►
From YouTube: February 11, 2019 City Planning Commission
Description
Minneapolis City Planning Commission Meeting
A
Good
afternoon,
I
will
call
the
the
February
11th
meeting
in
the
Minneapolis
City
Planning
Commission.
My
name
is
Matt
Brown
I
serve
as
president
of
the
Commission
I'm
joined
today
by
commissioners
from
agree,
know:
Schrader,
Lukey,
Pierce,
Weezy
and
Rockwell.
Our
first
item
business
is
to
approve
the
actions
from
the
January
28th
meeting.
Commissioners
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
those
actions.
A
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor.
That
motion
carries
next.
We
will
organize
the
agenda.
You
can
find
hard
copies
of
the
agenda
and
the
hallway
will
determine
which
items
will
be
continued
to
another
meeting
which
items
will
be
considered
on
consent
in
which
we
will
discuss
starting
at
the
top
item.
Number
one
is
the
Ramsey
Street
northeast
vacation
vacation.
That
item
will
be
continued
to
the
March
11th
meeting.
A
So
if
anyone
is
here
for
that,
it
will
be
considered
on
March
11th
item
2
is
a
community
solar
garden
at
101,
north
9th
Street
conditional
use
permit
for
a
solar
energy
system.
So
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
2,
seeing
no
one
will
put
that
on
consent.
Item
3
is
the
Wyndham
school
edition
at
5821
Wentworth
Avenue
several
applications
for
a
building
edition
of
that
location
is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
3c?
A
No
one
will
put
that
on
consent.
Item
4
is
2915
du
Pont
Avenue
1006,
Westlake
Street
and
2900
Colfax
Avenue
South
several
applications
for
a
new
multi-family
building
at
that
location.
Anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendation
on
item
4
I
see
no
one
will
put
item
4
and
consent.
A
Moving
along
item
5
is
a
30
21
East
Calhoun
Parkway
30
17
30
21
and
35
25
East
Calhoun
Parkway.
Several
applications
for
a
new
residential
building.
That
item
will
be
continued
to
the
February
25th
meeting.
If
anyone
is
here
for
that
it'll
be
considered
on
February
25th
in
two
weeks
item
six
is
Malcolm
Yards
4:45
Southeast
4:19
through
504
29th
Avenue,
southeast
and
501
30th
Avenue
southeast
several
applications
for
a
mixed-use
project
at
that
location.
We'll
discuss
item
six.
A
C
A
D
A
We
have
a
motion
finding
those
land
sales
consistent
with
the
Comprehensive
Plan.
Is
there
a
second?
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor,
and
that
motion
carries
next
may
have
a
motion
to
continue
item
1
to
the
March
11th
meeting.
You
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor.
That
motion
carries
next.
May
I
have
a
motion
to
continue
item
5
to
the
February
25th
meeting
and
we
have
a
motion
in
a
second
all
in
favor
and
that
motion
carries
next.
A
We
will
move
on
to
our
public
hearings
and,
at
this
time,
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
for
the
items
on
the
consent
agenda.
Again,
that
is
items
2,
3
&
4.
So
anyone
wishing
to
speak
on
any
of
those
items
see
no
one.
I
will
close.
The
public
hearing
and
commissioners
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
consent
agenda.
E
A
A
motion
and
a
second
all
in
favor
and
that
motion
carries
next
we'll
move
on
to
our
one
item
for
discussion,
and
that
is
item.
Six
malcom
yards
now
mention
that
I
am
recusing
myself
from
that
item,
since
my
spouse's
employer
had
some
involvement
in
that
project,
so
I
will
turn
things
over
to
vice.
President
Luke
appear
to
lead
that
discussion.
Thank.
F
So
for
Malcolm
yards
phase,
1
planning
development,
just
as
you
we've
seen
this
project
twice
that
at
Planning
Commission
kamay
the
whole
meeting
for
design
review,
but
project
site
is
just
north
of
the
University
of
Minnesota
transit
way
and
next
to
this
early
destination.
Brewpub
and
as
you're
aware
in
2018,
a
comprehensive
plan.
Amendment
was
approved
to
rege
I'd
this
site,
the
future
land
use
from
industrial
to
transition
to
to
transitional
industrial,
which
allows
for
a
much
more
more
flexibility
in
terms
of
land
uses,
including
residential
and
commercial.
F
Images
of
existing
conditions
of
the
project
site
and
the
applicants
proposed
site
plan
with
three
buildings.
On
the
west
side,
the
conversion
of
the
Harris
machine
Machinery
shop,
to
a
food
hall
and
on
the
southern
portion
of
the
site
is
a
seventh
storey.
Mixed-Use
building
with
approximately
32,000
square
feet
of
commercial
space
and
143
residential
units
in
the
North
event
is
142
unit.
Affordable,
housing
project
staff
appreciates
a
number
of
elements
of
the
project,
an
extension
of
30th
Avenue
house
that
would
improve
the
grid
system
within
the
area.
F
The
affordable
housing
portion
of
the
project,
the
additional
goods
and
services
will
be
brought
by
that
large
commercial
use
and
improved
connectivity
in
the
area.
I
also
know
for
pedestrians
and
for
bicyclists
and
throughout
the
site
plan
they
do
have
approximately
60
65
bike
parking
spaces
so
trying
to
encourage
alter
modes
of
transportation.
I
will
talk
to
the
public
comments
section
in
just
a
minute,
because
there's
a
yeah
a
letter
from
the
University
of
Minnesota
as
an
addendum
and
then
within
the
public
within
the
packet.
F
There
was
a
large
letter
from
the
University
of
Minnesota,
so
I
can
touch
on
that.
Briefly
in
a
second
but
I
do
want
to
talk
about
about
the
conditions
of
approval,
two
things:
an
application,
F
that
be
in
the
preliminary
plan,
application
staff
me
I
incorrectly
put
a
condition
of
approval
about
all
site.
F
So
just
that
percentage
of
exterior
material
and
I
can
show
you
specifically
what
I'm
talking
about
the
Harris
Machinery
shop
conversion
to
the
food
hall.
This
is
building
a
on
the
plan
building.
B
is
the
mixed-use
building
and
here's
some
renderings
of
the
affordable
housing
project
that
does
exceed
the
maximum
cement
board.
Siding
and
I
have
that
oops
I
think
I
have
the
breakout
here
of
exceeding
it
on
three
of
the
four
elevations.
So
that's
the
one
condition
of
approval
I
believe
the
applicant
objects
to.
F
Will
let
the
applicant
speak
to
this
in
a
minute,
but
within
the
addendum
packet
is
a
letter
from
from
Carol
Lansing
talking
about
what
the
applicant
is
willing
to
commit
to.
This
would
be
an
additional.
This
would
be
a
possible
additional
condition
of
approval
and
in
order
to
extend
a
30th,
Avenue
southeast
public
street
crossing
of
the
university
transit
way.
F
The
applicant
shell,
in
conjunction
with
the
Department
Public
Works,
and
the
University
of
Minnesota,
implement
installation
of
traffic
signal
controls
at
the
intersection
of
the
transit
way,
with
both
extended
30th
Avenue
and
at
the
existing
Milken
Avenue
crossing.
The
traffic
signal
control
study,
designed
based
on
the
recommendations
of
the
traffic
signal
signal
analysis
prepared
by
Kim
Lee
horn,
subject
to
the
final
approval
of
the
Department
of
Public
Works.
F
This
one
last
comment:
there's
a
lot
of
comments
within
that
addendum
letter
from
the
University
of
Minnesota
that
I
in
communicating
with
Public
Works
that
are
that
will
be
addressed
with
through
the
preliminary
development
review
process
separate
from
the
land
use
process.
And/Or
are
taking
place
already,
so
we
feel
staff
feels
that
a
lot
of
those
comments
are
outside
of
the
realm
of
of
this
decision.
So
I'm
happy
to
answer
questions
you
may
have
does.
C
F
F
That
is
something
that
I
I
know
that
needs
to
be
worked
out
between
the
developer
and
the
university,
but
in
terms
of
where
equipment
is
placed
on
site
and
respecting
the
university
property
lines,
all
those
elements
is
one
one
example
that
I
see
as
the
applicant
needing
to
work
with
Public,
Works
and
University
of
Minnesota
in
a
way
that's
through
permitting
process
and
not
through
the
land
use
entitlement
process.
The
building
permitting
process
specifically
I
know.
C
F
I
commissioned
councilmember
straighter
I
with
we
really
do
defer
to
the
to
our
public
works.
Colleagues
in
in
large
detail
on
Sturm
wadding
stormwater
requirements.
We
do
touch
that
on
that
in
a
number
generally
in
the
land
use
applications,
but
that
expertise
falls
in
that
area
so
and
I
also
know
and
I
know.
The
applicant
could
talk
about
this
more
of
some
elements
being
in
flux
in
trying
to
work
with
the
watershed
district
in
the
area
in
in
having
an
innovative
system
in
place.
C
F
D
G
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
John
Wall
and
with
the
wall
companies
the
developer
for
this
Malcolm
Yards
project.
In
this
first
phase,
we
brought
to
you
today
actually
brought
to
you
several
times,
I
think
with
cow
and
and
again
here
today.
First
of
all,
I'd
like
to
thank
Aaron
and
all
the
and
all
the
hard
work
he's
had
to
go
through
for
this
kind
of
complicated
project
and
I'm
also
happy
to
note
that
really,
the
only
issue
is
whether
or
not
we
have
too
many
mature,
too
much
concrete
exterior
panel
I'm.
G
Sorry
on
the
outside
of
the
affordable
building
and
I
realize
that's
a
little
bit
of
a
stretch.
We
use
it
on
a
lot
of
our
projects.
It's
a
quality.
You
know
sturdy
product.
It
goes
on
well
in
the
winter.
As
far
as
the
timing
goes
and
I'd
like
to
I'd
like
to
have
you
consider
not
making
that
a
requirement
for
this?
The
difference
for
us
on
this
project
is
about
$300,000
worth
of
exterior
material.
G
I
mean
we
can
do
that,
but
it
means
you
know,
bringing
down
the
costs,
the
interior
materials
where
other
people
live
and,
quite
frankly,
we
kind
of
hate
to
do
that.
We
really
take
pride
in
the
project,
so
we
developed
this
exterior
material
is
a
quality
product,
and
so
I'd
like
to
have
you
consider
striking
that
as
a
requirement
for
the
approval,
condition,
condition
of
April
acutely
and
other
than
that
I'm
happy
to
also
report.
G
We've
had
a
really
good
working
relationship
so
far
with
the
University
of
Minnesota
and
the
city
of
Minneapolis
on
this
transit
way
crossing
deal
as
Erin
mentioned.
I'm,
not
sure
this
is
really
something
that
needs
to
be
a
condition
of
approval
for
this
phase
of
the
development
we
are
working
with
public
works
and
what
the
we'll
continue
to
work
through
the
approvals
as
we
go
through
on
all
the
little
connections
and
and
that
kind
of
stuff,
so
I
think
I
think
we
you
know
anyway,
it's
going
well.
G
D
H
Members
of
the
commission,
my
name
is
Monique
McKenzie
I'm,
the
director
of
campus
planning
at
the
University
of
Minnesota.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
You
have
a
copy
of
our
letter
that
we
sent
dated
February
7th,
and
the
comments
you've
heard
today,
both
from
your
staff
and
from
the
applicant
are
essentially
true.
H
As
long
as
the
signals
are
actually
designed
and
installed
the
way
they've
been
modeled,
so
that
puts
the
onus
back
to
Public,
Works
and
I
recognize
your
purview
is
not
Public
Works,
but
in
terms
of
the
city's
investment
in
this
and
their
part
in
it,
I
think
that's
something
I
wanted
to
underscore
today.
Secondly,
though,
a
letter
of
agreement
about
traffic
certainly
helps
this
project
get
well
underway.
There
are
a
few
components
related
to
site
plan
here
that
have
not
been
fully
resolved.
H
From
the
university's
point
of
view,
your
staff
and
the
applicant
have
talked
about
permitting
in
terms
of
impacts
to
university
land
when
the
transit
way
is
crossed
both
for
purposes
of
temporary
use
construction,
but
also
for
permanent
signals.
We'll
take
care
of
that
because
we
have
not
seen
any
details
of
the
site
plan
and
the
site
plan
is
submitted
to
you
most
recently
in
your
packets
today,
as
well
as
a
site
plan
that
was
submitted
to
you
in
the
fall.
There
have
been
no
changes
in
that
site
plan.
H
H
There
are
a
series
of
complicated
issues
also
embedded
in
the
developments,
the
developers,
application
and
that
is
specifically
related
to
a
trail
crossing.
That's
mapped
on
the
site
plan.
It
shows
today
on
the
westerly
side
of
the
site.
The
trail
would
cross
the
transit
way,
not
at
a
signalized
crossings,
so
we'll
just
call
that
a
mid-block
crossing
for
the
sake
of
argument.
We
have
been
deeply
involved
in
the
park.
H
Board's
planning
for
the
ground
runs,
including
the
site,
and
the
park
board
has
not
indicated
any
support
for
that
mid-block
crossing
of
a
bike
trail
on
the
transit
way.
So
that's
something
I
also
want
to
bring
to
your
attention.
It's
a
site
plan
detail.
It
certainly
would
be
resolved
by
the
time.
Building
permits
are
pulled,
that
it
is
a
difference
from
what
you
see
today
and
I
wanted
to
highlight
that
I
think.
H
Finally,
I
just
want
to
take
the
opportunity
to
state
that
the
university
is
very
supportive
and
very
cognizant
of
the
fact
that
the
land
north
of
the
transit
way
will
develop.
This
is
the
first
parcel.
There
are
many
more
parcels
that
we
expect
will
change
in
their
character.
They
won't
be
as
dormant
or
non
trip
generating
at
the
same
time
the
university's
transit
way
service.
It
essentially
operates
like
a
bus,
rapid
transit
corridor
and
that's
critical
for
us,
because
it
connects
our
st.
Paul
students
to
our
Minneapolis
sites.
H
We
have
AB
dominance
of
classrooms
on
the
Minneapolis
site.
We
try
to
make
a
10
minute
travel
time
between
the
two
campuses.
Our
buses
need
to
travel
between
35
to
40
miles
an
hour.
They
travel
about
every
two
and
a
half
three
minutes,
one
in
each
direction,
so
why
the
signals
are
important.
We're
there
that's
great,
but
as
development
continues
as
pedestrians
seek
to
cross
the
transit
way
as
cyclists
seek
to
cross
the
transit
way.
H
Our
predominantly
concern
here
is
about
safety,
visibility
and
sight
lines
and
I
would
urge
you,
as
a
commission,
to
continue
to
keep
that
in
your
head,
pass
it
on
to
the
next
generation
of
commissioners
as
development
occurs.
Here,
it's
a
very
important
feature.
Unless
we
can
talk
about
taking
transit
way
completely
out
of
the
picture,
I
guess
I'll,
just
close
by
saying
I
think
we
have
a
clear
path
between
the
developer.
H
The
city
particularly
Public
Works
and
the
permitting
Offices
of
city
government
to
understand
how
we
can
get
these
final
details
resolved
to
achieve
the
developers
objectives
and
to
make
sure
the
universities
service
impacts,
particularly
transit,
are
not
impacted,
so
we
are,
we
anticipate
great
success.
We
appreciate
the
time
that
your
staff
has
spent
particularly
the
councilmembers
office
and
Public
Works
has
spent
to
coordinate
with
us.
We
hope
that
we
can
continue
to
do
that
going
forward
when
university
land
is
directly
impacted
by
a
proposal
made
from
an
adjacent
developer.
So
that's
all.
I
Hopefully
this
turns
into
a
question
by
the
end
of
it
that
I
I
guess
I'm,
not
I,
mean
I
read
to
the
letter
and
it
seems
like
you
all,
have
sorry
it
like
a
tremendous
amount
of
leverage
in
the
situation.
Could
you
sort
of
own
the
transit
way?
And,
and
so
you
know,
if
you
don't
want
them
to
use
the
land
for
construction
staging,
they
just
can't
use
the
land
for
construction.
Staging
right,
I
mean
most
of
these
seem
fairly
clear-cut,
but
if
they
don't
get
your
cooperation,
then
they
just
can't
do
it
right?
Well,.
H
H
So
if
we
need
to
make
different
arrangements
for
temporary
construction
may
not
ever
affect
site
plan
as
it's
built,
but
there
are
a
lot
of
details
not
resolved,
and
developers,
of
course,
have
a
timeline,
that's
very
urgent,
so
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
keep
working
together
to
get
those
details
resolved
and
what
the
scenario
you
suggest
is
certainly
a
possibility,
but
one
we
have
no
intention
of
pursuing
in
this.
We
are
really
back
up
against
a
ball.
Okay,
I
felt
that
was
a
pun,
sorry,
yeah.
I
D
E
K
Good
afternoon
Geoff
Ellard
with
the
walk
companies
as
well.
Yes,
we
have
a
memorandum
of
understanding
with
both
the
park
board
and
the
Mississippi
watershed
management
organization,
under
which
we
are
working
collaboratively
to
create
this
link
for
the
Grand
Rounds
through
our
site
and
it
and
a
signature
green
space
actually
just
to
the
west
of
this
parcel,
where
this
trail
will
actually
go
into
and
get
to
29th
across,
not
at
the
mid-block
we
own,
the
land
west
of
it.
K
K
B
K
I
I
guess
I
would
say
we
are
trying
to
work,
as
I
indicated,
with
mwo
on
a1
we're
doing
a
stormwater
system
for
this
phase,
which
will
then
hopefully
be
part
of
a
larger
district
system
in
this
area,
and
so
our
stormwater
requirements
are
we've
been
thinking
more
broadly
about
them.
I
understand
you're,
asking
more
of
a
landscape
question,
not
a
100
percent
stormwater
question,
but
we
are
trying
to
do
something
here.
That's
differ
and
you
know
we're
proposing
this
green
way
between
the
buildings
of
signature
green
space
park.
K
D
D
I'm,
just
in
your
testimony
earlier,
you
had
said
it
would
cost
$300,000
in
community.
It
just
really
quickly
was
that
true,
if
you
were
to
replace
it
with
a
substitute
material,
it
wouldn't
either
requirements,
or
does
that
just
a
few
resolved
okay,
so
that
isn't,
if
you
just
get
the
15%
lower
on
the
north,
16
more
on
the
south
and
37
Laura
nice
all.
E
D
J
D
B
J
D
J
D
E
D
E
B
E
I
J
D
B
One
to
add
this,
the
suggested
condition
here
in
order
to
extend
the
30th
Street
30th
Avenue
South
East
public
street
crossing
the
university
transit
way,
the
applicant
shell.
You
can
jump
him
with
the
Minneapolis
Department
of
Public
Works
in
University
of
Minnesota,
implement
installation
of
traffic
signal
controls
at
the
intersection
of
the
transit
way
and
30th
Avenue
southeast
and
at
the
transit
way,
and
the
existing
Malcolm
Avenue
crossing
traffic
signal
controls
shall
be
designated
design.
Based
on
the
recommendations
of
the
traffic
signal.