[music] [music] All right, I'll go ahead and call this meeting to order. Good evening and welcome to the June 4th, 2026 meeting of the Minnitankka Planning Commission. The commission generally meets twice a month, always on a Thursday. The schedule and tentative meeting agendas can be obtained by calling the planning division or by checking the city website at minnotanka.gov. The commission holds public hearings on land use applications. For all land use applications, the city notifies property owners within at least 400 ft of the site and posts plans and information on minnotonka mn.gov. For some applications, the city also places signs on the properties and places notices in the sun sailor. From a specific process standpoint, the commission makes recommendations to the city council on resonings, subdivisions, conditional use permits, and also amendments to the city's comprehensive guide plan, zoning ordinance, and subdivision regulations. We also make final decisions on site plans, signage requests, variance requests, and expansion permits unless these requests are part of an application that must be heard by the city council. In that case, the commission makes a recommendation and the city council makes a final decision. In addition to these formal actions, the commission also provides informal feedback on development concept plans. Anyone agreved by a final planning commission decision may appeal the decision to the city council. If you wish to appeal, you must submit a written request to city staff within 10 days of this meeting. From a broader standpoint, the city's comprehensive guide plan, zoning ordinance, and subdivision regulations are the city's best efforts to codify a balance between individual rights and community responsibilities. Individual rights are easy to understand. Community responsibilities are more subtle. [snorts] But the idea is that we as members of the community agree to limit our individual rights for the common good of the group. The planning division, the planning commission, and the city council are charged with managing this sometimes difficult balancing act. We ask that you keep this broader perspective in mind as we review tonight's applications. To make meetings more efficient in 2026, the city's boards and commissions have introduced a new process for public comment. If you wish to speak at tonight's meeting, please fill out a public comment card, which is available right near the staff podium uh where where we're pointing. Uh, be sure to include your name and the topic you wish to address. The cards will be collected before the public hearing items and I will announce your name when it is your turn to speak. Again, welcome staff. Please call roll. >> Sher >> here. >> Shoemaker >> here. >> Brink >> here. >> Banks was absent. Uh, Johnson >> here. >> Minion >> here. >> Chair Waterman >> here. There are six of us tonight. All right. Moving on to item number three. approval of the agenda. Uh, Miss Thomas, I believe there's a change memo. >> Uh, yes, Chair Waterman. A change memo for both of your items. Um, first is just providing you some additional information. We had a good question come in from a commissioner about other variances that may have been approved uh specifically across the street, but we put together um for all of the properties on Morland where we've had variances approved and just wanted to provide that information to all of the uh commissioners. And then item 9A, we did receive some um public feedback via Minnotonka Matters uh prior to this meeting, but after uh your packet was published. So those are here also. >> All right. Thank you. Uh may I have a motion to approve the agenda that includes the changes noted by staff? >> Motion to approve the changes. >> Motion chair. >> Second. >> Second, Johnson. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I I >> All right, motion carries. Uh, next up, item number four, approval of minutes. This is approval from the May 28th, 2026 meeting. Uh, commissioners, any changes to propose? All right, seeing no changes, may I have a motion to approve those uh, minutes? >> I'll make the motion to approve the minutes. >> Motion Minion second. Brink. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> All right, motion carries. Next up, item number five, report from staff. >> Uh, thank you again, Chair Waterman. Uh since we just met last Thursday, the city council has not met uh since your last meeting, but a couple of things to update you on. First, I want to welcome our newest uh commissioner, Commissioner Shoemaker, uh to this group. I hope that you will uh find your time here rewarding. It's a a fun uh group to be part of. Um, second, just to let you know that the zoning ordinance rewrite workg groupoups met last week, both the staff work group and uh the community work group. Our um consultant was in town from uh Cincinnati, Ohio, and went through um draft sections of the ordinance. We have about three or four draft sections that have been prepared. So there was kind of a review of those and we our groups will get together again at the end of um June to actually discuss uh what we heard. But for anyone who wants to look at those draft sections um they are on Minnotonka matters on the zoning ordinance um page on Minnotonka Matters. You'll see um draft uh ordinance sections. We haven't opened up the public comment or uh public engagement at this point. Um but we will do that uh midsummer and we'll have certainly a lot of opportunities for engagement once we have the the full draft document um to start looking at. And then third um mark your calendars. For those of you that are new, you don't maybe know about this. For those of you that are older to our commission, it's the everyone's favorite night of the year and that is our boards and commissions tour. For those that are available, we get together with the EDAC um city council and then if there's still space, we invite uh park board and um sustainability commission and the senior board, everybody if we have space, which sometimes we don't. um that will be held on July uh the 30th. We'll send out an agenda. Uh for those who have not been with us on the tour before, we like to um usually tour things that maybe this body has looked at um previously and now it's been built. Um the EDAC likes to visit a business, a local business in town. Um we always have dinner and then uh kind of an after uh activity. So we hope you can join us. You will get specific uh invitations to that. Your next meeting, we get a break uh now this time. So your next meeting is uh June 18th. That's all I have. >> All right. Thanks, Miss Thomas. Uh and I'd also like to echo a welcome to Commissioner Schumacher. Um yeah, welcome aboard. I think you're going to find this uh good experience and looking forward to your contributions. All right, next up uh item number six, report from planning commissioners. Commissioners, anything to report? Commissioner Sher, >> thank you. So, [clears throat] uh I didn't report at last week's meeting because we had quite a long agenda. So, I held to this week's um for the ST sustainability commission, the youth climate action fund grant was awarded. So, it's a um Bloomberg Philanthropies Youth Climate, and we've got $50,000 to award to young people for climate related projects. So, that will be starting and opening in um September and awarded I think a month or so afterwards. So, that might be something we want to pay attention and also get the word out if you could. Um, also youth commissioner seats are now open for the sustainability and for the park board. So if you have any young people or people between I think the age of 16 or to 24 um who may want to be involved with some work at the city, then they can apply online under boards and commissions. Um there's a spring event going on next week and we're going to the watershed um district meeting over in St. Paul. So we learn about what uh initiatives are going on there. So that's part of the fun things we get to do and I'll let you know how that goes and and what we find out. So thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Sher, for that uh for briefing us and kind of looping us in on the goings on there. Any other reports from commissioners? Okay. Uh, moving on to item number seven, the consent agenda. Uh, the consent agenda lets the commission act on routine items with a single motion. There is one item on tonight's consent agenda. Number 7A, a front yard setback variance for a detached garage at 3401 Morland Road. Uh, staff is recommending adoption of the resolution approving the request. Uh, before we act, I will note that uh, this public hearing item is placed on the consent agenda. I'll ask whether any commissioner, the applicant or anyone from the public would like this item removed so that can be heard separately. Uh actually with that I will go ahead and open the public hearing. Uh if there's any any commissioner want to pull this item and have a oh commissioner share and we we can't actually have kind of high level questions if >> unless we want to uh pull it fully. Yeah. >> No high level just just comment >> just a comment. Um, okay. Yeah, please. >> Um, thank you. So, I'm paying attention to what's happening on So, this is probably what, my fifth, sixth meeting, but I used to do this for the city or for the city of Min Minneapolis. And so, I just wanted to keep an eye on variances, how many things were changing. So, we've had some come through. Um, I know there's a lot of non-conforming spaces because so much was built before zoning happened. So, I just wanted to take a moment to look at this one and see if it's it fits what we're looking to do. So, in driving through the area, yes, there are a lot of attached garages, detached garages. Um, the house across the street has the garage kind of in the back with a long driveway, and so it's a different situation, but then I found out that that has actually been in place since before. So, so it's good to just pay attention to what's going on and and making sure that we're not just randomly granting variances even though um it is technically feasible to put the garage in the back and maybe it's not all paved across the street. It has a gravel drive so the impervious surfaces may not be as detrimental um in this case. So just looking at it and and wanting to be aware of of the variances that go through and how they truly meet the neighborhood and if they're true hardships, things like that. So thank you. >> Okay. Thanks for that high level commentary and reminder about variances. Um commissioners, does anyone want to pull this item and have like a full discussion on it? All right. Anyone from the public want to pull this item? Okay, seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Um, I believe we can take a motion to approve the consent agenda item as presented. Like to make a motion. >> Motion to approve. >> Uh, motion. Share. Second. >> I'll second. >> Second. Minion. Staff, please pull the commission. >> Share. >> Sorry. Sharer, >> approve. >> Shoemaker, >> approve. >> Brink, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Minion, >> yes. >> Chair Waterman, >> yes. And that item uh is approved. This is a final decision of the planning commission. Uh anyone agreved by this decision may appeal it to the city council by submitting a written request to the to city staff within 10 days of tonight's meeting. All right, and good luck with your item. All right. Uh moving on to item number eight, non-consent agenda. There are no items for the non-consent agenda for tonight's meeting. So we will move on to item number nine, other business. Uh this section is reserved for items that do not require formal planning commission action. They may include concept plan review,formational topics or training. What we have tonight is item number 9A, concept plan for an ex for expanded ventures at 5900 Roland Road. This is a concept plan review only. The commission has asked to give the applicant formal feedback. No formal action is required and we are not approving or denying anything tonight. Uh Mr. Inglesen, I believe this is your item. >> I do. Thank you. uh chair waterman and commission. So at some point I will bring a final decision project here. I promise but it's another concept. I feel like this is all I bring here. So I know we've been through quite a few but we have one more. So uh so for this project again I'll remind everyone there's no formal actions required. Um staff recommends that the planning commission discuss the concept plans with the applicant. Uh considering again our three questions we have here we've gone through. Is there merit for the concept to proceed to a formal development review? If yes, why? and what would make the concept better. And again, no votes are going to be done for this item tonight. So, looking at the location, it's located on the south side of the city, uh, north of Highway 62, which is our southern border. And then looking a little closer, it's just south of Roland Road. Here's a look at the site. The property is 4.2 acres in size. It's improved with a 13,000 ft² office building that was built in 1993. Uh the site has one single access off of Roland Road. I'm showing here with my cursor. And then looking at the site, um we have a little bit more detail than we often have with concept plans. So uh again, things could change with this. Um but the exist this shows the existing site. This is how it currently lays out. This number four here shows the top of a hill. Everything sort of falls away from that. Here's that entrance road over here. This three shows these this three tiered retaining wall. It's pretty steep in that area. And then it flattens out where the parking lot is and where the building is. And then it becomes steep again as it drops down to a trail that's on the south side of the property. And then beyond that is 9M Creek which you can see on the image over to your left. Uh so here's a bit more detail about those slopes. So the city has a definition for what we call steep slopes and also bluffs. I won't get too big into the details, but the applicant did provide us some information about where that area is qualifying. So, um, anything above 20% is a steep slope or a bluff in the city. Um, there's some definitional differences between those two, but I won't get to those tonight. We'll talk about that, uh, if the applicant comes back later. But showing here, the areas in yellow are steep are steep slope areas, uh, above 20%, areas in red are above 30%. Then this green area is the bluff zone setback. So, as you can see, the existing building and parking lot are actually within that area. Uh, so it's a legal non-conformity of this property. Here's a look at that uh at the existing property. There's the existing building. There's that three tier retaining wall and then that steep uh hill area there just to the north of the building. Here's a look at the trail on the south side. And here's your the best view I could find of the building from the south that southern trail. So, it's pretty blocked by a lot of vegetation. Here's a look at zoning. The subject property is zoned B1. And then around it there's several different uses. um and zoning. You can see the blue is uh PUDS, so planning developments, which some of them are office industrial, some of them are residential. We also have some um lowdensity residential across the street and then also around the property to the south. Uh and then some medium density also in the yellows there that you see to the sides. Then looking at the land use. So, uh in the city's 2040 comprehensive guide plan, this property is guided to be office. Uh and then you can see mixed use is in purple. Um park and open spaces are in the two different green colors. Lowdensity residential in this light yellow and then medium density in this sort of darker orange color. So here is the concept plan that was submitted um by the applicant. It shows here this this is the building footprint that they are showing at this point. And then they also did show where it would encroach into those steep slope areas. So it encroaches into this that steep slope hill that I talked about earlier, sort of where those retaining walls were. And then on the south side, it would actually be moving out of that steep slope area. So that's shown in green where that existing building is located. Again, this is a bit above and beyond what we usually ask for concept plans, uh, but also good information just to know. The applicants showed what trees would be removed. They didn't break down into high priority or significant. So, you won't see that on here, but you can see sort of an idea of what sort of tree impacts you're going to get. They show about 7% of the trees being removed. And you can see those ones shown in yellow. I think it really what this probably illustrates the best is that a lot of this would be within the footprint of that existing parking lot, drive aisle, and then also that building. So, sort of staying with there, not really going much outside of that. Here's a look at the floor plans. Uh so there is some parking on the lower levels and then on the uh upper levels. Levels 1 through six would be um residential units then also amenity spaces. And this building would have 100 to 130 units what they're showing and it would be for seniors 55 plus and additional and in addition it would have include 133 parking stalls. Here's a look at some pedestrian views of uh the building that was submitted by the applicant. So, showing what that'll look like. Here is someone standing on that public trail where I took that picture from. See the view shed from there. And then also from Roland Road. Here's that hill that we were talking about. The retaining walls are right about here. Um and there's that uh building that they're showing. Here's some more building views. Uh this one's from sort of street level and then also showing it from uh the west side of the property and then also from the east side. Here's some more but more from just a higher view but from those same locations. And then it's important to note too at this point this is not the actual building that will be shown uh that was talked about at a neighborhood meeting. This is not the architecture they're showing. Just sort of just showing the massing with this. So giving an idea of what that would look like from an impact not the actual um building itself and architecture. So, we're not making any there's no decisions making made tonight. There aren't any votes that are going to happen, but staff always likes to get put together what sort of the expected requests are. So, that gives you a little bit of feel of what this would be if it came back later. So, this would require a reszoning from B1 to R5. It require a 2040 comprehensive guide plan amendment from office to highdensity residential. It require a site and building plan review and then also a variance for the earthwork construction within the bluff and and steep slope areas. So this is one of my last pages looking to sort of the process that we've gone through and then where it also is going and then where the hypothetical next spot I would come to. So the applicant submitted a application earlier this spring. That's our f that was the first step. The next step was the applicant had a neighborhood meeting on May 20th. They sent out 53 postcards to neighbors within the area and nine people attended that meeting. Of those nine people, they had some the comments that they provided were mostly around traffic, building height and size, light and noise pollution and sustainability practices for the construction. Right now, we're here at the planning commission meeting circled here in red. And then the next stop would be city council on June 22nd. That stops the concept plan review part of this application where there's no decisions made. After this step one and between step two, the applicant makes will make a decision on if they want to move forward based on neighborhood comments, staff comments, and then the commission, city council comments, too. And at that time, it would come back, the city would reail out notices to all the neighbors. And then there would be a um there actually would be another city council meeting in here. The show is just one, but there'd be two due to the requests that are being made. And then also come back to the planning commission, obviously. So to bring it back full circle, uh staff's recommendation is uh again there's no formal action but just to give some comments and feedback back to the applicant based on those three questions below. We talked about this last time too, but um we're looking to probably not have very detailed questions towards the applicant, looking more at high level, maybe if there's a few that you want to flush out, but then most importantly, tonight is the commission's opportunity to give feedback to them. So maybe things that do work, things that maybe don't, maybe things that they need to look more into. Um and then also giving an overall feedback of is there merit for them to move forward. So with that I hand it back to the chair and commission for questions and um comments later. All right. Thanks Drew. Uh just two administrative things because I I think some folks joined us uh late when we open the public hearing on this. We actually use a a card system. Um if you could fill out a public comment card over by staff right there. If you wish to speak tonight, just provide your name and address. Is there anything in there? Um, and so got a couple minutes to do that. Um, and then just uh to Mr. Inglesson's point about uh last time you were you were saying like, "Hey, I'd like to I'd like to know more about uh I I did like that." Um, just sort of a reminder to us and just for the public's benefit of our role as a concept review. This is we're looking to provide general feedback on things like comprehensive guide uh con like the comprehensive guide plan, zoning ordinance, um the office to residential conversion aspects of the bluff, steep steep slope variance, land use design, um slope encroachment, tree preservation, things like that. So, energy, sustainability, uh affordability, uh business aspects, they're really not used. They're not part of this land use criteria. Um and we're not voting on it tonight. So, just want to set that uh stage while we kind of pursue questions and comments. So, we'll open it up for any commissioners that have any questions for staff and then barring that, we will hear from the applicant. Commissioner Schumaker, >> just one question in the conversion uh to the R the R5 with this many units, what is typical from a density of population relative to the 4.2 acres if you could comment on that. >> Sure, Commissioner Shoemaker and Chair. Uh so what we call high density be 12 units per acre. So this one being around four, you know, it'd be at least 48. So anything above that though, so it could be significantly higher. We have some that are way way way higher than that. Some that are sort of that lower level. So this would be in that mix. So >> other questions, Commissioner Minion. So, building on that question, if we're looking at 48 units right now, the building that's there currently, the square footage, >> and I don't expect an answer, but it'd be a question I'd be nice to know down the road, is number of occupants when the building is fully occupied, no matter who's there as far as a business goes. Maybe that's a square footage calculation, maybe not. And then how many the occupants would be uh in the change, whatever change happens to come. Another question I have is I like the renderings and the trees. There's obviously trees there now. Um would that be a realistic uh assumption that we would have that height of trees? And that's not necessarily a question tonight to answer, but it'd be a good question to know to make the decision down the road is is is the current height of the trees um reflective of what we could actually see as far as shielding from the building in the future. Just a couple of questions to throw out there and think about. Sure, I can start with just a couple things. Um, you can ask the applicant a little bit more about OC occupants possibly. And then just to show you too, just about these. I think this probably gives a pretty good description of it. These trees that would be here and down here, they're shown on this picture. These would be staying there as what they're being shown right now. So, this wouldn't be new ones. These would be existing. Uh, but that's just a sort of quick comment back to on that question. >> It's a tough question. I didn't mean to sideline yet, but just something to think about. Thank you. >> Other commissioners, Commissioner Brink. >> Uh yes, thank you, Chair. Um question. The um uh staff report mentions uh shoreland district overlay. I mean, is that nine m 9 mile creek down there? And even though it's way downhill, way down the bluff, I mean, does that factor into this somehow if if we go further with it? >> Sure. Commissioner Brinken, Chair. Uh so uh the shoreland district is anywhere what's that's within a thousand feet of a lake shore and 300 feet from a tributary. So this property is within that 300 foot buffer. So it's still pretty far away um for probably a person who's just walking by and thinking oh right by the creek it's not super close but it still is within that. So with that there's additional regulations uh that come from the state that the city would be looking at. That's a part of that definitional difference between steep slope which is the city's rule and then bluff which is the state's rule. um there's different wording and then different regulations between them, but that is something we'd look into. Uh and then we would also go to comment from the state for if there was a variance for those. >> Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions? Okay. With that, I'll ask the applicant to come up if you have any uh if you have a presentation or any additional comments. Welcome. could please just uh give your name and address for the record. >> Sure. >> Hear what you have to say. >> Yep. My name is Ned Dodington. I live at 70001 Sally Lane in Adina, Minnesota. Um and I represent uh a portion of the sponsor team putting this project forward. Um and really happy to be here to present it to you. I think this process of concept review and feedback is really valuable to um particularly the development team and hopefully also to the city. Um and we've enjoyed working with the city staff thus far u that were in front of you for the first time. There's been six eight actually we started project working on this project roughly a year ago and there have been numerous site plan iterations throughout that process um with city feedback already. So um I think Drew mentioned once or twice that maybe this is a little bit more information than you typically receive at concept level. Um and I think we can credit the city uh and staff already with their sort of feedback and input into the project. Um, as for additional information, I do not have anything else really to share with you tonight. Um, what you are seeing in front of you is essentially the the most advanced state of information that we have on the project today. Um, I can talk a little bit more broadly about the project for you if you have questions. Um, but um, this is essentially um, the the level of resolution that the project exists today. Um, we are also in concept phase. >> Great. Um, that that works. Why don't you hang tight and let's just see if uh commissioners have any questions. Commissioners, >> Commissioner Johnson? >> Um, just a question about the imperous surface. I assume that that's going to increase uh from the existing imperous surface and if so, how much? >> Yeah, I think this would probably fall in one of the categories of of a granular and detailed question that I'm not really prepared to answer tonight. Um, I will say that and maybe we can go flip back and forth between existing and and and proposed use is that we've gone to some lengths to try to maintain the footprint of the proposed building within the imperous footprint of the existing use. So, um, I think as Drew mentioned, we're bringing a non-conforming uh, square footage uh, in the bluff area into conformance um, and really trying to keep the building within just what's already impervious today. the exact numbers. Unfortunately, I I'm not prepared to give to you tonight, but certainly as we move forward, that would be something we'd be tracking. >> Commissioner M. >> I love details. Sorry. >> Right. >> So, to be purposely vague, will you talk a little bit about uh where your heart is, where you see this building going, kind of the uses that you'd like to see it done? Is it uh is it one story? Is it 50 stories? that type of thing. Um, but a little bit of brag a little bit. What do you see uh the uses? What are you excited about to see in this development? >> Yeah. Okay. Well, that's I can handle that level of detail. Um, so the intention here is a market rate 55 plus um community. So um as a model we are looking at 55 plus rental communities that already exist in Minnitanka. So the Avidor, Avana, the Amira. Um these would be 55 plus communities. They're kind of I think kind of congregate around the Ridgedale um part of town. But that's our that's our model. So the renderings as Drew pointed out sort of uh these are volutric demonstrations of the scale of the building. So you know this is six stories being shown to you on the plan today. Um which is in line with the kind of scale of those market rate projects that you see again at the Avdor, the Avana, the Amira. Um and but in terms of architectural expression it will not be a smooth surface right they will be a variety of materials the our representative from Tushi Montgomery the architect on the project is here they have a long track record of doing excellent multif family projects um Paravel just down the road is a is a great example of of their recent work um but Evan can certainly talk more about that if you have detailed architectural uh questions but I would anticipate ates. Uh this would be, you know, a best-in-class multif family product for again a 55 plus community. So there'll be architectural articulation and materials that are consistent with that use. Um brick, uh lapsiding, stucco, ephus, um obviously glass for windows and patio doors. Um so it'll be articulated like an apartment building, not sort of a smooth volume at this point. Um we really I mean one of the reasons why we're excited by this opportunity um not only the market of Minnetonka but it's it's access to natural amenities that it is on I mean the site is a challenging site right there are many things that we have to sort of um move the building around steep slopes shoreland overlays etc. Um and we see though being sort of surrounded by that natural environment is something that the 55 plus community will really appreciate and enjoy. So access to trails and parks are um largely the largest amenity of this proposal. Um the building otherwise will be I think comparable in many ways to the projects that I just mentioned. So a fitness room, a club room, large spaces internal for shared meals and a library, you know, uh stuff like that for for the residents. Um, all the parking is below grade. So, that's um a real plus for this project is we're anticipating all the parking to be below grade, not visible to the to the public. Um, I could keep going on, but >> Sure. >> Okay. Um, well, I mean, we're trying to make sure that the project is set up for success. So, um, I think parking and traffic have come up in previous conversations and we're we're keeping a close eye on that. Again, it's concept level, but um there's currently I think the garage is sized for around 130 spaces, which would I think fit well for that range of 100 units to maybe 120 units on the upper end. I think the plans in front of you show 121 units. Um the 55 plus user group typically has uh slightly lower parking utilization than your typical market rate property. Um but again, we're concept level. Um there's kind of time to get a little bit more into the details on that. >> Will you talk a little bit about um a lot of things that that people are are we're all kind of concerned about is sustainability, environment, that type of thing. Do you have any plans to do say solaretti roofs, geothermal? Um there are some slopes here that are a bit of a concern in a watershed nearby. um just kind of share your heart a little bit about where you see this building going to be successful in kind of taking on some of those uh unique situations. You've done a really good study with the trees already and presented that. Well, >> you've obviously put other thought into other things. Just kind of share a little bit about your vision that way. >> Well, sure. Um and I mentioned that the natural amenity or the natural environment we see as a as a major amenity to the residents and the or the residential community. So sort of leaning into that is a design strategy that we will flesh out as the project moves forward. Um I personally and I think Susan can attest to this. So I in a previous career have worked on a mult multif family project that's in opus and we went to lengths to understand the sort of the native plants and the landscaping plan for that so that it's um fitting for the climate for the location and also enjoyable to the residents. We explored a green roof. Uh so there are elements that are in my background and the background of the team that lean into sustainability that again we could explore here as the project moves forward. At this point I can't honestly commit to something like geothermal or solar ready but to the extent that it's feasible for the project we would love to engage in those conversations. >> Sure. >> Commissioner Sher. >> Thank you Chair Wman. So I have a question. Thank you for coming. So, I drove the site. It's a beautiful location. Wow. Um, I had a question about um outdoor green space that's available for the tenants. So, this seems like it's really tight on here and there are so many slopes. Is there going to be available green space for getting outside and and walking around or access to the trails? >> Oh, yeah. I mean, it is surrounded by green space. I mean, it's a 4acre site. Um we're building on I mean I can't exactly remember the exact sort of square footage of the how much of the site we're building on. It's less than half. Um we can't we want to preserve the trees. So um this is the essential you know the the the volume of area that we can or are comfortable working within access to trails and the I mean Lone Lake Park is just across Roland Road. I mean that is the outdoor space. Um I mean other Yeah, I would think that that's we want people to go outside of the building and enjoy the the parks and the trails around them. Um the trail this site is directly connected to the trail that you know connects up to Lone Lake Park. So um we would hope and expect that the residents would utilize that. >> Okay, let me um sorry clarify flat space on the site for recreation. So it is rather steep. So they know they can go across the park and they can access the trails which is amazing. Um, but just how much flat green space on the actual site or will there be a rooftop garden or something like that where there's actually able to out uh enjoy the outdoors on this site? >> Ah, >> thank you. >> Um, yep. It's a tight site. Um, you know, rooftop garden we could sort of explore maybe in a in a small application. Um, you'll notice there's no pool. Um so typically and at each of those projects that I mentioned uh as comparable projects have outdoor pools. Um we're sort of forgoing that on this project because there is no available land for it. So um or let's say it differently. We're we're choosing to make a strategic comp compromise on on what's most important here. >> Evan, it looks like you want to jump in here. >> Welcome. You could just give your name and address for the record. Hi there, Evan Jacobson, Tushi Montgomery Architects. Uh we're at 7645 Lindale Avenue South in Richfield. I just wanted to jump in. Flat green space, really challenging site. It's all slopes, but the slide that Drew has on the screen right now shows that 1,900 square foot sort of flat area. That's where the existing NESB facility is. That is largely flat. We intentionally sort of held the parking off of that corner in hopes to sort of use that as our primary outdoor atgrade recreation area. And then I think we have discussed sort of a rooftop deck sort of at the corner of the building right where it says family and multifamily. Um, so envisioning opportunities for both a rooftop to get over those trees, but then also some at grade, which is sort of right at the southern side of the site, great southern exposure. And that is sort of our flat opportunity. But hopefully that is a 2500 to 3,000t green space that we can make an outdoor amenity directly adjacent to the entrance of the building, which is off of um just above where it says 13,225 ft. So that would flow nicely with the indoor common space, flow out to an outdoor common space on the south side of the building which has the best natural light capabilities. Um, and then sort of be a perch over that that steep slope as it uh moves south down the hill and hopefully connect that to the trail down below. Commissioners, any other questions? Okay, thanks for your comments. Uh, we'll uh might have you back. I will go ahead and open up the public hearing. Um, so this is a concept review. It's not a noticed public hearing, but the public is welcome to comment. Uh, >> sorry. >> No, no, not sure if there any Miss Thomas's. Oh, there is. Okay. All right. Suspense. Wow. Who is the winner tonight, man? [laughter] >> Look at this. Got sweep stakes. Um, all right. I apologize if I mispronounced the name. Uh, Katherine, uh, Malotti. >> Okay. [laughter] All right. Uh, come on up. Uh, if you just, uh, give your address for the record and then, uh, would love to hear your comments. >> Sure. >> I love it. 5901 Roland Road. And, uh, so the low density uh, residential area that was kind of the buff color in that one map. Let's go. That's where we live. So, we're the humans that are going to look over what happens here. And um and we because all of us have lived there for quite a while, we also have a pretty intimate sense of what's happening. So, I it's important to know that most of the trees that are on that burm in front are either ash or popppler and they have started dying. So, one of the important things for us, of course, if we're going to look at this thing is that those trees get replaced and that they continue to be somewhat of a shield. A second thing when we look at the at the vertical space we live up on top of the hill and so we are going to be looking at the top two layers of a six layer building and we're going to be seeing the lights and we're going to be seeing hearing the sounds and all of that kind of stuff. And um of course we're not the only ones, but I have a vested interest in not seeing that much. So I would advocate for less height um to be helpful. The trail is very close. It the slope there is is fast. It's not a big distance. And the wetland, if we just look for the stream of water, that might be a little farther away. But the wetland associated with that stream of water is right there. We once picked up a um a huge snapping turtle because it was on the trail and moved it into the wetland. So, it's it's right there. Um we are the humans that live right across the street, but there's also all the animals. And this comment, you've heard these comments before. But I have a high level of concern about the interruption of that wetland, the 25 male robins that spend the winter right there. And you know, that kind of stuff. That's the stuff that in is concerning to me. I am consoled by the fact that some of the planners have a commitment to sustainability, but um it's just a deal. It's a big deal. It will dramatically change the nature of that space. That's it. >> Great. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Uh I know there was only the one comment card, but uh not a ton of people here tonight. If anyone else wants to comment. Okay, come on up. If you just give your name and address for the record. >> Sure. [clears throat] Um, my name is, excuse me, my name is Bob Stankey and I live at 5833 Roland, which is directly across the street from the proposed uh building site. Um, I echo the sentiments of my neighbor. Uh, the visual impact is going to be significant if a building rises two uh levels above the existing burm. I don't know if that uh if it's possible for the building to be scaled down. So, it would be below that uh berm level, but that would be ideal from the standpoint of my neighbors. I have some other more practical concerns, however. Um, Roland Road is an extremely busy road. I don't know how familiar you are with the traffic on Roland Road. It's a 30 m per hour speed limit, but no one abides by that 30 mph speed limit. Uh I've lived in this uh particular location for 48 years now. And during that period of time, I've had my mailbox taken out six times and my power pole taken out once by drivers coming down Roland Road and uh missing the curve. What we're talking about if uh the development goes forward is adding another 100 cars uh or maybe more depending on uh Amazon and other deliveries and you know Door Dash whatever to this location. Uh in addition half a mile to the west of us is a major fire station. When I first uh lived in this location, it was an unusual event if I saw a fire truck go by my house once a month. Today, it happens generally two or three times a day. There have been a lot of new apartments built down in Opus and uh I don't know if that's the reason why we're having more fire calls, but it's a daily occurrence now when I see flashing red lights and fire trucks going by my house. And I think uh I don't know if what planning has been done to look at the uh uh traffic that will be uh caused by having an additional 110 or 20 residents coming into this location. Uh so that's about all I'm concerned about. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. >> Great. Thank you. All right. Anyone else? Okay. I will go ahead and close the public hearing. Uh, commissioners, it is back to us. Um, Mr. Inglesson, I don't know if you could pull up those questions again uh as to what you are looking for. So, what uh what feedback could we provide on whether there's merit to proceed, if why, and what would make it better? >> Commissioner Johnson, >> I love the site. Um, I think it's perfect for residential. Um it is an underutilized site right now and office at least to my observation is pretty much dead. Um it's or it's evolving. So I I like the concept of uh 55 plus um they're a little quieter. You're not going to have a lot of uh kids going. They go to bed earlier in this building. But what would make it better, and I know this happened in my neighborhood when they put apartments right to the back of um Sherwood Forest uh near Ridgdale, is the developer listening to the community lowered the height of the building and masked it a little differently. So you still could, it was still financially viable, but cut it down from six to four stories. I think that would make it much much better if it could be done in this small site. And if it's feasible to do it without increasing the mass, that would be all the better. But no, I think it's a great uh site. I think it's a great plan, but it might be a little bit too intense at six stories. >> Thank you, Commissioner Sher. >> Um, again, beautiful site, amazing area. That is a busy road. Um, when I went there 11 o'clock in the morning, I had a hard time seeing pulling out [snorts] both directions. So, I can see that continuing to be a problem with additional cars in the area. Um, I think it's perfect for residential. Um, I'm not sure that R5 is the right reasoning. the area um has a lot of of housing in that area and it seems to be three stories max, four stories max. Um so perhaps again a less intensive um build for the site with a little more open space. So I'm I'm concerned about the number of guest parking on the surface um just because families come to visit their grandparents. Um, again, there are a lot of deliveries. It It seems a little bit too tight for the site, but I think it's a a great concept, great location. Um, my concern is is definitely the height and the traffic um at that intersection. So, thank you, >> Commissioner Brick. Thank you. Um, yeah, I share my fellow commissioners comments. I I I like the plan. I I like how the uh the impacts uh seem to be uh limited or or trying to be kept to be limited from what's there today. I mean, staying out of the steep slope areas and the trees and and the hard surface footprint seems to like they're trying to match pretty close to what's there, you know, with the parking and the building and so forth. And the underground parking is is a big plus, I think, for helping with that. Um I I share the same comments, concerns regarding uh maybe the height of the structure as this maybe moves forward into uh more of a preliminary design. I think that might be looked at a little further. Um the other the other thing that came to my mind and this and there was a lot of um comments about um you know access to the to the parks there. There's there's Lone Lake Park. There's Bryant Lake Park close by. Uh great amenities, great access to those. Um, you know, when I've gone through the area, I've seen uh I frequently see people out there walking along Roland Road. Um, there's no, um, you know, sidewalk or, uh, trail or anything there. People are just kind of walking out on the shoulder. And I think with uh the concerns that have been expressed about the speed of the traffic and volume at times, I um hopefully I'm hoping in the you know comprehensive plan maybe that there's there's plans in the future to build something more bicycle pedestrian friendly there because uh um you know the the you know I know the current residents love to get down to the uh Lone Lake Park and uh Bryant Lake and it'll be the same with with this you know should it go in. So, um, just something to think about in the future here. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Minion. >> I absolutely think it has merit. Um, I agree that the current business there is underutilized. I can't remember ever seeing even a partially full parking lot there. Um, we're in the neighborhood quite often. Um, I think a change it'd be a good thing for the neighborhood. Um the height issue I'm I'm really glad for people who came up and spoke because um I've learned firsthand that when the ash boore hits it hits hard and it hits fast. And I would encourage some sort of a tree study and maybe a bricks and diversity in the trees so that uh we can kind of find a dichotomy that will kind of balance the shielding and with the height of the building you finally end up on. Um, one of the things that kind of concerned me is is that 30% slope on the one side on the back side of the building. And it' be nice to know more about um fire access. How easy it will be to get somebody out of the building, how easy it will be to get some equipment back there and tend to uh uh just fires in general. If I remember right, there's a good chunk of the building that's actually in that 30% zone. I think they've done a really nice job of making it fit in that property. It's a unique spot with some unique u terrain. Um, I like the idea of having a 55 plus. I think it would really fit the neighborhood well. Um, I agree along with the parking too to have parking spaces and and spaces for distillery vehicles, the Amazon vehicles, things like that. I would like to see some sort of thought given into solar ready roofs. Um, some geothermal while you have all the equipment there. Geothermal can be pretty reasonable priced if you've already have the excavating equipment there. If you've got a big hole in the ground, it might be an opportunity to save there as well. Um, not saying it's enough to can take on the entire building's needs, but it might be a nice opportunity to uh offset some of the common areas or whatever in general. Um, but I think it's going to be a a nice u a nice uptick to the neighborhood in general. I appreciate it, >> Commissioner Shoemaker. Uh I would just uh agree with all the comments of the commissioners here. Uh I do think it has merit. I I would say uh my emphasis would be back to the density issue. I think that uh the height and the density may be a bit much for this location. I think that's going to be the uh the biggest concern uh that needs to be addressed. And I would I would maybe make sure that we have a clear understanding if this comes forward in a in a more refined concept as to what does this look like from uh the other properties and what do what do they see and what do they experience from that their perspectives? Uh I think that would really help. >> Great. Thank you. Um I generally concur as well. Uh I think that this uh project has merit. I like the proposed use for the site. I like that the there's the access to the trails for residents. Um not too worried about these the minor steep slope encroachments. In this case, it actually um low I believe it would make it potentially conforming. Uh seems like low tree impact. That was one of the things I am curious about is really the from the visuals to Commissioner Minion's point earlier. It seems like okay great this is going to be well surrounded. But uh when you actually build that building, are there do you impact the root structure of any of these? Do you lose a lot of the trees? Very interesting point about the emerald ashbor. Um I really like how it maintains the footprint and it sounds like that there's been a lot of effort and and a few derivations of this project that have already been worked through with the city. Um so I like what I'm seeing there. I will comment that I think this is a housing type that we need. Um, and in terms of things I'd be interested to see to learn more about, uh, would be traffic and whether the site could truly support a six-story building. Uh, mentioned the tree and the visuals, the excuse me, the the tree cover and the and the, uh, and the visuals. Um, really curious about the city's perspective on the comp plan change. I thought that generally we we try to shy away from that. Um, and while office is maybe uh not used as intensively, I think there is still a place for office. So, I am curious about that. And then I'd be curious uh if this comes forward just to see obviously what the the specific visuals are and working with the neighborhood. Um, so I mean given all of that, especially with regard to shielding, this might support a six-story um structure. So, I'll I'll I'll disagree. Uh especially because I know I mean with no pool and if you're doing the um parking garage and going subterranean, the economics uh are going to make this a pretty expensive building if we're not going to uh have above grade parking. So, curious there. Um ideally, it would be a little bit lower, but if it if the site could support it, uh I might be open to it. Um, do you have everything that you need? >> I think that was great. Thank you. >> Okay, great. Thank you so much. Uh, no formal action on that uh item. Uh, look forward to seeing if you come forward with the project. All right. And with that, we move on to item number 10, adjournment. Would anyone like to make a motion to adjurnn the meeting? Commissioner uh Brink, >> I'll make the motion. >> Commissioner Shar, do you want to second? >> All right. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Motion carries. We are journ tonight. >> [music] [music]