We shifted everything into the greater Southdale District... we've got the 50 Foot setback and 30 foot setback in the Southdale District I move that into the overlay District also.

Out of the Southdale design experience guidelines came some recommendations to have building transparency on the front that faces the public real to have 75% and first floor ceiling height of new development to have 20ft ceilings... we put that from the guidelines and put it into ordinance thinking those would be easy ones that was in 2020... it's proven to have never worked.

It goes against our sustainability policy... it's expensive it's not energy efficient developers don't like it they've had a hard time meeting it... but oftentimes through the Pud we're varying from it we're doing some we've done 10 some we've done 12 13 14 16 we're kind of all over the place.

The way we did it is we put it in every zoning district and not sure we intended to do that... some of the discussion last week was this was really designed for the Southdale district and we also talked about it's really meant for multi-story buildings because we that requirement is for just single story as well.

When I read slab to slab I'm thinking that would be below the raised floor and above the joists... it's finished floor to finish ceiling it should go to the darker gray at the top... we were going to measure it from... the top just to allow like future conversion because it's up to whoever to define the ceiling height.

What is that sweet spot number to allow for conversion to allow for daylight and to the back of spaces and does it apply right... this I think in general would be pushed Again by more the 100% residential building but we wouldn't want to you know sacrifice that for retail use or other to kind of shrink it too far.

There's two things right there's the where where's the measuring points so I think we're good on the measuring points slab to slab but then the second part is depending on if it's multistory or industrial zone or whatever the case is that's when you adjust the distance so it could be 14 ft from slab to slab or whatever you know 20 ft from slab to slab but slab to slab is the measuring points.

14 ft would be tight because if you were to finish that you're going to end up with Heights of 12 feet which is not... it's a big Lobby it's but it's not commercial.

This is where you had that chart of um what we planted variances for and where we planted experiences most of the shorter ones are like the residential where that you're gonna push for a lower height in your lobbies and if you have residential spaces which is also why they fought on the transparency because it's privacy but that doesn't equally apply in like a retail commercial office setting.

Because this is just for the first floor right that's where the floor is ceiling underside of ceiling because we're just concerned about the first floor height not the overall building sort of floor height.

So floor finish floor to finish floor we're still talking first floor finish floor to finish floor 15t first floor if it's multi 14 is a minimum are we still concerned about the exactness of the number I think then it needs to be a higher number okay even though it's a yeah just because we didn't we didn't really establish last time what that definition was.

For most of the variances that have been granted what height are is generally being done in newer buildings Meson green over here is 12T... the 7200 7250 project we've reduced to 16 ft... Edina fire station was 11 ft... Edina 100 Apartments... we approved that one at 13 ft... First National Bank... 13 ft... Aon the affordable housing project was 10 ft... the dental office is going to come in at 12 feet.

The number that's in there is 14 nothing magic about it to be clear for everyone this is only for the Southdale area then yes yeah.

Why are we taking it out of PCD and p... it's taking it out of all those zoning districts so it's not included in 50th in France or 44th in France... it was primarily because that 20 foot measurement just didn't seem to apply to every area... I wonder about taking away any height requirement or first floor height requirement from 44th in France and 50th in France and K Hill in 70th and all those places where we want to have multiuse eventually.

The discussion centered around was around flexibility in the future right so if we lock them into a certain height requirement would prevent other uses they don't need a 20 foot height requir right so now we come back we come back the other way around right so guess if they come through with like 10 11 foot be harder to convert that to a different use or that the problem is we a lot of variances with the current requirement right.

50th in France you know that's generally 12 13 feet for those first floors down there to finish ceiling... we'll have to do some more research on that and I think that's I mean that's just where we want to get behind the definition that allows future adaptability right.

Back in Los Angeles they would have a lot of people convert warehouses or storage units into um a place with a lot Loft and there for for ceiling height was um so that there could be a 7t kind of office area yeah in the back of places you know so you could have because a 7 foot is a minimum ceiling height so if you're reusing something I mean you know does it go to a higher lower purpose or you try get more things into it or you try to be more creative.

I'm still between the 14 Florida ceiling or floor to floor height I'm still 50/50 on that cuz because this is just about the first floor you're 5050 about whether it should be to from slab to slab or slab to slab or slab to bottom of the structural slab... in commercial slab to slab or the bottom floor to floor yep or floor to the underside of ceiling and it doesn't include the joist or mechanical equipment.

I think from our last conversation is I think we all felt good of if this space was finished 14 ft from the floor to that ceiling feels like a good minimum but how do we want to Define that just because different spaces can have how do we want to regulate it like when they're reviewing the plans and they're saying hey this works.

Design experience guidelines under building form say ground floor should have a minimum ceiling height of 20 ft for flexibility this floor to floor height will allow the space to accommodate commercial two floors of parking or twostory townhouses... that's where this came from.

He's talking about a street wall contiguous buildings um you know up to they're all at the same distance from the curb so that that way it's like an urban space like they I say Manhattan but you know downtown Minneapolis or whatever where you know even or 44th in France or 50th in France where all the buildings all the old buildings from when there's a street car there but the ones facing France are all the they're different owners different whatever but they all have the same face and similar height right.

I think it's it's everyone right I mean I was going to say it was the flexibility of the space for future users it's preserving that option not for the current tenant but for future tenants in the event that it's m uh retail in the intent with the design experience guidelines was also to to create you know a potential like if there's a minimum and it's a High minimum everyone's going to build to that so you're likely going to have a pretty consistent aesthetic on the outside.

The push back from developers that's getting us to have this conversation what was their concerns um cost cost of materials to build that tall I'm going to in Energy Efficiency I'm to assume it's you have to do steel to get to 20 can you do I mean depends on the they yeah they can do whatever I mean there's a variety of means to achieve it.

Like the products that you look at where they got the variance it's like a all residential building so like they just didn't want to build a big Lobby I mean essentially that's what it was the developer doesn't need a big Lobby for the purpose of that apartment building so he pushed back which means great but in 15 years we can't turn that into a restaurant easily or turn it into some other commercial building because code for commercial building required a a higher ceiling.

I like your point about um the facade from the outside and that consistency I think that makes sense um I can see how that can be floor to floor at least maintain that um and what happens on the inside is up to the developer right and they could drop the seiling whatever is reasonable.

Could I suggest then that the sentence would say first floor height shall be measured from the top of the first floor slab to the top of the second floor slab and then get rid of the second sentence that's it and what would be the number that you're proposing there you want a number too I mean it was so well crafted 15 15 the baby sounds I don't know what the right number is I think it's less than 20 and more than 14.

I mean why don't we ask him why doesn't yeah he tell us 20 ft no but I mean what how to measure the just you know what you're measuring I mean he would know what the technical term... he would know I mean he's he just if you're going floor to floor it's it's always finish floor to finish floor just in construction once you get above the first floor that's what the carpet here to the top of the carpet on the next floor.

Just that seems to be clear and gives flexibility for heating the space or cooling where can drop the ceiling down makes sense do whatever they want basically.

I wouldn't say slab cuz you might have a a deck it might not be a slab so there's yeah that makes it clean as clean as it could be now it's just the magic number right.

I couldn't find anything anywhere of like a minimum first floor height just anywhere but you can find Historical references to you don't want it too too short to just allow daylight back to the backst places so it's maybe it's going to cost more energy but you're going to have more Daylight it's kind of the more historical buildings don't have really short first floors they're taller like 12 fet.

I mean I love the idea of 15 ft but we have we've had no projects come in and ask for a 15ot rather than a 20 they've always they've all been 14 ft or longer... the 7200 7250 project they asked for 16 ft nice they didn't build it but yeah that's what they agreed to you might get more more ads for 15 if you lower it from 20 right.

A lot of the design guidelines have those step backs starting at right 60 ft in height but the 20 to 60 is like a clean 40 where it might be four 10t levels and maybe that's why it just made it simpler maybe it's should we ask like I don't know I'm just telling you what he said but he was really clear about it.

The amount of variances that we've seen for Southdale I hesitate to do that because it just defeats the purp I mean we're constantly granting variances for something for a second time what have we accomplished yeah the whole point of this is to make this practical right that's something that can be done.

There were buildings I mean that Estelle project that then got built it is a first floor 20 they did have 20t yeah it's just a one-story building.

Restoration Hardware can't be a metric for anything... we seem to get more mileage out of applying the principles than we did the code.

If I could just pose this question if we separate like the the rest of the city and we treat Southdale as a unique space where the street Room concept is what we want to continue there right that's where the Florida Florida Finish Florida Finish floor would be very important in the Southdale area so if we just use that as a definition for the Southdale area but then the rest of the city we go from floor to ceiling does that make sense would that be just because we want to preserve the the street Room idea in Southdale but the rest of the city we're a little bit more like what's reasonable for developer to think about.

The flexibility was you just take it out and now you have ultimate flexibility you can build whatever a lot of push back on this like I know the council mentions it every time they don't like these standards they may just strike it completely that'd be their prerogative to say negotiating against ourselves a little bit.

Drawing a hard Line in the Sand only works if you actually stick to that line otherwise we're just negotiating against ourselves leave it at what it is and make the developer come and ask for what they want and evaluate it on a Case by casee basis which is what we've been do.

I'm wondering if we need like an anchor Point as a reference point right if we if we do give a a a height number then they could come above or below that at least we have a reference P um is what I'm thinking... if we say that it's going to be you know 14 ft and then they ask for a variance to go down to 12 or a variance to go up to 15 then they could do that but now we know it's going one foot above that 14t reference point or 2T below the reference point.

The 50 and the 30 foot setbacks they've been they meet that no the uh step back the can yeah they're generally doing that for the multistory okay maybe that tells us something maybe that tells us that that that that's a viable practical practical you know to apply that is practical application but that that the height doesn't.

If you have like a 14t ceiling height or a 15t ceiling height you either have 45 ft left over 46t left over you know and they 10ft ceiling Heights or 12ft sealing Heights I'm just saying yeah I'm just saying are we mucking with some of our other stuff I mean they could they could step back lower yeah there's nothing magical about that 60 ft.

This all goes to like this was envisioned for the Southdale area this was never envisioned for all OFA so I think the 20 ft in general or whatever that number wants to be certainly doesn't apply to to the rest of VI I mean it was written for the South Del area and we all agreed that is a different area has a different Vision.

Unless there's a good reason back to our last discussion is we eliminate this from all these other areas in Idina which was the case previous to 2020 and what does that put the there's no there's no regulation there was never a regulation on it.

So does that mean then that the kill and the 44th node could be developed completely as residential with no possibility of a retail use or a commercial use well with K the small area plan for 44th in France it has to be and we changed the code last year to make it clear that you can't do Standalone residential in the commercial District got it okay and so then it benefits whoever's doing that to design appropriately so then if you design and it can handle retail likely it can be converted into something else that works.

But then now you're stuck at the first floor height that's going to allow flexibility and I think again like 44th in France and 50th in France like we're saying it isn't the scale of Southdale like some of those buildings that are there like again a 20ft height would not make any sense if would come up to the second floor the neighborhoods to that point.

To the extent that you know we we we've heard about how Simon is is um infusing all this money into Southdale and the Galleria is changing ownership and there's a huge amount of movement just within those two shopping areas so to the extent anything is being redeveloped it's going to have to go through through us if it's a new building they're just remodeling so they wouldn't be subject to the fail.

So I'm just wondering how if if we start dealing with kind of that kind of stuff and we go through all of this only to find out that you know Simon with his muscle or whatever comes in and says you know we want 13 ft you know or something like that we want to build you know things like Restoration Hardware you're going to ask for a variance and we're going to say no I'm I'm just I'm just trying to think about all the different things that we need to think about here there's there's a lot of other players when it comes to Southdale.

Well I think that the main push was to get it out of the recipe din which is fine and if you look at a lot of those proposals they're not in Southdale yeah so do we keep the higher number at Southdale yes because that was what was envisioned there and there are buildings that have conformed to it in Southdale so far yeah or do we keep it until we get a little more information.

I'm not saying do it but um I think we're genely gone right now on Southdale it feels like but I agree with you on the rest of yeah I think we simplify it I just I'm wondering what further information we're going to get like I tried to find information so you've tried to find information yeah building code information like I'm not sure what information I can get at this point that would for my decision one way or the other need an actual project to look at.

Would be existing ceiling yeah and a lot of it's built to the culture of that City and it seems like as a community we rallied around the 20 fet at Southdale and agreed to it so I don't know why we change it there I can see why we change it everywhere else or just eliminate it because it doesn't seem necessary.

The reason they want to do it as the sustainability policy well kind of goes against that you drop the ceiling you can do that's I think this FL floor scenario seems to address that even if we go to 14 ft or whatever that number is in the Southdale District.

I have a problem with no minimum height at all well because I mean there wasn't any before 2020 and then no other cities around us have one it's just it's just not it's not something typically regulated and the design guideline is no minimum south or no minimum everywhere everywhere aside from sou okay that's confirm that's what David keep Southdale no everywhere else.

So I'm thinking in my mind of say 70 ink Hill where hopefully there'll be some Redevelopment someday and they're going to get torn down and we're going to build something new and we're going to be wanting to have Street rooms there too because Street rooms are all about pedestrian experience and walkability and a community Vibe and all that kind of thing... so when I think of Redevelopment of 70th in kahill or 54th in France or any of these places that are now PCD or P or pod or what's the other one PID I don't know I can see some benefit to having a first floor minimum height re minimum first floor minimum height requirement small in those scenarios.

They'll be coming in and asking for likely a rezoning or PUD or whatever our new zoning District whatever we come up with and they're going to go through sketch PL some of those things could be negotiated too because they're going to be asking for then we flood it with variant requests if we can put a minimum elsewhere outside of Southdale with the the mix like the mixed use piece have the 20t now right in P 20 ft everywhere right now so there must be 20 ft everywhere it's probably the most common variance that we see.

I would say if there were a concern with buildings coming in that didn't jve with it's the exception know it has its own kind of character too and people tend to kind of build in relative shape and form does 15 ft work everywhere maybe I mean originally would Deale valy view was locked at two stories 20 ft you know everything was you know three stories 30 ft so you like 15 foot for a first story just won't even make sense there.

I think it is by today's code yes so I don't need it's all Up For Debate so I think we I think we strategically covered ourselves with that change which is probably the best one we've done in couple years okay that makes sense to me now thanks cuz that was a a huge amount of heartburn for they requiring a retail on the first floor.

The big change that we talk about here is keep saltdale the same as it is today with better wording better wording keep it separate keep it separate from the rest of the city at least for right now keep it at 20 keep it at 20 Southdale you're saying keep it at 20 yeah well I think I think unless we have like a really good reason to change we keep it the same I mean we had an expert who came up with the thoughts otherwise I don't know I feel strongly as a developer that we're negotiating against ourselves because we'll come and ask for what we want you guys we can say no but if we lower it then they're just going to come and ask for a different lower number.

The change here that might be helping us is we're now making it clear that it's only for multi-story buildings some of these have been just the one-story buildings where they're asking for variances because like a one-story office building dental office or right yeah doesn't make any I mean that makes sense to me because it is a different purpose non-residential to begin with but 20 ft is going to cause heartburn out there if we keep it at that.

Their biggest concern is it's not it goes against our sustainability policy that we're requiring these tall ceilings although maybe with this floor to floor we're addressing that a little more yeah Le sh but it's not energy efficient to have that tall first floor.

Well tearing a building down isn't very sustainable so reusing a building is way way more sustainable so if you keep it you know slab to slab or whatever at 20 ft then like he says you can use it for two-story tow houses you can use it for two stories of parking um commercial space whatever but you can drop the ceiling you know for environmental reasons or whatever but building reusability is a huge thing especially postco where we don't know what the hell building is going to be used for anymore.

Is the council's feedback in the context of the design guidelines and what Mick has outlined as you know um kind of a best case scenario I mean how how do they how do they Square how are they squaring it's mixed some of the council one council member doesn't think we should have the design guidelines and it should just be tossed oh um fful yeah sort of the elh of the room is that they were prated under one Council you know and three councils later we have a different Council I think I think a lot of their heartburn is areas outside of South Dill as well.

I mean this seems obvious just the varying from those standards with almost every project that we see yeah I mean so it's a step forward MH getting rid of it outside of the South doing the over step forward and clarifying multi- story and clarifying floor to floor right so all we're doing is leaving the 20 but we're changing three they put one just make it that much better.

50% transparency we good with that I know that came up and I think Ryan mentioned something because I think we liked the old wording of you know just what faces you know especially like in the Southdale area it's like every side should have a face um so it looks like we're keeping in the old wording right you know the the street the fa that faces public realm yes y because I think originally what you guys have proposed that was struck so having that still in there I think is important.

And I think we had a foot measurement and someone mentioned eye to eyes yeah and and that's languages for everywhere or just south just south.

So the way this is written is this would be yeah this would apply to one-story buildings too so the way that's written it's sort of confusing what transparency means 50% my understanding was that it was 50% or it was 75% of the surface was glass not the glass was 50% transparent.

It's basically like if you took a line across a building face 50% of that line would be glass oh I think you missing the word transparency after 50% we crossed out 75% transparency and just wrote 50% is that what you're saying Lou well that should be it just has to be 50% of the w% transparency it's basically like if you did a line at eye level across I don't understand I don't understand the eye level thing either.

So like this so that's just where you're measuring transparency from it's like when you're walking by if you walk by this wall if you drew a line across it it'd probably be close to 75% of it's transparent it's 100 fet long wall then you have to have it okay but if you look at the diagrams and everything that he had he's talking about the surface not a line is this in in the design experience.

I think you still think give him a point of reference yeah right like if you have a 10t wall 50% transparency you were really weird you could put the first five Feer brick and the first the next five feeter windows will well you can't really see in the building if you're sitting in a wheelchair right or something I mean it just gives you here here's where I draw my line to measure my 50% transparency.

75% transparency you can't possibly have a 5 foot high wall wouldn't work no I know but the 75 the point of reducing it from 75 to 50 is because we keep getting request to change it from from 75 to to low to a lower number everybody says effici energy efficieny Energy Efficiency standpoint Etc they don't want 75% transparency that's mostly residential where you have units and you need privacy.

I think to lose point is surface area wise of the first floor being versus a line yeah so do we want to main my understanding of what okay so then maybe let's keep it that so maybe it's a diagram that shows that that 50% of the all 50% within the first level that was that what you're saying square footage yeah.

I feel like I'm sorry but I feel like we're asking a commission of ordinary humans to make these decisions where I think we should have a consultant or somebody architect somebody here or Mick to help us with this because I think you know there's so much misunderstanding there's so much you know what did he mean and what does it mean and whatever and I'm not an architect I'm just going by what I've read and I've read other things and they talk about transparency and it's the surface area so um I guess I just feel uncomfortable yeah legislating this stuff without without expert.

Or a compelling reason to make a change I think we keep the first part of the sent so I think that's one thing we agreed on last time was you know what because it used to say I think it was between like the front of the building but we wanted to make sure okay but see now it says public Street right we don't have public Street the way they were going to divide up 70th in France street.

So then just streets sidew it we've got a public easement over it we've interpreted that as it has to yeah maybe it just says public real because that fits everything we want doesn't it well I think we should have public streets but um well I don't know it's inviting a lawsuit and if they win it we've lost so inviting a lawsuit the difference between if they if the city interprets it one way and it says it in a very generic way they can sue to say hey it doesn't actually say that.

So I mean is there a legal definition for public realm that covers that all I don't know I'm not an expert I think that's just what we want to vent but that's already in the code right now it is so like we could get sued today without us touching it so always get sued well yeah this is true.

I've never had any issues with developers arguing that where we're getting a public easement over the look at the developer at 6600 6800 they're not going to be working with the city we're going to have other developers like that no where the 6600 6800 the one we saw last yeah where it's you know they're just they're not following anything that we say it doesn't follow anything with the design experience guidelines and it's in Southdale yeah it's a huge prop piece of property.

Where it's like he was just going to keep the old buildings and punish the city or whatever we get developers like that right or or the one we were just talking about the one story 30 foot high building building which was going to be where the 25 Story Tower was but he couldn't get the tower so he he got pissed and so he built a one-story building.

I mean we get developers like that and the city's been sued for something before I'm sureff sure we've been sued for multiple things was a it was a zoning thing we got sued for a subdivision that met code that the council denied we lost that one we got sued for a setback issue over on oaklan we lost that one.

Not a good not a great record lawyer I think we we've won mostly recently that's good those were a long time ago.

So I guess back to the transparency piece I mean were we good with the reduction from 75 to 50 also or is that kind of up in the air if this is just Southdale area cuz again this is pulled out of everywhere else now it's just Southdale maybe it's a let's like every building I'm sorry I was going to say leave what the expert did my opinion leave what the expert did for Southdale pull it from the nons Southdale notes that would be my vote.

I agree right and if somebody's going to come and say hey we're building a gynecologist's office and there's a bunch of exam rooms we'll be like yeah we don't want transparency there and we'll move F that makes sense to me too.

I mean right yeah which begs the question of what kind of services should be on the first floor and what kind should be on the and Def front facing though right public facing public facing not the other three sides pretty much everywhere should be all four sides at least the 70th and France project that's all four sides for all four sites.

Everyone good with that you leave the same saltdale China fwh y but back to 75 back to 7 yeah don't change from what the that's my vote don't change from what the experts said for Southdale until we have more information or compelling project to make us look at it and we're going back to 20.

But we had a lot of people request for on the transpar it doesn't matter whether it's in saltdale or out this has been a problem for for both for both yeah which again they because this was written for Southdale and it doesn't really apply or make sense to a lot of other areas right but it's still we varied from it in Southdale too right because we have a lot of very short buildings which was not part of the design.

So the thing is you know our job is to make a recommendation to the city council and the city council has every right to overrule us but but I think we should present what we believe the answer should be right and then they can they can override us that's their that's their uh so what we're saying is our vision is the same in Southdale we keep I don't know how how much confidence we project in our opinion.

I mean if we're saying that we think we should keep it 75 and 20 and then we keep allowing variances and because that people them then I'm not sure that're projecting much confidence in the decision that we've made today like our recommendation standing sticking to our guns but we're not doing that today some of the evidence is there were buildings built to that standard previous to 2020 and we just haven't even seen any built since 2020.

I think doing the overlay at Southdale is huge and letting the other areas kind of do their own thing um and it just gives us a negotiating point when people come forward for making so then do we need to redefine the transparency based off of what L said and what Ryan brought up of not making i% of the public um facing facades at ground level.

So we're not changing this yeah at all we're just moving it to southill only yes which I think I think that's a big thing yeah I think it's a that's a it's a big step because the biggest variances in general have been outside of the Southdale area if you look at the list or like the dental office that was one story did I hear that right yeah.

I'll beef up that table there's a lot more examples that we and I mean I think to their commission's concern about or the council's concern about uh Energy Efficiency by measuring by clarifying how we measure in multi-story buildings we have created ways for The Architects and developers to create more Energy Efficiency within their space based on ceiling height.

Yeah has anyone ever dropped a ceiling 8 feet I think right here right how far up does that go can you see see the top of it that's probably there we go tell the council we based it on this room said it's six feet we looked around the community room and this was their decision how they said think outside the box we said no in the Box.