►
Description
Additional information at:
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
Submit written comments about agenda items to: councilcomment@minneapolismn.gov or https://www.minneapolismn.gov/government/meetings/public-comment/online-comment
A
Good
afternoon
welcome
to
the
regularly
scheduled
meeting
of
the
business
inspections,
housing
and
zoning
committee
for
today,
which
is
August
22nd
I've,
been
joined
by
council
members,
chugtai
Osman,
rainville
and
Chavez,
which
is
a
quorum
of
the
committee.
I'll
note
that
we
have
three
public
hearings
as
well
as
three
quasi-judicial
public
hearings
and
I,
anticipate
that
those
will
take
quite
a
long
time,
I'm
going
to
start
with
the
consent
agenda.
As
always
item
number
one
or
the
liquor
license.
A
Renewals
I'll
note
that
there
are
56
of
those
item
number
eight
or
the
Gambling
License
approvals
and
nine
are
business,
license
operating
condition
at
students.
Co-Op
item
number
10
is
an
update
on
the
legislative
directive
related
to
snow
and
ice
removal
as
an
as
a
element
in
the
rental
license.
Tiering
process
and
I'd
want
to
note.
A
If
you
read
the
report
that
is
going
to
be
part
of,
and
has
been
part
of
the
process
item
11
is
the
application
for
an
acceptance
of
a
Geo
Bond
funded
Grant
from
the
state
for
the
Kohl's
Center
item
number
12
is
a
grant
agreement
with
Minneapolis
public
housing
for
rehab
and
Redevelopment
of
a
variety
of
properties.
A
Item
number
13
is
exclusive
development
rights
to
the
927
building
at
1828,
Dupont
Avenue
North
item
14,
our
financial
assistance
from
Hennepin
County
for
a
number
of
projects
that
the
city
is
also
deeply
involved
in
item
15
is
a
recommendation
and
Joint
Powers
agreement
for
fiscal
year.
2023
emergency
Solutions
grant
funding
item
16
is
another
joint
Powers
agreement
with
Hennepin
County
as
it
pertains
to
coronavirus,
Aid
relief
and
economic
security
funding.
Item
number
17
is
the
spring
brownfields
grants.
This
is
accepting
grants
from
a
number
of
places,
including
the
Met
council's
tax
base.
A
Revitalization
account
and
Hennepin
County's
environmental
response
fund
item
number
18
is
the
cultural,
small,
Market,
small
business
support
program
and
item
number
19
is
a
local
historic,
designation
of
the
Wayne
and
Gertrude
Kelly
house
and
item
20
is
a
number
of
properties
being
rezoned
on
Van
Buren
and
Summer
Street
Northeast?
Are
there
any
items
anyone
would
like
to
pull
to
discuss
between
items
7
and
20.,
seeing
none
I'll
move
approval
of
those
items
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye.
B
A
C
Good
afternoon,
chair
Goodman
and
members
of
the
committee
on
map,
our
manager
of
resource
coordination
in
the
financial
Property
Services
office
and
I
am
here
before
you
today
for
a
public
hearing
on
the
city's
2022
Consolidated
annual
performance
and
evaluation
report.
This
report
covers
our
spending
on
our
HUD
entitlement
grants
and
Housing
Community
Development,
and
with
that
I
stand
for
any
questions
or
open.
The
hearing
are.
A
There
any
questions
for
Mr
Bauer
on
his
report.
It
is
available
online
and
to
members
of
the
Council
on
limbs
as
well
any
questions
from
Mr
Bauer,
seeing
none
thank
you
for
being
here
today,
we'll
open
the
public
hearing
and
item
number
one,
which
is
the
2022
Caper
report.
This
is
receiving
comments.
We'll
also
note
that
we
can
receive
written
comments
up
until
the
deadline
to
be
included
which
is
August
29th.
Is
there
anyone
here
to
speak
to
this
issue?
A
Item
number
one
has
been
moved
for
approval,
further
comments
or
questions,
seeing
none
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
any
opposed.
That
item
is
approved.
We'll
move
on
to
item
number
two,
which
is
a
land
sale
at
8
at
16,
28th,
Street,
East
and
2717
Longfellow
Avenue
to
the
east,
Phillips
neighborhood,
Institute
and
I
will
call
on
Mr
Hansen
to
give
his
report.
D
All
right,
thank
you,
chair
good
afternoon,
chair
Goodman
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
Eric
Hansen
I'm,
the
interim
director
of
cped
and
before
you
are
the
terms
for
the
sale
of
city-owned
property
at
1860,
28th,
Street,
East
and
2717
Longfellow
Avenue,
commonly
known
as
the
roof
Depot
site
to
the
east,
Phillips
neighborhood
Institute
or
an
Affiliated
entity
referred
to
as
epni
going
forward
in
this
presentation
for
the
fair
market
value
of
11.4
million
dollars.
D
These
terms
were
agreed
to
in
May
by
City
negotiators,
epni
And,
members
of
the
Minneapolis
legislative
delegation,
the
city
purchased
the
site
in
2016
for
the
development
of
a
public
works
facility.
The
proposed
action
today
and
Associated
public
hearing
will
replace
the
city
council
action
to
pursue
that
Public
Works
facility,
with
a
declaration
that
the
site
is
now
excess
public
land
and
authorize
it
for
sale
to
epni.
D
As
you
know,
epni
and
other
community
groups
oppose
the
development
of
the
Public
Works
facility
and
advocated
for
the
acquisition
of
the
site
for
an
urban
farm.
Among
other
actions,
Epi
brought
legal
action
challenging
the
project.
The
proposed
terms
for
the
epni
to
purchase
the
site
will
allow
them
to
pursue
its
project
at
the
core
of
this
deal
is
the
three
tiers
of
funding
for
the
purchase
of
the
site.
The
first
is
a
2023
2
million
dollar
Minnesota
legislative
Grant.
D
The
second
comes
from
epni
in
the
amount
of
3.7
million
dollars
and
the
third
and
final
part
comes
from
a
legislative
pledge
for
the
2024
session
in
the
amount
of
5.7
million
dollars,
and
let
me
go
through
those
three
two
million
dollars
from
the
the
previous.
The
recently
concluded
legislative
session
comes
through
the
Department
of
Employment
and
economic
development
and
City
staff
is
working
to
get
that
two
million
dollars
into
the
city's
hands,
the
3.7
million
dollars.
D
The
second
point
is,
is
a
is
a
component
that
epni
has
until
September
8th
to
report
to
the
city
on
its
fundraising
efforts.
September,
8th
is
the
deadline
in
the
term
sheet.
However,
staff
has
agreed
to
accept
epni's
purchase
agreement,
language
providing
epni
with
the
option
of
a
one-time,
60-day
extension
contingency
to
this
deadline
to
commit
its
funding
into
an
escrow
deposit
with
the
title,
insurance
company
letter
of
credit
or
personal
guarantee,
as
agreed
to
in
the
term
sheet,
and
the
final
component
is
5.7
million
dollars
from
the
2024
legislative
delegation.
D
Members
of
the
Minneapolis
legislative
delegation
have
pledged
to
appropriate
this
remaining
amount
upon
the
other
two
sources
being
in
place
to
allow
for
this
proposed
sale
to
proceed.
The
city's
engineer
and
the
finance
officer
have
determined
that
the
property
is
not
needed
for
municipal
operation
purposes
and
the
city
is
selling
it,
as
is
as
excessive
of
Municipal
operations,
property
completing
the
sale.
The
property
will
not
incur
until
all
the
funds
are
in
place
and
available
for
payment
to
the
city,
including
the
contemplated
funding
in
the
proposed
24
legislative
session.
D
The
sale
of
the
property
does
not
commit
the
city
to
any
future
funding
obligations.
However,
epni
is
eligible
to
apply
to
all
available
publicly
competitive
funding
programs.
Funding
Awards
in
those
competitive
programs
are
subject
to
available
funding
program,
guidelines,
proposal,
quality
and
demonstrated
needs
as
part
of
this
report,
staff
also
seeks
authorization
to
enter
into
the
attached
to
the
attached
access
agreement
with
the
Minnesota
Pollution
Control
agency
to
facilitate
environmental
assessment
work
by
mpca's
contractor
under
an
EPA
Grant
awarded
to
epni.
A
There
any
questions
for
Mr
Hansen
on
land
sale
number
two
seeing
none
I'd
like
to
have
the
clerk
first
record
council
member
Ellison
as
present
and
voting
in
the
affirmative
on
the
consent
agenda
as
well
as
item
number
one.
Are
there
other
questions
for
Mr
Hansen,
seeing
none?
We
will
open
the
public
hearing
on
item
number
two,
which
is
a
land
sale
as
noted
and
ask
if
there's
anyone
here
to
speak,
I
have
a
sign
up
sheet.
Each
speaker
is
entitled
to
two
minutes.
E
Thank
you
very
much
Dean
devolis,
president
of
East
Phillips
native
Institute.
Thank
you
very
much.
Counselor
for
consideration.
We've
been
working
very
hard
as
a
committee
and
putting
this
project
together.
We've
raised
a
control
amount
of
money,
a
few
examples
residents
and
obviously
you've
got
us
up
to
fifty
thousand
dollars
and
so
we're
doing
very
well.
On
the
fundraise
aspect.
We
have
several
investors
that
have
stood
up
for
the
3.7
million.
We've
proceeded
in
architectural
drawings.
E
Also
also,
the
tenants
I
have
a
legal
team
who
fagory
and
Drinker
and
Frederickson
both
have
agreed,
as
pro
bono
basis,
to
handle
all
structuring
of
this
project
in
terms
of
community
ownership,
the
tenant
ownership,
the
investors
and
all
the
processes
within
it.
So
they've,
given
us
a
gift
of
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
of
legal
work
to
make
this
reality
make
sure
we
get
it
right.
So
I
just
want
to
give
credit
to
both
these
firms,
who
are
standing
up
and
allowing
this
to
happen
publicly.
E
A
A
F
I'll
repeat
that
my
name
is
Elizabeth
Royal,
I'm,
The,
General
Counsel
for
epni
and
I.
Thank
the
council
for
hearing
this
matter
today.
F
It
is
of
a
matter
of
utmost
importance
to
this
community
that
has
suffered
from
pollution
for
generations,
and
this
is
an
arsenic,
Superfund
Site
that
EP
and
I
hopes
to
clean
up
with
the
help
of
the
epna
that
has
agreed
to
assist
us
in.
This
also
is
also
going
to
be
donating,
so
to
speak,
to
epni
thousands
of
dollars
worth
of
work
in
the
aid
of
cleaning
up
this
this
site
and
relieving
a
community
from
the
health
consequences
of
this
toxic
pollution
which
under
which
they
have
suffered
for
for
Generations.
F
We
have
children
that
are
patients
on
the
Native
American
Community
Clinic
that
are
dying
because
of
asthma,
which
is
a
health
related
consequence
from
from
from
these
from
these
toxic
pollutions,
under
which
this
neighborhood
has
suffered,
and
so
I
think
the
council
for
working
with
us
to
clean
this
neighborhood
up
and
to
make
it
to
revitalize
it
and
to
give
it
our
Economic
Opportunity
and
to
give
it
a
chance
to
live
in
a
healthy
way.
G
Good
afternoon,
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Shayna
Conklin
I'm,
with
Frederickson
and
Byron.
The
address
is
60
South,
6th,
Street
Suite
1500
in
Minneapolis.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
with
you
this
afternoon.
I
did
just
want
to
clarify
some
of
the
term
sheet,
overarching
terms,
one
being,
and
perhaps
City
staff
can
clarify
this,
but
we
just
simply
wanted
to
ensure
that
the
deadlines
were
updated
appropriately.
G
The
term
sheet
used
to
say
that
the
two
million
dollar
appropriation
from
the
state
of
Minnesota
was
due
on
July
1st
of
2023,
given
that
the
purchase
agreement
has
not
yet
been
signed,
the
state
has
not
deposited
that
funding
yet
and
we're
just
hoping
that
that
deadline
can
be
appropriately
adjusted
on
the
3.7
million
deposit.
We
just
had
two
comments
and
I
think
that
City
staff
perhaps
already
addressed
one
one
was
just
with
respect
to
the
deadline.
G
We
were
hoping
for
an
extension
to
November
8th
of
2023
to
deposit
or
provide
proof
of
funding
for
that
3.7
million
dollars.
Just
given
the
timing
of
the
city's
anticipated
approval
of
the
purchase
agreement
on
September
7th
with
the
term,
she
originally
saying
that
the
deadline
would
be
September
8th,
we're
just
not
certain
that
really
makes
logistical
sense
at
this
point
and
we're
hoping
to
update
that
date
to
November,
8th
or
60
days
after
the
purchase
agreement
is
signed.
G
The
other
point
I
just
wanted
to
leave
open
or
ask
for
some
flexibility
on
is
that
3.7
million
dollar
deposit
we're
hoping
that
we
can
be
flexible
in
the
terms
of
the
purchase
agreement
and
simply
ask
the
epni
be
allowed
to
provide
sufficient
proof
acceptable
to
the
city
for
that
deposit,
rather
than
actually
depositing
those
funds.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
I
appreciate
it.
H
H
We
have
raised
successfully
in
the
last
three
months
over
six
hundred
thousand
dollars.
Three
hundred
and
seventy
five
thousand
dollars
of
that
has
been
awarded
an
in-kind
contributions
from
the
mpca,
as
well
as
from
Frederickson
and
Byron.
We've
received
137
thousand
dollars
in
Grants,
and
you
can
see
our
list
of
funders
there
from
the
line.
Three
legal
defense
fund,
Minneapolis,
Foundation,
Headwaters,
Foundation,
Tides
foundation
and
Lisk,
and
then
there's
been
some
generous
philanthropy,
Community
funding,
which
you
might
have
seen
on
social
media
and
Faith
organizations.
Stepping
up.
H
Here
you
see
a
bar
chart,
the
furthest
left
is
our
goal
for
pre-development,
and
this
is
in
advance
of
the
site
purchase
in
the
summer
of
2024..
Our
goal
is
just
over:
a
million
dollars
budgeted
for
the
pre-development
is
nine
hundred
thousand
dollars,
and
that
includes
environmental
assessments
as
well
as
engineering
and
Architectural
assessments,
as
well
as
capacity
building,
and
you
can
see
there
that
we
are
about
70
percent
towards
our
pre-development
goal,
so
I
just
wanted
to
give
that
update.
Thank.
A
You
for
your
update
is
there
anyone
else
here,
who'd
like
to
testify
on
this
issue,
anyone
anyone
seeing
none
will
close
the
public
hearing
members
of
the
council.
What
we
have
in
front
of
us
is
the
negotiated
term
sheet,
as
well
as
authorizing
the
purchase
agreement
with
East
Phillips
neighborhood
Institute.
Is
there
someone
who'd
like
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
that.
J
K
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
chair
Goodman
members
of
the
committee.
You
have
before
you
a
request
to
pass
an
authorization
of
host
approval
for
the
issuance
of
tax-exempt
revenue
bonds
by
the
city
of
Mendota
to
Stonebridge,
Building
Company,
to
finance
improvements
to
Stonebridge
World
School
located
at
4530
Lindell
Avenue
South
Stonebridge
World
School
is
a
Minnesota
Charter
School,
founded
in
2007
serving
kindergarten
through
sixth
grade
students,
with
a
mission
of
closing
the
achievement
Gap
in
2014,
the
City
of
Minneapolis
issued
revenue
bonds
to
finance
the
charter
school.
K
At
this
time
they
are
requesting
an
additional
3.2
million
dollars
in
in
tax-exempt
revenue
bonds
for
improvements
to
the
school
building
and
to
refinance
other
outstanding
debt.
Federal
regulations
and
state
statutes
require
host
approval
from
the
jurisdiction
where
the
school
is
located.
So
they
are
requesting
authorization
to
allow
the
city
of
Mendota
to
issue
the
new
bonds
and
the
school
has
paid
the
City
of
Minneapolis,
a
five
thousand
dollar
fee
for
the
host
issuance,
as
is
provided
under
the
conduit
policy
and
I
will
stand
to
answer
any
questions
you
might
have
are.
K
B
K
An
RFP
for
Bond
councils
every
two
years
right
now,
their
bond
Council,
which
is
Taft
law,
is
not
in
the
city's
Bond
Council
Bond
Council
registry.
So,
in
order
to
do
the
financing
for
the
school
in
this
round,
they
would
have
to
hire
two
Bond
councils,
the
one
who
was
familiar
with
their
school
and
then
an
additional
one,
that's
on
the
city's
panel.
So
that's
the
reason
why
we're
allowing
them
to
go
to
another
city
in
order
to
do
the
host.
A
Approval?
Okay,
thank
you.
So
much!
That's
a
good
explanation.
Are
there
any
other
questions
for
Miss
Shaw?
Seeing
none.
Thank
you
for
your
report.
We'll
open
the
public
hearing
on
item
number
three,
which
is
host
approval
of
tax-exempt
revenue,
bonds
by
the
city
of
Mendota,
for
the
Stonebridge
Building
Company
to
finance
improvements
to
its
building
at
4530,
Lindale,
Avenue
South.
Is
there
anyone
here
to
speak
to
this
issue?
A
Item
number
three
has
removed
further
comments
and
or
questions
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
any
opposed.
This
item
is
approved.
We
will
then
move
on
to
our
quasi-judicial
public
hearing,
starting
with
item
number
four.
This
is
a
variance
appeal
by
John
Thompson
and
Brittany
Vickers
for
a
property
at
2110
4th
Street,
Northeast,
Mr
Full
House
welcome
foreign
I
apologize
for
missing
agenda
setting,
haven't
we
seen
this
before.
M
Chair
Goodman
I,
don't
believe
the
committee
has
seen
this
particular
request
at
this
proposal.
There
may
have
been
other
applications
for
this
site
in
the
past.
This
item
went
to
the
board
of
adjustment
about
a
month
ago,
as
I'll
talk
about
in
more
detail,
but
I'm
I'm
not
familiar
with
this
item
coming
before
the
council.
Great.
A
M
M
Thank
you,
chair
and
committee
members
of
the
committee
before
you
today
is
an
appeal
of
decisions
of
the
Zoning
Board
of
adjustment
regarding
variance
requests
to
increase
the
maximum
floor
area
ratio
or
far
and
to
increase
the
maximum
weight
of
an
attached
front-facing
garage.
These
are
proposed
variances
that
are
being
requested
for
construction
of
a
new
single-family
dwelling
at
2110
4th
Street
Northeast.
M
This
property
is
in
the
un2
urban
neighborhood
zoning
district
and
the
interior
to
build
form
of
relay
District.
These
variance
requests
were
denied
by
the
Zoning
Board
of
adjustment.
At
that
hearing
on
July
27th
I
will
just
note
for
the
record
that
hearing
also
included
approval
of
a
setback,
variance
for
the
structure.
That
is
not
the
subject
of
today's
appeal.
It's
just
the
denials
for
the
far
and
the
garage
variances
that
are
before
you
today.
The
appellants
in
this
case
are
John
Thomason
and
Brittany
Vickers.
M
They
were
the
applicants
for
the
variances
they're,
the
owners
of
the
subject
property
and
they
would
be
constructing
and
residing
on
the
property.
This
is
a
survey
showing
the
existing
conditions.
It's
currently
a
vacant
lot
that
is
largely
paved
over.
There's
a
lot
area
of
4363
square
feet
and
is
37
feet
wide.
It
has
access
in
Frontage
to
4th
Avenue
to
the
East
and
there
is
an
existing
curb
cut
on
that
side.
There's
no
alley
access
to
the
subject
property.
M
Here
you
can
see
some
different
views
of
what
is
proposed.
It
is
a
two-story
single-family
dwelling.
This
dwelling
as
designed,
would
have
a
gross
floor
area
of
2889
square
feet
and
you
can
see
in
the
top
right
is
the
front
elevation
drawing
you
can
see.
There
is
an
attached
front-facing
Garage
on
that
main
level,
front
elevation.
M
Here's
some
floor
plans
just
to
show
some
other
relevant
portions
of
the
structure.
Again,
you
can
see
that
attached,
front-facing
garage
on
the
main
level
I'll
also
call
out
on
the
upper
level
floor
plan
on
the
right
hand,
side
towards
the
top
that
kind
of
box
with
the
X
through
it
that
is
labeled
as
a
void
area.
It's
essentially
a
lofted
area,
so
the
second
floor
surface
would
not
continue
all
the
way
across
the
inside
of
the
structure
but
would
be
lofted.
M
So
again,
the
relevant
variance
requests
in
this
case
were
to
increase
the
maximum
floor
area
ratio
from
0.5
to
0.663
and
to
increase
the
maximum
width
of
an
attached
front-facing
garage
from
60
percent
to
74.1
percent.
The
board
of
adjustment
denied
these
two
variants
requests
in
doing
so.
They
adopted
staff
analysis
and
recommendations.
M
As
the
members
of
the
committee
are
aware,
there
are
three
required
legal
findings
that
come
into
play
for
variance
requests,
so
I'll
go
through
the
staff
findings
for
those
which
are
the
basis
of
the
board's
decision
for
the
first
variants
for
far
in
that,
first,
finding
I'll
just
highlight
The
Tweak
in
the
language
for
that
finding
it's
now
challenges
due
to
circumstances
as
opposed
to
practical
difficulties
as
it
was
previously
worded.
It
doesn't
really
change
staff
analysis,
so
the
first
finding
for
the
far
variants.
M
The
subject
property
is
slightly
smaller
than
a
lot
of
low
density.
Residential
Properties
in
Minneapolis,
most
properties
are
around
5000
square
feet
or
40
feet
in
width
is
kind
of
a
typical
Minneapolis
residential
property.
This
one
is
a
little
bit
smaller
than
that,
but
not
so
small
is
to
create
challenges
in
complying
with
this
requirement,
as
staff
sees
it,
regardless
of
the
size
of
a
property.
M
The
zoning
code
guarantees
a
gross
floor
area
of
up
to
2
500
square
feet,
attach
garages
and
and
Loft
areas
count
towards
gross
floor
area
and
far
including
these
in
The
Proposal.
These
These
are
design
decisions
made
by
the
applicants
not
based
on
characteristics
unique
to
the
property,
as
staff
sees
it.
Property
is
pretty
flat,
no
substantial
slopes
or
anything
that
really
impacts
floor
area
calculations.
M
So
we
don't
see
that
this
finding
is
met
a
second
finding
about
reasonable
use
in
spirit
and
intent
of
the
code
spirit
and
intent
of
Maximum
floor
area
ratio
is
to
govern
the
bulk
of
buildings
to
align
with
the
plan
development
scale
of
the
zoning
District
that
a
property
is
located
in,
as
I
mentioned
before.
The
ordinance
guarantees
a
gross
floor
area
up
to
2500
square
feet,
regardless
of
the
size
of
the
property.
M
That
is,
the
intent
of
the
code
is
to
allow
a
structure
up
to
that
size
and
not
bigger
for
a
smaller
property
like
this
areas
like
attached,
garages
and
Loft
areas
count
towards
gross
floor
area
and
far
because
they
contribute
to
the
bulk
of
the
building
and
that's
what
floor
area
ratio
is
intended
to
capture
is
the
bulk
of
a
building,
regardless
of
how
it's
used.
So
we
find
that
that
is
not
met
for
the
for
the
garage
variants
that
first
finding
about
challenges
due
to
unique
circumstances.
M
Again,
the
property
is
a
little
bit
smaller
than
a
typical
lot,
but
it's
not
so
small
as
to
create
challenges.
The
dwelling
that's
being
proposed
here,
it's
27
feet
wide.
It's
the
widest
possible
structure.
Someone
could
build
while
still
complying
with
standard
side
setbacks.
The
maximum
width
of
an
attached,
front-facing
garage
is
60.
So
on
a
27
foot
wide
house,
you
can
get
a
garage
up
to
16.2
feet
in
width.
If
it's
attached
and
facing
the
front
they,
we
don't
have
similar
limitations
on
attached
garages
facing
other
directions
or
detached
garages.
M
The
zoning
code
requires
a
minimum
width
of
eight
and
a
half
feet
for
a
standard
parking
space.
We
allow
parking
in
a
driveway,
so
the
minimum
building
width
is
only
18
feet,
so
any
desire
to
provide
any
additional
parking
or
storage
space
in
an
attached,
front-facing
garage
again
from
staff's
view.
Those
are
design
decisions
made
by
the
applicant.
We
don't
see
anything
unique
about
the
property
that
creates
challenges
in
complying
with
the
code
for
the
second
finding
regarding
reasonable
use
and
spirit
and
intent
of
the
code.
M
We
intent
of
the
code
in
this
case
is
very
plainly
to
limit
the
size
of
attached.
Front-Facing
garages
parking
is
considered
accessory
to
the
principal
use
on
the
property.
Typically,
in
this
case,
the
principal
use
being
the
house
itself,
garages
are
intended
to
be
subordinate
in
size
and
and
location,
and
this
is
also
intended
to
align
with
the
traditional
build
form
of
low
density,
Residential
Properties
in
Minneapolis,
which
typically
has
the
house
in
the
front
and
the
parking
in
the
back,
including
for
properties
without
alley
access.
M
M
As
many
of
you
on
on
the
committee
recall
from
a
few
years
ago,
when
the
city
amended
the
zoning
code
in
2021
to
eliminate
minimum
Osprey
parking
requirements,
this
is
part
of
a
broader
push
to
to
limit
off-street
vehicle
parking
in
Minneapolis
and
promote
Transportation
alternatives
to
private
Vehicles.
So,
with
all
that
said,
again,
staff
finds
that
that
finding
is
not
met.
M
So
in
conclusion,
again,
the
the
appeal
is
regarding
these
two
variance.
Denials.
I
will
note
that
if
the
committee
is
inclined
to
Grant
the
appeals
and
effectively
approve
either
these
variance
requests,
staff
would
recommend
two
conditions
of
approval.
Can
a
boilerplate
that
we
include
for
a
lot
of
variants
approvals
that
they
have
approval
of
final
plans
by
cpad
staff,
for
example,
as
part
of
their
building
permit,
and
that
construction
be
completed
within
two
years
unless
extended
by
the
zoning
administrator.
M
There
were
a
number
of
public
comments
received
mostly
in
advance
of
the
the
board
of
adjustment
hearing,
as
well
as
I
think.
One
extra
comment
that
came
in
after
the
board
of
adjustment,
but
before
today
those
should
all
have
been
made
available
through
consideration.
Prior
to
today's
hearing,
the
appellants
are
in
attendance
during
today's
hearing.
That
concludes
my
presentation,
but
all
stand
for
questions
are.
A
Seeing
none.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
report.
We
will
start
with
the
appellant
I
understand
they
are
here
and
welcome
to
speak.
You
actually
get
10
minutes
if
you're
an
appellant
in
a
quasi-judicial.
That
said
the
staff
is
recommended
against
it.
The
board
of
adjustment
has
recommended
against
it
and
I'm
hard-pressed
to
find
out
what
the
Practical
difficulty
or
hardship
is
here.
So
I
would
urge
you
to
make
your
case
that
there
is
a
practical
difficulty
or
hardship
here
other
than
the
design
that
you
would
prefer.
A
Have
a
very
tough
Hill
to
climb
here.
You
need
to
explain
to
us
what
is
the
Practical
difficulty
or
hardship
that
would
allow
us
to
Grant
you
a
variance
given
that
we
have
not
granted
variances
outside
of
the
code
because
there
are
when
there
are
not
practical
difficulties.
So
I
would
urge
you
to
stick
to
that.
A
O
All
right,
I'm,
John,
Thomason,
hello,
thank
you
to
everyone
on
the
committee
for
being
here
here
with
my
fiance
Brittany
regarding
our
home
plans
and
the
two
variances
that
we
were
denied
by
the
board
of
adjustments.
We
spent
much
at
2021
looking
for
homes
and
found
ourselves
out
priced
again
and
again
on
a
whim.
O
We
decided
to
take
a
look
at
available
Lots
within
the
city,
to
potentially
build
a
home
kind
of
just
creative
thinking
to
see
if
we
could
a
state
in
the
city
in
our
search,
we
found
an
unused
pavelot
in
Northeast
Minneapolis,
with
a
residential
zoning,
we're
not
developers
our
intentions
not
to
build
a
home
and
turn
a
profit.
We
are
trying
to
build
a
home
for
us
to
live
in
for
the
foreseeable
future.
O
We
believe
that
we've
designed
a
home
to
maximize
the
full
potential
of
the
lot
that
creates
value
in
the
neighborhood.
The
lot
in
question
is
an
eyesore.
It
has
been
unused
and
unkept.
It's
an
unused
and
unkept
asphalt.
Lot
has
been
that
way
for
over
a
decade
and
prior
to
that
it
was
a
parking
lot.
In
the
past.
It's
been
overgrown
filled
with
trash
left
on
shovel
in
the
winter
and
occasionally
uses
a
place
to
sleep
or
hang
out
overnight.
We
believe
that
in
its
current
state
it's
taking
away
value
from
the
neighborhood.
O
We
do
disagree
with
staff
finance.
That
challenges
do
not
exist
in
complying
with
the
ordinance
due
to
circumstances
unique
to
the
property,
with
regards
to
variance
one
and
two
and
believe
the
narrowness
of
the
lot
at
37
feet
wide
having
no
rear
Access,
North,
Side
Access
and
the
deck
of
the
neighbor
to
the
South
overhanging.
The
lot
line
do
create
challenges
unique
to
this
property,
an
attempt
to
to
design
a
home
to
meet
the
city's
requirements.
O
We
discovered
that
the
ordinance
were
not
written
in
consideration
to
building
a
home
on
a
lot
that
is
less
than
40
feet
wide
and
additionally
has
no
rear
nor
Side
Access
for
ordinance
546.420
lot.
Dimension
requirements
within
r2b
districts
is
40
feet
wide
with
a
minimum
lot
area
of
5
000
square
feet.
Our
lot
is
37
square
feet,
4,
363.,
sorry,
40,
feet
wide,
4,
360
square
feet
in
surface
area
and
article
8
lot,
Dimensions
ordinance,
552.700
under
purpose
of
lot
Dimensions,
it
States
minimum
lot.
O
Dimension
regulations
are
established
to
ensure
that
sufficient
area
is
provided
to
meet
the
functional
needs
of
different
land
uses
and
to
reinforce
existing
or
planned
development
patterns
in
each
built
form
District.
So
immediately
we
are
below
the
minimum
threshold
for
sufficient
area
to
provide
to
meet
the
functional
needs.
A
few
algorithms
I'd
like
to
point
out
having
a
separate
structure,
would
increase
impervious
square
footage
and
reduce
the
amount
of
green
space
for
our
backyard,
so
moving
a
garage
to
the
rear.
O
While
it
reduces
gross
floor
area
because
a
separate
structures
for
parking
do
not
count
towards
GFA,
it
does
increase
impervious
square
footage
and
we're
already
on
a
pretty
small
lot
that
reduces
the
size
of
backyard,
reduces
Green
Space
and
makes
the
home
we
would
have
to
make
it
quite
a
bit
smaller.
Additionally,
a
driveway
leading
up
to
a
garage
in
the
back
creates
additional
impervious
square
footage.
Space
with
ceiling
Heights
about
14
feet
are
counted
twice
in
the
GFA
calculation.
O
Detached
garages
do
not
count
prior
to
October
1st
2014
applicants
were
allowed
a
deduction
of
250
square
feet
for
an
attached
garage
and
determining
GFA
for
the
purpose
of
the
far
calculation.
Half
stories
do
not
count
towards
the
GFA
for
the
purpose
of
the
far
calculation,
despite
adding
bulk
to
a
structure.
O
So
if
we
made
a
two
and
a
half
story
building,
it
would
be
the
same
far
same
vfa,
so
there's
plenty
of
homes
around
the
area
that
are
two
and
a
half
story,
or
one
and
a
half
storage
buildings
that
are
only
counted
on
the
the
main
floor
or
the
two
floors
prior
to
the
house.
A
O
Well,
I
guess
what
I'd
I'll
pivot
here
and
say
that
if
we
believe
that
it
was
easy
to
build
on
this
lot,
it
would
have
been
done
already.
We
are
the
third
owners
since
it
was
commercially
used
last
I
believe
it
was
about
12
years
ago
and
it
was
used
for
commercial
parking.
O
O
Additionally,
homes
built
prior
to
January,
1st
2008
that
exceeded
the
maximum
floor
area
ratio
and
building
conditions
that
would
cause
the
buildings
to
exceed
a
maximum
floor
area
ratio
may
increase
their
gross
floor
area
One
Time
by
more
than
by
no
more
than
500
square
feet,
that's
Ordnance
552.120
and
we
will
never
be
allowed
that
ordinance
or
to
to
build
our
property
Beyond.
Whatever
we
start
with
I
guess,
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
the.
O
O
Is
there
anything
you
want
me
to
show
up
or
actually
I
guess
I
will
yield
any
or
your
own
time?
Don't
you
I
guess.
O
If
there's
any
questions
of
me,
I
would
stand
for
them.
I'm.
A
Just
trying
to
get
you
to
tell
me
why
this
is
different
than
what
the
rules
require.
What
about
it?
I
mean
you
could
build
a
smaller
house
on
the
slot,
we're
not
even
asking
you.
Is
it
affordable
because
you're
going
to
own
it,
that's
awesome,
but
I
mean
someone
could
come
and
buy
it
and
build
a
1500
square
foot
house
on
it,
correct
it.
Just
you
couldn't
do
that
because
you
don't
want
to
have
a
house
that
size
I,
understand
that
but
I
the
rule
is
the
rule.
A
You
either
have
to
have
a
practical
difficulty
or
hardship.
Mr
coolhouse
explained
it
and
you
don't
have
one
and
that's
why
everyone's
telling
you
no,
but
we
like
the
fact
that
you're
building
a
house,
that's
cool,
it
should
just
be
smaller,
because
it's
a
smaller
lot,
you're
welcome
to
speak.
Matt
absolutely
come
on
up.
You
still
have
three
minutes,
plus
your
two
minutes.
P
Practical
difficulty
feels
like
it's
related
to
The
Alley
access,
I
think
if
we
had
an
alley
access,
we
would
just
have
built
the
house
of
1800
square
feet,
and
we
wouldn't
need
to
be
here
because
you
can
put
the
garage
in
the
back
and
it
wouldn't
count
and
I
think
that
that
lack
of
that
access
is
what
feels
like
the
Practical
difficulty
for
us
in
building
a
home
that
has
a
an
ability
to
park
cars,
two
cars
in
a
space
that
we
live
in
Minnesota
right,
so
that
alley
access
feels
like
our
primary
reasoning
for
practical
difficulty
or
the
lack
thereof
along
with
the
narrowness
of
the
lot.
P
So,
for
example,
if
we
chose
to
continue
with
a
smaller
home
in
a
detached
garage
which
would
allow
us
to
perhaps
not
be
here,
we
would
bump
up
against
the
knee
for
impervious
space,
and
we
would
probably
be
back
here
anyways
with
the
driveway
and
then
the
total
garage
space
in
the
backs.
Sorry,
so
I
think
this.
P
We
are
arguing
that
the
size
and
the
lack
of
access
are
indeed
hardships,
and
it's
not
just
a
design
choice
for
making
to
have
a
larger
house
we're
trying
to
make
a
home
that
is
practical
and
fits
the
neighborhood
and
that
you
know
levels
up
to
the
2040
plan
in
a
way
that
utilizes
vacant
Lots
it
brings
more
people
live
in
the
city.
P
So
we
do
think
that
our
proposal
is
on
a
large
scale,
supporting
the
Minneapolis
2040
plan
by
bringing
in
more
residents
and
utilizing
unused
space,
and
we
think
that
it,
the
lot
being
vacant
still
is
a
very
good
piece
of
evidence
for
us.
P
That's
that
would
imply
that
it
is
difficult
to
build
on,
and
so
practical
difficulties
have
existed
for,
not
just
us,
but
the
previous
two
or
three
owners,
which
is
why
it's
still
vacant,
and
so
we
think
that
piece
is
important
in
in
our
argument
and
then
again
that
the
total
size
and
access
the
narrowness
of
the
lot
to
build
a
home
that
is
practical
and
that
does
Inspire
someone
to
take
action
to
utilize
the
space
for
the
betterment
of
the
city.
P
Okay,
I'll
go
and
then
I'll,
let
Evan
go
okay,
so
I
think
I.
Just
also
would
like
to
highlight
that
our
proposed
plan
is
more,
perhaps
even
more
mindful
of
total
lot
usage
than
something
that
would
apply
to
your
rules.
So,
for
example,
if
we
had
built
a
home
and
put
a
rear,
Access
Garage
on,
if
we
had
the
ability
to
do
that,
we
we
wouldn't
need
to
be
here
right,
but
the
total
space
of
the
lot
covered
would
be
significantly
greater.
P
Take
away,
Green
Space,
take
away
opportunities
for
us
to
like
build
a
rain
Garden,
which
is
something
we've
talked
to
the
Holland
neighborhood
Associated
about
so
I.
Think
that,
like
it's
important
to
note
that
maybe
it
is
possible
in
other
ways,
but
we
believe
that
this
is
the
the
best
use
of
the
space
and
that
it's
a
thoughtful
thoughtful
consideration
of
the
rules
in
a
practical
way.
P
So,
instead
of
just
saying,
okay,
here's
the
GFA
let's
fit
within
that
we
found
ways
to
to
make
a
better
use
of
the
land
and
again
those
two
hardships
make
it
almost
impossible
to
to
fit
within
these
rules
and
then
I
think
I.
Just
ask
some
accessory
information
for
you,
like
it's
taken
us
over
a
year
and
a
half
in
thousands
of
dollars
to
be
here
and
you're.
P
N
Hi,
my
name
is
Evan
Hall
1276,
Berkeley,
Avenue,
Saint
Paul.
This
property
has
been
acting
as
a
commercial
like
property
for
many
years,
is
paved
over
and
was
used
as
a
parking
lot
as
a
double
curb
cut.
It
is,
of
course
zoned
r2b,
as
it
has
seen,
but
we,
the
design
team,
has
explored
many
options
with
the
applicant,
including
the
one
that
was
mentioned
in
a
previous
lot.
That
shows
a
driveway
to
the
back
with
a
garage
that
would
have
a
more
impervious
surface
than
was
being
proposed.
N
It
is
in
kind
with
the
neighborhood,
and
it
is
what
feels
right
in
the
neighborhood
to
have
a
double
a
two-car
garage
in
the
front
which
is
similar
if
you
were
to
walk
around
this
neighborhood
to
a
lot
of
the
neighbors.
That's
not
a
great,
maybe
in
itself
a
reason,
but
it
feels
right
in
the
neighborhood.
N
So
many
of
the
houses
conform
to
a
similar
design
than
what's
before
you
today,
previous
land
owner
owners
determined
the
challenges
of
this
lot
overbearing
and
is
the
prime
reason
for
the
CLT
applicant
constraints
of
lot
and
variety
of
housing
in
the
area
include
lots
of
commercial
vernacular
housing
where
this
is
actually
a
smaller
footprint
than
a
lot
of
the
the
commercial
Lots
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
block
along
University
Avenue.
The
lofted
area,
as
we
mentioned
in
the
the
home,
is
a
design
consideration.
N
A
Okay,
is
there
anyone
else
here,
who'd
like
to
speak
to
this
issue,
anyone
anyone
seeing
none
will
close
the
public
hearing,
Mr
coolhaus.
A
Could
they
build
a
house
with
a
garage
and
back
I
mean
we
without
question?
We're
not
thrilled
about
I,
don't
want
to
use
the
derogatory
term
for
them,
but
garage
I
had
one
so
I
understand
it.
Garage
is
in
front.
Could
they
potentially
build
a
garage
and
back
and
not
have
this
problem
and
what
what
about
the
other
houses
on
this
block?
Do
they
have
front
garages
also.
M
Councilman
Goodman
they're,
it
is
speculatory,
but
theoretically
yes,
they
could
make
substantial
design
changes
to
the
house
to
put
a
garage
in
the
back
that
would
that
could
potentially
create
issues
with
other
zoning
code
requirements
like
the
extent
of
impervious
service.
That
would
be
added
for
a
longer
driveway.
We
have
not
evaluated
this
because
we
have
not
seen
a
proposal
for
that,
so
again,
I'm
only
speculating,
but
theoretically
yes,
they
could
put
a
garage
in
the
back,
but
you
know
I
expect
it
would
require
substantial
changes
to
the
design.
M
I
was
not
aware
of
those
projects
prior
to
the
appellants,
bringing
them
to
our
attention,
but
the
circumstances
around
those
projects
are
materially
different
than
the
circumstances
that
are
in
play
here
and
today
and
with
other
properties
on
the
immediate
block.
I'm,
not
I,
can't
think
of
any
other
attached.
Front-Facing
garages
that
come
to
mind
but
I'm
not
familiar
with
all
the
facades
on
the
street.
M
M
Correct
the
zoning
code
has
a
specific
call
out.
You
know,
exemption
to
say,
even
though
the
standard
maximum
floor
area
ratio
is
0.5
or
50
of
the
lot
area.
For
a
smaller
lot,
we
will
guarantee
a
gross
flow
area
of
up
to
2500
square
feet,
which
is
what
would
be
allowed
on
a
on
a
5
000
square
foot
lot
and
to
Mr
thomason's
point
about
the
lot
being
non-conforming.
M
A
Okay,
could
they
build
a
garage
underground
like?
Could
they
come
at
it
and
then
go
under
with
and
then
still
build
the
same
size
house
that
they
want.
M
M
But
theoretically
it's
a
possibility.
Okay,.
L
Thank
you.
This
slot
has
been
vacant
for
for
a
long
time.
Are
there
any
other
folks
that
came
through
that
see
this
as
a
tiny
place
and
not
able
to
build.
M
I'm
not
sure
about
other
staff
at
the
city,
I
can
say
from
my
experience.
In
the
last
three
or
four
years,
I
know:
I
had
talked
to
one
previous
property
owner
who
came
forward
with
the
design
and
then
ultimately
ended
up,
not
moving
forward.
M
I,
obviously
can't
speak
for
that
previous
property
owner,
but
there's
at
least
one
other
concrete
example
of
someone
who
is
trying
to
do
something
similar
to
what
the
appellants
are
trying
now
building
a
new
home
for
their
owner
occupancy,
who,
for
reasons
that
are
their
own,
decided
not
to
pursue
that
and
sold
the
property.
L
L
A
M
Its
own,
no,
that's,
not
something.
We
would
consider
to
be
a
challenge
or
you
know
something
that
is
unique
across
the
board.
You
know
we
understand
that
can
contribute
to
to
to
difficulties.
But
again
there
are
other
options.
We
allow
curb
cuts
on
street
frontages
when
no
alley
accesses
is
provided
and
so
forth.
A
Other
questions
or
comments,
thank
you
for
your
report.
Seeing
none
I
do
think
this
is
kind
of
a
difficult
decision,
but
unfortunately
I
don't
see
how
we
could
legally
say
that
the
property
is
unique
when
there
are
many
other
properties
that
are
like
it
and
the
staff
are
opposed
and
the
board
of
adjustment
are
opposed.
It
would
like
be
I,
think
out
of
line
of
the
committee
to
turn
around
and
simply
say.
Well,
we,
like
you,
you're
nice
people.
A
We
want
you
to
build
a
house
because
we
do
like
all
of
those
things,
but
there's
nothing
unique
about
the
property,
that's
in
a
unique
condition.
I
think
that
would
allow
us
to
Grant
this
variance
and
the
committee
has
been
quite
strict
about
making
sure
that
we
are
consistent
with
people
across
the
board.
So
for
that
reason,
as
much
as
I
would
love
to
see
you
build
this
house,
I
would
have
to
move
to
deny
the
appeal.
Are
there
other
comments,
questions,
opinions,
council,
member
rainville,.
Q
I
will
be
voting
in
favor
of
the
denial,
but
I
just
want
to
encourage
you
to
go
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
listen
to
our
staff
and
and
they'll
help
guide
you
to
what
you
can
build.
It
would
be
just
an
honor
to
have
you.
I
live
in
Northeast
too,
and
I
would
love
to
have
you
for
neighbors,
but
but
we're
elected
officials.
We
take
all
the
office,
we
have
to
obey
the
rules
that
are
in
front
of
us.
So
please,
if
this
is
denied,
go
back
to
our
staff
and
work
with
them.
B
A
No
sorry,
the
the
appeal
is
denied
we'll
move
on
to
site
plan
approval
for
City
Homes
on
Park
Avenue,
24,
32,
Chicago,
Avenue,
Miss
Silas.
Welcome.
R
Good
afternoon,
members
of
the
committee,
the
project
before
you
today
is
an
appeal
of
the
city
planning
commission's
decision
to
approve
site
planner
View
at
the
property
2432
Chicago
Avenue.
This
site
is
located
in
the
built
Forum
Corridor
six
overlay
district
and
therefore
allows
for
up
to
six
stories.
In
height,
the
applicant
has
proposed
a
new
five-story
mixed-use,
building
containing
20
dwelling
units
and
2400
square
feet
of
commercial
space.
R
The
submitted
site
plan
originally
included
two
variances
to
the
North
and
South
interior
side
yards
that
I'll
cover
with
a
bit
more
detail,
but
those
were
recommended
for
denial
by
staff
and
were
denied
at
Planning
Commission
and
are
not
the
subject
of
an
appeal.
R
The
Planning
Commission
did
approve
the
site
plan
for
a
building
with
conditions
of
approval
that
required
that
the
building
comply
with
the
North
and
South
interior
side
yard
setbacks
on
August
10th
David
esselstein
on
behalf
of
City
Homes
and
Park
Avenue
submitted
an
appeal
of
the
city
planning
commission's
decision
to
approve
the
site
plan
review
application,
specifically
regarding
their
decision
to
approve
that
application,
without
a
condition
of
approval
requiring
the
applicant
install
a
perimeter
fence
along
the
rear
of
the
property.
R
So
here
is
that
aerial
view
of
the
site
as
you'll
see
it
is
currently
vacant.
There
is
a
driveway
along
the
rear
of
the
site
that
is
in
the
location
where
one
would
expect
an
alley
to
be,
but
it
is
a
private
Drive
serving
the
neighboring
Association
to
the
west,
and
there
are
some
errors
on
the
applicant
submitted
materials
that
were
not
identified
at
the
time
by
the
applicant
or
staff
that
that
that
was
shown
on
some
plans
as
an
alley
that
is
not
an
alley
and
and
is
instead
private
property.
R
So
the
interior
side
yard
setbacks
for
for
any
building
in
the
the
residential
districts.
R
If
the
building
depth
exceeds
75
percent
of
the
lot
depth,
the
interior
side
yard
setbacks
are
increased
by
two
feet
on
each
side,
so
the
applicant
had
proposed
a
building
that
exceeded
75
percent
of
the,
where
the
building
death
exceeded
75
of
the
lot
depth,
resulting
in
an
increased
setback.
So
when
the
variances
were
denied,
the
The
Simple
Solution
would
be
to
shorten
the
building
by
10
feet
and
that
would
result
in
a
building
that
is
complying
with
the
side
yard
setbacks.
R
So
that
is
what
staff
recommended,
and
that
is
the
outcome
of
the
City
Planning
Commission
hearing.
So
the
applicant
has
submitted
a
revised
site
plan
showing
the
building
depth
at
no
more
than
slightly
less
than
75
percent
of
the
lot
depth,
and
just
as
a
note
because
the
the
project
requires
no
variances
at
this
point,
those
variances
were
denied
and
the
number
of
dwelling
units
in
the
proposed
building
is
now
16
rather
than
20..
R
It
would
be
an
administrative
review
if
it
were
a
new
application,
which
is
why
staff
recommended
approval
of
the
site
plan
review
application,
understanding
that
it
is
with
the
conditions
of
approval
attached
by
staff.
It
would
be
compatible
with
what
the
applicant
could
submit
today
as
a
new
administrative
application.
R
So
this
is
the
original
site
plan
that
was
submitted
by
the
applicant.
As
you
can
see,
it
is
shown
on
the
plan
that
that
is
an
alley
to
the
rear,
and
that
is
incorrect.
R
So
the
appellant
has
requested
that
the
city
council
condition
the
site
plan
review
application
to
require
a
perimeter
fence
be
installed
along
the
rear
of
the
property.
R
The
the
appellant
statement
has
a
lot
of
information
about
the
request
for
a
perimeter
fence
and
the
concerns
that
the
association
has
about
trust
pass
onto
their
property
from
residents
of
this
new
development
when
it
comes
to
conditioning
side
plan
review
applications.
Typically,
those
conditions
are
tied
to
some
sort
of
request
for
alternative
compliance
or
some
sort
of
deviation
in
the
plan
that
staff
identifies
as
needing
a
condition
to
remedy.
This
proposed
plan
has
only
one
request
for
alternative
compliance,
and
that
has
to
do
with
not
providing
a
temporary
loading
zone
on
the
site.
R
There
is
no
there's,
no
curb
pet
proposed.
There's
no
parking
proposed,
so
staff
was
willing
to
Grant
the
alternative
compliance
with
the
understanding
that
the
applicant
can
request
a
temporary
drop
off
a
pickup
zone
along
Chicago
Avenue
through
public
works.
So
staff
recommends
that
the
city
council
deny
the
appeal
and
approve
the
site
plan
review
application
with
the
10
conditions
recommended
by
staff
and
I
am
happy
to
answer.
Any
questions
are.
A
N
A
Okay,
all
right,
so
the
appellant
gets
to
speak
first
Mr
asselstein
welcome.
This
is
not
asking
for
a
variance
but
for
a
site
plan
condition.
So
why
should
we
tell
the
appellant
they
have
to
put
up
a
fence?
Why
don't
you
put
up
a
fence.
S
I'll
address
that,
in
my
my
my
talk
great,
my
name
is
David
esselstein
I'm
Secretary
of
the
board
of
directors
at
City,
Homes
on
Park,
Avenue
and
I,
am
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
board
of
directors.
S
The
site
plan
for
2432
Chicago
Avenue
doesn't
fully
consider
the
Lots
limited
Street
access
its
rear
location
along
our
association's
private
Drive,
Columbus
Court,
nor
being
located
between
neighboring
properties
with
easement
rights.
To
use
our
Drive
consider
this
General
intention
in
the
zoning
code
under
site
plan
review,
General,
Provisions,
purpose,
site
plan
review
standards
are
established
to
promote
development
that
is
compatible
with
nearby
neighbors
to
minimize
pedestrian
and
vehicular
conflict.
The
regulations
recognize
the
unique
character
of
land
and
development
throughout
the
city
and
the
need
for
flexibility
in
the
site
plan
review.
S
In
addition,
zoning
plan
530
zoning
code
530.260
requires
fencing
to
prevent
criminal
activity.
In
our
case,
the
association
is
going
to
be
inundated
with
trespassing
from
the
development's
rear
door.
The
building
will
be
located
between
neighboring
properties,
who
have
easement
rights
to
use
our
private
drive,
but
this
lot
does
not
have
easement
rights.
The
future
tenants
of
the
building
will
see
Neighbors
on
both
sides
freely
coming
and
going
on
Columbus
court,
and
they
will
surely
come
to
believe
it
is
an
alley.
S
S
And
this
was
the
original
plan
that
we
were
shown
that
had
a
sidewalk
here
that
I'm
referencing
renters
will
simply
believe
that
our
drive
is
an
alley
and
that
they,
as
residents
of
Minneapolis,
have
the
right
to
use
it.
They
will
believe
that
they
can
park
their
cars
on
our
drive
and
that
they
can
stand
their
ground.
If
asked
to
leave
this
confusion
will
open
the
potential
for
criminal
trespassing
to
take
place,
not
to
mention
the
potential
for
physical
conflict
with
our
homeowners
trying
to
assert
their
ownership.
S
We
seek
the
committee's
resolve
to
prevent
such
crimes
from
ever
becoming
possible.
Furthermore,
the
committee
can
also
consider
three
policies
of
the
2040
plan:
one
policy,
six
pedestrian-oriented,
building
and
site
design,
two
policy
8
Public
Safety
through
environmental
design,
three
policy
80
development,
near
Metro
stations.
All
three
include:
all
three
policies
include
action,
steps
to
orient
buildings
and
building
entrances
to
the
street
and
sidewalk,
given
that
this
particular
lot
only
has
a
single
side
access
to
a
street,
it's
clear
that
the
rear
door
activity
must
be
guided
back
towards
Chicago
Avenue.
S
Our
property's
private
Drive
needs
to
be
recognized,
as
well
as
the
neighboring
properties,
easement
rights
and
the
apartment
building's
lack
of
easement
rights.
There
needs
to
be
some
action
taken
towards
lessening
conflict,
eliminating
the
potential
for
criminal
trespassing
and
increasing
compatibility
in
defense
of
our
appeal.
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
zoning
code
530.260
does
not
State
any
limitations
regarding
its
application
other
than
the
prevention
of
crime
through
Design
Elements.
S
Any
planning
staff
opinions
regarding
the
intention
of
the
codes
application,
but
which
are
not
actually
stated
in
the
code,
have
an
illegal
basis
and
any
arguments
referring
to
precedence
as
being
set
by
the
planning,
Department's
prior
interpretation
or
application.
This
code
do
not
repeal
nor
deny
the
application
of
the
code
in
this
case
to
require
fencing
to
prevent
the
potential
for
Crime
the
crime
of
criminal
trespassing
from
occurring.
The
code
is
clear
on
fencing
being
used
for
such
an
application.
S
Any
suggestion
that
the
association
can
install
a
fence
along
our
border
must
recognize
the
three
properties
around
this
property
and
a
single
fence
along
our
property.
The
tenants
would
just
walk
around
it
last.
The
notion
that
a
line
of
shrubs
will
prevent
people
from
accessing
our
drive
is
simply
not
realistic,
especially
in
consideration
of
traffic.
Heavy
Chicago,
Avenue
versus
our
empty
Quiet
Drive
just
outside
the
building's
rear
door.
S
City
Homes
and
Parks
seeks
the
requirement
of
a
wrap
around
rear
and
side
perimeter
fence
to
guide
the
occupants
exiting
and
entering
the
rear
door
back
towards
Chicago
Avenue,
in
accordance
with
the
reference
policies
of
the
2040
plan
and
Zoning
code,
530.260
I
thank
the
committee
for
your
consideration.
This
matter
and
I'll
stand
by
for
any
comments
or
questions
you
may
have.
A
S
There's
an
only
myself
okay.
S
You
do
I
I'm
curious
if
I
need
to
go
through
the
specifics
of
the
the
code
I
I
gave
in
my
statement
that
I
filed
references
to
this
code
and
I
I
gave
you
a
copy
of
the
code.
Do
I
need
to
also
go
through
that.
S
A
N
So
my
name
is
Evan
Hall
I'm,
representing
Wilson
Molina
at
507,
East,
Lake
Street
in
Minneapolis.
We
want
to
work
with
the
neighborhood
and
and
the
neighbors
and
Wilson
Molina
is
not
opposed
to
putting
up
a
fence.
It's
just
the
requirement
from
the
city.
If
it's
required
or
not
needs
to
be
clarified,
I
do
have
a
presentation
that
shows
update
information
that
might
help
describe
the
project
a
little
bit
more.
A
A
N
I
I
don't
once
again
I'm
I'm,
not
Wilson
Molina
I
cannot
say
that,
but
he
is
not
opposed
to
putting
up
a
fence.
I.
Don't
honestly,
I
I
think
the.
A
City
has
worked
with
Mr
Molina
a
lot
and
we
hold
him
in
high
regard.
So
if
he
was
here,
I
would
think
he
would
probably
say:
let's
make
this
unpleasantness
go
away
and
the
accusations
of
what
renters
might
or
might
not
do
I'm
not
even
comfortable
with
that
I.
Don't
know
what
people
who
rent
do
I,
don't
think
it's
different
than
if
it
was
condo
owners
and
what
they
would
do.
N
And
I'll
State
the
original
floor
plans
of
the
site
plan
did
show
offense
completely
surrounding
the
property.
We've
actually
revised
the
plan
to
it's
a
natural
offense
per
the
city
requirements.
So
if
we
want
to
work
with
with
the
neighborhood
and
the
city
and
if
I
say
we're
going
to
build
a
fence
right
now,
I'd
probably
be
paying
for
it.
So
I,
just
wanna
honestly.
A
Up,
we
think
what
you're
doing
is
good.
We
just
want
you
to
put
up
a
fence,
so
just
say:
you'll
put
up,
tell
Mr
Molina,
we
love
him,
but
we
think
if,
if
this
is
a
way
to
stop
this
unpleasant
kind
of
conversation
about
who
is
going
to
do
what
and
who
they
are,
it
does
say
in
our
crime
prevention
by
environmental
design
standards
that
would
be
a
best
practice.
A
Council
member
Osman
showed
me
that
that's
why
I
didn't
ask
the
young
man
giving
his
presentation
to
show
me
that,
because
councilmember
Osman
knew
it
already
so
cool
for
you
you're
doing
something
good,
we
love
what
you're
doing.
We
want
you
to
put
up
a
fence
so
that
we
cannot
have
this
neighbor
conflict.
N
A
Fair,
you
are
correct
and
we're
not
using
up
one
iota
of
your
time:
Miss
McMahon,
okay,
hi!
Can
you
join
us
for
a
moment?
This
seems
to
be
taking
longer
than
it
should.
It
sounds
like
the
appellant
would
just
simply
like
Mr
Molina
again,
who
we
hold
in
high
regard
to
just
put
up
a
fence,
and
it
sounds
like
he's
saying
along
the
back,
I
I
didn't
hear
him
say
around
the
entire
property
that
would
probably
be
costly.
I
would
guess
correct.
A
So
is
there
a
way
for
you
to
work
with
the
appellant
and
Mr
Molina?
In
the
two
weeks
we
have
until
the
council
meeting
to
come
to
an
agreement,
so
we
don't
have
to
adjudicate
this
and
this
poor
Mr
Hall
who's
now
spoken
twice
and
is
put
in
this
odd
position,
doesn't
have
to
make
a
commitment
for
Mr
Molina.
Could
we
move
this
forward
without
recommendation
and
rely
on
your
team
to
work
on
coming
to
some
compromise
between
the
two
parties?
Councilmember,
absolutely
I
think
we
can.
R
T
A
Okay
and
and
council
member
Osman
is
happy
to
help
as
well
and
I.
Don't
want
to
put
Mr
Hall
in
this
terrible
situation
and
I
don't
want
Mr
Molina
to
not
do
business
with
the
city,
because
he's
done
a
lot
of
great
houses.
He
really
has
and
we
hold
him
in
high
regard
and
we've
sold
them
a
lot
of
property
and
he's
done
a
good
job.
So
we
and
these
folks
are
sticking
with
it
living
in
the
city.
You
know,
so
we
want
them
to
be
happy
to.
A
A
A
Okay,
so
just
to
be
fair,
what
would
happen
next
is
I.
Think
council,
member
Osman
will
say
a
few
words
and
he'd
like
to
move
this
forward
without
recommendation.
What
that
means
is
you
have
between
today
and
a
week
from
Thursday,
with
the
assistance
of
our
fine
staff
to
come
to
an
agreement?
Okay
now,
okay,
thank
you.
A
L
Yes,
thank
you.
Councilman
yeah
did
a
great
job.
This
the
city
homes
on
the
park
I
met
them
very
nice
residents,
beautiful
area
they
have.
They
really
welcome
your
present.
You
come
in
there.
They
want
to
make
sure
that
you're,
your
good
neighborhood
and
you
want
to
be
a
good
neighborhood
and
thank
you
for
working
with
this
staff
and
also
I,
talked
to
Summerlin
on
the
phone
before
the
council
meeting
and
he's
not
a
position
to
offense,
like
you
mentioned,
but
I'm
happy
to
meet
with
you
and
the
staff
and
before
the
council
meeting.
L
Thank
you
and
I
would
like
to
move
this
with
our
recommendation.
This
item
for
the
council.
Thank
you.
Madam.
A
Thank
you,
sir
I
will
thank
Mr
Hall
for
not
using
up
any
of
his
time
and
officially
close
the
public
hearing,
and
then
council
member
Osman
has
moved
this
forward
without
recommendation.
Just
for
the
minutes
to
note
that
our
planning
staff
Miss
Silas
Miss
McMahon,
the
neighbors,
the
applicant
will
have
a
meeting
to
discuss
what
they
can
agree
on
and
let's
agree
that
new
renters
would
be
a
good
thing,
not
necessarily
a
negative
thing.
A
A
R
Afternoon
again,
this
project
before
you
is
at
2648
Marshall,
Street
Northeast
that
may
sound
familiar
because
there
was
a
an
extremely
similar
project.
Some
may
say
the
same
project
that
came
through
in
2021
for
the
site
very
similar
proposal.
R
So
the
applicant
has
resubmitted
for
this
proposal
and
is
asking
once
again
for
the
city
to
consider
their
project.
The
site
is
over
20
000
square
feet
along
the
Mississippi
River,
it's
occupied
by
an
existing
duplex
along
Marshall
and
a
detached
garage
to
the
rear
of
the
duplex,
which
is
about
in
the
middle
of
the
site.
The
applicant
has
proposed
to
establish
a
cluster
development
which
require
which
would
include
the
existing
duplex
to
remain
at
the
front
of
the
site.
R
A
new
detached
structure
containing
one
dwelling
unit
and
a
new
detached
garage,
so
in
2021
staff
recommended
approval
of
the
project.
It
was
approved
by
the
Planning
Commission
and
then
denied
upon
appeal
by
the
city
council.
So
applicants
are
permitted
to
resubmit
a
project
as
long
as
at
least
one
year
has
elapsed,
and
you
know,
even
if
that
proposal
is
substantially
similar
to
a
previous
proposal
that
was
not
approved.
R
So,
at
its
July
31st
meeting,
the
City
Planning
Commission
took
the
following
actions
on
the
project.
They
approved
the
cluster
development,
as
recommended
by
staff.
They
denied
the
two
variants:
the
two
variance
requests
for
structure
placement
within
the
Mississippi
River
Corridor,
critical
area
overlay
district
and
the
Shoreland
overlay
District,
both
of
those
districts.
It's
it's
a
little
redundant.
They
have
a
restriction
on
structure
placement
near
the
top
of
bluff
lines
and
with
and
steep
slopes
and
within
40
feet
of
those
features.
R
So
the
proposal
and
you'll
see
when
we
get
to
the
site
plan
that
the
proposal
has
the
new
structure
kind
of
spanning
the
top
of
the
bluff
line
or
steep
slope.
So
the
appellant
who
is
also
the
applicant
Andy
wattenhofer,
filed
an
appeal.
The
city
planning
commission's
decision
to
deny
the
variances
here
is
an
aerial
view
of
the
site.
This
is
a
really
unique
situation.
There
is
a
large-scale
apartment
building
to
the
north
and
an
industrial
concrete,
crushing
facility
to
the
South.
R
With
this
one
long
residential
lot
kind
of
nestled
in
between
here
is
a
site
plan
that
shows
the
it's
a
very
small
because
of
how
long.
The
lot
is
a
very
shows,
the
duplex
at
the
at
the
front
of
the
site,
a
couple
of
off-street
parking
spaces
to
serve
the
duplex,
a
new
garage
and
the
the
new
structure,
which
would
kind
of
be
built
over
the
top
of
the
bluff
liner,
steep
slope.
R
So
this
is
a
this
is
kind
of
a
slope
diagram
just
showing
the
slope
on
the
site
and
kind
of
where
the
structure
will
sit
compared
to
where
the
top
of
the
slope
is
and
where
the
40
foot
set
back
from
the
top
of
the
slope
would
be
the
applicant.
As
part
of
this,
this
new
submittal
submitted
the
shown
aerial
photos
of
the
project
indicating
that,
throughout
the
history
of
the
site,
there
has
been
a
lot
of
modification
to
the
site
with
concrete
and
parking
areas,
there
is
still
a
concrete
driveway.
R
The
the
actual,
steep
slope
or
Bluff
line
on
the
site
doesn't
necessarily
cover
the
entire
site.
We
did.
Staff
had
a
meeting
with
the
DNR
to
kind
of
discuss
the
the
the
bluff
line
and
implications
of
the
slope
on
the
site,
and
it's
likely
that
the
actual
slope
is
more
kind
of
in
the
middle
of
the
site
and
does
not
cover
the
the
driveway,
as
that's
been
modified
over
time
to
allow
for
vehicular
access.
R
I'm,
not
sure
I
have
a
plan
here
showing,
but
the
the
existing
detached
garage
is
built
very
in
a
very
close
or
you
can.
You
can
see
it.
It's
very
tiny,
the
outline
of
where
the
existing
garage
is
located
on
the
site,
which
is
very
close
to
the
top
of
the
steep
slope.
R
So
here
are
some
photos
or
renderings
of
the
proposed
new
structure
and
so
staff
recommended
approval
of
the
three
applications
in
2021
staff
has
once
again
recommended
approval
of
the
applications.
The
the
findings
that
we'll
get
into
in
a
moment
are
the
same
slightly
different
as
Alex
mentioned
that
that
we
are
not
looking
at
practical
difficulty,
rather
unique
circumstances.
R
Now,
although
this
project
was
submitted
before
July
1st,
so
we're
still
looking
at
the
Practical
difficulty,
finding
this
site
is
designated
for
parks
in
the
future
Landis,
and
even
though
the
the
designations
for
Parks.
This
is
a
privately
owned
site.
There
are
some
privately
owned
sites
that
are
designated
for
Parks,
future
land
use
and
those
we
have
kind
of
Applied
zoning
districts
that
would
allow
them
to
kind
of
continue
under
private
ownership
for
the
foreseeable
future.
R
The
comprehensive
plan
does
not
prohibit
owners
from
using
their
privately
owned
sites,
even
if
they
are
designated
for
perks
in
the
future,
and
the
applicant
and
City
staff
and
Park
Board
staff
have
had
some
meetings
discussing
some
private
agreements
that
the
applicant
may
enter
into
with
the
park
board
about
future
acquisition
at
the
site.
Although
I
don't
believe
any.
There
are
any
agreements
in
place
as
of
this
moment
when
it
comes
to
the
merka
and
Shoreland
overlay
ordinances.
R
I
know
that
in
your
packets
you
have
a
couple
of
comments
from
the
National
Park
Service
and
the
Department
of
Natural
Resources.
They
have
submitted
letters
asking
that
the
City
Planning
Commission
city
council
deny
the
the
proposed
variances.
While
these
ordinances
derive
from
State
Statute,
they
are,
they
were
adopted
into
the
Minneapolis
zoning
code
and
that
is
how
they
are
administered.
So
local
municipalities
are
tasked
with
administering
these
ordinances
and
there
are
authorized
variances
to
these
ordinances,
which
have
been
assessed
here.
R
R
When
it
comes
to
the
variance
analysis,
staff
has
found
that
practical
difficulties
do
exist
in
complying
with
the
ordinance.
The
top
of
the
steep
slope
and
Bluff
line
result
in
required
structure
setback
of
195
feet
from
the
ordinary
high
water
line,
so
compliance
with
that
structure,
setback
provision
alone
restrict
the
buildable
area
of
the
lot
by
46
percent
and
that
doesn't
account
for
any
additional
setback.
Requirements
for
the
site
nearby
sites,
including
Marshall
Terrace
Park,
which
is
located
two
Parcels
to
the
north,
have
Bluff
lines
that
are
located
much
closer
to
the
river.
R
So
the
the
bluff
line
for
the
site
really
does
kind
of
cut
in
on
this
property
specifically
and
is
greater
than
some
of
the
surrounding
properties.
The
location
of
the
steep
slope
and
Bluff
line
and
the
resulting
restriction
on
buildable
area
for
the
site
are.
You
are
unique.
Circumstances
that
were
not
created
by
the
applicant
staff
has
analyzed
that
the
The
Proposal
is
reasonable.
R
The
applicant
has
proposed
to
set
the
new
building
back
96
feet
from
the
ordinary
high
water
line,
and
the
structure
will
kind
of
have
a
peering
grade
beam,
Foundation
to
minimize
impact
on
slopes
and
trees.
The
applicant
has
proposed
a
number
of
enhancements
of
the
site
when
it
comes
to
storm
water,
including
rain,
Gardens
and
Native
plantings
and
Remediation,
of
existing
concrete
on
the
site
that
was
from
previous
development
and
the
nearby
industrial
use.
R
Staff
has
found
that
proposed
variants
will
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
area
or
have
any
negative
impact
on
the
surrounding
health,
safety
or
welfare
of
the
general
public.
As
shown
in
those
aerial
photos.
The
a
portion
of
the
site
on
what
was
is
currently
the
steep
slope
and
bloodline
has
been
used
for
kind
of
parking
driving
loading
areas,
there's
currently
a
garage
located
on
that
portion
of
the
site.
Their
was
at
one
time
a
dock
in
the
river
shown
on
these
aerial
photos.
R
There
has
been
modification
to
the
site
over
time
that,
with
some,
you
know
somewhat
intense
modification
due
to
the
nature
of
the
industrial
use
to
the
South.
So
staff
finds
that
kind
of
remediating,
some
of
the
concrete,
adding
native
plantings,
adding
a
new
structure.
That's
going
to
add
some
some
very
gentle
density
to
this.
This
lot
right
on
the
Mississippi
is
compatible
with
the
ordinance
and
the
comprehensive
plan.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
report.
So
three
of
us
already
voted
on
this.
So
nothing
has
changed.
Correct,
correct
the
same
exact
application
that
through
I
won't
I
was
one
of
them
that
we
already
said
no
to
I.
Just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
that
yes-
and
we
can
have
this
once
a
year
until
there's
a
change
in
the
makeup
of
the
council
or
the
comprehensive
plan
is
clarified
or
I
mean.
R
Yeah,
so
you
know
we
we
discuss
it
with
the
applicant
and
their
Hope
was
to
kind
of
try
to
come
back
and
make
the
case.
Some
of
the
information
that's
submitted
with
the
current
application
has
to
do
with
kind
of,
like
aerial
photos,
one
of
some
of
the
findings.
The
staff
made
in
2021
are
not
the
same
findings
that
we
have
made
in
2023
in
that
in
2021.
We
are
really
focusing
on
kind
of
historic
use
of
the
site
we
were.
R
We
were
thinking
the
Practical
difficulty
had
to
do
with
modification
of
the
bluff
line
to
make
that
bluff
line
cut
into
the
site
more.
You
know
than
the
surrounding
properties
right.
There
was
a
lot
of
uncertainty
confusion
at
that
time,
because
we
did
not
have
kind
of
the
same
level
of
aerial
photographs
submitted
as
part
of
the
application
and
had
you
know
there,
there
was
concern
that
perhaps
this
is
the
natural
Bluff
line
on
this
property
alone,
and
every
other
property
near
the
site
is
has
been
modified.
R
R
So
we
kind
of
focused
on
that
question
of
the
unique
circumstance
and
practical
difficulty
and
kind
of
taking
out
the
whole
conversation
about
was
the
bluff
line
modified
in
the
past
or
Not
by
human
activity
and
in
what
direction
and
is
the
bluff
line
in
this
site?
More
modified
or
less
modified
than
nearby
sites
and
focus
more
on
is
the
bluff
line
in
this
on
this
specific
site.
Is
that
unique
to
the
site?
Is
that
creating
unique
challenges?
R
Is
that
a
practical
difficulty
to
adding
the
type
of
you
know
very
gentle
density
that
is
proposed
on
this
site,
and
so,
with
kind
of
this,
slightly
different
lens
of
just
looking
at
the
site
itself,
from
what
we
can
prove
historically
staff
once
again
got
to
the
point
of
recommending
approval
of
of
the
proposal
and
the
applicant
did
submit
some
historic
photographs.
Obviously
they
don't
show
topography,
but
they
do
show
that
there
has
been
modifications.
R
Since
you
know
the
1960s
on
the
site
by
human
activity,
which
may
or
may
not
have
have
significantly
altered
the
topography
and
in
addition,
that
the
bluff
does
cut
in
on
this
site
more
than
it
does
on
surrounding
sites.
Can
we
say
why
that
is
not
necessarily,
but
we
can
say
that
that
is
the
case
and
so
compared
to
nearby
lot.
This
is
a
unique
circumstance
and
it
does
constrain
the
options
for
the
applicant
to
to
add
another
dwelling
unit
on
the
site.
A
I
Apologies
not
quite
10
minutes
and,
in
fact,
I'm,
probably
not
going
to
do
the
presentation
I
intended,
because
it's
mostly
attempting
to
answer
the
questions
that
you've
already
asked.
I
Specifically
with
regard
to
the
appeal
in
2021
that
was
denied
whether
it
was
approved
and
gave
us
the
denial.
So
I'm
not
here
to
present
the
same
plan
as
I
did
back
then,
because
at
the
time
the
findings
of
fact
that
were
adopted
indicated
that
the
reason
for
the
denial
of
the
variances
was
that
we
had
not
substantiated
whether
the
bluff
located
on
our
property
had
to
be
modified
by
previous
development
as
we
were
claiming
or
that
it
was
a
natural
original
undeveloped.
S
I
And
so
we
agreed
ultimately
with
that
finding,
because
we
do
believe
that
the
onus
is
on
us
to
provide
that
substantiation,
the
full
complete
information
so
that
we're
able
to
make
the
appropriate
decision
in
this
regard,
and
so
in
the
time
since
then,
we
have
researched
the
history
of
the
property
and
gathered
the
information
that
substantiates
that
this
Bluff
has
indeed
been
modified
heavily
by
prior
developments
and
I've
included
some
of
the
aerial
photographs,
additional
ones.
I
In
the
statement
of
appeal
that
I
filed
that
make
it
it's
I
presented
it
in
in
an
easier
way
to
follow,
but
effectively,
you
can
see
that
there's
been
addition
of
of
pavement
paved
driveways
and
parking
areas,
addition
of
concrete
infill,
material
and
Earth
and
walls
to
build
up
the
slope
height
and
the
placement
of
this
garage
on
the
top
of
the
slope
and
all
told
with
all
of
these
developments,
the
most
of
the
land.
I
Almost
all
of
the
land
on
this
Bluff
has
been
modified
in
some
way
by
these
developments,
and
so
that
that
is
the
difference
with
our
appeal
today
is
that
we
have
taken
the
advice
of
the
appeal
from
2021
and
provided
that
additional
information
to
substantiate
our
claim.
I
I
would
continue.
I
think
that
we
don't
believe
that
the
intent
of
the
mrcca
and
Shoreland
or
overlay
ordinances
is
to
protect
the
natural
or
the
developed
features
on
the
bluff.
I
It
is
the
setback
requirements
are
intended
to
protect
a
natural
Bluff
from
the
detrimental
effects
of
development
on
that
bluff,
and,
in
this
case
I,
don't
think
that
we
can
effectively
apply
that
protection
on
property,
where
the
the
development
has
already
occurred,
and
those
detrimental
effects
are
already
present
on
this
Bluff
and
in
that
regard,
I
think
that
we
can,
with
variances
to
the
setback
requirements.
We
can
maintain
consistency
with
the
intent
and
purposes
of
the
law
of
the
ordinances.
I
I
can
answer
a
question
about
the
Future
Park
use
as
well,
because
Lindsay
mentioned
it
that
there
is
a
letter
included
in
the
public
comments
packet
from
the
Minneapolis,
Park
and
Recreation
board.
That
speaks
on
that
topic
of
our
engagement
with
the
pork
board
in
planning
for
the
transition
of
ownership
of
this
property
to
the
park
system,
and
with
that
plan
in
motion,
we
are
coordinating
with
the
park
board
to
ensure
that
this
that
the
the
next
use
of
this
property
is
for
public
park,
as
called
for
in
a
comprehensive
plan.
A
I
Which
is
really
what
they
want
and
there's
you
know
it's
a
very
complicated.
The
number
of
options
are
very,
very
complicated,
but
the
pork
board
has
a
process
by
which
we
enter
into
a
memorandum
of
understanding
that
sort
of
lays
out
a
timeline
for
deciding
on
these
various
factors.
When
it's
going
to
happen
and
how
it's
going
to
happen
all
those
things,
and
so
that
is
something
that
we're
in
the
process
of
engaging
with.
A
V
I
just
had
a
quick
question.
What
would
be
you
know?
I,
don't
know
what
the
body's
gonna
do
here
in
a
few
moments
here,
but
what
would
be
the
timeline
assuming
you
got
the
outcome
that
you're
looking
for
of
the
mou
being
signed.
I
guess
is:
if
you
have
a
ballpark
estimate
on
that
right,
so.
I
Adam
jarvidson
of
the
park
board
is
who
I've
been
working
with,
and
he
we
agreed
that
a
couple
of
weeks.
Maybe
after
we've
gone
through
this
process,
we
would
begin
that
again
and
that
entails.
Then
we
would
actually
sign
this
agreement,
and
that
goes
to
the
Port
board
for
their
meeting
of
Commissioners
and
it
has
to
be
approved
then,
and
that's
what
formalizes
it
so
that
then
Park
staff
are
authorized
to
work
with
us
on
that
process.
I
If
it's
I'm
not
sure
if
this
is
what
you
were
getting
to,
but
in
terms
of
the
time
frame
of
when
things
would
happen
when
we
would
actually
begin
the
process
of
transitioning
ownership,
that
can
be
anything
from
this
year
until
40
years
from
now
or
whenever
it
is,
but
because
of
the
different
mechanisms
by
which
they
can
do
it.
But
I
do
anticipate
at
least
that
we
would
have
some
kind
of
ownership
transfer
completed
within
my
lifetime
at
least
probably
much
sooner.
W
A
prepared
statement
for
my
kind
of
two
minutes
is
what
I
was
shooting
for.
So
just
read
that
hello,
chair,
Goodman
and
members
of
the
council.
My
name
is
Greg
elsiner
I'm,
a
member
of
the
wild
rivers,
Conservancy
St
Croix
360.,
both
of
which
are
conservation
organizations
in
the
Watershed
I
currently
reside
and
I'm
a
former
resident
of
Marshall
Terrace
neighborhood
I'm,
also
a
licensed
architect
and
the
director
of
design
and
shelter.
W
We
discussed
the
idea
of
light
touch
and
the
concept
of
a
tent
pad
and,
as
it
started,
designing
a
structural
system
accordingly,
along
the
way
we're
checking
in
with
Planning
and
Zoning
the
city.
Civil
and
landscape
designs
enhance
the
site
with
a
series
of
gabian
walls
and
retaining
in
Rain
Gardens
at
the
top
of
the
top
of
the
property.
Both
at
reduced
runoff
enhance
the
site's
biodiversity
with
Native
plantings.
W
We
just
want
you
to
believe
that
this
project
has
been
you
know,
approached
in
the
spirit
of
conservation
and
stewardship,
and
backs
technical
expertise
beyond
that
Spirit,
a
great
effort
and
consideration
by
the
owners.
It's
been
designed
and
vetted
by
a
group
of
licensed
design,
protect
of
professionals,
a
great
team
of
Architects,
Landscape,
Architects,
civil
and
Structural
Engineers,
whose
career
records
education
and
license
deem
them
experts
in
the
state
of
Minnesota.
W
A
T
Good
afternoon,
chair
Goodman
and
council
members,
I'm
Colleen
O'connor
toberman
I
work
at
Friends
of
the
Mississippi
River
as
a
land
use
and
planning
director
and
I
live
in
Ward,
one
at
2316,
Saint
Anthony
Parkway
I'm.
Here
to
ask
you
to
uphold
the
planning
commission's
decision
to
deny
these
variances
the
city's
Mississippi
River
Corridor
critical
area
ordinance
protects
rivers
and
acid
for
all
residents,
not
just
those
few
very
fortunate
to
own
waterfront
property
in
areas
like
North
and
Northeast
Minneapolis,
where
the
riverfront
has
been
privatized,
degraded
and
industrialized.
T
It's
crucial
that
Waterfront
development
be
held
to
the
same
high
standards
that
we
expect
elsewhere
in
the
city.
Merkavariances
require
several
specific
and
unique
written
findings,
and
it
doesn't
appear
to
me
that
the
proposed
project
meets
those
findings.
One
required
find
is
that
the
extent,
location
and
intensity
of
the
variant
will
be
in
substantial
compliance
with
the
merka
plan.
This
finding
is
not
met
where
the
merka
bluff
setback
requirement
is
40
feet.
The
request
is
for
a
zero
foot
setback
to
build
directly
on
or
over
the
edge
of
the
bluff.
T
T
For
instance,
a
two-story
home
could
likely
comply
with
a
setback,
and
I'll
also
note
that
the
proposed
garage
is
a
thousand
square
feet
which
is
enormous,
that's
bigger
than
many
homes,
and
yet
it
appears
to
be
only
intended
to
serve
the
the
new
house
being
developed,
so
that
garage
does
nothing
to
further
the
city's
purpose
for
allowing
cluster
developments,
which
is
to
increase
housing
density
through
efficient
use
of
land.
I.
Think
it's
possible
to
add
another
house
here
under
a
different
design.
T
J
Just
blacks
from
the
site
and
between
17th
and
18th
and
Marshall
climate
resilience
means
that
you
don't
build
on
something
that
may
not
survive.
The
changes
in
climate
applicant
poses
to
build
on
the
bluff
or
on
a
steep
slope
whether
it
was
man-made
or
otherwise,
and
he's
put
a
deck
out
on
further
on
the
bluff
and
it's
held
up
by
stilts.
J
A
X
Hello,
my
name
is
Adam
mullenberg
I'm
here
representing
Mississippi
National
River
and
Recreation
Area
on
National
Park,
Service
Unit
based
out
of
St
Paul.
We
actually
share
the
same
boundaries
as
the
Mississippi
River
Corridor
critical
area,
which
is
the
park
project,
lies
with
complete
within
that
boundary
I'm,
not
going
to
say,
take
too
much
time.
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
stuff
that
we
have
submitted
letters
for
this
project
are
the
previous
iterations
and
just
saying
that
we
do
not
recommend
the
approval
of
the
of
the
variances
it's
just.
X
Our
concern
is
that
it
would
set
a
president
as
the
definition
of
a
bluff
has
been
met
here
and
then
it's
allowing
not
just
the
encroachment
into
the
bluff
Impact
Zone,
but
that
extending
it
over
top
of
the
bluff
as
well.
So
what
would
that
set
for
future
developments
in
different
portions
of
Minneapolis
if
this
was
allowed
to
move
forward,
so
not
that
there
hasn't
been
some
great
design
and
considerations
being
put
forward
in
the
project,
but
it's
just
something
that
is
concerned
for
future
developments.
So
thank
you.
Thank.
A
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
wanted
to
just
come
see
the
the
discussion.
I
I
actually
had
an
opportunity
to
go
out
to
the
site
and
and
look
at
the
property.
It
is
a
truly
one
of
a
one
of
a
one
property.
B
It's
the
very
it's
a
very
odd
property,
no
offense
there's
retaining
laws,
abutting
both
edges,
and
so
it's
a
really
challenging
issue.
You
raise
a
really
valid
point
around
this
conversation
around
precedence,
I
think
that
that's
something
we
should
definitely
keep
in
mind.
Also
this
discussion
around
an
agreement
with
the
park
board
is
also
a
one
of
a
one.
B
Well,
maybe
there's
going
to
be
more
common
agreements
like
this,
so
this
is
a
really
complex
project
and
I
think
that
we
need
to
be
really
thoughtful
about
the
implications
of
it
and
recognize
that
it
is
truly
unique
and
I
think
that
whatever
precedence
that
we
would
be
concerned
about
it,
this
project
is
just
very
unique,
so
it
it
it's
tough
It's,
not
an
easy
answer.
A
Each
time,
even
the
committee
to
try
to
create
a
win-win,
Mr
fussy,
I'm
wondering
without
trying
to
kick
the
can
down
the
road.
Could
we
have
a
condition
of
approval?
Should
we
determine
that
they
meet
the
criteria?
A
Could
we
add
a
condition
of
approval
that
a
signed
mou
with
the
park
board
become
part
of
this
prior
to
the
time
that
a
building
permit
is
issued
Madam.
U
Chair
I
would
I
would
have
concerns
about
that.
I,
don't
know
that
there
is
a
Nexus
to
the
findings
or
the
decision.
That
is
in
front
of
you
with
regard
to
potential
future
ownership
of
this
property,
even
though
it
certainly
is
a
matter
of
public
interest.
I,
don't
think
it
has
any
connection
to
the
specific
quasi-judicial
determination
that
you're
charged
to
make
here.
A
U
Man,
I'm
sure,
I,
don't
know
that
you
have
an
issue
in
front
of
you
regarding
a
building
permit
and
or
authority
to
condition
a
speculative
future
building.
Permit
that
isn't
before
you
I
just
don't
know
of
a
mechanism.
I
I
see
where
you're
going
I
just
and
perhaps
we
could
discuss
more
in
the
interim
before
full
Council,
but
I
I,
really
don't
know
of
any
mechanism
or
any
connection
that
it
would
allow
you
to
condition
the
future
potential
transfer
of
ownership
of
this
property
to
a
result.
That
happens
here.
A
A
A
I
Yeah
you
know
in
that
regard,
I
I
want
the
park
board
to
have
the
property
it's
in
part
because
of
what
CM
pain
described.
This
is
such
a
unique
place
and
I.
Don't
I,
don't
think
that
it's
really
practical
that
there's
going
to
be
an
actual
park
there
for
decades
from
now.
Just
because,
hopefully,
you
saw
in
the
aerial
photographs,
there's
a
massive
concrete
plant
next
door
and
an
apartment
building
whose
owner
I've
spoken
to,
and
he
has
no
intention
of
leaving
that
anytime
soon.
I
So
the
agreement
ends
up,
probably
being
where
the
park
board
would
take
possession
of
the
property
through
one
of
their
mechanisms,
but
it
would
remain
as
the
current
rental
property,
as
is,
and
so
I
think,
to
get
to
your
question
about
how
far
along
we
are.
We've
had
multiple
discussions
with
them
on
this
and
we
did
in
the
in
the
2021
application
as
well.
I
We
did
talk
about
it
and
at
that
point
we
actually
had
the
signed
mou
and
it
was
on
its
way
to
the
Port
board
Commissioners
to
be
adopted
at
their
next
meeting,
but
because
of
the
denial
of
the
appeal
at
that
time
we
pulled
out
of
that
to
regroup,
and
so
we're
expecting
that
this
time
through
that
we
would
just
re-execute
on
that
same
one,
and
it
would
probably
sometime
this
year
be
adopted.
Then.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Councilmember
Ellison,.
V
We're
probably
getting
like
dangerous
dangerously
close
to
like
creating
a
condition
informally
but
I'm
wondering
if
it
would
be
appropriate
to
continue
this
item
until
we
could
get
to
the
council
could
get
some
clarity
on
the
mou
discussion.
It
seems
to
be
an
area
of
public
interest.
It
seems
like
a
great
opportunity
to
get
this
property.
I
know
it's
into
the
future,
but
into
public
use
to
recover
some
of
the
River
for
public
use
in
the
future
and
so
I'm
wondering
if
there,
if
that
would
be
appropriate
Madam.
U
Chair
committee
members
I
have
to
ask
staff
where
we
are
with
regard
to
60-day
compliance.
Certainly
there
could
be
voluntary.
It
would
require
both
parties.
If
there
was
going
to
be
a
violation
of
any
required
review
time,
there
would
have
to
be
a
voluntary
agreement
to
a
continuance,
but
if
there
are
circumstances
that
might
inform
your
consideration
of
this
matter
in
a
certain
continuance
of
a
discrete
amount
of
time
might
resolve
those
issues,
I
think
it
might
be
an
option
that
you
could
pursue
Miss.
A
A
I
do
want
to
say
that
I
think
there's
been
some
amazing
staff.
Work
done
by
Miss,
Silas
I
started
out
by
asking
you
what
is
different,
and
you
answered
the
question
very
clearly
and
concisely
and
I
think
you
did
a
really
great
job
with
this.
This
is
a
complicated
issue.
A
You've
stayed
true
to
who
you
are
and
what
the
2040
plan
has
called
for,
recognizing
that
there
could
be
a
win-win,
as
councilmember
Allison
has
suggested
so
Cong
hats
off
to
you,
I
thought
it
was
very
well
handled
and
it
might
lead
us
to
a
very
positive
outcome.
Might
not,
but
it
might
so.
Let's
just
see
so
I
think
that
the
motion
by
council
member
Ellison
is
to
postpone
in
committee
for
two
cycles.
Is
that
does
that
I?
Don't
know
what
what
two
cycles
from
now
is.
A
Okay,
so
the
timing
is
pretty
good
that
we
have.
We
have
to
make
a
decision
by
then.
So
that
means
you
have
to
make
a
decision
by
then
and
execute
some
sort
of
plan,
and
then
we
can
come
back
and
discuss
findings
and
such
so
on.
Council
member
Allison's
motion
to
postpone
in
committee
two
cycles,
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
any
opposed,
seeing
no
further
business
before
us
and
without
objection
we
will
call
the
meeting
adjourned.
Thank
you
all.