►
From YouTube: June 14, 2021 Planning Commission
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
My
name
is
raya
smiley,
I'm
the
president
of
this
commission
and
will
be
chairing
this
meeting
as
we
begin.
I
just
want
to
note
for
the
record
that
this
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
by
members
of
the
city,
council
and
city
staff,
as
was
authorized
under
minnesota
statute,
section
13d
21
due
to
the
declared
local
public
health
emergency,
the
city
will
be
recording
and
posting
this
meeting
onto
the
city's
website
and
the
youtube
channel.
This
meeting
is
public
and
subject
to
the
open
meeting
law.
D
C
E
G
C
B
B
C
A
H
A
I
B
B
Just
as
a
brief
reminder,
consent
items
are
those
that
will
be
passed
by
the
commission.
Without
any
this
discussion,
we
will
basically
go
with
the
staff
recommendation
and
any
additional
conditions
that
are
associated
with
that
with
that
item.
If
you
agree
with
the
recommendation
and
the
conditions,
you
don't
need
to
do
anything,
but
if
you
disagree
with
that,
please
speak
up
and
indicate
that
you
would
like
to
speak
against
that
decision
with
that,
oh
and
then,
in
order
for
you
to
speak
up,
you
can
press
star
six
to
do
that.
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Okay
hearing
none
item
number
10
is
on
consent,
item
number,
11,
regulation
of
rooming
units
and
congregate
living
facilities,
ordinance
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
discussion
so
just
to
quickly
review
items.
4,
5,
6,
8
and
10
are
slated
for
consent.
We
will
continue
item
number
9
and
items
7
and
11
will
be
discussed.
B
A
A
K
E
A
B
Perfect
and
that
motion
passes
and
the
agenda
has
been
approved
now
we
will
proceed
to
handle
the
agenda
in
this
order.
First,
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
for
our
consent
items
and
approve
those
items
and
then,
after
that,
we
will
proceed
to
the
continuance
and
discussion
with
that.
I
will
now
open
the
public
hearing
on
the
consent
agenda.
A
H
B
B
So
before
we
proceed
to
our
discussion
items,
I
would
like
to
address
item
number
nine
2648
marshall
street
northeast.
Since
this
item
was
originally
slated
for
tonight's
meeting,
I
am
opening
the.
I
will
be
opening
the
public
hearing
for
any
member
of
the
public
who
is
unable
to
who's
here
tonight
and
is
unable
to
attend
the
june
28
planning
commission
meeting
when
this
item
will
be
heard
and
decided
on.
B
So
with
that
I
am
opening
the
public
hearing
on
item
number
nine
and
I
will
go
based
on
the
queue
that
we
currently
have.
If
there's
anyone
who
would
sleep
still
like
to
talk
on
or
speak
on,
item
number
nine
and
not
in
the
next
meeting
so
again,
public
hearing
open
the
first,
the
first
name
that
we
have
on
our
queue
is
the
applicant
andrew
wattenwattenhofer.
B
If
I
said
that
correctly,
if
you
are
on
the
line,
you
can
press
star
6
to
unmute
yourself
and
just
state
your
name
and
number
and
proceed
sorry
name
and
address
what
number,
if
it's?
Okay,
if
you
prefer
to
speak
at
the
next
meeting,
because
that's
when
we
will
in
fact
be
talking
about
this
item
as
well.
E
E
B
B
M
Hi,
my
name
is
karen
peterson.
I
live
at
215
broadway
street
northeast.
I
want
to
thank
you
all
for
this
opportunity
I
may
be
up
at
the
next
meeting,
but
I
just
want
to
get
this
in
the
above
falls.
Master
plan
was
about
by
the
city
council
in
june
2013,
providing
guidance
and
direction
to
the
acquisition
development
management
operations
of
the
above
falls
park.
The
idea
is
a
continuous
park
system
that
provides
a
destination
park.
M
Expanding
river
access
to
an
area
that
was
long
identified
as
largely
as
north
as
decades
enhances
natural
resources
for
natural
resource
quality,
and
it's
consistent
with
minnesota
statute.
473-313,
the
council
requirement
for
master
plan
and
the
east
bank
trail
has
been
allocated
a
million
dollars
for
design
and
construction.
M
In
addition
to
our
current
conversations
with
hennepin
county
watershed
management
and
the
mprb
to
develop
this
pedestrian
trail
work,
this
work
is
work
ongoing
and
then,
when
it's
completed,
you
will
finally
have
the
ground
round
finally
become
a
reality.
The
hf
takes
an
ecosystem
approach
providing
for
natural
riverfront
restoration.
M
While
I
appreciate
that
this
is
private
property-
and
I
appreciate
all
the
work
that
the
owners
have
been
preparing
their
requests
and
speaking
of
sha
sheridan,
neighborhood
or
representative,
we
simply
must
come
down
on
the
no
to
the
variance
to
build
within
the
40-foot
quote,
variance
to
build
within.
They
just
speak
the
cast
and
accepted
mississippi
river
critical
areas
for
corridors
and
no
to
the
cop
for
cluster
development.
Why
would
we
want
to
build
this
cluster
development?
M
When
we
all
know
this
is
going
to
be
personal,
and
we
can't
know
when
act
that
the
acquisition
will
take
50
years
done
by
the
owners.
The
sure
brothers
thought
of
that
this
is
a
step
in
the
absolute
direction.
Please
allow
time
for
the
watershed.
Well,
you
are
a
long
time
for
the
parkour
and
mississippi
watershed
man
that's
a
way,
and
I
really
appreciate
that.
I
appreciate
the
delay
and
I
thank
you
for
your
time
and
careful
considerations
really
important
matters.
Thank
you.
B
L
Hello,
this
is
colleen.
I
can't
make
the
next
meeting
so
I
appreciate
the
chance
to
speak
tonight.
My
name
is
colleen
o'connor
toberman,
I'm
with
friends
of
the
mississippi
river,
and
I
live
at
2316
saint
anthony
parkway
just
want
to
speak
really
briefly
to
the
requested
variant
for
the
structure
setback
they
want
to,
from
my
understanding,
build
a
home
into
the
bluff,
which
is
not
in
compliance
with
the
city's
new
merka
ordinance,
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
the
city's
new
ordinance
is
being
correctly
applied.
L
It's
not
clear
from
the
staff
report
whether
the
city
has
independently
verified
whether
the
bluff
line
on
the
property
is
naturally
occurring
or
not.
The
staff
report
appears
to
rely
on
the
applicant's
own
statement
about
that.
So
I'd
just
like
to
see
the
city
review
this
more
thoroughly
before
deciding
on
this
variance.
L
B
N
B
B
B
B
B
B
Oh
greg
is
here:
okay,
I
staff
is
saying
that
greg
will
is
planning
to
speak
at
the
next
meeting,
so
we
will
just
continue
with
the
public
hearing,
although
I
did
reach
the
end
of
our
registered
speakers
speaker
list.
So
at
this
point
I
want
to
ask
if
there's
anyone
else
on
the
call
who
would
like
to
speak
on
item
number
nine
tonight,
because
you
can't
make
it
on
the
next
meeting
to
the
next
meeting
on
june
28th.
L
E
B
B
Q
H
There
we
go
if
between
now
and
our
next
meeting
we
might.
I
would
appreciate
at
least
getting
some
advice
on
exactly
what
our
authority
is.
Regarding
this
particular
item,
I'm
not.
I
don't
I'd
like
to
know
what
well,
how
now
there
are
there
issues
here
that
go
beyond
the
the
report
of
the
staff
that
we
are
able
to
consider
or
not
consider
I
just
have
a
but
like
a
sense
of
what
is
our
scope
of
authority
here.
H
B
P
B
H
R
C
A
C
K
B
B
We
will
now
move
on
to
the
discussion
items
again.
These
are
items
that
we
will
take
public
testimony
on
and
deliberate
on
it
and
then
make
a
decision.
So
I
will
open
for
each
item.
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
and
then
I
will
close
it
and
then
we
will
continue
with
the
discussion
amongst
the
commission.
Well-
and
this
is
oh,
I'm
sorry
and
the
staff
may
address
any
questions
that
the
commissioners
have
at
that
point.
B
S
That
structure
is
currently
vacant
and
is
under
common
ownership,
with
the
hotel
use,
formerly
the
minneapolis
grand
hotel
going
to
be
the
hyatt
centric
hotel
property
that
is
contiguous
to
the
to
the
subject
site
and
which
has
frontage
along
2nd
avenue.
South
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
demolish
the
existing
structure
on
the
site
in
order
to
establish
a
new
20
space
accessory
surface
parking
lot
that
would
be
accessed
off
of
7th
street
south.
S
This
is
a
demolition
plan
for
the
existing
structure
on
the
site,
takes
up
most
of
that
existing
parcel
and
is
connected
to
that
existing
hotel
use
that
fronts
along
second
avenue
south
next
slide,
and
then
the
proposed
surface
parking
lot
that
would
take
its
place.
The
applicant
is
also
proposing
to
construct
a
small
pedestrian
plaza
along
the
public
right-of-way
at
the
south
end
of
that
existing
parcel.
S
S
That
might
be
it
actually.
So
an
accessory
parking
lot
of
20
spaces
or
less
is
a
allowed
conditional
use
in
the
downtown
parking
overlay
district.
This
parcel
is
considered
accessory
to
the
hotel
use
because
it's
under
common
ownership
and
with
contiguous
parcels
with
that
existing
hotel
structure
fronting
along
second
avenue
there.
So
I
can
pause
there
and
take
any
questions
and
then
I
know
the
applicant
is
also
present
and
can
answer
questions
as
well.
B
P
S
Yes,
it
would
be
confirming
a
conditional
use
to
establish
a
parking
lot
there
and
as
long
as
that
use
was
maintained
and
operational
and
under
the
same
ownership
as
the
hotel
use,
then
it
could
go
forward
without
restriction
in
terms
of
the
timeline,
so
it's
not
being
proposed
as
an
interim
use,
it's
a
established
permanent
use.
Thank
you.
J
Mcguire,
thank
you
so,
with
this
proposal
it
didn't
look
like
they
were
proposing
to
combine
the
lots.
So
I
guess
my
question
is
what
prevents
the
owner
from
transferring
the
ownership
to
another
group
and
then
just
having
it
be
like
a
paid
surface
slot
for
downtown
and
really
keeping
it
accessory
to
the
hotel
use.
S
Sure,
absolutely
so
the
downtown
parking
overlay
district
does
not
allow
the
establishment
of
new
commercial
surface
parking
lots.
So
if
ownership
were
to
change
and
someone
were
to
attempt
to
use
the
parking
lot
as
a
commercial
parking
lot,
that
would
not
be
in
allowed
use,
it's
only
allowed
as
an
accessory
use.
H
B
S
I
will
have
the
applicant
speak
a
little
bit
to
that
question.
What
I
can
say
about
the
existing
structure
is
that
it
was
not
deemed
to
be
historically
significant.
So
that's
really
the
main
avenue
through
which
the
city
would
prevent
someone
from
demolishing
a
structure,
but
all
the
applicants
speak
a
little
bit
to
their
explorations
of
reusing
the
use
or
the
existing
structure
versus
you
know:
potential
future
development
scenarios.
B
Okay,
thank
you
any
additional
questions
from
the
commission
before
I
open
the
public
hearing
and
we
will
hear
from
the
applicant
at
that
point:
okay,
singing
anon.
I
will
now
open
the
public
hearing
and
I
hear
that
the
applicant
is
here
to
speak.
If
so,
please
press
star
six
to
unmute
yourself
and
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
T
T
A
couple
of
the
questions
that
were
raised.
I
think
the
first
one
dealt
with
the
connection
of
our
hotel
to
the
parking
lot
and
currently
the
hotel
has
a
fire
escape
on
the
east
side
of
the
building
and
that
fire
escape
discharges
on
the
roof
of
the
annex,
building
and
down
through
a
stair
and
out
onto
the
front
side
of
the
building.
T
When
we
take
the
building
down
that
fire
escape,
will
then
discharge
down
to
the
ground
level
and
across
the
parking
lot,
and
then
there's
also
a
secondary
connection
from
the
current
basement
of
the
hotel
building
that
will
egress
up
up
a
set
of
stairs
onto
the
parking
lot
and
then
back
out
onto
the
street.
So
those
are
really
the
primary
connections
between
the
parking
lot
and
the
hotel.
Does
that
answer
that
question.
T
H
T
And
I
think
the
next
question
we
were
asked
about
a
better
use
for
this
building
and
we
wish
there
was.
We
spent
a
lot
of
time
and
energy
trying
to
strategize
and
figure
out
how
to
use
this
building.
We
had
hoped
that
we
could
have
kept
lifetime
fitness
in
space
or
find
another
fitness
center
franchise
to
come
out
and
lease
the
space
from
us,
but
unfortunately,
the
condition
of
the
building
and
the
age
of
the
building
prevented
that,
especially
when
there
are
some
nicer
fitness
centers.
T
You
know
in
close
proximity
right
now.
You
know,
I
think
the
building
was
constructed
in
the
early
1980s.
It
has
no
elevators,
so
the
only
elevators
that
serve
as
the
space
are
actually
the
hotel
elevators
also
because
it
was
used
as
a
fitness
center.
It
has
a
very
awkward
floor,
plate
configuration
it
isn't
particularly
suitable
to
office
space
or
residential
or
any
other
uses.
You
know,
there's
a
large
basketball
court.
There
are
locker
rooms
with
low
ceilings.
T
B
D
T
Sure
our
intent
for
that
space
is,
we
wanted
to
program
a
flexible
space
that
could
be
used
by
the
hotel.
You
know
possibly
some
of
the
adjacent.
You
know
property
owners.
We
know
that
there's
a
pub
on
the
corner,
so
our
thoughts
were
that
perhaps
we
could,
you
know,
work
out
a
lease
arrangement
with
them
where
we
can
put
some
outdoor
seating
and
they
could
possibly
use
it
as
an
outdoor
dining
space.
The
hotel
could
have
events
outside.
N
D
And
it's
an
interesting
spot.
It's
completely
shadowed
by
the
buildings
across
the
street
doesn't
get
too
much
daylight
in
there,
but
I
could
see
accessory
to
the
pub
could
be
pretty
interesting.
Are
you
worried
that
also
by
screening
we're
also
creating
a
no
eyes
back
in
that
parking
lot?
How
is
so
a
security
being
handled
by
the
hotel
for
that
space?.
B
T
Right,
we
could
definitely
put
some
cameras
back
in
the
space.
You
know
our
thought
would
be
that
you
know,
given
that
it
is
an
active
hotel.
There
would
be
a
fair
amount
of
traffic
coming
in
and
out.
There
would
be
people
that
are
using
the
parking
lot
and
it
would
be
managed
and
controlled
by
the
hotel
staff.
O
H
H
D
B
B
U
B
B
That
actually
concludes
the
list
of
our
registered
speakers.
Is
there
anyone
else
on
the
line
who
didn't
register
in
advance?
Who
would
like
to
speak
to
this
item?
If
there
is
anyone-
and
you
would
like
to
talk
right
now-
you
can
press
star
6
to
unmute
yourself
and
then
continue
with
your
name
and
address.
B
P
Thank
you.
So
this
proposal,
you
know,
is
in
the
downtown
parking
overlay
district
right
next
to
the
capella
tower
one
of
the
tallest
towers
in
the
city.
I
just
want
to
read
the
purpose
statement
of
the
downtown
parking
layover
district,
so
it
reads
the
downtown
parking
overlay
district
is
established
to
preserve
significant
and
useful
buildings
and
to
protect
the
unique
character
of
the
downtown
area
and
the
mixed-use
downtown
neighborhoods
by
restricting
the
establishment
or
expansion
of
surface
parking
lots
and
establishing
certain
minimum
and
maximum
off
street
parking
standards
in
the
downtown
area.
P
So
I
just
want
to
clarify
you
know
that
it's
you
know
official
stated
policy
that
we
want
to.
You
know:
restrict
the
expansion
or
establishment
of
surface
parking
lots
in
this
area.
If
this
proposal
was
made
in
other
parts
of
the
city,
it
would
be
granted
by
right.
They
wouldn't
need
to
come
before
the
planning
commission
because
of
of
this
downtown
overlay
district,
that's
why
they
need
to
seek
approval,
and
I
don't
think
that
we
should
grant
it
for
a
couple
different
reasons.
You
know
I'm
in
this
particular
building.
P
I
don't
have
any
objection
to
replacing
it
with
a
different
building,
but
I
don't
think
it
should
be
a
parking
lot
and
you
know
in
the
in
the
staff
report.
You
know
some
of
the
the
findings
that
need
to
be
made.
You
know
adequate
measures
have
have
been
or
will
be
taken
to
minimize
traffic
congestion
in
the
public
streets
and
the
staff
report.
P
It
says
that
you
know
the
20
space
vehicle
surface
parking
lot
is
not
expected
to
generate
significant
traffic
congestion,
but
it
doesn't
do
anything
to
mitigate
what
it
would
create,
and
you
know
part
of
the
objective
is
to
reduce
vehicle
traffic
congestion
in
the
downtown
core,
where
it's,
where
there's
a
lot
of
congestion
and
where
there
is
very
significant
public
transit,
and
then
you
know
just
compatibility
with
with
the
2040
plan.
You
know
improving
pedestrian
space
and
public
realm
and
other
goals
of
the
2040
plan.
P
P
P
J
Thank
you.
I
have
similar
comments
to
commissioner
meyer.
I
have
a
hard
time
voting
to
tear
down
a
five-story
building
to
put
up
a
20-stall
parking
lot.
I
don't
think
that
really
benefits
the
public
and
I
have
a
hard
time
believing
that
that
public
plaza
is
going
to
be
used
by
the
plot
by
the
public.
I
think
you
know
something
like
what
commissioner
baxley
said
about
safety
and
who's
going
to
really
use
that
site.
J
I
don't
really
see
myself
as
a
young
woman
sitting
downtown
in
a
plaza
right
next
to
an
entrance
to
a
parking
lot.
I
I
think
I'd
be
open
to
an
interim
solution
here.
If
the
building
really
is
that
weird,
I
would
be
open
to
like
an
interim
use
permit
or
a
temporary
permit,
to
allow
a
parking
lot
on
site
with
the
requirement
that
they
come
back
in
a
certain
amount
of
time,
but
I
don't
see
another
building
being
built
there
anytime
soon,
with
the
cost
of
construction
continuing
to
go
up.
J
O
H
S
R
Experience
we
always
want
more
info
developments.
These
type
of
small
lot
developments
to
see
come
up
in
the
city
and
we
are
doing
the
exact
opposite
here.
We
approve
this.
I
also
am
confused
at
how
this
is
more
economically
feasible
than
trying
to
contract
out
parking
in
an
existing
lot
for
20
spaces.
V
V
I
think
that
the
building
is
going
to
come
down
and
the
spot's
going
to
be
empty
and
we
can
either
have
it
used
by
a
hotel
in
downtown
and
put
it
to
some
use
at
all,
or
it
can
sit
as
an
empty
spot
and
just
be
blight
on
downtown,
which
we
absolutely
do
not
need
right
now.
If
it
is
a
a
20,
a
20
space
parking
parking
lot
is
small
and
can
be
can
be
lit
and
can
be
used
for
valets
back
and
forth
to
support
a
business
downtown.
V
I
think,
on
balance,
it's
not
a
significant
deviation
from
city
goals
and
in
fact
I
think
it
supports
some
of
the
other
city
goals,
particularly
those
for
downtown.
So,
under
these
circumstances,
I
I
I
think
I
would
go
with
staff's
recommendation
here
and
would
either
support
a
motion
to
approve
it
or
vote
against
a
motion
not
to
approve
it.
Thanks.
V
D
One
other
question
regarding
stormwater
and
maybe
that's
for
the
design
team
and
we're
taking
a
building
that
assumingly
assumingly
collected
its
rain
water
off
the
roof
piped
it
down
or
maybe
was
overflow,
but
it
appears
we're
just
sheet
draining
this
parking
lot
back
out
into
the
street.
Could
you
just
talk
a
little
bit
about
how
storm
water
is
being
handled
and
processed
predisposition
into
the
system.
D
U
D
W
Thank
you
president,
so
I
will
not
be
turning
on
my
camera.
I
am
changing
the
baby's
diaper
I'm
at
this
moment
and
I
gotta
be
quick,
so
she
doesn't
move
around
too
much.
I
really
respect
and
appreciate,
commissioner
meyer's
thoughts
and
opinions
about
this
parking
lot.
I
too
am
concerned
about
the
environment
as
much
as
all
of
us
are,
but
commissioner
sweezey
said
something
that
I
thought
was
that
kind
of
struck,
something
with
me
that
it's
it's
it's
not
a
huge
parking
ramp.
W
I
believe
it
was
what
20
cars
and
if
it's
going
to
support
the
business,
you
know
the
hotel
that
supports
jobs
and
the
other
piece
that
kind
of
struck
me
was.
Excuse
me
one
second,
no
do!
That
is
that.
Where
did
I
go?
Oh
she's
got
me
confused
blight
the
empty
parking
lot
or
you
know
the
empty,
just
the
empty
lot
itself
and
what
it
would
take
to
actually
find
a
developer.
That
would
be
willing
to
do
something
that's
meaningful
with
that
space.
So
I
am.
W
B
B
T
The
hotel
was
built,
you
know
much
prior
to
the
fitness
facility,
so
presumably
there's
an
exterior
elevation
there
that
will
be
uncovered
that
was
originally
intended
to
be
an
exterior
elevation
is
brick
and
we
will
be
patching
it
to
an
acceptable
condition
to
the
north
and
the
west
of
the
site.
The
capella
tower
we've
done
some
exploratory
investigation,
we're
not
100
confident,
what's
going
to
be
there,
but
we
believe
it
is
a
concrete
wall
that
will
also
be
cleaned
and
painted
once
our
building
comes
down.
B
T
B
D
D
S
The
city
would
would
likely
require
it
to
be
conditioned
in
such
a
way
that
it
was
secure
and
maintained
to
you
know
a
visually
acceptable
condition,
but
it
you
know
it
is
still
considered
accessory
to
the
hotel
use,
so
they
would
be
primarily
responsible
for
that.
As
long
as
the
ownership
was
the
same,
it
could
obviously,
then
you
know
be
dispossessed
and
utilized
for
a
different
kind
of
use,
but
yeah
there
would
be
a
minimum
expectation
for
how
the
site
is
maintained
in
the
short
term.
P
P
The
plan
would
not
further
or
would
go
against
2040
plan
items,
6,
9,
10
and
16.
and
I'll
just
highlight
16.
You
know
the
environmental
impacts
of
transportation
to
reduce
the
energy,
carbon
and
health
impacts
of
transportation
through
reduced
single
occupancy
vehicle
trips
and
phasing
out
of
fossil
fuel
vehicles.
I
feel
that's
particularly
pertinent
to
this
one
in
the
downtown
area,
where
there's
a
higher
concentration
of
air
pollution
than
elsewhere
in
the
city,
so
the
health
impacts
in
particular
are
more
important
there.
Q
B
W
Yeah
so
again,
I
really
do
appreciate
commissioner
meyer's
thoughts
on
on
and
everything
that
he
has
said,
but
I
guess
for
me
I'm
thinking
like
in
20
years.
We
could
feasibly
have
like
so
many
people
in
minneapolis
or
for
that
matter
in
the
state
of
minnesota
driving
electrical
cars.
Where
are
they
going
to
park?
W
I
say
that
to
be
honest,
and
also
speaking
from
the
area
in
which
I
live,
cars
are
are
are
necessary
and
I
do
want
to
see
more
ridership,
absolutely
because
it's
good
for
the
environment,
but
this
whole
push
towards
electric
vehicles.
I
could
it
be
20
years
I
mean
I've
raised
two
kids
20
years
flies
by
you,
blink
your
eye
and
all
of
a
sudden
they're
graduating
from
college.
So
I
guess
to
my
I
guess
I'm
saying
that's
all
I'm
saying
and
now
I'm
gonna
stop
thanks.
B
A
C
W
A
B
B
X
Good
afternoon,
president
of
miley
and
the
members
of
the
planning
commission
amber
turn
quest
principal
city
planner,
along
with
planning
manager,
jason
wittenberg
will
be
presenting
on
the
single
room,
occupancy
text
amendment
the
single
room,
occupancy
text.
Amendments
aim.
Sorry
next
page
is
to
achieve
the
minneapolis
2040
goals
of
more
residents
and
jobs
and
more
affordable
and
accessible
housing.
X
It
also
serves
to
advance
policies,
35
and
40,
of
pursuing
innovative
housing
types
and
eliminating
homelessness.
Next
slide,
please
through
research
and
discussions
with
stakeholders,
sros
are
intended
to
provide
housing
for
people
who
are
at
risk
of
homelessness
and
who
use
shelters
due
to
lack
of
affordable
housing
options.
X
The
amendment
would
allow
units
that
would
fill
a
gap
in
the
affordable
housing
continuum
for
people
who
earn
low
wages
or
work
intermittently
next
slide.
Please,
while
jason
can
get
into
more
detail,
I
wanted
to
highlight
the
new
and
remote
that
new
and
remodeled
buildings
in
the
interior,
one
district
would
be
small-scale
residential.
Individual
lots
are
permitted
to
have
up
to
three
dwelling
units,
while
combining
of
lots
is
generally
not
permitted.
X
Next
slide,
please,
the
definition
of
single
room
occupancy
is
a
facility
providing
housing
that
is
operated
by
a
non-profit
organization,
government
agency
or
health
care
agency,
as
defined
by
chapter
244
housing
maintenance
code.
It
does
not
include
community
residential
facilities,
roman
care
homes,
nursing
homes,
assisted
living
facilities
and
supportive
housing.
X
Next
slide,
please
roommating
type
units
are
currently
allowed
only
when
establishing
housing
with
supportive
services,
such
as
nursing
homes
and
those
listed
above
while
sros
are
proposed
to
be
classified
as
a
type
of
congregant
living
with
within
the
zoning
code.
Sros
themselves
would
not
include
supportive
services
next
slide.
Please.
X
G
G
So
translated
to
our
current
primary
zoning
districts,
our
sros
would
be
allowed
starting
in
r3
and
in
every
district
higher
than
that
that
allows
residential
uses
in
our
three
7
500
square
feet
of
lot
area
would
be
required
for
an
sro
building
in
all
other
districts.
The
minimum
would
be
5
000
square
feet.
G
G
G
At
the
same
time
when
this
zoning
code
change
is
reviewed
by
the
council
as
well,
each
living
unit
would
not
be
required
to
have
kitchen
or
bathroom
facilities
and
therefore
would
not
be
considered
a
dwelling
unit
that
essentially
it's
a
it's
a
rooming
unit
that
has
not
been
a
type
of
housing
authorized
in
the
city
for
a
number
of
years.
There
are,
of
course,
a
number
of
rooming
units
that
exist
in
the
city
as
legal
non-conforming
uses
that
were
established
quite
some
time
ago.
G
The
zoning
ordinance
change
would
make
it
clear
that
rooming
units
are
not
subject
to
the
minimum
zoning
requirements
related
to
floor
area
and
that
those
issues
would
be
addressed
through
the
billing
code
and
housing
maintenance
code,
which
are
really
a
calculation
based
on
on
life
safety
largely
and
then.
Finally-
and
this
is
a
perhaps
a
point
of
of
some
contention-
sro
units
could
only
be
established
by
a
non-profit
or
government
agency
with
a
track
record
of
successfully
managing
housing
and
then
licenses
would
be
required
through
regulatory
services.
G
I'll
note
that,
during
the
formation
of
the
ordinance,
as
I
think,
amber
referenced,
there
was
some
discussion
with
stakeholders
that
included
organizations
who
have
experience
managing
this
type
of
housing
and
well.
I
don't
think
there
was
unanimous
agreement
about
the
requirement
related
to
non-profit
government
operator
requirement.
G
Certainly,
our
recollection
is
that
most
kind
of
understood
and
appreciated
the
desire
to
kind
of
wade
into
this
into
this
somewhat
slowly,
as
we
re
legalize
this
type
of
housing.
Again
I'll.
Just
note
that,
if,
if,
if
things
go
well
with
this
wading
into
this
somewhat
slow
manner,
it's
certainly
the
intent
that
this
could
be
revisited
again
in
the
future
and
that
a
wider
range
of
operators
could
be
considered
in
the
future.
B
W
So
one
thing
that
kind
of
first
of
all,
I'm
really
excited
about
this.
I
think
this
is
awesome,
but
one
thing
that's
disappointing
to
me
is
that
there
is
no
requirement
for
a
bathroom
or
kitchen,
and
I
say
that
because
they're
from
in
my
mind,
I'm
thinking
well,
what
about
a
half
bath
a
toilet
shower
and
just
like
some
tiny
space,
kitchenette
type
thing
doesn't
have
to
be
terribly
large.
W
It
would
support
minneapolis
public
schools
in
the
sense
that
if
there
were
parent
single
parents
that
had
children
and
their
these
particular
types
of
developments
were
in
areas
where
we
find
far
less
diversity
in
our
in
our
community
in
some
of
the
community
schools.
So
so
that's
it
unless
something
else
comes
up.
I'll
stop.
H
B
H
G
Q
R
K
R
G
Sure
yeah,
thanks
for
for
asking
that
commissioner
milwaukee.
So
a
bit
of
context
is
that
some
of
this
discussion
really
got
moving
when
hennepin
county,
one
of
our
government
partners,
indicated
in
an
intent
to
purchase
some
hotels
or
motels
that
would
be
repurposed
as
housing,
so
that
is
sort
of
part
of
the
genesis
of
the
government
agency
or
non-profit.
G
And
I
think,
there's
a
concern
that
if
this
does
not
go
well
and
does
not
have
very
strong
oversight
from
those
who
have
a
history
of
managing
this
type
of
housing,
that
it
could
really
actually
jeopardize
the
re-establishment
of
this
as
as
a
viable
housing
option.
Throughout
many
parts
of
the
city.
R
Sort
of
I
think
I
would
it
feels
like
the
reason
it's
only
allowing
for
non-profits
to
do.
It
is
because
this
is
like
a
test
case
a
little
bit,
and
I
would
say
that
if
you
want
to
see
it
done
well,
bridging
it
beyond.
Just
that
about
just
who
can
operate
it
to
see
if
this
product
can
fill
a
need
for
affordable
housing
and
the
city
would
be
the
vita
to
see
if
it
works.
P
P
P
We
provide
a
much
more
affordable
option
for
people,
and
I
think
we
really
need
to
to
do
a
lot
to
address
the
homelessness
crisis.
So
I
I
don't
feel
like
this
is
the
appropriate
time
to
be.
You
know
wading
slowly
into
this
issue.
I
think
we
should
want
to
pass
a
policy
that
really
encourages
a
lot
of
sros
to
actually
be
built,
and
to
that
end
I've
submitted
an
amendment
proposal
that
the
clerk
should
have
emailed
everybody,
that
there
are
three
goals
that
the
proposal
has.
P
The
version
that
you
were
emailed
has
is
the
the
full
text
proposal
that
staff
prepared
for
me.
That
would
accomplish
these
three
goals,
and
you
know
after
some
discussion
I
can
move
the
whole
text
amendment
as
a
slate
or
could
be
divided
into
three,
but
the
three
goals
that
I
have
with
that
amendment
are
first
of
all
to
allow
sros
citywide
currently
by
the
current
proposal,
keeps
them
illegal
in
r1
through
r2b
districts.
P
P
P
It
sets
the
requirement
at
7
500
square
feet,
then
for
r4
and
up
it's
at
5
000..
I
feel
that
it
should
just
be
set
at
5
000
for
all
categories
instead
of
imposing
an
extra
burden
on
r3
that
I
don't
feel
accomplishes
anything
except
for
making
it
harder
to
do.
And
finally,
you
know
to
commissioner
marwa's
point.
P
P
I
think
you
know
with
this
proposal
we're
kind
of
legalizing
a
mode
of
sharing,
and
that
is
a
good
thing
that
that's
suitable
for
all
kinds
of
people
for
workforce
housing,
for
people
who
just
want
to
have
a
lower
impact
on
the
environment,
and
we
should
allow
that
and
encourage
it.
I
feel
that
the
draft
proposal
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction,
but
too
restrictive.
P
B
J
Thank
you
chair.
I
agree
with
commissioner
meyer,
especially
about
the
non-profit
status
and
the
zoning
district
regulations.
I
think
it's
really
important
to
not
cluster
these
in
already
concentrated
areas
of
poverty
and,
like
commissioner
meyer
said
to
just
normalize
it
and
allow
it
throughout
the
city.
J
I
think
that's
the
spirit
of
the
minneapolis
comprehensive
plan
and
I
think
that
there's
a
really
cool
opportunity
to
allow
these
closer
to
the
lakes
or
you
know
in
areas
that
wouldn't
traditionally
have
these,
where
they
really
will
get
a
good
response
and
allow
people
to
live
in
a
more
like
cooperative
setting.
You
know,
I
think,
there's
in
addition
to
people
who
were
experiencing
homelessness
or
are
experiencing
homelessness.
J
I
think
there's
a
demand
for
this
from
just
yeah
younger
people
who
want
to
move
to
the
city,
maybe
people
in
school
who
want
to
live
with
friends
or
meet
new
people,
so
I
would
be
supportive
of
commissioner
myers
amendments,
but
the
two
I'm
most
supportive
of
are
the
non-profit
ownership.
I
think
anybody
should
be
able
to
build
these
and
the
locations,
so
I
think
they
should
be
allowed
in
all
zoning
districts
similar
to
how
triplexes
are
allowed
in
any
zoning
district,
so
I
would
agree
with
his
amendments.
Thank
you.
H
Thank
you.
I
will
ask
that
we
divide
between
those
three
or
vote
for
them
separately.
I
I
totally
support
the
notion
of
having
this
be
permitted
in
all
zoning
districts.
That's
been
part
of
the
problem.
Over
the
years
about
we
have
made
some
some
areas
of
the
city
quite
precious
and
protected
them
from
having
to
enjoy
the
benefits
of
the
rest
of
the
world.
H
P
Absolutely
okay,
so
to
repeat
the
the
original
proposal
you
know
kept
sros
illegal
for
r1
and
r2
said
the
requirement
at
a
higher
7
500
square
feet
for
r3.
So
that's
where
that
r3
is
where
you
can
start.
You
know
building
four
plexes
and
such,
but
if
you
wanted
to
build
it
in
r3,
then
then
the
original
proposal
required
you
to
have
7
500
square
feet,
whereas
for
r4
and
higher
density
zones
it's
cited
at
5
000..
P
P
H
P
W
I
Thank
you,
chair
yeah.
I
just
you
know
want
to
thank
commissioners
for
this
and
just
kind
of
re
kind
of
talk
about
a
lot
of
the
points.
I'm
one
of
the
authors
of
this
proposed
amendment
or
a
proposed
ordinance.
Excuse
me.
I
really
appreciate
commissioner
ford
talking
about
kind
of
some
of
the
background
about
making
sros
originally
illegal
and
that
that
was
the
same
discussion
we
had.
I
You
know
it
was
something
that
the
housing
type
itself
was
made
illegal
in
the
city
of
minneapolis
and
that
that
has
been
something
that's
been
missing,
and
so
I've
heard
a
lot
of
people.
You
know
express
excitement
about
being
able
to
bring
this
back,
and
I
think
what
a
lot
of
the
work
has
been
like
the
issue
before
was
that
they
were
not
great
neighbors
in
all
cases,
and
they
were
a
problem
in
neighborhoods.
So
the
question
we
really
asked
is:
how
do
we
bring
them
back?
I
How
do
we
be
able
to
bring
back
and
separate
the
building
form
with
the
the
issue
of
being
a
better
neighbor,
and
so
this?
This
is,
as
many
commissioners
have
pointed
out,
the
the
first
step
into
making
it
making
this
legal
again
and
making
sure
that
we
are
having
more
of
this
housing
throughout
minneapolis.
I
It
is.
I
think
that
commissioner
meyer
has
some
great
suggestions
for
the
future
when
we
are
able
to
get
a
little
more
feedback.
This
this
proposal
really
is
looking
at.
How
can
the
the
city
move
into
this
area?
You
know
how
do
we
make
sure
we
have
a
policy
that
that's
going
to
work
that
is
going
to
make
sure
that
these
type
of
house,
this
type
of
housing
you
know,
fits
the
need.
It
also
is
a
good
neighbor
for
the
community
and
also
make
sure
that
the
city
staff
can
enforce
that.
I
B
J
Sorry,
my
computer's
a
little
bit
laggy.
Thank
you
chair.
I
just
wanted
to
add
one
more
thing
that
I
think
it's
really
important
that
we're
talking
about
this
during
june,
which
is
pride
month
too,
because
just
for
a
lot
of
a
little
bit
of
context
when
I
was
doing
research
on
these,
they
used
to
provide
a
really
big
housing
market
for
lgbtq
ai
people
in
the
1900s
that
didn't
have
elsewhere
to
go.
So
I
think
this
can
really
help
a
lot
of
communities
that
don't
have
other
places
to
live.
V
Yeah,
thank
you.
Madam
president.
I
want
to
thank
commissioner
schroeder
council
member
schrader
for
his
comments
on
it.
You
know
we
talked
about
this
at
least
once,
and
I
think,
maybe
more
than
once
at
committee
of
the
whole
and
went
through
this
and
heard
those
arguments
then-
and
I
think
you
know
without
rehashing
the
whole
debate
here.
I
think
introducing
this
now
in
a
graduated
way
and
in
a
thoughtful
way
like
the
ordinance
is
proposing,
is
the
best
way
to
do
it.
V
It
can
always
be
expanded,
but
you
know
some
of
the
things
that
people
saw
and
the
reason
for
the
repeal
of
it
a
number
of
years
ago
or
things
we
want
to
avoid.
Also
currently-
and
I
think
that
speaks
to
learning
lessons
for
things
and,
like
I
said,
there's
no
reason
it
can't
be
expanded
later,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
this
is
a
good
start,
as
is-
and
I
agree
with
commissioner
schroeder
and
would
not
support
a
motion
to
amend.
D
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
I
think
such
an
important
part
of
creating
a
truly
livable
city,
and
I
I
get
concerned
when
we
start
to
mandate
or
define
the
idea
of
good
neighbor.
So
I
I
think
it's
a
particularly
appropriate
time
to
sort
of
amp
up
that
discussion.
I
think
this
proposal,
especially
making
it
available
to
any
part
of
the
city,
will
be
important
part
of
that
conversation,
so
I
am
supportive
of
of
the
amendment
to
allow
it
to
be
executed
anywhere
in
the
city.
Thank
you.
H
Thank
you.
I
I
appreciate
the
comments
of
the
councilmember
schroeder
and
others
about
the
notion
of
getting
or
doing
it
gradually,
and
I
understand
the
concern
there,
but
my
concern
is
that
of
the
history
of
this
city.
Is
that
those
gradual
things
actually
don't
happen
when
it
comes
to
r1s
and
r2s
and
so
forth?
H
W
Can
you
please
just
kind
of
lay
out
exactly
what
it
is
because
I'm
hearing
I
understand
what
we're
talking
about,
but
I'm
hearing
these
this
amendment
and
then
some
of
the
comments-
and
I
don't
know
if
we
are
do
we
have
to
vote
on
the
amendment
and
and
then,
if
it
doesn't
pass,
do
another
amendment
to
include
what
some
of
us
have
agreed
that
we
want
to
see
going
forward.
So
just
please
spell
it
out
for
a
girl.
Please.
B
B
That's
a
new
piece
being
added
to
the
code,
so
there
is
a
vote
on
the
table
and
there's
a
recommendation
from
staff,
no
matter
what
what
is
happening
with
this
discussion
is
that
commissioner
meyer
is
hoping
to
amend
that
recommendation
from
staff
to
change
three
pieces
of
what
is
being
proposed
to
be
added
to
the
code,
and
that
was
one
was
with
the
expansion
of
which
districts
srs
can
be
allowed
in.
The
other
is
the
minimum
lot
requirement
and
the
third
one
is
the
organizations
who
can
operate
these
facilities.
B
W
That
that
makes
complete
sense,
so
so
just
bear
with
me
for
a
second.
So
if
I
were
to
agree
with
two
out
of
the
three
right
or
is
there
four
two
out
of
the
three
then
would
I
have
to
make
some
kind
of
three?
Thank
you.
What
I
two
out
of
the
three
is:
is
there
a
need
to
amend,
what's
being,
what's,
gonna
eventually
be
voted
on,
but
then
there's
also
the
staff
recommendation,
which
is
just
a
flat
out
there.
B
K
W
B
No
problem,
actually
you
are.
Thank
you.
Sorry,
I'm
going
back
to
the
chat
I
apologize
rachel,
no
staff
was
asking
whether
or
not
this
has
been
opened
up
for
public
hearing.
It
has
not.
This
is
still
the
question
an
answer
of
the
commission
after
staff's
presentation,
if
that
makes
sense,
we
still
have
not
moved
on
to
the
next
step
of
public
hearing.
P
B
B
G
Sure,
commissioner,
smiley
to
answer
your
second
question:
first,
yes,
existing
buildings
could
be
converted.
They
would
have
to
meet
building
code
requirements
and
once
you
would
get,
I
believe,
it's
10
residents
or
more.
There
would
be
some
sprinkler
requirements
that
could
be
a
potential
hurdle
for
some
conversions
of
existing
buildings.
G
G
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
clear,
though
kind
of
what
the
basis
for
our
recommendation
is
for
restricting
them
to
r3
or
higher
in
that,
essentially,
our
r3
on
a
larger
lot
aligns
with
the
interior
2
comp
plan
designation,
and
you
know,
we've
we've.
There
been
a
couple
of
references
to
the
spirit
and
intent
of
minneapolis
2040,
but
one
thing
that
is
quite
clear
in
black
and
white
in
minneapolis
2040
is
that
in
interior
one
and
on
standard
sized
lots
in
interior
ii.
G
We
made
a
commitment
that
there
would
be
three
units
or
less
allowed
in
those
districts
and,
as
I
understand
commissioner
meyer's
recommendations,
there
would
be
no
such
restriction
on
the
number
of
units.
You
would
essentially
be
able
to
fit
as
many
units
into
the
allowed
volume
of
the
building
through
far
as
it's
allowed
in
those
districts.
G
P
P
D
R
R
Is
this
type
of
housing
currently,
if
a
developer,
if
a
small-scale
developer
wanted
to
build
out
units
that
did
not
have
a
bathroom
and
a
kitchen
and
they're
not
meant
for
students,
but
were
with
a
shared
living
arrangement
like
that
in
in
any
zoning
district
across
the
cities?
Can
someone
build
that
if
it's
only
say,
there's
four
units
like
that
and
they
all
share
a
communal,
kitchen
and
bathroom
space?
Is
that
allowable
or
does
that
have
to
be
through
this
sro?
R
G
The
exception
to
that
is,
if
you're
building
a
supportive
housing
or
nursing
home,
or
something
like
that,
each
unit
it
doesn't
need
its
own
kitchen
or
restroom
facilities.
However,
beyond
those
limited
exceptions,
one
cannot
build
units
without
a
a
complete
kitchen
or
restroom
facility.
Right
now,.
R
Okay,
thank
you.
I
think
I'll
continue
to
support
commissioner
meyer's
amendment
on
this,
because
I
think
that
this
needs
for
me.
I
think
this
will
broaden
out
and
allow
for
that
type
of
housing,
even
if
it's
not
necessarily
in
a
supportive
environment
in
the
type
of
way
that
I
think
some
of
the
intention
behind
sros
is
is
led
leg.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you
I
so
apologize.
I
still
have
another
couple
of
questions
for
staff.
One
is
that
the
the
code
as
written
is
explicitly
saying
that
the
the
units
will
be
operated
by
nonprofit
government
agency
or
healthcare
agency.
Does
that
mean
that
it
can
possibly
be
built
through
a
partnership
with
a
private
sector
but
still
operated
by
non-profit
or
government
agency?
G
Commissioner,
smiley
to
your
first
question:
yes,
given
that,
really
that
the
issue
with
the
non-profit
and
government
agencies
is
who
is
operating
the
facility,
someone
certainly
could
partner
with
a
a
private
developer
or
contractor,
for
example,
to
to
propose
to
construct
the
building.
If
that
answers
your
your
first
question,
your
second
question,
I
think,
you're
sort
of
getting
at
one
of
the
things
that
staff.
G
You
are
you're,
just
literally
leasing
a
room
to
somebody
with,
and
it's
got
a
deadbolt
lock
on
it
right
and,
and
that
is
generally
not
something
that
is
allowed
in
in
rental
housing.
Otherwise,
however,
our
our
regulatory
services
staff
did
clarify
that
if
someone
is
owns
a
single-family
home
and
wants
to
rent
out
a
room
to
to
to
someone
that
that's
a
situation
that
the
city
does
not
prevent
from
happening.
Just
just
to
be
clear
about
that.
B
Okay,
seeing
none
thank
you
jason
and
amber
for
your
presentation
again
and
answering
questions.
I
will
now
open
the
public
hearing
on
this
item
is,
let
me
take
a
quick
look
at
whether
we
had
anyone
signed
up
for
this.
I
don't
think
it
doesn't
seem
like
we
have,
but
if
there's
anyone
to
speak
to
this
item,
you
can
press
star
six
to
unmute
yourself
and
then
start
with
your
name
and
address
and
continue
with
your
comment.
O
K
A
Y
Y
From
my
perspective,
as
I
look
at,
I
would
appreciate
the
work
being
done.
I
would
hopefully
you
all
can
push
for
it
to
be
allowed
across
the
city,
because
one
of
the
things
as
I'm
hearing
people
go
back
and
forth,
you
have
to
realize
it's
already
happening
across
the
city,
so
by
making
it
legal
you
take
it
out
of
the
shadows
and
in
a
way
of
regulating
it
as
well
and
also
get
the
quality
of
where
people
are
staying.
Y
You
know
to
a
higher
level,
so
I
think
that's
a
big
thing
there.
The
other
comment
about
the
minimum
lot
size
by
reducing
it
down,
let's
say
closer
to
the
5
000
square
feet
that
opens
up
a
lot
of
the
vacant
land
that
the
city
owns
for
it
to
be
developed
and
put
these
type
of
units
on
versus,
saying
arbitrarily,
7,
500
square
feet
and
the
thing
about
the
size.
Y
So
I
think,
there's
something
there
for
the
group
to
consider
when,
when
trying
to
limit
how
many
units
or
what
does
that
look
like
the
economies
of
scale,
so
if
you
have
to
build
that
helps
you
get
to
the
appropriate
cost
structure,
if
you're
able
to
increase
it
and
the
other
thing
is
we
talk
about
who
should
operate
it?
You
know,
I
think,
there's
different
models
out
there,
profit
non-profit
the
certain
guide
rails
are
put
in
place.
Y
I
think
a
for-profit
can
do
it
and
be
quite
successful
because
in
other
parts
of
the
country
it's
being
done
by
for-profits
and
they
have
people
moving
across
the
country
in
the
sro
type
of
model
called
co-living
that
you
know
it
could
be
done
so
just
have
to
discuss
and
see
what's
the
appropriate
way
moving
forward.
But
again,
I
think
it's
great
work.
I
think
citywide
is
the
right
move.
Take
it
out
of
the
shadows,
you
can
regulate
it
and
and
give
opportunity
out
there
for
additional
people
to
live
an
appropriate
life.
B
N
K
B
P
Yep
first,
I
just
want
to
start
by
saying
you're,
just
reminding
everyone
of
the
context
of
the
encampments
and,
in
the
context
of
you
know
the
comment
about
you
know
sros
previously
having
been
bad
neighbors
I
mean
I,
I
feel
like
it's
an
unequivocal
step
up
from
the
status
quo
for
a
lot
of
people
and
then
also,
like
others,
have
said.
You
know
if
we're
expansive
about
it,
this
can
be
used
for
workhouse
work,
work,
housing
and
and
co-living.
P
So
I
I
do
really
believe
it
makes
the
most
sense
to
not
restrict
this
to
non-profits,
and
it's
true
that
we
could
expand
on
this
later.
But
there's
you
know,
there's
a
significant
downside
to
doing
that
and
that
people
aren't
going
to
be
able
to
take
advantage
of
this
low-cost
housing
in
the
meantime.
B
D
A
H
B
B
B
P
Okay,
like
the
commenter
during
the
public
hearing,
said
you
know,
I
feel
like
approximately
that
many
bedrooms
can
fit
into
a
building
and
still
look
like
a
standard,
single
family
unit
or
or
sorry
up
to
a
try,
try
flex.
You
know
the
type
of
thing
that
is
allowed
under
the
2040
plan,
so
I
am
going
to
move
to
allow
sros
in
all
zoning
categories,
but
with
a
restriction
of
only
up
to
nine
bedrooms
in
r1
through
r2b.
B
W
P
W
B
W
V
Thank
you
just
so
just
to
clarify,
then
the
this
amendment
would
allow
in,
let's
just
say,
r1
districts
anywhere
in
the
city.
You
could
put
up
next
in
the
middle
of
two
single-family
homes,
a
place
like
this.
That
looks
like
a
single
family
home,
but
has
nine
separate
living
unit
bedrooms
in
it.
That's
what
this
amendment
would
do.
A
V
Yeah
and
just
to
be
clear,
I
can't
get
behind
that
at
all.
I
think
that's
a
clear
bait
and
switch
to
agree
strongly
with
what
mr
wittenberg
said
about
that,
and
you
know
the
comp
plan
is
what
it
is
and
r1
people
have
a
right
to
expect.
You
know
that
we
abide
by
those,
so
no,
I
can't
get
behind
this
one
at
all.
Thanks.
B
P
P
B
Okay,
I
will
add
one
comment,
though,
as
that
there,
in
my
in
my
mind,
there's
a
very
clear
difference
between
that
that
is
nine,
but
that
nine
bedroom
is
nine
separate
units
as
opposed
to
the
three
units,
regardless
of
the
number
of
bedroom,
so
you're,
technically
talking
about
nine
households
versus
three
households.
So.
P
This
is
something
I
didn't
quite
get
when
when,
when
staff
said
this
answering,
I
believe
it
was
commissioner
baxley's
question
about
how
they're
defining
the
unit
right,
because
they're
they're
saying
that
if
you
have
lots
of
sro
units
in
one
building,
then
they're
still
counting.
That
as
like
one
unit.
Is
that,
like
another.
B
G
G
Well,
I
think
what
I
just
the
same
thing
that
I
just
indicated
to
commissioner
smiley
that
each
separate
leasable
unit
would
be
a
separate.
A
room
would
be
a
separate
unit
from
from
staff's
standpoint.
Okay
and
from
that
standard
of
standpoint,
of
the
definition
that
we're
coming
up
with
for
single
room,
occupancy
housing
unit.
P
B
A
B
K
O
H
R
I
B
P
B
O
I
G
R
Do
sorry
just
to
but
the
the
size
and
the
impact
of
these
types
of
units
you
know
are
less
it's
not
for
full
housing
units.
You
know
as
far
as
water,
and
you
know
other
issues
that
come
up
is
there.
There
was
when
we're
talking
about
these
as
the
units
we're
talking
about
the
rooms
correct,
which
are
being
called
the
full
units.
R
R
H
G
G
B
G
Yeah,
that's
not
necessarily
the
issue.
There
perhaps
is
a
a
longer
answer
to
why
minneapolis
2040
had
that
standard
related
to
four
plus
unit
buildings,
and
that
was
generally
that
the
the
patterns
of
four
plus
unit
buildings
in
this
across
the
city
generally
are
that
they
are
that
are
built
on
larger
than
standard
sized
lots.
G
So
when,
when
we
translated
that
to
regulation,
that
was
that
the
standard
we
we
came
up
with,
but
certainly
one
can
imagine
smaller
structures
that
could
comply
with
with
maximum
floor
area
ratio
and
other
standards
in
those
lower
intensity
districts.
If
you
had
smaller
scale
units
or
sro
units
in
them
that
wouldn't
necessarily
require
variances.
P
K
P
Think
by
passing
my
amendment
here,
we
would
reduce
the
number
of
variances
that
we
would
see,
because
if
you
did
want
to
have
you
know
a
smaller
scale.
Sro
proposal
like
this
gives
you
more
flexibility
to
do
that,
and
I'm
seeing
commissioner
completing
his
comments.
But
the
motion
is
to
standardize
the
minimum
lot
size
requirement
at
5000
square
feet.
B
A
I
B
Thank
you
that
motion
passes.
So,
to
sum
up,
we
currently
have
one
successful
amendment
to
the
stats
recommendations
for
the
single
room,
occupancy
code,
basically
addition
and
that
is
to
normalize
or
sorry,
basically
make
the
minimum
lot
size
requirement
the
same
across
the
districts
that
allows
sro.
B
B
J
Would
it
be
possible
for
at
our
next
meeting
for
staff,
to
follow
up
with
a
map
of
what
this
amendment
does
and
kind
of
highlight
parcels
where
this
would
be
allowed?
I
think
I
have
some
of
the
similar
concerns,
as
commissioner
caprini
as
to
where
kind
of
what
this
is
where
this
is
allowed
and
just
making
sure
we're
not
clustering
things
so
I'll
support
it
tonight,
but
I
just
thought:
that'd
be
some
helpful
follow-up.
Just
for
us,
visual
people.
A
A
A
B
B
W
This
weekend
is
juneteenth
celebration.
I
certainly
hope
all
of
you
will
find
the
time
to
find
a
celebration
somewhere
near
where
you
live.
I
can
make
a
great
plug
for
bethune
school
is
having
a
huge
celebration
as
well
as
phyllis
wheatley
community
center.
The
the
great
thing
about
that
is
that
they
are
connected,
so
you
can
kill
two
birds
with
one
stone,
so
I
hope
for
good
weather,
and
I
certainly
hope
you
find
the
time
to
celebrate
freedom
thanks.