Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Audio check test one test two for the captioners audio check test one test two audio check 1 2 3 4 audio check testing for the captioners audio check test 1 2
3 4 audio check audio check test 1 2 3 4 audio check audio check test 1 2 3 4 for the captioner audio check test one audio check test two audio check test 1 2 3 4 audio check
audio check for the captioner test one test two audio check for the captioner test 1 2 3 4 audio check for the captioner test 1 2 3 4 audio check audio check for the captioner audio check test 1 2 3 4 audio check
audio check for the captioner 1 2 3 4 audio check audio check test 1 2 3 4 stop making me laugh audio check [laughter] audio check test 1 2 3 4 audio check test 1 2 3 4 audio check for the
captioner test 1 2 3 4 audio check audio check for the captioner test 1 2 3 4 audio check audio check test 1 2 3 4 do you do you need do you not know I'm doing an audio check 1 2 3 4 >> [laughter] >> audio check test 1 2 3 4 audio check
test 1 2 3 4 audio check I could be wrong Audio check, test 1 2 3 4. Audio check, test 1 2 3 4. Audio check, test 1 2 3 4. Thank you so much. >> Yep. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm.
>> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> 1 minute to start tech team. >> Okay, one moment. >> Welcome everyone to the regular meeting of the Minneapolis Planning Commission for June 22nd, 2026. I'm Chris Meyer, chair of the commission. At this time, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.
>> Commissioner Baxley. >> No. >> Here. >> Uh Commissioner Chowdhury. >> Present. >> Commissioner Conley. >> Present. >> Garcia. >> Present. >> Uh Gordon is absent. Jones is absent.
Shefte is absent. Shepherd. >> Present. >> Vice President Wagner. >> Here. >> President Meyer. >> Here. >> There are seven members present. >> We have a quorum. Uh first, we'll turn to the minutes of June 8th, 2026. Is there a motion to
adopt those minutes? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right, any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? The minutes are adopted. Uh next, we're going to organize our agenda. Um staff is recommending that we discuss
item number four, 3000 Minnehaha Avenue, and that the rest of the items be on consent. Um so, I'm going to read through the other items. If you were here to speak against one of the staff recommendations, uh let us know when we call that item. If
you wanted to speak in support or make neutral comments, you'll have a chance to do that in just a little bit. Uh so, first, we're going to discuss item number four. Item number five, 1221 Broadway Street Northeast. Was anyone here to speak against the staff recommendation for item number five?
All right, we'll keep that on consent. Item number six, 3401 and 32 3409 Boardman Street. Was anyone here to speak against the staff recommendation for item number six? All right, we'll keep that on consent. Item number seven,
2125 James Avenue North. Was anyone here to speak against the staff recommendation? Okay. So, we'll leave that on consent. And to review, we're going to discuss item four, and items five, six, and seven will be on consent.
All right. Um so, I'm going to open the hearing for our consent agenda. If anyone wants to make any comments on five, six, or seven, you can do so now. I'm not seeing any, so we'll close the hearing. Commissioners, is there any
discussion or any questions on our consent items? All right. Would someone like to make a motion to approve items five, six, and seven uh with the staff recommendations? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Is there any final discussion? All in favor, say aye. >> Aye.
>> Against, nay. Abstentions? That is adopted. So, if you're you're here for five, six, or seven, your item is passed. Good luck with your projects. All right, now for the main event, the Democracy Center at 3000 Minnehaha Avenue. Uh staff is Andrew Frentz.
>> Good afternoon, uh Chair Myer and Commissioners. Before you today are several applications to allow the construction of a two-story, approximately 16,600 sq. ft addition, the relocation of a public alley and site improvements at 3000 Minnehaha
Avenue and 3033 Snelling Avenue. This is the former Third Precinct site located at the intersection of Lake and Minnehaha. These applications were previously continued from the May 18th and June 8th
meetings because we previously had a very robust conversation on this topic at the May 18th hearing. I'm not going to run through the whole project and the applications, but I'm instead going to focus on what has changed between May 18th and what is in
front of you today. So this here is the the updated architectural site plan here. The largest change that has been made since May 18th is to reconfigure the southeast corner of the site to provide
additional maneuvering area and to widen the proposed dead-end alley segment to allow for larger commercial vehicles serving the adjacent property at 3010 Minnehaha to travel between Minnehaha Avenue and Snelling Avenue. The dead-end portion of
the alley is proposed to be widened from 15 ft to between 27 and 31 ft in width um through the dedication of additional right-of-way as part of the plat. This additional maneuvering area would allow for buses, RVs, and trucks of up
to 50 ft in length to make the turn between the private driveway on the 3010 Minnehaha parcel and the dead-end alley and then to make the turn to the east-west alley segment and travel out to Snelling Avenue as well as to do the same thing in reverse. Um
and this change uh reduces the lot area of the northern parcel by about 700 square feet with that additional area going to the enlarged alley. Um the applicant has also moved the parking garage for the community voting trailer uh further to the north uh recessing it further into um the
logistics part of the building. Um this uh shortens the north-south dimension of the proposed addition by about 11 and 1/2 feet um and reduces the building footprint uh by a little over 260 square feet. Um the applicant has also proposed
a new designated walkway uh on on the on the project site uh which would connect from the public sidewalk on Snelling Avenue um through the property to uh to the north-south alley to the rear entrance of the building as well as to the rear property line of 3010
Minnehaha. Um and these changes have also come with some smaller changes to the site improvements. Uh the backup generator has been eliminated from the project scope. Um the landscaped area and shrub count have been increased slightly. Um and there have been uh some changes to
the needed alternative compliance. Uh the uh the amount of alternative compliance needed for active functions and for blank walls has been reduced. Um and there have also been some changes to the alternative compliance for parking and loading landscaping and screening. Um I can flip through. Uh so this here
is the the civil site plan and we can come back to this if needed um for the updated change that shows the the widened um dead-end section of the alley there. Um and then these are the turning diagrams. Uh these ones in particular are for an
RV of uh just over 50 feet in length um showing what um what that turn would look like um heading from Snelling to Minnehaha and then the next one is the uh the opposite direction. Um and then we have some uh sort of comparisons between uh the the two different versions of the project that
you've seen. So um in this image uh you're looking at the, um, the architectural site plan. Um, the the top here is what was in front of you on May 18th, and then the bottom, uh, is is what's, uh, currently proposed. And I I recognize there are some some differences in like the symbology and
coloring that's used, um, between these. Um, and then the same here, uh, with the landscape, uh, layout plan showing that widened alley, um, the the change to the landscaping, the, um, the walkway that's that's been added.
Um, and then this is that, uh, uh, sort of, again, the same the same comparison. I know there's a little bit of a difference in the rendering styles, um, but it's a very similar view, um, showing the the two different versions, um, of the project. Um, quite a few different, uh, public comments have
been, uh, submitted regarding this project. Um, I think there were seven comments included, um, with the published staff report, and you should have received, I believe, eight or nine, um, just now. Um, I'm happy to go into detail on the specific findings and alternative
compliance responses, um, if if needed. Um, but staff is recommending, uh, that the commission approve the conditional use permit site plan review and vacation subject to the conditions that are listed, um, in the staff report and here, um, uh, recommend approval of the rezonings
and the vacation to the city council and return the CUP for the PUD. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any questions for staff before we open the hearing? Okay. I'm not seeing any, so I thank you, Andrew. Uh, so we'll open the public hearing.
Um, do we have the applicant with us? Not Yeah. All right. >> Thank you, Chairman uh, Meyer, members of the commission. Um, following, uh, the time we were here last May 18th um when we heard some
concerns about maneuverability at that point seemed to be the primary concern. Um we did schedule a follow-up meeting with Hook and Ladder. Uh we had a meeting on May 29th, so about 11 days following the
last commission meeting. We met with them and went over a number of concerns. Um at that point the concerns um became more explicit to us that they also concerned view corridor
as well as parking use in addition to the widened maneuverability. And so [clears throat] we began working on the changes that Andrew Friends just walked you through. We also following that May 29th meeting had another meeting with them to share
the diagram that was presented this evening. Um and that was on June 10th. So we've had two meetings with them since the last meeting and spent quite a bit of time working on the changes that you saw in addition to coordinating those with the consultants. Um uh
you have the view corridor images here as well. So you can see here here the just keynoted what those changes were that you were just walked through. The um I don't think Andrew walked through all of those. Number one, one of the concerns in accommodating the
view corridor as well as the maneuverability, we moved the generator from where it was currently located up to the roof location. So there is some added cost involved likely for structure, for additional wiring. Um we
moved the transformer as well to a different location. There will be some added cost to relocate that, but we moved it so it would not be in in way of the circulation, widening that hallway or that drive lane to 33
ft. Um so, yeah, that was the number three is that widening. It was previously a 19-ft alleyway. We widened that to 33 ft. So, it provides some additional temporary parking perhaps for
an RV as well as maneuverability for RVs. So, it can accommodate some of those uses that they have as well. Um there is an added sidewalk now that goes from Snelling directly to the back of that building which will
provide access both for staff into the building as well as bring you to that um uh private drive. So, that was not there previously. And then five was that garage shift that Mr. Friends discussed that will
uh to the private drive. I think it it's um we have an image that shows um Again, those were So, this is the view previously. So, the garage did if you were standing straight on, the garage
did block that view corridor of their entry. And then the next view is of the change that we have made that shows how you get that full view of everything other than what would be seen um if the Democracy Center wasn't there at
all. So, you get a pretty wide view. Uh and then we're we're showing an image of signage on the back of their building that is of course brighter and larger than they currently have which might be an idea to highlight kind of where their private
drive entry is which is in a somewhat difficult place to find in the first place. So, just wanted to highlight those those items for you. And then certainly I'll be letting up to any questions you might have. >> Thank you. Uh for the record, can you
tell us your name? >> I'm sorry. Jennifer Anderson Tuttle. I'm the principal director of public sector at LSC Architects. I apologize. And this is Tunde Alasanja. >> Thank you. All right. Questions for the applicant? Commissioner Shepherd.
>> Thank you, Jennifer and Tunde. In our last meeting and and uh in your meeting uh subsequent with Hook and Ladder, you probably discussed the the size of vehicle which they were concerned with. What was it, and did you run out of turn on it? >> Um yeah, thank you. Uh wonderful
question. At our last meeting here with you, I think they referenced a 45-ft RV, which is what we at first um tracked. And then when we had our private meetings with them, they shared that um they had had a big event the night before we met with them. And um at
that event, they had a 50-ft RV. And so we re-ran all of the maneuvering um uh modeling, and um had civil engineer do that. And 50-ft RV is what we have now modeled, and that is what that they
shared at that um was they had that evening. So. >> Excellent. Thank you. And that's what we That That's what we just looked at. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> And I just also wanted to because I think the way that it's um been maybe interpreted is is a little uh confusing.
The I think the existing parking lot um is 80 stalls. Um the proposed new parking lot is 59 stalls. It's 46 south of the alley and 13 north of the alley. And then there are 14 uh bicycle stalls
in addition. So that is a total of 73 if you consider both vehicular and bicycle access. So. >> Commissioner Chaudry, and then Colvin. >> Thank you, Chair Meyer. Uh Just for our clerks, is it possible to get
this presentation added to the public record for us to view it? >> We will try to get a copy of it. >> Okay, great. Thank you so much. And then um a question for the applicant. Um you you mentioned 59 parking stalls.
>> [gasps] >> Um it's my understanding that there is a commitment to give use to public businesses in this There's been conversations about that. Could you speak to that a little bit more?
>> Yeah, I I'm limited as to how I can speak about that. We don't really have any um connection to parking negotiations of that lot as the architects. We're really just developing the site plan and the use of that with the city will be
determined following our involvement. And so um I I can only speak to the fact that my understanding is from meetings I've been in that the city is planning to negotiate shared use um of some kind at a point
once the project is um you know approved and moving forward. So >> Great. That's what I've heard through the grapevine as well. Is there anyone from finance and property services, the city of Minneapolis
to answer that question here today with us? >> Um not here today, um but I do have and have had communications with Barbara O'Brien um who has um said that there will be um considerations for a parking use
agreement for after hours and hours that the the Democracy Center is not needing that parking. Um that will take place. So like for example, during an election day, That would be a difficult time for shared use parking, but
yeah, I think those conversations will come. >> Thank you. That's very useful information. Disappointed to see that finance and property services doesn't have a representative here today to answer some of the questions that they can answer. >> I I I was made aware as that that was a
change. I think Paul Miller had maybe had a death in the family that just happened and there were actually two medical emergencies. A medical emergency and a death in the family, so. >> Oh, well, I'm sorry to hear that.
Um, my condolences. Um, I'm trying to see if there's any other questions. I think things will just come up as we listen to the public hearing. Thank you for the presentation. It was really helpful. Yeah, thank you. >> Mr. Conley.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had a question on the >> [laughter] >> the the the slide right before the one you had just showed. It showed like the
Yeah, so yep, go back one. So, the if So, if someone's coming in from Minnehaha, right? Can you tell me that So, it looks like the public alley has been expanded to 37 ft. But, that turning radius from the private drive to
the public alley, can you tell me if that's been widened from what we saw in the 18th versus today? >> Um, so the >> where you have to turn. You're going up the You're coming in from Minnehaha, you're going through the private drive, you're turning to the alley. Yep, right there. So, that curve right there, has that been extended and to how much?
>> curve has been widened to 33 ft, so it is widened by more than 13 ft of what it was previously. >> Thank you. >> Mhm. Yeah, that's before. You can see the difference. >> Any other questions for the applicant? Question Wagner.
>> Uh thank you, Chairmeyer. Thank you for the presentation. Could you speak to um whether you and I uh don't even know the right phrase for this, but uh whether you modeled like large semi-trucks or similar um and what that modeling looks like.
>> Is this a semi? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So >> This is the bus. >> Okay. So we have a bus and a semi modeled. Yeah. Thank you. >> Any other questions? All right. Thank you. >> Mhm. >> All right.
Um proceeding with the public hearing I have six names that signed up. If you're not on here, uh please go over to click over here and and add your name. Um I'm looking at the yellow sheet on this. So it's not always
uh clear, but I'll do my best with reading off your names. And each person will have 2 minutes to speak. Um so first I have Chris Mozina Mozira. >> 2 minutes. >> Uh come [clears throat] introduce yourself and you have 2 minutes. >> Thank you. My name's Chris Mozina. I uh
I'm one of the founders of the Hook and Ladder and have served as its ex- executive director for the past decade. Um I want [clears throat] to say that I appreciate the commission taking the time to hear us out on this subject. It's very important to us and our entire community.
I also want to thank uh Jennifer and Elsie for taking the time to meet with us. Um it was constructive and there were some adjustments made. Um the [clears throat] list of seven or eight points that we made and submitted as part of the formal
record back in May um spoke to two primary issues, access and parking. The access issue was narrowly focused on, in my opinion, to the turning radius
issue, which uh thankfully was addressed. The you know, the old standard of 30-ft box trucks is no longer the reality we live with. Uh 53-ft trailers plus tractors are what deliver beverage product to commercial businesses today.
Um I just want to point out the significance of this organization in my limited amount of time to [clears throat] bring to point the two issues that we bring up that we think satisfactorily resolve this is
simply relocating the RV garage that is currently causing the redirection of the alley and the elimination of the It's 88 parking spots today, incidentally. of about 40% of those spots. Um we do have adequate bike parking today,
incidentally, as well. Um We we just held, you know, anchored a Juneteenth celebration this past weekend, and we're embarking upon Pride Week this week. We serve a large amount
of people in South Minneapolis. I think I mentioned this last time. We are the last remaining performing arts venue from Highway 35 to the Mississippi River. And I think we deserve to stick around more so than a new parking spot for an RV. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Next, I have Christine Smith. Welcome. Introduce yourself, and you have 2 minutes. >> Yes. I'm Christine Smith. I'm the owner of record of 3010 Minnehaha. I have owned it for 27 years. I have suffered through 27 years of the city
disregarding me as a property owner and as a person. This is more of the same. I'm not happy. I'm not happy The architects did a fabulous job of listening to us, but the same issues remain. You're
cutting off the access to the front of my building. You're cutting off people's ability to come in. You're cutting off our delivery. And quite frankly, if I was not if it was not the city next door to me,
if it was just another property owner and this issue was coming up, there's no way the city of Minneapolis would permit another property owner to impinge that much on an already established business. Because it's the city,
here we all are. And I'm not happy. That's all I have to say. >> Thank you. Next we have Brian Bell. >> Uh my name is Brian Bell and I represent FGN C LLC with respect to this matter and I
just want to talk quickly about the legal issues. Uh as I noted in my comments, there's taking issues with respect to this development. Uh the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that ensuring
reasonable access to a building um or or eliminating reasonable access to a building based on a public works project um results in a compensable taking. Having access to their main door obviously requires uh
the performers to have access, Metro Mobility vans to have access. It's not just uh single, you know, single vehicles that need to have access. And so, it's our position that that that approving this plan as drafted would cut off that access access and constitute a
compensable taking. Based on the land use approvals itself, as you're aware the comprehensive plan in numerous locations discusses encouraging the arts, promoting the arts, not frustrating the arts. And this
proposal will put a death nail on a valued cultural institution in South Minneapolis. As I understand it the Pangea Theater is also contemplating a development immediately to the south of the Hook and we welcome
that, but this development would also potentially impede those plans. And so again, that that's in violation of the comprehensive plan, which as a a knock-on to that would prevent the rezoning, the conditional use permit, etc. The
development also for the reasons that we stated would frustrate pedestrian access, would cause traffic issues due to cars circling for parking, which are all requirements of preservation of parking are
requirements for the preliminary plat. Just the final thing that I'll say is it's great to have you know, commitments second-hand or third-hand, but until we have a signed agreement on parking, that's not something we can take to the bank. And it's great to rely on modeling, but with
when this is built, it's it's simply too late to to go back and change. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next you have Patrick Scully. He'll be followed by Jesse. >> Good afternoon. I'm Patrick Scully. I won the lottery without buying a
ticket. Christine Smith bought the Firehouse for Patrick's Cabaret. Gave me a 20-year lease at a dollar a month. We arrived in 1999 to a sleepy
neighborhood, but Patrick's Cabaret's presence helped drive the flowering of the Lake Street corridor in Longfellow. Continuing this, 10 years ago Hook and Ladder replaced
the Cabaret. Unfortunately, Derek Chauvin worked next door and the neighborhood is still reeling. For over 6 years, the Hook and Ladder has suffered next door to this blight,
which repels people. How many years were there with razor wire surrounding it? In the spirit of reparation, this plan should try to fix that and not further penalize the Hook.
Listen to each and every concern that they detail. They know. They work there. They are trying to survive there. Involve the Hook and the building owner
as you plan, working with them, not against them. The closer a business is, the better you have to listen. Work with them and all the neighbors.
Local forces of generosity, persistence, vision, and inclusion. One quick question to sum up. Why 6,000 square feet of retail?
The Coliseum building right down the street has over 30,000 square feet vacant today. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next we have Jesse B. I don't have can't quite read your full last name. Um that'll be followed by Lisa
Boyd. >> [clears throat] >> My name's Jesse Brod. I own or partner with Noble Presents and we present a lot of shows at the Hook and Ladder and in the neighborhood for years. And my main concern is parking.
If we're going to develop and continue to develop a entertainment district in the downtown Longfellow neighborhood to revive that neighborhood and put some restaurants and some other stages and whatever it might be, we're going to need parking.
So we definitely need to have and what happened was is we came used to using that parking lot and our customers are using that parking lot and so to reduce it or remove it or make it hard to access is [snorts] a concern for the vitality of our business.
And I didn't see an economic study done. What would it be to have this building come in the way it's set up as as there been an impact study for for for any economics? I haven't seen one.
So I'm concerned about that and the main thing too is safety of the neighborhood and having people be there and use it. And so parking again comes into play and it's a very critical thing for all of our businesses and I'm we're super happy
that the city is finally redeveloping this property because it has been a real problem for us. Um It hasn't It has impacted us financially and so to have it redesigned and redeveloped is is amazing. But we just
ask you to listen to the people here and just kind of some of these little details cuz the details matter in a project like this and when you're affecting the neighborhood like this. And so, what can we do to keep access, to keep it easy for trucks and RVs, and people
to come and use the space that we've been using for 6 years with no word from the city, and now all of a sudden this. So, let's all work together to make this thing happen. >> Thank you. Next we have Lisa Boyd.
>> Hello and thank you to the commission for this opportunity to speak. My name is Lisa Boyd. I'm the staff person for Longfellow Rising, a non-profit organization formed to focus on the rebuilding of the area around this intersection we call downtown
Longfellow. We fully support the Hook and Ladder Theater's request that the city and the architects it's hired slow this process down and consider the Hook's design change proposal, as well as to conduct an an economic
impact study of the current site proposal. We continue to be disappointed in the lack of consideration the city has given to the impact of its proposed changes to this site on this formerly thriving creative commercial node that has seen
so much trauma in recent years. All of the businesses along this block of Minnehaha Avenue were involved in mutual aid support of their neighbors during Operation Metro Surge in addition to the day-to-day running of their businesses. They deserve our recognition
and support. We share everyone's frustration with how long it is taking to rebuild downtown Longfellow, including the Democracy Center, but it should not happen at the expense of a beloved anchor institution. Thank
you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone who didn't sign up who wanted to speak? All right. Not seeing anyone, so I will Commissioners, does anyone have any questions before I close public hearing? All right.
I will close public hearing then. Commissioners, is there any discussion, motions, questions? Commissioner do you want to start? >> Um perhaps this should have remained for the public hearing, but I did have a question for the applicant um in terms of
the issues noted around access. Um >> I'll reopen public hearing. >> The testifier shared that it was narrowly focused on the turning radius of the vehicles. What were cons- what were the
considerations made in terms of cutting off access to the front of the building and then delivery. >> Um we have >> [clears throat] >> So I'm assuming when you say front of the building, you're referring to the private alley, not the front of the
building that's on the street. >> Correct. >> Right, because for us that's the front of the building. That's how you get into the hook and ladder. >> Right, okay. So um uh one of the concerns that I'm believe they're referring to, we provided a new
sidewalk that leads you through from the um from Snelling through towards the private alley, and so currently there isn't one. We added that. That was something that wasn't in the site before. Um and so that's a uh uh
benefit that they didn't have before previously. The other is a visual view corridor access is what I'm assuming they're referring to, and that's where we pushed the building in by was it 11 ft? 11 and 1/2 ft, yes.
>> And then delivery access? >> Yeah, the delivery access has been um improved. There isn't any delivery that we understand that can't access. We've shown the turning radiuses for vehicles up to semi trucks. And so I we're not
sure what kind of delivery could come larger than a you know, a semi truck. And um just for I think Andrew Friends could probably speak to it as well. I don't think any anyone along a public private alley who gets deliveries from,
you know, anything beyond that can be accommodated in a private alley. Um in a in a I'm sorry, public public alley. And so Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. And maybe I could ask
a representative of the Hook and Ladder if they could maybe more clearly lay out what they meant by front access and delivery access just so we understand in this public forum like what your need is. Thank you. >> One of the nicest things about the
current situation is it is a straight pass-through. >> [gasps] >> It can be viewed from either side, from Minnehaha or other. So when people aren't familiar with the building, are pulling in, they know where to pull in, they know how to do it, they have a
clear sight line that takes them from Minnehaha all the way to Snelling. It also, for people who are coming in from out of out of the Minneapolis area, and we have many events where we're bringing in people from as far away as Minnetrista, Minnetonka, and Minneapolis
is pretty scary to them. So being able to see a straight sight line between where they park their car and the front door is really important. And let me tell you that under the current economic conditions, the difference [snorts] between red ink
and black ink at the bottom of the page is as few as five people. And if those five people don't have adequate sightlines, can't see, can't get there, don't feel safe, lights aren't on, they're not coming. Yeah. Kind of really
critical. If it was if we were in a different economic situation, maybe this wouldn't be so critical, but it's really important to have a straight shot [snorts] through. >> And Chris, I have to cut you off too much, but could you speak to the delivery and then
if you want to just take a little gap from the mic, there's a little bit of popping when you're speaking. Thank you. Okay. >> I'm used to, you know, when you're on stage you have to get right to the to the lips. >> [laughter] >> Um the the
Just the other day I was I was there and there was I came up from Minnehaha with the intention that I was going to go to the front door and there was a beer delivery. And it literally took up the entire side of the building
from where we have the taco truck because it's not allowed to park on Minnehaha, so we have it on our property and the back door. It was everything. It was the whole way. Now, [snorts] yes, could it get around that ratio? Yes, it could. Would they take out a
part of the building? If they weren't paying attention, yes. If they go straight on through, buildings are not going to get bumped by giant trucks. So, that's that's why. Is that enough? >> Yeah, that's helpful. Thank you so much.
Um I don't want to hog this time, so I'm going to take a step back and if others have questions. >> Okay. Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant or any of our testifiers? Commissioner Conley and Mr. Sheppard. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I heard um this is to the applicant. I think I
heard that uh there's ADA parking that's being removed. >> I'm sorry, did you say ADA? >> ADA parking. >> No, there there is um are three or four? >> Four. >> Three requ- um ADA parking stalls being
designed into the spot. I I said eight 80 80 um is what I was recalling the existing parking lot has in terms of number of stalls, and we're reducing that down to 73 when you consider also bicycle parking.
>> So, that doesn't reduce the number of ADA stalls. >> ADA? No. >> Yeah, I'm talking about ADA. I heard >> It actually increases it from what's there today. >> Okay, thank you. Commissioner Shepherd. >> I think my my question is is for Mr.
Bell. Mr. Bell, with with respect to the site plans which are available, [snorts] can you demonstrate the taking of the drop-off? >> Uh you want to pull it up? I mean, it's just the access issue in in not being able to have reasonable access to the
building. So, >> More specific than reasonable, please. Just Can you show me plan what is being taken today that Thank you. >> Well, I mean, it's Yeah, I mean, it's basically all the issues that have been discussed here today that if
I would say reasonable access has to consider what the access is for. So, my house uh reasonable access would be for uh I could call them single-family vehicles, but
uh commuter vehicles, for consumer vehicles. Whereas, reasonable access for something like the Hook and Ladder is to be able to have semi-trucks, to be able to have patrons who can access it easily. And so, to my mind, that is what
a court would look at when it considered whether access was reasonable, not just whether a pedestrian can walk up to the building, but can all of the access that is required of that up for that property owner be realized. And here, delivery
trucks, pedestrians coming from Snelling Avenue, um vans, things like that, their access will be frustrated with which frustrates access to the to the Hook and Ladder. >> And And I believe the applicant has demonstrated access to delivery trucks. >> Well, I mean, not not to our
satisfaction because in we currently have access Apologies. Of being able to go straight through. And straight through from Minnehaha to Snelling Avenue straight without having to make this um harrowing turn. Um and
so, it is our position that that that that would uh not be reasonable access. >> But for patrons, the the drop-off is to the west of the building, to the north of the building. >> To For patrons, it's in the north
>> side of the building, between the buildings, basically. So, if there is a van parked there to drop patrons off, is it wide enough to still get another vehicle past it? Not a semi, they shouldn't be there during those hours. >> I don't believe so. I mean, I That's my understanding is that, no.
>> 33 ft? >> Well, that's the turn radius. That's not I don't I mean, the private alley is not being expanded to my understanding. I mean, it's a private alley. I don't know that the that the city has the ability to expand
our private alley. My understanding is what they propose to do is move their building back from the turn radius to allow for for greater turns, but I don't think that's going to prevent um uh you know, backups in the private
alley as they're turning onto the the public alley. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> All right. Any other questions? >> Christian Garcia. All right. Um if I could possibly have
somebody um representing the hook and ladder, um I guess my Thank you. Um my question is basically do you see any um acceptable outcome on your side that
would that isn't the alley remaining straight through? >> That wasn't the question I was expecting. Um No, probably not. No. Um the issue [clears throat] of acci- you know, the drawing that's up that we were just looking at in this turning
radius, this is all with the assumption that there's no and this goes to the ADA question, I believe, goes to the assumption that there's no ADA parking currently happening there. That there's nobody in those spaces. That radius is not going to work for any of these vehicles that have been described with a
vehicle parked there. The width of a vehicle will prohibit that. So, we're looking at the maximum capacity of width of an unparked space, which is rarely the case. >> [clears throat] >> Um which is where our ADA parking is. So,
we would effectively lose that. That's correct. Um I I want to I don't know that this is the correct question to address this, but since our last meeting um on the subject of safety, the lights have been turned off in in
parking lot. And I find that curious and um I'm hoping me perhaps somebody on this com- commission can look into that for us because we entered these conversations in good faith and we're left with the very
uh a much more dangerous space at night and we can't we don't understand why that is. These lights have been on for 6 years. >> Commissioner Chaudry. >> When did you notice these lights being off? >> [snorts] >> Uh within a week of our last appearance before this commission.
>> Okay. It's my commitment that I will follow up and figure out why the lights are off. >> Thank you. It has happened before in the last 6 years but not not uh not in the last three or four. And they're off. They're on during the day and off at
night. >> Are there any further questions from commissioners? >> I have a question. >> Commissioner Chaudry. >> Uh this is regarding the ADA parking that the Hook and Ladder provides. Could you just share how much uh the nature of the parking
for what vehicle sizes and how much parking you provide in your private drive currently? >> Basically all of the parking inside our private drive is dedicated to ADA guests. >> And how often is it used? >> Uh the every show.
I mean it depends on show whether every spot is utilized or not but staff doesn't park there. They're marked for ADA guests. >> Yeah. And so with So you're you're state saying the biggest issue is with the dead end and then the turn.
It would be impossible >> For example, if we had a performance happening and there were guests inside the building and they were parked in an ADA spot and maybe you know a typical performance may have three acts over the course of the evening. They don't all load out at the same time. If there's
guests in the facility and they're utilizing one of those parking spaces, navigating that turn is not possible. >> Got it. >> With a larger vehicle, a tour bus or something like that. >> A tour bus or something like that. Okay. Um thank you. I had a question for
the applicant. So my question is regarding No, you're all right. Take your time. Um my question is regarding engagement with businesses and other stakeholders in the area, particularly
um the businesses directly adjacent to 3000 mini haha and other stakeholders in downtown Longfellow. What has been the nature of that in proposing this plan? Um >> And a timeline if you have it.
>> Sure, sure. So uh our initial City Council workshop was August 25th. Uh following that, it was determined we worked with um Alexander um Coto and Nick
Noy? >> Nick No. >> Nick No. Sorry for the mispronunciation um on an approach for engagement that would work with the city's process. Um we determined there would be a There was a community meeting on September 3rd
with the Longfellow Equitable Development Committee um that happened at 6:00 p.m. Um following that, uh there was a Committee of the Whole meeting on September 22nd um that we presented at. Um so a public
meeting and then we um had a community open house at Moon Palace on October 3rd. Um that was all prior to a schematic design package being um issued. Um yeah, and then that brings us to
uh planning commission on May 18th. >> Thank you. That's really helpful. And I'm just for your awareness, I sit on the city council. So, I'm the city council member appointed to this body. I'll just share like in our committee of the whole meeting, we didn't have a
presentation on like the impacts of what would happen to local businesses and like any information on responses from local businesses and it sounds like these prior meetings, while important and glad that we had them,
um didn't really engage with the rezoning and the alley vacation and what we're looking at here is that uh do you think that's a fair assessment? >> I Yeah, I think when we met with you initially early on, there wasn't really a determination at that point that an
alley vacation would be necessary. >> Right. What we were what we were discussing was architectural design. I think we got like a great video of what that would look like and like some of the components on that. Okay. Well, thank you.
Um, that's all my questions for you on that. Thank you. And then I have other comments, but that can wait until after the public hearing closes. >> May I address that? >> I'm only calling people if [snorts] commissioners have a question for them.
So, commissioners, are there any other questions? Commissioner Palmisano. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Was a Was a straight pass-through one of the considerations during the design? >> Um, >> I'll respond. >> Um, you have to come to the mic.
>> Sorry. >> Um, yeah, it just it doesn't work with the deliveries that that um uh building is going to require as well. We did try to see if there's a way to do that, but um yeah. >> Can you speak a little bit more about
that? So, um, where are the deliveries coming in now? In the current design. >> Here, we're going to open the plan again here. So, there is a receiving area right in that area. And so, for them to also be able to maneuver in and out of the site,
they need to be able to back back in and off of or back out onto the private alley and then out also to Snelling. So, they're able to maneuver their semi trucks from that receiving area onto Snelling as well. So, this was a
solution that looked as though it allowed both, um, properties to have access and maneuverability, um, from the back area service area. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you. >> Mhm.
>> Any other questions from commissioners? Last chance. I'm going to close the hearing for the final time. All right. All right. I will close the hearing. Commissioners, are there comments, questions, or motions?
Commissioner Palmisano. >> Uh, thank you. Um, Chair Meyer, uh, I'm I'm struggling on where to start with this. So, I think the the place that I will start is what my role is.
Obviously, planning commissioner, but also council member. And my job is to represent 34,000 people on the body of the City Council. And then I'm appointed to this body. And I think for me,
it has been a major point of frustration since we have started talking about 3000 Minnehaha over the years on having finance and property services work with my office in highlighting areas in which we require constituent
involvement and this is nothing against the folks at LSE. I think you guys are doing a great job and doing your part of this and nothing against our planning staff. I think they're doing a great job as well. This I think pre-dates this work but since I was elected to the city council in 2022, I have over and over
and over again have chased after meetings with finance and property services to have some inclusion of the constituents that that work in downtown Longfellow, that operate businesses long downtown Longfellow. Um
that are there all the time even if it's outside of the boundaries of my ward. It's probably what like eight or nine blocks out of my ward. Um and that's really frustrating. Um it took years for me of of me saying
in public meetings to get some sort of accountability on the burnt vestibule and the dilapidated nature of that building. Um the barbed wire that stood there that was placed by the military and was just
left there and it is really frustrating to me after repeated requests of inclusion of my office and also sitting on this body as a planning commissioner that there had not been any prior communication to my office about the needs of
constituents in this area. And I think at this point after years and years of work on this, it would be a little bit of a no-brainer and in in a step of collaboration to connect with this office because it's not about me, it's about the 34,000 people that I represent.
And it's also really tough for me as a council member in the role that I play to hear that the business right next to something that we should be proud of, a a center, something that I've supported that is an important activation for the corridor,
did not notify them that this was going to have such a significant change to their business plan. And downtown Longfellow is a place that unfortunately has had to struggle for a very long time and is trying its hardest um to to to
come into its next era. Like we had a wonderful Juneteenth celebration with Soul of the Southside and Hook and Ladder has always been a major part of that activation. Hook and Ladder has always embodied the values of inclusivity. And I know that we're talking about the planning matters, but
this this context, I think, is important. And this is this is the charge of the work that I'm set to do. Um I also think it's pretty hard to hear that there is existing ADA parking that the business provides to
its patrons that will go away with the changes that are made here. I'm seeing a head shake no, but we've heard over and over again here that they would not be able to park at the same time. And if we can prove that, if I can
have that proven to me, I would accept that. But that has not been proven that to me that they would lose their they wouldn't lose their ADA parking. If someone from Finance and Property Services wants to make that clear to me, that would be really helpful. But
I think the way that we have handled this, um to make a decision that feels like it hasn't taken the time to account for the stakeholders in the area, the council members in the area, which again our job is to represent
people, and to make that decision in 22 business days from May 18th to June 22nd, is a really unfair ask, um especially given the history of this location. And again, like I think we've learned this lesson over and over again
in City Hall that there is a right way to handle 3,000 Minnehaha. Um and I think a lot of that falls on the shoulders of financing and property services. But I have made requests in before we voted on the architectural designs for
there to be this type of stakeholder meetings for the people that work in this area that run businesses and that's something that hasn't occurred. So, that's definitely factoring into my decision today. Um it feels really difficult to vote for a plan ahead where
I can't ensure the future of the constituents that I represent one way or the other. And I'm never going to vote for something that I don't feel certain about. >> Thank you, Commissioner Chaudry. Next Commissioner you. Commissioner Bergner. >> Thank you, Chair Myhre. Um
I'll take a moment here to maybe help shape the discussion for this board and offer some information for the public. So, we have a number of applications before us today. We have conditional use permit, we have site plan review, we have a preliminary plat, and we have a vacation. I went through at the last
meeting with city staff like what is required by application type and like what type of vote they are and we have like legislative action votes and we have quasi judicial votes. And when we have quasi judicial votes, we need to find a finding to attach to if we are going to
vote a certain way. So, when I look just like when I looked at it last time, when I look at the conditional use permit and I look at the site plan review, these are quasi judicial votes. I don't really see a finding that would lead me to be able to attach to to vote no, I'm not going to accept this conditional use
permit, I'm not going to accept this site plan review. We also discussed last meeting the vacation of the alley, item G on the agenda, and I asked staff, um, what is needed to vacate an alley? They said, uh,
public works, I believe it was, reviews whether the alley is needed for utilities or for property access. And they have included, um, in their statement that, uh, I believe it's in the packet, someone could correct me if I'm wrong, that that alley, like they're okay with the alley vacation and the
change of alley. Uh, change of the alley location. So, just like last time for me, this this item kind of comes down to one item, uh, on the pre- preliminary plat, and I I honestly don't know how I feel about it yet, and I want to hear from the rest of this commission, and um, continue to think about it, and it's
really marginal for me. Um, on the preliminary plat, in the staff report on page 24, it says the subdivision will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. So, obviously, a lot of work has been done between this meeting and the last
meeting to ensure that to be true, right? The alley has been widened, the the the the the the different people involved in this project have met and worked together to try to find a solution that works. Um,
Commissioner Garcia asked the Hook and Ladder representative here say, the business next door, whether any single, uh, outcome other than a straight alley would be okay. And uh, they said no, and and that's totally their prerogative to say that. A straight alley would mean that this new
building would be smaller. They need to have a place to load their, um, supplies and whatever this this new Democracy Center needs. And the the the semis can turn as demonstrated in the plans. So, is this
injurious to the use of the uh, properties in the immediate vicinity as the city code reads? I'm not sure. I I I still honestly don't know how I'm I'm going to vote on that. Um, but I think that we as a commission, as we consider this application before
us today, like I think that is probably the item that we could perhaps vote on. Um, and for items D, E, and G, I I I think they're all fine. Um, obviously I want to hear what other commissioners have to say. Um, but I think that could at least
help us kind of frame this conversation as we consider this item. Thank you. >> Thank you. And and just to clarify that the the staff did say last time the for both the quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative items before us, you have to have findings if you
either way, for both of them. Um, Commissioner Chowdhury. >> Could Could uh Chair, could you or staff lay out which uh which parts are quasi-judicial and which parts are quasi-legislative and highlight where we need to have
findings? >> Um, I can answer that. So, all of the applications in front of you do have required findings. Um, so regardless of whether it's a legislative application or a quasi-judicial application, findings are required to be made. The
findings in the staff report are draft findings. If the commission's decision detracts from what's in the staff report, the commission would be responsible for coming up with alternate findings. Um, so that said, items A and B are both rezonings. So, those are legislative actions. They do require findings. Those
automatically go forward to the City Council for a final decision. The conditional use permit under C, D, uh and E, and one of those is being returned, but um C, D, and E, and the preliminary plat under F are all
quasi-judicial applications. And then the vacation is a legislative item as well. They all require findings. >> All right. So, regardless of what we do today, um the legislative portions go to the council.
>> Mhm. And and >> That's correct. The vacation and re-zonings automatically go forward to the city council for a final decision. >> Right. So, if we if we were to go with the staff recommendation today, those parts would still go to the council. The quasi-judicial parts would not. Is that [snorts] correct? >> Correct.
>> Unless there is an appeal. >> Correct. And just to go off of that, I mean for me, um I think I play a unique role here, and it's constituent representation as it goes to a city process. So, I'm always
going to speak to that and contextualize that for this. Um I do think like I'm having a really, really hard time with the vacation in particular, less so
the re-zonings, cuz again, I'm a supporter of this project, and I'm not saying that like the thing that we do is um it just seems like there needs to be more discussion and negotiation on what can happen here, but I'm struggling with the vacation
given uh the lack of information on impact and other options, and just also the expedited timeline in which we have handled this. Um and I think like since this is something that goes to the council
I'd be interested in a in a motion to deny the vacation for a greater discussion. Um I don't know if a finding on this could be injurious uh to the adjacent businesses, but that's something
that I would look to make. >> Um so, I can clarify the finding on the vacation application really comes down to whether or not the alley is needed for a public purpose. So, finding that there would it would somehow be injurious to the adjacent property could
not be a finding to support denial of the alley vacation. Um we do also have staff here from Public Works right-of-way if there are questions specifically to how Public Works came to the conclusion that this alley is not needed for a public purpose.
>> Okay, but that's helpful and like I I I appreciate Commissioner Wagner taking a step to help shape the conversation. Interested in hearing what other Commissioners think on this. Um just I've I've just really struggling
with full approval on this. I think there needs to be a mechanism in which we have a greater discussion on what this looks like for the area. >> Other Commissioners, did anyone anyone want to hear from Public Works? Okay, got a couple of hands. So, can we
have the representative from Public Works come up if they're Kimberly, I said you were here. >> [snorts] >> Thanks, Jeff. >> Thank you. Can you please introduce yourself and tell us about your reasoning for the vacation finding? >> President Meyer, members of the Commission, my name is Jeff Handeland.
I'm a principal professional engineer in the transportation engineering design division of Public Works. Public Works reviews vacation right-of-way vacation applications um and vets those with the different
areas of Public Works and CPED. Um Public Works reviews for things like access and um utilities, any easements that need to be preserved with
um with the vacation and um recommends vacation if Public Works judges that um to be in the public interest. Public Works does not require
um development projects to um provide public parking or align alleys with private driveways or design um alleys for semis or uh tour buses.
So, those I just want to explain those are not in um you know, part of public works review for making our recommendations for We just recommend uh we just require alleys to be designed to our standards. So, for
example for um 14 ft of pavement on 16-ft alley right-of-way is uh one example. >> Thank you. Are there any questions for staff? Not seeing any, so thank you. >> I move
>> Further discussion. Commissioner Conley. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to um kind of talk through a little bit. Commissioner Wagner was on uh the plat. Um and I think you were going somewhere
with that that I was following. Um but I F was where my sticking point was, too. So, I'm trying to get to a place where um the plat makes sense and I'm not there yet, but I think Commissioner Wagner was going somewhere with that.
>> Commissioner Wagner. >> Let's talk through it. >> Sure. Um I'd be happy to uh maybe ask Maybe this is a question for Kimberly. So, uh on page 24 of the staff report uh under the preliminary plat, it says uh and I think this is the standard that
must be met and then there's staff's response. It says in italics, "The subdivision will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity." And then under that in normal text, the city responds and says uh in this case, I should say staff
responds in the staff report and why they feel that it would not be injurious and why we should approve the preliminary plat. I would say that we as a board, if we wanted to, could find that it would be injurious to the uh property in the immediate vicinity for a lot of the
uh reasons discussed today. Uh with that finding, like would we need to support that finding or like would we need to say why it would be injurious? Or thoughts from Kimberly on on that item? >> Um so, if we're referring to finding
number two under the preliminary plat, um yes, I would recommend having specifics as to why the plat would be injurious and how that's not mitigated through the site plan proposed by the applicant. Um and just to bring a little bit more clarity
to the issue, which I think everyone's following, but the vacation is what eliminates the current alley. The preliminary plat is what dedicates the new alley configuration. So, the new alley design is tied to the
preliminary plat, not to the right-of-way vacation. >> And just to reiterate that the pre- preliminary plat is quasi-judicial, correct? >> Correct. And the preliminary plat also will require a final plat at a later
date. Um but yes, this is quasi-judicial. >> Okay. Commissioner Tondre, do you >> Yeah, thank you, Chair. Um and thanks, Commissioner Wagner. Um I think
I'm interested to see what the body thinks of this, but I think for F, if it if a motion is proper for denial on a preliminary plat. And and staff wants to or the city wants to come back with something different or appeal it, I
don't know. Um I think actually let me take a step back. If we deny the preliminary plat, what would be the next steps to follow? I mean denying the preliminary plat would essentially
If the alley is vacated and the preliminary plat is denied, then the current alley goes away and the new alley is not dedicated. The building addition could technically be constructed without a preliminary plat
as proposed. Um but yes, if it were denied, then the new alley would not be dedicated as proposed on the plan. And I think that's where compromise and discussion would need to play a role.
>> Okay. I'm going to say a little bit about about where I'm at and then um So, first I just want to acknowledge all the struggles that the businesses in this area have have have have gone through um and we really want to do what we can um to help those businesses, which is
why I supported uh continuing this and I hope the city is able to does everything that they they can. Um I'm appreciative that they're willing to have discussions about using their their parking and and not wasting
it. I understand for things like election day that you're going to going to need that, but I hope anytime that you don't need it that you let them use that. Um I guess for all the quasi-judicial items,
um I feel like the findings are met in favor of the applicant. I think where there's leeway are on on the um on the quasi-legislative items.
Like for zoning um the council, the planning commission, they have a lot of discretion on those those items. That's where you can make a finding that something is not consistent with the 2040 plan, some of the different components that um were
were cited in the legal letter like supporting the arts. Like I mean that's where that fits in is in in the zoning. I think my thought is that the quasi um legislative parts have to go to the council anyway.
So if the council wants to make adjustments, they would have an opportunity to do that. Um and then if it was appealed, there would be an opportunity um for them to review all the quasi-judicial ones as well. Um but
my opinion is uh that the applicant has made some some reasonable accommodations and I'm inclined uh to support the staff report not having um any findings that I I I think go against it
um for the quasi-judicial components. Um so my suggestion would be like um if if there are more details to work out, either way the council is going to have to take this up. So I would suggest moving it forward to them. That's my thought. Other commissioners?
Commissioner Shepherd. >> Thank you, Chair Meyer. >> [clears throat] >> I'm going back to the to the to the alley on the north side of the of the of the hook and ladder. From the May 18th meeting, we discussed parking and we discussed getting vehicles through there and those are the
goal posts that are not going to move in in my mind and I'm not really interested in any any changes to. I I believe the applicant has satisfied vehicular access for for for delivery vehicles, which was the the big sticking point
back in May, as well as parking. As far as describe using the word take to describe things, if the alley hasn't changed north of the hook and ladder, but it's made been made more accessible, I'm not clear what's being taken. If the parking
belongs belongs to the Democracy Center project in the first place, then nothing is being taken there, either. So, the word take confuses me even even now, because I'm not seeing how anything is changing to that west or
north elevation of the hook and ladder that is not true today. This is really just about the reduction of parking, which it is ironic for this body to be to be concerned with. The precedent we'd be setting, what have you mentioned, that if this were a private uh
concern, we would never permit this. But, I'm not sure that's true. If this I'm I'm going to indulge that for a moment and say, got what the precedent we're setting is a precedent that we are setting that that private concern's parking would be entitled by other
adjacent landowners. I don't think we'd say we'd ever make that argument, and I I don't know that we should make it here. So, Chair Myra, I'm inclined to concur with you. Thank you. >> And thank you for mentioning that, cuz that was something I meant to say as as well as that
um the concerns that have been brought up about parking. Like, if if we followed that line of logic, if we like, were to describe that as a taking, that would go very contrary to our climate goals and many of the other goals that are in the 2040 plan, so I'd be very
opposed um to um making those suggested findings. Um Commissioner Canley. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um it's not just any parking, it's their ADA parking. And so, this um this feels very
incomplete to me. I really appreciated the continuance on May 18th. Um and that gave a lot of time for the architects to go meet with res- meet with the business owners and other stakeholders, which was desperately needed. And I think that that is something that should have
happened before September of last year, which is when I think August was the first like meeting you had with the city about how to engage, and then you met in September and then October and then and then May. So, there was big gap there. And I think that had conversations started a lot
sooner, then we could be at a better place right now. Again, this feels incomplete. Um I'm really struggling with F and G, although it's been very very well explained up here about what our duty is today. Um [snorts] I I I still
am grappling with not feeling like this is in- like this is complete to me. It's not complete because it wasn't really um I don't know, I think the engagement might have been off a little bit. Um I think we've got the turning the turning radius is down. We probably have the width of the alley, which is fine.
But, I think in design, um there's a number of different ways that you can be creative. Especially when working with like anchor businesses who have been here for quite some time. Um so, yeah, we're I'm not like arguing for parking, but I do feel like the
current configuration takes away a significant um asset to the Hook and Ladder uh for accommodations for people coming to see their shows um and for people who are um patronizing other businesses in the area, too. Because when you're downtown Longfellow, you
might be going to see a show at Hook and Ladder, you might grab some books from Moon Palace, etc. So, I'm not in a position to vote yes on this today. Thank you. >> Uh Chair Meyer, if I may clarify, we're hearing a lot about ADA parking on the north side of the building. So,
while I fully believe that that may be how the parking is used, it's not legally ADA parking. There's no accessible route from these parking stalls to the front entrance of the building. It's not signed accordingly. Um there's no drive aisle. So, I just
want to be clear we're not this would not take away legal ADA parking that Hook and Ladder is required to provide. Um these are parallel stalls next to the building that would not meet ADA requirements. >> Thank you for that clarification.
Commissioner >> So, just to clarify, I heard from the business owner that when you have four parking spots in the back of Hook and Ladder that they use for ADA. They may not be legal to the city, but that's what they're using. Um when a large
vehicle is coming and turning, they're not going to be able to make that with the with the cars parked um there, right? That's what I'm referring to when I'm saying they're losing that, which they're using for ADA. >> So, Mr. French, did you have a
comment you wanted to make? >> Andrew is pulling up the turning radius. >> Yeah, I I just wanted to pull this up. You know, the we don't have a have a diagram of the parking layout that they that they have there. Um uh but this is the turning diagram in
question, right? So, what what they're what they're talking about it are the parking stalls, you know, along the north side of and I and there's been a lot of different terminology used to describe this space. We would we call it a driveway. Um the the parking stalls that are striped on the on the north side of this driveway are not shown
here. Um I I don't know how much this turning diagram overlaps with those parking stalls and I don't know whether those parking stalls are legal ADA stalls or not because it's not included in the application materials. >> Thank you, Madam Attorney, for the
questions, ma'am. Commissioner Toderdy. >> Thank you. And I mean, if we don't want to use the term ADA, that's understandable because it's a legal term of art, but we can say that this is parking that this business allocates to people with disabilities and that would go away.
That's what we're contending. And if it wouldn't go away, there is not there is not been enough accurate time and engagement to show otherwise to this business or this body. I think we can agree with that.
Um, and the the thing that I'll just quick say here that shows me that we're this isn't this isn't complete for me and a point of frustration for my for for my perspective is especially
representing so many people who work here and representing so many people who patron here and care about this area is we as a city spend so much effort and time in bringing back
the vitality of downtown Minneapolis and the vibrancy of downtown, which is a good thing, which is an excellent thing that we should do. But we do take huge steps and take huge budgetary steps
to make that happen. We as a city have not made that type of effort for downtown Longfellow and this is what community members are asking for. And including an anchor business in this conversation up top in the front end, along with a well-organized
corridor, would have been really prudent in this matter and would have made the 3,000 Minnehaha project a lot smoother going forward. And you don't have to like what I'm saying, but it's just fact of the matter. This is what year three going on for me
on this, saying the same thing over and over again. And I wish I wasn't. I'd really just love to move forward with this project. So, that's why it won't have my support today. Um I don't know uh I think some of the
options that we see laid out on the table, I won't be the one to make a motion on this. Um I think it's I think commissioners have laid out that finding findings for denial is pretty difficult here.
Um I'd be curious to know what it would mean to continue this on for further discussion because there's only been I'll just say this again, 22 business days. 22 business days on this. I have not had a conversation
about with finance and property services on this matter. I'll just say that. So, there's been 22 business days. So, I think those are the two options that we see here. You either move it for approval and then it goes to city council in some part,
or there's an opportunity if time allows for another continuation. >> Um I'm I'm just going to suggest that if you if uh you you you want to have a a chance to kind of deny part of this so that
there's a chance to work I think the rezoning is the place to do it. Um Okay. >> Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Meyer. I just said into mic, I don't think there's an issue with the rezoning, and so that would be tough for me to >> I see. Okay. >> do. >> Okay. Um
does anyone want to put a motion on the table? Commissioner Ryder. >> Thank you, Chair Meyer. I'll just share one more comment um on the project kind of in line with a lot of the other comments said. I think and I think maybe this will get me into trouble, but like the applicant is the
city, so I can I think I can criticize the applicant a little bit here. I think the uh this process has been a bit um insert word here. I don't even know what word I want to reach for, but um I'd love to see a little bit more
transparency about everything going on and why why this alley needs to be moved in the presentation, right? Like alternative designs considered, things like that. But with all that said, like we are here as the planning commission
reviewing an application before us. And in my mind this application meets all aspects of city code by by a sliver, by the smallest sliver, but it does. So um for that reason, I will be supporting staff findings. I'm happy to make that motion. I don't see any other
comments, so I will make a motion to support staff findings as it relates to item number four. >> Great. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. There's a motion and a second to adopt the staff findings. Is there further discussion on it? Okay. I'm I'm just going to say I
appreciate all the the frustrations. It's frustrating to me, too. Um I do think the findings are met, so I'm I'm going to vote in support for this. Um but I'll just note once again that the legislative components have to go to the council, and if this is appealed,
which I feel like there's a good chance it will be, then the judicial components also would go to the council. And hopefully there would be an opportunity to work out any other details that can be. Are there any other discussion?
All right. Well, so we'll put this one to a vote, and if it fails, we can make an alternative motion with findings. All right. All those in um Clerk, please call the roll, sorry. >> Commissioner Baxley? >> Aye. >> Chowdry? >> No. >> Conley?
>> No. >> Garcia? >> No. >> Shepard? >> Yes. >> Vice President Wagner? >> Yes. >> And President Myer? >> Yes. >> There are four ayes and three nays.
>> That is adopted, and that concludes our business for the day. Our next full Planning Commission is on July 13th, and we do have Committee of the Whole this Thursday. It's an interesting one. We're going to be starting our discussion uh for the 2050 plan, and we're also looking at the 600
Main Street project, so hope you guys can attend that if you're available. Are there any other updates from staff or commissioners? >> Nothing additional for me. >> Commissioner Chowdry? >> Yeah, I just wanted to clarify for the folks that are still remaining. So, the next step is going to City Council. Um I
would follow along with that. I'm sure some of you would know how to get in touch with your city council members. For those who don't, talk to those someones. Um and we'll have conversations about that. Uh I also uh will highlight to this body that on the
City Council, we're moving forward actions on regulating data centers. Currently, there is a data center moratorium on place with a exemption made in downtown. The first stop that the regulations ordinances that we've
noticed and are going to be referring to staff in our final council meeting on June 25th is the planning commission of the whole on July 16th. So, this is my notice to you to get ready to think about data center regulation. And then, we'll open
up a 60-day comment period for the public and we will have the privilege of taking on testimony from the public on the data centers regulations, I believe in October. >> Thank you for that update.
Anyone else? >> Um I can just to add on what uh Council member Chaudhary just said, if this tracks according to our schedule, and I've no reason to think it won't, uh this would be going to the Biz Committee meeting on July 21st.
>> All right. Not seeing anyone else, so we are adjourned. Thank you, everyone. >> Mhm.