►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
board
members
and
staff
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statute,
section
13d.021
due
to
the
declared
local
public
health
emergency,
my
name's
alyssa
olson,
I'm
the
vice
president
of
the
planning
commission.
At
this
time
I
will
call
the
meeting
to
order
and
I'll
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role
to
verify
quorum.
C
B
D
D
D
A
A
F
B
D
A
I
A
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
could
the
clerk.
Please
call
the
role.
E
F
A
All
right
that
motion
passes
next
step
is
the
consent
agenda
and
we
have
five
items
on
the
consent
agenda.
I
A
J
Good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
madel
duanes
and
I'm
a
planner
in
long
range
planning.
Again
I
have
three
items
on
the
consent
agenda.
The
first
item
is
number
four,
which
is
the
land
sale
of
722
newton
avenue
north
the
parcel
is
guided
as
urban
neighborhood
and
interior
ii
staff
has
received
proposal
for
the
rehab
of
a
one
to
three
dwelling
unit
home
which
is
allowed
under
the
future.
Land
use
and
built
form
guidance
of
minneapolis
2040.
J
I
A
A
Okay,
all
right,
so
we
have
a
motion
for
consistency
with
the
comprehensive
plan
from
commissioner
mcguire.
Commissioner
smiley
was
it
you
adam?
Second?
Yes,
second,
all
right,
so
we
have
a
motion
in
a
second
clerk.
Could
you
please
call
the
roll.
K
D
B
I
apologize
I'm
out
of
order.
I
I
mean
yes,
so
thank
you.
Yes,
olson
you're
voting.
I
thank
you
is
not
here
and
I
believe
sweetie
is
still
not
here
and
it's
calling
their
names
in
case
they
snuck
in
and
I
didn't
see
them
a
smiley
hi.
A
All
right
that
motion
passes.
The
next
item
is
number
five.
It's
a
land
sale
at
2348,
james
avenue,
north
go
ahead.
Medell.
J
Okay,
so
again,
item
number
five:
the
landsat
2348
james
avenue
north
the
parcel
is
guided
as
urban
neighborhood
and
interior
ii
staff
has
received
proposal
for
the
rehab
of
a
single
family
home
which
is
under
the
future
land
use
and
built
form
guidance
of
minneapolis
2040.
J
B
All
right,
commissioner,
baxley.
K
D
L
A
A
F
A
Sure
I
mean
yeah,
there's
no
objection.
I
miss
must
have
missed
that
message
all
right.
So
if
there's
no
objection
we'll
have
model
go
and
then
we
have
two
more
after
that
and
then
we'll
do
one
more
vote
that
sound
good
yep
all
right.
A
So
next
item
is
item
number
six
and
you
can
go
ahead.
Middle.
J
Okay,
so
item
number
six
is
the
landsat
of
2756
queen
avenue
north.
The
parcel
is
guided
as
urban
neighborhood
and
interior
2
staff
has
received
proposal
for
the
rehab
of
a
single-family
home,
which
is
under
the
future
land
use
and
belt
form
which
is
allowed
under
the
future.
Land
use
and
built
form
guidance
of
minneapolis
2040.
staff
recommends
that
the
planning
commission
find
that
this
land
cell
is
consistent
with
future
land
use
and
belt
form
categories
of
the
comprehensive
plan.
Are
there
any
questions.
A
Okay,
so
we
do
need
to
take
a
vote
for
each
item
all
right.
So
commissioners,
are
there
questions
on
this
item,
or
would
someone
like
to
make
a
motion.
M
Chair
olson,
I
I
apologize.
It
took
me
a
second
to
unmute
myself.
This
is
ken
daler
from
the
clerk's
office.
I
apologize
if
I'm
being
a
little
confusing
in
the
chat,
but
what
the
message
I
was
trying
to
get
across
is
that
it
is
up
to
the
body
to
determine
whether
you
want
to
have
separate
votes
on
each
item
or,
if
you'd
like
to
combine
them
into
one
vote
at
the
end,
for
each
presentation
either
way
is
fine.
A
Okay,
all
right!
Well,
we'll
we'll
remember
this
for
the
future.
Okay.
So
if
there's
no
objection,
we
will
continue
with
presentations
and
then
do
a
vote
after
the
next
two.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
So
our
next
item
is
item
number,
seven
baldwin
square
redevelopment
plan
and
staff
is
amber.
K
Trenquist
good
afternoon,
commissioners
amber
turnquest
a
planner
in
long-range
planning.
Item
number.
Seven
is
the
baldwin
square
redevelopment
plan
and
modification
number
130
to
the
common
development
and
redevelopment
plan
and
common
tax
increment
financing
plan.
The
site
is
located
at
4140
to
4154
fremont
avenue
north
in
the
weber
camden
neighborhood
in
ward
4..
The
proposal
is
to
redevelop
the
two
parcels
for
a
24,
thirty
square
foot,
neighborhood
commercial
center.
The
first
phase
known
as
baldwin
square,
will
consist
of
a
sit-down
restaurant
bookstore,
cafe,
art
gallery
event,
center
and
second
floor
office.
K
Space
fremont
avenue
north
is
designated
as
a
goods
and
services
corridor.
The
current
zoning
of
the
project
is
c1,
neighborhood
commercial
and
it
is
guided
as
corridor
mixed
use
and
corridor.
4.
staff
recommends
that
the
planning
commission
find
that
the
baldwin
square
redevelopment
plan
is
consistent
with
minneapolis
2040
and
recommends
that
the
city
planning
commission
send
to
the
city
council
the
comments
contained
in
the
staff
report
and
recommend
approval
of
the
baldwin
square
redevelopment
plan
and
approval
of
modification
number
130
to
the
common
development
and
redevelopment
plan
and
common
tax
increment
financing
plan.
A
It's
quite
the
title.
Commissioners:
are
there
any
questions
or
discussion
before
we
move
on
to
the
next
presentation.
E
E
So
the
way
that
this
is
done
is
that
there
is
no
need
to
incorporate
these
redevelopment
plans
into
the
comprehensive
plan
to
become
part
of
the
comprehensive
plan
is.
Am
I
understanding
it
correctly
because
I
feel
like
in
the
previous
plan
we
may
have
that
that
had
may
have
been
done,
that
some
small
area
plans
were
incorporated
later
into
the
comp
plan.
Am
I
understanding
it
correctly
that
this
does
not
need
to
be
incorporated.
K
N
I
can
jump
in
commissioner
olsen,
commissioner
smiley.
E
N
The
way
you're
characterizing,
that
commissioner's
mellie
is
correct.
The
the
distinction
here
between
a
redevelopment
plan
and
a
small
area
plan.
As
a
you
know,
a
small
area
plan
is
something
that
would
actually
provide
more
refinement
or
change
the
guidance
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
and,
in
that
case,
yes,
would
need
to
become
part
of
the
comprehensive
plan
or
change
the
comprehensive
plan.
In
this
case,
the
redevelopment
plan
is,
is
simply
a
tool
that
is
used
for
for
finance
financing
of
the
project
and
doesn't
actually
change
anything
about
about
the
company.
A
All
right,
commissioners,
if
there
are
no
other
questions
or
discussion,
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
presentation,
which
is
item
number
eight
and
staff
is
adrian
brockheim.
G
This
hi
commissioners,
I'm
adrienne
bach,
I'm
a
principal
planner
in
cped
today,
I'm
presenting
the
border
avenue
extension
redevelopment
plan
and
modification
number
129
to
the
common
development
and
redevelopment
plan
and
common
tax
increment
financing
plan
border
avenue
is
located
near
the
west
edge
of
the
north
loop
neighborhood
adjacent
to
the
minneapolis
farmers
market
and
a
block
from
the
royalston
station.
A
light
rail
station
on
the
green
line.
Extension
that's
currently
under
construction.
G
Since
the
mid-1900s,
this
area
has
been
used
for
commercial
and
industrial
purposes.
The
planned
location
for
the
extension
of
border
avenue
is
shown
here
in
yellow
connecting
border
avenue
south
to
glenwood
avenue.
The
reason
for
extending
the
street
is
due
to
multiple
barriers
that
keep
this
area
isolated
and
the
desire
to
reconnect
the
street
grid
to
improve
access
to
royalston
station
and
underutilized
parcels
in
the
area
for
redevelopment.
G
G
In
addition
to
the
comprehensive
plan
planning
studies
for
this
area
have
recommended
this
infrastructure
investment,
the
north
loop
small
area
plan
first
conceived
of
this
street
as
part
of
an
important
bike
and
pedestrian
connection
through
the
north
loop
neighborhood
and
to
the
future
light
rail
station.
All
subsequent
planning
documents,
including
those
done
in
partnership
with
hennepin
county
in
preparation
for
the
construction
of
the
green
line,
extension,
have
all
included
the
border
avenue
extension
in
their
recommendations.
G
A
L
Yes,
quick
question:
what
is
going
to
be
done
with
the
remainder
of
the
land
that
is
being
acquired
there.
O
Yes,
I'm
happy
to
this
is
beth
grossen,
I'm
a
senior
project
coordinator
at
cped
in
business
development
and
the
the
graphic
that
that
adrian
provided
shows
kind
of
what
parcels
are
somewhat
impacted,
but
really
it's
just
the
right-of-way
and
a
small
area
for
up
some
parking
that
will
actually
be
acquired.
So
it's
essentially
the
area
in
yellow
and
a
bit
of
the
irregular
parcel
near
holden
street
that
will
actually
be
acquired.
The
the
balance
is
available
for
private
development,
with
the
existing
owners.
H
O
Clearly,
it's
an
unfortunate
situation
and-
and
it
will
take
a
lot
of
time
to
actually
start
turning
it
back
into
a
more
reasonable
grid.
H
Yeah,
it's
just
the
thank
you.
The
configuration
is
interesting.
I'm
just
wondering
if
it's
setting
up
problems
for
the
future
as
opposed
to
kind
of
running
right
into
glenwood,
obviously
there's
a
structure
there.
I
didn't
know
if
the
city
was
acquiring
all
of
those
they're,
no
they're,
not
it's
just
to
kind
of
create
the
right
of
way.
I
see.
Okay,
thank.
A
You
all
right,
I'm
not
seeing
any
more
questions.
So,
commissioner
meyer
go
ahead.
F
I
move
to
rule
that
item
six.
Seven
and
eight
are
consistent
with
the
2040
plan.
A
All
right,
commissioner,
smiley
second.
L
B
D
L
B
A
All
right,
those
motions
pass.
Thank
you
to
our
presenters.
Next
is
our
discussion
item
for
the
night.
It's
just
the
one.
It
is
parking
loading
and
mobility.
Zoning
code
text,
amendment
and
staff
is
joe
bernard
and
jason
wittenberg.
C
C
The
the
content
here
that
we're
going
to
take
you
through
is
is
about
our
parking
loading
and
mobility
zoning
code
text
amendment.
There
are
some
pretty
complex
changes
here
that
we're
talking
about
or
or
involve
changes
to,
the
zoning
ordinance
comprehensive.
I
guess
you
could
say
so
want
to
make
sure
we
we
take
ample
time
here
to
bring
you
up
to
speed
on
what
we've
been
working
on
and
make
sure
we
can
answer
any
questions
and
take
feedback
from
you
just
to
get
this
out
there.
C
So
with
that,
I'm
going
to
get
into
the
presentation
here-
and
I
think
I
think
we're
okay
with
interrupting
with
questions
throughout
the
presentation,
since
there's
there's
so
much
material
to
get
through
here.
C
I've
got
about
25
or
30
slides,
but
also
totally
fine
to
just
hold
comments
till
the
end
too,
if
you
prefer
so,
as
with
all
zoning
ordinance
changes
that
we
bring
to
you
the
intent
of
the
work
and
the
desired
outcomes
that
we're
looking
for
here
are
all
identified
in
minneapolis,
2040
and
other
city
policy
documents
like
the
transportation
action
plan
or
the
climate
action
plan,
we're
hoping
that
these
changes
that
we're
proposing
to
parking
and
loading
and
tdm
regulations
that
they
they'll
have
a
pretty
strong
impact
on
achieving
these
goals.
C
C
And
I
just
want
to
pause
for
a
second
to
acknowledge
that
we
can.
We
came
with
some
very
general
information
to
this
group
back
in
august
of
last
year,
so
some
of
this
might
be
repeat
information
for
you,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
to
get
new
commissioners
up
to
speed
on
some
of
these
things.
So
this
slide
we're
not
going
to
go
over
it
in
great
detail.
But
the
the
point
here,
the
message
that
we're
trying
to
share
is
that
parking
reform
in
at
the
city
has
been
an
ongoing
thing.
C
And
we
see
we
see
this
project
as
kind
of
the
next
logical,
incremental
step
in
in
improving
regulation
to
support
development
outcomes
that
achieve
our
goals.
C
Where
this
policy
in
minneapolis
2040
comes
from
is
is
shown
on
this
slide.
There
are
a
lot
of
supporting
research
items
that
would
direct
a
city
to
do
this
kind
of
work
and
why
other
cities
around
the
country
have
done
this
already.
C
First
thing
you
see
here
is
that
the
cost
of
producing
parking
is
paid
for
by
residential
owners
and
renters,
and
that's
whether
they
use
it
or
not.
So
this
is
shown
to
result
in
inflated
housing
costs,
particularly
for
lower
income
households,
providing
an
overabundance
of
parking,
incentivizes
automobile
use
at
the
expense
of
more
efficient
and
environmentally
friendly
forms
of
transportation,
ultimately,
resulting
in
greater
demands
being
placed
on
our
roadways
and
an
increase
in
greenhouse
gas
emissions.
So
this
is
sort
of.
C
If
you
build
it,
they
will
come
concept
of
parking
induced
demand,
there's
also
the
issue
of
using
our
land
more
efficiently.
We
dedicate
a
large
portions
of
our
land
to
this
inactive
use
throughout
the
city,
and
it
reduces
the
efficiency
with
which
people
can
operate
in
the
built
environment.
C
Of
course,
supporting
walkable
urban
design
is
is
really
important
and
the
more
parking
you
have,
the
more
curb
cuts
and
drive
aisles
that
you
need
to
access
that
parking
and
so
that
gradually
degrades
the
the
built
environment.
The
walkable
urban
design
that
we
want
to
achieve
to
support
alternative
modes
of
transportation.
C
Maybe
not
the
the
most
important
thing
here,
but
something
we
want
to
acknowledge
is
that
parking
reform
has
the
added
benefit
of
reducing
the
number
of
staff.
Hours
spent
administering
those
specific
parking
regulations,
and
we
hope
that
that
time
that
is
freed
up,
that
staff
spends
that
working
on
things
that
are
more
directly
related
to
implementing
the
goals
of
minneapolis
2040.
C
C
As
I
said,
we're
not
the
first
city
to
pursue
elimination
of
parking
minimums,
there's
a
growing
list
of
cities
around
the
country
that
have
already
done
this
this.
This
also
isn't
something
that
is
just
something
that
the
planning
discipline
is
calling
for:
there's
broad
consensus
from
sustainability
and
transportation
professionals
as
well,
that
this
is
something
that
we
should
do
and
even
recently
there
was
a
call
from
the
president
of
the
institute
of
transportation
engineers
that
this
is
effective
policy
for
achieving
a
number
of
of
goals
in
municipal
planning
documents.
C
C
Currently
we
have
a
general
standard
that
we
limit
parking
for
non-residential
uses
to
one
space
per
200
square
feet
of
gross
floor
area.
This
comes
with
a
huge
caveat.
There
are
individual
standards
for
many
uses
in
the
zoning
code
that
differ
from
this,
but
we're
just
using
this
as
an
example
there
on
the
next
slide
I'll
have
a
little
a
previously
approved
project
that
we
can
look
at
and
see
how
these
changes
might
affect
development.
C
So
this
means
we'd
like
to
tie
those
unique
requirements
to
our
built
form
districts
that
we
have
in
the
comp
plan
and
that
are
in
the
zoning
code.
Now
so
and
again,
we'll
go
over
an
example
on
the
next
slide.
This
is,
I
understand
this
is
complicated,
but
we
have
core
50
and
transit.
30
are
our
most
intense
built
form
districts.
Those
would
play
the
same
or
similar
role
that
downtown
does
today
in
our
zoning
ordinance
in
respect
to
parking.
C
C
So
that
will
be
in
something
new
newly
applied
to
areas
outside
of
downtown
and
then
we're
also
proposing
a
maximum
of
two
spaces
per
dwelling
unit
everywhere
else
in
the
city,
we
would
exempt
the
the
smallest
scale
development
from
that
requirement.
The
one
to
three
unit
projects.
C
Under
our
current
regulations,
this
development
would
have
been
allowed
to
supply
up
to
145
spaces
in
most
parts
of
the
city.
If
it
were
downtown
that
maximum
would
have
been
29
on
the
right
hand,
side
of
this
table,
you
see
how
our
new
proposal
for
maximums
would
apply
to
projects
like
this.
So
in
most
parts
of
the
city,
they
could
supply
up
to
97
spaces
in
our
transit,
10,
15
and
20
districts.
C
The
downtown
parking
overlay
does
limit
accessory
parking,
but
we
think
it's
important
to
pair
our
maximum
regulations,
parking
regulations
that
we
calculate
based
on
the
size
of
a
building
with
a
hard
cap
for
surface
parking
to
control
for
those
situations
that
are
unique.
So
you
see
we've.
The
proposal
here
would
be
a
hundred
spaces.
That
would
be
the
most
that
you
could
do
in
a
surface
parking
lot
without
requesting
a
variance.
C
C
This
is
still
a
work
in
progress,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
that
this
is
something
that
you're
thinking
about
as
you
review
our
ordinance
language
right
now,
we're
considering
any.
I
think
this
is
included
in
the
memo
that
we
would
require
residential
development,
10
of
10
units
or
more
to
supply
10
of
any
of
the
parking
spaces
that
they
provide
with
electric
vehicle
charging
stations.
C
We're
looking
at
what
uses
other
uses,
we
would
require
this
in
and
so
you'll
see
in
the
proposal.
We're
going
to
suggest
requiring
this
for
office
and
hotel
uses
as
well,
and
the
reason
for
for
those
three
calling
out
those
specific
three
uses
is
that
it's
where,
in
those
cases,
cars
sit
in
their
parking
spaces
for
a
longer
period
of
time,
have
more
of
an
ability
to
take
on
more
of
a
charge
for
retail
parking.
C
We're
going
to
have
a
lower
requirement
of
5
is
what
we're
proposing
and
that
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
chargers
that
are
installed
in
those
instances
can
charge
fast
enough
for
it
to
make
it
to
make
that
worthwhile,
since
the
turnover
in
parking
is,
is
faster,
with
retail,
we're
still
thinking
about
and
there's
some
concern
from
housing
staff
and
and
we've
we're
working
with
them
on
this,
and
I
think
we'd
be
interested
in
the
commission's
feedback
on
this,
and
when
we
have
discussion.
C
Is
that
there's
some
concern
about
how
this
impacts
affordable
housing
projects?
Even
though
we
want
to
ensure
that
equitable
access
to
this
infrastructure
occurs?
In
the
long
run,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
we're
not
inhibiting
our
affordable
projects
from
being
feasible,
so
something
we're
still
working
through
there.
C
C
So
currently,
the
residential
requirement
throughout
the
city
is
one
bike
parking
space
per
two
dwelling
units
in
residential
and
we're
proposing
to
increase
that
to
one
space
per
one
dwelling
unit.
There's
a
one
unique
situation
here
is
that
the
university
district
overlay,
so
four
neighborhoods
near
the
university
of
minnesota.
There
already
is
today
a
higher
requirement
of
one
bike:
parking
space
per
bedroom.
C
More
commercial
uses
will
be
required
to
supply
a
minimum
of
three
parking
spaces
right
now,
there's
there's
a
there's,
a
fair
number
that
are
required
to
do
today,
but
we're
expanding
that
requirement
and
then
the
more
significant
change
is
the
increase
in
requirements
for
larger
projects,
so
shower
and
locker
facilities
are
currently
required
for
commercial
buildings
downtown
or,
I
should
say,
non-residential
buildings
downtown
that
have
500
000
square
feet
or
more.
C
We
have
only
had
in
the
last
20
years
a
handful
of
projects
that
would
trigger
that
requirement,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
more
projects
are
providing
these
types
of
facilities
moving
forward.
So
we're
going
to
lower
that
threshold
to
200
000
square
feet
and
have
that
applied
city-wide
and
we'll.
Let's
look
at
what
that
change
looks
like.
C
In
the
public
service
building
using
that
as
an
example,
so
the
public
service
building
is
378
000
square
feet.
It
would
trigger
that
requirement
in
with
this
new
ordinance,
it
did
not,
as
it
went
through
the
approval
process
previously,
so
the
current
standard
in
our
ordinance
would
have
required
this
building
to
provide
25
long-term
bike
parking
spaces.
C
Our
proposed
standard
would
require
a
minimum
of
189
and
what
was
actually
built
here
was
much
more
so
we're
feeling
pretty
comfortable
with
these
numbers
in
the
sense
that
larger
developments
downtown
have
been
have
been
supplying
a
good
amount
of
bike
parking.
C
I
see,
there's
there's,
maybe
a
question,
I'm
happy
to
to
pause
here.
If
we
want
to
do
that.
P
Oh
sorry,
thanks,
commissioner,
I
just
had
a
quick
question
about
this.
Is
there
any
thought
about
visitor
or
short-term
bike
parking
spaces
that
would
be
required
as
well?
I
I
you
know
a
bike
as
my
primary
form
of
transportation
and
often
times
in
downtown,
there's
no
safe
parking
for
bikes
and
I
feel
like
there's
a
lot
of
people
who
come
in
and
out
of
the
area.
What's
what's
the
kind
of
the
thought
about
that,
and
then
my
second
question
was
about
your
slide
before
about
that:
the
commercial?
C
Sure,
commissioner,
marwa,
on
the
first
question,
our
current
ordinance
has
these:
I
don't
want
to
call
them
tiers
there,
there's
three
separate
standards
for
bike
parking
depending
on
the
type
of
use
that
the
bike
parking
is
serving.
So
in
the
case
that
we
might
require
parking
bike
parking
for
a
commercial
use,
we
require
that
at
least
50
of
those
be
short
term,
I
believe,
is
the
the
number
where
it's
residential.
C
We
require
that
90
of
the
spaces
be
long-term.
So
I
can't
remember
exactly
off
the
head
off
the
top
my
head,
what
we
have
in
our
proposal
for
downtown
non-resident
or
for
non-residential
uses
with
larger
projects
like
this.
I
can
go
back
and
take
a
look
and
get
back
to
you.
But
yes,
I
agree
with
you
that
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
requiring
bike
parking
spaces
for
for
not
just
the
users
of
the
her
tenants
of
the
building,
but
for
visitors
as
well.
Yeah.
C
Yeah,
so
the
the
the
second
question
regarding
whose
responsibility
would
this
be,
you
know,
were
the
zoning
code
is
not
does
not
take
a
stance
on
whether
or
not
that's
the
building
owner's
responsibility
or
the
tenant
that
they
have
to
work
that
out
between
the
two
of
them.
I
think
it's
pretty
typical
for
building
odor
to
pass
that
requirement
on
or
that
expense
on
to
the
tenant
when
they
come
in
to
pull
permits
to
finish
out
their
space.
C
Okay,
let's
move
on
to
loading
ordinance
changes
at
this
time.
The
changes
that
we're
proposing
to
the
loading
ordinance
are
are
pretty
minimal.
C
We're
exploring
reducing
or
eliminating
loading
requirements
for
uses
that
are
lower
in
intensity
and
and
for
uses
like
we've,
been
using
the
example
of
a
grocery
store,
where
we
want
to
increase
the
flexibility
in
how
goods
are
received
with
the
intent
here
that
we
make
it
easier
for
grocery
stores
to
locate
in
places
in
a
city
where
maybe
it's
difficult
to
do
so
and
where
we
need
that
type
of
use.
C
We're
also
introducing
some
flexibility
in
our
loading
ordinance
here
that
we
would
like
to
allow
for
the
possibility
to
negotiate
the
how
much
loading
you're
providing
through
our
travel
demand
management
ordinance,
which
is
something
that
we'll
we'll
talk
about
in
greater
detail
here
in
a
minute.
C
So
that's
that's
the
extent
of
what
we're
proposing
here,
for
this
is
kind
of
a
unique
one.
The
university
area
overlay,
which
I
mentioned
earlier
in
regards
to
bike
parking.
C
So,
since
those
parking
regulations
are
going
away,
the
parking
used
to
be
calculated
per
bedroom
here,
so
one
space
per
two
bedrooms
and
that
helped
limit
the
size
of
some
of
these
projects.
Some
of
these
smaller
scale
projects
we're
proposing
to
introduce
a
limit
on
the
number
of
bedrooms
that
you
can
have
in
a
one
to
three
unit
buildings
in
the
interior
built
form
districts
within
the
university
area
overlay.
C
This
one
is
one
of
the
very
unique
instances
where
parking
regulations
were
probably
used
in
a
way
that
we
we
prefer
not
to
use
them,
but
since
they're
going
away,
we
still
want
to
address
this
situation
and
that's
why
you're
seeing
this
proposal.
C
Maybe
the
one
of
the
most
significant
changes
that
we're
considering
here
in
our
amendment
is
to
update
our
travel
demand
management
process.
C
C
C
So
what
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
explicitly
state
the
goal
of
achieving
mode,
split
and
greenhouse
gas
emission
goals
in
the
ordinance
instead
of
focusing
on
traffic,
which
is
the
current.
The
status
of
travel
demand
management
plans
at
the.
C
City
we'd
like
to
de-emphasize
traffic
studies
and
instead
have
strategies
that
are
just
standard
practice
that
developments
provide
to
comply
with
our
ordinance.
C
We
want
to
focus
those
tdm
requirements
on
physical
improvements
or
characteristics
of
a
development
to
achieve
our
goals.
This
is
something
that's
grounded
in
research.
That
shows
what
is
most
effective
in
reducing
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
for
example,
but
it
also
happens
to
be
the
thing
that
things
that
are
easier
for
us
as
a
city
to
enforce
on
an
ongoing
basis.
C
That
doesn't
mean
that
we
aren't
going
to
do
programmatic
things
and
we'll
talk
about
them
specifically
in
a
minute,
but
the
physical
improvements
are
are
what
we're
trying
to
focus
on.
C
We
want
to
apply
the
tdm
regulations
to
more
development
than
we
currently
do,
so
the
current
regulations
apply
to
projects
of
a
hundred
thousand
square
feet
or
more
of
commercial
development,
and
we
with
in
working
with
public
works.
There
are
a
lot
of
residential
projects
that
get
pulled
into
the
tdm
process,
just
at
staff's
discretion
today.
So
we
want
to
just
clarify.
C
The
distinction
will
be
determined
by
the
size
of
your
project,
either
in
dwelling
units
or
non-residential
square
footage,
depending
upon
the
size
and
use
of
your
project.
You'll
be
required
to
achieve
a
minimum
number
of
points
by
employing
those
predetermined
strategies
that
I
mentioned,
and
each
of
those
strategies
will
have
points
assigned
like
a
point
value
assigned
to
them.
C
Non-Residential
development
that
falls
into
that
minor
category
is
between
twenty
five
thousand
and
two
hundred
thousand
square
feet
of
gross
floor
area
keeping
in
mind
today.
We
only
capture
projects
that
are
a
hundred
thousand
or
more
so
we're
capturing
more
projects,
but
we're
intending
to
make
the
process
a
little
clearer
and
simpler
moving
forward
projects
that
are
residential
projects
that
have
more
than
250
units
would
fall
into
the
major
category
and
trigger
a
higher
point
requirement.
C
Eight
points
in
that
case
and
then
non-residential
development
would
that's
over
two
hundred
000
square
feet
would
also
trigger
that
major
review
and
need
10
points.
C
There
are
a
couple
other
uses
identified
here
that
we
know
are
challenging
from
a
transportation
perspective
that
we're
calling
out
in
the
ordinance
meeting
and
reception
halls
are
one
of
them
shopping,
centers
or
another,
and
then
principal
parking
facilities
is
the
other
use
we're
going
to
capture
the
last
thing
on
this
list.
Here
is
just
the
acknowledgement
that
the
planning
director
and
city
engineer
could
call
for
a
traffic
study
for
any
of
any
project
in
the
city,
just
as
we
do
today.
C
Administration
and
enforcement
challenges
are
something
that
staff
has
voiced
frustration
with
in
the
past
and
that's
something
we're
hoping
to
improve
on
here
with
this
new
system.
C
I
already
mentioned
that
part
of
what
we're
emphasizing
here
with
physical
improvements
is
reducing
the
need
for
ongoing
enforcement.
But
the
there's
a
couple
of
really
important
programmatic
things
here
that
I'll
point
out
is
the
transit
subsidy
is,
is
something
that
we
think
is
really
important
and
there's
a
couple
other
things
here
that
aren't
as
art
is
tied
to
the
built
environment
directly.
C
C
But
I
think
what
point
we
want
to
get
across
here
is
that
the
points
are
point
system
is
structured,
such
that,
if
you
are
required
to
do
a
tdm
minor
review,
you'll
need
to
do
either
one
of
the
top
two
items
you
could
do,
one
of
those
top
two
items
and
just
be
done,
provide
zero
parking
or
provide
a
transit
fare
subsidy.
C
C
First,
a
couple
of
projects
that
would
not
trigger
the
tdm
process
moving
forward.
The
one
on
the
left
is
a
residential
project.
The
west
lake
area,
49
units
was
approved
and
didn't
go
through
a
tdm
process
that
I'm
aware
of,
and
we
wouldn't
require
that
moving
forward
on
the
right.
You
see
a
commercial
project
at
43rd
and
upton
that
was
approved
at
17
000
square
feet
of
commercial
space.
C
Either
the
first
residential
example
we
have
here
that
would
trigger
the
tdm
process
or
would
have
is
at
1724
nikola.
This
project
had
123
dwelling
units
and
2
900
square
feet
of
commercial
space.
They
supplied
62
parking
spaces
and
82
bike
parking
spaces.
This
would
have
been
a
tdm
miner
project,
meaning
they
needed
four
points
and
based
on
looking
through
the
approvals
for
the
project,
they
would
have
met
the
points
for
limited
parking,
but
not
entirely
clear
that
they
would
have
met
points
for
anything
else
on
the
list.
C
I
think,
as
we
go
through
these
examples,
part
of
this
is
to
demonstrate
that
we
are
while
we're
making
the
process
easier
in
some
ways.
We
are
requiring
more
of
some
of
our
projects
moving
forward
and
and
acknowledging
that
in
getting
rid
of
our
parking
requirements,
we
still
want
to
have
regulations
that
get
us
toward
our
goal
of
reducing
greenhouse
gas
emissions
and
getting
people
out
of
their
cars.
C
C
C
Here's
an
example
of
a
project
that
would
have
triggered
the
major
requirement
for
residential
at
319
dwelling
units.
That's
well
above
that
250
dwelling
unit
standard,
so
they
would
have
needed
eight
points
from
the
table
and,
again
being
that
they
supplied
254
parking
spaces,
183
bike
parking
spaces.
It's
not
clear
from
the
table
how
they
would
have
met
that
requirement.
C
They
would
have
had
to
supply
more
standards
than
they
than
they
did
and
finally,
going
back
to
the
public
service
building
a
project
would
have
triggered
the
major
requirements
for
non-residential
development
and
would
have
needed
10
points
and
there's
probably
enough
in
this
development
that
would
have
met
those
requirements.
C
So
we
have
some
questions
that
we
we
hope
that
the
commissions
can
spend
some
time
on
today,
but
of
course,
we're
here
to
help
explain
any
parts
of
the
proposals
that
are
not
clear
at
this
point
in
time.
C
We
anticipate-
I
think
I
already
mentioned
the
timeline
of
bringing
this
to
you
on
april
12th.
We
anticipate
publishing
a
draft
of
the
ordinance,
hopefully
tomorrow,
so
that
you
can
look
at
it
in
much
greater
detail
than
what's
included
in
the
memo
that
you
received
with
that
I'll.
Just
turn
it
back
to
the
chair
and
we'll
here
to
support
your
discussion.
A
Thank
you,
commissioners.
Are
there
questions,
commissioner
meyer.
F
Thank
you.
I
think
this
is
really
great.
I
think
it's
beautiful.
I
think
it
actually
puts
into
action
what
the
council
has
been
saying.
Its
goals
are
for
climate
action,
so
I'm
really
excited
about
this,
a
few
comments
and
then
a
few
questions.
So
when
it
comes
to
both
the
electric
vehicle
parking
and
and
other
things
like
the
the
bike
parking,
you
know
I
I
definitely
you
know,
I'm
receptive
and
open
to
what
affordability
advocates
have
to
say
about
what
the
consequences
are.
F
I
think,
especially
for
like
the
electric
vehicle
parking
or
charging,
a
key
thing
to
me
is
just
to
make
sure
that
they
can
adapt
so
that,
as
the
demand
for
electric
vehicles
increases
that
they
can
increase
the
charging
capacity
along
with
that.
So
I
I
don't
know
what,
if
anything,
we
would
need
to
require
on
that
end.
But
that's
the
key
thing
that
I
want
to
make
sure
of
is
that
they
can
scale
it
up.
F
F
Some
of
the
things
like
it
seems
to
me
that
the
transit,
fair
subsidy
shouldn't
be
a
binary
that
it
would
seem
to
me
that
it
makes
sense
to
give
more
points
as
they
give
a
bigger
subsidy,
and
I
think
it
would
make
sense
to
give
the
biggest
number
of
points
when
they
get
from
whatever
the
the
highest
when
they
get
from
the
second
highest
subsidy
threshold
to
free,
because
I
think
there's
a
big
difference
between
charging
residents
even
a
nominal
amount.
F
I
mean
we
see
this
in
employer-based
incentive
programs
where
you
know
the
park
board
is
willing
to
subsidize
your
transit
pass
like
the
vast
majority
of
it,
but
we
only
had
11
out
of
2000
eligible
people
actually
get
it.
F
I,
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
research
that
shows
that
they're
a
lot
more
likely
to
get
it
if
it's
zero
dollars
as
opposed
to
10
or
20..
So
if,
if
a
builder
is
willing
to
go
all
the
way
in
and
make
it
completely
zero
they're
going
to
get
a
lot
more
people
asking
for
that,
so
I
think
they
should
get
correspondingly
more
points.
If
they
do.
F
I
have
some
questions
about
the
bike
parking.
Specifically.
There
are
a
few
things
that
I
I
would
like
to
see
happen
with
it
one.
You
know
seconding
the
thoughts
from
commissioner
marwa.
I
think
it's
important
that
we
have
visitor
oriented
parking
external
to
not
necessarily
the
building
itself
like
it
could
be
inside
the
building,
but
we
has
to
be
accessible
by
people
who
might
not
have
access
to
the
full
building.
F
You
know
I
I've
seen.
For
example,
there
was
an
article
not
long
ago
that
talked
about
like
in
new
york
city
they're.
Putting
out
these,
I
don't
know
what
they're
called
they're
like
shipping
containers
that
you
can
get
a
code
to
like
open
it
up
and
put
your
bike
in
there.
That
would
be
an
example
of
externally
accessible
visitor
oriented
parking.
F
I
would
like
to
see
something
like
that
incorporated
into
the
requirements
with
the
biking
requirements.
Is
there
any
requirement
that
some
proportion
of
them
be
put
on
the
ground,
because
I've
seen
in
a
lot
of
buildings
that
the
vast
majority
of
the
parking
is
wall-mounted
parking,
because
that
is
the
most
space
efficient
and
that's
a
problem
for
someone
who
can't
lift
their
bike
and
especially
as
we're
seeing
more
e-bikes,
which
are
heavier?
C
The
way
the
design
standard
is
written
right
now
is
is
that
the
there
needs
to
be
enough
room
for
the
bike
to
lock
it
its
tire
at
least
one
wheel
and
the
frame
to
to
the
space.
C
Trying
to
develop
something
to
the
effect
that
you're
talking
about
commissioner
meyer,
we
have
discussed
that
recently
as
well,
and
one
of
the
things
we're
trying
to
watch
out
for
is
that
we
want
to
at
least
allow
some
flexibility
in
how
developments
meet
this
standard
and
there's
there's
been
a
variety
of
ways
that,
as
you
mentioned,
though,
the
wall
mount
mounted
thing.
C
F
Yeah,
so
I
think
I
think
it's
important
to
have
at
least
some
proportion
of
the
bike
parking
spaces
be
ground-based
for
people
who
can't
lift
them,
and
I
would
be
willing
to
accept
an
overall
lower
requirements
in
order
to
accommodate
that,
because
I
know
when
it's
ground-based
that
it's
going
to
take
up
more
space,
but
I
think
it's
really
important
to
have
a
proportion
for
that
and
you
tied
into
my
next
question,
I've
seen
in
a
lot
of
buildings
the
the
wall-mounted
parking
spots
like,
for
example,
at
one
of
the
buildings
that
I
work
at
in
north
loop.
F
I
never
use
them
because
I
can
only
lock
my
wheel
to
them
and
that
makes
it
really
susceptible
to
theft.
So
I
was
happy
to
see
that
that
we've
already
got
the
requirement
that
the
frame
has
to
be
able
to
be
locked,
so
yeah
definitely
want
to
keep
that
and
okay
yeah.
I
think
that
was
all
my
questions.
Thank
you.
I
think
this
is
really
great.
You
did
some
great
work.
A
Thanks,
commissioner
meyer,
commissioner
smiley.
E
Yeah,
thank
you,
chair
olson,
and
thank
you
to
staff
for
putting
so
much
thought
into
this.
I
think
it's.
I
also
echo
commissioner
meyer's
comment
that
these
are
really
great
to
see
and
I
have
a
well.
I
guess
I
have
a
question
that
I
had
written
and
if
you
thoughts,
but
I'm
I'm
debating
on
whether
or
not
my
question
was
already
answered,
so
in
that
sense,
maybe
I
should
ask
it.
I
know
commissioner
meyer
was
asking
about
a
ground
bicycle
parking,
and
commissioner
marwa
was
asking
about
visitor
bicycle
parking.
E
I
guess
my
question
is
more
general
than
that
and
kind
of
goes
into
the
requirement
itself,
because
I
didn't
necessarily
see
whether
or
not
the
requirement
is
talking
about.
Is
it
taught
them?
Is
it
long-term
biking?
Does
that
mean
covered
like
all
season
that
it
will
be
inside
the
building
or
one
of
those
like
some
of
those
like
as
question
mark,
it
was
saying,
like
containers,
sort
of
that
has
a
lock
that
you
can
put
your
bike
in
just
kind
of
wondering.
Did
I
miss
that.
C
Commissioner
smiley,
we
have
two
separate
standards
in
the
zoning
ordinance
that
define
how
you
can,
depending
upon
your
use,
how
you
meet
these
the
bike
parking
requirement
and
it's
we
have
a
definition
for
short-term
bicycle
parking
and
long-term
bicycle
parking,
long-term
bicycle
parking.
C
The
important
distinction,
I
think,
is
what
you've
already
pointed
out,
is
that
it's
I'll
just
try
to
read
through
it
here
is
that
it's
enclosed
and
secured
in
supervised
areas
is
what
is
how
it's
written,
otherwise,
short-term
bike
parking
is
usually
located
out
in
front
of
the
building
or
in
the
public
right-of-way,
so
that
patrons
to
businesses
can
access
them.
E
Right:
okay,
thank
you
so
that
I
apologize.
I
did
not
know
the
definition
of
long
time,
biking
from
the
zoning
code
and
then
my
other
couple
of
thoughts
are
kind
of
going
back
to
the
feedback
that
you
had
requested
from
the
commission
in
the
memo.
One
was
about
like
potential.
Other
strategies
to
include
is,
as
I
was
thinking,
whether
because
you're
referencing
shared
vehicle,
but
I'm
also
wondering
whether
carpool,
for
example,
for
non-residential
areas
could
be
something
that
employers
can
potentially
promote
and
use
a
service
to
connect
their
employees
together.
E
I
know,
for
example,
I
know,
for
example,
metro
transit
provides
a
similar,
similar
service,
so
something
like
that
is
another
strategy.
E
Then
one
of
the
other
comments
that
I
had
about
what
specific
uses
could
potentially
have
different
standards,
and
I
didn't
necessarily
seen
see
them
being
called
out
and
some
of
the
ones
that
I
was
thinking
about
were
public
or
government.
Buildings
like
I
was
thinking
for,
for
example,
about
the
hennepin
county
government
center
or
city
hall.
E
When
so
many
people
are
coming
and
going
for
a
variety
of
different
different
purposes
and
something
like
the
hennepin
county
government
center
serves
not
just
the
city
of
minneapolis
but
goes
way
beyond
the
boundary
of
the
city.
So
something
like
that.
I
see
as
potentially
needing
different
provisions
to
ensure
that
visitors
are
accommodated
appropriately
and
the
other
one
kind
of
thinking
about
the
project
that
we
just
saw
on
monday
would
be
potentially
hospitals
to
have
different
provisions
regarding
their
parking.
E
Then
my
other
thought
was
sorry,
I'm
just
going
through
the
list.
My
other
thought
was
related
to
the
ev
charging,
and
I
know
that
in
the
materials
that
I
was
reading
it
was
talking
about.
You
were
talking
about
how
a
lot
of
the
some
of
the
parking
spots
should
be
ev-ready
and
that
it
seems
like
it's
kind
of
like
a
incremental,
potentially
incremental
change,
hoping
to
get
to
more
numbers
of
ev
parking.
E
But
I
was
kind
of
wondering
if
at
least
internally
can
if
the
city
can
develop
some
kind
of
a
timeline
to
revisit
those
thresholds,
so
that
it's
not
something
like
we're
going
to
come
back.
But
then
it's
like
10
15
years
from
now-
and
I
say
that
because
I
based
on
what
I
hear
from
the
automobile
industry,
specifically
also
that
there
might
be
a
lot
of
change,
for
example
in
the
next
five
years
right,
so
that
could
potentially
change
that.
So
I
was
just
kind
of
wondering
about
that
timeline.
A
You
thanks,
commissioner
smiley
commissioner
ford.
L
Thank
you.
First
of
all,
I'm
very
very,
very
impressed.
This
is,
I
think,
terrific
work
and
it
will
advance
the
the
comp
plan
and
I'm
I
just
was
struck
by
and
the
questions
are
being
asked
and
comments
that
are
being
made
here.
The
complexity
of
all
this
I
could
it
never
would
have
occurred
to
me.
L
But
thinking
about
it
more,
you
know
the
the
bicycle
parking
requirements
now,
probably
thinking
about
just
short
term
and
long
term
is
oversimplifying
because
you're
going
to
have
people
who
are
going
to
dash
in
and
get
something
and
take
about
10
minutes
or
five
minutes
in
the
store.
L
Have
one
kind
of
bicycle
parking
need,
probably
a
rack,
but
those
who
are
going
to
come
down
to
let's
say
to
the
courthouse,
they're,
probably
going
to
spend
several
hours
down
there,
whether
they
like
it
or
not-
and
that's
you
know
not
kind
of
use-
probably
a
a
locked
locker
like
the
city
used
to
have
blockers
downtown.
They
still
do,
but
bicycle
lock
is
provided
by
public
works.
L
A
A
I'll
just
add,
I
agree
with
commissioner
meyer
a
little
I
overall
I'm.
I
really
like
this.
I'm
excited
to
see
this
coming
through,
but
the
was
it
six
points
for
subsidized
transit
passes.
Also,
I'm
I'm
questioning
that
a
little
bit,
so
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
just
like
explain
that
a
little
bit
more
next
time
we
see
this
or
what,
but
I'm
a
little
skeptical
of
that
that
many
points
for
that,
but
other
than
that,
I
don't
have
anything
so
we'll
move
to
commissioner
baxley.
H
Thank
you,
commissioner,
again
I'll
echo,
my
other
commissioners
on
the
the
comprehensiveness
and
the
thoughtfulness
that
has
gone
into
that.
So
I
think,
as
what
would
help
me,
as
I
evaluate
and
respond
to
some
of
your
questions
on
the
we
you
mentioned,
focus
on
physical
improvements
when
you're
looking
at
tita.
Could
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
what
you
mean
by
that.
C
Sure,
commissioner
baxley,
the
the
preference
for
physical
improvements
comes
from
those
two,
those
two
places
of
one
wanting
to
those
happen
to
be
the
things
that
research
shows
have
the
greatest
impact
on
achieving
our
goals,
but
the
easier
thing
it's
an
easier
thing
for
the
city
to
enforce,
using
the
transit,
fair
subsidy
is
kind
of
the
opposite.
Example:
we've
been
talking
with
metro
transit
on
how
they
can
help
us
to
enforce
that
standard
and
how
we
we're
going
to
be
working
with
public
works
on
tracking
these
in
the
long
run.
C
But
you
can
imagine
that
figuring
out
whether
or
not
a
building
owner
is
still
participating
in
a
metro,
transit
program.
10
years
from
now
is
going
to
be
a
little
more
difficult
than
knowing
that
when
the
building
is
built,
we
can
inspect
it
and
say
yes,
they
built
it
the
way
they
said
they
would
they.
They
provided
zero
parking
and
they
put
in
a
real-time
transit
info
station.
C
So
that's
where
the
the
enforcement
side
of
things
is
is
influencing
or
informing
what?
What
we're
proposing.
H
H
I
think
related
to
that
then,
and
I'm
assuming
this
is
how
you
guys
begin
to
prioritize
those
strategies,
but
maybe
talk
a
little
bit
about
how
how
you
came
up
with
the
point,
how
you
have
them
ranked
now,
as
we
look
to
evaluate
or
provide
comment
on
that.
C
Admittedly,
that
it's
an
inexact
science
here,
I
think
you
know,
taking
the
the
comments
from
commissioner
olson
and
commissioner
meyer
about
the
transit
fair
subsidy-
may
be
being
worth
too
much.
C
It's
again,
really.
The
list
is
informed
by
research
showing
what
has
the
greatest
impact.
There
are,
of
course,
things
outside
of
this
process
that
really
greatly
impact.
Whether
or
not
these
strategies
are
going
to
be
effective.
The
we've
pointed
out
in
some
other
presentations.
I
don't
think
I
hit
on
it
today
much,
but
the
fact
that
minneapolis
just
has
a
residential
and
road
infrastructure
that
makes
it
possible
for
some
of
these
and
transit
service.
That
makes
it
possible
for
some
of
these
things
to
be
effective.
C
So
what
we're
and
we've
we've
run
these
by
public
works
and
our
our
planning
staff
that
have
done
these
reviews
in
previous
years
and
have
gotten
their
feedback
on
what
they
think
is
is
most
important.
So
some
of
these
numbers
have
changed.
We
had
maintenance,
maintenance
agreements
and
real-time
transit
info
a
little
higher
initially
and
we
got
feedback
from
public
works
staff
saying
well
those
don't
really
make
as
big
of
a
difference
as
you
might
think.
C
So
I
think,
that's
all
to
say
I
think,
there's
some
flexibility
here,
but
really
thinking
about
that
connection
between
this,
what
the
project
would
do
and
how
they
would
be
impacting
those
goals
of
mode
split
and
greenhouse
gas
reduction.
So
if,
for
example,
you
were
to
propose
to
reduce
the
amount
of
points
that
were
achieved
through
the
transit
fare
subsidy,
that
means
not
only
means
that
you're
maybe
de-emphasizing
that,
but
you
might
in
effect
be
putting
even
more
emphasis
on
zero
parking
by
doing
that.
Yeah.
C
The
last
thing
I'll
say
about
that.
I'm
sorry,
I'm
kind
of
droning
on
here,
but
the
transit,
fair
subsidy
as
we
have
written
it,
is
that
there's
different
standards
for
residential
versus
commercial
for
residential.
We
would
require
that
every
every
unit
have
access
to
a
a
pass
one
at
least
one
pass,
and
that
for
non-residential
would
be
that
70
percent
75
of
all
full-time
employees
qualify
for
that
transit
pass
at
a
reduced
rate,
we're
still
working
with
metro
transit
on
this
language.
C
I
think
there's
some
interest
from
them
to
maybe
have
a
distinction
between
along
the
lines
of
what
commissioner
meyer
is
bringing
up
that
you
know
having
access
to
the
passes,
sometimes
isn't
isn't
enough,
it
doesn't
mean
you're
gonna
get
participation
in
the
program.
So
how
do
we
make
sure
that
people
are
actually
participating
in
in
the
program?
And
that's
that's
something
I
I
hope
we
have
more
clarity
on
for
the
commission
when
we
bring
this
back
on
in
april,
great.
H
That's
helpful
yeah,
it's
not
things
are
interrelated
and
it's
hard
to
start
shifting
those
around
without
thinking
through
the
full
impacts.
One
more
question:
do
we
is
there
you
mentioned
pure
cities
earlier.
Are
there
other
cities
that
have
employed
a
similar
adjustments
and
point
system
ranking
that
that
we're
looking
at
how?
Where
are
we
with
that?
And
how
do
we
for
those
of
us
who
are
interested
in
maybe
doing
a
little
research?
Who
are
some
other
cities
that
we
might
look
to
and
see
how
they're
doing
compared
to
this.
C
Great
question:
I
was
hoping
that
that
this
was
just
a
brilliant
idea
that
we
came
up
with
and
we're.
You
know
leading
the
charge
on
this,
but
it
does.
It
turns
out
that,
of
course,
portland
has
something
like
this,
and
san
francisco
also
has
a
similar
program.
C
I'm
not
remembering
the
details
of
their
programs
off
the
top
my
head,
but
I
think
something
that
is
relatively
unique
is
how
we're
taking
we're
taking
the
the
traffic
study
element
out
of
of
the
process
for
a
pretty
big
chunk
of
projects.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Baxley
back
to
commissioner
meyer.
F
Thank
you,
so
I
wanted
to
clarify
I
I
wasn't
meaning
to
say
that
I
thought
the
transit
passes
were
were
too,
but
the
points
for
the
transit
passes
were
too
generous.
I
think
it
should
be
completely
possible
to
reach
the
full
six
points
that
they
need
through
the
transit
passes.
I
I
just
thought
that
it
should
also
be
possible
for
them
to
meet
a
lower
threshold
and
mix
and
match
with
other
things,
if
they're
interested
in
doing
that.
F
I
hope
that
we
can
get
some
tiers
into
that,
but
you
know
I
I
think
it's
a
really
huge
deal
if
we
can
persuade
developers
to
provide
those-
and
you
know
it's
something-
that
even
if
the
residents
don't
use
them
very
often
it's
still
going
to
help
provide
more
funding
for
metro
transit
for
the
for
the
buses
in
our
system.
So
I
think
it'll
have
positive
effects
for
reducing
car
dependence
for
the
city
as
a
whole.
F
I
just
want
there
to
be
to
be
more
flexibility
instead
of
a
zero
or
one
thing.
So
in
answering
commissioner
baxley's
question
you,
you
said
like
what
what
was
your
default
idea
on
this?
Can
you
just
repeat
it
like
what?
What
did
you
originally
have
in
mind
to
require
like
what
level
of
subsidy
would
they
have
to
get
to
get
the
six
points?
F
C
Yeah,
thank
you
for
the
clarification,
that's
helpful
and
is
in
line
with
some
of
the
comments
that
we've
received
from
metro
transit,
so
the
as
far
as
the
actual
like
dollar
subsidy.
That's
something
I
would
anticipate
we're
not
gonna
get
into
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
That's
you
know.
Obviously,
the
those
numbers
will
change
over
time.
C
We're
really
trying
to
rely
on
metro,
transits,
existing
programs
to
set
this
standard,
and
I
think,
we're
very
open
to
amending
this
strategy
as
metro,
transit's
programs
change,
but
as
in
a
try
to
give
an
example
here.
So
the
the
residential
program
that
metro
transit
is
working
on,
which
isn't
it's
not.
C
If,
if
the
building
owner
commits
to
giving
at
least
one
space
or
one
one
pass
per
dwelling
unit
to
every
unit
in
the
building
that
the
cost
to
the
building
owner
comes
in
at
something
like
less
than
20
a
month,
so
whether
or
not
the
building
owner
passes
that
cost
on
to
the
tenant,
or
they
just
absorb
it
in
as
an
overall
cost
in
their
pro
forma
who
knows,
but
their
their
pilot
they're
piloting
that
program
now
and
it
has
been
very
successful.
It
sounds
like
so.
F
Okay-
and
you
know,
I'm
definitely
going
to
trust
your
judgment
and
and
that
of
the
people
you've
consulted
on
on
what
is
most
effective,
reaching
our
goals
of
reducing
card
dependency
and
and
promoting
low
carbon
and
active
transportation
choices.
I
I
guess
I
would.
I
would
just
say
that
let's
come
up
with
the
maximum
option,
that
they
can
get
this
the
full
six
points
for
and
also
give
them
a
medium
option
so
that
they
can
choose
to
mix
and
match,
rather
than
having
only
an
all
or
nothing
option.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner
meyer
commissioner
baxley.
H
Sorry,
one
more
it's
my
understanding
that
the
fair
subsidy
is
only
with
mass
transit.
I
mean,
for
example,
if
a
company,
because
we're
really
talking
about
parking
reduction
and
if
a
company
would
sponsor
everybody's
uber
or
lyft
fares
so
that
they
wouldn't
have
to
have
car
ownership,
is
something
like
that
considered
or
part
of
an
option
there.
That
would
feed
into.
C
That
good
good
question
we've
had
similar
feedback
around
well.
Could
you
qualify
for
giving
nice
ride,
passes
to
your
employees
or
something
like
that,
and
I
don't
think
on
the
surface.
We're
necessarily
opposed
to
doing
things
like
that.
I
think
I
would
maybe
question
whether
or
not
the
subsidy
to
other
car
based
services
would
be
meeting
our
goals,
but
the
the
complication
again
is
with
enforcement,
I
think
with
transit.
We
have
this
partner
in
metro
transit.
That's
the
you
know
we
can.
H
A
All
right
next
up,
commissioner
marwa.
P
P
You
know
you're,
seeing
like
car
dependency
is
such
an
issue
and
we
live
in
a
very
cold
climate,
and
if
you
want
to
get
out
of
this
out
of
the
area,
you
really
need
to
rely
on
a
car,
but
I
think
more
achievably
you
can
be
trying
to
get
families
to
have
one
car
or
one
person
relies
on
transit
or
biking
and
the
other
person
you
know.
Maybe
in
the
winter
they
trade
off
whatever
it
may
be,
but
I
guess
what's
kind
of
the
best
practice
out
there
around
I
mean.
P
Is
there
an
incentive
that
developers
could?
I
know
they're,
you
know
only
providing
one
parking
spot
as
is:
is
there
you
know
a
rent
credit
or
something
or
this
that
comes?
If
you
are
one
credit
of
one
car
household,
I
don't
know
just
I'm
just
kind
of
curious.
What
what
kind
of
practices
you're
seeing
out
there
to
incentivize
that
that
route.
C
The
rent
credit
example
is
a
good
one.
We
there
are
some
other
cities
that
have
ordinances
around,
requiring
the
separation
of
the
cost
of
parking
from
the
cost
of
rent
in
residential
development.
C
It
would
be
something
that
would
be
tackled
by
our
licensing
or
housing
staff,
but
in
large
part,
all
the
the
same
things
that
you
would
use
to
get
people
to
get
out
of
their
cars
completely
are
the
same
things
that
you
would
do
to
encourage
two-car
households
to
become
one
car,
households
and-
and
I
think
I'd
maybe
emphasize
again-
that
the
parking
ordinance
changes
are
are
one
part
of
of
encouraging
that
sort
of
thing
to
happen.
C
The
built
form
map
is
a
huge
aspect
of
that,
having
more
development
on
more
of
our
transit
corridors,
to
make
it
possible
that
better
transit
service
is
a
huge
part
of
it
and
then
just
time
also,
we've
seen
we
know
from
demographics
along
the
the
first.
Our
first
light
rail
line
along
the
blue
line
that
auto
use
has
by
households
in
that
corridor
has
gone
down
significantly
since
that
line
opened.
C
P
Right
guys,
thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
know
what
you
guys
were
thinking
on
that
front
kind
of
approaching
it
from
from
that
angle.
So
thank
you.
F
Thank
you,
so
I
I
like
the
idea
of
offering
some
points
like
one
or
two
for
nice
ride
it
should.
I
don't
think
it
should
be
as
much
as
as
for
public
transit
passes
both
because
it's
you
know
a
lot
cheaper
and
also
because
nice
ride
is
only
available
during
certain
months,
but
that
should
be
still
something
that
gets
them
a
point
or
two
if
they
provide
passes
for
that,
I
don't
think
that
we
should
subsidize
uber
or
lyft.
F
There
are
quite
a
few
studies
that
have
shown
that
those
rideshare
programs
are
significantly
increasing
congestion,
so
they
reduce
the
need
for
parking
so
that
that's
the
good
side
of
it
and
I'm
glad
they
exist.
You
know
it
means
that
I
have
a
you
know,
a
safety
mechanism
if
I
need
to
get
somewhere
quickly
urgently,
but
it's
still
significantly
increasing
congestion
on
our
roads
to
have
them,
so
I
would
think
they
would
go
against
our
goals
to
subsidize
them,
and
then
what
was
I'm
thinking?
What
was
the
other
thing?
A
All
right
going
somewhere,
commissioner,
a
smiley.
E
Thank
you.
So
I'm
sorry,
I'm
laughing
about
your
commissioner
meyer's
last
comment,
because
that
has
totally
happened
to
me.
It
was
like
literally
anyway.
The
one
comment
that
I
was
thinking
about
after
commissioner
marwa
mentioned
the
incentives
for
families
to
reduce
the
number
of
vehicles,
and
I
kind
of
feel
like
this
may
be
going
a
little
out
of
scope
of
the
project
and
going
into
the
realm
of
wants
and
nice
to
haves
and
god.
E
Wouldn't
it
be
great
if
we
could
somehow
impact
that
is,
and
it
will
be
part
of
the
like
a
policy
sort
of
like
a
program
that
would
be
kind
of
after
the
fact
of
a
development.
So
it
would
be
they
would
it
would
have
to
be.
It
would
have
to
be
tracked
somehow,
but
then
I
was
thinking
if,
for
example,
an
employer,
a
larger
employer
is
able
to
or
provides
remote
working
opportunities
to
their
employees,
so
that
that
reduces
their
need
to
drive
and
be
physically
present
in
that
in
the
building
and
whatnot.
E
And
that
might
be
a
a
good
incentive
also-
and
I
think
many
people
will
could
win
from
that,
including
the
employees
themselves
and
because
I
was
like
thinking
well
how?
How
can
I?
How
can
a
family
only
have
one
car
if
there
are
more
than
two
people
who
are
working
in
different
places,
and
if
I
don't
have
to
travel
for
work,
then
I
can
potentially
pull
that
off.
So
just
kind
of
wondering
if
that's
something
that's
doable
or
can
be
explored
again.
E
A
All
right,
commissioner,
ford
go
ahead.
L
C
We
have
received
that
as
an
idea
to
consider
from
some
staff.
At
this
point
we
haven't
put
it
in
the
in
the
table,
but
this
is
something
the
commission
feels
strongly
about
us
we'll
we
can
explore
it
more.
The
only
caution
I
would
give
to
that
is
that
I-
and
I
think
commissioner
meyer
had
mentioned
you
know
that
they're
not
year
round.
They
also
sometimes
are
not
installed
in
the
same
place
every
year,
so
there's
some
enforcement,
ongoing
enforcement.
C
That
would
be
needed
and
then,
of
course,
in
the
event
that
they
stopped
participating
in
that
at
some
point
in
the
future,
we
would
have
to
go
after
those
properties
to
get
them
to
do
something
else
from
the
table
in
the
future.
So
that's
those
have
been
the
concerns
that
have
kept
that
off
of
our
recommendations.
So
far,.
L
L
A
You
you,
commissioner,
ford
commissioner
meyer.
F
Yeah
sorry,
I
remember
what
I
was
gonna
say,
which
is
just
that
I
like
what
commissioner
marway
brought
up
and
just
wanted
to
mention
that
you
know
california
has
a
statewide
law
that
requires
the
the
builder
to
unbundle
the
cost
of
parking
from
the
cost
of
events.
I
would
you
know,
look
to
that
law
as
an
example.
F
That
would
be
good
for
us
to
follow,
and
you
may
be
right
that
it
shouldn't
be
in
the
zoning
that
it
should
be
in
licensing,
but
it
still
would
help
address
some
of
the
goals
that
we
want
to
see.
So,
even
if
we're
not
directly
requiring
it
to
us,
it's
also
something
that
should
be
mentioned
in
the
conversation
about
this
that
you
know
we
should
want
those
costs
unbundled,
and
I
know
that
you
know
I.
I
can
think
of
quite
a
few
examples
of
properties
nearby.
F
That
don't
do
that.
So
it
may
be
the
case
that
most
of
the
ones
that
are
in
in
recent
years
have
have
switched
over
to
that.
But
certainly
it
wasn't
like
that
very
far
back
in
the
past,
but
I
still
think
it
would
be
a
good
thing
to
do
and
then
about
the
nice
ride
station
idea
on
the
commissioner
ford
brought
up.
F
F
You
know
we
can
take
those
on
a
case
by
case
basis,
but
I
wouldn't
have
you
know
a
separate
dedicated
category
to
that
because,
like
you
said,
sometimes
there's
already
going
to
be
a
station
nearby,
and
so
they
won't
really
need
it
all
right.
Thanks.
A
All
right,
commissioner,
caprini.
Q
Hi
everyone,
so
I
am
learning
so
much
and
I
love
it
and
I
think
I'm
al
also
so
old
school
that
I'm
also
really
kind
of
taken
back,
because
you
know
I
I'm
probably
older
than
most
people
on
this
call
and
just
the
direction
that
we're
going.
I
I
totally
in
agreement
with
you,
know,
climate
control
and
you
know
eliminating
green
gas
emissions.
All
of
that,
but
my
question
and
concern
is
I'm
going
to
use
north
minneapolis
as
an
example.
Q
So
earlier
in
the
conversation
mr
bernard
joseph,
you
mentioned
grocery
stores,
and
I
know
that
you'd
referenced
loading,
but
there
was,
but
you
mentioned
something
about
grocery
stores
going
outside
of
the
city
in
the
surrounding
areas.
Perhaps
you
meant
you
said
suburbs,
so
I'm
thinking
about
all
of
this
in
terms
of
like
what
it
looks
like
five
years
from
now
10
years
from
now
and
we're
all,
I
would
hope
pretty
aware
of
how
slow-going
progress
is
for
north
minneapolis
and
the
disparities.
Q
You
know
economically
housing,
all
of
the
things
that
we're
we're
hopefully
beginning
to
lift.
Now,
since
there's
been
a
lot
of
progressive
changes,
that
have
happened
and
what
do
you
mean
by
so
so,
for
instance,
cub
food?
So
am
I
to
believe
that,
with
all
of
these
kinds
of
changes
and
and
eliminating,
you
know
places
where
people
can
drive
like
parking
and
all
that
that
the
hope
is
that
eventually,
the
city
will
become
a
space
where
there
are
no
big
grocery
stores,
with
big
parking.
Q
Lots
and
they'll
be
more
like,
like
the
whole
foods,
that's
downtown
inside
a
a
building
or
an
apartment,
complex
and
then
the
other
thing
is.
How
are
we
educating
and
getting
information
to
I'm
going
to
use
north
minneapolis
as
an
example?
Even
though
you
know
you
could
you
could
speak
to
cedar
riverside
or
you
know
very
various
pockets
throughout
the
city?
How
are
we
educating
people
on
the
goals
of
these
zoning
changes
and
who's
responsible
for
getting
them?
Q
That
information,
because
for
from
from
where
I
am
and
where
I'm
sitting
what
I
feel
like
what
I'm
going
to
hear
people
are
going
to
start
to
notice
changes.
This
is
always
how
it
is
and
then
they're
going
to
start
asking.
When
did
this
happen?
How
who
knew
where?
Where
could
we
have
gotten
information,
not
necessarily
to
push
back
but
to
feel
like
they're
part
of
and
that
they
are
they're
they're,
obviously
benefiting
because
we're
saving
the
earth?
Q
So
I
think
it's
so
I
guess
I
want
to
know
who's
responsible
for
that
and,
if
and
I'd
like
to
I'd
like
to
know,
because
I
want
to
make
sure
that
it
happens
because
a
lot
of
the
and
not
necessarily
you
know
everything
that
you've
presented
tonight,
but
just
the
importance
of
what
you're
presenting
and
what
the.
Q
Why,
because
you
know
I
I
was
thinking
about
the
hospitals
downtown
and
you
know
like
that
was
brought
up
and
the
the
city
hall
and
the
government
center
all
of
these
places
where
people
are
coming
from
all
over
the
state,
pretty
much
you.
We
can't
say
that
they're
not
and
you
know
being
required
to
park.
You
know
five
miles
away
and-
and
maybe
that's
the
case
and
take
you-
know
the
blue
line
or
the
red
line-
the
yellow
line
further
into
the
city
to
to
get
to
those
spaces.
Q
So
so
my
the
the
bottom
line
is
these
are
the
things
that
I
want
you
to
to
to
answer
is
is
what
you
said
about
the
grocery
stores?
Is
there
a
notion
or
a
belief
or
a
desire
to
get
rid
of
the
bigger
grocery
stores
to
push
them
out
of
the
city?
Q
Is
that
a
you
know,
because
it
could
be
a
part
of
all
of
this
and
who's
providing
information
and
education
on
the?
Why
these
zoning
rules
or
laws
or
what
are
statutes
whatever
they're
called,
are
being
changed
so
I'll?
Stop
there.
C
Sure,
commissioner,
capri,
thank
you
for
those
questions
on
in
terms
of
the
grocery
stores,
the
intent
with,
and
maybe
I
should
give
a
little
more
detail
on.
What
I
was
talking
about
in
terms
of
grocery
stores
is
that
we
have
loading
requirements
today
for
uses
that
get
a
lot
of
deliveries.
C
Grocery
stores
is
one
of
one
of
those
uses
that
have
trucks
coming
and
going
fairly
frequently
in
minneapolis
2040,
we
identified
some
uses
that
would
be
really
important
to
getting
people
out
of
their
cars
and
to
creating
more
complete
communities
throughout
the
city.
So
there's
there's
neighborhoods
that
really
don't
have
access
to
groceries,
where
you
have
no
choice
but
to
get
in
your
car
to
go,
get
groceries
or
to
get
on
a
relatively
long
transit
ride.
C
So
the
goal
with
reducing
some
of
those
loading
requirements
for
grocery
stores
is
that
it
might
make
it,
and
we
hope
that
it
would
make
it
easier
for
grocery
stores
to
locate
within
neighborhoods
on
commercial
corridors
that
might
have
the
right
space
to
physically
put
a
store,
but
might
not
have
enough
room
to
get
their
loading.
C
That
we
require
in
the
zoning
ordinance
to
happen
on
that
site
and
I
think
we're
thinking
in
terms
of
smaller
neighborhood-sized
grocery
stores.
When
we're
talking
about
this
requirement.
C
Q
I'm
gonna
interrupt
for
one
second,
because
that's
exactly
what
I
was
thinking
that
you
that
you
were
saying
and
I'm
glad
that
we
came
to
that
space
because
in
north
minneapolis
those
locations
are
convenience
stores
that
don't
necessarily
have
the
kinds
of
products
that
are
healthy
and
conducive
to
a
long
grocery
list.
That
would
last
someone
a
month.
So
I
guess
I'm
really
working
hard
to
like
try
to
push
myself
away
from,
because
I
agree
with
what's
what
we're
discussing
and
I
I
want
to
go
in
that
direction.
Q
My
concern
is
the
unintentional
consequences
of
the
lack
of
information
and
education
and
then
the
opportunities
that
should
be
present
for
neighborhoods,
where
these
smaller
grocery
stores
will
be
located,
because
that's
not
the
case
in
in
the
area
in
which
I
live.
So
I
say
that
so
that
it's
on
the
record
and
that
it's
something
that
I
will
continue
to
to
to
have
conversations
about.
So
so
I
I
I
will
let
you
continue.
Q
I
just
wanted
to
interject
that
in
because
I
I
figured
that's
what
you
were
going
to
say,
and
I
I
don't
my
hope
is
that
let's
say
a
location
like
emerson
and
lowry
will
actually
have
the
kinds
of
groceries
that
I
would
or
someone
else
would
want
to
purchase
outside
of
a
a
bag
of
chips
and
a
pickle.
C
Yep
and
our
our
hope
is
that
what
we're
doing
here
is
to
reduce
one
barrier
to
that
happening
in
terms
of
what
you
mentioned,
as
far
as
like
making
sure
community
members
business
owners
everyone's
aware
of
of
these
goals.
C
Absolutely
on
the
same
page
with
you
there.
The
the
thing
that
we
would
point
to
is
that
there's
unending
appetite
for
that
type
of
outreach
and
it's
absolutely
necessary
and
we
have
limited
resources
and
it's
not
a
great
message
to
give,
but
with
minneapolis
2040,
which
is
what
all
of
this
is
based
on.
That's
where
all
of
the
goals
come
from.
C
We
had
over
200
over
150
public
meetings
received
thousands
of
thou
upon
thousands
of
points
of
feedback,
and
that's
what
we're
largely
pointing
to
in
terms
of
how
we
we
got
the
word
out
about
those
goals
in
terms
of
this
specific
project,
we're
doing
most
of
our
outreach
digitally,
obviously,
and
that
involves
getting
in
contact
with
our
business
associations
and
small
business
owners
throughout
the
city
and
our
neighborhood
groups,
notifying
them
as
well.
So
all
the
information.
C
Q
Mean
this
with
all
due
respect,
I
realize
we're
in
a
pandemic
and
it's
difficult
for
folks
to
be
up
against
one
another,
but
as
we
are
moving
in
this
new
normal
and
we
are
starting
to
get
back
to
a
space
where
we
are
gathering
in
places.
I've
seen
people
tabling
at
places
like
cub
food
on
broadway
I've,
I've
seen
people
handing
out
information
in
front
of
the
library
on
lowry
avenue.
Q
It's
a
matter
of
just
getting
the
information
and
knowing
that's
all
I
care
about
whether
that
they
get
the
information
they
don't
have
to
agree
with
it
or
disagree
with
it
and
I'm
not
putting
this
solely
on
you,
joseph.
I
think
everything
that
you've
presented
tonight
is
amazing
and
I
want
to
save
mother
earth
trust
me.
I
just
get
very
concerned
about
the
unintentional
consequences
of
people
who
don't
have
the
education
about
what
we
are
doing
to
them,
and
I
want
them
to
feel
as
if
they
are
doing
something
with
us.
Q
A
P
Hi,
I
just
also
just
thank
you,
commissioner
caprina,
for
bringing
up
about
kind
of
the
lack
of
education
about
why
we
reduce
parking
and
just
in
general,
I
went
to
you,
know
urban
planning
school.
So
all
we
talked
about
was
reducing
parking
and
why
that
was
important.
But
many
of
my
friends
didn't
my
partner
didn't
and
they
constantly
get
the
pushback
of
like
well.
Why,
like
we
live
in
a
city
that
everyone
drives
and
that's
kind
of
how
minneapolis
is,
I
feel
like
that
public
education
campaign
around?
P
Why
are
we
the
environmental
impacts,
especially
somewhere
like
in
minnesota,
which
is
so
different
than
portland
and
so
different
than
denver
and
in
other
issues?
Kind
of
is
that
that
you
know
that
general
kind
of
feeling
like
we're
going
in
one
direction,
but
people
aren't
necessarily
coming
with
it,
and
I
know
it's
part
of
the
2040
plan
and
all
the
work
that
was
done
into
that.
P
But
as
these
kind
of
ideas
and
kind
of
impacts
of
you
know,
seeing
uptown
not
have
any
new
parking
seeing
the
north
loop,
not
getting
all
these
these
places
where
people
go
and
now
there's
no
parking
being
built.
Just
you
know,
keep
that
in
mind
that
it
still
is
this
very
unknown
and
un
kind
of
reasonable
idea
too
many
people
who
didn't
study
this
day
in
and
day
out
and
understand
why
it's
so
important
to
protect
it.
But
thank
you,
pleasure
community
for
bringing
that
up.
A
C
A
All
right,
I
know,
kimberly's
gone,
I'm
not
sure
if
any
other
staff
have
any
updates
or
if
any
commissioners
have
any
comments
before
we
adjourn.
A
All
right
with
that,
we,
oh
commissioner,
caprini
did
you.
A
I
don't
think
so.
Okay,
okay,
we've
completed
all
of
our
agenda
items
and
our
next
meeting
will
be
committee
of
the
whole
on
march
25th.
Thank
you.