“Welcome everyone to the regular meeting of the Minneapolis Planning Commission for May 18th, 2026.”

Opening remarks.

“There are six members present. We have a quorum.”

Establishing quorum.

“First we're going to turn to the minutes of May 4th and May 7th. Is there a motion to adopt those minutes?”

Moving to adopt minutes.

“All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Abstentions? The minutes are adopted.”

Vote on minutes adoption.

“Uh next we're going to organize the agenda. We have one non-hearing item, item number four. And then staff is recommending that the rest of our items beyond the consent hearing.”

Discussing agenda organization.

“So first we have item number five, 2001 to 2007 Stevens Avenue. Was anyone here to speak against?”

Checking for opposition to Item 5.

“Okay. So we will discuss item number five.”

Confirming Item 5 for discussion.

“Next is item number six, uh 3033 Blaisdell Avenue. Was anyone here to speak against the staff recommendation on item number six? You're just wiping your head, and raising your hand. Okay. Um so we will have that on consent.”

Checking for opposition to Item 6, designating it for consent.

“Item number seven is 3000 Minnehaha Avenue and uh 3033 Snelling Avenue. Was anyone here to speak against the staff recommendation? Okay. So we will discuss item number seven.”

Checking for opposition to Item 7, confirming for discussion.

“Item number eight, 529 and 535 Logan Avenue North. Was anyone here to speak against staff recommendation? Okay. So we will discuss that one.”

Checking for opposition to Item 8, confirming for discussion.

“Uh so to review, item number four is not not a public hearing one. Um items five, seven, and eight we will discuss. And item six will be our only consent item.”

Summarizing agenda items for discussion and consent.

“All right. So first um first we'll go to our non-hearing item. Um so this is the public land sale for the various properties. Staff is John Hedstrom. Did any commissioners have any any questions on this one?”

Introducing the non-hearing item on public land sale.

“All right. Is there a motion to find the public land sale um to be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan?”

Motion for Item 4 (Public Land Sale).

“All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Abstentions? Item number four is adopted.”

Vote on Item 4.

“I'll now open the hearing for our consent item, item number six. Did anyone want to make want to make any comments about 3033 Blaisdell Avenue?”

Opening hearing for consent item 6.

“All right. Is there a motion to move the staff recommendation for item six?”

Motion for Item 6 (Consent Item).

“All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Abstentions? That is adopted. If you were here for item number six, good luck with your project.”

Vote on Item 6.

“All right. And for our first discussion item, item number five. Uh 2001 to 2007 Stevens Avenue. Staff is Alex Colehour.”

Introducing Item 5 for discussion.

“Thank you. Are there any questions for staff before we open the hearing?”

Asking for questions for staff before opening the hearing.

“I don't see any, so thank you. Um Before I open the hearing, I just want to read our our disclaimer.”

Reading disclaimer before opening hearing.

“All right. So I will close the hearing.”

Closing the public hearing for Item 5.

“Any other questions or uh thoughts from commissioners?”

Soliciting further questions from commissioners.

“Just one question. I thought the last testifier mentioned that um storm water was going to be processed from the part new parking lot was going to be processed on site. Could you talk Is that true or how is that going to be handled?”

Question about stormwater management.

“Just one question Alex, which may be a little bit out of scope, but but does does this go through site plan review?”

Inquiry about site plan review.

“Thank you, Chair Meier. Thank you, Alex, for the presentation. I had a question about the RM1 designation along Franklin Avenue. I'm looking at the map here and I see lots of like Lyndale and Nicollet and Hennepin are RM1. I struggle with this word sometimes contiguous like the whole street is RM1 compared to Franklin going across from 35 towards Hennepin. Going from like west from 35 towards Hennepin is kind of like almost like spot zoning which I know we don't really do. It's like parcel by parcel. So could you talk about I don't know if you have any context on that historical decision. As you go further west on Franklin towards Hiawatha it becomes contiguous and all RM1. So any any context you have there about that?”

Question regarding zoning patterns along Franklin Avenue.

“Thank you for that answer. Uh, and contiguous is definitely the word I was looking for, not contiguous. As just a quick follow-up, it seems like, and just for my understanding of like spot zoning versus like, and and I I don't even know the technical definition of that term, but like this doesn't fall into spot zoning because of the character and kind of related parcels along Franklin that it's like falling along this goods and services corridor and there already are a lot of RM1 parcels along Franklin. Is that a fair assessment?”

Clarifying understanding of spot zoning and its applicability.

“Before you today are land use applications for proposed establishment of an accessory surface parking lot on the property at 2007 Stevens Avenue, which is currently a vacant lot.”

Introduction to Item 5, the Stevens Avenue application.

“This proposal does require rezoning the vacant lot parcel from UN3 to RM1 to match the zoning of the cluster development parcel. And it also requires a new conditional use permit uh for that existing cluster development to remain and I'll go into a little bit more detail on that later in my presentation.”

Explaining the rezoning and CUP requirements for Item 5.

“So, this is the uh, survey showing the existing conditions and uh, these properties are at the corner of Stevens Avenue and Franklin Avenue. You can see the the currently vacant lot on the the southern portion there.”

Describing the property location and conditions.

“The zoning code similarly prohibits where the location of accessory parking lots can go based on the zoning districts for the parking lot and the the use it would be serving. But that is ultimately the the motivation for this rezoning in addition to the the applicant's interest in combining the parcels.”

Explaining the zoning code's prohibition on parking lot location.

“So again, to focus on the land use applications, I just talked about the rezoning. The conditional use permit is required just to allow that existing cluster development to remain. And the reason for that is this cluster development was ultimately legalized, I think, in 1978, and the buildings are much older than that. And so that existing cluster development can remain as it is, but the current zoning code does set a maximum lot area as determined by conditional use permit. So this proposal would effectively be increasing the lot area for that cluster development. So they need a new conditional use permit just to to allow that. And that is the reason why they're applying for that today.”

Detailing the need for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).

“Staff recommendation is for approval for each of these applications, and we do have some conditions of approval that we recommend for the conditional use permit. There are no written public comments that I received before today's public hearing. I believe the applicant and their representative are in attendance during today's meeting, and that concludes my presentation, but I'll stand for questions.”

Staff recommendation and conclusion of presentation.

“I was not involved in reviewing any of the previous projects here, which I think as they mentioned were back in the mid-2000s, maybe 2005 to 2007, approximately. Um, so I can only speculate. You know, I did review what I could from uh what we have in the files from those applications. Um, this these properties are in a historic district, and so when we are dealing with new construction, that was also a factor that I think played into some of the previous proposals that were not received very warmly, I think. And then they came back with subsequent proposals, and then the property was sold in the middle there. Um, so yeah, again, I can't speak definitively as to why those didn't happen. I I could only speculate, but um I I suspect it may have just had to do with sort of the development feasibility uh at that time based on the specifics of those proposals.”

Responding to questions about why previous projects were not built.

“In terms of uh stormwater, so this project this um the the applicant they have submitted an application for preliminary development review, which is commonly something that's required uh for using existing curb cuts, changes to curb cuts, establishing a new uh parking lot if there is, you know, something like a drain that's tying into the city's stormwater system. Um, it's pretty common for these types of applications to be these types of projects to be reviewed under that preliminary development review process, and it includes a lot of other parts of the city, such as multiple reviewers from from public works and they are the ones that ultimately have the engineering expertise and would be reviewing for some of those stormwater requirements. Um, from a zoning standpoint, we are looking at um, you know, maximum impervious surface coverage, which in this case this proposal would still comply with those requirements.”

Addressing questions about stormwater management and preliminary development review.

“The specific issue comes from uh language in the zoning code that dictates uh where accessory parking can be located, what districts it can be located in relative to the use that it's serving for an accessory parking lot. And sometimes it's adjacent parcels like this, sometimes it's a parcel across the street, you know, the circumstances may vary, but um typically we or the the zoning code does not allow off-street parking to be in I'll say a quote less intense zoning district than the use that it's serving.”

Explaining zoning code requirements for accessory parking location.

“So, to to say it more more succinctly, the zoning code does not allow parking in a UN3 district like this vacant lot to serve a use in the RM1 district. Like So, they need to rezone the property just to to to mitigate that requirement.”

Clarifying why rezoning is necessary for the parking lot.

“Hypothetically, another solution to this could have been rezoning the cluster development from RM1 to UN3, which would still have them be in the same zoning district these two parcels and so mitigate that requirement of the zoning code. When we were looking at this as staff, we thought that the rezoning that's in front of you to go from UN3 to RM1 was ultimately a more suitable proposal we found given that this is along a a goods and services corridor along Franklin Avenue and more consistent with the the policy language that we have in in that case.”

Discussing alternative rezoning options and staff's preferred approach.

“Theoretically, the the planning commission could approve one of these applications without the other, but in order for this parking lot to be built, they need both approvals.”

Explaining the interdependence of rezoning and CUP approvals.

“For the rezoning, yes. That is a recommendation to the city council. For the conditional use permit, that is a decision that the planning commission can make and that would only go to the city council if there is an appeal of that decision.”

Clarifying the differing decision-making processes for rezoning and CUP.

“Uh Chair Meier, Commissioner Baxley. Um, yeah, frankly, I I don't recall. I can look at the plans again to see what exactly what uh provisions that they had for storm water runoff, whether it was just running off over the surface materials uh out to the street or if they had a a drain in the property uh or in the parking lot that would uh carry some of that underground. But generally, this property does slope down in terms of where the the parking lot is. It It primarily slopes down from the top of the yard there down to the street along street Stevens Avenue.”

Addressing specific questions about stormwater runoff on the property.

“Uh yeah, again, the the technical requirements for storm water runoff are administered by public works and a lot of that is handled through um through the preliminary development review. So, uh that that application, which is a separate process, the applicants have already applied for that and um can continue uh pursuing that application if they receive approvals uh here from the planning commission today and from the city council ultimately on the rezoning.”

Further explanation of stormwater review process.

“Chair Myhr, Commissioner Wagner, I don't know that I can provide a parcel by parcel analysis of that but um if if I can say generally we have these goods and services corridors that largely follow our you know our larger streets and existing commercial nodes and in corridors in the city. And a street like Franklin is I'm sure everyone's familiar has some portions that have a lot of commercial activity some and not just commercial but it it does there are other portions of Franklin that are there are stretches of residential I guess some blocks including some near here um that have a decent concentration I guess of of residential uses and then where Franklin intersects other goods and services corridors like Nicollet or Lyndale or Hennepin um and there could be other policy guidance for those larger you know commercial and mixed-use corridors to have a larger contiguous area of you know commercial mixed-use zoning along those those nodes and then as you get further away from the nodes of two different goods and services corridors then it starts to get again less intense for lack of a better term in terms of zoning designations and ultimately this all stems from the future land use map and policy in the Minneapolis 2040 plan, which was you know, as everyone's familiar with, um, developed and adopted and were, you know, last in the last decade and we're coming up on early work for the 2050 plan now. Um, but in the 2040 plan, that future land use map was adopted and had, uh, these different designations for for every individual parcel. And then that map was, um, was used to develop the the the zoning map for the entire city, which then was adopted just a a few years later. Um, and there is specific guidance that goes in that. We're looking at specific guidance for say the urban neighborhood future land use designation as opposed to the corridor mixed use future land use designation, uh, along Lyndale. So, again, that's a very general answer, but that's ultimately where this comes from is looking at that, um, future land use guidance in the comprehensive plan and applying that to the zoning for each property when the city ultimately did the rezonings in 2023.”

Explaining the historical development of zoning designations along Franklin Avenue, referencing the Minneapolis 2040 plan.

“And in this case, we're talking about these two parcels, one of which is already RM1, so we are matching that existing RM1 on the 2001 parcel with what is proposed for 2007, and that might not be directly adjacent to another RM1 parcel, but we wouldn't consider that spot zoning in in case. And again, ultimately we're we're relying on the future land use policy from the comprehensive plan to to guide these decisions. That also would have taken into account where there are maybe smaller clusters of individual individual zoning designations for properties.”

Addressing the question of spot zoning in relation to the RM1 designation.

“Uh Chair Meier, Commissioner Shepherd, no, this does not. Uh site plan review is required for a number of different types of projects, primarily new construction. Um and depending on the scale, that can change whether it's administrative or requires a public hearing of the planning commission. If uh someone were proposing a principal use of a surface parking lot or another transportation oriented use, that may require site plan review on its own. But in this case, we're talking about an accessory parking lot for an existing use, and that does not require a formal site plan review application. That said, it is subject to some of the same site plan review standards like landscaping and screening um that you would otherwise see during a site plan review application.”

Answering Commissioner Shepherd's question about site plan review.

“As staff, we're not designers. You know, we might be able to to make, you know, very high level suggestions, but uh ultimately it's up to the applicants. And and we as staff, we provide guidance if there are aspects that would not comply with zoning requirements, and that's a conversation that I had with the applicant's representatives, you know, and that we have with every project. We're we're providing guidance about what changes they need for zoning compliance. We might be able to suggest maybe they reorient the parking lot, but we we can't compel them to. And I I don't think that's something that came up in”

Explaining the limitations of staff's role in design suggestions, such as reorienting the parking lot.

“Hello, thank you. Uh my name is Joan RBC Little and I am the property owner of the two adjacent parcels in Ward 10 located at 2001 and 2007 Stevens Avenue South. The fourplex at 2001 Stevens has been in my family since 1969 when my father purchased it for his home. My son, David Schuster, has lived there since 2005 and is the property manager for the other three units. We purchased, my husband and I, the empty lot at 2007 Stevens in 2015 to preserve the green space for the enjoyment of our tenants. The 2007 Stevens property previously served as an employee parking for the Ramar building across Stevens on Franklin. When the property was converted to green space, the curb cut was left in space in place as Alex mentioned. So our request is that we would like approval to combine our two lots so that we can create a driveway and off-street parking for us and our tenants. We want to preserve as much green space as possible by only creating enough parking for our tenants and by using the existing curb cut. First, we have sought approval from the neighborhood and the residents. Uh We went to the Whittier Alliance meeting and we went to the Stevens um Square Community. Um We've learned about the process and we hope that you will give us approval so that with the Franklin Avenue reconstruction where we are losing two off-street parking places, we can provide parking for our tenants and my son.”

Introduction and explanation of the property ownership and proposal for Item 5.

“Uh good afternoon. Can you hear me? All right. All right. My name is Ben. I live at 111 East Franklin uh across the street to the west. Um since I have 2 minutes, I have to pick what I want to say here, but I guess I saw that there was um three different projects that were approved on this site from 2004 to 2007, all being a two and a half story multi uh family development with off-street parking off of the alley. So, I was hoping for more clarification as to why those projects weren't built as that seems like a much more applicable type of development for this project. And personally, that's what I would like to see. Um I'd like to be a good neighbor, but I just don't think a parking lot is a good use of space and rezoning for that specific is kind of inappropriate, but I would prefer that that they could maybe try to install things right off of um the alley since there is space and that's what was approved several times before. I'm also a registered civil engineer and I've had a chance to look through the plans and there's some statements in the staff report about climate resiliency and claiming that um storm water runoff is going to be retained on site, but I reviewed the grading plan and I don't believe that is true. Although this project does not, you know, meet the chapter 54 regulations for 0.5 acres, it's not required, but I still appreciate some clarity on how this is supposed to be a climate resilient project. Also, there's a lot of discussion regarding how off-street parking improves street congestion and that's just factually wrong given that there's plenty of on-street parking in this area in my experience and also the fact that it's inducing demand for more cars to enter the most popular populous dense neighborhood in the city. So, I just believe that the more parking stalls you provide regardless of it's on-street or off-street, you're asking more cars to be in a pedestrian environment. I'm and I'm looking forward to being in a city that's actually trying to meet the city's Vision Zero goals, so thanks for your time.”

Testimony against the parking lot proposal, questioning previous approvals and climate resilience claims.

“Hi there. My name's Damian Licks and I live directly across from this lot in one of the units of the old Remar building. My big concern about this is we are on a one-way street and we're already having problems with people going the wrong way down that street very, very fast. So, I'm worried with a parking lot being that close, people are going to be using that as a turnaround to get to where they need to be off of Franklin. Right now, I know that it because of the construction we're having a lot of that issue. We're also very concerned about um you [snorts] know, the use of that lot, what it's going to be you know, used for when people aren't parked there Um, terms of, you know, crime increasing, anything like that. Uh It's also just such a beautiful green space right now. I feel like if it was made into a green space, it should stay a green space. We see so many animals across there. Birds, bunnies, everything over there just, you know, it's a it's a nice place for people to go. And we see people walking their dogs there. Um, I would really love to, you know, see it be something, but not a parking lot. You know, housing is great. You know, housing is always better for a neighborhood, especially something that's this residential. And and you know, those are my biggest concerns. Thank you.”

Testimony expressing concerns about traffic, safety, and the loss of green space.

“Hey there. My name is Merlin. I live in the same building across the street from the lot where where the parking lot is proposed to be built. I simply don't think that more parking is a good idea. For a number of reasons. Number one, it's the densest neighborhood in the city, possibly in the state, residentially speaking. Number two, there's plenty of transit access. They're adding a bike lane with the Franklin Avenue reconstruction. Plenty of space still for cars. You know, there's plenty of parking. And uh more to the point or moreover, rather uh this just seems like like asking for a lot of like like it seems like asking for dangerous driving as the previous previous guy said. And also just shining high beams into into my living room windows. Everyone who lives there, you know, late at night. So. Yeah, I didn't have a statement prepared, clearly. Thank you.”

Testimony against the parking lot proposal, citing density, transit, and safety concerns.