[0:00] e [0:37] no we got nothing [1:26] welcome to the March 24th 2025 meeting of the WIA Planning Commission I hereby call the meeting to order my [1:32] name is Blake Cameron and I am the chair of the Planning Commission I have just a few words on how to participate in this evening's [1:38] agenda members of the public May attend this Planning Commission meeting in person or watch and listen remotely by [1:43] viewing the meeting on Channel 8 WCTV and at the city's website at [1:48] www.a.org WCTV public comment during the public [1:54] forum Andor public hearing portions of the meeting may be provided in in person at the meeting in advance or by logging [2:00] on to the team's call and raising your hand during the public hearing when your name is called in the meeting you may [2:05] you will be seen and heard in our council chambers and on the cable channel you'll be asked to unmute and [2:11] then you may may begin your comment all public comments must include your full name and [2:16] address the city encourages comments and questions about items on the agenda and when possible request that you submit [2:23] them in advance by emailing public comment weta.org calling City staff at 952 404 [2:30] 5323 or mailing Wisa City Hall at 600 R Street East wetta Minnesota 55391 [2:37] attention public comment I'm going to take a real quick [2:42] deviation here before we get to roll call I'm going to recognize Mr Jeff D who is the city manager for the city of [2:49] wetta thank you chair Cameron excuse me and good evening Commissioners real [2:54] quick know there's a a lot of people here but I just wanted to take mention two things one is thanks to the Planning [3:01] Commission your service your dedication commitment to serving your community uh [3:07] a lot of times it's a thankless job but it requires a lot of thought time effort and you don't get a paycheck you're [3:12] doing it because you want to do good for the community so just real quick thank you uh other thing I want to it's kind [3:18] of Bittersweet uh we're going to be saying goodbye to our city planner Val corals later this week we're going to be [3:24] thanking her and recognizing her and celebrating her next Endeavor uh we're going to do that later this week but [3:30] tonight I wanted to officially introduce you to Alex sharp Alex sharp is our new community development director we have [3:37] searched high and low for Alex uh we took our time uh but we got our person [3:44] so we're really happy to introduce Alex to the Planning Commission the community uh and we'll be intro introducing him to [3:51] the council tomorrow uh Alex comes to us from um excuse me a tenure in Shaka where he [4:00] worked on a lot of Economic Development related projects as well as planning and then most recently in Apple Valley where [4:06] he spent several years there in a fast growth and redeveloping City uh in their [4:12] Community Development Department as well and I asked Alex uh to keep it keep a [4:18] little intro presentation tonight to under 30 minutes so he'll be really [4:23] brief um but just we're thrilled that he's here and I hope everybody also will [4:29] uh please welcome Alex sharp to the city of wetta let's give him a round of [4:36] applause so that's all I have I don't know if Alex you had anything to add there [4:42] okay and you'll you'll see that he's pretty [4:48] sharp but um we're done here tonight thanks Jeff um next on the [4:54] agenda is the roll call and this is where it'll all come together direct director sharp can you please call roll [4:59] for us actually this evening we will have Val I'm going to pronounce everyone's [5:06] name correctly so that Alex knows how to say them uh starting from commissioner anony commissioner planton here [5:13] commissioner schwabie here chair Cameron here commissioner Severson here commissioner elg here and commissioner [5:20] van Loy here thank you [5:26] um next on the agenda is the approval of tonight's meeting agenda um do any of [5:31] you have any um questions or proposed changes to the agenda for this evening no all right um may I have a motion to [5:39] approve the agenda as presented I will make a motion to approve the agenda second thank you uh any further [5:47] discussion all those in favor say I I any opposed uh the mo eyes have it the [5:54] motion passes and the agenda is approved um next on the agenda is the approval of the consent agenda today's [6:01] consent agenda consists of two item two items which is the approval of the meeting minutes from March 10th and [6:07] approval of the report and recommendation for approval for the fence variants at 3:30 355 W cliff and [6:13] the private Street do any of you have any questions or comments about anything in the [6:19] consent agenda can I have a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented motion [6:26] to approve the consent agenda El thank you thank you any further [6:34] discussion all those in favor say I I any opposed eyes have it the motion [6:40] passes and the cons consent agenda is approved um next on the agenda is the [6:46] public hearing items which is assume I assume the public is all here tonight um [6:51] tonight we have one item and that is the uh 200 Lake Street application um planner quarrels could you please walk [6:57] us through the staff presentation or the application sorry I am happy to but we're actually [7:04] going to have director sharp start for the first couple slides and then I'll take over from there thank you thank you [7:10] chair uh thank you planner control the PowerPoint thank you [7:17] uh so as stated this application is for 200 Lake Street East there are a number [7:22] of different actions which Val will go through the complexities of uh in a little bit we've got some slides that'll [7:29] go through that um at length go ahead and slip so the site is zoned uh PUD for [7:37] Planned unit development and you can see that on the graphic on the screen as [7:43] well the site is guided as a uh Central Business District 20 to 30 units per [7:52] acre the aial photo helps identify the site on uh in the community and its proximity to Lake on the slide are also [7:59] a number of items uh that are pertinent or locations I should say that are pertinent uh to help Orient those from [8:06] the public it is the site of a current or I should say former TCF uh office and [8:13] bank location that has been vacant for a number of years the street view of uh the project [8:20] shows the building is still currently uh on the site and uh part of this proposal [8:26] would be for the demolition Val will go through a little bit more uh detail on the applicants proposal and [8:33] specifically the application items all right so we've got a number of requests [8:38] in front of us today uh I'll start with an overview of the project and then go into each of the evaluation criteria for [8:44] the original requests uh we have a couple related to the planned unit development status of the site uh a PUD [8:50] concept plan and general plan uh which this applicant is elected to combine their applications for but other [8:57] applicants often split that up uh to get two levels of feedback from Planning Commission and Council there also a [9:03] zoning District amendment to note the change from one PUD to another PUD there's a Shoreland impact plan SL cup [9:10] for impervious surface above 75% a Shoreland residential PUD cup for [9:15] 50 residential condominium units and that's for um that approval is for any project that has significant multif [9:21] family in the residential district and then design review that includes two design deviation one for significant [9:26] massing breaks that don't provide views from the public Street like Street and one for Street tree spacing in excess of [9:32] our Max spacing of 26 ft but to give more of an overview of the application [9:37] uh we'll get into this a little bit but the the uh the site is broken up into cores so it's one long building that [9:45] stretches uh a lot of the length of the site from there it comes up and goes into six different cores you can see [9:52] that those first two um sets of colors one is pink one is blue the blue is [9:57] commercial space and the pink is is residential and then you can see that the floors going up from there are all [10:05] residential some renderings for reference the first one is if you're uh standing on Lake Street looking East or [10:10] sorry looking West uh you'll see that East End of the property uh the second image is one that shows uh the [10:16] applicant's proposed massing brake treatment the third is one that shows the project uh from Lake minetonka and [10:23] then the fourth just gives you a better idea of some of the architectural detailing associated with some of those facades that you'll be able to [10:30] see for a little bit more detail these are the elevations along Lake Street um these are compliant with our design [10:37] standards in terms of uh materiality and um articulation it's just those masting [10:42] brakes that we'll talk about later you can see um a lot of feedback has been taken into account when putting these [10:48] together and then these are the elevations for the rear uh just to give you a reference point for that view from [10:54] uh you know Grove Lane Lake minona that sort of area for your reference uh the rear elevations are not subject to the [11:01] same public facing design standards that the front are uh that's because it fronts railroad property and not the [11:06] right of way so that's why that's one reason why they might look a little different than the front the project does include open [11:13] space a couple of different kinds uh the two uh Open Spaces on the end are um [11:20] public open space uh there's some improvements for both of those that'll run through in a moment the blue is [11:25] landlord controlled public open space it's how if you're standing on the street and you want to walk up and go [11:31] through the property in order to see out the other side you'd use those blue areas and then those pink and purple [11:37] areas are landlord controlled uh either commercial or um or uh residential open [11:42] space so those areas just behind those buildings which would be for the benefit of those tenants whether they're commercial or [11:48] residential that East Side uh would be sort of refurbishing the existing sort of mini park over there uh a lot of [11:55] improvements with Landscaping uh seating a lot of stuff that would um aens i l fit in with panway a bit more than it [12:01] does now and then improving that West Green Space at Lake and Ferndale uh which I believe would also include a lot [12:07] of uh storm water infrastructure uh to deal with that increased impervious surface so the building height is [12:14] something that is a little complicated to calculate on a site like this it's a very long site and one of the things [12:20] that happens along Lake Street is that the slope changes from end to end so if you're standing on the East End uh [12:26] you're going to be seeing a building that feels taller and that's because when we draw a grade plane through a [12:32] sloped site one end is going to have the grade plane kind of sit above the actual ground and another the other end is [12:38] going to have the grade plane sit below the actual ground so in terms of Designing a building on the end where [12:43] the grade plane's a bit High you get a little bit of extra you know sort of actual height to work with versus where [12:49] it starts to slope up at the other end you get a you get less uh quote unquote actual height to work with but with the [12:55] entire building overall we always measure from the grade plane so the from the grade plane is that 30 ft and it is [13:02] compliant uh [13:07] so and one correction that should say uh three stories in 35 and not two and 30 [13:12] that's an error on my part just one more illustration of how that Building height changes end to end similarly you can see [13:19] how um the average grade plane treats that sort of underground parking area differently uh from end to end as [13:25] well in terms of density this is always something we have to look at in conformance with the comprehensive plan [13:31] uh there are 50 dwelling units proposed over the acreage of the site that works out to 26 about 26 units per acre and in [13:38] our Central business district we allow for 20 to 30 units per acre so that's compliant with our comprehensive [13:43] plan uh when looking at parking uh in previous iterations of this proposal this has been a big talking point uh [13:49] with this one there's uh sufficient parking provided there's no shared parking cup requested so each of those [13:56] spots are designated for their use and don't need to share between uses each residential unit will have its own [14:02] spaces and then commercial will also have uh their own spaces there's a discussion to be had about you know that [14:09] commercial space being office and Retail uh both of those uses are three per 1,000 when it comes to spaces per square [14:16] footage so those are a little bit interchangeable uh in that respect I did also want to highlight [14:22] loading and deliveries this is another uh significant point of discussion that's been made um if a larger box [14:29] truck were to uh use the site or you know were to use the site to uh to load [14:35] and service either those residential units or the commercial space there's now um sufficient turning movements on [14:40] the site so that you know that truck turning around can be accommodated on the site instead of potentially having to back out onto Lake [14:48] Street uh the parking other than that is all interior so one of the cores first [14:53] floor uh core A6 has 15 parking spaces uh inside the building you can pull in [14:59] on the west side and then all of the underground parking associated with the residential stretches end to end under [15:05] the whole building and can be entered from uh the east side near that parking and loading [15:10] area uh tree preservation uh quite a few trees are being removed but there's also [15:15] um you know a history with the site of dead diseased and dying trees so all of that's been taken into account uh the [15:21] required inches to replace are about 274 in the applicant is proposing [15:27] 249 and then they're proposing to use uh Fe and L of tree replacement for the other 25 and that uh plan with some [15:34] limited comments is acceptable to the city Forester as is so the requests in front of us uh for [15:41] the Pud specifically are that zoning Amendment and then those concept and general plans I'm not going to run [15:47] through every single question right now that'll be for your discussion but I just want to highlight the kinds of things we'll want to focus [15:53] on so for the Pud zoning Amendment uh we'll want to talk about compliance with the policy of the comp plan uh how it [16:00] fits in with the neighborhood is it producing a negative effect and you know does it really fit in with that Central [16:05] business district comp plan guidance around shops and office uses for the concept plan are we talking [16:12] about you know Innovations and development higher standards of design creative use of land the comp plan again [16:17] and creating a more desirable environment that might be achieved than by strict application of the zoning code [16:23] as it is today with the general plan similar we want to talk more about the comprehensive plan any detri Al effects [16:29] and then consideration of the natural features of the site for uh the Shoreland overlay [16:35] District there's two requests one is this SI this Shoreland impact plan conditional use permit for 85% [16:41] impervious surface coverage we ask this of any project that's going to propose over 75% and um that's been asked for [16:49] with a couple of projects along Lake Street recently not all but most of them and then I also mentioned this PUD cup [16:55] for 50 residential condominium units what this requ um has staff go through in terms of [17:01] analysis is a series of tiers basically saying if you're going to have density near the lake we want it to get less [17:07] dense as you get really close to the lake so this is within the Shoreland District but not right on the lake so to [17:14] that end um the proposed density in terms of those tiers uh is compliant with the uh pcup [17:20] requirements but the Planning Commission can still talk about you know some of that storm water mitigation that the applicant uh has mentioned and um you [17:29] know whether this sort of Blends in with the Shoreland and vegetation although that's probably a little bit more applicable to other [17:36] projects so this design deviation uh is for massing brakes and typically in our [17:43] code or rather always in our code we ask for a massing break uh at least 25 ft in width for every 150 ft of facade length [17:49] depending on the district the specific design standard uh that we're talking about here talks about development [17:55] between Lake Street and the shoreline of of wetta bay this is not a lot of properties but this is one of them and [18:01] it notes that those developments shall provide any significant massing breaks as midblock connections to provide views [18:07] of lake minaka and allow for potential future access to the lake I have those circles up there because the applicant [18:13] has quite a few places five uh throughout the project that could be those massing breaks however because the [18:20] massing break language asks for aiew of Lake motanka there's three of those massing braks that don't provide a view [18:27] of lake minetonka either because the homes on Grove Lane are in the way or the Boat Works is in the way or the grade is such that it's not feasible so [18:35] we're only looking at those two potential massing Brakes in red as needing to comply with the [18:41] standard so I wanted to highlight this set of floor plans uh just one more time to show that typically when we show uh [18:48] the site plan for the site it usually Cuts sort of through the first floor of the site so you can see those six [18:53] separate cores pretty strongly but then as you go up into those second and third floors you can see that that massing [18:59] brake gets closed in uh by those residential units on either side so you can see that those massing brakes don't [19:05] continue upward uh throughout the site the applicant has proposed that um [19:12] they're providing a view by sort of keeping that first floor open so that you can still walk up and [19:18] see uh but not necessarily providing it up above and having those two residential units sort of cross over the [19:26] reference we have for this is within the design standards handbook which shows a clear break all the way through the [19:31] building and just to note this is for both of those cores and this is one more example of [19:39] what one of those cores might look like so when we look at design [19:44] deviations uh we evaluate them differently from variances differently from conditional use permits and that sort of thing we have a different set of [19:50] Standards uh basically a significant deviation requires a finding that the negative impact of the deviation is [19:56] outweighed by one or more um of the following factors and I didn't do a great job of listing these factors but [20:01] it talks about greater Conformity to other design standards uh you know is there an undo burden involved with [20:07] current leasing housing and Commercial conditions and then you know does approving that massing break have a [20:13] positive effect on the area maybe that particular design standard isn't a good fit for a particular site or a different [20:18] neighborhood this Planning Commission has evaluated design standards before and then the question that you know [20:24] staff asked in order to determine whether it was a deviation at all was do those Ming brakes provide views of lake [20:30] metano or allow for potential future access to the lake so that should also be discussed by the Planning [20:35] Commission the other design deviation uh is for maximum Street tree spacing uh [20:40] you know our design standards ask for Street trees for a lot of projects like this one and notes that the maximum [20:46] spacing of trees shall be 26 feet uh but also provides some stipulations about how those trees uh should be planted uh [20:53] you know there's not a lot of use to Street trees that are planted in really tiny Wells or in areas where they're not [20:59] going to thrive for this particular project uh there was a discussion between uh the city the applicant and [21:05] Three Rivers Park District because we have that multi-use trail that runs along Lake Street the discussion was [21:12] that um where that trail hugs really close to the building or the property today adding more Street adding more [21:18] tree Wells would actually negatively impact that uh Trail usage because it would start impacting that and cutting [21:24] in so that's where that design deviation came from and simil to the other deviation you know you ask yourself the [21:30] same questions about Conformity and accommodating uses and having a positive [21:36] effect the public review process thus far we've had our standard notification sending a letter to Neighbors from the [21:41] city and from the applicant also getting published in the newspaper uh before the Planning Commission packet was published on [21:47] Thursday we had not received any comments since then we've received I think two or three more comments uh [21:53] which have been uh both printed uh for the Planning Commission to view and also are available printed Upfront for the [21:59] public to view the applicant also held their required neighborhood meeting on March 13th and had 15 people in [22:05] attendance uh the discussion included questions regarding access to Lake Street commercial uses that might be in [22:12] play construction delivery open space um some discussion around public art which has been going on for a little while now [22:18] and then of course uh impacts related to the railroad the next steps from here are we [22:23] finished the staff presentation uh the Planning Commission can now um have some dialogue with staff staff ask some [22:29] questions the applicant will then give their presentation they've got a series of slides uh from there asking questions [22:35] of the applicant based on everything we've heard uh the public hearing after that and then the planning commission's [22:41] deliberation and recommendation thank [22:47] you thank you planner corals um Commissioners you have any [22:52] anyone have any questions for sta at this point I have a question Mr Al I [22:59] could you remind us why the massine break area between A1 and A2 would not [23:04] have views of the lake is that because of the elevation of the railroad track or how could that not have a view of the [23:12] lake I default to planners waer on it but my understanding is a combination of grading and uh the Boat Works uh [23:19] building being in the way as well the building okay um planner corals is correct the um [23:28] height of the railroad burm uh prevents any views from the street you know if you remember the site when you if you [23:35] were to turn South off of lake at Barry you know you have a quite a a railroad burm [23:42] to cross over while if you were at Ferndale that's an atg grade crossing so [23:48] the railroad tracks uh get lower as you head to the West at the location of the [23:54] massing briak between A1 and A2 it's over six feet in height that burm so [24:01] even if there was an opening there's no way to view Lake menona from the street [24:07] as the code uh stipulates and the view must be from the [24:15] street that is the the code language of where to measure from yes so it does not [24:20] take into consideration anybody who might be across Lake Street living on [24:25] the second floor of a building or that is not what the code reads [24:32] okay commissioner swabi okay so uh regarding that code [24:38] then um I can understand wanting people who previously Had A View to have a view [24:45] with this with these massing brakes of the water but if it's only the first [24:51] floor that's open there's other things to take into consideration and I and I don't know if this has to do with the [24:57] design standards handbook or not but there's also for the people on the other side of the street Sky views sunrise [25:04] sunset stars all that that are lost if you have only a small [25:13] opening but what you're saying is that is not something we should take into [25:18] consideration no that is not what I'm saying it's the um the measurement is [25:26] from the street not multiple stories up across the [25:32] street but all the things that you talk about are um contemplated in the figure [25:40] that's in the design guideline that shows the opening where there is a view [25:46] being complete through the entire building so if you happen to have [25:51] property across the street but it's not a place that has a view of the water per se you can't take into consideration [25:58] that now there's no sky view or other things that come with Sky watching that [26:06] is from the city code that that says the view is measured from the [26:11] street so is that something that as a Planning Commission we can take into consideration if we want to not at this [26:19] current meeting the the view from the street is the way the code is today and [26:26] uh when the applicant submitted but that is something at a future meeting [26:31] you can bring up if you want to change but we are working with the code as it [26:36] exists today what future meeting are you talking about if you wish to discuss uh [26:43] code amendments in the future you can you could work with the chair to try to determine a meeting but today we're [26:49] working with the code that's written and adopted thank you appreciate [26:56] it commissioner serson do you have any idea on the unit count at some of the adjacent properties like Ventana wetta [27:03] blue Meer place I could look it up I don't have it right at me ventana's in the upper 20s [27:12] and I'd have to look what wi thata blue was I I didn't work on that project but 50 is a lot more but this is a much [27:19] bigger property so I'm just trying to get a sense of like comparisons yeah yeah the those properties are configured [27:26] in a in a different alignment but they are not as long as this one you know [27:31] those those properties are narrow at the street itself and [27:37] deeper um but uh you know if you if and I don't know Val if you could go back to [27:42] the aerial uh image but this property goes the entire distance from Ferndale [27:49] to Barry where on the north side of uh Lake Street you know that's almost [27:55] broken into two blocks because there's Edgewood Court in between and even looking at the one [28:01] block uh that has Ventana and and Yetta blue there're still the future uh 2 2011 [28:09] Lake Street and then uh there's Melvin's 235 which is completely an office [28:14] building but uh uh you could see that this project is the equivalent of the [28:23] two blocks on the north side of Lake stream thank [28:31] you um quick just quick question for you um just when we were talking about masing brakes What's the total facade [28:37] length of the structure uh the total building [28:43] footprint to building footprint is about 760 ft 760 ft yep [28:49] okay but then at the first floor where they have those first floor pedestrian [28:55] connections none of the cores are wider than 150 foot each at looking at it at [29:02] the first floor only and all those um Plaza SL walkways are 25 ft wide or [29:09] wider uh that right I I believe the one between cores five and six because that [29:16] has that two-way parking to go under that one might be a little wider but the other four are exactly 25 ft okay wide [29:28] and just my apologies this is mislabeled as well it should be one two three not grade for a [29:35] second no worries so then on where it says grade level floor that's first level right yes [29:43] y first and then second and then third on the far left which is the West End that's a surface parking lot correct [29:51] okay so there's no building structure there the basically the exterior walls [29:56] are there so you know you know when we looked at the elevation it it looks like the rest of the elevation but there's [30:03] no's other than An Elevator Shaft and a and a stair wheell there's no heated you know temperature controlled space so [30:10] it's like a garage basically oh I see okay but from the facade that first [30:16] floor looks like the other first floors and that parking is for the commercial [30:24] property that's the intent um you know uh I know the applicant is talking about [30:31] doing secure uh residential parking in there uh in their narrative um this was [30:39] listening to the last application for 200 Lake Street that there was you know [30:44] people could get confused that they have to go underground you may miss that spot gives them another opportunity gives [30:50] them um yeah you know if you were shopping in one of the shops you can get out and walk down the sidewalk and you [30:56] know get to to that SP and then it looks like on the right side or the East End that like box with the [31:02] crosses that's the entrance correct there is parking that's [31:09] underground right so it is the ramp and particularly the that box truck uh [31:15] loading which requires a little bit more height and then um a little bit of a ramp it's just the way that worked that [31:24] ground level uh first level had more um [31:30] mechanical spaces than than the front now you will see it's not colorcoded but [31:37] because of that on what's labeled landscape grade level in that first core there is a [31:45] storefront so when you're on the sidewalk in front of A1 which is [31:51] actually that that landscape grade level you would have a door to enter that that [32:01] core so it's kind of the two levels intermingle in that [32:08] one particular core Commissioners anyone [32:16] else okay um thank you staff sure can I go back to the massing breaks [32:24] again because I'm a little the they are the applicant is asking [32:30] for a a deviation from what is code on the massing breaks [32:36] correct well technically the applicant does not believe they need a deviation [32:42] they believe they're meeting the code we as staff do not and this is the [32:47] presentation of so that's what we're discussing that's correct okay I just wanted to understand that after Bonnie's [32:53] questions okay I don't have any questions BL okay [33:00] cool good all right well thank you staff um [33:05] at this time I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward and address the committee commission um please state your name and address for the record and [33:12] your role on the applicants team um I think we've got like 20 minutes or so [33:17] set aside for you guys so hopefully we can keep it in that window but if you need a little extra time we're a little flexible too we just want to be out of [33:24] here by midnight oh yeah [33:32] wonderful good evening my name is Kurt fream I'm with Lake West development at [33:38] 14525 Highway 7 in minona I'd like to take a moment and [33:45] thank you chair Cameron the Planning Commission the WIS Zetta community and [33:52] especially City staff for their patience and diligence and helping us through [33:58] this development approval process as you know we've been through [34:03] many applications uh half a dozen give or take but then again who's counting uh [34:10] although this development approval process has been lengthy uh we remain enthusiastic about [34:19] this Redevelopment through this journey of applications we've learned a lot through [34:25] this journey we've also you'll see tonight been listening um that said we also [34:33] acknowledge that we cannot please everyone's desires but we can build on the [34:41] momentum and the positives from our former applications and embrace the city's [34:48] direction that direction being that we were close to an approval on our last [34:55] application and all be it close from a standpoint of we [35:03] were missing on two primary concerns those two primary concerns being related [35:09] to parking and related to zoning or not rezoning as well as a number of [35:16] ancillary requests from the city [35:22] um with all that in mind we've went to work we went to work on complying with [35:30] each and every one of the city's requests and because of this we [35:37] respectfully ask the Planning Commission recommend [35:42] approval of our application and help bring this [35:49] development The Landmark to Life Next I'm going to turn the podium [35:54] over to Kelsey and Cody from our office [36:00] to walk you through our fulfillment of your [36:10] requests hi I'm Kelsey Thompson with Lake West development I'm the development director um please excuse my [36:16] voice tonight I have two kids in daycare we are all recovering from a cold but it was really important for me to be here [36:21] tonight to see this project through most of you [36:28] this site walk or drive by this site and are may be familiar with some of our previous plans to develop this quarter [36:34] of a mile long stretch of property overlooking Lake minetonka we fell in love with this property we know the area [36:40] well as community members ourselves and I've worked over the past five years with the city listening to feedback from [36:47] the Planning Commission from Council and from the community and feel that the time is now to finally develop this [36:53] site so what are some benefits of our plans to develop this site now one of the benefits of these plans [37:01] is improving the safety of the site and the community the building that was once a [37:06] former bank built over 30 years ago has been in the hands of multiple owners [37:11] with years of deferred maintenance on top of the differed maintenance the building has been sitting vacant for [37:17] over half half a decade which unfortunately has been broken into multiple times and [37:23] vandalized Beyond repair The Intruders un fortunately left a roof hatch open and the pipes froze [37:30] which caused a massive water leak and flooded the building this has left the building in a [37:37] state far beyond reasonable repair it's full of mold which you can see on the bottom right hand corner the electrical [37:43] the Mechanicals the elevators the heating systems it's all been destroyed [37:49] um the building and the property are blighted we've taken extra security [37:54] measures boarded up the back of the building and have been working with the Police Department um however break-ins [38:00] unfortunately continue to happen this is a more recent picture on the left where you can see that the boards were [38:05] forcefully ripped off and while the boards are Band-Aids they are not a long-term solution we'd prefer to keep [38:12] the front from being boarded up or a fence put around the property for Aesthetics reasons um and are hopeful [38:17] that by getting this project started now we won't have to take those additional safety [38:24] measures so what's the solution the solution is revitalizing a neglected [38:31] vacant building with a Charming bright and welcoming mixed use development [38:36] creating a landmark for WIS Zetta that will be [38:42] celebrated Landmark wetta is designed to be an extension of wia's lifestyle that thoughtfully complements and enhances [38:49] the experiences residents and the community cherish [38:58] another safety benefit of our plans to redevelop this site is the environmental cleanup as seen in this historical [39:05] photograph this site was used as a lumber yard and an oil tank storage the soils have contaminants in them that are [39:12] polluting the groundwater and unfortunately have untreated storm water that's running off the site directly [39:17] into the lake where our kids swim and play as steers and users of the lake a [39:24] big benefit to this project is that the soils will be remedied the contaminants removed and we'll put in a robust [39:30] treatment system for the storm water which is furthering the safety of the community and without this development [39:35] of this site it'll just continue to go untreated another benefit of the project [39:43] is the Charming architecture and design what makes wetta so special is the small town character and Charming Lakeside [39:50] Community that it is the reality of what's there now is an abandoned deteriorating building and site that is [39:56] beyond repair it provides no benefit to the community no public space and no connection to the lake this project [40:03] transforms that blighted property into a place where people can gather interact [40:09] and enjoy WIS out's charm this same architectural style was [40:14] presented in our previous application which was denied for other reasons but the architectural elements in charm were [40:20] well Reed by the council by the Planning Commission and by the community therefore we kept the same design elements that create this stunning curb [40:27] appeal much more in keeping with wia's charm than the cold dark up to 54t tall [40:33] building that's there now and the charm isn't just in the colors and the materials that we use but in the way [40:39] that the building interacts with the sidewalk and the streetcap inviting pedestrians to engage with the building [40:44] recesses providing areas for seating along the way and a space to spontaneously [40:53] connect the fully ADA Compliant building is designed with upper story step backs [40:58] so that two story elements really Define Lake Street furthering the goals of the comprehensive plan for development to [41:04] Cur occur on a smaller human [41:10] scale another benefit of these plans is the Rotunda the runda is an iconic [41:15] feature that gives the landmark its identity and invites connection to the West End of Lake Street it's a [41:20] characteristic of the design that was well received again in our previous application and will be something unique and special to wetta [41:27] I could go in more detail about the architectural charm and these renderings but I think that they speak for themselves the condo units will sell for [41:35] a wide range in price and I think the reality of this building being lived in gives it even more charm and small tone [41:42] character especially in Ju opposition to the vacant boarded up building that's there [41:53] now another benefit and maybe a broader sense of charm is is the connectivity [41:58] and walkability a new norm since Co that we've been studying through the lens of real estate and development is [42:04] spontaneous social interactions instead of making appointments people desire desire a more [42:10] organic way to meet that's what makes why Zetta and Lake Street in particular so attractive it's engaging and designed [42:16] with many opportunities to spontaneously connect as a community member I myself I [42:23] often start on the East End of Lake Street and walk either along the panaway or new boardwalk and turn around once we [42:28] get to Barry Avenue or the Boat Works building wetta is missing that something [42:34] that connects the West End to the rest of Lake Street Landmark is the missing link [42:40] that'll be the book end of Lake Street and that extends the panaway improvements to the West End creating an [42:46] incentive to want to walk past the Boatworks building through shaver Park which is a forgotten Gem and round off [42:52] Lake Street with two brand new parks and five covered viewing plazas [43:00] another benefit of our plans and to further the connectivity are the covered viewing plazas that offer yearr round [43:07] use along the property there are five of these um these are also all ADA [43:14] Compliant there are essentially Brakes in the building every 150 ft that provide brand new views of the lake that [43:20] aren't currently there or accessible this image is from street level and it shows a view of the lake as you drive by [43:29] the covered viewing plazas offer a meeting space where you're able to escape the elements which as we know are [43:35] sometimes unpredictable in Minnesota you could take an outdoor Zoom meeting shaded from the Sun or you could just [43:41] hang out um enjoying the views of the [43:47] lake just imagine if you're on a walk and it starts to rain um you could pop in here and take shelter until it [43:55] passes we discussed high level having some public viewing binoculars at the end of the Ming brakes um where you can [44:01] maybe take a view of the paddle Borders or the sailboats or check out the chili [44:07] open another benefit of the covered viewing plazas is an opportunity to have a fireplace and maybe a hangout area [44:14] something that's sheltered from the snow where we could have heaters along the plaza in the winter something very unique and new to [44:23] Yetta another benefit of these plans and to further the connectivity are the new parks and open Green [44:32] Space so starting on the East end this is over um by Berry adjacent to the [44:37] depot this is a thoughtfully designed Park that integrates characteristics of the panaway like staff mentioned with a [44:44] winding path Gardens and seating areas I show you a few [44:53] renderings one of the requirements for these plans is to preserve 30 % as open space and our PL plans preserve over 50% [45:02] of open space exceeding that [45:08] requirement we've already spoken to some groups about utilizing the space for Community [45:18] Gatherings and here's another park on the west end of the site next to the trail off Ferndale again offering some [45:25] more seating options and an area to connect and relax and we've discussed [45:30] installing a public bike repair station here being that it's along the [45:37] trail these Parks also align with the city's goals and the comprehensive plan that call for WIS Etta to be more [45:44] walkable development needs to occur on a smaller human scale with smaller parks near neighborhoods [45:58] another benefit that we're super excited about is the opportunity for public art [46:04] so we met with the wia's new public art steering committee and we share some of these high level ideas with them that [46:09] you can see on the screen we do have a few different spots along the development for something for some of [46:14] the public art installations and something really special to Yetta starting on the left upper left um [46:23] we discussed maybe doing like a humans siiz frame potentially at the end of one [46:28] of the viewing plazas just for a fun photo op an incentive to walk by and [46:36] interact the yellow arrow is pointing to a unique space that we created near the Rotunda to allow for an expression of [46:43] art that'll be really special to Isetta we'll continue to work with the art committee um on furthering these [46:51] plans then we love this idea on the upper right hand corner um of this Mosaic wall [46:57] the committee mentioned that the community is looking for a Gateway sign or a mural or a sculpture something that [47:03] creates a welcome sign to Isetta and they mentioned that our West Park would be a good location for that being that [47:09] it's the entrance onto Lake Street from Ferndale on the sidewalk carp on the [47:15] lower left maybe you're familiar with this it's by Target Field when you run your hand under it it makes noise um [47:21] just an inspiration for something interactive like this perhaps in our East Park [47:27] and then another idea amongst many that we shared with the art committee is um The Poetry benches on the lower right [47:35] hand side also there's some poetry sidewalk pieces that have been successful in other communities um we [47:40] did discuss this idea with the revolution of America groups uh here in in town and are looking to do a memorial [47:52] here another benefit of this project is the parking features that allow for a flexibility in future uses by exceeding [47:59] the parking requirements we've got assigned stalls for the residents we've [48:04] got a semi- turnaround short-term parking spaces for Ubers and [48:10] Amazon that are on the surface level and a surface level parking [48:18] lot that's a rendering of the West End those are some of the benefits of [48:25] our project you can read more about the on our website at yal landmark.com uh [48:30] this project is not just about development it's about creating a space that works for the community we're super [48:36] excited about this now I'm going to invite Cody up to the [48:48] podium hello Commissioners my name is Cody Dedrick with Lake West I also seem to have be having voice troubles too [48:54] like Kelsey with the kids um one not I want to make to commissioner s severson's Point earlier the street same [49:00] street Frontage along Lake Street on the North side would have about 102 units and about 60,000 sare feet of commercial [49:06] on the same street FR intensity uh as Kurt mentioned earlier we heard that our last application is [49:12] very close and there were a lot of positives with that I'm going to touch on some of the design [49:17] deviations and talk about how we've implemented uh addressing the past [49:23] requests and items of concern first the street tree deviation you can [49:29] see on the left side of the screen where Lake Street widens and the plans do not show any Street [49:34] trees this is a practical difficulty and byproduct of the widening of Lake Street [49:39] the bike trail and the sidewalk the sidewalk encroaches on our property by 7 [49:45] ft a solution for this would be adding tree Wells between the sidewalk and the landscaped areas either the solution of [49:52] the tree Wells or the deviation would be a benefit leaving the B Trail and the [49:57] sidewalk as is today the other deviation is only [50:04] regarding the lake views through significant massing brakes the screen shows a figure of an option for midblock [50:11] connection with a massing void however this is not the only way to achieve a midblock connection the requirements for [50:17] our significant massing brakes are to provide a midblock connection with views and access to the [50:24] lake as staff pulled up before here are the five locations of significant massing brakes we seem to agree that all [50:32] five have access to the lake along with meet the definition of a midblock [50:38] connection these two locations are the one in question that have potential views the lake we thought it was clear [50:44] from the exhibits we provided to staff that these did show views of the lake and we take full responsibility and [50:50] could have shown better images and delineations to help with that process I think the next couple slides will help [50:56] show that a little bit further as we talk through it these are the two existing view [51:02] locations from those two massing brake locations as you can see the one on the left uh between cores two and three does [51:10] not have any views today and the one on the right is between cores three and four and there is a very minor view down [51:16] in the center where you can see down on the Lake oops go back if you were to put in [51:25] the covered viewing plazas they would be approximately the same height as that first floor of the TCF Bank building [51:30] today I don't have a cursor to really show but if you crossed over there that'd be about halfway up the picture which should' still have access and [51:36] Views to those Lake the [51:42] lake this is one of the cross-section exhibits from our uh exhibits we provided staff for [51:49] analysis this shows the views to the lake so the Lake elevation across is [51:55] 929 the average male height on the street is about 9947 between cores 3 and 4 it' be 943 actually between cores 2 [52:02] and three the sequels about 14 to 18t difference above the Lake elevation and [52:08] this will always be looking down anything else would be looking up at the sky which isn't part of the [52:15] code here are some renderings of the same exhibits we provide to staff as you can see the lake is seen right through [52:21] the viewing Plaza as you look further in the background you can see the shoreline across the lake equal to the tree [52:30] line we request this deviation be removed based on this information and are happy to provide supplemental exhibits if necessary for the [52:37] record now I'd like to talk about the previous application requests and items related to parking it was [52:44] requested that we meet the parking requirements with no utilization of the joint facilities parking agreement that [52:50] we provide assigned parking stalls for the residents that we provide an intuitive surface parking lot that we [52:56] provide short-term parking stalls for deliveries like Amazon and Uber like Kelsey mentioned and also that we provide uh [53:04] sufficient parking for flexibility and future uses if the commercial and office change associated with parking it was [53:10] also requested that we provide an on-site semi- trck turn round while we believe this would mostly be handled by [53:15] box short box trucks we took this seriously and were able to accommodate the On-Site semi- Truck turn around [53:20] directly on site this would be the first of its kind on Lake Street [53:33] here's an image of that semi-truck turn around the other primary request was to [53:40] not rezone the property we proceeded with amending the 1989 PUD rather than changing the zoning [53:46] classification in honor of this those are primary open items from [53:52] our previous application the staff has confirmed we've addressed the other ancillary requests were that we shorten the building [53:59] provide more open space provide lake views of the private property owners from across the street modify our [54:05] product type and use to reduce our parking demand in the facilities use intensity and collaborate with the [54:11] railroad on the development plans we fulfilled these requests [54:19] too we've learned a lot from the invaluable feedback that we've received from the past applications in process [54:25] Landmark wise outa as a result of years of planning Community input and commitment to ensuring this development [54:31] enhances wisett in a way that city leaders residents and visitors can all be proud of with new public viewing [54:38] plazas improved walkability expansive parks and open space enhanced Parking [54:43] Solutions and a dedicated semi-truck turnaround this project is thoughtfully designed to fully integrate the west of [54:50] Lake Street through the panway vision while removing a blighted property and a [54:56] deter a unsafe building this development will be a focal point for the community bringing new energy and [55:02] connectivity to an honor utilized site providing countless Community benefits and ensuring a seamless experience from [55:08] east to west along Lan Street we look forward to working with the city and Community to bring this Vision to life to create landmark wetta and we are [55:15] asking for your recommendation of approval because the time is now thank you for listening and we look forward to [55:20] any questions thank you thank you Cody [55:26] Kelsey and Kurt um all right Commissioners any questions [55:34] for the applicant or Fout questions for [55:40] staff Al [55:46] first I commend you on uh taking that feedback and addressing many of these [55:52] problems or issues that we had the last time so thank you for doing that and I [55:58] fully feel your passion and desire to get this project going it is attractive [56:04] I tingle kind of looking at it it it's rather exciting to to see something [56:11] happening there I am curious um when you came the last time you mentioned several [56:16] times you know you took the feedback you fixed the parking you fix the um semi [56:22] turnaround a little more green space but your last plan had massing breaks I [56:31] think between every building uh that was proposed above street level [56:38] um and now they're all gone except for first floor so I'm curious if someone [56:44] wants to share the rationale for making that decision when you had such beautiful massing breaks on the last [56:51] ones and now you've eliminated them on Stories 2 and and three which to [56:58] me um reduces some of the [57:04] attractiveness um it's it's it's massive now it looked more quaint and uh [57:11] appropriate for the streetcape of Yetta consistent [57:17] with all the other buildings along that um you know we have streets I guess if [57:23] there were streets gr through there you'd have to have the brakes but it's it's a big long building particularly [57:31] from the lake side it um is not attractive in in that's just [57:37] my opinion um but I'd like I I'd be interested in rationale for eliminating [57:42] those massing bricks um Al together uh on stories two and [57:48] three can anybody say why you made that decision [57:57] I'm not sure if I'm the best one to answer it but but uh I have uh some thoughts behind it [58:05] um there's there's a lot of balance push and take um we whacked a [58:14] big chunk of the building off on the East End to provide the semi TR turn turnaround and Views to the neighbor [58:22] across the street that was not required that we give them but trying to get [58:27] along and trying to be neighborly um and gave up 10 plus million dollars in [58:32] revenue and we're like where do we try to get some of that back and then we cut [58:38] the first floor out of the sixth building on the East End and and so can [58:44] we make some of that up and where is it the least um um and then can we turn it [58:51] into a benefit on top of that and so we looked at it and we said you know it would be really nice and it's Unique to [58:57] the community to be able to to give um massing break that's available for year [59:03] round use there is nothing else like that in the community um and so it was a [59:10] combination of of those things uh trying to create a benefit out of it and the [59:16] push and pull and in trying to make a project viable you have something to add go [59:22] ahead yeah just to piggy back off off what Kurt mentioned here um the design [59:27] standards tooo like the the design of the mass um above the viewing plazas [59:33] it's really recessed if you can pull up maybe an image or a rendering of where you can see them it's it's really [59:38] recessed so when you're looking down the street you're not even going to know that those that mass is there it's not [59:44] going to look like Mass um yeah if you're standing across you know when you're looking across you can see it's there um but the design standers do a [59:51] really good job of of you know designing a building that doesn't look so massive of a um and B like Kurt mentioned just [59:59] with it being Minnesota um I think you know there are some establishments that take up some space on the sidewalk along [1:00:05] Lake Street where they have some enclosures that are utilized in the winter months with heaters um but we [1:00:10] don't have anything like that for the public to enjoy um the panway is wonderful but it's not covered um and [1:00:18] again like Kurt mentioned once we you know realize that the code allowed for us to put the the mass above the brakes [1:00:25] uh and still provide um the intent of code we saw the benefit in that and it [1:00:30] could be something really unique and special to [1:00:37] wetta commissioner Steverson can you um elaborate more on the number of curb [1:00:42] cuts that you have and drive Lanes on from Lake Street all the parking garages [1:00:48] and then the the truck turnaround and that short-term parking like what you think for Ubers and things yeah so today [1:00:55] they are four curve cuts and accesses to the property it'll be reduced to three as part of this so there's just the one [1:01:00] on the west end for that 15 surface parking lots stalls excuse me for most of the commercial spaces and then the [1:01:06] one uh roundabout area is two two access points one in one out and then um today [1:01:13] there's the sidewalk immediately in front of the building and then the bike lane or the mixed use so will both of [1:01:19] those stay or will you get rid of the sidewalk and just have that bike lane [1:01:25] can you there are main sidewalks and bikee LS out in front so that was the part with the street tree deviation as [1:01:30] well too it it pinches down there and we're kind of limited and so the the tree Wells is just an option so that [1:01:36] place we could basically put in a grate over a 3 foot by 3 foot section where a tree could grow some s some similar that [1:01:43] you may see in like Minneapolis and fully paved out streets we could do something like that if there was an interest in that to help but our goal is [1:01:51] to really keep that bike trail and sidewalk intact for Community going by there too so we feel like there a [1:01:56] benefit to that deviation or providing some other solution like the tree Wells I have a [1:02:01] question commissioner swabby yes um Can can we bring up a the the rendering of [1:02:08] what this building looks like from the water I think it was on about 122 of the [1:02:18] packet this is getting back to the massing [1:02:23] brakes okay and and also the one without the tree there I think there's another [1:02:30] one was in our packet but I don't remember seeing one on the presentation there it was there it's here it's on [1:02:37] page 121 yeah okay 121 yeah there it is no [1:02:44] no other way okay so from the [1:02:51] water with just those short one-story massing bre breaks it does look very [1:02:58] much like one very long white building from [1:03:04] the back with little bit of brick here and there and my concern [1:03:11] is doesn't really feel Small Time Charming to me I think that if those [1:03:18] breaks or at least the two that are required went all the way through three [1:03:23] stories it would look less like a [1:03:29] large block of one thing after the other after the other cuz how it looks from the water is important people are on the [1:03:37] water all the time and it's a great big piece there there there was a some sort [1:03:43] of a development that went on in Mound a few years ago that was very much took up [1:03:48] a block or two maybe three of space that looks from the water very [1:03:54] much building building building building building so this is just goes Mass to [1:04:00] the back back to the massing breaks with at least two of those totally open two stories or three [1:04:07] stories I I think it would be more charming and less industrial looking [1:04:14] that's my point of view I I would say though to focus on the rendering above this so This rendering shows the trees [1:04:20] removed so all those homes would show that piece as you can see so this is the only point you see from just just just a [1:04:25] clar know yep anyone else um I have a question for [1:04:32] you guys um the on the on the back side of this it looked like there's a walkway [1:04:38] is there a walkway kind of that would go a public walkway along the backside of the entire [1:04:43] building it was hard to tell from the drawings I don't on portions of it so that could be patio areas for those [1:04:49] commercial spaces um for their office use whatever it may be um the residential ones will be private patios [1:04:55] as to get to cores four and five the other ones likely will have access through there through the commercial use [1:05:00] or just public in general so not not all the way so not all the way end to end [1:05:06] not all the way from end to end you can uh it depends on what the user wants to do there but if an office user is there [1:05:15] and they're conducting business they probably might not want somebody coming and knocking on the door can you give me [1:05:21] directions to wherever they uh they may want to set up and use that space as a [1:05:28] part of their office so um it depends if it's a retailer they might or if they're [1:05:34] all retailers they might want that Passage through there so we're uncertain [1:05:40] how at this point how that will actually be used okay and but it will so not all [1:05:46] of it you wouldn't be able to walk from the East End down to the West End on the [1:05:52] back of the building it's not planned for that okay [1:06:00] can I make a comment go ahead okay I I just wanted to say that um you've made [1:06:07] some of what was commercial space now into condos on the first floor so so [1:06:12] there are now some first floor condos that sounds as if that makes up that additional number of condos to get to 50 [1:06:21] so so are you are there more condos that are going to go on floor 2 and [1:06:28] three where those brakes would have been before that you now have covered covered [1:06:36] plazas well we removed condos on the East End M by shortening the building [1:06:44] and we infilled the but the actual breakdown I don't know that would take a [1:06:49] study tell you exactly where they went um but they are condos better in filled [1:06:57] into those massing brakes yes and and the and the piece with the commercial too the commercial got cut in half from [1:07:03] about 40,000 down to that 19,000 I'm sorry can you repeat that uh the commercial space got cut in about half [1:07:09] from about 40 down to 19,000 and how many units were added there of of it [1:07:15] would be four four in each cor there' be eight units on that first floor okay [1:07:20] thank you yeah commissioner vanl yeah to continue i' uh commissioner schabbi said [1:07:27] uh about the rear and um it to me well it it looks like a very singular white [1:07:33] building and I know that you weren't Bound by the design standards because it wasn't facing um uh you know a city [1:07:42] street but I was wondering if you considered the design standards in order to uh in order to make it feel very much [1:07:49] like um uh the same look and feel of wetta from the water as it does from the [1:07:55] street well we considered that it it meets the [1:08:01] design standards on on all sides we spent all of our not say we spent a lot [1:08:09] on the front the backside you don't see I mean I I sit on the lake and I and and I try [1:08:17] to point out where the building is close in and you where's the building I can't see it I see it's that building right [1:08:23] there the 60 foot you still can't see it uh you're going to have a hard time seeing it Contin uh even though now it's [1:08:30] white instead of brown but uh um so it's important that the backside looks good [1:08:36] but we did not give it the same level of detail in front yeah what is the length of this the new [1:08:45] building versus the existing one that you can't see from the lake I think it was uh called out as 760 ft give or take [1:08:53] this new one yes and what's the existing one 270 300 somewhere in that [1:09:00] range okay thanks I'd like to jump in on a question [1:09:05] that was asked earlier that you partially answered um you asked about what the densities were across the [1:09:11] street um in that same quarter mile stretch across the street there's [1:09:18] 102 residential units and 60,000 Square ft of commercial [1:09:23] space we're half that 50 units and [1:09:29] 20,000 1/3 of the commercial so we're half and a and a third of the intensity [1:09:36] across the street to put it in [1:09:42] perspective uh one other um one other question that I have I I have a dog and [1:09:49] I and I walk by this building all the time and I've seen it falling apart and I've also seen um how treacherous the [1:09:56] sidewalk is in the winter um and I'm and I'm concerned with a building with the [1:10:02] second and third stories uh blocking more of the sunlight that that uh sidewalk on the North side [1:10:09] will continue to be treacherous except longer and I'm just wondering if you've given consideration to that [1:10:17] maintenance uh of the sidewalk in order to better serve the public we we have [1:10:23] and we we didn't do an official uh Shadow study but given the sun rises in [1:10:30] the East and falls in the west um the sun on the street side is going to be [1:10:37] the same weather uh on the North or the South because the sun's not rising in [1:10:43] the north it's or or coming from the north so from a shadow stand [1:10:51] point it's not a lot of effect does that make sense yeah [1:10:57] although the sun the sun does your rise and set is correct but it goes along the [1:11:03] southern so you get you get the Shadows toward the north that's why people want Southern facing uh homes and Southern [1:11:08] facing driveways so it definitely will be affected from wherever there's second [1:11:14] and a third story even a first story but certainly a second and third story that cat that that will be cast onto the onto [1:11:21] the north sidewalk yeah we'll have a full snow chloride management plan in place when we get through that to handle [1:11:26] all the salting and hopefully pet friendly salting and all that stuff [1:11:34] too excellent Commissioners anybody else all right thank you staff oh sorry [1:11:42] commissioner yeah I wanted can I direct one to you absolutely at this time too [1:11:48] can you bring up the the image that shows the massing uh breakes um just in [1:11:56] the diagram I think I don't know if it's with the code or it showed those design [1:12:03] little blocks no it was just kind of in the design standards I [1:12:09] think that so those images exist in our design standards is [1:12:15] that correct the image in the um bottom corner is the one that exists in our [1:12:22] handbook the rest are from the applicant yes so uh again I'm going to go back and [1:12:28] I appreciate the rationale you provided it makes sense I I get the whole economics thing but when you look at an [1:12:35] image like that in the design standards it it looks pretty clear that a massing [1:12:41] break is through the building entirely not [1:12:47] just one level so I'm just curious how you looked at that how you read [1:12:53] 99.7 and and concluded that what you are requesting one is in a [1:13:00] deviation and one is in alignment with the design standards um I don't know I [1:13:08] read I read 99.7 pretty clear significant massing breaks um facade [1:13:15] that responds to the small scale character of Y Zetta big long massive thing is [1:13:22] certainly not an appearance of small scale [1:13:27] um so again I'm just after your I I get the economics but I I I I don't quite [1:13:33] get when you look at the design standards how you concluded that from a scale standpoint you can [1:13:40] measure it in a lot of ways you can measure it f you can measure it by density you can measure it by open space [1:13:46] By by um uh by the number of parking stalls in [1:13:53] comparison so we're we're we have more parking stalls in are needed we're only at we're at 50% open space not 30 we we [1:14:01] um uh I mean we check a lot of those boxes um that that is one way you can [1:14:07] create a massing break as staff has said for the massing breaks meet the criteria [1:14:13] it's these two that are called out on page six of the staff report the only reason according to the staff report [1:14:20] that we're seeking a deviation this is not our words this is staff report that says this page six towards the bottom of [1:14:27] it it says because we're not providing A View to the lake well we [1:14:34] are it's that simple the elevations it's basic math the math says it were if you [1:14:43] put up that other slide we provided your eye level is at 9:45 the Lakes down at 928 there's 20 ft [1:14:51] of elevation difference to look to the sky for the lake is [1:14:58] like it's it's not up there we don't need Einstein in the room to tell us [1:15:03] that uh and so we're meeting the intent in the ordinance with respect to [1:15:10] providing what we've provided now if you're asking for a view of the sky that's not what the ordinance asks [1:15:18] us to do they ask us to provide a view of the lake and and we did that just to [1:15:23] just to add on to that the the renderings that you have for these the two massing brakes that are in [1:15:29] question show the uh uh the view once you're inside the what did you call it [1:15:37] cover Plaza covered viewing Plaza do you have views of of renderings of what this [1:15:43] looks like from the sidewalk in in those two cases there was one in our presentation and that's where we we [1:15:49] could have done a better job of sharing that with staff earlier we fully agree that I looked for it and didn't and [1:15:54] couldn't find it that's why I've been looking for both of in from that area from the sidewalk so that we can uh go [1:16:01] back to our present and an image picture there's a [1:16:10] picture the the one thing I'd like to excuse me point out about the code section though is so there's two ways to [1:16:17] have a significant massing break there's one is the midblock connection and the other one is a massing void we feel that [1:16:22] if they wanted to be a massing void between Lake Street was that have both types of significant massing brakes mid block connection and a massing void and [1:16:29] when you look at this figure figure 3.2 out of the design stand's handbook this is what's defined as a midblock [1:16:35] connection after you read the midblock connection section it says C figure 3.2 now I will say the text below that talks [1:16:42] about between the lake and the shoreline when you read figure 3.2 but with that same logic to staff [1:16:49] has agreed that they midblock connections that we qualify for those so that's where it comes back to the Views again to Kurt's points so [1:16:55] the the code supports it from that standpoint the figure is show us a midblock connection and we've been uh [1:17:02] analyzed and found to be midblock connections for these as we're presenting from staff so that's where [1:17:08] the the piece is our struggle is how tell us how we're not providing a view [1:17:16] of the lake with what we provided [1:17:36] excellent well thank you applicants Kurt yeah [1:17:42] Cody um thank you Commissioners thank you staff um I'd like to now I'd like to turn to [1:17:49] the uh public hearing portion of the meeting um couple quick comments on the public hearing portion [1:17:55] um public hearing is a time for us to listen to members of the community um about the approval requests we are considering um it's part of the process [1:18:02] a very important part of the process um that allows the members of the public and the community to participate and add [1:18:07] their perspectives as we consider these requests any questions asked during the public hearing will be held until the [1:18:13] end of the hearing and may be addressed at that point by staff that said I will [1:18:18] now open the public hearing um if you wish to speak please come forward to the podium [1:18:25] um state your name and address for the record and let us know if you're connected to the applicant in any way or [1:18:30] representing anyone else or as part of a [1:18:46] group good evening uh Darren Knight I'm a lawyer in a real estate broker in town [1:18:52] I've been in front of you folks before a few times I'm half of my clients the zit family L zitzloff A Westway LLC is a [1:18:59] condominium development immediately across the street from 200 Lake I have Jeff s with me with the family uh LOL is [1:19:06] watching and he's been in front of you many times he's watching he wanted to thank you guys all for the hard work that you do as he's been a good [1:19:13] developer responsible developer in this town for a long time and owns property in this area and so and his he has Jeff [1:19:20] his son here with me uh so and you know we have a lot of respect for Kurt in his [1:19:25] in his group we've talked to them uh we believe in property rights and we believe they should be able to develop something across the street uh but this [1:19:33] is a really big building and it takes you know it's when somebody said it compares to two blocks across the street [1:19:38] it's a very long building and uh we just believe there should be massing breaks [1:19:44] from the street level to the sky which is that one depiction shows and we [1:19:49] believe all five and I'm going to gently disagree with City staff I believe perhaps not from the street but even [1:19:55] from the street I think you could probably see the lake from all five of those spots in some some small degree [1:20:01] and if you walked up into those openings I'll bet some money and I'm I'm not a good better but i' bet some money you'll [1:20:07] be able to see the lake and you walked up into those into those five openings so we believe there should be five openings from street level to the sky [1:20:15] and that is really our main disagreement we we you know we believe that you know they've done a lot of hard work they've worked very hard on this for a long time [1:20:21] again Kurt's a smart very uh accomplished developer and uh and we respect that a lot uh but uh we believe [1:20:29] that those massing breaks are crucial not just for our building across the street but for the public at large and [1:20:36] uh and also their setbacks they should have more setbacks uh we believe you [1:20:41] know we had put nine and 10 foot setbacks across the street on our building and we had to uh create kind of [1:20:47] a mini park over there and we have we have a much narrower building it goes deeper but we have uh we created a [1:20:53] massing break between an East and a West building over there which they have not provided so we' like the same rules to [1:20:59] apply here so we had a 9ot setback on one building and a 10- foot on the other and again we created a massing break all [1:21:05] the way to the sky we didn't cover it if we covered it we could have built another condo or two that way as well [1:21:10] and we did not do that uh so again uh we [1:21:15] that's that's the main thing we're focusing on it should be 25t brakes every 150 ft and I think accessible to [1:21:22] the public in some regard so they could walk in there uh that was the main thing we [1:21:28] wanted to talk about and we don't again with all respect we don't think it's an undue burden on the developer in this [1:21:33] case because I represent developers we want him to make all kinds of money but uh he's going to he's going to have to [1:21:39] reduce some of those condo sizes a little bit I still think that they should be able to monetarily come out [1:21:44] okay I don't think there's an undue burden on the developer in that in that regard um those were the main points I [1:21:51] wanted to make talked about the set back and again [1:21:56] if they do a proper setback on the west side of the building they could add more trees and we understand it's a narrow parcel but we believe they could they [1:22:03] could fix that that that setback it might be three or four feet in some spots it should be again equivalent to what we had to do nine or [1:22:10] 10 so Jeff do you have any comments no no so overall suppor of they did a great [1:22:17] job getting the charm for wi Zetta and we're not against it I just think [1:22:22] sometimes if you look from the street view you can can see through but what if you're higher than the street view then the the covers do impede with view from [1:22:31] up a l or two from across the street not only our building other than that they've done a great job and I think [1:22:37] it's a good project and we sent you a detailed letter that I assume you guys all got I hope you did and uh if you [1:22:42] take a look at this you know that building marked in red on that rendering [1:22:49] we gave you of the existing building versus what they're going to do this is this is quite this is long buildings [1:22:55] these massing breaks are really important and I think and again not to be uh too negative here you're going to [1:23:00] have a dark colder side of the street if this is allowed as submitted and for a [1:23:07] long ways down that street which doesn't just affect again Property Owners that's the general public going up and down [1:23:13] that street so thank you thank you Darren thank you Jeff [1:23:38] thank you for giving us a uh opportunity to speak my name is Kevin Sullivan I live in Plymouth and this is Michelle [1:23:44] White and we both represent the uh the revolutionary groups that uh Kelsey had [1:23:49] spoken about before I represent the sons of the American Revolution and Michelle [1:23:55] represents the Daughters of the American Revolution and uh we in conjunction with [1:24:00] the children of the American Revolution we are the folks that uh put on the [1:24:07] flying pancake breakfast that we have at uh the Union Depot and we've been doing that for 20 years now and we've never [1:24:14] really embarked on anything like this before and the reason that we're here today is because in 2026 is the 250th [1:24:23] anniversary of our country in the signing of the Declaration of Independence so our groups nationally [1:24:29] are looking to put in beautification pieces in uh each state [1:24:38] in the country and our societies have decided that the best place to do it in [1:24:44] the entire state of Minnesota is in Yetta because of the support that the city of wisett has given us for the [1:24:51] flying Pake breakfast so uh we're working with je doll on perhaps having [1:24:56] something at the Union Depot spot and then uh Jeff had indicated that there [1:25:02] was this new exciting development that was in the planning stages and uh they [1:25:09] said that they had a beautification portion of it and um we've got some ideas about beautification in so far as [1:25:16] uh 250th commemorative benches or a flag pole with a bicentennial Betsy Ross flag [1:25:23] on it or or some some pavers you know we we haven't quite gotten into the granular details of what they would be [1:25:29] but we think it would be fantastic for the city of uh wetta to in the green [1:25:35] space that they're looking to have have um the sons of the American Revolution the daughters of the Revolution and the [1:25:41] children of the repres uh American Revolution uh have a representation in in those green [1:25:49] spaces so we're here to support the project support the community and being [1:25:54] part of the community and uh we hope that um the the discussion moves towards uh [1:26:02] fruition and that their project goes ahead and somehow or another we can work out um an incorporation of the Green [1:26:09] Space uh for uh our groups and Adventure something like that would make it meaningful for people that are walking [1:26:16] through the city of wetta to uh have a reflection point and think about what a [1:26:21] fantastic country this is so so Michelle thank you thank you Kevin um good [1:26:27] evening Commissioners thank you as Kevin mentioned I'm Michelle White I'm the Regent of the lake minetonka chapter [1:26:33] National Society Daughters of the American Revolution we're headquartered here in wetta our 160 members come from [1:26:40] all over the west side of Minneapolis many from wetta several of whom are here this evening uh to support and so we're [1:26:49] a women's service organization much like the S uh we have focus on three pillars [1:26:54] which are education historic preservation and patriotism and so for many years uh D [1:27:01] has supported the lake minetonka chapter flying pancake breakfast as Kevin mentioned uh we're always out there the [1:27:08] C as we call them the children of the American Revolution they are the lake minetonka chapter Children of the of the [1:27:15] American Revolution they're an offshoot of our organization so we're always there to support them this annual event [1:27:22] is always a big draw to the community in fact that turn uh off Berry Street [1:27:28] toward the depot that's where our patrons line up for the pancake breakfast and last year over a thousand [1:27:34] people lined up and so our interest is in the east side of this development that Park that the developer was talking [1:27:41] about uh with uh our installations and uh we really think that we could put something meaningful [1:27:48] there in particular our goal is to place it for July 4th 2026 the 250th anniversary of the [1:27:55] founding of the country and it would coincide with the flying pancake breakfast and be a wonderful event and a [1:28:02] way to pull people down Lake Street to see whatever might be in that Park we'd love to work with uh the new Commission [1:28:09] on art that that was spoken about uh to see exactly what would go there and be [1:28:16] appropriate uh we don't really have any specific plans other than a bench maybe at this time right right so anyway we [1:28:23] it's uh um a wonderful opportunity for us to get involved and thank the community that's been so kind to us and [1:28:29] we thank you for your consideration thank you Michelle thank [1:28:35] you Kevin thank [1:28:48] you director sharp do we have any members of the public on teams would like to speak we do not [1:29:03] excellent all right is there anyone I missed that would like to speak this [1:29:11] evening um seeing none I will close the public meeting and bring it back to the commission for [1:29:18] discussion um Commissioners do you have any questions for staff or the applicant at this point or question that were [1:29:24] raised during the public hearing that you'd like staff to [1:29:32] address um excuse me I'm just going to reiterate that I uh I was trying to get [1:29:38] a view of uh from the street uh of the [1:29:43] of the of the viewing plazas between the [1:29:49] two the two that we're talking about all of the all of the views that I saw are [1:29:54] shown from inside the viewing Plaza not from the street and it and it appears [1:29:59] that there are ramps uh to go up into those viewing plazas based on uh based [1:30:07] on your um your submission so I'm I'm actually trying to understand if from the street you're actually going to get [1:30:14] much of a view or if you're going to have to go up those uh up those Rams in order to get that [1:30:22] view that [1:30:29] thank you and that's a great question um we're trying to clarify this as best as we can but maybe Val if you could just [1:30:35] jump to the other PowerPoint and then if you could scooch [1:30:40] up to maybe a little bit further [1:30:47] up um yeah [1:30:57] okay down yeah I think it's right after here [1:31:04] yep just right in here somewhere and maybe this one I think it's this one yeah it's very [1:31:10] difficult to see because the color of the lake Blends in so much with the sky so probably anyone sitting in the audience is part of the community you're [1:31:17] probably not going to see where that Lake and sky is delineated but for those of you who have a screen in front of your face you might be able to tell like [1:31:23] the the sky and where that is delineated with the lake but this is from our architect's 3D model they put in the [1:31:30] entire grades and everything um from real life and then they impose the the [1:31:35] building on top of that so this would be what you see from the height of an average male as we use for our [1:31:43] example so is this the is this which which cores are these and which is this [1:31:48] looking through I think this would be core between cores three [1:31:54] three and four and we have the same renderings for [1:31:59] the core between um or for the break between cores two and three I just don't [1:32:05] think we have it in this in this presentation but we're [1:32:10] happy to provide that as we mentioned if staff or you want some supplemental materials to show that the view the lake [1:32:16] is there okay thank you chair I have a question for the [1:32:23] applicant um if we go down to the next slide um number 19 what is the height of this ceiling [1:32:31] here the the overhang it looks quite narrow here I didn't look at the um section to get the dimension from floor [1:32:37] to ceiling it's 10 ft 10 [1:32:47] okay yeah 25 ft wide 10t tall [1:32:56] I um I have a question yes of Staff it appears that there is a difference of [1:33:03] opinion in uh the design standards which which which should apply to these [1:33:09] massing breaks um it appears that the [1:33:15] developer feels that having this type this view number [1:33:22] 19 on all of them all five would be sufficient but that the city feels that [1:33:28] the standards require that at least those two Lake View ones which are at [1:33:34] which are what three and four is it three and four that you would prefer to [1:33:40] have be three stories tall not have a [1:33:45] ceiling am I right um yes and I'm going to ask Val to go through uh between [1:33:51] three documents to help can we start with L [1:33:56] document and can we zoom in the very top where they've they've provided the text of this [1:34:04] particular section and so I know that's small in a lot of words [1:34:10] there but it's important because there's A1 and there's [1:34:15] A2 I'm sorry what was that there's at the very top it says a and then there's [1:34:21] a one and a two so there's two sections of the code [1:34:26] now one would be anywhere in the city [1:34:32] doesn't have to be by Lake minaka anywhere in the city you have two choices a massing void the maximum width [1:34:41] of 25 ft above the ground floor extending through the depth of the [1:34:46] building that's actually what um zitzloff did for uh a one Lake there the [1:34:56] first floor continues between the two buildings and then above that is a break b a publicly accessible midblock [1:35:05] pedestrian connection uh or street through the building with a clear view [1:35:11] so that's what they've provided that would be like um sorry I'm spacing on [1:35:16] the building in front of the Mill Street ramp but there's a there's a walkway that one isn't 25 ft wide but there's a [1:35:23] walkway on the first floor that allows you go between the two this is anywhere in the [1:35:28] city so yes a midblock connection we agreed [1:35:33] they provided a midblock connection then there's number two which talks about [1:35:39] development between Lake Street and the shoreline and that is to require a significant massing break to provide [1:35:46] views they're arguing that one can be number two can we go to the design standard or [1:35:55] the design guideline we have to help illustrate [1:36:03] what the intent it's a slide yeah 31 we have this image that [1:36:10] states lake minona views of the lake so this is an image of what that intention [1:36:18] is they're arguing we they could use something else if we look at the image to the left [1:36:27] and they showed it too when you are a human being when you have a view you [1:36:34] look up and you look down you look at a a range they're basically providing you [1:36:39] like you're looking through binoculars they're limiting what is naturally the human view where the image [1:36:48] from the design guideline matches the human view that you have a range [1:36:54] it's not just looking down you're looking up too so we feel they're [1:37:01] interpreting the code differently than we're interpreting the code we feel the code says that that should be open the [1:37:10] entire height of the building and I would and again this is only where there's views so we agree with the [1:37:17] applicant that between cores 1 and two and then between cores four and five and between cores five and six there is no [1:37:25] view so they don't have to implement that image that has it all the way [1:37:30] through but when there is a view of the lake it's the way the human eye [1:37:39] sees could I make a comment absolutely [1:37:45] um I would suggest however that uh the other areas between um four and five and [1:37:54] Beyond um may not have a view from street level but they certainly would have a view from across the street on [1:38:01] floor two it doesn't say in point two there that must provide a a lake view at [1:38:10] street level the handbook does and we've uh [1:38:16] updated the code to match the hand okay and and then in addition cores A4 and a [1:38:25] between A4 and A5 and between cores A5 and [1:38:30] A6 you have Grove lane behind it so kind [1:38:36] of regardless of how high you look you're going to see Grove Lane you're not going to see the [1:38:46] like chair if yeah if I could just interject you know I appreciate the [1:38:51] discussion that we've had about these these differing interpretations you know tonight my [1:38:57] advice to you is to to apply staff's interpretation this is the city's position on this and so you need to make [1:39:04] your analysis and recommendation based on that um you know the applicant is [1:39:10] free to differ with the city on that and there's a a form and a process for them to pursue that further if they want but [1:39:16] I would say for tonight uh you want to apply the standard that staff has articulated [1:39:23] thank you you know all in all it's the building is huge it is massive but it's [1:39:31] also gorgeous it's quite an improvement over what's [1:39:36] there now there are a lot of very positive things and if we could [1:39:46] somehow developer and us come to agreement that just those two [1:39:54] have to be three stories tall in order to provide a lake view I think that [1:39:59] would be a wonderful solution because we've waited a long time to get this [1:40:05] finalized it's definitely a development that needs to happen [1:40:11] and I don't know what else would look all that much more gorgeous there actually it's quite [1:40:17] pretty but a break there especially because I happen to look at it often [1:40:24] times from the from the lake we need something to to Really [1:40:30] break up that building and we need a three-story break in those [1:40:35] two spots in my opinion what do you guys think I I'll [1:40:41] follow up on that um I agree I agree with that there are few few things that come to mind [1:40:48] um a building this length one facade from end to end um doesn't really fit [1:40:56] with uh new buildings uh point1 a facade that responds to the [1:41:03] small scale character of Y Zetta doesn't meet that in my opinion without those [1:41:09] masking brakes it says a masking brake should be a minimum width of 25 ft [1:41:14] located above the ground floor well above above for 10 ft or above as far as [1:41:21] the eye can see uh I tend to agree with the planner that people don't just look [1:41:27] at the whatever your 97 degree [1:41:32] um radius was uh we look everywhere if [1:41:38] I'm standing back I want to see it all I tend to also agree that the sidewalks um [1:41:44] there will be no sun breaking through that building in the winter um and [1:41:51] certainly will not be getting to the sidewalk uh bringing light into uh what will [1:41:57] become almost cavernous for a very long stretch [1:42:03] over two blocks um so I think that the uh staff is correct in that those [1:42:11] massing breaks between two and three and three and four are required I think that [1:42:16] would bring this in line with uh achieving the um response to the small [1:42:24] character of Y Zetta um yeah uh [1:42:29] I I agree those two uh should be I think [1:42:35] it's a reasonable compromise because I would almost suggest like the other [1:42:40] developer they should all be all be all the way through all all five of them [1:42:46] because doesn't matter where you're standing you're looking all around um [1:42:52] you're not just looking straight ahead um and it's not just about the view of [1:42:58] the lake it's a view of the sky it's a getting Sun through things of that [1:43:03] nature so I think it's a would be a reasonable um [1:43:12] compromise uh Planet quarrels can you um shoot us forward to questions to [1:43:19] consider and I want to start um I think we've been we've been talking a little bit a lot about design deviation here [1:43:26] but um we've got a number of different questions kind of we have to answer tonight around um so I want to start [1:43:31] with the beauty concept and general plans um and start with discussion around or we'll start with the we can [1:43:38] start with the zoning amendment I want to start with the p zoning Amendment um and just so it's [1:43:45] uh uh kind of lead off with discussion around this this portion of it right um [1:43:53] and just kind of work our way through the I think we've got we've got this piece we've got the concept General plan [1:43:59] we've got the two Shoreland pieces and then we've got the design deviations and so [1:44:04] I'll you know just kind of talk through them and and get your thoughts on them and make sure to see if we're um can [1:44:11] come to some sort of consensus on each of them I can sure um you know when we [1:44:17] do review puds which I'm glad we're looking at that for this particular project I think it was needed um we do [1:44:24] need to consider that well planned puds can attract investment new residents um [1:44:29] both of those I was taking SNES contribute to the growth and the Vitality of the community um as the [1:44:34] applicant mentioned um so I do think this project meets the requirements for the Pud um zoning District amended [1:44:42] Amendment um it's compliant with the comp plan uh meets the performance standards [1:44:49] and height setbacks open spaces and public spaces commissioner plon can you move your mic a little closer oh [1:44:56] sure there we go um it's conforms to Future and present land uses but I do [1:45:02] have a concern that the potential negative of this is the surrounding the the Lakeside facade um the building [1:45:10] appears as one long continuous building and it's really from our community's most valuable asset um we've in you know [1:45:17] invested a lot into our playground our beach um and um armor Arena and without [1:45:25] those massing breaks it it's tough and I would have loved to have seen the attention of detail that was put on the [1:45:30] front on Lake Street to the back um it's one of the coming into the city we have [1:45:35] people coming to the restaurants and to spend time there um it would have just been lovely to have that attention to [1:45:41] detail um to the back um for the concept p I don't know [1:45:47] if there's any other people have any other questions on I have a yeah [1:45:53] amendment I well and maybe um attorney schelzel you can tell me if this is the [1:45:58] right time to do this but I did have a question about the um about the back of [1:46:05] the building because my understanding is that it's in compliance so is that something that we even can [1:46:14] consider um chair and commissioner I'm happy to answer that and staff may also want to chime in I think um the back of [1:46:21] the building is is compliant with the design standards that are applicable to the building um you know [1:46:29] whether the building meets other criteria that fall into a PUD for [1:46:34] example as commissioner planton was speaking to I think that's for you to weigh and consider but in terms of [1:46:40] meeting the design standards it's my understanding that the staff's design review of it was that the back was [1:46:48] compliant perhaps apart apart from the the the two deviations yeah the massing [1:46:53] breaks yeah the trees wouldn't apply to the back but the massing break would okay and I think maybe to maybe to [1:47:00] tie it out a little bit right um think about like small town we talk [1:47:06] about Charming right we talk about character um and I think maybe the back of that building when viewed from the [1:47:12] lake right in it in its entirety kind of lacks some of that right like and that's [1:47:17] and that's really kind of in some of the comprehensive plan stuff where we're talking about right like [1:47:23] um where are we going and what do we want to do and I think that's maybe some of that not to take umbrage with it [1:47:30] right but it's I mean it's a giant building especially when viewed from the [1:47:37] lake um I think uh commissioner Aly and commissioner plon I I agree with you on the front I think [1:47:45] um you know it would be um the ground to Sky massing break [1:47:53] really more of would be more of a portal and I think that would probably help break some of that up from the front and [1:47:58] the back um and give it I think a little more of that um charm rather than make [1:48:05] it feel like just big [1:48:10] city I also like the covered idea in some of those cases you know because I [1:48:15] do agree that from a weather standpoint so if there's a way to like take those stories off and just have like a covered [1:48:22] area um I do like that idea it's a very long that's very creative I think um very [1:48:29] considera of you know people who walk along that's that's a long building so two blocks worth and you can pop in [1:48:34] there and um have some opportunity to engage with the public so I do like that aspect of it quite a bit it's just been [1:48:41] that that height all the way up somehow like really makes ites an impact so know [1:48:48] how you kind of marry those two together [1:48:58] Zing Amendment anyone else I agree with what's been said we do [1:49:04] okay um concept plan which I think is so I think concept [1:49:10] plan General plan are going to be fairly similar here um General plan is going to have a little bit of higher level of [1:49:16] standard right because the concept plan is really the concept and the general plan is next level down um but uh [1:49:23] thoughts [1:49:31] here I think it hits all the points I don't have any I think it hits all the points [1:49:37] here um it's creative high standards beautiful [1:49:42] design um the only thing that it is is large [1:49:50] but that's what is it's going to be large [1:49:57] um and it definitely will make that end of town a more desirable place to be and [1:50:03] to walk and to spend time so I think it hits all [1:50:11] those thank you I would agree with commissioner schabbi um it's a creative [1:50:16] use of land with mixed use um versus the strict application that we might have if it was you know in the traditional [1:50:23] zoning and not a PUD um I do feel it's in harmony with the comp [1:50:29] plan um it does exceed the common open space and public space requirements um I'd even argue it [1:50:35] supports encourages inclusion of shared amenities like pocket parks and Open Spaces I think those are quite [1:50:43] nice I love the I love the creative use of the land I think that you know it's um I think they did a really nice job of [1:50:50] maximizing um the foot footprint of what they've got [1:50:56] um so I I I I really I love that part of [1:51:01] it agreed agreed [1:51:09] y keep General plan all right who on [1:51:15] um anyone want to have any thoughts on the general plan comments detrimental effects uh chrisan vany I heard you talk [1:51:21] a little bit about North Side sun shadow in especially in the winter time ice [1:51:26] yeah dogs it's crazy uh it's very treacherous um uh if if if I was uh if I [1:51:35] was in your shoes and you could uh uh handle the operating costs I would I [1:51:41] would probably heat that sidewalk um but that's not for me to say um uh but I [1:51:48] would agree with with what's been talked about and I I think that uh outside of that that one piece um in general this [1:51:57] is a a very thoughtful uh gorgeous uh [1:52:02] view I do think that uh the considerations around the massing brakes are uh fall in line in terms of the uh [1:52:12] the proposed structure structure as it lays out in point three thank [1:52:19] you anyone else I agree all [1:52:26] right um sip cup and um so this is really [1:52:34] around storm water right this is the um Shoreland Zone piece [1:52:41] um yeah if I if I read this correctly they're doing a great job especially in in uh uh comparison to what's there [1:52:50] today uh and the runoff that that happening um and I think there's a lot [1:52:55] of work if I if I read it correctly uh to capture and and make sure that uh [1:53:00] they're taking care of the storm water and whatnot so um even even with the the additional coverage I think that they [1:53:06] have a plan uh that the city looked at and decided it was more than adequate [1:53:12] yeah I didn't feel like the any concerns were raised about it at all so and I think it's in it's very in line with [1:53:19] everything else that's down there um in terms of lot coverage and I mean just [1:53:26] Lake Street's got a lot of Hardscape right how it is and I I do agree right [1:53:32] we should do our best to be stewards of the of the resource that we have in the lake um and I think we're doing a really [1:53:39] good job of that so anyone [1:53:48] else all right uh design deviations like [1:53:54] we're going to start with the massing brakes we've really covered this we' covered we've covered this one a lot [1:54:01] right um anyone any other thoughts that they haven't shared yet on massing [1:54:10] brakes all right moving on uh then the last one was tree [1:54:17] spacing I um when uh Cody was talking a little bit about it I you know I think [1:54:24] um I I appreciated their approach with what they were with what they were doing and I think that um it's Pro it's much [1:54:30] better not to have trees down on that West End than try to like put something in there because inevitably somebody [1:54:37] will run into it with a bike or a dog on a leash will go around the wrong way right you know something will happen so [1:54:42] I think it's probably more it becomes more of a hazard than it does a benefit to um the city and the populace at that [1:54:49] point yeah I I would agree with that and um given that there is such a tight [1:54:54] space between the sidewalk and the building um but I think it's more than made out for by the two parks on the [1:55:00] opposite ends and the other trees that they have on the property so I I would rather not have a line of trees right [1:55:08] along that sidewalk there you know we bike and we walk dogs and we do all of [1:55:13] that it just I think would frankly I mean as the other developer in the public hearing talked about it could it [1:55:19] could get shrunk down in order to make room I'm not sure that that is something that we need to ask them for with all of [1:55:25] the other uh concessions I would be fine uh with this with this deviation uh [1:55:31] given all of the rest of the the the Green Space work that that was done associated with [1:55:40] this well so to that and are they they're not asking for a setback deviation are [1:55:47] they no they're not okay [1:55:55] um all right uh question for staff do we want to handle this as like one whole [1:56:03] recommendation I'm sensing that maybe we've got some things that we agree with some things we don't do we want to try [1:56:09] to knock them off one by one what's the best way to approach this uh chair i' [1:56:17] I'd like you to end up with a motion that covers the entire application um on [1:56:22] your way to that if you don't feel you have consensus about what the commission [1:56:27] has shared on each one of these I think you could spend some more time talking about that [1:56:33] um I think From staff's perspective we I don't want to speak for the rest of Staff but I think I heard the most um [1:56:39] concern around the design deviation for the massing break and in general there [1:56:47] was uh articulation of criteria being met with with most most of the others if [1:56:53] if not all although I did hear some concerns that went to the the first request so maybe probing the commission [1:56:59] more on that and you can handle it all in one motion I don't know yeah no that's just fair okay so I have a [1:57:06] question to that so could we approve with taking out the massing [1:57:12] breaks or is that a big enough concern that you would recommend we deny based [1:57:17] on that so let's say for example if that's how we end it up tonight what would you [1:57:25] recommend chair and commissioner that's a that's a really good question um in [1:57:31] one sense the the the way that the applicant handled the massing breaks for [1:57:38] which they need the deviation is baked in to the concept plan and the pey [1:57:43] general plan but I also think you know your job is to make a recommendation to council and I think Council would be [1:57:50] well served if you were to point out to them yeah we we like this concept in [1:57:56] general plan we think it meets the criteria and standards of approval with the exception of this deviation that [1:58:04] they've requested we don't think that the negative impacts of that deviation are outweighed by the [1:58:11] positive aspects or criteria in that part of the code so you know I I'll [1:58:16] defer to the rest of the staff but my sense is that it would be good to you know if that was the scenario scario [1:58:22] where you were going recommend approval of those if the plans were modified be like be compliant on the M [1:58:29] with conditions right right okay right and it kind of feels like that's [1:58:36] so yeah so we could we could um recommend approval with the exception for denial [1:58:46] of the deviation massine break deviation request [1:58:54] I think it would be like a conditions that we would like to we would want them to go back and and fix that part of it [1:59:01] is that right or yeah I think that captures the spirit [1:59:06] of it we would we would refine that in your draft report and recommendation and bring back staff's recommendation on on [1:59:12] how best to articulate that but I think you could draft or direct staff to work on that report and recommendation for [1:59:19] consideration at your next meeting if that's the prim issue and again I don't we don't want to preclude you on [1:59:24] anything that was discussed if someone wants to offer a different perspective but if it that's the the issue um and [1:59:31] everything else seems to be meet meets the standards uh we would prepare the report to that [1:59:39] effect okay yeah I mean to me that's the that's the only issue that I see is the [1:59:44] is those massing breaks everything else is lovely it's it's a beautiful plan I'm [1:59:51] just so excited about it I can't wait for there to be something safer and something more exciting and to draw [1:59:56] people West and so I just I want to commend the work that you've done um you've clearly put a lot of thought into [2:00:02] it you clearly care about this community so thank you very much for that um so that would be my only concern everything [2:00:09] else is is awesome agreed Donny but to be clear we're only [2:00:15] talking about two of those massing breaks becoming three-story complete breaks I we can put [2:00:22] whatever we want in there I think you want all five no no I'm saying that I'm just recommending the denial of that [2:00:29] variance oh as opposed to say deviation I'm ready to make a motion it's a design [2:00:36] deviation what you ready ready to go right yes I think that's an interesting point from Bonnie is it for the two of [2:00:43] them or is it for all five of them well I'll make a motion okay and you can and we can discuss it and you can alter it [2:00:50] can you tell us how you're going to make aead of yeah let's have it I'm going to make a motion much as written here [2:00:56] uh reflecting a recommendation of approval for review and adoption [2:01:04] excluding the massing break design deviation between A2 and 3 [2:01:13] and A3 and 4 so you're okay with the other three you're not okay with those two correct I like it sorry is that was [2:01:23] did I hear did I hear a second second it almost any discussion do you want me to say it again though well uh chair and [2:01:30] commissioner if I I I um I guess I would offer a friendly amendment that your [2:01:36] recommendation of approval of the the Pud uh concept plan General plan [2:01:41] resoning is conditional on that particular aspect of the plans and the [2:01:46] am proposed amendment being uh becoming compliant so in other words you're not [2:01:52] recommending approval of a general plan with a deviation that you don't think should happen that's the conditional component right yes right and we would [2:01:58] so that would be the one provisio I would suggest to that motion if you and [2:02:04] your second would approve that not I'm in agreement with that and I'm not going [2:02:10] to restate it we we we've heard it and um commissioner schelby are you as well [2:02:18] yes shall I still second then you you you did second it and I think yeah and you with that and now chair you can yeah [2:02:25] no so discuss that at length so for clarity really what we're talking about is we uh we're going to recommend approval um a conditional approval of [2:02:32] the Pud um agenda General plan concept plan sorry not agenda um Amendment wrong [2:02:39] a um with the condition of the [2:02:44] uh void messing break between A2 A3 and A3 A4 um get Revisited [2:02:52] except he wants a more general statement of that that it be I guess what I would [2:02:58] say is that that the the massing brakes become compliant um so they they're requesting two deviations same so I [2:03:05] think you know to yeah their design now complies with the design standards for [2:03:11] for those two two Gap compes with the design standards yes okay are we good with that sounds [2:03:19] like we have a consensus I'm question mark I'm good I'm curious if anyone wants to do all five massing breaks no [2:03:26] you like no no no I just no no I just want to make sure because what's I don't [2:03:31] I don't think we have this is good I don't think we have grounds to do even though it would be ENT entertaining I don't think we have grounds no and yeah [2:03:38] the I mean the city's interpretation of it when they were walking through it right where that the three of them were [2:03:43] compliant two of them weren't and it's those two that are non-compliant there L and it's because they had the specific [2:03:49] Lake got it okay I want to make sure I'm clear the only way we we the only way I would understand that you could consider [2:03:56] all five is that you consider any lack of break would would be not in not [2:04:01] consistent with the small town character uh I personally think that just the two braks actually is a nice Middle Ground [2:04:08] between uh a very large building and one that will give the appearance of three [2:04:15] buildings y I would like to not dictate where they are or how many they aren't [2:04:22] compliant and there may be some creative way that they want to come back and address that situation or work with [2:04:28] Counsel on it by I I mean council's going to watch this and take our you know um the minutes and review it and um [2:04:36] take our suggestions of the two that we think should happen but I don't think you know to dictate where those happen [2:04:43] we can do a recommendation but I'd hate to say it has to be those two right just that it becomes compliant I agree but [2:04:51] are those the two that are out of compliance so if they changed it to two other ones then there would be two out [2:04:58] of compliance and two a major redesign couldn't you argue that it's not [2:05:04] following the comprehensive plan with the charm when it's that long of a [2:05:09] building so you could instead they'd be independent units all the way [2:05:16] through I would argue that's more Charming small town charm [2:05:23] so then should we amend the motion because the motion is between the two very specific [2:05:28] ones well I thought we changed it just making it compliant compant yep okay [2:05:35] that was the motion I missed that then okay commission Ankeny brought up a good [2:05:40] point about that's a broader piece right um yes and chair and commissioner I would say that concern goes more to the [2:05:49] Pud itself for sure um and is the Pud compliant with the comprehensive plan Y [2:05:57] which calls out small town charm and a lot of other things so I think you know [2:06:03] from a design standard perspective I'm not sure that would come into play uh but from the legislative decision you [2:06:10] have on whether or not to approve recommend approval of the Pud that's that's the district Amendment General [2:06:17] plan concept plan yeah [2:06:22] so if you want to bring that into play um we can right that would be a separate [2:06:28] motion it would be a different motion chair so right yeah right now you have a motion on the table that you're discussing and um should we vote on you [2:06:36] you could either you could either call the question on that and vote on it and that if it passes that would be the end [2:06:43] or you could uh you know Commissioners could decide to withdraw that motion and [2:06:49] entertain a different one so the the motion on the the motion on the table is um approval with condition of um getting [2:06:58] massing brakes into compliance which are the two specific ones no no massing [2:07:03] breaks in compliance all okay so well for for clarity [2:07:09] Commissioners the staff has identified two massing brakes that are not in compliance B can you pop to that sorry [2:07:16] planner quarrels can you pop to that picture [2:07:24] so the two in red are the two that the city has said are not in compliance and [2:07:30] what we're saying is um with our motion we are saying that we would want all of [2:07:35] their massing braks to be in compliance and so as designed today the city saying those three in Black are fully compliant [2:07:42] yes and so it really then the condition is get the other two into compliance yep [2:07:52] correct are there three two two the two these two the red ones the black ones [2:07:57] are in compliance yes ends up being the two it ends up [2:08:03] being those two y right yep okay without identifying them but those those two but those are the two specific ones that [2:08:08] were okay was late we're just [2:08:14] done all right should we vote on this yes sure yes and so if we uh so yeah if [2:08:20] we approve this as um as presented right as what we've put the condition right we're done and [2:08:27] moving forward if you want to if you disagree with that then um vote no vote [2:08:34] no right and I'm not saying one way or the other right that's no means I'm just trying to make sure we're all clear right so and and chair I would a couple [2:08:42] procedural things I'd recommend U you know I think it's probably worth a roll call vote okay um and uh and maybe even [2:08:48] giving a commissioner to explain their rationale of their vote vote if they you know want to at the end um and then we [2:08:55] can go from there depending on how the vote goes let's just start with a roll call vote how's that sound [2:09:03] okay a second um I'm going to just start right down here commissioner van Loy [2:09:10] sorry to put you on the spot first that's okay I'm over it um uh I I I approve the uh as as indicated I okay [2:09:19] I commissioner hul I commissioner Severson I commissioner schwabie I [2:09:25] commissioner plantain I commissioner Ankeny I commissioner Cameron [2:09:31] I eyes have it the motion passes all right the draft report and recommendation will be on the consent [2:09:37] agenda in our next meeting and after adoption we'll go on to city council for their consideration um thank you to the [2:09:43] applicant thank you thank you for your time this evening to the public for coming out um and uh for your [2:09:49] participation in this meeting you have to hit that NOP okay good um [2:09:56] that concludes the public hearing portion of our meeting next on the agenda is other items director sharp is [2:10:02] that you or is that planner quarls I'm actually going to defer to [2:10:08] yet another Planner plannner waer on the development plan waer thank you um I'll I'll give people [2:10:18] a second yeah let's just give them give them a minute or two to clear out of the room [2:10:25] yeah hey folks can I um we need to finish up our meeting here so can I have [2:10:31] you uh take your conversations out into the [2:10:37] vestibule thank [2:10:47] you okay for the development activity that [2:10:52] uh you you could see out in the community you know we've talked about uh Wells Fargo is moving along uh the [2:10:59] residential building the garage is uh all the structure of the garage is there [2:11:05] now we'll will see the residential building coming up uh you may have noticed the [2:11:12] equipment kind of kitty corner here at 150 uh Broadway uh they have uh about [2:11:19] half the foundation uh down now so uh we should see some of those walls uh moving [2:11:25] up here again pretty soon um updates of things that either we've deemed complete [2:11:31] and are scheduling for public hearings or um you know activities we've given uh [2:11:37] uh discussions of in the past we're still working with the kishes on that uh former Caribou spot uh to issue that [2:11:46] building permit that hasn't happened yet but we're still working with them next uh Planning Commission meeting will be [2:11:53] April 7th and we will have a Communications tower for um excel's [2:12:00] substation up at 701 Central and then we just today deemed uh The Retreat so [2:12:09] that's the 1221 wetta Boulevard East you know in [2:12:14] the middle of the Big Woods essentially uh they are removing uh a wing and re [2:12:21] constructing it but their conditional use permit requires that that uh is a [2:12:27] conditional use permit Amendment and then they are asking for the rooftop [2:12:33] mechanical design deviation um because of their location [2:12:39] but they they that requirement is is there they just need to get they need to [2:12:45] request a deviation for so that's next meeting April 7th that would be the 21st 21st okay [2:12:53] cool anything else would this be a time for me to tell you I won't be here on April 7th you can remind us you had [2:13:00] previously told us that on April thank you for the reminder I was curious if there's been [2:13:07] any news on the marijuana distributor we have been getting we [2:13:13] we've gotten inquiries from two different people okay but they're in the position now of trying to actually find [2:13:21] a space to lease okay so we're getting [2:13:29] inquiries all right um this is not on the agenda but before I call um ask for [2:13:36] adjournment since we've um concluded our portions I did want to take a moment and [2:13:42] publicly recognize planner Carl's Val for your contributions to the city and [2:13:48] for all the work that you've done on our behalf um thank you so much and I know I haven't been here long some of these [2:13:54] other people have been here way longer than I have um but it's been a truly been a pleasure working with you um and [2:14:00] um I I wish you the very best of luck in St Paul thank you chair much appreciated you guys are a great group to work with [2:14:08] yes I think you started around the same time I joined oh my so I will miss you very much I've love [2:14:16] getting to work with you so thank you for your service and St Paul is getting a great planner for [2:14:22] sure so I just wanted to do that before we close so that could be on public record once everybody [2:14:30] left we're all here still the people who matter are all here [2:14:36] right all right um anything else can I have a motion to adjourn so moved second [2:14:43] thank you further discussion no all in [2:14:49] favors what you said all any further discussion we said no all in favor say I [2:14:55] any opposed eyes have it the motion passes in the March 24th 2025 wi out of Planning Commission meeting is adjourned