Planning Commission OKs minor subdivision at 2704–20 9th Avenue S amid neighborhood questions about sale and contamination

The Minneapolis Planning Commission on March 24 unanimously approved a minor subdivision at 2704–20 9th Avenue South that will leave the city holding a roughly 5,000-square-foot parcel along the Midtown Greenway and allow the larger southern portion to be sold.

The subdivision matter was limited to parcel configuration; staff found the proposal conformed to the city’s subdivision ordinance and recommended approval. The decision clears the technical land-use step that will let the city retain the northern strip and offer the remainder for sale, the applicant said.

Planning staff said the site is zoned PR2 in the interior 3 built form and totals 17,784 square feet. The applicant proposed splitting off “Parcel A,” a narrow parcel that the city would retain for right-of-way associated with the Midtown Greenway, leaving the southern portion for sale.

At the public hearing, applicant Lisa Pazis, who identified herself as a senior project coordinator with CPAP business development, said the city would retain the north parcel and that the adjacent property owner is Hillcrest LLC. Pazis said the retained parcel would support right-of-way and maintenance associated with the greenway and that the southern portion could be sold, potentially by a side-yard sale so the adjacent owner could control lawn maintenance.

Nearby resident Jeff Baroviak, who said he has lived across the street for 19 years, did not oppose keeping the area as green space but raised several concerns. Baroviak said the broader block is partly a Superfund site with a hydrocarbon plume and asked whether monitoring infrastructure—previously used to collect and monitor outgassing—remains on the property. He also said neighbors would be interested in purchasing the property to create a community garden if the city planned to keep it as green space, and asked that residents have an opportunity to bid.

Staff replied that the only application before the commission was a minor subdivision and that the submission was found to conform to the subdivision ordinance; commissioners were told that denying the subdivision would require explicit findings. Commissioner Campbell moved to adopt staff recommendation; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. Five members were present and the item was adopted.

The vote concerned only the subdivision approval. Details about any future sale, remedial monitoring equipment, or stewardship of the retained green space were not decided at the hearing and were not specified in the subdivision application.

Next steps: with the minor subdivision approved, the city and applicant may proceed with the administrative steps needed to divide and convey the parcels; any sale terms, offers to neighbors or restrictions on future uses were not specified during the hearing.