►
From YouTube: November 18, 2019 City Planning Commission
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission Meeting
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
All
right
recall
the
November
18th
2019
City
Planning
Commission
hearing
to
order
the
time
is
433.
My
name
is
Sam
Rockwell
I'm,
the
president
of
the
Planning
Commission
I'm,
joined
today
by
my
fellow
commissioners,
Alison
brown,
Coleman
Luca,
pier
trader
Olson,
&
cron,
sir
our
first
item
of
business
today
as
to
approve
the
minutes
and
actions
of
the
November
4th
2019
City
Planning
Commission
hearing
commissioners
do
I
have
a
motion
I.
B
A
B
A
And
a
second
all
in
favor,
say
aye
any
opposed.
That
motion
carries
moving
on.
We
will
organize
our
agenda
for
this
meeting
for
those
of
you
who
are
here
in
the
audience
we'll
walk
through
the
agenda.
If
you
wish
to
testify
to
modify
a
staff
recommendation
or
against
an
item,
please
make
that
known
when
we
touch
on
the
agenda
item,
if
you're
here
to
speak
in
favor,
you
can
do
that
at
the
beginning
with
the
consent
and
don't
need
to
raise
your
hand.
A
So
item
number
one
is
the
Weber
Mart
bodega
smokes
at
1700
144th
Avenue
North
in
Ward
fours.
Anyone
here
to
speak
on
item
number
one.
So
you
know
no
place
item
number
one
on
the
consent
agenda
item
number
two:
is
the
solar
canopy
at
2740
31st
Avenue
South
in
Ward
2?
Is
anyone
here
to
speak
on
the
solar,
canopy.
A
A
Okay
item
number:
three:
we
will
discuss
item
number
three,
which
is
521
Main,
Street,
North
East
in
Ward,
3
item
number,
four
family
partnership
at
1527,
East,
Lake,
Street,
thirty,
thirteen,
thirty
thirty,
seven
Bloomington
Avenue
and
thirty.
Ten
to
thirty
forty,
eight
16th
Avenue
South
in
Ward,
nine
and
I
should
note
that
there
is
an
additional
condition
on
the
site
plan
review
item
K
memorandum
in
our
packets
related
to
having
three
pedestrian
entrances.
As
shown
on
these
updated
building
plans
dated
November
thirteenth
2019
along
East,
Lake
Street.
A
No
one
will
play
so
I.
Remember
four:
on
consents
number
five
is
Elliott
twins,
12,
twelve
ninth
Street
South,
and
to
1225
each
Street
South
in
Ward.
Six
there's
anyone
here
to
speak
on
item
number
five
say:
no
one
I've
been
briefed.
I
will
go
to
consent.
I,
don't
remember:
six
is
nine
ten
Oliver
Avenue
North
Ward
five.
A
Anyone
here
to
speak
on
item
number,
six
number
six
will
go
on
our
consent
agenda
item
number:
seven
is
Harrison
housing
to
55,
to
61,
to
67
Girard,
Avenue
North,
to
32,
to
36,
to
38,
to
42
to
44
and
250
Humboldt
Avenue
North
in
Ward
5.
Anyone
here
to
speak
on
item
number
7
one
person
is
here
on
item
number.
7
will
discuss
item
number.
Seven
item
number.
Eight
is
2925
18th
Avenue
South
in
Ward
9,
several
applications.
A
There's
anyone
here
to
speak
on
item
rate,
see
you
know,
number
eight
on
consent,
I,
don't
know
nine.
It's
the
zoning
code,
an
amendment
and
all
wars
will
discuss.
Item
number
nine
item
number
ten:
its
14th
Avenue
apartments,
854
902,
904,
14th,
Avenue
Northeast
in
Ward,
one
as
anyone
here
to
speak
on
item
number
ten
CA.
No
one
will
place
item
number
ten
on
consent.
So
the
agenda
as
amended
is
a
consent.
Agenda
item
no
items
number
one:
two,
four,
five,
six
eight
and
ten
will
discuss
items
number
three.
Seven
and
nine
commissioners
do
I.
D
A
E
E
The
adjacent
property
to
the
south
is
occupied
by
a
single-family
home,
and
the
Jason
to
the
east
is
a
six
unit.
Multi-Family
townhome
building
the
surrounding
area
is
developed
primarily
with
low
and
medium
density
residential
uses.
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
construct
a
four-story
29
unit
residential
building
on
the
property.
The
first
floor
of
the
building
would
include
four
walk-up
units
and
lobby
space
adjacent
to
Main,
Street
northeast
and
6th
Avenue
northeast,
along
with
seven
enclosed
parking
stalls,
an
additional
seven
surface
stalls
will
be
provided
to
the
rear
of
the
site.
E
The
property
does
not
have
alley
access,
I'm
yeah
probably
does
not
have
alley
access,
and
both
the
enclose
and
surface
stalls
would
be
accessed
off.
Of
a
single
curb
cut
on
sixth,
the
property
does
qualify
for
transit
incentive,
parking
reduction
to
zero
spaces
due
to
the
route
11
bus
and
their
proximity
there.
E
The
primary
exterior
materials
on
the
building,
our
brick
and
metal
panel,
with
some
fiber
cement
accents
and
rock
face
CMU
on
the
first
floor,
secondary
elevations,
the
only
application
being
sought
today
is
site
plan
review
as
conditioned
the
project
complies
with
all
provisions
of
the
zoning
ordinance
does
not
require
any
variances
or
conditional
use
permits.
Several
public
comments
have
been
received
regarding
the
application.
Some
of
those
were
included
in
the
initial
staff
report,
some
other
ones
you've
received
today.
E
The
project
does
request
or
does
require
some
alternative
compliance
both
for
windows
and
parking
and
loading
landscaping
and
screening.
So
as
proposed,
the
first-floor
East
elevation,
which
is
what
faces
the
parking
area
shown
at
the
top
here
and
the
first
floor.
North
elevation
facing
Sixth
Street
require
alternative
compliance
for
window
coverage.
Staff
is
recommending
that
the
in
grant
the
alternative
compliance
facing
the
parking
area,
but
staff
is
recommending
as
a
condition
of
approval
that
they
modify
that
North
elevation
facing
safe
to
6th
to
meet
that
full
20%
requirement.
E
They
are
also
requesting
alternative
compliance
for
the
landscaping
and
screening
for
the
parking
area,
as
proposed
they're,
proposing
a
two-foot,
landscaped
yard
adjacent
to
the
East
property
line
and
adjacent
to
that
self
property
line
between
5
and
2
feet
in
depth.
They're
also
proposing
screening
of
3
feet
in
height
staff
is
recommending
that
the
Commission
grant
battle
turn
of
compliance
request
as
well,
but
we
are
recommending
a
condition
of
approval
and
that
the
screening
be
revised
to
provide
at
least
60%
of
pasady
year-round.
E
A
F
Hi
good
evening,
shawn
sweeney
one
of
the
owners
and
developers
of
the
project.
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
be
here
tonight
and
thank
you
guys
for
for
your
review,
I
think.
As
Andrew
highlighted,
we
worked
really
hard
and
very
intentionally
to
create
a
project
that
fits
current
zoning
and
all
the
requirements,
along
with
the
walk
up
units
that
we've
created,
trying
to
create
very
active
Street
there
something
a
little
different
than
we're
seeing
over
there
so
we're
here
tonight.
F
A
G
Good
evening,
commissioners,
Tony
Hofstede
I'm,
16,
Ramsey
Street,
northeast
I'm,
a
member
of
the
st.
Anthony
West
neighborhood
board
and
I'm
speaking
for
the
board
and
I'm
speaking
against
the
project.
I
wish
to
state
and
I
would
I
have
for
the
minutes
as
well
is
our
minutes
that
we
had
at
our
last
meeting,
which
was
Thursday
as
well
as
the
summary
of
our
comments,
which
I,
which
I
can
provide,
and
just
the
zoning
and
some
other
issues
that
we
have
as
well.
G
Our
issue
is,
first
of
all,
we
voted
not
to
support
this
proposal
because
at
the
North
End
of
Main
Street,
which
is
about
four
blocks
away,
there
is
there's
never
there.
There
are
615
units
that
are
at
that
site,
of
which
we've
granted
variances
again.
Part
of
the
issue
is
what
we
keep
finding
in
our
neighborhood
is
that
we
have
the
market
rate
housing,
but
we
have
no
affordable
housing,
and
this
doesn't
answer
it
either,
because
it's
the
same
issue.
G
But
in
addition
to
that,
we
also
have
a
number
of
issues
that
we
would
ask
the
city
to
address,
which
is
environmental
impact
issues
as
you,
as
you
know,
this
apartments,
it's
probably
a
block
and
a
half
from
the
Mississippi
River,
there's
density
impacts,
there's
livability
issues
and
again
the
way
that
we
see
this
proposal.
It
doesn't
meet
our
small
area
plan
for
st.
Anthony
West
nor
doesn't
meet
the
2040
plan.
G
We
have
an
issue
with
the
landscaping
in
the
windows:
they're
not
be
bird
or
butterfly
friendly,
and
we
think
that
should
be
in
consideration,
especially
when
you
consider
the
the
the
neighborhood
and
its
proximity
to
the
river
as
such
and
the
flyover
zone,
which
millions
of
birds
take
to
every
year.
In
addition
to,
we
also
pushed
on
the
architectural
details
in
order
to
make
it
congruent
almost
every
house
that's
around
it
is,
has
suckle
or
some
relationship
to
it.
The
brick
is
fine.
G
The
metal
is
not
so
we're
asking
that
that
be
considered
and
there's
there's
also
another
condition
that
administrative
Lea
there
is
a
building.
That
is
what
it
I
am
NOT,
trying
to
explain
it,
but
503.
This
is
521,
503
is
another
apartment,
a
four-plex
that
is
going
up
and
it
affects
the
two
houses
that
are
actually
between
those
those
projected
or
proposed
plans,
and
we
ask
that
there
be
some
pre-construction
survey
done
for
both
of
those
properties,
since
it
affects
both
of
them.
G
In
addition
to
that,
we
also
ask
for
fencing-
that's
not
just
two
feet,
but
that
is
is
helpful
to
the
neighbor,
that's
on
the
south
side
and
on
the
north
side,
which
affects
both
of
them
and
again.
We
also
there's
an
issue
with
trees
that
are
planted
in
terms
of
how
they
might
be
more
friendly.
So
I
will
give
you
my
notes
and
the
notes
from
the
minutes
that
we
have
and
I
appreciate
your
time
and
consideration.
Thank.
A
H
Mary
Sherman
5:13
mean
I'm
the
one
sandwiched
in
between
the
two
apartments,
and
what
I'd
like
to
do
tonight
is
just
bring
up
some
issues
that
I
already
presented
to
you
in
a
letter,
so
you
should
have
it
in
your
packet.
The
letter
was
dated
11:14
and
I'm
opposed
to
this
house
this
apartment.
This
has
always
been
a
historical
area.
It
has
been
residential
where
we
know
everybody
in
the
whole
area
and
by
bringing
in
all
these
new
people.
H
This
is
going
to
create
issues
so,
first
of
all,
going
through
just
as
a
summary
for
the
letter
that
I
presented
to
you.
First
thing
is
neither
521
or
503,
which
are
the
two
apartments
conformed
to
this
Dan'l,
a
small
area
planned
for
2016
in
the
following
ways,
not
in
size,
because
they
we
wanted
a
maximum
of
two
storey,
not
in
the
number
of
units.
521
should
only
be
five
to
six
units.
H
503
should
only
be
2,
and
that
is
depending
on
how
many
units
per
acre
and
Stano
has
requested
20
units
per
acre,
and
neither
of
these
are
even
close
to
an
acre.
It
is
not
cut.
They
are
not
conformed
to
the
surrounding
buildings
and
they
do
not
preserve
the
historical
buildings
in
that
area
and
again
we
are
a
historical
site.
H
Even
though
someone
has
taken
us
off
the
registry,
we
were
historical
buildings,
it
also
will
have
impact
on
the
surrounding
area
because
of
parking
and
track
traffic,
but
most
of
all,
because
the
people
have
spoken
and
they
don't
want
any
more
apartments
or
developments
in
that
area.
We
have
over
400
petitions
right
now
against
this
apartment,
actually
against
both
of
the
apartments.
H
So
because
of
this,
we're
asking
you
to
decline
and
not
approve
this.
The
building
of
this
building
number
two.
We,
the
people,
expect
from
here
on
out
that
we
be
notified
immediately
of
plans
for
disturbing
our
neighborhood,
as
we
have
in
the
past
and
I
sent
that
letter
to
you
today.
It's
a
nine
page
letter.
H
H
This
is
something
needs
to
be
done
on
this
area.
So
I
don't
know
if
you
are
the
ones
that
would
need
to
act
on
this,
but
again
we
expect
to
be
notified
ahead
of
time
for
anything
like
this
and
that
after
permits
are
drawn
and
number
three
I
personally
have
had
an
opportunity
to
engage
some
of
the
young
people
in
the
neighborhood
and
they
not
only
own
bikes.
H
They
own
cars,
so
I'm,
not
sure
where
you're
getting
your
information
from
that
everybody's
going
to
be
riding
a
bicycle
because
with
30
below
weather
I,
don't
think
too
many
people
are
going
to
be
riding
bicycles
in
10
feet
of
snow.
So
what
we
also
want
is
an
impact
study
done
on
the
effects
of
the
100-plus
cars
that
are
going
to
be
in
this
neighborhood
now,
and
what
we're
looking
for
also
is
the
new
renters
with
these
hundred
cars.
Where
are
they
going
to
park
them?
Sixth
Avenue
is
full
Fifth.
H
We
ask
you
to
decline
this
apartment
until
the
owners
agree
with
the
wishes
of
the
people
and
again
we
have
over
400
science
petitions
against
this
apartment.
The
apartment
should
be
two-story
with
five
or
six
units
parking
on
site
and
conformity
to
existing
buildings
and
I
know
you're
not
voting
on
the
503.
But
that
impacts
me
also
because
it's
right
next
door
to
me
there
should
be
two
storeys
and
one
to
two
units.
H
Thank
you.
Oh
I
do
have
one
additional
thing.
You
guys
we're
talking
about
the
fencing.
I,
don't
want
a
two
inch
or
a
two
foot
fence.
It
has
to
be
eight
months.
I,
don't
eight
foot
I
don't
want
to
see
either
building
so
I
want
eight
foot
on
either
side
and
I
want
trees
planted
so
that
it
appears
above
the
8
foot
fence.
Thank
you
thank.
I
Hi
I'm,
Linda,
Palermo
and
I
live
at
501.
Main
Street
northeast
I
have
lived
in
my
house
for
over
50
years,
so
I've
seen
many
changes
over
the
years.
It's
very
disappointing
when
homeowners
don't
have
a
saying
these
things,
that
builders
can
build
apartments
and
pretty
much
whatever
they
want.
It
seems
like
it's
so
frustrating
to
see
these
changes.
I
know
we
need
accessible
housing,
but
we
have
market
rate
and
above
it
doesn't
meet
the
needs
of
the
people
that
that
need
housing.
I
It
meets
people
that
that
can
afford
pretty
much
a
lot
of
different
things,
not
the
people
that
are
working
at
McDonald's
and
places
like
that.
So
I
live
on
the
block
at
501,
Main,
Street
and
right
now,
I
have
duplexes
around
me
and
they
block
my
driveway.
They
block
in
front
of
my
house
a
side
on
my
house.
I
do
not
see
that
getting
better
with
both
the
521
Main
Street
property
and
the
other
one
that's
being
built
that
you're
not
discussing
today.
I
The
503
Main,
Street
property
I
have
a
house
that's
over
a
hundred
years
old
I'm
concerned
about
the
demolition
from
both
of
those
properties.
How
it's
gonna
affect
my
limestone
wall
basements
and
the
structure
of
my
house
I'm
worried
about
the
parking,
how
much
of
a
nightmare
more
it's
going
to
be
than
it
is.
I
There
are
many
issues
with
this
I
plead
with
you
all
to
consider
what
the
homeowners
on
the
block
and
surrounding
areas
are
saying
to
you
find
some
way
to
get
more
parking
at
these
plays
at
521,
and
all
these
other
issues
that
we
are
bringing
up.
Please
take
this
seriously
because
it's
a
sad
thing
when
we're
ignored
and
that
we
do
different
things
to
try
to
get
our
voice
here,
and
we
don't
because
this
push
for
apartments
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis.
I
As
someone
that's
lived
in
my
house
as
long
as
I
have
I've
seen
empty
Lots,
build
two
houses
to
take
away
homes,
single-family
homes
and
not
have
those
anymore.
It's
a
tragedy
because
we
want
people
have
home
ownership.
We
want
people
to
believe
in
the
city,
there's
nothing
wrong
with
renters,
but
when,
when
apartments
take
over
a
city,
you
know
where,
where
does
that
end?
It
it?
Just
it's
pushes
property
values
up
where
homeowners
can't
afford
their
places
anymore.
You
know
people
that
live
in
a
house
for
many
years.
I
It's
sad,
so
I'm
pleading
with
you
all.
Please
take
that
into
account.
What
we
are
saying
today
of
our
concerns
and
please
find
some
way
in
your
recommendations,
to
incorporate
these
things
like
adding
more
property
and
parking
on
the
spot
of
521.
You
know
the
different
things:
the
concern
for
the
structure
of
our
house
when
these
demolitions
are
going
on
because
of
503
and
521,
how
it's
going
to
affect
our
house
of
structures
of
our
houses
for
the
surrounding
neighbors,
so
so
I
think.
That's
it
so
anyways.
A
A
J
My
name
is
Sheila
Burnett
I
live
at
701,
Main
Street,
northeast
I've
lived
there
31
years.
Today
is
really
sad
day
for
many
reasons:
overrun
Main
Street
and
then
second
Street
on
Broadway
near
Broadway,
they're
taking
8
houses
down.
It
just
makes
me
sick,
they're,
taking
the
brick
brewmaster
house,
which
of
course
nobody
says,
is
historic,
but
give
me
a
break.
Give
us
our
folklore.
We
have
the
Grain
Belt
brewery.
You
know
they
fought
to
not
take
the
Grain
Belt
buried
owned
in
1970.
Could
you
imagine
northeast
without
the
Grain
Belt
brewery
I?
J
J
J
Page
36,
it
says
a
long
room
prices
out
new
buyers,
and
here
we
are
some
states
such
as
Oregon,
have
imposed
a
statewide
cap
on
rent
hikes,
while
Minneapolis
became
the
first
major
US
city
to
eliminate
single-family
zoning.
Now
I
asked
D
Fletcher
at
our
neighborhood
meeting
last
week.
If
he
was
okay
with
that,
and
he
said
yes,
he
was
okay
with
that.
He
supports
supports
density
of
all
kinds.
J
Well,
Steve's
statement
encouraged
me
so
much
so
that
I
have
a
possible
alternative
for
for
the
developers
today,
521
Main
Street
was
built
in
1885
in
the
town
of
st.
Anthony.
It's
a
hundred
and
thirty-four
years
old
and
it's
proved
bright.
I.
Don't
know
that
you
guys
can
see
this
I
don't
know
if
I
have
any
place
that
you
can
see
it
right.
A
J
J
So
one
of
the
options,
of
course,
is
to
move
this
historic
building,
don't
knock
it
down
or
Plan
B.
Would
they
be?
Beets
have
developed
this
four-story
29
unit
with
14
parking
spots
in
a
place
with
just
as
much
acreage
as
this
one
has
and
it's
along
the
river
as
of
as
well
and
the
beauty
of
it
is.
It
has
the
same
owners
who
want
them
to
develop
the
site
in
our
neighborhood
Eric
and
Carrie
Johnson.
Their
address
of
their
home,
built
in
1923,
is
16
East,
River,
Road
and.
J
J
But
here
we
are
on
this
area
and
it's
owned
our
2b,
which
would
mean
not
more
than
three
storeys
and
that's
the
effect
of
2040
and
we're
saying
these
developers
came
in
before
it
was
effective,
so
we're
gonna.
Let
them
go
ahead,
knock
it
down
and
build
their
I.
Think
people
are
going
to
come
in
after
them
are
gonna,
say:
hey
they
built
four
storeys
I
want
to
build
four
storeys
and
if
you
don't
allow
them
to,
they
will
probably
sue
the
city
different
treatments
for
different
people
for
the
same
people.
J
J
J
119
years
sorry
I
know
Verrier
overestimated,
I
guess
I
was
getting
carried
away
with
the
1883
134
years
that
this
is
anyway.
So
this
is,
and
then
this
is
a
503
building
where
they're
gonna
do
a
four-plex,
but
it's
more
like
20
people
will
live
there
done
their
drawings.
I
know
they
don't
need
any
variance,
but
that's
what's
happening
and
then
Linda
lives
on
the
corner
here,
I
mean
Northeast
has
always
been
a
place,
a
haven
for
people.
The
working-class
people
I
really
hate
to
see
that
taken
away.
J
A
K
Hi,
my
name
is
Dwight
wearing
I
live
on
the
same
block
around
the
corner,
I've
been
there
for
quite
a
number
of
years
and
I'm
a
licensed
contractor,
so
I
I
know.
What's
going
on,
I
know
the
feelings
I
know
the
desire
to
build,
and
if
number
of
years
ago
I
was
in
the
position
of
buying
this
little
old
duplex
and
making
it
better
and
I
came
to
planning
and
asked
for
just
to
build
a
third
storey.
K
K
So
that's
what
I
had
to
do?
I
had
to
build
a
lot
of
dormers
on
my
house,
so
I
could
have
a
little
attic
space
now,
where's
the
consistency
in
planning.
We
have
our
five
zoning,
but
I
can't
build
my
attic
third
storey,
but
now
we
can
have
a
28
unit,
four
story
building
and
actually
a
lot,
that's
smaller
than
mine,
so
I'd
like
you
to
reconsider,
what's
going
on
because
I
don't
think
this
is
right
to
keep
me
from
doing
what
I
wanted
to
do,
which
was
much
less
than
a
28
unit.
L
Hi,
my
name
is
Denise
Gustafson
I
live
across
the
street
at
500,
Maine
and
I
would
just
like
to
strongly
oppose
this.
All
my
neighbor's
I've
known
them
for
years,
I've
lived
there
28
years
and
like
Dwight
I,
had
the
same
problem
to
build
a
garage
I
actually
had
to
get
him
variance
and
I
was
denied
more
than
once
just
to
build
a
detached
garage
and
the
other
thing
is
traffic
is
unbearable
in
our
neighborhood
right
now.
L
During
rush
hour,
we
have
standing
traffic
from
8/8
Plymouth
back
to
my
house,
which
is
on
5th
standing
traffic.
That's
what
snow
weather
and
that's
only
been
in
the
last
two
years,
and
it's
only
getting
worse.
I
have
never
seen
such
bad
traffic.
Northeast
and
I
know
it's
all
over
the
city,
because
for
some
reason,
city,
council,
things
that
people
don't
drive
and
believe
me
they
all
drive,
would
it
be
a
great
world?
L
If
we
all
just
rode
bike
and
transit
yeah,
it
would
be
great,
but
people
drive
and
the
other
thing
is
about
I'm,
also
a
Minnesota
naturalist
and
that
EF
Nelson.
We
fought
like
tooth
and
nail
they've
tried
to
develop
that
we
fought
with
our
neighbors
to
get
they
wanted
to
build
condos
and
a
marina
and
we've
been
fighting
fighting
fighting
and
back
in
the
70s.
They
tried
to
put
a
freeway
through
North
East
and
it's
always
a
dumping
ground,
and
finally,
our
neighborhood
has
some
stability
and
now
you're
gonna.
L
A
M
M
C
E
President
Rockwell
commissioners,
the
neighborhood
organization,
wrote
a
small
area
plan
I
believe
it
was
in
2015.
It
may
have
been
2016
when
it
was
finished
that
small
area
plan
went
to
the
City
Council
in
2017
as
an
informational
item.
It
was
not
adopted
by
the
City
Council
so
that
small
area
plan
is
not
adopted.
City
policy.
My
understanding
is
that
the
city
council
did
not
adopt
the
small
area
plan
because
we
were
already
in
the
process
of
writing
the
new
comp
plan
and
there
was
not
a
desire
to
go
and
amend
the
current
comp
plan.
E
E
Commissioners,
there
that's
not
something
that
I
worked
on
personally,
so
I'm
not
familiar
with
all
the
details.
I
believe
that
the
general
guidance
for
this
area
as
interior
3
was
based
in
part
on
that
two
and
a
half
story,
guidance
that
was
in
that
neighborhood
small
area
plan,
but
I
was
not
personally
involved
in
making
those
decisions
on
the
Comprehensive
Plan
website.
There
is
a
section
that
addresses
each
small
area
plan
affiliated
with
the
current
comprehensive
plan
and
discusses
how
those
come
I'm.
E
N
A
O
Just
like
to
propose
a
kind
of
friendly
amendment,
an
additional
commission
ditional
condition
we
heard
from
the
neighbors
just
that
there
wouldn't
be
screening,
was
a
little
lacking
by
their
property.
I
would
just
add
a
ninth
condition
to
make
sure
that
there
is
at
least
some
screening
for
the
neighbors
from
the
area.
N
O
N
N
Mr.
president,
I
can't
speak
to
my
emotion,
yeah
as
well,
and
I
know
we
heard
from
the
neighbors
some
concerns
about
this,
but
ultimately
the
applicant
is
is
only
applying
for
a
site
plan
review.
There
are
no
variances.
This
property
is
zoned
r5
and
has
been
for
some
time.
So
a
building
of
this
density
and
of
this
bulk
is
allowed
by
right
and
even
the
alternative
compliance
requests
are
really
mitigated
by
the
conditions
that
staff
is
recommending.
So
I
feel
that
we're
really
in
a
position
to
have
to
approve
this
generally,
as
as
is
thank.
C
I
wanted
to
agree
on
the
the
comments
made
by
Commissioner,
Brown
I
think.
Unfortunately,
we
are
limited
in
our
purview.
We
can't
jump
to
the
future.
It's
currently
zoned
r5,
so
we
have
to
respond
with
that
as
well
as
it's
not
required
to
have
parking.
So
we
can't
mandate
something
that's
not
required.
We
can
only
administer
the
rules
that
have
been
created
and
I.
Think
it's
a
it's
a
shame
to
lose
a
historic
resource.
I
think
that
it's
not
a
sustainable
solution
to
demo
law,
demolish
old
homes.
C
I
think
that
it
would
be
nice
if
the
developer
chose
to
relocate
that
home.
If
they
were
choosing
to
build
this
here
again,
nothing
we
can
mandate
at
this
point
unless
we
start
having
mandatory
demolition
or
relocation
of
structures
in
this
city
which
we
don't
currently
have.
That
said,
though,
I
do
find
the
alternative
compliance
to
be
a
little
bit
weak,
particularly
as
a
relates
to
landscaping
and
screening,
so
I
actually,
and
the
discussion
about
the
ninth
condition,
I
I'm
thinking
that
it
would
be
nice
if
I
see
the
significant
portion.
C
To
do
so
so
I
guess
I
would
ask
for
that
ninth
condition
to
be
a
little
bit
more
robust
asking
for
the
grass
is
at
least
everything
not
in
the
boulevards
to
be
considered
pollinator
plantings,
fun
if
I
think
it'll
actually
be
low
maintenance,
lower
maintenance
in
the
long
run
anyway.
So
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
friendly
amendment
that
can
be
added
or
added
to
the
ninth
condition
already,
but
I
think
that
the
alternative
compliance
is
it
currently
standing.
Is
it
still
a
little
weak
defer.
B
A
They're
good
commissioners
any
further
discussion
any
further
friendly
amendments
to
from
the
amendments.
No
all
right,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
approve
site
plan
review
with
the
eight
state
conditions,
adding
a
ninth
condition
to
work
with
staff
to
increase,
let's
say:
increased,
pollinator
friendly
landscaping
along
the
south
side
and
and.
C
P
B
A
Q
Good
evening,
commissioners,
our
next
project
is
located
in
the
Harrison
neighborhood
at
Minneapolis,
with
nine
parcels
fronting
along
both
Humboldt
Avenue
north
and
Girard
Avenue
north.
The
parcels
are
currently
occupied
by
single
and
two
family
homes
on
five
of
the
parcels
and
then
four
are
currently
vacant.
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
demolish
the
existing
structures
on
the
site
in
order
to
construct
a
new
four-story
residential
building
with
95
dwelling
units.
Q
Q
The
proposed
project
is
located
within
one-half
mile
of
to
future
light
rail
transit
stations
and
does
qualify
for
the
reduction
in
required
parking.
Those
two
stations
are
the
van
white
station
on
the
Blue
Line
extension
along
most
Olson
Memorial
Highway,
and
then
the
bass
Creek
Valley
Station
of
the
green
land
extension,
which
is
currently
under
construction.
Q
Other
applications
include
two
yard
variances
of
the
two
front
yards
along
Humboldt
Avenue,
north
and
Girard
Avenue
north
along
Girard.
The
front
yard
is
established
by
the
existing
single-family
residential
property
to
the
north
and
then
along
Humboldt
Avenue.
North.
The
request
is
to
reduce
the
front
yard
from
15
feet
to
11
feet.
In
both
cases,
those
yard
variances
include
patios
and
balconies
that
exceed
the
maximum
size
and
require
front
yard.
The
applicant
was
responding
to
a
staff
and
neighborhood
feedback
to
include
some
more
active
frontage
along
those
two
corridors.
Q
Q
As
I
stated
in
the
opening,
the
applicant
is
proposing
80
on
site
proposed
structured
parking
spaces
that
would
be
accommodated
in
an
underground
garage
one
level
and
then
an
at
create
garage.
Those
two
different,
enclosed
garages
would
be
accessed
from
two
different
vehicle
entry
points,
one
along
second
and
then
one
off
of
the
Girard
frontage.
Q
The
other
thing
that
I
should
point
out
is
that
the
other
issue
that
I
think
we
discussed
in
the
CAO
meeting
particularly
was
in
regard
to
the
principal
entrance
along
Girard,
which,
at
the
initial
iteration
of
this
project,
had
been
pulled
back
pretty
significantly
from
the
front
property
line.
Feedback
from
the
Commission
was
that
the
applicant
pulled
that
entrance
further
toward
the
streets
and
create
more
of
an
inviting
entryway
there,
and
the
applicant
has
responded
to
that
with
a
revised
proposed
front
entry
which
you
can
see
in
this
image
along
Girard
Avenue
north.
Q
A
R
Good
evening
president
Rockwell
commissioned
my
name
is
Jonathan
Silverman
I'm
represent
the
developer,
would
be
developer
of
this
site.
We
we
started
talking
with
a
large
property
owner
earlier
this
year,
a
gentleman
he
was
assembled
quite
a
few
parcels
in
this
neighborhood
over
the
last
20
30
years
and
engaged
with
him
to
acquire
these
nine
parcels,
four
of
which
are
vacated
at
the
moment.
R
We
started
working
working
our
way
through
the
cow,
took
feedback
and
try
to
make
changes
to
the
best
of
our
abilities.
We
started
engaging
with
the
neighborhood
and
there's
quite
a
few
neighbors
who
are
here
tonight
and
hopefully
will
speak
on
our
behalf
as
well
as
we
spoke
with
the
Basset
Creek
Rock,
who
provided
a
letter
of
support
for
the
project
in
response
to
concern
for
the
existing
residents,
who
potentially
would
be
displaced.
R
R
That's
kind
of
where
I
leave
off.
We
were
excited
about
the
project.
We
think
this
plays
into
an
area,
that's
going
to
have
a
lot
of
transits
in
the
near
future,
and
this
is
a
transitional
block,
we're
on
the
north
side
and
Glenwood,
there's
commercial
property
and
there's
a
commercial
property
on
the
southeast
corner
of
2nd
in
Girard
as
well,
and
there's
quite
a
few
vacant
lots
in
this
area
where
we're
trying
to
build
the
structure.
A
S
S
One
of
the
guiding
principles
calls
for
no
displacement
of
existing
residents
due
to
the
fact
that
this
development
seeks
to
displace
existing
Harrison
residents.
Hna
is
concluded
that
it
cannot
lend
its
support
to
the
project.
While
HMA
appreciates
mr.
Sullivan's
willingness
to
provide
residents
with
relocation
assistance,
we
cannot
get
around
the
fact
that
the
project
will
lead
to
the
displacement
of
current
longtime
residents,
who
would
like
to
stay
in
their
homes.
S
Hna
would
also
like
to
note
that,
while
the
Bassett
Creek
developed
redevelopment,
Oversight
Committee,
has
offered
its
support
for
this
project.
They
have
done
so
in
violation
of
the
guiding
principles
of
redevelopment
that
they
agreed
to
abide
to,
I'm,
sorry
that
they
agreed
to
abide
by
less
than
15
years
ago.
In
addition
to
our
concerns
regarding
displacement,
HMA
is
concerned
about
the
net
loss
of
units
affordable
to
Harrison
residents.
The
proposal
calls
for
the
demolition
of
ten
existing
naturally
occurring,
affordable
housing
units
and,
while
mr.
S
Seligman
intends
to
construct
nine
units
that
would
be
affordable
at
sixty
percent
of
area
median
income,
those
units
are
just
still
not
within
the
reach
of
our
residents.
In
Harrison,
our
area,
median
income
is
$34,000,
and
so
60%
of
ami
is
still
like
twice
as
much
as
what
our
residents
the
majority
of
our
residents,
can
afford.
I
just
want
to
make
clear
that
the
Harrison
Neighborhood
Association
is
not
anti
development
or
anti
density.
We've
worked
with
a
number
of
developers
on
projects
in
the
neighborhood.
S
Recently,
we
worked
with
art
space
on
the
north
side,
artists
lofts,
but
this
this
project,
just
because
of
the
displacement
that
it
would
cause
and
the
fact
that
our
our
residents
have
been
longtime
residents.
They
don't
want
to
see
their
community
broken
up
like
we
just
can't
can't
support
this
project,
and
so
we
ask
that
you,
please
deny
the
petition
for
rezoning
and
variances.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
T
My
name
is
Jerusha
Syme
I
live
at
250,
Humboldt
North,
one
of
the
homes
where
they
are
looking
to
do
this
development.
My
husband,
Jason
and
I
have
been
there
for
ten
and
a
half
years.
Now
we
love
the
neighborhood.
We
would
love
to
stay
and
just
the
thought
of
the
idea,
they're
proposing
it
just
it's
heartbreaking,
because
these
homes
are
over
100
years
old,
a
lot
of
them
there's
a
lot
of
character
there.
T
Yes,
there
are
some
vacant
properties
which
one
of
our
other
neighbors
who's
here
has
tried
to
buy,
to
build
a
home,
which
would
you
know,
be
more
in
line
with
the
other
houses
that
are
on
the
block
and
basically
that
was
kind
of
swept
under
from
him
and
we've
put
in
offers
to
purchase
our
home
from
our
landlord
as
well.
So
we
just
feel
that
it's
a
bit
unfair
to
you
know
us
as
people
who
love
the
neighborhood
and
have
tried
to
be.
T
You
know,
good
neighbors,
and
all
of
that
bring
things
to
our
community
and
just
to
see
just
to
feel
that
we
are
not
valued.
Basically,
it's
kind
of
how
it
feels
and
that
you
know
somebody
with
more
money
can
just
come
swoop
in
and
and
just
level
it
all
pave
paradise
put
up.
A
parking
lot
is
how
it
feels
so
trying
to
think.
If
there's
anything
else,
I
have
to
say
we
definitely
are
not
opposed
to
developments.
T
It's
just
this
specific
type
would
not
only
displace
us
and
remove
us
from
our
homes
and
community,
but
it
would
also
leave
our
neighbors
across
the
street.
What's
a
completely
different
atmosphere,
their
homes
would
be.
You
know
just
blocked
by
this
four
storey
thing
too,
and
then
it's
you
know.
Where
does
it
end?
You
know
block
after
block
this
will
just
keep
happening
and
then
there's
less
and
less
affordable
housing
I'm
a
teacher
I,
don't
make
a
lot
of
money
and
I
don't
see
that
changing
in
the
near
future.
U
Goldstein
I'm
one
of
the
owners
at
2:41,
Fremont,
Avenue,
12:07,
Glenwood,
Avenue,
and
also
1515
Glenwood
Avenue
for
full
disclosure.
I
am
involved
with
in
the
development
here
with
John
and
been
actively
involved
in
the
neighborhood
for
the
past
couple
of
years
couple
my
tenants
at
2:41
Fremont
Avenue,
our
Latonia
brewery
and
real
founder
craft
spirits
and
as
I
first
got
involved
in
the
Harrison
neighborhood
a
few
years
ago.
U
All
we
heard
was
how
excited
people
were
for
these
new
amenities
to
be
finally
coming
to
the
neighborhood
that
people
have
been
waiting
for
for
so
long
and
through
our
investments
we've,
our
tenants
have
created
over
30
full-time
jobs
in
the
neighborhood
with
more
to
come.
There's
a
couple
new
office
buildings
coming
online,
both
on
Glenwood
and
Wellington's
project
at
the
former
leaf
line
site
and
really
the
last
like
the
last
thing.
U
So
the
folks
that
are
getting
this
place
would
have
the
at
the
top
of
the
list
to
come
back
to
the
building,
because
we
know
how
much
they
want
to
be
in
the
neighborhood
and
so
just
want
to
offer
my
support
for
the
project.
I'm
super
excited
about
the
Harrison
neighborhood
and
what
we've
been
working
to
create
there
and
hope
that
you
guys
will
help
us
make
this
happen.
Thanks
thank.
A
V
V
We've
never
been
against
any
sort
of
development
in
the
neighborhood.
We've
always
been
open
to
that
because
we
know
that
there's
gonna
be
a
lot
of
interest
coming
because
of
the
new
light
rails
and
all
those
sorts
of
things,
so
we're
not
anti
development.
We
support
it
as
long
as
it
doesn't
displace
current
living
residents
and
that's
been
the
stance
of
HMA
even
before
I
was
working
there.
So
there's
there's
plenty
of
other
land
in
Harrison,
that's
vacant
that
could
use
some
developing,
but
this
project
is
not
the
one.
It
is
currently
kicking
out.
V
I,
don't
know
20
20
some
people
residents
live
in
the
neighborhood.
Some
of
them
have
lived
there
for
as
long
as
10
years,
and
we
don't
want
to
see
nobody
being
displaced.
We've
seen
people
being
displaced
from
Harrison
for
many
many
years,
a
whole
apartment
buildings
just
getting
bought
up
and
you
know,
rents
increased
overnight
and
drives
a
lot
of
people
out.
This
is
an
or
different
sort
of
displacement.
They
do
have
the
right
to
come
back
and
live
in
the
building,
those
sorts
of
things,
but
it's
different
from
having
the
backyard.
V
Some
of
these
residents
have
gardens
with
with
those
sorts
of
things
those
are
not
available
in
the
small
apartment.
You
know
it's
a
it's
going
from
a
home,
it's
an
apartment
building,
which
is
really
you
can't
really
compare
those
two
to
each
other,
so
I'm.
Also
an
opposition
of
the
project
and
I
hope
you
guys
consider
the
same
on.
If
you
guys
ever
been
a
situation
where
you've
lived
in
a
place
for
ten
years
and
are
asked
to
move
away,
and
you
can't
do
anything
about
it.
So
yeah.
W
Are
greedy
greetings,
I
am
Jason,
Syme
I
live
on
Humboldt,
250,
Humboldt
and
basically
I've
been
there
for
10
years
and
love
the
neighborhood
really
gotten
to
know
the
neighborhood,
and
it's
been
really
weird,
because
we've
had
a
couple
pay
cat
Lots
there
that
like
was
stated
before
that
happened,
tried
to
been
bought
and
developed
on,
but
they
were
kind
of
I.
Don't
know
how
you
say,
sold
with
the
intention
to
sold
to
the
current
or
current
landlord
with
the
intention
to
buy
are
to
to
build
on
him,
but
they've
just
been
st.
W
cent,
basically
not
developed
for
6-7
years
to
prove
you
know,
prevent
other
people
from
doing
that.
We've
offered
to
buy
on
our
house
and
as
far
as
development
goes,
we
have
a
new
artist,
co-op,
that's
being
built.
Nobody
opposes
that.
That's
absolutely
fine,
because
it's
not
displacing
I,
don't
know
how
many
houses
there's
another
office.
Building
up!
That's
going
up!
That's
basically,
you
know
an
empty
lot
as
well.
W
Nobody
opposes
that
in
the
area
there
are
tons
of
areas
right
outside
of
Harrison
that
do
not
displace
people
that
can
be
developed,
that
are
just
old
old
buildings,
falling
down
from
basically
lyndale
all
the
way
up
to
Humboldt
or
Gerrard
in
between
Glenwood
and
I.
Think,
second,
but
you
know
it's
tough,
tough
to
get
this
place
when
you've
been
there
for
10
years.
It's
you
know
it's,
you
know,
but
a
lot
of
our
neighbors
definitely
don't
want
to
go
and
a
lot
of
the
people
around
the
area.
W
W
You
know
I
would
say,
since
what
end
of
August,
so
we've
only
found
out
about
this
by
like
the
end
of
August
and
it's
what
mid-november
so
I
mean
anything
else,
oh
through
yeah,
Harrison
ear
would
thank
goodness
for
Lisa
here
that
you
know
made
it
known
to
us.
What's
actually
gonna
happen,
or
else
we
wouldn't
even
known
into
the
till?
Basically
we
got
a
letter,
it
said
goodbye,
you
know,
and
basically
it's
about
it
for
me.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much.
X
I
seriously
hope
this
goes
through.
The
poor
neighborhood
has
just
suffered
for
years
and
years
and
years
and
finally,
there's
investment.
I
mean
finally
we're
gonna
have
maybe
a
grocery
store.
Maybe
a
restaurant
I'm
thrilled
with
this
I
hope
you
accept
them
and
we
have
new
development.
Our
neighborhood.
Thank
you.
Thank.
Y
Grant
244
Humboldt
I'm
getting
displaced,
and
so
the
ones
who
aren't
getting
displaced,
her
happy
yeah
we
wouldn't
have
known,
except
that
we
have
a
practically
nationally
famous
Neighborhood
Association,
that
developed
the
the
rubric
that's
used
around
the
country
to
assess
the
way
development
is
affecting
things
here
is
a
Neighborhood
Association
who
is
also
getting
displaced
by
their
Minneapolis
Public
Schools.
But
I.
Guess
that's
a
separate
issue,
but
it's
only
because
of
there
being
so
much
on
the
ball
that
we
even
knew
and
I
it's
the
nicest
place.
I've
ever
lived.
Y
I
have
an
organic
garden.
There's
no
reason
why
grocery
stores
and
whatnot
can't
be
in
the
neighborhood
without
needing
to
put
in
nearly
a
hundred
units
that
we
can't
afford
it's
it's
it's.
Not
it's
not
gonna
be
affordable
for
us,
so
I
just
feel
certainly
upset
about
it,
and
not
only
did
our
landlord
not
tell
us.
The
truth
is
that
he
has
continued
to
rent
out
a
couple,
other
houses
that
were
vacated
because
the
people
knew
that
we
were
going
to
be
booted.
Y
Quite
possibly
I
mean
I,
know
it
hasn't
quite
been
approved,
but
then
it's
possible
anyway.
Anyway,
he's
that
all
I'm
trying
to
say
is
we
were
not
informed
by
the
landlord
and
yeah,
so
I
just
hope
that
it
doesn't
go
through
I,
it's
the
nicest
place
I've
ever
lived.
I
can
afford
to
live
there,
I'm
partially
disabled
back
and
it
it
just
really
suits
me
to
live
there
and
I
hope
that
you
will
just
take
into
consideration
that
you're
booting
a
lot
of
us
and
the
two
women
that
live
upstairs
weren't
able
to
come.
Y
A
C
C
For
those
four
I
think
it's
for
households,
I
think,
is
what
they
identified
for
those
four
that
are
being
displaced.
Are
they
being
offered
that
Marguerite
or
a
Greek
commissars?
What
they're
paying
now,
which
I
don't
I,
don't
know
what
it
is
and
I
don't
need
it
on
the
record.
I
just
wanted
to
know.
If
that's
the
right
to
return,
is
it
just
a
right
to
return
if
the.
R
R
R
The
argument
is,
is
that
the
like-kind
unit,
but
they
as
far
as
their
right
to
convert,
earn
to
the
extent
that
they
provide
us
information
on
how
to
stay,
and
you
know
in
touch
with
them,
they
can
come
back
and
they
can
they
can.
If
they
qualify
for
portable
rental
rates,
they
can
have
one
of
those
units
at
the
affordable
level,
otherwise,
it'll
be
at
market
Thank.
C
A
N
D
N
P
D
D
A
N
B
N
C
Mean
I
just
wanted
to
address
just
the
site
plan
review
as
an
land
use
application
itself
unrelated
to
this
neighbor
at
issue.
But
we
asked
the
architect
to
make
improvements
to
the
site
plan
related
to
having
more
eyes
on
the
street.
More
connections
to
the
neighborhood
through
patios
and
plantings
and
connections
employing
entrances
for
it
and
I
do
want
to
say
that
I
I
appreciate
that
they
actually
accommodated
that
in
the
plan
that
they
had
for
their
development.
So
I
wanted
to
say
that
it
we
speaking
or
voting
in
support
of
the
site
plan
itself.
B
A
Z
Z
The
City
Council
approved
amendments
to
the
zoning
ordinance
and
unified
housing
policy
to
require
inclusionary
housing
in
two
circumstances.
So
the
zoning
ordinance
is
where
the
threshold
information
was
kept.
So
in
light
of
additional
density
allowances
with
the
Minneapolis
2040
plan
and
effective
January
1
of
this
year,
if
a
project
was
seeking,
a
rezoning
for
at
least
one
parcel
to
a
district
that'll
did
not
previously
allow
for
multiple
family
that
inclusionary
would
be
required.
Z
In
addition,
if
an
applicant
was
looking
to
increase
the
development
capacity
and
that
was
calculated
through
an
increase
of
floor
area
ratio
through
a
combination
of
things
that
could
be
rezoning,
density
bonuses,
Beauty
alternatives
or
an
FA
are
variants
that
give
the
the
development
at
least
a
60%
increase
from
what
the
zoning
code
would
otherwise
allow.
That
would
also
trigger
the
inclusionary
zoning
requirements
during
this
interim
phase,
which
again
started
on
January
1
2019.
We
have
approved
for
projects
through
the
process.
Z
One
was
exempt
because
they
were
already
required
to
comply
with
the
city's
unified
housing
policy
through
programs
and
affordable
dollars
that
were
already
associated
with
it.
Another
was
a
condominium
project
and
the
one
project
that
has
been
fully
approved
and
through
the
process
was
for
a
seven
unit.
Building
at
twenty
five
twenty
one
Bloomington
Avenue,
we
heard
a
project
just
now
item
number
seven,
the
Harrison
project
would
also
be
was
subject
to
inclusionary
housing,
so
10%
of
those
units
would
be
required
at
60%
ami.
Z
So
as
we
go
through
the
proposed
text
amendment
this
evening,
I
want
to
note
that
most
of
the
substantive
changes
are
really
occurring
in
the
unified
housing
policy.
Andrea
Brennan,
our
director
of
housing
policy
and
development,
is
here
also
to
help
support.
If
there
are
any
additional
questions
from
the
Planning
Commission
today,
so
I'm
going
to
walk
through
most
of
the
grunted
Solutions
Network
presentation,
just
for
simplicity,
and
some
of
us
have
already
seen
this
presentation
and
I
think
they
just
did
a
really
nice
job
of
making
the
the
policy
in
the
ordinance
very
clear.
Z
So,
just
to
restate
what
the
goals
of
the
proposed
text
amendment
to
amend
regulations
are
to
encourage
both
production
and
feasibility,
so
the
proposed
regulations
are
not
intended
to
stop
development
and
instead
recognize
that
the
city
is
in
need
of
affordable
housing.
We
have
many
policies
that
were
included
in
the
staff
report,
both
in
the
current
minneapolis
plan
for
sustainable
growth
in
minneapolis,
2040
that
encourage
on-site
production
of
mixed
income,
housing
and
mixed
income
communities.
Z
Staff
is
also
looking
for
a
policy
and
in
text
amendment
for
simple
implementation.
Some
of
the
feedback
we
have
received
during
the
interim
is
that
it
was
a
little
bit
difficult
to
digest
some
of
the
information,
so
staff
made
many
attempts
to
clarify
what
the
current
regulations
are
so
going
forward,
we're
hoping
that
they're
simple
and
easy
to
implement.
There
are
some
caveats
to
some
of
our
recommendations
as
well.
Z
So,
as
I
kind
of
mentioned,
this
is
where
we've
been
with
the
interim
inclusionary
ordinance
and
policy.
I
should
also
note
that
during
the
interim
inclusionary
policy,
there
were
two
exemptions:
one
was
her
student
housing
and
there
was
a
definition
in
the
unified
housing
policy
and
then
condominiums
were
also
exempt.
During
that
interim
phase,.
Z
Staff
is
recommending
a
delay
in
implementation,
so
for
buildings,
either
mixed-use
or
purely
residential
for
rental
that
they
come
in
with
a
size
of
at
least
twenty
to
forty
nine
units
staff
will
exempt
the
first
500
permitted
unit,
so
units
in
buildings
that
receive
a
building
permit
and
then
delay
that
implementation.
Another
six
months
from
that
point.
So
officially
the
threshold
is
20
units,
but
during
this
delayed
implementation
it
will
be
50
units,
so
at
50
units
and
greater
for
the
time
being
and
will
update
the
Planning
Commission.
Z
There
is
also
a
recommendation
to
scale
the
proposed
requirement
for
buildings
that
have
less
than
100
units
where
they
exempt
the
first
15
units.
So,
as
you
can
see
in
the
table,
we'll
just
give
an
example
at
50
units
we
would
exempt
15
units
and
therefore
only
35
would
be
subject
to
the
the
requirement.
So
then
8%
of
those
units
on
site-
or
in
this
case
it
would
be
2.8
units-
would
be
required
to
be
affordable.
Z
How
we
plan
to
address
those
fractional
units
to
avoid
that
one
over
one
under
is
that
the
developer
could
choose
to
round
up.
So
in
that
case,
they
could
go
to
three
dwelling
units
at
instead
of
2.8,
or
they
could
provide
two
units
on
site
and
then
they
would
pay
it
in
lieu
fee.
For
that
point,
8
units.
Z
Staff
is
no
longer
proposing
exemptions
for
student
housing.
We
recognize
that
residential
uses
will
be
subject
to
this
requirement,
so
student
housing
that
would
otherwise
be
allowed
off
campus
would
be
subject
to
the
inclusionary
zoning
policy
in
the
zoning
code.
Presently
we
have
land-use
definitions
and
within
the
use
table
dormitories
fraternities
sororities.
Those
uses
would
be
exempt
from
this
ordinance,
as
they
are
typically
affiliated
with
a
university
or
college.
Z
The
proposed
update
to
the
unified
housing
policy
also
introduces
three
compliance
alternatives.
The
goals
for
compliance
alternatives
are
to
still
can
encourage
production
and
feasibility
mixed
income
communities
and
have
equivalent
number
of
affordable.
You
use,
affordable
housing
units,
either
on-site
or
nearby.
Z
Staff
is
proposing
an
in
lieu
fee.
The
fee
is
set
to
be
moderately
higher
than
the
affordability
gap,
as
demonstrated
in
this
slide.
Here,
specifically,
the
on-site
requirement
be
8%
of
the
units
and
the
the
in
Luffy
is
set
to
assume
a
10%
of
the
unit's
at
an
affordable
rate
at
60%
ami,
the
in
lieu
fee
is
calculated
differently
for
buildings,
at
seven
storeys
and
under
at
fifteen
dollars
per
square
foot,
and
that's
calculated
on
a
net
residential
square
footage.
Z
Staff
is
also
introducing
off-site
development
to
allow
for
development
to
occur,
with
greater
affordability
within
a
half
mile
of
a
market
rate
development.
There's
a
recognition
that
there's
benefits
to
the
city
and
providing
added
more
affordable
units
when
partnering
with
affordable
housing
development,
and
so,
therefore
that
is
allowed
and
staff
would
be
looking
and
the
council
would
be
looking
for
at
least
the
same
public
benefit
as
they
would
otherwise
experience
for
that
market
rate
on-site
and
that
the
market
rate
developers
must
make
a
meaningful
contribution.
Z
In
just
a
moment,
staff
would
be
looking
for
a
concurrent
occupancy
of
both
the
market
rate
and
the
affordable
project
or
the
affordable
project
being
built
first
to
ensure
that
those
units
are
created
and
that
staff
may
also
recommend
off-site
projects
determined
within
the
parameters
of
the
City
Council,
but
that
would
be
under
their
purview
and
then
the
third
option
for
a
compliance
alternative
is
planned.
Donation
again
this.
This
compliance
alternative.
Would
not
be
available
right
away
in
January,
but
instead
would
be
part
of
the
unified
housing
policy.
Z
June
1
of
2020,
so
donate
land
must
be
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
appraised
value
than
being
Luffy.
It
has
to
be
a
location
where
there
is
need
for
affordable
housing
where
there's
a
deficiency
and
affordable
housing
in
the
city,
and
it
has
to
be
allowed
for
development
for
residential.
It
couldn't
be
industrial
zoned,
for
example,
or
something
slated
for
production
and
processing
in
the
Minneapolis
2040.
Z
Here's
a
timeline
for
effective
dates
for
the
updates,
so
we
are
here
before
you
today
to
review
the
zoning
code
text
amendment.
This
will
go
on
to
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
on
December,
6th,
I,
believe
and
then
on
to
the
full
council
for
adoption
this
year.
This
ordinance
would
be
effective
on
January,
1
2020.
Z
So
at
the
same
time
the
policy
would
also
take
effect,
so
we'll
be
going
to
the
housing
policy
and
development
committee
of
the
City
Council
on
December
5th
and
then
similarly
adopted
by
the
City
Council
this
year,
effective
January
1
the
two
additional
compliance
alternatives
that
I
mentioned
earlier
would
be
available,
6
1
of
2020,
and
then
we
would
be
reviewing
fees
and
the
on-site
percentages
required.
As
we
do
some
analysis
during
this
interim
phase,
we
did
not
have
a
substantial
amount
of
projects
to
really
learn
from.
Z
What
we
also
did
learn
is
that
none
of
the
developers
took
advantage
of
the
revenue
offset
tax,
increment
financing
program
where
the
the
ground
solutions
network
had
concluded
that
it
might
have
been
more,
financially
feasible
or
more
financially
beneficial
to
the
developer.
To
provide
20%
of
the
units
at
50%
ami,
we
have
had
a
large
number
of
feedback
related
to
the
proposed
zoning
ordinance
amendment
and
the
policy.
Those
were
included
both
in
the
packet
and
then
you
received
an
addendum
packet
today,
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
C
Z
Z
A
great
deal
of
detail
and
nuance
that
go
into
making
sure
that
we
get
those
two
correct
and
making
sure
the
compliance
manual
is
prepared
and
that
we
that
we
make
sure
that
they
truly
are
a
compliance
alternative
and
not
something
that
is
either
too
inflexible
or
too
flexible.
So
additional
time
is
required
and.
C
Z
C
Z
We'd
be
looking
at
all
building
permits
that
fall
within
a
range
of
20
units
to
49
units,
and
let's
say
we
had
11
49
unit
buildings
proposed
for
construction
and
that
all
receive
a
building
permit.
Well
now,
we've
hit
that
five
hundred
mark,
but
they
all
have
to
be
in
buildings
that
have
that
range
22:49.
Z
C
And
then
so,
my
other
question
is
so
I
know.
We
saw
this
that
committee,
the
hall
and
they
mentioned
you
got
a
lot
of
feedback,
but
what
of
our
feedback
got
incorporated
into
this,
because
this
looks
like
a
lot
of
the
same
thing.
We
saw
so
I'm
kind
of
like
wondering
where,
where
there
was
opportunities
for
our
feedback
to
be
incorporated
into
it,
or
was
it
already
like?
If
there's
a
courtesy
visit
or
what's
the.
V
Z
Establishes
just
a
few
things:
first
of
all
is
threshold,
so
the
threshold
stated
threshold
is
20
units,
then,
within
the
ordinance
there's
a
recognition
of
this
phased
implementation
for
both
rental
and
then
ownership.
So
that
is
the
first
piece
of
the
zoning
ordinance
that
is
relevant
for
review
today.
The
next
piece
takes
out
that
fractional
computation,
because
that
will
only
be
within
the
unified
housing
policy.
Z
The
next
amendment
is
related
to
recording
of
the
site
plan
approval,
so
both
the
current
property
owners
and
any
future
property
owners
would
understand
that
there
is
a
recording
of
the
site
plan,
that's
required
and
then
there's
also
a
covenant.
That's
recorded
against
the
deeds,
so
there's
a
recognition
for
that
duration
of
affordability,
so
for
on-site
units
without
subsidy,
it's
20
years
and
then
I
believe
it's
30
years,
they're
subsidized
30
years
with
the
revenue
offset
program,
and
then
lastly,
is
just
the
effective
date.
Z
C
But
it's
just
no
longer
going
to
be
considered
a
zoning
document
of
any
sort,
then
a
unified
housing
popular
or
how
is
it
that
it's
outside
of
our
purview
like
for
I,
guess
some
of
the
concerns
we
had
aren't
specifically
listed
there,
but
I
see
something
star
pulled
out
to
be
put
in
the
unified
housing
policy,
and
it
seems
a
little
odd
to
me
that
we
would
take
something
out
of
zoning
and
put
in
a
document
that
is
out
of
the
reach
of
this
committee.
Sure.
Z
That's
a
great
question,
so
the
zoning
ordinance
really
regulates
when
is
this
applicable
and
what
is
the
application
trigger?
So
what
we
have
determined
through
the
municipal
Planning
Act
is
that
site
plan
review
per
state
statute
is
the
appropriate
location.
So
what
we
did
first
was
identify.
What
is
the
land
use
application
that
would
allow
for
that
condition
to
be
placed
when
applicable?
So
that's
the
site
review
after
that?
It's
it's
determining
threshold.
Z
So
the
policy
in
the
text
amendment
work
in
concert.
So,
essentially,
you
look
to
the
zoning
ordinance
to
see
what
the
requirement
if
the
requirement
is
triggered
and
then
you
would
move
over
to
the
unified
housing
policy
for
more
of
the
detail
on
how
to
comply,
and
then,
lastly,
there
will
be
a
compliance
manual
for
more
of
the
details,
such
as
design,
making
sure
that
there's
a
the
appropriate
mix
of
units
for
affordable.
Z
So,
for
example,
if
you
have
a
building
that
has
a
majority
of
two-bedroom
units,
you
can't
reserve
efficiencies
or
one
bedrooms
to
meet
your
affordability
requirement.
We
want
to
ensure
that
affordable
units
are
are
mixed
throughout
the
building,
with
some
exceptions
for
taller
buildings,
recognizing
that
we
did
not
want
to
devote
an
entire
floor
to
the
affordable
units,
etc.
Those
kinds
of
details
are
in
the
accompanying
documents
through
the
policy
and
then
the
compliance
manual
nation.
Thank
you
other.
M
Z
M
Z
A
AA
Now,
thank
you.
Mr.
chairman
members
of
the
Commission,
my
name
is
Steve
Kramer
I'm,
the
president
CEO
of
Minneapolis
Town
Council,
but
I'm
here
today
on
behalf
of
a
voluntary
collection
of
developers
under
the
name
of
building
Minneapolis
together,
my
work
addresses
any
one:
South
Knight
Street,
my
home
address
is
48
3
to
11
new
South
I'm,
pleasantly
surprised,
it's
only
6
o'clock.
To
be
honest,
I'm
sure
I
do
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
proposed
permanent
inclusionary
zoning
policy
and
I'd
like
to
make
kind
of
three
related
points.
AA
You
have
in
your
packet
a
side
by
side
comparison
of
the
proposed
policy
and
what
our
BMT
group
recommends
is
an
alternative,
isay
approach
and
as
the
staff
in
presentation.
The
kid
there's
a
lot
of
detail
and
we
tried,
as
a
group,
to
comment
on
each
and
every
aspect
of
the
detail.
So
I
won't
repeat
all
that,
but
I
think
there
are
two
essential
differences
that
I
want
to
at
least
highlight.
What
is
that?
AA
We
think
the
core
requirement
for
inclusionary
zoning
ought
to
be
10%
of
units
at
60%
meeting,
affordability,
with
access
for
all
projects
to
the
revenue
offset
policy,
which
means
the
project
would
have
to
prove
its
financial
need
in
order
to
qualify
for
TIF
assistance.
We
also
think
the
threshold
should
be
set
at
50
units,
not
20,
and
then
there
are
many
other
details
that
you
could
look
at.
So
I
get
the
point
there
as
the
local
developer
community.
As
a
collective
believes.
AA
Inclusionary
zoning
can
be
an
effective
tool
if
the
policy
is
not
overly
broad
and
if
the
policy
takes
into
account
marketplace.
Reality
is
governing
the
Assembly
of
private
capital
to
finance
a
digital
housing
supply
in
our
community.
Lack
of
new
supply
is
our
over
as
our
overarching
challenge.
The
affordability
issue
is
embedded
in
this
larger
problem
of
too
much
demand
chasing
too
few
units,
which,
in
turn,
places
upward
pressure
on
all
rents.
AA
AA
Unlike
the
BMP
approach,
the
recommended
policy
before
you
is
overly
broad
and
will
and
will
very
likely
chill
private
investment.
It's
important
to
realize
that
inclusionary
zoning
hasn't
really
been
tested
in
the
Minneapolis
market,
as
you
know
better
than
anyone.
Given
the
scope
of
your
agendas
in
late
2018,
a
slew
of
projects
came
in
before
the
interim
policy
took
effect
earlier
this
year
and
since
then,
the
interim
policy
has
many
generous
lanes
that
projects
could
go
down
without
being
affected
by
isay
requirements.
All
that
changes
dramatically
under
the
proposed
permanent
policy.
AA
So,
in
our
view,
as
experienced
developers
taking
a
more
measured
initial
approach
seems
wiser
than
adopting
one
of
the
most
aggressive
isay
policies
in
the
nation
right
out
of
the
gate.
Well,
we
do
see
the
dialing
back
of
the
baseline
requirement,
that's
being
recommended
now
to
8%
of
the
units
instead
of
10%
of
the
units
as
a
nod
towards
project
financial
feasibility
as
a
critical
consideration,
it's
an
inadequate
nod.
If
projects
can't
get
financed,
they
aren't
built
and
no
one
wins
and
we
are
concerned.
AA
As
a
group
of
developers,
that's
where
this
is
heading
with
the
proposed
policy
and
my
final
point:
inclusionary
zoning
is
one
of
a
number
of
recent
housing
market
regulations
being
implemented
or
under
consideration
for
Minneapolis,
all
well
intentioned
and
all
focused
on
various
aspects
of
the
affordability
problem.
But
at
some
point
we
need
to
step
back,
take
a
breath
now.
What
will
the
cumulative
effect
be?
AA
Well,
we're
regulated
housing
markets
are
less
affordable
pockets
if
enhancing
affordability
of
and
access
to
more
privately
owned
units
is
the
goal
of
these
policies,
but
if,
at
the
end
they
have
the
exact
opposite
effect,
then
what
has
been
accomplished
as
a
community?
We
need
to
continually
ask
and
analyze
that
question
to
make
sure
unintended
consequences
aren't
ruling
the
day.
Thank
you.
We
shoot
your
time.
A
AA
AB
President
members
of
the
Commission,
my
name
is
Steve
men
with
loopy
development
partners.
My
address
is
at
1701
Madison
Street
Northeast
in
Minneapolis.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak.
Given
mr.
Kramer's
remarks,
I'll
try
to
address
some
additional
points,
because
I
am
part
of
the
building
Minneapolis
together
coalition.
That's
been
working
on
this
issue
now
for
almost
18
months.
AB
I
think
it's
many
of
you
know.
I've
been
here
many
times
with
projects.
I
actually
produce
almost
three
affordable
units
to
every
one
market
unit
that
I
produce,
so
I
think
I
speak
with
some
experience
about,
but
it
is
necessary
to
produce
affordable
housing
and
the
challenges
of
doing
so
I'll
just
say
from
the
onset
I
am
of
the
belief
that
more
housing
generally
produces
more
affordability.
When
you
increase
supply,
you
reduce
the
demand
on
the
rent,
price
and
I.
AB
Now,
since
this
body,
neither
authored,
nor
has
any
power
to
amend
this
court
and
so
I'm
not
going
to
express
any
angst,
I
but
I,
will
take
a
few
moments
to
talk
about
what
I
think
is
an
unfair
approach
and
process
of
how
we
got
to
this
point.
I
think
it's
somewhat
representative
of
the
cynicism
of
the
authors
that
we
don't
have
an
engagement
in
the
committee
process
that
brought
this
ordinance
to
its
current
state.
The
grounded
solutions
Network
they
were
hired
as
consultants
are
actually
advocates
for
affordable
housing,
not
dispassionate
consultants.
AB
They
have
not
in
30
cities
that
they
have
consulted
and
ever
recommend
that
an
inclusionary
zoning
not
be
adopted,
and
so
the
presumption
was
that
this
ordinance
would
be
adopted
by
the
deadline
of
this
year.
There
was
no
process
for
the
industry's
proposals
to
be
considered
in
front
of
the
Housing
Committee.
AB
We've
offered
many
an
opportunity
and
many
a
proposal,
some
of
which
you
have
before
you
in
this
table
that
was
prepared
by
our
organization
and,
as
mr.
Kramer
has
alluded
to.
One
of
the
major
tenants
that
we
articulated
was
that
at
minimum
10%
housing
with
tax
increment
financing
would
probably
be
a
good
starting
point,
but
unfortunately
that
was
not
adopted,
at
least
in
the
form
of
which
you've
been
presented
by
the
staff.
AB
It's
my
belief
in
that
I
believe
of
the
organization
that
I'm
a
part
of
here
that
this
ordinance
will
not
create
more
affordable
housing.
The
ordinance
that
was
in
the
interim
basis
has
produced
very
little
in
to
your
point.
Mr.
president,
I
do
believe
that
there
has
been
a
chilling
effect,
but
you
haven't
received
it
yet
because
of
the
rush
to
the
pipeline
at
this
time
last
year
that
all
the
projects
that
raced
to
get
before
the
Commission
and
get
approvals
before
adoption.
AB
Those
are
the
cranes
that
you're
currently
observing
when
those
cranes
are
done
doing
their
job.
You
will
have
four
projects:
ten
units
from
inclusionary
zoning
interim
ordinance
to
show
for
the
effort
and
I
think
you're
going
to
anticipate
I.
Think
you
should
anticipate
that
the
permanent
ordinance,
which
is
much
more
draconian
in
its
implementation
in
cost
of
the
development
community,
will
have
a
much
more
dramatic
effect.
AB
You
have
in
your
packets,
as
mr.
Kramer's
articulated
this
point-by-point
refutation
of
some
of
the
issues.
I
will
just
simply
summarize
by
saying
the
bar
should
be
higher
for
the
exclusion
so
that
we
don't
lose
the
opportunity
for
infill
whether
or
not
the
implementation
strategies
that
miss
Heather
has
articulated
are
clear
to
you.
They're
not
clear
to
us
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
thresholds
that
have
to
be
overcome
and
managed
to
get
to
whether
we're
going
to
implement
ownership
or
student
into
the
ordinance
I
think
it's
fraught
with
complication.
AB
Then
there
might
be
the
complication
further
of
units
that
get
permanent,
but
don't
actually
get
built.
That's
going
to
happen
quite
a
bit
and
I
think
you
should
step
back
from
permitting
and
think
about.
Units
are
actually
constructed
in
terms
of
whatever
these
new
thresholds
are
going
to
be
as
I
wrap
up.
My
remarks.
I
do
want
to
take
a
moment
to
thank
Andrea,
Brennan
and
Angie
skilled
him
who
have
been
on
point
on
this
ordinance
and
working
with
the
industry.
AB
It
is
not
an
easy
task
to
respond
to
your
elected
masters,
while
still
trying
to
keep
connections
with
the
develop
development
community
at
close
hand.
I
think
they've
done
a
remarkably
good
job
tolerating
when
there's
been
a
rather
recalcitrant
industry.
Coming
along
to
this
point,
knowing
that
they'd
been
whipped
by
their
elected
masters,
to
get
the
ordinance
done
by
this
year
and
I
just
want
to
say,
they've
done
a
nice
job
at
least
making
us
feel
like
we're
being
listened
to
by
them,
even
if
we're
not
being
listened
to
by
the
council.
AB
In
closing
our
worst
fears,
I
hope
are
not
realized.
Evidence
from
other
communities
that
have
adopted
these
ordinances
would
suggest
that
this
is
too
aggressive.
Maybe
someone
wants
to
put
that
on
their
resume,
but
there
are
other
communities,
particularly
important,
which
is
now
stepping
back
from
their
inclusionary
zoning
ordinance.
AB
Having
found
that
production
precipitously
fell
off
the
cliff,
they
just
recently
laid
off
forty
percent
of
their
development
staff,
because
their
develop
staff
is
funded
by
development
fees
and
guess
what
they're
not
generating
fulfillment
fees
up
there,
so
they're
stepping
back
and
thinking
we
can't
even
get
production
done
in
the
pearl
district.
Maybe
we've
gone
too
far.
They
did
my
biggest
fear-
and
this
is
my
last
point-
is
that
the
loss
of
naturally
occurring,
affordable
housing
is
the
worst
possible
outcome
that
could
happen
from
this
ordinance
and
I.
AB
Think
that
is
exactly
what's
going
to
happen.
Investors
who
are
now
faced
with
less
yield
and
a
harder
threshold
to
get
a
project
into
the
ground
will
turn
to
the
vast
supply,
a
vintage
housing
that
we
have
in
Minneapolis,
which
is
the
70s
80s
and
early
90s
housing.
That's
in
place.
They
will
put
those
properties
into
play
and
market
rate
redevelopment
and
redeployment
and
raise
those
rents.
We've
seen
some
of
that
happen
already
here
in
the
metropolitan
area.
Some
of
those
cases
have
been
somewhat
notorious,
but
you
can
anticipate
an
acceleration
of
that
concern.
AB
AC
Hi
commissioners,
my
name
is
Chris
Wilson
I
work
for
project
for
pride
and
living
we're
a
nonprofit
agency,
we're
located
at
10:35,
East,
Franklin,
Avenue
personally,
I
live
in
the
city
also
I
live
at
416,
Fifth,
Avenue
southeast,
so
I
live
over
by
the
University.
Just
wanted
to
say
that
project,
probably
living
has
been
working
with
the
BMT
group,
and
you
know
it's
kind
of
it's
largely
feels
that
most
of
their
conclusions
make
sense
as
tweaks
within
the
larger
context.
AC
AC
It's
something
that
obviously
we've
been
working
on,
it's
very
near
and
dear
to
our
heart
as
a
nonprofit
agency,
and
so
I
just
want
to
say,
I
really
feel,
like
you
know,
almost
to
a
person,
everyone
has
stepped
up
and
tried
to
to
come
up
with
what
is
a
good
solution
to
this
and
I.
Think
again,
I
want
to
reiterate
the
fact
that
the
you
know
kind
of
an
appreciation
for
what
the
housing
ecosystem
is
trying
to
do
is
I,
think
really
being
addressed
by
the
city
in
many
ways.
AC
I
do
think,
though,
having
said
that
it's
going
to
probably
it
doesn't
really
quite
pencil
out
I
think
you
know
to
mr.
Cramer
and
mr.
moons
point
it
doesn't
quite
pencil
out
there
and
so
I
think,
there's
probably
another
iteration
of
the
ordinance
coming
and
so
I
just
want
to
kind
of
put
this
on
the
table
is
you
know,
wait
and
see,
and
maybe
you
know
kind
of
move
it
through
at
that
point.
AC
AD
Hi,
my
name
is
Rebecca
Cowen
I
live
at
6,
3,
3,
Ontario
and
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
Minnesota
Student
Association
I'm,
our
local
government
coordinator,
and
we
represent
the
30,000
undergraduate
students
at
the
University
of
Minnesota
Twin
Cities.
One
thing
I
wanted
to
bring
to
light
within
this
policy
is
the
current
recommendations
that
we
have
for
the
student
population.
AD
This
is
an
improvement
on
the
interim
policy
which
completely
neglected
that
area
and
the
private
student
development
surrounding
it,
but
it
does
rely
on
those
federal
eligibility
requirements
defined
within
the
Internal
Revenue
Code,
so
these
are
in
place
for
any
City
TIF
funded
building,
simply
because
of
a
state
statute.
However,
the
majority
of
these
student
focused
developments
are
not
using
this
funding
source.
So
in
our
opinion,
it
doesn't
necessarily
make
sense
to
rely
on
these
same
restrictions
within
these
strict
restrictions.
AD
We
also
know
that
only
about
3.3
percent
of
all
students
at
the
University
of
Minnesota
Twin
Cities
would
be
eligible
for
the
affordable
units
under
this
policy,
and
this
is
under
a
few
specific
categories
and
not
necessarily
demonstrated
financial
need,
in
contrast
to
the
tip
requirements.
Section
8
allows
families
or
full-time
students
to
qualify.
AD
If
the
student
and
the
family
are
income
eligible,
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
that
option
in
the
tax
structured
eligibility
requirements,
which
is
why
we're
proposing
a
second
alternative
for
that
under
a
different
alternative,
we
could
increase
eligibility
for
Pell
Grant
recipients
in
the
non
TIF
funded
building,
so
under
the
Pell
grant.
This
is
about
six
thousand
three
hundred
students,
it's
about
ten
to
eleven
percent
of
the
entire
student
population
and
about
20
percent
of
the
undergraduate
student
population.
AD
This
funding
is
based
on
demonstrated
financial
need
with
the
majority
going
to
students
whose
van
are
below
the
30,000
dollar
income
mark,
and
the
top
of
that
is
about
sixty
to
sixty-five
thousand
for
students
receiving
Pell
grants,
so
they
do
have
demonstrated
financial
need.
This
isn't
just
saying
any
student
because
we're
taking
out
a
lot
of
debt
and
having
a
lot
of
loans
we
should
get
into
these
units.
It
is
a
very
specific
section
that
does
have
that
requirement.
AD
Pell
Grant
recipients
also
see
about
ten
percent
lower
graduation
rates
than
the
rest
of
the
student
body.
So
I
think
it
is
important
that
we're
considering
how
we
can
increase
ways
for
the
end
to
access
affordability,
live
near
campus,
live
near
the
resources
that
they
need
to
succeed.
One
concern
that's
been
brought
up
about.
This
is
how
that
would
affect
the
rest
of
the
city
and
the
affordable
units
in
different
sections.
We
have
been
talking
to
different
council
members
and
are
very
open
to
restricting
this
within
the
University
District
area
overlay.
AD
Historically,
that's
only
been
utilized
for
parking,
but
I
think
it.
The
geographic
definition
offers
a
unique
opportunity
to
try
and
increase
the
student
housing
options
without
affecting
the
majority
of
the
rest
of
the
city.
The
other
thing
we've
been
advocating
for
is
an
alternative
standard
for
affordable,
rent
full
time.
Students
don't
have
the
same
income
situations
that
the
rest
of
the
area
does
we're
very
limited
and
how
much
we
can
work
and
still
go
to
school,
we're
taking
out
an
increased
amount
of
debt.
One
thing
that's
been
proposed
with
the
council.
AD
Members
is
indexing
that,
towards
the
minimum
wage
so
saying
a
student
shouldn't
necessarily
have
to
work
more
than
ten
hours
a
week
say
to
afford
the
affordable
to
afford
the
reduced
rent
so
indexing
at
something
like
that
that
is
accessible
for
students.
You
can
easily
apply
it
to
the
per
bed
leases
that
are
set
up
within
a
lot
of
the
student
developments
and
increase
those
options.
The
other
question
we've
gotten
is
why
this
should
be
a
priority
for
the
city.
AD
We're
not
saying
the
city
of
Minneapolis
is
responsible
for
handing
handling
all
of
the
student
college.
Affordability
crisis.
That's
going
on
right
now.
This
is
a
step
towards
that
and
step
towards
addressing
that
from
all
of
these
different
angles.
We
are
also
calling
upon
the
University
of
Minnesota
the
foundation
real
estate
office,
different
options
that
could
also
be
providing
student,
affordability
and
those
alternative
options.
We're
saying
this
is
instep.
AD
We're
saying
that
if
you're
trying
to
create
mixed
income
housing
and
these
private
developments
throughout
the
city,
the
students
should
also
be
included
and
they're
an
accessible
way,
and
there
are
a
few
other
students.
Today,
that'll
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
that
affordability
and
housing
experience
and
why
this
is
a
little
bit
different
than
the
rest
of
the
city
and
why
this
should
be
a
priority.
AE
Hello,
everyone,
my
name,
is
Brian
Rosa's,
I
use
pronouns
like
he
him
and
a
them
I'm
here
today,
because
I
am
with
Rebecca
and
just
many
of
the
other
students
here.
I
think
that
the
exclusionary
zoning
policy
is
a
really
great
idea
and
I'm
really
glad
that
we
all
share
the
same
value
of
trying
to
create
more
affordable
housing,
but
I
definitely
think
and
agreement
with
Rebecca
that
more
student
voices
need
to
be
heard.
Our
experiences
are
very
different
from
other
people
in
the
cities.
Unfortunately,
I
was
a
student
over
at
the
University
of
Minnesota.
AE
I
would
sometimes
have
to
decipher
where
there
I
wanted
to
get
groceries
for
one
week
or
pay
my
rent
and
that's
the
case
for
a
lot
of
University
of
Minnesota
students,
especially
in
the
undergrad
Department.
So
a
lot
of
us
often
have
to
deal
with
the
debt
of
student
tuition,
groceries
and
any
other
bills
that
we
might
have
so
rent
for
us
is
kind
of
a
big
deal.
AE
Affordable
housing
is
a
big
deal
and
it
should
be
a
big
deal
for
everyone
who
lives
in
the
cities,
especially
developers
who
want
to
create
housing
in
the
areas
that
we
are
going
to
school
at
for
us.
We
can't
really
live
too
far
from
campus
because,
like
Rebecca
said
our
resources
are
there
our
health
resources,
our
emergency
resources,
are
all
there.
So
it's
really
crucial
for
us
to
have
affordable
units
around
our
area
and
unfortunately,
there
are
so
many
units
at
the
University
of
Minnesota.
AE
If
you
go
to
Stadium
village,
there's
a
million
apartments
there,
but
there
are
so
many
vacant
units
there,
because
no
one
can
afford
them
and
that's
the
case
for
a
lot
of
housing
over
at
the
University
of
Minnesota.
So
it's
definitely
something
to
consider
and
it's
definitely
something
to
look
at
and
I
just
hope
and
and
yeah
I'm,
just
hopeful
that
you
continue
to
work
with
students,
especially
in
the
undergrad
department,
at
the
University
of
Minnesota
and
other
surrounding
schools,
around
zoning
issues
and
housing
issues.
Thank
you.
AF
Someone
to
go
back
to
at
the
end
of
a
long
day
was
important
and
the
current
recommendations
and
the
policy
only
touch
on
about
3.3
percent
of
students
who
are
eligible
for
affordable
housing
and
I.
Ask
that
everyone
appeared
thinks
about
extending
that
eligibility
to
students
who
are
pell
eligible.
That
would
increase
the
number
of
students
to
about
20%
of
the
undergrads
in
this
area
and.
AF
Something
that
gosh
sorry,
my
brain
cells
are
not
working
yeah
and,
having
so
I,
think
having
this
for
students
is
like
it's
a
basic
necessity
and
I
urge
everybody
to
really
think
about
this
and
think
about
this
and
think
about
the
number
of
folks
that
are
gonna,
be
affected
by
this
policy
and
really
the
benefits
that
it
has
for
them
and
how
affordable
housing
and
really
meets
a
need.
That
is
very
often
overlooked,
as
actually
when
it
comes
to
our
student
populations.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
AG
Hi,
my
name
is
Sam
Karmakar
I'm,
with
the
Minnesota
Student
Association
I
use,
pronounced
I
key
him
in
his
and
I
live
at
1401.
Sixth
Street
southeast,
so
I
want
to
just
take
a
step
back
for
a
minute
and
talk
more
about
the
continually
rising
cost
of
college.
More
broadly.
Obviously,
tuition
is
something
that
continues
to
rise
and
does
play
a
major
role
in
students
to
build
a
ability
to
afford
the
cost
of
college.
AG
We
know
that
housing
around
the
University
of
Minnesota
has
become
more
and
more
unaffordable
over
the
years,
and
we
know
that
this
is
something
that
has
disproportionately
impacted,
lower-income
students
and
has
had
the
effect
of
pushing
them
out
of
our
university
community
and
making
a
space
where
college
is
more
inaccessible
and
I.
Think
the
City
Council,
in
addition
to
federal
and
state
actors,
can
play
a
really
important
role
in
making
sure
that
we
start
to
bring
down
some
of
those
costs,
and
we
do
start
to
tackle
this
college
affordability.
Crisis.
AG
That
is
around
the
university
area,
but
don't
necessarily
fall
into
these
very
strict
federal
definition
requirements
and
so
by
using
something
like
Pell
eligibility
to
determine
what
are
not
a
student
qualifies.
We
can
open
up
these
a
portable
units
to
about
20%
of
the
undergraduate
population
or
10%
of
the
overall
student
population,
and
that
would
have
the
really
great
effect
of
making
sure
that
students
who
really
need
access
to
these
affordable
units
are
able
to
get
it
in.
AG
So
I
really
would
urge
all
the
members
of
this
commission,
as
well
as
members
of
the
City
Council,
to
support
the
recommend.
The
recommended
changes
to
the
inclusionary
zoning
policy
and,
again
I,
really
think
that
this
is
a
really
important
step
that
we
can
take
sure
on
the
local
level
to
make
sure
that
we
are
creating
an
environment
where
higher
education
is
more
accessible
to
folks
from
all
different
sorts
of
backgrounds,
which
I
think
is
a
good
thing
for
our
city.
It's
a
good
thing,
we're
a
state,
it's
a
good
thing
for
our
communities.
AG
AH
Although
Minneapolis
is
thriving,
the
cost
is
what's
pushing.
Students
live
outside
of
the
city.
If
the
city
wants
to
retain
young
people
and
make
sure
that
they
can
thrive
in
the
community,
we
have
to
make
sure
the
policies
of
effect
reflect
the
will
of
the
constituents.
I
hope
that
you
keep
this
in
mind
when
you're
coming
to
your
decision.
Thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
listen
to
me.
Thank
you
so
much.
Anybody.
AI
My
name
is
Sean
Lim,
my
pronouns
are
Hume.
His
my
address
is
currently
850
Charles,
Avenue
and
I'm.
Currently
an
undergraduate
student
at
the
University
of
Minnesota
Twin
Cities,
as
well
as
a
organizer
for
the
Minnesota
youth,
collective,
a
statewide,
nonpartisan
nonprofit,
although
my
classes
take
place
in
Minneapolis
and
in
Falcon
Heights
and
most
of
my
classmates
live
on
or
around
campus
I
am
simply
not
able
to
pay
rent
on
campus.
My
parents
are
both
both
landlords
and
property
managers
in
the
Twin
Cities.
AI
Paul
I
wasn't
able
to
find
any
affordable
housing
last
year
on
campus,
neither
and
I
wasn't
able
to
find
any
affordable
housing
on
campus
this
year
either,
and
if
it
weren't
for
the
Green
Line
I
would
not
be
able
to
go
to
classes
on
a
daily
basis,
countless
others
aren't
able
to
find
affordable
housing
as
well.
So
this
is
why
we
must
ensure
that
inclusionary
zoning,
as
others
have
stated,
reflects
that
college
students
living
here
in
Minneapolis
need
affordable
housing
right
now.
AI
Only
3
percent
of
students
at
the
U
are
eligible,
and
we
should
expand
this
if
this
ordinance
and
pricing
were
indexed
with
measurements,
such
as
minimum
wage
individuals
who
rely
on
Pell
grants
would
be
at
least
twice
as
eligible
for
affordable
housing.
I
personally
make
more
than
minimum
wage
and
I
still
can't
afford
it.
So
this
is
why
this
is
necessary.
I
appreciate
all
the
work
that
you've
been
doing,
we'll
continue
to
do,
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank
you.
AJ
My
name
is
Lauren
Myers
I'm
a
little
bit
8:08
13th
Ave
South
East.
So
thank
you
for
I,
guess.
Opening
up
this
conversation
today
and
all
the
work
you've
been
doing
around
inclusionary
zoning.
We
really
appreciate
hearing
this
discourse
but
I'm
here
from
the
University
of
Minnesota
and
the
Minnesota
student
Association,
to
ask
you
guys
to
keep
considering
bringing
this
above
the
federal
levels
for
student,
affordability
and
student
inclusionary
zoning.
AJ
Students
have
a
lot
of
events.
They
have
classes
very
late
at
night
very
early
morning.
Commuting
is
really
hard.
It's
terrible
to
be
honest
and
in
the
especially
with
Minnesota
winters,
it
becomes
quite
unsafe
because
professors
are
not
willing
to
be
flexible
when
there's
icy
roads
and
students
can't
make
it
to
campus
safely
and
in
another
way
we're
setting
students
up
for
academic
failures
by
some
of
this
one,
affordable
housing
is
had
them
out.
We
are
asking
them
to
work.
AJ
Low-Income
students
have
to
work
so
much
more
and
that
disproportionately
affects
black
latin
x
and
female
students.
That
was
just
reports
released
in
report
from
georgetown
university
that
they're
having
to
work
a
lot
more
than
their
peers
and
actually
70
percent
of
students
that
are
full-time
are
working
at
least
part-time
to
help
afford
things
like
tuition
housing.
AJ
But
we
also
see
with
that
that
students
that
are
working
more
than
15
hours
a
week
like
many
of
these
students,
have
to
our
we're
seeing
huge
drop
in
their
grades.
So
students
were
working
below
15
hours
a
week
on
average
are
holding
about
a
B
average,
but
above
that
15
hours
a
week,
we're
seeing
a
C
average.
So
it's
a
huge
difference
and
that's
disproportionately
affecting
a
lot
of
low-income,
again,
black
latin
x
and
female
students.
So
thank
you.
A
AK
Hello,
my
name
is
Janet
I
use,
she/her,
pronouns
and
I
am
a
student
at
the
University
of
Minnesota
I
live
at
8:06.
Fourth
Street
southeast
I.
First
would
like
to
thank
you
all
for
considering
affordability
in
inclusionary
zoning
and
as
emphasized
as
others
who
spoke
before.
Students
need
affordable
housing
more
than
ever,
especially
given
that
the
University
of
Minnesota
is
accepting
more
students
compared
to
years
past
and
more
students
who
are
pell
eligible
than
compared
to
years.
Past.
AK
Students
from
all
over
the
state
country
and
world
come
to
the
city
of
Minneapolis,
for
their
studies
in
college
is
hard
enough
and
on
top
of
balancing
extracurriculars
and
a
job
being
able
to
afford
to
keep
a
roof
under
their
head
is
the
bare
minimum.
Within
the
last
several
years,
students
have
been
showing
up
at
the
table,
knocking
doors,
registering
others
to
vote
and
showing
up
to
the
polls
and
historic
numbers.
AK
Last
year
alone,
almost
60%
of
the
students
at
the
University
voted
in
the
midterm
elections,
which
is
a
136
increase
from
the
2014
election,
and
this
number
is
only
expected
to
grow
within
the
next
several
years.
The
point
is,
students
are
getting
more
engaged
in
the
political
system
working
to
create
the
change
they
want
to
see,
as
well
as
watching
legislators
closely.
That
is
why
students
are
here
sharing
their
perspectives
here
today.
At
this
hearing
having
a
roof
over,
our
heads
is
not
a
privilege.
It's
a
fundamental
human
right.
AK
We
should
be
concerned
about
the
next
course
paper
exam,
not
if
we
can
afford
rent
the
next
month.
Please
consider
extending
illusionary
zoning
requirements
to
Pell
eligible
students
or
consider
an
alternative
index
to
mark
affordability,
to
make
sure
that
housing
in
Minneapolis
is
accessible
to
as
many
students
as
possible.
Thank
you
thank.
AL
My
name
is
James
Farnsworth.
They
live
at
two
to
nine
eighth
Avenue
southeast
on
the
Marci
Holmes
neighborhood,
with
here
with
the
Minnesota
Student
Association
I'm.
Also
one
of
the
student
representatives
on
the
Marci
Holmes
Neighborhood
Association
board,
I.
Think
a
lot
of
my
student
colleagues
have
said
it
really
well
and
I
won't
repeat,
what's
been
said
so
far,
but
wanted
to
add
an
example
of
where
student
affordability
is
really
working
in
intersection
with
developers.
AL
So,
as
you
probably
heard
right
now,
students
have
been
really
involved
in
the
conversation
both
in
MacDonald's
development
in
Dinkytown
and
where
we've
seen
something
positive
happening,
is
seen,
see
a
ventures.
The
developers
they're
working
to
establish
student
affordability
levels
within
that
specific
development.
So
for
us,
just
the
one
thing
I
wanted
to
add
to
this
conversation
is
seen
that
developers
have
partake
in
that
conversation
with
us
on
this
topic
of
student
affordability
was
really
promising
to
us
and
thank
you
for
I'm,
considering
students
as
you
consider
this
as
well.
Thank.
A
AM
Look
at
1078,
18th,
Avenue
I
am
also
here
speaking
as
a
Pell
grant
recipient
myself,
and
what
I
wanted
to
say
is
that
I'm
from
Minnesota
I've
lived
here,
my
whole
life
and
when
I
came
to
college
I
looked
all
over
I,
like
in
the
south
and
out
east
in
New
York
I,
even
looked
at
Madison
Iowa
to
find
the
place
that
I
wanted
to
study
and
be
a
community
member
at
but
I
chose
Minneapolis
right,
I
had
other
options,
but
I
wanted
to
come
here
and
I
love.
It
here.
AM
I'm
a
proud
member
of
the
community,
but
I
also
want
to
say
that
to
be
a
member
of
the
Minneapolis
community
as
a
student,
it
costs
a
lot.
I
wanted
to
go
back
to
the
point
that
lore
made
about
academic
success.
Last
I
lived
in
an
apartment
in
Dinkytown.
The
rent
was
about
650
a
month
for
a
shared
bedroom
and
a
two-bedroom
two-bathroom
apartment,
which
seems
really
average
in
terms
of
dinky
town
apartments,
but
I'm
also
poli-sci
student,
which
means
we
work
on
paid
internships
between
the
unpaid
internship.
AM
That
I
was
working
as
well
as
the
diner
job
that
I
needed
to
make
ends
meet
in
terms
of
groceries
and
rent.
I
was
working
30
hours
a
week,
while
taking
classes
and
doing
extracurricular
activities,
which
makes
succeeding
academically
a
lot
harder
and
so
I
think
that
it's
really
important
that
we
expand
it
to
make
Pell
Grant
recipients
eligible
for
this
and
I.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration.
AM
A
N
N
Speak
to
my
motion,
I
am
supportive
of
this
at
first
I
wanted
to
thank
the
staff
for
all
the
work
that
they
put
into
this
I
know
this
was
a
very
long
and
deliberative
process.
I
do
have
some
reservations,
though
I
think.
Certainly
this
is
a
policy
that
can
really
alter
the
housing
market
and
certainly
we'll
see
some
changes
moving
forward.
I
do
think
inclusionary.
Zoning
is
only
part
of
the
equation
to
addressing
our
affordable
housing
issues
and
certainly
would
encourage
our
City
Council
representatives
to
provide
a
robust
funding
level
to
our
subsidy
programs.
N
I
think
adding
to
the
supply
of
income
restricted
housing
is
really
going
to
be.
What
will
do
the
most
to
address
that,
but
I
do
think
this
is
still
part
of
the
equation,
so
it's
it's
still
important
and
I
can
sympathize
with
some
of
the
testifiers
who
spoke
to
the
need
to
add
market
rate
housing
I
do
think
that
adding
to
the
supply
of
market
rate
housing
in
the
long
term
well
address
affordability
issues
in
the
city.
N
I
do
think,
though
there
are
developers
who
are
willing
to
work
with
this
this
framework,
certainly
just
today,
as
a
staff
noted,
we
saw
a
project
coming
through
the
approval
process
that
was
subject
to
the
interim
requirements
and
and
did
not
otherwise
include
subsidy
for
those
affordable
units.
I
do
think
the
housing
market
is
always
evolving.
N
So
if
there
are
components
of
this
that
aren't
working
well
at
some
point,
the
city
can
always
change
so
I
and
I
also
think
because
this
policy
provides
for
some
alternatives,
such
as
the
in
Luffy,
the
it's
it's
kind
of
a
multi-faceted
approach
and
instead
of
simply
a
a
regulatory
framework,
so
I
did
want
to
address.
The
student
issue
wanted
to
thank
the
students
who
testified
today.
I
know
we
normally
don't
hear
from
a
lot
of
students
here,
and
there
are
residents
of
Minneapolis
just
like
everyone
else.
N
So
it's
great
to
hear
from
them
I
would
encourage.
Is
this
policy
goes
through
the
council
approval
process
that
the
council
look
at
some
alternatives
for
addressing
those
issues?
I
know
it's
hard
to
be
specific
and
in
this
meeting
to
hash
all
that
out,
but
I
would
certainly
be
open
to
different
requirements
in
a
certain
geographic
area
or
looking
at
different
ways
of
characterizing
the
affordability
requirement
for
students,
because,
as
as
noted,
the
federal
requirements
for
eligibility
don't
really
allow
for
very
many
full-time
students.
N
C
C
I
do
have
concerns
about
a
kind
of
the
bulk
and
intent
of
this
kind
of
being
removed
from
the
Planning
Commission
by
through
a
you
know,
housing
pal,
unified
housing
policy,
I
guess
I
feel
as
though
there's
some
value
to
not
just
engaging
us
in
terms
of
talking
at
us,
but
actually
taking
our
feedback
and
incorporating
it
in
in
a
lot
broader
way
in
this
policy.
So
I
guess
I
have
reservations
just
on
that
level.
My
second
thing
is
a
in
regard
to
the
students
who
testified
here
tonight.
C
C
C
C
Crisis
we'd,
as
we
keep
hearing
one
piece
of
a
puzzle
but
I
guess
I
thought
that
the
larger
intent
behind
inclusionary
zoning
was
to
stop
concentrating
already
in
certain
areas
and
to
actually
ensure
that
people
lived
by
people
who
weren't
just
like
them,
I
think
there's
a
benefit
to
society
as
a
whole.
That
way,
and
particularly
it
comes
to
income
levels,
I
think
people
should
be
able
to
live
throughout
the
city,
not
just
in
certain
designated
areas.
C
Pockets
of
affordability,
I
think
that
when
people
get
to
know
each
other,
they
they
form
stronger
bonds,
and
you
can't
really
do
that
if
we
segregate
everyone
to
different
little
buildings
throughout
our
city,
so
I
guess
I
have
a
problem
with
the
off-site
development
as
an
option.
I
know
it's
not
going
to
change,
but
I
I
need
to
voice
it
again
anyway,
I
whether
it's
with
an
I
half-mile
or
even
if
you
can
make
it
political
and
allow
it
to
be
even
farther
through
a
council
process,
which
I
think
is
a
big
huge
loophole.
C
C
We
don't
just
voiced
people
that
we
we
don't
look
like
or
who
are
a
different
income
class
elsewhere.
So
on
those
philosophical
points,
because
that's
what
my
understanding
of
the
intent
of
this
was
I
object
to
these
things,
I
understand
that
there's
a
give-and-take
that
developers
have
to
have
a
carrot
and
a
way
out,
because
they
have
to
do
certain
acrobatics
too,
but
I
guess
that
again
goes
to
the
intent.
If
the
intent
was
just
to
create
a
quantity
of
units
and
I
guess,
there's
that's
one
way
of
doing
it.
C
So
on
that
note,
I
guess
I
will
say
that
I
am
I'm
very
much
encouraged
by
the
willingness
to
explore
inclusionary
zoning
I'm,
very
hesitant.
As
to
these,
the
route
we've
chosen
to
go
and
I
am
even
more
concerned
that
we
are
kind
of
really
removed
from
the
discussion
going
forward
other
than
to
have
a
report
back
to
us.
So
with
that,
I'll
close
my
comments,
good.
A
AN
You
president
I
just
wanted
to
put
this
amendment
in
a
little
bit
of
context.
This
amendment
clearly
has
financial
impacts
on
development
moving
forward
the
seas
also
going
through
a
massive
obsolete
in
the
near
future.
Those
financial
impacts
are
unknown,
but
clearly
going
to
go
in
the
opposite
direction
of
this
amendment.
So
you
know,
there's
going
to
be
some
new
equilibrium
having
to
be
reached
here,
as
as
development
was
forward
in
the
city
in
the
next
10
years.
I'm
confident
the
City
Council
will
monitor
this
and
find
that
equilibrium.
M
If
anything,
this
is
a
proposal
that
anticipates
evolution
and
that's
what's
going
to
make
it
successful,
we
will
track
the
numbers,
we'll
hear
about
the
numbers
and
we
will
adjust
as
necessary.
We
are
not
in
the
business
of
tanking
development
in
our
community
and
I.
Don't
believe
that
this
will
I
don't
believe
the
sky
is
falling.
I
think
we
will
adjust
if
we
even
get
close
to
that
and
I
would
say
that
I,
as
in
contrast
to
statements
earlier
I,
appreciate
the
compliance
alternatives.
AO
You
I
am
I
also
want
to
thank
staff
for
working
on
this
I'm
glad
we're
having
this
conversation
and
my
other
hat,
that
I
know.
The
Minneapolis
school
district
is
working
on
a
comprehensive
district
design,
hoping
to
increase
the
integration
and
achievement
of
our
students
in
all
our
schools,
and
for
that
the
Minneapolis
school
board
recently
passed
a
resolution
discussing
our
values
on
how
the
staff
could
go
about
developing.
AO
You
know,
schools
that
were
working
for
our
students,
but
part
of
the
resolution
also
called
on
our
partners
working
with
our
partners
to
address
some
of
the
external
factors
that
impact
our
students
lives
and
their
achievement
in
schools
and
one
of
those
the
first
one
actually
was
providing
safe,
affordable
and
stable
housing
opportunities
throughout
the
city,
something
that
the
market
on
its
own
has
not
been
able
to
do
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
the
right
way,
but
I'm
glad
we're
having
this
discussion,
and
so
so.
Thank
you.
AP
Just
a
couple
of
things
to
add
again,
turnout
to
repeat
what's
been
said:
I
have
mentioned
it
a
couple
of
meetings,
kind
of
the
same
thing,
commissioner
Coleman
said
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
the
sky
is
falling,
but
I
I
urge.
It
looks
in
here
like
there's
a
mandatory
review
at
18
months
and
then
some
afterwards
I
think
you
know
this
body
would
probably
benefit
from
some
more
an
additional
review
on
it.
I'm,
especially
sensitive
to
the
kind
of
the
practical
concerns
that
seem
real.
That
Mister
men
raised
I
mean
the
one
about.
AP
Why
is
it
units
permitted,
but
not
build
things
like
this
that
this?
This
can't
possibly
foresee
all
of
those
kinds
of
things
that
the
people
in
the
field
can
and
other
things,
so
I'm
hopeful
that
everybody
will
be
able
to
work
together
on
that,
as
everybody
else
has
said,
with
respect
to
the
student
issues,
it's
great
to
see
the
young
people
here
and
engaged
I
do,
however,
see
it
a
little
bit
differently.
AP
People
are
talking
about
what
their
understanding
the
intent
of
this
is.
My
understanding
of
it
primarily
is
that
it's
meant
to
create
long
term,
affordable
housing
for
kind
of
long-term
residents,
who
you
know,
find
themselves
without
these
things
or
the
people
who
might
be
getting
displaced
by
some
of
this
other
development.
We
heard
about
that
earlier
tonight,
and
that's
not
that
I'm
unsympathetic
to
the
to
the
student
issue.
I
have
two
college
students
myself,
but
as
this
moves
forward,
I
guess
I
would
ask.
Maybe
for
that
to
be
a
separate
conversation.
AP
I
see
those
things,
that's
really
very
different,
and
while
there
is
some
room
in
here
for
students,
I
mean
what
about
what
about
the
student
who
wants
to
live
in
an
apartment
in
Northeast
but
goes
to
school
in
Brooklyn
Park
at
Hennepin.
Tech
are
something
like
that.
So
I
would
think
that
before
I
mean
these
are
wonderful
things
to
talk
about,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
that
kind
of
policy
needs
a
lot
more
work.
O
O
I
think
we're
gonna
learn
a
lot
more
in
the
18
months
that
this
starts
to
go
on
and
we'll
be
able
to
update
kind
of
kind
of
get
that
equilibrium,
as
he
talked
about
also
just
kind
of
want
to
add
that
this
is
something
you
don't
only
have
to
come
to
plan.
You
can
go
to
Planning
Commission
or
zoning
and
planning
anytime,
and
this
is
what
people
are
calling
for.
They
are
calling
for
some
way
for
the
city
to
address
affordability,
and
this
is
just
one
part.
O
This
is
just
one
thing,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
that
this
is
front
and
center
that
we're
listening
to
the
city
when
they're
saying
we
need
to
have
affordable
housing
that
this
needs
to
be
a
part
really
excited
to
see.
You
know
to
have
this
be
one
part
of
it
and
make
sure
that
it
works
with
all
the
other
things
that
the
city's
like
housing,
who
works
on
work,
making
sure
this
works
with
that
and
that
I
see
works
with
those
other
policies
and
again
I'm.
A
Questionnaires
any
other
comments,
a
couple
thoughts
as
well.
You
know
I
think
the
Commissioner
is
I
agree
with
all
my
colleagues
on
this
and
that
it's
really
important
for
us
to
be
iterative
in
our
approach
to
policy
development
and,
as
it
I
think,
I've
stated
before.
Well,
you
know
one
thing
that
I
still
finds
are
odd
about.
A
It
just
seems
very
strange
to
have
this
number
of
units,
whether
it's
permanent
or
constructed
or
whatever,
and
that
also
would
allow
us
to
do
some
of
that
kind
of
iterative
analysis
in
the
process
of
seeing
it
come
forward.
So
we'd
see
you
know
well,
four
percent
worked
fine
and
people
developed
a
four
percent
and
we
hit
six
percent
and
then
Planning
Commission
meetings
get
really
short
and
and
then
maybe
we'd
all
just
keep
it
at
6%.
A
But
but
that
just
seems
to
me
a
more
sort
of
logical
way
of
going
about
this,
and
we
had
some
discussion
about
that.
Our
community
the
whole
as
well
I,
think
I,
hear
Commissioner
Swezey
points
about
student
housing
as
having
sort
of
more
dynamics
than
the
University
of
Minnesota
I.
Think
that's
a
great
point.
A
This
is
an
important
time
to
do
this,
because
once
land
transfers
at
those
higher
values,
then
you
know,
then
we're
asking
landowners,
take
a
really
substantial
loss
and
that
will
be
a
detriment
to
development
in
the
city.
So
getting
the
stuff
on
board
early
is
really
important
so
that
we
can
try
to
kind
of
move
with
Marquette
on
both
adding
density
and
seeing
some
of
these
other
benefits.
So
unless
there
are
other
comments
from
commissioners,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
I
am
a
returning,
520
and
525
and
recommending
530
and
535
clerk.
A
AQ
Quick
update,
we
did
have
an
appeal
of
the
Planning
Commission
decision
to
deny
the
Starbucks
drive-thru
at
46
in
Hiawatha
that
went
to
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
for
a
public
hearing
last
Thursday
and
it
was
continued
one
cycle
to
the
December
5th
meeting
to
give
the
applicants
a
little
bit
more
time
to
talk
things
through
with
Public
Works
on
the
access
issues.
So
I'll
report
back
after
that
very.