okay welcome everybody to the August 16 2023 city of Edina Planning Commission meeting how's everyone doing today good good great appreciate everyone who is here in attendance and those tuning in remotely say it every time but your curiosity your participation and certainly your feedback thank you Janie Weston in the back is instrumental as we navigate change here together in Edina specifically regarding the ways in which people would like to use their land on that note the city is committed to your feedback your input matters We Gather it in numerous means emails meetings whatever but most prominently are engagement website which is www dot Better Together edina.org every comment that has been submitted anytime we have one of these meetings makes its way to us and we commit to you that it has been reviewed and will be considered as we make recommendations so tonight there is one public hearing those who would like to provide testimony remotely can call the following number 786-496-5601 and enter conference pin 5347981 pound and then press star one when you're ready to jump in the queue to speak we'll give you some more details when we get right up to that which will be soon uh an operator will let you know when it's your turn if you have provided feedback or any input you don't need to share it tonight but if you're here and you would like to do so we welcome you to do that so without further Ado we're going to get right into the meeting so call this meeting to order [Music] and we'll do roll call commissioner felt commissioner Padilla here commissioner Smith here commissioner who here commissioner day here commissioner Strauss here chair Bennett here figured it out thanks for the the shuffle next we have the approval of tonight's meeting agenda move to approve tonight's agenda second all those in favor say aye aye aye so moved next we have the approval of the prior meetings minutes from July 26th motion to approve second all those in favor say aye aye aye so moved okay thank you so now we move to the community comment period tonight and this is the portion of the agenda where it is your chance for those in person who'd like to speak about a matter that is not on tonight's agenda uh similar to a public hearing you have three minutes just come to one of the podium when the light turns green your three minutes begins yellow 30 seconds left red your time's up and we'll ask you to wrap it up if anyone is here for Community comment welcome you to the front thank you and just provide your name and address my name is Robert rusnak I live at 6232 Idlewood Lane Edina Minnesota I won't need this so I am opposed to rezoning a partial of land at 5780 Lincoln Drive since zoning and your presence here is a commitment to the community the city should not violate the zoning code to shoehorn in this project the zoning code doesn't allow the proposed development on Lincoln Drive 5780 Lincoln Drive even a variance within the pid1 zoning does not allow this project to proceed the only way for the city to approve this project is to rezone it or that is spot Zone the project and redesignated PUD when residents invest their time money life savings in Parkwood Knowles they rely on the zoning codes to protect their Investments the development would place too many people 250 to 300 people in two and a half acres um develop the developer proposes 100 percent of audible housing there's no place for for people to be parking in this particular Redevelopment project as proposed and the traffic would be much worse endangering children Walkers of which I am one and bikers secondly there's no services in the area that would support 250 to 300 people there's no public transportation um the the neighborhood would support a Redevelopment where much-needed Services restaurants and transportation are available uh example there is currently a vacant lot that the city owns on the corner of Bren Road and Wilson the northwest corner so they would propose uh there as a as a change in the developers process and the Developers idea of where he wants to to shoehorn in this project but not at 5780 Lincoln Drive and furthermore 57 Lincoln Drive the proposed project there it's not consistent with the architectural character the cemetery of the neighborhood valued for its park-like Essence including the large Lots many trees wooded areas and quiet streets so do you have any questions for me regarding my comments typically this isn't an exchange so we probably do have questions for you but we will discuss later well would you like my email address so that you can address any specific questions to me if you could email the city and then this gets to us and then we can we would get your contact what um what city email would be most appropriate you want to just read yours out loud yeah read yourself out loud and I'll copy it down right now put it on the teleprompter sure it's it's public it's c t e a g-u-e at with z-u-e it's the c t g-u-e at Edina mn.gov sure replace the Z with a G okay I appreciate that certainly yeah yeah uh I mean well for well I guess we can address that now and then we'll open it up to other community comment but Carrie would you like to just speak to how information gets to US Open meeting laws we can also like with particular projects that are on the table or are formally applied for information and an exchange of ideas and that can happen on the engagement website that we shared too but maybe you can share so people know we're trying to be transparent here yes so the project that that was referred to here is the sketch plan that you reviewed oh three four months ago maybe two I lose track of time but anyway no formal application has been made the the developer at that time has indicated that they won't be submitting an application anytime soon the earliest would be early next year should they make an application notice the public hearing notices go out to all Property Owners within a thousand feet the plans get posted on the website and the the meeting dates but you have my email we can we can um connect over time and I can give you I can give you updates and we would certainly rather residents be engaged before things are formally applied for since we know it's likely coming and so really appreciate your comments tonight thank you Jerry yeah I think for Kerry I that uh presentation some months ago an interesting point came up with they were a tenant in a building maintaining that they didn't get notification the public notification and the explanation seemed to be the building owner it's the owner of the building is identified so maybe in the if if I don't know if that's been addressed but I know that there were people there saying we weren't told that we're tenants of a property who that were informed I thought I could see where things like that could get right so the notices get sent out to Property Owners then it's up to the owner to yeah and maybe inform them it's their responsibility but okay yeah maybe it's something we can help Shepherd a better way you know if if you're an owner of a multi-tenant facility there's some extra responsibility to post signage or something okay do we have anyone else who is here for Community comment all right well you will close the community comment period and we will move to the next portion public hearings we just have one as mentioned this is for the zoning ordinance multi-family housing in the city's pcd1 and pcd2 Zoning districts just so you know what to expect a public hearing process and and we got some good feedback from our last couple meetings from a resident who's tried to engage as fellow commissioners can recall we had a couple late meetings lately and if there is ideas about how to streamline this process one of which was maybe it's you present then we let the developer present then we do all of our questions so there isn't kind of dupe duplicate efforts of questions answers Etc so we we welcome feedback from the residents that came through an email so if you have ideas of how to change things make things better we we can try to do that but for what to expect tonight Kerry's going to present we will ask questions if there is a different developer or an applicant than they would present we would ask questions but we don't tonight the city attorney's on for questions as well and then we will open it to a public hearing and that's your chance as a resident to testify either in person or remotely and then we will close that then we will deliberate share ideas and then we will make a recommendation either for approval or denial so with that we'll let Kerry present thank you Carrie thank you chair members of the commission so this is the zoning ordinance Amendment this is the one that's been recommended by the City attorney we have a conflict in our city code and these are the two regulations that are in Conflict on the right hand side you can see that in the PCD zoning District specifically PCD one and two multi-residential uses are a conditionally permitted use multi-residential uses are defined as double dwelling units residential Townhomes residential buildings containing six or fewer dwelling units and residential buildings these types of structures typically don't have residential or have commercial on the first floor so under this provision of the code the city has approved a couple of projects through a conditional use permit review by Planning Commission recommendation and went to the city council that's the Edina Flats project and the view 44. we also have another section in the code that states that no part of any dwelling unit shall be located in the basement or first story of a pcd-1 or pcd2 District so the goal of all of this is to make it clear one way or the other whether we're going to require retail on the first level and basement within the PCD one and two zoning District or allow freestanding multi-residential uses so with this first graphic just highlights the areas where we have pcd1 and pcd2 Zoning districts primarily within our neighborhood nodes but there are a couple within the Southdale district and within that that Cahill District so there's two options before the Planning Commission this evening option A would allow multi-family residential uses as a conditionally permitted use option b is that we clearly clearly state that commercial uses in the basement and first floor are required in those two zoning districts um I won't go through this in detail because we did this the the last time that we considered this within the comprehensive plan there's a lot of supporting statements and maps and Graphics that allow multi-residential uses as a freestanding use within those nodes I'll just hit on a couple of them quickly the Valley View Wooddale small area plans states that one of the The Guiding principles for the district sites should be allowed to transition to housing from business use in response to changing Market demands within that plan the the picture that you're seeing while this wasn't exactly what was approved for that site it is a standalone residential building that was contemplated on the the Burley site 50th in France within that small area plan the yellow areas are highlighted as residential development the red areas are mixed use 44th in France similar the the potential renderings of what could happen in that District does show standalone multi-residential 70th and Cahill plan does talk about the uses allowed being residential or mixed-use buildings so the the options for consideration option A as we discussed this evening again would allow multi-residential uses as a standalone use as a through a conditional use permit option b is to specifically require commercial or the uses that are allowed in the pcd1 pcd2 primarily retail office type uses need to be on the first level in basement of any any residential use within that District on some of the discussion that we had at the last meeting concerned that the Planning Commission had and staff believe this now too after that discussion in allowing multi-residential uses as a conditional use in that District we may tend to over time lose our retail uses so because of that staff is recommending option b this evening and that is to specifically require any multi-residential use would have to have that commercial type use on the first floor so with that I can stand for any questions you may have and again the City attorney Dave Kendall is on the line as well here can you just touch on why we're doing this again tonight just so people are aware yeah so it comes from that um part of the Edina Flats development the Burley site that I referred to the old hair salon that Edina Flats project originally they received a conditional use permit for that entire development but that one site on the corner didn't develop as was proposed so they came back through the process did an amendment and for new housing units were approved for that site and so that's when this this issue came to light that we've got this conflict in the code So based on that the City attorney has recommended that we need to we need to make the code clear so we don't have that conflict in the future and we we had a conversation about this before but it wasn't properly noticed right to make a decision that evening right we didn't notice both options the last time so this time we have okay turn it over to yeah Jerry thanks for the watch a video uh director yeah the screen that you have up is so option b um highlighted part as long as no part of the dwelling may be located so what you're saying is that um there would be a residential use to the con to the building but not in the basement or on the first floor wouldn't so that there wasn't there is no other use for that space then if if I mean they have no they have no other options or Avenues to pursue doing a residential I mean under option b that's what we're saying is correct the other option would be to rezone to a different zoning District okay that whole process right I mean okay versus option A um there's a pathway to do it which is by the use of the right which is a much easier pathway being it's a conditionally permitted use the uses allowed the city can put certain conditions on it um yeah okay okay that's what I mean thank you so the way the code reads currently if you look over here in option b is pcd1 and pcd2 District multi-residential uses subject to the following and that's what I didn't include on the screen it's the affordable housing policy just to simplify it to make it easier to see here so the language that's highlighted that would be the added text so it's clear I have a question I guess either for you carrier for the City attorney is there any concern around trying to I guess get around the way this is worded in terms of basement or first story right inter you know we have you can have a building that has multiple stories essentially beneath below ground I think what we're trying to accomplish is we want things on street level right for the most part we want commercial on the street level um so I wonder if there's you know thought around if this needs to be rewarded in a way to avoid that or if we thought that that might be an issue going forward you know such as you can locate something in a basement but now your first story can be residential because it's his basement or first story right right not rather than it and or um so I don't know I'm just curious on thoughts about that part of any dwelling unit be located in a basement or first story I think we're covered I could ask Dave if he has any thoughts on that I think the language is pretty clear to me you know as far as the ore being there it looks to me like uh that would be pretty clear that you are not to have those uses on either of the basement or the first floor um you know it's certainly possible someone could try to get around it but the plain language is pretty clear I think the plain language would Prevail if there was some kind of lawsuit about it I think a judge would understand that language and would be able to apply it the way it was intended so I'm fairly comfortable with it okay yeah I just you know something that I thought of as I read that passage and I don't deal in litigation I'm just a lowly engineer so I thought I'd ask for the legal opinion on the matter great great question commissioner Padilla I'm hearing you discuss retail and commercial but commercial is a bigger bucket right so we're talking about commercial use yeah so it's it's the uses that are listed as permitted uses in the pcd1 and pcd2 districts and there's it's a long list I'm generalizing right so but it does go beyond retail yes okay I wanted to to confirm that um so we you could have a multi-residential use that doesn't have a dwelling on the first floor or the basement but it has it doesn't have commercial either right you could have a gym there in an office and things like that or not if that's listed as a permitted use in those districts um yeah so the the specific use you still need a conditional use permit so it's still coming before Planning Commission and city council so it's one of those you know we can have that discussion assuming it's fitting into that PCD PCD allowed use categories okay thank you and I would also like to hear from the city attorney why he believes option b to be the recommended option if we could hear from Return to Kendall chair Commissioners I that was just in response to some of the comments at the last hearing and I think the general intent uh you know it seems as though I mean right now the ordinance is conflicting but it seems as though at least part of the intent was to try to require that commercial or retail on the first floor of buildings presumably large multi-family buildings like apartments or condos you're not gonna obviously have retail on the first floor of a townhouse so it seems like there's some conflict there but the the general idea seem to be to try to require retail and commercial on the first floor of larger multi-family buildings that seem to be the overarching intent so that was uh the interpretation that staff chose to recommend if you disagree with that of course you can always choose the other interpretation which actually was the previous interpretation uh in the past but it seems like there was some interest and desire to try to preserve that goal of having retail and commercial on the first floor of these buildings so that's why staff recommended that option thanks very much Mr fell um can we go back to that little area plan map that you had yeah that one um so these are all pockets of change our places have changed within the city of Edina so we've we've we've said that these we have to look at their zoning and do um we've done small area plans on most of them I think there's just two that there's not a small area plan on is that correct as I look at the yes yeah it's this Lincoln Drive area that was referred to earlier and and then 54th and France and so um if we so once again I asked this question last time but I'm going to say it again so the intent we we have zoning guidelines for the city uh zoning guidelines take a long time to change Market forces have changed some of our neighborhood nodes so we do these comprehensive or these comprehensive plans and small area plans so we can work with the communities on what may be wanted there is that correct uh yes yeah that's fair okay um and and Wood Dale and Valley View we did one of these and you should you showed one of the images where it had I'm a duplex at that a couple of town homes at that beginning Corner um and so it would tell in Valley View their there were three the flats at Dino 44 and then one across the street that have been approved recently and now there's only like two Parcels that are left PCT one uh so there's two projects where the city issued a conditional use permit for an all housing project those two sites the dynaflats and view 44. okay and then of wood dell and Valley View there is the site with snuffys and Patisserie Margot and that's considered PCD one right correct and is it is there a there's an oh the one right across the street on the North East Corners considered PCD one that's right so if we um go with option b tonight it would protect those two sides from having residential um large residential projects built on there it would it would protect those two sites in this area so there would be like a mixed use or commercial on the first floor correct correct okay and yeah I think that's those are my questions thank you [Music] thank you uh I just want to thank director teak for bringing us back to us I think this is such an important item Jimmy I have a lot of questions I don't know if you want to cut me off but I have like quite a few so I just kind of start going on a list and hopefully we could engage in some dialogue as we as we go along here but for me what I'm trying to get to is more the whole process idea when I think about um you know PCD and cup it's really about having an option right cup gives us the option so I'll kind of start so tell us just a bit about just the history or you know the reason why we have a conditional use um option in our zoning laws yeah so when that ordinance came through it was before my time but it was um I believe it was at the time when the 50th in France the apartments that are there now above the retail decision around that time was made by the city council to allow multi-residential uses within those commercial nodes so it not only impacted 50th and France the cell tale area anywhere where there's a PCD one two or three was the question more General in nature of just why cups exist in zoning yeah I think that's what oh yeah it was to allow that use through a conditional use permit so conditional use permit is a use that's allowed subject to the city can put certain conditions and then there's criteria that has to be met as long as that criteria is met the city is obligated to approve that use and that was some of the discussion that we had the last time if we chose option A that use it's allowed under certain conditions gotcha maybe just one thing to add to from what we've learned about the the history of Edina we tend to not use conditional use permits as much as other cities and it's something when we all go through training that we are kind of advised against handing those out so that they aren't really advised to go for right and I it might get to your other point but as commissioner borenson is not here I think his his whole point with this just first and foremost in a PCD the goal is to expressly support and how is commercial uses right so that like that's what we should do there we just have this complication with zoning doesn't necessarily match your comprehensive plan either where there could be some resolution there that might allow for some of that ambiguity um well it's the code where we need it's the zoning ordinance where we need to be specific yeah sorry okay I'll keep going um next question is you know as a at a high level what is the process for obtaining a cup uh approval you would say applications need to be made at least 30 days in advance the public hearings held both at Planning Commission and city council submission 30 days in advance of the Planning Commission meeting brought to you on on your agenda you hold a public meeting make recommendation to the city council and then they make the final decision about a two-month process and I think too part of that process is that the cup has to meet about five different requirements and have a three-fifths vote on a city council for it to be approved correct and I found that mistaken so as a Planning Commission what we could do is make a recommendation that a cup might be necessary and then the city council then go through that five-point checklist of does it increase traffic does it have an adverse effect on services and I think there's a list of them and still have our three-fifth majority vote before cup is granted correct correct yeah we're not the the choices between you under either scenario conditionally is permit is still required yeah this is why I bring that up is just trying to understand the difficulty or how thorough getting a cup is um as compared to zoning change what would you say is the process to make a change to zoning if the city council had to make a zoning change what would that process look like yeah process is the same it's a except there's an added step that first step that I described for the cup that's the preliminary rezoning there's one more step with the rezoning they have to come back to the city council for final rezoning with so a conditional use permit is much easier to obtain if you meet those conditions city has to approve it with a rezoning if you remember our pyramid of discretion the rezoning is down at the bottom where the city has complete discretion to say yes or no okay so if for example we decide to go with the option where we do not want to have a conditional use that would allow residential on the first floor basement but then Cody city council then override that essentially and make that possible after we make that this that determination tonight city council makes final decision they're using your recommendation as an advisement but they can they can go a different direction gotcha so for the city council we can make the recommendation that we should go with B but then they could say that they would go with a essentially they could now if we do decide to go with b and let's just say that they also agree with B could they then when an actual case comes up rezone that area to allow residential on the first floor they could and what process this is a different zoning District so it's no longer a PC PCD but a rezoning anybody can ask for rezoning doesn't mean you're obliged to approve it gotcha so the process for a cup and the process for city council to rezone is that essentially the same thing it's public hearings held at Planning Commission and city council with the recommendation by you yes conditional use permits again easier to obtain than a rezoning because there's one additional step not because of the step because you're changing the use on the property you're changing the zoning if if if the council with the recommendation of the Planning Commission feels that's not in the best interest of the city they can say no to that but if they sorry go ahead Dave I want to kind of echo what you're seeing here the difference is the level of discretion that the city has when that application comes up an application for rezoning the city has almost complete discretion they can deny it for any reason they want basically and the applicant has to live with that decision on a conditional youth permit it's almost the opposite situation if the applicant meets the standards in the ordinance the city more or less has to grant that I mean the city can impose conditions but the city doesn't have discretion to deny it it's very difficult to deny if they meet the requirements the city must Grant it so the process might be the same but the level of discretion and the options for the city are quite different I guess where I'm going with this is when you're talking about meet the requirements of the cup I think you're assuming that the cup has been approved and we have given the developer here's the requirements that I want you to meet what I'm asking is what are these steps in order to Grant the cup in the first place without adding all those requirements in at what point does the developer say hey this is zoned for pcd1 I need a conditional use permit to give me the option of building here sure I'm following that question I'm trying to figure out which one comes first getting the meeting those guidelines to get a cup approved or meeting the conditions in the cup after we've approved it that would then give the developer the option well the ability just to build essentially I'm trying to get a sense of what comes first under no circumstance can they just build they have to come through Planning Commission and city council with the conditional use permit or rezoning so if they have an idea for a conditional use permit they're going to take a look at the code make a determination if they believe they meet those criteria meet with staff and decide whether they want to proceed so so hypothetically it someone goes for a building permit to build something it would be in the basically the planning department would be like hey hold on you're you're trying to build an all-residential use on a commercial district and then that would flag it then they won't be able to build that they would have to go through the process as described either rezone it or go through a PCD depending on at least in that example which option we elect to support so what we're saying is that if they want to build residential in a commercially Zone era residential on the first floor I'll be flagged as a planning department then you'll have to go through the process right what option b is saying that there will be no process no no option b is saying they could still try to do that now they don't they don't have an option for a PCD they or they don't have an option for a cup they only have an option for rezoning so that you you couldn't put a residential use in the ground level or the basement in a PCD unless you want to rezone it now which which makes it extra harder to to gain that approval gotcha okay that makes sense so they have to go through a rezoning on okay and the process for this rezoning is a little bit more difficult than any process to Grant a cup well it's also as we said in the Pyramid of discretion we have the most discretion for rezoning rather than a conditional use permit right condition use permits kind of in the middle of that pyramid of discretion right there's like I said if I meet the requirements can't simply find out just saying well no we just don't want it here right if you apply for rezoning we can deny deny for any reason right so the barrier is much different for these two options to our developers yeah but I'm trying to really boil down to is I guess the simple phrasing is what difference would it make if we go at option A versus option b if the city could still override that and rezone the dot property to allow commercial I mean residential on the first level but that is the difference you you'd have to rezone it versus just have a conditional use permit that's the difference so option b just provides that extra level of protection I I think to I mean it's a good it's too bad that a situation bring like brings to light this ambiguity in our code but it's good that we're addressing this because again our goal should be to not use conditional use permits as much and we've done a good job as a city of Edina to not do that by correcting the code and taking ambiguity out and making it harder for someone to do something that's plausible that doesn't align with our goals then it directs people away from a conditional use permit in in by Nature so it feels like regardless of what we do option b helps prevent this from being a common process which has happened on two two things in small area plan or small areas yeah we get to the comments I I could add some some comments on that um just a couple more questions I guess for me [Music] um and this is kind of an interesting one but from a tax revenue perspective right and I don't know if you would know this but from a tax-based perspective right uh which option generates better revenues for the city is it a residential type property or would it be a commercial type property yes hypothetically since we're only talking about the first level I think the the difference is going to be in the grand scheme of the tax base for the city it's really minuscule in general multi-family housing is going to generate more tax than a commercial use just generally speaking gotcha and from a is a term called graceful transition um you know graceful transition from let's just say a PCD one or two to R1 let's just say you know from uh commercial to residential what does graceful transition mean to the city so that was part of go back to the Burley site it was commercial commercial right next to residential generally it's a higher intense use the thinking was having four Town Homes there is a more graceful transition into the commercial District could be similarity in height you know it's great height is gradually increasing As you move away from a residential area could be How Much landscaping is provided so it means a whole a whole lot of different things and some history to that too so I mean there's you can think of Minneapolis where you have lots of single-family homes right next to a commercial use and it's common at least any diner in other communities there's an expectation of like a buffer and and you can look to the history of Edina there there are a lot of I mean if you look around even from a residential intensity there's a lot of examples of where you have duplexes you know buffering a busier Corridor or close to a commercial District before you get to single family so there is this this form and this use history of these transitions from one use to another from like an intensity as well a shave like I mean duplexes can look the same but at least you have more people there so in a similar way these small area plans 44 or 44th in France we use that term too graceful transitions because a lot of Neighbors you know if someone buys their neighbor's property they don't want to see a commercial use now just appear right next to them they would still expect that graceful transition and then you'd have to go through rezoning but maybe that maybe they did have PCD next to them and maybe a residential is a better buffer and that was kind of what Wood Dale Valley View was guiding and that's where there is some conflict even in the decision we make tonight is that Burley site some people thought it was better to have residential fill there with more intensity as you get to that small area but others really want to preserve that ground level commercial use so that that's kind of what we're addressing tonight and if you look at this graph and commissioner borenson brought it up last time we're not talking about a lot of places and a lot of sites that we have pcd1 or pcd2 and they're in these small commercial neighborhood nodes so it would make sense in his opinion and others as we were discussing to try to protect that character versus let it that erode you still could apply for rezoning so you still could do that it just makes it harder so I don't know if that helps fill some gaps yeah I think so I think there's also a height um component if a pcd-1 abuts are one there should be a height limitation from the first residential property I guess so that might limit the height to like two stories to some degree in most cases that's in the code so that that wouldn't apply to what we're looking at here but that's that's regulated as well um I guess the last one for now uh if a property is I guess on the you know if we do a conditional use permit that allowed residential on the first floor I'm guessing we it would be very difficult down the road to convert that back into commercial or is that completely out of the question and it kind of came up which is if we allow residential in a PCD area is that even possible to convert that back into commercial I suppose it would be possible not likely safe to duplex you know you think of the the town homes that are going to be built there at the Burley site um not likely those would be turned into commercial so there's a whole different set of regulations that goes in they need to park it provide parking for the square footage within that building so highly unlikely so it's fair to say that if we ever build a residential in a commercial District it's pretty much gone the commercial district is pretty much go on at that point well if the PCD is owning is still in place they could tear that multi-residential structure down and propose something new they need to conform again to other regulations parking Landscaping those kinds of things gotcha yeah there's I mean there's examples like in Minneapolis of homes that are restaurants and the you know main level and they keep a use I mean it can happen depending where you're at just it depends a lot on what ends up getting built there you know all right that's all the questions I have for now any other questions okay well let's open this up for a public hearing so we will begin with those who are here in person and you can I'll let you gather and take your time but in the meantime I'm gonna remind those who might be tuning in remotely if you would like to participate in this public hearing please call 786-496-5601 enter conference pin 5347-981 pound and then press star one to get in the queue to speak once we wrap up the in-person public hearing we will look to our virtual waiting room to see if you're there and we will allow you three minutes to speak to so just hold tight and with that we'll turn it over to a resident here good evening Janie Weston 6136 Brookview Avenue I hope you all remember a few months ago when I handed all of you paper copies two pages of section 36-612 so you could read it word for word and it says nothing I hope you all did read it it says nothing that allows a conditional use of basement and first floor residential living this is driving me nuts hearing this discussion and I hope attorney Kendall I handed him to Pages two and I hope he read it thoroughly it does not give an allowance to do that with that said option A is just plain incorrect um living base you still can't do Residential living at the basement and ground floor with option a period it's plain language if you want to use the term I just heard the plain language does not say you can do that so let's just not do option A I don't see a conflict here either the city code is quite clear if people read through and see what it says and see what it is not saying and option b fine at least it puts out there that um clarifies what the code says by reminding you in if they add the wording in 612 for conditional use it reminds you what the 36-618 already tells you so um I live a black a short block away from the burley's site has anyone driven past it today or yesterday that is not a graceful transition it is absolutely not the foundation walls have been poured for the East duplex unit and it is astoundingly huge for the size of that lot I just want you to go take a look at it what was there previously a small gas station size building with parking lot and lots of nice landscaping around it actually they did a pretty nice job that was actually a much more gentle transition than what's being built right now and I'd really like to know is the city going to inform the people that live on the first floor of u-44 apartments and the city Flats that are built and now occupied are they ever going to be formally informed that they are living on the first floor or maybe well future burlies people um outside of what city code says is loud legally I think the city is obligated to at least inform them and your only option here is B and frankly this shouldn't even be happening like this because the code was already clear it has been followed with the Laureate at 44th in France it's been followed with the Market Street development at 50th and France nobody had any problems doing those developments with commercial on the first floor so why did it happen in my local neighborhood with City Flats view 44 and now burles the only thing that I can think of for why they happened is because the setbacks for a res a PRD residential district building is different than PCD one and two and it allowed I know I know I'm running out of time but it did allow closer to the street so I'm not happy with how this has all come down and I don't want to see PCD one and two being given conditional use because there is no conditional use that allows the residential at basement and ground floor thank you thank you do we have anyone else who's here in person that would like to testify and provide a testimony if so please come up see none we will turn to those who might be tuning in remotely do we have anyone in the queue or in the waiting room yes we have it two people waiting to speak and they both have indicated that they would like to speak correct so operator can you please unmute the line of the first caller and just a reminder to the caller to please State your full name and address thank you good evening my name is Kent Kramer I'm at 5713 Parkwood Lane in Edina and I'm just curious if it might make sense to further strengthen the language in I believe it's option b relative to uh the commercial and Retail spaces on the first floor of a building as opposed to housing specifically as it relates to a potential building developer or owner deciding to kind of get around that by having a captive gym or captive Lobby or captive restaurant kind of uh or cafeteria kind of a thing for primarily directed towards the residents of the building as opposed to the more retail concept which I think is what you guys are getting at um you know by adding a sentence or two that might help to further Define what that space is used for as opposed to allowing a a builder or developer to get around it in the future and thank you so much for letting me uh participate you're welcome thank you so thank you hi everybody my name is Daniel Eaton and I'm at 5712 Parkwood Lane and uh just wanted to uh again re reinforce and restate um the first the first person who went up and talked about this I think this is a really good example of what happens or what can happen when we're not really taking the existing code very seriously or at least it's somehow misinterpreted I think this meeting it's a good meeting to make sure that we get it right and make sure that the future we get it right um but I think I just want to continue to reiterate um I this Planning Commission as being a really important body for this city to make sure that our city council does the right thing by long-term standards of planning and long-term planning to make sure that our city-states are really livable and great place to live long term and doesn't become a developer-led planned city I think that's the number one thing that I'm concerned about what's he died in the long term and I think strengthening some of these definitions option b number one that's the only thing that we should be talking about today again option b is what everybody who lives in Edina believes that it should be but I also think strengthening that language like my neighbor just said strengthening some of the um intentions behind that commercial on the first on the basement and first floor making sure developers can't get around it by putting a parking ramp on the first floor or doing something again to end around it because part of what we do want in Edina if we want more livability we want more services we want more places to walk through with our kids and every building every lot that we build 100 residential that used to allow for some sort of commercial I think one of the one of the people on this on this panel said it well it's gone forever or a really long time because the reality is nobody's tearing these buildings down right away they're going to be up for 30 40 50 years so let's make sure that this gets done again in the right way that language gets strengthened um we can't end around it and again I just want to say a really big thank you to this body to the deliberate questions that were being asked uh it's very clear that I believe many of you on this body want to make sure that zoning in Edina gets upheld and that it's really difficult to change it because as a resident of united we don't have strong zoning laws what protection do we have of our investment in this community because any developer from outside of community can come in immediately and get changes that could be very detrimental to my quality of life or my neighbor's quality of life so having these very intentional defined pieces is critically important so thank you again for the work you're doing thank you for the decision that you're going to make tonight it sounds like everything is going in sort of the direction of option b but again just want to reaffirm option b with some additional strengthening of that language would be great and I think the other piece to remember is the graceful transition need to be uh that language needs to be better defined so I would again encourage option b vote tonight but also let's come back and let's define some of these terms that might be a little bit more nebulous to make sure that there's no ambiguity within these terms and again we are a planning and neighborhood planned Community not a developer planned community of the future thank you again everybody who's on this panel thank you for your work you guys put in a lot of long hours I don't envy this job so we appreciate the work that you do thank you really appreciate the comments there uh do we have anyone else in waiting room no we do not it's been well over a minute so yeah I think we're safe to proceed okay and it will come a motion to close the public hearing motion to close the public hearing second all those in favor say aye aye aye so move the public hearing is closed thank you everyone who is tuning in and participated again your your feedback is sensor of mental here and uh maybe on the note of that we could turn it back to Carrie to kind of address some of the comments that were brought up uh specifically thank you for providing us the printout of those two codes and again I I feel like we're here to rectify the ambiguity between those because as as I read 612 um that's all about the conditional uses one of which is multi-residential and it stipulates you can do a lot of residential stuff 618 a different piece of code where it says no no residential in the basement in the ground level so because they're different is why there's been this conflict because of conditional use is 612 and 618 is what was it called you know special requirements so those aren't the same they're not in the same list of items that apply to each other so could you speak to that too I mean is that that's ultimately what we're here to recommend exactly why we're here so that's all well said in terms of those existing uses out there they would assuming we're going to go with option b and that's what the council chooses those become legal existing non-conforming uses so they can continue to operate as is in regard to the second caller's suggestion I think I think they're good ones um what I might suggest and this is just for discussion and I just in Dave Kendall if he has any other ideas kid could chime in as well but we could add to um multi-residential uses as long as no part of any dwelling unit be located in a basement or on the first story of the building period first level and basement uses within a multi-residential use must be permitted uses in the PCD one and two zoning districts so then it's clear that it's a use that's specifically listed in the retail District so just a food for thought for consideration further ask a question about that I think there was also the concern that they get around it by having allowable uses in the PCD District but are only reserved for their residence right so is there an element here anything I guess language that needs to be added around public use rather than private use for any reason yet we could add that language as well when they're in for a conditional use for whatever they're proposing you could put a specific condition on that conditional use permit saying that retail or office or whatever the UCS has to be available to the public but it could be done both ways but if they're not going through a cup process right they're just going through standard approval for PCD one right we don't have to we can't put a condition on I mean they could say we're going to open a restaurant right now for open to the public but then five years from then they could say no actually it's only for the people inside right there's nothing that would prevent them from doing that if it's so if it's a multi-residential use they do have to come in for a conditional use permit even if there's the retail on the first level so we could write something like you're talking about into the code and it can also be put on an in on that conditional use permit for that property so they couldn't turn that use whatever it is into a use for the apartments above because we've they've been violation of their conditional use permit what's an example of such a thing that you're thinking about I I don't know if it's worth stipulating that in most hypotheticals I can't think of it yeah no no the only one I can think of was that restaurant in the 510 building that opened up to the public because they could not afford to be just for the building there were a few restaurants in the 510 building and grow down town Minneapolis yeah I guess I just look at well I mean maybe that is something to consider and I don't know if I would do tonight I mean I think it's it's kind of a part of each project that comes forward you know because I I think tonight the language is just about these two that we've been thinking about well yeah I think Kerry said it well too I mean it's he further stipulated that it has to be a permitted use I mean it could you right I mean if you had a Lobby to a residential above I mean that's that's not a permitted use correct yeah so the the point that's been made is a valid one someone might argue that they could create something yeah just a plain Lobby on the first floor before example a daycare just for their residents right on the first floor that's a permitted use in PCD one District right so we'd have to specifically put a conditional or a condition on their application that says that has to be open to the public all the time or they can get around it yeah I feel like I don't know that hypothetical it's like it just won't happen right it's it's a good point it's just I I would hesitate to have something not go through by this going down that road but again to be clear what we're talking about in both cases is when a PCD or a sorry a conditional use permit is being applied for so to one of the residents who spoke if someone has a PCD one or two property and they want to do something there they are required by code to not have residential on the first or basement level like that's how the code is now if they want to have residential they have to have a basically a conditional use permit and now we're clarifying that same thing applies correct yeah because as we've read into it and as the council supported it it has overrode 618 basically okay I think there's a lot of side conversations that come into zoning that have come up with this and as well that touch the comprehensive plan but that might we should Reserve that for another evening but it all applies planning matters here and anyone else have questions or comments and and just to be clear this is pcd1 or pcd2 because when you look at the zoning map and some of these areas you can see and what's nice about the zoning map online is it has all these areas of change broken out so you can easily read what the zoning is currently in some of these small areas right the PCD one and pcd2 is that bright red or the diagonal red and over at 5780 Lincoln planned industrial PID over there and um I know but 44th and France there's plan unit development uh PCD one and a planned office but in Valley View Valley View and Wooddale specifically it was PCD one and there's just two remaining Lots that are PCD one I don't think is going to be developed for a while because it's a pretty new building right commissioner Smith yeah just to ask a couple questions there um just to really the first one is if we had to rezone someone wants to put a residential on the first floor and it's not allowed let's just say right uh with a conditional use permit what other rezoning what would you what reason what zone would be put that property in to allow that to happen be like a PRD or depending on size PUD correct PRD okay yeah depending on the size one two two gotcha or a PUD Dy the same thing like that well that that would allow like more of more flexibility oh yeah more multi-use gotcha um yeah that's it thanks commissary day yeah I just wanted to I guess address the comment by Miss Weston about the conditional uses that are permitted in PCD one sub district and I feel like I understand this well but I think we should cover this um right so we have a list in 612 of what the conditional use is permit in the PC D1 sub District are we say you know multi-residential uses subject to the following now let me clarify for our audience right that when we say subject to the following it doesn't mean that they have to meet every single requirement listed a through whatever here right A through k right these are requirements you know that we can put on these conditional uses but they don't have to meet every single one of these things correct correct yeah those standards are essentially the affordable housing policy and really I mean so there's nothing in here that says you're allowed to have housing on the first floor basement but there is nothing in here that says that you cannot correct right it's in terms of how that conditional use is is listed out in the ordinance right right so I think no I waited until this meeting but that was a sticking point and said you know we've been repeatedly said that first floor residential and basement are not allowed by 612 but that's not true here from a legal standpoint right I mean there's there's no real ambiguity around there you can have residential on the first floor in the basement here is listed by these conditional uses because because it says multi-residential and it doesn't exclude those uses in the conditional use list right okay so I just wanted to make that clear because right I didn't want it to say great but the cities was deliberately going against their own ordinance in approving these projects from a legal standpoint right they didn't illegally build these units right they kill it you can and that's why we're trying to clear it up today right but there was nothing that said you couldn't so I thought that was worth addressing it real fast one clarifying piece I don't know if anyone else was digging through the code and reading it but as it begins right 612 um you know it says the following or the conditional uses permitted in the pcd-1 sub-district and then it lists pcd1 and pcd2 and then PCD 3. beneath that should that just be the PCD sub-districts shouldn't that be clarified like what right I mean I was wondering about that too maybe the attorney can Alpine can we clean that up yeah okay it's kind of all the PC PCD one two three and four are all kind of assembled into right I think that would be a good thing to clear up at a future okay meeting is not on the table before you hear today but I think it would be a good thing to to clarify seems like a clerical just there so but I think as you start reading these things when there's clerical errors like that it throws you off so I mean that should read the PCD sub-districts and then we get into the first one and that's what we're talking about tonight and we're adding the language before the subject to the following so basically anything like commissioner day said that could apply later is subject to the fact that you can't have residential on the ground or basement level that binds option A through k more clearly I could read a bunch of comments from commissioner borenstein but uh who's not here but he shared it and so other people know with to commissure or to planner Teague and then that gets distributed to all of us and he also supports option b anyone else have any questions or comments or motions and I'd remind people Kerry offered up a a modification to option b that might be worth reconsidering to add to make it a little more clear you bring the amb up on on the screen again please remind me what that modification was you write that down Carrie I did so following the highlighted text on option b we could add language that said the first level in basement uses within a multi-residential use must be permitted uses in the pcd1 and pcd2 districts the first level and basement uses within a multi-residential use must be permitted uses in the pcd1 and pcd2 districts I can work with the city attorney to maybe massage that a little bit but that's the intent yeah is it redundant though yeah in terms of like because of PCD requirements already list out the uses so if we say you can't have a dwelling on the first floor basement then we're saying okay then you have to have what the the primary usage that are listed out for PCD one two so I feel like that yeah it's it's trying to it's trying to cover that you know there's always going to be unintended consequences anytime you change an ordinance but it's trying to address that okay in our multi-residential use which we're just going to have a Lobby on the first level yeah that meets the language that's on the screen so to be clear that you have to have that yeah you have to have permitted uses yeah you can have because arguably you don't have residential uses right no or you don't have a dwelling unit specifically you know part of a dwelling unit so I think that's important to include because dwelling unit could mean you have a Lobby on the whole first floor yep right that's not what we're trying to do go either way on this and it's fine to clarify it like that I I wouldn't consider if it's a private use it's not open to the public I wouldn't consider that one of the listed permitted uses in the PCD District because I consider it part of a residence like it was part of a condo it was a private dining room for the condo building that's not a permitted use in a PCD District in my opinion but I understand the concern I don't think it can hurt to be clear about it I mean we're only stipulating your dwelling units as it reads right and there's uses associated with a multi-residential structure that don't offer much okay can I ask you a question about that so it comes to us um for um approval in the PCD and we look at it and it's got retail or whatever on the ground level and we agreed to it and they go back later um 10 20 years down the road um times change for them they decide to close up things on the first level would they they would have to come back at that point right because if the zoning doesn't change or if our codes don't change correct the amendment are not if they're bringing the plan to us we see the plans we see the permitted use on the ground level if anything changes later on within that building they'd have to come back for a revised they would not have to come back if so the uses within that first floor could change just as long as their uses that are still listed in the PCD one and two districts so if they're just changing the retail or office use those don't have to come back yes they have absolute control over they rent to this person or that person for a small business of course but if they decide to close down all those businesses well and say say hmm the first floor goes empty for some reason on that building I mean you know this is this is beyond they do they couldn't change it by right to dwelling units yeah that's that's what we're protecting yes you don't have a motion or any more comments okay sure sure all right thank you Jimmy uh I thought we're going to go into the comments section now and then the motion let's do that let's do that um comments please all right so I think this is a really good item for us to look at and I really appreciate the callers who have called in and voiced their concerns and those in attendance today to to share their concerns and born's uh commissioner bornstein's comments as well coming into this meeting I was just trying to think about the long-term uh impact of the decisions that we make as a city and one thing that came to mind was change right we're in a city that would be going would be undergoing a lot of change in the future change due to climate change change due to workers you know where they work work from home work in the office you have a lot of different housing changes that are happening and and just how technology is also changing so that would change um is common and when we eliminate options it doesn't help with change it to help restricts change because I was thinking to myself well if we have a conditional use permit and we allow you know residential it gives the city it gives us the ability to make that happen for whatever new demands and as things change in the city right who knows right down the road we might want commercial but let's just say it's in an area where no commercial wants to go there it's a spot that's going to be undeveloped for a long time then we have this option of putting commercial and not I mean residential into that space and now we could have a demand met by the city with residential now as we're going through the Q a session I was trying to compare the process to acquire a conditional use permit versus any other tools a city had in making uh residential on the first floor you know how easy is it going to be how hard is it going to be and from what I could tell the conditional use permit is a much easier thing to get done versus a zoning change and so I said okay well that makes sense because if we want to make a change to the to how we use land and in particular how we put residential on the first floor it should be something that's well thought out well deliberated communicated to the city Etc because we might want changes to occur before our comprehensive plan updates for whatever reason covet came for example businesses had to change they send workers home and now they're struggling to get them back in the office all right so these zoning they might have to think about how do I change my zoning to convert my building into a different use the next 10 years I don't know what's going to happen between now and 2034 right and so we need some kind of a tool to adjust to whatever the market conditions are any changes are so I was thinking that this cup is is that too because obviously we use it because we thought we had to but after the discussion and thinking about preserving the commercial nodes and if those commercial notes go away they're not going to come back knowing that we have a zoning Change option for the city council to to perform to allow residential whether it be PRD or I think the other one was um PUD those are zoning changes that could allow for residential if they really had to do that so we don't have to use the conditional use option so after thinking about it some more I just appreciate what callers have done Etc to say you know what as a Planning Commission we should try to preserve what the original zoning has been put into these neighborhoods and try to preserve it as much as possible so I'm leaning option b because that preserves it and if we in the future had to change that for some reason where the market changes and the market forces Force us to go there then we have a tool that we could use which is a zoning change and so that's just some of my comments for this particular item thank you for summing that up commissioner Padilla similar thank you very much thank you um I think part of her job as the Planning Commission is that we're kind of Ground Zero for blending the past present and the future in terms of land use you know in the city you know as far as the past um the residents are looking to us to maintain the commitments that were made to them years ago and when they moved in you know in terms of of the present we're being asked to look at sketch plans and make changes and make recommendations for the city and also reflective of the current Dynamics covid being the the operative one um and in terms of the future we've got to take into account everything that the comprehensive plan has laid out as a vision for the city as well as the pressure that is upon us for additional housing and affordable housing so it I think it's up to us to remain agile as a body in terms of looking at the options that are available to us um I I think in that context that option b is the better option however also say also within that context I'm an easy about um maintaining kind of a commercial use commitment I understand that we would have to look at complete rezoning in between the the two stints of living in Edina I lived in Minneapolis where they were erecting big beautiful apartment buildings and they were renting them out three thousand dollars for a one bedroom three thousand dollars a month for one bedroom and they were rented so fast and people couldn't move in fast enough first floor was all retail just stayed empty you know and I I mean I certainly don't want to see that here so I think again the word that comes to my mind is agility you know in terms of that we have to um be able to move and respond to the the the market dynamics so I um will support option b knowing that we have other zoning options for those times when they might come into play um and one of the other things is climate change I know I really appreciate um that I can go for days without getting in my car if I need to I mean I happen to live in Morningside and I can get groceries from four different grocery stores within walking distance which doesn't happen everywhere I can do dry cleaning oh five farmers markets six in the summer um so I think the ability or or our saying that we feel strongly that the first floor should be commercial uses to help strengthen some of these nodes um I think we'll give the message and of course people can come and ask for something else they want but it sends a message that we think these commercial nodes are important and I think the commercial nodes can really kind of help keep communities kind of together and make it a little easier not to have to drive long distances so I I'm I'm in favor of B2 any other comments over there it was your day um I guess the only thing I'd have to add is the maybe a word of caution around you know we we talk about changing Market demands and being flexible a lot and I worry about where that leads us down like we need to as a body right in terms of change responding to changing Market demands you zoning as a tool and to me this would be underviting our zoning if we went with option A right because we've essentially made it a free-for-all now like a planned commercial District we're saying well now you don't actually have to have commercial uses in a planned commercial District right our greatest tool should be zoning we use plan unit developments a lot that's been hammered To Us by you know residents that disagree with that but zoning is our tool as we respond to changing Market forces and stuff but I don't want to see us to start you know changing our the way our ordinances are written to allow anything goes because I think we open up Pandora's Box when that occurs um you know you'll see we don't write ordinances um in place to address only what we think is likely right we put them in place to address things that we can't foresee in the future and Zoning helps protect us you know I I think just our last meeting right our developer over here in Grandview like they probably wouldn't have put a commercial use in there unless we had requested it and asked for that right and you probably would see that all over the place and I think you know people would say well they'd have to comfort conditional use permit and it probably wouldn't be allowed it isn't a PCD but you know people developers are already trying to push it right if they're going to try to gain maximum return on their investment by putting residential units on every floor that they can right we want to preserve these communities zoning is our tool right and I don't want to undermine it but just because we think the Market's changing rapidly it is it just requires us to be more agile with our zoning approach thanks I'll just share a couple comments so commissioner Bornstein summed it up well of you know the the goal with option b and and what we should think about PCD one and pcd2 when you look at the map we're not talking about everywhere in the city we're talking about these these critical neighborhood nodes you know and he used the word critical because there's these critical ground level commercial uses that are permitted but also Define those areas and even historically when you look say 44th in France you know that sort of As A Streetcar node and function really well as a as automobile came in that maybe a lot of people drove to South Hill instead but now things have changed and come back to like people would rather walk for in their community and not leave and we know that there's benefits to that and we haven't changed the zoning in those areas even though the times have changed and it and it keeps working because that zoning defines those areas still so I think to the callers and a lot of our questions it's good to be nimble and agile but we we should put our foot down with areas that Define us in a good way that we don't want to see change and if it makes it harder for that change you still can you could still do it there's tools they're just harder to achieve and protect our residents and I think we're it seems like we're all on the same page if you're gonna weigh between the two B kind of tips in favor but just want to say thank you we had a lot of discussion that one night on this item too a lot so there this is a two-part thing but thank you for everyone who's tuned in and open it to emotion if there's no further comments I will motion uh that we recommend the city council that we adopt ordinance Amendment B with the additional wording that Kerry proposed you know subject to massaging with the City attorney second uh we'll we'll do a roll call but commissioner felt aye commissioner Padilla aye commissioner Smith aye commissioner day aye commissioner Strauss aye chair Bennett aye so the motion carries thank you guys thank you everyone apparently we we don't have anything beyond that so we move to our next piece of the agenda which is a chair and member comments look to my left and right any all right Commissioners so all right we'll start far left commissioner felt I'm a little worried that's a huge binder that you just opened maybe we'll go to Commissioners no [Laughter] if I could how much of a pain it is to bring in or not um I I we were all invited I think I went to the um the two projects that the city Engineers along with Watershed Creek District put together the one down at the pool and then the one down behind room and board the little inundation area but and both those were really well done they are kind of planning pieces that are in and they're things that we don't get to see because nobody's asked for a variance but they were beautifully designed and beautifully integrated in their sites and I really appreciated all the effort that our city Engineers who are not here put into that and it was a nice piece yeah all right uh just a couple comments um one is really an acknowledgment um I just want to acknowledge all the hard work that City staff does to make us look good and when I say City staff the folks behind the scene who make sure our technology works properly that we have ability to communicate online publishing YouTube videos just bringing us together um I just want to say you know thank you for the staff for doing all that work because I know it's a lot of work you guys stay up late with us and and go tonight and makes us look um like we're doing something so I appreciate that in particular I want to give Scott denfield Scott denfield helped myself put together some of the videos that you guys might have seen on adus um really great personally it's probably behind the scenes right now probably going to help publish this to YouTube him and Addison you know did a really great job just coming up with some of the content that we talked about that they communicate um helping get it into the sun current and it's just really good work by City staff I think and those two folks in particular I just want to give a shout out to the last point I'm going to bring up is um we are in the midst of collecting feedback right so as you guys know part of our uh or part of my work plan item was to work on adus to hopefully get over the hump this year with all of your feedback and input it's really going nicely and we're at a point now where we're trying to collect as much feedback from residents as possible and so there's a survey out I'm better to get a edina.org that I would encourage residents and folks on this committee to send out to the old neighborhoods and your colleagues and your friends to go out there and just finish you know do the survey put comments in we seriously want to get as much as we can so we could use that to help draft and come up with an ordinance that we think the residents would want so I'm really trying to push that agenda to get as much feedback and survey responses as possible so make sure and do it and it's just going to make our lives so much richer thank you thank you wonderful any other comments what's your day um so I guess in preparation for today's meeting one of the things I went through was the city of Edina like quality of life survey and stuff and was reading reading through that spending time there and I've been you know just really to get a feel on people's General um opinion on development in the city and stuff like that right and it basically echoed a lot of the feedback that I've been getting from people since they found out that I've been on the Planning Commission you either have you have two camps you have a lot of people that are telling us that we're over developing the city and that there's too many apartment buildings what can you do to stop building apartments and then we have another group of people that say there's not nearly enough affordable housing there's not nearly enough alternative options to single-family housing and a Dyno what are you going to do to address that and I'm like I wish I had better data to to give to you right and so I thought about that as an engineer I'm like all right well what data do we potentially have available to us and I don't know but I thought I would ask at least because I printed this out to show this is people that are complaining about affordable housing this is about five six pages of you know people say affordable what's the biggest problem facing a diner right now and this is the other hand that says over development wrong type of development is affecting a Dynamics quality of life negatively right now so I was like wow okay so what do I do to address that sentiment um particularly when you get feedback on here too about how the city does not listen to the residents right so well there's a lot of residents that have different opinions on this so how do we get better data around this I thought well okay so in terms of affordable housing do we have any data data available to us in terms of all right we have X number of units but how many of those units are occupied do we know that are we able to attain that data right is there like right constantly pushing for more but if we don't if ours are only 50 filled right that becomes a little less of a concern right and then as far as Apartments go Apartment occupancy rates right we build a brand new apartment what's the occupancy rate a lot of these apartment buildings you know are we actually filling them up are we just building them faster than we can really fill them right and I'm just trying to again as a thought as I went through a lot of this feedback how can I better communicate to people you know data rather than just general feelings like yes you're right there's too many apartments or no you're wrong there's not too many apartments we need more right so I don't know it's that's a question that maybe can be answered now and maybe just a thought of in terms of how do we get better data around that and communicate to residents um where other people might have seen good data to give people and stuff like that I'm open to suggestions but yeah it's something that was definitely came up today as I was reading through all this yeah I could respond to that um what we could do so there is data out there we have an outstanding affordable housing manager Stephanie Hawkinson and I think we've talked about this a little bit but do a work session and Stephanie can educate on vacancy rates affordable housing what it is where it is how it's working I think we should do that sometime here in the fall okay like that thank you say one comment to that I feel it's it's part of our job is that there's always going to be tension yeah I mean just like in life and then with land use like there's and we all have a collective just a whole plethora of different you know expertise backgrounds where there's times where it it is going to feel right to change and there's going to be times where it feels right to not change and that that is okay you know and it's navigating that and that's luckily that the residents look to us and I feel like I'm surrounded by people who are navigating that well looking at the balance of both sides and making a sound decision that isn't necessarily emotional but rooted in something true whatever it might be whether it's data or it's a variety of other reasons but I mean that welcome to the tension it's it's always a balancing act up here right and I I don't there's been very few developments where it has just boom the decisions that easy maybe for some requests like variances or site plan review something where there's just there's not even much discretion we have where it just favors accepting it but then there's times where it's not and there's always going to be something on both sides of that and we just have to be rooted in the right documents and common Vision anyone else have any reactions to that all right so nod yeah no this is such a good point um with commissioner D is his tension and and what you're saying I also feel attention too you know when I talk to Residents I have some residents that come to me and say hey Quincy I don't want X and then other folks with the same street which they couldn't say you need to do more so I get it I think I don't have any answers but I think what matters is our approach I think in every meeting that we have if we continue to be very thoughtful very deliberative ask lots of questions and try to see things from as much angles as possible and do our best to help educate the public with our questions on our on our input and the feedback I think that's good right and that's going to be the best that we could do of course we're going to make a decision at the end of the day which would make some folks happy and make other folks not so happy and vice versa but I think a deliberative thoughtful approach to things um would do us well in the long run that at least if folks don't get what they want they could walk away saying you know what this was well reasoned and I could appreciate where they landed so I think that's just kind of how I've been thinking about it whenever I come to these meetings is how do I probe and see things from as much size as possible so at least when residents take a look they have a good sense that we just didn't make a willy-nilly decision we took our time to really process it so that's just my input Gary staff member comments staff comments yeah just to update from the last city council meeting which was actually last night it's one of those weeks where it falls it's the same week as Planning Commission but on the Cahill plan was action night for the city council and a motion to submit the plan to the Met Council failed on it on a two to three vote so don't know exactly what the next steps are but we will keep you posted on that and the Eden 100 project that you all considered at your last meeting the public hearing was held last night they'll make the decision at their next meeting and that is it for me oh just a reminder at our next our next meeting on August 30th we'll do a work session beforehand to go through the work plan and there is a seven o'clock meeting yes yeah did this the city council share Insight with the Grand View related proposal or k always kale no I okay I must have missed that for which one the public hearing one I know they decide and then they usually share like a presentation of sorts yeah they they should ask questions they ask questions held the public hearing and they'll hold they hold their decision over to the next meeting so hard to really you know they seem to generally like the the changes that were made from sketch plan to to the formal plan but we'll see where they go okay thank you I guess with that we have one last item here what does that say adjournment oh hey it's before midnight that's nice motion to adjourn all right all in favor say aye aye aye so moved meeting is adjourned thank you all thank you everyone behind the scenes and those here making this happen foreign