City Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Mhm.

1 minute to start, tech team. Okay, thank you. Welcome everyone to the regular meeting for the Minneapolis Planning Commission for May 4th, 2026. I'm Chris Meyer, chair of the commission. At this time, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll. Commissioner Baxley. Here. Commissioner Chaudry is present or excuse me, is absent. Uh Commissioner Connolly. Is absent. Commissioner Garcia is absent. Commissioner Gordon. Here. Commissioner Jones is absent. Commissioner Shefty is absent. Commissioner Shepherd. Here. Uh

[snorts]

Vice President Wagner. Here. President Meyer. Here. There are five commissioners present. We have a quorum. Uh first vote of the minutes for April 20th, 2026. Is there a motion to adopt those minutes? So moved. Second. All right. Is there any discussion? All right. All in favor of adopting the minutes, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Uh the minutes are adopted. Next, we'll proceed to organize the agenda. Uh staff are recommending that we discuss item four, um that we continue item six for two cycles, and that items five, seven, and eight uh be on the consent agenda. Um so, I'm going to read through each of those items that are recommended for consent. If you were here to speak against the staff recommendation, raise your hand when I call on that agenda item. Um if you wanted to speak in support of it, you'll have a chance to do that in just a bit. But, for now, we're just asking for people who are against the staff recommendation. Uh so, first, item number five, uh 2220 16th Avenue North in Ward five. Was anyone here to speak against the staff recommendation for item number five? All right. We will keep item five on consent. Uh number six will be continued two cycles. Uh item seven, 3657 Lyndale Avenue North. Was anyone here to speak against the staff recommendation for item number seven? All right. We'll keep that on consent. And finally, number eight, 3003 Thomas Avenue North in Ward seven. Was anyone here to speak against the staff recommendation for item number eight? All right. [snorts] So, to review, item four will four, uh 931 Marshall, we will discuss that one. Item five, consent. Item six, continue two cycles. Um seven and eight will be on consent. All right. Uh we'll go to the continuance first. Uh so, that was item number six. We'll continue that for two cycles. You can come back to speak on that. But, if you came here today and wanted to speak on it, you can today. So, open the hearing for item

number six. Did anyone want to speak on 523 Second Avenue? All right. Is there a motion to continue that two cycles to June 8th? So moved. All right. Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Item number six is continued two cycles. Uh now, we'll move to the consent agenda. I'll open the hearing for it. So, if you came to speak on items five, seven, or eight and wanted to speak in support of it, you can now. Does anyone want to speak to the consent items? All right. I will close the public hearing. Uh commissioners, is there any discussion on any of your of our consent items? All right. Is there a motion to adopt adopt the staff recommendations for items five, seven, and eight? So moved.

[clears throat] Second. All right. Moved and seconded. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Five, seven, and eight are adopted. If you came here for those, good luck with your projects. And lastly, I uh 931 Marshall Street Northeast, Ward three. Staff is Andrew Frenz. [snorts]

Good afternoon, uh Chair Meyer and commissioners. Before you today are two applications to allow the construction of a new five-story, 89-unit building at 931 Marshall Street Northeast. Um this property uh is near the center of your screen here. Um this property is a corner lot located at the intersection of Marshall Street Northeast and 10th Avenue Northeast, and is currently occupied by a duplex and a single-family home. Um this property is located in the UN3 District uh and the Corridor 4 Built Form Overlay District. The applicant is proposing to construct a new five-story, 89-unit building on the site. Um and we can walk through the plans briefly here. Here are some um axons of the building. Um this is the front of the building here um along Marshall. Uh this is closer up on on Marshall. Um the building is um sort of U-shaped in plan um at the first floor with this uh inset entry courtyard and then H-shaped in plan above the first floor. The building includes some walk-up units facing both 10th Avenue Northeast as well as um the interior side to the south and is configured with a first floor enclosed garage at the rear that's accessed via single curb cut on 10th. Um here are the upper levels. Um and then here are the elevations. So that's Marshall that you're looking at on the top and then 10th on the bottom. And then here is the interior side and rear elevation. There is an alley adjacent to the rear. Um some shadow studies. Um and then here's the civil site plan. This project is very similar to a previous project which was approved in 2022. Most land use approvals are valid for a period of two years with an opportunity for a one-year extension.

The approvals for this project or the previous version of this project from 2022 expired last year. [snorts]

There are a few changes between the 2022 project and the proposal that's before you today. Those changes are detailed in the staff report. But the two projects are very similar. The footprint and the building size are identical and it's just one thing that's important to note is that you know although the the applicant team is the same as very similar building from the perspective of the zoning code that 2022 project is fully expired and is not relevant to the evaluation of the project under under the zoning code. So there are two applications that are before the commission today. The first is a variance to reduce the corner side yard setback adjacent to 10th Avenue Northeast from 12 feet to 8.1 feet for the building and 4.2 feet for balconies.

[snorts]

It's important to note here that the building placement is the same as what was approved in 2022 but the setback requirement has changed. So prior to the land use rezoning study in 2023 this project was subject to a reverse corner front yard on 10th Avenue Northeast and that's caused by the adjacent or was caused by the adjacent duplex to the northeast here. So that adjacent duplex is platted towards 10th and has their front yard facing 10th. So under the previous ordinance this this property had a reverse corner front yard on 10th and that was drawn off of that established front yard of that adjacent duplex which is very close to the front property line at at 3.7 feet. Um So in 2023 with a land use rezoning study as as many of you know we replaced the entire zoning ordinance and reworked many provisions in the ordinance. Among those were the provisions related to reverse corner yards. One of those changes that were that were made for reverse corners was to have alleys now break the reverse corner condition. So under the new ordinance when you are located across a public alley from from a property that has its front yard facing that that secondary frontage that reverse corner condition is broken by the public alley. Under the previous ordinance it was not. So previously the you know the reverse corner front yard extended across the alley on onto this property. Under the new code that the alley breaks that condition. That ordinance change was intended to bring more flexibility and in most cases it does. It's it's unusual to see a situation where the reverse corner front yard is so small. You know typically we're talking about a a context of mostly single family homes and duplexes where we see this and we see a reverse corner front yard of 15 to 20 feet or sometimes even

greater where for those smaller scale buildings they're typically subject to an 8-foot corner side. So by making that provision we were we were intending to you know create less restrictive record corner side yards and and that is the effect that it has in most cases but this property is a bit of an outlier in that it was subject to such a such a small reverse corner front yard of of 3.7 feet previously. So the property is now subject to the regular corner side yard setback which is based on the height of the building and is 12 feet in this case. And the applicant is seeking a variance to reduce that setback to match what they're proposing now and what they had previously proposed in 2022. The project is also seeking site plan review. In addition to those two applications that are before the planning commission there are a few administrative applications associated with this project. So this project is seeking one height premium to increase the height in the corridor four from the the regular height of four stories and 56 feet to five stories and 59.4 feet. This project is utilizing the affordable housing height premium and staff has found that the project is meeting the required findings for that administrative height increase. The project is also utilizing two FAR premiums to increase the floor area ratio here from 2.0 to 2.8. And then the project also requires a minor travel demand management plan. This project is earning its TDM points through the limited vehicle parking and separate pricing of parking TDM strategies. And staff intends to approve those applications in line with the planning commission's actions on the projects the applications that are before before you tonight. On this project we have received four public comments. Three of those were published with the staff report and the agenda and one of those you should have received a printed copy of tonight.

For the variance staff has found that the application does not meet the first finding. Staff has not found that challenges exist in complying with the ordinance due to circumstances that are unique to the property. The corner side yard setback requirement here is identical to any other building of the same height located in any of the residential or residential mixed-use districts. This property is relatively large relatively flat and does not have any unique conditions that um that that presented obvious difficulty in complying with the setback. The restriction posed by the corner side yard setback here is the same as for any other residentially zoned corner lot. Staff has found that the variance request meets the second and third findings. Staff finds the request is reasonable and meets the spirit and intent of the ordinance would have no negative impact on nearby properties due to the context of those two adjacent properties to the northeast being located so close to their front edge on on 10th Avenue. Staff finds that this would be consistent with development in the area would not constitute disorderly development and due to the separation from properties across the street staff finds that this project would have you know no negative impact on those properties. For site plan review the project does require alternative compliance to a few provisions. For building placement to allow that inset courtyard on Marshall to minimum window coverage on the first floor on 10th and for active functions on 10th. I can go into detail as to why on any of those if if you'd like but it is detailed in the staff report. We are recommending approval of the alternative compliance for building placement and active functions and then a partial approval for window coverage. We're recommending approval of the reduction in window coverage that they've proposed but we are recommending as a condition of approval that the opaque doors on that north elevation be replaced with clear view doors to meet the intent of that provision in allowing views in and out of the building. So staff is recommending

So staff is recommending denial of the variance due to the project not meeting that first variance finding and approval of site plan review subject to the 13 findings listed listed here and in the staff report noting condition six here which would require that the project comply with that regular corner side yard setback adjacent to 10th. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Are there questions for staff before we open the hearing? Okay. I want to make sure that I understand this properly. So when it was approved previously it was a reverse corner. Now it's corner side yard and that's because the regulations around how alleys are treated changed. Can you explain how the alley change worked? Yeah. So so so previously the reverse the reverse corner front yard extended along the entire block face regardless of of whether there was a public alley present, right? So if we go back to So this is their existing conditions survey. In the far upper right-hand corner you can see an outline that's labeled existing dwelling. That's that adjacent duplex to the northeast. It's platted to face 10th. Um Under the under the former ordinance so prior to July 1st, 2023 the the entire front edge along 10th was a reverse corner front yard caused by that property as well as you know the next property adjacent to the northeast is platted to 10th. Um That that reverse corner condition extended along the the entire block face. In 2023 the ordinance was amended so that a public alley breaks that reverse corner condition. So if if there were not a public alley separating these properties this property would still have a reverse corner front yard on 10th. Because there is a public alley

under the current ordinance there is the the the yard adjacent to 10th is just a regular corner side not a reverse corner. Okay. I I recall any discussion about this change back in in '23. So, what what was the intent of of that change with how we treat alleys in in Yeah, to make it more permissive in in conditions where you where you have an alley that's separating yards. You know, we we approve variances for reverse corner front yards very regularly at the Zoning Board of Adjustment. It's It's probably the most common application that comes to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, right? You know, typical It's It's very There are many lots across the city in sort of a lower density residential context that have reverse corner and that reverse corner front yard is much greater than the regular corner side yard. And in situations where where they were separated by an alley, we were very routinely referencing that separate that that sort of like visual separation and separation in in character between the properties caused by the alley. We were very regularly referencing that in our findings for for supporting those variances to reduce that reverse corner front yard. And so, the idea was if we're if we're going to approve variances to reduce reverse corner front yards every time that there's an alley separating them, we should change the ordinance so that that's no longer a reverse corner front yard. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? All right, thank you, Attorney Hicks. I will open the public hearing. Do we have the applicant with us? All right. You can have 10 minutes. Thank you. Um good afternoon, Commissioners. Um My name is Rhea Smiley from Larkin Hoffman and we represent the applicant in this case, who is Monarch Development Partners. Um I'm not going to repeat what the staff have gone through

and already presented. So, I want to focus my remarks on the one specific point that is the basis of the denial recommendation from staff and that is the first criteria for variance and um the fact that staff have concluded that there's nothing unique about this property. We respectfully believe that the record does clearly support that there's a finding that of practical difficulties to um uh to provide this approval for the ordinance. And I want to go into a little bit of detail on that. So, staff notes that the property is flat and generally otherwise buildable and therefore not unique. And there are many cornered lots around the city and there's nothing specifically geographic about this property that makes it unique. Um but physical and geographical conditions are not the only way that a site can be considered unique in the definition of practical difficulties to offer a variance. The uniqueness here is created by the situation that the lot is in, which is kind of that reverse corner lot configuration. And there has been irregular platting. As you saw, the lot is facing Marshall, but then everything else on that block is actually facing 10th Avenue North. And also, the project's approval history and prior planning approvals. There are other cases that the city has concluded that um basically the the fact that other properties adjacent to a property are at a different setback can account for practical difficulties for a project. So, this combination is what we believe actually creates the practical difficulty. As staff mentioned, this is in fact a rare situation. So, that is what we believe

is unique unique. Um this is an unintended consequence of the flexibility that was intended to be implemented through the zoning approvals that went through in 2023 and through the land use and rezoning study. So, I just want to emphasize that nothing about this site has changed. Nothing about the building placement has changed and what has changed is the zoning framework here. Um and this is exactly the type of situation that a variance is intended to address. So, along this block, the existing residential buildings are already a lot closer to the lot line that 3.7 ft, for example. The proposed 8.1 ft setback is actually still quite um longer quite larger than the um site just adjacent. And I know that it's across the alley, but it is on the same block. And um strict compliance will push the building mass towards the property that is right adjacent to the site on the south side of the site. So, that's along Marshall Avenue. So, that will have to shift the entire building towards the south interior lot line and it will affect the existing single family and I believe you do have a comment on that as well in your packet. Um it will also create major cost revisions on costs on the revisions that will need be required for this. And then, the granting the variance will um preserve enough space on all sides that will allow access to light, to air. It would allow for the creation of the balconies that um will actually add to the living space of all of these units. And if anything in the past few years, we have learned

during COVID is how effective some of those spaces can be in quality of life. And it also serves the intent of the zoning code and comprehensive plan in general. Um this is already a challenging development environment and the requested variance allows the project to retain livability features that I explained and without increasing any additional impact on the properties that are surrounding it. Um I'm not going to go into the criterion one, two, and three that we agree with staff that those criterion are met. And for these reasons, we do respectfully ask that you approve the variance request. Um we believe that the proposal is reasonable, is consistent with the comp plan. It will not alter the essential character of the area and will not harm nearby properties. And if you are so inclined to approve the variance, you can do so by adopting the finding that is in your packet as part of the applicant's narrative for this application and adopt that instead of staff recommendation for a recommendation of approval of the variance. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Are there questions for the applicant? Commissioner Shepherd. And since your 2022 plan, what has changed about the plan of the building itself since the previous application? Um Commissioner Chairmeyer, Commissioner Shepherd, the specifics that have changed are very minimal to some sidings and otherwise, the rest of the footprint and the elevations, the floor plans, nothing about that has changed. Nothing about the outside of the building in terms of the the yards and and so on have changed either. All right.

Um [clears throat] in your letter, you cited a couple precedents. Can you walk us through those precedents and how you see them as relevant? Yeah, if you allow me to just pull that up myself. It is 5005 Lyndale. Yeah. Um so, that is a similar Chairmeyer and Commissioners, that is a similar situation in that it was found that the applicant was meeting the intent of the ordinance and the proposal matched the residential character along the street frontage. And that was specifically mentioned as part of the meeting of the practical difficulties, which in terms of making the property unique. So, that's what we believe is important here to note. Um additionally, in other cases that I have cited here, there are like two or three of them, that the the information is that the proposal is fairly consistent with the character of the area, is fairly consistent with the adjacent properties and where the other setbacks are. So, there several of those previous decisions that support the fact that this proposal is still consistent with what is on that block. And even though the specific exception that was part of the reverse lot reverse corner lot has been taken away, it does not change the reality of this parcel. It is still in the same situation and it's still facing the same kind of conditions that it did before. And just an unintended consequence of regulation. Okay. And can you go over and what what it is your proposed practical difficulty is? I mean, let's see if I have it. So, it's irregular platting

Mhm. and the the character of adjacent properties. Is there more to it? Um there is irregular platting, regulatory change imposing a setback that is inconsistent with block pattern, um project's approval history and prior planning approvals. Okay. Are there questions? Commissioner Baxley. Rhea, good to see you again. Thanks. Um I'm just I'm trying to drill into the kind of unique condition of the property and um I'm wondering if you could identify any physical characteristics of the site, not policy changes, that make compliance with the 12-ft setback uh impractical. Um Chair Myhre, uh Commissioner Baxley, the what makes the compliance with the current setback requirement that has increased from 3.7 to 12 um impractical is, first of all, uh all the designs and everything that has already happened that needs major revisions. But also, the change uh would require um elimination of balconies and the movement of like having to push the building at least 4 ft towards uh the property from the um interior sideline uh site Oh my god. Interior setbacks from the south south and um that will create a lot less of a separation between the units that are going to be located on the southern part of the parcel and the property that is just just across the lot line um that is a single-family home at the moment for now. Uh which could redevelop to anything else. So, that uh is the specific um constraint that we currently have to

meet that. It will completely change the If we were to comply with a 12-ft setback, it will completely change the nature of this um the units that are being presented as um basically a unit plus an additional space that allows access to light and air and private open space, basically. Yeah, cool. Um Since you're Since you're talking about balconies and design features, can you um clarify maybe for us how those relate to the standard for practical difficulties versus just a design preference difference? Um Chair Myhre, Commissioner Baxley, can you um clarify what you mean by preference in terms of not having balconies?

you know, if we have to redesign, you mentioned redesign, um which are design features and I I'm I'm trying to compare those with the legal standard for practical difficulty as opposed to just it would be might be better or might not be better if it was redesigned. Mhm. Um if we are going to go through an entire redesign, that is that will become a completely different project. So, it's not that it's not the same approvals. It's going to have to go through everything else, including the site plan review that you just um heard from staff uh recommending approval from of. And the balconies themselves are considered as an as an as an intrusion into the setback. So, if we were to reduce that um it will basically it will completely shift the building and uh if I I think I might have to ask the people who are a lot more knowledgeable in terms of the architecture to explain that if you want me to go into a lot more detail about that. But no. No, I think I I it's really um uh are we looking at practical difficulty or simply a design preference is what I'm just trying to understand from. Sure. Um Commissioner Baxley, I would say that if if if this was a new proposal and that had did not have all of the background that is before you, maybe it would have could have been considered uh a preference. But with all the background that has happened with the previous approvals, with the changes during this project's um life, basically, or approvals life, uh that's what makes it unique. So, yes, if this was a completely new thing that was just coming before you from the scratch, they would have known then told them that 12-ft setback is what it is. Um but it's the combination of all of uh

those situations that makes it a practical difficulty. Interesting. Um [snorts] one last one, if I would um So, I I I really feels like the these zoning changes are the major basis of of where you're coming from. So, if if we accept that a zoning change is a practical difficulty, uh how should we limit that logic um so it doesn't apply to other projects that are affected by by this? Could you talk about that a little bit? Absolutely. Chair Myhre, Commissioner Baxley, I understand that um your this we're talking about setting a precedent. Uh the difference between this project and anything else that may come before you, again, goes back to the history of the approvals for this project. I doubt that there are that many that go back to 2022 uh that have had approvals, have had needed extensions, and now are facing a completely different regulatory framework. Uh so, with that in mind, I would say that this isn't uh something that would be um widely implemented and will impact other projects because um because of the history of it. So, that makes it that makes it different from anything else that may come before you. True. I mean, a lot of projects experience delays though and and uh financing or market conditions as well. Right. Okay. Thanks. Thank you very much. Thank you. Commissioner Wagner. Thank you, Chair Myhre. Thank you for the um comments and the detail on the situation. Could you or maybe perhaps someone on your team speak to um what's preventing the building from moving 4 ft to the south? I know you mentioned the single-family home and definitely appreciate your respect for that property, um but it seems like there may be some room there. Could you speak to that? Um sure. Chair Myhre, Commissioner Wagner, this is um

based on the design of the building, uh there are walk-up units that are on the southern part. So, we're not just talking about a passive area that is between the the two buildings. This is an area that will be frequented by people walking walking on it and accessing their units. Uh so, moving it towards the south will reduce that open space that is part of the the living experience in those units. And it will be the same on the northern part as well because it will impact the um balconies. Thank you. And then, uh clarification question on that. I see the walk-out units on the plan. Do you know what the uh seemingly fenced area coming out of the garages for on the south side of the property? Um Commissioner Myhre, Chair Wagner, I'm going to need to ask somebody else on the project team. I recognize Carl Runck, Mark Development Partners, developer. Uh the fenced area is a dog amenity or pet amenity um in the in that space. Thank you. That's all I had. All right. Other questions? All right, not seeing any. Thank you. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak to this item? Welcome to introduce yourself. Yeah, Commissioners, just one one more comment that uh we're we're big believers in the supply goals of the 2040 plan, which was guiding our design originally with Amanda, project architect. And, you know, external factors is why there's obviously a major slowdown in the number of new units, new supply. And we think this is the exact kind of project that should get built. And we believe this time around we have a solution to to get it built. Um so, we're I just want to comment on that that we've always intended to build this on time, but external factors is why we haven't in since 2022. Uh but we're we're optimistic that it can

happen this time and there'll be new supply in this part of northeast. Thank you.

Anyone else? All right, not seeing anyone else. I will close the hearing. Uh I'll give some thoughts on on where I'm at and my suggestions, and then we can hear from other Commissioners. Um So, first off, I um observe that we've seen a a number of projects that have needed um to come back to us because they missed their deadlines. Um I think as we start the 2050 plan, we should take that into account and perhaps extend the time frames that we give people. I think maybe 5 years would be more more fitting um because usually when we approve something, like we want to give people the the flexibility um to do it. Um I think this was clearly an unintended consequence um in my recollection of of all the discussion about the land use changes. Um the intent throughout that was to make the the setback requirements more flexible. Um St. Paul went considerably farther than us in in um in in additional flexibility. But they came um you know, after the our 2040 plan, but um that was clearly part of the intent, and I think, you know, a a more thorough review of of our setback policies and what we're trying to accomplish with them is another thing that we we need to look at with the 2050 plan. Um but just for the variance findings for today, I don't know if those things are allowed to be relevant to it. Um but I um, do think that the adjacent properties are a compelling practical difficulty. That's something that we found on several other applications. Uh, the applicant cited one. Um, but there there are other ones, um, where we've found that having a consistent street front is something that we want want to accomplish and and the buildings

adjacent to this, um, one is just um, a three foot setback or 3.7 feet. Um, across the street, the setback it is smaller. Um, so I think that, um, you know, the the character of adjacent properties and the irregular platting are are the practical difficulties that I would propose. And then, um, you know, the staff already um, found for the other findings, uh, in in favor of the applicant, but I I think uh, I I would just note in addition to what they said that, you know, balconies are a public amenity. Um, I think that they um, help improve public safety by adding eyes on the street. Um, you know, it's good for people's health to have access to to clean air. Like, if you had COVID, it's be a good to be able to go out on the balcony. Um, so I I um, I think it would be unfortunate if um, our decision today were to lead them to have to get rid of their balconies. Um, so I would propose to, um, accept the variance with those practical difficulties. Any discussion from commissioners? Commissioner Baxley. Thank you, Chair Myhre. Um, I want to start by acknowledging this is a really well-designed project. I think it was the first time it came through and it still is and generally aligns with the comprehensive plan and the city's housing goals. Um, however, I think the question is not about whether this is a good project or not, um, whether it meets the legal standard for granting a variance. I think the ordinance is pretty clear that a variance requires practical difficulties arising from circumstances unique to the property itself, typically physical conditions such as irregular lot shape, topography, or other constraints not created by the applicant. In this case, the staff has found and I agree that no such physical circumstances

exist. The size of the standard corner lot and the required setback is consistent with what they're required of any other similarly situated properties. The applicant's primary argument, um, is that the project was previously approved under a different zoning standard and the code has since changed. I acknowledge that. I understand this is creates frustration. A change in zoning regulations is not in itself a basis for variance under our ordinance. If we were to accept that argument, we'd be setting a precedent that effectively allows expired approvals or prior entitlements to justify relief from current zoning requirements. Additionally, the practical impacts cited such as loss of balconies or the need to redesign the building are fundamentally design and economic considerations, which are the ordinance explicitly states are not sufficient to justify a variance. I want to be clear that denying this variance does not prevent development of the site. It has wonderful potential. The applicants can still move forward with a compliant design that meets the current zoning standards. For these reasons, I do not find that the required findings for a variance have been met. I will be supporting staff's recommendation to deny the variance. Other commissioners? Commissioner Remington. Thank you, Chair Myhre. This one this one is extremely difficult for me. I think this is one of the most complex cases we've seen in my time on Planning Commission. Um, I I think of what Commissioner Baxley just said and I think of what you said and what the applicant said and it's very marginal to me. The main thing I've been thinking about is like and and the definition of a practical difficulty is

challenging. It's like, what why do variances exist? And like, what what is the purpose of a variance? And and this can be a legal or philosophical discussion or whatever. And we we have variances partly to give us as a city the ability to make up for maybe, uh, something that was missed when we designed our code, right? And when we designed our code or like an edge case for a specific property. And to me, this um, this is an edge case of and it and it's it's quoted in the applicant's letter about staff's comments. Um, even in the presentation today, staff's comments were saying about the the reason we changed this code in 2024 was to be more permissive. So, this is like a side effect of a flawed code section in my opinion. And I'm struggling to, like Commissioner Baxley, see whether it's a practical difficulty or not. I'm not a lawyer. I never went to law school. But my [snorts] instinct is that a variance should be approved in this instance. Um, and I would lean that direction. I don't I'm there's a lot of smart people on this board. I'd love to hear from the other two commissioners who haven't spoken yet. I'm honestly still undecided on how to vote, um, because I see arguments on both sides. But like my gut instinct is that variances exist for a reason and this is a a circumstance and a property and a and a situation that deserves a variance. So, that's kind of my initial thoughts and I'm I'm still kind of on the fence. Okay. Yeah. Commissioner Shepherd. Certainly. Thank you. The intent of my question and earlier question and that has the plan changed and the dis- the finding that it is not was a bit of a surprise because the context has changed, but the plan has not. So, the question is really is it reasonable to expect the plan to to be adjusted to meet the new context. I believe it is. And we also had this in

front of us a few months ago and it was there was a continuance issued and nothing changed then either. And I find that I I take exception to the characterization of any required redesign as being radical. I I can't design the project and I have to resist the temptation to to to make suggestions there, but I but I think the unit count the intent of the design could be met in the new context. And and I don't believe it would have adverse impacts on the south property line. But it is up to the architect in in question to to find that design adjustment, which I do not think it is unreasonable to expect them to do. And so, I'm opposed to the vari- variance. Commissioner Gordon. is aligned with, uh, what Commissioner Shepherd just said. Given that the context has changed, the language has changed, even though perhaps zoning language has changed to be more permissible, minor modifications could be made in response. And we see that there's flexibility within the site plan that exists right now to do that. So, I am, uh, on the fence as well. But Okay. Uh, well, since we have two commissioners on the fence, I guess I'll just reiterate part of my argument or response. Like, I I I do think the adjacent properties are the unique physical circumstance. Like, it's unusual to have other properties that are better that close. Um, and uh, they cited um, 5005 Lyndale. Um, they there was the I forget the what what what the it was what the Baylor property in in North Minneapolis um, a couple years ago and a number of other um, projects that that we have had where in order to try to create a consistent street front, we we granted variances, um, to to to accommodate that. So, that

that's what I would propose as as the um, the practical difficulty. Like, not citing anything, um, regarding their their previous application. I think it is unusual to have setbacks for adjacent properties this this close and and by requ- by by sticking with this, you're going to have a an inconsistent street front. And for for more on that, I don't know if you guys saw it, but, um, but I would point to the the public comment letters submitted by Yvonne Roberts. It's like at the end of the packet. He walked through that in in more detail. Um, but I I guess since we don't know where where the vote is exactly, um, what I would propose is um, we can separate it. We can, um,

[snorts] take the the site plan review first since there's no debate about that and then we can take item A. Um, uh, Andrew. Uh, President Myhre and commissioners, I would just add that, um, in as you're thinking about, uh, the action that you take on the variance, um, just note that, uh, condition of approval number six on site plan review kind of addresses the opposite of the variance. So, uh, you'll want to think about that as you make your motions. going to be my question is if, um, what adjustment we would need need to make to the site plan review if we did approve the variance. Um, so I guess we can take the variance question first and then make that adjustment to to be, um, [snorts]

if we want to. Uh, so, Commissioner Baxley, would you like to make a motion to approve the staff recommendation for item A? Is that So moved. Okay. Is there a second for that?

Second. All right. Is there a discussion on that? So, So, going to I'm going to vote no so that I can propose my alternative, which would have the practical difficulty and approve the variance. All right. That's any further discussion. Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner [snorts] Baxley. Yay. Commissioner Gordon. Yay. Commissioner Shepherd. Yay. President or excuse me, Vice President Wagner. Yay. And President Meyer. No. There are four yays and one nay. All right, that is adopted. And now would you like to move staff or approval of the staff recommendation by item B? I so move. Is there a second? Second. All right. All in favor of that one say aye. Aye. Opposed, abstentions. That is adopted. All right, and that I believe it was just A and A and B, right? All right, so that concludes our business uh for the day. Um

[snorts] Next planning commission will be May 18th and this Thursday we've got the click meeting [snorts] at 6:00 p.m. We need five people there. Can we do a quick Raise your hand if you're going to be there. Quorum check. This Thursday?

This Thursday 6:00 p.m. I was going to do this. I love this. Okay. Commissioner Gordon, are you going to be there? Commissioner Baxley, are you you talking? I'm out of town. You're out of town. Okay. We're going to have to find someone. What time? 6:00 p.m. it's 6:00 p.m. on Thursday. You guys look concerned. I can make it I can make it from 4:00 to I I have a um percent for a presentation to make for Hennepin County. It starts at 6:00. So, I can come right after that, but Okay. I'll send an email out. Yeah, it's it's it's going to be tough cuz some of our other commissioners are all busy with the legislative session, but we'll we'll we'll we'll figure out who has to be there. All right, are there any other updates from staff or commissioners? Uh just one more update. I think uh there were some questions that came after the last Committee of the Whole meeting about when you might start seeing uh some comp plan items on the Committee of the Whole agenda. So, right now the plan is that the first um comp plan related Committee of the Whole meeting would be on June 25th. Um and that'll be just a general overview of the process, upcoming engagement efforts, and discussion about what the cadence of meetings will look like from that point on. Um so, this is a multi-year process, but there uh we plan to have some regular check-ins with the Planning Commission. The rest of that will be mapped out uh in time to present to you at that June 25th meeting. Perfect. All right, anyone else? All right, seeing no one else, we are adjourned.