[0:00] have allow never [0:05] okay [0:14] yeah all right here we go ready uh welcome to the February 27th [0:22] meeting of the Adina Housing and Redevelopment Authority before we begin there are a couple things to cover uh [0:28] today Community comment will be the only opportunity during the meeting for members of the public to participate uh [0:35] you allowed to speak for up to 3 minutes about anything that is not on today's agenda or scheduled for further public [0:44] hearing um on the screen you see the number and the access code and so if you [0:49] are interested um and you're calling in uh make note of that um so that you're [0:55] prepared when we get to um that portion of the agenda [1:01] so with that we'll call the meeting to order and we'll start with the roll [1:06] call commissioner Risser here commissioner agnu here acting chair [1:12] Pierce here let's rise for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge algi to the flag of [1:20] the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation [1:27] under God indivisible with li Justice for [1:34] All uh before you you have the meeting agenda um any questions concerns I'll [1:43] take a motion second [1:49] okay uh the motion to approve the agenda uh by member Risser and second it by [1:56] commissioner agnu all in favor all hi hi no oppose [2:04] um and now we are at Community comment that that does come up [2:10] quickly um so again if you are interested in speaking um you had the [2:18] phone number up before can we maybe show that again um so that you're prepared in [2:24] the chambers this morning we don't have anyone present so I'll turn to you [2:30] spat to see if we have anybody still on we do um we have a couple of people on [2:36] the phone right now one has already signaled an intent to speak as a reminder to get into the Q to speak you [2:43] press star three on your telephone keypad um with that caller please go [2:48] ahead um State your full name and address for the record before beginning your [2:57] remarks go ahead caller [3:07] caller whose number starts with 612 [3:13] 237 can you hear me yes please go ahead State your full name and address for the [3:18] record David tranel 4510 lakeef Drive [3:24] Ed uh I have a question about the Innovation lab I guess more than a question uh the speculation the lab is [3:32] closed uh it would be appreciated uh when these types of things happen and the city has skin on the table the alone [3:41] that there's a press release regarding what happened in the case of the Innovation lab [3:49] uh The Innovation lab as you know is part of the D Chamber of Commerce which [3:55] as you know the city manager and the mayor of Edina are the board of [4:00] directors the lab has closed and they're defaulting on their loan uh both of [4:05] those individuals should not be on the chamber board I I don't know what it's going to take for the city to be [4:12] transparent about what's going on with that Innovation lab and I'll make the comment that it was never Innovative and [4:18] it was never a lab and there has to be an outside investigation from the state or the [4:25] federal government uh that's what's going to have to happen to get the city to be transparent about this not asking [4:31] for a lot this is a taxpayer investment of probably close to a million dollars [4:37] that we received very little out of uh early this week I was at a conference [4:42] put on by the US Department of Defense through DARPA where they give grants of [4:48] up to a million dollars to companies to do Innovative projects these these grants are heavily [4:55] scrutinized and very few applicants get the money and here at city of Edina gives money away the organizations that [5:03] are essentially friends and family of the Adina city council and the money is [5:08] not scrutinized at all having a good idea is not a good reason to give money [5:14] to an organization I would appreciate if the city was more transparent and put out a press release regarding the status [5:21] of the Innovation lab and the status of any money that was lent to the lab thank [5:28] you uh thank you Mr frinkle okay um we have another caller [5:36] um caller I've unmuted your line please go ahead and state your full name and address for the record before beginning [5:42] your remarks sure it's Andy Brown 5512 [5:47] Parkplace in AA uh my comment is in line with what David just mentioned um would like to [5:54] know if the business Innovation lab has been closed if so exactly how much money money has been lost by the city through [6:01] different funding sources grants arpa funds Etc and then I would also like to know [6:07] if this is the case who's being held accountable and how's the city going to get that money back um if this is true um somebody [6:16] needs to be held accountable and there needs to be um some repercussions regarding um what happened [6:23] with that money um whether it's resignations or um additional um money [6:29] needs to be found uh but um if this is the case this is very very very poor um [6:37] government and very very poor business practice thank [6:42] you thank you Mr Brown I have no other callers all [6:48] right um with no other callers callers um so those two issues were related to [6:56] Innovation lab um and so I I think it's prudent for us to take that back and [7:02] then um figure out if we want to do a press release or how we want to do that but is there any comments that you want [7:09] to make this morning uh I don't unless Mr neindorf [7:14] had any any comments otherwise it could wait till the the next meeting under the [7:20] executive director comments [7:29] business Innovation lab from the chamber um uh the chamber uh board members and [7:36] uh some of the participants in the lab and the director was here to give an update on that project um uh we we do [7:43] intend to amend their loan agreement they have not defaulted on it uh there is the full intention to repay the loan [7:50] that was discussed at length back in December but they are having struggles with maintaining the operations of some [7:57] of those business programmingsoftware so they are at a state of flux at this moment uh and questioning whether or not [8:03] they're going to continue those so we'll look into it more in detail um and I'll have an update for you at the next [8:08] meeting thank you go ahead can I just get one piece of clarification so uh is [8:14] it it's my understanding that the loan was made to the chamber and the Chamber is still intact is that correct that's [8:20] very correct yes thank you I have a I believe we got an email [8:27] about the Innovation lab what is its status is it still operational or has it [8:33] is it closing I think the status is best uh I [8:40] don't know if I have a clear answer that's best answered by the by the chamber that that operates it my [8:46] understanding is that it's in a state of flux um they are they are struggling with maintaining the ongoing operations [8:52] of the business programming due to a lack of ongoing funding um and they did [8:57] indicate to us that they considering closing down that piece of the business um but the they've not made a final [9:04] decision we've asked them to make an announcement when they make that final decision and I have not yet seen a full [9:11] press release from them at this point um uh so we'll see we'll we'll look into it [9:16] further and get more information for you thank you I actually I I have different information than that last week the [9:23] Edina Chamber of Commerce did send a message to its membership that the Innovation lab has closed it didn't [9:30] provide a date it just said it had closed thank you um so yes let's be sure [9:37] we have that on the agenda to um go through more details at the next meeting [9:43] thank you oh yes is is there a possibility that council could get a copy of that email that the chamber sent [9:49] out thank you anything [9:55] else all right um next item um I don't think we had any [10:02] responses that's correct yep that's correct okay um so next agenda item would be the consent agenda any changes [10:09] to the consent agenda no I'll will take a motion I mooved to approve the consent [10:16] agenda second um it's been moved and properly second um all in favor I I I uh [10:27] approved uh thank you and so with the approval of the consent agenda we are [10:32] into the bulk of our agenda this [10:37] morning um and we have several reports and recommendations um all by our economic [10:46] development manager new andorf so I'll turn it over to you [11:14] yes thank you good morning uh I do have two reports this morning uh and uh just [11:19] as a point of information there there's no um action required on these but just updating reports uh for you the first [11:26] one is is in regards to the Pentagon Village project that's the uh uh 12 [11:32] acres site at 77 Street in Highway 100 uh just to let to let you know and to put on the record we have been talking [11:38] with that developer uh in recent weeks and months um they did request an amendment to their tax increment [11:44] financing agreement um uh and so we've been learning more about what they're asking for and and [11:51] why and how that might work um after looking into it further uh we're recommending staff is recommending that [11:58] we do not amend that agreement um with that project as you recalled um there [12:05] there's a map on the screen if if that's helpful um but there's five different buildings uh that are that had been [12:11] proposed for that property uh plus all the infrastructure the parking the the public uh Plaza space in the middle all [12:18] the roads and whatnot um at this point in time uh 2024 was a good year we've [12:23] got two more projects finished with the Eddie Apartments being finished and occupied and the uh the first Bank and [12:29] Trust uh finished and occupied the retail fully occupied uh but the hotel and the office [12:36] building are are still pending um so part of the uh the rationale in the developers request for the amendment was [12:43] to give them more time to do something um while we certainly want to see this project finished we want to see see it [12:50] fully successful um at this point in time staff is recommending that we not amend it um maybe at some point in the [12:57] future when there's actually a proposal in front of us with a timing and a scope uh maybe we consider an amendment uh but [13:04] at this point in time we're we're recommending no action um but I did want to have that on the record um if you [13:10] think differently I'm happy to take that back but um that's our [13:22] recommendation any questions um are there any benefits in I [13:31] mean I don't I see the logic of what you're saying and it doesn't make sense to amend at this point but is there any [13:38] like pressing benefit of amend I mean it there's a benefit to the developer okay [13:45] not a benefit to the community okay and that's why we're recommending just leaving at status quo [13:50] until we can all benefit from this sounds good thank you [13:59] good thank you um manager new [14:05] andorf so we'll move on to the next agenda [14:12] item the next one is an update on um uh the city's old public work site 5146 [14:18] Eden Avenue uh in the last couple months we've been chatting uh with you um about [14:24] getting that property backlisted for sale to get a new developer on board to to sell it [14:29] uh or to sell to the developer and have them redevelop it um uh based on the direction that was provided uh in our [14:36] past two conversations we have updated the request for for proposal document uh [14:41] the the draft what I hope will be the final draft is in your packet um essentially uh we'll be seeking a new [14:48] developer to P to pursue housing we really scaled back the detail in the in [14:54] the prop in the request for proposals um to really let the market decide the the intention there is to um uh make it [15:02] easier and simpler to get a good reputable developer on board uh to get [15:07] that property moving um so in past uh projects you know we've looked at this many times the city's been very specific [15:15] we'd really like this to look exactly like this that really Narrows your pool of developers and so uh in this version [15:22] we we cast a broader net um but made a couple things very clear one is is that [15:29] um we're seeking a a housing developer to really focus on ownership housing if [15:35] possible whether that's town homes condominiums cooperatives let that uh be in the [15:41] marketplace uh but we heard that expressed uh many times from this group and so that's one of the the key um uh [15:49] preferences we've not listed it as a as a mandatory we still want to see what [15:54] the market says um so while we will entertain uh proposals for rental on the [16:00] property the the RFP makes it very clear that that is a low priority and will be [16:07] judged accordingly um we always uh uh encourage Innovation creativity um we've [16:15] also back down from having a public park on the property as we've spoken to each of our departments our parks department [16:22] is concerned about adding more park space while their budget is flat or declining and so we'd still like some [16:28] some green space on the site but in in other projects we've had the developer [16:33] build the Green Space uh they continue to own it and operate it but give the [16:39] city a public easement to use it I think that's our preferred course at this point so we we've changed [16:45] that uh uh commissioner Jackson at the last meeting did ask um or perhaps uh [16:52] commissioner Jackson and riser asked to confirm whether or not the city needs that land for any other purpose so he [16:58] did go back to each of our department heads um just to uh triple check do we need this land for any other purpose um [17:05] most departments said they see uh absolutely no need for it no and they have no desire to retain it the fire [17:12] department um uh we've talked with them quite a bit over the years on the site we all know that they are uh we uh and [17:20] they are looking for a site for the third fire station to be built in the next couple years um this this station [17:27] is in generally the right half of a Dina it's on the northern half of a Dina um [17:33] the the vast preference of the fire department is to have that fire station located east of Highway 100 um we're [17:41] currently looking at the site right next to City Hall here um uh so while the the [17:47] the old public work site is generally in the right um vicinity um it is number [17:52] four or five of their choice uh uh you know when they list places to pursue it [17:58] ranks number four or five on the list we feel pretty good that we'll be able to land the First Choice second choice or [18:04] third choice um so uh uh fire chief slam I here this morning if there's any [18:09] questions about that with the program we're still intending to move forward from a timing [18:15] perspective um uh if you have any comments or things that I missed I'm happy to listen to those and get that [18:21] amended but my goal is to get this document on the street on on on Monday uh in early March so that we can [18:27] continue this process um so again no action at this point eventually we'll come back to you with a [18:33] group of developers and some good proposals we'll sit down we'll hear from the developers and eventually make a [18:39] choice but you you were asking us if we do have changes to get those to you so [18:46] that you can submit on Monday correct by Monday correct okay um and then one [18:52] other question um requesting proposals to be back by May 1st so is that [18:59] typically enough time to get developers to respond is roughly I don't know 60 [19:04] days or so yes uh 6 to 8 weeks should be sufficient okay okay um yes commissioner [19:10] agu thank you um my apologies I wasn't able to attend the the January 16th [19:16] meeting when I know some of the initial feedback was taken um but obviously watch that meeting engaged in that from [19:23] that perspective um and there's there's no kind of counter feedback that I [19:29] necessarily think that I'm going to give but I have a couple of suggestions for wording updates that I think could [19:37] be still in alignment with the discussion um the first one um when we [19:44] mention um the housing type and we talk about affordability um one of the phrases says [19:51] preference will be given to proposals that are skewed towards affordability instead of luxury while still being [19:57] responsive to the marketplace I'm wondering if this is an opportunity to to include or replace the with the [20:06] word attainable um and I think that that creates a different perception of just [20:13] because we say affordable it doesn't mean that 100% of the units have to be within a certain Ami but we're looking [20:19] for more of that middle attainable reasonable housing um [20:25] so thinking about if there's a way to include that word I think would be helpful um when you were just talking um manager [20:33] nindorf you I think said mixed use is preferred did I did I [20:41] understand that I think that's what was talked about at the meeting as well if I said preferred but it certainly would be acceptable okay um from my perspective [20:49] then I think that it would be preferred to have mixed use on that site um I'm not saying I would not approve something [20:57] that was a reasonable application for House housing only but I think that [21:02] there's a way that we could even flip the narrative uh and so what I mean by [21:08] that is lead with mixed use or housing [21:13] only um and I think just by purely flipping those phrases the couple of places throughout where we mention both [21:20] it leads with our preference and I I do believe that at least that's my preference and I heard from a couple of [21:25] others um one of the other things um you were just talking about Green space but [21:31] then as I was looking through the document um we don't say Green Space we say Plaza um I Googled the definition of a [21:39] plaza um it does seem a little different so I might want to also like say [21:46] something community space Plaza like inclusive of green space I think even [21:51] like reiterating that we're hoping it to be more parklike as opposed to cemented [21:59] um I think would be helpful uh and then the only other part in this one I did want to make a [22:04] conversation about because I didn't catch where it came from um we mentioned [22:10] that we wanted only two to three stories on I think Eden and Arcadia sides can [22:17] you let me know where that direction is coming from sure that that dates back to [22:23] I think the conversation we had in May of 24 when we shared um uh I had hired [22:30] an architect to put some sketches together and they typically show Town Homes two to three story in height uh [22:36] along the edges um and there seem to be General support for that type of um approach it also dates back to 2012 so [22:44] ancient history at this point um but the original Grand View development framework envisioned lower scale on the [22:51] edges on the southern Ed Edge in particular and then with a higher scale in the middle of the property so we're [22:57] digging back in history on uh on that piece Okay the reason I kind of fixated [23:04] on it is because it felt like one of the the more firm um recommendations [23:11] throughout the proposal or the RFP um and so what I'm trying to Noodle on is is there a way that we can still [23:18] say what you just said of lower density along the edges [23:26] um that doesn't say to three stories I I guess I don't I'm not going [23:32] to uh belabor this point too much more it just feels more prescript that than [23:37] what we necessarily need especially knowing that the H I think actually I should say the housing project that had [23:43] been approved for that site if I recall was taller and height on those sides um [23:49] so it it definitely doesn't feel like a hard and fast Rule and I know it does say um it's preferred um but maybe just [23:56] play around with that language a little bit more sure thank you thank you commissioner [24:02] egner commissioner rer um I think you cover so much that needs to be covered [24:08] my one concern is I don't know what all [24:13] of the different choices are for the fire station locations like the first the second the first to me is concerning [24:22] it would be wonderful if it could be you know in this area of City Hall but it seems like so many pieces need to fall [24:27] into place um I don't know what number two is or number three or number five and if we [24:35] move forward with this this is no longer and something does happen we can't go back and say oops so I don't know if um [24:42] Chief slamma could talk about what those other alternatives [24:48] are thank you uh commissioner rer and members I have when we talking with Bill [24:54] one of the one of the items that I addressed and he mentioned was having it EAS to 100 saves us that time we're [25:00] really trying to serve the Northeast quadrant that's what that's our goal with that station while also being able [25:05] to support the other two station districts with quick access going south on 100 and then uh West on um and West [25:13] over to station ones District so uh the preferred location East 100 and the discussion that we're really focusing in [25:20] on is the parcel here that that will be vacated with the um with the removal of [25:27] those exit ramps from Highway 100 uh there's currently legislation that we're hoping mindat will will swap [25:34] that land with us so that there's no cost but I think one of the challenges that I mentioned is it's not in our [25:39] control right now if we look at other Parcels in our control uh there is a [25:44] Park area that is east of 100 that uh would be a potential spot again we'd [25:50] have to work through that process but it is a piece in our control uh there's another partial uh near City Hall here [25:57] that it that again isn't in our control but might be a consideration and then uh the for site here this public work site [26:04] is in our control and so uh while certainly able to support that better than what we currently have there were [26:10] other options in front but it is a decision that we'd have to make um do we want to have that in our control and I [26:15] think it's a a a question that that is worthy to consider that do you want [26:22] something out of our control or in our control there is a partial east of 100 in our control with a a Park area that [26:28] we could consider for a fire station as well okay what's so I [26:34] have the land that could everything could fall into place we've got the Park [26:39] East area here and then you said there was another parcel uh there's another [26:45] parcel and and Bill correct me or maybe assist me with this there's a parcel [26:50] just near City Hall here that that has potential to be a a site that we could that we could consider [26:58] office yeah I think so yeah I mean there's we haven't negotiated any particular sites and it um the last time [27:07] we went through this in detail was probably before you were each on the on the council um but over the years we've [27:14] looked at over 26 different possible sites for this location and ended up looking so for for [27:21] properties close to 50th Street um so uh the potential mindat parcel the there [27:28] was also an idea that would be expensive but putting it in the city hall parking lot and then putting the the parking [27:33] under it to replace the parking lot that's another option there's the two parks at 50th in Wooddale one on the [27:40] south side of the street one on the north side of the street um uh uh uh the [27:46] Tupa Park where the two uh historic buildings are that's been floated as a potential location it's small and kind [27:53] of quirky um so that one has limitations uh and then there's other priv private [27:58] property that that could certainly be acquired over the years we've looked into possibly buying single family [28:03] houses and assembling a few Parcels um decided that was probably too [28:09] complicated um in this immediate area there still is one commercial property that's currently an office building um [28:16] it's in the right place um is it the best site is the most cost effective is is it even feasible we've not evaluated [28:23] any of that but there certainly are a number of different options okay it so it sort of sounds like [28:31] because when I read it and I can't find the exact wording but it sort of sounded like at the moment you know this is not [28:39] and and I kind of feel like we can't I I don't know when when do we expect to [28:45] have more information about all the pieces coming together for putting it [28:51] out front my recollection is that uh uh the engineering department is currently [28:57] out for bids to build the bridge and redo the ramps I think that's going to come to City Council in early April for [29:03] your approval on that contract once that bridge is underway then you know yeah then the [29:12] leftover land conversation becomes really becomes real so early April that's in about a month okay would it be [29:18] prudent to just put this on hold for a little bit until we have more clarity on [29:24] that that's one of the questions I'd have for you um we certainly could put on hold again um when we discussed the [29:30] last uh couple times there seemed to be an urgency to get it moving um to sell the land to create revenue for the city [29:38] um uh as a reminder uh this whole process uh if we start now with this um [29:45] RFP and start accepting offers to even consider we at the earliest we'll sell [29:52] the land in early 2026 so there's a Long window of time um [29:58] um uh you know so if if the first three or four options don't pan out for the [30:05] fire station we'd have about a year of time to understand that um and if we [30:10] didn't want to move forward with the with a sale of this property we certainly could delay it or cancel it um [30:16] but I was under the impression that you wanted to keep this conversation moving right and I I do think we do want [30:23] to keep it moving I just um in terms of Investments and the fire station and [30:28] then this I just wish we had a little bit more clarity and so I want to articulate that and just get that out [30:34] there um so that was my number one concern and I don't know if I do have [30:41] one other one but it's different oh just on that one then I I definitely understand um the position that you're [30:51] framing um I kind of looked at this slightly differently it doesn't adust [30:56] address the risk that year describing um commissioner Risser but um if I look at [31:02] all the options I thought of it this way if you were to put a confidence factor [31:08] or a preferred Factor on each of those sites I think we would go through if the [31:14] public work site was in poll position I think we would look at every other [31:20] option and exhaust that before we would say let's use the public work site um [31:27] because it's if we look at the serviceability of the sites being east of 100 is where we [31:35] that probably has the highest value to us um and so if one of those other [31:40] options if all of those we exhaust all those other options and they don't come to fruition then we would probably look [31:47] at the public work site and giving the timing I think we have plenty of time to [31:53] do the RFP see what options we even have that come back within the next 60 days [32:01] and if we see um something that kind of pushes us to make a decision sooner I [32:06] think we still have time to do that Al so the Tupa Park option is not [32:13] lower than the public works right it would be before that yeah member rer I I [32:19] think uh one of the challenges that we've seen with anything related to a park is the is the the community uh [32:26] challenges that that exist with Park going away so um I'd say again our number one preferred site is the mot [32:34] site and uh working through that process and and ensuring that we have that that [32:39] ability you know there's like you said there's there's some pieces that have to fall in place and they have been falling in place but it's not completely in our [32:46] control so I think uh that's our number one preferred site the other sites are [32:52] all options right and just to get this on the public record I totally understand [32:58] what you're saying about Parks but with the Tupa park with those two historic buildings I mean it would be great to [33:04] get the kill School building back into the kill School District um just in terms of his historical value and it's a [33:12] park that is becoming harder and harder to access because it's just this tiny little island and I could see moving the [33:19] school to a better location so that you could actually have more programming around the school um so I just person my [33:26] personal opinion so I just want to put that out there okay thank you um the other issue I had was just language um [33:35] and being totally transparent to people who will be interested to developers in [33:41] this land because uh walkability and its location are really being emphasized and [33:47] I do want it to be clear that the bridge that we built the pedestrian bridge is [33:54] not Ada comp or it may not be it's Ada comp Cent to the upper parking ramp only [34:00] and I could see a developer coming in seeing Jerry's you know seeing all these amenities and then the language is there [34:07] that what goes in needs to be ADA Compliant and The Logical assumption would be oh look there's a sidewalk and [34:13] a bridge anyone can go to the grocery store and I think we need to be totally [34:18] transparent that there are issues that exist so that was another concern and I [34:26] didn't really see that in the language okay thank [34:32] you um all right um so one last question [34:38] from a process standpoint um you're going to take this [34:44] feedback into consideration and then we're going to go ahead and post or or [34:50] will you send that back out just to get that final view of it sure um well I'd [34:56] ask for your trust that I listen and we'll make these changes um unless there's any discussion amongst yourselves for them but the intention is [35:03] to make these minor edits to the document and get it released it'll be posted to our website distributed to [35:10] appropriate channels of of industries that operate in this field um we'd really like to get this small moving [35:16] okay thank you all right thanks for for your comments [35:23] that's really helpful so uh now Mr new andorf I have you for [35:28] the next two as well you said you only had two updates well those are reports these are just minor updates [35:35] so a rose by any color is um so these are actually under executive director [35:41] report um they're a little bit more brief um but again just want to be transparent keep things um top of Mind [35:47] here so uh uh 70th in France the old US Bank site uh we did enter into a tiff [35:54] Redevelopment agreement with that developer a few years back we've Ted talked in the past about the the delays [36:00] of of and the struggles that they've been facing uh those struggles continue um we're excited to see the US Bank [36:07] branch reopen that's been there for a year and a half already um but there they're still is a [36:14] fundamental disconnect and challenge in the marketplace and the and the lending Community for these large scale projects [36:22] so this is the one it was um the new bank was phase zero um and then phase [36:28] one was a residential high-rise phase two was a commercial high-rise uh and then part of phase two was the parking [36:34] structure for that highrise the cost of parking has just gone up tremendously the marketplace has [36:41] expressed some some flexibility they they will accept slightly less parking than they did 20 years ago but most [36:49] lenders and most tenants will not commit until they know the parking is going to be there and so that's really been the [36:56] biggest uh roadblock right now is is to find a way to finance that office building with the [37:02] parking um so we've been uh uh in discussions with the developer uh to see if there's a [37:09] different way that the city might use our Tiff pledge to help make that parking garage feasible sooner than [37:15] later um as you recall for this project we pledged up to a total of $22 [37:22] million uh in as a principal value of a tiff note um that would upon completion [37:28] be payable to to the to the developer in the past in other projects [37:33] um the city has um use those Tiff dollars separately or use them [37:38] differently where the city's gone out and we've placed the debt for the infrastructure and then we use re we use [37:45] the tax increment that comes in the door to reimburse that debt so it takes the developer out of the equation um we've [37:53] been uh in discussions to see if that might be a viable option here just want to put that on the table there's a lot [38:00] of challenges and a lot of H hurdles and a lot of details in any of these options but I just want to let you know that we [38:07] are working hard to see if we can find a way to get that project back on track um [38:12] there is strong demand in the class A office space it's just trying to get [38:18] this thing financed so if if staff can find a way to um uh to rearrange this [38:25] financial structure we'll be back uh to you with an amendment um we're not there [38:30] yet but I just wanted to let you know that uh that you might be seeing something in the next month or [38:36] so okay ask commissioner agnu thank you [38:41] uh you didn't quite ask for a feedback but I'm going to just give mine [38:47] um thank you for working with a developer and thinking like [38:52] strategically about how can we still help this project move forward I person personally have zero [38:59] interest in paying for supporting encouraging anything the parking ramp on [39:05] the site if the conversation were still about Workforce housing um which was in [39:10] the original some of the original development plans that were brought forward and I think the original that was approved that would be a very [39:17] different conversation right that's something that is a strategic priority of this city that we would want to in my [39:24] opinion invest into um I believe that we need parking on this site I don't think [39:29] that it would be public benefit it would be benefit just for the developers um and so I have no interest in supporting [39:36] something like this commissioner rer um thank you and [39:44] um building off of what commissioner agu said and actually this goes back to what [39:50] we just looked at for the public works site her point about Plaza was really [39:56] very good um and I I think the other thing is as you look at this design here [40:04] and I have spoken about puds and tiffs on top of puds and we do not do puds the [40:12] way puds were originally intended to create open Green Space you know to try [40:18] to help this is a part of Edina where our tree canopy is so meager and so sad and you know you look at the way this is [40:25] just so built up and my concern is we have these blocks this [40:30] is a 5.6 Acre Site that's been subdivided into four and then you've got streets that have been added and what is [40:38] really troubling you know and I've talked about this is you know anywhere else in E Dino where you've got a street [40:43] I can't look at you know my the size of my lot and go oh I get to count the street as well and that contributes to [40:51] the overall size of my lot and can determine how much building I can build but here we don't substra subtract the [40:59] space that the street occupies and so we have a 1.99 Acre Site for site a um [41:08] including all of that roadway and if we were to take that out and just talk about the buildable area it is quite [41:15] likely that those 267 dwelling units would exceed what is allowable the 150 [41:23] units per acre and that we would need a comprehensive plan Amendment but we don't calculate what that space is so [41:30] when this comes back I really want to know how much space those streets occupy [41:36] for that site a residential um I think we need to apply the rules evenly and if we're adding [41:44] streets there streets and you don't just you don't get to not count um or you you [41:49] have to subtract the street you can't you know have it and consider it open space at the same [41:56] time um particular particularly in the southwest quadrant where again we have such meager tree canopy and so much of [42:02] it is just kind of diminishing and opportunities to add to the tree canopy are disappearing so that's all I have uh [42:11] thank you commissioner Risser just a point of clarification so we already [42:16] have an approved project at that site and so what you're describing is that [42:21] there's a challenge in getting financing for that approved project and the city [42:27] is working with the developer to see how we can solve that uh challenge um is [42:33] that accurate that that's correct yes the the approved site plan dates back to [42:39] 2022 and that has not changed um uh it's just a matter of of getting the [42:45] financing in place to start to implement that approved plan yeah and so um if we [42:51] can't get the financing in place we go back to Ground Zero I assume at some [42:57] point if the developer can't move forward at some point in time the developer will have to make a decision [43:03] do they keep pursuing this uh in the headwinds of the capital markets that that are not uh receiving it very well [43:11] or do they redo the entire site yeah and start from scratch but that would be their choice they're the ones that own [43:17] the property yeah I just want to be clear we're not opening up the site plan [43:23] and suggesting changes to that now if um in the work that you're doing if you [43:30] come forward and say Hey you know if we can adjust the site plan in this way [43:36] then we can provide the financing um I'm actually not sure how we would treat that because that would [43:43] be a different site plan um although it might be a minor change based on our our [43:49] pyramid of discretion uh but I might view that a little differently um and so [43:56] that's why I'm just clarifying the position is the currently approved site [44:01] plan you're trying to figure out how we can get that Finance that's that's [44:07] correct yeah okay and conversations about changes to the site plan or tree [44:12] canopy Etc that's really in the zoning part of it not the not the financing so [44:17] that' be a city council conversation yeah um and so then my my comment I is [44:24] again I think I'm going to say it's at the 100,000 foot level I that might not [44:29] be the right leveling um so not having not gone through it in [44:38] detail I don't know how I feel about um looking at the current Tiff [44:45] agreement and trying to figure out a way um to solve the financing Challenge and [44:51] so this right or wrong when I view it that through that lens I start asking [44:57] the question is this a viable project and so I kind of start there um [45:05] versus can we find money someplace else and so it makes me feel like well [45:11] perhaps this particular project we actually do need a different site plan [45:17] than what we have today that can get financed um so that's kind of how I I [45:23] think about it but we appreciate you bringing it forward and then we'll look [45:29] forward to additional information as you progress thank you okay and then the last update is is [45:37] um in regards to special legislation um so the Minnesota House and Senate are [45:43] are finally in full session and and uh they've been hard at work but now they're doing a lot of formal meetings [45:49] so in the last couple weeks um two of our uh requests for legislation were int [45:56] were introduced one of the house uh House Bill and one of the Senate um these pertain to the financing on the [46:03] site we just mentioned 7th in France and to the financing at 72nd in France um [46:10] both of those projects were delayed with a pandemic and the lingering effects of hybrid work and finan financial markets [46:17] Etc so those bills what we've asked for is the exact same language that was [46:22] written last year that almost made it but then everything got dropped at the end when they didn't actually pass the [46:28] bills any of the bills um so we're just asking to renew that language um so we [46:33] will start going to um uh to uh the state capital to to to testify and to [46:39] present those bills the reason that this is important in particular for 70th in France [46:45] is um when we created the Tiff District it was created because there was blight [46:51] the half of the the buildings that were previous there previously there were considered blighted so those buildings [46:56] were removed once you declare them as blight the state law gives you 5 years [47:02] to finish everything we're three years into it and we're still questioning if this is the [47:08] right project so what we've asked for is is um to extend that 5 years to 10 years [47:14] that's a pretty typical extension um uh uh the there seems to be a receptivity [47:21] for that type of extension it doesn't obligate the city to anything else but it gives the developer more time to [47:28] either get this project moving or to retool it and find something that works better so um we'll we'll track those [47:36] bills and report back to you at the end of the session which should be in May uh and let you know where we ended up and [47:41] uh what options we have in the future um as a reminder about these the the way the legislation works is this the [47:49] legislators authorize the city to consider making this change so for we [47:55] all always have to comply with state law and so if they give us this legislation um then it'll come back to [48:02] the city council and the H to actually adopt it or not um uh and there's [48:10] there's there may be aspects in it that also would require the school board and the county to weigh in so there's still [48:15] a whole lot of process but the very first step in this long process is to get the state legislature to approve the [48:22] special legislation Diana is one of uh about eight or 10 cities are asking for [48:27] the same type of uh consideration so we'll we'll report back excellent uh [48:32] commissioner rer um I thank you and I appreciate you know hearing about the [48:37] process and how there will be other opportunities to weigh in uh we all of us on Council have received emails from [48:44] residents about concerns regarding the um 7200 project and the removal of trees [48:50] and um in fact we got some images and I don't know if we could show them or not [48:57] but apparently all along the west side of that property the trees were just cut [49:02] down and I went out and I visited I went to 72nd Street I stood and it was just absolutely stunned because that visual [49:10] barrier that residents were able to you know rely on is gone and now it's like [49:16] this construction site is right in their front yards and I did go and look at the site Improvement performance agreement [49:23] dated February 7th 2023 and on page 10 item J the developer shall preserve the [49:29] existing trees along the west lot line to provide screening from residential homes to the West if the trees do not [49:35] survive okay obviously they did not survive being cut down um additional [49:40] trees shall be planted in the area to provide screening at various at a [49:45] variety of species and sizes subject to the approval of the city Forester this [49:50] project I mean it it is stunning to go out there and to look and to see how [49:56] different it looks the only trees that are there on you know protecting as a buffer are the ones that are not on the [50:03] property itself it looks like everything was just clearcut up to the property line so [50:10] um what you know it so I'm just wrestling with how this was allowed to [50:18] happen when it's specifically stated in the February 7th 2023 site Improvement [50:23] performance agreement that those trees were going to stay so th this doesn't have um it's a great [50:29] question um uh uh so for the and we can certainly respond but just to be clear [50:37] the um the removal of trees or this or the saving of trees doesn't affect the financing of the project but still it's [50:44] a valid concern and uh Mr Teague has an update yes it is a site plan [50:50] concern when you looked at the tree preservation plan there was about 14 trees along that lot line that we're [50:57] supposed to stay um we've contacted the developer and let them know the [51:02] situation we have a meeting on Friday with the city Forester and their landscape architect this site you may [51:09] recall they've not received their final site plan approval for that site so they [51:15] will have to make some adjustments and beef up the Landscaping along that West Side so you would see a landscape plan [51:23] um before any building permits are issued for that site is there anything they can do to put in [51:29] the screening that they have taken out and it's actually a 72nd Street you know [51:36] and you stand in that the front yard of that property and you just want to cry and then you realize that you're looking [51:42] at where the tunnel is going to come spitting out and it just it's it's stunning it really is so if if there's [51:50] something if they could go ahead and plant I mean it's probably too early in the process but the it's I just really [51:57] feel for those residents that was not what they were expecting so I I see what [52:03] it's not related in a way but in a way it kind of is I mean I I don't [52:10] know um extending the Tiff agreement there was an understanding you know it's a [52:16] whole package you know there's also supposed to be affordable housing and um [52:21] you know we we talked about that at the workshop so there's there's elements of this that I think are [52:28] concerning uh thank you well I think we've kind of moved [52:34] into HRA member comments um and so if if everybody is okay with [52:41] that let's continue um uh member rer did you have any other [52:48] comments uh no I did not but I would encourage people [52:54] to um you know if you you have questions reach out I do appreciate hearing from [52:59] residents I will go I will visit sites I will you know interact that way and it's [53:05] important for us you know we can't know what's going on all the time unless we hear from you and we I think all of us [53:11] are trying to be out there in the community um staying aware of what's going on but it is so helpful to hear [53:18] from residents so um appreciate everyone who reaches out and contacts us [53:23] absolutely thank you uh member Wier nothing from me today all right um thank [53:30] you so I I did have one request on um [53:36] actually the the issue that commissioner Risser mentioned [53:41] 7200 um just the way that you read through that um it it it's clear that [53:49] there was an expectation that wasn't met um and in any case where we see that [53:56] I'd actually want the developer to come in and speak to and here what we [54:02] expected to happen and that didn't happen and explain to us why I andan I definitely understand um meeting with a [54:11] developer um kind of separately but I would like to have them come back in and [54:17] just explain to the council what happened and why you will get that opportunity at final site plan so we'll [54:24] put that on a not on consent but rather on the regular reports and recommendations [54:30] okay um any other comments all right anything else for the [54:35] good of the order nope all right um I'll take a motion to adjourn so moved second [54:43] it's been moved and properly seconded um all in favor I I no [54:50] opposed pass meeting adjourned e