[0:20] all right How's it Hello How's everyone doing out there Good Nice All right Well we are

[0:28] throwing a curveball today Welcome to the Tuesday April 8th 2025 city planning

[0:35] commission meeting On behalf of the rest of the commission we are grateful you are here To those in person and tuning

[0:41] in remotely your curiosity participation and feedback is vital to this process as

[0:47] we navigate change together here in Edina specifically regarding the ways in which we'd like to use our

[0:54] land Uh say it every time but the city's committed to receiving and considering

[0:59] your feedback So we have the best way to do that ww.etto better

[1:07] togetherina.org Most land use related items are on there and there's other interactive features so you can follow

[1:13] along with the change that might be coming to your neighborhood or has already happened or is in the process of

[1:21] happening Um tonight we only have one public hearing and I will provide

[1:26] some information for how you can participate remotely later uh once we

[1:32] get to that portion Um until then just stay tuned Uh the

[1:38] I'll just give a quick rundown of the agenda so you know what to expect We as

[1:43] always have a call to order then roll call followed by the approval of tonight's meeting agenda then the

[1:50] approval of the prior meeting minutes from March 26th Then we have community comment which is

[1:57] your chance as a resident who is here in person to testify about any matter not

[2:02] on tonight's agenda You have three minutes to do so You'll come up to either podium state your full name

[2:09] address and share what you want and we consider that and try to make some

[2:15] recommendations or change to accommodate Then next we have the public hearing

[2:21] which follows a similar process and I'll get into that later Then we have chair

[2:26] and member comments followed by staff comments and adjournment So without

[2:32] further ado call the meeting to order Then roll

[2:39] call Commissioner Nelson here Commissioner Alky here Commissioner

[2:45] Padilla here Commissioner Smith Commissioner Day here Commissioner

[2:53] Bournestein Commissioner Felt

[2:59] Commissioner Henman here and Chair Bennett here Mine's not working either

[3:09] They're locked off and now they're locked Mine won't turn off now I guess I'll be doing a lot of talking

[3:15] chatting up here Oh it worked

[3:28] Yep Oh now yours is on Oh can you turn it off

[3:37] Hello Hi Good to see you guys again All right So ne next we have

[3:46] uh the approval of tonight's meeting agenda Welcome a motion if motion to

[3:52] approve the agenda Second All those in favor say I I So move Next we have the approval of the prior meetings minutes

[3:58] from March 26th Motion to approve the prior meeting

[4:04] minutes Second All those in favor say I I I So

[4:09] moved All right Now we have the community comment period As I mentioned this is your chance for anyone who's

[4:14] here in person to testify about a matter not on tonight's agenda You have three minutes to do so Please come up to

[4:21] either podium state your full name address When the light turns green you

[4:27] got the three minutes to go And then when it turns red your time's up Anyone here for community comment

[4:40] Seeing no one we will close that part of the agenda and we will move to or the

[4:46] meeting and we'll move to the public hearing So a little bit about what to expect with public hearings

[4:54] uh when an applicant uh a resident a developer or some other entity wants to

[4:59] do something with their land that doesn't quite comply with the code uh they put in an application to do so and

[5:07] staff puts together some facts and findings into a staff report They consolidate that into a presentation for

[5:14] us and you uh we'll continue to expedite that process by just combining that with the

[5:21] next portion which would allow the applicant to then provide their own presentation about the same thing Then

[5:28] we'll take it back to the planning commission to have questions and answers

[5:34] Then we'll open it to a public hearing and that's your chance to participate and testify about this matter whether

[5:40] you're tuning in remotely or here in person and you'll have three minutes to

[5:45] do so After that we'll close a public hearing bring it back to the commission to deliberate and make our

[5:51] recommendation for approval or denial And so with that the item tonight

[5:57] we have is for the reasonzoning and an ordinance amendment for the

[6:02] conditional use permit for 66868 France

[6:08] Avenue We have director Teague Yeah Well you might

[6:15] just have to All of ours work now Maybe this one

[6:21] works Can you turn them off Test it I could go from here No I can't turn Does

[6:27] that work Yeah Yeah You want to Can that works

[6:32] Can you move the slides for me Well then the applicant team you're just going to have to get creative and cozy over there

[6:38] too This is what happens on Tuesdays huh Yeah We weren't ready for you All right

[6:46] All right Thank you chair members of the commission Uh this is a site you are familiar with as we've had a few

[6:52] requests on this property over the last few years Uh it's located in the

[6:58] Southdale district if you could It's the Southdale office center site about 22 acres in size It's

[7:05] directly west of Southdale It is guided in our comprehensive plan

[7:11] for office and residential use

[7:17] Next And the site is zoned PUB So there was a PUB zoning district that was

[7:23] established back in 2017 Next here is a look at that plan So

[7:31] there was to be retail along France Avenue a new tavern on France a hotel a

[7:37] medical office building on the north side of the site The two tall office buildings were to remain The middle

[7:43] office two buildings were to be removed and there was also an eightstory

[7:49] residential uh development kind of on the the south side None of this development has happened since 2017 The

[7:57] Bank of America was kind of a standalone project that uh did develop

[8:02] Next so just to quickly go through some of those projects um since 2017 there

[8:08] was a proposal before the planning commission and council that was uh ultimately turned down for housing

[8:15] office medical There were some parking ramps along Valley View That project was

[8:20] denied Next And then most recently last year we

[8:25] considered uh this plan This one uh didn't move forward to city council The

[8:31] applicant uh basically withdrew the request That was for the medical office along France and then a new Tavern on

[8:38] France uh building And again those middle structures were to be removed

[8:44] This project didn't move forward Which brings us to today Uh what the applicant

[8:50] is proposing is to remodel those two existing middle office buildings build a

[8:57] couple of small entry um entryways into that space They're going to remodel it

[9:03] as well as remodel the Tavern on France Um mainly for handicap

[9:08] accessibility So the proposal is actually to rescend that PUD under the

[9:14] PUD zoning the only thing they can do is that project So these little entryways

[9:20] they they couldn't do under the current zoning So they're looking to reestablish the original zoning district on this

[9:26] site which was PCD3 And next there's another look at the other entrance

[9:33] Next So you can see the um the improvements are in the center of the

[9:38] site They're going to resurface the parking area Uh next slide

[9:45] So what this uh the request before the planning commission is to rescend that section of the zoning ordinance the the

[9:51] PUD and reestablish the the PCD3 zoning district which was dates back to the 60s

[9:59] They're also requesting a conditional use permit for the office buildings Offices are a conditionally permitted

[10:04] use so they'd like to make that a lawful existing use There's no again no changes

[10:09] to the existing offices Uh next so looking at our pyramid of

[10:15] discretion while this is a resoning it's um while the city does have some

[10:21] discretion we have to allow some use on the site So um reestablishing the

[10:27] existing zoning it seems a reasonable approach to um allow something to happen

[10:33] if they have a grand plan in the future similar to the PUDS that have been

[10:38] requested here you know it would be a completely different application a new PUD type request Uh

[10:44] next and next So here's just a little highlight

[10:50] of a little closer view of the just the resurfaced parking Um in terms of

[10:55] parking standards they're well overparked for um comparing the entire 22 acre uh site to code There's a little

[11:03] plaza there on the south side to the left of the screen uh that they would also be constructing

[11:09] Next terms of the comprehensive plan Again the the um sites guided for office

[11:15] and residential Primary uses include office limited retail um and housing So

[11:21] this would be consistent with the comprehensive plan Next looking at our Z our resoning

[11:27] criteria um we believe that the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan

[11:34] wouldn't be detrimental to surrounding properties Again this is all existing wouldn't result in an overly intensive

[11:40] land use When you look at the floor area ratio which is the allowed square

[11:45] footage on the site there's actually a reduction under the PUD Um they're allowed 1.0 zero F with the PCD3 zoning

[11:53] it would be a reduction to 75 So there would be no uh no traffic changes Um the

[12:00] the little small entryway additions meet city code So there's no setback um

[12:06] variations Um this doesn't if this if the site were zoned PCD3 today this

[12:11] wouldn't even trigger a review a review by the planning commission It's less than 10% of the total areas of the

[12:18] building Uh next so looking at the conditional use permit criteria we also believe that

[12:25] that is met Again wouldn't have an adverse impact on governmental facilities utilities Uh the the traffic

[12:34] again it's an existing use Um and the the allowed density on the site is actually

[12:40] decreased Um so we believe that the conditional use permit uh criteria here

[12:46] is met And next so primary issue is the is it

[12:51] reasonable to um reszone the site to PCD3 Again we believe it is It reestablishes the existing zoning on the

[12:58] site Um it's consistent with the PCD3 zoning district to the east Southdale

[13:04] Most of the properties to the south also have a PCD3 zoning designation And

[13:10] next it's consistent with the comprehensive plan and um again they've

[13:16] tried to redevelop this site per that PUD since 2017 um but just haven't been able to do so

[13:23] So with that staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit

[13:28] and the resoning of the site And the applicants are here to introduce themsel and potentially make a presentation or

[13:36] answer any questions that you might have Thank you Carrie We'll bring it to

[13:42] applicant but maybe just quickly before that Carrie if you could just kind of explain the history of the use of PUB in

[13:49] the city and kind of why I mean you touched on a little bit but I think it' just be good for someone tuning in of

[13:55] like why this is happening again Sure The city we created the the PUD option

[14:01] Oh it was about maybe 15 12 15 years ago

[14:06] as a tool to implement the Southdale design experience guidelines and really

[14:13] get the type of development that the city wants to see The PUD was going to be the tool to negotiate um those types

[14:21] of larger scale developments to um again get the the type of development that the

[14:27] city wants to see Um this is the only PUD that we've done

[14:33] I think we're in the 25 range since that time Um we haven't had any that have

[14:39] failed to move forward This is the first one where they're act asking to to rescend and go back to the original

[14:46] zoning on the site You kind of touched on why it's unique because you only can do anything

[14:52] The only thing you can do is what conforms to that PUB So yeah it's kind

[14:58] of the good and and bad about a PUD That is the only that becomes the zoning on the site and that's the only development

[15:04] that can move forward So there's not much flexibility You know it affords the city some

[15:10] protection to make sure that we're going to get the the type of the development that's promised but then again there's

[15:16] no flexibility if it doesn't work

[15:32] might have to come over and use mine Well maybe we'll just Is yours working

[15:38] or no Mine's working Okay So I mean we're not approving those little additions We're just basically

[15:46] making it a viable option for them to do after we make correct this resoning and

[15:52] conditional use Correct Okay Great Uh and with that I guess we welcome the

[15:57] applicant to provide a presentation

[16:03] Musical mics here

[16:09] Uh good evening uh Chairman Beckett and planning commission members My name is Dela Pulpine I work for Olympus Ventures

[16:15] um and a part of the Southdale office partners I also have Sean Smith of Southdale office partners and Eric

[16:22] Walgrren is here as well tonight to answer any questions A lot of our presentation that we had put together

[16:27] was on the new additions and I think Carrie did show a lot of that within his So unless you want more details to that

[16:34] um we're here to just answer any questions but I'm happy to show the presentation as well But I think his did cover quite a bit of it

[16:42] I'm a fan of brevity if everyone else is too Uh questions

[16:49] for questions for either Carrie or the applicant

[17:01] team This question is more for director Teague

[17:06] Um I know this is kind of unique right We haven't had PUDs go back to the

[17:13] original zoning I'm just curious about from a process perspective

[17:18] if we do reverse this back to PCD3 the developer gets to make the additions to

[17:25] the office as they're intending Um if this site again were to you know

[17:32] apply for a new PUD would that be a PUB 26 essentially or would the PUB1 just be

[17:41] something that you just strike out of the of the current zoning Yeah So there would be a So we're

[17:50] basically deleting this section of the code So it would still be available to

[17:55] plug a PUD into that number unless another one comes along and we plug it

[18:00] in first So to say exactly where it would line up in the PUD list it could

[18:06] either be in the location that it is now or at the end of the list Gotcha And

[18:13] just one other question Um so I know that there could be other options right So PCD

[18:20] um three is one PCD 2 and one are options POD 1 POD2 are options Um just

[18:28] just walk us through like how do we Yes it's you know the PCD3 was part of the

[18:33] zoning initially but could the applicant pick from a

[18:39] different set of zoning that might have applied Like what process do you go through to identify which one was most

[18:45] applicable to the needs

[18:53] the the Okay that's working The biggest difference between the two is that if it were reszoned to the planned office

[19:00] district the restaurant would then become a non-conforming use A restaurant's not allowed in the um POD

[19:09] zoning district So with the PCD3 designation they wanted all the uses to

[19:15] be legally allowed and not creating a non-conforming use Gotcha Thank you

[19:26] Uh quick followup to that I think I'm um if you could just clarify and this is for director Teague Um so the

[19:36] uh the comp plan has it um designated as office residential So and but PCD3 can

[19:45] they still build homes I'm concerned about future use for possible housing Yes housing would still be allowed It

[19:51] would be a conditionally permitted use So that would be a possibility for the site Okay Thank you

[20:05] Can you just clarify why what's the disadvantage to having it be uh zoned

[20:12] POD because it was POD immediately before the PUD right Correct So what

[20:17] what's the disadvantage to going back to POD and having Tavern on France be a

[20:24] non-conforming use Yeah it's a possibility It's it's basically a a

[20:30] legally existing non-conforming use They couldn't expand it or do anything like

[20:35] that as a as an allowed use They could

[20:46] um Okay a couple things Um one first is an observation more than anything you

[20:52] know when this project came before us back two years ago I think it was Um

[20:58] last year it seems like two years ago Time flies Um a lot of the

[21:05] uh resident feedback and concern was around the the oak trees that are around the property Um and I you know someone

[21:13] can correct me if I'm wrong but pretty sure that if we reszone this back to PCD3 right there is no protection for

[21:19] those trees anymore like resident can really do what they want because we don't have a tree ordinance for anything that's not outside of R1 and R2

[21:26] That's that's correct Okay So this segus into a question of you know do we the city even just started discussing that

[21:33] in terms of a tree ordinance for other zoning types beyond R1 and R2 Yes Yeah

[21:39] it is something that we're planning on bringing forward They've been working with the um I think it's the EEC Okay

[21:47] The city council has been looking at doing some changes to the tree preservation ordinance and part of that

[21:53] is going to be a look at the commercial uh commercial regulations kind of

[21:59] matching the two Okay Okay Yeah Because that was I just remember that being such a big intense topic of conversation when

[22:06] that original project came in front of us So I know a lot of people are still concerned about those trees Um so then

[22:12] you know I guess segueing on to the neighborhood I really didn't see much feedback back on better together have

[22:17] heard much about this anyway Have you guys heard it much from the community in terms of feedback or anything like that

[22:29] Yeah Uh thanks Sean Smith here Um you know we've hosted um numerous

[22:35] neighborhood meetings in the past and you're absolutely right the trees have been a big concern on that site you know

[22:43] um and um the um um Cornelia Association

[22:48] presidents here as well and we've we've certainly adjusted our plans to accommodate those trees in in the past

[22:55] for sure Um and um in terms of additional neighborhood feedback um I

[23:02] think you know we've always wanted we we've always um heard that um

[23:09] more amenities for our site as a transition zone because crossing France Avenue is is a big deal So so I think um

[23:18] allowing for other retail uses and coffee cafes and any anything that we can do to enhance that to bring it

[23:24] closer to the neighborhood I think that's that's exactly what what we would want to do as well and uh to try to

[23:30] accommodate some of the neighborhood use as well So thanks

[23:35] For this particular reasoning we have not heard from the uh neighborhood groups at all I think they're fine with

[23:41] it but we haven't heard anything Right Yeah Just thought I'd ask Yeah Thanks I

[23:47] just had two questions for Director Teague When was So you said this there

[23:52] were like plans for this site It came up twice in the past One was a

[24:01] year and a half or whatever it was the one we were just talking about and then one was before then What year was that

[24:06] That was 2021 Oh okay And do you remember

[24:13] essentially what the ask was at each of at each of those last two Yes Was it a

[24:20] reszoning It was the 2021 request was for a whole

[24:25] new PUD So it was going to completely change that 2017 plan And the one last

[24:32] year was a request to PCD3 Um so those were the those were the two

[24:39] Was it anything else other than that Just those two Oh yes Yeah Yeah There were some

[24:46] variances involved also Okay And the reason that the PCD3 resoning

[24:54] wasn't granted or why this body didn't feel like that was warranted last time

[25:01] was there several reasons that were primary or was there like one or two reasons if you remember I mean I know I

[25:08] was part of the conversation but some of the people here weren't and I just wanted to kind of remember yeah part of

[25:14] those the the oak trees that you had mentioned um some of

[25:19] were to be removed Maybe I don't remember the exact number maybe half of them Um there were some concerns about

[25:25] the connection through the site Um those were the two that really stick

[25:32] out to me Okay Like in other words there's concerns with the site plan Plans Yeah

[25:38] The site plan itself seemed inconsistent with maybe some of the guidelines that govern that district Yeah and it didn't

[25:45] move forward to the city council so there was no um action that was actually taken Okay All right Thanks

[25:54] I guess just to piggy back on that going back to what it was or a

[26:01] version of what it could have been like POD3 or PCD3 I mean components of

[26:09] previous proposed plans could happen And kind of what the applicant was saying it's like we're just allowing there to

[26:17] be more flexibility with a typical zoning standard that is normally applied

[26:23] to these sites And kind of that's the hindrance of a PUD is like you have to do that and you're stuck with doing that

[26:30] And if you want to deviate even a little bit it'd be easier to do what's

[26:36] happening right now is just go back to what it was or what it could have been And now you have a typical zoning

[26:41] standard that you can redevelop within the confines of that And if there's further deviations then we would see a

[26:48] proposal for variance etc Correct Okay Right Yeah The PCD3 district does give

[26:53] them a little more flexibility in terms of uses with the retail type uses that

[26:58] were mentioned And yeah going back to kind of the accepted 2017 PUD that was you know a

[27:06] lot of why it was accepted was the site plan and the variety of uses

[27:11] So getting back to something that allows versions of that I think is makes sense

[27:18] Is there anything nuance that we're missing with any of this or is it as straightforward as it feels I I think

[27:25] it's relatively straightforward Yes Okay Any other questions for the applicant or

[27:31] Yeah

[27:36] Commission Well maybe I'm okay I'm back I think

[27:47] um I remember this project very well because I think it was my first if not or second um planning commission meeting

[27:54] And what I remember is we're we're talking a lot about

[28:00] um reszoning in connection with the greater Southdale district design

[28:07] guidelines And I guess I'm if we leave things exactly how they

[28:14] are the applicant unfortunately even with minor renov renovations has to come

[28:20] to us for approval But if we grant them PCD3 if we are essentially giving a a

[28:29] property owner a new zoning that they can do um they can

[28:35] develop additional retail and additional uh conforming uses without coming back

[28:41] to this body right Well if it's a freestanding new use like a medical

[28:48] office or a a um retail building another restaurant you know freestanding that

[28:54] would require a site plan review and that would come before the before the planning commission because it would

[29:00] trigger the need for an analysis of parking um and those types of things The little entryways don't generate the need

[29:07] for additional parking So that's the trigger So there is a universe where

[29:14] they whether it's underground or whatever that they build a deck with adequate parking and an office tower on

[29:21] one of the vacant lots right now and they don't need to come that would that would have to come back It would still

[29:27] come back A new large building like that would but with less discretion right Because you're at the top right Yeah

[29:34] Site plan So I guess it would help me I'm thinking about it as as just a

[29:42] straight request for reasonzoning And I guess it would help me understand

[29:48] why this applicant gets the I don't know what the right word is but the

[29:53] opportunity to change their zoning even

[29:59] though it may do things that go they're developed inconsistently with

[30:05] the rest of um the greater Southdale district guidelines And so I guess I'm trying to understand if we grant this

[30:13] reszoning what kinds of things can the applicant do besides making it ADA

[30:20] accessible right Like what kinds of things could they do without coming before us then under the existing PUD or

[30:28] they can't do anything If we went to PCD uh yeah PCD3 what sorts of things could they do

[30:35] by right then in PCD3 Well that's a tough one There's a myriad

[30:42] of um potential um you know if it's a small addition to an existing building

[30:48] that meets setback and doesn't generate the need for more parking that wouldn't come before the commission But if it's a

[30:54] you know larger scale like I mentioned a completely new building that would have to come back

[31:00] before the planning commission for site plan review But if it meets all of the PCD3

[31:07] standards we don't have a lot of flexibility to say yes or no But under the current PUD they can't do they can't

[31:14] do anything that even these little small additions to the building which was some

[31:20] frustration for the property owners but they can't even they can't remodel those

[31:26] two existing buildings to make it ADA compliant without having to go back to

[31:33] either POD or PCD3 or PCD And that hasn't changed from the last time they

[31:38] came or the previous two times they came before us right That um anything they

[31:44] did with the PUD would require an approval So I guess I'm I'm trying I appreciate that you

[31:52] want to add handicap access to that third building So I I don't want to be obstructionist but I guess I'm failing

[31:58] to see why this time the reversion to PCD3 makes sense when it didn't two

[32:05] times prior Well it was more about the site plan

[32:11] Okay Yeah the times prior had specific alterations to the SL to the site beyond

[32:17] just going back to the resoning So it's like it had variance requests other things that were too big of asks

[32:25] essentially Is it since this is the first time that we would have one go

[32:30] back I mean has there been considerate consideration like a building permit if not used in a certain amount of time

[32:37] there would be like a reversion process that could be instituted of the like if

[32:43] a PUD isn't actually built out like five years it reverts back or something I'm just just trying to think of how can we

[32:50] accommodate less frustration because just going back to this just seems very straightforward to allow anything to

[32:59] happen Just I I don't know if there's other cities maybe something your team could look at

[33:05] We tend to have like deadlines of certain things when it comes to construction Sunset clause Yeah Um like

[33:12] the site plans have expired for the PUD 17 So if they wanted to do anything

[33:18] within that PUD they'd still have to come back for site plan approval because those have all expired Just something to

[33:26] think about I mean I know we're trying to get away from using it but but this actually seemed like a project that was

[33:32] a good candidate for a PUD because it was so large scale But just in general

[33:38] something to think about to maybe add to our list when we're going through the zoning Yeah that's a good one Any other

[33:47] questions Do you have any other Nothing Thank you guys So this is

[33:53] a public hearing Uh so provide some information for those who might be tuning in remotely Just really excited

[34:00] to participate We're excited you are too Uh so hopefully you have your phone out

[34:06] and you can call the following number and this should pop up on the screen too uh call

[34:16] 3125358110 Then enter access code

[34:21] 2862 926 3795 The password is

[34:28] 5454 Then press star three on your keypad when you'd like to get in the queue to speak which is now Um we'll let

[34:36] the lag of this uh catch up give a minute to do so And while we do that

[34:42] we'll open it to those who are here in person who'd like to testify Please state your full name address You got

[34:47] three minutes to do so And when the lights red we'll ask you to wrap it up Thank you Is this one working Yes

[34:54] Something works My name is Nora Davis and I live at 6921 Southdale Road in the Lake Cornelia

[35:02] neighborhood And I'm here this evening We've been through this a number of

[35:07] times Um but I wanted to say um Edina has been excited about reusing and

[35:15] remodeling and here we have a chance to actually do that They are not going to

[35:21] tear down those buildings and create a lot of waste that Lord knows where to go

[35:26] Um they're not going to have to source metal and steel and wood from

[35:33] again who knows where They're going to reuse what they have So they get a lot of points for that Um I'm also want to

[35:41] make a comment about the Southdale design guidelines I attended a lot of

[35:46] those meetings and that plan was approved in 2018 But then the pandemic hit and the

[35:55] world changed and all of a sudden all the things that we talked about don't really

[36:02] apply anymore So I think we need to start looking at that plan and thinking

[36:09] hey maybe we can do better because so much has changed since 2018 So think

[36:16] about that One of the concerns that's going to come up in the Cornelia neighborhood are the trees So again we

[36:25] have to be very concerned about those trees and how the exit and entrances

[36:31] along Valley View Road but other than that um I think the fact that they're

[36:37] using reusing a building and remodeling what what's there is great for our

[36:43] community Thank you Thank you very much Is anyone else here

[36:48] in person that would like to testify That's not a part of the applicant team I don't see anyone So we'll move to the

[36:56] people who might be in the queue to speak virtually There is no one in the queue to speak Since it's been already a

[37:02] minute I think we're safe to proceed with closing the public hearing Welcome a motion to do so

[37:12] Motion to close the public hearing Second All those in favor say I I I So move public hearing is closed Thank you

[37:19] again for your testimony bring it back to the planning commission to

[37:24] deliberate I think one thing that I'd just like to stipulate here is again what we are voting on is basically just

[37:32] a resoning and a conditional use permit So it's not the specifics of any remodel

[37:38] or anything It just will allow for those things to happen Currently under the PUD

[37:44] none of those things nothing can happen That's as simple as it is Um unless

[37:51] anyone else has any comments I have a comment Yeah

[38:02] Thank you Uh you know when I read this initially I thought this would be pretty

[38:10] easy but I really appreciate the questions that you know that came up Um

[38:16] you know Commissioner Hanman your question Commissioner Day your question Uh and I was thinking about this and I

[38:23] and even you know uh the resident Norah Davis you know giving her feedback and I

[38:29] think it makes sense right we certainly want to allow the developer to make adjustments renovations to the site and

[38:37] that is very commendable At the same time I think where Commissioner Hanaman was going was

[38:44] what are we giving up if we switch it from a PUD to PCD3 right We we have less

[38:52] discretion less control less influence over what's going to happen over that site compared to what we have today

[38:58] right PCD PUD11 you know we know what we want there right It's a major thoroughare on

[39:06] France we had all these ideas and it's kind of locked in but it prevents the developer from making any kind of minor

[39:12] changes right so that's kind of a the rub so it's it's almost like a question

[39:18] between trust like if we could say sure let's make this a a a PCD3 and we trust

[39:26] that you're going to develop this site in a way that's beneficial to the community you're not going to take down

[39:31] the trees you're going to build everything nice but we don't get to see it Right It's kind of a trust question

[39:38] And so I guess yes it's an easy decision to say yes it's this small renovation

[39:44] but what else could they do without our influence And are we willing to just say go right ahead make any all the changes

[39:51] that you want to make Um and we trust that you're going to make the make the adjustments not just for this renovation

[39:58] for ADA compliance but other things in a way that the community would appreciate

[40:04] like not taking down the trees or other types of changes within the scope of PCD3 So I guess the question for us I

[40:11] think is not just a simple sure you could make these adjustments but what else are we going to be giving up if we

[40:18] do pass this back to a PCD3 type of zoning

[40:26] love to hear other people's thoughts Uh one thing that comes to mind too is I

[40:32] mean what's on the table is they're not a developer right I mean in this context

[40:38] right They're a property owner And I mean if you took this to your residence and you wanted to do something on your

[40:44] land and it just doesn't make sense anymore but you're locked into that and the times change just feels like the

[40:51] city and we're open to legal scrutiny too especially if you were preventing

[40:56] like ADA compliance just like it seems like an obvious thing that is a risk

[41:03] with the PUD process if it doesn't develop forward So I I don't I mean with

[41:09] nothing with none of them that haven't gone forward I don't think we've had to

[41:14] consider some of these things but the questions you're saying it's like you have to think of the alternative too

[41:20] It's like preventing a property owner from using their property in any other way especially one to comply with other

[41:27] like federal like requirements It just it seems like we're opening ourselves up

[41:33] to I I guess I just would heir on the side of the property owner's rights Yeah

[41:42] but we're not reverting back to the previous zoning We're reverting back to a different zoning category And honestly

[41:49] that's where I'm struggling Uh Commissioner Smith said what I was trying to get out much more eloquently

[41:54] but it's not simply we had a plan and whatever that is eight years ago Um and

[42:00] and times have changed and that plan doesn't work So can we go back as the property owner to what we were which was

[42:07] office with a conforming use for the restaurant And and so to me that's the

[42:12] struggle to me is I don't I don't know what we're giving up

[42:18] but in light of there not being a a

[42:24] a compelling reason I guess for PCD3 it feels like granting a reasonzoning to

[42:32] some to a property owner regardless of whether it kind of goes with the comprehensive plan And I'm trying to

[42:39] hold myself accountable um because uh March of last year six of the nine of us

[42:46] voted um against this uh this change And so that's what I'm wrestling with I

[42:51] don't want to make their property um unusable but they're asking for

[42:56] something different than what it was before I see what you're saying I guess the the the context of

[43:04] the say how long was a pod 50 years or so I believe it was

[43:12] I believe it was in the 80s Yeah since 84

[43:18] So I guess to respond to the the times and the market conditions like a lot of

[43:23] things become obsolete with our current zoning So like if we have a chance to get the site back or back to something

[43:29] that's more fitting of what it is I mean to me PC and that's the discretion like

[43:35] to me PCD3 makes more sense than POD to have a non-conforming use on it that

[43:41] versus to allow something with a conditional use and provide more uses

[43:46] that are consistent with the Southdale experience guidelines and the plan which is now approved which predates the

[43:54] 27 which is the 2017 PUD predated So now it's like we have a to me a much more

[44:00] crystalclear vision for Southdale that PCD3 is more aligned with than

[44:05] POD3 That's just how I see it And there's no there's no site plan attached

[44:12] to this So what we voted against was specifics with the resoning that weren't

[44:17] consistent with the plan Makes sense So this is just like clean slate to allow you to do something that to me is

[44:24] consistent with the comprehensive plan and the salt plan to commissioner Pad's point with the conditional use permit

[44:31] you can do housing So it seems to match the office residential component of the

[44:36] comp plan No you're going to ask the same question I am just a clarification by res we're

[44:43] sending the PUD 11 we're going back to PCD3 which is what it was before it was

[44:50] P O D I in my notes it was it was originally established as PCD3 when

[44:57] South Dale and the whole area was developed when the city rewrote its

[45:02] zoning ordinance in 1984 it that's when it was went to POD PCD3 to POD to PUD and now they're

[45:12] wanting to go skip the POD back or not simply go back to what it was before

[45:18] PUD11 but go to PCD3 Got it Correct

[45:24] Thank you Sorry

[45:34] That the city intentionally reszoned a POD to quote unquote protect the office space Right That's why it went from PCD3

[45:41] to POD is that they deliberately wanted office space there in that part of Southdale The existing office space that

[45:48] was there Correct Yep And it and it knew that it was creating a non-conforming use with the restaurant

[46:00] I just in the middle of all the deliberations I wanted to take a moment to thank you because for the past seven

[46:07] years you've been spending a lot of money on architects and engineers and I

[46:13] appreciate that and that doesn't even you know say anything about the internal dialogues you've been having about all

[46:19] of this work So there's been a lot of thought that's been put into this project and um completely understand

[46:26] you're wanting to be able to now at least fix this up and get it accessible

[46:31] So I really appreciate that and very empathetic with your being property owners and wanting to do something with

[46:37] your property

[46:46] I'd echo that Thanks for for coming in tonight and for all your work on the site Really interesting discussion

[46:52] tonight I think what it comes down to for me is

[46:57] that if the ask was to go to POD I think I would want to deny it

[47:05] PCD3 makes a lot of sense to me because it has the best fit to the comprehensive plan which POD wouldn't

[47:13] So and that that's where we tend to really get in trouble is when we have zoning and a comprehensive plan as we

[47:19] have experienced that don't match And unless somebody can come up with a

[47:24] better match to the comprehensive plan than PCD3 I think that's in my opinion that's

[47:30] the best approach for us The PUD is not going to get built So we're going to have to replace it with something and uh

[47:38] PCD has three feels right to me but certainly open to other if there is a better one let's use

[47:45] the better one but I I can't see what that would be your comments in addition to the

[47:52] conditional use permit yes as well right okay well it's a conditional use permit for its existing use so it doesn't feel

[47:59] that controversial but it would allow future office uses

[48:06] yeah consistent with a comprehensive plan

[48:13] Yeah Got it I think this is a great conversation

[48:23] Um I think I love the evolution right The evolution from PCD POD PUD now going

[48:29] back to PCD3 I get that Um and I appreciate how

[48:36] PCD3 aligns with the comp plan I also just wanted to you know just test the boundaries of what we could do right Uh

[48:43] I would I would I would think that every time the zoning has changed a lot of

[48:49] deliberation occurred that that stated that this new zoning was better than the

[48:55] old one for these reasons right And we kept doing that right So it went from PCD3 and then discussion at the time POD

[49:03] worked better Oh P um PUD 11 worked even better than that

[49:10] right Because we're adding more thought context We're factoring a lot of different things right And now we're

[49:17] going back to PCD3 because of the comp plan but it doing that kind of ignores the evolution of all the thinking that

[49:23] went into getting us to this stage So I guess me trying to poke around to the edges here I think director T you

[49:30] mentioned that in order to make any kind of change it was not permitted if it

[49:36] stayed as P11 Um is it possible that we could

[49:41] decide as a body here to grant the small change but keep the zoning as it is Is

[49:46] that something that's within our space to do It is not the the additions are

[49:53] being attached to a building that was supposed to be removed in that PUD So

[49:59] these two middle office buildings are supposed to be removed along with the Tavern on France

[50:08] Okay just testing out the boundaries right But the the takeaway too is is

[50:14] that you know every decision that we've made to get to this stage I would think was really well thought out Um again you

[50:21] know if we're going back to allow this to happen I I totally get it and it makes sense Um I just want us to also

[50:27] just not just look at it as a as just this minor change but look at the evolution of what occurred on the

[50:35] site I guess one crystal clear takeaway is for anyone tuning in is a PUD is

[50:42] extremely strict right I mean it isn't like this zoning category where now you

[50:47] can do these things It's you have to do these exact things So those exact things

[50:55] seem to be compliant with PCD3 with a conditional use permit for office

[51:01] Correct The uses but there might be some variances with where things are placed but the uses are consistent with that

[51:08] previous PUD So it seems to get us back to kind of like the fruit of what was in

[51:13] it but maybe not the details So it it that's the takeaway and the danger of

[51:18] PUD is it's just you have to do that or the benefit of it you have to do

[51:26] that which again maybe prevented a couple less

[51:31] desirable applications previously day I say if any

[51:41] I see I see that now okay all right say if anybody ever wants to

[51:46] take a look at how restrictive the PUD development code is go to chapter 36 art

[51:53] article 8 division 4 section 36-504 and you'll see we describe in very very

[52:00] explicit detail what the PUD zoning for this site is and why this is such a big ask why we can't really make any changes

[52:07] once we've codified this into the into the um city code right so I mean when we use PUB right we we kind of box

[52:14] ourselves in we box the developer in and if the market changes and right really things go ary um then we run into

[52:21] scenarios like this right So there's definitely benefits of using PUB Um I think we're seeing one of the potential

[52:26] downfalls of of a reliance on PUD here And I think it makes sense then to con to reszone to PCD3 is a very reasonable

[52:40] request Okay So just very quickly it's it's my understanding what I'm hearing is that our hands are completely tied

[52:47] under the PUD So there's nothing that can be done So some kind of a change needs to be made here And it seems to me

[52:54] that the PCD3 grants us the most flexibility and is aligned with at least

[53:01] one of our guiding documents So I'm fully supportive

[53:14] I I'd like to make a motion in that regard now that we've reached this point I think that we've reached the point for

[53:20] that Um so I have a motion to recommend the city council approve the request for reszoning from PUD 11 plan unit

[53:26] development 11 uh to PCD3 the plan commercial district ordinance amendment and

[53:32] conditional use permit to allow office uses on the site Second

[53:38] Is there any further discussion

[53:44] Again just pushing the boundaries right Trying to get to think through it Just a

[53:50] question for us right Like how much of a change if the applicant wanted just to

[53:58] make a tiny change you just wanted to change a door right

[54:05] Does that also warrant um switching back to PCD3 I guess the question is like how

[54:12] much of a change um would warrant us to go back to a

[54:18] previous zoning Just a thought right Um a big change or a small change right And

[54:24] like what is like what does that really mean Um if if we kept the PUD in place

[54:30] is that what you're saying What would trigger Well yes What would trigger in

[54:36] in our minds the size of a change that would cause us to go from PUB back to a different zoning Well my thought is that

[54:42] if they were going to do a a change a door on one of these buildings that were going to be gone they couldn't do that

[54:48] because they wouldn't need a a permit to change a door However um if they're

[54:54] going to do anything that requires a permit on those buildings that weren't going to be there then they couldn't do it Just that's my observation Yeah I

[55:02] think what they ran into is they'd like to remodel the existing building They have handicap accessibility issues So

[55:09] just to get an interior remodel permit is a challenge because they have to put in these entryways that provides that

[55:16] handicap accessibility That's what because of the expansion that's what triggers then the

[55:22] the need for the resoning

[55:30] So basically any small modification requiring a building permit could do it

[55:36] or could be could pro could be prevented from getting that building

[55:48] permit Okay Um so we have a a motion and a

[55:54] second We'll go for a vote All those in favor say I I

[56:00] opposed All right motion carries unanimously Good luck on your future

[56:06] projects Hope to see you guys back All right that was it for our

[56:12] planning for the planning commission meeting Oh man for our public hearings

[56:18] and we have no reports and recommendations So we go right to chair and member comments

[56:26] Are there any comments from fellow commissioners

[56:34] I'll add one thing It's in let's see right the 25th is the city's Arbor

[56:43] Day celebration at at Braar Golf Course Um you can volunteer between 10 and 2 to

[56:49] help plant trees Uh I'll be there

[56:55] You're cut off I'll be I'll be there if anybody else wants to come help plant trees on Arbor Day

[57:01] Sign up uh online Carrie I just have

[57:15] um one question since we've had all these conversations about PUB Um Commissioner Padilla mentioned last

[57:21] meeting um there's conversation with the city about doing

[57:28] um on the 70th site uh the maybe uh

[57:33] helping with the parking deck because we're asking all of these questions about a PUD and we have one

[57:39] that isn't working Is the city also bound then by the PUD parameters

[57:47] Yes Oh there it goes Uh yes The same

[57:53] restrictions that applied for this site would apply for that 70th in France site If they do any deviation from what was

[58:01] approved they would likely have to come back before the planning commission and city council

[58:07] Okay Just curious I mean as we think about this that's not the

[58:13] only I mean that's the hard thing with these developments right they take years and years to put together So if you've

[58:19] gone ahead and proactively zoned or you have a PUD because you're basically at

[58:24] closing and then the world moves out from under you as it's want to do and you've got you know four or five

[58:30] different owners trying to get them all to agree to all the different pieces um inherently the the ball is going to move

[58:38] and how do we think about that um those subsequent revisions that may

[58:43] or may not be needed or wanted based on the economy and the parties at the time

[58:50] Um I hope it doesn't revert back to their needing a reasonzoning because now we have a a pit But I don't know just

[58:57] thinking about that Good question and concern I I know maybe

[59:02] over the last 5 years there's been growing concern over PUD usage and overusage especially from like residents

[59:10] about like very specific small spot PUDs I think some of that just goes to what

[59:18] you're saying like we need to just be a little more careful with how we employ them and understand the risks and

[59:25] rewards of doing so cuz it seems like it'd be just more in our favor and

[59:32] someone else's If we have a good enough zoning designation that they conform to

[59:37] that provides the flexibility we want to see that's probably what we should keep encouraging people to do Like we saw

[59:43] with the most recent Opus development in Grand View you know was a previous one

[59:50] of PUD and so then they came back with a P CD or what what was theirs Just the

[59:58] PCD2 PCD2 So like we're I think the message is getting out there and we're

[1:00:05] we're getting better requests and applications as a result I was thinking

[1:00:10] specifically just in my mind like the Macy site right You have two separate towers that's likely going to be two

[1:00:16] different parties two different finance financing packages twice as many opportunities for it to fall apart If if

[1:00:23] having a smaller area zoned uh gets the give to get that we want to create in

[1:00:29] these special areas some public amenities or or benefit but prevents

[1:00:35] throwing the baby out with the bathwater because it's it's just a piece and then if the second piece doesn't come

[1:00:40] together you have a little bit more wiggle room there I think one difference between the

[1:00:46] site that we looked at here tonight was that they didn't replat It's

[1:00:52] essentially one lot with 70th in France and with Macy's they platted it into the

[1:00:58] four parcels for each lot So if they come back for a revised um site plan at

[1:01:04] least we've got the parcels divided I think one important thing to

[1:01:10] ask ourselves as we move into this reszoning initiative right and we talk about changes to the code which are

[1:01:16] coming up right this would be on the top of our mind with this discussion um is the balance between how much control do

[1:01:23] we want to leverage over these developments right And once you kind of touched on it tonight we were saying what are we giving up How much control

[1:01:29] are we giving up and how much we can dictate what it lands on the site in terms of sustainability affordable

[1:01:35] housing etc Do we want to give up that element of control with PUB which is often why we rely on it and use it or do

[1:01:42] we want to make it easier for people to respond to to market conditions and to changes um and make it easier for people

[1:01:49] to build by right I think that's a very very important uh tugof-war that it has

[1:01:54] to exist that exists right And that it will be a big subject of conversation as we talk about changes of the code here

[1:02:00] So something to think about as we move forward Good job Tannon

[1:02:06] Uh one of the comments I just wanted to share was I mentioned toward the end of the last meeting that there's an RFP out

[1:02:13] for the Grand View public work site and it's due I think responses are due

[1:02:22] by the 15th So like a week from now is it is it the 15th It's sometime next week Believe that's maybe n I don't know

[1:02:30] Um but I I want to kind of keep the conversation going with some of that I feel like there's items like that maybe

[1:02:37] from the H or whatever um that are brewing that we aren't necessarily aware

[1:02:43] of and it might be helpful to be a little more aware of it ahead of time to just at least be prepared to talk to

[1:02:51] residents who then find out and ask you about what's going on Uh but in in that particular one what I

[1:02:58] just the main reason I'm bringing this up is kind of like the last proposal we saw for the public work

[1:03:06] site in my opinion kind of deviated the most from the Grand View development

[1:03:12] framework And this request kind of matches it again And

[1:03:18] there's I you you'll hear my sentiment if say the wrong developer gets picked

[1:03:24] in my opinion and we see something very similar to the last one I guess my message is really to the city council

[1:03:30] you know to select a a development partner that is willing to do something bold Um a lot of I mean

[1:03:38] the entire framework was predicated on that redevelopment of that site and

[1:03:46] it being like this singular unique opportunity to transform the district and have a central gathering place And I

[1:03:54] think a lot of what's happened over the time is the city's like relinquished control a little bit more and more So

[1:04:00] the request here is like give it completely to developer sell the entire

[1:04:06] piece of property and let them do what they want in a compelling way that meets those those goals But I think what's

[1:04:14] lacking in those goals is kind of that central gathering place that really got

[1:04:19] people excited about the Grand View development framework So I I guess my

[1:04:24] message is if we give that to the developer there needs to be a lot of focus on what type of gathering place

[1:04:32] they're creating because part of the proposal that I the request for proposal I read is it could be multi-use or

[1:04:40] residential So I mean what we could see is a developer that just wants to do all residential there And I I think that's

[1:04:49] just getting it out there like that defies the development framework central

[1:04:54] area very prominent So can the city really expect to get the highest value

[1:05:00] on its land if they want to use it for you know a lower residential density or

[1:05:07] ownership So there's like competing things that are in that RFP and I'm sure there's other things that we see but I'm

[1:05:14] just my message to the council is like come on be bold and stick back to kind

[1:05:19] of that framework about there being the central gathering space So what I'd like

[1:05:24] to see is a developer that can bring a multi-use to the site in a way that

[1:05:30] allows some sort of commercial use to have people there to linger and stay Um

[1:05:36] and I'll probably say that at the next meeting too Um part of the RFP there's like three steps They'll kind of narrow

[1:05:42] down who responds and conforms a little bit to the request and then there'll be a

[1:05:49] public meeting on that Then they'll have a final public meeting as they narrow it down and select a partner But just kind

[1:05:56] of wanted to give you guys a little glimpse into what that RFP is If you're interested about the process it's really

[1:06:03] like right upon us as the developers are out there

[1:06:08] potentially expressing interest and by next week you know that's the deadline

[1:06:14] So all right that's uh that's my soap box I'll climb off of now Any other

[1:06:20] comments Yeah

[1:06:25] Yeah just to again we're just kind of commenting right now and just sharing ideas and and I appreciate all the ideas

[1:06:32] you know um I think you know this is like the first time we had to kind of go back on

[1:06:39] this PUD uh the way how I think about PUDS is that it's like the top of the hill right

[1:06:46] like we grant this you know it's like my kids right like if they say I want all this cake okay and I give

[1:06:54] them the cake and they took two bites and they say that they're full and they don't want anymore I'm like really mad cuz you asked for it right So to me it's

[1:07:02] like if we grant these PUDs and developers are like yes yeah we're not going to do this PCD3 we're going to do

[1:07:08] a PUD and we and and we're committed and we're locked in Then you're locked in to

[1:07:13] come back later and say hey I can't eat this cake anymore I need a smaller piece

[1:07:19] It's kind of going backwards right now There there could be some strategies right Like as director Tig was

[1:07:25] mentioning you could replplat in such a way that strategically you might be able to break it up So you could make small

[1:07:32] changes if you needed to without having to do the whole thing right This is a big site So I guess where I'm going as

[1:07:38] we think about this new you know coding update and everything like that you know how do we think about PUDS Is is this

[1:07:46] something that you can just hop into and hop out of or is this something you want to lock into and you drive that forward

[1:07:51] Right That's just kind of the thought that I have

[1:07:58] Thank you everyone for the comments Carrie do you got any I do Just a couple

[1:08:04] quick updates from city council Uh last week the council held the public hearing for the the Southdale library site

[1:08:11] They'll make a decision on that next week and also next Wednesday they will

[1:08:16] consider the small area plan for the Lincoln and London area Um so that's it

[1:08:24] Wonderful Well I guess there's one thing left

[1:08:31] people's buttons to adjourn Yes Second All those in favor say I I So move the

[1:08:38] meeting has been adjourned Thank you everyone Thank you It's like a second lag maybe something

[1:08:45] for one a dollar or something

[1:08:53] Good guess on that timing My my mic won't go off I know it's delayed

[1:09:00] but I would look down and mine was

[1:09:17] always concern for us right