[0:00] e [0:30] all right all right all right hello can you hear me I see Smiles I don't know [0:37] okay you can hear me all right good well welcome everybody to the Wednesday September 25th 2024 City VI Dino [0:46] Planning Commission meeting on behalf of the rest of the commission we welcome you we're grateful you're here uh say it [0:54] every time but your curiosity your participation and your feedback is vital [0:59] to this process is we navigate change here in Edina specifically regarding the [1:05] ways in which we would like to use our land so tonight we have two public [1:10] hearings uh I will go through what to expect for each of those later when they [1:16] approach uh in the meantime I'll kind of give you a rundown of why feedback [1:21] matters as well as the agenda first as it relates to feedback there's a lot of [1:27] ways in which we get your feedback whether it's here tonight at a public hearing or through email or through our [1:34] engagement website ww. better together.org [1:40] anything that's shared in any way that gets its way to the planning department [1:45] Finds Its way to us and we consider that feedback before we make recommendations [1:50] as we will tonight so for the agenda what to expect [1:56] we'll call the meeting to order then we'll do a roll call that will be followed by the approval of tonight's [2:02] meeting agenda then the prior meeting's minutes then we have a community comment [2:09] period and that is your chance for anyone who is here in person to speak about a matter not on tonight's agenda [2:17] you'll have three minutes to do that and then we open it up to our public hearings again we have [2:22] two and then we will finish with our reports and recommendations and then is [2:30] uh something related to Tiff and then we end with chair and member comments staff [2:36] comments and then adjournment so without further Ado call the meeting to [2:42] order and then roll call commissioner Padia here commissioner [2:48] J Commissioner junka here commissioner day here commissioner barnstein here [2:55] commissioner felt commissioner hanaman here chair Bennett [3:00] here uh there's commissioner felt on Q you want to just say [3:08] here all right I I saw a nod anyways we have commissioner felt joining [3:14] too uh so next we have the approval of tonight's meeting [3:20] agenda there's any proposed changes I like to I do have a proposed change um [3:25] so I would motion to remove uh item 8.1 from the agenda the resolution [3:32] b249 um I don't believe that this item is uh really and the purview of the [3:39] Planning Commission um and to be honest we're not trained on Tiff we're not members of the [3:45] H um the Planning Commission does not have the power of the purse so I don't find this discussion to be relevant um [3:54] to our our goal for the city um we've already voted on whether 72nd in France [3:59] development conforms to the general plans for development and Redevelopment of the city as a whole um so I mean this [4:05] seems redundant and to be honest a bit of a waste of our time and City Planning time and [4:10] resources um and then the last piece of this would be um in our [4:15] packet uh Pro provided for this item there's a [4:20] report of inspection procedures and results for determining qualifications of a tax financing District uh this [4:28] proposal or report should I say was put together by lhb which I believe if I my [4:35] memory serves correct um was awarded the contract for the proposed tunnel under [4:40] France um and if that's incorrect I can be corrected by the city um but they [4:46] have a vested interest in this becoming a tiff District so I don't see how we can consider that report as a piece of [4:54] this yeah this is an interesting topic as car other planning Commissioners know [5:00] anytime Tiff ends up being used it is a separate meeting later after we've made our approvals and I think others [5:07] probably feel the same way as commissioner D just about why we are making those [5:13] decisions I think since it's on the agenda we still proceed and let Bill [5:18] nondorf maybe address why it's on our agenda but I think the points Ryan [5:24] brings up are maybe the first things that we expect Bill to address and then [5:29] if that's something that we can potentially remove in the future like we're always trying to [5:35] improve the process so do you have any feedback car yeah part of the issue is I believe when it [5:42] went to the Planning Commission not sure exactly of the timing whether a tiff application was actually made but once [5:49] the Tiff application is made state law does require you to pass a resolution saying that the development plans are [5:56] consistent with the comprehensive plan so there is a resolution that you're asked to pass this [6:02] evening and so because it relates to land use in general correct and it's [6:08] required by state law for the Planning Commission to make that finding in regard to the development plans being [6:14] consistent with the with the comprehensive plan okay well noted but I would think [6:20] that the so I would well we can get to it at that point too but I wouldn't be prepared to vote on it um until an [6:28] alternative until I guess a separate entity other than lhb prepared um a statement on the [6:34] qualifications for the tax increment financing District because I consider this to be a pretty clear conflict of [6:39] interest based on their contract that they have for the bridge or tunnel should I [6:45] say maybe keeping in mind of the the time and the clock that you [6:50] mentioned does anyone else want to remove this or feel like proceeding with [6:56] it still on the agenda [7:02] I would I would encourage us to keep it on the agenda but then address those points [7:07] right away sound good so I guess do we have a different [7:15] motion I don't believe there was a [7:23] second this is just for tonight's meeting agenda so you need a motion to approve tonight's meeting agenda [7:30] as y as written motion to approve tonight's meeting agenda second all those in favor say I I [7:39] oppos so that carries we will address that later but thank you for bringing [7:44] that up uh next we have the approval of the prior meeting's minutes from September [7:50] 12th if there's any proposed changes welcome a motion with [7:56] modifications or just as it stands motion [8:01] to Second all those in favor say I I motion carries all right so next we have [8:08] the community comment period but before we do that we have a new face up [8:13] here we have a new student commissioner so one thing that's really cool that the [8:19] city does is gives the opportunity for two students in the community to serve [8:24] up on the Planning Commission with us and it's quite a remarkable commitment the fact that you're aware enough to [8:31] want to join so I'd like you to give you an opportunity to just introduce yourself tell us a little bit about why [8:38] you wanted to join and what you're interested in thank you hi everyone uh I'm Ben I'm a junior already D High [8:44] School uh I play soccer I run track um I'm part of the business club and I [8:49] joined the the Planning Commission to just learn a little bit more about our city I wanted to be uh a part uh kind of [8:56] of like what happens and know what goes on in my town and I'm excited to be here and I'm hope to give a student uh point [9:03] of view to the commission thank you awesome thank you very much all [9:09] right that's great so now we'll go to the community comment period this like a public hearing but is only for people [9:16] who are here in person you have three minutes you can come up to one of the podium when the light turns green State [9:22] your full name address and you have 3 minutes to speak about whatever you'd [9:27] like that's not on tonight's agenda is anyone here that would like to do [9:34] that seeing none we will close that part of the meeting tonight and move right to [9:40] the public hearings so just for those who'd like to get ready to participate [9:46] that are tuning in remotely again there's two public hearings uh if you'd [9:51] like to provide testimony remotely you're going to follow probably the prompts on the screen uh you're going to [9:57] call the following number 312 2 535 8110 and enter access code [10:06] 2630 751 11196 the password is [10:12] 5454 and then when it's your time you'll press star three on your keypad to get in the cutest speak but you don't need [10:18] to do that right yet uh so what to expect for a public hearing this one is [10:24] a 3T height variance from the maximum height requirements of 6 ft to allow for for 9ft tall fence or long France [10:32] Avenue the process for a public hearing is an applicant or a developer resident [10:39] whoever applies for something that doesn't really conform staff puts [10:44] together a report and they then put together a presentation based off of that report and provide that to us [10:50] tonight we ask questions have some back and forth then we open it to the applicant team to give their own [10:57] presentation if they'd like answer questions back and forth then we open it to the [11:02] public hearing and then that is your chance as a citizen or anyone tuning in remotely to testify about the matter you [11:10] have three minutes to do that once we close a public hearing it comes back to the Planning Commission we deliberate [11:16] and we make a recommendation for approval or denial and then we move on to the next public hearing so for the [11:23] first one planner rocker take it away thank you chair members of the [11:29] Planning Commission um this is a request for a 3ft height variance for a 6t [11:35] maximum height allowed uh for a fence to replace um four existing six foot tall [11:42] fences The Proposal is for solid wall 8ft fences with the trellis top for a [11:49] total of 9 ft um of height along France Avenue for four properties at 4701 4703 [11:57] 4705 and 47 707 metal Road these are four properties that front metal Road [12:05] and then there's an additional five other properties that also front metal Road and this is between uh 47th and [12:12] 48th along France Avenue the back of their Lots um back up to France uh most [12:18] of the homes are at a lower elevation and their backyards slope up towards France [12:25] Avenue this is the view um that's currently there along most of the [12:31] properties or the affected properties um the solid wall six- foot fence that's currently there is right up against or [12:38] very close to the edge of the sidewalk with the exception of the southernmost of the four properties has [12:46] this indentation where um there's a utility pole now the replacement fence [12:52] would be um in front of the utility pole so it wouldn't look like this it would just be solid wall 9ft fence uh in front [12:59] of the utility pole and another view of the fence as uh [13:06] it exists along France Avenue so [13:13] um the purpose of the fence is to replace the six- foot fences at the [13:19] intersection of 47th and France Avenue there's going to be um it's to screen [13:26] the 9ft tall fences are to screen and buffer uh four properties from the brte line [13:32] intersection improvements um I'm sure you've noticed there's been a lot of construction along France Avenue and [13:38] that's a lot of it um in this particular situation they have two stations on both [13:46] the East and West sides of the street the 4700 block of France Avenue will have two stations directly from across [13:53] from each other so um on the west side and then on the east side um um rather [13:59] than the diagonal situation that usually occurs at an intersection um given uh engineering uh [14:09] I guess they needed to do it uh across from one another um the other the [14:15] stations themselves include bus shelters which are 12 ft long with sloping roofs [14:21] the front of the shelters are 12 and 1/2 ft tall uh the backs are about 8 and 1/2 [14:26] ft the shelters are lighted and heated the stations will have 14t tall LED [14:31] illuminated pylon sign and the station will include talking Fair card machines [14:37] bike racks trash and recycling receptacles as part of the Eline project henpen county is installing a median [14:44] strip and um will include crosswalks on the south side of the intersection and [14:51] then also um it will have the flashing lights and then there will be um a new [14:58] 30 foot tall street light um on the [15:04] corner so this is a rendering and it's showing the six [15:10] foot vence it does not show this was um I believe uh done by uh Metro Transit [15:17] but it gives you an idea of how that will look and it includes that crosswalk sign [15:25] can't really see the top of the new light and then this is um just a typical um [15:33] one of the bus uh stations so evening also lit [15:44] up this is the proposed fencing product that they are proposing on the 8ot [15:50] section and then um there would be a 1ot Topper um that would increase the height [15:57] to 9 ft which would be a TR top it um [16:02] encompasses the four homes just south of West 47th Street um each have [16:08] approximately a 60 foot wide lot that backs up to France Avenue you're not seeing the southernmost property um all [16:16] the way um so it would be 4701 [16:21] 0305 and uh 07 with a 65 ft length um [16:27] along their rear property boundary 8 foot solid wall and then a one foot [16:32] topper with the the trellis top is what they are [16:38] proposing it should be noted that there are other intersections along the E Line [16:44] and um so this is France Avenue and West 58th [16:50] Street and it's not north south so you have to look at um it's um North is this [16:57] way so the property on the northeast corner will [17:03] have a uh station in their front yard um at 5733 France and then also at 5729 [17:11] it's sort of uh between the two um and that this particular intersection will have them in a [17:18] diagonal fashion and then there will be one along the sidey yard of 3901 West [17:24] 58th Street so this is the side of their house um house fronts house fronts and [17:31] they will have you know some of the same typical uh station features that are [17:36] going going to be at the 47th and France Avenue intersection there's also going to be a [17:43] stop um or station at West 62nd and France um and again this is not running [17:51] north south um so West 67th which is on the West Side the station will be [17:58] located in front of 6129 [18:03] um with a rendering of that location in [18:09] context so there can be a case made for both approval and denial of the [18:15] request um denial of the request for three-foot fence sight variance for properties located at 471 4703 4705 and [18:23] 07 meal Road um could be based on the following findings that the proposed [18:29] does not meet the standards for a variance with no circumstances unique and specific to the lot there are other [18:34] properties located along France Avenue equally affected by improvements of the brte line next to their property the [18:41] properties currently have reasonable use with an existing 6 foot fence uh located the length of France Avenue between 47th [18:50] and 48th um approval could promote requests for similar variances to fence height [18:56] and set a precedent so um there's for that are being requested for that portion of of France Avenue um but it [19:05] this could possibly set up um I guess opportunities for others to ask for the same thing the property owner situation [19:12] is not unique to other properties along France Avenue with the same or possibly more severe impacts to the front and [19:18] sidey yards of properties and could promote requests that are similar and the four properties might provide a [19:24] disjointed fence height along France Avenue um which may in introduce some [19:30] aesthetic concerns there's also a case for approval um approval of the request for [19:36] 3-ft height variance to allow 9ft tall fence for all four properties along meal Road um could be based on the following [19:43] findings that there is a practical difficulty caused by the required brte line improvements including the lighting [19:49] noise a crosswalk with impacting bus stops directly across um from each other [19:55] on the south side of 47th Street in France Avenue intersection as opposed to staggered like um most [20:02] intersection situations they do have a lot more going on um in terms of that [20:09] intersection um for improvements and impact um the unique circumstance [20:14] includes the new crosswalk improvements again flashing lights new street lights uh the proposal would not alter the [20:20] essential character of the neighborhood a 9ot tall fence would offer screening for neighboring properties from [20:25] improvements at the intersections and would help to Main maintain neighborhood character any U approval should be [20:32] subject to the following conditions the plans and Survey date stamped August 21th 2024 and subject to engineer staff memo [20:41] um dated September 13 2024 engineering memo does support the request um staff [20:49] did um recommend denial given the fact that um even aside from looking along [20:56] France Avenue there are other conflicting land uses um and it may be [21:03] um a more appropriate way to look at it holistically and not to um have [21:10] individual variances come forward for the Planning Commission to consider if there's some way to address our current [21:15] code um that would certainly be helpful and uh with that I will stop and answer [21:22] any questions you may have we do have some of the neighbors um that have applied for the variant here and um are [21:30] ready for presentation with that I will stop and answer any questions you may [21:36] have thank you Chris any questions for [21:45] Chris commissioner pH [21:51] um honor AER what is the current width of the sidewalk [21:59] 8 feet uh probably I'm thinking it's probably close to [22:04] that and that um and what is the width of the sidewalk at the bus [22:12] station do you know I don't know but it does if you you can see from this it [22:18] comes out so it's probably you know least two three more [22:25] feet um I also have have noted that in the in the um applicant [22:33] narrative uh the fence is actually the existing fence that you see here is [22:38] actually further back from their lot line and they are planning on adjusting it right up to their lot line which may [22:45] impact exactly where some of that sidewalk will go it's very minimal but [22:51] um it's closer than where the fence is thank you they lot [23:03] one quick question is like hpen County or Metro Transit have [23:09] they provided any guidance of how they plan to kind of mitigate these visual or [23:17] auditory or other concerns throughout this process I think that's an excellent [23:23] question for the property owners because they have been actively um in contact [23:28] with them okay I just didn't know if maybe one of their representatives were here this evening I mean I don't think [23:34] they're obligated to but it might just be helpful to hear okay any other questions for [23:42] Chris all right thank you Chris we will give a chance to the applicant applicant [23:48] team whoever wants to come forward if you'd like to present anything or just simply stand for [23:55] questions that'd be great just introduce yourself name address Etc thank [24:01] you my name is Karen Willie I live at 471 meal road which is the [24:06] corner and with me is Molly well let's start with Rob here Robin Harmon who's [24:11] at 4703 and Molly rice who is at 4705 Betty Goodman who is at 4707 is out of [24:18] town tonight um I would like to say two things in my introductory remarks one is [24:26] that my mother just died um 10 days shorter for 99th birthday so this is not [24:32] really where I want to be tonight but I thought it was important to be here and so I am and the second thing I want to say is [24:40] that I would respectfully request that when the staff recommendation is made particularly when it is in opposition to [24:46] the request of the residents that it appear on the website earlier than the day of the [24:51] hearing which is how it worked today I did not find out none of us found out until about 4:00 this afternoon what the [24:58] staff recommendation was [25:04] um as the Planning Commission staff has noted we have been working with uh mental transit for a long time on this [25:11] issue um I guess I might address that first in terms of the concern from the planning staff about perhaps the fact [25:17] that consistency would be helpful in something like this that may be but the city has known about this project for a [25:23] long long time I have been working with the city on this project for literally [25:29] two and a half years probably uh and to your question about Metro Transit mitigation the answer is none they they [25:35] do nothing um they purport to have public hearings you can submit comments but they don't really listen to anything [25:41] and they're really going to do what they want to do so what I'd like to do briefly and then if Molly or Robin have [25:47] additional comments there hopefully they can make them um is kind of walk through [25:52] the staff recommendation and share the concerns that we have um on the first [25:58] page where the the question is the variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance as the staff report says [26:05] screening is appropriate between conflicting and impacted land uses and supports protecting Residential [26:12] Properties which is what we're trying to do of the four applicants they go on to say however that there are these other [26:17] two other places the 58th Street stations and the 62nd Street stations that are similarly circumstan that's not [26:24] the case as the staff person indicated this is the only only [26:30] residential spot on the entire Eline where the stations are directly across [26:35] from each other as opposed to on diagonal Corners so I in particular because it's my lot will be looking not [26:41] at one station but two and as was always also mentioned in the report there's [26:46] also going to be two flashing crosswalks on this and as as uh the assistant um [26:53] city planner noted there's a lot going on at this intersection a lot [27:00] [Music] um so the second concern is [27:08] um that we have reasonable use with the existing six foot tall fences um that's [27:15] true the problem with the existing six foot tall fences is they do nothing to screen what what we're going to be [27:21] looking at like was already stated these things are almost 9 ft at the back they're 12T at the front they are [27:27] lighted 20 24 hours a day 24 hours a day and so in terms of you know apart from [27:35] the fact that the buses are going to be running we're told every 10 minutes from 6:00 a.m. until 10: p.m. this is a [27:41] significant change from when we bought our properties what we're used to um [27:47] we've also already experienced change at the hands of the city because when all of us purchased these properties there [27:52] was no sidewalk back there and there was there was a tree barrier between the back of our lots and France Avenue and [27:59] about 12 years ago the city decided to put a sidewalk in that's fine but we lost our tree barrier and now we're [28:05] going to be exposed to even more light noise you know I mean you name it any [28:10] kind of pollution you can think of is going to happen um and the other thing I should just mention I guess is that um [28:18] when the city sidewalk was put in we've learned as part of this survey that we had to do in order for our zoning [28:23] application that in fact the sidewalk is on our property it infringes on my property at the corner by about 12T and [28:30] then I mean I'm sorry 12 in and then it goes down from there so we have been working with the city engineer to try to [28:36] deal with the uh encroachment and I think it's everybody's feeling that now is the time [28:42] to remedy all of these issues and there's there are timing issues because [28:48] Metro Transit has already started the construction on our side of the street so we've got to figure out what are we [28:53] going to do about the easement that the city needs or some other sort of mitigation and what we going to do about [28:58] this fence and it's all going to happen this fall so there are some timing [29:04] constraints um there's also a concern that's expressed in number three about a [29:10] disjointed fence height and may introduce aesthetic concerns I'm not aware of any aesthetic requirements in [29:17] the zoning code but maybe there are um there's already a dis jointed fence issue because when the city put in the [29:24] sidewalk they had to do a sort of retaining raw wall fence for the four properties that are to the south of us [29:31] so the fences already don't line up they can't line up because that is a retaining wall fence that actually sits [29:37] on the sidewalk and we one of the reasons that all four of us were willing to do this [29:42] together is because we thought as we said in our application that having one consistent fence built at the same time [29:49] and then nicely adjoining that City Fence was a much better aesthetic than having one of us do something one year [29:54] and one of us do something another year so we tried to address that as well um [30:01] then there's the concern about the plight of the land owner is not apparently unique in this situation as [30:06] I've already said the the other two spots 58 and 62 are are not the same [30:11] because this the the shelters are not directly opposite each other [30:17] behind my house the other issue is that we don't have good mitigation opportunities other [30:23] than offence because um to the question about how big is the I'm sorry how big [30:29] is the sidewalk going to be so everywhere else Metro Transit has built these new stations they have ripped up [30:34] the sidewalk they do not intend to rip up this sidewalk they want to leave two feet of it and the reason they want to [30:39] do that is because they are rightly concerned that if they do pull up the sidewalk there will be significant [30:45] erosion into our yards which is exactly what happened when the city built the sidewalk 12 years ago and especially in [30:51] my yard more so in Rob some in Robins as well a little less in Molly's the grade from France down is so deep I can't get [30:59] anything to grow there so I've got some old trees planting new ones is not an option because I can't keep water there [31:05] and I can't keep sunlight there so the fence is really the only way the only [31:10] realistic way we have to mitigate the effects of the shelters and all about [31:16] the brt stuff um and then the last concern I guess is [31:23] that the additional 3T uh may seem to alter the itial character of the [31:29] locality um I'm not exactly sure why that is because as I said there's no requirement now that the fences be [31:35] uniform and these would be uniform they'd just be taller so going through the three [31:41] reasons for denial um it says the proposal does not meet the standards [31:46] with no circumstances unique and specific to the lot again I think it is unique and specific because we're the [31:51] only place where both of the stations are directly across the street from each other the properties currently have [31:58] reasonable use with 6ft fences we do but it won't do anything for us because it's not going to help with how tall these [32:03] shelters are are going to be um and a property sit owner situation is yet not [32:08] unique again I would argue that it is [32:15] um so I guess that's about all I have to say I apologize for my um mild [32:23] crankiness it's just you know hard to have your mother die and hard to have the city engineer [32:29] say that he's supporting this and that he thinks it should be fine and then learn at 4 o' this afternoon that it maybe wasn't going to be fine [32:38] so I'm Rob Haron thank you um when we did the survey and we [32:44] realized that the city sidewalk encroached on our properties you know we [32:50] had to start working with the city and jire to come up with an idea because um [32:55] the city's going to either need to remove the sidewalk to erase the encroachment or we're going [33:03] to have to give them an easement so we're kind of in the middle of all that negotiating and the city engineer is [33:08] trying to figure out if he can remove it build some kind of a wall to um ensure that we don't have erosion so like now [33:15] is the time you know it might be great to have a great policy on taller fences or but you know we're in this situation [33:23] right now where we um kind of need to do something [33:28] and just in aside the city engineer said you know he drives around all the time and sees taller fences just nobody knows [33:35] that there's a limit in a Dina and you know he said good for you for going for variant but lots of people just build [33:42] taller fences so we're trying to do the best thanks thank [33:48] you no great job great job [33:59] appreciate your time and patience any questions for the applicant [34:09] team sure i' just like to offer an apology that you that you have to be here today and um there are 9-ft fences [34:17] in other parts of the city and um it's unfortunate that we're in the [34:22] circumstances I appreciate the sensitivity of time um but just extending my [34:32] apologies thank you all right so without further questions it is a public hearing [34:38] so we will open it to that part of the meeting I gave instructions before but [34:44] I'll repeat them again for anyone tuning in remotely and then we'll open it to people who are here in [34:51] person so again please call 312 535 811 [34:59] 0 enter access code 2630 [35:04] 75111 96 the password is 5454 so enter that too and then press [35:13] star three on your keypad to get in the queue to speak we will turn it over to people who [35:19] are here in person there's about a 1 minute lag so we'll return to the virtual queue momentarily is there [35:25] anyone who is here that would like to testify about this particular matter you [35:31] have 3 minutes to do so come to either Podium full name address we'll let you know when your time's [35:43] up don't see anyone so we will turn to the virtual [35:49] queue maybe just give it only 30 more seconds it's been about 30 we'll wait 30 seconds to see if [35:56] anyone's in that ready to speak no one currently no one [36:06] okay you the elevator [36:24] music nobody has joined so I think it's safe to proceed we have a motion to close the [36:30] public hearing motion to close the public hearing second all those in favor say I [36:38] I I so move the public hearings Clos now we'll take it back to the Planning Commission to [36:44] deliberate I'm looking for either a recommendation to approve the variance or Deny It ultimately yeah commissioner [36:53] Pia um I'd like to thank everybody for their presentation I'm also very sorry for your loss I know it's a difficult [37:00] time for you and I understand this is the last place you want to be [37:05] um not for that reason but for many of the others that you addressed um I am in [37:11] favor of this variance I think this is a very unique set of circumstances um and the idea that you'd [37:19] have a light 24 hours and a talking sign um you know right right above the [37:26] fence uh adjacent to your property um is certainly a unique circumstance I do [37:32] think without going through you know I have them all written down and and uh I differ from the staff in terms of of [37:39] feeling that it's Unique circumstance and there are practical difficulties and this impact of land use um I also think [37:46] it's very admirable that you are coming to the Planning Commission together um as for homes and that you were trying to [37:52] do this and make you know at least um have some uniformity in the change that [37:58] you're looking for um I think just looking at this fence [38:04] um three feet is not going to impact aesthetically um the street at all so I [38:10] am um in favor of this variance thank you yeah commissioner [38:16] day all right so thank you for being here tonight um agree with what commissioner Pia basically said and I [38:23] just wanted to get into the the technical details of the variant a little bit um cuz I'm usually as an engineer pretty stickler for for [38:29] variance requests but um this one I think is is pretty reasonable in terms of you know going through the so I'm [38:36] going to step through these um the first one the variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of [38:41] the ordinance well we have the the fence ordinance um and here in the packet we [38:46] say you know the uh purpose of intent of the fence height ordinance is to provide [38:51] reasonable fence height to allow privacy okay that's important and provide a consistent height standard well [38:58] there's no minimum to the height to the height standard so you know I think about my yard that I have and my [39:04] neighbors all have different height the different heights of fences all around and made of different materials so there's really no consistency there I [39:11] think it's the ordinance is there to make sure we don't get 12ft tall fences um so I can see why we put a cap um but [39:18] I think this is you know in harmony with the general purpose of of having this fence this fence sight [39:24] organized uh getting down to the consistent the comprehensive plan um [39:29] this one's pretty easy you know it's our one District not really much to comment on that and then the Practical [39:36] difficulties um right so the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable Banner not permitted by the [39:42] zoning ordinance I think it's pretty reasonable they want a bigger fence in order to provide some privacy from uh [39:49] you know constant light and traffic um on this this stretch of stretch of road [39:54] um the plate of land owners due to circumstances unique to the property it's not necessarily unique to your [40:00] property but you're being impacted in a unique way um by the changes being made [40:05] and then you know the last piece here the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality [40:10] um again I I don't think the fence determines the essential character of the neighborhood and to have an you know [40:16] a uniform fence along four different Lots made of the same material at the same height I think um certainly [40:22] wouldn't alter any kind of character of the neighborhood um so you know I see all the criteria being met for variance [40:29] here um I think it's a very reasonable request uh and you know as we were going through this I thought to myself you [40:35] know how can we potentially look to change this ordinance um for future [40:41] properties right because we as a city want to be moving towards this type of development with Rapid Transit and [40:47] whatnot um so other residents will have this concern and I think it would be people would be more receptive to some [40:53] of these changes if they knew that they could have um additional screening and whatnot if they were you know if we were [40:59] proposed route changes you know through next to their backyard and whatnot so [41:05] yeah it's me thank you commissioner boring felt [41:11] others yeah we can just go down the line I suppose um I'm on the other side of [41:17] this one I'm I tend to agree more with the staff recommendation for these reasons the the fending structures that [41:26] relief is that are causing light and and noise and just visual obstruction are [41:31] all above 9 ft there's a 14 there's a 14t LED sign a 12T roof station and a [41:38] 30ft street light um I don't think this fence is going to mitigate the effects of those uh because they're all [41:45] substantially taller than the fence being proposed I think this type of improvement is relatively normal for a [41:50] Transit Corridor like France and I do think that granting I I acknowledge that [41:57] there's a there's a station on the opposite side of this one but I don't think that materially changes the type of type of effect that would probably [42:03] happen at the other places in the city where it's just aligned slightly differently um I do have a concern that [42:12] if we were to Grant this variant we'd have a precedent where we' need to Grant it for the other properties where there [42:17] are um also Transit stations and probably for everyone who's got a backyard where their neighbor has some [42:23] structure in their backyard they don't want to look at like an Adu or anything um that is just something that's [42:29] visually unappealing and so for those reasons I don't think the standards are [42:35] met and would probably recommend denial although I do appreciate all the applicants coming and asking for [42:41] permission it's much better to do that than um than asking for forgiveness later which is something we also see so [42:49] thanks Mr phone thank you for coming in tonight [42:55] and thank you for your presentation your and all the work that you've put into this so far [43:01] um I agree with everything um commissioner Bornstein has said I live in the Morningside area and [43:09] I walk from Morningside down to 15 in France um probably once a week and [43:19] um I find this section with the sidewalk right next to the street and the fence [43:26] the the least pedestrian friendly section of that entire walk and My worry [43:33] is a 9- foot fence rather than a six-foot fence is going to be more even more [43:38] unfriendly um and so and so that when you're walking with a friend down that [43:43] street it it just does not feel wide enough so I'm thrilled that that at the [43:49] station the sidewalks going to get wider that will feel more comfortable um and I [43:55] also think you had mentioned not doing trees but I think really looking into the idea [44:03] of a living fence a green fence arbet or something like that if you can figure out some way to do that they can grow [44:09] taller than the 99 foot fence and it would help muffle noise and [44:15] it would also be green year round because in this image that's up right now during the winter time there's no [44:22] leaves and those things that are taller than the 9 foot fence the talking sign [44:28] and The Pedestrian Crossing are always going to be there and if you can get a blue spruce and some art arbid in there [44:36] that would really help screen it and muffle the noise so I think those things [44:42] are probably a better option for blocking um this distraction and it' [44:49] probably be a little friendlier too as a pedestrian so I doo am going to vote [44:54] against this and one of this one of the reasons we have the six foot height limit is because that's the tallest we [45:00] want our fences and um like you said just because someone [45:07] builds a fence taller than that doesn't necessarily make it right but I do appreciate you coming um to us and and [45:14] asking for this so I think it was last year um the [45:22] City built a 9ot fence on Valley View uh Jason to the sidewalk between 69th and [45:29] 70th because the neighborh neighbors directly affected um directly behind the [45:35] fence I'm sorry were impacted by the change of use of the building across the street to a more um high-intensity use [45:43] and so to accommodate uh that change um and [45:48] impact to the neighbors's property the city paid for and put in a 9- foot fence [45:54] your neighbors to the South had a 6ft fence and a retaining wall put in [46:01] because of the drainage and struggle there um I completely agree that uh [46:07] trees would be a better option here for your guys' comfort it sounds like maybe trees are not growing um I sure do wish [46:15] the city would um do right by you all because if we've taken the trees down to [46:22] add a sidewalk and now we're adding more to me we haven't helped mitigate those [46:29] impacts on your property and I understand that this is not a city road but you're still a dino residence and so [46:36] I think we what we can do to accommodate that impact is allow a 9- foot fence and [46:42] um I don't know if you've talked to the um City Arborist or Forester but I'm [46:48] hopeful he could have some recommendations or some be able to offer you some assistance [46:53] because oh sure [46:59] so I was a really unhappy camper when all those trees got cut down and the fence went in I mean the sidewalk went in 12 years ago I can't tell you how [47:06] many gardeners experts people I have talked to and how much money I have spent on [47:12] trees in that backyard that have died and part of the problem is that there are a few large trees so I have to plant [47:19] something that will tolerate shade because otherwise I have to cut down another tree to do like an arbor B of fence which I can't do anyway because as [47:25] I said the great so steep you can't plant right up along France because there's nothing to put the roots into so [47:32] and I did talk to Luther I was actually at Weber park with my Garden Club on Monday so I had a pretty extensive [47:38] conversation with Luther about a lot of things I I am confident after 12 years of trying I I cannot plant trees back [47:45] there that will grow I love Arbor Vitas I love Evergreens but it's not going to [47:54] happen other comments guess that leaves it to [48:00] me yeah this is a tough one I think just in general we we set a standard for a [48:08] maximum for some sort of consistency and just and and I'm not as worried about a [48:15] precedent that's getting set I think we keep that at 6 feet and we leave it for one off cases like this where we look at [48:24] all of the details like this is very unique even compared to the other two locations that were shown they're [48:31] different in a number of ways um is this as obtrusive as it appearing in your [48:36] front yard no but those lots and it being a front yard versus a [48:42] backyard the grade there's a lot that's different so I appreciate that there is a standard [48:48] and we're trying to keep it at 6 feet um but I'm on I'm on the I'm in favor of [48:56] supporting this one for the reasons mentioned uh and and again this I I [49:01] don't need to belabor why the reasons that were mentioned to support I support those more than the [49:09] ones for denial I see both sides for sure um but this just doesn't seem [49:16] like it's going to make that big of an impact on literally anyone um except [49:22] provide a lot of benefit to to the homeowners and [49:27] that's that's ultimately like what we're trying to balance when it comes to offence [49:33] ordinance it this seems like an easy ask but any other comments welcome a [49:42] motion motion to approve the request as outlined in the staff report [49:49] second let's do a roll call vote [49:57] sorry is there any discussion after those two [50:02] okay uh commissioner podo I commissioner day I commissioner [50:09] barnstein he commissioner felt nay commissioner Henman I chair Bennett I so [50:17] that's four to two motion carries good luck with the rest of your [50:22] approvals thank you for coming all right [50:27] we have another public hearing Chris are you taking this one [50:34] too okay so similar process to the previous one this is for a conditional use permit [50:41] at 5208 Philbrook Lane for a stem wall with fill pad for a new home to be compliant with FEMA and with zoning [50:47] variances that include a 4.09 ft setback variance from the 10t requirement for a [50:54] 5.91 foot side yard setback back on the west side of the property and for a [50:59] 22.7% variance from the 50% maximum for exterior basement walls to be [51:06] 72.7% above grade and therefore counted as a third story that might be one of the longest we've had in a while so [51:14] thank you Chris take it away no thank you um this request is for a conditional [51:20] use permit with variances to tear down the existing home and build a new home [51:25] at 4208 Philbrook Lane the property is located in the northeast corner of [51:31] Philbrook you can see here it backs up to um portion of Pamela Park and where [51:37] the um minha Creek overflow [51:44] is this is um a photograph of the existing home that's currently [51:49] there the existing home is um currently located in the floodway the original [51:55] home is built in 1960 and it predates the flood insurance study conducted in the late 1970s so there's a lot of homes [52:03] uh especially on the east side that were built prior to the flood study and unfortunately some of them ended up [52:10] being in the flood zone this one happens to be in the floodway and you can see where the property and the home is [52:18] bisected um by that Contour grading and fill are restricted [52:25] in the floodway after conducting a site and structure study the homeowner established that [52:31] renovation or addition to the current structure is not possible given the floodway designation and their family [52:38] needs and the next slides I have are uh the proposed survey of what they're [52:43] proposing to replace the existing non-conforming home that has a basement that's lower than the flood elevation [52:49] the hous is in the flood zone um it is a goal of the city when whenever we have [52:54] an opportunity to lift those properties out of the flood zone um to do what we can in order to accomplish that because [53:02] currently um this property is in the flood way um and there is really [53:07] virtually nothing that they can do to improve the property um short of trying [53:13] to lift it out so this is the new home um that's [53:18] being prop proposed it's uh sort of the magenta color underneath you can see the [53:24] existing home uh the SE backs are the lines in yellow the existing home is [53:30] non-conforming for side yard setback on both the right and left sides uh the [53:35] footprint of the home is larger um they couldn't get any closer to the front um [53:41] lot line they had to maintain the front yard setback um they also were trying to maintain the sidey yard setbacks as much [53:48] as possible uh what they ended up doing is shortening up the right side of the [53:53] home um and with the left side of the home they would maintain the existing non-conforming setback that's currently [54:00] there so the house that they're proposing is more conforming to our [54:05] current code or will be um and the floods it will be taken out of the flood [54:12] uh way um than the existing home so this is the setback compliance [54:20] table meets front yard setback um again they're increasing the proposed um side [54:26] yard setback on the right side the left side they're going to just match the existing non-conforming [54:32] setback um they're well within the setback for rear lot line they can't go any further back just based on the fact [54:40] that there is floodway behind it the building height is lower than the um [54:47] required or city standard um that they could go up to um and that's measured [54:53] from existing grade so um when I talk about the two and a half story [54:59] piece that's the um maximum number of stories this house has to be considered [55:06] a three-story home because more than 50% of that basement level is exposed so [55:12] it's considered a three-story home so they're trying to get a variance from that because they can't move any fill [55:17] around because of the flood zone um however if you're measuring it according [55:23] to the building height requirement it's lower than the maximum they could be so whether they had a basement below or not [55:31] they're still not pushing it up any higher than what the maximum would be [55:37] allowed they're well within the structure and impervious Service uh coverage [55:42] [Music] requirements this is the proposed home [55:47] in context with the proposed conceptual floodway boundary so it would be pulled [55:53] out of the flood zone um and they would be putting the new home on fill and they will have a stem wall so the conditional [55:59] use permit is actually to um allow the fill and the stem wall um on the [56:10] property so a bit of background of the design and location um that was [56:15] determined to be possible after extensive coordination with our engineering department the DNR and the [56:22] Watershed district and so those are the local controls that are looking at this [56:27] project in order for them to actually build it they will have to get a letter [56:33] of map Amendment through FEMA so if they can get all of the local approvals then [56:38] they'd have to request a letter letter of map um revision through FEMA um and [56:46] there is no guarantee that they will necessarily approve that um but these [56:52] are the first steps in order to achieve bringing the house up um um out of the flood [56:58] zone even with achieving those approvals there is no guarantee a FEMA will approve the project um this property is [57:05] a third generation owned property that has always been held in the family the owners are invested um and have PL and [57:12] have spent a lot of time and upfront resources for just the possibility to rebuild on the [57:21] lot so here's the lower level of the pro of the plan um main floor [57:28] plan second floor plan and then the home um in elevation and you can see that the [57:35] overall height is lower than the maximum that would be allowed even given the [57:40] fact that you have um some exposed basement wall [57:46] area and then the front elevation and the home in context with [57:52] some of the neighboring homes so regarding the conditional use permit [57:59] um it does not have an un have an undue adverse impact on government facilities [58:05] utility services or existing or proposed improvements the proposed project is [58:11] located within established neighborhood and will be rebuilding on a former home site with pre-existing governmental [58:17] facilities utilities and services so there will be no impact um in addition to the um what was already existing well [58:26] will it generate traffic within the capacity of the street serving the property yes there will be no change to [58:31] that um does not have an undue adverse impact on public health safety or [58:36] welfare um again it's a rebuild one uh house one house for one house staff does [58:43] not believe the project will have any adverse impact on public health safety or welfare it will not impede the normal [58:49] or orderly development or Improvement of other properties in the vicinity staff believes the proposed new home will [58:55] enhance the property will fit the fit well within the site the proposed use is allowed in the R1 zoning District the [59:01] proposed project does not impede any normal or orderly development or Improvement of surrounding property it [59:07] conforms to the applicable restrictions and special conditions of the district in which it is located as imposed by [59:13] this section the proposed project has been designed to satisfy all city code Provisions with the exception of the [59:20] variances that are required and those are all based on the existing conditions that are currently on site [59:27] um and also subject to the approval of FEMA is it consistent with the [59:32] comprehensive plan no amendment is needed um from the comprehensive plan um [59:37] the house is permitted in the R1 zoning District um Minnesota St statutes [59:44] um requires the following conditions must be satisi satisfied affirmatively [59:49] for the variances that are being requested will leave practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable [59:54] use the left side yard setback variance of 4.09 Ft from the 10-ft requirement for a [1:00:02] 5.91 ft sidey setback at the front South corner of the home matches the existing [1:00:07] non-conforming side your set back of the original home and they have very limited opportunity in order to fit a home on [1:00:13] the lot given uh the flood zone constraints the new home will maintain existing non-conforming setback on the [1:00:19] right side while shifting the footprint to adhere to the current setback requirements on the left side the [1:00:24] applicant is indicated multiple scenarios were studied um and while the home width [1:00:30] could be reduced or the front yard setback increased this would increase the amount of fill and impact in the floodway neighboring home sidey yard [1:00:37] setbacks are consistent also with the 5- foot sidey yard setback throughout the [1:00:43] throughout the block most of the homes were built in the 60s and they had um similar setbacks as the existing house [1:00:50] does will it correct or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other [1:00:56] properties in the vicinity the floodway designation is an extraordinary circumstance affecting and driving all [1:01:02] aspects of the Home Design the proposed 4.09 ft setback variance is reasonable [1:01:09] the property has extraordinary circumstances given the Liv limited opportunities and the basement is [1:01:14] limited in ability to comply with the zoning ordinance while complying with the flood plane ordinance you can't put [1:01:20] that basement any lower it actually had to be raised up 2 feet above the flood elevation [1:01:26] there are circumstances that are unique to the property not common to similarly zoned property that are not self-created [1:01:32] the circumstances related to the proposed project in both requested variances are unique to the property lot [1:01:38] given the lot configuration flood zone elevations and impacts that are specific and unique to the site that are not like [1:01:46] um other similarly Zone properties will the variants alter the essential character of the neighborhood um the [1:01:52] granting the variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood that's subject property is currently used for a single dwelling [1:01:58] unit it will continue to be used for that the size location and scale of the proposed structure is similar to other [1:02:04] existing buildings in the neighborhood and the location of the structure was chosen to comply with um the feema FL [1:02:09] plane ordinance staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit request and for the 4.09 foot sitb back [1:02:18] variance um and for the exterior basement walls uh to be more than 50% [1:02:23] above uh grade to construct a new home at 4208 Philbrook approval is subject to [1:02:30] the following findings the proposed project meets the conditional use permit standards of [1:02:35] chapter 36 as I indicated previously the proposed project meets the criteria of [1:02:41] the Minot Minnesota state statutes in the IND zoning ordinance to Grant both variances requested the property is [1:02:48] currently located in a FEMA flood plane designation of floodway it is a goal of [1:02:54] the city to remove structures from the flood zone represented with the opportunity this proposal will achieve [1:03:00] that goal the project presents opportunity to correct flood plan designation which is a practical [1:03:06] difficulty that is unique and extraordinary um and is a circumstance of the property the proposed project [1:03:12] will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood any approval is subject to the following conditions the [1:03:18] construction plans must be consistent with the proposed survey and plans dat stamped August 15 [1:03:24] 2024 liance with all the conditions outlined in the city Engineers memo dated September 16th 20 excuse me [1:03:33] 2024 ad excuse me administrative exception to the first [1:03:40] floor requirement excuse me a successful [1:03:46] letter of map revision or lar from FAA FEMA which moves the floodway [1:03:52] designation demonstrated no increase in or transfer in flood risk to other [1:03:57] certified by a licensed engineer uh proposed stem wall must be [1:04:03] certified by a licensed structural engineer the permit issued by the minw Creek Watershed district and an [1:04:09] elevation certificate will be required before issuing a certificate of occupancy upon uh the building [1:04:16] completion um also compliance with the tree protection ordinance in accordance with the city [1:04:22] Forester with that I will stop and answer any questions you do have and um [1:04:28] we do have the homeowners and the representative here um as [1:04:33] well all right thank you Chris [1:04:38] mouthful questions for [1:04:44] chrisan um it's contagious um I'm I have [1:04:50] a couple of questions for you Chris sorry and maybe I just wasn't following [1:04:55] the home can't be remodeled in its current shell [1:05:02] why because if you have a u existing non-conforming structure in the floodway [1:05:08] it's considered an obstruction so you're limited to 50% of the value of the [1:05:14] structure not the entire property and most of the value is in the lot um in order to make any sort of improvements [1:05:22] and to some degree just um code improvements like new windows that sort of thing um and that the goal of that I [1:05:29] believe is that FEMA doesn't want to continually have these non-conforming [1:05:35] properties have to make claims after and they've continually been improved over [1:05:40] time so their value has increased um so so and is that like a cumulative [1:05:47] running total so if you're pulling permits to redo your kitchen for 80 and then you do your windows for 40 like [1:05:54] does it does accumul ulate but it can reset I yes I have Jessica Wilson who is [1:06:01] our water resource manager with the engineering department and she is very well versed in that did I get any of [1:06:07] that right uh you're doing great Chris you're doing so great um just to kind of [1:06:13] like the spirit of the zoning code with you know when you have a building that's [1:06:18] in the floodway you can't make a change to the envelope of the structure so it's not even just a a horizontal EXP [1:06:25] expansion you can't expand vertically either and then uh so it's not they're [1:06:31] not one and the same it's kind of two things if you're in the floodway there's that no expansion of the envelope and [1:06:36] then there's also that substantial Improvement limit 50% of the building value and the whole purpose of that is [1:06:42] to kind of allow a property owner to to maintain and stay in that home over time [1:06:48] but the idea is that on a on a generational time frame that these houses get to a conforming state so I [1:06:55] think it's meant to make it then you kind of make that calculation which these owners have done to say you know [1:07:01] we're not going to have the home that we need here and so then you you reconstruct it and it's elevated so and [1:07:07] in this circumstance they're going to bring it pretty close to conforming but then they [1:07:13] still have to get this letter of map revision yep so they've got a the the [1:07:21] floodway designation we will not permit a new home in a floodway [1:07:26] um but I think what's unique here is that floodway designation doesn't seem to be true it seems like more of a a [1:07:32] modeling error than a real floodway risk there and so that's why we're helping [1:07:38] kind of uh them navigate this process of getting that kind of that error fixed [1:07:46] with femma and because it's a a map that we update into the adopt into zoning [1:07:51] code we have to use that map as it is so they're going to have to go through the formal revision process through femma [1:07:58] update it in that zoning code before we can permit a building in a uh on this [1:08:05] slot because of the current floodway but isn't the minihaha Creek Watershed districts were come up with [1:08:12] very similar numbers to FEMA or they off the same so there's kind of two there's [1:08:18] the flood plane that's like where the still water is going to be when you're experiencing that Peak event and then [1:08:24] the flood way design is that area where you know the velocity of water is rushing through so think of like a river [1:08:30] or a creek where water's really moving through I don't think that's going to be the case for this particular property [1:08:36] because they're actually pretty far removed from the creek proper but they will still have flood exposure uh so [1:08:42] they're in the flood plane and I think actually you know that's not going to change the um mini H Creek Watershed [1:08:48] District actually has a more modern uh elevation model and predicts that it's [1:08:54] probably actually going to go up up a little bit uh if they have more modern information than FEMA which is very very [1:09:01] old data um and then the floodway designation is kind of a a separate additional layer that's independent of [1:09:08] that flood plane um but I think what ha what you see and I have a map here if I could maybe share it um Lauren are you [1:09:15] able to uh display something if I put it on the mat here [1:09:31] I think that's great that looks great thank you um so I think what happened was when uh the modelers were putting [1:09:37] together you know what's the elevation going to be along Mina Creek uh there's this huge storage area this flood plane [1:09:45] area actually extends all the way down to Pamela Park and then they just kind of broad stroke called all of it flood [1:09:52] way uh so that in their model they could uh account for that [1:09:57] storage this shape here that appears on the flood insurance rate maps and the flood insurance study has not changed in [1:10:05] a really long time um but what has changed with the maps that were updated in 2016 is we essentially put um a [1:10:13] digital image behind it so now you can see that it actually crosses over the structure which is problematic for [1:10:20] permitting there so I think it's just a combination of um just some [1:10:25] course modeling that makes it really problematic for this house uh for this [1:10:32] parcel but I don't think this is an actual floodway designation I think it was the modelers just kind of called [1:10:37] this entire area which reaches all the way down to Pamela Park just broad brush stroke said this is all going to be [1:10:44] floodway for that model uh calibration have many uh [1:10:51] letters of map provision been submitted uh from from ADV residents and have we [1:10:57] had generally good success with getting those designations altered they will be [1:11:02] the first I think it's very rare to for uh to come from um like a um residential [1:11:10] property owner typically it's something that happens on a community scale or there's a big project the one that is in [1:11:16] my mind from in the mini High Creek Watershed district is when Methodist Hospital did a huge project and then [1:11:23] they remapped a whole Chanel and that's what they're going to propose to do here [1:11:28] this is the only path they have with FEMA we've kind of exhausted all the other uh potential revision pathways [1:11:35] through FEMA that are more just based on um an error in uh the elevation or in [1:11:42] the the topography uh this letter of map revision process where they have to revise an entire panel is really the [1:11:48] only process available and they can't go get that unless we approve [1:11:56] a plan they could I think they were looking for some assurance that a new [1:12:01] house could be built here before they go on that Journey which is going to be [1:12:07] long and expensive so um when I've talked to other um people who have helped do this on behalf of a community [1:12:14] or a you know property owner that's not a residential property owner um we're talking five figures um budget and one [1:12:23] or two years long process with FEMA where you're kind of going back and forth on the modeling and the you know [1:12:30] your Consulting Engineers are talking with FEMA's Engineers these you try to resolve uh this model update so I think [1:12:37] um before they went on that process they wanted to know you know can we even build the house we're thinking of before [1:12:43] we go down that path how many houses would be impacted by the remodeling that [1:12:50] they go for uh for the letter of map R Vision yep um I don't remember exactly [1:12:56] where the boundary of this panel is but there like the house just to the South here looks like it might get caught up [1:13:03] in the exact same thing yep these two directly south would be in that same [1:13:08] exact position and I think there's you know I can count on my on one hand the [1:13:14] others in the entire community that are in the same position where that floodway designation probably was just kind of a [1:13:20] broad brush stroke rather than a real measure a real indication of actual risk [1:13:26] there's definitely flood exposure here but not that flood way of like the velocity of water rushing by this [1:13:33] property so I think it's still appropriate that elevation standard because there's going to be exposure but [1:13:39] the floodway designation seems to not be real [1:14:01] got it and um okay I think that's all for now thank [1:14:10] you any other questions for [1:14:18] staff no all right so I guess we'll give an opportunity to the applicant team if [1:14:25] they'd like to provide their own presentation or just stand for [1:14:31] questions either or both works [1:15:21] um I'm Heather monum I'm 2 2905 saddle book Circle in minetonka and I'm an [1:15:27] architect who's been working with Mike and Courtney who are here this evening for several years now to try to kind of [1:15:33] see it started with kind of seeing how we could remodel the home and then kind of went down this road here and uh Chris [1:15:39] did a great job of presenting the unique challenges of this site and so I thank staff for their guidance and their work [1:15:47] on this um so I'll try to be really brief because they kind of covered it all um but I wanted to at least [1:15:52] introduce myself and then allow you guys to ask any questions if you may have [1:16:08] any as Chris kind of covered earlier what we're trying to do um is Elevate as [1:16:13] well as reduce the footprint we're actually um reducing the impervious surface coverage on this site in an [1:16:18] effort to um pull out of that floodway zone um this is just a quick look these [1:16:24] aren't EXA de but it's kind of just giving you an idea of the the character of the neighborhood and kind of the [1:16:30] respect we're paying to the the sidey guard setbacks there and trying to um [1:16:35] fit in with the neighborhood while still conforming to today's [1:16:44] ordinances the building elevations kind of just generally show the grades that we plann the garage is going to come in [1:16:50] um where the existing homes garage is today kind of at the level of the other home hes in the neighborhood and then [1:16:56] you see we're lifting that main level up to adhere to that lowest floor elevation [1:17:03] requirement um you can see we're we're we're making efforts to kind of keep that roof structure a little bit lower [1:17:10] um as well as you know those floor to floor Heights as well too to try to be respectful of the height and again fit [1:17:16] in with the homes in the neighborhood you know as far as the um 50% basement [1:17:21] coverage you know we could try to bring in some additional fill but you're really working against yourself as [1:17:27] you're trying to pull out of that floodway and my my concern is that you're impacting than the other [1:17:32] neighborhoods while the other neighbors while all kind of creating a steep slope on the side [1:17:41] there this just kind of quickly shows the main level versus where we're going [1:17:46] to need to lift up to on our plan for the elevation in order to adhere to [1:17:53] that um that's kind of all I have um just kind of going to reiterate that all of the [1:18:00] moves and kind of asks this evening are based on the efforts to pull out of that [1:18:06] that flood way um and you know along with the cities kind of goal of removing [1:18:12] that value and that property from that risk as well too so thank you for your time and I'm here if you have any [1:18:19] questions thank you any questions [1:18:27] I don't see any thank you all right well this is a public hearing so we'll go through the same [1:18:34] drill I will read off how those who might be [1:18:39] tuning in remotely can participate and testify please call 312 535 8110 enter [1:18:48] access code 2630 [1:18:53] 751 119 96 then enter the password [1:18:59] 5454 and press star three on your keypad to get in the Quee to speak while you do [1:19:05] that there's about a minute lag so we'll give an opportunity first for those who might be here in person that would like [1:19:11] to testify you have three minutes to do so you can choose either Podium State your full name address it will turn [1:19:18] green to indicate you got three minutes and red when your time's up anyone here that would like to [1:19:27] testify come on [1:19:36] forward my name is Mary inle 4201 Phil [1:19:42] brooklane and we have been there for 32 years and we've known this generational [1:19:49] family they were the very first people in the neighborhood who came with the [1:19:54] plate of chocolate chip cookies and I know this family their character their [1:20:03] commitment to the environment and to the health and safety of the community and I can't wait [1:20:11] for them to be my neighbors again the house has been empty for some time which [1:20:17] has been kind of sad but I see the family there often and [1:20:23] I appreciate the heart hard hard work that they are doing I know that they [1:20:30] will be a blessing to the neighborhood and to the [1:20:36] city of udina that's all I have to [1:20:41] say thank you very much appreciate the kind words anyone [1:20:47] else I'd like to say yeah come forward I just have a couple of [1:20:54] questions this is uh this isn't a question and answer thing so if you have questions or [1:21:01] like comments like you have three minutes to do that and then we will kind of deliberate over those and maybe we [1:21:08] can pose those questions to City staff okay yeah I live at 5645 woodrest drive [1:21:14] so I live behind the Bush's house my question is what's going to happen to [1:21:20] the pool right now it is green and it's been that way for 2 [1:21:27] years um and I also would like to know what's going to happen to the backyard [1:21:32] because the backyard is all overgrown and hasn't been taken care of so those [1:21:38] are my questions thank you anyone [1:21:44] else anyone else who's here that like to provide testimony see none is there anyone in [1:21:52] the queue there's not so it's safe to close a public [1:21:58] hearing I'd welcome a motion to do so motion to close the public [1:22:04] hearing second all those in favor say I I I public hearing is [1:22:10] closed thank you for coming and testifying um I guess on that note I'm [1:22:16] if we have questions I guess I would have a question about what is current kind of plans and maintenance for the [1:22:22] future backyard currently in the future if you'd like to [1:22:36] share currently they are the Property Owners so they're going to be maintaining the the yard and the site um [1:22:42] and you know as you know things have kind of been a little bit of leeway for them in the interim um but the plan for [1:22:48] the yard in the future is there would be landscaping and the the pool would remain and be taken care of as well to [1:22:55] thank you okay all right this is our time to [1:23:00] deliberate any comments people have or further [1:23:06] questions even a [1:23:12] motion uh I think this one's pretty straightforward I feel like everybody else probably feels the same way but I [1:23:19] can certainly object if uh feel differently um but I mean AER went [1:23:25] through all the different you know the conditional use permit the variance requirement everything else I think the [1:23:31] conditions here are appropriate um this seems like an extremely painful process so I I can't say I empathize but I [1:23:38] sympathize for you and I appreciate you guys being here tonight and going through all this um and wish you the [1:23:44] best of luck comments yeah [1:23:50] Coan I um didn't think it was quite as straightforward um I think my my [1:23:57] struggle is a little bit if and maybe if the flood zone wasn't a [1:24:04] part of this conversation I think we have previously had conver [1:24:10] um discussions about letting uh [1:24:16] existing um variances not be put into the new dwelling when you do a whole [1:24:22] Remodel and here we are going to go from a single story to a twostory which is I [1:24:29] guess I disagree a little bit it's a it's a neighborhood full of Ramblers um so so for the adjacent Property Owners it [1:24:37] is a it is a significant difference to have somebody um closer and higher up [1:24:46] um but I'm deeply sympathetic to the situation with the flood zone and it and [1:24:52] I'm also sort of just wrapping my head around the fact that [1:24:57] functionally we can't meet any of our sustainability goals or affordable housing preservation goals or anything [1:25:03] that somehow FEMA has basically rendered some existing lots [1:25:10] unbuildable and unimprovable to a large extent and I'm just so I I really [1:25:15] appreciate all of that explanation I did not fully understand that and I'm just kind of processing that um but it feels [1:25:23] like a no wins situation in many [1:25:30] ways thank you for channeling commissioner Miranda [1:25:37] um the previous one um where there was the patio that wanted to be put in the [1:25:44] floodway the house um had been given a varience and it had been raised up that [1:25:52] whole kind of basement scenario was for that house was also because of the floodway so I think we've given fances [1:25:58] for houses but not for um Hardscape I was think about the one [1:26:05] where they were keeping the basement and then they ended first floor off and we let them keep the foundation footprint [1:26:11] that was the one in my mind where it was a lot of conversation about that that was the right [1:26:18] way byard variant I don't think there was flooding no there was okay okay and [1:26:26] th those are my [1:26:31] comments any other comments or proposed [1:26:41] motions I just thought it was thoroughly treated in the staff report and commend the staff for working with the property owner to address the unique [1:26:47] circumstances present in this case so for those reasons I would support a [1:26:52] motion to approve for the reasons is already outlined I'll motion um for the city [1:26:59] council to approve of cup subject to staff findings and conditions have a second second all [1:27:07] those in favor say I I I I opposed nay motion [1:27:14] carries congratulations good luck on your next [1:27:19] steps all right so that concludes the public hearing portion of tonight's agenda and we move on to reports and [1:27:25] recommendations we have resolution [1:27:31] b249 findings that the proposed 72nd in France number three Tiff plan conforms [1:27:37] to the general plans for development and Redevelopment of the city as a whole [1:27:44] uh economic development manager bill neindorf is here to present bill I don't know if you were present for kind of the [1:27:50] beginning of this meeting where we were approving the agenda but there was [1:27:56] conversations of of you know potentially striking this from the agenda [1:28:02] as it feels like it's out of our purview uh Carrie kind of provided some [1:28:09] rationale as to the timing of the Tiff application um and the development plans [1:28:17] and that we are obligated by state law essentially to make this I mean basically [1:28:25] declaration or finding could you kind of explain some background to that and then hopefully that simplifies and reduces [1:28:33] the amount of conversations that typically happen around when we have to approve [1:28:42] this just use this I guess some context for maybe residents tuning in um because [1:28:48] there's none here present but typically when we have larger development that ultimately [1:28:55] pursue Tiff it's not necessarily part of those discussions early on for a variety [1:29:00] of reasons and sometimes residents Commissioners whoever feels slighted by [1:29:06] it then that getting played later but that's typical in the process um and that's really not that's [1:29:15] not our purview on the Planning Commission anything to do with Tiff if [1:29:20] that's a reason for or against a development that is beyond ours at City [1:29:26] Council Grounds but if you could kind of fill in the blanks with some of that and explain some of the context of why we [1:29:32] need to do this sure happy to um uh and I think a lot of these questions will be [1:29:38] answered as I go through my presentation um which was in your packet uh as well uh but the uh the conversation here [1:29:46] tonight and the content of this resolution um does pertain to the use of [1:29:51] tax increment financing as a financ tool um uh we're here this night this evening [1:29:58] because the Minnesota state statutes says that the Planning Commission should make a determination about the plan the [1:30:04] outcome not about the budget not about interest rates not about financial performers not about Equity or debt but [1:30:11] about the plan that's part of this overall financing Arrangement so that that's why we're here this evening um [1:30:20] uh I've done these presentations and requests here for several years every single time there's questions that come [1:30:26] up so that's that's why I'm here tonight to answer those um so I think I'll walk [1:30:33] through the presentation if that's the most appropriate then we'll get to the we'll get to the to the discussion I [1:30:40] think that'd be fine and I know there's discussion about potential conflicts of interest with who's approving you know [1:30:48] authoring something in favor of something else I think we can save that discussion till when we deliberate um [1:30:55] but yeah that'd be great thank you Bill thing present away and when I present I will go through some of those matters in [1:31:02] a little bit more detail that uh to respond to some of those [1:31:07] inquiries let's see my equipment is different than than than I'm used to uh [1:31:13] I didn't introduce myself uh I'm Bill nondorf I'm the city of ad's economic development manager um I work in our [1:31:20] community development department uh under carry and uh get involved in a lot of the financing programs in IND to help [1:31:27] bring that new in investment into town um so the resolution tonight is [1:31:34] b249 and ultimately we are seeking uh the planning commission's opinion as to [1:31:40] whether or not the project that's embodied in these documents uh complies with the general plans for development [1:31:48] and Redevelopment as applied in the city of viina in non-legally speak that means [1:31:54] is the project uh aligned with our comprehensive plan so in the presentation I'll go [1:32:01] through a little bit of the background I'll talk a little bit about process why we're here how how your role tonight [1:32:07] fits into the bigger bigger effort I'll walk through the proposed uh Tiff plan [1:32:12] with specific focus on the outcomes not on the financing not on debt equity and [1:32:19] everything else but about the outcomes I'll do a summary of our staff findings that were in the report that was [1:32:24] attached in your packet and then finally a recommendation um so tax increment [1:32:32] financing it's a Public Finance tool that's used in Minnesota as well as 48 of the other states uh uh in the US uh [1:32:40] 49 states in total use Tiff some call it different things but it's all basically the same uh this evening we're uh we're [1:32:47] pursuing the creation of a new Tiff District to support the investment and [1:32:52] the Redevelopment uh by The Enclave companies at 7235 France Avenue the site [1:32:58] that's currently occupied by the Macy's Furniture Store um and one of the steps in this [1:33:04] process is to get your opinion from the Planning Commission commission as to uh and that's the words here on the screen [1:33:10] in green whether the Tiff plan con conforms to the general plans for [1:33:15] development and Redevelopment of the city as a whole a very confusing statement but that's a statement that's [1:33:21] in Minnesota statute that we have to reply to you um so there's a number of different [1:33:28] plans that apply in the city of Adina as you are well aware um uh first and [1:33:34] foremost I think is our 20 240 comprehensive plan um that includes I think we're well over a thousand and [1:33:40] some pages it includes many small area plans sustainability plans bike plans [1:33:45] pedestrian plans lots of different um documents are embodied in the comprehensive plan specifically to this [1:33:52] project we're looking at the Southdale plan the greater Southdale plan because that's the location that we're in [1:33:58] another plan that you may not be as familiar with is the southeast Adina Redevelopment project area and plan that [1:34:07] document was first written in 1974 um hand typed on somebody's typewriter uh in in quintuplet with with [1:34:15] a uh with a copy paper to get it done uh and then revised every few years up to [1:34:21] the present day so those are the three overarching plans that apply to this particular site and [1:34:29] I've pulled just a few excerpts from some of them uh they go back to the community visioning that led to our [1:34:35] comprehensive plan uh and a lot of these Vision uh uh Pursuits are encouraging [1:34:41] vibrancy in our neighborhoods building mixed use nodes uh that have multimodal [1:34:47] transportation options where you can live and work and shop and eat and walk [1:34:53] and play all at the same site or in a way that allows you to walk from one site to the [1:34:58] next uh to do those things uh creating jobs attracting jobs uh having a a mind [1:35:05] toward sustainability um uh promotion of energy efficient resources um and looking at the impact [1:35:12] to our over overall environment those are all types of goals that are embodied in a lot of these [1:35:19] plans and the site in in specific that we're looking at tonight the subject of the document that was Al that's in front [1:35:26] of us is the uh the Macy's furniture site um so right there on France Avenue [1:35:33] between 72nd and Gallagher going into the history of that [1:35:38] um I pulled up an old photo um from the uh early 1950s um let's see I don't know if this [1:35:46] will show up very well but here's here's France Avenue um this is one Gravel Pit this is [1:35:55] another Gravel Pit this is a third and fourth Gravel Pit here's the France Avenue dump a landscape that we might [1:36:03] not recognize today but that was the history at least for the last hundred years of that land eventually it grew [1:36:10] into neighborhoods into shopping centers grocery stores uh Parks malls and [1:36:15] everything else and in 1977 the Dayton company built a furniture store they [1:36:21] were one of the first private part I that um were able to redevelop uh the gravel the Gravel Pit as that uh uh wore [1:36:29] down um and they open their home store eventually Macy's purchased dayon after many Acquisitions and that's where we [1:36:36] are today um so if you're out on the site today you'll recognize an 8 acre uh [1:36:41] parcel uh mostly pavement couple trees along the edge uh and a large uh 2 acre [1:36:48] footprint of a building that is um an earth shelter building uh kind of looks [1:36:53] like a bunker with very few Windows um and not in the best of [1:36:58] condition uh and when I say that I'm referring to the property not to the business that's successfully operating [1:37:05] on that property um so I I I will try not to refer to this as the Macy's site because the proposal here tonight isn't [1:37:12] really about Macy's or about furniture it's about the future so we talked a little bit about [1:37:19] Tiff and there's um there's many steps in this process I I won't go through all of them um but this slide breaks it into [1:37:27] three primary steps the first step is creating this District creating this [1:37:32] financial tool that the city council can use uh there's a tiff plan that was in [1:37:37] your packet uh and it talks about budgets and terms and qualifications and [1:37:43] lots of other things but for the Planning Commission you're you're asked [1:37:48] to share your expertise as to the scope of that project and the outcome um so [1:37:53] we've already submitted the documentation to to the school district to hanin County uh in the future we'll [1:38:00] have a public hearing it'll go to the city council it'll go to the H so your input tonight is is really focused just [1:38:06] on the outcome uh of the site uh once we get through the step of [1:38:12] creating a tiff District then it goes further down the process uh where the planning commissioner commission does [1:38:18] not have a role um most of your role was early just getting us to this point and [1:38:23] resoning the project approving the site plans and all those types of things um but there are future steps um that you [1:38:30] will hear along the way um but those are all by the board the HRA board and our city [1:38:36] council so the Tiff plan that's in your packet was prepared uh by Ellers and associates they are the uh independent [1:38:43] Public Finance company that the city of Adina uses um uh the ad School District [1:38:49] also uses that same firm as does the Richfield and Hopkins school district um so theyve been uh serving the overall [1:38:56] Community for for many decades and this plan um has lots of [1:39:04] financial background and I know that gets confusing uh what we're really here [1:39:10] to talk tonight tonight about is appendix e the actual result of this [1:39:15] Tiff plan if you look at appendix e you'll notice two things um one that uh when at [1:39:23] the time this was uploaded to your packet it showed showed the old version of the site plan um last week the city [1:39:30] council approved the new version which looks very like very much like the old [1:39:35] version with a couple little um adjustments um so just know that as this [1:39:41] progresses the final version of the Tiff plan will include the final documents that were approved by the city council [1:39:48] um but that plan is is uh is the same that was recommended by by this body [1:39:55] back in May uh for uh for approval it was then approved by the city council on a preliminary basis back in June and [1:40:02] they just secured their uh final approvals about a week ago um one additional thing to note uh [1:40:09] the Tiff plan also potentially enables uh a funding mechanism for that [1:40:14] France Avenue pedestrian Crossing is it an underpass is it a bridge is it a tunnel we're still going to figure that [1:40:21] out um but this Tiff plan is uh essentially sets up a [1:40:28] financing mechanism where if that project wants to go forward if that that [1:40:34] passes muster and goes through the due diligence and everything else this is a this is a mechanism for the city council [1:40:39] to finance that project I'll include just a couple uh [1:40:45] renderings here just to refresh your memories uh this is PUD number 25 uh this is a copy of the final site plan [1:40:51] that was approved last week uh it's pretty much the same as it was in June [1:40:57] uh the the some of the on-site parking switched from head in parking to parallel parking the public art got [1:41:04] changed a little bit the dog area got changed a little bit sidewalks got twisted around a little bit um uh a few [1:41:11] changes to the Building architecture and actually reducing the mass of the building in response to some concerns by [1:41:17] the neighbors um but that's the final site plan uh updated renderings which [1:41:23] should look very familiar to you uh final rendering from looking to [1:41:28] the Northwest and these are a few renderings of that future pedestrian Crossing and [1:41:35] these might look new to you this is a concept that's just in its infancy um uh [1:41:42] that started the conversation started with the HRA board uh because ultimately uh to [1:41:48] finance this we need to figure out how to finance it then we have to figure out if it's something we actually want to [1:41:54] build and and uh and pursue so these are a couple renderings um just as a [1:41:59] reference point in the document or actually in the report I did go through staff findings [1:42:06] where we looked into each of these um applicable plans in more detail this the [1:42:11] Redevelopment plan from 1974 and to 2012 and then to the present um we went [1:42:18] through comprehensive plan looking at how that area is guided [1:42:23] um went through each of the key sections of the comprehensive plan as far as some of the land use goals housing goals [1:42:30] economic goals we looked at the greater Southdale plan um looking at many of the goals [1:42:37] there of subdividing these Big Lots into smaller Lots um applying the street Room concept incorporating Transit pedestrian [1:42:45] and bicycle facilities pursuing shared parking and of course I'm happy to [1:42:50] answer any questions about those but uh in summary um after looking at the plans [1:42:56] that the city has adopted comprehensive plan Etc uh it's it's uh our finding and [1:43:03] our recommendation that that this body affirm that those plans are consistent uh with the overall comprehensive plan [1:43:11] um and the reason that I'm asking and I probably should have said this in the beginning not every Community is like a [1:43:17] Dina there are some communities where you might have an independent uh Eda or H that doesn't [1:43:25] think along the same lines as the Planning Commission they might bring forward a plan that meets someone else's [1:43:31] purpose but might actually violate the comp plan in ad um since our HRA board [1:43:37] is well aligned with our uh city council who's generally well aligned with our Planning Commission who's generally well [1:43:43] aligned with our school districts um we tend to work much more cooperatively with one another to avoid those [1:43:49] surprises but yet state law still asks that we come here tonight and have you affirm [1:43:55] something that you've already affirmed back in May so it does seem kind of redundant probably should have opened [1:44:00] with that now that I say it um uh but I think I touched on most of the issues if there's anything else [1:44:07] please let me know um but certainly the in your packet there's a copy of the resolution that summarizes these [1:44:13] findings summarizes the reason we're here and what your what your uh uh what [1:44:18] your uh findings will be used for and with that I'll turn it back to you thank you Bill any questions comments anything [1:44:27] for Bill yeah a quick quick one right out of the gate about the France Avenue [1:44:33] pedestrian Crossing project so so we so what the ask of us tonight [1:44:40] is to find that that Concept in addition to the Macy's Redevelopment project that already is [1:44:46] also consistent with the general plans governing development is that right [1:44:52] that's articulate that yeah that's a good question I [1:45:04] um that's a really good question that I don't have an answer for the only reason I asked is because you said them if you [1:45:10] know we're going through this process and maybe I can ask it a little differently or you we can just have a conversation about it [1:45:17] um but I was I was kind of like paying more attention when you said we'll do this step and then you know this [1:45:24] approval is one step along the way to using Tiff financing to build The [1:45:30] Pedestrian Crossing and it sort of seemed like you know if we say [1:45:37] yes we're saying yeah the Macy's projects consistent with the development [1:45:43] plans that we talked about but also this future pedestrian Crossing would be [1:45:48] consistent with those and so I'm just trying to understand if that's what we'd be saying by saying yes and the reason I asking is because you know we've talked [1:45:55] about this pedestrian crossing a fair amount on this body I think what people have said is uh we've never seen any [1:46:01] concept for it it's been discussed in other you know venues but not really here when it has been discussed here [1:46:08] folks have actually had concerns about whether that Crossing would be consistent not the project um but [1:46:14] whether the crossing would be consistent with the development plans and more anything beyond that whether it would [1:46:21] actually degrade and and and devalue some of the products that are being built around this area and make them [1:46:27] less consistent with the plans that you know we're all familiar with to projects that have already been improved so [1:46:33] that's I'm just letting you know like The Pedestrian Crossing is a little bit of an issue and I just want more clarity [1:46:41] about what a yes or a no would mean with respect to that aspect of this whole [1:46:46] project because if it would mean yes we're finding that it's consistent I think some folks here might want to know [1:46:52] a little bit more about what that concept might look like so we can do more diligence and evaluate whether it [1:46:58] is or isn't consistent with those other planning documents you mentioned so that's the context behind the question I think others would probably raise the [1:47:04] same thing and I just wanted to give you an opportunity to just talk a little bit more about that so we're a little more [1:47:10] educated along with the likelihood too I think in addition to your question the [1:47:15] likelihood yes so I think just looking historically back to other Tiff plan [1:47:22] approvals a future concept like that isn't part of [1:47:28] this it it's not part of this so and that that's what we'd have [1:47:35] to separate so like typically you don't know what Tiff could then get used for in the future but like the monies that [1:47:42] are gained from Tiff funding can be used for certain things and I see this as an [1:47:48] example of what it could be used for not this is what it's going to to be used [1:47:53] for and maybe that's different with this one compared to previous ones but that [1:47:58] previously like you wouldn't know like there usually isn't something on the table do [1:48:06] it I don't think it's I I don't know that I saw that one way or the other in the materials I'd have to go back and [1:48:11] look at them again I was just responding to to your presentation where I I thought I heard you say if we you know [1:48:18] vote Yes then you know we don't have another say [1:48:24] as as to whether this pedestrian crossing conforms the development plans our role is done and some other body [1:48:31] could just decide to use Tiff Tiff financing to build that project too but [1:48:37] so I don't I'm more just asking questions and having a strong opinion oh very [1:48:43] fair well this was presented to the HRA it was the bridge the tunnel part of the tip proposal like [1:48:50] explicitly first time you first time you brought this to the [1:48:56] H I'm sorry could you the tunnel was the tunnel and explicit part of the Tiff ask [1:49:02] when you we presented this to the H uh no it was not was [1:49:11] not okay but it is our intent I mean is it our intent to use the Tiff funds from [1:49:17] this this Tiff plan for The Pedestrian Crossing [1:49:23] so there were a variety of questions would you like me to answer some of those okay okay all right [1:49:32] um so the the Tiff plan that's in front of you includes appendix e which [1:49:40] describes the plan that was approved for the 7235 site it also includes a [1:49:46] paragraph short paragraph about public improvements that would pursue [1:49:51] pedestrian Crossing across France Avenue so so far the preliminary looks in that [1:49:57] is very preliminary we've looked at a tunnel under we've looked at a bridge over we've looked at an improved um atg [1:50:04] grade uh crosswalk essentially um looking looking at a number of different things [1:50:11] um uh the underpass version seems to be the [1:50:18] most likely of those three options um that being said How likely is it [1:50:27] standing here tonight I have no idea right now it's I would lump it in the category of an interesting idea that's [1:50:34] worth exploring to see if we should actually do something there um I do know [1:50:40] that with the Redevelopment on the west side of the street and the Redevelopment on the east side of the street if we [1:50:46] ever want to make a better connection between those neighborhoods this is a great location and a great time to do it [1:50:53] um the history of this project dates back to 2007 uh with the Urban Design plan that [1:51:00] um that founded the ad prominade the prominade park uh where they recommended [1:51:06] um actually an overhead Bridge be constructed at that time um right at the corner of [1:51:12] 72nd um and France that bridge never got funded um for a number of different [1:51:19] reasons um but yet that lay the ground work for gosh wouldn't it be better if [1:51:25] we if we could cross the street without screwing across 8 to 10 lanes of [1:51:30] traffic um so that's a little bit about the history of it but as far as [1:51:35] likelihood timing what it looks like is it over is it under is it nothing I mean [1:51:41] nothing is definitely an option um but we know that [1:51:46] um bold projects like this like an underpass require financing um tax [1:51:52] increment financing is set up and used for public infrastructure improvements [1:51:58] whether it's under over or at grade um and so in the Tiff plan we wanted to [1:52:04] include public infrastructure improvements as an eligible expense just frankly like we do for every one of our [1:52:10] Tiff districts the Eden Wilson um all the road workor around around city hall is actually funded by that project um at [1:52:18] Grand View all the road work that we did there a few years ago uh was funded by [1:52:24] the um by the taxes from the avador property that were that was constructed [1:52:29] there so this is it's it's language that's put in in in every Tiff plan but in this case we actually put in [1:52:35] illustration because we had one um as far as the process to [1:52:41] actually approve any kind of public infrastructure Improvement I don't know [1:52:47] if the Planning Commission has a role um I mean it would go through the city council through the Transportation [1:52:53] Commission through staff um through the CIP um I I don't know if it goes through [1:53:01] Planning Commission for a public infrastructure project um [1:53:06] uh so that's a little bit about the background and where where we are I think I hit most of your questions in [1:53:15] that what role did lhb play or has they played in this pedestrian Crossing [1:53:21] experim or exploration uh sure so lhb is a uh full service [1:53:27] multi-disciplinary firm um based in either duther Minneapolis um so they [1:53:32] have Architects Engineers planners landscapers um roadway Engineers civil [1:53:38] engineers building Engineers um so for this project for the underpass uh we [1:53:45] initially worked with a civil engineering firm and um uh they were responsive to our [1:53:54] questions um but did not apply the type of [1:53:59] creativity that we're really seeking here um and so I wanted to switch firms [1:54:04] that could app could apply not just an engineering perspective but also to integrate that planning and that social [1:54:12] perspective um and so we switched to lhb so they initially did just some initial [1:54:19] visioning um about a year ago um in 2023 just to see what might this look [1:54:27] like and what other precedents was there around the world around the country um [1:54:32] and then earlier this year we did sign a contract with lhb to actually pursue this a little bit further and and start [1:54:39] doing some conceptual engineering because fundamentally we there's some big big questions um especially [1:54:47] regarding do we go under or do we go over and a lot of that has regards with the it has to do with the water table [1:54:55] with the elevations of the storm water with the elevations of the building the first floor how does that line up um and [1:55:03] so the HRA signed a contract with lhb I believe in February to do some of that [1:55:09] initial work and that work is about 80% complete at this [1:55:20] point so would it be fair to say lhb has a vested interest in seeing this pedestrian Crossing being [1:55:30] built uh no I don't think that would be a fair statement would they be so they would [1:55:35] give you the concept but they wouldn't be awarded any further contract to help design it Beyond or in in the upcoming [1:55:41] months once Tiff is approved I don't know that at this point the council has the city council has [1:55:48] urged um I think at the last city council meeting they they wanted to um [1:55:54] get something on paper that that documents that they want to pursue this concept further um they did not specify [1:56:00] that we use one company or the other to do that um uh and if this does turn into a real [1:56:07] engineering project I presume we'd go out to bid I mean at this point we're just doing that preliminary exploration [1:56:13] um if this turns into a real project I mean that design contract will be pretty [1:56:18] large and we typically go up for bid for the big ones so I don't know what the future [1:56:29] holds yeah commissioner [1:56:34] Padia thank you Bill um I just have one question uh kind of a 50,000 foot level [1:56:42] um public benefit should be outcome the outcome of a tiff project [1:56:50] correct uh that's how our that's how our din policy is written that's not necessarily how state law is [1:56:57] written okay but that's the intention in the city um so and then I want to go [1:57:03] ahead and confirm that the din City Schools will not get $1 of anything in [1:57:08] this project uh that's not correct at all [1:57:13] okay so um I know this this is not this project is not in the city school [1:57:20] district oh oh okay you threw me on that one [1:57:26] um so you asked will the Adina City Schools get a dollar from this project [1:57:32] get get a benefit I I'm I'm looking for the public benefit that's to the dino [1:57:38] City Schools sure um so this site the 7235 site is in the Richfield School [1:57:44] District correct right um so the property taxes both today and in the future from this site will directly [1:57:51] benefit the Richfield School District um not the Adina School District [1:57:57] um that's the property taxes uh in August we we brought Ellers in to do a [1:58:03] joint presentation to the H board and the school folks [1:58:09] um and they reminded us that the property taxes are just a small portion [1:58:14] of the funding for a school most of the school funding comes from the pupils per [1:58:20] student in the seats from the state from the state correct so the with open [1:58:26] enrollment right now about 18 to 20% of the seats in a din schools are actually [1:58:32] open and rolled from elsewhere including Richfield so um theoretically which is [1:58:38] kind of where we're going I guess um if a if a pupil lives on this site and [1:58:44] eventually go chooses to opt into the Adina schools versus the Richfield schools they would bring the state [1:58:51] funding that goes along with that pupil but there's a lot of hypotheticals in those assumptions so I always wish [1:58:58] there was like an easy yes or no answer in there okay it seems to me though that [1:59:03] the the public benefit you'd have to look at greater than just the Edina area in order to see [1:59:11] the public benefit to the schools from this from the Tiff [1:59:17] funding when we look at the use of Tiff I I need to look at [1:59:23] all of the school districts that serve a Dina so Hopkins serves a Dina Richfield [1:59:28] serves serves a Dina and a Dina School serve a Dina so I um our with a tax [1:59:36] increment plan we looked specifically at the tax District that has jurisdiction [1:59:42] there so that's why in the Tiff plan if you wanted to get into that but again we're not asking you to get into that [1:59:48] because that's a financing type question you'll find language about the Richfield schools not about the din [1:59:55] schools I thank you Mr [2:00:02] [Music] F I just wanted to respond to that a little bit I mean somewhere along the [2:00:07] way just someone decided to excise a portion of South easta into the [2:00:15] Richfield School District rather than ad and and I don't think that [2:00:24] um this project is still in a Dina and [2:00:29] um you know we can go through it in in our in our personal but the public [2:00:35] benefit is is also in the way the project conforms to the comprehensive [2:00:41] plan um and so the fact that this area [2:00:46] has been excised in the Richfield School District um [2:00:54] you know I think I think that was history that happened a long time [2:00:59] um I don't know when it happened do you know Carrie I don't know for certain but I've [2:01:06] heard over the years that it was based on bus routes and where bus drivers were willing to go years and years decades [2:01:13] ago [2:01:22] I know our city manager has tried to adjust some of those boundaries as I [2:01:28] think we've talked about before there's an apartment building where on one side of the hallway you go to Edina schools [2:01:35] on the other side you go to Richfield and just trying to reconcile some of those things and to no avail at this [2:01:43] point but yes they could be moved in the [2:01:49] future other questions okay I have a [2:01:57] couple glad commissioner borene brought up the fact that that was that I mean I [2:02:02] just read appendix e it is there is a paragraph about it in there and that I don't know that seems like we ought to [2:02:10] Omit that I I don't know at the very end of appendix e [2:02:19] there's a paragraph about the potential pedestrian [2:02:25] Crossing and Bill I guess tied to that if that weren't mentioned in there I [2:02:31] mean does that change anything cuz I know there's restricted uses for Tiff [2:02:37] typically either depending on like Geographic boundaries Andor like specific use of funds and money so like [2:02:46] how I read that is like it seems almost inappropriate to even have that in there like why not just omit it it um or if [2:02:54] it's in there is that now giving this extra right to use these [2:03:00] Tiff funds that otherwise wouldn't happen if we didn't have that in there and I want to be careful with words is [2:03:06] one of the previous developments it was because of like an and instead of an or [2:03:11] we pretty much had to let them not put a restaurant on the main floor you know because of how one word got written so [2:03:21] to commissioner boren's point like I I definitely do want to understand it by adding that [2:03:28] paragraph are we allowing this potential for something that would otherwise be restricted well and can I add to that [2:03:35] because I know that in in some Tiff districts um Southdale pool Tiff [2:03:41] District right you could use money on uh from the pool in different Parcels I wondered by having this Tiff District [2:03:48] over here and you know whether or not there's a tiri Tiff District on the other side of France that the lack of a broader um [2:03:57] geog geographic area would that be further problematic for the cost for if [2:04:03] the bridge ever were to happen if I could respond to your [2:04:09] question first um uh so no I don't think that it would be problematic um and then in regards [2:04:19] to the decision whether not to fund some type of public infrastructure whether it [2:04:25] goes under over at grade or nothing um [2:04:30] that decision would still be made by the city council um and the general the general language [2:04:38] in the Tiff plan references public infrastructure which could include [2:04:43] anything that I just described roads sidewalks Trails pipes Bridges tunnels [2:04:49] anything um so omitting the last paragraph or the last sentence [2:04:54] is that change the rest of the document is that on the site neighboring the say [2:05:00] because I I remember geography was a piece of everything so is the cost go to [2:05:06] a component of that project that occurs on the site not outside of the site [2:05:12] unless we mention it here I I just want to like I want to be clear on that too [2:05:18] yeah so the boundaries are written so that um uh money uh Tiff monies collected in [2:05:26] this District could be can be spent within the boundaries of the district [2:05:31] and the boundaries include the private parcel as well as the adjacent public [2:05:37] rights of way adjacent to that parcel so it could be spent on France Avenue it [2:05:42] could be spent on the um on the promot on the east side um uh at some point the [2:05:50] kind of the the the smell test kicks in France Avenue is a big street it goes for miles in both directions you can't [2:05:57] use Tiff from this district four miles up the road um for this District you know to me a reasonable use of Tiff [2:06:05] would be uh public improvements maybe from like 702nd down to Gallagher in [2:06:11] that immediate area um to pull monies out and spend it further away I don't [2:06:16] think that would pass legal muster um uh especially if they break up that [2:06:24] parcel and and I mean this project right here used Tiff right as right as a [2:06:30] neighboring the project by City Hall used have yeah so I I recall there was some Geographic consideration so it [2:06:38] seems that even though that's written in there like that's okay but it' also be [2:06:43] okay to not have that in there and you asked us to react to exhibit e so I'm [2:06:48] just looking at exhibit e that's in there like I would rather it not be in there [2:06:54] um however it sounds like something like that or on any other [2:07:01] neighboring parcel could be monies could be used to make those type of public improvements or at least contribute to [2:07:09] them right so by writing that in there doesn't allow an exception [2:07:16] right so adding that paragraph specific to an underpass doesn't provide that [2:07:22] exception that would otherwise be restricted in it in this Tiff plan that's just what I wanted to make sure [2:07:29] and it sounds like you clarified it wouldn't yeah the the terminology of public infrastructure is in the is [2:07:35] throughout the document and that's always a legitimate Tiff expense um so is there a reason why that's [2:07:42] called out specifically in there or could that be [2:07:47] omitted uh The Pedestrian C it's like the last paragraph of exhib it um like [2:07:55] does it need probably could be omitted uh until I got to the city [2:08:00] council and they told me to write that up and include those types of those types of options at this point I get the [2:08:07] sense that the city council wants that option um they're not sure if they're going to go there they're not sure if [2:08:13] they're going to fund it they're not sure what it's going to look like they're not sure if it's going to go under over or through but they based on [2:08:19] their last comments at the previous city council meeting they wanted to have a placeholder so that if it actually turns [2:08:26] out to be a project they want to pursue they have an ability to fund it but it [2:08:32] sounds like you don't need it in there right all right yeah commissioner felt [2:08:37] or well can we make our recommendation [2:08:42] just about the Macy site I think that gets back to [2:08:48] commissioner boren's question I think that's what I understood this Tiff plan [2:08:53] to only Encompass and not extrapolate to some potential anything specific because [2:09:00] that just doesn't seem appropriate yeah now you could reasonably and I I wish I [2:09:06] was more informed about all this Tiff stuff so I could see how all this was connected because I think it is connected somehow I don't think there' [2:09:12] be an appendix in there for no reason um I think it's there I think it's there as a placeholder to create options later [2:09:18] and I think just to make a clearer record of what might be what what type of pedestrian public [2:09:23] infrastructure yeah to just give more more color to it um yeah I don't mind [2:09:29] something as like there's an idea but like to label it as like a dedicated option just seems like it's unnecessary [2:09:37] because they could do it if they wanted like there is that option so why [2:09:43] like anything's on the table correct right so you said that right it can be [2:09:48] go towards public infrastructure in general right so then there really needs to be no need to call out the bridge or [2:09:56] crossing specifically right if this were omitted they could still do that the city council still still can explore [2:10:02] this option without this being called out right I think to commissioner D's point it does seem like a conflict of [2:10:09] interest where the person issuing this Tiff plan [2:10:15] report is the one that with the concept the I I don't know that seems it seems [2:10:22] like it doesn't pass a smell test but commissioner [2:10:29] F I believe lhb was in here because they did an assessment of the existing [2:10:36] building do you mean lhb is in this plan I'm not sure what you mean lhb is in [2:10:43] this packet because they did a review of the existing Macy's building and called it substandard correct lhb is a division [2:10:50] that is that evaluates existing buildings for compliance with the with the Tiff statutes yeah that division [2:10:56] wrote wrote a report that says that that building qualifies yeah I that's the [2:11:02] only reason lhb is in here and that was an independent action of the underpass [2:11:08] overpass they authored the they authored this 160 page [2:11:13] plan it's their name so I'm just referring to page 159 [2:11:21] of 160 and 160 of 160 where it's referencing their other idea and one [2:11:27] that it doesn't feel like we need to have it on here and any reason except there isn't a reason unless it's [2:11:34] just transparency toward like oh here's a potential idea I would I think that's what we're all saying and and what um [2:11:42] City staff is saying as well is that it doesn't need to be there city council might like to see it because everyone's [2:11:48] excited about thinking about the possibility of maybe having this happened since we've been thinking about [2:11:53] it since the 1970s some sort of Crossing so I don't commissioner bornstein's [2:11:59] question I think we're clear that it doesn't hamstring the use of the Tiff [2:12:04] and it doesn't prevent us if this wasn't there we could still use it because it would be an infrastructure adjacent to [2:12:10] the site so I seems like six of one have to I mean it it all works except that [2:12:15] the idea was generated by the author the author of this report [2:12:21] report separately it seems like that there just appears to be like a I don't [2:12:26] know I mean it's faum yeah yeah sure I will happily take credit for realizing [2:12:32] that two projects AC two properties across the street from each other were to redeveloping at the same time and [2:12:38] this might be an opportunity to do something we' we've been talking about since 2007 um I had mentioned we [2:12:44] initially worked with a civil engineering group that's a fine firm they do very good engineering work but [2:12:50] that group did not not bring the creativity that's needed in a Dina so I made the decision to switch companies to [2:12:56] a firm that's more comprehensive where they bring in Engineers planners Landscape Architects and Architects all [2:13:03] together in the same room I know that those types of conversations can yield more creative results so it was my [2:13:09] decision to switch from the standard engineering firm to pursue this idea um [2:13:15] to make a leap that this is some kind of underhanded um conflict is a pretty [2:13:21] tremendous leap oh it's it's just the fact that [2:13:26] they were the ones that generated the idea and they're writing the report that [2:13:32] then prompts that it seems kind of like circular I don't know lhb project number [2:13:38] 23031 0.00 performance-driven design is only the report on the [2:13:47] existing Macy's building is that what you're referring to [2:13:53] it's for the Tiff District yeah I guess um Tiff plan 72nd [2:14:00] France number three draft page 59 to [2:14:07] 62 yeah I'm looking at their whole yeah they've they've been a consultant on a [2:14:13] lot of projects yeah it's I mean they authored the whole thing I I just wanted to make it clear [2:14:20] like if it would make it easier to like remove any sniff of like a conflict of interest it seemed to me it'd be wise to [2:14:26] just eliminate that if if it doesn't have to be there it's it seems like other Tiff plans [2:14:33] haven't earmarked or called out a specific investment or option before [2:14:38] that I've been aware of so this would be the first and that if you said that's okay like I trust you I'm just trying to [2:14:46] find things that would satisfy any constituent who might be caring and wanting to make sure that [2:14:52] we're navigating this process without conflicts without anything so we we've [2:14:57] taken the same approach on this plan on this Tiff plan that we took on the grand V2 Tiff plan the 50th in France Tiff [2:15:05] plan the 44th Tiff plan the Eden Wilson Tiff plan so there's nothing we've very [2:15:13] we've been very consistent in how we pursue these um so I okay I don't see a [2:15:19] conflict there here's where I'm still a little confused [2:15:25] and I'm trying to not make it difficult I think I'm I'm less concerned about the conflict thing I I'm more focused on [2:15:32] just the substance of what a vote would mean [2:15:38] um if and I can't remember what language you said I'm just sorry I'm forgetting [2:15:43] the language I think it was something like you know we find that the the project is consistent with you know the [2:15:49] plan the general plans for development would include improvements The Pedestrian realm or something that or [2:15:54] improvements to the public realm or something that effect and typically you know that would be like an improvements [2:16:00] to an ad grade crossing a sidewalk and like that wouldn't be controversial at all and I think everybody here would be [2:16:05] like yeah the project was approved it's clearly consistent with the Southdale plan the southeast plan the [2:16:12] comprehensive plan and of course using some funds to improve like at grade pedestrian Crossing is consistent with [2:16:18] that I don't even think we have any this conversation it's just the fact that these specific sort of [2:16:24] unusual um pedestrian bridge and tunnel concepts are being called out as as ones that [2:16:30] might get like be sub parts where I'm wondering in order to vote Yes you know [2:16:37] knowing that those are also on the table do we need to evaluate whether those concepts are consistent with the plans [2:16:44] or not and and that's just where I'm getting a little bit stuck I don't know what those concepts are and whether they [2:16:51] would be consistent with the plans or not because some of the ones we've seen sort of seem like maybe they would be [2:16:56] less consistent with some of the plans that are in place for that area and so that is that is the only place where I'm [2:17:01] getting a little bit hung up is is does everybody kind of see what I'm saying yeah yeah I'm not a tiff expert so Bill [2:17:10] tell me when I'm wrong but in the Pud as a condition of the proposal of the Pud [2:17:15] the developer will have to make certain infrastructure improvements will have to [2:17:21] take down a a substandard building will have to do environmental cleanup they'll have to do all of that as part of the [2:17:30] guarantee to get the Tiff financing for the developer eventually the city will [2:17:35] get dollars from that Tiff district and we're talking about how the city could [2:17:41] spend those dollars we're still going to get all the infrastructure [2:17:46] improvements from the developer as a condition for them getting this loan so [2:17:51] the city then can take those Tiff dollars and do any additional [2:17:56] infrastructure in and around the area whether it's the bridge or not the bridge but the benefit to us as a city [2:18:04] is we have a substandard building removed from the city we have environmental cleanup and we have new [2:18:11] infrastructure and amenities in that PUD [2:18:18] district and what I'm also hearing ing is any kind of overpass or underpass or [2:18:25] pedestrian Crossing is between the city council and the [2:18:31] traffic commission yeah it's just mentioned in this plan so [2:18:37] that but our ask is is this plan the Tiff plan does the Tiff plan [2:18:45] conform and this is part of it I mean if you ask for $24 million of that Tiff to [2:18:50] go to that undercrossing then I would say that it probably doesn't conform to the I would to the plan to Redevelopment [2:18:56] plans and I wouldn't have seen any details we're not I don't think we're being asked about what the city does [2:19:02] with the dollars on the back end of the project we're being asked if the pro project and all of the things that are [2:19:09] part of the project are in compliance with the Southdale comprehensive plan [2:19:15] right no it's the Tiff plan not the project it's the Tiff plan [2:19:21] does a tiff plan conform basically to the compreh the Tiff plan that includes the demolition of the structure the [2:19:27] environmental clean up the road and this discussion and the discussion of [2:19:34] the perhaps I can inter yeah the plan commission has nothing to do with how [2:19:40] the money is spent right then why are we being asked to give a we we're being [2:19:45] asked but the plan the plan had the 10th District [2:19:51] but but I mean it's like a revenue stream so we're being asked if the justification for the loan that the city [2:19:58] is making in this development as fully articulated is conforming with other [2:20:05] documents when the city gets the revenue stream from creating the ti Tiff [2:20:10] District like when they get their loan paid back with interest how they spend that is not our purview I mean I I don't [2:20:17] know what why is it in the project description that we have to make our purview tonight that was my [2:20:24] question there's also like financials in here about how they're going to Ellers is going to but not an appendix e [2:20:30] appendix e was the only thing we're asked to advise on so that's why I was just saying could we just remove that last paragraph of [2:20:36] appendix that's what we're asked about right does the project as in appendix e [2:20:42] the description as part of this Tiff plan conformed to the comprehensive plan I [2:20:49] that gets back to commissioner born's question like of that nuance and it is mentioned there that's why I'm like [2:20:55] couldn't we just not mention it there and make this a lot easier for everything we've talked about if I the [2:21:01] last paragraph of appendix yeah um if I could interject so part of the reason [2:21:07] that we included it in there is um there's the southeast Adina Redevelopment plan and I've got one [2:21:13] slide on on pulled up here um but in that plan and that actually [2:21:20] comes way before the comprehensive plan was written um one of the fundamental [2:21:26] goals for you for creating this Redevelopment plan and then using Tiff dating back to the 70s was to quote [2:21:34] improve access for pedestrians and bicyclists throughout that whole France Avenue area remember in the 1970s it was [2:21:42] gravel pits dumps and a County highway there was no provision for people and so [2:21:49] that was one of the fundamental Natures of that initial plan was to create those types of opportunities over the decades [2:21:56] a d has come a long way we've got bike trails we've got sidewalks we've got connections in different places um with [2:22:02] this uh proposed hith District uh we'd like to continue to P pursue that goal [2:22:08] of improving access by connecting neighborhoods on either side of the street um so that that's why we included [2:22:16] it in there it seemed as I was having conversations or listening to the the city council [2:22:21] conversations that seemed like a important topic to be able to cross the street safely again whether you go under [2:22:28] over or at great as you know that'll be determined in the future but having some kind of improvement seemed to be um of [2:22:35] interest to folks um uh we could have omitted it but since there's been conversation and people tended to like [2:22:42] some type of improvement I thought it was more uh clear to include something in there that backfired on me tonight um [2:22:49] well that's why it's in there and I I I I just personally if [2:22:54] commissioner borene didn't bring it up I was ready all right this is easy we'll approve it and it just added a Nuance [2:23:00] that again like Words matter so I just wanted to make sure like we weren't un [2:23:05] like we weren't creating an exception to otherwise a restriction which it doesn't seem like we would so I feel like we're [2:23:11] good but it does add this weird Nuance of the project we're talking about is [2:23:17] directly referencing another project in its description so I'll leave it at that [2:23:23] I don't need to beat a dead horse yeah commissioner Pia um do you [2:23:28] use Tiff for Centennial Lakes uh the city did use Tiff for Centennial [2:23:35] Lakes uh for Edinburgh for the condos for the offices I don't think for the [2:23:41] retail um but for the park space and the office space in particular and most of [2:23:46] the condos we use Tiff [2:23:53] can you use Tiff for Centennial legs anymore I'd say that type of [2:23:58] development uh um sure they're doing it in St Paul um the Highland Bridge [2:24:04] development is using Tiff as a Public Finance tool um I don't think you could do it at Centennial Lakes today you [2:24:10] you'd have to inspect all the buildings and call them blighted and substandard I don't think you could do that at [2:24:16] Centennial Lakes today well before we get further I just [2:24:21] want to say thank you you knew and why you come here is because things get all mixed up in a blender but we do like [2:24:29] there has been things where like one word has really mattered later so we want to definitely be cautious and [2:24:36] feel well confident about it but I mean I I feel good what do you less good I [2:24:44] hate being difficult like this is not what I want I just know this topic so this Topic's been percolating around for [2:24:49] many many months with this group so it it just has been and this Tiff plan this [2:24:56] Tiff plan says this under press pass or Bridge Crossing will address blah blah blah so [2:25:02] I mean it the Tiff plan it seems includes specifically contemplating [2:25:08] underpass or bridge and whether or not some someone thinks it's a good idea to spend money on it that's not for us to [2:25:15] decide right I get and that's not what I'm talking about whether that type of built structure [2:25:21] conforms with some of the planning documents we're talking about and impr you know and is consistent or inconsistent with them that is the only [2:25:27] thing I'm interested in talking about and not whether it's a good idea financially but does that type of [2:25:34] structure actually impair some of the some of the planning negatively impact [2:25:39] some of the planning concerns that we've had I know commissioner Miranda had those concerns significantly yeah I I do [2:25:45] as well yeah for sure you know significant concerns and so that is the that is the piece [2:25:51] where like if I could say the whole project and public realm improvements are of course but we just I don't have [2:25:58] enough information to know one way or the other whether the underpass or Bridge Crossing that's described in the [2:26:05] in the Tiff plan is consistent with the planning documents just haven't done the analysis yet maybe it is I so s sorry [2:26:13] for being a stickler I think it's better for us to talk through this stuff now though than like later on which has [2:26:19] happened with some of the other in this exact area like like um Jimmy was saying [2:26:25] there was an Andor that that was basically a difference between getting a strong project and a okay project that [2:26:31] was a little less strong so that's why our group is focused on this kind of [2:26:37] stuff you're fine can we say this underpass at grade or Bridge [2:26:45] [Music] Crossing I mean if we don't know what it is um I'm sure it says something to that [2:26:51] effect but if if there's a way to Wordsmith it that makes you more comfortable fine this work is intended to improve pedestrian and bicyclist [2:26:58] routes to and from the ti district and I think we all agree with that um integrated site plans for the [2:27:03] development this underpass underpass or Bridge Crossing will address existing vehicular pedestrian safety if it says [2:27:10] is underpass at grade or Bridge Crossing I feel like you should just [2:27:16] take that whole paragraph out and simplify it all right the last sentence says it could be used as a funding [2:27:23] source like it it's it's written as a hypothetical that the Tiff could be used [2:27:30] to fund the public Crossing if directed by the H but aren't we only talking [2:27:35] about the Macy site that's why I don't get [2:27:41] it it's it's just an idea for the city staff of what they could do if they [2:27:47] wanted to Envision what adjacent imp the structure could look like I just I don't [2:27:52] think it's an Andor that without writing it down specifically well why do they want it in there this is like a 60-page [2:28:00] document though the whole thing is the Tiff Plan and there's lots of words in here that we generally don't understand [2:28:07] in a many of ways but I think the land use piece with inside the property lines isn't changing I mean all we were [2:28:16] asked is to react to like these three pages so we were asked to the whole thing is the Tiff plan yeah but like [2:28:22] appendix e specifically was our ask right right [2:28:27] yeah the ask is we can just keep going and going and going not sure if it helps or not but [2:28:35] when you all reviewed this the condition on the developer was to create a plan [2:28:41] that could accommodate either one so there was no detail about whether we're going to go over under that was the [2:28:48] condition of of the uh of the land use requests was okay there was a condition [2:28:56] even there was that the project had to accommodate either [2:29:02] scenario so either underneath ACC that's a helpful yes okay that's helpful [2:29:08] because then right then it's okay if we approve that positive yeah I don't know [2:29:16] well I was stuck on the tarmac in Tennessee during that meeting and and I wasn't here one way or the other so I [2:29:21] might have to abstain on this one um if we're not able to take that sentence out not because I'm trying to be difficult I [2:29:26] just don't feel like I have enough information to decide whether this Tiff plan conforms with the planning documents right now maybe maybe I could [2:29:33] get there but I just think I've learned from past experience on this [2:29:39] one thanks was everyone else feeling any [2:29:44] questions any motions I'm just to say I'm going to abstain as well I feel the same way I don't have enough detail [2:29:51] about the Tiff plan it's very generic statement um this early in the project [2:29:57] and so I don't I can't give a blessing either way about whether it meets the development or red development plan for [2:30:03] the city as a whole are we doing our deliberations yeah this is still deliberations what I will say from K [2:30:09] car's clarification if those were actually mentioned and conditioned in the actual development plan I feel much [2:30:17] better about this and those words in there so if that is confirmed I'm okay with this in here I [2:30:24] don't feel like there is a conflict between anything really and for and for [2:30:29] those of you who are here it's just I was personally not at that meeting I didn't do that vote um and I didn't do [2:30:34] that analysis so but if for those of you who are here and reached that outcome I mean you might have a different way of [2:30:41] thinking about it so I totally understand and respect what you're saying Mr [2:30:46] phel since we're deliberating um I am excited about this plan because um this [2:30:54] is the first one that it's going to break down a super block into four sections and have a North South Road and [2:31:00] an East West access and the setback from the prominade um and that additional artwork [2:31:07] I think it's super exciting that it's happening um I am for better pedestrian [2:31:13] access and bicycle access and um so I'm all for this [2:31:23] in support of it as I commissioner Pia um I'll be voting against it I voted [2:31:29] against the project so I don't think in good faith if I voted against the project I can vote for the [2:31:37] Tiff okay so just uh projecting forward if there's six of us to abstain three in [2:31:43] favor one it still passes right just you need a majority [2:31:48] right all right well what are we good to just go to I guess we need a motion [2:31:56] first motion to adopt adopt resol the [2:32:06] resolution I second uh we'll just do a roll call vote make it easy [2:32:13] again commissioner Padia n okay commissioner day [2:32:21] sorry abstain commissioner barnstein yeah abstain commissioner felt [2:32:30] I commissioner Henman I chair Bennett I [2:32:37] resolution has been approved to be adopted thank you for that uh fun one [2:32:44] you know it always is okay well that was painful and I'm glad [2:32:51] we're through it but thank you for bringing up commissioner Bor and every time again like Words matter they've [2:32:58] haunted us before so I'm glad we've had these conversations tonight so we're not surprised at any point going forward [2:33:04] thank you for the clarification carry thank you for the presentation Bill and on to chair and member comments any of [2:33:18] them okay okay on to staff comments yeah a couple updates from city council the [2:33:25] council at their last meeting held the public hearing on the Heritage preservation uh commission's ordinance [2:33:31] proposal they'll take action at their meeting on October 1st as mentioned here [2:33:37] tonight they did take final action on the Macy's project so they they did receive their final rezoning the [2:33:43] Hankerson project the subdivision the three lot subdivision that will go to the city council October 1st [2:33:50] and just a reminder that October 1st chair Bennett will present our work plan [2:33:55] to the city council at the work session that's it for me anyone's welcome to join it's really [2:34:03] fun seriously uh and I guess there's one more order to [2:34:09] business motion to adjourn second all in favor say I I I [2:34:15] motion carries the meeting has been adjourned thank you everyone for