This transcript has been formatted with the identified speakers based on the context provided and the dialogue within the meeting. **[0:12] PLANNING COMMISSION.** **[0:52] Chris Meyer:** Welcome, everyone. This is the regular meeting of the Minneapolis Planning Commission for August 12, 2024. My name is Chris Meyer, and I'm the Chair of the Minneapolis Planning Commission. Before we continue, I want to make a note that the applicant for item number 12 has withdrawn their application. So if you were here for that, you don't need to be; that item has substituted their conditional use request with an interim request. With that, first I want to make a public announcement that I've been asked to read. Before we begin the meeting, I want to offer a friendly reminder to all members, staff and the public that these meetings are broadcast live to enable greater public participation. These **[1:38]** broadcasts include realtime captioning as a further method to increase the accessibility of our proceedings to the community. So we ask all speakers to be mindful of their rate of their speech so that the captioners can fully capture and transcribe all the comments for the broadcast. And we ask all speakers to moderate the speed and clarity of their comments. **[1:58] Chris Meyer:** With that, I will ask the Clerk to call the roll so we can verify a quorum for the meeting. **[2:04] Clerk:** Commissioner Baxley is absent. Campbell is absent. Chowdhury is absent. Conley. **[2:14] Commissioner Conley:** Present. **[2:15] Clerk:** Emerick is absent. Jones. **[2:20] Commissioner Jones:** Present. **[2:22] Clerk:** Meyer. **[2:24] Chris Meyer:** Here. **[2:25] Clerk:** Olson. **[2:26] Commissioner Olson:** Here. **[2:27] Clerk:** Thompson. **[2:28] Commissioner Thompson:** Here. **[2:30] Clerk:** Wagner. **[2:32] Commissioner Wagner:** Here. **[2:34] Clerk:** We have six members present. **[2:36] Chris Meyer:** Let the record show a quorum is present. With that we'll proceed to the minutes of July 29, 2024. May I have a motion to accept those minutes? **[2:45] Commissioner Olson:** Move approval. **[2:47] Chris Meyer:** Is there a second? **[2:48] Commissioner Thompson:** Second. **[2:50] Chris Meyer:** All in favor of the minutes say aye. **[2:52] Commissioners:** Aye. **[2:54] Chris Meyer:** Opposed, abstentions? The minutes are adopted. With that we will proceed to organize the agenda. We will first go through items 4 and 5. There are no public hearings on those. **[3:02]** And then for the rest of the items, as I noted, item 12 has been withdrawn. And the staff is recommending that we discuss item 10 for 3800 Third Avenue South and item 9 for 1801 Nicollet Avenue. And then I am also pulling for discussion item 11, the zoning code text amendment. So we go through the other items. If you are here to speak against staff recommendation on any of these items, you can raise your hand or if you're in the overflow room and you wanted to speak to them, you have to come over here and let us know so it gives time for people to do that if they **[3:50]** wanted to. But if no one is here to speak against the staff recommendation, then those items will go on the consent agenda. If you want to speak in favor of one of these items on the consent agenda, you will have an opportunity to do that later. All right. So first for item number 6, 1027 Essex Street Southeast. Was anyone here to speak against the staff recommendation for item number 6? All right. We'll put that on consent. And for item number 7, 2629 30th Avenue South, was anyone here to speak against the staff recommendation for item number 7? All right. And finally, item number 8, the **[4:37]** commemorative street named DeShawn Hill Jr. Way, was anyone here to speak against the staff recommendation for item number 8? All right. Then items 9, 10, and 11 will be discussed and item 12 will be withdrawn. All right. **[4:59] Unidentified Speaker:** The question was, what happened with number 12? **[5:18] Kimberly Holien (Staff):** Sure, Chair Meyer. Thank you for the question. So, the applicant for item number 12 has withdrawn their application for a conditional use permit. We did receive a significant amount of correspondence on that application. And working with staff, they decided to withdraw and instead are in the process of resubmitting for an interim use permit. An interim use permit allows a conditional use to be established on a site for a length of time not to exceed five years. And it allows the applicant to establish the use in an interim manner before pursuing a full conditional use permit for the site. So we anticipate the next step is that the interim use permit will be held—a public hearing on the interim use permit will be held before the **[6:04]** Business, Housing and Zoning Committee of the City Council at 1:30 p.m. on September 10th in this room. **[6:15] Chris Meyer:** Great. **[6:24] Unidentified Speaker (Off-mic):** It goes straight to the Council and I can’t object to it? **[6:30] Chris Meyer:** There is no public hearing being held on that tonight. The public hearing will be held on September 10th. All right. Did anyone else want to speak against the staff recommendation for items 6, 7, or 8? All right. Then to review, we'll be doing items 4 and 5 first; there will be no public hearing on those. Items 6, 7 and 8 will be on consent. **[6:52]** Items 9, 10, and 11 will be discussed and item 12 is withdrawn. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as I stated? **[7:02] Commissioner Olson:** So moved. **[7:04] Chris Meyer:** Is there a second? **[7:06] Commissioner Jones:** Second. **[7:08] Chris Meyer:** All in favor of that agenda say aye. **[7:10] Commissioners:** Aye. **[7:12] Chris Meyer:** Opposed? That agenda is adopted. All right. We'll proceed; we'll do items 4 and 5 first. So this is the TIF district modification for item 4, and 12, 13 Franklin Avenue East for item 5. Did anyone have any comments or request presentation on 4 or 5? All right. Is there a motion to adopt items 4 and 5 as consistent with the 2040 plan? **[7:37] Commissioner Olson:** So moved. **[7:40] Commissioner Thompson:** Second. **[7:42] Chris Meyer:** All in favor say aye. **[7:44] Commissioners:** Aye. **[7:46] Chris Meyer:** Opposed, abstentions? Those two are adopted. All right. I will now open the public hearing for our consent agenda. So if you were here to speak in favor of the staff recommendation for items 6, 7, or 8, now is your chance to do so. Was anyone here to speak to any of those items? **[8:05]** Going once, going twice for anyone in the overflow room. All right. We have one. Okay. Go ahead and come to the lectern and tell us your name and neighborhood. And you have two minutes. **[8:29] DeShawn Hill Jr.'s Mother:** I was told—I'm DeShawn Hill's mom, that's why we want to honor him so we don't have to honor him on Golden Valley Road where he got murdered at. So we'll have a place to celebrate, and it's right in front of the school. That's it. Thank you. **[8:46] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak to the consent agenda? All right. Seeing no one else, I will close the consent agenda. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda for items 6, 7, and 8? **[9:02] Commissioner Olson:** So moved. **[9:04] Commissioner Wagner:** Second. **[9:06] Chris Meyer:** All in favor say aye. **[9:08] Commissioners:** Aye. **[9:10] Chris Meyer:** Opposed, abstentions? The consent agenda is adopted. All right. We'll proceed with our first discussion item. This is item number 9, 1801 Nicollet Avenue. Staff is Lindsay Silas. **[9:26] Lindsay Silas (Senior Planner):** Good evening, Chair Meyer, members of the Commission. I'm Lindsay Silas, Senior Planner with CPED Land Use and Preservation. Also working on this project is Julia, who is our planning intern, so she's going to speak after me. I'm going to set the stage a little bit about this item at 1801 Nicollet. Just for background, this is a proposal for a 64-bed recuperative care facility. The proposal on Lake Street was a similar proposal that has been withdrawn and as Kimberly mentioned, will be heard at the September 10 meeting of the BIZ committee. Recuperative care facility is a new license type by the Department of Human Services. And this is a type of short-term housing available to individuals experiencing homelessness to help prevent hospitalizations. **[10:24]** Those folks may include individuals who were discharged from hospitals or clinics, who need additional care before returning to independent living, or folks who are recovering from illnesses where the shelter or other living situation is not supportive of their recovery. The license type requires 24/7 staffing and supervision by an advanced medical practitioner and the duration of stay is up to 60 days with the facility assisting clients in achieving more permanent housing before discharge. So the zoning code only has a limited number of categories for congregate living uses. This type of use falls into the category of an emergency shelter, which is defined as a facility that provides sleeping accommodations **[11:11]** on a day-to-day basis for folks without permanent housing for periods of greater than 24 hours but less than six months. So this should not be confused with an overnight shelter where folks are coming and going every day. This is a short-term temporary housing for up to two months. And emergency shelters are a conditional use in every zoning district in the city except for transportation, which is basically just the railroads. So that was a policy decision from policy makers to make emergency shelters conditional uses throughout the city of Minneapolis to provide these types of short-term housing options to folks who need them. **[11:50] Lindsay Silas:** And a conditional use permit is—a conditional use is something that is allowed by the zoning code as long as the conditions are met. And those conditions are set forth by state law. And so they are uses that require a little bit of extra scrutiny, but must be allowed when the standards of the zoning ordinance are met and denial of conditional use permits must be based on real documented harms of the use that cannot be mitigated through the process. Just kind of going through this because I know we have a lot of folks here to speak about this application. This is a quasi-judicial application where the Planning Commission is looking at this with the task of determining whether the request complies with those findings **[12:35]** required by law and reviewing that as a court would. So when it comes to the discussion, conditional uses are one step above a building permit where once the conditions are met, then that has demonstrated that the conditional use should be allowed in that district. So I wanted to give a primer since this is a new use from DHS. And I will hand it over to Julia to speak about this project specifically. **[13:09] Chris Meyer:** Welcome, Julia. **[13:11] Julia Goodheart (Planning Intern):** Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Meyer, members of the Commission. My name is Julia Goodheart, I'm a planning intern for CPED. I'm here to present staff findings and recommendation for a conditional use permit for an emergency shelter at 1801 Nicollet Avenue. The site is located in the Stevens Square-Loring Heights neighborhood on the northwest corner of Nicollet Avenue and 18th Street East. The site contains two parcels split-zoned. The building on part of the surface parking lot are on 1801 Nicollet Avenue and the primary zoning is corridor mixed use. The majority of the surface parking lot is at 1800 First Avenue South and zoned Urban Neighborhood 3. An emergency shelter is a conditional use, as we heard Lindsay talk about, in both districts. And then here is an aerial photo of the site in the immediate neighborhood and you can see the surface parking lot around the building. The applicant is proposing a **[14:17]** recuperative care facility in the second and third floors of the existing building at 1801 Nicollet Avenue. The facility would be licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services and offer temporary supportive care for individuals recovering from illness or hospital procedures that are in need of stable housing. Site plan: The first floor houses a medical clinic. The second and third floors are set up as offices but are vacant. The applicant is proposing 32 beds on each floor making use of the existing offices. Two spaces of the surface parking lot will be used for a bicycle shed; 73 parking spots will remain in the surface lot shared between the recuperative **[15:02]** care facility and the medical clinic. Here are the legal findings that must be met for a conditional use permit. Staff find that the application for 1801 Nicollet Avenue meets these findings. Recuperative care services are contained within the building. Individuals will be prequalified by DHS to stay in the facility for up to 60 days. The facility will be staffed with medical and security personnel 24/7 to ensure the safety of care recipients and neighboring uses. Care recipients will be required to check in and out for accountability and have a curfew to prevent after-hours activities. The site is currently noncompliant for the screening requirements around the parking lot. The site is predominantly screened by a 6-foot tall iron fence around the surface parking lot along East 18th Street and First Avenue South. You can see some photos of the building here. We can come back to these. **[16:09]** And you can see the wrought iron fence here around the parking lot. This does not meet the requirements for screening that is 3 feet tall and at least 60% opaque. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that the surface parking lot be screened on the north and east sides with at least 30 evergreen shrubs, about one segment spaced evenly around the parking area. These will grow to provide the screening that is 60% opaque. With this condition, staff is recommending approval for the conditional use permit for an emergency shelter at 1801 Nicollet Avenue. That concludes my presentation. And we're open for any questions. **[16:56] Chris Meyer:** Thank you, Julia. Are there questions from commissioners before we proceed to the public hearing? Commissioner Thompson. **[17:01] Commissioner Thompson:** Thank you so much. Can we go back to the list of the things that are needed to be fulfilled? Yeah. Thank you. Because I didn't get a chance to read them all before we got to the picture of the slides. In what way did staff decide—like did we do community—was there any community engagement regarding this in terms of the first one "will not be detrimental or endanger public health" when it's literally above a clinic? What kind of engagement did we do on that process? **[17:32] Lindsay Silas:** Commissioner Thompson, I can answer that. It's not typical for staff to do community engagement on these use applications. I believe the applicant did hold at least one meeting with the neighborhood group and they can speak to what sort of engagement they did. The engagement done on behalf of staff is the portion that's required by the zoning ordinance and state law, which is to notify property owners within 350 feet, to publish the notice in Finance and Commerce, and notify the neighborhood group and Council office. **[18:00] Commissioner Thompson:** So that's really good to know. So short of understanding what has been done in advance, I mean I see some of these right away that seem like red flags of how would we know unless adequate, like, primary stuff has been accomplished. Did the applicant do that? So, this is coming on staff recommendations. So has staff found all these things to be, like, potentially compliant based on what evidence, I guess is what I'm asking. **[18:22] Lindsay Silas:** Yes. So that's outlined in the staff report that was included in your packets. The information provided by the applicant helped us to analyze the required legal findings for the conditional use permit and staff was able to make a positive recommendation based on all six of the required findings in this instance. **[18:47] Commissioner Thompson:** I will dig a little deeper. I must not have noticed all the details or maybe my brain forgot which one it was before we came here. I do have a question about—you said it's a new—sorry, recuperative care is a new thing for the state. What is the monetary or economic assessment that is done for these applicants? I'm assuming the state obviously has a desire to get these into different locations. Does the state deem it necessary to be in Minneapolis? Or is it—do we have any of that—what is the monetary—maybe the applicant can answer that later after the public hearing. I'll just plant that seed now that I would love to understand that better. **[19:38] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. **[19:42] Chris Meyer:** I was also going to ask part of that though. Can you tell us more about how recently this new model was introduced and why it was brought up? And I don't know if there's someone from DHS who's here who can speak more to that. But if there's not, can you speak to that? **[20:04] Lindsay Silas:** So, I believe this license type came up earlier this year if not end of 2023. So there are many, many different license types that fall under the umbrella of the Minnesota Department of Human Services. We have tried over the years to make our zoning code match the various definitions and license types that come out of DHS, but as our code is ever evolving, so are their codes and ordinances and license types. So this one came out and it matched most closely with our definition of emergency shelter, so we determined that it falls under that umbrella. This is the first conditional use—well, this one and the Apple Street are the first two applications that we've had come in for the recuperative care facilities that fall under the emergency shelter definition. **[21:03] Commissioner Conley:** Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was going to say I can answer some of that too. So, I chair the Health and Human Services Committee on the Hennepin County Board. I'm also co-chair of our Intergovernmental Relations Committee. And what we found was that the state was running into a lot of problems with people who needed treatment beds but they were not available. And there was a terrible bottleneck at the state where there were residents who needed care who were in hospitals, who were in jails, who aren't being released because there was nowhere for them to go. So the policy arm, which is the Department of Human Services, decided that this is a way that we can change that really bad issue by allowing cities—large jurisdictions—to have the type of permits that organizations can apply for to meet the growing need that we were running—that the state was running into as a body. So that was the impetus behind the policy change. **[21:59] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. That was exactly the context I was looking for. Appreciate that. Any other questions before we proceed to the public hearing? All right. Seeing none. I will open the public hearing. Do we have the applicant with us today? Go ahead and present. Start by telling us your name and who you're with. **[22:20] Connie Melchizedek (Health Services):** All right. I'm here with Health Services. My name is Connie Melchizedek. I have been a nurse for over 20 years. And out of those 20 years, I worked as a mental health nurse, taking care of people with homelessness and mental health, basically, because a lot of my patients were homeless. And so when this opportunity came up, I thought it would be great for me to jump in and see what I could do to help alleviate that situation. **[23:03]** Many of my patients keep coming back because they lack better care or housing, shelter, guidance. So they come in, most of them have opportunities—illnesses that meet them on the streets where they come in, we help them and they go back and they come right back in and it's back and forth. And sadly many of them end up dead on the streets. And so I thought this would be a great opportunity for me to do what I could. My background goes farther into—I decided to go back to school and in December I'll be graduating as a psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner. I have a strong affinity to this type of care. With recuperative services, we will be taking care of patients who are basically looking for a little bit of a hand. They are homeless. To get back to their normal lives. **[24:14]** And this will include but not limited to nursing care, assessments and monitoring physical illnesses, medication assistance, pain level assessments and rehabilitation. We will have mental health support for those facing mental crisis. Part of their care will include behavioral and social needs, care plan development, support and referral assistance for housing and transportation, case management and community social services. We will provide support and referral assistance for health care benefits, medical and social, behavioral counseling. I had a—I believe it's Ward 6 Councilman Jamal, and Ward 7 Council lady Katie Cashman a few months ago. And we had—this was in the beginning, and we had a conversation where we were exchanging ideas. And they did encourage me that this was something that was needed in the city. And they did tell me that I would need to meet with the neighborhood to talk to them about basically what we were doing so I could hear them out or maybe they could hear me out too. And last Monday we did host the neighborhood in the proposed facility. Some people were there. They were not this **[25:41]** many. I'm sure there's a lot more that came today. And a few ideas were exchanged in that meeting. We needed to do a little bit more with our proposals for needing to comfort some of them to be a little more easier for them to understand what we were doing and to be okay with what we were doing. And in that meeting somebody asked me a question. They wanted me to kind of gauge what percentage I thought was allocated to those who were substance abusers. And with my history, I guess I just never really thought about what the percentage would be. I thought it would be like 60% of the homeless people using substances. So I went back and did my due diligence and looked into it. And I saw that the Department of Housing and Urban Development came up with a **[26:55]** survey and that was last year in December. It was a point in time count data which was released December last year. It showed that 8,393 people were homeless in the Twin Cities. And out of those people, 21% had severe mental illness. And out of those people, again, 12% struggled with substance abuse. My point was one of the things that the neighborhood was struggling with is drug abuse. There's a lot of drug selling in the corners and drug use in that neighborhood. And one thing I was trying to emphasize is not every homeless person is a drug abuser. A lot of them are suffering from opportunistic illnesses on the street. They have HIV, they have pneumonia, they have lung diseases, they have heart diseases. And the ones who are abusing are not as many as the ones who are not and actually need help. Yes, the abusers also need help, they are also victims, but the number is not as great as I thought it would be. And when you think about 64 beds, if we were to be operating at 100% capacity, we're looking at maybe 7 to 10 people in there who are substance abusers, when **[28:26]** you think about the 12%. I guess that's what I—my argument is. **[28:38] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. Were you also presenting as well? **[28:43] Bob Coughlin (RNC Drafting):** Yes, sir. My name is Bob Coughlin with RNC Drafting. I'm helping guide Health Services through this process. They have the vision. I've got the background to help move it through committees like this. So I thank you for listening. And one of the things that we've kind of found is when you're looking at the conditional use, I understand looking at all the findings and we see it differently at this level than the community sees it. And so one of our biggest goals is to educate the community and let them know what's going on. And so staff did a great job kind of explaining the difference between—we got this label of an emergency shelter, well, that brought everybody's ears perked up for that. This is not your line up at the end of the day, find a bed emergency shelter, people loitering around the community. This is you're **[29:46]** preapproved, referred by another organization for inpatient recuperative care. And so our care recipients, they're not roaming the streets. They're in there to get help. We're giving them mental health services, housing services, job services, whatever services are needed, medical services. And so this is more like—I mean your Petty Ford clinic or something. This is a place where people are going to get help. And we're trying to let everybody know that this isn't the scary people roaming around on the street corner, **[30:32]** vagrancy that's going on around. So I just wanted to make it clear what this is compared to what people's perception is. And hopefully we filled out all the paperwork correctly. **[30:47] Chris Meyer:** Thank you for that presentation. Commissioners, do you have questions for the applicant? **[30:49] Commissioner Wagner:** Hi. Thank you so much for the presentation. And I have a couple questions. I guess one, how do residents or patients get referred and discharged? And this location was chosen for what? Are there other places you looked at or considered? Something maybe that wasn't on a commercial corridor? **[31:08] Connie Melchizedek:** Right. We did look around. And I guess it was a business decision, because we were given a better deal than most places were giving us. And we knew that that place used to host Hennepin County Behavioral Services. And so we knew this would not be a very new situation to that building. And we knew that they had so many building holds that the building would pass just because of its past. So that's what attracted us to that building. **[31:48] Commissioner Wagner:** And how do common patients or residents— **[31:52] Connie Melchizedek:** Their referrals come from hospitals, social workers, clinics. **[31:56] Commissioner Wagner:** And how are they discharged? **[31:58] Connie Melchizedek:** That's a good question. Part that I didn't talk about. It's part of the referral system, where the people who come into contact with us, we try to get them in touch with social services because they are homeless, not to discharge to the streets. So anybody who comes in and is willing to enter into that program, we're there to help them do that. **[32:35] Commissioner Wagner:** Thank you. **[32:45] Chris Meyer:** Other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Thompson. **[32:51] Commissioner Thompson:** Thank you so much. I have a follow-up question that's very akin as to the 1801 Nicollet location. Would you be leasing the space or who owns the building? **[32:54] Connie Melchizedek:** We would be leasing it. The owner—we are working with the realtor. His name is Chad. I don't think he made it here today. It's owned by a lady who has representation here. I'm not sure where she lives. **[33:12] Bob Coughlin:** North Dakota. **[33:14] Connie Melchizedek:** North Dakota? Oh. Yeah. But she does have—we have a building manager that we've been dealing with, and the realtor. **[33:28] Commissioner Thompson:** And you said that you got a better deal. Did you look at locations that were not inside the City of Minneapolis? If this is a state program? **[33:38] Connie Melchizedek:** We did look at some locations in St. Paul towards the airport. We did look at a location there. And that didn't work out, because of the parking situation and the building itself was not—I don't think most of the codes would have been okay with the building. This building was perfect because of what it did before. It was a behavioral health building. **[34:08] Commissioner Thompson:** May I ask if you found that to be a good scenario, but I wasn't an overnight—like they didn't have beds or did they have beds and facilities already inside the building? **[34:20] Connie Melchizedek:** No. **[34:22] Commissioner Thompson:** So you're going to have to build that out? Like kitchens and bathrooms and all that kind of stuff. Sorry. So, toward the questions, I believe it was seven questions that had to be answered since we were told it's quasi-judicial. I did go through the original application packet. And I only saw three of the seven that were attempted to be answered. And there wasn't sort of data points as to how the first ones were answered. Can you let me know—you said you met with the neighbors last Monday? **[35:03] Connie Melchizedek:** We did. **[35:05] Commissioner Thompson:** And then I believe you had said that you needed to make some changes or they had asked to have some changes. Is that the only time you met with neighbors? **[35:19] Connie Melchizedek:** That was the only time, yes. **[35:21] Commissioner Thompson:** And was there any sort of consensus about how to alleviate concerns? **[35:28] Connie Melchizedek:** Well, we were still talking. And one of the things they asked for—excuse me, I'm so dry. **[35:36] Commissioner Thompson:** So am I. **[35:38] Connie Melchizedek:** They asked us if we would assign certain jobs or actually hire people within the neighborhood to bring jobs to the neighborhood, add that in the proposal, which we did. Actually it was in the proposal to begin with. But we added it in there again. And then they asked us if we could allocate or dedicate some beds, per se, to the homeless people around the neighborhood, which we added that in there. And what was the third one? The third one was the building plans. They wanted to see the latest building plans that we had, which we added those in there, the newer ones. I think that was it. **[36:28] Commissioner Thompson:** So, the residents around Stevens Square who have lived there, were they not at the meeting or were they at the meeting? **[36:40] Bob Coughlin:** They were at the meeting. It wasn't really clear about why there was opposition to it. When they asked questions like, well, what's the security? Well, we explained the security—it has 24/7 security to keep an eye on the care recipients and there's a curfew. It isn't a locked down. It's not a jail. They do have the ability to leave the premises, which oftentimes they have to—services that aren't here. They have to go to some services elsewhere. But transportation is arranged to make sure they get to their location and get back. So they're not roaming around. There's going to be less traffic here than there was with the behavioral health services. **[37:37] Commissioner Thompson:** Out of due diligence and curiosity both, to go back to the first of the standards that have to be met, you were talking about security, but it's not a locked down, obviously these are adults. But what do you plan having that look like? How do you—how would you maintain curfew? What is the standard? Are you talking about, like, just like a Ring doorbell with a camera? Are you talking about having a security staff or just a staffer that's 24-hour care? What is your plan if we're getting into the weeds of how it's going to affect the neighborhood? **[38:18] Connie Melchizedek:** So there's a security guard there. And coming into the building, everybody has to go through a search to make sure you're not bringing in contraband, drugs or any of that stuff. And it's not open to the public. Coming in, it's not going to be open for anyone. Yes, there might be a doorbell or a way that you need to be let in by a staff member. **[38:58] Bob Coughlin:** But there will be somebody at the front desk checking people in and out. And we had difficulty with the first finding to try to prove a negative: well, why aren't you detrimental? Why won't you be harmful to the community? And we were trying to find out: in what ways would we be? We're not releasing noxious chemicals. We're not making loud noises. We're not up all night with lights. All those things that people think are negative things. We couldn't find anything that we're doing that would be negative, so we tried to explain some of the fears that were brought up like general welfare. Well, this is going to be individuals that are seeking help, and like I said, it's not lockdown. They want to be there. It's not just your everyday vagrant off the **[40:07]** street—not to label anybody—but we're not sure what an example of what would be "bad." **[40:15] Commissioner Thompson:** So, just to clarify, because you're using the present tense of saying we don't know what we're doing. This hasn't happened yet though, so we don't have any idea of the outcomes except for other locations or other similar type things like what staff has been proposing that this is akin to. So that would be the data we'd have to use, just to be fair. So that's I think where the neighbors' concerns are coming from. **[40:51] Bob Coughlin:** We understand that a lot of these questions are kind of the operational questions that as a facility, we want it to be successful. We're going to take care of it. We're not just going to get the permit and then slack. I mean, there's a lot of money going into rehabilitating every room to make it a little more spacious, and this is an investment from a legitimate organization that will be licensed by the state. There's oversight. And we're going to do our best to meet all those requirements. But we don't have **[41:36]** all the answers right now. Somebody asked about our food vendor. That's getting into the weeds for sure. Those are operational things, and those kind of things will have to be taken care of. **[42:07] Commissioner Wagner:** Can I ask one more question? I'm curious about the commercial makeup of the building surrounding. Is it all residential? Is there other urban street activity that's more akin with like a commercial environment? **[42:31] Connie Melchizedek:** I think I can answer that. It's a mixed use area with lots of commercial and residential. To the east are apartment buildings. Just to the north is a brand new—I think it's a condo building or a brand new apartment building. Across the street there's a one-level kind of like strip mall of commercial. And then just to the south there are a few businesses along to the south. So it's mixed use, yeah. **[43:01] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. **[43:11] Commissioner Conley:** I'll be very quick. I just wanted to know the length of stay. Have you decided what that might be? That often gives people an idea of the stability that folks would receive in a space like this. **[43:20] Connie Melchizedek:** You mean for patients or residents? **[43:30] Commissioner Conley:** Yes. Sometimes it's 30 days, sometimes it's 60, sometimes it's 90. That gives people an idea of the stability of your residents. **[43:41] Connie Melchizedek:** Yes. So I believe the Minnesota Department of Health told us that the program—it's not out yet. We still have a moratorium on licensing. So we do not know exactly what's going to come out at the end. But 60 days is the length of stay, 60. Depending, for example, if you came in with a cold and you feel better ten days later, that would be your length of stay. But if you came in with a wound and at 60 days you still needed help—the wound is not healed—we can apply for an extension, yeah. **[44:25] Chris Meyer:** Any questions? Seeing none, I'll move on to the evidence. I'll give a little bit of guidance. As staff said at the beginning, the only thing the applicant is requesting is a conditional use permit. So for judicial decisions about whether certain legal findings are met. But we also have the ability to impose conditions. That's something I just wanted to bring to attention to the audience. Like if there are certain conditions that you want to advocate for that you think would make it a better project, you can articulate what conditions those would be. This is a new model for us. So we can consider different things and then for commissioners, as you're contemplating those, we want to be consistent over conditions we were to impose, because we would be setting a precedent by establishing them. Because we have a lot of people in the audience, we're going to have a limit on time. It will be two minutes per person. And when you come up, you can state your name and your neighborhood if you're comfortable. With **[45:34]** that, I'll proceed to the rest of the public hearing. Anyone who wants to speak to this item, you can come to the lectern. And you have two minutes. **[45:49] Staff:** The sign-up sheet—there's a whole bunch of... maybe they want to go that way. **[45:54] Chris Meyer:** I didn't realize we did it that way. **[46:00] Kimberly Holien:** To be clear, Chair Meyer, I didn't do a separate sign-in sheet for this particular item so I'm happy to give you the sign-in sheets. I don't know if that will make it more or less confusing. For fairness, really, the sign-in sheet is for documentation and to make sure I get spelling correctly for the minutes. But whichever you prefer I'm happy to. **[46:11] Chris Meyer:** If you came to speak to this item, can you raise your hand to give me an idea? Okay. That's not actually that many. So let's have—let's go front-to-back so the ones closest to me you can go first and we'll go back. Go ahead and tell us your name and neighborhood. And you have two minutes. **[46:31] Lydia (Steven Square Community Org):** My name is Lydia, I'm the new Executive Director for Stevens Square Community Organization. So I wanted to read a letter from our board. The board met on August 6th and discussed the company's proposal from the meeting which occurred last Monday, August 5th. And we have several concerns with the owners and property in place. So at this time we deny the request due to inadequate facilities to house 64 people, as mentioned, this was a behavioral facility. **[47:04]** (Speaks further away) Sorry. There would be building costs associated with the proposed business. And they did not have a clear financial proposal to go along with the facility that they are looking to inquire about. We asked questions about where their finances were coming from, how they would maintain and how they would be able to staff. And we were not given any clear information on that as well. They also failed to disclose realistic rehabilitation costs and required codes. It was very premature and rushed decision-making, meaning that we had the meeting last Monday and this Monday they're asking for a permit. We just found out that they were attempting to place a business in the community. Also failure to address how this proposal may impact all businesses nearby; that includes the medical facility right beneath them, that includes the commercial next door and the residential areas. At the time we were having the meeting on August 5th, right across the street there were four drug dealers that were—that is where their location is on a **[48:21]** daily basis. And so we had concerns of when these residents are discharged, how do we know that they will not set up an encampment in any location, because they mentioned that the residents would be coming from St. Paul or St. Louis Park or other neighboring cities. And we have homeless people in nearby local streets that need assistance. And so we were also told that this permit would be pulled, because we did not receive all of the adequate information to move forward. And so I need to address that as well. And they were not detailed standard operating procedures as well. **[49:03] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. Next speaker. **[49:20] Marine Wells:** My name is Marine Wells. I have lived in Stevens Square for 50 years. It's a neighborhood with multiple service programs already. We have group homes, treatment programs, housing for formerly homeless people, low-income high-rises run by Public Housing, and medical clinics and transitional housing already existing in the neighborhood. So this is not a knee-jerk reaction here. I've read the updated proposal for the emergency medical shelter for 64 people. The updated proposal came after the meeting we had with Health Services which the neighborhood requested. Several people wrote letters to the City Council people and then they got in touch with us and then we met with Health Services. The meeting was **[50:06]** people who lived there and some property owners. As Lydia said, we witnessed multiple drug deals going on. This is mostly a commercial corridor in this neighborhood. We were assured that people staying there would be, quote, "locked in" unless going to an appointment, that they would be signing an agreement to this effect but would not be under commitment. This is not stated in the current proposal. The proposal still states that they are allowed to timely vacate between 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. **[50:38]** And that appears to me they are free to come and go during those hours and that's more than just going to an appointment. So I'm wondering why anyone with that level of independence would need to be in a medical facility. Levels are set by the RFP and the DHS. There are continued concerns by the neighbors and the residents that both of them might be negatively impacted. So my last thing is, I'm a social worker, I work in home care, I worked in adult foster care, I worked in the HIV community, and I worked in long-term care. And I really find this proposal to be vague. I think it's very—the state did this, I realize that, they want to get people off the street, it's clear they wanted people to have places to go. But I think this proposal is pretty ill-conceived. So, thank you. **[51:37] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. Next speaker. Go ahead from the back. **[51:41] Mike (1901 Nicollet, LLC):** Good afternoon. Mike. I'm the managing partner of 1901 Nicollet, LLC, which is the owner of a 30,000 square foot mixed use office retail building directly one block directly to the south. So, the 1801 Nicollet—I'm 1901 Nicollet. Not even sure where to begin. I do have a question of staff. If staff could answer this: Is there a distance requirement for recuperative care facility? There is for shelters. **[52:33] Kimberly Holien:** Not at this time. **[52:35] Mike:** Okay. Let me be clear. The use is needed. No one has a problem with the use. The use doesn't belong at 1801 Nicollet. The opposition realizes that we don't have much of a legal argument against the use. So we know that. I just wanted to make sure that you know that we know that we understand that, unfortunately. I'm not sure that the use would have been a permitted use if it hadn't—if it weren't for the new category, because it would have been within the 1,000 foot or 1,300 foot distance requirement, because **[53:37]** there are two shelters within 270 feet. The biggest, most significant problem, and apparently it's still not on everybody's radar: 19th and Nicollet, between 18th and 19th and Nicollet, is one of the four hotspots in the City of Minneapolis for drug activity, for—again—for problems associated with gangs. We've had it—we've endured it for four years. I live it 24/7. We all live it 24/7/365. Not just me. I just happen to have the best view. And it's anywhere between 15 to 25 people. **[54:19]** 24/7/365. There is no day off. Simply said, this is like putting a fox in a henhouse. That's what this is. I mean, it makes no sense. I'm not going—I'm not going to get into the weeds here and argue about some of the things that were just said in the presentation by the applicant about why they chose the building. Yeah. We were told it was available when asked last Tuesday at the meeting that we all attended. I mean, the business plan is—I've been doing this work, commercial real estate work for 30 years. I've written business plans. I've reviewed thousands of business **[55:05]** plans. I have never seen a business plan like this or haven't seen the entire business plan. I don't know if it exists. It is not accurate. The information that we've been given is different—what we've been told in the meeting, then much of it's different than what was presented here by the applicant. I'm not going to go there, that's too messy. As far as the neighborhood goes, the only beneficiary is the gang. They love it. Bring it on. If that's what you want. Thank you. **[55:47] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. Next speaker. **[55:51] Brian Walters:** Hi. Brian Walters, Minneapolis owner and property manager of the Village Center commercial building directly across the street from Nicollet. I just agree with what they said. We met with Connie on Monday last week. She told us architectural plans were not accurate, they were going to be updated. They hadn't completed writing their policies and procedures. She agreed at that meeting to delay this hearing, so she could get that updated and provide us more information. Twice in that meeting, she told us this would be delayed. So we waited. And we found out they were still having this meeting so we did not have time to even inform all of our businesses in the area, all the residents. At a minimum, this application should be postponed to a later date when the applicant is prepared to answer basic questions about how the business is going to operate. Several things she stated and her partner stated now are not what she stated in that Monday meeting, so I want to make that clear. Number one: "To establish, the establishment maintenance and operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health safety comfort or general welfare." I mean, we just have to look at what they're doing here. A real quick Google search will show you that 30% of the homeless population has drug and alcohol addictions. She's digging down numbers that aren't even real. So 20-plus people she's bringing that have drug and alcohol addictions and we are putting them on the doorstep of drug dealers a block away from a liquor store. **[57:31]** This will be detrimental to the health of the individuals they're bringing here for this for-profit business. That's who the health it's detrimental to, in addition to the residents of the neighborhood. The homeless panhandling, public urination, mental health breakdowns—they're detrimental to the comfort and general welfare of the residents and businesses of the neighborhood. The used needles and gun violence from the gangs that sell drugs are detrimental to the health and safety of everyone who lives and works in this neighborhood. These issues will only increase as the homeless population increases. They stated they're not taking people off the street; they are bringing more homeless people to this location that are free to come and go morning to evening. They're increasing the homeless population, bringing 64 homeless people and they can't understand what could be bad about that. The stand on this: We understand there's a need for these services. We have compassion for the homeless population, but we still have common sense as to how they impact the neighborhood we bring them to. This is why there needs to be an ordinance created on the appropriate place to locate these new businesses that's not detrimental to both the neighborhood and the clients they are trying to serve. Thank you. **[58:42] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. Next speaker. **[58:46] Fabrizio:** Good afternoon. My name is Fabrizio, a building owner and developer part of the group that owns and manages two multi-family buildings to the north and northwest of the subject property, as well as a third commercial redevelopment site immediately adjacent to it. Our group's investment in the neighborhood exceeded $60 million over the past five years. I'm concerned, first of all, that neighboring property owners have not had an adequate opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission and the Commission hasn't had enough time to review our materials in opposition to **[59:29]** this proposal. Given how new the license is, like other people have said, we believe it would be premature to make a decision right now. In the first place, I submitted a letter to staff in a timely manner. I don't see it in the packet here. I outlined a lot of points I don't have time to do in two minutes here but I don't know if anybody on the Planning Commission has reviewed that. In that letter, I outlined how it is inconsistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and with the Nicollet corridor as some of the questions have been brought up. This is a commercial corridor called the Goods and Services Corridor for public use, public consumption. This is not **[1:00:14]** a public use. It is not consistent with such a high-traffic corridor like that. Also we were never notified by mail about this proposal as required under zoning code. And we have reason to believe that many of the other neighboring property owners within 350 feet of the subject property were not made aware of it. We request a copy of the address list that the applicant allegedly used to mail out the notices. I only found out about ten days ago about this, and business owners have found the same thing. We also met with the applicant last week just like some other people have said. And I'll just repeat that they did agree to withdraw the application, but weren't able to do **[1:01:01]** that. And then just lastly, there's a lot of questions about operational aspects people have touched on, but I really would appreciate a more comprehensive opportunity to explain some of our questions and to really think through what does the day-to-day, hour-by-hour operations of this building look like and what effects will it have on the immediate surrounding people. Thank you. **[1:01:22] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. Are there any additional speakers to this item? Go ahead and introduce yourself. You have two minutes. **[1:01:38] Rob (Yellow Tree):** Good evening, members of the Commission. Rob, Yellow Tree. In partnership with Sentinel, we're the owners of the three adjacent properties on the other side of the block across the street. While there's a need for this business, it's not the right location for a lot of reasons that you guys were kind of skeptical of too. We had put in a lot of investment in this area to improve the commercial corridor, the retail, the shops that provide services to all the community that's in a walkable location, bus transit. We provided, as he mentioned, over $60 million of investment, two new buildings with 275 housing units and 14 commercial bays. We're starting to get traction to get tenants in some of the vacant spaces **[1:02:24]** that's been going for three or four years now. And again, it's just not the location for this for-profit business. And that's for three reasons. One is just the vulnerability of the area, as they mentioned, even for the individuals there, but also for a lot of things that we're trying to combat that's on the streets to continue to improve this area and increase our investment for a potential $50 million investment that's going to add additional housing and retail to the area. That's very important. Item 2 is absorbing space that should be for other retail spaces, potentially hospice; it's going to take that offline for a building that's immediately in a commercial zone that's surrounded by shops for the **[1:03:11]** neighborhood. That's the biggest issue. And three, just saturation of similar support services, which is in contradiction of Policy 46 in the 2040 Plan, which weighs the need and amount of vulnerable population that resides nearby. There's two homeless spaces just one block to the west: one veteran homeless establishment, and the church that provides outreach and food shelf. So I propose—I do think there should be a moratorium for this implemented immediately for all city applications until an ordinance can be written for this very specific for-profit business as both federal and state funds have incentivized this use. More is coming. We know more is coming. We actually own property adjacent to the application that got pulled. This isn't the first couple or the last couple to come through. There will be many more. That policy needs to talk about the **[1:04:16]** procedures, standard of care, the impacts on the neighborhood, not going in commercial corridors where the buildings can be used for the entire neighborhood, not being taken offline indefinitely with a conditional use permit. Thank you. **[1:04:38] Jacob (Larkin Hoffman):** Looks like it. Chair Meyer, members of the Planning Commission, staff, thank you. My name is Jacob, I'm with the Larkin Hoffman law firm and I'm here with Yellow Tree and Sentinel Management in relation to the property. I think it's clear from the testimony there are a lot of concerns with the neighborhood. I think it's clear there are a lot of answers the applicant hasn't given this body. This is obviously a new license. It comes from the state but that doesn't mean this Planning Commission doesn't have an obligation to make every one of the findings that are required under the permit regulatory scheme. From my perspective, that hasn't been done. In fact, we're woefully inadequate in terms of the materials you've been provided. It seems like the applicant has a tendency to answer whatever they want to hear. "We have a commitment to try to find permanent housing for these people" but no commitment to actually do it. We have no idea what happens when people abandon the program. We've heard some statistics about the number of drug abusers but we didn't hear about the number of drug users and I think that's a clever parsing of the language when we talk about the vulnerable population that's going to be coming to use this site. These are all important questions for a really vulnerable neighborhood. Police resources are taxed and they can't come and police this neighborhood on a daily basis. Business owners are tired. They can't come and keep cleaning off their front doorsteps. We've been told by the applicant that people are **[1:06:03]** going to be "cleaned off" this property. Well, that just releases them into the neighborhood. While people are free to go where they need to go, we need to make sure these people are not causing problems, that the neighborhood can absorb the impact that we're going to have. Frankly, this comes down to a real concentration of poverty in a neighborhood we've heard already has a number of supportive housing facilities. At some point we have to say enough is enough. We have to evaluate what is the gross impact and how can the neighborhood recover from that. I think another thing that's important to keep in mind is the density of housing. If this was any sort of residential project, we'd have a site plan analysis that makes sure the people who live here have reasonable accommodations in which to live. We've got a lot of rooms that don't have windows. We have windows that don't open. We've got no outdoor space on the property. No shade, no benches, no place to sit. I think those are some real concerns you have to look at when you look at permitting for facilities. When you explore a future ordinance, keep those things in mind because it does impact people who live here, their interpersonal relationships, and the way they behave in the neighborhood. So with that I ask you to deny this application as requested by so many people in this room today. And if not, you attach the conditions that are proposed in the letter we submitted and drill down on the local details. Thank you. **[1:07:22] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. Any other speakers today? Oh, sorry. If commissioners have questions for you they can ask them, but until then, no. Is there anyone else who wanted to speak for the first time? All right. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Commissioners. Commissioner Conley. **[1:08:02] Commissioner Conley:** Thank you. You know, one of the things that I noticed with this item is that typically as a body we'll see plans, so we will see site plans. We'll see, like, what the vision is for the building. We'll see green space, we'll see what the fence will look like. We'll see what the ideas you have for remodeling, what the building, renderings. So my question is, and maybe this is for staff, maybe this is for the applicants: where are the renderings to give us an idea of what this could look like in the future? **[1:08:36] Lindsay Silas:** I can answer that. So, with existing buildings we don't require renderings unless there's significant modifications proposed. We require photos of the existing building, which have been provided here. They also did some site plans and we added a condition of approval asking for additional landscaping on their site plan in order to comply with our site plan review standards. But this is not a site plan review application. It's a conditional use permit. So there's not as much scrutiny in terms of building design or site layout as there would be for site plan review. **[1:09:10] Chris Meyer:** Kimberly, can you also answer, are there any location restrictions for this? And also can you address the concern that was brought up about what mailing requirements were there and were they met? **[1:09:25] Kimberly Holien:** Yes. On the spacing, there is a 350-foot spacing requirement from other emergency shelters and overnight shelters. And that spacing requirement has been met with this application. As far as the notice requirements, I actually received a phone call from—I believe one of the speakers, one of the attorneys, contacted me. We did verify that public notice hearings were sent. Verified on the list that the address we have on file was correct. So those notices go out fifteen days before the meeting. They go out to the neighborhood group 21 days before the meeting. **[1:10:11] Chris Meyer:** All right. Commissioner Thompson. **[1:10:11] Commissioner Thompson:** Thank you. I remembered the question I was going to ask. I asked it of staff, and then a lot of people mentioned it so I would like to ask it of the applicant. What, if any, is the monetary incentive from the state to place this, A, at all, and B, within the city? **[1:10:33] Lindsay Silas:** I can answer since that question originally came to staff and I don't know that we answered it. That's certainly not one of the findings that we need to make. I think as Commissioner Conley stated earlier, from a county-wide/state-wide perspective, there's been an identified need for this type of use. I am aware that there are applications being pursued across the metro, but in terms of any sort of, like, financial incentive or monetary analysis on this application, that's not something that would be relevant to consider. **[1:11:05] Commissioner Thompson:** Is that something that the City of Minneapolis will consider in the future? **[1:11:08] Lindsay Silas:** No. **[1:11:09] Commissioner Thompson:** Because to me it's completely pertinent, because most people put up a business and then they have to do their own business plan because they have to sell goods or provide a service. Most non-profits have an incredibly comprehensive business plan that includes a board. I asked staff about the things that need to be fulfilled, and they told me the applicant. And I go to the applicant and they've only answered three, and of the three they were very incomplete. So is there a business plan that would be put forth by this? Are you guys a registered non-profit? Are you 501(c)(3) or are you an LLC? **[1:12:01] Connie Melchizedek:** An LLC. **[1:12:02] Commissioner Thompson:** An LLC. So that I find challenging that the city hasn't done their due diligence in bringing this forward because I find that incredibly challenging in this corridor. I don't think it's a great leap to know that I don't support this idea. Certainly not in its current manifestation. I definitely see the need in our community, and I don't want to be someone that's a gatekeeper on people getting help. I just don't know that they need it in this location and I really am challenged by, frankly, the sloppiness of the application. I would either—I could support this if they went back to the drawing board and maybe had things a little more fleshed out with the neighbors, but I find that incredibly challenging to support on this basis. **[1:12:47] Chris Meyer:** Hi. Thank you so much. Commissioner Olson. **[1:12:48] Commissioner Olson:** Thank you. I want to say thanks to staff for giving us the reminder of what the role of the Planning Commission is and what sort of requirements there are of the applicant. And I agree with staff that the conditions for the permit have been met. A lot of the things we talked about tonight just really aren't in the scope or the role of the Planning Commission. And I know that this is a need that we have in our community. So I'm going to make a motion to adopt staff recommendation. **[1:13:22] Chris Meyer:** Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion on that motion? **[1:13:28] Commissioner Wagner:** I guess I'm going to just say that I'm also concerned about the location, and especially since it's kind of something that can go all over the city and we're first discussing it now here. It feels like a huge decision and a huge precedent because I think the city is really struggling with creating commercial corridors that are lively and vibrant. And I had the same feelings about the Lake street one. And I am not convinced that findings one or two have been met. So I probably will—I will be voting to deny today. **[1:14:26] Chris Meyer:** I'll make my comments, I guess. They're for both this and the other application we received. We received lots of different letters saying different types of things that shouldn't be near—like the shelter shouldn't be near residential, shouldn't be near commercial, shouldn't be near schools, shouldn't be near bars. Very few people were saying what they *should* be located near to. For the other project that was withdrawn, a lot of people were saying that it should be located near medical facilities. We heard for this one that it would be detrimental to that medical facility. So it feels like we're hearing that for everything. And it would be really helpful for people to articulate where they *do* think that these are appropriate. I see Commissioner Thompson raising your hand, and you can answer that. But when I'm thinking about the findings that we need to make, specifically the first one that people have addressed: "The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare." When I'm thinking about that question, I'm thinking about it in the context of the alternative of doing nothing. We have a lot of encampments where there are no staff supervising anybody and lots of complaints about those. And it seems to be a net improvement to me to allow the facilities to accommodate those people. So I feel the findings are met so I will vote in favor of the motion. Commissioner Thompson. **[1:15:57] Commissioner Thompson:** May I just say, because I appreciate the commentary and I do think it's really important. This is a state initiative; it's not the City of Minneapolis. And we have unique challenges that the state doesn't. So I'll tell you plainly, a lot of these services and a lot of these facilities, people would be well-served to be in the suburbs. I know that I don't need to go down my own people that I've worked with that have been in these situations. And they have clearly stated that physically being away from the city is useful for them. So I find it—I just find for me personally, because this is not a city thing, this is a new DHS thing. I would very much encourage applicants to say, hey, can we find a spot, if we already have transport options where you have like the med-van or whatever to take people. So since you said it, and you asked out there, I'm going to answer out there: I completely agree we need these, and I am challenged sometimes to wonder if the City of Minneapolis or St. Paul, to be plain, need to continue to be the ones providing it since it is the State of Minnesota that needs to find the solutions. So that's just to answer your question. It's not that I'm heartless. **[1:17:16] Chris Meyer:** I appreciate the answer. All right. Commissioner Conley. **[1:17:18] Commissioner Conley:** Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm also going to reiterate what the Planning Commission is here to do. We're not here to decide where a space like this is supposed to exist. I have seen Nicollet Avenue 20 years ago, and they were thriving black businesses along that corridor between about 17th to 20th that are gone now for density's sake. So I don't want there to be any confusion that we should have—that this should be a space of density, when someone is trying to meet a need that the City of Minneapolis has addressed is a need. The City of Minneapolis has addressed this need with the County and with the State, and the State has taken action. The State did not say that these should be confined to the City of Minneapolis. With these permits, anyone from across the State of Minnesota—and Minneapolis has a conditional use permit—can get licensing for one of these facilities. So a space like this can exist in Shakopee, 18th and Nicollet, it can exist in St. Cloud. This is to address a statewide issue. And I want to make that abundantly clear that the Planning Commission is not the space for us to decide where people need to be to receive treatment. We are here to make sure that every single piece of this permit has been met and we vote on that. Again, Mr. Chair, you mentioned that we can set conditions as well. That's part of our rules as a body, and I think that needs to be understood as we prepare to vote on this, because there will be more. There will be more all over the city. And we have to decide: are we going to say that treatment spaces are good spaces for communities? Or is the alternative encampments, blocks of concrete all over vacant land in the city? Is that an acceptable alternative? We have to think about that just as a society. But as the Planning Commission, we're going to vote on whether or not this meets the specific criteria before us. So I want to make that abundantly clear. I want to drive that home with you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. **[1:19:35] Chris Meyer:** Thank you, Commissioner Conley. Commissioner Thompson. **[1:19:38] Commissioner Thompson:** Thank you. I would just like to say I concur with Commissioner Conley; that is our scope. 100%. It's not for me to decide who brings applications. That's not what I was intending to say, nor does Minneapolis *not* need these things. I will say the state does say—and they laid out six criteria of which the burden has not been met. And that's the way I read it. There was not an attempt to meet the criteria that I was able to see. Thank you. I've said my peace. Thank you. **[1:20:07] Chris Meyer:** I just want to say there were six they listed. **[1:20:09] Commissioner Thompson:** Sorry. I missed a bullet point. **[1:20:11] Chris Meyer:** All right. No further questions. Clerk, please call the roll. **[1:20:26] Clerk:** Since we have a few absences, I'll start with Commissioner Conley. **[1:20:30] Commissioner Conley:** Aye. **[1:20:32] Clerk:** Jones. **[1:20:34] Commissioner Jones:** No. **[1:20:36] Clerk:** Olson. **[1:20:38] Commissioner Olson:** Aye. **[1:20:40] Clerk:** Thompson. **[1:20:42] Commissioner Thompson:** No. **[1:20:43] Clerk:** Wagner. **[1:20:45] Commissioner Wagner:** Aye. **[1:20:47] Clerk:** Meyer. **[1:20:49] Chris Meyer:** Aye. **[1:20:51] Clerk:** There are four ayes and two nays. **[1:20:53] Chris Meyer:** That motion is adopted. All right. We'll proceed now to item number 10, 3800 Third Avenue South. Staff is Hillary Dvorak. **[1:21:07] Kimberly Holien:** Chair Meyer, while Hillary is coming up—I was going to interject earlier—I believe I said that we send notices to property owners within 350 feet ten days before the meeting. It's fifteen, but I've been talking a lot about different public hearing notice timelines today. So I just wanted to correct myself on the record. **[1:21:24] Chris Meyer:** Thank you for that correction. If people want to have conversations, if they can move out to the hallway as we proceed to the next item. Thank you. **[1:22:15] Hillary Dvorak (Principal Planner):** Sorry. I was just making sure the applicants got in from the overflow. I'm a Principal Planner in the Community Planning and Economic Development department of the city. I am here to speak on item number 10. This is an application by Anthony Taylor with the Cultural Wellness Center for Dreamland on 38th. It is located at 3800 Third Avenue South. This site is on CM2 and the corridor for overlay district. The applicant is proposing to construct a new four-story, approximately 11,000 square foot building on this site. I will pause for a moment. (Disturbance in the back) I wasn't sure what was happening in the back of me. **[1:23:12] Chris Meyer:** There were people here for an item that was approved on the consent agenda. I think they were just here generally to support. **[1:23:14] Hillary Dvorak:** I was not sure what was happening. The Cultural Wellness Center is a cultural health and wellness facility that offers research-based classes, coaching, consulting, and certifications that support people, families, communities, and organizations in developing culturally-based solutions to real-world problems. The site will be the Cultural Wellness Center's headquarters. The building will include office space, a living library and community cultural archive, catering kitchen, and event space. The use is defined as a community center in the Minneapolis zoning code. This is the site plan for the project. The front yard by original planning is Third Avenue. The corner side area is East 38th Street. This is the building footprint. The main entrance into the building is on 38th Street. There is a transformer located towards the back and then there are trash and recycling receptacles here. And there are bike racks. So that is just a picture of the site plan. There are three applications for this project. The first application is a front yard setback variance from 18.1 feet to 14.1 feet. The required front yard along Third Avenue is the setback of the adjacent residential structure for the first 25 feet north of the south interior property line. So I'll point that out because that is somewhat hard to understand. But here is the property line. This is the adjacent structure located 18.1 feet back. You draw a box up 25 feet from that interior property line for the setback of this building. So for 18.1 feet from Third Avenue and up to 25 feet is the required front yard setback. And I'm sorry, I should have put a red box on here, but it's about in this location. Challenges exist in compliance with the ordinance because of circumstances unique to the property. The property is only 39.88 feet wide in the north-south direction. The proposed projection, which is this element on the rendering in the building—the orange element—the proposed projection is located 22.35 feet north of the south interior property line into the required front yard. The proposed projection is located on the second and third floors of the building, substantially similar to a bay window. Bay windows are a permanent obstruction in a required front yard when they are less than 50 square feet in area and extend five feet into the required front yard provided the base shall not serve as an extension of the finished floor. The proposed projection is less than 50 square feet in area and projects four feet into the required front yard. However, the proposed projection extends from the floor to the ceiling as an extension of the finished floor. The applicant is proposing to use the property in a manner in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. To control for the orderly use and development of land and minimize conflicts among land uses by regulating the dimension and use of yards in order to provide adequate light, air, open space and separation of uses. The proposed projection will not impact light, air, open space or separation of uses for the adjacent residential property to the south. The projection in the required front yard is substantially similar to a bay window which is a permitted encroachment. Granting this variance will not alter the essential character of this locality. Because the setback of the proposed building and the setback of the adjacent residential structure to the south are the same, the proposed projection will barely be visible, if at all, from those within the adjacent residential structure. We are recommending approval of the front yard variance. The second application is the south interior side yard setback. The required south interior side yard setback is 10 feet from the windows of the adjacent residential structure. So I want to explain: the building wall of the proposed building needs to be 10 feet from windows in the adjacent building. That is the only required setback in this situation. The adjacent residential structure is located between 4.6 and 4.8 feet from the shared interior property line. The applicant is proposing to locate the building between 3.4 and 3.9 feet from the shared interior property line. The proposed building would be located between 7.10 and 8.5 feet from the windows in the adjacent building. Challenges do not exist in complying with the ordinance because of circumstances unique to the property. While the property is only 39.88 feet wide in the north-south direction, the building could be designed to be 10 feet between it and the adjacent residential windows to the south. The proposed building is 36 feet wide and located up to the corner side property line along East 38th Street which is a designated Goods and Services Corridor. The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner, but the proposal is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and the comprehensive plan. Again, the intent of the controls is to provide for the orderly development and use of land and to minimize conflicts among land uses by regulating the dimension and use of yards in order to provide adequate light, air, open space and separation of uses. Additionally, interior side yard setbacks adjacent to residential windows are intended to protect the existing residential windows in accordance with the building code. While the proposed setback will not impact light, air, or open space for the adjacent residential property to the south, the proposed setback will impact the adjacent resident windows. Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or those utilizing the property. The proposed building would be located between 3.4 and 3.9 feet from the south interior property line. In contrast, the existing building is located between 1 and 3 feet from the south interior property line. The adjacent residential property sits slightly lower than the subject property and between the adjacent residential structure and shared interior property line is the sidewalk and a 4-foot high chain-link fence on a retaining wall. These elements, except for the portion of the existing fence, will be maintained after construction. We are recommending denial of that application. The last application is site plan review. The project does meet all the site plan review standards except for two. They do need alternative compliance for blank walls. The elevator and stair mechanical enclosure, which is this element on the building, is 26 feet wide in all directions—26 feet square. Given the location of the blank walls on the fourth floor and the fact that they are only 26 feet wide, we are recommending that you grant alternative compliance. The only other item that needs alternative compliance and site plan review is the location of the entrance. Again, I had mentioned at the beginning the front yard is technically Third Avenue. However, 38th is a Goods and Services Corridor. The code would require that the door face Third Avenue. However, given the designation of 38th and that it's a Goods and Services Corridor, they have elected to locate the entrance on that street and we are recommending alternative compliance given the commercial nature of 38th Street. This concludes my presentation. I will stand for any questions. **[1:31:51] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. Questions of commissioners? Not seeing any. So I will open the public hearing. Is the applicant here to speak? Go ahead and introduce yourselves and give us your presentation. **[1:32:11] Kristin Murray (Element Commercial Real Estate):** I'm Kristin Murray with Element Commercial Real Estate, serving as owners' representatives for the Cultural Wellness Center. (Speaks closer to mic) I'm mainly going to manage the slides. **[1:32:32] Anthony Taylor:** Good evening. I'm Anthony Taylor. Thank you, Chair, thank you, Commissioners. I'm with the Cultural Wellness Center. **[1:32:41] James Garrett Jr.:** James Garrett Jr., the managing partner of Formula Architects, I'm the design architect of this project. **[1:32:51] Anthony Taylor:** All right. And thank you. I thought it would be really important for you to really understand some of the context of how we got to here. This has been in the works for at this point eight years. And we are excited because the team that we put together is actually grounded in really many organizations that are deeply connected to South Minneapolis. And we are really excited to bring a question of the Cultural Wellness Center and really why 38th Street. We have been growing as an organization in South Minneapolis for 26 years. We started out primarily focused on health equity and challenges and how to centralize and really began a body of work there in partnership with many organizations in the South Side, including the city, the county, with a very particular focus, and came up with a concept of cultural wellness as a result of that work. On 38th Street is more than an idea. 38th Street dating back to 1937 was identified as an economic corridor tied to the African-American community and most importantly, the name Dreamland was brought to that corner by a refugee—Anthony—who moved to Minneapolis and opened the Dreamland Cafe in 1937 on 38th and 4th as the first integrated restaurant liquor license in the Twin Cities. It has a long legacy of labor work and really 38th and 4th served as a foundation of an economic corridor for South Minneapolis and especially for the African-American community. And we are bringing this legacy forward, not just to reclaim 38th and 4th and 38th Street as a legacy African-American district. This aligned with the designation by the city, the state around cultural districts as well as a cultural context study that's being done and continues to be done to recapture the legacy of African-American contributions to the Twin Cities. Dreamland on 38th also represents a catalyst project identified in the 38th Street Thrive project to really link what has been happening along 38th Street. One of the major elements of our location is that we are a pinnacle and pivotal location to reconnect 38th Street because of the damage done by 35W. We very **[1:35:05]** rarely actively understand the impact of 35W on the economic vitality of South Minneapolis and black life there. We are partnering in a very exciting way. We actually have played a role as a national program office for Robert Wood Johnson running a national health equity program. And we have team members there this week in town. We are partnering with the Minnesota Historical Society launching what we are talking about as "outposts" where community members are able to have access to the resources of the state that have actually validated and documented the history of all of Minnesota. Within there is a significant continuous presence of African-American people in building Minnesota as a state. We are serving as a place where community members meet, celebrate family legacy. Food is an integral part of our work, and most importantly, the work within Minnesota's Historical Society—really a community cultural archive—will be something that's exciting. We are also partnering with Northwestern University of Health Sciences, and we are offering again a workforce economic development opportunity for community members who are pursuing cultural health practices where they will actually be studying there but also building their businesses. We know that beauty, health, and really alternative strategies around being are a growing model. They are significantly viable jobs. They have economic vitality. We will be looking at 20-plus new jobs, five new businesses, 16 jobs all anchored here. And then our decision around our team of architects, construction—and we are very excited about our construction because part of this is supporting viable economic partnership that will happen in our community. As part of the 38th Street Thrive project, this is a catalyst project linking the projects that are happening along 38th Street. And one other last part of this in terms of not just cultural preserve legacy as well as advocacy: this is also a direct link to the future international destination at George Floyd Square. We are actively as a community organization working in that envisioning process. And we see the ability to link the economic vitality along 38th Street—that all of this is connective. So our ability to connect across 35W, down 38th Street all the way down to Cedar Avenue, makes the project again a catalyst project, moving business, moving economics down the corridor. **[1:37:51] James Garrett Jr.:** Dreamland also supports the 38th Thrive plan. Art integrated into the facade, working with local community artists, Roger Cummings, to do something really spectacular and tremendous and integrate that into the actual fabric of the building itself. Integrating bike racks, new trees—and this building was noted specifically in the Thrive 38 plan. So this is something that relates to what's going on in the community and seeks to take it to the next level. Also as a part of the 2040 plan, supporting 2040 goals of a cultural use, which was laid out for this specific location. Activating the site that had been vacant for most of my adult life and probably will remain vacant for another generation if we don't take action here. And the focused use of the existing space and creating something that is based on the principles of transit-oriented development and resilient development. So, a couple of the conditions that we want to look at. The condition in question is in this photo on the left. The existing building is only one foot from the property line and **[1:39:14]** approximately 4 and a half feet or so from the existing building. So we'll be more than doubling that space and creating a much wider separation between the buildings although we will fall short in that respect. The amount that we're going to fall short in our design is approximately the width of one of these ceiling tiles. So I mean that's really what we're talking about here. Also just looking to even out the grades and make it one continuous grade through the back so it will be easier to access for the fire department or for anyone else that needs to go back there and pass through. As you can see, the site has a number of constraints. The biggest constraint is the width. The width of the site being just under 40 feet makes it virtually unusable or unattractive as a residential property; generally we need 60 feet to get a double-loaded residential corridor. So it will never be residential here. And with the approximately 40-foot footprint, we're doing a whole lot in a very, very tight urban space with a 36-foot wide building footprint. You can also see that we are tied to the zoning setback on one side, and on the alley side, we are trying to work through the requirements of having our electrical transformer and a number of other things that are required by law and by code to be there. And so we're kind of sandwiched on both sides, and then we're coming as close as we can to 38th, and we're sort of running out of space on the other **[1:41:08]** side. So that's the reality of the condition that we have. Again, it will be significantly better than it currently is, but it will not reach the 10-foot setback requirement. It will fall short about a ceiling tile. This is just looking at the placement of windows on the back of the site, comparing the location of windows of the existing building and the location of windows that we have on the south elevation of the proposed building. And so the square windows are essentially the windows on sort of the traditionally-shaped building and then the more rectangular windows are the ones that are being proposed on our building. You can see there's three or four windows that might possibly be nature-ing each other where there might be a potential privacy situation being that a couple feet less distance than what we would like to be. But for the most part, it's very minimal and minor. And I think we can—we're flexible, we're creative in terms of working around, changing window shapes or heights or just being flexible to make sure that we're having the least impact as possible on the existing neighbor. Thank you for hearing us. And we'd love to receive any questions or comments. Thank you. **[1:42:07] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. Can you go back to the last image? Can you describe that more? **[1:42:08] James Garrett Jr.:** Yeah, the square windows are essentially the windows on sort of the traditionally-shaped building and then the more rectangular windows are the ones that are being proposed on our building. And so these are the windows that are going to be facing each other. **[1:42:46] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. Commissioner Wagner. **[1:42:48] Commissioner Wagner:** Thank you, Chair Meyer. Thank you for the presentation. I'm impressed with everything you've put together so far. I'm wondering if you could speak a little bit to—I'm assuming you had some conversations with staff about that 3-foot variance for this variance, and about—could you speak to your consideration of adjusting your existing plan to meet that and not go for that variance and how that—kind of like where the squeeze point is in your building why you're not able to conform with that setback. **[1:43:25] James Garrett Jr.:** Yes. Essentially, we have a space that is about half as wide as the room that we're in right now. That's our site and we're working with very tight conditions. And we're trying to achieve an event space, a cultural exchange space, a corridor, two stairs, three accessible bathrooms and a catering kitchen in a site that is literally half as wide as this room. And so it's a domino effect. It's Jenga. You pull the one piece out and everything collapses. We've been working on this for a better part of a decade and we are as tight and efficient in terms of providing the best possible quality of **[1:44:11]** space, functionality and meeting all the interior code requirements, let alone all the exterior requirements. There's probably about 100 different conditions that we are meeting. And there's a couple where we're kind of falling short. But we're shooting for a world-class building. We're not shooting for just whatever. We're shooting for a world-class building because we believe that's what the neighborhood deserves, the community deserves, and this organization deserves and so when you shoot high, it's complicated. You pull this, this collapses, this isn't wide enough, this isn't up to ADA code, you know. It's literally a fine-tuning of a very complicated series of conditions. And in order to maximize what we're doing for the community and maximize what we're doing for the client, it's like, this little strip on the backside is kind of just... yeah, it's just there. **[1:45:14] Commissioner Wagner:** So, in the letter that you have submitted, I just want to make sure I'm interpreting it right. This is on page 15 of the packet. You identified proposed practical difficulties. That's applying to item B that your letter describes? **[1:45:30] Hillary Dvorak:** I can clarify. The findings that were submitted were written for both variances in each finding. So finding one has responses for both. It's all in the same one with some creative writing going into the staff report. **[1:46:06] Commissioner Wagner:** Okay. So maybe Hillary, can you tell us why you think that those practical difficulties apply to item A but don't apply to item B and can we get after that—we can have a response from the applicant about why you *do* think it applies to both. So Hillary first. **[1:46:26] Hillary Dvorak:** Sure. There was a plan that the applicants had—a site plan that showed, and I think to Commissioner Wagner's question specifically, is that the site is constrained. The building can't move any closer to Third Avenue or an additional variance would be needed. The projection is already in the required front yard. So that is set unless they were to exceed that setback. The building can't move north any further because it is up to that front property line allowing 8 inches for the sliding doors along 38th to operate. And then there is an accelerator requirement as we have learned in recent years with variances of transformers; **[1:47:13]** there's a 10-foot requirement from the building to the transformer pad. So in this configuration, this is also a set condition. And so for those reasons, the applicant is explaining that they can't move the building further north. And that interior to the building, there are things that are fixed within the building, the corridor and whatnot. But I would let them go through that in more detail if you wanted them to go over that again. But those are the issues that the applicant was trying to express for the unique challenge. Sorry. We keep changing the rules. Unique challenges, I think. Sorry. **[1:47:51] Kimberly Holien:** So, I think Hillary was trying to summarize what the applicants' argument was. I think it was—I'm not sure if that's what your question was, because that's the way the applicant had formulated their findings. The staff findings found—so for the front yard setback variance, which is a very small portion of the building that's in a very small portion of the setback that we found—there is a practical difficulty given the unique design factor and the allowance in the code for other similar types of encroachments that this does not exactly meet the **[1:48:37]** definition of but is substantially similar to. However, along the south side yard setback, we were not able to find that there were similar unique circumstances. And I would say even more significantly on the interior side yard setback, the spirit and intent of the ordinance is not met in that the exact language that we put in there when we did the land use rezoning study for the built form rezoning study was to protect adjacent residential windows, which this would not do. **[1:49:07] Chris Meyer:** Okay. Thank you. Let's have the applicant respond to that. Make your case for why you think there is that practical difficulty. **[1:49:15] James Garrett Jr.:** Well, without trying to explain 30 years of architectural experience to everybody here, basically there's a number of different factors and challenges with working on a very tight urban lot. This lot has a number of constraints in every direction. **[1:49:40]** And in order to make the interior spaces as functional as necessary for the client to occupy in the way they're going to serve the community, there are minimum dimensions that are needed for spaces, plus there are minimum dimensions that are necessary for corridors and hallways to make them accessible. Plus there are minimum dimensions and turn radii for bathrooms to be accessible. It goes on and on and on. And so the best possible solution that we could come up with in almost eight years of working on this is what we presented. And, again, we're **[1:50:26]** trying to maximize the value for our client, trying to maximize the value for the community. And we're more than willing to work with the local adjacent landowner or whomever else that can work with the window situation. I think there's some creative ways that we can address it. But what we're presenting here is our best possible use of this very difficult existing urban space. **[1:50:59] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. Commissioner Olson. **[1:51:11] Commissioner Olson:** I'm realizing maybe this is a bad question. I'm just wondering if there was ever a consideration to just add another story instead of coming out the back, and I don't even know if that would be allowed. But I'm just curious if you looked at that. **[1:51:24] James Garrett Jr.:** We have looked at that. Funding is a challenge. And so we have to be realistic and work within the budget of the client. We would love to do a taller, more dense building. But the budget does not support that at this time. **[1:51:35] Anthony Taylor:** And really as kind of the client, I'll say one of the things that really is an unspoken constraint is that we have been very disciplined on the budget. It has really been a very serious act of discipline to say X, right, to sit with the architect and say X and at the same time say "No, but we want this." And that's really been the bottom line. And I think that what this final delivery of this particular floor plan, this particular footprint and this number of floors is really a result of that discipline and really the creative output from our architecture team. And I **[1:52:21]** think that's really where we are right now. **[1:52:33] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Seeing no others. Is anyone else here to speak to this item today? Thank you for your presentation. Anyone else here to speak to it? All right. I'm not seeing anyone. So we'll close the public hearing. Commissioners. Questions or comments? Commissioner Wagner. **[1:52:48] Commissioner Wagner:** Thank you, Chair Meyer. Thank you for the presentation. I'm impressed with everything you've put together so far. To me this is a great project. I'm definitely going to be supportive of items A and C. To me this comes down to the variance for item B. I find the applicant's reasoning fairly compelling. I think that development on 40-foot wide lots in Minneapolis is extremely hard to build functional floor plans. I want to hear from the rest of the commissioners on this item. I think that if they were to shrink the floor plate, it becomes significantly less functional. And I believe in the legal findings, there's a phrase here: "the unique circumstances... are not based on economic considerations alone." The applicant just mentioned that they could have gone taller and could've built a taller building perhaps but not for budget reasons. But for me, if you shrink this building, that floor plate becomes significantly less functional. It's not a functional floor plate on a 40-foot wide lot if you make this building smaller. So I'm leaning towards allowing item B but I want to hear from other commissioners because I really respect your opinions and respect what you have to say as well. **[1:54:12] Chris Meyer:** Before I go on to anyone else, Commissioner Conley has notified me she has to abstain from this one. If you want to speak to that. **[1:54:18] Commissioner Conley:** Yes. Sorry. Due to my affiliation with the project I do need to abstain from the vote and discussion. **[1:54:27] Commissioner Olson:** I also believe that development on urban land is really complicated and I applaud everybody who tries to do it. And I think again that the small enough footage that you're asking for that would make the building much more functional and I am also in support of approving the encroachment. And I also happen to live like literally four feet from my neighbor, and that's the way it is in the city. I can reach out and touch them. **[1:55:12] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. My inclination was similar to Commissioner Wagner's—like my first thought reading this was that it seemed to me that the same practical difficulty that applied to item A makes sense to me for item B because in looking at it holistically, looking at what we can fit in there, I think that's justified. And also the information that the adjacent property is much closer to the property line than this building would be even with this variance. So I think that would be my proposal is to pass items **[1:56:01]** A, B, and C. And basically cross-applying the language for the practical difficulty from item A to item B and saying that the practical difficulty is because of the narrowness of the lot. **[1:56:16] Commissioner Wagner:** Can we move that as a motion? **[1:56:18] Chris Meyer:** Yeah, we could. **[1:56:19] Commissioner Wagner:** Then I will. (Laughs) **[1:56:22] Chris Meyer:** All right. Is there a second to that motion? **[1:56:24] Commissioner Olson:** Second. **[1:56:26] Chris Meyer:** All right. Is there further discussion on that? Does anyone need me to clarify what the motion is? **[1:56:35] Kimberly Holien:** Could we also get some findings for finding number 2? **[1:56:40] Commissioner Wagner:** I can add some comments. I've never made findings before so we'll see how this goes. I think that this is related to it being a 40-foot lot. I think that the setback requirement for larger—like if you're joining three lots and building an apartment building you should conform with this requirement, because you have 120 feet of width to work with. And when you're working with a 40-foot wide lot it's extremely difficult to build a functional building with the width available. I think the finding is related to the width and narrowness of the lot being 40 feet. **[1:57:42] Chris Meyer:** My recommended finding would simply be that it is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan—that there is adequate light and open space and separation of uses with the variance, that there's still sufficient space between them. All right. Commissioner Jones. **[1:58:04] Commissioner Jones:** No, I was just saying... I don't know how I'm going to vote yet but I'm almost skeptical of the findings. But I do applaud the project and the presentation and the findings the commissioners have made. And I would be happy if this project was approved. **[1:58:22] Chris Meyer:** Would you like us to separate the items for a different vote? **[1:58:24] Commissioner Jones:** No. **[1:58:25] Chris Meyer:** Okay. Would anyone else like to separate the items? Okay. If there's no further discussion then we're going to vote to approve all three applications. Commissioner Thompson, you have your light on. Is that for the vote? **[1:58:48] Commissioner Thompson:** Ready to vote. **[1:58:50] Chris Meyer:** Okay. All right. Clerk, please call the roll. **[1:58:58] Clerk:** Commissioner Conley. **[1:59:03] Commissioner Conley:** Abstain. **[1:59:04] Clerk:** Thank you. Jones. **[1:59:06] Commissioner Jones:** Yes. **[1:59:08] Clerk:** Olson. **[1:59:10] Commissioner Olson:** Aye. **[1:59:31] Clerk:** Thompson. **[1:59:33] Commissioner Thompson:** Aye. **[1:59:35] Clerk:** Wagner. **[1:59:37] Commissioner Wagner:** Aye. **[1:59:39] Clerk:** Meyer. **[1:59:41] Chris Meyer:** Aye. **[1:59:43] Clerk:** That's five ayes and one abstention. **[1:59:45] Chris Meyer:** That motion is adopted. With that we will proceed onto our last discussion item, item 11, which I have pulled in part because I'm excited about it. I think it needs some public attention and I also wanted to make some comments on the record about what I hope follows with this. Seeing as it was going to be on consent before I pulled it. We don't need a long presentation, but Jason, if you can give us a brief one about what's coming with this zoning code text amendment. **[2:00:15] Commissioner Conley:** May I interject? I never in a million years anticipated we were going to go this long so I do have to leave relatively soon. I'm the one who made it long earlier. So. I just thought I'd throw that out there. Thank you. **[2:00:35] Jason Wittenburg (Planning Manager):** All right. I will try to be brief. This is a zoning code text amendment introduced by Councilmember Cashman and Councilmember Rainville. I'm Jason Wittenburg, Planning Manager in CPED. The intent of this ordinance is to remove barriers to converting existing commercial or non-residential buildings of any kind to residential use. This was first presented to Planning Commission at Committee of the Whole on July 18 but we did not have draft language for the amendment at that time. We are of course not the only place across the country dealing with this issue and giving it a lot of thought. **[2:01:16]** Changes to the marketplace in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in underutilization of office spaces and a variety of other commercial structures. The resulting effects in our city are felt particularly acutely in downtown, but really are an issue across the city as well and are widespread. So the changes that we're recommending are not specific to downtown but apply to all zoning districts in the city. We don't want to give the impression that the result of these regulatory changes will be that you will see a flood of proposals to convert buildings to residential use. There are a **[2:02:03]** variety of impediments to converting offices in particular to residential use; some of those go even beyond financial constraints. But certainly, it's our intent to relatively quickly remove as many barriers as we can that exist in the zoning code. So there are three parts to this amendment: Site Plan Review, Travel Management, and Inclusionary Zoning. Site Plan Review is an application that applies any time you are establishing residential uses in the city. Those typically go to a public hearing when applying for 20 units or more. The proposal is any size of **[2:02:50]** conversion would be an administrative review rather than only projects of 20 units or less. Site plan review is really most beneficial when you're looking at new construction and the building placement circulation—that kind of thing. There's less value to having a big public dialogue for a conversion of an existing building, because a lot of those things of course are really fixed. Travel Management: this is the city's process for ensuring that new projects meet the city's transportation goals from 50 units to 250 units. So quite large projects can be a minor review. The proposed **[2:03:37]** residential TDM is that we would conduct a minor travel demand management review for all buildings that acquire a residential use. This has included a discussion with Public Works about the value of the traffic study involved in a major TDM. And they recognize that there's often relatively little value involved in that traffic study that is the difference between a minor and a major TDM. But in important circumstances where the city finds that there really would be value to a traffic study in a conversion, the ordinance does give us the ability to require that on a discretionary basis, on a case-by-case basis. And finally the Inclusionary Zoning component of this: the inclusionary zoning ordinance in place right now took effect January of 2020. A great deal of feasibility analysis went into that adoption of that ordinance. It also focused largely, however, on new construction, and feasibility of conversions was not a significant part of that analysis. We expect that that analysis will happen soon or in the future. The resulting inclusionary zoning requirements were as you see on the screen: 8% of units affordable at 60% **[2:05:07]** area median income or 4% at 30% area median income, or pay in lieu on-site. There are parts of that ordinance that are phased in their implementation, including smaller scale projects of under 50 units and condominium projects for sale units. We're proposing to add this as essentially another part of the phased part of the ordinance—suspending implementation of inclusionary zoning on inclusionary projects for a period of five years. That is my summary. You should have three letters of support that we have received from the public; we have received no written or verbal opposition that I'm aware of. **[2:05:59] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. So one question before we go to the public hearing. At Committee of the Whole, there was discussion about limiting it to downtown or applying it citywide and my read as written is this applies citywide. Is that a correct read? **[2:06:15] Jason Wittenburg:** That's correct. **[2:06:21] Chris Meyer:** Any other questions? Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing. Would anyone here like to speak to this item? I see a couple people. Go ahead. Tell us your name and you have two minutes. **[2:06:35] Max:** Good evening. I'm Max. I own a property at 501 Royal Avenue—not downtown, it is immediately adjacent to downtown in the North Loop—and I'm currently in the process of converting it for the third time to a new use. I'm here to speak in favor of allowing and streamlining these processes of conversion, because in my experience, it makes it easier for a developer or redeveloper to be able to come in and really salvage an immense amount of value that already exists in the built form. It allows for projects to be completed faster and for buildings and properties that are not being used to their full capacity to be repositioned in a much shorter timeline than doing a ground-up new construction. It's more **[2:07:22]** environmentally friendly. And most importantly it's much more neighborhood-friendly. I'm fully in support of this. Thank you. **[2:07:34] R.T. Rybak:** My name is R.T. I'm with the Minneapolis Foundation. As Jason Wittenburg said, it is no surprise that downtown Minneapolis and downtowns around the world are wrestling with how do you handle office buildings post-COVID. Most thankfully a number of the "villages" that are part of downtown Minneapolis have really shown that the future of viability is really in mixed use. North Loop, East Town, Riverfront, Loring Park show that by mixing housing and office and entertainment, you can create a **[2:08:09]** 24-hour area. Ironically that is what downtown Minneapolis was. I'm living proof of it—literally—of that. My parents met when they were both living at the Continental Hotel. They worked and shopped here and presumably played, because, hey, I'm here. If you get where I'm going. But the fact of the matter is right now we have the good news that this proposal was brought together by Councilmembers Rainville and Cashman, the Mayor, and also a coalition that's incredibly impressive of people in the civic and business world, including the Renaissance Coalition, which has been a great group of people who volunteered to look at this to come up with parts of this proposal. Here's a couple ways that it would work. First and **[2:08:54]** foremost, it would make this quicker to do this. Second, it would also recognize that some office buildings are a little—require different—certainly in downtown. A transportation management study is not needed if you understand that the physical plant was built for 140,000 people at least coming in each day. The second issue is that it will really allow us to look at not only how do you work in the absolute core but how do you merge in the neighborhoods that are multi-use that are coming together. For instance in the Warehouse District, which was one of the places where this coalition really looks to apply this, you can really begin to see if we **[2:09:41]** move faster on that, that will move to the core. Downtown has been renovated with new life multiple times over decades. Every time there's been more public participation from the city government than this time. This is one very tangible thing that you can do to make it better. Thank you. **[2:10:04] Dan (Sherman Associates):** My name is Dan. And I'm the Senior Director of Business Development for Sherman Associates here in support of this proposal. Sherman has called Minneapolis home for more than 45 years as a developer, owner, and operator of housing for all ages and incomes. 70% of our apartments are for affordable housing for seniors, working people, and individuals with special needs. On this topic, we are currently converting the Northstar East center into what we're calling Groove Lofts in the Central Business District, a 330,000 square foot 13-story vacant office building **[2:10:45]** into 216 new homes that are set at rental rates for middle-income residents including 20% of units being committed to 50% of area median income qualified. This $94 million project has a very complicated financing structure to make it possible, which we're grateful for. But the risk has been very high with several unforeseen and unplanned expenses in the millions. These have been very challenging to mitigate as we've converted that vacant building to housing and to bring new life and really important housing to downtown. But that's the nature of it. The nature of converting these buildings is high costs, unforeseen challenges and ultimately tremendous risk to the developer. By doing this in converting office space to housing, our project really wants to help lead the way to more projects for more accessible and importantly affordable housing in the downtown corridor but also across the city. In this time we need to convert the downtown financial district into more of a mixed-use district; it **[2:11:48]** cannot be done on scale without public tools such as what's being proposed. So we compliment you on considering this policy change. Specifically when the State of Minnesota and federal government are also looking at ways that governing bodies can support on scale the transformation of downtowns and cities to stabilize and grow our long-term tax base to support public value with public investment. Thank you for your leadership on this and we're privileged to partner with the city and hope to do more in the future. **[2:12:28] Kristin Anderson:** Good evening, Chair Meyer and commissioners. My name is Kristin Anderson, Vice President of Design and Construction at real estate and I'm here to support the proposed changes. My company owns and I also have a personal financial investment in some of these properties within downtown Minneapolis. And we believe this change can be both directly and indirectly beneficial to not only the buildings that we can convert to housing or that we're looking to convert, but the adjacent buildings as we create a more live-work-play environment in downtown Minneapolis. Allowing the temporary removal of the zoning requirement that goes down to 4% or in-lieu payment, fast-tracking the process with **[2:13:09]** no traffic demand application, as well as eliminating the public hearing would all help make the projects less challenging because they are very challenging, as they said today, with conversions. Also Minneapolis buildings are at record high rates of vacancy, two of which I can speak to directly. We own the Pence building at 800 Hennepin Avenue currently sitting at 61.7% vacant. And the second is the Lumber Exchange building at 417 Hennepin at 63% vacant. We don't own that building but it is bank owned and we have been hired to oversee the development of a potential housing conversion so we are studying that project right now. Both buildings are at their end of use of life for office. Ceiling **[2:13:55]** heights, windows... we built a great office dock in Minneapolis and those buildings are also experiencing vacancy problems but are better suited to remain as office. A building we own, we're trying to get into the 90s that we are reinvesting in as well. So as I said, our ordinance changes proposed would provide less barriers to complete the projects with the opportunity to impact the timeline as well as the financial feasibility. I wanted to wrap it up by saying thank you so much for listening to us today, commissioners, and we hope you vote to pass this. Thank you so much. **[2:14:41] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. Next speaker. **[2:14:46] William:** Good evening. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is William. I'm an architect and small-town developer but my involvement here in the Twin Cities has gone back about 25 years. And I think unlike some architects and maybe people involved in projects, I'm desperately passionate about saving what I believe are kind of a last places in the country, in the state, in the cities. There are not that many main streets. There are not that many walkable neighborhoods. There are not that many communities left. And the ones that we do have left are disappearing as you walk down those streets. I think Planning Commissions like yours are the ones that are helping save them. **[2:15:26]** I think holistic views of those districts are what are helping save them. We're in a moment where we're seeing the end of the bubble of the office building, which is 80s and 90s and it was built just for office; it's monolithic. It doesn't work anymore. Everybody found their way back to their hometowns and now they're living these great lives—main street lives, small town lives, walking their kids to school. And I think it's only right for us to fight to get that quality of life back to Minneapolis. It's a mixed-use life. It's a balance of living, of entertainment, of work. It all should go together like cities have had for thousands of years. We happen to have come to this point in the way we developed our cities where we only developed cities for office. **[2:16:10]** And I think we need to fix that. We are in sort of the pain point of having to understand how to crawl out of the office-only environment. And I think we don't lose office. I think we gain the entertainment, the play, the joy to live that we all know works for downtown. I think the skills for downtown go for all of Hennepin County. If we figure this out, we will figure it out for the tax base from corner to corner in this county but we'll also figure it out for pretty much a cross-section of every generation. So I speak to all of the initiatives we're asking for your support on. It's really a human cross-section that we need Minneapolis to be the champion of. So whatever we can do, this group here, we will. And thank you for your support. **[2:16:55] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. Any other speakers to this item? **[2:16:58] Erin Fitzgerald:** Yes. Thank you, Chair Meyer and members of the Commission. So my name is Erin Fitzgerald. I'm representing the Minneapolis Renaissance Coalition, which is about 150 members focused on the revitalization of downtown. And there were also two members of the coalition that were here at 4:30 but they had to leave to pick up their kids, so if it's okay, I'll read some notes of theirs. **[2:17:25] Chris Meyer:** Within the time limit, please. **[2:17:27] Erin Fitzgerald:** I'll try. All right. So as RT said, the Minneapolis Renaissance Coalition has been really focused on what can we do to help revitalize downtown Minneapolis, and certainly building conversion is the big one as is the Warehouse District which is where Nancy Alexander development is. And so she said they're in favor of the zoning code amendment so we'll make it easier to convert office buildings into housing—six high-need zoning code changes to make it possible to convert them. Our buildings were vibrant and all the restaurants were thriving pre-pandemic but post-pandemic, our office spaces have emptied out as have our restaurants and entertainment. We would like to consider converting two of these buildings and have been looking at them to convert but it's just feasible—it really is very financially difficult to do this. So they're just in strong support of anything that the city can do to fast-track. What I'll say from my point of view, because this doesn't necessarily impact me personally, but I think it would just be such a **[2:18:46]** great PR effort—it's already generated such great PR from people that I've talked to who are like, "Oh, wow, that wouldn't apply to me because I'm only doing ten units," but the fact that the City Council is looking at doing that is really great. I think engaging the public in this really collaborative dialogue—just passing this ordinance would give us so much great PR for. Thank you for your time. Thanks for your consideration. **[2:19:19] Chris Meyer:** Thank you. Any other speakers to this item? Seeing none. I will close the public hearing and start out with my comments. First, thank you, Ms. Fitzgerald for those comments in particular. I think that's part of the reason that I thought it was important to do this. Thank you for your patience, commissioners. I will mention if we hadn't had the withdrawal we would probably be here until 9:00 p.m. So... but yeah, I think it's really important to make sure the public knows that this is happening. And I'm very excited about it and thankful to staff and to Councilmembers Rainville and Cashman for putting this forward. I did also just want to go on record that I think **[2:20:04]** there are a few things that we could go further with that I brought up in Committee of the Whole that I wanted to say in a more publicly accessible space here. First, I was pleased that this is applying citywide and not just limited to downtown. Second, I think to me it would make sense to make these changes all permanent and not just have the five-year limitation. I think these office conversions are so expensive. And it's something that people don't really fully realize—that it's not easy to convert these buildings. They're not designed in the right way with the sewers and the windows and everything to make it easily residential. So I think those costs are not just going to be a temporary thing. It's a long-term thing. So I think it would make sense to just make that a permanent change. But as I said at the Committee of the Whole, take what we can get now. The third thing I wanted to bring up and to have other commissioners and the public thinking about is the requirement that we have for commercial for new buildings, because we have this huge vacancy crisis. But at the same time we're forcing new projects to build even more commercial. And I don't think that makes sense anymore. We had a number of applicants request variances so that they wouldn't have to build those commercial because they weren't able to sell it. We denied those variances at the time. I had discussions with a few people about this, including former Chair Rockwell, who was one of the people who spoke against those variances at the time, saying that we need to plan for decades out and not necessarily just to the conditions of the pandemic. But as we've seen that this vacancy issue is a lot more enduring, I think it would make sense to lift those commercial requirements. And I think it would make sense for the city to do so at the same time that **[2:22:18]** we're considering allowing low-impact commercial on corner lots, which is something that staff will be bringing forward recommendations on that later, I believe. So those were my thoughts on it. Any other questions or comments from commissioners? Commissioner Conley. **[2:22:40] Commissioner Conley:** Thank you, Mr. Chair. So thank you so much for all of your comments. I had a question about the inclusionary zoning policy that was just on the screen showing two percentages: 60% AMI and 30%? I just want to be clear that those percentages aren't changing, right? **[2:23:04] Jason Wittenburg:** Well, they are for... **[2:23:06] Commissioner Conley:** For this? **[2:23:08] Jason Wittenburg:** For this, yeah. They are being suspended. **[2:23:10] Commissioner Conley:** Okay. So I need to be talked through that. Because four percent of housing must be affordable at 30% AMI—that's even too low for me. So what are we changing there? **[2:23:26] Jason Wittenburg:** Commissioner Conley, one point of clarification: as Chair Meyer noted, the proposal is that inclusionary zoning would be suspended for a five-year period for building conversions. For projects that the inclusionary zoning ordinance will continue to apply to, these numbers and percentages would not change. And they resulted from a great deal of feasibility analysis, understanding that if you adopt too aggressive of an inclusionary zoning requirement, **[2:24:12]** you're essentially inhibiting development. And when you are not getting as much market-rate development, then you're not getting the affordable units. Inclusionary zoning only works when you're getting actual market-rate projects that you take a percentage of and set aside as affordable. So there certainly are cities that have much more aggressive percentages of acquired units. That calculation played out over a couple of years that led to these percentages that are in the inclusionary zoning that took effect. **[2:24:51] Commissioner Conley:** The reason I ask is I'm a big fan of more housing. And I will always be. We are in a space post-pandemic where buildings are sitting empty, where we are working in a hybrid environment. Many people are. And so hearing some of the vacancy rates of the office buildings didn't make sense. I'm also a supporter of citywide. I know that as I've seen development along different corridors in the south side, there's like a Cub and then six floors of apartments. My only worry though is that we become less affordable to a bigger group of people. I'm not opposed to this. I'll hear other comments, but it's that we definitely need market-rate housing. And I feel like there's a lot of people in the city who can't afford the housing that is newly built, and I also feel like it's really expensive to live downtown just in general. So if we're speaking about downtown, which a lot of folks have spoken about, because that's where the concentration of office buildings usually are. I know some over down there, some of the prices for those condos are astronomical. So I would feel more comfortable knowing that there are developers out there that are supportive of mixed-use but also supportive of as low as 30% AMI using vouchers. And yes, those packages of financing can be extraordinarily difficult to put together, but we need them. I would like to see that even legislatively there's a move to make it less difficult for developers to go after different sorts of financing structures to get more 30% AMI units on the market for people who can afford **[2:27:01]** them. So that's my hesitation around the who can afford to live in these buildings. I'm going to think and hear from other people. And that's it. Thank you. **[2:27:19] Chris Meyer:** I'll share some of my thoughts after other commissioners have a chance. Commissioner Wagner. **[2:27:36] Commissioner Wagner:** I'll just mention quickly—I think, Commissioner Conley, all your points are valid. I agree with basically all of them. I think that the office-to-residential conversion in particular is extremely difficult for developers to pull off. And any barriers that we have standing in the way of that is difficult. I think that the easier we can make it for this to happen is a net benefit. If we end up being able to get four or five... I'm excited to hear all the people here to speak to this item today because it shows that there's appetite for this type of project and every **[2:28:04]** building we can convert in our city is a huge win for our city. And I think removing this in this one instance is warranted. **[2:28:24] Chris Meyer:** My thoughts are we have some office buildings that are vacant and I don't know if we're going to have anything fill them. Like for some of these class C properties... it's not clear that there will be anything. So we may be looking at demolitions if we don't figure out a way to do something with them. So like Commissioner Wagner said, I think whenever there's something going out, any way we can use those buildings to avoid demolition, I think we should take it. It sounds to me like the merit of the staff recommendation is you can see what impact there is for five years. Maybe it will be the case that suspending it for five years incentivizes so many people to make those conversions that there won't be any class C left. And then we can bring the inclusionary zoning back. I don't think that's what's going to happen. I think there's still going to be so many barriers because these properties—if the windows aren't in the right spot, the pipes aren't in the right spots to put bathrooms in and electricity for having kitchens—it's just very expensive to make those remodels **[2:29:58]** work. But with that said, I think we can test out the five years and see what it looks like five years from now. Any other? Commissioner Olson. **[2:30:15] Commissioner Olson:** I agree with what all the economics have said so far. And I think that the five-year suspension is sort of a good incremental phasing of this. And we can kind of see how it goes. And we can always change it. So I'll be supporting it. I'll make a motion to adopt item 11A, amending Title 20 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances related to the Zoning Code. **[2:30:45] Chris Meyer:** Is there a second? **[2:30:46] Commissioner Thompson:** Second. I support it. I got to be at the Committee of the Whole when we discussed it at length and I really enjoyed that and had my questions answered. **[2:30:51] Chris Meyer:** All right. Seeing no other comments, Clerk, please call the roll. **[2:31:06] Clerk:** Commissioner Conley. **[2:31:07] Commissioner Conley:** Aye. **[2:31:08] Clerk:** Olson. **[2:31:09] Commissioner Olson:** Aye. **[2:31:10] Clerk:** Thompson. **[2:31:11] Commissioner Thompson:** Yes. **[2:31:12] Clerk:** Wagner. **[2:31:13] Commissioner Wagner:** Aye. **[2:31:14] Clerk:** Meyer. **[2:31:15] Chris Meyer:** Aye. **[2:31:16] Clerk:** That's five ayes and zero nays. **[2:31:18] Chris Meyer:** That is adopted. Thank you. All right. That concludes our business. So if there's nothing else, I'll declare the meeting adjourned. Our next Planning Commission meeting will be in—not three weeks. **[2:31:37] Rachel Blanford (Staff/Clerk):** Commissioner, I believe our next meeting actually isn't until September 16th. So we have over a month between meetings. **[2:31:51] Chris Meyer:** I feel betrayed. (Laughter) We have quite a gap. So September 16th we'll be back. All right. Well, then we do have a meeting on Thursday the 15th for Committee of the Whole. **[2:32:05] Rachel Blanford:** We have two discussion items for Committee of the Whole this Thursday. **[2:32:14] Chris Meyer:** Any other updates from staff? **[2:32:16] Jason Wittenburg:** No other updates. Thank you. **[2:32:18] Chris Meyer:** Thank you, everyone. **[2:32:20] Rachel Blanford:** Thank you.