00:00:07,970 I now call this meeting to order. Um, they’ll start off with roll call. Commissioner Kevin. President. Chair. Kevin. I’m sorry. Uh, Commissioner. Waco. President. Commissioner Barr. President. Commissioner. Barroso. Commissioner. Adams. Present. Commissioner. Raja. Commissioner. Anderson. Commissioner guy. By. Commissioner Fraser. Present. Commissioner. Song. President. Uh, you have a quorum. Thank you. Let’s stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. 00:01:02,400 United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Please be advised that the public hearings are recorded and televised live on cable television and web streamed over the internet at Brooklyn park.org. 00:01:30,630 The auto audio system will not pick up comments from the seating area. If you want to be heard and made part of the public record, please go to the podium. Or, if participating remotely, turn on your camera, speak into the microphone stating your full name and address. Please sign. 00:01:54,630 The public hearing logbook on the table near the entrance to the Council chambers. If you are attending in person to ensure accuracy of name and address in the public record, please note that the agenda for tonight’s meeting indicates the Commission Chair has the prerogative to invoke a time limit for speakers during any public hearing. In the interest of maintaining focus and the effective use of time. 00:02:19,800 Thank you in advance for your cooperation. The Planning Commission consists of nine resident volunteer members appointed by the City Council to advise the City Council on planning and land use issues. The Commission discusses and evaluates development proposals based on zoning regulations and comprehensive plan policies. 00:02:48,030 The Planning Commission vote is a recommendation that is forwarded to the City Council for official and final action. Let’s move to the next agenda item. Um, next item of business is the approval of the agenda. Are there any additions or changes to the agenda? Not send any. Can I get a motion? I make a motion to accept the agenda as presented. 00:03:16,330 All right. It has been, uh, motion has been made. Can I get a second? Second. All right. Motion has been. Second to any further discussion or any discussion. All right, let’s vote. All in favor, say aye. Aye, aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. 00:03:40,370 We’ll move to the next, uh, business item here. And that is the, um, to approve the, uh, consent agenda, which includes the minutes from the previous meeting. Can I get a motion to. Make a motion? All right. Motion to approve the consent agenda in the minutes. All right. Can I get a second? Second. 00:04:11,330 All right. Motion has been made. Uh, any discussion or comments? All right, let’s vote. All in favor, say aye. Aye, aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Uh, we will move to the next agenda item, which is, uh, 3.8.1. Good evening, chair, and members of the Planning Commission. 00:04:57,830 For the record, senior Planner Erin McDermott here to present development case 26-114 for the rezoning of a property addressed 6408 Lakeland Avenue. Um, I would like to start with just the actual zoning text for what is constituted under our procedures for zoning map amendments. I know that this body has moved on several rezoning in the past. 00:05:28,770 However, I also know that typically when you are considering rezoning, it is either an action that was city driven, uh, such as with the comp plan or other, um, city led initiatives, or when there’s a development proposal in front of you. 00:05:47,570 While there were development proposals that were attached with both of the applications in front of you tonight, there’s not actually an application for site plan review. These are purely conceptual. So there has not been any application made for development at this time. 00:06:02,030 So I just wanted to to bring that up because typically this is an unconventional way that rezoning has been in front of this body in the past. Um, in terms of general location, this property is along Bottineau Boulevard near highway 94. Um, here’s an aerial view of the subject property. As you can see, to the north are single family houses. 00:06:26,430 To the south is an auto repair shop, and then to the east is an apartment complex. Um, on the other, on the west side of the property is Lakeland Avenue. And then there’s a sound barrier, um, with Bottineau Boulevard on the far east side to the west. Here’s a zoning map. 00:06:45,630 As you can see, the properties to the north are one single family estate, and to the south is to see Transit oriented development center. And this is due to the comprehensive plan. There is an overlay in this area that is called the LRT overlay. Um, the highlighted properties within that circle are properties that are adjacent to the station area at 63rd Avenue. 00:07:08,670 Um, and then it’s the distance is a quarter mile in each direction. Um, at the bottom you’ll see a screenshot from the comprehensive plan. Um, talking about the LRT overlay, the LRT overlay targets a minimum density of 20 residential units per acre for new development, which lends policy credence for the zoning change. In front of you today and then in front of you. 00:07:30,670 This map looks very confusing, but the red lines and the blue here denote construction for the light rail. As you can see, the property is adjacent to the 63rd Avenue station. Um, the blue um, blue boxes on the east side are the actual station. 00:07:57,400 This property is walkable to the station from from the property. Here is a concept that the applicant has provided for what the development may look like. This includes the existing sound barrier of what and what the development would look like from the station, and shows the the auto repair business. Within this image. 00:08:20,100 Here’s another illustration of what this development may look like. And then from another direction, the zoning code is silent on criteria for rezoning a property. So with that, we go back to the comprehensive plan and with to the purpose of the zoning code in front of you. Here are statements from the purpose of the zoning code as adopted within the zoning code. 00:08:40,970 I would like to highlight that the goal here is to implement the comprehensive plan that the City Council recognizes the Comprehensive Plan as official policy for land use and development in Brooklyn Park. 00:08:58,870 I’d also like to highlight that the underlying the future land use zoning map within the comprehensive plan that has been adopted for this property, has this property guided for high density residential. So the rezoning of this property would bring it into compliance with the comprehensive plan. At this time, staff concludes our presentation. All right. Thank you. We will, open it up. Uh, this item to the public for discussion. 00:09:25,400 If you would like to speak to this item, please go to the podium, state your name and address. And, uh, uh, we’ll hear from. Uh, Commission. Thank you very much for the time and opportunity to discuss this, uh, rezoning, uh, in this, uh, the 6408 Lakeland Avenue north to a Tod c, uh, rezoning. 00:10:10,330 I’m speaking tonight, right now to make a have a recommendation to the committee, to the commission to table this particular, uh, initiative due to the fact that there has been insufficient, uh, reports and studies done in regards to the traffic utility studies and, uh, critical infrastructure. 00:10:36,970 It’s necessary for us to be able to get these particular studies and utilize this information to ensure that we have the opportunity to provide that this necessary, this business and residential hotel accommodation changing, this, changing this property directly from an R1 single family to a Tod center is pretty extreme. Uh, the single family currently, right now, uh, a single family home utilizes minimal infrastructure for the homes. 00:11:09,430 The changes will will be required to, uh, to accommodate the businesses as well as the 12 units. The latter’s, uh, the lot currently right now is going to be maximizing all the particular area. 00:11:37,730 And in the proposal there is, uh, inconclusive communication in regards to future development on the rest of the property, which really should be clarified to to understand exactly what that future, future expansion could hold for that particular area and how it would impact the the necessary, uh, neighbors. On the footnote, one of the things that I found disappointing and I’m, I’m sure that the that the committee and necessary parties who informed the individuals in the neighborhood followed the necessary, uh, protocols. 00:12:02,270 However, that protocol was only the the only the homeowners that were within 500ft of that particular resident were notified. Nobody within the rest of the community or neighborhood was notified. 00:12:28,430 It’s which really provided an opportunity for the neighbors to be able to start talking to everyone, because these changes are going to influence a lot of people, not just necessarily the people within 500ft. However, the, the, the, the impact to traffic is going to be quite substantial. We have 1212 unit hotel that is going to be utilized, plus two businesses. There’s a parking lot only to accommodate 12 cars. 00:12:52,370 So and there is a business right adjacent to it which is the auto shop. And just currently riding over here. There were 15 vehicles parked in the street right now, which pretty much occupied the entire area. That in front of that resident at the 6408. 00:13:20,300 Where will where will the necessary parking accommodate the businesses? And there’s going to be delivery trucks, garbage trucks, as well as tow trucks, because that auto repair facility brings in Flatbeds on a regular basis throughout the day, several times throughout the day, there’s going to be and the the Lakeland Avenue is not a drive is is a cul de sac. It’s a it’s a dead end. 00:13:40,570 You you have to drive down it. And then hopefully if there’s adequate a room, you’ll be able to use the cul de sac or do a three point reverse and return to get back out and drive back down. 64th. Currently. 00:14:01,830 Right now, most of the residents that reside in that neighborhood down on the Kentucky Avenue, I would have to say that the path of least resistance is driving all the way down Lakeland, down to 64th Avenue, up the up to the, uh, Hampshire to be able to make their necessary access to 63rd Avenue to go to wherever their location is. Uh, just due to the fact that there are fewer stop signs. 00:14:22,200 It’s just the path of least resistance. So increasing the amount of traffic in this particular area is going to have a significant impact and request that there’s a traffic study necessary. Along with that parking issue that I was talking about during the wintertime. 00:14:43,370 There just does not seem to be adequate space for, uh, where there is going to be the snow removal. Uh, there just isn’t going to be any room that a lot is going to be full. It’s going to be built all the way up to the easement and the pedestrian, the traffic and where the parking lies. 00:15:00,530 So and in, uh, sake of time here, um, I’m not for sure if you’re getting close to wrapping up here, but, uh, and I know I didn’t give you a time limit. But I totally understand and respect. Respect that. Thank you. 00:15:19,800 Yeah, just just to reiterate in regards to closeout in regards to that part, the parking, the employees with with the occupants for the hotel and is my recommendation moving forward here is to um, please let’s table the particular rezoning that will allow the opportunity for the city to maintain the their legislative power. 00:15:47,630 Uh, once, once the rezoning occurs, that allows the builder to start the building process, regardless of infrastructure or any of these reports in the future. So, yeah, my recommendation is pleased to table this at this particular time. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Hi. My name is Pam Devine. I live on 6,964th Avenue. Um, the neighbors know me as the flower lady. 00:16:14,830 I have a lot of gardens in my place. Um, and I want to reiterate, I want this table. There’s a lot of studies that need to be done. I’ve lived there since 81. They closed off the access to 63rd Avenue and left one business. I have nothing against that business, but my traffic has tripled. I was working in my front garden. 00:16:36,630 I saw no less than 13 business trucks come and go in that my road’s not built for, that I didn’t pay taxes for that. So that’s increased. Now you’re talking about the possibility of putting more commercial businesses there with more traffic. There’s no room. Please do the studies. It’s crazy. 00:16:58,200 If you’re going to do this. Open 63rd again in that cul de sac. I live next door to Tim, and that cul de sac was totally full. They’re parking for their business is overflowing onto the whole street in front of the all around the cul de sac in front of the house where they proposed to put this business. 00:17:18,300 There’s no more room for any more cars. Um, also, this property on Dutton, it’s my understanding that the former owner where the house burned down was a hoarder, and he dumped oil and stuff. I think they need some type of, uh, study on that property before they rebuild anything there as well. Plus. 00:17:41,870 Thank you. We will discuss Dutton next. Okay. So if we can just stay focused on. Okay. And feel free to speak up on the Dutton one. Mostly I’m concerned about the traffic and the type of people it’s going to bring into. 00:17:57,130 I mean, I want to live in a small, single family. Um, residence. I don’t want it to all of a sudden be I don’t mind apartments. Those are people. But a hotel, I mean, it’s a different type of traffic, you know, and that it says it’s right next to the airport. That airport isn’t for commercial use. 00:18:17,700 It’s mostly my dentist that flies in and from out of town. And, I mean, that’s the type of traffic those small planes do. They’re not commercial. It’s not going to help. And we have a hotel right on the other side of 63rd to accommodate that. I don’t think it’s necessary. So thank you. 00:18:36,330 Thank you. And I do want to thank all of you for serving Brooklyn Park. I really do. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Hello. My name is Brad Odegaard. I live at 6716 Dutton Avenue, uh, in the Lakeland Park neighborhood. 00:19:02,630 Uh, I appreciate the opportunity tonight to address the Planning Commission. And thank you again for your service as volunteers to the city. Um, in doing a detailed review of the applicant’s, uh, submitted documents, um, a number of issues, uh, came to my mind as I, as I looked at this project, um, and the request for the rezoning, uh, number one, uh, 00:19:26,030 all the vehicle access for this site will have to traverse down Hampshire. And then 64th, primarily, potentially some on 65th or Dutton, but really 60 Hampshire to 64th to Lakeland is the primary route to access here. 00:19:47,570 Um, that’s a pretty significant increase potentially in traffic on those routes. Um, on a on a route that really doesn’t have much through traffic currently. So, uh, really, before proceeding, I think some level of a detailed traffic study is necessary for this type of use in that location. 00:20:10,900 Uh, second item that came to mind is, um, the applicant’s letter makes reference to hotel accommodations, but it’s not clear based on the types of residential units that are shown in the exhibits, that this is a hotel. 00:20:30,770 So, um, I think that the planning Commission, the city Council, and us as residents in the neighborhood, um, really are owed a duty to have a better understanding of what the actual use of this facility is going to be. These 12 residential units that are on the upper floors, uh, because it is not clear right now. Uh, it certainly does not look like it’s suitable for apartment type usage because there’s not nearly enough parking for apartment. 00:20:48,400 You know what we would normally see in an apartment kind of situation? Uh, so more clarity on that is really necessary. Um, the proposed plan only provides the 12 off street parking spaces for 12 living units, as well as two ground floor retail spaces spill over to the already constrained street. 00:21:11,500 Parking is almost assured, and we already have significant issues with that, not just with the business there. But if you look at some of the other multifamily units in Lakeland Park, you’ll see that spill over onto the city streets as well. Um, the applicant’s proposed layout provides no off street facilities for delivery to the two retail spaces. 00:21:31,670 This will result in pretty much all the deliveries being performed from the street, and if the retail spaces get the noted restaurant type uses, those deliveries will most likely come by semi truck. Because most food service businesses are going to deliver using a short semi, but still a semi. And um, the street configurations in our neighborhood are not really set up for that. 00:21:53,070 So at the bare minimum, I think a commercial vehicle access and a truck turning study needs to be performed to see if that’s even viable. With the Lakeland cul de sacs, especially with the amount of usage that that gets for parking for the adjacent business. 00:22:14,300 Um, lastly, two items, uh, based on the information on the packet, the building patios, drives and parking look like they’re going to cover approximately 50% of the total lot. And that’s without the noted potential future development in the rear half of the lot as well. 00:22:32,870 So, um, really some sort of stormwater management plan probably needs to be required in order to in order to get this, uh, through and reviewed appropriately. Uh, and the last thing I note is that, and I know that this is not a development application, but ODC does have specific requirements for the building frontage against the main streets and the building, as shown in the renderings right now, with the dimensions shown, do not meet those requirements. 00:22:55,330 So that’s another reason that we should take a pause. So based on all that, I’m going to request that the Planning Commission continue this application pending further study before taking action on the rezoning proposal. Thank you. All right. 00:23:32,070 Would anyone else like to speak to this item? My name is Tom Sherman. I live at 6609 Kentucky Avenue North. And you’re going to love my little ditty. I’m just going to say did did. Oh, to all them three beforehand. Awesome. The traffic would be trouble. I just agree with it all. Everything. 00:23:56,270 And I wish I could think of something else, but I at least I’m on record saying I guess you shouldn’t push it through. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Anyone else? All right. I will close the public portion of this and bring it back to the commissioners. Um, uh, for discussion. 00:24:28,300 So any, uh, commissioners, uh, want to start off, I do have a couple of things. Uh, uh, um, Aaron, if, uh, first, is the applicant here present today? Thank you. Chair, I have to be honest, I have only met the applicant once, and I am unsure. Okay. Okay. Oh. Yes. All right. Um, my, uh, my first question. 00:25:02,370 You mentioned that, uh, this is is not a site plan review. Is that. That is correct. This is just simply. This is. Yes. There there are sketch plans. However, this is purely conceptual. This is not an actual application in front of city staff. 00:25:21,600 If there were an application, additional information would have been required and provided tonight with the rezoning, such as the traffic studies that are being requested, that standard operating procedure for our site plan reviews. Um, as with the utilities, our engineering department looks at both of those. In addition to vehicular access. 00:25:41,400 Um, I did also want to note that our environmental health team is aware of the parking struggles with the property to the south. However, I would like to point out that we cannot be basing this entirely on bad actors on different property owners. Um, so I would just like to, um, kind of address some of those comments. 00:26:00,600 Um, also to address the, um, tabling item, uh, while that is your prerogative, if that’s your choice, I would also like to note that the city has, under Minnesota statute, 15.99, we only have the 60 day review period. City staff has already requested the 60 day extension period for 120 days, as the 60 day review period for the initial application was going to expire shortly before. 00:26:24,000 Shortly before City Council makes their motion. So okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um. In the packet that I received, uh, uh, it unclear on what is this product that, uh, that this applicant is planning. 00:26:51,200 What is this? Is this an apartment complex? Is it a hotel? What’s their thought? Thank you. Chair Craven. Um, at the time of my initial meeting with the applicant, it was proposed that they would like to preserve the single family home and add three apartments for family members in addition to the small retail spaces. 00:27:08,500 At the time of application, it indicated that those apartments would still remain and that there would be an additional area for hotel services. Um, those would be permitted uses within the Tod zoning district. Um. However, if the utility access, parking access, all of that is inadequate, they would not be permitted to exceed what the site would allow. Correct. 00:27:37,700 Um, looking at the overall renderings that, uh, and kind of the the floor plan, uh, floor plate, uh, uh, you know, one of the things that I noticed and maybe it was it’s, uh, uh, it’s uh, just not visible to me. Uh, no elevator, uh, is shown. 00:27:59,400 Um, and, uh, right there, uh, if you were planning on a hotel or of some kind to try to meet Ada, you’re there. Not meeting this with this this site plan. Am I wrong on that? No, that’s that’s correct. 00:28:17,770 Um, I do want to address at the time that this application came in, it was standard practice for staff to bring items such as this to city Council for a work session to gauge interest in the application. Um, due to City Council’s busy schedule, that’s not that. That standard procedure has changed. 00:28:39,670 Um, because of all of the conversations that staff and Planning Commission have had with City Council about land use decisions, they feel confident and comfortable with the decisions made just directly here. Uh, is my understanding. 00:29:03,330 So from that standpoint, uh, due to the nature of the application, I did direct the applicant to not completely design the site, as this is a discretionary action by the city so that they weren’t putting in a lot of money, completing a full design, doing all of these studies in case the zoning was not permitted, because then they would have spent a lot of money on creating that site plan that would then be unusable. Um. Makes sense. All right. Uh, thank you. 00:29:24,100 So just, uh, and, Paul, correct me if I’m wrong on this, but this, you know, we have several new commissioners, uh, here. You know, I think there are four items on the table here as it pertains to this. And, uh, you know, one is, you know, we can recommend approval as presented. Second, we can recommend approval with additional conditions. 00:29:45,300 Third, we could recommend denial based on specific findings. Or the last one, though we can continue the public hearing to a future meeting if the commission wants more information or study before making a recommendation to, uh, city council. Uh, and so we have four options here. And, uh, we’ll be deciding on that. 00:30:11,530 Am I correct, chair? And members of the commission? Uh, just a couple clarifications to that one. Uh, rezoning are a little bit different from some of the other application types in that, uh, it’s cities are not allowed under statute to attach conditions to the rezoning. 00:30:28,100 So it’s really it’s either a yes or a no once it gets to city council and city council makes a decision, um, their options are yes or no. It’s not yes. If it’s just yes or no. Correct. Yeah. So we can’t, you know, any any conditions that the Planning Commission would want to recommend. You know, we would have to tell the, the planning, the, the city council that they can’t enact those. 00:30:46,700 Um. But we could recommend to, uh, and I know, Aaron, you mentioned that the time we’re already at the time limit, but as it pertains to tonight, uh, if, uh, the commissioners need more information, just like the residents, we can ask for that continuation. And for more information. Right. And for this to appear at the next. 00:31:10,730 You could continue it to the next meeting, understanding that the, you know, the commission doesn’t need to meet for another month. And my understanding, Aaron, that the does that run us up against the 120 days. It doesn’t. So there would be time with another. Okay. All right. 00:31:27,300 So yes that would be an option under the statute 1599. That’s 6120 day law. It would the timing would work to to bring it back to this body a month from now and still meet that law. Yeah. Sounds great. Yeah. So I just wanted to put that on the table for the, hearing from the residents. Um, and then letting you know what our options are. So. 00:31:49,670 Mister Chair, if you wouldn’t mind one more item for me. Thank you. Um, I just wonder. This has been said a couple of times, but I just want to reiterate and add a little bit more to, um, the fact that this is just a rezoning application with no actual development 00:32:02,970 application in front of you all, and just make sure you know, my encouragement to, to the Planning Commission would be to focus on, you know, what are the possible outcomes in the future. 00:32:22,900 Um, if the zoning change happens, right? Because if the zoning change does happen, then anything that’s allowed under that zoning district can happen in the future. It doesn’t have to be what’s shown in this image. Right? So, you know, with any zoning district, there’s a range of possibilities of what can happen. Um, even if there were a site plan review application attached to this, there’s nothing that compels the property owner to actually build that. Right. 00:32:43,570 They could withdraw, they could just not follow through and not build it. And then maybe five years later, that property owner or a future property owner is operating under the new zoning district and can propose something different that falls under that zoning district. 00:32:56,530 So just want to make sure I’m clear about that, that the most important thing here is the range of possibilities that are possible under the proposed zoning district. Awesome. Love to get commissioners thoughts on this. 00:33:22,530 Um, I personally would say that we would move forward with approving the rezoning, but if, um, for a site plan, would that come to the commission if, um, under that new zoning law? Thank you. Chair Caven and Commissioner Song, the city code stipulates that if a use is permitted and meet certain criteria, it could be an administrative site plan review. Given that there are a number of possibilities within the zoning code, there is a chance that it could be administrative. 00:33:44,100 However, with the level of intensity as shown here today, there’s also a very large chance that it would be an additional public hearing and come back before this body. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question. Um, if I understand correctly, is this is a zoning request, but there is some rendering attached to it. 00:34:05,000 You know, in terms of intent, after zoning is approved and I understand it’s said that this is just a zoning request without no development application at the moment. And I wonder what what’s the intent behind and if you could, you know, reiterate the the law you mentioned about, you know, Minnesota statute law that requires that somebody could request just a 00:34:33,300 zoning change without any purpose or, you know, next options are tied to it. And I just want to be clear on that point. And if this is purely a zoning zoning request, why would this rendering attach to it? What’s the intent of the application? Chair Kevin, Commissioner Waco, I appreciate the question. 00:34:55,130 Um, from the times that I’ve interacted with this property owner, um, he he currently resides in this single family home and has a vision for his property as many property owners throughout the city do. 00:35:12,570 Um, given the proximity to the light rail, he saw an opportunity to try to build for his family and was hoping to, you know, be able to expand for the family with that request for the work session that we try to schedule a city council, we like to have a sort of visualization so that they have an idea of what may the proposal before them may be in the future. 00:35:30,330 Um, with this, they did go above and beyond with the concept sketch. They they took their concept and brought it to, uh, a professional to put this together because they wanted to show how serious they are for this. Um, and so they, they put in a lot of time on it. 00:35:49,370 Um, again, like Paul said, there’s nothing that says that that is what they have to build. Um, as for your question about applicants for rezoning, um, any property owner in the city of Brooklyn Park at any time can come to the city, hold a pre-application meeting and apply for rezoning. That’s where those review criteria come in. 00:36:07,700 Is it compliant with the zoning or with the comprehensive plan? In this case, it was because of the underlying, um, future land use of high density. Um, and so that all falls under a different it’s under Minnesota rules section for 62.357. 00:36:31,130 Um, which gives city’s zoning authority, it gives the city the opportunity to establish the zoning restrictions and regulations and establish a zoning map. And so with that, it gives the city the authority, but it also grants those rights to the property owners so that they can also, you know, request to make those changes to build their community. So thank you. Thank you for that. 00:36:54,130 So that my understanding then that, um, the rezoning request is within the comprehensive plan for the area that what this. The the basis for staff’s recommendation of approval is based in the consistency with the comprehensive plan. That is correct. That’s comprehensive plan states the purpose, right. 00:37:22,300 The comprehensive plan has certain criteria in there that need to be fulfilled, which which is basically a purpose of what what the rezoning is for. If I, if I, am getting the right. And so there is an intent already in there in this rezoning request from the owner, I believe. I created this slide to keep in my back pocket. Um, in case this question came up. So this is what in planning we call the pyramid of discretion. 00:37:44,730 Discretion being that the city, they have the most opportunity to make the choices, the least amount of discretion is where we have the least amount of choices there. The regulations are the regulations, and we have to follow them to a tee at the very bottom, the base of our pyramid. 00:37:59,830 What builds the foundation are the policies established within the comprehensive Plan. So with the comprehensive plan being a ten year document, and we go through a very long cycle that I know Paul recently, uh, mentioned you guys, we will be starting that cycle again as a two year period where staff engages the community, engages elected officials. 00:38:19,570 We reach out and we do a lot of public engagement to make sure that the policies that are written within the comprehensive plan match the vision of the people who live within the community, and the goals that the city has. So so that future land use is what we’re aspiring to be. Yeah. Thank you. 00:38:46,070 Anyone else? Yes. I have a question. Um, I’m trying to better understand what this hotel services mean is. Either a hotel or not, or is there something in the middle? Thank you. Chair. Kevin. 00:39:06,200 Commissioner Anderson, um, on the zoning land use table, we have a it’s a table that lists out all of the uses that you can do within the city, and it has everything listed. Hotel services is how it’s labeled in one of the tables on in the zoning code. So they took it the, the specific use directly from our zoning code instead of calling it the common term of just calling it a hotel. 00:39:26,670 Okay. So basically it’s a hotel. Yes. Okay. And then the retail space, I know the renderings, um, is not fully developed, but what is the commercial spaces? Are those small spaces, big spaces? I mean, I know they’ll rent out. To who? Whoever they can lease it out to. 00:39:47,600 But, you know, I know there’s a concern about, you know, this being turned into commercial space. There’s those more like, well, I know again, you don’t know. You’re not the developers. Those more like little corner convenience stores. 00:40:03,570 Or is these, you know, again, I know they’re not at that place, but it’d be good to understand that again. Now we’re talking about a hotel and commercial, spaces. Now we’re just changing that whole neighborhood. Thank you. Commissioner. Um, so I don’t have the direct numbers in front of me. I’m gonna eyeball it. Most of the houses in this neighborhood are probably about 25ft deep. 00:40:20,700 If you look at the proximity of the house to the street, um, on the south side, it is about the same distance to the street to the house. So that would not leave a whole lot of room for retail. It has the retail located on the ground floor. 00:40:37,700 So if there are two retail spaces, it would be approximately half of a single, like a standard single family footprint, um, which would leave about 500ft for each of the retail spaces. The exhibit does not support that. Support. The rendering there shows 25, 22, 50 for one space. And 70. 00:41:04,930 Yeah. The information is in the packet on the square footage that that you have. Okay. That’s all I have. All right. Uh, not at this time. Um, Maggie Bauer, just for clarity, if. 00:41:35,500 I’m understanding the space that you’re showing at 6408 is the house that the current currently has lived in, and the ask is to build on to that house and keep that there as their home. And then add this hotel space behind it. 00:41:56,400 And, um, I know this isn’t the I know this is only for zoning, but it’s really hard to, um, sit here and listen to all this without a true concept of what could be. So if I get too far. But would that building have to be brought up to the code of of a hotel, that home? I mean, because it doesn’t make sense. Kind of in my mind. Commissioner Bauer and, um, yes. 00:42:18,070 So anytime a structure is has an addition done to it or any type of construction, they have to bring it up to the current code. So with this proposal, with, from what I understand from the applicant, with the intent being to do an addition to the house, that would require the existing house to be brought up to 00:42:35,100 current standards, which including any of that additional living space, will require that house to be retrofit with sprinklers and additional building code. Okay. And then is there extra land that hasn’t been addressed yet? Um, back towards the 6804 area, or would this take up the whole space for some reason? I thought you said there’s still 00:42:57,370 extra land in this. So the proposal is for the front portion of the property there. There is green space that the proposal currently maintains in the back. Um, for just for your understanding. And everyone’s here, um, in the tod c zoning district, it allows for 80% impervious. So they would be allowed to improve 80% of the lot. 00:43:24,730 And my final question is, if the zoning gets passed based on your recommendation, they would have to come back for sure for the renderings of what they’d want to do.. That entirely depends on the use that’s proposed. The use is on the table. 00:43:50,070 If they fall within certain thresholds, no modification to stormwater, no modifications to, you know, other aspects of the property. That is a possibility. It could be an administrative site plan review, in which case staff does the same review that’s presented to this body. It just would not be coming forward for a public hearing. 00:44:10,630 Um, if they exceed those thresholds and it does become a public hearing, we’re doing that same review and bringing it back for the public hearing. And with that, all of those studies for traffic and waterways would happen for sure. That’s correct. Those are required, including for the administrative site plan review. Our engineering team looks at all of those. We’ve had a number of administrative site plan reviews where parking studies have been required. 00:44:29,900 All the full wetland delineations, they’ve reviewed them, sent it back for modifications to be made. Thank you. Mr. chair, if you wouldn’t mind, I just wanted to tell the planning commissioners that we did receive a message a few minutes ago from the applicant indicating that they had a family emergency and couldn’t be here tonight. 00:44:55,300 So it was one of the past that that long. Thank you. Commissioner Frazier. Thank you. In cases where you do an administrative review. How is that information then conveyed back to, you know, the the impacted community? Thank you, Commissioner Frazier. 00:45:22,500 So it follows standard procedure in terms of it being approved similarly to how building permits are. It’s through our online portal. We issue the full like there’s a memo of approval that includes any conditions that they may need to meet. Uh, because it is a permitted use and there is no public hearing. Typically, that’s not conveyed back to neighboring property owners. 00:45:45,170 There are opportunities where they can request that information from the city. Our building permits are public information and can be searched on the website. However we do. I know that we’ve mentioned the past. 00:46:04,030 The city has a development map, so with our development map that’s available on the city website, we do note all of the administrative site plan reviews on there as well, the same way that we’re noting our standard site plan reviews. Okay. Awesome. Uh, anyone else? Uh, commissioners, I don’t know. 00:46:38,030 Uh, just, uh, you know, my my and there’s, uh, and I think I’m leaning toward, uh, you know, your comment there feels like there’s an intent when you have a rendering of of some kind and, uh, uh, you know, if we approve a rezone as far as being asked right now, um, it allows certain things to, to take place, uh, which I think is premature right now. I just feel like that, uh, we need to ask staff to come back and, um, uh, do some additional study and, and and providing feedback. 00:47:07,470 That’s just just my opinion. Yeah. I sure, um, if I may, uh, I think that that’s precisely right. And it’s like, um, you know, without knowing where the door, you know, once you get out the door, where you, where you head, we are opening the door. Right? Basically, you know, we are just, um, the request we are constrained. 00:47:30,900 The request is just zoning. But zoning for what? And there are many options out there. There are many avenues out there without which those avenues impact the whole area. 00:47:56,030 The whole, you know, the study, the you know, what really residents mentioned, all those, uh, informations are needed that has, you know, as part of comprehensive study that has significant impact in changing the the layout, changing the flow of traffic, changing all those kind of things which we need to have those basic informations, uh, to do. So that makes it, uh, you know, for me really uncomfortable to recommend for the zoning to move forward. 00:48:17,400 So, um. So I believe the, uh, do we have to, um, state the motion based off what’s on paper here, but that we can modify it to? All right. So. Mr.. Sorry, Mr. chair, members of the Commission, you know, if the if the intent is to make a motion to to to deny, just replace, approve with, deny. 00:48:54,770 Or if. A motion is not the. Attempt to continue. Or continue to next month. Sorry I misunderstood. Yeah that’s correct. But uh, but we’ll ask the staff to, um, uh, I don’t know, do a better sales job. 00:49:17,170 Maybe it’s not that, uh, but it’s, uh, to do those things that Commissioner Waco just mentioned about, uh, uh, you know, if we approve this body approves the rezone, we’re opening up the door, which allows a lot of latitude to a developer. 00:49:44,500 And, uh, uh, in this, uh, single family resident, although, you know, it’s Tod now, um, that, uh, um, we just need to think through that. And what that impact will have on this community. So my my question is I would like to, uh, um, really not deny, but, uh, make a motion to. Continue. Continue. September meeting of the Planning Commission. That’s correct. 00:50:13,270 But with an action item for the staff to, uh, toward, uh, I think you got the gist of the dialogue here. Thank you. Chair. Uh, the motion for staff. The staff requirement. You don’t need to include in the motion. You can make a motion to table this item to the September meeting. 00:50:33,630 Or continue the item to the September meeting, and then I understand what you’re looking for, and we’ll make sure that we bring that information back. Perfect. Um. Can I. Sure. Commissioner Waco. And then, uh, um. 00:50:56,000 Just one item to wanted to add is, uh, this is, uh, as it is, uh, zoned right now is a residential property, right? So basically, it’s moving a portion of it is moving from being residential property to commercial or kind of mixed use. The what if there is any clarity? I thought, you know, in. I have to refresh myself about that. 00:51:14,700 But, you know, there is a priorities in terms of residential moving toward commercial because we need more residential. And if that you know, how that aligned with the policy of, you know, rezoning from residential to commercial or mixed use. Yeah. Mister chair. Commissioner, welcome. Members of the commission. Um, I mean, the request is rezoning the entire property, not just a portion of the property. It’s currently zoned single family. 00:51:41,900 Correct? Yeah. So it would, you know, this would convey substantial additional rights to the property. Right. There’s a there’s a substantial difference between the range of possibilities in the single family district, as there are in the in the Tod C district, which to your question, Commissioner, is, yes, a mixed use district. 00:51:57,870 It allows a range of uses. I think one of the things that we’ll put together should this motion, pass and it’s continued to the next month, is we can provide some additional information that that makes clear the range of possibilities within that ODC district that isn’t focused just on this sketch proposal. Um, yeah. Can I oh. Commissioner, did. 00:52:19,670 Chair, I, um, uh, I’m glad that that Aaron and Paul have have clarity on what they’re supposed to go back and do, but but I don’t okay. And I don’t want to send them to do busy work. Right. I, I feel like, um. 00:52:44,070 If the renderings weren’t ever submitted, which I don’t think they had to be, um, we wouldn’t be having the conversation. The conversation would strictly be on sh. Would we vote to rezone it or not? Um, and and the renderings were, were poor in terms of what we need. They left a lot towards imagination. 00:53:06,230 Um, so I’m okay with whatever we go, but I’m not clear on what we’re asking staff to do, and I don’t want them to come back in a month. And we’re still not happy. Or, um, satisfied or. Or there’s still a bunch of questions from the community. And so I’m just looking for a little bit of clarity on what we’re asking them to do. 00:53:23,800 Chair. Kevin, would you like me to take this, please? Thank you. Um, Commissioner Adams, it’s my understanding that there is clarity needed on utility availability. Um, capacity for the streets. Um, just the the full scale of zoning uses. 00:53:43,300 Um, so I plan to take this back to our city engineer and ask just for a capacity analysis for a small scale hotel and similar, uh, commercial uses of this size. Um, just to verify that the street has capacity and that there is water availability, utility availability in this area. Um, and then we’re going to work from there. 00:54:01,730 So if I find a little additional information that may not be on that list that is pertinent to this, I will make sure to bring that back to this body. Thanks for the clarity. All right. Commissioner Baugh. Knowing that the comprehensive plan allows for mixed use. 00:54:26,230 I would also like a refresher then on when we go down this road of one lot being allowed mixed use in a whole residential neighborhood, what does that what are the boundaries? If there are any, uh, what could you bring that back as well? Or, um, yeah, maybe this is a good thing because it feels like, you know, can they build a 00:54:43,830 skyscraper there, or is it just, you know, like, what are we talking about when it gets to this point of saying, okay, the code says you can change that zone. That’s a big responsibility. When we’re sitting here. But I just want to make sure I understand. 00:55:00,930 Then what does that what does that look like? Thank you Commissioner. Um, there is a section in the code that is not zoning, district dependent that does restrict the height. If the property is adjacent to a residential district or property. So because this is adjacent to a single family home, it would be restricted to four stories. Commissioner Frazier. Okay. Thank you. 00:55:30,270 Can I also get clarification on the parking requirements? Because it doesn’t seem like this can handle the, uh, the parking requirements we have. So that would be great. Thank you. Commissioner Frazier. Um, so in our transit oriented development and zoning districts, there is no explicit parking requirement. 00:55:51,730 And for developments, we require a parking study to verify that whatever the use is that’s being proposed can meet those requirements. Um, and this is due to, you know, ridership on the light rail as it’s developed also. 00:56:11,200 So there’s less need for parking for those types of uses, but also so that we’re not building too much parking lot. So when it comes to multifamily housing, there is an additional requirement that half of the parking spaces be covered so that that 12 spaces that are shown in the illustration, maybe 12 surface spots, but then it would also be a requirement that there be 12 parking spaces, either underground or covered in a different manner. 00:56:35,370 And with this, uh, here, where again, I know it’s just zoning, but in their renderings they show a restaurant. And I want to say the zoning. I think at least 5 to 1 spaces for restaurants. Right. 00:56:54,600 So the with the Tod, the, the parking standards there are not required. They would just have to do a full parking study and provide that to us with the review or the traffic study. Sorry, the traffic study to provide those numbers per day to verify that the amount of parking spaces that they have are adequate. 00:57:13,370 Um, it’s the same concept as for um, when we did the Brooke Apartments, they showed that they had adequate parking without meeting that 2.5 per unit requirement. And so they would have to provide us all of that same information, regardless of what the use is in the Tod. Uh, because it doesn’t is exempt from the parking requirements that we have in the code. 00:57:38,400 Yeah. I well, can talk about that later, but I didn’t think that applied for restaurants. So but we can, uh, you know, we can, uh, check that. But all right. Mr. Commissioner, I just got one question of clarification. 00:58:03,030 So again, in the Tod, everything that’s here in pink, if this is approved, then this zoning is applicable to all those areas or just this specific development. Thank you Commissioner. So the the box highlighted in red is the subject property. It is not all of the properties that are highlighted within the circle. 00:58:25,430 Those are all of the properties that the comprehensive plan would deem appropriate for the zoning. Um, so as you can see, the properties to the south are already zoned with this same zoning, and then all of the other yellow single family home properties are their zone single family homes. And this action action on this single property would not impact the zoning of those other properties. 00:58:47,270 But more than likely, once the can of worms open in this one area, with them being so close, it’s pretty much going to be the same. And I’m just visualizing Hiawatha Avenue and things of that nature just became a complete development. 00:59:05,100 So I mean, once this can of worms opened and more than likely the zoning will be easier approved once one is done. Is that. Thank you. Mister History. I don’t. Know, I, I would imagine that, yes, this 1st May be the first, but it will not be the first request. 00:59:23,300 So even if this is denied due to the proximity to the 63rd Avenue station, there will be many requests like this. And given the council goals of achieving a higher tax base to reduce the tax burden on single family home owners, I think that it would help them achieve those goals. Um, to allow for that infill development. Got it. All right. Thank you. 00:59:50,830 So, um, I would like to make a motion that we continue the, uh, this item to, uh, to the next public hearing. Uh, and, and for staff to, well, uh, to the September, uh, meeting. So. Second. All right. Um, let’s, uh, let’s vote on the motion to continue this to the next meeting. Uh, all in favor, say aye. Hi. Any opposed? Nay. 01:00:22,870 All right. Uh, we have, uh, uh, six yeas and, uh, our eyes and, uh, one nay. So, uh, motion carries and I just want to say to the, to the residents, thanks for coming out and speaking up. 01:00:51,700 And just keep in mind that, uh, that, uh, the planning commission, you know, our, uh, whatever direction we go in is just a recommendation to the city council. You will have another opportunity to voice your opinion at the actual city council meeting, where the decisions are made. So, um, so I just wanted to share that. All right, uh, let’s move on to the next agenda item. Um, is that three point? Good evening. Good evening. 01:01:24,830 Members of the Planning Commission again, for the record. Senior Planner Erin McDermott. Uh, now presenting for development case 26-116 for the rezoning of properties 7008 and 7016 Dutton Avenue. Um, this is in the same neighborhood that is adjacent to Bottineau Boulevard in the southern portion of the city. 01:01:52,570 Um, here you can see an aerial view. Um, some of you on the Planning Commission may be familiar with this site. It was subdivided in 2023, uh, under the Transamerica Estates um sub subdivision. Um, it is bordered on the north by dirt road, um, to the northeast is a city park. 01:02:16,570 And then to the south and east are single family homes. To the west is Bottineau Boulevard and Lakeland Avenue. Zoning. Again, we have the LRT overlay showing that this is within, uh, that comprehensive plan designation, um, targeting the minimum density of residential units for new development lending policy, credence to a zoning change that to increase the 01:02:44,500 density. Um, again, a map of the overlay of where the LRT will be placed just on the other side of the sound barrier. Um, I have. Presented here the applicant’s concept of development for the 12 plex townhome building. At this point, it is just conceptual. 01:03:09,970 However, they have built similar, um, townhomes in other areas. This is a rendering of what the townhomes may look like. Um, again, the city does not have an open application for development at this time. Um, and then the review criteria highlighting the implementation of the comprehensive plan for the LRT overlay. Thank you. Thank you. 01:03:35,030 All right. We will open this up to the public for any comments. Anybody want to speak to this item? Please state your name and Doug. And if we get, uh, looks like a fuel, we’re going to limit this to, uh, two minutes for. My name is Bev Le Gursky. I live at 6700 Dutton. 01:04:01,400 I’ve lived there for 52 years. I’ve seen traffic come. I’ve seen traffic go. But they have a 12 unit building or, uh, townhomes or whatever you want to call them. Uh, put in as rental property is not something I want on my street. It’s a residential neighborhood. It’s there’s apartment buildings all around us. 01:04:38,070 If they want multi-family housing. But these are residential lots. The neighborhood is all residential. And I do not want the traffic up and down my street. I live on the corner of Hampshire and Dutton and all of the traffic from these townhomes and the multi, I believe it was three bedroom units, pretty large families would be renting there. 01:05:10,100 That’s traffic that will go right in front of my house. And it’s something I don’t want in my neighborhood. And if I just might say something about this other proposal for rezoning, I think you guys all need to drive by that lot and then make your decisions. Thank you. 01:05:35,670 Hi, I’m Stacy Smith. I live at 6000 641 Kentucky Avenue North, and this property at 7016 Dutton was already approved for a single family lot to single family lots. And the applicant is now asking the city to change that land use framework to permit substantially denser development. 01:05:56,030 What has changed? How has the city determined that the purpose, density, traffic, parking, access, stormwater and building scale are compatible with the established neighborhood? When they were doing that study in 2023, uh Dutton Avenue residents specifically raised concerns about existing parking problems in the neighborhood. That was for two single family dwellings. Now they’re proposing 12 dwelling units. 01:06:20,570 This potentially significant change in vehicles, visitors deliveries, garbage trucks, emergency vehicles, people coming and going and curbside parking. 01:06:41,300 And if you look on the schematic again, where it shows the different, um, uh, the different roads around it, it’s Kentucky is almost a one lane, uh, dirt road. And it’s a, um, and dead end and it’s a cul de sac. So that is almost you can almost get out from that way if coming out from there, from the the proposed townhouses, then Dutton has already been said that they have problems with the parking there and then. So that leaves Lakeland. 01:07:02,770 So there really isn’t a good way to even get in and out of the area. And so I propose that you reconsider and do not change the zoning. Thank you. Hello, my name is Jason Snyder. This is my wife, Lorinda Snyder. We live at 6901 Dutton Avenue. Um, I’m gonna make this quick. 01:07:32,870 I have three points I’d like to make. Um, number one, I think it’s a violation of the city’s own land use standards. I know that we’ve talked about mixed use, but section, uh, 152.002 of the Brooklyn Park City Code mandates that zoning must prevent overcrowding and protect existing housing stock. 01:07:56,970 Number two, um, under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, this plan is to have multi-unit property, lacks the proper buffering required to protect our privacy and property values. I know you’ve talked about, um, I mean, 12 unit property is going to be at least maybe three stories. And although it may fall within the guidelines of privacy, I mean, people are that’s not going to people. 01:08:16,430 It’s people are still going to be looked at from three stories. Um, and then again, it will have an impact on our, our property values. Number three, our street cannot handle the congestion of a 12 unit property, as everybody has already expressed. 01:08:34,570 Um, but I think there’s also a safety factor here. We have a lot of kids on our block, um, a lot more traffic is going to lead to accidents. I mean, right now there’s already been a couple of times people that zoom up and down on our property or on our street. Pardon me. 01:08:48,970 Um, and then also it’s going to have a strain on our utilities. I mean, we done a study on the, um, the sewer, the water pressure. I mean, the 12 unit is going to have an impact on that as well as electricity. 01:09:06,670 Um, so I recommend, um, or I request that more studies be done on this and table it as well. Thank you. Thanks. I’m Cheryl Russell and I live at 6653 Kentucky Avenue North. And I’ve been there for 39 years. 01:09:38,630 And there’s already enough traffic that comes down and whips around the dirt circle to get back out because they think they can drive right through to get on to 94. And wherever, or they’ll just take the walking trail and cut across the Lakeland. So we already have enough problems that we don’t need a 12 story or 12 whatever complex put in there. And it was already rezone our stayed the zone in 2023. 01:10:08,370 It’s only three years later. It’s like nothing really has changed to be able to go commercial. And if everybody else is going to go commercial, that means I could build a hotel on my lot because I have as much room as this person does. So thank you. I just think it needs to stay family. 01:11:38,200 Rainwater goes down in the sewer, that type of thing. It’s not there. So you’re going to have to put a lot more money to improve that road. And get all the residents to agree to put, I would assume, to make that a tar road, curb and gutter. 01:11:59,070 You’re talking. You’re going to have a fight for me. Is that clear? Crystal. Thank you. My name is Johnny Castro, live of 6625 Kentucky Avenue. I don’t think rezoning will solve anything. I think it should be assessed as a single family. 01:12:26,770 As we have heard and seen during the two rezoning from the two areas, it’s not going to solve anything. It’s going to cost more, cars, more traffic, more, I think issues for everybody who lives over there in that area, just alone. And if you notice back in the map, um, single family homes are being pushed away. 01:12:43,900 I like to sit over here and mention if we open that can of worms, it’s just going to spread everywhere. If we approve the first area of rezoning, then this one is going to get pushed to to get approved. 01:13:01,500 Who’s going to be next? Which family over here is going to be pushed next? So yeah, I don’t think I think the rezoning should not pass. It should be cancelled. Thank you. Um, Carl, 69 and 17 Avenue. Um, I like many of my neighbor here, have been at this resident for decades. I’ve been over 20 years. 01:13:27,100 You know, we’ve talked to people here that have been here for 50, uh, our neighbors, they bought their house. Um, they’re directly, um, they’re elderly. Um, they’re not very mobile anymore. Uh, this is going to look right down on their house. It’s going to look right down on our house. I feel for the neighbors. I know they’re it’s a rental property. I believe that’s right next door to it. 01:13:41,330 And another house that burnt down and was rebuilt. Um, that, uh, they’re literally going to be right on top of them. And they have two young gals as kids. So, um, but one of the things that I’ve really had an issue with this whole thing is lack of information and transparency. 01:13:58,670 Um, when this notice came on, I went to the website, went to Brooklyn Park website, looked at it, the information that was available was abysmal at best. Um, a bad description, not only for this one, but the previous item as well. Lots of words. No concept of what actually was happening. 01:14:16,770 Um, and I think that relies a lot on Brooklyn Park side about the person who put this information together and didn’t put the story up there. We should be able to very easily to be able to look at what’s being proposed and understand it without having to come to a meeting. 01:14:34,300 It should be very transparent that transparency is not there currently. Um, our area’s previous was redeveloped, but I don’t remember exactly how long ago, 15, 18 years ago, they cut off access from, uh, I think it was on either on Dutton or on 64th. There was an access to 81. They put up the sound barrier. 01:14:55,370 All well and good, but they really isolated our area. There is. Hampshire is one of the few ways to get in. You know, there’s no access. Um, in either to get into or out of the west side. 01:15:08,730 The north side, you can only go east and you can only go south out of our area to get. Oops. No, I did that right. Um, so, uh, all the traffic runs along 64th. Um, especially the people that are running for that transmission business. See, people flying through that stop sign all the time. They don’t even bother to stop. 01:15:27,700 They just take that turn right around the corner and heading out. Um, there’s a lot of traffic along Hampshire. Okay, Hampton. Damn it. Whatever it is, there’s a lot of traffic right there. Um, and there’s a lot of issues with that traffic. There’s a lot of issues of stopping. 01:15:47,500 A lot of those issues come with, uh, from the residents that I believe, anyway, that are in the other, um, apartment complex. Uh, we have three massive apartment complexes right around here. We don’t need another one. I don’t care if it’s, you know, multi-family home, whatever they have going on this information or this. 01:16:06,400 This is not something anybody wants in their front step. Uh, to ask yourself, you know, when you go home tonight and you look across the street, do you want a three four story building staring down, looking through your windows? You can no longer enjoy your backyard. You have no longer have any privacy. 01:16:22,400 Um, you know, it’s fine when you have it, when you when you’re zoning area to have these buildings and whatever else. But when you try to drop it into the middle of a residential community, that doesn’t work. Nobody. And the interests of time here appreciate the comments, though. Thank you. Good evening again. Brad Odegaard 67161. 01:16:51,730 Uh, I will attempt to not repeat myself from the prior comments. Uh, looking at this, this is at the at the other end of the street that I live on. 01:17:10,830 Um, just during a quick review of the application packet, uh, proposal, um, appears based on the building footprint in the exhibit to exceed the maximum building footprint for, uh, zoning R1 through R4 of 40% under 152506 um, based on reviewing the site, um, it appears that in order to construct this, at least 25 mature trees would have to be removed at a minimum. 01:17:31,100 More than likely, the entire site would have to be completely scrapped in order to accomplish the type of construction that we’re talking about here. Um, while the application states that the new development will, quote, integrate seamlessly into the surrounding neighborhood, unquote, it’s really hard to see how a 200 foot long building is integrating and consistent with the homes that are surrounding the site. 01:17:55,700 So I really question how that’s seamlessly integrating into the neighborhood, given its its size and scale. Um. It appears that the requested hours are for zoning, requires the underlying site to be within an area designated as medium or medium high density residential. 01:18:20,230 In the comprehensive plan, that’s 152504 the current site has a low density designation beneath the LRT overlay within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which is shown on the map in page 314. In the 2040 comp plan, um, and then I hear a lot of discussion about, uh, why why this maybe is appropriate based on the Blue Line extension, LRT. 01:18:41,670 And I would caution folks that construction of Blue Line Extension LRT remains a really open question. There is no guarantee that it will be built anytime in the near future. And making neighborhood decisions. 01:18:59,830 Um, I don’t think we should be making those with the assumption of what’s going to happen related to Blue Line LRT because, uh, those what happens to Blue Line LRT has a lot to do. Not with what the City of Brooklyn Park does or wants, but a lot of outside influence. Uh, national, state, local, you name it. Um, the proposed development represents essentially a 6 or 7 x density increase compared to the surrounding properties. 01:19:25,370 So while increased density will be required in Brooklyn Park as we reach the end of the open developable land that we have in the city. Um, density really should increase in an incremental fashion so that the neighborhood can gain acceptance. And you have a gradual transition to that higher density over time. 01:19:47,800 Uh, the proposed development really represents a giant leap within the Lakeland Park neighborhood compared to what’s there now, and has the potential to create a significant impact for both residents and city services. Okay. So thank you. Thank you very. Much. Pam Olson I live at 6801 Dutton Avenue. 01:20:15,030 I’ve never done this before, so bear with me. I have done Toastmasters, but I ain’t gonna help today. Um, I have lived in the neighborhood for over 58 years. I grew up in the neighborhood on Hampshire Avenue, on a corner house, and now live on Dutton Avenue. Um, and the traffic there right now is already busy. 01:20:36,370 Um, there’s only one way in and out, like everybody says. I’m going to repeat everything what people say. But one thing I do want to express is the safety of the children in that neighborhood. 01:20:53,430 Um, I myself walk my dog a lot in that neighborhood, and these roads are not big enough for extra cars to be on those streets. And the concern of emergency vehicles, your fire trucks, your police cars, which we don’t see enough of in our neighborhood. Um, I hear this from a lot of my friends that live in the neighborhood that we don’t see a lot of, um, police presence around there. 01:21:18,230 And, um, that’s concerning too, especially with the 12 unit apartment or townhouse going in. Um, I’m just very concerned about the traffic around there, but I just wanted to put my word in. So thank you. Thank you. All right. Uh, not send anyone else. So we’ll close the public, um, portion of the hearing and bring it back up to the commissioners. Uh, commissioners. 01:21:50,570 Um, any comments or questions? And as the applicant here, uh, do you. Good evening, everybody. Uh, Seth Norling here with Northbrook Construction, uh, speaking on behalf of the applicant, Northbrook construction. Okay. Happy to answer any questions you have. 01:22:18,300 Um, I just want to share, uh, the goal here was just to add some more housing for the community. Uh, it’s hard to find places to live in such close, in such close proximity. Uh. We’re not going to do that. So in such close proximity to the city, um, we think it’s a beautiful, beautiful lot with beautiful park adjacent to it. 01:22:35,970 Um, so there’s a lot of value there, but I’m also happy to answer any questions that the commission may have. Sounds great. Awesome. Any commissioners? Any any questions? Uh. Commissioner Bauer. My understanding is it went from, uh, 2 to 12. Is that how the change from the previous zoning request was? Thank you. Chair Caven. Commissioner Bauer. 01:23:05,830 Um, if the zoning is changed here, yes, there would be, uh, there’s proposal for potentially putting 12 units. Um, but as with the last application, this would open up the zoning to any of the permitted uses within the zoning district that is being proposed, which is in a residential zoning district. So. And the vision for this one is a single family. 01:23:28,770 I mean, single storey townhomes. There are two story townhomes with two car garages on each unit and then a driveway to housing their two cars. So just point of clarification. So if there is, uh, two car garage and a driveway. 01:23:58,100 So it sounds like the parking isn’t as big of a of a issue that someone has multiple multiple people living in the home. But is there? It just sounds like the road now. It’ll be something. I’ll drive by a pass. I don’t live too far from there, but what about the road? Is that a city thing or is that a developer to. 01:24:14,770 I mean, I know they’re not going to develop the whole street, but is the city okay with a single lane road? Um, I mean, again, we’re I know there’s, there’s, there’s, there’s plans that we need more housing. So, you know, sometimes we got to bite the bullet. 01:24:35,100 Um, but at the same time, um, is the city willing to invest in upgrading the road? That is wide enough? Because, again, emergency vehicles, so on and so forth. How does that lay layer in? I’m just curious. Thank you, chair Kevin. 01:24:54,770 Commissioner Anderson, um, with development projects, it is a bit different because the city can request developers put in a road or assist the city with the cost of the road, um, through assessments and stuff like that. 01:25:10,770 I do also want to note that as Kentucky is the only dirt road left in the city that is a public road, um, it has been an internal conversation that that is, it is a a when not an if that the city will be needing to improve that street. Commissioner Adams song maybe Commissioner vehicle. Yeah. Could. Thank you. Chair could you address about, uh, there is a, you.. No. Resident mentioned about uh, lack of information for transparency. 01:25:54,070 Is there any, uh, effort made to engage residents, uh, before this, or is there any inputs or, uh, kind of, you know, registering or information that’s passed? Thank you. Chair. Kevin. Commissioner Waco, the applicant has met all of the code requirements for rezoning. There is no additional requirement. Passed the public hearing notice that is statutorily required to be sent out 500ft from the subject property. 01:26:19,070 Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh, if there are no more questions, then, uh, we’ll have to, uh, can I get a motion? Oh, okay. Sorry. One more question. Um, is 12 units your only option as a good neighbor? Uh, no, 12 units is not our only option. 01:26:52,700 I will say, uh, there becomes a point where only a couple of units is not worth the investment. From a developer’s perspective, and trying to share the cost of land between units. Um, but there’s a possibility of reduction in units and still making it feasible. 01:27:10,030 It won’t ever be, uh, a four unit rental probably isn’t worthwhile. But, you know, if we want to have conversation with something between that, there’s possibility. And is it for sure a rental, or are these actually going to be owned neighbors? These would be rental units. Okay. All right. Any further questions from the. All right. 01:27:38,070 Shall we go go motion. I could make the motion. So, uh, you know, I’ll make a motion to recommend approval of an ordinance amending the chapter. 152 rezoning. Uh, 0.76 acres from R-1 detached single family estate, uh district to R-4 multifamily residential district at 708 and 716 Dutton Avenue, North. 01:28:16,800 Can I get a second? Second? All right. A motion has been made. The. Uh. It has been second. Um, and I just want to, uh, again, remind everyone that, uh, this is a, uh, recommendation from the Planning Commission. You still have an opportunity to, uh, uh, uh, voice your opinion with City council. 01:28:40,330 So, uh, with that, uh, um, you know, uh. you know, there are just codes that we have to follow. And, um, uh, if, uh, you know, the developer and whomever else meet those codes, uh, you know, we have to, you know, make, uh, or follow suit. 01:28:59,200 So I think staff have done their jobs. Um, you know, we have to do our job. So with that said, um, uh, let’s vote. All in favor, say aye. I I. Any opposed? Yeah. Opposed. Opposed. So, uh, let’s see here there are, uh, three. Yeas and three no’s. Second. Mr. Chair, I would suggest. A roll call. 01:29:31,530 All right, let’s do a roll call. Okay, chair. Kevin. I. Commissioner Waco. No. Commissioner Barr. No. Commissioner Caruso. Absent. Commissioner Adams. I. Commissioner. Um. Commissioner. Anderson. No. Commissioner. Frazier. Commissioner. I. Uh, chair. In this vote, uh, the year is for the nay is three, and the motion carries. 01:30:46,270 All right. Uh, and this will be going to, uh, City council when. Uh, Mister chair, August 27th. August 27th. So, uh. I apologize. August 24th. August 24th. Yeah. So, uh. Yeah. Uh, you have another opportunity to, uh, to, uh, state your. Opinion. Uh, thanks. Thanks for thanks for joining us. I appreciate you guys. 01:31:17,330 Thank. All right. Listen to the residents and not the developers. The government. Come on. Five people might just run and. All right. Ready to move to. The. Meeting. Moving to the next agenda item 3.3. Uh, good evening. Good evening, Chair Caven. Uh, members of the Planning Commission. 01:31:46,630 Uh, for the record, Matt Hayes, Regan, associate planner, uh, presenting to you tonight. Um, what was continued? Um, from last month’s meeting. Just an update on our financial surety text amendments that staff has been working on for the last year and a half. I’ll briefly recap the purpose of the update. Highlight the work completed since our last discussion. 01:32:10,570 Summarize the proposed changes, and then request that the Commission open the public hearing. This project is a result of the comprehensive review directed by you, the Planning Commission, to evaluate whether the city’s current bonding and escrow requirements for the most effective and equitable way to ensure completion of required on site improvements under the current process, applicants are required to 01:32:35,830 provide financial guarantees for private on site improvements. As you’ll recall. This includes cash, escrow and letters of credit or performance bonds. While those requirements provide the city with financial security, they also create significant upfront costs for applicants and require ongoing administrative oversight by staff. 01:33:02,430 The proposed amendments are intended to maintain the city’s ability to ensure that required improvements are completed, while replacing upfront financial guarantees with alternative compliance and enforcement mechanisms. The proposed amendments make five primary changes to the city’s current process. First, applicants would no longer be required to provide cash, escrow or financial guarantees for private on site improvements associated with development projects. 01:33:34,970 These will be replaced instead with developer default and special assessment provisions. Uh, if projects are not completed according to site approvals. Second, the existing body and escrow requirements for public offsite improvements are preserved. Third, the city standard development contract will be updated to reflect the developer default and special assessment provisions. The city may use. 01:33:59,700 If the developer defaults forth, the city’s fee resolution will be updated to replace the current project specific escrow approach with revised application fees intended to recover the city’s typical review costs in a more predictable manner, and then finally, there are several administrative and technical amendments that will be made throughout the Land Use Code. So just some background. 01:34:25,170 As you’re all aware, this project originated from your direction. Uh, to us, uh, looking to city staff just to look it into our current financial guarantee requirements, uh, you had tasked staff to evaluate whether the existing bonding and escrow requirements continue to serve their intended purpose. At the same time, uh, planning staff had first hand experience with the administration. 01:34:48,230 Uh, administrative burden associated with the current process, managing escrow and financial guarantees requires ongoing coordination and administration throughout the life of a project. From there, staff developed a work plan focused on maintaining accountability. Uh, for project completion while looking at opportunities to reduce unnecessary costs and administrative barriers. 01:35:11,770 So just an overview of our current process, which I know you’re all well aware of. Currently, projects do require, uh, private onsite improvements, uh, to provide, um, escrow those, um, that are paid upfront to the city. The city then would reimburse, um, any remaining escrow at the completion of the project. 01:35:37,230 Applicants also provide financial guarantees to ensure completion of required improvements. Uh, those guarantees also remain in place until improvement. Uh, our improvements are completed, and then they also require city council approval before release. This results in a process that involves significant upfront financial guarantees for applicants and ongoing administrative work for the city. 01:36:01,000 Also, historically, just important to note that these financial guarantees have not been used. So just an overview for you for the stakeholder engagement we had, uh, with this update, uh, it was a significant part of this project, just because we wanted to make sure that the proposed changes were workable beyond, um, the planning division, we 01:36:19,430 work closely with engineering and public works to make sure that the proposed changes to on site requirements, but not inadvertently, inadvertently, affect their existing requirements for off site improvements. Engineering also reviewed the draft language, uh, to confirm that those requirements remain unchanged. 01:36:44,200 We engaged our Building and environmental health colleagues to understand existing enforcement and property assessment procedures. Uh, it was that engagement that ultimately turned into what’s in our, um, process now for property assessments. Uh, and then finance was involved, uh, to understand current administration, escrow accounts, potential budget impacts, and then the transition to the updated fee structure. 01:37:08,030 We also worked with our city attorney throughout the process on the legal framework ordinance language and updates to the city’s standard development contract. And then, of course, we’ve engaged with the Planning Commission, uh, City Council and click, specifically Planning Commission chair. Uh, Kevin, uh, we had engaged you early in this project, um, to get the perspective of a private developer. 01:37:33,130 Uh, that engagement helped us for staff to understand the process, how that process impacts developers. We did research, uh, staff’s research had two primary components. We reviewed pier cities and our, uh, we reviewed pier cities. Um, and then, uh, we did a fiscal impact summary. So for the Pier City Review, we looked at Bloomington, Coon Rapids, Duluth, and Rochester. 01:37:58,270 Uh, we review their codes and procedures, and we also spoke and engaged with staff to understand their processes, how their processes work in practice. 01:38:13,900 Um, and we really found that there isn’t a consistent model, but we also did find that what we are proposing works and that it is in effect in other cities, um, and that there are opportunities to make it so that we do not need to put a burden on our applicants who are wanting to develop in the city, uh, by needing to provide these financial guarantees up front that instead, there are other ways to protect the 01:38:32,500 city’s interests. And then we did the fiscal impact study, which was attached to this agenda. So we looked at 52 historical, uh, planning applications where financial guarantees were collected. 01:38:55,900 Um, the summary looked at the guarantees collected and utilized, staff time and administrative escrow activity, project characteristics, and the administrative resources required to manage the current system. The big finding there is that there really wasn’t a meaningful relationship between project size or scope in the amount of financial guaranty used, um, suggesting that project size alone isn’t necessarily an indicator, uh, for the city’s financial risk. 01:39:17,230 Um, this was presented to you at the work session, but here is just a summary overview of the proposed changes that would be in the code that would go into effect. Uh, the amendments affect both the subdivision code and the zoning code. Uh, and then there’s corresponding updates to the city’s fee resolution. 01:39:36,970 Uh, the primary changes are in section 152, 310 of the zoning code, where the city’s development contract and financial guarantee procedures are updated to reflect the proposed approach to onsite improvements, while preserving the city’s requirement for offsite improvements. The remaining changes are largely intended to remove obsolete escrow. References and then just some cleanup. 01:40:01,570 Um, the draft ordinance that was presented in the agenda is mostly untouched from what you had looked at at your last work session, there were some minor suggestions from the city attorney that were incorporated in that. Uh, and with that, um staff is recommending, um, adoption of an ordinance amending portions of chapters 151 and 152. 01:40:23,970 Um, and I’m happy to answer any questions. I also do have the word copy of the text amendments available, if you’d like to look at that, as well as a copy of that fee schedule. Um, that was attached. Sounds great. Thank you. All right. We’ll open this portion up to the public. 01:40:44,930 Anyone from the public would like to speak to this. That’s in any hearing. Anyone? Um, if, uh, we’ll close the public portion of it and, uh, open it up to the commissioners for any comments or questions. 01:41:19,970 I have one I thought I read somewhere in here that, um, that, um, uh, we were not going to go with, um, with, um, a certificate of occupancy as, uh, one of the means. What are we what are we placing that with? Uh, chair Caven, thank you for that question. Members of the Planning Commission. Um, so we did engage our building official as well as our city attorney. 01:41:39,770 Um, just sharing out that that is a practice that we had seen in our peer cities. Also sharing out that that is something that we had in our discussion with you, Chair Caven. 01:41:55,770 Um, and it was advisement from our city attorney to not go that direction and to then replace it with just the strengthening of the special assessment language. So, um, the suggestion was you don’t need to tools for this level of enforcement. That’s a special assessment. If it’s strong enough, which we believe it is, um, is enforceable enough. 01:42:20,300 So, um, just due to the comfort with our building official and then also our direction from our city attorney recommending that we not go that way, we ultimately didn’t. And that special assessment is assessed at the time of application. It is not it would be assessed at the time that, um, the, um, improvement was not performed and that the city needed to step in and make that improvement. Got it. Yeah. Okay. Perfect. 01:42:43,730 All right. Any other questions from the, um, commissioners? All right. Can I get a motion? I have a I have a couple. Oh, sorry. I have a couple of questions. And, you know, you may correct me if I said I had this right. 01:43:06,370 Um, there is a, you know, on site improvement and off site improvement. Uh, did you say that there will be still a kind of a scroll for off site improvement that should be done by a developer? Um, sure. Haven members of the Planning Commission. That is correct. This update does not touch off site improvements. 01:43:28,100 Um, just due to our engagement in our stakeholder engagement with engineering, our colleagues in engineering and public works. Um, they’re not there’s not a comfort level with changing those procedures, as is now. And since they primarily administer those, um, you know, we went with, um, what their recommendation is at this point. 01:43:49,070 So the recommendation tonight is only for, uh, changing body and escrow for on private on site improvements. Yeah. Um. So, uh, from our work session discussions and, and numerous times I heard about this is to reduce kind of escrow burden and liquidity availability of it for the development projects. 01:44:16,800 And, uh, when I see on the schedule, uh, at the end, I think on the third page of the packets, it says, for example, some of the changes, finance changes and says, um, current budget, for example, for uh, rezoning and land permits, 10,000 changes, 12,000 to 22,000. 01:44:44,630 How this, um, how this works, how how this, uh, reducing that, um, you know, burden of attracting developers to the city when we are, I guess, moving from one side to the other and then loading up front on the fee. Could you, could you talk about that? What’s the number? So Chair Caven, um, uh, Commissioner Waco, um, members of the Planning Commission. 01:45:07,430 So what you did see there was, um, uh, information that was provided by the city’s finance department, that information that you referenced is specific to a budget amendment. Um, that’s where they have pulled that at the. So, um, before we had posted the staff report for this agenda item, it was anticipated that we would need a budget amendment because this was coming mid fiscal year. 01:45:29,300 Okay. So that’s what you see in front of you. And um, because of that, our per the recommendation of our finance team, they had suggested that we would need to ultimately create an account that these new fees would be going into with the understanding that we also would not be having 01:45:50,600 additional bonding and escrow fees held in another account. Um, so all that to say, I’m going to step back. Um, we put a pin in that, um, because we’re ultimately not going forward with a budget amendment. 01:46:07,800 Um, after further discussion with our finance team, um, what staff decided, um, is that we would like this effect, this update to take effect January 1st of 2027. To begin with, the new fiscal year. Um, so what you saw there, um, ultimately is referring to what would be those internal accounts for budgeting. 01:46:25,770 Um, but it’s obsolete at this point because we’re not going to do a budget amendment. So I should have clarified that, that that is different information that you have in front of you that we have since received. Okay. Well. Um, I. Think, you know, maybe this is, uh, what’s presented here is the budgetary impact for current fiscal year. 01:46:48,030 But if we look into if we take that impact for this year out of, you know, this and here is what it is currently for the permits for any other charges or escrow. You know, once these changes get adopted, here is what the new charges would be. And that’s where I’m interested to know. 01:47:11,300 So that we are in line with what the intent of, um, reviewing all this document would be in order to see how much how much it is elevating the burden of on developers. You know, either from guarantee, you know, deposits from escrow. 01:47:36,530 And the other thing I would like to maybe you can touch on is, uh, staffing cost and is a staffing cost driven by frequency of supervision, frequency of travel to the, to the, to the place to see project development, project compliance. 01:47:58,270 Or, you know, if so, what percentage of staffing, let’s say hypothetically, that it will require for one particular project for staff, you know, cost to be, you know, or let’s say a project from A to Z, from starting to completion. Yeah. Did you want to say something. Or. What would be the staffing cost? I just want to have something in my mind. Yeah. So what wasn’t. Included to other budgets? Categories. So I’m coming with this budgetary. Yeah. Serving on the budget in our advisory commission. So. 01:48:20,130 Um. if you. Crystallize that to me and, you know, ideally what I would like to see is that here is clearly the burden right now, what we see a problem here is a change. Here is a new one. Yeah. Something like that. Um, Chair Cave and members of the Planning Commission, thank you for pointing that out. 01:48:40,670 That, that, um, I recognize now that the fee resolution wasn’t most likely provided in your packet. That was per the advice of counsel, because they had said that wasn’t the proper route. This text amendment wasn’t the proper route for, um, uh, having that implemented. That’s ultimately something that our finance team takes the lead on doing. 01:49:03,570 So we’re actually internally Working on that now. Um, I don’t have a chart to share, and I apologize about that. But if you do recall, in our work sessions, we had a chart that had, um, a flat $500 fee and then a review escrow and then a sum of money that was due what we our application escrow, our 01:49:24,370 review escrow. Um, and and then you also had that other spreadsheet that determined what on site improvement figures would be, that the applicant would also provide. Um, what we have done is we have removed the escrow portion of that fee. 01:49:46,700 Um, and staff has using, um, the review from our peer cities, we have projected out fees. Um, for our next fiscal year that we believe are reasonable based on, um, our review of time spent. So if we go back to that fiscal impact summary. 01:50:08,570 Um, and we’ve, we’ve tried to capture that the fiscal impact summary, you don’t see the time entries, but what’s hitting there is time entries and administrative functions against that escrow. So that’s the information that we took. We compared it with comparable our peer cities. And then we had to come up with a figure. 01:50:26,230 Um, and I would imagine at the end of next year, which we’re going to this update will trigger, um, processes to do an annual review of those figures, which is run. Ultimately, our finance team is going to come knocking at us next year being like, what are your projections? That’s when you know, we’ll be able to look at what our time has been spent, 01:50:44,870 because we’re still keeping all of our current processes for billing time on projects, even though they’re not hitting an escrow. And we’ll be able to take that and see how do they line up with where we’re at, with what will be flat fees. 01:51:00,000 Um, so as you do recall, those fees will be a little bit higher, um, than what they currently are. Um, but at the same time, the developer will not be providing upfront at the time of application, those financial guarantees. Um, does that help? Does that answer? Oh. Thank you. 01:51:20,830 So just for clarification, did you not include the fee in this? Now, now that that was said out loud, I don’t think I did. Um, ultimately, because it doesn’t require your recommendation that will go in front of city council directly through the city’s finance team. My apologies for that, because I know that’s something you’ve had your eyes on. All right. That’s great. Yeah. 01:51:41,400 With that said, can we make a motion? All right. Motion to recommend adoption of an audience. Portions of chapter 151 and 152 of the Brooklyn Park Code pertaining to deposit financial guarantees and escrow. All right. Can I get a second? Second? All right. Motion has been made. It has been seconded. 01:52:10,230 Any further discussion? Not seeing any. Um. Let’s vote. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All right. Any opposed? All right. Uh. Motion carries, including, uh, Paul’s vote. That’s a first. I appreciate that. Thank you. All right. Uh, move on to agenda item four. Other business. Anything on discuss. All right. Uh, moving on. 5.1 discussion items. 01:52:58,430 Any further discussion items? All right, moving on to, uh. 6.8. Any old business? Uh. All right. Um, Council member McGarvey isn’t here, so I don’t know if we have, uh, the Aids on the comments. Or do. 01:53:28,170 You? Um, Mister chair, members of the commission, I can, uh, provide the report that that council member McGarvey would have, um, just following up on the items that the Planning Commission forwarded to the City council last month. Um, both were approved on consent. Um, at city council on the 27th of July. 01:53:50,530 Those items were the interim use permit request for the Twin Cities Harvest Festival, as well as the conditional use permit application for auto repair services at 8200 Lakeland Avenue North. Both were approved. Oh, and, uh, while you haven’t gotten me yet, I’ll wait till you get to me. Yeah. All right. Any, uh, planning? Uh, next item, uh, planning Commissioner. Uh, comments. 01:54:13,570 Is it okay if I make a comment about, um, the earlier discussions that we had? Um, somewhat related to this stuff. Um, okay. So, um, I’d like to mention that we have to understand the context of the extension to support this crucial, um, to support and welcome this crucial piece of infrastructure and ensure the light rail and the city thrives 01:54:33,230 with it in the near and and near and far future. And my personal opinion, um, to support this, um, change that’s coming to the city and like probably 2030s, we should be more open and welcome to investments even, um, investments in diverse housing options and changes that will 01:54:51,170 come with it or more people will walk, bike, roll and or take transit with the light rail. While I do feel and share some concerns with those early, those residents who spoke to us earlier. 01:55:11,000 We do have a national housing crisis, a global economic global climate crisis, growing tax base, issues that will burden um, existing homeowners, and related problems that city plans and related initiatives are attempting to solve. So yeah, thank you. There is no way that, uh, your ah young, uh, I mean, you’re so wise and thoughtful and, uh, my goodness. Wow. Uh, what a breath of fresh air. The future is bright. 01:55:41,300 Uh, knowing that you are out there and doing what you’re doing. So I appreciate your comments. Spot on. Thank you. All right. Any, uh, how was the, uh, um, the. And I apologize for missing the joint. Uh. Uh, council planning commission. Um, are you looking at me? Sure. Uh, Mister chair, members of the commission. 01:56:07,330 Unfortunately, I missed it, too. I have my own family emergency. Everything’s fine now, but I wasn’t able to attend. But all the reviews are very positive. 01:56:24,870 Um, we had, uh, actually lots of requests to to hear the presentation again in different forums from our friends at urban three, the consulting firm that that did the presentation on, on value per acre and the, you know, the tax base benefits of of denser, more compact development. So it was very well received. Very good presentation. We’re working to get the slides posted to the website. 01:56:39,730 There’s also going to be an interactive story map that will be posted soon. So anybody can look through all the same content in an interactive, um, interactive form. And that really this, this is really that was kind of the kickoff to our 2050 comprehensive plan process that is going to be taking place over the next couple of years. 01:56:57,970 So you’ll be seeing that content, um, again in the future as we get that process rolling. Mostly next year is when that’s going to happen. Sounds great. Awesome. All right. Go ahead. Something good. Yeah. Just just wanted to make a comment about. Getting to the mic. Just development overall. 01:57:24,070 So at our I think it was the last planning Commission meeting where what’s the what’s the event that takes place on 116 is. The. Yeah, the corn maze. And they move. They’re moving closer to me over there by 93rd. And it got me thinking about, you know, the importance of having a space for people to have these types of things. Right. 01:57:48,370 And as we talk about development, we need to make sure that we’re we’re preserving some of that history that we have in Brooklyn Park. And we allow in that space for people to gather. Um, and we’re not just building every single piece of land that we have, and I don’t think we talk much about what that will look like. 01:58:08,100 And I would hope that we can have those conversations and our work sessions, uh, because I just feel like the city needs a gathering space to hold these different things that we have and that we might be treasure in our community. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Well, we’re making comments. I appreciate you speaking up. 01:58:35,670 And, um, I’m curious how we can help our city understand our plans so that, um, we don’t lose our residents. So what I heard in that meeting, I’ve been here. I’m 60 years. We have to be cautious about that as well. You know, uh, and expect to me a level of of pushback. 02:01:07,730 Uh, and that’s why we do the hard work with, uh, I think reviewing zoning and trying to plan and coordinate, uh, um, uh, everyone is not going to like it to me. They’re just not going to like it. 02:01:31,600 But, uh, uh, like this young man song said that, uh, you know, uh, we’re already short, right on housing and the type of housing, you know, things of that nature. And, uh, um, you know, if, if we’re not open minded enough to, you know, at least listen to a variety. You know, a couple of good things. 02:02:02,570 One is, uh, you know, uh, uh, the, uh, potential hotel, you know, we push back, right? And you probably felt a sense of satisfaction from the residents on that. On the other one, it’s a resident to residents. Right. And townhomes. Right? Yeah, it might be rental, but it’s. So you get pushback on that. 02:02:26,530 And so, uh, you know, uh, we should expect that, you know, just expect that as a, as a body that, uh, uh, but have a vision. Right? And I understand exactly what you’re saying, that, that, uh, but the beauty of it of to me, Brooklyn Park and where it’s going, uh, we’re going to attract a lot of residents who want to be here, who really want to be a part of this city, part of the growth, 02:02:46,800 part of. And, uh, there are a lot of people are going to want to keep it the same. We don’t want any growth. We don’t want any, you know, uh, a change. So I get it, I understand it. So. 02:03:07,700 Yeah, I, I just had, uh, a different topic question just being first experience with, you know, I ain’t gonna call it a mob, but they got angry and and to your point, changes. There’s evolution. It’s going to evolve. So I get it. And you know, about people looking down in your house and all that. I’m not sure where that type of energy came, comes from. 02:03:26,870 And again, it’s, you know, people are homeowners rent and other people rent people’s houses. So it’s the same difference in a way. And I think the parking is not the biggest issue, because it seems like each unit did. 02:03:43,330 But my question and concern is, is because we live in trying times is what what type of security protocols that we have here. For someone who might want to go to a different level, you know, there’s no metal detectors, there’s no anything. I’m looking at the escape route over there. 02:04:07,570 I’m just saying, even as we leave this parking lot, you know what what? I mean, I haven’t been around long enough, but I know that it’s 20, 26, and people are very unpredictable. So I asked that question. Not that the buck stops with us, but they don’t know that, you know. So I’m just curious about what is security protocols of is anybody in here packing. My this. I’m talking about. Them. 02:04:30,870 I’m just saying it it it it it it it don’t take but a second. Uh. It make things worse. Paul. You want. To. Yeah. No, miss, first of all, I just want to. Uh, Mr. 02:04:45,530 chair, members of the commission really appreciate all the comments from the from going down the line from commissioners during this, this this discussion item. And I think you’re giving us a lot of ideas for work session topics that we can do in the future. Um, including perhaps, I’m sure, um, some folks from our police department would be happy to come in and talk about security procedures. 02:05:04,770 We do have two cadets who are posted out there, you know, during the meeting right now, that’s standard procedure. But there are protocols in place for what, you know, for what to do. Uh, you know, um, if, God forbid, there’s an incident. So I think it’s a great idea to do some training for the commission on on how to react in that instance. 02:05:24,500 Um, so, yeah, we’ll we’ll carry that forward and make that request to the, to. Our including, uh, escorting him out to the, his car to make. Sure that request. That can. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that concern and a comment. 02:05:45,700 And, uh, you know, sitting here, I am just, uh, thinking about what’s the best way, um, best way we, you know, make information available. And sometimes we are guided by the, by the, you know, by statutes, by zoning code. And we are constrained. 02:06:09,200 We have to be, you know, within that, uh, and then also limitations within 60 days, 120 days and all this, you know, constraints. And then on top of that, our decision is a recommendation for the city council. And as residents know that. And, uh, there was a time when I was a budget advisory commission, somebody mentioned about, you know, commission on the Road commissioners on the road. 02:06:28,930 Is there is there something that planning Commission goes to kind of raise that level of awareness for the residents to know the zoning code, to know the upcoming development, to know certain things. 02:06:51,330 That is information out there because there are different levels of understandings within our community in terms of, you know, what’s really permissible, what’s not, what could be done in order to really develop and increase that tax base, we need to really convert. I mean, people have the right we need to know the rights. At the same time, within keeping the rights of others to and how we balance those things. 02:07:12,200 And I believe that, you know, the information about traffic, the information about parking, the information about the road, you know, does the road handle the, you know, the driveways, the traffic that increase in that area that requires? Yeah, I would like to know, you know, if I’m in that area, I would like to know what 02:07:29,830 that implies to me. Even if I’m staying or living in that area, I would like to know those things. So the adequacy of information and in many ways, many avenues to the people in the area, uh, would make a big difference. And also addressing the need of the city to, to develop and to to grow. 02:07:52,830 Uh, I think that’s that’s important, something, you know, I know thanks, Paul. Mentioning about work session, I think there will there should be a work session to discuss those kind of things. All right. Uh, we’ll go to the staff liaison comments. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I mentioned the only additional announcement I have beyond just receiving all of this feedback. 02:08:20,530 And, um, um, communicating the intent to to bring these back for, for work sessions all the time. We can’t do all this at once, but, um, these are all good topics to discuss. 02:08:38,870 Uh, especially, I think, during the comprehensive plan update process, that piece about, um, you know, educating the larger community about how the development process works, what’s in the zoning code? Uh, the comp plan is a great opportunity to do that. Um, only other announcement is speaking of work sessions, we did just have one, of course, on the third. So don’t plan for one two weeks from tonight. 02:08:56,200 Um, uh, on August 26th, there will staff doesn’t have, uh, isn’t planning to bring anything for that night so we can take that night off. Awesome. All right. I think it’s over time. So we are at 912. Um. Journal.