Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the tax day planning commission meeting. A couple of housekeeping items before we call the meeting to order. Uh the agenda for the meeting is available if you're following along on the planning commission page on the city of Adina website. So uh please feel free to refer to that there if you'd like to follow along. And second uh thing I want to mention before the meeting gets started is uh due to um ADA standards, we'll begin tonight having a roll call vote for everything. So that includes approving minutes, approving agendas, and basically everything we do will be on a roll call vote. So that's in to to reflect ADA standards. So let's all bear with us as we um accommodate that change. Uh, without further ado, I'll call the meeting to order and ask for a roll call.

Commissioner Just Commissioner Padilla here. Commissioner Nelson here. Commissioner Brennan here. Commissioner Bennett here. Commissioner Haniman here. Commissioner Smith here. Commissioner Felt here. Chair Elky here. Uh, first item of business is to approve the meeting agenda. Is there a motion to approve the April 15th meeting agenda? Motion to approve. Second. We call the roll. It'll take a while. Please. Commissioner Just. Commissioner Padilla. Commissioner Nelson. I. Commissioner Brennan. I. Commissioner Bennett.

Hi. Commissioner Haniman. I. Commissioner Smith. I. Commissioner Felt. I. Chair Elkar. I. So the motion carries. Uh, second item is to approve the meeting minutes from the February 25th regular meeting and the March 25th work session. Is there a motion to approve those minutes? Move to approve those minutes. Second. Thank you. We call the role. Commissioner Just. Commissioner Padilla. Hi. Commissioner Nelson. Hi. Commissioner Brennan. Hi. Commissioner Bennett. Hi. Commissioner Henman. Hi. Commissioner Smith. Hi. Commissioner Feld. I. Chair Elkar.

I motion carries. Next item on the agenda is community comment. This is a time available to uh residents who'd like to uh speak on a subject that is not on tonight's agenda or on a scheduled agenda in the future. Uh so if anyone would like to uh address the planning commission, please come forward now. You'll have three minutes uh to cover your topic. I don't see anyone coming forward. So, I think we can move on from that uh section and move to the first item of business, which is reports and recommendations. We don't have any public hearings tonight. Two reports and recommendation items. The first is a sketch plan review for 7600 Park Lawn. Uh and Director Teague will be introducing the topic for us. Okay. Thank you, chair, members of the planning commission. Uh before you we do have a sketch plan review. As mentioned, this property is located at 7600 Parklon Avenue and it's for a senior housing project. This first slide indicates the zoning map in which the property is located. The zoning district is highlighted. It is currently zoned MDD6, mixed development district. The site is located west of France. What we're seeing on the screen is all the different zoning districts uh in the area. You can see it's a mixture of zoning districts. Uh we've got some PUDS and some industrial zoning, but it's located west of France just north of 494. This next map is from our comprehensive plan. It shows the designated land use of the site. So within the comprehensive

plan, this site is guided for office and residential use. The uh the allowed housing density in the comprehensive plan is between 20 and 75 units per acre. So the applicant this evening has presented two different um building options. So this would be they are proposing two um two different apartment buildings on the site. Both each would be about 150 units. The uh the the building massing that you're seeing on the screen, this first option is two sevenstory uh projects or two sevenstory apartments. And the second option shown on the screen now has a 12story option along with a sevenstory building. Of note here, the 12 stories would be located closest to Fred Richards Park which is just to the north and west of the site. It's a little bit different from the Fred and the French projects you may recall where those projects the height was stepped um got lower as you move toward the the park and the height is closer to the street. This configuration is a little bit the opposite of that. The building is turned so you're not seeing the full mass of the building um from the residential properties to the north. So that's kind of the the reasoning for the alignment there. This uh next slide shows a site plan. Um so it's that it's the uh the buildings that we saw, but this is a 2D uh map that shows where the buildings would be located. The site would access off Park Lawn Avenue. There's a drive aisle that would connect to Fred Richards Park. There's a series of sidewalks around all of the buildings and through

the project. You can see the green space and some some proposed landscaping. So again, this is the option one where it would be two sevenstory uh buildings and this site plan on the screen now indicates that second option of the 12 stories. So you can see there would be a little more green space but the trails, the sidewalks, the the um access into the park uh would be the same. This next slide indicates zoning compliance with the current zoning of the site which is MDD6. So as the table demonstrates the building setbacks would all be met with the proposed building. Uh the next category is building height. This site has a a height restriction of four stories and 48 feet. So again, this uh this project would exceed uh that fourstory limit with especially the 12story proposal. The zoning uh the MDD6 zoning district has a density requirement. That's the lot area required, the third category. So based on the density that's allowed um in the zoning ordinance, only 125 units would be allowed on this site. And again, they're proposing 300 units. As I mentioned before, the density and the comprehensive plan allows up to 75 units an acre. So, this is one of those areas where the site is guided for housing, but we don't have a zoning district that matches what the comprehensive plan um allows for in terms of density. Not the use, just the density. So, variances would be required using standard zoning. We've had this discussion in the past about getting away from using PUD for flexibility with the zoning requirements. So, the result of that is we can't require affordable housing with this project or our sustainability

policy. Um kind of those trade-offs with the PUD that we consider. So, all of these variances would have to be considered on their own merits. Uh building coverage uh would be code compliant as well as floor area ratio. question came up from a planning commissioner about what the F is with the Fred and the Finch projects that um the F on those projects are allowed to be up to 1.5. So that is a little bit greater than what we're seeing here. areas of focus for the planning commission as you get into your sketch plan uh discussion is um given the number of variances that are that are necessary here and some pretty significant variances is the existing MDD zoning should we continue to use that and just continue and and consider those variances um using the variance criteria or should we go more toward a PUD again the PUD criteria would be difficult because this is not a mixeduse project. It's just a it's an apartment project. So, those are some of the areas for discussion for the planning commission. So, I will stop there and with that our applicant has a presentation as well and then we can answer questions uh following the applicant presentation.

Thank you. appreciate it.

Commissioners, uh, thank you very much for having me this evening. Josh Brans said with Greco. Um, uh, very excited to, you know, be here and talk through this project with you. Um, you know, as we talk about the project, I think what I've got in my presentation is probably just a little more detail about each each sketch plan that we'll review tonight. Um, very much look forward to your input and feedback. Um, I think, um, you know, Carrie nailed the gating issues that are out there that we're we're trying to evaluate and kind of understand what what a process forward may look like. Um, but I think the the long and the short of it is is we're we're here proposing a two-phase project that would deliver age restricted housing for the community. Um, and right now, you know, the the density here is somewhere between 125 and 150 units for each phase. Kind of depends on what that final building footprint looks like, what the uh unit mixes and sizes. Um, so as we go through the presentation, as you know, you're familiar with the site, I'm sure, but just to show a little bit of context here on this slide of the location next to and adjacent to Fred Richards Park. Um, we've got in the red is the phase one proposed phase one and phase two proposed uh site locations. And then the uh adjacent uses next to uh this area. We've got the Adina Park Apartments, um, Pentagon Park, the Finch, the Fred, the Adina Corporate Center, 4820, and then the Gateway Adina to the to the west. On this slide, um, just wanted to show you what the exist existing conditions are today. You may be very well familiar with this, but if not, this is a top- down view of the site. Um, and then a perspective from the street view. So, today its current use is a four-story office building. um that is primarily

occupied by uh a local bank, scale bank. Uh there are a couple other users in the building as well that would um have a they go through a relocation process as part of the the redevelopment with the uh with the existing um property owner. So, as we looked at the project, you know, really diving into the project priorities, um, area alignment really with the greater South District plan, uh, unique experiences, pattern and connectivity, scale and form, placemaking, connectivity, accessibility, and mobility, access versus mobility, uh, sustainability and resilience overall, and then the district services, arts and culture, connected, integrated, pedestrian friendly. Those are the areas that we feel that the both site plans uh correlate with and connect to related to the Southdale district plan. The site itself um you know we're we're proposing very high quality design. Um sustainability is a forefront uh part of the of features within the project. Park connectivity. Um we know there's a lot to still figure out there. a lot of conversations that will need to be happening with the uh the improvements that go go forward in the park, but excited to be a part of that conversation. Uh lifestyle life cycle housing, you know, I think is one of the biggest benefits of this project. The uh the aging and community concept is a is an opportunity to achieve here through this development. Environmental improvements um just just naturally by redeveloping this site and then to complement the uh the park and connect to the park. Here's some design visioning. Two of the projects on this slide are projects that we um that we are developing. The upper left corner is a project that will be opening in Minnetonka in two weeks called the Ensley. It's 121 unit uh age restricted 55 plus project that I think really represents a lot of the you know the design quality and characteristics that we envision being an opportunity here at

7600 park. Uh the project directly adjacent to it as well is a project that we'll be breaking ground on this fall in Woodbury. It's a 150 unit uh 55 plus project as well. Um again very high quality uh architecture design finishes. You see the stepbacks. Um so uh really neat articulation. The other images on this slide are really just example images, precedent images around the the type of quality of uh design that we'd anticipate here. uh for amenities within the buildings themselves and on the exterior front. Obviously, you know, Fred Richards Park Connectivity is one of the the forefront amenities for people living here in the the surrounding community. Um each building would have its own pool and spa, uh a dog run concept for the community. outdoor kitchens and grilling area, multiple active courtyards, communal planting garden gardens, which have been a a huge hit in our uh our project about to open in Minnetonka. Uh expansive outdoor recreation areas, and then actually this is an interior amenity, but a hobby lounge and art room. Within the interior aspects, we've got uh fitness centers for each each building, uh private offices and meeting rooms, full-time management staff, pet accommodations, multiple unit offerings. This would be highly skewed towards three and twobedroom units with a with a with a handful of onebs as well. Uh bike parking, storage and repair areas, club rooms, uh theater and a golf simulator lounge along with heated parking, heated underground structured parking, sustainability, sustainability, like I mentioned is on the forefront uh as we approach the projects. Um here's a list of a variety of different ones. I know I should refer to them. So, we'll go through them. Uh solar ready infrastructure uh within how we how we build the building so that it could accept it into the future if not as part

of the development. Uh EV charging stations again connectivity to Fred Richards Park and all the outdoor recreation activities that are available there. uh the lowe glass that we'll use throughout the building, native plannings, energy star appliances, lowflow plumbing fixtures, LED light fixtures with uh energy efficient starters, recycling program, um uh climate appropriate exterior cladding for the building, um loaded no VC VOCC paints, programmable thermostats, planting beds, pollinator stations, multiple green roofs, bike parking and storage. enrollment in the uh XLEDA program which pretty much all of our projects go through go through their evaluation program uh permeable pavers uh significant reduction about a 25% reduction in the impervious surface uh that's currently at the site along with droughtresistant plantings. So again, Carrie overviewed. I just wanted to really walk through how we would plan to phase the project. Right now, what we're looking at are the two sevenstory concepts. And we've kind of got an interesting, you know, site here in the fact that we are also assuming the same type of soil and water level conditions that the Fred and the Finch encountered on those sites. So why a sevenstory building? We've really got about a half story of that lower level garage that pops up due to the uh water table elevation and then to accommodate the remaining parking for the site, we bring that to the second level. So that naturally pushes the the project up about another about another story over what it would normally need to be. Right now, as we look at this, you know, when we put together the sketch plan um concepts, we said between 125 to 150 units per building. We're right now at about 135 uh units in each one of these buildings based off of market demand that we've seen at our project in uh in Minnetonka. And that's really just a function of how we've laid out the

units, the sizes, etc. The buildings do both step back at the second level. So, while the building steps out at the first level, we step it back to create some some relief from the park. And then we'd also anticipate like we saw in those earlier images probably some unique articulation around and stepbacks at the the top floor as well. Um here's just the massing blocking diagram just to give you some perspective of what that looks like, what that could feel like uh in its current layout. This is the main level. So, as you can see here, this is the, you know, this is the above grade story of the parking. And we have wrap housing around the outside of the parking. We have units that walk out uh onto the paths that uh will connect or could connect into the park at the appropriate locations. Also, that will run north and south along park lawn and then connect to the sidewalk that we have down here fronting our our surface parking. Right now we have planned in the building one one parking stall per bedroom. Uh we are seeing that's probably on the heavier side as as uh subscript subscription for the parking is at our Minnitonka site but that is what we have planned into the footprint right now. The 54 exterior stalls would be for guests and vendors um that you can see here on the surface side of things. And this is just really a a to highlight the elevation of the building. So, as as I was talking before, um you know, this lower level of the garage pops up about a half a floor. So, while every other floor is basically 10 ft in height, um you know, we've got about five feet that comes up out of the out of that lower level due to the the water table heights that we assume are there. We also uh took it upon ourselves to do a sun study just an early very u preliminary diagram diagram of this. And really where we see the the most impact is during the the months that we would

all assume right the December to March time frame where we see the uh the northern cast of the the shadows. But outside of those time frames um throughout the year you know very limited uh offcasting to to the adjacent uh neighbors phase two or excuse me not phase two concept two. So we also wanted to look at an alternative option to this more of a given that we're next to the park you know bringing in some additional height uh at the site uh for the views etc and whatnot. And it also allows us to really have an expansive outdoor space here. Um, and have a pretty expansive outdoor green roof on the second level of this phase one building. Um, so this would be in our first phase, we'd have a 12story concept here. And when I say 12, it really portrays as 10 and a half from the street side again because we have the halfstory above grade from the lower level garage. And then it drops down to a sevenstory concept here adjacent to the next phase two building that would remain at the seven stories. Again, our density is about the same here. And you would probably ask why that would be if you're going up to 12 stories. And it's just a function of the unit size in the um in the pink pink portion of this building. Average unit sizes grow from what we have in that 15 to600 square foot range in that first concept we look like looked at. They grow up to about 1,800 square feet. So, a little bit larger, which uh we have to have more square footage to accommodate them. Same type of amenities, finishes, quality uh that we sell. Here's a a massing diagram perspective uh to give you a perspective on what that would look like adjacent to the other uses. And then a first floor. So, same kind kind of concept where we have ground level units, walkouts, um really kind of creating that town home type of

concept with connectivity to the park areas and then the uh Park Lana Avenue um access points too. Again, here's a perspective of the uh the stacking plan for the project. We also took this one obviously you see with the taller with the taller building that December to March time frame the the the shadows cast much further off of the 12story component of the project. However, what was interesting is that it it does tend to fall short as it reaches to the most north northeast portion of the of the uh adjacent properties. Um but nonetheless it does cast a little more. So um tonight with you, you know, um from a completed project stats, so as we looked at both concepts, we're we're generating between 250 to 300 units in age restricted housing totality. Um we've got about 476 total parking stalls with 422 of those being um structured parking for the housing, another 54 for guest vendor parking. Um, we've got two different types of concepts to evaluate. Um, you know, I think when when these are done, there's a pretty significant tax base increase to the area. Uh, a lot of revitalization with this site just due to the way that it's used today compared to how we would transition it uh on a go forward basis. Um, we do feel like the the the introduction of density here um is uh is is in alignment with the comp plan. We know that there are some conflicts there between zoning ordinance. Um, and then as we look, you know, as we look at the PUD considerations versus variance considerations, I think Carrie, you know, set it up perfectly. It's it's height lot area and then usable lot area that uh love to get some feedback on tonight.

Thank you very much. Should we start with the questions in case those are important comments? Anybody have any questions, Paul? Oh, sorry. I have a couple of questions for you. Um, so on the proposed plans, um, and we can, oh, this is my on the You want to go back to the proposed plans, the ones with, um, color on them with the orange and the pink.

Okay, thank you. There they are. So that orange and the pink are what's above that base above the parking base and the walk out. So all of the little gray hatches around the outside are the walkout units. That's exactly right. So those are those are thought to simulate ground level patios. Okay. So that courtyard in phase one is 15 feet above grade approximately. Yes. Okay. Um and that's the same in both that the courtyard or

correct. Yeah. So as we go back to the other first concept, smaller courtyard but same concept. It's an elevated courtyard there. Correct. And then that walkway between the two phases is at grade or above grade? That is at grade. That's at grade. And then around is at grade. Correct. Okay. That's it for now. Other questions, Bunny? Um, yeah. For Carrie, um, uh, what are the number of units in the Fred and the Finch? The total number of units

each in each one. I'm just wondering how they compare. I can look that up quick. I don't know off the top of my head. Okay. Um, and I'm wondering why why um have you chosen or are you currently doing over 55 in particular?

Um, well, we've seen it as a demographic that's a it's a growing demographic with a high need uh for basically the opportunity to transition within their communities. Um, what we've seen in our in our Minnitonka project, it's a lot of age within the community or the surrounding nearby communities where they've they've lived there for a long period of time. uh they're still in their single family home, but they haven't chosen that opportunity to move out of that home yet because of either a they they don't have the product type that they they want or it's not in a location that they they like and and it's a it's a product type too that we as an operator um can operate at a higher level as well. Um you know, they they tend to pay a higher level of rent than a typical market rate building. So

that was my next question. Yeah. Um, what are you anticipating the rents would range? Yeah, so our rents would range in between 2,000 and then the very largest units could go upwards of the five to six $7,000 a month.

And there's space in the garage, I assume, is where you um you'd have moving vans and things like that and all that would be correct. There's ample space for that. Yeah, we have we have opportunity to stage uh if we have semiis or things of that nature, which we do get um from time to time, we have the ability to stage them out here uh at the front of the building during movein time frames and then bring them in through there. We could bring them in through a front portion here of the building as well. Uh but as we work through, if we were to proceed forward, we'd work through uh more refinement on on those aspects.

Thanks and thanks for your presentation. I want to follow up on Commissioner Padilla's question about um the Fred and the Finch number of units because both the Fred and the Finch or 1.5 F floor area ratio which is and they're both PUDs, right? That's correct. The Finch is 276 units and I'm still searching the other

and um this would be 1.0 floor area ratio. So this would be a little less dense on this site than the Fred and Vench are on their sites just by the F ratio to the site. And so this so this goes with the comp the density of this matches our comp plan. Does our comp plan have any height requirements? Comp plan does not have height. Okay. Thank you.

Other questions? Carrie, uh, could you talk a little bit more about the PUD? You sort of, uh, I think I heard you say that it would be more challenging because it's a single use.

Yes. Yes. Um, when you look at all of the PUD criteria for a singleuse apartment building, that's where planning commission and council have concluded over the last several years that it's difficult to meet all of those PUD criteria that are spelled out in the code to justify um to justify a PUD. It's more encouraged for larger projects, mixture of uses, uh those kind of things. But the Fred and the Finch were PUD even though they're single use. Correct. Got it.

Although I should say the the Finch has a small little retail component to it similar to the Maison Green here across the street. Can I have one question for the applicant? How long have you been operating your project in Minnetonka? Um it will open uh May one which we'd welcome. You know, I think if if we were to proceed forward with a project here, you know, we'd very much come over and take a look at it.

Got it. Um, have you built uh similar projects in um sort of this a similar e socioeconomic kind of demographic um that you've already opened and operated for a number of years? Yeah, we we we we typically develop at the peak of the A class A market rate apartment building U operation. So that's where we've primarily worked. Um so they have rents that we will get up to levels of what we have in here in this building. Um and what we have in the Mitanka building. I would say probably one of the more similar projects that we've managed as an operator and develop consulted on was uh Laurent here in Edina off of France and uh it very similar type of uh socioeconomic

that's non age restricted correct is not restricted okay and just as a a point of reference um similar uh model I guess than compared to like the Avdor uh very similar I would say yes Okay. Yep. Thank you. Okay. So, the Fred has 404 units. Uh, yeah, the BKB team designed that project. Other questions?

Quincy, thank you for uh the presentation. Uh Josh, um just a couple questions just to understand the uh differences in the options. So option one is is certainly different than option two. Option two, there's a much larger courtyard and it goes up to 12 stories it looks like. Um just give us some philosophy why such a difference between the two options like what was the design idea between them?

Yeah. Um well to be just totally straightforward you know when we were when we have been um looking at concept two we initially started looking at that concept as a forale product uh we went down that path for quite a while investigated it the the market depth this location for a forale product um we didn't necessarily get as favorable feedback as we initially thought so we have um we have evaluated that site as well um that site plan as well as a rental product. Um, and really the, you know, the the premise behind it is is that that that concrete construction obviously drives a premium. And if we were to do a forale product, we'd want it to be concrete from a warranty standpoint, etc. Longevity standpoint, sound, etc. Just the quality of the construction that you get back from that. Um what we are finding is this that the amount of pre-sales that you would need for a project of that size, the financing uh plus the demand at this site versus other sites that may be more well positioned in Dina for uh for sale condo product makes this probably a B forale product B forale site versus some of the more A+ sites for that type of product. So I think that the the risk profile just it it just it was just a little too much for what we were uh probably willing to uh buy it off. However, I would say that you know what we have seen is that when you do do the higher quality construction, do a concrete type construction, you do drive a premium rent for that type of product, which um which what we are analyzing right now, can we overcome the premium and cost to go to that type of a product? Um, we're not totally sold that we can get there yet, but it is a it is a piece that we are evaluating as part of this.

Thank you for for sharing some of those uh insights. Yeah, the economics is what I'm looking at. Um, in terms of the square footage, uh, what's the average square footage? I think you mentioned maybe 1,500 to,600 on option one.

Yeah, in option one. And then as you go in this in the in the wood frame options, those would be 15-,600 square feet for the units. In the concrete option, which is really just this pink section here, those units there would average closer to 1,800 square ft. Okay. And in terms of, you know, uh, you know, the 55 plus, I would assume a little bit here that they're downsizing to some degree from their from their homes to something a bit smaller. Um, would if you were to build a product that's just say less than um, you know, 1600 ft, how how small would you go for that to still be marketable, valuable for your team? as far as uh overall unit sizes on an average standpoint.

Yeah. So, our project in um Minnotonka averages right around 1300 square ft.

I would say we what we are learning up there is we'd probably do less onebedrooms. So, we have some 730 foot and 787 foot onebedrooms. We would do more 1,000 foot onebedrooms that just have a little more breathing room and space within them. So that's why we've pushed our our unit sizes up uh with this design and then what we're doing in Woodbury as well. Just I I think our units there the smaller ones which are always the slowest ones at least. We would do less of those here so we can accommodate um people that either have an office type of use with a with a two-bedroom so they use it like a oneplus den or they use it as a secondary bedroom for visitors um family members and whatnot.

Gotcha. All right, that's it for now. Thank you. Y me. Thank you for being here. I guess first and foremost, I appreciate both options, breaking up the site in two. It's kind of just in line with what we hope to see around the Southdale area in terms of making it walkable, getting it closer to kind of those urban design principles. So, appreciate both options like that. In terms of both options, what is your guys's favorite and why?

Yeah. Um, well, I, you know, I would say concept one is our favorite. I guess if we had to say of either. Uh, we know that concept one is executable. Um, it's a product that we are building that is market acceptable right now. Um, and I think the thing is is we have such great construction here in Minnesota, you know, with the various groups that that build here. And I think you see that across the market where even in our wood wood frame construction buildings, uh, they're built to such a high quality. They're doing and fitting and finishing those buildings as well as any of the high-rise buildings. And I think that that is why you see the rents in a in a typical woodframe construction building very similar to that of a of a concrete building. There there is a premium typically with the concrete but not as much of a gap as you would say. I would say this one too has just some more interest to it for me. I think with the the various jotss in it, the stepping back and coming to throughout the site plan. Um so I would say that and I think it also feels a little more approachable. I think that's one of the things that we've heard in a in a real positive sense at our Minnetonka project is while it's a four-story building, it looks like a twostory building when you approach it because we stepped it back at the front and then it jumps to three in the front part of the building where the back goes to four. And I think that scale is a very very important part to this demographic too and what we've seen in the in talking to other operators and owners here in the in the metro of what what people really appreciated about some of these smaller scale projects. So I think scale-wise it's the it's the concept that I I really am attracted to.

In terms of your response there, what do you perceive to be the front and the back and the side?

Yeah. Well, definitely the arrivals up here, right? For as people coming to the site to visit whatnot. Um, this really feels like we we did a concept like this in Champlain along the the Mississippi Riverfront. It's called the Bow Line at Mississippi Crossings where we actually were across the streets from some other residential uh homes that were that actually boarded the river. But we did these town home style concepts. So they're flats, but they look like a town home. They have a stoop. It's it kind of gives you a front yard concept. Um which I I think is really unique and and it it gives you that front access, front entrance. you know, we put swing doors in all these units so they can lock them and go out with their dogs or go for a walk, whatever they may. Um, depending on how the interaction could occur over here at the park, I think that that could be a really unique uh area as well. I think that's a you know, a conversation we'd really like to have with the parks department to to make sure that we're um, you know, responsibly reflecting what they what they're trying to do there and and make sure that everything integrates together. But yeah, I think I think to the south here, so that was a long way of saying the south is for sure where everybody arrives. We have kind of these plaza concepts out here at each corner for that arrival location, but I do think that, you know, this facadon park lawn and then along the park, uh, they kind of have their front yard concepts to them and the north units as well. Are there any preliminary soils information you know of that is forcing your hand in some sort of orientation or site layout or is it in general just the elevation that's binding that right now?

Yeah, just the elevation right now and then u we are assuming you know working with BKV and their experience over at FRED we're we're assuming very similar soils and uh water table heights compared to that. Obviously, we'll, you know, if we were to proceed here, we'll take those next steps and and do the various investigations, but that's what we've assumed at this point. Have you guys looked into and taken into account the layout of the Fred Richards Park redesign? We are. We are not fully integrated with that at this point. I will tell you that. Okay. Yeah.

And then I know you mentioned it in terms of parking. Uh that being a fluid number, it seems like you're overparked, but in a conservative way. Um obviously if you can rein the parking in, you can save cost. Uh how flexible are you there to get closer to like a one per unit or one and a half per unit instead of two?

Yeah. So right now we're at about one per bedroom. Um what we are seeing at at the Minnetonka project again, so our urban stuff parks about 08 per bedroom. um our suburban product is really at that one per bedroom our typical market rate projects what we're seeing at our at our Minnotonka project and I think um others in this space would also echo what we're seeing but we're seeing closer like a 0.9 per bedroom occupancy rate on the the parking. So with that being said, you know, you would say that we have about a 10% slide in here that we could probably work with on each building. So roughly 20 I think it was 20 Let's see. I had the parking stats on one of these slides. Back over here. It's not that direction. We have about a 20 stall. I think a 20 to 25 stall. Yeah, there we go. About a 21 stall.

And where where is that fluid? I mean, looks like you have 54. Okay. So, you don't want to give up your surface lot, your surface stalls in front.

I think we could. So, we've done this before where we have actually guest parked a certain portion of the project inside. Um, we would need to create, you know, kind of a another garage door for then the residents go through once they're inside. That is one area that I think if we could tighten it up, if we could get all those stalls in the building and we felt comfortable that we'd still be um acceptable in the marketplace, I think it'd be another opportunity for more green space. I think most of mine are comments, but I guess tied to the parking just the current redesign has a lot of parking in the park like right to the left of your project where if guests are coming I mean likely maybe they're visiting to do both. So

maybe you can offset it by using what's there. Um but I'll save the rest for comments. But that's all I had for questions. Thank you. Any other questions? I just had one, excuse me, for staff. Uh Carrie, I'm I'm assuming that the 2022 multif family affordable policy does not apply here, right? That's correct. Okay. All right. If there are no more questions, we can Mayweather, can you show us the shadow studies again? Yeah, absolutely.

So, here's concept one. So, again, just to remind you the layout of concept one, the two sevenstory buildings. Primary time, you know, this this uh December to March time frame window, early morning, midafternoon, late afternoon. And then I'll go to concept two for you here too. And I can flip back to wherever you'd like. So again, similar type of result here. December to March time frame, early morning, midday, then late afternoon. All right. Who'd like to start with comments? You can also ask a question if you need to. Paul, we'll just go down the line.

Yeah, just a few quick uh comments. Thank you again for your presentation. Um I I'm generally in in favor of it. I like I like how the layout. Uh again, I don't have a lot to say about the product type. 55 plus. That's your choice. You're the developer. I don't know the market uh for that. I would guess the market the the people that actually move there are substantially more than 55.

Um but again that's uh that's your choice and and that's fine with me. I certainly prefer the sevenstory concept uh as opposed to the uh the 12tory. I think um the push back you'll hear is probably just going to be height in general. Nobody's going to want height. Uh but at least the seven story I think ties out with the Fred and Finch that you have uh just to the west. Uh the additional courtyard space you get with the 12story probably isn't that it's nice to have on site, but since you're next to the park, it probably doesn't have as much uh need for that additional uh plaza area on site since you're uh going be that close to the park. Um just a a curious thing. I always I'm always curious. Uh would you have an outdoor pool is the concept here?

Yeah. Each each building would have its own pool. Correct. And and just how I mean just looking at that shade. Well, obviously you're not going to have the pool open in December and March. But just how that that lays out um with having the usually you would think the opening would be to the south versus the opening to the north. And and again, that's just a design

factor that's not not for me to comment on necessarily, but uh just I I always find that curious when you're you're blocking the the southern sun from that area. Other than that, I you know, I like the uh the concept. I understand there's some uh variances we need to look through, but uh in my mind, it looks like a great product and project. Thank you. Yeah, I would agree um that I think it's a it's a great um project. I think it will um fill up. I don't know um um do you have any figures on what percentage of Fred or the Onyx or other like relatively new um properties are over 55 are occupied by

uh your demographic?

I wouldn't I wouldn't know that specifically. Um, I can tell you from some of the uh suburban projects that we've recently done, we are seeing about a it's actually our shore view stuff is higher. It's about a 25% uh uh proportion of our occupancy up there and those are three 200 unit buildings. Um and and then there is no 55 plus opportunities in those communities. Um our recently opened uh uh Eden Prairie project is probably closer to like a 10 to 12% mark and that's a 237 unit building so you know roughly 20. Um our Minnotonka projects just about 60% pre-leased prior to opening here in May. Um and you know our average you know our average age is not 55 there. I think we all know that that's kind of the entry point to those projects. But um what we are seeing is our competitors are all very well occupied at uh you know basically 95% across across the board.

And and would you have um any kind of shuttle service like to the senior center to the market or anything like that? Yeah, we we would not in a building like this. So there' be it'd be a non-service building. Okay. All right. And that part of that answer goes to the parking issue. Um, you know, I think so you're assuming that everybody's either taking the bus or a bicycle or um their own their own vehicles um because there's not a grocery store in walking distance um or medical facilities. Um so it would be nice if you could um you know get that parking down

a bit. Um, and I'm also not sure if you, you know, I guess you would probably figure out it might be a challenge with people going to the park and trying to park in guest parking and stuff and and but um I do I think each plan has its advantages. Um certainly I I'm not as concerned about the courtyard since you're on the park. Um but I like the I like the terrace idea uh idea. Um, but I understand that the height is an issue, but I think um, but I generally think it's a great project. So, I'd like to see you go forward and have us deal with all these variances.

Oh, me.

I know. Gosh, I have to consolidate my thoughts quicker here. Tough. Well, I I just want to say uh first and foremost, like I did before, thank you for being here. this is for what we're seeing at a sketch plan and all the considerations you've brought to the table so far. Really appreciate it. It's been great. So, I feel like we're off to a really good foot and a good start here in terms of like civic engagement and where we're at in this process. So, I too share a sentiment of wanting to see this get done. Uh, in terms of the product, the offering, and the overall concept, I think it's great. So, uh, process-wise, whether it's a PUD, I think I'd support just more variances on the MDD if we can keep it just in that for I guess whatever is cleaner. I I think both are going to be a little messy. And then some of the uh requirements for a PUB might just fundamentally not apply. So, I don't think we should necessarily go that way unless there's better reason down the aisle here. Um, so the site configuration, as I mentioned, I think that's key to my general support of what you're proposing here. Breaking the building and the lot into two is huge. And, uh, I'll get into kind of the layout a little later. Uh, one of the questions I had was which way does it face? And some of that is because these buildings are behind other buildings. It's accessible off a different road. But I think if you look at the layout of the park and that really will be the signature like feature, I think that will be the way in which most people will come to notice your buildings and really appreciate them is from the vantage

point of the park. So, in terms of even even reorienting the buildings um and the layout between the two options, I think you might be surprised if you look at the layout of the park and where you want to focus some features. And I think I share option one as a preferred as well. I think maybe I could get by with or get support of the taller, more slender one, but I think where that is in terms of what is right there in the park, it just doesn't make as much sense.

I think it will create like this huge wall that you see right there, that wouldn't help you out. So, I'm I'm pretending in my mind we're going through option one um with some of the rest of these comments. um having a bigger courtyard as Commissioner Padilla mentioned I think that benefits the residents maybe only and the shadow study I think is okay um as it is. So, in terms of if you kept things in the same layout as we're seeing right now, I' I'd be interested in some sort of terracing back from the the two projections. Um, and if you did that or even reoriented that where the phase one is maybe facing more to the left, um, then at least the terracing would have an advantage of getting, you know, south facing sun more throughout the day where that might be better. Uh, in terms of accessing the buildings for parking, I think that's good. If um if you can keep the parking to accessing the building on the right side of phase one instead of the left side, I think you could and you were willing to get rid of all that surface parking. The connection to the Fred doesn't occur there anymore. So, at least from the plan that I'm seeing, it's kind of a parking lot that goes up next to the site, but it's access to the west. Yeah.

So, being able to like from what you're showing from a basic site plan of having all that kind of that connection and your your drive line lane going all the way through there, I think it's unnecessary. And instead, you could have um there is like a sidewalk connection. You could have a much more pronounced sidewalk experience um on that south side. And again, that'll get all the sun. So you could have some of your own gardens and amenities that just look nicer there. And keeping that path like a figure eight around your buildings would be important for me to see without, you know, driveways cutting in front of it. So um so the pedestrians not crossing across it, but a a car occasionally does would be better. So, I I mean, I like what I'm seeing of you guys showing all these walk up units surrounding the building and kind of this meandering path. I think that's going to be great. And then in terms of like a northwest connection to kind of the park and some of the green space, I would just I guess reach out to the city and see what type of connections could be made from your sidewalk to the parking and some of these other amenities because it'll just make it easier for residents to get right to the park,

right?

And I don't see it now, but some of that's cuz you don't have the park plan um laid out there. Uh, but yeah, I love I mean I love the concept of the walkups having front doors. It's like eyes on the street just makes it it brings down the scale of the buildings and you got a great architect on board that I mean you did this building right over here and that looks very nice. So I think what we have the advantage of here is like a an exceptional like public realm that connects to the park. So, however you can incorporate that or if it's like reorienting or terracing some of those um some of the height back from the park, I think that'll help. But overall, really great. Excited to see the the the the actual plan when you submit it.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you for the uh presentation. Um, I think Jimmy got some of the points I wanted to cover in terms of orientation as well. Certainly like option one much more than option two. Um, with the massing and the height. Um, I think the orientation you could certainly play around with that idea.

Um, I think that would be really helpful. I love all the features that you're building into the property. make it a high quality product, something that people would really uh enjoy and and and really, you know, have a very comfortable time living there. Um, I was just thinking instead of the height as option two, if you had taken a risk and did something with the design, keep it to 7 ft, but maybe I mean seven stories and um all over if it's even possible, but maybe play with different heights like grading down to the park uh or something like that might be interesting um to look that um option one is is still a good option you know but it's all one height having something a little bit more dynamic I think in that space might be interesting as as well to consider but um overall I think it's um a really good concept and um yeah hope uh hope to see it again thank you I'm of two minds about the phase um scheme one or scheme two. At first, I really liked the ability you kind of physically brought between the park and the open air for the taller building that there was more space air um between phase one and phase two and it felt like the park was coming into the development. And I really liked that until I realized that it was a private courtyard and that there were the walkups all the way around. Um, I still

kind of like the amount of space between phase one and phase 2. Um, I think the Weston is 18 stories, which is six stories taller than this one. Um, but I think I would like the 12 stories more if there was something um, like Commissioner Smith was saying, a way to kind of bring it down into the park, which I don't think you're interested in because of your parking structure. So, um, because of that, I think I'm probably going to play it more safe and go with phase one. I too would um I agree with all the the orientation questions of my fellow commissioners and I'm wondering if there's a way to kind of strengthen the sidewalk as uh Commissioner Bennett said, but also com um strengthen the sidewalk on the north south between phase one and phase two and strengthen it across that um drive aisle and um to the street. Yeah. Yeah. All the way like if there's like a raised um just a little raised area and that drive aisle so that's all kind of continuous straight to the south and um agree that kind of a strong boulevard sidewalk on that south side would

help if that is your front face. Um, and I think architecturally you can solve the four faces issue. I think that's okay. Um, so I'm in favor of it. It matches our comp plan. Um, that is good. We've got some variances in terms of the height. Um, but it is the same height as the Fred and the Finch. They're seven and eight stories. So, this is in line with those. um your setbacks are all per um our new city standard and so the density is our current city standard but the comp plan is okay with more density so it kind of goes with our comp plan and our zoning is 50 years old so I'm completely comfortable with that as well and um I think that's it for Hey, thank you. I appreciate your presentation. Yeah, go ahead.

One quick question. Um, so I want to make sure that I've got clarity on this. So, if we are able to get comfortable getting that surface parking inside and to create this boulevard concept, are you liking that boulevard on the south side of the drive aisle or the boulevard closer to the building as we look at that? So the driveout would be south, I guess, of the boulevard. If it was up adjacent to, you know, obviously this would all get reworked down here. Let's say these parking stalls go away. We pull this boulevard or the the drive aisle away from the building coming in and, you know, if we had a boulevard, would we want it up here or would you rather have it here on the south side of this drive lane? So,

I guess it all depends on how it connects, I suppose, to the park as well. Sure. I think that sidewalk boulevard will feel more the public is going to walk on it too because it's a sidewalk. Yeah. And that's what people do. I want a sidewalk in front of my house. I'd be completely okay with everybody walking on it because I think it's safer. So, I'm not going to call it my property. Um, so I think it's the same thing here. I think a larger, more comfortable sidewalk would make everybody more comfortable. Even if you turn the car so they're kind of parallel and you can get like an extra five feet in there would be great. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes. So much for your presentation. Um in uh my past life I developed senior living. So I'm going to try to um take that brain out. Um I love that you're pushing larger units. I love that you uh have so many walkups. I think that's great for the demographic. Um I would echo other comments about reducing parking, moving parking inside. Um I guess one of my questions uh for you to think about I'm I'm not afraid of the the height um or the PUB uh as outnumbered as I might be. I think people want to understand what or I would want to understand what would help make the prop project successful if there was an ownership component to it. I think we have a lot of rental housing across the age spectrum um most of it within the last five eight years. I think understanding how to serve uh this group and historically that population hasn't lived in rental housing. there's, you know, a not necessarily an aversion, but that's a transition that they've never made necessarily in their lives before. And I think we just in general need more owner-based housing. Um, I like the comments about alt right now. To me, both phase one and phase two feel like they don't connect with the park. And I think probably the advantage of this site and why it's attractive is that future engagement both from views but um you know interconnectivity with with the community the walkability. So I guess looking at it um I would lean towards maximizing the connectivity with the broader community and making

this feel like it is an extension of or sort of the prime location adjacent to the park. and um capitalize on that open space and not so much concern themselves with the exterior amenities as much that you might have to if you weren't right next to the park, I guess. Um and then I get just another thing that you probably are prepared to speak to, but understanding nobody most people in the 55 plus buildings are not 55. They're more like 75 and As we see our population aging, whether it's rental or ownership, there are different care needs and different turnover rates than um non-agger restricted apartments. Just being able to speak to long-term, you know, if this is two separate phases and two separate financings and packages and constructions, right? We're a number of years out before phase two would open. How do we talk about those people who want to age in place um but maybe are not downsizing until into until a moment in time where they can't age there for very long. So just thinking about that because that brings with it then all of the additional traffic from staffing and ambulances and dining and all of the things that go with it. Um but I can see that being a line of questioning and a thought to try to understand how that um that building will age and evolve.

Right. I think I think that's a really good point. You know, how do these transition over the next that we were having that conversation uh two days ago of just what does it look like 10 years from now, 15, 20 years from now? Is this is it still getting used the same? And how are the buildings going to have to adopt? And we know it's not right. I was going to say it's not. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. And so I think that is part of this Yeah. this whole planning process that we're going to be going through. And um I don't know that I have the exact answer today. Yeah,

for for sure. And presumably as phase one opens leases up, that'll influence the direction of phase two. So I guess uh that is also why um for a project this scale that can add this um this density in the comp plan in this premium location. I am excited by a really good design that really creates the placemaking that we want and then we'll work to get through the variances and to get through the other hurdles needed to to make sure that it's the right project for the space both phase one and then phase two. Right. I appreciate that. Thank you.

But thank you for not only building studios, we're trying to get away from them. Um, thanks Josh and BKV Group for putting this together. It's an exciting project. Cool. Um, I'll try and come up with some original comments being last in the line here. My first planning commission meeting too, by the way, so go easy. Welcome.

Thanks. Um, regarding the two options, um, guess it seems like more of a response to the market demand and construction pricing than than anything. So, I don't have a a desire to weigh in there. Um, yeah, the height doesn't scare me either, I guess. Um, tall buildings are cool. Um, I drove by there today. Um, it's exciting. It seemed the city invested in Fred Richards Park. I don't know the the details of it. I think it's under construction. There were concrete trucks there. Um and so this seems like um uh kind of a return on investment for the city to a certain extent. Um and that's that's uh beneficial for everyone. There's another uh developer in town with some local roots. I'll say their their motto is we build stories and that's always stuck with me. And so there's been some some other comments about incorporating nodding tipping your hat to the Fred Richards uh park just to to to build a bit of a story there. Um yeah, you you guys were just talking about uh you know stick frame building 50-year life cycle. What happens halfway through that? What happens when the silver tsunami you know continues on? So, you're thinking about it. Um, uh, sanitary, everyone's favorite topic. It's a lot of new toilets. I don't know where the city's at with that, but maybe something to consider. Um, is there an easement needed on the south side maybe for access to the park? Um, you guys are all over it. I'm sure that

was just a random thought um I had. Um yeah, no uh big supporter of it. It's a great project. Big investment. So, we'll see where it goes. Best of luck.

Thanks for joining us tonight. It's a really exciting project. I just had a couple things to add. Um, I think like most of the rest of the group, I preferred concept one just because it fits in better with the existing landscape. Although to build on Commissioner Hanaman's point, if concept two enabled an ownership model for part of the project, I think we'd want to know about that. I certainly would if that enabled that sort of thing. I'm glad you showed the picture of the current current condition because that really foot stops the compliance of this project with the comprehensive plan development guidelines just of upgrading existing streetscape and building improved pedestrian environment and a few other parts of the project that really I mean it's easy to imagine how uh the park in the area would be a better place for the community with a project like this uh going in. Uh for myself, I don't I don't think this is a good PUD candidate if for no other reason than we've said as a city that we're going to try to do less of that. Um but I think there's other reasons to try to avoid that and that I think the classical view would be that a PUD should be for geographically defining much larger scale projects like a west end rather than a particular a particular uh parcel. and also where um say the innovation or the flexibility of a project really makes it hard for normal zoning. This is normal zoning. We can fix this with normal zoning. So I I just don't think we we need that. When you come to the next stage, um you're on a on a bike

path which is a jewel of the city. So, we'll be interested to see exactly how the residents are going to get to the bike path and make that as easy as possible. I think that's uh that's all the all the comments I had. Really great to hear about it and we're looking forward to hearing more. Thanks for coming tonight.

Jimmy, just want to add a couple things because you had a question about kind of the street on the south side. if you could remove the parking. Um, thinking about that after you said that, I think to clarify and maybe it'd be good to get other support, but I like Commissioner Felt said, I think it'd be better to have that sidewalk closer to the building and if you had parking or the drive aisle on the other side just to keep it just keep people safe with how few times people are probably actually entering or exiting. Right.

And then with the southwest corner, you mentioned at some point earlier about having like community gardens. I don't know if you'd have it up on a courtyard, but being on the south side of the building having open air, you could almost wrap your sidewalk like around a garden or some sort of, you know, something in that southwest corner because you wouldn't need to dedicate that to a drive path anymore. And then that would allow your sidewalk to get closer to the park connection.

And then if you could if all this helps bring the building farther south to kind of open it up on the north side. And then to Commissioner Felt's point, I know we've seen like 8 feet is like a nice wide sidewalk, but I'd push you like if you're removing pavement here, like go for 10 feet. Um that allows the multimodal traffic that you'll likely see around the building. someone on a bike, someone walking because if you're creating nice connections to the east or even the south, people are just going to take your sidewalks as if it's part of the park or so. Right, that was all I want to add. Thank you.

And that brought up something else I forgot to mention. I just could go on all night. Um, we have a we have a project an apartment project under construction in the city right now that a big building that has no surface parking at all. So, the bar has been raised. So, the more you can do to get rid of those 54 or as many of those 54 spots as you can, I think most people will find that attractive. Thanks again for coming. Oh, another one. Oh, do you have something? Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Uh, next item on the agenda is also a sketch plan review for 5201 Grand View Lane and Director Teague will start the conversation for us. Did I say Dr. Director needs more annunciation then?

Okay. Thank you, chair, members of the commission. Another sketch plan review for you. This one is located at 5201 Grand View Lane. This is in the Grand View District just west of City Hall here. This map shows the zoning of the site. It's currently zoned R2 double dwelling unit district. Wanted to point out in this area. So, as you can see, there's a variety of zoning districts here. To the west, we've got a high density, it's an apartment to the west, and to the east, another highdensity zone that's also an apartment. And we've got the R2 zoning here. Uh, one thing that's unique about the site, the two apartment buildings gain access off of Vernon Avenue. However, this Grand View Whoops. Grand View Lane, in order to access this development, you need to come through the neighborhood. So these apartments are not accessed through the neighborhood which is probably the reason it's the zoning is less. And within the comprehensive plan this next map here you can see the site is guided for low density attached residential where the adjacent properties are zoned high density again likely for because of that access. This map here is showing that this 50 I believe it's 52nd street is connected to Vernon. and it is not. So, in order to access this, you do need to go through the neighborhood to the north. So, the proposal here is to tear down that uh an existing duplex on the corner there, a 52nd and Grand View Lane, and build four units of town homes. The rendering on the screen shows uh what those would look like. This next slide is the site plan showing 52nd Street and Grand View Lane. Access would be gained off of the private off

of a private drive off of 52nd. This next slide shows the proposed development the site plan in context with the neighborhood. So you can see the duplexes on Grand View Lane here, some of the adjacent ones and then the footprint of the four town homes. So looking at our zoning compliance table, uh they would need variances for setbacks on all four sides. Uh building height would be code compliant. A building coverage would exceed our building coverage. This would assume a reszoning that would be required for this project to PRD3. Um the lot area per dwelling unit. Again, this is um doesn't meet the density that's that's required for this zoning district. The comprehensive plan um guides this for eight units per acre. It's the two units that exist there today. And this would the with four units, the density would increase to 13 units an acre. And that actually falls into our high density classification. So any formal application would require an amendment to the comprehensive plan to reguide this site to to high density. and then as as as well as the reasonzoning to PRD3 with these variances. So with that I will conclude my presentation and invite the applicant up to um provide a little more detail. Um my name is Elizabeth. I go by Lisa Mcdana. And um I'm kind of sad to be here because I absolutely adore our twin home. My husband Peter and I lived there for many years. It's a mid-century modern and it's got all the mid-century modern details that that I love so much.

But we had a have had an interesting go recently. Um we are both between both of us are between a rock and a hard place. Um, we began working on the building about two years ago when it emptied and with when 5201 emptied and we put we repainted new garage doors, we put a new sidewalk in, we put all new windows in. Um, and I was confident that there was nothing I we couldn't fix reasonably. Um then we moved inside the building and the problem immediately became the bathrooms. We punched some holes in the walls in the bathrooms. It was the original 50 tile 50s tile and we found extensive rot in the subfloor in the joists underneath the subfloor. The 2x4s in the walls were rotted almost up to about a foot. and we were going to retile them. I'd even purchased the great 50s 4x4 5x5 tiles in aqua blue and I was going to do a pink and gray back bathroom again. Anyway, I'll stop. But um we can't rent it there. What happened was the amount of money it's going to take us to bring that up to potentially leave it to our daughters is just a no-go. it would we'd be like 150 years old before we ever got that money back. And um and now we can't rent one side. Um and it's been empty for almost three years now. So we are here with phase two or plan B or whatever you want to call it.

And it it what what Peter and I did was we went back to Da Holmes and partnered with them to do what we did on Hankerson Avenue and uh proposed Jimmy was part of that proposed some town homes for the site. So, I'm gonna let I'm gonna let Steve Banky take over, but I wanted just kind of wanted you to know that we're not here because we were hoping we were hoping for something different. But there you have it. Thanks, Steve.

Good evening. Steve Beni with Donnie Holmes. Um, wanted to bring this aerial photo up first because I think it really shows how much of a uh an orphan this area is with the surrounding apartment buildings. You know, we've got three, four, fivetory buildings all the way around us. Um, you've heard me talk about this before because we had a three-unit project in several years ago. Um, honestly, we've been before you for this area with town homes for about eight years. We did get the other project approved. Um, but we started looking at town homes in this part of the part of the city in 2018. Um, we're still waiting for the study that was discussed back then. We're still waiting for town home zoning. None of those things really seem to be uh coming along here. And we really feel that those can't be a reason why a landowner can't improve the property, especially with the situation that the McDunnas are in. Um, as Carrie pointed out, um, you know, currently it's it's guided for low density, but the density is actually medium. There's 6.7 units an acre uh on the site right now, and that is in the medium classification. So the ask isn't to go from low density to high density. It's to go from the actual density out there that's medium to high density. And it's interesting that adding two units to a two-unit building takes you to high density. But that's that's the math that you get by taking the number of units by the acreage. Um the product is uh something that we wanted to um work from the work that we already did on Hankerson. It's not an identical building. It's just slightly smaller in overall square

footage. The building's a little wider and a lot shorter. Um, but we do love that the alley um situation that we uh we had in in on Ankerson. So, the private drive that we uh want to bring in off of 52nd Street helps keep the traffic off of Grand View. Um it it's two parking spots per unit enclosed. Gas parking is on the street. Um the units themselves uh 2,800 foot max finished on three floors, one one of which is the basement. Um you know there's nothing really earth shaking about them. They are very um standard planwise. Three bedrooms, three bathrooms, living dining and kitchen. Um but they they fit the demand. Uh Ankerson sold as we finish them literally and the absorption of those units was very quick. Um the product here um has a similar traditional style at this point. Um we do feel it fits the neighborhood. Um these units are twotory from the street. the bulk of the units as you go continue down Grand View are either twotory or story and a half. They're split entries or they're two stories. Um, so I think that it fits in. This is the only building that's currently a a Rambler on the whole block. So I think we fit the neighborhood very well. I think we're establishing a pattern for the future redevelopment of this area. This building is 73 years old. The rest of them are in the 60s. Um, some of them are wellkept, some of them are not so much. I I do think that we're starting to establish a way of that whole area to be redeveloped in a modestly densified uh solution that fits the um that fits the work that was done at the city's

direction of the city of United density study. Uh I know that probably was never adopted as a formal policy, but it was still work that was done to benefit the city with information. I think when you read through that, if you still have it, um it really talks about how this node uh the Vernon node, Grand View node of Edina can benefit from additional additional densification. Um and I think that's kind of what we're trying to provide here both with the Hankerson project and now with this one. So I'd stand for any questions. Thanks very much for the presentation. Anybody want to start with some questions? Yes, clear.

Could you walk me through I'm just not sure I was tracking. It's zoned R2 now, which is 4 to eight units per acre, but you're saying that's there that existing density is actually I said it's guided low density. Yep. Low density is 1 to five. This is over five. So it's so the guide plan is not correct in my mind. This is how I'm looking at it. It's guide it should be guided medium. Yep. But there's a lot of Dina, all the 50 foot lots are all medium density,

but they're all guided low density. And we had that discussion on Hankerson as well. So I just it's just a reminder that Edina is denser than it seems when you look at the guide plan that was created as you pointed out 50 years ago. When you say the Hankerson, sorry, just so I can orient. Was that the two standalone homes that you came and you went to do four patios and then it became three? No. Or it's the eight eight town homes. Eight town homes. Okay. Yeah, very sorry. Yeah, you weren't here when that came through, but I could we develop I mean we developed it and like I said quite successfully. Um the two the other two houses that's the three that we turned it into three houses. One of those under construction right now.

There's another one being discussed for construction. So the absorption there I think is going to happen the same way. It's just a little bit different product because it's single family. Yep. Um, and that one of course we were not able to continue a higher density up the street where here I think turning the corner into this R2 area that's surrounded by the PRD3s. You know, I do think it's it starts to establish a pattern for the redevelopment through this area. Absolutely.

Just to provide a little clarification on the the density ranges in the comprehensive plan. So this is guided low density attached and the range for for that uh land use category is 4 to 8 units per acre. The medium density residential and this is where the conflict comes in. Medium density residential is classified as 5 to 12 units an acre.

Right? So that that's something that we'll want to take a look at with the next comp plan update to um take a look at these um low, medium, and high density um classifications. I I feel that some of that happens, you know, when we get into discussions like this because it it kind of dilutes the the water of what we're really talking about. Um you know, the lack of a town home zoning, there's nothing by right. everything you come in with, you have to do the PRD or a PUD. And we know how PUDs are looked at now. You know, obviously we we were able to get a PUB with Hankerson, but that was kind of the last one. Uh I don't mind the PRD zoning. Uh but you can see that when you get into that and you have all these variances from what a PRD3 is, you know, the apartment buildings next door are PR3. And on a parcel like that, you have an easier time of meeting some of these setback requirements. Here, the setbacks are all variances because of the PRD3, but yet we're pretty much meeting the existing R2 uh setbacks.

So, the and and Carrie, I don't know if you have those handy, but these proposed setbacks, that was that was my next question. How are they compared to other R2 homes adjacent? Yeah, if you want to call up that graphic that shows the neighborhood in context. Um, looking looking which one? Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, this one right? Maybe a simpler way to ask it. It's this one right here. Okay. So, our front yard set back at 30 is meeting the 30 foot that the adjacent units all have. Um, these units uh are all over the place in terms of sideyard setbacks.

Okay. Uh what we looked at is the extra rightway that 52nd Street has. And we looked at this also when we did the Hankerson Town Home project that because of that extra um right away that exists there, the feel from the curb to the building is essentially the same if the rightway was smaller and the setback is larger. Um so we're trying to meet the setbacks that ex exist out there already. Um the existing building is actually very large as a Rambler and all of the hard cover and stuff like that. So our our hard cover is going up some but it's not going up as much as you would expect. Uh I don't have that number right handy here from before and after.

If we look at the R2 zoning standards, the only variance that would be needed would be the rear yard. that rear yard setback requirement in an R2 was 35 ft and this is 29. So it would just be that one just on the rear just just with respect to setbacks. Correct. Thank you. That's helpful

Jimmy. Yeah. So I feel like some of this looks similar to that last rendition and kind of in line with your guys's look. Um, and we've talked about it before, but can you explain the need for the fencing in front and then also there's a, you know, walkups, you know, sidewalks and currently there's a weird like half sidewalk in the front and then like is there a potential to get that going, you know, to

Yeah, currently there's a a side garage, a large sight garage that accesses 52nd Street. And uh because we are looking at keeping that additional traffic, those garage doors off of Grand View in this case, um the backyards are essentially the garages. So without an alley, we are creating essentially an alley load product. Um, with that in mind, you have to have a place for the for the families and we have found that even on the Hankerson town homes where we have opposed um fencing and it was they asked us to remove it, the homeowners have gravitated toward the front yards as their living space, having the ability to have some privacy there um with a 4ft open fence, not This isn't, you know, a privacy fence by any means. Uh it just gives a little bit of delineation uh that this is private space versus public space. Um it was acknowledged on uh that project later that by the council I believe that asking us to remove that was probably an error. And so we're continually trying to reintroduce it from the standpoint of being able to create private space in a very public setting.

Thanks for providing the context. Yeah, I'm still a fan of no fencing mostly because it's a calm street and if you're going to use the yard, you have more of it when you don't fence it because of the rightway. you know, I mean, you can look, you know, it's like 2/3 of or, you know, a third of the yard is unusable outside of the fence.

So, and then just there's nothing else along the street with front fences. So, some of it's just like keeping in line with it. I'm I'm okay either way, but I would just say be prepared for I guess it sounds like the council regrets it, but it's a different council now and they might keep it that way. I just I just wanted to know because I know we've talked about it before and I'm a fan of open spaces, but I I I see your struggle there. Let me offer it this way. Let's not make the fence the issue that shoots the project down like Oh, it's not happened before. Oh, you know me better than that. I do. I do.

Um, yeah. And I'm I have other comments that support I can't what this is but just wanted to understand that design feature otherwise no questions. Is it okay for me to speak or do I need to let I just have one comment about the front yards? Sure. Well, if you're part of the develop applicant team, yes, you may.

Uh thanks. Um, I have now three dogs and I don't want to age anywhere without it have being able to have at least one dog. And I have found that comments have been like, well, I have a poodle or I have a and that means that in, you know, when it's bitterly cold out, you can't just let your dog quick run out if you don't have a fence. Um, we also thought about kids playing too and especially little ones. um just to have that as an amenity to me felt like a good idea. Um and that's why we went for it on the last project too. So just to interject from a pet owner's perspective.

Other questions?

I had one. Um, so last time I think you said it was a three-unit project. Mhm.

And now four. So maybe an obvious question, but I don't know the answer to it. Why not just build another duplex? Um, I think the same reason that you're not seeing new redeveloped single family homes landing at price points that some people might feel is more reasonable. Um, you have a lot of infrastructure to create. Um, we're going to have to extend some sewer lines. We're going to have to extend some water lines. Um there's there are realities in redeveloping property whether it's Edina or other cities. There there's realities of redeveloping property in Edina. The costs that associate with it go directly into land costs. There's limited ways to recoup that uh unless you continue to add units. So if you have two units and your lots going to cost you a million dollars, that's $500 a lot. $500,000 a lot. If you have four, it's $250,000 a lot. That directly goes to sales price. And it advertising the development costs against more units is always going to bring those costs down. It's not going to make it affordable by any means because if you look at what um you know this was this was given to us at the uh accreditation meeting uh last Wednesday. Um in two 2025 the median price of a home selling in a dyno is $875,000. That's where we're putting this project right now as a starting point because I mean we're hitting the median and it's it's very difficult in today's

labor market, material market, land cost redevelopment to bring in products anywhere in the Minneapolis area. I mean the current entry level houses are just under half a million dollars. Okay. um you you simply can't do that in and get affordable housing these days. There's work trying to be done at the at the legislature, but we're not there. We're here. Yeah.

From a building cost perspective, are there um significant code or costs that are code driven going from a duplex to a forplex? Not. Well, yes and no. We don't build duplexes like the old duplex. Your your your firewall between them is is lesser in a duplex. A duplex is one building with a firewall in between. Yep. We build all of our product as town homes. So, we have a we have a two-hour basically two 1-hour walls in between them. That's a that's a cost, but it's still less than having a single family home with finished on all four sides. Right. All the way around.

Yeah. you still you're still getting the benefit of the those economies which I think and yes with four you still only have the four outside surfaces that you're that you're finishing the side with you know with your finished material.

Um good evening Mr. Chair um Paul Dino Minnesota I um I think we'd probably say that with the four unit we would have to sprinkle those that might be one big difference the sprinkling interior fire sprinkling so but otherwise the construction is is pretty much the same. Yeah. Is the that it's exactly what I was thinking. Is that triggered at three units or does Yes. at three units. So anything anything over two units in the state of Minnesota now we have to sprinkle

just to continue on with that conversation a little bit more. So I'm guessing most of the houses on that block or in that area are same vintage similar vintage. They're younger by a decade. Okay. So they're all going to face the same issues when it comes time to do something different.

Yeah. And the and the the information I have is that you know some are kept up some have owners occupying one half some don't. Um the you know rentals get used harder just they do than owner occupied. These are being proposed as owner occupied fe simple town homes. Each unit would be sold. It'd have to be a small association to deal with whatever outside maintenance and things is decided to be part of that. um common outside maintenance and things like that of the building. Um just to keep that uniformity. Um but you know, as you go down the block, some of them have already been uh had administrative lot splits. So you may have a duplex there and you still have two owners. Not all of them. Some of them still one building that's, you know, that has two pe two families living. Thank you. Other questions? Start with comments then. Anyone hear me? All right. Comments. Woo. So, first off, I I generally supported the previous one and uh for similar reasons. I I think we have a unique and you have a unique opportunity here to redevelop in a sensible way. Uh I I mean we're lucky from a standpoint of existing conditions to have that sideloaded garage where there's already access off that street and you're just shifting it and creating what could be, you know, at least, you know, down the road in the future and availability for someone to connect to that private drive. Um, you know, if this were midb block, this isn't even doable.

Um, if you had more than one lot adjacent to each other, I have things floating around my head of ways of making that work. Yeah. But that would be, you know, have to be dealt with at that point.

Yeah. And so, I mean, we have, you have opportunity there. And in general, I I I mean, if you go down that street, it's it's vintage. Things look nice. But when you have the opportunity to make a home look like exterior one versus exterior 3, I think that's a win. I think just front-loaded garages just there's never a great way to make that look good with a duplex or density without just sacrificing curb appeal and kind of the uh bringing the activity to the front which then goes to my comment of the fencing and say you're friends with the next door neighbor now you're hopping fences or you're walking all the way out to go in. So I in general again support no fences. It allows you to have more space than you think. You know, like kids can play in the yard. You can get invisible fence for your dog. Uh that that's just where I'm at. I I I support what's being proposed.

Just so you know, we've had a couple of different iterations. Small fence up front, small area fenced in, large yard fenced in. There's a lot I think there's a lot of ability to adjust to see what makes the most sense. Anyone else? Go see.

So, thank you for uh the uh presentation a few weeks ago. Um I did share with this commission uh I don't know if you guys have heard about the municipal legislative council. It's a group of uh city planners uh across the state. Uh I think they they pull together city leaders across these 12 metro cities like Minnetonka, uh Ridgefield, etc. And they talk about the big issues that they want to solve for uh in the state and one of them is housing, right? Housing is is is a is a real crunch um across the state. there's a massive shortage of of uh housing. And so the group essentially uh thought through different strategies and one of them is is through comprehensive updates that city planners and planning commissions could look at to help increase density and to bring more houses into the state, right? Um so with that in mind and us being on a planning commission, I see this as coming into alignment with that, right? where we have an opportunity to increase density in a in a modest way, right? In an area that clearly is tucked in with other high density type uh housing like to the to the north and south and would only develop more going inward, right? So that kind of makes sense. So from that perspective, um I think it it it drives towards the overall housing goals and needs that we have as a state. And um if we were to look at the um our comp plan etc. And I know we're there's some overlap between low density attached and medium density residential. Right.

Mhm. And I think you're taking the perspective of it's a medium density residential and we're going to go to high density residential.

Um which seems to be close, right? And and it kind of makes sense to me, right? And so I'm I'm I'm open to uh making a comp plan amendment essentially um to to increase the uh density um because that's what we could do. The the the shape of the space and where you're proposing to build makes sense for that to happen. And so I'm in favor of that. And so overall, I think what you're trying to do, where you're trying to do it, and the approach that you're taking, I think is in line with what the state is trying to drive towards. So I've been um I'm I'm favorable to this idea. Paul,

yeah, just a few comments. Thanks again for your presentation this evening. Um, you know, there's discussion in the at the onset of not having access off of Vernon and then that's certainly the case on 53rd. Obviously, I would think that you would come in off of 52nd. You'd come off of 53rd from Vernon is the access to this site.

Um, you yes, you could come off of Interlockan and down, but that would be more unlikely in my estimation. Um, but it is a nice quiet neighborhood. Add a little bit of traffic, especially if all these homes develop this way going forward, but again, not a not over the top um issue there. uh you know, a three-unit concept makes more sense and fits the size requirements requirements of the lot a little bit better, but again, at that cost price point, I I guess I'm in favor of the for sale model you've got going and I, you know, having them not as cheap as possible, but as as uh a affordable maybe as as possible uh makes sense. So, uh, you probably thought about the three-unit and and just

we presented it uh about a year and a half ago. Okay. And it it got generally good reviews here, not so much at council.

Um, so yeah, the the and the other thing I I mean, I just like the town home concept just to have more uh for sale homes and having owners occupy makes sense. Uh there's more discussion of town homes on that north side of the north side I think or maybe it's I don't know which side of it of the P former public works site. Um so again sort of in this neighborhood across Vernon. Um but uh yeah I'm in favor of the project. Uh obviously there's some variances to get through and whatnot but uh I I wish you wish you well on this. Good luck. Anyone else? Bye.

I'll just make the same comment that I made last time that you guys made a presentation, which is I in spite of the fact that I think it it's it's pleasing to the eye and it looks good. Um I would like to see more density. Um I think the neighborhood um can handle it. I think it works and I think it's what the city needs. So my comment is I'd like to see more density. Can I get you on council? Anyone else? Comment. Yes, we are. I'm sorry. I thought that was

um I uh really really appreciate your investment in partnership in working with this this transitional area in the city. And we we need we have a housing crisis. we need therefore we need more housing and yet we right as as people we continue to butt up against that density is scary. So I really really appreciate um the ownership model. I really appreciate the density. I love you know I have visions maybe they're the same as yours of like that whole area sort of you know slowly transitioning. Um, I just hope you can jump up and down and scream from the rooftops about this median home and sort of really the city of Adina says that property is worth $700 and some thousand dollars already out the shoots even in its condition that it's in. It's above um you know what 80% AMI can afford. So I I I mean I think we can't talk out of both sides of our mouths and clearly you've been on a journey with a couple of of projects and I just wanted to say thank you for bearing with us as we we navigate that. Um it looks like a beautiful property.

Just to point out to um Paul has been redeveloping property and he din here. I mean obviously his dad built significant portion back in the day but we've been redeveloping here for 20 years and you know I I think we know the market pretty well and I you know I hope that we continue to present things that the that the planning commission and council can accept. Yeah. Thank you very much.

Anyone else? Okay, I'll add mine then. I'm not used to being on the other side of everybody else that, you know, generically I'm in favor of four homes instead of two. Generically, I'm in favor of density almost always. But this the thing I struggle with here is that we had a really interesting discussion tonight and it seems like the reason that four units is right for this property is because that's the only way you can get enough development going on this piece of land to make all the numbers work out. So it did I misunderstand?

Um I think I probably left something out. Um the the people who have been renting here, the people who we see as the market here are families and a certain amount of square footage is required by that. And I was hesitant to push coverage farther than what I've already gone over the current city uh limits. you know, I I'm trying to present palatable variance request given the situation that we need the PRD3.

Um, and that kind of limits you a little bit in terms of how much I can how far I can go. I showed Paul an idea for a sixunit that could fit here, but it wouldn't have it wouldn't have the same market impact. it wouldn't fit the same client that we see around the corner. Um u you know both both the single family around the corner and the town homes around the corner are um they're either a little older or they're uh families with kids and you know you can't necessarily put them in 18800 ft. You know you need the basement for the kids to play. You need the garage for the stuff. These things are all kind of facts that go with that market.

So, but I think your question really is is more to affordability. The reason the reason we're doing four units is to be able to be able to bring those for sale type units into that $800,000 range rather than having them be at a million two. That's the real reason. Okay. Okay. I guess where I was going was slightly different in that my concern would be that you're increasing the development value of one lot but not its neighbor because the one next door is still a duplex. Correct. Today.

Today. Yes. Maybe not tomorrow but today. Until we until the block is turned over in some way.

But that's what happens. That is the model with the current redevelopments in the family. You're putting one house on the lot. You're put you're putting one house on a block. You're the first one in. And this is what we did 20 years ago. We were the first one in on this block. All of a sudden, you know, 10 years later, and there's five, there's eight. And you know, you have to be the first one on sometimes. And Paul's had the vision back then to say, "Hey, let's do this." And we're in that same situation here, but we're in a different type of housing now, too. You know, we've done the replace the duplex. We have one going coming to come in for permit in a different part of town. Um, but at some point, you have to be the first one in to start to start the ball rolling.

Yeah, I see that. But I I grant that definitely particularly with the challenge for the city to reszone a whole block. Um still that's start start with just guiding it. That's a concern. Just since we're at a a sketch plan, we don't have to vote tonight. That's that's a concern. And I mean I don't think it's all that hard to perceive that as a fairness issue whether or not we have a solution for it in this room or in a different room. Yeah. Um, so that that would be my main concern, but thank you for your work. I mean, I really do do appreciate creative ideas to create new opportunities for families in Adina. Anyone else want to add?

I'd like to just say one more thing. You know, I've I'm approaching in Adina here where I've lived for decades. Uh, close to 150 150 homes I've built. And out of the majority of those, they're beautiful homes, but they're expensive. They're expensive homes. And you know, this this gives us the chance to give something to the community that that is needed in a price range that a lot of them can afford. Then they come into the ones that I'm selling and they can't afford it because they're million and a half to$3 million homes. So, um I think it's a good alternative on this block. On this block.

All right. Well, thank you very much. Thanks for coming tonight. All right. Next item is chair and member comments. Anyone?

Mayweather.

Yes, I have a chair member comment. There's a lot of talk in the community at the moment about the um use of bikes in the community and um so that made me think of the comp plan, the upcoming comp plan and and how we're going to approach it. And I just it made me think of how important that the transportation commission um would be to that comp plan work. And I just wanted to ask chair and city about um transportation being part of that comp plan and also like other commissions being a part of that comp plan work so they can kind of get it on their calendars in the future. Yes, there is a transportation chapter. Um, you know, we haven't set out the specific scope for the comprehensive plan yet, but if it's anything like the last goround, every commission was involved. They each have a chapter. Um, whether chapters get combined or they have their separate, you know, still to be determined, but um, I'm pretty confident that all boards and commissions will be involved in the comprehensive plan.

Anyone else? Quitty.

So, just a brief update on the work plan item uh around food trucks. Uh so, Bonnie and I, we've been doing uh a lot of interviews. Um we're in phase one. We've interviewed quite a few city staff members just to get their feedback on their experience with food trucks. We talked with the health department, the parks department, the economic development manager, and I'm missing one person. And you know, just collecting some really good feedback on their experiences. Uh we still have to connect with director Teague. We should interview you uh get some of your thoughts on it. And then we're moving into phase two now where we're trying to interview food truck vendors to start getting their perspectives on uh operating any diner. um what that process looks like and and and their experiences. I thought it was going to be a lot easier to identify and get a list, but it's a little bit harder. So, if you guys know any food truck vendors that operate in the city that you want to send us send our way, please do so and we'll uh

much smaller population. Yes. Food truck vendors. The opposite problem. Yeah. Send them send them our way and we'll get them on the schedule. I feel like it's always in the parking lot though, Paul. I've never Every time I drive by, it's in the parking lot, so it must not be going out. People that we want to talk to and restaurant people with food trucks. That's different than just the food truck people. So, you know, we're slicing it and dicing it. So,

so Commissioner Padilla, um, Commissioner Smith, is there is the question if we have contacts with independent food truck operators or restaurant tours who also have a food truck? I think those are two different cohorts we would like to talk to. So, yes, we would like to hear names from all those people. Thank you.

Anyone else, Jimmy? Uh so appeared the city hosted an open house for the tunnel under France recently. Had quite a bit of turnout. Um I have nothing really to add except you know in terms of infrastructure and public infrastructure. I I mean I'm I just have to say it's an extremely irresponsible um pursuit in terms of the high cost to achieve the outcome. And some of that was predicated on undesirable decisions on the the development to the east and the west about how that could play out of how you create a better crossing over France. But I just got to say it. It's like people are talking about it um in terms of infrastructure and planning. You know, we're kind of omitted from the loop in in many ways on that. And I think we've talked about that previously of there's there's lots of opportunity for the planning commission to help provide value in terms of large infrastructure decisions. And when you see an almost $20 million price tag to just cross France, I mean, I can speak for a lot of people and saying like our taxes are going way up. We need to be more responsible with the spending there. And I wish there there was maybe a better outcome from that open house that I could share. But I I I'll I'll continue to share my thoughts and maybe feedback. But like there's these great ideals we have and want to achieve things, but we have to be responsible. And I I I just speaking for a lot of residents who have reached out to me asking what is going on there. When you look at the cost of this whole interchange and project being way less

than that, there's a lot of things we can point to to be a little more responsible with. And yeah, this whole

Yeah, just the the bridge over 100 and the bridge over the railroad. And when you think of that impact and what that cost being a fraction of what's being proposed to just cross France, I just I think in terms of large infrastructure, we're a little disconnected from like the actual price tag and who's paying for it. But that's we're paying for that. So it it's important that we spend dollars like responsibly and getting a full uh return on the money and and I'm not I mean there's other people who feel the opposite from me but I just I have to have to call it out. So thank you

on that subject. Carrie, do you know if the yellow cards we'll get there in a minute. I just want to follow up. You know if those yellow cards from that open house are going to be public? Are they going to be on the BTE or something? I know the comment cards that we filled out at the Yeah, we're putting them all together. There was like 200 some. Yeah. So, we're putting them together. Where they'll exactly land, I'm not sure, but more to come on that. Okay, good. Thanks. There's somebody else over here. Bonnie, I was just gonna say I want equal time here because I'm gonna completely disagree.

Oh, good. Jimmy. So, um, with all due respect, um, we did have a planning commission meeting with Bill, um, that he called before he ever brought this and before he put the signs up where I think there was about half of us that attended that. And we talked about a lot of the different points. Um, I also see it as a safety issue and you can talk about money all day long, but you've got on a nice day hundreds of people on bikes, in strollers, in cars crossing not just a full intersection, but four, you know, um, offused um, left turns as well for people that, you know, aren't watching the, you know, what the crossing signs say. And we're talking about building how many more units and connecting two two of the city's biggest parks? And all it's going to take is one dreadful accident for a kid on a bicycle or uh a mom or a dad with a stroller that is crossing when somebody's turning left and then all of a sudden it's not going to be about the money anymore. And I and I see it as a safety issue. Um, and I drive by it and run in it and walk in it multiple times. And on a nice day, there's more than hundreds of people using that intersection. And I think it's going to probably, I would guess, triple by the time you we're building these additional apartments and um, people are working there and then the park and and Fred Richards is fully developed. So,

yeah. My only com my only comment on that is that um it's disappointing that Henipa County isn't isn't participating. It doesn't really matter who is um funding it. It's not I mean it's not the county, the state, the city. We're paying for it all regardless. So it's it's not you know it's our money regard wherever it comes from. Yeah. I don't think the city should be footing the full the full bill for it by any means. Um, we looked at this on the on the transportation commission 10 12 years ago um and looked at doing a bridge over overpass and that was that was in the 7 to10 million range back then. So I mean this hasn't you know I think the 20 I think it's 20 to 30 million is what we're looking at on the underpass. I I did not attend the meeting so I don't have all the facts but um again it's wherever the money comes from any transportation related issue is is our money. Again that's all I have to say.

Have one response because I agree with you in what you're saying. I most of it's predicated by that planning commission meeting that I was that I attended to. We had a choice and the developer preferred it also to do a straight shot to cut through under France which would cut that project in half and make it more safe where you don't have you know blind corners that you're turning to access to get under it. So a lot of it again is predicated on the process of how does a tunnel under a bridge and that type of project get to be 20 to 30 million? it's because of that, you know, and so again, it's more of a call to like rein it in. And that was kind of added to like a planning commission sketch plan meeting that wasn't remember it was not televised. It was in the conference room. So there there's ways to be more responsible for our like for our people and our money. And I agree with you, like I'd like to see a safer way to get through there, but like the particular details of what's where we're at is just an outcome I can support, but I agree with you.

We probably won't get to agreement on that tonight. So, any other new comments on this? I mean, I think that I think certainly the pencil could be sharpened. You know, you know, we need to be fiscally responsible. No question. Any other comments? Love the diversity in our in our group of opinions that reflects the the tensions and diversity in the city. Yeah, that's where there's nine of us. Yes. Carrie, anything? Nothing from staff. May I make a motion to adjurnn or be there? Is there a second? Second. Roll call. Commissioner Padilla here. Commissioner Nelson. Hi. I. Commissioner Brennan. I. Commissioner Bennett.

Hi. Commissioner Henman. Commissioner Smith. Hi. Uh, Commissioner Felt has left us. Chair Elk. I meetings adjourned.