►
From YouTube: April 12, 2021 Planning Commission
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
C
Hello,
everyone
welcome
to
the
regular
meeting
of
the
city
planning
commission
for
monday
april
12
2021.
My
name
is
raya
smiley,
president
of
the
commission,
and
I
will
be
chairing
this
meeting
before
we
begin.
I
would
like
to
note
for
record
that
this
meeting
has
the
remote
participation
by
members
of
the
city,
council
and
city
staff
as
authorized
by
under
minnesota
statute,
section
13d
21
due
to
the
declared
local
public
health
emergency.
C
D
I'll
note
that
commissioner
mcguire
will
be
absent
this
evening
with
that
commissioner
baxley
commissioner.
E
F
G
C
Perfect,
so
let
the
record
show
that
the
quorum
is
present
with
that
we
will
proceed
to
the
agenda,
which
was
posted
to
the
city's
legislative
information
management
systems
at
limbs.minneapolismn.gov.
C
G
F
H
C
Perfect
so
that
motion
passes
and
the
minutes
of
the
march
22nd
meeting
are
adopted.
Our
next
order
of
business
is
to
organize
the
public
hearing
agenda
which
again
is
available
online.
I
will
read
through
the
agenda
numbers
and
addresses
and
state
whether
it's
been
slated
for
consent
or
discussion
just
to
clarify
consent
items
are
those
that
will
be
passed
without
any
discussion.
C
We
will
go
with
the
staff
recommendation
that
is
listed
on
the
item
under
recommended
motion
section
with
any
conditions
that
they
have
listed.
If
you
agree
with
the
staff's
recommendation
and
applicable
conditions,
you
don't
need
to
do
anything
and
the
commission
will
pass
that
item
as
recommended,
and
then
I
mean
anyone
is
free
to
check
with
staff
afterwards.
C
If
you
have
any
follow-up
questions,
if
you
do
disagree
with
the
recommendation
that
the
staff
have
put
forward
on
that
item-
and
you
would
like
to
against
that
recommendation
when
I
ask
I
ask
that
you
say
that
you
would
like
to
speak
to
that,
and
we
will
put
that
item
on
the
discussion
agenda.
C
C
Item
number
four
215
washington
avenue
north
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
Is
there
anyone
to
speak
against
this.
C
C
C
C
C
Okay
hearing
none,
we
will
put
this
item
on
consent:
item
number,
9,
3301,
nikola
avenue
and
and
9
33rd
street
east
staff
is
recommending
this
one
for
for
item
number
10
zoning
code
text.
Amendment
staff
is
recommending
this
item
also
for
discussion,
item
number
11,
407,
15th
avenue,
southeast
1412
and
1428
5th
street
southeast
1413
and
1417
4th
street
southeast
416
14th
avenue
southeast
gosh
staff
is
recommending
this
for
consent.
Is
there
anyone
to
speak
against
this
item?.
C
C
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Ford.
C
D
Commissioner
baxley,
commissioner,
oh
hi
great
glad
to
have
you
with
us,
commissioner,
preemie.
G
C
C
C
G
K
J
L
C
Days
and
zero
nays,
thank
you.
That
motion
passes.
If
you
were
here
for
agenda
items,
number
four,
five,
six,
seven,
eight
and
eleven
that
application
has
been
approved.
C
So
now
we
will
move
on
to
the
discussion
items
again
in
these
discussion
items,
the
commission
will
take
public
testimony.
We
will
deliberate
on
the
item
and
we'll
make
a
decision
after
the
public
testimony.
Then
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
for
that
agenda
item
and
then,
when
that
is
closed,
the
commissioners
will
discuss
further
and
make
motion
and
act
on
that
item.
C
M
M
M
M
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
construct
a
new
six-story
residential
building
on
the
site
with
64
dwelling
units
under
the
current
built
form
and
land
use,
guidance,
solely
residential
structures
are
allowed
and
up
to
six
stories
of
new
development
is
also
allowable
in
the
corridor.
Six
built
form
district.
M
This
is
the
site
plan
and
ground
floor
plan
that
the
applicant
is
currently
proposing.
The
site,
as
I
mentioned
before,
is
split
zone
between
the
c1
commercial
district
and
the
r4
residence
district
under
the
built
form
overlay.
There
are
different
requirements
as
far
as
yard
setbacks
within
both
commercial
districts
and
residence
districts.
M
That's
as
a
result
of
not
being
able
to
obtain
consent,
signatures
required
under
state
law
to
rezone
the
entire
site
to
a
single
commercial
district
that
resulted
in
the
necessity,
in
this
case,
for
a
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
front
yard
requirement
for
a
portion
of
the
project
that
encroaches
with
into
the
front
yard
of
the
residentially
zoned
portion
of
the
site.
And
you
can
see
that
here
on
the
site
plan.
N
M
Requirement,
so
that
is
a
variance
request
on
the
part
of
the
applicant.
Additionally,
the
applicant
is
requesting
a
variance
to
allow
for
a
patio
in
that
location
that
would
exceed
the
maximum
size
in
a
required
front
yard.
Under
the
zoning
code,
the
maximum
size
for
a
patio
of
the
ground
level
in
a
required
yard
is
50
square
feet.
M
The
applicant
is
also
seeking
a
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
rear
yard
requirement.
That's
along
the
alley.
Under
the
current
built
form
district,
the
minimum
rear
yard
would
be
11
feet,
the
applicant's
seeking
a
variance
to
reduce
it
to
5.5
feet,
and
the
third
variance
concerns
the
parking
requirement.
M
M
M
You
can
see
that
here
at
the
ground
level
on
the
south
facing
elevation
that
there
is
a
large
blank
wall,
condition
facing
that
adjacent
apartment.
Building
next
slide.
M
Is
there
a
next
slide,
there
might
not
be,
let's
go
back
to.
M
Five,
I
know
that
the
applicant
is
interested
in
discussing
the
sorry
page,
five.
M
There
we
go.
I
know
that
the
applicant
is
interested
in
discussing
a
condition
regarding
that
front
yard
requirement.
Cped
staff
has
recommended
that
the
patio
be
reduced
to
meet
the
maximum
size
requirements
as
allowed
in
the
required
front
yard,
but
our
recommendation
is
for
approval
on
all
of
the
applications.
Yes,
sorry
that
is
my
dog
chewing
a
bone
in
the
background,
so
I'll
stop
there.
I
can
take
any
questions,
but
I
know
that
the
applicant.
O
C
Thank
you
peter
for
the
presentation,
and
I
think
pets
in
the
background
are
totally
fine.
Does
the
commission
have
any
questions
for
staff
at
this
time.
F
Ford.
Thank
you.
What
was
the
nature
of
the
opposition
that
made
them
unable
to
to
get
the
zoning
change?
They
wanted.
M
Commissioner
ford,
I
can
speak
a
little
bit
to
that,
but
I
might
ask
the
applicant
to
elaborate,
since
they
were
the
ones
who
went
out
seeking
signatures.
I
think
under
the
current
pandemic
conditions
it
can
be
a
challenge
to
reach
out
to
neighboring
property
owners.
We
generally,
you
know,
provide
the
applicant
with
contact
information.
Sometimes
that
contact
information
is
uncurrent.
You
know
it's
a
it's
sort
of
a
big
lift
to
get
the
permission
of
the
neighboring
property
owners
in
a
lot
of
cases
and
so
I'll.
M
M
I
don't
know
what
the
extent
of
input
was
in
terms
of
aesthetics,
but
I
will
say
that
in
general
site
plan
review
asks
for
simplicity
and
a
reduction
in
the
or
a
limit
in
the
number
of
exterior
materials
that
are
used
typically
on
multi-family
and
mixed-use
projects
like
this.
So
I
think
those
policy
directives
may
be
driving
some
of
the
design
choices
in
this
case,
but
we.
C
M
C
C
A
A
A
My
video
screen
is
not
very
much
in
line
with
the
conversation
here,
so
I
cannot
see
what
you're
able
to
see,
but
it
would
be
helpful
if
we
could
put
on
the
screen
the
first
of
two
drawings
that
I
submitted
just
in
the
past
couple
days
that
I
wanted
to
have
visible
when
I
was
speaking
about
this
item.
A
A
We
could
fill
the
remaining
space
on
the
lot,
but
that
remaining
space
is
again
only
five
foot
two,
so
we're
effectively
limited
to
a
five
foot,
deep
patio,
this
being
for
a
building
with
since
64
units.
I
should
say
there
are
with
a
five
foot
width:
that's
about
wide
enough
for
a
24
inch
wide
table
to
sit
two
people
and
then
still
not
leaving
enough
space
for
a
wheelchair
to
pass.
A
A
So
we're
asking
that
that
you
reconsider
just
that
one
recommendation
from
staff
and
allow
for
a
patio
of
the
size
that
is
proposed
on
on
the
site
plan
to
be
allowable
briefly,
with
regard
to
organized
opposition,
the
executive
director
of
alliance
housing,
barb
janetta,
is
here,
and
I
think
is
also
signed
up
to
speak
and
can
probably
speak
better
than
I
can
to
this
particular
issue.
A
My
understanding
was
that
there
was
some
concern
from
some
of
the
other
apartment
owners
building
owners
on
on
the
block
that
we
might
be
taking
their
tenants,
which
we
don't
believe
to
be
the
case.
We
are
certainly
not
aware
of
any
organized
opposition.
In
fact,
we've
been
going
to
the
neighborhood
for
about
as
long
as
we've
been
going
to
the
city,
the
cped
on
this
project.
So
that's
about
four
years,
and
the
neighborhood
organization
has
always
been
very
supportive
of
this
project.
A
Yes,
maybe
some
of
the
renderings
do
make
it
look
like
that.
It
is
a
little
bit
monochromatic
or
drab.
We
certainly
hope
that
not
to
be
the
case,
and
we
certainly
can
expect
to
continue
to
work
with
staff
to
do
something
which
is
quite
attractive.
A
We
are
aiming
for
this
to
not
be
a
an
object
building.
Let's
say
we
think
it
should
be
a
very
elegantly
scaled
and
detailed
background
building
us
appropriate
to
its
status
as
a
residential
building
only,
but
we
are
certainly
amenable
to
continue
to
work
with
staff
on
that
and
develop
something
which
will
be
seen
as
being
attractive
to
everyone.
C
Thank
you
for
for
your
testimony.
Are
there
any
questions
for
the
applicant
from
the
commissioners.
K
Thank
you.
Thanks
paul,
I
was
on
the
site
plan
yeah.
I
tend
to
agree
with
you
on
the
scale
of
the
patio.
In
this
case,
I
would
probably
lobby
for
even
bigger
than
what
you've
got.
You've
got
a
lovely
south
facing
sort
of
lot
between
the
next
property,
which
is
just
screaming.
I
think
for
more
activation.
I'm
wondering
there's
a
little
closet
there.
I
think
it's
107
is
that
that
would
is
that
water
entrance
or
is
it?
What
is
that
space
for
inside
the
building.
A
I
don't
have
the
same
number
that
that
you
do
on
the
drawing
that
I'm
looking
at.
But
if
I
understand
what
I
think
you're
just
getting.
A
Right
great
great,
that
has
been
let's
say,
claimed
by
the
mechanical
engineers
now
for
for
their
purposes
at
one
time,
it
was
actually
designated
to
be
a
building
exit
and
for
various
reasons
that
has
been
changed
and
the
exit
path
is
now
coming
out
onto
the
patio.
A
I
did
not
mention
in
my
in
my
presentation
that
that
is
a
required
exit
and
because
of
grade
change
between
that
exit
door
and
the
public
sidewalk,
we
really
need
all
of
that
length
to
get
down
to
the
required
elevation
without
exceeding,
what's
allowable
for
a
wheelchair
and
so
that
further
restricts
that
patio
that
50
square
feet.
That's
shown
in
that,
drawing
that
I
presented,
because
two-thirds
of
that
would
have
to
be
kept
clear
for
the
required
exit
path.
A
Yes,
I
agree
it
would
be
nice
to
be
able
to
to
do
something
more
with
that
south
side
yard.
There
was
a
great
deal
of
concern
with
respecting
the
south
side
yard,
with
respect
to
the
neighbors
to
the
south,
in
fact
of
all
the
the
different
yard
variances.
A
I
guess
that
was
the
one
that
right
from
the
start.
We
tried
to
not
require
a
yard
variance
on
that
south
side,
just
to
avoid
encroaching
onto
that
neighboring
property.
A
K
Yeah
yeah,
no,
I
it's.
I
appreciate
the
setback
there
again.
I
think
we're
really,
I
think,
tasked
with
providing
in
all
environments,
there's
many
opportunities
for
folks
to
get
outside
and
be
outside
together.
So
I
think
for
me
making
sure
there
are
places
to
do
that
is
really
important,
especially
for
a
typology
like
this
any
typology
for
that
matter.
K
C
F
Okay,
so
thank
you
several
comments,
but
first
a
question
of
the
applicant.
You
I'm
not
an
I'm,
not
an
architect,
but,
and
you
use
the
terms
you
want
it
not
to
be
an
object
building.
You
want
it
to
be
more
of
a
background,
build
and
I
don't
know
what
that
means.
Could
you
help
me
at
all.
A
A
I
think
in
general
that
buildings
that
are
purely
residential
in
nature
and
don't
have
more
of
a
civic
purpose
ought
not
to
scream
their
presence
to
the
community
in
the
way
that
some
buildings
that
we've
seen
that
have
gone
up
over
the
past,
10
or
15
years,
perhaps
have
done.
Obviously
that's
quite
a
subjective
matter.
A
But
our
goal
here
is
to
is
to
produce
a
building
that
will
be
looked
upon,
favorably
on
day,
one
and
in
20
years
as
well
and
not
become
an
eyesore
because
it
is
screaming
for
attention
to
such
a
high
degree.
A
So,
once
again,
where
that
line
gets
drawn
is,
is
a
matter
of
debate
in
my
office
with
the
owner
in
in
in
general,
I
think
in
the
architectural
community,
and
we
are
happy
to
work
with
staff
to
try
to
get
that
balance
right.
But
that's
the
feeling
that's
the
sentiment
that
has
underlied
this
so
far.
F
Thank
you
the
well.
I
I
understand
what
you're
getting
at,
but
I
I
I
agree
with
the
other
committee.
I
think
it's
it's.
It
has
the
potential
to
be
very
drab
right
now
and
I
hope
you
can
find
ways
to
to
give
it
some
highlights
and
so
forth.
I
understand
that
these
drawings
wouldn't
wouldn't
necessarily
show
that,
but
I
I'm
very
familiar
with
the
neighborhood
there
and
I
it
it
could
use
a
little
bit
of
pizzazz.
F
Space
out
there
between
you
and
the
next
building
and
that
being
any
kind
of
a
safety.
You
know
a
new
since
issue
congregating
a
crime
going
on
in
there,
or
am
I
the
only
one?
That's
imagining
that
past
happening.
A
A
A
Put
a
lot
of
visibility
at
the
first
floor
level
into
that
space,
certainly
from
levels.
Two
and
above
there
are
ample
windows
right
above
that
level,
where
there
will
be
eyes
on
that
space
to
to
oversee
any
activity
that
will
be
going
on
there.
P
F
Finally,
I
I
agree
with
commissioner
baxley.
I
I
think
that
the
very
size
of
the
patios,
all
three
of
them
are
a
good
idea,
and
I
would
I
would
join
the
commissioner
in
that
that
respect,
but
thank
you
very
much.
A
F
I
Yeah
hi,
I
also
agree
with
commissioner
ford
and
baxley
around
the
patio
space.
I
think
having
outdoor
space
is
always
important.
My
issue,
a
little
bit
is
with.
I
guess.
The
word
that
you
use
to
describe
this.
I
This
building
is
a
background
building,
I
think,
there's
a
sense,
a
loss
of
pride,
sometimes
that
we
see
in
affordable
housing
when
we
think
about
them
as
not
a
building
that
you
would
want
to
be
proud
of
to
live
in,
and
I
think
this
a
big
problem
with
kind
of
how
how
this
kind
of
sits
on
such
a
major
corridor
in
the
city
and
nicola,
and
it's
doesn't
have
any
visual
appeal
to
it.
I
mean
there's
such
great
creative
minds
in
the
city
who
are
doing
work
in
this
kind
of
public
space.
I
I
know
I
mean
forecast
public
art
located
here.
They
would
be
happy
to
probably
pro
bono
even
consult
around
ways
that
you
can
activate,
maybe
between
the
patio
spaces
and
and
kind
of
that
ground
floor,
visual
element.
What
could
be
done
to
bring
in
community
and
make
it
feel
just
a
little
bit
more
interesting,
there's
a
ton
of
ways.
I
mean
I
know
the
city
has
like
a
parklet
program
around
activating
and
like
adding
greenery
to
some
of
this.
I
A
A
Yeah
again,
maybe
it's
a
matter
of
the
choice
of
words.
The
term
background
building
goes
back
many
many
years
in
my
experience
in
training
as
as
a
positive
connotation.
A
Actually,
maybe
that's
being
I
mean,
maybe
we
we
view
that
term
differently,
but
certainly
we
have
every
desire
to
make
this
a
really
honorific
building
where
people
are
are
very,
very
proud
to
live,
and
I
guess
my
own
view
is
that
the
renderings,
maybe
aren't
quite
doing
it
justice
right
now
with
regard
to
things
like
the
detailing
the
size
of
the
windows,
the
amount
of
glass
ratio
of
wall
window
to
wall.
A
That
kind
of
thing,
but
I'll
reiterate
that
we'll
we'll
take
your
comments
to
heart
and
discuss
it
amongst
ourselves
and
with
you
know,
with
the
ownership,
take
it
back
to
the
neighborhood
again
and
and
most
importantly,
continue
to
work
with
staff
to
try
to
find
the
right
balance
and
the
right
expression
for
the.
C
Q
You
chair,
I've
actually
been
here
since
commissioner
marwa
made
her
first
comments,
and
I
am
I'm
just
gonna
say
just
this
once
one
one
thing.
I
appreciate
everything
that
commissioner
marwa
has
said.
Q
I
do
not
care
for
the
term
background
building
and,
as
I'm
sure,
is
a
term
that,
as
the
the
gentleman
said,
it's
a
term
technical
term
for
the
line
of
work
that
he's
in,
but
we're
dealing
with
people
that
aren't
in
that
line
of
work-
and
I
know
a
lot
about
being
in
the
background
too,
and
I
do
believe
the
building
could
use
a
splash
of
something
at
the
end
of
the
day.
Q
It
would
be
nice
if
the
bottom
line
wasn't
the
only
thing
that
was
at
the
top
of
the
list
when
it
comes
to
affordable
housing.
I'm
just
at
a
point
where
I'm
tired
of
seeing
some
of
our
public
housing
developments
look
like
something
out
of
dick
tracy.
Q
You
know
so
I'm
gonna
stop
there
so
yeah.
Thank
you.
G
G
Procedurally,
if
we
want
to
allow
for
a
larger
patio
that
meets
the
needs
for
people
with
disabilities,
is
it
sufficient
for
us
to
just
strike
the
condition
for
item
c
so
to
just
you
know,
allow
for
the
variance
decreasing
the
front
yard
setback
without
the
condition
one
stated
there,
or
would
we
need
to
put
in
a
new
condition
with
specified
dimensions
in
order
to
be
compatible
with
535
of
the
zoning
code.
M
Commissioner
meyer,
with
regard
to
that
specific
condition,
I
believe,
eliminating
the
condition
under
variance
c
would
be
sufficient,
or
the
language
under
that
recommended
variance
would
be
sufficient
to
cover
the
larger
patio
than
would
typically
be
allowed.
So
you
wouldn't
need
to
create
a
new
recommendation.
K
Thank
you,
I
think
the
I
think
paul.
Maybe
when
he
talks
about
background
building,
I
think
he
means
what
we
would
call
it
a
datum
building.
You
know
our
cities
are
made
up
of
sort
of
buildings
that
sort
of
form
the
fabric
of
what
we
exist
in
and
then
they're
monuments,
that
sort
of
rise
up
out
of
that
fabric,
and
I
think
the
fabric
is
what
holds
the
city
together.
K
It's
made
up
of
buildings
that
are
beautifully
proportioned,
that
sort
of
stitch,
the
sort
of
walls
of
the
spaces
our
streets
together
in
a
very
elegant
way,
so
I
think,
sort
of
those
datum
buildings
backgrounds
fabric.
If
you
will
are
vitally
important,
I
think
so.
I
understand
what
she's
trying
to
do.
K
I
think
here
the
circumstances
that
you
have
probably
the
largest
building
kind
of
around
for
a
while.
So
it's
going
to
be
an
object
building
and
it's
going
to
be
kind
of
begging
for
attention
for
a
while
until
the
rest
of
the
sort
of
neighborhood
grows
up.
So
maybe
lee
you
sort
of
back
down
into
the
fact
that
you
have
a
bit
of
a
monument
here
and
I
think
what
we're
reacting
to
is.
I
think
it
is
elegantly
proportioned.
K
To
be
honest,
I
think
I
appreciate
the
sort
of
dialogue
of
the
two
materials,
but
I
think,
as
its
sort
of
temporary
monument
status
requires,
we
do
expect
a
little
bit
more.
I
think
whether
it's
you
know
the
datum
buildings
of
our
week.
We
could
pull
that
off
and
we
had
elegant
brick,
details
that
had
beautiful,
cobalt,
cornices
and
arched
entryways.
You
know
it's
all
out
of
one
material.
It's
very
elegant.
We
don't
quite
build
that
today.
K
So
the
quality,
this
sort
of
light
gathering
or
reflecting
capacity
of
these
two
simple
materials
have
to
really
strike
at
our
hearts
in
that
way,
so
I
thought
whether
it's
if
they're
just
warmer,
where
there
was
a
sort
of
a
the
accent,
was
kind
of
played
up
in
a
way.
I
think
there's
some
exploration
there
that
could
celebrate
the
fact
that
this
is
housing
for
everybody.
It's
a
wonderful
opportunity,
so
I'll
stop
there
thanks.
C
C
Okay,
seeing
none
I
will
go
to
well,
we
don't
actually
have
anyone
registered
besides
the
applicant
in
the
advance
of
this
meeting
for
public
hearing.
But
if
you
are
here-
and
you
were
not
able
to
register
ahead
of
time-
and
you
would
like
to
speak
to
this
item-
please
start
press
star
six
and
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
then
proceed
with
your.
G
I
would
move
to
approve
items,
a
b
d
and
e
with
all
stated
conditions
and
item
c,
but
striking
condition
one.
So
again
that
would
be
moving
to
approve
items,
a
b
d
and
e,
as
stated
but
then
for
item
c.
It
would
just
read:
approve
the
variance
to
decrease
the
front
yard
setback
for
the
residentially
zoned
portion
of
the
lot
from
15
feet
to
one
foot
for
the
building
wall
and
ends.
There
doesn't
include
the
the
stated
condition.
C
Okay,
thank
you,
commissioner
maya
commissioner
olson.
Second
great
thanks,
a
motion
has
been
made
and
seconded.
Is
there
any
discussion
before
we
vote
on
this
item?.
D
K
G
D
C
Thank
you
that
motion
passes
if
there
are
any
additional
questions.
Please
talk
to
the
staff.
Thank
you
everyone.
So
now
we
will
start
with
item
10
zoning
code
text
amendment
and
the
staff
is
joel
bernard.
H
H
The
amendment
has
been
introduced
by
council
members,
gordon
and
fletcher.
I've
been
working
with
joe
bernard
on
this
amendment,
though
joe
has
truly
been
leading
this
work
and
doing
a
great
job
on
it.
I'll
turn
it
over
to
him.
After
several
slides.
It's
a
fairly
substantial
amendment.
I
think
we
have
about
20
slides
to
explain
the
amendment.
H
So
we
see
this
amendment
as
a
really
critical
step
in
the
implementation
of
minneapolis
2040
grounded
in
the
goals
that
include
eliminating
disparities,
ensuring
access
to
affordable
housing
and
climate
change
resilience
among
others.
A
good
deal
of
this
work
has
been
centered
around
how
we
can
effectively
reduce
greenhouse
gas
emissions
next
slide.
Please.
H
And
minneapolis
2040,
as
well
as
the
more
recently
adopted
transportation
action
plan,
also
include
important
guidance.
Around
travel
demand
management.
Updating
our
tdm
standards
is
explicitly
called
for
in
both
plans,
with
some
additional
specific
steps
that
have
been
incorporated
into
the
amendment
next
slide.
H
I
think
the
one
thing
to
communicate
here
is
that
this
is
sort
of
the
next
logical
step
of
the
incremental
change
that
we
have
been
bringing
forward
around
parking
over
the
past
20
years
or
so
you'll
see.
I
won't
go
over
this
in
detail,
but
we've
been
moving
in
the
direction
of
lowering
parking
requirements.
H
There
are
significant
geographic
areas
of
the
city
right
now
that
have
no
minimum
parking
requirements
for
either
commercial
uses,
residential
uses
or
both
and
more
recently,
we've
been
addressing
issues
around
the
design
of
parking
and
parking
structures
as
well
again.
We're
taking
these
steps
today,
based
on
more
explicit
policy
guidance
than
we've
had
from
previous
comprehensive
plans.
H
L
Great,
thank
you.
Jason
next
slide,
please
so
before
we
dive
into
the
recommendations,
as
jason
mentioned,
we're
going
to
cover
just
the
background
here
of
where,
where
this
policy
in
minneapolis
2040
came
from
of
calling
for
elimination
of
minimum
parking
requirements
on
this
slide,
you
see
that
you
know
the
first
first
big
reason
is
that
the
cost
of
producing
parking,
it's
typically
paid
for
by
residential
property
owners
and
their
renters,
whether
they
use
it
or
not,
and
this
is
shown
to
result
in
inflated
housing
costs,
particularly
for
lower
income.
Households.
L
We
think
it's
important
to
protect
future
development
opportunity
with
regulations
like
we're
proposing
today,
walkable
urban
design
is
another
important
outcome.
We're
aiming
for
in
minneapolis,
2040
and
best
practices
of
walkability
are
made
less
effective
when
we
have
to
accommodate
parking
dry,
vials
and
curb
cuts
for
automobiles.
L
Eliminating
parking
requirements
allows
businesses
to
more
easily
locate
in
older
properties
in
the
city
that
maybe
don't
have
existing
parking
or
room
to
put
parking,
and
last
we
note
that
parking
reform
has
the
added
benefit
of
reducing
the
number
of
staff
hours
that
we
spend
administering
those
types
of
ordinances,
and
it
is
hopefully
going
to
free
up
more
time
for
staff
to
spend
on
regulations
that
have
a
more
direct
relationship
with
achieving
cities.
Transportation
goals
next
slide,
please,
okay!
So
let's
move
into
the
actual
changes
we're
proposing
to
the
zoning
ordinance.
L
L
We
proposed
a
cap
on
surface
parking
to
a
hundred
spaces
generally
in
the
city
should
note
that
the
there
is
an
existing
20
space
surface
parking
limit
in
downtown,
and
that
would
that
would
remain
next
slide.
Please
so
here's
the
example.
What
does
that
tiered
requirement?
Look
like
here
the
example
we're
looking
at
is
a
clinic
and
office
development
at
1527
east
lake
street
that
proposed
53
parking
spaces
for
approximately
50
000
square
feet
of
building
under
the
current
regulations.
L
This
development
has
a
maximum
parking
limit
of
250
spaces
if
it
were
downtown
that
today
that
maximum
would
be
50
spaces
on
the
right
side
of
this
table,
you
see
the
proposed
maximums
as
they
would
calculate
out
for
a
project
of
this
size
in
this
new
tiered
system,
and
it
results
in
an
allowance
of
166
spaces
in
most
parts
of
the
city
for
a
project.
This
size,
83
spaces
in
our
transit,
rich
areas
and
then
50
spaces
in
the
downtown
core,
50
and
transit
30
areas.
L
The
important
to
note
that
the
100
space
surface
lot
maximum
would
limit
limit
a
development
like
this
from
having
from
reaching
that
maximum
of
166
spaces
in
a
surface
lot
to
reach
that
amount
they'd
have
to
structure
their
parking
next
slice
slide.
Please.
L
L
We're
also
noting
that
the
new
travel
demand
management
process
would
be
a
good
place
to
determine
flexibility
for
loading
requirements
if
needed
and
we'll
go
over
that
process
here
in
a
couple
minutes
next
slide,
please
for
bicycle
parking.
We
propose
increasing
requirements
for
most
uses
city-wide.
Some
some
of
those
increases
are
modest
and
some
are
more
significant.
L
Additionally,
shower
and
locker
facilities
will
be
required.
Citywide
for
more
buildings.
Moving
forward,
currently
non-residential
uses
over
500
000
square
feet
in
downtown
are
required
to
supply
these
facilities,
we're
proposing
to
expand
that
requirement
city-wide
and
to
capture
non-residential
development,
that's
greater
than
two
hundred
thousand
square
feet
next
slide.
Please
you
see
on
this
slide
what
the
impact
is
to
the
parking
requirements
for
a
large
building
using
the
public
service
building
as
an
example,
the
existing
requirements
would
result
in
a
need
for
25
long-term
bike
parking
spaces
in
a
building
this
size.
L
The
proposed
standard
that
we
have
put
in
the
ordinance.
The
draft
ordinance
would
increase
this
requirement
to
189
spaces
for
a
building
this
size
and
in
this
case
261
spaces
were
built
next
slide.
Please,
a
unique
byproduct
of
the
elimination
of
parking
requirements
here
is
that
some
changes
to
the
ua
overlay
are
proposed.
L
L
Minneapolis
2040
also
calls
for
the
city
to
explore
incentives
and
requirements
for
electric
vehicle
charging
infrastructure
in
new
development
and
in
the
public.
Right-Of-Way
staff
proposes
that
residential
hotel
and
office
uses
be
required
to
supply
ev
chargers
for
10
percent
of
spaces,
built
other
non-residential
uses
would
be
required
to
supply
charging
stations
for
five
percent
of
the
spaces.
L
Ev
readiness
is
something
that
we're
also
asking
for
as
a
portion
of
the
remaining
spaces
that
are
not
required
to
have
chargers
so,
in
addition
to
the
10
in
residential,
we're
requiring
that
additional
20
of
spaces
be
electric
vehicle,
ready,
meaning
that
wiring
is
installed
and
a
proper
electrical
service
is
sent
his
supplied
to
the
building.
L
There
will
be
a
phase-in
period
for
these
requirements
and
there
they
will
not
kick
in
until
january
1st
of
2022,
and
that's
just
for
the
ev
portion
of
this
ordinance
and
then
we're
proposing
a
two
year
period
that
will
allow
developments
to
provide
additional
ev
readiness,
instead
of
in
installing
the
actual
charging
stations
next
slide.
Please
the
changes
to
our
travel
demand
management
process.
We
think
have
the
potential
to
have
a
great
impact
on
achieving
our
goals,
around
mode
shift
and
reduction
in
greenhouse
gas
emissions.
L
The
city
has:
we've
historically
taken
the
approach
with
tdm
to
mitigate
the
negative
effects
of
development
and
in
some
ways,
that's
going
to
continue
to
be
the
case
with
this
ordinance,
but
with
these
new
regulations
we're
attempting
to
shift
the
focus
a
bit
toward
a
goal
where
we're
shaping
the
development
on
the
front
end,
so
the
negative
transportation
impacts
of
the
development
don't
materialize
and
that
we're
getting
what
we
want
out
of
development
in
terms
of
mode
split
and
greenhouse
gas
emission
reductions.
L
To
achieve
this,
the
new
ordinance
explicitly
states
the
intent
of
achieving
mode
split
in
greenhouse
gas
emission
goals.
It
means
de-emphasizing
traffic
studies
as
a
mechanism
for
evaluating
our
strategies
and
compliance
and
focus
focuses
tdm
requirements
on
physical
improvements
or
characteristics
of
a
development
to
achieve
goals.
This
approach
is
grounded
in
research.
L
Tdm
regulations
require,
which
is
our
current
standard,
is
100
000
square
feet,
projects
or
larger
of
non-residential
space
new
to
the
ordinance
is
a
point
system
that
would
allow
most
development
to
administratively
comply
with
tdm
requirements
by
completing
a
series
of
predetermined
strategies
and
we'll
talk
about
those
strategies.
In
just
a
moment
last,
we
propose
retaining
a
discretionary
tdm
process
like
we
have
today
for
uses
that
we,
we
know,
have
particularly
challenging
transportation
impacts
and
for
development
that
occurs
in
in
places
where
we
know
we
have
transportation
challenges.
L
The
proposed
point
system
is
shown
here
draws
a
distinction
between
projects
based
on
size
and
use
which
we
are
referring
to
as
major
versus
minor
tdm,
depending
upon
the
size
and
use
of
your
project.
You'll
be
required
to
achieve
a
minimum
number
of
points
by
employing
predetermined
strategies
from
the
ordinance
that
will
have
a
points
value
attached
to
them.
L
L
L
L
Reducing
reduces
the
need
for
that
ongoing
enforcement,
but
for
the
pro
programmatic
items
that
you
see
here
and
those
strategies
are
that
you
see
remaining
specifically,
the
transit
ones,
we
think
are,
are
really
important
and
worth
putting
the
effort
into
enforcement
and
long-term
monitoring
the
points
here.
L
L
Here's
the
first
of
two
examples:
we'll
show
you
this
residential
development
exceeds
the
upper
250
unit
threshold
and
triggers
the
requirements
for
a
major
tdm
for
these
projects.
We
have
the
requirements
set
at
needing
six
points
from
the
table,
since
it's
not
clear
that
this
development
would
have
achieved
these
proposed
standards.
This
is
an
example
of
a
project
that,
in
the
future,
would
have
to
alter
their
approach
in
order
to
comply
with
the
new
tdm
ordinance.
L
Next
slide,
please
again
using
the
public
service
building
as
an
example.
This
would
have
triggered
the
200
000
square
foot
upper
threshold
for
non-residential
development
and
would
have
required
a
major
tdm
and
would
have
needed
eight
points
from
the
table.
You
can
see
that
there
are
probably
a
number
of
ways
in
which
this
development
could
have
met
the
points
requirement,
since
it
has
zero
vehicle
parking
offers,
transit,
pass
subsidy
and
has
an
increase
in
the
locker
number
of
shower
locker
and
long-term
bicycle
storage.
L
Okay,
next
slide
last
couple:
slides
here
we're
just
going
to
cover
the
changes
that
have
happened
to
the
ordinance
since
we
last
spoke
with
the
commission
and
then
finally
feedback.
We've
received
from
the
public
since
the
planning
commission
committee,
the
whole
meeting
on
march
11th
staff
has
made
a
handful
of
changes
to
these
recommendations.
L
The
first
is
in
terms
of
bicycle
parking.
We
have
added
limits
on
the
allowed
percentage
of
wall-mounted
bike
racks
to
ensure
that
some
are
accessible
on
the
ground,
not
requiring
you
to
lift
a
bike
to
store
it,
and
we've
introduced
minimum
short-term
parking
requirements
for
some
uses
that
are
aimed
at
serving
visitors
to
make
sure
we
have
those
spaces
for
visitors
in
terms
of
changes,
changes
to
the
travel
demand
management
ordinance.
L
L
After
some
discussion
with
our
public
works
colleagues,
and
we
have
added
an
unbound,
a
strategy
that
you
get
points
for
for
unbundling,
your
parking
costs
from
your
general
rent
and
then
the
points
required
for
various
uses
were
also
slightly
amended
in
terms
of
ev
charging.
We
talked
about
this
one
a
little
bit
but
the
phase-in
period.
We
just
want
to
point
out
that
this
was
included
in
part
as
a
response
to
some
concerns.
L
Finally,
we'll
briefly
run
through
the
public
feedback
we
receive
through
this
process.
Generally
speaking,
you'll
see,
we've
received
positive
feedback
from
the
official
public
comment
that
is
included
in
your
packets,
including
additional
feedback.
We've
received
that
you
should
have
that
we
received
since
the
report
was
published.
L
We
also
convened
a
small
working
group
of
local
and
regional
transportation
experts
over
the
course
of
this
project
and
and
some
I'm
sorry,
regional
transportation,
experts
and
advocates,
and
they
have
been
helpful
in
offering
some
construction
constructive
feedback
on
these
amendments
as
well.
L
Finally,
we
want
to
make
sure
and
acknowledge
some
really
helpful
feedback
we
received
from
our
colleagues
in
public
works.
They
made
key
contributions,
particularly
to
the
tdm
ordinance,
who
we
jointly
administered
that
that
ordinance,
metro
transit
was
also
really
helpful
in
getting
our
transit
pass
strategy.
Cleaned
up
and
our
sustainability
staff
in
the
coordinator's
office
was
a
great
partner
in
developing
the
ev
charging
infrastructure
requirements.
C
Great
thank
you
both
for
your
presentation,
jason
and
joe.
I
will
now
open
it
for
questions
from
the
commissioners.
Commissioner,
ford.
F
Thank
you
first
of
all,
a
comment.
This
is
really
impressive
work.
I
just
I
was
impressed
the
first
time
I
saw
it
and
even
more
so
now
I
have
just
a
little
tiny
question.
That
is
what
is
you
said
you
eliminated
curbside
demand
requirements.
Why
is
curbside
demand.
L
President
smiley,
commissioner
ford,
we
had
a
strategy
in
the
tdm
ordinance
that
would
have
allowed
for
developers
to
comply
with
with
our
ordinance
by
having
drop
off
and
pick
up
spaces
in
the
public
right-of-way
curbside
in
the
street,
and
we
still
think
that
in
some
cases
that
might
be
appropriate
for
development
to
do,
but
we
didn't
in
after
we
discussed
this
more
with
our
public
works.
Colleagues,
it
became
clear
that
we
don't
want
to
simply
allow
that
as
a
matter
of
course,
as
a
way
for
projects
to
comply.
L
In
some
cases.
It's
certainly
not
going
to
be
appropriate.
We
have
limited
space
in
our
public
right-of-way,
so
we
eliminated
that
item
and
if
a
development
was
to
want
to
do
something
like
that,
they
still
could.
It
would,
but
they'd
have
to
propose
it
as
as
one
of
the
we
have
a
line
item
for
proposed
by
applicant
where
they
they
could
pursue
that
strategy.
C
C
L
President
smiley,
the
intent
with
at
least
the
tdm
ordinance
is
that
we
have
the
proposed
by
applicant
item
as
a
way
for
us
to
to
have
that
flexibility,
and
we,
as
part
of
the
reason
why
we've
been
maybe
somewhat
conservative
in
the
amount
of
points
we're
requiring
of
development
at
this
point,
is
that
we
want
to
make
sure
that
this
is
an
actionable
and
feasible
ordinance
and
I
think,
we're
very
open
to
in
the
future.
Reevaluating
and
adjusting,
as
we
have
more
experience
with
how
this
works.
H
I'll
just
add
president
smiley
that
many
of
the
provisions,
including
maximum
parking
standards,
someone
can
request
request
a
variance
from
those
standards.
We
of
course
hope
that
those
types
of
things
are
kept
to
a
minimum,
also
just
to
expand
on
something
joe
said
about
sort
of
ensuring
that
we're
not
overreaching
with
some
of
these
standards
in
our
I'll.
H
Just
note
that,
in
our
briefings,
with
elected
officials
about
these
changes,
we
have
committed
to
within
the
next
few
years,
really
doing
a
strong
evaluation
of
of
the
of
how
this
ordinance
is
working
to
see.
If
there
are
areas
where
we're
being
too
restrictive
or
or
too
flexible.
In
some
cases,.
C
Okay,
seeing
no
questions.
I
will
now
open
the
public
hearing
for
this
item.
I
will
go.
We
have
a
list
of
registered
folks
from
the
public
that
I
will
go
through
in
order.
So
when
I
call
your
name,
please
press
star
six
to
unmute
yourself
and
then
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
continue
with
your
comment.
B
Hi,
my
name
is
bruce
brunner.
I
live
in
ward
10..
I
both
own
build
and
develop
housing
in
minneapolis,
and
I
really
applaud
the
work.
That's
gone
into
this
amendment
and
for
a
point
of
reference
over
one-third
of
all
of
my
tenants
do
not
drive
cars,
and
so
I'm
really
happy
to
see
the
parking
minimums
eliminated,
because
it
also
reduces
the
cost
of
new
construction.
N
C
Thank
you,
mr
berner.
Our
next
person
is
lynnea
godderstadt
and
I
apologize.
If
I
I'm
mispronouncing
your
name
go
ahead.
O
Okay,
great,
thank
you.
My
name
is
linnea
goddard
said
I
live
at
224
3rd
avenue
northeast
I'm
a
member
of
the
neighbors
for
more
more
neighbors
parking
reform
task
force.
I
signed
on
to
a
public
letter
of
support
for
these
reforms,
along
with
the
executive
directors
of
a
number
of
other
local
organizations,
but
I
also
wanted
to
take
this
opportunity
to
comment.
O
We
are
in
a
climate
emergency
and
according
to
a
new
study
by
move
minnesota
building
more
parking,
it
does
encourage
people
to
drive
more
and
steers
people
towards
car
ownership.
One
year's
a
parking
approval
in
the
city
of
minneapolis
at
the
current
rate,
is
responsible
for
an
additional
21
500
tons
of
emissions
in
minneapolis
annually.
So,
according
to
the
study,
this
represents
a
full
two
percent
increase
in
induced
transportation
emissions
across
the
city
every
year,
and
we
just
can't
afford
to
keep
increasing
our
carbon
emissions
like
this.
O
The
status
quo
is
taking
us
in
the
wrong
direction,
so
these
reforms
are
desperately
needed
and
they
are
a
step
in
the
right
direction
and
I
absolutely
support
them.
I
also
want
to
say
I
live
in
saint
anthony
west
in
minneapolis,
my
household
currently
owns
one
car
we
aspire
to
someday
own
zero
cars.
O
I
would
prefer
to
be
car
free
because
of
climate
change,
but
I
also
prefer
it
because
car
ownership
is
incredibly
expensive
between
payments,
repairs,
maintenance,
insurance,
gas,
it's
much
more
affordable,
not
to
have
to
own
a
car
to
get
around,
particularly
for
residents
who
are
lower
income.
So
we
should
be
building
our
city
in
a
way
that
makes
it
easy
just
as
easy
to
get
around
by
walking
biking
in
transit
as
it
is
to
drive.
O
O
E
C
C
Star
six:
okay:
I
hear
that
evan
roberts
may
not
be
online.
We
will
continue
on
the
with
the
list
of
registered
speakers
and
we'll
circle
back.
Our
next
person
who
has
signed
up
is
eric
sorum
and
again,
please
press
star
six
state,
your
name
and
address,
and
proceed
with
your
comment.
R
What
that
their.
That
life
is
like
in
those
neighborhoods
and
it
keeps
them
separated
from
jobs
and
opportunities
and
nutrition.
And
as
long
as
we
keep
building
our
city
around
cars,
it's
just
one
another,
hidden
way
that
we
that
we
create
ghettos
that
people
just
kind
of
get
stuck
in
when
they
have
to
own
a
car.
In
order
to
get
the
basics
of
life,
thank
you.
C
C
S
Hi
this
is
stuart
henry
I
live
in
ward
11
and
I
strongly
support
the
2040
plan
and
the
parking
changes
proposed
by
council
member
gr
members,
gordon
and
fletcher.
My
comments
pertain
directly
to
the
problems
cars
cause
for
climate
change.
Climate
change
is
personal
to
me.
This
past
summer,
in
oregon,
my
brother-in-law,
nephew
and
two
grand
nephews
had
to
evacuate
a
cabin
in
the
middle
of
the
night
to
escape
one
of
the
many
fires
that
burned
across
the
west.
Other
people
did
not
escape
that
same
fire
and
passed
away.
S
I'm
sure
the
planning,
commission
and
city
council
have
heard
many
times
that
transportation
is
the
largest
single
source
of
greenhouse
gases
in
minnesota
and
across
the
u.s.
Our
cars
are
a
real
problem
and
the
longer
we
delay
action,
the
bigger
problems
we're
making
for
ourselves,
our
kids
and
all
future
generations.
S
Now
I
happen
to
own
an
electric
car
and
I
believe
evs
are
part
of
a
climate
solution,
but
putting
aside
the
issues
of
impact
on
the
cost
of
housing
with
more
cars,
the
new
york
times
estimates
that
a
full
times
estimates
that
a
full
transition
to
evs
will
take
30
years.
I
think
that's
30
years
we
don't
have,
so
we
have
to
make
progress
on
evs,
but
we
also
need
to
greatly
reduce
transportation
emissions
by
driving
automobiles
less
now.
S
My
family's
experience,
which
I
realize
I
live
in
a
privileged
part
of
town,
is
that
we're
pretty
close
to
not
being
dependent
on
cars.
My
wife
and
I
raised
two
sons
in
our
house
on
garfield
who
went
to
nearby
burroughs
elementary
and
then
anthony
middle
school,
usually
riding
the
school
bus,
often
biking
most
of
their
activities
were
at
school.
Their
schools
are
at
lyndhurst
community
center,
which
is
right
next
door
to
borough
school,
and
they
also
spent
a
lot
of
time
at
our
synagogue,
which
is
directly
across
the
street
from
lyndhurst
community
center.
S
C
T
Hi
there,
my
name
is
doug
shire
and
I'm
a
homeowner
in
lowry,
hill
east
in
ward
10.,
like
some
of
the
previous
callers,
my
wife
and
I
share
one
car
and
aspire
to
zero
one
day.
So
I
wanted
to
call
in
today
to
support
reforms
to
eliminate
parking
minimums,
as
it
directly
relates
to
two
issues.
I
care
a
lot
about:
housing,
affordability
and
climate
change.
We
live
in
a
growing
city,
that's
already
suffering
from
an
acute
shortage
of
housing
and
affordable
housing.
T
Specifically
parking
minimums
drive
up
the
cost
of
new
build,
sometimes
up
to
forty
thousand
dollars
of
space.
So
the
removal
of
the
minimums
allows
us
to
reduce
the
overall
cost
of
new
housing
for
our
residents,
but
it
also
helps
us
meet
our
climate
change
goals
and
that
parking
induces
car
ownership
and
therefore
emissions,
so
eliminating
party
parking
minimums
will
help
us
build
a
more
transit,
oriented,
walkable
and
bikeable
city.
Thank
you.
C
U
U
The
first
thing
is
about
affordability:
it's
not
just
the
cost
of
building
the
parking,
there's
an
ongoing
maintenance
cost.
That
is
several
hundred
dollars
per
unit
in
general,
and
so
it's
it's!
It's
not
like
you
build
it
and
eventually
it
depreciates
to
zero,
and
you
can
write
it
off.
It's
it's
still
going
to
cost
money
every
year
to
clean
it
or
plow
it
or
whatever.
You
have
to
do.
Then.
The
second
thing
is
the
affordability
of
the
space.
Each
car
takes
about
300
square
feet
for
the
parking
space
and
the
access
driveways.
U
You
can
park
10
bikes
in
one
car
space
of
300
square
feet
and
I
looked
it
up.
The
average
living
room
in
the
united
states
is
about
200
square
feet,
so
a
car
gets
150
of
the
size
of
the
average
living
room,
and
I
I
think
we
forget
about
that
space
because
we're
so
used
to
kind
of
the
it's
a
car,
and
so
it's
it's
really.
If
we're
conscious
of
using
space
in
the
most
efficient
manner,
then
minimizing
and
certainly
not
requiring
car
spaces
is
one
way
to
do
it
another.
U
I
really
like
the
change
about
an
emphasis
on
accessibility
that,
by
removing
curb
cuts,
it
makes
it
easier
for
lots
of
us
who
are
temporarily
able,
but
have
a
stroller
or
a
grocery
cart
or
a
suitcase
and
and
makes
it
better
for
everybody.
It
also
increases
safety
and
that
children
who
play
on
a
sidewalk
that
doesn't
have
curb
cuts
are
much
safer
than
children
who
play
on
a
sidewalk.
That
does,
and
then
I
like,
that
it
encourages
active
modes,
bus
bus
bike,
train
walking.
U
All
of
those
are
considered
active
modes,
and
I
also
want
to
emphasize,
though
I
just
kind
of
looked
this
up,
that
there
are
so
many
cities
out
there.
That
minneapolis
has
been
a
leader
in
reducing
parking
requirements
and
adjusting
parking
requirements,
but
among
the
cities
that
have
made
progress
on
this
new
york,
chicago
dc,
portland
oregon,
all
of
which
you
might
expect,
but
then
fayetteville
arkansas
buffalo,
new
york,
jacksonville
florida.
U
But
this
is
a
national
movement
to
dial
back
the
prioritization
of
cars
as
the
thing
that
we
have
to
have
and
have
to
allow
for
our
cities.
So
I
agree
with
the
cause
that
this
this
promotes
addressing
climate
change.
It
promotes
addressing
housing,
affordability,
it
promotes
addressing
environmental
justice,
and
it
also
makes
good
business
sense
and
thank
you.
C
Thank
you
for
your
comment.
Next
person
and
on
the
list
is
lawrence
crawford.
If
you
are
on
the
line,
please
press
star,
six
and
then
state
your
name
and
address
and
continue
with
your
comment.
V
Hi
larry
crawford,
I'm
at
14th
and
tallmadge
in
the
como
neighborhood
in
minneapolis.
V
V
The
local
neighborhood
association
cks
endorsed
a
resolution
asking
for
these
new
bedroom
count
limits
as
a
way
to
address
and
to
bring
a
recent
development
in
our
area
more
in
line
with
the
intentions
and
goals
of
the
new
city
comprehensive
plan.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
many
neighbors
about
60
and
all
have
asked
that
the
maximum
bedroom
can't
be
brought
down
for
triplexes
from
nine
to
eight.
V
On
the
point
of
parking,
please
think
about
unintended
consequences.
The
ezekiel
resolution
also
endorses
continuing
the
special
housing.
Excuse
me,
parking
minimums
in
the
university
district
and
there's
really
three
points
to
think
of
on
that
score.
It's
in
our
area,
it's
simply
not
possible.
It's
a
necessity
to
have
on
street
parking,
and
recent
developments
have
made
street
parking
unavailable.
V
In
the
past,
the
presence
of
housing
excuse
me:
parking
minimums
in
the
university
district
allowed
for
better
actual
development
planning
where
the
local
community
could
work
with
developers
and
come
up
with
better
plans,
including
the
choices
and
trade-offs
connected
with
parking.
So
it
was
a
valuable
discussion
point
in
planning
the
housing
developments
in
this
kind
of
unique
area
of
the
city
and
finally,
consider
senior
citizens
in
some
of
the
blocks.
Where
there's
been
a
very
dense.
V
Recent
development
street
parking
is
now
unavailable
and
seniors
are
finding
that
it's
impossible
to
have
family
or
social
visiting,
because
people
can't
get
to
them
and
it's
also
becoming
increasingly
impossible
to
get
practical
medical
support.
For
example,
block
nurse
visits
to
keep
seniors
in
their
homes,
that's
becoming
increasingly
difficult
to
do,
because
there
simply
is
no
place
to
park
with
the
pressure
on
street
parking.
So
on
these
points,
the
objectives
are
very
worthwhile
but
consider
how,
in
some
areas
of
the
city,
unintended
consequences
may
take
us
in
a
very
different
direction.
V
C
W
Hi,
my
name
is
dave
bloomquist
and
I'm
a
resident
of
saint
anthony
west
and
I'm
in
favor
of
the
parking
minimums
for
auto
vehicles
in
favor
of
the
requirements
for
the
the
bicycle
requirements,
but
am
opposed
to
the
university
overlay.
You
know
if
I
need
a
parking
space,
I
should
have
to
pay
for
it.
If
I
don't
need
a
car,
I
shouldn't
have
to
subsidize
others
who
choose
to
drive.
You
know
overall
parking
minimums,
add
a
significant
cost
burden
to
residents
of
minneapolis
and
serve
to
make
housing
less
affordable.
W
While
we
are
in
a
housing
crisis,
in
addition
to
a
climate
crisis
as
well,
you
know
really.
We
need
to
encourage
buildings
that
promote
walking,
pedestrianism
biking,
transit
use
and
and
eliminating
parking
minimums
will
get
us
closer
to
that
vision.
You
know
it
would
also,
hopefully,
as
another
commenter
mentioned,
see
a
reduction
in
curb
cuts
and
actually
provide
safety
on
on
traversing
sidewalks,
playing
on
sidewalks,
really
just
making
our
cities
more
vibrant
and
safe.
W
Regarding
the
university
overlay,
I
really
strongly
think
that
neighborhoods
shouldn't
be
allowed
to
opt
out
of
density
amidst
the
housing
crisis
and
we
really
shouldn't
be
creating
barriers
to
housing
access.
As
I
said,
I
am
in
saint
anthony
west
and
there's
a
four
plex
being
built
in
my
neighborhood.
It
has
four
bedrooms
per
unit
going
up.
I
think
it's
great.
We
need
more
housing,
we
actually
need.
You
know
especially
units
with
more
bedrooms.
W
So
you
know
I'm
really
supportive
of
seeing
that
type
of
development
and,
frankly,
I'm
a
little
bit
baffled
why
we
would
be
preventing
that
style
of
housing
to
be
built
in
a
you
know,
a
university
area
where
students
need
affordable
places
to
live.
So
you
really
think
that
the
the
overlay
is
counterproductive
would
actually
serve
to
hurt.
You
know,
folks
in
in
that
area,
and
particularly
students
and
really
the
university
area
especially
should
encourage
housing
and
eliminating
parking
minimum.
W
C
Thank
you
for
your
comment.
Next
person
is
joshua
christensen.
If
you
are
on
the
line,
please
press
star
six
state
your
name
and
address
and
proceed.
C
X
Hi,
my
name
is
pine
salica,
you
almost
got.
You
were
just
about
right.
Thank
you.
I
live
in
ward
9
and
I'm
here
to
support
the
proposed
changes.
I
I
am
very
happy
that
we'll
be
re-legalizing
some
of
our
historic,
affordable
places
that
don't
have
parking.
X
I'm
really
happy
that
we'll
be
re-legalizing
these
these
these
historic
buildings,
I'm
just
repeating
myself,
because
I'm
nervous
sorry
like
the
ones
like
like
all
the
cute
brown
stones,
that
we
all
love
to
adore
in
in
downtown
and
throughout
our
city
that
don't
have
any
parking
at
them,
any
any
car
parking
at
them.
I'm
so
happy
that
we'll
be
re-allowing
them
to
exist
and
to
create
new
ones
of
them.
X
X
I
I
just
I'm
so
excited
to
be
moving
forward
towards
having
that
kind
of
a
city
available
for
everybody,
not
just
for
the
lucky
few
hundred
people
who
get
to
live
in
those
apartments.
I'm
excited
that
we'll
be
able
to
you
know,
build
condos
and
other
apartment
buildings
that
are
going
to
bring
more
affordable
places
to
live,
maybe
not
today,
because
they'll
be
new
built
with
new
materials,
but
they'll
be
much
quicker
to
become
affordable
than
than
a
place.
That's
built
with
car
storage
headed
today.
X
P
P
You
hi,
this
is
krista
mosing.
I
live
at
2929
chicago
in
ward
9..
I'm
calling
to
thank
you
for
taking
the
time
and
taking
public
comments.
I'm
calling
to
generally
support
the
amendment,
and
I
appreciate
the
work
that
has
gone
into
it.
P
Priority
framework
and
the
cost
of
those
subsidies
is
imposed
on
people
in
the
form
of
increased
housing
costs
and
reducing
and
eliminating
the
subsidies
is
essential
for
addressing
our
climate
crisis
and
to
allow
higher
and
better
uses
of
our
land
and
resources
so
because
of
the
improvements
to
housing,
affordability
and
because
it
will
help
advance
the
city's
climate
transportation
policy
goals.
I
support
the
amendment
and
I
do
also
oppose
the
university
overlay
that
would
exempt
that
neighborhood
from
these
changes.
P
I
think
that
the
university
area
has
tremendous
access
to
transit
and
is
exactly
the
sort
of
place
where
these
sorts
of
changes
are
going
to
be
useful
and
beneficial
to
people
who
will
be
able
to
opt
out
of
owning
a
car
and
using
other
forms
of
transportation
that
the
city
wants
to
prioritize.
So
thank
you
very
much.
C
J
J
Was
at
606
7th
street
southeast?
I
generally
support
these
parking
reform
ordinances
we
have
here.
This
will
be
good
for
housing.
Affordability,
it'll
be
good
for
climate
change.
J
So
I
live
in
the
university
area
at
mercy
homes
and
we
definitely
definitely
need
a
lot
more
housing
here.
We
don't
have
a
lot
of
vacant
apartments.
Housing
is
expensive
and
people
have
issues
finding
apartments
so
by
capping
these
apartments
at
nine
bedrooms
per
unit
or
nine
bedrooms
per
building,
so
three
bedrooms
for
each
unit
triplex.
This
will
severely
limit
new
housing
construction
and
especially
this
will
just
push
development
into
varsity
homes.
We
do
a
lot
more
construction
here,
but
I
don't
think
that
combo
prospect
park
should
be
able
to
opt
out
of
density.
J
J
C
Thank
you
for
your
comment.
Next
person
is
kimberly
johnson.
If
you're
on
the
line,
please
press
star.
Six
then
continue
with
your
name
and
your
address
and
the.
E
The
center,
which
teaches
meditation
and
mindfulness,
has
been
at
this
location
for
nearly
50
years.
I'm
calling
today
to
voice
support
of
the
parking
reform,
because
small
organizations
like
ours
add
greatly
to
our
neighborhoods,
offering
opportunities
to
learn
and
find
community
right
near
people's
homes.
E
E
C
C
Okay,
not
hearing
anything
that
completes
our
list
of
registered
speakers.
Is
there
anyone
else
on
this
call
who
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item?
If
so,
please
press
star
six
to
unmute
and
continue
with
your
name
address
and.
C
J
Yes,
it's
funny.
I
live
in
forty
six,
twelve
full
facts
and
a
lot
of
great
points
have
been
made
on
this
committee
hall
already.
I
just
wanna
reiterate
my
support
stole
this
ordinance
from
a
perspective
of
housing.
Affordability,
eliminating
parking
minimum
requirements
is
one
of
the
easiest
things
that
a
city
can
do
because,
as
many
have
said,
a
lot
of
times,
the
costs
of
housing
are
subsidized
or
are
enhanced
because
of
their
arms
for
parking
that
doesn't
get
used.
J
I
also
just
want
to
also
say
that
the
university
overlay,
I
hope
that
that
can
be
changed.
I
don't
appreciate
or
think
that
neighborhoods
should
be
able
to
opt
out
of
density,
especially
when
you
know,
universities
in
particular
could
use
a
lot
more
housing.
So
that's
it.
I
appreciate
all
the
work
that's
gone
into
this
ordinance
and
I
hope
you
support
it.
C
C
G
Thank
you,
I'm
extremely
excited
to
have
this
come
forward.
I
have
been
evangelizing
about
how
terrible
minimum
parking
requirements
are
for
the
last
decade.
I
bought
a
copy
of
the
book,
the
high
cost
of
free
parking
for
every
council
member
in
2015,
and
we
got
it
the
full
elimination
passed
through
the
2040
plan
that
was
more
than
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
and
a
lot
of
constituents
kept
reaching
out
to
me
asking
when
is
it
actually
going
to
be
implemented
into
law?
G
Because
you
know
people
would
still
have
to
come
back
requesting
variances
all
the
time,
but
I
think
it
was
worth
the
wait,
because
this
measure
being
brought
forward
doesn't
just
eliminate
the
minimum
parking
requirements.
G
It
goes
further
than
that
and
moved
us
in
the
direction
of
actively
promoting
public
transit
biking
and
walking,
and
that
is
really
putting
into
action
what
was
stated
in
so
many
of
our
different
plans.
So
I'm
really
extremely
excited
to
see
that
there
are
a
number
of
new
changes
that
I'm
I'm
very
happy
that
we're
included.
G
I
appreciate
that
staff.
You
know
that
they're
requiring
that
some
of
the
bike
parking
be
ground
based
so
that
you
know
that
it's
accessible
for
people
who
can't
lift
their
bikes
and
mount
them
on
the
wall.
G
I
think
it
is
entirely
appropriate
to
phase
in
the
electrical
electric
vehicle
standards,
and
you
know
it
starts
phasing
it
into
2022
and
again
at
2024.
I
hope
that
the
council
will
periodically
review
that
every
few
years
to
adapt
to
the
growing
use
of
electric
vehicles.
We
can't
necessarily
anticipate
ahead
of
time
just
how
quickly
it
will
advance
it
might
advance
a
lot
farther
than
we
had
previously
anticipated,
because
president
biden
is
proposing
massive
investments
in
it.
G
But
I
I
think
it's
a
good
approach
to
ramp
that
up
and
not
necessarily
impose
all
of
the
standards
right
at
once,
so
that
we
can
allow
some
of
the
projects
to
the
pipeline
to
continue
as
they
they
were.
G
I
appreciate
the
limitations
on
on
curb
cuts.
I
think
that
makes
places
more
pedestrian
friendly.
I
think
former
chair
rockwell
would
be
especially
pleased
with
some
of
the
the
changes
that
were
included
there.
J
G
Couple
of
things
I
I
would
prefer
to
see
things
go
further,
but,
for
example,
with
the
surface
parking
requirement,
I
I
think
we
should
prohibit
large
surface
parking
lots
throughout
the
whole
city.
So
I
I
would
personally
prefer
the
20
spot
requirement
that
we
have
for
downtown
to
apply
throughout
the
whole
city
instead
of
just
applying
downtown
and
then
100
parking
spots
for
the
rest
of
the
city.
G
G
Maximum
instead
of
the
1.5
and
then
you
know,
as
some
of
the
commenters
brought
up,
I
would
personally
prefer
that
we
didn't
have
the
bedroom
restriction
in
the
university
overlay
district.
I'm
not
going
to
bring
forward
any
of
those
amendments,
because
I
feel
overall
that
this
proposal
is
is
very
ambitious.
I'm
extremely
pleased
with
it.
Overall,
I
do
think
it's
a
fair
point
that
some
people
have
raised
on
on
the
bedroom
restriction.
G
G
Originally,
the
the
bedroom
restriction
was
going
to
be
applicable
throughout
the
university
district.
Now
it
is
only
applicable
to
interior
one
and
two.
G
If
a
different
planning
commissioner,
wanted
to
bring
an
amendment
toward
that,
you
know
I
would
probably
vote
for
it,
but
I'm
not
gonna
propose
a
big
myself
because
I
feel
like
overall.
This
is
an
acceptable
compromise
that
I
can
get
behind
and
I'm
just
really
extremely
grateful
to
everyone
that
has
worked
on
this
to
joe
bernard
and
jason
wittenberg
and
council
members,
fletcher
and
gordon
and
all
of
the
different
organizations
that
contributed
to
this.
This
is
really
some
amazing
progress.
So
thank
you
all.
C
Thank
you,
commissioner
meyer.
Is
there
anyone
else
from
the
commission
who
would
like
to
comment
or
have
any
questions
or
discussion.
C
Okay
well
seeing
none.
Does
anyone
have
a
motion.
J
G
C
Great
thank
you
with
that.
That
motion
passes
again
echoing
commissioner
myers
comments,
thanks
to
the
staff
and
council
members
who
have
worked
on
this,
thank
you
for
your
work
and
efforts.
C
N
Time
no
announcements
from
staff
tonight.
Thank
you
for
all
of
your
work
tonight,
especially
on
that
amendment,
and
we
will
see
you
on
thursday
for
committee.
The
whole
great.