►
From YouTube: April 29, 2019 Minneapolis City Planning Commission
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission Meeting
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/
A
Can
we
get
a
motion
all
right,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
all
opposed
any
abstentions.
All
right
that
passes
at
this
time,
I'd
like
to
ask
everyone
to
please
turn
off
all
cell
phones,
pagers
and
other
electronic
devices,
and
a
reminder
that,
if
you
plan
to
testify
tonight's
meeting
too,
please
sign
in
in
the
hallway
outside
at
some
point
this
evening.
All
right.
Our
next
order
of
business
is
to
sort
the
agenda
for
this
meeting.
If
you
do
not
have
the
gender
they're
available
out
on
the
table
hallway,
we
will
sort
them
into
items.
A
That'll
be
continued
to
future
meetings.
Items
that
will
be
discussed
in
items
that'll
be
put
on
the
consent
agenda
starting
number
one.
Is
anyone
here
to
discuss
the
Ramsey
Street
northeast
vacation
of
Ward
3,
which
is
item
number
one
all
right?
Seeing
then
we'll
put
that
on
the
consent
agenda?
Oh
sorry,
my
apologies,
its
motion
to
be
there.
That
recommendation
is
we
continued
until
the
May
13,
2019,
Planning
Commission
hearing
all
right,
I
know
number
two
is
the
art
and
architecture
building
development
at
three
or
33
26
and
33
38
and
33
50
University
Avenue.
A
The
recommended
motion
is
to
approve
the
application
for
the
preliminary
plat.
Is
there
a
new
heater
speak
on
this
item?
Okay,
are
you
here
to
speak
on
the
plat
or
on
the
development
in
general
on
the
application
is
for
about
the
final
plant?
Okay,
then
we
can
pull
that
from
consent,
although
if
it's
about
the
development
in
general,
that's
already
been
approved
and
isn't
anything
we
can
consider
tonight.
A
A
Is
it
oh
yeah?
No
okay,
then
we'll
keep
that
on
consent,
item
number
430,
1730
21
and
30
25
East,
Calhoun
Parkway.
This
item
was
continued
and
it
the
current
staff
recommendation
is
to
continue
it
to
the
May
13th
meeting.
Is
there
anyone
here
tonight
that
wants
to
offer
testimony
on
this?
Otherwise
we
will
hear
it
on
the
May
13th.
Okay,.
A
Okay
item
number:
five
is
the
North
High
School
field
renovation
at
1801,
Fremont
Avenue,
North
staff
recommendation
is
approval
of
all
the
land
use.
Applications
on
that
item
is
there
anyone
here
to
speak
in
opposition
of
staff
recommendation,
seeing
none
we'll
put
item
5
on
consent
and,
lastly,
item
number
625
21
Bloomington
Avenue
staff
recommendation
is
to
approve
all
land
use
applications
on
this
item
as
anyone
here
to
speak
in
opposition
to
staff
recommendation.
A
Okay,
we
will
put
that
one
on
the
consent
agenda
as
well.
So
I
have
that
items
number
two
will
be
heard
tonight.
Items
number
one
and
four
will
be
continued
to
the
May
13th
meeting
and
items
three
five
and
six
will
be
approved
on
the
consent
agenda
can
I
get
a
motion
to
approve
the
agenda
for
tonight's
meeting,
is
associated
we've
been
seconded
all
in
favor
all
opposed
all
right
that
passes
at
this
time
we
will
discuss
the
Cooley.
The
whole
consent
agenda.
A
A
Okay,
so
we
moved
and
seconded
to
those
items
be
approved
all
in
favor
opposed:
okay.
Abstentions.
Thank
you.
If
you're
here
for
items,
3,
5
or
6,
congratulations,
so
now
we
will
hear
item.
Can
we
get
a
motion
to
continue
items
1,
&,
4,
so
there's
motion
a
second
all
in
favor
all
opposed
all
right
items.
Number
1,
&
4
are
moved
to
continue
to
the
May
13th
meeting
and
now
we
will
hear
item
number
2,
the
art
and
architecture
building
development
at
33,
26,
38
and
50
University
Avenue
southeast
by
Peter
Crandall.
C
Good
evening,
commissioners,
Peter
Crandall
senior
city
planner
with
cbut
land,
use
the
application
before
you
is
for
preliminary
and
final
plat
for
the
art
and
architecture
project.
The
application
is
to
combine
three
existing
parcels
into
one
parcel.
This
is
a
requirement
in
ordinance
for
the
plan
unit
development
application
that
was
previously
approved
plan
six,
six,
one,
nine
four,
a
14-story
mixed-use
project
at
the
three
parcels
that
are
reflected
on
the
zoning
map.
Here,
it's
a
straightforward
combination
of
three
existing
parcels.
A
D
D
The
staff
report
incorrectly
states
that
plan
six
six,
one
nine
appeals
were
denied
per
discussions
at
the
zoning
and
planning
appeal
hearing
and
per
the
council
actions
signed
by
Mayor
Frye,
the
Minneapolis
City
Council,
hereby
uncoding
the
Minneapolis
City
Council
hereby
denies
in
part
and
grants
in
part
the
appeals
submitted
regarding
plans.
Six
six,
one,
nine.
The
grants
in
part
have
to
do
with
additional
conditions
placed
on
the
project
during
the
appeal.
Some
of
these
conditions
will
likely
have
significant
impact
on
the
overall
height
massing
and
footprint
and
number
of
units
for
the
project.
D
D
The
applicant
shall
provide
CE
ped
staff
with
a
detailed
design
of
properly
engineered,
retaining
walls
and
compliance
with
the
Minnesota,
Building,
Code,
etc,
etc,
and
I
would
say
here
that
this
is
retaining
walls,
not
just
for
the
permanent
structure,
but
during
the
construction
process.
It
is
unclear
how
accurate
determinations
can
be
made
by
this
Planning
Commission's
for
findings
3
through
5
of
the
staff
report.
For
this
application.
That's
the
application
to
combine
the
plats.
D
Each
of
these
findings
relies
on
on
how
engineering
strategies
resolve
the
significant
topography
and
the
extreme
nearness
of
the
development
to
the
adjacent
properties,
both
during
construction
and
long
term.
Any
plan
submitted
for
a
preliminary
view
cannot
and
should
not,
in
my
opinion,
in
this
instance
be
considered
final
and
that
the
generally
acceptable
engineering
strategies
in
this
case
would
rely
on
permission
from
the
adjacent
property
owners
to
drill
dozens
of
tiebacks
into
the
earth
that
would
remain
after
construction.
D
I
would
ask
the
Planning
Commission
to
be
assured
that
the
engineering
solution
proposed
at
this
time
either
does
not
rely
on
the
use
of
private
property
for
construction
or
staged
event
staging
of
construction,
or
that
documentation
exists
of
an
agreement
with
these
property
owners
and
I
understand
that
the
developer
is
in
discussion
with
adjacent
property
owners
about
this
and
other
and
other
items
and
is
working
toward
a
resolution.
Yet
I
am
also
aware
that
no
such
agreements
exist
at
this
time.
D
Specifically,
on
a
second
point,
the
developer
shall
confer
with
a
historic
consultant
to
identify
and
mitigate
to
the
extent
practical,
any
potential
impact
on
nearby
historic
properties,
including
the
witch's
hat
water
tower.
This
was
a
condition
that
was
placed
on
the
project
after
this
Planning
Commission
looked
at
it.
It
was
during
the
appeal
and
historical
consultants,
that
is
to
say
a
credentialed
historian,
with
documented
expertise.
D
And/Or
who
meets
the
standards
Secretary
of
Interior
for
historic
preservation
could
determine
that
substantial
changes
to
the
project
are
warranted
in
order
to
mitigate
the
potential
impact
on
the
nearby
historic
properties.
There
appears
to
be
no
public
accounting
for
or
indication
that
this
condition
has
been
met
and
I
would
ask
the
Planning
Commission
please
to
not
advance
again
a
project
that
has
yet
to
meet
these
very
significant
and
substantial
conditions
that
were
added
to
the
project
based
on
concerns
from
neighborhood
residents
and
as
part
of
the
public
process
and
third,
the
third
and
last
point.
D
The
developer
shall
work
with.
This
is
also
a
condition
added
at
the
appeal.
The
developer
shall
work
with
property
owners
of
adjacent
properties,
to
implement
screening
and
screening
and
other
measures,
etc,
etc,
and,
again,
I
would
ask
the
commissioners
whether
or
not
they
have
documentation
that
this
condition
has
been
met
and
that
this
documentation
is
to
be
a
part
of
the
public
record.
D
I
am
aware
of
any
I'm
unaware
of
any
adjacent
property
owners
based
on
recent
discussions
with
same
who
have
a
written
agreement
with
the
developer
regarding
this
condition,
so
there
are
other
concerns
about
how
this
project
moves
forward.
Arguably,
a
lot
of
I
would
say,
cart
before
the
horse
on
very,
very
substantial
issues.
I
know
certain
details
aren't
going
to
be
worked
out
until
the
end,
but
I
am
talking
about
some
very
severe
issues
for
which
we
don't
have
time
for
me
to
outline
them
all
here.
D
Nor
is
it
proper
because
I
understand
this
is
just
about
the
plan,
but
I
would
ask,
and
thank
you
for
considering
whether
it's
in
the
public
best
interest
to
continue
to
advance
a
project
with
so
many
consequential
outstanding
conditions,
especially
those
that
directly
relate
to
the
staff
report
finding
of
three
four
and
five,
which
is
about
the
erosion
and
the
topography
and
the
safety
both
permanently
and
during
construction.
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak
is.
A
E
E
C
So,
with
regard
to
the
soil
retention
and
retaining
wall
issue,
the
applicant
is
also
here
to
speak
to
this.
If
you
have
specific
questions
for
them,
but
those
are
details
which
can't
really
be
worked
out
at
the
level
of
development
that's
been
presented
thus
far.
In
the
approvals
process,
the
applicant
will
be
required
to
submit
a
full
building
permit
set,
which
would
then
be
reviewed
by
CPD
code
compliance
staff
for
compliance
with
Minnesota,
Building,
Code
and
other
issues.
C
So
they
would
look
at
that
issue
at
that
time,
but
that's
a
condition
that
was
placed
on
the
application
by
the
City
Council
after
the
appeals
process,
and
it's
a
little
too
soon
to
have
a
determination
on
that.
But
with
regard
to
the
three
findings
in
the
preliminary
and
final
application,
those
tend
to
be
more
critical
when
new
parcels
are
being
created
from
a
subdivision
versus
the
combination
of
existing
pre-developed
parcels
such
that
a
newly
created
parcel
is
not
undeveloped.
A
Great
and
I
think
I
will
just
add
I.
Thank
you
for
your
testimony.
I
do
want
to
say
that
when
we
look
at
the
required
findings,
they
have
to
be
in
regard
to
the
application
in
front
of
us,
which
is
just
for
whether
or
not
consolidating
these
three
parcels
into
one
to
create
a
plat
is
appropriate
or
not,
and
whether
those
are
dealing
directly
linked.
A
It
I
think
your
testimony
is
really
interesting,
as
relates
to
the
project
as
a
whole,
but
that
that's
where
those
findings
would
have
impact,
as
opposed
to
just
looking
at
whether
or
not
the
creation
of
this
preliminary
and
final
plat
creates
those
findings,
so
I
think
our
purview
and
our
scope
in
terms
of
what
we
can
do
today
is
very
limited
to
just
that
purview.
So
I
just
want
to.
Let
you
know
that
it's
not
that
we
didn't
consider
it.