To restore a sense of normalcy, I'm reopening the Wedge LIVE! economy by zooming in to a St. Paul district council meeting.

This guy is learning lessons.

More than 40 people have zoomed in to the Macalester Groveland Community Council's Housing and Land Use Committee.

Guy is presenting his plans for 12 three and four bedroom units at 1769 Grand Ave in St. Paul. I'm in the Wedge so I can't confirm this, but I'm told this is an area with lots of apartments already. https://shinglecreekcapital.com/1769-grand-ave 

12 surface car parking stalls. Secure bike storage. Rooftop solar.

Guy says the larger units and multilevel floorplans can "mimic the flexibility" of single family homes.

The argument for these variances is the existing density in the neighborhood doesn't fit into today's zoning code. He says this is 39.5% less dense than similar "peer" buildings in the area.

He says all residential structures on the block have non-conforming side yard setbacks. He wants to match what's there and build a "consistent streetscape."

Here's the existing vs. proposed setback situation.

Here's the flavor of the block.

Slide trying to preempt arguments about neighborhood character.

Which one of these Macalester Groveland district council zoom backgrounds should I steal for my own?

You're "jamming a lot of human beings into a tiny space" says guy who has joined together with 8 fellow homeowners to write a letter of opposition. Too tall, too disproportionate.

He continues: "What impact does the worldwide pandemic have on policy thinking on this? ... does this not give us pause to just prioritize and privilege density over all of the human environment conditions?" He says this ought to give us pause.

Not the same guy who wrote the email I posted earlier so the covid-19 nimby argument is really catching on.

Land use committee member says pandemics aren't a zoning issue. Wants to focus conversation on zoning.

"It's really great to think that everyone's gonna walk, but they don't."

I can't believe I invite these people into my home.

Committee member has concern about lack of an elevator. Limiting older people to first floor units. Predicts there's going to be 8 people per unit in the 4-bedroom unit.

Committee member says "this is exactly the kind of building we're looking for on Grand Avenue." Maybe slightly taller than the ones next to it, but that's ok. It's an awkward skinny lot, grant the variances.

Committee member says there are lots of skinny lots up and down Grand Avenue. Don't set this precedent.

Next committee member agrees: "we are gonna see a lot more situations like this come to us in the future." But says this is more in line with existing neighborhood character than the existing duplex.

After some concern about fire safety, we've determined these setbacks aren't a fire hazard. The zoning code isn't the building code. Proposed setbacks exceed safety standards in the building code.

Next committee member in opposition: "Let's get real, this is going to be jammed with students."

In the chat, a committee member who is no longer subject to anti-student discrimination says, "As someone who graduated in 2007, I still have friends over for parties. My SFH requires no parking minimums for them."

"I'm starting to think that's all we do is grant variances." (I'm in the Wedge, so I don't know, but my hope this committee doesn't have the authority to grant anything at all.)

Committee member in support, moving to support the variances. Says they should decide these things not with what's comfortable for today, but about what we want 50 or more years into the future.

Counting votes in the chat. 12-4 in favor of supporting variance requests. A non-committee member tried to vote.

Committee Chair sends us off with a look at his cat.