►
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
D
Section
13d
.021
due
to
the
declared
local
public
health
emergency,
the
city
will
be
recording
and
reposting
this
meeting
to
the
city's
website
and
youtube
channel
as
a
means
of
increasing
public
access
and
transparency.
This
meeting
is
public
and
subject
to
the
open
meeting
law
at
this
time.
I'll
ask
the
clerk
to
please
call
the
role,
so
we
can
verify
a
quorum
for
a
meeting
today.
G
C
D
Reflect
that
we
have
a
quorum.
The
agenda
for
today's
meeting
is
in
front
of
us
I'll
begin
with
the
consent
agenda,
which
includes
items
6
through
15
on
our
agenda
item.
6.
Are
the
gambling
license
approvals?
7?
Is
the
minneapolis
arts
commission
appointment
item
number
8?
Is
a
rental
license?
Reinstatement
item
number
nine?
Are
our
grant
applications
for
the
2021
met
council
livable
communities
demonstration
account
as
well
as
their
tod
grant
round
item.
D
10
is
a
contract
with
hennepin
county
for
emergency
rental
assistance
program
processing,
support
item
11
is
a
local
historic,
landmark
designation
for
the
como
avenue
congregational
church.
This
is
to
deny
the
designation
item.
12
is
referring
to
staff
the
matter
of
an
inclusionary
zoning
fee
ordinance
item
13
is
setting
a
public
hearing
for
a
sale
of
property
at
628.
East
franklin
item
14
is
setting
a
public
hearing
for
the
missing
middle
rental
pilot
project
land
sales
item.
15
is
a
rezoning
on
behalf
of
224
cedar
lake
road
south.
D
D
I'll
also
note:
we
have
a
postponed
item
on
our
agenda
unless
anyone
would
like
to
pull
that
off
for
further
discussion,
I'm
going
to
move
approval
of
the
consent
agenda
and
to
postpone
item
17
till
our
next
meeting
on
july
27th,
where
it
could
again
be
postponed.
Are
there
any
items
anyone
would
like
to
pull
or
discuss.
A
C
There
are
five
eyes
on
on
the
consent.
Agenda
and
number
17
there
are
is
one
eye
on
everything,
but
number
11,
which
is
a
nay
those.
D
H
H
H
One
of
the
most
important
refinements
has
been
to
separate
what
was
originally
proposed
as
a
large
single
project
into
two
distinct
but
related
components,
a
senior
housing
project
and
what
will
be
a
family
or
workforce
project?
The
property
has
been
replated
into
two
separate
lots
to
facilitate
these
components.
H
The
write
down
is
necessary
to
support
affordability
in
both
phases
and
staff.
Believe
it
fairly
represents
the
current
estimated
fair
market
value
phase.
One
will
be
snelling
yards
senior
housing
with
a
hundred
units
of
affordable
senior
housing
in
a
four-story
building.
The
units
will
be
a
mix
of
zero
one
and
two
bedroom
units
affordable
at
thirty
percent.
Fifty
percent
and
sixty
percent
ami,
including
eleven
units
set
aside
for
homeless
veterans.
H
Additional
building
features
include
an
exercise
room
community
room,
a
business
center
visiting
clinic
space,
bicycle
parking
and
storage,
outdoor
gathering
spaces,
public
art
and
a
community
garden.
The
phase
2
project
is
anticipated
to
be
similarly
sized
with
similar
amenities,
including
many
shared
spaces,
which
will
encourage
intergenerational
socializing.
H
H
The
senior
project
is
scheduled
to
close
in
september,
pending
the
tax
increment
financing
award.
I
will
describe
next
the
land
sale
term
sheet
and
the
project
data
worksheet
for
the
senior
project
are
attached
to
your
report
for
additional
details.
The
workforce
project
is
still
working
to
secure
capital
and
is
estimated
to
close
in
2023.
H
The
long
fellow
community
council
has
been
actively
involved
in
reviewing
the
project
and
providing
input
throughout
the
process.
Staff
is
recommending
the
sale
of
these
properties
to
the
purchasers,
as
described
in
your
report.
Madam
chair,
would
you
like
me
to
describe
the
tax
increment
financing
for
the
project.
H
The
total
development
costs
for
the
project
are
estimated
at
just
under
24
million
dollars.
Developer
participation
in
the
project
includes
half
a
million
and
deferred
developer
fee.
To
date,
more
than
22
million
in
sources
have
been
secured
for
the
project.
Those
financial
details
are
included
on
the
project
data
worksheet
that
is
attached
to
your
report.
H
The
developer
has
request.
Excuse
me:
the
developer
has
requested
pay
as
you
go.
Tif
assistance
from
the
city
to
help
pay
for
eligible
construction
costs,
the
snelling
yards
senior
housing
tax,
increment
financing
plan
establishes
a
new
housing
tip
district
and
pending
approval.
The
city
will
issue
a
pay-as-you-go
tax.
Increment
note
in
the
amount
of
1
million
seven
hundred
seventy
one
thousand
two
hundred
dollars
to
the
project.
H
The
pay
go.
Note
does
not
obligate
the
city
to
make
any
payments
to
the
note
holder
beyond
ninety
percent
of
the
tax
increment
generated
by
the
project.
The
tif
plan
is
also
attached
to
your
report
and
provides
a
detailed
breakdown
of
how
the
increment
will
be
distributed
and
used
as
required
by
state
statute.
The
snelling
yards
senior
housing
tax
increment
financing
plan
was
transmitted
for
the
required
45-day
public
review
to
hennepin
county
minneapolis
school
board,
the
city
planning,
commission,
the
longfellow
community
council
area
business
associations
and
other
interested
parties
on
may
28th.
H
The
tiff
redevelopment
contract
terms
require
the
developer
to
deliver
100
units
of
affordable
senior
housing
within
18
months
of
closing,
with
the
additional
provisions
outlined
in
your
report,
the
project
has
received
an
award
from
the
affordable
housing
trust
fund
in
the
amount
of
2.85
million,
as
well
as
pass-through
grant
awards
from
minnesota
deed
metropolitan
council
in
hennepin.
County
staff
also
recommends
approval
of
the
snelling
yards
senior
housing
tax,
increment
financing
plan.
H
D
A
C
D
Those
items
are
approved
and
I
want
to
thank
miss
glasper
for
her
hard
work.
The
lack
of
comment
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
lack
of
excitement
for
this
we've
seen
it
in
front
of
us
many
times
and
staff
have
been
working
on
it
for
many
many
years.
So.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
work.
We'll
move
on
to
item
number
three,
which
is
a
public
hearing
with
regard
to
the
regulation
of
rooming
units
and
congregate
living
facilities
within
the
housing
code.
D
I
Thank
you
good
afternoon
to
our
goodman
council
members,
I'm
andre
bosniak
the
interagency
coordinator
for
regulatory
services,
and
I'm
here
today
to
present
on
the
housing
code,
amendments
for
the
single
room,
occupancy
ordinance,
I'm
also
joined
by
kelly,
rose
jones,
our
inspections
director
who's
currently
on
vacation,
but
will
be
available
for
any
questions.
So
thank
you
kelly
for
joining
us.
I
The
next
slide,
please
thank
you.
Sros
are
intended
to
fill
a
gap
on
the
housing
continuum
for
people
who
earn
low
wages,
work
intermittently
or
part
time,
and
for
whom
a
dwelling
unit
might
be
financially
unfeasible.
The
ordinance
implements
several
goals
of
the
minneapolis
2040
plan,
including
growth
and
more
residents
equitably,
benefiting
from
affordable
and
accessible
housing.
It
also
pursues
innovative
housing
types
to
help
meet
existing
and
future
housing
needs,
while
seeking
to
eliminate
homelessness
through
safe,
stable
and
affordable
housing
opportunities.
I
I
This
ordinance
permits
sros
on
parcels
that
currently
allow
four
plus
units
r3
is
proposed
as
the
lowest
density
district,
where
sros
would
be
allowed
on
7
500
square
foot,
lots
in
our
four
and
above
zoning
districts
sros
would
be
allowed
on
5
000
square
foot.
Lots
and
above
this
designation
supports
the
intent
of
the
minneapolis
2040
plan
and
was
described
in
more
detail
by
zoning
staff
during
an
earlier
public
hearing
of
the
zoning
planning
committee.
I
In
order
to
qualify
for
an
sro
license,
a
property
must
have
and
maintain
a
tier,
1
or
tier
2
rental
license.
This
is
done
to
ensure
good
housing
standards
and
buildings
that
are
safe
and
habitable.
The
occupancy
stands
at
one
to
two
people
per
room
max.
This
housing
type
is
small
and
addresses
specific
needs.
Limit
was
proposed
in
order
to
acknowledge
both
current
building
systems
and
older
minneapolis
homes
such
as
sewage
and
electrical,
and
to
address
a
gap
in
programming
specific
for
single
adults
at
risk
of
experiencing
homelessness
as
we're
establishing
sros.
I
We
want
to
ensure
that
they're
successful
and,
to
this
end,
we
have
proposed
a
slow
and
controlled
rollout
by
requiring
operation
by
non-profit
or
government
agencies,
with
a
reputable
track
record
and
sro's
renters
come
in
without
having
established
relationships
already,
and
this
can
lead
to
additional
conflicts
when
multiple
renters
come
into
a
shared
space.
As
we
gain
more
experience
and
develop
strong
oversight,
we
are
open
to
expanding
the
operating
requirements
in
the
future.
I
I
Lastly,
sros
will
have
standalone
licenses
and
similar
to
their
recently
enacted
short-term
rental
ordinance.
They
will
be
based
on
our
current
rental
license
program,
but
there
will
be
additional
elements
specific
to
the
sro
use,
such
as
management
plans
asking
owners
about
how
they
will
maintain
cleanliness
of
shared
spaces
such
as
bathrooms,
or
kitchens
excellent
things
in
terms
of
implementation.
Most
of
the
current
rental
license.
Mechanisms
will
continue
to
apply
including
complaint
and
compliance
enforcement.
For
example.
I
D
D
I
think
this
would
be
the
staff
presentation.
Okay,
great
great,
we'll
see
if
there
are
any
questions
from
anyone
on
the
committee.
I'll
note
that
all
three
authors
are
on
this
committee,
so
we
might
have
a
better
sense
of
it
than
others,
but
I'm
welcoming
any
questions.
Anyone
would
have
seen
no
questions.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
report
and
for
the
fast
way
that
you
and
all
of
the
other
staff
got
this
moving.
I'm
going
to
proceed
to
the
public
hearing
and
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
and
I'll
ask
the
clerk.
D
If
there
are
speakers
in
queue
on
this
item,
I
note
that
there
are
four
speakers
in
queue.
So
I'd
ask
you
each
to
speak
for
two
minutes
and
I'll
tell
you
the
order
that
is
in
front
of
me.
I
think
it
has
to
do
with
the
order
that
folks
have
signed
up,
so
it
would
be
jacob
strauss,
followed
by
amos
buddy,
brit
and
bach
and
then
eric
sorum.
So
if
you
would
like
to
go
ahead,
mr
strauss
and
press
star
six
to
unmute,
you
have
two
minutes.
Thank
you
for
being
here
today.
J
Hello,
this
is
jacob.
I
believe
that
we
should
really
open
up
this
amendment
to
allow
operation
of
sros
citywide
so
right
now
you
cannot
construct
them
in
r1
and
r2
neighborhoods.
I
really
think
this
goes
against
the
spirit
of
the
2040
comprehensive
plan
and
if
you
think
that
we
can
allow
triflexes
right
now
with
three
or
four
bedrooms
per
unit,
you
know
that's
10
to
12
residents
in
in
one
plot,
so
we
could
just
have
a
compromise
where
we
limit
sros
to
a
similar
density.
J
J
If
you
look
at
other
cities
like
seattle,
which
allowed
for-profit
developers
to
construct
sros,
there's
a
lot
of
demand
among
students
and
young
professionals
to
live
in
the
type
of
housing,
and
we
could
see
the
exact
same
thing
in
minneapolis,
you
could
imagine
such
units
being
constructed
downtown
or
in
the
loop,
and
I've
heard
comments
in
previous
meetings
that
we're
just
wading
into
this
issue.
Right
now
we'll
revisit
sros
in
the
future,
but
realistically
that's
not
going
to
happen.
J
The
city
council
isn't
going
to
revisit
sros
anytime
soon,
and
while
we
continue
to
move
really
slowly
on
these
affordable
housing
policies,
we
can
continue
to
just
dive
in
to
this
homelessness
crisis.
Affordable
housing
crisis,
the
key
to
making
rent
more
affordable
in
minneapolis
is
to
increase
density,
and
this
is
a
perfect
way
to
do
that.
There
really
isn't
a
sensible
reason
to
not
permit
it
citywide
and
to
not
allow
for-profit
developers
to
build
these.
They
have
construction
costs
that
are
10
to
20
percent
lower
than
non-profits
and
government
agencies.
J
And,
lastly,
you
know
with
the
staff
presentation
framingham
just
as
a
housing
for
low-income
individuals.
This
framing
is
totally
wrong.
You
know
all
types
of
individuals
who
don't
necessarily
want
to
pay
for
a
full
unit
could
want
to
live
in
an
sro,
and
we
really
need
to
stop
viewing
as
just
some
sort
of
transit
living
low,
low-income
form
of
housing
as
you
as
a
type
of
home
that
there's
a
wide
spectrum
of
demand
for
so
I
really
hope
that
that
you
guys
will
open
up
this
legislation.
D
F
Hi
yeah,
my
name,
is
amos
muddy.
I
live
at
46th
street
and
coal
play
county
south
and
I'm
calling
in
support
of
the
ordinance
I'm
really
excited
about
the
potential
of
adding
single
room
occupancy
housing
to
minneapolis.
I
think
it
makes
a
ton
of
sense.
It
will
increase
the
amount
of
lower
cost
housing.
F
I
agree
with
the
last
caller,
though
I
think
we
shouldn't
ban
for-profit
entities
for
managing
them.
We
don't
manage,
or
rather
we
don't,
ban
for-profit
entities
for
managing
apartment
buildings.
That
would
be
a
big
restriction
on
apartment
buildings.
We
wouldn't
have
many,
so
I
think
you
know
if
we
want
to
encourage
the
adoption
of
sros
and
not
stigmatize
them
by
you
know
forcing
them
to
only
be
managed
by
government
and
non-profit
entities.
D
K
Hi,
my
name
is
britt
onbox.
I
live
in
ward
8.,
I'm
climbing
today
in
support
of
a
monday
bsr
legalization
to
allow
for
anyone
with
additional
rooms
or
who
wishes
to
run
a
boarding
house
to
do
so
in
every
part
of
our
city.
Sros
were
traditionally
not
only
these.
K
You
know
single
room
occupancy
hotels,
but
they
were
also
people
who
rented
out
part
of
their
house
or
who
you
know
had
a
boarding
house
that
was
anywhere
really
in
the
city
and
limiting
sros
to
governments
and
nonprofits
not
only
ignores
the
history
of
its
roads
and
what
made
them
work
so
well
in
the
past,
but
it
also
limits
people
from
you
know
having
a
bnb
and
running
it
with
you
know,
one
or
two
more
permanent
tenants.
K
So
why
should
those
kinds
of
housing
be
only
for
out
of
towners
when
we
could
also
have
more
long-term
tenants
in
an
sro?
I
currently
live
in
a
single-family
home.
I
would
love
to
live
in
industrial
when
I'm
older-
and
you
know.
L
K
Don't
want
all
of
the
space
that
raising
children
requires,
so
I
would
really
ask
you
to
please
amend
and
then
pass
this
ordinance
so
that
all
kinds
of
people
can
live
in
an
sro
if
they
want
to
everywhere
in
the
city,
because
every
part
of
our
city
needs
more
housing.
D
D
M
N
N
N
N
D
C
G
Thank
you,
mate,
I'm
cherry
and
co-author.
I
just
first.
You
know,
of
course,
wanted
to
to
move
this
item,
but
before
doing
that,
wanted
to
address
some
of
the
concerns
of
the
speakers
and
also
thank
them
for
coming,
I
think
to
start
off,
I
I
want
to
really
point
out
how
quickly
staff
and
my
co-authors
have
worked
on
this.
I
think
they're.
One
of
the
issues
that
was
brought
up
was
that
we
were
wading
into
this
and
I
don't
think
that's
the
correct
characterization.
G
You
know
this
is
something
that
has
been
moved
extremely
quickly
and
that
has
given
us
a
little
bit
of
time.
A
G
G
If
we
did
take
the
time
to
talk
to
stakeholders,
we
talked
to
kind
of
the
likely
folks
that
would
be
able
to
that
have
this
type
of
housing
in
some
of
the
suburbs,
like
the
nonprofits
that
are
successfully
operating
them
now,
and
that
that's
why
we
have
the
the
limitation
on
government
entities
as
well
as
nonprofits.
We
looked
at
who,
in
the
next
couple
years,
would
be
able
able
to
actually
be
shovel
ready
and
actually
get
this
type
of
housing
there.
G
So
I'm
really
proud
of
kind
of
the
very
thoughtful
mornings
that
we
have.
I
agree
with
many
of
the
call
many
of
the
points
the
callers
make
this.
If
this
is
something
that
can
really
increase
the
amount
of
housing
available,
we
need
to
go
all
in
and
we're
doing
that
in
a
very
smart
way.
D
Thank
you,
council,
member
schroeder
and
I'll
take
that
as
a
motion
to
approve,
and
I
will
happily
call
on
council
member
gordon
also.
E
Thank
you
very
much.
I
appreciate
that
and
appreciate
working
with
staff
and
my
colleagues
on
this.
I
think
it's
pretty
significant
that
we
brought
this
forward
at
this
point
in
this
condition,
and
we
didn't
hear
a
lot
of
people
coming
in
expressing
concerns
and
worry
about
it.
I
think
there
there
had
certainly
been
stories
and
reputations
about
flop,
houses
and
rooming
houses,
and
even
some
of
the
ones
that
are
still
operating
from
back
in
the
80s,
because
they
were
grandfathered
in
do
have
concerns
from
time
to
time,
but
it
shows.
E
I
think,
that
the
people
of
minneapolis
are
ready
for
this
and
understand
it,
and
maybe
also
demonstrates
that
we
found
a
sweet
spot
about
how
we
can
take
our
first
step
into
allowing
these
again
to
address
the
critical
need
for
affordable
housing.
There's
really
enormous
potential
here,
especially
when
they're
rooming
houses
that
take
into
consideration
affordability,
to
provide
something,
that's
affordable
without
a
big
subsidies
for
people
who
are
on
fixed
income,
social
security
students
and
others.
E
Who
can
do
this,
and
it
can
work
really
well
as
long-term
housing
for
some
and
short-term
housing
for
others
as
they're.
Moving
on
with
whatever
future
options,
they
might
have,
I'm
excited
about
it.
I've
heard
from
non-profit
developers
who
have
had
great
success
doing
this
in
neighboring
communities
and
they
want
an
opportunity
to
try
to
to
see
and
show
that
this
can
work
well
in
minneapolis.
E
I
think
if
we
enter
into
it
with
the
regulations
and
the
rules
and
the
restrictions
that
we
have
now
and
see
it
successful,
just
like
we
did
with
adu
somebody
just
mentioned
making
those
comments
and
with
other
things,
we
actually
are
nimble
enough
to
open
things
up
and
expand
it
and
move
forward.
We
don't
want
to
have
a
lot
of
unintended
consequences,
and
I
am,
I
will
certainly
support
amending
the
housing
side
of
this
right
now
and
also
when
we
get
to
the
zoning
code
as
well.
E
D
You
thank
you
councilmember
gordon,
is
there
anyone
else
who
would
like
to
comment
on
this
item
I'll
likely
reserve
my
comments
for
the
council
meeting
because
both
of
our
co-authors
have
spoken.
I
will
note
that
we
do
have
successful
intentional
communities
which
are
very
similar
to
roaming
houses,
and
we
successfully
changed
our
code
a
couple
years
ago
to
allow
for
very
small
apartments,
also
micro
apartments.
D
B
D
O
Thank
you
councilmember
goodman
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
alex
kolhas,
I'm
a
city
planner
from
the
cped
zoning
administration
section
before
you
today
is
an
appeal
of
a
decision
of
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment
from
their
hearing
of
june
3rd
2021,
denying
two
variances
for
lawful
establishment
of
an
existing
fence
at
3415
two
and
a
half
street
northeast
the
appellants
are
the
property
owners
who
are
also
the
applicants
for
the
variances.
O
I
will
note
that
the
original
board
decision
did
also
include
approval
for
a
variance
for
retaining
wall
near
the
fence
in
the
front
yard
that
retaining
wall
approval
is
not
being
appealed.
So,
with
that
a
little
bit
of
background
on
the
property,
you
can
see
the
survey
here.
This
property
is
located
in
the
r1a,
multiple
family
district
and
the
interior.
One
built
form
overlay
district.
It's
a
triangular
lot.
O
O
O
You
can
see
the
the
house
on
the
far
left
side
of
this
photo
and
then
towards
the
center
is
that
you
know
the
bulk
of
that
open
yard
space,
which
is
pretty
flat,
but
it
does
start
to
slope
down
towards
the
sidewalk
in
front,
as
well
as
a
slope
down
towards
the
towards
the
corner
side.
The
right
hand
photo
here
is
more
recent.
O
This
is
submitted
by
the
by
the
appellate
as
part
of
their
variance
application
taken
this
past
winter,
and
it
shows
some
improvements
they've
installed,
including
that
retaining
wall
you
can
see
which
again
was
approved
under
variants
and
is
not
the
subject
of
this
appeal,
though
it
was
installed
at
the
same
as
part
of
the
same
project,
but
just
above
the
retaining
wall.
You
can
see
an
opaque
wooden
fence
which
is
in
this
photo.
You
can
see
it's
installed
along
the
front
property
line.
O
O
You
can
see
that
flat
yard,
with
the
slopes
down
towards
the
front
and
corner
side,
the
right
hand
photo
shows
the
more
recent
conditions
post
construction
and
that
retaining
wall
does
not
continue
along
the
the
corner
side,
but
the
defense
itself
does
continue
and
for
the
front
portion
of
this
photo,
it
continues
that
same
height
of
approximately
three
feet,
eight
inches,
but
it
does
step
up
first
to
a
height
of
four
feet:
five
and
a
half
inches,
and
that
first
step
does
occur
in
front
of
the
rear
wall
of
the
house
and
then,
as
you
look
even
further
towards
the
back
of
the
property
near
the
garage,
it
does
step
up
again.
O
Opaque
fences
are
subject
to
a
maximum
height
of
three
feet
in
a
required
front
yard,
as
well
as
the
portion
of
the
required
corner
side
yard
in
front
of
the
rear
wall
of
the
house.
The
applicant
requested
two
variances
one
for
the
front
and
one
for
the
corner
side
for
lawful
establishment
of
the
fence.
As
constructed
as
the
members
of
the
committee
are
aware,
there
are
three
required
findings
for
consideration
with
variances.
O
O
Staff
finds
that
there
are
some
unique
circumstances
of
the
property
which
were
not
created
by
the
applicant,
in
particular
the
triangular
shape
and
those
the
slopes
in
the
front
and
corner
sides.
However,
staff
finds
that
these
do
not
constitute
practical
difficulty,
which
supports
the
proposed
fence:
height
variances,
maximum
fence,
height
requirements
do
vary
in
different
portions
of
a
property,
for
example
a
front
or
corner
side
yard,
as
opposed
to
a
a
rear
yard,
and
this
is
a
function
of
the
ordinance
itself
and
does
not
constitute
a
practical
difficulty
in
this
case.
O
When
you
incorporate
the
the
height
of
the
retaining
wall
itself,
which
I
believe
is
a
little
over
four
feet
and
plus
the
additional
three
feet,
eight
inches
for
the
fence
at
that
southwestern
corner
of
the
property.
That's
an
increase
of
over
seven
feet
in
overall
height
across
these
two
structures
which
staff
found
to
be
a
substantial
increase
and
not
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
attendance
ordinance.
In
this
case.
O
On
this
basis,
staff
recommendation
was
for
denial
of
the
two
requested
fence,
height
variances
and,
ultimately,
the
board
of
adjustment
voted
to
adopt
staff
findings
and
deny
those
two
variants
requests.
In
conclusion,
staff
recommendation
regarding
this
appeal
is
also
for
denial.
There
was
some
public
correspondence
received
from
the
columbia
park,
neighborhood
association,
as
well
as
some
support
signatures
from
neighborhood
residents
again.
This
concludes
my
presentation,
but
I'm
available
for
staff
questions
and
I
believe
the
appellants
are
in
attendance
during
this
hearing
as
well.
D
Thank
you,
mr
kulhaus,
for
your
report,
we'll
see
if
there
are
any
questions
from
anyone
on
the
committee.
With
regard
to
the
staff
report
on
this
item,
seeing
none
I'm
going
to
proceed
to
open
the
public
hearing
with
this
type
of
hearing,
we
give
the
appellate
the
opportunity
to
make
their
case
first.
I
understand
that
elliot
and
sarah
fisher
or
on
the
line.
I
would
invite
them
to
press
star
six
to
a
mutant
if
you
can
keep
it
to
about
five
minutes.
That
would
be.
M
Great
hello,
my
name
is
elliot
fisher.
I
am
the
current
resident
at
3415
two
and
a
half
street
2018,
my
wife
and
I
were
looking
for
a
place
to
start
a
family
and
looked
all
over
minneapolis.
Until
we
found
the
house
on
3415
two
and
a
half
street
northeast,
we
fell
in
love
with
the
location
uniqueness
of
the
lot.
The
property
of
the
4791
square
foot
triangle
shaped
lot
close
to
columbia
park.
We
both
played
rugby
for
the
past
10
years
due
to
the
unique
shape
and
size
of
our
lot.
M
Also,
the
back
door
of
the
house
faces
south
opening
to
the
properties,
front
and
corner
side
of
the
yard
instead
of
the
backyard,
which
is
very,
very
small
in
comparison
to
the
side
yard.
This
main
part
of
the
yard
overlooks
a
light
industrial
air
right
before
active,
train
tracks
that
go
under
university
avenue.
M
Our
house
has
minimal
updates,
since
it
was
built
and
with
a
little
elbow
grease,
we
knew
we
could
make
this
house
our
home
in
summer
of
2020.
We
decided
we
would
like
to
build
a
fence
and
retaining
wall
to
allow
us
to
utilize
this
space
as
a
private
backyard
and
create
a
barrier
from
the
light
industrial
area
train
and
street
to
protect
our
dog
and
soon
to
be
born
son.
We
reached
out
to
the
city
to
investigate
the
ordinances
based
on
the
uniqueness
of
our
property.
M
However,
kovit
was
in
full
swing
and
the
city
wasn't
doing
any
site
visit
at
the
time
we
utilized
the
information
gathered
and
early
fall
of
2020.
We
finished
the
first
big
steps
and
building
the
fence
and
retaining
wall.
In
the
summer
of
20-20
weeks
after
our
sun
was
born,
city
came
to
inspect
defense
and
informed
residential
wall.
We
built
did
not
meet
all
aspects
of
the
required
ordinances
and
that
we
need
to
submit
multiple
variants
requests.
M
Recently,
the
zoning
board
approved
our
retaining
wall
variants
conditionally
upon
us
filing
permit
for
the
two
feet
that
were
built
over
the
ordinance
requirements
of
four
feet,
based
on
the
height
of
the
smoke
on
the
left
side
of
the
front
yard,
which
are
already
working
to
complete.
The
zoning
board,
however,
denied
our
request
for
two
variances,
based
on
the
height
of
our
fence
at
two
different
locations.
M
We
respectfully
appeal
this
decision
and
will
lay
out
in
further
detail
why
the
fence
build,
is
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
ordinances
based
on
creating
a
private
space
on
our
property.
That
is
uniquely
challenging
small
lot
and
does
not
create
a
safety
risk,
as
the
area
can
still
be
recently
viewed
from
this
front
surrounding
vicinity.
M
So
I
don't
know
if
everyone
can
see
the
document
that
I
submitted.
But
if
you
look
at
the
picture
right
before
I
start
on
the
corner
side,
videos
based
on
the
layout
of
the
house,
you
can
see
in
the
blue
there
that
is
what's
considered
to
be
the
corner
side.
We
were
originally
looking
at.
You
know,
adding
on
more
space
to
our
backyard.
M
D
M
I
did
submit
when
I
signed
in
today
I
tried
signing
in
last
night.
However,
my
appeal
was
not
in
the
topics.
D
Okay,
it's
within
the
overall
appeal
statement.
I
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
mr
fischer
is
talking
us
about
something
specific
that
he
thinks
we're
looking
at
and
we're
not.
M
Okay,
I
apologize
is
there
a
way
that
it
would
be
able
to
send.
D
No,
that's
not
your
fault.
We
have
staff
trying
to
pull
it
up
from
the
smartsheet
now,
so
why
don't
we
give
her
a
moment?
I
just
don't
want
you
to
think
we
can
see
something
that
we
can't.
M
No,
I
appreciate
that,
because
there
are
a
couple
pictures
within
the
first
page
that
show
obviously
the
top
view
of
our
yard,
our
property,
but
also
a
little
bit
more
scaled
back
where
you
can
see
the
light
industrial
space.
You
know
where
there's
a
business
kitty
corner
from
us,
there's
an
open
field
with
train
tracks
just
to
the
south
of
us
and
then
to
the
right.
We
have
university
right
next
to
us
as
well
that
I
thought
would
be
beneficial
for
you
guys
to
see.
D
M
M
M
Our
house,
which
is
set
12
feet
in
front
of
other
houses
in
front
of
other
houses,
has
a
pre-existing
deck
and
the
area
in
this
narrow
section
of
the
property,
because
of
its
unique
triangular
shape
at
issue,
is
that
the
corner
side
fence
we
constructed
steps
up
to
four
feet:
four
inches
prior
to
the
city's
definition
of
the
backyard
which
allows
for
six
foot
sets.
The
fence
reconstructed
is
similar
to
the
spirit
of
the
ordinance,
while
taking
into
consideration
that
our
house
sits
12
feet
in
front
of
the
other
houses
in
the
neighborhood.
M
Think
about
what's
most
important,
I'm
looking
at
how
the
house
is
in
minneapolis,
we
notice
that
we
have
a
lot.
I
have
privacy
in
the
corner,
side
property.
You
can
see
here
in
nokomis
down
in
south
minneapolis
there's
a
couple
of
different
examples
within
the
city.
5800
vincent
ad
is
another
one
where
obviously
there
was
an
approval
of
over
84
foot
fence
on
the
corner
side
of
the
lot,
which
was
one
of
the
reasons
we
thought
we
would
be.
Okay
with
that.
M
M
As
far
as
the
front
yard
variants
appeal
when
constructing
the
fence
along
the
front
of
our
property
provide
a
safe
place
for
us,
our
raven
or
dog.
We're
met
with
unique
challenges.
One
of
the
majority
reasons
that
the
yard
space
is
small
triangular.
A
lot
like
mentioned
about
29
percent
of
the
usual
yeah-
I
just
technically
the
backyard,
so
we
thought
we
would
like
to
incorporate
the
front
yard
where
we
would
be
able
to
have
a
lot
more
space
to
utilize
the
front
yard
space
for
privacy.
M
Yes,
sorry,
overall,
through
building
this
whole
process,
we
were
trying
to
keep
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
city
we've
reached
out
to
them
to
the
cova.
You
came
in
in
front
of
a
lot
of
challenges.
M
You
know
the
reason
we're
looking
for
these
variants
is
just
have
a
little
bit
of
privacy
when
we're
eating
again
on
the
south
side.
It's
a
light,
industrial
area
that
we're
asking
for
privacy
from
and
then
on
the
residential
side.
We
have
approval
from
all
the
surrounding
neighbors
who
signed
a
petition
and
people
north
of
us
are
able
to
see
right
into
our
yard.
Just
because
the
fact
that
we're
on
the
bottom
of
a
hill-
and
I
guess
that's
wraps
it
up-.
D
L
Minutes
hi:
this
is
sarah
hooper
fisher.
Yes,
I
would
like
the
opportunity
to
speak.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
you
know
we
understand
that
the
staff
you
know
the
staff
finding
is
that
they
should
be
denied,
but
we
really
do
ask
that
you
reconsider
and
look
at
you
know
all
the
effort
that
we've
put
in
to
explain
why,
because
of
the
uniqueness
of
our
lot,
you
know
that
the
changes
or
the
in
the
areas
where
the
fence
was
a
little
bit
higher
than
the
you
know
city.
L
Would
the
ordinance
dictates
why
it
would
make
sense
for
this
unique
lot.
You
know,
as
my
husband
spoke
about,
there's
an
image
on
page
three
on
the
bottom,
where
you
can
see
we've
put
in
arrows
of
the
four
different
hills
that
we
are
working
with
on
this
lot,
I
mean
the
lot
initially
sloped
down
two
different
ways.
We
are
on
the
bottom
of
the
hill,
two
different
hills.
You
know
this.
L
The
city
did
speak
to
the
fact
that
at
one
point
where
the
retaining
wall
is,
then
the
fence
is
even
higher,
so
it
makes
it
seven
feet.
Well,
unfortunately,
as
elliott
pointed
out
on
the
north
side
of
the
lot,
it's
level
with
the
sidewalk,
and
so
you
can
see
on
the
top
of
page
three,
that's
my
son
and
I
standing
in
the
yard
on
the
north
side
of
the
lot,
and
you
can
clearly
see
into
the
majority
of
our
yard.
L
You
know
we're
asking
to
just
use
this
space
the
same
way
as
our
neighbors
use
their
backyards.
Unfortunately,
our
lot
is,
you
know
different,
and
there
was
obviously
a
variance
request
when
the
house
was
built
because
it's
12
feet
in
front
of
all
the
other
homes
on
the
block,
and
so
you
know
looking
at
that
and
the
fact
that
the
house
is
at
normal.
The
lot
is
abnormal.
L
You
know
we're
just
trying
to
utilize
that
space
the
same
way
as
our
neighbors
and,
as
my
husband
mentioned,
all
of
the
neighbors
that
are
right
around
our
home.
You
know
they
did
sign
a
petition
for
us.
They
have
no
issue
with
our
fence.
You
know
the
neighborhood
association
has
no
issue
with
our
fence.
L
L
D
D
You
seeing
there
are
no
additional
speakers,
I'm
going
to
move
to
close
the
public
hearing
and
call
on
council
member.
Q
Reich.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
yeah,
in
reviewing
that
which
was
presented
by
the
appellants
and
the
staff
analysis.
It
is
somewhat
of
a
close
call
in
terms
of
the
practical
difficulty
threshold,
but
I
will
contend
that
the
concerns
around
septed.
I
think
I
would
side
with
the
appellants
in
their
observation.
Q
I
did
my
own
sort
of
site
analysis
with
inspector
greta
von
great,
my
boxer,
to
see
what
the
view
sheds
were,
and
I
think
they
their
description
is
accurate,
and
I
say
that
on
behalf
of
them
and
the
my
comrades
on
the
committee
here,
but
in
terms
of
their
difficulty,
you
know
they
are
trying
to
accomplish
two
things:
a
very
uniquely
configured
geographically
challenged
space.
That
is
very
unique.
Q
There
would
be
no
precedent
setting
element
to
acknowledging
that
part
of
it
and
they
are
trying
to
buffer
against
a
pretty
intense
environment.
It's
an
industrial
environment,
but
more
than
that,
it's
university
avenue
at
that
point.
North
university
avenue
really
does
live
up
to
its
minnesota
dot
designation,
highway
47..
Q
It
acts
that
way
it
operates
that
way.
It
sounds
that
way
and
it's
something
that
I
would
want
to
buffer
against.
To
enjoy
some
element
of
my
yard,
as
described
by
the
appellants,
and
so
these
things
all
in
conjunction
I'm
willing
to
support
the
appeal
as
submitted.
D
Thank
you,
councilmember
reich,
councilmember
reich,
has
made
a
motion
to
grant
the
appeal.
Are
there
further
comments
or
questions
from
anyone
on
the
committee?
Seeing
none
I'll
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the.
F
C
D
Are
six
eyes
that
motion
passes
and
I'd
like
to
ask
staff
to
draft
findings
to
support
council
member
reich's
motion
so
that
we
can
have
that
for
the
council
meeting
and
thank
you
to
the
staff
and
to
the
applicants
for
being
on
the
call
today
we'll
move
on
to
our
second
quasi-judicial
public
hearing,
which
is
public
hearing
number
five.
And
I
will
ask
mr
crandall
to
give
that
report.
P
P
The
application
for
the
conditional
use
permit
was
denied
by
the
city
planning
commission
at
their
june
14th
meeting,
and
the
applicant
is
appealing
that
decision
today.
The
site,
as
I
mentioned
before,
is
located
at
216
7th
street
south.
It
is
accessory
to
the
hyatt
centric
hotel,
which
fronts
along
2nd
avenue.
P
P
P
D
Are
there
any
questions
for
mr
crandall
on
item
number
five,
seeing
not
none,
I'm
going
to
proceed
to
open
the
public
hearing
with
this
hearing
will
give
the
appellant
an
opportunity
to
make
their
case
first.
Eric
hager,
I
understand,
is
on
the
line
if
you'd
like
to
go
ahead,
sir,
this
would
be
your
time,
please
press
star,
6
to
unmute.
A
Since
that
time
we,
you
know,
we've
made
some
business
decisions
and
are
moving
forward
with
demolishing
the
annex
building,
which
is
the
old
lifetime
fitness
facility.
We're
doing
that
for
a
large
number
of
reasons.
You
know,
for
instance,
it
is
functionally
obsolete.
A
It
really
doesn't
serve
any
purpose
for
for
our
current
business
model
for
the
hotel.
You
know,
unfortunately,
over
the
past
year
and
a
half
have
been
very
tough
for
the
hotel
business,
specifically
in
the
city
of
minneapolis
and
the
costs
of
you
know:
heating
and
cooling
and
maintaining
this
unused
fitness
facility.
A
A
Really
our
two
options
are
leaving
it
vacant,
which
we
don't
think
is
the
best
option.
Alternatively,
we'd
like
to
propose
some
sort
of
a
more
vibrant
use
that
would
be
more
attractive
than
a
vacant
lot,
while
allowing
us
to
generate
some
minimal
revenue
to
help
defray
the
cost
of
demolishing
the
building.
A
We've
been
working
with
our
design
team
to
make
a
concerted
effort
to
provide
the
most
attractive
parking
lot
possible,
which
is
why
we've
designed
this
additional
pocket
plaza,
which
shields
the
parking
lot
from
the
view
of
the
street,
and
we
just
generally
tried
to
design
it
in
a
very
sensitive
manner.
A
A
D
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
hager,
for
your
testimony.
I
will
look
and
see
or
actually
ask
if
there
is
any
member
of
the
public
who'd
like
to
speak
to
this
item
I'll
ask
the
clerk.
If
there
are
any
other
speakers
in
queue,
I
will
note
that
the
appellants
council
is
available.
I
don't
think
that's
going
to
be
required,
but
if
you'd
like
to
speak
for
two
minutes,
he's.
D
Welcome,
if
not
we'll
see
if
the
clerk
has
anyone
else.
D
Okay,
thank
you.
I'm.
B
D
B
The
only
things
that
I'd
just
like
to
point
out
are
that
I
do
believe
that
there
was
a
bit
of
a
misconception
at
the
planning
commission
meeting
that
accessory
parking,
lots
or
surface
parking.
Lots
were
generally
prohibited
in
the
downtown
parking
district
and,
although
obviously,
commercial
parking
lots
are
prohibited,
surface
parking
lots
in
the
downtown
district.
B
The
ordinance
specifically
allows
for
conditional
use
permits
for
accessory
parking
lots,
which
is
what
this
will
be.
Although
hotel
residents
may
need
or
patrons
may
need
to
pay
a
fee
to
park
there,
there's
not
going
to
be
obviously
people
from
office,
buildings
or
other
places
in
the
area
that
will
be
able
to
use
this
part.
This
parking
lot.
It
will
just
be
patrons
of
the
hotel,
so
it
is
an
accessory
use
that
is
allowed
as
a
conditional
use
in
the
downtown
parking
district,
and
I
guess
just
the
whole.
B
The
last
thing
that
I
would
add
is
that
the
defense
that
will
be
put
up-
that
was
something
that
was
recommended
by
the
downtown
neighborhood
association
and
was
something
that
magna
accepted
as
a
revision
to
its
proposal.
I
think
magnus
is
very
flexible
and
taking
the
recommendations
of
both
staff
council
member
goodman
and
then
also
the
neighborhood
association
into
account
to
try
to
strike
the
right
balance
between
just
having
a
vacant
lot
and
something
that's
appealing
to
the
downtown
area.
Thank
you.
D
G
G
Some
of
the
concern
this
this
lot,
I
believe,
is
zone
four,
the
the
highest
we
have
in
the
city
and
part
of
the
reason
to
like
that
the
applicant
is
coming
before
us
is
that
you
know
we're
trying
to
discourage
more
parking
lots
in
downtown
and
for
for
this
one
to
come
about,
like
I
wasn't
supportive
at
planning
commission,
because
there's
a
building
there
and
tearing
that
building
down
to
have
a
parking
lot
really
did
not
seem
like
the
best
use
of
that
land.
G
I
think
I
would
be
a
little
bit
more
more
open
if
this
was
seen
as
temporary.
If
this
was
if
there
was,
it
was
very
clear
that
the
hotel
was
would
be
coming
back
to
say
we
are
going
to
be.
You
know
having
a
better
solution
than
just
a
straight
up
parking
lot
in
some
of
the
area
that
we
have
zoned
to
be
the
densest
in
the
city,
so
that
those
are
my
major
concerns
with
this
proposal.
D
I
am
going
to
move
to
grant
the
appeal
and
I
actually
share
council
members
schrader's
concerns,
but
the
motion
we
have
in
front
of
us
or
the
question
we
have
in
front
of
us-
is
a
cup
or
not.
So
let
me
first
start
by
saying
I
was
around
when
we
put
this
parking
lot
restriction
in
place
and
I
strongly
support
it.
But
the
parking
lot
ban
does
allow
parking
lots
accessory
to
existing
uses
so
they're
doing
exactly
what
they
were
told.
They
could
do
no
more
than
20
parking
spots.
There's
no
new,
curb
cut
here.
D
I'll
also
note
that
directly
in
front
of
the
hotel
is
a
bus
lane,
so
they
don't
even
have
the
loading
and
unloading
that
any
hotel
would
need
in
order
to
operate
over
my
years
on
the
council,
it's
been
very
challenging
this
site
because
it's
a
historic
structure
because
of
the
bike
lane
or
the
bus
lane
in
front
of
it,
and
I
will
note
that
the
athletic
building
is
no
crime
prevention
by
and
by
environmental
design
bonus
either.
That
building
is
about
as
pedestrian
unfriendly
as
it
would
be.
D
There
is
no
economic
motivation
for
them
to
leave
this
as
a
small
pocket
park
and
12
parking
spots.
I
have
not
talked
to
them
about
this,
but
my
guess
is:
they
would
try
to
sell
this
for
the
highest
and
best
use,
and
since
the
hotel
business
isn't
going
to
rebound
next
week,
I
would
think
that
they
would
probably
be
looking
sooner
rather
than
later.
Ultimately,
the
staff
recommended
approval
because
it
meets
the
criteria
for
a
conditional
use
permit.
In
my
mind,
conditional
use
means
allowed
with
conditions
and
the
conditions
we
would
have
placed
on.
D
It
were
things
like,
please
green
it
up.
No
additional
curb
cuts
and
they're
already
doing
all
of
those
things.
So
while
I
agree
with
council
member
schrader,
I
would
much
prefer
to
see
a
building
on
this
site.
What
they're
asking
for
is
allowed
and
all
they
need,
is
a
conditional
use
permit
and
the
staff
recommended
approval
kind
of
suggesting-
and
I
don't
think
councilmember
schroeder
is
doing
this
but
kind
of
suggesting
that
the
rule
is
you
can't
tear
down
a
building
for
any
parking
lot
at
all.
D
That's
just
not
true
accessory
uses
are
allowed,
and
in
this
situation
I
don't
even
think
they're
asking
for
it
for
parking
they're
asking
for
it
because
they
don't
want
to
have
to
heat
and
cool
a
giant
empty
building,
and
then
the
option
is
to
tear
it
down
and
have
nothing,
and
actually,
I
would
argue,
having
nothing
would
be
a
bigger
crime
prevention
by
environmental
design
type
issue,
so
I'd
prefer
they
would
commit
to
or
would
have
asked
for.
An
interim
use
permit.
D
D
I'd
be
interested
in
hearing
that,
just
because
of
council
member
schrader's
comments,
but
I'm
going
to
move
to
grant
the
appeal,
and
perhaps
since
councilmember
schroeder
asked
mr
bell
or
mr
hager
could
comment
on
if
you're
still
on
the
line,
what
the
interim
or
short-term
thinking
is
about
when
you
would
be
selling
this
and
or
what
the
use
would
be.
A
I
I
think
this
is
eric
hager.
I
think
I
was
muted,
so
our
time
for
our
horizon,
for
this
property
is
probably
five
to
eight
years,
at
which
point
we'll
both
sell
the
hotel
and
part
of
our
plan
in
demolishing
the
the
existing
lifetime
fitness
facility
constructing
the
accessory
lot
and
the
pocket
plaza,
is
to
de-risk
the
site
and
make
it
more
attractive
and
easier
for
the
next
developer
to
come
in
and
to
you
know,
likely
build
a
new
building
on
the
site.
D
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
answer
that
honest
answer,
councilmember
schroeder,
I'm
not
sure
that
that
assuages,
your
concerns,
I
think
the
longest
you
can
have
an
interim
use
is
five
years.
But
again,
that's
not
what
they're
asking
us
for.
I
think
they
meet
the
criteria
for
a
cup,
but
I'm
certainly
willing
to
hear
from
other
people
as
well.
Is
there
anyone
else,
who'd
like
to
speak
to
this
issue?
F
C
Councilmember
osmond
councilmember
ellison.
C
All
right,
councilmember
schrader,
no
chair,
goodman
hi.
There
are
five
eyes
and
one
name.
D
That
motion
is
approved
with
that.
We'll
move
to
our
last
item,
which
is
our
discussion
item.
This
is
the
regulation
of
rooming
units
and
congregate
living
facilities,
zoning
portion
and
I
do
want
to
note-
we
do
have
a
staff
report
and
I
want
to
thank
staff
for
your
patience
and
being
here
today.
Ms
turnquist
welcome.
R
There
were
stakeholder
meetings
that
provided
invaluable
insight.
The
zoning
code
text
amendment
is
intended
to
allow
residential
units
that
would
fill
a
gap
on
the
affordable
housing
continuum
for
people
who
earn
low
wages
or
work
intermittently,
creating
a
regulatory
framework
to
allow
for
new
and
to
better
regulate
existing
rooming
houses
and
single
room
occupancy
units.
R
R
Occupancy
would
be
limited
to
no
more
than
two
persons
per
room,
as
sros
are
meant
to
fill
the
housing
continuum
gap
for
single
adults,
the
goals
being
affordability
and
minimizing
over
capacity.
Conversion
of
existing
buildings
and
new
construction
of
sros
would
be
permitted
next
slide.
Please
single
room
occupancy
housing
facilities
would
be
operated
by
non-profit
or
governmental
or
a
governmental
agency,
and
does
not
include
residential
facilities
or
like
nursing
homes
and
supportive
housing.
R
R
The
city
planning
council
recommended
one
change
to
the
staff
recommendation
that
would
reduce
the
minimum
lot
area
for
sro
housing
in
the
r3
zoning
district
to
5
000
square
feet.
To
be
clear,
the
version
in
front
of
you
today
is
staff's
recommendation.
This
concludes
my
presentation.
Jason
wittenberg
and
I
are
available
for
questions.
D
Thank
you,
miss
turnquist
for
your
report.
I'm
going
to
call
on
my
co-author
councilmember
schrader.
D
Are
there
further
comments
or
questions
on
councilmember
schrader's
motion?
Seeing
none
I'll
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role.
G
D
It's
just.
It
is
incredible
in
terms
of
timeline
how
fast
this
happened,
and
I
know
that
the
staff
for
our
offices,
in
particular
council
member,
gordon
and
council
members
trader
staff,
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
this,
and
so
I
really
want
to
thank
you
all
for
doing
that.