##VIDEO ID:dWoR_cem9Og## okay good we've got a green light we'll start the meeting well good evening everybody it is Wednesday November 6 2024 this is the city council meeting for the city of vianda we are in City Hall council chambers it is 700 p.m. on the dot and um as director bener indicated to um all of you in the audience uh and those listening in at home we continue to do these meetings on a hybrid sort of basis people are able to call in from home either for Community comment or when we have a public hearing and we have one of those tonight involving uh cannabis that we've had on a moratorium for uh a year now since the state legislature uh authorized the sale of cannabis on a public basis as we tried to figure out what to do with a an ordinance around cannabis that's the kind of the heart of the conversation in the public hearing matter this evening uh so for those listening in from home uh I'm going to have uh the folks in the back room put the call-in number uh on the screen it's up on the screen now you should get that number in mind and write it down because the uh Community comment portion of the agenda will come up fairly quickly and then as director berod indicated if you want to speak to the council whether you're remote or live in Chambers you can come up come up and comment on a matter of concern you that's not otherwise on the agenda this evening or scheduled for a future public hearing uh having provided that information I'm going to call the meeting to order and ask our clerk Sharon Ellison to call the role council member agnu here council member Jackson here council member Pierce here council member rer here mayor huin here next is the Pledge of Allegiance I pled allegiance to the of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all thanks everybody uh we have a form of meeting agenda in front of us this evening it's been published to the council and published to our uh our residents is there anyone on the uh Council or staff that wishes to modify the agenda any former fashion hearing nothing is there a move to approve the uh is there a motion to approve the meeting agend agenda is published so move second uh member Pierce moves member Jackson seconds the adoption of the meeting agenda for this Wednesday November 6 2024 is published any further discussion all those in favor of adopting the meeting meeting agenda for this November 6 2024 say I I I opposed carried the meeting agenda is adopted and now we are back at Community comment uh and so we'll uh visit with our uh neighbors and uh fellow residents in the audience first if anybody wishes to come forward and comment uh just a reminder again uh if it's on the agenda this evening it's little bit off limits for conversation or scheduled for a future public hearing and uh you'll need a microphone for the use of that Center table if you have an overhead or some illustration you want to use right thank you um good evening Janie Weston 6136 Brookview Avenue uh right by Pamela Park um I'm calling or I'm here not calling in regards to um yet again the oak trees uh just this morning um at 4 4404 um West 58th Street top of the hill on the North side this lovely fully healthy white oak tree was cut down and I saw no need for this one in particular to happen construction could have happened around this tree new driveway could have been configured avoiding this tree this tree survived the street reconstruction and the sidewalk being put in it was a very healthy tree here's a branch off of it I picked up at the curb this afternoon a beautiful healthy white oak tree it was there long before any of the houses were built this is what it looks like now excuse my printer running out of ink but wide open I called this Builder on Sunday Monday it was Monday and left a message with him giving the address of the property my concerns about the tree and um that I had an issue with it being cut down and I also let him know I would be speaking in front of you at tonight's meeting and he returned my call was not um was actually rather rude didn't even want to hear a suggestion that the driveway could be narrowed down to one lane as it approached the street Sav this tree even trying to go with the fact that this property he would be able to sell for much more money if he had made an effort to save this tree he didn't care and now it's gone as of today there's got to be a better way for the city to keep these old growth oak trees especially in a circumstance like this when removal was completely unnecessary there was plenty of width on this lot for staging of materials for taking Dirt away for tearing down the existing house this is a shame and I'd really like the city to do something better and more effective with this thank you yeah thanks M Weston talk to our herst about this and see get his observations on it as well um Luther has looked at this or Randy the secondary person so okay thank you yeah thanks for bringing that information in and you would you mind leaving the photos would you leave those with the clerk please or with director benat want a branch too yeah well we've been continually working on this tree ordinance and um this is another illustration of one of the complications appreciate you bringing that information into US anyone else in the audience wishes to address the Council on a matter of concern to them again not on the agenda or scheduled for a future public hearing good evening my name is Nora Davis and I live at 6921 Southdale Road in the lake Cornelia neighborhood and I'm here to talk about weeds tonight I totally understand the weed ordinance for the city of Vina that if our weeds or grass are 12 in high the city will come out if the resident is not responsive the city will clear it and then Bill the homeowner what I don't understand are the weeds at the empty site at 70th in France the US Bank site I don't know if developers can have weeds 5T high or 6 feet high but it looks awful I I see the Galleria they are all prime for the holidays their trees are all lit up beautiful sight and then their weeds and dead trees I can remember former council member Mary brindle saying 70th was the gateway to Southdale and it's an embarrassment it really is how many people we have on 70th how many people on France Avenue and they see that but I think think we need some rules about developers too that really needs to be taken care of it kind of looks like oh are we going to have a homeless encampment there it just doesn't look good and I'm hoping the city is looking at some rules for other people other than homeowners thank you all right thank you for that we'll take a we'll have staff take a look at that anyone else okay do we have anybody online know those of you that don't know director benat she's really disappointed there's nobody online anyway all right so um as is our practice here uh if we had uh concerns of residents at the prior Community comment at the uh prior uh city council meeting our city manager uh provides a follow-on dialogue with respect to some of the answers to the questions or issues that were raised we do that uh almost uh immediately within a few days of of uh a city council meeting on a Tuesday night by Friday usually there are answers posted up on our website with respect to particular issues that are raised or questions that are asked uh but we like to follow up in in the live venue as well uh with supplemental responses that respond to the concerns that were raised at the prior meeting so I'm going to turn to manager Neil now to ask him to address any matters of concern that were raised at the prior Council meeting manager Neil thank you your honor uh we had we had a number of people that spoke at our last meeting but really there was only one question uh that we could discern from that and the question was why wasn't a decision on a final site plan and site plan review and zoning ordinance Amendment for 72 7250 France on the city council's October 15th meeting agenda is communicated to the public uh the answer is uh unusually simple uh it was mea weekend the developer didn't have all of his plans together uh but got them together kind of late in the game and uh decided to be out of town that week or weekend uh with his family um so asked if the planning division uh could push that to the next meeting which is uh this evening all right that's it all right thank you for that um next matter on the agenda is oh and then with respect to the issues that were raised tonight I'm assuming that you'll check on the weo ordinance that one I can talk to easily now we we don't have a different weed ordinance for commercial property so we will we'll make sure that that uh notification is posted with that owner and and that that issue is mitigated just so you know in the audience U by state law the mayor is the chief weed inspector so uh but I get to delegate that Authority so somebody what knows what they're doing about weeds will go out and and deal with that issue um and then the the white oak tree will we'll take a look at that issue as well relative to our ordinance um okay let's move on into the uh next portion of the agenda which is the consent agenda uh is there anyone on the council that wishes to remove an item from the consent agenda hearing nothing is there a motion to adopt the items on the consent agenda and a single motion so moved second M Jackson moves member Pierce seconds the adoption of the items on the consent agenda and a single motion any further discussion all those in favor of adopting the items on the consent agenda and a single motion say I I I opposed carried those items are adopted and now we are on to something that we do annually which is really uh quite fascinating I think the folks in the audience whether you're here with us live or watching virtually these images of Adina the photo contest uh has some wonderful uh photos taken by our resident and um Dan D a graphic designer in our community and F Roa meta from midina magazine are here with us I think both Rosa here might just be me just you all right I had a note here that she was going to be here as well right well good evening mayor hubin and me members of the city council my name is Dan dor the graphic designer here at the city and tonight I have the honor of presenting the winner of the 2024 images of Adina competition the City established images of Adina in 2004 to recognize Adina um as a way as a place of living learning raising families and doing business and each year residents and employees who work in ad are invited to submit their favorite photos taken in the community over the past year images of Adina is co-sponsored by the city and Adina magazine and I'd like to thank ad magazine and fosa meta for all their work uh managing this contest this year we had 113 submitted photos a judging panel of communications professionals chose the winning photos in five categories the photos were judged on a variety of elements including composition lighting relevance to each category and degree of difficulty there was an online vote on a d magazine for the Readers Choice Award and of the category winners one photo was selected as the overall Best in Show which will be revealed shortly now on to the winners and to the winners attending in person please step forward when your name is called so that we can photograph you accepting your award for the activities and events category our winner is Laura Hein Miller for Dream Big Dreams yes and unfortunately Laura had a last minute uh work commitment that came up so she's not able to join us tonight but we'll make sure that she gets her award for the business category our winner is Stephanie Thomas for movie night congratulations I also want to point out that Stephanie also won the people category for her photo wheels all [Applause] right all right big smiles and then for socials oh yeah all these people are trying to get out of your photo all right thank you so much did you get one back you got congratulations for the places in A din category our winner is deian Becker propest for Pamela Park channel on a snowy day [Applause] one more for the plants and animals category our winner is Judy folk for Holly Hawk High stepper and I believe Judy is not in attendance tonight but we'll make sure she gets her award all right and now the reader choice award goes to Rebecca Peterson for watchdogs oh yeah absolutely congratulations yeah I got you that was one phone very good than conat all right and now for our best in show our winner oh there you go is Stephanie Thomas from movie [Applause] night is right now he's probably gonna text me in about five minutes congratulations yes thank you to all who participated in the images of a din contest be sure to have your camera ready for next year uh and winners thank you for being here tonight congratulations on your wonderful photos yeah thank you Dan one more [Applause] round Stephanie's dad who was watching as a longtime resident uh and was doing uh angel flights I think until he was about 90 huling you know taking people to medical appointments by airplane so uh just uh got an amazing amazing family thank you for being here and Gordy congratulations um all right so now we are on to the next portion of the agenda which is the uh I mentioned this earlier public hearings and um we have been working on for about the last year uh what we think might be a way for us to deal within the context of state law uh as best we can uh the um I guess supervision if you will or regulation of uh a recreational adult use cannabis and so we got a presentation tonight by Zoe Johnson who is our city management fellow and Addison Lewis Our Community Development coordinator uh they're going to make that presentation then we'll open it up for public testimony um and then I think what the staff is going to recommend is that we we close the in-person public hearing but keep the public comment period open until no November 10th uh and then we'll continue this action to our next meeting which is on on November 19th uh 2024 so uh this Johnson welcome and we look forward to the presentation look forward to giving it uh good evening mayor good evening Council happy to be here to talk about cannabis this evening uh specifically recreational adult use cannabis uh like the mayor mentioned I'm here with uh Jeff and Addison uh so let's get started to give an overview of cannabis law in Minnesota the state legislature originally passed um legalized rather adult used cannabis in 2023 um that was passed with chapter 342 in the Minnesota state statute and this permits personal use possession and transportation of cannabis by those 21 years of age or older this also created the Office of cannabis management or um ocm as we commonly refer to it throughout this presentation the ocm is responsible for all licensing enforcement and Ru making which is still in process and we will go through these a little bit later in the presentation this also allows licensed businesses to conduct cultivation manufacturing testing transport wholesaling delivery and sale of cannabis and cannabis products in early 2025 the office of cannabis management will begin licensing cannabis businesses local governments are required to allow the operation of these businesses and can adopt reasonable restrictions on the time place and manner of the operation through ordinances specifically the registration in zoning ordinances let's talk a little bit about the timeline so again cannabis businesses cannot operate until the office of cannabis management begins issuing licenses which is anticipated for early 2025 this will follow the completion of the office of cannabis Management's Ru making process as previously mentioned the city of Adina has previously adopted a moratorium on any cannabis business and that will expire at the end of 2024 to allow time for adopting regulations let's get into the State Office of cannabis Management's responsibilities so again those three larger buckets are licensing enforcement and the ru making uh catchall bucket so licensing will um incorporate forms procedures required disclosures felony disqual ifications and limits on licenses held as well as it list details about those 13 different license types when we talk about enforcement chapter 342 was written in a way that calls out enforcement as being um strictly within the office of cannabis Management's uh jurisdiction so while residents can um call the city with any concerns about cannabis violations we will ultimately hear them out and then redirect their concerns to um the office of cannabis management unless there are concerns about where the Cannabis business is in regards to the zoning districts we set forth uh and lastly when we talk about rule making this is a larger catchall um bucket area for the office of Canabis management um and it incorporates considerations like social Equity uh testing and um use of pesticides and fertilizers so what can we do here in ad in other words what are the local control consider ation that we can take well a local unit of government May adopt reasonable restrictions on the time place and manner of the operation of Canabis business provided that such restrictions do not prohibit The Establishment or operation of cannabis business so for the registration ordinance this looks like registration application process and fees limiting the number of retail registrations One retail registration per 12,500 residents the hours of operation compliance checks temporary cannabis events suspensions and use in public places when we talk about the zoning ordinance which Addison will get up here to talk to you about a little bit more in detail uh we're talking about zoning districts for cannabis businesses buffers uh from schools dayc carees residential treatment facilities and attractions within Parks used by miners as well as other standards as deemed appropriate more specifically when we look look at um our registration ordinance we uh currently wrote Our or excuse me we drafted our ordinance with um the office of cannabis Management's model ordinance language for process and fees for cannabis business local registration hours of operation compliance checks suspensions as well as temporary cannabis events we did limit the number of retail registrations within our current draft to the council directed set maximum to five which is the minimum number of retail registrations that we could have with our given population with that one per 12,500 residents and with that I will hand it over to my colleague Addison thank you Zoe thanks M Johnson go ahead yep evening May Council um so as Zoe mentioned uh we are required by Statute to allow um the types of businesses that are going to be licensed by the office of cannabis management um you may recall we had a work session with Council back in July uh to talk about this a little bit and so we tried to draft this ordinance uh to reflect that discussion um so the ordinance that's before you tonight uh would have cannabis retailers uh is proposed as a permitted use in the planned commercial districts one 2 and three as well as the mixed development district 6 and any puds that allow uh plan commercial District uses um a retailer would also be a conditional use in the mixed development District 3 four and 5 um and this is consistent with how we've zoned our our tobacco and liquor stores um other types of businesses like cultivation manufacturing processing um these are very consistent with the other types of businesses that we allow in our industrial zoning District today and so they're proposed as a as a permitted use in that District um the zoning District would also require that um all the operations of a cannabis business would need to take place within an enclosed building um another uh piece of the the state law is that it also allowed um holders of a of a micro business license which is one that allows for multiple activities so cultivation manufacturing and Retail it also allows them uh to do on-site consumption the best way to think about this is it's kind of similar to like a Tap Room associated with a brewery um so the zoning ordinance proposes to allow that as a permitted accessory use to a cannabis cultivator or manufacturer within the industrial district um they would not be allowed to serve alcohol um or Tobacco on the premises but they could serve other food or drinks um it would be for consumption of nons smokable and non- vaporized products only so just things like drinks and Edibles um unlike a Brewery Tap Room you'd have to be 21 or older to enter the premises um and displaying consumption of cannabis products um is not allowed to be visible from the outside of the business um you may also recall from that work session uh back in July we talked a little bit about another area where the city has some discretion and that's uh whether or not we want to require offers from certain uses like schools daycares residential treatment facilities and attractions within Parks um so you see um in the middle colum there that's the the maximum buffer that the city could impose under statute um and then on the right is the the proposed buffer that's included within the ordinance um I don't think we really reached a consensus in that in that work session so we've included them in the ordinance here for you to discuss um I'll say here now that um when the Planning Commission considered this they recommended keeping the buffer for schools and residential treatment facilities um but not having any buffer from dayc carees and attractions within Parks um on daycares it seemed their thinking was that um minors are generally accompanied by an adult and they're just going from their car into the daycare um or from the daycare back to their car um and then as far as attractions within Parks um staff also shares a bit of a concern with with this one um for the other three we can measure from property line to property line um the way the law is written is it seems we would have to measure to the attraction within the park not the property line of the park um and so that just raises some question that could potentially be difficult to administer for certain types of things like if you think of like a Frisbee Golf Course or um a ball field that doesn't have any real boundaries um it could be difficult to determine where to measure that too um and it would also put it on staff to determine what is and isn't um an attraction in a park regularly used by minor um there's a little bit of subjectivity there so we also share some concern with that one um the ordinance adds a definition for residential treatment facility so this is intended to capture uh residential facilities for things like foster care Substance Abuse and Mental Health um included in your packet are a couple of maps that show the areas where retail businesses and Industrial businesses would be permitted it shows those buffers of 500 ft from all those different uses um so any of the green areas that are partially or wholly with and that buffer um would not be would not be allowed to operate a cannabis business in that location um and then actually let me back up here um you may wonder why why why are we proposing the maximum buffer for all the uses with the exception of schools um the reason for that is all of our schools in Indina are already 1,000 ft from any of our commercial areas with the exception of Ogg and let's see do I have a mouse there was some discussion um well if we if we did impose a th000 foot buffer for schools um it would buffer the entire Grand View District the entire Grand View commercial area and in our work session there was some discussion about it may be preferable to allow the retailers to spread out rather than concentrate all in one area um and so a 500 foot buffer would still prohibit those properties immediately you know closest to OGG from having a cannabis business um but would allow for some of the the properties up along Vernon where we think they would probably be more likely to want to locate anyway if you think of where the the Walgreens is located where the Starbucks or where Devon's is um you can see that those those businesses are not visible from the OGG property and uh you can see that the school itself is actually set back almost 900 ft as well so that's just some other information for you to consider as you think about whether or not you'd want to include a buffer uh for schools and then also just want to say here that you know we have a lot of other standards in the zoning ordinance that just like any other type of business cannabis businesses would be expected to comply with so things for signage parking setbacks building Heights um we also have standards for things like noise vibration smoke odor glare lighting um to really try to address a lot of nuisance issues and and these ordinances have really served us well um so far to this point for other types of Industries and I think we we feel good about them going forward um for cannabis and then um the state also has attempted to try to address and mitigate uh many of those potential nuisance concerns so they've they've also included a lot of regulations aimed at that so A few I just wanted to point out here um cannabis businesses must maintain and follow a security plan to deter and prevent theft um so that includes requirements um but not limited to maintaining video surveillance records um using specific locking mechanisms establishing secure entries and number of employees working at all times uh they also must maintain a ventilation and filtration system sufficient to meet requirements for Odor Control established by ocm uh and then retailers are also required to prevent the visibility of cannabis products to individuals outside of the retail location um all their products for sale must be stored in a secure area um they cannot operate drive-throughs or sell cannabis products through vending machines um so I mentioned the Planning Commission they they've considered this ordinance that's before you tonight at their August 28th meeting um they voted unanimously 9 to0 to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance um with a with a couple changes or with a couple conditions um one being that the required buffer from daycares um or attractions within Parks be dropped from the ordinance um and it was also kind of under the assumption that Council would be limiting the number of retail registrations to five um they they I guess yeah that's that wasn't really within their prview but they they wanted you to know that their recommendation was was based on that assumption um so tonight staff is looking for a motion from Council to close the in-person public hearing keep public comments open until Sunday November 10th and continue action to the no November 19th 2024 city council meeting um unless you have major changes to what you have before you tonight I think at that November 19th meeting we would be looking for um approval of first reading and waiver of second reading again unless you had you know a lot of concerns or changes you wanted to see here so um we have a number of Staff here that have been involved in this and would be happy to answer any questions you have all right thanks Mr Lewis and Miss Johnson uh questions from Council Members council member rusher uh in terms of the buffer for the daycare if I'm remembering correctly I watched the Planning Commission and they were focusing on kids being dropped off but what about the possibility of people um smoking cannabis near the daycare um I'm just concerned because I and I haven't done a lot of research but I see articles um that seem to indicate in Minnesota sidewalks are places where people can smoke cannabis I believe our registration or is prohibited in public places would it be prohibited on a sidewalk uh I I think um uh that would be really difficult to enforce the you know public use on a public side um I don't know how we would handle that from the city perspective uh if we got those calls into PD or something like that the article I'm looking at it just says cars no sidewalks mostly for now um but it's it's just a men post thing but it it seemed to indicate at the state level there's not any you know indication that you you could even if I I hear what you're saying though but okay thank you we can do some more re research on that cuz that question is bubbling up in other cities too okay yeah the state law does prohibit you know the the business from they're not supposed to let people um you know smoke products like in their parking lot or on their premises so if that was happening regularly that's something that we could report to ocm um we have the ability to suspend a Retailer's registration if we feel they're in violation so there are there are some things that we could do if if they're not you know following all the rules follow on questions member rer no okay also member Jackson yes thank you Mr Mayor so I have a number of questions so we'll start with the zoning one since you're up here Mr Lewis um a daycare is there a special zoning designation for daycare or they one of use in um in a general uh commercial zone They I believe are generally allowed in in all those same districts that um so PCD 1 two and three the the mixed development districts essentially the same the same districts that the Cannabis retailers would be allowed it's it's all of our commercial retail districts right so one business could come and go and be in compliance one day and not the next because of the change over Within These zones um and then I have a similar question for the treatment facilities it sounds like you know if there was a shop in the edge of a commercial Zone and then someone decided to become a foster parent in the adjacent house who's going to be have to move because if we have a Zone around treatment facilities and that includes foster homes foster care that is a problem as well I think because it's a it seems to me it's a general designation that you can have foster care in anybody's home correct so um when we get a request or an application for um from ocm where there's a business looking to get a license in a location we would verify that it complet so we would look at the time of the application is there something within that you know whatever buffer distance we decide if there's not they can go there it wouldn't prevent um you know a daycare or residential treatment facility from opening within that 500 ft um it would mean that that that cannabis business would now be considered non-conforming so um they're allowed to stay um but if they were ever to leave now I think a new one can not replace it if they were gone for more than a year yeah I think including daycares I mean I understand totally understand the reason why daycares don't want a cannabis store nearby same thing with a treatment facility but it seems very arbitrary to me because it just is on the business cycle who's doing which operation where so I am really not in favor of putting um buffer around either of those just because then it it in involves your daytime job of trying to figure out who has the you know the use and everything and and that's too arbitrary for me a zone is a zone for a reason um so that's the the zoning question that I had and I think you answered my question about the um parks that the enforcement was difficult um on that so then um I don't know Mr Brown or Miss Johnson um who would answer this but um with enforcement I see that you know they can do compliance checks but what happens if the city of viina does a compliance check and the um agency is not checking IDs the store is not checking IDs does that can we shut them down immediately or do we have to go to the state and wait for a couple months while they process our concerns no there's a it's a there's a series of it's kind of like tobacco compliance checks or liquor compliance checks there's a series of uh enforcement mechanisms and penalties and then it can ultimately lead to rev revocation of the registration but then we have to notify the state and then there kind of a I don't know if you want to call it a grace period but there's a period to make sure that we're doing it appropriately the state would look at that so there it's laid out in the in the ordinance and in the state guidance okay so we retain the authority to act when when they're if they're underage sales occurring yes we are the we are doing the compliance checks we are tasked with that the model language lays that out uh it's just it will be just like tobacco um with PD doing compliance checks okay terrific and then um one of the things we're allowed to regul regulate are ours but I don't see that in the ordinance did I miss it or um did we decide not to regulate that at this time we had that in an original draft and then took that out um there's a there's a there's set hours by the state and then there's a limited amount of like squeezing the hours we can do on the front and back end like an hour on each end and it felt kind of arbitrary to do that it wasn't a lot of of change in the hourly operations so we left that out just to default to the state Rule and how different is that from um what the liquor store regulations are that is a good question I do not know the answer to so if we can fashion it so that's the parallel with liquor stores I would recommend that and even if it's not I think we should put the hours in our ordinance exactly as they're you know if they're the same as the state that's fine but I still think we should have it in our own ordinance so that if someone wants to look it up they're not going to go to the state and say what are the hours are going to go you know I want to figure out what's happening in the IND they'll probably start here um so I I'd like to have that in there um and I think those are my questions thank you thank you council member Pierce thank thanks Mr Mayor um I love every question you just asked m Jackson um so I had two questions and they're really broad cuz I'm just trying to kind of set this up the way I think about it um what are we actually trying to protect against with the ordinance and when I ask that I think well we we have tobacco sales uh we have liquor stores there's a liquor store in Grand View um and so with cannabis and this buffer structure what are we trying to protect the public against sure I can try to answer that I think um you know the legislature as they were going through and legalizing this I'm sure they heard a lot of concerns about well what about having these near places where children will be and so they included this specifically in the in the legislation that this is something every city can decide for itself so um what I've kind of seen from other cities is that there really hasn't been a lot of consensus on on the buffers I've seen you know some cities impose all the buffers and to the max I've seen some just maybe pick one or two or none um some less than the max um so it's really just kind of the Comfort level of of each Community it's just an option that's available to the city um again I think the intent is to if you if if if as a city we wanted to provide some distance between those types of businesses and places where children or other types of vulnerable populations might be that's an option to you but to your point we we're we're not buffering from liquor stores tobacco stores currently right yeah um so the thanks for that the um the concern I would have um and this is is a question and it really is in alignment with What U member Jackson asked my concern would be thinking about how do we ensure safety uh with the use of these products just in general within the community um and so today someone could go into an establishment sit at the bar drink and walk out of the bar and drive home drunk they they could do that and we have enforcement policies where if you know this person is found driving they get a DUI right and then there's a hole that kicks off right an entire um set of processes behind that and so in this case um how are we going to enforce safety with the use of cannabis and so that's when I asked the first question what are we really trying to protect the public against for me I think we should be focused on safety what what things do we need to do to ensure that um uh people are are uh engaging in this activity in a safe way and they don't cause harm to the community and I don't really think buffers do that and so if we go through and and we may have valid reasons for adjusting buffers and having buffers that's okay but I I haven't seen or heard anything that says or here the things we're going to do to ensure that the public is safe uh with regard to um cannabis so I I don't know if that's a question or a statement uh but maybe can you talk about the conversations you've had about safety concerns and ideas around ensuring that the community stays safe yeah maybe you have some thoughts too I can start by just saying I know that there's a lot of regulations in the state law around how these pro products need to be packaged how they need to be labeled how they verify you know age compliance how they can be transported making sure everything's secure there's a it's very thoroughly regulated that way um you know once it gets into the hands of people they take it home or like you said if someone's consuming on site and they decide to drive um maybe let you speak to that maybe police I think driving out of the influence that's more Aaron's uh Department there as far as like what's going to happen in a traffic stop and that kind of thing um we thought have we thought about that do we know what we're going to do is it the same as alcohol or any other substance uh the the general answer is yes the challenge is um right now in the moment is it's not even so much in detection but in the in testing and whatnot we're still kind of watching the development of effective testing that would be similar to the practicality of testing uh like an intox intoxicated driver um seeing some development and promising stuff but uh marijuana is a little bit harder to quantify with like field testing or even blood or urine type testing that is commonly used so um that's one of the challenges there but as far as enforcement goes you know the behaviors that would cause you to get stopped um the uh evaluation of a driver to determine if they were under the influence would be similar to other non-alcohol drugs so those things are in place as a department we have drug recognition experts that are trained in you know those types of evaluations the the catch is a um evidentiary test that is going to be accepted as practical for determining um definitive intoxication so but we'll definitely be working on it and and our officers make good cases on other abstract sorts of things but it's it's definitely a concern thank you to the other part that I was going to get to as far as like um prevention of misuse abuse that type of thing one thing that we are we will receive because we are a Community Health Board as a city it's kind of unique for us we will be receiving a cannabis and substance use prevention Grant from the Minesota Department of Health we just got notified of the amounts and things this week uh Bloomington and Richville will be getting that as well so that would be more along the lines of like you know you're going to use this for the first time how do you do this in a safe way how do we do education that type of thing so there are there are funds being pushed out by mdh for that um but it's like just happening right now okay yeah El um so I I think it really is important um regardless of what we do with this ordinance that we're focusing on the right balance um and I personally think the current conversation just around the buffers and even at some of the state um some of those conversations can give us a false sense of security and control around this and so I definitely want to make sure that regardless of where we are at this stage in the process that we're continuing these conversations around how do we keep um users of these products uh safe keep the community safe um because I I think that that is really Paramount on my mind and then the last question I have um and I think member the way member Jackson worded the process es around how we manage alcohol compliance um I assume that really is is that the same process or very similar process very s it'll be very similar and so the question I have is adding this um to the regulatory Process Management what's the cost of the city to to add that or is it the same I think um I anticipated it to be pretty minim um like for example we have 18 tobacco license facilities right now so annual compliance checks that's 18 compliance checks the most this will add is five so it's it's very it'll be a very similar process to that um but the volume of businesses is going to be very low so the I mean each compliance check has time investment you know you have to have a a person going and do the you know it's it's a process but um from from a just strictly numbers perspective like compared to Tobacco or liquor even it's a very very small number it a be but a very similar process okay and if if I'm correct the decision on the buffers that actually has nothing to do in terms of costs I assume I see you would we would set that this is in the ordinance these are the buffers and so if someone applied um we would just validate whether or not they were y we'll reach out to make sure it that the site complies with our zoning so planning staff would do a quick check to make sure it meets those buffers okay thank you member U thank you Mr Mayor thank you for the presentation I think that my colleagues have asked a lot of the questions that I had um and and I really appreciate the way um council member Pierce you were thinking about it because that kind of Echoes how I was considering this especially when we're asked to kind of evaluate specific numbers whether it's 500t or 1,000 ft those to me don't really mean much um and so I always look at okay well what are we doing from an a liquor store perspective and and question in here we don't have buffers that's what I think I heard you say correct correct thank you um and so I look for what is similar how do I kind of quantify what does 500 mean to me and think based off of this conversation I don't know that whether it's 500 or 50 hearing you know what other cities are sometimes increasing or decreasing the those numbers I don't know that it's going to drive us towards more safety um and so that's really what I I just want us to consider and potentially challenge as we're thinking about this um and then additionally I always look to have uniformity and so I don't want to add in necessarily buffers for cannabis if we don't have buffers for other things um and so I know we're going to open up the public hearing and continue thinking about this for a couple of weeks but that right now is kind of where my mind is landing is is I don't see the value in it when there are so many other things that we're doing from a safety perspective so many other things that we're governing from um the state level and if the state then determines that yes these buffers or you know whatever is is the right thing um then maybe that would change my mind but then I wouldn't expect them to leave it up to every individual City to set that rer something member Jackson said caused member rer want to inquire further comment further one thing um and actually I was influenced by what uh member Pierce said as well but there are states that require warning labels on cannabis products and maybe we want to look into that and put it on our legislative agenda Alaska um has a pretty strong statement um noting that it has intoxicating effects and may be habit forming and addictive um Can impair concentration coordination and judgment and then do not operate a vehicle um we can check to see if that's already occurring I think it might be I believe that it is we could look into the exact requirements and language and come back to you with that at the next meeting okay yeah thanks go remember Jackson go ahead so regarding the reason to have buffers and you know looking at the map it doesn't really affect Edina but I think the idea is that there's not a cannabis store next door to a school so that every kid who walks to school has to walk by the cannabis store um or you know if they're waiting in line if there's you know a field trip or something they're standing there looking in the window and saying oh what is this and everything so just to kind of put a little bit of a buffer between impressionable children and and the sale of this and so oh again thinking about our map it it doesn't really affect unless for some reason at the Grand View site we make that commercial there could be right across the street from uh OGG a cannabis store and so just so that every kid walking to school doesn't have to walk by a an intoxicating um business business of intoxicating elements and so we might want to add something for liquor stores because we have Municipal liquor we have total control over that we can put them wherever we want we can put them as far away from schools as we possibly can um so that's a protection that we already have but with this it's would be a Private Industry um and so we might want to consider that but I that's what I think is little kids walking to school and and wanting to give a little buffer between that and and the business all right I've got a few questions as well um in the proposed form of ordinance uh it covers uh what you characterize as a temporary cannabis event and it caused me to think think of the situations we have here once in a while where one of our churches will be having a fundraiser and they want to be able to serve alcohol and we give them like a one-day license to have a beer garden or some sort of alcohol consumption so talk to us a little bit about what a temporary cannabis event is and how we would go about regulating a temporary cannabis event I think that that is one part of the model language this is straight from the model language um that kind of remains to be seen how that facilitates like what what um like what style they become or you know what format they come out as or if cities even allow them like that is one thing that we can um modify and I think even not allow I can check into that some more no we have to allow it but we can set conditions St that again Mr Kendall mayor the state statute requires cities to allow temporary cannabis events although I honestly don't know what a temporary cannabis event actually is but uh the cities can set conditions and regulations on those temporary cannabis events I think location is one of those conditions that we can set so there's some parameters that are configurable I guess in that section but I think it's a it's kind of an unknown at this point what what those event what shape those events will take this is a hypothetical example you know the 50th in France Association has the art fair and somebody comes along and says well we want to put up a tent in the parking lot behind there and have a temporary cannabis event uh every day during the art fair what what what do we do about that do we do we have to grant them that permission or something we can based on what you just said how do we go about regulating something like that now you're in tight quarters with all kinds of people and outside orders floating um sales occurring what yeah so mayor I guess I should preface this by saying you know the ocm is supposed to be developing additional regulations on all these issues and I don't think all those are fully developed yet um but the ordinance or I'm sorry the statute says that uh the temporary cannabis events May last uh no more than four days to be approved for a cannabis temporary cannabis license the applicants must obtain a necessary permits or licenses by the local government uh cities may not prohibit those cannabis events but they may set standards which the organizer must meet uh so those are some of the allowable City controls and I think the ocm is supposed to be developing additional information on this yeah it feels pretty thin in terms of control yeah um okay well we'll kind of Park that one for the time being I you know I mayor I guess I should just ocm comes up with some better guidance on something like that yeah I should say one more thing which is cities are not required to permit on-site consumption for those temporary cannabis events so I I guess that would mean it would be a sales event and not a consumption event Mr Mayor I'll also add to that that that is a license type that the state will regulate so someone would have to go to the state and get permission to have this temporary they'd have to go through those standards in order to be able to have a temporary license type that they would come to us with already having a license from the state to do that type of sale and what is uh is there any pre-notification requirement at the at the state level State Statute level to have ocm notify us that an application's been made for a cannabis event we would still be able to have some regulations regarding how how they would go about doing a temporary one in the city but the actual process of getting license someone would need to go to the state get a license it couldn't just be your church deciding one day that you want to have a a cannabis temporary um event you'd have to go through a process in order to be able to do that sale okay I'll get off the uh temporary cannabis event issue for a bit um I mean the other thing I want to um understand a little bit better is um on-site versus offsite consumption I mean there's some inferences in the proposed form of ordinance that there could be on-site consumption so we have to allow one of these Cannabis stores for every 12,500 populations so what does that put us at Planning Commission recommended five facilities we're going to we're going to allow them in any business district that we have and then how do you go about determining whether those facilities uh can uh have consumption on site or just consumption buy it and then leave with it uh so it's it's like on sale and offsale liquor what what what are the parallels there I can speak to that a little bit so the the onsite consumption um the way our so that is only allowed for a micro business license holder which a micro business license from the state allows them to engage in multiple activities so cultivation manufacturing retail um and then the on-site consumption so um our ordance doesn't it won't allow like a retail store to locate in the industrial district that's where the manufacturing and cultivation businesses would have to go the on-site consumption has to be accessory to a cultivation or manufacturing business so that would only be in the industrial district um it it's not something that all of our retail stores and all of our you know neighborhood commercial districts they would not be able to do that they would not be allowed to have the on-site consumption all right so it' be somebody to can to um I'm going to use wooden Hill Brewing as a example in the commercial industrial district get some micro Brewery they've got all the appropriate licensure somebody could come and say they wanted to do the same thing with respect to cannabis correct yep they want to do their cultivation inside a warehouse and adjacent to the warehouse they got a space where they can engage in the retail onsite consumption of of cannabis yep exactly we have to allow that we do Mr Mayor we have to allow the the the five figure the five number is a minimum right you we could have more if you wanted to have more but the five has been determined by population and the ratio of population to Stores um that onsite consumption issue that helps me a little bit understanding the parameters of that what what I was thinking about is the other ation was going on uh we have daycare facilities in commercial districts I mean I'm thinking of kinderberry Hill on 70th which is right behind the vitamin shop right uh and um you know if um it it's I think justifiably so parents are sensitive about what their kids get exposed to you know and um so even the fact that they're that the Vitamin Shop could decide they're going to start sell on cannabis by way of example could be enough to affect the business of kinderberry Hill so this I'm concerned about this uh separation I mean I I think member U made a good point that 500 feet is somewhat arbitrary but nonetheless it does it does serve a purpose so I just want us to think that carefully through I think it's just a cautionary note there uh and then with respect to the fees that this was raised to the fees that we can charge for regulatory purposes the fees that we charge if we're going to issue a liquor license a full liquor license uh that cost of that license has to align with our cost of enforcement so that liquor license is what is it these days 7,000 bucks 12,000 10,000 for a full liquor license wine and beer might be 2,000 so what are we thinking here I mean you said it was just kind of an add-on to the regulation of the places that sell tobacco when uh the fees are basically set by the state rule by the state statute like we have a maximum that we can charge and that's what we've put in here it's either uh $500 or half the amount of the state license fee so if their state license fee is $900 we can only charge $450 for our registration fee and is that true whether it's there's on-site consumption in a in a in a commercial it's across industrial district across the board that's across the board so if we got a if we got a facility that's having on-site consumption in our commercial industrial district and we're getting calls out there all the time we we can't we can't change our fee structure it's a we're we're tied to State Statute right we can't change the maximum is set we could charge less but we can't charge more all right and then uh you talked about uh you used the word revocation but my understanding was that we have the authority to suspend registration but do we have the authority to revoke we can just suspend it and refer you know complaints or violations to ocm they will look into it and then I guess I'm not sure if after a certain number of you know violations that are verified if they would revoke a license um but the the most we can do is suspend that license for uh or their registration up to 30 days and then it's kind of in OC's hands okay all right I don't know if that caused anybody else to on the council to have questions before we open this up for public testimony but let me check with my colleagues here okay um thank you everybody for working on this complicated matter um yeah and then as as uh a couple of our colleagues have raised the issue of uh Public Safety I mean the whole notion of how we we know how to deal with an intoxicated driver that's been consuming alcohol but this whole world of um potential intoxication with cannabis is something we're going to have to figure out how to deal with um so this is a public hearing matter and I'm now going to open this up for uh public testimony anybody in the audience that wishes to testify and then we'll check with people online too to see if there's anyone who wishes to address the Council on this matter and as I mentioned we'll probably uh close the public hearing for public testimony in person tonight but leave it open for further supplemental written testimony through U through one of the through Sunday and then take it up on the 19th of November yes M Weston hello jie Weston 6136 brickie um this is a really interesting discussion um and it I'm jotting notes cuz I'm thinking well what about this what about that um let's see okay I is in what we just saw there's schools there's daycares are they more clearly defined than we were what we were just seeing what is a school and what is a daycare where does a preschool fit in there a montauri school that goes up through say third grade where these need to be really clearly defined um I'm assuming but I don't know if a school means up through 12th grade could it could it be uh like Hamlin University they rent space in an office building on France Avenue South End of France Avenue technically that makes it a school I I don't know um or a private school that wants to um well anyways I I I'd like to see really clearly defined terminology there for those all right very good okay so um if you have a pre-existing you know uh permitted uh cannabis shop and a church that's close by decides there's a great need for preschool um to be offered in our neighborhood our community and they want to have the preschool um that's within the buffer zone um you you had some discussion about this but um you know which comes first the chicken or the egg is kind of the question how you know I I like to see that more clearly defined how is something like that handled um another thing um from what I've read seen in the news and what I just heard discussed here it sounds like uh testing someone for how much Under the Influence they are is still medically and Tech wise being figured out um frankly I'd like to see that worked out better before anywhere in the state can have cannabis shops that's just my opinion um and also if the city with our population number can have five um cannabis shops do they have to be privately owned or could the city as we have three Municipal liquor stores can the city operate say three yep won I need to have you wrap up your comments because you're over Mar last one but can Municipal shops be done and if you have more thoughts send them in please okay all right thank you okay hi good evening good evening uh mayor and Council I'm Chrissy sumstad I know I've been emailing with most of you I've I've had the chance to speak with some of you in person uh this is a a a new topic to me but something that I think will be really can get your address please oh 7204 Glouchester drive thank you um relates to what I have been emailing you about which is the issues with dayc carees and um City accountability when we do approve things and fund things um so in addition to the safety conversation I think we've had here my question is what is the accountability when if we approve this without buffers and it goes into say the vitamin shop next to a kinderberry and now they are sharing a property um what does that look like when these materials are discarded dropped uh you know and and daycares are now forced to do sweeps for paraphenalia and that sort of stuff I totally understand districts are districts and there's a reason daycares are in business districts um but business St are larger than 500 feet we're talking about roughly a football field so let's move it down the line right let's put it where Cavern on Frances or the Chase Bank is let's let's put a buffer in to make sure that it is not sharing physical adjacent property where our children are where our children should be expected to walk on their daycare property and not be systematically picking up drug paraphernalia that seems reasonable to me sure one storefront down two storefront Downs go off private businesses great let's do that but I do think it's reasonable to have buffers in when the city's only answer after they go in is government overreach private business we have no accountability um so that's what I'm asking let's put the regulations in obviously the managing body has recommended dayc carees as a buffer consideration because it's a reasonable buffer consideration and the best way to do that is on The Upfront thank you thank you m Somerset appreciate the thoughts anyone else in the audience wish to address this issue my name is Nora Davis and I still live at 6921 Southdale Road in the lake Cornelia neighborhood and mayor hin I just wanted to follow up a little bit about kinder Barry Hill kind of a different kind of a question but it's something that I've been concerned about um there's a lot of smoking at 4040 and word on the street is maybe not you know it's not all tobacco the the smoking is going on close to the sidewalk kinderberry Hill for years has been using that sidewalk to take kids in these massive strollers for walks and I've often thought maybe they don't do that anymore but that to me is kind of a frightening situation and that would be even if the Vitamin Shop isn't selling it if it's going on on the property and the kids are going past and inhaling it and being exposed I think that's a a true buffer issue and a concern yeah thanks for that and and we are working on that issue anyone else okay anybody online no all right um any did this cause anybody on the council to have any further questions or comments at this point in time okay so the recommendation from staff is that we close the inperson public hearing keep the public comment period open until Sunday November 10th uh end of end of the day and continue action to to the November 19 2024 city council meeting is there a motion to that effect no moved member Jackson moves Pier seconds the adoption of the motion to close the in-person public hearing uh now keep the public comment period open until Sunday November 10th and continue the action to the November 19 2024 city council meeting any further discussion regard to the with regard to the motion as stated all those in favor of adoption of the motion is stated say I I I opposed carried uh we will continue this matter to November 19th and be uh open for further written comment through the 10th of November all right that completes the public hearing portion of the agenda uh we are now going to go to a reports and recommendations and uh the first matter we have there is something that we deal with uh usually every two weeks and that's a resolution accepting donations on behalf of the city viina we've got several to deal with this particular reporting period when somebody wants to give a gift to the city of Edina um uh state law requires that we accept those donations with a super majority of the council approving it and so we've got resolution 2024-25 so moved a second for Jackson move moves member agnu second the adoption of resolution 2024-25 say I I I opposed carried resolution 202 24-96 is adopted and in this reporting period uh the police department has received a a wonderful gift from one of our longtime residents grew up here Elaine pacy irk I don't know if anybody knows py she's on the uh crime fund board and uh was real active uh as a teacher in our community and uh worked for from the time she was a kid at Brar Golf Course donated that beautiful clock that's out at Brar golf course and now she has donated $114,000 to purchase a new Edina canine service dog so thank you py irk uh and then Centennial Lakes Park has received some very nice gifts k z Carl a memorial bench $3,200 and then the Adana Chamber of Commerce uh has contributed to the city of Adana $1,695 44 for uh the city share of the Atlant fall into the Arts Festival revenue and the Adina Art Center also received from the chamber $ 6,347 72 uh for their share of income off the Adina fall into the Arts Festival so thank you for all those uh generous gifts to the city and um we will now move on to the next portion of the agenda which is in that same section of reports and recommendations and this is a matter that we uh took up a few weeks ago um it is a potential issuance of a conditional use permit with variances for a new home at 4208 Philbrook Lane and Chris Hawker our assistant city planner has this matter and we've got some other folks here as well that can uh answer questions if necessary including the homeowners and their architect thank you mayor members of the city council the requested action is approval and Adoption of resolution number 204-8606 to the city council and the council reviewed uh the request on October 15th with the public hearing held comment was held open on Better Together Idina until Sunday October 27th I think the most recent post on Better Together was 27 days ago um Heather manam the applicants architect and Property Owners Courtney Kelly and Michael Bush are present and with that I will end in the reintroduction of the requested action for resolution adoption all right very good any questions for Miss AER um the homeowners or the architect want to add anything to the conversation at this point in time and just stand by for questions I know we've been through this conversation before and uh talked about uh you Mr Bush living in your your father's home and and uh it's time to um do something with that older home and and build a new one there so um for council members are there any questions for anybody yes council member Jackson I just wanted to make a comment that I I thought this was a really um Innovative and wonderful story and I was just I I was really pleased to see the thoughtfulness that you're putting into investing in our town so I really uh appreciate your story and the work that you're doing on this all right uh member Jackson would you care to move the matter I will move the matter all right so member Jackson moves oh and we got a second and that motion is to adopt resolution 202 24-9 approving the acquisition of real property and uh wait a minute I'm on the wrong one AR resolution motion to adopt resolution 24 2486 approving the conditional use permit with variances for the new home at 4208 Philbrook uh again the motion is to adopt resolution perit with variances for a new home at 4208 Philbrook Lane uh we got a motion we got a second from Member Pierce any further discussion all those on the council in favor of adopting the motion is stated say I I I opposed carried motion is adopted resolution [Music] congratulations next we have a I think is a been an interesting matter that we've worked on for probably a year and a half good evening Mayors member of the council uh the next item is up for consideration is 5235 Highwood drive and as the mayor said there was a request and I'll get into the history but we got three uh three items tonight we'd like approval but it's really to make sure that you that the council supports this idea because if we do support it there's these four actions tonight then there's one other action of doing a plat process for this particular project that would go through the Planning Commission and back to the city council so these are the four actions we're asking you tonight and then again there's that separate process that would contain public hearings to approve a plat going through through the Planning Commission and the city council so just to orientate yourself the circle on this map is where this property this vacant lot is located between Blake Road Interlocken Boulevard and north of Vernon Avenue in April of this year the residents came forward and requested consideration from the city and they're requesting that the city initially fund the purchase of a vacant lot with the residents paying for that purchase with special assessments over 15 years and then creating a conservation easement over a portion of that lot and they presented reasons why they thought that made sense and I just noted they talked about water and wastewater green space trees Wildlife really tying it to the comprehensive plan and the climate action plan so that picture on the right is the lot its current state it's just a wooded lot vacant lot um this is more detail So within that lot that exists today the Bennetts to the West would like to purchase a portion of that lot and that's highlighted there with the orange arrow and the green outline the Carters to the South would purchase a corner of the lot and then what would be left is what's designated there that that red circle in parcel C that's the parcel that they would request the city purchase and they would pay for with special assessments and would be put into a conservation easement so the land price was $150,000 for that parcel C determined by the assessing Department this is a voluntary Financial sharing between the neighbors the residents went around and asked people and seven neighbors stepped up and they have various uh Financial commitments it varies all across the board and you saw those in those assessment agreements that are in the packet this evening it's approximately 48% of that original lot would be put in that conservation easement the city would not maintain that parcel we talked about that in April that we would not be doing any active maintenance on that parcel C and again there'd be that separate process to create uh the plat if Council supports this idea so I guess I'm standing here just if there's any questions for either me attorney Kendall or Teague and I think Andy Carter is in the audience if there's any specific questions for him and the neighbors that brought this idea forward and this is similar to what occurred on Oak Lane that was really the idea in the process that we're following so I'd be happy to stand for any questions yeah um and I don't know if if we before you stand for questions if director Teague had any supplemental comment about process here just that next step process would be for the applicant to at the property so it would be a subdivision to create an out lot um it would be a substandard lot it wouldn't meet our um minimum lot area with type requirement so that would require platting so um the L lot lines would be shifted and what's labeled as parcel C on the graphic would be labeled as an outlot as undevelopable undevelopable with that conservation easement over it and then um this is this is similar nature as I recall to what we did a few years ago over on Oak Lane yes which where some of the neighbors were concerned about the potential home going up behind them and and uh we we created a similar uh solution there where they were able to buy it and then we did special assessments and this is somewhat similar to that I think to the Oak Lane matter so same process we just didn't have to plant that one cuz it was already ADM met those minimums that member rer has a question my question is well actually I have several concerns and I I really do appreciate the effort to save trees and I think that is really important but this process means we're creating a parcel that does not meet the zoning standards and um in our packet we were uh told that this would be a lot line adjustment and when I look at the code it says um the resulting Parcels must meet all applicable ordinance requirements um except that if one of the parcels was previously non-conforming it must become more conforming as a result of the subdivision so what we're modeling here is we're taking a parcel that does meet code we're subdividing it and we're making it nonconforming is how I'm seeing that and I am very concerned about this because I think we don't want to move forward in a way that is you know problematic and you know doing something that is against code so um if I could hear from attorney kandle that would be great yeah so I think it's a fair question is there anything about the proposed uh solution here where we pl as a subdivision through a very variety of steps and then create an outlaw that is contrary to the code so mayor um if this was done as administrative lot line adjustment that would be contrary to code which is why I recommended that staff kind of modify the recommendation here and go through this platting process so if it were platted um that would not violate the city code section governing administrative lot line adjustments why doesn't it need to be subdivided it it would need to be the plating would be a sub sub division but we're not we don't see the process of subdivision playing out here there's no sign in front of the property um notifying people that it is being considered for subdivision um there's no established public hearing so that would all have to come later it seems like we're putting the cart before the horse I think I I won't speak for the applicants I think the issue is they wouldn't if the council indicated it was not willing to go forward with this then they would not apply to subdivided in this way the other issue I have is I have done a little digging into you know processes for creating um these you know natural areas and the city would not need to own it you know we could do what Shaka does where um the land is stays within the owner owns it but the city has an easement over at a conservation easement to protect the trees and then um if that was the process we took we wouldn't need to spend $150,000 purchasing the land and I'm um getting a little concerned I mean I'm looking at uh our 133% plus um property tax increase and also thinking that usually with conservation easements the benefit is that the property owner will get a a tax reduction on the land um but it's it's not necessarily the case that a municipality is going to actually purchase it outright and so there's the expenditure of buying it there's also uh you know potential costs down the road because we would be the owners of it and so I'm I have not seen any figures uh telling me what those expenses might be I guess I kind of rambled there a little bit but it seems like why why are we taking this route and we're not exploring other options for creating a conservation easement that are less um perhaps expensive and onerous to the city of Edina this is just a method that was done previously that the residents are asking you to consider there are other ways to establish conservation easements and if you're not comfortable with this method then you know the council could say no thank you other questions from council members uh council member Jackson so regarding the cost we're going to do an assessment on people who have agreed to it so the city's not buying this land the neighbors are we're getting it through the assessment process so out of pocket is the neighbors are paying for this and just through the city's vehicle is that correct yeah we pay it initially up front then over 15 years they pay it back with a 3% interest rate correct so in the end we're we haven't spent any money of our own correct okay and then um tell me a little bit more about conservation easements I remember in the 70s when they were first created um uh that you don't you may not know the answer to this but um but the the whole idea was that it was set aside is what we called it in Iowa it was set aside land and you you set it aside and you did nothing and that was the whole point and so I think isn't that what a conservation easement is so if a tree falls you have a dead tree you know unless you have to put out a fire like a forest fire kind of thing that's a public safety thing but if you know there's a wild cat who goes to live there there's a wild cat that lives there we don't go in and keep up the land cuz it's in a conservation us is that that's correct am yeah so so there wouldn't be any maintenance cost any other than just public safety concerns right so like I said if there was a fire on the property the fire department would come and put it out like the same as we would as any other piece of property correct correct okay thank youer and then I'm going to bring the one of the neighbors up to explain kind of the history of how we got where we are U just a couple points of clarification it does it is a parcel of land that goes right up to the street so we would need to make sure that we weren't having trees grow and block The View and so there would be some degree of Maintenance because it it does have Street access the other um thing is that no there's no driveway or anything there's no driveway but it goes up along that culdesac but it's a street that we plow anyway yeah right but I mean you can't just let the trees I I understand what you're saying what I'm saying is there not curb in front of this little hunk of property right okay so presumably somebody has been making sure that the overgrowth doesn't spill out into that area at all I mean there could be some maintenance I also thought I read somewhere that possibly a fence would go up and we are offering 3% interest which is U my understanding below what is normally paid for with special assessments it's in the range we see 3 to 4% we're using 3% 3% okay so there's you do not calculate any Financial costs at all including staff time or anything on this zero on this case we have not okay BR one of the neighbors up to talk about the history how we got where we are introduce introduce yourself and give us your address please yeah um Andy Carter 601 to Pine Grove Road so I I want to help to help to get that uh plat map back back up there the the survey whatever it is if we can yep so I'm I'm the uh Homeowner of the lot to the South which if you can imagine Pine Grove Road going along the bottom of that lot um I actually am the one who owns that full lot um currently and we discussed this uh starting about a year ago um with the city and at the time uh there was a family who the Bennetts now own the house who who also owned this second lot uh the wish of that family uh was to maintain this as a green space and the neighbors surrounding this um so you can see the zabal house right to the right kind of almost off screen then we've got three or four more neighbors surrounding that culdesac that are participating here so the goal was really to kind of you know extend the wishes of the the howlands who lived uh in the Bennett's house previously to maintain this area as Green Space um and if you see my my place so the Carters down below that house was built in 1928 um when the city kind of platted this neighborhood the northern lot line is 6 feet from the house okay which is you know currently not up to code so the idea was hey let's push my lot north so the house isn't 6 feet now it's 30t from the lot line um it's a very hilly lot so buildability I think that's the word um isn't great um the Bennetts wanted to extend their lot because there was a fence you know the hoglands old fence heading into this you know the other lot they owned um and then the question was how can we you know again keep this a green space for the neighborhood and you know Aid into into the city's climate action plan which was to you know we're trying to grow Greenery in right we're planting trees everywhere why don't we just you know help maintain um that's cheaper it's easier than buying trees planting trees Etc uh so that was our idea um we planted or we presented all this I believe in April um so now we're back and I think we're we're close um but that's really the the general idea here PRP other questions from Council Members yes member Pierce uh thanks Mr Mayor so uh for um the question I have is just kind of going back to member one of the questions member Risser asked when you came forward with the idea yep which I applaud you for coming forward with an idea to do something different there um did we look did we consider other options and did we choose the one we thought was the best one or did we kind of choose an option that we had done before and and I'm just curious I don't have necessarily A Feeling one way or the other I'm just curious about the process of how we chose this option yeah based on the the wishes like Andy just shared we just shared the oaklane one it was either could they could someone develop the parcel and there was a quick review of how we that it'd be very difficult to develop the parcel then this Oak Lane example came up and we shared that and that's that's why they requested that of the council thank you sorry um I was going to you know just kind of reate council member Jackson's point you know it's not really a purchase it's it's a finance right this is almost a donation of land from the neighbors you know in exchange for an upfront paying but the neighbors are going to pay that back with interest um so it's it's really I think a financing a donation more than you know a purchase and I know the city owns quite a few Acres around there um the pear lingers old lot the lot um right below the sudor house for example um there's quite a bit of land already that the city owns around there so I thought we could maintain a larger green area by by introducing this parcel as well so I can provide more context too if you think it's necessary but I I support this uh idea just like I did over on oaklane I thought it was um wise thing to do this property uh where you see the bennets um there was a family named hogland there who owned much of the property at 50th in France they both passed away they had no kids and um and for years and years they made they owned that part what I'll call parcel C and uh I think the whole neighborhood assumed that it was just going to be part of the uh though it was a separate partial it was going to always be kept in a natural state and then when they both died they had a trustee who uh exercising his responsibilities as a trustee to try to maximize the um the value of the of the all the assets that they owned including a lot of property at 50th in France then thought he should try to sell parcel C and after I'd say Generations probably of of this property sitting just with filled with oak trees and other trees the neighbors were trying to think of a way where they could uh donate this to the city buy it donate it to the city uh through and this mechanism is what we've uh what's been created uh to try to accomplish that to keep this in its natural state um I think the the um trustee found that it was really essentially an unbuildable piece of property because the way it interfaces with Highwood Drive and the and the and the steepness of the slope as Mr Carter described uh and you know they dropped a price significantly and and then the neighbors got together and figured out how they could make this work from a donation standpoint and um we've accommodated that by thinking of ways we could use the special assessment policy to have the respective neighbors uh repay the city and then take that land as a donated piece of land and then put a conservation needman on it so that's that's a little bit of the backstory and we I think we started this process talking about it a couple years ago so the the m rer i again want to emphasize I appreciate the um importance people are placing on the trees but um I really feel like we do so many things in kind of a one oneoff way that really undercuts process and I I think if we're going to get into the business of conservation easements we should look at what other municipalities are doing and set standards and um I'm uncomfortable with the way this has moved forward and you know I the ends justifying the means it this bothers me partly because I think it does set precedent for taking lots that and yes it would be really challenging to build on this lot um but now are we going to hear from other residents who you know want to do a similar thing there's you know a vacant lot or a tear down and oh we're going to cut it up we can carve it up like they did and you know this person can get a bit this person can get a bit and then we'll have this non-conforming remaining parcel that I guess we call an outlaw and that's fine um but you know it I have not had time to research Arch um that aspect of it when I was going through the packet you know I raised the issue of this not being adequate for a lot line adjustment and needing platting and so it it's just really rather disconcerting that it came to us and this issue hadn't been addressed earlier on and now we're going to go set up a public hearing kind of after the fact back to the Planning Commission and it um I think it is important that we do things in a way that seems to be more consistent this part of Edina if you look at the climate action plan it's not hurting for tree canopy um other parts of Edina really are and that's not to say this part of Edina should not you know preserve its tree canopy but we're losing so many trees in other areas where there is no protection and so you you know think about what is sustainable what is ongoing and you know are we going to see more requests like this I don't know but I because of the way it has come forward I really can't support this thank you fine um thanks for those thoughts um so I've been on the council I guess more than 20 years but I've only seen this happen twice in the period of time I've been on here so it's it's it's hardly precedent setting it it was it was guiding because we created an original sort of notion around how to deal with Oak Lane uh and to me this is just part of being in a community and trying to find solutions to issues that in this case create a beautiful piece of nature conservancy essentially uh in a neighborhood that preserves some properties trees that have been there for decades and um and and we don't have any responsibility relative to it and we're going to get the land donated it's just going to get paid for in an unusual way uh so I I support it and um I'll entertain from anybody a motion on the council a motion to adopt resolution 2024-the agreement and resolution Mr Kendall it's okay if we couple this all in one resolution or one motion uh I think it is Mayor um I just wanted to note that some of these agreements may have to be modified after the if the plating application comes through and is approved and there's going to be a new platted legal description then we may have to modify the exhibits to these documents to reflect the new legal description so this is step one yeah I think that I'd recommend the council approve it subject to any necessary modifications as a result of the uh replatting and obviously if that platting does not go through for some reason I think then they'd probably be asking to nullify these agreements but the council should just be aware that this is pending uh the plat application and presumably approval of that application and then substitution of the new legal description as a result of that platting hope that makes sense sure yeah it does uh so the way I understand that in the motion would read we did potentially adopt resolution 20249 approving the acquisition of real property and dispensing with statutory requirements for review by the Planning Commission uh V vacant land purchase agreement resolution 20249 approving and adopting special assessment agreement and conservation easement all subject to the modifications potentially created by the plating of the property that correct that's my recommendation yes that's the motion I will make that motion if I don't have to repeat it second rejection moves the adoption of the motion is stated and the member Pierce seconds the motion of stated um any further discussion all those in favor of adoption of the motion stated say I I I opposed name motion carried uh and we'll move to the next step we'll do the plating uh and uh create the sub and see if we can create an out lot out of it so all right very good thanks for being with us this evening to help explain everything all right and now we are at uh the next matter here which is um of property that we've been number of up number of uh I go I guess you could call them opportunities that have unfolded at 7200 France uh over the past uh six seven eight years or several and we're going to talk about it again tonight and we've got director teag and director Milner here to make the presentation with respect to um uh potential adoption of resolution 202 24-50 and ordinance 20245 which would uh approve a preliminary site plan review and and a zoning ordinance Amendment and the address again is 7200 France gentlemen yes thank you mayor members of the council we're going to tag team this evening um so as mentioned this is a preliminary site plan and ordinance Amendment the city council held a public hearing on this one on August 7th and there were a lot of questions um at that time and subsequently um since in regard to traffic so director Milner is going to go through some of those traffic issues um so I will touch on the site plan and ordinance Amendment so to start out with our P pyramid of discretion again this is a site plan review based on the Pud ordinance that the city council adopted back in February of 2023 and the second part of this is the zoning ordinance amendment to that PUD 16 um and that request is to reduce the first floor um the first floor ceiling height from 16 feet to 14 feet part of the reasoning for that is in that original PUD it was contemplated for commercial uses on the first level this proposal this evening does not have commercial use on that first level so they'd like to lower that ceiling height to 14 ft so this is a look at the approved overall development plan as part of that PUD 16 again approved back in February of 2023 the approvals at that time granted fin final site plan of phase one which is the 7250 parcel right here that is to be a 76t tall 124,000 ft office building with a coffee shop currently they're going through the building permit process for that um for that first phase and they hope to start construction this fall as part of those approvals would you repeat that again they're hoping to start this fall yes on 7250 on 7250 correct good to hear and as part of that that um first phase all of the public space that you see here was intended to be put in as part of that first phase the only open-ended piece was this dashed line here but as part of the overall development plan and that ordinance amendment that was adopted um set up some parameters and that parameter um being that the building be 72 feet tall the council wanted to reduce the height compared to the first phase because it had was a little um closer in proximity to the single family homes to the west and North so look so this is a a graphic illustration of that phase one so again this is the the building where we're hoped to start construction this fall and what we saw as part of that overall um development plan was just a mass of the building we didn't get into specifics about number of stories it was just regulated in the ordinance based on the overall height there's some been some confusion about five stories versus six stories the preliminary approval of this site indicated in the resolution that the building was to be five stories the phase but the ordinance itself just regulated just the overall height didn't regulate the number of stories with the final approved resolution it did indicate six stories for this phase two but again the ordinance didn't change it was regulating a 72 foot height so again here's a look at this the site plan that's proposed six-story building they've eliminated that 10,000 square ft of retail it does meet the 72t height requirement and also meets all of the setback regulations established in the ordinance another um bit to clarify some some of the feedback that we've received stated that part of the approve approving resolution required vehicular access onto 72nd that was part there was a vehicular access on 72nd as part of the Pud that was approved for the site back in 2018 that project never went forward and the project that we um that was approved here did did not contemplate any vehicular access the condition stated that the phase 2 retail um housing or hotel use must have entrances on the two Street frontages the intent there is to have pedestrian access toward the street frontages prior the Southdale design guidelines this project does have direct pedestrian access um facing the street on both 72nd and on France so that condition is satisfied so just to quickly uh compare here again there was a in 2019 there was a PUD that was approved for two six-story buildings of nearly 300 units 30,000 squ ft of retail and 10 condos on the northwest corner that project never moved forward and the the applicant came forward with an amendment to that PUD 16 that was approved that established the uses for phase one and phase two and establish those height limits and with the request in front of the council uh this evening as a preliminary site plan um for the 153 unit apartment with no retail and then that ordinance Amendment so with that I will turn it over to director mil Milner to address traffic so we took a look big picture we we zoomed out and said what's going on in these various neighborhoods Lake Cornelia South Cornelio Lakey Diana and parkon and I was very fascinated to see all the colors on the right are all the street reconstruction projects that we have done over the last 15 years or so so you can see we've reconstructed a lot of the streets and with every one of those processes and then we did a more detailed memo in your packet detailing all those projects we detailed the number of properties within here um but with every one of those projects we look at narrowing streets to reduce traffic speeds and volumes we try to add medians within certain areas off of 70th or 66th we try to add sidewalks we do other traffic calming measures there were 13 actions for the 70th Street project and I believe we completed 11 or 12 of those and the one that was not completed is tell mot to build more Lanes on Highway 62 because what traffic does is they try to shortcut on 70th from 100 over to France and up to 62 um so we've done and I just want the council to know that we've done a lot of work here there were some recommendations of staff for more medians and more sidewalks that were not approved with some of our projects because some of the residents didn't favor those so there's been some things done and some not done and that's based on Resident feedback so in the packet I just think it's interesting the area that we haven't done yet is 72nd Street this year we did add curb extensions at uh 72nd in Cornelia with a safe routs to school Grant we added more sidewalks in that area around the new lift station we purchased or uh rebuilt but 72nd Street has not been part of a Recon yet so there's an opportunity there so again there's been 14 different s uh separate contracts and we've done a lot of this stuff um within the neighborhood I think the other important thing is to note there is very few East West streets in this quadrant of Idina there's 3,000 parcels and if you think about Mo the average is 10 trips a day there's 3 30,000 trips trying to get in and out of these neighborhoods um and that's causing issues just by the sheer volume and The Limited nor uh East West Street so we just got to keep that in mind too that's a very challenging neighborhood from a network of streets because there's very L little access out uh we did do the traffic study that was cons uh done by a traffic professional um the streets around this can support the project so we want to mention that we do have additional future improvements that we could look at within this neighborhood we're doing the Safe Streets for all Grant and creating a safe and eable Mobility action plan but I think the most important project that we know is coming next year the year after is a sanitary sewer project on 72nd with the new lift station we need to upssize the pipes we could treat this upssize uh as a deep sewer that we're most likely reconstructing most of that street in including curbs so now we could look at doing those same techniques of narrowing streets doing more curb bump outs adding sidewalks and stuff like that and consider it a Recon in a previous proposal uh six seven years ago this was a concept for 72nd Street just west of France Avenue and you can see in the middle is this Access Road that's also part of the current project in front of you this evening this had a uh median installed for that driveway heading north that only allows cars to make a right-hand turn out of that development project towards France so if there is a a want and a need and a concern from Council I would offer that you can direct staff to install that right out only media when we do that sanitary sewer project you can see some other things that I think we would consider the road today is 30 ft wide we at the time again this is a six sevene concept we'd want to review it we put a little curve in the street we added sidewalk a big wide sidewalk on the North trees Street widths stuff like that but those things we will look at with the project but I think the main thing for Council to give us direction is if they want that median installed with our project here in the next year or two with the sanitary project and that could address many of the concern concerns that the residents have of they're cutting through and taking a left and going through the neighborhood that's the issue that very issue that you and I and director Teague discussed uh just a couple days ago correct that uh that you've done all that work or we've done all that work on that newer new sewer lift station or um yep reconstructed sewer lift station right south of Cornelia school and uh you could enhance the sewer capacity between Cornelia and France Avenue on 72nd and in conjunction with doing that it could be done within the next couple of years um and in in conjunction with that project we could figure out ways to calm traffic more on SEC 72nd which exactly you know for those of us that have been over there we see how speed can uh increase on 702 as they come into the neighborhood even though there are neighbors living deeper into the neighborhood correct because it's not a cut through area it's people heading home probably but between France at least my observation was between France and Cornelia the speeds are pretty significant as they stood on on glester with some of the neighbors you know it was uh you know but for the road being dug up where there was a gas leak I think they were slowing down for that but if that hadn't been there they wouldn't have been slowing down at all and they're easily going I don't know 35 miles an hour yep it's still wide streets um so we have this opportunity with the sewer project that we're in the process process of coming back to you for hiring a consultant we doing interviews next week so then we'll have someone doing the technical work on that sanitary project that's not only on 72nd it's a much larger project while we're on this slide in this topic why don't you talk a little bit about what would be the process that you'd go through and working with the neighborhood to uh think about traffic calming and then also to uh minimize or eliminate uh leftand turns out of any potential development at 7200 France regardless of whether it's this project or some other project yep yeah first steps we're scoping out the sewer project we want to figure out the means and methods of how we could upssize those sewer pipes once we have a general understanding we're going to go out to public that's part of our request for proposals was public engagement so let's hear the concerns whether it's around the sewer or the street or the sidewalks because we're going to have most of it dug up now so it's real similar to our street reconstruction program once we have a general idea of what we're doing and where we'll reach out to the public offer opportunities to provide feedback most likely on Better Together d and then probably some face to-face meetings with residents we'll always take questions and comments on that site or they can email and call me directly when that project continues to move forward now the benefit of a write in or a write out of this is that again the the anybody going to northon Gallagher or out of this project area cannot take a left to go into the neighborhood so if the traffic's being generated by this project they got to go out to France and figure out a different way wherever they're headed right one of the other concerns we heard was that if um because of the new the theoretically new internal Street just uh just east of the the pond the new Pond uh people could come that were going eastbound on Gallagher and cut South and then go west but this would take care of that too if there was a median barrier uh preventing left-and turns out of a development it would prevent left-and turns from anybody coming through on that road too I would imagine um depends what direction but we can look at look at those options and where the concerns are and see which median and the style of that yeah remember Jackson This has caused her to think of something too well this is a long-term plan is there so I on my neighborhood where do and London Dair are the they put in a new cement um barrier to slow things down at that intersection is there something we could put in immediately when this is being built and then whether the sewer project goes forward or not there's some protection there um council member Jackson when we look at timing of the development project and the you know they're just getting started on that one on the south parcel this one we don't have a schedule yet I think I'm going to be there first and beat any development it's usually a two-year plus process to build and finish anything I might be here next year if not the year after so at the timing of when their project would start generating traffic is it's going to align when our project's done so okay I don't see an issue there with that timing okay very good thank thank you yeah go ahead gentlemen yeah just in conclusion we're recommending along with the Planning Commission their recommendation was unanimous to adopt preliminary approval and Grant first reading of the ordinance they would have to come back for final approval and second reading of the zoning ordinance other questions for staff at this point in time let let's get let's get back to this pyramided discretion issue it seems to me like the last time or when we maybe when we had the public hearing you told us that because there was an overall uh overall development plan that approved both phase one and phase two and I think phase one was you had pointed out what was going to be involved in Phase One including the retention Pond and and there's some there's some Tiff associated with this that would be used I think most of it in Phase One to build all this infrastructure out that's correct um but I remember you saying that we had very limited discretion of what we could do here and so I think it'd be important to understand that again or get you know revisit that both with respect to the proposed zoning Amendment and with respect to the preliminary site plan yes uh so again we're reviewing this against the Pud 16 zoning ordinance that established the height limit of 72 feet and it established certain setbacks um on all lot lines um this project conforms to those requirements that have been established in that zoning ordinance in terms of the N the amount of traffic that's generated from this compared to what was contemplated at the overall development plan stage with the removal of the 10,000 square ft of retail uh would have a lesser impact than what has originally been approved approved uh so we have very limited discretion in regard to the site plan in terms of the zoning ordinance Amendment you could require them to meet that 16 foot height limit on the first story and the developers indicated to me they would just make adjustments in the the building they could still construct it at 16 feet and just make adjustments in some of the upper floors to still maintain that 72t overall height if attorney Kendall has anything additional to add I don't think so may right be happy answer any questions yeah sure I figured that's probably the direction you'd prefer um so is the um the reason we had 16 ft in the first place I remember was because they were going to have retail on the first floor but now they're not you know there's proposing no r retail just a there would be apartmentss on the first floor so they don't need 16 ft they just go to 14 ft and you wouldn't be able to tell that from the exterior of the building where they adjusted there's not going to add two more feet to the out exterior it's going to be interior that's correct yeah they it still stays at 72 feet which is what was part of the overall master plan correct so I guess the question I would say ask you uh um Mr Kendall is um if you said you'd are there risks in saying that we we think 16 ft is okay but 14 isn't I mean is that you have to have a basis for that I mean is there a legal kind of it seems kind of arbitrary in a way but is there some sort of standard that comes into play there well uh the 16 ft was originally written into the zoning ordinance so unless the the council can just you know you have discretion to change that zoning ordinance um I think the 16 ft originally was based off the anticipation of retail but the the remainder of the approvals did not require them to do that retail so in that sense the council is not getting something different than what was previously promised or approved the previous approval said it could be retail commercial or it could not be so um in one sense the inclusion of the 16 ft in the ordinance was arguably premature but it is in the ordinance but you also do have discretion to change that if you want to it's a it's a zoning ordinance and you know that's what's shown here on the the green area um where you have discretion to change those ordinances unless the developer represented and you agreed that they had materially relied on that and were going to suffer some kind of Damages as a result if you if you didn't change it but in this case they're asking for that change so I think you have discretion to do it if you care to okay um let me ask this question too this way um could the developer develop the property in accordance with approved p16 uh as amended by the ordinance whether or not the first floor ceiling height was uh was approved or denied at 16 or 14 feet well I understand the comments from director Teague to be that so I I think some of the confusion has been around this discussion about five stories or six stories but I think the actual approval is for a maximum of 72 feet and so I'm hearing from director te that even if the council required them didn't change the ordinance required them to have 16 feet on the first floor sounds like they could still create the project to a maximum height of 72 feet and I don't know what that would be five stories or six stories but as long as it complied with building code and it would it would comply with the ordinance and the maximum height of 72 ft and it sounds like they could build iter um one of the things that I'm wrestling with there's a there's a lot but um it says phase two would include a similar sized building in height and square footage can we get the total square footage of um the phase one building and the phase 2 building have we received that information I don't have that at my fingertips but I we can we can get that okay the other thing is that um this ordinance came into being a w when was this ordinance passed in February of 20123 okay it's still not up on the website it's not in our ordinance when you look at it you look at the Town Home Project and so it's really hard to get information quickly so and and I sense you know frustration I'm frustrated and I think other people are as well but you know what I'm wrestling with is Phase 2 would include a similar sized building in height and square footage could we go back to the image that shows um both of the buildings okay no um that's what was shown that that is supposed to be what will be right where we do have two blocks that are very similar in size okay and then can we go to the the project as being presented um and I keep looking at this and I was trying to figure out you know if you kind of draw that West wall up you know and then look at the remaining building and I am sensitive to this um just in terms of you know what community expectations are and then what ends up you know happening and so I'm I'm little I am a little concerned about well more than a little but how much larger is this building you know is it indeed similar and similar is a very vague term um so what does what does that mean um a couple of comparisons there is first level parking associated with both projects and when you take the footprint of that first level the building footprint of 7250 is 43,000 Ft the building footprint of 7200 is 42,000 Square ft so roughly the same when you just take the building itself so levels two and up um the the coverage for 7 200 or this mass in the gray area is 32,000 sare ft and the mass in the gray area here is 28,000 Square ft okay thank you questions for director T oh what you somebody mentioned parking and I think that was one of the emails we got today was uh they thought that there was a 20 18 study that showed that a lot more parking was needed than than what what we were publishing is as the traffic data you might want to you might want to comment on that yeah the 2018 study was for that different the the dean deis project that never moved forward the that was the that was the two apartments up by 7250 that were facing south with the correct yeah the 300 units of of apartments and 30,000 ft of of retail and office the the parking standards that were used for this project um basically three different calculations when you took our zoning ordinance based on the square footage and the number of units would suggest that 576 parking stalls would be required the parking study demonstrated that at peak times 300 92 stalls would be required the zoning ordinance that we adopted as part of that PUD 16 establishes 468 as the minimum requirement they they would be installing 483 so it would exceed our zoning code requirement so there's some different standards that we looked at there remember Jackson yes thank you so I really want to have something done tonight that addresses the left turn out of it um this interior Street and I don't know procedurally how to do that but could do it by restriction okay if it was if it was approved you could add the Restriction that there be a median barrier in installed to prevent leftand turns on the West 72nd Street okay the project because I want to make sure that when when I take a vote that that's a part of it um and and we could put it in the passive tense like that so that it could be us or the developer somebody make sure that when this building is built that there's that um no left turn because that's really important um so what's the mechanism so we could put that as a condition of of approval tonight yes when you're making the motion uh this evening you can add that as a condition okay so and and I know that you're planning this everything but I but I really think I just want to get something in writing um before the the evening is out so um because that's that's the prim people are very concerned about the traffic as you pointed out this is a difficult neighborhood so I just want to make sure that that's in whatever it is that we um are taking a vote on um so mayor I just want to make one point on that I think you can put that but the developer doesn't control the right of way so you can direct staff to have that Medan in place prior to this building being complete or however you want to phrase that but I don't think you can require the developer to put that meeting there because they don't control the right away so I mean you could you could phrase that and direct staff to do that prior to the building being completed but I don't think you can require the developer to do that just so that's clear but thank you okay yeah why we're talking about traffic I'm looking at your staff report and um you've got a chart on page seven that shows existing condition in 2018 29 2019 PUD 2023 PUD and then the 2024 project it looks like from the 2019 PUD uh daily trips 3,485 the 2024 project 2683 so there's a a descending number of trips um TM Peak 340 to 275 am Peak 372 to 349 am I reading that correctly that's correct yeah this was the table that was put together by the traffic consultant and it has to do with the change of use in the building that it has less traffic with this than what was in the contemplated with a hotel in the original traffic study when you think about things that could impact the neighborhood the the traffic is a issue that comes right to the top of the list absolutely maybe the only thing but uh I have some comments on that so um I mean those are the those are the comments that predominate the emails that I've seen is that concern over traffic and so how do you how do we how would we deal with the idea that you're saying well I could be there one year maybe one or two years how do we how do we how do we make that decision that we would go in there and do that earlier rather than later well first I'm going to be there we're doing sewer work I'm going to be done before Ted's project the development project just as a two-year window I'm already going to be done before that project is finished the both you know the 7250 might be just slightly ahead but that's only half of this development I think you make a condition saying staff shall have have that installed in the fall of by the fall of 2026 that gives two construction Seasons to have that done which aligns with a potential buildout of this project want to make sure I understood something else that you said earlier I think that U by going this extra story did it change the number of apartments by three yeah they go from 150 to 153 correct there wasn't a lot of detail that were put into that overall development um plan the 150 number was really generated out of how much parking they could provide um other qu yeah member U thank you I want to build off of the conversation and potentially thinking about um the addition to a potential decision tonight to include no left turns out of this um and may maybe this is a question that I should just phrase to the applicant but kind of how I'm thinking about it is with what we're seeing today the one of the biggest concerns I think this perfect thank you this is a great visual is there's nothing connecting this building to that North South Street and so what that means is oh is there traffic coming up okay so this is the question can traffic come out of this building onto the north south yes there's a there's a a driveway entrance in the towards the center of the yeah right where the the South West corner of that building there's the access into the parking area okay thank you that part I I did miss in one of the the visuals so if I'm understanding this in order for them to go to 62 as an example they can still go exit that way go south to Gallagher and then take a left at the light to go north exactly that's where we want them to go because there's a light there that's going to control operations much better much better uh Avenue to get there okay and so the only use case in which they would be going north under 72nd is potentially if they want to have an easier access to going south under France cuz that's the only Direction they can go on France corre okay I didn't think they could get to the north south um based off of this visual so that was my confusion thank you other questions coms um yeah Mr Mayor yes go ahead okay thank you sorry I I I do want to just acknowledge the concerns that the neighborhood has we've gotten a lot of emails about this um and I brought one that I thought was really representative the first one was the concern about changing the rules about when we decide and I think that's really important to talk about because this comes up in a lot of developments that the ability the timing of our decision protects the owner of the property in this case the developer it isn't something that goes to the public so there's a 60-day rule that forces cities to make a decision or automatically prove a Zone a rezoning thing and so I think it's really important to understand that that when the developer says I want to push it back a week that is his right to do that we we can't delay that and say oh no we'll we'll get to that decision when we get to it but he can push that back and so and that's what happened in this situation so I just wanted to make that clear that it it was it was the developer who asked for this time extension and we granted it and that's where the power in that equation lies the city can't delay but he can um so I wanted to make that clear um and then the second thing was I just want to talk remind people that we had four public hearings on zoning alone for this property so there was September 201 14 2022 at the Planning Commission September 20th 2022 at the city council July 24th 2024 at the Planning Commission and August 7th 2024 at a public hearing so we've had lots of opportunities for the and we've had better together and take comments everything I just wanted to acknowledge that we've had a lot of opportunity for citizens to give input on this um we're not deciding anything on financing tonight um they're concerned about transition but that would be if that were to be changed that would be a rezoning question which is not before us tonight um traffic we've talked about that extensively um the water I want to remind people that that's what this flood Basin is for is to handle flooding and the reason we granted Tiff for this was that this is going to take flood water not only from this property but from the surrounding properties as well and so I was in um morning side today and I was looking at the kip ly Kipling um flood water B it is gorgeous is very very beautiful it's an asset to the neighborhood and this is going to be landscaped and it's going to be a beautiful thing and so the alternative for a basin is a single story commercial building or town homes or something like that so it's this is there is a transition it's a floodwater basin but we've heard this over and over and over again but I just want to remind people that this is handling flood water on the site that's not being handled now and it's going to be a landscaped Green Space which other places in our city is actually very beautiful um we talked about parking and we talked about the entrance on France that there's nothing in our documents that say entrance means an entrance for cars and the whole idea is the um uh building where um I'm sorry people in the audience are talking it's distracting me where Pinstripes is where Pinstripes is there is retail and the retail does not have doors other than the back door that are open to the public on France and one of the main ideas of the Southdale plan was to avoid that from happening again it's very ugly you're walking down France you can't stop in these stores you have to go in and walk around everything and we didn't want that because it's very unfriendly and it's ugly and we wanted four-sided buildings which is to have a entrance on France nothing in there says it's a car entrance and in fact the whole idea is about an entrance please please this is not a discussion this is not a public hearing no this is not a public hearing it's a discussion by the council it's been a public hearing several times council member Jackson go ahead please thank you what I'm doing is I'm acknowledging that these are complaints that are out there changing that at this point would be a request to rezone and that's not the question that's on the table tonight except for the 16t ceiling or yeah ceiling and so I just wanted to acknowledge we've read this we've listened to you now you have the right to be heard but you don't necessarily have the right to win and that's a constitutional concept I used to take input from people say oh they they just wouldn't listen to me but if there's a hearing and the decision does not go your way it doesn't mean you were denied a hearing it means the decision did not go your way but there have been hearings we've gotten a number of emails about this and I wanted to acknowledge that we all take this very seriously but tonight the decision is it 72 ft tall is it primarily places for people to sleep about 150 units and as far as I can tell it's still 72 feet tall they're 153 units the three additional units have taken the place of the re the commercial space that was originally there and I don't see a variance from what we approved in it was 20 22 correct when we approved the original zoning on this um and so I just wanted to acknowledge that the neighborhood has given us input and and what my reaction to it is thank you thank you you raised an interesting issue there with respect to the retention Pond I think one of the things all of us have uh worried about is well there's homes on Bristol Court and um when I when I drive by there at least when it's summertime you you can't see any homes back there U and maybe this is a question for the applicant um uh do do any of those those trees on the on the property line need to be removed to accomplish the uh yeah you better come up uh Mr Carlson and comment on that that that all that treescape would stay there you could you would build the retention Pond East of the existing tree line yes good evening mayor huband council members Ted Carlson at 6550 York Avenue in Idina um in conjunction with staff and Forester engineering um it's in our uh plans that are approved under the Pud that the trees on the west lot line between us and the homes are to remain and I'd ask uh Mr Milner to verify that in the plans to protect that West property line trees yeah thank you you're welcome yes council member Pierce uh thanks Mr Mayor um so I I just have a a few comments um first to the the staff um I do appreciate that you guys have leaned in and looked at the traffic challenges um and so I have no doubt that whatever the the challenges are that we'd be able to come up with a way to address those and so I I definitely do appreciate you uh leaning in and looking at the traffic patterns the cut through the parking all of that um and I and as I said I think we can I feel confident that whatever issues that were raised uh we could address those um The Challenge I have is um kind of twofold um one and I've talked about this before it does give me pause to um when we have a preliminary um vote and then at a later date we talk about financing and so you've heard me say that before that so that is um a challenge uh for me although there have been times when I've voted for in favor of um but but I am uh challenged on on that and so when I when I take a a step back and I think about it in the overall context given the time that has passed uh since 2023 um I think the project in and of itself like it looks great I have no doubt that um uh Mr Carlson and team can build a beautiful complex right with all the green space and all the other amenities that we talked about the only thing that I can't answer to myself tonight is I don't know that this is the best best project for the area and I'm not sure how I and and I'm not sure how to resolve that and frankly I'm not even sure if the way I'm thinking about it is even fair um oh did you say it's not fair um I don't even know that it's uh Fair um and so I am just being transparent open and honest and so when I step back and I look at the full context of what's what we're of what's being proposed there in the context of the Macy site and this site I am I I can't rationalize is this the right thing uh for the community and so that's that's where I am um I think there are some benefits one of which I I think is a huge benefit would be the water basin um we've talked about that since my first year on Council we've met with neighborhoods that are in a flood zone and we've talked about creative ways of dealing with war order um and so this project has a way to deal with that for that Community um and so I definitely think that that is a a benefit um the second thing I I struggle with is I don't know that we need more rentals and so you also hear us you you also hear all of us talk about out it would it's be great to have more ownership options so uh whether condos some type of ownership option um and so I I feel like we're getting further and further away from um I don't want to say opportunities to do that but but the way this is structured today and and I'm not just talks about necessarily this project it it is based on what the developer brings forward and so as a council we have to be um we have to influence what we think is best um and one of the things that we've all talked about is more ownership uh options so I'm I can't rationalize the fact that I I just don't know I don't feel like we need more um rentals and so I like to see more owner occupied options and if I talked about this in London da if there's an opportunity to have condos built um then I'd like to see us say to developers yeah we'd like to have condos there versus rental uh but we're not developers right so the developers are bringing for forward projects that they think um are the projects that they can build and that meet the needs of their investors and there's nothing wrong with that but but that's the the um that's I think that's where we we find ourselves and so to um member Jackson um I actually held my comments to not get in the way of the discussion that everybody else was having um and so I I really don't appreciate um anyone telling me that my opinion is the wrong opinion or not not not a good opinion um I because my whole purpose is to hear feedback and you've heard me say this a thousand times my opinion is not more valuable than yours or a resident my job is to hear the feedback take my the way I think about it and in an intellectually honest way paint that picture and so that's that's what I'm doing here and so you may disagree the entire Council May disagree every resident May disagree but I have to stand on the principles that the process that I'm using to to evaluate this particular project and so that's that's where I am yeah I don't think member Jackson meant to be critical of your opinion yeah but she was Mr Mayor but she was if I may so you use the term fair and I want to explain why I disagree with that and that is we made a decision um in 2022 on the zoning of this and the developer went forward this this is this is not I'm not using fair and the same way you are that's why what I want to say the developer relied upon our decision tore down two buildings and has been holding this property and paying on it in Reliance on our decision in 2022 so we at this point are bound by this decision to the extent that he has relied on trusting us that that is the zoning that we approved in 202 too and if we were to he's expended money believing that that is what the ordinance is and that's what I mean by Fair um that this is not an opportunity to rewrite the Zoning for this this is a review of whether this is in compliance with the zoning that we approved and that's what I mean I'm I'm not making a moral judgment but I'm saying that that there has been money expended and time money and time spended in Reliance on our decision and that's all I'm saying I'm not making a normative decis uh comment about your thing your words but that indeed there has been Reliance on our decision and to change that is legally unfair um because we made a decision and they had every right to rely upon that that's all I'm saying so again I decorum is decorum I don't think there's anything illegal and anything that I just said I I don't think there is um and so I'm just I'm taking exception um to what you're saying um I'm expressing my opinion I think I did a very good job of doing that and if if you disagree with it you can disagree with it but it is 100% fair for me to think through this and and present the way I'm thinking about it and and I don't think I'm saying anything illegal I don't think that that was intended to be indicated either but again Mr Mayor she said that and so and I don't appreciate it and so I'm going to move on I'm done with my comments and I'm going to move onno thank you Mr Mayor um it's it's clear from from everyone here today these aren't easy decisions in front of us and the way that I'm thinking about this personally um is I go back in time um to when this was initially approved and um I do want to clarify I think we had heard 2022 was it was February 2023 was when the Pud was approved is that correct that that's correct that's when the final approval was that preliminary approval was 22 okay thank you uh just want to make sure I got my notes correct so the frustration that I feel in this I think goes back to what I had said at a previous meeting is I wish we wouldn't have gone this far and granted this PUD without enough Clarity on what phase two of the project would be [Applause] and so I think that this is an opportunity for us as a council to take that forward and think about that as we're looking at projects and at the same time we did right like this is what was approved and I look at that period of pyramid of discretion and what's in front of us today is not do we want to Grant this PUD it is based off of the Pud that was was approved in February of 2023 does this meet it and that's a very different question and it it makes it hard right I wish we were having this discussion about is this the right project for this site um because I there might be things that I would change but I would also posit that you could query anyone and everyone is going to come up with a different project idea for this essential um Central site in our city and I think that the complexity with this or whether you look at the Macy's site or whether you talk about our Grand View um area is that we can come up with beautiful amazing ideas but that doesn't mean that we have a developer who's willing to pay for it or put it there and that doesn't mean that that's what we're actually going to get and so I also go back and and I it's unfortunate that we're rooted with that beautiful project that was a red in 2019 that had condos right and and previous projects that were on this site that even I think for me personally rooted in how can we have a pedestrian Crossway because that was in one of the the earlier projects as well but what that tells me is that project after project after project doesn't make its way forward and so that's where I also want to question like what is it that we have systematically in our city that's preventing more condos from being proposed and build if we're saying that that's a need like what can we do to better facilitate and encourage that and thankfully like we are talking about what our legislative priorities are and I do know that there's the 10year rule um in our state I think it is um that makes it harder to build owner occupied construction and so I think all of these things come into play and it makes decisions like this so complex and so hard um but tonight the way that I'm viewing it the way I'm viewing my legal responsibility as a city council member is to look at what is in front of us which is will we grant them that ability to lower the first floor from 16t to 14 feet because of our pyramid of discretion and because of where we're at in this approval process and so it doesn't it's not an there's no there's not very many decisions that we make here that are super easy but because of that like I am comfortable with that one change and the reason being is I feel like this does for all other intents and purposes meet the Pud that was approved in 2023 you know there is a lot of discussion about the um entrance onto France and you can look back at at the visuals that were approved there hasn't been since PR it was previous um site plans that we looked at um for different projects I think it was the grocer there hasn't been a vehicular entrance from the building off of France and I know that there's also push back even from the county in allowing that and so yes I hear the concerns I I read all of the emails I hear the concerns from people in the neighborhood but I think that having that north south connector is the way that we're going to help alleviate the traffic and we hear the traffic concerns and we're going to be looking at how are there other ways that we could combat this right um the other one that I often hear is the difference between the five stories and the six stories um and to me what I'm reading in the ordinance and what I'm reading an understanding of this is it's 72 ft and they're still sticking within the 72 ft and so tonight the decision that's in front of me as I understand it is the 16 ft to the 14 ft reduction and so just again I know it's hard and I know when we get an outpouring of people and emails it it can sometimes conflate what it is that we're considering but that's where we're at tonight thank you member U member rer well I did just ask director Teague for the total square footage the other um when the public announcement was made in the paper was it 5T or 6 feet or stories I'm sorry you're building a little tiny building the the there have been several notices for for this project that have we'd have to go back and and look that's that's all I have no comment all right um I think member eggner is on the right track here the um because I what I understand is that the matter that's before the council for determination uh and what did the applications sufficiently compli with the existing approved PUD zoning already in place and whether the requested minor Amendment to the existing approval is warranted so the the question seems to be really narrow and that is uh is the site plan compliant with the existing approved PUD 16 uh and the overall zoning code is that a fair summarization yes so you've got you've got a master overall approved master plan uh uh and certain and things have been done in compliance with that master plan and what staff and the Planning Commission is saying is that uh the site plan is compliant with the overall purpose of PUD 16 and the uh the two-foot issue is something that that they were comfortable with that's correct correct so the two main issues then were uh whether or not the approval of the site plan for phase two of the Pud 16 should be whether it should be approval of the preliminary site plan for phase two of the p16 and what the zoning ordinance amendment to modify the p16 ordinance to allow a 14ft seiling height on the main floor rather than 16 ft okay to me the on the on the latter that's I'm a little bit like member agu I feel like that's an easier question to answer you know it felt like um that was in the scheme of things that was a di Minimus sort of issue because it wouldn't change the exterior height of the building and and it was approved uh on the overall Master development plan at 72 feet is what I heard you say and the and the number of units would be actually be going up three even though a story was added correct um and so then it becomes an issue of whether or not in my mind whether uh P um PUD 16 with respect to uh phase one uh or is phase two so intertwined with PUD 16 and phase one that uh it it merits uh consideration and potential approval because of that intertwined nature of the two things based on the master development plan and what I hear you saying is that you think it does Mr Kendall I don't know what you think what your thoughts are from an legal standpoint it might be interesting for us to know as well but the Planning Commission also thought the same thing well mayor I think you just correctly identified the two issues you know the two issues are do you want to allow this change from ceiling height on the first floor from 16 down to 14 and do you feel that regardless of that do you feel like the site plan is compliant with the existing PUD zoning those are the two questions before you tonight and if I heard you correctly member Ragu you thought yes they did I think so and member Jackson same member U or member britford disagrees I think member Pierce disagrees um I am waiting to this is a really hard one because um yeah there is the Pud that was created and to build on what member U said yes we passed it February of 2023 probably my third meeting and it was a consent agenda item so um it wasn't really discussed and I think that's a bit of a problem with process um I think when I look at this um again it kind of comes down to this very ambiguous similar sized building sort of thing phase two phase one but um it's so anyhow that's kind of where I'm hung up right now and just wanting to get a little bit more information but I do think it's important to bear in mind I mean we have heard so many things and so many frustrations and you know the building height overlay has come up and um dialogue about how you know it's supposed to be four stories not six you know when you look at Maison green it's seven stories on land that's supposed to be either four or two stories and we've that document out there and it's misleading and we need to update that and then we've got code that's not up Tod date and so it's I mean this is just not an okay situation on those levels and I think our process could be improved and I think there could be a lot more transparency U for residents if we had upto-date code and we had a map about height that did not lead people astray so those are things that need to be addressed I do have those numbers for you okay the finished square footage of the this phase two that's in front of you is 199,000 square ft and the square footage of the office would be 126 Square F feet thank you that's the problem 126,000 okay and I just member yeah member thanks Mr Mayor um and so just to be like Crystal Clear I've I've done this we've all done this before and my point is it's the the process kind of sets the path and it leads us on the journey and so if you ask me if I agree with what member agu said could I and the Pud and the floor height that's all we were talking about we wouldn't have had a conversation for an hour about traffic about all the other issues we wouldn't have tried to kind of frame this in a way that's acceptable for however we're thinking about um voting on it because it's more than about just those two things right every and we look at it in a broader context and so I you nobody up here should be surprised by anything I've just said because I've said it before like we have to figure out a way to not end up in this situation and at some point like we we got to start doing that and so I will tell I what you're saying makes sense if those were the only two issues we were talking about there was nothing else tied to it it would yeah would make sense so I just want be clear I actually agree with that my challenge is that the process leads us down these paths and we should be able to figure out a way at some point to address it we talked about this I think in the HRA that in future we need to have a conversation about what we can do to to to um alter the process when I ask the question for the site how that project might be different if there were no Tiff or little tiff associated with it that kicked off a different process that we used to have more insight into how we make choices and decisions but we couldn't use it for that project because we were already down the road in that in the original process so we couldn't use it to change uh what we were thinking that's my only that's where I'm coming from and so I just want to be clear about that member IGN and I've got a thought too member Pierce I completely agree with what you're saying of like if we never change the process the process will never change um and so I I do think that's why I I continue to underscore any project that we're looking at any you know new zoning request that's coming in like let's have these conversations right like we are the city council like we can we can start having those conversations let's start bringing Tiff into the equation earlier on as well because I I do believe that that's a core component of this um I just really feel that we can't go back on this one based off of where we're at in the process and so what I will say is that right now and this is maybe a question for um Mr Kendall um if we say no to this based off of the 16 to the 14 feet um my understanding is that then they could come back with a new proposal that fit everything directly um with the Pud that was approved in February of 2023 and we would not have any more flexibility at that point in time am I understanding that correctly well I I think so so if you're saying you know if you wanted to deny the site plan application tonight you'd have have to identify why um and the reasons would have to do with not complying with the approved PUD and then if you know the applicant could take that and go back and modify their application to fix whatever issues you address as the basis for denial tonight so I I don't know exactly what that would be but they would have the option to if you identify things are not compliant with the Pud zoning they'd have the option to fix that and put forth another site plan that would be compliant with that zoning and walk us through then too what does it look like if we are viewing a site plan proposal that is completely conformant to the Pud for that site well I mean the zoning says that you should approve that site plan unless you change the zoning but they've not applied to change the zoning they're applying to build the project that they applied to build previously so I mean that you know arguably there was issues with that project not being completely defined and but the the parameters were defined and they submitting applications for a site plan that they represent are within those parameters I mean so that's the situation that is before you tonight you don't have to proceed this way all the time you know if you're talking about changes to the process you could approach different PUD applications differently in the future potentially thank you so I don't want to underestimate the difficulty of this decision this piece of property is so complex that it triggered a threeyear and 9month task force that came up with a Southdale guidelines is is a super complex super emotional piece of property and it's a key to the neighborhood and I understand and that's why I brought up these points not to I I didn't mean to confuse anything everything but I want to acknowledge the emotion in the room and how passionately people feel about this the decision tonight is does it conform with the site plan and what are we going to do about the first floor ceiling the whole idea a of using PUD and following the Southdale guidelines this is new we literally don't have any Bill well I suppose the Fred has been built under that but in this area none of these projects have been built we we're learning this process as we do make decisions so it's not smooth it's not easy it's complex it has the potential to be have an enormous amount of input back and forth between the community and the city council and developers and that's what we're building here and I don't want to minimize the emotion or the complexity of this particular piece of land but it is a fairly narrow decision that we're making tonight to that issue I would just say and and this might be helpful um I think the reason we've had a long conversation tonight is because the question is so narrow and that is is the site plan compliant with the existing approved PUD 16 sufficiently compliant and the overall zoning code so when you think about you say let's let's just use the 14 16 foot thing if you said okay no we want it to be 16 to me that feels arbitrary and capricious and I bet there's a legal argument there somebody you know for for a developer to say well that was arbitrary compe on what basis did you say you know you wanted us to be a 16 instead of 14 when we took the retail out and uh we're just going to have Apartments there um so that was one thing I worried about so when you start thinking about the narrowness of the issue those two issues then you start thinking about conditions you might impose at least this was it for me when I looked at this whole project and I thought the the the predominant at least as I read emails and everything else and talk to people on this Street and was out there uh visiting with Folks at the door that the the it seemed to me the predominant issue was the traffic and the and the volume is hard to deal with but the speed and so then it came I came to think well if if we're stuck in this narrow situation where we don't have much wiggle room then what can we do to amarate some of the things that we're concerned about that might cause potential harm in the neighborhood and that is you don't let anybody go into the neighborhood you know you try to discourage him from doing that so the median barrier becomes a conversation then and and director Milner has talked about how just by Serendipity we can be there within we could be there and get that work done before with the resident input before the project was even finished so the to me the the site plan here is is is sufficiently compliant with the existing approved PUD because of that revised overall development plan I think the Planning Commission felt the same way they wouldn't have voted unanimously on it our staff thinks it is I think our our attorney thinks it is um and so I I find myself in a really uh difficult spot of trying to figure out um how to advance uh the interest of the neighborhood um and still uh make sure that we don't get ourselves sideways with the developer in a legal lawsuit where they've claimed we've been arbitrary capricious or they've got some kind of an asole argument wait wait a minute you already approved this master plan we like to your point we tore these buildings down we spent hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars getting to sight ready to do what you said we could do now you won't let us do it and you don't have any good reason for it for the other reasons that that the neighbors have expressed that um to me when I look and I other people people have heard me say this I I look at things is a project good for the town yeah is I think it is good for the town will it do are there are there things about this project are there things about this project that will uh cause harm to the neighborhood that overrides the the value of the project to the community for me the one thing I could think about was traffic was was speed the the you know the volume is one thing the calming is another thing so uh that's where I went with it I think we can find a pathway uh by saying the same thing this Planning Commission said that the site plans compliant with the existing approved PUD and the overall zoning code um approved the site plan for phase two of PUD 16 and uh allow the amendment of The zoning ordinance to go from 16 ft to 14 ft on the first floor and then impose a condition relative to the traffic and then try to get that road rebuilt in a way that is really protective of the neighborhood uh and I'm really grateful that we happen to do that sewer enhancement project and that we can now think about expanding the sewer capacity to the east to all the way to France Avenue and in that process get all the neighborhood input on how to make that street a lot safer and calmer and uh whatever whatever the best way to do it is the way to do it and then make sure that nobody can turn left out of that street uh that runs through the project or out of the parking ramp that's underneath 7200 so to me I feel really constrained by this and I think that uh uh that's that's at least a solution that I think finds a finds a pathway to maybe not satisfying every body but deals with a difficult situation so Mr Mayor yeah I have a procedural question and we saw this with Maison green when we put a condition that we have to conform with not with when what the developer has to conform with is that kosher well that's that's kind of the point I was trying to make earlier I I wouldn't view it as a condition upon the developer now if there was a way to require them to do something on the site that would prevent left turns out of there you could place that condition on the developer because they have control over the site but the way I understand the traffic and Engineering is that it needs to be done out in the street which would be the right of way which they don't control so I don't think you can place a condition on the developer that the city must place a median in the right of way before they can build their prod project but I think you can direct staff that they have to place that Mee in the right of way before a certain date so I I wouldn't view it as a condition upon the developer I'd view it as a direction to staff but I mean you the city knows that you're going to control that right of way so it it can be done so you could you could put up signage on the property that said no left turn for the for a temporary sort of solution or a built suspender sort of I I I think I think we should make a separate motion that the city will do something in the median to prevent left turns and and do that first before we take this up do it I think even broader than that talk about it is a street reconstruction project from France to Cornelia within the next two years it would which would include all these traffic calming elements okay is that yeah how does that work I don't know if that's going to be in the full scope of the sewer project it may the median for sure we can get done within the scope of the project in this block but to go all the way from France to Cornelia I don't know if we're going to have that the pipe there has to be upsized but the conditions of how we're going to do it and the limits are unknown yet like I said we're interviewing Consultants next week so I'd be concerned about putting a five block reconstruction just into our street Recon when I don't know if it's going to happen because of the sewer but this left turn medium that's an easy condition Jackson had a more conservative sort of approach to it but still accomplishes the purpose intended correct so I I think maybe we want to make that as a separate motion is that can can we do that I think that's I think that's a good idea yeah I don't think it should be part of the motion for conditions placed on the developer because I don't think you can require the developer to put a meeting in the city right away okay so yeah I think it's pretty clear we'll get there first anyway yeah well I I want to I want to get that on record though because this is really important I think that's that's good yeah so can I make that motion yeah well here let's you want to deal with the main motion first a motion to adopt resolution 20245 approving the preliminary site plan Grant first reading no I want I want the traffic caling first honestly you what you going what are you going to call you I guess You' say I think we should any um uh exit out of 7 you don't have an approved Project without the resolution is what I'm getting at don't you need to approve the project first and then impose the obligation on the city we're not going to just bukka that's fine that's fine there's no Road there now so that it would be silly but um so is there a motion to adopt resolution 20245 approving the preliminary site plan and Grant first reading of ordinance 20245 don't moved second member member rejection moves member U seconds a motion to adopt resolution 202 24-50 approving the preliminary site plan and Grant first reading of ordinance 20245 uh this is an action by Voice vote any further discussion all those in favor of the motion of stated say I I I opposed name abstain exensions abstain okay we have three eyes an abstention and a nay and the motion uh carries the project is approved traffic motion now we now let's do the traffic motion so I move that we direct staff as this Pro to um ensure that there is no way to that there's a traffic median to prevent a left turn out of the Interior Street of this project to be completed prior to the building permit being granted uh I would just change the condition how would you like to see the motion yeah how would you like direct staff to install a median to prevent left turns on the Northbound axis Road and have it done before their project is complete okay that's the motion so moved a second right we got a motion at second to uh install a median barrier on West 72nd Street near the uh 7200 project prior to the time that that project opens correct thank you further discussion all those in favor of adoption of that motion say I I I oppose extension all right motion carries all right uh next matter in front of us is we've got some letters to talk about manager Neil I'm actually covering that tonight uh Mr Mayor assistant city manager lens over here voice I couldn't hear where's that voice coming from yeah I I decided not to move over to the other side of the room When U manager Neil needed to leave but um we have two letters before you today the first one I'm actually going to turn it over to Kate to talk a little bit about um the charter the cable commission's decision to to put forth this letter um they are sending a a more Broad one um on behalf of the whole cable commission but they've also asked us uh as each individual City to approve it thank you I did not know I was the one presenting this tonight um so this is uh it's just it's ultimately a letter that we want to write um others that are part of the um Southwest cable commission um I think are also going to be pursuing it and we're kind of sending something forward um but there is um I think some some good reasoning for us to put forward this letter it was a a hefty discussion that we had at the last meeting oh gosh what was that like two weeks ago um and so happy to answer any questions about it but um I think it it does make sense for us as a city to sign on to it seemed like there were some really important issues covered in here uh like don't preempt local zoning um let us have a little bit more you know traditional control the of the RightWay and um uh I don't know I thought it was I thought it was well done and I thanks for serving on the cable commission you want to move them adop move the approval of sending the letter so moved second uh we got a motion second motion uh from Member AG second by member Pierce to authorize the issuance of a letter from the council to US senators and representatives regarding the American Broadband the proposed American Broadband deployment act uh any further discussion all those in favor of adoption of the motion of stated say I I I posed carried uh uh sending the letter is approved and then the next letter um yes the next letter that you have that you have before you um is um addressed a hen County um it it comes after a meeting between um uh Jennifer benro uh our city um Allison and uh manager Neil where they met and they talked about uh election security after the incident that happened out front um involving The Courier uh and um this is up for you guys to decide whether or not you want to send it forward but these were the suggestions that came forward from um the GOP uh as recommendations that that staff also thought were reasonable okay thoughts on this letter content wise it seems appropriate you know trying to deal with that uh issue of the open back end of that van or whatever it was SUV I don't know but uh um I don't know if our clerk in fact uh we should give our clerk a round of applause for the uh election that she ran in Thea incredible um it's so what do we have what percent of our uh eligible electorate voted 86 uh 86.1% 86 okay very good is that our high or is it we had been higher we were higher in 2020 90% uh turnouts 90% yes in 2020 um where does that put us in the state do you think at 80 six I am thinking on the higher side but I haven't seen um any data yet yes seems like in Years Gone by we vied with duth or St Louis Park or somebody about who had the best voter turnout but time will tell time will tell uh do we have a motion to uh authorize the mayor to sign this letter to henen County regarding U um election security so moved second member AG moves member Pier second the uh authorization to have the mayor sign the letter to henpen County regarding election security uh that was published uh to us any further discussion all those in favor of adoption say I I I opposed carried we'll get that letter signed and sent off um assistant manager lens anything you want to report out on nothing else okay um member EGU let's start with you this week I don't have any updates thank you me yeah your uh thanks Mr Mayor um so maybe two things one um member agu and I and member or not member Edon uh commissioner Elis um we had um Civic uh career day government day government day at the community center um and so we each spoke to um I guess there were probably 25 middle schoolers there and um we kind of split into two two different rooms and talked about um our roles um city council um they asked some broader questions about government in general so I think we did a good job of answering those um but it was a really cool day it only took us maybe 50 minutes to do that and I the the groups that we talk to really asked some great questions uh very insightful um and then they were going from there I think they were going to the capital after that and so they were really excited about that so that was uh fun to talk through to to do that presentation ation with um commissioner agnu and I think it underscores really the importance of getting um involved as early as you can in local in at least understanding the importance of local politics and um no better way to do that than to start at the um you know Middle School Elementary School uh level so that was fun and then um um other than that it was I thought about the fact that we had a a good turnout in terms of um election night um I think things went really smoothly um I heard from several um friends and residents that there were a couple of precincts where there were long lines um but I really was impressed um the couple of times I heard that people said well you know we just decided to drive around and do errands and then just come back and so they weren't even complaining about the fact that there were long lines they were just acknowledging that um it was great to see so many people out um serving their their civic duty um and then the last thing I'm happy to serve four more years on the council so thank you ja well thank you Mr Mayor and the early voting was so smooth I voted early and there was a line and we just zipped through and so everybody all the election judges were cheerful helpful courteous kind go through the Boy Scout so thank you to all the election judges and thank you again uh clerk Allison for a really smooth process and um when you see other states where there are long long lines people waiting literally four or five hours in line to vote I we're really appreciative of the system that we have here and so thank you so much and thank you to the voters for coming out and thank you for for sending me back um but I also want to acknowledge the girls Edina soccer team were state Runners up and the boys cross country team were state champions so it was a very exciting fall and uh the fall foot uh Sports season isn't over yet but I wanted to acknowledge both of those teams for really outstanding seasons was there something about the um mountain biking team too oh yes and the mountain biking team they want as well that's right i' forgotten that how could I forget when we have this lovely new state-ofthe-art mountain bike trail here in Edina courtesy of the voters of Edina so that's awesome Ember rer um can you talk about a couple of state championships well it's a very different um this month uh the is world day of remembrance for victims of road traffic violence and um this will be the fifth year that we will be marking this event which is a worldwide event and we'll be over in St Paul again and um so I just want to let people know about that program we're going to have Jeremy gger who's Lieutenant Colonel of the Minnesota state patrol speak um along with Pamela Mason whose son Austin was seriously injured in a hit and run crash and that happened in Plymouth so raising awareness of traffic violence which is so important Matthew U milder Region's Hospital director and Emergency Medical Services um will also be there uh the program will start at 12 p.m in the um state capital rotunda and so anyhow that we will be doing that and I also wanted to mention last month this is a little bit of old news but um same topic police officers Bennett Brier Travis Larson Jonathan rasmason and Sergeant um Mike susman were all recognized for their work um that they have done to stop drunk driving which is a really horrible serious issue that contributes to traffic violence and so this is our flyer um if you have time and you want to come to the Minnesota state capital rotunda we will be there at 12:00 p.m marking world day of remembrance for road traffic victims so thank you thank you um for me I just uh been all meeting about that white oak tree that Janie Weston showed us that was cut down was just made you kind of sick to your stomach and I it made me think do we you know our tree ordinance needed some work yet uh but this was one that looked like it was outside the building pad outside the setback and and taken down for what reason maybe the angle of the photography was misleading maybe it was in the setback but it just seemed like it was a revisit of what we saw years ago over in Morningside where they were cutting down trees outside the setback along the lot line for no good reason just because it made their job easier so I I don't know how I guess we have to get Luther in here to tell us about what happened and Carrie maybe you can coordinate that or Chad um he must have known about that you know I would think that uh that was a big tree that's a lot of caliper inches there um anyway we'd like to I'd like to learn more about that I think we all would that situation um other than that I mean the majority of us have been involved in election activities for months now so I don't don't have anything else to report either it's uh nice to have it behind us and thank you I think all of us on behalf of all of us that were up for re-election thank you to the voters of Adana for returning us to do this work on behalf of all of you it's really really important work and we're really appreciative of the fact that you um have shown your faith in us and asked us to come back and continue to serve all of you so thank you that's it for me there a motion to adjourn so move second get a motion member appear second by member U to adjourn the meeting of the city council this Wednesday November 6 2024 any further discussion all those in favor of adjournment say I I I opposed carried you stand adjourned