do not need to submit the same feedback in another way. All feedback is considered equally regardless of the way in which it was submitted. Tonight, there are three public hearings. If you'd like to speak during community comment or during a public hearing, please note that the process has changed. All public commenters should state their name when beginning their remarks, but we no longer require commenters to state their address. Instead, please fill out a speaker registration card with your address and hand it to senior communications coordinator Lauren Sevener before speaking. I'd like to call the meeting to order and ask for a roll call, please. >> Commissioner Nelson >> here. >> Commissioner Smith >> here. >> Commissioner Bennett >> here. >> Commissioner Felt >> here. >> Commissioner Henman >> here. >> Commissioner Brennan >> here. Chair Alkar >> here. >> First item of business is to approve the meeting agenda. Is there any comments or additions or is there a motion to approve the agenda? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Nelson, >> I. >> Commissioner Smith, >> I. >> Commissioner Bennett, >> I. >> Commissioner Felt, >> I. >> Commissioner Henman, >> I. Commissioner Brennan >> I. >> Chair Alcre >> I. Next item is to approve the meeting minutes from June 24th, 2026. Is there any changes that anyone would like to make or is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> Motion to approve the minutes. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Nelson, >> I. >> Commissioner Smith, >> I. >> Commissioner Bennon, >> I. >> Commissioner Felt, >> I. Commissioner Henman >> I. >> Commissioner Brennan >> I. >> Chair Alre. >> I. We've now reached community comment. We'll now hear from residents in person who would like to speak about something not on tonight's agenda or scheduled for a future public hearing. You may speak for up to three minutes. After giving your speech speaker registration card to Lauren and stating your full name for the record, the green light at your podium will turn on. When you have 30 seconds remaining, the yellow light will turn on. And when you're out of time, the red light will turn on. Is there anyone here who would like to provide community comment? Wow. I thought sure somebody would in a group this big. All right, we have three public hearings as I mentioned before. The first has to do with the variance at 5401 London Dair Road and Addison Lewis will start us out on the conversation. All right. Good evening, uh, chair and commissioners. This is a variance request at 5401 Londereerry Road uh for a 10.6 ft variance to allow a 64.4 ft setback from the front lot line for an expansion of the second floor where a 75 ft setback is required. Uh the property is located in northwest Edina in the Parkwood Nolles neighborhood. Here's some images showing the uh existing two-story house as it is today. Uh the existing home was constructed in 1962. Uh the applicants are proposing a remodel to the house that includes uh a couple of small additions off of the back of the house as well as an expansion to uh the second floor. Um so here's some some of the elevation drawings. You can see the existing front elevation here and how it's changing. Uh you can see this second floor here. Um so the existing second floor is actually set back about 4T from the lower level. Um, with the remodel, they'll be bringing that second floor forward about 4 feet, which is what's triggering the variance. So, you'll see here it's going to be flush with that lower level, be directly over that floor. Um, here's kind of another look at that. So, you can see the floor plan for the existing second floor. Um, the variance is being triggered by the expansion just within this space here. It's just coming forward about 4 feet to be directly over the main level. Um, so here's the proposed survey shows the house at 64.4T setback. Again, that's where the lower level already is today. Um, that 75 ft setback, that's the that comes from the established front yard setback requirement based on the established front yard setback on the block. So in this case it's taking into account the existing setback at um of two other homes uh 5405 London Derry Road and 5409 London Derry Road. Um the average of those two um 5405 is at 90 ft, 5409 is at 60 ft. Um that's how we get to an average of 75 ft required for the subject property. Um, and as I mentioned to you, there's a couple of just additions off of the rear here that comply with all setback requirements and lot coverage requirements. Um, so here's the criteria that we use for reviewing variance requests. Um, all this uh analysis is provided in the staff report. Um, in general staff find that the criteria is met in all cases. Um I won't read through all of it, but um just to kind of summarize again that established front yard setback requirement is based on the front yard setback at 5405 and 5409 London Derry. Um at the time 5401 um Londereerry was constructed. It complied with the setback requirement. Uh the house at the original house at 5405 was built at a setback of 60 ft. In uh 1994, that house was um torn down and pushed back an additional 30 feet, which changed the front yard setback requirement of 5401. Um if it had stayed in that same location or or not been torn down had 60 ft, um the front yard setback requirement for 5401 would have stayed at at 60 ft. So um because it was pushed back 30 ft, um that made the existing structure at 5401 non-conforming. Um, just want to note too that, you know, pushing the house back at 5405, this lot is obviously quite a bit deeper than the lot at 5401. It's about 350 ft deep compared to the lot at 5401 is only about 165 ft deep. So, um, that additional setback requirement has a um, a significant burden on 5401. Um so with that staff is recommending a motion to approve the variance request based on the findings and subject to the conditions in the staff report. I'll note here too that the applicants are in for building permit. It's already been reviewed by all other departments. Um forestry engineering have already signed off so they're complying with all engineering and forestry requirements. Um so be happy to take any questions. The applicant is here as well. >> Thank you. Addison. Does the applicant wish to add to the conversation or just answer any questions? >> Okay, thank you. So, we'll start off uh with commissioners. Anyone have any questions? Claire, >> just to clarify, Addison, um if the first floor was set back um and and met uh the setback as it is today, bringing the second floor forward wouldn't require a variance. It's not it's not because it's a second floor, it's because it's bringing it to where the first floor already is. >> Correct. I mean, the the entire structure is not conforming. >> Correct. Correct. >> With respect to the setback, um you can expand a non-conforming structure at its existing setback. Um >> but we view second floor as a at a different setback than the first. >> Yep. Yep. >> Okay. >> Other questions? Mayweather. >> And there are only two three houses on this road that create this issue. And one of them >> um yeah, correct. There's only three houses. So, their setback is based on the setback of of just these two other houses. Yep. >> Any other questions? >> Yes, Paul. Oh, sorry. I thought you were reaching for the microphone. All right. If there are no other questions, this is a public hearing. So, we'll now hear from residents who would like to provide comment on this public hearing, either in person or by phone. To provide comment by phone, please call 3125358110. Enter access code 2632503 47 followed by the password 5454. Then press star three on your telephone keypad to indicate that you would like to speak. to provide comment in person, please first give your speaker registration card to Lauren and then uh the instructions that we already provided will do the rest for you. So, is there anyone in person who would like to provide public comment? Step right up. Thanks for coming. Uh we live at 5405 London Derry Road which is directly next to 5401 and the previous house had a pitched lower roof and with the uh variance it's going to be it's taller and then it's also forward. So it is incredibly imposing on our property and you have to understand there are a number of changes that are being made. So the variance in combination with those creates a really negative experience on our land which is not something that we had anticipated. Um we've spoken to the builder and uh what we'd really like and we have we had I wrote in sorry I wrote in comments hopefully you've read those. Um what we'd like is to meet the aesthetics of the road. So each one of the houses has a beautiful um evergreen buffer between the houses on both sides. Uh the old house had a huge crab apple tree and other trees that created enough of a buffer that looked pretty good. So what we'd like is to have a significant buffer on that side of our land as is on the other side for the other uh 5409. And just to just to clarify, the the addition as part of the construction, they've added what appears to be a large window well. They're putting bedrooms in the basement. They've poured a concrete foundation for something in that window well that we're not sure of. So, our concern is some of the trees were all the the trees between us and that lot were removed. We're just asking to put back some kind of natural natural buffer between us, >> but not shrubs. We're looking for something that will give us some softness with some height because otherwise it's very imposing. I mean, our driveway, our driveway and the pit is about from here to here. So, I also think it's a safety issue because that was a big pit and it's very close to our driveway. So, I just feel like there's nothing that's stopping people from if they were to fall or move back to fall into that pit. >> You're 54, >> correct? Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else in the room that would like to speak tonight? >> All right, Lauren, do we have anybody on the phone? >> We do not. So, I believe it's safe to proceed. >> Okay. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? >> Move to close the public hearing. Second. >> Roll call, please. Commissioner Nelson. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Smith. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Fennett. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Felt. >> I. >> Commissioner Henman. >> I. >> Commissioner Brennan. >> Hi. >> Chair Alkaire. >> Hi. >> Now it's time for the commission to discuss the variance request. I wonder if we could get up on the screen the picture that has the three lots just so we can ponder the public comment that we just received. Okay. Anybody like to start us out? Um, thank you Addison for your presentation and thank you for the public comments. Um, I appreciate um the remodeling of the existing home and I appreciate kind of um keeping the existing foundation and kind of adding to it. Um, this lot is half the size of some of the other lots and so I think it it's appropriate use of this lot. Um, I also know it's very difficult when kind of remodels kind of happen close by in construction happen next to you. I've lived through a couple and they're not always pleasant. Um, but I do think that this was created they were previously um within their they were previously conforming. And so I think this was due to circumstances kind of beyond their control. So I certainly agree with staff on this one and um thinking it's an appropriate ask for variance for this. >> Thank you Mayor Rather. Any other comments? >> Yeah, I was just going to comment that uh thank you um thanks for the presentation and also appreciate the uh the comment. um with the wide variance between the two uh well the three properties actually um the 90 ft and the 50 ft uh foot setback uh it causes these three to be you know just non similar altogether but uh again my feeling is that at 5401 with the building really not moving forward it's just adding a second story um obviously more windows more um height and whatnot, but uh it it seems like it's a it should be allowed or at least I feel that way. It's just a uh improvement to the neighborhood. Um and and I don't know if the tree variance or anything comes into play here if trees have been removed. I guess that was my one question though when the uh the comment was brought up. Um I guess I could ask staff about that. Addison Yep. So, there are some trees that are proposed for removal. Um the ones proposed for removal, I believe, are all um considered unprotected by the ordinance um and don't require replacement. Um like I said, the city forester has already reviewed the permit and approved it. So, um they they are in compliance with the tree preservation ordinance. Then has I I guess has construction begun or it was at a on a different >> they just submitted the permit for review. Um so they submitted a building permit and that's where this was caught that this needed a variance. So >> the window well question is what I'm asking about. The resident at 5405 mentioned >> there was a large window well. Is that just being proposed or is that in place? >> That is proposed. I think they may have gotten a permit for just that part or the foundation. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Right. Yeah. Generally, I'm in in favor of the uh approving this. >> Addison, sorry to have you up and down, but I had one more question just for clarity. The the there's no variance required for the height of the building. Is there? >> Nope. It complies with height. >> Okay. Any other questions >> or comments? I guess I got a question in response to the testimony. Looking at the plans, it does look like there's at least 10 ft between the edge of the window well and the property line when all is said and done. Is that correct? I guess just a question for the builder. It does not look like there's any sort of landscape or buffer between that property and it sounded like there used to be. Could you just speak to what you might be able to do beyond what has been approved? met with the neighbors and presented this drawing to them where I've got shrubbery now around that window well and that was presented to them yesterday and uh I don't know if it's appropriate this crab tree that they talked about you can see what they're was landscape plan for that. This is talking about over here. >> Here's your mic. >> And so you can see that it's >> we have excuse me. I'm not used to this particular position. So um you can see that we do have that buffered with shrubbery. And if you go back to in the packet, there's surveys. You can actually look at the corner where that crab tree is. It's got an X on it, but that's where the crab tree was. It's in the corner that would be about there. >> I'm hardly hearing besides there. So, >> okay. That crab tree would be right about there. So, it was not over here. It was there. And it's on the survey that you have in the packet. It's got an X through it because it was too close to the foundation and the survey and it was had splits and cracks in it and the forester said we could remove it based on the recommendation of the arborist. This property had a complete um survey with all the trees listed. It's it's on there. Plus, we had a full, excuse me, we had a full arborist report on all those trees and had those all documented and that was all turned in and the uh was not an inconsequential situation because there's 40 trees on this property and they all have to be on here inventoried and that and they are and we have the permit for it that everything that has been done here is correct. As far as that window well that they're talking about, I actually have a foundation permit for this that allowed us to do that work. So, that is issued and I have a building permit for that. >> Great. Thanks. That's all the questions I had. >> Okay. Thank you for sharing that landscape plan. Um I mean in addition to what the code is and I mean I support this and then beyond that you know always encourage builders and residents to be good neighbors beyond what the code suggests. So if someone finds out shrubs are not enough I mean then the neighboring property owner has the right to you know plan stuff along the property line themselves. There's other things that can be done, but I'd encourage the people doing the building to have those conversations and accommodate how they can. But in general, I do support this. Looks like everything's meeting the standards and that landscape plan is nice, but I do see that there could be a better buffer, but that can be done by either party later. Thank you. Any other comments? Is there a motion? >> Move to approve the variance at 541 London Road as noted in the packet. >> Second. >> The roll call, please. >> Commissioner Nelson. >> I. >> Commissioner Smith. >> I. >> Commissioner Bennett. >> I. >> Commissioner Felt. >> I. >> Commissioner Hedman. >> I. >> Commissioner Brennan. I >> chair Alire >> I. So the motion carries and the variance is uh recommended to be is approved. Thank you for coming and participating tonight. Next item of business is a variance request for 6520 Gleon Court. Uh Chris Oer will introduce this for us. Thank you, chair. Members of the planning commission, excuse me. The property owners are at 50 6520 Gleon Road. They're requesting a 3.8 ft variance to allow a 21.2 two foot setback from the rear lot line where the required rear setback is 25 ft. The variance is to allow the construction of 14 foot master bedroom addition to the back of their one-story rambler. So, this is the existing property here. The house is sip set back quite a bit further um from the front lot line than um some of the neighboring homes. It's a shallower lot than you will see um the neighboring home has as well. The property contains a one-story rambler with an attached garage built in 1975. You can see that there is a significant grade difference from the street side to where uh the front of the house is. It's been set back uh 51.9 ft, which is quite deep into the lot, which limits uh their availability to add an addition into the rear yard. Here is a survey of the existing home. Um including in that is the addition that is being proposed. It's a 14oot extension into the rear yard. They um would be allowed a 10- foot um deep edition, which um for the purposes of what they would like to accomplish, which would be a master bedroom um with a bath. It they wanted to have an additional 4 feet, which then translates into a 3.8 foot rear yard setback. So, here are the floor plans. You have the lower level extension and then the uh main floor uh bedroom and bathroom and the elevations into the rear. The house was constructed deep in the lot at a higher elevation than the street and closer to the rear lot line reducing the rear yard expansion opportunity which is typically where most expansion opportunity is available on residential property. The plight of the land owner is due to the deep placement of the house plus the shallow rear yard that significantly d reduces that opportunity um allowing for only limited limited improvements. Staff does recommend approval of the requested variance. Approval is based on the findings included in your staff report um that there is in that the request is in harmony with the general and purpose and intent of the ordinance. The primary purpose and intent is to maintain adequate distance from neighboring properties. Um the reduction and setback would still provide adequate spacing. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It will still remain a single family home. Uh the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance given um the applicant is proposing to maintain the living space on one level with a minimally encroached setback into their shallow rear yard. um resulted from uh a deep front yard setback and having that house further back into the lot. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the land owner and the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant is offering an addition behind the home with proposed minimal space added to provide adequate bedroom area and the addition is not visible from the street and will not alter the street view. Approval is subject to the following conditions. That the plans submitted at the time of building permit shall be consistent with the plans and survey dates stamped April 8th, 2028 and compliance with engineering and the tree permit review. There were no better together comments um received. Um we have attending uh Tom Gardner, the home and homeowner. um Erin Virtue from Fox Homes U project developer developer and coordinator and Nick Schuman who's also with Fox Homes. And with that, I will stop and answer any questions you may have. >> Does the applicant want to present or just be available for questions? >> We appreciate the opportunity to present. >> Well, now if you would like to present something, now would be a good time for it. >> Got it. All right. All right. Thank you. Uh so we'll start with questions for staff or for the applicant. Anyone have anything? Claire, >> uh Chris, um the front yard set back here, uh they're not adjusting it, but what would it what would the minimum required be required to be based on uh the adjoining property owners? Well, there's more than just the adjoining that I was showing on um the aerial. So, it would be closer. It would probably be um within uh the range of more 40 ft, but um they don't have the opportunity to adjust that. Can you show us the aerial view of the neighboring lots again? So, the street does curve and it does get closer at some points. Um, this house is uh it's a little bit closer. Well, it is closer than um this house happens to be further back from a measurement standpoint. Chris, it looks like 6500 has a deeper I'm trying to look at the property lines of not just the adjacent neighbors, but the ones behind as well. Oh, their rear yard. Yes, they all have, excuse me, they all have deeper setbacks um than the 25 ft and and they also are deeper lots. I should have should have a larger picture of that. Other questions? Quincy? >> So, just curious if you just shift back to the image with the drawing. Yep. So really what's triggering um this variance request is is it the bedroom on the back side of the home that's 4 ft beyond where it should be. >> Correct. 3.8 ft. >> Gotcha. And so what's the current length of that? I want to get a sense of the square footage um difference if you know what it is here now. And then if you take off the 4 ft, what would the new square footage be? I'm just curious about that. >> The square the total square footage >> of the bedroom, the extension >> 13 by 25. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And that's exterior measurements. It's not taking into account the, you know, the depth or the width of the >> Right. Yep. Yep. Got it. >> The walls. So, it's not interior space. >> Okay. All right. >> All right. That's it. Thank you, >> Paul. No, no real comment here, but the this does say Gleon Court, but and there is a 6520 Gleason Court, but this is not that. This is Gleon Road. >> Thank you. >> I'm pretty certain of that because I I know I know this house. So, um, but I, yeah, I guess I feel it's, uh, the lot in the back is is quite wooded and quite large. There's a pool back there as well, but that there's plenty of room back beyond that. It doesn't seem like there's much of a effect on the neighbors. And having heard no other comments, I I don't feel I feel appropriate in approving this, too. Okay. Is there any other questions before we have a public hearing? So, we'll see if there's anybody in the room who wants to comment in a second. But first, I'll just quickly read the instructions for telephone. To provide comment by phone, please call 3125358110. Enter access code 2632505 34 3407 followed by the password 5454. Then press star three on your telephone keypad to indicate you would like to speak. Is there anyone else? Anyone in the room who'd like to talk about this project tonight? All right, Lauren, anyone on the phone? >> There is nobody on the phone um yet, but I would recommend we wait another 30 seconds or so and then we can move on. >> Okay, you let us know when 30 seconds are up. It >> has been 30 seconds and nobody has joined the call, so I believe it's safe to proceed. >> All right. Thanks, Lauren. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? >> Motion to close. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Nelson, >> I. Commissioner Smith >> I. >> Commissioner Fel. >> I. >> Commissioner Bennett. >> I. >> Commissioner Henman. >> Commissioner Brennan. >> I. >> Chair Alire. >> I. All right. Commission. Any discussion on this? >> So >> Claire food for thought here. I guess my opinion is I could go either way. defer to staff's recommendation, but I we have seen other variance requests that we have denied because we felt that when the homeowner sort of acquired the property, um, however, it was renovated on the inside was sort of it that's what they that's what they purchased. That's what they inherited. So that just by virtue of wanting to do something different that didn't automatically grant a variance. I'm thinking of the family that had a very small driveway and or a garage and somebody had put a bathroom sort of behind the garage which meant they couldn't go backwards. The only way to expand their garage was to go forward. Um, this residence has room to go. It sounds like a number of feet to go forward if they wanted to expand their footprint. Um, and I didn't hear a compelling argument that the grade or something else of the lot prevented that. So again, I tend to defer to staff's judgment, but I'm just struggling a little bit because it's a a a nice to have for the extra 3.8 ft, not a not a need to have and not a need to have that sort of constrained in all other directions that they couldn't do something differently. So just feeling like maybe as a commission we should think about that and our consistency in handling these variances. >> Thank you. Other comments may >> I'm happy to go and continue the conversation with Claire. I've driven the street a lot and I've driven it when my daughter was going to high school at the high school. Um, and it is a very uniform front street experience. You know, I don't necessarily think that kind of adding on to the front would harm this house in any way. Um, but I do appreciate their wanting um to be on the back in the back or the quieter side of the house, you know. And once again, it feels like to me they could either put it on the back or the quieter side of the house. It was bathroom to bathroom >> in here on the plans and um you know, not necessarily putting a bathroom all the way on the front of the house. And so there are some economies of >> for sure >> kind of plumbing stacks and stuff like that. So I appreciate their situation and um you know once again kind of appreciate their wanting to invest in their existing home. Um, so I think like you, you know, on the fence, this side or that side, I'm probably just on the other side. >> Thank you. Other comments, Paul is going to comment that it is uh there's a significant hill in the front. I mean, it does slope down quite a bit. large tree. Um, other other factors that may have prevented them from going to the front. But, uh, again, I I'm just going to bring that up as I I know that street and I know that that situation exists there. >> Thanks, Jimmy. >> Yeah, I totally agree. in in general. I mean, I I support this and part of the fundamental purpose of a variance isn't necessarily can you do something that complies. It is is what is proposed consistent with the comp plan? Does it not be a detriment to the character of the neighborhood? Is it not a unique situation created by the homeowner? And I I think for this it's like it's appropriate versus adding on to the front. They could get by with a smaller addition, but there is this shed in a neighboring property that looks over the property line that it's kind of matching the extent of where to me it seems in harmony with what's going on. So again, I think this is a purpose of a variance. is do we let someone creep over, you know, the laws? And I think this is an appropriate uh addition, creates functional space. Could they get by with smaller? Yeah. But um it's one of those on the line, but in general, I support it. >> Anyone else? Yeah, I would I would agree um with Commissioner Bennett on this one too. Um and I think CLA brings up a fair point that we should all think about as well, right? Um when I look at these variances, I try to look at, you know, I go back in history and I try to think about all the variances that we've seen and the ones that we agree to and we decide to move forward and the ones that we decide to deny. And sometimes it's really split, right? it's on the commission. If it's a full commission, it's usually um 54 or something like that. Um and this one could tether either way. I'm I'm leaning more fully approved on this one. Uh just because it's not really encroaching in front of the home, it's on the back. Um yes, it's it's 4T extra. I think I was trying to do the math like 52 ft extra on a bedroom, you know, is what they're asking for. Um it doesn't seem too imposing. It seems like it's a good use and yeah, you know, could the homeowner push this in the front of the home? Potentially, but then there's going to be, I would guess, significant cost difference, right? And we try to factor in, you know, all the e economics as well, right? We want to make a dinina a place where residents could live in place. They're not building a second story. They're not tearing down the home. They just want to make it more livable and more comfortable to live in, right? And we try to promote that where we can. Folks to stay, folks to continue in the community. Um, and so that's what I think about, you know, um, obviously we look at all the rules and we have a little bit of a dis discretion. Um, if this was much bigger, you know, uh, pushing really deep into the backyard, then I'll have some concern that yes, you could get by with something smaller, but that doesn't seem to be too imposing from what I could see. So overall, I I would say this is a is a an an approval from me. Um, but yeah, you know, we always have to think about the totality of what we decide and try to be fair as possible. >> Thanks, Quincy. Uh, I'll just add a a couple of brief comments. I really appreciate Claire's point and I think to the extent to the extent that we can be truly consistent, I think that's good for the community because we don't want people to come in here and be surprised. At least to the extent that that's possible. I think there's a lot of variance requests that are similar, but so often everyone is different. >> And yes, and so it's hard to be really consistent in a world where everything is consistently different. For me, what's persuasive about this is that the house was built where the house was built. And uh if you're committed to an addition on the back in this situation, well, you could tear the house down and rebuild it a little bit closer to the front and do what you want to do. We're not recommending that and I don't think we'd feel good about recommending that. So, the house was built where the house was built and also the addition is proposed for the back of the house where literally no one's going to see it. So, I just don't see any impact to be concerned about. Although I think the coaching on consistency is really useful for us as a as a team. So if there are no other comments, we'll entertain a motion if there is one. >> I motion to approve this variance request for the conditions highlighted in the staff report. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Nelson, >> I. Commissioner Smith >> I. >> Commissioner Bennett >> I. >> Commissioner Felt >> I. >> Commissioner Henman >> I. >> Commissioner Brennan >> I. >> Chair Alkaire >> I. So the motion carries and the variance is approved. Thanks for coming and congratulations. Our third public hearing tonight is a variance for St. Stevens Church at 50th Street and Wooddale. And Chris Aucker will present the project for us. >> Thank you, chair. Me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me members of planning commission. The applicant is requesting a 19.8 8 foot west setback variance and a 19 ft setback variance from the ordinary high water elevation of Minihaha Creek with the required setback of 50 ft from the creek. Property is St. Steven's Church which is located at 443950th Street. I think most people are familiar with it. The variance request is for accessibility and safety betterments um to St. Steven's Church. This is a recent survey of the property. The area that's highlighted is the area that is the actual buildable area of the lot. So, the site itself is non-conforming in terms of what we would what how much property we would allow for a church and the building itself is very non-conforming in terms of setback and coverage. And it also is within the FEMA flood plane. So there's a lot of challenges um that this property faces. In addition to that, the original uh church was built. I guess I'm not exactly sure ex there there is some indication um a date around 1938. Um there was some additions in the 1960s and 1950s. All of the church, the original portion of the church as well as the additions predate our current code. Um they also predate the flood plane study that was done in 1979. So um yes it's very non-conforming. The um church has been looking at doing some uh improvements that would address uh the flood plane ordinance as well as um trying to update um some of the building areas for accessibility purposes. Um the conundrum that they're in is that the FEMA flood plane ordinance does not allow them to add any additional square footage of build buildable area. So they've um they will be removing portions of existing building and then recombining them in an area where they can actually uh accomplish some of the goals that they need. But it's um here is the modification areas that are illustrated. So you have the building areas in the lighter blue. The darker blue areas are existing portions of the building that will be removed um the building footprint. And then the pinkish area is where they would be adding or reconfiguring that area um in order to comply with the FEMA flood plane rules of no additional building area. So the areas to be relocated and modified to accomplish the proposed improvements include um the existing structure here will be modified. Um the existing room that's adjacent to that is um by the creek um will be removed and that area will be relocated to be used um for the um accessibility additions. um this door will be taken out um because currently it is um subject to flooding. So they will be addressing that issue as well. So, the proposed area of accessibility improvements include some exterior improvements um because there are um non-accessible areas um in the front along Wooddale um in the front main entrance and then also here um and the southern part um near the chapel. So inaccessible areas are the Narthx entry. The parish house lower level access by is accessed by stairs only. Um there's an ex inaccessible entry path that has a a very steep slope at 1 to six um in the area that is um located on the west side. And then within the interior spaces, there are stairs and um there have been uh ramps that have been installed over time that um do not meet the ADA requirements. So, this is the area um of relocation where they're proposing to consolidate all of the building area in order to accomplish their goals. And then this um are the renderings of the building improvements um the areas that they'll be consolidating in order to accomplish those interior spaces that will um provide um accessible entrances, accessible um ways of of navigating through the different portions of the building. They will be adding and updating um bathrooms and making them accessible as well as um having an adult changing table. Uh they were they will not be um proposing any new program areas. The modification rearranges existing program areas and provides improved access and circulation, including a larger and safer safer elevator and in a more central location and provides improved and code compliant restrooms. Staff recommends approval of the requested variances and granted the two variances are just setback variances. one for the west side that is actually for um the gathering space here in front of that main door. The main door that they'll be adding is actually inset further back and then um from the back corner of um the property which will be um actually further inset from an existing non-conforming setback that's currently there. So staff recommends motion to approve the 19.8 foot east setback and 19 foot ordinary high water elevation setback variance request based on the findings and subject to the conditions in the staff report. Um with that there we did receive three comments through better togetherina all supportive comments and um there are a number of people here from the church um that may be willing to speak and with that I will stop and answer any questions you may have. >> Thanks Chris. Is there anyone from the church who'd like to share some thoughts or just be available for questions whatever you prefer. Oh, can you come up and use the microphone so we can record you >> for posterity? >> Hi, thank you. Um, my name is Mary Sue Vorbrick. I am the lay leader, which means I have no professional skills and I'm not paid to do it. Um, but I'm leading up the construction team, the design team at St. Stevens. And um with me here today I have uh Father Tom Cook who's the director um in layman's terms. So he's like the CEO. Uh Lisa Cororsland who is the uh head of the vestri which would be the chair of the board in layman's terms. Um several of the uh people from the architectural firm Hamill Green and Abramson are here as well as our project manager from Adolfson and Peterson. So, I'm happy to answer any questions that I may be an be able to answer or if um if we're dialing down into architectural uh details, I'm going to hand that off to somebody else. >> Great. Thanks for coming. Thanks for the introductions, too. >> So, commission questions for staff for the applicants? Mayweather, >> I have a question for for um it could be the applicants or staff. Um it was a question about the pieces that are being removed and maybe Chris can go back to the exterior images of the areas that were being removed. I just want to say thank you for being here. Oh, thank you for taking this on. >> And specifically, you mentioned that north entrance. You said the canopy only. And I'm bringing this up because I just think it's such a beautiful piece of architecture. So, I'm wondering. >> Sure. Um, I know a lot more about the Edina City Code than I used to. Um and what is considered structure for purposes of footprint is two walls and a roof. And currently that structure has two walls and a roof. And we are going to make it so it does not have two walls and a roof. So it will will still have the the door will remain >> and the the cover will remain but we'll lighten up the structure around it. So it goes from two walls. It goes from structure as defined by the code to not structure. >> So the roof comes off and the timbering comes off. And for me >> the roof stays. >> Oh, the roof stays. The timbering comes off. >> The some the walls >> on the north on the when you're looking at this picture >> um the left wall >> is actually solid as is the wall going into the church. And the left wall will be made transparent is not the right word, but it will no longer be solid. And I think that the the wall on the right may be lightened up as well, but the entrance way will stay, but it will no longer be a code structure. >> Okay. So, the existing entrance structure to be modified to canopy only. Wind will be able to go through it. Yes. If there's a big rain, it'll get a little wet, but that timberine will still stay there. >> Yes. >> Okay. The timbering is very important, I think, to the >> Yeah, we like it architecturally, but we needed the square feet to comply with FEMA. >> Okay, I appreciate that. >> Sure. >> Stay here in case because I can direct it. Yeah, >> sounds good. Other questions, Jimmy? >> All right. Just so I'm not making assumptions because I'm pretty good at those. Um, you know, we don't always have such a a tangible other stakeholder in some of these decisions as evidenced with the Minhaha Creek and the wershed district. Can you just kind of enlighten us as to what their concerns were and how you guys are mitigating against those as well as some of the compromise that has been I guess probably negotiated between that party, the city and you to find an agreeable solution that is a win-winwin. >> Sure. I'm happy to talk to that. Um actually we didn't have to compromise, we had to comply. So um the city Jessica Wilson is in charge and Chris and Carrie can speak to this of making sure that uh we comply with FEMA so that Edina stays eligible for flood insurance. And so we had to comply. We couldn't compromise. Um, and so the FEMA, um, according to the FEMA regulations, that's why we have the zero foot. We cannot increase the footprint, but we can move it. And in this case, we're bettering the creek health by taking structure out of the flood plane. We're taking structure away from the creek side and putting it on the on the other side of the building, if you will. And so that if you have uh runoff issues and you know you want mother nature to filter the water like the land is supposed to do before it gets to the creek, there's more of that between the church and the creek now. Well, there'll be more after the project than there is currently. Does that help? >> Yep. It matches my assumption. And just I mean in in addition to what the city's setbacks are for historical purposes. Um to me that's the most important thing to illustrate as being done here as well as meet the goals of the applicant. But >> yeah though just so the watershed district was involved in some of our early meetings as well. >> Thank you. Other questions? Quincy? >> Yeah, thank you for the presentation. I'm just curious, you know, you're making a modification to a structure that's pretty old and in this part of the city, I think it's the country club neighborhood. Um, there's usually a lot of um aesthetic rules and guidelines for the homes in this region. just share any any feedback or or insight you got from maybe the min uh the Dina Historical Society or any preservation society on making modifications to the church. >> Sure. Actually um several years ago we the church worked with the Edina Historical Society to assess whether or not the property would be something that could be registered on the historical register either locally or um nationally. and the answer came back no. Um so it isn't architecturally or historically signific significant enough to do that. Um now having said that it's beautiful and it's a big piece of Edina's you know founding and structure. It's been there since 1938. Um and so aesthetically there are three main buildings. 1938 is the main church and then the mid 1950s is the parish house which is now the office and then in the 60s is the chapel which is in this picture on the far right hand side. Um and what connects them so those are beautiful and to us architecturally significant even if they don't you know meet standards for architectural protection. Um, and we will keep that. The stone will the stone buildings will stay in place. What we're going to get rid of is this building in the lower left hand corner that you see. Um, which kind of looks like a trailer that was tacked on the back. Um, yeah, it was actually where the vest used to meet and we thought maybe the bishop didn't like the vest. So, um, that's getting removed. Um, and some of the connective work that you see in the upper right hand corner, that stone walkway is currently what we use as our handicap accessible route to the chapel, but it's all outside. And so that's coming off. and the building behind it, which kind of has some 1960s leaky windows with exterior air conditioning units, that will be replaced by the newer glass section. So, we're trying to maintain the three old historic, but well, we will maintain exactly the three old historical structures and it's the connective tissue that's going to be reconstituted. Uh, just a follow-up question. Thank you for that. I really appreciate the explanation. Um, so just to be clear, the wall with the quote unquote leaky windows, that is that wall going to be torn down. >> No, actually what's going to happen is it's going to become an internal wall. >> Gotcha. Okay. >> So the the ugly 60s windows and air conditionings will go away, but the wall will stay. The the wall will stay. I know in the staff report too, just last question here, um, some of the internal, you know, and you kind of mentioned this, the, uh, internal passageways may not have been ADA compliant. >> Yes. >> Is part of this making some of this ADA compliant? >> Yes, we hope to make the whole thing ADA compliant. Um, and we will do that as far as our funds will take us. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, >> Claire. Maybe I'm misunderstood and I don't know if you can go back a slide. There is I I thought from the chapel towards Wooddale on the southern side closest to the creek a bridge a stone bridge. >> Yeah, there. And isn't to the bottom left the same as the top right? It's just different sides of the same >> Yes, that is in the previous slide. That is the route um >> where you have to go from the outside figure. >> Exactly. It's it's part of the route into the chapel wing. >> And the only thing that bridge that bridge was added later to make the chapel wing handicap accessible >> which not 1930 stone. >> No. >> Thank you. >> The only 1930 stone is actually on the original church and it's Platville limestone. I don't know if this group is familiar with Platville limestone. It was available for a short period of time and it's horrible building material. So, um you would never pick it, but we're keeping it. Um but the other two buildings have stone that are similar but don't have the same uh physical uh properties. >> So, is this bridge is that part of what we were calling like the 1960s edition? >> That's not Plav Limestone. That's that that's one that's a later edition. I think it it probably came in with the chapel. Anybody remember? No, we don't remember. But it would have made sense that it came in when the chapel wing was built. >> And my guess is uh that was part of the trade-off. Get rid of this so you have more square footage to build uh what you would like on the front side. >> Actually, um we're getting rid of it. Um, it doesn't actually count as very much square footage because a lot of the bridge just has uh dirt under it and so it doesn't have two walls and a roof. >> Okay. >> So, we're getting rid of it because under the new system, the the handicap accessibility will be internal and centralized. And we also wanted to get rid of just lot coverage that we don't need. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. Um Paul New House, who's the head architect, has something to say to this. Would you like to hear that? >> Thank you. >> I just wanted to clarify something. That bridge and the storage under it is being counted as structure that is being removed and we'll take credit for it for our addition. Can I Paul >> Paul and >> but that but that bridge is become is redundant if the internal access >> right >> is there >> it's not needed anymore it's not safe >> in the winter right >> it's hard to keep it smooth um so people can traverse on it so it's going to come down and everything will go through the new front door and you'll be able to get everywhere >> thank you. >> I just had one question for Chris. Chris, would you just would you mind just repeating the on the west side the existing non-conforming setback and the new non-conforming setback? Those two numbers. So most of the building does maintain um the required setback. The new front yard setback is I believe it's 30.9 ft. And then the other setback um request is um setback would be 30 feet instead of the required 50t from the creek. >> Is that what you were looking for? >> No. on the west side on the the current condition before the project it's also non-conforming isn't it? >> Yes. Yes. You can see this is the required setback and then um closer to the street is the existing fortunately I can't see it on there but um can you move to the floor plan the proposed floor plan and just So this would be the non-conforming setback here for the front of that portion of the building. And then in the pink below that, there's a little portion of that pink that is part of the non-conforming >> that is going to be coming um as part of the new >> Mhm. >> Yes. So that so the non-conforming west elevation is going to be continued with kind of an access just a little bit of the addition. >> With a little bit of the addition. Yes. >> Okay. Yes. >> And then there will be actually it's a plaza area in front of it. And that's really where the setback variance request is coming from. >> Okay. >> Because that is the closest point the proposed closest point to the west lot line. the whole entry the open plaza. Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. There are no other questions. We'll open it up to the public. This is a public hearing. So before we see if there's anyone in the room who'd like to speak, I'll give the instructions for uh telephone comment one more time. To provide comment by phone, please call 3125358110. Enter access code 26325053407 followed by the password 5454. Then press star three on your telephone keypad to indicate you would like to speak. Is there anyone in the room who'd like to provide some testimony on this project? I don't see anyone. Lauren, anyone on the phone? >> We do not have anyone who has joined the call. Um, but due to the delay in the broadcast, I recommend we wait 30 seconds. >> All right. Thank you. >> What is the delay? Is it 10 seconds or how long is the >> minute? In case we're in case we're swearing or something, they can bleep us out. >> I don't know if we can do that. >> Not tonight. All right, it's been 30 seconds and nobody has joined the call. I believe it's safe to proceed. >> Great. Thank you, Lauren. Is there a motion to close public hearing? >> Motion to close public hearing. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Nelson, >> I. >> Commissioner Smith, >> I. >> Commissioner Bennett, >> I. >> Commissioner Feld, >> I. >> Commissioner Henman, >> I. Commissioner Brennan >> I. >> Chair Alire. >> Hi. >> All right. Commissioners, anyone want to weigh in? Who wants to start? >> Uh, can I ask about the metal panel uh stair enclosure and equipment enclosure? There some new mechanicals going in or is that an existing rooftop equipment being screened? Just curious. >> Yes. Um, thanks for that question. U, there will be a cooling tower up on the roof just as there is one now. We're going to put it as far back as we can so that it's least visible possible, but we need to have one up there. And we'll screen it with um some sort of metal panel. Um, >> sure. >> We have considered different things like louvers. It needs to breathe. You know, air needs to get through it. But, um, we're going to try to find a good quality material that is the least visible possible. >> Mhm. Yeah. I mean, buildings need to heat and cool. Um, while I have you, uh, there's new stone. Is there a fun stone story where the stone is coming from or what type of stone? So, we're looking at granite for the new stone for the addition and it will be panels instead of put up as masonry. Um, >> so it'll be hung on the walls instead of um put up with mortar and as masonry and uh we're looking at like um St. Cloud area where they have lots of stone. Um, it would be compatible with the existing buildings but not try to match it. >> Yeah, I appreciate it. Thank you. >> Any comments, Merryweather? Oh, I thought you were saying yes, Jimmy. All right. Well, you know, I had to tube by just to uh get a good look at this. Uh yeah, I mentioned the creek and the watershed district earlier because I feel like aside from the applicant, they are the most prominent stakeholder besides us as a city. And just for some context, and I'm glad you clarified with compliance. uh thou shalt comply and it's important but what you guys are doing and what I want to acknowledge and like elevate is the removal of structure in the floodway and flood plane. And just some context for what that means is in terms of the goals of the watershed district and neighbors along the creek is when the the creek floods, every cubic yard or whatever you take out of the floodway or flood plane is allowing extra flood storage. So that is bringing water potentially outside of people's basement and providing a spot for it. So anytime a structure or a improvement can be made where we in increase the capacity of the floodway or flood plane is a win that we should celebrate. Um so while you're complying I mean it's going above where this thing is going to flood and where storage is needed. So that's a good thing. Um and that helps the creek health as well as all the neighbors along the creek. So I I don't think you can understate the importance of that move alone. And then the weird thing about this is where the footprint is added outside of the flood plane and floodway um you know doesn't match. I mean it it doesn't comply with our setbacks yet there's structure behind it closer to the creek you know so it's this weird anomaly. Uh, and that's an okay thing in situations like this where we have an old historic piece of the community that's still intact and still used and relevant where people built things close to the water back in the day. Some of the things and some of the things people did to the creek way, you know, cutting ditches, you know, straightening the creek where it wants to meander. you know, the watershed district and the city want to, you know, improve that situation like we've done at Ardan Park to add meanders, restore the creek to its natural rhythm and flow. And in areas where things were built next to it, like, does it still work? And there is always going to be this tension where we have a historic usable structure right along a waterway that doesn't comply. And it doesn't mean that if they want to do something, we should have them tear the whole thing down and rebuild in a com in a comp in a way that complies. It's are they doing something that's reasonable and you know a win-win or a net win for the watershed district, the city as well as the applicants goals. And I think what they're doing here, the stuff that they're sharing and not sharing, I mean, like bringing the creek more into view from the church and creating a safe and improved situation is awesome. Ha is an awesome architect. I think this is going to be just a win-win win for the community. And, you know, if you're canoeing the creek and rec like recreating on it, you know, it's it's a fun thing to have something nice like that there. And in other areas where the watershed district or the city can use land and remeander the creek, you know, that's a win. But this is a different situation and I think what is being proposed is very tasteful and responsible and compliant and fully support it. >> Thank you, Mayor Weather. >> Um, thank you. Thanks for being here. I do appreciate that this addition is bringing inside all of those accessibility issues and I think it's a very kind of thoughtful addition and I appreciate all the thought and effort that went into kind of studying the um existing structure and deciding what you could or couldn't do. And um really like that you the information I got about that north entry because that is so charming. and I'm glad that it's still there. Um, and so I think I think this is a really thoughtful, tasteful addition and it's a good thing for the community to kind of be together. So I appreciate the gathering and the being able to transition um accessibly um all together. So I'm in favor of this too. >> Thank you. Anyone else? >> Paul, chime in. Everybody's talking, right? Um yeah, thanks for being here and thanks for your uh your comments and and for for thoughtfully thinking through this project. Obviously, a lot of work's gone into it this far uh thus thus far and uh um you know I my really only comments is that the footprint is moving away from the flood plane which is a good thing. It's a good thing for everything involved. I thought it thought it was sort of interesting that we didn't talk about parking at all because we talk about parking and all these things but there is no parking. So, um, I'm not even going to bring it up, but I just did. Uh, so, yeah, thank you. Thank you for the thought that you've put into it already, and it looks like a a very nice addition to the the property. That's it, >> Quincy. >> Sure. You know, uh, I I was, you know, for the amount of churches in the city, to the amount of homes, we we do get quite a few church um requests. I could remember um some churches wanted to build apartments, um sell off land, build a daycare, build a drive aisle, um signage issues. Um this one seems like the easiest one of all the church requests that we get. Um you know, we're certainly moving the massing away from the flood plane. So, as Commissioner Bennett was pointing out, I think that's a very positive thing. and we always want to comply with with those kinds of rules. Um, I was really surprised that the Edina Historical Society didn't say, "Hey, you know, this is something that you can't change cuz it's a historical building, but you guys have the ability to do it." Which is good cuz it seems like you're making a lot of changes to make it more accessible for your members. And so, you know, it's a great project. It looks like it's very um useful and beneficial. um it's not encroaching on the flood plane and it has some quote unquote grandfathered in type variances, right? So um whenever we have old buildings wanting to make changes to upgrade, we always run into what's the new code that they have to comply with. And so I think what you guys are trying to do is really helpful. So I'm I'm I'm really in uh in favor of it. I think it's a good addition and I think it makes sense what you guys are trying to do. Thanks, Quincy. I guess the only thing I would add is just that I'm so delighted to learn that St. Stevens has the both the will and the capacity to maintain and even improve this beautiful old building because I know it costs a lot of money. But we live just south uh of your church and I go by there in my car or walking probably three to five times a day and it's just such a beautiful building and it's going to be great to have that continue as a as a part of our community. So, thanks for all of you for being here. If there are any other comments, we'd have that now or a motion. >> I would make a motion. Motion to approve the variance request based on the findings and subjects to the conditions listed in the staff report. >> A second. >> Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Nelson, >> I. >> Commissioner Smith, >> I. >> Commissioner Bennett, >> I. >> Commissioner Felt, >> I. >> Commissioner Henman, >> I. Commissioner Brennan >> I. >> Chair Aler >> I. Motion carries. Congratulations and thanks so much for taking the time to join us tonight. >> All right. We have two sketch plan reviews tonight. First one is for 7600 France Avenue >> and Carrie Teague will introduce the subject for us. Thank you chair, members of the planning commission. Uh this first sketch plan is located at 7600 France. This is in the greater Salt Southdale district on the west side of France at the intersection of 76th and France. Uh the the slide on the screen here indicates the property is zoned planned office district 1 and is guided in our comprehensive plan for office and residential uses. Here's a look at the existing site. There's a sevenstory office building on the site and you can see the the sea of parking around it. What the applicant is would like to do is subdivide the property. They didn't draw lot lines on the sketch plan, but they would like to subdivide to create four lots. So each individual financial inst each each one of these three new buildings is a financial institution. So they would be on their own site. Each building would be 5,000 square feet. The existing building of course would remain. This next series of slides just indicates um what the what the buildings would look like. So we're seeing uh this is France Avenue right here, 76th and the three new financial institutions. One thing I want to point out is they are they've located the the uh the drive-thru uh aisles away from France Avenue to try to create that 50-ft buffer that we that we look for. Just want to indicate that there is a drive aisle within the 50 foot setback. It meets our code requirement for a a driveway which you can have those up to 20 feet. And there also is some parking stalls within that 50-foot setback. That 50 foot setback is for buildings. So drive aisles um and parking stalls can encroach. So just to move through uh different angles of the project when we look at our zoning ordinance uh compliance table here uh there would be uh variances involved because the intent here is to sell off individual lots to different financial institutions. If this was a unified development, all held in common ownership, we would not need setbacks from those internal lot lines. Even if there were lot lines drawn here, if they were all held in common ownership, our code doesn't require those setbacks. They can what's recognized on properties that are zoned the same and held in common ownership. Only the perimeter setbacks apply and not the interior. But the intent here is to sell those off. So our code requires a 10-ft setback, a green space setback between drive aisles and the lot lines. Uh so we would look for those islands along each of those lot lines and if they still proposed as we're seeing on the screen variances would be involved. Uh the site would be slightly short parked compared to our code overall. We would look at again if they're sold uh sold individually each site would require 17 parking stalls. Um, so there may be some variances there because each lot it doesn't look like would have 17 stalls on it. So there there would be some cross um access and parking easements on the site. In terms of floor area ratio overall the project would comply, but again if we look at individual lots uh potentially those could exceed. So there would likely be some variances as part of any formal application. Uh so a formal request would require a subdivision to establish those three new lots, site plan review, variances for parking, the shared parking and internal drive aisle and parking area setbacks. So areas of focus for your discussion after the the two presentations could be on the requirements again for the separate ownership and providing that green space setback separation between each lot and uh the the parking variances. I will stop there. The uh Michael Margles is here representing the property owner and he has a presentation as well and then we can take your questions after that. >> Sounds good. Thank you. I know I opened it for you. There we go. Thank you, Carrie. Um, Mr. Commissioners, my name is Michael Margules. I'm with the Newton Res LLC. Uh, I'm a project manager assisting the owner of the property, which is um, Eden Prairie Holdings. Um, our goal is to develop these three lots in a manner that does not require uh uh variances and we will we will adapt our site plan as best we can to uh uh achieve that goal. Um we can functionally make the buildings smaller if we have to. Um, we can reduce some of the we could reduce one of the uh size of the of the project to two buildings as opposed to one. Uh, excuse me, two buildings as opposed to three. Um, and try to respect um, uh, the setback issues that are required. Uh, we envision that there will be a cross parking easement that will support the support the property. Um, beyond that, what I have is the I'll try to answer any questions you have or um provide you additional information. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> Anyone like to start? >> Sure. Merryweather. >> Um, I have questions for staff. Um, so this site is seven acres and the Macy's site is 8 acres. >> I'm sorry. The the which site? >> Macy's side. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's about right. >> Correct. >> Right. I was studying that as well. And um across the street, the Orion project at 70. No, the R um um 70th in France, >> is it called the F? Yes, >> that site's about five acres. >> Sounds right. >> Okay. And this is all in the South Dale comp. This is part of that area. >> Okay. And we and part of that the comp plan um expresses a dire desire to break down larger parcels into >> correct. >> Okay. and to create more of a a friendly street grid. Um and then so this it's zone POD1 which includes office clinic and select financial institutions and the comp plan it's guided office residential that was in our packet. Um, but my my understanding is um drive-throughs are only allowed in a PUD process. >> No, they're a permitted use in this zoning district in our current zoning. >> Correct. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. To clarify, this is or is not part included in the Southdale comprehensive design guide? >> It is. >> Okay. Other questions or comments? Quincy, >> thank you for the presentation. I I appreciate um breaking up this lot. I know that for example the South Dale lot in the in the corners, you know, there's that one corner which is a Shake Shack. I think on the other side is like a hotel. So I think using the corners as opportunities to, you know, generate more business activity makes sense, right? And I think I'm guessing that's kind of some of the reasoning here. One of the design guidelines for South Dale is to create a street room is what they call it where you you want to feel like you're driving down France Avenue and all the massing is closer to France and the cars are on the other side. And I think you're trying to achieve that here. You're bringing the buildings, at least in these renderings, right, closer to France Avenue, and you're pushing the parking behind. And I think that's a good thing. We don't want to just see a sea of cars going up France. We want to see the buildings closer. And, you know, ideally, you want to have the buildings with, you know, 75% I think fenestration like glass for the street room type concept. But I think you also mentioned too that you're open to the idea of, you know, not breaking this up into three separate parcels, but maybe even just two. Um, if you were to do that, just share just some of your thoughts on which two and and and would you have any discretion on what goes there or is it pretty much to the person that you sell them to would have the discretion of what they build there? Uh, >> thank you, Commissioner Smith. Um we have some discretion as to who the users would be. The users appear to be most interested are banks and credit unions at this point. In fact, um we have expressions of interest from several of them and they don't have any objection to being combined with other banks and credit unions on the same on the same place. So I would I would expect that if we reduced the size or changed the number of of lots we could we would probably keep the same use. Um we will adhere to the uh design standards that are required the the glass coverage um the uh locating the buildings next to France Avenue and and following through on those on those design standards. Um probably Before we would eliminate a building, we would explore seeing if we can make these buildings compliant by making them slightly smaller. There's no magic number at at 5,000. They just wouldn't be more than 5,000 square feet. We don't have a minimum lot size or minimum building size here. >> Correct. So, I think what we would do to try and achieve the the uh the setback issue and uh without having to resort to an ordinance is to probably make one or more of the building smaller if that was the desire of the city. >> Thank you, >> chair. Can I >> Yes, please. Mayor, >> when we're in the sketch pond review, I can just go ahead and give Okay. Okay. Thank you for being here tonight. Um, you know, the South Comprehensive Plan wants to um kind of break down some of these super blocks and provide this denser kind of street grid um that Commissioner Smith was talking about. And um similar to the Macy's site, you know, we we split that eight acre site up into roughly four equal parcels about 2 acres each. and um so similar that and we also want to create pedestrian friendly um environments um here. So, you know, for me to kind of think through some of this or give you some feedback of what I might like to see here, it would be more like four equalized parcels with a crossaxis. Um, especially north south on here. Um, so people wouldn't have to go all the way around the massive um block to kind of navigate the site. And I would actually rather than kind of making B, C, and D smaller, make, you know, the two buildings on France Avenue actually larger because I think that would make for a more we also kind of want to make this area more dense than it is now. um you know and I don't know if we have guidelines for office or residential but I know for our for offices but for residential we want we want to make these um in this area carry up to 60 units an acre >> I believe on this side of France it's between 20 20 to 75 >> so half as dense as the Macy's site. >> Yeah. And for me, I'm thinking of that in terms of scale and not necessarily residential um units. So the Macy's were considering sevenstory, eight story buildings there. And >> you know, and a is a several story building. So um I would like to make them more uniform and kind of make a a street at least a street access in the north south um direction. I know you can't make an access onto onto France Avenue, but it'd be nice if there was other ways to kind of navigate this. I I see that you have access out to the back. There's a road out the back, but it'd be interesting to make a a couple of more street grids in there. Um to piggyback off of what Commissioner Felt just mentioned, um it's a building with a sea of parking lot and the solution is three um smaller buildings that are drive-throughs. to me that um continues to favor vehicular traffic sort of at the expense of public engagement and space and um yeah, I would I would lean more heavily towards um larger densification of C, B, C, and D if that meant we're reducing parking and it meant a better experience for users in general, not just um just the cars. If I could, I think I want to ask a clarifying question because I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what you're looking for feedback for and I want to make sure that you leave with having heard the the the right sort of feedback because you say that your preference is to put together a project that doesn't use variances. >> That's correct. So there's there's really no need for us to provide feedback on interior lot line setbacks because that's not the direction you're going to head. Or do you want to have feedback on interior lot line setbacks? U interested in what you what what your point of view is, but what I think we intend to do is to work with staff to make sure that we develop a site plan that conforms with the site setbacks which is would not in in which would not in result in requiring a variance. >> Okay. So that's different from the drawing that we're looking at, >> right? >> We would we would adjust to that. >> And would you be trying to avoid parking variances also is what? Okay. >> And I think we could accomplish that through through um through cross easement. >> They are a little bit short parked. Um so I believe overall unless some of the unless it you know reduced to two buildings square footage reduction. Um >> so that leaves to a question for you Carrie from Probably last year or maybe early this year, we had the discussion about the restaurant at 50th in France and some cross parking with the is it a bank just to the south of it on France Avenue and there were some requirements was what were the requirements to for the city to approve parking on a different parcel? Yeah, when we do shared parking arrangements, we typically want to see that the site where they're sharing the parking is compliant and they have enough spaces. Um, with that particular one, my recollection is they weren't relying on those spaces, but they were available for for customers. So, >> right, but hypothetically here, like building D would need it would need to be an an official easement, wouldn't it, for parking on an adjacent parcel? >> Yes. Yeah. There would have to be shared parking and access. >> It would go with the deed. So, it would live forever, >> right? >> Okay. Commissioner, if uh just to address that because the property is owned singularly by by one by one owner at this point, we could prior to creating or at the time of the subdivision create a cross parking ement by decoration and and give each space the parking spots it needs. The building A we are technically underparked. Um I I think minimally, but practically we are not uh building A does not does not use this these parking spots uh anywhere near to what the code originally contemplated back when this this code was uh was created. >> I I presume there's parking underneath building A as well. >> Uh yes. >> And that carry that goes into the count, I would assume. I was not aware of. So I did not include that in the >> Okay. I mean >> I have to I'll have to verify what parking is still available under under that building. >> A couple more comments if I can just continue on. Um >> the one thing I'd like to see is it looks like the sidewalk was kind of redone. I don't know if that's the city, the county, or or the property owner here, but on the northern half of of along France Avenue there, about third of it, but then the rest of it bumps back out to be right on the curb. And France is too busy of a road to have a sidewalk right along the curb. So, if some development does occur along here, I would encourage that to ju just a comment to encourage that sidewalk to to bump back out and give a little boulevard between the the uh 60 mi cars and the and the sidewalk. I know it's 40 45 down there, but um and then just another comment again about densification perhaps. Um, I don't have a huge problem with the individual buildings like that, but I I know that doesn't really follow the guideline. Did you look at any other buildings? Did you look at anything in the northwest corner there closer to the entrance or or are you running you're probably running a little short on parking so you probably didn't, but um that was my only other comment. put put some more along that road. But >> other comments, questions, >> Jimmy, >> there's a simple one. Um, and maybe it was answered or addressed, but were I mean, were you prevent uh presented with the greater Southdale area plan as well as the design experience guidelines? >> Yes. Okay. And I get I mean just from my purview and I I just general comments um from what I'm seeing like this doesn't really match anything at all in in terms of like what we're trying to drive um redevelopment and getting developers on the same page with the visions of the city um and its constituents. I mean, what I'm seeing is it's a it's a suburban concept, you know, infill where we're putting drive-thrus in a sea of parking with still keeping a sea of parking and even like on those peripheral areas. Um, we're scooching into those with more parking and drive-throughs. Ju just fundamentally like if if the goal is to do stuff that, you know, is making improvements to the property that comply, there's not much we can do and I'd encourage you to do that. But I've, you know, I've also seen, you know, you know, the name that's behind, you know, the ownership group here. you know, there's people involved that have done some pretty bold redevelopments in the city, you know, and this seems like a safe, you know, steady moneym um decision, but I urge just a more bold creative eye to like help reinvision this whole area. We're right by Centennial Lakes, right by um the 9M Creek Trail. We have we're asking these developers and redevelopers to really like help achieve the vision of the greater Southdale um plan as well as the design framework and it it starts with kind of what Merryweather said of breaking up the superb blocks making defined quadrants. How do we make this a walkable place not one focus on vehicles? So, while I like I understand what you're doing from like a business perspective and an incremental change, I guess I would just urge um urge you guys to be a little more bold and trying to present something that could wow us into the future um versus I guess something a little more predictable like this. So, I I just have too many comments because it's just kind of it's it's not matching what we hope to see. But I understand where you're coming from if you're not really doing anything with building A and trying to incrementally improve the property. Like it's better than what is there. But I'd encourage with you and the the ownership entity, you know, who done some pretty big wow factors around town, like maybe if not now, but one day do something awesome here in Diner or something right on the site. I'll just leave it at that. Thank you. >> Anyone else? Claire, >> I mean to to Jimmy's comment there, if D was a a a restaurant, right, and then you're having the cross easement for parking with an office building, even that incremental step feels more exciting than this. Three drive-thru banks in a sea of parking. Yeah, it just doesn't feel uh inspired by the guidelines and the and the direction. Um clarifying question and then I have a couple comments. Do so if this were to become fact with three banks that would the zoning wouldn't allow uh retail or a culver say >> correct >> okay I guess my main struggle is that I have a hard time reacting to a picture that's not really what you want to do and I I I think we'd have a better conversation if we were talking about a project that looked like what you say your objectives were as far as trying to get through a project with no variances. I think we'd be able to have a more productive conversation if we were reacting to that rather than a hypothetical. And then just some thoughts reacting to some fellow commissioners. There are a couple things that make me less I I empathize with all of the comments so far, but this is just a little bit north of 494 and it is just a little bit north of um probably the least safe pedestrian environment in the city down by Perkins. Realizing that's probably not in Adina, is it? >> It is. Is it is part of a dina? Okay. So, I'm I'm wondering whether because when I think about the Southdale district, rightly or wrongly, I'm focused on between France and New York, and it's a a self-encclosed geography and the and the fact that's not technically correct if you look at a map. But the way we live today, that is pretty correct because there is a a very real divider along France Avenue. So, what does that mean? Does that mean that next time we do a comprehensive plan, we should have central Southdale and perimeter Southdale and different guidelines? I'm not recommending that, but I I feel like the world is different enough on either side of France Avenue that we might be able to contemplate something different on either side someday. Totally agree. It doesn't fit the the current standards as they exist today. Um, I'm not categorically opposed to drive-throughs in a place like this, but I agree that it's not what we say we want when we make a comprehensive plan. So, I guess my recommendation would be to um take the feedback you've gotten tonight and make some new drawings that fit with what you really think you want to do with the property and we can talk about it again if that makes sense to you. or Merryweather something else. >> Yeah, just one addition to that. Um the the most densely populated places in Adina are France Avenue, York Avenue and Parklon as it extends west of France and east of France. Park Lawn is one of the densest um has the has the most people living there than anywhere else in Adina. So when we talk about the pedestrian friendly and I understand it's on the southside on the edge but um you know when we talk about pedestrian friendly I do want to make sure that we kind of keep taking steps forward and making this place pedestrian friendly. Any other comments? >> All right. Thank you very much for coming tonight. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> All right, we have an Yes, we have another sketch plan review. this time for Macy's furniture store site 7235 France Avenue and Carrie will start off the discussion. >> Okay. Thank you, chair. Uh members of the commission, I believe you're all familiar with this site, the old Macy's furniture store site. The PUD planned unit development zoning was created on this site oh little over a year ago. Uh you're seeing the zoning map um on the city. Um again this is in the greater Southdale district on the east side of France guided in our comprehensive plan for community activity center. Uh this is our most dense area of development anticipated in the city. Again the the residential uh density here is contemplated up to 150 units an acre. Aerial shot of the site or when the furniture store was there with the sea of parking. Uh the slide on the screen is the approved development plan for the site. The site that we're looking at this evening is the Northwest lot located right here. What the applicant is proposing here is so what was approved on this site was a sevenstory 124 unit uh apartment that had 13,000 square ft of office and 6,000 square ft of retail. The proposal is a larger footprint. It's still seven stories uh in height. The the number of units increases to 138. Uh the retail space is slightly larger, just over 7,000 square feet. And there's they've eliminated the office element. So the expansion essentially accommodates a larger housing. This would be a 55 plus uh development. You note that the footprints gotten bigger. So the uh the east west uh prominade shifts to the south slightly. Here's a side byside comparison. This is the previously approved western lots. And then this is what's proposed this evening. So note that the south lot would get smaller. And here it is. This is a look at how it ties into the the overall development. And you recall that the council made the decision not to do the underpass. So we're um just connecting along France there. So when we look at the zoning ordinance compliance table, again, this is for the overall development. Uh they would be code compliant. We believe with the floor area ratio with the decrease in the building to the south. That's something we would take a closer look at as part of a formal application. The F just for this site goes from 2.5 to 3.5. um larger building. So the request would require with a formal application a zoning ordinance amendment to accommodate the proposed change the overall development plan that gets incorporated right into the ordinance. So the city has some discretion there. A site plan review as I mentioned the revised overall development plan for the PUD. So areas of focus for the planning commission could be the scale of the building. you know, it somewhat blocks that building. Uh the apartments that are will be constructed to the east. The applicant has some slides that'll show that some massing diagrams and then that realignment of the east west pedestrian pathway. So I will stop there and the development team has a presentation to make and then we can answer your questions after. Great. >> Thank you. Good evening, chair and commissioners. Thanks for being here later tonight. Um, as Carrie pulls up the slides, I think a couple additional points of context I would point out um, on the plan and again just for introductions, I'll back up. I'm Evan Doran. I'm the CEO of the Doran Group. Uh we're the proposed developer uh partner uh with Enclave uh who has a representative here tonight uh Ben Landhauser. Um we also have folks from our development team um Jeremy Edwards and Aiden Saguna are here and team members from our architectural team Emily Gunnar and Molly Fubalon are also here as well. Um so thinking a little bit about sort of just demographics for a moment uh you may recall that the full east side of the site is essentially market rate housing. Um, and so we had been in discussions uh uh with Enclave about introducing a slightly differentiated housing product here. Um, as Carrie noted, the original uh building on this site, the Northwest uh parcel was 124 units uh seven stories plus roughly 13,000 ft of office and kind of a second story. And then the ground floor was a mix of retail uh shelter parking and uh some amenity space. Um and so uh acknowledging that uh maybe there was more limited office demand than maybe was originally envisioned um we felt that it was appropriate to consider an alternative use which was an age restricted product. So 55 plus um community here um I think commissioner Smith made the point earlier that you know it's part of this group's mission to sort of keep folks in community and we view that this is a part of that as well by providing a slightly differentiated product for folks on the older end of the age spectrum. And so um I think uh in terms of context of the site as we get into um comments uh a couple things I'll just try to explain the reasoning behind and then would love to take your feedback and comments as well. Um the building is growing um slightly larger north to south um for a couple reasons. Uh it retains essentially the western and northern and eastern boundaries uh and property lines. So pretty much those three sides really don't change uh really at all. Um the growth to the south is driven kind of primarily by two reasons. One of which was um in our opinion candidly the original building was underparked. Um it required essentially sort of shared parking amongst um some of the other buildings. And so we've tried to maintain and include all the parking necessary for both the residential uses and the commercial uses in our footprint. Um and so that would leave essentially two underground levels of residential parking uh for the building residents as well as around 40 stalls uh that would be sheltered in a garage accessible off this sort of central north south corridor here. Um but to service the anticipated retail which is around 7,500 square ft. Uh we envision that being likely two to three different retail users. It's too early to sort of tell exactly what those will be but they would be served by the parking um in the building. Um so that is one reason that the building shifts south. The other reason is that um the demographic we're talking about the age restricted demographic are those folks 55 and older um typically are coming oftent times from a house that they've been in for potentially many years. They're predominantly looking for and interested in larger units. That's true with the developments that Amamira Bloomington for example, Avidor and Edina and other market comps in the sort of broader metro. So, they're looking for larger two-bedroom units, two-bedroom plus den units, onebedroom plus den units. And what that does is sort of pushes and sort of pulls our our floor plans more laterally and sort of linearly and requires a little bit more of that of that frontage, that glass frontage uh to provide the units that ultimately will um we think will sell the best or rent the best. Um the building does include uh uh 10% of affordable units at 50%, so we're accommodating that as well. Um, and so ultimately that is what the driving reasons to sort of flip-flop essentially the northwest and southwest parcels. So what you'll see um in the packet and I can sort of you all can see this right? I don't know if you can see the mouse um you can see that right? >> Um essentially the uh uh I'll go to the comparison here momentarily. >> So this east west prominade retains the same depth. It's still 60 feet across. Uh but it uh it moves essentially onto the southwest parcel which does have the effect of shrinking the southwest parcel. Um we still think there's plenty of viable uses for that parcel including various density and and multi-story uses. Um but ultimately it it will retain that sort of through fair east west um fully from France all the way to the um the uh prominade uh walking path uh to the east. And so, um, like I said, flips the prominade, um, from the northwest side to the southwest side and allows us to sort of retain the building area, um, that we would be looking for to, uh, get the kind of unit count necessary to to make the project all work, um, with the affordable housing and the, uh, retail components as well. Um, we had heard feedback as well that, you know, the original plan included retail. I think that was an important element that the city um, process, including this commission and the council, had looked at wanting to maintain some level of France Avenue activity. Um, so we've retained that as well. Um, I'm going to bounce around here a little bit, so forgive me. Uh, but this first floor parking, uh, is something that I think, um, was not included in Car's presentation, but gives you an idea of how the general thinking about programming would work on the first floor. So again, um, north and east, uh, uh, sort of parking and driveway access is essentially retained with the same sort of trash and delivery nodes that were existing on the previous earlier approved building. Um but what we do have here is a slight increase in the amenity space um as well as uh an an increase in the retail space on the France Avenue side. And what we're trying to do as well is mimic um what Enclave is planning which is um uh first floor sort of uh uh accessible walkout units essentially um to maintain that sort of access um to the prominade. Um and so it does ultimately grant more parking um in the in this floor. Um roughly 40 stalls and again the access uh to the lower level garages would be um specifically for residents sort of off of this uh northeast corner. Um the other uh piece I would just share with you briefly um and we can talk a little bit about some of the units and kind of why the sizing is that that I mentioned earlier. Um, but we did just some high level massing. Again, for us, it's a little premature to know kind of materiality. We'll obviously probably be looking to stay within the sort of broader context of the existing enclave approvals, but probably slightly deviate in terms of kind of formal materials um or at least just coloring and that kind of thing to to distinguish the buildings a bit. But substantially speaking, the massing is fairly similar. Um I think uh from this angle which again is sort of on the north uh west side essentially across from France where the uh setting apartment is currently under construction uh you know gives you a flavor of how the building would look again not substantially dissimilar from the existing approved building just again stretches further south. Um and I think the one other comment I would make as well is we also took a look at how this would look from the prominade's perspective. Um, and I think, you know, t to me it's sort of six one half dozen which way the rendering or which way the the uh prominade sort of view angle goes. It depends on obviously which way you're traveling down France, if you're in a vehicle or if you're pedestrian, which way you're traversing from the site east to west. but without the connection to the um now I guess deceased bridge or pedestrian walkway. Um I think uh there's a nice continuation that we're proposing um from France to the other end of the uh building which again you sort of see a a bit of a sneak peek of the enclave buildings um that they are working on uh further east. So, um, with that, I guess I will pause and see if there are any questions for myself or the team that's here or from staff. We'd like to start. Actually, before we do that, I have a clarifying question just of the general state of play. The the Southwest building is uh not under your control, >> correct? and is under the control of Enclave. >> That's right. >> And is there any way to know what might happen in that space or what's feasible in that space because it >> it does look quite small. >> Yeah. Um I would say um I don't want to speak for Enclave. Um I know that they're working on a number of potential alternatives. um uh they will retain the uh uh opportunity and obligation to sort of redevelop that space. We've had multiple lengthy conversations about making sure that the the prominade itself remains an integral part of the site. So that will remain while the location changes, it will remain otherwise untouched with the probable exception of revising the far western edge which was formerly going to connect to the bridge and the the underpass and now will sort of just you know end at France Avenue. Um and so uh I think the most helpful slide here is again the the north this the comparison slide which effectively demonstrates that the previous northwest building was roughly 120 ft north to south depth and the existing um new uh southwest building um especially now that there's been some changes to the storm water detention pond ranges in depth from around 115 to around 120 feet as Well, so the buildable pad area is roughly the same. Um, but again, we just sort of flipped it uh from north to the south parcel if that makes sense. >> Yes. Thanks. Okay, Quincy, go ahead. Sorry. Yeah. >> No, I think you asked question. >> Yes. Uh, what's going to happen to that south building and and what should go in there? So, let me think of a different question. Um, I'll get back to you. Oh, >> sorry. I was just going to say why why um it seems like it would have almost been easier just to make just to keep the instead of buying the Northwest site to buy the Southwest site and keep it the same, but you didn't. So, >> um yeah, I think that's a fair question. Uh I think we went kind of round and round about what the different opportunities were and um at the time we began the conversations, we looked at we've candidly looked at almost every part of this this this puzzle. Um but I think um Enclave certainly has a lot of interest in in continuing to develop the east side into the market rate housing um that they're working on. And I think uh the southwest uh parcel has kind of gone through the most evolution from its previous uh approved iteration which was uh at the time uh sort of a multi-story like kind of high-rise uh building with with um condos and office towers or office space. Um, and so I think there was, again, not speaking for Enclave here, but appetite to potentially explore how that could still come together or work or whatever. So we, um, elected to move forward with the Northwest parcel uh, here. >> Okay. So then, as I'm looking at this, it there' be an underground, there'd be one level of below grade or two two levels below grade. There'd be one level of retail in the front along France, uh, a couple of units on the south end, and then parking generally throughout the rest. Above that, I would guess where those little cutouts are would be amenity decks or something like that for the rest of the units. >> That's right. Yeah, the the vision would be that we'd have sort of a almost a split amenity feature. Um, again, a little preliminary, but, you know, amenity space to the south, likely sort of, you know, a pool or something like that on the deck. Um and then potentially some sort of you know garden space or something like that on the north side uh on the on the L2 level which would be residential and some additional amenities as well. >> Right. Okay. >> Question. Oh go. >> Sorry. >> So I guess my concern and and it's as much a comment and question together. Right now, the Macy's parking lot serves very much as overflow public parking for uh the retail parcel to the south. I would argue that you might go have gone from underparked to overparked. Now, we have 1.8, if I did the math right, stalls per unit and 40 public in that building. We could give positive feedback here, but I guess I'm looking at you, Carrie, because they've shifted the buildings, they've also shifted where parking opportunities are for other people. And I guess I would just um as an aside say um underground parking for your affordable units that you charge ceases to make it an a viable affordable option. So if we're putting 1.8 eight stalls per unit. I would strongly encourage the developer to figure out how to make parking available to those units because otherwise they will take some of those spaces that's in the public and we have now just continued to remove parking for anyone else in that area. >> Carrie, can I can I jump in really quickly just to comment on that? Yes. So the affordable units will have free parking um allocated to their respective unit uh types. And then um a point taken on the parking again a little bit of the nuance here is the the demographic unit mix. So because of the the propensity for this demographic to want the larger units, particularly the two-bedroom units. Yep. um it does skew sort of parking per stall that we might otherwise see in a in a market rate building um being slightly lower um because there is that higher demand for the two-bedroom units. It's sort of >> very familiar. Spent the last decade in senior housing. Okay, great. >> We think it's great and people want two stalls. They don't all need two stalls because your average age is over 70 in a 55 plus building and I certainly sitting on this side don't want to sacrifice public available units for all of the amenities in the area and I just I'm not quite sure how to think about it because feedback on this component now outside of the PUD we're going to hamstring this southern parcel and so when they come with whatever the design is we've sort of we've just shifted where the parking was and who has availability to it and maybe in a way that um doesn't behoove the public. Excuse me. Yeah, that's a that's a excellent point. We're going to need to know, we're going to need to look at the parking overall, including that site as part of a formal application, including the site to the south, you know, to make sure that there is enough parking to >> But will we get that opportunity anymore if we're approving each of the buildings sort of separately? Do they have to come back or is it just sort of the last one in the door? >> Yeah, that that's what I'm saying. I think for the approval for this Northwest site, we're going to need some answers on the southwest as well in regards to the parking. So, we'll have we'll have to work through that with the with the formal application. >> Sounds good. Thank you. >> Other questions, comments, >> Jimmy? H not quite ready fully but um maybe same question I asked the prior applicant but were you guys presented with the south del area guidelines and the design experience guidelines? we were >> um I guess your last image that you shown uh like in the presentation as you're looking down the prominade there I think that's I guess a good example for some of my feedback in terms of the the shape and the experience around a building. I mean, as you know from reading through that the buildings to have four corners. So, I like that you guys have activated the west side with retail, having amenity space and have walk up units. I think that's great. But just in terms of the design experience guidelines on all four sides of those buildings, especially if there's going to be kind of like a prominade, is to step the building back. And so I guess what I would like to see, you know, for the, you know, official proposal is how you can tighten the building. Maybe I don't know. Like I'm okay with it not being a perfect grid as long as there's interest and there's a logical connection east to west throughout all four parcels. But if that podium remains the same or grows a level, um it'd be nice to see the building step back there. So then it becomes more at that pedestrian scale, which is kind of the cornerstone of the design experience guidelines. and a lot of the other stuff in there. I I mean, there's one graphic specifically that just kind of shows what I'd like to see because everyone's walk through an experience like that where you have tall buildings potentially on both sides and no matter how you dress up the the first level, it's kind of ominous. You're in shadows, etc. So, um, one other point of feedback, depending on how much you'd be willing to kind of shuffle things on the first level, is to me it seems like you could benefit from expanding the retail on that northwest corner a little more to the east. Um, people driving south down France because there's no building there and it it doesn't seem like anything's going to change. I think that vantage point to the retail along the north side of the building, it it'd be nice to see something larger there where you could just provide more uh retail space and maybe that allows you to shuffle or move around where you have the entrance to the parking ramp for the residents. Um or even for the surface level parking. Uh, but in general, I' I'd like to see a a taller, more slender building relative to the podium to just give a little more variety of design uh compared to all the neighboring buildings which are similar in size and scale and shape. Um, I know you it's shaped like an H once you get above it, but I think just with it going to the extent of the podium that just doesn't quite match those design experience guidelines as you walk around the building, especially for that central prominade, which I think to me that would be the most important side of the building to step back from. And I might have some more comments. I wasn't fully ready. But in terms of just general scale, I'm I'm okay with these being different. I at first when I was looking at it, it looked like the central prominade just doesn't match enough. And I So I I can't tell where like there's going to be a crossing or crosswalk. So as long as that matches well to the northeast and southeast parcels to the east, like I'm okay with that. Uh, and then that that to me just gives a little more character for that southwest building to be a little more slender and taller. And I think that's okay. I like I'd rather things look a little different than just four seven or five to seven story blocks every everywhere. So, uh, and then in terms of the sidewalk, I'd just I'd pull it farther from France. um with how you do your landscaping plans. I think some of the nice stuff we see is kind of like two landscape rows um on either side of the sidewalk or even like two rows where the sidewalk is closer to the building, you know, where it's kind of like that street front feel where you're walking by closer to the building. I just encourage the sidewalk to move farther from the street. >> Thank you, Commissioner. If I can um just make a couple comments on that really quickly. Um one one thing on the the sidewalk piece which is totally >> point taken. Um we did want to try to retain the original plan which had an outdoor patio seating element under the presumption that that could be a restaurant of some type. Um and so you know I think that'll evolve over time as we actually fill those spaces whether that's a restaurant or FNV user on the north side or on the south side. But I think we're looking to retain some sort of food user in this building. Um, and I think that that outdoor patio space visav the the sort of sidewalk will probably evolve over time. Um, I will also just just say on the sort of um facade kind of setback question and comment I think that's a a good comment. I think what we were trying to do and would love your your feedback on is recognize that the buildings to the east um are sort of twins in a way. They're kind of U-shaped buildings with internal courtyards essentially in kind of the the middle on either side and create this sort of large kind of ring. Um but I think in our in our view driving um predominantly from France um coming from the north because I think that coming from the south will presumably be blocked in some cases by the future Southwest building but to provide a little bit of relief um kind of along this whole section um by creating that sort of internal courtyard so that it isn't just essentially four or kind of two large facade masses. Um and so that to us felt a little bit more appropriate um to come down and because you have the sort of wide open parking of Fires assuming that there's not like a credit union in there at some point in the future that there is some of visual uh difference uh in that respect. So >> yeah, I appreciate the comments and I guess a question back to you. Uh, did you guys consider I mean like a different shape or let's say that the H is maybe more favored to a larger south facing courtyard and a smaller north facing courtyard. I'm just just thinking in >> in terms of the north side's just going to pretty much be in shadow and darkness all year long. and >> yeah and and looking at lungs where I mean maybe maybe that just adds some of that interest but could allow you to step things back differently in general. I like the H shape but I just I'd like to see it pushed in especially from the south side. So whether it's shrinking that north, you know, courtyard quite a bit like what what is the goal with that one? Um, does it really need to be the same size as the south one or can that south one just grow and then that one is more of I don't know what it could be but I'd like to see. >> I appreciate that. Well, it's something we can we can look at certainly. >> Merryweather. >> Yeah. wanted to follow Jimmy because I was thinking differently on some things but along the same lines on others. You know, across the street um the southern parcel has um it's a its skin is up right now and the and the storefront with 75% glass just looks like a continuous space. It will be different spaces, but it all reads as one. And um it'd be nice if that could happen here, too, that it could all read as one. And to go along with the sidewalk comment, if it does read as one, and if there's a lot of activity there, people like to look in windows, the sidewalk would love to be kind of closer to the um you know, where they could go in rather than France Avenue. I think I would prefer to kind of see um where I was going in. And but for me in terms of the placement prior to this, the access was um kind of perpendicular the way the prominade is now and going all the way um through the project on the west side of the street. So it can it had an access that went all the way through and it had this um kind of beautiful prominade piece where you could see several blocks. >> I mean you can see from the pond on the west all the way through to the prominads you can see all of that. So that's not there now. It did bother me before that it skewed the orthogonality of this site and now when I see that prominade shoved down and when you gave the one and we can go back to that um 3D image looking at France through the proomenade. So rather than being able to see through to the proodanad now you see a residential building back there and you don't see and it's just this rendering. It's I'm sorry you probably didn't have time to kind of do the but you don't see the prominade. You see a sidewalk with green plants on either side. Um >> yeah it's not just to be clear it's not a >> exact representation of the prominade. >> I get it. Yeah. Um, but you know, so not only is this one bigger, but now the other one's smaller and you can't see through. You're blocked by a residential building. So I think the orthogonality of this and especially this is a third space. This is a place where people can gather. It's 60 ft wide. There's no cars on it except for right in the middle. Um, so it is a place for people to be other than in their work spaces or in their home spaces, a place for them to kind of gather outside. And for those because the exterior of the lot is the big lot is irregular with the streets. I think it's to have it orthogonal would really kind of make this space, this third space really sing. And and when I saw this, >> what is orthography? >> Um, north, south, east, west, perpendicular square. Like if you draw a square and bisect it. So for me, having that prominade goes straight through. So, if you look at the site plan with all four buildings on it, those corners of the northwest and the southwest need to match the corners of the buildings on the east side. So, so to just push this to the south really to me >> Yeah. kills that pro kills the delight in that prominade being able to see that vista because you could see you'll be able to see green on the west side of France Avenue because there's um trees on the other side of the storm water plant and you can see the trees on the prominade and so I think that would be a beautiful thing to kind of maintain here. Um >> if I may, Commissioner Felt, I appreciate the comments. I think one thing I would just note and we can we can certainly come with um some additional um graphical representation of this but the existing plan um PUD plan which is here on the left on the screen the prominant the building um to the east the enclave market rate um building essentially extends to about here um roughly to the edge of where this sort of walk path um exists in the current plan. And so it it it has an offset in the current EUD. Um and so I think as we were thinking about and I think the point you made about connecting sort of across France is a good one, but I think >> and the re and the reason for that was because it continued all the way across France. So it was p it was those buildings had a view corridor from the west side of France to the prominade and because it was aligning with the buildings over there. So, so now that that's not happening, um I think we, you know, if we could, if we could at least try and have that view corridor from France to the prominade would be important >> to the lake to >> France, >> from France Avenue right through the middle >> from France >> Avenue to the prominade that 60 ft be aligned so you can have that view corridor all the way through and and right and I know they were skewed before but it was skewed for a reason across um the all of the sites because so it could line up with what we are doing across the street those got there first right and so that's the way it was I mean I think it's sad that Enclave doesn't have all of this so it's kind of tough to see this and um there were some exciting images through that. So, it's kind of hard to Yeah. Um, but I do think like once again that pedestrian connection and that friendlier connection um is important to the South Dell area plan. And so, I think being able to s down France and you got that quick view and it and you just that 60 ft all the way through to the prominade for me is important. That's it. >> Thank you. Other comments, Quincy? >> Yeah, just a quick question. Um, the reason why the building is pushing more south, is it because you're trying to achieve more square footage? Ultimately, >> um, I wouldn't say it's driven by square footage in the sort of just for square footage's sake. It's about trying to create the the unit mix that works for this clientele. And so that requires a bit more um window and kind of glass frontage which ultimately drove some of the H the H- shaped decision-m because that it actually gives us more more frontage um to have these sort of two like nooks in the building as opposed to one big U. Um and so that that was one of the primary drivers. And then again the other one being the the unit mix skewing to the two beds required more parking on a per unit basis um because there's more two beds airgo more two bed uh twocar units despite the comment. It's true that they're not necessarily all required um by the users. But nonetheless, the point is that the parking was also part of driving that underground garage component, if that makes sense. So that was sort of the two the combined elements that created that that um square footage increase. I'm just wondering if for this commission um to Maretta's point, you know, getting the sight lines to go from France all the way to the prominade, if the building was more north, would we be be willing to go more height? So, if the building went up a floor or two so you could push it more north if you could maintain those sight lines, if that would be a thing. Um, that would make any sense. I do know that there was a lot of feedback from the public from right like we we've already established there's a lot of people that live in this area. These are projects for more people that live in this area. Um some of those existing residents. I'm completely fine with it getting more dense. I just know that it's going to be a real that's going to be a tough call through council because council get a lot of feedback. If I may, I think I think one comment too on the the orthagonalness of the of these sight lines um is that >> the trade-off became either we reduced the the contin the continuousness of the sightelines from across France Avenue where the setting and um the craftsman office building are. Mhm. >> Or um we had our building which actually aligns more like if you were to draw a straight line um east to west the prominade where it sits in our proposal actually align more with the existing eastern portion of the prominade. Uh so this line sort of east west is actually more aligned than what was existing previously but it doesn't give you the sight line to the setting on France piece >> and and here here's the thing like if you go and now I'm going to get all kind of like collegic on you. So if you if you like go in a quad in a campus or like the National Mall and all the buildings are, you know, straight down one side of the other, you have this feeling of space. >> Even though you're outside, >> the walls kind of continue. And so I guess what what happens for me with this is it um diminishes the value of that outdoor space. when they're all jumbled around like this and um and not that the alignment before was great. I mean I you know but um so I'm just saying we lo we lost one and now we're just throwing out the the rest of it. So for me, we have an opportunity here um to at least make this third space cohesive and feel good as an outdoor space. I mean, I know it doesn't, you know, you're the building is important to you, but there was a PUD on this and it was about um doing a space for the public and now it feels like that public space is been trashed. So, that's my feeling on this. I I would not if you came back with a building that did this, I would not support it. I'm letting you know. Claire. >> Um, >> just one more small comment. Um, I guess sort of in continuation of this emphasis on the public space and setting back and your H versus your U. I appreciate the comment. I don't think anyone wants to look north. I think both a pool or a garden would sort of fail on the north side of a building. And also then it's just right over the parking your amenity space for 55 plus. Take it upstairs. If you move most of your amenity space, you get more public parking and you could probably squeeze in a walk up unit which might make up for your reshuffleling down there. And I think all this is to say if we've got walk up units and then whatever shape we're going to call it, the void of the H on the south, like that starts to help us, I think, feel like the public space is not just a narrow pathway between two apartment buildings or whatever they become that isn't for the public. Like right now, that just seems kind of like a sidewalk between two buildings. I know it was a white box rendering, but the idea of it being more grand and connective, I like they talked about having like concerts or something, right, way back when, but I think if we start to make that southern property line the walk up units because you've got retail on the the west, maybe west to the north, maybe with or without an outdoor area. you will figure out the parking for the building to the south of this, but you've got more public parking, you've got walk up units, you've got a little bit more of an interesting setback on subsequent floors. And then what you can do as we continue to take it across to the east, I think that I think that starts to move in the direction that is preserving what can be preserved left of the original idea in absence of a tunnel. um between the two pro projects which I understand is not um your problem to solve but I think maybe it continues to preserve those things that was part of the original PUB to Commissioner Felt's point. >> Yeah, thank you Commissioner and I think um I would say like it is part of our problem to solve because ultimately we want we want a successful building, right? So >> and I would say that you're exactly right. We have plans for amenity space on the second floor effectively right over where this kind of dark purple color is on the screen. It just hasn't been massaged yet enough to share. Um, so we we do envision a amenity space on the second floor, potentially a second a two-story lobby or some sort of activation in this um in the plan view here in the in the southeast corner of the building um to allow for the primary entrance, the mail room, offices, you know, the kind of like most publicly accessible elements, but then additional resident amenity space on the second floor tied to whatever is happening in the south sort of deck, pool, etc. Um, and so I think our vision would be that it would be active on essentially this entirety of the south face from the retail through the the town home style units all the way to this amenity sort of space on the two stories. >> But your lobby's only going to be attended Monday through Friday 9 to5 or some sort of very that lobby will become an unactive space outside of business hours. And so that's the northern part of this purple amenity space. >> If that is seems to me to be in excess of two or three offices and a lobby. If those you could get some more parking there if you use that as parking and made the amenity space whatever you deem you need on upper floors. I also think if you have too much lobby amenity space for the residents on that first floor, again, it is not engaging with the public. Um, and even your staff won't be there outside of business hours. So, was just encouraging a different usage of that souththeast corner. >> Thank you. And your comment made me think about moving amenity space up is the views here. Fred Richards Park is happening in the west and we've got the prominade in the east. And the prominade is really charming to walk all the way up and down it. I did that once and all of a sudden I realized this is a great place to live. You can walk to every >> grocery store. There's several grocery stores. >> So yeah, absolutely. >> Yeah. um that looking west at the Fred Richards Park when you were talking about your H shape >> that's where I wanna and I don't know about >> noise on France but >> noise on France but boy that view when you're talking about the mini moving it up up to the top I like that'd be a great view looking >> I mean where the word lobby is like if that was a walkup unit that's primo real estate in my mind to be able to engage with the proomenada and you can start to eastward towards Centennial. So, not trying to put my developer hat on, but I think you might be able to solve some other problems if we reconfigured that purple block. >> Thank you. Thank you for listening. >> Of course, that's what we're here for. >> Joe, I'm going to change subject a little bit. Thanks for being here, Evan. Um, floor area ratio hasn't come up yet, I don't think, in any meaningful way. I was talking to a fellow commissioner before this meeting and uh I get stuck on is a sketch plan review an opportunity for commissioners to share our own thoughts about a project or try and look into a crystal ball and anticipate what council will say. And I don't know the answer yet. Um, but on that note, I mean, it's bold with an asterk next next to it. Floor area ratio is 3.5. This is a complex puzzle as you noted. Um, maybe this is just some mechanics that get worked out between the two developers uh, thus far and city staff, but I'm almost opening it up to other commissioners too or Carrie as well. like does a formal application come in for this PUD and then require a site plan for the southwest quadrant showing uh a floor area ratio of less than 3.5 and then you average it out and it's under three or is the angle to ask just for a variance on this site? I mean, frankly, three doesn't seem super high for, you know, how France feels um in the sense that France feels uh denser than a Florida area ratio of three. But I don't know. I don't know if any commissioners or Carrie or Mr. Doran want to chime in on that. >> Yeah, I can take a shot at it. I'm So, the code requires a 2.5 for the entire PUD. So, as part of this next phase, we'll need to know exactly basically we'll run the square footages of this project, the two that are being built, and then that'll leave what'sever left over for that other site. And if they want more square footage on that site, um then we'd either we have to change the code. Um, so that would be an ordinance amendment there rather than the variance that um, kind of the same thing. But, um, I that's the way I'm looking at it at least today. >> Kind of two paths then. Either a variance/code change the PUB or whatever the last site to to put a shovel in the ground just gets what they get for. >> Yeah, we're going to we're going to need to know what's happening on that Southwest parcel as part of a formal application. This is an integrated PUD, so I think we're going to need more detail. >> Yeah, I mean, it's a complex project. I'm just thinking about shared utilities and all that fun stuff and is there shared storm water management and things like that as Evan is nodding, but um yeah, I just thought that would be a topic worth bringing up at least. I don't know if anyone else wants to chime in on the F, but yeah, >> I feel the same way about parking. >> Yeah, I mean, we kind of touched on it with parking. Sure. Yep. So Jimmy >> Carrie, what is allowed? I mean, typically as we look back over the years, you know, the west side of France is the side of France that gets the most heat in terms of height density, and it seems like the east side is more liberally applied, even being right on France. What's allowed right there? And then what I mean what have we seen historically that got approvals or positive sketch plan feedback? >> I think the biggest difference in the two is that retail is more allowed everywhere on that east side of France where it's not on the west side that that's opening up a little more over time. We've had some resonings on that side. West is more office, >> but the west is more office and residential as it's guided in the comprehensive plan today. There's some limited retail opportunities in that area, but um the ant between France and York is where we anticipate really all uses are allowed with the exception of industrial at higher densities. >> In terms of height though along France, >> Oh, right. Yeah, the the height um on the west side is essentially four stories is is the max there. You know, we've gone over that with some PUDS. And then there's the um the Southdale office center where there's the existing buildings that are taller, right? >> So, I I don't know. I feel like in terms of as I've thought about the feedback and heard stuff here, um I think one logical and maybe not so heavy of a lift of a change would be you know instead of this is a one level podium basically what you're showing >> uh excluding the the below grade yeah one level ongrade podium >> so I mean what I'm just thinking in terms of meeting the design experience guidelines where you know retail in general is guided for, you know, 20 ft of height. I would I would think, you know, a twostory podium would achieve some of these things where maybe you can shift this building even one column bay north, squeeze it to get an extra level and have, you know, two levels of walkups, you know, achieve your twole amenity leasing area. Um, and then again to do that, I'd expect to, you know, like you'd want to regain some of that retail, which again goes to my original idea of, you know, extending some of that retail on the north side because you really do have visibility where, you know, maybe that use is more of a longer east west tenant space. So they do get frontage on France, but also um more more window and space on the north side of the building which would be more visible. I feel like you could go up a story or two to achieve what you might lose unit-wise, whether it's a column bay or maybe it's even two where that H just condenses a little more but still maintains some of your your design aesthetic and goals. But I am seeing what Commissioner Felts bringing up. And I think what's changed is there isn't a connection across France now with this development that was always on the table. And I just I I'm trying to see think of who's going to go down here and face a dead end at France with the building in front of them to her point. And something does feel off about that where I feel like it's going to feel like a private kind of amenity courtyard for the users of the building and not the public. Unless of course you activate with that corner restaurant, but not knowing exactly what's going to happen there. It's hard to like just hope for the best. So I think that's where we can just rely on a little more consistent design across it. I think even one column bay then makes those like match exactly. um it complicates maybe the agreement with who's providing that prominade and when but um that can be a shared ag you know easement in agreement I'm sure uh but yeah and then I guess the other obvious thing I'm I saw after this was I think the east side of the building needs to come in or do something there's no sidewalk on the side of the road there uh so just for someone walking around the building, you know, we wouldn't want them to cross the street, right? There's something missing there on the east side of the building. So, just clean that up. I I don't see like a a sidewalk to do a full perimeter. >> We weren't going to have >> Oh, yeah. And and I don't know, >> but sidewalk. >> Yeah, I don't really I don't really mind that as long as there's sidewalks on all sides of the buildings. >> I I guess what I was saying is I I thought we that the road behind these two buildings essentially to the east is for all intents and purposes pedestrian only outside of the cars turning into the parking entrance. in any vehicle coming where it says trash pickup. And we were going to protect people walking down the prominade by having right the raised kind of crosswalk rumbly things. So that it really protected anyone going west to east across that what do we call new local street. Creative name there. But that >> yeah it looks like it's a road though. So you you'd essentially access both of the north buildings from the north and the two south buildings from the south and not >> but that's not what's planned, right? >> That's not what's shown here. >> I I think just to clarify the current plan, the existing PUD plan, Carrie, you can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe the current existing PUD assumes a a fully accessible road. There may be raised um crosswalk elements in the prominant area, but this road is fully vehicular accessible um from north to south, including out to France via this this um Gallagher Drive element. >> But then did we lose the sidewalk? >> No. And I'm and I'm okay with that because Right. >> But Oh, sorry. I'm okay with that because it does allow additional interior streets. But to what you brought up and I appreciate that because once again the pedestrians knew that they could walk down that prominade and we did talk about that whole piece being raised and so the cars knew that they were they were on the road. They went up on a six inch butt and that they had to be careful because they were like in the middle of the pedestrians and then they went back down into their drive aisle. We did talk about >> I know I don't think that got approved though that's not >> oh >> a piece of the develop anyways just to continue and finish my comments east side have a sidewalk along the building face and then I guess a question back to you just in terms of how you laid it out and getting retail users closer to the retail. Was there a reason to have it like east loaded or east accessed versus, you know, turning right off of France and going right in the north side of the building? Just just out of curiosity, it looks like you have both entrances in one location, which to me is efficient, but why there? Just curious. >> Mostly it was driven by we were trying to respect kind of the existing essentially curb and and sidewalk infrastructure of the existing PUB. >> Okay. >> So, we were we were trying to respect kind of that. I mean again essentially like >> beyond the extension of the building this this existing PUD approved building to the south all the elements on the west north and uh east side are functionally the same in our proposal. So sidewalk uh access points curb cuts and and sort of like uh access lanes like the like the drop off pickup trash elements are essentially all um replicated in the new plan if that makes sense. >> Okay. Yeah. And I and I guess I' just I I'd be open to those changing if you had a you know more logic to that, but it seems like that north side of the road just with the parking lot north of there, there's going to be a lot of traffic. So to enter the building on that north side, you know, both for a resident as well as uh a guest. One, it gets you quicker to the retail, which almost always those retail users appreciate. And then two, it would eliminate a curb cut with traffic coming in and out of the building on the east side, which I guess would help pronounce, you know, that north south pedestrian sidewalk that's missing. There just would be less interruption within that. So like if it makes sense with your design or it doesn't, I I don't personally see a need to stick to the PUD from like an access into the building perspective. if you have a better reason to do it a different way. >> Sure. >> Yeah, >> that's great. And >> can I ask a clarifying question before we um >> just trying to make sure I have my notes right. Were you suggesting when you were talking about the the raising of the the podium to to be a twostory podium? Was that was that what you were suggesting? I'm just trying to sort of square >> the sort of pedestrian elements with the twotory podium. And I I want to make sure that we're we're capturing the right feedback from kind of multiple parties. So I just >> Yeah. Yeah. So the I mean the design experience guidelines has kind of a clear you know 20 foot for you know the first level of most buildings along and in the greater Southdale area. So to have two level podium, you know, each 10-ft levels, that would allow, you know, your retail to be that 20 foot tall along the west and northwest corner, but then you could separate that along the prominade with two levels of walk up or not walk up units, but a walk up unit that might look like two levels, but it's accessed from inside, you know, with balconies or whatever. and then allow you to kind of more logically tie into a two-level lobby or amenity like you mentioned. And then to me, a two-level podium kind of matches some of the design aesthetic that we want to see. And then it steps back. But if you could move a column bay to the north from the south side and still step back just a little bit. I mean, the design experience guidelines shows quite a bit of a step, isn't it? another 20 ft. I don't know if we need to see something that exaggerated, but just something that um it it those guidelines were developed with a lot of input and um a I mean a lot of buyin from a number of people. So that 20 foot was kind of like the magical number, but that might allow you to get a little more density spread out and then get an extra level on top of the building. But >> just just for clarification within this PUB that first floor >> was reduced to 15 feet. So there's not a 20 foot requirement on this site. It's 15. >> Yeah. And I guess I'm just like since this has changed like I mean if this building fit the original footprint I wouldn't really have as much of a concern but since it's getting bigger let's do something more logical. And it's not retail the whole like all four sides like you could have 20 foot for just the retail but it's two 10 foot levels. That's a common thing you see. And Yep. >> Weather did you have something else? >> No, >> it is there. the raised area, the shaded and the um free street. I'm sorry I did that again. I was back to the um I was back to the pedestrian the continuing the pedestrian crosswalk all the way through um the prominade and it is there very slightly in the new plan but it's it was lpped off and shifted down if that makes sense. You can see the light gray and the medium gray areas, right? Yeah, that was the whole kind of the 6 in speed bump that I did it all the way across that. So, the pedestrians were I do those on bikes and I love them. I feel like I'm more visible when I'm on the bike and I'm I got six more inches. I'm like, cars can see me now. >> Basketball player. Yeah. >> Anyone else? Jimmy. >> Okay. Just a clarifying question that So, it's your understanding that access to parking will come from the north and south on that new local street on the new new north north south local street. You'll be able to get there from the top and the bottom. >> That's our understanding. >> Okay. That was our my understanding too. Um maybe too soon for this, but is your are you in the prior project? I think it was understood that moving vehicles and trash trucks and whatnot would be going into the structured parking. Is that kind of what you're thinking too? >> Um I think that's u partially I mean I I think the original plan I believe had staging for trash uh obviously outside which is what I think is represented in this original PUD um kind of bumpout area. But we would we would be planning to obvious take trash out of the building on trash days for pickup but otherwise it would be staged internally. >> Okay. delivery vehicles and moving vehicles. I'm sorry. Did I say trash trucks? I meant delivery and moving. So, it would be inside or outside >> I think. Yeah, it's it's uh both effectively both. Uh here, let's see if I can go back. I mean, we have we have stage essentially. Um uh trash pickup here again replicating point herd that we could move that around. Um and then delivery and and sort of move in zone. This was primarily driven by having accessibility to the retail uh having an ability for, you know, a a service truck or food truck or whatever to be able to come and deliver their supplies um in this in this uh curb cut. >> Okay. Thank you. And last thing, what um how would you contrast the features or amenities between market rate and 55 plus? I mean, what's are there two or three really significant differences in the offerings or is it just Commissioner Henman may may have ideas. Um I would say um >> the cliff the cliffotes version. Yeah, the cliff notes is um there's maybe slightly slightly differentiated features in that like 55 plus like some senior buildings might have things like a craft room um or dedicated sort of other um spaces but I think one of the key differentiators more so to market is that there's an emphasis on programming and sort of sort of club life for lack of a better term you know having book clubs and running clubs and all those different things that um typically a programming element is much more reduced if if it exists at all in a market rate envir environment. And so I think the active adult space separate from senior which often has you know full food and beverage service on site potentially medical skilled nursing obviously if you have sort of memory care facilities like that's an entirely different animal but the active adult sort of sits between where there is not on-site skilled medical typically not on-site FNB um but potentially a a different elevated medity package and the programming element that differentiates it from market rate. >> Okay. Thank you. And can you go back to that page that had the that we've been looking at so much that has the whole four all four parcels, all four areas. Yeah. I think um we're I think we're wrapping up. >> Yeah. Um, you've heard a lot about the the continuity of the central prominade and for me I have a really hard time I I don't um I don't like the way it looks in here because I can't as as so many others have already said I I look at this and I no longer have confidence that it's going to provide the continuity between France and the pro and the prominade what we have called the prominade to the east as it did before. And yet I can't see a before and after to because you're saying that it's not as big a change as it was before. And you may be right, but I don't have the pages from a year ago or whenever that was. So, and I just a a thought for presentations and discussions in the future. A really straightforward before and after would be helpful just so we could see so we can be comforted that oh, it's not that big a deal, not as big a change as it seems like it is. And then I think one of the things I find unsettling about this particular image is that the the the section to the east between the northeast and the southeast buildings is just a green blob. And I have a feeling that even if the shift is going to be okay that there's that we're going to have to take pay some attention in the landscaping and design to make sure it's continuous and make sure there's continuity even if there's a jog in it. Um so I know this isn't your that's not what you came here to talk about. You didn't come here to talk about the the section to the east, but uh we just spent so much time as a group on this whenever that was on the bike lane going on the southern side of the parcel on the prominent going through the middle that I think it's understandable to be concerned about preserving all the the great community benefits that we saw at that time and make sure it's still being delivered in the new project. So, you heard enough about it. I'm sure you knew that was something that you wanted to continue to work on in the future, but I just wanted to foot stop that because I think that's the most important thing that that I've heard you talk about tonight. >> If if it's helpful, I had the approved plan in my presentation. I could call that up if you want to >> take a look at the the approved alignment of the prominade. >> Isn't that what we're looking at? >> But it doesn't go to the one to the right. I don't know that we need to go back there right now because it's not 10 o'clock, but that's just a thought. >> So, if there is Yes. >> One last thought as you finalize. I remember there was lots of comments on better together concerned about the new local street and how it connects to Galler and people cutting through. Um I think that was why maybe at the time we spent so much time talking about well the buildings north of the central prominade accessing from the north versus south. Maybe we did not for code fire legal whatever reasons completely block it off. But I do remember that there was a strong group of neighborhood folks who had concern about that road becoming a cutthrough essentially for whatever that's worth. >> Thank you. Thanks for coming tonight. I hope we got some good feedback. And is that it for everybody? >> Thank you all. >> Good. Thanks very much. All right. Chair and member comments. I don't have any comments tonight. Do any members have comments tonight? >> I do. >> Yeah. >> I wanted to bring something up that um we've kind of talked about a little bit here and there um about the lack of development opportunity in the western half of Edina, western fifth of Edina. And I don't know if any any specific thing has been done yet. I mean, has the council taken any action on the lack of uh sewer capacity or anything or have they decided to I mean is there a mortorium or any kind of because I mean my feeling is that um basically I mean we've talked about it we can't do anything in in basically from the school up to London and not London area but the is it London area? >> Yeah. and that whole area up there where we're trying to get some things done before. Um I I just wrote this thing out. I'll just say it just because I I put it together, but um and I don't know if it's 10 years before anything can be done, but I I kind of feel like it's going to take at least that long. Um but as a planning commission, we're dedicated to fostering smart growth and providing vibrant opportunities across our entire community. However, and I this is where I'm not sure if it's current decision or not, but deferring addressing the sewer capacity issues in the western fifth of our city for another x number of years creates a critical roadblock to doing that. Um because planning because planning and construction will likely take uh once we get to the point of doing saying we're going to do something, it'll take another decade or so for that to happen. um we're kind of putting a freeze on development in a fifth of our community. And I I that that concerns me. I mean, I I know some people really don't in that area don't want development in that area, but you know, just saying nothing could be done with any of that land that's sitting over there seems um beyond yet we're talking about doing uh you know, significant development in the Southdale area. Um, it just seems uh it seems like it'd be interesting for us to I just wanted to go on record of saying I I would like the city council to take a look at that and actually, you know, we're looking at putting a $20 million tunnel underneath France if it's going to talk take $20 million to upgrade the infrastructure so we can have uh developable land or uh changes in development sooner than 20 years from now. Um, that might be something somebody wants to look at. And I don't know if that starts at the planning commission or not. >> I appreciate that. It's been something that's been a topic for I think almost a decade since that one apartment building was lo L loaden. Is that the name of it? Um, I think that went in in 15 or 16ish. Maybe 17. >> Was it that long ago? It could be. But uh so it's it's an issue that we've known about um for a while. So thank you for going on record. >> Well, and I think I I've heard some from some community members, too. And and it is my understanding that school is looking at doing something more and there's no opportunity for them to do anything. And I don't think they have, you know, 20 $30 million to add onto their uh to to be able to correct the whole situation for the city. So I I I don't know whose responsibility it is, but again, if we can't if we can't maintain or you know, have our infrastructure available for our residents and our our businesses. Um, you know, I guess I I just feel that's not right. >> So Carrie, isn't that fair game for comp plan? >> It's it's in the Lincoln and London area small area plan that's highlighted there. contingency. It's in the comp plan currently. >> Yeah. >> Is it can't follow >> the comp plan does currently call for more density on that side of the city in certain areas, but we couldn't a developer couldn't >> can't do it >> can't execute on that um because the sewer capacity, >> right? But I'm saying, isn't there a capital plan section somewhere in the comp plan that says, "Okay, here's what we need to focus on." particular project is is not in it but the council is aware of it. That's a huge >> Yeah. >> price. Um >> No, I understand. >> Price ticket on that. But it is something that >> I mean, is it like >> $100 million? >> I don't think it's 100. It's It's 20 million plus. >> Just like a tunnel. Okay. >> All right. Thank you, Paul. >> That's that was my comment for the the the week. >> Good. >> Anyone else? Staff comments. >> Yeah, just to update you on some council actions. This goes back to June. Uh but the parking ordinance, you recall the recommendation on that, the council did approve that. Um the 50th in France. Yep. Parking ordinance amendment. Um and then the Salvation Army project was also approved. And I don't recall because I believe we didn't meet the first meeting in June. whether I've given you an update on the EV charging station. You've probably heard that that that did not pass. It failed on a 3 to2 vote. And I have I've not heard any any um nobody has approached staff with any new proposals as of yet. That's it. >> Jimmy, >> yeah. Um just want to say it it's nice to see a number of things on an agenda again and you know renewed interest in development along France. I I mentioned the design experience guideline and Southill thing and I want to bring that up again because typically when we see stuff especially for sketch plan those documents and graphics and examples are usually used. I actually couldn't find the Southdale design experience guidelines anywhere anymore and the link to it doesn't exist um just in terms of getting the community to aware of these plans. I know that got I think adopted into the comp plan after because the well the Southdale the greater Southdale plan is an appendix in the the plan and it reference that references that as a separate document but >> I mean if if that's what we're trying to hold people to and like that's what the community came together for until it changes I feel like we need to we need to hold people one either accountable to it or two have it out there so people can more easily reference reference it like I was trying to pull it up. I'm like, wait, I have it saved somewhere else, but why can't I find it? >> Yeah, it it might be victim to the accessibility requirements to make that document accessible um is an issue. It's something that we're working on. So maybe things like that will reappear. Uh but we do give it to the developers that are aware of it like with with the project that you reviewed this evening. that's not a PUD and really that was a tool to use the give and get and to try to accomplish the goals of the city with this project. You know, they're saying they want it to be code compliant. Um, so it it they're aware of it, but they didn't really use it other than on the France side with the 50-foot setbacks. The initial plans had the drive-throughs Yeah. >> on France. So they did some revisions to address the guidelines, but >> yeah, and I'm referring to both because like that one just clearly didn't apply. But then even the east side like again with those street rooms like I mean I I I'm not aware that we're trying to abandon the vision and like that area plan or the South district plan really does it references those guidelines like 30 times you know like follow these follow these and that's what we're hoping to see unfold. So, I mean it'd be easier for developer like again like I always reference that Grand View development framework that one page there's like certain graphics like we want to see this in general for the public realm and that would just make a lot of these sketch plans easier and kind of the whole purpose of them. And I know I I don't know I just I know with this accessibility thing it just seems harder to find stuff even though it should be easier to find stuff with AI and everything else. So, I I just wanted to bring it up and like it's exciting to see some things coming back to the table and renewed interest. It'd be nice if some of them were just more compatible with our vision. So, >> yeah, >> that that's it. Thank you.