##VIDEO ID:esiuR8grDrY## all right all right right all right how's everybody doing tonight it's a nice summer night for a change right and we're in here while everyone else is at the fair enjoying something maybe a little better but welcome everybody to the Wednesday August 28th 2024 City vidina Planning Commission meeting on behalf of the rest of the commission we are grateful you are here especially those who are in person in attendance uh but also those tuning in remotely say it every time your curiosity your participation and your feedback is crucial as we navigate change together here in Idina specifically regarding the ways in which we'd like to use our land I'm hearing some feedback over here but it's good um so tonight we got three public hearings and I'll go through kind of the process of what to expect for each public hearing later uh but it's important for you to know that we take all feedback seriously here the city the Planning Commission so any way in which you have provided it whether it's through email or through the city's engagement website betterto together.org it has gotten its way to us and we will consider it as we make our recommendations tonight uh in addition to the public hearings we have two reports and recommendations so it will be a busier meeting I will provide uh some info later for you to call uh if you're tuning in remotely to testify uh as we move along just to get you up to speed with what the agenda is we'll do a call to order a roll call then we'll do an approval of the meeting agenda as well as the prior meeting minutes after that we have the community comment period and that's your chance to speak about a matter not on tonight's agenda uh you have three minutes to do so after that we have our public hearings and we got three of those as I mentioned then we got two reports and recommendations followed by chair and member comments and staff comments then we adjourn one cool thing that the city does uh in addition to us we're a nine member uh resident volunteer body that uh represents the city on land use matters but we uh the city has a cool thing where we have two student Commissioners so Tonight is the last evening for one of our fellow student Commissioners and it's a pretty cool experience and a really cool commitment uh that they come here and participate would you like to say anything after like serving a full year two years two years um my favorite meetings are the ones that go until 12 which cuz I don't have anything better to do with my time and then my least favorite meetings are when we end at 8 but that might be a little controversial well it's really cool the city does it and we have students that step up I I don't know it's really cool yeah commissioner care I just want to pile on a little bit and thank Sarah for her work on the kill group also so that was extra extraordinary service in addition to being a planning commissioner that's pretty impressive I I I don't know many students in high school that I can think back to that had this kind of Direction and commitment figured out it's really cool so thank you all right without further Ado we will get into the meeting so call to order and then roll call commissioner elire here commissioner Miranda here commissioner Padia here commissioner Smith here here commissioner who here commissioner day here commissioner Bornstein here commissioner felt here commissioner hanaman here chair Bennett here now we have the approval of tonight's meeting agenda welcome a motion to approve if there's no proposed changes motion to approve the meeting agenda second all those in favor say I so moved next we have the approval of the prior meeting minutes on July 24th move to approved meeting minutes second all those in favor say I so moved next as I mentioned we have the community comment period so this is your chance uh for anyone who's here in person to come up you can come up to a Podium you have 3 minutes to testify say uh your full name address when the light turns green the three minute start when it's Amber you have 30 seconds when it's red your time's up please come forward if you are here for this thank you either one hi David Frankle 4510 Lake View Drive uh a couple weeks ago I was down in De Mo for other reasons but I went to What's called the Harkin Institute if you're familiar Tom Harkin Senator Tom Harkin was a co-author of the Americans Disability Act of 1990 and there's an Institute named after him it has a very interesting background on Ada law and why it was passed uh why bring that up uh I was behind complaining about the pedestrian bridge that was built over in Grand View as you probably all know uh my concern is uh Ada needs to be top of the list for all planning shouldn't be just saying we're ADA Compliant should be in writing should have details I'm not an architect I'm not an expert but there are people in the community who are and know the details of this when the proposed Grand View Bridge was talked about I asked for a rendering how that bridge is going to be ada8 compliant I never received a rendering when I look at the renderings for the proposed projects on France Avenue they all say we'll be ADA Compliant that's not good enough none of those proposed renderings have any Bridge or underpass or whatever you want to call it over France Avenue none of them have a ring that includes that again it should be more than just words I don't think the developers understand these Ada Bridges underpasses whatever are very large structures it's not something you just slide right in and I want to be confident that they are abiding by Ada not just saying they are the other issue is the city on this proposed CIP has $2.2 million to make the Grand View Bridge ada8 compliant out the Gus Gus Young Lane I don't know where that came from that's essentially saying we're admitting that bridge over there and Grand View is not ADA Compliant even though it's under investigation by US Department of Justice and also there's currently waiting and I've requested it a INF a structural uh report on the uh Grand View parking ramp so why are we getting ahead of ourselves proposing $2 million to make it 88 client when we don't know if that structure is going to be around in a year I I don't understand the planning behind this and I don't understand any of the Ada issues behind this if this is going to be ADA Compliant the way it stands now where's a rendering I don't I I just don't understand this whole lack of planning I can't say anymore there's no planning going on thank you thank you very much thank you for the your comments last meeting too if you have anything that you can share with us please send it to planner Teague and he'll distribute it to us cuz we want to be just as informed as you sometimes we don't find out you know earlier than you find out on things too so sometimes other people are in the know more than we are regarding matters that are planning too anyone else that is here for Community comment all right see you none we will we move to the public hearing we have three of them the first one is a 45.8 ft setback variance from Lake Cornelia for a patio at 6612 Cornelia drive so the process for our public hearings and what you can expect for the next three is uh an applicant puts in a formal uh a submitt submission to the city and the city puts together a staff report the planning department and with that report they create this presentation for us they present this to us we have a back and forth questions then we give the applicant an opportunity to provide their own presentation or answer questions and then we open it to the public hearing and that's your chance as someone who's here in person or someone tuning in remotely to testify about this matter and you have similar to the community comment period 3 minutes to do so after that we close the public hearing and we take it back to the Planning Commission to deliberate and we make our recommendation for approval or denial so for those who might be tuning in just so you can get ready to participate we'll want you to get in the virtual queue so you'll have to pay attention to a bunch of numbers here so call the following number 312 535 8110 enter access code 2632 661 6813 and the password is 5454 and you'll press star three on your keypad to get in the cutest speak but you don't have to do that quite yet as I mentioned we'll have a couple back uh presentations and back and forths here without further Ado planner roer thank you thank you uh chair members of the Planning Commission the request is for a 45.8 ft setback variance from the 75- Ft Lake setback requirement to locate a new patio 29.2 ft from the ordinary high water elevation of Lake Cornelia all improvements with the exception of sidewalks and retaining walls are subject to the required Lake setback the property is located immediately adjacent to single family homes and backs up to Lake Cornelia the original 1955 Rambler on the site has been torn down and in 20 2018 a new twostory home replaced it this is the home uh before it was torn down and this is a survey of the property um PRI prior to um demolition uh what you'll notice on the back wall of the house there's a setback of approximately 53 ft from the back wall of that original original house that was built in the 1950s this is a photo of the new home it's a two-story home with a twocc car garage uh the new home received a variance in 2018 from the basement requirement to build a slab on grade um to lift it above the designated flood elevation and a 29.1 ft setback variance from the ordinary high water elevation of Lake Cornelia to position the new home in approximately the same location as the original home so this is the proposed survey when uh they submitted for variance application and also um for building permit the property consists of a newly built two-story home um it has been raised out of the flood elevation or flood zone um and it should be noted that the ordinance was amended after this home was built so there's no longer a requirement to have a basement so they would not have required um currently a variance from the basement requirement only the setback requirement and highlighted in yellow here you'll see that there's a 75 ft setback showing uh where that line is it it bcts the home so it's it was a difficult lot obviously needed a variance uh to rebuild on this is a slide of the asilt survey that was done after the home was complete um the build the home had a paper patio installed in the rear yard immediately after the home was completed uh City staff had to order the removal of the patio upon engineering's final inspection that was based on the approved grading plan for new home which did not include the patio and also a patio was not included in the variant package because the p patio would have is much closer to the lake than um 75 ft and all improvements uh are required to maintain the setback so this is actually the request um is for a patio it's a little different configuration but they would like to have a patio in their rear yard the homeowners are now requesting a variance for a new 467 ft patio design that is 29.2 Ft from the lake this uh these are photos of the home before it was torn down there were no improvements in the back of the home um no patios no decks and this is a a little different shot of um the area between the old house and the shoreline so I did some measurements off of an aerial photograph and these are approximate estimates um um they're not you know concrete uh of where some of the improvements around that east side of Lake Cornelia are from the lake and they do vary um and you can see that they're you know a variety of lot depths so um there is more opportunity in some Lots than others uh the closest one was about 32 feet 36 feet 34 33 ft and those are the lots that were the shallowest including uh the subject lot which is here and then some of the Lots get deeper and the setbacks from any rear yard Improvement like a deck or a patio um you know are obviously further away give you an idea of the homes on either side there's a deck Improvement on the house at 6608 and that's a little over 32 feet from measuring off the aerial photo um and then the one that's adjacent on the other side is about 36 so um a case can be made for both approval and denial um oh I guess I should mention to in the early 1990s the DNR mandated a Statewide change for setbacks from water bodies with all setbacks increasing for the purpose of protecting Shoreland for future improvements most homes backing up to the lake were built in the 1950s with many homes um um and other backyard improvements becoming non-conforming given the increase it jumped from 25 ft to 75 ft so um that was a significant change for a lot of the uh properties that are along Lake Cornelia um making uh causing a lot of them to be non-conforming so a case can be made for denial and approval um to deny the request for 45.8 ft setback variance from the 75t lake setback requirement to locate the patio 29.2 ft from Lake Cornelia at 6612 Cornelia Drive can be based on the following findings that the proposal does not meet the standards for a variance with no circumstances unique and specific to the lot many of the homes on the east side of the lake are similarly non-conforming to the lake setback due to the proposed reduction and setback the patio conflicts with the goals and policies set by the DN are originally when the change was made and set back and supported by the city to increase protection of Shoreline areas allowing the variants to locate an improvement closer than ever before on the lot May set a precedent given other properties along Cornelia Shoreline require the same setback and would need variances for similar improvements uh the property is also currently um built and has reasonable use with the new home so a case can also be made for approval uh approval of the request for the 458 foot setback variance could be based on the following the Practical difficulty is caused by the existing 75 foot setback required from Lake Cornelia the setback was changed in 1992 from 25 to 75 ft requiring variances for nearly all improvements for many homes on the adjacent law and it becomes a I guess a a comfort level as to you know how close to the lake um the Planning Commission feels is appropriate uh a unique circumstance includes the shallow lot depth as compared with nearby Lake Properties so there is less opportunity for improvements on the subject property The Proposal would not aler the essential character of the neighborhood a patio at ground level will not be seen from the lake there are other homes around Lake Cornelia with improvements in the rear yard closer than 75 ft any approval should be subject to the following conditions subject to the plans and Survey date stamped July 9th 2024 subject to the compliance with engineering's memo dated July 30th 2024 staff is not supportive of the request and does recommend denial and with that I will stop and answer any questions you have I believe the homeowners Ron and Stephanie rosley are here as well thank you Chris any questions fellow Commissioners yeah well you got it um I'm just wondering Chris if you're aware that uh there was something in the materials about the DNR possibly changing the rules again or or that um are you aware of any coming change to this yeah I'm not aware of any coming change at all just that they it changed in um 1992 for us our ordinance was amended based on what the DNR had mandated earlier right there's no chatter at that level about additional changes and you know the trend has been moving deeper not closer okay thank you Chris um there is talk in the application materials about the property being Des designated by FEMA as out of the flood plane is there something with that that we should understand when we consider this um it doesn't affect a patio installation the house itself had to be elevated and pulled up out of the flood zone um the basement at that time it was a walk out and it was below the flood elevation and so um at the time they decided not to have a basement because actually where they would have had to put their basement is where the slab is currently which was pretty much where the grade is and the house would have been if that was the basement it would have been much taller so um in terms of the FEMA flood plane a patio isn't going to be affected planner AER a question about the process here and just how it's I guess presented um to us in the packet a little bit so just in terms of you know all the criteria that have to be met uh we have listed in here I think one two three and then you know part three has three parts to it um and those first two the variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan is that newer that we include some of that so I mean it seems to me a lot of times when we get these variances um that these criteria that are listed off have changed so I was just looking back this reminds me a lot of a um proposal for variance or variance request that we reviewed back in September of 2023 and I looked back at that agenda um and it that that started with the basically part three of what's in this packet today so the relieve the Practical difficulties circumstances unique to the property Etc um so I'm just wondering about the introduction of the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and then the um variance would be in harmony with the general purposes intent of the ordinance and if that's new or if that's chosen just for this prop particular proposal work not chosen for this particular proposal it's actually language we're going to update our um variance application that's statutory language it actually isn't we did have our City attorney years ago and and the stat language is the same um and they came up he came up with uh the language that's in the application but to be more precise to be exactly how the statute reads we're changing that language so no it doesn't it's not specific to this particular it's just going forward you will see a change in the language it really from a substance standpoint really doesn't change all that much terms of the is it consistent with the comprehensive plan is it a is it a single dwell unit and is that what the comprehensive plan for that area prescribes yes so this is a change like this is the first time this meeting is the first time we're seeing this additional right I'm trying to just clarify that and then if it's if it's part of the application now or if it's going to be introduced the application just working out that timing sure it's going to be introduced in the application has it our current application has not been updated on our web page but it will be changed okay be more specific and clarify um to be in line with the state statutes it is it is currently but this will be um more verba okay so this applicant wouldn't have seen this language on their application currently or when they applied no okay that's it Mr felt um planner ocher I this um 75 foot setback it's for all built structures like if this was a deck or [Music] a um okay so it doesn't matter what materials any kind of patio or deck or whatever would be on the back the 75 foot set back with apply to everything well it does not apply to sidewalks steps we we have to provide access yeah and so that's an exception rip wrap um retaining walls if somebody has to retain uh ground um those are the exceptions but patios decks gazebos uh fire pits all of that uh should maintain the required setback um if any kind of permanent structure when you say fire pit you're talking about fire pit they could have like a solo stove and chairs back there yeah we there'd be no way we could really okay thank you I just want to dig a Little Deeper on that what commissioner felt was um talking about there so hypothetically if I'm not saying the applicant would want to do this but if they wanted to create with some edging and gravel for example something a permeable gravel of the same shape as the patio that's being applied for now would that be applicable could they do that engineering would have to review it because we've had some applications that engineering has deemed you know counts as hard surface so therefore would count as a patio I mean it has to be uh permeable and you know not compacted to the degree that they would consider that um okay so permeability matters yeah it does okay so maybe gravel maybe mulch maybe should be fine and certainly if they wanted to well I shouldn't say that it's a question if they were to want to say just flatten out the grade of that part of their yard replant the turf so it was a perfectly flat area area open area it would be permeable still be Turf would that require a permit it would require a grading permit okay because there was a grading plan that was approved at the time the house was built um they also have a retention um area um that was built to address yeah I mentioned this S I read about that yeah and so if they are going to make a change I'm not saying they can't it just would have to go through engineering's review and it probably probably would require a grading permit because they'd have to update whatever was approved when the house was originally built okay so it sounds like there are some things that they could do that would be permissible in that space that would allow them to enjoy their yard differently but the patio would require a variance correct okay great thank you commissioner day just wanted to point out that back in May when we had a variance request it did have that uh Lang about the essential character as well war scene so you showed a map of all the or most of the properties around Lake Cornelia do you mind just pulling that back up and the measure are off of an aerial photograph so I don't want anyone to think that they are you know these are approximate very approximate okay so how close would this Improvement be to the lake was it 29 feet or what did you say roughly 29 ft yes okay and that is to the ordinary high water elevation and I'm measuring off the edge of the water I don't know if those are the same elevations but the I you know this three where they're located where it's located those are pretty much the closest over here to the lake and then they you know widen out the Lots get deeper I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if if if the variants were granted would that make this property the one with the Improvement that was closest the relevant boundary closer to the relevant boundary than any other property probably I don't know for sure a lot of those improvements I I was looking at Old surveys and most of those surveys are from 1955 and it's just a box on a lot and there isn't any patios or decks or anything showing on there so it's difficult to know okay Miranda so um other setback ordinances the city has um are typically created entirely within in the city itself and just due to you know neighborhood character or whatever right so but this is actually a state ordinance that required the city to change its ordinance is that yes okay so the city changed its ordinance so the the state ordinance presumably exists to protect water quality or I'm sure that's part of it yeah um and also to protect the the shoreline you know there's a movement away from having manicur bonds up to shorelines and all that I mean this happened quite a long time ago and it was quite a shock for a lot of people that had property that had the there are some properties where it's a 50 foot setback from a lake Ponder stream but we do have some Arrowhead Indian Head lake Lake corelia Mirror Lakes those are all 75 ft and that is a the the setback tripled for those properties so it is you know it is um can be really obviously with this one it was it's a real challenge okay thank you and then the so what's the water quality for corn Lake Cornelia I'm probably not the expert to answer that I mean it seems like there's a lot of complaints about it was my understanding but I don't live there um okay thank you thank you uh Planet AER just a couple questions on the variance for new construction so do you have any sense of how many homes have been upgraded or new construction that occurred on that Lake since I guess 1992 um hard to say I know there was one that was taken down of the foundation and literally rebuilt on the foundation with very limited improvements but they wanted a newer home obvious obviously a much nicer home um and that sort of that one and another one well more than a few uh prompted an ordinance change that now we Define what uh a tear down is what a new home is you know we have this 50% exterior wall area removal that so um that one wasn't subjected to the scrutiny for a new home because it was considered you know a remodel and it was not out of the envelope of what was there currently um now that would have been considered a new home and it would have had to get a variance from the 75 foot set back um there really haven't been I think I I there's a vacant lot 6708 um you can see um I don't know why that hasn't been rebuilt on you know there may be some challenges I don't know um there are newer homes on the west side but again they're much deeper and further away you um just thinking through this a little bit more here uh so you kind of mentioned if it was a new construction let's just say it falls within the definition of new construction this is a new house yeah this would be a new a new home absolutely then any new construction would more than likely just looking at the distances from the lake line to to the end of the home would probably need a variance to meet the requirement for the 75t setb yes a lot of the most of the homes on the east side of Lake carnelia are very impacted by that and would require a variance I mean that um survey that I showed previously showed that the current home and the previous home on that lot was bisected I mean was right through the middle of the house where that 75t setb is um it's a shallower lot but even if you you know have a little bit deeper lot it's still going to be impacting yeah and even like just looking at the front of the home I think the code says that we would look at the average of the distances from the street correct to the front of the home they were lucky enough to be able to pull their house a little bit forward I don't know you know that could happen in every instance like I guess like where I'm going with this one is just to understand like where on property could you position a home that you wouldn't require variance but what it seems like more than likely here any new home any new construction would more than likely need a variance to exist on this property a lot of them would this particular property couldn't rebuild a house on that lot without getting a variance it just there's no footprint that you could build a house thank you just have a question when does a statute of limitations run out after new construction right cuz I mean anyone can modify a portion of their property without needing a permit depending on what it is correct so like what what is that Magic Window you don't need a permit for a patio correct if it's like at all right it depends if it requires grading a certain amount of grading then yes it would require a grading permit but you're also correct that if it doesn't need a grading perit it's not something that um the city has any record of or that we would review and it it's put upon the property owner to know the rules and to make sure that they comply um that's why I'm saying there's all kinds of stuff in the back yards of you know these along the east side that I have I don't know we don't have any record of terms of your it's a fiveyear look back for uh engineering to look at so five years yeah for their uh review as I know yeah it's basically if you don't move more than 10 cubic yards of soil or 2500 square fet which this wouldn't be doing and if it were more than 5 years they technically could do this as far as I understand our con well no they would need a variance and they should come in and have that addressed because it would not meet the setback um and if it did need a grading permit you know we wouldn't be able to issue a grading permit for it but you don't need so but you don't need a permit for a patio right so I I'm just trying to put myself like in a sympathetic shoes of like a a homeowner or someone like say you owned a house here for like 10 years and you want to put in a patio I mean I guess if you went to the city's resources How would how would you know if it's if there's not a permit required for a patio right I mean we wouldn't unless there was a complaint correct right and we've had those and we've had to enforce the ordinance okay yeah I'm you just like you look at this map too and just from a sympathetic standpoint is like like this is probably one of the closest houses to the lake to which just limits what you can do around it and it would seem reasonable to put something you could sit at that doesn't seem to be quite a big impact especially if there isn't a permit required for a patio um it it just seems like one of those unfortunate gray areas until there might be a complaint you would't know so I'm I don't think there's like fall play I think when people build a house they don't have some landscape improvements planned and it's not like they were intending to sneak this in later it's just like hey we built the house usually see a house without a deck then they add a deck later or they add a patio later so uh just trying to reconcile what is required and what isn't and what that statue of limitations is you know if this were 5 years later would this even come before us if there weren't a complaint probably not well if they were if the property owner is aware of the ordinances and it's not it needs a variance then it should come in front of the Planning Commission I I do want to raise one more issue that you know and this is a pretty new issue we have a hard surface or impervious surface maximum as well this project meets that requirement you know that's also something that becomes an issue if people don't get permits for things and you know we do have that in place as well so um yeah know I just see it's tough cuz like there isn't a permit for a patio necessarily so like if you went to the city's website like I don't know I mean I I could see why why would you keep digging isn't it kind of like when you put a fence on your property line that maybe is auts the street I'm thinking of like my house is on a corner lot if I didn't do what I do and know I could think I could put the fence there but it's technically part of the easement of the city and someone could I wouldn't had to have pulled a permit but it would still be violating the setback yeah and you might not know until there's a complaint I'm just trying to understand timing and like let's say this this was 75 ft away and they didn't move more than 10 cubic yards or500 square ft I mean they they could do that it's just because this is in in place and it's encroaching I get it I just I'm just trying to understand like why it might be tough to try to do something right and maybe you just don't know and then you're stuck so yeah but aren't the regulations around every body of water yeah so it sounds like 50 ft for some 75 ft for Brothers but like if you see your neighbor that has a deck pretty close to the water like you might just not know so yeah like you should look into it and you should follow the rules but like let's say that they have a pervious Pao right I mean would there be an issue here like if it were 100% pervious or most of it was drained and contained there won't be an issue right that's included in um hard surface coverage and pervious surface coverage that whether it's permeable or not um because if it's permeable at some point you have to maintain it and so um when it I wasn't part of that group that decided um what would be included in that but literally every hard surface even if it's permeable is counted in the 50% maximum yeah because engineering's report I mean it it's assuming it's a 100% impervious surface so I mean I it just sounds like I mean what commissioner El mentioned too like there could be some practical Alternatives that could be explored that achieve maybe the same thing um just trying to help find a solution if there is one but yeah that's all I got for questions anyone else all right thank you give the chance for the uh applicant if you'd like to say say anything provide a presentation or ask answer any questions you got questions for us uh no questions uh but we do have some context associated with sort of what you all have heard um first of all uh Chris and her team been great to work with uh they allowed us to take a property that was very difficult to try and fit in and we were able to get a a wonderful house I I travel a lot for work and I was telling my wife this when I came home today um beautiful sunset I said man I am lucky to live in this house it's too bad I can't go outside and sit on a patio to enjoy the outdoors lovely view but we just can't at this point have a patio out in that area um so this started a long time ago uh probably late 2017 early 2018 there was an existing home there that you saw uh our goal was we were going to keep the house and we were going to remodel it and as we uh applied for a variance for a 3-foot extension on the garage we were told hey um you you can't do that because your home is in a flood plane and in order to do that you you're only allowed to do certain amount of improvements to the property and when we had submitted for the 3ot variance we had submitted our whole entire plan to remodel that home well that was going to be basically taking it down to the studs and starting from scratch and trying to make that homework uh for us as it existed once we found out that you know you can only improve the property so much because you don't want to have property being improved a lot in a flood plane we understand that concept was going to take us about six years to do everything that we wanted to do to that house to get it to the point to where you know that's what the house we wanted to live in um we didn't want to live in construction for six years and so working with Chris and her team they came up with a plan and supported a variance for us to build this home which we were very thankful to have that opportunity having said that I got to say we were pretty focused after a year and a half of trying to trying to negotiate to get this home put on to just build the home we hadn't thought about Landscaping yet we hadn't thought about uh you know whether we're were going to have a patio I will say that during the course of our discussions with the Planning Group we had talked about the possibility of having a a deck put on the second level of the home on the backside side so that we could have some sort of a A View to the lake and we were told that that was not permitted because it was going to be too close to the lake okay um we decided to build the home differently and we don't not we do not have any sort of an overhang or a a patio uh or a deck on the on the property so it's just the back end of the home um I wish I would have known that we could have applied for a for a patio at the time but we didn't we didn't think about it so having said all that uh we built we got the house built long story longer and we finally got to the Landscaping portion of we had a landscaping contractor was going to help us do that we said hey here's the patio configuration we'd already negotiated where the house was going to sit and this is kind of what we want to do and I said you know worked in the Dina a lot um do we have any issues with making sure that we're all set no should be good build build the patio well then we then we began negotiations with the city of Adina the 9M Watershed district and FEMA to make sure that this home was actually out of the flood plane so that required us to work with the city and the grading plan so they they helped us with that they they helped us with the with negotiating with FEMA which took almost 4 and A2 years to negotiate with them for various things that they wanted to actually lift the home out of the flood plane um a lot of time and a lot of money spent to try and negotiate with FEMA to make that happen having said all that this also relates to the permeability of the backyard so with the city they said hey because you're so close to the to the lake we need you to have a a large rainu Gard put in which we did we also have a containment uh we have a containment uh tank that sits underneath that rain Garden that captures water and slowly releases it out into the um area so we worked with the city on everything that they wanted to have that put in to to make sure that we have good water equality that is coming off of our property the other thing that we did and and we did this almost immediately once we got on to the property is that we we negotiated uh with 9mile water creek District to make sure that the house met their requirements for it being out of their jurisdiction and then we applied for uh a grant uh which we received a $5,000 Grant from The Watershed District to do plantings to separate our lawn from the shoreline and so we have done that and then they have come I guess the last probably last three years to ensure that that has remained consistent so I'm not sure you can see it from the picture but there is a buffer of oh I guess probably a couple feet at least that have planting native plants that have been put in place to secure the the boundary of where our property meets the the lake it's also got a um an ex there was an existing Rock bed there as well on the shoreline that we were allowed to keep and we have um restored that to sort of the a more pristine condition because it was really overgrown and that sort of thing the other issue that we dealt with the city on the permeability on flat surfaces for concrete was um that the way the house is situated is that when you back out of your driveway you're backing right onto a Cornelia Drive which is a pretty busy roadway and we're right near a corner so we thought hey is there some way that we can put in a pull through driveway so we negotiated we negotiated with Chris's team to say yes you can put in a you can put in a half circular driveway but it is a permeable it's we went to the Watershed district and say we got out and we looked in their parking lot and it's like wow how do we do that cuz it's a permeable driveway that they have when you go park park at their facility so we negotiated that so we put in a a very extensive system to allow us to have uh at least half of our driveway is permeable so you can actually drive over it and yet it's covered it looks like it's part of your lawn so we've we've tried to address as many of these concerns as the three governmental entities that we've been negotiating with over the last four and a half 5 years to try and meet these requirements so having said all that at the end of the day um we have certainly enjoyed working with Chris and our team and we love our house uh We've submitted statements as to why we believe that um we meet all the criteria for an acceptance versus a denial more than happy to take any questions that you might have um and see where your thoughts are thank you for the context very helpful Comm sure F so you have you have no basement you just in the main level explain that that is a great question uh so we have a crawl space we have a crawl space that's 3 and A2 ft high so you have to get down real low you have to get down real low we actually have little carts that we move around so it's a full floor plate 3 and a half feet below the first level of her house but as Chris said in her presentation that lowest level is 6 in above the flood plane and so we designed it that way specifically so that when we negotiated with femma that we would be at least several inches above the flood plane at because they consider that the lowest livable area of the of the property thank you commissioner from Miranda so you talked about the rain garden and the um holding tank yes so presumably that's size was a specific size that you had to build yes sir so presumably the size is based on the size of the property the size of the backyard I suppose and the the rake or angle of the property you know so how much so that was all that was all we worked with the city to uh meet their grading plan and so So eventually um you know we got to the point to where uh our grading plan was approved and the underground tank was installed per the specifications right but I guess the question I'm asking is that that's that's size for a particular um the volume of it as size for particular dimensions of the property the angle that it's reaching correct you know towards the property and then its permeability also right correct yes so basically so maybe more than you want to know about this but basically had to dig you know Dig Down dig the the dirt up they place the tank and then there's a a gravel uh field over the top of that and then there's some other um items associated with that and then we we have it covered with chips and then we actually have done some plantings um that we were allowed to to put in in the rain Garden yeah right so the the reason I asked the question is because presumably a hardscaped patio would change the permeability and the runoff and so I think the sizing of that would have to change it could the other the other issue that we were just talking about is you know we're not married to the fact that this has to be a a impermeable surface like if it's a permeable surface we could probably be okay with something like that we just didn't really think about it until we were just talking about it right now as far as hey you know we just want something that we can have some chairs out there on um and even if it's uh even if it's uh U you know gravel still sounds like we'd have to um get a grading permit and all the rest of that so right now the that we the application we have is for the pavers that we want to use so great thank you so the patio for you is to watch a sunset really just to sit outside and and we have U my wife has family that lives here in the cities and we'd like to have some people over and sit outside and enjoy the outdoors um we have a we do have a dock and I don't want maybe I'm getting Beyond Myself here but we do have a dock that we you know it's a smaller dock that we have some kayaks on and so sometimes we'll go out and stand out on the dock because then you can you can see everything but it's not it's not a place where you could set chairs or anything like that so that's what we're looking for thank you so I just want to clarify something real quick about the permeable versus impermeable surface right so gravel and or mulch in my from my understanding is that that would not need a permit I'm not the expert on that I have to defer to Chris's team on that yeah so that's that's you know supp planer a shaking her head no that would not require a permit if we were if you were to do something like that so I just wanted to make that because that the gr if you were doing a certain amount of grading yes but then that's separate from the patio surface itself so yeah I mean so it's the difference between a hard surface here like where I can set my chair on it's always going to be level Surface versus when I go out and I'm going to sit on some mulch um you know how much is my chair going to rock back and forth now having said that you know there's difference between a want and a need and so right now our application is for the pavers now you know if we would want to look at something else that's a possibility but you know we're our application says pavers yeah understood I just wanted to clarify that point that you wouldn't need that permit if there was yeah I mean the the other thing I will say about that as you talked about the pavers is that um we know we made different on this but I don't believe that we're going to be the closest thing to the lake our the house one of the houses 6608 which is right next to us I guess it would be to the to the north of us yeah they have a they have they have a deck that extends out from the house but they also have a large patio that extends out past the deck so the deck is like a certain distance from the lake but underneath that deck and when I was looking on the picture you can't really see it there but there's a there's a patio that extends out I would say several feet from the from the from the deck and so I get it you know those those houses were all built before this all came into existence and so we we take the kayaks out and we see there's a group of probably about five to six homes that are in this one area near our house anyone one who is going to buy those homes or want to do anything with them will have to deal with the flood plane and they'll have to come and hopefully have Chris help them be able to rebuild out of the flood plane and that's what we did is we wanted to take that home we did not want to be in the flood plane we did it um it was a lot of work but I will say having a a variance for a patio was kind of the last thing that we ever thought of so I wish we would have done it in 2018 but we're here tonight any other questions thank you okay thanks a lot right this is a public hearing so we will open it to that portion of the meeting yeah yeah hi I'm Stephanie rasley I know it's late and I wanted to thank everyone for your time because you're all volunteers so really appreciate you being here and thanks Chris for putting the package together um I just wanted to say just in addition to what my husband said that um The Patio having the pavers I feel is important not just for our family but for subsequent residents of the home um um I had an older family member come to the house in June we were not able to sit outside this person has mobility issues and has since died and it has not been able to sit on the patio at our house which um is unfortunate and I feel that's a a hardship um in addition I just wanted to say that um our family is really committed to the health of Lake Cornelia and making it a healthy body of water my husband sits on the um Lake carnelia Lake Association and I'm doing volunteer work for the Watershed and baiting the fish traps to get the invasive fish out of the lake so we would really really appreciate your help with getting this experience ped thank you thank you for that all right so public hearing uh for those who are tuning in remotely uh for you to jump in the queue again call the following number 312 53581 one0 enter access code 2632 661 6813 the password is 5454 and then press star three on your keypad to get in the queue to speak while you do that we're going to open it up to those who are here in person that would like to testify uh please come forward to the podium you have three minutes to do so David Frankle again I have no skin in the game on this I it's here for another reason but historically the DNR doesn't allow what they call grandfathering on lakes Shore properties essentially using if somebody wants to come in and rebuild a house like the the couple did if there would have been an existing patio like they mentioned there are quite a few older ones as long as a DNR approves it for future use keep in mind grandfathering given they have you know rules that's something to look at when people buy properties I can tell you from my own experience when you buy Lakefront I never have but plenty of friends who have you know you're you're going to face some rules especially the DNR so it's people got to be aware of that and most and usually Realtors will clue people in but but I would have the city look into the grandfathering issue since there are a lot of properties around lakes here to try to you know solve some of these issues we just talked about today if if it's appol thank you thank you very much anyone else here in person see none we'll move over to the virtual queue do we have anyone in there no we don't and it's been probably a minute so far yep so I think we're safe to close the a public hearing and I'd welcome a motion to do so motion to close public hearing all those in favor say I so moved public hearing is closed so now we take it back to the Planning Commission to deliberate over this one anyone want to kick it off yeah commissioner felt um I work with first of all I appreciate you're being good stewards of this land and everything that you've done up to this point and learning about this when you built your house and continuing to learn about it and your um work with uh uh the Watershed District um I am an architect and I do a lot of remodels and additions in the neighborhood and um I did one up on Branson these houses aren't on lakes but I were on Branson and we did a small addition we could not do a basement underneath it because it was in a landlock basin um my house is in a landlock basin and I can't build out to the back I can build another like 10t out but I can't build out to the back and I can't build beyond the um 100-year um flood elevation and I'm now doing another project on Scott Terrace it's also in a landlock basin and I remember the first time it happened I was I was like oh I didn't realize that was a line lock base and the second time it happened I was like oh I guess this is and then now it's like okay this is the new normal um we have to deal with um greater rains and we have to start taking care of each other um right I can't do something that's going to affect my neighbor um to the South or the North or the um west of me um so I mean I know I know this is you know not what you want necessarily but I think that there's other ways that you might be able to have your view of the sunset um you know so I think kind of affecting that Shoreline that's important to all of us in the department of the DNR and this is a state issue I think if there's a way that you could do this with um wood chips or gravel or some other thing or you just like cutting the grass really low and throwing out a rug out there for the evening so you can have a place to put some chairs and a solo stove um I think it's going to have to be more a a more temporary kind of thing and that's that's my feeling on it thank you thoughts I'm sure there's some commissioner day all right so thank you again for being here tonight and for uh coming and answering our questions and we appreciate the testimony it these variance requests ones like this are probably my least favorite parts of being on the Planning Commission uh you know it's to me it's you're asking for some pretty you know at least reasonable use and I understand you know your desire to have the patio to watch the sunset and to accommodate you know to have a hard surface to accommodate those disabilities um none of us come come here at night and say you know we anxious to deny a variance requests like this right um but what what I I guess just struggling with is the different criteria that have to be met um in terms of the you know the purpose and intent of the ordinance the timing aspect here I know you know hindsight's 2020 you wish you would have applied for it back in 2018 um but it wasn't and you know now we're asking for even you know encroaching on the lake even further when this 75t setback um requirement is in place and you know as far as a uh circumstance unique to the property or you know using this in basically applying um meeting the co meeting the spirit of the ordinance I I just I don't see anything unique to the property that would mandate us you know give us reasoning finding a fact to say that this patio should be allowed um although that's we in the spirit with ordinance you know I for your for your sake I wish the ordinance wasn't in place um but it is and we're charged with with enforcing it and I can't see um enough reason here to to justify um granting this variance as it's written commissioner alar so Echo other Commissioners thanks for coming in and for all that you do to manage your Lakeshore Pro property responsibly I don't think it'll make you feel much better but maybe it will the just to reduce your regret there's no assurance that you would have gotten this variance in 2018 either um if they were I mean you can never tell every Planning Commission is different like two years from now will be different but if they were objecting to a deck they probably would have known us to patio too I mean you can never be sure but don't regret that too much um as as commissioner day said we like to say yes and allow people to use the land the way they want to use the land but for me in this case I just can't find a way to to not uh honor the intentions of the DNR in this case and I and I hope you can find an alternative solution to be able to use the land the way you want to um with some other uh with some other plan but thanks again for coming in tonight commissioner Bon yeah I agree with what everybody said um just wanted to make a couple extra points for the record as we think about these things because they're individual decisions but they do have broader impact and they set precedent for other people so if we were to Grant this variance for example uh we'd be sort of uh hard pressed to um say no to everybody else around some of these Lakes who wanted to develop the similar patio or similar deck uh far into the The Zone prohibited by the applicable state law and we so we I think we think about that broader precedent as well when we make these decisions but um it is unique to have a state law that that puts a requirement on something and I think for that reason I'm I'm also inclined to to not vote for it I'm less comfortable using the variance mechanism to override or make exceptions to state law especially ones that that kind of sound in Environmental Protection concerns um one other point I just wanted to make other than noting that after a careful review I just don't think think that the required legal criteria met based on the facts is that so the city sort of laid out um if we wanted to approve it we would we could you could use this alternative rationale and I've seen this come up a few times in our meetings where where one thing we could have done is find that the Practical difficulty of complying with the with the law is the requirement of the law itself which I think is a is not logical and is like sort of a circular problem and if we did sort start trending that direction I would say we'd want to find a different diff sorry a different practical difficulty but I think everybody realizes if that were true if that were a permissible practical there would be a practical difficulty associated with every law because every law would prohibit something so um so I just wanted to kind of throw that out there as we think about these things that keep coming at us in different forms um and thank you for your your efforts and encourage you it sounds like you're open to finding a potentially alternative solution that lets you use the land kind of how you want but also complies with some of these more strict requirements and um appreciate you being open to thinking about those Alternatives so thanks thank you commissioner Hanan I just wanted to Echo commissioner Bornstein and what everyone has said this is not the fun part of our job um but if you guys are open to alternate ways permeability to configure something that might work and suit your needs um I certainly would be open to reconsidering my decision on on this particular item mirand um yeah so um kind of echo what uh other Commissioners have said but also I'd like to point out you know a couple things um one I asked uh planner Aker about you know this particular ordinance um in respect to when you know we have setback requirements and we're we're looking at especially where a house has been before you know um if it's something that's you know just done for you know the way the neighborhood looks or whatever if the house existed before then generally I feel that it's something that you know could could violate that that ordinance um but this isn't just an ordinance about you know people feel it's an ordinance you know from the DNR that um wants to protect you know the lake itself and so um I feel that that's a really important reason and I I mean I feel your pain for dealing with all these government entities but you know in this case they're all trying to either protect the lake or protect your house from being you know flooded um so this is all for for your benefit as well as your neighbors so um for all these reasons I think you know this um requirement and you know we already gave a a variance for the house itself because you know the lot would be unbuildable we you know we understand that but this is something that's more of a want and I think the um you know the DNR has very good reasons for what they do and I think it would be a mistake to uh to go against those so thank you just very simply I agree with my fellow Commissioners for all the different reasons stated so I can't support that anyone else all right just want to share some you know we've had things in the past you know where either around lakes or the creek where homes are closer than the 75 ft and like commissioner or planner Aur mentioned you know it is okay to edina's ordinance to build closer than the DNR setback and you don't need DNR permission to do so correct so just because that's in place doesn't mean that is The Binding rule currently in our city so like if there were a good reason and it's within that 75 ft and it's in within the city's per view within say the 50 ft then this is good so we do have provision in place to go beyond or closer and I was just mentioning the other things cuz I'm just trying to understand you know process like uh commissioner day mentioned too like it it helps us to understand the process of a homeowner who wants to do something and if they look up permit for a patio and don't see anything like they probably think they might be able to do that because structurally you're not creating any risk uh that needs to to be inspected by a building inspector uh and yes you could be adding uh you know impervious surface but you might not know that requirement or you might just logically see that you're well below the 50% threshold so knowing that this is closer here I I also I can't support this because I I feel like there there are some Alternatives you can do um and and that's just where my mind goes of like what Solutions can you do to achieve the same thing and I think it's you know doing some light additional earth work to grade either for some turf or some gravel or maybe it's further conversation with the city to have some impervious um patio pavers or a patio system that is self-contained um you do have that infiltration area really close to it maybe you can go below your patio to get extra storage cuz when it comes to being around water and flood planes it's about flood storage so as you get up the slope you can't build new structure that impacts flood storage that's really their main concern with at least the flood plane not really what happens with runoff it's flood storage so if you provide a way I'm sure that provide a way to store that water otherwise or let it infiltrate naturally I think you could achieve what you'd want to it just won't be the exact look you'd want but I'm just trying to help you get what makes sense practically it seems like there wants to be something back there as all the neighbors seem to have an area to sit I think there's a way to get there but I also don't support this current way and apologize for maybe if the process weren't so clear that's what we're trying to help with so it really helps your you sharing your context so we can help steer the process to be a clear one for others um after this any other comments so to welcome a motion motion to close the public hearing oh well we already had that one for no approval or denial motion to to deny the setback variance request second all those in favor say I I I oppose so the motion carries the variance was denied apologize it's not the result you'd want but think you'll find a different type of solution that you can enjoy out there and hope the city can help some more to get you there thank you very much all right we're on to our next public hearing an Adu variance and we have Addison Lewis the ad Adu extraordinaire here to provide a presentation similar process to the previous one so if you're tuning in before I will not go through that again take it away okay good evening chair Commissioners uh this is a very in request at 401 montere Avenue to use an existing detach garage as an accessory dwelling unit um the property is located in the morning Side neighborhood at the corner of Monterey Avenue in 40th Street West uh it's a single family property um single family home and a detached garage uh located in the rear yard that has access off of 40th Street um here's a look at the garage as it is today uh it was permitted in 2003 and included a second story in 2015 the second story was a remodeled to accommodate a home office um and that remodel included connecting the structure to sewer and water uh and installing a bathroom uh there was also a stove or an oven uh that was installed after the fact that was not permitted there's a look at the bathroom there with the [Music] shower um here's a look at the original plans from from the garage um that were submitted and drawn up in 2003 um the this garage was permitted prior to the change in 2013 where we changed how we measure structure height um which now we measure just to the highest point on a structure so um under the current ordinance this structure measures um 21 fet in height so it is non-conforming with respect to to Building height here's just a look at the floor plans uh this the Upper Floor there is on the left so it's about uh 225 square ft would be the space for the Adu um setback are applied differently depending on the use of the structure and also the height of a structure so um for a detached garage located fully within the rear rear yard um it can be set back uh just 3 feet from an interior sidey yard lot line and uh 3 ft from a rear lot line uh but for a detached accessory dwelling unit over 18 ft in height the interior sidey yard setback is the same as would be required for the principal building so in in this case that's that's based on the lot width this l slot is 49 ft wide so it has a 5T side yard setback uh and a 12T rear yard setback um so looking at the property survey uh here's the existing garage over here on the right um the garage is located just 4.1 ft from the rear lot line uh and 4.3 ft from the interior side Lot line um so therefore in order to accommodate the request for for the change in use um a 7t side yard setback variance and a 7.9 but rear yard setback variants would be required uh just for the change in use um so like I said there's no other changes proposed to this structure it's not changing the footprint or the height there's no site work proposed so engineering doesn't have any concerns um there are a few uh minor things that the property owner would have to do to bring the structure into compliance with building code to be uh able to be used as a dwelling unit um those are listed um in the memo that uh I I emailed to you today and it's included in the packet so that would be adding ination sheetrocking the garage and installing an ESS window um so Minnesota statute and IND D city code require that a variance shall not be granted unless the following uh findings are made um So based on the information provided and review of the circumstances it is staff's opinion uh that some but not all of the criteria have been met so um analysis on all the criteria provide in your report but I'll just Briefly summarize uh the two items in red here uh where staff does not not believe that the criteria has been met so uh the first being that the variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance um so although the structure is already there um there's clearly an intent in the code to have uh different setbacks uh for different uses with the thought being that different uses can have different impacts on neighboring property and so um when the city adopted the Adu ordinance uh it made uh a decision on what the appropriate setback is for an Adu uh and decided that this was different from a garage so um the the basis for the the variance seems to be solely based on the fact that the structure is already there um but it was permitted as a garage and meets the setbacks for a garage so um without some other kind of unique circumstance um the request does not appear to be consistent with the purpose and 10 of the ordinance um so that brings us to to the other issue or the other criteria that in staff's opinion does not appear to be met and that is that uh the plight of of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the land owner so um in this case there's nothing particularly unique about the property there are no uh unique geographic features or anything like that um as I said the basis for the variance is based on the fact that the structure is already there um there are many properties in that have an existing detach garage at 3 feet um or con could construct a new detach garage at at 3 feet um and so it doesn't seem logical that we would you know not permit a new Adu at that same setback but then say well if you if you build a as a garage first then you can um have an Adu by by going through the variance process so I think the hard thing about this one is that it's it's already done it's already there um but I think if we're looking at this and feeling like it's okay then it would really be the ordinance that should change um you know rather than making people continue to go through this variance process um but if if we feel that that different setback is appropriate then um you know that's why staff's recommendation ultimately is is to deny the requested variants so um if the Planning Commission does wish to approve the variants um you should identify findings and support um findings that that meet that criteria uh those should be identified with your motion um and so the city has until September 27th to take action on this request and with that I'd be happy to take any questions uh and the applicant is here as well commissioner hman has somebody been occupying living in that space since 2003 um to our knowledge no if the applicant in 2003 had said to the city hey I want my mom son somebody to live in that garage that was permitted as a garage and had the bathroom and maybe the stove's a little questionable but um it's a possible residence what in 2003 would they have had to do differently or was there an option all the remodel in the bathroom hooking it up to suor that was done in 2015 um and so you know yeah prior to the Adu ordinance we would look at these and say okay um does it have all of the components to be a dwelling unit if it did we'd say you have to take something out so maybe that's a shower maybe that's a kitchen um in this case I believe the planning department um told the property owner uh that he needed to take out the stove um before they would sign off on closing out his building permit in 2015 in 2015 right so he made it disappear and it's reappeared magically correct so in in 2015 it no no no no stuff happens um the in 2015 there was no way for this space to be habitable according to the city is that right correct we wouldn't allow have allowed you know someone to be living up there um if we had gotten a complaint about that we would have followed up with the property owner and said you can't have someone you know staying up there got it thank you Bor I might have another question later but if you mind pulling oh you've got your pictures up there there you go um so I was relooking at the memo you you wrote and then I think in the first so on the first page and you just said it and you said in 2015 the second story of the garage was remodeled to accommodate a home office right that's kind of the premise of the remodel correct I'm I so I see the bathroom I see the shower the kitchen at where's the office can you just point it like where in the pictures I'm assuming I'm seeing the entire space like is there can you point to the office um you know when the permit was pulled it was that that's how it was described was to do this for an office um so you know how people how people use the space in the metime um we don't really have a lot of control over once it crosses that threshold of being a dwelling unit that's where we would you know draw the line and say you can't have a dwelling unit you can't have someone living there um but you know when someone builds a garage once we permit that garage we don't have a lot of control on how it gets used right I mean people could put couches and television in their garage and use it for parties um we don't police that or have any control over that um so you know whether the property owner is just you know going up here to you know watch television or or or work from a laptop that that's not something we have a lot of control over but um you know the the stove really at the time was where I think the planning department had drawn the line in 2015 saying now it's a dwelling unit you can't have that you need to take it out before we'll close out this permit um and then unrelatedly has any so we just implemented the Adu ordinance has any Adu been how many adus have been permitted so far we have not permitted any adus at this point okay so if if this variance were granted this would be the very first Adu permitted in the city of udina that's correct and the first Adu permitted would be one that required a substantial variance that's correct okay following up on that I those are my questions for now I'm sorry how how many applications or inquiries have we gotten for adus you know I've probably had 10 phone conversations with people that are interested and just call and ask questions um there's another one that they are probably putting things together to actually submit um but no other applications have been submitted any other questions oh yeah here we go we'll go down commissioner Smith thank you uh for this I I know we spent a lot of time working through the ad ordinance uh and part of it too is to learn from these variances to think about what we could do in the future uh my question is um with regards to the garages uh do garages need to be 5T from the rear yard uh lot line or three cuz I thought it was going to be five if a if a detach garage is fully within the rear yard yard it can be 3T if it was in the side yard so to the side of the house um well then it would be a 3T from the side but okay so yeah I can go back to the gotcha so it's 5T for not for for detach garages tool sheds green houses and garden houses not entirely within the rear yard then it's five feet and it doesn't matter if it's like a one foot garage or a two- foot garage or is just any kind of garage structure essentially okay or shed all right thank you so much okay so I just want to dig into this a little bit I I I get what you're saying about there's a difference between a freestanding garage and an Adu different uses can have different setbacks totally totally get that that's what the team has been working on for so long but I think I heard you say that if we were to Grant a variance here then we should might as well go ahead and change the ordinance rather than have people come in for variances is that what you said yeah I guess I I was saying you know if if the feeling amongst the commission was you know well this is fine it's already there we're indifferent whether it's a garage or an you then really that's telling us like we should go back and change the code okay you know if that if that's how we feel right like I I guess that gets back to like the intent of the ordinance the intent of the ordinance is that an Adu even though the structures could be the same size it's not about the size it's about the use and the activity so when we made the ordinance there was intent behind that that an Adu has a setback and and a garage has a different setback and that they weren't they weren't the same right so I think do you think someone could agree with that but also um perceive a situation where a variance could still be acceptable for example if this garage seems to be mostly surrounded by garages well that's where I said um barring some other unique circumstance so if this commission identifies unique circum like you feel there are unique circumstances to this request that I guess make you feel comfortable granting it then then you could do that okay thank you so the the purpose of this ordinance was to provide more housing options in the city of Adina yes the overall ad yes yes okay um and one of the things um we debated about or talked about exceptional conditions was a different different lot sizes right and that was part of our discussions was like morning side has much smaller Lots than you know so so a garage that's 5 feet from the or 3 feet from the lot line in morning side is a very different thing than one in you know Southwest Adina that's that close to the lot line right so there's certain expectations and and this although the lot faces the side street through it is on a corner it is a corner lot right so that's so the lot it's not you know we talk about lots that were wider than they were deep and it's not that but but the way the garage faces it sort of does meet that that thing so okay so I'm just clarifying all these little conditions here um and so it's 4 feet No 7 foot variance from the side yard setback correct yep should be five here should be 12 along the rear lot line so it's 7 feet in the back and or four 7.9 yeah okay and 7 on the side okay thank you yep I don't recall seeing in the packet that we got any information on Better Together din from the neighbors did we hear anything from the neighbors um we include a link to the Better Together website but there were no comments submitted so yeah I looked at that I did not see anything okay I want to follow up on commissioner Miranda's um talk about the lot and keep the lot up here if this right this is a small lot what's the do you have the lot Dimensions 50 ft by 125 yeah about yeah 49 by 133 134 yeah 134 keep this up right because if we did that 12 foot in the back we have to move over8 feet so there's 21 feet here of this of the deck that's here so this would have to move over 8T yeah and that I mean I think this is this is morning side and I think this is going to be the issue between morning side and Western Adina um you know we're packing a lot in on small lots and once again this the intent of this ordinance is to increase housing um and I think especially increasing Housing close to France Avenue is important um so I think items like this are going to come up more often in morning side it may be that at some point we revisit um the variant once we get a feel for kind of what's Happening um any other comments or questions okay I got maybe a couple comments here too uh first comment is definitely sympathetic to this request and I want to just provide some context too uh for some of the values that Define the current ordinance I think commissioner Miranda brought up a good point really the intent of this ordinance is to increase housing in the city and that's our goal with making it work and our struggle with developing this for 2 years was to try to make one ordinance fit every part of Edina and we talked about having stipulations for existing structures and that ultimately didn't make it into the ordinance but it was something that was a sticking point for us one of the things we got around that was for the rear setback when we def find and allowed two stories was for the one story to kind of match you know the existing ordinance for accessory structures to be 18 ft 5 ft away and then we scaled it up one foot per horizontal foot different so that's where then you get up to 25 ft that's where you're 12T away and there was discussion at that of you know do we do could we we allow a scaling you know ordinance so you know maybe it's 6t away now it's 19 ft but that that was the logic of why it's 25 12 ft away that's how we developed it as you recall but we just put those two things in place so I think this kind of itself also falls in between that cuz it's not 25 ft tall it's 21 ft it's pretty close to the 18 and it does have a garage right next to it um is there is there anything else related to the development of the ordinance that you can think of that helps us kind of be kind of in the middle of that and I guess one of the questions beond the second part of my question is one of the conditions of variance that um staff doesn't feel it meets as itself created by the applicant now does that is that fair when the ordinance didn't exist at all before they did certain improvements like what what is the stipulation for that right because um some of the situations we've seen it's like someone wants to add uh an addition but they've already maxed out the footprint you know the buildable footprint so they have done that they know what the max is and that's what makes it hard to support nothing changed in the ordinance in that time was just their desire here this ordinance didn't even exist when they did these improvements so I don't know I'm finding at least personally some relief in those two areas that staff is having trouble on and I just want to understand if there is precedent around those like when do we change an ordinance do we hold them accountable to that um I I think with so with that criteria it's the of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner so I think it's just more that there's nothing particularly unique to the property itself um I have attached that League of Minnesota City's variance guide um to to to some variance applications so that was attached here so like in looking at uniqueness it says uniqueness gener generally relates to physical characteristics of the particular piece of property that is to the land and not personal characteristics or pref references of a land owner when considering the variance for a building to encroach or intrude into a setback the focus of this factor is whether there is anything physically unique about the particular piece of property such as sloping topography or other natural features like Wetlands or trees so I think in this case there's it's it's a pretty standard warning side Lot okay yeah and I guess maybe that just ties on to what Merryweather and Lou are mentioning a lot is smaller but yeah you got anything can you go to the exterior picture from the yeah that one um you know between the plan and this exterior this is a modest structure and that plan you know you're you're got that space down the middle and that Dormer I mean you can't live so it is a very petite living area up there and I think this is these a one and a half story structure in in morning side I think fits right in and so this is this is why when we're doing this ordinance I kept pushing back on the 18t limit because I think this is appropriate size for this lot and I think this is appropriate for this neighborhood and I think these things will come up in the morning side I mean that that's not an overpowering building that elevation that's up on the well I think one thing you're getting at is too that you know the way we measure structure height yeah doesn't take into account the roof type right so we just measur the highest point so if this was a flat roof structure right it would come all the way across can you guys see my mouse you know it would it would be filling up this whole space and we'd measure it the same way so when we change that um it doesn't really account for that very well right and so and so this is a one and a half story structure not a two story structure um cannot verify whether or not it meets the definition of a half story or not based on information I have if possible but it's like it's definitely over the you know 18 ft yeah and that's it's just good Clarity for people who didn't tune in to work sessions where we were developing this stuff but this these particular items came up because if yeah if you measured 12T from the property line and one straight up you'd be under 18 ft with where the structure is or pretty close to it so that's what merryweather's bringing up like which side the Gable's at which way it's facing or the Dormer is heading up yeah commission Miranda so if they decided or the city decided not to approve this and they wanted to build they didn't want to tear their garage down but they wanted to build an Adu in their backyard would it violate the city's ordinance on hard space would they have room room to build something else um or like extend the garage like horizontally I believe it's maxed out on building coverage I know he's done an addition and a deck recently so I think he's maxed out on building cage so there's not a lot of other options thank you correct other than an interior radio one thing to consider too it when we were developing the ordinance uh City in Minneapolis I think they had a stipulation where the accessory or the detached structure had to be at least 30 feet away from the principal structure too we didn't adopt that to make our simple but you know if this were to comply it would actually scrunch that backyard and make it 20 feet away from so I mean there's there's other things at play and again like you mentioned not every neighborhood's the same and we knew we'd be up against this so I don't know it it seems getting to your question too like I I think we ought to approach these as variances versus change the Ordnance right away because there are unique areas of Edo like this versus different parts but commissioner H I just have a question for the applicant not um Addison yet questions or discussion with Addison all right thank you all right welcome the applicant up got a presentation or just want to stand for questions provide some context great thank you just State your full name address thank you uh yeah my name is uh Rick Jacobson um I own Jacobson construction and I uh do remodeling projects additions and I don't build houses but I do editions stuff like that um uh Z said I do meet some of the requirements okay um just going back this is going to sound really funny let's talk about the stove anyway um I had it inspected by uh Chris Acer you know after it was done and she said the stove's got to go so the stove she came back and the stove's gone and everything so I thought it'd be a good idea to put the stove in place so that you all could see what it would look like I can take the stove out there's no problem with that it's it's a 24in stove um anyway but um uh the lot size I think does have something to do with it um and um I just want to not going to make this real complicated um but this is just my take on it um I think to really fulfill the Adu program there are hundreds of garages in udina um situated like mine um being a contractor um I tied in to the soil pipes in my basement we dug a trench we got the water we got the sewer um and other things you know and to me it's not a big deal I mean it can be done even though uh I got permission to do this um on a floating slab and I've never had a problem um uh most of what is there now I did get permission to do the shower the um uh cabinet base with the sink in there and all that so but like I said when Chris inspected she said the stove's got to go so okay I took it out um but my point is this that if you really want to have the wide range um of the Adu situation with um all the garages that could be transformed um you as a uh remodeling contractor if you have a garage and it has like a 412 pitch so you can't have an Adu it's very easy to take that off and put up some bonus dresses that would meet your 18t height that's not hard to do at all um so it it comes back to uh um am I grandfathered in are these garages grandfathered in or is it you know where does it go you know what can these people do um but um I just want to say this I am close to retiring um and a lot of people in my are in my situation um what would help me out as you know if when none of you don't think are close to retiring I'm about 75 but um when you retire you know you your your life is on a budget and you really have to watch your money you don't know how long you're going to live um so I look at that as that'd be really nice to have a little extra income um the other thing um uh going a little bit further um well when I did this when I did my addition uh it was my wife and I planning for one level living and that's what we accomplished but say like if if I was sick or in need of care it'd be nice to have a person that wouldn't actually be in the house all the time that could be living in that space uh someone that could cook meals someone that could help me around the house clean the house um or on the other hand uh call it a mother-in-law apartment a grandmother wanted to be close to her kids or grandfather you know um so I think that you collectively um could look at this of expanding this program it really wouldn't be that hard and it would uh be pretty convenient for a lot of people so I um it's about all I have to say if you have any questions I'm more than happy to answer thank you very much you brought up a lot of specific reasons that we uh wanted to develop the ordinance too uh commissioner hunman have to your knowledge has any of the neighbors ever complained about the activities that have occurred in that space to date no I I am very fortunate to be surrounded by really good neighbors I love edine I I love my neighbors they're all they're all good people um thank you much and the other thing is um uh seeing that I living in such close proximity I really don't want someone there that's can make a lot of noise um apologies if this was in the packet how big is that apartment approximately uh 225 square ft thank you uh you have my permission if you want you can use my photos of the inside or what you can do with it I mean I this is what I do for I build for other people and and I I really try to do a good job I uh my major was art history but my dad was in the business and so I kind of grew up in it but I I have I think I have an aesthetic eye very big on that so very nice thank you commissioner Pia speaking for just myself I feel as though um we need to issue an apology to you because I I think we fell short in um drafting this ordinance in not having a grandfather provision um which is where I think um you would fit and you would belong and you would um then this wouldn't be necessary so you have my personal apology anyway well thank you I appreciate it so Smith yeah I'll certainly have some comments later but this is such a good example my question is more around the floating slab more technical sure sure uh you mention that your a developer your experience with this what's what's the the rule cuz we were a little bit confused to in the past about with a floating slab is something that would be allowed for folks to dwell on it seems like you were able to do it with a floating slab and and get that permitted but just tell me more about the floating slab sure I can tell you that uh it's a same technology that use in driveways or if I uh build a patio um first of all you you you don't want to have it connected to the house it's called underpinning where rods are in the concrete you're going to pour and go into the existing structure CU it will move a little bit not a lot but uh you have a class five rock that you put down sand and then this may sound funny but sheets of foam so uh it protects ex from the frost and they pour over that and the city permitted it as a well I guess it's not a living space right now right yeah but okay okay thank you yeah so uh anyway I was uh I uh before I went ahead with this project that's one thing that I had to be sure of that the city ordinance would allow it and the inspectors so well you've been a contractor for a long time I'm over here oh I'm sorry Mar I'm sorry you've been you've been a contractor for a long time 40 years yeah and so um to bring this up to code you're going to fire rate between the garage and the living space I'm sorry to bring this up to code you're going to put fire rated chipboard between the garage and a living space we do it all the time and and you know that's code I know it's code um commissioner Padia like apologize to you but I'm going to take you to task because that is a life safety issue and it was obvious there's a bathroom up there a sink up there someone was spending some time up there m and a couple of sheets of drywall and taping and you know how to do that right you store probably a a car with an engine in that garage mhm you store a can of gas for your lawnmower in that garage no that's illegal you do not bring gas in any building okay but you store cars in there yes yeah so the life safety issue you know that's the code and it's important MH okay very important yeah I've got a couple just random questions for you so you mentioned the P the pictures and I was asking I was actually asking addon about the pictures too the photos did you take the photos no um no that's that's a photographer right there when were the photos taken just last week yeah okay yeah one so one thing I was curious about is um so how has the space been used since 2015 not as much as I'd like to but um my wife sometimes do the nature of what she does uh with her clients sometimes she'll go up there just uh have total piece yeah I uh from the uh floor level up there up it's all spray foamed and uh it really creates um quite a sound barrier and I use Marvin Windows and uh they're noted for stopping sound or toning it down and so it's it's uh it's been kind of like a cocooning place but nobody lives there it it kind of looks like it looks like now it looks like a place that someone would like dwell in or stay oh yeah oh yeah has it yeah has it has it doesn't really look like office I'm not accusing you of anything I'm just trying to understand how it's been used over time has anyone ever stayed in it okay if you go back to the picture of the Interior yeah okay you see the couch see that see that table I bought that at West End and it's it's on a springloaded thing where it comes up act as a desk okay I'm I'm just has anybody been like staying in there or like using it as a short-term space no not really no okay no no just curious because it looks like it's almost all ready to go as a it it looks almost ready to go as a dwelling unit uh my wife um has a lot of input on that it's not me you know she just' be a nice place to hang out so yeah anyway okay I think that's all I had thanks I just maybe one comment to follow up on that like some of the pool houses we've seen really I mean people have built everything as close to a dwelling unit as possible without one component their choice so there's lots of things in Idina that look like this or nicer that basically someone could live in they're just missing a component of that but commissioner elare really one question um have you uh commissioner hman asked you before whether you had had any complaints about previous use of the space Have you talked to your neighbors about your intended use to the space um when I talked to Addison uh he told me that the letters are going to be mailed out and uh this is Don over here she is my neighbor and um I'm sure she's just curious you know about that but no okay thank you any other questions for the applicant thank you very much uh you can sit down we'll open it to a public hearing and unless you have anything else you'd like to Quick um you know um I would just ask that you know I'm in no rush okay I'm still working but um I would just like you to consider you know some of the points I brought up and maybe carry it forward that's all thank you thank you thank you very much and again to address some of his points most if not all of those were discussed during the development of the ordinance and we talked at length about having some sort of provision for existing garages cuz we thought that that was a lwh hanging fruit all right let's open it to a public hearing kind of do the same thing if someone's just tuning in for the first time we'll get you in the virtual queue right now as we open the floor to the those who are here in person uh but for those waiting call 312 53581 one0 enter access code 2632 661 6813 the password is 5454 press star three on your key Peg when you'd like to get in the cutest speak I'm sure that info will be on the screen for you and we will open the the floor to anyone who's here to speak about this you can come up come forward and provide testimony you have 3 minutes to do so please State your full name and address berer okay that wasn't quite one minute so we'll we'll still give those who are waiting in the virtual queue sometime probably 30 more seconds is there anyone in the queue currently no nobody has joined so I think it's safe to proceed offer anyone motion to close a public hearing second all those in favor say I I public hearing is close thank you all right now we'll take it back to the Planning Commission to deliberate L's about to hit us thing so I'll just I want to start with a question if I could okay yeah I I'm not deliberating but I'm not done deliberating good all right let's go I want to um maybe somebody can succinctly describe what grandfather in means I mean without getting into the whole process that I know you went through for a year and a half was the consideration to grandfather all existing garages or some existing garages or what would a concise grandfathering feature look like generally just so I know how to compare this to what we were considering I think because it didn't get to something concise and sutin succinct it didn't happen but it was situations identical to this either a garage that's there that could have new trusses just put on and pop it up but it doesn't meet the same setbacks that was that was the goal is that close yeah I guess I could start uh so a couple things uh this might seem technical but I know when we were looking at the ordinance initially uh we were very sensitive to folks who had existing structures on their property and so we wanted to have a way to think about how could folks instead of tearing it down and building something new just a few feet off just leverage what they already had of course the question with that was setbacks and so the going thought I think at the time was that it's going to be a 5ft setback from The Rail lot uh line however uh what I didn't think we thought about too much is that it's permissible that you could build a structure 3T away from the r lot line so we kind of missed that part um which is why this variance for a distance from The Rail lot line is coming up um so that's I think part of it the other part of it too was tinking through privacy and so we had this whole idea of how could we create privacy from the adjoining properties to this one and so the higher you go the further you step into the yard to give that distance and I thought that was just our way of trying to get to that that's why having an 18t ceiling height needed to be at least 12 ft away from the rear yard lot line and and I think that's kind of where that was going but the idea there was was more to create privacy um so I think that was a key part of it the floating slab piece was also something that we thought about we weren't super sure what the state would have done to deal with that and so that was a nervous point I think too where if folks have garages it's most likely going to be a floating slab and if they had to put someone to live in it what are you going to do with that right do you have to dig up the whole thing and redo it uh but it seems like it's possible so that's a good thing I think part of it as well was when we design the ordinance we kind of walked in with hey let's see what happens right let's see what folks like yourself come up and share with us and so we wanted to take as much input and feedback as possible on what folks are trying to do we collect this and then we would say let's lean in now into thinking about maybe we have to make a tweaking to the ordinance to meet all these variance needs that we're getting right cuz ultimately we didn't want to have to do variances we wanted folks just to go do it but at the same time this is a unique situation I think doesn't meet the current ordinance and so we have to factor it in so I think for me personally I'm at this place where okay like the ordinance says one thing the variance doesn't meet it what do we do right what kind of Precedence are we going to set if we were to say no my personal fear is that folks aren't going going to come forward like you and say hey I want to do this because it doesn't meet that requirement uh now they got to take out stoves and who wants to do that right you're not going to bring it up if you have to do that so we want to encourage folks to bring It Forward right and I think one thing that can get me over the hump is what I think I heard earlier which was on the Privacy question this AB buts another garage so it's not really imposing into someone's yard so the variant here and looking at the unique circumstance of this lot makes this to me meet the Privacy idea we had going on in meetings and so for me that was a Tipping Point to say you know what this actually I would say yes to this because it doesn't impose it's an existing an existing structure it's livable we didn't have a minimum size which is great cuz you had 225 we were thinking 250 so I'm glad we we we took that out so that makes this possible looks l I could live in something like this easily um so I think overall just hearing your needs too and great point we we wanted this for families and folks in I can remember creating a deck with a a a more senior person having care around him and not wanting to leave the city and you kind of mentioned a little bit that hey you're doing this for a long time and you might just want to have someone live close with you so I think that's kind of the spirit of what we're trying to get to as well so for me even though it doesn't meet what we have currently I'm very encouraged to see it and want to see this move forward take this data point and start thinking about how do we adjust going future in the future but it might be in in the near term more variances that we have to deal with but I think we learn a lot in that process so that's kind of my thinking about this at this point um and I really appreciate you taking a risk and you know sharing this with us I think this is a beautiful looking Adu and I think the pictures could go a long way in terms of using this as an example um I think the use and activity is compliant with the intent which I think is a very important element here and um um I think providing you um uh adhere to everything that that the Building Commissioner asked um in terms of of uh uh changes and and some additions and specifications and things like that um then I think um I would go ahead and approve the variance even though it doesn't fit in exactly with all of the parameters the fact that it's already there means an awful lot um if somebody were going to try to go ahead and build this I I wouldn't Grant a variance but I think um part of our job is being is to bring reasonable um um thought to this and to stay within the spirit of what's intended so um I think it qualifies so I'm going to have a slightly different take from that um in some ways it's kind of the polar opposite but um I I do think this is great and I I think we should approv these variances but I want to be absolutely clear that at no point is part of my rationale the fact that it was built out already I think that's a terrible precedent and I think that would just encourage other people to do that and I think that's no no no so um I think that's not a reason why we should approve this I think there's a million other reasons why we should approve this but the fact that I mean if you look at the the previous variance we we looked at tonight you know they built it out and you know they didn't have a good rationale and I think that's a good reason to to deny it but there's a million reasons why I think we do want to have an Adu here and many of them as my fellow Commissioners have mentioned um a lot of this was discussed at our deliberations when we were coming up with uh the ordinance for this and we debated back and forth many times at many of these points and a couple of us live in Morningside I live in Morningside and um you know the way the city was built out over the years morning side you know a former street car neighborhood is completely different than you know a very large lot home with winding roads on a culdesac uh in West Adina and so like I was asking um uh Mr Lewis um you know a garage that's at the property line in morning side is kind of because it has to be you know unless you want it like in your backyard um whereas it's very different in like Indian Hills or something um so we we talked about things like which way the property faces whether it's wider or narrower you know which side is narrower you know where the garage faces you know all these things came into consideration and we didn't want to you know address every single one of them in our first ordinance or whatever and we did want to kind of see what was going to happen um but uh you know and something I alluded to in my previous questioning was you know the purpose of this is to provide more housing in the city that's not you know a tower in your neighborhood or whatever right we don't want that so it's a gentle way to introduce more density um to a neighborhood morning side is very well placed and that the E line is being built you know less than a mile from there so you may not if someone lives there they may not even have a car you know or um uh so you know it it's it's a good place to do it IT addresses our climate action plan IT addresses our housing plan IT addresses our Equity plan um you know it addresses so many different things and as other people have mentioned it faces another garage right and and and this is something I brought up in the in part of our discussions back then was that you know I don't know how everyone uses their yards but I don't use the far corner of my of my yard right I don't use the the far side of my I'm closer to the house right that's generally where your patio is and if you have patio and uh um you know that's certain where you use it and so if we force people to build things away from the property line then for the house next to them it's actually closer to the area that they're spending time in in their yard right so it seems like a good idea but when you think about it it's actually not really a very good idea so we actually I think kind of want them towards the edge of the property so um you know and and this is I don't even know if would have enough space well look like in the picture it had enough space for to still park a car in front of the garage if we had to move the garage you know 7 feet or whatever over um so the grandfathering I'm interested in is the fact that it's a a garage was there not the fact that it was built out as an Adu to me that's important again for our climate action plan we don't want it tear things down and this was again a few months ago another uh someone came in for a variance where they had a concrete base to their house right and that to fit our our modern guidelines that had to be moved over a foot or whatever and that's insane to do that so um so I think it's insane in this case to move this garage just to make it point .7 ft you know further away um and I and I just don't think there's a good reason for that rationale either so um you know it's close to the Eline it's more housing in the city uh it's less expensive than buying a new house um it's a the property isn't unique but it is you know you could consider Any Corner property not so much unique but we run into this you know Set Side yard setback thing all the time on corner properties when you're building the main house right where you can't do that or even again the previous variants where we approved the house because it was the lot was unbuildable so we're going to run into these same sort of things you know especially in morning side but not just in morning side you know there are areas of Adina you know east of France Avenue for example that would probably run into the same sort of issues so um I think if we do change the the ordinance I think the first thing we should do is consider the size of the property would be you know primary thing because obviously we already have different setbacks for different Siz properties so it's weird that we don't have different setbacks for different size adus property adus on different properties anyway to make a long story short I think for all these reasons this is a perfect place to have an Adu it doesn't seem like it's going to impose on any of the neighbors none of the neighbors seem to complain about it um logically it makes sense and so I'm all for this thank you your felt um I'm going to build on commissioner Smith's comments about the Privacy another piece of that privacy is the living wall that is adjacent to the neighbor's yard is more than 5et away right because it has stepped in from the garage and so because it has the slipping roof and there are no windows that face that neighbor they just face the interior lot line so that helps with that privacy and helps make this appropriate for this lot and um I second all of commissioner R Miranda's um arguments too that this is the neighborhood for this and this is gentle density and this is a modest um building and it looks appropriate for the neighborhood just a the like a rhetorical I guess interested to hear what people would say about this but if through if if if all the neighbors around this unit said they were against it would any what would would people's opinion change right because we keep citing that a lot so I'm just curious about that I don't have really strong feelings about that I don't think it necessarily should be considered I mean it does you know we do consider it but I'm just curious because we keep citing it over and over like that the neighbors aren't opposed if they were because this was I'm I'm asking it because it was kind of that discussion that got um council member Pierce and commission Miranda in the paper and they disc he did argument about privacy and screening and so I'm just wondering if a neighbor was really strongly opposed to this and said I'm not getting privacy because they can see into my backyard like how that would change our discussion at all I'm asking anybody anybody can answer I'm just I mean because we we've cited it multiple times I'm just wondering it's just I think it's an interesting point of discussion I I have I have some thoughts on that and I asked a question about whether he talked to his neighbors so that's why I thought you were talking to me um I think I think you know we've got seven votes tonight from people who were involved in the Adu discussion over the past year or year and a half or whatever it was so that's great so there's two of us who weren't involved um so there's plenty of votes from the people who are involved in that to make a decision tonight the reason I feel like this is import I mean I want to support adus I feel like this is a good place for one generally in favor of this particular project but I have to say that I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the first test of a new ordinance ordinance getting a variance and not an insignificant one I mean it's not like monstrous but it's not insignificant without any feedback whatsoever now I think the applicant probably would have been well advised to get some um but he didn't so that that makes me uncomfortable frankly I can't say uh commissioner today exactly how you know unanimous positive or unanimous negative or mixed would influence my decision but I think it would certainly inform my decision and help me justify amending rules we so recently made put it that way I think that's the way I would summarize it we'll see how the numbers go tonight I think um I mean if there's decisive votes either way um great if others like me might prefer to have some Community feedback maybe we can defer a vote and so we don't kill the thing all together and and come back to it some at some later time so that's my thoughts on it quick followup to that this is noticed though correct I mean like there was an opportunity for feedback right I mean approving an Adu is assuming that someone then could live in there I don't know how it was noticed but isn't that noticed to the neighbors and then I mean it's not a personal conversation but yeah I mean this is a standard public hearing so we followed all of our you know routine um mailing to all Property Owners within 200 ft um there's an opportunity to comment on better together so yeah we didn't receive any other feedback but we followed our normal public hearing procedure and I'd say just because we receive no feedback doesn't mean that it didn't get to the people right I don't know no that's a fair point because it's the same process we exercise otherwise that does generate quite a bit of feedback but I see what you're saying I know commissioner boring brought up a similar Point yeah I think morning side's pretty engaged I I think if they if all the neighbors within 300 ft 200 200t yeah so that would so that would have been um 10 of your neighbors right they they would have talked if they were upset so um unpopular opinion coming um I see our job on planning to to consider the land use for today's residents and future residents and when um of course we're building the community for those of us that live in the community but the day after something happen someone can move and cease to be a resident and will have made a decision in part because of their feedback as opposed to thinking about what the city wants needs and the social goods and benefits for us all if to other Commissioners points the Adu ordinance was developed because there is a priority for housing for all the various reasons and so I think that should drive the decision as much as any favorable or unfavorable neighbor who may cease to be a neighbor the very next day Miranda yeah so I think commissioner hman brings up a good Nuance that you know this is a public hearing and and there was notice to Residents right and then we do have electronic means of of addressing this too um but for me the purpose and I'm not saying everybody believes this way and certainly the council doesn't but for me the purpose of uh resident feedback at a public hearing is for me to listen to it and listen to their rationale for it right so I don't care if there's a hundred people here right with with pitchforks and whatever if they don't have a good reason then I'm not going to listen to what they say right but if there's only one person here and they have an unpopular opinion but I think it's the right opinion I'll listen to that right so it's not the number of people or what they say it's the rationale for what they say for me this is how I do it anyway I can't speak for anyone else but um and you know so I think uh commissioner hunman brought up a really good point yeah sounds like a robust discussion any other comments like to share any F oh wait no I was pointing this way sorry oh I thought people were done oh go ahead um you know the Adu looks really comfortable and I'd like to live there sometime all so I can stay here forever all right now back this way sorry Ryan's Ryan's head is blocking okay it's all good um maybe on the this just something about I think so the issue was spacing was considered and not included why was that I mean remember we this this was discussed uh small lots and morning side I live in morning side I have a garage that sits right on my neighbor's line almost and I thought about maybe wanting to put an ad above it at some point but like most of the Lots in morning side are like this and other parts of Edina as well and and and this issue was considered should we write something into the statute to either grandfather in people's rights to build an Adu above a garage that sits too close to the line uh without needing a variance if it existed before the variance was or sorry the ordinance was adopted or otherwise accommodate this issue to to make it clear to everybody that if there was some sort of pre-existing structure like a garage and it made sense to build an Adu above it or if there was a pre-existing structure with a an office space or something like that above it that someone wanted to convert that the city thought that that was a good use of that space um but it wasn't included and so I try to like go more literally by the text of what the city ended up adopting and passing and assume that it was considered and not included for a reason having to do with um the spacing that the city wanted to be in place when this use is being so I'm I'm generally actually maybe in favor of considering whether the ordinance should be revised or amended to to allow people in places like Morningside who do have garages that sit near the property line to build adus above them and to not have to request variances to do it because if I think I can't remember what the debate was but it was like I would I would approve this but I wouldn't allow anyone else to do it if they tried to build it or then and that was and then the opposite view you know I wouldn't do that or whatever um it just seems like kind of an important precedential consideration to to think about because other people in morning are going to want to build adus too um I'm kind of in the camp of this this also feels a little bit like uh build an Adu first then ask for forgiveness later like oops um or maybe permission sorry whatever that phrase is um maybe both and in general I'm more in the camp of wanting to wait and see what type of demand for this type of what type of interest there is among residents for building this type of unit in this type of in this part of the city exists and then um deciding whether there's so much of it that variances are warranted or that some sort of amendment to the ordinance should be adopted so because this is the very first the very first or um Adu that we're being basically asked to approve I'm a little bit uncomfortable saying well yeah everybody in the working group thought extensively about this and decided not to include a provision for this type of unit in the ordinance but I'm going a grant of variance anyway I think I'm leaning towards voting no at this time only because of that and would be open to revisiting whether the ordinance needs to be amended later um to make sure this type of housing can be built in more parts of the city okay I'll go on record that any project that comes up like this from morning side I will vote for just so it's okay if we have different opinions right well we're here commissioner Miranda yeah so um yeah so the committee was split on whether we include this or not right and so part of the rationale to go through the sausage making um is that you know it doesn't apply to everywhere in a Dina right and so the rationale was to keep things simple you know first ordinance keep things simple don't try to you know incorporate every single possibility but also there's variances I mean this is what what staff tell us all the time is that you know you can always have a variance right so if you think maybe the the incidence of variances is instructional for the city for for the city council and for the Planning Commission that maybe this does need to be changed sooner rather than later if the very first one comes up like this but we knew this and we were debating this right I mean it wasn't you know everything's a compromise you know not everybody agreed that we should do this because some people were worried about um and as I said before you know it's if your garage was built close to the you know 5 ft from the property line in West Adina before they instituted new setbacks I can see somebody there being more upset about it you know because there's so much room it's like you don't need to build it there so um but I I think this is instructional for you know and that's a good point so but I think this is we're going to see a lot like this especially in smaller neighborhoods so thank you all right well I just have a few comments but in general support this I I want I want to I just appreciate staff and kind of the report I I mean it's the purpose of what they do it it doesn't conform and they have to point that out as to why I think what we have to do is uh provide reasonable findings for those two items that they've found didn't or weren't supported so the first one was the intent of the ordinance and I think that was I think discussed adequately both just the overall purpose more housing gentle density as well as the privacy and then the other part was the unique circumstances not created by the landowner and I think that honestly is the most challenging piece and I think to your point of no no no don't build these things and try to do this after I I also don't want that to be happening but that was never the intent of you know what we were trying to avoid by not grandfathering things in it was just we couldn't get one thing to speak to all of Vina like there's definitely a lot of existing structures out there that don't conform to what we put in law and we knew that and it was said well then we'll wait for variances um so where I see this property being unique not created by the landowner is that they are on a corner street which isn't every single lot in E Dino or on a block it's definitely the minority and with how its garage lays out to its neighboring garage and how tight those lots are it it feels unique to support this where I guess your one point is other Lots in Idina you know where you could do anything and have the space it doesn't feel as appropriate so I think that's the toughest sell for me but I think there's rationale to support the unique circumstances but open to hear what other people think but we do have to provide at least some reasonable findings to support that commissioner hman if the setbacks um were increased in the discussion to turn a garage into an Adu for the Privacy I guess I don't see any benefit to anyone for creating an additional whatever it is four feet in between the two garages and so for me that feels like justification is that the reason the differences in setbacks were created is that's not being solved in this situation I think that's a I I would agree with that characterization of the uniqueness of this particular spot and to me that serviceable completely like just to a related question that I have though is more of a process question so hypothetic hypothetically if we were to approve this variance what would our if you're comfortable talking about this what would our plan be going forward would we want to change the ordinance right away or would we want to let this thing rise for six months or a year then Look Backwards at the variances we created and see what changes but I would feel better voting on this tonight if I knew what was ahead and that we had a you know we had a an efficient and effective way to deal with this over time sure I I think all I could say I I would probably not add that as a condition or anything but I know when we developed this as well as another ordinance but this in particular you know when we presented it to the council and had discussions about it it was definitely assumed that we would come back to revisit to make changes I forget if it was one year or two years later but there was there was at least a definitive time frame shared of when we would come back to kind of take this feedback cuz we knew we'd have variances I mean we knew that we hoped we wouldn't but we also knew people were in situations like this but I wouldn't advise us to condition that as part of an approval here but I would just say it might be reassuring to others as well as us yeah I wasn't suggesting that I was just wanting to know how we're all how we are thinking about this as an as a as a body as an organization want to keep that on the the parking lot for sure commission Miranda so to address some of the concerns I mean we're talking about findings now right and to address some of the concerns about um you know how unique this property is so one of the things we talked about during our deliberations for this ordinance was um whether it's near Transit right and so so other cities like Minneapolis have something called a Transit overlay I believe is what it is and so you can build higher density if you're within X number of feet or whatever miles of a Transit line so so that is you know that makes the property unique because not every property um is near a Transit line and this is within a mile um of the Eline maybe closer I'm not sure um it's probably just beyond half a mile um you know it is a it is a corner lot and so one of the other things we discussed was um actually it's in the ordinance is uh if because some again not a lot but again and mostly in East um some houses have um alleys and so it's different the conditions are different if you face an alley and so this is equivalent to an alley because it's two garages two driveways next to each other because it's a corner lot so um you know if I were going to come up with findings for this and and I think it is you know there are very specific reasons why you want to do this Beyond just climate action and the housing policy and Equity policy um so it's it's within a mile of frequent Transit because soon the six plus is going to be the Eline which is going to be very frequent all day transit and all weekend Transit um it is a corner lot um we also have ordinances in the city that address you know like setbacks address uh and and and uh coverage what do you call that uh uh whether drains or whatever the uh permeability right and both of those depend on the size of the lot right so we should do the same thing here where how close it is um depends on how what the size of the lot is because that makes a huge difference um and then whether there's a existing garage that sort of grandfathered in but again depending on the lot size so they would both tie into that um and then oh I have privacy but that's also talking about facing an alley um so those basically those five reasons those five findings are what I would consider I mean I'm open to other suggestions but that to me makes this is why I think this specific lot makes sense I got a I got a question for you commissioner R um I can see the appeal of that framework what and I curious to know so say someone had came in next year um this variance was granted and the only difference basically was all the factors are still met except there's they didn't build didn't build the space above the garage beforehand the garage is there pre-existing same factors but they'd like to build this type of thing above it in warning s um you what how would you would you view that scenario any close to Transit um privacy not a concern all the other factors the same I'm assuming we'd want to support we Grant variances to those plans too yeah as I said at the beginning um the fact that it was built already I'm talking about the garage the garage is a grandfathering condition yeah the existence of an illegal housing unit is not you know is not something that we should consider as a positive for this okay so I I and I wanted to be really clear about that right we do not want to encourage that um but the fact that the garage is there you know or some sort of foundation you know and again it would be like you know if the garage is ready to be torn down then okay well maybe that's not a good good rationale for it I don't know if you want to put that on the ordinance or not but that's the kind of logic I'm going on there's there's a a good structural place there it's criminal to destroy it to move it l less than a foot okay that's awful thanks would something like that be enough for staff or do you need some more meat on the bones if I might I've been writing down findings as you're discussing and Mr Lewis provided some findings before the meeting so I'll just read those and if you agree with them want to change them if someone wants to move it uh feel free so here here we go the existing structure meets the required setback for a garage the site is in close proximity to the Eline within a mile the site is a corner lot and limited in size there are no windows from the Adu looking down on the property to the east therefore the neighbor is less likely to observe any additional activity as a result of the Adu the Adu abuts another detached garage to the east uh which provides a buffer to the edu uh the city values sustainability and it would not be environmentally prudent to require the homeowner to demolish the existing structure only to rebuild the same structure within the required setbacks and there are there no changes proposed to the footprint or height of the structure I would NYX the window thing but I'm open for discussion on that the window reminds me of the note from the inspector too I mean to add an erris window is this a new location for that or is it replacing one that isn't up to speed cuz we do have to like if this were to go it has to meet the conditions put forth by the building Spector too um so my understanding is it would be the window you know facing his house okay so it's rep put a condition that they can't put a new window on the side facing the neighbor um like that was one of the the conditions that car mentioned is how like these skylights you know you're not looking down at the neighboring property um so that property owner isn't likely to you know be in their backyard looking over and you know seeing someone living in a unit right there um so you could you could you know even too add a condition that there can't be any window on that side of the property we never had that in any of our previous no and that that was something that I that's what I was protesting against I think that's a bad idea to have to prevent a window there you know again for sustainability you want people to be able to open their windows and have ventilation in their house or you know Adu um I I can see like limiting the size of the do we have limits on how big a window can be or anything like that I mean I can see that I mean I can see you don't want a giant PL glass window you know but then you wouldn't want that either right I mean you don't want people looking in your house so I I can see limiting the size of it but I think saying that we can't have a window on that side of the house I think is a mistake and we're going to put in there that they have to satisfy the conditions of the building department especially the fire code yes they'll have to do that and there might be a sidewall fire code too yeah they'll have they'll have to meet all the requirements from the building okay to get the ad let's say that's yeah finding have question about would be the proximity to transit or Eline I'm not sure what that has to do with this I mean it's nice but we don't have anything in the Adu ordinance that mentions that and there is no overlay for in many IND Indina so there's not really a finding it's just a nice to have it's not anything that's applicable well no it meets our sustainability goals by reducing VMT so if you live near if you're you're this is going to be a single person or a couple right we don't allow we w't allow a family to live here we don't have any limits on we we don't get into regulating how many people can live but typically we're this is one to two people um and so and the property owner has to provide parking you know you can't park off the property so that's a given um but if you're you know one or two people living in here and you're close to fast Transit you know and you don't you're not going to have six kids or whatever then you're going to be more likely to take transit so it it would help reduce our VM T goals which is something that the student report said that we failed miserably at um so it would be one goal towards that is it adopted into the comprehensive plan it adopted into the comprehensive plan so then well the climate action plan has VMT goals yeah VMT reduction goals are in the climate action plan which is now I think just like is it a discreet point that oh yeah yeah VM reduction absolutely is a discret point and like a geographic distance I don't think it's specified in the comprehensive plan but there is language in the comprehensive plan about um you know creating new housing near Transit so I think maybe just the concern is like yeah are we getting too subjective with what's near I think most of us agree it's just but I mean it's part of the climate action plan which is approved by the city council and that will become part of the the next um comprehensive plan right would that be a chapter yeah there will be a resiliency chapter in the comprehensive plan Y and so yeah potentially we could adopt essentially just adopt our climate action plan as part of that maybe that was my assumption yeah yeah welcome a motion unless there's other discussion I'll make a motion unless motion to approve the variance request based on the findings that Carrie just read and the code official compliance requirements second that was minus the window we can take out that window find it sure okay all right there was a second but there is room for discussion so yeah just a quick question on the window so I think the window piece does does that connect to privacy because I think I could recall us having a conversation about we didn't have anything but we talked about maybe we should have some kind of design guideline when you start building adus so that it doesn't look into your neighbor's property that was a specific thing that we raised so the key thing I think here that was really important for a lot of folks was privacy so does the window conversation or the window element that krie brought up does that address the Privacy concern CU if it does then we should keep it Carrie how did it read um that piece and the part about uh being adjacent to a driveway it was uh there are no windows from the Adu looking down on the property to the east therefore the neighbor is less likely to observe any additional activity as a result of the Adu I mean would you be comfortable if we as oppos to speaking to the window in general the finding is is that it uh in follows the spirit of creating privacy between neighbors and we've left it then broad but it is a a true finding that's that makes sense to me isn't there a garage right next to this on the east side it feels like a moot point because we're getting specific side oh there's no window on the south side right wait I thought we're talking the east side west side we're talking the east side right the West Side gar on there's a garage right there so those skylights are right here Facing East looking towards this neighbor the garage that's a garage yeah so the eess window I believe your intent is to put it here in the Dormer is that correct yeah just correct and then the the window that you're talking neor I think even if there were a window on the East you're looking at a garage if we're going to get specific it seems like a moot point I think I think there's a window behind this wall right looking towards your neighbor to the South but we just can't see it here right faces the their garage yeah yeah even though it faces a garage I think the whole 12T variance was to address the Privacy piece right and so at least for me I felt really comfortable at it it's not going to have any kind of issue with looking over into the neighbor's yard if that neighbor decides to tear down their garage now you're you know directly pairing into the yard so I think the vagueness of kind of how you framed it that IT addresses privacy I think makes this a bit more feasible from my point of view just say the height wasn't only for privacy too it was like that imposition of a structure really close cuz even at 18 ft you can still look down versus 25 it's part of it but it wasn't all of it so I I don't correct yes but it certainly helps uh helps the justification yeah I'm good either way but whoever made the motion Andor seconded would have to um remake the motion to approve based on the findings as modified to be less specific for this discussion so we're taking out that finding for the window I think we're rewarding it so that it says as oppos to the window specifically it abuts another drive another garage and driveway and respects the privacy of surrounding Neighbors I'm still looking are you struggling with the concept or the word smithing the word smithing yeah I'm I'm good with the concept it's just the putting it together because there were two separate findings there was one about the windows and there was one about there being you know it it adjacent to another garage providing a buffer so there's kind of that one's already written we already that one so maybe we just get rid of the window you guys arable that great or maybe we add to the buffer that there's a privacy to the adjacent you add the Privacy to the buffer the I think you can interpret buffer as what it is it could be privacy it could be other things so seems like it's covered as is or I mean taking that with the window piece out feels like it's covered with that for a second okay with that yes let's do a roll call pH commissioner elire hi commissioner Miranda hi commissioner Padia I commissioner Smith I commissioner day I commissioner Borstein Nate commissioner felt I commissioner hanaman I chair Bennett I motion carries experience been approved at least and then we'll go to city council congratulations than thank you for sticking with us and being the first it's never fun to be the guinea pig so thank you thank you all right guys we have some more to go through here it's almost 10 we we'll be on our intended schedule as we may have guessed but we have another public hearing and then maybe after that we'll do a quick break for 5 minutes um but let's get through this one as quick as we can it's the Cannabis ordinance same process Addison take it away all right thank you chair Commissioners Yep this is a public hearing for our zoning ordinance Amendment for cannabis uses um so we discussed this a couple weeks ago at our work session um so a little bit of this will be overview but it's it's good uh review for um folks who might might be watching online so um in 2023 the Minnesota Legislature legalized adult use cannabis uh which permits personal use possession and transportation of cannabis by those 21 years of age and older uh and allows licensed businesses to conduct cultivation manufacturing testing transport wholesaling delivery and sale of cannabis and cannabis products uh the law establishes a new office of cannabis management for overseeing the industry uh they're responsible for licensing businesses uh enforcement of any violations and also for Ru making um for many of the topics you see there everything from how products are packaged and labeled and tested um there's a lot of um regulation that applies to this industry um so just a little bit on the timeline cannabis businesses cannot operate until ocm begins issuing licenses which is anticipated in early 2025 following the rul making process the CV D previously adopted a more atorium on any cannabis business that expires at the end of 2024 to allow time for adopting regulations um the state law says that a local unit of government May adopt reasonable restrictions on the time place and manner of the operation of a cannabis business provided that such restrictions do not prohibit The Establishment or operation of cannabis businesses um so with our regulations there will really be two ordinances there will be a registration ordinance um that's that doesn't come before the Planning Commission um that will go directly to council but just um that is regarding um the registration application process and fees um potentially limiting the number of uh retail registrations in the city to not less than one per 12,500 of population um so in our case that would be five um at least five retailers in the city of Idina um that'll address hours of operation compliance checks suspensions temporary cannabis events and use in public places uh the ordinance that is before you tonight uh is the zoning ordinance so this is um the ordinance that decides where the specific um cannabis businesses can locate whether or not we want to impose any buffers um from um other uses like schools dayc carees residential treatment facilities and attractions within parks that are regularly used by miners um and then any other standards as deemed appropriate by the city um so this is the list of uses U authorized by the state that must be permitted um so for retail the draft ordinance proposes that a cannabis retailer be a permitted use in the plan commercial District 1 two and three um also md6 and any PUD that allows uh PCD uses it would also be a conditional use in MDD 3 four and five um so this is consistent with where tobacco and liquor stores are allowed um planed commercial district one is really our small neighborhood commercial nodes things like Val Wooddale 70th in Kill 44th in France um pcd2 is um Grand View and 50th in France and then PCD 3 is our largest most intense commercial District that is limited to just the Southdale area uh md6 is a lot of the um development around Centennial Lakes MD there is no properties owned md3 and then md4 is uh Grand View Square md5 is Edinburgh as well as the uh children business campus and the laden out near Lincoln and London um and happy to pull up a zoning map too if there's any just any questions on that um then for other uses like cultivation manufacturing processing wholesaling testing Transportation delivery um these are proposed to be allowed as a permitted use in the industrial district um these uses are generally similar similar to the other types of uses already allowed in our industrial district um and all operations would be required to take place within an enclosed building um for businesses that are issued a micro bus license by the state um they are also allowed um on-site consumption um so this is proposed as a permitted accessory use to a cannabis cultivator or manufacturer in the plan industrial district um it's kind of similar to like the concept of a tap room at a brewery um they would not be allowed to sell alcohol and tobacco on the premises other food and drinks could be sold if uh Allowed by the city um it is just for non-sm smokable non- vaporized products only so just things like THC drinks gummies nothing that is you know smoked and then unlike a Brewery Tap Room um everyone has to be at least 21 or older to to enter the premises and then display and consumption of cannabis products may not be visible from the outside um so I mentioned the buffers I know we talked about this a little bit um at the work session I think um you talked about maybe just having the buffer be from schools um and residential treatment facilities and taking out dayc carees and attraction so um the buffers for all those are included in the draft but um that's just cuz it's easier to write it in there and then have you tell me to take it out as part of your motion um so but they are all in there for the draft ordinance and you'll see that um the proposed buffer is the max for everything except for schools reason for that is U all of the schools in Edina are at least 1,000 ft from any of our retail areas with the exception of OGG um just right here um if we to do that thousand foot buffer it would buffer the entire Grand View District and essentially not allow for for any cannabis retailers to be located there um just in kind of taking a closer look at the context around OGG as well um you know the buildings to the school are almost 900 ft set back just from the edge of their property um plus then you look around you can't really see the retail areas up on Vernon where a cannabis retailer would most likely want to locate anyway um so we felt that the 500 foot buffer here given that all other schools are also 1,000 ft already um away from our retail areas felt comfortable with that um and then here's just another map showing the buffers um from industrially zone property for those other types of businesses I mentioned U one thing that is new that we didn't talk about at the work session um but just kind of following up from that discussing with our city attorney's office um we thought thought there was a need to come up with a definition for residential treatment facility if we are going to do a buffer from that um because it was not really defined in the the new state the Cannabis law um so we kind of did some digging and came up with um the proposed definition to say a residential treatment facility means any facility outside of a person's home providing 24-hour a day care lodging or supervision that is licensed or regulated by the Minnesota Department of Human Services um so that should capture um you know any type of residential facility that's going to be doing foster care substance abuse uh mental health really kind of capturing like the the vulnerable populations that I think that was intended to uh address um so we've added that definition to the ordinance as well um also just want to note that cannabis businesses would be required to comply with um all the existing aspects of the zoning ordinance around things like signage parking setbacks you know Building height um standards for noise vibration smoke odor glare lighting um so we could kind of take a look at those or talk about other things that you might think that we would need to regulate but just want to note that we have a lot of you know ordinances in place that kind of already address these types of nuisance issues um many aspects of the business's operations are regulated by the state the city may have limited Authority uh to impose certain requirements that go beyond state law um just want to point out a couple other things in the state law that I think are just important for you to be aware of um one is that cannabis businesses must maintain and follow a security plan to deter and prevent the theft or diversion of cannabis products unau unauthorized entry into the Cannabis business and theft of currency requirements include but are not limited to maintaining video surveillance records using specific locking mechanisms establishing secure entries and the number of employees working at all times um they must maintain a ventilation and filtration system sufficient to meet the requirements for Odor Control established by ocm um and then retailers are also required prevent the visibility of cannabis products to individuals outside of the retail location all products for sale must be stored in a secure area retailers may not operate a drive-thru or sell cannabis through a vending machine um so with that the staff uh recommendation is to um approve the proposed ordinance um either as is or or kind of as amended if you want to change um which buffers we have in there um we're targeting an October 15th uh City council meeting to bring both the zoning ordinance and registration ordinance to council um but with that be happy to take any questions and Jack Brooks Banks from our city attorney's office is here as well thank you Addison maybe just some context for those tuning in as as I mentioned a work plan session two weeks ago we didn't have this type of meeting but we had our work session that Focus primarily on this topic and that's where we kind of have really walked through a lot of this in detail and kind of came to some general consensus about potential buffering and the lack thereof for a variety of reasons any questions for Addison yeah so just to be clear the the current ordinance right now is it set to have the buffers at the maximum so schools would be a th000 ft buffer zone um no sorry so th000 is the maximum that we could impose under statute but the proposed ordinance in your packet for consideration has it at just a 500t buffer so that's where where I showed here you know the the one really the only one that there's any implications for is OGG um so this is showing a 500t buffer so you can see it even kind of hits some of those directly adjacent Parcels but the parcels up along Vernon like near Jerry's like where the Devan building is those are potentially in play yeah maybe some context of why we talked about excluding buffers for like the park right there there's some stipulations on like where the activity is um what constitutes a park as well as Parks themselves will prohibit the use of said product including alcohol and tobacco already so um that was part of that context and the daycare is that didn't seem to be as applicable to the Practical side of this just with the age of the kids in those and and just a little more context too on the on the park so this map is showing a buffer from the park boundary but the statute says um we can't just buffer from the edge of the parcel it has to be from an attraction within a park that is regularly used by minor so I think there was some discussion that that's a bit vague it would be really hard to nail that down in the ordinance and Define exactly what those are so potentially we would run into issues where staff is having to kind of determine well is that an ATT like should this count should this be considered an attraction used by minor or shouldn't and then like where are we measuring to it potentially could POS some challenges thank you commission P um do hemp stores have the same buffers uh they would not do they have any there's no nothing right now any other questions thank you Addison do we need to hear from you for any reason do would you like to present something quick or speak to our discussion I'm happy to stand for any questions uh but I I think Addison covered it pretty well and based on our fairly extensive discussion at the work session a couple weeks ago I don't necessarily have anything else I feel the need to add really glad you sat here this whole time thanks any any question yeah commissioner felt I think for the record and for this session um which is also being televised it's harder for some people to kind of listen to the work session and and what we're saying um can you tell us a little bit about [Music] um some of this stuff comes from the state and also kind of talk about adjacent cities um adopting some of these ordinances this ordinance or similar ordinances yes of course so um yeah just for the background the the state statutes um provideed general power to uh impose uh reasonable time place and manner restrictions on the operation of any canonist business and then provid sort of an enumerated list of and here are some specific Powers um and limitations on those powers and so it's a limitation on the size of the buffer from um the specific uses that have been identified which is um you know schools dayc carees residential treatment facilities and as that as mentioned the uh attraction within a public park regularly used by miners uh so the maximum allowable under the statute is 1,000 F feet from schools 500 ft from the other identified uses um and that is a that is a permission to the city to adopt those buffers it is not a requirement to do so so it's left sort of to the discretion of the city uh what we are seeing from surrounding cities from other cities across the Twin Cities metro area uh is cities tend to be imposing I would say close to the maximum setbacks the thinking being that it's easier to reduce the setback later than to increase it after the fact um with that said that we are also seeing a number of cities uh not impose set backs on the uh attraction within public park um because of um you know there is a pre-existing uh prohibition on use within the public parks so this would just be sales near the public park uh and so there's been some questions about sort of what is that really doing uh combined with the Practical difficulties of defining you know if you have a you know a baseball diamond and then there's an outfield fi and then there's no Outfield fence and it just kind of goes off into the rest of the park you know where where do you measure from um so we we've seen that one sort of not be adopted um and a fair amount of variability on sort of overall um how communities are zoning these businesses uh whether that's sort of specifically by category um or a number of communities have also just left it as you know cannabis retails just retail and so there's not necessarily a separate category I would say most cities are adopting an ordinance that looks more or less along the lines of the draft before you and can you talk again about um it's a state regulation that we can't have less [Music] than five per that's based on our yes so the um it gets a little confusing because moving Parts here but so there are I believe 14 types of license available through ocm which is the office of cannabis management that's the state regulatory agency uh six of those types of licenses have to register with the city before they are allowed to operate and then three of those types of BU three of those six uh the city is allowed to limit the number of but only so far so they have to allow at leaste and that is for um cannabis retailers um cannabis micro business with a retail endorsement and cannabis metzo business with the retail endorsement uh and for those the city has to allow at least one active license per 12,500 City residents and so that is a minimum from uh the state statute the city is not allowed so for ad the population works out to five licenses uh and so the city is not allowed to limit it to less than five the city could adopt a limit of five could adopt a limit of some number that is greater than five or could choose not to adopt a limit but cannot go below five great context yeah commissioner Pia so the land use in the ordin is our perview but the registration is not correct the the rules that's correct registration so the fact that that that the state is being flooded with outof State residents trying to get licenses doesn't concern this group at all uh terms of putting limitations are looking at the registration that's city council not us uh and actually on the licensing side that's not even city council that is just the state um once a business has a license from the state basically if they have a license from the state and there is an available registration at the city the city does not have discretion to sort of pick and additional parameters around it okay thanks any other questions right see none thank you yeah happy to be here amazing patience all right this is a public hearing as we recall so this is the time I will mention to those who might be in a virtual queue to call the following number 312 535 8110 enter access code 2632 661 6813 and the password is 5454 hopefully that's all up on your screen press star three on your key Peg when you'd like to get in the cutest speak and in the mean time open it to those who might be here in attendance that would like to speak on this matter and I think you know the drill D Frankle again uh you know unfortunately quite a bit of experience not as a user but as a unfortunate secondhand smoke consumer I've done quite a bit of travel to Canada and I've seen how this is kind of played out in California and in Massachusetts uh it's a fallacy that there won't be any smoking just like cigarettes and of of cannabis and public parks I I bike to Minneapolis City Lakes almost every day and probably every other day I'm inhaling cannabis it's everywhere and it's not it's silly to think it's going to be enforced in public places it just won't happen the the other thing is uh since at a federal level you may be familiar with cannabis is recently a schedule three drug so it's a cash business all these uh dispensaries can only handle cash and you know what attacks CRA attracts people have a lot of cash criminals i' I've been to the now closed growing uh facility in Smiths Falls Ontario that at the time was the largest indoor cannabis growing facility United States or excuse me in Canada it's late uh that place is Fort Knox it had a million dooll bank vault for its Warehouse it literally attracted Hell's Angels at night uh but that's the extreme but no these in Boston the Canabis dispensaries the state patrols outside of every one of them my point being wherever you place these dispensaries they're going to have a lot of law enforcement around and they're going to have a lot of police calls so if you think you can put them near a school near a park I would try to move them as far away as you can in areas that are relatively secure which is going to be impossible but don't think you're going to put one near a school because you're going to have a police car sitting up front it does not have a good look these these are very I'm totally opposed to the state law but it is what it is but it's going to cause a major headache for everybody and it's it's unfortunate thank you thank you very much seeing you're the only other one here in person I don't see anyone else hiding uh let's look to the virtual queue anyone there it's been a minute no nobody is in there all right welcome yeah and welcome a motion to close a public hearing motion to close the public hearing second all those in favor say I I public hearing is closed thank you very much all all right back to the Planning Commission to deliberate uh maybe you I don't know if you could address that gentleman's comments about cash business I think that came up during our work session too so uh yes so there there have actually been some there been some moves there's been a lot of you know motivation in the industry to find a way around that um there have been um ways figured out it is no longer a purely cash business they do still handle a I would say a higher than normal amount of cash for a retailer um but part of those concerns are why um right there in the state statute is a requirement for um some pretty robust security planning um in terms of you know access um deliveries um number of Staff you know on on duty at all times um those sorts of requirements uh and that is again sort of um been Tak out of the city's hands as far as the the peer security measures go that's that's kind of a state um State decision there thank you yeah it was definitely shared to us and we know we're not we're not the pioneers of this there's been other states ahead of us that have done some good things and bad things and it seems like Minnesota's trying to do it at least optimally and any other questions or comments or discussion points did anyone have a change of opinion following the work session about the buffers that we kind of had General consensus on um yeah I didn't go to the work session but I did want to add a comment so um you know I thought the legal age to smoke was 18 because so many of my classmates are doing it I'm not going to Nar on anyone but like it's already in schools and I've heard many instan instances where people are smoking weed in bathrooms and stuff so I feel like it having a farther buffer or having a wider buffer is um ideal to try to like not enable these younger kids um and yeah they're smoking really early now thank you I know um as had said it's easier to put the ordinance together are we going to go through with each of the pieces to talk about what changes we had talked about in the work session or how do because I maybe I missed it but I didn't feel like the ordinance had all of the things that we had chatted about Addison do you have any feedback um I know the main two were kind of the buffer removal of parks and daycares and then capping at 5 yeah that's not that's not in the zoning ordinance yeah that's outside of this ordinance God that's why I didn't see it thanks but you're right but we just discussed that and and I'm glad you raised it just because I was going to also mention I think what we all came to consensus around when we were working on this in the work session what were probably what I wanted to confirm that everybody still agreed to here was that we were assuming we were in supporting this we were assuming that the city and the other Comm and the other commission that deals with the number of retailers permitted limits that to five because if they expanded it some of these considerations would be different I think we talked about that right correct okay yeah it's yeah it's an important distinction thanks for bringing that might even think differently about what districts to allow them to operate in if there were going to be more than five permitted I thought so so I think it's just important like if there is support for this it's premised on the assumption that that restrictions also put in place and if it weren't I think we might want to revisit some of these things I think that's fair is that a condition I mean we're this is a recommendation to the city council so can we add that condition if it weren't clear I mean that seemed to be unanimously supported I'm seeing nods yeah we can make sure that gets communicated okay yeah no thanks for bringing that up very good point anything else Mr Smith yeah the other thing I could think about because we I think we coess pretty well about 500 ft for schools and treatment facilities but now this concept of parks you know we remove the buffer zone for Parks just because I think we all felt like a park could self-regulate you can't do alcohol or tobacco in a park why would you do Canabis and plus it was really hard to figure out what the the attraction would be and how you measure that right but hearing the previous speakers comments do we want to even revisit putting a buffer around a park or do we want to keep it to just schools and treatment facilities some of that discussion too was around most of the parks aren't right next to most of the areas that would be able to sell it to and then some are maybe a large retail Zone near Southdale like the Centennial Lakes area that would exclude a sizable chunk I believe is is that fair when we brought up the map and started going around it yeah I think that's generally a fair statement there wasn't much PCD or P within 500 feet of the parks totally makes sense and different more Centennial Lakes is really the biggest one that you know would really have the biggest impact throughout the Southdale District because that's close to a lot of retail property are we still good on that I I am I just sorry to belabor the point is page 77 in our packet I thought was the draft ordinance and it does have parks and daycare included correct yep all of the buffers are written into the ordinance so if you want if you don't want them for daycares and Parks just make a motion to approve the ordinance with those conditions with those deleted yeah thanks for belaboring are we at a point where someone could put forward a motion or is there further discussion here anyone go ahead I was going to motion so if you haven't done more discussion can someone remind me why we thought daycare is off or something like that and just thinking about it cuz like like people who work at daycares do you really need to make it as easy as possible to have them go get their cannabis before they go to work or you know is there any benefit associated with maybe putting the retailer just a little bit further away from the Day daycare center they work at and I think about it just to have like I have a son who's going to enter daycare soon it kind of just changed the reality of it for me I think between the last time we talked and now so um I just couldn't remember the rationale for where we landed on the daycare I think it was because the kids who go to daycare can't driver or walk across the street and access it um the same way a middle schooler high schooler could I think that the proximity wasn't going to necessarily they won't have fake IDs and they won't I mean if you got a two-year-old with a fake ID that works that's yeah no the kids I get and I'm not worried about my six month like my eight eight week old son getting a fake ID either but um but his daycare teacher maybe could extend that to what about anybody that d drives a car that's near a dispensary you don't want anybody you know who in any kind of business and it's going to be in business areas and anybody who gets into a car could could also you know purchase Goods at a dispensary too so you don't want it near anybody that's driving either we don't regulate that for liquor stores or tobacco sales either I think that was part of yeah I was just trying to remember the rationale that was that was really a and some of it were about the kids okay quick question about this reminds me of the adult daycare situation it's just licensed daycare right as per the law like how we're defining this we're not making exception we're not like making a distinction for any reason uh yeah I believe it is a licens to daycare although I believe the the specific licensing for daycare tends to be for um for children and then what we would Cally refer to as a an adult daycare would most likely be licensed as a residential treatment facility okay which is otherwise included right if you're talking about like for seniors that's through mdh so it's like a whole different group of Licensing so I think then a daycare wouldn't be captured by a treatment facility cuz it's not 24-hour like Residential Care um and I know we have an exist I think we have a definition in our zoning ordinance for dayc carees already and so that's why we didn't add one here um it doesn't reference like a license from any state department but I'm not sure if it specifically says if it's for miners or not are you able to look that up quick car or maybe I can even find it quick because are you wanting to know know whether or not it would apply to adult dayc carees or just for children yeah I guess I just wondering how we Define daycare and how the state Define daycare and just it's more of a curiosity thing than anything but if we exclude it does it I mean does it become a mood point or that's why I was just asking I was just asking about it cuz it being on Lincoln legendary plan and having the one adult daycare that's over there just okay I found our definition here of daycare a service providing care and supervision for part of the day for individuals who are not residents of the principal building in which the service is located okay so it doesn't reference minor so I think then it would okay all right I'm going to go off another we it's too much motion so uh I will motion to recommend that the city council approve the proposed ordinance with the uh 500 foot buffer remaining intact for uh schools K through2 schools and residential treatment facilities and not daycare or parks and the stipulation that whomever will cap it at five oh right sorry and the condition that will cap the number of retailers at five second all those in favor say I I I opposed all right motion carries good luck City Council on that one all right yeah uh it's been a bit we still have a couple reports and recommend ations to go through so we'll do 5 minute break and we'll be right back 10:35 [Music] excuse me a lot it's situ but it's just e e e e e we were on vacation and then call and report flooding and I was like well it wasn't on for week there like hours of water like obviously so she used to know my old new neighbors they're great they're great but but they still have ID syn just every neighbor is like I can see the shower they put this one window but you can tell that shower more than like I'm not against it but it's just like as a neighbor I'm like some my neighbor something about like waves of it feels a little edgier very nice she's like very nice single no she's got boyfriend she's she's got a side it's like probably like a I don't think it's I think it's for fun she's doing on only now all right here we are back from our break woo so now we enter the reports and recommendations we have two of these work plan item as well as the future areas of potential change first one will be handled by carry yes you can do it from there I'll do it from here yes cool yeah so this is the 2025 work plan we discussed this at our last work session oh can you can you get up on the screen possibly I don't to look just assuming it's going to be shared with whoever's watching virtual high five to you so just while that's uh being called up here well it's going to be up faster than I thought we got a better system now yes all right so so the 2025 work plan I we discussed this at the last work session so I tried to incorporate what we talked about um timing for this October 1st is the day that the chair would present the plan to the city council so we've still got a couple more meetings to to go through this I I think we're relatively close it's a pretty robust work plan here so the first one is reviewing land use applications this is the bulk of our work we leave this in so it's recognized that this is twice a month you meet more than any other commission so um always like to keep that upfront the next one is and this is the followup to our current work plan item about the zoning audit we'll be bringing that forward in the next couple of months but the end result we're assuming that we'd like to update all of chapter 36 update that zoning ordinance so this would be a a pretty big lift we would need Consulting help um go out for an RFP similar to what we do for small area plans I thought within that area we talked about some ordinance changes that we want to consider so I think this is a good place to list those out and we can um tackle that as we go through that so that is your second item the third is one that we have talked about this year and that's the update take a look at the greater Southdale District design experience guidelines do we want to make some changes there we would bring in Mick and um have a few work sessions and consider changes that is item number three four is just to finish up our Lincoln and London Dairy small area plan just to recognize we're not going to finish that this year but probably first or second quarter of next year so that would be a carryover and then another is the cill district small area plan we've talked about this this was the one that was uh not supported by the city council um I have a couple of thoughts about that we can tackle this next year again we probably need a Consulting help um I guess we can talk about how that might occur but another thought that I had also just given the size of our work plan is we're going to be starting the 10-year update of the comprehensive plan probably toward the end of 2026 so we could tackle this then so I just throw that out there for food for thought um but that is listed now as number five and number six is what we talked about um the use of traffic studies and this came up quite a bit at the last city council meeting um maybe this is a work session with the S with um Transportation Commission what goes into traffic studies um don't know exactly what the outcome of that would be but take a closer look at that partnering with the Transportation Commission so yeah we yeah we felt at a minimum just a collaborative work session just might be informative enough yeah you know but you weren't there to also speak to why that was on there but we wanted to just make sure it keeps coming up and is dictating a lot it's I mean it's worth mentioning that that was cited as part of the reason the decision on 7200 fr was delayed until October yeah that's a good point does anyone know if traffic studies are sort of governed by some industry standards of both I mean I presume they are but I don't know how much uh wiggle rumor interpretation or is it is it heavily prescribed what has to be included I mean I've read a zillion of them but I don't I guess I don't know and maybe a question for transportation yeah I think that's a big part of it it's just education piece um so we're all aware of what goes in what has to go in and it is and I think that's maybe I mean it is heavily prescribed but it's just are we using it appropriately or do we need to use it yeah in the same way so yes and no I mean as someone who was on the Transportation Commission before I was on planning um It Is What It International Transportation Engineers or something um they they have very detailed rules but the consensus is by anyone outside the field is that they're completely utterly made up so so their value is is very questionable so I would say one thing that I know we discussed that isn't on here and I think it was just mentioned for transparency is just like always the commitment to like improving the public process you know we've kind of you know we tried to make the change to even the public hearing process and while that didn't go anywhere some of our suggestions in that were adopted and you know it's kind of like when we add you know the you know the the couple three things we want to change zoning zoning ordinance wise um I think we should always have our eyes on the process too I mean even just like the variance the first variance today just understanding what someone goes through and doesn't um but the one example was the gis map with like a development tracker geographically that that was instituted based off of kind of peripheral suggestions during our recommendations but I think those kind of things I want to keep on there or at least the whole commission knows and the public knows that we're always thinking of those so I I don't know I'd like that to just be almost like a standing item like number one almost like we should always be not just here reacting like planning to I don't know where we want to do that cuz I feel like you captur the proactive part of the planning in the zoning ordinance you know the zoning update and we had that as a separate item once before maybe you could just temporarily add it are we voting on this today or we just get in a close okay right yep it's just kind of an evolution knowing that we have to approve it at your second meeting in September yeah I see it more as like an acknowledgement and it you know like every one of us probably has something specific that they feel like could be improved and have taken upon thems elves in different ways to get things to happen but I I just want to make sure that people are encouraged to do that and recognize for it so what do you think yeah you know just one one additional thought on this one and I know one thing when we were going through this on the work plan I think with traffic studies they give certain regions of the city a rating ABCD or ABC D or maybe an E I can't recall if e was a rating but I don't know if you know if we learn what those ratings are could we even influence maybe this might be a spin-off but what should the rating be for the city right like is a c a good rating for certain parts of the city right so that's the kind of stuff to I think that might spin out of this that we learn and there might be some additional followup to build on that a little bit um quy I think the the context or at least the where this one started was um traffic studies in the context of planning projects rather than traffic studies in the context of Transportation Planning which is typically where the ABCD will come from it's to measure of efficiency how much you can jam through a particular roadway for for it's important and interesting but for a Planning Commission I think it's more important or more on point for us to be thinking about the way we use traffic studies and our deliberations on development projects and so just to just to add that twist Carrie I wanted to ask you on Cahill it I haven't sensed a great demand for that from the council have you heard have you heard something different I haven't heard anything lately but there was definitely interest last time we talked big picture they still would like to yeah I believe there's still interest on the council that since the work session we had I haven't heard talk of it since but it hasn't been brought in front of them either okay it it feels almost like that could be in the parking lot I I don't know it compared to these other things it it's been a demoted priority especially given lot and see if they respond to it but I just I haven't felt any we've talked talked about it with you and others I just don't I think comprehensive plan might be the best place for it but let's put it in the parking lot but for me particularly in light of how big number two is I mean that's a that's a big one y we'll do I was going to ask about number two since since it is so large when you have these these work plans how much is done in these meetings how much is done uh outside of these meetings and how much is done with maybe city council um it is such a layered topic I feel like anything we present will elicit a 12h hour discussion and and you know it it has to be more collaborative I think if we're going to get something moved forward so I just don't know realistically how you manage that yeah I don't know how we would lay it out at this point other than knowing we want to make some pretty big changes to the zoning ordinance that's where a consultant would help you know it's probably going through Section by section it's it's well over a year process um year and a half so it's something that we would want to get teed up right away first thing that's a good question because it it's like an accordion I mean like either there's a little that goes into some of these or a lot a little that happens in person a lot on your own especially with like small area plans it's that one's going to be a lot of a lot of things at a minimum I don't I don't know if there's any way around that one it could be the only item on your work plan and you'd be plenty busy with it with it I think yeah I just want to make sure that it's successful that if you do put that much in that any one detail can become the center of a whole conversation and you miss the forest for the tree um I I was think I wasn't part of the um Adu uh planning but as you guys were talking I'm sitting here thinking well it was probably written in such a way so that we could get something moved forward because you know you can bog yourself down with want details and then that detail becomes the thing that unravels it all there's so much in zoning I just want to make sure however we structure it present it partner on it that it's collaborative enough so that at the end of the day um it's not for not sounds like you'd be a great co-lead for that for sure um great Point seriously yeah and and to that point um we need to fill in the leads so start thinking about that as we bring this back the next meeting yeah and we don't need to spend time tonight to do that but yeah definitely that is the next step just start thinking about what you're most interested in we tend to get pretty good coverage n naturally just once we go to a work session and talk about it so we good there anything else missing if not we can address it in one of the coming work sessions thank you Carrie y all right next advice communication future areas of potential change commission Miranda first it was areas of change then it was areas of potential change now it's future areas of potential change maybe I think there's a maybe may be in there too um so I don't know who's hedging their bats but um anyway this was an uh a previous work plan um or the current Year's work plan and so we had uh a group with uh Commissioners what oh present it yeah so we met to uh it was commissioner Padia commissioner Felton commissioner day and I yeah that's a good place to start so um so we had a number of meetings and um uh the purpose of what we did was to come up with an advisory communication which is a communication from the uh Planning Commission to the city council um to in our case review and recommend there's different kinds but this one is to R and recommend um a specific policy issue and provide a recommendation to the city council so um we met a number of times and surprisingly had a very well maybe not surprisingly but had seemingly a very smooth and and uh agreeable uh determination of what we're going to do so here is the the uh the uh review and recommendation itself so the action requested is you know what is the commission asking the council to do so I'm not going to read through the entire thing right I mean I'm just going to go through the high points of it um so the first point is is the action requested and that's what we wanted to do so the city council ask for a prioritized list so got priority there prioritize list of areas of potential change how those areas address City goals and then the rough boundaries for those for those areas and we have provided that in table one towards the end of uh this document which we get to it in a second um so our request then is to um add this add the areas in the table below to the 2050 comprehensive plan okay so little skip the background assessment and recommendation go to the overview because I want to emphasize this uh yeah there you go okay and wrote it in Red so that everybody would understand this so and we had complete consensus among the group okay so the core of single family home neighborhoods or sfh neighborhoods in the city are not included as areas of potential change so our goal is not to just you know upzone the entire city Towers everywhere you know whatever you know that that wasn't our goal um and so I'll just read the first three paragraphs here so before we get into details we should make clear that the committee started off started off on the very first meeting with a consensus among all of us that there was no perceived need to dramatically upsone the entire city or include all of Adina as an area of potential change so parenthetically the whole next paragraph This doesn't preclude any change in our single family home neighborhoods for example City policies could encourage a reduction of minimum lot size as Equity goal allow Corner Lots with single family homes to include a two or low volume business um as a climate action goal or allow commercial nodes or corridors to expand these policies would keep the single family home nature of our residential neighborhoods as one example A din recently enacted an accessory dwelling unit Adu ordinance spefically specifically designed to keep the single family home nature intact so these policies address all our all our neighborhoods and do not Target individual neighborhoods as an area of potential change in addition state Federal policies could override local ordinances so instead significant change is expected and should be encouraged to happen in targeted areas such as commercial zones existing multif family zones areas guided in the comprehensive plan as commercial Andor multif family and Corridor that can support Transit okay so we were very specific about it um so there's background here on why grow is growth is expected um I go into the or we go into the student Capstone report um comparing and contrasting what we did it's mostly the same talk about Trends and outside forces and the conclusion which I think is the next page there we go um with these points clarified the following is a table of our recommendation for areas of potential change our work plan item requested a list of areas prioritized with City goals and policies as the rationale and the rough boundaries delineated so that's what this this uh table is the one thing we added was uh a fourth column called type because up till now the city only has areas and um we've identified a couple of corridors that the city might want to uh look at because we don't want to up Zone you know five or a mile from each Direction it's just the corridor itself that's important so before I go through this actually if you could bring up the map because that would be really helpful okay there so um in the upper leftand corner you can see the key so red is shortterm blue is medium-term and green is longterm so we'll address them in order so the red short-term items the first one is the Eline or which is along France Avenue and which goes you know East towards um Southdale um you know that whole Corridor that we identify that as a corridor which is why it's a straight line and uh and um because the Eline is going in there and this right now actually the city or Metro council is putting in the uh the bus stops for it you know there's there's going to be demand there there's going to be we'll get into the rationale later but that's that's one place the uh the only other let's see the only other shortterm place is uh Grand View adjacent so this is neighborhoods it's kind of in the middle of the map by Grand View at the very edge of Grand View our Grand View plan um for whatever reason the boundaries did not include some higher than single family home density zoned areas and so we just wanted to include those um we've had developer interest from that and you know it's something that the city should look at um and I should mention that each of us addressed a different portion of these of these things going to medium term we come to the second uh Corridor which is Vernon Avenue and so um thank you Vanna so um so that's another Corridor that it's a county road like France Avenue they're both County Roads um and it's already Zone multif family um and it connects an existing node node which is Grand View with a node that we're actually studying right now which is Lincoln and London dery so for all those reasons um we thought that was important and then the second medium-term one was uh the Valley View duplexes which is uh an area again between two um small area plans uh Valley View and Wooddale and then well the the greater Southdale area and that's an area that again is already zoned for duplexes and so um you know that is an area that could uh especially with Transit next to it could have greater pressure in the future but again both of these again I want to emphasize both these are medium-term they're not like immediate they're not short term and then longer term um I guess starting at the upper left we would go with f valkenberg West which is the area kind of just north of the existing link London area that we're studying and west of Van venberg Park um which is an area again that's already commercial it's next to Highway 169 um it's an area that could potentially change doesn't seem like there's a lot of push for it right now but it's an area that is commercial um and then uh lower left we have Washington Avenue which is um at the very western edge of the city um and ad the ad Park part is just the eastern part portion of it um we talked about it as a like a being a small area plan sort of thing but it it doesn't seem to meet the criteria that other areas do where you know there's residential and mixed use and that sort of thing it's very much an industrial district so it could change but it's not something that we really think the city needs to study as a plan as a small area plan same thing with South the Brar where again it's an it's a a office uh area but it's not something that um is big enough or has any kind of mixed use that we would develop as a small area plan and then um perhaps the tiniest uh over on the east side is 56 and Xerxes and the thinking here was simply that um it's already a node kind of on the Minneapolis side there's Transit there it's currently own single family homes and you know the city may keep it that way or whatever but if there any kind of pressure in the future you know probably distant future um that's an area that could po again potentially change you know there there's not a lot these long-term ones not there's not a lot driving towards it so I guess go back to the top of the uh chart here and so um so the short-term ones were the Eline France Avenue Grand View adjacent lots already zoned higher density um and so uh for France Avenue the suggested boundary is the Eline route in Adina so France Avenue from 44th Street to 66 Street and then East to Southdale Center the Grand View adjacent lots are only the ones that are zoned non- single family home so we're not looking to expand it into single family homes or anything um medium-term we have Vernon Avenue again that's a corridor um so I guess for that one I'll start explaining some of the city goals and developer interests so there's um there could there used to be Transit on there and there could potentially be transit in the future because again it it not only connects um Grand View with Lincoln and London der but further on it connects you know the it could be the 46 line and that could eventually become a uh brt line and so and that connects on the East all the way to the a line in in St Paul um and then on the west side it would connect to uh Southwest Light Rail or the green now it's called the green line extension so again that's medium-term that's not an immediate study sort of thing um and that's basically just Vernon Avenue between Grand View and Lincoln Drive the parts that are Zone multif family or commercial uh the Valley View duplexes um could be well we sort of presented an option of having either just the Valley View Road itself where the duplexes are or potentially because of the transit occurring there um it could be kind of that that whole neighborhood so I guess we didn't have a strong feeling for which it should be it could be either we thought the um you know once the city if the city decided to study that then the first thing the study group would do would be decide kind of what the boundaries are um okay then we have a couple things here which are not like individual areas so um after that becomes expand small area plan boundaries so the idea here is and if you look all the way on the right extend existing small area boundaries plus some certain distance so a quarter mile or you know half mile from the center maybe it's a walk shed for Transit you know again the the Capstone project from the students at the U them discussed this um the idea being that you know our existing small area plan areas you know can't just be locked in in stone forever right they have to expand at some point so we need to have a conversation about how that might happen um the next item is um gentle density which would be things like duplexes on corners or small businesses and houses on Corner Lots um and uh again so this is one of those things that were this would be in single family neighborhoods but it would not be everywhere right we're talking about specific area you know a corner or a busy road or something so so um so that's one of the exceptions to the nothing in the single family home neighborhoods um and then we get to the long-term ones on the next page so I forgot to take that out I credited Ryan initially when we were going through this I just we we talking about who did what um and on the right hand side uh west side of Van valkenberg Park and Lincoln Drive between the northern boundary of Parkwood noes neighborhood and cottages of vagina to the South um 56 and Xerxes again that's a very small area it's literally the adite of Xerxes surrounding 56 Street um on Xerxes so we're not talking about you know a large area couple houses um 44th in France um talking about more you know potentially more density in that area so it would be the existing boundary plus whatever City policies you know on Transit or or uh uh Equity would affect that um area south of Brar Park which would be just between braymore Park and 494 and US 169 Bush Lake Road um then Washington Avenue just the a side of Washington Avenue so those are the areas that we're looking at so nothing huge I mean there's a couple long ones which are the corridors but really pretty small areas that were very targeted areas that we're looking so what we are asking for so we're you know we're opening it now for for discussion But ultimately what we're looking for is a a um a motion to approve modify or deny the advisory communication any questions comments sure um I'll kick things off uh I want to commend you guys this was incredibly uh well written and presented um I think you um sort of preemptively addressed any concerns and the justification for how you got there I think it was um very judicious the places that you picked um and uh thoughtful um I think there could have been a lot more um so um I know this took a lot of precision and and I really appreciate that I did have one question there's a comment in um the explanation about uh inequity in the form of redlining sanitary sewer capacity and I just wondered I I didn't know what that meant so if someone could EXP explain that to me so as we work on the um well this is something that first came up when a few years ago on the commission when we were um we had developer interest in the greater kill district and so um uh a business moved out of one of the towers there and somebody a developer wanted to come in and and make it turn into houses um and then we had other uh other proposals for Brewery and something else um and the city's like whoa whoaa we can't do that because we don't have enough SE sewer capacity in that area and so a study was done for that particular area and So currently that's being addressed and so um by the end of think of next year 2025 we'll have more capacity in that area so then we'll be able to um talk about more density in that area but um once we started Lincoln and londondary that brought up an issue so we're not studying it I want to be clear here we're not studying it as part of Lincoln and londonairy it's not as part of our plan but it is something that affects us and so we've had meetings with the uh or at least one meeting with the um director of engineering talking about you know what the constraints are there's currently a report that's being presented it was supposed to be delivered but I guess the the the the numbers the uh the uh budgeting wasn't done correctly or something so they're coming back with with uh new numbers for how much it's going to cost it wasn't updated 2024 or something like that so they're still working on that so we don't have anything detailed with that but um the issue is that and it's a complex issue so we can't like address it right now and finish it right now but um that we don't have sewer capacity in a large portion of the city on the west side and so it it encompasses where we address the corridor of of Vernon but also addresses Lincoln and London so there's all sorts of discussions that can be had about it but basically um in its current capacity we cannot build any more like zero we can build no more density there even though it's guided on our comprehensive plan that we should be able to so that seems like a huge disconnect like how can you guide that and I mean is that even legal you know that you can guide it that way because it should be zoned that way and it's not yet so um so this is a sticky issue that we're dealing with and you know it looks you know if when you see it on a map it looks you know like redlining I mean you've where you're you're cordoning off neighborhoods and saying we will have no more density in this area and it's using sanitary sewer capacity in the place of lot size or other ways that cities have used to to redline before perfect thank you just for clarity though um I understand the reference but is that what you're intending to say that that it's a purposeful strategy to to discourage development well if you're discouraging if you're using if you're using something to discourage development in specific areas that's not a rational thing I mean you can build more sewer capacity right and you know there's issues about expense and who's going to pay for it and all that sort of stuff so again we're not addressing any of that but the issue is you know know you know large lot sizes were used as a way to to prevent people from you know living and uh you know loans and you know all that sort of stuff so and the city has a history of it and they're working through it you know we're working through it um but this is another area where it's kind of a modern thing where I've been reading about places in Connecticut for example cities in wealthy cities in Connecticut that are trying to use um server capacity as a way to prevent density in certain areas so ad didn't invent it but um it's something that you know and it's a complicated issue you know it was partially addressed when they tried to uh at the state level when they tried to uh Force increased density at the state level in this past session and that failed partly because City said well what about you know uh sanitary SE capacity so um it's a complex issue but it's something that I think um you know that that is put in here as a way to say hey this is a issue that the city should address yep I mean that's how I read it and and appreciate it like other things like climate change are complicated but they do and you can't solve them but they do impact the decisions you're making and proposing um so I I keep on that discussion so I mean I guess I didn't catch this on our final report I'm more focused on our table and stuff like that and then I had a tree fall in my house on Monday and didn't get to didn't get to study all of our different packets and stuff as I would have liked but um so this I mean this honest almost explicitly says that the city of ad is purposefully redlining the western side of a Dino with sewer by because with sewer constraints right I mean that's this basically pointing the finger and saying that today that's what we're doing and it's intentional okay well we can change you know we can change the wording if the if the you know it's up to the commission now to decide what they want to do I didn't read it as finger pointing but I mean they've known about the steart capacity for a number of years and we haven't uh for Myriad of reasons fixed that or made it we can only spend millions of dollars at a time I mean you know the Eastern side of IND has grown faster and there's been more developer interests so it makes sense that we' be investing in sewer capacity there first and that we would be lagging behind on the western side of Adina I'm not comfortable with saying that we're redlining SE capacity in Western Adina um intentionally because that's how it reads to me but we have had developer interest and the city council it because we didn't have the sewer capacity yes because we've invested in other places first but they're not doing mean they didn't purposely know they didn't know that that development was going to come and then in 5 years and say well we're not going to invest in Western Indina because there might someday be a proposal to develop there right I mean it's just it's a naturally occurring thing we can only raise taxes on and have so much tax capacity so where is that money going to be spent on the Eastern side of AD where the interest in development has been predominantly right I I don't is it wasn't it wasn't a tool we used you know it just it was one of the reasons why it didn't go through but we didn't intentionally say like not put to her capacity by Lincoln and London der in order to discourage development there but we have a affordable housing policy right and we have to have we have and you know we promise this to the Met Council that we'll have X number of new affordable housing units by the end of the decade or whatever right and so are we saying then that they're all going to be in easta that there's not going to be any housing because if we can't build any housing we can't build affordable housing so you're saying this quadrant or this half of Adina doesn't get any affordable housing that's not what I'm saying at all I'm just saying that the city of Adina didn't deliberately not upgraded sewer system on the western side of a Dina in order to discourage development there that's completely sayber what I'm saying it I don't think it says deliberate or implies any malice but just that there is inequity that exists red lining implies malice based off of its historical use yeah I'd recommend just rewarding it because some of it is just getting to the bottom of it which I don't think any of us even know either so yeah I think saying red lining is too harsh it's kind of provocative I think yeah for what we're trying to do I think if we just keep it as neutral and say you know you don't have the funding Etc and it's causing this part of the city to not be developed as effectively you know something along those lines but to say that it's red lining it seems like you could interpret that differently just like how I think we're kind of picking up a little bit I mean I didn't mean to Seline the conversation over this one phrase but I I I guess I do disagree a little bit when you have a developer that comes forward with a proposal that includes expanding the sewer capacity and the city doesn't move forward with it we have made a conscious decision to not fix the problem and to not allow a developer to temporarily fix the problem while we sort things out so nobody in Lincoln and London Dairy and and maybe kahill as well can expand their business at all even if it's an existing business and that's not a new thing that the city wasn't aware of and if we've made choices to not allow other people to fix the problem for us as a stop Gap until we can fix it ourselves we have made a choice yeah just let me build on that a little bit I I think the I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with you necessarily it's just that I'm not sure the language serves our purpose in trying to get some work done as a Planning Commission and I think there's more I don't have a thorough response to your comment uh Claire but I I feel like there's more to it that we would benefit from more conversation about this like for example I don't remember the exact numbers but the the sanitary sewer improvements were $20 million or whatever for that part where they wanted to build that uh multif family out there that's a lot of money and sometimes those Investments don't make sense because there's no way you can build a tax base that will even cover half that so I let me just finish and then you can say more to me that's not redlining that's just a a city making an economic decision that they can't afford to put sanitary sewers in a particular place or at least conceivably conceivably but that wasn't the no the specifics of that case were a little bit different but the but if the if the investment by the city really was $20 million or you can see that that's it's not a it's not easy um problem to solve I'm sorry Mar with you and I think when the Lincoln and London D plan comes out out and the sewer report comes out the lack of sewer capacity is from the west side all the way down to 62 including the high school and nearly it's it's nearly a quarter of a Dina and so the lack of sewer capacity is also kind of Li is going to limit people's property values um so it will be something that will have to be addressed at some some point great that's a bigger bigger picture than yeah with the earlier conversation was yeah uh any questions and comments back to kind of the overall gist of this I definitely have one so love it I'm very visual I think just it's one suggestion but I think the story would be better served to have either map that precedes the potential areas with the current small areas and then that overlaid on it and then maybe even incorporate the bicycle plan or other things I like I know this like the back of my hand but like city council does too but maybe most residents don't but I think if they see the areas with even like a time stamp you know 44th in France you know 2018 that was done you know maybe they're all in yellow or something then people can see like because some of these are expanding upon those areas and I think we'd be better served to see how the things connect to understand the priorities of them it's just a thought sure but tells a story and I and I know it's just an advisory communication but I'm assuming it's going to then be shared but I don't know what the next step is I'm just thinking of telling this well I'm just I'm just going to say I'm asking for staff Heth because I I created that map myself I just it by hand or whatever so it's not I'm not a map maker or anything so I don't know is this something staff could help with I mean yeah it's a great idea okay sure and and maybe even have call outs like for Grand View showing exactly where in Grand View that is whatever yeah absolutely that's a great idea and then just since you drawing it all I'm not as familiar with the Eline as you but it looks like it ends it doesn't end right at 44th and Friends it goes up to excelsia right oh it it does okay it doesn't follow the current okay okay well then that makes sense cuz I was wondering why ended short of we I wasn't trying to rezone Minneapolis I mean it's I mean maybe even an arrow going that way it does help right I mean how we work with our neighbors too so sure sure I I just my only thoughts are the visual ones um otherwise the story already was you filled in all the gaps and the why was addressed right away and I think that's important you did a great job pleased with what you guys show awesome I second you on the I kept that was one thing I was pushing for the small area plans kind of laid out because they form those little nucleuses the beginning of the lines for all those corridors um I also there is a city transportation map for um areas that needed to be served and their level of service and what I got from that map is right after France Avenue Xerxes was the next highest area to be serviced and so I kept thinking in medium range is Xerxes because the Eline they were deciding between France and Xerxes because the ridership is heavy on both and even that's I mean that's a border with Minneapolis so I think I actually think Zer Xerxes even if it's long range or medium range should also be a corridor oh the whole of Xerxes okay yeah and when you when you draw the Eline Corridor I mean people can walk two blocks north so I think it should go to 42nd sure yeah you mentioned that in the thing I forgot to include that sorry um yeah so as far as Xerxes I mean yeah I I don't think we discussed that in the meeting but um or did we didn't yeah okay so uh I don't know you guys I guess I'll leave it open I it sounds fine to me because my understanding is that they're going to because right now there's like six variations of the six bus and some go on xeries and some go on France but the idea behind brt is that you coales everything in a single on a single Street um but they know that they're not going to give up that so the a six or some variation of the six is still going to exist along Xerxes so so it will still be there so there could be demand I guess I never really looked at the where the stops are on on Xerxes but but most of that is single family it is but I mean well in the same way that I'm assuming don't I don't want to speak for you but in the same way you know we we show the entirety of of France and it's a lot of it's single family home there too but so again the idea is we're not prescribing everything that's going to happen right now we're saying these areas are going to change right and so we're not saying what it should be or anything like that so same thing with Xerxes we're not going to say what to study we didn't even I we didn't even show like the the stops on the Eline right but presumably that would be something that would be the first to be up zoned or whatever but again we're just showing you know the our task was pretty simple they were very clear that just list the boundaries you know rather than individual boundaries it's the corridor what's that it's good you show a map instead oh yeah yeah well they didn't yeah I know right they didn't call for a map I thought it was going above and beyond um so just a quick question uh good stuff I'm trying to think through applicability right so let's just say this idea was adopted I know a lot of research ran into it so if this comes back to the Planning Commission and a developer wants to build something let's just say shortterm Eline France Avenue when I look at City goals and developer interests is that kind of how you would use it you would say here are the areas where I would recommend putting this development is that kind of how it would be applicably used once it gets adopted I just want to think through that little bit I think one of the reasons for doing the areas of potential change is so we can do um additional area plans you know that we don't just decide we engage the community and have them come together and have them discuss it with us um so we can all decide as a community and not just coming from us so I I think these are ways that we can tell the community we're thinking about this and let's come together and figure something out to relate to related to that is it premature to put an Eline project in the 25 work PL the answer may be yes I'm just curious this is intended to inform the comp plan update where we'll get into the detail on all of this as part of the next update okay so much questions [Music] comments sorry I'm holding you you guys back here from busting out but um with Xerxes and 56 um understanding this area that's where the Lola uh Pizza join is and then on the other side of the street there's single family homes so when we say Xerxes and 56 and we cross Xerxes that's into Minneapolis right but are we focused more on the Edina side and when you think about the single family homes there is the long-term Vision that they might go away and we might have some commercial zones we are not we we are not like forcing anything or whatever all we're saying is that um there's already commercial on the Minneapolis side and you know we're not trying to Zone Minneapolis there's commercial on the Minneapolis side um I believe that was up zoned in their last 2040 plan um as a corridor um and so this area may change that's where saying there may be demand in the future and this is long term like way in the future there may be demand so in other words what we're trying to avoid is the city being surprised like suddenly there's developers that want to do something right so like what happened around Grand View or uh Lincoln and lere right I mean you know and I've been pushing that one for a long time but you know we want to alert the city council to say hey you need to help us the commission figure out what we should be studying next what we should be adding to future work plans so we're not advocating for change in any of these places we're saying well slightly I mean in terms of City policies in that case we are advocating but otherwise but and in that you know in that intersection we're not really it's it's more like I do you want to speak to this or you know uh yeah I think it's basically uh putting us in a position to um um not to have to be reactive or or to be less reactive um than we might otherwise need to be if all of a sudden and a lot of these long-term ones it's like they're adjacent to other communities so sure I mean we like we have you know our plans and what the intention is in terms of the city but then whether whether it's you know Hopkins or Eden Prairie or Minneapolis um on all these borders if all of a sudden they make lots of change es and there's you know huge developments on 56 and they start knocking those you know things down and there's um um that's all different different kinds of commercial on the Minneapolis side of Xerxes and if all of a sudden they start doing different things we need to be able to respond and react to to all of that so that's kind of where it's almost from a a defensive um position or something or at least to you know let's make sure we're aware of what's going on in these places in case we need to make changes how did you guys um decide to choose the areas you did and limit other areas I'm just going to pick on 44th in France right you've got the dentist there you've got the hello pizza it is possible that the next couple of houses May W day be an attractive development for some more retail or something so we could be surprised right if somebody wants to take down those businesses and put up another multif family building or something else how did you guys limit your scope well there's already a 44th in France malaria plan and so um what we did to try to address situations like that is that's the part where we talk about maybe I wasn't clear about it I guess I wasn't clear about it um is expanding the the boundaries of small area plan so in other words they we can't lock them in stone right they have to naturally expand over time and bigger ones will expand faster than little ones I mean 44th in France isn't going to cover all of Morningside or All of You Know Country Club or anything um but you know should they grow probably how far well that's something for someone else to decide so we're not so we specifically did not like put boundaries around that but just as an idea like the city needs to consider this that's got it thank you and I also think one of the reasons we um brought up France Avenue as a corridor is because we have the small area plan for 44th in France um we have one for 50th in France there's been some talk about 54th in France and then um and the Eline stops are going to be every four blocks and they're already a lot of exist duplexes um or double dwelling units along that area too too and apartment buildings and churches and other things along that whole line so that was where the you know do we expand those small area plans or do we just do a quor and that's where that graphic piece I think would really help got it that definitely show why Grand View could easily use that little triangle any other questions or comments so are you looking for I mean this is are you looking for a recommendation tonight say hey go do this with these couple changes well that'd be ideal but uh you know it's up to the up to the Planning Commission to do what but that's what we're here for we want you know we've spent a lot of time on this and thought about it and I think we've come up with pretty good answers to your questions so um if you agree and you know like any other thing you can have adjustments or whatever I mean the only thing that has just that extra map or whatever and have staff do it I mean you're yeah you don't like my Photoshop skills I mean it was good enough to I should have asked AI chatbot to do it for me yeah how does everyone feel with its current status and getting it out there with a couple tweaks it sounds like one just easing the language around the the sanitary sewer what if you just changed it to it take the word redlining out because that implies withholding of services based on race or ethnicity least someone might interpret it that way and can and just change it to inadequate or something like I was like just factually State the def is there a way to describe the efficiency you know there's a deficiency in available Services maybe they've been not built or witheld I don't know I don't know again I don't know but I just feel like is there a way to just factually State what the what's lacking I'm going to answer your question with a question if you can identify an area that's within that zone that will support affordable housing and phrase it in a way that supports affordable housing I guess I I'd agree with you but if if you can't then it is intentional what's intentional I I'm not looking sorry commissioner Miranda it's really this is really not like my topic I'm just trying to find a compromise that moves it sure no I know but they don't think people are going to want that word in there because it of course I'm not going to want the word in there because it it we haven't had a hearing on it we haven't taking in facts that would support if anybody on this commission can identify a place within that zone that supports affordable housing it's not a fair question because the city because the city again they didn't you're presuming that they did that intentionally right you have nothing to support that fact there's we have a limited tax capacity we can only spend millions of dollars per year I mean it's it's you talk about a a smaller discussion that was had by the city council recently and they talked about sidewalks uh and member Jackson brought up a concern about sidewalks in the White Oaks neighborhood and because it's clo proximity to the New Rapid Transit and that there's it's not safe there because there's a lack of sidewalks and the city said well we have a list of sidewalk priorities that we that we make and uh you know we can only go through so many per year based off of our studies of how fast traffic is moving how many cars are going how wide the road is ETC right they do and say Here's you know our logical progression on how we need to get to sidewalks right and she said well I would like to see this one be prioritized and again City says well you know we have data that supports what we're doing and then we have we can only do so many projects in a year it's the same thing with the sewer right we're they're not withholding sewer projects from the western side of Adina in order to prevent prevent affordable housing there there's nothing to support that accusation and I don't think Carolyn Jackson James pierce the rest of the council voted against that particular development because or like basically have been withholding working with the city to withhold sewer capacity because they didn't want to see that development there like that's just a ridiculous accusation to make well this been going on for decades I'm not saying it's it's just the existing city council it's the city of a I'm not I'm not pointing fingers at any one person it's a policy the city is obviously pursuing because you cannot build housing there and you certainly can't build affordable housing so you're going to force all the affordable housing onto one half of AO which is ghettoization but they I mean it's on obviously they're going to eventually be trying to build sewer capacity the west side like it can't just happen like that and I think part of the problem is is that that particular project uh was much better received and had approval when it was not an affordable housing project so the the city's position has fluctuated based on the use and I think it is a current enough data point that people are reacting to that we're conflating one project with an overall guidance and vision for how the city develops over time I mean you may not like that that project didn't go forward but that's not enough to say that the city is intentionally doing that right again we can only spend millions of dollars per year and they can only develop sewer capacity at at a at a certain rate and I I don't I'm not comfortable putting into into writing an accusation that the city is intentionally doing this the city Advocates at the state level right to have meetings on that every year have they advocated to get S to get State funding for this I don't comparison to other are your policy is backed up by your budget I'm sure at one point blue the city the east side of a dino probably didn't have the sewer capacity for such a development too until they put it there right they're not going to have sewer capacity on the west side of Dina until they put it there like it's going to have to take time but just because it doesn't exist today doesn't mean that they're intentionally doing that I'm nowhere does it say here that we are saying that we need to build it today yeah okay I'm I'm just going to get in the middle of this because we need to move on I think this disc discussion is out there and city council gets gets that communicated to them but it definitely is inadequate infrastructure we know that we don't know the level to which without the report or why it's been prioritized for sure in that way so I think we need to omit the term redlining while we pass this through and keep it factual so as as the because as as we think of a potential area of change not just a project but that area it is limited by that as probably the main factor right inadequate infrastructure as as the chair of the Lincoln and londondary small area plan working group I met with the consultants and City staff with the director of planning or the I'm sorry director of engineering sure um we had this meeting where we were supposed to get the report and it didn't show up and they explained that it wasn't ready in time and it's still not ready and you know members of the the city staff and me and other people who were there you know asked you know so okay this is guided in the in the comprehensive plan we have a conflict and so now we we lit can't build what's guided so that's his job is to make sure that the comprehensive plan matches you know our zoning and what's capable and stuff and so I asked him you know like this is your job why why doesn't this match how how could this be in two comprehensive plan so that's a 20-year period and this not be addressed and he had no answer for that so I haven't got an answer no and I think we bring it to light as just right I mean it's an area of potential change there's a conflict with achieving that both like practically and in the comprehensive plan years but we don't have a solution currently no but I think having this in there and bringing that to light in that way or any other way minus using the term redlining I think achieves what we're trying to right I mean we want to keep that area of potential change as a more medium term or either way I think we achieve it we just need to use gentler terminology because we don't have all we don't have all the facts right I mean it's up to you guys you can make that decision but I'm just explaining what I've seen and why I use the term oh no I appreciate it I would recommend omitting and revising that word to something like inadequate infrastructure ructure and then adding a map of current small area plans potentially I don't know if if it made sense you reference the bike and ped plan if it makes sense overlaying some of those on a separate plan too I think all of that helps just connect everything um anything else yeah and I recommend adding the transportation map that you had Addison about levels of ridership across um Minneapolis and Adina because that I think that helps with the Xerxes any limits on that map might be helpful too for the France and the Xerxes where they're AB budding just to make it crystal clear as people are looking at it again uh the when on the map to draw the make it clear where the border of the city stops and starts oh oh sure just because you can't rezone Minneapolis right said who said that okay yeah just a general question um I'm guessing and I don't know this for sure but this is more a developer question when developers look at a city and they're trying to research to figure out where do I want to put a building or where do I want to do something is that captured anywhere how do they go about doing that what kind of measures what do they look at they look at traffic density a couple other things like have we looked at how they look at it to influence maybe a little bit of how we decided what those areas were um I I could certainly speak but I think just yes they have I mean you look for zoning you look for adjacencies you look for where your customers are going to be for where people travel um you you know it depends if you're building a Target or a church or multif family housing um but I think typically you don't try to go find a spot that would be inhospitable for whatever your business is for one reason or another so you know collocation makes sense to other similar businesses or similar types of uses and conversely you're not looking to solve all this City's planning you're looking for your piece in the puzzle so that's why I mean it's the importance of doing this to help identify those okay so I think we have enough of the comments anyone have like a recommendation for say hey approve this communication of future perhaps maybe potential areas of change I think I'll make a motion to approve the future potential maybe possible areas of change with the additional map features as recommended and perhaps a word smithing of the one sentence to uh capture the intent but uh not be unnecessarily inflammatory second all those in favor say I opposed all right motion carries good work let's make that clear great work all right so now we have chair member comments it's like approaching midnight and that uh I have one quick comment I am blown away by everyone like all nine people are here right now and it's almost midnight and it's impressive I feel like the city is very well served by some great stewards of the future yeah no this is amazing commitment so I just appreciate it every time everyone shows up it's really cool that's all I got uh I have a question for Carrie um as far as the Macy's Redevelopment site goes we it's been determined that that is in the Richfield School District so when it comes to the budgeting and the revenue expectation from The increased tax base um that out there some allocation would go to schools I assume and it would be to the Richfield schools correct so Richfield stands to gain a tremendous uh amount of Revenue and probably have very very few students um or certainly more Revenue uh the revenue would outweigh the expenses by the additional students does Richfield have any a um influence that we're aware of in in this development um or skin in the game or um up you know kind of what where do they fit into the this huge Revenue upside for them they're happy to receive it and the story um yes city manager meets with the school district superintendent all of them um once if not twice a year um and that is the feedback they're supportive of the development that's occurring in the Richfield school districts because it it makes up a significant part of their budget and you're right there's not that many kids that are going to those schools within that area and so do we know like do they have a relationship with Enclave or I don't believe so no that we know of and I most of Southdale really benefits a Dina and um I mean it's actually kind of nice we're going to share the largess with some of our immediate neighbors that's my feeling on it I just wondered if there was you know any any Equitable um any kind of arrangement or or just how that works I just wanted to take 15 seconds to add on to your statement a few moments ago and compliment and thank the ad staff that are still with us here at midnight and helping us do the work appreciate it very much so I don't want to delay us anymore but as chair of the Lincoln London are small year plan I should probably talking about it um so uh first and foremost I want to say that our next uh Workshop is uh Tuesday September 10th 6:00 to 800 p.m. at ad din public works so if you go to um uh well unfortunately it's on better together at Dina unfortunately it's not on the front page or anything you have to actually search for Lincoln and londondary to bring it up but then you'll get the page about Lincoln and londondary we're we're working on that um because it doesn't fit into the categories of development projects whatever anyway so search for that and it'll come up with our page and there's a if you want to watch it there's a 17-minute uh case for Action which explains kind of what we've gone through so far um and where we want to go in the future and so this next meeting is to hear feedback from the community so we want to hear from you so um if you live in that neighborhood if you don't live in that neighborhood if you live in AA come on down if you work down there whatever um we'd love to hear you hear from you and and um there'll be uh what did they say here there'll be kids activities so you can bring your kids um and including kids can participate too so it'll be kind of fun um so we do ask that your RSVP you don't have to but we prefer just to we get a a better idea of how many people are going to show up so there's a link to that you just click on the link to RSVP um and other than that we we uh uh the Commissioners have gone and interviewed uh commissioner day and and uh I have interviewed some of the business owners in that area so we were doing kind of a survey of of what the businesses are there what they like what they don't like so we've heard a lot from the community from the residents we want to hear from the businesses too so now we have that data and some of that will be presented at this meeting also so thank you and I'm going to urge the Planning Commission be there as well right because I just got cut off um I mean I think four of us three of us are involved in it but it'd be a great opportunity for the Planning Commission to talk with the neighborhoods all I can say is wow you guys are doing an exceptional job and it I feel like you should have like an Excel spreadsheet for a Playbook of you know how to go forward with the next small area plan I feel like you guys have added a lot of other things that haven't been done before to this level it's pretty impressive yeah well we have some impressive people on the on it and City staff and the and the we we picked an excellent uh consulting company to to work with us uh we've never the city has never worked with these Consultants before and I think they're really doing a a great job so if someone can just take not of like what you've done just I think it' be it help they better serve our other small area plans I know it's a pretty General document that we've had before so awesome anything else anyone staff comments first staff you're like anyone you're like home home yeah yeah motion to adjourn second all those in favor say I I the meeting has been adjourned thank you everyone midnight this is the latest I stay up is Planning Commission meeting to for