
on
to
Minnehaha
Avenue
I,
don't
recommend
Nevada!
It's
already
cut
out,
it's
a
busy
street.
It's
that's
what
it's
designed
for
to
handle
that
capacity.
The
present
solution
just
isn't
working
well.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
I
A
N
A
N
P
I
A
Q
Q
Given
its
a
three-bedroom
unit
there
off
of
a
night
I
think
that
a
useable
yard
and
actually
is
more
useful
than
just
a
piece
of
impervious
pavement
for
no
purpose,
so
I
find
that
I'm
practical
difficulties
to
exist
and
that
it's
reasonable
to
me
to
assume
that
you'd
have
one
ways
have
enough
room
for
chairs
and
a
table
on
a
patio
which
attend
by
15.
Patio
is
just
that
anything
smaller
you
really
it's
just
a
weird
stoop,
so
I
guess
I
find
it
to
be
completely
appropriate
and
reasonable
to
have
a
patio.
A
N
R
N
T
N
A
I
A
couple
of
general
comments
back
I
think
this
project
is
pretty
sensitively
designed
for
the
context.
It's
four
stories.
It's
the
four
story,
setback,
there's
plenty
of
yard
space
I
think
it
fits
in
quite
well
to
the
context
we
did
hear
about
vehicles
using
the
alleys
for
context.
There
are
several
projects,
many
projects
around
South,
Minneapolis
that
utilize
alleys
for
for
circulating
vehicles.
You
know
one
of
my
folks
is
here-
is
trying
to
improve
pedestrian
safety
on
the
sidewalks
and
curb
cuts
are
in
conflict
with
freshman
safety
along
the
street.
A
U
Evening,
commissioners,
the
project
before
you
is
that
forty
seven
thirty
six
and
forty
seven
forty
Grand
Avenue
South
the
site,
is
ten
thousand
six
hundred
forty
nine
square
feet
in
size.
It
currently
contains
a
single
family
home
and
the
duplex
the
site,
as
you
can
see,
from
the
map
of
the
zoning
map
here.
This
is
a
block
that
has
r5
zoning
for
most
of
it
with
c1
zoning
at
the
south
end,
which
includes
many
businesses,
a
small
number
of
businesses
at
a
small
node
at
48th
and
grand.
U
It's
also
that
southwest
corner
of
40th
and
grand
is
fuller
Park.
So
the
applicant
has
proposed
to
construct
a
four-story
building
with
2312
units
on
the
site.
The
proposal
has
ten
parking
spaces.
Initially,
the
applicant
had
proposed
a
setback,
variance
along
the
north
side
and
was
staff
feedback
had
amended
the
plans
to
reduce
the
need
for
that
setback,
variance
so
right
now,
there's
only
one
variance,
and
that
is
for
a
parking
reduction
from
twenty
three
spaces
to
ten
which
we
can
get
to
in
a
minute.
So
this
is
the
site
plan.
U
All
vehicle
access
would
be
off
of
an
existing
shared
driveway
along
the
South
property
line.
Here
are
a
few
context:
images,
including
the
existing
duplex
and
single-family
home
that
you
can
see.
The
block
itself
does
have
a
mix
of
densities,
including
small
multi-family
duplexes,
that
sort
of
thing,
but
most
of
those
are
limited
in
height
to
two
and
a
half
stories.
U
This
site
itself
has
excellent
access
to
transit
and
in
2015
City
Council
passed
an
ordinance
allowing
it
for
a
transit
incentive
reduction
in
the
zoning
code
for
properties
that
are
located
near
high
frequency
transit,
which
is
narrowly
defined
in
the
zoning
code
as
being
within
a
quarter
mile
of
one
bus
transit,
stop
that
has
midday
headways
of
15
minutes
or
less.
So
one
of
the
reasons
for
doing
that
was
to
increase
housing
affordability
and
to
allow
infill
development
on
smaller
sites
that
couldn't
prep
couldn't
accommodate
a
one-for-one
parking
ratio.
U
This
site
is
very
close
to
qualifying
for
the
transit
incentive
reduction,
but
because
of
the
way
that
some
of
the
bus
routes
are
configured
in
this
area,
it
doesn't
quite
qualify
and
I'll
get
to
that
in
a
minute.
So
the
site
is
long.
Grand
Avenue,
which
has
two
high
frequency
bus
routes.
It's
located
within
a
quarter
mile
of
a
variety
of
routes
that
go
both
east-west
and
north-south,
that
have
midday,
had
ways
of
30
minutes
and
then
it's
located
between
two
high
frequency
routes.
U
So
this
map
is
just
showing
some
of
the
configuration
of
transit
transit
access
in
the
neighborhood,
including
throughout
18g,
which
is
in
a
quarter
mile.
The
route
46,
which
is
every
30
minutes
within
a
quarter
mile,
a
three
high
frequency
routes,
the
146,
113
and
135
in
this
area.
So
we
took,
we
typically
consider
the
route
4
to
be
a
high
frequency
route.
But
in
this
area
the
route
for
splits
and
some
some
of
the
legs
go
down.
Bryant's
and
some
go
down.
Lyndale
and
that's
what's
happening
here.
U
So
the
site
is
within
a
quarter
mile
of
lyndale
and
48th,
but
it's
0.28
miles
from
bryant
and
48th.
And
then
the
site
is
just
over
just
around
a
third
of
a
mile
away
from
Nicollet,
which
has
the
route
18,
which
has
service
of
less
than
every
15
minutes.
So,
given
that
excellent
access
to
transit
staff
finds
that
this
is,
this
is
a
extremely
well-connected
route
in
terms
of
transit
access
in
the
city
and
finds
that
the
the
variance
you
reduce
the
parking
from
23
spaces
to
10
is
very
reasonable.
U
Given
that
that
transit
access
again,
if
the
site
was
eligible
for
the
transit
incentive
reduction,
there
would
be
no
parking
requirement
here
for
cycling
review.
The
the
proposed
building
is
23
dwelling
units,
it's
four
storeys
in
height,
it's
complying
with
the
setbacks,
fer
and
all
the
other
requirements
for
the
r5
district,
so
I
know
there
has
been
some
concern
about
the
2040
plan
in
this
location,
and
the
2040
plan
does
guide
for
a
lesser
density
here,
and
it
calls
for
interior
two,
which
is
buildings
of
up
to
two
and
a
half
stories.
V
W
Honestly
cannot
think
of
another
site,
that's
this
well-connected
by
transit
without
qualifying
for
the
transit
incentive.
So
it's
one
that
I
get
as
Leslie
pointed
out,
it's
kind
of
a
near-miss
to
qualifying
for
our
transit
incentive.
In
most
cases
when
there's
this
many
routes
within
a
quarter
mile
of
a
site,
it
does
qualify
for
that.
But
just
given
you
know
some
unique
nuances
here,
it
doesn't
qualify
and
I.
Think
that's
mining
number
one
that
this
is
a
unique
circumstance
in
this
particular
situation.
U
There
were
some
public
comments
about
some
concerns
about
the
noticing,
and
so
when,
when
public
hearing
is
noticed,
notices
are
sent
to
the
neighborhood
group
and
they
are
sent
to
property
owners
within
350
feet
of
the
site,
they're
posted
in
France
and
commerce,
and
there
are
four
placards
that
are
sent
to
the
applicant
to
place
on
the
site.
So
in
this
case,
the
applicant
placed
all
four
placards
on
the
site,
but
did
not
place
them
on
the
four
corners
of
the
site,
which
is
what
is
technically
required
by
the
zoning
code.
U
The
zoning
code
does
allow
for
a
little
allowance
that
you
know
as
long
as
the
intent
was
met
and
a
bonafide
attempt
was
made
to
comply
that
that
you
know
doesn't
invalidate
the
notice
and
the
city
attorney
has
also
weighed
in
on
this
measure
that
the
notice
was
not
invalidated
and
at
staffs
request.
The
applicant
did
modify
the
placement
of
the
placards
four
days
ago
to
provide
some
access
on
the
alley
to
that
notice.
So
I
just
wanted
to
note
that
as
well,
the
staff
recommendation,
the
sizer
setback,
variance,
has
been
withdrawn.
A
A
Visible
from
the
public
street
from
Grandin,
yes,
okay
and
second,
can
you
remind
so
it's
pretty
unusual
to
see
an
application
with
no
alternative
compliance
question?
Can
you
just
remind
us
of
what
our
purview
is
in
sort
of
imposing
conditions
when
there's
not
much
asked
for
from
a
developer?
Can.
A
W
Correct
there
would
need
to
be
some
clear
nexus
between
any
conditions
of
approval
and
some
exceptions
that
are
being
asked
for
in
the
zoning
code
or
other
deficiencies
that
the
Planning
Commission
finds
in
the
project.
So
if
there
are
no
requests
for
alternative
compliance,
there
typically
is
no
nexus
for
applying
conditions
of
approval.
Very.
V
Commissioner
trip
yeah
just
one
up
one
other
question
about
kind
of
some
of
the
site
plan,
one
of
the
issues
on
the
public
comments.
They
butt
up
right
against
an
alley
and
there's
a
significant
great
change:
yeah
I'm,
creating
a
very
large
walls
or
any
fences,
or
anything
to
protect
people
from
falling
off
the
alley
into
the
property.
U
Perhaps
the
applicant
can
speak
a
little
bit
more
I
mean
the
alley
is
higher
than
the
site.
So
I
don't
know,
because
how
the
great
is
going
to
work
to
interact
with
folks,
potentially
walking
down
the
alley.
So
I'll
leave
that
to
the
applicant
to
answer
any.
A
X
X
I
promise
to
be
brief,
for
the
sake
of
the
people,
have
twins
tickets
and
pray
that
they
get
to
go
again
tomorrow,
night
also
so
I'm
going
to
cover
some
major
points
on
the
project
and
because
the
only
variants
are
really
tight,
I
was
parking
and
it
was
a
conscious
decision
to
ask
for
a
parking
variance
really
on
two
basis,
one
and
parking
and
I'll.
Describe
that
why
we
think
it's
important
into
an
affordability
which
Lindsay
actually
gave
a
a
very
good
oversight.
X
I've
had
the
privilege
and
I-
don't
mean
this
bragging
to
be
involved
in
more
housing
projects
in
Minneapolis.
Any
other
architect
just
has
seen
everything
who
done
every
thrown
from
afforable
all
the
way
to
luxury
and
sort
of
like
the
old
Farmers
Insurance
we've
seen
everything
you
know,
we've
seen
how
residents
very
active
seem
parking
ratios
who
see
a
nobility's
put
together
and
the
range
of
projects
have
come
from
micro
units
all
the
way
up
to
large
luxury,
and
in
learning
this
we
learned
a
few
things
of
what
actually
happens
and
doesn't
happen.
X
All
buildings
behaves
and
I
actually
looked
back
at
her
database
on
all
her
projects
throughout
Minneapolis
and
in
the
first
drink
suburbs
of
Edina,
st.
Louis
Park
in
that
basis
of
CL.
So
in
Richville
to
see
what
was
happening,
the
thing
about
parking
and
affordability.
As
you
know,
every
interior
parking
space
is
twenty
five
thousand
dollars,
that's
a
cost,
and
some
people
are
quoting
thirty.
Some
more
parking
you
provide,
the
less
affordable
housing
units
become
because
those
units
need
to
subsidize
a
parking
and
there's
a
limit
to
how
much
I
can
charge
for
parking.
X
Once
you
get
past
100
125
people
park
on
the
streets
to
avoid
the
parking
charge
anyways
and
so
as
a
balance,
and
we
looked
at
this
price
in
terms
of
neighborhood
goals,
because
we
could
make
it
work
without
a
parking
variance
and
go
out
the
luxury
product,
but
in
the
Josh
will
address
that
right
after
me,
yeah
that
was
not
our
goal.
That's
something
that
really
created
it
affordably.
X
So
our
choice
was
to
reduce
amount
of
parking
and
in
looking
at
other
projects
and
I'll
use,
Berkeley
25,
for
example,
which
is
a
luxury
project
which
has
a
parking
ratio
1.45.
It
means
a
space
and
half
for
every
unit.
This
is
just
on
the
border
Minneapolis
and
st.
Louis
Park.
That
garage
is
oversubscribed
with
waiting
lists.
X
Any
wonder
why,
from
profile
of
the
parking,
the
larger
the
unit,
the
higher
the
rent,
the
more
the
resins
demand
parking,
so
one
bedroom
unit
ends
up
having
two
stalls
for
the
husband
and
wife
or
partner
or
whatever
combination
to
benders
in
it
with
more
and
sewing
up,
creating
more
cards.
Literally
parking
begets
parking
and
there's
all
such
free
thing
as
parking
and
that's
a
fact
that
looked
a
million,
so
I
looked
at
the
other
end
of
the
micro
projects.
Harper
deuce,
in
which
the
majority
of
those
parking
ratios
are
between
0.40
and
point
7.
X
They
actually
had
garages
that
were
subscribed
about
equal
or
a
little
bit
empty,
a
little
bit
over
in
the
ratio,
and
so
our
discoveries
that
people
will
solve
sort
to
the
type
of
unit
they
want
to
type
a
neighborhood
and
it
actually
creates
less
parking
than
a
more
luxury
building
in
which
you'll
end
up
having
two
cars
per
unit
under
the
basis.
So
that's
number
one
and
that's
just
by
going
through
projects
studying
all
the
garages,
the
waiting
lists
and
so
forth.
X
The
other
factor
in
this
was
affordability
that
by
train
the
unit
mix
we
did,
which
is
on
the
smaller
side
and
dedicated
more
space
per
units
versus
parking.
We
ever
get
affordability.
You
know
again,
our
units
to
fall
in
the
60s
and
70s
am
I,
which
means
adjusts
and
median
come
and
for
Hennepin
County.
That's
$75,000.
Sixty
percent
of
that
it's
about
$42,000.
X
So
this
building
will
appeal
to
people
making
as
a
single
person
between
45
and
50
55
thousand
dollars,
so
it
creates
a
better
affordability
on
that
basis
by
making
and
mix
on
the
project
and
what
we've
also
discovered
in
these
units.
At
these
smaller
units
people
tend
not
to
have
cars
Parvez
due
to
what
they
can
afford,
but
part
of
its
due
to
a
conscious
decision.
More
and
more
of
our
residents
are
making
conscious
asians
not
to
have
a
car
in
consciousness.
X
They
just
live
in
smaller
units
as
a
way
of
giving
back
or
a
way
of
working.
Global
organ
is
a
personal
life
choice,
so
I'm
seeing
this
trend
growing,
and
so
I
may
sound
counterintuitive
that
the
combination
of
the
smaller
units
and
the
more
affordable
units
and
the
parking
variants
will
actually
have
a
less
impact
of
parking,
because
the
type
of
residents
were
attracting
ourselves
sorting
to
people
that
tend
not
to
have
cars
and
people
that
tend
to
entertain
outside
the
building
code.
X
Size
unit
intend
to
go
to
local
Ruston's,
a
gather
so
why
we
couldn't
meet
the
project
work
without
a
variance
the
developers
of
josh'll
joseph
felt
strongly.
This
is
a
right
way
to
go
to
provide
housing
mix
that
would
best
support
the
neighborhood
both
on
affordability
and
the
demand
for
cars.
Thank
you.
Josh.
Y
Thank
you.
My
name
is
Joshua
Siegel
and
I
live
at
5414,
Washburn
Avenue
south
in
the
armitage
neighborhood
we've
lived
there
for
five
years,
I'm
the
applicant,
my
wife
and
I
own,
and
operate
two
businesses
in
southwest
Minneapolis.
We
are
ten
years
in
with
our
first
business
urban
cycle,
located
at
50th
and
Penn
in
the
Fulton
neighborhood.
This
business
is
a
personal
training,
small
group
class
indoor
cycle
studio.
We
love
what
we
do
and
we
feel
like
we're
part
of
the
community.
Our
second
business
is
a
real
estate
and
construction.
Y
Business
called
reimagine
Southwest,
which
was
substantiated
with
our
own
need
to
find
housing
and
access
to
neighborhood
in
our
beloved
Southwest.
The
core
values
of
our
company
are
integrity,
commitment,
consistency,
learning
and
community.
We
fundamentally
believe
that
life
is
about
meaningful
work
and
meaningful
relationships.
Our
mission
is
to
make
the
world
a
better
place
while
trying
to
access
the
neighborhood.
Since
2010
we
lived
at
39th
in
Grand,
Highland
Park
and
st.
Paul
45th
and
York
West
End
apartments,
st.
Louis
Park,
as
well
as
short-term
stays
in
Eagan
golden
Valley
between
Lisa's.
Y
My
intention
is
to
provide
context
here.
Empathy
and
perspective
for
those
interested
in
our
proposed
23
unit
apartment
building.
If
this
building
was
around
back,
then
we
would
have
absolutely
been
delighted
to
live
in
the
Tangletown
neighborhood.
Our
original
intention
was
to
build
this
r5
building.
With
a
matter
of
right,
we
put
together
a
concept
plan
that
had
two
levels
of
parking
one
slightly
below
grade.
However,
the
city
after
city
review,
it
was
deemed
that
the
building
was
five
storeys,
yet
still
fell
under
56
feet.
Y
The
hardship
is
in
the
drafts
to
grade
change
from
front
to
back.
Nevertheless,
the
city
implied
that
this
would
not
be
supported,
so
we
went
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
performed
additional
studies.
It
is
our
belief
that
this
process
is
a
symbiotic
relationship
with
City,
Planning,
neighborhood
and
market
research.
Our
research
and
data
showed
us
that
there's
a
huge
hole
in
available
studios
and
single
apartments
to
focus
on
those
that
had
lifestyles
that
were
relatively
Carles.
Y
We
settled
on
a
concept
plan
that
would
only
reach
47
feet
tall
over
16
percent,
smaller
than
allowed
with
23
units
in
10
and
close
parking,
our
main
folk
at
four
storeys.
Our
main
focus
here
is
to
address
our
one
application
request
for
a
parking
variance
and
acknowledge
some
of
the
neighboring
concerns
about
parking.
It
is
deeply
important
to
us
to
acknowledge
the
concerns
of
a
few
neighbors
over
a
potential
parking
issue.
We
want
the
neighbors
in
opposition
to
know
that
we
hear
you,
then
we
agree
that
your
concerns
are
very
important.
Y
This
is
why
we
have
spent
an
unbelievable
amount
of
time
and
energy
mitigating
these
concerns
with
the
design
and
functionality
of
the
building.
We
respect
the
history
and
even
named
our
building
after
the
original
neighborhood,
fuller
town,
we
have
taken
drastic
measures
to
make
sure
that
we
address
those
concerns.
For
example,
we've
removed
the
side,
yard
setback,
variance,
requested
we've
reconfigured
our
parking
and
floor
plan,
climate
change,
Israel,
and
we
are
doing
everything
in
our
power
to
make
sure
that
our
process
is
as
green
as
feasibly
possible.
Y
We
also
want
this
to
be
a
huge
net
win
for
the
community.
Instead
of
demolishing
the
single-family
home
and
the
duplex
located
on
the
site,
we
are
going
to
donate
and
literally
move
the
homes
to
evoke
a
lot,
a
vacant
lot
to
serve
those
in
need.
We
have
14
studios
and
we
unequivocally
believe
that
the
majority,
if
not
all,
of
these
residents,
do
not
own
a
vehicle.
We
believe-
and
our
data
supports,
that
these
people
consciously
choose
a
different
lifestyle.
Y
We
fundamentally
believe
that
we
designed
this
building
for
a
mix
of
people
that
are
already
present
in
the
neighborhood
and
for
those
trying
to
access
the
neighborhood
like
my
family
just
six
years
ago.
We
believe
50%
of
the
building,
or
so
would
be
Millennials
or
young
professionals
that
do
not
own
a
car
and
commute
with
means
of
transportation
as
biking
walking.
Y
Other
transits,
such
as
uber
lyft,
the
bus
ride,
share
simply
put
this
person
doesn't
live
the
same
way
that
other
neighbors
do
and
that's,
okay,
they
they
will
work
from
home,
meet
at
nearby
coffee
shops
or
sharing
office.
Their
lives
originate
from
where
they
reside.
Our
data
shows
that
most
of
our
residents
will
rarely
travel
more
than
five
miles
on
a
regular
basis,
an
hour
in
search
of
affordability
in
servicing
these
residents
and
facilitating
their
lifestyle.
Y
We
even
built
a
bike
cafe
in
the
lobby
and
provided
two
areas
for
working
space
in
the
lobby
and
community
room.
The
other
half
of
our
residents
will
be
moved
down
buyers
and
first-time
homeowners.
These
folks
that
want
to
live
in
the
neighborhood,
but
can't
afford
to
buy
a
home
or
keep
up
a
home.
Some
will
sacrifice
a
vehicle
for
a
place
to
live.
The
location
is
most
important
and
we
feel
48th
and
grand
is
a
wonderful
and
highly
walkable
area
for
this
resident.
This
resident
is
like
Diane
who
currently
lives
across
the
street.
Y
That
is
looking
forward
to
living
in
a
new
place,
with
relatively
the
same
cost
of
rent.
Diane
is
looking
forward
to
the
elevator
president
in
the
building.
Marybeth
would
also
like
to
live
in
the
building
and
is
looking
for
more
of
a
long-term
stay.
Diane
may
have
a
vehicle,
but
Marybeth
will
not.
It
is
important
to
not
pick
one
neighborhood
over
the
other,
but
we
acknowledge
parking
is
a
challenge
everywhere,
but
access
to
housing
is
even
greater
a
challenge
to
my
understanding.
We
were
not
required
to
provide
affordable
housing.
Y
Y
Our
building
is
just
44
feet
from
La,
fresca
and
132
feet
from
the
corner
of
40th
and
grand,
which
is
a
four-way,
stop
I,
don't
know
of
a
better
spot
in
South
West,
for
a
functional
building
like
this
and
a
spot
more
deserving
than
48th
and
grand
for
those
in
need
of
housing,
Thank,
You,
Lindsay
and
cpad.
Thank
you,
Planning
Commission.
We
appreciate
your
time.
We
hope
you
support
this
variance.
Thank
you.
Y
I
Y
Y
We
believed
you
know,
there's
a
couple
for
plexes
right
across
the
street
if
you're
standing
on
the
corner
or
at
the
front
door
47:40
and
it's
all
brick,
facade
and
stucco
on
the
back.
We're
gonna
provide
something
similar.
We
proposed
white
brick,
but
we're
okay
with
red
brick
as
well,
which
might
be
a
little
more
traditional,
but
we
wanted
to
provide
more
of
a
hundred-year
look,
so
it's
brick
stucco
and
then
a
little
metal
on
the
sides
there.
Any
other
questions
any.
A
Other
questions,
so
you
know,
thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you.
We
will
open
the
public
hearing
for
everybody
else.
I
am
going
to
not
hold
people
to
a
time
for
your
testimony,
but
we're
gonna
hold
total
time
to
forty
minutes.
Please
line
up
and
keep
your
comments,
concise
and
keep
them
original,
not
with
peak
points.
Others
before
you
have
main
come
to
the
mic
and
speaking
of
an
address
for
the
record.
Z
Your
mission
is
to
represent
and
work
for
the
people,
but
the
fuller
town
flats
project,
if
approved,
is
not
acceptable
to
the
residents
of
this
neighborhood.
The
site
plan
is
not
compatible
with
other
buildings
in
the
neighborhood,
and
a
parking
variance
from
twenty
three
to
ten
will
be
absolutely
suffocating.
Z
Z
Further,
it
will
burden
the
neighborhood
residents
and
businesses
creating
additional
parking
and
safety
issues
follow
the
law
in
light
of
the
city's
plans
for
2040,
which
would
not
permit
this
type
of
structure.
Why
is
the
Planning
Commission,
seemingly
so,
adamant
to
approving
this
project?
Why
are
you
trying
to
rush
it
through
and
apparently
do
everything
you
can
to
ignore
the
laws
and
the
sentiment
of
the
people?
It
will
affect
the
most.
Why
follow
the
law?
The
developers
requests
for
variances,
have
demonstrated
no
unique
or
practical
difficulty,
nor
have
they
requested
any
reasonable
relief.
Z
The
variance
would
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
area
and
would
be
injurious
to
nearby
properties
by
creating
additional
parking
issues
and
safety
concerns.
Parking
in
the
area
is
already
a
major
problem,
especially
during
the
winter.
It
is
a
problem
for
cars,
trucks,
moving
vans,
trailers,
city
buses,
school
buses,
fire
safety
equipment,
and
anybody
with
a
mobility
issue
add
to
that
the
fact
the
city
cannot
or
will
not
plow
to
the
curbs.
As
a
result,
one
side
of
the
street
gets
closed,
which
limits
and
restricts
parking
even
more
from
November
through
April
to
the
city.
Z
I
say
there
is
no
can
or
can't
its
will
or
won't.
In
short,
this
project
does
not
promote
development
compatible
with
nearby
properties
or
neighborhood
character.
It
violates
code
and
variants
policies.
Fuller
town
flats
is
not
reasonable.
Fuller
town
flats
receives
and
receives.
Excuse
me,
fuller
town
flats
relieves
no
plight,
but
it
would
change
the
essential
character
of
the
neighborhood.
AA
Hi,
my
name
is
jay
and
I
stone
I
live
at
47,
16,
Grand
Avenue,
thanks
to
your
service
and
allowing
me
to
speak.
I
also
want
to
thank
you
advance
for
committing
to
follow
the
law
and
I
speak
to
you
today
about
palm
to
speak
about
three
things.
We.
The
fourth
item
was
the
fact
that
it
was
improperly
notified
to
the
neighborhood.
They
actually
put
one
on
the
front
of
each
property,
the
notification
and
it
looked
like
a
eviction
notice.
So
no
one
knew
what
it
was
when
it
was
installed.
AA
I
also
want
to
start
speak
to
you
about
how
the
request
for
the
variance
Falls
fails
to
meet
one
of
the
three
criteria
required
by
law.
Secondly,
deficiencies
in
the
proposed
site
plan
and,
finally,
a
petition
against
the
development
by
the
neighborhood
group
that
resided
will
reside
in
first
I
want
to
remind
the
commissioners
that
the
the
variance
can
only
be
granted
if
it
meets
all
three
of
the
requirements,
one,
it
must
be
addressed.
A
practical
difficulty
that
is
unique
to
the
property.
Two
must
be
reasonable.
AA
Three
must
not
change
the
essential
character
of
the
locality,
be
injury,
injurious
to
other
properties
or
detrimental
to
the
welfare
of
the
general
public.
There'll,
be
several
people
that
will
speak
about
that
economic
considerations,
meaning
in
order
to
qualify
or
be
able
to
support
the
fact
that
he
has
the
cost
to
build.
This
isn't
a
reason
to
allow
for
this
variance.
AA
I
want
to
note
that
the
applicant
on
page
14
of
the
CPE
D
staff
report
was
had
only
requested,
the
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
parking
to
the
ten
spaces.
The
applicant
should
have
never
been
deemed
complete
because
of
that
so
follow
the
law
deny
the
variance
the
requirement
number
one
in,
for
the
variance
is
that
it
needs
to
be
practical
difficulty
unique
to
the
property
in
their
applicant
application.
The
applicant
stated
the
variance
is
needed
in
order
to
allow
the
development
of
23
apartment
buildings,
our
apartment
units
in
the
property.
AA
The
applicant
does
not
make
any
attempt
to
identify
any
other
practical
difficulty
unique
to
the
property.
The
law
is
clear.
Economic
considerations
alone
do
not
constitute
a
practical
difficulty.
Please
follow
the
law
denied
the
variance
curious,
curiously.
Rather
than
simply
analyzing
the
applicants
request,
the
staff
just
took
it
upon
themselves
to
analyze
the
practical
difficulty
not
identified
by
the
applicant
and
suggested
a
variance
is
needed,
as
it
is
related
to
the
transit
incentive
allowed
under
the
code.
Unfortunately,
the
staff
admits
that
it
does
not
actually
abide
by
that
transit
incentive.
AA
It
states
that
the
site
does
not
qualify.
It
is
not
within
a
quarter
of
a
mile
of
a
singular
bus
that
runs
midday,
15
minutes
or
more
more
frequently,
the
staff
assert
that
there
is
excellent
access
to
frequent
transit
routes,
yet
there
are
only
two
buses
that
run
a
quarter
of
a
mile
from
the
site
before
in
the
46,
and
they
run
30
minutes
as
Lindsay
had
mentioned
earlier.
AA
So
again,
that
does
not
constitute
that
transit
incentive.
Please
file.
A
little
law
deny
the
variance
staff
stated
that
the
nearby
orientation
of
transit
stops
is
a
unique
circumstance
that
was
not
created
by
the
Apple
intent.
Well,
this
is
true.
It
does
not
create
a
circumstance
that
is
unique
to
the
property.
Again,
it
does
not
make
stand
as
part
of
the
reverse
requirements.
It
is
not
a
practical
difficulty
unique
to
the
property.
Please
follow
the
law
deny
the
variance
requirement
to
is
reasonableness.
AA
The
fourth-story
site
is
simply
not
reasonable,
approving
the
parking
variance
that
allows
for
construction
of
a
four-story
building
on
a
black,
where
all
other
structures
are
one
to
two
and
a
half
stories
both
currently
and
in
the
future
plans
is
not
reasonable.
The
closest
four-story
building
is
nearly
a
mile
away
on
either
Nicollet
or
lyndale,
both
at
53rd,
which
is
next
to
the
municipalities,
such
as
the
fire
station
gas
station
and
liquor
store
again.
This
is
not
reasonable.
Follow
the
law
denied
the
variance,
increasing
the
intensity
and
use
of
this
site
will
be
766
percent.
AA
AA
This
apartment
building
would
have
almost
four
times
more
units
than
the
next
largest
building
on
the
black,
which
is,
as
Lindsay,
showed,
before
a
six
unit
condo
building
at
the
end
of
the
street
at
47th.
Again,
this
is
not
reasonable.
Please
follow
the
law
and
deny
the
variance
increasing
traffic
and
congestion
is
not
reasonable.
An
additional
20,
more
units
on
this
housing
block
which
currently
has
54,
will
increase
the
congestion
on
the
streets
significantly.
AA
It
is
not
reasonable
each
unit
if
each
unit,
for
example,
had
only
3
packages
or
meals
delivered
and
2
car
sharing
rides
each
week.
That
would
add
over
100
new
commercial
vehicles
each
week
they
will
create
difficulties
for
emergency
vehicles,
school
buses,
that
too
two
houses
away
pick
up,
children
drop
them
off
everyday
at
40th
and
grands
and
other
modes
of
transportation,
especially
as
we
other
people
have
met
in
the
wintertime.
AA
This
both
sides
of
the
street
are
snow
emergency,
so
no
one
can
park
on
the
street
during
that
first
day
again,
this
is
not
reasonable.
Please
follow
the
law
and
denied
the
variance
requirement.
3
is
the
essential
character
we've
talked
about.
This
Lindsay
has
mentioned
that,
yes,
there
are
only
buildings
that
are
two
and
a
half
stories
or
smaller.
This
will
obviously
change
the
character
of
the
neighborhood,
how
it
will
be
interest
to
other
property
orders.
AA
AA
The
other
issue
that
was
mentioned
they
did
talk
about
the
10-foot
retaining
wall
at
the
back
of
the
property.
Up
until
today,
there
was
no
mention
of
a
fence
in
the
plan.
There
is
no
mention
of
offense.
There
are
kids
that
go
back
and
forth
between
fuller
Park
at
the
end
of
the
alley
go
through
the
alley.
This
could
be
very
dangerous
to
them
and
is
unreasonable.
AA
AA
The
proposed
development
does
not
comply
with
crime
prevention
through
Environmental
Design
standards,
particularly
in
the
rear
of
the
building,
where
the
developer
is
proposing
a
creation
of
a
62
foot,
long
corridor
between
the
retaining
wall
and
the
building
with
no
natural
surveillance,
and
with
that
10-foot
drop
there's
a
lot
of
things
you
can
imagine
that
could
be
unsafe
in
the
back
of
the
building.
My
fourth
and
final
point
is
to
refer
to
the
physical
and
online
petitions.
You
guys
have
gotten
those
I
believe
we
had
152
physical
signatures.
AA
It
shows
that
these
are
the
people
that,
from
that
physical
petition
and
the
60
people
that
wrote
in
prior
to
the
report
being
published,
are
opposed
to
the
plan.
In
addition,
I
wanted
to
submit
that
there
was
an
article
that
mr.
Siegel
he
spoke
to
the
Southwest
Journal
after
the
after
the
meeting
with
the
Tangletown
Neighborhood
Association,
and
he
specifically
said
that
he
didn't
want
what
he
was
does
want
to
do
the
project,
but
he
wants
the
neighborhood
to
be
behind
it
as
well.
AA
I
don't
want
to
walk
around
the
neighborhood
with
blinders
on
specifically,
it
was
curious
that
the
neighborhood
of
so
there
was
no
point
taken
in
the
city's
plan
or
the
report
that
by
the
staff
that
the
Neighborhood
Association
was
opposed
to
this
plan.
I
find
that
curious
that
that
was
not
included
within
this.
The
staff
reports,
because
that's
kind
of
a
big
deal
neighborhood
groups,
often
are
neutral
to
plans
or
support
them.
Our
neighborhood
group
does
not
support
this
plan
because
it
was
poorly
planned.
They
did
not
get
proper
public
notification.
AA
Okay-
and
it
appears
that
the
city
is
supporting
it,
despite
the
existing
rules
that
we
have
so
it's
clear
it
doesn't,
the
variance
does
not
meet
any
of
the
three
requirements.
It's
not
practical,
there's,
no
practical
difficulty
is
not
reasonable
and
it
changes
the
essential
neighborhood.
Thank
you.
Thank.
V
I
just
wanted
to
jump
in
as
I
want
to
make
sure
that
it
would
have
worked.
No
clapping
I
just
saw
this
runs
down
here,
but
it
is
something
I
want
to
make
sure
everyone
has
a
chance
to
speak.
That
said,
we're
quickly
hitting
if
everyone
speaks
that
long,
we're
not
gonna
hit
40,
so
I
wanted
to
kind
of
gauge
the
audience,
and
my
fellow
commissioners
would,
if
you
better,
have
a
time
limit
or
have
a
couple.
V
AB
So
good
evening
the
Planning
Commission,
my
name-
is
Jeff
Miller
and
I
own,
the
one
of
the
units
in
the
condo
at
47
44
grand
this
is
the
triplex
that
shares
the
driveway.
With
this
proposed
development.
I
live
in
the
unit
with
my
wife
and
our
child
and
I
serve
as
the
president
of
our
small
condo
association.
The
other
two
members
of
the
this
triplex
are
sitting
in
the
room
with
me
as
well.
So,
given
our
proximity
to
this
development,
I'm
sure
you
can
understand,
we
have
many
concerns
about
how
it
will
impact
us.
AB
The
CPE
D
staff
report
indicates
that
this
development
will
not
be
injurious
or
detrimental
to
nearby
properties,
but
I'm
here
to
tell
you
that
it
will.
So,
let's
start
with
the
shared
driveway,
how
can
it
possibly
be
concluded
that
increasing
the
number
of
the
cars
using
the
driveway
by
260
percent
is
not
detrimental?
AB
Additionally,
we
are
inevitably
going
to
be
regularly
displaced
from
using
our
driveway
and
parking
on
our
garages
throughout
the
entire
construction
process,
and
that's
probably
gonna
take
at
least
a
year
so
I
understand.
The
city
does
not
want
to
create
any
new
curb
cuts,
but
you
should
only
approve
a
plan
that
does
not
create
an
undue
hardship
on
the
existing
residence.
AB
This
driveway
was
never
meant
to
be
shared
with
a
commercial
building.
The
staff
report
indicates
vehicular
access
and
circulation
has
been
designed
to
minimize
conflicts
with
pedestrian
traffic
and
with
surrounding
residential
users.
I
firmly
disagree
with
that
claim,
so
we've
got
we
live
in
Minnesota.
We
have
a
lot
of
snow
I'm
really
concerned
about
how
the
snow
would
be
removed.
AB
Since
we
moved
into
our
home
in
2006,
we
have
had
a
shared
responsibility
of
snow
removal
with
the
former
owners
of
47
40
grand
we
utilize
a
plowing
service
that
clears
the
drive
by
pushing
the
snow
into
the
yard
at
forty
seven,
forty
grand
and,
if
needed,
up
against
our
retaining
wall
backed
by
our
garages.
However,
there's
only
a
little
bit
of
room
back
there
to
park
the
snow
without
blocking
access
to
our
garages.
AB
AB
So
what
the
shared
driveway
there
is
an
inherent
partnership
that
needs
to
exist
between
each
owner
that
shares
a
drive.
So
since
Josh
Segal
had
purchased
his
property
at
forty
seven,
forty
grand
in
August
of
2018,
he
has
made
no
attempt
to
contact
us
to
share
either
financially
or
personally,
and
the
responsibility
of
snow
removal
Josh
also
never
even
cleared
his
driveway
or
enforced
his
but
tenants
to
clear
the
driveway
and
it
caused
a
severe
severe
slippery
sidewalk.
AB
So
I'm
led
to
believe
that
Josh
would
continue
to
exhibit
this
unneighborly
behavior
as
he
marches
forward
with
developing
his
property.
So
another
thing
to
think
about
is
trash.
Removal
Josh's
plan
is
to
store
trash
and
recycling
in
the
parking
structure
of
his
building,
so
the
city
of
Minneapolis
will
not
collect
his
trash,
since
his
building
will
not
have
any
alley
access.
AB
Removal
of
this
trash
is
going
to
need
to
be
done
periodically
by
a
I
have
a
company,
presumably
once
or
twice
per
week.
This
means
large,
noisy
garbage
and
recycling.
Trucks
are
going
to
need
to
navigate
up
and
down
our
shared
driveway,
causing
more
noise
disruption,
increasing
the
potential
for
property
damage,
as
these
large
trucks
attempt
to
navigate
down
the
narrow
driveway.
AB
So,
alternatively,
Josh
can
move
his
dumpsters
out
to
the
street,
down
the
driveway
and
parked
out
under
the
street,
so
creating
an
eyesore
for
people
on
grand
evident
as
well
as
obstructing
pedestrian
and
bike
traffic.
Passing
by
and
I
can
only
imagine
our
friends
having
dinner
at
La
fresca,
sitting
downwind
from
the
the
dumpsters
while
they
enjoy
their
ceviche
and
empanadas.
It
really
good
enjoy.
Having
that
out
there,
this
certainly
will
be
detrimental
to
the
neighborhood
you've
all
seen
the
exhibits
I
have
sent
about
the
plan
here.
AB
It
is
puzzling
to
me
is
that,
as
you
can
see
here,
the
property
line
for
Josh's
4740
runs
completely
horizontal
from
the
front
of
the
house
to
the
back
of
the
house.
However,
his
plan
is
once
he
gets
down
here,
he's
going
to
go
ahead
and
cut
into
our
existing
retaining
wall
backed
by
our
garage.
He
can't
do
that.
That's
our
property.
He
cannot
take
down
an
existing
structure
on
our
property.
AB
So
you
could
see
that
on
page
18
at
the
top
and
page
27
of
the
CPD
staff
report
is
what
shows
that
so
looking
at
Josh's
development,
his
driveway,
it
seems
inevitable
that
he's
gonna
have
to
have
that
wall
removed
in
order
to
have
his
tenants
exit
the
parking
structure
and
to
go
down
the
driveway.
But
he's
not
going
to
do
that.
They
asked
you
to.
AB
I
want
to
talk
about
the
size
of
the
building
itself.
You
know
the
urban
design
policy.
Ten
point
six
point:
one
of
the
Minneapolis
plan
for
sustainable
growth
states
designed
buildings
to
fulfill
light
privacy
in
view
requirements
for
this
subject,
building
as
well
as
for
adjacent
properties.
So
we
bought
our
second-story
unit
because
of
its
location,
the
high
ceilings,
the
large
windows,
the
legend
and
abundance
of
breeze
and
light,
and
give
us
panoramic
views
of
the
sky
and
the
trees
and
our
surrounding
neighborhood.
AB
If
a
four-story
building
goes
up
right
next
to
us
merely
11
feet,
we
are
gonna
lose
all
of
that
when
our
building
was
built,
it
was
built
within
the
consider
essential
character
of
the
neighborhood,
with
no
other
buildings
on
the
block
being
more
than
two
and
a
half
stories
high.
So
we
have
to
glass
block
glass
windows
that
view
right
into
our
showers
right
now.
The
building
next
to
us
can't
see
anything
of
substance
through
those
windows,
because
their
vantage
point
is
lower.
AB
Anybody
on
the
third
or
fourth
storey
of
this
new
building
will
be
able
to
see
right
into
our
showers,
avoiding
all
privacy.
For
me,
my
lovely
wife
and
our
preteen
child
I
don't
know
how
a
rational
person
could
think
this
is
not
injurious
for
detrimental
to
the
surrounding
properties,
so
in
closing,
I
just
want
to
read
from
a
post
that
our
own
City
Council
member,
a
member
of
this
commission
Jeremy
Schroeder.
AB
He
recently
made
to
his
ward
11
Facebook
page
on
September
18th
of
2019,
so
Gerry
wrote,
Jeremy
wrote
as
Minneapolis
grows
and
becomes
more
attractive
to
developers.
It
is
critical
that
the
city
does
everything
it
can
to
protect
the
folks
that
already
live
here
so
I'm
asking
that
the
city
of
Minneapolis
protects
us,
do
not
approve
this
variance
where
the
site
plan
Thanks.
Thank.
A
You
very
much
and
I'll
remind
everybody.
You
know
before
us,
as
we
heard
from
staff
at
the
beginning.
We
really
are
reviewing
one
variance
on
the
parking,
so
we've
heard
a
number
of
comments
on
a
number
of
elements
of
this
project,
but
the
injurious
to
health
etc
really
refers
to
the
parking,
so
I
want
people
that
keep
their
their
comments
on
point
and
understand
the
limits
of
our
jurisdiction
up
here.
Thank
you
is.
AC
AC
There
is
no
mid
day
transit
stop
within
a
quarter
of
a
mile
that
fits
the
15-minute
guideline
or
requirement.
I
am
a
transit
user.
I
am
familiar
with
the
way
the
bus
system
works
and
I
hope
it
gets
better,
but
it
doesn't
work
as
well
as
it
could,
and
the
thought
of
adding,
perhaps
25
cars
to
our
already
cloud
crowded
block,
which
extends
during
peak
times.
All
the
way
down
at
least
a
47th
Street
without
a
place
to
park
is
very
problematic.
AC
I'd
like
to
speak
about
the
transit
incentive.
I'm
just
gonna
go
through
the
buses.
The
closest
bus
is
on
Grand
Avenue,
it's
an
18
which
typically
runs
on
Nicollet.
That
runs
every
hour.
It's
convenient,
but
it
runs
every
hour.
The
four
runs
on
lyndale
or
Bryant
during
mid-day
time
they
never
run
more
often
than
25
or
30
minutes.
During
rush
hour
time,
it's
a
little
bit.
More
often,
but
the
rush
hour
times
are
very
constrained.
The
18
on
Nicollet
6/10
of
from
Grand
Avenue
runs
regularly.
AC
But
thirty
minutes
apart
and
in
a
they
run
a
seven
and
they
run
a
date.
Someone
46
goes
north
and
south.
It
also
does
not
run
regularly
at
less
than
twenty
five
minute
intervals
a
couple
of
times
in
the
morning
it
does.
The
113
goes
to
the
University
of
Minnesota,
it's
seasonal.
It
has
three
buses
in
the
morning
at
the
six
to
seven
o'clock
hour
and
three
at
the
eight
o'clock
hour,
they
run
15
to
20.
They
run
less
than
15
to
20
minutes
apart.
However,
all
these
muscles
are
going
in
different
directions.
AC
The
113
I
covered
the
146
246
goes
north
himself
know
the
46
I'm
sorry
goes
east
and
west.
It
goes
to
the
light
rail
stop
that
doesn't
run
more
often
than
half
of
every
half
an
hour.
So
the
law
is
about
the
transit
incentive
really
being
clear
and
and
following
the
letter
of
the
law,
that
a
bus
runs
every
15
minutes
in
the
midday
hours.
This
doesn't
happen,
it
doesn't
happen
and
there's
a
regular
bus
user.
I
can
tell
you
getting
down
here.
I
couldn't
get
on
one
of
the
buses.
AC
AD
Hi,
my
name
is
Denise
Takeshita
and
I'm
at
4737
here
at
Avenue.
I
really
want
to
talk
about
the
variance
and
as
it
relates
to
the
uniqueness
and
practical
difficulty,
I
did
extensive
research
on
our
buses,
because
I've
lived
in
the
area
for
over
20
years,
I've
taken
the
bus.
The
only
time
it
is
excellent
and
accessible
to
great
transit
is
during
rush
hour
to
and
from
downtown
Minneapolis.
If
people
don't
work
in
downtown
Minneapolis,
it
doesn't
work,
it
simply
is
not
accessible
and
it's
not
frequent.
Thank
you.
Thank.
AE
Stasia
Johnson
Steinhagen
I
live
at
47,
24,
Harriet,
Avenue,
south
I
live
a
block
away
and
the
r-1
district
I'm,
also
a
landlord
in
Uptown
of
an
r2
property,
been
a
landlord
for
29
years
Josh.
If
you're
looking
for
another
place
to
develop
I
can
give
you
lots
of
ideas.
This
property
does
not
qualify
for
the
transit
and
sign
of
parking
reduction.
The
idea
that
the
transit
requirement
is
close
to
okay
or
provides
excellent
access
to
acceptable
transit
is
false.
AE
The
ball
park
next
door
to
the
ball
park
is
not
enough
to
establish
the
legal
requirement
under
the
statute.
Follow
the
law
this
commission
is
required
to
address
the
question
posed
in
the
application.
Will
the
requested
variance
after
the
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
be
injurious
to
the
user
enjoyment
of
other
property,
and,
if
granted,
will
the
variance
be
detrimental
to
the
health,
safety
or
welfare
of
the
general
public
or
those
utilizing
the
property?
The
staff's
written
answer
to
this
question
shows
absolutely
no
reflection
nor
sight
nor
community
investigation.
AE
Our
history
and
a
forward-looking
community
design
supported
in
the
2040
plan,
defines
our
use.
Our
neighborhood
is
small
scale,
residential
four
six
eight
unit,
maybe
not
23
one-
to
two
and
a
half
stories,
not
four
stories,
it's
out
of
character
and
in
fact,
it's
out
of
character
for
everything
or
about
a
half
mile
around
us.
We
are
an
island.
This
beautiful
r5
is
an
island,
and
what
that
means
is
that
the
transit
is
not
caught
up
to
it.
Yet
it
would
be
putting
the
cart
before
the
horse.
AE
In
addition,
the
structure
would
alter
the
character
of
the
block.
It
would
be
injurious
to
the
enjoyment
of
the
properties
surrounding
it
as
regards
green
space,
shadowing
views
density,
it
would
affect
the
welfare
of
nearby
property
owners,
as
living
in
its
shadow
will
most
certainly
lower
their
property
evaluation,
as
proposed.
If
you
plan
on
approving
this
a
variance,
would
you
do
me
a
favor
and
place
an
offer
on
some
of
the
properties
living
right
next
door?
I'm
sure
they'd
be
happy
to
sell
it
to
you
today.
AE
If
you
plan
to
move
forward,
limiting
limited
combining
of
Lots
is
not
what
we
plan
to
do
in
the
future
in
this
neighborhood.
So
why
would
we
allow
it
today
parking
cards
and
transit?
This
is
the
main
issue
at
hand
before
I
touch
on
this
I
want
to
and
the
injuries
that
it
does
to
our
neighbors
in
fuller,
Park
and
our
businesses
at
the
commercial
nodes.
AE
By
the
way,
these
are
the
things
these
these
fuller
park
and
our
businesses
and
the
character
of
this
neighborhood
is
the
reason
I
am
sure
why
these
developers
want
to
put
this
development
here.
It
should
be
a
great
it's.
We've
invested
in
this
in
this
neighborhood.
All
of
us
have
invested
in
this
neighborhood.
We
need
the
developer
to
do
the
same.
AE
Invest
the
money,
make
the
parking
right
and
make
it
within
make
it
right
scale
that
won't
bring
values
down
that
won't
injure
the
parking
and
the
people
who
have
to
have
difficult
get
difficulty
getting
to
their
car.
Until
our
city
has
adequate
transit
service
to
this
r5
multifamily
Island
and
the
surrounding
neighborhoods,
there
will
be
cars
aplenty
both
those
on
the
street
full-time
for
residences
and
the
ones
coming
and
going
to
our
businesses
I,
don't
care
how
many
bike
stations
you
make
there.
AE
The
residents
affording
these
units
will
expect
the
comfort,
convenience
and
requirements
of
a
22
minute
drive
to
work
which
the
census
shows
us
a
mini.
A
Politan
expects,
as
my
son
put
it
20
years
old
it.
Despite
my
many
many
many
tries
to
get
him
to
take
the
bus
to
work
to
school.
None
of
he
or
his
friends
grew
up
here,
use
the
bus.
He
says
it
just
isn't
convenient
timely
and
you
can't
even
get
there
half
the
time
they.
AE
Businesses
we've
welcomed
and
approved
variances
for
several
new
businesses
to
our
grand
and
48th
and
grand
and
forty-six
commercial
nodes
over
the
past
ten
years.
If
this
fuller
tom
platt
flats
was
approved,
the
resident
parking
influx
would
likely
negatively
impact
those
businesses
and
would
choke
the
ability
for
us
to
add
further
businesses
which
have
very
much
enhanced
the
flavor
of
our
neighborhood
and
again,
one
of
the
reasons
I'm
sure
our
developers
would
like
to
be
building
there.
AE
AF
The
developer
hopes
to
attract,
but
just
for
argument's
sake.
Could
you
raise
your
hand
if
you
or
anyone
you
live
with
leases
owns
a?
Are
anybody
in
your
home,
okay,
so
I?
Would
you
don't
have
a
car?
Okay,
I
would
argue
that
more
than
50%
of
people
in
this
day
and
age,
owned
cars
and
I
would
say
that
it
would
be
irresponsible
to
only
provide
10
spots
for
23
residents.
We
assume
that
more
than
23
people
will
actually
live
there.
Do
I
want
to
live
in
this
world
with
less
dependence
on
cars.
AF
Absolutely,
but
it's
not
a
reality
in
this
moment
in
this
city.
So
please
raise
your
hand
I'm,
sorry
for
all
the
participation,
but
if
you
are
a
year-round
biker
winter
bike
commuter
all
right,
there
are
very
few
of
us
and
I
can
tell
you
when
I
bike
to
work
at
6:30
in
the
morning.
I,
don't
see
anybody
at
mid
January.
There
are
not
a
lot
of
bikers
on
the
road
and
I
actually
own
two
bikes,
one
for
icy
conditions
and
want
for
snowy
conditions,
because
it
is
not
for
the
faint
of
heart.
AF
One
of
the
other
hand,
racers
is
my
husband.
We
fill
our
tiny
one
car
garage
with
us
and
we
still
own
two
cars,
because
it
just
is
impossible
to
do
everything
you
need
to
do,
and
it's
not
practical,
there's
just
not
enough
hours
in
the
day,
if
10
parking
spots
are
all
that
can
be
worked
into
this
development,
please
PLEASE
build
a
beautiful
10
unit
building.
AF
Our
block
is
a
very
popular
route
for
families
on
their
way
to
folder'
Park.
There's
no
crosswalk
for
this
driveway,
no
way
to
alert
kids
of
the
dangers
of
regular
traffic
in
and
out.
This
is
a
significant
safety
concern.
Folder
Perks,
popularity
and
charm
are
due
in
large
part
to
the
essential
character
of
our
family-centered
neighborhood
people
go
there
because
it's
a
part
surrounded
by
quiet
streets
and
homes.
It's
not
on
50th,
for
instance,
like
some
of
the
other
parts.
AF
So
a
four
story,
23
unit,
a
building,
a
quarter
block
away,
will
undeniably
alter
the
character
of
fuller
Park.
So
this
may
seem
like
a
mine
variants
to
you
and
that's
precisely
because
you
don't
live
here.
We
are
the
experts
of
our
neighborhood.
We
see
the
children,
we
see
the
city
and
school
buses,
the
fuller
park
activities
that
happen
daily
and
we
see
the
dreadful
parking
every
day,
365
days
a
year,
so
you
have
a
job
to
do
coal
developers
accountable.
Please
follow
the
law,
that's
it.
Thank.
T
My
name
is
denis
Nordstrom
I
live
at
4701,
Grand
Avenue
I'm,
one
of
the
owners
of
the
six
unit,
condo
I'll
just
cut
this
way
back.
Let
me
just
address
the
the
parking
issue.
As
an
owner
of
the
one
of
the
owners
of
the
condo,
we
have
two
small
units
that
they're
talking
about
and
I'm
just
going
to
talk
about
those
two
units.
One
is
a
one-bedroom
unit
with
Millennials
and
young
professionals.
Two
people
live
in
that
one-bedroom
unit
both
of
Emmonak
are
Millennials,
and
young
professionals
also
live
in
the
small
efficiency.
T
This
project
can
easily
generate
probably
30
to
40
cars,
so
I'm
encouraging
you
to
vote
no
to
the
variance.
There
is
not
one
business
person
that
we
have
chatted
with
in
the
neighborhood
that
supports
this
also,
and
you
guys
have
that
as
a
matter
of
record.
Some
of
them
have
written
into
you.
I
just
want
to
say
that
we
are
not
afraid
of
density.
Our
two
blocks
are
probably
the
most
dense
area
in
the
in
the
near
neighbourhood
2014
out
of
the
25
buildings,
our
multifamily
already
we're,
not
afraid
of
density.
T
Let
them
come
back
to
you
in
a
few
weeks,
under
the
great
2040
plan
that
conceptually
you've
already
said
yes
to
we'll
pass
on
to
the
full
board,
our
full
council,
so
we're
encouraging
you
to
do
that,
we're
not
afraid
of
density,
we're
not
afraid
of
diversity,
we're
not
afraid
of
change,
just
work
with
us
and
help
us
do
this
in
a
smart
way,
because
what
we
have
now
is
not
smart.
Thank
you.
AG
Janssen
4741
Harriet,
Avenue
I,
just
want
to
say
one
thing:
you've
heard
tonight
from
the
neighbors
a
lot
of
their
health
and
safety
concerns
that
they
have
associated
with
this
project.
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
none
of
these
health
and
safety
concerns
have
been
studied.
There
have
not
been
any
proposed
solutions
to
these
concerns
by
the
developers
in
their
plan.
All
we
ask
is
that
you
consider
these
health
and
safety
concerns
associated
with
granting
the
parking
variance
before
voting.
AG
We
need
to
study
the
effects
the
effects
this
project
will
have
on
our
neighborhood
and
proceed
cautiously
until
we
have
done
so
until
then,
we
feel
this
project
should
be
delayed
and
the
variance
should
not
be
granted
until
the
health
and
safety
concerns
of
the
community
have
been
thoroughly
studied
and
addressed.
Thank
you.
Thank.
S
V
A
AH
You,
my
name
is
Matthew
Larson
I
live
at
57:49,
Morgan,
Avenue
South,
it's
actually
Ward
13
I
am
in
favor
of
infill
development.
That
I
think
is
done
thoughtfully,
which
I
believe
this
is
the
case
for
the
parking
variance
which
they
think
the
city
staff
articulated.
Well
was
certainly
one
of
the
reasons
that
made
this
a
proposal
that
got
legs
in
the
first
place.
AI
AI
A
AJ
There
Aaron
ellika,
43,
43
grand
I,
live
in
King
field
and
I'm
just
a
couple
blocks
from
where
the
developments
proposed
I'm
here
to
express
my
support
for
the
variance
because
we
need
to
how
is
people,
not
cars,
I'm
excited
to
see
more
multi-family
housing
in
the
neighborhood.
There's
plenty
of
parking
in
the
area
and
many
Tangletown
homes
have
garages,
as
evidenced
by
their
famous
annual
garage
sale.
Less
car
storage
means
more
room
for
housing
and
reduces
the
cost,
as
architect
noted
for
both
renters
and
developers.
AJ
Recent
study
in
Portland
Oregon
show
that
mandating
car
storage
essentially
prohibited,
affordable
development
by
raising
the
cost
of
development
by
2.5
times,
I'd
like
to
see
parking
minimums
removed
completely
in
favor
of
parking
maximums,
but
I
realize
that's.
Another
conversation
entirely
sends
me
to
think
that
some
of
my
neighbors
feel
the
housing
cars
is
more
important
than
housing.
People
we're
in
the
midst
of
a
climate
emergency
and
to
drastically
reduce
our
co2
emissions,
but
everyone's
up
in
arms.
What
where
all
the
cars
will
go?
AJ
We're
in
the
midst
of
a
housing
shortage
and
people
are
still
talking
about
neighborhood
character,
as
if
the
most
important
thing
in
a
neighborhood
were
the
height
and
material
buildings
rather
than
people
living
there.
Many
folks
making
these
arguments
say
that
they're
all
for
density
of
housing,
just
not
in
their
init
neighborhood
or
backyard
I,
don't
think
these
arguments
are
made
in
good
faith
and
I
feel
that
they're
made
to
make
development
less
affordable,
keep
undesired,
undesirable,
renters
out
of
an
enclave
and
maintain
exclusivity
in
the
status
quo.
AK
Evening,
my
name
is
Greg,
plum
I
will
live
at
4704
Grand
Avenue
I've
been
a
landlord
there
for
22
years.
I
currently
live
in
the
building
across
the
street.
From
the
six
Plex,
you
will
note
that
the
six
Plex
has
four
garages.
The
gentleman
mentioned
the
two
efficiency
apartments.
They
have
four
cars
between
them.
The
variance
that
they're
asking
for
will
just
exasperate
problem.
That's
already
there
it's
an
emergency
route.
They
have
problems
with
snow.
Adding
those
additional
cars
is
not
meeting
the
requirement
for
the
variance.
AK
It's
also
I
mean
people
talked
about
fuller
Park,
it's
also
a
corridor
where
the
students
go
to
Washburn
high
school
high
traffic,
it's
very
dangerous.
This
summer
there
was
a
crash
at
4700,
447
and
grand
and
a
rollover.
Their
speed
is
an
issue
they're,
adding
the
traffic.
Adding
the
cars
is
not
appropriate.
It
doesn't
meet
the
criteria
for
the
variance.
So
please
do
your
job
very
much.
AL
My
intention
is
to
pick
up
and
move
both
the
two
Plex
and
single-family
home
two
property
that
I
owned
nearby
that
will
be
saving
three
housing
units
that
become
affordable,
housing
as
the
cost
to
move
them
is
less
the
cost
than
the
cost
to
build
which
allow
us
to
rent
those
units
at
60%,
ami
or
lower
by
moving
the
duplex
in
the
single-family
home,
we'll
also
be
saving
over
150,000
pounds
of
construction
material
from
going
into
landfills.
Thank
you.
Thank.
AM
The
room-
my
name
is
Chris
Meyer,
6:01,
6th
Street
southeast
and
the
park,
commissioner
for
district
1
and
I
have
been
campaigning
against
parking
requirements
for
the
last
decade.
I
bought
a
copy
of
the
book.
The
high
cost
of
free
parking
for
every
council
member
in
2015
and
I'm
asking
you
to
support
this
variance
because
parking
requirements
are
unethical.
AM
They
make
housing
more
expensive.
Transit
for
livable
communities
found
that
in
Minneapolis
the
average
underground
parking
spot,
I'll
cost
about
$40,000.
So
when
you
require
those
to
be
built,
you
know
most
of
them
are
going
to
be
underground.
Nowadays,
you
are
massively
increasing
the
cost
of
housing
in
Seattle.
AM
So
you
know
if
we're
going
to
be
serious
about
taking
action
on
climate
change.
The
first
thing
that
you
need
to
do
is
stop
actively
make
it
worse.
It
is
really
unethical
to
tell
the
Builder
that
you
must
create
additional
car
parking
for
people
like
me,
like
I've,
never
driven
a
car
at
all
up
in
my
life,
but
I
still
have
to
pay
for
it,
because
it's
bundled
in
with
the
price
of
the
housing
or
the
price
of
goods
whenever
I
want
to
buy
something.
AM
I,
don't
have
the
the
opportunity
to
opt
out
and
say:
I'd
rather
have
my
hundred
and
seventeen
thousand
dollars
for
those
who
do
Drive.
You
know
we
have
the
last
century
of
policy
that
has
created
an
abundance
of
a
parking
throughout
the
city,
so
there
are
options
for
them.
There
aren't
really
very
many
options
for
me,
so
I'm
asking
you
to
support
this
and
I
know
that
you
do
because
you
voted
to
completely
eliminate
parking
requirements
in
the
in
the
2040
plan,
but
we
need
to
act
now
so
I'm
asking
you
not
to
wait.
AF
AN
Davis
I
live
at
47
24
grand
I'm,
going
to
mostly
address
the
bus
issue
instead
of
the
car
issue.
I
have
both
I
have
the
go-to
card
and
I
have
a
car
I've
had
to
take
myself
to
doctor
appointments
I've
had
to
take
elderly
friends
and
family
to
doctor
appointments
I've
had
to
deal
with
groceries.
There's
many
reasons.
I
use
my
car
that
are
not
I'm
not
able
to
do
on
a
bus.
The
bus.
The
main
point
I
want
to
make
about
the
bus
is
simply
that
as
Jeremy
was
over
in
our
neighborhood.
AN
As
we
pointed
out
to
him,
the
bus
routes
that
are
touted
as
being
frequent
are
closer
to
half
a
mile
away
and
I
know
because
I
take
the
bus
and
I
walk
up
there,
not
only
a
distance
way,
but
we
are
in
a
bowl
in
that
neighborhood,
48th
and
grand
I
believe
is
around
900
feet.
The
elevation
going
up
to
take
either
bus
either
of
the
frequent
buses
is
a
three
percent
slope
over
a
half
a
mile,
so
you're
talking
about
going
up
like
this
for
five
short
blocks
to
either
bus.
It's
impossible.
AN
AN
A
O
Hear
a
lot
about
I'm
bill,
Hendricks,
47,
49,
Grand,
Avenue,
South,
okay,
I
live
Kenny,
Wampus
from
where
the
new
buildings
going
to
be
everybody's,
talking
about
biking
and
saving
gas
and
global
warming.
I
just
want
you
guys
to
know
which
I
never
thought
of,
but
Bill
Thompson
and
Tom
crafted
er.
They
live
on
Harriet
they
own
a
Focus
which
is
a
hybrid.
They
also
just
bought
a
electric
car,
another
neighbor
of
ours
on
where
does
anyway
right
in
the
neighborhood.
They
just
bought
a
Tesla.
O
There
are
electric
cars
moving
into
our
neighborhood
and
they're
gonna
require
parking
too
and
I
want
to
say
our
neighbors.
They
Michael
and
I.
We
own
low
mileage
or
high
mileage
cars,
so
it
is
we're
considering
them
we're
not
just
saying
to
hell
with
global
warming,
we're
very
concerned
our
neighborhood
is
very
concerned.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
I
Y
Sure,
thanks
for
the
question,
what
we
had
initially
thought
of
was
removing
the
retaining
wall
for
the
South
neighbor.
It
wasn't
impact
in
our
building.
Currently
there's
a
three
car
garage,
the
neighbors
back
up
actually
into
the
driveway
and
into
our
property
in
front
of
the
single
car
garage.
That's
present,
so
we
were
mindful
of
the
South
neighbors.
It
really
doesn't
have
an
impact
on
our
building.
We
also
thought
we
had
a
conversation
with
the
three
owners
a
couple
of
fridays
ago
to
take
care
of
snow
removal.
Y
A
V
Sure
I
just
want
to,
since
my
name
was
mentioned
kind
of
put
some
context
around
that
that
quote,
it
was
out
of
context
as
my
work
around
the
tenant
opportunity
to
purchase,
and
basically
just
summary
from
the
in
the
to
do
some
transparency.
It's
just
a
matter
of
for
folks
that
are
currently
renters.
It
be
an
opportunity
for
them
to
purchase
their
property
when
it
goes
up
for
sale.
A
V
It's
I
thought
the
the
staff
argument
was
very
well
put
together,
but
I
would
just
say
that
that
it's
still
doesn't
really
meet
the
requirement
for
the
for
the
variants
that,
while
there
is
transit
around
there,
I
disagree
that
it
does
hit
the
the
minimums
of
being
able
to
be
around
at
noon
and
also
that
it's
unique
to
the
property.
I
mean
I
think
that
it
there
are
differences
from
where
you
live
in
Minneapolis
and
I.
A
Q
Yeah
I
was
kind
of
on
the
fence
about
this
one
part
of
me,
because
much
of
the
testimony
focused
on
the
scale
of
the
development
which
is
actually
following.
The
law
allowed
an
r5.
However,
the
parking
seems
so
prescriptive
and
what
it
where
was
allowed
to
be
varied
versus,
where
it
wasn't
that,
even
though
historically
we
have
granted
parking
variances,
it
seemed
so
specific
and
it's
a
requirement
aware
and
where
we
couldn't
could
not
vary
under
the
specific
transit
incentive.
Q
That
I
am
inclined
to
agree
with
Commissioner
Schrader
on
this
one,
which
is
which
is
interesting.
It's
an
interesting
dichotomy.
If,
if
they
wait
till
the
2040
plan
gets,
you
know
formally
adopted
and
they
updating
the
r5
will
go
away,
but
the
parking
requirement
will
go
away.
So
it's
it's
six
of
one
half
dozen,
the
other,
but
that's
that's
my
take
on
it.
AO
Mr.
president,
I'll
be
voting
against
the
motion
to
deny
the
parking
variance.
Here's.
Why?
First
of
all,
I
and
I,
heard
the
argument
raised
here,
we
can't
hold
against
anybody
the
fact
that
they're
bringing
this
thing
up
now
and
that
the
comp
plan
is
a
thing.
That's
gonna
be
passed
in
the
future.
First
of
all,
we
don't
know
exactly
when
that
will
be,
but
we
can't
just
kick
something
down
the
curb.
AO
You
know
down
the
road
until
the
law
changes,
there
are
ordinances
that
apply
to
when
people
make
their
land
use
applications
and
when
we
have
to
act
on
them,
just
in
the
same
way
that,
once
the
new
comp
plan
is
here,
we
can't
accuse
that.
We
can't
hold
anything
against
those
people
for
waiting
until
then
to
bring
their
land
use
application.
We
have
to
treat
them
all
fairly
and
as
they're
in
front
of
us
when
they
arrive
with
respect
to
this
variance,
I
find
the
staff
findings.
AO
You
know
solid
that
that
a
variance
is
here
and
this
Commission
has
voted
to
eliminate
parking.
You
know
on
so
many
pieces
of
property.
At
least
this
one
has
some
for
those
who
don't
follow
the
work
of
this
commission
regularly.
I
can
tell
you
that
you
know
so
many
other
parts
of
the
city
are
getting
zero
parking
spots
with
their
apartment,
buildings
and
I
can't
help,
but
think
here
on
an
r5
Street.
That's
all
multiple
family
dwellings
and
everything
that
this
doesn't
just
have
more
to
do
with
where
it
is
than
anything.
R
You
president
Rockwell
I
would
just
say
that
I
will
also
be
voting.
No
I
agree
with
Commissioner
so
easy
and
we're
talking
about
13
spaces.
I
mean
relative
to
what
we've
approved
on
a
variety
of
other
projects,
for
the
reason
of
consistency
just
alone.
Just
regarding
many
of
the
other
concerns
from
a
more.
C
A
N
R
K
A
N
V
I
Crozier,
just
really
simply
I
think
this
building
could
do
better
fitting
into
the
community.
The
material
of
color
I
mean
we
saw
a
project
a
few
hours
ago.
Now
that
had
a
nice
scale
to
the
material
design.
I
think
that
this
project
makes
it
through
the
process
here
that
the
communities
there
is
a
better
looking
building.
So
I
challenge
you
to
go
ahead
and
do
that
I
mean
you
talked
about
your
core
values
and
I.
Just
don't
see
any
of
your
core
values
here.
I
think
I
think
you
can
do
better.
N
P
N
P
A
AQ
W
AQ
Okay,
so
two
amendments,
and
that
we
have
had
discussions
on
one
would
be
to
allow
up
to
three
unit
buildings,
Melora
density
districts
and
the
second
one
to
limit
lock
combinations
and
those
lower
density
districts.
The
idea,
the
direction
that
we've
been
given
FN
is
to
allow
those
units
within
the
same
building
ski
on
size
as
the
single-family
dwelling,
and
also
looking
at
any
related
development
standards,
and
then
the
ending
with
a
combination
would
be
to
maintain
that
small
scale
size
of
development
as
well.
AQ
This
is
again
coming
from
policies
from
the
2040
plan,
particularly
policy,
one
regarding
access
to
policy,
increasing
the
supply
of
housing
and
its
diversity
of
location.
So
the
idea
is
to
allow
more
housing
options
for
significant
population
growth.
That's
expected
as
well
as
people
already
living
here
and
again.
This
policy
supports
several
goals
and
plans,
including
eliminating
disparities,
creating
more
jobs
and
residents,
an
affordable
housing
and
accessible
housing,
as
well
as
creating
complete
neighborhoods.
AQ
AQ
So
long-range
planning
is
going
to
be
doing
some
of
this
work
they're
not
here
tonight,
but
they
asked
me
to
just
pass
on
this
information
they're
going
to
be
doing
some
ongoing
measurement
and
evaluation
on
all
the
comprehensive
plan,
goals
and
they'll
be
focusing
on
key
policies,
including
this
one,
of
course,
they're
still
working
through
the
details.
They'll
have
dashboards
found
on
the
minneapolis
2040
plan
that
you
can
follow
and
they
have
been
directed
to
provide
these
updates
to
the
planet
efficient
and
city
council.
AQ
To
begin
with,
these
might
be
broader,
and
this
might
be
broader
information,
so
development
services,
because
also
going
to
be
looking
at
this
providing
more
detailed
information,
but
we're
still
in
the
process
of
creating
that
evaluation
framework.
So
again
we
planted
this
coming
back
to
you
at
community
the
whole
and
when
we
have
more
of
those
details,
figure
it
out.
AQ
This
is
what
I
thought
the
next
slide
was
I'm.
Coming
back
into
the
amendment
details,
just
as
a
recap
currently
in
those
lower
density,
districts,
duplexes
and
triplexes
aren't
allowed
in
all
of
them
right
now.
Try
flexes
are
first
allowed
in
our
three
district,
so
that
proposed
amendment
would
be
allowing
single
two
or
three
family
dwellings
in
the
r1
to
r2,
P
districts
and
again,
ad
use
are
only
allowed
access
rate
to
single.
G
AQ
Family
dwellings
and
with
the
direction
to
maintain
that
small
scale,
building
size
and
environment,
duplexes
and
triplexes
would
be
subject
to
the
same
building
bulk
requirements
as
a
single
filming.
Also
other
development
standards
include
blast,
acquirements
and
block
coverage
and
pervious
surface
and
yard
requirements
with
the
limiting
law.
Combinations.
AQ
Adding
a
maximum
lot
size
requirement
is
a
new
thing,
so
here
we
just
reiterated
in
each
district
four,
it
would
apply.
This
would
be
applying
to
single
to
three
family
dwellings
and
then
a
maximum
variance
of
30%
would
apply,
and
if
you're
looking
at
the
built
form
guidance,
you
can
see
these
this
sort
of
ply
mainly
in
interior,
one
and
some
interior
to
an
interior
three
areas
as
well,
so
standing
up
on
the
Left
farm
on
the
right.
AQ
Maybe
I'll
take
a
breaker.
This
is
that
was
just
the
recap
and
I
was
also
gonna
get
into
the
changes
that
have
happens
to
the
text
in
moment,
since
we
last
thought
just
a
few
weeks
ago.
So
any
questions
at
the
moment,
so
the
list
of
changes
that
were
made
on
just
some
revisions,
starting
with
the
enclosed
parking
apartment
for
new
dwellings.
AQ
We
have
discussed
this
several
times
before.
Initially
we
came
in
with
a
proposal.
She
required
a
minimum
of
two
underscore
feet
for
each
of
single
two
or
three
family
dwelling,
and
then
we
got
some
feedback,
maybe
split
it
up,
make
a
little
more
flexible
and
and
and
then
we
said,
no,
we
should
really
be
able
to
accommodate
at
least
one
vehicle.
AQ
AQ
We
also
updated
some
things
and
our
three
requirements,
first
being
where
we
have
site
plan
review
points
for
trees,
we
added
in
a
minimum
caliper
requirement
of
two
and
a
half
inches
again,
as
we
mentioned
previously.
The
idea
is
to
prevent
planting
an
unreasonable
number
of
stick-like
trees
that
are
just
too
many
of
them
and
they're
really
not
meeting
the
intent.
AQ
This
would
apply
to
both
existing
and
new
trees.
So
we
went
with
a
little
higher
number
when
looking
at
the
new
tree
requirement
for
any
newly
constructed
drawing,
we
decided
to
bring
that
down
just
a
little
bit.
They
sent
some
feedback
that
we
got
from
the
Minneapolis,
Parks
and
Recreation
staff,
so
we
decided
to
go
with
two
inches
for
just
general
cheese,
but
if
you
have
a
trunk
specimen,
we
just
did
a
little
bit
to
0.75
inches.
AQ
So
we
yeah
we
just
had
to
do
with
a
little
bit.
A
little
bit
lower
caliper
for
those
reasons
and
actually
after
I've
written
the
staff
report
had
it
had
been
completed,
I
got
a
little
more
information,
a
little
more
feedback,
and
they
did
say
that
if
you
go
even
smaller,
say
inch
and
a
half
and
caliper
that's
more
in
line
with
tree
warranty
periods
offered
by
installers,
and
it
can
accommodate
a
few
like
more
options
for
tree
growth.
So
just
a
little
more
information
to
consider.
AQ
AQ
So
we
eliminated
that,
but
then
specify
that
attached
garages
would
still
be
exempt
or
not
included,
and
that
we
do
step
back
requirement.
So
the
example
below
shows
where
you
might
have
an
attached
garage
that
might
skew
those
results
a
little
bit.
There
may
still
be
practical
difficulties
and
you
may
be
able
to
meet
various
findings
of
the
situation,
write
a
variance
to
still
be
requested.
AQ
Another
change
that
we
made
was
the
maximum
wattage
requirement
for
a
cluster
development,
so
as
we're
evaluating
how
we're
doing
the
maximum
on
air
requirements,
we
realized
that
if
you
have
a
smaller
cluster
development
and
stay
with
only
one
principle,
dwelling
or
a
structure
or
four
or
less
units,
you
might
have
a
mess
in
water.
Your
apartment,
that's
less
than
your
minimum
requirement
and
that
just
doesn't
work
have
an
r18
example.
Here.
This
couldn't
be
built
with
the
original.
AQ
That's
my
requirements
we
had
proposed,
so
we
did
change
it
to
as
approved
by
the
conditional
use
permit
and
it's
included
as
a
development
standard
under
the
rest
of
the
development
standards
with
cluster
developments.
So
it
can
be
buried,
but
it
does
still
allow
the
Planning
Commission
the
opportunity
to
evaluate
if
what
they're
proposing
for
a
lot
area
is
consistent
with
the
Comprehensive
Plan
policy
guidance
as
well
as
what
the
surrounding
context
is.
Then
the
last
change
was
related
to
the
building
bulk
tables
and
a
lot
to
mention
tables.
AQ
We've
realized
that
they
are
attached
to
the
wrong
sections
and
in
order
to
fix
that,
we
had
to
completely
eliminate
the
whole
table
and
then
show
them
as
new
text
under
the
correct
section
of
the
ordinance,
so
that
affects
the
tables
and
r1
to
r2
B.
So
it
looks
like
there's
a
lot
of
new
text,
but
there
really
wasn't-
and
we
just
recap
in
the
staff
report,
what
was
actually
proposed
to
change
in
those
tables.
So
that
covers
the
changes
since
the
last
time.
We
much
any
questions.
C
I
To
require
a
concrete
floor
enough
head
height,
we
were
kind
of
talking
about
this
at
Cowell
and
one
of
the
points
I
brought
up
as
well.
We
want
something
of
quality,
that's
going
to
last,
if
we
don't
call
it
a
garage.
How
are
we
gonna
assume
assure
that
we
have
something
that's
built
on
a
concrete
floor
that
has
certain
head
height.
AQ
And
that
was
discussed
allowing
it
to
be
a
little
more
flexible
was
the
way
we
determined
to
go
on.
The
idea
is
to
provide
storage,
but
without
actually
building
out
a
full
garage
necessarily
and
so
a
shed
might
not
have
a
concrete
floor.
It
doesn't
necessarily
mean
it's
a
dirt
floor,
so
it
was
determined
that
defining
those
minimum
specifications.
A
AL
AQ
A
A
Q
Sorry,
everyone
I
actually
am
in
favor
of
almost
everything,
Janelle
discussed
and
actually
all
the
hard
work
she's
done,
except,
of
course,
that
triplex
thinks
I'm
just
gonna
get
this
over
with
it.
It'll
come
as
no
surprise
that
I
intend
to
vote
against
the
proposed
zoning
code
text
and
it
really
did
to
try
flexes
because
it
lacks
any
safeguards
and
undermines
eight
of
the
15
stated
goals
of
the
comp
plan
and
therefore
I
find
it
inconsistent
with
the
men
I
oppose
2040
plan
and
cannot
support
it.
Q
I
know
that
my
opinion
on
the
matter
is
not
a
very
popular
one
here
and
then
what
I'm
about
to
say
will
likely
fall
on
deaf
ears,
but
is
the
only
person
here
who's
likely
from
North
Minneapolis,
I'm
gonna
say
it?
The
may
oppose
2040,
comprehensive
plan
states
and
I
quote
the
top
goal
from
Minneapolis
2040
is
in
2040.
Minneapolis
will
have
significantly
reduced
economic
housing,
safety
and
health
disparities
among
people
of
color
and
indigenous
peoples
compared
with
white
people.
Q
Our
top
goal
was
reducing
disparities,
at
least
92
pages
of
our
approximately
300
page
comp
plan,
mention
equity
related
to
housing
issues,
and
this
is
notable.
Nearly
a
third
of
our
comp
plan
was
dedicated
to
this
cause.
Try
flexes
or
words
and
playing
the
creation
thereof
occur
four
of
these
pages.
That's
only
a
little
over
1%
I've
already
gone
into
detail
numerous
times
on
hi
I'm
Natalie
not
opposed
to
density.
Q
It's
a
planning
tool
that
can
be
used
to
concentrate
development
to
achieve
certain
goals
on
my
decade-long
record
on
the
topic
speaks
for
itself:
I'm,
not
a
post,
affordability,
I'm,
not
opposed
to
try
flexes
I'm,
not
a
NIMBY
and
I.
Just
want
to
be
clear.
I
strongly
support
the
goals
of
the
2040
plan.
I
did
when
it
was
being
implemented
and
I
do
now,
I
feel
as
though
they
are
noble
and
worthy
goals,
and
that
the
long-range
planning
department
was
right
to
focus
on
them
as
a
foundation
for
how
our
city
needs
to
grow.
Q
I
won't
going
to
the
data
again
on
how
the
lack
of
safeguards
will
lead
to
further
inequities,
will
increase
disparities
well
further
denied
home
ownership,
which
less
people
get
concerned
about.
It
I
have
nothing
against
renters,
but
I
mention
it
as
it's
highlighted
in
the
comp
plan
as
a
key
factor
in
the
denial
of
generational
wealth,
families
of
color
and
specific
policy
is
made
to
increase
the
quantities
of
it.
Q
So
if
you're
a
fan
of
2040
guess
what
you've
supported
increasing
homeownership,
our
2040
plan
had
policies
that
spoke
about
increasing
housing,
choice
and
supply
and,
while
I
don't
doubt
that
this
will
increase
supply
because
it's
simple
math
you
take
an
existing
single-family
house
and
divided
into
three
I
would
argue
that
it's
a
simplistic
take
on
the
situation,
because
it
increases
the
quantity
of
units
but
neglects
technology
impact.
This
will
have
on
the
supply
of
housing
for
families,
thereby
diminishing
choice
and
supply.
Q
The
comp
plan
mentions
that
an
engagement
phase
people
repeatedly
voice
their
concerns
about
the
displacement
of
families
due
to
the
lack
of
affordable
options
for
families-
and
this
is
mentioned
at
least
as
often
as
triplexes
were.
Coincidentally
enough,
we
see
this
reality
all
the
time.
In
this
commission
we
approved
the
construction
of
7563
new
dwelling
units
last
year
alone
and
think
of
how
few
were
actually
sized
to
house
a
family
there's
not
many
without
any
safeguards.
Q
We
are
incentivizing
investors
to
further
diminish
the
supply
of
housing
for
families
in
my
community
and
ones
like
it,
because
we
will
literally
be
encouraging
investors
to
convert
family
size
houses
into
efficiency
units
which
are
not
suitable
for
families
and
a
reminder
over
50%
of
the
residents
of
North
Minneapolis
are
under
the
age
of
18
when
we
exacerbate
problems
that,
if
50%
of
a
community's
already
struggling
with
it,
we're
not
achieving
equity.
And
yet
here
we
are
after
adopting
a
plan
whose
foundations
relied
upon
achieving
equity
and
diminishing
disparities.
Q
With
our
very
first
owning
code
text
amendment
we
adopted
under
the
new
comp
plan-
and
it
doesn't
just
ignore
this
mandate-
it
actually
undermines
and
furthers
those
inequities
and
the
very
communities
that
weekly
to
care
most
about
addressing.
Finally,
I've
been
told
that
the
barriers
to
Chi
affects
conversion
are
likely
to
make
conversion
unlikely,
but
this
has
been
debunked.
Q
I've
been
told
by
president
council
president
bender
that
this
is
something
that
the
more
desirable
neighborhoods,
like
the
ones
in
war,
1011
and
others
need
in
order
to
accommodate
growth,
and
that
might
be
true,
I
really
don't
take
issue
with
them.
Wanting
to
find
new
ways
to
accommodate
that
growth.
I
only
take
issue
with
how
this
one-size-fits-all
approach
will
play
out
in
communities
like
mine,
again,
not
an
issue
with
triplexes,
just
an
issue
with
the
lack
of
safeguards
to
prevent
exploitation
when
it
comes
to
inequities
and
racial
disparities
related
to
housing
and
finance.
Q
Despite
narrowing
racial
disparities
in
areas
such
as
education
and
employment
in
our
country,
the
gap
in
net
worth
remains
just
as
large
as
it
was
almost
three
decades
ago,
because
the
root
cause
of
all
this,
the
redlining,
the
racial
covenant,
the
shady
contract
for
deed
practices,
the
resultant
denial
of
opportunity
to
build
generational
wealth.
All
of
this
is
rooted
in
real
estate
exploitation.
Q
There
was
a
study
done
about
this
topic
in
Chicago
and
I
just
want
to
highlight
a
paragraph
of
this
article.
Actually,
that
was
written
by
mark
mark
white
house.
He
said
the
predation
didn't
end
in
the
1960s
had
evolved.
There
was
FHA
scandal,
the
1970s
in
which
indiscriminate,
federal
lending
and
outright
corruption
enabled
speculators
to
sell
inner-city
homes
to
blacks
at
inflated
prices,
resulting
in
widespread
foreclosures.
Q
There
was
a
subprime
boom
of
the
2000s
in
which
blacks
were
steered
into
inappropriately
expensive
loans
that
enriched
a
whole
ecosystem
of
mortgage
industry
professionals,
but
often
left
borrowers
with
nothing,
but
an
eviction
note
and
bad
credit
history.
In
the
wake
of
this
subprime
bust
investors,
including
private
equity
firms,
have
again
targeted
the
same.
Neighborhoods
misses
recent
buying
up
houses
on
the
cheap
and
running
them
back
to
blacks.
Another
minority
tenants,
sometimes
under
contracts
very
similar
to
those
in
1960s
and
the
real
estate
agents
and
investors
who
profited
were
almost
exclusively
white.
Q
So
this
represents
a
direct
transfer
of
wealth
from
one
race
to
another
and
I'm
saying
the
zoning
code
text
amendment,
if
adopted
without
any
safeguards,
will
continue
to
accelerate
that
trend.
As
we
now
see,
the
cash
flow
potential
of
renting
3-view
units
versus
the
previous
one
unit.
We
will
see
capital
flight
continued,
well,
transfer,
increased
disparities
and
increased
displacement
of
families.
The
concept
that
increased
density
will
somehow
alive
allow
for
complete
neighborhoods
in
the
comp
plan
calls
for
becomes
a
myth
in
communities
like
mine,
as
those
investors
are
predominantly
entities
located
outside
of
our
area.
Q
So
we
do
not
end
up
with
those
dollars
circulating
around
in
the
areas
that
are
needed
to
sustain
local
business
and
when
we
approved
the
Minneapolis
2040
plan.
Last
December,
we
promised
the
residents
our
Minneapolis
that
this
was
a
vision
document
and
that
we
would
use
the
goals
of
the
comp
plan
to
write
the
actual
policy.
Q
We
promised
them
that
we
would
and
I
quote,
pursue
innovative
housing
strategies
and
data-driven
decisions
to
maximize
the
creation
and
preservation
of
affordable
housing,
use,
data
and
research
to
guide
and
evaluate
housing,
priorities,
policies
and
programs,
and
on
that
note,
despite
repeated
requests
for
data,
supporting
the
economic
argument
that
long-range
planning
has
asserted
related
to
this
policy
and
affordability.
No
answers
been
forthcoming
regarding
the
actual
aspirational
goal
quantitatively
listed
and
thereby
the
metrics
by
which
we
can
gauge
success
to
our
proposed
change.
In
our
zoning
code.
We
public
promised
that
it
would
be
data-driven.
Q
So
where
is
the
data
we
promise
to
minimize
the
involuntary
displacement
of
people
of
color
indigenous
people
in
vulnerable
populations
such
as
low-income
households,
the
elderly
people
with
disabilities
from
their
community
as
a
city
grows
and
changes?
We
we
promised
this
and
now
I've
been
told.
The
zoning
ordinance
is
not
the
proper
forum
to
address
these
issues
and
it
was
even
printed
in
the
staff
report.
Q
So
it's
verbatim
I
find
this
somewhat
ironic,
since
the
comp
plan
has
owning
document
focused
quite
heavily
on
these
issues,
and
these
are
problems
which
will
be
specifically
caused
by
the
zoning
ordinance.
We're
considering
here
tonight
we're
on
the
cusp
of
approving
a
zoning
code
text
amendment
which
is
currently
written
once
again,
prioritizes
that
have
lots
at
the
expense
of
the
have-nots.
We
cannot
enact
city
policy
in
a
vacuum.
Q
We
are
voting
on
something
that
will
have
a
ripple
effect
throughout
our
city,
manifested
in
so
many
grave
ways
that
we
spent
nearly
a
third
of
our
comp
plan.
Talking
about
it
and
I
will
not
be
complicit
in
this.
If
we
create
a
problem
through
the
use
of
the
zoning
ordinances,
that
directly
undermines
the
goals
of
our
very
own
Planning
Department,
driven
comprehensive
plan
for
the
city
and
by
god
we
should
have
some
sort
of
safeguard
in
place
to
find
a
solution
concurrently
with
it,
whether
in
zoning
or
otherwise,
I
see
this
zoning
code.
Q
Amendment
moving
forward
and
I
see
nothing
on
the
horizon
that
will
prevent
the
exploitation
and
damage
that
is
coming
as
a
result.
Well,
I
understand
the
consequences
of
denying
this
today
that
it
would
create
a
situation
where
the
zoning
code
isn't
in
sync,
with
the
comp
plan,
it's
gonna
take
18
months
to
implement
all
the
zoning
code
changes
for
the
comp
plan,
so
we're
gonna
be
able
to
sync
regardless.
It
seems
to
me
that
if
we
really
wanted
honor,
what
we
stated
was
our
number
one
goal
of
the
comp
plan.
Q
We
should
at
least
get
the
inaugural
one
right
pushing
this
through
and
letting
some
other
arm
of
our
municipal
government
deal
with
the
aftermath
at
some
point
in
the
future
is
not
acceptable,
as
our
comp
plan
is
repeatedly
emphasized,
it's
harder
to
fix
the
damage
caused
by
exploitation
of
poor
communities
and
people
of
color.
Then,
if
we
have
just
prevented
it
from
happening
in
the
first
place.
Q
Zoning
code
text
amendment
might
benefit
certain
wards
and
neighborhoods
in
Minneapolis.
It's
true,
but
it
will
also
be
a
catalyst
to
great
harm
in
neighborhoods
like
Jordan,
Hawthorne,
Falwell,
Powderhorn
and
others,
and
therefore
it
cannot
support
it,
because
it
is
not
consistent
with
the
goals
of
the
Minneapolis
2040
plan,
and
if
we
actually
care
about
those
supposed
goals,
you
shouldn't
support
it
either.
Otherwise,
we
shouldn't
have
approved
it
can't
plan
and
promoted
it
as
having
anything
to
do
with
equity.
Q
A
So
you
know
not
just
briefly,
you
know
I
I.
Will
you
know
in
philosophically
support
this
and
I
do
think
that
it
is
part
of
a
broader
package
that
the
city
is
bringing
you
know
there,
we've
increased
the
minimum
wage,
which
is
fantastic,
and
there
are
a
renter
protection
bills
that
have
come
forward
and
passed
recently,
and
so
I
think
that
from
an
equity
standpoint,
this
isn't
something
that
should
be
seen
in
a
vacuum,
and
it
is
something
that
we
on
this
Dyess.
A
Don't
have
all
the
tools
to
address
this
and
I
think
that's
frustrating,
certainly
to
me.
I
would
like
to
be
able
to
make
all
the
change,
but
but
I
can't
and
and
the
City
Council
is
doing
a
great
job
on
some
of
these
issues.
We
need
our
other
jurisdictions
to
be
doing
pulling
their
weight
as
well,
and
these
are
our
big,
complex
national
issues
as
well
as
local
issues.
So
with
that
saying
no
other
comments
clerk,
please
call
the
roll.
AD
N
V
A
N
A
W
Were
two
items
from
your
last
meeting
that
received
appeals
that
will
be
going
to
the
October
17th
zoning
and
planning
committee
meeting?
That
was
the
Costco
conditional
use
permit
for
adding
the
gas
station
and
the
parking
variance
at
the
Center
for
the
Performing
Arts.
So
those
will
be
heard
on
Thursday
October
17th
in
CNP
very.