[0:00] to the April 11th 2024 City viina Planning Commission meeting on behalf of [0:05] the rest of the Planning Commission we're grateful you're here in person or those tuning in remotely I'll say it [0:12] every time but your curiosity your participation your feedback is vital as [0:17] we navigate change together here in Nina specifically regarding the ways in which we'd like to use our [0:24] land uh on that note your input matters we we collect public input through [0:30] the city's engagement website betterto together.org we commit to you that [0:36] everything you've submitted has made its way to us and will be considered as we make recommendations tonight uh [0:43] regarding two specific matters we have two public hearings on the docket I'll get into that process and what to expect [0:50] later but uh until then uh for those who are tuning in remotely and would like to [0:56] participate in the public hearings you can get ready now uh by joining the virtual queue and waiting room uh please [1:05] call the number 312 535 8110 and enter access code [1:14] 2633 139 0260 the password is [1:21] 5454 and when you'd like to get in the cutest speak you'll push star three I'll [1:26] go over that again because that's really easy to memorize you'll State your full name and address [1:32] and you'll have three minutes to speak so uh with that we'll get right into the [1:37] meeting which starts with a call to order and then roll call commissioner elire here [1:45] commissioner Miranda here commissioner Padia here commissioner Smith here [1:50] commissioner who here commissioner D here commissioner Borstein here [1:55] commissioner phelp here commissioner hanaman here chair Bennett [2:00] here all right next we have the approval of tonight's meeting agenda welcome a motion to approve I [2:08] move to approve the agenda second all those in favor say I I I so [2:14] moved next we have the approval of the prior meeting minutes and the special work session minutes for March 27th [2:22] 2024 uh motion to approve both items anyone motion to approve both [2:30] all those in favor say I I I so moved all right next we have the community [2:35] comment period of the agenda which is your opportunity for anyone who's here in person to speak about a matter not on [2:44] to tonight's agenda uh similarly you have 3 minutes to do so please come forward to one of [2:50] the podium State your full name address and the light turns green when your time [2:56] starts when it turns Amber you have 30 seconds left when it's red ask you to [3:01] wrap up anyone here for Community comment that would like to [3:09] speak all right we've had kind of a string of people coming in for that and this is [3:15] the first time without it for a while so all right next we'll move right on to our public hearing so the first one is a [3:21] comprehensive plan Amendment rezoning and subdivision for 5120 5124 Hankerson [3:28] Avenue uh Carri Teague our community development director will present and a [3:33] little bit about this process uh public hearings uh give the chance for any [3:39] Resident who'd like to speak on this matter to do so uh staff provides a [3:45] report to us planning Commissioners based off of the development or applicant [3:51] proposal staff will provide a presentation based off of that then it'll come back to us for questions back [3:57] and forth with City staff then we'll give the appli uh a chance to present have another back [4:03] and forth and then after that we'll open it up for a public hearing which went over already what that consists of after [4:10] that it comes back to the Planning Commission we'll deliberate and we'll provide a recommendation for approval or [4:16] denial of the request and with that Carrie take it away thank you chair members of the commission this property [4:23] is located right on the edge of the Grand View District just west of City Hall so [4:29] here here is well here is Highway 100 uh Jerry's uh located right here so the [4:37] property is currently zoned single family note across the street is the [4:42] Wells Fargo bank that has a pcd2 zoning District into the South this purple area [4:47] is a planned unit development that was the Hankerson town homes that was approved oh3 years or so ago that's a 8 [4:55] unit development the site that we're looking at this evening is currently zoned low [5:01] or uh guided in the comprehensive plan low density residential note that the property to [5:07] the South the town homes are guided medium density so the proposal is to extend that Medium density residential [5:15] area here's a look at the properties today so it's the two single family homes we're looking at you can see the [5:22] henerson town homes right here the proposal is to tear these two [5:27] homes down and build two 2unit town homes that would be incorporated into [5:33] that Hankerson uh Town Home Development to the South here's a look down the [5:39] street this is the the Wells Fargo bank across the street the applicant did go [5:45] through a sketch plan this was the the renderings that we looked at and the [5:51] proposed um how it incorporates into the development not many changes if at all [5:57] um from the sketch plan so this is a look at the two proposed units here on [6:03] the right note that the proposed height here is 25t a story and a half to step [6:09] down to the single family home to the north here is a single story building so [6:15] this would transition into that single family District another [6:21] rendering so this would be the overall PUD um If This Were to be approved so [6:27] again the the eight town hall units to the South and then the two new structures to the [6:35] north they would be platting this area so each unit would be located on its own [6:41] lot lots a little bit larger as you can see um than the town homes to the [6:48] South so what this request requires for a relatively um small project big asks [6:56] here comprehensive plan amendment to reu that site from low density residential to medium density that allows a density [7:04] range between 5 to 12 units an acre this is nine units an acre as proposed just [7:10] this part of the development uh a rezoning from R1 to P20 [7:16] so it would be incorporated within that existing PUD to the South and then the [7:24] subdivision so as a comp as there is a comprehensive plan Amendment and a reone [7:29] own in the city has complete discretion to approve or deny this request so an argument can be made here [7:36] both for or against so staff has provided the commission with alternatives for approval and [7:43] denial so primary issues are is the comprehensive plan Amendment reasonable [7:48] and is the resoning to PUD reasonable staff is supportive of this [7:55] request so again for the comprehensive plan it would be just extending at medium density two lots to the north [8:02] again across the street from the mixed use Center the Grand View [8:08] District so there's several um goals and policies within the comprehensive plan [8:13] that this would meet um again it's right on the edge of a commercial uh retail [8:20] area this would be seen as a transition into the single family [8:25] neighborhood um and the single family characteristics that are described in the comprehensive plan um attached in [8:32] multif family housing should emulate single family housing and its basic architectural elements with pitched [8:38] roofs articulated facades visible entrances porches balconies taller [8:44] buildings should step down to provide a height transition and that's exactly what this project [8:50] does parking to the rear so if we go back to the site plan I didn't note that [8:56] there is an alley in the back so all these units would take access off of the [9:03] alley and maintaining that that Community character so the comp plan also talks about missing middle housing [9:10] um so this town home concept two unit um is a housing stock that the city is shed [9:17] on so middle missing middle housing is a range of house scale buildings with multiple units compatible and scale and [9:24] form with detached single family homes located in a walkable neighborhood this [9:29] is again close to that uh commercial [9:34] node uh let's see I also wanted to note that within the transportation study [9:41] that was done for Grand View and the Grand View development framework there's [9:46] talk of either a pedestrian or potentially a street connection at 502 [9:52] so here's the site we're looking at to connect into that District doesn't exist today but that's a potential for the [9:59] future future and the added density although small here would support the retail uses in the district we also [10:06] believe that a PUD is reasonable here on this site so again PE was established to [10:11] the South and it was found that that development met our are um the purpose [10:17] and intent of a PUD this was deemed to be an appropriate setting as it transitions from the commercial area [10:24] into the single family neighborhood um it's an efficient approach to housing to get us that [10:29] missing middle housing the design is is compatible with surrounding land uses um it's not going [10:37] to have an impact on public streets and utilities again it's a provides a variety of housing types and the [10:44] transition um is appropriate so with that again staff has [10:49] outlined alternatives for approval and denial um findings for both but staff is [10:55] recommending approval subject to the findings and conditions that are in the staff report and with that I can stand [11:00] for any questions thanks for standing still for questions [11:05] anyone questions comments commission Padia um I didn't [11:12] see anything on V together Dino is there any feedback from the community that we got on Better Together [11:18] din I know they had a meeting but yeah there there were a few comments not that many but there were some opposed um [11:24] didn't like the increase in density and the the multif family creeping into the neighborhood Hood but there were also [11:30] some that were in support of the project as [11:37] well little bit of a historical question why did we go on the adjacent lot the handerson property with a PUD versus [11:45] changing it to a other housing zoning yeah it's a good question as we [11:51] talked about in our um work session earlier this evening we don't really have [11:57] a this type of Zone zoning that would fit this type of a development especially the the four plexes to the [12:04] South so um yeah the thought was to put it into a PUD and write the regulations [12:11] specific for that site so you because that PUD was already established it made [12:17] sense to just add to that rather than establishing another zoning District um [12:22] R2 for example would be the the two family zoning that may be appropriate [12:28] just for these two sites [12:33] Mr Smith thank you um in some of the uh [12:39] materials the developer provided he talked about um the alleyway in the back [12:47] and driving and maybe um concerns around in by the Neighbors on on cars speeding [12:55] on that street uh is there anything that the city could do uh to look into that or or what are your [13:02] thoughts on on on preventing you know speed bumps something that that would mitigate any kind of speeding uh in that [13:10] Alleyway yeah that that was noticed in noticed um mentioned and some of the [13:15] feedback on Better Together as well [13:21] um you know it's very narrow so just narrowing having a narrow Street [13:27] generally slows traffic not that this is is a street but um I don't know [13:32] if speed bumps might be a way to slow traffic [13:37] down it might be something we could um explore with our engineering department if that would be something that's useful [13:54] here any other questions [13:59] the applicant is we have part of the applicant team here with us this evening [14:04] but the presenter Steve Banky is online and he'll share his screen and do his presentation that [14:10] way okay welcome all right turn over to [14:16] Steve thank you for coming here and providing this proposal thank you very much uh Planning [14:23] Commission members I am sorry I'm not there it's always been a joy to be with [14:29] you and I hope you can hear me right now if I could get a little feedback on that I'll know that the computer is working [14:35] properly we can hear you good thank you very much um so you probably remember [14:41] seeing this at sketch plan so I just wanted to kind of run through you know what we uh have elaborated on since then [14:49] and a little bit about what we heard from the neighbors and and some of the other aspects of this project um so [14:56] again the project is immediately adjacent to Grand viewtown Homes um uh [15:01] we feel that was a very successful project um you know developed uh [15:08] relatively quickly um obviously uh it it [15:13] uh sold up very very quickly I guess when you when you look at it um during [15:19] the sales period for that building and that would have been during uh actually [15:24] during covid the 2021 2022 Parade of Homes there was a significant amount of [15:32] uh Edina residents who stopped in to see the project and specifically you know [15:39] they liked the town home idea but they were really looking for more of a single [15:44] level type home A Rambler type home and uh when when these two Parcels came [15:50] available to us we saw an opportunity to fill that that request that [15:57] need and uh you know basically the people that we're talking to their their home their housing needs have changed [16:04] they're looking for greater convenience uh modestly less space or less space you [16:10] know some of these people will probably be moving from significantly larger homes um they look definitely looking [16:16] for one level living and uh most importantly and and that's really I [16:21] think a good reason that this project Works in this location is the proximity to Community Services I think we're all [16:28] aware Ware of what Grand View uh as a as an area brings to the [16:33] community um we do believe that um you know price points in the beginning in [16:40] the 800s are affordable for Edina and I need to clarify that you know a lot of [16:47] these people are moving from homes that are significantly more expensive than that and I think we need to remember [16:55] that the real estate process when somebody moves especially [17:00] within the city um it frees up other homes for new [17:06] homeowners and I think that that trickle down is is obvious uh but it does free up less [17:14] expensive homes uh for other people to move in it isn't this home specifically [17:20] or these homes specifically that are are affordable but they do open up other [17:26] homes in the city for you affordable homes for new residents um we [17:32] knowe that the price point for these units is very similar to a number of homes on this block in the adjacent [17:38] blocks um this is not a number that's out of uh uh you know that doesn't fit [17:44] in with the these blocks um we did have the neighborhood meeting we we did have approximately 12 [17:52] uh family groups uh attend uh because of the requirement for [17:57] a, feat uh there were 200 letters sent out 199 letters sent out and of that 12 [18:04] people chose to attend um well we did have a little bit of concern from two of the neighbors and [18:11] they were the immediate immediate neighbors to us uh what was related to [18:17] us at the meeting generally was positive comments um they liked the existing [18:22] project they like the idea of you know the transition uh into the [18:27] neighborhood um they like the idea of the the buffering that that all has happened with Grand [18:36] View first phase and it also uh I think it's it's pretty obvious that'll happen [18:41] with this as well um we did note the same comment that uh commissioner Smith [18:47] mentioned about the alley um we don't feel that the speeding [18:53] is really the purview of the project while the [18:59] comments were that it could have been one of the residents of the other building who no longer lives [19:06] there uh that could have been part of that problem um we're very happy to work [19:13] with um city um engineering and police [19:18] department to help with anything that we can do to uh try and dampen down that as [19:25] a problem going forward I'd like to point out out that there was a couple of other issues um during construction that [19:32] developed and we worked with planning staff and uh the environmental staff on [19:39] on with those issues and for the most part they've been resolved so um I I [19:46] think we want to make a point that we do feel like we're we're good neighbors during construction and that we create a [19:52] neighborhood that is a good neighbor to the neighborhood um we do uh we do see the as a [19:59] completion of the phase one project um only by virtue of it coming up you know [20:04] down as a second as a second phase uh there is no contemplating any additional [20:10] property there's no no one's coming knocking down our do saying Hey by my parcel to you know we want to keep going [20:17] and no we see this as the end of the Grand View project I wanted to point out [20:22] that while the staff report talks about access from the alley that is vehicular access just as Grand one has sidewalks [20:30] and access from the street and enjoys street parking uh in season of course um [20:38] these homes also have front doors facing handerson and front porches sidewalks [20:44] that lead down to the street um we do believe that Brookside [20:50] as a neighborhood is already medium density [20:55] while it may be guided and it may be zoned single family and low [21:01] density the density of this of the area is well over six it's 6.68 I believe [21:08] units an acre and that density is medium density [21:15] um we we do notice that there are other neighborhoods in Edina that also are [21:20] medium density um I think if I could I'm going to pop up a quick uh image here [21:27] for you so basically this is uh a figure ground [21:33] relationship map um Grand View Square is in this area um Apartments here [21:41] Apartments here we're not seeing anything Steve just let you know Steve okay hang on a second I'll try I'll [21:47] bring it over onto my other screen and see if this will take care of it for me I it asked to share my window there we [21:53] go how's that looks good [21:59] okay appreciate it I think I don't know what I'm looking at quite yet but looks like something okay now you see [22:04] something anyway um so H 100 is here um uh Vernon uh 50th and Vernon comes down [22:12] through this area Grand View is this right here the black are the buildings [22:19] the gray are the roads the white is ground whether it be yards or driveways [22:26] or um tree or whatever uh the blue of course is water um basically the point [22:34] that I try to use with a finger ground relationship is you you can kind of see how the density changes you can see how [22:41] in interlock and we have very very large Lots um across um interlocking from [22:47] Brookside we have smaller Lots but still less dense when you look at Brookside as [22:53] a neighborhood you can see how dense these Lots are um it it's not you know [23:02] basically a Dina is not a homogeneous City it doesn't have one R1 zoning [23:08] throughout you do have uh clusters of neighborhoods that were built at different times and those neighborhoods [23:15] have different densities this is this is the reason that we believe that [23:20] brooksite is already a medium density neighborhood in a low density comp plan [23:26] uh and a R1 zoning um inappropriate but or or [23:33] inaccurate but perhaps is just how that the zoning was applied when the zoning [23:39] code was established in 1964 um back [23:46] then um we are oops I got a different page up here so let me go back to my [23:53] there we go um we do feel that amending the Pud is the simplest [23:59] uh resoning at this point mainly because all of the elements that we are meeting [24:04] already exist within that document while an R2 or [24:10] pd3 could also apply here with the adjacent PUD uh we do feel it's simpler [24:17] from a staff standpoint from a neighbor standpoint to Simply uh extend the Pud [24:22] across this property um we we uh wanted to disting uish uh [24:29] between town homes and duplexes while these are two unit buildings they are not a duplex a duplex [24:37] is a single building a single home that is split for two families these are true [24:43] town homes they are no different than the adjacent parcel um and that's another reason why [24:50] the Pud um is seems to be more appropriate uh they have individual and [24:58] rances and they have complete separation between buildings [25:03] [Music] um the we do believe that we designed [25:11] the project to mesh with the P20 PUD that's a Jason [25:16] um let's see we we do believe also that these buildings are an appropriate transition from the original project [25:24] into the single family uh we uh observe that that missing middle uh comments uh [25:32] encourage modest densification which this fits the bill exactly um we believe that the density [25:39] .95 is a modest upgrade from the existing 6.69 and it's an increase of one lot in [25:47] in this area uh we do believe the Pud ordinance criteria are met uh and the individual [25:55] lots are a uh another point of transition uh into the single family [26:01] which also would enjoy individual Lots um we do understand that the park [26:06] dedication requirement the additional Park dedic Park dedication due to the [26:11] additional Lots is is certainly acceptable on an understood U [26:16] situation uh we do believe Town Homes of this type are a reasonable use here um [26:24] and we do note that typically the town the Twin Homes I Twin Homes and duplexes [26:32] and town homes are all kind of interchangeable here and all those words show up in the ordinances and the [26:37] reports um I'm trying to use them specifically but you'll find that I'm trying to use them interchangeably a [26:44] little bit as well but they do provide an excellent buffer for single family which this is it also integrates multif [26:51] family well into this transitional area transitional because of the uh mixed use [26:58] at uh Grand View and into the single family development Beyond us um we we concur with the planning [27:08] report we we do believe that we meet the requirements for an approval here uh we [27:15] concur with the engineering report uh the requests of the engineering [27:20] department are reasonable and consistent with what they provided us with Grand [27:25] View and what was executed there we can Ur with the report of the um housing [27:31] development manager Stephanie hackinson for the uh for the uh [27:37] Redevelopment uh her report we feel discusses how this project fits into the [27:45] character of Edina very well and how it actually helps benefit [27:50] Edina um and we wish to request that the Planning Commission you know review and [27:57] and respect the staff's opinions in this matter uh with that I will stand well [28:02] actually I'm sitting but I will stand for questions from you and I uh look forward to hearing from you thanks a lot [28:10] Steve um yeah you probably didn't know but we had a work session before this and the city's undergoing a zoning audit [28:17] so a lot of your history and kind of commentary was basically just talked [28:23] about before I'm sure you were just listening and taking notes but anyways a [28:28] appreciate the good presentation and welcome other Commissioners for any questions that you may have for [28:38] Steve okay yeah hi Steve um thank you again for [28:44] your presentation um I know in sort of common parlament duplex Town Homes Twin [28:50] Homes uh are interchangeable but you did note I think distinctly that there is some distinction between a duplex and a [28:57] town home and I just wondered if you could clarify that sure a duplex is a single building [29:06] that is uh meant for two families the separation requirements between those [29:13] two dwelling units is a single 1 hour [29:20] wall uh town homes are typically created [29:25] on individual lots and each unit while appearing [29:30] attached actually is a standalone house they have their own party wall at [29:37] the property line so the property if if you're looking through the property line area you actually have two individual 1H [29:44] hour separation walls so that each unit is separate totally separate from the [29:50] adjacent that's the distinction between duplexes and any town home in this case [29:55] we're presenting a 2unit town home and that is why I wanted to make that pretty [30:02] clear thank [30:08] you commissioner El thanks thanks for the presentation [30:15] um I wonder if you could just say a few more words about why you didn't just [30:21] build a third building that looks like the other two that are just to the south of it it seems like me you're trying to [30:28] put together a different like single level living so it's a different outcome I see but were there other reasons of [30:35] just the way that site works for the kind of building you're [30:42] proposing I I think the biggest reason was the trans transition to single family you know while while we had grade [30:51] helping us in the first project um basically the north building of the [30:56] fourplex is is low than the adjacent single family home the 5124 [31:02] ankerson um that gave us a height Advantage between the height of the original building and and that lot uh as [31:10] we continue up the road we are basically leveling out flattening out Hankerson [31:16] itself is has come uphill and is now starting to flatten out um we do see [31:21] that the ram the the Rambler style units are better [31:26] transition um then ALS and also we also had the considerable [31:32] feedback I mean and honestly we get this in many many municipalities but the [31:37] considerable feedback from Edina residents looking for a one level living um type of a type [31:46] of a unit type of a home the previous [31:52] development was narrower and the units are are were [31:57] didn't have the ability to incorporate a single a main floor bedroom let alone a [32:02] master bedroom or a bedroom suite on the main floor so we kind of stepped back [32:09] and looked at what would allow us to you know create a viable product in within [32:15] that framework for those potential [32:21] clients great thank you any other questions [32:30] all right we'll save comments nice work save comments for our deliberation period after the public hearing but [32:37] thank you for the oh you got commissioner B you got it all right um [32:42] so do you mind just one of the kind of CR not criteria um factors to consider [32:49] here is the affordability of the housing um you know there was an affordable [32:56] housing report it's one of the the criteria that can weigh weigh on whether resoning to PUD makes sense you [33:03] mentioned that you thought um these would be affordable for [33:08] udina do you mind elaborating a I mean I was actually just a little struck by the [33:13] $800,000 plus price tag for a 1,400 foot unit but like what about these seem [33:20] affordable or seem affordable to you from from the [33:25] perspective of you dying it sure um Let me let me give you a little bit of background here on how affordability [33:33] works these days because I think we can all agree that there isn't a lot of entrylevel homes being built anywhere [33:41] entry level meaning you know 200 300,000 Ian typical [33:47] entry level homes anywhere in the Metro are usually starting in the 300s if not [33:53] mid to high 300s if not 400,000 um land costs material costs labor costs [34:02] have all gone up since you know even when we started the other project before [34:09] that uh covid did a number on the industry and continues to beyond that [34:15] the land costs are a big factor in pricing um when we buy a property in [34:23] Edina we are buying it uh we have to develop it it's not a ready it's not ready to build [34:31] we may need to remove a structure we may need to correct soils [34:37] we may we will need to update utilities city of Edina engineering [34:43] requires us to update the sewer and replace a water line generally the city [34:52] is looking ahead and is trying to provide [34:57] connections to the utilities in the city of Edina that's appropriate for a new home nothing wrong with that but it does [35:04] cost money we also have a cost involved in [35:09] meeting um runoff requirements storm water management those kinds of things a [35:15] lot of that was not done when these original buildings were built so we are [35:20] now having to come in and we are creating retention areas in this case [35:26] they're hidden they're under the front yard they're underground we did the same thing on the adjacent property um but we [35:33] are helping to manage um the runoff for our our piece here going forward with [35:42] the city of Edina that has a cost as well um just so you got a handle on some [35:47] of this between the sewer improvements water improvements and the retention [35:55] area for Grand View phase one we spent more than [36:01] $250,000 for eight units divide that out and it's you know [36:07] there's that's there's a cost there that is directly applied to the land side of [36:13] each of those units um beyond that of course like I I [36:19] sort of animated at you also have the you know materials and labor costs have all gone up nothing seems to be going [36:26] down these days affordability in Nina I'm using it relative to the observation [36:32] that Stephanie made if if these two homes did not exist in this [36:39] area they could you know where we have where we're looking to make a a project [36:46] out of it they could be torn down and it happens on many other Lots in Dina and [36:53] replaced with a home in you know generally 1.2 1.5 1 .8 million [36:59] range um compared to that 800,000 is Affordable in my [37:05] eyes and I think if you you know if you take the extension of the movement of [37:12] Edina residents from their existing homes to these that you do end up seeing [37:18] the freeing up of fly affordable homes elsewhere in the city you know if this [37:24] person is moving from um you know from uh conquered or [37:30] you know some of those areas over on the other side of Edina for example there are homes over there that they could be [37:36] moving out of and that are definitely more affordable and that whole process [37:42] of of that movement is to me what helps create you know that [37:54] affordability yeah welcome you can introduce yourself I know you're part of the applicant [37:59] team Paul D Steve I think they wanted to clarify [38:05] the 1438 Square ft on the main floor commissioner will Warstein um that's [38:13] just the first floor square footage so the opening the beginning price would be [38:19] less than 300 if they only take the first floor finished the lower level adds another 1149 Square ft for a total [38:27] of 25.87 so that that entry level just [38:33] finishing the the main floor we could have a much more um if you want to call [38:38] it affordable price yeah modestly and these are all [38:43] um I was the president of the last HOA there and some of the residents that [38:49] bought for me well I'm the president until we get 75% um occupancy of of owner occupied [38:57] and then I turn it over to them so this will be included in with that HOA for [39:03] snow plowing lawn care and things that this age group is looking for and they [39:10] want to get out of their uh single family homes that they've been taken care of and living in a Dina like I do a [39:17] lot of my neighbors are looking at these and they don't want that maintenance anymore so I didn't want to interrupt [39:23] you Steve but I thought I should add that to no that's how far I I appreciate the context yeah y thank you very much [39:30] Paul I agree okay the is the issue of the basement additional square footage I did miss thank [39:39] you Sor you said this would be part of an HOA right pardon me this this [39:45] development would be part of an HOA yes okay this will be do you mind me asking what what the HOA fee is per month 390 [39:52] yeah just curious what is it 450 450 they yeah 450 I have another one that [39:58] I'm president of that one's 390 this one is is 450 [40:05] okay any other questions well thank you guys for the [40:10] presentation uh stick around obviously uh we will open this up to a public hearing [40:17] now and we'll do so I'll we'll get uh I guess get give people a chance who are [40:24] tuning in remotely to jump into the virtual Q again um if you've been there [40:29] already waiting thank you if not uh there's quite a bit of instruction so [40:35] pay attention call the following number yeah it's on the screen 312 [40:42] 53581 one0 then enter the access code [40:48] 2633 139 0260 then we have a password of 5454 [40:59] and press star three to indicate an interest in speaking so hopefully you got all that it's a [41:05] lot uh meanwhile we will open it to people who are here in [41:11] person uh that would like to testify please come up to Podium you got three minutes State your full name address and [41:17] let you know when your time's up thank you hello thank you uh my name is Ryan Beckman I live at 5146 henerson one of [41:26] the uh previous Town Homes uh I felt compelled to say for transparency as a [41:31] board member of the existing HOA our board has decided not to initially [41:36] include this development in our existing HOA to what Paul just said uh we are not [41:42] taking them on immediately uh and then also we have had 10 individual owners [41:47] throughout our history in these eight units in personal conversations with eight of those 10 homeowners none of [41:53] them were previous Edina residents so these are not NE necessarily opening up Edina homes uh by the new people that [42:01] move in just anecdotally from what we've had in our existing building thank you [42:08] thanks all right yep welcome full name address [42:15] and yeah if yeah staff can help you there should be a logo right there in the center of the [42:26] table filming filming a screen is you know has variable results [42:45] so okay hi I'm Beth Johnson I live at 512 Bedford and this is my first time [42:52] had a Planning Commission or any council meeting so uh obviously still trying to understand the technology but uh the re [43:00] but first of all I do want to say thank you for your service to the city I I know that being a member of the Planning Commission is is not an easy job um but [43:09] I think the the reason that I felt compelled to come here tonight was really just because I guess 10 year or [43:14] about 10 years ago now I was able to buy my first house Ina uh in this neighborhood and I feel [43:21] like this project is taken away that ability for others too and then also on [43:28] top of that I I have concerns about the I guess incremental unplanned for [43:33] development that's continuing and like I understand that the applicant mentioned well this is the last project on [43:40] Hankerson how do we know that and what sort of dangerous president does this said and then I think third of all like [43:46] when I was trying to wrap my head around this and I and I read some of the the reports around the the development I [43:54] felt very concerned about the trans Arcy or I guess om or I guess key omissions [44:00] of critical information that I think is important for you guys to be able to make your recommendation appropriately [44:06] and so that if if you'll let me I do want to go through a couple things that at least were concerns of mine in terms [44:12] of how this aligns with the code and also the comprehensive plan and so I'll [44:18] start with just I mean obviously this is a direct excerpt from the code in terms [44:23] of the applicability or criteria uh that's important or that is is used for [44:29] resoning to to PUD um and I'll walk through each of these I [44:35] think one of the first key distinctions I do want to make is that and and this is for this first bullet point here [44:41] around uses I know that the applicant did mention the are you thinks that it's this is medium density residential [44:47] housing but as as it shows here from this excerpt from the code or excuse me [44:53] from the comprehensive plan uh land in cities is first categorized by how it's used and second secondarily by the scale [45:00] and intensity of that use and so when I look at this this is currently obviously [45:05] guided as as lowdensity residential and when I look at the uses of it single family residential neighborhoods it's [45:12] exactly it like medium density according to the use in the the plan is is applies [45:17] to attach housing that that's not what most of this neighborhood is so I just [45:22] wanted to make that key distinction first and then in terms of when I do [45:27] look at I guess this first criteria in terms of Eligibility around is around you know whether the the proposed site [45:34] is designated for more than one use which we all know is not applicable here it's just single use but but that will [45:40] be important in my last point so just remember that uh secondly here in terms of uh the [45:49] in terms of for single use land types it has to be consistent with the uh with [45:54] the comprehensive plan and when I look at the comprehensive plan this is where I really had a hard time wrapping my head around it because when I look at [46:01] this comprehensive plan says you know zero units of medium density housing is [46:06] is needed and then when I look at also some of these existing or projected housing needs it looks like housing for [46:13] family with children's and first-time home buyers smaller housing types and uh [46:18] as well as um and and then also I highlight here in [46:24] terms of you know well housing and any D is obviously [46:29] um is yeah just try to ramp up okay thanks [46:35] so okay but I think and I can send you this if it would be helpful for for your consideration but I think the key or [46:42] like one of the key things to mention here though and I think it's also even important for how the the last [46:48] development even got approved is when I look at this last criteria here in terms of setback regulations building coverage [46:54] and floor area of the most closely conventional zoning district is considered presumbly appropriate but may [47:01] be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent of subsection B1 and subsection B1 as I show here applies to [47:09] uh sites that are designated for more than one use so I think one of the key [47:14] questions and key things that I I would ask you guys to consider is whether those setback building coverage and far [47:21] ratios can be departed from since there's only one land use um and then finally this shows that [47:29] it this does not meet any of the setback requirements of any of the conventional zoning districts along with the building [47:35] coverage requirements thank you very much sorry to cut you off you prepared a [47:41] lot but we just give three minutes to each person so thank you so much for [47:46] coming in yeah please come forward got three minutes full name address oh why won't be that long uh my name is Jim poy [47:53] I live at 5148 Hankerson I'm also in that new new Grand View uh U building [47:59] that's been built uh I am the President of that Association um I think it's gone rather [48:04] seamlessly the transition of all of us folks that live there uh I'm getting the [48:09] appearance from some of the comments that people are saying that they seem to be concerned about the type of person [48:14] that might be living in these homes and whether they can afford them and whether there's families that might possibly [48:20] live in there and uh I can tell you there's some diversity of the people that do live in our place I'm retired [48:27] guy uh Ryan and his wife work uh two doors down from him as a family with two [48:32] children uh so there's a variety of different people that do live in those buildings um I also wanted to briefly [48:39] mention um the concerns about traffic in the back of the alley there um I drive [48:44] down that alley every day at different times of the day morning noon and night and uh I think probably 90% of the times [48:53] that I go down that alley I'm the only car in that alley so I don't see that there's a traffic problem U or a [49:00] speeding problem either but if you did want to put in speed bumps of something like that I think that that might be a [49:06] nice suggestion that would slow down things going through the alleyway there um I approve of the project I think da [49:14] is a very good Builder uh they're local they're from Edina um they're not a national Builder and they build [49:21] respectful good quality homes for residential people to be able to move in of all different types of people people [49:27] so and my comment was on the better uh Ed website as well okay thank you very [49:33] much appreciate you coming here anyone else who's here in person i' like to testify please come [49:42] forward ber okay we'll move to the virtual queue I know we've given [49:52] it almost 10 minutes for someone to be ready to speak is there anyone in the [49:58] the waiting room no there is nobody in the waiting [50:05] room well we've given it plenty of time for someone to jump [50:11] in I guess I'd offer up if anyone wants a motion to close a public [50:17] hearing make a motion to close a public hearing second all those in favor say I [50:23] I the public hearing is closed so now we'll take back to the Planning Commission thank you for all your [50:29] comments both on Better Together as well as in person and uh staff and the Pres [50:36] presenters for sharing your feedback uh I guess we could just go down the row or [50:42] if someone has comments they'd like to share right away open it [50:49] up yeah commiss day okay [50:55] um so I guess looking at this project there's to me there's a lot of [51:01] pros and cons associated with it um so you know there's we've gone over the [51:07] pros I think our residents helped cover the cons but if I I'll recap at least [51:12] from my perspective um so with this project obviously we'd see increased density you [51:17] know we talk about the missing middle um the need to increase the variety of housing I think this project is in a [51:24] good location for that type of development um you know so you know the [51:30] letter from uh from Stephanie pointed out right you know fits in with terms of like [51:36] getting more housing stock increasing the variety Etc right so that's that's all I think very good um from a con [51:44] perspective right it also pointed out in in that same letter from Stephanie was that we are tearing down two moderately [51:52] priced affordable homes in a Dina in order to replace them with you know much more expensive housing stock though it [51:58] would be subdivided um and when I think about the loss of that those affordable moderately [52:05] sized houses um right it to me it's it actually you know I started the comments [52:11] because uh it hits home personally uh as my I've been a resident of Adina for [52:17] almost three years now and when I moved into Adina I moved into basically a [52:22] house very much like the two that are existing on this plot of land today uh my house was built in [52:29] 1957 these House was built in the 50s I did see a note and hear from the applicant about how much maintenance [52:36] houses from the 50s require I can personally attest to that uh it's a lot [52:41] um but it was you know basically the price level that my wife and I could afford moving into the city for the [52:47] first time um and I can speak for a lot of my peers and say that this basically the these types of houses right now are [52:54] in high demand just as we have much in high Demand right this middle missing middle for seniors um this variety of [53:01] housing right so there's a lot of demand obviously from the community for this type of housing but there's a lot of demand from the community for the [53:07] housing stock that exists on this plot of land today uh you know another friend of mine bought a house because he could [53:13] this what he could afford was built in 1937 you know $300,000 house he his Pro [53:20] of land could maybe have been similar thing could have happened here you know he drills into the walls then there's newspaper for insulation but again [53:26] that's what we that's what some people can afford in order to move into a Dina for the first time uh and you know also [53:33] so I'm going to go on I'm going to keep doing anecdotal things here for a minute so pardon my pardon me um but the first [53:39] time that I went to an open streets uh meeting in ad Dina and talked to the [53:45] mayor and and residents the question I asked the mayor is I said how is there a way that we can prevent developers [53:51] coming into a Dina and taking single family moderately priced houses like the one I just purchased and tearing them [53:58] down in order to build much more expensive housing right and there was kind of a uh it depends right we have [54:05] programs in Indina to try to maintain housing stock uh the city can buy houses [54:10] I believe and try to make them available to to new families and whatnot in order to prevent this type of scenario from [54:16] happening um but it's on the top of mine for a lot of people my age right there's much there's huge competition for these [54:23] types of houses even though they require a lot of maintenance a lot of us are learning how to do that and again I test [54:29] to it it does require quite a bit of work um but this is I mean they are great homes like I my house yes it [54:35] required some updates to the carpet insulation Etc but I I love my house so you know coming back to my [54:44] article at hand like I said there's a lot of pros and cons here uh I'm a little so I'm really kind of torn in [54:51] terms of the loss of the moderately you know moderately sized Moder pric houses [54:57] with these Pros that we see with increased anding missing metal so what really comes down to is the ask and the [55:03] lift for the comprehensive plan Amendment and change um and you know I'm certainly curious to hear what the other [55:09] Commissioners have to say about this but you know as we talked about PUD use I know we are [55:15] trying trying to get rely on it less should I say um and as our resident that [55:21] came up and spoke pointed out right we we try to use PUD it was originally intended for something that has more [55:27] than one principal land use mixed mixed use not really just little tiny tiny [55:32] single lot sizes that we want to just be able to do whatever we want that don't meet the existing zoning requirements we [55:38] don't meet setback requirements that you know apply for any of the current residential units Etc um [55:46] so it to me this is it's a big ask and so I I struggle I think I think it's [55:52] right now it's a big ask but I'm willing to hear more from my fellow commissioners and again wanted to provide that [55:58] personal perspective as we as we let off this discussion thanks a lot commissioner [56:04] hanaman um thanks um I guess I look at [56:10] uh what the developer has done here as a phenomenal gift to us because it is an [56:15] affordable property absolutely I bought into a Dina 14 years ago but the e in in [56:22] a house very similar to this um but the economy has changed the world has changed and we can only control or uh [56:30] impact so much of that this house could go on the market tomorrow it could be torn down and put a $1.2 million home [56:37] and there would be nothing that we could do to to stop that but we have the [56:42] opportunity to take these two homes that could be flipped and turn them into [56:48] these duplexes um work as I work in Senior Living I can't even tell you what the demand is for single level living [56:55] for accessible living um and land prices make it very challenging to take the square footage [57:00] to do that so I'm very excited that we're able to take these two properties that could be something even less [57:08] affordable $800,000 is not great in terms of my definition of affordability [57:14] but it is within the scope of what we see in the city and um I I think it's [57:21] fabulous and I'm excited that we have the option to create in this location more more density um and single family [57:29] or single level living so thank you very much may maybe just [57:35] stick to the side commissioner felt sure [57:41] I I'm I feel like I'm in the same place I was last September um when you came [57:47] forward with this I completely understand right the right that you can [57:53] the owners of these homes can tear them down and build a much larger house I think it'd be more like 1.6 1.8 than [58:00] 1.2 um to make all the costs work out because the cost of the land is significant and they've got to um build [58:06] on top of that um you know so having four houses instead of two it helps [58:14] with um our housing needs I think it's a housing type that's [58:20] necessary um we do have the Grand View area plan just extending that that Grand [58:27] View area plan a little bit makes sense you know we're talking about areas of [58:32] potential change and this is one of them which we're talking about but once again [58:39] it's like we're talking about changing our one [58:44] zoning and I understand the fear about coming in and changing our one [58:50] zoning um you know there's a lot there's aot [58:56] lot of talk right now about about how we can [59:04] um deal with their housing issues but I think there's also a lot of [59:10] fear about [Music] um about people losing [59:16] their um their single family housing so I'm I'm torn on this [59:24] one commissioner borne soon thank you not to repeat what others have said [59:29] there's yeah there's some tension in this one for me too I think remember there's two different asks there's [59:37] amending the comprehensive plan and separately rezoning the [59:43] parcels and I think it's important to think about whether both of those asks [59:48] make sense um like you both like I think like [59:54] everybody said I I think allowing in Greater density in this area may make [59:59] sense um in general just because of its proximity to other types of land uses [1:00:07] um whether amending the plan to just guide this one small spot to that makes [1:00:14] sense is sort of an a more open question I think the thing I struggle with more on this one is the request sorry the [1:00:21] request to rezone this to PUD um including because we've talked [1:00:29] about trying to dial back the use of PUD and because this doesn't really strike [1:00:36] me as the type of uh it like when I read through the criteria for what are the [1:00:41] criteria for aut this doesn't seem to fit that to me so like for example when [1:00:47] I was looking through the criteria in the staff report um I was kind of just asking myself like yes or no are these [1:00:53] criteria met do we need to reason zoned to PUD to bring um this development in [1:01:00] line with the comp plan we don't need to because it's currently in line with the comp plan if we changed the comp plan [1:01:06] then there'd be attention um but anyway so that's not really met here um does [1:01:13] rezoning to PUD promote creativity and efficiency in land use maybe a little [1:01:18] bit um here I think I think the applicant spoke to that somewhat although not to the degree that we [1:01:25] usually see when we talk about puds and the type of creativity and efficiency that we're bringing to Unique [1:01:31] sites when we when we've used that in other context does it allow for improved [1:01:36] site design uh like better Design Elements pedestrian connections I don't think not really I think this is too [1:01:42] small to really um make meaningful changes in that regard um are we do we [1:01:49] need to rezone to PUD to ensure high quality design I don't think so um does [1:01:55] it improve Street efficiencies that I don't not really um preserve site [1:02:00] characteristics like natural characteristics I think these are just flat pieces of land so maybe not um not [1:02:06] like we've seen with other projects where there's something really unique about the site that we're trying to preserve um does it allow for mixing of [1:02:13] land uses no um you know encourage affordable [1:02:20] housing uh we talked about that not being true I think the people that move into this are probably going to be [1:02:26] selling more expensive homes and freeing up more expensive units elsewhere in the [1:02:32] Metro um and then does it facilitate transitions you I think we've already [1:02:37] talked about that so just on the P the Pud piece is the piece that I'm struggling with because it just doesn't [1:02:43] seem like this is the type of situation where we'd rezone a PUD um [1:02:49] even though I'm super supportive of high quality projects like this would be and [1:02:54] uh greater density in these types of areas thank you looking this way [1:02:59] commissioner Aly to followup to commissioner bornstein's point I have a question for [1:03:06] Carrie if I could so what would what would be an option to PUD if as a hypothetical one like the [1:03:14] project but not the the zoning change uh the option would be to rezone [1:03:21] to R2 which allows two family dwelling units there would be variances for [1:03:29] setback for lot size for both Lots well really yeah both Lots you need at least [1:03:34] 15,000 square foot feet for a to put a duplex on both of these are just under [1:03:40] 10,000 square feet so it would be a different zoning category [1:03:46] um with a with several variances includ could be lot coverage as well um part of [1:03:53] staff's recommendation here is because we've already established a PUD to the South if this were included as part of [1:04:01] that original development it it seemed to fit and to create another zoning [1:04:07] District in the middle of the block it just see seemed to make more sense to just add to the existing [1:04:15] PUD and we didn't do R2 for the prior project why correct those were four unit [1:04:23] buildings so that wouldn't have been allowed right thank you previously before these were built there was a five [1:04:29] unit apartment on the site um oh [1:04:40] just none yet no comments I just do yeah commissioner [1:04:45] Miranda yeah you do smile [1:04:51] [Laughter] so um [1:04:57] I mean as for you know so there was talk about among Commissioners among about uh revising the comp plan versus uh [1:05:05] revising uh the zoning and um my understanding is that we have to revise [1:05:10] the comp plan if we res we we do the zoning so um they go hand inand because [1:05:15] the comp plan is the is the pattern and the zoning is the implementation so [1:05:20] you'd have to have both um I am [1:05:26] uh well let me cover something else so [1:05:33] um we had a work session before this meeting and we talked about some of the limitations that we have uh within our [1:05:41] zoning code and um you know we're trying to fix that [1:05:46] we're in the process of trying to fix that so we're working with Consultants to do that and it's something the city council wants and so but we don't have [1:05:52] those tools today and so the only real tool we have is is a PUD um so and I think pretty much [1:05:59] everybody agrees that P PUD is not something that we want to use all the time and certainly not going forward as [1:06:06] a as a Planning and Zoning tool um but it's all we have today and this proposal [1:06:13] is here before us today not not 10 years from now um so I'm pretty much okay with it in [1:06:20] the sense that you know it's kind of our main tool at this point because the city council historically has wanted to use [1:06:25] PUD to control each property very distinctly um secondly the property next [1:06:33] to it made by the same developer just a couple years ago um is also a PUD and um [1:06:40] you know you don't want you know one thing you want to avoid with with zoning and planning is to have spot zoning [1:06:47] right so and that's part of the reason why you have a comprehensive plan because you want to lay out contiguous areas and what we're doing here is [1:06:55] extending an area so it is contiguous and so that makes a lot of sense to me so you know if if this were you know two [1:07:02] blocks away I think it would be a terrible idea you know I don't think we want to just you know willy-nilly change [1:07:08] zoning within our city that's not really what zoning is about it's not what uh comprehensive planning is about um but [1:07:14] when you're extending an area uh you know two lots um that's contiguous with the [1:07:21] existing one um in an area that uh you know as uh commissioner felt said is you [1:07:28] know at the edge of an existing small area planned guide guided area [1:07:35] um that's you know planned for more density and it's adjacent to a county road I mean this is a place where [1:07:41] there's Transit I mean if you're going to add density this is the area where you want to add it right you don't want [1:07:46] to go into the middle of some single family zoned neighborhood uh like [1:07:52] Parkwood nolles for example and like stick you know duplexes or Towers or whatever there [1:07:58] right that doesn't make sense but here you're just extending literally by two lots um something and as as uh Carrie [1:08:07] said you know there was a five unit apartment building adjacent to it so um [1:08:12] it's all very methodical it's all very logical we have a housing problem in our [1:08:18] city we have a housing problem in our region we have a housing problem in our country um if you so so I don't know why [1:08:27] and I love our our affordable housing uh director but I don't know why we bring [1:08:33] up the topic of affordable housing in terms of single family homes because when people talk about affordable housing they're not talking about single [1:08:40] family homes right you're not saving anything or making anything affordable by Saving an old house on a large piece [1:08:49] of pro relatively large piece of property where you could build more density um that's not affordable housing [1:08:55] that's not the goal of what you're trying to do with affordable housing so if you keep that as single family homes [1:09:00] for example I mean that's fine in a region that's not growing right so if a dino were stagnant I mean you know we [1:09:06] could say oh well we're not getting more owners we just need to make the housing that we have affordable for the people [1:09:12] who live here then maybe I could see that but we're growing and the region is [1:09:17] growing and we have this huge need for housing and so what happens if we don't build it here then [1:09:25] two of those families that would move in have to move further out meaning they have to drive further in so whatever [1:09:34] neighborhoods they're passing on the way in they're adding to congestion to those neighborhoods so they're actually making [1:09:40] it by by not increasing the density you're making housing worse you're making Transportation worse you're [1:09:46] making climate change worse you're making Equity worse you're making everything worse by leaving things the [1:09:51] way they are it sounds comfortable to keep things the way they are but we live [1:09:57] a world where we have 10 consecutive months of record [1:10:03] temperatures um we have to do things differently now than we've done them in the past and you know again you know [1:10:10] nobody's advocating for putting a five-story tower right here right we're like literally just doubling the size of [1:10:17] these properties the housing physically is No taller than the than the adjacent [1:10:23] housing so um for all these reasons I think this seems very very appropriate [1:10:29] and and I know change is scary and I don't you know nobody likes change especially as we get older or whatever [1:10:34] right but but some change we have to do in order to save you know our planet and [1:10:40] our community for the people who are going to move here in the future for the the children and the grandchildren or [1:10:47] people who move in from other neighborhoods or other cities um we need to provide more housing and I think this [1:10:53] is a very very gentle way there there's one um uh architect who calls [1:11:01] um uh Missing middle housing gentle density because you're just you're just [1:11:07] barely increasing the density right you're not putting you know I mean there was a proposal at one point in Grand [1:11:12] View to have an 11-story Tower right and that would be like totally inappropriate even in even in the densest part of that [1:11:19] neighborhood um but when you're adding one unit of housing to a piece of property you know it's not really going [1:11:25] to materially affect anything I mean I don't know with the with the with those horrible people who have moved into the [1:11:31] neighborhood I mean has anything really change in the neighborhood you know it it doesn't seem like it has so for all [1:11:37] these reasons I think this seems like a very reasonable proposal and it matches our comprehensive plan and it um this is [1:11:43] the best zoning tool we have I believe to do this thank you thank you all right commissioner [1:11:50] Padia good luck um with all due respect um so as I said in [1:12:00] September uh when you were here last I thought that uh this request was a heavy [1:12:06] lift from a comprehensive plan point of view um and I I consider the same for uh [1:12:15] resoning as well the Pud resoning intent as commissioner Bornstein mentioned is [1:12:21] to promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use I do not not think [1:12:26] that that is what's being fulfilled here um you talked about um the missing [1:12:33] middle and the fact that these are going to cost um in the [1:12:38] 800,000 which I'm assuming is probably the upper 800,000 by the time we get [1:12:43] around to all the expenses that you alluded to I think in terms of design it [1:12:49] might satisfy the missing middle but not in terms of price the median home value [1:12:54] in Dina in 2023 which would be the tax value in 2024 is 696,000 [1:13:03] 600 so if you're coming in at close to $200,000 above that for a single unit I [1:13:09] don't see that as satisfying the missing middle at all the median home price in [1:13:16] Eden Prairie is 536 400 and St Louis Park it's 373,000 so um I'm not seeing [1:13:23] price-wise missing middle um being addressed [1:13:29] um the Assumption you're making about this being built for E Diner residents I [1:13:35] think is um uh a misguided assumption as Ryan um [1:13:44] testified um I think that you're you're doing a [1:13:50] little bit of talking out of both sides because um on the one hand there are so [1:13:56] many things that you mentioned that are good about this design this building [1:14:03] this location um and I agree it's in a great neighborhood I spent a lot of time [1:14:08] walking the whole neighborhood um the other day and there's there's so much [1:14:13] there there's so much to take advantage of um that I think it begs the question [1:14:20] why not build more um and again I think that that clashes with com with the the [1:14:27] comprehensive plan Amendment um I think if there's so much to be done there and this is such um um a vital neighborhood [1:14:35] full of potential and full of offerings then um there could be more done here if [1:14:41] we're going to the trouble of doing these kind of resoning and an amendment so at the end of the day I do [1:14:48] not think uh a PUD or resoning is um is reasonable able nor do I think a [1:14:56] comprehensive plan is um amendment is reasonable and I think this project [1:15:02] completely lacks imagination in terms of what this city needs and what can be done in terms of all of our housing [1:15:11] needs thank you commissioner [1:15:16] Smith all right uh I think this is a tough one [1:15:23] definitely for the reasons that I've heard here so far [1:15:28] um I do agree with commissioner Miranda's point of [1:15:35] view um that you know this seems to fit this [1:15:40] area if I were to think about what's a higher density type development in this [1:15:46] specific area this would seem to fit that nicely um I appreciate staff's [1:15:52] recommendations what they shared and how they approached it and the different zoning tools that they looked at and [1:15:58] which one was the most effective one I think that makes sense um the two concerns of course is [1:16:06] you know just the price um I think the price is is is [1:16:11] significant um but if I step away from that and think about the alternative the [1:16:17] alternative would be uh a more expensive ton rebuild which is happening [1:16:23] everywhere and that is that is absolutely pricing people out of the city at least this one you have you have [1:16:28] a shot um so I see it from that perspective from price and and agree [1:16:36] with the points regarding affordability this is not so much about affordability [1:16:41] per se it's more of how do we we create Housing Opportunity that that that's not [1:16:46] the 1.2 but something that we know we can't find the $400,000 homes [1:16:53] anymore now the question on zoning is is where I think the sticky point is [1:17:00] uh and you know amending the comprehensive plan and and and and [1:17:06] resoning that definitely we've used PUD quite a bit uh for big projects and not [1:17:13] so much for these smaller projects and we certainly want to get away from doing that and so we're as a [1:17:19] city looking forward to how do we upgrade our zoning to match the comprehensive plan and we're activ [1:17:25] working with consultants and teams to get there um and so I know that's going to [1:17:30] be addressed in the future and however the tools that we have now [1:17:35] uh PUD is what we what we have and and and this opportunity I think is a decent [1:17:43] opportunity we're extending a p that's already here it's a transition [1:17:49] everything again in the staff report seems to make sense so unless I hear something [1:17:55] differently I I'm I'm falling on the side of approval on this one because I [1:18:00] think it it makes sense with the knowledge that we would be upgrading our [1:18:06] our zoning to match comprehensive plans in the future um but for right now this [1:18:12] opportunity seems like it fits this this area well from a location proximity uh transition density all [1:18:20] these key components so I'm kind of leaning positive on this one on something jumps out at me that says um [1:18:29] no worry I won't jump out of my chair at you uh commissioner elare thanks [1:18:36] Quincy this is a lot harder than I thought it would be this afternoon because when I [1:18:41] was going through the materials last night and this afternoon it seemed pretty easy to me but it's one of the [1:18:48] reasons I really appreciate getting together and having the discussion and hearing other Commissioners thoughts is because there were a several things that [1:18:55] I had hadn't really probably considered enough mean I would I think itd be a [1:19:02] happier person if we didn't need a comprehensive plan and a rezoning and and all of the requirements to get this [1:19:08] project done and I think in the spirit of our conversation from the work session it [1:19:13] would be nice if we had zoning that better reflected what we're really trying to achieve in the city and but we [1:19:20] don't um in a sense this project doesn't fit [1:19:27] the comprehensive plan but important ways it does uh it promotes diversity in [1:19:32] our housing stock it increases the quantity in our housing stock with gentle density uh it allows Aging in place in [1:19:41] the in the product that the developer the applicant is planning to build which is rare and important in our [1:19:49] city it also has some features that we have tended to like as a Planning Commission like garages and the back [1:19:55] instead of the front um it's a pleasant looking building from the street so I think [1:20:01] it'll add to the visual appeal of that area and overall for [1:20:08] me I'm interested in supporting the project and doing what we need to do to [1:20:13] get it done I really what liked what commissioner felt said about sing R1 zoning and how we need to [1:20:21] be cautious with that that's not the words you used but that's sentiment and [1:20:26] I think you're completely right about that we need to be very cautious and purposeful and how we whenever we [1:20:34] consider going from R1 to anything else but I think we've done a good job tonight considering that and we only [1:20:42] would want to do that if there's a good reason that accomplishes something important for our city I think this I [1:20:48] think this fits that so I'm I'm I want to support this the the only other thing [1:20:55] I want to say and it's not a not a message for the applicant so much as for the city and for us is if we want to [1:21:03] talk about this area on the other side of Vernon as close to Commercial [1:21:11] Services um we need to remember that to get to those Commercial Services you [1:21:16] have to cross four lanes of busy traffic with not particularly great sidewalks [1:21:24] and even though a poor golfer like me could hit a nine iron from this proposed [1:21:29] spot to the front door of Jerry's grocery store to walk there is more than a [1:21:36] quarter mile to go down Vernon to cross at Eden where there's a crosswalk cross [1:21:41] to the other side walk back to the front door Jas it's 600600 ft so I think it's [1:21:47] a great location but we have a long way to go to really make that accessible to [1:21:52] the to the commercial services that are Lally a stone throw away so that's just [1:21:57] a comment for us as we continue in in that area so thank you those are my [1:22:04] comments thank you commissioner day so just a couple quick things to add [1:22:11] as we've gone around the table so I heard it reiterated multiple times that somebody could tear these down and build [1:22:17] uh much more expensive housing stock but you know I will point out that very well could not happen as well we keep H I [1:22:24] feel like we've hammered on that a few times uh there are a lot of people that would buy this lot and not tear it down [1:22:29] so to say that we're doing some good greater good by making sure that somebody doesn't do that I don't [1:22:34] necessarily buy into that idea um the comment about the Pud zoning and [1:22:40] expanding it by two lots right we've created the momentum here um I thought [1:22:47] it was a bad I think the previous decision was a bad one and that one bad decision doesn't necessitate another uh [1:22:54] just because we've done it on the in the parcel next door doesn't mean that we have to do it here I know that it fits [1:22:59] but we've created the situation for ourselves um and now you know as we dive into the the Pud discussion and it [1:23:06] really came up as Commissioners Pia and Bornstein pointed out all right as they [1:23:11] as they discuss this but think about the development that was proposed across the street uh the office building that has [1:23:18] not gone forward but when that was that was proposed to us several months ago [1:23:23] right what were we getting from the p UD at that time we're getting Sustainable Building Materials we are getting [1:23:28] affordable housing we are getting much greater density in that area we're getting a park and we were potentially [1:23:33] getting a restaurant on the bottom here we're proposing a PUD simply because we [1:23:39] want to build bigger than the setbacks require for an R2 District not quite the same give and [1:23:45] take from a city standpoint and of how why we developed PUD in the first place we a lot of times we say we do puds for [1:23:51] affordable housing um course obviously this isn't in any way if we discussed [1:23:57] affordable yes it's increasing density but to again I to me it it really [1:24:02] doesn't meet you know we PUD should have some a little bit at least some discretion to it right we should be [1:24:07] getting a little bit more than just breaking one unit in one house into [1:24:13] two uh similarly priced you know expensive more upto-date units [1:24:20] so other comments I can sure a few that if [1:24:26] there's any that have been left unsaid uh great discussion commissioner El summed it up [1:24:33] very well hitting both sides kind of and maybe capturing where I ultimately fall [1:24:40] um you know one there's a few points to think about when considering building [1:24:46] any type of missing middle housing or even single family homes to build [1:24:52] something new any d is inherently not going to be affordable [1:24:58] I mean most of the missing middle if you build it there is the cost to the land I mean they walk through it so I mean just [1:25:04] in general to build anything new is going to be above the medium price range for literally anything that we do [1:25:10] especially when you scale the density down the closer you get to one home it's [1:25:16] going to be even more expensive so the point of missing middle housing isn't [1:25:22] necessarily to provide something more affordable right then it's to provide [1:25:27] that increase in variety of housing stock so ultimately you have that throughout youru community and later so [1:25:34] I mean I picture if I walked down this neighborhood in 25 years you know and this was built and now it's 25 years old [1:25:42] and you have the other Town Homes there it would feel like a very logical incremental nice transition into the [1:25:49] single family homes around it and right at your front door across the street Street isn't other single family homes [1:25:56] it's a busy road and a bunch of Commercial Services so this is a very distinct and unique lot and opportunity [1:26:04] that's like On The Fringe of a neighborhood so I can see there's this [1:26:10] tension of do we keep it the same or do we allow for some of that transition and [1:26:16] I know when we you know approve the comprehensive well the comprehensive Plan update you [1:26:23] know it was like off the single family neighborhoods it was focused on the small area plans I think you have to [1:26:30] look at this area as being pretty close and in consideration of that small area [1:26:35] plan because it benefits from that small area directly you can walk to it so I [1:26:43] think the tool by which we support this or deny it isn't as important to me [1:26:48] because if this were not a comprehensive plan Amendment but was instead of rezoning with a a bunch of variances I [1:26:56] think I'd still support it and when the developer was here in [1:27:01] September they asked for that type of guidance from us what they should do they're thinking PUD because it made [1:27:07] sense staff kind of guided them toward it and I think because there is that one right next to it and it can merge into [1:27:13] it that seems like the better tool to use um but in general it it is just a [1:27:21] gentle bump in density and the scale the quality of what they will build will be [1:27:27] just a gentle bump in that experience in that neighborhood I'm sympathetic to the [1:27:33] comments about an increase in traffic in an alley way that didn't have that before so I mean maybe that is something [1:27:40] the city could look at when we start adding density to alleys and which does [1:27:47] add vehicles and more traffic although incrementally maybe there are traffic [1:27:52] calming measures that could be added like a speed bump mid mid block or something I think maybe that's something [1:28:00] the city could do Beyond this and um at least help assuage some of those [1:28:07] concerns many neighbors shared about you know there's more cars people are speeding through there and it didn't [1:28:12] happen before I don't know if that's true or not but if it were that this would bring a lot of stress to add more [1:28:19] people there so if we could slow those people in the alleyway down that'd be great benefit um one other point I just [1:28:28] wanted to make cuz it was brought up in this meeting like it was the last and and even the the original hankers and [1:28:34] down homes is the potential connection or crossing at 502 [1:28:39] I I just I want to be on the record again saying I think a vehicular Crossing there would be an absolutely [1:28:46] horrible idea and shouldn't be a part of this discussion in any way um but to [1:28:51] commissioner aly's point that Transportation plan was [1:28:56] drafted almost 10 years ago so there's short and medium-term [1:29:02] things that were expected to be done to get people s more safely across that road that haven't been done so hopefully [1:29:10] this is another reminder to get you know some better protected Crossings until the county gets their act together to [1:29:17] you know give us some funding and get a better roadway version of Vernon that's planned and if people aren't aware it [1:29:24] includes shrinking Vernon to one lane of traffic in both directions with bigger boulevards protected bike lanes and um [1:29:33] uh sidewalks there is not a sidewalk in front of Jerry's on Vernon it's crazy to [1:29:39] think about it's like a brick one foot pathway so there's a lot of opportunity [1:29:44] that the city has to respond to an increas in density like this that I would expect the city to start acting if [1:29:51] we're going to start accommodating this but but that's what I have for comments any [1:29:59] others sure yeah just to that last Point um I know the engineering department has [1:30:05] put together a proposal um they tried to get funding for it but I don't think they got funding for it but they were going to try to do just that that was I [1:30:13] think they tried last year it like the Grand View beautification project and instead they got the funding for the [1:30:19] diverging diamond other story uh on that note [1:30:26] anyone willing to make a vote a motion or further [1:30:31] discussion motion to approve I'll second let's do a roll call vote starting over [1:30:37] at commissioner elire I [1:30:43] I nay I I no n i i [1:30:55] 63 63 the motion to recommend approval has [1:31:01] been approved so this will go to the city council correct uh which what's the [1:31:07] agenda or what what date is it it will be their first meeting in [1:31:13] May okay I don't have my calendar in front of me but well thank you very much for the presentation good luck with the [1:31:19] project and hope the neighbors and everyone stays connected as this goes forward thank [1:31:25] you all right moving on to the next public yep you bet oh yeah there you are [1:31:30] Steve thanks all right next public hearing wow we're actually kind of close [1:31:38] to our agenda time which never happens we're early that's uh that's not normal [1:31:44] only I know all right let's go so we got a site plan with variances and a subdivision request for Edina and AD [1:31:51] dantics at 7,300 Metro Boulevard we saw this in a version of a sketch plan more [1:31:58] recently uh same process as the last one with with this public hearing uh Carrie [1:32:04] will present we'll ask some questions turn over to the development team to present followed by some questions open [1:32:12] it up to a public hearing and then we'll close that public hearing and deliberate again with that Carrie take it away [1:32:19] thanks [1:32:26] testing there we go okay thank you chair members of the commission so this site is located in the kill office in [1:32:34] industrial area the property is zoned planned office District it is guided for office use in [1:32:43] the comprehensive plan existing on the site today is about [1:32:48] 110,000 ft office building as you see in the picture here and the proposal is to build a 6,000 squ ft uh dental office in [1:32:57] the corner they did go through sketch plan as mentioned uh main topic of [1:33:03] conversation both at Planning Commission and city council was the parking in the front and could they do anything to [1:33:10] bring the building up and not have that parking in front where uh patients would [1:33:17] have to cross that in order to get to the building so they have done that they've adjusted they've moved the [1:33:22] building up a little bit um have the parking along the side so [1:33:27] customers patients can just access the sidewalk along the building the main [1:33:33] entrance is located right here in doing that um they wanted to maintain the [1:33:39] drive aisle so in doing that they've shifted the building 10 ft to the South so they're asking for a 10ft sidey yard [1:33:46] setback variance right here in order to accommodate that shift toward the street [1:33:52] and then still maintaining that existing drive a pattern there's a look at the [1:33:57] building you can see the entrance with the large glass and windows another view so the request is a [1:34:05] site plan review couple of variances first for the first floor ceiling height from 20 feet to 10 feet and then that [1:34:13] sidey yard setback as mentioned they're also proposing a subdivision in order to [1:34:18] split this off um to be sold as a separate parcel so review of the site plan again [1:34:25] it's it's code compliant with the with those two exceptions it meets the floor area ratio requirement um parking both [1:34:33] as a combined use um for the site and the the dental office [1:34:42] itself building materials will be U would be uh [1:34:47] stone with the metal panels and the large Windows the plat itself here is [1:34:53] the subdivis ision to establish that new lot with the subdivision there is a park dedication [1:34:59] required here it's 4,900 uh dollars primary issue is are [1:35:06] the variances justified in this case staff believes that the variance criteria is met um the intent of that [1:35:16] sidey guard setback is to provide adequate separation between buildings so [1:35:21] the closest building um yeah this shows it so the location of the the the new [1:35:28] office building would be right here and you see the closest building to the site is set quite a quite a bit back from a [1:35:36] Metro Boulevard and it's about 70 feet from that nearest lot line um so there's [1:35:42] plenty of separation between the buildings so staff believes that the variance is reasonable and again it's [1:35:48] accommodating the shift of the building up to the street so there's not no parking in the middle uh the uses are [1:35:54] consistent with the comprehensive plan um in regard to that 20 foot ceiling height this is the one that we're [1:36:00] working on the code amendment to have isolate that regulation to the Southdale [1:36:06] District as was originally attended there's no 20 foot ceilings um within [1:36:12] this area so it would with a single story building um be somewhat out of place there was a traffic and parking [1:36:19] study concluded and the conclusion is that there would be minimal impact to [1:36:24] the roadways and there is adequate parking I believe Ed terar is with us should there be any questions on that on [1:36:30] that in regard to that that study so with that staff is recommending approval of the site plan the variances and the [1:36:37] subdivision and I can stand for questions thank you Carrie great [1:36:43] succinct presentation anyone yeah commissioner [1:36:49] alar uh this more of a clarification but I just wanted to confirm you on one of the pictures you were talking about how [1:36:56] the side yard setback on that line is 70 ft from the nearest [1:37:04] building let's see it was the South Side yes this the [1:37:10] where the where was going from 20 ft to 10 ft side yard setback right the setback is 10t but the separation [1:37:17] between the two buildings would be 70 ft and it appeared that the part of the [1:37:22] adjacent lot that it is being that it is encroaching is yet another surface [1:37:27] parking lot so it's correct yeah wouldn't doesn't seem like a big crisis [1:37:34] right okay thank you thank you commissioner Smith yeah [1:37:40] thanks director Teague uh if you could go to the image where you showed uh just the rendering of the front of the [1:37:46] building uh I think you passed it Yep this one um so when we say that the [1:37:52] height is 20 feet I can see that there's two different heights right there's the height of the glass entryway area and [1:37:59] then the rest of the building I'm assuming that the 10 ft is really the rest of the building but this entryway [1:38:04] area would be maybe like 15 ft could you just talk more about how we determine [1:38:10] height in this scenario correct yeah the height variance is for the lower portion [1:38:16] um I don't know the I'm sure the applicant knows the exact height of that um but it's in that 15 to probably in [1:38:24] that 15 [1:38:30] range yeah I'm Chris White House I'm the architect with djr architecture that portion in there would actually be uh 20 [1:38:36] feet or slightly more on the high it's also pitched a little bit for drainage so that part it was kind of we're trying [1:38:43] to work with um the the recommendation and it's just Pleasant to have a large [1:38:49] um you know a large space when you first walk in be the waiting area in the entryway but yes the rest of the [1:38:57] building is what we're talking about for the variant on that portion thank [1:39:03] you they do have a materials board if any if the if the commission is interested in seeing that one thing I I [1:39:11] didn't mention in the presentation the the city's pedestrian plan does call for a sidewalk here but [1:39:18] in speaking with engineering when this roadway is um improved in the in the [1:39:24] future there's adequate room within that right of way to still have a Boulevard style sidewalk and provide the sidewalk [1:39:33] by narrowing the road there's the right of way is quite large here so they didn't feel it necessary to get any [1:39:39] easements at this time that that can all be accomplished within the right of [1:39:49] way any other questions or follow that yeah commissioner Hanan [1:39:54] can you talk to me about the Landscaping I was just confused reading the note about it's a parking lot currently right [1:40:01] it is correct so when we talk about the number of overstory trees it's before [1:40:06] the lot is subdivided yeah we look at the site as a whole so not sure if I have a Graphic [1:40:14] that shows all of the trees but we we add up all of the trees on the site [1:40:20] including uh the ones they're proposing here here and So based in the the number of trees that's required is based on the [1:40:28] perimeter of the entire site one tree per every uh 40 ft so with this one [1:40:33] based on that perimeter 48 overstory trees are required and existing and [1:40:39] proposed there would be 58 on the site so it it's in compliance with our landscape regulations so how does [1:40:47] that work now that this would be a if it was approved would be a standalone parcel does [1:40:53] the trees within that parcel um comply or how does that get [1:40:59] thought about yeah we look at it as a tract you know it's the it's the same [1:41:04] zoning District so for purposes of calculating trees Flor area ratio [1:41:10] parking requirements we look at the site as a whole so should trees die in the future [1:41:18] on this site they'd be required to be replaced typically [1:41:24] we're lucky here in Idina Property Owners when their trees and Commercial areas die they replace them on their own [1:41:30] otherwise it's on a complaint basis [1:41:36] thanks commission D just a question around the boulevard Improvement um when is that projected to [1:41:43] take place what's the timeline for that that would be as part of a building permit for the building so they would do [1:41:50] all the the grading and Landscaping at that time okay so sorry maybe I [1:41:55] misunderstood I thought that there was a city project to for Metro Boulevard right yes I don't have the timing for [1:42:01] when that's going to occur um but there is a sidewalk planned [1:42:07] within the pedestrian plan so I sorry I don't have a year for yeah I just was trying to establish a gap in time [1:42:14] potentially between them if there's no sidewalk built there with this plan how [1:42:19] soon would we get a sidewalk there as part of the overall Metro Boulevard Improvement kind of thing that's why I [1:42:24] asked the question but yeah that's the part of the issues with this the kill [1:42:30] District here is we're lacking for sidewalks [1:42:37] yes any other questions all right we'll welcome the [1:42:44] applicant team up if you have a presentation introduce yourself address [1:42:51] all that good stuff you got a board those always [1:42:58] help thank you chair Bennett and um the commission and course director Teague um [1:43:04] think he covered it Carrie covered it really well um I'm Ben krisn with the development team um this is Chris White [1:43:11] House the architect the designer and um yeah I think we covered most of mostly [1:43:17] just want to ask um answer questions for you and maybe Chris you want to walk through your your materials board if [1:43:26] that's hold it up we can't see it now sure we're not that tall like [1:43:37] you yeah should be relatively uh self-explanatory once you're have the rendering up here um we're going with [1:43:45] this is the gry stone for the majority of the building um changing to uh this [1:43:51] lighter tan colored Stone under the windows there this is a aluminum uh it's [1:43:57] a faux wood looking thing long board or similar uh that's the the dark part up [1:44:02] above and then the um storefront windows and uh the accent metal would be this [1:44:09] dark bronze as you see up [1:44:14] here and uh one of the other requirements um if you can go back to the yeah this um the the facade that [1:44:24] faces Metro Boulevard had to be 75% glass and we did hit that number [1:44:32] so did you want to talk about anything else about the building um I know that so there was a lot of discussion last [1:44:38] time about the um safety aspect and I just want to maybe touch a little bit how we addressed that so we ended up [1:44:45] doing is moving the um access way into the property I don't know if you mentioned that um Carrie but um yes so [1:44:52] this moved about 20 30 ft to the north so there's a little additional expense [1:44:57] with that but um you know we're staying two to true to our word we think um the safety is really critical for us [1:45:07] here all right appreciate the changes any [1:45:17] questions sorry maybe I missed it uh there's not parking underneath this [1:45:22] access is for trash on the one photo I missed that there's a garage [1:45:29] door um sure so this building is designed to um sorry see if we can go [1:45:35] here here yeah yeah so um um the first [1:45:40] probably 75% is going to be used day one for anodics the back probably [1:45:48] 1/4 um is expansion space so honestly there's probably going to be golf [1:45:53] simulator back there um starting out but um someday in the future will'll either be enonic or some other complimentary um [1:46:01] use like a general dentist got it but that's not a garage door to underground [1:46:06] parking or no no commissioner alar thanks for coming [1:46:14] tonight the transportation study recommended a uh recommended bike [1:46:19] parking and the city's invested a lot of money in bike connections to the this area and you've got lots of residential [1:46:24] areas to the north and to the east across the highway so is that part of your plan yes um we plan to meet that [1:46:31] there's one um stall required one for bikes so is that [1:46:36] parking for one bike y usually we end up with three stalls but yeah one is [1:46:43] required so was your plan one or three or you don't know that [1:46:49] yet um can we go back um we did we did add those whether or not they got onto [1:46:55] this presentation I guess I'm not 100% sure but we were going [1:47:01] to I did ask civil to add that I'm not sure if they got that on this right now [1:47:06] but no we we do plan on having at least two or three things where you could park [1:47:12] up four or six bikes that's great yeah thank you we'll allow for more than one okay thanks [1:47:23] any other questions no all right thank you guys uh [1:47:30] this is a public hearing so we'll open it up to that uh I'll give the instructions for those who are tuning in [1:47:36] remotely so then members of the audience here can come forward while you're waiting in the queue so please call 312 [1:47:46] 53581 one0 and enter access code 2633 [1:47:53] 139 0260 the password is [1:47:58] 5454 and then you'll press star three when you're ready to speak I can't do that without smiling that's a lot of [1:48:05] instructions all right so again please State your full name address you have [1:48:10] three minutes to speak um we'll open it up to people who are here in person I'd [1:48:16] like to test if I please come up to one of the podium [1:48:23] all right seeing none uh we'll give it a minute or so for those who are tuning in Rolle if they'd like to speak uh again [1:48:31] press star three on your telephone keypad when if you're ready give you a [1:48:37] minute nobody is in the queue at this time so we'll wait okay one minute [1:48:53] okay [1:49:31] it has been one minute and nobody has joined the queue so I believe we are safe to proceed wel come a motion to [1:49:37] close the public motion to close second all those in favor say I I I public [1:49:43] hearing is closed all right bring it back to the commission to deliberate and [1:49:48] uh open to any motions in full transparency my wife works for the development team so I am abstaining from [1:49:57] this [1:50:07] vote all right thank you so I know um thank you for the [1:50:13] presentation uh it was pretty straightforward to me um I know the last time you guys were here you had some [1:50:21] ideas of what you wanted to do you shared a lot of your input we talk through it some of the biggest concerns [1:50:27] of course was just the parking on the front side and I think you guys address that um by shifting it uh more [1:50:34] internally and then of course that kind of pushed the building South a little bit more and so there's the need for [1:50:40] that variance um I was so I like that part um [1:50:45] I was concerned with the height being 10 ft um uh but then you know when we when [1:50:52] you EXP explain that the transparency section the waiting area you know was a lot bigger you bring a lot of light in [1:50:59] that's very consistent with that General region with the 75% transparency requirement so I thought [1:51:06] that was good um overall uh I don't have [1:51:12] any major concerns at all uh that are jumping out at me um given the verance [1:51:19] requests here and and what you guys are trying to build so I'm I'm leaning very positive on this [1:51:25] one um because you did take the feedback and make some adjustments and came up [1:51:30] with a plan that was improved from the last one so so thank you for doing [1:51:36] that thanks yeah commissioner pan I think when you first came to us [1:51:42] with a um sketch plan it was a good plan I think you listened and I think it's a [1:51:48] better plan now and I'm fully supportive [1:51:54] no just go down the line yeah so um I guess I'll Echo what the uh my two [1:51:59] previous Commissioners said here um and especially uh the things that uh [1:52:06] commissioner Smith brought up um I think it has uh improved I mean you've gotten rid of the parking in the front and I [1:52:13] think it sort of meets the ideal of having the tall front [1:52:19] with the big windows and everything so for example in the future a build a building gets built next to it um it [1:52:26] would it would look like it matched and it would look like what we want for the future so you know I think we you know [1:52:33] as a commission as a city we need to make sure not worry so much about whether it looks like it fits in today [1:52:39] because that's not our goal our goal is the future we're a Planning Commission so I want to make sure it looks good um [1:52:46] and not just looks good it fits in for the reasons we want it now I think the reason that we wanted 20 ft um for the [1:52:54] entire you know first floor of the building um was because of the Southdale [1:52:59] guidelines and I think the idea there and you know it could apply here so I'm [1:53:04] sort of torn on this one point but um you know I think the idea would have been a much larger building here um and [1:53:14] you know for all the reasons I said for the for the last meeting um or the last [1:53:19] uh presentation before us in terms of climate change and whatnot um it makes more sense to have a taller [1:53:24] building here doesn't seem like that's going to happen um but I think the stuff that you [1:53:30] guys have proposed in terms of removing the parking and and having a tall glass [1:53:35] uh front entrance um helps we'll help it make it fit in with buildings that we want there in the future um I think one [1:53:42] thing this shows though is is how overp parked our city is and how um you [1:53:49] know we don't have to have minimum parking requirement because business [1:53:55] owners will build whatever parking they think their customer needs you know that was necessary when we were trying to get [1:54:00] rid of our street cars and put cars in here um doesn't seem like a big issue anymore [1:54:06] um and that you know land owners can cut off whole sections of their parking lot [1:54:12] and put a building in so anyway so I'm I'm generally in favor of this thank [1:54:20] you uh yeah me too I'm I'm very much in favor as long as you have the The Bike Rack in there the one thing I wanted to [1:54:27] point out and it's not so much for the applicant as for us is that um and it's kind of piggybacking on [1:54:33] what commissioner Miranda was saying it's it's disappointing that we [1:54:40] we don't need to go too deep into this but it's disappointing that we don't have a small area plan for Cahill [1:54:46] because if we don't have a small area plan for kahill nothing against this project but [1:54:51] we it doesn't fit in with a small area plan we're not going to have a say in how this area develops if we don't have [1:54:57] a small area plan and I think one of the best opportunities for this particular [1:55:02] part of the kill district is um office residential that shares [1:55:09] parking and this is not that it's great project but this is not that and the [1:55:15] more we fill up the horrible surface parking lots in [1:55:20] K Hill with things that that are not intentional I'm concerned that we'll wake up 20 years from now and it won't [1:55:27] be what we wanted it to be today so that's just a I guess a note of caution for us as we work together but I support [1:55:34] the project thanks for coming tonight down this way any [1:55:40] comments commissioner Fel I appreciate that commissioner alar [1:55:46] and I um completely understand and I also want to Comm in [1:55:52] for moving the parking lot around the easiest thing to do is kind of change an asphalt um parking lot and there is [1:56:00] going to be a building a street Frontage without parking in front of it close to [1:56:06] Metro Boulevard so it might not be what ultimately want kill to be but at least [1:56:11] it's a step towards having a Street Front um with just Green [1:56:18] Space in front of it so I see it as a as a step forward and I'm in support of it as [1:56:29] well any other comments or welcome a [1:56:40] motion a motion motion to recommend the city council approve the request I'm [1:56:45] just reading the second uh May we'll just do a roll call [1:56:51] vote again start over there yeah you uh [1:56:57] I I I I [1:57:03] abstained I I I [1:57:08] I all right it passes good luck on the project thank you so much for taking our [1:57:15] feedback and incorporating it wisely looks great thank you all right that's it for [1:57:21] public hearings so that's awesome we'll move to [1:57:27] chair and member comments who's got [1:57:33] him I've won all right commissioner Fel League of Women Voters was having their [1:57:40] um what do they call it when they all get together and kind of talk about for um confence with the no henpen County [1:57:47] Commissioner so we can all watch it tomorrow or later on because the vote is [1:57:53] coming up when did you say the Forum was I didn't hear the first part the League of [1:57:58] Women Voters is having their um debate tonight for okay yeah and so I [1:58:06] would I would have been there if I I was planning on it because I thought this [1:58:11] was going to be on Wednesday so it'll be a good thing to [1:58:16] watch because it'll be good to watch them all debate each other [1:58:27] Pia on a lighthearted note um I've spoken before about how I think [1:58:32] Centennial Lakes is the gem of Edina and it just got better because they got Swan [1:58:42] Boats so saw that yesterday there were always paddle boats [1:58:48] but now they have the white swan ones like in Boston [1:58:57] uh I haven't seen the signs yet I've looked I I I want to know the answer to that and I would imagine it's a yes are [1:59:03] they side by side ones like you have two people yeah commiss from Miranda and council member Pierce could go for a [1:59:09] nice ride if I could interject quick I think there's a contest for naming them [1:59:16] so I believe you have until tomorrow to submit your name um suggestions [1:59:26] that is a great thank you that's great news to share it's good use of land or [1:59:32] water above land any other yeah commissioner two two quick things I mean I can't help um I [1:59:40] mean I can't help but get a chuckle out of this image that's on our screen right now I wasn't here with the sketch Plan [1:59:45] before it it's it just seems somehow funny and slightly ironic to have [1:59:53] a new parcel and requiring off street parking [1:59:58] in the middle of a sea of unused surface parking it just I know why we do these [2:00:04] things but it just seems so comical and then the second thing is uh [2:00:09] just kind of follow up to our work session before um so we have our zoning text and our [2:00:16] zoning maps in the city of viina and across the country there are 30,000 [2:00:23] zoning jurisdictions who also have their codes and their maps and it's [2:00:30] um it's it's a jungle there's no way you could try to characterize zoning in the [2:00:35] United States because all 30,000 of those zoning jurisdictions do it [2:00:40] differently say things differently organize things differently you saw the conversation we had about how our [2:00:46] hierarchy and how it's organized everybody does it differently so state legislators for example have a very hard [2:00:52] time figuring out where affordable housing is allowed in their own State [2:00:58] because they can't see it unless they're going to go through every single uh zoning code for every single [2:01:03] jurisdiction within their state so preamble to uh an organization called the national zoning Atlas which if you [2:01:11] haven't heard of it I would encourage you to go to their website and just spend 10 minutes and take a look it's uh [2:01:18] the the URL is zoning atlas.org and their goal is to democratize demystify [2:01:26] and digitize local zoning codes across the country and I worked on the project in Utah for about a year and there's a [2:01:34] project here to do this in Minnesota uh but it's currently stalled [2:01:40] out they probably ran out of money because that's the way these projects typically go and fits and starts but anyway if you're interested in that sort [2:01:45] of thing I think it's fascinating and just take a visit to their website there's a I don't know five or eight [2:01:50] minute video that talks about what the project is about so that's it for today thank [2:01:58] you all right yeah Mr okay I wanted to take a moment [2:02:04] and thank our police officers um after hearing about the minona shooting and [2:02:09] what happened with all of that um yesterday I did a cop ride along cuz I have a buddy that's in the Golden Valley [2:02:15] Police Department and he um was actually one of the officers that responded to that he was on one of the SWAT teams [2:02:21] that was there and um he was telling me about it one of his Sheriff buddies was one of the officers that was shot he was [2:02:28] shot in the hand and um a lot of these things you don't think about because I feel like lately everything has been so [2:02:33] polarized with um a lot of issues and um we just end up [2:02:42] unappreciative that I think should be appreciated and he was telling me in Golden Valley their Police Department is [2:02:48] severely underst staffed and they used to have 31 people there and then now they have I believe 17 full-time [2:02:54] officers and he says that they currently don't have um enough police to have a [2:03:01] fulltime daytime um staff and so they're kind of having Sheriff's um help staff their [2:03:09] department and then now they only have full-time night shift um officers and it [2:03:14] makes me um think about how important it is to appreciate [2:03:21] a lot of um people that are helping keep our cities our areas safe and that I [2:03:27] think more people should just have an open mind and think about stuff on a deeper level than we would usually [2:03:35] do thank you so much for sharing uh kind of on that note uh at [2:03:41] the city council meeting last week they did recognize public service officer of [2:03:46] the year uh police officer and first responder of the year so it's it's nice [2:03:53] to see Edina feels like they maybe relative to others really do [2:03:58] appreciate kind of their Public Service officers and staff but thank you so much [2:04:04] for bringing that up it's really important to keep in [2:04:10] mind well it is important to note that Golden Valley Police Department had a horrible doing this racism problems so [2:04:18] there's a lot of history there I suggest look into that and I guess on that note too you know [2:04:25] we're meeting on Thursday here just to be you know kind of inclusive and aware of Ramadan ending yesterday so um so [2:04:34] it's you know it's good to be a part of that and adapt our schedules accordingly uh I know there was maybe [2:04:41] something you wanted to share with adus there was a presentation last week um [2:04:47] well photographed presentation [2:04:52] Jimmy called me out here I don't know why but okay so um last week oh yeah [2:05:00] actually uh we had a really good meeting um with City staff uh we presented um [2:05:07] our Adu ordinance and uh many of you actually showed up for that so I definitely appreciate you guys coming [2:05:13] out and and chearing in the crowd and and and giving testimony um I thought it was a good [2:05:19] presentation I think um the city council asked some really [2:05:25] interesting questions right things that we didn't really consider before we have questions around you know attic space [2:05:31] being converted there was questions about you know screening for example because there was some concerns about [2:05:37] how much does it impose on neighbors lots and everything um and so we had some really [2:05:43] good dialogue on that uh we didn't had some further meetings um with with our [2:05:48] city council just to kind of talk through somebody the items and and and bring some more clarity but overall uh [2:05:56] they decided to move forward and um I guess close the public hearing but keep [2:06:02] the public comments going until the 16th so I'm really hoping that on the 16th uh [2:06:07] when they come together again um we'll present uh you know get any additional [2:06:13] questions answered and respond to them and hopefully they make a decision you know this is something that uh we talk [2:06:18] about missing middle quite a bit um 80 use is is is is something that is a you [2:06:24] know gives us more options for housing in the city as you guys know really [2:06:30] really well um folks are looking for it uh neighbors have been asking about it [2:06:35] um so I I really uh hope that you know we do assuage any concerns there and and [2:06:43] and we and we get it past so I'm really keeping my fingers cross for the 16th again come out and uh I'm sure there'll [2:06:49] be some public comment sections and you guys can come and give some feedback uh I'm not going to give the [2:06:55] mic away if if I do give a [2:07:00] presentation but it was it was great and um I look forward to getting this [2:07:05] decision made and hopefully it's going to be in a positive direction thanks thank [2:07:13] you all right staff comments oh yeah commissioner Miranda um I just want to mention that we um had our the Lin in [2:07:21] Londoner um small area plan oh yeah we had our uh first meeting with the [2:07:27] Consultants so uh we had our kickoff with them yesterday so um that went very [2:07:33] well they have some really good work ahead of them and uh it was I thought a very informative meeting so we're going [2:07:39] to meet first uh they're planning the first meeting with um the residents who [2:07:44] were who we selected to be on the on the small area plan so that'll be our next [2:07:49] meeting we're hoping to make it a double meeting like a three-hour sort of thing that would be on site that was their [2:07:55] idea I thought it's a good idea so so that that should be pretty [2:08:02] exciting thanks Carrie just quickly there's the one project that's out there [2:08:08] that you all made a recommendation on is the saltdale office Center they requested a delay at the last meeting so [2:08:14] the public hearing has not been held and it's my understanding they're requesting another delay um don't know the [2:08:21] specifics of are they revising the plan I don't know but um Council hasn't taken [2:08:27] action yet on that one and the public hearing has not yet been held we're getting close to the end of the 120 days [2:08:35] rule where the city has to take action I believe that it expires council's second [2:08:40] meeting in May so I'll keep you updated cool thank you we have a full [2:08:46] house here tonight so just a reminder uh really thankful for [2:08:51] everyone's service here you know we had our photo before to to to celebrate who we are but really appreciate the team we [2:08:59] have here and you guys's sacrifice and commitment to the city I think it shows [2:09:04] I think we have the best group in the last 50 years although I wasn't around to test to many of those but I believe [2:09:12] it firmly so last thing adjournment anyone motion to adjourn second all [2:09:20] those in favor say hi so move meeting is a [2:09:50] joury [2:10:20] e for