So, when we looked at this project, um you know, this was previously owned by the Twin Cities Rail. Um it turned over to Met Council recently. Um they gave us a a number. Um they have a contractor, they do the work, and so we essentially pay them for the work. Uh we did have a consultant look at it on our on our end who does this a lot uh to make sure that the price was in line.

Essentially what the constant warning time does is it picks up the speed of a train um and the distance away, and so it regulates the crossing automatically. Um so, we can control the crossing on the street, so it's not too long, it's not too short, but it it does need to span quite a ways to make that work.

I, you know, I grew up about a mile from two crossings, and we knew we were a mile from two crossings. I mean, you don't think about how loud that is um until the whistles are blowing. It's It's really significant, so I think it would be a big lifestyle change for our residents um to not have the quiet zones. Um that's my That's my two cents. It's probably It seems like a lot of money, but it's probably for the lifestyle impact that it creates. Money Money well spent.

The city code does have a prohibition of having alcohol and a sporting event together uh unless the council specifically relieves them from that um that provision. So, we are recommending approval. They did have the event last year. There were no issues. There were no uh uh situations that occurred. So, we're comfortable moving ahead with the recommendation of approval.

Um we will have a I think I've got seven um medieval-style vendors that'll be um participating in our ye old market. And then uh from 3:00 to 6:00 we will have our fighting knights. It is more of a production than a sports event, if I may. Um and they are fully armored, extremely um stringent on their safety protocols as well for the participants as well as um the uh guests that are viewing the experience.

So, staff does recommend approval of the plats as the lots would meet all minimum standards, and we also recommend approval of the easement vacation along that pre-plat common lot line because the easements would be recreated along the post-plat common lot line.

We've been talking, this is not the first time we've talked about this property and everyone knows um how I feel about trees and their it's not so much just even the number of trees that are coming down but the but the type. So, a lot of mature oak trees it's not just things like box elders and and trees that people consider less desirable. um and I mentioned to Mr. Funk and he knows he's been listening to me say it for years now the one acre lot loophole on tree removal ordinances still in my opinion needs to be addressed and so I will be pushing for that for um till we have a good discussion on that.

I will just make a brief comment. You know, I share some of the reservations anytime we see that there's going to be significant tree loss and you know, I I am concerned about that. I I have, you know, driven by this property quite a few times and stopped and taken a look at it. I also recognize to develop that second lot it with any kind of meaningful change and and putting housing on that lot would necessitate some significant tree removal. So, with that, you know, I while I have a little bit of heartburn, I don't feel quite as terribly about this one as I have at some of those in the past, but um with our with our zoning code rewrite moving right along and coming back to us, I think there is, you know, there is some opportunity to consider some of these things that have tripped us up.

City code section 1200.030 um sub paragraph two states the owner of a property is responsible for all bills accruing through the use of water and sewer facilities on that property whether the the property is being occupied by the owner or someone else. City records indicate a water leak started sometime in July and was not correct until about mid-September.

I wish I would have been notified earlier. Because I did not live at the house, I was living in downtown Minneapolis. I was not checking the mail. I didn't change the the my address to the the new address until then because and I didn't expect any mail, so that's why I was not checking. And only my general contractor and his team were there. And the first time I got the call was on September 11th.

However, I'm I'm a little bit confused about the financial financial hardship because unless I'm really mistaken about the house, um maybe you maybe the applicant can correct me. Um and it's neither here nor there in my decision, but I believe that house sold for about $1.5 million uh last fall uh last fall or when it before it was sold this previous time. So, I guess it's neither here nor there, but it is a piece of information I think my uh fellow council members might want to know um about when considering this this case. So, um given those factors, you know, I'm really sorry for it, but I'm not prepared to put this on the backs of our other um you know, raising the fees or putting this on the backs of other users of this utility. Um I don't think that's fair. I think it sets a bad precedent.

This came to us as a situation where the current owner was in the process of selling to another owner in early '25 and while the new owner was conducting their due diligence on the sale, they were notified the septic system was failing. And so, uh the property is also on a private well and there are lots of different ordinances that um dictate how somebody gets connected and when they have to connect and then uh they're not very long time periods, but that is the situation this property based um when they were going through this transaction.

So, it was almost $500,000 to get water and sewer back to this property uh to get them to a working situation for utilities. And so, during that discussion, we uh found out that these two properties to the west did not have a need at the current moment for those utilities and obviously the price tag uh that was shared with them was quite extreme um and they were not in a position uh to support that extension.

The building on the site, the original building, which is the northerly portion, was constructed in 1920 as a a school. And then in the 1950s, that southerly one-story addition uh, was made. 30 years after that addition, in the mid-1980s, the school itself was closed and the building in its entirety was repurposed as an adolescent residential drug treatment facility. And the use of that building uh, or that specific use ended a few years ago and the building is currently vacant.

However, um, through working with the Minnetonka Historical Society and the Sherwood Forest Association, um, we've agreed on a plan to memorialize the school building in the following ways. So one, um, the Historical Society will come in and and photograph and document the building. Uh, the Historical Society will then design a, uh, memorial plaque which we will, um, pay for and install in a public area on the site. We are also going to retain some of the red brick that's on the exterior of the building and use that to line the, um, sidewalks that go up to the front doors of the homes, as well as in some of the monument signage and other signage on the site. And then, um, retain the school Oak Knoll school building sign. And our goal now, um, we're working with the landscaper to make sure we can actually do this, but our goal is to reuse that sign in landscaping in a public area.

Um, I agree it's this is a lovely design. It is a reasonable and even laudable use. I applaud all the work that has gone into that this and in thought that has gone into this design. And I also find it tragic um uh to lose the school. I was, you know, recently in Washington, D.C. in the old neighborhood that I lived in where there were many structures built at about the same time as this that have been um you know, preserved and retained. And even closer to home, we have Excelsior Elementary School, the Excelsior City Hall, other places that have been and saved and I, you know, I'm just sad, very sad as as somebody who has uh studied history and was trained as an historian to see this go.

In general, reading through the planning commission report you noted, I hope that um this proposed ADU generally meets many of those standards. However, it doesn't meet two specific standards. Um those being the ordinance limits total size of an ADU to 1,000 square feet or 35% of the floor area of the principal home, whichever is less. And the ordinance also limits the height to the highest point of the principal dwelling.

However, it's also our opinion that the ADU is not reasonable because it doesn't meet the intent of an accessory dwelling unit. It would be over half the size of the existing floor area of the existing home. Um and it would be taller than the existing home. And we do recognize that the 1941 home is modest in in height and size, but we don't find that to be a justification for a larger ADU. Rather, we find the opposite suggesting that this ADU is simply not in scale with that primary um structure.

So, while the structure is larger than a conformance path, we believe the city code allows the council to approve this larger ADU when the additional size does not result result in undue adverse impacts to the neighboring properties. Um so, we've had three uh determinations um for considering that as the council. The lot size is first, the placement relative to neighboring homes and screening. Uh these are the benchmarks that are being called as paramount in making this determination, which we believe we we've uh met that bar.