►
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).
A
B
A
Hi
everybody
welcome
to
the
regular
virtual
meeting
of
the
city
planning.
Commission
committee
of
the
whole
today
is
february
11th
2021.
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
board
members
and
staff
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statutes,
section
13d.021
due
to
the
declared
local
public
health
emergency.
My
name
is
alyssa
olson,
I'm
the
new
vice
president
of
the
planning
commission,
and
I
will
call
this
meeting
to
order.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
rule
to
verify
quorum.
B
B
C
B
B
E
A
Okay,
so
we
have
a
quorum,
so
next
we
will
proceed
to
the
agenda.
A
copy
of
the
agenda
was
posted
on
the
public
for
public
access
to
this
city.
The
legislative
information
management
system,
which
is
available
at
linz.minneapolismn.gov,
can
I
have
a
motion
to
adopt
the.
A
So
we
have
a
motion
in
a
second
clerk.
Please
call
the
roll.
D
B
B
E
A
All
right
that
motion
passes
and
the
agenda
is
adopted
next
on
the
agenda
is
the
acceptance
of
the
minutes
of
the
regular
meeting
on
december
10th
2020.
Do
I
have
a
motion
to
accept
those
minutes.
C
Smiley,
I
move
to
accept
the
minutes
of
december
10th
committee
of
the
whole.
A
C
B
G
B
B
B
B
E
A
All
right
that
motion
passes
next
is
our
consent
agenda
and
first
up
is
item
number
four
appointments
to
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment
and
staff
is
brad
ellis.
H
Hi,
this
is
brad
ellis
manager
of
zoning
administration
and
enforcement
and
the
the
staff
that
handles
the
board
of
adjustment.
These
are
three
reappointments
to
the
board
of
adjustment.
They've
all
been
long-serving,
except
for
taylor,
who
has
been
on
just
the
one
cycle,
but
they've
all
been
excellent
members
of
the
board
and
have
contributed
to
thoughtful
deliberation
on
variances
and
the
like.
So
I
don't
know
if
anybody
has
any
specific
questions
or
wants
to
talk
about
it,
but
I'd
be
happy
to.
A
G
G
Sorry
that
was
bill
baxley
sorry.
A
Hi
bill
okay,
so
I
have
a
motion
and
a
second
is
there
any
discussion.
A
Okay
clerk,
please
call
the
roll.
B
E
B
B
B
A
All
right
that
motion
passes.
Thank
you,
brad.
The
next
item
on
our
agenda
is
number
five.
A
land
sale
for
2837,
chicago
avenue
and
staff
is
retana.
Sangsulijan.
I
Thank
you,
so
I'm
here
before
you
to
seek
approval
for
consent,
consistency
with
the
comp
plan,
the
sale
of
2837
chicago
avenue,
it's
currently
a
vacant
site,
but
we
as
a
city
receive
a
proposal
to
construct
a
eight-story
parking
structure
on
the
site.
I
And
that
concludes
my
presentation,
but
I'm
available.
If
you
have
any
questions.
A
Thank
you,
commissioners.
Is
there
a
discussion
on
this
item,
or
would
someone
like
to
make
a
motion,
commissioner
meyer.
C
I
just
wanted
to
maybe
just
help
me
remember
this,
because
I
think
is
this
part
of
the
same
project
that
we
have
seen
before.
C
That
was
gosh
the
expansion
of
the
hospital,
I
believe,
and
then
on
the
south
side
was
that
parking
structure
is
this
that
same
parking
structure.
I
Correct
so
it's
part
of
the
alignment
hub
transportation
project
and
this
this
land,
sale,
transaction
or
excuse
me.
Today's
action
as
part
of
this
approval
is
part
of
that
project.
Yep.
E
Yeah,
I
I
can't
see
how
this
is
possibly
consistent
with
goal.
10
of
the
2040
plan,
which
is
you
know
in
2040
minneapolis,
will
be
resilient
to
the
effects
of
climate
change
and
diminishing
natural
resources
and
will
be
on
track
to
achieve
an
80
reduction
in
grease
greenhouse
gas
emissions
by
2050..
E
In
the
statement
on
this,
if
you
go
down
a
few
paragraphs,
you
know
it
says
that
even
with
the
adoption
to
electric
cars,
even
if
you
assume
like
full
adoption
to
electric
cars,
a
38
reduction
in
passenger
miles
traveled
by
automobile
is
needed
to
achieve
the
80
reduction
of
greenhouse
gas
emissions
by
2050.,
so
to
build
a
gargantuan
eight-story
parking
garage.
E
I
Yes,
commissioner
meyer,
so
originally
the
project
was
at
at
cow
back
in
april
of
2020,
with
the
original
policy
guidance,
which
was
for
future
land
use
and
built
form.
It
was
guided
as
parks
and
open
space
in
both
of
those
guidance
and
districts.
I
Since
then,
the
city
submitted
a
comp
plan
amendment
to
the
med
council
to
amend
those
future
land
use
and
built
form
districts
to
in
order
to
allow
the
project
to
be,
in
conformance
with
the
policy
guidance
which
resulted
in
the
city
council,
adopting
the
new
built
form
and
built
form
and
land
use
guidance
that
you
see
for
today.
I
think,
as
part
of
that
specific
goal-
it's
it's
probably
not
consistent,
but,
however,
with
at
least
the
built
form
and
feature
land
use
guidance.
I
I
So
the
comp
plan
amendment
was
from
which,
which,
as
you
see
today
in
this
review
and
in
the
land,
sale
form
it's
it's
transit,
10
and
public,
and
excuse
me
and
public
office
and
institutional
which
would
allow
for
this.
The
the
construction
of
this
parking
structure.
I
J
So
this
is
kimberly.
I
just
was
gonna.
Add
to
that.
You
know
the
commission.
Did
the
comp
plan
amendment
and
found
the
change
to
be
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
when
the
comp
plan
amendment
was
voted
on.
So
you
know,
in
the
same
regard,
staff
has
found
that
the
land
sale
is
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
The
project
itself
will
be
in
front
of
you
in
about
a
month
or
two
and
at
that
time,
you'll
see
all
of
the
ways
that
the
project
itself
is
intending
to
comply
with
the
comprehensive
plan
goals.
E
So
for
this
land
sale
component
is,
is
today's
meeting
the
final
verdict
on
on
whether
the
land
is
sold
or
is
there
an
opportunity
later
on
for
public
comment
and
things
like
that,
or
is
this
it.
I
So
as
so,
today's
action
is
part
of
a
you
know:
a
minnesota
state
statute
requirement
which
requires
us
as
a
city
to
seek
to
seek
consistency
with
the
comprehensive
plan
in
terms
of
any
public
land,
sale
or
acquisition.
So
that's
that's
the
purposes
of
today's
action.
However,
there
are
opportunities
for
public
comment
and
feedback
in
front
of
the
biz
committee.
I
I
don't
know
if
there's
gonna
be
a
public
hearing,
but
but
community
members
can
provide
public
feedback
to
council
members
as
part
of
that
community
as
part
of
this
land
sale
transaction,
but
not
the
land,
use
approval
and
development,
and
that
will
come
at
a
later
time,
as
kimberly
alluded
to.
E
Transaction
yeah
right,
okay,
you
know,
I
I
think
I'll
be
voting
against
this.
You
know
this.
This
body
previously
voted
against.
You
know
a
different,
large
new
parking
structure
for
the
federal
reserve.
E
I
I
think
to
not
I
mean
you
know
this
body
you
know,
went
against
even
improving
the
structure
to
to
not
only
just
approve
the
structure,
but
also
approve
a
land
sale
for
it.
I.
D
This
is
keith
ford.
A
Hold
on
a
second
there,
commissioner,
smiley
is
up
next
and
then
I'll
call.
C
Yeah
sorry
I
just
wanted
to,
and
I'm
so
sorry
maybe
it
did
kind
of
cover
this
ratana.
With
your
last
comment,
but
basically
when,
when
you
say
this
is
consistent,
you're
talking
about
the
land
use
and
the
build
form
kind
well
in
that
bill
form
the
land
use
and
the
the
land
uses
part
of
the
comprehensive
plan
and
not
necessarily
the
goals,
because
I
feel
like
the
goals
are
more
qualitative
and
up
for
interpretation
is
that
is,
is
that
a
fair
assessment.
I
C
D
Thank
you
being
a
newbie
here,
I'm
not
yet
familiar
with
these
terms,
built
form
and
so
forth.
I
do
understand
the
company's
plan,
and
I
gather
we're
gonna
learn
more
about
that
later
on
in
this
meeting,
but
I
still
have
a
difficulty
understanding
how
I
mean
what
what
about
the
built
form
makes
the
built
form
require
requirements,
make
a
parking
ramp
on
chicago
a
good
idea
in
that,
in
that
I'm
very
familiar
with
the
area.
I
So
maybe
I
I'll
just
start
with
you
know
within
minneapolis
2040,
the
core,
the
core
land
use
guidance,
comes
in
the
shape
of
a
feature
land
use
map
which
guides
the
land
uses
which
and
then
also.
The
second
piece
is
the
built
for
map,
which
has
a
series
of
districts
that
guides
the
scale
and
size
of
development,
so
specifically
for
built
form.
I
So,
within
this
specific
analysis
of
this
proposal,
which
is
recommending
a
eight-story
development
of
a
parking
structure,
this
would
be
consistent
with
that
built
form
guidance
within
that
range.
D
D
It
does
seem
kind
of,
I
don't
know
what
transit
10
is
either,
but
one
might
assume
it
involves
transit
again,
it's
difficult
for
me
to
understand.
I
understand
I
understand
how
an
eight-story
structure.
It
apparently
fits
the
rules,
but
it's
difficult
to
understand
why
we
would
be.
I
I
I
see
kimberly's
camera
on,
so
I'm
going
to
I'm
going
to
let
her
jump
in
here
and
answer
this
question.
J
So
in
this
case
again,
the
actual
parking
ramp
project
still
needs
to
be
evaluated
by
the
commission
on
its
own
merit,
in
terms
of
whether
or
not
the
ramp
is
consistent
with
the
comp
plan,
so
they
are
tied
together.
In
that
we
are,
you
know,
making
a
similar
decision
today
on
the
land
sale.
This
particular
portion
of
the
site
is
a
small
sliver
of
land
adjacent
to
the
greenway.
I
think
one
corner,
or
one
footing
of
the
parking
ramp
would
be
on
this
sliver,
that
has
the
parks
and
open
space
designation.
J
The
parking
ramp
itself
is
being
looked
at
as
adding
investment
to
a
regional
healthcare
facility
on
chicago
avenue,
and
it
does
have.
A
number
of
you
know
ways
that
it's
meeting
the
comp
plan.
J
I
don't
have
that
staff
report
in
front
of
me
because
it
hasn't
been
written,
yet
I
don't
have
the
plans
in
front
of
me
either,
but
I
do
know
that
they
are
taking
those
comp
plan
goals
seriously
in
terms
of
adding
electrical
vehicle
charging
stations,
dedicating
the
entire
roof
of
the
ramp
to
solar
and
some
other
aspects,
including
ground
floor
commercial.
J
That's
all
I
have
off
the
top
of
my
head
without
seeing
it,
but
that's
just
you
know,
kind
of
a
broader
overview
of
that.
But
again
you
will
be
seeing
that
in
detail
and
have
an
opportunity
to
make
an
action
on
the
project
itself
at
a
future
meeting.
D
One
more
question:
so
we're
talking
about
a
land
sale
right
now,
which
sounds
kind
of
final.
D
J
A
F
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Olson
yeah
just
a
couple
of
comments
primarily
for
the
benefit
of
of
our
new
commissioners.
Welcome
nice
to
talk
with
you
and
just
just
for
a
little
bit
of
perspective.
Commissioner
meyer,
one
of
the
things
he
said
was
that
this
commission
voted
down
the
parking
ramp
at
the
at
the
federal
reserve,
building,
I'm
sure
that's
the
project
he
was
talking
about.
That's
correct.
F
That
was
hardly
a
unanimous
vote,
so
I
want
to
be
you
know
I
want
to
make
the
make
the
point
here
that
you
know
our
votes
are
our
own
and
every
project
is
different.
I
think,
and
should
be
judged
on
its
own
merits.
You
probably
know
that
as
new
commissioners,
but
I
didn't
want
there
to
be
any
misunderstanding
that
that
that
was
by
one
vote.
Actually,
I
think
it
was
a
5-4
vote
on
that,
so
we
were
hardly
unanimous
in
that
a
couple
of
other
comments.
F
I
know
we're
going
to
talk
about
built,
form
and
everything
in
greater
detail.
The
comp
plan,
as
you
probably
know,
is
a
massive
document
and
there's
many
many
goals
in
it
and
I'll
just
tell
you.
My
personal
practice
is
not
to
pick
out
one
particular
goal
in
it
and
say
this
doesn't
meet
that
one.
Therefore,
a
project
should
rise
or
fall
on
that
again.
This
is
just
my
two
cents
on
that,
and
the
last
thing
I
would
say
about
this
project
in
particular.
F
Is
that
I
understand
and
I'll
ask
staff
to
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
this
is
intended
to
provide
additional
parking
for
the
the
alaina.
You
know
the
abbott
northwestern
complex
at
28th
and
chicago,
and
for
projects
like
this,
I
tend
to
take
healthcare
providers
at
their
word,
sometimes
when
they
need
parking
for
things
and
we're
not
dealing
with
a
population
that
can
always
take
a
bus
or
walk
to
something
like
this
so
I'll
be
voting
in
support
of
this.
F
G
I
So
so
part
of
this
leading
up
to
today's
action,
you
know
staff
from
our
business
development,
colleagues
and
and
and
staff
in
our
development
services.
Here
under
capabilities
team
has
been
working
with,
you
know
the
the
applicant
alaina
and
the
city
to
envision
what
the
potential
uses
are
for
this
specific
site.
So
in
terms
of
the
today's,
like
approval
process,
is
really
for
approval
for
consistency
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
However,
any
other
conditions
as
part
of
the
project
will
come
at
a
later
time
as
part
of
the
development
review
process.
Okay,.
A
All
right,
commissioner,
smiley
yeah.
C
I
just
wanted
to
add
kind
of
to
what
commissioner
sweesey
said
that
I
will
also
be
supporting
this,
and
this.
C
This
one
parcel
is
part
of
that
bigger
development
that,
as
I
was
asking
that
for
basically
that
whole
abbott
northwestern
alaina
health
office,
complex
and-
and
I
do
think
in
fact
that
I
mean
I
I
I
wish
we
had
more
parking
structures
to
allow
for
more
compact
way
of
storing
park,
storing
cars
as
opposed
to
surface
lots.
C
So
I
think
that
something
like
this
would
allow
to
free
up
street
surface
for
bike
lanes
and
other
purposes,
but
also,
I
also
agree
with
commissioner
sweezie
that
I
mean
it
would
be
the
best
case
scenario.
If
a
project
on
all
fronts
meets
everything
possible,
and
I
understand
it
would
be
a
matter
of
which
goal
we
make
priority
in
in
the
in
terms
of
the
comprehensive
plan.
Is
it?
Is
it
access
to
all
sorts
of
and
modes
of
transportation
versus?
C
Is
it
to
reduce
the
use
of
car
and
something
like
that
and
they
both
exist
and
and
which
one
comes?
First
is
kind
of,
I
mean.
Sometimes
they
can't
mutually
exist
in
projects.
So
I
will
be
supporting
this
as
well.
G
Sorry,
one
more
go
ahead
and
again:
newbies
have
lots
of
questions,
so
I
I
appreciate
to
entertain
that
I
think
I
just
want
to
understand
that
the
condition
of
this
action
understand
the
ability
to
comment
on
the
project
later
and
I
think
especially
for
parking
which
is
such
a
sensitive.
I
call
it
a
bridge
issue.
G
You
know
structures
are
necessary,
it's
just
positioning
them
for
reuse
down
the
road
flat
floors.
Non-Slope
thing
you
know
things
that,
while
we're
solving
the
problem
for
day
we're
not
creating
a
thing
that
has
to
be
torn
down
and
and
rebuilt
in
a
different
way,
so
just
wanted
to
register
that.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Marwa.
L
I
L
I
I
Purview-
I
don't
know
that
information,
but
I
know
it's
publicly
would
be
publicly
available,
but
I
I
don't
have
that
information.
I
know.
Lisa
passes
who's
the
who's,
the
the
court,
the
coordinator
for
this
project
from
our
business
development.
They
would
have
more
information,
but
I
can
come
back
with
that
answer
at
a
later
time
that
helps
and.
A
All
right,
commissioners,
are
there
any
other
comments
or
questions.
D
I
I
don't
know
it's
historical
use,
but
it's
adjacent
to
the
midtown
greenway
as
you
know
today,
but
that's
that's
to
the
extent
that
I
I'm
familiar
with
the
site.
Okay,.
A
Okay,
commissioners,
if
there's
no
more
discussion,
would
anyone
like
to
make
a
motion.
A
For
consistency
with
the
comp
plan
or
consistency
with
a
comp
plan,
great
do
I
have
a
second
a.
C
A
G
A
All
right
seeing
none
clerk,
please
call
the
roll.
B
D
E
B
I'm
sorry
I'm
out
of
order
here,
a
smiley
hi
trader.
A
All
right
that
motion
passes.
Thank
you
ratana.
A
M
Thank
you,
commissioners,
we're
also
joined
by
joe
bernard.
He
was
not
placed
on
the
agenda,
but
he's
joining
us
as
well.
I'm
jason
wittenberg,
I'm
the
manager
of
code
development,
janelle
woodmeyer,
is
a
principal
planner
in
code
development
and
joe
bernard,
a
planning
project
manager
in
code
development.
M
M
new
built
form
regulations
took
a
where
adopted
in
december,
took
effect
january
1st.
That's
what
the
code
development
team
spent
an
awful
lot
of
its
time
on
in
2020.
M
M
We
think
this
session
for
planning
commissioners
could
be
a
little
less
detailed
than
some
of
those
sessions,
so
there
are
some
things
that
we
might
gloss
over
a
little
bit
just
given
that,
although
it's
good
for
commissioners
to
know
the
the
regulations
generally,
it's
not
as
though
you're
sitting
at
the
development
review
counter
needing
to
ask
every
or
answer
every
question
that
is,
and
some
of
this
info
will
come
across.
M
Probably
as
a
little
repetitive
for
those
who
have
been
on
the
commission
dating
back
since,
before
this
year,
we've
got
a
series
of
slides
that
we're
going
to
run
through.
I
suspect
that
we'll
take
a
half
hour
or
perhaps
more
to
run
through
them.
M
I
think
it
would
will
probably
be
best
served
if
we
hold
the
questions
until
the
end
after
we've
had
a
chance
to
run
through
those
slides
and
and
of
course,
we
can
try
and
scroll
back
to
them
too.
If
people
need
to
come
back
to
a
particular
slide
with
to
to,
if
there's
a
specific
question
about
something
on
a
slide
me
janelle
and
joe
will
kind
of
hand
it
off
back
and
forth.
Throughout
this
presentation,
and
at
the
moment
I
will
turn
it
over
to
joe.
K
Boy
how
embarrassing?
Thank
you
glad
to
see
some
new
faces
here,
as
jason
said,
I'm
joe
bernard,
a
planner
in
in
code
development
I'll
just
give
you
to
start
off
here
kind
of
a
broad
overview
of
what
we're
talking
about
in
the
broadest
sense.
What
we're
the
major
intended
outcomes
here
of
our
work
is
is
listed
on
this
slide.
K
K
K
K
These
regulations
are
now
in
effect,
all
projects
moving
forward
are
going
to
be
reviewed
based
on
these
regulations,
and
this
includes
13
new
overlay
zoning
districts
that
cover
every
single
property
in
the
city
and
those
are
matched
to
the
built
forum.
Districts
that
are
described
in
minneapolis
2040.,
aside
from
achieving
goals
itself
in
the
plan,
these
regulations
are.
We
hope
that
they're
going
to
have
a
create
a
greater
predictability
in
the
development
process
for
everyone
involved,
and
since
these
new
districts
now
reflect
official
policy.
K
That
relationship
in
the
past
resulted
in
some
pretty
wild
variance
requests
at
times
and
we're
anticipating
that
moving
forward
and
those
were
appropriate
in
that
context.
But
we
have
new
context
and
we
anticipate
that
variances
are
going
to
be
much
less
common
and
they'll
be
reserved
for
really
unique
situations.
K
Along
those
same
lines.
There's
now
limits
on
the
amount
of
height
increase
you
can
request.
Janelle
will
go
over
that
process
in
greater
detail
here
in
a
moment,
but
to
give
a
kind
of
a
quick
overview.
Is
that
you're
no
longer
able
to
request
a
20-story
building
in
a
built
form
overlay
district?
That's
guided
for
four
stories,
for
example,
not
without
changing
minneapolis
2040
itself.
K
Again
janel
we'll
go
over
that
in
greater
detail,
if
that's
not
clear,
but
anything
beyond
that
will
require
amending
minneapolis
2040,
which
we
would
consider
a
more
serious
and
more
onerous
process
for
a
developer
to
go
through
last
thing
before
we
move
on
to
some
of
the
initial
changes
in
the
zoning
ordinance
is
that
we
want
to
make
clear
that
this
does
not
mean
the
end
of
rezoning
requests.
K
There's
going
to
be
some
uses
that
you're
going
to
find
are
allowed
on
a
given
property
that
have
not
changed
with
this
process.
So
a
development
site
might
still
be
zoned
for
single-family
zoning,
in
the
sense
that
it
doesn't
allow
buildings
larger
than
that
or
it
doesn't
allow
uses
more
intense
than
that,
so
it
might
have
r1a
zoning
matched
with
corridor
for
overlay
district.
K
The
message
here
is
just
what
that
means
is
that
you're
still
going
to
see
rezonings
for
the
base
zoning
district,
even
though
until
we
move
forward
with
our
land
use
rezoning
study,
hopefully
later
this
year.
So
even
though
the
build
form
district
might
say,
four-story
buildings
is
appropriate.
K
The
the
the
base
zoning
might
need
to
be
changed.
Okay,
so
first
thing
we're
going
to
jump
into
is
just
some
changes
to
key
definitions
in
the
zoning
ordinance
that
are
important
here.
K
The
new
definitions
are
are
really
intended
to
provide
some
clarity
of
intent,
but
also
they
change
the
way
the
regulations
are
applied.
So
the
first
one
here
is
really
important.
We've
changed
the
definition
of
gross
floor
area
to
mean
that
structured
parking
is
now
included
in
the
floor
area
ratio
calculation.
K
Previously
we
did
not
count
it
towards
far.
This
is
somewhat
offset
by
changes
to
that
fluorite
limits
themselves
that
are
more
permissive
than
they
were
previously.
So
the
intent
here
is
that
the
floor
area
ratio
number
really
should
truly
capture
what
the
bulk
of
the
building
is
by,
including
that
parking
and
hopefully
that
will
encourage
some
better
design
outcomes.
K
The
definition
of
story
has
changed
a
bit
too
we're
removing
the
14
foot
limit
on
height
for
an
individual
story.
Previously,
if
you
had
a
20
foot
floor
story,
that
would
be
counted
as
two
stories
based
on
the
zoning
ordinance.
Instead
we're
going
to
move
forward
relying
on
regulating
height
of
the
overall
building.
K
In
addition
to
that,
the
definition
of
mezzanine
has
been
altered
to
just
match
or
rely
on
the
definition
in
the
building
code.
K
Last
thing
to
note,
which
we
feel
is
important
to
pay
attention
to,
is
that
there's
a
new
public
realm
definition
and
that
is
included
in
part
because
it's
something
referenced
in
new
findings
for
the
height
increases.
K
So
I
know
definitions
aren't
super
exciting,
but
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
have
brought
that
in
front
of
you.
Next,
I'm
going
to
hand
this
off
to,
I
think,
janelle.
It's
going
to
cover
floor
area
ratio,
changes
in
the
interior
districts.
M
I
think
I've
actually
got
these
next
slides.
Thank
you.
Joe
floor
area.
Ratio
is
probably
perhaps
a
term
that's
new
for
some
of
you.
Essentially
it's
a
it's
a
equation
that
relates
to
this
amount
of
building
floor
area
related
to
the
amount
of
lot
area,
so
an
far
of
1.0,
for
example,
would
mean
you'd
have
10
000
square
feet
of
floor
area
in
the
building
on
a
10,
000
square
foot
lot.
M
This
is
just
demonstrating
this
table
the
floor
area
ratio
numbers
and
the
interior
districts,
our
lowest
intensity
districts,
joe
joe
referenced
family
zoning
earlier
that
was
a
little
bit
of
a
misstatement.
We
actually
no
longer
have,
of
course,
single-family
zoning
districts,
our
lowest
intensity
districts.
Our
r1
r1a
now
do
allow
duplexes
and
triplexes,
and
this
is
the
table
that
governs
how
what
how
much
floor
area
can
be
in
those
particular
uses
in
these
built
form.
Districts.
Next
slide.
Please.
M
Again,
just
this
demonstrates
the
increasing
intensity
of
the
floor
area
ratio
as
you
get
to
more
intensive
built
form
districts,
and
one
thing
to
note
here
is
that
in
the
same
built
form
district,
we
allow
a
greater
far
in
non-residential
zoning
than
we
do
in
the
residence
and
office
residence
districts.
So
that's
one
way
that
we
differentiate
between
well
say
a
r1a
site
in
corridor
four
versus
a
commercially
zoned
site
in
corridor.
Four.
M
The
general
rationale
there
is
that
in
the
non-residential
zoning
districts
you
don't
have
things
like
setback
standards
generally
or
lot
coverage
or
impervious
surface
maximums.
So
it
it's
you
more
quickly
kind
of
fill
up
that
volume
of
the
entire
lot.
When
you
don't
have
those
types
of
standards,
so
there's
a
little
bit
more
inherent
flexibility
in
those
commercial
non-residential
districts
compared
to
the
residence
and
office
residence
districts.
M
Next
slide,
please
it's
worth
noting
that
we
have
more
extensive
use
of
minimum
floor
area
ratio
standards.
The
intent
is
to
ensure
that
we
are
not
getting
significant
under
utilization
of
property,
particularly
in
areas
where
there
have
been
significant
transit
investments,
and
you
see
again
that
the
minimum
far
also
gets
a
little
bit
more
intense,
as
the
built
form
district
gets
more
intense,
so
in
corridor.
Six,
for
example,
where
minneapolis
2040
says
that
buildings
should
generally
be
at
least
two
stories.
M
A
minimum.
Far
of
1.0
is
generally
going
to
get
you
a
building
with
two
stories,
just
from
the
fact
that
it's
nearly
impossible
to
literally
fill
up
every
square
foot
of
of
a
site
with
a
one-story
building.
We
don't
typically
see
that,
for
example,
next
slide,
please.
M
in
the
transit
30
and
core
50.
There's
no
limit
on
the
number
of
premiums
that
may
be
awarded
to
a
project,
and
we
try
to
make
sure
that
the
premiums
are
very
clearly
documented
in
the
staff
report,
so
that
someone
can
follow
along
very
simply,
very
clearly
sort
of
how
we
how
we
got
to
a
building
that
maybe
has
a
4.2.
M
M
Please,
this!
The
the
planning
commission
doesn't,
of
course
deal
with
single
family
homes,
duplexes
and
triplexes
very
frequently,
so
we
have
in
our
previous
presentations
to
others.
We
had
more
slides
that
focused
on
that
scale
of
development.
M
We
won't
go
into
this
in
much
detail
here,
but
this
table
shows
the
maximum
floor
area
ratio
that
was
adopted
for
that
scale
of
development,
and
there
are
two
bonuses
or
premiums
that
were
put
into
the
ordinance
to
allow
duplexes
and
triplexes
in
some
contexts
to
get
additional
floor
area
an
affordable
housing
premium,
as
well
as
an
environmental
sustainability
certification
premium,
which
we're
still
sort
of
determining
which
third-party
certifications
will
qualify
for
that
particular
bonus.
N
Thank
you
jason,
so
our
comprehensive
plan
had
clear
guidance
for
our
stories
in
each
of
the
belt
form
overlay
districts.
Our
built
form
districts.
Excuse
me
so
in
the
ordinance
now
we're
continuing
to
regulate
overall
height
in
feet
and
stories,
but,
as
joe
mentioned
now,
there's
not
that
limit.
On
the
height
of
an
individual
story,
the
maximum
height
limits
exist
on
all
of
the
built
form
districts
except
the
core
50
district.
N
N
They
do
apply
to
at
least
50
percent
of
a
building
footprint.
The
minimum
height
requirement
can
apply
to
existing
buildings
when
they're
expanding.
So
if
the
existing
building
is
expanded
by
a
hundred
percent
or
more
of
the
existing
floor
area,
it's
going
to
trigger
that
minimum
height
requirement.
Next
slide,
please
we're
looking
at
increasing
maximum
height.
N
We
know
that's
still
going
to
be
a
thing,
but
based
on
the
comp
plan
guidance,
the
interior
districts,
built
from
districts
and
units
with
one
to
three
are
dwellings
with
one
to
three
units
and
cluster
developments
are
only
going
to
be
allowed
to
increase
their
height
by
variance
there
just
wasn't
guidance
in
the
comp
plan
to
generally
allow
increases
for
these
uses
and
locations.
N
So
generally,
we
expect
that
if
a
height
increase
is
requested
in
the
interior
district
or
any
of
these
other
uses,
that
those
findings
are
just
generally
going
to
be
a
little
bit
more
difficult
to
make,
and
I
would
expect
that
the
planning
commission
would
see
some
potential
requests
for
variances
in
the
interior
districts
for
residences
with
forum
or
units
next
slide.
Please.
N
For
eligible
uses
and
locations,
so
that
would
include
corridor
transit
production
and
parks
built
from
districts.
The
height
could
be
increased
by
an
administrative
application
rather
than
a
conditioning's
permit,
which
was
required
before
there
are
some
exceptions
that
can
apply,
and
that
would
be
in
the
shoreline
overlay
district,
as
well
as
the
mississippi
river
critical
area
overlay
district,
where
a
conditioning
permit
will
continue
to
be
required.
N
So
those
will,
of
course,
continue
to
go
to
the
planning
commission.
When
we're
looking
at
these
height
increases,
there
are
three
requirements
that
are
going
to
be
are
going
to
apply.
The
first
requirement
is
that
the
increased
limits
are
going
to
apply
in
each
district
to
ensure
that
the
intended
scale
of
the
districts
are
maintained
and
to
increase
predictability.
What
for
what
can
be
authorized
in
those
districts?
N
As
joe
noted
previously,
there
were
no
limits.
You
could
basically
ask
for
anything
so
now
the
way
it's
structured
height
increases
can
exceed
the
height
of
the
next
higher
belt
form
district.
So,
for
example,
in
corridor
three,
where
the
maximum
height
is
three
stories,
the
next
built
for
district
would
be
quarter
four,
where
the
maximum
height
is
four
stories
so
quarter.
N
The
second
requirement
is
that
adequate
premium
premiums
need
to
be
provided
and
the
applicable
standards
for
those
premiums
need
to
be
met
with
each
premium.
They
further
the
goals
of
the
comprehensive
plan
in
the
shoreline
districts
and
the
critical
area
districts.
N
N
Another
thing
to
note
is
that
if
either
of
the
first
two
requirements
are
not
met,
the
increase
cannot
be
considered,
so
it's
very
important
that
they
limit
the
increase
limit
as
well
as
providing
those
adequate
premiums.
Then
the
third
finding
relates
to
the
new
legal
findings
that
are
required
and
there
are
four
of
those,
as
shown
on
your
screens.
N
So,
just
to
give
you
a
better
idea
of
what
happens
with
the
administrative
application,
we're
expecting
that
when
a
high
increased
application
is
requested,
there's
also
going
to
be
a
safe
plan,
review
application.
That's
we
think
they'll
be
pretty
typical.
N
So,
with
that
safe
hand,
review
report,
the
findings,
analysis
and
actions
for
the
height
increase
application
will
be
included
in
the
zoning
analysis
section.
So
that
will
be
available
for
reference,
so
same
thing
same
way,
that
we
would
identify
the
information
for
any
far
premiums
that
a
project
would
happen
to
qualify
for.
N
One
other
thing
that
just
to
be
aware
of
is
that
the
decision
date
for
both
the
height
increase,
application
and
site
plan
review
application
or
any
other
application
that
might
apply
will
be
the
same,
and
that's
in
the
event
that
there's
an
appeal.
We
want
those
to
proceed
together
to
the
city
council.
So
if
an
administrative
decision
is
appealed,
it
goes
directly
to
the
city
council,
because
there
isn't
authorization
for
the
planning
commission
to
overturn
that
decision
or
make
any
changes
alterations
to
the
decision.
So
no
conditions
of
approval
could
be
added.
N
For
example,
that
means
that
the
focus
of
the
public
hearing
will
need
to
be
on
the
application
center
before
the
commission
and
what
you're
considering
and
then
in
those
instances
where
our
conditioning
department
is
still
required
to
increase
the
height
just
as
before.
You
know
you
that
application
would
proceed
through
the
public
hearing
process,
but
obviously
there's
different
findings.
That
would
now
need
to
be
addressed
next
slide.
Please.
M
I
won't
cover
these
in
details.
Detail.
We
have
talked
a
little
bit
about
premiums,
as
mentioned.
There
is
a
wider
menu
of
options
to
obtain
premiums.
The
the
height
related
premiums
are
generally
intended
to
be
a
little
bit
more
difficult
to
achieve
so,
for
example,
with
the
I
believe,
the
mixed
use
premium.
For
example,
the
standard
for
meeting
that
premium
is
a
little
bit
higher
in
order
to
obtain
the
height
increase
compared
to
the
far
increase
so
that
they
aren't.
M
They
aren't
necessarily
the
exact
same
language
in
the
far
and
the
height
categories,
and
then
there's
a
in
addition
to
these
eight
menu
items.
You
see
here
for
far
premiums
in
corridor
three
through
through
the
production
districts,
there's
actually
a
larger
menu
of
options
in
the
transit
30
and
core
50
district.
M
Some
of
those
are
a
little
little
bit
more
specific
to
kind
of
a
downtown
or
downtown-like
setting,
rather
than
being
applicable
outside
of
the
downtown
area,
and
as
noted
again,
there
are
limits
on
the
number
of
premiums
that
that
can
be
awarded
for
any
given
project
next
slide.
Please.
M
M
We
have
some
corridor
districts
that
are
on
along
areas
that
have
not
historically
had
very
intensive
development,
and
the
intent
of
those
areas
is
not
that
we're
going
to
have
250
units
300
foot
long
buildings,
so
the
maximum
size
lot
area
is
one
way
that
we
are
kind
of
controlling
for
that
people
can
request
a
plan,
unit,
development
or
cluster
development
on
lots
that
are
exceeding
those
maximum
lot
areas.
M
However,
the
the
plan
unit
development
regulations
also
have
regulation
rules
that
guide
the
size
of
individual
buildings
within
the
pud
to
get
at
the
issue
that
I
just
mentioned,
there
are
some
exemptions
from
maximum
lot
area,
for
example,
schools
or
other
institutional
uses.
That
are
you
know,
side
by
side
with,
with
in
the
same
districts
as
homes
have
obviously
different
space
needs
and
we've
we
exempted
some
of
those
uses
from
maximum
lot
area
standards
next
slide.
M
It
shows
the
the
maximum
square
footage
in
those
districts
where
we
have
maximum
lot
area
standards,
and
here
you
see,
as
a
general
rule
of
thumb,
the
number
of
kind
of
standard
city
lots
that
can
be
combined
in
each
of
those
districts
so
generally
in
an
interior.
One
lots
are
not
intended
to
be
combined
into
larger
lots.
Interior
two
can
generally
combine
two
standard
lots,
and
this
small
little
map
here
in
the
lower
right
just
shows
an
example
of
a
corridor
four
built
form
districts
along
lowry,
avenue
northeast.
M
It
shows
that
those
are
mapped
four
parcels
deep
from
that
corridor
and
the
the
corridor
four
built
form
lot
area.
Maximum
maximum
would
accommodate,
for
example,
the
combination
of
those
four
standard
parcels
into
a
redevelopment
site,
of
course,
where
you
have
the
longer
north-south
corridors
with
something
like
corridor
for
zoning.
That's
not
quite
as
doesn't
work
out
quite
as
neatly
that
way
where
you
have
that
natural
break,
so
just
an
observation
along
some
of
the
east-west
corridors.
That
was
the
general
extent
to
which
we
mapped
corridor
4,
for
as
an
example
next
slide.
M
M
And
here
is
just
a
example
of
how
this
would
play
out
in
different
built
form
districts:
here's
a
development
project,
a
newer
building,
maybe
developed
five
years
or
so
ago,
35
35
grand
avenue
the
lot
size
is
a
little
over
15
000
square
feet.
So
this
is
an
example
of
a
project
that
would
be
allowed
in
terms
of
the
lot
size
in
interior
3,
but
would
be
on
too
large
of
a
lot
for
the
interior
2
district
again
to
really
align
with
the
the
descriptions
of
those
built
form
districts
in
minneapolis
2040.
M
Let's
see
one
to
three
unit
residential
buildings
we
had
when
we
adopted
regulations
that
allowed
up
to
three
units
on
every
parcel
that
allows
that
was
formerly
single
family
zoning.
We
adopted
maximum
lot
sizes
to
ensure
that
again,
we
maintained
the
scale
that's
intended
in
in
those
districts
and
the
built
form
regulations
that
were
just
adopted
did
not
change
those
standards
that
were
adopted
about
a
year
ago.
M
I
think
that's
the
only
major
point
on
this
slide
next
slide.
Please
and
I'll
turn
it
back
to
janelle.
N
Thank
you,
jason.
So,
moving
on
to
yard
requirements
generally,
most
of
the
yard
requirements
are
going
to
be
found
in
the
residence
and
office
residence
districts
just
as
before.
That's
where
they
would
apply,
and
just
briefly
with
front
yard
requirements,
we
still
have
a
district
requirement
that
would
apply,
depending
on
which
belt
form
district
you're
in
and
as
before.
N
There
are
some
requirements
that
are
based
on
the
established
setback
of
adjacent
properties,
so,
depending
on
what
the
adjacent
properties,
how
they're
set
back
your
minimum
front,
yard
requirement
could
be
increased
or
in
some
cases
decreased
and
then
a
new
thing
that
came
out
of
the
built
farm
amendment
is
that
in
the
or
districts
it
is
possible
to
eliminate
a
front
yard
requirement
if
a
mixed-use
building
is
proposed
that
meets
the
standards
for
the
mixed-use
far
premium.
N
So
if
those
standards
are
met,
that
front
yard
requirement
could
be
eliminated
and
allows
for
the
building
to
be
built
up
to
the
lot
line
or
other
encroachments,
such
as
a
patio
things
that
won't
normally
be
allowed
in
that
front
yard
requirement
to
be
located
there
without
needing
a
variance
next
slide.
Please
looking
at
corner
side
yard
requirements
and,
in
general
just
the
rest
of
the
yard,
requirements
for
interior
side
yard
and
very
yard
requirements.
N
Those
requirements
have
generally
become
a
little
less
restrictive,
and
now
we
are
basing
those
requirements
off
of
building
height
and
feet
rather
than
stories.
N
So
we
are
able
to
base
the
ranges
of
the
feet
on
average
heights
of
projects
that
we
had
seen
come
in
before
the
amendment
so
generally,
a
a
three-story
building
residential
building
is
only
going
to
have
an
eight
foot
corner
side
yard
setback,
whereas
before
it
would
usually
require
a
12
foot
setback,
so
usually
there's
going
to
be
a
four
foot
difference
for
average
size
buildings
now
floor
heights
are
taller.
That
means
you're,
potentially
that
your
setback
requirements
are
going
to
be
greater
and
then
another
thing
to
note
with
this.
N
As
with
the
front
yard
requirements
when
you're
in
the
or
districts,
there's
that
potential
again
to
eliminate
your
corner
side
yard
requirement
if
a
mixed-use
building
is
proposed
that
meets
those
standards
for
the
far
premium
next
slide.
Please.
N
Interior
sideward
requirements
a
lot
of
the
same
stuff
I
just
mentioned
for
corner
side
yard
requirements
apply
generally
less
restrictive,
we're
basing
it
off
of
building
height
and
feet
rather
than
stories.
Your
minimum
setback
requirement
could
be
five
feet
rather
than
nine
feet
for
a
typical
three-story
residential
building.
There
are
some
exceptions
that
apply
to
this
table
on
your
screen.
Generally,
one
to
three
unit
dwellings
are
going
to
have
different.
It's
in
the
interior
districts
are
going
to
have
different
setback
requirements,
since
you
generally
don't
see
those.
N
I
won't
get
into
that
too
much.
Another
exception
would
be
long
building
requirements,
so
we're
defining
a
long
building
as
a
building
that
extends
more
than
75
feet
of
the
length
of
the
property.
N
In
that
case,
the
cider
setback
is
going
to
increase
by
two
feet
in
rare
situations
where
we
would
have
a
quarter,
six
or
a
transit
property,
a
budding,
an
interior
one
or
interior
two
district,
and
the
building
proposed
on
that
site
is
at
least
about
a
five-story
building
that
signer
setback
is
going
to
increase
by
another
five
feet
from
what's
shown
in
the
table,
and
then
the
last
exception
would
be
for
institutional
uses
in
interior,
1
and
interior
2
districts,
where
they
exceed
20
feet
tall,
which
is
in
some
situations
allowed.
N
Now
that
setback
requirement
is
going
to
increase
from
5
feet
to
7
feet
next
slide,
please
just
looking
at
commercial,
downtown
and
industrial
districts
generally,
we
still
don't
have
yard
requirements
that
apply,
except
when
a
property
is
adjacent
to
a
residential
or
office
residence.
N
Excuse
me,
residential
district
or,
if
there's
a
residential
use,
we
did
incorporate
some
exceptions
for
properties
when
they're
adjacent
to
goods
and
services.
Corridors
where
that
reflective
frontier
step
back
would
no
longer
apply,
and
there
are
well
if,
if
there's
a
dwelling
with
one
or
two
units,
just
note
that
they
would
have
separate
yard
requirements
but
again
generally,
probably
not
something
that
useless
commission
would
see
and
then
just
one
other
note
is
we
still
allow
obstructions
certain
obstructions
into
required
yards.
N
N
With
the
impervious
surface
and
lot
coverage
requirements
in
some
districts
we
have
them
and
other
districts,
they
don't
apply
so
kind
of
where
you'd
expect
to
see
them,
that's
what
they
are
and
they
are
more
graduated
than
they
were
before,
and
it
is
possible
that,
even
in
some
residence
or
office
residence
districts,
there
is
no
requirement,
such
as
in
core
50
in
the
core
50
built
forum
district-
and
these
are
these
numbers-
were
designed
to
work
with
the
allowed
far
for
the
districts
as
well.
Next
slide,
please.
N
We
do
expect
maybe
more
cluster
developments
will
be
proposed.
I
think
we've
seen
an
increase
in
these
types
of
developments
more
recently,
so
just
wanted
to
note
a
few
changes
related
to
this
type
of
development.
N
They
do
have
separate
fire
and
height
requirements
that
apply
they're
generally
more
restrictive
than
what
other
uses
in
those
districts
would
be
allowed
and
just
again,
when
we're
looking
at
the
height
requirements,
the
height
can
only
be
increased
by
variance
for
cluster
developments
in
any
built
form
district
with
the
lot
size
requirements,
and
just
one
thing
to
know
is
that
minimum
lot
size
requirements
per
dwelling
unit
are
still
going
to
apply
in
r1
through
r4.
N
So,
although
you
may
have
more
opportunities
to
do
cluster
developments,
the
opportunity
isn't
there
to
just
add,
as
many
units
as
someone
could
propose,
and
also
the
maximum
size
requirement
is
still
determined
by
the
conditions
permit.
There
were
no
other
updates
to
the
development
standards
for
cluster
developments
next
slide.
Please,
then,
moving
on
to
plan
unit
developments
again
could
see
more
of
these.
N
So
some
of
the
changes
around
planning
developments-
the
minimum
lot
size
requirement-
has
been
reduced
to
half
an
acre
from
one
acre
jason
kind
of
touched
on
that
we
now
have
limitations
on
the
size
of
individual
buildings
that
apply
in
the
interior
and
corridor
districts,
and
this
is
related
to
the
maximum
lot
size
requirements
that
are
in
those
districts.
So
the
table
shown
on
your
screen
identifies
what
a
developer
could
propose
in
those
districts
if
they
go
above
what
would
be
allowed
for
that?
There
is
the
possibility
first
I'll
start
with.
N
They
would
be
required
to
break
up
the
building
essentially
into
one
or
more
buildings,
to
comply
with
the
table.
However,
there
is
the
opportunity
for
someone
to
request
an
exception,
so
that's
an
additional
alternative
that
has
been
authorized,
but,
with
that
exception,
there's
certain
criteria
that
have
to
be
met.
So
the
staff
report
will
outline
you
know
a
recommendation
based
on
those
criteria
that
the
planning
commission
could
then
consider
in
allowing
or
not
allowing
for
the
development.
Another
significant
change
with
planning
developments.
N
N
The
first
is
a
built
form
guide,
that's
been
produced
and
it
has
it's
a
handout,
so
it
has
kind
of
compiles
all
of
the
regulations
for
each
of
the
districts
and
just
is
a
quick
reference
guide.
So,
as
you
can
see
on
your
screen
here,
this
is
for
quarter
six,
so
it
includes
applicable
regulations
at
the
district
description
where
you
can
find
it
and
then
some
key
provisions.
N
We
did
also
call
out
regulations
specific
to
one
to
three
units
because
they
are
still
generally
regulated
just
a
bit
differently
than
other
uses
on
each
district.
So
we
can
certainly
make
this
available
to
the
commission.
It's
a
14
megabyte
document,
so
we
didn't
think
it
would
be
a
good
idea
to
email
it
out
to
you,
but
we
can
maybe
have
it
uploaded
into
sharepoint.
So
you
can
refer
to
this.
Eventually,
it
will
be
uploaded
onto
the
website
and
we're
in
the
process
of
making
those
updates.
N
So
hopefully,
sooner
than
later,
people
can
refer
to
our
joe.
Could
you
go
back
to
the
previous
slide?
People
can
refer
to
the
20
minneapolis
2040
website
and
the
code
development
website.
N
What
we're
hoping
to
have
up
there
is
just
more
information
for
people
to
refer
to
and
have
a
better
understanding
of
what
these
these
changes
to
the
ordinance
mean
and
can
find
what
they
need,
as
we're
still
happen
to
be
waiting
for
unicode,
which
is
our
online
code
to
be
updated,
and
we
don't
have
a
timeline
yet
on
when
that
is
going
to
be
completed.
So,
if
you're
looking
to
find
the
ordnance
online
right
now,
we
can
just
provide
the
link
where
you
can
find
it
on
the
council's
website.
N
The
council
action
it's
unfortunately,
just
a
pdf.
So
it's
not
the
easiest
document
to
look
at,
but
so
those
handouts
we
expect
are
going
to
be
very
useful
in
interim
until
we
have
our
unicode
code
updated.
I
believe
that
covers
all
the
resource
information
I'll
turn
it
back
to
jason.
M
Thank
you
janelle,
so
just
sort
of
to
summarize
a
a
key
point
or
two
as
joe
kind
of
alluded
to,
especially
our
our
regulations
now
allow
big
buildings
where
our
policies
call
for
them.
So
previously,
as
joe
definitely
mentioned,
we
had
some
massive
variances
and
the
basis
for
some
of
those
variances
was
well.
Our
policies
say
we
should
have
larger
buildings
here
than
our
code
calls,
for
that
should
no
longer
be
the
basis
for
a
variance.
M
M
M
But
we
think
this
is
a
major
major
leap
forward
in
a
variety
of
ways,
including
not
the
least
of
which
is
ensuring
that
development
is
much
more
predictable
for
those
who
are
trying
to
build
something
in
the
city
and
those
who
are
having
something
built
near
where
they
live.
For
example,
with
that
we're
happy
to
hear
any
questions
that
any
of
you
have.
C
Yeah,
thank
you,
commissioner
olson,
and
thank
you.
The
team.
I
always
have
a
fun
time,
seeing
like
all
of
your
name,
starts
with
jake.
So
thank
you
for
your
presentation.
It's
very
detailed.
I
asked
that
if
I
can
look
at
the
presentation
later
because
I'm
like,
I
am
definitely
not
retaining
all
of
this
information
in
this
moment,
I
do
have
a
couple
of
questions
for
you.
C
One
is
and-
and
I
apologize
that
if
you
mentioned
it-
and
it
wasn't
clear
to
me
what
is
the
next
step,
is
this
coming
back
to
the
planning
commission
or
is
the
next
step
going
to
city
council
as
part
of
the
basically
code
update
and
just
you
know,
calling
it
good
and
then
my
other
question
is
that
you
did
mention
jason
in
the
very
beginning
of
your
presentation
that
you
have
done
a
similar
presentation
in
more
detail
for
developers
and
just
kind
of
talking
about
how
this
built
form,
regulations
and
updates
impact
those
developments,
and
I
guess
I
would
just
say
I
personally-
am
interested
to
see
what
the
developers
heard.
C
I
know
you
said
it's
much
more
detailed
than
the
commission
probably
doesn't
need
to
know
that
much
detail,
but
I
also
feel
like
it
would
be
very
helpful
when
projects
come
to
a
place
such
as
the
committee
of
the
whole,
when
we're
discussing
all
the
bits
and
pieces
of
the
of
the
projects
and
the
materials
they've
used,
and
things
like
that
which
I'm
hoping
someone
else
can
point
out
when
the
time
comes
and-
and
I
think
I
feel
like
it
would
be
beneficial
to
know
what
they
at
least
think
they
know
so.
C
If
there
is
a
any
other
one
of
those
sessions,
if
it's
recorded,
I
would
love
to
listen
to
it
or
something
along
those
lines.
I
guess
sure.
M
Thank
you
for
those
questions.
I
I
didn't
mean
to
give
the
impression
that
we
left
out
a
lot
of
stuff
from
what
we
presented
to
design,
professionals
and
developers.
Most
of
what
we
eliminated
was
the
single
family,
two
family
and
triplex
stuff,
and
then
a
handful
of
bullet
points.
So
it
really
it
wasn't
that
much
that
we
we
took
out
we're
happy
to
share
that
version
of
the
of
the
presentation.
M
The
again
the
rationale
there
was
partly
the
sake
of
time
here,
and
also
that,
although
it's
good
that
our
planning
for
our
planning
commissioners
to
have
a
pretty
good,
at
least
cursory
understanding
of
the
zoning
code,
we
don't
expect
you
to
have
the
same
level
of
expertise
as
someone
who's
working
at
the
zoning
counter
or
who's
designing
a
building
based
on.
M
You
know
the
zoning
rules,
for
example,
but
I
didn't
again
need
to
give
the
impression
that
we're
we're
cheating
you
out
of
a
lot
of
information,
but
I
appreciate
that
to
your
first
question.
I
mean
these
rules
are
now
adopted
and
and
the
law
of
the
land
as
of
january
1st,
so
we
are
now
moving
on
after
we
kind
of
get
all
these
resources
training
resources
out
there.
M
We
are
moving
on
to
other
types
of
regulatory
implementation,
which
will
include
and
tackling
the
land
use
primary
zoning
districts,
as
joe
alluded
to
in
his
one
of
his
slides,
will
have
some
odd
mismatches
in
the
meantime,
between
primary
zoning
districts
and
built
form
districts
where
you've
got
that,
you
know
the
zoning
districts
that
allow
only
up
to
triplexes,
but
it's
in
corridor
six
or
something
like
that,
so
that
that
will
be
a
a
big
thing
for
us
to
tackle.
M
That
will
not
be
ready
for
adoption
yet
this
year,
so
this
year
we
will
be
bringing
forward
some.
I
don't
know
if
smaller
is
the
right
word,
but
other
changes
like
site
plan
review
standards
that
are
another
step
toward
minneapolis
2040
implementation,
kind
of
post
built
form,
adoption.
E
M
Sure
some
of
you
might
remember
a
development
project
at
the
corner
of
26th
and
blaisdell.
M
The
city
approved
a
development
there
that
inc
that
required
some
number
of
variances
and
the
court
has
overturned
that
approval
and,
as
part
of
that
they
have
said,
you
can't
use
your
code
as
your
code
not
being
up
to
date
as
the
reason
for
granting
a
variance.
M
So,
for
example,
we've
had
places
in
the
past
prior
to
the
built
form
being
adopted,
where
you
know
our
policies
have
called
for
mid-rise
or
even
high-rise
buildings
and
our
our
floor
area
ratio
regulations
just
haven't
even
been
close
to
being
aligned
with
that,
and
so
the
rationale
for
that
we
stated
in
the
variances
was
well.
We've
got
this
mismatch
between
our
our
policies
and
regulations.
B
G
B
G
Jason
thanks
so
much
that
was
a
terrific
overview,
a
lot
to
learn
there.
I
was
just
curious,
a
little
article
in
the
paper
this
morning
about
the
challenge
to
that
from
some
environmental
groups
to
the
2040
plan
and
how
you,
if
you
could
just
comment
on
that,
I'm
assuming
we're
still
running
forward
until
things
change,
but
how
potentially
or
what
impact
that
may
or
may
not
have.
M
Sure,
yes,
the
minnesota
supreme
court
acted
yesterday
or
this
week
to
reinstate
the
lawsuit
challenging
the
minneapolis
2040
plan.
Our
city
attorney's
office
has
made
it
clear
that
we
can
can
and
should
continue
to.
M
Move
ahead
with
the
regulatory
implementation
of
the
plan
and
just
to
be
clear,
that
decision
certainly
did
not
overturn
the
adoption
of
of
the
plan.
It
was
a
procedural
decision
essentially
saying
that
the
lower
court
aired
in
throwing
out
the
lawsuit
and
that
the
lawsuit
may
continue.
So
there's
going
to
be
a
long
period
of
the
discovery
phase
now
ahead
in
the
lawsuit
we
expect,
but
from
our
standpoint
there
will
be
no
slowing
down
and
the
type
of
work
that
we
just
presented
here
today.
A
Thank
you
all
right,
so
next
kimberly
do.
We
have
any
updates
from
staff.
J
Trying
to
unmute
myself
here,
no
updates
at
this
time.
Other
than
to
let
you
know
we
are
still
planning
on
having
a
retreat
for
the
commission.
Hopefully
you
know
we
were
hoping
to
have
it
in
february.
I
don't
know
if
we're
still
going
to
be
able
to
get
that
on
the
calendar,
but
we
did
want
to
get
this
built
form
presentation
in
front
of
you
as
soon
as
we
could
just
knowing
that
you're
going
gonna
have
projects
coming
your
way
that
are
subject
to
the
new
regulations.
J
So
with
that
you
know,
I
think
it's
there's
still
gonna,
be
some
opportunity
to
take
smaller
pieces
of
that
work
and
evaluate
them
and
discuss
them
at
a
retreat.
That
will
either
happen
at
the
end
of
february
or
beginning
of
march,
and
I
think
that
was
really
the
only
other
update
I
had
other
than
just
another.
Welcome
to
the
new
commissioners
bill.
I
understand
you
were
on
the
phone
on
monday,
but
just
technology
issues,
so
I'm
glad
you're
able
to
connect
tonight.
G
J
G
D
I
have
a
question
keith
ford
here,
so
there
was
a
reference.
I
see
that
somebody
on
the
chat
line
had
asked
for
a
copy
of
this.
This
slide
deck,
which
is
great
but
is
also
reference
to
the
built
form
summary
document.
Is
that
going
to
be
available
somewhere.
M
Still
here
and
can
speak
to
that,
as
you
can
tell
I'm
I'm
now
in
the
dark
only
lighted
by
the
glow
of
my
laptop.
Yes,
we
can,
we
might
given
the
size
of
the
document.
We
might
just
have
to
work
with
the
clerk
to
make
sure
to
share
it
by
sharepoint
or
something
rather
than
emailing
it
out
to
everyone,
but
we
will
make
sure
we
can
get
that
in
your
hands
or
access
to
it.
Thank
you.
A
L
Yeah
hi
this
is
anisha.
I
was
just
mentioning
that
I
saw
that
lisa
updated
our
calendar.
So
I
see
all
the
committee
of
the
whole
meetings
now
on
our
calendars,
but
I
don't
see
the
monday
public
meetings
so.
J
L
Okay
and
then
those
get
popped
onto
this,
the
microsoft
teams
calendar
at
that
point
got
it
correct
yeah,
because
that's
how
usually
how
I
join.
I
just
click
onto
the
app
on
my
mac
and
then
join,
and
then
those
meetings
just
seem
to
be
disappearing,
a
bunch.
So
thank
you
they're
all
up
there.
Now,
though,
I
see
them.
A
Yeah
I
just
had
a
couple
housekeeping
things,
especially
for
our
newest
commissioners,
so
welcome
we're
glad
to
have
you
guys,
and
these
are
also
just
good
reminders
for
all
of
us.
In
our
monday
meetings,
the
it
staff
have
asked
that
we
keep
our
cameras
on
when
we're
speaking
and
off
when
we're
not
speaking
and
same
thing,
with
microphones
on
when
you're
speaking
off
when
you're
not
and
then
we
never.
I
don't
know
if
anyone
ever
told
you
guys
this,
but
to
comment
or
ask
questions
in
the
meeting.
A
We
write
in
the
chat
on
the
side
of
the
meeting.
So
do
you
guys
see
where
that
is
yeah,
so
just
say
you
know,
I
have
a
question
or
I
have
a
motion
and
it's
we're
all
learning
how
to
do
these
virtual
meetings,
but
that's
kind
of
what
we're
trying
to
stick
to
and
then
the
chat
is
also
in
the
public
record.
A
So
anything
you
say
in
there
is
part
of
the
public
record
and
the
clerk's
office
just
wants
us
to
make
sure
that
it's
all
business,
I
guess
so,
does
anyone
have
anything
else?
If
not,
I
will
adjourn
the
meeting.
I
just
have
one.
C
Along
the
lines
of
what
you
just
mentioned
about
the
chat
in
the
monday
meetings,
at
least
since
those
are
officially
like
official
public
meetings
and
just
something
that
anything
related
to
like.
If,
if
you
are
in
fact
asking
a
question
making
a
comment
making
even
making
emotion
and
all
that
they
all
have
to
be
eventually
verbalized.
C
So
you
can't
ask
a
question
related
to
the
items
in
the
chat.
The
the
the
chat
can
be
related
to
technical
difficulties,
and
things
like
that.
However,
when
you,
for
example,
put
motion
or
second
or
question,
you
will
be
called
on
by
the
chair
of
the
meeting
so
to
verbalize
that
so
that's
just
something
to
keep
in
mind.