[0:01] welcome everybody to the Wednesday May 88th May 2024 City viina Planning [0:08] Commission meeting say it every time but on behalf of the Planning Commission we're grateful you are here in person [0:15] and for those tuning in remotely your curiosity your participation and your feedback is instrumental to this process [0:22] as we navigate change here together in Nina specifically regarding the way in which we would like to use our land [0:30] so the Planning Commission here we're we're nine residents of Edina we're quasi judicial body uh in the time you [0:37] don't see us we work to make the zoning laws a little better and more favorable [0:43] for residents in our future here and the times you do see us we make decisions applying the law so we have one public [0:50] hearing tonight and we have a pretty cool special recognition and [0:56] presentation that will take some of our time other than that we will jump right [1:01] into calling this meeting to order and then roll [1:07] call commissioner Aly here commissioner Padia here commissioner [1:14] Schultz here commissioner day here commissioner Bornstein here commissioner [1:20] phelp here commissioner hanaman here chair Benet here next we have the approval of [1:27] tonight's meeting agenda I'd welcome welc a motion if there AR any proposed changes to it move to approve the agenda [1:35] second all those in favor say I so moved next we have the approval of the prior [1:41] meeting minutes the work session minutes will be prepared for next meeting just [1:48] FY if there's a motion to approve those I'd welcome it motion to approve the meeting minutes [1:56] all those in oh second all those in favor say I hi so moved all right next [2:02] we have some special recognitions and presentations I saw this floating around [2:09] online before I check my my uh my packet for this week so it's nice to see the [2:15] words traveling around town and hopefully people had a chance to see this too welcome the University of [2:21] Minnesota resilient communities project study report team I know Addison you'll [2:27] kind of lead it and introduce everyone but uh take it away all right good evening chair and Commissioners um our [2:34] sustainability specialist Matthew gab couldn't be here this evening so ask me to give a brief introduction uh for this [2:39] project and uh intro to the student team uh so next year the sustainability division will be doing an evaluation of [2:45] the climate action plan um to analyze whether we are on track to meet our greenhouse gas reduction goal of 45% by [2:52] the year 2030 to set this evaluation up for success and in building on the city's history of providing learning and [2:58] academic opportunities for students students former sustainability manager Grace Hancock and current sustainability [3:03] specialist Matthew gab successfully applied uh for a University of Minnesota resilient communities project team to [3:10] complete a study uh to evaluate if Ed Transportation emission reduction targets and strategies are achievable [3:17] the intention of this study is to explore options and understand what might be achievable within the current and future scenarios the res resilient [3:24] communities project the Humphrey School of public affairs and the University of Minnesota have provided unique access to researchers [3:30] statisticians policy and planning experts to tackle this issue for a fraction of the cost of what a traditional consulting firm might charge [3:36] for similar analysis A resilient communities project typically costs $6,000 uh but with the support from the [3:43] Metropolitan Council who plans to use this work as a model across the metro area the city only paid $3,000 for this [3:49] project uh so with that I'm excited uh for you all to hear about the incredible work that the students have done and [3:54] introduce you to the student team uh Holly Kenton Johnny Greg Jem and [4:00] thank you great thank you guys welcome I know uh might not be in this kind of [4:06] situation before but want to make sure you guys are relaxed and feeling good and having fun maybe if you could just [4:12] you know give us a quick intro of each of yourselves you know like where you're at in school with the what your major is [4:18] and uh and something a little about you where you're from you want to start yeah [4:25] I can start uh my name is Holly Leaf I like most of us am a student of uh [4:31] masters of urban and Regional planning I'm specializing in Urban Design and land use um I'm lifelong resident of the [4:39] Twin Cities I grew up in St Louis Park so just next door awesome great oh wow that's much [4:46] louder um hi everyone uh my name is Greg albering uh I am also uh in the master [4:52] of urban and Regional planning program um like Holly and like all of us we [4:58] about to graduate uh from the Humphrey school in two days three days three days I keep [5:05] thinking it's Thursday um as for myself I am originally from Cincinnati Ohio but [5:11] I've been in Minneapolis for about five years um I'm uh kind of on the the the [5:20] cusp of both transportation and uh land use and Urban Design um I've got an [5:26] internship at Metro Transit that I'm also doing uh on the side so um yeah [5:31] that's me I'm Greg thank you good evening everyone my name is Johnny man henet um I am originally from San Diego [5:40] uh and I've been here two years in the Twin Cities and I am a transportation [5:46] planner uh yeah hello everyone my name is kenson Briggs uh unlike everyone else [5:52] I am not uh masters of urban and Regional planning uh I am actually a masters of public policy though I am [5:58] minoring in urban and Regional planning uh my concentration is on transportation [6:03] and urban and Regional governance and um I am originally from [6:09] the Gross Point communities in uh Metro Detroit um and so I moved here two years [6:15] ago to do grad school um and uh I currently uh am an intern at the [6:22] Metropolitan Council within the Metropolitan transportation services which is basically longrange transportation planning [6:30] hi y'all I'm Jim Thompson uh also a merp student we have the best acronym for any of the public policy school programs um [6:38] I'm originally from Fort Collins Colorado came out here for grad school been here for about three years now and [6:45] I am also similar to Greg and Holly kind of in the intersection of land use Urban [6:50] Design and sustainable transportation and currently I work as a research assistant with the center for [6:56] transportation studies good evening uh my name is ying Wu um I am doing a [7:03] dual program in urban Regional planning as well as civil engineering and I am originally from [7:09] China but I lived uh actually in Idina for seven years I'm an Idina [7:15] alumni and um yeah and right now I am working towards being an [7:22] engineer well welcome everybody thank you really cool uh backgrounds and [7:27] really excited to see what you guys have done take it away thank you so good evening I will [7:34] skip my introduction since we did those but uh yeah we're here tonight to present the results of our Capstone [7:40] project that we did this semester and as Addison said this study was developed as a partnership between the University of [7:46] Minnesota and the City of Edina through the University's resilient communities [7:51] project and the purpose of this study was to investigate whether the city of edina's current population density goals [7:58] as outlined in the city's climate action plan will be sufficient to meet the transportation targets also outlined in [8:03] that plan we were concerned with the first three goals and the transportation and land use section of the climate [8:09] action plan the first goal sets a target for a city-wide reduction in vehicle miles traveled or VMT of 7% by 2030 the [8:19] second goal sets a Target to double public transit commuter ridership from 3.3% to 6.6% in the same time frame and [8:27] the third goal is to increase average population per developed acre in the City by [8:33] 4% so why does this matter we investigated this topic because the city has committed in the climate action plan [8:40] to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from 2019 numbers by 45% by 2030 since Transportation [8:48] accounted for a little over 40% of those emissions it becomes clear they reducing the amount the people drive and shifting [8:55] toward a greater usage of sustainable Transportation options like public transit are crucial for Edina to meet [9:01] its climate goals three research questions were defined for this study [9:06] first we had to ask ourselves about the underlying Assumption of this project is density the right approach which is to [9:13] say can the city of Edina expect to see less driving and a shift to sustainable Transportation options just through an [9:20] increase in population density second we asked which approaches to density are [9:25] most effective in Edina to answer this we explored a variety of zoning scenar to determine what density strategies [9:31] would be most impactful finally we asked what policy actions are needed to support our [9:37] recommended zoning strategies and maximize the sustainability benefits of any added density a few key conclusions [9:44] emerged first what we found that density does matter it became apparent that the [9:49] existing density Target of 4% would not be nearly sufficient to meet the VMT reduction Target nor the transit [9:56] ridership Target additionally we consistently saw that targeted density strategies around specific nodes and [10:03] corridors perform better than blanket Citywide density increases we also concluded that there [10:09] are a number of policy actions that the city can take to maximize the benefits of density finally we learned that [10:15] density is about more than just Transportation an increase in density has other climate benefits such as [10:21] Energy Efficiency that further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and with these conclusions in mind I will hand it over [10:27] to Kenton and Johnny to discuss discuss our recommendations for both zoning scenarios and policy interventions thank [10:36] you thank you Holly my name is kenson and I'll be explaining our zoning scenario analysis our zoning scenario [10:43] analysis aims to answer the research question which approaches to density are the most effective using Urban footprint [10:50] a software also used by the Metropolitan Council we are able to assess the potential effects of denser zoning down [10:57] to the parcel level Urban foot provided data on four key metrics for our analysis population density and dwelling [11:04] units per acre vehicle miles traveled per capita greenhouse gas emissions per capita and public transit mode share we [11:11] explore both city-wide and targeted density strategies measuring their impact on VMT ghg emissions and Transit [11:18] usage for every percentage increase in density using an impact score formula that we developed five main approaches [11:25] to zoning scenarios were explored the base scenario reflects zoning and land use under existing conditions serving as [11:31] a baseline for comparison the city-wide density scenarios involved increasing allowable density across all Parcels in [11:38] the city but are found to be the least effective strategy we also investigated three targeted approaches to increasing [11:45] density including in and near areas of change is outlined in ad din's 2040 comprehensive plan around sustainable [11:52] Transportation including Public Transit routes and pedestrian such bicycle facilities and near essential [11:58] destinations such as schools employment hubs healthc care facilities and Parks [12:03] subsequently using the impact score formula we identified the most effective of these strategies and developed three [12:09] recommended scenarios the basic scenario represents the minimum needed to advance a d [12:15] climate action plan goals this targeted strategy allows for more intensive development within designated areas of [12:21] change and along the upcoming Metro Eline Transit quarter in this table you [12:27] can see the estimated changes in density VMT ghg emissions and Transit usage [12:32] based on the scenario however it's worth noting that these numbers assume a full build out to maximum allowable density a [12:39] process that will take decades if not generations and depends on decisions made by developers Property Owners A din [12:46] Planning Commission and a d city council the enhanced scenario builds upon the basic scenario by incorporating two [12:52] additional zoning strategies firstly it allows for increasing density not only [12:58] within the area of change but also in the area surrounding them within 500 ft [13:03] secondly introduces a second Transit quarter envisioned as a reimagined Metro Transit Route 46 spanning East to West [13:10] along 50th Street Vernon Avenue and Lincoln Drive connecting a Dina to the Future Opus Green Line Station in [13:17] minetonka notably this scenario is the first to meet the state of Minnesota's goal of reducing VMT per capita by 20% by [13:25] 2050 the preferred scenario is our final and most recommended scenario it builds upon the enhanced scenario by [13:31] increasing density along the regional bicycle Transportation Network and targeting development around major [13:36] Healthcare facilities which serve as significant employers and destinations in Adina this scenario achieved the most [13:43] significant reductions in VMT per capita and ghg per capita making the most effective approach for achieving the din [13:50] climate action plan goals it's worth noting that even with this comprehensive scenario we do not propose any changes [13:56] to zoning destinations for a well over half of the City or the majority of the residential Parcels now I'll pass to [14:03] Florida Johnny to delve into some of our policy recommendations aimed at helping ad to achieve its climate action plan [14:10] goals thank you Kenton we've developed a series of recommendations for the city to consider as it engages in future [14:17] planning efforts these are broken down into amendments to the climate action plan itself as well as policy [14:23] recommendations concerned with land use built form and transportation our full [14:28] report outlines 18 total policy recommendations so in the interest of time I will only be mentioning one or [14:34] two from each of these categories first the climate action plan itself our [14:40] fundamental recommendation here is that the city bring its density and population goals into alignment both [14:46] edina's comprehensive plan and other Regional plans project approximately 15% population growth from current levels [14:53] achieving a population of 60,000 by 2030 yet the climate action plan projects a [14:59] residential density increase of just 4% a goal that is incompatible both with these other planning efforts and with [15:05] the results of our analysis uh we recommend increasing this density Target to align with the city's [15:11] Transportation goals we also recommend that Edina considers setting and addressing a goal for active Transportation modes such as walking and [15:18] biking since there is currently no such goal in the cap next we make several recommendations [15:24] for adina's land use policy it's well established that carbon emissions are inextricably tied to land use and [15:31] through reforming the way in which land can be developed ad can meaningfully make progress on its climate goals one [15:37] recommendation that we believe A din should consider is to designate density minimums in the city's highest priority [15:43] development nodes and corridors which have the highest access to Transit service these density floors would [15:49] complement existing density ceilings helping to ensure that the areas that udina has already chosen to focus on [15:55] developing can deliver their maximum benefit toward W the city's climate and transportation goals this is also [16:02] aligned with our finding that the most effective strategies to achieve lower VMT and greater greater Transit [16:08] ridership involve targeted density increases around key nodes and [16:13] corridors next we have our built form recommendations there are many restrictions on built form that [16:19] currently hold back edina's ability to reach its climate goals we recommend changes to these guidelines that enhance [16:24] flexibility for new developments bringing about a greater variety of housing options in the community one [16:30] specific recommendation is that new multi-unit construction should only be required to abide by existing [16:37] regulations on impervious surface coverage rather than the more restrictive requirements on building [16:42] coverage impervious surfaces are those that are built upon and do not allow water to percolate into the soil this [16:48] change would allow for more development capacity and flexibility while ensuring there is no loss to Green Space or [16:54] adverse effects on storm water runoff finally we have our Transportation policy recommendations [17:01] ad's climate goals are not achievable with land use and built form changes alone updates to city transportation [17:07] policy are necessary as well to that end one of our recommendations is that udina update its travel demand management [17:14] policy with datadriven points based standards clear standards starting at the beginning of the development process [17:20] would ensure a greater chance at meaningful modes shift and reduce the need for subjectivity and staff approval [17:26] these are just a handful of the policy recommendation that can be found in our full report Each of which is aligned [17:32] with specific transportation and land use goals in the climate action plan at this time we want to thank each of you [17:38] for your attention and our entire team is available to answer any questions you may [17:44] have awesome thank you guys it's incredible and Incredibly [17:50] parallel to a lot of the conversations we've been having for years notably recently and some of the things we're [17:56] trying to put in place to achieve pieces of this but I'll turn it over to fellow Commissioners who may have [18:04] questions comments words of encouragement yeah can you help me understand the [18:12] built form recommendation with the existing impervious surface my brain is just not wrapping around it yet no [18:18] problem at all um on most Parcels in the city they're limited to only uh to an [18:24] impervious surface coverage of 50% of the total lot um that means that both [18:30] the building as well as other impervious surfaces like uh driveways or walkways [18:37] um all count toward that 50% however only 30% of the total lot can be within [18:43] can be building coverage so up to 50% total can be impervious but only 30% can [18:50] be the building itself and our recommendation to allow for greater [18:55] flexibility in the development process without having adverse environmental [19:00] effects is that we replace the building coverage requirement with existing [19:06] impervious so that you could take a large parking lot and instead of counting that that could be part of the [19:12] building right right thank you yes that yes I mean there would still be [19:19] driveways and sidewalks and front Stoops but you're just saying if those are [19:24] efficiently used you can use more that's your guideline that's correct [19:35] commissioner FIA uh thank you very much it was a great presentation um I think you guys [19:41] all have very bright future so congratulations um there was a slide it [19:47] wasn't what you just included and I I I do appreciate the brevity of your presentation but in what we got I think [19:55] in either in our packet or some place I saw I I'm not sure if it was a better best it was three different um and is [20:03] that what it was was it this that was uh these were basically [20:10] renamed from the version that you apparently got um so they've been renamed basic enhanced and preferred [20:16] scenarios okay those are the same things so this is the enhanced one includes [20:24] the the additional density I assume right this is the better this is the middle one yes each one Builds on the [20:30] last so each one has density in more areas okay and these [20:35] all presume that the density that your your change in numbers assumes um that [20:42] the density is achieved yes that's a full buildout scenario so that's bu the allowable density thanks very [20:53] much yeah thank you for a great presentation and great research um so [20:58] did you guys look at the bicycle plan at all by any chance yes we have okay do you have any [21:05] comments on that how it fits how it does or does not fit into your your idea of what we need to do as a city um we have [21:13] built a consideration for active Transportation mode shift into a recommendation for the climate action [21:20] plan amendments and as part of that our preferred scenario does include uh [21:26] rezoning for at least duplexes within 500 ft of facilities that are [21:31] considered part of the regional bicycle Transportation Network okay yes great thank you so um [21:39] well one thing I was I was trying to refer to is that our our bicycle plan [21:45] um Loops yes and so is that something you think is is useful as a [21:51] transportation Network or yes we do you do okay I guess I find that surprising [21:57] anything that we're doing to enhance the Comfort uh and ease of travel of the of [22:04] Dina's bicycle users achieves um mode shift goals to speak to Transportation [22:12] demand um I yeah one of the components it's not included in our presentation but that is in the full report which I [22:18] believe we'll be able to get to youall once that is approved by the highers up that above our pay grade um we developed [22:24] a transportation decision-making framework which was essentially to help us guide our policy recommendations [22:29] looking at the individual level how do people choose different modes of transportation and what interventions [22:35] could be either through policy or built form interventions could maybe help to [22:41] encourage the use of sustainable modes and without getting into all of the [22:46] details of that the number one element in that decision-making framework was can you use a particular mode to get [22:52] from point A to point B in a reasonable amount of time so any improvements that can be made to make trip by bicycle more [23:00] viable just generally speaking we see as kind of Ground Zero for imp or for instituting larger scale mode shift so [23:08] we I think I speak for all of us when we say more bike Lanes the better um in terms of getting people out of cars or [23:15] at least giving them the option to safely get out of cars and travel in a more sustainable mode okay thanks no [23:22] well I just would have thought that a you know something that more grid-based as opposed to you know two concentric [23:28] circles where it's like if you want to get to somewhere in the center there's no really easy way to do it and then it [23:35] doesn't it's so inwardly focused it doesn't um you know everything well [23:40] everything east of us and north of us is denser than we are and so I mean I live in Morningside the north northeast [23:46] corner of the city and it would be really easy to bike to St Louis Park and Shop there and grocery shop and whatever [23:51] same thing with the co-op in Minneapolis and um you know we have this two concentric circle thing which seems a [23:57] little out Place yeah just to speak exactly to that that's the reason that we chose to focus any bicycle targeted [24:05] density along the regional Network um rather than on the twin Loops not we [24:10] still support all bicycle Network improvements but that's the reason that this was chosen rather than the loop [24:17] okay and then so so overall your conclusions are that in terms of the preferred scenario are that our our [24:24] density goals are not high enough and that we also need need to um that you [24:30] know density and transportation go together that you need to do both and that we're not doing enough in in terms [24:36] of Transportation um so I mean one thing I'd like to point out to you to to [24:42] verify what you guys are saying is that recently the um henen County restriped [24:49] repaved and restriped um France Avenue North of 44th Street um and and they're [24:55] going to do be be doing more of it in anti anticipation of the e coming and um [25:01] the France Avenue is on the County's bicycle plan it's on the din's bicycle plan it's on St Louis Park's bicycle [25:06] plan and it's on uh minneapolis's bicycle plan and they didn't put in any bike Lanes on France Avenue so so even [25:14] though you know and this is something you guys think are going to have to deal with through your careers is that even [25:20] though planners might plan something it's up to council members to actually Implement that plan and that you know we [25:27] need you guys doing the data and and whatnot but you know it's it's politicians who actually end up doing it [25:33] so thank you very much thanks very much for the work and [25:39] for the presentation it's really interesting I want to um build on commissioner Miranda's question a little [25:44] bit and stay with active transportation for a second this may have been out of your scope of work but the the [25:52] presentation made me think that um yes density is critically important but I'm [25:58] curious what role mixed use land use had in your deliberations because one of my [26:06] goals for a din is to have more people within walking or biking distance from a grocery store coffee shop liquor store [26:12] restaurant whatever it is and residential density is fantastic but if [26:17] we don't also somehow uh increase or decrease Pro [26:22] proximity to some of these other non-commuter trips uh we might not escap [26:28] as far as we want so just any thoughts on that yeah so uh I was uh in charge of [26:35] doing the scenario zoning um and the approach I took at least with the transit Coors was along these the [26:43] stations uh or proposed stations for the better route 46 um I would have on all [26:50] the corners mixed use commercial so that would mean like let's say the base floor is maybe a smaller format Target or [26:58] coffee shop or Barber something that is along this main route that people want to go to and then um uh within that was [27:07] within 500 ft I focused that of the bus stop but within a quter mile is I did [27:13] duplexes um uh within that to just kind of represent kind of a floor value [27:18] because we don't know what's actually going to develop but just to say that there's increased density there um so [27:24] mixed use is a uh big component and it was also one of the things things that I saw was um lacking an availability in a [27:31] Dina I personally live uh near luren Park in Minneapolis and I walked two [27:38] blocks to Target and because of it its access to all these Transit routes and [27:44] having coffee shops and Target and all these other places I can get all my needs done just by walking without [27:50] having a car so I was actually able to get rid of my car so I think your point about making sure that mix use is a part [27:56] of the equation especially how I view it these stops so let's say [28:02] you're down burning a bit and the small format Target's a bit up then you can hop on a fast frequent bus without [28:08] having to wait and go up Vernon get to where you need to go because it's right at the stop so that's kind of how we [28:15] approach that situation that's great thank you very [28:25] much thank you this was a great presentation uh very crisp and clean and [28:30] and and straightforward definitely um commend you guys on that just a quick question [28:36] on you know part of the work that we do certainly is to balance residents needs [28:41] we we look at the behavior of you know where where folks go how they operate I [28:46] know if I'm buying groceries I usually buy for the week and I have like six seven bags of groceries [28:53] I can't do that on a bike right I have to drive my car or I might order on Amazon or something like that um I guess [29:00] where I'm going with this is you know have you done like any observations just looking at movement of people through [29:08] spaces um maybe even interviewing residents um asking questions of how do you what's your perception of public [29:15] transportation what would you like to see change what would get you to uh use Transit more than what you're doing [29:21] today any kind of research like that more with the residents of what their feedback was [29:28] unfortunately that was out of the scope of our work um we really focused on more of the uh statistical and quantitative [29:34] analysis as well as some of the qualitative methods like jeen mentioned with the decision- making framework but [29:40] um actually like getting out and res uh interviewing residents was not within the scope of work [29:45] unfortunately okay thank you that said it is [29:52] important yeah so you f focused on the six areas [30:00] um of change four on France [30:05] Avenue 44th in France I believe three of the areas have change lie along France [30:11] Avenue Southdale 50th and 44th okay and um your number again for the amount of [30:18] density increase that was needed not the 4% barcat plan but you said [30:25] 15,000 the 15,000 number is I believe what was in the comprehensive plan as [30:30] well as uh met council's estimates for 2030 15% at [30:37] 15 15% yeah and we have 53,000 so [30:43] that's 60,000 so another 7,000 um I mean it makes sense to locate [30:50] those 7,000 people along the quarters in these areas of change um it'll certainly help those [30:57] nodes um with additional traffic so so in our cap plan the 4% and [31:07] the 15% the 4% density doesn't correlate to the 15% [31:15] increase at all that's correct [31:20] okay um if I may say commissioner um if we [31:26] think about like this D is mostly developed uh so if we have a 15% [31:31] increase in population yet only Zoning for uh 4% increase in [31:38] density it's incompatible in terms of like where would we put this people we don't have undevelopable land really in [31:45] a Dina so that's kind of the disconnection that we identified okay so kind of replacing some of that existing [31:52] with different correct okay thank you yeah I appre appreciate [31:59] the the research and your presentation I appreciate it [32:07] thanks hi uh thank you for being here tonight so this is actually my second [32:12] time here in this presentation since I was at the city council meeting last night so it gave me some time to think and one thing I I echoed what councilman [32:20] uh Pierce had said I wish I had the report in hand before you guys came and presented so I could have D dove into it [32:26] a little bit and so I'm sure some of these questions can be answered if I would had the report but I'll ask a few [32:33] um you know so really around the entirety of the report and a lot of you [32:39] know you made a lot of recommendations here um I'm curious about the like assumptions that you made in in this [32:45] report and if you like present them in the report what assumptions you make and then Alternatives right so if your [32:50] assumptions don't come true Did you model different scenarios there so let's say population growth right so a Dina [32:57] said we say you assume that A din is going to grow by a certain percent over the next 30 40 50 years if it doesn't [33:04] how does that you know impact your model um adoption of electric vehicles greater [33:10] you know building standards Etc um I wonder about that a little bit so let's let's start there on that that [33:19] question uh yeah so one of the limitations of our methodology was that these are assuming a full buildout um so [33:27] that really was not something that was within the scope of what we were able to do over the course of this project um [33:34] that is something that is important to keep looking at and I think that's why it's a commendable that the climate [33:40] action plan is considered a living document and does have this official amendment process so um I think that's [33:46] something that definitely needs to be considered over time to see how Edina is doing and seeing what happens on the [33:53] ground in addition to making you know allowable density changes what is actually happening as a result of [34:03] those okay I wasn't sure if anybody jump jump add on or not we had said uh let's [34:10] try to let one person answer each question but um I want to point out so [34:15] so our recommendations that we uh come to in this report are the result of [34:22] several different methodologies kind of spliced together because um there really [34:27] is isn't any one way to figure out if x [34:32] intervention is going to have y effect I mean um in planning we talk about like [34:38] Wicked problems you know um the once you TR think you've figured out the answer [34:44] to one question it introduces a million other questions and so on um so one of [34:50] the things that we did um trying to eliminate uh kind of those assumptions as much as possible um was we did a [34:58] multivariate regression analysis of the Cities within the S count region um [35:04] under the purview of the Met Council uh to try to figure out what actually are [35:09] the uh the variables that are the best predictors of VMT and Transit ridership [35:17] um and so that's less about uh looking toward the future and saying it's less [35:24] about the causitive like if Edina were to do this than that would happen but [35:29] more about what are the what are those relationships like today and how might [35:35] that inform 's policy so um you mentioned electric vehicles I [35:42] mean greenhouse gas emissions are one thing but vehicle miles traveled are the same you know regardless of the if the [35:48] vehicle is uh powered by gas or by electricity and there's environmental um [35:54] effects to those Vehicles either way I'm not saying that uh they're the same or [35:59] that EVS aren't better but because they are but uh but you know our scope was [36:06] looking at VMT and Transit ridership specifically in relation to density so [36:12] um some of those things uh I would Echo what Holly said about being a little bit out of scope okay um another thing I wanted to [36:20] bring up because I thought it was an interesting point of discussion that uh uh council member agu brought up was [36:27] around Transit ridership and increasing how do we increase Transit ridership [36:32] right and you know assuming you kind of look at this and say well we're going to build density around Transit routes and [36:39] if we build it they will come but not always the case right so what other you know means and methods I know there was [36:45] a mention in here about bus passes and I'm sorry I forget your name but I remember you talking about it so I'd [36:50] like to hear your your thoughts on and explaining to us about methodologies to increase you know really Transit use if [36:56] we build density around Transit have Jem take that first [37:02] sure said I'll yeah so I think that is a great question I think one that Transit [37:08] agencies across the country are trying to figure out um especially in the wake of the pandemic not that it's over but [37:14] the hit that many Transit agencies took due to the covid-19 pandemic uh kind of echoing what I had [37:20] mentioned prior about first and foremost needing to make sure that it is useful that people can actually utilize that [37:27] mode to get from point A to point B but beyond that you get into a whole range of other factors that influence why a [37:33] person might decide to utilize Transit if you're taking the normative economic [37:38] approach one of the big ones is just cost how can you make the cost of Transit both in terms of monetary cost [37:44] and time cost competitive with essentially the alternative being driving alone since that accounts for [37:50] over 70% of trips in A din so I think Bringing Down the cost through things like employer-based and housing based [37:57] Transportation demand Management Programs is a great step in that direction making it so that that becomes [38:04] less of a consideration or it's even a bonus in the category of should I choose Transit if you can make cost both again [38:12] time being perhaps the more important cost when it comes to a transportation decision if you can make that competitive with the car I think that is [38:20] almost a prerequisite for a lot of folks um and beyond that I think in our [38:27] transportation decision-making framework we also get into the very murky realm of biases of you know people's perceptions [38:35] of certain modes of transportation that was a bit outside of our scope kind of diving into those but there are a lot of [38:42] soft interventions in terms of information campaigns you know I know that Denver did a free month of Transit [38:49] and they saw their Transit ridership achieve greater than preco numbers during that time so again without [38:56] getting into too much detail because that wasn't really the focus of our report I think there's a lot of soft interventions that are helping to [39:02] balance out that equation and you know I believe we use the term in the report the car is the competition because again [39:09] that is the predominant mode in the city of Adina and most cities in the United States and so in order for something [39:14] like transit to be competitive you need to find ways to balance that equation I think that's a a laundry list of [39:20] potential ways to do that and efficacy based on different locations is going to [39:26] differ but again just taking steps in that direction within the local context of AD folks like yourself probably have [39:32] a much better idea of what interventions may be the most appropriate for the citizens of a din um so yeah I hope that [39:40] provides some insight into what we looked into in the report long story short it's it's [39:47] [Laughter] complicated um all right so another thing that came to mind so as usually [39:54] when we talk about Transportation um since I I run around the city a lot so this impacts me quite a bit is the [40:00] seasons right and we have a very long winter here um so did you did your model [40:07] take into account like seasonal changes in terms of like bike ridership and stuff like that did you assess equal [40:13] weight to having density located near a bike uh route versus a bus route and [40:19] stuff like that because obviously your Rider the amount of bike rides they'll take in the winter dra drastically falls [40:25] off when it's December and January AR I was wondering how how your model accounted for for those [40:33] things so that would be a great question for the adviser uh that we worked with for urban footprint uh unfortunately [40:40] that was a bit out of our scope um the model uh Urban Footprints of software we [40:46] use so that's the model that we did I assume they probably take that into account um but I I I do know there's [40:54] tons of cities that are way more uh have a lot worse Winters than Minnesota and [40:59] especially in Canada and they were able to uh have much higher Transit [41:04] ridership uh than we have here in uh Minnesota um so unfortunately it just [41:10] was a little bit out of our scope and would be more of a conversation probably with the engineers behind uh Urban [41:16] footprint since we didn't develop Urban footprint right yeah and I've been [41:22] worried like you know obviously some vities in Canada like Quebec and stuff like that right there's a lot of people that their bikes in the winter but [41:28] they've also dedicated a lot of infrastructure to that and they clear those bike paths with regularity we don't even clear our sidewalks with very [41:34] good regularity so I mean it's an interesting thing to to look at and and wonder how it impacts the model um and [41:42] then I guess the last question would be around you know so density um around these specific corridors in different [41:48] areas of the city did you take it into consideration because it's something that came up right rather recently for [41:53] us you know um utilities and availability of utilties so sewage electricity Etc like you know those [42:00] types of things and what how feasible it is to extend say sewage capacity in the [42:05] western side of AD versus the Eastern side um greater support for the grid [42:10] stuff like that um this was not taken into [42:16] consideration but infield development is financially more advantageous and [42:21] fiscally responsible to support because for the majority of suburban communities infrastructure [42:27] is already in place to serve development there and adding more people to spread the tax base over with that the same [42:34] level of physical infrastructure uh is a net positive but we did not consider the [42:40] utility addition costs that may be present right okay yeah and it certainly [42:46] can balance our you know be a net positive but it's always getting that initial funding there that's always the the hurdle so um I think that's it I [42:54] mean I have obviously so I'm an engineer so I could go all day and before without seeing the report but uh very good [43:01] presentation thank you for being here uh you've asked a lot of the really [43:08] important and tough questions that I think are raised by our research but um [43:14] you know it's the question of emissions or VMT or whatever it is is so nebulous [43:20] and there's so many things that go into it and so many um moving Parts I these [43:25] are all extremely important things to consider and our report is really just a starting [43:32] place I just had a a couple super by the way this was really interesting thank [43:37] you um and depicting things visually is helpful so on the slide that we're [43:43] looking at right now is it up I it is okay I just so like uh I'm looking at [43:50] Vernon between I'm just looking at the Vernon stretch like halfway um just let's just [43:57] take like one of those orange circles like maybe just pick the one right in the middle um is the idea [44:05] that like within that bubble we'd want density to go up [44:11] 45% to to like help meet our goals so all [44:17] that orange you see is just duplexes uh so it's not necessarily big giant apartment buildings and for [44:23] example if you had some Suburban town hones which have a higher density than duplexes then a lot of these Lots could [44:31] just be left single family so the idea of duplexes is that we want to say we [44:37] want a little bit more increased density within these areas so there's more people that can access the bus stops um [44:44] but I of course it's not projects specific that would go before you guys [44:49] um so it's it's not like we could we have all these plans uh for [44:55] densification increases it's just um uh just trying to get kind of a rough idea [45:02] of what that would mean and the 45% would be average dwelling units per uh [45:08] acre so I believe A din is right around eight or something around there and so [45:14] that would probably go up to right around 12 on average um and um if that [45:21] answers your questions or if you have some more yeah I actually think it's it's it's I know it's conceptual and theoretical and not exactly like a [45:28] realistic depiction of how something would get built but it's helpful to it it's helpful to like it the audience is [45:35] confronted by like what's one way something would have to change to accomplish the goals and I think that's [45:41] one of the values of what you put together is making people think about that question and then asking is the [45:47] city going to accomplish its goals or not realistically um unless it makes like some sort of drastic action but [45:53] just so I'm understand like within one of those orange bubbles this is at least visually depicting all those single [45:58] family homes turning into duplexes I know it's not going to happen but like that's what you're modeling right yes so [46:04] within the bus stop uh within 500 ft there would be higher usage so that would be mixed use and then the other [46:11] ones were put at duplexes um and uh so uh we did just a [46:17] basic rough calculation using the impact scores um to see what a dino would need to reach for example their 7% VMT uh for [46:25] all the scenarios yeah and so the actual density increases required using the strategy is about [46:31] 133% so the 45% is way above what would reach a d climate action plan um so it's [46:39] important to take that into consideration also no that's helpful thank you yep appreciate [46:46] it um you guys are brilliantly articulate and clearly well versed in all of these tough uh challenges so the [46:53] future is bright and I'm really excited to you you guys are part of it I wondered as you were looking at it Dina [47:00] specifically and taking all of your knowledge theoretical that it is and looking at our city did anything [47:05] surprise you while you were going through this or something that you thought was unique that you had to [47:13] consider so I I think there's two things that really surprised me um the first [47:19] one was um both the lack of M mixed use and areas and uh abundance of surface [47:27] parking lots uh that that was my original takeaway um there is an idea I had which [47:35] was well what if we consolidate these parking lots into more of a like parking structures that would also incorporate [47:42] maybe some ground floor retail or some apartments above that um and then uh the [47:48] second thing that really stood out to me was the amount of green space in uh [47:53] water areas or just so the thing I had to to go through creating the base scenario is I had to look at every [47:59] single parcel and make sure it was Zone correctly uh cuz while their base methodology is great for U flip Point uh [48:06] it marks some things wrong and so there's be be these Parcels that would well it's actually just [48:12] like uh a Parkland or some trees in the middle between single house families and [48:18] it way to Zone that incorrectly or it would have these long stretching Parcels that would go into a like little Lake [48:25] and so I'd had to deal with that so those were kind of the things that like [48:30] stood out to me when doing the zoning scenario if I may add one thing um the [48:36] Eline is going to be transformational for Adina um the higher quality and frequency of service is fantastic and [48:45] something that this Corridor has never seen before and yet what really surprised me was how difficult access is [48:52] to some of the future stations by walking or biking um there are many many [48:57] streets within even just a quarter mile or five minute walking radius of those future Transit stops that don't have [49:03] sidewalks and I'd highly recommend that the next update to The Pedestrian and bicycle master plan [49:09] include um a way for everyone within at least a five if not 10minute walk of an [49:15] Eline station have sidewalk access cool that's a really good I mean [49:22] it's not even my term but that's a really good point I think it's sorry keep I'm just glad you no thank you and [49:27] and it's great to have a fresh set of eyes on some of the things we talk about and what you guys are learning about so [49:34] again thank you sorry so I thought of one more [49:40] question maybe this was answered at one point already but I'm curious so if like [49:45] theoretically if you actually took Deni along these areas increased it you know [49:51] let's say every single family house that's in this these areas right now became a duplex and said let's say you [49:56] know every two people that live there become four if you actually calculate that out to see how that projects [50:02] compared to like the population growth of a Dina so like if you have this mapped out and say what does this [50:08] population actually look like at the end of the day if these are all duplexes that are 100% occupied versus what the [50:13] growth rate is I'm just curious how that aligns or if that was looked [50:18] at yeah so we did it Urban footprint does uh calculate base population and we [50:25] use that base population with our per capita um uh with our per capita uh uh [50:33] calculations sorry uh and so um uh so I believe the preferred [50:39] scenario is right around 990,000 if it was fully developed in terms of people and that's why we were able to roughly [50:45] calculate well it would actually roughly take around a 13% increase uh with this [50:51] strategy uh to actually reach that 60,000 um rather than the 45% that we [50:58] calculated with but we were aiming to not so much have each one exactly reach [51:03] 60,000 we trying to keep a a a zoning strategy that was consistent throughout [51:10] everything uh and then we were able to use the impact score to really see what what are the effects for every increase [51:16] in density using the strategy um so that helps you type of keep things into uh [51:22] consideration of what ad is actually projected to increase okay okay yeah I just think it's an important [51:28] distinction in terms of what is the you know this is a scenario in terms of [51:34] looking at the CL the climate action plan goals and achieving density to get there versus achieving density to [51:40] accommodate the population growth of a d over a certain period of time right so just for people that are watching it's [51:46] like it's that's not the same thing um and then I guess I'll leave you with this there's I thought about this uh as [51:53] will was talking I don't know why but there was an excessive I think last year I saw this there was um a study by the [51:59] University of Minnesota um accessibility Observatory talking about pre- pandemic [52:04] you know P pandemic movement versus pre-pandemic movement and accessibility to jobs in the Metro areas um Transit [52:12] versus having a car and it's the contrast is pretty Stark like it's I think in Minnesota you had [52:19] 41% um greater access to jobs post pandemic than you did pre- [52:25] pandemic if you had a car and then there was a comparison for MBTA area in Boston where if you had access to a car versus [52:31] if you took Transit alone I think you had access to 14 times more jobs than you did if you if you relied on Transit [52:37] so if you use a car for example so something interesting as you you know progress in your futures and keep [52:44] studying this issue since it came from the University of Minnesota I thought it was [52:50] interesting small world I actually work with the accessibility Observatory and just a little te we are working on a [52:57] report right now on the effect of the pandemic on transit ridership in the entire Metropolitan Council region and [53:03] also using accessibility to Transit as a predictor of like Transit use and so not [53:09] sure the date when that will be released and available to the public but that will include some projections with the [53:15] Eline in mind so just a little teaser to have y'all looking for something down [53:20] the road and I can make sure to through the different channels of communication pass that along once it comes out [53:33] yeah thank you again um I know part of your recommendation you mentioned that [53:39] specific density is pretty much good but not blanket wide density um I just want to know if you [53:47] guys could talk a little bit more about that um and does that also mean that if for example we reduce the lot sizes and [53:55] we cut it in half right right and we have now a smaller minimum lot size [54:00] where you could have now two homes on the same parcel land and one if that wouldn't you know have an [54:08] impact on ridership density Etc just talk a little bit more about that that [54:14] that specific recommendation that blanket wide density is not so much of a good idea yeah so um we did a number of [54:23] zoning scenarios in addition to these that we found um as our recommendations so for our recommend three recommended [54:29] scenarios we saw to hit that 7% VMT reduction per capita as we said earlier [54:35] around 13% density would be needed and then through both our blanket Citywide [54:41] zoning scenarios as well as Greg mentioned our regression analysis we were seeing more like 18 to 19% density [54:47] would be required to reach that um so that's where we found that targeted density did perform a lot better at [54:53] meeting those climate action plan goals having said that um more density is [54:59] better um blanket Citywide density isn't a bad thing we were just looking at which was more impactful per unit of [55:06] density so that's where our policy recommendations do include some amount of um policies that would get at blanket [55:15] Citywide density even if it wasn't through zoning per se it was through things like reducing the minimum lot [55:20] size to allow those split Lots so it's more of a yes and but if you have do one [55:26] targeted density performs better does that answer your question [55:32] yeah yeah and you know once we get the uh the final report I I think you know [55:37] great questions on the assumptions that kind of went into it so it's just good to know that you know yes and what you [55:44] guys just decided that this would be more impactful per unit than if we had like a blanket wide um density increase [55:51] than um if I could just add one little caveat we did see that um when spec when [56:00] just doing blanket Citywide zoning without any of this targeting we did see that it actually had an adverse effect [56:06] on Transit ridership um and I think the reasons for that are kind of intuitive [56:11] when you think about it um if the density is propping up in the middle of [56:16] these single family neighborhoods with no access to Transit where you're nearest bus stop is you know a 30 minute [56:23] walk away or more um then you're not going to shift uh to that mode um it'll [56:30] actually be the average person will be further from transit under that scenario than they are currently in E so um [56:39] that's just the one the one caveat I wanted to mention there more density is better for VMT and greenhouse gas [56:46] unequivocally [56:52] though so that sort of answered my first question um where Transportation affects or [57:00] density affects transportation and so if you just have Global up zoning everywhere you don't want to Tower in [57:06] the middle of a single family neighborhood because everyone's going to drive there right so that doesn't make sense okay great um so my only remaining [57:14] question is kind of a thought question so what if the city um based on perhaps [57:22] past behavior um took a look at this and decided in terms of actually implementing things that they were going [57:29] to go for the density and not implement or poorly implement the transportation [57:34] options how do you think VMT would change if if we added density but didn't really change our [57:41] transportation um it's funny you mention that because if you're talking specifically about Transit um this model [57:48] actually one of the limitations of the software is that it can't model new Transit lines so these numbers are with [57:55] just existing Transit service that's not including the Eline or any expanded service on Road 46 so that's already [58:02] kind of what you're seeing in terms of Transit so we would expect to see [58:09] actually much better Transit numbers in reality even if just with the Eline [58:16] Alone um if I may also um it's even though if we were not to focus on [58:23] Transit we would still part of the reason that we would see still a significant decrease in overall VMT [58:30] regardless of where you site density in the city and ignoring Transit access is [58:36] that ad Dina does have many more jobs per resident than a typical city does [58:42] and enabling more people to live in ad would bring about a reduction in the [58:47] amount of travel they have to do to get to their jobs an average city has 1.4 jobs per resident Edina per household [58:55] Edina has 2 .35 so locating more homes in Idina even if they're not by transit [59:00] you're still making the same number of trips but the distance of those trips is [59:05] significantly shortened that 1.5 is that na a national [59:11] statistic or yes nationally uh or broadly um [59:17] I yes industry average there's typically 1.4 jobs per household and Adina has [59:24] nearly a full job extra about that awesome [59:32] thanks kind of back on the the parking lot uh reducing parking lots and kind of [59:38] increasing that ground floor if we increase our like parking infrastructure would that lead to an increase of VMT [59:45] when we're trying to reduce it or would it end up decreasing it because we have that ground [59:54] floor yeah that's a very good question question I would say if all you were doing was increasing parking then yes it [1:00:00] would probably induce more VMT um adding ground FL retail but also um I think [1:00:07] Kenton had mentioned more structured parking so the parking itself would be denser in a sense [1:00:14] um makes it so you can develop more of those surface parking lots into more [1:00:19] walkable bikeable Transit uses rather than service parking so even if you are [1:00:25] technically adding new parking if you're at the same time getting rid of surface parking which is much more necessitates [1:00:32] driving to each of those locations um you would see a reduction in VMT would be [1:00:38] expected awesome thank [1:00:43] you all right well I got some comments and questions but I think we could have [1:00:49] you guys show up here every month and just get us excited about all this stuff this is uh absolutely incredible I I saw [1:00:57] this earlier very intrigued looked through it um wasn't expecting to be [1:01:02] wowed by the presentation and the caliber of thought and you know care [1:01:10] that went into this you know a lot of times we see a pretty picture or whatever but th this was well studied [1:01:16] well researched and very impressive presentation so that's and it's all about the stuff we love so it's very [1:01:23] exciting um couple comments and some questions uh just [1:01:29] thinking you know through history you know is you could look at this and then you think back to when Dino was like it [1:01:36] is today um I'm sure you guys are familiar with and I'm sure I'm surprised [1:01:41] commissioner Miranda didn't mention it but like the Twin City street car system that once was and I remember the first [1:01:47] time I saw the map of that and you're like oh my goodness if we still had that [1:01:53] how incredible this place would be and ironically you know where you're showing [1:01:58] a lot of density is kind of right where those corridors were and still are and [1:02:03] so as we look back to history to just kind of inform you know a wiser [1:02:09] future uh it's interesting to think of how cities [1:02:14] developed much more around mass transit than they did around the individual [1:02:21] driver in an automobile and that's what's become Suburban USA and we all realize the benefit of [1:02:29] getting getting away from that so to me what I find unique about in and you kind [1:02:34] of see it there is like we have this blend of like you know remnants of Minneapolis and the street carong France [1:02:42] and some of these more dense corridors that streamed away from that and what comes out of that too not just you know [1:02:49] proximity to where you need to go most effectively but you know a sense of community when you're walking and you're [1:02:55] biking and you have a neighborhood joint and I think that's what Ed certainly has [1:03:00] the opportunity to invest more in compared to a suburb farther out where [1:03:06] you really don't have any of these remnants of something that was a little more effective so I found it interesting [1:03:14] compared to things we've seen before that you guys really double down on you know what already is establish instead [1:03:20] of trying to create something totally new and uh it [1:03:26] I think if you just if you could digest the last eight years I've spent up here [1:03:31] doing this like a lot of these areas of potential change you know we've seen [1:03:36] bits and pieces of this wanting to happen so I think seeing a picture and a map you know this is like a great road [1:03:44] map for success and uh I just commend you guys for doing it I mean you could [1:03:49] look at the preferred to enhance to basic scenario as you know almost a Time [1:03:56] stamp of how this could unfold in different ways potentially uh I think [1:04:01] that could be an interesting way to look at it uh beyond that one of the [1:04:07] questions I had um is if it was kind of touched on but like if you had more [1:04:15] resources or more more scope to kind of [1:04:20] invest in what you started you know where would you have put that and what [1:04:25] what what would you have wanted to di like dive more into like if this could [1:04:30] continue for another year or you had quadruple the budget or double the team [1:04:36] like where would you keep going with this do you feel like you kind of understand it all or would you like to [1:04:42] do more just just curious I think one thing that was alluded to earlier tonight was um just looking at how [1:04:51] realistic of a timeline it would be even under these different zoning scenarios [1:04:56] and different policy changes what would be expected to actually happen under what time frame and that's something [1:05:03] that was out of scope but I think would be a very useful and interesting uh piece of research did you want to add to [1:05:10] that Greg I'd like everyone to add don't just keep it to one person yeah I mean on a completely [1:05:16] different note so I mentioned the regression analysis that we that we performed and um that was really really [1:05:23] interesting and it had some really instructive results um we are also public policy students and we're not [1:05:29] statisticians and um and the the question of what influences VMT um or [1:05:37] Transit ridership is such an interesting one and we were looking specifically within the context of the Twin Cities I [1:05:43] think that you know as as we kind of got into that work um we realized that that [1:05:51] could be a complete Pandora's box of like how like well we can do this other [1:05:57] extremely Advanced statistical method to try to get like 3% more confident in our [1:06:04] answer or what have you um and I think it could be a really really fascinating [1:06:09] project for somebody who has more than like three statistics courses under [1:06:15] their belt like I do so um that you know just personally I thought that was [1:06:22] something that I would love to see someone who's a bit more of an expert on that dive deeper into [1:06:29] it um I think my answer Echoes that which Holly shared um I think that what [1:06:37] is most important to understand is that allowable density is different than built density and you're seeing here [1:06:45] built or you're seeing here allowable density that will never be 100% realized [1:06:51] and I think that if we were able to build into our work realistic assumptions about the amount of time it [1:06:58] would take to see these realized we would be able to tell you with more confidence this is when your climate [1:07:05] goals will be achieved by and that we can't say um that would be my [1:07:14] answer uh so if we had more time uh that would I probably would [1:07:20] um the urban footprint they're currently working on adding Transit lines into the calculation that something they're [1:07:25] currently working on so I would have loved that option to be available to actually add it on uh CU actually right [1:07:31] now Route 46 terminates doesn't go through most of Vernon or the Touch [1:07:36] Lincoln at all it terminates at in the Grand View neighborhood and I mean as a [1:07:42] person who took that bus today uh I I would have been really interested to see [1:07:48] like what restoring that service would have done to the transit numbers and also modeling the Eline um that would [1:07:54] have been really interesting to see I would say for myself also kind of [1:08:02] reiterating some of the transportation decision-making framework that I discuss I think digging into that even more so [1:08:08] um we touched a little bit on topics as ranged as Behavior change theory behavioral economics things like that so [1:08:15] we could come to you with a even broader list of interventions Beyond just policy [1:08:20] built form changes but even down to just you know soft campaign that maybe don't [1:08:26] make it into a comprehensive plan or a zoning Amendment but things that could really maximize some of the other [1:08:32] recommendations that we're discussing because you know think that like I've mentioned multiple times the first [1:08:38] battle is making it so sustainable modes are feasible but I think that's maybe [1:08:43] half the battle after that you get into people's individual preferences and I [1:08:49] think there's a lot of great Research into that I've never seen it synthesized within transportation decisionmaking [1:08:55] spefic specifically so i' have would have loved more time to really dig into the softer side of potential [1:09:01] interventions that could assist in that kind of mode shift that we've [1:09:08] discussed so one of the things including in the pro project and something we did include in our research was um comparing [1:09:17] Uh 's current uh policies with fellow peer cities uh either in the metro area [1:09:23] as well as in other um Metropolitan eras in the US and one one thing that we did [1:09:31] actually um cons consider was trying to find if there's any um pure cities that [1:09:39] um has already implemented something like this and if a certain amount of time has passed that reliable data is [1:09:44] available we can uh use that to inform our uh our decision making but um [1:09:52] unfortunately because um you know know Mass up zoning like Transit orent [1:09:58] development are relatively new um like like a lot of a lot of cities have like [1:10:05] this written in comprehensive plans but they're mostly like more vague and the [1:10:11] number of like specific goals are um and plans are fairly low and for things like [1:10:17] this Transportation um you know a long-term evaluation could could take you know multiple decades to get a good [1:10:24] look so that was one one thing that if we had you know longer um if if there was more data on that [1:10:32] that could have been a good addition to our [1:10:39] proposal thank you yeah that you guys kind of touched on a lot of things that I also had questions on so that's [1:10:46] awesome yeah and I guess you know the main takeaway [1:10:51] from a couple of years is just you know realistic with time and what could be [1:10:57] achieved and you know we we're familiar with these areas and realistically a lot of these areas will be very slow to [1:11:04] accommodate any related change even remotely near some of this but again [1:11:09] it's good to have this road map and I think if you just didn't know Edina and [1:11:14] showed someone this map and said hey there's a city in Minnesota and this is this is actually their current situation [1:11:22] I think people be like whoo that looks like a pretty resilient City and I think I think when we think of achieving [1:11:30] the climate action plan and the goals set forth and that not just is it [1:11:35] important for the planet you know and to achieve being a sustainable City I truly [1:11:41] believe you become a better Community right I mean all of these strategies bring people closer together in [1:11:48] proximity you know just to build community it's more that European style which feels like every place you go that [1:11:55] has something like this like if you're running around a city and you could actually run between all these safely [1:12:02] you'd feel like this is a pretty dang nice place right and it's really nice [1:12:08] that you could paint a picture of that so we have something to dream about and you know maybe that's all it takes to [1:12:14] really get going on some of this um so I want to really just thank you guys again [1:12:20] this is uh awesome work any other questions or comments [1:12:27] thank you so much and uh get home safe thank [1:12:37] you all right lots lots to think about after that [1:12:42] um wow so now we will move to our community [1:12:49] comment piece of tonight's agenda do you have can we have them come back every month and more yeah keep coming back [1:12:56] that was amazing so we have the community comment [1:13:01] part of the agenda tonight and that is the opportunity for anyone who is here that like to speak about anything that's [1:13:07] not on to tonight's agenda uh just please come up to a Podium State your full name address and you got three [1:13:14] minutes to do so we'll give you the opportunity to do that [1:13:20] now seeing none we'll move on man I'm still thinking about all that stuff it's hard to be focused sorry great work all [1:13:29] right next we have the public hearing portion of our meeting tonight as mentioned we have one public hearing [1:13:36] this is a variance request for 5416 Grove and just for people who might be [1:13:44] new and tuning in the process for this city takes uh um a developer or an [1:13:51] applicant a homeowner might submit something that doesn't drive with the current uh rules and regulations of the [1:13:58] city staff will devise us uh report and create a presentation that we will see [1:14:04] now and we'll have time to deliberate and ask questions to staff we'll allow [1:14:10] the homeowner or applicant or developer to provide their own presentation if they have one stand for questions then [1:14:17] we will open it to a public hearing which is your opportunity as a resident to speak about this matter similar to [1:14:24] the community comment you have 3 minutes to do so you can tune in remotely and [1:14:30] provide testimony that way or you can do so in person after that closes we will [1:14:36] bring it back to the Planning Commission to deliberate and make a recommendation for approval or denial and just to get [1:14:44] people kind of in the queue and ready to testify um please take note of the [1:14:50] following information so call the number 312 535 [1:14:58] 8110 and enter access code 2634 593 [1:15:05] 3835 the password is 5454 to get into the virtual room and [1:15:11] then when it's your when you'd like to speak press star three uh without further Ado we'll give it to planner AER [1:15:19] and take it away thank you um this is a 2.8t West and point 3 foot East Side [1:15:25] yard setback variants request to reuse a non-conforming foundation for a tear [1:15:31] down rebuild of a new home and it's located at 5416 [1:15:37] Grove and if you can see this little dot that's the house it's just south of vion [1:15:43] Park it's uh north of Grove Street north of Garden Avenue little closer picture uh aerial [1:15:52] photograph of the house it's a rambler with an attached to car garage it was [1:15:57] built in 1984 85 um these are the existing floor plans [1:16:05] there's uh basement lower level it's a walkout and uh existing uh main floor [1:16:13] has two-car garage this is the house um survey when [1:16:19] it was proposed when it was originally built back in the mid 80s and uh the [1:16:24] proposal was to have a 5-ft setback for the garage and 11.9 ft setback on the [1:16:30] east side for the living space of the house now that was conforming back in the mid [1:16:35] 80s uh there was a 5-ft setback required for any attached garage no matter the [1:16:41] size of the lot or the lot width and that was up until I want to say [1:16:46] 2012 2013 uh then it was changed that um for [1:16:51] The Wider Lots like this lot uh the minimum side yard setback regardless of whether it was a garage or living space [1:16:58] would have to be 10 ft so when this house was originally built the proposed uh survey that was submitted for a [1:17:05] building permit did indicate that it met the um setback requirements at the [1:17:12] time so what they are planning on doing is tearing down the existing house to [1:17:18] the existing foundation and then adding on to the foundation into the backyard [1:17:23] and then uh rebuilding a new home on top it'll be a two-story home with a three-car garage there's a very small [1:17:30] addition in the front here um for this area to be developed into a three-car [1:17:37] garage and then there's a small front entry porch um in the front all of the construction meets our [1:17:46] current code with the exception of the existing sidee setbacks they're non-conforming uh when the house was [1:17:52] built in the 1980s um I did show you the previous survey that was approved for a building permit um it must have shifted [1:18:00] a bit to the east because the um setback on the east side is 9.7 ft Which is less [1:18:07] than the 10 that's currently required and then um on this side where the [1:18:13] garage is at 7.2 when it was originally built it was proposed at 5T which was [1:18:18] conforming so they need to get two variances in order to utilize the [1:18:24] existing nonconforming Foundation that they would like to rebuild on everything else does [1:18:29] meet the ordinance requirements so um in [1:18:35] 2013 it was determined that um the building department needed to Define [1:18:43] what actually um designates a demolition or a tear down because we've had so many uh [1:18:51] very large additions to homes homes that are literally um almost torn down to the [1:18:57] very um well to the foundation and how do how how is that addressed in terms of [1:19:02] which one is an addition one which one is a complete tear down rebuild so back in 2013 uh demolition was defined meaning [1:19:11] the removal or destruction of more than 50% of the area of the exterior walls of a single or a two family dwelling unit [1:19:19] so that means that any home that um has more than 50% of the exterior wall area [1:19:25] removed it's new construction everything needs to meet code has to meet all of [1:19:31] the setbacks building coverage Heights all of those things in the zoning ordinance as well as um building [1:19:40] codes so this is the proposed new elevations of the home it's a two-story home it's well [1:19:48] within the overall maximum height requirements this line here is is demonstrating the overall um opportunity [1:19:56] for height and it's much lower than that uh the new basement floor plan [1:20:03] showing you the existing basement that will remain and then they will have this addition off the [1:20:08] back and then the main floor um will be pushing out into the rear yard a little [1:20:14] bit uh that'll include a new deck three car garage and then a new second floor [1:20:21] currently it's a rambler so now it'll be a two-story home so here are the existing and proposed [1:20:28] Southwest elevations so what's existing now and what they're proposing and then also um the north and [1:20:35] east elevations of existing and proposed so in terms of the compliance [1:20:42] table as I mentioned previously it does meet all of the compliance standards in the zoning ordance with the exception of [1:20:49] those existing non-conforming setbacks on the east and west side so [1:20:55] on the West Side that's where the garage is that could have been 5 feet back in the mid 80s when it was originally built [1:21:01] that would have been conforming they're at 7.2 feet so they are um they do not [1:21:07] meet the 10- foot side street setback that is currently to code um it will be [1:21:15] replacing the existing garage so there won't be any living space above the garage that will all be uh towards the [1:21:22] east so it's it's really a replacement of the garage area that existed there [1:21:28] previously in terms of um there won't be a second floor and then on the east side it's a [1:21:36] 9.7 foot setback which is you know slightly under the minimum 10- foot [1:21:43] requirement so this is a rendering in context of the proposed home at the same [1:21:49] level um twostory as compared with what had been there previously is one story [1:21:55] home and then this was supplied by um as part of the application to give you an [1:22:01] idea of the distances between uh the existing and proposed home um the [1:22:07] setbacks aren't going to change but the distances that exist there today in terms of spacing all of that will remain [1:22:13] the same so staff did findings um both for approval and [1:22:20] denial um staff has to look at this project as a vacant lot and that it [1:22:25] would need to conform to our current code um because it is a tear down [1:22:30] rebuild it's been designated as that it has to bring been the new construction has to be brought up to code um but [1:22:38] there are also um extenuating circumstances in terms of trying to save that foundation and utilize the existing [1:22:46] non-conforming setbacks that are there currently so in terms of findings for [1:22:51] approval for the 2.8 foot West and3 put East Side your setback variants the [1:22:56] Practical difficulty is caused by the location of that existing non-conforming Foundation the request is reasonable as [1:23:03] it was utilized it is utilizing an existing Foundation that was presumed to be [1:23:09] compliant when it was built in the 80s I mean know the survey that was submitted did comply at the time there's just a [1:23:15] little bit of difference on that east side it's just a little bit too close it doesn't meet the 10 foot setback on the [1:23:21] West Side um it was well within in the minimum garage setbacks but our [1:23:27] ordinances have changed um The Proposal is reasonable in [1:23:33] that retaining the spancrete foundation is a practical and sustainable solution to constructing a new house on the site [1:23:40] the um Foundation is uh very stable and [1:23:46] um solid it's pre-cast span creete and um that's one of the reasons why uh the [1:23:52] homeowner wanted to um keep that the threshold has been met to classify the [1:23:58] project as a new home however reuse of that Foundation is not an option without the benefit of a [1:24:05] variance um The Proposal will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood there are similarly sized [1:24:10] buildings with non-conforming side edge setbacks uh staff did look at some of the other homes that occurred on the [1:24:16] property or along um the along the block and they also have situations where [1:24:23] they're slightly non-conforming setback so this is not an outlayer and it's an [1:24:28] existing non-conforming condition currently so if the Planning Commission [1:24:35] um does see to approve this variance approval should be subject to the following uh that the plans and surveys [1:24:42] that were submitted date stamped uh April 15 2024 um should be subject to a [1:24:48] construction management plan for New Home Building um compliance with the tree ordinance um that the exterior of [1:24:55] the home must be flood proof proofed where the grade is less than 121 19.3 there is a local flood shape on the [1:25:04] property but it's not um the flood zone does not affect the house in terms of [1:25:10] the fact that uh the basement elevation is 2 feet above the flood elevation so it is a it has the freeboard um the [1:25:19] engineering department just put that um on uh a condition as flood proofed would [1:25:25] be the exterior of the foundation just at one point where there's a [1:25:30] 92.3 grade um which would be a function of the building permit and review at [1:25:36] that time and then a stormw water management plan and final as buil survey are required and then also um whether a [1:25:43] 9M Creek Watershed District permit is required the applicant would need to verify [1:25:48] that um in terms of the denial um The Proposal does not meet the standards for [1:25:55] variance for new home on a 12,800 ft vacant lot and that's really [1:26:00] how staff has to view this project it's a tear down rebuild it's a new construction upon removal of the [1:26:07] basement there is no practical difficulty in complying with the ordinance for a new home when [1:26:12] considering the property as a vacant lot there are no unique circumstances present to support variances from the [1:26:18] required 10-ft sidey setbacks that can be achieved granting the variants May [1:26:23] alter these essential character of the neighborhood by continuing a non-conforming closer setback um than [1:26:29] currently allowed for a new two-story home that is replacing a one-story Rambler um rebuilding a new home on the [1:26:36] existing foundation with non-conforming setbacks removes any opportunity at this [1:26:42] point at least to bring the property into compliance with current code and that is also obviously a goal if you're [1:26:49] going to have a tear down rebuild that now um what is built is going to comply with our current code um there have been [1:26:57] a number of comments that have come in through better together and I think some recorded um [1:27:03] voicemails um from Neighbors and supported the request and our property [1:27:09] owners and I believe their contractor are here I will stop and answer any questions you may [1:27:14] have thank you Chris any questions from fellow [1:27:19] Commissioners right there yeah commissioner day okay [1:27:25] um well two things first so I want to be clear right that the staff [1:27:30] recommendation was denial of of both of the Motions to or [1:27:36] the request for variance for the the setbacks correct that's correct uh staff [1:27:43] has to look at it as a vac right okay um the other part would be do we have are [1:27:50] you aware of um precedence that we've set in terms of something similar to this right that would inform our [1:27:57] decision in terms of you know a legal standpoint hey we allow this in the past or we didn't I'm just curious if if [1:28:04] there's anything that comes to mind you know there's never an exact [1:28:10] same situation but there have given the fact that there have been situations [1:28:15] where people have torn down their home and rebuilt it depending upon uh where that previous house was located or if [1:28:24] there was some uh grading um topography some of those [1:28:32] um impacts have we have or the Planning Commission has approved some new [1:28:39] construction based upon the history of the property and what has been there what is there now um [1:28:46] yes okay all right that's it for for right now [1:28:54] commissioner Miranda for a typical tear down in a Dina [1:29:01] is is the foundation usually saved or no no this is a situation that's not [1:29:09] typical it's not typical in the sense that a lot of the homes that are torn down their foundations are the one thing [1:29:15] one of the things that you really want to see going or a property owner would because they're just not very they're [1:29:21] they're not good uh span creete found found that was built in the 80s is pretty solid okay okay thank [1:29:32] you uh just very quick and thank for the presentation one of the approval conditions is that the plans [1:29:41] uh that the plans and Survey I think it was dated April are inforce so [1:29:50] hypothetically uh if they get the top off the foundation and find that actually the [1:29:57] foundation doesn't work or is not suitable for building a new house on top of or it's damaged or who knows [1:30:03] what um then we're back to square one right they would have to go through this process again if they wanted a variance [1:30:09] or could they build a new house with those [1:30:16] dimensions that's a good question I I believe if the Planning Commission tied it to the plans presented which are [1:30:24] the fact that the basement would be the the existing basement would remain um [1:30:32] and and that's a condition certainly that I guess you would assume given the plans that were submitted um it would be [1:30:39] tied to that if they have to tear the whole thing out then yes they'd have there' be new plans so that would start [1:30:45] the the process over again the whole basis of this request is because the [1:30:50] foundation is so solid and they really really want want to you know just add on [1:30:55] to it and keep it MH just one other thing I would add for [1:31:01] to follow up on commissioner today's question um I can remember from [1:31:07] my first um Time first episode on the [1:31:13] Planning Commission it was uh rather common for us to have a situation where [1:31:18] somebody with a story and a half house that has um exist existing [1:31:24] non-conforming side yard setback somebody comes in wants to build uh build up put a second story addition on [1:31:32] it and so in essence taking what was a non-conforming sidey guard setback and [1:31:39] making it worse because you're going up two stories instead of one and it's it's not exactly the same as this situation [1:31:46] but the the philosophy is the same and I can't think of any one of [1:31:52] those that we ever denied [1:32:00] M Smith yeah uh thank you again planner acre um just a question on the history [1:32:07] of the 50% wall removal uh I think you mentioned that was in 2015 roughly [1:32:14] speaking or so yes um just if you could share just somebody thinking any reasoning behind that um why that was [1:32:21] put in place it was put in place because we had to have a definition of what was [1:32:26] a remodel as opposed to what's a complete tear down rebuild there had to be some point where once you start [1:32:36] removing parts of a house when does it get to a point where it's a new house [1:32:41] and we have to bring it all up to code um and that's also you know as it [1:32:47] relates to the building code um and it was decided at 50% of the exterior wall [1:32:53] area I Can't Tell You Why necessarily that was chosen it works [1:33:01] um but prior to that there were a lot of situations where we would have neighbors [1:33:07] that were very concerned about um very large additions to homes or aggressive [1:33:13] remodels so aggressive that you know their contention was that's a new house and that should conform but yet they're [1:33:21] at these you know they're they're not conforming to some some piece of the zoning ordinance um so there had to be [1:33:28] at some point a definition put in place Goa I know for me when when [1:33:36] someone says a tear down I'm just visually thinking the whole thing disappears and something new rises in [1:33:43] its place um but I could see the point where you could have an aggressive remodel which is almost like a new home [1:33:51] basically right yes and you have to kind of put some some limits there on on on [1:33:56] what would constitute that so that that's really [1:34:02] helpful questions over here real quick um so just thinking [1:34:09] about this particular project um and you were talking about you know the definition sometimes it's ambiguous [1:34:15] about whether it's a remodel or a new home what do you think about this one do you think this is a new [1:34:22] home every everything will be new except for the foundation um yeah I know but just like [1:34:30] in plain English have we yes like is this like in the ambiguous zone or is it [1:34:36] a new house um it's a new house okay I can see the reasoning why they would [1:34:43] like to keep the foundation it's a very solid foundation it's a sustainable [1:34:49] solution it's there um the SE PS aren't being reduced but in terms of um looking [1:35:00] at is it a tear down yes is it a complete demolition yes and then we have to look [1:35:07] at it staff has to look at it in terms of you know it's a vacant [1:35:16] lot sorry one more question um I C I couldn't remember from the slides but is [1:35:22] the um is the new garage is the side the new the edge of [1:35:30] the new garage that's non-conforming that's sitting in the setback is it sitting on top of the [1:35:39] foundation that okay yeah yeah that's what thought it's not getting any wider [1:35:45] okay the house is sitting right on it it'll get further back because they are adding to the foundation behind the house yeah but that all of that conforms [1:35:53] okay tell me why span Crete is so [1:36:01] amazing just why is it different than a regular [1:36:07] Foundation like if I mean because presumably they're doing this for for cost reasons not to mention [1:36:14] um practicality of it I just don't have any concept of if this Foundation is [1:36:20] different than the 1950s Foundation I have my house if it's yeah [1:36:27] it's and maybe there's a it's poor [1:37:22] in [1:37:48] okay sorry sorry there we go I mean this Foundation we do a lot of tear Downs in [1:37:53] Dina and I mean we see a lot of crap and I've got one right now that's uh 79 over [1:38:00] on Hillside and uh we're getting the permits ready to tear it down and I [1:38:05] wouldn't even think about going over that house even though it was a little newer so and I'm sorry Who Who Are You [1:38:12] Tom binsky tjb Holmes I can give you this is probably [1:38:19] this is an off story which just comes up when we talk about it my wife wife was rushed into emergency on Monday she came [1:38:26] back from Florida with problems in her stomach okay and they said it's gallbladder she sat there for two days [1:38:34] the surgeon came in yesterday says no it's not gallbladder and she says no it hurts so bad needs to do something says [1:38:41] I don't want to take out a perfectly good gallbladder that works when we don't have to so in this case it's kind [1:38:48] of like taking out a foundation that we really don't need need we're not going to affect either of [1:38:55] the sides that are there y they're still staying open so it's like David's example your house was there and you're [1:39:01] just going up and we're not using something old and crappy so thank you [1:39:07] for explaining that thank you any other questions I do I do have [1:39:15] questions but I have questions for the client if they're going to come up question for Chris okay oh yeah well [1:39:23] well wel come you now to the podium for a presentation and hopefully you can [1:39:28] stand for some questions to State your full name [1:39:35] address [1:40:18] first one yeah [1:40:33] all right [1:40:41] so commission thank you for yeah thank you for giving me an [1:40:47] opportunity to speak I'm Nelson s the home owner of 5416 Grove Street [1:40:54] so start uh and I want to thank Chris for putting together this presentation and doing an excellent presentation and [1:41:01] then and answering all my emails over the period of two months or 3 months so I've given a lot of [1:41:07] trouble so moving [1:41:13] on uh hope you had a chance to look at my presentation or I don't know so I'll [1:41:20] move on to the next slide so two topics I want to speak one is uh [1:41:27] the side setback and uh I put put some pictures together how [1:41:32] they look on the west side so the setback is the distance between the adjacent properties property is 15.5 [1:41:41] ft and and to the east side which is uh the distance between property is 20.5 [1:41:48] ft so uh I would say there's enough [1:41:54] spacing between the ENT homes so we have similar homes in this block which are [1:41:59] non-confirming setbacks and on the west side where we have the current where the existing [1:42:06] garage is now we are not building on top of area going to retain it only the walls which are going to go [1:42:12] off and uh edes and neighbors are also pry of a project and they want this [1:42:17] project we done uh second thing I want to touch [1:42:24] upon is the reason for using the existing foundation so the existing Foundation is pretty solid so the main [1:42:32] advantage right now is the 10 ft High basement and we don't see this in [1:42:38] typical uh old home so that's the only reason why we want to retain this [1:42:44] foundation so heading down this project would uh I would say that the wall you [1:42:51] see as I shown in the presentation the red walls have to be T down so those are like 10 ft High concrete blocks which [1:42:58] are reinforced with steel so those have to be taken down holdway and the foundation has part which I think is not [1:43:04] a not a thing we should be looking at so the foundation is around 175 linear feet [1:43:12] so that's a lot of [1:43:21] work other thing I would like to add is uh the foundation uh and the block walls [1:43:28] are Su sustainable and there they have enough value and worth it's worth retaining that [1:43:33] foundation and the and the block the concrete block sorry the [1:43:39] blocks uh on the personal side so right now home is tining I would say that so [1:43:46] so we we got to kids and uh we got parents coming from OCS summer right now [1:43:52] we say don't come because we don't have space for them so either our kids have to move out to a different room and my [1:43:57] wife she works full-time from home so she doesn't have a space to work she right now she's like [1:44:03] occupying one of her daughter's bedrooms so so we have an fix now so we want this project done as soon as possible we have [1:44:11] post it for almost like two years because of different reasons so now we want to cut lose [1:44:16] and kick it off so that's how I have [1:44:23] to cover so it's my request to your Commissioners to approve this project and green lighted [1:44:30] basically thank you very much um any questions from Commissioners for either [1:44:36] the applicant or the [1:44:41] Builder nothing okay well thank you thank you [1:44:48] much oh we just waiting for break yeah real quick I can start I just have a couple sure [1:44:56] quick factual uh questions so we've heard a lot about span creete today which is something I've never heard [1:45:01] about before um that's the floor of the G of the garage is that right yes yeah so the right now the garage is sitting [1:45:08] on a on span concrete PL so they're like 24 ft wide they preast okay is that I I [1:45:17] couldn't tell from the point is that something you're planning on keeping or not keep yes yeah I'm going the preed [1:45:24] concrete planks the gares to remain the same but only the side walls going to go [1:45:29] okay FR okay um do you know what the cost of a new Foundation would be uh [1:45:44] probably with with the span Creed is probably 75 80 [1:45:50] grand which is also your cement you know your cement floors in your basement and everything [1:45:57] so and what would that be as a percentage of the overall construction cost [1:46:04] uh probably 10% to 12% it's [1:46:14] large but we're doing everything like say stripping down to the blocks it's going to be it's all new home there's [1:46:20] nothing old and it's all all under new code [1:46:27] so okay that was it [1:46:32] thanks yeah I have a couple questions go ahead so if we're concerned [1:46:39] about the span creete on the garage side I guess my question is how does that necessitate a setback on the other side [1:46:47] as well other side it's 3 Ines isn't it so I don't know the reason why the hous [1:46:54] has shifted so I don't know city has to know or [1:47:01] I the why the setback is three shifted on the other side [1:47:14] that's did I answer the question or yes thank you other questions [1:47:25] um yeah so on the so the Gage is on the west side of [1:47:32] the house or the east side west side of the house the garage is on the west side of the house and say it's on the west side so that garage on the west side of [1:47:39] the house is essentially going to stay a one story yes yeah there's no CH to the [1:47:45] garage so yeah um so that portion of the house which is closer to the lot line or [1:47:50] closer to your neighbor is going to stay one St story um and ju you know a two-story structure is [1:47:58] twice the volume of a one-story structure so I think on that other side the west side you know there's a [1:48:05] two-story wall but that's close to the existing that's just 3 Ines away from [1:48:11] what would be considered a regular set back and the remainder of that garage [1:48:16] wall is easy to be saved the foundation is yes [1:48:24] and then theall Woodall REM the wood studs would be removed [1:48:33] you and then my question it looked um on the photos it looked a little easier to [1:48:38] access the backyard than the site plan did um and the site plan had or the [1:48:45] sidewalk the exterior elevations had a retaining wall there and I was um yeah so [1:48:54] you live there now yeah do you have a lawn service come in and cut the grass [1:49:00] no that no I do that on my own you do that this is their house this yes yes [1:49:05] this is the one so you you you roll the lawn mower down the down the yeah okay [1:49:11] thing is we got a workshop below the garage so you can use that to access the garage below the well I noticed your [1:49:18] neighbors have the same speed we down to the backyard okay [1:49:26] um those are that's the extent of my questions thank you thank you very [1:49:32] much yep you got that okay um [1:49:40] so really we're trying to establish a difference here is between you know we [1:49:45] want to use the existing foundation and we have to right so I mean I'd ask where [1:49:52] other design considerations explored that involved conforming to the ex existing [1:49:59] setback right in terms of I know you said the reusing or [1:50:04] repouring a foundation would be $70 $80,000 right if you could save that $780,000 by conforming you know changing [1:50:12] the layout changing the design um did you explore other options or is this really I mean honestly a we want to use [1:50:20] the foundation not a we have to use the found Foundation sort of yeah we explored [1:50:27] different options so this would be the most uh optimal uh use of what we have current currently [1:50:36] so but it seems so what I'm trying to get at is it seems to me to be mainly a purely economic [1:50:43] consideration that we want to use the existing Foundation right nothing to do [1:50:49] with the Topography of the lot um really [1:50:54] any physical characteristics of this particular lot it's just we want to use the existing there that's one of the [1:50:59] main consideration so okay that's all I got for right [1:51:07] now all right time for public hearing thank Youk [1:51:12] you all right as mentioned uh if you are tuning in please call 312 53581 one0 it's going [1:51:22] to be on the screen and enter access code 2634 593 [1:51:29] 3835 the password is 5454 press star three on your telephone [1:51:36] keypad when you'd like to get in the Q to speak which is now we'll give you a minute or two and in the meantime we'll [1:51:43] welcome anyone who is here in person to come up to a Podium you have 3 minutes to speak State your full name [1:51:49] address when it turns red your time's up and we'll let you know anyone here that [1:51:55] would like to testify see none we'll turn it back to [1:52:02] see who's in the virtual waiting room there is nobody in the virtual waiting room I will start a timer for [1:52:09] one minute thank [1:52:21] you e [1:53:10] it has been 1 minute and nobody has joined the waiting room so I believe it is safe to proceed all right do we have a motion to [1:53:17] close a public hearing I move to close the public hearing second all in favor say I hi hi so move the public hearing [1:53:25] is closed I'd like to note as Comm uh planner oer mentioned we did have [1:53:30] feedback through our engagement website betterto together.org most of it was [1:53:36] positive in support of the project turn it over to planning Commissioners to [1:53:44] deliberate got any questions comments thoughts you'd like to share about this Now's the Time could just go down the [1:53:51] line yep um I'm supportive the I'm I'm satisfied [1:54:00] with a practical difficulty being the location of the existing reusable [1:54:06] non-conforming Foundation I think commissioner day hinted at a really interesting question [1:54:12] just a few minutes ago is whether it's a want or a need um I think the way I've been [1:54:20] thinking about it is that if you take an alternate case where the [1:54:26] applicant wanted to do a total tear down take out the foundation and also apply for this [1:54:32] variance because that's where the old Foundation was and everything's the same [1:54:37] so why isn't why isn't that okay I would say no to that because we we're creating [1:54:43] a new house in this instance we're not creating new house we're trying to reuse an existing non-conforming [1:54:50] foundation and that that feels acceptable to me as a as a practical [1:54:55] difficulty I realize that there are other there's room for other points of view on that for sure but for me I'm [1:55:01] satisfied with that I'm satisfied that it won't alter the character of the [1:55:07] neighborhood and I'm satisfied that it's reasonable and the only other thing that I would mention and this is is really [1:55:13] actually important in the way I think about this [1:55:19] is um this is a bunch of blocks that are not going to go in a [1:55:25] landfill and pouring new concrete is very energy intensive uh so there are a lot of [1:55:32] really significant sustainability reasons to support this particularly in [1:55:37] light of the fact that what we're talking about is 4 Ines on one side and 2.8 ft on the other [1:55:47] with unanimous neighborhood support so there do there doesn't seem to be a [1:55:52] whole lot of downside uh counterweight to the upside [1:55:57] in [1:56:02] this well commissioner Aly said subset of everything I was goingon to say [1:56:09] um so I agree with with with his uh with his logic I think the thing with this [1:56:14] project is that there's a lot of small details that make a difference and so [1:56:22] one of those is that um I believe the Neighbors on either side are okay with this which by itself I don't think is [1:56:28] enough but I think as part of the whole story is important um and the rest of [1:56:34] the neighbors you know don't think it's going to change the neighborhood um you know we talk about in in terms of [1:56:41] sustainability you know new houses or new buildings might be you know certified or whatever but often times [1:56:48] it's the remov the complete removal of the old house which has the biggest impact on the environment um and in this [1:56:56] case by keeping the foundation as commissioner Al said you know concrete [1:57:01] is the most energy intensive and carbon uh exposing um thing you can do [1:57:09] when you're when you're building um in terms of the you know [1:57:15] point three foot on the east side you know that's essentially the foundation [1:57:22] moving because it wasn't supposed to be it was designed so that it would be um [1:57:27] you know proper spacing proper setback um in terms of the West Side the [1:57:33] building is not going to be any higher than the existing building and so when [1:57:39] we talk about you know non- tear Downs where they're just building up um you [1:57:45] know something we consider is that we often approve it if it's you know in the same footprint um but in this case it's [1:57:51] not even building up on that side right so um so I there's essentially no [1:57:57] difference to anybody [1:58:02] um and I just think you know I there are a lot of cities that like give you know [1:58:08] make it easier to rebuild to add on to a house if you keep the existing Foundation rather than tear it [1:58:15] down so um I just think there's a lot of reasons why um and like commissioner Aly [1:58:22] said If This Were if it turns out they can't reuse the foundation I do believe they should absolutely meet the current [1:58:30] regulations um but if they can and it sounds like they can um then I I think [1:58:36] we should approve this thank [1:58:42] you so the case for denial um is um upon [1:58:49] removal of the basement there is no practical difficulty and I think that's the operative part of the the the [1:58:57] variance request here and and the reason that I um support approval is because [1:59:04] removal of the basement is a practical difficulty and I think um $80,000 at 10% [1:59:11] of the cost of um a renovation um or new house whatever you [1:59:18] you know whatever you want to call it of if staff is deemed to to determine that [1:59:24] it it is a new house um is the cost is a [1:59:29] practical difficulty and more than that as to um what commissioner alar and [1:59:36] commissioner Randa said the sustainability the idea of getting rid of something that is perfectly good and [1:59:43] um in fine shape and will likely last another 40 years because it's 3 in short [1:59:50] um is um um we're cutting off our nose despite [1:59:57] our face in terms of what we're after here and what we're trying to accomplish and what we want the city to be and the [2:00:04] custodians we need to be for the city um so I'm reiterating what the former two [2:00:11] commissioner says I'm in full support of this yeah I think uh I would agree with [2:00:19] a lot of the my fellow commissioners uh point so I'm not going to belabor a lot of it here but I think sustainability [2:00:27] was was really important for me you know having to rip out everything um and pour [2:00:32] new concrete is not so great for the environment I think the height situation on the West Side um is going to remain [2:00:39] the same and so part of the reason for the 50% if you remove 50% of the walls [2:00:45] now considered a new construction was because residents felt at the time that [2:00:51] um folks were doing extreme remodels right but in this case the residents and neighbors around are very supportive of [2:00:57] the project so I think that that also helps in this um scenario and just the [2:01:04] Practical nature of what we're trying to do um we're really just uh you know [2:01:10] reusing what we have and um I I think it it makes sense if you have a perfectly [2:01:16] strong and sturdy foundation and you're adding to it and you don't want to rip it out I think that's that's a practical [2:01:22] thing to do so just given theti project kind of what you're trying [2:01:27] to achieve and the ordinance I guess and and the verances that you're asking for [2:01:33] I see this as being a something that that I would be in a favor of [2:01:42] approving I mean I kind of agree with what everyone else is pretty much saying I think it's more of an effort to make [2:01:47] it sustainable and if it works it's fine and it's just make the house newer and [2:01:52] remodeling [2:01:58] it okay uh so before I begin let me let me [2:02:06] start out by saying that right these are the worst kinds of things for us to review honestly as a Planning Commission [2:02:13] like a variance request that seems pretty trivial for for a homeowner [2:02:19] um you know I don't I didn't leave work today giddy at the chance to come and [2:02:24] potentially deny a homeowner the chance to reuse their Foundation right we know that's not what we're it's not what [2:02:30] we're about right um in fact I remember several months ago the same commission [2:02:36] reviewed a somewhat similar proposal where a resident wanted to add on to [2:02:42] their deck in their backyard um and it was going to increase their per [2:02:47] impermeable surface coverage by 1% I think maybe maybe less than that um and [2:02:54] we had a parade of residents come up in voice support and honestly I mean you know you're going to give work to [2:03:00] contractors you're going to allow for the resident to put a cover on their [2:03:05] deck and be able to spend more time out there host inner parties Etc right there's really no downside other than [2:03:11] the fact that they were less than 1% over their um percent you know permeable [2:03:18] surface requirement um but in deliberating that uh you know I remember [2:03:23] Mr Bornstein reminding us that planning commissions do get sued for things like this right and we have to look at this [2:03:29] from a legal standpoint um this is not the same obviously as adding a second [2:03:35] story onto a first onto a uh one story residence um the city was pretty clear [2:03:42] right so it was kind of odd to me that the way we presented this but in their findings right the city staff did [2:03:49] recommend denying deny of this variance um really saying they're able not able [2:03:56] to identify any practical difficulties preventing reasonable use of the property as a vacant lot which from a [2:04:03] legal definition this is according to the city we've torn down more than 50% of the structure we're building a quote [2:04:10] unquote new house and so it should then logically [2:04:15] follow the Setra requirements and zoning ordinances that we have in place um right we said the property is [2:04:22] not unique in size shape or location um it can be built in compliance with the zoning zoning ordinance uh it's just not [2:04:30] the preference of the applicant right so the city did did say that they deny the would deny this or recommend denial um [2:04:38] now you catch on the overall feeling of the room and really what I got from the same staff tonight was that nobody wants [2:04:45] to deny this variance um but we can't find sufficient findings of fact to say that we allow it to go through right and [2:04:52] so we tried to expound on what the Practical difficulty is and if I were a lawyer and I were going to sue the [2:04:58] Planning Commission I would say well so far we've said that we don't want to send concrete to the landfill um even [2:05:05] though we're tearing down the entire house and sending all the insulation and every other building materials to the [2:05:10] landfill and we don't want to spend and we think it's from an economic standpoint unreasonable to ask when the [2:05:18] cost of this not reusing the current Foundation is 10% of a c of the overall [2:05:23] construction cost which if it was a 70 to $80,000 expenditure to [2:05:29] reuse the existing Foundation or to put in a New Foundation the overall cost of [2:05:35] construction is $800,000 um so I mean so I said we don't [2:05:41] want to spend 70 to 80,000 for $800,000 new house and we [2:05:47] don't want to send concrete to the landfill and therefore that's that's practical difficulty enough [2:05:52] I have to say I don't think that's that's a good enough reason I don't think that's practic that what meets [2:05:58] practical difficulty again there's nothing unique to this lot in its size [2:06:03] it shape or location that says it can't be built I know it's an inconvenience I know we don't want to do it and again I [2:06:10] didn't come here tonight again giddy at the fact that I would potentially be able to deny a variance request for a [2:06:17] homeowner right that's not that's not what I have to do but from what I'm task to do as a planning commissioner is to [2:06:24] follow the the ordinances the way they're written and follow the variant request procedure as it's written and if [2:06:31] I go back to the training that we had you know from uh gentleman I can't [2:06:36] remember his name uh John Charlo right to me this would John charow would say [2:06:42] yeah I don't understand this is pretty easy uh this wouldn't meet our practical difficulty requirements [2:06:48] and really the considerations here are economic except for maybe putting some concrete in the landfill [2:06:56] so I I don't understand how we could deny unanimously the deck request under [2:07:03] from a legal standpoint and then somehow justify this one at the same [2:07:15] time so I mean people are going to vote to approve this that was clear before we even started talking um staff [2:07:22] recommended deny it but wants to to approve it that was kind of implied um I [2:07:28] you guys know I don't kind of really waffle too much the peer pressure um I thought about I can kind of feel the [2:07:34] tension on this one like I can kind of see how people are feeling like it should be approved and I think that's what's going to happen um but as I was [2:07:41] thinking through it I guess just had a couple points U without repeating what others have said one I don't view it as [2:07:46] a sustainability project um tearing down a home and putting in the trash um is an [2:07:53] unsustainable act that's a choice um I don't think the fact that some part of the basement could be saved makes an [2:07:59] unsustainable Choice sustainable um usually when we hear about tear Downs the environmental folks are really [2:08:06] concerned about the sustainability impacts of doing that when it's a perfectly good structure that could be [2:08:11] sold and a new one could be repurchased if it was too small so I just I'm I wasn't persuaded by the argument that [2:08:17] this is a sustainable Choice um and for that reason it's a practical difficult ulty that justifies a variance um I do [2:08:25] view it as a new home um under the law [2:08:30] and and for that reason because the choice to tear down a home and rebuild a [2:08:35] new one was voluntary I like staff wasn't able to find um a practic a [2:08:42] practical difficulty preventing compliance um as much as I kind of [2:08:47] understand the desire to keep to keep Foundation [2:08:52] so for those two reasons I think I'm going to lean towards [2:09:03] no um my recollection of [2:09:10] the deck project was that it was a floor coverage area of the entire lot it was [2:09:16] not a permeable they had taken off yes and um um and this project they're well [2:09:24] within the floor coverage area on the lot so they're this is just about the sidey [2:09:32] setbacks um and I agree that I think the [2:09:42] basement I agree with commissioner Pia that the basement is a practical [2:09:50] difficulty and and I do kind of worry though about the [2:09:58] president's set for this if if in my head if this project were flipped and if [2:10:05] the twostory was in the s.2 setback and the one story was on the [2:10:12] other side would I be comfortable as a neighbor having a two-story [2:10:18] building so I if there so I think I [2:10:24] think if there were another house in this neighborhood it was a similar kind of situation and and there may be a [2:10:31] few you didn't mention commissioner AER um that if the if there were two [2:10:38] stories that were farther away from that 10- foot setback that would make me anxious um [2:10:45] but in this situation what we do do as um the pl uh planning commission is [2:10:52] approved variants for setbacks and so I'm I'm leaning towards approving this [2:10:59] just because of the way this was designed on the site and part of me was thinking [2:11:05] earlier you know the second floor the structure could have certainly been set back just a little bit to kind of [2:11:11] conform to that set back but it's only 3 in so and we've we've approved those in war [2:11:18] side for um for other setback [2:11:25] variances um so for me this was a a no-brainer and uh easy approval and I [2:11:32] guess I'll give a little context I spent my childhood in Oldtown Portsmouth Virginia where some of the houses were [2:11:38] built in the 1700s and then I spent a portion of my adulthood living right outside of Alexandria Virginia where the [2:11:45] houses go back to the 1700s and they have similar language about preserving [2:11:50] exterior facades tied to the definition of a new building if money were No Object I am [2:11:59] sure that there is a way and perhaps that was their original plan was to keep the first floor and they just need some [2:12:04] more space so they're going to add a second floor they're not Structural Engineers they're not contractors so [2:12:10] they went and I hired someone who my guess is because they're keeping the same floor plate said basically you [2:12:16] can't just add a second story to what's there but if money were no object they could vacate the house prop up each [2:12:24] facade add a second story to the non-conforming footprint and then reside [2:12:29] or whatever the whole thing and that's what people do in the historic districts they prop up the brick facade and then [2:12:34] do whatever the heck they want behind it because it's not a new build because they've preserved the exterior wall I [2:12:42] think it's semantics at the end result it's they bought a home they wanted to add on top [2:12:48] of that home and they are non-conforming variances currently but they're not [2:12:54] exacerbating those in any ways they just want more bedrooms more space for your poor Office to me um how they get their [2:13:02] most cost effectively is um not my job to decide um but I do feel like a 10% [2:13:09] project increase to do something that doesn't get us to a different result [2:13:15] seems um burdensome of the city for no particular end result result there is a [2:13:22] way to do exactly what they want if money were no object and not [2:13:28] have it considered a new build so I think we're we're playing a little word [2:13:34] game personally yeah [2:13:40] sure yeah I'd like to uh address commissioner felt's comment about precedence because I thought about that [2:13:48] too um but then I thought about you know um like like lot size and lot shape so [2:13:57] just because so a lot that's triangular or a lot that's at the end of a block you know a corner lot especially morning [2:14:04] side in our neighborhood you know it's very hard to build on by by current City Rules so but the thing is not any end [2:14:13] not any corner lot and not any triangular lot gets a variance right if it's large enough for whatever reason um [2:14:20] it has to be a corner lot or a triangular lot that causes an actual you [2:14:26] know uh difficulty and I think in this case the the foundation you know and [2:14:33] again as commissioner anaman said you know what are we getting for like completely tearing this down and [2:14:40] completely redoing it you know we're getting 4 Ines or whatever because the one side of the [2:14:45] building isn't changing in height at all so and if they did add to it they would have to come back to us and then we could deny it because then it would be [2:14:53] taller um so for all those reasons you know I think precedent isn't something [2:14:59] very simple it's something complicated that's why I said before that there's a lot of little details about this that make this that make me want to vote the [2:15:06] way that I do and as uh commissioner Aly said if they do not end up using reusing [2:15:13] the foundation then my opinion changes completely [2:15:19] so all right so clearly we have a split in opinion [2:15:24] here and I think that alone um illustrates the need to revisit this particular regulation that's put upon [2:15:32] our residents because I think we all would agree we want to encourage the ReUse of something that [2:15:39] could be reused right I mean and I can see where City staff you know by law and [2:15:44] by the setbacks set forth like they can't support this by law but in [2:15:51] variance and anything else we do have discretion uh that's that is the that is [2:16:00] the tool we can use here and at least the discretion I see can support this [2:16:06] one the use is reasonable the Practical difficulty isn't to illustrate that nothing else [2:16:13] could be put to use on the site besides this it's to say that to comply with the [2:16:19] ordinance creates a practical difficulty and that is to reuse this existing [2:16:26] Foundation doesn't comply so I mean to me that is the pra practical difficulty [2:16:32] at hand and that's part of what makes this lot unique it has a structure that's noncompliant on [2:16:39] it then does it disrupt the character of the neighborhood no so I I don't know it [2:16:44] it seems straightforward to me um I think even from a legal perspective I think the we would watch out for this on [2:16:52] the other side from the standpoint that there is a strong argument that you [2:16:59] could make that if you had 49% of a house removed that you have a vacant lot I [2:17:06] don't think that would be really upheld in a court of law either uh some of the Practical [2:17:12] difficulty with taking it out is the risk you put upon neighboring site so [2:17:18] removing Foundation disrupting soils and activity to the ground only increases the chance of [2:17:27] disruption to neighbors as well as impairing or impeding or changing the [2:17:32] flow of water during the process or after so I mean there's a lot of logical [2:17:37] like pieces that I think we can support on this but we do have discretion and I think it's worthwhile to use it here to [2:17:44] support this so it's kind of where I feel where I land in support but it's [2:17:49] pretty evident that we should revisit this because I think anyone logically could if you have less than 50% of your [2:17:57] house removed like that's a vacant lot that something's wrong there and we need [2:18:02] to we need to correct that so I think that's something residents who might be looking [2:18:09] at this you know you can count on us to revisit that um because I can see both [2:18:15] sides here um and we should we should be encouraging this type of reuse not [2:18:21] discouraging it which is how you know at least commissioner D and borine are presenting if you stick to it it's [2:18:28] discouraging the ReUse of something noncompliance so any other comments [2:18:39] questions I just think I I appreciate all that I think sticking to denial [2:18:44] discourages the tear down of perfect of the tear down of perfectly good [2:18:50] structures and encourages the ReUse of the ReUse of the part of the home that [2:18:56] you're that you're living in it's not mean to argue just I view it I view the [2:19:01] same issue differently so but it's good this is this is what I love about this group is it it's always a good debate [2:19:07] it's a thoughtful discussion to reconsider it it's interesting and it raises it it really raises some [2:19:13] interesting questions about the statutes and the laws that were entrusted with interpreting and applying so I mean I [2:19:18] appreciate your comments yeah no I I appre appreciate yours too I I think there is that magic number that Chris [2:19:24] alluded to that got added you know the 50% and that's just like you know if you [2:19:30] keep less than 50% of your house isn't it still you know responsible versus 10% [2:19:37] versus 5% versus 90 compared to a complete teardown rebuild there is [2:19:43] probably some magic to a number there um and currently the [2:19:49] 50% seems it says 50% of the exterior like to your point what is a house it's [2:19:55] more than just four exterior walls that's just what you see from the outside so how that definition works [2:20:02] is allows you to to do a complete remodel [2:20:07] but keep an appearance of um the outside [2:20:13] to the exterior good point other comments questions yeah I [2:20:21] mean I you know I can read obviously read the room in terms of you know where the deis is going [2:20:28] um will always articulates better than I do in terms of the differences in terms [2:20:33] of how we're interpreting these things right and that's I mean that's really I'm trying to get to the same point is [2:20:39] it you know agree in terms of encouraging uh tear downs and I just from I mean [2:20:48] semantics but semantics are interpreted differently by everybody else by by everyone [2:20:53] um you know I as I Was preparing for this I tried to look and see if we had presidents in a Dina uh and there really [2:20:59] wasn't much but I did come across something in in Minneapolis where a house had actually burnt to the ground [2:21:04] to the foundation and they requested to rebuild on that existing Foundation um [2:21:10] and basically continue non-conforming um setback requirements [2:21:15] and they were denied uh even though they had even though the house burnt down through no fault of their own they were [2:21:21] not allowed to rebuild on that existing Foundation now obviously this isn't as extreme of a of a case but when [2:21:29] I looked at all the legal basically justification that they made right it informed my decision and I doesn't don't [2:21:36] think it pays for me to go through that entire extremely in length document that univ that the City of Minneapolis [2:21:42] produced um but you know it's it's essentially at the end of the day I guess I'll sum it up as agree to [2:21:48] disagree right in terms of legal hurdles here and I will [2:21:54] reiterate because there's no way to come out of this and not look at it this way but do not willingly volunteer my team [2:22:03] time as a member of the Planning Commission looking forward to trying to deny variances for homeowners right that's certainly not what it's what [2:22:10] we're trying to do here don't look forward to that I don't look forward to saying no I own a home I would hope that [2:22:16] I would be able to use it in the manner that I see fit to right but we are task with with you know discretion legal [2:22:23] right we'll argue over those we'll argue over those things if the if legal interpretations were straightforward [2:22:30] then Supreme Court would always go 90 and you know things like that right [2:22:35] so it is what it is I I would still maintain my same vote but again I can I can understand other people's [2:22:42] perspectives um and I you know I don't there's no ill will towards the applicant or anything like that by any [2:22:48] means so no offense will what he said oh no no ill [2:22:57] will so can I can I motion to close yeah motion close well no it's Clos we [2:23:04] someone needs a motion to approve or deny not close [2:23:09] Okay so do we have a motion to approve or deny motion to approve second let's [2:23:16] just do a roll call vote hold on this is if I may add based on the city's the [2:23:23] staff's list of requirements right that's yeah I think that's assumed in [2:23:29] yes well we need to say that though right yeah it's approval based on [2:23:34] staff's recommendations motion to approve based on staff's recommend re [2:23:41] requirs they recommended denial so the conditions for approval the [2:23:46] conditions okay motion to approve the the variance based on the [2:23:53] city's conditions for [2:23:59] approval second let's do a roll call vote starting with commissioner [2:24:05] elire hi I [2:24:12] Sor I commissioner Pia I commissioner Smith [2:24:20] I I commissioner Day N commissioner Bornstein I commissioner phelp I [2:24:26] commissioner hanaman I chair Bennett I motion carries the variance has been [2:24:34] approved congratulations good luck in your project Council oh yeah city council for this [2:24:41] one [2:24:53] thank you all right moving to reports and recommendations this is a new one to [2:25:00] me um co-chair situation chair situation [2:25:06] for small area plan working groups we'll just let Addison take it away here thank [2:25:11] you chair Commissioners um so it was in December of 2023 that this commission selected Commissioners Miranda day and [2:25:19] Fel to serve as the the co-chairs of the working group for the Lincoln and London area small area plan um but after some [2:25:26] um further review of our boarding commission guidelines particularly with respect to working groups and chair [2:25:33] selection um looks like there's only supposed to be one chair from the commission um the guidelines say that [2:25:40] the chosen chair May select a co-chair who is a non-commission member so [2:25:46] tonight we're here to ask you to formally select one of the three working group members to serve as the chair um [2:25:53] the other two would continue to serve on the working group um but only one would serve as the chair um so I think the [2:26:00] three of them have some some thoughts to share with you all and some ideas of who that should be so I'll turn it back to the commission for discussion just quick [2:26:08] question do you know any of the history of when those guidelines were put in place I just asked cuz I was a co-chair [2:26:15] with the fellow planning commissioner as well I think they've been in place for a little bit and and yeah there has been [2:26:21] some history of having multiple co-chairs from the commission um I just want residents to not think we're just [2:26:28] doing something totally different kind of following suit with what's been done before so well right um we have chosen [2:26:34] multiple chairs from the Commission in the past but I think going forward we should make it a habit to just have one [2:26:40] chair from the commission and then if there is a desire to have a co-chair it could be a non-commission thank you for bringing to [2:26:47] our attention yeah what do you got yeah just a quick question to add on to this what's the difference between a chair in [2:26:54] and a co-chair in this scenario um well there wouldn't really be um they just sort of serve in a [2:27:00] leadership role so whether it's kind of taking a more active speaking role at public meetings um kind of being [2:27:07] involved in some of the behind the scenes um conversations directly with staff and the consultant um the chair or [2:27:13] co-chairs are typically involved in that when um the other working group members are not so it's not like U you have a [2:27:20] veto voting power or something like that it's just who's the accountable person that I need to call who's running this project that's the chair and any [2:27:27] co-chairs I just see supporting members [2:27:34] correct any other questions here do we want to [2:27:39] just just get right to it yeah get right to it I'm sure you co-chairs [2:27:48] have well we didn't discuss okay amongst ourselves but I think it's pretty [2:27:53] foregone conclusion at this point I mean to be fair the person most familiar with [2:27:58] the process and the person that's been most engaged and um has been you know taken the lead so [2:28:06] far has been commissioner Miranda and so I think that makes sense as a choice for a chair um and I you know I'll say up [2:28:15] front that I appreciate the um initiative that you've taken and and um [2:28:21] the experience that you have with this process so I think it'd be a great [2:28:30] chair Addison and I talked about this the other day I actually think it's a gift not to be chair so I'm happy to be [2:28:37] part of the working group and you know uh learn a lot about the process um I do [2:28:45] appreciate the learning and the conversations that go into this and I think some then we're going to be [2:28:51] uncomfortable and difficult conversations but I am happy to be part of the working [2:28:57] group we're glad that you'll take all of that as a lightning [2:29:02] rod I will say one of the things we talked about and why we picked three chairs was specifically for schedule to [2:29:10] always have a planning commissioner kind of be able to be the lead at these small a plan working [2:29:17] groups like I remember that was kind of the basis for it so it it seemed like a commendable reason to even have more [2:29:23] than one but three so it's like perfect we're good to go um sounds like this is [2:29:29] pretty unanimous unless uh Lou is no no but I wasn't going to vote against [2:29:35] myself but um but just to bring up you're talking about people [2:29:41] uh uh making up for somebody not being there I mean just like with this with [2:29:46] the Planning Commission you know if the chair can't be there then somebody replaces the chair for that meeting or [2:29:51] whatever so I mean we'll never be leaderless or you know whatever so but [2:29:57] yeah you know working on the be on the commission for six years and you know [2:30:02] working on the uh comprehensive plan with you guys and then being resident on the 44th in France malaria plan you know [2:30:10] I have a lot of experience with this so I feel very comfortable doing this thank you makes sense so I guess [2:30:17] just next steps I mean I guess it'd be up to you to kind of eventually identify [2:30:24] a co-chair that might not serve on the commission but I just encourage you to take their input as to selecting who [2:30:30] that might be otherwise I think we just need to make a motion make this [2:30:35] final right it says select one motion to select one member to serve as coach [2:30:42] every make okay yeah I'll make a motion uh to select laranda as chair of the [2:30:48] Lincoln and lonary small area working group second all those in favor say I I [2:30:55] oppose all right motion carries congratulations [2:31:02] maybe all right so now to chair and member [2:31:09] comments open open it to anyone who has any [2:31:14] comments commiss elare just really quickly uh Carrie will have sent to to [2:31:20] all of you a one-pager project plan for parking so Claire and Ryan and I would [2:31:25] like to have any feedback that you have uh just take a look at it tell us [2:31:32] what you think and then I suppose another status [2:31:40] item is the uh uh areas of potential change uh committee that we have um and [2:31:48] we had our fourth and uh final in-person meeting uh yesterday [2:31:53] actually and um so we are uh individually writing out parts of [2:32:00] that to uh uh put a complete docu I'll put a [2:32:05] complete document together from the input from the other members of the commission or committee and um we have [2:32:13] uh want to have that done by uh early January or early June and um we'll [2:32:18] present that to the plan Planning Commission as a whole and then uh once it's approved or modified or whatever [2:32:25] then uh probably a month later we'll submit it to the city council so we're thinking [2:32:31] um uh July to present it to the Planning Commission and and August to present it to the city [2:32:39] council thank you Mr Smith yeah you know uh just two quick [2:32:46] points really um I just want to give uh I went out to the uh [2:32:52] Edina uh.org mn.gov I'm sorry uh site and saw some [2:32:59] really good content about adus I think it's a great page so thank you Addison for putting up um that content on the [2:33:07] team for building that out it looks really nice um I still think though we need to think about how do we you know [2:33:14] maybe have some more forums for residents to engage and learn more about it I think the content is there but you [2:33:20] know maybe we should do some educational things so I'll set up some time with uh director Teague and Planet Addison to [2:33:27] just brainstorm through some options of what what can we do practically that would help residents even learn more about it I know some folks in my [2:33:33] neighborhood have been asking questions and was curious but I just want to think about how could we pull them in more uh [2:33:40] that's the first one I think on the second one you know at the at the end of our last uh discussion um some really [2:33:48] good insightful ideas I love the collabor ation that we have and I think you know every time we have these [2:33:54] meetings right where a variance comes when I when I think about the role of the city right the city is looking at [2:34:01] what's the law say and check the boxes if you make it or if you don't make it and then they make their decision but in [2:34:08] residents they want to roll the dice right they want to say you know what I'm going to take it to the Planning Commission to see if I can get a variance on this thing and depending on [2:34:15] the makeup of this body and and and and how we view the world right we may [2:34:20] either come out with like a split decision or a consensus on something [2:34:26] right and I think you know residents have to kind of like understand what [2:34:32] commission they have now what are the odds of the VAR variance passing based [2:34:37] on how we we look at the world right and I think we've already kind of seen a [2:34:42] little bit how some of us think about variances right we want to stick close to it and others a little bit more [2:34:48] flexible and so residents have to kind of balance that when they bring their ideas forward [2:34:54] right all that is to say I think that's how the process supposed to work I think a commission like ours we do have the [2:35:00] ability to to not just look at what the laws say but factoring all these other things [2:35:06] that we're trying to achieve and then come up with a a response that's helpful right so it's not always going to be [2:35:12] follow the books that's what you do it's going to be okay tell me more tell me more about what you're trying to achieve [2:35:18] what are we trying to you know what's the difficult I think that's just kind of how this body is supposed to work but [2:35:24] what I do appreciate is all collaboration so I think at the end having this less deliberate process I [2:35:32] think that's good right CU I I learn a ton from from everybody here on how they [2:35:37] look at it over time my my perspectives either solidify in some areas and soften [2:35:42] up in some other areas and so I think it's just a good process and and and I think we're doing what we're supposed to [2:35:52] so I kind of build I Mayan build off that but it just brings to mind what I was going to say next really um so I I [2:36:00] attended the city council meeting last night which is I do every once in a while just to kind of get a lay of the land and see how things see how those [2:36:07] things proceed uh plus to be honest we always get a lot more resident feedback in City Council meetings than we do in [2:36:13] Planning Commission meeting so it's always interesting to hear what the community has to say um unfortunately [2:36:18] one part of what we had last night with which I don't know if anybody watched the city council meeting but there was a [2:36:24] contentious uh back and forth in exchange around the the henerson development and it kind of dovetailed [2:36:30] and there was a resident that was was very frustrated uh with the zoning code uh and somewhat I'll say you know [2:36:38] unfairly verbally attacked uh Carrie Teague and the point and the point made [2:36:44] uh sorry I don't mean to laugh but you call it you know Carri teags zoning or [2:36:49] orces or zoning code right and you know the mayor was was well to remind the the [2:36:55] um resident that the zoning code is not owned by K Teague it's owned by the city of Adina right and it's informed by many [2:37:02] more people than car than K Teague um it's informed by the D City staff it's informed by the people you know on this [2:37:09] commission and I see this sometimes and so I never [2:37:15] really respond but I see it on different forums right that city council packs the planning commission with a bunch of like-minded individuals that are turned [2:37:22] into work towards a certain goal um if you watch our just our variance discussion tonight you can see that we [2:37:28] don't necessarily agree on uh everything uh we have a very very very diff diverse [2:37:35] set of opinions right that work to formulate these things we all come from very different backgrounds uh you know [2:37:41] just really different life experiences different professions Etc so the you know the way that we enforce zoning here [2:37:47] isn't owned by any one person right and I think it it pays it it just obviously [2:37:53] seeing that last night was a little was a little jarring um and it's good to remind again our residents that right [2:38:00] input isn't just from one city staff member it's residents of the community it's us it's the mayor it's the rest of [2:38:06] the city council right we're all part of this discussion and we all have very [2:38:11] very different opinions on a lot of different things right so we're not systematically working to frustrate residents or destroy any one part of a [2:38:18] Dina um so anyways there's that uh other two [2:38:24] things so both um the thought two other things that stood out to me last night was that they Pro [2:38:30] claimed uh both National Police Week and National Public Works [2:38:36] um week so two really vital services in the city of Adina um that I'm extremely [2:38:42] thankful for and you know I think don't maybe get enough a week isn't really [2:38:47] enough to commemorate these people uh you know Public Works you really take for granted [2:38:53] sometimes you just turn your faucet on you get clean water right or if a pipe breaks and freezes in the middle of winter they come and fix it immediately [2:39:00] um so you know very grateful to them very grateful to our police um even if [2:39:06] they've pulled me over for an expired tab once uh they're still great they still really appreciate the work that [2:39:11] they do um and part of their Proclamation you know was was pretty jarring and as far as far as the police [2:39:17] week goes um we talked about the number of assaults against law enforcement officers and the fact that unfortunately [2:39:24] uh 282 new names were added to the Fallen Hero um national law enforcement [2:39:29] memorial this spring so it's you know it can sometimes be a thankless job it's certainly risk not going to home and [2:39:35] your family at night um and so I'm glad that they're getting recognition at least for that week um along with our [2:39:40] Public's works so [2:39:50] so an invitation to the all the residents our open the open house for the small area plan is June [2:39:59] 11th yes so um you know they six residents and three [2:40:07] Commissioners on the working group but this is an opportunity for everybody to [2:40:12] participate and um give us feedback and talk to staff and talk to men and [2:40:20] um talk to us and talk to their fellow Neighbors about Lincoln and London [2:40:33] dery what time is it I do know you stole my thunder that was it was going to be [2:40:39] um yeah so the workshop will be the evening of June 11th 5:30 to 7:30 at Walnut Ridge Park um we will ask people [2:40:47] to RSVP we should have a a option to RSVP on the Better Together page up tomorrow um again better [2:40:54] together.org and if you go to all projects look for Lincoln and London Dair small area plan you'll find [2:41:04] it just going to say all these comments remind me you know this team puts in a [2:41:10] lot of extra work beyond their professions and their own work and their day-to-day and the other fun things they [2:41:17] could be doing at night so thank you to everyone here for your service I mean it's it's incredible the things that we [2:41:24] can do together and the changes that we have made for instance since our last meeting you talked about adus that did [2:41:30] get approved so there there's good changes that are happening and it's all because of you know your service as well [2:41:38] as you know the input from the residents to get us kind of better aligned toward a better future [2:41:44] so as you're saying all that I'm like man it is incredible the team we have up here truly so thank you I was just going [2:41:51] to Echo whether you're ping something or denying something the none of us show up [2:41:57] to disagree intentionally not either with each other or the residents and so [2:42:02] that does take a lot from us and so um I just wanted to recognize that not only [2:42:08] are we volunteering we're volunteering to make some tough conversations great [2:42:15] Point staff comments head shakes like that all right [2:42:21] last step adjournment motion to adjourn second all those in favor say I so moved [2:42:28] meeting is been a journ wooo oh [2:42:48] man [2:43:18] e e