##VIDEO ID:b34FQhg9sHQ## all right all right all right welcome everybody including myself to the September 12th 2024 City viina Planning Commission meeting on behalf of the rest of the commission we are grateful you are here in person and to those tuning in remotely say it every time but you're participation your C your curiosity and your feedback is instrumental to this process as we navigate change together here in ID specifically regarding the ways in which we like to use our land we have two public hearings tonight and I will get into kind of what to expect for that process later right before they start and we have one report and recommendation and like any time we have meetings there's always an opportunity for the the community residents to comment and get feedback to us and we commit to you that it's gotten to us and that we consider it before we make recommendations tonight so if you are unfamiliar with how to participate in advance uh the best way is our engagement website ww. better together.org and there's been a variety of improvements that you'll notice on that site with a development tracker kind of on G GIS so you can see location based proposals which make it a little easier to connect to what's happening in your neighborhood uh you can comment on specific matters or you can send an email to the planning department and it'll get to us so as I mentioned there's two public hearings I'll get into that later but for what to expect for the meeting tonight the agenda goes as follows we'll have a roll call then we'll approve tonight meeting agenda followed by the prior meeting's minutes then we'll have a community comment period which is your chance to speak about a matter not on tonight's agenda and then we have the public hearings followed by the reports and recommendation with which we have one and then we wrap things up with chair and member comments and staff comments and then we adjourn so without further Ado call the meeting to order and we'll do roll call commissioner elky here commissioner Miranda here commissioner Padia here commissioner Smith here commissioner jaw commissioner day here commissioner Bornstein here commissioner felt here commissioner hanaman here chair Bennett here uh and then we have the approval of tonight's meeting agenda if there aren't any proposed changes I'd welcome a motion I move to approve the agenda second all those in favor say I I I so moved next we have the approval of t or of the prior meetings minutes from August 28th as well as a special work session from August 14th motion to approve the minutes second all those in favor say I I so moved all right next we have the community comment period And this is a chance for anyone who is here in person to speak about a matter not on tonight's agenda you have 3 minutes to do so you can come up to either Podium State your full name address uh light turns green that means go and then when it's readed we ask you to wrap it up anyone here for Community comment all right see none we will close the community comment period before we get into public hearings uh just one thing I'd like to add as I look next to me we have a new face in the crowd uh one cool thing yeah no we don't do it's only in person so uh one cool thing the city of Edina does is uh we welcome the opportunity for at least or two uh student Commissioners so people who are in high school that know and care enough to be a part of this process it always like Wows me with one the the commitment to come here and uh usually it's a one to twoe term and it we have some late meetings and it's it's quite a commitment but I'd like to give you the chance to introduce yourself and maybe just tell us a little bit about you and why you wanted to join put you on the spot um hi I'm a DT I'm a sophomore at Dena High School um a little about me I do Varsity debate I'm in band um and why I wanted to be on the commission is cuz I agree with you um land and land use is super important and I'm excited to just like kind of be involved in decision- making in Aina sounds super fun to me big kudos to you like big Kudos yeah commissioner Hare quick question welcome again and what instrument I play the trumpet great all right cool thank you so as mentioned we have two public hearings tonight so we're on to that part of the agenda uh the first one is an ordinance Amendment concerning the Heritage preservation commission and Edina Heritage landmarks and update to the country club plan of treatment uh what to expect with a public hearing process-wise is either there's a formal applic that comes into the city about a specific matter for land use and application or there's maybe something like this that touches on land use that requires our recommendation before it gets to the city council either way uh City staff puts together a staff report based on a bunch of factual findings uh and then they provide us a presentation based off of that report we have a quick exchange questions back and forth then we O then we open it to the applicant uh here it's a different commission but other times it might be a a private land owner or resident or a developer and then we they can present and then we have another set of questions back and forth and then we open it to a public hearing which is your chance as a resident to testify about the matter whether in person for 3 minutes or tuning in remotely and I'll give you the number after I wrap this up and uh after we close that then it comes back to the Planning Commission to deliberate and we ultimately recommend an approval or denial of the request at hand so for those tuning in remotely just so you can get ready uh you'll want to call the following number 312 535 8110 and then you'll enter access code 2632 2 058 2795 followed by the password 5454 and there's more then press star three on your keypad to get in the Q to speak so you don't have to do that quite yet um but hopefully that information's on the screen for you and then we'll open that again when we officially open the public hearing I mean it's open but once it it's your time to kind of testify with that we'll turn it over over yeah what's what's your how do you pronounce your last name again d rmle d rmle okay to Emily to present thank you um thank you chair and members of the Planning Commission at the direction of the city council the HPC subcommittee of three Commissioners Jane lonquist Bob cundy and Rachel Pollock worked with City staff and the city's preservation Consultants Elizabeth gailes and Rachel Peterson of Hess Royce and Company on drafting changes to the ordinance Country Club District plan of treatment and supplemental documents that are in front of you tonight the draft documents were presented and unanimously recommended by the Heritage preservation commission to the Planning Commission and city council the HPC also has an advisory communication that outlines their process and their recommendation which was included in your packet tonight the draft changes are in front of you because they include an amendment to the city's zoning ordinance tonight the Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing on the proposed changes and make a recommendation to city council the proposed ordinance deals with the city's Landmark properties and landmark District the ordinance affects all of these properties although there are specific changes and some supplemental documents that pertain specifically to the city's Landmark District which is the country club District the city's Landmark properties include the Beed house the brale bridge kill School the Adina Country Club District the Adina Mills site the Adina theater sign gra Hall Grimes house osam house the Peterson house and the Wooddale Avenue Bridge the red stars on the map represent these properties and the red shaded area is the country club District the blue boxes on the map are eligible properties and this ordinance does not affect those properties they're just shown as eligible to be designated as a landmark one day if they so choose um at the time each Landmark property and District was designated as an Adina Heritage Landmark a nomination study and a plan of treatment was created and ultimately approved by city council those nomination studies include history on each of the landmark properties and the plan of treatment documents are created to provide specific guidelines for design review recommendations for preservation Rehabilitation restoration and reconstruction for each Landmark property the HPC staff and staff has outlined some high level changes and recommendations that are in each document that is in front of you tonight the first is the ordinance and the ordinance affects chapter 2 chapter 10 and chapter 36 of OC city code and all those changes pertain to the Heritage preservation commission and the Adina Heritage landmarks the changes that were made added Clarity to some of the definitions including demolition and the definition of a street facing facade added definitions of demolition by neglect character defining features inserted a one-year time limit for a certificate of appropriateness um a permit must be pulled within one year of a COA approval um it clarifies when a COA is required as as well as what work is exempt from a certificate of appropriateness in a landmark District um expanded the maintenance of Heritage re the Heritage resources section added escrow an escrow requirement for permits for all Heritage Landmark properties and districts and also wanted to note that no changes were proposed for when a COA is required for a Landmark property um no changes to those existing plan of treatment documents are proposed so it's only to when coas are required for properties within a land Mark District the second set of documents or the second document is the proposed din Landmark property and District escrow um this is a new form that's to be signed by a contractor and a property owner that acknowledges the responsibility to maintain and protect historic resources throughout con the construction process and then to inform staff on proposed changes or any proposed changes that are made throughout the construction process the fee that is proposed um would be based on Project valuation an escrow fee of $3,000 would be required if a project is under $100,000 and requires a certificate of appropriateness and a fee of $115,000 would be required at the time of a permit if the valuation is over $100,000 and these fees would be due at the time of a permit and the city would be able to use those to keep structures weathertight and protected throughout the construction process if necessary and then the fee would be refunded all permits have been closed out at the end of the construction process the third document is the plan of treatment for the country club District so in that document there was some added General context a map that was added and an explanation that was added for about the period of significance for the district um added a one-year time limit for coas that reflects the proposed ordinance change explains what um the certificate of appropriateness application requirements and that review process is like emphasizes that construction must follow the approved plans and explained how to get a COA Amendment if your project may change throughout the process clarifies which um design review elements are recommended guidelines rather than requirements and then added a section on character defining features and the last document is a new resource that is to supplement the country called plan of treatment that provides some photos and examples and list character def finding features for some of the most prevalent architectural Styles in the country club district and this is used really or the HPC and staff views this as more of a resource for property owners and Architects and contractors as they're planning for projects and designing projects they can reference that document and see what kind of um things the Heritage preservation commission is looking for and so with that I'll stop sorry a lot of information all at once but I will um introduce Jane lanquist the chair of the HPC and she's going to go through some additional changes great thanks for your time and I really am not going to add additional changes but just sort of emphasize high level themes and some key details in the thorough presentation that Emily just gave so the existing guidance that our commission has is the plan of treatment specific to the country club district and that's the bulk of our work as reviewing homes there and exterior changes that come before us and we also although it's used less frequently the city ordinance as Emily explained applies to all Heritage landmarks um and so we there were needs for change your your packet went into some cases that prompted uh the need to dig into things further and what we found was that there were inconsistencies between the two in some of the key definitions in addition the current plan of treatment for Country Club talks about historic facades and streetscapes a somewhat vague term um and the city ordinance was missing some key definitions and also critically that St staff found that they were missing some tools for um addressing non-compliance so the proposed guidance these are the two existing documents with the changes so just high level we're doubling the size of of the plan of treatment for the district um and our we're focusing specifically on Street facing facades which had been in practice but let's call that out and be clear on where the purview of the Heritage preservation commission is a clear scope a real strong emphasis on the character defining feature on that front facade and still of course the guiding document is the Secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation which is the key mode here right that homes need to be updated and rehabilitated but you can do so in a way that maintains their historic um character and exterior so the city ordinance um I just wanted to highlight that the definitions we added a lot more terms nearly doubling that and in the the C the current ordinance has no language about um District changes so homes within a district as Emily said so we were using the four uh key elements that would trigger a certificate of appropriateness if you were a Landmark property well it's somewhat different in the district so staff came up with nine criteria most of which talk about changes to that street facing facade so it's explicit language to be clear on how we should deal with change in the country club district and also importantly calling out demolition by neglect which is a phrase that many other towns and cities use and and forbid we just hadn't used that language in the past new tools for staff um this is where the escrow form comes in and importantly it's not just a fee but it's a chance for contractors and Property Owners to sign off and say I understand this language that's in the ordinance Emily explain the fee structure um smaller projects that don't have a COA would not need the gr fee um also adding a tool so that staff can look at like for like changes simple things like redoing your exterior or replacing your windows and staff can decide guess what this is Street facing facade but this does not need to go before the HPC so just some clearer mechanisms um are in this new escrow fee uh the other new tool is the document Emily mentioned on details on character defining features with some photos and a chance to educate people about the seven main architectural Styles period Revival Styles in the district um and also Clarity on how the amendment process works right um so the new focus is protecting historic Integrity of the neighborhood that's the language in the new plan of treatment and that's a good summary of what we're trying to do and why we're proposing these changes as improvements to the existing process thank you Jane and then um just some additional information that I wanted to inform the Planning Commission about is that the city sent out mail notices to all Property Owners of landmark properties and properties within the historic district and then sent an email to contractors that have pulled a permit in the country club District in the last few years so it was a list of about 350 contractors the project has been on better together and there has I'm sure you've all have seen But there has been a few comments um made on Better Together on the proposed changes the city has also submitted the draft documents to the state historic preservation office Who provided their comments on the proposed changes and those comments um were addressed in the documents that are before you tonight they were just minor um spelling and capitalization um preferences that they had so with that um tonight staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission recommend city council adopt the proposed ordinance 20246 with the following changes to section 36- 72 three um that is to number five in that list of when a certificate of appropriateness is required in a country club or in the landmark district and that's just to add some clarity to um the fact that if an addition is put on a detached garage it would also require certificate of appropriateness um staff recommends implementing the proposed ordinance changes when the building department implements a new software system to verify that the appropriate permitting changes can be implemented with limited impacts to customer service the building department is looking at implementing their new software system in January of 2026 so this would be um staff would agree with the building department and their official um the building official memo that was included in your packet tonight and with that I can answer any questions um The Heritage preservation Commissioners Jane lanquist lanquist and Bob cundy are here and so is the city's preservation Consultants um Rachel and Elizabeth from hyce thank you Emily thank you Jane any questions fellow Commissioners I see some nods all right Lou you got it start it off yeah ises there anything here prevent uh an Adu being built on any of these properties it would need not as far as getting a certificate of appropriateness adding an Adu would require a certificate of appropriateness but it would also need to meet the zoning requirements so it would just be reviewed there' be an additional step to get a certificate of appropriateness in the country club District okay so there's nothing really preventing them okay thank you and just come down the line all right all right thank you uh I'm sure we'll have a lot of questions as we go along here um I just want to get a good sense of the process that the team should follow you know if you just like walk us through you know a a resident wants to add or build something in your home and how does how does that process start and go through and then in the end assuming that they would need a COA right and just assume that the COA was approved and in particular if you could focus in on like the evaluation of the project itself like when we put a a a rate of 3,000 escrow for below 100,000 and then 15,000 for above like who comes up with that evaluation and and how do you make that determination is is if you could talk about that in the process um and then from a timeline perspective right uh how long assuming that all the documentation is provided for the application how long does the city take before they approve it or make a decision on the COA um so first I'll address your questions on how those escro fee numbers were come up with the planning department worked with the building department on coming up with those escro numbers and those were based on the fact um again based on permit valuation numbers but also on the fact that their recom the building department recommendation was to make those numbers different than current escro fees that the city requires today and so it's to make those valuations different so it's easy to track from a financial standpoint and when people are getting permits and there's multiple escros they have to pull it's clear which escrow is for what item and so the numbers came directly from the building department who recommended those numbers um the second question on process um to get a certificate of appropriateness um oftentimes I have lots of people reach out to me directly asking on whether or not their project would require a COA so to kind of kick off the process staff sits down with an applicant to talk through their project whether or not it will require COA and what that COA process looks like after I have that initial meeting once the city receives a completed COA application or COA um packet then it gets placed on a Heritage preservation agenda the complete application is due 30 days prior to a COA meeting so very similar to how variances are processed once the city receives an application we send the application to the city's preservation consultant hes Roy they do their evaluation of the project and provide a memo to City staff City staff sends out a notification to Property Owners within 200 feet of the property it's put on better together um staff does a staff report similar again very similar to the variance process and then once it gets to the hair preservation commission meeting the Heritage preservation commission takes action on those coas that night and then um there is a 10-day appeal period so then if the COA anyone can um appeal a decision made by the Heritage preservation commission to city council so after that a 10-day appeal period the applicant may get their building permit if the COA was approved and their plans match what was approved by the HBC so it's about if the timing lines up exactly it could be potentially 40 days give or take so that's like a minimum yeah of 40 days at least uh is how long it's going to take and just to be just so it's clear that's the process now and that process isn't changing gotcha and in terms of the evaluation of the project can you just talk about how the city or the resident how do you guys determine if it's a 100K project or not so that's based on the permit valuation so the valuation is the valuation of the permit it's the materials it's um it's not necessarily on it's do you know how do you want to answer how the building department determines that value yeah I don't know exactly but I believe it's um somewhat established through the uniform building code values that way it's usually just straight linear percentage of the fee what you estimate the project to cost yep so the contractor wouldent that information in and then the building department reviews that valuation to determine it's fair they make make some changes but so it's not evaluation that the city provides or puts on I don't determine whether or not the project is valued at $100,000 or less than $100,000 yeah so the developer uh as part of the the uh process would determine what the value of the project is City staff would then review it just look at it make sure that it makes sense like if it's you know over or under they would kind of get a good gut check of that and then that is how it um gets entered and and then you could determine the escrow amounts um from that time correct and just the last part is like at the end see we kind of went through the process of um you know making the application do you hold the escrow amounts until the whole project is completed and the permits have been released like just talk to about the end part of that process when the escro money goes back I guess yep so the applicant would request um building finals so on their project so they would require that or request that through the building department a lot of those finals are done through their department and then planning staff would also go out at that point and make a final inspection to review the fact that the project matches the approved plans at least from an exterior perspective and then once that has been finaled or closed off then their escrow fee could be released at that point thank you commissioner Pia do you know if um the homes in this area that we're talking about is it 100% owner occupied um I do not know um what the percentage of rent rental versus owner occupied houses are in the neighborhood I don't have that information but certainly a significant majority I would guess I would imagine so so okay um my principal question though is about um kind of unforeseen circumstances I understand the intent certainly um behind the recommendation and behind the action um I recall well must have been 20 maybe 23 years ago there was a huge storm and the uh Country Club area looked like a war zone basically There Were Trees just down down all over the place all over roofs you know it was um was a disaster um and you you looks like you remember it as well um so what um plans or what modifications um come in to solve the Practical issues um that you encounter because 40 days if um you know there's a a an enormous tree you know there's a hole in your roof or there's a flood or something like that and I believe that Nate brought this up at the end of his um U of his memo um you know and is an insurance company going to be able to deal with all of these issues and it does mean the homeowner has to put up this fee as opposed to the insurance company so if you could talk to the unforeseen uh circumstances aspect yeah there is a section um in the proposed ordinance in front of you 36728 that Nate references in his memo and that's in that those emergency situations where in those situations the building official can determine um when emergency repairs need to happen so he can kind of take control over that if you did and then and then you can go around all all of these requirements or what happens at that point there are certain requirements that would be at least to get um projects weather proofed and things to be covered up that would be able to be kind of figured out in that emergency situation okay I just wanted to clarify too that replacing a roof and repairing a roof with like for- like materials does not trigger a certificate of appropriateness right but but you know the circumstances end up I mean I realize that if all you're doing is replacing it to the way it was but consider you know that might not always be the case and and right and somebody's going to say well I've always wanted to do something else and now I have an opportunity so you end up having to get a certificate of appropriateness and go through all of these rigall thank you well I wanted to follow up on the escro um you mentioned in there that F City staff goes to the escrow that the homeowner or the contractor continues to put money in that escrow at the request so if the city has to pull from the escrow account to the escrow money would only be used if this structure needs to be kept weathertight so it wouldn't be used to complete a project or it wouldn't be used to add architectural details to a house that are missing um but if the city needs to pull on an escrow or pull out money from that escrow account the city could request at that time that the escrow be added back to if needed and I and I feel I appreciate like all the work that went into this I I see it in the documents but it worries me about an open-ended um kind of escrow that it can just keep well it's in hopes that um contractors throughout the process keep the houses weathertight and it would we' only foree to use it in emergency type situations where we can't gain compliance from the contractors when we would pull money from that escrow account sorry I I think you tried to explain it to commissioner Smith but can you might have to go back over it just because I maybe didn't follow but was the the recommendation for the addition of the esrl based on right so why why how did we come to that recommendation in the first place there were certain projects that there were was a lot of neighborhood concern that projects weren't being kept weathertight throughout the construction process a lot of these projects take a long time so it's through multiple season changes and things and when a roof is pulled out or sidings pulled off or windows are taken out and replaced and the houses there was concern that houses weren't kept being kept weathertight and so um staff worked with the building department and our city attorneys and kind of came up with this escro Fe recommendation to the Heritage preservation commission that that was an option at that point or could be an option and so it's really seen to try to protect the historic structures and it's used as more of a um compliance mechanism to get people to complete the projects and to complete them as they were approved okay how many projects or houses would we say that this was a problem on I mean and better together I I kept seeing a reference to a house on ardan Avenue um but is was it I mean we talking one two three a lot and that's why we needed to add the escrow or was it based off of a lot of push back on maybe one or two particular projects in the last few years I'd say there's a few but in the last um I've 20 years I'd say there's more than a few that this has come up with or at least um staff has received comments on and typically it's you because of the long-term nature of the project that it's going on for I mean you said so a lot of these projects take a long time right so but then of course the escrow would have to be held on to for a long time as well um okay what are what are like the do you know the average age of properties in the country club District the majority of homes in the country club District were built between 1924 and 1944 and that's that period of significance that was referenced um I could defer to our Consultants to know if they know which how many were built within the period of significance if close to 90% of the houses were built in that period okay and what is do you think the average a I mean in terms of the average age of the residents in the country club neighborhood is it tend to trend on the older side or do you say it's fairly representative di in general I do not have that information there's two residents of the district and commission members that might be able to answer that a little better but I know there's as a um planning staff I get lots of questions on people moving out of the in and out of the district often so um there's lots of people new people coming in and out of the district I guess I don't have any information on their age okay okay I mean where I'm going with that is it just is it's probably fair to say based on the age of the M of the properties in the country club District that a lot of them will require significant maintenance both now and into the future right to trigger this this escrow amount and it doesn't you know really take a lot nowadays to go over $100,000 so I mean I understand the COA piece for uh smaller value projects um but if you have you know particularly I guess income restricted not income restricted um people that are living on a fixed income in a house that was built in 1924 right and they need to replace all their Windows if you go to say Anderson Windows for example I speak from experience pretty expensive you could definitely go over $100,000 really easily um and then you're facing an additional $15,000 escro on top of that and to me I'm not sure that that's necessary um or that that something that I would support right now but um yeah okay so that's my questions for the moment I guess maybe could you elaborate on those specific values just the 3000 vers 15 it seemed almost arbitrary to just have them different than other ones I just curious I think the building again the um previous building official had we talked with him about those numbers and I think a lot of it was on a project that could be more significant what is the cost of providing that weather proofing if they have to do it and so that's the number that he came up with so on a larger project if they have to weatherproof the entire back of the house or windows that are torn out what would that cost okay felt um I'm going back to the escrow again too I'm working on a project now where the homeowner has to put down an escrow um for a tree and um and it is causing them a lot of concern because they have saved up for a long time for the project they're doing and now that they they and they had to take down the tree that was in within the building pad um had to pay for that and have to put this escro down and have to jump through these hoops that is becoming like 10% of the cost of the project and and gives them some anxiety so I think I'm kind of anxious about the escro 2 and the fact that it's cash escrow that there's no letter of credit and I know for the tree ordinance you've um the city has decided to take letters of credit instead because it was it's playing out in all sorts of unforeseen ways um so the so the escrow piece concerns me too and I and I understand that there's been different difficulties and a lot of friction in the neighborhood um but I think it might we might come up with some things that occur that nobody was expecting um might make some homeowners anxious during their remodeling projects M was a letter of credit as an option discussed um unpopular opinion I thought the numbers were really low if you're going to going to go replace all of the windows on a 100 plus year old home that's a lot of exposure to weather and $15,000 it doesn't get you very far to cover a whole house if you've taken all the windows out so in my mind I didn't have a problem with the fee but I did wonder similarly um if you guys have discussed letter of credit not specifically but there were a lot of changes since this was drafted this has been drafted over a year plus and so I know there were a lot of changes to the city's um tree ordinance or tree um escrow requirements and so I think there could be changes based on recommendations from our finance department on how that's handled other questions commiss Smith yeah uh this is a little bit about a little bit touching on the Adu question as well as the Environmental policy so a couple things and you can certainly answer in any order but with a detach garage structure uh what we do have in an Adu ordinances that you could upgrade that to add water and sewer capacity to it so it's now a living structure once it meets the setback requirements would something like that trigger uh a COA and do you see any kind of issue where that might cause a denial I guess of a COA uh approval so adding an a dwelling unit would require a certificate of appropriateness but also adding on to an existing detached garage or building a new detached garage would also require certificate of appropriateness so in both situations whether there's existing space that's being used or remodeled or if they're building a new garage or adding onto a garage a certificate of appropriateness would be required the certificate of appropriateness would be reviewed in terms of the cert of the secretary of the interior standards of Rehabilitation and so it would be reviewed in as far as more of like a design architectural lens not necessarily adding a residential unit to the property gotcha and I'm guessing like water capacity s capacity you don't really see those and so that shouldn't be a factor that might cause a denial of of some kind now with climate change you know that's happening everywhere and the materials uh are changing you know that's uh more weather resistant that could conserve heat and cold like Windows um if the climate action plan and study that we have is encouraging residents to weatherize their their homes to make it more energy efficient do you see anything there that would be in conflict with the facade or the or the outward facing look of these properties and I know you had like a couple different home examples like you know Spanish style colonial style Etc if I wanted to change the windows and I can't have you know two separate panes but I want to upgrade to a different style that's more energy efficient do you see anything there that might cause a conflict with a resident trying to weatherize or uh meet some kind of climate goal uh being in conflict with the facade and the look and feel of these homes I'll use like roofing material as an example I know in the past few years there was a situation where um a property owner wanted to change out a tile roof or they were um putting a new type of roof on a house with a remodel and the existing house had like a Spanish style clay type roof and the proposed material at that point in time was a a material that's made to look like a clay tile roof but it wasn't a clay tile roof for those reasons um so I think in situations like that where materials look like the existing materials um those were be reviewed with um the building permits that come in I think there are situations where there are certain windows and things are made now differently where people can add different divided lights and windows and types of Windows to make Windows more energy efficient but still look a certain way gotcha and I could see that being you know unique design unique materials like metal that looks like clay could probably be way more expensive than changing the roof with like um a different kind of material you know so I'm sure the C will have their work cut out for them to to really evaluate that um I didn't see paint and paint colors as being a requirement like if I wanted to paint my house green and it doesn't look like the teal color or the beige color of some of these homes like would that be allowed in this District yes that's allowed today and it doesn't change with these proposed amendments so it just seems curious that you know the facad and look and feel is so important but changing the color could completely change the neighborhood but that's just one observation that I saw in the uh in The Proposal can I just chime in I used to live in a historic neighborhood in Baltimore and you had to submit your paint chips and that's not what we're about so we're quite flexible in response paint can be changed pretty easily if needed gotcha thank you don't get any ideas commissioner Aly uh thanks for the presentation a couple quick questions um you mentioned a a similar District in Baltimore did the process include looking at other preservation districts and see what negative incentives they offered maybe escros maybe other things we asked our Consultants today if they were familiar with any U Minnesota um municipalities that had an escy similar to ours and there wasn't any that was that were similar to your knowledge um as far we leaned on our Consultants they do a lot of work in state of Minnesota so we leaned on them to provide some examples or situations that they could give their feedback on on certain situations or questions that we had okay and then I looked it better together yesterday or maybe the day before and there were half a dozen maybe more uh comments uniformly positive I felt were there any that were not positive that you can recall uh I believe there was one voicemail that was transcribed into the system that was um either yesterday or the day before and I think the general message is that things that the way things are are working so it should stay the same okay and the document that includes the escro information has been available for residents to review yep the um that went out information specific to each document went out um to Residents Property Owners within the district and property owners that own Landmark properties I included a link to the Better Together page that had all of those documents on it to the email list for contractors that I had and then the public hearings notice for the public hearings were posted in the paper for the tonight's Planning Commission meeting and also for next week's um city council meeting those documents have been available since that better better together pages but not great thank you commissioner felt I'm going to ask there when I was reading through the documents there was a lot of talk about um um the period that the country club was started in and the covenants that were dictating the style and um whatever at the home but the and I'm kind of asking during this process did you guys think um consider it all um you know part of those restrictive covenants there's also discriminatory covenants in there did you guys talk about that so the Heritage preservation Heritage preservation commission has reviewed that or has talked about that in the past I think in 2022 the consultant at that time kind of worked on a biography of the thorps and they talked about that um in that do in that document that was created and approved or reviewed by the Heritage preservation commission um that past history and everything is on the Heritage preservation commission website that pertains to the country club District um in the plan of treatment document it didn't go into all the background on all those um racial covenants at that time the document really tried to stick to the architectural piece that's kind of trying to focus and get information to people about that piece of the neighborhood or process that we were doing I know Jane was part of the just Deeds leadership in her neighborhood so yeah thank you for raising that important and unfortunate um reality um so as Emily said we did explicitly discuss it and decided that the plan of treatment was not the correct place for it to land that information is on the city's website and ongoing public education is important I know when we've done neighborhood walking tours we explicitly call that out as Emily said there were blog captains to spread the information through just Deeds many people including myself decided to renounce the racial covenants in their deeds so I think it's important we just decided this wasn't the correct venue for it um yeah because I know the city does have the web page and they do have the mapping Prejudice um map and the link to the just deeds and that there is some help for that as well and that the city's taken um the those racial um discriminatory covenants off 52 properties 52 and um and this is this is not just a dino Country Club this is all over a Dina there's 2,800 properties that have that um and I just when you talked about the survey I was like oh this would be another great way to kind of let people know that they can go and yeah sure um if this does go forward in whatever form our um volunteer commission will have a public Outreach piece next year and so that would certainly be an opportunity because I think putting something in writing to homeowners and so I personally would would love to emphasize that so thanks for your concern yeah CU I think some people just aren't aware of it commissioner Al could I ask you to say a little bit more about why it's not an appropriate place to talk about that because there's almost 200 words of description of how the zoning history in Country Club is so great and wonderful um I know it just seems missing either one I guess I think a case could be made and if if something's important it's you know language we could put in we just made a different decision so agreed I think we can if there's feelings to add additional information to that document that could be part of a recommendation great thank you I think even as simple as in the P purpose and objetive making sure that it's specifically saying is about protecting the architectural Integrity of the neighborhood the historic architecture I mean that that's the piece that this is about might be another way to get at it but I agree that there probably should be um the reason this was preserved is in part because of the covenants where other neighborhoods didn't have that historical protection over the years so I think it's worth a footnote at least so I guess that's excuse me I guess that's a a good segue to uh to my question which is so I'm reading over this the um draft examples of architectual styles document um and it says this guide describes character defining features of these seven Styles although most of the homes in the country club are not pure specimens of any particular style so we should not expect them to follow any of the rules laid out in architectural textbooks so if none of these are pure and you know entire European Villages could be built in one of these Styles and these would presumably have houses and apartments and businesses on Main Street all in you know whatever whatever style this is you know why does it get so specific about height and and stories and all that sort of stuff the style is more than just a house right I mean what if we wanted to build affordable housing here for example could we match the style of the houses you know I I don't understand why it gets so specific especially since these are not pure they're just you know I'm going to continue saying um local Builders and their clients develop their own rules of style based on prevailing Notions of taste and convenience I mean I don't know it just seems very vague to me it's not like we're we're protecting something very pure here so do either one of you want to adjust the review of coas and hi chair and Commissioners I'm Rachel Peterson with h ring company I'm one of the um Consultants working with the HPC and our our goal with that document was to primarily to provide more information to homeowners and contractors and while as you correctly note that the houses in the country club District are not pure architectural specimens our our goal with that language was to um to identify the reality of the architecture here that there are kind of plug andplay pieces and that if you come in with a a colonial revival house that has some you know little French eclectic element it's not we need to evaluate the house based on what it is and just because it isn't a pure colonial revival doesn't mean it isn't of worth and so just um I think we wanted that document to identify the dominant architectural Styles in the the district to avoid a situation where um you know maybe you have a cute tuto Revival but your neighbor down the way has these really you know awesome French doors on the front of their house why can't I put those on mine because my house is primarily a tutor Revival that's an element of another style it's inappropriate to put it on my house and so it gives that kind of underlayment so that hopefully applicants have more information to understand what is important about their own property and therefore what changes might or might not be appropriate based on the Styles present on their home does that make more sense yeah sure but I mean this so this is the Confluence between what what this what this organization does um which is the Style and what we do as an organization which is you know land use planning so I'm just trying to point out the kind of contradiction there so sure understood thanks any other questions comments okay thank you all right we this is a public hearing so we will open it to that um mention the information again for those tuning in remotely uh please call the following number 312 535 5 5110 enter access code 2632 058 2795 the password's 5454 this should all be on the screen and then press star three on your keypad when you'd like to get in the Quee to speak which is now so push star three and in the meantime we'll give you time to do that uh we will open it to anyone who is here in person to come up to a Podium and testify again please State your full name your address and you have three minutes come forward thank you either one name what else address yeah okay so uh Brandon Swanson 4602 Casco so I live in the country club neighborhood um as somebody who is actively replacing every window in our house so I feel like I have a little bit of relevant experience here um it is not $100,000 and they replace all the storm windows first and then go inside the house replace the double hungs or in our casee we've got these door windows that open so the house is secure throughout the whole process um also in terms of the escrow policy I do understand uh why there would be an escrow but I think that perhaps there could be a permitting process instead for the builders to uh follow to keep the house weather tight and have a punitive fine to the Builder if they're not following the process instead of an escrow um um you know a line of credit option I think is is not unreasonable as well but it feels like if there was a perming process to do a demolition and repair and certain requirements for a portion of the facade and I'm thinking of a particular house in the neighborhood not the one on Arden as uh someone mentioned earlier uh that might solve the problem without requiring a bunch of extra funds um you know in terms of a tree I don't know the right answer I sort of defer there I mean it's we've got old trees that keep coming down every time there's a big storm so um you know but in terms of the windows just to say our house remained weathertight throughout the whole process they did each storm you know one at a time um first and I now have wood new windows that have three panes uh they're not steel they're not anything else they look you know like they should have 100 years ago because my house was built in 1925 so hopefully that's helpful context for everybody thank you very much appreciate it anyone else who is here in person I'd like to come forward oh good evening my name is Cheryl doulas my husband and I have resided at 4609 Bruce Avenue for the past 26 years we have given input to previous versions of the ordinance and plan of treatment and we have also appeared before the Heritage preservation Commission to request a COA for an exterior renovation over the years we have witnessed historic resources that have been become subject to demolition by neglect homes that have had delays in renovation projects leaving unsightly construction sites for prolonged periods and Builders who have had to be pushed to complete exterior detailing as specified in their plans I would like to express my strong and full support for the proposed ordinance Amendment and the revised plan of treatment I feel that the proposed changes are reasonable fair and workable for residents and Builders alike I am grateful to the members of The Heritage preservation commission for their thorough and thoughtful work in strengthening and clarifying the guidelines as well as proposing protective enforcement measures thank you thank you very much anyone else who is here in person well all of you are but that would like to come forward and speak all right see none we'll open it to those that might be in a virtual waiting room do we have anyone no we don't and it's been well over a minute uh which is maybe the delay in this broadcast so I think we're good to proceed with closing the public hearing I'd welcome a motion to do so move to close the public hearing second all those in favor say I I so move the public hearing is closed uh before we open it up to deliberation there's some good comments there uh one of which was maybe a different way of you know making sure facilities stay watertight did something like that come up as a potential pointed discussion of fining and maybe the effectiveness of that or lack thereof um we worked with the city attorney and so I guess we'd have to confirm with him um on what legally could be done based on the concern I guess at the time so when a fee when a fee or a fine could be enforced or not so we worked closely with our building or excuse me our City attorney on um kind of the esro fee but not necessarily there was some concerns with fines I think at that point in time yeah because I I guess at some point someone with the city has to determine whether a certain threshold is crossed regardless to then use said escro Monies to then you know step in and protect the structure so I mean someone's having to make that judgment call right at some point so you think if they're making that judgment call you could easily do the same to impose a fine and I mean is part of that fine a Time based thing and is that judgment called a Time based thing like hey we're going to put this on if they don't get it covered in a week or two weeks or a month whatever that is ju just curious it it does seem like a a decent idea that doesn't you know break the bank further you aware anything I'm I'm not I know the City attorney has talked about that as being problematic in the past perhaps you could have a recommendation that the City attorney weigh on weigh in on that that issue and provide some information to the city Council granted this is next week on the city council agenda they won't take action but perhaps by the time they take action we could um have some more information in regard to the ability to issue fines because it just came back to the the why the purpose of you know those different values it is really to kind of preserve the historic structure and function and at some point someone is making a judgement call with the city on whether to do something about it so I think it'd be good just for all all of us in the council to kind of understand that specific process and how it would play out if escrow monies were used or a fine and then what would be the appropriate vehicle Andor could have you know letter a credit line of credit type of thing work as well like it has for the tree ordinance yeah like it was changed for it yeah are we talking about a fine against the homeowner or a fine against the contract against the Builder so whoever well whoever would Ser whoever pulled the permit which would be the general contractor the one performing the work and then could it be a two-step fine of like you're fined and then the city will step in you know I me or is there an issue with neglect of you know the the fines end up not doing aren't effective and then it'll sit for 6 months with no protection anyway so I think that's maybe some of the context we'd we'd like to see or I certainly would I think part of that escro document is um a lot of it I would don't want to say people do it intentionally but a lot of it's not necessarily intentional I guess in my point of view but that escro document one of the things that the Heritage preservation commission and staff wanted to note is that both the whoever pulls the permit and whoever owns the property has to sign off on that so both parties are aware of what those requirements are and kind of can help keep each other in check essentially so if there are changes that are made or if there you know property does switch hands or something like that there is knowledge from both parties what the expectation is any maybe further questions or comments based off uh the testimonies yeah Commission Smith yeah just a quick question or or a thought um if the developer has to pay the escrow versus the resident I'm not sure what the right answer is but I would guess that the developer may be part of a larger organization that have way more financial resources available where that escr amount probably wouldn't be that significant to them whereas if it's the resident uh it's more of a financial burden on their side so they might have a stronger incentive to drive the developer to you know build the homes according to the plans and so I'm just wondering if Shifting the escrow to the developer if that's going to even have a meaningful impact see some hands over there yeah what you got both you guys you know I I worry that you we talk about a aable housing and I know Country Club is of a thing but whenever the developer pays for um an additional fee they tack on a 30 35% sear charge onto the homeowners and so all these projects end up costing more um and over the past 10 years it's been quite the increase so I don't know I'm I'm ass assuming [Music] um you know between the developer and the homeowner they they would decide how to do this but I'm I keep feeling that there's another way to do it I like the letter of credit or I like a line of credit or um you know some other way of doing this m Hanan I mean I um we've used the word developer a couple of times this is really going to be a con I mean they all existing properties it's very unlikely we're going to have you know multifam somewhere in the middle of Country Club and we're certainly not building any commercial things inside of Country Club so this is a a roofer a stucco guy a exterior painter shingles Windows those sorts of things and well yes there are you know Anderson Windows you know whatever bigger company you have a lot of Fly by Night roofers uh Carpenter guys who could leave a whole um building exposed and they disappear the next day so I mean I think it's actually interesting as a concept to have some have them have some skin in doing the job both to the to the resident and getting paid there but also performing with the city CU they don't care if their homeowner doesn't get their permit ultimately I mean like that's that's not their prerogative they're trying to do their job and then get out of town and do the next job so I think it's an interesting idea we're we're mostly in discussion period but you know the testimony certainly raised some questions at least in my mind about like process especially like using the escrow money so let's say that we enact this and then the Project's 150 Grand and 15,000 goes into that um like what is the limit on using those monies and kind of the refund of that or the absence of it I mean are they going to use What It Takes and document that as a cost subtract that out of there you know follow it exactly um and then in that way like yeah could could there be a fine where it's like you break this it's this amount and then be warned you're going to be charged how much this is going to cost you for us to do I'm just trying to think of a more effective way that doesn't further burden the the person doing the project but just in general I'm in support of this but I think it'd be better for the council to kind of understand some of that process just because we we learn that later with the tree ordinance any other yeah commissioner Smith yeah just to think about the alternative if for example they do get a certificate of uh COA essentially and they go through and they completely do something different than what's on the plans right they there was a dormer they took it out and they put up something else and now the building inspector is going to come back and then try to review everything at what point or what is the action that the city would take if the developer did not follow plans did would it just not get uh certificate and what happens next so at that point if the permit or if the project is done and they're requir or they're requesting a final to go out with the building department planning staff would also go out and take a look at the project so if it's found that the plans don't match what was approved they either would have to make the project match the approved plans to get their escro fee and their permit closed out or they would have to go back to the certificate to the Heritage preservation commission to get a COA amendment to get whatever changes they made approved by the HPC before the permit could be finaled out so the worst case scenario is that they just lose their escrow if they never get an amended COA that matches what was built or if they don't match what was originally built then yes permit would not be closed out and they wouldn't get the ESR Fe back at that point what they will get a housing permit they could live there so for these projects they're largely not new homes in the country club District so they don't get um new occupancy certificates and so the incentive is to really close out their building permits and to get this the escro is really used as an incentive to close out their building permits because there isn't new um occupancy certificates that are given out to projects that are not new homes gotcha so I don't know I'm kind of delaying on this but I'm just thinking if I were to game the system and I could pay $115,000 to do something unique to my home and I just lose that then I would just do that right um if the push back is just to retain the escrow amount but I could still go about my business is that enough of an incentive to really preserve these neighborhoods and preserve these homes that's the question I have it's more of an incentive than there is now I think and the city will step in at some point to try to require you know conformance I mean just like the patio thing discussed in the last meeting you got to remove that that you weren't supposed to do and I'm sure there's some sort of further incentive of finding and anyways instead of maybe getting lost in the Nuance which we could forever any further discussion on kind of the general Spirit of this and then yeah commissioner elare um uh first I want to complement the work uh it's a it's a complex subject and the materials I thought were really well organized and presented very well written I I generally support the recommendations uh I have to say I've lived in a for 20 years and I always thought the country club was just about preserving old architecture so I learned in the materials that it's more than that and that it's uh because Country Club is a model of planning zoning I didn't know that I just want to read briefly from the material so the district was listed on the national register historic places National register of historic places and designated as an Adina Heritage Resource District because of its significance in community planning zoning and Suburban residential development then it goes on to talk about architecture uh and Samuel Thorp is cast as kind of rather heroic visionary uh tightly controlling all aspects of the development and you know if if it were just that first statement that it's a a Heritage Resource District because it's of its significance in community planning I could probably be okay with that because that's that's a neutral statement it's not saying it's good or bad it's just saying it's significant but then what I reacted to after that was I mean I didn't count the words but it was looked like about 200 words to me of all this information about why it was so great uh without any mention of the ugly Parts the ugly bits and so I so as I said I support the recommendations but not the way it's presented and I have a motion that we can get to later if the if the commission's interested in it to ask for a slightly more expansive view of what happened in the 20s here that's it thank you any other I mean comments discussion points yeah commissioner day um so for me the you know in addition to what commissioner Aly just said um I think the other change here would is needed around the escrow piece um as written I don't I can't support it I I think there has to be at least a letter of credit option added to this um I know when we talk about $155,000 it's a percentage of a large cost $155,000 is still $115,000 it's a lot of money to a lot of people um so you know even if you're able to front $100,000 which most people can't um but you're going to have to go and get credit a loan from your bank another $155,000 on top of that is again a signific ific amount of money to a lot of people um so I'd say at least a letter of credit I do like the discussion around potentially finding the contractor I mean if you're sitting on an escrow piece um contractors there's some good ones out there and there's some bad ones out there and you say well it's the skin in the game to get the project closed out ear early or fast I guess quickly um sometimes people reach out to contractors and they just don't respond and projects take long longer than people think um and there's a Time Value associated with money and to be have your money you know held still in escrow if you have an unresponsive contractor um you know isn't to the benefit of anybody so I think we need to at least have more discussion on this piece I'd like to at least see it you know I would favor a motion to add at least the letter of credit as an option here um but you know I think we could discuss more of the finding piece um and or even and then additionally another thought here too is that it would be you could add language and about it being um the $155,000 in escrow only if the project requires a CO COA right rather than anything over $100,000 just in general thank you yeah commissioner felt I think we just recommend that the city and the HRA kind of take a look at that escrow piece I don't think it's up to the Planning Commission to figure that part out just ra the fact that it is of concern in our motion I mean ultimately our motion is a recommendation so even though it might I mean it is in our purview because we're making a decision on it so I mean if there's broad support in saying yeah we strongly consider that as an option too I think we we should probably get it into a motion if if we feel like it's going that way but I also think there's no maximum you know every time this $3,000 or $155,000 is depleted it is reup and there's I think there's I don't think we're going to solve the I yeah and I I guess just like the history of our recommendations like we might not get it exactly right but in this small amount of meantime it gives the attorney and the city council much more direct Focus so like if we don't incorporate it is part of the recommendation then we we can say things like um let's look at the escr and look if they willing to take letter of credit or some other um line of credit or credit card and also um consider the ramifications of continually reup I mean I think we can make a motion about having them look at these pieces without saying exactly how it should be solved yeah I mean that's usually what we do all right uh anyone else commissioner Pia um I am interested to hear uh commissioner aly's uh motion and I would and depending upon what it is maybe incorporate that with um some of the things that uh commissioner day said I don't think it's our job to um police contractors um so I don't think we shift that responsibility um to contractors but I I um I mixed feelings about um the amount of the the amount of money and but I would like to hear uh some combination of or a motion Al together that um we can move forward so if we can we hear commissioner alyus well maybe first commissioner Miranda Smith did do you have anything yeah okay both of you yeah so I'd like to uh address Commissioners hanaman commissioner hanan's um point about we're not building you know affordable housing or or or businesses here um it's interesting to review the history of of this neighborhood because um well commissioner well actually three Commissioners live in Morningside which is uh just across 44th Street and morning side uh was built first because it wasn't planned the way that this was but it was built first it was developed first because of the street car on 44th street so it was closest to Minneapolis and so we have our our little our little houses well they were little anymore our little houses on our little streets um and we have our little uh business district at 44th in France which is a whole small area plan and so then while the street car was still in existence there was um um a country club was developed and it was developed as a planned community and um if you look on a map there aren't a lot of north south through through streets kind of like morning side doesn't really have them either um but the ones that are through streets are ones where the where there were Transit stops so well they call them trans street car stops and so uh brale Woodale Grimes were were where the transit stops were um and then if you look on the south side of it um currently um where Wooddale Park is that was a school at one point um and it was a two-story school and then it was added on to after a while it says according to ad din's um our town or whatever that's called about town thank you um in 1936 it was built in 1925 and added on to in 1936 and it was two stories you know a fairly massive building it was a school and actually also in Morningside at 42nd and and Grimes there was a a much bigger School than what's there today so so a small business district there or an affordable housing um unit there that was built in the style and and the school was built in the style of of you know that fit the neighborhood or whatever so I don't think it's completely Preposterous to say I mean nobody's saying we're building a 10-story tower here or anything or or building anything in the middle of the neighborhood certainly but you know certainly along 50th Street where the city has just expanded into five Lanes here um 50th Street and are planning a huge intersection with uh Highway 100 which is just insane um and the 46 bus currently goes along there so that's currently Transit so for all these reasons I don't think it's at all unreasonable to have affordable housing on current city property so anyway I don't think um well I think my comment was justified so um the you know the the strictness I mean like I said our job is to deal with land use and the strictness of the regulations where it's talking so much about height and and stories I think doesn't conflicts with what our mission is so I'd have I'd have issues with that even though it's not changing I'd have issues with it Mr Smith we got some yeah uh I'm still trying to formulate my my thoughts so I hope I don't sound too rambly but I think um earlier it was mentioned that um you know when we think about racial covenants in particular this particular area um I think since I think 2021 uh there's like 52 Deeds I believe that were where the racial covenants were removed and and this is like in the entire city of Idina but we know it's concentrated in this particular region um of 2,800 Deeds that have those racial covenants in it right and so that's like 2% of the homes that have that now we do know right that those aren't really enforceable right so we understand that um but you know when we think about this city and what we try to do not just you know look at land use but all these commissions work together to try to align on the idea that we want ID to be a welcoming City we want it to be an affordable City and a very livable city so we have all these commissions working in concert to attack that objective in different ways and so when I look at the idea right of someone uh moving into this neighborhood and you know purchasing a home and then realizing that you know there's some history here that would prevent me from living here right that doesn't make you feel comfortable in your home right that kind of goes against the welcoming aspect of what we're trying to achieve and so even so right the city council back in June I think you know had a resolution that's that that worked with just deeds and a couple different uh organizations to really remove those racial covenants from the deeds and the cost for doing that is almost zero right you could just go online apply do it someone might come out to your home work with you and it's a done deal at the most it might be 50 bucks or so and so my question is you know we have this very unique opportunity that we could essentially in alignment with all the other commissions have this opportunity to make an impact or to create some kind of incentive for folks in this area to take an action to remove some of these racial covenants um we do know that these homes were built within a certain time period where there there there will need some kind of upkeep in next couple years which would then trigger our CA because it's a Heritage location so my recommendation or at least one idea that I'm thinking about is how could we include a requirement that as part of the COA process if if your home has a racial Covenant aligned with it that as part of the approval process you get it removed and it's free and so that might be a way to get that from 2% to a much higher perc because we do know that within the next 5 to 10 years these homes will have some kind of a need to do some kind of upkeep so we have this opportunity now so I'm just thinking that as we think about making Ed a more welome livable and affordable City that we all work in alignment and we support these ideas and this might be a venue so you were talking today Jan about what's the argument right so I'm trying to make that argument that maybe this is is a unique opportunity for us to to take advantage of that too thank you I guess uh commissioner elare you got some thoughts to maybe speak to that in some way well I have a motion that just covers that particular subject so a condition on this particular subject approval with a condition so if there's other things that people may want to add about the escrow or letters of credit or what have you we can add that on to this this is not both of those things it's just the one I wrote down thank you so what I would propose is a motion to approve provided that the history and or the understand the Country Club District sections of the plan of treatment are amended to include acknowledgement of the use of racially restrictive covenants During the period of significance short and sweet is there a second or does anyone have any thoughts discussion it that particular motion second that particular motion then I guess now would be time to like discuss and if I mean if there's proposed additions or modifications conditions is this where we would say and we would encourage the city staff to work with the lawyer to look at the issue of the escrow no I think I think this is informational this is for me it's more about awareness of the issue and letting people I think having the motion in there to include it especially because it that came to light with me when the background was how great the neighborhood was and and all of these um strict guidelines for beautiful area that came to mind too it's like there was an ugly side to that too so when I heard your motion I heard you saying like add that history piece in there we're not going to make um 550 homes kind of do this in the next five days or weeks or years this is just making and and these are 555 homes of 2800 properties that have the um racial restrictions in their covenants in the city of Adina so I so I think for me it is it is just the wording in there we're not going to make anybody do anything that's exactly right well the motion says is to amend a document okay just adding adding words and I was saying I support the amendment adding those words and then a notation that the staff should review with the lawyer the particulars of the escrow no no okay but that that would be a new condition which is anybody can make yeah well the city has on their okay I'm going to pull it up um um at Dam minnesota.gov um renouncing I mean recall this is this is a recommendation so conditions aren't like NE they don't have to be binding conditions if they are more in terms of a recommendation we've done this a number of times so adding in a condition that the city looks into other options or vehicles for ES yeah but the city has this actions to take on your own mapping Prejudice tool ass assistance from the just Deeds project so the city has already done all that so I don't think we have to reiterate I don't think they have though talking about just the escrow he wants to add a line to the ordinance is his recommendation is we modify the ordinance by adding a escar is being handled under their proposal the escro piece on just the escro piece oh because I okay I was wondering about just recommending additional ways to meet the escrow or limit the escrow yes that I mean that's much more succinct than I said it okay yes we're all vly agreeing when you talk I don't know what I agree with is that in regard to examining the possibility of the letter of credit yeah so you could add that as a condition um yeah or potential fine consider the no no I just we're vly agreeing yeah consider the letter of credit option um and and have the attorney weigh on the issue of issuing fines and maybe speaking to what commissioner Smith mentioned maybe just introducing that verbiage into this like it I don't know if it then would read as like an objective positive thing that those were a part of this also like I I think there could be some discussion around like incentivizing you know removal of these covenants that exist if that's not the right place for this it's at least a good stance for us to take because just adding in that language I I don't know how it will get added in but does that say like oh this is a good thing including your sentence that you wanted to add like it didn't necessarily really read neutral perhaps I just want to make sure it's certain that we're acknowledging a bad history you want to read that again sure um okay uh provided that the history and the understand the country club District sections of the plan of treatment are amended to include acknowledgment of the use of racially restrictive covenants During the period of significance I don't know how that could be a yeah neutral acknowledgement just I don't think that's yeah I don't think that's possible and I'll I'll leave it up to the the the folks responsible for the document to figure out the right way to do that there's talented writing obviously in that group so M Smith I thought yeah you know uh again I'm just thinking that if we want to follow suit with the city council's recommendation to remove racial covenants from the city would we want to also have a requirement on a COA approval the removal of a racial Covenant from AED how do you guys feel about that and if no why not like just I think it's a great idea I'd like to take that off offline is sort of a broader topic anytime there's a sale I mean houses are selling all the time that maybe there's a way to say to incentivize anybody going through a sale anywhere in the city where those covenants are to make sure that those are removed not just in the historic districts so I I would I I think that's a great issue a great point I just I'm not sure I would handle it just in this particular matter I'd make it broader you think it's a city-wide issue yeah yeah I think it's Citywide issue i' never I'd never thought about that before so I really appreciate you bringing it certainly Country Club is a specific design neighborhood with those all included but it's not the only place in the city so I think set it aside and come back to it as a strategy for all homes or or businesses any land that has those covenants written into it there probably some legal analysis that probably would need to go into that too um I think everybody here would support achieving that outcome you know whether you can require someone to to take unforce sorry language it's already unenforceable and unlawful out of a deed I don't know the answer um but it does feel like part of a you know if you're going to do it do it right have it vetted um make a solution that's going to work legally that can be applied everywhere so I just think it probably requires a little I don't actually know the answer I'm a lawyer don't the answer um on whether it can be compelled or needs to be incentivized but I'm kind of curious to know what it would be so maybe it does require some additional study and then teeing it up in a cleaner way for everybody to kind of vote on but totally supportive of getting that out outcome quency I mean we could maybe you know reach out to the human rights and relations commission right and say you know this is something we discuss tonight and it could be a larger broader topic for that commission to to look into as well and I think the goal of this was just in the commission advisory communication to Planning Commission and Council um especially that background there and there were several places in all of our documents where they talked about the background but especially this one where you're talking about the majority of homes were built from 1924 to 1944 the district's period of significance you know and then all of the wonderful restrictions that made this such a unique property without in that advisory commission just adding a line which I think you did about some of the additional history that happened because of those restrictions that's all that's all I want to see in the advisory Commission in the in the commission advisory communication to the city council just one comment this these covenants were elsewhere but yes to be fair the country club neighborhood is the prime example in the city that has been used and shared so I mean like it is fitting to try to do something specific to that neighborhood to rectify it but this might not be the place for it it sounds I mean how do you feel about that not compelled somewhat compelled if we keep it going elsewhere yeah you know uh it's just really to get the commission's uh you know just thoughts on it uh um definitely not a lawyer but uh it's a good thought from uh commissioner Bornstein which is um something that's not legally enforcable what's the difference between an incentive versus compelling someone to do something right and but something like this I don't know where that falls or how that treated it exactly I just kind of saw it as an incentive mechanism to include it here uh but if it's not uh you can't bind someone to do that is that the right place for it I'm just getting more interested in the subject that we're talking about I was looking at my phone at at the section of the city's website about it I just feel like somebody's thought about this and and they probably know the answer and I don't but totally support of whatever means possible to get get rid of them so a great idea I'd be supportive either so where's everyone kind of feeling right now with just the condition on looking at other escrow options so my thought is we use commissioner aly's um proposal um motion with um the instruction about the escra and that we talk about removing covenants as part of our work plan later on this evening since you made the motion do you welcome those conditions added yes so since it was changed we have a new second we wording the condition on the escr PES Carrie have you written anything down recorder that we look at other options including a letter of credit in regard to the escro fees unless you have something more specific in mind potentially the fine finding and the fine piece of it I just say it really it just comes down to a recommendation to add an alternative to cash escrow right you support a new second support the new second any other discussion yes just a little um yeah I guess I'm trying to figure out I guess I was confused by the examples of architectural stock Styles oh it is a draft so it is going to be part of this I'm just trying to figure out and I'm looking also at the Country Club plan of treatment you know and it talks about new home construction um and it says things like um see that something about will be built only on existing lots that mean we can't split Lots is this is this something over and above the ability to split Lots through a normal process or trying to figure out where I saw that I mean as as it relates to lus it's all R1 right but I mean There Are Places subdivision yeah if you you know some lots are bigger than others um it seems like it's it's beyond I mean we already have Zoning for things like that right and it seems like it's going Beyond what our zoning has that's the problem I had with the size you know the building height or the number of floors and everything we already have Zoning for that so I don't think we should make it any more restrictive so I would like to add an addition saying you know the city council should consider removing anything that is already discussed in existing zoning you know for height and lot and isn't there exception given to this neighborhood for like levels right you can have three technically or the same R1 standards apply to Country Club as apply to morning side or any other R1 property in town so I think you saw it on page uh 37 of our packet on under the paragraph new home construction right I saw it somewhere there oh the first sentence very first sentence new home construction will be limited to existing residential lots and their design will be compatible with the original 1924 to 44 Country Club District deed restrictions relating to architecture that what's in the examples of Architect no that must not be that do we have a copy of that the deed restrictions the original deed restrictions you know I mean because of you know in terms of commissioner Aly talking about you know also having deed restrictions for you know who can live there and what their nationality or race or ethnicity could be or religion even um you know this is this is getting more notable for not being just good things and you you know you kind of mentioned that so um I think it's worth reviewing that I mean that's not necessarily our job but I think we should recommend to the city council that this you know that this was designed to be you know something that never changes and I guess I I I don't think that's a good thing for a city that would be my recommendation you can take it or leave it so you're saying the recommendation to preserve the historic architecture is freezing in time something in a in a negative way just beyond the physical appearance of the buildings no my point is that you can have architecture a style of architecture can be a house it could be you know a one-story house could be a five-story mansion it could be a main street with a a series of small businesses on the first floor and apartments on the second floor you can have all those different types of buildings in the same architectural style so are we trying to preserve the architectural style or are we trying to preserve the actual houses that's my concern it is on the national um places his yeah registry so I think that it is ship sailed okay well I'm not an expert on that I don't know what that specifies if it style or the actual houses or what so and lot I mean you you know no more buildable Lots I don't know it just seems they want to save the existing houses the existing houses of significance as much as possible and that's the vast majority of them that's what the all right but we've approved expansions to those houses and whatnot so okay yeah because this is okay I just find it very odd okay see what you're saying um is there General support for that or maybe no I'm seeing not no uh so not incorporating that as a condition just to confirm okay so we we stand with the second any further discussion uh let's just go for a vote all those in what yeah kri can you yeah read it remind us all of what we're doing here we would be adding the condition as read by commissioner Aly we'll go back and view the tape and get that exact wording give it to it would be the um recommendation to consider a letter of credit as an option to the to the escrow we also have the City attorney Weighing on the possibility of a a fine uh system uh I think that's it those three all right so we have a motion a second all in favor say hi hi hi opposed nay motion carries 8 to one thank you for all your hard work thank you all right so we have two public hearings that was the first one as we expected it's it's a complicated subject right we want to preserve what's great in Ed enhance uh what could be better and there is certainly an elephant in the room when it comes to the history of the country club neighborhood so I'm glad that was discussed and Incorporated I think it it was important to acknowledge and to do that going forward so next we have the preliminary plat with variances for 5120 and 5124 Hankerson Avenue same process as discussed before staff will present we'll discuss applicant may present we'll discuss then we open it the public hearing after which we close we will deliberate and provide a recommendation for approval or denial so take it away Carrie thank you okay thank you uh chair and members of the commission this is a site you're familiar with just a few months months ago we had a proposal to build two uh duplexes on this property so located on Hankerson Avenue adjacent to the Grand View District here's a look at the existing single family homes that are located on the site uh to the South is the uh the Hankerson uh Town Home Development so this site is guided R1 single dwelling unit District the property to the south at Town Home Development is a PUD it's guided for uh low density residential essentially our single dwelling unit district in the comprehensive plan and Zoning District so here's a look at the existing site note that um this these two properties along with the property to the north they're a little bit oversized compared to the neighborhood they're 75 ft in width this area was originally platted in 1913 and all of the Lots within that plat are 50 feet wide so you can see the sites that we're looking at were lots six seven and eight and again 50 foot wide Lots however as this area developed over time and this isn't unlike a lot of the uh plats on the east side of town they were originally platted Country Club district is is a good example uh most of that originally platted as 50 foot wide Lots but as the sites were built on people wanted to build on a little bit larger lot 75 foot wide lot or 100 foot wide lot and they simply combined their properties it's just a simple form that's filled out um with henpen County to make the the properties larger reestablishing them is much more difficult and need to go through this sub division process so the lots that we're looking at again um they were increased in size before they were built on in the 1950s again originally platted in 1913 so you can see the property to the north is also a little bit larger in the William and Bedford block there's a couple of lots here that are slightly larger again 75 ft wide um in 1970 is is when the minimum lot size was established to uh minimum lot size becoming 9,000 square ft and 75 ft is the um required lot width we also built in I believe at that time the median average so if you were in a neighborhood that had lots that are larger than 9,000 square foot square feet the the median of all property within 500 ft of that site determines the minimum lot area width and depth depth so it's a kind of a complicated formula that needs to be uh run and that was largely uh development in Western Edina so again the proposal is essentially to reestablish that original plat with 50 foot wide Lots access would be taken off of the alley to the West similar as the existing homes take access as well just a quick look at the three lot plat that's proposed so this graphic indicates the required minimum lot area width and depth the applicant did run medians and this is the median that's come out within this neighborhood um all the R1 properties within 500 ft and all three of the Lots meet those medians but they don't meet our minimum lot size so they uh the request is a subdivision to establish reestablish the old plat but it does require lot width variances from 75 ft to 50 ft lot depth from 135 ft to 130 and then the lot area variances for all three lots so looking at our pyramid of discretion we're in the middle here city does have discretion we just need to establish findings for either approval or denial a lot of the projects we look at are in that green Zone with rezonings um where the city has complete discretion but you do have discretion to approve or deny here this is a graphic that we've used over the years it's kind of a building a um a list of all of the similar type proposals that have happened in the last 20 years or so this is essentially reestablishing those 50 foot wide um Lots as originally platted so the city has a history of approving some and denying some in in the most of the instances where we've approved the reestablishment of the 50 Foot um wide Lots it's the last one on the Block the vast majority um are 50 foot wide Lots surrounding it in instances where the city has denied those request those requests there's a mixture of large Lots within the block so this has come up from time to time when we've reviewed these types of of um subdivisions with variances lot coverage and we often think about if we don't approve the subdivision we're going to get two large homes built on those sites um but actually um so just to go through that with the three lots that are proposed there would be more for building coverage and the reason being is our building coverage requirements are for lots that are larger than 9,000 square ft the building coverage requirement is 25% on lots that are smaller it's 30% so with the existing two lots 25% is the requirement so they could cover um roughly 4,800 square feet if the subdivision goes through the Lots become smaller than 9,000 square ft and roughly 57 5800 square feet whatever that 30% number is um so there's a little bit larger building coverage it's just broken up into three three lots or three houses instead of two so primary issue for consideration are the findings for the variants met so in going through the variance criteria staff believes the criteria is met um the first the variances would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance general purpose and intent is to establish minimum lot sizes that are similar with surrounding properties as I mentioned most of this area was originally platted with 50 foot wide lots and that's the way most of it did develop so we find that it's reasonable to reest establish that original plat um the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan where uh single family homes are allowed here as well as in the comprehensive plan and then looking at our practical difficulty test U the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by zoning ordinance so again we we feel that it's reasonable um the lots are similar in size to the vast majority of lots within this neighborhood again the homes were built in the 50s the original plat from 1913 with 50 foot wide lots and these Lots meet the median average for this neighborhood the circumstances are unique to this property and not created by the landowner it was a previous property owner that made those lots larger um and we don't believe that the variants would alter the essential character of the neighborhood again the vast majority of the home within this neighborhood are built on 50 foot wide Lots so staff did outline options for your consideration findings for denial if the count if the Planning Commission does not support that are listed um the subject property are uh the subject properties are conforming to today's standards with two single family homes um so reasonable use of the property does exist today there are no practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance um there are larger Lots within this neighborhood again the lot to the north and there some to the West that are oversized um the Practical difficulty it's um the proposal to subdivide is self-created this is what's requested by the applicant and um the need for the variance is created only by the applicant's desire to Maxim the return on investment and economic considerations can't be uh taken into consideration so with that again we've outlined the options for consideration but staff is recommending approval the applicant we have one online that'll make a presentation and uh uh Chad Don is here to answer any questions as well with that I can stand for questions thank you for standing Carrie that's nice of you any comments questions to Carrie yeah commissioner Smith so turn so thank you kri director teag for uh just walking through this is the intent then that once we subdivide this into three Parcels that the developer would then put two homes per parcel uh is that the intent or is just one home per procel so there's going to be three homes three single family homes correct cuz I think in the previous days uh months ago when we looked at this it was was going to be four homes I believe two on each half parcel right um so now they're reducing that down to three instead of four is that that's correct the previous proposal was taking the existing Lots removing the homes on the site and then building a duplex on each on each property and that was denied by the city council thank you Comm day this is more just general knowledge question I couldn't help it but I did the math on the building coverage in impervious surface based off of what's on the table I got 29.27% for building coverage and I got 50.9% for impervious surface so how do we handle do we round down or what do we do when we get make that calculation and I've seen to conform to code and I've seen different numbers on what the lot sizes are so that can factor in right when they come in for building permit there's going to be a new survey done for that property and they're going to have all of that laid out in detail so that's really the deciding um this is more not exact just general based on on the information we have I said I couldn't I just couldn't help it just engineering me was doing the math so I thought I'd ask but if it yeah I mean if it hits 50 it's unacceptable right so anything above it in any sliver doesn't work real quick are you able to just paraphrase in one or two sentences if it's possible why the council denied approval of the project we saw previously was there one reason or was it just kind of all over the yeah yeah it was a host of of reasons I think the P they weren't comfortable with doing a PUD on just two two lots even though it was kind of connecting to that property to the South so that was a concern the comprehensive plan Amendment um so those are probably two of the main reasons the some of the reasons we discuss too as like you know why didn't you go a different route of like doing two r2s instead of it's not ask for as much other questions for Carrie seeing none welcome the applicant remotely and the one in the room if you have a presentation or any one of you guys I don't know who is who I believe Mr Banky online is gonna present we will await I'm sorry I keep hitting the mute button trying to get myself connected we hear you now you do and I will also uh say hi um there we go oh yeah there you actually are now yes we are uh good evening Planning Commission chair Bennett uh it's good to see you again um uh I think you know really what we're looking for here is very simple request um we're trying to remove a lot of the issues that uh that were discussed last time and and we discussed at Council um the big observation here is that these Lots were originally um exactly what we're asking for in this situation 50 foot Lots uh meeting the median width exceeding the median depth uh basically they're they're very uh comparable equ to 78% or more of the Lots in this neighborhood um we we definitely feel that the project uh fits into the character of the neighborhood um we're you know we were disappointed at the previous decision but it is what it is um I think you know keeping in mind here too as far as you know the increase in density you know it was well we're not handling it the way that the uh um University of Minnesota um uh people did in their in their report but you know we we are up against a uh commercial District you know we are immediately adjacent to U the whole Grand View area here you know we are up against a bank you know even though you saw pictures of the front of the uh uh the buildings here when you turn around you see the back of Wells Fargo bank so uh I think that's something to keep in mind is that we are very much uh immediately adjacent to a commercial District um I think that when you uh look at you know what we'll be doing here uh we are basically going to be submitting house plans just like any other lot that we work on in the city of Edina each of those uh applications address the uh zoning ordinance and the building code um we definitely you know address the coverage requirements with uh Carrie and his staff um we are not asking for any changes to any of the other elements of the zoning code outside of the elements that currently make any 50ft lot a legal noncom form in use in the city of Edo um you know it's pretty interesting to see that you know as far back as 193 this was the size lots that city of Bina U was looking for and and held and honestly we've built on a significant number of them over the last 15 plus years that we've been doing um uh residential Renovations and uh Redevelopment in the city of udina you know we're very familiar with it um the products that we uh produce are well accepted um we do feel that the uh proposal is has Merit uh we notice that it's very similar to several other uh projects that were approved matter of fact one of the ones that was approved back in 2019 the 5841 oaklan project we actually built on one of those two lots um very success successfully uh the home sold uh about the same time it was finished um you know we we did go through the the city's uh recommendations and we we truly don't see any issues with the um Engineers report uh you know we're very happy with h car's staff report I think it lays it out extremely clearly that you know this is simply um returning these three lots to their original condition and honestly even now the legal descriptions for these two homes refer to the original Lots uh they both are legal description is lot X plus half of lot y uh for each of them and you know it it never really changed from that I think Carrie alluded to it with his discussion about lot combinations versus lot subd Visions you know we honestly feel that this is a very straightforward and and arguably uh hopefully not a politically uh uh influenced decision uh it it really is basically just returning these lots to their original platted widths and uh allowing the original number of homes to be built there um in going through the the city's staff report I was you know I was I was touched on the denial uh part of the uh options for you and I don't see that you have any choice here really because you know it talks about the subject properties being conforming and you know that they are are currently conforming Lots Etc reasonable use uh that leaves out many many realities of uh homes that are you know 60 70 years old I mean I know you were talking about Country Club just a little bit ago and those houses are you know 80 to 100 years old you know clearly homes have an age and an age limit I think you kind of were alluding to it in your discussions of Country Club but you know the homes other homes in the city of Edina don't get the kind of care that homes like that get um you know I and I'm not saying that every home out there on a 50ft lot is is worn out but they definitely become worn out or they become functionally Obsolete and I think those facts get left out in discussions of that the that the home has a you know taxable market value of x or y you know you don't really get a clear picture of of why people want to sell us homes for redevelopment uh as far as the Practical difficulties you know there's there's one lot of of 22 within the you know the block that's different in size than than ours than what we want to create here I mean that's you know that's a heck of a a heck of a a majority um practical difficulties are self-created U that's a that's a hard no clearly the 1916 plat is in is in a opposition to the zoning that was created in the 19 60s um you know I think we have just like you were talking about issues with the country club the the zoning that came about in the 60s was well after a lot of these areas had developed and you know you were looking at areas like Park VES and other areas like that where you know you had raw land that could be subdivided and the the larger Lots were were desired but applying those newer uh zoning ideas to the older PL older uh platted Lots I think is is kind of a problem there and then the last part about it being our desire to maximize return on investment um that's again it's it's that isn't how things work around here the uh new homes benefit the economy the city economy the the regional economy they benefit the city with taxes uh refreshing the city's Housing St is a terrific way to invigorate the community and keeping in mind that a lot of these uh areas are were built out at approximately the same time the more that you can encourage the uh the reinvigoration of some of these homes by Redevelopment or or refreshing um I think you'll find that you know you the the community is going to to last longer and it's going to have less issue with just overall deterioration and you know avoiding any situation that that would eventually lead to blade or something else um the the newer homes I think if you go through the the neighborhoods where they have been built have really done a lot I think to you know like I say refresh the neighborhoods and and bring new homes new home owners into those areas um I think another thing that you know you want to keep in mind is that every time a new home gets built and another home gets added to the city of Edina you are encouraging movement both within and from without the city so you are continuing to uh you know create a a better uh City by encouraging the people to uh to move in and to um you know work in the city if that if that's what they need I did see in the U in the report that was done by the uh uh planning the planning school that there's definitely is a lack of of of homes compared to the amount of jobs in the city of Edina so anytime I think you can add homes to the city you're going to encourage people who work in the city to live in the D so um I think beyond that I I'm ready to stand for questions as well well it looks like you're sitting so maybe please stand up no I'm kidding thank you for your presentation uh again I guess any questions fellow Commissioners to see not seeing no no one wants questions so hey you got off that one easy wait wait I had one okay good thanks for being here so with the structures you're planning on building on these um lots are are you is it basically the case that you're not planning on asking for any variances for the structures themselves correct um staff gently let us know that that probably isn't um looked favorably on in any case but we've done very well with homes meeting the city zoning ordinances on these Lots these size Lots were well versed in how to meet those zoning ordinances our uh our work with our our Engineers to to manage our our water runoff within the parameters that the city has and the 9mile creek have are are you know they're well it's a well-tuned machine as far as I'm concerned but um we don't see any other variances needed and honestly we we think that these three lots would uh support any variety home type and size so so you know we're totally open to what our our Market will ask for and and we'll move on from there okay thanks one quick follow up to that uh it looks like on the drawings it shows a a lower level elevation and a first floor elevation and that's it so I know the the drawing kind of shows an impression it looks like it's the old you know the two duplexes but are these intended to be like one level living with a basement not specifically I mean certainly if there's a a buyer for a rambler unit uh that's what could be built um it could be two stories for that matter too I mean honestly any product that um other builders or or we have built in the city of Vina I think would be uh available here okay thank you you got it thank you for very much nice to see you again um there was mentioned that the two homes that are currently there are uh naturally affordable naturally occurring affordable housing am I correct the not according to the strict interpretation of that no according to uh the housing Redevelopment Authority that really applies to rental product these are these are uh single family homes um with that said neither of them meet the affordability standards of the Metro they may be affordable within Edina but not truly um affordable under under the the county or the state guidelines or the federal guidelines for that matter and is there with that being said they are reasonably priced single family homes correct right now that need some to a lot of work to be invested in them in order to do uh to move them into the next uh generation of home owners and I think that's the part that always gets missed when that's considered they these homes don't exist in the vacuum so is there a reason that you are not considering um building um new affordable housing in its place I'm not saying we aren't we're looking for product that meets market demand and it's my understanding from last time that you were here that the uh homes that you were talking about then were going to run in the $800 to $850,000 range the to homes Corp um and and so where do you see see these new homes falling in in that same range we it's what the market will will bear at this point I mean honestly we don't know what our buyers would ask for you know when we were doing the town homes that was a product that we [Music] were that we had designed for the site for a particular Market you know these S three these three single family lots are no different than any other single family Redevelopment lot elsewhere in the city of Min of Edina um we could very well have a rambler we could very well have a small twostory we could very well have a larger two story for all we know um we do build sometimes to spec but we also build to a buyer and if a buyer walks in and and wants a home that is in that price range then that's where that house would be one thing to keep in mind too that the Redevelopment in this form has a slightly lower cost in terms of the infrastructure and you know you you have to keep in mind that the infrastructure costs on Redevelopment are hugely significant and you know having to put in new water lines having to put in new sewer lines um are all very expensive so if somebody somebody wanted um a 2500 square foot uh one and a half story house or two story house what do you estimate that would cost what are your selections how do you want it built I mean honestly you you can't build you can't price a home by the amount of information you just gave me but I'm assuming it's going to cost you're not going to get in for under $250 a square foot you might hard we we can leave it at that um thank you any other questions I've see none yet hold tight there will probably be some more questions and or comments for you to react to after the public hearing but that we will open to right now so like the last time I'll give some information for anyone who might be tuning in remotely and then while we wait for you to jump in the queue we'll open it to people who are here in person but the info again is you want to call the following number 312 535 8110 enter access code 2632 058 2795 the password is 5454 and now is the time to press star three on your keypad to get in the queue to speak while you do that we're going to open the floor to those who are here in attendance that would like to provide testimony you can come up to either Podium and you have three minutes to do so State your full name address green means go red means stop thank you hi longtime fan first time speaker Jessica Fitch uh 507 Hankerson thanks for hearing um my information so I have lived in that four block area I owned a house on Bedford moved to a house on Hankerson my ex-husband has a house on William directly behind where they're looking to build so a couple things we talk about affordability and density I feel like our four block area already picked up the density with the previous eight homes that were built on the Block affordability I understand the idea of building homes to market price we know this isn't 7 or 800,000 it's minimum 7 or 800,000 is what these will be sold for there's no way he's building or they are building $500,000 houses that might meet people like my need I built I moved into a house on that street within the past few years in the 400 range and did fix it up to Modern standards but it's smaller it's not a million doll house is a house I can afford for my child my child runs through the the alley from William to Hankerson where those houses would be increasing already the eight units in traffic and now another three houses in traffic playing ball becomes more difficult running back and forth becomes difficult I'm I'm just wondering I understand there's a Wells Fargo in front of them but behind them is a really cute little nine-year-old boy that I care a lot about uh separately it's just it's changing the makeup of our our neighborhood we've a lot more people driving through there that's just a concern in general um we talked about the safety we talked about the density I get I think we've just done our job already for our four block area we've picked up the density um and really I think it's just we we we would like to keep our street the neighborhood it is there are a lot of houses that are bigger than a 50 foot lot it's just not directly on the front of that end it's one street over it's a Half street over there a lot of um lots that are more than 50 Street 50 feet and I don't know why we're looking at 110 years ago was hey it was created like that so it's okay to go back to that our neighborhood is established the way it is I say leave those two houses hopefully somebody like me can get in there put $50,000 in the house and make it up to code or whatever up to livable is for Edina standards um I've been in one of those houses my friend owned it up to a couple of years ago it doesn't need hundreds of thousands of dollars to to fix up and need some new flooring maybe some new Roofing you don't need to have $800,000 to live in Edina that's all I want to share thank you very much hi guys this is this is exciting um well thank you for uh listening to us uh my name is Elizabeth mcdonell the my address is 5221 interlock and Boulevard even though it's interlock and Boulevard the house faces Hankerson so just at the other end of where the development is supposed to be personally I'm opposed to the uh I am opposed to the proposed rezoning for the um following one increased population without infrastructure growth strains the neighborhood more cars more um traffic it's a little bit un a little less safe um so you know my name is Elizabeth McDonald uh my husband and I own the home on the corner um I oh sorry I'm reading my notes I feel a little nervous nervous okay through the meet and greet um that we had with the builder at the Adina Library months ago I don't remember which month I just was wearing a coat it was a long time ago uh it was clear that there were some concerning things regarding this proposed plan a number of residents came out when I was there there was probably at least 15 people asking questions sharing their concerns initially the plan was going to be the two buildings that had were uh duplexes each so four dwellings like you guys have already heard and the recommended selling price for each of those dwellings was going to be $850,000 um which is far above affordability for a dino standards I would consider 515 um the affordability which is like per the come home to EO program it's kind of where grab grab that number um the builders uh had clear concerns for maximizing maximizing profits without thought to the impact of the ecological concerns of the neighborhood with the current traffic infrastructure uh he was well articulated that though the outward goal would be to invite people into Edina the reality is that most likely it would be an older uh uh in an older couple an inter Edina move much like a lot of the town homes that they built um he articulated at that at that meeting at the library uh desire to change our neighborhood little by little one of the concerns the neighbor had brought up at that meeting was you know you were the Builder for the town homes immediately South to this proposed property and you turned two you turned one building which was two dwellings into eight they initially tried to turn it into um 16 Town Homes but um through these kinds of boards got them down to eight and when the the that concern was shared the the Builder had said yeah little by little as old home old homes come up for sale we'll buy them and we'll do you know we'll develop them um you know and while generally I support a you know multif family dwellings as a means to achieve housing affordability and bolstering middle class these homes do not intend to be sold for affordable prices I personally am a recipient of the come home to din program and and am familiar with the tremendous benefit that living in a provides to me and my four kids the zoning change would not only uh the zoning change would only benefit the profits of the Builder and not necessarily the community at large uh to further prove my point the same Builder took the uh oh I already shared that part um and each of those Town hom sold for under a million right under a million dollars each you know I would ask that the diversity diversity housing affordability and inclusion getting people to come into a not be considered as a factor of approval um for this zoning change because that was not the intent of the builders as they communicated um and the other impact is that in this neighborhood like Jessica mentioned she's might neighbor across the street there's on just our small block oh done okay wrap it up I'll wrap it up um from 51st to interlock and there are 22 children uh 10 and under and that's just our little sliver of the block much of the neighborhood is that kind of consistency and the increase of traffic the increase of um adding additional homes I just don't think meets the need for what our neighborhood needs and my ask is that you look at the neighborhood uh ecologically and not just in this situation okay thanks sorry I was over time thank you very much thank you for sitting here this whole time to wait to speak too anyone else who is here in person I'd like to provide testimony seeing No One racing to the stand anyone in the queue virtually no hanging in there all right it's been well over a minute there I would welcome a motion to close the public hearing motion to close the public hearing second all those in favor say I I so moved all right bring it back to the Planning Commission to deliberate over this one or three I should say yeah Steve you're raising your hand or is that a high five I thought it was a gentle way of asking to to kind of respond there um just uh sort of a couple of points here like that did come up and you're right um the first Speaker talked about an increase of three houses and it's not it's an increase of one second speaker go ahead yeah just we're going to deliberate first and then I mean if we have if we have further question for you we'll we'll we'll ask for it but appreciate it I'll put my hand back down thank you all right commissioner Miranda yeah um I'd like to thank the residents for for uh testifying here today um I think in terms of affordability that that has sailed that ship has sailed because we uh I don't know what our vote was for the two duplexes but that would have been a lot cheaper than the housing they're going to build here now today so so so that's a lost opportunity um certainly through the city council um and then in terms of uh you know you talk about building you know some of the concerns were you know children and and uh speeding cars and whatnot the thing is the the denser your housing is the the more people there are and the less ability there is to to speed I mean when houses are far apart if you look at something uh I mean you compare we were just talking about country CL the houses are actually really close together um and you don't get a lot of speeding because you don't have it's not like somewhere in in you know I don't know Rolling Hills where the houses are far apart and you can just go very quickly because there's not a lot of people around so so I I that's something that doesn't really work in in real life um and so to me what I see with this is that we have three three lots that you know are basically the same size as the lots that are around there and this is something I mentioned whenever this comes up because I live in morning side and we have a and I live on Grimes and we have a whole bunch of of uh two lot wide houses in in our in our street in our neighborhood and um and they were all you know they're all exactly two lots wide so um I think that we should um I'm going to motion to uh move to approve this because basically you know most other houses in the most other Lots in the neighborhood are that size and adding one house you know just really isn't going to make a significant difference and the affordability thing is something that we you know we we can't really change right now so um and if these were three individual Lots I mean the developer right now could just tear down the two houses and build two houses right so so the cost of the house is also kind of irrelevant because um we're just going to have three houses instead of too but they're going to be all approximately the same price so um so again that ship is sort of sailed so it's basically the fact that you know there are three there were three lots there they were combined into two um it should almost be by right that that a property owner can uncombine Lots because that's the way they were you know we historically the city developed W you know larger and larger lot sizes that it expanded West because we went from a sort of you know a street car suburb in Morningside and in um uh Country Club uh to being you know very car focused culd desaki you know sort of neighborhoods that were built in the 70s 50 years later um and so the the lot sizes changed over time but when this neighborhood was built these were the lot sizes that were that the houses were built on so I think it makes perfect sense to to allow three lots thank you I am going to completely disagree with commissioner Miranda and um with all due respect um there was a uh mayor of forum I think it was earlier this week actually um where there was discussion um about naturally occurring affordable housing and how important it is and I happen to think that that is the uh the biggest euphemism that we that we use however um there certain there I understand there is a place for it conceptually um so I think that um what this would do would be eliminate the naturally occurring affordable housing the current tax values of these homes together average about $440,000 I believe based upon what was said um at the previous hearing as well as tonight that the new homes would probably cost about 850 a minimum of $850,000 in addition to the quick math that I did earlier um we were asked to pass a comprehensive plan plan Amendment at a previous hearing and I had said that it was a heavy lift and I voted against it then so I think this is um an increasingly um bigger ask and I do not think it um passes the um third aspect of the variance requirements in terms of it uh altering the essential character of the neighborhood because I do think it Alters the essential character of the neighborhood by changing the type of housing um and you know I'm also interested to know where these people who you know um are supposed to move you know I mean I don't I I think there's very little housing in um Ina so that where the people who lived in this house very few options for them in the city of Edina so I think at the end of the day it changes the character of the neighborhood so I think it doesn't pass muster for variant yeah commissioner Hanan um so these homes if uh Real Estate websites are to be believed sold in 2016 for 325,000 that was the market value for their homes then in my mind if we took away the developer concept out of this if you have a home that's a, to 12200 sare ft that was built in the 1950s and you're sitting in it today and you want to sell it the person who's going to buy it either has to put a lot of money into it um my guess is the electrical needs updating the plumbing will need updating roof windows I don't know the condition of the house but all of those are are very expensive in the home is 70 years old so it is approaching by construction standards its functional end of life and whether the owner of the lot sells it to a family or to someone who ends up tearing it down they're not in control of the price naturally occurring affordable housing happens when you allow a variety of Housing and folks to move through the Continuum of their life and the various phases whether that's um single and no kids with a small family um all the way through you're a senior and going up and downstairs becomes difficult and you need one story living to to going to a place with care I think this is a neighborhood that is um perfect for additional density and is the natural progression of the commercial District continuing to expand just as it did at 44th in France just as it does around 50th in France where the the commercial node slowly grows and you get denser housing types because of things like public transportation or the trolley or access to amenities I understand we have a housing crisis in the city but the difference between two homes and three homes or two homes and four homes it it's we can't preserve affordable housing that's naturally occurring on a one-off basis because we don't control all the market factors so I am I think you guys know deeply passionate about affordable housing but I don't know that that problem gets solved through one or two particular requests that come before us I am very saddened that we could have provided two more homes for folks in the city if the city council had passed the previous Pro proposal now we will only be able to provide one more net new home for someone to move out of their larger home maybe and downsize that creates naturally occur occurring affordable housing it doesn't it doesn't mean we can save this particular property but it keeps the Continuum going um and I and I do want to speak to the density comment earlier Foundation footings um running infrastructure that's expensive so the more units you get in a small area the less expensive it becomes the four houses would be cheaper to build in many respects than three individual houses so these three individual houses can't be less expensive than the four just by nature of you're creating three foundations you're creating three runs of electrical you're creating three runs of of of um Plumbing stacks and all of those things so the the the reason we have different styles of homes and different duplexes Town H home squads is to make things more affordable but because we didn't like the setbacks and we you know there were other reasons the city council didn't appreciate it we've lost an opportunity to have one more person either move from a different place in a Dina or move into a Dina so I'm disappointed I think we Absol should go back to the way the Lots were drawn I think only through more density will we get meet our environmental goals will we meet our housing goals will we we solve a lot of the problems that we're in and um so I support this absolutely yeah commiss day I don't have a ton to add because I think that was really well said um but I just add additional perspective because I was one of the I think the only two people that voted against the original proposal um and my problem with the original proposal wasn't had anything to do with the actual proposal itself it was the process and the Pud zoning and how we went about that um which is what where the council also disagreed as well this to me though is is right the end result that I would have liked to have seen really when we first were given the proposal um subdividing Lots is an extremely successful way that a lot of communities have gently added density um and encouraged affordability and as far as the process goes we're we're you know following our R1 zoning we're following our comprehensive plan so there isn't really much of a lift here really the only lift is subdividing into three lots and I think staff laid it out in terms of meeting the variance requirements um this one's pretty straight forward so you know just wanted to comment on the process piece I think you know this were conforming to our our zoning code we're not going to be be asking for you know a bunch of variances on loot coverage percentage or anything like that um I think this is you know a better better proposal than what we first saw um and support it as well commissioner El just real briefly I support this for the same reasons that uh others who are also supportive of it have said so I won't go over that all again the only thing the only Nuance I think that I would add is that I support it not because we're going back to the way it used to be as far as the way it's platted because I can imagine a situation where I might not want to go back to the way it used to be if we were going the other direction perhaps uh but I'm supporting it because because it's consistent with area medians and consistent with City goals gentle density in this place m s I'm in agreement I think the last time we we looked at this it was definitely ATT tension with the zoning to convert this into a p UD and but the bigger benefit was to increase density and we just believe that density that was just west of here was actually pretty good and we just going to continue it into this area so for the reasons the other Commissioners raised I I think this is a much it's like a downgrade from what we said the last time and so this works this works for um you know what the developers is uh looking for in terms of traffic and and uh you know we're looking at one extra family uh which hopefully is not going to be too much more intense than what's already here if it was going to be uh multiple units at a parking garage close by I could see traffic being significant but one extra home I don't think is going to significantly increase the traffic in this area so for the reasons already stated I think this is a a good solution that yeah we should have fly had before other comments down there commissioner felt or Bor as I'll share a couple uh because we saw this previously in a different form um I personally just am not as much of a fan of what we're seeing compared to what we saw before for a variety of reasons and like some of it is like illustrative of just the process making it harder to maybe do the right thing so one thing that came up in a lot of small area plans when we built near them yet outside of them like this technically isn't Grand View by uh the boundaries uh was really being mindful of like graceful Transitions and you know taking care and of the neighbors adjacent to those areas to not bring change cascading into those areas unexpectedly um not not as much as is it is a function of traffic but it's also the the function of shape and form and what other you know downsides that that might bring so what I saw before was two you know one level duplexes that was a nice graceful transition from the town homes to the other one-story homes so I think what what we missed there was kind of this nice true mix of use and housing stock that could have been on this place that looks out at Wells Fargo and as commissioner Miranda noted then um what he was in favor was like not doing this anywhere but this specific spot kind of makes sense for a logical change so the Form and Function was favorable to me so here to just now add three homes that will likely be maxed out so probably two stories you know very expensive um I'm not as much of a fan of that than keeping it to two lots that would then be developed into two homes uh for the you know for the net benefit and loss of you know the the coverage that we you know this will take what 9,000 square ft compared to 5,000 or what was it Carrie you had it on one of the slides oh yes I know two lots with new homes would be 4900 Square ft versus 5700 I I just think by us not allowing what could have happened there we're just getting a not exciting result as a city and we're not advancing these go goals we claim to care about so but I feel like we're backed into a corner because we have a lot less discretion now than we had previously and what is presented is logical and now if I were to choose you know is it going to be two big homes there versus three it's it's just not a great the win is so low it's hard to get it's hard to use even the discretion to get behind approving this um so I I'm just I'm torn both ways I I can support this I can also deny this um but I I fully supported the previous plan yeah commissioner hman and I think that's I I really appreciate you saying that because I think sometimes perfect becomes the enemy of the good and unfortunately by the nature of our role we can only respect respond to what's brought before us and once that moment passes that that that option is off the table so whether it's a restaurant on the keys site or should this be two two duplexes or anything else right once that's off the table we're not the money or the financing or whatever behind it we get what we get within certain parameters or we don't get it at all and I think to your point too this could be less affordable housing bigger housing and impact the neighborhood more negatively than the other proposal but I I find it hard to object to going back to the original lots that meet the median of the whole neighborhood I'm not excited about this as gentle density but we you know the opportunity passed y great Point any other comments no welcome a motion I move to approve based on the city's uh the STA staff's uh findings second just do a roll call vote is there over there commissioner elky I commissioner Miranda hi commissioner Pia n commissioner Smith I commissioner day I commissioner barnstein I commissioner felt I commissioner hanaman I chair Bennett I motion carries and this will go before the city council at their next meeting not their next meeting but the one following so three weeks from this past Tuesday all right well good luck to the Builder thank you for coming in to provide testimony and on to the next item report recommendation this is our 2025 work plan Carrie will leave it to you to present again yes thank you chair members of the commission so um although the we're asking for a decision on this we don't have to we still have one more Mee if you're not comfortable so I'll just put that out there um so to go through based on the changes that were made at at our last meeting the first initiative is reviewing land use applications our standard the second is an update to the zoning ordinance this is a pretty big one um staff did put it in the budget for next year um if we're agreeable with that one I think what we'd be looking for tonight whether we approve this or not is leads for that project although given the size of that project everybody's going to be involved in that one um but perhaps we could assign a couple of leads the third is the review and update of the greater Southdale District design experience guidelines we thought we would bring in uh Mick Johnson who um helped put those together so it's a taking a look at those standards and do we need to provide any updates uh the fourth item is completing the Lincoln London Dair small area plan we already have our leads on that one and then the fifth is what we talked about last time was evaluate the use and um the efficacy of traffic studies how what do we want to make changes um this could be or likely will be in conjunction with the Transportation Commission uh work session um perhaps bring a consultant in um so we'd be looking for leads there and per the direction of the Planning Commission at the last meeting we moved the district plan for the kill area into the parking lot figuring that that can be done as part of the comprehensive Plan update uh that will be taking place sooner than we realize probably starting that in 20126 but with that I'll turn it over to the commission for discussion yeah is it appropriate or possible to take um commissioner Smith's idea about looking into how we as a city incentivize or go about helping remove those restrictive covenants I don't know if that's us thing if that's a people who are interested take it offline and you bring it up with City but I really liked the idea so bringing it up since we're discussing our work plan yeah certainly I mean it's well beyond what we do and I mean it it regards land use but I think it's such a specific legal task that I don't know if it'd be effective to be on our work plan right now or it just remain like it's like one of those things that like should be in like a not a parking lot but a like you said take it offline and I'm sure someone cares enough about it to make sure that it has a pulse and keeps going um but we got a really full plan and I think just reacting to something right now to add to either add or then get other things removed like I've seen that happen not well you know I think we should I think we should Engage The Human Rights and relations commission right and and say and you know kind of push it to them and say Hey you know here's what we came up with in this meeting meeting tonight maybe that gets added to their work plan um or you know or they at least are now aware of it and can considered as a you know normal function of their commission and Nothing Stops us from doing that it's just like is it measured and do we need City resources behind that action too which is part of like why we have things on a work plan this doesn't seem like it necessarily would to take that first step so although like yeah I mean there is a benefit of work we've talked about this before of having you know just kind of like this running list of things that aren't a huge lift necessarily but like we want a track for transparency to let the community know hey we do care about this and we're working on it um especially in the meantime you look like you're on some yeah what you got well I mean like what we're talking about here in the actual plan work plan is you know working with the Trans ation commission you know we could have a a work plan item where we work with the Human Rights Commission and come up with you know and the city would approve this of course would you know we give them a recommendation right so it's just coming together with like what we just did for the areas of change right so that really didn't take a huge amount of time in terms of meetings you know we had three or four meetings and then we just came up with the hard part was writing the recommendation was writing out the document whatever but if we had had something where um you know we could propose it I mean the city council can say or the city manager can say no but you know where we would say we would have a joint committee with the Human Rights Commission where we would both work on it and our and our product would be a recommendation to city council what are other thoughts I know we will start working on the comprehensive Plan update and during that process we kind of divied out you know being Liaisons to different commissions too I mean I'm just thinking Beyond just those two I mean it it almost would be beneficial just in general for us to be better connected to the other commissions where it's not just transportation for one item human rights for the other but maybe it's just one work plan item where we kind of assign some sort of collaborative I mean even not even a plan but just maybe touch base and share share what they're working on you know throughout the year I agree and I think that um we could all use more education around it in terms of what the legal parameters are and you know what the possibilities are that we can do what is in within our purview or within you know joint purview um so yeah I I would be happy to sit on a committee or join that or leave at least move move the you know get us all smarter up educate us all and uh move the ball a little bit I we could do that with a couple specific goals within it so then they stay measured and tracked and right I would like a deliverable just because that would be something to deliver you know kind of keeps you on track and stuff yeah I mean that's that's fine doesn't have to be a big giant massive undertaking other people's thoughts definitely don't want to bite off more than we can choose so I like the idea of connecting with the HRC and talking them about it I think it is something that um the city has done work on already and I think it is just a continuing education process for everyone and when we see something we talk about it um I mean I think the city's already done significant amount of work on it and I think it is just a continuing to have conversations with our neighbors because everybody can look at their own property and see if it's on there or not and we can tell them where to go but I do like the idea of connecting with the HRC I think that's that sounds pretty good it kind of reminds me of I think was the last last meeting where we were talking about redlining I think you know we we do work we discover things and then we have to think about how do we address it and I think we have other commissions that maybe is more designed to look at these things in a unique way where they might have attorneys that could parse out certain kind of language and what's required or not whereas we have planning staff and attorneys but more focused on Planning and Zoning um but I would love collaboration I'm not sure how that's going to work but if we could figure out how to partner with them and say hey here are some things that we are discovering in the work that we're doing how would you guys recommend we addressed this or how how would you guys look at these issues any other thoughts I mean there some of it just identifying better ways to kind of collaborate just hesitate like us coming up with something right now adding it to L and everyone being responsible for each commission or just to and leaving others out when we have the opportunity to or is this something big enough to just keep as a separate item K what are your thoughts I mean you know like the council tends to strip us down of things if we overload ourselves and usually it's their choice and not ours so that's why I hesitate adding something new that then kick something else later which has always bit Us in the butt pretty much anything that's been like pushed later it's like if only we did that when we wanted to do that right yeah was like yes maybe we could take baby steps I'm wondering if it would make sense I don't know when the other commissions meet uh I'm sure I could look it up but one of us could just go to one of their meetings and just talk about it and just say hey here's what we're saying we just want to put this on you guys radar something as simple as that maybe we don't need a work plan item necessarily but just a messenger just to go over and say Hey you know we're discovering some items here just want to put it on your radar so you guys could considered for your work plans going forward but at the same time there every other commission is doing their work plan as well right I mean so if the city sees these I mean it's up to the city to say um yes we think that um you should jointly work on this together right with another commissioner so you know I think if it's I think we'll get a lot more accomplished if it's presented to the city and the city says it it should be formalized yeah so I think the reason I mentioned wanting a deliverable before is because if we just kind of wave our hands and say we're kind of generally going to do something it generally doesn't happen and to to chair's uh comment about you know putting something on the back burner that kind of bites Us in the butt later I mean you know the whole um you know areas of change and the Lincoln and London area you know I was proposing Lincoln and London area for 10 years since before I joined any commission um when the city had this big uh Workshop it was 10 years ago and um and that was shot down one year and um I proposed the uh areas of change and that was delayed you know and we ended up having to do both you know so um I think it is important for us to push for stuff and you know and I pushed for something and it got shot down and so it might get shot down but I think if it's something we believe in we should probably push for it and and leave it to the city council to decide whether they're going to do it or not when is their next meeting do either of you know the schedule the 17 next Tuesday Oh you mean the human rights and relation oh sorry uh that I don't know it it might be something where the chair reaches out to their chair is a discussion and maybe it's a collaboration can you come up with something I mean September 18th yeah that that particular matter seems just very well suited for a work item for them not really us I mean it it it relates to land but not anymore and it's just I mean it's stuck in some of the Deeds so it just doesn't seem like anything that we would work on that they couldn't work on more effectively I don't know so I I can I can take the lead and just connect with them and asking to add that to their work plan how about that and if they'd like someone to show up I'm happy to volunteer to show up to one of their meetings just to talk about it for five minutes okay great so it's kind of waving we'll get it on a work plan and hey could you just add it to like our parking lot in case it doesn't get onto their work plan cuz definitely don't want to lose sight of that anything else so should we go through kind of each of the ones and just start identifying leads that would be great all right so review land use application well guess what everyone you're all signed up for that okay next one update the city zoning ordinance I know in particular I've heard from commissioner elire for strong interest to work on that co-lead I'd be happy to volunteer in that one that's a really big one that we have a lot of other subparts to that so it'd be good to have definitely two co-chairs but then at least a couple other assists you too okay that great and then this this will be I mean this will be something we're all going to be working on um in some capacity and probably taking yep small leads on different things so don't feel like if you're not in that role but if you want to lead it now is it time to jump at the bit Yeah D can I make ation that David leads it are we going to have this is one or just one well I don't know I rather have a CO a co-chair situation for this one two is good I'm I'm happy to co-chair with you David yeah that' be great Maryweather will join the team anyone else too quad quad chair quad chair just can't go five so it turns out we're all working on this one well and that is going to be the case it's going to be work sessions and it's going to take a lot of time from everybody and we all know it's comprehensive plan sized work yeah for sure and you added kind of the specific things we talked about that usually are separate items so each of those ends up being someone working on them anyway so yep and we can add to that as we go along too okay all right number three review update the greater Southdale District design experience guidelines who is showing lots of interest for that I could hop on this one all right Comm Padia and Smith anyone else two should be good for that one okay you got Mick which is awesome yeah and again that's going to be everyone's involvement too all right and then Lincoln London are is basically just a carryover and we already have that team established so good to move on past that all right and then we have evaluate the use and efficacy of traffic studies Al who who wants to poke that bear I see this as more educational um and if there's something that comes out of it I think a lot of this is going to be staff will put things together for everyone to consider it might be organ organizing with other commissions that kind of thing coordinate with the Transportation Commission anyone and I can help as necessary there's there's one thing on here that or not on here that I've mentioned before and and I don't know if it it just maybe becomes part of like our responsibilities like it doesn't NE necessitate it deliverable but I think it's just something we all ought to be aware of constantly is like just looking into and trying to implement small Andor big changes to the process of what we do so like for instance one thing that was on here was to consider changing the public review process of different applicant applications and it only got through work sessions and then the council is basically like don't present that to us cuz we're not going to support it um but some of the ideas we had during that of just improving engagement throughout the process were adopted and I think those conversations and us always thinking about not just improving like dispirit zoning anomalies or you know something that needs to be changed so we don't have to have variances on it I think there's always an opportunity to improve the process which is maybe not as legal but more of like marketing um you know like I mean communication that kind of stuff so I don't know if it makes sense being on here but I think it should be a part of our job description um and something we're always thinking about because it it does illustrate our commitment to the community that we're trying to make it better for them to engage be a part of the process together better together even in yeah I would recommend this so it would be I'm sure that's going to be something we look at as part of the zoning ordinance update but just so we don't lose sight of what you're saying we put it in the parking lot so it's not lost it's it's there and I can when we present to the council I can mention that to them too cuz yeah they know I'm not happy about that last one so I'll probably mention anyways but no it's good and I mean that was something it seemed like staff you guys just kind of you know passed word along and then it just got done and there really wasn't much we didn't really have any involvement in that which maybe had some drawbacks to but anything else from anyone else well this looks good and approvable any recommendations you have Carrie or is that if you're ready to take action we could do that I think so make a motion yeah uh I'd like to make a motion to approve the 2025 Planning Commission work plan second all those in favor say I I opposed all right motion carries so I and whoever else would like like to join and participate is it October 1st yep October 1st we will present this to the city council in a work session so mark your calendars anyone who's there and if you'd like to speak about something that'd be great too all right we're done with that chair and member comments m Miranda yeah I just like to say we had uh our second Community engagement meeting with um uh Adina residents for the Lincoln and londondary small area plan we had that on Tuesday uh we had about 20 21 people something like that um attend most from the neighborhood but a few people from outside the neighborhood um and it was a great presentation by the Consultants uh going through the process and what we had done so far and the work that they had done and staff had done and um our volunteers or Commissioners had done um so and the and the people on the work group had done so um and then after the presentation was and the mayor was there um and uh then there was a presentation or then there was a uh they gathered feedback by having uh uh questions about you know what things you'd want to see and how they would how you know the design of things get developed and so there were uh jars with marbles and you could choose you know you had three Marbles and you could choose you know what things you liked best and and then there were other boards that described uh also described things in a variety of ways to have the uh future of the neighborhood be and then you would put a sticker on the ones that you liked and that sort of thing so it's a way of gathering feedback from the neighbors and the community about um what the Future Vision of that is so now the Consultants are going to go and take all that information all the other information we gathered and and uh start coming up with a A you know a potential um uh designed for the neighborhood and then we'll have another meeting to to get community feedback on that so that's where we are thanks for sharing and uh just a there were some concerns about you know the neighborhood not knowing what was there so I I would like to point out that the neighborhood Parkwood nles actually has its own magazine which is quite nice and the uh one of the Consultants had uh written a two-page article for it explaining what Lincoln and londondary was and how to um get more information about it had links to the city's website um and we've done you know a bunch of uh uh as you know Commissioners day and and felt and I have uh gone out and uh had meetings with the community and the Consultants had done that sort of thing too uh there were neighborhood signs with you know QR codes that you could get more information and I would like to point out that there is on the city's website um if you you know the second box on the website is uh Better Together Dina and if you click on that on the bottom of the front page is a link to the Lincoln London Dair information page and you can ask questions there it's got information about who's on the uh on the committee um and it has all the details about what's been happening and there's also a great video that's about 15 minutes long that the Consultants did that explains you know the whole process and and why we're doing it and how you can contribute to that so um you can also even just go to the city's website and type in linkoln and lary in the search box and that will be the first thing that comes up so thank you I'm just going to quickly commend the city on their display that they had yesterday as I drove by the fire station um the flag that they had hanging from the fire truck in remembrance of 911 um and I thought it was a fantastic tribute um to the day and glad to see that the city did that any other comments guess I'll just share some recent comments and discussions had with Commissioners and just thinking kind of of how some of this stuff connects but one thing that's come up is just not necessarily the Planning Commission weighing in on things formally whether it like comes through a public hearing or whatnot but there tends to be a lot of land use related projects um that we don't know about that have pretty big impacts on the city uh you know you mentioned the highway 100 interchange this other one that's changing and I think a good reminder I don't know how like we can just become either better stewards of that information or help connect to it but you know the city owns most of the property in the city and a lot of it is what connects point A to B so a lot of like what we do is point a and point B but we can't lose sight about how you get between those points and the city has like that discretion a lot of times except on County Roads state roads where it gets more complicated but I find certain projects that happen or don't happen you know could be much improved [Music] upon with that experience of how someone gets from that point whether it's like where they live to that development or that new change and or where they work or wherever and so you know I talk to some other Commissioners and it's like sometimes someone's like have you heard about this it's like no no idea and we wouldn't hear about that but maybe just something not necessarily on the work plan but some piece of that process is like could we get better informed with you know like what engineering has planned what Public Works have on their docket and if there are public engagement Windows like broadcasting it to the specific commission so then we do have a chance to kind of weigh in and react to it and then share it with people who might be affected because I think a lot of like you build this great development but you still don't build the best or optimal supporting infrastructure around it or to get there it's just not going to be as successful as it could and bring our city to the future we want it to be so and and I just know personally like Engineers across the state or counties they have lots they have very different goals than we do as a city you know it's throughput it's like consolidating entry points which have residual negative effects on us trying to send people walking and biking in area so um it's it's important that we get into those conversations even if we have very little influence just to at least help inform our neighbors too of like a change that's coming does Transportation commi Commission do they have line of sight to that or not really L can weigh in I know I'm looking at a former Transportation commissioner um not really my experience on that commission was very different from this commission it felt more like things were kind of reported to us after the fact and um maybe that's changed but there wasn't it wasn't like presented and then we voted on it or anything it wasn't anything like this part of it is that they only meet once a month but part of it is that it seems to be run very differently got it thanks yeah I couldn't agree more that there's a piece that's missing in the conversation or awareness for sure yeah maybe yeah ties to traffic studies but I mean there's a lot of things that tie to you know what help a develop a good development be great and a lot of it's like out of the control of that development really it's like getting people there safely and in an enjoyable way so where is yeah the whole room is miked isn't it when you watch on TV you can hear everybody anyway um I was basically asking where is like I don't know the answer maybe others did if someone wanted to go start talking about Road Street sidewalks Connecting Point a and point B and making sure the connection everything you just said like where does that conversation happen well it should happen at Transportation I that's where it's supposed to happen the first thing I worked on when I joined was the B and pedestrian plan um and that was something um you know you work with Consultants just like we do here and go with the final plan and even on that project you know like I talked to the consultant many times who's very good and the the plan itself is is excellent in terms of explaining everything about the plan um but in terms of of the design of the plan um it came up you know I'm like we need a grid you know just like a car you know you don't want to drive in circles to get places in the car and we end up with a a totally recreational plan and so there is no bike grid within the city um in fact as commissioner felt knows they' just redid Grimes and we have we're literally a bike path on that plan and we have signs and paint and nothing else so um but it is the active it is the uh Transportation Commission and I know uh I work with a few of them because of uh parking and um they're excellent you know I'm the Commissioners are are amazing they're really good really motivated they wrote a a opinion piece for the Star Tribune a few months ago um yeah they're really great people and doing a lot of work I haven't kept in touch with them but um uh yeah that's where that's where it should be happening in in a lot of cities planning and transportation are one commission and so that's how it gets talked about but here we split them up so yeah and some of the plans that Lou mentioned like that's where those pedestrian like the bike and ped plan it comes up but if you follow like some of those Transportation studies and plans like the implementation steps just haven't even been achieved or started and so you know who is holding that stuff accountable where those conversations I don't know that's just something I feel like could be vastly improved um like you mentioned with the the tunnel under France like that has to do with both of the plans that we talked about and how how we're completely omitted out of even a conversation about it until it's reported to us is surprising right so I think there's just there's there's an opportunity to improve whatever process there is or isn't but it's been on my mind a lot lately so you got anything else no all right sorry any other comments from staff nothing from me tonight I didn't even attend the last council meeting so no update there and I'm not anymore okay gu one last item motion to adjourn second all those in favor say I I I'll move the meeting has been adjourned thank you everybody