[0:05] all right all right all right welcome everybody including myself to the [0:10] September 12th 2024 City vid Planning Commission meeting on behalf of the rest [0:16] of the commission we are grateful you are here in person and to those tuning [0:21] in remotely say it every time but your participation your C your curiosity and [0:27] your feedback is instrumental to this process as we navigate change together here in ID specifically regarding the [0:35] ways in which we like to use our land we have two public hearings tonight [0:40] and I will get into kind of what to expect for that process later right before they start and we have one report [0:46] and recommendation and like any time we have meetings there's always an opportunity [0:51] for the the community or residents to comment and get feedback to us and we [0:58] commit to you that it's got to us and that we consider it before we make recommendations [1:03] tonight so if you are unfamiliar with how to participate in advance uh the [1:10] best way is our engagement website ww. better together.org [1:15] and there's been a variety of improvements that you'll notice on that [1:21] site with a development tracker kind of on G GIS so you can see location based [1:28] proposals which make it a little a little easier to connect to what's happening in your neighborhood uh you can comment on [1:35] specific matters or you can send an email to the planning department and it'll get to [1:42] us so as I mentioned there's two public hearings I'll get into that later but for what to expect for the meeting [1:49] tonight the agenda goes as follows we'll have a roll call then we'll approve tonight's meeting agenda followed by the [1:56] prior meeting's minutes then we'll have a community comment period which is your chance to speak about a matter not on [2:03] tonight's agenda and then we have the public hearings followed by the reports and [2:10] recommendation with which we have one and then we wrap things up with chair [2:15] and member comments and staff comments and then we adjourn so without further [2:21] Ado call the meeting to order and we'll do roll [2:26] call commissioner elire here commissioner morand here commissioner Padia here [2:32] commissioner Smith here commissioner jaw commissioner day here commissioner Borstein here commissioner felt here [2:39] commissioner hanaman here chair Bennett here uh and then we have the approval of [2:47] tonight's meeting agenda if there aren't any proposed changes I'd welcome a motion I move to approve the [2:54] agenda second all those in favor say I I I so moved next we have the approval of [3:02] t or of the prior meetings minutes from August 28th as well as a special work [3:08] session from August [3:13] 14th motion to approve the minutes second all those in favor say I I so [3:21] moved all right next we have the community comment period And this is a chance for anyone who is here in person [3:27] to speak about a matter not on tonight's agenda you have 3 minutes to do so you can come up to either Podium State your [3:34] full name address uh light turns green that means go and then when it's read we [3:40] ask you to wrap it up anyone here for Community [3:47] comment all right being none we will close a [3:52] community comment period before we get into public hearings uh just one thing I'd like to [3:57] add as I look next to me we have a new face in the crowd uh one cool thing [4:06] yeah no we don't do it's only in person so uh one cool thing the city [4:13] Vina does is uh we welcome the opportunity for at least or two uh [4:18] student Commissioners so people who are in high school that know and care enough [4:24] to be a part of this process it always like Wows me with one the the commitment [4:30] to come here and uh usually it's a one to twoe term and it we have some late [4:37] meetings and it's it's quite a commitment but I'd like to give you the chance to introduce yourself and maybe [4:42] just tell us a little bit about you and why you wanted to join put you on the [4:48] spot um hi I'm a DT I'm a sophomore at Dena High School um a little about me I [4:55] do Varsity debate I'm in band um and why I wanted to be on the commission is cu I [5:00] agree with you um land and land use is super important and I'm excited to just [5:06] like kind of be involved in decision- making in a China sounds super fun to me big kudos to you like big Kudos yeah [5:15] commissioner okay quick question welcome again and what instrument I play the trumpet [5:24] great all right cool thank you so as mentioned we have two public hearings [5:30] tonight so we're on to that part of the agenda uh the first one is an ordinance [5:36] Amendment concerning the Heritage preservation commission and Edina Heritage landmarks and update to the [5:42] country club plan of treatment uh what to expect with a [5:48] public hearing process-wise is either there's a formal application that comes [5:55] into the city about a specific matter for land use and application or there's [6:00] maybe something like this that touches on land use that requires our recommendation before it gets to the [6:05] city council either way uh City staff puts together a staff report based on a [6:12] bunch of factual findings uh and then they provide us a presentation based off of that report we [6:19] have a quick exchange questions back and forth then we O then we open it to the [6:25] applicant uh here it's a different commission but other times it might might be a a private land owner or [6:32] resident or a developer and then we they can present and then we have another set [6:39] of questions back and forth and then we open it to a public hearing which is your chance as a resident to testify [6:47] about the matter whether in person for 3 minutes or tuning in remotely and I'll give you the number [6:53] after I wrap this up and uh after we close that then it comes back to the [6:59] Planning Commission to deliberate and we ultimately recommend an approval or [7:05] denial of the request at hand so for those tuning in remotely just so you can get ready uh you'll want to call the [7:12] following number 312 535 [7:18] 8110 and then you'll enter access code 2632 [7:24] 058 2795 followed by the password [7:31] 5454 and there's more then press star three on your keypad to get in the qest [7:37] speak so you don't have to do that quite yet um but hopefully that information's [7:42] on the screen for you and then we'll open that again when we officially open the public hearing I mean it's open but [7:49] once it it's your time to kind of testify with that we'll turn it over yeah what's what's your how do you [7:56] pronounce your last name again d rmo d R okay to Emily to present thank you um [8:03] thank you chair and members of the Planning Commission at the direction of the city council the HPC subcommittee of [8:08] three Commissioners Jane lonquist Bob cundy and Rachel Pollock worked with City staff and the city's preservation [8:14] Consultants Elizabeth gailes and Rachel Peterson of hes Royce and Company on drafting changes to the ordinance [8:21] Country Club District plan of treatment and supplemental documents that are in front of you tonight the draft documents [8:26] were presented and unanimously recommended by the heritage preservation commission to the Planning Commission and city council the HPC also has an [8:34] advisory communication that outlines their process and their recommendation which was included in your packet [8:39] tonight the draft changes are in front of you because they include an amendment to the city's zoning ordinance tonight [8:45] the Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing on the proposed changes and make a recommendation to city [8:50] council the proposed ordinance deals with the city's Landmark properties and landmark District the ordinance affects [8:57] all of these properties although there are specific changes and some supplemental documents that pertain [9:02] specifically to the city's Landmark District which is the country club District the city's Landmark properties [9:08] include the Beed house the brale bridge kill School the Adina Country Club District the Adina Mill site the Adina [9:16] theater sign gra Hall Grimes house osam house the Peterson house and the [9:21] Wooddale Avenue Bridge the red stars on the map represent these properties and the red shaded area is the country club [9:28] District the blue boxes on the map are eligible properties and this ordinance does not affect those properties they're [9:34] just shown as eligible to be designated as a landmark one day if they so [9:40] choose um at the time each Landmark property and District was designated as an Adina Heritage Landmark a nomination [9:47] study and a plan of treatment was created and ultimately approved by city council those nomination studies include [9:53] history on each of the landmark properties and the plan of treatment documents are created to provide [9:58] specific guid guidelines for design review recommendations for preservation Rehabilitation restoration and [10:05] reconstruction for each Landmark property the HPC staff and staff has outlined some high level changes and [10:11] recommendations that are in each document that is in front of you tonight the first is the ordinance and the [10:17] ordinance affects chapter 2 chapter 10 and chapter 36 of OC city code and all [10:23] those changes pertain to the Heritage preservation commission and the Adina Heritage landmarks the changes that were made [10:30] added Clarity to some of the definitions including demolition and the definition of a street facing facade added [10:37] definitions of demolition by neglect character defining features inserted a one-year time limit [10:43] for a certificate of appropriateness um a permit must be pulled within one year of a COA [10:49] approval um it clarifies when a COA is required as well as what work is exempt [10:54] from a certificate of appropriateness in a landmark District um expanded the maintenance of [11:00] Heritage re the Heritage resources section added escrow an escrow requirement for permits for all Heritage [11:07] Landmark properties and districts and also wanted to note that no changes were proposed for when a COA [11:13] is required for a Landmark property um no changes to those existing plan of treatment documents are proposed so it's [11:20] only to when coas are required for properties within a landmark District the second set of documents or [11:27] the second document is the proposed uh din Landmark property and District escrow fee um this is a new form that's [11:34] to be signed by a contractor and a property owner that acknowledges the responsibility to maintain and protect [11:41] historic resources throughout con the construction process and then to inform staff on proposed changes or any [11:47] proposed changes that are made throughout the construction process the fee that is proposed um [11:53] would be based on Project valuation an escrow fee of $3,000 would be required [11:59] if a project is under $100,000 and requires a certificate of appropriateness and a fee of [12:05] $155,000 would be required at the time of a permit if the valuation is over [12:11] $100,000 and these fees would be due at the time of a permit and the city would be able to use those to keep structures [12:17] weathertight and protected throughout the construction process if necessary and then the fee would be refunded when [12:23] all permits have been closed out at the end of the construction process [12:29] the third document is the plan of treatment for the country club District so in that document there was some added [12:35] General context a map that was added and an explanation that was added for about [12:40] the period of significance for the district um added a one-year time limit for coas that reflects the proposed [12:46] ordinance change explains what um the certificate of appropriateness application requirements and what that [12:53] review process is like emphasizes that construction must follow the approved [12:58] plan and explained how to get a COA Amendment if your project may change throughout the [13:04] process clarifies what um design review elements are recommended guidelines rather than requirements and then added [13:11] a section on character defining features and the last document is a new [13:17] resource that is to supplement the country called plan of treatment that provides some photos and examples and [13:22] list character defining features for some of the most prevalent architectural Styles in the country club district and [13:28] this is is used really or the HPC and staff views this as more of a resource [13:35] for property owners and Architects and contractors as they're planning for projects and designing projects they can reference that document and see what [13:42] kind of um things the Heritage preservation commission is looking for and so with that I'll stop sorry a lot [13:47] of information all at once but I will um introduce Jane lanquist the chair of the HPC and she's going to go through some [13:53] additional changes great thanks for your time and I really am not going to add additional [13:59] changes but just sort of emphasize high level themes and some key details in the thorough presentation that Emily just [14:05] gave so the existing guidance that our commission has is the plan of treatment [14:10] specific to the country club district and that's the bulk of our work as reviewing homes there and exterior [14:17] changes that come before us and we also although it's used less frequently the city ordinance as Emily explained [14:23] applies to all Heritage landmarks um and so we there were needs for change your your packet went into [14:30] some cases that prompted uh the need to dig into things further and what we [14:35] found was that there were inconsistencies between the two in some of the key definitions in addition the [14:41] current plan of treatment for Country Club talks about historic facades and streetscapes a somewhat vague term um [14:47] and the city ordinance was missing some key definitions and also critically that [14:52] staff found that they were missing some tools for um addressing non-compliance so so the proposed [15:00] guidance these are the two existing documents with the changes so just high level we're doubling the size of of the [15:06] plan of treatment for the district um and we're focusing specifically on Street facing facades which had been in [15:13] practice but let's call that out and be clear on where the purview of the Heritage preservation commission is a [15:19] clear scope a real strong emphasis on the character defining features on that front facade and still of course the [15:25] guiding document is the Secretary of interior standard for rehabilitation which is the key mode here right that [15:32] homes need to be updated and rehabilitated but you can do so in a way that maintains their historic um [15:39] character and exterior so the city ordinance um I just wanted to highlight that the definitions we added a lot more [15:45] terms nearly doubling that and in the the C the current ordinance has no [15:51] language about um District changes so homes within a district as Emily said so [15:56] we were using the four uh key elements that would trigger a certificate of appropriateness if you were Landmark [16:03] property well it's somewhat different in the district so staff came up with nine criteria most of which talk about [16:10] changes to that street facing facade so it's explicit language to be clear on [16:15] how we should deal with change in the country club district and also importantly calling out demolition by [16:22] neglect which is a phrase that many other towns and cities use and and forbid we just hadn't used that language [16:28] in the past new tools for staff um this is where the [16:34] escrow form comes in and importantly it's not just a fee but it's a chance for contractors and Property Owners to [16:41] sign off and say I understand this language that's in the ordinance Emily [16:46] explained this fee structure um smaller projects that don't have a COA would not [16:52] need the escrow fee um also adding a tool so that staff can look at like for [16:58] like changes simple things like redoing your exterior or replacing your windows [17:04] and staff can decide guess what this is Street facing vade but this does not need to go before the HPC so just some [17:10] clearer mechanisms um are in this new escro fee uh the other new tool is the [17:18] document Emily mentioned on details on character defining features with some photos and a chance to educate people [17:26] about the seven main architectural styles period Revival Styles in the district um and also Clarity on how the [17:33] amendment process works right um so the new focus is protecting historic [17:40] Integrity of the neighborhood that's the language in the new plan of treatment and that's a good summary of what we're [17:45] trying to do and why we're proposing these changes as improvements to the existing [17:54] process thank you Jane and then um just some additional information that I [18:00] wanted to inform the Planning Commission about is that the city sent out mail notices to all Property Owners of [18:05] landmark properties and properties within the historic district and then sent an email to contractors that have [18:10] pulled a permit in the country club District in the last few years so it was a list of about 350 contractors the [18:16] project has been on better together and there has I'm sure you've all have seen But there has been a few comments um made on Better Together on the proposed [18:23] changes the city has also submitted the draft documents to the state historic preservation office [18:29] Who provided their comments on the proposed changes and those comments um were addressed in the documents that are [18:35] before you tonight they were just minor um spelling and capitalization um preferences that they had so with that [18:42] um tonight staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission recommend city council adopt the proposed ordinance 20246 with the following [18:49] changes to section 36- 723 um that is to number five in that [18:55] list of when a certificate of appropriateness is required in country club or in the landmark district and [19:01] that's just to add some clarity to um the fact that if an addition is put on a detached garage it would also require [19:07] certificate of appropriateness um staff recommends implementing the proposed ordinance changes when the building department [19:13] implements a new software system to verify that the appropriate permitting changes can be implemented with limited [19:19] impacts to customer service the building department is looking at implementing their new software system in January of [19:26] 2026 so this would be um stff would agree with the building department [19:31] and their official um the building official memo that was included in your packet tonight with that I can answer [19:38] any questions um The Heritage preservation Commissioners Jane lanquist lanquist and Bob cundy are here and so [19:43] is the city's preservation Consultants um Rachel and Elizabeth from hyce thank you Emily thank you Jane any [19:52] questions fellow Commissioners I see some nods all right [19:57] Lou you got it started off yeah does there anything here prevent uh an Adu [20:02] being built on any of these properties it would need not as far as getting a certificate of appropriateness adding an [20:09] Adu would require a certificate of appropriateness but it would also need to meet the zoning requirements so it [20:14] would just be reviewed there'd be an additional step to get a certificate of appropriateness in the country club District okay so there's nothing really [20:20] preventing them okay thank [20:25] you and just come down the line all right all right thank you uh I'm sure we'll [20:32] have a lot of questions as we go along here um I just want to get a good sense of the process that the team should [20:39] follow you know if you just like walk us through you know a a resident wants to [20:46] add or build something in your home and how does how does that process start and [20:51] go through and then in the end assuming that they would need a COA right and [20:56] just assume that the COA was appr approved and in particular if you could focus in on like the evaluation of the [21:03] project itself like when we put a a a rate of 3,000 escrow for below 100,000 [21:10] and then 15,000 for above like who comes up with that evaluation and and how do you make that determination is is if you [21:17] could talk about that in the process um and then from a timeline [21:23] perspective right uh how long assuming that all the documentation is provided for the application how long does the [21:30] city take before they approve it or make a decision on the COA um so first I'll [21:37] address your questions on how those escro fee numbers were come up with the planning department worked with the building department on coming up with [21:43] those escro numbers and those were based on the fact um again based on permit valuation numbers but also on the fact [21:51] that their recom the building Department's recommendation was to make those numbers different than current escro fees that the city requires today [21:58] and so it's to make those valuations different so it's easy to track from a financial standpoint and when people are [22:05] getting permits and there's multiple escros they have to pull it's clear which escrow is for what item and so the [22:12] numbers came directly from the building department who recommended those numbers um the second question on [22:18] process um to get a certificate of appropriateness um often times I have [22:24] lots of people reach out to me directly asking on whether or not their project would require a COA so to kind of kick [22:31] off the process staff sits down with an applicant to talk through their project whether or not it will require COA and [22:37] what that COA process looks like after I have that initial meeting once the city receives a completed COA application or [22:45] COA um packet then it gets placed on a um Heritage preservation agenda the [22:52] complete application is due 30 days prior to a COA meeting so very similar to how variances are processed once the [22:59] city receives an application we send the application to the city's preservation consultant Tes Royce they do their [23:06] evaluation of the project and provide a memo to City staff City staff sends out a notification to Property Owners within [23:12] 200 feet of the property it's put on better together um staff does a staff report [23:18] similar again very similar to the variance process and then once it gets to the Heritage preservation commission meeting the Heritage preservation [23:25] commission takes action on those coas that night and then um there is a 10-day appeal period so then if the [23:32] COA anyone can um appeal a decision made by the Heritage preservation commission to city council so after that a 10-day [23:38] appeal period the applicant may get their building permit if the COA was approved and their plans match what was [23:45] approved by the HBC so it's about if the timing lines up exactly it could be [23:50] potentially 40 days give or take so that's like a minimum yeah of 40 [23:56] days at least uh is how long it's going to take and just to be just so it's clear that's the process now and that [24:01] process isn't changing gotcha and in terms of the evaluation of the project [24:07] can you just talk about how the city or the resident how do you guys determine if it's a 100K [24:14] project or not so that's based on the permit valuation so the valuation is the [24:20] valuation of the permit it's the materials it's um it's not necessarily [24:26] on it's do you know how do you want to answer how the building department determines [24:33] that value yeah I don't know exactly but I believe it's [24:38] um somewhat established through the uniform building code values that [24:43] way it's usually just straight linear percentage of the fee what you estimate [24:49] the project to cost yep so the contractor would enter that information in and then the building department [24:54] reviews that valuation to determine its Fair they make make some changes [25:00] but so it's not evaluation that the city provides or puts on I don't determine [25:07] whether or not the project is valued at $100,000 or less than $100,000 yeah so [25:13] the developer uh as part of the the uh process would determine what the value [25:18] of the project is City staff would then review it just look at it make sure that it makes sense like if it's you know [25:25] over or under they would kind of get a good gut check of that and then that is how it um gets entered and and then you [25:32] could determine the escrow amount um from that time correct and just the last part this like at the end so we kind of [25:40] went through the process of um you know making the application do you hold the [25:45] escrow amounts until the whole project is completed and the permits have been [25:51] released like just talk to me about the end part of that process when the escro money goes back I guess yep so the [25:57] applicant would require um building finals so on their project so they would require that or request [26:03] that through the building department a lot of those finals are done through their department and then planning staff would also go out at that point and make [26:09] a final inspection to review the fact that the project matches the approved plans at least from an exterior [26:16] perspective and then once that has been finaled or closed off then their escrow fee could be released at that [26:23] point thank you commissioner [26:30] Pia do you know if um the homes in this [26:35] area that we're talking about is it 100% owner occupied um I do not know um what the [26:43] percentage of renter rental versus owner occupied houses are in the neighborhood [26:48] I don't have that information but certainly a significant majority I would guess I would imagine so so okay um my [26:56] principal question though is about um kind of unforeseen circumstances I [27:01] understand the intent certainly um behind the recommendation and behind the [27:07] action um I recall well must have been 20 maybe 23 years ago there was a huge [27:14] storm and the uh Country Club area looked like [27:19] a war zone basically There Were Trees just down all over the place all over [27:24] roofs you know it was um was a dis um and you you looks like you remember [27:31] it as well um so what um plans or what [27:40] modifications um come in to solve the Practical issues um that you encounter [27:47] because 40 days if um you know there's a a an enormous tree you know there's a [27:54] hole in your roof or there's a flood or something like that and I believe that [27:59] Nate brought this up at the end of his um U of his memo um you know and is an [28:06] insurance company going to be able to deal with all of these issues and it does mean the homeowner has to put up [28:13] this fee as opposed to the insurance company so if you could talk to the unforeseen uh circumstances aspect yeah [28:20] there is a section um in the proposed ordinance in front of you 36728 that Nate references in his memo [28:27] and that's in that those emergency situations where in those situations the building official can determine um when [28:35] emergency repairs need to happen so he can kind of take control over that if needed and then and then you can go [28:41] around all all of these requirements or what happens at that point yeah there are certain requirements that would be [28:47] at least to get um projects weather proofed and things to be covered up that would be able to be kind of figured out [28:55] in that emergency situation okay I just wanted to clarify too that [29:01] replacing a roof and repairing a roof with likeforlike materials does not trigger a certificate of appropriateness [29:08] right but but you know the circumstances end up I mean I realize that if all you're doing is replacing it to the way [29:14] it was but consider you know that might not always be the case and and right and somebody's going to say well I've always [29:20] wanted to do something else and now I have an opportunity so you end up having to get a certificate of appropriateness [29:27] and go through all of these R Mor thank [29:35] you well I wanted to follow up on the escro [29:40] Fe um you mentioned in there that if City [29:47] staff goes to the escrow that the homeowner or the contractor continues to [29:53] put money in that escrow at the request so if the city has to p [29:58] from the escrow account to the escrow money would only be used if this [30:03] structure needs to be kept weathertight so it wouldn't be used to complete a project or it wouldn't be used to add [30:09] architectural details to a house that are missing um but if the city needs to pull on an escrow or pull out money from [30:16] that escrow account the city could request at that time that the escrow be added back to if [30:22] needed and I and I feel I appreciate like all the work that went into this I [30:28] I see it in the documents but it worries me about an open-ended um kind of escrow that it can [30:36] just keep well it's in hopes that um contractors throughout the process keep [30:42] the houses weather tight and it would we would only foresee to use it in emergency type situations where we can't [30:48] gain compliance from the contractors when we would pull money from that escrow account [30:59] sorry I I think you tried to explain it to commissioner Smith but can you might [31:04] have to go back over it just because I maybe didn't follow but what was the the recommendation for the addition of the [31:09] escrow based on right so why why how did we come to that recommendation in the first place there were certain projects [31:16] that there were was a lot of neighborhood concern that projects weren't being kept weathertight throughout the construction process a [31:21] lot of these projects take a long time so it's through multiple season changes and things and when a roof is pulled out [31:27] or sidings p pulled off or windows are taken out and replaced and the houses there was concern that houses weren't [31:32] kept being kept weathertight and so um staff worked with the building department and our city attorneys and [31:39] kind of came up with this escro recommendation to the Heritage preservation commission that that was an option at that point or could be an [31:45] option and so it's really seen to try to protect the historic structures and it's [31:51] used as more of a um compliance mechanism to get people to complete the projects and to complete them as they [31:58] were approved okay how many projects or houses would we say that this was a [32:04] problem on I mean and better together I kept seeing a reference to a house on ardan Avenue um but is was it I mean [32:11] we're talking one two three a lot and that's why we needed to add the escrow or was it based off of a lot of push [32:17] back on maybe one or two particular projects in the last few years I'd say there's a few but in the [32:23] last um I've 20 years I'd say there's more than a few that this has come up [32:30] with or at least um staff has received comments on and typically it's you [32:35] because of the long-term nature of the project that it's going on for I mean you said so a lot of these projects take a long time right so but then of course [32:42] the escro would have to be held on to for a long time as well um okay what are what are like the [32:50] do you know the average age of properties in the country club District the majority of homes in the country [32:55] club District were built between 1924 and 19 44 and that's that period of significance that was referenced um I [33:03] could defer to our Consultants to know if they know which how many were built within the period of significance [33:10] if close to 90% of the houses were built in that period okay and what is do you think the [33:17] average a I mean in terms of the average age of the residents in the country club neighborhood is it tend to trend on the [33:23] older side or do you say it's fairly representative of Dina in general I do not have that information there's [33:30] two residents of the district and commission members that might be able to answer that a little better but I know there's as a um planning staff I get [33:37] lots of questions on people moving out of the in and out of the district often so um there's lots of people new people [33:44] coming in and out of the district I guess I don't have any information on their age okay okay I mean where I'm [33:50] going with that is it just it's probably fair to say based on the age of the of the properties in the country club [33:55] District that a lot of them will require significant maintenance both now and into the future right to trigger this [34:02] this escrow amount and it doesn't you know really take a lot nowadays to go over $100,000 so I mean I understand the [34:08] COA piece for uh smaller value projects um but if you have you know [34:16] particularly I guess income restricted not income restricted um people that are [34:21] living on a fixed income in a house that was built in 1924 right and they need to [34:26] replace all their Windows well if you if you go to say Anderson Windows for example I speak from experience they [34:31] pretty expensive you could definitely go over $100,000 really easily um and then you're facing an additional $15,000 [34:38] escra on top of that and to me I'm not sure that that's necessary um or that [34:45] that something that I would support right now but um yeah okay so that's my questions [34:52] for the moment I guess maybe could you elaborate on those specific values just the 3,000 [35:00] vers 15 it seemed almost arbitrary to just have them different than other ones [35:06] I just curious I think the building again the um previous building official had we talked with him about those [35:13] numbers and I think a lot of it was on a project that could be more significant what is the cost of providing that [35:19] weatherproofing if they have to do it and so that's the number that he came up with so on a larger project if they have [35:26] to weatherproof the entire back of the house or windows that are torn out what would that [35:32] cost okay Mr [35:40] phel um I'm going back to the escrow again too I'm working on a project now where [35:48] the homeowner has to put down an escrow um for a tree and [35:55] um and it is causing them a lot of [36:00] concern because they have saved up for a long time for the project they're doing [36:06] and now that they they and they had to take down a tree that was in within the building pad um had to pay for that and [36:14] have to put this esro down and have to jump through these hoops that is becoming like 10% of the cost of the [36:22] project and and gives them some anxiety so I think I'm kind of think just about the [36:28] escro 2 and the fact that it's cash escrow that there's no letter of credit and I know for the tree ordinance you've [36:34] um the city has decided to take letters of credit instead because it was it's [36:40] playing out in all sorts of unforeseen ways um so the so the escrow piece concerns [36:48] me too and I and I understand that there's been difficulties and a lot of friction in the neighborhood um but I think it might we [36:57] might come up up with some things that occur that nobody was expecting um might [37:04] make some home owners anxious during their remodeling [37:13] projects was a letter of credit as an option discussed um unpopular opinion I [37:19] thought the numbers were really low if you're going to go replace all of the windows on a 100 plus year old home [37:26] that's a lot of exposure to to weather and $115,000 it doesn't get you very far [37:31] to cover a whole house if you've taken all the windows out so in my mind I didn't have a problem with the fee but I did wonder similarly um if you guys have [37:39] discussed letter of credit not specifically but there were a lot of changes since this was drafted this has [37:44] been drafted over a year plus and so I know there were a lot of changes to the city's um tree ordinance or tree um [37:51] escrow requirements and so I think there could be changes based on recommendations from our finance department on how that [38:04] handled other questions commiss [38:11] Smith yeah uh this is a little bit about [38:17] a little bit touching on the Adu question as well as the Environmental Policy so a couple things and you can [38:23] certainly answer in any order but with a detach garage structure uh what we do [38:30] have in an ad ordinance is that you could upgrade that to add water and [38:35] sewer capacity to it so it's now a living structure once it meets the setback requirements would something [38:41] like that trigger uh a COA and do you see any kind of issue where that might [38:48] cause a denial I guess of a COA uh approval so adding an a dwelling unit [38:54] would require a certificate of appropriateness but also adding on to an existing detached Gage or building a new [39:00] detached garage would also require certificate of appropriateness so in both situations whether there's existing [39:06] space that's being used or remodeled or if they're building a new garage or adding onto a garage or certificate of [39:12] appropriateness would be required the certificate of appropriateness would be reviewed in terms of the cert of the [39:20] Secretary of the Interior standards of Rehabilitation and so it would be [39:25] reviewed in as far as more of like a design architectural lens not necessarily [39:33] adding a residential unit to the property gotcha and I'm guessing like water [39:38] capacity so capacity you don't really see those and so that shouldn't be a factor that might cause a denial of of [39:45] some kind now with climate change you know that's happening everywhere and the [39:52] materials uh are changing you know that's uh more weather resistant [39:57] that can conserve heat and cold like Windows um if the climate [40:05] action plan and study that we have is encouraging residents to weatherize their their homes to make it more energy [40:12] efficient do you see anything there that would be in conflict with the facade or [40:17] the or the outward facing look of these properties and I know you had like a [40:23] couple different home examples like you know Spanish style colonial style Etc [40:28] if I wanted to change the windows and I can't have you know two separate panes [40:33] but I want to upgrade to a different style that's more energy efficient do you see anything there that might cause [40:39] a conflict with a resident trying to weatherize or uh meet some kind of climate goal uh being in conflict with [40:45] the facade and the look and feel of these homes I'll use like roofing material as an example I know in the [40:51] past few years there was a situation where um a property owner wanted to change out a tile roof where they were [40:58] um putting a new type of roof on a house with a remodel and the existing house had like a Spanish style clay type roof [41:06] and the proposed material at that point in time was a a material that's made to look like a clay tile roof but it wasn't [41:12] a clay tile roof for those reasons um so I think in situations like that where materials look like the existing [41:19] materials um those would be reviewed with um the building permits that come [41:24] in I think there are situations where there's certain windows and things are made now differently where people can [41:31] add different divided lights and windows and types of Windows to make Windows more energy efficient but still look a [41:36] certain way gotcha and I could see that being you know unique design unique materials like metal that looks like [41:43] clay could probably be way more expensive than changing the roof B like um a different kind of material you know [41:48] so I'm sure they see we'll have their work cut out for them to really evaluate [41:53] that um I didn't see paint and paint colors as being a requirement like if I [41:58] wanted to paint my house green and it doesn't look like the teal color or the beige color of some of these homes like [42:05] would that be allowed in this District yes that's allowed today and it doesn't change with these proposed [42:10] amendments so it just seems curious that you know the facade and the look and feel is so important but changing the [42:18] color could completely change the neighborhood but that's just one observation that I saw in the uh in The [42:24] Proposal can I just chime in I used to live in a historic neighborhood in Baltimore and you had to submit your paint chips and that's not what we're [42:31] about so we're quite flexible in response paint can be changed pretty easily if [42:37] needed gotcha thank you don't get any ideas commissioner [42:45] El uh thanks for the presentation a couple quick questions um you mentioned [42:50] a a similar District in Baltimore did the process include looking at other preservation districts and see what [42:58] negative incentives they offered maybe escros maybe other things we asked our [43:03] Consultants today if they were familiar with any um Minnesota um municipalities [43:08] that had an escy similar to ours and there wasn't any that was that were similar to your knowledge um as far we [43:15] leaned on our Consultants they do a lot of work in state of Minnesota so we leaned on them to provide some examples [43:21] or situations that they could give their feedback on on certain situations or questions that we had okay and then and [43:27] I looked at better together yesterday or maybe the day before and there were half a dozen maybe more uh comments uniformly [43:35] positive I felt were there any that were not positive that you can recall uh I [43:41] believe there was one voicemail that was transcribed into the system that was um either yesterday or the day before and I [43:48] think the general message is that things that the way things are are working so it should stay the same okay [43:58] and the document that includes the escro information has been available for [44:05] residents to review yep the um that went out information specific to each [44:10] document went out um to Residents Property Owners within the district and property owners that own Landmark [44:17] properties I included a link to the Better Together page that had all of those documents on it to the email list [44:23] for contractors that I had and then the public hearings notice for the public hearings were posted in the paper for [44:29] the tonight's Planning Commission meeting and also for next week's um city council meeting those documents have been available since I better together [44:36] pages but great thank you commissioner [44:44] felt I'm gonna [44:50] ask there when I was reading through the documents there was a lot of talk about [44:55] um um um the period that the country club was [45:01] started in and the covenants that were dictating the style and um whatever at [45:07] the home but uh and I'm kind of asking during this [45:13] process did you guys think um consider it [45:18] all um you know as part of those restrictive covenants there's also discriminatory covenants in there did [45:26] you guys talk about that that so the heritage preserv heritage preservation commission [45:31] has reviewed that or has talked about that in the past I think in 2022 the consultant at that time kind of worked [45:37] on a biography of the thorps and they talked about that um in that do in that document that was created and approved [45:43] or reviewed by the Heritage preservation commission um that past history and everything is on the Heritage preservation commission website that [45:49] pertains to the country club District um in the plan of treatment document it [45:55] didn't go into all the background on all those um racial covenants at that time [46:00] the document really tried to stick to the architectural piece that's kind of trying to focus and get information to [46:06] people about that piece of the neighborhood or process that we were doing I know Jane was part of the just [46:12] Deeds leadership in her neighborhood so yeah thank you for raising that important and unfortunate um reality um [46:20] so as Emily said we did explicitly discuss it and decided that the plan of treatment was not the correct place for [46:25] it to land that information information is on the city's website and ongoing [46:30] public education is important I know when we've done neighborhood walking tours we explicitly call that out as [46:35] Emily said there were blog captains to spread the information through just Deeds many people including myself [46:41] decided to renounce the racial covenants in their deeds so I think it's important we just decided this wasn't the correct [46:48] venue for it um yeah because I know the city does [46:54] have the web page and they do have the mapping Prejudice um map and the link to [47:01] the just deeds and that there is some help for that as well and that the [47:06] city's taken um the those racial um discriminatory covenants off 52 [47:13] properties 52 and um and this is this is not just a [47:18] dino Country Club this is all over a Dina there's 2,800 properties that have [47:24] that um and I just when you talked about the survey I was like oh this would be [47:29] another great way to kind of let people know that they can go [47:34] and yeah sure um if this does go forward in whatever form our um volunteer [47:41] commission will have a public Outreach piece next year and so that would certainly be an opportunity because I [47:46] think putting something in writing to homeowners and so I personally would love to emphasize that so thanks for [47:52] your concern yeah because I think some people just aren't aware of it [47:58] commissioner El could I ask you to say a little bit more about why it's not an appropriate [48:05] place to talk about that because there's almost 200 words of description [48:11] of how the zoning history in Country Club is so great and [48:17] wonderful um I know it just seems [48:23] missing either one I guess I think a case could be made and if if something's important it's you know language we [48:30] could put in we just made a different decision so agreed I think we can if there's [48:36] feelings to add additional information to that document that could be part of a recommendation great thank [48:46] you I think even as simple as in the P purpose and objective making sure that [48:52] it's specifically saying it's about protecting the architectural Integrity of the neighborhood the [48:58] historic architecture I mean that that's the piece that this is about might be another way to get at it [49:04] but I agree that there probably should be um the reason this was preserved is [49:10] in part because of the covenants where other neighborhoods didn't have that historical protection over the years so [49:18] I think it's worth a footnote at least [49:26] so I guess that's excuse me I guess that's a a good segue to uh to my question which is so I'm reading over [49:33] this the um draft examples of architectural Styles document um and it says this guide [49:43] describes character defining features of these seven Styles although most of the homes in the country club are not pure [49:49] specimens of any particular style so we should not expect them to follow any of the rules laid out in architectural [49:54] textbooks so if none of these are pure and you [50:00] know entire European Villages could be built in one of these Styles and these would presumably have houses and [50:06] apartments and businesses on Main Street all in you know whatever whatever style [50:12] this is you know why does it get so specific about height and and stories and all [50:19] that sort of stuff because the style is more than just a house right I mean what if we wanted to build affordable housing [50:26] here for example example could we match the style of the houses you know I don't understand why it gets so specific [50:32] especially since these are not pure they're just you know I'm going to continue [50:40] saying um local Builders and their clients develop their own rules of style based [50:46] on prevailing Notions of taste and convenience I mean I don't know it just seems [50:52] very vague to me it's not like we're we're protecting something very pure [50:57] here so do either one of you want to adjust the review of coas [51:04] and hi chair and Commissioners I'm Rachel Peterson with h Ron company I'm one of the um Consultants working with [51:10] the HPC and our our goal with that document was to primarily to provide more information to homeowners and [51:16] contractors and while as you correctly note that the houses in the country club [51:21] District are not pure architectural specimens our our goal with that language was to to [51:27] um to identify the reality of the architecture here that there are kind of plug andplay pieces and that if you come [51:34] in with a a colonial revival house that has some you know little French eclectic [51:39] element it's not we need to evaluate the house based on what it is and just because it isn't a pure colonial revival [51:45] doesn't mean it isn't of worth and so just um I think we wanted that document [51:51] to identify the dominant architectural Styles in the the district to avoid a [51:57] situation where um you know maybe you have a cute tutor Revival but your neighbor down the way has these really [52:05] you know awesome French doors on the front of their house why can't I put those on mine because my house is [52:10] primarily a tutor Revival that's an element of another style it's inappropriate to put it on my house and [52:17] so it gives that kind of underlayment so that hopefully applicants have more information to understand what is [52:23] important about their own property and therefore what changes might or might not be appropriate based on the Styles [52:29] present on their home does that make more sense yeah sure but I mean this so this [52:34] is the Confluence between what what this what this organization does um which is [52:41] the Style and what we do as an organization which is you know land use planning so I'm just trying to point out [52:48] the kind of contradiction there so sure understood thanks [52:57] any other questions comments okay thank [53:04] you all right we this is a public hearing so we will open it to that um [53:12] mention the information again for those tuning in remotely uh please call the [53:17] following number 312 535 5110 enter access code 26325 [53:28] 82795 the password's 5454 they should all be on the screen and then press star [53:34] three on your keypad when you'd like to get in the queue to speak which is now so push star three and in the meantime [53:41] we'll give you time to do that uh we will open it to anyone who is here in person to come up to a Podium and [53:48] testify again please State your full name your address and you have three minutes come forward thank you [53:56] either one name what else address yeah okay so uh Brandon Swanson 4602 CCO so I [54:03] live in the country club neighborhood um as somebody who is actively replacing every window in our [54:09] house so I feel like I have a little bit of relevant experience here um it is not [54:14] $100,000 and they replace all the storm windows first and then go inside the [54:20] house and replace the double hungs or in our case we've got these door windows that open so the house is secure [54:26] throughout the whole process um also in terms of the escrow policy I do understand uh why there [54:34] would be an escrow but I think that perhaps there could be a permitting process instead for the builders to uh [54:42] follow to keep the house weather tight and have a punitive fine to the Builder if they're not following the process [54:48] instead of an escrow um you know a line of credit option I [54:54] think is is not unreasonable as well but it feels like if there was a permitting process to do a demolition and repair [55:01] and certain requirements for a portion of the facade and I'm thinking of a particular house in the neighborhood not [55:06] the one on Arden as uh someone mentioned earlier uh that might solve the problem [55:11] without requiring a bunch of extra funds um you know in terms of a tree I don't [55:17] know the right answer I sort of defer there I mean it's we've got old trees that keep coming down every time there's a big storm so um you know but in terms [55:26] of the Windows just to say our house remained weathertight throughout the whole process they did each storm you [55:32] know one at a time um first and I now have wood new windows that have three [55:38] panes uh they're not steel they're not anything else they look you know like they should have 100 years ago because [55:44] my house was built in 1925 so hopefully that's helpful context for everybody thank you very much [55:51] appreciate it anyone else who is here in person I'd like to come forward [56:03] oh good evening my name is Cheryl doulas my husband and I have resided at 4609 [56:09] Bruce Avenue for the past 26 years we have given input to previous versions of [56:14] the ordinance and plan of treatment and we have also appeared before the Heritage preservation commission to [56:20] request a COA for an exterior renovation over the years we have witnessed [56:25] historic resources that have been become subject to demolition by neglect homes [56:31] that have had delays in renovation projects leaving unsightly construction sites for prolonged periods and Builders [56:38] who have had to be pushed to complete exterior detailing as specified in their [56:43] plans I would like to express my strong and full support for the proposed [56:48] ordinance Amendment and the revised plan of treatment I feel that the proposed changes are [56:55] reasonable fair and workable for residents and Builders alike I am [57:00] grateful to the members of The Heritage preservation commission for their Au thoral and thoughtful work in [57:06] strengthening and clarifying the guidelines as well as proposing protective enforcement measures thank [57:14] you thank you very much anyone else who is here in [57:20] person well all of you are but that would like to come forward and speak all right SE none we'll open it to [57:27] those that might be in a virtual waiting room do we have anyone no we don't it's been well over a minute uh which is [57:34] maybe the delay in this broadcast so I think we're good to proceed with closing the public hearing and I'd welcome a [57:41] motion to do so move to close the public hearing second all those in favor say I [57:46] I so move the public hearing is closed uh before we open it up to deliberation there's some good comments here uh one [57:53] of which was maybe a different way of you know making sure facilities stay [58:00] watertight did something like that come up as a potential point a discussion of [58:05] fining and maybe the effectiveness of that or lack [58:12] thereof um we worked with the city attorney and so I guess we'd have to confirm with him um on what legally [58:19] could be done based on the concern I guess at the time so when a fee when a a [58:26] fee or a fine could be enforced or not so we worked closely with our building or excuse me our City attorney [58:32] on um kind of the escro fee but not necessarily there was some concerns with [58:39] fines I think at that point in time because I I guess at some point [58:45] someone with the city has to determine whether a certain threshold is crossed regardless to then use said escrow [58:52] Monies to then you know step in and protect the structure so I mean [58:58] someone's having to make that judgment call right at some point so you think if [59:03] they're making that judgment call you could easily do the same to impose a fine and I mean is part of that fine a [59:10] timebase thing and is that judgment call A Time base thing like hey we're going to put this on if they don't get it [59:17] covered in a week or two weeks or a month whatever that is ju just curious it it does seem like [59:24] a a decent idea that doesn't you know break the bank [59:31] further you aware anything I'm I'm not I know the City [59:36] attorney has talked about that as being problematic in the past perhaps you [59:42] could have a recommendation that the City attorney weigh on weigh in on that [59:47] that issue and provide some information to the city council granted this is next week on the city council agenda they [59:54] won't take action but perhaps by the time they take action we could um have [1:00:01] some more information in regard to the ability to issue [1:00:06] fines because just getting back to the the why the purpose of you know those [1:00:12] different values it is really to kind of preserve the historic structure and function and at some point someone is [1:00:19] making a judgment call with the city on whether to do something about it so I [1:00:25] think it be good just for all all of us in the council to kind of understand that specific process and how it would [1:00:31] play out if escrow monies were use or a fine and then what would be the appropriate vehicle Andor could have you [1:00:39] know letter of credit line of credit type of thing work as well like it has for the tree [1:00:48] ordinance yeah like go change for it yeah are we time at a fine against the [1:00:55] homeowner or a fine against the contractor against the Builder so whoever well whoever would Ser whoever [1:01:01] pulled the permit would be the general contractor the one performing the [1:01:08] work and then could it be a two-step fine of like you're find and then the [1:01:13] city will step in you know I me or is there an issue with [1:01:18] neglect of you know the fines end up not doing aren't effective and then it'll [1:01:23] sit for 6 months with no protection anyway so I think that's maybe some of the context we' we'd like [1:01:30] to see or I certainly would I think part of that escro document is um a lot of it [1:01:36] I would don't want to say people do it intentionally but a lot of it's not necessarily intentional I guess in my [1:01:42] point of view but that escro document one of the things that the Heritage preservation commission and staff wanted [1:01:48] to note is that both the whoever pulls the permit and whoever owns the property [1:01:53] has to sign off on that so both parties are aware of what those requirements are and kind of can help keep each other in [1:01:59] check essentially so if there are changes that are made or if there you know property does switch hands or something like that there is knowledge [1:02:05] from both parties what the expectation [1:02:11] is any maybe further questions or comments based off uh the [1:02:18] testimonies yeah commissioner Smith yeah just a quick question or or a [1:02:24] thought um um if the developer has to pay the escro versus the resident I'm [1:02:30] not sure what the right answer is but I would guess that the developer may be part of a larger organization that have [1:02:36] way more financial resources available where that escro amount probably wouldn't be that significant to them [1:02:43] whereas if it's the resident uh it's more of a financial burden on their side [1:02:49] so they might have a stronger incentive to drive the developer to you know build [1:02:54] the homes according to the plans and so I'm just wondering if Shifting the [1:03:01] escrow to the developer if that's going to even have a meaningful [1:03:06] impact see some hands over there yeah what you got both you [1:03:14] guys you know I I worry that you we talk about [1:03:19] affordable housing and I know Country Club is of a thing but whenever the [1:03:25] developer pays for um an additional fee they tack on a [1:03:31] 30 35% sear charge onto the homeowners and so all these projects end up costing [1:03:38] more um and over the past 10 years it's been [1:03:44] quite the increase so I don't know I'm I'm [1:03:49] assuming um you know between the Vel oper and the [1:03:56] homeowner they they would decide how to do this but I'm I keep feeling that there's another way to do it I like the [1:04:01] letter of credit or I like a line of credit or um you know some other way of [1:04:07] doing [1:04:14] this m Hanan I mean I um we've used the word [1:04:20] developer a couple of times this is really going to be a con I mean these are all existing properties [1:04:26] it's very unlikely we're going to have you know multifam somewhere in the middle of Country Club and we're [1:04:32] certainly not building any commercial things inside of Country Club so this is a a roofer a stucco guy a uh exterior [1:04:41] painters shingles Windows those sorts of things and well yes there are you know [1:04:47] Anderson Windows you know whatever bigger company you have a lot of Fly by Night roofers uh uh car guys who could [1:04:56] leave a whole um building exposed and they disappear the next day so I mean I [1:05:03] think it's actually interesting as a concept to have some have them have some skin in doing [1:05:10] the job both to the to the resident and getting paid there but also performing [1:05:15] with the city because they don't care if their homeowner doesn't get their permit ultimately I mean like that's that's not [1:05:21] their prerogative they're trying to do their job and then get out of town and do the next job so I think it's an [1:05:28] interesting [1:05:40] idea we're we're mostly in discussion period but you know the testimony certainly raised some questions at least [1:05:47] in my mind about like process especially like using the escrow money so let's say [1:05:53] that we enact this and then the Project's 150 Grand and 15,000 goes into [1:05:59] that um like what is the limit on using those monies and kind of the refund of that or [1:06:06] the absence of it I mean are they going to use What It Takes and document that as a [1:06:12] cost subtract that out of there you know follow it exactly um and then in that [1:06:17] way like yeah could could there be a fine where it's like you break this it's [1:06:23] this amount and then be warned you're going to be charged how much this is going to cost you for us to do I'm just [1:06:29] trying to think of a more effective way that doesn't further burden the the [1:06:34] person doing the project but just in general I'm in support of this but I [1:06:40] think it'd be better for the council to kind of understand some of that process just because we we learn that later with [1:06:48] the tree ordinance any other yeah commissioner [1:06:54] Smith yeah just to think about the alternative if for example they do get a [1:07:00] certificate of uh COA essentially and they go through and they completely do [1:07:06] something different than what's on the plans right they there was a dormer they took it out and they put a something [1:07:12] else and now the building inspector is going to come back and then try to [1:07:17] review Everything At what point or what is the action that the city will take if the [1:07:23] developer did not follow plans did would it just not get a certificate and what [1:07:31] happens next so at that point if the permit or [1:07:36] if the project is done and they're requir or they're requesting a final to go out with the building department [1:07:41] planning staff would also go out and take a look at the project so if it's found that the plans don't match what [1:07:47] was approved they either would have to make the project match the approved [1:07:52] plans to get their escrow fee and their permit closed out or they would have to go back to the certificate to the Heritage preservation commission to get [1:07:58] a COA amendment to get whatever changes they made approved by the HPC before the [1:08:03] permit could be finaled out so the worst case scenario is that they just lose their [1:08:09] escrow if they never get an amended COA that matches what was built or if they [1:08:16] don't match what was originally built then yes their permit would not be closed [1:08:22] out and they wouldn't get the escro Fe back at that point but they will get a housing permit [1:08:28] they can live there so for these projects they're largely not new homes [1:08:34] in the country club District so they don't get um new occupancy certificates and so the [1:08:42] incentive is to really close out their building permits and to get this the escro is really used as an incentive to [1:08:48] close out their building permits because there isn't new um occupancy certificates that are given out to [1:08:54] projects that are not new homes gotcha [1:09:00] so I don't know I'm kind of delaying on this but I'm just thinking if I were to [1:09:05] game the system and I could pay $155,000 to do something unique to my home and I [1:09:11] just lose that then I would just do that right um [1:09:17] if the push back is just to retain the escrow amount but I could still go about [1:09:22] my business is that enough of an incentive to really preserve these neighborhoods and preserve these homes [1:09:28] that's the question I have it's more of an incentive than there is now I [1:09:40] think and the city will step in at some point to try to require you know [1:09:45] conformance I mean just like the patio thing discussed in the last meeting you got to remove that that you [1:09:52] weren't supposed to do and I'm sure there's some sort of further incentive of finding [1:10:01] and anyways instead of maybe getting lost in the Nuance which we could [1:10:08] forever any further discussion on kind of the general Spirit of this and then [1:10:13] yeah commissioner elare um uh first I want to complement the [1:10:20] work uh it's a it's a complex subject and the materials I thought were really [1:10:25] really well organized and presented very well written I I generally support the [1:10:31] recommendations uh I have to say I've lived in a d for 20 years and I always [1:10:36] thought the country club was just about preserving old architecture so I learned in the materials that it's more [1:10:44] than that and that it's uh because Country Club is a model of Planning and [1:10:49] Zoning I didn't know that I just want to read briefly from the material so the [1:10:54] district was listed on the national register historic places National register of historic places and [1:11:00] designated as an Adina Heritage Resource District because of its significance in community planning zoning and Suburban [1:11:07] residential development then it goes on to talk about architecture uh and Samuel [1:11:14] Thorp is cast as kind of rather heroic [1:11:20] Visionary uh tightly controlling all aspects of the development [1:11:26] and you know if if it were just that first statement that it's a a Heritage [1:11:32] Resource District because it's of its significance in community planning I could probably be okay with that because [1:11:38] that's that's a neutral statement not saying it's good or bad it's just saying it's significant but then what I reacted to [1:11:46] after that was I mean I didn't count the words but it was looked like about 200 words to me of all this information [1:11:52] about why it was so great uh without any [1:11:58] mention of the ugly Parts the ugly [1:12:05] bits and so I so as I said I support the recommendations but not the way it's presented and I have a motion that we [1:12:13] can get to later if the if the commission's interested in it to ask for [1:12:20] a slightly more expansive view of what happened in [1:12:25] the 20s here that's it thank you any other I mean comments [1:12:33] discussion points yeah commissioner day um so for me the you know in [1:12:39] addition to what commissioner Aly just said um I think the other change here would is needed [1:12:44] around the escrow piece um as written I don't I can support it I [1:12:51] I think there has to be at least a letter of credit option added to this um I know when we talk [1:12:57] about $155,000 is a percentage of a large cost $115,000 is still $115,000 [1:13:03] it's a lot of money to a lot of people um so you know even if you're able to [1:13:09] front $100,000 which most people can't um but you're going to have to go and get credit Al loan from your bank [1:13:16] another $115,000 on top of that is again a significant amount of money to a lot of people um so I'd say at least a [1:13:23] letter of credit I do like the discussion around potentially finding the contractor I mean if you're sitting [1:13:29] on an escrow piece um contractors there's some good ones out there and there's some bad ones out there and you [1:13:34] say well it's the skin in the game to get the project closed out ear early or fast I guess quickly um sometimes people [1:13:42] reach out to contractors and they just don't respond and projects take long longer than people think um and there's [1:13:49] a Time Value associated with money and to be have your money you know held still in escrow if you have an [1:13:54] unresponsible contractor um you know isn't to the benefit of anybody so I think we need to [1:14:01] at least have more discussion on this piece I'd like to at least see it you know I would favor a motion to add at [1:14:08] least the letter of credit as an option here um but you know I think we could discuss more of the finding piece um and [1:14:14] or even and then additionally another thought here too is that it would be it could add language and about it being [1:14:22] um the $155,000 in es only if the project requires a CO COA right rather [1:14:29] than anything over $100,000 just in [1:14:34] general thank you and commissioner Fel I think we just recommend that the [1:14:41] city and the HRA kind of take a look at that escro piece I don't think it's up to the Planning Commission to figure [1:14:47] that part out just raise the fact that it is of concern in our motion I mean ultimately [1:14:54] our motion is a recommendation so even though it might I mean it is in [1:14:59] our purview cuz we're making a decision on it so I mean if there's broad support [1:15:05] in saying yeah we strongly consider that as an option too I think we we should [1:15:10] probably get it into a motion if if we feel like it's going that [1:15:16] way but I also think there's no maximum you know every time this $3,000 or [1:15:22] $15,000 is depleted it is is reup and there's I think there's I don't think [1:15:30] we're going to solve the I yeah and I I guess just like the [1:15:36] history of our recommendations like we might not get it exactly right but in this small amount [1:15:41] of meantime it gives the attorney and the city council much more direct Focus [1:15:47] so like if we don't incorporate it as part of the recommendation then we we can say things like um [1:15:55] let's look at the ESC piece and look if they willing to take letter of credit or [1:16:00] some other um line of credit or credit card [1:16:06] and also um consider the ramifications of [1:16:11] continually reup I mean I think we can make a motion about having them look at these pieces without saying exactly how [1:16:18] it should be solved yeah I mean that's usually what we [1:16:23] do all right right uh anyone else commissioner [1:16:33] Pia um I am interested to hear uh commissioner aly's uh motion and I would [1:16:39] and depending upon what it is maybe incorporate that with um some of the things that uh commissioner day said I [1:16:45] don't think it's our job to um police contractors um so I don't think we shift [1:16:52] that responsibility um to contractors but I I [1:16:59] um I mixed feelings about um the amount of the the amount of money and but I [1:17:05] would like to hear uh some combination of or a motion alog together that um we [1:17:12] can move forward so if we can we hear commissioner Aly well maybe first [1:17:17] commissioner Miranda Smith did you have any yeah okay both of you yeah so I'd like to uh address commissioner hanaman [1:17:24] commissioner hanan's um point about we're not building you know affordable housing or or or businesses here um it's [1:17:32] interesting to review the history of of this neighborhood because um well [1:17:37] commissioner well actually three Commissioners live in morning side which is uh just across 44th Street and [1:17:44] morning side uh was built first because it wasn't planned the way that this was [1:17:50] but it was built first it was developed first because of the street car 44th Street so it was closest to Minneapolis [1:17:57] and so we have our our little our little houses well they were little anymore our [1:18:03] little houses on our little streets um and we have our little uh business [1:18:08] district at 44th in France which is a whole small area plan and so then while [1:18:15] the street car was still in existence there was um a country club was [1:18:20] developed and it was developed as a planned community and um um if you look on a map there aren't a lot of north [1:18:27] south through through streets kind of like morning side doesn't really have them either um but the ones that are through streets are ones where the where [1:18:34] there were Transit stops so well they didn't call them trans street car stops and so uh brale Woodale Grimes were were [1:18:42] where the transit stops were um and then if you look on the south side of it [1:18:48] um currently um where Wooddale Park is that was a school at one point um and it [1:18:55] was a two-story school and then it was added on to after a while it says according to ad din's um our town or [1:19:02] whatever that's called about town thank you um in 1936 it was built in 1925 and [1:19:09] it added on to in 1936 and it was two stories you know a fairly massive building it was a school and actually [1:19:15] also in Morningside at 42nd and and Grimes there was a a much bigger School than what's there today so so a small [1:19:22] business district there or an affordable housing um unit there that was built in the [1:19:28] style and and the school was built in the style of of you know that fit the neighborhood or whatever so I don't [1:19:34] think it's completely Preposterous to say I mean nobody's saying we're building a 10-story tower here or anything or or building anything in the [1:19:39] middle of the neighborhood certainly but you know certainly along 50th Street where the city has just expanded into [1:19:46] five Lanes here um 50th Street and are planning a huge intersection with uh H [1:19:54] 100 which is just insane um and the 46 [1:19:59] bus currently goes along there so that's currently Transit so for all these reasons I don't think it's at all [1:20:05] unreasonable to have affordable housing on current city property so anyway I [1:20:11] don't think um well I think my comment was justified so um [1:20:17] the you know the the strictness I mean like I [1:20:23] said our job is to deal with land use and the strictness of the regulations [1:20:29] where it's talking so much about height and and stories I think doesn't conflicts with what our mission is so [1:20:36] I'd have I'd have issues with that even though it's not changing IID have issues with [1:20:43] that Mr Smith you got some yeah uh I'm still trying to [1:20:49] formulate my my thoughts so I hope I don't sound too rambly but I think um um [1:20:55] earlier it was mentioned that um you know when we think about racial covenants in particular this particular [1:21:02] area um I think since I think [1:21:08] 2021 uh there's like 52 Deeds I believe that were where the racial covenants [1:21:15] were removed and and this is like in the entire city of Idina but we know it's [1:21:21] concentrated in this particular region um um of 2,800 Deeds that have those [1:21:28] racial covenants in it right and so that's like 2% of the homes that have [1:21:35] that now we do know right that those aren't really enforceable right so we [1:21:41] understand that um but you know when we think about this city and what we try to [1:21:48] do not just you know look at land use but all these commissions work together [1:21:53] to try to align on the idea that we want Ed to be a welcoming City we want it to [1:22:01] be an affordable City and a very livable city so we have all these commissions working in concert to attack that [1:22:08] objective in different ways and so when I look at the idea right of [1:22:15] someone uh moving into this neighborhood and you know purchasing a [1:22:20] home then realizing that you know there's some history here that would prevent me from living here right that [1:22:26] doesn't make you feel comfortable in your home right that kind of goes against the welcoming aspect of what we're trying to [1:22:32] achieve and so even so right the city council back in June I think you know [1:22:38] had a resolution that that that worked with just deeds and a couple different [1:22:44] uh organizations to really remove those racial covenants from the deeds and the cost for doing that is [1:22:51] almost zero right you could just go online apply do it someone might come out to your home work with you and it's [1:22:59] a done deal at the most it might be 50 bucks or so and so my question is you [1:23:05] know we have this very unique opportunity that we could essentially in alignment with all [1:23:11] the other commissions have this opportunity to make an impact or to create some kind of [1:23:16] incentive for folks in this area to take an action to remove some of these racial [1:23:22] Covenants um we do know that these homes were built within a certain time period where [1:23:30] there there there will need some kind of upkeep in next couple years which would then trigger a COA because it's a [1:23:36] Heritage location so my recommendation or at least one idea that I'm thinking about [1:23:41] is how can we include a requirement that as part of the COA process if your home [1:23:48] has a racial Covenant aligned with it that as part of the approval process you [1:23:54] you get it removed and it's free and so that might be a way [1:24:00] to get that from 2% to a much higher percent because we do know that within [1:24:06] the next 5 to 10 years these homes will have some kind of a need to do some kind [1:24:11] of upkeep so we have this opportunity now so I'm just thinking that as we think about making Ed a more welcoming [1:24:18] livable and affordable City that we all work in alignment and we support these ideas and this might be a venue so you [1:24:26] were talking today Jan about what's the argument right so I'm trying to make that argument that maybe this is is a [1:24:33] unique opportunity for us to to take advantage of that [1:24:39] too thank you I guess uh commissioner elare you [1:24:45] got some thoughts to maybe speak to that in some way well I have a motion [1:24:51] that just covers that particular subject so a condition on this particular subject approval with [1:24:57] a condition so if there's other things that people may want to add about the [1:25:02] escrow or letters of credit or what have you we can add that on to this this is not both of those things it's just the [1:25:08] one I wrote down thank you so what I would propose is a motion to [1:25:14] approve provided that the history and or the understand the country club District [1:25:20] sections of the plan of treatment are amended to include acknowledgement of the use of racially restrictive [1:25:26] covenants During the period of [1:25:34] significance short and sweet is there a second or does anyone [1:25:39] have any thoughts [1:25:46] discussion it be that particular motion then second that particular [1:25:53] motion then I guess now would be time to like discuss and if I mean if there's [1:25:59] proposed additions or modifications conditions is this where we would say [1:26:05] and we would encourage the city staff to work with the lawyer to look at the [1:26:11] issue of the escrow no well I I think this is information [1:26:21] only this is more [1:26:29] for me it's more about awareness of the issue and letting people I think having [1:26:37] the motion in there to include it especially because it that came to light [1:26:43] with me when the background was how great the neighborhood was and and all [1:26:50] of these um strict guidelines for beautiful area that came to mind too [1:26:58] like there was an ugly side to that too so when I heard your motion I heard you [1:27:03] saying like add that history piece in there we're not going to make um 550 [1:27:11] homes kind of do this in the next five days or weeks or years this is just [1:27:17] making and and these are 555 homes of 2800 properties that have the um racial [1:27:26] restrictions in their covenants in the city of Adina so I so I think for me it is it is [1:27:35] just the wording in there we're not going to make anybody do anything that's exactly right well the motion says is to [1:27:42] amend a document okay just adding adding words and I was saying I support the [1:27:50] amendment adding those words and then a notation that the staff should review with the [1:27:57] lawyer the particulars of the escrow no no [1:28:06] okay that that would be a new condition which is which is anybody can make yeah [1:28:12] well the city has on their okay I'm going to pull it up [1:28:18] um at dinam minnesota.gov um renouncing I mean recall this is this [1:28:25] is a recommendation so conditions aren't like they don't have to be binding [1:28:31] conditions if they are more in terms of a recommendation we've done this a number of times so adding in a condition [1:28:40] that the city looks into other options or vehicles for esro yeah but the city [1:28:46] has the actions to take on your own mapping Prejudice tool assistance from [1:28:51] the just Deeds project so the city has already done that so I don't think we have to reiterate I don't think they [1:28:58] have though talk about just the escro he wants to add a line to the ordinance is [1:29:03] his recommendation is we modify the ordinance by adding [1:29:14] a escro is being handled under their proposal the escro piece on just the [1:29:22] escro piece oh because I okay I was wondering about just recommending additional ways to [1:29:28] meet the escrow or limit the escrow yes that I mean that's much more suin than I said it okay yes we're all vly agreeing [1:29:36] when you talk I don't know what I agree with is that in regard to examining the [1:29:41] possibility of the letter of credit yeah so you could add that as a condition um [1:29:46] yeah or potential fines consider the no no I just we're vly agreeing [1:29:54] yeah consider the letter of credit option um and and have the attorney [1:30:00] weigh on the issue of issuing fines then maybe speaking to what [1:30:07] commissioner Smith mentioned maybe just introducing that verbiage into this like it I don't know [1:30:15] if it then would read as like an objective positive thing that those were a part of this also like I I think there [1:30:22] could be some discussion around like incentivizing you know removal of these covenants that exist if that's not the [1:30:30] right place for this it's at least a good stance for us to take because just adding in that language I I don't know [1:30:36] how it will get added in but does that say like oh this is a good thing [1:30:42] including your sentence that you wanted to add like I didn't necessarily read [1:30:48] neutral perhaps I just want to make sure it's certain that we're acknowledging a [1:30:54] bad history you want to read that again [1:31:02] sure um okay uh provided that the history and the understand the country [1:31:08] club District sections of the plan of treatment are amended to include [1:31:14] acknowledgment of the use of racially restrictive covenants During the period [1:31:19] of significance [1:31:28] I don't know how that could be a yeah neutral acknowledgement just I don't think [1:31:34] that's yeah I don't think that's possible and I'll I'll leave it up to the the the folks responsible for the [1:31:41] document to figure out the right way to do that there's talented writing obviously in that group [1:31:48] so M Smith I thoughts yeah you know uh [1:31:53] again I'm just thinking that if we want to follow suit with the city council's [1:31:59] recommendation to remove racial covenants from the city would we want to also have a requirement on a COA [1:32:06] approval the removal of a racial Covenant from AED how do you guys feel about [1:32:11] that and if no why not like just I think it's a great idea I'd like to take that [1:32:17] offline as sort of a broader topic anytime there's a sale I mean houses are [1:32:22] selling all the time time that maybe there's a way to say to incentivize anybody going through a sale anywhere in [1:32:30] the city where those covenants are to make sure that those are removed not just in the historic [1:32:36] districts so I I would I I think that's a great issue a great point I just am [1:32:41] not sure I would handle it just in this particular matter I'd make it [1:32:47] broader you think it's a city-wide issue yeah yeah I think it's Citywide issue i' never I'd never thought about that [1:32:53] before before so I really appreciate you bringing it certainly Country Club is [1:32:58] a specific design neighborhood with those all included but it's not the only [1:33:04] place in the city so I think set it aside and come back to it as a strategy [1:33:10] for all homes or businesses any land that has those covenants written into it [1:33:15] there probably some legal analysis that probably would need to go into that too um I think everybody here would support [1:33:20] achieving that outcome you know whether you can require someone to to take [1:33:26] unforce sorry language it's already unenforceable and unlawful out of a deed I don't know the answer um but it does [1:33:32] feel like part of a you know if you're going to do it do it right have it vetted um make a solution that's going [1:33:40] to work legally that can be applied everywhere so I just think it probably requires a little I don't actually know [1:33:45] the answer I'm a lawyer don't the answer um on whether it can be compelled or needs to be incentivized but I'm kind of [1:33:52] curious to know what it would be so maybe it does require some additional study and then teeing it up in a cleaner [1:33:58] way for everybody to kind of vote on but totally supportive of getting that out outcome [1:34:04] quiny I mean we could maybe you know reach out to the human rights and relations commission right and say you [1:34:10] know this is something we discuss tonight and it could be a larger broader topic for that commission to to look into as [1:34:18] well and I think the goal of this was just in the the commission advisory [1:34:25] communication to Planning Commission and Council um especially that background there and [1:34:32] there were several places in all of our documents where they talked about the background but especially this one where [1:34:37] you're talking about the majority of homes were built from 1924 to 1944 the [1:34:43] district's period of significance you know and then all of [1:34:49] the wonderful restrictions that made this such a unique property without [1:34:54] in that advisory commission just adding a line which I think you [1:35:01] did about some of the additional history that happened because of those [1:35:07] restrictions that's all that's all I want to see in the advisory Commission in the in the commission advisory [1:35:13] communication to the city council [1:35:23] just one comment this these covenants were elsewhere but yes to be fair the [1:35:29] country club neighborhood is the prime example in the city that has been [1:35:36] used and shared so I mean like it is fitting to try to do something specific to that neighborhood to rectify it but [1:35:43] this might not be the place for it it sounds I mean how do you feel about that not compelled somewhat compelled if we [1:35:50] keep it going elsewhere yeah you know um it's just really to get the commission's uh you [1:35:57] know just thoughts on it uh um definitely not a lawyer but uh it's a [1:36:02] good thought from uh commissioner Bornstein which is um something that's [1:36:08] not legally enforcable what's the difference between an incentive versus compelling someone to do something right and for something [1:36:15] like this I don't know where that falls or how that's treat it exactly I just kind of saw it as an incentive mechanism [1:36:21] to include it here uh but if it's not uh you can't bind [1:36:27] someone to do that is that the right place for [1:36:33] it I'm just getting more interested in the subject that we're talking about I was looking at my phone at at the [1:36:39] section of City's website about it I just feel like somebody's thought about this and and they probably know the [1:36:44] answer and I don't but totally support of whatever means [1:36:49] possible to get get rid of them so great [1:36:55] idea I'd be in suppor of either so where's everyone kind of feeling [1:37:02] right now with just the condition on looking at other escrow [1:37:13] options so my thought is we use commissioner [1:37:18] aly's um proposal um motion with um um the instruction about the escrow and [1:37:27] that we talk about removing covenants as part of our work plan later on this [1:37:36] evening since you made the motion do you welcome those conditions [1:37:42] added yes so since those changed we have a new [1:37:48] second we wording the condition on the escop PES Carrie have you written anything [1:37:56] down recorder that we look at other options including a letter of credit in [1:38:03] regard to the escro fees unless you have something more [1:38:08] specific in mind potentially the fine fing yeah and the fine piece of [1:38:17] it I just say it really it just comes out to a recommendation to add it alternative to [1:38:24] cash escrow right you support a new second support [1:38:32] the new second any other discussion yes just a [1:38:39] little um yeah I guess I'm trying to figure out I guess I was confused by the [1:38:46] examples of architectural Styles oh it is a draft so it is going to be part of this I'm just trying to figure [1:38:52] out and I'm looking also at the Country Club plan of treatment you know and it [1:38:58] talks about new home construction um and it says things like [1:39:07] um see that something about will we build only on existing [1:39:13] lots that mean we can't split Lots is this is this something over and above the ability to split Lots through a [1:39:19] normal process or trying to figure out where I saw that [1:39:25] I mean as as it relates to lus it's all R1 right but I mean There Are Places [1:39:31] subdivision yeah a few you know some lots are bigger than others [1:39:39] um it seems like it's it's beyond I mean we already have Zoning for things like [1:39:44] that right and it seems like it's going beyond what our zoning has that's the [1:39:50] problem I had with the size you know the building height or the number of floors and everything we already have Zoning [1:39:55] for that so I don't think we should make it any more restrictive so I would like to add an addition saying you know the [1:40:02] city council should consider removing anything that is already discussed in [1:40:07] existing zoning you know for height and lot and isn't there exception given to [1:40:15] this neighborhood for like levels right you can have three technically [1:40:22] or the the same R1 standards apply to Country Club as apply to morning side or [1:40:29] any other R1 property in town so I think you saw it on page uh 37 [1:40:38] of our packet on under the paragraph new home construction right I saw it somewhere there oh the first sentence [1:40:44] very first sentence new home construction will be limited to existing residential lots and their design will [1:40:49] be compatible with the original 1924 to 44 Country Club District deed [1:40:54] restrictions relating to architecture that what's in [1:40:59] the examples of AR no that must not be that do we have a copy of [1:41:06] that the deed restrictions the original deed [1:41:12] restrictions you know I mean because of you know in terms of uh commissioner Aly [1:41:18] talking about you know also having deed restrictions for you know who can live [1:41:24] there and what their nationality or race or ethnicity could be or religion even [1:41:29] um you know this is this is getting more [1:41:35] notable for not being just good things and you you know you kind of mention that so [1:41:41] um I think it's worth reviewing that I mean that's not necessarily our job but [1:41:47] I think we should recommend to the city council that this you know [1:41:53] that this was designed to be you know something that never changes [1:42:00] and I guess I I I don't think that's a good thing for a city that would be my recommendation you [1:42:07] can take it or leave it so you're saying the recommendation to preserve the historic [1:42:15] architecture is freezing in time something in a in a [1:42:20] negative way just beyond the physical appearance of the buildings no my point is that you can have architecture a [1:42:27] style of architecture can be a house it could be you know a one-story house it [1:42:32] could be a five-story mansion it could be a main street with a a series of [1:42:38] small businesses on the first floor and apartments on the second floor you can have all those different types of buildings in the same architectural [1:42:46] style so are we trying to preserve the architectural style or are we trying to preserve the actual [1:42:54] houses that's my concern it is on the national um plac [1:43:01] his yeah registry so I think that it is ship [1:43:09] sailed okay well I'm not an expert on that I don't know what that specifies if it style or the actual houses or what so [1:43:17] and a lot I mean you you know no more buildable Lots I don't know it just seems they want to save the existing [1:43:23] houses the existing houses of significance as much as possible and that's the vast majority of [1:43:31] them that's what the all right but we've approved expansions to those houses and whatnot so okay yeah because okay I just [1:43:40] find it very odd okay see what you're saying [1:43:46] um is there General support for that or maybe no I'm seeing not [1:43:53] no uh so not incorporating that as a [1:43:59] condition just to confirm okay so we we stand with the [1:44:04] second any further discussion uh let's just go for a vote [1:44:10] all those in what yeah Carrie can you yeah read it [1:44:18] remind us all of what we're doing here [1:44:23] we would be adding the condition as read by commissioner Aly we'll go back and view the tape and get that exact [1:44:31] wording it would be the um recommendation to consider a letter [1:44:39] of credit as an option to the to the escrow we also have the City [1:44:46] attorney weigh in on the possibility of a fine uh system [1:44:54] uh I think that's it those [1:45:00] three all right so we have a motion a second all in favor say I hi opposed [1:45:08] n motion carries 8 to one thank you for all your hard [1:45:17] work thank you all right so we have two public [1:45:22] hearings that was the first one as we expected it's it's a complicated subject [1:45:27] right we want to preserve what's great in Ed enhance uh what could be better and there is certainly an elephant in [1:45:34] the room when it comes to the history of the country club neighborhood so I'm glad that was discuss and [1:45:40] Incorporated I think it it was important to acknowledge and to do that going forward so next we have the preliminary [1:45:47] plat with variances for 5120 and 5124 Hankerson Avenue same process as [1:45:53] discussed before staff will present we'll discuss applicant may present [1:46:00] we'll discuss then we open at the public hearing after which we close we will [1:46:05] deliberate and provide a recommendation for approval or denial so take it away carry thank you okay thank you uh chair [1:46:12] and members of the commission this is a site you're familiar with just a few months ago we had a proposal to build [1:46:18] two uh duplexes on this property so located on Hankerson Avenue uh adjacent [1:46:26] to the Grand View District here's a look at the existing single family homes that [1:46:32] are located on the site uh to the South is the uh the [1:46:39] Hankerson uh Town Home Development so this site is guided R1 [1:46:45] single dwelling unit district the property to the south at Town Home Development is a PUD it's [1:46:53] guided for uh low density residential essentially our single dwelling unit [1:46:59] district in the comprehensive plan and Zoning District so here's a look at the existing site note that um this these [1:47:08] two properties along with the property to the north they're a little bit oversized compared to the neighborhood [1:47:15] they're 75 ft in width this area was originally platted in 1913 [1:47:23] and all of the Lots within that plat are 50 feet wide so you can see the sites [1:47:29] that we're looking at were lots six seven and eight and again 50 foot wide [1:47:35] Lots however as this area developed over time and this isn't unlike a lot of the [1:47:42] uh plats on the east side of town they were originally platted Country Club district is a good example uh most of [1:47:49] that originally platted as 50 foot wide Lots but as the sites were built on [1:47:55] people wanted to build on a little bit larger lot 75 foot wide lot or 100 foot [1:48:00] wide lot and they simply combined their properties it's just a simple form that's filled out um with henpen County [1:48:08] to make the the properties larger reestablishing them is much more [1:48:14] difficult and need to go through this subdivision process so the lots that we're looking at again um they were [1:48:22] increased in size before they were built on in the 1950s again originally platted [1:48:28] in 1913 so you can see the property to the north is also a little bit larger in the [1:48:35] William and Bedford block there's a couple of lots here that are slightly [1:48:40] larger again 75 feet wide um in 1970 is when the minimum lot size was [1:48:48] established to uh minimum lot size becoming 9 ,000 Square ft and 75 ft is [1:48:55] the um required lot width we also built in I believe at that time the median [1:49:02] average so if you were in a neighborhood that had lots that are larger than 9,000 square foot square feet the the median [1:49:10] of all property within 500 feet of that site determines the minimum lot area [1:49:16] width and depth so it's a kind of a complicated formula that needs to be uh run and that was largely uh development [1:49:24] in Western udina so again the proposal is essentially to reestablish that original [1:49:31] plat with 50 foot wide Lots access would be taken off of the [1:49:37] alley to the West similar as the existing homes take access as [1:49:43] well just a quick look at the three lot plat that's proposed so this graphic indicates the [1:49:51] required minimum lot area width and depth the applicant did run medians and this is [1:49:59] the median that's come out within this neighborhood um all the R1 properties [1:50:04] within 500 ft and all three of the Lots meet those medians but they don't meet [1:50:11] our minimum lot size so they U the request is a subdivision to establish [1:50:17] reestablish the old plat but it does require lot width variances from 7 ft to [1:50:23] 50 ft lot depth from 135 ft to 130 and [1:50:28] then the lot area variances for all three lots so looking at our pyramid of [1:50:34] discretion we're in the middle here city does have discretion we just need to [1:50:39] establish findings for either approval or denial a lot of the projects we look [1:50:45] at are in that green zone with rezonings um where the city has complete [1:50:50] discretion but you do have discretion to approve or deny here this is a graphic that we've used [1:50:58] over the years it's kind of a building a um a list of all of the similar type [1:51:05] proposals that have happened in the last 20 years or so this is essentially [1:51:11] reestablishing those 50 foot wide um Lots as originally platted so the city [1:51:17] has a history of approving some and denying some in in the most of the [1:51:23] instances where we've approved the reestablishment of the 50 Foot um wide [1:51:30] Lots it's the last one on the Block the vast majority um are 50 foot wide Lots [1:51:37] surrounding it in instances where the city has denied those requests those [1:51:42] requests there's a mixture of large Lots within the [1:51:48] block so this has come up from time to time when we've reved viewed these types of of um subdivisions with Varian as lot [1:51:59] coverage and we often think about if we don't approve the subdivision we're going to get two large homes built on [1:52:06] those sites um but actually um so just to go through that with the three lots [1:52:14] that are proposed there would be more building coverage and the reason being [1:52:20] is our building coverage requirements are for lots that are larger than 9,000 [1:52:26] square ft the building coverage requirement is 25% on lots that are [1:52:32] smaller it's 30% so with the existing two lots 25% is [1:52:38] the requirement so they could cover um roughly 4,800 square feet if the [1:52:47] subdivision goes through the Lots become smaller than 9,000 squ ft [1:52:53] and roughly 57 5800 Square F feet whatever that 30% number is um so [1:53:00] there's a little bit larger building coverage it's just broken up into three three lots or three houses instead of [1:53:09] two so primary issue for consideration are the findings for the variance met so [1:53:17] in going through the variance criteria staff believes the criteria is met um [1:53:23] the first the variances would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the [1:53:28] ordinance general purpose and intent is to establish minimum lot sizes that are [1:53:34] similar with surrounding properties as I mentioned most of this area was originally platted with 50ft wide lots [1:53:41] and that's the way most of it did develop so we find that it's reasonable to reestablish that original plat um the [1:53:49] variants would be consistent with the comprehensive plan where uh single family homes are allowed here as well as [1:53:56] in the comprehensive plan and then looking at our practical difficulty test U the property owner [1:54:04] proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by zoning ordinance so again we we feel [1:54:10] that it's reasonable um the lots are similar in size to the vast majority of [1:54:17] lots within this neighborhood again the homes were built in the 50s the original [1:54:22] plat from 1913 with 50ft wide lots and these Lots meet the median average for [1:54:28] this neighborhood the circumstances are unique to this property and not created by the landowner it was a previous [1:54:35] property owner that made those lots larger um and we don't believe that the [1:54:40] variants would alter the essential character of the neighborhood again the vast majority of the homes within this [1:54:47] neighborhood are built on 50 foot wide Lots so St did outline options for your [1:54:55] consideration findings for denial if the count if the Planning Commission does not support that are listed um the [1:55:02] subject property are uh the subject properties are conforming to today's standards with two single family homes [1:55:11] um so reasonable use of the property does exist today there are no practical difficulties in complying with the [1:55:17] ordinance um there are larger Lots within this neighborhood again a lot to the north [1:55:24] and there's some to the West that are oversized um the Practical difficulty [1:55:30] it's um the proposal to subdivide is self-created this is what's requested by [1:55:37] the applicant and um the need for the variance is created [1:55:43] only by the applicant's desire to maximize the return on investment and economic considerations can't be uh [1:55:50] taken into consideration so with that again we've outlined the options for consideration but staff is recommending [1:55:57] approval the applicant we have one online that'll make a presentation and [1:56:03] uh uh Chad Don is here to answer any questions as well with that I can stand [1:56:08] for questions thank you for standing Carrie that's nice of you any comments questions to [1:56:15] Carrie yeah commissioner Smith so turn so thank you Carrie [1:56:20] director Teague for uh just through this is the intent then that once we subdivide this into three Parcels that [1:56:29] the developer would then put two homes per parcel uh is that the intent or is just [1:56:35] one home per parcel so there's going to be three homes three single family homes correct cuz I think in the previous days [1:56:43] uh months ago when we looked at this it was there was going to be four homes I believe two on each half parcel right um [1:56:52] um so now they're reducing that down to three instead of four is that that's correct the previous proposal was taking [1:56:59] the existing Lots removing the homes on the site and then building a duplex on [1:57:05] each on each property and that was denied by the city council thank [1:57:14] you Comm day this is more just general knowledge [1:57:19] question I could help but I did the math on the building coverage in impervious [1:57:25] surface based off of what's on the table I got 29.27% for building coverage and I [1:57:32] got 50.1 n% for impervious surface so how do we handle do we round down or [1:57:39] what do we do when we get make that calculation and I've seen to conform to code and I've seen different numbers on [1:57:47] what the lot sizes are so that can factor in right when they come in for build permit there's going to be a new [1:57:54] survey done for that property and they're going to have all of that laid out in detail so that's really the [1:58:01] deciding this is more not exact just general based on on the information we [1:58:07] have like I said I couldn't I just couldn't help it just engineering me was doing the math so I thought I'd ask but [1:58:13] if it yeah I mean if it hits 50 it's unacceptable right so anything above it and any sliver doesn't work [1:58:25] real quick are you able to just paraphrase in one or two sentences if it's possible why the council [1:58:33] denied approval of the project we saw previously was there one reason or was [1:58:39] it just kind of all over the M yeah it was a host of of reasons I think the Pud [1:58:46] they weren't comfortable with doing a PUD on just two two lots even though it was kind of connecting to that property [1:58:53] to the South so that was a concern the comprehensive plan Amendment um so those [1:58:58] are probably two of the main reasons that there some of the reasons we [1:59:05] discuss too as like you know why didn't you go a different route of like doing two r2s instead [1:59:14] of it's not asking for as much there questions for Carrie [1:59:22] see none welcome the applicant remotely and the one in the room if you have a [1:59:28] presentation or any one of you guys I don't know who is [1:59:35] who I believe Mr beny online is going to [1:59:41] present we will [1:59:47] await I'm sorry I keep hitting the mute button trying to get myself connected we hear you now [1:59:52] you do and I will also uh say hi [1:59:57] um there we go oh yeah there you actually are now yes we are uh good [2:00:06] evening Planning Commission chair Bennett uh it's good to see you again um [2:00:12] uh I think you know really what we're looking for here is very simple request [2:00:17] um we're trying to remove a lot of the issues that uh we're discussed last time [2:00:23] and and we're discussed at Council um the big observation here is [2:00:29] that these Lots were originally um exactly what we're asking for in this situation 50 foot Lots uh [2:00:39] meeting the median width exceeding the median depth uh basically they're they're very uh comparable to 78% or [2:00:48] more of the Lots in this neighborhood um we we definitely feel that the [2:00:55] project uh fits into the character of the neighborhood um we're you know we were [2:01:01] disappointed at the previous decision but it is what it is um I think you know keeping in mind here too as far as you [2:01:08] know the increase in density you know it was well we're not handling it the way [2:01:14] that the uh um University of Minnesota [2:01:20] um uh people did in their in their report but [2:01:25] you know we we are up against a commercial District you know we are [2:01:31] immediately adjacent to U the whole Grand View area here you know we are up [2:01:36] against a bank you know even though you saw pictures of the front of the uh uh [2:01:43] the buildings here when you turn around you see the back of Wells Fargo bank so uh I think that's something to keep in [2:01:49] mind is that we are very much uh immediately adjacent to a commercial [2:01:55] District um I think that when you uh [2:02:00] look at you know what we'll be doing here uh we are basically going to be [2:02:06] submitting house plans just like any other lot that we work on in the city of [2:02:12] Edina each of those uh applications address the uh [2:02:19] zoning ordinance uh and the building code um we definitely you know address [2:02:25] the coverage requirements with uh Carrie and staff um we are not asking for any [2:02:32] changes to any of the other elements of the zoning code outside of the [2:02:39] elements that currently make any 50ft lot IL legal non-conforming use in the [2:02:46] city of v um you know it's pretty interesting to see that you know as far back as 19133 [2:02:54] this was the size lots that city of Bina um was looking for and and held and [2:03:02] honestly we've built on a significant number of them over the [2:03:08] last 15 plus years that we've been doing um uh residential Renovations and [2:03:15] uh Redevelopment in the city of Edina you know we're very familiar with it um the products that we uh produce are well [2:03:23] accepted um we do feel that the uh proposal is as Merit uh we noticed that [2:03:31] it's very similar to several other uh projects that were approved matter of [2:03:36] fact one of the ones that was approved back in 2019 the 5841 oaklan project we [2:03:41] actually built on one of those two lots um very successfully uh the home sold uh about [2:03:49] the same time it was finished um you know we we did go through the the [2:03:55] city's uh recommendations and we we truly don't see any issues with the um [2:04:01] Engineers report uh you know and we're very happy with car's staff report I [2:04:08] think it lays it out extremely clearly that you know this is simply um returning these three lots to [2:04:17] their original condition and honestly even now the legal descriptions for [2:04:22] these two homes refer to the original Lots uh they both [2:04:28] are legal description is lot X plus half of lot y uh for each of them and you [2:04:36] know it it never really changed from that I think Carrie alluded to it with [2:04:41] his discussion about lot combinations versus lot subdivisions you know we [2:04:47] honestly feel that this is a very straightforward and and arguably [2:04:54] uh hopefully not a politically uh uh influence decision uh it it really is [2:05:02] basically just returning these lots to their original platted widths and uh [2:05:08] allowing the original number of homes to be built there um in going through the [2:05:13] the city's staff report I was you know I was I was touched on the denial uh part [2:05:19] of the uh options for you and I don't see that you have any choice here really [2:05:25] because you know it talks about the subject properties being conforming and [2:05:30] you know that they are are currently conforming Lots Etc reasonable use uh [2:05:36] that leaves out many many realities of uh homes that are you know 60 70 years [2:05:43] old I mean I know you were talking about Country Club just a little bit ago and those houses are you know 80 to 100 [2:05:49] years old you know clearly homes have an age and an age limit I [2:05:55] think you kind of were alluding to it in your discussions of Country Club but you know the homes other homes in the city [2:06:04] of Edina don't get the kind of care that homes like that yet um you know I and [2:06:10] I'm not saying that every home out there on a 50ft lot is is worn out but they [2:06:16] definitely become worn out or they become functionally Obsolete and I think those taxs get left out in discussions [2:06:24] of that the that the home has a you know taxable market value of x or y you know [2:06:30] you don't really get a clear picture of of why people want to sell us homes for [2:06:39] redevelopment uh as far as the Practical difficulties you know there's there's [2:06:45] one lot of 22 within the you know the block that's different in size than than [2:06:50] ours than what we want to create here I mean that's you know that's a heck of a [2:06:57] a heck of a a majority um practical difficulties are [2:07:03] self-created U that's a that's a hard no clearly the 1916 plat is in is in [2:07:11] uh opposition to the zoning that was created in the 1960s um you know I think we have just [2:07:20] like you were talking about issues with the country club the the zoning that came about in the [2:07:26] 60s was well after a lot of these areas had developed and you know you were [2:07:32] looking at areas like parkes and other areas like that where you know you had [2:07:38] raw land that could be subdivided and the the larger Lots were were desired but applying those newer uh zoning ideas [2:07:47] to the older PL older platted Lots I think is is kind of a problem there and [2:07:53] then the last part about it being our desire to maximize return on investment [2:07:59] um that's again it's that isn't how things work around here the uh new homes [2:08:05] benefit the economy the city economy the the regional economy they benefit the [2:08:11] city with taxes uh refreshing the city's housing stock is a terrific way to invigorate [2:08:20] the community and keeping in mind that a lot of these uh areas are were built out [2:08:25] at approximately the same time the more that you can encourage the uh the reinvigoration of [2:08:33] some of these homes by Redevelopment or or refreshing um I think you'll find [2:08:39] that you know you the the community is going to to last longer and it's going to have less issue with just overall [2:08:47] deterioration and you know avoiding any situation that that would eventually [2:08:52] lead to blade or something else um the the newer homes I think if you go [2:08:57] through the the neighborhoods where they have been built have really done a lot I [2:09:03] think to you know like I say refresh the neighborhoods and and bring new homes [2:09:09] new home owners into those areas um I think another thing that you know you [2:09:14] want to keep in mind is that every time a new home gets built and and another [2:09:20] home gets added city of Edina you are encouraging movement both within and [2:09:27] from without the city so you are continuing to uh you know create a a [2:09:33] better uh City by encouraging the people to to move in and to um you know work in [2:09:41] the city if that if that's what they need I did see in the U the report that was done by the uh uh planning the [2:09:49] planning school that there's definitely is a lack of of of homes compared to the [2:09:55] amount of jobs in the city of Edina so anytime I think you can add homes to the [2:10:02] city you're going to encourage people who work in the city to live in Ed so um [2:10:08] I think beyond that I'll I'm ready to stand for questions as well well it [2:10:14] looks like you're sitting so maybe please stand up no I'm kidding thank you for your presentation uh again I guess [2:10:22] any questions fellow Commissioners to [2:10:28] see not seeing no no one wants questions so hey you got off that one easy wait [2:10:35] wait I had one okay good thanks for being here so with the [2:10:40] structures you're planning on building on these um lots are are [2:10:47] you is it basically the case that you're not planning on asking for variances for the structures [2:10:53] themselves correct um staff gently let us know that that [2:11:00] probably isn't um looked favorably on in any case but we've done very well with [2:11:07] homes meeting the city zoning ordinances on these Lots these size Lots were well [2:11:13] versed in how to meet those zoning ordinances our uh our work with our our [2:11:18] Engineers to to manage our our water runoff within the parameters that the [2:11:24] city has and the 9M Creek have are are you know they're well it's a well-tuned [2:11:30] machine as far as I'm concerned but um we don't see any other variances needed [2:11:37] and honestly we we think that these three lots would uh support any variety [2:11:43] home type and size so you know we're totally open to what our our Market will [2:11:50] ask for and and and we'll move on from there okay thanks one quick follow up to that uh it [2:11:57] looks like on the drawings it shows a a lower level elevation and a first floor [2:12:03] elevation and that's it so I know the the drawing kind of shows an impression [2:12:08] it looks like it's the old you know the two duplexes but are these intended to be like one level living with a [2:12:17] basement not specifically I mean certainly if there's a a buyer for a rambler unit uh that's what could be [2:12:24] built um it could be two stories for that matter too I mean honestly any product that um other builders or or we [2:12:33] have built in the city of Edina I think would be uh available [2:12:39] here okay thank you you got it thank you very much nice [2:12:45] to see you again um there was mentioned that the two homes that are currently [2:12:51] there are uh naturally affordable naturally occurring affordable housing [2:12:57] am I correct the not according to the strict interpretation of that no according to [2:13:05] uh the housing Redevelopment Authority that really applies to rental product [2:13:12] these are these are uh single family homes um with that said neither of them [2:13:18] meet the affordability standards of the Metro they may be affordable within [2:13:25] Edina but not truly um affordable under under the the county or the state [2:13:33] guidelines or the federal guidelines for that matter and is there with that being said they are reasonably priced single [2:13:40] family homes correct right now that need some to a lot of work to be invested in [2:13:47] them in order to do uh to move them into the next uh generation of home owners and I think [2:13:55] that's the part that always gets missed when that's considered they these homes don't exist [2:14:02] in the vacuum so is there a reason that you are [2:14:08] not considering um building um new affordable housing in [2:14:15] its place I'm not saying we aren't we're looking for [2:14:21] product that meets market demand and it's my understanding from [2:14:28] last time that you were here that the uh homes that you were talking about then [2:14:33] were going to run in $800 to $850,000 range the tell homes [2:14:40] correct um and and so where do you see [2:14:45] these new homes falling in in that same range we it's what the market will will [2:14:51] bear it at this point I mean honestly we don't know what our buyers would ask [2:14:58] for you know when we were doing the town homes that was a product that we [Music] [2:15:04] were that we had designed for the site for a particular Market you know these S three these [2:15:13] three single family lots are no different than any other single family Redevelopment lot elsewhere in the city [2:15:19] of Min of Edina um we could very well have a rambler we [2:15:25] could very well have a small twostory we could very well have a larger twostory for all we know um we do build sometimes [2:15:35] to spec but we also build to a buyer and if a buyer walks in and and wants a home [2:15:41] that is in that price range then that's where that house would be one thing to [2:15:46] keep in mind too that the Redevelopment in this form F has a slightly lower cost in terms of [2:15:57] the infrastructure and you know you you have to keep in mind that the infrastructure costs on Redevelopment [2:16:03] are hugely significant and you know having to put [2:16:09] in new water lines having to put in new sewer lines um are all very [2:16:14] expensive so if somebody somebody wanted um a 2500 [2:16:20] square foot uh one and a half story house or twostory house what do you estimate that [2:16:28] would cost what are your selections how do you want it built I mean honestly you [2:16:34] you can't build you can't price a home by the amount of information you just [2:16:39] gave me but I'm assuming it's going to cost you're not going to get in for under $250 a square [2:16:46] foot you might hard we we can leave it at that [2:16:56] um thank you any other [2:17:05] questions all i' see none yet hold tight there will probably be some more questions and or comments for you to [2:17:10] react to after the public hearing but that we will open to right now so like [2:17:16] the last time I'll give some information for anyone who might be tuning in remotely [2:17:22] and then while we wait for you to jump in the queue we'll open it to people who are here in person but the info again is [2:17:28] you want to call the following number 312 535 8110 enter access code [2:17:36] 2632 058 2795 the password is [2:17:44] 5454 and now is the time to press star three on your keypad to get in the que [2:17:49] to speak while you do that we're going to open the floor to those who are here in attendance that would like to provide [2:17:55] testimony you can come up to either Podium and you have three minutes to do so State your full name [2:18:03] address green means go red means stop thank you hi longtime fan first time [2:18:10] speaker Jessica Fitch uh 507 Hankerson [2:18:15] thanks for hearing U my information so I have lived in that four block area I own [2:18:20] a house on Bedford moved to a house on Hankerson my ex-husband has a house on [2:18:26] William directly behind where they're looking to build so a couple things we talk about affordability and density I [2:18:33] feel like our four block area already picked up the density with the previous eight homes that were built on the Block [2:18:41] affordability I understand the idea of building homes to market price we know [2:18:46] this isn't 7 or 800,000 it's minimum 7 or 800,000 is what these will be sold [2:18:51] for there's no way he's building or they are building $500,000 houses that might [2:18:56] meet people like my need I built I moved into a house on that street within the [2:19:02] past few years in the 400 range and did fix it up to Modern standards but it's [2:19:07] smaller it's not a million-- dooll house it's a house I can afford for my child [2:19:12] my child Runs Through the Alley from William to Hankerson where those houses [2:19:19] would be increasing seeing already the eight units in traffic and now another three houses in traffic playing ball [2:19:27] becomes more difficult running back and forth becomes difficult I'm I'm just wondering I understand there's a Wells [2:19:33] Fargo in front of them but behind them is a really cute little 9-year-old boy that I care a lot [2:19:39] about uh separately it's just it's changing the makeup of our our neighborhood we've got a lot more people [2:19:45] driving through there that's just a concern in general um we talked about [2:19:50] about the safety we talked about the density I get I think we've just done our job already for our four block area [2:19:55] we've picked up the density um and really I think it's just we we we [2:20:03] would like to keep our street the neighborhood it is there are a lot of houses that are bigger than a 50ft lot [2:20:09] it's just not directly on the front of that end it's one street over it's a Half street over there a lot of um lots [2:20:15] that are more than 50 Street 50 ft and I don't know why we're looking at 110 years years ago was hey it was created [2:20:22] like that so it's okay to go back to that our neighborhood is established the way it is I say leave those two houses [2:20:28] hopefully somebody like me can get in there put $50,000 in the house and make it up to code or whatever up to livable [2:20:35] is for Edina standards um I've been in one of those houses my friend owned it [2:20:40] up to a couple of years ago it doesn't need hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix up and needs some new flooring maybe [2:20:47] some new Roofing you don't need to have $800,000 to live in Edina that's all I want to [2:20:54] share thank you very much hi guys this is this is exciting um [2:21:03] well thank you for uh listening to us uh my name is Elizabeth McDonnell my [2:21:08] address is 5221 interlock and Boulevard even though it's interlock and Boulevard the house faces henerson so it's just at [2:21:14] the other end of where the development is supposed to be personally I'm opposed to the uh am opposed to the proposed [2:21:22] rezoning for the um following one increased population without infrastructure growth strains the [2:21:29] neighborhood more cars more um traffic it's a little bit un a little less safe [2:21:35] um so you know my name is Elizabeth McDonald um my husband and I own the home on the corner um I have oh sorry [2:21:43] I'm reading my notes I feel a little nervous okay through the meet and greet um that we had with the builder at the [2:21:49] Adina Library months ago I don't remember which month I just was wearing a coat it was a long time ago uh it was [2:21:54] clear that there were some concerning things regarding this proposed plan a number of residents came out when I was [2:22:01] there there was probably at least 15 people asking questions sharing their concerns initially the plan was going to [2:22:07] be the two buildings that had were uh duplexes each so four dwellings like you guys have already heard and the [2:22:13] recommended selling price for each of those dwellings was going to be $850,000 um which is far above o affordability [2:22:21] foro standards I would consider 515 um the affordability which is the per the [2:22:28] come home too program it's kind of where I gra grab that number um the builders uh had clear concerns for maximizing [2:22:34] maximizing profits without thought to the impact the ecological concerns of the neighborhood with the current [2:22:39] traffic infrastructure uh he was well articulated that though the outward goal would be to invite people into Edina the [2:22:46] reality is that most likely it would be an older uh uh in an older couple an [2:22:51] interina move much like a lot of the town homes that they built um he [2:22:57] articulated at that at that meeting at the library uh desired to change our neighborhood little by little one of the [2:23:03] concerns the neighbor had brought up at that meeting was you know you were the Builder for the town homes immediately South to this proposed property and you [2:23:09] turned two you turned one building which was two dwellings into eight they [2:23:14] initially tried to turn it into um 16 Town Homes but um through these kinds of [2:23:21] boards got them down to eight and when the the that concern was shared the the Builder had said yeah little by little [2:23:27] as old H old homes come up for sale we'll buy them and we'll do you know we'll develop them um you know and while [2:23:35] generally I support and you know multif family dwellings as a means to achieve housing affordability and bolstering [2:23:42] middle class these homes do not intend to be sold for affordable prices I personally am a recipient of the come [2:23:47] home to dino program and and am familiar with the tremendous benefit that living in a provides to me and my four kids the [2:23:55] zoning change would not only uh the zoning change would only benefit the profits of the Builder and not [2:24:00] necessarily the community at large uh to further prove my point the same Builder took the uh oh I already shared that [2:24:06] part um and each of those town homes sold for under a million right under a million dollars each you know I would [2:24:11] ask that the diversity diversity housing affordability and inclusion getting people to come into Aina not be [2:24:18] considered as a factor of approval um for this zoning change because that was not the intent of the builders as they [2:24:25] communicated um and the other impact is that in this neighborhood like Jessica mentioned she's my neighbor across the [2:24:31] street there's on just our small block oh done okay wrap it up I'll wrap it up um from 51st to interlock and there are [2:24:39] 22 children uh 10 and under and that's just our little sliver of the block the [2:24:44] much of the neighborhood is that kind of consistency and the increase of traffic the increase of um adding additional [2:24:51] homes I just don't think meets the need for what our neighborhood needs and my ask is that you look at the neighborhood [2:24:57] uh ecologically and not just in this situation okay thanks sorry I was over time thank you very much thank you for [2:25:03] sitting here this whole time to wait to speak too anyone else who is here in person I'd like to provide [2:25:11] testimony seeing No One racing to the stand anyone in the queue virtually no [2:25:17] hanging in there all right it's been well over for a minute there I would [2:25:22] welcome a motion to close the public hearing motion to close the public hearing second all those in favor say I [2:25:29] I so moved all right bring it back to the Planning Commission to deliberate [2:25:34] over this one or three I should say [2:25:40] yeah Steve you're raising your hand or is that a high five I thought it was a gentle way of [2:25:48] asking to to couldent respond there um just to sort of a couple of [2:25:54] points here that did come up and you're right um the first Speaker talked about an increase of three houses and it's not [2:26:02] it's an increase of one second speaker goe yeah just we're [2:26:07] going to deliberate first and then I mean if we have if we have further question for you we'll we'll we'll ask [2:26:13] for it but appreciate it I'll put my hand back down thank [2:26:18] you all right commissioner Miranda yeah um I'd like to thank the [2:26:24] residents for for uh testifying here today um I think in terms of [2:26:30] affordability that that has sailed that ship has sailed because we uh I don't [2:26:36] know what our vote was for the two duplexes but that would have been a lot cheaper than the housing they're going [2:26:41] to build here now today so so that's a lost opportunity um certainly through [2:26:47] the city council um and then in terms [2:26:53] of uh you know you talk about building you know some of the concerns were you know children and and uh speeding cars [2:27:00] and whatnot the thing is the the denser your housing is the the more people there are and the less ability there is [2:27:07] to to speed I mean when houses are far apart if you look at something uh I mean [2:27:12] you compare we were just talking about Country Club the houses are actually really close together um and you don't [2:27:18] get a lot of speeding because you don't have have it's not like somewhere in in [2:27:23] you know I don't know Rolling Hills where the houses are far apart and you can just go very quickly because there's not a lot of people around so so I I [2:27:31] that's something that doesn't really work in in real life um and [2:27:36] so to me what I see with this is that we have three three lots that you know are [2:27:45] basically the same size as the lots that are around there and this is something I mentioned whenever this comes up because I the morning side and we have a and I [2:27:51] live on Grimes and we have a whole bunch of of uh two lot wide houses in in our [2:27:58] in our street in our neighborhood and um and they were all you know they're all exactly two lots wide so um I think that [2:28:08] we should um I'm going to motion to uh move to approve this because basically [2:28:15] you know most other houses in the most other Lots in the neighborhood are that size and adding one house you know just [2:28:22] really isn't going to make a significant difference and the affordability thing is something that we you know we we [2:28:27] can't really change right now so um and if these were three individual Lots I [2:28:33] mean the developer right now could just tear down the two houses and build two houses right so so the cost of the house [2:28:39] is also kind of irrelevant because um we're just going to have three houses instead of two but they're going to be [2:28:45] all approximately the same price so um so again that ship is sort of sailed so [2:28:50] it's basically the fact that you know there are three there were three lots there they were combined into two [2:28:57] um it should almost be by right that that a property owner can uncombine Lots [2:29:04] because that's the way they were you know we historically the city developed [2:29:09] W you know larger and larger lot sizes that expanded West because we went from a sort of you know a street car suburb [2:29:16] in Morningside and in um uh club uh to [2:29:21] being you know very car focused culde saaki you know sort of neighborhoods that were built in the 70s 50 years [2:29:27] later um and so the the lot sizes changed over time but when this [2:29:32] neighborhood was built these were the lot sizes that were that the houses were built on so I think it makes perfect [2:29:38] sense to to allow three lots thank [2:29:45] you I am going to completely disagree with commissioner Miranda [2:29:51] and um with all due respect um there was a uh mayoral Forum [2:30:01] I think it was earlier this week actually um where there was discussion [2:30:06] um about naturally occurring affordable housing and how important it is and I happen to [2:30:13] think that that is the uh the biggest euphemism that we that we [2:30:20] use however um there certain there I understand there is a place for it [2:30:27] conceptually um so I think that um what this would do [2:30:36] would be eliminate the naturally occurring affordable housing the current tax values of these homes together [2:30:43] average about $440,000 I believe based upon what was said um [2:30:51] at the previous hearing as well as tonight that the new homes would [2:30:58] probably cost about 850 a a minimum of $850,000 in addition to the quick math that I did [2:31:06] earlier um we were asked to pass a comprehensive [2:31:13] plan Amendment at a previous hearing and [2:31:19] I had said that it was a heavy lift and I voted against it then so I think this [2:31:25] is um an increasingly um bigger [2:31:32] ask and I do not think it um passes the [2:31:38] um third aspect of the variance requirements in terms of it uh altering [2:31:45] the essential character of the neighborhood because I do think it Alters the essential character of the [2:31:50] neighborhood by changing the type of housing um and you know I'm also [2:31:57] interested to know where these people who you know um are supposed to move you know I mean [2:32:04] I don't I I think there's very little housing in um in Idina so that where the [2:32:11] people who lived in this house very few options for them in the city of Idina so [2:32:17] I think at the end of the day it changes the character of the neighborhood so I think it doesn't pass muster for [2:32:26] variant yeah commissioner hman um so these homes if uh Real Estate [2:32:34] websites are to be believed sold in 2016 for 325,000 that was the market value [2:32:40] for their homes then in my mind if we took away the developer concept out of [2:32:47] this if you have a home that's 1,00 to 1200 square ft that was built in the [2:32:54] 1950s and you're sitting in it today and you want to sell it the person who's going to buy it [2:33:01] either has to put a lot of money into it um my guess is the electrical needs updating the plumbing will need updating [2:33:08] roof windows I don't know the condition of the house but all of those are are very expensive in the home is 70 years [2:33:16] old so it is approaching by Construction standards its functional end of life and [2:33:23] whether the owner of the lot sells it to a family or to someone who ends up [2:33:28] tearing it down they're not in control of the price naturally occurring [2:33:34] affordable housing happens when you allow a variety of Housing and folks to [2:33:40] move through the Continuum of their life and the various phases whether that's um [2:33:48] single and no kids with a small family um all the way through you're a senior [2:33:54] and going up and downstairs becomes difficult and you need one story living to to going to a place with care I think [2:34:03] this is a neighborhood that is um perfect for additional density and [2:34:12] is the natural progression of the commercial District continuing to expand [2:34:18] just as it did at 44th in France just as it does around 50th in France where the [2:34:24] the commercial node slowly grows and you get denser housing types because of [2:34:30] things like public transportation or the trolley or access to amenities I [2:34:36] understand we have a housing crisis in the city but the difference between two [2:34:41] homes and three homes or two homes and four homes it it's we can't preserve [2:34:48] affordable housing that's natur occurring on a one-off basis because we don't control all the market factors so [2:34:55] I am I think you guys know deeply passionate about affordable housing but I don't know that that problem gets [2:35:02] solved through one or two particular requests that come before us I am very [2:35:08] saddened that we could have provided two more homes for folks in the city if the [2:35:15] city council had passed the previous Pro proposal now we will only be able to [2:35:20] provide one more net new home for someone to move out of their larger home [2:35:27] maybe and downsize that creates naturally occur occurring affordable housing it doesn't it doesn't mean we [2:35:34] can save this particular property but it keeps the Continuum going um and I and I [2:35:40] do want to speak to the density comment earlier foundations footings um running [2:35:46] infrastructure that's expensive so the more units you get in a small area the [2:35:52] less expensive it becomes the four houses would be cheaper to build in many [2:35:59] respects than three individual houses so these three individual houses can't be [2:36:04] less expensive than the four just by nature of you're creating three foundations you're creating three runs [2:36:10] of electrical you're creating three runs of of of um Plumbing stacks and all of those things [2:36:16] so the the the reason we have different styles of homes and different duplexes [2:36:22] town home squads is to make things more affordable but because we didn't like [2:36:27] the setbacks and we you know there were other reasons the city council didn't appreciate it we've lost an opportunity [2:36:33] to have one more person either move from a different place in a Dina or move into [2:36:39] a Dina so I'm disappointed I think we absolutely should go back to the way the [2:36:44] Lots were drawn I think only through more density will we get meet our [2:36:49] environmental goals will we meet our housing goals will we we solve a lot of the problems that we're in and um so I [2:36:57] support this [2:37:03] absolutely comments yeah commissioner day I don't have a ton to add because I [2:37:11] think that was really well said um but I just add additional perspective because I was one of the I think the only two [2:37:17] people that voted against the original proposal um and my problem with the original proposal wasn't had anything to do with [2:37:23] the actual proposal itself it was the process and the P zoning and how we went [2:37:29] about that um which is what where the council also disagreed as well this to [2:37:35] me though is is right the end result that I would have liked to have seen really when we first were given the [2:37:41] proposal um subdividing Lots is an [2:37:47] extremely successful way that a lot of communities have gently added density um [2:37:52] and encouraged affordability and as far as the process goes we're [2:37:58] we're you know following our R1 zoning we're following our comprehensive plan [2:38:04] so there isn't really much of a lift here really the only lift is subdividing to three lots and I think staff laid it [2:38:09] out in terms of meeting the variance requirements um this one's pretty straight forward so you know just wanted [2:38:17] to comment on the process piece I think you know this we conforming to our our zoning code we're not going be be asking [2:38:24] for you know a bunch of variances on loot coverage percentage or anything like that um I think this is you know a [2:38:32] better better proposal than what we first saw um and support it as [2:38:41] well commissioner El just real briefly I support this for [2:38:47] the same reasons that uh others who are also supportive of it have said so I won't go over that all again the only [2:38:53] thing the only Nuance I think that I would add is that I support it not because we're going back to the way it [2:39:01] used to be as far as the way it's platted because I can imagine a situation where I might not want to go [2:39:07] back to the way it used to be if we were going the other direction perhaps uh but I'm supporting it because it's [2:39:15] consistent with area medians and consistent with City goals gentle density in this [2:39:28] place M Smith I'm in agreement I think the last time we we looked at [2:39:35] this it was definitely a tension with the zoning it convert this into a [2:39:43] p and but the bigger benefit was to [2:39:50] increased density and we just believe that density that was just west of [2:39:56] here was actually pretty good and we're just going to continue it into this area so for the reasons the other [2:40:04] Commissioners raised I I think this is a much it's like a downgrade from what we said the last time and so this works [2:40:12] this works for um you know what the developers is uh looking for in terms of traffic and in [2:40:20] uh you know we're looking at one extra family uh which hopefully is not going to be too much more intense than what's [2:40:27] already here if it was going to be uh multiple units at a parking garage close [2:40:33] by I could see traffic being significant but one extra home I don't think is going to significantly increase the traffic in [2:40:41] this area so for the reasons already stated I think this is a a good [2:40:46] solution that yeah we should have prob had [2:40:54] before other comments down there commissioner felter boring scene this I'll share a [2:41:01] couple uh because we saw this previously in a different form um I personally just [2:41:10] am not as much of a fan of what we're seeing compared to what we saw before for a variety of reasons and like some [2:41:16] of it is like illustrative of just the process making it harder to [2:41:22] maybe do the right thing so one thing that came up in a lot of small area plans when we built near them yet [2:41:31] outside of them like this technically isn't Grand View by uh the boundaries uh [2:41:38] was really being mindful of like graceful Transitions and you know taking [2:41:44] care and of the neighbors adjacent to those areas to not bring change [2:41:50] cascading into those areas unexpectedly um not not as much is is it is a [2:42:00] function of traffic but it's also the the function of shape and form and what [2:42:06] other you know downsides that that might bring so what I saw before was two you [2:42:12] know one Lev duplexes that was a nice graceful transition from the town homes [2:42:17] to the other one-story homes so I think what what we missed there was [2:42:23] kind of this nice true mix of use and housing stock that could have been on [2:42:29] this place that looks out at Wells Fargo and as commissioner Miranda noted then [2:42:35] um what he was in favor was like not doing this anywhere but this specific spot kind of makes sense for a logical [2:42:42] change so the Form and Function was favorable to me so here to just now add [2:42:49] three homes that will likely be maxed out so probably two stories you know [2:42:54] very expensive um I'm not as much of a fan of that than keeping it to two lots that [2:43:01] would then be developed into two homes uh for the you know for the net benefit [2:43:08] and loss of you know the the coverage that we you know this will take what [2:43:15] 9,000 square ft compared to 5,000 or what was it [2:43:21] Carrie you had it on one of the [2:43:32] slides oh yeah so no two lots with new homes would be 4,900 sare ft versus 5700 [2:43:39] I I just think by us not allowing what could have happen there we're just [2:43:44] getting a not exciting result as a city and we're not advancing these go goals [2:43:50] we claim to care about so but I feel like we're backed into a corner because we have a lot less [2:43:56] discretion now than we had previously and what is presented is logical and now [2:44:03] if I were to choose you know is it going to be two big homes there versus [2:44:09] three it's it's just not a great the win is so low it's hard to get [2:44:17] it's hard to use even the disc R to get behind approving this um so I I'm just [2:44:22] I'm torn both ways I I can support this I can also deny this um but I I fully [2:44:28] supported the previous plan yeah commissioner hman and I think that's I I really appreciate you saying that [2:44:34] because I think sometimes perfect becomes the enemy of the good and [2:44:39] unfortunately by the nature of our role we can only respond to what's brought [2:44:45] before us and once that moment passes that that that option is off the table [2:44:51] so whether it's a restaurant on the keys site or should this be two two duplexes [2:44:58] or anything else right once that's off the table we're not the money or the [2:45:04] financing or whatever behind it we get what we get within certain parameters or we don't get it at all and I think to [2:45:10] your point too this could be less affordable housing bigger [2:45:16] housing and impact the neighborhood more negatively than the other proposal but I I find it hard to object [2:45:25] to going back to the original lots that meet the median of the whole neighborhood I'm not excited about this [2:45:31] as gentle density but we you know the opportunity [2:45:39] passed y great Point any other [2:45:45] comments no welcome [2:45:52] motion I move to approve based on the city's uh the staff's uh [2:45:59] findings second just's do a roll call vote there over [2:46:07] there commissioner elky I commissioner Miranda hi commissioner Pia n [2:46:14] commissioner Smith I commissioner day I commissioner born [2:46:19] I commissioner felt I commissioner hanaman I chair Bennett [2:46:26] I motion carries and this will go before the city council at their next [2:46:31] meeting not their next meeting but the one following so three weeks from this [2:46:38] past Tuesday all right well good luck to the Builder thank you for coming in to [2:46:44] provide testimony and on to the next item report [2:46:51] recommendation this is our 2025 work plan Carrie will'll leave it to you to [2:46:58] present again yes thank you chair members of the commission so um although [2:47:05] the we're asking for a decision on this we don't have to we still have one [2:47:12] more meeting if you're not comfortable so I'll just put that out there um so to [2:47:18] go through based on the changes that were made at at our last meeting the [2:47:23] first initiative is reviewing land use applications our standard the second is [2:47:28] an update to the zoning ordinance this is a pretty big one um staff did put it [2:47:33] in the budget for next year um if we're agreeable with that one I think what [2:47:39] we'd be looking for tonight whether we approve this or not is leads for that [2:47:44] project although given the size of that project everybody body's going to be involved in that one um but perhaps we [2:47:52] could assign a couple of leads the third is the review and update [2:47:58] of the greater Southdale District design experience guidelines we thought we would bring in uh Mick Johnson who um [2:48:06] helped put those together so it's a taking a look at those standards and do [2:48:12] we need to provide any updates uh the fourth item is completing the Lincoln London Dairy small area plan [2:48:19] we already have our leads on that one and then the fifth is what we talked about last time was evaluate the use and [2:48:29] um the efficacy of traffic studies how what do we want to make changes um this [2:48:37] could be or likely will be in conjunction with the Transportation Commission uh work session um perhaps [2:48:44] bring a consultant in um so we'd be looking for leads there and per the direction of the Planning Commission at [2:48:51] the last meeting we moved the district plan for the kill area into the parking lot figuring that that can be done as [2:48:58] part of the comprehensive Plan update uh that will be taking place sooner than we [2:49:04] realize probably starting that in 2026 but with that I'll turn it over to [2:49:10] the commission for discussion yeah is it appropriate or [2:49:17] possible to take um commissioner Smith's idea about looking into how we as a city [2:49:25] incentivize or go about helping remove those restrictive covenants I don't know if that's us thing if that's a people [2:49:34] who are interested take it offline and you bring it up with City but I really liked the idea [2:49:40] so bringing it up since we're discussing our work plan yeah certainly I [2:49:47] mean it's what well beyond what we do and I mean it it regards land use but [2:49:54] I think it's such a specific legal task that I don't know if it'd be effective [2:50:01] to be on our work plan right now or it would just remain like it's like one of those things that like should be in like [2:50:07] a not a parking lot but a like you said take it offline and I'm sure someone [2:50:13] cares enough about it to make sure that it has a pulse and keeps going um um but we got a really full [2:50:22] plan and I think just reacting to something right now to add to either add [2:50:28] or then get other things removed like I've seen that happen not well you know I think we should I think we should [2:50:34] Engage The Human Rights and relations commission right and and say and you know kind of push it to them and say Hey [2:50:40] you know here's what we came up with in this meeting tonight maybe that gets added to their work plan um or you know [2:50:47] or they at least are now aware of it and considered as a you know normal function of their [2:50:53] commission and Nothing Stops us from doing that it's just like is it measured and do we need City resources behind [2:51:00] that action too which is part of like why we have things on a work plan this doesn't seem like it necessarily would [2:51:07] to take that first step so although like yeah I mean there is a [2:51:13] benefit of work we've talked about this before of having you know just kind of like this running list of things that [2:51:19] aren't a huge lift necessarily but like we want a track for transparency to let [2:51:25] the community know hey we do care about this and we're working on it um [2:51:30] especially in the meantime you look like you're on some yeah what you got well I mean [2:51:37] like what we're talking about here in the actual plan work plan is you know working with the Transportation [2:51:42] Commission you know we could have a a work plan item where we work with the human rights Comm commission and come up [2:51:50] with you know and the city would approve this of course would you know we give them a recommendation right so it's just coming [2:51:56] together with like what we just did for the areas of change right so that really didn't take a huge amount of time in [2:52:03] terms of meetings you know we had three or four meetings and then we just came up with the hard part was writing the [2:52:09] recommendation was writing out the document whatever but if we had something where um you know we could [2:52:15] propose it I mean the city council can say or the city manager can say no but you know where we would say we would have a joint committee with the Human [2:52:23] Rights Commission where we would both work on it and our and our product would be a [2:52:29] recommendation to city council what are other thoughts I know [2:52:35] we will start working on the comprehensive Plan update and during that process we kind of divied out you [2:52:43] know being Liaisons to different commissions too I mean I'm just thinking be and just those [2:52:49] two I mean it it almost would be beneficial just in general for us to be [2:52:55] better connected to the other commissions where it's not just transportation for one item human rights [2:53:03] for the other but maybe it's just one work plan item where we kind of [2:53:10] assign some sort of collaborative I mean even not even a plan but just maybe [2:53:15] touch base and share share what working on you know throughout the year I agree and I think that um we [2:53:23] could all use more education around it in terms of what the legal parameters are and you know what the possibilities [2:53:30] are that we can do what is in within our purview or within you know joint perview [2:53:36] um so yeah I I would be happy to sit on a committee or join that [2:53:43] or at least Mo move the you know get us all smarter up educate us [2:53:49] all and uh move ball a little bit I we could do that with a couple specific [2:53:56] goals within it so then they stay measured and tracked and right I would [2:54:01] like a deliverable just because that would be something to deliver you know it kind of keeps you on track and stuff [2:54:08] yeah I mean that's that's fine doesn't have to be a big giant massive undertaking other people's [2:54:15] thoughts definitely don't want to bite off more [2:54:21] than we can choose so I like the idea of connecting with [2:54:26] the HRC and talking to them about it I think it is something that um the city has done work on already and I think it [2:54:34] is just a continuing education process for everyone and when we see something [2:54:40] we talk about it um I mean I think the city's already done significant amount [2:54:46] of work on it and I think it is just a continuing to have conversations with our [2:54:51] neighbors because everybody can look at their own property and see if it's on there or not and we can tell them where [2:54:57] to go but I do like the idea of connecting with the [2:55:07] HRC I think that's that sounds pretty good it kind of reminds me of I think was the last meeting we were talking [2:55:14] about redlining I think you know we we do work we discover things and then we have to [2:55:20] think about how do we address it and I think we have other commissions that maybe it's more designed to look at [2:55:26] these things in a unique way where they might have attorneys that could parse out certain kind of language on what's [2:55:32] required or not whereas we have planning staff and attorneys but more focused on [2:55:38] Planning and Zoning um but I would love a collaboration I'm not sure how that's going to work but if we could figure out [2:55:46] how to partner with them and say hey here has some things that we are discovering and the work that we're doing how would you guys recommend be [2:55:52] addressed this or how how would you guys look at these [2:56:02] issues any other thoughts I mean is some of it just identifying better ways to [2:56:07] kind of collaborate just hesitate like us coming up with something right now adding it to [2:56:12] L and everyone being responsible for each commission or just two and leaving others out when we have opportunity [2:56:22] to or is this something big enough to just keep us a separate [2:56:34] item car what are your thoughts I mean you know like the council tends to strip us down of things [2:56:41] if we overload ourselves and usually it's their choice and not ours so that's [2:56:47] why I hesitate adding something new that then kicks something else later which has [2:56:53] always bit Us in the butt pretty much anything that's been like pushed later it's like if only we [2:57:01] did that when we wanted to do that right they was like yes maybe we [2:57:07] could take baby steps I'm wondering if it would make sense I don't know when the other commissions meet uh I'm sure I [2:57:13] could look it up but one of us could just go to one of their meetings and just talk about it and just say hey [2:57:19] here's what we're seeing we just want to put this on you guys radar something as simple as that maybe we don't need a work plan item necessarily but just a [2:57:26] messenger just to go over and say Hey you know we're discovering some items here just want to put it on your radar [2:57:32] so you guys can consider it for your work plans going [2:57:39] forward but at the same time they're every other commission is doing their work plan as well right I mean so if the [2:57:47] city SE these these I mean it's up to the city to say um yes we think that um [2:57:55] you should jointly work on this together right with another commissioner [2:58:01] so you know I think if it's I think we'll get a lot more accomplished if it's presented to the city and the city [2:58:08] says it it should be [2:58:14] formalized yes so I think the reason I mentioned warning a delay deliverable before is because if we just kind of [2:58:21] wave our hands and say we're kind of generally going to do something it generally doesn't happen and to to the [2:58:27] chair's uh comment about you know putting something on the back burner that kind of bites Us in the butt later [2:58:33] I mean you know the whole um you know areas of change and the [2:58:38] Lincoln and London area you know I was proposing Lincoln and London area for 10 years since before I joined any commission um when the city had this big [2:58:46] uh Workshop it was 10 years ago and um and that was shot down one year and um I [2:58:54] proposed the uh areas of change and that was delayed you know and we ended up having to do both you know so um I think [2:59:02] it is important for us to push for stuff and you know and I pushed for something [2:59:07] and it got shot down and so it might get shot down but I think if it's something we believe in we should probably push for it and and leave it to the city [2:59:14] council to decide whether they're going to do it or not when is their next meeting do either of [2:59:21] you know the schedule 1 next Tuesday Oh you mean the human rights and [2:59:27] relation oh sorry uh that I don't know it it might be something where the [2:59:34] chair reaches out to their chair as a discussion and maybe it's a collaboration can you come up with [2:59:41] something I mean September 18th that that particular matter seems just very [2:59:46] well suited for a work item for them not really us I mean it it it relates to land but not anymore [2:59:56] and it's just I mean it's stuck in some of the Deeds so it just doesn't seem [3:00:01] like anything that we would work on that they couldn't work on more effectively I [3:00:07] don't know so I I can I can take the lead and just connecting with them and [3:00:12] asking to add that to their work plan how about that and if they'd like someone show up I'm happy to volunteer [3:00:19] to show up to one of their meetings just to talk about it for five [3:00:24] minutes okay great so it's kind of [3:00:33] waving we'll get it on a work plan and hey could you just add it to like our parking lot in case it doesn't get onto [3:00:40] their work plan cuz definitely don't want to lose sight of that anything else so should we go [3:00:48] through kind of each of the ones and just start identifying leads that would [3:00:54] be great all right so review land use [3:01:01] application well guess what everyone you're all signed up for that okay next one update the city [3:01:08] zoning ordinance I know in particular I've heard from commissioner elire for [3:01:14] strong interest to work on that Co lead I'd be happy to volunteer in that [3:01:22] one that's a really big one that we have a lot of other subp parts to that so [3:01:29] it'd be good to have definitely two co-chairs but then at least a couple other [3:01:37] assisters you too yeah okay that great and then this this will [3:01:44] be I mean this will be something we're all going to be working on um in some capacity and probably Tak in yep small [3:01:51] leads on different things so don't feel like if you're not in that role but if you want to lead it now is the time to [3:01:58] chomp at the bit Yeah D can make a motion that David [3:02:05] leads it are we gonna have this is one or just one well I don't I'd rather of a [3:02:12] CO a co-chair situation for this one two's good I'm I'm happy to co-chair [3:02:18] with you David yeah that be great and Maryweather will join the team anyone else too qu quad chair quad [3:02:25] chair just can't go five so it turns out we're all working on this one well and [3:02:33] that is going to be the case it's going to be work sessions and it's going to take a lot of time from [3:02:39] everybody and we all know it's comprehensive plans sized work yeah for [3:02:45] sure and you added kind of the specific things we talked about that usually are [3:02:50] separate items so each of those ends up being someone working on them anyway so yep and we can add to that as we go [3:02:57] along too okay all right number three review update the greater Southdale [3:03:03] District design experience [3:03:08] guidelines who is showing lots of interest for that I could hop on this one I that to all right M padan and [3:03:17] Smith anyone else two should be good for that one okay you got Mick which is awesome [3:03:25] yeah and again that's going to be everyone's involvement too all right and then Lincoln London [3:03:31] area is basically just a carryover and we already have that team established so [3:03:38] good to move on past that all right and then we have evaluate [3:03:46] the use and efficacy of traffic studies [3:03:53] Al who who wants to poke that bear I see this as more educational um [3:04:02] and if there's something that comes out of it I think a lot of this is going to be staff will put things together for [3:04:09] everyone to consider it might be organizing with other commissions that kind of thing coordinate with the [3:04:15] Transportation Commission any [3:04:29] want and I can help as necessary there's there's one thing on here that or not on [3:04:34] here that I've mentioned before and and I don't know if it it just maybe [3:04:40] becomes part of like our responsibilities like it doesn't NE necessitate a deliverable but I think [3:04:47] it's just something we all ought to be aware of constantly is like just looking into [3:04:52] and trying to implement small Andor big changes to the process of what we do so [3:04:58] like for instance one thing that was on here was to consider changing the [3:05:03] public review process of different applicant [3:05:09] applications and it only got through work sessions and then the council is basically like don't present that to us [3:05:16] cuz we're not going to support it um but some of the ideas we had during [3:05:21] that of just improving engagement throughout the process were adopted and I think those conversations and us [3:05:28] always thinking about not just improving like dispirit zoning anomalies [3:05:35] or you know something that needs to be changed so we don't have to have variances on it I think there's always [3:05:41] an opportunity to improve the process which is maybe not as legal but more of like [3:05:48] marketing um you know like I mean communication that kind of stuff so I [3:05:55] don't know if it makes sense being on here but I think it should be a part of our job description um and something [3:06:01] we're always thinking about because it it does illustrate our commitment to the community that we're trying to make it [3:06:07] better for them to engage be a part of the process together better together [3:06:12] even in yeah I would recommend this so it would be [3:06:18] I'm sure that's going to be something we look at as part of the zoning ordinance update but just so we don't lose sight [3:06:25] of what you're saying we put it in the parking lot so it's not lost it's it's [3:06:30] there yeah I can when we present to the council I can mention that to them too [3:06:36] because yeah they know I'm not happy about that last one so I'll probably mention it anyways [3:06:46] but no it's and I mean that was something it seemed like staff you guys just kind of you know passed word along [3:06:53] and then it just got done and there really wasn't much we didn't really have any involvement in that which maybe had [3:07:01] some drawbacks too but anything else from anyone [3:07:08] else well this looks good and approvable [3:07:14] any recommendations you have Carrie or is that if you're to take action we could do [3:07:21] that I think so make a motion yeah uh I'd like to make a motion to approve the [3:07:28] 2025 Planning Commission work plan second all those in favor say I I [3:07:36] opposed all right motion carries so I and whoever else would like to join and [3:07:42] participate is it October 1st yep October 1st we will present this to the [3:07:49] city council in a work session so mark your calendars anyone [3:07:56] who's there and if you'd like to speak about something that'd be great too all [3:08:02] right we're done with that chair and member [3:08:10] comments M Miranda yeah I just like to say we had uh our second Community [3:08:15] engagement meeting with um uh ad residence for the Lincoln and [3:08:20] London da small area plan we had that on Tuesday uh we had about 20 21 people [3:08:26] something like that um attend most from the neighborhood but a few people from outside the neighborhood um and it was a [3:08:33] great presentation by the Consultants uh going through the process and what we had done so far and the work that they [3:08:41] had done and staff had done and um our volunteers our commissioners had done [3:08:48] um so and the and the people on the work group had done so um and then after the [3:08:55] presentation was and the mayor was there um and uh then there was a presentation [3:09:03] or then there was a uh they gathered feedback by having uh [3:09:09] uh questions about you know what things you'd want to see and how they would how [3:09:15] you know the design of things get developed and so there were uh jars with marbles [3:09:20] and you could choose you know you had three Marbles and you could choose you know what things you liked best and and [3:09:25] then there were other boards that described uh also described things in a variety of ways to have the uh future of [3:09:33] the neighborhood be and then you would put a sticker on the ones that you liked and that sort of thing so it's a way of gathering feedback from the neighbors [3:09:40] and the community about um what the Future Vision of that is so now the [3:09:45] Consultants are going to go and take all that information and all the other information we gathered and and uh start [3:09:51] coming up with a you know a potential um uh designed for the [3:09:58] neighborhood and then we'll have another meeting to to get community feedback on that so that's where we are thanks for [3:10:05] sharing and uh just a there were some concerns about you know the neighborhood not knowing what was there so I I would [3:10:11] like to point out that the neighborhood Parkwood nlls actually has its own magazine which is quite nice and the uh [3:10:18] one of the Consultants had uh written a two-page article for it explaining what Lincoln and londondary was and how to um [3:10:25] get more information about it had links to the city's website um and we've done [3:10:31] you know a bunch of uh uh as you know Commissioners day and and felt and I [3:10:37] have uh gone out and uh had meetings with the community and the Consultants [3:10:42] had done that sort of thing too uh there were neighborhood signs with you know QR [3:10:48] codes so you can get more information and I would like to point out that there is on the city's [3:10:53] website um if you you know the second box on the website is uh Better Together [3:11:00] Dina and if you click on that on the bottom of the front page is a link to the Lincoln and London Dairy information [3:11:06] page and you can ask questions there it's got information about who's on the uh on the committee um and it has all [3:11:13] the details about what's been happening and there's also a great video that's about 15 minutes long that the [3:11:18] Consultants did that explains you know the whole process and and why we're doing it and how you can contribute to [3:11:25] that so um you can also even just go to the city's website and type in linkoln and lary in the search box and that will [3:11:32] be the first thing that comes up so thank [3:11:40] you I'm just going to quickly commend the city on their display that they had yesterday as I drove by the fire station [3:11:46] um the flag that they had hanging from the fire truck in remembrance of 911 um and I thought it was a fantastic [3:11:53] tribute um to the day and I'm glad to see that the city did [3:12:02] that comments guess I'll just share some [3:12:08] recent comments and discussions had with other Commissioners and just thinking kind of of how some of this stuff [3:12:14] connects but one thing that's come up is [3:12:19] just not necessarily the Planning Commission weighing out in on things formally whether it like comes through a [3:12:26] public hearing or whatnot but there tends to be a lot of land use related [3:12:32] projects um that we don't know about that have pretty big impacts on the city [3:12:38] uh you know you mentioned the highway 100 interchange this other one that's changing and I think a good reminder I [3:12:45] don't know how like we can just become either better stewards of that information or help connect to it but [3:12:52] you know the city owns most of the property in the city and a lot of it is [3:12:58] what connects point A to B so a lot of like what we do is point a and point B [3:13:03] but we can't lose sight about how you get between those points and the city has like that discretion a lot of times [3:13:10] except on County Roads state roads where it gets more complicated but I find [3:13:17] certain projects that happen or don't happen you know could be much improved [3:13:24] [Music] upon with that experience of how someone gets from that point whether it's like [3:13:31] where they live to that development or that new change and or where they work [3:13:37] or wherever and so you know I was talking to some other Commissioners and [3:13:42] it's like sometimes someone's like have you heard about this it's like no no idea and we wouldn't hear about that but [3:13:49] maybe just something not necessarily on the work plan but some piece of that process is like could we get better [3:13:57] informed with you know like what engineering has planned what Public Works have on their docket and if there [3:14:03] are public engagement Windows like broadcasting it to the specific [3:14:09] commission so then we do have a chance to kind of weigh in and react to it and [3:14:14] then share it with people who might be affected cuz I think a lot of like you build this great development but you [3:14:19] still don't build the best or optimal supporting infrastructure around it or [3:14:25] to get there it's just not going to be as successful as it could and bring our city to the future we want it to be so [3:14:33] and and I just know personally like Engineers across the state or counties they have lots they have very different [3:14:40] goals than we do as a city you know it's throughput it's like consolidating entry [3:14:46] points points which have residual negative effects on us trying to send people walking and biking in area so um [3:14:55] it's it's important that we get into those conversations even if we have very little influence just to at least help [3:15:03] inform our neighbors too of like a change that's coming does Transportation commi Commission do they have line of [3:15:11] sight to that or not really lcan weigh I know I'm looking at [3:15:16] a former trans commissioner um really my experience on that commission [3:15:22] was very different from this commission it felt more like things were kind of reported to us after the fact and um [3:15:31] maybe that's changed but there wasn't it wasn't like presented and then we voted [3:15:36] on it or anything it wasn't anything like this part of it is that they only meet once a month but part of it is that it seems to be run very [3:15:44] differently got it thanks yeah I couldn't agree more that there's a piece that's missing in [3:15:51] the conversation or awareness for sure and maybe yeah ties to traffic [3:15:57] studies but I mean there's a lot of things that tie to you know what help a [3:16:04] devel a good development be great and a lot of it's like out of the control of that development really it's like [3:16:09] getting people there safely and in an enjoyable way so is [3:16:28] yeah the whole room is miked isn't it when you watch on TV you can hear everybody [3:16:33] anyway um I was basically asking where is like I don't know the answer maybe others do [3:16:42] if someone wanted to go start talking about Road Street sidewalks Connecting Point a point being and make sure the [3:16:48] connection everything you just said like where does that conversation happen well [3:16:53] it should happen at Transportation that's where it supposed to happen the first thing I worked on when I joined [3:16:58] was the B comp pedestrian plan um and that was something um you know you work [3:17:04] with Consultants just like we do here and go with the final plan and even on that project you know like I talked to [3:17:12] the consultant many times who's very good and the the plan itself is is excellent in terms of explaining [3:17:18] everything about the plan um but in terms of of the design of the plan um it [3:17:24] came up you know I'm like we need a grid you know just like a car you know you don't want to drive in circles to get [3:17:29] places in a car and we end up with a a totally recreational plan and so there is no bike grid within the city um in [3:17:38] fact as commissioner felt knows they've just redid Grimes and we have we're [3:17:43] literally a bike path on that plan and we have signs and paint and nothing else [3:17:51] so um but it is the active it is the uh [3:17:56] Transportation Commission and I know uh I work with a few of them because of uh [3:18:01] parking and um they're excellent you know the Commissioners are are amazing [3:18:07] they're really good really motivated they wrote a uh opinion piece for the Star Tribune a few months ago um yeah [3:18:15] they're really great people and doing a lot of work I haven't kept in touch with them but um [3:18:21] uh yeah that's where that's where it should be happening in in a lot of cities planning and transportation are [3:18:27] one commission and so that's how it gets talked about but here we split them up [3:18:33] so yeah and some of the plans that Lou mentioned like that's where those pedestrian like the bike comp ped plan [3:18:40] it comes up but if you follow like some of those Transportation studies and plans like the implementation steps [3:18:47] just haven't even been achieved or started and so you know who is holding [3:18:52] that stuff accountable where those conversations I don't know that's just [3:18:57] something I feel like could be vastly improved um like you mentioned with the [3:19:02] the tunnel under France like that has to do with both of the plans that we talked [3:19:09] about and how we're completely omitted out of even a conversation about it until it's reported to us is [3:19:17] surprising right so I think there's just there's there's an opportunity to [3:19:22] improve whatever process there is or isn't but it's been on my mind a lot [3:19:27] lately so you got anything else no all right sorry any other comments [3:19:37] from missioners staff nothing from me tonight I didn't even attend the last [3:19:43] council meeting so no update there not anymore [3:19:49] okay this one last item motion to adjourn second all those [3:19:54] in favor say I so move the meeting has been adjourned thank you [3:20:15] everybody for