[0:45] all right how's everyone doing tonight great go Wolves let's go okay [0:53] so welcome everybody to the May 28th 2025 city vina planning commission [0:59] meeting on behalf of the rest of the commission we are grateful you are here to those in person and those tuning in [1:05] remotely say it every time but your curiosity your feedback and your [1:11] participation is vital to this process as we navigate change together here in Nidina specifically regarding the ways [1:17] in which we'd like to use our land so we are committed to hearing your [1:23] feedback the best way to get that to us and to participate in that process is through the city's engagement website [1:30] which is ww.etto togetherina.org you can track upcoming [1:36] developments current ones or past ones if the the comment period's open [1:42] 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 [1:49] and considering it as we make decisions for recommend for recommend recommending [1:56] approval or denial with our public hearings on that note we have two public [2:01] hearings tonight and uh I'll touch on the best ways to get involved in that to [2:08] testify whether you're in person or tuning in remotely once we get to that there's some numbers you can call [2:18] 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 [2:24] call followed by the approval of tonight's meeting agenda then the prior meetings minutes [2:32] and then we have our community comment period which is your chance for anyone who's here in person to uh testify about [2:39] any matter not on tonight's agenda so any issues concerns things you're happy with you have three minutes to do so and [2:46] you just come up to either podium share your full name your address after that [2:51] similar process for the public hearing i'll get into that later and then we [2:56] wrap it up with chair member comments staff comments and adjournment so without further ado we'll call the [3:02] meeting to order and then roll call commissioner Alky here commissioner [3:08] Padilla here commissioner Smith here commissioner Day here commissioner [3:14] Bournestein here commissioner Felt here commissioner Honaman here chair Bennett [3:21] here all right we're all here next we have the approval of tonight's meeting [3:26] agenda if there's no proposed changes I'd welcome a motion motion to approve tonight's agenda second all those in [3:33] favor say I i so moved next we have the approval of the prior meeting minutes [3:38] from May 14th similar thing [3:44] motion to approve the prior meeting minutes [3:49] second all those in favor say I i so moved all right next we have the [3:55] community comment period as I mentioned for those who are here in person if you'd like to testify about any matter [4:02] not on tonight's agenda you can come up you have three minutes to do say do so [4:07] 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 [4:13] comments anyone here for community [4:19] comment seeing only smiles and no one racing up we'll move on from that so [4:25] next we have our public hearings as I mentioned we have two uh so what to [4:30] expect for these uh if if you're new to this process if you want to do something [4:36] with your land that doesn't quite conform to the code uh you put an application to vary from that staff [4:44] looks into it puts together some facts and findings that comprise a staff report they consult other commissions [4:51] engineering departments etc back and forth with the applicant [4:56] staff then provides some guidance as to whether they support it or not with you [5:03] know conditions of approval or denial they put all this together into a [5:08] presentation that you'll see tonight so planner Oer will present on this uh then [5:14] we'll allow we'll actually just turn it right over to the applicant to provide [5:19] their own presentation and then after that we'll have a question and answer [5:24] period between the planning commission staff and the applicant after that point we will open [5:31] it to a public hearing which is your chance to testify about the matter similar to the community comment period [5:37] you have three minutes to do so just come up to either podium and then for those tuning in remotely just hold tight [5:43] once we get to that point I will give you a phone number and some passwords to [5:49] jump into the queue to speak uh virtually after the comm hearing is [5:56] closed then we bring it back to the planning commission to deliberate and then we provide a recommendation for [6:02] approval or denial so with that planner O take it away thank you [6:08] members of the U commission this is a front yard setback variance request for three variances at [6:17] 7202 Shannon Drive the subject property is highlighted in blue it is a corner [6:23] lot it is at the south west corner of Valley View Road and Shannon Drive [6:30] the variances include a 190.34 foot north frontyard setback variance from [6:37] the 264.24 foot requirement for a new home to be located 93.9 ft from the Lee [6:45] Valley Road rightway and an 87.88 88 ft east front yard setback variance from [6:52] the 140.9 ft requirement for for a new home to be located at 52.9 ft from [7:01] Shannon Drive and a 205 ft front yard setback variance from the [7:06] 264.24 ft north setback requirement for a pool placeholder to be built 59 ft [7:13] from the north lot line along Lee Valley Road the three three variances are [7:19] necessary given the applicant of the street setback [7:24] requirement on the lot prohibits building location and pool at 7202 [7:29] Shannon Drive and I will explain that so this is the original plat on the [7:35] left the subject lot is highlighted in pink the ho the lat lot to the west is [7:42] yellow and the lot to the south is purple so this was the original plat um [7:48] to be developed with homes and then over time you can see that the pink lot which [7:54] is a subject lot now has um a rearranged lot uh next to it which had been part of [8:03] the purple lot and then the yellow lot also had some lot line rearrangements so [8:08] it's it's the configuration is quite different than the original plat and two new homes have been built [8:16] on those two lots the one in particular that affects this property is the purple [8:21] lot that has now frontage along Lee Valley Road and also frontage along [8:27] Shannon Drive so that affects the setbacks of the subject property along [8:33] Lee Valley and Shannon technically according to the ordinance the new home is supposed to meet the setbacks that [8:40] the home on 5901 Lee Valley has from Shannon and also Lee Valley which um are [8:49] deeper than the actual lot and um any sort of redevelopment on the property [8:55] does require a variance so this is the subject home as it currently exists on the property was [9:02] built many years ago before the current homes that were built um well behind it [9:08] actually along uh Lee Valley this is the survey of the [9:15] existing conditions of the property showing that existing home it's a very very large lot it's about 1.22 acres in [9:25] area and then this is what they would like to replace that house with and the [9:30] red line from the Lee Valley right ofway [9:35] to this corner of the house is the setback that's required from Lee Valley [9:40] for the subject property and then also the red line here from the closest point [9:46] of that home at um that addresses off of Lee Valley um that affects the the [9:54] setback along Shannon Drive for the subject property so um this is the house [9:59] that they are proposing to build it will be fronting Shannon Drive as does the [10:05] existing house and then um they are asking for a variance for a placeholder [10:10] 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 [10:16] what their intention was and to request that setback so that if they decide to [10:21] build that pool they don't have to come back to the planning commission ask for an additional variance because what will [10:28] happen is if they do want additional improvements that were not part of this variance they would have to come back [10:34] and request an additional variance so this is the compliance table [10:40] um all other portions of the project um are well within the ordinance requirements the south sideyard setback [10:47] minimum standard is 10 feet the proposed is over 64 feet the rear yard setback [10:54] required is 25 they're at over 85 ft the building coverage is less than 10% the [11:00] hard cover is just a little over 20% and the building height maximum um allowed [11:05] would be 40 feet and they're they're going to be at 31 feet so the area that [11:11] requires the variances again are along that north frontage and the east frontage and they're all based on the [11:18] house that is um at 5901 which has property that just wraps the western and [11:25] southern portion of the lot so here are the building elevations that are proposed the front side and [11:36] um additional elevations this will show you a [11:41] rendering typically we would ask for a rendering showing the house in context [11:46] with the homes on either side that was really difficult they couldn't actually have this house shown along with the [11:53] 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 [12:02] also along Lee Valley that was built or rebuilt on that lot line rearrangement [12:07] is also very far back which ultimately does affect the setbacks of adjacent [12:14] properties so this is the rendering perspective looking northeast from Shannon [12:20] Drive front of the house and then again if you're looking southwest from Shannon [12:27] Drive and then at the intersection of Shannon and Lee [12:33] Valley and then a perspective looking southeast from the neighbor um access [12:39] from Lee Valley Road and then a perspective looking [12:54] East so the primary issue Minnesota state statutes requires that the [12:59] following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively um that the proposed variance will be in harmony and in [13:06] general purpose and intent of the ordinance staff does believe that to be true the purpose and intent of the front [13:12] yard setback requirement is to provide consistent minimum spacing from a structure to a lot line adjacent to the [13:18] street however the city code is dependent on the location of neighboring homes so deeper setbacks from the street [13:24] can affect the property's opportunity for development and this is a situation where it is affected um the property at [13:31] 5901 Lee Valley uh wraps the um entire parcel and affects both street frontages [13:39] for this subject property um the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan yes the comprehensive [13:45] plan guides the property for lowdensity residential principal use of the property will still remain a single [13:50] dwelling unit and the property will remain zoned R1 are there practical [13:56] difficulties in complying with the ordinance the term practical difficulties um means that the that will [14:02] it be used in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance um the [14:07] proposed use is permitted in the R1 zoning district and complies with all of the zoning zoning ordinance with the [14:13] exception of of the setbacks um from the street frontages which um [14:19] are they are unable to be complied with that the plight of the land owner is due [14:25] to circumstances that are unique to the property not common to similarly zoned properties and that are not self-created [14:31] 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 [14:38] setback the property is severely affected by the setback requirement which is not self-created by the [14:44] applicant it's actually a result of over time the um lot line rearrangement and [14:51] then the homes that were built at a later date uh specifically the one at 5901 Lee Valley that was built in [14:58] 2003 with will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood no uh granting the variance will not [15:05] alter the essential character of the neighborhood the applicants are hoping to complement the neighborhood with a home that fits the unique lot and [15:12] surrounding properties staff does recommend approval of the [15:17] 190.34 and 205 foot front yard setback variances from the north lot line and [15:23] the 87.88 ft east setback variance for a tearown rebuild and pool placement [15:29] holder at 7202 Shannon Drive [15:35] staff recommends approval of the variance as requested subject to the findings listed in the staff report and [15:41] subject to the following conditions the survey date stamped April 28th 2025 [15:47] elevations and building plans dates stamped April 28th 2025 compliance with [15:53] the conditions and comments listed in the environmental engineers memo and compliance with the tree ordinance at [15:58] permit um there was one comment on the better together site it was not supportive um [16:06] it indicated that the city has codes for a reason um and we do have I believe [16:13] Josh Seagull who is the applicant present um and with that I will stop and [16:19] answer any questions you may have thank you Chris yeah usually we don't [16:25] have variances with that high of numbers but I think you did a good job of explaining why this is needed beautiful [16:32] looking project we're going to offer up the applicant the chance to either give a presentation or just simply stand for [16:39] question and answers whatever you'd like to do come forward state your full name [16:45] address and tell us why we should support this great thanks Chris uh my name is Joshua [16:52] Seagull i'm at 5414 Washburn Avenue South currently uh I think at first it [16:59] seems like the variance uh has extreme numbers uh but it's a very large very [17:05] large lot it's a very unique site in a very unique neighborhood um over time [17:11] well this home the original home I think was built in 57 the two adjacent properties were built in 2003 and 2012 [17:21] um it's very unique with tall trees greenery hills culde-sacs [17:27] um it's really an atypical situation um we wanted the home placement to be least [17:35] impactful to the neighbor that would be the closest which is 5901 Lee Valley [17:41] excuse me and by doing so we pulled this home forward a little bit uh it still [17:47] meets the averages in the neighborhood we've provided some details some surveys of existing homes off Lee Valley off [17:54] Shannon off Tale uh if you take out the outlier behind us we're actually less [18:00] 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 [18:06] happy to answer questions share more um and you know I'm happy to be here and [18:12] happy to answer anything so thank you very much yeah so I guess open it to [18:17] other commissioners if you have any questions for staff or the applicant [18:25] chris am I am I understanding correctly that because of [18:31] that access road to 5901 Lee [18:37] Valley the property 7202 Shannon is almost is is unbuildable because the [18:45] setback is actually bigger than the property itself that's correct [18:51] so um how how could this have been done [18:58] differently so that in the future we wouldn't find a condition like this i guess it it's not reasonable to make a [19:05] property unbuildable by the code so is it because that access road is privately [19:12] 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 [19:21] have thoughts on how this could have been structured a little bit differently I guess yes that [19:28] has been one of the more frustrating codes that we've had to deal with over time because a property is developed [19:35] based on the setbacks of homes on either side and they could be much further back [19:41] they could be redeveloped much further back lot lines can be rearranged just like in this situation if it were just a [19:48] simple number that you could work with like 30 feet all homes have the right to [19:56] go 30 ft for a front yard setback you wouldn't be in this situation unless they wanted to get closer than 30 ft so [20:02] if there is a minimum setback standard where you're not relying on what has occurred or what will occur has or going [20:10] to occur next to it um then it would be much easier but I don't think anybody [20:16] envisioned that this would be an issue when you create code like this and [20:22] presumably at some point 5905 the owner acquired additional land [20:29] and reconfigured the parcels the two lots they didn't create a third lot it [20:35] was just reconfiguring both parcels and for whatever reason maybe I mean you [20:40] drive through there and there's a lot of different um uh there's it's very hilly [20:46] i don't know if the condition on that property at 5901 um if they decided to [20:51] have that flag lot portion connecting with Lee Valley because it was easier or [20:57] better to get their driveway off of that instead of Shannon i don't know but there wasn't anything preventing them [21:03] from doing that it just um it does affect this property though and um sorry [21:10] last question when we do uh revisions of lot lines like this um as part of the [21:17] process are setbacks evaluated [21:28] uh typically not we when we're looking at lot reconfigurations we this was done [21:36] 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 [21:43] that's becomes non-conforming like this flag lot does so I believe there's protections in [21:49] the current code that may prevent this flag lot kind of situation got it thank [21:56] you good questions any others [22:05] all right thank you thank you so we have uh this is a public hearing so now is a [22:11] time we'll open it to that so for those tuning in remotely to participate please call the [22:18] following number it should pop up on your screen too [22:24] 3125358110 and enter access code [22:31] 2863106 4220 then enter password [22:38] 5454 and press star three on your keypad to get in the queue to [22:45] 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 [22:53] we'll open it to people who are here in person that'd like to testify so while [22:58] those virtually are getting in the queue to speak if they're there uh this is a public hearing to those who are here [23:05] also so similarly you have 3 minutes uh just come up to either podium state your [23:10] full name address when the light turns green you your time begins when it turns red we'll ask you to wrap up your [23:16] comments is anyone here in person that'd like to testify for this public [23:23] hearing see some shaking of heads so no [23:28] it's probably been 30 seconds maybe another 20 seconds or so and I think we [23:34] can move on so no one's in the queue currently okay [23:39] so we'll just give it another 15 seconds or so so just bear with us we don't have elevator music [23:59] yet it has been a minute since you started talking about the online queue and I think we're safe to proceed thanks [24:07] guess I welcome a motion to close the public hearing motion to close the public hearing [24:14] second all those in favor say I i i so moved public hearing is closed all right [24:20] we bring it back to the planning commission to deliberate i guess in my time being here I don't remember seeing [24:26] numbers so extreme but also not seeing a lot completely unbuildable this is a very unique situation [24:36] i'd welcome a motion unless there's any other further discussion [24:44] yeah I think we you know uh for the purpose of of residents you know it's [24:50] it's always good I think to just talk it through you know rationalize through it [24:56] um for me this is a a clear case where a variance would be required um when we [25:02] look at a lot like this and I'm so happy that uh we saw the images of what was [25:09] the platting prior and the platting now because then you could get a sense of how things change over time that then [25:16] made this lot uh much more difficult to build on given the zoning code that we [25:24] have which looks at the averages across the adjacent properties right the setback averages [25:29] um so for me you know when I Think about this one right clearly 7202 was built [25:36] first in the original platting in 57 and then for reasons that we are not super [25:43] clear about yet but one plausible reason is access to the home on a hilly area [25:49] 5901 and the adjacent property then reconfigured the plot and the uh lot [25:55] lines to make it more convenient to live in their spot right and that's what I think probably happened but by doing [26:02] that it then made the adjacent property setbacks so much more extreme that if uh [26:10] 7202 wanted to rebuild and do something different it would be a non-conforming type of space right that's how my brain [26:17] is kind of thinking through the the the movement of this um and so coming to the [26:24] planning commission for variance to make a change especially since the applicant [26:29] 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 [26:35] that's that's very positive regarding the city code um yeah [26:41] you know this city code definitely comes up a lot for us right where we're looking at averages all the time having [26:47] a minimum lot setback there's pros and cons to that because Edina has a city where if you go [26:53] 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 [27:00] 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 [27:06] so that could be tricky uh so we have this code where we look at the averages [27:11] of what's around right and that seems to have been working for a while so not necessarily because it something that [27:18] comes up all the time mean that we should get rid of it it just means that we have activity happening in the city [27:24] 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 [27:29] have code for a reason that makes sense yes but we also have a planning commission for a reason too to look at [27:35] these unique circumstances to try to make the best decision that we can so for me this is a I would approve this [27:42] because I think what the owners uh are trying to do makes sense for the region i think the adjacent properties are [27:48] clearly outliers and the code kind of prevents them from moving forward so I think this is something that I'll be in [27:54] favor of of of of approving [28:00] thank you for your thoughts i think you just nailed it completely i agree 100% thanks for sharing i think that's very [28:06] insightful for residents to hear i make a motion to approve the variance [28:12] request for 7202 Shannon Drive second all those in favor say I i opposed [28:22] motion carries uh unanimously good luck with your project it's a beautiful one thank you for coming [28:34] all right next we have our second and final public hearing of the evening this is a comprehensive plan amendment [28:40] reszoning preliminary plat and site plan for 5516 Vernon [28:47] Avenue similar process as I stated before so staff will provide a [28:53] presentation applicant can provide their own we'll have a back and forth then [28:58] public hearing then we'll deliberate and with that Carrie take it [29:04] away thank you thank you chair members of the commission uh this property is [29:10] located west of the Grand View District on Vernon Avenue on the north side of [29:15] the street uh just west of Yansy Park south of Highland School you can see [29:21] it's uh the site itself is just under one acre so quite a bit larger than the [29:27] surrounding single family homes with the exception of the property to the east [29:33] 5508 the site is currently zoned R1 single dwelling unit district as well as [29:39] the surrounding area the property is guided in our comprehensive plan for low density [29:45] residential uh development it's again essentially our single family district [29:51] here's an aerial shot of the site you can see the school to the north to the [29:56] east is the park and a large wetland area and the adjacent single family [30:02] home here's a look at the two single family homes on the large lot from [30:07] Vernon you can see the mature trees on the site especially the trees along the [30:12] west lot line that would be uh preserved as part of this proposal so the [30:18] applicant you as you recall did go through sketch plan uh review a few months ago the proposal this evening is [30:26] generally the same the driveway has flipped to the west side of the property [30:31] but the units are essentially in the same location usable lot area the the [30:37] green space highlighted there so here is a look at those trees [30:42] that would be preserved again that driveway has shifted to the west side of [30:48] the lot this would be um platted the the each [30:54] individual unit would be platted um units located within that lot and then [30:59] the uh exterior surrounding the homes would be put into a homeowners association um and managed these would [31:07] be owner occupied here's a rendering of what the units would look like i'll let the [31:12] applicant go through in more detail uh about the architecture so the request this evening is for a comprehensive plan [31:20] amendment to reguide the site from low density residential to low density [31:25] attached residential that would allow the two dwellings on each site or the [31:30] two dwellings the duplex both duplexes on the site a resoning from R1 to PRD2 [31:37] planned residential district 2 site plan and subdivision so looking at our [31:42] compliance table this project would comply with all of the PRD2 standards for setbacks height [31:50] minimum lot area usable area one thing I want to highlight here [31:56] is the proposed taking the 38,000 square feet [32:01] of that's the the property size the uh [32:06] average for each home would be nine just over 9,500 square feet minimum lot size [32:12] for a single family home is 9,000 square feet so on average this would be a little bit larger than single family [32:19] homes the PRD standard is 7,300 square feet so it does exceed that as well the [32:26] issue again is the density and that's where the comprehensive plan amendment comes in [32:31] so primary issues is the comprehensive plan amendment reasonable as well as the [32:37] reasonzoning u staff believes that it is um so our recommendation is for approval [32:43] of both the comprehensive plan and the resoning but want to highlight when we look at our pyramid of discretion here [32:50] the planning commission and council have complete discretion to approve or deny this we're down at the the bottom of the [32:56] the pyramid with comprehensive plans and resoning have complete discretion to approve or deny so within the staff [33:03] report uh staff has provided alternatives for both approval and denial so first looking at the [33:10] comprehensive plan amendment um so again it would be to low [33:15] density attached residential this is a a designation in the comp plan that are typically found along arterial roadways [33:23] similar the old Vernon development just west of the site here's the site that we're looking [33:29] at uh this has a guidance of lowdensity attached residential so a lot of our [33:34] duplexes across town have that same designation there's also a couple of duplexes to the south along the railroad [33:42] tracks here that have that same guidance so adjacent to single family uh [33:47] neighborhoods so the change in the comprehensive plan would just simply be to uh add low density attached to that [33:54] one site as you recall we discussed including that property to the east [34:01] within uh the comprehensive plan amendment the applicant did uh approach [34:06] those property owners they weren't interested in being part of this application to change uh their guidance [34:13] of their site but they did indicate that support for the project and that's in that letter is included in the applicant [34:20] narrative in your packet so when you look at the land the lowdensity attached [34:25] land use description this project would fit it applies to two family and attached dwellings of low densities and [34:32] moderate heights uh the category recognizes the historical role of these housing types as transitional district [34:39] between single family residential areas and major thoroughares so again this being on a minor [34:46] arterial other uh excerpts from the comprehensive plan include talking about [34:52] missing middle housing which is a housing type that that we're looking to increase again duplexes fall into that [34:59] missing middle category this wouldn't be affordable housing as we talk about but it is [35:05] providing an alternative housing type also the housing strategy task for uh [35:12] task force reports um indicates or supports opportunities to accommodate missing middle housing within the city [35:19] as defined as a range of multi-unit or clustered housing [35:24] types so again staff supports the comprehensive plan amendment this property is located on that arterial [35:31] roadway um similar to the old Vernon to the west [35:36] um again it fits that description this site as well as the adjacent property is somewhat isolated got Highlands uh [35:44] school to the north wetland to the east um that row of trees and the single [35:49] family homes uh to the west so the proposal wouldn't be detrimental or you [35:55] know these two properties kind of sit on their own the density is similar to the [36:00] four single family homes to the east and I want to touch on that a little bit [36:09] so when you take the density of these four homes located on the east side of the [36:16] the culde-sac and the density of the four homes on this site it's similar um the [36:23] average of those four homes is about 10,500 square feet and again the uh or [36:30] 10,900 square feet and again the density here is about 9,500 so somewhat similar [36:36] to the single family homes so in regard to the reszoning [36:45] um when looking at the criteria um uh for the the resoning the criteria [36:53] on the screen here is is it consistent with the comprehensive plan so if amended uh the reasonzoning would be if [36:59] the comp plan is amended will not be detrimental to surrounding properties would not result in overly intensive [37:06] land use will not result in undue traffic congestion we didn't require a [37:11] traffic study here there's only three additional units on a arterial roadway so we didn't believe there would be any [37:18] uh impact to the roadways um it conforms to the provisions um the city code as I [37:24] demonstrated the minimum standards of the PRD district would be met and provides a proper relationship between [37:31] um adjacent properties the nearest single family [37:36] homes would be 60 feet to the single nearest single family home to the west [37:42] the nearest single family home to the east would be 45 feet so there's a a good separation uh of the structures as [37:49] well so again staff supports the reasonzoning so with that I will stop and let the [37:56] applicant uh come up for their presentation and then afterward we can answer any questions thank you Carrie [38:02] great presentation yeah welcome the applicant team up please introduce yourselves tell us a little about [38:08] yourself again for people who are new and uh if you have your own presentation now would be the time or if [38:14] you just simply want to sand for questions that's a time for it too [38:23] yeah i thought I had it pre-opened but I guess I didn't [38:32] all right good this work [38:38] work all right how's everybody doing today good good um well cool thanks for [38:45] having us uh here again my name is Jordan Crockett i'm the project operations manager at Abundance Properties [38:52] okay good evening everybody i'm Rashad co-founder of Abundance Properties also our in-house GC owner of Kenny Property [38:59] Development as well happy to be here excited and I'm Darren Fletcher uh co-founder as well and um I know we went [39:06] through this but just a quick refresher at Abundance Properties our mission is to create abundance through the [39:12] development and rehab of communities while empowering others and educating them at the same time and we have a [39:19] video as well that really highlights a project that we recently worked on that aligns closely with our core values and [39:26] our mission statement with Abundance Properties [39:34] y'all it's cold out [Music] here it's cold out here when we first [39:41] started this project it was warm out the sun was out we had nice drone shots none [39:46] of that's happening now it's cold but we still got work to do we've already done roofing siding plumbing electrical [39:54] 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 [40:00] 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 [40:06] 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 [40:14] allowing emerging developers to add to their portfolio but not have to take on [40:19] so much risk with grabbing properties that need a ton of work still so this is a great opportunity for people within a [40:26] community to now be able to continue to invest back into their community and not take on as much [40:38] risk our team here at Abundance Properties have been excited doing this project with PPL because it's bringing [40:45] forth equitable transformation here in South Minneapolis the time is now and [40:51] legacy starts here [40:57] all right that was our our partner Chanti just highlighting a video um or [41:02] highlighting a project that we did so uh we're all here for 5516 Vernon [41:08] Avenue so we'll walk through the plan and um Rashad will give a little bit of [41:13] highlights and we'll give a summary and and we'd love to hear from from everybody moving forward [41:20] so the big question why does it work um so one really cool thing is uh the U of [41:28] M study which is a third party study that was done on density in Edina um [41:35] recommended that Edina be intentional about increasing density in uh targeted [41:41] areas along uh corridors essentially so in this picture you can see the the [41:47] orange bubbles is where they uh they literally did their own study and recommended that along these corridors [41:54] there should be density uh increasing uh with the whole point of decreasing VMT [42:01] or or vehicle miles traveled uh which you know increases uh greenhouse gases [42:07] and other things uh so the comprehensive plan the climate uh plan all the things [42:13] in EDINA points towards wanting to increase density but also decrease road [42:19] or or decrease vehicles on the road um and then on top of that another really [42:26] kind of interesting piece about Edina is uh Edina has and I may switch around get [42:33] it wrong or right but uh Edina has more people working in Edina that then live [42:42] and work in Edina if that makes sense i might said it wrong but um the point of [42:48] increasing density is so that more residents can work the jobs in Eina um [42:53] which is uh which is a really cool community thing um so if you if you look at it [43:01] overall um and we're looking at the actual size of the land and how that [43:07] land can be used the question is is if if there's an acre of land in Edina is [43:13] the choice to put a single family there or would you want to utilize it more [43:20] efficiently uh and then our our bottom point is is we are the team for it uh we [43:25] have experience of execution of projects um literally the same as this um as well [43:33] as we're excited and we're already invested in the community of Edina um so [43:38] we're here we're ready and um we're looking forward to work with you guys [43:44] all right so just kind of breakdown of the plans themselves so we got about 3,000 square ft five beds four bathrooms [43:53] and owner occupied and buyers and then as far as the exterior LP siding [43:59] aluminum sopet fascia it's a finished finished basement if I didn't mention that and then uh as Carrie mentioned we [44:07] did flip-flop the driveways other than that the site plan has remained the same [44:12] um we have the full plans of all the silver engineering received some comments back some of those things um [44:17] that we are aware of and and it's a high level of what the properties are [44:25] sweet so in in summary um everything is pointing any dina the [44:30] the comprehensive plan the climate action plan um everything highlights increasing density in targeted areas [44:38] um location the size of the land um it's perfect for slightly higher density in a [44:46] reszone um and as I mentioned uh here at Abundance Properties we have experience [44:52] of executing project like this um as well so we'd be overd delivering for [44:57] your city and then one more slide so uh it's [45:03] kind of the question and Carrie kind of highlighted is like I mean is there really a difference as far as like what [45:10] 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 [45:17] and in this context it's there's very little difference if we're talking about [45:23] density uh of the actual site so it's very similar to the neighborhood to the [45:28] left um so thank you guys thank you i opened it for questions but [45:35] maybe first one since you brought it up uh could you explain why you guys flip-flop the driveway in the homes just [45:42] Yeah and then open it to the rest of the commissioners absolutely so originally it was the civil engineer that [45:48] recommended it due to not having to do tuck under garages more or less that's the reason [45:54] right there in the grade sorry can you repeat that i didn't catch [46:00] that quite so not having to do tuck under garage due to the grade location of being one way versus the other okay [46:07] thank you yeah open it to other commissioners for [46:14] staff or the applicants any any and all questions [46:23] sure thank you uh oh [46:28] um just a couple of follow-ups nice to see you gentlemen again thank you for your presentation and your second visit [46:37] 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 [46:45] Commissioner Bennett had made the suggestion about there was a a spot kind of in between the the the homes i don't [46:52] know if you looked at that about taking it out and moving that and did you decide that wasn't advisable [46:59] basically based off the feedback when we were last here i know there was a comment about you know ultimately we're [47:05] 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 [47:11] you got and ultimately um we took consideration some of the comments i [47:16] 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 [47:22] 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 [47:28] that that spot in the middle but then also uh potentially like changing the location of um the building that's [47:34] nearest Vernon so a couple things like that ultimately we decided to just kind of go with what we thought made sense [47:40] for the design and that's how we came to decision okay thank you and [47:50] um we had also talked about the fact that the cost would be about [47:56] I have in my notes 7 to 800,000 and then across the down road 8 to 900,000 um [48:02] where are you at now is that number changing so goalwise our goal essentially is to [48:09] keep it under a million but it there are other variables as far as costs and you [48:16] know if materials change and a few variables that we're considering too so [48:23] okay so I I can safely put north of my number from the last time we met um okay [48:30] those are my questions thanks [48:37] 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 [48:44] end of January or so uh I'll leave for a lot of feedback for [48:49] the comment section really but I think you mentioned that there is now a [48:54] basement uh can you just talk about what was that decisioning process i know the first time it was just going to be slab [49:02] but now I think you guys took the feedback you went back you kind of relook at the plans tell me a little bit [49:07] 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 [49:14] overall cost equation yeah good question so basically uh looking at the market [49:20] and seeing what the market wants you know talking to realtors getting their opinions um not only realtors that we [49:26] have relationships with but also people that work exclusive exclusively in Eina you know and seeing what's selling and [49:33] more or less everything's coming with basement you know even the one similar down the street on Vernon those had [49:40] finished basement as well so basically not wanting to reinvent the wheel you [49:45] know and um saying "Okay these have gone successful and these have had finished basement okay we should have finished [49:50] basement too." And then you know that does affect the cost you know excavation [49:56] um finishing out the basement all all of that so um kind of ties in a little bit [50:01] to the last question as well about um the cost and some of the variables that uh Jordan had mentioned [50:20] it's just a thank you for coming back again i have a process question for Director Teague when does the [50:25] subdivision come in typically [50:31] can be done a couple of ways it can come in with the project or it could come in [50:36] after sometimes you know if the footprint changes slightly you want to get that legal description right on the [50:44] um the foundation walls essentially so it can come in either way can after the [50:49] 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 [50:57] project they've they've presented a preliminary plat so the structures would have to be [51:03] located within those lot boundaries okay thanks [51:14] any other questions for staff for the applicants yeah Commissioner Bian I [51:19] don't know if this is maybe a staff maybe an applicant you mentioned there's an effort to preserve trees around the [51:24] boundary um are there trees in the middle that that won't be preserved and what are they oh yes there are some you [51:32] recall that picture there's some very mature oak trees in the middle that will be removed so because this property is [51:38] zoned R1 currently it is subject to the tree preservation ordinance so they're [51:44] going to have to do some either replacements on the site um there's plenty of room on the site but that's [51:50] something that would get looked at as part of a building permit um application but it does have to conform to the tree [51:56] preservation ordinance but there will be some mature trees removed for sure [52:04] any other questions for the applicant yeah this for Carrie actually um is that okay [52:13] um what would if the current homeowner wanted to [52:21] subdivide this property into four single family lots each at would be each more [52:28] than the minimum required what um discretion or authority would the city [52:33] have with respect to doing that so wi within this area they probably [52:41] wouldn't be able to get four lots because each each lot needs minimum [52:46] 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 [52:54] but they could probably just eyeballing it get at least one more single family [52:59] home out of it but if they were to do four single family homes there would be variances involved either for lot [53:05] frontage or depending on how you'd configurate configure that and what [53:10] would the process be for this the owner then yep it would be a somewhat similar [53:16] to this it would be a preliminary plat with several variances [53:26] all right thanks any other questions for staff or the applicants [53:33] 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 [53:40] stay around we might have more questions or when we deliberate after the public [53:46] hearing but like the prior one uh this public hearing is accessible to those [53:52] who are here in person as well as those tuning in remotely thank you so we will [53:58] I'll just give you if you just tuned in the same type of instructions to get [54:05] into the queue to speak and then while we wait on that we'll open it to those who are here in person [54:11] so just like the screen says please call the following number [54:17] 312 535 8110 enter access code [54:27] 2863106 4220 enter password [54:32] 5454 then press star three to indicate your interest in speaking [54:39] 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 [54:45] same thing as before you have three minutes you can come up to either podium just state your full name address when [54:52] the light turns green you got three minutes when it turns red I'll ask you to just wrap up your comments so for [55:00] anyone who's here in person that'd like to testify now's the time to come forward and do so [55:07] come on [55:13] up thank you um Susan Carlson i'm on 5508 Goya Lane [55:22] which is the Culdeac uh to the west and um I was uh actually very privileged to [55:30] be at a meeting on January 27th um met with the builders and with the adjoining [55:36] property owner who's um sitting out there now um and so and that was January [55:43] 27th then I was at a meeting or watched on televised on February 4th and at that [55:51] time it was on slab three stories so I'm very happy to hear that [55:57] it's basement but I don't understand 2.5 stories the surrounding nine properties [56:04] there are four ramblers one walkout three lowp [56:10] profofile two stories and a story and a half there are um 40 trees on that [56:18] property and uh probably half of them are the west [56:24] and the north boundary or to the school which are pines the rest are primarily [56:31] oaks very um probably 60 year old oaks uh and the [56:38] pine and a minimal amount of ash probably a handful of those trees need to come down [56:49] um I do have some concerns um in terms of [56:55] the just the aesthetics um the builder had said it would be [57:01] similar to the Hankkerson proper properties and um it's very very [57:08] different than what the current surrounding is [57:15] um and I may speak for the owner who's sitting here um there's no chance of [57:20] acquiring that adjacent lot it's a legacy home handbuilt brick by brick by [57:25] her husband and being passed down to the family um another concern I have is [57:33] going from uh single family home which [57:38] had one occupant for many years um to the four which I think it could easily [57:46] handle however five bedrooms each um we're looking at going from [57:53] anywhere from maybe eight occupants to 28 [57:59] occupants and then you're looking at cars you're looking at parking you're [58:05] looking at guests there's where are they going to park if they have guests i I really [58:12] wonder are they going to park on Goya Lane you can't park on um Vernon so I [58:18] think all these things really need to be thought through um it's it's [58:25] just there's nothing similar about um this property development and um [58:34] what's on Goya Lane right now okay thank you [58:39] thank you very much appreciate the testimony for anyone who [58:46] else is who else whoever else is here that would like to testify please come [58:51] forward you have three minutes to do [58:59] so heard the you first so uh Mark Keigle 5529 Vernon so right across the property [59:07] um I flip-flopped a couple of times on this i came in not knowing very much and [59:12] I appreciate the presentation that was done thank you very much um I guess my concerns would echo the the same [59:18] concerns that we just heard i think right now I'm probably coming down not [59:23] in favor of the development as it currently stands the only additional concern that I would add is that at the [59:31] price point that they're talking about so we moved up uh three years ago so we're recent transplant into this [59:37] community and thank you so much um you know at the price point that they're talking about that's not super near [59:44] where we were uh when we bought our home but fairly near that um and I just [59:50] simply don't understand how it's going to be economically feasible cuz our home is also a five-bedroom home to like what [59:58] kind of family or or other arrangement like who's going to actually buy these [1:00:03] occupy these and have it make sense both in the current economic climate where you've got 7% interest rates and what [1:00:11] looks like no backyard i don't really see other similar properties either in the neighborhood or around Adina that [1:00:18] are going to have something that somebody actually wants in in what they're selling and I [1:00:24] I'm fairly worried about that so in addition to the other concerns thank you [1:00:31] thank you very much [1:00:43] wayne Collins 5532 Vernon Avenue Cornar Goya in [1:00:49] Vernon um couple things that cons uh I find a little I'm confused with i [1:00:56] hear the word compatible and scale to single family homes similar to family homes to family [1:01:04] homes um I've worked for the Census Bureau and [1:01:09] I've never heard low density residency when I go home to home to do my survey [1:01:14] it's either a single family dwelling or a multifamily dwelling that's what fall under the [1:01:20] category of a multi-family dwelling the message is being sent to [1:01:26] the people in that neighborhood and their single family dwellings [1:01:33] i'd like to look at it in a neutral way but I'm confused as to why that [1:01:42] would be placed in a residential neighborhood with single family [1:01:47] dwellings um my housemate has lived at that residence for 30 [1:01:54] years she's adamantly opposed to this program [1:02:02] and she's hoping that she can contribute something more [1:02:08] to bring the community together to see it for a movement in the wrong [1:02:16] direction for the neighborhood with a multi- family unit [1:02:24] um I hope everybody will give it some deep consideration out of respect for [1:02:30] the people who live in that neighborhood thank you thank you very [1:02:38] much anyone else who's here in person that like to testify please come [1:02:47] forward all right seeing none we will move to those who might be in the queue [1:02:52] do we have anyone in the queue we do not have anyone in the queue and I [1:02:58] believe it's been a long enough so we can proceed welcome a motion to close a public hearing [1:03:06] motion to close the public hearing second all those in favor say I i so [1:03:12] moved public hearing is closed thank you everyone for your comments maybe before we deliberate um there's some questions [1:03:20] and confusion around some things that maybe staff could answer just [1:03:25] about maybe the designation of the properties versus multifamily [1:03:32] so the the comprehensive plan designation is low density attached that's what's being proposed and that [1:03:39] would include duplexes [Music] [1:03:45] um so it whether it's classified multifamily typically multif family you [1:03:51] think of more than two um but it's not uncommon to have duplexes located [1:03:56] adjacent to single family homes especially on um wellraveled roadways [1:04:02] minor arterials like Vernon you see a lot on 50th [1:04:08] um Valley View that Valley View Wooddale area yeah running a lot of the freeways [1:04:14] too were there any other questions that [1:04:20] maybe staff could have could have spoken to that was brought up could you clarify [1:04:26] for the two and a half stories yeah that one yeah so a single family home can be [1:04:32] two and a half stories as well um 2 and a half stories and 40 ft is the maximum [1:04:38] height for both the R1 zoning district and this PRD2 so the the height [1:04:44] limitations essentially the same yeah it's a formula within the code [1:04:52] um very complicated formula so it's a twostory looking at it from above ground [1:04:58] it's a two-story house but based on a formula for average height of a story it [1:05:04] mathematically calculates to two and a half stories but it's yes it's going to be a a pitched roof with that third [1:05:09] story within that pitched area in kind of simple terms thanks [1:05:16] but this project is just proposed at two stories correct with a basement [1:05:23] yeah okay just to clarify you had Oh [1:05:30] wow i guess yeah so we're deliberating so I mean if people have comments they'd [1:05:36] like to share or if we wanted discussion between ourselves if people have further [1:05:41] questions or kind of on the fence with anything now would be the time [1:05:48] or we could just Yeah you guys i'll start um thank you again uh for coming [1:05:54] and for the presentation and and thank you everyone for coming and and speaking um we do take your concerns very uh [1:06:03] seriously and have I have read all of them on better together and and we deliberated um last time extensively um [1:06:11] I think when we were here for sketch plan or when they were here for sketch plan we um indicated strong support of [1:06:19] this being a parcel with the access for the two town homes being off of Vernon [1:06:25] uh we felt like this was a good site for um more density [1:06:31] um I think there is a universe where this by the math this could have [1:06:38] been four single family homes and so um while there might be mechanics and variances I [1:06:45] 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 [1:06:53] pressure raised this is not a 10-story apartment building that's in the middle [1:07:00] of a neighborhood it is um adding some units that will have the same square [1:07:07] foot size as many of the properties in Morningside and I don't think that we [1:07:14] would take the approach that Morningside is too dense uh to me that feels like [1:07:20] again we have codes for a reason the we have lots and properties of a size that [1:07:28] goes comprehensively with the city um I I personally am concerned about rising [1:07:34] 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 [1:07:41] planning commission to tell the developer what to build in terms of [1:07:46] aesthetics and finishes for them to sell it um I think this is exactly the right [1:07:52] use of this land i think I would like to see more density but I I understand the [1:07:58] concerns of the neighborhood and I think this is the right um baby steps into [1:08:03] creating more options of housing for all sorts of people um maybe people who [1:08:08] don't want backyards maybe people who work from home and need their own offices i don't know who the market is [1:08:15] but I'm glad we're getting um some more people living and working in the dinina [1:08:27] thank you for the presentation and I agree with everything Commissioner Honaman has said um and I believe all [1:08:34] the way up and down Vernon Avenue from Interlockan even as Vernon turns off all [1:08:40] the way to 169 there's um condominiums and double dwelling units and town [1:08:47] homes and I'm assuming these are going to be marketed as town homes um right in [1:08:53] Morningside the minimum residential R1 um lot size is 9,000 these are 9,500 [1:09:02] square ft per unit so that [1:09:07] is not even as tight as the minimum lot size and so [1:09:14] um I'm in agreement of the um with this and I support this um and I had [1:09:19] mentioned previously at the previous meeting that I had wished it would be just a little bit denser um I understand [1:09:26] that you've got your numbers and what your need but I I I'm in support of this thank [1:09:39] you i'm trying to say something unique [1:09:46] um I think like like some others I'm less concerned with the the that precise details of the plan the height the you [1:09:53] know is someone going to park in the driveway um or where they're going to park that kind of stuff [1:09:59] but when we talked about this the last time I think I think some of us were saying you know it it makes sense [1:10:06] to it would make more the most sense if there was a transitional area from [1:10:14] whatever was coming before Vernon to this area to then single family or something like that we were talking [1:10:20] about the adjacent property um honestly it feels a little random to me when [1:10:25] you're talking about uh the question is just about amending [1:10:30] the comp plan for this parcel only so that's why I don't concern myself so much with some [1:10:37] of the other details but like I'm sitting here just wondering what like why would we [1:10:42] just amend the comp plan change this one parcel to low low [1:10:50] density attached whatever it was called when it's bordered by single family residential on both [1:10:57] sides still it just it's feeling a little random and inconsistent from a planning perspective [1:11:05] um I think the goals of accomplishing you know getting [1:11:11] more density makes a lot of sense uh contributes to the environmental goals [1:11:16] of the city you know Vernon's a topic that's come up a lot and the U of M [1:11:22] study was about systemic change along Vernon and just like incredibly different structures built along the [1:11:28] entire thing and to me I think to accomplish those type of environmental goals much bigger change is needed along [1:11:36] this this area this corridor and I actually don't think that um amending [1:11:42] the comp comp plan for one parcel is going to accomplish those goals in a meaningful way maybe that's just being a [1:11:48] little bit skeptical but and and I also think it's going to be a lift to get Vernon to meaningfully change over time [1:11:54] 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 [1:12:01] discussed or at least contemplated so so I'm struggling with this one a little bit i think we were we were kind of [1:12:07] hoping that it could become a two parcel transitional area where the comp plan would be amended for both of those uh [1:12:13] but one one is feeling inconsistent and a [1:12:19] 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 [1:12:34] while we're deliberating can we look up um how big the lot was for the Hankers [1:12:40] and Town Homes i can look that up um I my recollection [1:12:47] is somewhat similar but I will look that up here [1:12:57] um before I get into other thoughts I think we should touch on that piece [1:13:02] the comp plan amendment and the process behind that right so um and I'm [1:13:08] definitely want to hear other people's thoughts on this so I you know typically um I'm a stickler for process like you [1:13:15] are on this and oneoffs are a bit odd to me right to [1:13:20] 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 [1:13:26] make a change to the comprehensive plan are we going from low density residential to high density are we going [1:13:32] to a commercial property are we going to office right these things change the character of the neighborhoods and and [1:13:38] whatnot um going from low density to low density attached feels like such a baby [1:13:45] 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 [1:13:51] two types of land use um and that is [1:13:56] creating a sticking point in our process the fact that we c that we have those two distinctions that we have those two [1:14:01] types of land uses and you know me saying me thinking that those two those [1:14:07] two really are basically one and the same based off of the density like this is so from from my personal experience [1:14:15] or I guess personally my house would the density would be four units per acre i [1:14:20] 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 [1:14:28] 0.25 acres I would maybe four units per acre this is five so the material difference between [1:14:35] these two land land distinctions in our comprehensive plan is very small to me i mean this is four four to eight just [1:14:41] like low NC residential um so I think this is a case of where it's just kind [1:14:48] of semantics and the fact that we divided these two things and created low density attached and low density is now [1:14:54] creating kind of this bigger lift for the comprehensive plan change um that I think is [1:15:00] is not a big as big a hurdle as other other changes that we've asked um and have come come to us [1:15:07] before curious to hear what other think about that [1:15:13] does anyone else have specific comments on like comprehensive plan matters or do [1:15:18] you want to just roll it into your other comments do you have other comments that [1:15:24] you'd like to share um I mean really kind of repeating a lot [1:15:29] of what has been said already and I think our residents have have definitely voiced uh reasonable concerns right so I [1:15:37] live right across from the Adina High School SLM middle school um in a residential area right so traffic is a [1:15:44] 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 [1:15:49] traffic zooming by and increasing traffic and stuff like that so I I feel that um this isn't though a large [1:15:56] apartment building or maybe a coffee shop that would be bringing a lot of in-n-out traffic every day um there is [1:16:03] opportunity for transit along this route so maybe you won't get it see quite the [1:16:08] traffic increase that you think you would because maybe somebody will take the bus if they live here um bike more [1:16:13] often etc uh so I mean I think in terms of being a reasonable request this this [1:16:21] definitely is is it a perfect project probably not nobody's going to agree on the definition of perfect right so Hon [1:16:28] said she'd like to see more density here a lot of people say you know have already said that they'd like to see just a single family home um but this is [1:16:36] this is kind of in the middle uh the the scale and massing I think are not an [1:16:41] unreasonable ask it's again it's not a four-story house it's a really big [1:16:46] apartment building um the density as as uh Planner Teague said it's very similar [1:16:53] to the four homes to the east and like I said you know it's honestly very similar to my own and many other people house [1:16:59] people's properties in this in this community um it's really you know going from like I said four units per acre to [1:17:07] five it's not it's not to 10 it's not to 20 um this is this is a baby step and [1:17:13] putting it near a major arterial road a transit opportunity a school um I think [1:17:19] is a good location for this and um a reasonable request b to the reasonable [1:17:25] request for comprehensive plan amendment um based on that discussion that we just had so [1:17:32] thanks Mr smith yeah thank you uh for the presenting [1:17:39] 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 [1:17:46] in a sensible way right and I appreciate Commissioner Bournestein's perspective of okay you know there's the [1:17:52] nitty-gritty of the specifics that we could talk about but what's the larger picture here right the larger picture [1:17:59] is as Commissioner Dave was talking about you know uh the comp plan changes [1:18:05] and and spot zoning right and addressing that spot zoning idea right now we've we [1:18:13] have had experiences like this in the past right with with a couple of the property areas Hankerson being one of [1:18:19] them um and I think the Keys location being another one um and this one is [1:18:26] somewhat similar or or or in the same type of vein now we do know that along [1:18:34] Vernon there will be areas of change right uh we've we've had some work done [1:18:39] on this commission we've had UFM do it we know that this major corridor is going to have to get more density over [1:18:46] time um this particular location if you look [1:18:51] at where it's positioned right um to the east of it there's the Oak [1:18:57] uh Oakidge Apartments which is high density then there's some green wetlands [1:19:03] and then there's these two properties and then you know R1 single family homes [1:19:09] in the north side there's the high u the elementary school highlands and then we [1:19:16] have Vernon right So this is not something that's plop in the middle of a [1:19:22] residential area right that to me is more an egregious use of spot zoning this is more of we're expecting areas of [1:19:29] change right we expect to see some transformation on this corridor right so zoning changes will need to occur [1:19:36] eventually over time the question is how do we get there right compan amendments [1:19:41] is certainly one option but the Dina is a very built up city right so we'd have to be changing things over time it's not [1:19:48] like we all of a sudden have 300 acres of forest that we're going to replant [1:19:53] from scratch right it's it's a developed city that we have to now start focusing [1:20:00] our efforts on one way of doing that is having developers seeing [1:20:06] opportunities and we make incremental changes and then we uplift our zoning to [1:20:12] meet the needs of the city that's that's one approach for example the the the resident who's [1:20:18] here right who wants to keep their property as R1 for historical reasons [1:20:26] it's a it's a um generational home that's perfectly fine and I think [1:20:34] the last meeting that we talked with director Teague we asked the question [1:20:39] what would it take could we take a an action by ourselves to upgrade the [1:20:44] 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 [1:20:50] and clearly this resident is not going to do that so how do you get higher density in [1:20:56] areas where it's an R1 is the question right uh it needs to be a conversation [1:21:04] it needs to be kind of initiated with developers so I see this as being an [1:21:09] opportunity for us essentially so I wouldn't turn it away so that's part one part two the usage [1:21:17] right this is not a high density massive structure it's a small [1:21:25] incremental uh from you know single density to what [1:21:32] what you know low density something slight increase it's not a massive [1:21:38] change um so I don't see this as being that imposing [1:21:46] uh so from that perspective I see this as being a nice transition from high density the oak ridge towers coming down [1:21:54] to single residential and this is a slight increase over that so I see that as making [1:22:00] sense the third point is around the the design and the requirements right [1:22:06] um certainly if you're going to build here you want to go through all the checklist of things that you have to go [1:22:12] through you know improving the boulevard uh making sure that you adhere to the [1:22:17] tree ordinances the watershed district requirements the pricing of [1:22:23] affordability was another question um definitely this is not going to be what we would consider affordable [1:22:31] housing it's really just housing in higher density right 700 to a million [1:22:36] dollars per unit um is for a certain type of buyer right and we can't dictate the market you guys [1:22:43] would do your research you would figure out what the market needs i love how you improved it and came back with a [1:22:48] 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 [1:22:55] 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 [1:23:01] it's does the zoning make sense for this location um and for me where it's located knowing [1:23:09] that it's an area of change knowing that it's a slight increase of what's there today I think it fits [1:23:16] um what this is looking for now if the neighbor wanted to upgrade to PRD2 as [1:23:23] 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 [1:23:29] right maybe one day they would but not today but we have to take incremental [1:23:34] changes and to and to respond to Commissioner Bournceen's question right like totally get it um this feels odd [1:23:42] right but how do you move the ball forward right how do you get things to change if you don't take incremental [1:23:48] steps i think you were mentioning that we should take a big step pick a start of the city and just upgrade it but if [1:23:55] 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 [1:24:01] your thoughts on how do we increase density in the city with comp plan [1:24:06] changes if we're not taking these incremental changes today [1:24:14] thank you for your comments and questions rhetorical ones [1:24:20] question um so I was involved in the [1:24:27] um subcommittee whatever we were for the areas of potential change and we spent a [1:24:32] lot of time talking about um starting to increase the density by doing that in um [1:24:40] along arterial roads that um bisected neighborhoods and so I think um whether [1:24:48] it was on Vernon where the map that looks like a colon shows us all those little pockets of um uh [1:24:57] um visual that's what I think that's what it looked like to me [1:25:03] um or um we looked at that along the borders [1:25:09] of Edina with um with Minneapolis and with Richfield and um with other [1:25:17] neighborhoods as well and this kind of [1:25:22] um also goes into addressing some of the concerns of the residents I think which [1:25:28] is the fact that um as uh Commissioner Smith said there's no place else to [1:25:34] build we're talking about redevelopment here so um that means looking for places [1:25:41] and they are on the edges of the R1 zonings where we're going to um where [1:25:49] the city is going to need to make changes um to the zoning and I think [1:25:54] this is a completely appropriate one um so I I'm um in full support of this and [1:26:01] I also I think when we approved the Hankerson um comp plan amendment that was we went [1:26:08] from two units to three units is my recollection um and I think if that was worthy of a [1:26:16] comp plan amendment then it's hard to deny the worthiness of this as a comp [1:26:22] plan amendment [1:26:28] just a few things really supportive of this project i'm glad Commissioner Bournestein brought up the question [1:26:34] about the comp plan amendment because I've been thinking about that a lot over the past couple of days and I still [1:26:40] don't have a really good durable model in my own mind about when we should change a comprehensive plan and when we [1:26:47] shouldn't i wish I had a had a algorithm I could just run it through but I don't [1:26:55] the reason I'm comfortable with this one is [1:27:00] um as Commissioner Day said it's really distinction without a difference between low density and low density attached [1:27:06] they're really the same thing and as others have said I'm I'm a fan of [1:27:12] increasing density generically but you don't have to be a fan of increasing density for this to seem like a good [1:27:17] idea because it's identical density to the to the area just to the west of it [1:27:22] and the other reason that I'm comfortable with a change is that [1:27:28] there are other examples on Vernon and nearby of this very same kind of property so it's not like we're creating [1:27:34] something wholly new in this area [1:27:41] 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 [1:27:46] up is that I'm particularly excited about bringing new housing forms to Adina which is great i mean believe it [1:27:54] 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 [1:28:00] don't like cutting grass so here we go i mean there there are a lot of unique [1:28:06] things about this property and it's not my job to market it for you and make sure you've got it positioned [1:28:12] just right but man I think you got a I think you got something good here and I and I think there are a lot of different [1:28:18] kinds of customers out there and I always try to not imagine that everybody wants to buy the same thing that I might [1:28:25] want to buy so I support the project thanks for coming [1:28:34] um thank you everybody that was helpful i think that the point I was trying to [1:28:39] 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 [1:28:45] to accomplish some of these goals bigger change than this is going to be needed and and um especially along [1:28:53] corridors and this is an imperfect way of like like theoretically a more systemic kind [1:29:00] of consistent logical extended type of change even even to this level of um [1:29:08] zoning along corridors like this i think that would be a preferable way to go but [1:29:16] um what you're saying is don't let the perfect even though that's not perfect don't let the perfect be the enemy the good don't let you know how progress [1:29:22] 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 [1:29:28] get to the goals that we're talking about by by doing these types of changes that doesn't [1:29:34] mean it doesn't make sense to to make incremental progress when when that's what's available [1:29:39] 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 [1:29:45] comp plan is but um but I can see the rational for doing it [1:29:51] here thanks for the comments everyone i have some too [1:29:57] um kind of in line with at least the uh the sketch plan to me as was addressed [1:30:06] like if the neighboring site was a part of this it would be a slam dunk in my [1:30:13] opinion because you could do so much more and be so much more creative and [1:30:18] leverage a better transition and all that so without [1:30:24] that like it it just doesn't have as much of my support and I'm I'm kind of [1:30:29] leaning more toward Commissioner Borenstein's um hesitation with this i I feel like it [1:30:38] it offers the density that we want to see you know it it's right along a [1:30:43] transit quarter quarter that we want to see it's in a generally good location but I think for me like with any [1:30:50] development especially ones that require a comp plan there is like an element of timing and since I have that full [1:30:58] discretion on that pyramid like I do care about the details like a lot more [1:31:06] like I expect things to be a little more closer to perfect so even with the site [1:31:11] plan changing I think there's even little details that don't win my support [1:31:18] um and when we think of I guess when I think of development too there [1:31:24] is like like to achieve the density like that this ought to have um it's okay to [1:31:31] require a little patience it sounds like there's a legacy property next door that might not ever happen but thinking of [1:31:39] some of the best developments it's usually a long waiting game of a assembly of properties to do the right [1:31:46] thing so we've mentioned um Hankerson but that corner property was a [1:31:52] forplex originally and then a single family home you know and then it grew to [1:31:58] another single family home like there's a difference in like the timing and that [1:32:03] as an example versus this literally just in single [1:32:08] family neighborhood yeah I think there were two Hankers there's the Hankerson [1:32:13] town home and then there was the two single family homes where the applicant [1:32:19] came first forward at first to do um four sort of patio homes and then in the [1:32:24] end it became three homes so that's right next to it it's right next to it [1:32:30] but I think that was the one um being referenced earlier that there was a comp plan amendment for [1:32:36] because I have those numbers if when you're ready for them sure so like for me and and like just being more familiar [1:32:42] with development like 50 than France like you know there's like decades sometimes to to put together a really [1:32:49] ideal project so like here and with the neighboring site and even this [1:32:55] site I just I know that there's there's a better way this site can be configured [1:33:01] as well as how you could leverage the site next door to make a much better [1:33:06] output have even more density create this like little isolated neighborhood [1:33:11] with a little more density and I I just I I kind of align with Commissioner [1:33:17] Boren's hesitations like although this is gentle it is random just this [1:33:22] comprehensive plan amendment so I'm I just expect that there's going to be a [1:33:27] 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 [1:33:35] like even just in the site plan itself like that approval so like with my [1:33:40] discretion I'm just a little more reserved on this one and would have more hope for just a [1:33:46] more inclusive draw down Vernon instead of [1:33:51] just on this narrow property and that's just because I've I've seen like people [1:33:56] sit on a property you know and they're just waiting 5 years 10 years for a neighboring one to do a better version [1:34:05] 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 [1:34:13] 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 [1:34:21] 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 [1:34:28] front yard facing people's backyards now a backyard facing a driveway there there's just like certain details I'm [1:34:35] just not a fan of as much as before either how do you think about Jimmy [1:34:42] um our housing crisis nationally in the state in the city and the fact that we [1:34:49] are already a very expensive city to develop in we have a lot of parameters [1:34:56] from building materials to setbacks to parking that make it challenging for a [1:35:03] developer if we are continuing to layer things on I [1:35:11] think it is only going to decrease the population of people who could bring [1:35:16] anything to the city and drive up the costs further because sitting and [1:35:23] holding land for five years [1:35:29] doesn't doesn't get us anything during those five years and is it would be [1:35:35] predicated on the assumption that other land would become available which I think in a 50th in France you know Nolan [1:35:41] Mains like there was already a there there and they were adding to the there and and so maybe and those condos are or [1:35:49] apartments are very very expensive and there's a whole retail and there was a tiff district and it was a PUD like all [1:35:55] of those things and mechanisms that we have as a city are connected very [1:36:01] intimately to the cost to develop period period and I I and I fear that I I hear [1:36:08] exactly what you're saying i just think we've run out of time in certain areas to to just do nothing because otherwise [1:36:15] this will be a tear if if we don't allow something more than single family [1:36:21] or variances for that parcel to be split into two and do you know whatever then [1:36:27] what we're going to get is another $2 million house one single one and we [1:36:32] there are only so many areas of potential change and I think it the market's going to drive what the [1:36:38] 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 [1:36:46] it's complicated for sure like 100% um but there is a house there that [1:36:53] 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 [1:37:01] be demoed and rebuilt to accommodate the same thing i mean some perspective too [1:37:07] like a you know project I'm working on in Minneapolis you know there's 10 separate [1:37:14] properties that had to get assembled and it took 5 years and it it went from [1:37:19] housing about 100 people to now will house a thousand but if you just bit off [1:37:25] two properties like you won't be able to accommodate the greater potential and [1:37:31] that's just what I see here like even just geographically you have these two houses on big [1:37:36] lots like to do something with just one of those feels very random and not as [1:37:42] concerted as what I would support right now for a comprehensive plan amendment [1:37:49] so a clarifying question are you more opposed to the comprehensive plan [1:37:54] amendment pro like as a process here for this or is it the zoning or is it the [1:37:59] site plan right you think the site plan's imperfect i mean yeah that's fair enough wrapped up together that's fair [1:38:05] enough would we have the same objections if if it was the property to the east that's bordering a park right right it [1:38:11] 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 [1:38:17] bit closer to Jerry's and and Burden would it feel as random not [1:38:22] as random because that property is also more square you could lay it out in a way that I feel like just would reflect [1:38:29] a mini little neighborhood better than this i I just there's just elements of the site plan too that just aren't ideal [1:38:36] but could be ideal with a wider property and so like yes I I would think it's a [1:38:42] 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 [1:38:50] temporarily decrease the value of the neighbor the next door neighbor just because of what was there is you know [1:38:56] 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 [1:39:03] just I see it as a little random too and if it had the neighboring property and [1:39:08] you could do something more concerted it I feel like that'd be more of a slam dunk because [1:39:15] you could achieve a greater potential for both of these lots and just one [1:39:20] alone cuz now you're just forcing a peacemeal approach which like you don't [1:39:25] have to do like yes the timing's here but there is patience in like a more orderly development process too so [1:39:33] 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 [1:39:41] arranged differently maybe even if it had a little more density and just was I [1:39:47] I don't I don't know but I'm just not seeing what's tripping my trigger so [1:39:53] because there's just I think I think you and I are both struggling with the same thing [1:40:00] of envisioning something meeting a certain standard and [1:40:07] thinking there's like an aesthetic I don't know numbers wise when [1:40:12] 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 [1:40:19] a few statistics with what's around there shapewise but it does just the way it's [1:40:26] kind of laid out and it just set up it just kind of just kind of looks r it just kind of [1:40:33] looks random aesthetically and it's just I don't know I don't think it solves a [1:40:39] systemic problem so it's just one just one parcel I think i think it's [1:40:45] 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 [1:40:50] 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 [1:40:56] 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 [1:41:03] then this goes to the council right because conference and then that's a superity four-fifths vote at the council [1:41:10] 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 [1:41:18] at all um but I hope people appreciate that with a level of discretion is as [1:41:24] large as this it welcomes differing of perspectives i would like to compare it [1:41:29] to the comprehensive plan for the Hankerson yeah yeah i it's not similar similar I [1:41:36] 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 [1:41:43] is just the town homes not the single family home uh that we had excuse me so as um chair Bennett [1:41:52] mentioned there was a 4unit apartment on the site before and one single family [1:41:57] home so there were five units the total lot size was 29,000 square ft feet [1:42:05] so the the lot size is 2900 um on that [1:42:10] one with this one again it's 9500 also that was that that site was [1:42:17] previously guided low density attached and it went to medium density so the the [1:42:23] land areas what much smaller the green space here there's a lot more green space with this project than the [1:42:29] ankerson so Hankerson is more dense than yes this [1:42:36] one um so and I think we're agreeing to [1:42:42] 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 [1:42:48] don't think this is random and and that's where I think we're going to disagree [1:42:56] i think where we agree is like I could see more density here in a more concerted way that would get my support [1:43:03] it's not a density thing so yeah Commissioner Smith this question is for Director [1:43:10] Teague i know we don't have the perfect solution but what's [1:43:16] the if we go into a compre a comprehensive plan discussion right for [1:43:22] the next 10 years that we're going to map this thing out what's a good way to look at let's [1:43:29] just say Vernon let's just pick Vernon and we want to increase density along this corridor right there's some areas [1:43:34] that have a high density there are some single family homes there's a miss you know a combination of different things [1:43:41] what would that process look like where if we were to walk out of that process we say like "Yep this felt really good [1:43:46] this worked out exactly how we wanted it we got the density that we needed the process worked out how we wanted it to." [1:43:53] Like what would that what would that look like going into those conversations [1:43:59] yeah it's an excellent question um it would be you know we could do it similar to [1:44:05] how we did the small area plans we could identify the entire corridor you know [1:44:10] establish a a small area plan working group we could do it that way um we [1:44:16] would want to notify all of those property owners that were considering um changing their land use designation um [1:44:24] that's probably how we'd go about it um rather than just kind of randomly [1:44:30] creating a land use map for the entire city i and I think this was an area that was identified in the areas of change [1:44:36] that that was worked on by the commission recently um so I think this [1:44:41] discussion is kind of leading us this this might be one of these um small area [1:44:48] plan type you know we've done a lot of studies in the Grand View district the [1:44:55] transportation plan the the um the blueprint for development up there we've never done a small area plan you know it [1:45:02] could be the Grand View District extended on Vernon that could be another one that that we take a look at [1:45:11] 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 [1:45:17] those conversations but I I think you could you know respect the tension right [1:45:23] where you know we have good and then we have perfect and we certainly are trying [1:45:31] to balance you know should perfect be the enemy of good right and and and what [1:45:36] does this look like in terms of process so um I don't know how I guess we might [1:45:42] just have to vote right and the recommendation would go to the city council and they would make their final [1:45:47] decision on how they want to move forward I I'm thinking that's that's what the process [1:45:54] Oh that say make a motion [1:46:07] okay um any other thoughts though like I know Jimmy you had some thoughts on [1:46:13] flipping things around that's At this point I don't think it's productive if this project gets approved [1:46:21] I'm happy for the community i you know and the the development team and it it [1:46:26] will be a good thing however it's just that that's about it the details are I I think that's a [1:46:34] separate matter I think all right i'll make a motion to recommend the city [1:46:39] council approve this request which is the comprehensive plan amendment reszoning the preliminary plat and site [1:46:47] plan for 5516 Vernon Avenue second [1:46:53] yeah we'll do a roll call vote for that any other additional amendments are we [1:46:58] good there any dis further discussion assuming that's per the findings and [1:47:04] conditions also the positive conditions yeah okay don't [1:47:11] don't put the wrong ones in there okay [1:47:18] roll call vote commissioner Elkre I commissioner Pia I commissioner Smith I [1:47:26] commissioner Day i commissioner Bournestein nay commissioner Feld I [1:47:34] commissioner Honaman i chair Bennett nay motion carries so that's uh what a six [1:47:41] to two so good good luck at your next step with the city council and um I [1:47:47] 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 [1:47:53] and all feedback you heard and just be prepared for that conversation and wish you guys the best thank you very much [1:48:00] all right so that is it for our two public hearings and next we have chair [1:48:06] and member comments any [1:48:15] comments oh we have a new dad back next to us that's cool way to go he's alive [1:48:23] two three-w weekek old twins i was this close to bringing coffee today but I [1:48:28] didn't didn't quite need it today tonight yeah thank you thank you [1:48:34] any anything else yeah Commissioner Smith yeah I know uh Commissioner Nelson [1:48:40] is is uh is not here but I know he mentioned and talked about the Edina [1:48:45] Rides event so I participated in in Adina Rides with my whole family uh and [1:48:51] I saw him there and it was it was a great event um it's just really incredible i think we probably rode I [1:48:58] want to say almost 10 miles um we started off in the back of the YMCA and [1:49:03] we rode all the way to Bredesen made the loop and came back and so we had [1:49:10] stations along the way and different residents kind of gave out coffee and donuts and kind of negates the ride but [1:49:17] it was still a lot of fun eating all that sugar but um I hope that he does it [1:49:22] next year and it's just really beautiful to see how much you could cover right just riding through the city um I know [1:49:29] some of you guys here are are bikers and and riders um and I would just encourage [1:49:34] us to think as we upgrade the city zoning and everything to consider bike lanes as being a key thing that we want [1:49:41] to develop and continue to build in the city so great event um looking forward [1:49:46] to it next year and hope we encourage more bike riding across the city [1:49:53] commissioner Phelp thank you for sharing that okay I'm getting back to work if we [1:49:59] um consider doing um some of the areas of potential change [1:50:05] um rather than just Vernon we might want to expand that to other quarters as well [1:50:12] yes there were other areas on the list certainly yes [1:50:17] great comment and a reminder anything else [1:50:23] staff yeah just a reminder of a couple of upcoming work sessions uh June 3rd [1:50:29] next Tuesday with the city council we have a work session to discuss next year's work plan it's where the council [1:50:36] a little bit different than how we're doing that this year it's to solicit feedback from the council before we [1:50:42] start putting our plan together um you know things that they might want us to work on and then the June 11th planning [1:50:49] commission meeting we're also going to have a work session to take a look at there's a posting on better together in [1:50:55] regards to the underpass so we're going to take a closer look at that and get some feedback from the commission as [1:51:00] well that's both of those will be at 5:30 up in the community room [1:51:08] motion to adjurnn second all those in favor say I i so [1:51:14] moved the meeting's been adjourned thank you everyone [1:51:19] really yeah i lost I lost a buck [1:51:24] yeah it's funny we 8:15 and then the whole crashing [1:51:32] halt i feel like that happens yeah it does