all righty how's everyone doing today I'll buckle your seatbelts this is going to be a long one anyways welcome everybody to the September 13th city of Edina Planning Commission meeting on behalf of the rest of the Planning Commission we are grateful you are here with us whether you're tuning in remotely or here in person I say it every time but your curiosity your participation your feedback is vital to this process as we navigate change here together in Edina specifically regarding the ways in which people would like to use their land we got a busy agenda I mentioned that before I'll go through some of the plan to get through the agenda a little more quickly tonight but otherwise a couple couple things to note before we get started the city is committed to receiving and hearing your feedback there is a variety of means through email or our engagement website which is better together edina.org we commit to you that everything that you've put in has made its way to us and has been reviewed and will be considered tonight upon us making decisions you don't have to submit feedback in another way but we welcome it tonight there are four public hearings so anyone who would like to provide testimony who's listening and remotely if you would like to get ready for that you can call the following number 786-496-5601 and enter conference pin one three four five five two seven pound and then when it's when you're getting ready to speak push star one to get into the queue you'll need to State your full name and address before speaking everyone's allowed up to three minutes I'll go over those details again when we get closer but let's get into it so the beginning of our meeting is I'll call this meeting to order so it's begun and then we'll do a roll call commissioner felt commissioner Padilla here commissioner Smith here commissioner who here commissioner Schultz here commissioner day here commissioner Strauss here commissioner Bornstein here chair Bennett here all right before we move on kind of throwing a curveball but just so you know the the Planning Commission is an appointed body we're all residents like yourselves volunteer in our time and we do something cool here where we have two student Commissioners and you might recognize you may see a new face up here so I want to give a moment to recognize Alex right if you want to spend like a couple minutes and let everyone know who you are why you're here and appreciate it so I'm Alex Schultz I am a senior at Edina High School this will be my first time on the Planning Commission I'm really interested to see how the city interworks with Urban Development and everything like that I'm just excited for a good time all right thank you well you came to the right place again we appreciate everyone who's here that is giving a lot of effort and their valuable time to help make city of Edina a better place to live next we have the approval of the meeting agenda followed by the approval of the meeting minutes first a welcome a motion for the meeting agenda unless there's any proposed changes motion to approve second all those in favor say aye aye motion carries next we have the approval of the prior meetings minutes from August 16th is that two meetings ago two meetings ago welcome emotion unless there's any proposed changes a motion to approve the draft minutes second all those in favor say aye aye so moved okay so now we have the part of our agenda where we interact with the community it's the first of a couple opportunities this is a community comment and this is your opportunity to speak about an item that's not on tonight's agenda that includes any of the four public hearings or any of the two reports and recommendations which one is a sketch plan review the other is the 2024 work plan so if you're here to speak about anything other than that welcome you up to the podium and you have three minutes again State your full name address when it turns green you got three minutes when it turns Amber you have 30 seconds left and when it turns red please wrap up your comments all right our perennial community commenter okay first we like it thank you [Music] [Applause] thank you [Applause] foreign [Applause] 6136 Brookview Avenue um and last July I think it was I was here early July um I was motivated to make a survey of my local neighborhood I have that on the map here and that's your second page in what I just handed all of you the crosshatch Shaded area there on the west side of Pamela Park and I live down here at 6136 Brookview um I was motivated to do this because from the beginning in 2008. with the first tear down in this area um there has been tremendous tree loss and it was after doing a walking survey I walked the whole neighborhood took a few days to do it day's worth of time with my clipboard in hand and I created a sheet looks like this so I could write down as I went down each block I wrote down every house number property number and and had Original House original house with remodel or expansion tear down and process tear down finished and the amount of tree loss and I had a whole lot of notes on the trees particularly the results were pretty disturbing um there were at the bottom left on the survey here there were 202 properties 106 of them were the original home still existing at either not added onto or remodeled 96 were tear Downs in process or tear down new construction and so almost half of them have been teardowns the tree loss and I could not walk into everybody's yard I wasn't going to do that I was counting basically front yard and sides as much as I could eyeball of the back if I knew that there had been for instance a very large oak tree original growth tree and I have lived in this neighborhood since 2002 so I remember what used to be there I walk a lot I bike a lot so as far as a hundred percent tree loss we've got almost half almost half 60 to 90 percent six percent so that's add those two together and you've got over 51 that seems extremely high to me and um not looking good the neighborhood's getting warmer climate is not getting any cooler we need those trees the city needs to do something to try and retain these trees and I know you'll be discussing this down the road so this is a top priority in my book and I'm not the only neighborhood in my neighborhood's not the only one affected so thank you I hope this is good solid data information for you to be able to work with thank you do we have anyone else who is here in person for Community comment I've seen then we'll close that portion thank you for your commitment to the city it's clearly a lot of work and I know you're old school but if if you could find a way maybe to disseminate to us electronically we'd appreciate it or we can have City staff copy this and send it amongst us and maybe the city council too and again we we've talked before we've had an updated tree ordinance a year or two ago it's been hard to really measure the results of that impact since it's in its infancy so far but the purpose of that was to really help protect primarily Heritage trees so the big ones that provide a lot of shade and cover and it's hard to say how well that's working on all sides so maybe we add this to a work session coming up soon or at least in the next year to kind of review how it's going maybe coordinate with the Forester okay thank you again all right next we have the portion of our public hearing so there's four of them before we get into them I'm going to run through a quick agenda of each so you know what to expect uh it will begin with a presentation by staff based off of all of their findings from the staff report that they've created uh we're going to do things a little differently tonight to try to expedite some of this meeting and time with how long it will be so after staff presents if there is a an applicant who is here we'll immediately go to them to present their their whatever they would like to present and then we'll bring it back to the Planning Commission to kind of consolidate our questions and comments to them then we will open it for a public hearing which is your chance to now speak about an item that's on tonight's agenda specifically each public you're in after that closes it'll come back to the Planning Commission to deliberate and make a recommendation for approval or denial so with that we have planner awkward here and the first one we're talking about is b2314 building coverage variants for 52-39 Scott Terrace the property is at 42.39 Scott Terrace it's on the east side of Scott Terrace that consists of a rambler with a detached two-car garage the home was built in 1948 there is a photograph at the front of the home this is a survey of the property this project actually came in through project docs as a permit it did not have an updated survey with it so that was requested of the property owner and contractor to proceed with the permit so when we did get a survey submitted what is requested is that the impervious surface calculations and the existing and proposed building coverage calculations are on there and what the project is is currently they have a deck in the back of their home it is slightly smaller than the screen porch that they would like to replace it with currently the deck has clipped corners and the deck is a little bit smaller they would like to replace that with a porch the existing building coverage of the property is at 23.8 percent the maximum allowable is 25 percent the hard surface or impervious surface requirement maximum is 50 percent the existing conditions are at 52.04 percent so they're under for building coverage they're over for the impervious service calculations and then with the new improvements to the home so replacing the deck with the screen porch brings the coverage up to 25.97 so they're 0.97 percent over the maximum allowable coverage requirement to address the impervious surface requirement they're removing this concrete pad which reduces the overall impervious service requirement to 49.57 percent so they're under the 50 so they will be improving the condition on the impervious surface aspect of it but they would like to increase beyond the maximum building coverage requirement it should be noted that it's a 25 percent requirement however the first 150 square feet of deck is not included and that was put in place so that if somebody maximizes on building areas so they want to build a home they maximize it at 25 percent then they are allowed a minimal deck at 150 square feet so that's not counted the first 150. anything in addition to that is counted then in the 25 percent but you can't use that 150 square foot debt credit then to enclose it as porch area so currently this is the condition of the back of the house you can see the deck it has some clipped Corners which they'd like to square off and bring it out to the lower step of the deck and then they would enclose it as part of the house it would be a screen porch but the zoning ordinance doesn't differentiate between screens walls windows it's just considered part of the principal structure and its entirety is included in the overall building coverage so this is the compliance table and again going back to the building coverage the maximum is 25 percent surface coverage is 50 percent they've proposed a 25.97 percent which is actually about 97 square feet that's what we're looking at in terms of going over they're currently under at 23.8 so they could add to get up to the 25 percent about 119 square feet so they do have currently opportunity to expand um but they would like to go over that and then again the surface coverage maximum is 50 percent they will be reducing it to 49.57 from the 52.04 percent that is currently existing so the primary issue variants Justified uh staff does not believe it is Justified the Provo the proposed variance will not relieve practical difficulty that prevents reasonable use from complying with the ordinance requirements the proposed use is permitted in the R1 zoning district and current the and currently complies with the zoning standards with the exception of the maximum 25 percent otherwise they would meet all the requirements the proposed porch addition to the home will replace the existing deck however again the deck is allowed to be 150 square feet over that 25 percent so now it has to be included in the principal structure converting the deck to into enclosed living space is counted in its entirety the addition becomes part of the house regardless of the porch has screens or walls the existing conditions conforms to the building coverage requirements and allows for that 119 square feet of additional enclosed coverage so they do have some opportunity to add on regardless of the size or configuration of the lot the maximum percent of allowable coverage is equal and consistent for all Lots so it becomes difficult to try to justify over building on a property are there circumstances that are unique to the property and not common to every similarly zoned property the property in staff's mind is not unique in size shape or location the building area is currently compliant with the preference of the applicant and not the conditions of the property that drive the need for the variants the request is self-created and not as a result of some unique aspect of the lot and will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood granting the variance May alter the essential character of the neighborhood there has been a general impression on the part of residence and City staff hears this almost on a daily basis from residents that are concerned about overbuilding on properties that everything is too big Too Tall covering too much of the property and how could all of these improvements actually conform with our current code let alone you know it has to be over those requirements and then on the other hand we also hear from people that are either at or very close to their coverage limits they want to add a porch they want to add to their house and that you know there's got to be maybe a little bit more that you know is is there a discretion is there some opportunity to go beyond the 25 percent staff has no administrative authority to look at a situation and say this fits as opposed to some other situation so the variants could alter the essential character of the neighborhood staff recommends denial of the request denying the request for 4239 Scott Terrace is based on the following findings The Proposal does not meet the standards for a variance There's no practical difficulty in complying with the ordinance there are no unique circumstances present with that particular lot granting the variance May alter the essential character of the neighborhood and with that I will stop and if you want to ask questions otherwise I can go to the applicant he does have a presentation yeah we'll turn it over to the applicant thank you welcome the applicant to come forward introduce yourself a dress and tell us what's going on and you just could just click that and okay good evening Commissioners my name is Randy gurton and I resided 42-39 Scott Terrace with my wife jamae who is currently out of town for medical reasons and my daughter we have lived at this home for over 25 years um like Chris said our home was built in 1947-48 depending on which records you look at uh we did do an addition back in 2002 and now we're hoping to screen in Our Deck you saw the survey that Chris presented so I'm not going to repeat that um again this is the proposed uh porch that we're looking at doing again the numbers are currently at 23.8 percent um with our proposal we are looking at being at 25.97 which is 97 square feet over the permitted amounts this is the architectural drawing of our porch you can see it's going to be a very [Music] um straightforward screen porch we are going to do the white columns with white rails and we are going to do screen walls there's not going to be any drywall there's not going to be a TV there's not going to be a fireplace my wife just wants a screen porch where she can go at night with the dog glass of wine and a book and read she wanted to be like nature so this is the back of our house it's kind of a unique design we had a designer do this back in 2002. um again our screen porch is going to be a total of 217 square feet basically 19 by 12. 84 of that square feet is already pre-existed under the current roof and walls that are in place what we're looking to do is to bring out that roof line about seven feet and again Square Off the corners and put up screen walls so all we're going to do would be enclosing the remaining 133 square feet now you have to remember this is not all going to be screen porridge our garage is detached and we would need about 36 square feet to have it walkway to the door that you can see on the side where the planter is about a three feet by 12 feet space for us to enter that so that is part of the plan so again with the 217 square feet that puts us again 97 feet square feet over are allotted 25 percent of building structure the unique thing about our home is our screen porch would be in the center of our home a lot of screen porches are built either on the side or in the corner of a home and when you do that you can sometimes get into water drainage and I know that can be an issue one of the things that Chris had mentioned was the impervious space being 52 percent which is over the current 50 percent as you can see in the lower right hand corner we used to have 600 square feet of concrete pavers in pea gravel we had a playground back there and a little area for all the moms to come watch their kids and play on the playground we have removed all that we've taken everything out it was 16 inches of the pea gravel and we had it all replaced with sod so now we're at 49.57 49.57 percent for the impervious the water drain um we have worked with our contractor and he has worked with the city of Edina and we were told that we do not need to have a water management system because we are moving so little soil with this project again if you look our neighbor to the South the corner of our porch to their home would be 29 feet our neighbor to the north is 22 feet so again our porridge is not going to impact the water drainage for those homes I will say that our home does sit on Sand we have two sump pumps and in 25 years they've never gone off so drainage has never been an issue and knock on wood we're lucky that we live in a very Sandy part of Medina because I know there are other parts that have had some issue with water we have not had that problem so foreign Medina issued letters to Residents that were within 200 feet of our home announcing our variance request I went around to all the residents and had them sign a letter of support I'm happy to say that I got 100 percent support from all of the neighbors within 200 feet plus more than 200 feet we have a lot of support in Morningside as well as Scott Terrace I've got one two three four five six seven neighbors here tonight to support our request for the variants as you can see I believe that our variants would visually have really no impact on any of our neighbors visually because it's in the back of the house and it's in the center and again water drainage does not appear to be an issue foreign we have had 40 people sign letter of support and I believe those are all in your packets that you received last Friday is that correct okay so I'll just run through these real quick again these are people on France Avenue which butts up against our back of our house as well as all the people on Scott Terrace so um we did have 23 people that wrote in to the website called Better Together Edina supporting our request and I think Dan Tobin of 4244 France Avenue or 4244 Scott Terrace really summed it up best and he said I appreciate the thresholds that need to be set at a Pacific level and 25 percent is the level that has been chosen but I believe the variance process was established for a scenario exactly like this one this seems like a very modest request above the permanent level Additionally the home is one of the few homes on the Block that hasn't been torn down in rebuilt in the last decade allowing the owners to make the space more livable with a negligible variance to the permitted amount of space seems far less disruptive to the environment and neighbors then encouraging the tear down of homes that still have substantial remaining useful life and I think that basically sums up our situation at 42.39 like I said we've been there for 25 years we have totally updated everything within the last two years from flooring to painting to window treatments to artwork to furniture we plan to be there another 25 years it's a great house it's a great Block it's a great neighborhood we love Morningside we have a lot of support and you'll hear some of that support and you will see some of that support um with our letters of support so thank you Randy appreciate it any so are we going to go to the neighbors so before we do that we're gonna pose some questions to both you and City staff and so I I guess I'll open it to the other fellow Commissioners to if you got any questions Now's the Time we'll kind of Reserve comments toward our deliberation period after the public hearing if there are any questions Now's the Time yeah Jerry first yes I um Mr Gordon thank you I think this is probably best addressed um thank you for your presentation but I did not hear why this could not be built to conform what is there something um there's no structure there's not particular engineering issue is sort of um you've chosen the dimensions you've chosen you were City evidently presented uh their requirements to meet a certain coverage why can it not be designed and built to meet the requirements without requesting a variance um we looked at that and because of the current opening on the back side of the house you know if we only did only win as far as three columns you know architecturally it would not look uh very pleasing to the eye versus having you know the full structure you know across the entire width of that open area I know that in Chris's statement she says the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code in that the proposed use is reasonable practical difficulties in quote may include functional and aesthetic concerns I think it would look terrible and we have invested many many dollars into our home to have just three quarters of a structure and to have this big opening on the side for an entry so I think it does have practical difficulties because aesthetically it would not can be complete and like I said we're talking 97 square feet pushing over here yeah Bonnie oh okay question uh I have a question for staff so um if if this were approved and like I said it's just a screened in porch today if they wanted to convert it into part of a house with windows and doors and whatnot would they need an additional perimeter variants they would probably need a permit but they would not need a variance okay because right now is when we're looking at it as part of the house right okay and if they built another story on top or a future owner built another story would it be it's not coverage it would just no then it would not have to go in front of the Planning Commission okay all right so our contractor talked about well we could put it up on the on the roof and it's like well we don't want it Up on the Roof we are not looking to go up uh we've had one child and she's 22 years old we are looking to age in place and again and I you know I stressed that my wife wants us as a porch and that's not to say that the New Order you know 25 years from now couldn't turn it into a an additional room to the house but our plan is to have it just to be a screen porch thank you commissioner day yeah I guess as far as the aesthetic goes could you bring up your blueprint again real fast or some uh I think we're just want to make sure that's highlighted so you said your aesthetic concern was the width right in the number of columns that you had there centering around the house is there a reason you can't just simply not go as far back into your property extend quite as far rather than to take you know a chunk off the side from an aesthetic point of view to meet your you know extra square feet that you want to get here so you're saying chop off 97 square feet along the don't extend as far out into your backyard is what I'm saying right like why can't you what's preventing you from doing that our desire is we do a lot of large entertaining we we have a couple of different groups that we're involved with we normally have anywhere from four to six couples so that anywhere from eight to twelve people the concern is if we go any smaller it's going to get so tight and so we thought you know what let's try to build it as big as we can with the current footprint that we have we didn't know initially when we started this process back on May 1st that it was going to be an issue just um building structure issue didn't come up until mid-summer and by that time we were kind of sold on what we wanted to or we kind of knew what we wanted and so that's what we're trying to get a question for planner accurate real quick um so if I just around the specifics of this ordinance If This Were enclosed could they build you know say they didn't bring it as far back into the backyard right so it was a shallower enclosed space but then would they then get another 150 square feet of deck that's not part of the square footage coverage that would not you know say so you wanted to bring that out and you have part uncovered and part covered is that allowable or not sure because right now if you grant a variance to increase the square footage to allow over 25 percent they still get a 150 square foot deck okay in both situations okay just like that we are now looking at adding a deck independent of the porch we are just looking to do a porch but I should mention though it counts for impervious surface and they're bumping up and up against that again so right right I just regardless of the impervious I just wanted to know if that they get an additional 150 square feet okay yeah thanks for your presentation uh just so just to clarify um about the purpose that what you want to use it for at first I thought you said your wife wanted to use it to like sit outside and read and then you mentioned that you want more space so you can host large parties is it both well yeah I mean during the week you know and she's going to be out you know reading and but you know we do uh a lot of large entertaining uh you know on the weekends okay and so that's when we would need the larger space got it and then just for staff um there's a there's a line at the bottom of page three that spells onto page fours was wondering what exactly this one meant um it says staff has found no reasonable amount or percentage of increased coverage even minimal in past project reviews to support a recommendation of proven increase in building coverage can you just clarify what what that context sure that's referring to sure absolutely oftentimes will have a project that will be over the 25 or whatever the maximum coverage might be and it might be again just a little bit it might be one or two percent and it's a common question well what is the threshold what is your um you know fudge factor which we don't have that it's it's a very you know it either meets the requirement or it does not and staff doesn't have the administrative authority to allow anything beyond that and it's very common with a lot of the teardown rebuilds because everybody if they're going to invest that much in a property they they want to try to get as much as they can and it's it's a very common question how much fudge Factor wiggle room we have with that okay thanks I don't have any other questions great thank you uh this is a question for staff just a couple questions um the first one I think you mentioned that um this wood alter the character of the neighborhood Ava was interpreted that as being more design focused where if you're going to design something that was completely different from what university neighbors have it's a real character change this change or request really is in the back of the property it's in your backyard you can't see it from the front and I think he mentioned that part of that definition of the character uh alter the existing character was about how people felt about over development so could you just share some more your thoughts on like how does the city staff interpret altering the existing character of our neighborhood what that has always meant if it doesn't meet the current ordinance requirements then it doesn't meet the character of the neighborhood that it would need to meet the standards for height width coverage now impervious surface which is a new ordinance that defines the character of the neighborhood we don't have any design standards for specific neighborhoods with the exception of the country club gotcha so it's nothing we need to do with how people feel about it it's really just about are you meeting the code or not meeting the code correct um essentially the other question um was just only 25 percent coverage ratio that we're talking about and this is 25.97 um I totally get we have to put a number right 25 is what the standard is today but could you share some more insights of why we have that is it truly to help manage water issues water absorption issues like why do we have that 25 or that particular coverage ratio in place sure I can tell you predates I present has been the standard for building coverage I I don't know exactly when it was put in place but you know it's been at least 40 years maybe 50 years it's not a standard that is uncommon throughout other municipalities now that we have an impervious surface ordinance and we also have that number that is more consistent with some of the other communities like Minneapolis why we landed on 25 I don't know gotcha um other question is uh you know this is a 1948 home I could see and maybe 20 years down the road the owners may sell someone might buy it and redevelop this property and put something new there potentially if someone were to do a hit on rebuild on this property and let's just say we Grant this variance tonight with that new property owner be allowed to go up to 25.97 or would they have to conform to the current 25 standard that the city has today they would have to come form to the current standard unless they built exactly what's there right now unless they built exactly what's there what is currently there right now if you wanted to like if this were to be if they were to rebuild it would have to be that plan exactly what's what you've approved so not a two-story home not you know it'd have to be a detached garage everything would have to be the same which is not likely gotcha and I guess a question for the um owner so I think and I'm not 100 sure that the 25 or any kind of hard surface number release to help protect runoff protect water issues ETC um you did mention in your statement that um you did you have a sump pump in your basement it's sand you have two sump pumps um and the city I think didn't think that you need a water mitigation system but if it was possible to build something where the water runs off of that Future Let's just say potential covered patio to run underground to carry that water into the soil for aquifer purposes well purposes you know underground water is that something that you could build or put in place yes we have worked with bank contractor and you can see over here this is where the mitigation water would drain is back in this corner so we do have a plan for that but I would like to say that um with the exception of the building coverage the proposed project meets all others only requirements so everything from all the other departments within the city of Edina that sign off on these permits has signed off on this and like I said we were informed that due to the minimum amount of soil that we were going to be disrupting a water mitigation system would not be required at this point gotcha all right that's it for now uh I got a couple maybe clarifications to what you said that I think are important so one of the conditions the variance is you know will not alter the central character of the neighborhood but by Nature you're not complying with the code for a variance request so I mean it doesn't just mean you're not meeting it otherwise it's it cancels each other out you know what I'm saying so that is the qualification but the only chance you get to that is if you're not complying yeah I mean you're you're requesting a variance so I mean by virtue and then second I'd say the building coverage is more of you know a definition of the character because if you didn't have that and someone filled up their whole footprint with building coverage that that alters the character more than the infiltration and the infiltration is something we assigned two years ago we didn't have a requirement so we we made 50 that's kind of the threshold which is I mean it's more important in a neighborhood like Morningside where you have smaller Lots and if you fill up that coverage then you're increasing runoff to other properties so I think those things are kind of related but more separate the building coverage is primarily a character of the neighborhood and or you know limiting that versus infiltration because that's the 50 it's more more than 25. if that helps anyone have any other yeah just uh quickly uh comment to Mr Burton um thank you for your presentation it's an excellent presentation and I congratulate you on your support and your wonderful community that you have around you um and to plan our acre um I'm confused um as to how um we can say that this Alters the character of the neighborhood or the or you're recommending the variants be denied when one of the sides in your deck shows the property I think it's to the north two stories much much bigger um you know I don't know if there was Shea if that you needed a height variance for that if there was shading issues or anything like that but um I'm I'm struggling with um the your recommendation thank you um in the context of some of the um the far uh larger homes that have been allowed in the neighborhood the larger homes that have been allowed in the neighborhood meet the requirements for coverage they might be two stories they might have minimal setbacks and the perception that's what I deal with on a daily basis pretty much people wondering how that could possibly be in a rambler you know that is bumping up against it which you know is not a two-story home is not as impacting I'm not going to argue that at all but it's the sheer bulk or mass that's on the property not necessarily another part of that which could be a two-story structure but the permits that we get in for additions and tear down rebuilds they have to comply with that maximum coverage requirements so they would be within the character of the neighborhood within the ordinance requirement thanks Gary yeah if I could just add a little more context to it of the three criteria that will alter the essential character that's probably of the three the easiest one to say that it's not going to impact the character of of the neighborhood it is hidden it's behind it's the other two just to give a little more history this is a variance as Chris mentioned this predates both of us this is an ordinance that's been on the books a long time and we haven't granted variances from this standard very different from setbacks and those kinds of things so just to add add that context for you thanks a question for staff too I mean the applicant know that this is unique because the deck is partially covered but that doesn't count as a part of the building coverage correct well technically I'm just looking at the math it doesn't seem to add up because if if they're at 23.8 and they can have 119 square foot of additional enclosed coverage if they just built a wall flush with you know like and remove that access that would add about 93 square feet giving them you know basically it and what they're proposing is 133 square feet 19 by seven well the duck first 150 square feet of deck is not included so anything that any deck area most of the deck area I think I don't have the numbers here but the most of the deck area has not been included but once you enclose all of that it all becomes part of it yeah that's I I think that's where there's some I can see some practical difficulty and kind of your question it's like even if they shrunk that room and just flush it out with the back of the house they would they would essentially then that would be enclosed and they'd be almost at 25 percent but the size of that room is really not a functional room you know it's maybe six by 19 with half the corner cut off so like just trying to understand how that's triggered because it's Unique it's covered it doesn't count but then you cover it now it counts and they're pretty much maxed out with the footprint well they have 119 square feet that they could add on to their house well and I think that's what I'm saying if you look at their house if that Alcove wasn't there what they're proposing seven by 19 is 133 square feet compared to 119 I think you know it you see how it's kind of doubling up into what seems enclosed it's just a unique situation that I think you know it is a unique situation unlike things we've seen before so just trying to understand that a little more anyone have any any other questions are we are you starting deliberations are we going to do the public hearing portion first sorry questions and we'll open it there's none we'll open it to a public hearing so uh we'll open it to people who are here but for people tuning in again if you would like to comment please dial 786-496-5601 and enter conference pin one three four five five two seven pound and then press star one if you'd like to get in the queue I like to remind everyone we have a lot of stuff on the agenda tonight so if someone says something that you fully agree with you don't need to submit that same feedback we have seen you know unanimous support of every property within 200 square feet of this so in regards to character of the neighborhood it feels like most neighbors feel that it won't be altered based off of those comments so I'd ask to limit repetition and duplicate duplicate comments but please come forward State your full name address for people who are here you have three minutes when the light turns green and when it's red time's up thank you I'm Jim belushka Ray live at 4246 Scott Terrace previously lived at 4237 right next door in the uh in the teardown so um I just want to uh express my support for this I have lived next to them for five years and then across the street from them for 20 years after that they were great neighbors they're committed to the neighborhood they're committed to being a Social Hub for us um their front yard and their backyard have all welcomed us uh with with regular Gatherings and I think that in terms of it being a community space and a gathering they are people who welcome their neighbors in and this is a structure that I would love to kick back a beer in thank you thank you hi I'm Pamela balapashco Ray at 4246 Scott Terrace I'm in support of this project by Randy and Jamaica it is absolutely in keeping with the historic neighborhood Morningside which is disappearing gone our trees are yards it's all going and we have neighbors who want to put up an incredibly Charming seamless new space whether they're having a dinner party I know Randy says you know big entertaining really a nice big dinner party is kind of what you're talking about there I've spent a lot of time on this original deck it can be described as cozy there are maybe three of us in chairs and a love seat okay so it's it's hard to tell in pictures but it's a really intimate space um they have invested so much into their home into our neighborhood into our neighbors we've been there for 25 years with them they would never ask for anything outrageous the logistics of the space make it that this design is what works it makes it a smart design it looks appropriate it's modest in addition all of these delays have made it so a small business has lost business this summer by not being able to work that's not good especially in times after covid okay these these types of projects should go forward we're living with the result of all the rest of the development this isn't that so I appreciate your time very much anytime you want to come down to Scott Terrace we'd be happy to show you what life is like there with neighbors like Randy and jamae thanks hello my name is Andrew worth from 4230 Scott Terrace I remember standing in this spot 10 years ago I think it was 10 years ago and I felt about that big you know it's very nerve-wracking to be standing in front of all of you especially to be asking if something this small in nature I in fact received barbarians and it was a huge project we actually had variants that extended towards the front of the street and now I'm nervous that impacted the whole street line this is nothing this is something that these two will enjoy I look around after I've only been there for 15 years and the average home is 1.4 to 1.6 million now you know the highest on our street is approximately 2.5 how are we supposed to continue to offer diversity into our street into our neighborhood if they're always being torn down and you can't add Charming porches on the back deck it it just really doesn't make sense to me I I understand just tonight that the 25 hasn't been changed in years what about the aspect of older homes 20 plus years having a little bit of a leeway aspect where these new conglomerate homes that they're putting up are held to a tighter constringency based on their their size they're absolutely huge you know I I don't have a problem with them but when my house was built in 1906 and I remodeled to the original standpoint of it including the shiplap on the outside of the the the walls it's nice to have that character I am in full support up there request thank you thank you my name is Betsy Ray and I live at 4243 Scott Terrace two houses down from them and my great-grandfather built their home but with the point I want to make is maybe it's a teeny bit over the structure allowance but the impervious area I guess what drives me nuts is all these huge homes that are being built and for example the one that was just built next to them the whole backyard's concrete so that makes no sense to me that you have this whole concrete backyard that rain can't get through but all they want to do is go a teeny bit over on the porch and that's not allowed it doesn't make sense maybe it doesn't follow the code but if you just use a little common sense it does not make sense thank you my name is Elizabeth Bell I was at 4308 France Avenue South and I just want to talk briefly about water and water runoff our backyard is in a flood plain you wouldn't know it from the front because we're on a at the crest of France Avenue across from Colgate Avenue but for the first two years when we lived in our house we moved in 20 years ago 2000 winter of 2003 for the first two or three years we had a um a skating rink pool skating rink pool in the alternate um freeze and thaw in our backyard then a large House was built just to our South Side our neighbors and it was so big I felt engulfed so I said we need to plant trees we planted a lot of trees our house is actually the lowest of the four neighbors that surround us as those trees matured we have never had water standing water in our backyard even after heavy Europe heavy snow so I hope in that area you'll also consider granting Randy's request my name is Deborah Anderson and I live right next door to Randy 4241 Scott Terrace and I hate testifying for any reason but I will do it I've lived there since I bought my house in 1987. it's over 100 years sorry it was built in 1910. when I walk around the neighborhood I look at the houses including my own and think that house isn't going to be there for long because all of the older husbands are getting torn down and I do object to that you know there's a lot of concrete in that both the front and the backyard of the house and the other side of Randy and tree the biggest driveway you can imagine Randy and I cooperated on the size of the driveway between us um because we're we share a driveway in effect and we we got a driveway that's actually probably narrower than some of the people that put up a single family housing driveways um around the engine may have cooperated with the neighborhood incredit to an incredible degree socially helpful in many many ways including winter snow and which Randy snow blows both all the driveway for me and and for him which I do appreciate um they've kind of in the glue that held that block together and that only held it together but built up a very tight social network in on that dock we even have a website the Scott Terrace website because Scott Terrace is only one block cloth so I strongly likes it does seem like a very small thing to do to just add a roof on an existing structure wrote from the screens um when I go from my house into my garage which is also detached and at the same level as Sandy's I see I can at one moment I can but most of the time it's not an obvious damage and it wouldn't be with this either so I have no objection to it and I can't imagine any future neighbors if my house stands when I leave someday I can't imagine that they will object to it either it's really minuscule thank you thank you seeing no one else here can we turn it over to see if anyone's in the queue we do not have anyone in the queue to speak and I believe enough time has passed for them to join so I believe it's safe to proceed thank you welcome motion to close the public hearing from motion to close to public hearing second all those in favorites yeah so the public hearing is closed now we'll turn it back to the Planning Commission to deliberate maybe to kick off some of the conversation it feels like this is kind of a test of the code right you have a lot of people showing up in support of something that doesn't comply and I think one of the one of the points to talk about is the character of the neighborhood so with variances there's a pyramid of discretion we have we have some discretion to make a decision tonight and character of the neighborhood in my time here for seven years tends to be one of the ruling or overruling defining pieces of those three to qualify a variance to be supported and it is more than just does it comply with the code it's the look and the feel you know neighborhoods have personalities it's not just does it comply with the code so I don't know it seems interesting to me that this doesn't comply you have every single neighbor within 200 feet that supports it somewhat from a character standpoint you guys have any thoughts on that yeah that's right that's one factor yeah you have to make a finding that all three criteria are satisfied sure so unless you can make a factual finding that criteria one and two are satisfied whether three is is irrelevant so just that it's not completely discretionary that's just one perspective to keep in mind before the conversation focuses too heavily on one and then with respect to the character um yeah I think people are picking up on you know does does letting one person over build really change the neighborhood but I think the character concern is more of a precedent setting one um this is somebody who wants to over build the space they've been given and for maybe legitimate you know personal reasons or whatever it's supported by the neighbors um but on what basis do you say no to every single other resident of Edina who also wants this well my house is bumping up against the limits I'd like a larger porch too and it's only one percent for me if you grant I mean I think it's the precedent setting nature of saying there's not really any unique difficulties inherent in the site that are driving this yes it's a self-created request um but we're gonna just grant it anyway because we don't think it's that much well then everybody else in Edina gets one too and then the point of the code is kind of like undermine that's just my own personal perspective so I would say no it probably doesn't this unique 100 feet does this affect the character I don't know but it's the precedent that it would set that could affect the character of the city so that would be the framework that I would just maybe say think about great any other yeah commissioner Smith uh just a quick question sorry I'm going back to questions but this is for these City staff so I think um with this one uh I think you mentioned kind of acre that you see this all the time a lot of developers wanted to bump up against a code limit and you have to make a decision within the staff or the team why if you see this all the time how do you make your decisions and why is this coming to us there did they come forward I did tell the contractor and I made it clear to the property owner that it's not a variance that staff supports I would recommend denial I don't see anything that is unique or different from a lot we have these conversations all the time a lot of the ver the potential variances out there you never see because we have a conversation about it beforehand I would say most people once they understand that it's not something staff supports it's not something that typically the Planning Commission reviews or would approve then they don't go through the process so you see us here this is more a Persistence of the owner to bring this forward and that's why we're having this on the agenda well every property owner has the right to go through the process and they have the right to go in front of the Planning Commission and request to variance but I do make it quite clear I mean we we meet with people before they go through the variance process and we'll let them know I mean that's why I would say typically you will see variance that staff supports sometimes the variance is going to be requested is much more and will work with them so that they understand that that may not be something that this the Planning Commission would be comfortable with or staff is comfortable with if you did some kind of design alteration perhaps that's something that we could support perhaps that's something that the Planning Commission could approve but when you're talking about sheer volume of structure on a property that's not anything that is unique to the lot it's difficult to find something that would support that so we make it quite clear I I get asked that all the time that's very typical question how how much more can we go than the 25 percent I guess one question to follow up on that and the applicant mentioned it and this does happen at times and there's sympathy certainly for the applicants where designs get far along before people do their research right so at what point I mean did this come in for a permit yes essentially yes a permit was applied for there was a site plan that was submitted it did not have any calculations for a lot coverage or impervious surface we require a survey by a registered land surveyor and so then when that came in then it did show that the what they wanted to do did not meet our requirements so they were pretty invested at this point I mean it's still in the project docs process sure and I guess that was part you know tying on to my question about what is their building coverage actually and what is it feel like right now and I mean if they had done that they would have found out I mean even even if you counted where that roof was it would have said they're at like 24 points something bumping right up to the threshold right probably yeah it's it's when we get submissions that don't have that critical piece and we always need that and unfortunately that's sometimes when it's caught thank you I guess my comments and uh this is an interesting one and I definitely want to hear from my fellow Commissioners on this one um I would piggyback a little bit off of commissioner bornstein's idea here that this is really about precedent setting right um you know today it's 0.97 tomorrow it could be one next day it could be 1.2 and then where does that end essentially and so we're kind of looking at what precedence does this set I think from a city perspective you guys go to your checklist of you know is this going to meet any practical difficulties if there is a practical difficulty you would probably have a recommendation for the variants but this one doesn't have really a practical difficulty necessarily on to it you guys recommend no so now it's up to the Planning Commission to like look at us and say well what kind of Precedence are we going to set and on the flip side you know for me testimony from 40 different signatures and you could hear it and the folks who are here tonight that they really support Randy and his home and his family and what they're trying to do and that also has to get factored and I think to some degree right um this might sound like a really silly analogy but it's like when you go to a store and he's cashier says no but he said I want to talk to your manager matches okay it's okay you know manager has like some kind of fudge Factor built into what they do so I could see us as being a body that has some level of a fudge Factor you know um that might look at this consider all the testimony look at the overall area the development is happening close by and this particular property wants to maintain the same look and feel it has had since 1948 and say you know what everything that I've heard yes this kind this could cause up precedent but it kind of makes sense for this property and I know that's a little bit hypocritical to some degree but I'm trying to balance those two ideas and I'm hoping that I could tip on either side tonight with hearing some more feedback from my fellow commissioner so that's kind of how my family are you sorry I didn't mean to cut you off so I disagree a little bit Quincy with but push back on me if you think I'm wrong with but this is important okay this is important this comes up a lot for us this question of granting variances and then what criteria get applied that's why we're having this discussion um here's my understanding based on the guidance we've been given what makes a variance request different than some of the other types of things we're asked to weigh in on is that when this body is asked to Grant the variance we act in a quasi-judicial capacity that means we act kind of like a court and our constrained in what findings we need to make in order to Grant a variance it's not just like what do you think about a sketch plan or do you like a project it a lot of the subjective stuff it becomes irrelevant so we are now acting like Corps and we are constrained by the law of the state of Minnesota which says that you have to make a factual finding his guys laugh but this is when clinicians get sued uh you have to make findings on all three criterias before you can grant the variance it's not really subjective unless the unless you know there's a subjected debate and there really aren't this is my view Quincy based on my understanding of the legal kind of constraints that we're subject to there's not really you know fudge factor or well it feels right and it's true there are a lot of people that support it that's great um there's a lot of criteria that I was writing down that people were talking about a lot of people support it people really like the neighbor that's awesome these people have been good stewards in the neighborhood that's wonderful this isn't a tear down so we like it for that reason all that stuff's positive but it's also legally irrelevant um it doesn't bear on any of the criteria that we have to make findings on in my opinion um it doesn't so it doesn't talk about the three things that we're talking about so it's like for example say we set a precedent that well if it's not a tear down then you can over build but if it is a Terry Brown then you can't for obvious reasons that's problematic if we if everybody in the neighborhood loves the neighbors because they're awesome people and they've do a great job then those people get variances when they want overbuild but the other people who we don't like they don't get them I mean I'm just trying to illustrate like why these factors are compelling I think from like a Equitable type but maybe not so much legally and so I just encourage us to focus on the actual factors that matter and whether we can make factual findings that support them I think you guys know like in my view yeah it's not a huge build but um I don't think any of the factors are factually supported by the record no no no appreciate it and speaking of press yeah I'm sure felt um we were talking about some of the surrounding houses on either side of this and 25 of the lot area so if a lot area is 10 000 square feet it can build a 2500 square foot house that's why so there's a value to a ten thousand square foot house or ten thousand square foot lot 9 000 square foot lot can build a two thousand two hundred fifty square foot house I mean the more lot the bigger house you can have so you know if we're going to compare other Lots we need to know their sizes but the 25 percent is consistent across all of those lot sizes so if we want to Grant something that gets to have a larger footprint you know than it does set a precedent then all those other houses can apply for those same things because you know it makes it a little Cozier or a little roomier to entertain um so I don't know what size the lots are on those other sides but I'm assuming they were at the 25 percent and in the impervious service was just started a few years ago the 50 it used to be we could build a fair amount and some of that came about because people were very upset about water mitigation and so we kind of corrected that so now we have to live with some of that um so I think the 25 is kind of set in stone because everybody builds a house looks up in the zoning code there it is the table is very clear and then you designed to that um those are my thoughts well let me start off by saying I wasn't laughing at you I was smiling because I thought you were making good points so um assume you were Louis yeah so um yeah this is a very difficult one I actually live two blocks away um so I know Morningside I love Morningside I've been there 15 years my partner's been there over 70 years so um and everything that people talk about in terms of you know tear downs and tree removal and all that sort of stuff I totally agree with that there's um uh you know the character of the neighborhood is definitely changing and this seems like to the points other Commissioners have made this seems like such a tiny change right um but I think the um the point I mean so we brought up fudge Factor we brought up you know quasi-judicial and it's like we actually do have a fudge factor and that's the quasi-digital part of it in that there are those three guidelines and you know the guideline in terms of to me it seems like the guideline in terms of is there something special that requires um us to consider this that we wouldn't consider it for a house next door or something and there really isn't one right so so that's our fudge factor and it's not really as far as I can see it's not really meeting that fudge factor I mean you sound like an amazing neighbor your your friends love you uh sounds like a great block um but you know we're here to make sure that you know somebody who is evil and everybody hates doesn't get to do that sort of thing either right so um our goal here is to try to treat everyone the same way so that's an equitable equity equitability issue so from what I see um it it seems like you're you were well along your way didn't know this was happening um unfortunately but um once it was brought up I think it became pretty clear that there's nothing really um other than that you're wonderful people there's nothing really special about uh the property or the house that would make me want to say that this meets that fudge Factor um threshold so that's what I'm thinking thanks I generally um hate to um contradict anything that the staff has done I respect their very hard work and their dedication so that certainly weighs heavily their recommendation to deny the variance is very impactful as is all the support not only just of the people as I mentioned earlier and and the neighbors who are so supportive but the length of time they've all lived there says so much about the community as well as the city um having said all that I think this is a very different situation than what that we have come across in the recent past in terms of bumping up against a strict interpretation of the law in the fact that this um lack of a fudge factor a fudge Factor if you will or small overage um has wide applicability in other words if we do this for you there's any number hundreds potentially of homes in Edina where we would have this precedent I think that makes this different from other situations where we've had where we're truly kind of one-off of um of the rules this is not this is not a one-off this is the kind of thing we're going to be talking about and having other neighbors come in and with similar requests so it appears to me the sad truth is that you have or you might have to have a second floor and have your dinner parties in the fourth bathroom or something like that because um that's going to be okay to do but you can't you know but I don't think the law allows for you to to have a new patio so foreign I would love to hear from commissioner day I think we're going down the list here I I mean I don't really have a whole lot to add other than what other Commissioners have said I don't want to take up a lot of time um I guess right at the Spirit of the discussion can anybody give me a reason or a explain what the Practical difficulty is here other than we don't like alternative designs and how they look thank you I don't think that's our job no I'm saying like can we expound the the number one point on this right that the city is contending is that there is no practical difficulty here right this is something I'm saying basically the argument the owner has made when I asked about why can't you make this smaller is that we don't like the design right we don't like that it's three columns versus four we don't want to add an additional 150 foot square deck and enclose less right so if somebody could explain for our commission within the commission if you disagree what the Practical difficulty is here that prevents a reasonable use and from complying with the ordinance and I think I'd like to hear it otherwise I feel like we've are all training in the same direction so Carrie can you speak to some of this and I know looking at that is looking at it the other way which you guys incorporate you know it's not that they can't be put to any reasonable use it's you know they must show that their practical difficulties and complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable so at least one part of that we probably all agree with the proposed use is reasonable but then it's the Practical difficulties and it says you know they may include functional and aesthetic concerns right so I mean I I could I could argue with some discretion to add a room that is functional because of the percentage that you would get just with what you would comply with it be a small room and that's a functional difficulty it's a stretch that's why I I don't feel fully compelled to support it but it can be something like that and we've said we've supported similar things where someone is one foot over something and they don't want to shrink that room size but it's a functional thing so yeah you could certainly make that argument for the Practical difficulty and I've been writing down a bunch of other findings in regard to the other criteria but it is that practical difficulty that I was having trouble with so if that's the the direction you're leaning I could help fill in some of those other findings but it is the Practical difficulty that's the the tough one to to site I personally just think that because of the covered unique thing that doesn't qualify like even if they flushed out that like they're already up against that limit and you want you won't get that butt if you had known that I feel like you wouldn't have tried you know so some of it is like we can't find sympathy and like an error by a city staff or someone getting really far in a process and spending a lot of time and money to get to a point that seems reasonable it's just that's not a reason to support that's where I I personally have the struggle too but I think there's a light argument toward the functional practical difficulty of a room that could comply yeah I mean to that point Morningside has as a whole neighborhood has a problem with Corner Lots in terms of practical difficulties we run up for this all the time there's a house that was just finished around the corner for me and um where you know the buildable areas you know 11 feet or whatever you know but we don't really have that here that's not the same sort of thing that's that's you know so I know but I'm just so that that's you know to explain why that that might not meet the criteria that's a practical difficulty that you know the land is on a corner lot and are um our setback guidelines for example were updated most recently in the 70s which is when houses were built in Southwest Edina which the lots are completely different from Morningside so there was no thought as to how Morningside would have to adapt to that sort of thing so we've given variances for that I mean we pretty much have to because it's the lot is otherwise unbuildable so that's something where you know there's something where there's a practical difficulty that our regulations just don't make sense at all right and what we're running up against here is something that seems very nice seems innocuous but there's really no specific reason about the lot or the lot size or the lot shape that's kind of forcing the hands of the Builder or our hands or anything so that's where that comes in thank you yeah so it's an answer you just I I could somewhat support someone I can't find a reason to support two and I support three so in in like commissioner Bornstein said you need all three and that's that's where I'm at Jerry you got anything no I at what the commission has discussed I mean I think it's all been expressed and so yeah I want to welcome emotion yeah unless others have Quincy do you have anything else you'd like to share uh Just one thought um if this design were to comply he would have to shorten his deck by five feet so you just have two feet away from the home 19 feet across it would comply but if you want to shave off 97 square feet you got to take off five feet off the end which that would look too nice at all and it probably wouldn't make any sense I was just doing the math there that's it welcome emotion from anyone okay I'll move to adopt the findings set forth in the staff report which duplicate yeah so the motion would be to deny move the deny the variances recommended in a staff report second all those in favor of denying this variants say aye opposed so the motion or the request for the variance has been denied wish you the best in trying to figure out the best future there is I mean Carrie can right I mean you can appeal to the city council for this if you would have 10 days to appeal this decision to the city council that's 10 working days no 10 total days from tonight all right well that is a tough one where at least personally so much of one of those is supportable but it didn't quite comply with all three it's sorry to see that and and again I mean and some of this goes to what we've talked about with our process how do we make it easier for people to just know what to do up front before it gets too far because this could have been avoided all right next we have b2313 7000 York Avenue Target EV station Plano rocker for a 28.34 foot East and a 29.5 foot South septic variance request from the minimum 50 foot requirement for Utility Equipment in excess of 30 square feet in a front yard setback location of 7000 York this is the target site and what we're looking at is the southeast corner of the parking lot the applicant is black and VTEC and Electrify America they wish to install six electric vehicle Chargers in this area right here it does require Utility Equipment and the Utility Equipment is actually owned by Excel Energy they have a standard pad that's required for the Transformer that's needed and it's an 8x8 pad if it were smaller than that if it were 36 square feet there would be no setback required for it because it is a larger pad it requires a setback it falls back to the minimum setback for the Target site which is 50 feet as you recall we recently amended the ordinance and I think most of you are familiar with this part we never used to have electric vehicle equipment Chargers that sort of thing in our zoning ordinance so we did amend our ordinance to address that we inserted in the language that was already existing about that setback requirement for anything that is greater than 36 square feet then it falls back to the underlying setback for the zoning District now if this is a standard this might be something that we would want to look at changing the ordinance to address if the Planning Commission feels that's necessary in the future we this is our first request to have an installation of this nature in a commercial Zone and I mean I'm I'm sure that they're probably going to need a Transformer of that size perhaps they can meet the setback I don't know um but I don't know how workable that'll be in the future this is you know we we just changed the ordinance and now we have this request given what's required to support um the installation so this is the plan it'll be six charging stations with the parking stalls that are dedicated for that there is some Utility Equipment and they did try to locate that Transformer which is down here which they're proposing location at somewhere in here however they'd have to get a new easement because Excel would need an easement and so they have to work a Target to achieve that which was problematic because Excel already had there's already an easement in place along York so it just made sense to try to locate it in that area so they're requesting a variance to allow that Transformer that's larger than the 36 square feet that would be allowed as an exception in that setback area they will have plantings around it so they will screen it from both Hazelton Road and York Avenue um this gives you an idea of that location of the pad and then a little more detail on the screening and then you'll if you drove down York or Hazelton or actually anywhere in Southdale area you'll notice that they're already equipment that doesn't meet the setback and that are near the Boulevard area some installations do not require that planning reviews them their Utility Equipment and they go in are they larger than 36 square feet I don't know there certainly could be installations that are larger or as large as what they're requesting today it is necessary for them to have that Transformer if they they did look at downsizing it to see if maybe they could meet the 36 square foot threshold but Excel said that even a smaller unit they would still require the eight by eight Dimension and they could reduce the number of chargers but then it doesn't make their it doesn't make it viable for their installation so from a staff standpoint staff does believe that the request is Justified and that there are practical different difficulties the ordinance allows for this exception with the setback if the equipment is 36 square feet or less the applicant determined that no other designs were reasonable or viable where a new Transformer could be placed on a six by six foot pad to conform with the existing ordinance Transformers are standardized at eight by eight and when downsized the Transformer is an industry standard it would be within the utility easement that is within the 50-foot setback but it is an existing easement that Excel would desire to put it there the Practical solution to locate within the utility easement with the equipment is a practical consideration are there circumstances that are unique to the property and not common for every similarly zoned property the variance is partly due to the standardized equipment and location of the existing easement which is not created by the applicant individual Utility Equipment sizes and easement locations will vary by type and location of a project so we may or may not run into this again however you know if it is a standardized equipment pad then perhaps we might want to look at the ordinance that we've just created for looking at the EV charging stations and the supporting equipment the applicant did pursue potentially avoiding a variance by reducing the pad size and or recording a new easement with little success staff does not see any benefit to downsizing the number of EV stations or Transformer size giving the constraints for compliance and the variance to allow the proposed EV installation will not alter the essential character of the locality EV charging stations and sporting utilities are prevalent throughout the city and in the surrounding area there are existing Transformers and Electric electrical cabinets located along York Avenue near the subject site I've shown you photos photographs of that the proposed utility Transformer will be screened by vegetation from both York and Hazelton to minimize any visual impact and they will not be removing any trees so really the conditions will remain pretty much the same although they will have it screened staff recommends approval of the 28.34 foot East and 29.5 foot South sepak variants from the Dyna city code which allows Transformers to be located 21.7 feet from York and 20.5 feet from Hazelton Avenue within the 50-foot front yard setback area in support of the EV charging station and supporting equipment at 7000 York Avenue South the proposed the approval is subject to the following findings the proposal for the Transformer location is appropriate within an existing easement area the Transformer location is compatible with Comprehensive plan and use it allowed within the planned commercial District the EV charging station use is consistent with the land use designation for Community activity center and the comprehensive plan the variance is partly due to the standardized size of the equipment needed for supporting an EV charging station and the need for location within an existing utility easement which was not created by the applicant similar project size and locations will vary for Ev stations and equipment and will need to be addressed individually given each unique Circumstance the variance to allow the proposed Transformer location will not alter the essential character of the locality utility uses are prevalent in the surrounding area including along York Avenue and the Landscaping will buffer that Transformer at the corner of York of Hazleton approval should be subject to the following conditions plans date stamped August 31st 2023 installation of Maintenance of landscape screening plan date stamped August 31st 2023 in conformance with engineering memorandum of August 31st 2023. with that I will stop and answer any questions do we have an applicant here Chris we do not um but on a call let's turn it over to them thank you Chris we see you don't hear you yet oh my gosh I see me now too like Inception okay Christopher can you hear us I can hear you can you hear me yes we can maybe down just a notch yeah you're good to go sorry guys I'll back off the microphone my name is Chris Arroyo my address is 17 Woodcrest Lane Aliso viejo California 92656 uh you know we're working with the Electrify America Nationwide to install uh one thing I wanted to point out is these are level three Chargers uh 350 kilowatt charges a piece which you know uh is the fastest available charging on the market and that's when necessitates uh this 750 KVA transformer um without reiterating um everything staff said we did X we did experiment with um so here we go so I'm sorry about that um we did we did actually we did experiment with downsizing or expanding uh and every way uh we came back Excel basically was committed to that eight by eight pad um even with the smaller Transformer no matter what so at the very least uh this will give us an uh the opportunity uh with this eight by eight pad should we need to expand in the future uh we would be able to um and um that's it I appreciate you guys uh taking them considering our veterans thank you thank you very much so I'll turn over to fellow Commissioners who have questions our commercial Miranda so this is for staff um so you know we think of ourselves as our Wee Little suburb right but um are these sort of things I mean they're going to presumably be all over America quickly and so these these these Transformers so in large cities do they put them out you know on on corners and stuff or do they put them underground or you know what is there something I mean Southdale is different from the rest of Edina and that we have 15 plus story towers and whatnot and so there's a lot more density there it seems like we should be able to have a solution here that isn't a lump on the ground and that we're going to have hundreds of these in a few years that's something that's done or currently yes I guess I can't answer that question in terms of what's going to happen in the future okay but I mean in terms of other kinds of Transformers in a city do they are they generally underground in larger cities or no uh no we have them come in at every project and you know a lot of times I don't know if you even notice them necessarily unless you you know are aware of it or you're pointing them out for the specific reasons there's a lot of stuff out there right right and what Minneapolis has vinyl covers for some of theirs and whatnot um but you know as you get closer to the to the street I wonder about you know bus stations and sidewalks and whatnot um this is still on their property and in fact it's kind of in that um you know that little niche between the two parking Bays so it's not in the right-of-way and we do have them in the right way we do have some you know utility boxes in the right-of-way but this is still on their property and it's still 20 you know some feet away from their lot line okay thank you to follow up on that um is there I don't believe there's a bus stop right on that corner I think the bus stop is on the south West corner of that intersection I think you're probably right but I'm not going to say for sure so okay great question great answer commissions yeah all right thank you I guess my questions are a couple questions I guess I'll start with Mr Arroyo on a call here um I know part of the stuff uh memo there was a statement I think maintenance and liability that caused long still unresolved delays it seems like that might be um some unresolved maybe ownership issues between Target Excel or with Electrify America I'm just not sure what those delays are and what the unresolved issues are I don't know if you could comment on that so so our initial site plan uh had the Transformer adjacent to the rest of the equipment I mean on the interior of the parking lot and in order to uh in order to move forward we needed a new easement a new utility easement and there would uh Excel Energy just had concerns about me since they were the ones who would be maintaining that easement um they had concerns about uh about maintaining the parking lot and if you know if there were if it was affected by another easement um would they have to they they were really having a hard time carving out uh a specific you know what specifically would be their responsibility and what specifically within that parking lot uh and that you know that dragged on for for many many months and it was Excel who proposed to us hey you know we have this easement here within the setback uh you know it would be ideal for us and it would be preferential if you know if you guys could find a way to get there because then we wouldn't have to uh you know and get and figure that figure that new easement out gotcha so that makes sense you know looking at the maintenance I think of this would be important my other question um is around just the development right so I think when I looked at so many building plans I saw a fence around the future location of this Transformer that's a little bit concerning especially during the winter time because I think target they typically push all that snow in that corner of the allot and that's a massive Mountain it's like a a nuisance when I say a nuisance it's like a an attractive nuisance kids would climb up on that and slide down and you don't want a kid sliding down onto a Transformer so could you talk a bit more about the maintenance especially during the winter time of the ex Electrify America look uh setup as well as the Transformer and who is gonna manage the maintenance you know the clearing of the snow making sure that it's free of any hazards for dogs or pets or kids can just explain just how do you guys decide the ownership of the maintenance there was uh as as Steph um stated this is all on target property so Target will be in charge they'll be in charge of the maintenance of the entire parking lot and as we understand it they they're gonna figure they haven't told us where they're going to put the snow we know that it was generally piled into that corner but they said that you know they're they're okay with our location and they're going to figure out somewhere you know to put their stuff now with respect to the maintenance of the Transformer um that will be Excel Energy but I think when I'm when I say maintenance of the Transformer I mean like the electrical maintenance of the Transformer uh the conduit anything goes wrong any upgrade stuff like that uh as far as the the maintenance of the target property that will stay as is in Target's hands and um and they will be responsible for clearing out the area uh you know in and around the Transformer like they like they are responsible for cleaning out all of the area of the parking lot gotcha just a last question here and I'll give it up to the planning Commissioners could do their questions um so the Transformer uh xlng would maintain that black and Beach would build the stations and an Electrike America with I guess manage that but the vegetation the vegetation in that area the shrubs the plants I didn't hear who was going to own that part of it so I don't know if staff or if yourself Mr Royal can talk about just the plantings in that in that area yeah Target Target we'll bring that we'll um when we plant we'll make sure that there's irrigation to that to that uh make sure the irrigation ties into existing irrigation or add new if if there and that will be taken care of with the routine maintenance of the of the greater Target property thank you no problem okay Mr felt um I have one question it's just a practical question so sell um I understand putting the um electrical box on there easement so the line between the electrical line between the utility box and the charging stations will then be owned by you the conduit from the Transformer to the switch gear yes that will be owned by Electrify America correct okay and then you'll you've got an agreement with Target about maintaining that that's correct okay thank you no problem and I'd be happy to share that lease document you know or or uh with uh staff exciting any other questions yeah commissioner Strauss um this is perhaps uh Chris uh planner after you could uh who's the tedded user of these sites is is it Target shoppers or would people I'm just kind of how these may be developed or used in the future or would these just be like a kind of an available recharging station for those that just wanted to come here and it's in a good because it's not really convenient next to the building which I kind of was imagining these things would be right you know in that front row next to the building so but maybe both or maybe they don't know probably both it has good visual exposure where they're locating it I mean you can see it from from York and from Hazelton so if you have an electrical vehicle you can see it um but I am sure that Target probably expects people if they're charging even though it's they're quick Chargers they'll probably go in there and maybe shop yeah oh sorry and that was a good um those photographs showing sort of these unadorned uh boxes that and I think that's most people's oppression of these can be very unsightly so I liked the attention the Landscaping you know for this and that is most often not part of any requirement and those are really I think quite the the usual kind of scars that you see in the different areas that they're just that shot you had from across the street shows a very sort of unsightly you know a bunch of equipment so yeah I like like that thank you Chargers you pay to charge your car right yeah yes ma'am these these would be public Chargers uh and just to piggyback off that there will be both for Target users and for just public users uh when you buy an electric Ford and some other ones they'll give you x amount of try I think it's like three years free or something uh through Electrify America stations um so you know there's kind of a varied user base here uh uh but yes you can either charge you can either charge uh be charged you can either uh be charged one time just like as a one-off charge you can have a monthly plan where I think you pay four or six dollars a month and you get some kind of discount um and or uh you could be one of the people who you know purchased an electric vehicle that had some kind of uh deal with Electrify America I know Volkswagen I know Ford off the top of my head uh they both have Arrangements where um where buyers of their car get free charging for a period of time so those are kind of the main ways so you know when you go to a gas station you have to stay with your car you're not really supposed to go in and Shop is that the same thing here with the electrical charging stations no it's clear it's it's actually it's designed even though it's even though these are the the level three the fastest available charging you're looking at you know three to twenty miles a minute depending it's probably something in the real range of like seven eight miles a minute and I I would say that the normal time on a charger is about 30 minutes 40 minutes uh and that's to go from like let's say 20 to 80 on a on a typical you know on a 2022 Ford Lightning let's say uh so you know the the idea you know electric by America puts these in Walmart Target uh uh grocery stores Albertsons Ralphs uh and and the idea is for you to plug in uh go into the truck go into the store Kill 30 minutes 40 minutes spend some money you get a notification that says um you know your car has reached 80 and you come out and and you uh and you get it and the reason that um it's not at the front you know closer to the front of the store is number one the the charges have to be a certain distance from the switch gear to maintain the the power rating so you know it's just a lot of equipment to take up a lot of stalls in the front um but but also you know uh logistically sometimes a queue can develop but people you know one or two three cars waiting uh so it's not good to kind of have that right at the front uh just you know a line of electric vehicle waiting to get charged uh so you know that's that's kind of why it's that a little further back um practically thank you for the Insight thank you yeah no problem any other questions or yeah commissary day uh I just noted in the report that you know there was a requests made to reduce number of charges by two to try to reduce the size of the Transformer and that wasn't considered viable is that merely from an economic standpoint that you can't justify investing in the charging station if you have less than six charging stations for example it's less than it would so when we when we tried to size it down from six to four they said we would still need an eight by eight pad on the on the um you know for that for that Transformer so uh your to your point a two stall charging uh two charging stations would not be viable for from you know from an economic standpoint to put all this infrastructure in and and the Transformer and this you know the switch gear the power units well um it's a lot of supporting infrastructure okay thank you no problem any other questions this is a public hearing so let's move to the public hearing portion again for people who tuned in like hours ago please call 786-496-5601 enter conference pin one three four five five two seven pound and then press star one to get in the queue to speak I will turn it over right now to anyone who is here in person though I would like to testify please come up the podium you got three minutes hopefully you remember the drill who's going to lead the charge the joke okay it's getting late it's falling flat here I know uh do we have anyone in the queue we do not have anyone in the queue to speak tonight I recommend waiting one minute just to just do the delay in the broadcast so I will start the timer now thank you nobody has connected so I believe we are safe to proceed welcome a motion to close the public hearing second all in favor say aye aye aye so moved all right the public hearings Close turn it back to the commission for deliberation looking left commissioner Smith yeah thank you chair Bennett uh I think this is a a good project um you know as we think about electrifying our city as we think about creating more EV infrastructure I think this is absolutely in the right direction for us I had concerns around some of the maintenance issues and the statement whenever you see something like unresolved delays I interpret that as being now that if we were to Grant this variance that Excel Energy will be able to build their Transformer which would help them any discussions with Target I had questions of you know during the winter time when there's a lot of snow and there's a lot of pile up how is that going to be maintained the last thing you want is you're a kid who is in the area seeing a pile of snow and decides to climb on top of it and it's right on top of electrical equipment and these kind of things and based on Mr Arroyo's kind of comments on feedback it seems like the agreement with Target is that they would maintain everything on their property on the parking lot which is which is good and I'm and I'm sure they have Solutions of how to ensure that equipment is maintained properly and there's not a uh an attractive nuisance in the city and So based on all those concerns with the maintenance the ownership and how that's divvied up between the different stakeholders I feel like this is a good project to move forward and I'm I'll be in favor of approving it yeah yeah um I too am in favor of the project um I think is this Cutting Edge and we're kind of learning as we're as we're going and you know we don't have um lots of long examples to follow but I do know that across the street at the Galleria there are EV charging stations they have been placed in there very discreetly they are very popular they are used very frequently they're always busy um and I think the gallery of benefits and Target sees that and thinks that people will park there and it will be a great benefit to them so I understand their willingness to share in the in the maintenance and the expenses and things like that but um I just know the Galleria ones are always busy so I assume right across the street they will be too so I think it's a good thing others so um kind of in reference to my previous questions of staff so we have a climate action plan and um unfortunately it's not really a budgeted thing it's more of policy and whatnot but um a Cornerstone of that is reducing VMT or Vehicles vehicle miles traveled and so whenever I look at anything that is involving um you know climate change or electrification I want to make sure that we don't just kind of continue on the path that we are of uh having you know every trip being a car trip and so um because you know if you think about Equity I mean yeah a lot of people in Edina most people in Edina take cars everywhere um but an area like Southdale where you've got you know greater density and more density coming all the time um and we're having affordable housing built then you know we have and we have lots of jobs there then not everyone who works there or shops there is going to necessarily have a car to get there so my concerns that I had before were namely you know are we encroaching and it sounds like we're not but are we encroaching anywhere near um the streetscape the sidewalk uh potential bus stops and while there may not be a bus stop there today you know if we look on France Avenue you know there's big change coming with the e-line coming down there there's no reason to think that someday there wouldn't be a another line going of Xerxes in York which was part of the six bus in uh in Edina in Minneapolis so I think it's important that I mean yes electrifying cars is necessary but it's not sufficient for addressing climate change so I want to make sure that you know when we look at these projects that we're making sure that we're not um you know imposing um on the sidewalk or putting anything too close to the sidewalk or potential bus station so when I look at the map that shows where everything's going if you look at it on York Avenue you see that the sidewalk is right next to the street on that corner but as it goes up north and I don't know if this was a Target project from before my time here but the sidewalk actually goes it meanders and it goes onto Target property so I don't know if that was some project that was done years ago I would like to see something where that sidewalk you know around that corner becomes also becomes on their property and winds as close as possible to the parking lot so that it is set back from from the street so that would be one of my requests for this thanks looking this way any comments yeah real quick so I think everybody very clearly expressed some persuasive sentiments all around so that actually kind of just I think I just learned something from all three of you right there focusing on like the findings um as well that would support granting this just let me know if I'm I think this is a little bit confusing but let me know if I'm getting any of this wrong it seems like there's a plausible case to me babe that there's a practical difficulty here uh the request is being driven by the fact the project requires a specific type of Transformer to make it viable that Transformer requires an 8x8 pad we'll need a variance request if you could put a Transformer on a six by six Pad but if you put a Transformer the only type of Transformer you could put on a 6x6 pad is not viable it wouldn't make sense so to me uh the the type of Transformer needed is a in the viability associated with the project that's tied to that as a practical difficulty that at least satisfies Factor one whether there's circumstances unique to the property that are driving the request for an exception it sounds like those circumstances to the extent there are circumstances are the difficulty in locating this Transformer and pad on an easement next to the charging stations there's something unique about the property that makes from a liability and maintenance standpoint that makes placing an easement next to the charging stations which wouldn't would then make it so that we don't need the variance that makes that difficult in those circumstances are unique to the property so I think there's a basis to find that the second factor is satisfied and then will it alter the character of the neighborhood I don't think so just because of how prevalence some of these things are but Lou I mean totally agree with what you said about ensuring that this doesn't interfere like the transit and the walkability concerns that should predominate over over a car base so but if I'm getting those findings wrong I mean is it a little confusing and so I kind of encourage you guys to clarify if I missed it I I agree with you okay the only thing I would I encourage more discussion on is around the point of the property and the difficulties with that exist with the property and the difficulties that exist with selecting that specific location right so there's nothing unique about the target property that since we can't put the charging station somewhere else in the Transformer somewhere else it's because they chose that specific location on the corner that the difficulty exists correct I mean it's we're saying foreign so I guess it's just a debate around the existing property in general and what you'd find as the target property right and then we want to put the charging station here therefore we've created a condition now that is no longer you know it's a practical difficulty because we chose to place it here that makes sense I think the question is like well could we place it further in so that right it it's next to the buildings you can put a Transformer or well or somewhere still where they want to put the charging stages and it's a little unclear right like you're but that's why I was saying it's a little confusing but they're saying that they can't place it beyond the setback requirement such that they don't need a variance because they can't get an easement well I think and I don't yeah so it's just it's the same thing as having utilities brought to your home you know the water stops at the curb and you're responsible for the line between you know the right of way and into your house it's the same thing here Excel wants to stay on their easement they don't want to start running the line on the target property because they want to control that easement and have access to it they don't want to start having an illegal negotiation with Target every time so that's why this company is going to own that line between the Transformer and the peace the same thing happens if you put a charging station in your car I mean sorry in your in your garage you know there their ramifications as to who owns that line um between the two so so it's just ownership of that line and I think the utilities are always going to want to stay in the easement so I think we're going to see this yeah again so do you think Meriwether do you think that's a unique a circumstance unique you know unique to this property that you know I'm not arguing either way I'm just more trying to understand but I think you understand better than I do yeah I think if an electrical company's going to put a Transformer down unless they kind of control the land to it they're going to want to keep it on their easement I know that there are Transformers with buildings like on the building but I I think those are I don't think those are I think those are owned by the building they're not owned by Excel yeah yeah I'd say maybe the only weak part to all of this is the fact that a different easement couldn't have been agreed upon and some of that that could be overcome right I think that's just I mean those can be overcome and we just know the reality of overcoming that is insurmountable at this point so there's a choice of what to do accommodate or yeah there's going to be a lot of requests like this coming in though for this reason because because the ordinance says well set it back a certain amount and but setting it back requires more complicated property rights well I think some of that is what's unique is where it is currently on the property that doesn't make it okay because you might have one that they don't have to change anything yeah yeah so what I'm a little confused about is the one person the one entity not in the room is Excel and because it seems like from what I read in what they discuss is that they thought they could have a six by six pad or whatever apparently they do it elsewhere why is Excel demanding an eight by eight you know is there a technical reason I haven't seen a technical reason for why they demand an eight by eight pad there because it was six by six it would meet our guidelines right isn't it is it is it I could be wrong about this but isn't it that they need a certain size or type of Transformer that can basically Supply the fastest six different charging stations it's a level three I don't know what that means right but didn't they say that they they usually put it on a six by six Pad but Excel demanded an eight by eight pad I mean that's where Excel came out to this right I missed the uh this is why I said it's kind of confusing it is kind of confusing I'm not electrical engineer but yeah so remember but it seems like Excel was demanding an eight by eight even though they felt they didn't need one is that did I misread that I mean we still have applicant on the line we could I mean could you answer that question uh from Excel they've always requested an eight by eight the six by six was brought in because um staff provided the proposed ordinance that that was going to be coming in the future that allowed for a 6x6 so what we were trying to do was change our site plan to accommodate that and to be so we wouldn't have to get a variance okay thank you no problem and I think that's to one of Steph's comments well I mean again when we put something new in place it likely isn't perfect and we run up against maybe an obvious hurdle that hey maybe we'll see a change coming soon of should we change that to eight by eight if that's going to be a common situation to commissioner borenstein's point um we maybe got the ordinance a little wrong that's a practical difficulty can't put the property to use well and this is the first time you know if we see it again yeah then we're going to start understanding a little bit more but I gotta say my only fear is um these are like young gas stations you know young gas stations didn't used to have um the whole convenience thing around it so I don't think that's a reason to deny this but I'm just thinking that there's going to be a lot of change coming up in the next 20 years because if there is I mean I'd welcome emotion keep things moving it seems like there's some similar sentiment here anyone willing to do you want to hit on the point because I was reading as kind of as the applicant was talking so I apologize but are we saying that right they cannot simply put it on a 6x6 pad versus like they just prefer not to put it on a 6x6 pad right because I'm an engineer there's a difference between there's an industry standard and there's a we physically cannot do you know we cannot put it on less than eight by iPad I mean I tried this thing yeah I think we have to assume if Excel says it has to be an 8x8 that's what it has to be not a preferential I mean is there anything that reads otherwise well just they use the language that's they by iPad is standard right that doesn't always mean that that's the minimum requirement right standard isn't always isn't the same as minimum so that's it's details but I just I'm curious if we had to flush that out or not I was just yeah I mean standards are just defer to Sanders are usually set for a threshold yeah and I included in occasion for the variance uh excel's um Excel spec for for their their precast concrete requirements um so it's it's direct from Excel it's a requirement not a preference what's up so Excel is requiring it yeah okay see it just was I want to make sure that we hold right Excel and developers the same standard that we're holding the resin we just had in here and say is there a way that you can meet the requirement right it's not just a preference thing right it's not just a standard and you just want to put an eight by eight pad in there right so I'm just trying to make sure we clarify that piece motion to anyone I'll make a motion to approve the setback variance requests for utility location to support EV charging station based on staff finding reports second uh all in favor say aye aye opposed motion carries congratulations thank you very much it's electric there right all right so we got uh two more it's in about 9 30. how do people feel about like a bathroom break or a break or one more and then a break okay we'll go through this one then five minute break great all right site plan review for 72.50 7 300 Bush Lake Road Addison welcome good evening chair Commissioners this is a site plan review for a proposed building at 7250 7300 Bush Lake Road that is the site of Minnesota made hockey and Southwest eat animal in within the Cahill District they've been located at this property since 2007. and here's a look at the existing site they have an existing 63 000 square foot building and they are looking to add a new 10 240 square foot building on the south end of this property Minnesota made they currently or the proposed building would include Turf area weight training and other hockey specific training space they currently lease space as a tenant in the building just Northwest of here at 7101 amundsen so the purpose of the new building would be to relocate those operations down here and be all on one site the surrounding land uses are to the north we have a self-storage facility on the east side a small office building and a church to the South is the United States Post Office on the west side we have two buildings that are owned and operated by filmtech we also have the CP rail line that runs along the western boundary of the parcel the site is zoned PID planned industrial which allows for athletic training facilities as a permitted use in the district [Applause] comprehensive plan guides the parcel for industrial use that's not super relevant for your consideration tonight because they're not requesting any kind of rezoning but I just included here for additional context here's a look at the parcel as it exists today or the existing building so the new building would go just to the left of that here in this field space they're currently using this as an outdoor rink in the winter uh just some additional views of the property here so this is looking West this is the back of that filmtech building looking East this is that church building in their parking lot to the South is that post office and then here's a look at their site plan so as I mentioned it'll be a 10 240 square foot building on the south end um they are complying with all setbacks so they're required front yard setback from Bush Lake Road is 50 feet they're at 116 feet for the rear and side yard setbacks they have a 28 foot setback required that's based on the height of the building they're at over 60 feet on both uh let's see they do have to make an adjustment here so there there is a requirement that the parkings the parking be at least 10 feet from the edge of the building right now they're at about six so they will have to bump that down but they should have plenty of room to to tweak that and not bump into that South setback so that is a condition of approval that's that's listed in the staff report and then as far as number of parking stalls they'll be adding 31 new stalls that will bring the total on the property up to 242. there's 219 on the site today and city code requires one stall for every 400 square feet of gross floor area for athletic facilities so the code would require 184 so they're well over that requirement and then access to the site is off of Bush Lake Road they do have two accesses currently here kind of in the middle of the parcel and then one more to the north they're proposing to add this third access here down on the south end to provide more convenient access for that building the city engineer was also supportive of that and thought that that would make for improved circulation and improve safety within the parking lot as well just some exterior renderings provided by the architect here of what the building is going to look like a lot of the Landscaping here shown to you is would be new so the front facade they're proposing two different colors of brick they would also have this metal awning across the front entrance and then they'd be complying with that 75 percent transparency at the ground level the three non-street facing sides would be constructed of a precast concrete with a sandblast finish they will be screening all rooftop material or rooftop mechanical with uh corrugated metal panel it's just the the west elevation and the South elevation they'll have a an access door here on the south elevation that will provide access to a workshop area they'll also store their trash containers in there on non-pickup days as those are required to be screened as well and then here's our compliance table I'm just showing compliance with all setbacks Building height parking lot and drive aisle setbacks with a note about needing to adjust the site plan on the for the parking on that sell side first floor height 75 percent transparency on the ground level maximum building coverage and maximum floor area ratio this is our pyramid of discretion that was mentioned earlier so this is just a reminder we're operating here at plan review where we have the least amount of discretion so this is really just a review and check to make sure they're in compliance with city code so staff's recommendation is to recommend the city council approve the site plan request based on the findings and conditions in the staff reports with that would be happy to take questions we also have the applicant here tonight but he does not have a presentation and then Ed terahar from stantec who did the traffic and parking studies also on the line thank you yeah we'll bring them up uh and before that thanks again for showing that pyramid discretion important part to note is full compliance in the table so we do have very limited discretion to the prior cases uh yeah so there's no presentation for sure okay for questions if you have any but okay if you want to just come forward and then all right we'll put questions to all you guys good evening Commissioners Nick spiridi spriti's reiners architects um on behalf of Minnesota made hockey Bernie McBain the owner is unable to be here tonight but appreciates your consideration for this project it's Minnesota made has been a a wonderful contributing member to the development of hockey players ages 6 to 21 for many many years so this facility will now be right next door rather than up the road at amundsen and uh it's just going to be a great facility great any questions yeah commissioner Strauss hey Addison Sim back up where'd you go yeah I've coordinator Lewis um pardon me about why are we considering this um is I know it seems obvious that I'm just going through it but it's sort of um it's very high on the pyramid I mean it seems like this is a if the staff sees that it meets the requirements we're not we're not looking at any variations any exceptions or any other thing it seems to be a permitted use it just um so because it's a site plan review that's what we look at it but I mean I'm not quite sure why it's at our why we're taking our time it seems to be a staff project to review and approve um which is that what to me that pyramid of describe I mean we're up in that red zone which if they meet the requirements they're not asking for anything they're meeting all the the things it's sort of like yeah we can say yes but that's you may and that might be a question for Kerry but I just kind of curious why we're bothering with this you're absolutely right it's just kind of a public review to check that it makes that it meets the code um it's something that our code requires for new commercial buildings um residential buildings over a certain number of units um that just have to go through this public review process check make sure it meets code so um you're right we do have very little discussion discretion here but it's it's your opportunity to ask questions and thank you so new buildings over a certain square footage any commercial building whether it's retail office industrial any new building has to come before Planning Commission and city council for public hearing most cities do it this way there are a few I think Bloomington has an administrative site plan review but this is the way Edina has chosen we get very few of these maybe one every four years five years it's uh it's pretty rare I feel like really the only feedback I recall with these is like aesthetic things architectural choices Landscaping screening things like that otherwise yeah yeah comes from Miranda what was that and does I guess for the applicant is was there any thought to put it or the architect was there any thought to put the building closer to the street and have the parking kind of in the back or something or that way you could expand the building at a future point or something so uh the parking the parking that you see on the east side of the building is for the most part existing parking which is what we so we didn't want to disturb that we just extended the drive aisle and then created the curb cut out to Bush Lake Road so when Edison talks about the additional parking we're over parked it's because the is the site as you can see in the the feature on the left there the parking is way way out on the far ends and far reaches so hockey winter time use he wanted to have some convenience at this training facility which is largely a separate function from the the ice arenas there's no ice in this facility so just needed some convenience parking so we at one point had a storm water management Pond right off of Bush Lake Road but he wanted to really keep that parking because it's a lot of parents drop off their kids make a quick stop unload that's why so we pulled it back a little bit and moved our pond to the back side of the site to the west side and having driven there and parked and watched six-year-olds with you know 60 pound hockey bags um it's much safer I think if the park it was up front and I really appreciate this the Third access Drive access in and out that'll make it safer too commissioner Padilla um what geographic locations does this serve is this kid's from or from all over the Twin Cities all over the state excuse me all over the all over the Twin Cities for sure um I've I've been fortunate to be a hockey coach most of my life and uh kids from West St Paul would come kids from the northern suburbs Maple Grove but it serves this is an alternative hockey program uh to the traditional Association hockey he runs Minnesota made it's a choice program but it serves seven County Metro for sure and but there are no tournaments it's just training oh no there's uh there's a tremendous number of tournaments to take place on weekends what I'm getting at in terms of parking so so this parking um configuration takes into account tournaments or just training it's it's largely to support the training or excuse me the tournament which is why there's so many parking stalls to the far north so on weekends when there's tournaments um he'll fill up the parking lot which is why we didn't want to not add parking for the training okay and um Addison um or I didn't see anything about EV stations but the in the propriet I don't know if it's the engineering proposal of the traffic study did suggest EV stations so can you address yeah it is a recommendation we can't require them Biko we can require it through a PUD where we have more of that gift to get in this case with a code compliance I plan it's not something we can require at this time but you're willing to put them in I can't speak to that for the owner I can certainly ask them okay thanks this is a public hearing but do we have any other questions before all right let's move to the public hearing portion also you got some questions now yeah all right I could I could just jump in with a couple of thoughts here before we get to the public hearing portion of it um so this is great one of the things that came out from this report I was just thinking back that this is with Sydney Cahill District and the Cahill district has um based on some flood reports a lot of flooding concerns um in and around the city you know some areas it's more concentrated on other areas where this site is it's um just north West there seems to be a potential for flooding there from what the Cahill report looked like um not on that site but the neighbor's site North West the long of it is is that if there could be more space devoted towards Water Management it would help Donald any kind of flood issues I would arise and from what I could tell the traffic study the parking study did indicate that it's a little bit overparked uh I think right now it's overparked by 35 and if you build this new location you could you're going to add 31 parking spots and so I was just trying to figure out the math like if you were to remove 24 parking spots you would still be within parking requirement and that you might get approximately 5 000 square feet of space that couldn't be used for water mitigation it could be like uh a green space something to absorb water Etc and you know part of the Cahill study you know some of the recommendations for storm water management they had like seven different things you know uh that they were recommending to uh builders in this location so my thoughts on this one would be it'd be nice right I know we can't compel to do anything but it'd be a nice feature if you were to think about designing in a green space take away somebody parking use some of that that land space to put some kind of uh Water Management Basin a pond something like that that might be a beautiful thing to see especially since I think the CP Trail might be coming around this area in a future development you know taking a run a jog a bike you're going to come by your facility and you're going to see this nice water feature so just what are your thoughts on maybe reducing some of that parking and using that space for some kind of water management yeah I'll just address the regarding the storm water they are proposing a an infiltration Basin in the rear of the property and then also I think it's a rain Garden along the north side of this building um that is on I think it's on the grading plan within the the plan set in there um so that is on there but that maybe let you speak to reducing the parking because that's so two things yes we do have green space we have provided for storm water management The Watershed district has largely approved the plans and said we comply with the disturbance and making sure that we do that as far as reducing parking um I don't think that's going to be something we can do because on tournament weekends the parking lot fills up and he has to actually have agreements with his neighbors to park in the adjacent parking lots because there's no parking on the street so it's uh it's a very on tournament weekends it can be very busy and that's largely why the parking it's already existing we're just putting in parking for our building for this new building uh is the only parking we're adding so um I I can certainly propose that to the owner but I don't think he's going to want to reduce parking so I've got it I'm just gonna jump in I they they understand they have an issue with parking and you if you want to go down there and see they have an issue with parking they know what they're doing the owner knows what he's doing so I think it's probably not an option for them I mean I think the safety of those kids kind of going in and out um and the you know the juggling of the ice and the juggling of the cars and the juggling of the times it's a little crazy there so I appreciate that second driveway in this and this became a safer place for people to go in and out thank you all right public hearing time all right public hearing for people who just called in or tuned in right now or please call in 786-496-5601 look at the screen then hit one three five one three four five five two seven pound press star one to speak get in the queue we'll turn to people who are here that would like to speak uh if you are here please come to the podium State your full name and address get three minutes all right seeing none let's start that minute yes okay we do not have anyone in the queue so I will start the minute now foreign ever over yet yes okay we are safe to proceed thank you okay uh do we have a motion to close the public hearing move to close the public hearing so second all in favor say aye aye so moved public hearings close take it back to deliberate and maybe just again preface this it'd be nice to change things we we really have a little discretion they fully comply so if there isn't something really pressing I'd recommend someone putting forth emotion I'm gonna motion to recommend the city council approve the site plan request based on the findings and conditions in the staff report we have a second second any notes to that are we good okay all in favor say aye aye opposed motion carries thank you good luck on the project good luck with the soils they didn't look good all right we're going to take a quick five minute break for people to we'll be we'll resume in five minutes please come back speaking of coming back I'm gonna go wait all right picking back up where we left off we have one more public hearing it's the zoning ordinance Amendment site plan review with variances for 4401 76th Street West Carrie take it away I'll try that again okay take it away thank you chair members of the commission a site you're familiar with this is the the new Fire Station a number two site we went through sketch plan review oh a few months back so properties located west of France on 76th Street the plan here is to tear down the 102 000 square foot building on the site and then build the new Fire Station Number Two beep 36 000 square feet in size sites guided in our comprehensive plan for office and residential use has a zoning classification of PID planned industrial district you may recall when we went through the sketch plan we were talking about rezoning the site to PUD to allow the use currently within the industrial district fire stations or public type buildings are not allowed they're only allowed in the R1 District you recall we went through the sketch plan here's a look at one of the site plans that we considered so the fire station will be located on the Northern portion of the site and then the southern two-thirds half is available for future development we looked at different development scenarios this being the one that was probably the most favored but we didn't never settled on what the uses would be just exactly what that PUD would look like as you know with a PUD we as part of a PUD you adopt an overall Master development plan and we just don't know that for that southern portion so we took a little change in how we would process this rather use the existing zoning today the planned industrial district amend the ordinance to allow the use if the commission and Council feels appropriate and then so if that is approved we would come back at a later date and consider Council makes would have to make a decision on how to use that southern portion could be a rezoning to PUD possibly if they decide on all public uses on that on the southern half the ordinance in front of you this evening allows other types of public uses so just to quickly get into it so they've made a number of revisions to the sketch plan based on the feedback that was given in regard to the specific fire station site they've enhanced the Landscaping provided permeable brick pavers within the parking lot to address some of those storm water management issues they have the access to the southern lot is still provided on the east and west lot lines for that future development they've reduced the width of the building by 22 feet there was some concern about the length of that building and I think we even talked about her some suggested dividing it in half that's at least a way to try to address the mass of the building in front um so with that take a look at this the this is the site plan itself reduced width of the building access along the east and west lot lines the the tanned area that's the permeable pavers access for the main fire trucks coming in this location there's a water feature that's been added to this green space significantly enhanced Landscaping so here is a look at the overall site plan so um just to take a quick as you can see that the site today is has this large parking lot so the plan would be to in the meantime seed that area be green space and then the fire station developed on the North portion of the property so this would be the condition as the council considers what to do with that Southern Southern half run through some of the the renderings and the architect will go through this in more detail and talk about building materials so here's a look from 76th another view from 76 this is that community space let's see this side to the west elevation from the south you can see the enhanced Landscaping few from the southwest main entrance so this request requires an ordinance amendment to allow and this language is taken right from the R1 District where these uses are allowed it would allow publicly owned and operated Civic and cultural institutions including but not limited to administrative offices libraries Public Safety buildings and places of assembly that would be allowed as a principal use additionally a site plan review with a number of variances sign variances regarding the signage in the front the wall signage allowed for the front is 50 square feet The Proposal here is for 107 square feet they're also requesting signage on the side of the building currently the the way the industrial zoning District reads no signage is allowed unless only on on the the facades that face a street so with the future development potentially to the South these potentially could be roadways to provide that access to the South so the proposal is to add some signage on the sides and that requires a variance as well building variances from our 20-foot height requirement on the first level down to 11 feet for a portion of the building and then the front transparency from 75 percent to 45 percent so first in regard to the ordinance amendment to back up and talk a little bit about the site selection that the council went through I guess initially there was about 30 some sites considered they narrowed it down to two the site that that we're looking at this evening the other site was a code compliant R1 property in Rosalind Park but that wasn't very well received in the neighborhood concerns about noise generated from from the facility so the council did select this site as being more appropriate for the fire station we also did a survey of cities to see how other cities are neighboring cities regulate this type of use the only city that doesn't allow a fire station or a public type facility in the industrial park is Richfield Minnetonka Bloomington Hopkins St Louis Park Lakeville Eden Prairie all allow them as a permitted use in their industrial parks all those other cities with the exception of Eden Prairie also allow them in the R1 District so this is the simple ordinance that's in front of you is to Simply allow this type of use in the planned industrial district given that a fire station is more compatible with the uses in an industrial district as opposed to single-family homes again a lot of it based on the reasons that that the R1 site was not selected and again if the ordinance is adopted public buildings would still be permitted on the southern portion of the site so next review of the site plan in terms of parking the site is code compliant code requires 83 spaces there's 90 spaces proposed a parking study was done by stantec again Ed terahar is on the call with us this evening to answer any questions the study concluded that 76 spaces would be needed for the site they also conducted a traffic study and determined that no additional improvements are needed to surrounding roadways the site's code compliant in terms of landscaping Building height quickly go to the our compliance table and as mentioned just the first floor height variants the building transparency and the signage all setbacks Building height this is a site that would allow up to 12 stories so plenty of room within that so primary issues to consider for the site plan and they're centered around the variances so first in regard to the height and transparency staff believes that these variances are reasonable given the use of the building as a fire station and public facility including the the public health Division and the community space that 20-foot floor to floor height requirement and the 75 percent transparency or not really appropriate for the office and living quarters within the fire station the requirements as we've talked about before run contrary to the city's sustainable buildings policy I mean we've talked about on our work plan amending that code next year um the apparatus bays and the community room would meet the 20-foot ceiling height requirements um let's see we'll go to the next issue is the sign variances again staff believes that the variances are reasonable given the proposed use and um given the size and width of the building along 76th Street the size of the of the the signage is in scale with the building given that large front the signage makes up about 1.6 percent of that front facade by comparison allowing signage in our commercial districts you could have up to 15 percent so just given the scale there seems reasonable proposed signage will make the building easily identified identifiable as a fire station and Civic facility we've we've heard in the past that some of our fire stations are not identifiable so that's one of the reasons for the increase in size is to make sure that the public knows this is a public facility along with that signage the fire logo and the twos provide branding for the facility um and they're also designed to be an architectural element within the facility and we believe that the the sidewalls are also reasonable again we see the possibility of public streets on the east and west side and again that number two on the top being an architectural element so this is the elevation of the signage here this makes up 107 square feet code allows 50. so a code compliant practical difficulty here is signage in front of the building that's not as visible identifying this as a public space here's the side signage you can see relatively small and in scale with the building again this part would be code compliant if those were streets along the side and then the two identifying it as a fire station number two so with that staff is recommending approval of the ordinance Amendment as written and the site plan and variance is subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report and the architect for the project is here to make a presentation as well all right I'll welcome the architect thank you Carrie which button good evening Commissioners my name is Trace Jacques I'm a design senior design principal at bkv group last time where we were before you was way back in March so it's been a little while and I just thought it would be a good opportunity for us to review a little bit of the history of the design but also bring you up to speed on the design and how it functions and I did want to walk you through the plans just briefly so you kind of understand what parts of the building face what's what streets Etc so um I'm just going to move through this we did have an original Mission to establish a multi-use municipal landmark that's welcoming to the to edina's diverse community and create connections between the people and the many Civic Services provided it's important this is more than a fire station although that is what it's called as a primary use I'm going to scroll through some of these what shoot of course technical difficulties as usual it's late all right we might have to yeah I may have to reload this one yeah sorry bear with me never fails all right I'm going to turn a bunch of stuff off maybe that'll help sorry we can edit this part out of the recording okay concept statement I'll let you read that but the important thing is is that the project will be a catalyst for implementation and implementing the Southdale design guidelines within this region of the city this is this will be the first structure that'll in a sense be um looked at through that lens um you know the experience guidelines very well but it's really about mixes of uses mixes of experiences mixes of architectural styles very walkable very connected and seasonal in a destination we and as you're familiar our site is located in a newer extension of that District to the West that will be basically between France and Highway 100. as you know our site currently is light industrial interior carries gone through that the particulars of it but it's a fairly large site more site than is needed for the specifics of this building nearby connections to Fred Richards Park Centennial Lakes and through this site would be that extension of an East-West oriented Promenade the dimensions are yet to be determined um I'll just scroll through this fairly quickly and just get right to the design as Gary mentioned site plan basically places the building in its optimal location for functional uses regarding the fire operations in particular but also puts the public side of the building along West 76th because the determination was made that we would not be installing streets etc for the rest of the site so in a sense we had to make it function for today and tomorrow so what I would call a drive aisle right now will become a street in the future and they were designed as such but for the time being those Drive aisles are really used for individual users and not the General Public um as I mentioned mixed use I wanted to walk you through a little bit of the floor plan itself the upper left is that community room now it's described as a community room but it's really a multi-purpose room it's available it's schedulable to the public it's used as a training room it's used as a large Gathering Place it's used potentially even as a voting station that's been discussed um I'm going to point a little bit with the mouse I don't know if you can see the primary desk or information counter is located closer to the North entry um Health Department staff occupies the northern part of the first floor plan there's there are shared and common spaces some break rooms that fire staff and Health Department staff Co mingle or co-use they share a lot of the first floor circulation with each other health department functions are under the purview of fire department so that just a little structural thing with the with the city structure there these represent apparatus bases one two three and then an island and then a fourth apparatus Bay part of the narrowing of the building was the determination that we could use for apparatus Bays for the time being instead of five we didn't need to over build it we ended up having a fitness center on the east side down the road if there is a need for apparatus this could be converted to just a a back in and back out instead of a pass-through apparatus Bay setup we tried to locate all office space on exterior walls Windows try to get daylight into many spaces but there's also a lot of mechanical and storage needs associated with a fire in this island area is again more of that storage and equipment and decontamination all of this types of things that are associated very exclusively with a fire station on the southern portion this is where that Tower is that's a practice Tower it's it's really meant for multiple uses of different types of training from ladders to walking stairs to lugging equipment upstairs to drying out hose you know fire hoses too it's a multi-use feature and the upstairs the second floor is really just this central portion here this north-south oriented wing and that was again an effort to narrow the building on the site but still have optimal flow through the apparatus base this is a house it's a house for the firefighters it's private the health department staff aren't allowed up here this is private to the firefighters there's a lot of unique kinds of it's almost a big family and so it's designed as such these are what we in your typical house would be your bedrooms their bunk rooms but they're shared there's individual storage units for each of the firefighters that use those individual rooms it's a very big kitchen a very big dining room table and a media or living room basically in an outdoor Terrace a lot of this area you know firefighting is a very stressful job there's a great need for mental health opportunities and wellness opportunities to basically decompress after very stressful calls and a lot of that happens through either going to your room to just chill being in a group setting where you can you know sort of decompress that way or just relax and and unplug basically but there's also opportunities there's an outdoor Terrace on the second floor there that really brings you outside and with all the Lush Landscaping as Carrie was mentioning I think it's really another great opportunity to to sort of make this a special place for the for the firefighters themselves materials on the building it's primarily a stone metal and glass design on the exterior the upper left shows ACM or composite metal panels there's a midnight bronze color I can show you on the renderings where all of these exist down from there on the left we call it reveal metal panels that's really a medium bronze or kind of a brownish color that image is more about the profile than the color the Architectural Stone at the base at the lower left corner what it's not showing it is showing the um the patterning that we're calling for which is called the horizontal ashler pattern this is showing all smooth what we're actually what we have in the specifications is about an 80 percent rusticated or battered stone similar to City Hall here with about 20 percent smooth and it'll be in a random pattern it's going to be beautiful the the lighting effect on the stone is wonderful this the smooth version of this pattern and stone is currently at Millennium Southdale on 66th and York on that new apartment building um moving to the upper right formed metal panel would be really profiled metal panel it says metallic silver and that's definitely in consideration or another finish called Galvalume which is very silvery but in unpainted but seal coated finish that actually keeps a metallic look to it for years it's actually a little more affordable too simulated wood metal plank there's a number of different products we're dialing in with budget right now with Carl Sanderson on that one and then there is a portion of the building that is oops burnished block and that's primarily in the training Tower or you know I'll point out each of these materials as I move through here I'll try to be quick I know it's late so Ariel view looking Southwest you recognize 494 in the in the background this is that apron on the north side of the building a little difference in these renderings is that this is more asphalt now than it is concrete directly close up to the building it is a heated apron and that's to ensure you know response time and not no issues there with snow in the winter especially all of this areas in here would be that 80 rusticated 20 smooth Stone and it really winds itself around the whole building the sides the east and west side of the training Tower are the same Stone material the burnish block is on the North and South Side we felt it really important to distinguish the building it's a Civic building with the its name but also um the Seal of the fire department itself I think that's really important for civic architecture to project that message this same view from the street level this is a same view on 76 looking Southeast you see Minnesota Center off in the distance there that's the community room functionally there was a great we had a great dialogue with how glazed it should be or how opaque it needs to be at there are different uh situations where this space needs privacy it could become a Command Center in a crisis for instance it's also a training center and it's training for fire but it's also a public training place too you could be learning CPR here for instance health related education could take place here as well so it was really striking a balance and Kerry mentioned also with the sort of energy requirements and the the push and pull you have with transparency and and energy sustainability there's always a tension there but in general we tried to glaze as much as we could the second level of the building remember this is primarily a sleeping spaces for on the on the street side and that was intentional by the way to keep the social spaces on the southern end of the building where it gets the most sunlight in daylight during the day street level again this is the stone the metal composite metal along these faces the White and the bronze and then the revealed metal is on the sides here A View from the southwest looking towards Centennial Lakes it just gives you an overview of the Lush Landscaping the water feature um there's an Extended space just outside of the community room for um outdoor activities that may be training related or Community related the permeable pavers on this is actually considered more employee parking but there might be a situation on the weekend where there's some Outreach some open house where this this becomes uh almost like a small Festival Plaza where where other activities could take place the configuration of this drive out with the 90 degree parking was actually a recommendation from the architectural field office knowing that it would be a street one day the recommendation was why don't you park it like a main street instead of parallel parking head in parking assuming there may in fact be commercial across the street one day so in the short term it works great in the long term it'll kind of fit that bill and in fact there may be District parking that can handle some of the public parking needs for this down the road same view from the street level and then considering that probably the majority of people visiting this facility will probably be driving for the short term this would become more of a more used entry point we have a this is an ad alternate element which is this canopy coming out as close to the parking as we can get it it would be a shame to lose that quite frankly when you're talking about health and safety and coverage you know you think about having something covering you but it's it actually helps direct people to the entry point and between that community room and the rest of the facility is a very transparent Concourse space for people to gather meet before or after their sessions or do their daily business and this would be the view from the southeast Corner looking Northwest and this would be that burnish block wall it has to be very durable it's going to take a beating there'll be ladders leaning up against it people rappelling off these balconies you name it they do it so it's gotta be able to take a beating and not show the wear and that's why we needed a highly durable material as far as the numbers go on the building it's kind of a that's what fire stations do it's that when you think about it as a architectural featured if you did a survey of fire stations old and especially more contemporary fire stations there seems to be a contest going on about how you can creatively integrate a number and a big number into the fire station but in a sense it's really become more of a building identifier from a distance and so right now we chose the color green for the city of Edina but quite often times numbers get colored red you know like fire stations so I think that's an open conversation at this point and I think that's it so with that all in my presentation and thank you for the opportunity I hope I didn't put you to sleep it's late I know so thank you available for questions anyone have questions for Carrie and or the architect and team this one quick one I have regarding the compliance table and kind of what we're making the decision based off of how this complies I mean this is bound by the Southdale guidelines correct correct it's in that District right and so when it comes to the design experience guidelines and compliance with that is that captured in the tables because it didn't seem like it wasn't we used the design experience guidelines more for rezonings puds to justify going above and beyond this is really other than the use not being allowed here is a site plan review with the variances okay so then I guess you know the feedback Mick provided I guess I'm trying I'm rewinding back to like you know when this was PUD it seems like we're taking a step back and I don't know if everyone else is I know we're following that but do we lose that discretion toward making more of those things happen I think the the idea is the fire station kind of is what it is on the on the front or the North portion of the property we want to keep the design experience guidelines in the front of our mind to make sure we provide that adequate access to the South we still want to break up the southern portion into smaller blocks we still want that East-West Promenade and potentially that East-West street that runs through the site that could be that East-West Drive what Drive aisle as proposed in the plan here so the site was designed keeping the design experience guidelines in mind but when we consider the the Redevelopment of that southern portion that's when we really want to get into to those those reviews and that's why Mick did the review initially we did think we were going to come up with a specific plan for that southern portion which is we're just not quite there yet okay I'll have some comments later based on that I'm and if I may we did have throughout this process the past several months regular conversations about how does this measure up to the guidelines basically and we we had a couple of of observations that I think may have even been shared in our first meeting is that the guidelines are really based for fabric oriented buildings commercial multi-family or private development type buildings some office you know those types of mixes of uses but it doesn't really make any provision for civic architecture government architecture and on that level I think in any City there's Provisions for larger plazas or deeper green spaces around buildings those types of things now this is not a city hall it's a fire station but as fire stations have very specific you know functional needs one thing I do want to make the commission aware of is that we did go to city council to increase to seek an increase in the budget for the project and were granted that in order to maintain a higher quality level of design and finish on the exterior of the building because and they they agreed with that they supported it and um this design represents that commitment at the city's level to knowing that this is the first new building in this District that um it will in a sense set a standard of quality now it's a Civic building and not a private development so it's you know it's it's been an interesting conversation to say the least I just didn't see those guidelines distinguishing between different yeah they're more zoning or comprehensive plan amendments down in the green with the ordinance Amendment you know we are kind of in that area where we could say yes or no to allowing yeah this use in the district yep okay I I was just taking a step back from all these details and trying to catch up to where we we got and where other things went anyone else have any other questions commissioner Smith and then so yeah I could kick things off here um definitely appreciate going through the design but I also wanted to take a step back a little bit because I think the agenda item tonight was to look at the zoning ordinance Amendment discuss that and then go into the variance you know one on the number two sign and is signing variance there and then on the fenestration which is the windows and the facade on the outside from 75 I think down to 40 or so but as I think back on this one right so like last year June you know we you I think it was uh our Economic Development build new endorse we talked about buying the property we all agreed that happened city council agreed and I think in March you presented uh to us a sketch plan review which I think these are the upgrades to that sketchpan review but during that conversation this was a plan unit development item it was a PUD item and his cash plan came under that particular zoning guideline right or zoning ordinance and I think the Pud allows us to have the most flexibility in deciding these structures the features they look at the field that would go above and beyond or different from whatever the current zoning is it not for that area and I think the beauty is what we used now for me personally I think that the Pud on a on a fire station is very different from a an industrial building right a fire station has a very unique place in a city right it's it's it's part of City infrastructure almost and so the Pud I think gives us that flexibility to do everything that you mentioned right like we need to change the fenestration because some of those locations might be a trauma center and you don't want someone walking up to the glass and seeing a person getting CPR and with regards to the signage you know we could talk about that later but this signage I think would also have to be different versus a commercial building signage right so that makes sense to me but what what what doesn't really make sense to me is why are we trying to make a zoning usage change to planned Industrial District when we could just use a planned unit development to get all of this done without any type of variance done it could all fit within that plan that you just outlined so why are we trying to make a change to the usage in PID and to ask question one question two is if we make a change to PID it's not essentially a changing of land use and is that within the purview of the Planning Commission or is that within the purview of the city council so I just want to understand those two pieces why do PID change and two do we even have the ability to make that change as a Planning Commission you can answer the second question first ultimately it is the city council that will make the decision on the land use request based on your recommendation so this is within your purview the pivoting from PUD the thinking from a staff perspective was it's difficult to justify a PUD going through each of those criteria for a fire station without knowing what we're what we want to do with that southern portion of the project so we're not looking at a rezoning here the existing zoning is planned industrial district the question it for the Planning Commission is do you think this a fire station this public building that language that was proposed is that appropriate for the existing zoning of plant Industrial District I think so fair question there um and we'll talk about this later in our work plan reviews but in our work plan reviews I think we cover a wood plan item to review plant industrial districts and all the issues that need to be made with that so I'm not sure if that could be covered in 2024 as part of an upgrade to apply industrial district zoning ordinance versus having to do it today to address specifically uh fire station development that's that's what I'm trying to wrap my head around a little bit still going that way questions yeah commissioner Padilla um okay so let's see um you didn't talk about any particular um security features um I know I saw there's a decontamination room but um there's got to be all kinds of additional other chemicals around there and I also didn't know where all the fire trucks do they Refuel on the property I knew we'd see you thank you members of the question I can take that answer for you I think the specific question was are there chemicals on site is that is that correct yeah that's too much about security and any additional Hazard hazards and things yes we don't have any hazardous materials other than just cleaning materials for the fire station are the the security at the fire station is just like the fire stations that exist today with card access and and keyed lock security for the building and the property of similar like similarly to City Hall in regard to the question on fueling we fuel at our Public Works facility so all feeling takes place at a public works facility thank you and then in terms of the facility itself is there a gym in there anywhere yeah thank you for that question too the the facility that we have actually um and the design of that gym facility is for firefighter wellness and but really all city of Edina employees will have access to that facility um so that they and we designed it in a way that they could have access without interrupting operations without interrupting the staff who are working 24-hour shifts so all city and it'll be done employees that have access to that facility um okay thank you um so how many employees would be there um like during the day fire staff and health staff and things like that uh that would be just a question of uh what day and what time specifically right now we have a staff of a minimum of nine paramedic firefighters and or captains that are on at one time throughout the city and so once this facility is built we'd be Staffing two ambulances and one fire engine out of there the public health staff would also be joining us there which has a seven seven staff that are dedicated to the public health facility um and in the in the narrative on page two they talked about Recycling and Organics collection and that was the only place I didn't see it anywhere else in the presentation so can you address is that part of the facility as well the specific question around Recycling and Organics collection just being a site uh where where facilities could bring recyclings and Organics we have that at fire station on where we have a cart that people can drop off if they don't have access to their house you don't have that presently it too do you uh we do not at step fire station two today okay there were um consumption projections in there and I wondered um how they compare to current fire station two I'm I am not familiar with the consumption projections or what what the consumption projections are for the facility the current fire station number two has two staff in it so obviously with a increased staff the consumptions of all the products for the fire station are going to increase based on the staff being located there um and in terms of the traffic study um I know they said that there would be minimal impact um but I'm concerned with all the building that they're doing on 77th Street um there's going to be just the Fred Alone um has I don't know how many units 300 units or something in the Fred that that would involve so much more traffic and then and then further west there's a hotel so it's I understand the traffic study um the saying that there is only a marginal increase based upon what there is now and just adding the fire station but I don't think it addressed all the additional um people either in the hotel or the Fred or the additional Redevelopment that's going to take place on 77th Street seems like it's going to be a lot more traffic and I don't think that got covered I can't speak to the details of that report specifically but generally in my in my experience traffic reports do take into account existing or projected projects with with some connectivity to the site you're studying do you know um they do take those into account but Mr terhar Is With Us online perhaps that yes good evening can you hear me yes yeah thank you thanks for the question yes the uh traffic study does take into account background growth for other development that's happening in the area so that that is a common form okay thank you um and last question um so there's an apartment building that's I don't I don't know maybe 100 feet from where this would be and and um I don't know how that impacts it or whether or not I mean you mentioned that there was um one parcel that was declined based upon Community input and I didn't know whether or not we've gotten input from that building that's so close to this we did not receive any any comments through the better together or emails the property owners were sent notification of the project but we have not heard any feedback that's an apartment building correct so the property owner not the residence the residents might not know about this it's up to the property owner to notify residents if they choose to if I may we we also did when we were going through the the values viewfinder process go to the facilities any of the multi-family homes with Flyers to try to make sure it got into the residents hands for that exact situation where property owner doesn't live in state isn't really going to care as much about the the facility going so we did do our best efforts to to advise anyone near or around the proposed facility excuse me to provide any feedback just from an operational standpoint the challenges now is there there is impact of the fire station I'm not going to stand here and argue that you won't hear sirens that's a part of a fire station is making sure that we alert the public when you live closer you actually have less impacts because we don't turn those sirens on until we have traffic when we're trying to move traffic when we turn our lights on if people stop as we exit that's when the sirens go so if you live closer you actually have probably less impact than those when we're going down the highways or feeder streets that we have to have our lights and sirens on to move that traffic out of the way okay thank you Chief Slimer thank you very much thank you I'm done other questions otherwise if it's comments mostly we can save those till after the public hearing good all right so it is a public hearing thank you all for those who are tuning in and those are here uh I read it before hopefully we get on the screen but please call 786-496-5601 if you'd like to testify conference pin one three four five five two seven pound press star one to speak to get in the queue I'm looking around the room if anyone is here that would like to testify please come up to the podium you got three minutes all right set that really long timer we'll start it right now [Music] since nobody has joined the queue I believe we are safe to proceed all right welcome a motion to close the public hearing move to close the public hearing all in favor say that all right so move public hearings close turn over for comments or further questions commissioner Padilla I think he had a question for care maybe not okay not related to this okay commissioner Smith yeah uh I just want to just go back to just talking through why PID versus PD I think um director T you were mentioning that there were a list of things that this may not fit within a PUD that's why adpid was chosen as a path forward if you don't mind just kind of walking us through what that list is um I'll just at least help us understand the constraints there looking for Creative site design mixture of uses requiring Sustainable Building you know meeting our sustainable buildings policy which we didn't mention this project is doing that even though it's not part of a PUD so we're getting a give to get even though there's not a rezoning here enhanced Landscaping pedestrian friendly type development their sidewalks all around so they are meeting some of those things that we look for in a PUD but as a as we've talked about with with meeting that criteria to use a PUD for a standalone single-use development can be a challenge not that we haven't done it in the past but we just felt at this at this point we might use that PUD tool later if it's appropriate for the full build out development of this site but right now doing the survey of other cities it's not uncommon to locate fire stations within industrial districts other cities allow that as a permitted use that that seemed the way to go here so just a clarifying question so from your perspective let me say include a fire station within an industrial district it doesn't matter what all the contributions of the fire station is once it's a fire station we have full discretion on any kind of design for that fire station once it's deemed a fire station as a permitted use within an industrial district is that kind of how you would look at that yeah so it if our current code allowed a fire station in the industrial district this would still be in front of you it would just be a site plan review with those variances even if there was no variances just like the the Minnesota Made Project it would still be in front of you as a site plan review okay can I jump in so part of the reason it's here approving this in an industrial district is um because these are approved in R1 districts in residential churches schools fire stations are approved for an residential single-family zoning and so right now you know so you can have land anywhere within the city and claim it for a fire station we just don't happen to have that notification in an industrial district which is why we're talking about that now I mean it's one of the reasons to have it in any residential district everywhere anywhere is so that it can be located where it's needed the same really applies to any land within the city of Edina and so we're just making a change to um the industrial use zoning so I I think that's I feel fine about that commissioner Miranda well but I mean we don't really want this to be an industrial district right I mean it's the land use is guided that way or well actually it's zoned that way historically um but you know the whole Southdale area guidelines I mean we want housing we want commercial businesses we want a lot of things here so so back pedaling by the city to you know keep this planned industrial just seems very odd to me and it doesn't I mean we're trying to shoehorn in by making it legal in any planned industrial district which I think in the future we probably might only have one if we have any we're really shoehorning this in I mean this feels like this is almost like spot zoning or something you know it's like it just doesn't make any sense to me so I you know why would you have a if you actually had industrial zone why would you want a government building there I mean there's a pretty good reason why we didn't have that before because it doesn't make sense and you want to have them in residential districts because you want people to be able to walk to the building I mean look at where we are here we're surrounded by single-family homes right so so it makes sense to have government buildings you know that are easily accessible to people and whatnot but to to put them typically in a industrial Zone makes no sense and this is this is shoehorning this project in to get it into this location is what I feel is happening here so to tie under that yeah one question how wide is this site again just dimensionally I remember it being at least 400 feet number I can look it up but the SE well beyond the 200 foot block yeah so I guess I mean my my struggle with this too is um to commercial Miranda the city's committed to get a fire station they bought this property it knew it would house more than a fire station and that was kind of presented to us as part of the Pud things have changed we want to get this Fire Station built I think all the support building it there it's just for me the fundamental design characteristic characteristics of it on that site just fly completely in the face of the Southdale design principles and the experience guidelines that we set the precedent for developers so how don't we like we don't put that on ourselves as a huge struggle I'm reading through it it says all new development should begin with the premise of the 200 square foot block and then everything else is from there I don't I don't know where I'm missing the point of why we're giving ourselves a pass that we don't hold ourselves to these guidelines that we approved and that's where I'm just confused why why is these guys why are these guidelines not a part of the compliance table I I understand their guidelines but they were brought up by Mick Johnson during the review and I know the sketch plan we talked about it certainly I did we have the opportunity as a city to really set the stage and connect people from the street to that back path and you build a 400 foot Shield it's just fundamentally like for the reasons Lou said I I just cannot support this ordinance Amendment but for all these other reasons that just compound I'm just bewildered like I I don't know what I'm missing here and I and if it's just to get this thing built that's great but I think it it's design principles are totally off of the standards we're holding all other new development too so I'm struggling there guys I don't know if anyone else has read this and struggles equally but we could accommodate a building with five Bays that you come in from the backside by stacking stuff behind or put in the training piece above like there's design things that could be done so it's it's a bigger conversation but I just I don't support the ordinance Amendment yeah yeah I mean it feels like a giant Suburban fire station Greenery whatever plunked in an area that's supposed to be developing into an urban walkable space so you know as chair Bennett said you know I think we're pretty much all in favor of a fire station nobody doesn't want a fire station and they and this is a perfect place for one um the the question as we we judge on land use I mean that's what we look at and the land use here is just very wasteful there's just not there's a lot of unused space and then in addition to the fact that it's very wide is also very deep and so instead of the the fire trucks backing in they drive around and there's this huge Plaza on the backside Plaza it's not Plaza parking area whatever so it there's so much about it and you know getting away from the 75 percent transparency on the west side of it it looks just kind of too huge and the material is very nice you know I mean the signage is nice there's a lot of nice things about it obviously we want to support our our firemen my brother's a volunteer fireman um you know you want to give them the best spaces and stuff and exercise areas and have the health department there that all makes perfect sense but it's the way it's laid out to me that um just just doesn't make sense and and this asking us to add you know City public buildings to Industrial districts doesn't seem to make sense so yeah just a so if I don't sound correctly I think what I'm hearing so far is there's two parts to this there's a sketch plan review which Jimmy Hadden has some design guideline issues with and concerns with which I think is fine and then there's a ordinance Amendment discussion on what's the best vehicle to build this within right so PID is what was presented but we're thinking I'm thinking PUD has a different way and not shoehorn this into this industrial district so I think that's two separate issues that could be probably covered as two separate topics in the future um my question is just only branding right so this is so assuming that you know we discussed that part and then we talk about the actual building um I'm just a little bit confused on The Branding so this is the community health uh Center we're calling it the fire station and then there's a big number two so if delay person goes through this area are you just gonna say where's the fire station basic Community Health Center or are they going to say where's the number two so there's something about The Branding I think of this that could be confusing once it's developed because I think we're using that Community Health Center and fire station interchangeably I know it's all in the same spot but I'm just wondering if The Branding could could simplify it somehow so that it's not as not different things at the same time that's just a little bit confusing element for me so Lou um what do you think the better approach would be to to the zoning on that site I mean if this is where the city wants to have a fire station you know do you think I'm just more interested in the historical background on on this one like you know actually Jimmy you too just people in terms of what what has been envisioned for this area should it be do you think it should be zoned differently and then this would fit within that yeah so we talked earlier about you know work plan item for getting our zoning in line with our our comprehensive plan you know the city I came in on the tail end of it but uh Jimmy and I I believe uh Jerry was involved in the Southdale guidelines you know that was a like five year project it was very long um where you know they the city worked with with uh with Nick or Nick Nick and had tons of community meetings in the Southdale area and there was a huge amount of input and over this period of years they came meeting after meeting and they came up with this amazing plan and they they boiled it down into the guidelines but the whole plan is much more intense with that and it lays out you know an entire block by block how are you going to divide up which we can't force on landowners but it's you know it's a guideline for how the city envision what the Southdale area is going to be which is basically you know an urban sort of downtownish sort of thing and um because you know most of Edina isn't going to be that so uh so it's a very specific plan and it talks about you know how far buildings are from the sidewalk and how tall they are and and how they grow as they get further to step back and you know tons of guidelines and and you look at the pictures um in that report and you know it's all this great urbanist sort of thing and everything and then you see what what companies propose what developers propose and it's usually stuff way back uh you know from the sidewalk and stuff but it's it's it's mixed use I mean that's kind of the the whole Theory we've been going on which is partly why I said the new um Cahill District you know kind of fell back on that I mean granted that's more industrial than Southdale is but um you know that's also a mixed use and it could be more mixed use because when you have housing next to jobs and Retail then people don't have to drive everywhere you know so people are still going to drive we're not Banning cars we're not Banning parking but you know these districts are areas where there's more density you can have Transit you know we're gonna have the e-line going down France Avenue um you know when you talk about traffic on 77th Street you know um there used to be a bus there I don't know if there is any more but you know that's clearly something cities along that stretch um have talked about like renaming that block kind of branding it as another block not America International Boulevard or something um so I mean there's there's a lot of talk about how that all should develop and you know as Jimmy um chair Bennett said you know it's it's we're we're sort of expecting it of everyone else when we should be the leaders as the city itself and we're not really delivering on that so it's a big question mark yeah as far as zoning I think it could you know more toward a mixed use or support of PUD which is what it was on the track for but just PUD doesn't work with the timing of getting this thing built now ahead of figuring out the rest but I feel like the commitment to the city buying that land that was part of it you know this feels very wasteful of what we could capitalize on with taxpayer dollars Elsewhere on the site just not using it effectively so turning it back to Industrial I think again is just super inappropriate it flies in the face of the comprehensive plan as well as the guidelines and all this other stuff so the conflict between the way the area should be planned and which is the Practical timing considerations that are trying to be accommodated yeah it's just kind of flat tension between those two things so yeah yeah but also you know and we've seen this before where you know once you start splitting up the lot like this because you know it's like oh just to prove this part or whatever and then it's like oh they have these grandiose pictures of what the other part is going to look like and then after this is approved then like you get to the other part it's like well we couldn't fit it in and this and that the other thing and then it becomes just you know a five-story building or whatever so by doing the one good thing about the Pud it may be overused perhaps but one good thing about it is that it allows you to take a larger parcel and say hey we're making this almost into like because pods can be the size of 50th in France I mean you know we we had the one proposal on the west side of France Avenue uh just south of the 66th and that that was the size of 50th and France so when we get these large Parcels it's like you kind of want to think that's what planning is right you want to think about it from a high level from a big picture and when you start splitting it up and just take off little Parcels it's hard to do that sort of thing but even so like say for the Grandview development like how that one that was going to likely be something together and then it's subdivided into three separate properties I mean I think I'd support this if you know the design and everything was centered in one you know 200 by 200 foot block to allow things to be directly built and maximized next to it so I would support that you know I probably would support it coming back if it were in line with everything that we're setting the standard for everyone else I just I don't know if that helps yes super helpful thanks jiren right confused I I guess I don't occupy the same uh resistance to this I I don't understand the point in us being set an example for the Southdale area we're not building an apartment building right as the architect Road ran through right really Southdale district is about shops residences Etc a fire station doesn't occupy the same space in all that in my opinion right a Civic service building isn't try to mold that to fit this larger vision for the Southdale thing I mean think you're making mountains out of a mole hill here um I just I guess I don't understand that part of the resistance in terms of like if you want to have a community space right and we want people to have it be accessible people are going to need to be able to drive there right there's a parking lot around it we could resistant to that we have a community room it can't only be accessible to only the people that can walk there like making this more I just again the Civic space the community space that part of it it occupies a completely different intent than what we're going for with Southdale I just don't understand the resistance of that yeah and I guess I mean again the history of that is all new development it's not just just new commercial development so I mean there's been things proposed to us like super black if we were building a hospital it would be I mean there's certain exceptions to everything sure but something all new development but something yeah but something like this could be accommodated to conform in a way that I mean it's it's what you know architectural view mentioned and their initial review stick to the 200 foot block you can do this and we haven't seen a change since that sketch plant to even speak to that or accommodate it it's the same sprawling Suburban development we're trying to avoid in this area it can work it can so that like yeah there's huge resistance especially because we're in the driver's seat as the city you know like that doesn't set a good example to the development Community or residents I just I think just like the Grandview development framework we own certain sites we have a huge obligation to the taxpayers to maximize those sites and this is the opposite of that because it flies in the face of everything the whole Community agreed upon so that's why I just have a huge just fundamental disconnect with this and will not support it yeah yeah just a quick Point here too I I can afford in between yourself Jimmy and commissioner day here in that yes we have the comprehensive plan the South day plan guidelines but a fire station is a very unique Beast that I think has to be held to a different set of criteria the criteria that I would look at if I were maximizing this was if the fire chief said I need to have this to respond most effectively to save lives that to me is the purpose of that building now secondary purpose is it to look pretty and all these nice things that we want Etc but the primary purpose is to save people's lives quick response and all the things that would make it more effective as a fire station versus a commercial building versus a a mall right it just is two separate uses but I I get it some of the concepts from the from his Southdale design guidelines can be incorporated but what I'm hearing overall right now is that the design and how we want to deal with that is one thing and the zoning and how we want to do that is a separate thing and I feel like this agenda item tries to combine both which is causing a little bit of a confusion so I think I would love to hear your recommendation but I would think that'd be one of probably separate these two items and discuss it in the future how do you want to move forward with the zoning I think pewd is what we started with and what we approved in in March well we should continue with till the end and then really looking at the design can be a separate item where we look at the comprehensive plan we look at the software design guidelines and what's needed for this fire station and come up with a consensus on a good design that meets all those criteria so that's kind of my thinking on this one but open to other thoughts so just from a high level for commissioner day there's a famous architect named Leon Cryer who talked about um and where a city is basically you know city and state government institutions so things like hospitals and sometimes be city-owned but you know hospitals fire stations City Halls schools that sort of thing and they're distributed throughout a city and they intermingle with the businesses and the the multi-family homes and the single-family homes and that sort of thing and so you when you distribute them evenly amongst each other then you have a real City because then like I said things are you're closer to jobs you're closer to going to the County Government Center or the city hall to fill out a form or whatever everything's online now but but um you know or go to the health department for something and so um it should be split up around the city which is why we don't have one giant fire station we have we have what two and we want three um but I think you know if I mean I'm looking at a a picture of the Minneapolis Fire Department station one which is downtown and I brought this up at the at the you know the previous meeting and it's like it's much smaller although it's it can obviously hold very large trucks and there's a very large area for firefighters but there's apartments behind it because you can fit apartments behind it and we just have all this space around ours and it's space you have to walk around to his point even if you drive nearby and you want to walk to the health department you know this is a huge building you have to walk past that there's you know no it's not split into anything and so um so there's lots of reasons and you know like I said we spent Five Years on the Southdale guidelines there's lots of reasons for these sort of things it's not just like plucked out of the air so but in terms of you know um Quincy what's your last name commissioner Smith um you know I mean I think it's pretty clear what's in front of us is that we're just voting on whether we're going to make the ad or public buildings to to the PID right and what was the other thing we were voting on we're just voting on two things and that's you know it's not this isn't really a debate because we're not it's not a PUD so we don't have that kind of control over it and so I mean our hands are kind of tied at this thing I mean it's a great conversation but I don't know that we really have a lot of say in what's going to happen uh just want to be careful too because we've we've changed our approach with how we get things through for different applicants like you think of the Pod and what Dale Valley View it feels like that same thing's happening here where we're Switching gears to do a more convenient and I mean that that seems like the goal um it just seems like an inappropriate use of that tool so I changing a zoning amendment I I do not favor so I mean that's just where I'm at with this all these other things help influence behind the scenes but don't really they can't be used as a justification for that yeah can we either recommend instead of the current motion can we recommend that we do it under PUD instead and or can we divide up the parcel so that you know we're only looking at the fire station part of the parcel and not the whole back section that is you know is just a big giant question mark it kind of is the request we're just looking at the fire station with the idea the rest of it would come later possibly a PUD depending on how it yeah I would I would suggest that we make the whole thing a beauty in the future but if we have to vote on it right now I think we should just putting it right now and then see what comes back in the future yeah you could make the recommendation on the requests in front of you and add an additional recommendation that this should be a PUD or whatever you decide I want others are thinking but that's certainly more annoying aren't you concerned with the size of this like block and the way that this structure is sitting on on it is that it's just it's not conforming to your view of like how things should be built in this area is that kind of right how does it how does it like not I'm not going to get off too much of attention but just like by one other path does this site you know get carved up a little bit and built on in a way that conforms more to kind of what you're thinking through what through whether through the tool of a PUD or on the whole thing yeah or a subdivision that makes that conforms with the guidelines yeah well yeah it's maybe architecturally I think it looks nice yeah in many ways or just architecturally it looks way better than it did before I just noticed and noticed that yeah and we've already gone through a sketch plan review on this so tonight is really either up or down on changing the industrial district to include this the signage and um the building the clearance 11 foot clearance and reducing the transparency of the class from 75 to 45 yeah but I think if the if the if the vote on the zoning is not in favor I think that variant stuff becomes irrelevant is that right well we've already gone through a sketch plan review yeah yeah look you're correct yeah the zoning is the first part and rules fall under so if we approve just deny that from undeniable though we don't talk about those other thing I get it okay okay yes because it's a safe plan If you deny the the change to the zoning the use is just not allowed so you couldn't so you're really obligated to say no to the site plan and somebody I guess I need more explanation on the resistance to keeping it a PID and changing the ordinance because we've rezoned from PID to PUD just recently right to achieve a specific end and this is a little bit different we're adding an amendment to PID zoning requirements saying we can put Civic buildings on a p ID or PID p and IDM engineering so that's that um but I mean I just don't unders I don't see a problem in amending the ordinance to allow for this use we talk about people want to have access to the fire station there is affordable housing department right across the street if I were to ask most people what do you think a fire station is owned they probably wouldn't say residential they'd probably say it probably would make sense to put it in an industrial area right this is also allowing for civic and cultural institutions on top of that including but not limited to administrative offices libraries public safety building et cetera so we're achieving a means that we would probably want right in a piano or in a p I keep saying P90 a PID District right but we're saying you know the wrong approach to spot Zone this we do it all the time go ahead so I mean talk about the Chocolate Factory right I mean that's the the chocolate chop right ice cream shop no no right and so because a PID is very limiting I mean it's meant for very like warehouses and large industrial things and that's not what we want this neighborhood to be so to backtrack and say oh oh no let's let's stick with PID just goes counter to everything that we have planned as a city that we have said is our goal for this whole District it just because you couldn't have a chocolate shop here they couldn't sell anything in the in the couldn't sell Girl Scout cookies or whatever in the fire station but um it doesn't make sense because we really don't want planned industrial districts anymore it's just not a it's just not really a thing anymore you want even within industrial district you want mixed use where you have commercial businesses like the chocolate shop and Industrial right you there's no reason to have just industrial anymore because industrial isn't what it used to be I mean it's not going to be a lot of toxic chemicals and stuff right so it's light Industrial so it's it's it's you know you're going against the comprehensive plan which is not what we're supposed to do how how are we going against the comprehensive plan because it's zoned as PID but the comprehensive plan doesn't talk about Industrial in this District well it's it's guided for office and residential uses and within that description talks about public facilities so it would be consistent with the comprehensive plan yeah I'm not buying that I just don't know in a PID District like fitting in terms of a community Gathering walkability Etc like that I don't understand I just I don't buy into the fact that we're going against a comprehensive plan in this area it was it's not guided for industrial in the conference of plant I mean that's why it's going against it unless we redefine industrial right which is what we're being asked to do which I don't think is that difficult of a thing to do right if we want to encourage more mixed use in industrial sold areas say the Cahill District when we want to make allowances within PID districts to accommodate more uses right we're saying we're not going to do that that doesn't make any sense to me you know I can certainly add a little bit of context there too is we discussed this in our work Platinum which would come up next to review industrial districts and all the possible uses for the future so that's on our 2024 work plan the fire station when we approve the sketch plan in March it was under PUD I say we stick with that to the end no need to make changes to the industrial zoning and add a different use to that I don't see future Public public like public facilities in this Zone in the next couple years so I don't see a pressing burning platform that we have to included now and changing the land use again might be a city council thing for us to do so I feel like all these reasons it just doesn't seem like it's the timing to make a change right now for this particular project to make a change to Indian the industrial Zone can I make a motion I think we're at the point where we're going to agree to disagree on things but yeah let's do that yeah and we will call vote I moved to deny the ordinance Amendment to change industrial to include Civic and cultural institutions do we have one I second all right all in favor of denying yeah so and I is supporting denial of the change to the industrial zoning overness so we'll do roll call commissioner felt commissioner Miranda aye commissioner pitya nay commissioner Smith aye commissioner day nay commissioner Strauss Nate commissioner Bornstein aye chair Bennett aye look at some motion carries for denial thank you all thank you guys for the marathon you should take action on the site plan and variances as well I mean it you kind of know what you have to do but you still have to take action on those it's a use that's not allowed in that District based on this recommendation right I mean do you have to follow your same vote by your same logic yeah all right so then I also motion to deny the site plan variances well second anyone second a little roll call again commissioner felt I I hope commissioner Miranda aye commissioner Padilla commissioner Smith aye commissioner day commissioner Strauss Nate commissioner Bornstein all right chair Bennett aye motions or moved for uh denial to write the messages yeah all right thank you guys for spending your time here appreciate your patience and we still got a couple things yet guys all right so that closes a portion of our public hearings we got two items left one of which is a sketch plan review for 5120 5124 Hankerson and after that is our work plan discussion so turn over to Leonard Teague thank you chair members of the commission I'll try to move through this quickly so this property is located up in the Grandview District just west of the commercial area located on Hankerson The Proposal here is to tear down two existing single-family homes that are located just south of the Grandview Townhomes so the area that's highlighted here in yellow that's that Grandview townhome development we're looking at the two single-family Lots just to the north here's a look at the two homes and you can see the town homes to the South those town homes are zoned PUD D there are eight units within that development so the proposal is to build two duplexes on those two single family lots so here's a rendering of what they would look like and here is the site plan so here are those Grandview Townhomes as you can see there are eight units and so the proposal is to be a continuation of that PUD to the South to locate two additional duplex units that would be single story so the applicant has indicated that they would request a comprehensive guide plan Amendment to re-guide the site from low density to medium density that would allow up to the 12 units per acre that that density would be and a rezoning from the current R1 to PUD so just a quick compliance table so you can see it sorry to cut you off um we've been talking about PUD but could you give a little rationale of merging into one and kind of history of things joining up with previously established ones and why we're going to ask a question but if you can speak to that a little bit yeah we have done since we started doing Beauties we've twice joined a PUD the first one was actually the first PUD that we ever did that's the Vitamin Shop on 70th and France so the on that intersection the first Beauty was and again that was another single use building but it's the retail where the Vitamin Shoppe is located we expanded that PUD to include the the property across the street where the Chase Bank is located so that's that's one example of a PUD that was expanded the other is the uh the Fred along 77th the first PUD was the apartment building there and the second was that second phase of the development we just extended the Pud there that project is going to be called the finch now so those are two examples of where we've extended the Pud so with this one the proposal meets the standards within the Pud just item of note so duplexes are typically allowed in the R2 zoning District the double dwelling unit District the minimum lot size for a duplex is 15 000 square feet these two lots are under just under 10 000 square feet so it is a variation from our our two standards but it would comply with the with the Grandview Townhomes um just to talk about the the existing housing they're not considered affordable housing units but they are considered naturally occurring somewhat affordable it's kind of that within that range but they're not considered affordable housing based on the values the density would be nine units per acre here the Grandview Townhomes to the South are 12 units per acre when you look at the site plan you can see they are a little tighter the lot's a little bit bigger for the individual Lots um I will just stop there and the applicant is here for a short presentation as well and then we can respond to any questions that you might have thank you welcome almost good morning hello commissioners can I have a quick question for kerrylist tonight um I'm the applicant Paul Donnie I live in Edina 6605 Mohawk trail and I build an Edina think we probably built close to um 100 100 homes now in Edina and I build in other areas in the seven County Mentor area too but uh I think we we got on this plan the Rambler style after being at the parade of homes at my Grandview project and listening to a lot of the people that came in to the model and uh they really were looking for one level living and so we've kind of geared this Twin Homes to that and we've built oh probably I don't know 20 28 different communities where I'm the president of the HOA as I was here in the Grandview and the declarant and the Builder almost 1900 town homes and condos over the decades and plus the single families we do so we're familiar with the HOA and we'll be adding these into the HOA that's existing there which I just turned over and uh we elected the board of directors so I'm here for any questions do you want to yeah I just wanted to do a few few clarifications um there's been calling it duplexes that while they are technically two unit buildings it's actually Four townhome units in two buildings do the math yes they're they're duplexes but it's essentially a townhome project just like the adjacent parcel um so it's going to be planted as one large piece and there'll be four Lots out of it they don't necessarily coincide with the existing lot lines um another thing too is I did notice an issue on one of the setbacks it currently the side South under the proposed lists 10 feet and it's actually eight essentially what we did is we laid the buildings out so that the building to building distances were consistent with what is currently in Grandview Townhomes again trying to treat this as an addition to that project that that's also why we want to expand the Pud versus another zoning because this parcel would become part of that homeowners association legally it makes it much cleaner if the zoning and all of the other rules are the same for this project as they are for the existing units in the HOA the project basically continues the buffering between the commercial areas and the rest of the single families in Brookview Brookside I'm sorry um there's sort of a new term out there you know we've been talking about missing metal with with the previous project and the current word that seems to be out there is modest densification so essentially we're taking two units and making four out of it we're adding a little bit to it that keeps the other units somewhat more affordable because you're you're gaining a little bit with the land we we have also in in reference to the comments that we've gotten from Planning Commission and other projects what we've tried to look at is the impact on the infrastructure and how that affects the value of the homes the cost of the homes to the end users and there there are certain limits that we can get to without spending so much on infrastructure that we're essentially you know basically pricing our units out of what we're trying to do here which is to create a relatively affordable home in Edina um one thing when we're looking at the density at nine um you know current use goes from one to five these two houses sit on three lots and if three houses were built there the density of this two lot area would be 6.7 so even under the current zoning the original layout of the pro of the houses here in Edina you'd be exceeding that that low density residential so a medium density residential classification for this area would not be out of line given how the how the project was already laid out um basically uh our our rendering basically is just trying to show that buildings are going to mimic and and complement the other project um same kind of colors same kind of um roof pitches uh is basically designed to blend in with the the other project and the neighborhood thank you thank you guys appreciate it looked to fellow Commissioners for any questions yeah commissioner Strauss yes thank you that your last comment that was kind of what I was going to ask is that architecturally I mean they were meant to sort of work with the existing was it eight work with but not be identical common roof pitches common sighting common colors minor common column details minor differences in massing things because it's a different product um you know the the original building was a two plus story is about you know arguably because you're actually seeing part of the lower level because of the grade the grade up the site is flatter you do have the benefit of all the flatter lots and the fact that we're a single level unit it does have a different portion to it so I'm calling it as similar I'm assuming that there has been some neighborhood meetings and contacts about this or nothing's required at the stage okay it is it would be part of the next stage okay I well I'm just it's an observation I saw how full this chamber was when we first started this right lots of concerns right and apprehension right and next time you came or the same sort of stuff I mean nobody saw I mean I think that the neighborhood has in fact embraced this and certainly the product has been really well received I I would I was going to say that actually yeah there was a buzz when they were doing those open houses I mean which he just picked up on right yeah we def we definitely have had comment from some of the neighbors who were here prior with a I would call it a different attitude about what we have done versus what they thought we were going to do so just get two or three homes were were on well there's two homes but each home is on a lot and a half right oh that's what you meant by the three right so when you look at the underlying underlying plaid the original plaid there are three lots there yeah um there's two tax Parcels currently I'll phrase it that way thank you commissioner like you pointed out we filled this place with people that wanted to deny the original Grandview they you know that's and uh thought it would devalue their properties and you remember what what it was like and uh and it was really nice once I got them built and had the model open that during the parade of homes I didn't have one negative comment all of those people many of them came back and were very uh very impressed and they liked what we had done so that was that was great other questions yeah commissioner Miranda wasn't um in the final plans one unit taken away one or two units taken away from the previous project because people adjacent to it didn't want it or was it narrowed or something something no actually we had 13 and it was 12 and then 10 and then eight and honestly uh commissioner Miranda one unit went away so that we could keep the two um White Oaks white pines on the south side of the property and then another unit went away for the Gap in the building and uh uh through the discussions between Planet commission Council the the eight units became the magic number in this case I think that the four is already that magic number I think it already Blends tapers into the adjacent project and you know it's the right number for the site yeah no I think I think it it looks really good and the uh vehicle accesses from the alley in the back still from the alley just like the rest of it I will point out I know somebody might ask there is one homeowner on this in this uh in our original building that uh went full Electric so they they do have have their electric power in their garage all of them have it available uh but only one has taken it so far so far okay thank you yeah this I think this looks really good this is sort of the definition of missing middle or gentle density or whatever I'm just learning the time modest densification thank you other questions by the way okay commissioner fell um project what was that zoned originally and what was it part was that originally a PUD across the street next door it was originally R1 but it had a four unit apartment building and a single-family home and what we looked at there also was the mass of the number of units on the amount of land and part of my presentation to Planning Commission and Council was Edina historically does not have a townhome density or a townhome zoning and a lot of the uses are based on 1960s site planning and they really haven't changed over the decades um you've that's why we're doing puds that's why we have prds that's kind of the work around for it right now but when you look at um what that need what that wanted to be I mean we added from five we went to eight we added three units on on that larger parcel and you know here we're adding two but if you would look at the underlying lotting again the number that we're adding to what would have been in Morningside or even up the block here in Brookside those lots are narrower because they're single Lots the houses are narrower you would actually have only you're adding fewer units than it it seems only because of what product was on those lots when yeah and my question is mostly about rezoning residential units right yeah I know we I can save this for comments later so the previous project was R1 and moved into a PD but yeah one of the companies yes okay and these and these are single family homes right now on the existing Lots right now yeah just maybe questions now well I mean it's not a public hearing we can do a little of both we're trying to expedite it you want to finish your comments yeah let's just do that um a project in here earlier tonight where they wanted to kind of increase their footage on their R1 residential unit and in city council meeting the other night there was a fellow who stood up and talked he goes listen I've got this big property if I could split it you know I would so for me like are we ready to kind of allow um changes in R1 I mean I know we've got the um the adus coming up um which might change so for me it's the changing of the R1 to PUD that I'm stuck around I mean I think they're nice I think they're beautiful and I think you guys do great homes and I get that everybody likes those I mean that's not you guys are good builders for for me I'm just struggling with changing our one to PUD then maybe some of it is these properties aren't inherently just if you zoom in on them unique but where they are situated is what makes them unique yeah PDD it's in an area that this area is guided for well and we're and we're talking about you know do do we talk about um kind of looking at corridors quarters of change rather than small area plants I just don't know if we're there yet right how how long does this course yeah that's certainly now [Laughter] but it's a good point to bring up yeah standing that you are looking for to go from low density to medium density and a comprehensive plan Amendment correct correct this strikes me as um being a heavy lift for a comprehensive plan amendment I think that um this isn't doing anything for the missing middle this isn't really doing anything for um affordable housing um and we're basically I'd like to see it be more impactful to Warrant these kind of changes so I think to to be asking for comprehensive plan amendment in addition to just the you know and the rezoning um I'd like to see more than just two additional house two additional units that's we're just going you're just adding two houses or two to residences um which just doesn't seem to again be that impactful and then somewhere I read something about uh you know a potential area of change which I think is a good idea and hopefully something that we can put on the list but um that's my input no strong comments at this point um I don't have a strong comment at this point initially to me oh go ahead right oh I didn't think you were up yet no worries go for it uh I'm just gonna say I agree as you said about the heavy lifting behind the comprehensive plan Amendment and it doesn't feel appropriate in this regard you know we talk I have a lot of discussion around spot zoning and now we've jumped the shark to spot comprehensive plan to mending for two lots if it's a it's kind of kind of wild to me that that we wanted to even entertain that idea um so yeah I mean I just don't see this as having enough to offer to make a comprehensive plan Amendment and like you said it doesn't really do much for Middle missing middle right these are 430 thousand dollars duplexes at eight percent interest rate that's over three hundred three thousand dollars a month mortgage and then you're gonna pay what 500 to your HOA every month that's not missing middle so yeah that's that's all about all I got it feels a little little spot zoning to me too right now um and I kind of understand though why we want this type of housing I understand why we want this type of housing in this area um it just feels like the process for getting there may be you know we've talked about looking at our entire all of our zoning and updating all of it to bring it more in line with the comprehensive plan and then and then those updates resulting in projects like this you know maybe coming into more than just one spot area so you know if that were the way that were the method that was used to you know at the zoning where we wanted to be and then projects like this were proposed I think that would make maybe some more sense I think it's gonna be a little heavier lift to just try to rezone this one the parcel especially in the into PUD where getting more pressure to not to kind of stop using PUD for sites that aren't particularly unique or anything like that and understand that are small and so I think I think there's just some tension there I think we want this type of housing in this area um whether this is the right this method to make it happen it might be hard to kind of justify this very spot type approach but what does everybody else think no I'm hoping I I could get I could get behind this I think the there's there's this already an established track record uh we've seen what they could do have done and and I the neighborhood is accepting I think the city benefits I mean I I think this is this is a an appropriate direction to the other day if you if the question is you know considering going to a PUD District extending it I would say that's makes sense to me a couple comments but questions first so regarding the method as you know it's a heavier lift to get a comprehensive plan amendments learning change all that and in doing so then you know essentially the variances kind of go away like those setbacks or or those yeah because they would achieve what the Pud allows for currently so it's a heavier lift to get more relief where is a moderate lift to get equal relief like let's say you incented in R2 you said it'd be more seamless for a PUD you know behind the scenes for everything to manage but is that the case I mean if if it was rezoned to R2 and you got variances instead for these things or are you confident enough since the city council has supported a comprehensive plan Amendment are ready to do a less modest density here that you feel good with this approach we're just I'm trying to understand it I I think the issue with the comprehensive plan I mean there's been some discussion about other areas you know we brought in things for other areas too and you know clearly I think what we're pushing here is that there are parts of Edina that need to be looked at and to your point you really don't get that look unless people are coming and bringing things to you in order to do that so you know we're tip of the iceberg tip of the sword if you wish um but that doesn't to me mean that we have to wait for that review by by your bodies to to get to that point this this is like the project that maybe helps you get those areas under your purview for the in your in your work plan and and something changes going forward but the market itself helps drive that kind of stuff and that's who we are and I think really um if you consider that then this isn't necessarily that heavy of a lift the project itself I think stands on its own um the the amount of density increases modest it's not a big impact on any of the neighborhood what we're fighting is the math that is currently in the code and the and the comprehensive plan and that was my point with talking about the original density of the three lots that were originally planted in this area the original Three Lots exceed the current density in the comprehensive plan many parts of Edina do the same thing but yet that is where they're currently placed they're they're low density single family even though they're six seven units an acre okay that's an inconsistency and that I don't have anything that can I can't control that but by bringing a project to you that really kind of fits getting it approved you know we've got some rationale for what you'll look at down the road okay oh thanks yeah and I guess my comments you know yeah I'm ultimately it's a city council's discretion I don't want to just be like my you know a recommendation doesn't matter but trying to better understand the the method for you getting this to happen um I think relative to change and you know I know a lot of people in this neighborhood and I remember that whole struggle this seems like less of a struggle but it still changed spilling in to the single family neighborhood which we have kind of said we're not expecting that to happen elsewhere and this area is is guided both through zoning and the conference of plan to stay single family home so one thing that I did consciously as part of the design was to taper the stone yeah you know it doesn't lend itself to continuing up the block in a in a piecemeal fashion no yeah and that's when I first saw the address I was like oh gosh what what are they adding on going down the block so then when I pulled this up I'm like okay this is we you know we talk about graceful transitions in any areas where there's a different zoning to nearby changes in zoning and we have a no really Collective Agreement on what that looks like but to me this is a transition from a row home which is already kind of you know somewhat missing middle style to now a twin home to the single family so it spatially and functionally it seems appropriate um I I just know the neighborhood will be concerned about traffic and the alley getting Fuller with more cars and people and it just in construction just getting closer to the single family homes that's like my concern and is it is it worth pushing that upon you know the Neighbors when there's no guidance for our city to do so so yeah I have a question for um for all the rest of the commissioners where do you see you say you don't understand this I don't know what we want to call it missing now and but I sat in those models for weeks on end during the parades and I've talked to six out of 10 people and and they had gray hair majority of them and many of them had homes in Edina where their children had moved out of they moved out of them and they went to college and eventually they had their families and then they wanted to sell their big two-story homes or their homes wherever they were Ramblers many of them didn't have Ramblers they wish they had so a lot of them are looking for this type of housing this type of housing where would anybody go in Edina right now they don't want to rent and pay four thousand dollars a month next to Jerry's they don't want to rent they want to have their own ownership they want to have their own yard they want to have like me the grandkids can go in the yard so where would this Planning Commission direct those people if you say there's no need for this missing middle you don't understand I'm I'm bewildered here it's count plan I think it is yeah I'm Bill welder yeah okay well I don't know what I don't understand is how this doesn't apply to a PUD right so if you look at the guidelines behind a PUD and you want to redesone this through PUD you're just taking advantage of a specific zoning type right and that really doesn't fit here the when you look at in the in our city code and it's not I mean talking at our heartstrings and talking about philosophical discussions around senior citizens so there was no need that was I didn't say it wasn't a need and you haven't answered the question that's what we're talking about we're gonna make it a rhetorical question where do they go oh that's that's really not I mean to what we're talking about right now so in terms of a PUD right the purpose and intent of a puds include most or all of the following right and we have nine different conditions here and as we as we know we've been getting a lot of pushback on how we've been shoehorning things into PUD and what in Capri Sun using it for inappropriate uses right so if you look at the Pud requirements maintaining or improving improving the efficiency of public streets and utilities preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features Wetland protection open space Scenic views allow for mixing of land uses within development high quality of design I mean none of that is really applicable here and really what's more appropriate for us as a commission to do is to change our zoning and talk about that going to the Future not to just say it again this is like we've already started to create tension with our inappropriate use of puds this gets further into it in my opinion and this is not appropriate whatsoever and that's and that's the core of the argument not about where do senior citizens go to to buy duplexes it's around the appropriate zoning type and what our body needs to do in order to allow for you to come and present these types of projects right so in a way that makes sense to the overall plan of the city to our zoning types Etc right this doesn't fit with the current zoning type you want to put it in so well except that that's what immediately adjacent to it and we're matching that same product type same we already have all of those same variances built into that PUD the alternative is as the security suggested was to go prd3 which all we're doing is we're putting a different label on exactly the same set of variances that already exist in the Pud okay or we come back in as a R2 and we're shuffling the lot lines around and we're adding lot lines and we're doing as a PD PUD sorry an R2 with variances and all we're doing is we're just applying a different label to the same project where the Pud that already exists already has all of these features built into it it's immediately adjacent we're not going across the street we're not going down the block we're not skipping around so all we're saying is that existing thing could be amended easier than adopting a different one a new one and when it gets to the legal side after the fact and we're trying to bring them in all of those same rules that apply to the first building first two buildings apply to these two buildings and it's a simpler method down the road of incorporating that homeowners association now that's a benefit and the okay efficiently efficiency of the street we're adding a unit we're adding two units the street is becoming more efficient you have more you have less Frontage per house you're actually gaining gaining that way we're adding more utilities on the same amount of Maine the city is not spending as much that way there are efficiencies as part of it okay I don't want to get into the rest of them but the rest of the points right now because that's really something informal approval but you know the reality is is these four people joining the other eight people makes that HOA more effective more efficient there's more there's more people to share those costs that are involved there's a few more class but they get to share them a little bit better so that joining of the HOA is kind of a critical thing otherwise you have an HOA of four people nature would have eight people and it really doesn't work so we're just seeing it as a more efficient way to blend the two projects and I think that's where there's some you know people are just wondering how because if these you know two Twin Homes just appeared as a pod like that's not the route that you guys would go but it's just unique because there is this establishing next door to it whether or not that's the right route because of those is debatable but the city council approved that and kind of sent them likely in that direction you know by approving that it's a four to one vote so I would I would assume like they're they're confident with that route it's just again it's a different label on is that going to be supported and function in space and what variances was it the same console slightly different yeah but commissioner day I will take that comment under you know I mean if if it takes a different application type I'm fine with that too I was just looking at from you know the application what made the most sense to us at the time sure in fact I want to be clear that I'm not like opposed to the project in general right and I do agree that we need more of this type of housing right we're just talking about the mechanism in which it occurs right saying as we go about our you know the next item on the on the agenda is our work plan we're talking about changing zoning types and stuff like that right it's just to me I know the city council granted the Pud before I would have said that I didn't think it was applicable then and I don't think it's applicable now so I'll just expressing my opinion in that regard as saying that I think we need have work to do on our current zoning and that current zoning right in order to allow it to be an easier path and a more sensible path for you to propose projects like this right right so right right so yeah I recommend you seek that feedback from the council yeah present to them next Tuesday yeah because they might have better feedback well yeah more over here I guess just just here so just to clarify uh Missing middle is not affordable housing missing middle is about density it's not about affordability so it's fair by that and then in terms of spot zoning I mean spot zoning is if you build a Target in the middle of like a residential neighborhood or something right that's putting a completely inappropriate or you know somebody got paid off you know sort of land use that's that's not supported by the land use around it this is not spot zoning because we already made the decision as a city as a city council to um you know have a put there so this is extending that now one thing that our comprehensive plan and the small area plans don't talk about and I think very much on purpose is that you know they create these these brick walls at the ends of the small area plans you know and that can't continue right they have to expand over time right and so um so there is no way for a developer because our small area plans I mean that it's not in the small area plan right that's outside of the smaller airplane so there's no way everything outside of that is single family home so there's no way currently for the city to do anything so yes we need to change how we're doing zoning absolutely but are we going to make the city wait 10 years and stop all all development in the meantime and I think that's a bad idea so as as chair uh um you said something good I forget now anyway whatever yeah yeah right so so so putting the taking a a I mean yeah a comprehensive plan change is a big deal and we don't want to do that like here and there and everywhere that's totally but we have to do it until we figure out the best way to do that and that's going to take years we're not going to do that overnight so any honest questions I mean I think everybody likes the project right and you're right people want to live in these homes it's just like right now in the middle of everything that we've been going through and you said it it's the tip of the iceberg and thank you for bringing the project forward and thank you for all your work on doing this and you know and and you're going to bring it to counseling maybe they're going to say something else but I think if this is if this is presented right now I don't think I'd be able to support it but I like it as a PUD um because because of all the issues about around residential zoning at the moment the R1 okay we also like the fire station and we also like the the the lovely house and the lovely people on Scott Terrace too right right but we're we're you know we're trying to comply here with the rules and the ordinances so right I'd say just one other item I know this is a smaller plan but typically before a sketch plan it is recommended to have some sort of neighborhood get together not after like and with the bigger sketch plans we see there's usually a neighborhood meeting prior to those so it just a recommendation sure it's not required but what 95 of them probably have neighborhood meetings and neighbors don't like getting caught off guards seeing this it goes in the paper they live two houses away from it or next door yeah and Kerry did mention it a week or two ago I don't remember ever seeing it as a you know it didn't happen as part of the sketch plan for him for Hankerson for the other yeah I I remember yeah I know but we had a great meeting over at the library with the people first though so anyway otherwise thank you guys thank you for staying till the next day is it really really appreciate what you're doing in the community hope to see you back hope you get good feedback very good thank you thank you good morning everybody all right last night not quite last well all right so we're on to our 2024 work plan we got a number of things on there is are you or is someone able to present it on the screen what's on here you know we've been talking about these for um quite some time now yeah no just like for the you know the public whoever's tuning in to see I'm a visual person sure yeah give it some time um maybe before we get to that just so residents understand in addition to these twice a month meetings that the Planning Commission conducts for the matters you just sat through tonight we do a lot of other work behind the scenes to get the city up to speed with a variety of things some of which we touched on tonight which is cleaning up zoning different tools that we use that revolve around land use one of our work plan items Kerry will touch on it's always on there is basically these meetings so that's always on there never going to change there's other ones that kind of come up and get forced upon us and either by the city council directly that we don't have much of a say over and then there's other ones that have been this kind of organic growth over the years of what has been a priority what have we seen creating a lot of friction let's start addressing that and we start to add it to the work plan it sits maybe in the parking lot for a year then we get it on this year we have a lot of things on the work plan and maybe just a heads up for that is we see approximately three of those as not much work until we hear otherwise but they're just on there in case we get a directive there's one other item that was discussed during our work session about the creation of a small area plan that is not on here but like I mentioned if the city council gets enough pressure and they feel compelled when we go to present this in October they could add something to it including that and or subtract things on here too and then things certain things will go to the parking lot for later but the eight things we'll talk about are the ones we're committed to as a Planning Commission we've divvied up who's kind of the leading co-leads and the ones who want to help assist on all these items and I think they're wonderful items talking to a couple residents who have been tuning in to the work session so you guys are working on some exciting stuff and it seems like people are passionate in the right area so I feel like we're we're set to achieve an unusually high amount of work items compared to other years but Kerry want to just roll through them quick yep yeah you're 100 right this is a little larger of a list than we've had in the past so on the screen here you can see the first one is what you had mentioned this just our usual reviewing land use applications and making recommendations to the city council could you scroll to the next one so the second one this was one that was removed from our work plan last year but we feel it's extremely important as we start to get ready for the next comprehensive plan 10-year update it's identifying those potential areas of change we just looked at one that this area could be one that we look at you know the edges of those of those where we've done small area plans you may recall the same developer had a sketch plan that was brought in for Grandview Lane and we talked about doing that entire block so that's an area that we might want to get along France France there's a lot of different areas that that we need to um that we want to look at for recommendations for future small area plans and so I mentioned we had a work session we've talked about this stuff a lot too this A small area of plan creation for specifically that area West in West Edina we decided we would table that and identify it and maybe more prioritize that as a part of this warning that's kind of where things left off just so people who were tuning in or wondering okay all right number three this is the uh with the with the new state law allowing uh cannabis we need to draft an ordinance so that'll be another big task that we need to complete so that'll be a review and recommend of us of a zoning ordinance whatever those amendments look like and number four this is the zoning ordinance amendments to bring some of our existing zoning districts into compliance into more compliance with the company no this is not that sorry this these are the individual amendments that that we've talked about it's the flexible the drooling moose issue allowing some flexibility with commercial uses that are allowed within our industrial district and the second is revising that taking a look at the potential of revising that first floor height elevation um building material and transparency requirements and the third this is one that's been on our work plan for a number of years we've just never gotten to it our sign ordinances is dated so we really need an overhaul of of that that's not a pressing issue for us but something that we should look at at some point and I'd say just context this type of work plan items on it every year where we specifically address some discrete items yep some years it's much longer than others this is just three but we've got a lot of other a lot of other issues all right number five this is the the potential for creating new zoning districts or looking at our existing zoning districts to bring them more into alignment with the comprehensive plan this is another huge lift that could go on for well it depends how much we would accomplish next year but it would could be a carryover when are you retiring okay and number six oh this is the continuation of the the parking issue where we've partnered with the transportation and eec and this is kind of a placeholder for whatever the next steps may be for the Cahill District plan um so this is kind of a placeholder and we'll see where that goes um and do we need to have a lead identified for that because I don't think we got one maybe we're just waiting to see if it actually becomes a thing do we need to have that do you know yeah um just I haven't been there for these presentations with the council but rather us be prepared yeah we might want to if anyone wants to volunteer we don't know exactly what that's going to look like or what those next steps could be or we could just put in here as a placeholder the entire Commission yeah I'd volunteer for that I mean that's right by my house so fitting okay perfect nice and the number eight is the continuation of the development review process this was on the work plan last year we made the presentation we're making some some changes in terms of you know how things get posted on the website live comments so we're going to incorporate some changes but the big recommendation of we 've reducing public hearings that's all staying staying as is for now so this is the potential this is what chair Bennett had added to the to the work session to the to the work plan based on the studies session the last time foreign is there no budget oh man so I I've looked at other work plans say for Transportation or other ones like some of them get pretty detailed with the amount of money something costs but like for this one particularly just because I have ideas like and we talked like it could involve you guys it could involve more the communication marketing department the web development side so do we need to capture a bucket of funds or does the city council or the city manager kind of divvy up time that they foresee it taking and is that part of the conversation um for this one no I think the reason I put no budget needed here is it's yeah the staff time is just kind of built into the work to accomplish the site okay it it may involve other departments as well but when we say no budget that means we're not bringing in a consultant yeah to assist us and I think the city yeah can cover it yeah I think the city has quite a bit of talented creative staff I mean even the ones who are making the show run right now that can help do a lot of things too so okay I just thanks for bringing that up that was a question I had does this sound good to everyone yes they're we good I mean this is a basically it's just a thumbs up we're not voting on anything correct yeah I think it would be good to to vote on it basically you're authorizing you to present this to the city council okay in October and that was was it October 3rd to Tuesday correct and that's a work session correct correct and okay just so if anyone can I make some commission I welcome I welcome any other Commissioners to go along um no no no I was just going to make a motion to adopt the work plan and present it to the city council on October 14th second third on October 3rd I'm okay for a second she said second I was just saying thirds going first all right um all in favor motion carries okay chair and member comments I I know at least I mean it's late but I know at least commissioner Smith was gonna talk about Adu related stuff or not I don't know yes I can start uh a couple of things as we wrap up this evening this morning um so this was something that I'm trying to figure out no particular order but how do we enforce zoning codes within the city um there have been instances where residents that I'm aware of have overbuilt concrete Hardscape padding in their backyards that clearly go over the uh the lot size minimums or maximums I should say within within the city and I'm not sure how we address that as a city and so that's something that I'm hoping that I could at least we could think about or the city could think about some residents come to me saying hey look at my neighbor what do you guys doing about that and I think that's from that we just have to think through a little bit no answers now but that's when I might reach out to maybe the City attorney and start there or you can reach out to staff if if someone wants to register a complaint staff would follow up with that um not that you you don't okay yeah and in terms of that impervious surface you know that ordinance just came in to be what a year ago maybe two years ago so we created a lot of non-conforming properties out there that exceed the ordinance we can't go out and make people conform to the ordinance they become legal existing non-conforming uses it's anything that's built now can't exceed gotcha okay um second point that I wanted to make was uh so I know I think was a couple not too long ago maybe a couple days ago a child got hit by a car and passed away uh in the city and you know a child in a city who dies affects all of us right and I just want to just that residents know that you know be careful out there right and especially during this time of year there's a lot of construction happening across the city where cars are going through residential areas are not on the main connectors just to avoid construction and sometimes these drivers they don't know that a lot of kids live here and you know mistakes happen right but maybe just be more vigilant uh in the city so we could avoid these these types of tragedies it's it's it's really hard if everybody involved where I think this occurred yes yep um I want to say it's a little bit north of Chicago where I live yeah and yep so again you know us with kids just got to be careful on adus I just want to say um really great responses by residents I think we got 135 responses from residents which for a survey that's really good and a lot of great comments on feedback and so overall it was really good support of adus in the city I think it was like over 81 percent which is amazing but now the details is what we need to start looking through and reading through to see if we could even make it happen so as a Next Step myself Addison and other Commissioners if you guys like to join we will be reviewing more that feedback tomorrow today and really go through and really pick out the key things that we have to think about and um hopefully bring it in front of the Planning Commission so you guys can see and what the comments are pointing to and you guys get a good sense of it and from that point we started working through that process of drafting an ordinance that you guys would support on on the city council if you think they would also support that so that's a multi-step process that's going to be happening here over the next couple of weeks hopefully we can get it done this year uh one random thing we heard from our resident I think Jamie Austin I want to say about uh trees Jimmy Weston I'm sorry Julie Janie Janie Weston I'm sorry I should notice by heart um where you know she definitely pointed out the need for trees I I think that's so critical for us in the city to think about that with climate change and everything that's happening uh one thing that I'm working on in my neighborhood is what's called a mini Forest and if you guys ever heard about that but there's little passes uh little process of of land that exists within the city and you could plant native species of trees compact together in a small space in a very dense space that really flourishes wildlife and it's a great way to take carbon out of the atmosphere Etc I know that's supposed to be very effective and I I mean I don't know if that's something that we talked to the Forester about I was thinking about like that would that would be a perfect thing to put on the keys property or you know a whole lot of other places because it doesn't take a lot of space but yeah it's a great idea so I'll let you guys know how that checks out we are going to talk to the Forester about it and get as as our thoughts last point because I know it's late um so what I'm sensing from this body right now is that we're but we're really taking a a more uh strict look at zoning which is good right we have to take zoning seriously when we have residents who come to us to make changes we want to make sure that they hit all the criteria and that's the best way to keep everything as Fair as possible and I think that's a really good direction for us as a as a as a as a body and I'm hoping that in the in the future uh the city residents really start um I guess appreciating the fact that we're maintaining the zoning of our neighborhood at the same time um we gotta think about the future and the future is going to be very Dynamic so I think we just have to strike that right balance but I think right now I think we're we're doing a good job I I would say on sticking to what the zoning says and really trying to find ways to uh uphold it at the same time listen to what developers and residents are asking for so that's what I have for right now I'll show you guys have some other comments too but that's all I have for right now Jimmy thank you and I think this is for Carrie um we saw I think in two different um hearings the bush like Road one and I think the fire station as well where they talked about parking and reducing parking and I know we're dealing with reducing minimums which all makes perfect sense but then we have the bicycle numbers or a percentage of the parking which to me seems kind of oxymoronic we want to increase we want to decrease parking but we want to increase bicycle spaces Riders as as a method for for transportation so the the bicycle allowance or or percentage is determined as a function of parking so if we are reducing parking but our goal is to increase bicycles is that a transportation committee is that on their work plan or is that something we need to have take the initiative on it is a zoning ordinance it is within this group's purview typically developers are putting in more than what our code allows but perhaps commissioner Miranda has some thoughts that's a perfect segue if you're done um to talk about sorry I got it we had our second parking meeting we had our kickoff and then we had our first meeting with all the the normal people that were on the committee and this is with the Transportation Commission we've done two Transportation Commissioners and we have um uh energy environment Commissioners so um it's the three commissions working together on parking and somebody brought up someone from the Transportation Commission said well does that include bicycles and it's like well bicycles Park so that's part of it too so we're so it's you know we're talking about all kinds of parking and and that's part of our comprehensive or our work plan for for uh this year or next year so uh so we'll be talking about that and we had the meeting was very good very energetic very excited people um Addison's a great help does a lot of work and uh I think we'll we'll you know whether anything comes of it in terms of action at the city level but um I think we have a great group of people working on parking right now so tie into that quick so read some report about like the annual status of EV you know progress in in the country and surprisingly and maybe not so much but basically EV or electric bikes and scooters are outpacing the carbon footprint reduction of EV Vehicles by like three times and so just thinking of that and if you go in certain areas of our of the metro area like campuses I mean there's a lot of scooters around and e-bikes and are we accommodating those with zoning as well as infrastructure and requirements so it's just something that's kind of proliferating and I know Edina had some stuff a few years ago that then they got rid of because of complaints so you know it's just something we should be in front of instead of behind but it's maybe it's worth bringing up on that or maybe you discuss that yeah sure I mean and you know e-bikes are already becoming quite popular and more and more people are biking but like on France Avenue I mean I drive up and down France Avenue a lot and uh everyone bikes on the sidewalk because France Avenue just is not a safe place to to bike and it's on our bike and pedestrian plan as a major route but we haven't really done anything with it so does anybody know if we have any discussion around like bike paths sidewalk Etc around electric bikes man I'm running sometimes or things fly by me and I'm like you know we don't allow cows cows cars gosh it's late uh on these you know uh walking paths and bike paths that especially we put speed limits like around the lakes and stuff like that right some of these people are I mean oh yeah I mean there has to be I hope there's at least some initial discussion around that because some of those guys come absolutely flying down those trails and like worry about from a safety aspect what they'll start to present to the Future yeah technically there's you know class one class two class three but you know because of Technology you can type a few characters in or whatever and unlock it or whatever and then they're going you know they have vastly overpowered motors on them and so they're like mini motorcycles I'm a pariah in the bicycle advocacy group because I I think it is a problem I think they you know it there's just no regulation and no cop is going to stop a cyclist who's going too fast right so so it's a concern I don't know what the answer is but it's definitely a concern and uh last thing uh Quincy hit it but you know a lot of what we care about and what we're trying to do with how land is used is to up uphold the safety welfare of our public and and that's especially kids and historically when it comes to changes with infrastructure it unfortunately takes a kid getting hit and killed to change how things are done and I want the community to know not like our messages and be vigilant on the road as we're trying to make changes to make things safer for you you know and and a lot of the design things that we fight for all of that speaks to making things a better place to walk and bike because even if you're on an e-scurry bike you're a lot less likely to kill someone if you hit them versus a car so um it's a serious thing and usually it doesn't come into our lens but when it does serious so thank you for bringing that up sidewalk sidewalk we have sat in this place where they have sidewalks but they're not usable because people are covering ice sheets during the winter that's why I go out on the road and so the money people that you know kids do the same thing St Patrick's Church right next to my left right next to me right across from the high school is the ice sheet all winter long not that nobody does anything about it I refuse well with that staff comments just quickly the council at their last meeting approved the Eden 100 project and they held the public hearing for the PCD district and they'll take action on it next week that's it great thank you and and with motion to return yeah do we have a second all in favor say aye aye aye carries we're done it's only 12 30. [Music]