meeting started. I'll call the meeting to order. I want to go through a couple of things. Thank you guys all for joining us this evening. We appreciate you being here. Um we're going to go through a couple of um housekeeping items. We're going to approve our minutes, go through our minutes from last meeting and then we'll open up um for the reason you are all here tonight um for our public hearing which will involve uh some information given to us by city staff and other people here. Then we'll go through questions from the commission and then we will open it up for public questions and comments. Um, if you would like to speak tonight, please make sure you've signed in up here at the at the desk by Sarah um to ensure that you get called on. Um, and then, you know, depending on how many people we have who want to speak, we may limit your time to five minutes a person and we just ask that if someone's already mentioned something that we try not to be super repetitive tonight. But again, thank you all for joining us. Um, roll call. Moses here. Wolf here. Schmidz here. Rafus here. Johnson here. Okay, let's go ahead and open Madam Chair. Minutes. Oh, Madam Chair, approval of the minutes. We can start off with I'm trying to skip ahead. Yeah. Would someone like to make a motion to approve the minutes for our June 20 June 3rd meeting? I'll approve the minute or make the motion to approve the minutes. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you so much. Now we can go ahead and move forward with our topic for this evening. Madam Chair, members of the planning commission, before you this evening is a Shorland overlay district variance. Um this variance with ideal planning timeline would have been wrapped up in our last meeting in June and went through with the original package as the entire development was considered at that meeting to go through its initial um entitlement phase. With that um just want to speak also to the public and everyone in attendance online that this meeting is specifically with regards to the shoreland overlay variance. Um this is talking about impervious surface, the environmentals of the project. Um we are not discussing the traffic, parking or some of these other topics that will be or that were discussed by the planning commission. The city council will be taking up all of the project, the parking, the traffic, the impervious surface, absolutely every aspect of this project, including the review of the environmental assessment worksheet at their June July 28th city council meeting. So for public comment on those specific topics, we definitely encourage people to come and attend that meeting as those those topics will be discussed further at that meeting. Um with that being said, just to give you a little bit of background, um with us this evening is Rita with HKGI. She is um with the HKGI is our consultant planning group that is filling in for our city planner that left us as of last month. um HKGI conducted the comprehensive plan for the 2040 comprehensive plan for the city of Columbia Heights and they conducted the comprehensive plan amendment for this site. So they are very well aware of the site all the intricacies with the site and the redevelopment of the site and they are assisting us with everything planning as I'm no expert in planning. So, um it's great to have uh them on the team. And um with that, just kind of how we got here with regards to the shoreland overlay variance. The the shoreland overlay district is a district of about um I think it's thou hundred or thousand feet around the lakes and some of the larger ponds within the city of Columbia Heights. within that district. Any property within that area is required to have or to meet a percentage of imperous surface. Now, this shoreland overlay was established in 2008 by the city council and the um and staff. And this the ultimate meaning or the reason that this was established was because the city of Columbia Heights has had a lot of issues with single family properties near um you know impaired waterways paving their large chunks of their yard so they can add more parking. You know there's not always enough garage spaces. So paving large parts of their yard. Well, what really happens is with these single family homes, there isn't an ability for those single family homes to remediate any of the storm water issues as soon as they pave their yard. That just puts more pressure on the city's um you know, storm water maintenance items. So, a big part of this um this ordinance that was passed was, you know, the intention of the council at that time, which is found in the meeting minutes and previous staff letters and everything like that to really reduce that issue going forward. And then in that ordinance is the establishment of this variance process which we are um considering this evening. This variance process was established so that way largescale projects or projects that needed to have um flexibility in these regards would go through a variance process. And the idea with that is is projects similar to this one um of larger scale have the ability to remediate storm water. So while they might be above the imperous surface requirement, they have an ability to really treat that water and you know identify and solve storm water problems with regards to redevelopment of a site that a single family home would not um be able to do. Within the city's central business district, you know, this main part on Central Avenue, the impervious surface requirement is 90%. So there's a big shift as we kind of get away from the central business district, but um not too different from that that local of central with the previous impervious surface. Um with that, the city has gone through the comprehensive planning process and has really just as a reminder has really set the stage for this redevelopment. Um we've gone through the planning process, the public outreach, and what the city is looking for and adding this to our comprehensive plan. And so while this is the developer's application to the city, the city established a plan that would not meet the 35% impervious surface. Um as the planning commission knows, the the comprehensive plan is quite similar to the current development plan that has been submitted. And so the developers meeting what the city had already established even though the city established a plan that was over the 35% impervious surface maxim maximum. With that, I will hand it off to our consultants to get into the technicals and we'll go from there. Great. Thanks. Uh happy to be here this evening and I'll walk through uh the technical review uh of the variance application and happy to answer any questions. Um have a lot of experience with shoreland um projects all throughout the Twin Cities. Uh so hopefully we can uh help you in any questions that you may have. Um, so as you know, this is a variant specifically for the Metronic Redevelopment Project. Um, I'm still getting used to someone else controlling. It's great. No, it's fine. I'll just get used to it. Um, the applicant has uh requested the variance on behalf of Lincoln Avenue communities, which we discussed. Um, as you know, it will requested to exceed the 35% maximum impervious surface coverage limit. Uh, when we review a variance, it's actually subject to two different standards within the city code. One is your typical variance standards which are um found in your section 9.104 as well as the shoreline management overlay district standards. So I'll walk through those at a high level. The detail is really provided in your report. So I'm not going to walk through every single variance criteria in detail, but I think it is helpful to understand. Before we get there, I just want to talk about the shoreland overlay district because I don't think you um have as many opportunities to uh have projects within that area. So I thought that context might be a little bit helpful. Um so just uh I have just a typical zoning map uh from the community. You can see the project shown in the upper um circled in red. Um but show the overlay district is intended to guide development within a thousand feet of any designated public water. Um and the proposed project as you know is budding Sullivan Lake. I think one thing to note as you look uh at this zoning map is that this project is somewhat unique and that's something I will reference later in terms of most of the other lakes in the community are surrounded by single family homes or they're surrounded by parkland. Obviously this one is surrounded by parkland but because it's a th00and ft. This project uh is still within that area. So that does make this project a little bit unique and maybe not something you're going to see fairly frequently um given how development has already occurred around the other lakes in the community. Uh so the existing conditions uh as you know the Metronic site currently has a building that's 135,000 square feet and there's an 812 stall parking lot. Um the project uh the existing building was constructed in 1979 which generally predates uh any of the current DNR regulations. Uh the DNR has had uh shoreline regulations since about the 1970s. There's been multiple iterations. Communities at various times has have adopted those shoreline regulations. Each community is a little bit different on when they actually adopted their first regulations and whether they've updated them since. Um so you can go through that process. The current impervious surface is 54% um which is above uh that established 35%. Um so it is non-conforming. It is kind of uh considered an existing condition. Uh, and it is there is no storm water treatment, which I think is the most important part of this is that currently if if someone would purchase the building and continue to use it, we'd have no storm water treatment at all. Um, and this project will at least put in some of that storm water treatment to try and help mitigate uh what does happen on the site. Uh, this is just to reference for everybody. I'm sure folks are familiar, but uh, just to reference where the current building ref is on the site. Sullivan Lake uh is to the west off the kind of off the page and actually that in a diagram in the future will help us kind of illustrate where this project is relative to the lake. Um as we talk about thanks the proposal I think most folks know but just to reiterate um it will involve the demolition of the building itself and the redevelopment into a multi-phase project. their four phases. Um important uh that it is rep it is following the concepts um that were generated. Um the city is in need of housing. The entire state is in need of housing. Um and so there's really an effort to do some type of mixed use on this site to really support the use of transit nearby on Central Avenue as well as support the adjacent commercial community. Um so we have two six-story multifamily buildings, a mixeduse building and then a range of apartments and town homes and then there will be some um park and infrastructure improvements. So uh this diagram I think shows and I think it's important from the idea of how impactful this will be to the lake. It will be it is within the thousand feet. So obviously it will impact the lake. Um there is the parkland that separates this project from the lake itself. Um, and so the closest point uh of any of the pieces of the project is 180 feet. I recognize that it is closer than the existing building, which is uh above 300. Um, but we're still talking 180 ft from the lake. And I'm going to walk through in a few minutes what they are proposing for storm water treatment. Um, and the idea that this site is developed um when you have townhouse, commercial, and apartments heavily is typical. Um, one of the challenges, as you all know from reviewing uh the past uh project, uh is the fact that in order to meet parking requirements, landscaping requirements, building requirements, it's really hard to do everything and made everything work on a site and make the math work. Um, and so it's fairly typical that we would look at specific storm water treatment perspectives instead of instead of just leaving open space and being at 35%. This is fairly typical. Uh as uh you know the project increases impervious the existing conditions is 40 54%. We are increasing it to 67%. Um there I just included this diagram to kind of remind folks there are four different kind of lots uh and there are four different levels of impervious surface amongst those lots. So when we talk about 67.7% the applicant is proposing uh kind of an overall number uh if you look at lot four which is the orange area that amount of impervious surface is less. There's more green space and so that more uh that less impactful development is on the west and the south to try and protect the lake a little bit more. Um but it still is increasing the amount of impervious surface. Uh what I did want to mention just because I know in the packet maybe it's a little hard to see unless you zoomed in uh is in yellow those are the underground infiltration storage vaults. Uh so those are the rooftops um from each of the buildings will drain into those underground storage vaults and then there is also an infiltration infiltration basin. Um Mitchell mentioned the fact that the where you are in the process is more of the schematic design part. All of these things have not been technically figured out. there's a general sense that it can work. The city engineer has reviewed this, but more work will need to be done um before you get to an actual development agreement, a maintenance agreement, all of those elements. Um the applicant needs to know that generally they are meeting what you want and then they can work through all of those details. And so it's a little bit challenging right now because you're asked to have a variance request, but yet they kind of need to they need to know that in order to work through all of the technical details uh to make it all work. But this is their general schematic design. Uh technical questions I cannot answer on storm water management. Uh but if there are those those are things that we can bring back and have prepared for the council. U because I am a planner not an engineer. So I just want to put that out there. Um but the applicant has and the city is intending um that the project will be constructed uh to meet MPCA um MPDS stormwater requirements. So obviously there's more design that has to go in and there will be certain thresholds that are met. uh the city engineer has reviewed that and has not really identified concerns at this stage in the process. Obviously, there will be back and forth between the city engineer and the applicant to refine, make sure that they're meeting the requirements that the city has. Uh I think most importantly, and these are things that I know you just received, but we can walk through them a little bit. Um the MWM and DNR both received uh copies of the plan, and so they do have some preliminary comments. Um and we felt important to share those with you. They were both just received today. Um and so you are just seeing them tonight. Um but generally uh the MWMO uh I believe you had those on your DIA so you can hopefully you had a chance to review those briefly. Um but at a high level the MW they are a water management organization. So understandably they're very concerned about the impacts. Their focus is really on the lake and protecting the lake. Um they do have some concerns um about how things will be treated, how it will be handled to best protect the lake. Um certainly these comments are the kinds of comments one would anticipate. They're technical in nature. They would be something the applicant and the city engineer and the WMO would work towards to try and make sure that they address. So some of the elements that they talk about uh is making sure for example the bounce so when the rain happens that the lake doesn't bounce too fast. So raise an elevation too quickly. Um, they also talk about things like on uh monitoring long-term and often cities accomplish that through maintenance agreements that make sure the storm water system is checked, it's working properly to best protect the lake. Um, they also talk about pre-development infiltration testing. So, again, most of their comments in general, they're concerned, rightfully so, about an increase in imperous surface. Lots of these questions are more technical. Um, so things that we would anticipate since we just received them today that the city engineer, the MWL applicant would be working towards uh in answering and preparation for the city council meeting or further on um as you work through the actual design. Uh the DNR comments I believe came right at u very late in the afternoon. Um generally their comments are a little bit more kind of a summary of what's happening. Um they did note uh one thing that the DNR really looks at is what happens within the shoreland impact zone which is the first 25 ft of the 50ft setback that you need. Um and there is nothing proposed in terms of structure um that they would be concerned about. Uh it seems like their biggest concern um overall was making sure that no storm water is actually conveyed directly into the public water. And again, that's one uh good element of having that 180 feet between the project uh and the lake itself is that there's opportunity for treatment on site and for any water um to have time before it reaches the lake. But again, these agencies uh provide technical review and so it's something that I would anticipate would continue to be working with the city, the applicant uh to make sure their concerns are addressed as we move through the process. So relative to your required findings of fact, if you remember at the beginning, I mentioned that there's two different places that we need to address. So I'll walk through these kind of at a high level. You had more detail in your packet. Um in order to uh make uh to grant the variance, these are findings that are required per your city code. Um so generally one of them has to do with making sure that there's something unique um about the property and that strict proh uh adherence to that u would prevent it. And again, as we've referenced, this proposal generally follows the comprehensive plan and the concepts that really as a city, it was determined when the comprehensive plan amendment was adopted um that there is an interest in seeing this site if it was no longer going to be a commercial site that it be used for um affordable housing as well as a mixture of housing. And so that is something that you wouldn't be able to do under the code, which is why you were looking at the plan unit development process. um the conditions are unique to the site and that's one of the reasons I went back and showed you the the zoning map is that when you really look at it and the difference between the lakes in the community it's very different um and so what happens here necessarily doesn't um isn't a precedent for how other things would happen in the community necessarily so it really is a unique site because of having a commercial property right there um that where redevelopment can occur. Uh the practical difficulties aren't caused by a specific person. Um in an honestly in any project any developer would have a challenge meeting these if they were trying to meet the concept of the city and Mitchell referenced that like the concept that was developed was developed with the understanding that we would need to do storm water treatment in order to make it work. So it's not specific to this person this applicant. It's specific to how the city envisions that site uh to develop. uh the granting the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan. I think I've referenced the comprehensive plan enough. Um so that's really uh something that we've discussed. Um and that it won't be detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurous to the enjoyment, use development of property. Um one element of the project is that by having folks uh being able to live on that site is more folks will be right near the lake, be able to enjoy the lake. Um, and so that's something that we always need to balance is that we're making sure to protect the environment through the storm water management and the other elements of a project. Um, but we're also adding folks that can be near the lake and enjoy it um, rather than having a vacant site um, that hasn't been at its highest and best use. As I referenced, there are also shoreline overlay district regulations that will need to apply. These are formatted slightly differently. Um so these are kind of formatted in terms of these will need to be conditions that will need to be met. So the first three um meeting setback requirements provided with municipal water and sewer that storm water is in compliance. Those are things that are already required or already part of the recommendation for approval that you did in June. Um so those are kind of covered by that. Um and then measures will be taken for the treatment of storm water rubbth. That again was covered in June, but this this is what uh the variance is about today. Um and so that's really setting the stage that we want to make sure that we continue to work to make sure that the storm water treatment that's planned for the site um provides as much protection for the lake as possible. So looking at making sure that the storm water treatment uh conditions or what they are proposing technically works. So there's a reference to an infiltration or filtration basin. You know, at some point we'll have to figure out which is the right one and at what elevation does it need to be. Those are all the technical elements that will come through as you work through the process. Staff review um that this is an appropriate request for a variance. As I said um DNR and MWO just provided the comments. So those are things we that staff will be working through as we work towards any council consideration. Um but we are working on addressing any concerns. I think the biggest concern with an impervious surface variance is related to storm water management and making sure that the city is doing the best it can to protect the lake um and its water quality into the future. So the recommended motion uh there's two recommended motion. Uh the first motion is to wave the reading of the resolution um since there are ample copies available to the public. Uh, and then there is a move to recommend the city council approve the resolution subject to the conditions. And I I was just going to say I think Mitchell was going to say the resolution number is slightly different. It's 58 instead of 57. Um, that I made that adjustment in the PowerPoint. So I think maybe on the agenda it might have said 57. Um, but we've adjusted that number. So just a reference to that. Okay. With that I can answer any questions that you may have. Madame chair, members of the commission, we also have the developer and their council in in office. So, they have their um architect and their engineer with as well. So, we have plenty of people here to answer questions. I have a few questions. Some are probably more technical. First, I like the idea of the storage tanks way to work. I know there's Minneapolis has different locations that MW Mo has also been involved with. Question I have would be with the water table by the lake there, will this system technically work fast enough or have enough seepage to make it beneficial. And then uh again it'll probably be worked out later on. If the system becomes full, is there an overflow? And where does the overflow end up? And then on the storm basin, I was just curious on the diagram. I was trying to tell what depth was it just a depression and were they thinking of sad covered or was it going to be deeper with native plantings and more of a rain garden type of event? Commissioner member Schmidz um other members of the commission I can have the engineer come up and talk about the first two questions. Um but I can talk to the storm basin. this will actually be located underneath the parking areas. So, it'll be buried under um where they'll have that kind of surface parking. And then just for reminder, the um first question was about the storage tanks um and being able to flow into the lake with um being close to the water level and then um the overflow which we had talked about previously. Good afternoon, uh commissioners. Um PJ Dish Lok, civil engineer for the project. Um, you can see the three yellow tanks. I guess I'll start off with um to meet MPCA standards. Uh, Minnesota stormwater manual requirements. They have to be above 3 feet above any groundwater. So, they'll be a minimum of 3 ft above groundwater. They'll have a sand basin in them. So, it'll give underneath that. So, it'll help the infiltration for those tanks. And the actual outlet of them is designed at they'll be designed at uh underneath that elevation below. So for the 1.1 in storm event, the first 1.1 inches of any storm event will will not go into the lakes. It'll go into those tanks and infiltrate into the ground. So after that then there will be an outlet control structure on each tank that will allow the storm water to discharge at a certain rate. We'll have to which which will meet existing rates for the one 10 and 100year storm event. So no storm event will have water uh leaving the site any faster in a larger capacity. Um actually because the site existing site is 60 or 55% impervious and there is no storm water treatment providing any treatment for the site even though we are increasing the impervious surface will be beneficiary to the site because now there is a treatment to take that first 1.1 in event and go into the ground before anything goes into the site. And then there is an outlet on all three tanks that'll be at the that that water quality volume they call it's the 1.1 in. So it's about between one and two feet above um the bottom of the tank. So you have the one two feet above the bottom of the tank and then you'll have three feet of sand. So that'll fill up before any water leaves those tanks and it'll be at a slower rate than what is currently there. So it'll be an improvement on um the discharge rates that are currently there and I know you said well when those tanks fill so yes they will bounce up. They have the capacity to hold up to a 100 degree storm event and then to slowly discharge into the city storm sewer before draining into the lake. Um, and I think the last question was the rain garden. Is that Nope. I think that's that that's it would have been the storm basin which yeah by the town homes the blue one. The blue one that'll be more of like a rain garden with Yeah. native planting stuff like that more than likely or it can be an infiltration basin where it's got has grass and can be more that hasn't been determined at this time but more than likely be more of your rain garden basins with the native plantings and stuff like that in it. Okay. really probably the last question. What type of storage? I mean it's a storm water pipe. Uh the supplier depends I mean different suppliers I mean there's the CMP system. I mean they all have life expectancy of piping of you know 50 50 plus years. Um there's different materials that they now will put over over the top of the pipe. So if anything comes from the parking lot salt and stuff that will protect, you know, these pipes from corroding, you know, rusting away or die or just deteriorating over time. So I mean it's just like any typical storm sewer at any site. Um and I know one of the wershed requirements is there'll be a yearly maintenance plan where they're inspected. There'll be inspection ports into all these tanks and to make sure that they're, you know, the water is draining down in 48 hours. So that that 1.1 in has to be drawn down in the tank from so when that when that get that first 1.1 in from when it's the raintorm ends it has to be drawn down in that 48 hours and that's one way. So after yearly they'll do a test um to after a 1.1 inch event come and check the system if it's drawn down if not they'll go through and they have they'll send back back trucks through pipe systems through there to to clean out these systems. And a lot of the stuff is there's also treatment devices before this sump manholes where before devices come in that will you know or four feet deep before the outlet pipe is so any type of you know grit sand that gets through the storm grates and stuff will go into those before going into the system. There's many ways now to pre-treat the storm water before it gets into the system just to make make them last longer and the maintenance on them much easier. Thank you. Yep. Followup question on that too. What's do you have a proposed filtration system as well? What's that? A proposed filtration system for these storm water. No, this is all infiltration. No, no filtration. Okay. It's all infiltration. So the difference, do you know the difference between infiltration filtration? If you can expand on that. The only difference is would be where you have soils that will not allow infiltration. You put drain tile on the bottom of that sand. So instead of infiltrating, the water will go through the sand and then get to the drain tile and slower the slow the rate of what the storm water comes out. So just it's treating the water through that sand layer before it discharges into the city storm sewer or wherever you go just to kind of clean the so you have clean water leaving your site. So the sand is the one that's uh the sand is the one that's slowing down the water essentially to let it go flow. Okay. Yep. Thank you. Cleaning cleaning the water. Yes. Anything else? No. Thank you. Thanks, BJ. Paul, do you have any other questions? I'm good. You're good. Okay, I think uh we're good with closing the We can open the public hearing. We can open the public hearing. Thank you. Uh let's go ahead and open the public hearing. Okay. First, we have Teresa Carson. Okay. And then next we have Lori. Lori of 798 Parkside Lane here in Columbia. Hello, I'm Lori and I'm reading a letter from Karen Smith. She is administrator Little Voyagers Monastery located 82551st Avenue in Columbia Heights inside St. Timothy's Lutheran Church and this is the public hearing regarding 853rd Avenue that is directly north of the church and our monastery program. She states that I feel the density of the planned property is too high and there is no green space in the design which is required. Requesting a variance is telling you that there is more development planned than there is space. The number of buildings proposed residents and businesses are more than the property size by the city code. Therefore, the variance should not be approved. It is responsibility of the planning commission and city council to abide by code. Yes, variances can be requested. My concern is that there that no one seems to be listening to lifetime residences and how it truly affects the lifestyle of the people and the area. The density of the area will flow over to a nearby park and streets. It appears that the park is being considered the green space for this development. This is not the purpose of the city parks. It is additional space to gather family homes have some green space and a development is required to provide some green space especially one of this size. The nature and wildlife that is unique to Sullivan Park is used by local families, wildlife, and area learning programs, and it will be overtaken and destroyed. There is a reason that cities require green space in new developments. Please do not give up the uniqueness of the area that the city designed for the community, for a developer, and their bottom line and the city's bottom line. Please maintain quality areas for all families to enjoy and want to be live in that area. The planning commission and the city council are responsible for zoning and city codes and for the quality of life within the city. Do not allow the invariance for this project. If the project needs to go through, it can be redesigned to fit the area within the code that protects the community. Please consider this where you would choose to live either in the development or beside it. This developer is not from the area and it does not affect their lifestyle. Please really consider the feedback from the re residents in their city. An additional thought, there is no possible truth that there will not be a big increase in traffic on 53rd Avenue since changes were made at the light on University Avenue. I avoid that area and use residential streets to go north on 694. Thank you for your time and consideration, Karen Smith. Thank you. Now we have Walter. Walter is of 5055 Madison Street. Hi, I'm Walter Horishnik. I I live at 5055 Madison Street and I'm a 42 42year resident of Columbia Heights. I do have a question on on the present uh commercial zoning requirement. Within that zoning requirement, is there a specific height of the building that uh designates commercial use of that site? Madam chair, members of the commission, yes, there is. I can definitely look that up for you. Please feel free to continue. It'll be a minute or so and then I can chime back in. Okay. Yeah. I mean, if if if there's a a zoning requirement that doesn't allow a commercial uh site to go to six stories high, why would there be a variance that granted for a residential apartment to reach that height? Because that height uh exacerbates density housing, you know, in in that whole area. And also ha has there been a environmental study for a uh considering for a fourstory uh apartment building as opposed to a sixstory building? Is is there any difference as far as bird migration or just nature type of uh environmental impacts on on the nature around that park? because it seems to me that a building that reaches the height of the one that we're in is more uh advantageous to a city street and not a nature type of ah area. So, I've I've I would strongly advise not to go over four stories because all around the the surrounding communities um except for this building that we're in now only go to four stories. And there's a reason for that. So why is there a reason to go to six stories, you know, other than just having more units in that building and g getting away from the uh um apartment building, I I do have a a little bit of a question on the fitness park that's going to go into the Sullivan area, which is kind of a massive amount of concrete. And I was I was told in the last meeting that Sullivan was the perfect site for a a fitness court that mainly has a big cement pad on it. And it seems a large cement pad is the exact opposite of a nature area. So, I would really uh advise not having that fitness court at that park because that that park is kind of relatively small compared to a lot of areas like in in in you know parks right on 40th and Madison. There's lots of space for uh a large concrete pad. you know, they you you wouldn't consider putting a baseball field in uh Sullivan Park, but we have this large fitness area that doesn't seem to me uh it sounds good on paper, but I I think in reality that chunk of concrete is not a not going to be used as much as people think it might be. and uh it really doesn't add to the nature quality of that park. As a matter of fact, it takes away from it. So, those are the points I wanted to raise. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission. Just to follow up on some of those, um I do not have the not been able to find the height limit in the zoning code, but that's definitely something I'll follow up with the planning commission and with the public with. I believe it was in the presentation from last meeting. Um, the other item I just would like to remind the public and the planning commission of is we are still currently accepting comments on our environmental assessment worksheet which goes through the all the impacts with the um animals and everything like that. Actually names out the animals in the park and everything like that. So would definitely recommend um members of the public to check out the city website under um public notices. We have our website there. We are accepting public comment until July 10th. So feel free to check that out. It also covers the traffic and as well as that. And then um the parks commission and the city council will be addressing comments about the the um the fitness court on the park. Ann and is 715th Avenue Northeast. Good evening, commission. Thank you for hearing us. Um, as you know, I'm opposed to the project, but I do understand that we need to adjust our housing and we need to put something there, and I'm okay with that. It's the scope and the size of the project that I'm in disagreement with. I think that 180 foot variance that was talked about is too small that or 180 feet close instead of 300 feet. That's that's too small. So I'm going to be walking my dog and you're sitting on your hand. Hey, how you doing? There's no there's no space. There's no green space for the frogs, the ducks. That is your most valuable park, marshland, lake in spring or in Columbia Heights. Cattails are a natural um filter. Again, not doing the job that they need to do. And I agree, there needs to be some storm filtration. Um but look at how you're looking at we're putting in, as he said, a fitness center and pickle ball courts. So, we're putting imperous surface in the park. too many crickets. You're putting more impervious surface over at Metronic and then you're going to turn and put it over at the park. How in the hell does that make it a green space, a park? Do you care about us on that side of town? How many of you live over there? Do you ever walk that park? Raise your hand if you've walked that park. Is it a fun park to walk? A little dirty. A little dirty. Clean up. Needs some clean up. Needs some updating. 100% agree with you. But it has water. It has wildlife. It has sounds. It has nature. So, when you put in all of this, you're taking that away. You're destroying habitat. Again, I agree. We need something there. Metronic needs to be redeveloped. Not opposed to some housing, but look at the housing you're putting in and how you're putting it in. You are not doing due diligence as commissioners and representatives of this city if you pass this variance as is. I would it it would be embarrassing if I were on the commission and I passed it. That's all I'm going to say. Peace out for hockey players. By the way, we have one more Julian. I'm Julian Woff and I live at 789 Parkside Lane. Um, taking any green space is wrong. We have done so much harm to our world by taking our green space away. And as I mentioned at the last council meeting through Connie Biscans, I learned that 85 different species of birds have been seen in Sullivan Park. Did you hear me? 85 different species, not just 85 birds. Okay. Couple of weeks ago, I was out on one side of my town home and I saw something in the grass moving. It was a turtle. And with her back legs, she was digging a hole. I watched her drop four eggs into the ground and then start to cover up the hole with her back legs. That whole thing was taking up to two hours. I couldn't watch anymore. But I went out the next morning to see what happened. And I think a raccoon or somebody had gotten the eggs because it was a big hole then. Think of all those critters that you're hurting. Okay. Um, my sister just moved into the Ford Parkway or the Ford plant site over in St. Paul. That went through many different planning things and it was scaled down from what a developer had first wanted. Scaled down very much. There's beautiful green spaces and paths, a fountain, running water going through the park. It is beautiful. It is an asset to the community. It's a gorgeous place. It just melds in right with the Mississippi River, which is right there. The building that the last building of that development at the Ford plant is right in front of my sisters, and it has gone from six stories down to four stories because enough people complained that it was going to block their view. and it would be too high by the river. Can you give us anybody's name at the DNR that we can contact and talk to or tell us where we could find it? Madam Chair, members of the commission. Yes. So, unfortunately, we received the DNR's comments as rather late this afternoon, but their comments will also be added to the city council packet moving forward, but is Alex cell. Um, if you reach out to staff after the meeting, I can definitely forward the email and the comments um to the public. Okay. All right. So, I want some development to go in that area, but decrease the density and keep the green space. Okay, we need it. We need it for the robins to dig up their worms. We need it for all those birds, those raccoons, those turtles. They need that green space. We need that green space for them because without them, we're not going to be around anymore either. It's a gem here in Columbia Heights. We should be fighting to protect it and not rip it up for some developer who doesn't really understand what it is, how important it is to us. Thank you. And that concludes all public comments I have. Do we have anybody online for Yeah. Come on up. Uh the yellow holding tanky things. I'm spacing out my names. who manages those after the developer leaves. Madam chair, members of the commission, that that's where the city and the developer work out the maintenance agreement. And so that's built into that with, you know, between the two entities and the owner of the property will work together on the maintenance of those. Okay. And there's a good chance the city will take over the the monitoring and maintenance of that though. The monitoring um with the assistance of the MWMO um and then if there's a problem, it hits our taxes. No, it does. No, it no, it would be with the develop or who owns that property at that time. So, if the developer leaves, then it's, you know, the property management or depending on, you know, who takes over the property afterwards, they would be responsible. They would be responsible for the million-doll fix, not us. Uhhuh. Okay. And I don't have any questions from Okay. Uh, commissioners, do you have any follow-up questions before we move on? Okay. Uh, again, I want to thank you all for being here. We're going to go ahead and close the public um public portion of this meeting and move forward. Um, thank you all for being here. Again, if you would like another opportunity to speak and share your opinions, um the final decisions will be made at the city next city council meeting, which is which day again? It'll be the Jul July 28th city council meeting. July 28th city council meeting. Um so, you know, encourage you to attend if you would like to continue to make some comments, but they are the ultimate final decision makers. We recommend to forward it to the city council and then they make a final ruling on that or decision on that. But um that's where we are right now. And Madam Chair, just a motion to close the public hearing. Oh, sorry. I'll make a motion to close the public portion of the meeting. Seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Oh, I guess we have another All right, we've got them on the screen. Thank you. Okay, we'll move forward with the motions for first one up. Would someone like to make a motion? I'll make the motion to wave the readings of resolution 2025-058 being ample copies to the public. Second. Okay. All in favor? I I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Next motion. Uh I move to recommend that the city council approve resolution number 2025-058 approving the shoreline variant subject to the following conditions. The applicant shall adhere to all storm water requirements and permitting required by state and local codes. Permits, licenses, and inspections will be met and in full compliance. I'll second that. All in favor? I I I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Do we have any other business? I don't see anything on the agenda, Madam Chair. No other business. Um, just one update. Community development staff are currently interviewing for the new city planner position. So hopefully we'll have someone on in not too far far future, but HKGI will be assisting with this project even after we kind of bring someone on to, you know, give them a little space and learn the job before they're thrown into a large scale development. So thank you. All right, I think I'll go ahead and ask for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Going to do it right this time. Second. All in favor? I I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Meeting adjourned. Thank you.