>> WELCOME EVERYONE TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APRIL 14, 2025. MY NAME IS CHRIS MEYER, I'M THE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AT THIS TIME I'LL ASK STAFF TO CALL THE RL TO FIND A QUORUM. >> COMMISSIONE BAXLEY. >> HERE.
>> CAMPBELL IS ABSENT. CHOWDHURY. >> HERE. >> GORDON. >> HERE. >> JONES. >> HERE. >> MEYER. >> HERE. >> SKJEFTE. >> HERE.
>> LET THE RECORD SHOW A QUORUM IS PRESENT. NEXT WE'LL D THE MINUTES FROM MARCH 24, 2025. THEY'VE BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED?
ABSTENTIONS? THOSE MINUTES ARE ADTED. NEXT WE'LL PROCEED TO ORGANIZE OUR AGENDA. I'M GOING TO READ THROUGH THE DIFFERENT ANDA ITEMS. IF YOU WERE HERE TO DISCUSS ONE OF THE ITEMS OR YOU WANTED TO SPEAK AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, THEN LET US KNOW AS I RD IT OFF.
THE STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING THAT ALL OF OUR ITEMS BE ON CONSENT EXCEPT FOR ITEM NUMBER FOUR. SO ITEM NUMBER 4, 1501 JOHNSON STREET NORTHEAST, WE WILL DISCUSS THAT ONE.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE 1801 JAMES AVENUE NORTH. WAS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM NUMBER FIVE? OKAY, WE'LL HAVE THAT ITEM ON
CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER 6, 3010, 3016, AND 3020 12th AVENUE SOUTH. WAS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? I SEE THREE, SO WE WILL DISCUSS. ITEM SEVEN, A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT.
ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM SEVEN? THAT WILL BE ON CONSENT. AND ITEM EIGHT, ANOTHER ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT. IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM NUMBER EIGHT? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL HAVE THAT ON
CONSENT. SO TO REVIEW, WEILL DISCUSS ITEMS 4 AND 6. ITEMS 5, 7, AND 8 WILL BE ON CONSENT AND THEN AFTER AT, WE WILL HAVE A RESOLUTION TO
RECOGNIZE AN OUTGOING COMMISSIONER. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT AGENDA? >> S MOVED. >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED? ABSTENTIONS? THAT AGENDA IS APPROVED.
SO STARTING OFF WITH ITEM NUMBER 4, 1501 JOHNSON STREET NORTHEAST. STAFF IS ALEX KOHLHAAS. SORRY, IS DIFFERENT STAFF ESENTING THIS ONE? SORRY -- SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC
HEARING FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. DID ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK TO ANY OF OUR CONSENT ITEMS? ALL RIGHT, NOT SEEING ANY. SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA.
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT ALL INAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED? ABSTENTIONS? THAT IS OPTED. AND NOW WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM
NUMBER FOUR. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER AND COMMISSIONERS. BEFORE YOU TODAY IS AN ITEM FOR
THE PROPERTY OF 1501 JOHNSON STREET NORTHEAST. THIS IS TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING INTENDED FOR A NEW GROCERYTORE AND CHILDCARE CENTER USES. THERE ARE SEVERAL LAND USE PLICATIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED AND BEFORE YOU TODAY.
THIS INCLUDES AOMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE FUTURE BUILT FORM GUIDANC IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY FROM TRANSIT TEN TO CORRIDOR FOUR. SUBSEQUENTLYO REZONE THE PROPERTY RETAINING THE CM2
PRIMARY DISTRICT. TWO VARIANCES, ONE RELATED TO ONE OF OUR OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS AND ANOTHER RELATING TO BUSINESS SIGNAGE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW. I WILL NOTE AN EARLIER ITERATION OF THIS PROPOSAL WAS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE IN JUNE
OF LAST YEAR. AND I BELIE THE DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME FOCUSED ON THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT AS OPPOSED TO HYPOTHETICALLY A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM F.A.R. REQUIREMENTS SO I'LL COM BACK TO THAT TOPIC IN A MINUTE. I'LL NOTE THE APPLICANT HAS INCORPORATED THE FEEDBACK FROM
THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE LAST YEAR INTO THE PROPOSAL ALONG WITH OTHER FEEDBACK FROM CITY STAFF AND NOW THEY'RE PURSUING THEIR LAND USE APPLICATIONS AS NECESSARY. A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREAS, JUST A REGULAR TEARDROP-SHAPED
PARC WITH A LOT AREA OF JUST UNDER 9000 SQUARE FEET. THE MOST RECENTLY ESTABLISHED USE OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN AS A CONTRACTOR'S RD. ACCESS TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ONLY POSSIBLE THROUGH JOHNSON STREET TO THE WEST. OTHER SIDES OF THE PROPERTY ARE A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDING
FOR THE I-35W ENTRANCE RAMP. THERE'S A MIX OF LAND USES AND DENSITIES IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS, INCLUDING A PUBLIC PARK. YOU HAVE SOME LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. TO THE EAST OF I-35W RIGHT OF
WAY I MENTIONED. TO THE SOUTHEAST ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE IS A CONCENTRATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION USES. HERE'S THE PRIMARY ZONING MAP FOR THE AREA. AND YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THAT CM2 ZONING ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE
QUARRY SHOPPING CENTER TO THE NORTHEAST AND THE VARIETY YOU SEE IN THE ZONING M REFLECTS THE VARIETIES OF USES AND DENSITIES THAT I MENTIONED. BUILT FORM OVERLAY DISTRICT MAP SHOWS A SIMILAR VARIETY AND AGAIN I'LL NOTE THE BUILT FORM OVERLAY DISTRICT BOUNDARIES YOU
SEE HERE GENALLY ALIGN WITH THE FUTURE BUILT FORM MAP IN THE 2040 PLAN. THE T.O. INCLUDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE QUARRY, THAT'S ALL TRANSIT TEN. THE GREEN AND TAN TO THE WEST OF THAT IS INTERIOR PARKS OVERLAY
DISTRICT.AND THERE IS A LITTLE CORRIDOR FOUR, THAT'S THE ORANGE YOU SEE TOWARDS THE TOP CENTER ALONG JOHNSON STREET. CONTINUING NORTHF 18th. HERE ITHE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND THIS IS ORIENTED WITH NORTH TO THE LEFT. AGAIN THE PROPOSAL IS A TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL BUIING FOR A GROCERY STORE AND A CHILDCARE CENTER. THEY ARE PROPOSING A TOTAL OF 100 PARKING SPACES WHICH WOULD BE SPLIT INTO TWO PARKING AREAS,
ONE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING. AND OTHER ON SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING A LOADING DOCK AND OTHER ON SITE RETENTION AREAS, ET CETERA. SOME FLOOR PLANS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. ON THE BOTTOM IS THE MAIN LEVEL WHICH IS PRIMARILY THAT GROCERY STORE TENANT PLUS SOME SPA FOR
THE DAYCARE. AND ON THE SECOND FLOOR WHICH IS AT THE TOP OF YOUR SCREEN, THAT IS ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR THE DAYCARE. TWO OF THE PROPOSED ELEVATION DRAWINGS, SO THE TOP IS THE NORTH ELEVATION WHICHOULD FACE THE LARGER OF THE TWO PARKING AREAS.
AND THE BOTTOM OF YR SCREEN IS THE WEST ELEVATION WHICH WOULD FACE JOHNSON STREET. ONE ASPECT OF THE PLANS I DO JUST WANT TO DESCRIBE IN A LITTLE BITORE DETAIL RELATES TO SOME PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO BUS TRANSIT. THIS WOULD BE ALONG JOHNSON
STREET ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AND THERE IS AN EXISTING STOP TOWARDS THE SOUTH END OF THE PROPERTY. AND THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL INCLUDES RELOCATING THAT BUS STOP CLOSER TO THE CENTER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THEY'RE ALSO PROPOSING TO MAKE SOME ON
SITE IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO THAT. YOU CAN SEE ON THE PORTION OF THEIR SITE PLAN, THEY CALL IT A BUS SHELTER. IN THE RENDERING YOU CAN SEE THAT SHELTER AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS LIKE REALTIM TRANSIT INFO, A DISPLAY BOARD. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO ADD A
MID-BLOCK CROSSWALK IN THIS AREA AS WELL. JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THIS A LITTLE BIT AND MOSTLY NOTE THAT WHAT YOU SEE ON THE PLANS HERE, THIS REFLECTS THE APPLICANT'S INITIAL PROPOSAL REGARDING THIS MANNER.
THESE ASPECTS OF THE PLANS ARE NOT FINAL. AT THIS TIME FURTHER DISCUSSION IS NECESSARY BETWEEN THE APPLICANTS, CPED STAFF, PUBLIC WORKS STAFF, AND METRO TRANSIT TO IDENTIFY AROPRIATE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE RELATED TO BUS TRANSIT SERVICES TO THIS AREA IN THE SHORT TERM AND THE
LONG TERM. I'LL ALSO JUST NOTE THIS PROPOSAL, THIS DEVELOPMENT DOES REQUIRE AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE APPLICATION FOR A MINOR TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, EXCUSE ME. IT'S EXPECTED THAT ON SITE BUS MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE A PART OF THE REVIEW AND
DECISION FOR THAT APPLICATION. SO NOW TO FOCUS ON THE LAND USE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU TODAY. AND I'M GOING TO TOUCH ON THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE REZONING, AFTER THAT, I'M JUST GOING TO FOCUS ON PARTS OF THE OTHER APPLATIONS WHERE STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO ANYTHING
ELSEPON QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS. AGAIN FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND THAT FUTURE BUILT FORM GUIDANCE FOR THIS PROPERTY FROM TRANSIT TEN TO CORRIDOR FOUR. AND THEN TO SUBSEQUENTLY REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM THE TRANSIT
TEN TO CORRIDOR FOUR BUILTORM OVERLAY DISTRICT. THESE ACTIONS WOULD MITIGATE ONE SPECIFIC ZONING REQUIREMENT WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE AT ISSUE, THAT IS THE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA REQUIREMENT. IN TRANSIT TEN THE MINIMUM A.R. IS 1.0.
IN THE CORRIDOR FOUR, THERE IS NO MINIMUM F.A.R. REQUIREMENT AND THE PROPOSED F.A.R. IS 0.37. SO THIS WOULD BE NECESSARY TO FACILITATE APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING BULK THAT IS BEING
PROPOSED. BEYOND THAT SPECIFIC MECHANISM THAT'S IN PLAY HERE, STAFF FINDS THAT THIS PROPOSED COMP PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING HAVE MERIT BY ALIGNING THE BUILT FORM GUIDANCE AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CLOSER TO THE PARK AND THE LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE WEST COMPARED TO THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT WITH THE QUARRY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE FREEWAY RAMPS TO THE EAST. STAFF FINDS THE APPLICABLE FINDINGS FOR THESE TWO APPLICATIONS WOULD BE MET AND WE
RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR EACH OF THESE. ONE OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES I MENTIONED IS RELATED TO BUSINESS SIGNAGE. JUST TO TOUCH ON THE ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN PLAY HERE, THE TECHNICAL TERM, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ON PREMISES SIGNAGE, BUSINESS SIGNAGE IS GENERALLY ONLY ALLOWED ON A
PRIMARY BUILDING WALL WHICH IS DEFINED AS A WALL FACING A STREET WHICH PROVIDES VEHICLE ACCESS TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OR FACING A PUBLIC PATHWAY OR PARKING AREA. IN ADDITION TO SIGNS THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ON SOME OF THE OTHER SIDES OF THE
BUILDING, THERE IS A PROPOSED SIGN FOR THE GROCERY STORE TENANT SHOWN ON THEIR EAST ELEVATION DRAWING. YOU CAN SEE THAT TOWARDS THE LEFT-HAND SIDE. AND THE EAST SIDE OF THIS BUILDING WOULD FACE THE FREAY ENTRANCE AND EXIT RAMPS.
IT WOULD NOT FACE THE STREET PROVIDG DIRECT ACCESS. THOUGH THERE MAY BE SOME VISIBILITY IN THIS CASE FROM FURTHER AWAY LIKE THE SOUTHBOUND ROADWAY FROM I-35W. THIS IS NOT A PRIMARY BUILDING WALL WHICH IS WHY THE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL FOR THIS
VARIANCE. STAFF DOES NOT FIND THAT THERE IS ANYTHING UNIQUE AUT THE PROPERTY WHICH CREATES CHALLENGES IN COMPLYING WITH THE CODE REQUIREMENTS. THE INTENT IN THE CODE AROUND THIS TOPIC HAS A FEW DIFFERENT
COMPONENTS, BUT A LARGE PART OF IT IS INTENDED TO FACILITATE SIGNAGE THAT IS ORIENTED TO THE STREETROM WHICH THE PROPERTY IS ACCESSED. IT'S NOT INTENDED TO FACILITATE SIGNAGE VISIBILITY FROM FURTHER DISTANCES. ALSO JUST NOTE THIS IS A GOOGLE
STREET VIEW SCREEN SHOT FROM 35. THIS IS A QUARTER TO A HALF MILE TO THE EAST. YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A HIGH DENSITY OF EXISTING BUSINESS SIGNAGE IN THIS AREA AND EVERY PROPERTY IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. AND THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAY APPLY DIFFERENTLY. FOR EXAMPLE THE QUARRY IS
ALLOWED TO HAVE SIGNAGE FACING THIS DIRECTION BECAUSE ALL OF THEIR PARKING IS ON THAT SIDE. SO SOMEF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. BUT THIS KIND OF SHOWS THAT THE HIGH DENSITY OF SIGNAGE IN THIS AREA DETERMINED IN THE ZONING
CODE FOR O OF THOSE FINDINGS IS SIGN CLUTTER, AND STAFF DOES FIND THAT THIS PROPOSED SIGN ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THIS HIGHENSITY OF SIGNAGE IN THIS AREA AND CONTRIBUTES TO POTENTIAL DISTRACTIONS FOR DRIVERS IN THIS AREA INCLUDING
THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT RAMPS BEING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SO STAFF DOES NOT FIND THAT THE NECESSARY FINDINGS ARE MET FOR THE SIGN VARIANCE AND RECOMMENDS DENIAL. NOW TO TALK ABOUT THEIR SITE PLANREVIEW APPLICATION. MANY ASPECTS OF THIS PROPOSAL
WOULD COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE SITE PLA REVIEW REQUIREMENTS. BUT THERE ARE A TOTAL OF FOUR ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE REQUESTS SO I'LL GO THROUGH THOSE BRIEFLY. FIRST, THERE WOULD BE ONE BLANK WALL ON THE WEST SIDE OF THIS BUILDING. IT WOULD EXTEND 31 FEET IN LENGTH.
IT WOULD BE LOCATED JUST BEHIND THOSE BUS TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS I MENTIONED. THE APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSING TO HAVE AN ORIGINAL ARTIST MURAL INSTALLED ON THIS BLANK WALL. AND STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THIS REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE
COMPLIANCE CONSIDERING THAT PROPOSAL BY THE CLIENT. ONE OF THE GENERAL LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, SO BASED ON THEIR PROPOSED DESIGN, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 30 CANOPY TREES ON SITE. AND THEY ARE PROPOSING 27 WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINES.
THEY'RE ALSO REQUIRED TO HAVE 147 SHRUBS ON SITE AND THEY ARE PROSING 126 WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINES. I WILL NOTE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IMMEDIATELY AROUND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THEY ARE PROPOSING SOME ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS, LIKE
ANOTHER TEN TREES AND 25 SHRUBS MOSTLY TOWARDS THE BOTTOM LEFT IN TERMS OF HOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT ON YOUR SCREENS HERE. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND GRANTING THIS REQUEST FOR AERNATIVE COMPLIANCE CONSIDERING THE UNIQUE SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY,
THE PROPERTY LINES BEING IN UNUSUAL LOCATIONS AND THERE IS AN EXCESS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THIS LOCATION. AND STAFF DOES FIND THAT THAT SATISFIES THE FINDINGS FOR
GENERAL LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. ANOTHER IS RELATED TO THE PARKING AND LOADING LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. AS YOU KNOW ALL PARKING AREAS WITH STREET FRONTAGE ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A LANDSCAPED YARD THAT'S AT LEAST SEVEN FEET
WIDE AND MEETING OTHER SPECIFICATIONS. THEY WOULD NOT BE COMPLYING WITH THIS REQUIREMENT SPECIFICALLY IN WH IS THE NORTHWEST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS TOWARDS THE BOTTOM LEFT ON YOUR SCREEN HERE. THAT 7-FOOT LANDSCAPE YARD WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WHICH DOES NOT MEET
THE LETTER OF THE LAW IN TERMS OFHE SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIREMENT BUT IS SOMETHING WE CAN CONSIR UNDER ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE AND STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THAT. THE LAST REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE IS ANOTHER SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT REGARDING PARKING
AND LOADING LANDSPING SCREENING. SPECIFICALLY EACH PARKING SPACE IS REQUIRED TO BE WITHIN 50 FEET OF AN ON SITE DECIDUOUS TREE. THERE ARE EIGHT PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD NOT SATISFY THIS REQUIREMENT BASED ON THE PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AND THOSE ARE IN THEOUTHERN PARKING AREA, SO TOWARDS THE
RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF YOUR SCREEN HERE. THE PLANS DO SHOW WHAT LOOKS LIKE A TREE SYMBOL. BUT IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY LABELED WITH ENOH DETAIL TO VERIFY THAT IT SATISFIES THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. SO IT COULD JUST BE AN ISSUE WITH LABELING.
STAFF DOES NOT FIND THAT THIS WOULD SATISFY THE FINDINGS FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE AND STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND GRANTING TS PARTICULAR ITEM. WE DO HAVE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING WITH SITE PLAN REVIEW WHICH WOULD EFFECTIVELY ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.
IN CONCLUSION, JUST A SLIDE SUMMARIZING THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATIONS WHICH ARE BEFORE YOU TODAY. AGAIN I'M HAPPY TO GO BACK AND SPEAK ABOUT ANYTHING IN MORE DETAIL INCLUDING THINGS THAT I MY PRESENTATION. I ALSO HAVE A SLIDE LISTING ALL OF THEONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW. I'M NOT GOINGO GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE INDIVIDUALLY, BUT AISLE HAPPY TO SPEAK TO ANY IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUTIONS. I'LL JUST NOTE THE FIRST TWO ARE KIND OF STANDARD BOILERPLATE CONDITIONS THAT WE INCLUDE FOR A LOT OF THESE NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW.
CONDITIONS 3 THROUGH 11 ARE TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE PLANS WHICH AS THEY'VE BEEN SUBMITTED, THEY DON'T EXPLICITLY DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFIC ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS SO WE JUST HAVE SOMEONDITIONS TO MAKE SURE
THAT THAT IS ADDRESSED. THERE WERE NO WRITTEN PUBLIC CO OTHER THAN A FEW DOCUMENTS PASSED ALONG BY THE APPLICANT FOR THEIR COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ENGAGEMENT. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANTS AND
THEIR REPRESENTATIVES ARE IN ATTENDANCE AT TODAY'S HEARING. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. BUT I'M HAPPY TO STAND FOR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION. REGARDING THE SIGN,HAT IMAGE
YOU SHOWED TO DEMONSTRATE THE THE NUMBER OF SIGNS, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF SIGNS IN THE QUARRY, YOU'RE SAYING THIS WOULD ADD TO THE CLUTTER? >> IN SHORT, YES. >> CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH THE
SAFETY IMPLICATIONS. SO THERE ARE SIG DISTRACTING PEOPLE, THAT MAY CAUSE A CRASH IF PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT THEM? >> THE LOGIC, YES. ESPECIALLY IF YOU LOOK HERE, YOU
CAN SEE THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT RAMPS IF YOU'RE ON SOUTHBOUND I-35W GOING PASSED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. YOU HAVE VEHICLES ENTERING AND EXITING THE MAIN ROADWAY RIGHT AS YOU'RE GOING BY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THAT IN PARTICULAR INCREASES THE POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM BETWEEN VEHICLES AND HAVING THESE ADDITIONAL VISUAL DISTRACTIONS FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM INCREASES THAT POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT. >> AND ONE OTHER QUESTION FOR
KIMBERLY.WE RECENTLY HAD AN APPE COUNCIL FOR A SIGN REQUEST, WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF THAT? >> CORRECT. YOU ALL MAY RECALL THE PLANNIN COMMISSION HEARD AN ITEM SIMILAR TO THIS WHICH WAS A VARIANCE TO
HAVE A SIGN ON A NON-PRIMARY WALL AT OTHER ASSOCIATED ADDRESSES. THAT WAS A JP MORGAN CHASE BANK SIGN. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL, STAFF HAD A SIMILAR SET OF FINDIS THAT THERE WAS NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THAT CONSTITUTED A
NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY OTHE SIGN REGULATIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED THE APPLICATION. IT WAS APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE CITY COUNCIL UPHELD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'SECISION ON THAT AND THE SIGN WAS DENIED. >> OKAY, THANK YOU ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> I HAVE A QUESTION.
MY QUESTION IS IN TERMS OF SIGNAGE ALSO, SO THESE ARE SIGNAGE ON A BUILDING.WHAT OTHEN THE SITE? SOMETIMES THEY HAVE THE BIG SIGNS THAT ARE SEPARATE FROM THE
WALL SIGNS AND I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY WANT THIS FOR VISIBILITY AND TO DRAW PEOPLEO THEIR STORE AND CLEARLY THE FREEWAY IS A GREAT PLACE TO WAVE YOUR SIGN, RIGHT. WHAT OTHER OPTIONS --
>> SO THEY HAVE OTHER SIGN IDEAS BEYOND WHAT'S ON THE PLANS HERE -- BUT THE ZONING CODE DOES ALLOW OTHER TYS OF SIGNAGE LIKE WHAT WE CALL A MONUMENT SIGN, SOMETHING THAT HAS A SOLID BASE BUT ISN'T ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING.
USUALLY IT'S RIGHT NEA A DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO THE PARKING LOT. THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON THE NUMBER OF MONUMENT SIGNS THAT CAN BE PLACED ON A PROPERTY OR
IN ADDITION TO WAL SIGNS, SIGNS ATTACHED TO BUILDINGS, WHAT WE CALL A PROJECTION SIGN, SOME PEOPLE CALL IT A BLADEIGN THAT STICKS OUT FROM THE WALL FACE. BUT GENERALLY FOR ZONING CODE PURPOSES, THE INTENT IS FOR THESE TO BE ORIENTED TOWARDS THE
IN THIS CASE IT'S ONE STREET THAT PROVIDES DIRECT ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. THE CODE IS NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE VISIBILITY FOR WHEN YOUR TALKING ABOUT BUSINESS SIGNAGE, THPROPERTY THAT THE BUSINESS IS ON, IT'S NOT INTENDED TO
PROVIDE VISIBILITY SAY TO A FREEWAY EXIT RAMP, EVEN THOUGH IN THIS CASE IT IS VERY CLOSE B. BUT WE DO GET OTHER TYPES OF INQUIRIES FOR SIGNAGE LIKE THIS. USUALLY THE PROPERTY IS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AWAY, WHICH IS WHY THEY WANT A BIGGER SIGN, A
TALLER SIGN, SOMETHING FACING THIS DIRECTION. BUT IT DOESN'T, IN TERMS OF STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION, IT SPEAKS TO THAT SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IS A BIG PART OF THAT. >> OTHER QUESTIONS?
COMMISSIONER WAGNER. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. IT WAS REALLY WELL DONE AND THE WRITE UP WAS REALLY WELL DONE AS WELL. I APPRECIATE THE DETAIL. YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS PARTICULARLY IN THE WRITE UP, ALSO IN YOUR PRESENTAON. CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE T10 TO IS IT
CORRIDOR FOUR COMP PLAN CHANGE AND GETTING ON BOARD WITH THAT AND WHY THIS SITE SPECIFICALLY RESULTED ON YOU GETTING ON BOARD WITH THAT WHEN WE'VE SEEN SOME SITES IN THE PAST THAT WENT FOR THIS AND WE KIND OF TOLD THEM TOUGH LUCK? AND AS RELATED TO THAT, DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABO A
PRECEDENT-SETTING NATURE OF THIS COMP PLAN AMENDMENT? >> TO SPEAK TO THE FIRST QUESTION, I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE O PIECES OF THAT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE BUILT FORM OVERLAY DISTRICT MAP, IT SHOWS
THIS ONE LARGE TEAL AREA AS ALL OF THE TRANSIT TEN INCLUDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE QUARRY. THAT BIG CONNECTOR IN BETWEEN THEM, THAT AREA IS NOT PRITE PROPERTY, IT IS PUBLIC PROPERTY
THAT FOR SYMBOLOGY AREAS GETS THAT TEAL AREA, BUT IT HELPS VISUALLY MAKE THAT DISTINCTION IN THE SUBJE PROPERTY IN THE QUARRY. BUT IF YOU CAN IGNORE THAT, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS REALLY MORE CLOSELY CONNECTED, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON GEOGRAPHICALLY, IT
SHARES A STREET WITH THE PARK AND THE LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. THERE IS FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, A PRECEDENT WITH CORRIDOR 4 ALONG JOHNSON STREET TO THE NORTH, THERE'S SOME MORE TO THE SOUTHWEST ALONG BROADWAY JUST OFF SCREEN HERE.
SO SEEING THE VARIETY THAT IS IN EXISTING PROJECT DENSITY AND ON THE BUILT OVERLAY MAP, WE COULD MAKE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING MORE CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE WEST AND DIRECTLY ALIGNED WITH TH CORRIDOR FOUR IN THE NEARBY AREA.
THERE'S ALSO THE MATTER OF KIND OF THE HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AT THIS PROPERTY WHERE THERE WAS A PREVIOUS PROPOSAL BACK IN 2019 FOR SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AARGER BUILDING, IT WOULD HAVE SATISFIED THAT MINIMUMF.A.R. REQUIREMENT IN THE TRANSIT TEN.
LOT HAS HAPPENED IN THE DEVELOPMENT WORLD SINCE THEN. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE SPECIFIC N GENERAL. AND THE OVERLAPPING TIMELINES OF THAT PROJECT WITH ADOPTING THE 2040 PLAN AND THE BUILT FORM OVERLAY DISTRICTS I THINK MAY
HAVE KIND OF IORMED THAT CONVERSATION. IN TERMS OF PRECEDENT, ULTIMATELY WHEN WE'RE EVALUATING THESE, WE DO NEED TO EVALUATE EACH INDIVIDUALLY AND OUR ANALYSIS FOR ANOTH PROPERTY
COULD RESUL IN A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE IN TERMS OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL FINDINGS THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO ARTICULATE. FOR EACH PROJECT. SO THERE CAN BE SOME SHARED CIRCUMSTANCES BETWEEN DIFFERENT PROPOSALS, BUT ULTIMATELY WE DO
NEED TO EVALUATE EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY. >> AND COMMISSIONER WAGNER, IF I MAY ADD TO THAT, I THINK WE SAW AS PART OF OUR CONSENT MOTION TONIGHT A HOST OF MAPPING UPDATES TO MINNEAPOLIS 2040. BECAUSE WHILE WE'RE CLOSE TO
PERFECT, I THINK WE CAN ADMIT THAT WE DIDN'T COMPLETELY NAIL IT ON EVERY PARCEL THE FIRST TIME. ANWE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WITH A SERIES OF THINGS THAT WE HAD CONSIDERED ERRORS OR MAYBE MAPPING CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE HAD OVERLOOKED WITH THE INITIAL ADOPTION.
THIS WAS NOT CONSIDERED AN ERROR OR SOMETHING WE OVERLOOKED, BUT ANYTIME WE HAVE A REQUEST FROM AN APPLICANT FOR A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, KIND OF THE FIRST QUESTION WE ASK OURSELVES IS, COULD WE HAVE DRAWN A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION HERE? ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE PUT INTOHE ALGORITHM KIND OF
LED US TO TRANSIT TEN THE FIRST TIME. BUT IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD HAVE DRAWN ANOTHER CONCLUSION HERE. THE INTENT OF THE TRANSIT TEN DISTRICT IS TO BE APPLIED ALONG HIGH FREQUCY TRANSIT ROUTES, ADJACENT TO TRANSIT STATIONS AND NEIGHBORHOODS NEAR DOWNTOWN AND IN DOWNTOWN.
THIS AS ALEX NOTED WAS LUMPED IN WITH THE TRANSIT TEN GIVEN ITS PROXIMITY TO THE QUARRY. BUT IT DOESN'T SHARE THAT SAME ACCESS AND THE SAME ADJACENCY TO
TRANSIT THAT SOME OF THOSE OTHER PARCELS DO. WHICH IS THE MAIN THING WE EVALUAD IN WHETHER WE COULD DRAW A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION HERE. THE CORRIDOR FOUR WAS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT SO THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SEEING THAT. >> THANK YOU, THAT ANSWERS MY ESTION. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF
BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING? THANK YOU, ALEX. I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK? COME ON UP, INTRODUCE YOURSELF
AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE CLOSER THE MIC. >> IT'S HARD FOR US TALL PEOPLE.
SO THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK ABOUT OUR PROJECT AT 1501 JOHNSON NORTHEAST. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THE SITE CHARACTERISTICS. EXCUSE ME, A LITTLE OVER 2.2 ACRES AND WE'RE PROPOSING A GROCERY STORE AND A DAYCARE.
THE DAYCARE, ONE OF THE REAL ATTRIBUTES OF THIS SITE IS THE CITY PARK ACROSS THE STREET. HENCE WE WANTED TO INCREASE TRANSIT TO THIS SITE AND PUTTING IN A CROSSWALK SO THAT WE HAVE SAFE PASSAGE FOR THE DAYCARE KIDS TO WALK RIGHT ACROSS THE
STREET. SO WE WENT THROUGH AN EXTENSIV COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. LENA WITH THE LOWER NORTHEAST
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WERE COMBINED. WE MET WITH LENA AND ALSO THEIR COMMUNITY AND HOUSING LIVABILITY COMMITTEE, THE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, WE DISTRIBUTED PROJECT INFORMATION, FLYERS TO
ENCOURAGE THE NEIGHBORS TO ATTEND THE PRESENTATION, AND WE ERECTED A FOUR BY EIGHT SIGN ON THE SITE TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE PROJECT. SO WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO KICK OFF THIS PROJECT. IT'S BEEN A LONG ROAD TO
POSITIVELY DEVELOP THIS VERY ODDLY SHAPED PARCEL. IT'S SHAPED LIKE A DOUBLE HEADED ARROW WITH EXTREME NARROW POINTS AT EACH END WHICH MAKES PORTIONS OF THE SITE UNBUILDABLE.
IT'S ISOLATED FROM THE TRAFFIC GRID. IT'S AN ISLAND BORDERED ONLY BY ONE STREET, JOHNSON STREET TO THE WEST. WITH T FREEWAY AND THE FREEWAY ENTRANCE RAMP SURROUNDING THE REMAINING SIDE TO THE PARCEL. SO IN OUR PARLANCE, IT HAS ONE
STREET ONLY. TECHNICALLY IT'S A DOUBLE CORNER LOT. THE SITE HAS BEEN USED AS A CONSTRUCTION YARD. CURRENTLY USED AS A NON-CONFORMING STORAGE YARD FOR A VEHICLE TOWING COMPANY.
THE PROJECT BRINGS TWO OF THE MOST DESIRABLE USES ALIGNED WITH THE GOALS INTENDED IN THE 2040 PLAN, DAYCARE AND GROCERY. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH MET TRANSIT, THEY CURRENTLY HAVE A
LOCATION THAT'S ABOUT A HALF A BLOCK TO THE SOUTH AND THE MT PROXIMITAL NORTHERN TRANSIT STATION IS AT THE POST OFFICE W.
SO IN AICIPATION OF THE FUTURE BRT, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH MET TRANSIT AND TY ARE AGREEABLE TO RELOCATE THAT SOUTHERN TRANSIT STOP TO OUR PROJECT.
AND IT WILL ALSO PROVIDE BETTER TRANSIT FOR GROCERY PATRONS. SO I'D LIKE TO SPEAK REAL QUICKLY TO THE SIGNING VARIANCE MATTER.
JUST A FEW SHORT COMMENTS. ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS, THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE SIGN CLUTTER IN THE AREA OR A SIGN THAT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE
ZONING DISTRICT. CORRIDOR MIXED USE, ALL PROPOSED SIGNAGE WILL BE I COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE SIGNAGE CODE. THE PROPOSED SIGGE IS SOLELY FOR IDENTIFICATION OF THE TENANTS FROM 35W.
THE TECHNICAL REASON A SIGNAGE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED AT THIS SITE IS INTERSTATE 35W AND THE 35W ONRAMP WHICH ABUT THE PROPERTY ARE NOT DESIGNATED
SLASH RECOGNIZED BY STAFF AS STREETS. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE CODE, SIGNAGE IS NOT ALLOWED ON THE NON-PRIMARY BUILDING WALL IF IT DOESN'TBUT A STREET. NOW REMEMBER, THIS IS A VERY
IQUELY SHAPED PARCEL SITTING UPBOVE THE FREEWAY ON MORE THAN TWO SIDES. MNDOT PROPERTY SURROUNDS ABOUT 220 DEGREES OF THIS PARCEL.
SO ALTHOUGH 35W AND THE RAMP FUNCTION LIKE A STREET, THEY'RE NOT RECOGNIZED AS A STREET. IF THERE WERE A BUILDING BEHIND OUR STRUCTURE, THEN SIGNAGE MIGHT IMPACT THE VIEW CORRIDOR OF THAT BUILDING IF IT'S NOT ON A PRIMARY BUILDING LL.
WE ALL UNDERSTAND, SIGNAGE ON THE STREET MAKES SENSE. BUT SIGNAGE ON THE BACK OF A BUILDING COULD BE PROBLEMATIC FOR OTHER NEIGHBORS. THERE ARE NO NEIGHBORS, THERE IS NO BUILDING ON THE BACKSIDE AND NEVER CAN A BUILDING BE CONSTRUCTED ON TH BACKSIDE
BECAUSE IT'S ALL MNDOT PROPERTY. SO THERE'S NO ONE WHO CAN BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY A SIGN. OR THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE. THE CONFIGURATION OF THE PARCEL ELEVATED ABOVE 35W WITH THE
STEEP MNDOT SLOPES IS CERTAINLY NOT LOCATED IN A TYPICAL CITY BLOCK GRID PATTERN FOR WHICH THE CODE WAS WRITTEN. IT'S UNIQUE. BECAUSE OF TH UNIQUENESS OF THIS SITE, THE NONPRIMARY BUILDING WALL IS THE MOST PROMINENT FACADE FOR OUR
BUILDING TENANTS. TO DENY A BUSINESS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISPLAY SIGNAGE TO 35W IS COUNTERINTUITIVE FOR A CITY'S EFFORTS TO SUPPORT THE BUILDING OF COMMUNITIES AND PROMOTING BUSINESSES TO SUPPORT
THOSE COMMUNITIES. I HAVE A COUPLE PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH SHOW PRECEDENT OF EXISTING SIGNAGE ON NONPRIMA BUILDING WALLS ON 35W WHICH ARE LOCATED LESS THAN MILE FROM THIS
SUBJECT SITE. COULD WE TURN ON, PLEASE, THE
DOCUMENT CAMERA? THIS IS ON 35W, A STONE'S THROW
FROM THE BUILDING HEADING NORTH. AND PROMINENT DISPLAY OF SIGNAGE. HERE'SNOTHER EXAMPLE, THIS IS HEADING SOUTH ON 35W AT WASHINGTON AVENUE. AND AGAIN MNDOT PPERTY ABUTS
BOTH OF THESE BUILDINGS AS THEY ABUT THE FREEWAY. SO THAT ENDS MY PRESENTATION. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. AREHERE QUESTIONS FOR THE
APPLICANT? THANK YOU. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> IS ANYONE ELSE HERE TO TESTIFY TO THIS ITEM? I'M NOT SEEING ANY, SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY DISCUSSION OR MOTIONS? COMMISSION THOMPSON. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. I'M NEVER GOOD AT MAKING THE MOTIONS HERE. FOR SOME REASON IT'S SO DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I'M USED TO.
I'M SENSITIVE AS I WAS THE LAST TIME TO A BUSINESS OWNER TING TO DRIVE TRAFFIC. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY UP HERE, DOES ANYONE LIVE NEAR? THAT'S RIGHT ACROSS FROM WHAT
USED TO BE CALLED ROSE ACRE PARK. IT'S THE POOL, RIGHT? AND HUGE, HUGE PARK. AND I DO KNOW THAT THAT AREA, THAT CORNER GOES TO LARGELY NOTHING. IT'S KIND OF A DEAD END OF NOTHINGNESS.
SO I WAS SYED BY THE IDEA. I RECOGNIZE WHAT STAFF WAS SAYING ABOUT CHALLENGES WITH DRIVERS AND COMPLETELY I THINK THAT MIGHT DISTRACT US IN LIFE DRIVING THAN A SIGN FOR A GROCERY STORE.
SO I DON'T KNOW IFHAT'S A MOTION WORTH CARRYING OR IF THAT'S JUST A DISCUSSION POINT. BUT THAT'S WHERE I AM. I'D BE HAPPY TO HEAR FROM OTHERS IF THEY CONSIDERED IT AS WELL. >> SO YOU'D LIKE TO, YOU'RE
CONSIDERING A MOTION TO GRANT THE SIG VARIANCE? >> TO GRANT, YES. HOW WOULD YOU PROPOSE THAT I EVEN SAY THAT? >> I WAS GOING TO ASK KIMBERLY TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE. IN ADDITION TO THE REGULAR FIINGS THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE, THERE ARE THE ADDITIONAL TWO SIGN VARIANCE FINDINGS. CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH THAT,
KIMBERLY? >> CORRECT. SO ANY MOTION THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION WOULD NEED TO COME WITH FINDINGS. SO IT WOULD BE THE STANDARD REE VARIANCE FINDINGS THAT RESULT IN A FINDING THAT THERE'S A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ON THE
SITE THAT RESULTS IN A NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY ON THE SIGN REGULATIONS. SO ONE, WHAT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THERE THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THIS SITE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN CREATED BY THE PROPERTY
OWNER. LOOK AT CONSISTEN WITH RESPECT TO THE ZONING CODE AND THE COMP PLAN, POTENTIAL FOR OFF SITE IMPACTS WHICH GETS INTO THE TWO ADDITIONAL VARIANCE FINDINGS RE. THE FIRST ONE I THINK WAS
SENTIALLY MET RELATED TO THE MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION OF THE SIGN. AND THE SECOND ONE WHICH WAS NOT MET WHICH WAS LARGELY FOCUSED ON THE SIGN CLUTTER ARGUMENT THAT WAS MADE BY STAFF. >> JUST TO BE CLEAR, SINCE I
DON'T EVER REALLY MAKE MOTIONS HERE, I'VE TRIED TO TALK ABOUT IT, BUT WE CAN'T JUST MAKE A MOTION AND DISCUSS IT? WE HAVE TO SORT OF JUDICIALLY OVERRIDE STAFF WITH SOME EVIDENTIARY HEARING? >> CORRECT.
THERE ARE REQUIRED LEGAL FINDINGS THAT NEED TO BE MADE FOR EVERY LAND USE APPLICATION THAT COMES BEFORE THE CITY. SO STAFF PROPOSES A SET OF LEGAL FINDINGS WITH THE STAFF REPORTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKETS. >> YEP. >> WHENEVER YOU ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION, YOU'RE ADOPTING
THE SET OF LEGAL FINDINGS THAT WAS PROPOSED BY STAFF IN THE STAFF REPORT. IF YOU DON'T INTEND TO GO WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPT THOSE FINDINGS, FINDINGS WOULD NEED TO BE MADE ON THE FLOOR AS PART OF THE MOTION.>> THAT MAKEK
YOU FOR THAT. I WAS THINKING MAYBE BECAUSE THERE'S A PRECEDENT SET AT THESE OTHER LOCATIONS. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LAST ONE WAS -- I REALLY HAD TO LISTEN A LOT BETTER AND WRITE THESE THINGS DOWN. SO I WON'T BE MAKING A MOTION,
BUT IF SOMEONE ELSE COMES UP WITH THIS. I AM SENSITIVE TO IT. I RECOGNIZE THAT MOST PEOPLE WOULD LOVE -- I'M THE KIND OF PERSON WHO SOMETIMES -- I'VE USED THAT LOCATION WHERE I GET GASND I'M JUST LIKE OH THERE'S A GAS STATION.
SO I'M SENSITIVE TO TH. IF SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO HELP ME COME UP WITH OTHER FINDINGS, I'D APPRECIATE IT. >> SO I GUESS I'M UNDECIDED ON THE SIGN.
I'M OPEN TO IT. I WANT TO WALK THROUGH EACH OF THE FIVE FINDINGS THAT WE WOULD ED TO MAKE. SO OF THE FIVE, HOW MANY DID STAFF FIND IN FAVOR OF THE
APPLICANT, ARE ALL FIVE AGAINST THEM? >> I BELIEVE MAYBE -- I APOLOGIZE I DON'T HAVE THE LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF ME. BUT I BELIEVE THERE IS THE ONE
FINDING, I BELIEVE THAT S FOUND TO BE MET. THE OTHER FOUR WERE FOUND TO BE NOT MET. >> WHICH ONE WAS MET THE FOURTH ONE?
LET'S WALK THROUGH THEM. NUMBER ONE, CHALLENGES EXIST -- GO AHEAD, KIMBERLY. I WAS GOING TO READ EACH OF THE FIVE. SO CHALLENGES EXIST IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE OF CIUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY, THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY PERSO PRESENTLY HAVING AN
INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT BASED ON ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ALONE. SO YOU FOUND AGAINST THE APPLICANT ON THAT ONE, CORRECT? TWO, THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THORIZED APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE THE PROPERTY IN A REASONABLE MANNER THAT WILL BE IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF
THE ORDINANCE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. YOU FOUND AGAINST THE APPLICANT ON THAT ONE? >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. THE PROPOD VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY OR BE INJURIOUS TO
THE USEF OTHER PROPERTIES. IF GRANTED IT WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE OR GENERAL PUBLIC OF THOSE UTILIZING THE PROPERTY OR NEARBY PROPERTIES? .
YOU FOUND AGAINST ON THAT ON >> CORRECT. >> IT WILL NOT LEAD TO SIGN CLUTTER IN THE AREA OR RESULT IN A SIGN THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED? AND YOU FOUND AGAINST THEM ON THAT? >> CORRECT. >> SO THIS MUST BE THE ONE YOU FOUND IN FAVOR. SO THE SIGN ADJUSTMENT WILL
ALLOW A SIGN THAT RELATES IN SIGN, SHAPE, MATERIALS, ILLUMINATION, AND COLOR TO THE FUNCTION AND ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING ON PROPERTY IN WHICH THE SIGN WILL BE LOCATED. SO YOU FOUND THAT ONE? >> THAT IS THE ONE WE FOUND THE FINDING IS SATISFIED WHICH
ALIGNS WITH THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL. >> OKAY. SO IF WE WANTED TO MAKE THAT MOTION, WE'D HAVE TO FIND FOUR ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS. COMMISSIONER JONES. >> YEAH, SO I'M INCLINED TO AT LEAST HAVE THE DISCUSSION TOO AS WELL.
SO MY SORT OF INITIAL THOUGHT ARE THAT THE ARGUMENT ABOUT THE FREEWAY NOT BEING A ROAD, I HAVE BEEN DRIVING OVER THERE RECENTLY AND IT'S A FREEWAY, IT'S NOT A ROAD AND IT SEEMS CONSISTENT WITH THE PRECEDENCE THAT YOU
PROVIDED FOR US IN TERMS OF OTHER SIGGE ALONG THE FREEWAY. AND I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT IT'S GOING TO CAUSE UNDULY ADD TO THE SIGNAGE CLUTTER IN THAT AREA. SO THOSE ARE AT LEAST, I'M
LEANING TOWARDS ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO HAVE THE SIGN ON T BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION AND THE STRUCTURE, THE LAYOUT OF THE PROPERTY, ET CETERA. SO THANK YOU.
>> COMMISSIONER CONLEY? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I FOUND THE APPLICANT'S EXPLANATION VERY COMPELLING. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD AND YOU KNOW, THE CONVERSATION AROUND GAS STATIONS CAME UP AND THOSE ARE TYPICALLY THE MONUMENT
SIGNS WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU WERE REFERRING TO EARLIER AS THE ALTERNATIVE SIGNAGE THE APPLICANT COULD POTENTIALLY USE IF NOT ON THE BUILDING. SO I GUESS MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT IS IS A MONUMENT SIGN SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED OR WERE
ALTERNATIVESDISCUSSED? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD DO IF THE ISN'T PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOUND? >> I WILL JUST NOTE, IS THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED?
>> IT IS. >> IN THE PAST WE CAN REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF WE'D LIKE . I'LL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO TAKE THIS QUESTION. DO YOU WANT TO COME UP AND
ANSWER THIS QUESTION, PLEASE? >> COMMISSIONER, WE DID LOOK AT ALTERNATIVE SIGNAGE OPTIONS, AND A MONUMENT SIGN IN THIS LOCATION
IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER A DIFFERENT STION OF THE ZONING CODE IN THAT THE BUILDING IS CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE EAST SIDE WHICH IS MNT PROPERTY AND WE COULD NOT COMPLY WITH A MONUMENT SIGN AND MEET
THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THE OTHER REASON IS WE THOUGHT A SIMPLE IDENTIFIABLE BUSINESS SIGN ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING WAS MUCH LESS INTRUSIVE THAN A LARGE MONUMENT SIGN. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT MAKES SENSE.
THANK YOU. >> WHILE YOU'RE BACK UP HERE, CAN YOU RECAP WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS WERE FROM FINDINGS BECAUSE YOU HAVE THIS IN YOUR LETTER, RIGHT? WHAT WERE YOUR RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR THE SIGN?
>> FOR THE THREE FINDINGS OF FACT? >> FOUR. >> SO THERE ARE THREE VARIANCE FINDINGS THAT APPLY TO VARIANCE REQUESTS AND SIGN VARIANCES HAVE
TWO ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC FINDINGS THAT, TODD PROBABLY PUT THE FINDINGS TOGETHER WHEN HE SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION MATERIALS SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE THEM DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF U, THEY WOULD BE IN THE PACKET. >> FULL DISCLOSURE, I'M THE FILL IN GUY TONIGHT.
THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, IT'S CALLED AN APPENDIX, SO HE'S NOT HERE. I CAN'T SPEAK DIRECTLY TO IT, ALTHOUGH TO GO BACK TO SUMMARIZE
MY COMMENTS THAT UNIQUENESS TO THE SITE AND IT WILL NOT IMPACT OR CAUSE UNDUE HARM AND THEN THE THIRD ONE I BELIEVE WAS, HELP ME, KIMBERLY. >> SPIRIT AND INTENT, REASONABLENESS AND SPIRIT AND
INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. >> CORRECT. REASONABLENESS AND THE FACT THAT THESE ARE BUSINESSES, HIGHLY DESIRABLE BUSINESSES THAT WE THOUGHT IT'S REASONABLE THAT THEY BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES ON 35W.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE RECLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARG? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. >> OKAY. >> I'LL JUST NOTE FOR COMMISSIONERS QUICK TT THE APPLICANT'S LETTER IS ON PAGE 46 OF THE PACKET IF YOU WANT TO READ THROUGH HISINDINGS ON THAT. >> SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN.
OTHER DISCUSSION FROM COMMISSIONERS? I ALSO DON'T FIND THAT THIS ADDS
CLUTTER. I'M INTERESTED IN WHAT OTHER COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SPOKE TO IT. BUT DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE THOUGHTS ON STAFF'S FINDING THAT IT COULD BE DANGEROUS TO HAVE SIGNS? I DO AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT
THAT THERE DON'T SEEM TO BE ANY NEIGHBORS THAT WOULD BE NEGATIVELY HARMED LIKE THIS WHICH IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND THE PREVIOUS ONE THAT WE REJECTED FROM JP MORGAN. COMMISSIONER JONES. >> I'M RRY, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER CHOWDHURY.
>> I'M SORRY, DID MISS YOU? >> I ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN DRIVING THAT QUITE A BIT FOR OTHER REASONS, LIKE GOING RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE -- AND I HAVEN'T BEEN, I DON'T SEE ANY COMPLICATIONS ALTHOUGH THERE'S NOT A BUILDING THERE NOW.
BUT AT LEAST IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWAR THERE'S NOT A LOT OF ACTIVITY OTHER THAN PEOPLE JUST GETTING OFF THE FREEWAY AND GETTING OVER ON JOHNSON OR 18th. >> COMMISSIONER CHOWDHURY. >> THANK YOU.
CHAIR MEYER. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. JUST TO KIND OF GO BACK TO THAT MONUMENT SIGN QUESTION. I KNOW WE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT THAT THEY WERE TOLD THAT THEY WOULD BE UNABLE TO DUE TO OTHER ZONING CODE. BUT THAT WAS SETHING THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED IN YOUR
PRESENTATION. I'M WONDERING IF YOU HAVE ANY ANALYSIS ON POSSIBLE OTHER SIGNAGE OPTIONS INCLUDING THE MONUMENT SIGN THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH CURRENT ZONING CODE? >> THAT'S NOT ANALYSIS THAT I HAVE DONE PRIOR TO THIS OR EVALUATED THE SIGNS THAT WERE ON
THE PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED. PERSONALLY, I DON'T RECALL DISCUSSING ALTERNATE SIGN IDEAS OR PROPOSALS WITH THE APICANT TEAM PRIOR TO TODAY. WE CONSIDERED WHAT WA ON THE PLANS AND AGAIN MOST OF THE SIGNS THAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED ON
THE OTHER SIDES OF THE BUILDING WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS. SPEAKING GENERALLY, THE WAY OUR ZONING ORDINANCE ISTRUCTURED AROUND BUSINESS SIGNAGE LIKE
THIS IS LARGELY TO LIMIT WHAT HAS BEEN CHARACTERIZED AS A PROLIFERATION OF SIGNAGE ON A LOT OF OUR COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS. SO OUR ZONING REGULATIONSOR BUSINESS SIGNAGE ARE NOT AS PERMISSIVE AS THEY HAVE BEEN IN
THE PAST. >> WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO TALK TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT OTHER SIGNAGE OPTIONS? >> YEAH, AFTER TS HEARING, WE ARE CERTAINLY AVAILABLE TO TALK WITH APPLICANT TEAMS THROUGH
ALTERNATE PROPOSALS. FOR SIGNS THAT REQUIRE OR THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE ZONING CODE, THEY DON'T NEED TO COME THROUGH FOR ANOTHER HEARING. IT'S ONLY FOR WHEN IT IS A SIGN VARIANCE THAT IT WOULD COME BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. >> THANK YOU.
YEAH, COLLEAGUES, I AGREE WITH MUCH OF WHAT WAS SAID UP HERE IN TERMS OF IS THIS GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL CLUTTER NOT I DON'T REALLY THINK SO JUST BASED OFF OF THE FACT THAT THERE'S ALREADY SIGNAGE.
AND I THINK THE PLACE WHERE I'M STRUGGLING IS A FINDING OF FACT AROUND SATISFYING THE CLAUSE AROUND CHALLENGES EXIST IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE OF UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES TO THE PROPERTY. I MEAN IF ANOTHER COMMISSIONER
HAS A COMPELLING FINDING FOR THAT, I WOULD BE INTERESTED. BUT I'M CURRENTLY NOT SEEING THAT, AND WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE OER SIGNAGE CASE A COUPLE PLANNING COMMISSIONS AGO
AND THEN ON TO CITY COUNCIL, THE DEFINING PART OF THAT CONVERSATION WAS WE HAVE TO OPERATE UNDER THE CURRENT LAWS THAT EXIST BEFORE US AND MAKE A DECISION BASED OFF OF THAT. WE CAN'T USE A VARIANCE
OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A PRECEDENT OR LEGISLATE DIFFERENTLY. AND I FEEL LIKE AS A COUNCIL, WE MADE THE DECISION TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL PRECEDENT SETTING AND UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES ON NONPRIMARY BUILDING OR PRIMARY BUILDING WALL SIGNAGE. AND SO FOR THERE IS A COMPELLING UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCTO THE PROPERTY THAT WE CAN FIND, I THINK THEN WE WOULD B ABLE TO LEGALLY SATISFY THE NEEDS OF
THIS VARIANCE. BUT THAT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING TH I'M SEEING ESPECIALLY IF THERE ARE OTHER SIGNAGE OPPORTUNITIES HERE TO SUPPORT THE BUSINESS. I LOVE SHOPPING AT THE QUARRY.
I SHOPPED AT THE QUARRY OFTEN WHEN I WAS A COLLEGE STUDENT. IT'S A NOTABLE, ICONIC AREA FOR MANY PEOPLE TO GET WHAT THEY NEED. SO IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU GET THE SIGNAGE THAT YOU NEED TO CONTINUE BRINGING IN THOSE CUSTERS THAT RELY ON THAT AREA. BUT THIS FEELS LIKE KIND OF A
STICKING POINT FOR ME AT THIS MOMENT. >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN MEYER. I TEND TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER CHOWDHURY.
I THINK I AM STRUGGLING TO FIND A CHALLENGING COMPLIANCE. I THINK IT'S A NICE TO HAVE. BUT THAT ISN'T JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE. IT IS A UNIQUE SITE, BUT I CAN'T DETERMINE A CHALLENGE THAT THE
ORDINANCE CAN'T BE MET. I'M GOING TO BE VOTING TO SUPPORT STAFF FINDINGS ON THIS. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I DO APPRECIATE THE APPLICANTS LISTENING TO THE COMMITT OF THE WHOLE, MODIFYING THE PROPOSAL IN SUCH A WAY, IT'S A
MUCH BETTER PROJECT THAN WE SAW BEFORE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. >> WOULD Y LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? >> SURE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPORT STAFF FINDINGS ON THIS. >> IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? COMMISSIONER CHOWDHURY.
>> I DID WANT TO JUST NOTE TO THE APPLICANT AS COUNCIL MEMBERS WHEN WE HAD THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SIGNAGE FOR JP MORGAN, THERE WAS DISCUSSION AGAIN ABOUT WE HAVE THE LEGISLATION THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE AND OUT OF THAT
THERE WERE COUNC MEMBERS DISCUSSING POTENTIAL ORDINANCE CHANGE REGARDING SIGNAGE. SO I WOULD ADVOCATE FOR YOU TO REACH OUT TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER THAT DISCUSSION.
AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN THERE THAT MAY SUPPORT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. DEPENDING O HOW THAT GOES, YOU MAY NOT NEED A VARIANCE FOR THIS. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YO KNEW ABOUT THAT. >> COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. A COMPELLING ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND I RESPECT THAT. I DO HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF JUST BECAUSE I CLEARLY AM NOT THE QUEEN OF THE SIGNAGE ORDINANCES. IS THIS A CITY ORDINANCE?
DOES IT COME THROUGH WITH THE MINNEAPOLIS 2040 PLAN. HOW DID THISOME UP? I'M CURIOUS THE STRUCTURE OF HIERARCHY WE'REEALING WITH WHEN IT COMES TO THE SIGNS? >> SIGN REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THEONING CODE PROBABLY BACK TO THE 1924 CODE. I GUESS I'D HAVE TO DIG TT
OUT. CERTAINLY BACK TO THE 1963 CODE, THEY'RE A PRIMARY TENANT OF ZONING CODES NATIONWIDE. NOT RELATED TO THE 2040 PLAN. THERE ARE SOME TWEAKS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE OVER TIME. IT'S PROBABLY ONE PART OF THE CODE THAT GETS A LOT OF
ATNTION AS SUPREME COURT CASES COME DOWN RELATED TO CONTENT AND WHATNOT. SO YES,RIMARY COMPONENT OF THE ZONING CODE. >> THE ZONING CODE, PERFECT. SO WE'RE NOT TURNING ANY PARTS OF THE CITY INTO TIME SQUARE WHERE IT'S JUST A BLAST OF EVERYTHING.
JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR, THANKS. >> THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
SORRY. , SORRY.
WE ALREADY REOPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING ONCE. YOU CAN FIND THE SIGN IN THE APPLICATION ONLINE. SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE. COMMISSIONER CONLEY. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I JT WANTED TO ALSO SINCE STAFF WAS UP HERE,
I KNOW THAT I ASKED BEFORE ABOUT THE CONTINUED CONVERSATION OR WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE CONTINUED CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT ALTERNATIVE SIGNAGE. SO I KNOW THAT THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT BEING INTRUSIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ET CETERA,
WHEN A BIG MONUMENT SIGN COULD POSSIBLY DO THAT. BUT LOOKING AT WAYS WHERE ALTERNATIVE SIGNAGE WOULD FIT WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS AND WHAT SORT OF OPTIONS MIGHT BE ON THE TABLE ASIDE FROM WHAT THE VOTE RESULTS IN TODAY. I JUST WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT CONVERSATION TO CONTINUE.
THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OVER. NO.
CAN WE HAVE THEM ESCORTED, PLEASE. SO WE HAVE AOTION ON THE FLOOR
TO APPROVE THE STAFF FINDINGS. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS? ALL RIGHT NOT SEEING ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, CLERK, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> AYE. >> CHOWDHURY. -- >> CONLEY. >> AYE. >> GORDON. >> AYE. >> JONES. >> AYE. >> THOMPSON. >> AYE. >> WAGNER.
>> AYE. >> AT THIS MOMENT WE HAVE SIX AYES AND 0 NAYS. I'M SORRY, HOW DID I MISS YOU, MEYER. CHAIR MEYER. >> AYE. >> AND THEN -- COMMISSIONER
CHOWDHURY -- >> THE MOTION TO ADOPT THE STAFF FINDINGS. >> E. >> SO THAT'S EIGHT AYES AND 0 NAYS. THANK YOU. >> THAT IS ADOPTED. AND WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT DISCUSSION ITEM WHICH IS
ITEM NUMBER SIX. 3010, 3016 AND 3020 12th AVENUE SOUTH.
AND STAFF IS HILLARY DVORAK. >> THIS IS AN IM A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT THAT YOU WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE
ON TODAY. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 3010, 3016, AND 3020 12th AVENUE SOUTH. IT IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF 12th AVENUE ONE PARCEL SOUTH OF EAST LAKE STREET.THE 3010, E
12th AVENUE SOUTH PROPERTY IS VACANT AND THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3016 AND 3020 ARE LOCATED BY SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. THE FUTURE LAND USE GUIDANCE FOR THESE PROPERTIES ARE INTERIOR THREE.
THESE PROPERTIES ARE ZONED UN2, URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT AND ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE THREE BUILT FORM DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT OWNS THE ADJACENT
PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, AT 1119 EAST LAKE STREET. THIS PROPERTY IS OCCUPIE BY A FORMER FUNERAL HOME. THE FUTURE LAND USE GUIDANCE FOR THAT SITE IS MIXED USE AND CORRIDOR SIX. THAT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE
CORRIDOR SIX BUILT FORUM DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO COMBINE THEROPERTIES LOCATED AT 3010, 16, AND 20 12th AVENUE SOUTH WH THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1119 EAST LAKE STREET TO CREATE ONE DEVELOPMENT SITE.
THE FUTURE LAND USE GUIDANCE OF URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE BUILT FORM GUIDANCE OF INTERIOR THREE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT OR THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING BEING PROPOSED. TO ALLOW GREATER DENSITY AND THE TALLER BUILDING, THEY'RE
PROPOSING TO AMEND THE GUIDANCE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SINCE THE ADOPTION OF MINNEAPOLIS 2040, THE APPLICANT CAME FORWARD WITH A PROPOSAL TO COMBINE THE PROPERTIES ON 12th AVENUE WITH THE PROPERTY ON EAST LAKE STREET TO CREATE ONE DEVELOPMENT SITE WHICH WAS NOT A
KNOWN PROPOSAL AT THE TIME THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED. THIS OFFERS A NEW OPPORTUNITY TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, INCREASES THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING, SUPPORTS THE POLICIES FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE DESIGNATED GOODS AND SERVICES
CORRIDOR AND IN LINE WITH THE EXTENT OF THE CORRIDOR MIXED-USE DISTRICT AND THE CORRIDOR SIX DISTRICT ON THE EAST SIDE OF 12th AVENUE SOUTH. ON THEAP IN FRONT OF YOU IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM THE MINNEAPOLIS 2040 PLAN. THE YELLOW IS URBAN
NEIGHBORHOOD. THE SALMONY COLOR TO THE NORTH OF THE RED BOX IS THE CORDOR MIXED USE. THE APPLICANT IS COMBINING THESE PROPERTIES AND THEY ARE ASKING TO GO FROM YELLOW TO SALMON. OR FROM UAN NEIGHBORHOOD TO CORRIDOR MIXED USE.
WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU SUPPORT THAT AMENDMENT. SURRNDING PROPERTIES FOR BOTH URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AND MIXED USE, FUTURE LAND USE AND INTERIOR TWO, INTERIOR THREE AND CORRIDOR SIX BUILT FORM.
THE EXTENT OF BOT THE CORRIDOR MIXED USE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY AND THE MIXED DISTRICT ALONG THE STREET BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH OF EAST LAK STREET ARE VERY REMARKABLY BETWEEN CHICAGO AVENUE AND BLOOMINGTON AVENUE. THE PROPOSED EXTENT OF THE CORRIDOR MIXED USE DISTRICT AND
THE CORRIDOR SIX DISTRICT WOULD CLOSELY MATCH THE EXTENT OF THE DISTRICTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF 12thAVENUE. AGAIN FOR ORIENTATION, THIS IS THE BUILT FORM MAP, THE RED BOX IS THE SITE IN QUESTION. THOSE THREE PROPERTIES ARE GUIDED FOR INTERIOR THREE.
THE PROPERTY THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSIN TO TIE THIS ONE TO IS AT 118 EAST LAKE WHICH IS IN CORRIDOR SIX SO THE WINE COLORED COLOR ON THE MAP. AND AS YOU CAN SEE AS I GO FROM FUTURE LAND USE AS I TOGGLE
BETWEEN THE TWO, THE EXTENT OF THE ONE THAT THEY WANT TO GO TO VARIES GREATLY NORTH AND SOUTH OF LAKE STREET FROM EAST TO WEST. THIS ALSO GETS BACK TO THE NOTE THAT KIMBERLY HAD MENTIONED ABOUT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT EACH ONE
AS THEY COME IN WHEN THE COMP PLAN IS AMENDED. HAD WE DONE SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY IF WE HAD KNOWN THESE WERE A ONE PROPERTY SITE? I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES GIVEN OUR RECOMMENDATION. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WERE BETTER ALIGNED WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE AND BUILT FORM
DESIGNATIONS FOR GOODS AND SEICES CORRIDORS WHICH IS EAST LAKE STREET. AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE AND BUILT FORM GUIDANCE WOULD ALLOW GREATER FLEXIBILITY TO MEET THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS INCLUDING INCREASING SUPPLY OF HOUSINNEAR TRANSIT AND IMPROVES ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL
GOODS AND SERVICES. ADDITIONALLY, THE LOCATN PROMOTES PUBLIC HEALTH BY WALKING, BIKING, AND ACCESS TO NATURE, AND REDUCES VEHICLE EMISSIONS FOR VEHICLE TRIPS FOR DAILY NECESSITIES. WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.
THIS WILL ALLOW THEM TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A REZONING AND THE OTHER LAND USE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN IDENTIFIED. THEY DO HAVE SOME PRELIMINARY PLANS IN THE PROJECT, BUT AGAIN YOU ARE NOT APPROVING THE PROJECT. YOU ARE APPROVING THE COMP PLAN
AMENDMENT, THE DESIGN AND THE REVIEW OF THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT WILL COME LATER. I WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> I HAVE A QUESTION, HILLARY. I'M SORRY -- >> COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I'M HAPPY TO WAIT IF YOU WANT TO GO FIRST. >> I JUST HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT IF IT'S CHANGED IN THE AROVED COMP PLAN AMENDMENT. WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE IN TERMS OF HEIGHT AND DENSITY NOW AS
COMPARED TO IF IT GETS MORE DENSE. ARE WE TALKING A SIX STORY BUILDING, A TEN STORY BUILDING? >> THEY ARE PROPOSING, WHAT'S IN THE PACKET WHAT THEY PRESENTED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP THUGH THEIR OUTREACH THAT THEY NEEDED TO DO AND THE ENGAGEMENT THEY NEEDED TDO FOR THIS
PROCESS WAS TO GO TO A SEVEN STORY BUILDING. THIS ALLOWS THEM TO GO TO SIX. THEY WOULD NEED PREMIUMS AS PART OF A LAND USE APPLICATION TO GET TO SEVEN. WE HAVE NOT STARTED DISCUSSING THOSE SPECIFICS OF THE PROJECT YET. >> I'M SORRY, SO WHAT DO THEY
NEED FOR A SIX STORY BUILDING? >> AMEING THE BUILT FORM FROM INTERIOR THREE TO CORRIDOR SIX WOULD ALLOW THEM TO BUILD TO SIX STORIES. IF THEY WANTED TO EXCEED SIX STORS, THEY COULD GO TO TEN WITH PREMIUMS IN THE ZONING
CODE. BUT WHAT THEY'RE SHOWING YOU IN THE PACKET AND WHAT THEY SHOWED THE NEIGHBOOOD WAS A SEVEN STORY BUILDING. SO THIS WILL ALLOW THEM TO GET TO SIX, THEN THEY WOULD NEED PREMIUMS TO GO TO SEVEN. >> AND CAN YOU TELL ME JUST REALLY QUICKLY HOW ARE PREMIUMS
GRANTED? >> THEY ARE ADMINISTRATIVE. SO THEY ENCLOSE ALL OF THE PARKING, THEY CAN GET A PREMIUM. THEY PROVIDE A DAYCARE, THEY CAN GET A PREMIUM. THEY PROVIDE A GROCERYSTORE, THEY CAN GET A PREMIUM. IF THEY DO CERTAIN THINGS IN OUR CODE, THEY CAN GET A PREMIUM. >> A THOSE ARE ADMINISTRATIVELY GRANTED? >> YES.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. INTERIOR THREE CURRENTLY ALLOW WHAT KIND OF A BUILT FORM? >> UP TO THREE STORIES. >> AND HOW MANY UNITS?
>> IT DOES NOT DICTATE NUMBER OF UNITS, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MASS OF THE BUILDING ON THE SITE. IT COULD BE ONE, IT COULD BE 30. IT DEPENDS ON HOW MANY THEY COULD FIT. BUT IT'S N AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON OF DENSITY AND HEIGHT.
>> SO WHO OWNS, I'M LOOKING AT THIS MAP 1115 EAST LAKE? >> IT IS AN ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNER, THEY HAVE TRIED TO PURCHASE IT, IT WOULD MAKE THE SITE MAKE A LOT MORE SENSE. THAT OWNER IS NOT WILLING TO SELL. >> WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THAT OWNER AND WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE, DO YOU KNOW? >> IT'S A PARKING LOT. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR PROPOSING TO DO WITH IT, BUT IT'S A PARKING LOT.
>> OKAY. MY LAST QUESTION AT THE MOMENT, YOU'RE AT THE SAME PICTURE I'M ON. SO YOU SAID ESSENTIALLY IT'S TAKING WHAT'S THE RED AND TURNING IT INTO THE NEW ZONING CODE WHICH I'M GUESSING IS
INTERIOR TO CORRIDOR SIX. SO CORRIDOR SIX IS AT THE EDGE OF LAKESTREET. SO WHAT IS THE CREAM COLOR AS WE GET TOWARD THE MIDDLE? WHAT IS THAT ZONING CODE? >> DOWN HERE? >> YEAH. >> THIS IS INTERIOR TWO SO LOWER DENSITY. >> RIGHT, SO WE'RE ESSENTIALLY TAKING, I GUESS MY POINT IN
KING THAT IS WE WOULD BE MAKING THIS HIGH DENSITY LAK STREET CORRIDOR STUFF RIGHT NEXT TO LIKE A DUPLEX? >> COECT. AND THAT'S THE PATTERN THAT YOU SEE ON THE MAP. ALL OF THIS PURPLE IS CORRIDOR SIX NEXT TO INTERIOR THREE, NEXT
TO INTERIOR TWO. >> SO AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT AT 11TH AVENUE, ALL OF THAT CORRIDOR SIX AND EVEN 13th,AS THAT ORIGINALLY THAT WAY OR WAS THAT ALSO A VARIANCE, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW?
>> NO, THAT'S HOW IT IS RIGHT NOW. THAT'S HOW IT WAS GUIDED WHEN WE ADOPTED 2040. >> MAY I ASK WHY 13th AND 11TH HAVE THIS AND NOT 12t? >> I'M GOING TO ASSUME THEY WERE LOOKING AT PROPERTY OWNERSHIPS. LAKE STREET HAS SPECIFIC GUIDAN COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, WE WANT OUR
ACTIVE USES UP THERE. AND SO TS IS ONE PROPERTY THAT COMES DOWN. THIS IS ONE PROPERTY. >> SO THEY'RE ALREADY ONE -- OKAY, GOT IT. >> AT THE TIME, WE DID NOT KNOW
THAT THESE THREE PROPERTIES WERE IN CONJUNCTION UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP AS THIS ONE. I THINK HAD WE KNOWN THAT, WE WOULD HAVEOST LIKELY DONE THAT BECAUSE AT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR
THAT DENSITY. >> TO ASSUME THAT THOSE GOING UP ON THE PICTURE ON 11TH THAT ARE ALL PURPLE WERE ALL ESSENTIALLY OWNED BY THE SAME LANDOWNER.
ON THE MAP IT USUALLY LOOKS A LITTLE BIT OUT OF PLACE WHY THEY WERE ALL PUT INTHERE. >> I CAN'T THINK. THIS IS THE MIDTOWN EXCHANGE PARKING GARAGE. YOU JUST APPROVED A CLINIC FOR THIS SITE. THIS IS MIDTOWN EXCHANGE. I CAN'T THINK OF WHAT THOSE
PROPERTIES ARE ACROSS THE STREET. >> I'M JUST CURIOUS THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WHAT ARE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES CURRENTLY? >>WHERE? >> THE ONES THE APPLICANT IS SUGGESTI TO SWITCH. >> ONE IS VACANT AND TWO ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. >> I THINK THOSE ARE ALL MY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER -- >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS IS MORE ME THINKING OUT LOUD A LITTLE BIT. SO I COMPLETELY UERSTAND WHY WE WOULD WANT THE CORRIDOR 6
ALONG LAKE STREET. SO YOU CAN GO DOWN LAKE STREET RIGHT NOW AND SEE THERE'S RAPID TRANSIT COMING THROUGH. IT'S OUR BUSINESS CORRIDOR. THE BUSINESS CORRIDOR OF THE SOUTH SIDE. I'M COMFORTABLE SAYING THAT. IT'S WHEN IT STARTS TO MOVE INTO
THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I CRINGE A LITTLE BIT. I GET WHY OUR JOB RIGHT NOW IS TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT WHICH IS MOVING FROM INTERIOR THREE TO CORRIDOR SIX. BUT I SEE WHY IT'S INTERIOR THREE. IT'S THAT LAKE STREET REVITALIZATION DENSITY ET CETERA
FACING AND ABUTTING LAKE STREET IS IMPORTANT AND MAKES SENSE. BUT THEN YOU SEE AS YOU MOVE IN, THESE ARE STREETS THAT ARE EXTRAORDINARILY NARROW. THEY ARE, OOF, PARKING ON BOTH
SIDES, IT'S HARD DRIVING THROUGH THERE BECAUSE I'VE DONE IT MULTIPLE TIMES. AS THE DENSITY MOVES INTO THE BLOCK FACING ME, I CAN SEE HOW THAT CAN BE A STRUGGLE FOR THE HOMES THAT ARE ALREADY THERE.
SO I'M TRYING TO GET TO A SPACE WHERE I CAN UNDERSTAND. I REALLY APPRECIATED THE POINTING OUT THAT A LOT OF THESE ARE THE SAME OWNERSHIP, WHAT'S IN THE DEEP PURPLE HERE. BUT YEAH, AS YOU MOVE INTO THE
BLOCK, IT'S HARD TO CONVINCE ME TO MOVE THAT TO CORRIDOR SIX. EVERYTHING REALLY IS ON LAKE STREET FACING LAKE STREET ESPECIALLY AT THESE REALLY HIGH TRAFFIC INTERSECTIONS WHERE THERE'S ALREADY A LOT GOING ON WITH AS YOU EXPLAINED THE
MIDTOWN GLOBAL MARKET. YOU'VE GOT JUST SEVERAL BUSINESSES ALONG THERE, CHURCHES. THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ALONG THIS STRETCH TOO. SO I DON'T KNOW THE FACT THAT THERE'S HOMES ALREADY THERE AND
YOU MOVE INWD AND IT GOES DOWN TO THE INTERIOR THREE, I DON'T KNOW, I'M TALKING OUT LOUD, BUT I'M TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF KEEPING IT CLOSER TO LAKE STREET AS OPPOSED TO IT ENCROACHING ALONG THE BLOCK. I SEE WHY STAFF APPROVED IT THOUGH.
IT GETS TO THE DENSITY. IT GETS TO ALL OF THE THINGS THAT CORRIDOR SIX WARRANTS. I JUST HAVE A HARD TIME MOVING IT INTO THE BLOCK. SO I GUESS I'LL STOP THERE. THANK YOU.
>> HILLARY, CAN YOU TELL US WHERE THE BUS STATIONS ARE? ARE THEY AROUND MIDTOWN GLOBAL MARKET? >> YOU ARE ASKING A QUESTION I CANNOT ANSWE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. ON LAKE STREET. THERE IS ONE ON GLOBAL MARKET. I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET TO PULL UP.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMEONE HAS TG WHEN WE GET TO IT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FORE WE -- COMMISSIONER GORDON. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE IN F.A.R. AND SETBACKS FROM INTERIO THREE TO CORRIDOR SIX. HOW THAT VARIES?
I KNOW WE KNOW THE HEIGHT DIFFERENCE, BUT DO SETBACKS VARY WILDLY? >> SO IT'S BASED ON WHETHER IT IS URBAN, IT'S NOT ON THE BUILT FORM, IT'S ON THE -- NO, IT IS
IN THE BUILT FORM. F.A.R. AND SETBACKS, THE F.A.R. WILL BE HIGHER IN THE CORRIDOR SIX THAN IN THE INTERIOR THREE. AS FAR AS SETBACKS, SETBACKS ARE STILL BECAUSE THERE IS RESIDENTIAL ON THE BLOCK FACE,
THERE WILL STILL BE SETBACKS ALONG 12th. SORRY I'M TRYING TO KEEP ALL OF MY FACTS STRAIGHT THERE WILL BE SETBACKS REQUIRED ON THE SOUTH FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL
WINDOWS IN THE BUILDING TO THE SOUTH. AND THERE WOULD BE A FRONT YARD SETBACK. SO THOSE WOULD BE THE SETBACKS. SO YES, YOU CAN DEFINITELY BUILD MORE IN CORRIDOR SIX THAN INTERIOR THREE. IN THIS CASE, THE SETBACKS WON'T
BE WILDLY DIFFERENT. I MEAN THE METRIC, THE MAXIMUM OR THE REQUIRED SETBACK WOULD BE THE SAME REGARDLESS. >> OKAY. >> IF THIS IS APPROVED. >> COMMISSIONER GORDON, TO ANSWER SPECIFICALLY, BECAUSE I DO HAVE THE LUXURY OF HAVING ACCE TO THE INTERNET THAT
HILLARY DOESN'T HAVE RIGHT NOW. SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT GO INTO BASE ZONING, IS IT MIXED USE, CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, IS IT THREE UNITS. SO IF WE'RE TALKING JUST A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN INTERIOR THREE, THEIR MAXIMUM F.A.R. WOU.
A MIXED USE BUILDING WITHOUT ANY PREMIUMS IN CORRIDOR SIX WOULD BE ALLOWED A BASE MAXIMUM F.A.R. OF 3.4. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?ALL RIGH. NOT SEEING ANY.
SO WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK TO THIS? GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS MICHAEL I'M WITH
NEWTON ROSELO AND I'M ASSISTING THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY WITH THIS PROJECT. I'LL TAKE JUST A COUPLE SECONDS TO EMPHASIZE 2 OR 3 POINT THE FIRST IS TO REITERATE WHAT
MS. DVORAK SAID THAT ESSENTIALLY THIS IS A TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENT TO THE ORIGINAL COMP PLAN THAT WAS PREPARED FOR THE SITE. EVERY PARCEL IN TOWN IS GIVEN A DESIGNATION. UNFORTUNATELY THE THREE PARCELS THAT ARE CONNECTED TO 1119 ARE
OWNED BY THE SAME FAMILY, BUT THEY'RE HELD UNDER DIFFERE PROPERTY NAMES OR ENTITY NAMES AND YOU WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN JUST FROM A RECORD SEARCH THAT THESE ARE ALL RELATED PARTIES. AND I TAKE QUITE SERIOUSLY THE
FACT THAT IF AT THE TIME THAT THE COMP PLAN WAS PREPARED AND PASSED THAT HAD THE CIT KNOWN THIS, THESE WOULD ALL HAVE BEEN LINKED TOGETHER. THE SECOND THING I WANT TO EMPHASIZE IS THAT WE WENT
THROUGH THE CITY REQUIRED ENGAGEMENT PLAN AND WE PRESENTED THESE CONCEPTS TO BOTH STAFF AND TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY. THERE WERE CONCERNS RAISED AS THERE ALWAYS ARE WITH RESPECT TO THE POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT.
SOME OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS LIKE THE IDEA, SOM OF THEM LIKE THE CONCEPT. SOME OF THEM HAD CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THIS WAS GOING TO WORK, WHAT IT WAS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, HOW THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD IMPACT THEM. AND SO THAT REALLY RAISES THE POINT THAT THIS IS A COMP PLAN
AMENDMENT REQUEST. TH IS NOT A LAND USE APPLICATION. IT'S NOT UP FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW. THERE WILL BE LOTS OF QUESTIONS AND I'M REFERRING TO COMMISSIONER CONLEY'S CONCERNS ABOUT HOW IS THIS GOING TO LOOK IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HOW IS IT GOING TO OPERATE, WE'LL LAY THAT
OUT AS PART OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW, PART OF A LAND USE APPLICATION. AND WE'LL TAKE THE QSTIONS AND HAVE TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS SERIOUSLY AT THAT TIME. AND I KNOW THERE WILL BE SERIOUS ONES. BUT WHAT THIS ALLOWS US TO DO IS
TO MAKE THE TECHNICAL CORRECTION AT WE TALKED ABOUT. IT ALLOW US TO TAKE A SITE THAT TRULY NEEDS TO BE REDEVELOPED. YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT SECTION OF THE BLOCK, IT REALLY NEEDS TO HAVE SOMETHING POSITI DONE.
AND IF WE HAD BEEN ABLE TO ACQUIRE 1115, WE WOULD HAVE HAD A SITE ON 1119 IN COMBINATION THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED US TO BUILD SOME HOUSING THAT WOULD WORK REALLY WELL. BUT WE'RE UNABLE TO DO THAT. BUT WHAT THIS WILL ALLOW US TO
AT LEAST BEGIN TO DO IS THE CONSIDERATION OF HOW TO BUILD HOUSING THAT IS NEEDED IN THIS CORRIDOR THAT IS VERY CONSISTEN YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THE RED COL ON THE NORTH AND THE NORTHEAST AND THE EAST, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THAT.
AND THIS WILL ALLOW US TO BUILD A PROJECT THAT HAS CONSIDERABLY HIGH LEVEL OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON A TRANSIT CORRIDOR THAT JUST BEGS FOR THIS. SO I LOOK AT THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK TO YOU
AND SHOW YOU THAT THIS WORKS FROM A DENSITY, FROM AN OPERATING STANDPOINT, AND FROM AN INTEGRATION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD STANDPOINT. SO I THINK THIS IS THEIRST STEP, BUT A NECESSARY ONE TO ALLOW US TO COME BACK AND PROVE THAT THEITE PLAN WILL WORK. I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION. HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE ACTUALLY AE IT WAS ON JANUARY 27TH.
DO YOU KNOW? >> I WAS THERE. I THINK 19 OR 20. >> 19 OR 20. >> YEAH, WE HAD A GOOD TURNOUT ON A COLD WINTER NIGHT. >> SO WE'RE BASING THIS ENTIRE, WERE THERE TRANSLATORS THERE BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF
SPANISH SPEAKERS ALONG LAKE STREET. >> I'M SORRY -- >> WERE THERE TRANSLATORS? >> THERE WAS NOT A TRANSLATOR. I DON'T RECALL ANYBODY WHO REQUIRED THE NEED OF A TRANSLATOR. >> SO WE'RE BASING THIS UP SELL ON LIKE 20 PEOPLE?
AND EVEN IN THOSE 20, THERE WERE PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T, THAT WERE OBJECTING. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE'REAKING THE DECISION BASED ON, WHAT LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY SURROUNDING THESE PROPERTIES. >> CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER
THOMPSON, WE FOLLOWED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY IN PREPARING AN ENGAGEMENT PLAN, OF GOING THROUGH VARIOUS DRAFTS OF THE ENGAGEMENT PLAN AND GETTING IT APPROVED BY CPED. GIVING NOTICE TO EVEN A BROADER
RANGE OF PEOPLE THAN THE CODE REQUIRES. SETTING UP EMAILS TO ASK PEOPLE TO COME. AND THEN HOLDING A MEETING. ACTUALLY GETTING 20 PEOPLE AT A COMMUNITY MEETING SOMETIMES IS BETTER THAN I OFTENTIMES SEE.
WHEN WE SORT OF THINKBOUT WHAT THE OVER UNDER IS GOING TO BE, THAT'S PRETTY UNUSUAL. AND ONE THING WE'VE REMINDED THE PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS IS THAT THIS AGAIN, I'M SORT OF REPEATING MYSELF, BUT THIS IS
ONE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES AND SEVERAL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENTS THAT WILL OCCUR. THERE WILL BE MANDATORY PUBLIC COMMUNITY MEETINGS IF WE APPLY FOR A REZONING AS WE APPLY FOR A LAND USE APPLICATION. THIS WILL REOCCUR AND WE HOPE THE COMMUNITY WILL CONTINUE TO
BE ENGAGED. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. I AGREE THAT SOMETIMES 19 PEOPLE ON A COLD JANUARY IS A GOOD TURNOUT. I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. ON BEHALF OF PEOPLE YOU'RE REPRESENTING, WHY NOT JUST TRY
TO BUILD SOMETHING WITHIN THE CURRENT PLAN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD? >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. THE IDEA IS TO BUILD HOUSING AND
TO GET ENOUGH HOUSING, TO GET A SIZABLE ENOUGH PROJECT TO MAK IT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE TO BUILD. YOU NEED A CERTAIN CRITICAL MASS. AND WE COULD PROBABLY BUILD 20 UNITS BUT NOT ECONOMICALLY.
AND CERTAINLY N TO MAKE THE MAJORITY OF THEM AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO AT THAT POT, IT'S JUST NOT VIABLE. >> SO YOU'VE ALREADY SAID THAT WE AREN'T AT THAT PLACE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT KIND OF UNITS THEY'RE GOING TO BE AS WE CONSIDER UP ZONING THIS.
SO IT'S LIKE APPLES AND ORANGES RIGHT NOW. >> WE KNOW ABOUT WHAT LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE TO OCCUR TO MAKE THE PROJECT VIABLE AND WE THINK THAT COMBINING THESE LOTS WILL ALLOW US TO DO THAT. WE STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE
LAND USE AND SITE REVIEW PROCESS WHICH WILL AFFECT SITE SETBACKS AND HEIGHT. >> SORRY, PLEASE. WE'RE GETTING INTO THE WEEDS. SO A COUPLE OF THINGS AND I'M ALSO GOING TO ANSWER A QUESTION
THAT NOBODY ASKED YET. >> I PROBABLY WAS GOING TO TRY. >> WE HAD TWO COMP PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT AND YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THAT ONE INCLUDED THE ENTIRE PROJECT. THAT WAS THE 1501 JOHNSON. WE BROUGHT IN THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, THE REZONING, THE SITE PLAN VIEW, AND THE
VARIANCE. THIS ONE IS THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ONLY. WHEN WE ADOPTED MINNEAPOLIS 2040 AND ANTICIPATED THE NEE FOR MORE COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS THAN WE HAD PREVIOUSLY BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE A SITE-SPECIFIC BUILT FORM
MAP, WE LAID OUT A PROCESS THAT HAS A SEQUENTIAL REVI, MEANING FIRST YOU HAVE TO APPLY FOR YOUR COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, GET THAT ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE CITY'S PROCESS AND THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S PROCESS AND THEN COME
BACK FOR THE REST OF YOUR LAND USE APPLICATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. WE DID THAT PRIMARILY BECAUSE THERE WERE CONCERNS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO MEET THE 60 DAY LAW. MEANING WE HAVE TO ACT WITHIN 60 YS, WE CAN EXTEND THAT TO 120,
BUT WITHOUT KNOWING HOW LONG THE COUNCIL PROCESS WAS GOING TO TAKE IN THERE, WE WERE NERVOUS ABOUT MEETING THAT. SO WE LAID OUT A SEQUENTIAL PROCESS. WE'VE DONE A FEW OF THESE NOW AND THOUGHT MAYBE WE NEED TO REVISIT THAT. BUT WE NEEDED ENOUGH DATA TO
KNOW IF WE COULD MEET THE 60 DAY LAW WITH A CONCURRENT REVIEW. SO WE HAVE GIVEN A COUPLE OF DEVELOPERS THE OPTION OF DOING THAT BUT THEY NEEDED TO GIVE US
A 60 DAY EXTENSION UPRONT WHICH IS WHY IT'S A BIT OF A RISK ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT TO BE A TEST CASE. 1501 JOHNSON WAS A TES CASE FOR THAT. WE HAD ONE OTHER THAT WAS A TEST CASE THAT WAS LIK A REMNANT
RAIL PARCEL OFF UNIVERSITY NEAR ANNIS PARLOR WHICH NO ONE PROBABLY EVEN NOTICED THAT ONE BECAUSE IT WAS PRETTBARE BONES. SO THE APPLICANT IS FOLLOWING THE PROCESS THAT WAS LAID OUT BY STAFF BY BRINGING FORWARD THE
COMP PLAN AMENDMENT BY ITSELF. ONCE WE HAD ENOUGH OF THESE, WE WERE GOING TO COME TO TH PLANNING COMMISSION AT A MEETING AND SAY WHAT DO YOU THINK. I THINK BASED ON HOW THE CONVERSATION IS GOING TONIGHT, I'M GETNG A PRETTY GOOD PICTURE OF PERHAPS WHAT THE
PREFERENCE OF THE COMMISSION WOULD BE, BUT THAT IS A CONVERSATION WE'RE GOING TO HAVE. SO THE APPLICANT IS BRINGING THIS FORWARD BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THE PROCESS NEEDS TO GO TO FIRST ASK FOR THE COM PLAN AMENDMENT AND THEN TO COME BACK THROUGH. THE MATERIALS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET DO SHOW THE BUILDING THAT THEY'RE INTENDED
TO BUILD, BUT IT'S NOT TO THE POINT THAT IT WOULD BE FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION BECAUSE THIS STEP HAS TO COME FIRST. >> THAT MAKES SENSE. AND I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION. >> THEN I WAS ALSO GOING TO NOTE TO DEVELOP THE SITE THE WAY IT
IS RIGHT NOW, THERE'S ONLY ONE POSSIBLE PATH FORWARD BECAUSE IT'S SPLIT ZONING CURRENTLY. THEY CAN'T COMBINE THE PARCELS AND BUILD ONE BUILDING WITH THE ZONING THAT'S ON THERE RIGHT NOW UNLESS THEY APPLIED SOMETHING CALLED THE SPLIT ZONING OVLAY DISTRICT WHICH BASICALLY MEANS THE PART THAT'S IN THE CORRIDOR
SIX HAS TO CONFORM TO THE CORRIDOR SIX WHICH HAS SOME MINIMUM HEIGHT AND F.A.R. REQUIREMENTS AND THE PART THAT'S IN THE INTERIOR THREE WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE INTERIOR THREE WHICH IS AN INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT ERCISE TO GO THROUGH. >> WHICH ACTUALLY IS PRECISELY
THE KIND OF THING THAT I WAS TRYING TO LEAD TOWARDS, IT'S THE ENCAPSULATION OF THE LOTS THAT IS ONE OF THE BIGGER CHALLENGES FOR ME. BECAUSE YOU HAVE DIFFERENT FIRE
CODES, YOU HAVE DIFFERENT GREEN SPACES THAT YOU'RE MISSING THAT SUDDENLY IF WE'RE CHANGING THIS, THAT ENCROACHES CONSIDERABLY ONTO THOSE NEIGHBORS JUST ONE LOT DOWN THAT I'M SURE THEY DIDN'T SIGN UP FOR WHEN THEY BOUGHT THEIR HOME.
SO THAT IS PRECISELY, AND I GET THAT -- BUT THAT IS THE GOAL EVEN IF WE'RE TRYING TO BE DOING TIMING TO GIVE THE APPLICANT SPACE, THE GOAL IS THIS SEVEN STORY BUILDING WHERE IT'S ALL TOGETHER. SO I DO BELIEVE IT'S PERTINENT TO TALK ABOUT IT. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I
DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, KIMBERLY, I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION. >> ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU. WE'LL PCEED WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING. HOW MANY OF Y'ALL WANTED TO SPEAK? FOUR OF YOU. YOU CAN GO IN ORD FROM LEFT TO
RIGHT HERE. TELL US YOUR NAME, YOUR ADDRESS IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE AND PROCEED WITH YOUR TESTIMONY. MY NAME IS JOSH QUILL. MY ADDRESS IS 3024 12th AVENUE. I AM ADJACENT TO THESE PROPERTIES.
SO THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. THE CONCEPT WE GOT AT THE HEARING IN JANUARY WAS 80 UNITS. THE AGENDA HERE, THE REPORT THAT YOU'RE RECEIVING SAYS 90 UNITS.
I COUNTED THE NUMBER OF HOUSES ON THE STREET THAT WILL EXIST WHEN IF THIS PROJECT WERE TO GO FORWARD, AND THERE ARE ONLY 15 HOUSES ON THIS STREET. A COUPLE OF THEM MULTIUSE. WE'RE GOING TO BE QUADRUPLING
THE SIZE OF PEOPLE LIVING ON ONE STREET THAT'S ALREADY PLENTY BUSY AND ACROSS THE WAY IS A PROJECT THAT HAS AN EVENT CENTER, A RESTAURANT, AND SOMETHING THAT PROVIDESCHOOL BUSES FOR STUDENTS GOING ON. WHICH IS A GREAT USE FOR THAT
PROPERTY, BUT WE'RE ALREADY GETTING BUSIER AS IT IS. THIS WILL MAKE IT MUCH WORSE. IT'S GOING TO BE REAL CHALLENGING LOOKING OUT AS YOU SAID, I DIDN'T PLAN WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOUSE 25 YEA AGO TO
BE LOOKING OUT OF AND IT'S NOT A DUPLEX. IT'S AINGLE FAMILY HOME, 1200 SQUARE FEET, LOOKING AT A SEVEN STORY BUILDING. THE PROJECT THAT THEY PROVIDED TO US WOULD HAVE A PARKING RAMP TO UNDERGROUND PARKING THAT I'LL
BE LOOKING AT FROM MY KITCHEN WINDOW, I'LL SEE VEHICLES GO BACK AND FORTH. AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO PLAN TO PUT THAT SN, ARE THEY GOING TO PUT IT IN THE ALLEY OR THE STREET? THAT'S A LOT OF SNOW TO MOVE IF WE EVER HAVE SNOWY WINTERS AGAIN. WE DO, THE NEIGHBORS WHO SHOWED
UP, AND I WILL SAY THERE WERE PROBABLY THE NUMBER OF 20 WAS PROBABLY ACCURATE AT THAT HEARING. WHAT WASN'T SAID IS THE MAJORITY PEOPLE, THERE WERE SOME PEOPLE IN SUPPORT, I WILL NOT DENY THAT,HE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEARBY WITHIN A
BLOCK OR TWO WEREITHER NEUTRAL OR NOT IN SUPPORTF A PROJECT OF THIS SCALE. IT'S SO MUCH FOR THIS SPACE. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER SEVEN STORY BUILDINGS IN MY
NEIGHBORHOOD ON LAKE STREET.OTHR GLOBAL MARKETPLACE, MIDTOWN GLOBAL. NOTHING IS THAT TALL. FIVE STORY, FOUR STORY, NOT SEVEN STORY. IT'S REALLY HARD TO IMAGINE THE
SCALE OF THIS I FEEL LIKE I'M GOING TO BE LIVING IN UP. I'M GOING TO BE THE OLD MAN AND I DON'T HAVE BALLOONS TO TAKE MY HOUSE AWAY. IT'S REALLY HARD. AND TO YOUR QUESTION ON BUS STOPS, IT USED TO BE AT 12th AND NOW AT 13th.
BUT THAT WILL ONLY BE SERVED BY THE 21 FOLKS AND 10th ALSO. THOSE AREHE BUS STOPS FOR THE 21. IF YOU WANT TO GET ON THE BUS RAPID TRANSIT, YOU HAVE TO GO FOUR BLOCKS TO EITHER BLOOMINGTON OR CHICAGO TO GET THEUS RAPID TRANSIT THAT THEY'RE INSTALLING.
SO INERMS OF, IT'S NOT AS CONVENIENT AS IT COULD BE, AS IT USED TO BE WITH THE INCLUSION OF BUS RAPID TRANSIT AND HAVING TO WALK TO ACCESS THAT MORE FREQUENT SERVICE. SO I JUST WANTED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> THA YOU. I'VE BEEN INFORMED THAT WE HAVE UNTIL 6:30.
SO I'M GOINGO ASK EACH PERSON TO LIMIT THEIR COMMENTS TO TWO MINUTES FROM HERE ON OUT. >> ALSO IF YOU'D BE SO KIND, ANYONE ELSE WHO COMES TO SPEAK IF YOU'D BE WILLING TO COME AND SIGN UP OVER HERE FOR OUR RECORD. THANK YOU SO CH. MUCH APPRECIATED.
>> NEXT SPEAKER. >> MY NAME IS JASON MEYERS. 3039 12th AVENUE SOUTH. I LIVE BEHIND THE STREET THAT WILL BE IMPACTED. I GOT A PICTURE FROM A RANDOM DAY.
CAN YOU SEE THAT BY CHANCE? >> NO, LET ME TURN THAT ON. >> IT MIGHT BE HARD TO SEE. >> WE CAN SEE IT. >> SO PICTURE FROM A RANDOM DAY TAKEN FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET LOOKING OUT TO LAKE STREET. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE NO PARKING SPOTS.
AND AS MY NEIGHBOR JOSH JUST MENTIONED TO PUT AN 80 TO 90 UNIT BUILDING RIGHT ON THAT CORNER WITH THE ORIGINAL PLAN THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE WAS 30 OR SO PARKING SPOTS UNDERGROUND. AND EVERYBODY ELSE IS PARKING I
DON'T KNOW WHERE. SO HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE CARRYING THEIR GROCERIES TO THEIR APARTMENTS WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO, THE BUSINESS PEOPLE WHO HAVE BUILDINGS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET WHERE THEIR CUSTOMERS ARE GOING TO PARK,
THIS BUILDING ALSO CALLS FOR BUSINESS SPACE ON THE LOWER LEVEL. THAT'S THE PLAN THAT WAS SHARED. FREEZE FREEZE I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A FUNCTIONING BUSINESS WHEN NO ONE CAN PARK THERE TO USE WHATEVER
THEY'RE GOING TO BE TRYING TO SELL THERE. AS JOSH MENTIONED AS WELL, HE'S ACCURATE OF ALL OF E PEOPLE WHO SHOWED UP AT THAT MEETING, EVERYONE WHO WAS ON THAT STREET WHO LIVES ON THE STREET WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PROJECT. BUT I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT EVERYONE THERE WAS ALSO EXCITED
ABOU DEVELOPING THIS CORNER. AND ALSO FOR HAVING NEW NEIGHBORS AND PEOPLE WHO CAN LIVE WITH US AND BE A PART OF THIS GREAT COMMUNITY, IT'S THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, IT'S THE POOR PLANNING AROUND PARKING AND THE IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH IS THE CONCERN.
IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS UNDERGONE A DRAMATIC DECLINE SINCE THE CURRENT OWNERS HAVE PURCHASED IT. SO WE'VE LIVED ON THIS BLOCK FOR 13 YEARS. I'M SORRY, 15 ARS. AND FOR MOST OF THAT TIME, THAT
CORNER WAS RELATIVELY STABLE. E BUILDING WAS KEPT UP. D IT WAS NOT BEAUTIFUL, BUT IT WAS KEPT UP AND REPAIRED WHEN THINGS WERE BROKEN. THE CURRENT OWNERS THE BUILDING HAS IF YOU DRIVE BY THAT
BUILDING ON LAKE STREET, IT'S THE ABSOLUTE WORST BUILDING ON ALL OF LAKE STREET AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS. EVER SINCE THE CURRENT OWNERS TOOK THAT PROPERTY OVER. TH ARE NOT TAKING CARE OF GRAFFITI. THEY'RE NOT TAKING CE OF
BROKEN WINDOWS. I'LL WRAP IT UP REAL QUICK. THE BUILDING THAT WE HAVE THE COMMUNITY MEETING IN WAS ALSO A VACANT BUILDING ON 12th STREET, GRAFFITI ON THE TOP OF THE BUILDING AS WELL.
SO I HAVE VERY LOW CONFIDENCE IN EXTENDING THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND TURNING THEM OVER TO THIS GROUP TO DEVELOP AND THEY CAN'T TAKE CARE OF ONE PROPERTY VERY WELL, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO TAKE CARE OF 90 PEOPLE? I WOULDN'T WANT PEOPLE THAT I
LIVE IN A BUILDING LIKE THAT. >> THANK YOU. NEXT SAKER. >> HELLO, CHAIRPERSON MEYER AND
COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JARED CRUZ. THANK U. I, ALONG WITH MY WIFE, LIVE ON 3028 12th AVENUE SOUTH. SO WE'RE TWO HOUSES RIGHT NEXT TO JOSH AWAY FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. I'VE LIVED IN THIS HOUSE FOR 21
YEARS AND WE RAISED OUR DAUGHTER IN TS HOUSE. I AM IN SUPPORT OF INCREASED LOW INCOME HOUSING AS WELL AS DENSITY, HOWEVER IT'S REALLY
HARD TO IMAGINE A 7-STORY BUILDING AS WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED WITH POSSIBLE 90 UNITS IN OUR RESIDENTIAL BLOCK. I DON'T OW OF ANY COMPARABLE HEIGHT BUILDING IN PHILLIPS OR POWDER HORN. THERE IS, I THINK, A FIVE STORY
ON 12th NEAR THE GREENWAY, BUT OF COURSE THAT'S OTHE GREENWAY. VERY DIFFERENT KIND OF SITUATION. IT'S REALLY HARD TO IMAGINE ANYTHING MORE THAN A FLOOR WITH THE KIND OF TRAFFIC THAT WE GET.
THERE'S ALSO APARTMENTS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 31st ON 12th. THERE'S LAKE STREET TRAFFIC. THERE'S PARKING FOR THE NEW BUSINESS AS JOSH HAS MENTIONED. SO WE ALREADY ARE DEALING WITH A LOT OF TRAFFIC COMING THROUGH I THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND A LOT OF PARKING ISSUES. BESIDES THE FACT AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE AN INCREASE OF LIKE 5 OR 6 TIMES OUR CURRENT DENSITY. IT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT THAT OUR PARTICULAR BLOCK WOULD BE HIT
WITH SUCH A DSITY INCREASE. I'M FINE WITH A DENSITY INCREASE AS I SAID, BUT I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT UNREASONABLE. SO I GUESS I'LL STOP THERE.
BUT JUST TO SAY THAT AGN, I THINK IT HAS TO BE REASONABLE ANWE'RE WILLING TO I THINK SUPPORT LOW INCOME HOUSING IF WE CAN KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FROM BEING INCREASED BY A LEVEL OF
FIVE WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT TOO HIGH. THANK YOU. >> THANK Y. NEXT SPEAKER.
>> MY NAME IS KRISTIN BLUE. I LIVE AT 3028 12th AVENUE SOUTH. THAT'S MY SPOUSE WHO JUST TALKED. I THINK THIS PARTICULAR HEARING IS ABOUT THE REZONING AND I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT CHANGING SINGLE
FAMILY TO MORE DENSITY FOR EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID FORE. BUT I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF KIDS ON THE BLOCK THAT PLAY IN THEIR FRONTARDS AND PLAY IN THEIR BACKYARDS. AND TRAFFIC IS ALREADY A THING. BRINGING BABIES OUT TO THE CAR
WHEN WE'VE GOT SO MUCH DENSITY THERE. IT'S JUST HARD TO IMAGINE. AND SO I PERSONALLY WOULD BE AGAINST ANY PREMIUM TO TAKE IT HIGHER WHICH I KNOW IS FOR THE
FUTURE. I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT CHANGING THE INTERIOR THREE PART TO A CORRIDOR SIX. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT DEVELOPED. I KNOWHAT IT'S A COMPLICATED THING.
I'M INUPPORT OF LOW-INCOME HOUSING. BUT THE LEVEL AND DENSITY IS WHERE MY CONCERN IS. >> THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'M GOING TO SHARE MY THOUGHTS
AND THEN TURN TO OTHER COMMISSIONERS. I STRONGLY, STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS APPLICATION. IF WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS OUR CLIMATE GOALS, THIS IS THE TYPE OF PLACE WHERE WE NEED TO BE ALLOWING A LOT MORE PEOPLE TO LIVE TO BE ON THE B LINE BUS
RAPID TRANSIT, CLOSE TO A GROCERY STORE AND ALL OF THE OTHER DIFFERENT STORES LIKE THE MIDTOWN GLOBAL MARKET A BLOCK AWAY FROM THE GREENWAY. THIS IS A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN LIVE AND CHOOSE NOT TORIVE IF
THEY DON'T WANT TO. AND OUR TASK TODAY IS TO FIND WHETHER THIS APPLICATION FITS WITHIN THE GOALS OF THE 2040 PLAN AND STAFF HAVE LISTED A LOT OF DIFFERENT GOALS THAT IT REACHE LIKE ALMOST LOOKS LIKE
QUITE A FEW GOALS. AROUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL GOODS AND SERVICES. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO WORK TO REVITALIZE LAKE STREET AND PROVIDE MORE CUSTOMERS FOR
THOSE BUSINESSES THAT WILL HELP SUSTAIN MIDTOWN MARKET AND OTHER BUSINESSES. TO RESPOND TO SOMETHING COMMISSIONER CONLEY SAID, I THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM IF WE CONCENTRATE ALL OF THE DENSITY RIGHT ON THE MAIN CORRIDORS.
IF WE DO THAT, WE'RE ON THE ONE HAND MEETING THE GOAL OF BEING CLOSE TO THE TRANSIT STATIONS, T THEN WE'RE CONCENTRATING ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHERE ALL OF THE NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION IS. FEEL LIKE THE IDEAL PLACES TO HAVE ADDED DENSITY ARE THE PLACES THAT ARE CLOSE TO THE TRANSIT STATIONS WHICH I WOULD
DEFINE AS BEING WITHIN A HALF MILE WHICH IS ABOUT A TEN MINUTE WALK, CLOSE TO GREENWAYS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT F ENOUGH REMOVED THAT YOU'RE JUST OFF THE RRIDOR, SO YOU DON'T HAVE AS MUCH NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION. SO I DEFINITY THINK THAT THIS
IS THE TYPE OF THING THAT MEETS THE 2040 PLAN'S GOALS AND AS WE CONTEMPLATE THE 2050 PLAN, I THINK WE SHOULD GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. MMISSIONER CONLEY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. YOU KNOW OUR ITEM HERE IS
PRETTY CUT AND DRY. WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE THAT CHANGING FROM AN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD TO CORRIDOR MIXED USE MAKES SENSE ACCORDING TO THE 2040 PLAN. AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE.
WHAT I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND BECAUSE THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THAT AND AS WE HEARD, THERE'S GOING TO BE SEVERAL OTHER PARTS OF THIS PROJECT THAT WILL COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I WOULD HIGHLY ENCOURAGE MORE
INTENTIONAL CONVERSATIONS WITH RESIDENTS AND MORE FREQUENT. REALLY HELP RESIDENTS DESIGN WHAT COULD BE POSSIBLE HERE. IN A WAYHAT WORKS FOR ALL. I THINK THAT A COMPROMISE CAN BE FOUND.
I WOULD ALSO REALLY ENCOURAGE, WE HAVE TALKED BEFORE ONHIS BODY ABOUT THE INCLUSION OF PUBLIC WORKS TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS IN THESE PROJECTS,
THINGS LIKE SPEED BUMPS OR MID-WALK CROSSWALKS.ANYTHING TO THE PEDESTRIANS THAT WE WANT TO GET ONTO LAKETREET TO PATRONIZE THE BUSINESSES TO MAKE IT FOUR BLOCKS TO THE B LINE STATIONS, ET CETERA. BUT THERE ARE THINGS THAT CAN BE
INCORPORATED INTO A PROJECT THAT MAKE IT PALATABLE AND EASIER FOR THE RESIDENTS WHO OBVIOUSLY WANT MORE NEIGHBORS TO FEEL AS THOUGH THEY'RE A PART OF THE PROJECT. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD JUST REALLY STRESS KNOWING THAT I WILL NEED TO VOTE I FAVOR OF THIS, IT JUST MAKES SENSE.
BUT AS FURTHER APPLICATIONS COME BEFORE THE BODY, I'M GOING TO WANT TO SEE ROBUST ENGAGEMENT AND THE INCLUSION OF PUBLIC WORKS TO MAKE THIS STREET, 12th,
A LOT SER GIVEN THAT THERE WILL BE MORE PEOPLE. AND THAT COULD EVEN INCLUDE THINGS LIKE WHAT DOES THE BUILDING LIGHTING LK LIKE
WHAT DOES THE PLANT AND ALL OF THAT LOOK LIKE. WE'VE SEEN OTHER PROJECTS WRE THE DEVELOPER WORKED TO GET A CROSSWALK FROM MID DEVELOPMENT TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. THERE'S JUST WS THAT WE CAN REALLY HEAR FROM OUR NEIGHBORS
AND I THINK CREATIVE IDEAS LIKE THAT ARE WHAT CAN REALLY MAKE OR BREAK A PROJECT LIKE THIS. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. I'M ALSO GOING TO BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT. IT MATCHES WITH THE GOALS OF THIS CITY LIKE CHAIR MEYER SAID. SIX LOTS JOINING WITH COMMERCIAL TRANSIT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BUILDING, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POLICY AND THIS SEEMS LIKE GOOD POLICY. IN REGARDS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, I THINK ONE THING THAT THE APPLICANT COULD CONSIDER AND THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO DO WHATEVER THEY CAN ALLOWED BY ZONING CODE.
BUT THEY COULD CONDER A STEP DOWN. WE SEE THIS IN OUR ZONING CODE. WE SEE WHERE WE HAVE CORRIDOR 6 BY LAKE STREET AND WE HAVE INTERIOR THREE AND INTERIOR TWO. SO I THINK ONE THING THAT THE APPLICANT COULD CONSIDER HERE TO APPEASE SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS, RATHER THAN HAVING A 7 OR 8
STORY MASS ALL THE WAY TO THE END, MAYBE A COUPLE OF LOTS WITH 50 OR 100 FEET OF A LITTLE BIT SMALLER BUILT FORM MASS. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER FOR THE APPLICANT AND THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS. BUT I'M DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. DID AN ENGINEER LOOK AT THIS AT ALL AND THE IDEA OF WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPENO THESE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS YOU DIG DEEP TO CREATE A SEVEN-STORY BUILDING
WHEN SOUTHWEST LRT NEARLY SHOOK THE FOUNDATION OF HIGH-RISES. LIKE I HONESTLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE INCOMPLETE NATURE OF OUR THINKING ON THIS. AND I ALSO DON'T KNOW WHAT CHAIR
MEYER SAYS ARE CLIMATE GOALS, G. IMPORTING IN ALL OF THE BLDING MATERIALS? I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT OUR CLIMATE GOALS INVOLVE LOCALLY FIXING UP WHAT WE HAVE. THAT'S JUST ME. BUT YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT GOALS AND I'M JUST GOING TO READ, IT SAYS AFFORDABLE AND
ACCESSIBLE HOUSING. I KNOW BECAUSE THEY'RE MY STUDENTS. LOW INCOME STUDES THAT ARE LARGELY SPANISH SPEAKING LIVE IN THIS COMMUNITY AND THEY HAVE A LOT OF MULTIGENERATIONAL PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE SAME HOUSE THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE DISPLACING.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE OBVIOUSLY L WE'RE CARING ABOUT ARE ZONING. THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT GO INTO MY CONSIDERATION WHEN I WILL DEFINITELY NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS BECAUSE TO ME WE HAVEN'T -- MINNEAPOLIS 2040 WAS ALREADY UP ZONED. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S ALL
BEEN BUILT IN, RIGHT. SO WE WERELREADY JUMPING FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO POTENTIALLY THREE STORY WITH HOWEVER MANY UNITS COULD FIT INSIDE OF IT. THAT'S FINE. BUT NOW WE'RE GOING FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO A HIGH-RISE. AND I WATCHED THAT KIND OF
REALLY RIDICULOUS PLANNING GO HAPPEN IN CALIFNIA WHERE SOMEBODY MENTIONED THE MOVIE "UP". I ACTUALLY LED IN A SEVEN-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET FROM A SINGL FAMILY HOME SURROUNDED BY TOWERS. I GOT TO KNOW THE PEOPLE WHO LIVED THERE AND THEY TOLD ME HOW
IT WAS THEIR GRANDMOTHER'S HOUSE WHO WOULDN'T SELL OUT WHEN EVERYONE SOLD OUT. IT WAS SUCH A WEIRD STORY. BUT I WAS LIKE THAT'S WHAT L.A. DID AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S THE WISEST WAY TO PUT THIS TOGETHER. SO I DON'T SUPPORT THIS.
AGAIN, I KNOW HOW THE WIND BLOWS, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO LET IT BLOW ME OVER THIS TIME. SO I'M NOT SUPPORTING THIS. >> I'M SORT OF WAVERING ON THIS. WHAT I REALLY LED WAS THIS
CONCEPT OF HAVING SORT OF THE THREE PROJECTS TOGETHER, THE ZONING, THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE COMP PLAN BECAUSE IT GIVES US A MORE COMPREHENSIVE PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. IF WE REZONE THIS NOW, THERE'S JUST NO TELLING. SO THIS APPLICANT IS HERE NOW,
BUT WHO KNOWS, WE DON'T KNOW. SO THAT'S WHERE I'M LEANING. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE I THINK IT ALSO GIVES US A LOT MORE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THOSE NEGOTIATIONS. MAYBE THE STEP DOWNS, ALL OF THOSE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE
GOING TO MAYBE MAKE IT WORK. I'M ALSO SENSITIVE TO THE CONVERSATION ABOUT OWNERS BEING RESPONSIBLE. I WORKED FOR THE CITY FOR MANY YEARS AND REASONABLE OWNERSHIP IN MY WORK LIFE CAREER WAS REALLY IMPORTANT. AND ANYWAY, I AM LEANING I THINK
AS I'M TALKING AGAINST IT BECAUSE I WANT TO SEE ALL THREE TOGETHER. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. I AGREE WITH PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING WE SAID.
IEAN THIS IS A TOUGH ISSUE. I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS, BECAUSE I DO THINK IT MAKES SENSE. I AM EXTREMELY EMPATHETIC WITH FOLKS ON THE TRANSITION OF THESE ZONING AREAS. IT'S INCREDIBLY CHALLENGING.
BUT I BELIEVE WE CAN BUILD OUR WAY OUT OF THIS IN SUCH A WAY THAT PROVIDES THE DENSITY THAT WE NEED AND CAN MAKE THOSE TRANSITIONS. I THINK WE THINK SO OFTEN THAT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, THE
LAKE STREET IS THE FRONT YARD FORGETTING PERHAPS THE BACKYARD IS THE DOOR TO THE NEIGHBORS FOR THE NORTH. AND I THINK I ENCOURAGE THE DESIGN TEAM AND THE OWNER TO CONSIDER THAT EVERY TIME. I THINK IT'S A GREAT RESPONSIBILITY TO BRING THESE PROJECTS INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WITH SUCH GREAT TRANSFORMATION.
WE SHOULD TAKE THOSE SERIOUSLY. SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THIS. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, COMMISSIONER BAXLEY? >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPORT STAFF FINDINGS FOR THE COMP AMENDMENT. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> COMMISSIONER CHOWDHURY.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST HAD A QUESTION. WH ARE THE NEXT STEPS ON THE PROJECT FOLLOWING THIS VOTE? >> SO THE FIRST NEXT STEPS THAT RELATE SPECIFICALLY TO THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT IS THAT IT NEEDS TO GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO IT WILL GO TO THE BIS COMMITTEE, THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THE FULL CITY COUNCIL. IF APPROVED THERE, IT WILL THEN GO TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION. ONCE THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT IS FULLY APPRED, THEN THE APPLICANT WOULD COME BACK THROUGH AND DO THE NEXTTEPS ON THE PROJECT WHICH WOULD INCLUDE
AT A MINIMUM AN APPLICATION TO REZONE THE PROPERTIES TO MATCH THE ZONING OTHE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT. A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION AND ANY ASSORTED APPLICATIONS THAT ARE NEEDED TO BRING THE PROJECT FORWARD.
SO THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATI, STEP, WE OBVIOUSLY ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO WK WITH ANYONE WHO'S ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS THUS FAR AS THEY CONTINUE THOSE NEXT STEPS.
>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. I'D BE CURIOUS TO SEE HOW THE DISCUSSION FURTHERS WITH ALSO THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE COUNCIL MEMBER FOR THE AREA TO GET TO
WEIGH IN. BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE REALLY GOOD PNTS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSIONERS, ESPECIALLY IN REGARDS TO THE RESIDENTS. I LOVE THAT IDEA OF STEP DOWN THAT COMMISSIONER WAGNER BROUGHT UP. AND THEN OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO ENGAGE WITH THE NEIGHBORS HERE. I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU
COMING HERE AND SOME OF YOU STATING YOUR INTERESTS IN INCREASED ZONING IN THE AREA, INCREASED DENSITY IN HOUSING, BUT ALSO THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT YOU MADE HERE. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A PRETTY DELIBERATIVE PROCESS BEF.
SO I THINK I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT IT SO IT CAN CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWA AND I'M GOING TO ENCOURAGE THE CONSTITUENTS HERE TO BE INVOLVED IN THE NEXT PROCESS OF ZONING AND CONNECT WITH YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER THERE.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? >> AIN, I'M INCLINED TO SAY NO BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO SEE THEMLL TOGETHER. I THINK IT'S THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE IN SOME WAYS. BECAUSE IF IT WASN'T ZONED
BEFORE OR IT WASN'T THE COMP PLAN BEFORE SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE OWNERSHIP AT THE TIME AND HAD WE KNOWN, I THINK THAT'S A REALLY COMPLEX ARGUMENT. AND I DO LIKE WHAT WE SAW WITH THE JOHNSON'S PROPERTY JUSTNOW. I FELT THAT WAS A LOT MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND IT REALLY MADE
ME MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE DECISION. >> OKAY. >> THANK YOU. >> NOT SEEING ANYONE ELSE. I'LL ASK THE CLERK TO PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> AYE. >> CHOWDHURY. >> AYE. >> CONLEY. >> AYE.
>> GORDON. >> AYE. >> JONES. >> NAY. >> THOMPSON. >> NO. >> WAGNER. >> AYE. >> MEYER. >> AYE. >> WE HAVE SIX AYES AND TWO NAYS.
>> TT MOTION IS ADOPTED. THAT CONCLUDES OUR DISCUSSION ITEMS. NOW A RESOLUTION FOR FORMER COMMISSIONER ALYSSA OLSEN. SHE WASN'T ABLE TO JOIN US TODAY, BUT SHE IS WATCHING WITH
HER WBORN SON, GLEN. I'VE GOT A PHOTO OF GLEN IF PEOPLE WANT TO COME OVER AND SEE HIM. SO I'M JUST GOING TO READ OFF THIS RESOLUTION THAT WE PREPARED TO HONOR HER.
A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR ALYSSA OLSEN FOR HER DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS ALYSSA HAS SERVED ON THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SINCE 2019. WHEREAS ALYSSA HAS PARTICIPATED IN OVER 140 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS, MAKING
DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON OVER 1,495 PLA USE OPERATIONS, ONE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND NUMEROUS ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS. AND WHEREAS ALYSSA SERVED AS
PRESIDENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM 2022 TO 2024 AND WHEREAS ALYSSA SERVED AS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM 2021 TO 2022. WHEREAS ALYSSA SERVED AS SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN 2020. WHEREAS YSSA SERVED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ITS 100TH
A ANNIVERSARY. AND WHEREAS ALYSSA HAS DEMONSTRATED TREMENDOUS GENEROSITY AND DEDICATION IN SHARING HER TIME AND KNOWLEDGE. WHEREAS THE MINNEAPOLIS PNNING COMMISSION WISHES TO FORMALLY RECOGNIZE ALYSSA'S DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITY'S PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE STAFF OF THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS THAT WE THANK ALYSSA OLSEN FOR HER THANKFUL AND CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE IN EXTENDING THE PROESS OF THIS CITY AND PROMOTING THE WELFARE OF ITS PEOPLE. AND THAT WE EXTEND HER OUR BEST WISHES FOR GOOD HEALTH AND
HAPPINESS TRUSTING THAT THE FRIENDSHIPS AND UNDERSTANDINGS BUILT IN OUR MUTUAL UNDERTAKINGS WILL BE WITH US ALWAYS. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] >> OPPOSED? ABSTENTIONS? THAT IS ADOPTED. THANK YOU, ALYSSA.
>> MY APOLOGIES FOR ALYSSA FOR NOT HAVING THAT AT HER LAST MEETING. I ENDED UP BEING SICK THAT DAY AND WE DIDN'T GET IT. >> THAT WAS OUR FINAL ITEM. OUR NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IS APRIL 28TH AND WE HAVE NO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE THIS THURSDAY. ANY OTHER UPDATES FROM STAFF?
>> I HAVE ONE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT UATE THAT WE NEED TO GET IN IN ONE MINUTE WHICH IS WE DON'T HAVE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE THIS WEEK, BUT ON MAY 15TH AT:00 P.M. WE HAVE THE JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION CLICK MEETING AND THAT'S NOT A COW
MEETING, THAT REQUIRES FULL QUORUM OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SO WE NEED A MINIMUM OF FIVE CMISSIONERS THERE TO HAVE THAT VERY IMPORTANT MEETING. AGAIN THAT'S MAY 15TH AT 6:00 P.M. >> MAY 15TH. PUT IT ON YOUR CALENDARS. >> THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> ANYONE ELSE?
WE ARE ADJOURNED.