Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the transcript, here is the formatted version with speaker names identified. [0:27] **Chris Meyer (Chair):** GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. WELCOME TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR MONDAY, JUNE 24TH, 2024. MY NAME IS CHRIS MEYER, AND I'M THE CHAIR OF THE MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING COMMISSION. AT THIS TIME I'LL ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL TO VERIFY A QUORUM. [0:43] **Clerk:** COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. **Commissioner Baxley:** HERE. **Clerk:** CAMPBELL. **Commissioner Campbell:** HERE. **Clerk:** CHOWDHURY IS ABSENT. CONLEY IS ABSENT. EMERICK IS ABSENT. JONES. **Commissioner Jones:** HERE. **Clerk:** MEYER. **Chris Meyer:** HERE. **Clerk:** OLSON. **Commissioner Olson:** HERE. [0:59] **Clerk:** THOMPSON IS ABSENT. WAGNER. **Commissioner Wagner:** HERE. **Clerk:** WE HAVE SIX MEMBERS PRESENT. **Chris Meyer:** THANK YOU. LET THE RECORD SHOW WE HAVE A QUORUM. NEXT WE'LL TURN TO THE MINUTES OF JUNE 10, 2024. A REVISED COPY WAS HANDED OUT TO EVERYONE. I REQUESTED TO HAVE ADDED IN THE MOTION THAT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL, BECAUSE I FIND THOSE ARE THE MOST INTERESTING ONES. THAT WAS FOR ITEM 9E. SO WITH THAT IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 10, 2024. [1:35] **Commissioner:** SO MOVED. **Commissioner:** SECOND. **Commissioner:** SECOND. **Chris Meyer:** ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. **Commissioners:** AYE. **Chris Meyer:** OPPOSED? THOSE ARE ADOPTED. NOW WE'LL MOVE TO ORGANIZE THE AGENDA. SO WE WILL BE DIVIDING ITEMS INTO CONSENT, DISCUSSION, AND CONTINUANCE. I'LL WALK THROUGH EACH ITEM. IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON A ITEM, IF YOU'RE SPEAKING AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AS THAT ITEM COMES UP THEN LET ME KNOW. [2:09] **Chris Meyer:** AND WE CAN PULL THAT ITEM FOR DISCUSSION. IF YOU'RE HERE TO JUST SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION YOU DON'T NEED TO DO THAT. YOU'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A COMMENT LATER ON IF YOU NEED TO BUT YOU DON'T NEED TO PULL IT OFF FOR DISCUSSION. SO OUR FIRST ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 4, 2103 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE ET CETERA. IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM NUMBER 4? [2:37] **Chris Meyer:** BACK THERE? WAS THAT? YOU RAISED YOUR HAND. DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK AGAINST IT? **Unidentified Speaker:** OH, SORRY. **Chris Meyer:** OKAY. SO ITEM NUMBER 4 WILL GO ON CONSENT. NEXT ONE IS ITEM NUMBER 5, 2300 PENN AVENUE NORTH AND 2306 PENN AVENUE NORTH. IS ANYONE HERE TO DISCUSS THIS ONE? [2:59] **Chris Meyer:** THE ONE YOU HAD IN MIND? NO? OKAY. ANYONE HERE FOR ITEM NUMBER 5? ALL RIGHT. NOT SEEING ANY. SO ITEM NUMBER 5 WILL BE ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER 6 IS 3246 NICOLLET AVENUE. IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST STAFF RECOMMENDATION? THAT WILL GO ON CONSENT. FOR ITEM 7, 536 STREET EAST. IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM NUMBER 7? ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 8, WE WILL BE CONTINUING THIS ITEM. [3:43] **Chris Meyer:** SO THIS IS 918 WEST LAKE STREET. BECAUSE OF THE NOTICE, THERE WAS AN ERROR WITH THAT. SO THAT ITEM WILL BE CONTINUED TO OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING ON JULY 15TH. BUT IF YOU WERE HERE TO SPEAK FOR THAT ITEM YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT IN JUST A MINUTE AFTER WE FINISH THE CONSENT ITEMS. SO WITH THAT, FOR ITEMS 4, 5, 6, AND 7 THOSE ARE ON CONSENT AND WE'LL BE CONTINUING ITEM NUMBER 8. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE AGENDA AS PROPOSED? [4:15] **Commissioner:** SO MOVED. **Commissioner:** SECOND. **Chris Meyer:** ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. **Commissioners:** AYE. **Chris Meyer:** OPPOSED? THAT AGENDA IS ADOPTED. SO I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA. SO IF YOU WERE HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ITEMS 4, 5, 6, OR 7, NOW IS WHEN YOU CAN DO SO. [4:35] **Chris Meyer:** ALL RIGHT. NOT SEEING ANY. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT OUR CONSENT AGENDA? OR TO ADOPT ITEMS 4, 5, 6 AND 7 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. **Commissioner:** SO MOVED. **Commissioner:** SECOND. **Chris Meyer:** ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT. SO I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR OF THOSE SAY AYE. [5:00] **Commissioners:** AYE. **Chris Meyer:** OPPOSED? THE CONSENT AGENDA IS ADOPTED. AND I WILL NOW OPEN THE AGENDA FOR OUR CONTINUANCE ITEM, ITEM NUMBER 8. SO FOR THIS ONE IF YOU CAME HERE TO SPEAK FOR THIS TODAY, YOU CAN SPEAK FOR IT NOW. YOU CAN ALSO COME BACK ON JULY 15TH IF YOU WANTED TO SPEAK FOR THAT ONE. [5:25] **Chris Meyer:** SO WAS ANYONE HERE WHO WANTED TO SPEAK TODAY TO ITEM NUMBER 8? **Unidentified Speaker:** YOU TALKING ABOUT WESLEY? **Chris Meyer:** YES, WE ARE. **Unidentified Speaker:** YES. **Chris Meyer:** OKAY. GREAT. [5:48] **Staff Speaker:** WE TYPICALLY DON'T HAVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION IN INSTANCES LIKE THIS. WE WOULD DO IT ON THE 15TH. BUT I WOULD SAY THE PREFERENCE OF THE CHAIR, IF YOU'D LIKE A BRIEF PRESENTATION TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM. NO. OKAY. [6:07] **Chris Meyer:** YEAH, I THINK WE'LL GET INTO THE FULL PRESENTATION ON JULY 15TH AND WE'RE CONSIDERING IT. BUT IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE BACK FOR THE 15TH AND YOU WANTED TO SPEAK NOW, YOU MAY DO SO. SO, YOU CAN GO ON UP AND TELL US YOUR NAME AND NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU CAN HAVE TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK. [6:24] **Andrea Corbin:** MY NAME IS ANDREA CORBIN, I'M THE WARD OF BALTIMORE LAKE ASSOCIATION. AND THE UPTOWN ASSOCIATIONS. AND I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF BOTH RESPECTIVE BOARDS. THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY SHELTER LOCATED AT 918 WEST LAKE STREET STATES IN THE ANALYSIS ON PAGE 3: THE CONDITIONAL USE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO USE IN ADJOINING OTHER PROPERTY VICINITY AND NOT IMPEDE THE NORMAL AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY FOR USES PERMITTED IN THE DISTRICT. THE PROPOSAL OF THIS EMERGENCY SHELTER CONTRADICTS THIS LANGUAGE IN ITS ENTIRETY. HIGH POINT CENTER IS LOCATED IMMEDIATELY NEXT DOOR ON 912 WEST LAKE STREET. HIGH POINT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING FOR THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN AND TEENS ANNUALLY, MANY OF WHOM WALK TO HIGH POINT FROM NEIGHBORING SCHOOLS LIKE BAKER AND WHITTIER ELEMENTARY. I FEEL THE PROXIMITY TO THE SHELTER TO YOUTH WAS NOT CONSIDERED AND I'M TROUBLED BY THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF OUR VISITORS. THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF MANY NEIGHBORS AND BUSINESSES WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE. INSTEAD THE SHELTER PROVIDING BENEFIT TO OUR COMMUNITY, AS I'M SURE IT WAS INTENDED, IF APPROVED WILL EXACERBATE OUR CURRENT ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CHALLENGES WE ARE ALREADY BURDENED WITH IN THIS UPTOWN CORRIDOR WITH THE CONSTRUCTION ON HENNEPIN AND INCREASED CRIME; LOSING MORE OF OUR RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES WILL BE DETRIMENTAL. I HAVE CONSULTED WITH BOARD MEMBERS OF SHELTERS MAINLY AVIVO AND TEEN CHALLENGE AND THESE PROFESSIONALS ARE CONCERNED WITH THE SENSITIVITY TO OUR UNHOUSED THAT WILL BE EXPOSED TO HIGH TRAFFIC AND PUBLIC CORRIDOR. IT DOES NOT GIVE OUR UNHOUSED THE BEST CHANCE FOR RECOVERY, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE CONCENTRATED CHALLENGES WE ARE ALREADY EXPERIENCING IN THESE CORRIDORS. WE WOULD LIKE THE CITY TO CONSIDER ALSO THE LACK OF EXPERIENCE AND TRACK RECORD THAT THE LLC HAS GIVEN THAT THE LLC OF THE APPLICANT WAS JUST FOUND IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR. IN AN ALREADY FRAGILE ENVIRONMENT THE TRACK RECORD OF THE TEAM WILL BE RUNNING THE FACILITY LIKE THIS AND THE LOCATION FOR UNHOUSED IS CRITICAL TO ITS SUCCESS OR FAILURE AND NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED. THANK YOU. [8:54] **Bruce:** MY NAME IS BRUCE. I LIVE AT 2909 BRYANT. I ALSO HAVE AN OFFICE BUILDING AT 2909 BRYANT. VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SHELTER IN THIS LOCATION. CAN REITERATE MANY OF ANDREA'S POINTS SHE JUST MADE. IT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO HAVE, TO GET NEW TENANTS IN BUILDINGS AND TO KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD VIBRANT. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO UNHOUSED POPULATION LIVING IN SHELTERS IN AREAS THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT MORE ACCEPTABLE TO THEM AND TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY MIGHT OCCUPY. AVIVO VILLAGE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE. THEY'RE DOWNTOWN, THEY'RE IN A WAREHOUSE. THEY HAVE TINY HOMES INSIDE. IT'S A GREAT PLAN. SUPPORT THAT. BUT THE 5,000 OR SO SQUARE FOOT BUILDING THAT THIS EMERGENCY SHELTER WILL BE IN IS RIGHT ON LAKE STREET AND COLFAX, IT'S ACROSS FROM A HOUSING, LARGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. IT IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM MANY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AND THERE WILL A LOT OF BUSINESSES ON THE CORRIDOR. WHAT WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE ANY MORE BUSINESS IN THE AREA. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE THE POPULATION THAT WE HAVE THERE ALREADY. IT'S BEEN UNBELIEVABLE. AND I'VE BEEN IN THAT AREA FOR 40 YEARS. SO, VERY MUCH AGAINST THE SHELTER GOING IN AT THAT LOCATION. THANK YOU. [10:21] **Chris Meyer:** THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK TO ITEM 8 BEFORE WE CONTINUE IT? ALL RIGHT. I'M NOT SEEING ANY. IS THERE A MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEM 8 TO JULY 15TH? **Commissioner:** SO MOVED. **Chris Meyer:** IS THERE A SECOND? **Commissioner:** SECOND. **Chris Meyer:** ALL IN FAVOR OF CONTINUING THE ITEM TO JULY 15TH SAY AYE. **Commissioners:** AYE. **Chris Meyer:** OPPOSED? ABSTAIN? ALL RIGHT. THE ITEM IS CONTINUED. AND WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES ALL OUR BUSINESS FOR THE EVENING. OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON JULY 15TH. AND THEN WE HAVE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE THIS THURSDAY, THE 27TH IN THE OTHER BUILDING. ANY OTHER UPDATES FROM STAFF OR COMMISSIONERS? [11:01] **Staff Speaker:** TWO BRIEF UPDATES ON ITEMS THAT WERE BEFORE US AT THE LAST MEETING. SO WE DID RECEIVE TWO APPEALS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS OF THE LAST MEETING. WE RECEIVED AN APPEAL ON THE MINNEHAHA ACADEMY PROJECT, SPECIFICALLY THE APPEAL IS ON THE APPROVAL OF THE INCREASED HEIGHT ON THE LIGHT POLES. SO THAT WILL BE HEARD BY THE BUSINESS COMMITTEE, THE CITY COUNCIL ON JULY 9TH. WE DID NOT RECEIVE AN APPEAL ON THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCE. WE RECEIVED AN APPEAL ON THE CHASE BANK PROJECT. SO THAT WAS THE ONE WHERE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED VARIANCES TO MINIMUM HEIGHT F-A-R AND A NUMBER OF OTHER ELEMENTS ON THE SITE. SO WE RECEIVED AN APPEAL OF ALL OF THOSE APPLICATIONS AND THAT WILL ALSO BE HEARD BY THE BIZ COMMITTEE ON JULY 9TH AND I CAN GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON THOSE ACTIONS AFTER THEY'RE CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL. [12:03] **Chris Meyer:** SO FOR THE MINNEHAHA ACADEMY ONE, IT WAS JUST THE LIGHT POLES AND NOT THE BLEACHERS OR THE SIGN? **Staff Speaker:** CORRECT. **Chris Meyer:** OKAY. THAT'S INTERESTING. OKAY. **Commissioner:** [OFF MIC] **Staff Speaker:** I HAVE NOT READ THE APPEAL STATEMENT ON THAT ONE. I JUST KNOW THAT THEY DID -- I IMAGINE IT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THEIR ORIGINAL APPLICATION. [12:22] **Chris Meyer:** GOT IT. **Commissioner:** SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD APPEALED THE HEIGHT OF THE LIGHTS. IS THAT RIGHT? **Staff Speaker:** YES. I THINK IT WAS ONE SPECIFIC NEIGHBOR PERHAPS ON BEHALF OF A COLLECTION OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS APPEALED THE APPROVAL OF THE C-U-P TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF THE LIGHT POLE BULBS. [12:44] **Chris Meyer:** ANY OTHER UPDATES FROM ANYONE ELSE? NOT SEEING ANY, WE ARE ADJOURNED.