►
From YouTube: August 17, 2020 City Planning Commission
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
E
F
C
A
E
E
D
A
C
Zero
motion
carries
next
up
is
organizing
the
agenda
for
this
public
hearing.
I
will
walk
through
all
the
agenda
items
here.
C
If
there
is
anybody
on
the
phone
line
who
wishes
to
testify
on
any
of
these
items,
please
unmute
yourself
when
I
state
the
item
number
and
name,
and
let
us
know
that
you'd
like
to
testify
otherwise
the
otherwise.
The
agenda
item
will
be
placed
on
our
consent
agenda.
C
C
Hearing
no
one
place
item
number
five
on
consent.
Item
number:
six
is
the
gateway
mixed
use:
development
at
250,
nicolette,
mall
and
ward;
three
registered
registered
land
survey.
If
anyone
wishes
to
testify,
please
press
star
six
and
let
us
know.
C
C
C
Replace
item
number
seven
on
consent.
Item
number
eight
is
3908
abbott
avenue
south
in
ward
13..
If
you
would
like
to
testify
on
item
number,
eight,
please
unmute
yourself
by
hitting
star
six
and
let
us
know.
C
Very
good,
we
will
place
item
number
eight
on
our
discussion
agenda
item
number.
Nine
is
927
west
broadway
avenue
and
1838
dupont
avenue
north
in
ward
5..
Is
anybody
here
to
testify
on
item
number.
C
C
D
A
C
That
motion
carries
next
up.
Could
I
get
a
motion
to
approve
items?
Five,
six,
seven
and
nine
consistent
with
staff
recommendations
on
the
hold
on.
I
need
to
open
the
public
hearing
on
the
consent
agenda.
I
apologize
next.
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
on
the
consent
agenda
items,
five,
six,
seven
and
nine.
If
anyone
wishes
to
test
five,
please
press
star,
6.
C
D
A
C
That
motion
carries
next
because
I
have
a
motion
to
continue
item
number
10
to
the
september
8th
hearing.
E
I
move
to
continue
item
number
10
to
the
next
meeting.
E
C
I
have
a
motion
and
a
second
and
for
discussion.
I
know
that
commissioner
meyer
has
a
discussion.
D
Yes,
thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
comment
that
I
was
disappointed
to
see
this
continued,
because
I
feel
it
is
a
very
important
and
urgent
matter
for
us
to
get
these
shelters
fully
operational
so
that
we
can
have
space
available
to
more
people
who
are
currently
living
in
our
parks,
and
so
I'm
really
just
disappointed
to
see
it
delayed
for
three
weeks.
D
I
know
that
there's
nothing
that
we
can
do
about
it,
because
the
applicant
asked
for
it
to
be
continued,
but
I
just
wanted
to
express
that,
and
I
hope
that
that
that
we
do
approve
it
on
september
8th.
Thank
you.
C
A
C
That
motion
carries
now.
We
move
on
to
our
discussion
item.
First
up
is
item
number
83908,
abbott
avenue,
south
and
ward
13
staff,
because
lindsay
4
is
yours.
J
Okay
good
evening,
commissioners,
there
should
be
a
presentation
that
I
should
queue
up
here
shortly.
The
address
in
question
is
3908
abbott
avenue
south.
This
is
an
application
for
a
minor
subdivision
and
two
variances
one
of
the
variances
is
to
reduce
the
minimum
lot
area
requirements
in
the
r1
district
from
6
000
square
feet
to
5
350
square
feet
for
the
parcel
one
and
5
348
square
feet
for
parcel
two.
J
The
second
variance
is
to
reduce
the
minimum
lot
width
requirement
from
50
feet
to
42.5
feet
for
both
parcels
and
so
you'll
see
on
the
map
that
this
is
a
parcel.
That
is
a
double
parcel
or
is
a
double
lot.
The
underlying
platted
lots
are
42.5
feet
wide.
It
currently
contains
a
single-family
home
with
an
attached
front-facing
garage.
It's
a
ranch
style,
one-story
structure.
J
This
is
just
an
aerial
view
showing
the
home
there's
a.
There
are
a
mix
of
lot
sizes
in
the
immediate
area.
This
site
is
not
subject
to
the
large
lot
provision,
though
there
are
some
large
lots
nearby.
There
are
properties
on
the
same
block
and
within
surrounding
blocks
that
are
smaller
than
the
required
6
000
square
feet
and
50
foot
width
next
slide
please.
J
So
this
is
an
existing
survey
showing
the
existing
house
in
the
attached
front
racing
garage
next
slide.
Please,
and
then
here
is
the
proposed
subdivision.
So
it
would
not
be
subdivided
on
the
underlying
lots,
because
the
the
parcel
was
created
by
combining
portions
of
three
lots,
though
the
resulting
parcels
would
be
similar
in
size
to
the
underlying
plotted.
J
Lots
and
staff
did
find
that
due
to
the
way
that
this
property
was
created
with
the
combination,
multiple
lots
and
that
the
all
the
underlying
plotted
lots
on
the
subject
block
face
are
all
approximately
five
thousand
square
feet.
That
does
constitute
a
practical
difficulty
in
complying
with
the
the
required
lot
area
in
love
with
in
the
r1
district
staff,
finds
that
the
proposed
lot
area
of
5300
square
feet
and
42.5
feet
in
width
is
reasonable
and
compatible
with
our
surrounding
properties.
J
The
and
is
larger
than
the
minimum
lot
areas
and
lot
widths
in
r1a
and
the
other
low
density
districts
and
the
applicant
has
submitted
a
plan
showing
the
possibility
of
a
construction
of
a
new
duplex,
although
they
also
have
discussed
a
single-family
home
on
the
site
on
on
both
sites.
J
J
And
then
just
a
rendering
of
the
proposed
duplex
and
so
staff
is
supportive
of
both
variances.
Given
the
the
size
of
the
underlying
platted
lots
and
the
natural
variability
of
lot
sizes
in
the
area
and
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
the
minor
subdivision
in
the
two
variances,
and
I
am
happy
to
answer
questions.
A
Thank
you,
chair
rocco
lynn,
just
had
a
question
that
when
we
saw
the
picture
it
looked
like
a
really
wooded
lot.
Is
there
any
plans
for
what
will
happen?
To
that
I
mean
I'm
assuming
with
the
development
those
trees
are
going
away,
but
I
just
didn't
know
if
there's
been
any
other
talk
with
the
developer
about
saving
some
of
the
trees.
J
That's
a
good
point,
and
someone
actually
did
just
write
in
with
that
concern
and
one
of
the
public
comments
that
you
would
have
gotten
in
your
packet.
J
So
our
section
doesn't
do
the
review
of
the
the
one
one
two
and
three
family
homes
the
applicant
will
have
to
submit
a
development
plan
for
those
after
the
minor
subdivision
is
approved
if
it
were
to
be
approved,
and
so
my
understanding
is
that
that
that
there
are
regulations
that
require
the
retention
of
trees
where
applicable,
and
those
can
count
towards
the
points
that
the
applicant
is
required
to
meet
for
those
new
small
scale,
residential
structures.
J
C
All
right,
seeing
none
I'll
ask
the
applicant
to
unmute
and
introduce
yourself
and
add
any
further
details.
If
you
wish
star
6
unmute.
K
So
I
have
applied
to
this
minor
subdivision
and
with
those
you
heard,
the
two
variances
that
lindsey
spoke
about
on
beard
avenue.
There
are
12
homes
behind
me,
the
block
behind
me,
I'm
on
an
alley
and
there's
an
alley
separating
the
blocks.
There's
12
homes
that
have
smaller
square
footage
and
smaller
widths
than
my
proposed
lots,
and
then
on
chawan,
which
is
two
blocks
away.
K
There
are
24
lots
that
are
smaller
than
the
proposed
proposed
density,
or
the
proposed
width
and
square
footage
of
the
proposed
lots
that
I
have,
and
so
we
did
go
before
the
london
hill
zone.
They
were
unanimous.
I
have
gone
to
neighbors
and
on
both
sides
of
me.
I
have
gone
to
the
neighbors
directly
across
me
and
kitty
corner
to
the
property
along
with
it
explained
in
detail
to
them
and
they
did
support
it
lyndon
hills.
The
zoning
committee
wasn't
supported
of
it.
K
It's
kind
of
the
spirit
of
the
minneapolis
2040
plan
and
being
on
a
bus
line
as
well
on
39th,
I'm
very
close
to
that
bus
line,
and
so
we're
looking
to
minor
subdivide
and
I
don't
have
plans
what
to
build
yet.
The
first
step
is
to
do
the
minor
subdivision,
and
then
I
understand,
there's
future
requirements
for
me
to
go
before
with
any
plans
I
have
with
the
property,
you
know,
with
building
the
structures
and
building
the
single
family.
C
C
Applicant,
seeing
none
I'll
extend
the
public
hearing
to
others
in
the
queue.
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
nogai
and
k
lang
is
in
the
queue
to
testify.
Please
hit
star
six
to
unmute
and.
G
Great
city
of
minneapolis
planning,
commissioners
and
staff,
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak.
My
name
is
kate
lang
and
I
live
at
3905
beard
avenue
south
so
directly
behind
the
property.
I
was
not
one
of
the
neighbors
who
was
approached
my
husband
and
I
submitted
a
letter
to
express
our
strong
objection
to
the
request
for
3908
avid
avenue
sound.
G
G
G
G
Also,
traffic
in
the
alley
will
drastically
increase
with
the
potentially
four
additional
families
and
the
additional
trash
cans
I
mean
up
to
12
will
definitely
be
an
eyesore
for
the
neighbors,
so
staff
recommendations
are
to
approve
this
application.
Those
are,
in
our
opinion,
there's
no
reason.
Given
that
warrants
the
waiver,
we
propose
upholding
current
ordinances
and
rejecting
these
alterations,
offering
the
applicant
the
ability
to
build
a
new
single-family
home
or
other
approved
use
on
the
existing
lot.
Nothing
in
the
existing
lot
size
forbids
the
applicant
from
doing
so.
C
L
L
Yes,
I
do.
My
name
is.
L
Yeah,
my
name
is
deborah
fletcher
3909
beard
after
the
south
has
been
my
family
home
since
and
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
my
96
year
old
mother,
who
still
lives
there
independently.
L
A
L
Four
three
bedroom
units
with
what
appears
to
be
also
a
maximum
of
two
parking
spaces,
I'm
sort
of
pondering
what's
the
best
that
could
happen
in
terms
of
impact
on
my
family's
house
and
best.
It
would
be
that
each
unit
is
owned,
which
increases
likelihood
of
stable,
long-term
residents,
that
there
are
four
family-like
groups
with
bedrooms
designed
for
four
people
per
home.
L
That
way,
perhaps
those
16
people,
however,
whatever
whatever
their
their
character,
whatever
their
their
flavor,
is
in
terms
of
being
kids
or
adults,
would
have
only
two
parking
spaces
designed
into
the
build,
despite
the
societal
benefits
of
decreased
use
of
cars.
At
this
point,
it's
aspirational
and
it's
neither
likely
nor
practical
and
so
odds
are.
These
would
become
rental
units,
and
maybe
they're
designed
to
be
that
that
would
looking
at
sort
of
worst
case
and
maybe
most
most
likely
case.
L
The
units
are
rental
and
residents
are
like
more
likely
to
be
12
to
16,
transitory
unrelated
people,
change,
isn't
just
the
appearance
or
the
space
and
the
loss
of
trees.
It
would
be
a
change
from
block
where
neighbors
know
each
other
by
sight
and
many
by
name
look
out
for
each
other.
Welcome
new
neighbors
as
houses
turn
over
at
a
comfortable
pace,
as
opposed
to
having
12
to
16
strangers
coming
and
going
at
the
end
of
the
driveway.
L
When
previously
it
was
only
an
occasional,
familiar
neighbor
or
a
kid,
it's
a
major
change
and
it
diminishes
security
and
stability
for
the
for
the
homeowner
at
the
other
end
of
the
driveway,
I
think
also
there.
It
needs
to
be
considered
in
the
in
the
context
of
variances
that
are
already
directly
impacting
the
3901
side
of
the
block
of
beer
avenue
south
across.
L
A
small
rambler
was
recently
replaced
by
a
oversized
inflated
house,
which
I
believe
also
violated
some
variance
codes
variances
in
the
building
code.
By
being
done
before,
they
were
noticed
just
up
the
alley
on
abbott,
a
small
house
was
torn
down
in
a
huge
two
family
home
with
two
car
two
two
car
garages
going
up
and
I'll
also
point
out
that
the
only
two
family
home
that
is
long
been
on
a
block.
Our
block
is
a
double
bungalow.
That's
all
together
is
the
size
of
other
small
one
family
ramblers
on
the
block.
L
I
guess
my
main
point
is
that
this
is
an
area
with
quite
a
number
of
larger
than
standard
lots,
and
I'm
I've
come
to
understand
that
that
they
will
be
the
target
for
bringing
them
down
to
the
standard
lot
sizes.
So
we're
asking
all
the
homeowners
nearby
that
have
standard
size.
Lots
are
being
asked
to
carry
a
disproportionate
burden
of
the
change
we're
looking
to
have
in
the.
K
L
I
think
we
also
need
to
consider
the
equity
of
the
magnitude
of
negative
impact
to
which
those
living
near
oversized
lots
are
going
to
be
subjected.
C
K
C
That
they
have
we'll
have
we'll
have
a
chance
if
commissioners
want
some
clarification.
Okay,
thank
you
all
right.
Thank
you.
D
Meyer,
thank
you.
So
you
know
the
city
and
has
already
passed.
You
know
a
triplex
ordinance
and
is
working
on
eliminating
minimum
parking
requirements.
D
D
You
know,
and
if
we're
going
to
be
providing
equity.
Well,
I
feel
like
ward
13
is
one
of
the
space
one
of
the
places
in
the
city
that
provides
the
fewest
spaces
for
that.
So
I
think
that
it's
important
that
we
provide
that
type
of
space
around
the
city.
So
this
is
a
pretty
straightforward
thing
to
me
that
I
think
we
should
approve.
D
So
with
that,
I
I
would
move
to
approve
items
a
b,
b
and
c,
as
recommended
recommended
by
staff.
C
C
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second,
and
we
have
a
few
more
discussion
in
the
queue
commissioner,
sweden.
M
Yeah,
thank
you,
president
rockwell
I'll
be
voting
against
the
motion
to
approve
and
the
reason
for
that
is
found
in
the
legal
basis
for
the
two
variances.
M
This
argument
applies
to
both
of
them,
but
the
we
have
to
find
all
three
things
in
order
to
approve
a
variance,
and
I
don't
think
that
the
grounds
the
findings
for
number
one,
the
practical
difficulties
exist,
which
are
of
circumstances
unique
to
the
property
exists
here.
Those
circumstances
that
are
offered
in
the
staff
recommendation
are
that
originally
at
some
previous
time
there
were
underlying
plats
here
that
were
smaller
than
the
one
that
they
were
ultimately
combined
into.
So,
if
I
understand
the
rationale
was
that
at
one
time
they
were
two
smaller
plots.
M
So
now
we've
got
this
big
flat,
which
makes
doing
what
the
owner
wants
to
do.
You
know
not
not
feasible.
The
problem
I
have
with.
That
is
a
couple
of
things.
First
of
all,
I
highly
doubt
that
this
is
the
only
property
in
the
city
of
minneapolis
that
has
been
replated
or
has
had
something
like
that
applied
to
it,
and
I
guess
the
rhetorical
question
would
be.
How
far
do
we
go
back
then?
M
It
was
probably
a
condition
that
could
have
been
known
at
the
time
it
was
purchased
or
the
time
that
this
other
structure
was
built
on
it.
I
don't
know-
and
I'm
not
sure
that
that's
relevant,
but
I
I
don't
think
that
this
is
a
unique
circumstance
and
for
those
reasons
I
don't
think
comparing
this
to
the
size
of
other
lots
is
particularly
germane
either
the
the
lot
size
is
what
it
is,
and
I
don't
think
we
need
to
reach
back
into
history
and
say
well.
M
You
know,
however
many
you
know
80
years
ago
or
120
years
ago.
We
could
have
done
this
with
it.
So
now
we
should
go
back
to
do
that
and
that's
a
circumstance,
that's
unique
to
the
property.
So
for
those
reasons
I
will
be
voting
against
the
vari,
both
variances
and
the
subdivision,
hello.
C
Thank
you
very
much,
commissioner
sweetie.
The
public
hearing
is
closed.
H
C
C
H
C
C
L
C
Because
of
technical
difficulties,
I
understand
the
system
is
imperfect,
so
I'll
take
a
pause
in
our
discussion
and
reopen
the
public
hearing.
C
Go
ahead
and
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
try
to
keep
your
comments
to
new
new
items
on
this.
This
issue.
H
Yes,
yes,
my
name
is
elizabeth
cogswell,
my
husband
and
I
live
at
3901
beard
avenue
south,
which
is
on
the
south
west
corner
of
39th
street
and
beard.
We
are
caddy
corner
from
the
lot
under
consideration
across
the
alleyway.
We
were
never
approached
by
the
owner
of
the
lot
who
said
that
he
approached
fat
at
the
family's
caddy
corner
to
his
property.
We
were
never
contacted
by
him
and
only
found
out
about
this
recently,
in
addition
to
the
items
that
have
already
been
mentioned
about
the
density.
E
H
I'm
very
concerned
my
we're
very
concerned
about
the
load
that
the
alley
can
take
with
a
minimum
of
two
and
maybe
as
many
as
eight
cars,
the
owner
of
the
current
property,
his
driveway
enters
from,
and
he
has
a
very
high
fence
that
is
very
dense
so
that
he
can't
even
see
out-
and
I
think,
he's
probably
very
unaware
of
the
condition
of
our
alley
and
how
crowded
it
is.
It's
barely
wide
enough
for
the
trash
hauling
trucks
to
go
through
and
in
the
winter
time.
H
So
it
would
be
virtually
impossible
for
two
cars
to
pass
each
other
on
that
alleyway
and
in
the
winter
time.
The
because
39th
street
is
a
snow
removal.
Emergency
route,
the
snow
plows
come
by
and
essentially
push
all
the
snow
to
the
mouth
of
the
alleyway
on
39th
street
and
from
both
the
entrances
from
both
40th
street
and
39th
street.
H
You
have
to
drive
up
a
fairly
steep
incline
to
get
to
the
street
level
and
it
freezes
over
on
those
mouthways
or
the
exits
and
the
we
are
both
in
our
70s,
as
is
our
neighbor
across
the
alley.
On
the
abbott
side,
on
on
39th
and
abbott
and
he's
in
his
70s
as
well.
H
We
try
to
shovel
that
snow
away,
it's
very
heavy
and
it
turns
to
ice,
and
the
only
way
that
you
can
get
out
of
the
alley
in
the
winter
time
is
to
back
down
the
alley
gun
your
engine
to
go
up
over
the
hump.
If
you
possibly
can,
which
is
very
dangerous
because
oncoming
traffic
on
39th
street
from
the
west,
you
can't
see
it
because
of
the
hill,
that's
there.
So
it
comes
over
this
hill
very
quickly,
most
of
it
higher
than
the
speed
limit.
H
We
have
city
buses
there,
trucks
that
come
through
very
heavy
trucks
and
it
it's
quite
scary
to
enter
39th
street
even
in
the
best
of
weather
and
in
the
winter
time
it's
extremely
frightening,
and
that
ice
is
not
cleared
off.
Also,
the
alleyway
does
not
drain
well
in
the
center
of
the
alley
and
that
freezes,
and
so
at
best
you
can,
if
you
can't
get
out
the
39th
and
beard.
H
If
you
go,
I
mean
the
39th
and
the
alleyway
and
you
try
to
go
to
the
other
end
of
the
alleyway
onto
40th,
which
is
also
an
incline,
though
not
quite
as
steep,
if
there's
any
car
any
of
these
cars
that
would
be
blocking
this
new
traffic
of
four
to
eight
cars,
and
we
already
have
four
new
cars
coming
because
of
the
double
garages
that
one
of
the
earlier
speakers
mentioned
on
what
used
to
be
a
single
small,
single
family
home.
H
So
that
is
our
major
concern,
and
we
are
also
concerned
that,
if
we're
not,
if
these
become
four
plexes,
two
and
two,
we
hope
that
if
they
are
rental
that
they
be
required
to
have
at
least
one
owner
occupied
unit
in
each
of
the
two
buildings
that
are
being
proposed
for
that
site,
I
wish
that
this
could
be
put
on
hold
until
the
planning
commission
could
actually
come
out
after
a
heavy
storm
and
look
at
the
condition
of
our
alley.
H
The
owner
of
the
property
mentioned
the
alley
two
two
streets
down,
but
that's
a
wider
alley
and
it
has
very
substantial,
concrete
paving
through
the
whole
part
of
the
alley.
Ours
is
blacktop
with
patches
and
and
these
steep
inclines
on
either
end,
so
the
density
on
on
that
alley
is
is
going
to
be
quite
troublesome
to
us.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
and
consideration.
C
Much
well,
the
public
hearing
is
reopened.
Is
there
anybody
else
wishing
to
testify
on
this
item.
B
Thank
you,
mr
thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
this
question
may
be
for
the
applicant.
It
may
be
for
staff.
I'm
just
kind
of.
I
just
would
like
to
hear
a
little
bit
more
about
general
expectations
for
public
notice.
It
seems
like
a
theme
of
this
project
in
particular.
Is
that
it
wasn't
noticed
very
well
to
the
neighbors.
The
neighborhood
is
that
just
a
best
practice,
that's
sort
of
an
expectation
and
you're
curious
to
either
hear
from
the
applicant
about
that,
or
if
staff
has
thoughts
about
how
that
could
be
better
done
in
the
future.
J
Yeah,
I
can
answer
that.
Thank
you.
So
the
zoning
code
lays
out
our
noticing
requirements
for
all
public
hearings
those
require,
and
there
are
also
noticing
requirements
when
the
applicant
submits
their
application.
So
upon
the
middle
of
a
complete
application,
the
applicant
has
to
notify
the
council
member's
office
and
the
neighborhood
organization
of
record.
In
addition,
the
the
city
will
send
out
notices
once
the
application
is
final
and
the
public
hearing
has
been
scheduled.
J
Those
notices
include
a
notice
of
the
registered
neighborhood
group
notice
to
finance
and
commerce
notices
are
sent
with
to
all
property
owners
within
350
feet
of
the
site
in
the
mail,
15
businesses
or
15
days
before
the
public
hearing
and
placards
are
also
posted
at
the
four
corners
of
the
site.
I
did
hear
from
some
residents
that
they
were
concerned
about
or
that
they
hadn't
received
notice
in
the
mail.
We
did
verify
with
the
copy
center
that
notices
were
sent
out
on
the
required
deadline.
J
So
I,
beyond
that,
I
can't
I
can't
explain
why
perhaps
some
mail
did
not
arrive
or
wasn't
received
in
time.
But
but
those
are
the
noticing
requirements
for
public
hearings
and
we
were
able
to
to
at
least
confirm
that
the
notices
were
sent
out
by
the
copy
center.
C
I
Yes,
I
have
a
question
for
staff.
I
struggled
with
this
a
little
bit
too
just
because
I'm
I'm
not
fully
grasping
that
the
findings
related
to
practical
difficulties.
I
think
that
the
spirit
and
intent
is
probably
there,
but
I
I
do
kind
of
after
listening
to
commissioner
squeezy's
arguments.
I
am
agreeing
with
her
that
that
practical
difficulty
required
findings
are
not
quite
as
robust
as
I
I
would
imagine.
So.
Can
you
please
just
maybe
explain
it
again
or
address
commissioner
sweesy's
concerns
related
to
that
required
findings.
I
I
I
can't
quite
I
can't
quite
get
over
that
hurdle.
J
So
you
know
staff
found
that
the
the
underlying
platted
lots
and
the
composition
of
the
underlying
plotted
lots
was
a
practical
difficulty,
both
in
meeting
the
the
size
and
width
of
the
requirements
in
the
ordinance,
and
this
is
something
that
you
know.
I
know
that
we
have.
J
We
have
used
similar
rationale
for
subdivisions
in
the
past,
where
you
know,
there's
there's
something,
there's
something
uncommon
about
the
the
division
of
the
lot
and
how
it
was
created
in
the
first
place,
and
part
of
that
is
just
that
when,
when
there
is
a
property,
that's
in
a
district
that
where
the
underlying
platted
lots
do
meet
the
the
size
requirements.
That
is
not
a
minor
subdivision.
That
is
just
a
lot
split.
But,
seeing
as
this
was
pieces
of
multiple
lots
and
underlying
platinum
lots
were
smaller.
I
Are
are
we
saying
that
in
the
future,
when
we
see
land
use
applications
related
to
splitting
lots
into
into
sizes
that
we
currently
deem
as
unbuildable?
I
We
are
willing
to
say
that,
as
long
as
any
parcel
spend
a
combination
of
pieces
of
of
other
parcels
that
they
have
met
the
practical
difficulty
requirement
or
or
what?
Because
I'm
just
a
little
bit,
I'm
just
kind
of
wondering
it
was
combined.
One
lot
now
we're
combining
it
dividing
it
into
two
instead
of
three,
and
so
it
just.
It
seems
kind
of
like
a
like
an
uncomfortable
president.
F
So,
commissioners,
you
know,
if
you
choose
to
disagree
with
staff
recommendation.
You're
always
welcome
to
make
alternate
findings.
The
city
was
planted
one
way
and
over
time
we
do
have
lots
that
were
changed
over
time
through
splits
and
combines.
F
F
C
Findings,
commissioner,
marwa.
N
Hi,
I
just
had
a
quick
question.
The
the
applicant
mentioned
that
the
the
rendering
that
we
saw
is
not
by
any
means
set
in
stone.
It's
just
getting.
This
approval
will
enable
him
to
eventually
make
a
duplex.
I
just
wanted
to
understand.
Is
that
or
does
he
have
the
plans
that,
after
this
approval
is
granted
for
him
to
actually
build
that
building.
K
This
is
terror,
no
guy
and
to
answer
your
question,
there
are
no
plans
yet
is
this
showing
multiple
uses
of
a
single
family
or
duplex
as
potential
with
the
2040
plan
and
the
spirit
that
we
need?
You
know
a
lot
more
homes
in
every
single
district
in
minneapolis,
so
there
have
been
no
plans.
There
have
been
no
ideas,
there
may
not
be
a
duplex
there.
K
I
don't
know
that
this
is
the
first
stem
and
maybe
two
single
family
homes
that
are
there
and
I
may
be
living
in
one
of
those
single-family
homes,
and
so
it's
putting
the
plan
in
place
first
in
the
minor
subdivision
and
then
putting
the
plan
to
the
home.
I
want
to
build
at
the
front
porch
and
that's
the
neighborhood,
like
my
neighborhood
in
front
of
me
and
abbott.
They
all
have
front
porches
we're
all
in
the
front
with
our
kids,
and
so
I
don't
have
a
front
porch
currently.
K
So
that's
so
I'm
looking
to
build
more
in
the
spirit
of
the
neighborhood.
Along
with
that-
and
you
know
my
lot's
flat.
So
it's
a
very
easy
subdivide,
and
you
know,
along
with
that,
there's
only
one
other
home
on
the
block.
Besides
myself,
that's
not
in
the
alley
between
beard
where
she
heard
the
homeowners
on
beard
express
their
concern
and
on
avid
and
those
three
three
individuals
that
did
you
know
that
did
express
their
concern.
K
Their
lives
are
smaller
than
the
two
proposed
labs,
so
you
know
we
were
kind
of
all
in
the
same
boat.
They
have
a
beautiful
single
family
home
and
I
make
beautiful
single
family
homes
here,
maybe
one's
a
duplex,
maybe
not
that's
too
that's
to
be
announced
after
we
go
to
the
minor
subdivision
and
then
laying
all
the
plans
with
the
builder.
C
C
Say
none
commissioner
liberty
here.
Thank
you.
I
Yeah,
so
I
just
wanted
to
circle
back
really
quickly,
so
I
know
we
just
recently
talked
about
future
changes
to
this
to
the
zoning
code
in
support
of
2040
games
and
one
of
the
things
we
talked
about
were
minimum
lot
sizes.
So
maybe
I
was
wondering
if
kimberly
or
or
lindsay
could
just
address
is
this
are
the
proposed
changes
in
keeping
what
we
with
what
we're
changes,
we're
seeing
proposed
for
future
lot
sizes
and
minimum
widths?
How
far
does
this
vary
from
that.
F
F
We
have
a
5
000
square
foot,
minimum
lot
size
for
every
part
of
the
city,
except
for
our
r1
district
and
r2
district,
which
is
really
you
know
the
outlier.
Those
are
also
the
only
areas
where
we
have
an
increased
lot
width.
We
will
likely
be
eliminating
that
as
part
of
the
chain
lottery
minimums.
F
You
know,
I'd
have
to
check
in
with
jason
for
sure,
because
right
now,
a
lot
of
their
work
has
been
focused
more
on
larger,
I
shouldn't
say
larger
projects,
but
more
on
the
higher
density
districts,
so
starting
in
interior
three
and
up
and
they're
also
balancing
it
with
the
maximum
lot
area
that
will
be
allowed,
which
will
be
a
new
thing.
We
also
have
maximum
lottery
is
now
already
for
our
lower
density
districts
that
were
adopted
at
the
end
of
2019.
I
And
with
the
testimony
that
was
given
related
to
the
you
know,
a
nearby
adjacent
across
the
alley,
lots
actually
being
smaller
than
with
a
lot
size
proposed
here.
Is
there
any
does
staff
have
anything
to
weigh
in
on
regarding
how
this
it
is
not
unprecedented?
It
fits
with
other
lots
in
the
neighborhood,
or
is
that
not
a
relevant.
F
Fact
we
did
do
the
analysis
and
this
is
not
a
large
lat
district,
so
we
did
look
at
that
as
you
go
one
direction.
Lots
are
larger
as
you
go,
the
other
direction.
Lots
are,
you
know
five
thousand
to
six
thousand
square
feet,
so
we
did
take
that
into
account
with
our
analysis
and
it
was
not
a
large
light
district.
F
I
C
Very
good,
and
I
think
that
that
analysis
would
go
to
finding
number
three
commissioner
peer
commissioners,
any
further
discussion
or
questions.
C
All
right,
we
have
our
motion
before
us
for
items
a
b
and
c
motion
on
a
second
clerk.
Please
call
the
roll.
D
A
C
That
motion
carries,
and
that
concludes
our
business
with
item
number,
eight
or
item
number
nine.
I
apologize
and
concludes
all
of
our
discussion.
Sorry
item
number
eight.
That
concludes
all
of
our
discussion
items
for
today,
kimberly
are
there
any
staff
updates.
F
Just
a
reminder
that
we
have
our
click
discussion
at
committee
of
the
whole
this
week,
so
I
think
there
are
three
text
amendments
on
the
agenda
leading
up
to
that
part
of
the
agenda,
so
it
will
be
a
little
bit
longer
than
a
typical
committee
the
whole
meeting.
Typically,
we
try
to
start
click
at
6,
30,
so
or
six
o'clock.
We
did
let
them
know
it
might
be
closer
to
6
30
just
to
get
through
those
built
form
discussions,
but
just
wanted
to
make
sure
everyone's
aware
of
that.
For
thursday.