All right. How's everyone doing tonight? Great. Go Wolves. Let's go. Okay. So, welcome everybody to the May 28th, 2025 city vina planning commission meeting. On behalf of the rest of the commission, we are grateful you are here. to those in person and those tuning in remotely. Say it every time, but your curiosity, your feedback, and your participation is vital to this process as we navigate change together here in Nidina, specifically regarding the ways in which we'd like to use our land. So, we are committed to hearing your feedback. The best way to get that to us and to participate in that process is through the city's engagement website, which is ww.betto better together.org. You can track upcoming developments, current ones or past ones. If the the comment period's open, you can share your feedback and that gets to us. If you send an email, it gets to us and we commit to listening to that and considering it as we make decisions for recommend for recommend recommending approval or denial with our public hearings. On that note, we have two public hearings tonight and uh I'll touch on the best ways to get involved in that to testify whether you're in person or tuning in remotely. Once we get to that, there's some numbers you can call. Um run you through the agenda so you know what to expect for tonight. We'll start with a call to order, then a roll call, followed by the approval of tonight's meeting agenda. Then the prior meetings minutes and then we have our community comment period which is your chance for anyone who's here in person to uh testify about any matter not on tonight's agenda. So any issues, concerns, things you're happy with, you have three minutes to do so and you just come up to either podium, share your full name, your address. After that, similar process for the public hearing. I'll get into that later. And then we wrap it up with chair member comments, staff comments, and adjournment. So, without further ado, we'll call the meeting to order. And then roll call. Commissioner Alky here. Commissioner Pidilla here. Commissioner Smith here. Commissioner Day here. Commissioner Bournestein here. Commissioner Felt here. Commissioner Honaman here. Chair Bennett here. All right, we're all here. Next, we have the approval of tonight's meeting agenda. If there's no proposed changes, I'd welcome a motion. Motion to approve tonight's agenda. Second. All those in favor say I. I. So moved. Next, we have the approval of the prior meeting minutes from May 14th. Similar thing. Motion to approve the prior meeting minutes. Second. All those in favor say I. I. So moved. All right. Next, we have the community comment period. As I mentioned, for those who are here in person, if you'd like to testify about any matter not on tonight's agenda, you can come up. You have three minutes to do say do so. State say your full name, your address, and uh light turns green, go. When it turns red, we'll ask you to wrap up your comments. Anyone here for community comment? Seeing only smiles and no one racing up, we'll move on from that. So, next we have our public hearings. As I mentioned, we have two. Uh so, what to expect for these? Uh if if you're new to this process, if you want to do something with your land that doesn't quite conform to the code, uh you put an application to vary from that. staff looks into it, puts together some facts and findings that comprise a staff report. They consult other commissions, engineering departments, etc. back and forth with the applicant. Staff then provides some guidance as to whether they support it or not with, you know, conditions of approval or denial. They put all this together into a presentation that you'll see tonight. So, planner Oer will present on this. Uh then we'll allow we'll actually just turn it right over to the applicant to provide their own presentation and then after that we'll have a question and answer period between the planning commission staff and the applicant. After that point we will open it to a public hearing which is your chance to testify about the matter. Similar to the community comment period you have three minutes to do so. So, just come up to either podium and then for those tuning in remotely, just hold tight. Once we get to that point, I will give you a phone number and some passwords to jump into the queue to speak uh virtually. After the commu after the public hearing is closed, then we bring it back to the planning commission to deliberate and then we provide a recommendation for approval or denial. So, with that, planner action, take it away. Thank you. Chair, members of the U commission, this is a front yard setback variance request for three variances at 7202 Shannon Drive. The subject property is highlighted in blue. It is a corner lot. It is at the south west corner of Valley View Road and Shannon Drive. The variances include a 190.34 foot north frontyard setback variance from the 264.24 foot requirement for a new home to be located 93.9 ft from the Lee Valley Road rightway and an 87.88 88 ft east front yard setback variance from the 140.9 ft requirement for for a new home to be located at 52.9 ft from Shannon Drive and a 205 ft front yard setback variance from the 264.24 ft north setback requirement for a pool placeholder to be built 59 ft from the north lot line along Lee Valley Road. The free three variances are necessary given the applicant of the street setback requirement on the lot prohibits building location and pool at 7202 Shannon Drive. And I will explain that. So this is the original plat on the left. The subject lot is highlighted in pink. The ho the lat lot to the west is yellow and the lot to the south is purple. So this was the original plat um to be developed with homes. And then over time you can see that the pink lot which is a subject lot now has um a rearranged lot uh next to it which had been part of the purple lot. And then the yellow lot also had some lot line rearrangements. So it's it's the configuration is quite different than the original plat. and two new homes have been built on those two lots. The one in particular that affects this property is the purple lot that has now frontage along Lee Valley Road and also frontage along Shannon Drive. So that affects the setbacks of the subject property along Lee Valley and Shannon. Technically, according to the ordinance, the new home is supposed to meet the setbacks that the home on 5901 Lee Valley has from Shannon and also Lee Valley, which um are deeper than the actual lot and um any sort of redevelopment on the property does require a variance. So, this is the subject home as it currently exists on the property. was built many years ago before the current homes that were built um well behind it actually along uh Lee Valley. This is the survey of the existing conditions of the property showing that existing home. It's a very very large lot. It's about 1.22 acres in area. And then this is what they would like to replace that house with. And the red line from the Lee Valley right ofway to this corner of the house is the setback that's required from Lee Valley for the subject property. And then also the red line here from the closest point of that home at um that addresses off of Lee Valley um that affects the the setback along Shannon Drive for the subject property. So, um this is the house that they are proposing to build. It will be fronting Shannon Drive as does the existing house. And then, um they are asking for a variance for a placeholder for the pool. They don't know if they're going to build a pool or not, but they wanted to be upfront with you to show what their intention was and to request that setback so that if they decide to build that pool, they don't have to come back to the planning commission, ask for an additional variance because what will happen is if they do want additional improvements that were not part of this variance, they would have to come back and request an additional variance. So this is the compliance table. Um all other portions of the project um are well within the ordinance requirements. The south sideyard setback minimum standard is 10 feet. The proposed is over 64 feet. The rear yard setback required is 25. They're at over 85 ft. The building coverage is less than 10%. The hard cover is just a little over 20% and the building height maximum um allowed would be 40 feet and they're they're going to be at 31 feet. So the area that requires the variances again are along that north frontage and the east frontage and they're all based on the house that is um at 5901 which has property that just wraps the western and southern portion of the lot. So, here are the building elevations that are proposed, the front, side, and um additional elevations. This will show you a rendering. Typically, we would ask for a rendering showing the house in context with the homes on either side. That was really difficult. They couldn't actually have this house shown along with the street renderings be because you can't see it. It's so far back. Um, you'll notice that the house adjacent to 5901 that is also along Lee Valley that was built or rebuilt on that lot line rearrangement is also very far back which ultimately does affect the setbacks of adjacent properties. So this is the rendering perspective looking northeast from Shannon Drive front of the house. And then again, if you're looking southwest from Shannon Drive and then at the intersection of Shannon and Lee Valley and then a perspective looking southeast from the neighbor um access from Lee Valley Road and then a perspective looking East. So the primary issue Minnesota state statutes requires that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Um that the proposed variance will be in harmony and in general purpose and intent of the ordinance. Staff does believe that to be true. The purpose and intent of the front yard setback requirement is to provide consistent minimum spacing from a structure to a lot line adjacent to the street. However, the city code is dependent on the location of neighboring homes. So, deeper setbacks from the street can affect the property's opportunity for development, and this is a situation where it is affected. Um the property at 5901 Lee Valley uh wraps the um entire parcel and affects both street frontages for this subject property. Um the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Yes, the comprehensive plan guides the property for lowdensity residential. Principal use of the property will still remain a single dwelling unit and the property will remain zoned R1. Are there practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance? The term practical difficulties um means that the that will it be used in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. Um the proposed use is permitted in the R1 zoning district and complies with all of the zoning zoning ordinance with the exception of of the setbacks um from the street frontages which um are they are unable to be complied with. that the plight of the land owner is due to circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to similarly zoned properties and that are not self-created. Yes, the property is proposed to be developed with a front yard setback closer to the front lot line than currently allowed given the neighbor's setback. The property is severely affected by the setback requirement which is not self-created by the applicant. It's actually a result of over time the um lot line rearrangement and then the homes that were built at a later date. Uh specifically the one at 5901 Lee Valley that was built in 2003 with will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. Uh granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicants are hoping to complement the neighborhood with a home that fits the unique lot and surrounding properties. Staff does recommend approval of the 190.34 and 205 foot front yard setback variances from the north lot line and the 87.88 ft east setback variance for a tearown rebuild and pool placement holder at 7202 Shannon Drive. Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested subject to the findings listed in the staff report and subject to the following conditions. The survey date stamped April 28th, 2025. Elevations and building plans dates stamped April 28th, 2025. Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the environmental engineers memo. And compliance with the tree ordinance app permit. Um there was one comment on the better together site. It was not supportive. Um it indicated that city has codes for a reason. Um and we do have I believe Josh Seagull who is the applicant present. Um and with that I will stop and answer any questions you may have. Thank you Chris. Yeah. Usually we don't have variances with that high of numbers, but I think you did a good job of explaining why this is needed. Beautiful looking project. We're going to offer up the applicant the chance to either give a presentation or just simply stand for question and answers, whatever you'd like to do. Come forward, state your full name, address, and tell us why we should support this. Great. Thanks, Chris. Uh, my name is Joshua Seagull. I'm at 5414 Washburn Avenue South currently. Uh I think at first it seems like the variance uh has extreme numbers. Uh but it's a very large very large lot. It's a very unique site in a very unique neighborhood. Um over time well this home the original home I think was built in 57. The two adjacent properties were built in 2003 and 2012. Um, it's very unique with tall trees, greenery, hills, culde-sacs. Um, it's really an atypical situation. Um, we wanted the home placement to be least impactful to the neighbor that would be the closest, which is 5901 Lee Valley, excuse me. And by doing so, we pulled this home forward a little bit. Uh, it still meets the averages in the neighborhood. We've provided some details, some surveys of existing homes off Lee Valley, off Shannon, off Trey Lee. Uh if you take out the outlier behind us, we're actually less than the average um of all the homes and I can provide a report. Actually, it should be in the findings. Um but I'd be happy to answer questions, share more um and you know, I'm happy to be here and happy to answer anything. So, thank you very much. Yeah. So, I guess open it to other commissioners if you have any questions for staff or the applicant. Chris, am I am I understanding correctly that because of that access road to 5901 Lee Valley, the property 7202 Shannon is almost is is unbuildable because the setback is actually bigger than the property itself. That's correct. So, um, how how could this have been done differently so that in the future we wouldn't find a condition like this? I guess it it's not reasonable to make a property unbuildable by the code. So, is it because that access road is privately owned and it's like I'm I guess as we look at our code and think about our very complicated setback rules, do we have thoughts on how this could have been structured a little bit differently, I guess? Yes. That has been one of the more frustrating codes that we've had to deal with over time because a property is developed based on the setbacks of homes on either side and they could be much further back. They could be redeveloped much further back. Lot lines can be rearranged just like in this situation if it were just a simple number that you could work with like 30 feet. All homes have the right to go 30 feet for a front yard setback. You wouldn't be in this situation unless they wanted to get closer than 30 feet. So, if there is a minimum setback standard where you're not relying on what has occurred or what will occur has or going to occur next to it, um then it would be much easier. But I don't think anybody envisioned that this would be an issue when you create code like this. And presumably at some point 5905 the owner acquired additional land and reconfigured the parcels. The two lots they didn't create a third lot. It was just reconfiguring both parcels. And for whatever reason maybe I mean you drive through there and there's a lot of different um uh there's it's very hilly. I don't know if the condition on that property at 5901 um if they decided to have that flag lot portion connecting with Lee Valley because it was easier or better to get their driveway off of that instead of Shannon. I don't know. But there wasn't anything preventing them from doing that. It just um it does affect this property though. And um sorry, last question. When we do uh revisions of lot lines like this um as part of the process are setbacks evaluated uh typically not we when we're looking at lot reconfigurations we this was done a long time ago so I I don't know all the details of it but we're typically looking at you're not creating a lot that's becomes non-conforming like this flag lot does. So I believe there's protections in the current code that may prevent this flag lot kind of situation. Got it. Thank you. Good questions. Any others? All right. Thank you. Thank you. So, we have uh this is a public hearing, so now is a time we'll open it to that. So, for those tuning in remotely to participate, please call the following number. It should pop up on your screen, too. 3125358110 and enter access code 2863106 4220. Then enter password 5454 and press star three on your keypad to get in the queue to speak. Uh we'll wait for you to do that. There's about a one minute lag between now and um what people are seeing. So we'll open it to people who are here in person that'd like to testify. So while those virtually are getting in the queue to speak if they're there uh this is a public hearing to those who are here also. So similarly you have 3 minutes uh just come up to either podium state your full name address. When the light turns green you your time begins. When it turns red we'll ask you to wrap up your comments. Is anyone here in person that'd like to testify for this public hearing? See some shaking of heads. So, no, it's probably been 30 seconds, maybe another 20 seconds or so, and I think we can move on. So, no one's in the queue currently. Okay, so we'll just give it another 15 seconds or so, so just bear with us. We don't have elevator music yet. It has been a minute since you started talking about the online queue and I think we're safe to proceed. Thanks. Guess I welcome a motion to close the public hearing. Motion to close the public hearing. Second. All those in favor say I. I. I. So moved. Public hearing is closed. All right. We bring it back to the planning commission to deliberate. I guess in my time being here, I don't remember seeing numbers so extreme, but also not seeing a lot completely unbuildable. This is a very unique situation. I'd welcome a motion unless there's any other further discussion. Yeah, I think we, you know, uh for the purpose of of residents, you know, it's it's always good, I think, to just talk it through, you know, rationalize through it. Um for me, this is a a clear case where a variance would be required. uh when we look at a lot like this and I'm so happy that uh we saw the images of what was the platting prior and the platting now cuz then you could get a sense of how things change over time that then made this lot uh much more difficult to build on given the zoning code that we have which looks at the averages across the adjacent properties right the setback averages um so for me you know when I Think about this one, right? Clearly 7202 was built first in the original platting in 57 and then for reasons that we are not super clear about yet, but one plausible reason is access to the home on a hilly area 5901 and the adjacent property then reconfigured the plot and the uh lot lines to make it more convenient to live in their spot, right? And that's what I think probably happened. But by doing that, it then made the adjacent property setbacks so much more extreme that if uh 7202 wanted to rebuild and do something different, it would be a non-conforming type of space. Right? That's how my brain is kind of thinking through the the the movement of this. Um and so coming to the planning commission for variance to make a change especially since the applicant does have averages of the other homes in the in the area that doesn't you know have these outliers next to it. I think that's that's very positive regarding the city code. Um yeah you know this city code definitely comes up a lot for us right where we're looking at averages all the time. having a minimum lot setback. There's pros and cons to that because Edina has a city where if you go more on the east side, the lots are smaller and if you go more to the west side, the lots are much larger, right? So then you might have to be thinking about minimum lot setbacks depending on which part of the city in you're you're in. And so that could be tricky. Uh so we have this code where we look at the averages of what's around, right? And that seems to have been working for a while. So not necessarily because it something that comes up all the time mean that we should get rid of it. It just means that we have activity happening in the city with adjacent lot lines that we have to take a look at it and make a decision. So I totally get residents saying yeah we have code for a reason. That makes sense. Yes, but we also have a planning commission for a reason too to look at these unique circumstances to try to make the best decision that we can. So for me, this is a I would approve this because I think what the owners uh are trying to do makes sense for the region. I think the adjacent properties are clearly outliers and the code kind of prevents them from moving forward. So I think this is something that I'll be in favor of of of of approving. Thank you for your thoughts. I think you just nailed it completely. I agree 100%. Thanks for sharing. I think that's very insightful for residents to hear. I make a motion to approve the variance request for 7202 Shannon Drive. Second. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion carries uh unanimously. Good luck with your project. It's a beautiful one. Thank you for coming. All right. Next we have our second and final public hearing of the evening. This is a comprehensive plan amendment reszoning preliminary plat and site plan for 5516 Vernon Avenue. Similar process as I stated before. So staff will provide a presentation, applicant can provide their own. We'll have a back and forth then public hearing then we'll deliberate. And with that, Carrie, take it away. Thank you. Thank you, chair, members of the commission. Uh, this property is located west of the Grand View District on Vernon Avenue on the north side of the street, uh, just west of Yansy Park, south of Highland School. You can see it's uh the site itself is just under one acre. So quite a bit larger than the surrounding single family homes with the exception of the property to the east 5508. The site is currently zoned R1 single dwelling unit district as well as the surrounding area. The property is guided in our comprehensive plan for lowdensity residential uh development. It's again essentially our single family district. Here's an aerial shot of the site. You can see the school to the north. To the east is the park and a large wetland area and the adjacent single family home. Here's a look at the two single family homes on the large lot from Vernon. You can see the mature trees on the site, especially the trees along the west lot line that would be uh preserved as part of this proposal. So, the applicant you, as you recall, did go through sketch plan uh review a few months ago. The proposal this evening is generally the same. The driveway has flipped to the west side of the property, but the units are essentially in the same location. usable lot area. The the green space highlighted there. So, here is a look at those trees that would be preserved. Again, that driveway has shifted to the west side of the lot. This would be um platted. The the each individual unit would be platted. Um units located within that lot and then the uh exterior surrounding the homes would be put into a homeowners association um and managed. These would be owner occupied. Here's a rendering of what the units would look like. I'll let the applicant go through in more detail uh about the architecture. So the request this evening is for a comprehensive plan amendment to reguide the site from low density residential to lowdensity attached residential that would allow the two dwellings on each site or the two dwellings the duplex both duplexes on the site. A resoning from R1 to PRD2 planned residential district 2 site plan and subdivision. So looking at our compliance table, this project would comply with all of the PRD2 standards for setbacks, height, minimum lot area, usable area. One thing I want to highlight here is the proposed taking the 38,000 square feet of that's the the property size. The uh average for each home would be nine just over 9,500 square feet. Minimum lot size for a single family home is 9,000 square feet. So on average, this would be a little bit larger than single family homes. The PRD standard is 7,300 square feet. So it does exceed that as well. The issue again is the density and that's where the comprehensive plan amendment comes in. So primary issues is the comprehensive plan amendment reasonable as well as the reasonzoning. Uh staff believes that it is. Um so our recommendation is for approval of both the comprehensive plan and the reasonzoning. But want to highlight when we look at our pyramid of discretion here, the planning commission and council have complete discretion to approve or deny this. We're down at the the bottom of the the pyramid with comprehensive plans and resoning. have complete discretion to approve or deny. So within the staff report uh staff has provided alternatives for both approval and denial. So first looking at the comprehensive plan amendment. Um so again it would be to low density attached residential. This is a a designation in the comp plan that are typically found along arterial roadways similar the old Vernon development just west of the site. Here's the site that we're looking at. Uh, this has a guidance of lowdensity attached residential. So, a lot of our duplexes across town have that same designation. There's also a couple of duplexes to the south along the railroad tracks here that have that same guidance. So, adjacent to single family uh neighborhoods. So, the change in the comprehensive plan would just simply be to uh add low density attached to that one site. As you recall, we discussed including that property to the east within uh the comprehensive plan amendment. The applicant did uh approach those property owners. They weren't interested in being part of this application to change uh their guidance of their site, but they did indicate that support for the project and that's in that letter is included in the applicant narrative in your packet. So when you look at the land the lowdensity attached land use description this project would fit. It applies to two family and attached dwellings of low densities and moderate heights. Uh the category recognizes the historical role of these housing types as transitional district between single family residential areas and major thoroughares. So again this being on a minor arterial. Other uh excerpts from the comprehensive plan include talking about missing middle housing, which is a housing type that that we're looking to increase. Again, duplexes fall into that missing middle category. This wouldn't be affordable housing as we talk about, but it is providing an alternative housing type. Also, the housing strategy task for uh task force reports um indicates or supports opportunities to accommodate missing middle housing within the city as defined as a range of multi-unit or clustered housing types. So again, staff supports the comprehensive plan amendment. This property is located on that arterial roadway um similar to the old Vernon to the west. Um, again, it fits that description. This site, as well as the adjacent property, is somewhat isolated. Got Highlands uh school to the north, wetland to the east. Um, that row of trees and the single family homes uh to the west. So, the proposal wouldn't be detrimental or, you know, these two properties kind of sit on their own. The density is similar to the four single family homes to the east. And I want to touch on that a little bit. So when you take the density of these four homes located on the east side of the the culde-sac and the density of the four homes on this site, it's similar. Um the average of those four homes is about 10,500 square feet. And again the uh or 10,900 square feet and again the density here is about 9,500. So somewhat similar to the single family homes. So in regard to the reszoning um when looking at the criteria um uh for the the resoning the criteria on the screen here is is it consistent with the comprehensive plan. So, if amended, uh, the reasonzoning would be if the comp plan is amended, will not be detrimental to surrounding properties, would not result in an overly intensive land use, will not result in undue traffic congestion. We didn't require a traffic study here. There's only three additional units on a arterial roadway. So, we didn't believe there would be any uh impact to the roadways. Um it conforms to the provisions um the city code as I demonstrated the minimum standards of the PRD district would be met and provides a proper relationship between um adjacent properties. The nearest single family homes would be 60 feet to the single nearest single family home to the west. The nearest single family home to the east would be 45 feet. So there's a a good separation uh of the structures as well. So again, staff supports the reasonzoning. So with that, I will stop and let the applicant uh come up for their presentation and then afterward we can answer any questions. Thank you, Carrie. Great presentation. Yeah, welcome the applicant team up. Please introduce yourselves, tell us a little about yourself again for people who are new and uh if you have your own presentation, now would be the time or if you just simply want to stand for questions. That's a time for it, too. Yeah. Yeah. I thought I had it pre-opened, but I guess I didn't. All right. Good. This work work. All right. How's everybody doing today? Good. Good. Um, well, cool. Thanks for having us uh here again. My name is Jordan Crockett. I'm the project operations manager at Abundance Properties. Okay. Good evening everybody. I'm Rashad, co-founder of Abundance Properties, also our in-house GC, owner of Kenny Property Development as well. Happy to be here. Excited. And I'm Darren Fletcher, uh co-founder as well. And um I know we went through this, but just a quick refresher at Abundance Properties. Our mission is to create abundance through the development and rehab of communities while empowering others and educating them at the same time. And we have a video as well that really highlights a project that we recently worked on that aligns closely with our core values and our mission statement with Abundance Properties. Y'all, it's cold out here. [Music] It's cold out here. When we first started this project, it was warm out. The sun was out. We had nice drone shots. None of that's happening now. It's cold. But we still got work to do. We've already done roofing, siding, plumbing, electrical, whatever you could think of, we've done it on this Reese project. And the last part of this is the windows. And that's what's happening right now. We're doing Chicago Avenue and Portland Avenue windows. And uh we getting it done. The crew has been amazing. And this has been a fun project um that we've been doing with PPL. So, what I'm most excited about with the Reed program is how it's allowing emerging developers to add to their portfolio but not have to take on so much risk with grabbing properties that need a ton of work still. So, this is a great opportunity for people within a community to now be able to continue to invest back into their community and not take on as much risk. Our team here at Abundance Properties have been excited doing this project with PPL because it's bringing forth equitable transformation here in South Minneapolis. The time is now and legacy starts here. All right, that was our our partner Chanti just highlighting a video um or highlighting a project that we did. So, uh, we're all here for 5516 Vernon Avenue. So, we'll walk through the plan and, um, Rashad will give a little bit of highlights and we'll give a summary and and we'd love to hear from from everybody moving forward. So, the big question, why does it work? Um so one really cool thing is uh the U of M study which is a third-party study that was done on density in Edina um recommended that Edina be intentional about increasing density in uh targeted areas along uh corridors essentially. So in this picture you can see the the orange bubbles is where they uh they literally did their own study and recommended that along these corridors there should be density uh increasing uh with the whole point of decreasing VMT or or vehicle miles traveled uh which you know increases uh greenhouse gases and other things. Uh so the comprehensive plan, the climate uh plan, all the things in EDINA points towards wanting to increase density but also decrease road or or decrease vehicles on the road. Um, and then on top of that, another really kind of interesting piece about Edina is, uh, Edina has, and I may switch around, get it wrong or right, but, uh, Edina has more people working in Edina that than live and work in Edina, if that makes sense. I might have said it wrong, but um the point of increasing density is so that more residents can work the jobs in Eina um which is uh which is a really cool community thing. Um so if you if you look at it overall um and we're looking at the actual size of the land and how that land can be used. The question is is if if there's an acre of land in Edina is the choice to put a single family there or would you want to utilize it more efficiently? Uh and then our our bottom point is is we are the team for it. Uh we have experience of execution of projects um literally the same as this. Um as well as we're excited and we're already invested in the community of Edina. Um, so we're here, we're ready, and um, we're looking forward to work with you guys. All right, so just kind of breakdown of the plans and themselves. So we got about 3,000 square ft, five beds, four bathrooms, and owner occupied and buyers. And then as far as the exterior LP siding, um, aluminum sopet fascia, it's a finished finished basement if I didn't mention that. And then uh as Krie mentioned, we did flip-flop the driveways. Other than that, the site plan has remained the same. Um we have the full plans of all the civil engineering received some comments back some of those things um that we are aware of and and it's a high level of what the properties are. Sweet. So in in summary um everything is pointing any dina the the comprehensive plan the climate action plan um everything highlights increasing density in targeted areas um location the size of the land um it's perfect for slightly higher density in a reszone um and as I mentioned uh here at Abundance Properties we have experience of executing project like this um as well. So, we'd be overd delivering for your city. And then one more slide. So, uh it's kind of the question and Carrie kind of highlighted is like I mean is there really a difference as far as like what we're proposing? Um and you know I have I have toddlers and one of the games we play is like what's different, right? Um, and in this context, it's there's very little difference if we're talking about density uh of the actual site. So, it's very similar to the neighborhood to the left. Um, so, thank you guys. Thank you. I opened it for questions, but maybe first one since you brought it up, uh, could you explain why you guys flip-flop the driveway in the homes just Yeah. and then open it to the rest of the commissioners? Absolutely. So originally it was the civil engineer that recommended it due to not having to do tuck under garages but more or less that's the reason right there in the grade. Sorry can you repeat that? I didn't catch that quite so not having to do tuck under garage due to the grade location of being one way versus the other. Okay thank you. Yeah. Open it to other commissioners for staff or the applicants. Any any and all questions. Sure. Thank you. Uh oh. Um just a couple of follow-ups. Nice to see you gentlemen again. Thank you for your presentation and your second visit. Um, looking at my notes from last time, I just wanted to follow up on a couple questions that, um, we had last time, um, Commissioner Bennett had made the suggestion about there was a a spot kind of in between the the the homes. I don't know if you looked at that about taking it out and moving that and did you decide that wasn't advisable? basically based off the feedback when we were last here. I know there was a comment about, you know, ultimately we're going to provide some feedback, but at the end of the day, do what you feel is going to work the best there with what you got. And ultimately, um, we took consideration some of the comments. I remember there's a comment about, you know, maybe facing it the other one of the units the other way, you know. So, we thought about that, discussed it, and ultimately decided on what we thought was going to be the best fit for what we got. Um, so there was a couple points like that. you know, that spot in the middle, but then also uh potentially like changing the location of um the building that's nearest Vernon. So, a couple things like that. Ultimately, we decided to just kind of go with what we thought made sense for the design and that's how we came to decision. Okay. Thank you. And um we had also talked about the fact that the cost would be about I have in my notes 7 to 800,000 and then across that road 8 to 900,000. Um where are you at now? Is that number changing? So goalwise, our goal essentially is to keep it under a million, but it there are other variables as far as cost and you know if materials change and and a few variables that we're considering too. So okay, so I I can safely put north of my number from the last time we met. Um okay, those are my questions. Thanks. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you gentlemen for for coming back and uh I know when you guys were here was like I think it was in January, end of January or so. Uh I'll leave for a lot of feedback for the comment section really, but I think you mentioned that there is now a basement. Uh can you just talk about what was that decisioning process? I know the first time it was just going to be slab, but now I think you guys took the feedback, you went back, you kind of relook at the plans. Tell me a little bit more about how you guys decided to go with the basement idea and what did that do you think you what did that do to the overall cost equation? Yeah, good question. So, basically, uh, looking at the market and seeing what the market wants, you know, talking to realtors, getting their opinions. um not only realtors that we have relationships with but also people that work exclusive exclusively in Eina you know and seeing what's selling and more or less everything's coming with basements you know even the one similar down the street on Vernon those had finished basement as well so basically not wanting to reinvent the wheel you know and um saying okay these have gone successful and these have had finished basement okay we should have finished basements too and then you know that does affect the cost you know excavation, um finishing out the basement, all all of that. So, um kind of ties in a little bit to the last question as well about um the cost and some of the variables that uh Jordan had mentioned. It's just a thank you for coming back again. I have a process question for director Teague. When does the subdivision come in? Typically can be done a couple of ways. It can come in with the project or it could come in after sometimes, you know, if the footprint changes slightly. You want to get that legal description right on the um the foundation walls essentially. So, it can come in either way. can after the project or with the project. Does that have to come to us or does that just go where does that go? It it is with the project. They've they've presented a preliminary plat. So the structures would have to be located within those lot boundaries. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions for staff or the applicants? Yeah. Commissioner Blunt, I don't know if this is maybe a staff, maybe an applicant. You mentioned there's an effort to preserve trees around the boundary. Um, are there trees in the middle that that won't be preserved? And what are they? Oh, yes, there are some. You recall that picture, there's some very mature oak trees in the middle that will be removed. So, because this property is zoned R1, currently, it is subject to the tree preservation ordinance. So, they're going to have to do some either replacements on the site. Um there's plenty of room on the site, but that's something that would get looked at as part of a building permit um application, but it does have to conform to the tree preservation ordinance, but there will be some mature trees removed for sure. Any other questions for the applicant? Yeah, sure. This for Carrie actually. Um that too. Is that okay? Um what would if the current homeowner wanted to subdivide this property into four single family lots each at would be each more than the minimum required. What um discretion or authority would the city have with respect to doing that? So wi within this area, they probably wouldn't be able to get four lots because each each lot needs minimum width on a public street and there wouldn't be room to put in a culde-sac like the the property to the west. So but but they could probably just eyeballing it get at least one more single family home out of it. But if they were to do four single family homes, there would be variances involved either for lot frontage or depending on how you'd configurate configure that. And what would the process be for this the owner then? Yep. It would be a somewhat similar to this. It would be a preliminary plat with several variances. All right. Thanks. Any other questions for staff or the applicants? All right. Thank you. So, it is a public hearing, so you guys can sit down and we'll open it up to that and then just stay around. We might have more questions or when we deliberate after the public hearing, but like the prior one, uh this public hearing is accessible to those who are here in person as well as those tuning in remotely. Thank you. So, we will I'll just give you if you just tuned in the same type of instructions to get into the queue to speak and then while we wait on that, we'll open it to those who are here in person. So, just like the screen says, please call the following number 312 535 8110. Enter access code 2863106 4220. Enter password 5454. Then press star three to indicate your interest in speaking. While we wait for you to do that, we will give the opportunity to those who might be here in person that'd like to testify. Same thing as before. You have three minutes. You can come up to either podium. Just state your full name, address. When the light turns green, you got three minutes. When it turns red, I'll ask you to just wrap up your comments. So, for anyone who's here in person that'd like to testify, now's the time to come forward and do so. Come on up. Thank you. Um Susan Carlson. I'm on 5508 Goya Lane, which is the Culdeac uh to the west. And um I was uh actually very privileged to be at a meeting on January 27th. U met with the builders and with the adjoining property owner who's um sitting out there now. Um and so and that was January 27th. Then I was at a meeting or watched on televised on February 4th and at that time it was on slab three stories. So I'm very happy to hear that it's basement but I don't understand 2.5 stories. the surrounding nine properties. There are four ramblers, one walkout, three lowp profofile, two stories, and a story and a half. There are um 40 trees on that property and uh probably half of them are the west and the north boundary or to the school which are pines. The rest are primarily oaks, very um probably 60 year old oaks. Uh and the pine and a minimal amount of ash, probably a handful of those trees need to come down. Um I do have some concerns um in terms of the just the aesthetics. Um the builder had said it would be similar to the Hankerson proper properties and um it's very very different than what the current surrounding is. Um and I may speak for the owner who's sitting here. Um there's no chance of acquiring that adjacent lot. It's a legacy home handbuilt brick by brick by her husband and being passed down to the family. Um, another concern I have is going from uh single family home which had one occupant for many years um to the four which I think it could easily handle. However, five bedrooms each. Um, we're looking at going from anywhere from maybe eight occupants to 28 occupants. And then you're looking at cars. You're looking at parking. You're looking at guests. There's where are they going to park if they have guests? I I really wonder. Are they going to park on Goya Lane? you can't park on um Vernon. So, I think all these things really need to be thought through. Um it's it's just there's nothing similar about um this property development and um what's on Goya Lane right now. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. appreciate the testimony. For anyone who else is who else whoever else is here that would like to testify, please come forward. You have three minutes to do so. Heard the oil. You first. So, uh, Mark Keigle, 5529 Vernon. So, right across the property. Um, I flip-flopped a couple of times on this. I came in not knowing very much and I appreciate the presentation that was done. Thank you very much. Um I guess my concerns would echo the the same concerns that we just heard. I think right now I'm probably coming down not in favor of the development as it currently stands. The only additional concern that I would add is that at the price point that they're talking about, so we moved up uh three years ago. So we're recent transplant into this community and thank you so much. Um, you know, at the price point that they're talking about, that's not super near where we were uh when we bought our home, but fairly near that. Um, and I just simply don't understand how it's going to be economically feasible cuz our home is also a five- bedroomedroom home to like what kind of family or or other arrangement like who's going to actually buy these occupy these and have it make sense both in the current economic climate where you've got 7% interest rates and what looks like no backyard. I don't really see other similar properties either in the neighborhood or around Adina that are going to have something that somebody actually wants in in what they're selling. And I I fairly worried about that. So in addition to the other concerns, thank you. Thank you very much. Wayne Collins, 5532 Vernon Avenue, Corner Goya in Vernon. Um, couple things that cons uh I find a little I'm confused with. I hear the word compatible and scale to single family homes similar to family homes to family homes. Um, I've worked for the Census Bureau and I've never heard low density residency. When I go home to home to do my survey, it's either a single family dwelling or multifamily dwelling. This would fall under the category of a multi-family dwelling. The message is being sent to the people in that neighborhood and their single family dwellings. I'd like to look at it in a neutral way, but I'm confused as to why that would be placed in a residential neighborhood with single family dwellings. Um, my housemate has lived at that residence for 30 years. She's adamantly opposed to this program. and she's hoping that she can contribute something more to bring the community together to see it for a movement in the wrong direction for the neighborhood with a multi- family unit. Um, I hope everybody will give it some deep consideration out of respect for the people who live in that neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else who's here in person that like to testify, please come forward. All right, seeing none, we will move to those who might be in the queue. Do we have anyone in the queue? We do not have anyone in the queue and I believe it's been long enough so we can proceed. Welcome a motion to close the public hearing. Motion to close the public hearing. Second. All those in favor say I. I. So moved. The public hearing is closed. Thank you everyone for your comments. Maybe before we deliberate, um there's some questions and confusion around some things that maybe staff could answer just about maybe the designation of the properties versus multifamily. So the the comprehensive plan designation is low density attached. That's what's being proposed and that would include duplexes. [Music] Um, so whether it's classified multifamily, typically multif family, you think of more than two. Um, but it's not uncommon to have duplexes located adjacent to single family homes, especially on um welltraveled roadways, minor arterials like Vernon. You see a lot on 50th um Valley View that Valley View Wooddale area. Yeah. Running a lot of the freeways too. Were there any other questions that maybe staff could have could have spoken to that was brought up? Could you clarify for the two and a half stories? Yeah, that one. Yeah. Yeah. So, a single family home can be two and a half stories as well. Um, 2 and a half stories and 40 ft is the maximum height for both the R1 zoning district and this PRD2. So, the the height limitations essentially the same. Yeah, it's a formula within the code. Um, very complicated formula. So, it's a twostory looking at it from above ground. It's a two-story house, but based on a formula for average height of a story, it mathematically calculates to two and a half stories. But it's yes, it's going to be a a pitched roof with that third story within that pitched area in kind of simple terms. Thanks. But this project is just proposed at two stories, correct? With a basement. Yeah. Okay. Just to clarify, you had just answer. Oh, wow. I guess. Yeah. So, we're deliberating. So, I mean, if people have comments they'd like to share or if we wanted discussion between ourselves, if people have further questions or kind of on the fence with anything, now would be the time. Or we could just Yeah, you guys. I'll start. Um, thank you again. uh for coming and for the presentation and and thank you everyone for coming and and speaking. Um we do take your concerns very uh seriously and have I have read all of them on better together and and we deliberated um last time extensively. Um, I think when we were here for sketch plan or when they were here for sketch plan, we um indicated strong support of this being a parcel with the access for the two town homes being off of Vernon. Uh, we felt like this was a good site for um more density. Um, I think there is a universe where this by the math this could have been four single family homes. And so, um, while there might be mechanics and variances, I think I think we need to be used careful as we use the word density because it's starting to get, I think, people uh, blood pressure raised. This is not a 10-story apartment building that's in the middle of a neighborhood. It is um adding some units that will have the same square foot size as many of the properties in Morningside. And I don't think that we would take the approach that Morningside is too dense. Uh to me that feels like again we have codes for a reason. the we have lots and properties of a size that goes comprehensively with the city. Um I I personally am concerned about rising costs and now we've added a basement and we've added five bedrooms, but I don't know that that's our purview here in the planning commission to tell the developer what to build in terms of aesthetics and finishes for them to sell it. Um, I think this is exactly the right use of this land. I think I would like to see more density, but I I understand the concerns of the neighborhood and I think this is the right um baby steps into creating more options of housing for all sorts of people. Um, maybe people who don't want backyards, maybe people who work from home and need their own offices. I don't know who the market is, but I'm glad we're getting um some more people living and working in Adina. Thank you for the presentation and I agree with everything Commissioner Honaman has said. Um, and I believe all the way up and down Vernon Avenue from Interlockan, even as Vernon turns off all the way to 169, there's um, condominiums and double dwelling units and town homes. And I'm assuming these are going to be marketed as town homes. Um, right in Morningside, the minimum residential R1 um, lot size is 9,000. These are 9,500 square ft per unit. So that is not even as tight as the minimum lot size. And so um I'm in agreement of the um with this and I support this. Um and I had mentioned previously at the previous meeting that I had wished it would be just a little bit denser. Um, I understand that you've got your numbers and what your need, but I I I'm in support of this. Thank you. I'm trying to say something unique. Um, I think like like some others, I'm less concerned with the the that precise details of the plan, the height, the you know, is someone going to park in the driveway um or where they're going to park, that kind of stuff. But when we talked about this the last time, I think I think some of us were saying, you know, it it makes sense to it would make more the most sense if there was a transitional area from whatever was coming before Vernon to this area to then single family or something like that. We were talking about the adjacent property. Um, honestly it feels a little random to me when you're talking about uh the question is just about amending the comp plan for this parcel only. So that's why I don't concern myself so much with some of the other details. But like I'm sitting here just wondering what like why would we just amend the comp plan change this one parcel to low low density attached whatever it was called when it's bordered by single family residential on both sides still it it just it's feeling a little random and inconsistent from a planning perspective. Um, I think the goals of accomplishing, you know, getting more density makes a lot of sense. Uh, contributes to the environmental goals of the city. You know, Vernon's a topic that's come up a lot. And the U of M study was about systemic change along Vernon and just like incredibly different structures built along the entire thing. And to me, I think to accomplish those type of environmental goals, much bigger change is needed along this this area, this corridor. And I actually don't think that um amending the comp comp plan for one parcel is going to accomplish those goals in a meaningful way. Maybe that's just being a little bit skeptical, but and and I also think it's going to be a lift to get Vernon to meaningfully change over time. I think there'd be a lot of resistance to that. And if it's going to happen, it should be part of a bigger conversation where something maybe more systemic is discussed or at least contemplated. So, so I'm struggling with this one a little bit. I think we were we were kind of hoping that it could become a twoartel transitional area where the comp plan would be amended for both of those. Uh, but one one is feeling inconsistent and a bit illogical. So, interested in what other people think, but um I'm kind of going a little bit back and forth on this one. While we're deliberating, can we look up um how big the lot was for the Hankerson Town Homes? I can look that up. Um I my recollection is somewhat similar, but I will look that up here. Um before I get into other thoughts, I think we should touch on that piece, the comp plan amendment and the process behind that. Right. So um and I'm definitely want to hear other people's thoughts on this. So I, you know, typically um I'm a stickler for process like you are on this and oneoffs are a bit odd to me, right? And kind of pick and choose. It feels like we talk about spot zoning. We talk about the lift, the burden that we face when we make a change to the comprehensive plan. Are we going from low density residential to high density? Are we going to a commercial property? Are we going to office? Right? These things change the character of the neighborhoods and and whatnot. Um going from low density to low density attached feels like such a baby step to me. And I I kind of find it to me I find it odd that there's a distinction in the comprehensive plan between those two types of land use. Um and that is creating a sticking point in our process. the fact that we c that we have those two distinctions that we have those two types of land uses and you know me saying me thinking that those two those two really are basically one and the same based off of the density like this is so from from my personal experience or I guess personally my house would the density would be four units per acre. I looked up I just looked up the acreage from on Henipin County here a minute ago because I couldn't remember off the top of my head. Um but based off my lot size 0.25 acres I would maybe four units per acre. This is five. So the material difference between these two land land distinctions in our comprehensive plan is very small to me. I mean this is four four to eight just like low NC residential. Um so I think this is a case of where it's just kind of semantics and the fact that we divided these two things and created low density attached and low density is now creating kind of this bigger lift for the comprehensive plan change um that I think is is not a big as big a hurdle as other other changes that we've asked um and have come come to us before. Curious to hear what other think about that. Does anyone else have specific comments on like comprehensive plan matters or do you want to just roll it into your other comments? Do you have other comments that you'd like to share? Um, I mean really kind of repeating a lot of what has been said already and I think our residents have have definitely voiced uh reasonable concerns. Right. So I live right across from the Adina High School SLM middle school um in a residential area, right? So traffic is a big concern to me. I have two three and a half week old infants at home. And as they get older, I'm going to worry about traffic zooming by and increasing traffic and stuff like that. So I I feel that um this isn't though a large apartment building or maybe a coffee shop that would be bringing a lot of in-n-out traffic every day. Um there is opportunity for transit along this route. So maybe you won't get it see quite the traffic increase that you think you would because maybe somebody will take the bus if they live here. Um bike more often, etc. Uh so I mean I think in terms of being a reasonable request, this this definitely is. Is it a perfect project? Probably not. Nobody's going to agree on the definition of perfect, right? So Hon said she'd like to see more density here. A lot of people have said, you know, have already said that they'd like to see just a single family home. Um, but this is this is kind of in the middle. Uh, the the scale and massing, I think, are not an unreasonable ask. It's again, it's not a four-story house. It's not a really big apartment building. Um, the density, as as uh Planner Teague said, is very similar to the four homes of the East. And like I said, you know, it's honestly very similar to my own and many other people house people's properties in this in this community. Um, it's really, you know, going from, like I said, four units per acre to five. It's not it's not to 10, it's not to 20. Um, this is this is a baby step. And putting it near a major arterial road, a transit opportunity, a school, um, I think is a good location for this and, um, a reasonable request. B to the reasonable request for comprehensive plan amendment um based on that discussion that we just had. So thanks Mr. Smith. Yeah, thank you uh for the presenting team and and I'm I'm so happy for the deliberation. I was really trying to think about how do I discuss this in a in a sensible way, right? And I appreciate Commissioner Bournestein's perspective of okay, you know, there's the nitty-gritty of the specifics that we could talk about, but what's the larger picture here, right? The larger picture is, as Commissioner Dave was talking about, you know, uh the comp plan changes and and spot zoning, right? and addressing that spot zoning idea. Right now, we've we've had experiences like this in the past, right, with with a couple of the property areas, Hankerson being one of them. Um, and I think the Keys location being another one. Um, and this one is somewhat similar or or or in the same type of vein. Now, we do know that along Vernon there will be areas of change, right? Uh we've we've had some work done on this commission. We've had UFM do it. We know that this major corridor is going to have to get more density over time. um this particular location if you look at where it's positioned right um to the east of it there's the oak uh Oakidge Apartments which is high density then there's some green wetlands and then there's these two properties and then you know R1 single family homes in the north side there's the high u the elementary school highlands and then we have Vernon right So this is not something that's plop in the middle of a residential area, right? That to me is more an egregious use of spot zoning. This is more of we're expecting areas of change, right? We expect to see some transformation on this corridor, right? So zoning changes will need to occur eventually over time. The question is how do we get there? Right? Complant amendments is certainly one option, but Edina is a very built up city, right? So, we have to be changing things over time. It's not like we all of a sudden have 300 acres of forest that we're going to replant from scratch, right? It's it's a developed city that we have to now start focusing our efforts on. One way of doing that is having developers seeing opportunities and we make incremental changes and then we uplift our zoning to meet the needs of the city. That's that's one approach. For example, the the the resident who's here, right, who wants to keep their property as R1 for historical reasons. It's a it's a um generational home. That's perfectly fine. And I think last meeting that we talked with director Teague, we asked a question, what would it take? could we take a an action by ourselves to upgrade the zoning for someone who lives in an R1? And it was no, not really. We have to work with the resident to make that happen. And clearly this resident is not going to do that. So how do you get higher density in areas where it's an R1 is the question, right? Uh it needs to be a conversation. It needs to be kind of initiated with developers. So I see this as being an opportunity for us essentially. So I wouldn't turn it away. So that's part one. Part two, the usage, right? This is not a high density massive structure. It's a small incremental um from you know single density to what what you know low density something slight increase it's not a massive change um so I don't see this as being that imposing uh so from that perspective I see this as being a nice transition from high density the oak ridge towers coming down to single residential and this is a slight increase over that. So I see that as making sense. The third point is around the the design and the requirements, right? Um certainly if you're going to build here, you want to go through all the checklist of things that you have to go through. you know, improving the boulevard, uh, making sure that you adhere to the tree ordinances, the watershed district requirements, the pricing of affordability was another question. Um, definitely this is not going to be what we would consider affordable housing. It's really just housing in higher density, right? 700 to a million dollars per unit um, is for a certain type of buyer, right? and we can't dictate the market. You guys would do your research. You would figure out what the market needs. I love how you improved it and came back with a basement because that was the question that came up the last time on slab wasn't so great, but you guys like, "Yep, let's get a basement in here, guys. Now it's more marketable, right?" That's for you guys to kind of figure out what the market would need and what would residents look for. And I think for us, it's does the zoning make sense for this location? Um, and for me where it's located, knowing that it's an area of change, knowing that it's a slight increase of what's there today, I think it fits um what this is looking for. Now, if the neighbor wanted to upgrade to PRD2 as well, that'll be awesome. Now, we have like a bigger piece of property that would be u of the same zoning, but it's it's not right. Maybe one day they would, but not today. But we have to take incremental changes and to and to respond to Commissioner Bournestine's question, right? Like totally get it. Um, this feels odd, right? But how do you move the ball forward, right? How do you get things to change if you don't take incremental steps? I think you were mentioning that we should take a big step, pick a starter city and just upgrade it. But if we can't even take these small steps, how do you think we're going to take those big steps, right? So, I'd love to guess get your thoughts on how do we increase density in the city with comp plan changes if we're not taking these incremental changes today. Thank you for your comments and questions, rhetorical ones. Question. Um so I was involved in the um subcommittee whatever we were for the areas of potential change and we spent a lot of time talking about um starting to increase the density by doing that in um along arterial roads that um bisected neighborhoods. Uh, so I think um whether it was on Vernon where the map that looks like a colon shows us all those little pockets of um uh um visual. That's what I think that's what it looked like to me. um or um we looked at that along the borders of Edina with um with Minneapolis and with Richfield and um with other neighborhoods as well. And this kind of um also goes into addressing some of the concerns of the residents, I think, which is the fact that um as uh Commissioner Smith said, there's no place else to build. We're talking about redevelopment here. So, um that means looking for places and they are on the edges of the R1 zonings where we're going to um where the city is going to need to make changes um to the zoning. And I think this is a completely appropriate one. Um, so I I'm um in full support of this and I also I think when we approved the Hankerson um comp plan amendment that we was we went from two units to three units is my recollection. Um and I think if that was worthy of a comp plan amendment then it's hard to deny the worthiness of this as a comp plan amendment. Just a few things really supportive of this project. I'm glad Commissioner Bournestein brought up the question about the comp plate amendment because I've been thinking about that a lot over the past couple days and I still don't have a really good durable model in my own mind about when we should change a comprehensive plan and when we shouldn't. I wish I had a had a algorithm I could just run it through but I don't. The reason I'm comfortable with this one is um as Commissioner Day said there's really a distinction without a difference between low density and low density attached. They're really the same thing. And as others have said, I'm I'm a fan of increasing density generically, but you don't have to be a fan of increasing density for this to seem like a good idea because it's identical density to the to the area just to the west of it. And the other reason that I'm comfortable with a change is that there are other examples on Vernon and nearby of this very same kind of property. So, it's not like we're creating something wholly new in this area. Uh, I think most everything I could say would be a repeat. I think the only thing I would mention that hasn't been brought up is that I'm particularly excited about bringing new housing forms to Adina, which is great. I mean, believe it or not, I'm not one of them right now, but there are people who want a nice house that don't have a yard because they don't like cutting grass. So, here we go. I mean, there there are a lot of unique things about this property, and it's not my job to market it for you and make sure you've got it positioned just right, but man, I think you got to I think you got something good here. And I and I think there are a lot of different kinds of customers out there, and I always try to not imagine that everybody wants to buy the same thing that I might want to buy. So, I support the project. Thanks for coming. Thank you. Yeah. Um, thank you everybody. That was helpful. I think that the point I was trying to make and I think it's actually probably in line maybe more than you think with what you're saying is I just think that to accomplish some of these goals bigger change than this is going to be needed and and um especially along corridors and this is an imperfect way of like like theoretically a more systemic kind of consistent logical extended type of change even even to this level of um zoning along corridors like this. I think that would be a preferable way to go. But um what you're saying is don't let the perfect, even though that's not perfect, don't let the perfect be the end of the good. Don't let you know how progress should unfold, you know, impair any progress at all. Um, and so my point was just I just don't think we're going to get to the goals that we're talking about by by doing these types of changes, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to to make incremental progress when when that's what's available. So that's why I was saying I was kind of going back and forth about what the ideal way of going about changing the comp plan is, but um but I can see the rational for doing it here. Thanks for the comments, everyone. I have some too. Um, kind of in line with at least the uh the sketch plan to me as was addressed. Like if the neighboring site was a part of this, it would be a slam dunk in my opinion because you could do so much more and be so much more creative and leverage a better transition and all that. So without that, like it it just doesn't have as much of my support. And I'm I'm kind of leaning more toward Commissioner Borenstein's um hesitation with this. I I feel like it it offers the density that we want to see. You know, it it's right along a transit quarter quarter that we want to see. It's in a generally good location. But I think for me, like with any development, especially ones that require a comp plan, there is like an element of timing. And since I have that full discretion on that pyramid, like I do care about the details, like a lot more like I expect things to be a little more closer to perfect. So even with the site plan changing, I think there's even little details that don't win my support. Um, and when we think of I guess when I think of development too, there is like like to achieve the density like that this ought to have. Um, it's okay to require a little patience. It sounds like there's a legacy property next door that might not ever happen, but thinking of some of the best developments, it's usually a long waiting game of a assembly of properties to do the right thing. So, we've mentioned um Hankerson, but that corner property was a forplex originally and then a single family home, you know, and then it grew to another single family home. Like there's a difference in like the timing and that as an example versus this literally just in single family neighborhood. Yeah, I think there were two Hankersons. There's the Hankerson town home and then there was the two single family homes where the applicant came first forward at first to do um four sort of patio homes and then in the end it became three homes. So that's right next to it. It's right next to it. But I think that was the one um being referenced earlier that there was a comp plan amendment for. Yeah. Because if I have those numbers when you're ready for them. Sure. And so like for me and and like just being more familiar with development like 50 than France like you know there's like decades sometimes to to put together a really ideal project. So like here and with the neighboring site and even this site, I just I know that there's there's a better way this site can be configured as well as how you could leverage the site next door to make a much better output, have even more density, create this like little isolated neighborhood with a little more density. And I I just I I kind of align with Commissioner Borenstein's hesitations. Like although this is gentle, it is random just this comprehensive plan amendment. So I'm I just expect that there's going to be a lot of public benefit and there's going to be a huge win and there's just too many reservations I see with it now. Um like even just in the site plan itself like that approval. So, like with my discretion, I'm just a little more reserved on this one and would have more hope for just a more inclusive draw down Vernon instead of just on this narrow property. And that's just because I've I've seen like people sit on a property, you know, and they're just waiting 5 years, 10 years for a neighboring one to do a better version. So, like I if with my discretion I I just would like to see something more optimal on this site, which to me includes the site next to it. And maybe not. It's just I'm not seeing something I'm a really huge fan of. It has a lot of the components I'm a huge fan of, but it's just not quite there for me. I think the flip-flopping of things with the the front yard facing people's backyards, now a backyard facing a driveway. there there's just like certain details I'm just not a fan of as much as before either. How do you think about Jimmy um our housing crisis nationally in the state in the city and the fact that we are already a very expensive city to develop in. We have a lot of parameters from building materials to setbacks to parking that make it challenging for a developer. If we are continuing to layer things on, I think it is only going to decrease the population of people who could bring anything to the city and drive up the costs further because sitting and holding land for five years doesn't doesn't get us anything during those five years. and is it would be predicated on the assumption that other land would become available which I think in a 50th in France you know Nolan Mains like there was already a there there and they were adding to the there and and so maybe and those condos are or apartments are very very expensive and there's a whole retail and there was a tiff district and it was a PUD like all of those things and mechanisms that we have as a city are connected very intimately to the cost to develop period And I and I fear that I I hear exactly what you're saying. I just think we've run out of time in certain areas to to just do nothing because otherwise this will be a tear if if we don't allow something more than single family or variances for that parcel to be split into two and do you know whatever. Then what we're going to get is another $2 million house. One single one. And we there are only so many areas of potential change. And I think it the market's going to drive what the market's going to drive. So how do you think about balancing those when we're at this moment of crisis? Yeah, I I think it's complicated for sure, like 100%. Um but there is a house there that someone could live in, you know, it could be rented. It like things can be done to like preserve a use. It doesn't have to be demoed and rebuilt to accommodate the same thing. I mean some perspective too, like a you know project I'm working on in Minneapolis, you know, there's 10 separate properties that had to get assembled and it took 5 years and it it went from housing about a 100 people to now will house a thousand. But if you just bit off two properties, like you won't be able to accommodate the greater potential. And that's just what I see here. Like even just geographically, you have these two houses on big lots. Like to do something with just one of those feels very random and not as concerted as what I would support right now for a comprehensive plan amendment. So a clarifying question, are you more opposed to the comprehensive plan amendment pro like as a process here for this or is it the zoning or is it the site plan? Right. You think the site plan's imperfect? I mean, yeah, that's fair enough. Wrapped up together. That's fair enough. Would we have the same objections if if it was the property to the east that's bordering a park? Right. Right. It feels random because it's in the middle like you said of multiple properties. But if it was on the edge closer to a little bit closer to Jerry's and and would it feel as random? Not as random because that property is also more square. You could lay it out in a way that I feel like just would reflect a mini little neighborhood better than this. Like I I just there's just elements of the site plan too that just aren't ideal but could be ideal with a wider property. And so like yes, I I would think it's a little less random. I don't know if I'd support that either. I just I think doing this will inevitably, you know, maybe even temporarily decrease the value of the neighbor the next door neighbor just because of what was there is, you know, it's in line with what's around there. So that's just where I'm at. And I mean, again, we have full discretion here. I just I see it as a little random, too. And if it had the neighboring property and you could do something more concerted, it I feel like that'd be more of a slam dunk because you could achieve a greater potential for both of these lots and just one alone cuz now you're just forcing a peacemeal approach which like you don't have to do like yes the timing's here but there is patience in like a more orderly development process too. So that's just where I'm at. I'm like on the fence but just leaning toward not supporting it. And maybe if the site were arranged differently, maybe even if it had a little more density and just was I I don't I don't know, but I'm just not seeing what's tripping my trigger. So, because there's just I think I think you and I are both struggling with the same thing of envisioning something meeting a certain standard and thinking there's like an aesthetic I don't know numbers wise when you look at the density like everybody pointed out there's not a huge difference. This is this is kind of in line just when you just kind of pick out a few statistics with what's around there shapewise, but it does just the way it's kind of laid out and it just set up it just kind of just kind of looks r it just kind of looks random aesthetically and it's just I don't know I don't think it solves a systemic problem. So it's just one just one parcel. I think I think it's I think it's actually good that people are going back and forth a little bit about it. What the I mean how many votes do you need to to recommend this? It's just a majority, right? Yeah. So like there that exists right now on this panel. If there's one or two dissenting votes, I mean maybe it just prompts more thoughtful discussion by the council which is maybe a good thing, you know, and then this goes to the council, right? Because conference and then that's four fifths vote at the council. Yeah. So, I mean, I think we all know where we stand at this point. Like, I don't know if further discussion like is productive at all. Um, but I hope people appreciate that with a level of discretion is as large as this. It welcomes differing of perspectives. I would like to compare it to the comprehensive plan for the Hankerson. Yeah. Yeah. I it's not similar similar I think in the shape of the town homes and the size of the units but in terms of lot size I was mistaken so that so this is just the town homes not the single family home uh that we had excuse me so as um chair Bennett mentioned there was a four unit apartment on the site before and one single family home so there were five units the total lot size was 29,000 square ft feet. So the the lot size is 2900 um on that one. With this one again it's 9500. Also that was that that site was previously guided low density attached and it went to medium density. So the the land areas what much smaller the green space here there's a lot more green space with this project than the ankerson. So Hankerson is more dense than yes this one. Um so and I think we're agreeing to disagree here which is completely okay and I think we do some of our best work when we agree to disagree but I do I don't think this is random and and that's where I think we're going to disagree. I think where we agree is like I could see more density here in a more concerted way that would get my support. It's not a density thing. So yeah, Commissioner Smith, this question is for Director Teague. I know we don't have the perfect solution, but what's the if we go into a compre a comprehensive plan discussion, right, for the next 10 years that we're going to map this thing out. What's a good way to look at let's just say Vernon, let's just pick Vernon. Um, we want to increase density along this corridor, right? There's some areas that have a high density, there are some single family homes, there's a miss, you know, a combination of different things. What would that process look like where if we were to walk out of that process, be like, "Yep, this felt really good. This worked out exactly how we wanted it. We got the density that we needed. The process worked out how we wanted it to." Like what would that what would that look like going into those conversations? Yeah, it's an excellent question. Um, it would be, you know, we could do it similar to how we did the small area plans. We could identify the entire corridor, you know, establish a a small area plan working group. We could do it that way. Um, we would want to notify all of those property owners that were considering um changing their land use designation. Um, that's probably how we'd go about it. Um, rather than just kind of randomly creating a land use map for the entire city. I mean I think this was an area that was identified in the areas of change that that was worked on by the commission recently. Um so I think this discussion is kind of leading us this this might be one of these um small area plan type you know we've done a lot of studies in the Grand View district the transportation plan the the um the blueprint for development up there. We've never done a small area plan. You know, it could be the Grand View District extended on Vernon. That could be another one that that we take a look at. Gotcha. Thank you. This was really helpful and I'm excited to be a part of the process uh once it comes up to engage in those conversations. But I I think you could, you know, respect the tension, right? where, you know, we have good and then we have perfect and we certainly are trying to balance, you know, should perfect be the enemy of good, right? And and and what does this look like in terms of process? So, um I don't know how I guess we might just have to vote, right? And the recommendation will go to the city council and they would make their final decision on how they want to move forward. I I'm thinking that's that's what the process is. Oh, that we say make a motion. Okay. Um, any other thoughts though? Like I know Jimmy, you had some thoughts on flipping things around. That's At this point, I don't think it's productive. If this project gets approved, I'm happy for the community. I, you know, and the the development team and it it will be a good thing. However, it's just that that's about it. The details are I I think that's a separate matter, I think. All right. I'll make a motion to recommend the city council approve this request which is the comprehensive plan amendment reszoning the preliminary plat and site plan for 5516 Vernon Avenue. Second. Yeah, we'll do a roll call vote for that. Any other additional amendments? Are we good there? Any dis further discussion? Assuming that's per the findings and conditions also. the positive conditions. Yeah. Okay. Don't don't put the wrong ones in there. Okay. Roll call vote. Commissioner Elkre I. Commissioner Pia I. Commissioner Smith. I. Commissioner Day. I. Commissioner Bournestein. Nay. Commissioner Feld. I. Commissioner Honaman. I chair Bennett. Nay. Motion carries. So that's uh what a six to two. So good good luck at your next step with the city council. And um I don't know if there's anything you heard that might warrant a tweak here or there. Um I'd encourage you to just take any and all feedback you heard and just be prepared for that conversation and wish you guys the best. Thank you very much. All right. So that is it for two public hearings. And next we have chair and member comments. Any comments? Oh, we have a new dad back next to us. That's cool. Way to go. He's alive. Two three-w weekek old twins. I was this close to bringing coffee today, but I didn't didn't quite need it today. Tonight. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Any anything else? Yeah, Commissioner Smith. Yeah, I know uh Commissioner Nelson is is uh is not here, but I know he mentioned and talked about the Edina Rides event. So, I participated in in the Edina rides with my whole family. Uh and I saw him there and it was it was a great event. Um it's just really incredible. I think we probably rode I want to say almost 10 miles. Um we started off in the back of the YMCA and we rode all the way to Bredesen made the loop and came back. And so we had stations along the way and different residents kind of gave out coffee and donuts and kind of negates the ride, but it was still a lot of fun eating all that sugar. But, um, I hope that he does it next year. And it's just really beautiful to see how much you could cover, right, just riding through the city. Um, I know some of you guys here are are bikers and and riders. Um, and I would just encourage us to think as we upgrade the city zoning and everything to consider bike lanes as being a key thing that we want to develop and continue to build in the city. So, great event. Um, looking forward to it next year and hope we encourage more bike riding across the city. Commissioner Phelp, thank you for sharing that. Okay, I'm getting back to work. If we um consider doing um some of the areas of potential change um rather than just Vernon, we might want to expand that to other quarters as well. Yes, there were other areas on the list. Certainly. Yes. Great comment and a reminder. Anything else, staff? Yeah, just a reminder of a couple of upcoming work sessions. Uh June 3rd, next Tuesday, with the city council, we have a work session to discuss next year's work plan. It's where the council a little bit different than how we're doing that this year. It's to solicit feedback from the council before we start putting our plan together. Um, you know, things that they might want us to work on. And then the June 11th planning commission meeting, we're also going to have a work session to take a look at. There's a posting on better together in regards to the underpass. So, we're going to take a closer look at that and get some feedback from the commission as well. That's both of those will be at 5:30 up in the community room. Motion to adjurnn. Second. All those in favor say I. I. So moved. The meeting's been adjourned. Thank you everyone. Really? Yeah. I lost I lost a buck. I Yeah, it's funny. We 8:15 and the whole crashing halt. I feel like that happens. That does.