►
From YouTube: October 17, 2022 Planning Commission
Description
Additional information at:
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
Let's
see
welcome
to
the
regular
meeting
of
the
City
Planning
Commission
today
is
Monday
October
17th,
my
name
is
Alyssa
Olson
I
am
the
President
of
the
Planning
Commission.
The
city
will
be
recording
and
posting
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
Minnesota
open
meeting
law.
At
this
time,
I
will
ask
the
clerk
to
please
call
the
roll.
B
C
A
All
right,
we
have
a
quorum.
Next,
we
will
proceed
to
the
agenda,
a
copy
of
which
was
posted
for
public
access
to
the
city's
legislative
information
management
system,
which
is
available
at
lims.nn.gov,
there's
also
copies
on
the
counter
by
the
clerk
over
there.
Commissioners
could
I
have
a
motion
to
accept
the
minutes
from
October
3rd.
A
Right
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
any
discussion,
seeing
none
all
in
favor,
say
aye
all
opposed
any
abstentions,
all
right
that
motion
passes
and
the
minutes
have
been
adopted.
Our
next
item
is
to
organize
our
agenda
for
this
evening,
I'm
going
to
read
through
all
the
items
on
the
agenda,
their
numbers
and
addresses
and
state
whether
they're
slated
for
consent,
continuous
continuation
or
return
or
discussion
consent
items
will
be
passed
by
the
board,
we'll
be
adopting
staff
recommendation
along
with
any
stated
conditions
if
they're
approved
on
the
consent
agenda.
A
So
if
you
agree
with
staff
recommendation,
you
don't
need
to
do
anything.
If
you
would
like
to
discuss
an
item,
please
raise
your
hand
or
say
something
and
we'll
put
that
item
on
the
discussion
agenda.
A
A
All
right,
seeing
none
we'll
put
item
number
four
on
consent,
item
number:
five:
six:
thirteen
and
six
twenty
three
Van
Buren
Street
Northeast.
We
will
discuss
this
item
number
six
is
upper
Harbor
Terminal,
which
are
all
of
the
following
address:
is
3800
First
Street,
North,
236th
Avenue
North
51
36th,
Avenue,
North,
51,
34th,
Avenue,
North,
3360,
First,
Street,
North,
3700,
Washington,
3648,
3701
and
36
39
Washington.
A
A
Item
number
seven
is
2309
Plymouth
Avenue
North.
This
item
will
be
returned.
It
has
been
withdrawn
by
the
applicant
and
item
number.
Eight
is
1254
Russell
Avenue
North.
This
item
has
also
been
returned
and
it
has
been
withdrawn
by
the
applicant,
so
number
seven
and
eight
will
be
returned
and
then
item
number
nine
3001
and
3003
Hennepin,
Avenue
and
1301
and
1309
West,
Lake
Street.
This
is
recommended
for
consent
is,
is
not
part
of
the
public
hearing.
A
A
D
A
A
So
first
up
is
our
consent.
Agenda
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
on
the
consent
agenda.
This
public
hearing
is
only
for
items
four
or
six
number.
Nine
is
not
part
of
the
public
hearing.
So
if
there's
anyone
here
who
would
like
to
speak
on
items
four
or
six
before
we
approve
the
consent
agenda,
you
can
come
to
the
podium
now
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
go
ahead
with
your
comments.
A
F
See
a
ped
planner
I
am
assigned
to
the
projects.
The
applicant
had
proposed
two
new:
multiple
family
residential
dwellings,
one
at
2309,
Plymouth,
Avenue,
North,
the
other
at
1254,
Russell,
Avenue,
North,
sorry,
I'm
speaking
to.
F
The
applicant
has
decided
to
withdraw
the
application,
so
the
applications
are
no
longer
before
the
City
Planning
Commission
or
the
City
of
Minneapolis
for
approval.
My
understanding
is
that
they
want
to
make
some
adjustments
to
the
proposed
development
in
light
of
some
additional
information
that
we've
learned
from
Excel
Energy
thanks
very
much.
A
Yeah,
oh,
if
Shannon
could
follow
up
with
you
guys
with
more
information.
If
that
would
be
okay
with
you,
yeah
and
and
I
I'm
sure,
there's
ways
we
can
get
that
information
to
you,
yeah
yeah,
all
right
is
there
anyone
else
who
would
like
to
speak
on
items
four
or
six
before
we
close
the
public
hearing
on
the
consent
agenda,
all
right,
seeing
none
I'm
going
to
close
the
consent
agenda.
Public
hearing
Commissioners
could
I
have
a
motion
to
adopt
the
consent
agenda.
A
A
All
right!
Next
is
our
continuance
agenda.
A
A
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
any
discussion,
seeing
none
all
in
favor,
say:
aye
aye,
aye
all
opposed
any
abstentions.
All
right
that
item
will
be
continued
to
the
November
1st
meeting.
A
All
right,
let's
move
on
to
our
discussion
item
for
the
evening.
I
have
a
question
for
the
clerk.
Do
we
need
to
take
an
official
motion
to
return
the
items?
Okay?
So
maybe
we
should
do
that?
Okay.
So,
let's,
let's
see
if
we
can
have
a
motion
to
return
item
seven
and
eight.
B
A
Right
any
discussion,
all
right,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye,
all
opposed
any
abstentions.
All
right
those
items
have
been
returned
and
we'll
move
on
to
our
discussion.
Item
number
five
and
staff
is
Andrew
friends.
K
Good
afternoon,
president
Olson
and
commissioners
before
you
today
are
four
land
use:
applications
for
a
proposed
new
six-story
64-unit
residential
building
at
6
13
and
623
Van
Buren
Street
Northeast.
The
subject
property
consists
of
two
Parcels
between
Van
Buren
Street
and
Central
Avenue
North
of
Spring
Street
Northeast.
These
two
Parcels
constitute
one
zoning
lot.
This
property
is
currently
occupied
by
a
single
family
home
on
the
613
parcel
and
a
public
alley
on
the
623
parcel.
K
The
alley
on
this
block
is
somewhat
unique
in
that
it
is
established
by
an
easement
over
private
property
rather
than
as
dedicated
public
right-of-way.
This
property
is
a
through
lot,
so
it
has
Frontage
and
front
yards
on
both
Van
Buren,
as
well
as
Central
Avenue
and
then
Frontage
on
Spring
Street
as
well.
It
has
access
to
the
public
alley
that
runs
over
the
North
End
of
the
property,
as
well
as
the
adjacent
north-south
alley
on
the
Block.
K
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
construct
a
new
six-story
residential
building
containing
64
units
at
the
property.
The
building
would
include
one
level
of
underground
parking
accessed
from
the
alley
to
the
rear,
long-term
bike.
Parking
is
proposed
to
be
provided
in
a
bike
room
at
the
first
floor
and
short-term
bike
parking
would
be
provided
adjacent
to
both
Central
and
Van
Buren.
The
building
Lobby
would
be
located
at
the
southern
end
of
the
building
near
the
Van
Buren
Spring
Street
intersection
with
walk-up
units
moving
North
along
Van
Buren.
The
project
is
subject
to
inclusionary
zoning.
K
K
This
rezoning
application
is
like
many
of
the
rezoning
applications
that
have
come
before
you
in
the
last
two
years,
in
that
it's
required
due
to
a
conflict
between
the
existing
primary
zoning
district
and
the
applicable
land
use
and
built
form
policy
guidance
for
the
site.
So
this
site
has
the
future
land
use
designation
of
neighborhood
mixed
use
and
the
built
form,
designation
and
built
form
overlay
District
of
corridor
six.
K
The
applicant
is
also
seeking
two
setback
variances.
So
this
this
property,
as
I
mentioned,
is
a
through
lot
with
required
front
yards
adjacent
to
both
Van
Buren,
as
well
as
Central,
the
applicable
District
minimum
setback
here
in
the
corridor.
Six
district
with
underlying
residential
zoning
is
15
feet,
however,
on
the
Van
Buren
side,
they're,
subject
to
an
increased
established
front
yard
of
28.9
feet
in
depth
and
that
setback
is
drawn
off
of
the
adjacent
home
to
the
north.
K
So
they're
seeking
variances
to
both
of
these
front
yards
adjacent
to
Van,
Buren
from
28.9
feet
to
15
feet,
matching
the
district
minimum
and
from
15
to
5.3
adjacent
to
Central.
K
The
applicant
is
also
seeking
site
plan
review
and
the
project
has
proposed,
meets
or
exceeds
all
the
site
plan
review
standards,
except
for
the
building
placement
standard
adjacent
to
Spring
Street
Northeast.
We
are
recommending
granting
alternative
compliance,
given
the
constraints
imposed
by
the
unusual
lot
shape
and
the
narrow
depth
adjacent
to
Spring
Street,
in
addition
to
the
four
land
use
applications
that
are
before
you
today.
There
are
also
two
administrative
land
use
applications
associated
with
this
project.
K
The
project
has
proposed
requires
one
far
premium
to
increase
the
far
from
three
to
three
point:
one.
They
are
meeting
the
requirement
or
the
standard
for
the
enclosed
parking
far
premium.
The
project
also
requires
a
minor
tdmp,
and
that
is
attached
to
the
staff
report
for
reference
they're,
proposing
to
exceed
the
required
TDM
points
through
the
limited
vehicle
parking,
the
pricing
of
parking
and
the
transit
information
TDM
strategies.
K
There
have
been
a
significant
number
of
public
comments
on
this
proposal.
Some
of
those
were
attached
to
the
published
staff
Report
with
the
agenda
and
then
some
others
you
should
have
received
today
so
I'm
happy
to
go
into
detail
on
any
of
the
findings.
If
you
would
like
me
to
if
you
have
any
questions,
but
we
have
found
that
the
proposed
project
meets
all
of
the
required
findings
and
staff
recommends
approval
of
all
four
applications.
Subject
to
the
conditions
listed
in
the
staff
report
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
You
Andrew
are
there
any
questions
for
staff,
commissioner,
rainbow.
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Yes,
I
do
I
in
Reading.
The
remarks
from
the
neighbors
I
do
have
some
questions
based
on
what
they
sent
in.
So
first
of
all,
it's
it's
been
it's
our
understanding
that
a
variance
cannot
be
granted
for
economic
hardship
reasons.
Only
what
what
is
your
aunt,
your
response
to
that
question.
K
President
Olson,
commissioner
rainville
that's
correct.
The
the
first
variance
finding
requires
practical
difficulties
due
to
circumstances
unique
to
the
site
that
are
not
economic
in
nature,
as
outlined
in
the
staff
report.
You
know
this
is
a
very
unique
site
that
has
uncommon
restrictions
related
to
its
required
yards
and
its
developable
area.
K
So
you
know
this
property
is
a
is
a
five-sided
lot
that
is
roughly
triangular
in
in
shape,
so
it's
about
129
feet
in
depth
at
the
Northern
end,
and
and
only
about
63
feet
in
depth.
At
the
southern
end,
it
has
two
front
yards
as
as
a
through
lot
and
then
one
of
those
front
yards
is
increased
to
almost
double
the
regular
District
minimum
front
yard
setback.
K
If
you
look
in
the
in
the
staff
report,
there's
some
information
about
the
percentage
of
the
property
that
is
occupied
by
the
required
yards,
as
well
as
the
the
alley
easement
compared
to
what
would
be
occupied
by
required
yards
on
a
typical
parcel
of
the
same
size.
And
so
staff
has
found
that
the
shape
of
the
lot
having
two
front
yard
setbacks,
The,
increased
depth
of
the
front
yard
setback
and
the
alley
easement
all
together,
constitute
a
practical
difficulty
in
complying
with
the
full
required
yards.
Yeah.
L
And
what
would
you
say
to
the
observation
that
solar
panels
would
be
prohibitive
on
the
house
directly
to
the
Western
North
of
it.
K
Commissioner
rainville
a
six-story
building
is
allowed
here
by
right.
That's
what
the
comp
plan
guidance
is
and
that's
what
the
built
form
overlay
District
that
applies
to
the
to
the
site
is,
and
so
the
question
with
with
the
variants
is
what
the
impact
of
the
proposed
reduced
front
yards
is
on
on
the
on
the
adjacent
properties,
not
what
the
impact
of
of
a
six-story
building
on
the
property
generally
is.
L
K
Commissioner,
rainville
I
I
haven't
done
that
analysis.
I
would
expect
that
is
probably
true,
but
the
height
is,
is
allowed,
so
they're
allowed
to
build
a
six-story
building.
They
are
just
the
variances,
allow
them
to
or
would
authorize
the
building
closer
to
both
Street
frontages,
okay.
L
Thank
you
and
again
another
question
from
a
resident.
The
proposed
far
prohibits
planning
on
new
trees.
Is
that
true.
K
Commissioner,
rainville
I
I'm
not
sure
exactly
what
is
being
referred
to
there.
This
project
includes
and
and
exceeds
the
tree
requirement
under
site
plan
review.
K
There
may
be
some
areas
where,
due
to
the
shadowing
of
the
building,
it
is
less
feasible
for
a
tree
to
reach
maturity
than
it
would
if
this
building
weren't
built,
but
this
building
is
this
project
is
complying
with
the
site
plan,
review
standards
for
for
landscaping
and
is
providing
more
trees
than
are
required.
Okay,.
A
M
Good
evening
Commissioners,
my
name
is
Carol
Lansing
I'm,
an
attorney
at
fagory
Baker
wrong,
a
factory
Drinker
Bittle
and
wreath
that
keeps
changing
I'm
here,
making
introductions
tonight,
I've
been
working
with
the
development
team
on
the
applications,
because
Mark
and
Danny
Perkins
are
not
able
to
be
here
both
for
unexpected
family
reasons,
and
they
do
send
their
regrets
in
that.
For
that
they
also.
Let
me
ask
me
to
let
you
know
that
they
are
of
course
sympathetic
to
the
the
understandable
concerns
of
the
Neighbors
about
this
change
and
they've.
M
They
are
willing
to
work,
of
course,
with
the
city
and
Neighbors
on
other
types
of
concerns
like
traffic
management
or
parking
Management
on
the
street
and
Andrew,
of
course,
did
a
great
job,
giving
in
his
presentation
and
his
report,
and
we
think
that,
with
respect
to
the
variances,
it's
very
clear
that
there
are
practical
difficulties
in
developing
on
this
particular
lot
because
of
its
unique
shape
and
circumstances
that
justify
those
yard
variances
and
been
here
with
djr
is
going
to
wants
to
focus
just
a
little
bit
on
some
of
the
changes
that
were
made.
M
N
N
So
they
all
line
up
on
that
side
and
at
those
unit
entrances
when
our
intent
was
to
enhance
The
Pedestrian
experience
with
fencing
in
those
yards
and
creating
some
nice
landscape
spaces,
so
that
those
respond
to
the
The,
Pedestrian
and
sidewalk
environments.
And
then
we
did
additional
things
on
the
south
end
and
along
Central
Avenue
to
activate
those
spaces,
including
at
the
main
entry.
We
added
some
space
for
seating.
We
added
some
potential
public
art
architecturally.
N
We
added
canopies
all
along
the
public
sides
of
the
building,
but
especially
at
that
main
entry
on
Spring,
Street
and
Central
Avenue
to
provide
architectural
interest
and
some
enhanced
Landscaping
in
all
of
those
areas.
We
also
have
a
bike
Lounge
facing
Central
Avenue:
that's
not
only
a
space
for
storage,
but
a
space
for
fixing
bikes
and
actual
space
to
be
in
there
too.
N
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Albert
has
a
question.
E
A
Thank
you
all
right,
any
other
questions
for
the
applicant,
all
right,
I'm,
not
seeing
any.
Thank
you
we'll
move
on
with
our
public
hearing
now.
So,
if
there's
anyone
else
here
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item,
you
can
come
to
the
podium
state,
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
proceed
with
your
comments.
Please.
O
O
O
I've
really
been
wondering
asking
myself
a
lot
of
questions
Mike.
What
could
I
have
done
differently
is
one
in
2018
I
engaged
with
the
2040
plan.
We
volunteered
with
Cena
in
2019
a
surveyor
is
on
my
lot.
I
come
out,
I
ask
him
what
he's
doing
he
says
it's!
None
of
your
business
I
contact
who
can
I
contact,
I
contact,
the
city
I
contact,
my
council
member
who
says
to
me:
don't
worry
about
it.
There
was
a
mistake,
Corridor
six
and
mistake:
who's,
Heather,
Worthington,
I,
Google,
Heather
Worthington,
oh
okay,
she's
pretty
legit
this.
O
They
he
lays
out
exactly
that.
I!
Don't
need
to
worry
about
this
and
I
wouldn't
be
here
if
it
was
interior
three
and
they
were
proposing
something
for
interior
three,
because
I
I'm
also
wondering
why
is
development
so
either
or
why
is
it
either
you're
for
it
or
you're
a
NIMBY?
Why
can't
it
be
and
right,
like
increased
density,
does
provide
access
to
housing
and
it
can
be
thoughtfully
designed.
O
You
know
the
2040
plan
adopted
this,
but
didn't
do
zoning
studies
so
allowing
a
variance
on
this
property.
Yes,
it
is
a
unique
lot
and
I
do
not
believe
that
they've
met
criteria.
One
and
three.
This
six
stories
building
makes
such
a
huge
impact
versus
if
you
allowed
a
variance
for
a
duplex
or
Triplex
or
fourplex
for
Van
Buren,
Street,
okay,
right
I'm.
Only
here
talking
about
Van
Buren,
Street
I'm,
not
blanketing.
This
about
everything,
2040.
O
The
applicant
has
not
proven
that
something
else
can't
be
built
here
and
Corridor.
Six
I
agree
this.
They
do
have
the
legal
right
under
quarter
six,
but
quarter.
Six
is
two
to
six
stories.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
six
stories
and
then
you
don't
have
to
ask
for
more.
It's
like
me
asking
saying:
I
I
just
need
more
than
just
this
Podium
to
speak
to
you.
I
need
more
I,
don't
quite
understand
why
there
could
be
something
built
on
the
slot
and
it
doesn't
need
to
block
our
already
financed
solar
project
on
our
home.
O
O
Staff
states
that
the
proposed
variants
will
not
be
injurious
to
the
user
enjoyment
of
my
property,
but
he
has
not
given
any
evidence
to
this.
There
will
be
five
balconies
directly
looking
into
my
miners,
our
Sun's
bedroom,
okay.
O
Yes,
when
we
had
the
community
meeting
with
the
developers
they
mentioned
well,
there's
25
other
windows.
Those
windows
actually
just
look
at
the
side
of
our
home,
but
the
five
balconies
on
the
North
side
to
Central
do
look
directly
into
my
son's
home
and
I'd
like
them
to
be
removed.
It
is
injurious
to
the
enjoyment
of
our
property.
O
The
applicant
is
proposing
parking,
but
it's
really
not
enough
for
our
residential
street.
You
know:
I
have
a
doctor's
appointment
tomorrow.
I
can't
walk
there.
There
is
a
good
clinics
within
walking
distance
to
my
house,
but
they
don't
take.
My
insurance
I
do
need
a
car.
We
have
one
car
if
my
son
is
sick,
I
have
to
get
put
him
in
a
car
and
take
him
to
a
doctor's
appointment.
So
you
cannot
argue
with
me
and
say
that
all
64
plus
people
who
will
be
living
at
this
proposed
development
won't
have
cars.
O
Where
are
they
going
to
park
when
there's
only
19
parking
spots
and
they
they're
putting
in
19
parking
spots
to
get
more
because
they
were
already
a
thousand
square
feet
over
what
they
could
be
right,
they're
asking
to
exceed
the
far
it's
just
they
keep
asking
for
more.
Why
can't
they
just
develop
something
on
that
property
under
quarter
six
that
just
fits.
Why
do
there
have
to
be
more?
O
We
have
a
lot
of
concerns.
I
don't
want
to
take
up
more
time
because
more
of
my
neighbors
showed
up.
This
is
not
an
in
either
or
this
is
an
and,
and
we
keep
showing
up
with
these
developers
right.
But
at
this
point
you
have
actually
approved
a
development
of
24
units
at
635
and
you're,
potentially
going
to
be
approving
a
development
of
64.
on
a
really
narrow
residential
street.
That
does
not
have
a
bus
on
it.
I
just
think
we
can
do
better
as
a
city.
A
Thank
you
for
your
comments.
If
there's
anyone
else
who
would
like
to
come
forward,
we
try
to
avoid
repeating
things.
So
thank.
P
You,
let
me
hear
it
again
anyway,
I'm
the
other
half
of
the
Duel
of
that
house,
I
mean
I.
Think
we
already
know
that
Andrew
has
admitted
that
it
is
injurious
to
our
house.
So
obviously
his
findings
can't
be
clear,
I
I
like
can
we
ask
that
question?
How
can
he
admit
that
it
is
injurious
to
my
home
me
unable
to
put
solar
on
my
house
but
still
meet
criteria?
Three,
the
other
thing
is
number
one.
Look
we
had
the
community
meeting.
All
the
developers
said
is
another
building
is
not
marketable.
P
Another
building
is
not
feasible,
they're
not
required
to
only
build
this
size
and
shape
bend
their
architect.
I
asked
is
another
building
architecturally
able
to
be
built
on
this
and
he's
like
yeah.
You
can
build
a
different
building
right.
This
is
about
the
amount
of
money
that
they're
going
to
make
for
this
I
do
not
want
to
I'm
going
to
stick
with
my
wife
on
the
and
right.
We
need
smart
development
in
this
city,
but
400
square
foot,
market
rate
apartments
aren't
going
to
get
people
out
of
the
Quarry
encampment.
P
This
isn't
the
Silver
Bullet,
that's
going
to
fix
it
so
I'm,
looking
you
guys,
because
they're
not
interested
in
living
with
peace
with
their
neighbors
to
help
us
live
in
peace
and
the
last
part.
That's
not
a
repeat
if
you
guys
haven't
done
the
math.
If
you
grant
these
variances
that's
over
250
000
cubic
feet
of
space,
that's
built
in
public
right
away.
A
third
of
the
building
is
built
in
public
right
away
right,
it's
14
feet
on
the
front
10
feet
on
the
back.
Do
the
math
right?
That's
a
lot
of
space!
P
If
you're
going
to
give
up
that
much
it
better,
be
50,
affordable,
housing
right,
that's
public
space!
That's
what
variances
are
so
that
is
injurious
to
the
community
that
is
injured
to
our
house
right,
and
so,
if
we
have
the
conversation,
let's
say
a
six
story
isn't
going
to
prevent
me
like
you're
talking
about
an
additional
24
feet
of
width.
That's
going
to
cast
Shadow
on
my
sunlight
on
my
house.
Give
me
a
plan
where
it's
not
that
wide
and
let
me
have
my
solar
people.
Look
at
it.
This
is
interest
to
my
house.
A
A
We're
going
to
move
on,
would
you
like
to
answer
that
question?
Thank
you.
K
Sure
president
Olson,
the
you
know
so
we
have
the
the
intent
of
the
ordinance
for
regulating
required
yards,
is,
is
discussed
in
the
staff
responses
to
the
variants,
but
in
general
the
the
purpose
of
a
setback
is
to
provide
separation
between
buildings
and
uses,
to
provide
for
open
space
and
for
access
to
light
and
air
and
for
to
prevent
disorderly
development.
But
it's
it's
not
public
right-of-way
right.
A
H
I'm
John
McFadden
606
Van
Buren
exactly
across
the
street,
to
the
West.
Just
because
something
can
be
built
should
it
be
built.
It's
a
valid
question:
it's
not
rhetorical,
because
something
meets
some
requirements
should
it
be
built.
This
looks
so
sterile
on
the
screen
here.
But
if
you
look
at
the
right
side,
that's
Central,
Avenue,
okay,
you're
coming
south
and
you're
going
to
turn
right
on
Spring
Street.
You
see
that
little
V
that
little
V
is
about
50
feet.
H
So
when
you
want
to
turn
on
the
spring
and
then
turn
again
right
and
go
north
on
Van,
Buren
you're
doing
so
for
50
feet,
they
put
the
curbs
out
really
far
because
across
the
street
is
town
homes
for
people
in
scooters
that
didn't
used
to
be
there
used
to
be
two
cars
could
occupy
and
turn
right.
As
you
went
out
of
there
and
went
South
on
Central
is
impossible.
Now,
so
we're
going
to
stick
a
car
right
there,
it's
one
car
length.
H
If
somebody
wants
to
go
south
and
turn
onto
Van
Buren,
that
happens
all
the
time
and
then
the
people
are
waiting
in
line
and
they
don't
make
the
light
they're
pissed,
because
they
didn't
have
enough
time
to
get
to
go
to
North
on
Central.
These
things
are
complicated
because
they're
not
there,
but
if
you
saw
it,
it
would
be
very
apparent
to
you
how
injurious
it
is
to
this
neighborhood.
We
are
all
I
mean
I'm,
shaking
with
emotion,
because
who
represents
our
neighborhood,
who
represents
the
livability
of
this
street
Mike
help
us
who
represents?
H
I
know
these
things
I'm
not
trying
to
be
emotional
at
anybody
personally,
but
this
is
a
silly
project
put
in
us
in
a
great
location
for
something:
that's
a
fourplex,
a
three-story
building,
something
that's
going
to
fit.
We
already
have
approved,
in
fact,
I,
don't
ever
see
anything
shot
down
here.
This
is
my
third
time
here
so
it'd
be
good
to
see
some
kind
of
accommodations
for
people
that
talk
to
you.
H
That
would
be
awesome,
but
I'm
going
to
get
shadowed
now
a
lot.
My
house
is
directly
to
the
west
of
this
property
at
606,
Van
Buren.
It's
been
there
for
122
years,
I've
paid
lots
of
property
taxes
in
there.
Since
1988.,
it's
going
to
hurt
my
property
value.
It's
going
to
hurt
my
tenants
who
already
can't
park
there.
We
have
people
parking,
big
trucks
and
trailers
who
are
working
craft
people
there's
two
of
those
now
on
the
Block.
They
take
up
about
three
and
a
half
car
lengths
apiece
during
the
winter.
H
H
There
know
we
live
in
a
prized
neighborhood,
but
six
stories
that
amount
of
traffic
I
wish
that
just
one
of
you
would
make
the
drive
and
meet
one
of
us
there
and
see
during
the
middle
of
the
day,
what
I'm
talking
about
and
at
night,
when
it's
full
of
cars,
we
can't
just
live
in
a
dream
land
that
all
development
is
okay,
because
by
the
letter
or
by
the
book,
it's
okay,
that's
a
fact.
We
need
relief.
We
need
someone
to
be
reasonable
and
represent
for
us
our
neighborhood.
Thank
you.
A
Q
My
name
is
Marie
Kent
I
live
at
741,
Van,
Buren,
Street
down
the
street
and
I
would
like
to
talk
about
light
and
air.
If
you
look
at
that
picture,
it
has
in
the
top
left
quarter.
It
looks
like
there's
just
some
nice
trees.
What's
missing
from
that
picture,
is
the
community
garden
one
of
the
most
wonderful
things
of
our
neighborhood?
Is
the
community
garden
and
community
community
Commons
park?
That's
just
across
the
street.
I
live
right
there.
Q
We
have
a
very
green
neighborhood
and
I
love
that
so,
when
I
hear
about
the
setbacks
that
were
discussed
and
that
it's
removing
the
light
and
air,
as
has
been
stated,
I
worry
because,
as
this
development
goes
so
goes
the
rest
of
the
street,
and
we
know
that
because
of
that
typo
that
wasn't
fixed,
and
so
now
this
is
Corridor
six
instead
of
interior
three,
these
very
tall
developments
are
happening
and
they're
going
boom
boom
boom
boom
boom.
So
what
happens
to
our
garden?
Q
What
happens
to
I
I
like
having
my
kids
playing
in
my
backyard
and
right
now?
There's
lots
of
light
and
I
have
plants
everywhere,
but
I
can't
do
that
if
my
neighbors
move,
because
what's
to
prevent
another
variance
for
another
six
story
that
is
legally
allowed,
that
goes
all
the
way
to
the
edge
that's
injurious
to
my
neighborhood
and
our
community.
So
what
makes
our
neighborhood
surprised?
Q
The
fact
that
there
are
setbacks
I
would
love
to
have
something
that
matches
interior
three
like.
Please
give
us
a
quad
or
a
Triplex
family
friendly.
That
includes
places
for
children
to
play.
Children
can't
play
in
this
development.
It's
too
dangerous
and
I
worry
for
their
safety,
and
so
right
now
they
could
walk
up,
but
is
that
going
to
stay
that
way?
Q
A
D
Chris
Meyer
601,
6th,
Street,
Southeast
I
live
a
few
blocks
away
from
where
this
project
is
and
I
came
to
speak
in
support
of
the
project
generally,
and
the
setback
variance
is
specifically
one
of
the
most
important
things
that
the
2040
plan
did.
Is
it
allowed
for
more
Transit
oriented
development,
and
this
is
what
that
project?
D
Is
it's
right
across
the
street
from
a
high
frequency
bus
line
that
will
become
a
bus,
Rapid
Transit
line
when
the
F
line
comes
in,
and
it's
really
important
that
the
city
allows
for
more
people
to
live
close
to
Transit
if
we're
weighing
the
climate
impacts
of
of
a
project
like
this,
it's
certainly
in
favor
of
the
project
easily.
One
of
the
most
important
things
that
you
can
do
to
reduce
carbon
pollution
is
to
enable
more
people
to
live
in
the
city
and
specifically
close
to
Transit.
D
D
So
for
the
extent
that
housing
is
pushed
out
to
the
suburbs,
that
means
that
people
are
going
to
be
driving
a
lot
more.
They
live
on
much
larger
Lots.
It's
expanding,
suburban
sprawl,
like
the
climate
impact
is,
is
huge,
like
one
of
the
most
important
things
that
you
can
do
in
order
to
reduce
carbon
pollution
is
to
allow
more
infill
development.
D
So
you
know
this
project,
and
this
this
stretch
here
I
know,
there's
a
proposed
amendment
to
down
Zone
this
entire
area.
This
is
really
going
to
be
a
test
of
whether
the
Planning,
Commission
and
the
city
council
are
going
to
stand
by
the
2040
plans.
Transit
oriented
development
policies,
I
hope
you
do
specifically
to
the
variance
requests.
D
You
know
this
is
exactly
what
those
are
for.
You
have
an
unusually
shaped
lot
and
you
know
the
staff
mentioned
that
the
percentage
was
in
the
in
the
in
the
report.
I
think
the
percentage
of
the
land
taken
up
is
really
important.
It's
62.6
percent.
If
the
variances
aren't
granted
so
62.6
percent
of
the
land
is
unusable,
that's
unreasonable!
It's
not!
The
intent
of
the
ordinances,
so
I
think
it's
extremely
reasonable
to
Grant.
D
Those
and
I
I
also
think
it's
especially
appropriate
on
Central
Avenue
in
particular,
because
when
you
you
have
a
lot
of
space
between
the
road
and
and
the
drivers
like
it
makes
them
drive
faster.
So
when
you
have
more
obstacles
like
trees
and
buildings
and
and
other
things
that
actually
slows
people
down,
so
when
the
building
is
closer
to
the
street,
you
have
a
more
pedestrian
and
a
safer
street.
So
I
hope
that
you
follow
the
staff
recommendations
and
Grant
the
approvals.
Thank
you.
A
R
My
name
is
Lonnie
Sternberg
and
I
live
at
733,
Van,
Buren,
Street,
Northeast
and
I'm
here
today
to
specifically
oppose
the
development
down
the
street
I
do
not
support
the
variance
requests
for
the
15
foot
setback,
as
this
would
negatively
impact
our
neighborhood
and
drastically
impact
the
accessibility,
safety
and
Aesthetics
of
our
established
neighborhood
at
a
community
meeting
a
week
or
two
ago
we
asked
them
specifically,
or
they
stated
specifically,
that
the
setback
for
the
neighboring
house
was
unusual
and
deeply
set
back
and
that's
why
they
needed
the
variance
or
the
setback
for
the
property,
so
the
neighbors
actually
went
and
measured
all
the
setbacks
of
the
houses
on
Van
Buren
on
the
600
and
700
block
and
80
percent
of
the
setbacks
are
actually
20
feet
or
or
greater.
R
So,
what's
really
unsettling
to
me.
Is
that
they're
being
deceitful
in
what
they're
telling
the
community?
Because
there
really
is
an
80
there
is
a
setback
of
you
know
30
feet
when
they're
saying
that
there's
an
unusual
setback,
let's
see
here,
what
else
do
we
have
if
these
setbacks
and
variances
are
approved?
This
will
have
a
detrimental
impact
to
our
neighborhood.
Due
to
the
increased
density
of
our
quiet
residential
street,
one
thing
that
I
want
to
point
out
and
it's
on
the
map
people
have
mentioned
before
that.
R
You
know
that
intersection
of
Van
Buren,
spring
and
Central
is
a
very
funky
intersection
and
when
you're
going
to
increase
that
type
of
housing
with
65
units,
what
what
kind
of
impact
is
that
going
to
have
bikers
pedestrians
traffic,
so
the
the
community
with
like
a
major
tdmp
study,
if
that's
an
option,
yeah
approving
these
variances
would
only
benefit
the
developer,
and
that
is
why
I'm
asking
you
to
deny
the
site
plan
and
uphold
the
Integrity
of
the
2040
plan.
R
It
was
my
understanding
that
the
whole,
an
idea
of
the
2040
plan
is
so
you
don't
have
to
ask
for
all
these
variances
I.
Don't
understand
why
these
developers
can't
develop
a
building.
That's
within
the
guidelines.
Why
do
they
need?
You
know
the
extra
15
feet
and
to
me
it
just
shows
greed
and
they
need
to
you
know,
take
away
from
the
community
in
order
to
get
something
that
they
want.
R
There's
no
reason
they
can't
develop
on
this
property.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
a
triangular
shaped
building
on
a
triangular
shaped
lot,
so
I'm
asking
you
to
deny
the
site
plan.
A
G
Christina
Bush
728,
Van,
Buren,
Street
Northeast
I
oppose
this
I'm
just
going
to
read
this.
What
is
the
limit
to?
What
is
the
limit
to
how
many
units
are
being
built?
The
only
people
taking
advantage
of
the
2040
plan
seem
to
be
the
big
Developers.
G
G
We
are
not
opposed
to
building
we're,
not
opposed
to
any
building
we're
opposed
to
this
building.
It's
way
too
high.
It's
it's
a
unique
site.
You
need
to
see
the
site.
It's
everybody
has
said
how
unique
it
is
I
invite
you
all
to
come
out
and
see
this
site
and
see
how
unique
it
is
for
us
for
us
who
live
in
the
neighborhood,
come
on
out
and
see
this
unique,
unique.
Sir
unique
you
need
these
variances,
this
unique
site
come
out
and
see
it.
Please.
Thank
you.
A
I
See
my
name
is
Bobby
orgo
I
live
at
604,
Monroe
Street,
just
like
a
couple
minutes
walk
this
project.
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
actually
approve
this
plan.
I
mean
it
is
a
weird
lot.
It's
very
weird.
It's
a
triangle:
it's
got
setbacks
because
of
kind
of
line
of
a
corner
between
two
busy
roads
and
I
know
that
there's
a
lot
of
issues
with
this
intersection.
I
just
want
to
tell
everybody
that
Hennepin
County
is
looking
at
redoing,
Central,
Avenue
and
I'm.
I
Pretty
sure
they
would
take
any
consideration
to
fix
this
intersection
as
it's
very
ugly,
and
it
does
get
a
lot
of
backups,
so
I
think
I,
don't
know
if
our
city,
the
city
of
Minneapolis,
would
be
the
one
to
possibly
fix
this
intersection
or
Hennepin
County
would
be
the
one
that
would
fix
this
during
the
new
proposals,
as
for
other
reasons,
I
approved.
This
I
think
this
gentleman
over
here
said
most
of
the
reasons
that
I
approved
this.
We
need
more
housing
in
this
area.
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
rent
here.
I
If
we
had
more
affordable
housing,
I,
basically
scavenged
around
trying
to
find
a
place
to
live
when
I
moved
here,
and
it
was
hard
to
find
a
place
affordable
for
anything.
I
was
trying
to
live
on,
I
just
got
lucky,
and
if
we
keep
restricting
more
housing
and
apartments
in
this
area,
we're
going
to
turn
into
San,
Francisco,
LA
or
any
other
unaffordable
City
where
it
becomes
all
homes
and
no
renters
can
afford
to
live
anywhere
and
you're
living
hours
out
of
the
city.
I
We
need
to
start
moving
forward
as
a
city,
North
Saint
Anthony's
is
actually
a
pretty
unique.
Neighborhood
I
never
thought
this
Minneapolis
would
be
so
Suburban
until
I
came
to
this
part
of
the
city.
You
know
you
look
at
Minneapolis
pictures.
You
think
Uptown,
you
think
of
the
south
side,
where
it's
dense
lots
of
Apartments.
You
know
a
lot
of
condos
things
like
that,
but
Saint
Anthony
East
is
becoming
a
more
dense
area
and
a
more
popular
area
and
with
more
rapid
transit
coming
to
the
area.
I
I
A
L
You
ma'am
sure,
oh
here
we
are
again
we
have
a
terrible
decision
in
front
of
us
because
it's
going
to
create
winners
and
losers.
The
2040
plan
has
done
that.
It's
divided
so
much
for
our
community
Commissioners.
We
heard
the
gentleman
from
Johnson
Street
say
that
phrase
about
a
month
ago
when
we
were
winners
and
losers
and
that's
what
they're
trying
to
create
up
on
Johnson
Street.
L
That's
what
the
neighborhoods
agreed
to
and
that's
what
they
all
proposed-
and
it
just
didn't
happen
to
me
that
that
is
really
bad
governance,
that
that
a
city
would
not
honor
that
an
elected
official
would
not
honor
the
word
that
a
staff
person
would
not
honor
their
word.
And
so
here
we
are
here.
We
are
again
and
we
we
did
vote
down
that
635
Van
Buren
and
it
got
upheld.
So
so
we
kind
of
see
what
the
path
is
going
to
be,
but
I,
just
in
in
full
conscience,
cannot
vote
for.
L
This
I
have
to
stand
with
the
neighbors
and,
with
these
the
past,
the
promise
that
was
made
to
them
so
I'm
going
to
make
a
motion
to
deny
these
the
site
plan
review
on
the
basis.
That
is
not
an
economic
hardship.
A
All
right,
just
the
site
plan
review.
Are
we
okay.
S
I'm
stumped
on
the
findings
for
the
site
plan.
Review
I
mean
they
in
this
case.
The
project
meets
all
of
the
site
plan
review
requirements
except
for
one
items,
so
you
would
need
to
be
looking
at
the
alternative
compliance.
That's
required
in
this
case.
It's
the
rezoning
that
establishes
the
the
development
and
then
it's
the
setbacks.
J
L
So,
okay,
so
I
I
misspoke.
That
I
would
say
that,
let's,
let's
vote
on
these
item
by
item
I'll,
make
a
motion
vote
on
these
a
b
c
and
d.
A
So
a
motion
from
commissioner
rainville
to
deny
the
rezoning
that
would
we
would
want
to
come
up
with
some
findings.
Whatever
those
are.
Commissioner
fayola.
J
Hillary
I
have
a
question
for
you.
In
the
comments
from
one
of
the
neighbors,
there
was
a
rezone
criteria
whether
the
amendment
is
consistent
with
the
applicable
policies
of
the
comprehensive
plan.
Finding
the
applicant
relies
on
the
2040
plan
for
findings
under
the
criteria,
and
it
looks
like
the
city
has
accepted
and
approved
applications
without
doing
the
required
zoning
studies
under
implementation
in
the
2040
plan.
Can
you
clarify
that.
S
So
the
policy
that
is
on
record
is
the
2040
plan,
so
the
corridor
6
is
the
policy.
That's
on
record
for
this
site.
That
is
what
you're
being
asked
to
do.
The
rezoning
is
to
bring
the
Zony
into
compliance
with
our
comp
plan
and
that's
what
this
reasoning
request
is
is
doing
is
bringing
the
zoning
into
compliance
with
the
comp
plan,
which
is
something
we're
required
to
do.
J
S
A
So
we've
had
some
presentations
from
staff
about
the
rezoning
study
as
it's
going
through
the
process
and
it's
you
know
has
to
happen
after
every
comprehensive
plan
is
adopted,
every
city
does
it.
So
it's
we're
just
in
that
in
between
period
right
now,.
S
So
you
would
need
to
make
findings
that
the
zoning
would
not
be
in
compliance
with
the
comprehensive
plan
policies,
and
so
Andrew
has
written
very
solid
findings
on
this,
and
so
we
would
need
you
to
come
up
with
different
findings.
That
say
this
is
not
supportive
or
not
in
compliance
with
the
comp
plan.
S
And
commissioner
Olson
excuse
me
or
Charleston
I've
been
asked:
if
was
there
a
second
on
that
motion
from
commissioner.
A
Right,
I'm
not
seeing
any
okay,
so
is
there
any
discussion
or
would
anyone
like
to
make
an
alternate
motion,
commissioner?.
J
S
We
are,
we
have
the
current
zoning
classifications
that
we
have
right
now.
The
code
development
team
within
cped
is
working
on
revising
the
zoning
code
to
bring
it
into
conformance
with
the
new
land
use,
rezoning
classifications
that
will
become
that
will
be
created
as
a
result
of
the
2040
plan
being
purchased
or
not
purchased.
Excuse
me
being
written,
so
that
has
happened,
and
so
now
we
are.
C
I
can
I
take
an
opportunity
to
clarify
yeah,
so
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
you
say
Hillary
is
that
in
a
couple
of
months,
there's
going
to
be
a
land
use.
Zoning
reclassification
opportunity
for
us
to
update
current
land
use
zones
to
what
the
comprehensive
plan
says,
and
what
Andrew
has
found
here
today
is
that
reclassifying
the
land
use
for
this
particular
property
is
doing
it
six
months
in
advance
of
what
that
land
use.
Zoning
thing
is
going
to
say
in
six
months
when
we
see
it.
Yes,.
S
S
But
yes,
this
is
working
with
the
zoning
classifications.
Today,
any
R3
to
R6
zoning
District
would
be
in
conformance
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
because
they
have
the
same
allowance
for
this
development.
So
we
are
rezoning
or
not.
The
request
is
to
go
to
R3,
which
is
compliant
with
allowing
multiple
family
housing
and
then
allowing
it
to
be
up
to
that
to
six
stories.
A
All
right,
commissioner,.
S
Ruling
so
there
was
a
minor
travel
demand
management
plan
done
for
this
development
that
is
what's
required
for
the
project
and
they
have
met
and
satisfied
the
requirements.
Andrew
talks
about
it
on
the
third
or
fourth
page
of
the
staff
report,
where
he
calls
out
identifies
which
strategies
have
been
applied
for
for
this
project,
and
so
that
is
an
administrative
review
that
is
done
by
staff,
and
so
that
has
been
approved.
So
we
have
done
a
traffic
study
for
the
development.
S
A
All
right,
I'm
not
seeing
any
other
raised
hands
at
the
moment.
So
I'll
say
you
know.
I've
said
it
before,
but
we
as
the
Planning
Commission
have
our
comprehensive
plan
and
the
associated
zoning
and
that's
how
we
determine
the
appropriateness
of
a
project,
and
in
this
case
you
know,
the
zoning
is
simply
to
bring
this
site
in
compliance
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
I
think
that
these
variances
are
Justified
and
laid
out
well
by
staff.
A
A
Is
there
anyone
who
would
like
to
commissioner
Baxley?
Oh,
would
anyone
like
to
make
a
motion.
L
So
it's
very
clear
that
this
has
a
votes
pass,
but
what
I
want
to
say
is
everybody
is,
is
right
on
this,
the
the
two
gentlemen
who
spoke
in
favor
right
because
we
do
need
more
housing
in
the
city
you're,
absolutely
right.
The
neighbors
are
right
because
they
they
were
not
told
the
truth
and
they
are
right
and
saying
they're
going
to
be
impacted,
adversely,
there's
just
no
way
around
that.
That's
the
truth.
You
cannot
deny
the
truth
and
the
developer
is
right.
L
P
A
That's
correct,
commissioner:
Alper.
E
Thank
you,
chair
Olson,
so,
okay,
this
question
of
corridor
six
has
has
come
up
before
and
what
I've
heard
from
staff,
and
that's
who
you
know
who
we
go
to
as
our
our
resource
here
for
the
latest
information
on
the
status
of
the
comprehensive
plan
on
zoning
matters,
and
we
have
been
told
by
staff
that
that
this
is
the
correct
designation,
so
I,
just
I
I
want
to
tell
all
of
you
who
are
here
today
that
I
I
would
like
to
debunk
the
misinformation
that
that
is
out
there,
and
if,
if
that
is
the
case,
if
you
feel
that
this
is
incorrect,
I
I
suggest
that
you
do
a
public
data
request
because
we
can
only
operate.
E
We
as
Commissioners
can
only
operate
with
the
best
available
information
that
we
have,
and
that
is
the
information
that
we
have
from
staff.
E
So
I
would
also
like
to
take
a
moment
and
ask
about
a
couple
of
the
other
comments
that
we've
received
regarding
shadows
and
Views
and
I
would
just
ask
Andrew
Andrew
our
our
when
our
shadows
and
when
are
shadows
not
guided
for.
E
K
The
exception
would
be
you
know,
very
small
projects
that
are
just
barely
triggering
that
or
are
triggering
that
without
a
large
addition
to
a
new
building.
So
a
project
like
this,
you
know
they
were
required
to
prepare
and
submit
Shadow
studies
as
part
of
their
application
materials.
But
the
role
of
shadowing
and
Views,
when
looking
at
the
findings
for
land
use
applications
is,
is
relatively
limited.
K
K
If
they
were
applying
for
an
administrative
height
increase,
then
we
would
look
at
shadowing
and
the
impacts
of
shadowing,
but
building
a
building
to
you
know
within
the
height
that
is
allowed
by
right
in
in
the
built
form.
District.
We
we
don't
take
shadowing
into
account.
K
There
are
some,
some
and
and
Views
are
are
similar.
Views
are
are
really
only
relevant
for
certain
types
of
applications
and
they're
generally
related
to
views
of
and
from
public
spaces,
not
private
property.
So
a
height
increase
in
the
Shoreland
overlay,
District
or
or
conditional
use
permits
that
have
an
impact
on
views
of
of
important
public
space
cases
can
be
relevant
to
land
use
applications.
E
So
I
I
just
want
to
say
I
I
heard
the
comments
about
traffic
I
wrote
down
full
of
cars
and
I
guess
I
would
ask
the
development
team
if
you
could
speak
a
little
bit
more
to
your.
If
that's
okay,
with
the
chair
to
how
you
are
you
know,
I
know
you:
did
it
TDM
plan
A
minor
one,
but
how
are
you
helping
your
tenants
take
transit
may
I
ask?
Would
you
I'd
like
to
ask
you.
N
N
It's
separated
out
so
that
encourages
you
know
people
to
not
have
cars,
the
access
to
Transit
itself
and
the
future
high-speed
bus
route
here
is
I,
I,
think
amenity
to
this
building
and
to
its
future
attendance,
and
there
will
be
a
Transit
info
board
in
the
lobby
to
encourage
use
of
that
and
encourage
efficient
use
of
that.
And
then
the
other
thing
really
is
the
the
limitation
of
parking,
which
would
were
the
most
points
that
we
got
towards
the
tdmp
plan.
N
We
have
less
than
half
parking
for
units
and
that
in
itself
is
encouraging
people
to
live
here
who
are
more
reliant
on
Transit,
whether
that
is
public
transit
or
biking.
We
have
a
bike
Lounge
that
exceeds
the
requirements
for
this
site,
and
so
tenants
will
be
encouraged
to
bike
through
the
use
of
that
in
the
connection
of
that
Lounge
to
the
street,
and
also
additional
short-term
bike
parking
in
front
of
the
building.
E
Thank
you,
for
that.
Did
you
consider
offering
Transit
passes
for
your
tenants.
N
Another
way
to
achieve
points
for.
E
N
A
All
right
any
other
discussion.
Otherwise
the
motion
on
the
table
is
to
adopt
staff
recommendation
for
this
item
all
right.
Seeing
none
will
ask
the
clerk
to
please
call
the
roll.
N
L
A
A
Thursday
all
right,
thank
you
anything
else,
commissioners,
before
we
adjourn
all
right,
if
not
and
without
objection,
I'll
declare
this
meeting
adjourned.
Our
next
Planning
Commission
meeting
will
be
on
a
Tuesday
which
is
not
normal,
Tuesday
November
1st
and
our
next
Committee
of
the
whole
meeting
will
be
this
Thursday
October
20th.
Thank
you.