►
From YouTube: June 28, 2021 Planning Commission
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
C
C
I
want
to
note
just
for
the
record
that
this
meeting
has
the
remote
participation
by
members
of
the
city,
council
and
city
staff,
as
was
authorized
under
minnesota
statutes.
Section
13d
.021
due
to
the
declared
local
public
health
emergency
and
the
city
will
be
recording
and
posting
this
meeting
to
the
city's
website
and
youtube
channel,
and
this
meeting
is
public
and
subject
to
the
minnesota
open
meeting
law.
At
this
point,
I
asked
the
clerk
to
please
call
the
role
for
to
see
whether
a
quorum
is.
A
A
E
F
G
C
C
C
H
C
Okay,
emotion
has
been
made
and
seconded.
Is
there
any
discussion.
H
I
C
Thank
you
that
motion
passes
and
the
minutes
are
adopted.
Our
next
order
of
business
is
to
organize
the
public
hearing
agenda.
Again,
the
agenda
is
available
available
at
lims.minneapolism.gov.
C
C
We
will
adhere
to
the
staff
recommendation
on
the
agenda
and
any
applicable
conditions
that
are
listed
under
that.
If
you
agree
with
this
recommendation,
there's
nothing
you
need
to
do.
If
you
do
not
agree,
please
speak
up
so
that
we
put
that
item
on
the
discussion
agenda
with
that.
The
following
items
are
on
the
agenda
for
this
evening.
C
Item
four:
this
is
a
committee
of
the
whole
consent
agenda.
Yeah
committee
of
the
whole
consent
agenda
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
This
is
not
a
public
hearing
item
item
number
five
and
801
9th
street
southeast
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent
as
well
again.
This
is
not
a
public
hearing
item
now.
Moving
to
public
hearing
items,
item
number
six,
605
and
07
central
avenue.
Northeast
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
C
C
C
C
Okay
hearing
none.
This
item
is
put
on
consent,
item
number,
10,
4225
and
4251
hiawatha
avenue.
We
will
discuss
this
item.
Item
number
11,
3012,
excelsior,
boulevard
staff
is
recommending.
This
item
for
discussion,
item
number,
12,
2015,
emerson,
avenue,
north
and
1100
west
broadway
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
Is
there
anyone
who
would
like
to
speak
against
the
item.
C
C
Item
number
13,
2648
marshall,
at
marshall
street
northeast
staff,
is
recommending
this
item
for
discussion
so
just
to
quickly
review.
C
H
J
C
Names,
thank
you
that
motion
passes
and
the
agenda
has
been
approved.
So
now
we
will
proceed
to
handle
the
consent
agenda.
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
on
the
consent
agenda
items
and
then
we
will
approve
those
items.
C
Then
we
can
proceed
to
the
discussion
items
again.
Items
number
five
and
six
are
not
for
public
hearing,
but
any
other
items
that
you
would
like
to
speak
to.
So
I
am
now
opening
the
public
hearing
on
the
consent
agenda.
Is
there
anyone
who
would
like
to
speak
on
items
that
are
put
on
the
consent
agenda.
C
J
D
C
Thank
you
that
motion
passes
and
we
all
the
items
on
the
consent
agenda
have
been
approved.
So
those
were
again
items:
four:
five:
six,
seven,
eight,
nine
and
twelve
okay.
We
will
now
move
on
to
our
discussion
items.
These
are
the
items
that
we
will
hear
staff
present.
C
K
Thank
you.
This
is
an
application
for
u-haul
at
4225
and
4251
hiawatha
avenue.
There
are
two
applications
for
the
project
tonight.
One
is
a
conditional
use
permit
to
allow
truck
and
trailer
rental
and
then
the
other
is
cycling.
Review
for
new
self-service
storage
building
and
a
retail
building
totally
totally
an
approximately
140
000
square
feet.
The
site
is
zoned.
I
won
it's
located
in
the
industrial
libyan
overlay
district
and
in
the
built
form,
transit,
10
overlay
district.
K
K
K
The
applicant
is
proposing
a
five-story,
self-service
storage
building
on
the
north
end
of
the
site
on
the
ground
floor
facing
42nd
street.
There
would
be
two
commercial
retail
spaces,
totaling
2092
square
feet,
and
there
are
four
loading
bays
on
the
south
end
of
that
building.
K
K
So
the
first
application,
then,
is
the
conditional
use
permit
for
the
truck
and
trailer
rental.
We
are
recommending
approval
of
that
application.
K
We
don't
believe
that
the
establishment
of
this
use
would
be
detrimental
to
or
endanger
the
public,
health,
safety,
comfort
or
general
welfare.
The
applicant
has
indicated
that
there
would
be
approximately
20
trucks
and
or
trailers
started
on
the
site
and
that
they
manage
their
fleet
to
ensure
that
those
trucks
and
trailers
are
not
stored
off-site.
K
The
trucks
that
are
available
for
rent
would
be
located
in
the
center
of
the
site
in
that
hatched
area.
In
the
middle
of
the
screen,
that
area
has
been
designed
with
a
permeable
grass
paver
surface
over
an
underground
stormwater
chamber
and
the
trailers
available
for
rent
that
would
be
located
along
that
east
property
line
towards
the
southeast
corner
of
the
site
in
that
area
has
also
been
designed
with
the
grass
paper
permeable
paper
system.
K
Other
site
improvements
include
enhanced,
stormwater
landscaping
and
site
lighting.
The
development
is
large
enough
to
require
a
travel
demand
management
plan
per
chapter
541
of
the
zoning
code.
The
applicant
did
request
an
exemption
to
this
requirement
because
the
majority
of
the
use
is
self-service.
K
K
And
there
are
three
items
under
site:
point
review
that
they
do
not
that
they
are
not
in
compliance
with
and
are
seeking
alternative
compliance.
The
first
is
building
placement,
so
the
building
is
located
within
eight.
Both
buildings
are
located
within
eight
feet
of
hiawatha
avenue,
and
some
portions
of
those
billions
are
located
within
eight
feet
of
the
north
and
south,
or
the
42nd
and
43rd
property
lines.
K
However,
because
of
the
east-west
streets
coming
into
hiawatha
at
an
angle,
there
are
large
areas
there
are
areas
outside
of
these
property
lines
that
are
also
at
the
angle
where
the
building
is
not
sitting,
and
so
therefore,
both
buildings
have
points
along
those
north
and
south
walls
where
they're
more
than
eight
feet.
However,
given
geometries
of
the
streets,
we
are
recommending
alternative
compliance
for
that
item
next
slide,
please.
K
This
is
the
elevations
for
the
five-story
self-service
storage
building.
There
are
two
areas
of
this
building
that
don't
meet
the
site
plan
review
standards
and
one
is
for
visual
interest
on
the
north
elevation.
So
in
the
north,
I'm
sorry
the
upper
right
corner
of
your
screen
is
the
north
elevation
of
the
building
that
faces
42nd
street.
K
The
windows
have
been
aligned
with
the
doors
in
the
middle,
which
is
for
the
separate
retail
use
on
that
ground
floor,
and
so
that
is
why
there
is
a
void
between
those.
But
again,
it's
only
four
feet
wider
than
what
we
allow
without
alternative
compliance,
and
we
are
recommending
that
you
grant
the
alternative
compliance.
K
The
last
item,
then,
that
needs
alternative
compliance
for
this
development
is
for
the
for
the
percentage
of
windows
on
the
south
side
of
the
self-service
storage
building,
20
windows
on
the
ground,
30
windows
on
the
ground
floor
is
required
and
they
have
only
6.
K
The
next
few
slides
in
my
that
I
have
in
the
presentation,
if
you
want
to
go
the
next
slide,
please
are
just
of
elevations
and
then
rendering.
So
this
is
a
rendering
of
the
self-service
storage
building.
So
looking
looking
south
easterly
in
this
view,
next
slide,
please,
these
are
the
elevations
of
the
two-story
retail
building
that
would
be
located
on
the
south
end
of
the
site.
K
C
Thank
you
for
the
presentation,
hillary.
I
see
that
commissioner
meyer
has
a
question,
so
please
go
ahead.
Commissioner
meyer.
H
Thank
you.
I
have
a
few
so
a
few
years
ago
the
planning
commission
rejected
a
similar
proposal.
H
K
We
recommended
denial
of
the
last
application.
They
did
not
meet
the
majority
of
the
site
plan
review
requirements,
and
so
therefore,
we
recommended
denial
of
all
applications
that
were
needed
at
that
time,
and
that
was
back
in
2018..
K
K
I
don't
have
my
old
file,
I
mean
they
didn't
meet
right,
I
mean
it
was
the
majority.
I
couldn't
pull
it
up
from
my
computer
here
and
look,
but
I
I'm
sorry.
I
should
have
linked
that
for
you
most,
I
mean
most
of
the
building
placement,
landscaping
and
screening.
You
know
the
building.
Wasn't
they
weren't
going
to
remove
the
building
on
the
north
end
back
in
2018?
K
I'm
sorry,
my
daughter
keeps
calling
they
weren't
going
to
remove
the
build
the
north,
the
building
on
the
north
end
of
this
site,
and
so
it
created
a
lot
of
problems
for
where
the
new
building
could
be
located
and
then
trying
to
manage
circulation
on
site
with
the
move
in
and
move
out
activities
of
this
use
over
the
course
of
the
last
three
years
they
made
the
decision
to
demolish
that
building
on
the
north
end,
which
really
gave
them
a
blank
slate
then
to
to
locate
these
buildings
in,
I
would
say
better
better
spaces
on
the
site
for
that
loading
activity.
K
H
Okay
and
then
next
I
wanted
to
ask
about
so
policy
number
six
of
the
20
40
plan.
You
know
around
pedestrian,
oriented,
building
and
design.
H
One
of
the
action
items
under
it
is
limit
self
storage
businesses
to
integration
within
active
use
buildings
that
that's
the
thing
that
I'm
really
paying
attention
to,
as
I
review
that
this
is
whether
this
application
meets
that,
so
the
the
commercial
that
they're,
including
like
what
proportion
of
the
total
project
is,
is
commercial.
Do
you
have
an
idea?
Is
it
about
2
000
square
feet.
K
H
And
if,
if
this,
if
the
cup
and
side
plane
review
get
approved
as
they
are
today,
and
they
decided
subsequently
that
they
didn't
want
the
commercial,
would
they
be
able
to
just
drop
the
commercial
without
needing
to
come
back?
Or
is
it
necessary
that
that
that
proportion,
at
least
of
of
the
commercial
space
is
retained
in
there.
K
H
Yeah,
I
just
had
one
constituent
reach
out
to
me
and
just
concerned
about
that
particular
thing
concerned
that
maybe
that
should
be
an
explicitly
stated
condition
so
that
that's
why
I
was
asking
about
it
all
right,
I'll
hear
from
the
applicant
in
public
right
now.
Thank
you.
C
C
Name-
and
you
know
comment.
E
Good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
ryan
anderson,
I'm
with
isg.
We
are
the
engineer
and
architect
for
u-haul
on
this
project.
Just
wanted
to
chime
in
here
briefly
give
a
quick
thank
you
to
hillary
and
city
staff
for
assisting
us
on
this
project.
We
were
brought
onto
the
project
following
the
2018
initial
application
and
denial.
E
We
looked
at
this
project
in
a
little
bit
different
way
how
we
could
approach
it
in
a
better
fashion
to
meet
the
city's
overall
goals,
and
I
think
we've
done
that
with
with
the
project.
That's
before
you
today,
we're
confident
that
we
can
address
the
rest
of
the
remaining
conditions,
and
this
will
be
a
successful
project
moving
forward
and
we're
excited
about
probably
not
a
whole
lot
to
add
to
hillary's
presentation.
But
if
there
were
any
more
questions
for
myself,
I
can
happily
do
my
best
to
answer.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
questions
for
the
applicant
in
here,
commissioner
schroeder.
I
Sure
be
helpful
to
hear
kind
of
what
type
of
commercial
business
they're
envisioning
will
be
in
that
other
other
building.
There's
not
a
lot.
I
guess
I'm
not
seeing
a
lot
of
like
where,
where
the
parking
would
be
or
where
the
entrance
would
be
like
kind
of
what
is
the
plan
for
that
space.
E
I
E
Sure
you
know
ultimately
it'll
be
businesses
that
you
know
can
succeed
with
with
pedestrian
traffic
walk-up
traffic.
There's
some
outdoor
amenities
space
allotted
for
those
businesses
that
can
build
out
and
really
make
the
space
their
own
make
that
corner
their
own.
The
amount
of
space
each
tenant
needs.
You
know
whether
one
tenant
comes
in
and
takes
both
spaces
or
two
tenants
separated
out.
You
know
it's
at
a
highly
visible
intersection
on
the
goods
and
services
corridor.
E
So
we
expect
that
you
know
a
business
that
finds
that
space
appealing
could
be
could
be
a
successful
day
regarding
the
specific
businesses,
I'm
I'm
not
a
broker.
I
could
I
couldn't
pinpoint
the
exact
business,
but
then
there
should
be
a
lot
of
pedestrian
traffic
and
certainly
good
visibility.
So
we
hope
that
hope.
We're
hopeful
that
a
successful
business
will
we'll
find
a
home
there.
I
Thank
you.
I
guess
my
concern
is
while
it
is
highly
visible,
it's
also
not
as
pedestrian
friendly
as
some
of
the
other
other
places
we've
seen
in
the
city
like
hiawatha
is
on
that
side
of
hiawatha
I
mean
it
gets.
It
gets
pretty
busy
and
hard
for
pedestrians
to
get
around,
so
I've
sold
them
for
a
little
bit
more
information,
but
that
you
did
answer
my
question.
C
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Ford.
J
J
I
just
can't
imagine
it
what
it
would
be
and
I'm
concerned
that
it
might
end
up,
like
commissioner
maya
was
suggesting
that
it
might
end
up
being
you
know,
storage
for
the
for
the
u-haul
operation
or
something
I
I
really
am
curious
to
know.
Has
anyone
on
the
applicant
team
identified
a
likely
candidate
or
even
a
type
of
candidate.
E
So
we
envision
that
space
being
more
of
a
leasable
office.
I
agree
with
you
that
it
is
unlikely
that
that
would
be
a
it's
unlikely,
that
that
would
be
a
retail
area.
It's
more
of
the
leasable
office
type
scenario
that
I
think
will
be
successful
there.
They
don't
have
a
separate
entrance
up
to
the
second
floor
that
allows
them
the
kind
of
privacy
that
they
would
look
for,
and
I
believe
it
is
the
neighborhood
and
community
that
really
pushed
for
that
space,
and
we
were
before
we
met
with
the
community.
E
We
were
not
showing
that
so
at
this
time
we
decided
that
after
meeting
with
them
and
realizing
was
important
to
them-
we
did
add
that
space
into
the
project.
So
I
I
believe
in
all
at
least
about
office-
is
more
likely
sitting
there
than
retail.
J
Okay,
thank
you.
I'm
I'm
curious
from
staff.
Then
this
does
that
I
mean
the
reference
earlier
was
to
retail
space
the.
If
it's
now
going
to
be
commercial
commercial
office
space,
is
that
still,
okay.
A
J
Okay,
thank
you.
The
other
question
I
have
for
the
applicant
is
how
much
space
is.
I
I
saw
in
your
in
your
the
illustration
that
you've
got
cars
parked
along
your
your
center
space,
close
to
the
to
the
sidewalk.
J
So,
apparently,
you
got
some
car
parking
going
on
there
and
I'm
curious
how
much
space
is
actually
going
to
be
allocated
for
for
all
the
trucks
and
trailers
and
so
forth
and
reason
I'm
asking
before
it
is.
I'm
I'd
like
to
know
how
it
compares
that
space
compares
to
say
the
u-haul
at
the
corner
of
30,
six
and
a
nicklet
or
thirty-fifth
of
nicola
can
36
nikola,
which
always
has
trucks
parked
on
the
street.
E
Sure
I
guess
I'll
take
the
first
question
comment
on
there.
So
along
hiawatha
yeah,
we
do
show
the
head
in
parking
there.
You
know
that'll,
probably
be
split
between
the
retail
space
to
the
south
for
the
rentals,
as
well
as
possibly
people
accessing
the
self
storage.
If
all
the
loading
docks
is
full
and
there
isn't
a
closing
spot
to
just
park
to
walk
in
and
look
at
your
lockers.
Otherwise,
in
regards
to
the
mix,
I
can't
say
exactly
how
much
will
be
used
for
either
used.
E
A
E
The
self
storage
conveniently-
and
there
is
no
intention
of
having
off-site
parking
here-
there's
there's
no
safe
or
you
know
even
parking
allocated
for
these
uses
on
43rd,
42nd
or
high
water.
So
all
parking
of
trucks,
trailers
and
customize
will
take
place
on
the
property
and
it
is
not
the
intention
to
park
off
the
property.
E
Hopefully
that
answers
your
question.
I
know
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
balancing
gain
between
the
customer
parking
and
the
storage
of
the
trucks
and
trailers
on
the
property,
but
I
do
believe
I
I
do
believe
it'll
be
it'll,
be
bounced
well
for
the
community
and
the
customer.
J
Yeah,
I
wasn't
so
concerned
about
that
there
being
enough
parking
for
the
customers,
but
just
that
it
was
going
to
consume
some
of
the
space
that
would
would
otherwise
be
used
for
for
trucks,
and
I
really
am
concerned
about
about
trucks
being
parked
on
43rd
street
and
and
all
over.
That's
what
happens
at
on
nichola
right
now,
although
we'd
love
to
have
you
all
there,
so,
okay.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
other
questions
from
the
commission
for
the
applicant.
C
Okay,
well,
thank
you
for
presenting
on
this
item.
I
we
will
continue
with
the
public
hearing.
C
However,
we
do
not
have
any
additional
registered
speakers,
but
at
this
point,
if
there
are
any
member
of
the
public
who
are
in
attendance
who
did
not
register
in
advance,
you
are
welcome
to
make
a
comment.
I
just
ask
that
you
press
star
six
on
mute
yourself
and
continue
with
your
name
address
and
then
your
comment.
C
L
Hi
hello,
this
is
jason
norris.
I
believe
I
was
number
six
on
the
consent
list
and
I
just
simply
wanted
to
say
thank
you
to
everybody
and
I'm
grateful
for
everybody's
help.
C
Is
there
anyone
else
who
is
here
to
speak
to
item
number
10,
4225
and
4251
hiawatha
avenue,
okay,
well,
siri,
seeing
no
one.
I
will
now
close
the
public
hearing
and
and
just
making
sure
no
one
else
has
any
questions.
Commissioner
meyer.
H
First
of
all,
you
know
this
is
transit
10,
so
it
could
be
up
to
10
stories
and
it's
close
to
a
transit
station
and
the
reason
that
part
of
the
storage
business
was
you
know
actively
put
in
the
2040
plan
is
because
we've
had
you
know
a
lot
of
storage
facilities
emerge
around
the
city
that
often
feel
like
really
dead
spaces
and
an
under
use
of
a
lot
of
land
like
it's,
especially
seeing
this
in
in
north
minneapolis,
like
along
the
riverfront,
where
you
know
really
prime
land
was,
was
put
to
these
storage
spaces,
and
people
wanted
to
see
if,
if
the
storage
places
were
going
to
be
there,
they
wanted
them
incorporated
into
more.
H
You
know
active
mixed-use
spaces,
and
I
don't
feel
that
this
really
meets
that
it
seems
to
be
doing
like
the
the
bare
minimum
or
I'm
not
sure,
if
they're,
even
as
minimum,
but
they
seem
to
be
doing
very
little
to
really
make
it
more
of
an
active
space.
It
could
be.
You
know
something
that
could
be
mixed
with
residential
or
you
know
more
retail
to
to
make
it
more
fitting
with
with
policy
number
six.
H
So
my
inclination
I'll
hear
what
others
have
have
to
say,
but
my
inclination
would
be
to
vote
against
this.
H
If
other
commissioners
disagree
and
are
leaning
towards
supporting
it,
then
my
ask
would
be
to
just
make
it
an
explicitly
stated
part
of
the
condition
that
the
commercial
has
to
be
there,
because
there
are
some
people
who
are
concerned
that,
because
it
seems
that
this
was
just
kind
of
thrown
in
there
and
to
you
know
kind
of
put
a
fake
leaf
on
it
and
make
it
more
more
competitive
with
that
that
they
might
abandon
it
after
this
has
been
approved.
So
it
should
be
part
of
the
condition
if
it
is
approved.
M
Yeah,
thank
you.
I'll
move
approval
of
staff
recommendations,
a
and
b
with
all
stated
conditions,
and
to
respond
to
commissioner
meyer's
comments
and
thoughts
on
it.
I
think
I'm
the
only
planning
commission
member
who
would
have
seen
this
project
in
2018
when
we
turned
it
down,
and
I
can
confirm
what
ms
dvorak
said
about
them,
having
changed
the
project
entirely
and
they
have
complied
with
the
requirements
here,
as
well
as
the
ordinances
and
just
because
a
particular
business
might
be.
You
know
not
some
people's
cup
of
tea.
M
I
think
we
need
to
be
careful
about
picking
winners
and
losers
when
we
decide
what
businesses
need
to
go
in
the
u-haul
business
is
important
and
valuable
and
a
city
needs
it.
If
there's
a
demand
for
storage
space,
there's
a
demand
for
storage
space,
but
the
comp
plan,
as
well
as
the
ordinances,
take
into
account
the
conditions
that
they
have
to
comply
with,
and
those
are
all
met
here.
So
I
don't.
I
don't
see
any
compelling
reason
to
deny
this
from
you
know.
M
People
who've
come
forward
in
good
faith
and
have
met
the
requirements,
particularly
when
it
appears
that
they
took
all
of
the
comments
to
heart
from
a
number
of
years
ago.
So
that
that's
my
motion
and
thank
you,
madam
president,.
A
N
Thank
you
I
want
to.
I
appreciate,
commissioner
meyer's
concerns
about
the
space
being
left,
but,
as
I
was
listening
to
the
applicant
and
listening
to
a
lot
of
the
questions,
I
was
thinking
myself
about.
You
know
all
of
the
what
they
had
to
go
through
to
get
to
be
in
compliance,
and
I
started
thinking
about
all
kinds
of
different
things
that
that
space
could
be
used.
For,
I
don't
know,
maybe
a
tattoo
shop.
I
don't
know,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
I
agree
with
commissioner
sweezie.
N
I
think
we
are.
We
would
be
getting
ourselves
in
kind
of
a
hot
mess
so
to
speak.
If
we
were
saying
you
know
what
should
or
shouldn't
be
in
a
space
that
has
you
know
that
wasn't
the
staff
is
saying
you
know
approve,
and
the
other
thing
that
I
wanted
to
say
is
there's
a
lot
of
us,
a
lot
of
people
that
are
downsizing,
and
I
agree
that
there's
a
lot
of
storage
spaces
around
the
city
and
I
and
I
particularly,
was
a
little
disappointed
about
the
one
near
north
minneapolis.
N
So
I
appreciated
commissioner
meyer
bringing
that
up,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
this
city
is
is
growing
and
it's
I'm
no.
I'm
not
naive
at
all
to
the
fact
that
you
know
a
single
family
homes
at
some
point.
15
20
25
years
from
now
won't
be
as
popular
as
as
they
have
been
in
the
past
as
much
as
that
makes
me
sad,
I'm
also
a
realist,
and
so
I
I
second
this
motion
and
thanks
for
the
time
to
comment.
C
Thank
you,
commissioner
caprini
anyone
else
who
would
like
to
comment
before
we
move
to.
O
H
Just
in
response
to
the
pbc
commissioners,
I
don't
think
anyone
is
saying
that
we
shouldn't
have
storage,
that
we
shouldn't
have
facilities
like
uhaul,
not
selecting,
winners
or
losers.
When
I,
when
I
say
that,
I
don't
feel
that
this
meets
condition
or
you
know
goal
number
six,
you
know
what
that
is
about
is
not
about
saying
that
there
can't
be
self-storage.
It's
about
saying
that
when,
when
it's
going
to
be
there,
that'll
be
mixed
with
other
things.
H
So
it's
not
saying
anything
about
reducing
the
amount
of
of
storage
space
there
it's
about
adding
other
uses
to
it,
so
it
doesn't
feel
like
a
dead
space
in
the
neighborhood,
and
you
know
in
this
location.
I
think
it
it's
pertinent
to
push
for
that.
But
hearing
you
know
two
other
commissioners
express
their
support
for
it
and
not
really
seeing
if
anyone
else
shares
my
opinion
on
it.
H
C
C
C
C
Okay,
well,
I
will
actually,
if
anyone
is
thinking
that
I'm
doing
this
wrong,
please
let
me
know,
but
I
believe
that
we
still
have
to
second
the
amendment
to
the
motion.
An
amendment
to
the
motion
has
been
made
by
commissioner
meyer.
Is
there
a
second
to
that
amendment?.
C
Yes,
thank
you
so
motion
was
made
and
seconded
and
then
it
was
amended
and
I'm
I'm
gonna
actually
move
to
discussion
on
on
the
item
again,
commissioner,
I
have
commissioner
mcguire
first
and
then
commissioner,
ford.
P
Thank
you.
I
had
similar
comments
to
commissioner
meyer,
but
in
relation
I
was
thinking
about
amending
the
motion
in
regards
to
some
of
the
alternative
compliance
they're
seeking,
if
we're
hesitant
about
the
use
or
kind
of
the
layout
of
the
site,
I
thought
some
of
those
items
for
the
alternative
compliance
might
be
areas
to
compromise
a
bit.
P
So
specifically,
I
was
not
concerned
about
the
building
placement,
but
for
myself
the
visual
interest
in
the
windows
just
having
the
items
broken
up
on
site,
so
we
just
don't
have
long
expanses
of
wall
and
additional
windows.
So
if
this
use
ever
does
leave,
we
have
a
building,
that's
in
compliance
with
current
code
standards.
P
I
would
be
interested
in
seeing
if
our
recommendation
could
include
full
compliance
for
those,
but
I
wanted
to
know
if
anybody
else
thought
that
that
was
a
good
idea.
I
was
just
hearing
some
hesitation,
so
I
thought
that
might
be
a
place
to
compromise
just
for
the
visual
aspect
of
it.
P
So
I
won't
make
a
formal
motion
but
wanted
to
comment
on
that.
Thank
you.
J
Thank
you
mike.
I
I
have
the
same
feelings
that
commissioner
maya
does.
I
I
think
I
do
think
that
a
u-haul
or
similar
brand
of
service
is
an
amenity.
I
certainly
use
them
myself
and
I
understand
how
a
neighborhood
would
would
like
to
have
that
around.
J
My
concern
is
that
this
has
the
potential
to
be
one
more
deadly
block
along
hiawatha
avenue
and
the
notion
that
it's
going
to
be
a
any
kind
of
pedestrian
activity.
As
is
fanciful,
I
think
so.
I
I'd
like
the
idea
of
at
least
trying
to
ensure
that
there
is
some
commercial
activity.
Besides
the
storage
and
truck
storage
and
personal
storage,
and
I'm
I'm
hoping
that
commissioner
maya's
amendment
will
ensure
that
so
to
some
degree,.
H
Responding
to
commissioner
mcguire's
suggestion
on
windows,
I
mean,
I
guess
it,
it
would
depend
on
what
the
windows
are
showing
and
if
it's
just
showing
I
don't
know
people's,
I
I'm
not
sure
where
exactly
the
windows
would
be
located,
but
if
it's
just
showing
either
storage
or
u-hauls,
I
I
don't
think
that
would
really
add
to
the
visual
interest.
H
C
Okay,
seeing
none
we
actually
first
have
to
vote
on
the
amendment
to
the
first
motion.
So
this
is
the
amendment
that
the
commissioner
meyer
brought
forward
with
that
I
asked
the
clerk
to
please
call
the
roll
on
that
amendment.
Could
you
please
repeat
it.
H
Yeah,
the
motion
is
to
add,
as
a
stated
condition
that
the
commercial
spaces
be
retained
as
as
described
in
the
staff
report.
So
the
idea
behind
it
is
that
they
can't
you
know,
come
back.
You
know
like
they
can't
come
back
later
and
just
decide
to
get
rid
of
the
commercial
that
they've
described
in
their
proposal.
J
Yeah,
that
was
just
a
calling.
A
point
of
order
was
just
to
be
more
dramatic,
but
my
question
is:
I
thought
that
the
maker
of
the
motion
had
accepted
it
as
a
friendly
amendment.
If
that's
the
case,
there's
no
need
for
it
enough
for
vote.
C
That
is
true.
I
apologize
thank
you,
and
mr
olsen
also
reminded
me
of
that
as
well.
Since
this
is
a
friendly
amendment,
we
can
just
move
on
to
to
the
actual
vote
on
the
original
motion,
so
this
is
to
approve
the
two
item:
10
a
and
b
and
with
and
one
additional
condition
the
commissioner
meyer
that
had
just
explained
to
retain
the
commercial,
as
explained
in
the
plan
as
as
is
right
now
with
that,
I
will
ask
the
clerk
to
please
call
the
role
on
that.
Thank
you
for
bearing
with
me.
D
The
amendment
the
main
motion
with
the
friendly
amendment-
yes.
H
I
C
C
Q
Q
This
project
was
previously
approved
by
the
planning
commission
back
in
july
of
2019
and
at
that
time
included
plans
for
a
new
10-story
mixed-use
building
with
20
owner-occupied
dwelling
units,
100
hotel
rooms
and
approximately
11
000
square
feet
of
commercial
space.
Q
So
this
slide
here
is
just
highlighting
the
differences
between
the
previous
project
that
was
approved
by
the
commission
in
2019
and
the
project
that's
proposed
today.
So
the
project
has
been
modified
to
eliminate
the
hotel
use
and
in
lieu
of
condos
and
a
hotel
is
now
74
rental
units
and
the
amount
of
square
footage
of
the
retail
space
or
commercial
space
has
been
reduced
from
eleven
thousand
square
feet.
To
about
thirty
two
hundred
square
feet,
the
height
has
increased
by
just
over
five
feet.
Q
So
the
overall
square
footage
of
the
building
is
not
actually
increasing
by
that
amount.
It's
just
the
way
that
we
now
calculate
the
floor
area
ratio
next
slide,
please,
under
the
current
proposal,
the
project
requires
two
applications.
One
is
a
conditional
use
permit
to
exceed
the
maximum
height
in
the
shoreland
overlay
district
and
then
site
plan
review.
Q
The
height
is
limited
in
the
shoreland
overlay
district
to
two
and
a
half
stories
or
35
feet.
So,
even
though
this
is
in
the
transit
30
built
form
district
which
would
otherwise
regulate
the
height,
it
is
the
more
restrictive
provision
that
applies
to
this
site.
So,
instead
of
the
10
story,
minimum
in
the
transit
30
built
form
district.
This
site
is
actually
subject
to
a
two
and
a
half
story
maximum,
and
thus
the
conditional
use
permit
for
height
is
required
next
slide,
please.
Q
Q
Again,
just
a
site
plan
showing
the
general
layout
of
the
site,
so
there's
two
vehicle
access
points
proposed.
You
can
see
the
ground
floor,
retail
space
shown
there
at
the
corner.
The
site
is
adjacent
to
a
minneapolis
fire
station,
which
is
just
to
the
west
here,
so
you
can
see
ground
floor
parking
lined
with
some
active
uses
along
both
street
frontages,
with
some
of
the
parking
exposed
next
slide.
Please.
Q
This
is
just
another
civil
site
plan
next
slide,
please
so
some
images
showing
the
surrounding
area
there
is
some
pretty
dense
development
already
existing
in
the
area.
This
area
is
anticipated
to
transition
with
the
investment
with
the
transit
infrastructure
coming
in
for
the
lrt
station,
that's
going
to
be
nearby
next
slide.
Please.
Q
So
here
we're
looking
at
the
shadow
studies
I'll
just
briefly
go
over
the
conditional
use,
permit
findings
that
staff
was
able
to
make
a
recommendation
of
approval
for
the
conditional
use
permit
for
heights.
So
the
establishment
of
a
nine-story
building
here
would
not
be
detrimental
to
or
endanger
the
public.
Health,
safety,
comfort
or
general
welfare
building
height
in
general
does
not
pose
a
danger
to
the
public
welfare
and
that's
the
case
in
this
instance
as
well.
Q
The
project
is
located
in
a
highly
developed
area,
with
a
significant
number
of
high-density
mixed-use
structures
and
access
to
amenities
and
services,
as
we
saw
on
the
previous
slide
with
the
photos
of
the
surrounding
area,
the
project
will
not
be
injurious
to
the
use
and
enjoyment
of
other
property
in
the
vicinity
and
will
not
impede
the
normal
development
or
improvement
of
the
district
again
absent.
The
presence
of
the
shoreline
overlay
district,
the
transit
30
built
form
overlay
district,
has
a
minimum
height
requirement
of
10
stories
and
allows
buildings
up
to
30
stories
in
heights.
Q
We're
looking
at
consistency
with
a
comprehensive
plan,
we're
looking
at
that,
as
well
as
the
fact
that
this
is
an
area
that
calls
for
dense
mixed
use,
development
with
the
presence
of
the
two
goods
and
services
corridor
and
staff
was
able
to
find
that
it
was
consistent
with
those
policies
by
providing
the
ground
floor.
Commercial
space
with
residential
uses
above
the
site
is
well
proportioned
for
the
site
and
adds
significant
activity,
pedestrian
improvements
and
eyes
on
the
street
for
a
block.
That's
currently
dominated
by
automobile
oriented
uses.
Q
Please
here
are
renderings
of
the
sites
showing
how
the
massing
is
distributed
along
the
site
next
slide.
Please,
the
application
for
site
plan
review
requires
a
few
items
that
need
alternative
compliance,
including
parking
garages
and
ground
floor
active
functions.
Q
The
project
is
not
in
compliance
with
the
minimum
requirements
for
parking
garages
and
the
minimum
requirement
that
no
more
than
30
percent
of
any
above
grade
elevation
be
comprised
of
parking
garage
frontage,
because
the
project
has
two
levels
of
above
grade
parking.
The
ground
floor
facing
west
lake
street
has
a
46
percent
parking
garage
frontage
and
the
second
floor
facing
west
lake
street
is
77
parking
frontage.
The
applicant
has
requested
alternative
compliance
to
both
of
those
regulations.
Q
Staff
is
recommending
that
the
commission
grant
alternative
compliance
for
that.
The
project
site
is
constrained
in
its
ability
to
construct
underground
parking
due
to
the
triangular
shape
of
the
lot
and
the
proximity
to
natural
water
features,
and,
additionally,
the
project
is
located
on
two
busy
corridors
with
no
on-street
parking
and
no
publicly
accessible
parking
nearby.
Hence
the
number
of
parking
stalls
proposed
for
the
site.
Q
Q
These
are
just
further
out
shots
of
the
renderings
next
slide
so
going
through.
This
is
one
floor
of
the
parking
ramp
next
slide.
Q
The
other
piece
of
site
plan
review
that
requires
alternative
compliance
is
the
general
landscaping
and
screening
requirements.
The
proposal
is
not
in
compliance
with
those.
The
product
is
required
to
provide
at
least
1535
square
feet
of
landscaping,
and
the
proposal
contains
1407
square
feet
and
the
project
needs
to
provide
three
canopy
trees
on
sites
and
also
needs
alternative
compliance
to
that
provision.
Q
Staff
again
recommends
granting
alternative
compliance
for
the
landscaping
and
screening,
given
the
fact
that
the
site's
constrained
in
its
ability
to
provide
landscaping
due
to
the
triangular
shape
here,
the
applicant
is
proposing
13
canopy
trees
in
the
public,
right-of-way
and
staff
has
found
that
the
public
realm
improvements
propose
in
the
right-of-way
meet
the
intent
of
the
site
plan
review
chapter
and,
if
those
were
counted,
would
actually
bring
it
into
compliance
next
slide.
Please
so
just
showing
some
additional
floor
plans
here.
I
think
that's
what
the
rest
of
these
are.
Q
Q
This
is
just
showing
you
know
more
detailed
elevations
of
the
site
identifying
the
exterior
materials,
but
I
can
stop
there
and
answer
any
questions
that
the
commission
has
on
these
two
applications.
C
Thank
you
for
the
presentations
on.
Does
the
commission
have
any
questions
for.
C
C
So,
if
correct
me,
if
I'm
wrong,
but
with
community
mix,
use
transit
30,
as
stated
in
the
comprehensive
plan,
the
density
range
for
such
area
would
be
between
200
and
1000
units
per
acre
at
about
80
percent
of
residential
share
within
the
site,
which,
if
I
calculated
correctly
with
that
80
percent.
Even
the
density
of
this,
this
project
is
130
units
per
acre,
which
is
lower
than
what
the
land
use
plan
actually
allows.
C
So
so
with
that,
it
seems
that
it
is
inconsistent
with
the
land
use
plan,
while
consistent
with
other
policies
of
the
comprehensive
plans
and
a
comprehensive
plan
and
would
to
proceed
would
need
a
comprehensive
plan.
Amendment.
Q
So
that's
not
how
staff
has
interpreted
the
comprehensive
plan.
Our
density
minimums
were
provided
in
response
to
a
requirement
from
that
council
that
they
be
in
there
in
the
appendices
of
the
plan,
but
we
have
not
interpreted
it
that
way.
You
know
we
can
consult
further
with
the
met
council,
but
we
have
not
interpreted
that
density.
Minimums
would
require
a
comprehensive
plan
amendment
and
there's
nothing
codified
to
that
degree.
That
would
require
a
land
use
application
associated
with
that.
Q
C
I
strongly
urge
you
to
connect
with
my
council
and
the
sector
representative
on
this,
because
I
believe
that,
even
though
I
understand
like
with
the
the
way
that
the
comprehensive
plan
was
preceded
with
the
appendices
and
versus
the
rest
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
this
would
this
would
otherwise
be
interpreted.
That
way.
This
project,
if
it
ever
went
up
for
any
kind
of
funding,
will
not
get
it
because
of
inconsistency.
Q
We
can
do
that,
but
yeah
we've
had
many
many
discussions
about
what
those
numbers
mean.
R
And
that's
not
how
they've
been
interpreted
thus
far,
so
we
can
take
that
up
with
our
with
mike
as
needed.
C
C
Okay,
well
not
seeing
any
member
of
the
commission.
I
will
now
open
the
public
hearing.
Is
the
applicant
here
to
speak
to
this
item.
If
you
are,
please
press
star,
six
unmute
yourself
and
then
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
S
Hi
good
evening,
commissioners,
this
is
gretchen
camp
with
esg
architecture
and
design,
500,
south
washington
avenue,
and
last
week
we
were
in
communication
with
kimberly
and
peter,
and
we
are
in
full
agreement
with
the
staff
report
and
have
really
appreciated
working
with
both
of
them
and
actually
thought.
This
item
was
going
to
be
on
consent
tonight.
So
our
whole
team
is
here.
If
any
of
the
commissioners
have
questions
for
us
and
we'll
stand
for
those.
C
S
Everyone
here,
just
in
case
you
know
our
landscape,
architects,
on
board.
We
have
a
full
group
of
people
from
esg
the
owners
on.
So,
if
anybody
has
questions
about
the
project,
we
can
answer
those.
That's
why
everyone's
on.
C
Okay,
not
seeing
anyone,
we
will
continue
besides
the
applicant
team,
we
do
not
have
any
additional
registered
speakers
for
this
item,
so
I
asked
that
if
there's
anyone
else
on
this
call
who
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item,
please
press
star
six
and
then
continue
with
your
name
address
and.
C
C
H
I
move
approval
of
the
condition
of
item
a
the
conditional
use
permit
and
item
b,
the
state
plan
review
with
all
stated
conditions
consistent
with
staff
recommendation.
C
J
H
I
C
Thank
you
that
motion
passes.
The
next
item
on
our
discussion
agenda
is
item
number
13,
2648
marshall
street.
Northeast
this
item
was
continued
from
the
previous
meeting
of
the
commission
on
june.
14Th
and
staff
is
lindsay.
Silas.
O
Good
afternoon,
commissioners,
I
am
here
about
2648
marshall
street
northeast.
This
is
a
subject
that
is
on
the
river,
the
mississippi
river.
It's
just
over
20
000
square
feet
in
size.
The
site
is
occupied
by
an
existing
duplex,
a
duplex
and
detached
garage,
and
the
applicant
has
proposed
to
establish
a
cluster
development
on
the
site
that
would
allow
them
to
retain
the
existing
duplex
and
then
they
would
be
constructing
a
new
detached
structure
of
one
story
containing
one
dwelling
in
it.
O
They
would
also
include
a
thousand
square
foot
detached
garage
and
workshop
located
between
the
two
residential
buildings
on
the
site.
Next
slide,
please,
the
project
requires
three
applications:
a
conditional
use
permit
to
establish
a
cluster
development
that
would
allow
them
to
have
two
principal
residential
structures
on
the
site
variants
to
allow
development
within
40
feet
of
a
steep
slope
within
the
shoreland
overlay
district
and
a
variance
of
the
structure
placement
standard
within
the
mississippi
river
corridor,
critical
area
overlay
district,
which
would
allow
the
structure
to
be
located
within
the
bluff
impact
zone.
O
So
those
two
variances
are
relatively
similar
having
to
do
with
the
slope
on
this
site
and
the
bluff
line,
which
we
will
get
to
shortly.
O
So
I
did
want
to
bring
up
the
authority
for
what
authority
the
planning
commission
has
here.
I
know
that
the
item
was
continued
at
the
last
meeting
because
of
some
conversations
that
were
being
had
between
minneapolis
park
and
recreation
board
staff
and
city
staff
regarding
the
park.
Dedication
ordinance
part
of
the
reason
that
perks
have
kind
of
come
up
as
part
of
this
project
is
because
the
site
is
designated
as
perks
on
the
future
land
use,
map
and
parks
and
open
space
on
the
built
form
map.
O
O
So,
even
though
these
have
perks,
designation,
they're,
presently
privately
owned
and
the
proposal
of
you
know,
low
density
residential
structure
is
consistent
with
the
guided
built
form
for
parks
and
open
space,
and
the
comprehensive
plan
does
not
prohibit
owners
from
improving
or
altering
their
property
in
ways
that
comply
with
a
comprehensive
plan.
So
and
then
I
also
just
wanted
to
address
the
park
dedication
fee
question.
O
There
was
those
conversations
were
still
ongoing
at
the
last
meeting,
but
city
city
staff
park
board
staff
and
the
city
attorney's
office
have
resolved
that
issue
and
then
the
park
dedication
question
will
be
dealt
with
at
the
building
permit
stage.
So
there's
still
even
additional
time
to
work
on
that
and
then
the
the
planning
commission
just
doesn't
have
any
authority
to
make
conditions
related
to
the
park.
Dedication.
O
This
is
a
site
plan
of
the
site
and
it
shows
the
existing
the
existing
duplex
at
the
front
along
marshall.
O
The
three
surface
parking
spaces
proposed
for
that
duplex
and
there's
a
driveway
to
the
proposed
workshop
garage
and
then
the
new
structure,
which
is
a
one-story
structure
located
closer
to
the
river
and,
as
you
can
see,
with
the
the
curvature
lines
on
the
plan
that
the
the
front
of
the
new
structure
is
kind
of
within
that
bluff
zone,
and
that
is
what
is
triggering
the
two
variances.
O
So
the
the
shoreline
overlay
variance
has
to
do
with
properties
that
are,
it
prohibits
development
within
40,
feet
of
a
steep
slope
and
then
the
mississippi
river
critical
corridor
overlay
district
identifies
a
bluff
impact
zone
which
prohibits
development
within
20
feet
of
the
top
or
of
the
toe
of
the
bluff.
And
this
on
this
property
in
particular.
The
the
bluff
line
actually
extends
about
140
feet
into
the
site,
as
measured
from
the
public
waters
and
the
front
of
the
home
would
be
about
96
feet
from
the
public
water.
O
So
I
do
have
a
slide
that
kind
of
addresses
the
findings
more
specifically,
but
I
want
to
address
them.
While
you
have
this
visual
up
on
your
screen
as
well,
so
the
two
variances,
the
you
know,
primary
finding
for
variances
is
that
practical
difficulties
exist
in
complying
with
the
ordinance
ordinance
due
to
circumstances
unique
to
the
property.
As
you
can
see,
this,
the
bluff
line
on
the
site
is
significantly
different
from
the
bluff
lines
on
the
adjacent
sites.
O
The
applicant
has
stated
that
there
is
significant,
concrete
debris
located
underneath
the
soil
and
that
is
partially
impacting
their
design
choices
unable
to
provide
a
basement
for
the
home
because
of
the
kind
of
industrial
debris
that's
been
scattered
on
the
site,
whether
or
not
the
bluff
line
was
altered
through
industrial
activity
on
this
and
the
nearby
site,
or
whether
it
was
instead
filled
that
changed
the
bluff
line
on
adjacent
sites.
O
It
still
remains
that
the
the
bluff
line
on
the
site
is
significantly
different
than
the
bluff
line
on
either
of
the
adjacent
sites.
This
site,
the
bluff
line,
cuts
about
140
feet
into
the
site,
the
adjacent
properties
to
the
north
and
south.
The
bluff
line
is
about
24
to
30
feet
from
protected
waters.
O
So
if
this
property
had
a
bluffline
kind
of
at
that
same
area-
or
even
you
know
farther
back
from
that
area,
these
variances
would
not
be
required
and
therefore,
because
of
the
because
of
the
you
know
this
kind
of
curve
in
the
bluff
line
that,
as
you
can
see,
on
this
diagram,
that
does
constitute
a
practical
difficulty
and
it's
a
unique
circumstance
to
the
site,
which
does
restrict
the
buildable
area
and
does
restrict
the
possibility
of
locating
a
cluster
development
on
this
site
while
complying
with
those
variances
next
slide.
O
Please
here's
just
a
couple
of
quick
renderings
of
the
building.
It's
just
a
one-story
building
that
would
be.
You
know,
built
into
that
bluff.
There
next
slide,
please
so.
O
Staff
finds
that
the
proposal
to
establish
a
cluster
development
of
three
units
is
consistent
with
the
guidance
for
parks
and
open
space
in
the
2040
plan
that
calls
for
low
density,
residential
structures
or
low
de
smaller
parks,
buildings,
and-
and
this
is
consistent
next
slide
and,
as
I
noted
that
bluff
line
is
is,
is,
is
unique
to
this
site
when
compared
with
adjacent
sites.
The
applicant
has
indicated
that
there
is
in
industrial
debris
located
here.
That
indicates
that
it
may
have
been
modified
over
time.
O
In
addition,
the
the
property
owner
is
proposing
to
use
the
property
in
a
reasonable
manner.
They
proposed
to
set
the
building
back
96
feet
from
the
public
waters,
which
would
allow
them
to
add
one
additional
unit,
while
still
being
able
currently
where
the
the
the
new
structures
propose.
O
There
is
an
existing
detached
garage,
so
it
would
allow
them
to
rebuild
the
garage
as
well
at
a
different
location
on
the
site,
and
the
applicant
is
proposed
to
retain
the
extensively
wooded
area
between
the
new
building
and
and
the
the
slope
and
the
river
to
retain
all
of
those
trees
that
are
located
there.
That
will
stabilize
that
bluff
line
and
they've
also
proposed
to
add
rain,
gardens
and
native
plantings.
O
Next
slide,
please
so
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
the
commercial
use
permit
in
both
variances,
with
the
two
stated
conditions
for
the
conditional
use
permit
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
questions
at
this
time.
C
H
Thank
you
first,
so
I
I
know
that
you
know
the
park.
Dedication
fee,
isn't
part
of
the
land
use
approval
for
today,
but
I
I
was
still
taken
aback
by
a
statement
you
made
in
your
slide,
where
you
said
that
this
you
know
under
the
park.
Dedication
feed
point.
You
say
this
item
has
been
resolved
in
conjunction
with
the
minneapolis
recreation
board
staff
and
the
city
attorney's
office.
H
That
was
not
my
impression.
My
impression
was
that
there
is
a
profound
disagreement
between
the
park
board
legal
counsel
and
the
city
attorney's
office
in
their
interpretation
of
the
practice.
Education
ordinance,
and
I
just
wanted
to
get
clarification
on
on
where
that
stands,
because
I
think
it
will
be
pertinent
to
a
lot
of
people
who
might
be
interested
in
speaking
in
public
hearing
later
on.
So
what
what?
What
did?
What
was
the
ultimate
resolution?.
H
Okay,
so
does
the
interpretation
okay,
so
the
disagreement
was
about
whether
the
park
board
in
this
case
has
the
right
to
claim
10
of
the
land
which
would
be
about
450
square
feet.
So
did
the
study
attorney's
office
agree
with
the
park
board
now
that
that.
Q
Q
And
again,
that's
not
something!
That's
really
up
for
the
commission
to
decide
tonight.
The
park
dedication
fee
is
captured
at
building
permit
phase,
and
it's
also
not
in
any
portions
of
the
zoning
code
that
the
planning
commission
is
considering
tonight.
We
have
had
several
meetings
with
park
board
staff
and
their
attorneys.
Our
attorneys
have
as
well.
Q
H
I
I
think
there
must
be
some
kind
of
miscommunication
because
as
of
this
morning,
that
wasn't
the
opinion
of
the
staff
that
I
had
talked
to
on
the
park
board
side.
I
I
recognize
that
it
is
not
something
for
us
at
this
stage
for
the
land
use
approval,
but
after
the
public
hearing
concludes,
I
will
have
more
to
say
about
what
may
come
up
during
the
building
permit
part
of
the
part
of
the
project.
Thank
you.
P
Thank
you.
I
have
a
few
different
questions
for
staff.
My
first
is:
is
the
city?
Are
we
liable
for
anything
in
association
with
granting
a
variance
for
this
site,
knowing
that
there
is
like
underground
debris?
That
is,
potentially
you
know
hazardous
or
whatever
do
we
have
to
include?
Could
we
should?
We
include
that,
as
part
of
the
recommendation
to
get
that
cleaned
up,
and
is
that
something
we
should
be
considering
or
do
we
think
that
it's
just
fine
leaving
it
there,
because
that
sounds
like
a
big
concern.
P
My
second
question
is:
if
it
is
like
an
artificial
bluffline
which
it
kind
of
seems
like
it,
is
based
on
the
situation
from
the
neighbors.
Is
there
a
process
for
the
property
owner
to
change
the
bluff
line
designation
with?
I
would
assume
the
dnr
does
that
and
if
so,
what
is
that
process
and
is
the
variance
just
easier?
If
it
is
that's
fine,
but
I
was
just
curious
about
that
and
then
I
can't
remember
my
other
question
so
I'll
just
start
with
those
two
questions.
Thank
you.
P
O
My
understanding-
and
I
think
that
the
applicant
can
probably
speak
to
this
when
they
give
their
presentation
as
well,
is
that
it's
mostly
concrete
debris
located
under
the
the
slope
and
there
the
area
of
the
slope
is
significantly
wooden.
Now,
I'm
guessing
that
you
know
they're
mostly
volunteer
trees
in
that
area,
but
I
my
understanding
is
that
it's
preferable
to
leave
that
area
undisturbed,
so
that
there's
no
sort
of
erosion
issues
with
you
know
washing
soils
into
the
river
and
and
that
sort
of
pollution
potential
situation.
O
O
Even
though
we
have
some
historic
photographs
of
the
site,
you
know
they're,
not
historic,
surveys
of
the
site,
it's
very
difficult
to
say
how,
when
or
by
whom
the
the
bluff
line
was
modified,
how
it
was
modified,
that
sort
of
thing
and
so
and
and
when
it
comes
to
these
variances,
we
define
what
is
a
bluff
line
by
like
how
much
it
slopes
over
a
certain
area.
So
it
has
to
have
a
certain
has
to
have
a
certain
increase.
That's
what
determines
the
steep
slope
in
the
shoreline
overlay
district?
O
That's
what
determines
a
bluff
line
in
the
the
critical
area
district
and
those
things
are.
You
know
those
things
are
met
for
this
project,
so
whether
you
know
whether
this
bluff
line
is
is
original
or
not.
O
P
P
C
M
Commissioner,
sweezie
yeah
hi
just
just
a
comment
on
some
some
of
this.
I
I
have
a
certain
amount
of
unease
with
some
of
what
I
hear
here.
M
I
find
the
comment
well
I'll
have
more
to
say
about
that
afterwards,
after
we
vote
on
it
and
comments
like
well,
that's
not
what
it
sounded
like
this
morning,
a
little
bit
concerning
in
terms
of
outside
information,
that
that
is
that
the
rest
of
the
members
of
the
planning
commission
aren't
privy
to
and
probably
shouldn't
be
given
the
limited
question
that's
before
us,
but
but
I
do
have
to.
I
do
have
to
say
that
I
find
that
we're
not.
M
It
doesn't
appear
that
we're
all
on
equal
footing
kind
of
going
into
this
debate
and
vote
here.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
I
got
a
chance
to
say
that.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you,
commissioner
sweezie.
I
actually
have
a
question
for
staff
as
well,
because
your
meyer
did
you
have
a
comment.
I
can
wait.
H
Yeah,
I
felt
it
was
part
of
the
reason
that
the
park
board
has
a
seat
on
this
body,
so
that
information
from
the
park
board
and
the
perspective
of
the
park
board
could
be
part
of
the
process.
C
My
question
for
staff
is
about
the
analysis
done
here,
because
most
of
the
all
of
the
recommendation
here
seems
to
be
based
on
the
fact
that,
because
of
the
bluff
line
and
how
it's
different
and
was
you
know,
reduced
due
to
activity
and
whatnot,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
or
how
accurate
that
is,
or
surveys
were
done
in
the
past?
C
Something
that
I
don't
understand
is
why
we
are
basing
the
analysis
on
something
that
would
have
been
if,
if
activity
hadn't
happened
here,
the
bluff
line
would
have
been
this
many
feet
further.
But
the
the
thing
is
that
it
isn't
right
now.
C
That
is
not
the
current
condition
of
of
this
area,
and
so
I
am
I'm
kind
of
I'm
having
trouble
understanding
that
perspective
and
therefore,
I'm
at
this
moment
not
kind
of
against
this
recommendation
so
and
again
kind
of
going
back
to
also
receiving
comments
from
organizations
such
as
dnr
who
are
kind
of
along
the
same
line.
So
if
you
can,
please
kind
of
explain
to
me
why
we
are
thinking
about
the
conditions
of
the
past
and
the
analysis
for
a
today
project.
O
That's
a
good
question,
so
I
did
provide
that
information
about.
You
know
the
possible
changes
over
the
history
of
the
site.
You
know
as
it
it
did
seem
relevant,
but
really
the
I
mean
the
the
essential.
O
The
essential
uniqueness
of
the
site
has
to
do
with
modifications
to
the
bluff
line
that
have
happened
both
either
on
this
site
and
on
adjacent
sites.
You
know,
if
we
go
back
to,
I
think
it
was
slide
five
of
the
presentation
which
shows
that
bluff
impact
diagram,
the
whatever
modifications
have
happened
at
this
portion
of
the
bluff
are,
are
really
concentrated
on
this
site
and
the
the
bluff
line
itself
being
so
different
on
this
site
compared
to
adjacent
sites.
O
You
know
not
just
immediately
to
the
north
and
south,
but
even
you
know,
marshall
terrace
park,
which
is
two
parcels
to
the
north,
is
clear.
Clearly
has
a
bluff
line.
That's
significantly
closer
to
the
river
than
this
parcel
same
goes
for
the
industrial
properties
even
farther
to
the
south.
O
So,
when
we're
looking
at
that
practical
difficulty,
finding
the
practical
difficulty
for
the
site
in
in
establishing
a
cluster
development
that
meets
the
required
open
space
for
cluster
development
spacing
between
buildings,
allows
them
to
have
a
detached
structure
for
parking
which
is
permitted
by
the
zoning
code.
O
The
unique
situation
here
for
the
site
is
that
this
bluff
line
is
significantly
different
from
all
the
other
surrounding
bluff
lines
on
the
river,
in
that
it
cuts
140
feet
into
the
site,
rather
than
20
to
30
feet
or
even
at
the
property
two
to
the
north.
At
marshall
terrace
park
I
mean
it
looks
like
that
one.
You
know
it's
maybe
70
feet
or
something.
So
so
it's
not
so
much
about
what
created
this.
This
unique
circumstance
that
we
have
some
speculation
about.
O
C
Okay,
seeing
no
other
comments
from
the
commission,
I
will
now
open
the
public
hearing
on
this
item.
Is
the
applicant
here
to
speak
about
this
item?
C
T
Ahead,
so
there
were
a
number
of
questions.
I
I'm
not
sure
how
to
how
to
get
to
everything.
I
wanted
to
take
some
time
to
explain
our
our
plans
for
the
site,
and
hopefully
I
can
can
get
around
to
answering
some
of
the
many
questions
as
you
can
see
from
the
drawings.
It's
a
very
large
lot.
It's
for
a
city
lot,
it's
350
feet,
long
by
50,
feet
wide,
which
is
the
the
current.
T
T
So
our
proposal,
what
we
want
to
do
is
keep
that
existing
duplex
intact
as
it
is,
and
then
where
the
garage
is
now,
we
would
demolish
that
and
then
build
the
new
house
on
there.
It's
a
single
story,
structure,
new
house
for
us.
We
currently
live
in
the
duplex
and
then
we
would
build
the
new
garage
in
between
the
two
houses
there.
T
With
this
plan,
my
wife
and
I
hope
to
accomplish
a
number
of
goals.
One
is
for
the
house
itself.
Obviously
we
get
to
live
in
a
new
house
and
we
feel
that
it's
it's
a
more
appropriate
house
for
our
needs.
We
currently
have
three
bedrooms
in
this
duplex
unit
where
we
live
and
it's
a
bigger
space
than
we
need
for
just
the
two
of
us,
we're
also
looking
ahead
towards
as
we
age
having
a
place
where
there
are
no
stairways
that
is
easier
to
access.
T
So
we
feel
this
is
a
more
appropriate
use
for
the
space
and
then
another
goal
is
that
we're
adding
residential
density
to
the
property?
With
this
plan,
it
is
a
goal
of
the
minneapolis
2040
plan
to
increase
density
in
existing
spaces,
and
this
is
one
way
we
can
do
that,
and
we
feel
that
then,
the
rental
property
that
we're
currently
occupied
occupying
could
be
better
used
by
perhaps
a
family
or
something.
T
A
third
goal.
Is
that
obviously
we're
by
making
these
improvements
we're
increasing
the
the
tax
value,
the
property
value
of
the
space,
which
increases
the
the
city's
tax
base?
So
that's
a
good
thing
for
the
city
and
then
the
the
parts
that
I
think
that
people
seem
to
be
most
interested
in
here
now
is
is
the
the
future
park
plans.
T
T
T
There
is
an
existing
duplex
and
there
is
an
existing
garage
on
two
of
the
locations
and
so
we're
just
adding
a
third
structure
here,
and
if
you
look
now,
if
I
can
bring
your
attention
to,
I
think
where
the
focus
is
where
these
bluff
lines
are.
There
is-
and
I
kind
of
wish-
I
had
some
some
photographs
that
I
could
show
people,
but
there
is
nothing
but
concrete,
or
almost
nothing
but
concrete
in
this
place.
T
It's
visible
piles
of
concrete
rubble
and,
as
lindsay
mentioned,
there's
a
lot
of
volunteer
trees
in
that
space.
There
are
a
couple
of
nice
cottonwoods
and
things
in
there
too,
that
we're
hoping
to
preserve,
but
to
the
north
is
an
apartment
building
with
the
parking
lot
that
is
built
right
up
to
the
river's
edge.
T
I
don't
think
that's
really
apparent
in
these
drawings,
but
it's
right
to
the
river's
edge
and
to
the
south
is
the
marshall
concrete
products
company,
which
also
is
built
right
up
to
the
river's
edge,
and
those
are
the
conditions
that
lead
us
to
having
these
bloodlines
that
are
altered
in
here,
because,
for
example,
on
the
northern
side,
you
can
see
what
looks
like
a
pretty
steep
slope
that
rises
roughly
25
feet.
T
I
think
up
to
a
retaining
wall,
for
this
parking
lot,
that
if
we
were
to
disturb
that
rubble
there
that
retaining
wall
would
come
down.
It's
holding
things
in
place,
which
gets
us
to
another
thing
that
lindsey
was
mentioning
was
with
the
the
ability
to
put
a
basement
on
this
site,
because
there
is
so
much
concrete
and
because
of
that
retaining
wall
there,
we
can't
really
disturb
the
site
with
excavating
for
a
basement.
T
It
has
to
be
a
single
level
building
unless
we
want
to
spend
a
lot
of
money
to
to
bolster
these
this
retaining
wall.
There
are
also,
then
three
retaining
walls
that
you
can't
make
out
too
well
on
the
design,
but
it's
that
currently
exists
on
the
site.
One
is
down
at
the
river's
edge
and
then
one
is
along
the
side
where
the
new
house
will
go
and
then
one
is
at
the
front
of
where
the
new
house
will
go,
and
so
those
are
those
are
things
that
have
been
there.
T
I
don't
know
how
long,
but
certainly
as
long
as
we've
been
on
the
property
so-
and
I
can't
remember-
I
think
that's
mainly
so.
The
comment
about
why
or
what's
on
the
site
now
is
that's
pretty
much
it
it's
infill
that
was
put
there.
I
believe,
to
either
build
up
or
bolster
the
neighboring
properties,
and
then
I
think
there
was
the
question
from
council
person
meyer
about
the
park
board's
involvement.
So
I
do
want
to
talk
about
that
for
a
second,
too.
T
T
So
the
agreement
that
we've
reached
with
adam
is
that,
and
I
apologize,
we
don't
have
anything
official
to
share
because
the
timing
just
didn't
work
out
for
it,
but
we
have
sort
of
a
verbal
agreement
to
continue
discussions
about
the
process,
and
that
generally
means
that
we
are
looking
for
ways
to
ultimately
turn
this
property
over
to
the
park
board
in
some
way
and
and
the
park
board
has
a
number
of
creative
tools
and
and
structures
that
they
can
use
to
make
that
happen.
T
That
they've
used
with
other
properties
along
the
the
riverfront
here,
and
so
that's
going
to
be
an
ongoing
process.
I
can't
really
go
into
all
the
details,
because
there
are
many
different
legal
complications
and
whatnot,
but
it
is
something
that
we
are
working
on
and
I
believe
I
believe
mr
arvinson
is
working
to
get
a
letter
of
memorandum.
T
I'm
sorry,
a
memorandum
of
agreement
written
up
so
that
we
could
use
that
as
our
basis
for
for
continuing
these
discussions
and
because
it's
a
question
I'm
gonna
try
to
describe
what's
going
on
with
the
park
permit
the
fee.
I
forget
what
what
it's
actually
called
where
the
the
park
dedication
the
park
board,
has
an
interest
in
either
getting
a
a
land,
no
donation
or
we
pay
a
fee.
T
If
you
look
at
this
site
at
the
moment,
there
is
no
public
access
to
the
riverfront
because,
as
I've
said,
the
the
apartment
building
to
the
north
and
the
concrete
business
to
the
south
are
both
built
right
up
to
the
river's
edge.
There's,
no
way
a
path
can
come
through
there,
and
so,
if
that
450
square
feet
of
land
were
donated
as
part
of
this,
it
would
be
isolated,
there's
no
access
to
it.
C
Yes,
thank
you.
Are
there
any
questions
for
the
applicant
on
the
commission.
C
We
will
continue
with
the
list
of
our
registered
speakers,
although
the
second
person
that
I
have
listed
is
all
is
also
part
of
the
applicant
team.
It
seems
like
greg.
A
C
Okay,
great,
thank
you.
The
next
person
on
the
list
is
edna
brositis.
If
you're
on
the
line,
please
press
star
six
to
unmute
yourself
and
then
continue
with
your
name
and
address
and
then.
C
If
you're
on
the
line,
please
press
star,
six,
you
may
need
to
also,
if
you're
on
a
mobile
device
unmuted
from
the
device
as
well
separately,.
C
U
U
First
of
all,
we
believe
that
the
premise
used
to
recommend
approval
of
the
variances
is
based
on
a
faulty
assumption,
and
we
have
many
concerns
about
the
recommendation
to
approve
the
conditional
use
permit
the
two
variances
I
won't
read
because
you
know
what
they
are,
but
it
says
in
the
staff
report
that
if
the
natural
bluff
line
had
been
retained
at
this
site,
the
proposed
location
for
the
new
structure
would
not
meet
would
not
be
located
within
the
40-foot,
nor
would
it
be
located
in
the
bluff
inc
tax
zone.
The
information
is
incorrect.
U
U
There
are
photographs
of
this
site.
The
the
the
land
uses
to
the
north
and
south
of
this
site
are
horribly
degradated.
There
are
retaining
walls
that
go
all
the
way
into
the
river.
U
U
U
The
apartments
were
built
in
1968
marshall,
terrace,
marshall,
concrete
came
in
in
1936,
but
they
were
pretty
far
south
of
this
like
this
site.
At
that
time,
they
may
have
dumped
a
few
pieces
of
concrete
on
this
site,
but
that
wouldn't
alter
the
bluff.
It
would
actually
add
to
the
land
site
not
take
away
from
it.
U
So
we
strongly
recommend
that
these
variances
be
denied.
I
also
have
contact
with
doug
schneider
at
the
mississippi
watershed
management
organization.
He
said
that
he
has
requested
more
information
from
the
city
regarding
this
development,
but
has
not
received
that
information
from
the
planner,
and
he
says
quote.
I
hope
the
city
does
not
grant
a
variance,
except
in
rare
circumstances,
and
only
with
guarantees
that
the
environmental
impacts
are
nil
or
in
fact
the
project
enhances
the
shoreline,
habitat
and
water
quality
at
the
site,
and
that
is
not
true
with
this
proposal.
U
U
There
are
many
provisions
in
the
2040
comprehensive
plan
that
support
the
use
of
this
property
is
parcc
and
again
I'm
not
going
to
go
into
some
of
the
legal
issues.
Well,
I
will
because
edna
was
going
to
do
that.
She's,
not
here,
and
the
minnesota
supreme
court
has
ruled
that
a
comprehensive
plan
takes
precedent
over
zoning
and
that
municipalities
need
to
align
their
zoning
to
fit
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
U
C
Thank
you
for
your
comment.
We
will
actually
go
back
to
see
if
edna
is
on
the
line.
Edinburgh's
bursitis,
if
you're
on
the
line,
please
press
star
six
to
unmute
yourself
and
then
continue
with
your
name
address
and
comment.
V
Hello,
hi
hi:
this
is
edna
brazidis.
Thank
you.
I
had
trouble
on
muting
myself
and
I'm
with
friends
of
a
riverfront
which
is
a
minnesota
nonprofit
and
I'd
like
to
add
some
things
to
what
mary
said.
One
important
thing
about
this
site
is:
it
was
not
altered
by
the
construction
of
the
upper
harbor
terminal.
V
V
It's
clean
air,
it's
open
space,
it's
connected
parks
and
trails,
and
what
my
real
concern
about
this
is.
It
seems
to
be
described
as
if
there
was
a
funeral,
and
this
plan
will
never
happen.
And
just
last
week
the
legislature
approved
one
million
dollars
to
purchase
certain
property.
That's
very
significant
on
the
bubble
falls
area,
so
it's
happening,
and
you
know
if
we
do
things
that
prevent
it,
then
we
may
have
killed
the
opportunity
for
people
in
minneapolis
who
are
underserved
by
parks
to
be
able
to
have
those
amenities,
including
conducted
parks
and
trails.
V
It
would
be
possible
to
put
something
on
this,
this
site
that
allowed
space
for
a
future
trail
that
would
be
on
the
top
of
the
bluff
and
there
could
be
an
easement
there
was
given
for
that.
But
that
is
not
the
way
this
is
constructed.
So
when
looking
at
what
you
need
to
create
to
grant
a
variance,
you
have
to
say
that's
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
I
provided
ample
citations
to
various
parts,
including
you
know,
the
need
for
parks.
V
C
Thank
you
for
your
comments,
continuing
with
our
list
of
registered
speakers
and
next
person
is
anne
laflin.
If
you
are
on
the
line,
please
press
star
six
to
unmute
yourself
and
then
continue
with
your
name
address
and
comment.
W
Hi,
thank
you,
president
ismaili
and
commissioners.
This
is
anne
laughlin
and
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
audubon
chapter
of
minneapolis,
we
have
also
submitted
a
letter
which
is
in
your
packet.
I'm
sure
I'll
just
hit
a
couple
of
highlights
here.
Audubon
is
also
urging
you
to
deny
the
application
for
the
two
variances
for
the
development
in
order
to
grant
the
variances.
W
The
zoning
code
requires
a
finding
that
practical
difficulties
exist
in
complying
with
the
ordinance,
because
the
circumstances
unique
to
the
property-
and
we
disagree
with
the
staff
findings-
that
possible
prior
site
changes
constitute
a
practical
difficulty,
there's.
Obviously
some
dispute
as
to
whether
the
current
bluff
line
is
the
natural
one
or
not,
but
in
any
event,
changes
in
geographic
features
within
the
mrcca
and
the
shoreland
overlap.
Overlay
district
do
not
justify
overriding
the
environmental
protections
provided
by
these
regulations
on
the
basis
that
the
changes
have
created
practical
difficulties.
W
Perhaps
the
bluff
line
here
originally
extended
further
west.
Perhaps
it
didn't.
The
city
must
address
the
situation
as
it
exists
today
and
which
the
owners
were
aware
of
at
the
time
of
purchase
and
no
practical
difficulty
exists
and
granting
a
variance
in
this
case
would
set
a
precedent
for
other
projects
to
obtain
variances
based
on
speculative
changes
in
geographic
features
that
predate
the
application.
W
And,
finally,
we're
also
concerned
that
approving
this
project
is
inconsistent
with
the
current
city
and
park
board
priorities
to
address
the
historic
inequities
and
and
access
to
parkland,
whether
or
not
the
cpc
can
address
park,
dedication
fees
or
whatever.
What
we're
asking
you
is
do
not
take
any
actions
that
further
support
any
inequity
and
access
to
parks.
It's
hard
enough.
The
way
it
is.
Thank
you.
C
X
I'm
sally
brown.
Of
course,
we
live
at
86,
83
6th
avenue
northeast
just
up
the
river
from
the
site.
My
email
is
previously
noted
that
strongly
opposed
the
variance
to
the
bluffs
for
ecological
reasons.
I
just
want
to
point
out
a
kayak
and
have
been
buy
this
property
many
times
as
I
frequent
the
two
heron
rookery
island
sites
that
are
directly
adjacent
in
the
property.
Next
to
this
one
very
close
to
this
site.
X
These
islands
are
recognized
by
the
u.s
federal
fish
and
wildlife
government
agency,
and
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
want
to
respectfully
remind
the
commissioners
that
this
property
could
be
developed
with
the
cluster
without
going
into
the
bluff.
Just
exactly
what
was
said
previously
without
you
approving
these
bluff
variances,
it
can
be
done.
There
is
no
hardship
to
demand
this
variance,
just
a
desire
to
optimize
for
their
personal
and
private
views
and
garage
space,
the
vista
that
negate
the
public
good.
X
Personally,
I
just
want
to
also
say
that
our
own
house,
the
property
that
we
own,
is
adjacent
to
the
public,
bf,
nelson
and
boom
island
and
our
own
property
is
scheduled
to
be
increased
density.
In
2040-
and
we
regretfully
agree
with
that,
because
we
think
it's
good
for
the
public
to
benefit
from
these.
These
kinds
of
benefits
like
the
river
like
bf
nelson,
like
boom
island,
our
own
property
will
likely
be
a
cluster
or
large
development
in
the
next
20
years.
X
This
project
deviates
from
approved
of
the
above
the
falls
overlay
plan
and
other
plans
to
continue
this
bluff
area,
there's
only
the
need
for
bigger
and
better
wealthier
views
and
vistas
of
the
river
for
a
very
small
set
of
people
that
will,
and
it
will
negatively
impact
the
river
bluffs,
the
herons,
the
other
birds,
the
animals
and
everything
to
be
an
eye
sort
of
the
river
as
a
public
entity.
I
hope
you
will
protect
the
public
from
these
kinds
of
variances
this
issue,
the
issue
that
directly
was
mentioned
earlier
about
equity.
X
We
cannot
fix
the
deviations
from
the
adjacent
property,
but
they
will
be
gone
at
some
point.
You
do
not
need
to
approve
these
variances
on
the
ecobloc.
The
cluster
can
be
built
without
them
and
that
350
feet.
There
is
room
to
not
go
into
this
variant.
You
could,
and
we
need
to
think
long
term,
and
this
bluff
in
50
years
needs
to
be
a
part
of
that
natural
ecosystem.
X
Seeing
this
modern,
one-story
one-story
structure,
built
into
the
bluff
just
to
provide
the
views
and
balcony
from
the
river,
is
a
distraction
and
a
detriment
to
the
birds
to
the
people
and
the
many
regular
regulatory
entities
that
have
stopped
invasive
variances
you
can
build
without
coming
into
this
bluff
area.
You
can
shorten
the
existing
drive
options
for
building
size
or
workshop
to
do
these
variances,
for
the
private
view
of
the
minneapolis
downtown
is
not
needed
into
slap
in
the
face
for
the
equity
issue
that
was
just
mentioned
earlier.
X
X
The
adjacent
properties
won't
be
there,
but
your
approval
of
these
variances
will
be,
and
I
just
want
to
say
that,
respectfully,
you
need
to
imagine
that
the
planning
commissioners
120
years
ago,
who
might
not,
who
might
not
have
approved
all
the
public
roads
and
paths
around
the
lakes
they
opted
for
public
benefit
with
paths
around
the
lakes
over
privatizing,
our
beautiful
lakes
for
yards
and
a
few
and
a
few
for
a
few.
Well
being
you
need
to
do
the
same.
X
Don't
pump,
don't
privatize
our
public
bluff
for
the
benefit
of
only
a
few
and
the
detriment
of
the
river
ecosystem
want
to
point
out
that
the
public
has
spoken
over
ten
thousand
homes
within
the
sheridan
stando
and
afghan
groups.
We
all
have
our
elected
representative
groups
have
spoken
out
in
opposition
to
this
variance
the
responders
the
owners
of
this
team.
So
sincere,
and
I
respect
that.
But
what
what's
going
to
happen
next?
X
If
we
allow
this
building
variance
into
the
bluff
for
the
next
people,
the
river
bluff
is
public
and
the
needed
ecosystem
is
public
and
we
really
need
you
to
help
protect
it
from
private
benefit.
The
cluster
can
be
built
without
these
variances,
so
I
respectfully
ask
you
to
deny
the
variances
for
going
into
the
blood.
Thank
you.
C
Y
Hi,
oh,
you
can
hear
me.
Okay
great,
I
wasn't
sure
my
name
is
irene
jones.
I
live
at
4006,
41st
avenue,
south
minneapolis
55406.
Y
I
am
recently
retired,
but
formerly
I
was
the
river
corridor
program
director
at
friends
of
the
mississippi
river
for
21
years.
So
I
come
to
this
without
representing
any
organization,
but
I
do
have
extensive
expertise
on
the
mississippi
river
court
or
critical
area
law
and
rules.
Y
Y
But
I
believe
that
the
city
should
have
recommended
denial
of
the
both
variances
for
encroaching
on
the
bluff
and
on
the
bluff
impact
zone,
and
I'm
concerned
that
the
dnr
was
not
properly
notified,
as
the
dnr
rules
will
will.
Let
you
know
that
building
on
the
bluff
in
the
mississippi
river
quarter
critical
area
is
is
prohibited.
It's
it's
prohibited
full
stock.
You
know
there
are
a
lot
of
variance
requests
that
I've
seen
over
my
21
years
for
requests
to
reduce
the
amount
of
distance.
Y
You
are
set
back
from
the
bluff
line,
but
I
have
never
seen
a
project
in
21
years
where
somebody
proposed
building
over
the
top
of
the
bluff
with
stilts.
It's
simply
not
done.
This
is
not
florida.
This
is
minnesota.
We
don't
build
over
the
top
of
our
natural
bluffs
with
stilts
and,
furthermore,
I'm
concerned
that
removing
vegetation
on
the
bluff
in
order
to
do
that
kind
of
construction
will
be
harmful.
It
could
even
require
an
additional
variance
for
vegetation
removal.
Y
I'm
also
concerned
that
I
don't
really
see
that
there's
a
hardship
here,
there's
plenty
of
space
on
this
property
for
an
additional
house
and
new
garage
without
encroaching
on
the
bluff
zone
and
the
project
should
simply
be
no
less
than
20
feet
away
from
the
edge
of
the
bluff.
So
this
variance
is
being
requested
due
to
a
design
preference,
not
a
hardship
and
as
a
result,
you
should
deny
it.
You
should
not
grant
variances
simply
because
somebody
prefers
a
design
where
they
get
to
be
closer
to
the
river.
Y
Furthermore,
there's
no
actual
evidence
this
has
been.
This
has
been
brought
up
by
a
lot
of
people,
but
there's
no
evidence
that
the
bluff
line
has
been
altered,
and
you
know
it.
It
states,
on
page
eight
of
the
staff
report
that
the
natural
bluff
line
had
been
retained.
The
proposed
location
for
the
new
structure
would
be
not
located
in
the
bluff
impact
zone.
This
is
pure
fantasy.
In
fact,
the
opposite
is
much
more
likely
to
be
true.
Industrial
users
fill
in
bluffs
to
create
land.
Y
No
one
cuts
90
feet
out
of
a
bluff
to
create
land,
that's
undevelopable.
So
it's
much
more
likely
and
it's
much
more
clear
that
this
block
on
this
particular
property
was
natural,
whereas
the
surrounding
properties
were
altered,
there's
no
hardship.
The
bluff
on
this
property
is
a
significant
river
resource
and
the
variance
to
allow
a
building
in
the
bluff
impact
zone
should
be
designed.
C
G
G
We
do
think
that
the
applicant
can
come
to
and
the
developer
or
a
development
team
can
come
to
a
more
creative
solution
that
meets
their
needs,
while
following
the
guidance
within
the
organs,
so
we
recommend
for
denial
of
the
proposed
variances
due
to
that
lack
of
hardship
on
the
land
owner.
Thank
you.
C
Z
Yeah
hello:
this
is
karen
peterson.
Can
you
all
hear
me.
C
Z
Can
hear
you,
okay,
I
did
register
this
morning,
but
I'm
not
sure
what
happened
anyway.
I
will
so
not
to
repeat
everything
that
my
neighbors
have
said,
but
I
do
wish
to
just
mention.
My
name
is
karen
peterson.
I
live
at
215
broadway
street
northeast,
I'm
also
the
vice
president
of
the
sheridan
neighborhood
organization,
and
I
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
share
some
of
sheridan's
concerns.
Z
We
have
paid
experts
a
great
deal
of
money
to
create
best
practices
that
if
we
are
default,
we
are
to
follow
them.
If
you
want
to
want
the
harmful
impacts
that
are
associated
with
increasing
density
like
building
in
parkland,
we
have
the
shoreline,
I'm
not
going
to
go
over.
All
the
shoreland
overlay
district
we've
heard
about
the
mrcca.
Z
I
do
feel
for
these
owners
at
26.48.
They
knew
it
was
parkland
when
they
bought
it,
and
I
do
appreciate
that
they
put
careful
work
to
the
suburban's
plan
and
but
if
it
were
another
part
of
the
street,
I
would
probably
would
probably
support
it.
But
here
is
contrary
to
all
of
the
plans
that
we
have
set
forth.
We
have
worked
really
hard
to
get
best
practices
that
we
don't
build
within
a
40-degree
slope.
We
don't
explain,
expand
the
footprint
within
the
size.
Z
We
should
not
be
expanding
surface
area
coverage
above
above
the
falls
clad
parking
of
the
bluffs
and
we
just
don't
build
unblock
some
credit
workup.
So
the
approval
of
this
is
sending
us
in
the
wrong
direction
and,
as
people
have
stated
already,
it's
just
a
really
dangerous
precedent.
Z
C
C
Okay
hearing
no
one
else,
I
will
now
close
the
public
hearing.
Is
there
any
discussion
or
questions
by
the
commission
related
to
this
item?
Anyone
who
would
like
to
make
any
comments.
P
Thank
you
in
terms
of
the
application
tonight.
I
guess
my
gut
feeling
I
don't
know
where
the
rest
of
the
commission
is
at.
I
am
in
favor
of
the
conditional
use
permit.
I
think
it's
a
reasonable
request,
and
I
I
appreciate
that
they're
saying
on
the
property.
I
think
it
shows
they
have.
You
know
they
really
like
this
property
they're
going
to
maintain
it
well,
and
I
understand
that
you
know
sometimes
you
need
that
one
level
living
and
they
want
to
downsize.
P
I
am
not
in
favor
of
the
variances,
you
know
the
dnr
letter
really
stuck
out
to
me
they're,
just
not
in
favor
of
that
and
dan
patrick,
is
the
expert
on
that
for
this
state.
So
I
personally
would
be
in
favor
of
the
conditional
use
permit
to
allow
the
cluster
development
and
recommend
that
they
kind
of
redesign
the
site
to
make
it
work
without
the
variances,
because
I
would
not
be
in
favor
of
the
bluffline
variances,
that's
kind
of
where
I'm
at
so.
J
Thank
you,
julie.
I
want
to
apologize
for
that
phone.
In
the
background.
I
want
to
agree
with
the
comments
just
made.
I
it's
just
too
much
information
that
suggests
that
the
very
the
the
variance
should
not
be
granted,
and
I
I
just
think
I
don't
see
how
we
can
possibly
move
forward
in
light
of
all
this
testimony
tonight,
so
I
will
be
voting
no
on
the
variances.
C
N
I'm
sorry,
I
just
have
a
comment.
I'm
struggling
with
this
one
quite
a
bit.
I
completely
understand
what
our
responsibility
is
as
the
planning
commission
and
I
understand
that
staff
has
approved
it,
but
I
I
don't
know
I
I
the
dnr
report
and
a
few
of
the
speakers
really
got
me
thinking
and
I
don't
really
know
how
to
go
about
making
any
kinds
of
suggestions.
I'm
not
a
an
architect
and
I'm
not
going
with
my
feelings.
N
This
is
like
literally,
I
was
thinking
about
you
know
having
stilts
in
the
the
river,
and
you
know,
access
to
that
area,
and
there
are
so
many
areas
around
the
river
that
people
don't
have
access
to
some
people.
N
Don't
you
know
bike
paths
that
don't
literally
go
all
the
way
around
the
city,
so
I'm
kind
of
in
a
a
weird
neutral
spot,
and
I
just
guess
I
need
to
have
some
more
information
from
or
not
information
comments
from
other
commissioners,
so
that
I
can,
you
know,
get
out
of
the
center
of
where
I'm
at
with
what
I've
heard
tonight,
because
I
do
appreciate
what
the
property
owners
you
know
have
to
say
they
own.
N
The
property
and,
as
I
said,
staff
has
has
approved,
you
know
they.
They
want
us
to
approve
the
variances,
but
I
don't
know
it's
just
I
I'm
in
a
space.
I
can't
I
don't
know
somebody
say
something.
Please
come.
T
Yeah,
I
do
because
I
think
I
think
that
there
was
a
lot
of
incorrect
information
presented
with
respect
to
the
dnr
and
so
forth.
The
the
dnr
doesn't
have
any
jurisdiction
here
that
is
enforced
via
the
the
shoreland
overlaid
district
in
the
mississippi
river
critical
area
overlay,
and
I'm
telling
you
so
I
am
what
you
call
a
minnesota
water
steward.
It's
a
certification
on
water
quality
issues,
and
so
that's
that's
where
I'm
coming
from
here.
T
I've
studied
the
the
jurisdictions
and
the
laws
and
things
I
think
the
the
biggest
problem
with
what's
being
said
in
opposition
here,
is
that
it
it's
all
focused
on
the
bluff
line
as
it's
defined
on
the
the
actual
construction
site,
which
the
the
point
was
made
that
that's
probably
as
close
to
the
natural
bluff
line
as
we
have,
and
that
is
true
all.
T
T
The
the
bluff
line
question
is
about
this,
the
sites
to
the
north
and
south
of
this
lot.
The
bluff
line
has
obviously
been
altered
at
those
sites,
and
I
believe
that
was
recognized
by
some
of
the
those
in
opposition
and
it's
it's
a
provable
thing.
If
I
had
photographs,
I
could
show
you
piles
of
concrete
rubble.
I
do
believe
it's
also
visible
on
the
the
site
plan.
T
T
There's
retaining
walls,
there's
concrete
and
those
facts
are
what
cause
these
so-called
hardship
here,
because
if
you
took
those
away,
if
the
natural
bluff
line
were
defined
to
the
north
and
south
of
this
property,
it
would
actually
be
closer
to
the
river
than
we're
talking
about
today,
because
the
bluff
line
is
defined
in
the
city
code.
T
As
a
slope
of
I
forget
the
exact
wording,
but
it's
20
more
or
more
slope
or
something
to
that
effect,
and
that
condition
would
simply
go
away
if,
if
this
infill
hadn't
been
put
in
the
surrounding
properties,
so
you'd
actually
be
able
to
pull
closer
to
the
river.
In
that
case,.
C
One
comment
that
staff
is
making
is:
is
that
if
you
have
those
pictures
that
you
were
just
mentioning,
if
you
would
like
to
email
it
to
the
city
at
the
like
right
now,
they
can
share
it
with
the
commission.
If
so,
you
can
send
it.
If
you
can
do
it
like
right
now,
the
send
it
please
to
rachel
dot
blandford,
so
that's
r-a-c-h-e-l
dot
b-l-a-n-f-o-r-d
at
minneapolismn.gov.
A
F
Back
96
feet
from
the
ordinary
watermark,
and
so
I
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that.
That's
not
that
no
one
got
confused.
T
By
that
comment,
those
those
sorts
of
comments
sound
to
me,
like
the
people
that
haven't
actually
visited
the
site.
They
don't
really
recognize
what
the
conditions
are
here.
The
skills
are
because
we
can't
excavate
that
material,
it's
it's
concrete,
and
so
it
we're
just
building
over
that,
because
if
we,
if
we
were
to
excavate
that
concrete
and
take
it
out,
the
neighboring
property
would
collapse
into
ours,
and
so
we'd
have
to
build
a
massive
retaining
wall
to
hold
25
or
so
feet
worth
of
infill
up.
T
C
Okay,
thank
you,
commissioner.
Ford.
J
Well,
when,
when
kimberly
kimberly
mentioned
the
fact
that
we
have
to
provide
a
alternative
argument
or
findings,
rather
there
was
stone
silence
from
all
of
us,
but
and
it's
understandable,
I
I
think
it's
impossible
for
us
to
to
draft
such
a
statement.
Right
now
and
now,
we're
being
now,
there's
more
evidence
being
provided
to
us
by
the
applicant.
J
So
I'm
wondering
what
it!
What
is
there?
I'm
looking
at
the
I'm
looking
at
the
timeline
at
the
beginning
of
the
report
and
is
there
anything
wrong
with
our
laying
this
over
for
one
session.
O
O
The
planning
commission
would
legally
have
to
act
on
this
application
today,
otherwise
it
would
exceed
the
120-day
decision
timeline
and
and
and
the
only
way
that
we
could
possibly
extend
it
would
be
if
I
had
in
writing
before
any
action
was
taken
from
the
applicant
another
voluntary
extension,
but
that
would
be
completely
at
their
discretion,
and
it
would
have
to
be
something
that
I
would
have
in
hand
before
the
planning
commission
could
continue
the
application.
J
Thank
you
so,
but
what
is
the
reference
then,
to
the
in
the
report?
It
says
end
of
120
day
decision
period
august,
6th.
O
Yep,
that
was
the
original
120
day
decision
period.
Apologies,
I
didn't,
did
not
update
that
table
with
the
voluntary
extension.
So
when
we're
looking
at
what
the
decision
period
timeline
has
to
be,
it
also
has
to
accommodate
any
potential
appeal.
So
we're
not
just
looking
at
the
decision
has
to
be
has
to
be
final
by
the
date
of
the
planning
commission
meeting.
We're
looking
at
the
fact
that
you
know
any
decision
that's
made
at
this
meeting
would
be
subject
to
an
appeal
going
before
the
business
inspections
and
zoning
committee
on
july.
O
27Th
then,
would
have
to
go
to
the
full
council
on
august.
6Th
then,
would
have
to
be
signed
by
the
mayor
and
published.
So
I
believe
the
volunteer
extension
was
until
august
16th,
which
would
allow
for
that
full
cycle
for
this
meeting.
O
If
we
had
to
extend
it
even
farther,
I
would
have
to
calculate
what
that
would
be,
but
there
is
not
another
meeting
for
three
weeks,
so
basically
that
would
have
to
be
extended
another
three
weeks
until
september
6.
It
looks
like
so
that
is
completely
up
to
the
discretion
of
the
applicants,
because
the
city's
120
day
decision
period
has
expired
and
they
have
already
graciously
extended
at
one
time.
J
I
appreciate
that,
thank
you.
I
I
had
forgotten
about
the
appeal
period.
Nevertheless,
I'm
not
prepared
to
vote
for
this
today,
so
so.
Thank
you.
M
Thank
you,
madam
president.
I
actually
support
both
staff
recommendations
here
and
and
think
that
there
are
ample
findings
to
support
the
states
or
the
the
staff's
recommendation
for
the
variants
and,
in
fact,
a
complete
absence
of
anything
that
would
allow
us
to
make
alternative
findings.
M
When
we
look
at
the
questions
that
were
being
asked
here,
public
hearings
are
great
and
they
are
important
and
I
learned
something
every
time
we
do
them,
but
we
have
to
keep
in
mind
what
the
questions
are
that
we're
being
asked
to
decide
here
with
respect
to
the
variances
and
this
planning
commission,
we
grant
variances
under
circumstances
that
are
far
less
obvious.
M
You
know
I
can
think
of
many
just
off
offhand
and
I
know
the
previous
project
with
the
large
apartment
building
on
the
triangle
over
on
excelsior
boulevard.
I
know
that
that
was
a
site
plan
review
and
not
not
a
request
for
a
variance,
but
there
were
a
number
of
comments
there.
M
So
we
have
this
bluff
line,
that's
that
varies
from
the
ones
next
to
it
not
created
by
the
persons
having
having
an
interest
in
the
property
that
seems
clear
and
are
not
based
on
economic
considerations
alone,
and
I
think
that
that
is
clearly
meant
here.
I
think
that
the
applicant
intends
to
use
the
property
in
a
reasonable
manner
that
intends
to
keep
with
the
spirit
and
the
intent
of
the
ordinance
and
the
comprehensive
plan.
M
It
puts
a
little
bit
more
living
space
on
the
land,
certainly
consistent
with
the
goals
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
and
nor
will
it
be
injurious
to
the
use
or
enjoyment
of
other
property
in
the
vicinity.
Now,
if
you
just
listen
to
the
public
hearing
in
isolation
and
those
comments
about
what's
detrimental
to
the
river,
perhaps
and
things
like
that,
I
guess
that's
one
thing.
M
If
we
were
talking
about
this
being
the
only
thing
that
was
on
there,
but
if
you
look
at
the
map
of
the
things
that
we've
gotten
as
it
says
in
the
staff
report,
there's
a
large
multi-family
dwelling
unit
to
the
north
there's
industrial
uses
to
the
south.
The
area
is
already
being
used
and
it's
hard
for
me
to
see
how
this
one,
this
one
structure
being
placed
where,
where
it's
proposed
to
be
put,
it
does
not
clearly
meet
the
standards
for
those
findings,
and
so
that's
the
question.
M
We're
really
here
to
answer
so
and
again,
if
you
want
to
vote
it
down.
As
ms
holine
said,
that's
fine,
but
you
have
to
have
alternative
findings.
I
don't
see
any
basis
for
that,
and
I
I
guess
I
see
that
commissioner
olsen
wants
to
make
a
motion,
but
I
just
wanted,
since
we're
kind
of
putting
out
there
where,
where
we
fall,
I
think
that
there's
clear
support
to
support
both
the
conditional
use
permit
and
the
request
for
variances.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Sweezie.
Before
we
move
forward,
it
seems
like
there
might
be
some
images
that
will
be
able
to
be
displayed
here
for
everyone
to
see.
And,
commissioner,
if
it's
okay,
I
will
go
to
commissioner
caprini
for
the
comments.
While
we
are
looking
at
the
images
before
I
go
to
commissioner
olsen
for
the
motion,
commissioner
caprini.
N
Excuse
me,
thank
you,
commissioner.
Sweezie,
for
your
comments.
That's
that's
what
I
really
needed
to
hear,
because
I
understand
what
our
job
is.
We
have
questions
that
we
need
to
answer
and
those
questions
have
been
answered
and,
as
I
said,
staff
approved
them.
So
I
guess
I
told
a
little
fib.
N
I
was
kind
of
leaning
to
in
my
feelings
with
some
of
my
comments
and
I
apologize
for
that
and
I'm
glad
that
I
was
able
to
get
myself
out
of
the
center
and
just
see
the
work
that
is
necessary
to
do
so
now
I'll
stop
and
take
a
look
at
these
pictures.
Thank
you.
C
Okay,
commissioner
olsen
thank.
AA
You
I'm
just
going
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
items,
a
b
and
c
with
the
stated
condition
and
I'll
just
remind
people
that
this
is
likely
not
the
last
stop
on
these
applications
journey.
D
B
D
Mr
olsen
hi,
I'm
so
sorry
it
cut
out
there.
Would
you
be
willing
to
restate
that.
A
D
C
Okay,
thank
you.
That
motion
passes
with
the
majority
vote
and
that
actually
concludes
all
of
our
public
hearing
items.
We
have
an
announcement
about
the
locations
of
sro
housing
staff
are
amber,
turnquest
and
jason
wittenberg.
AB
And
miss
turnquest
is
not
able
to
be
here
today,
so
I'm
covering
this
one
at
the
last
planning
commission
public
hearing,
in
conjunction
with
the
zoning
code,
amendment
to
allow
sro
housing
commissioners
had
to
ask
that
we
return
with
a
map
showing
the
locations
where
sro
housing
would
be
allowed.
AB
So
in
the
memo
associated
with
this
item,
there
are
two
hyperlinks
available
to
commissioners
and
the
general
public.
Sorry,
I
did
not
ask
the
the
clerk's
office
or
the
communications
to
prepare
these
for
presentation,
but
again
you
have
access
to
those
maps,
as
does
the
public.
AB
The
the
maps
reflect
the
sort
of
transitionary
period
that
we're
in
as
we
implement
minneapolis
2040.
as
commissioners
might
recall.
AB
J
Thank
you
very
much,
so
I'm
looking
at
the
first
map
and
thank
you
very
much
for
doing
this,
but
I'm
having
difficulty
and
I
apologize
for
this
it
in
the
second
map.
It's
it's
very
clear
where
the
sros
are
committed,
I'm
not
understanding
where
they
are
permitted.
On
the
first
map.
AB
Sure
so
I
don't
have
the
map
pulled
up
myself,
but
any
parcel
that
has
a
a
color
on
it
other
than
sort
of
the
background
color.
AB
AB
Q
Yes,
we
did
receive
one
appeal
of
the
planning
commission's
decision
at
your
last
meeting
to
deny
the
surface
parking
lot
accessory
to
the
proposed
hyatt
hotel,
formerly
the
grand
hotel
minneapolis
downtown,
so
that
appeal
will
be
considered
at
the
biz
committee
meeting
of
july
13th
and
the
full
city
council
on
july.
23Rd.
C
Well,
thank
you.
Anything
from
the
commissioners
would
like
to
bring
it
forward.
C
Okay,
well
seeing
none.
We
have
completed
all
the
items
on
the
agenda
and
without
any
objection.
Hopefully
I
will
declare
this
meeting
adjourned.