[0:00] e [0:40] welcome to the October 16th 2024 meeting [0:42] of the Adina Planning Commission the [0:45] city is committed to continuing to [0:47] receive and hear your input on matters [0:49] we have been collecting in public input [0:51] through voicemail and our engagement [0:53] website better together at [0:55] d.org it is important you know that all [0:57] comments that have been submitted have [0:58] been received and prior to the start of [1:01] this [1:01] meeting you do not need to submit the [1:04] same feedback in another way all [1:06] feedback is considered equally [1:08] regardless of the way in which it was [1:10] submitted tonight there is one public [1:12] hearing individuals who want to provide [1:14] testimony remotely for the public [1:16] hearing can call [1:18] 312 [1:19] 535 [1:21] 8110 and enter access code [1:26] 2630 [1:28] 098 [1:32] 6460 the password is [1:36] 5454 press star three on your telephone [1:39] keypad when you would like to get in the [1:41] queue to speak a staff member will [1:44] unmute you when it is your turn please [1:46] State your full name and address [1:48] including unit number before speaking [1:51] everyone is allowed up to three minutes [1:53] to [1:53] speak remember you do not need to call [1:56] in or comment live tonight if you have [1:57] already provided feedback also do not [2:00] repeat information already presented [2:03] provide testimony if you have new [2:04] comments or information to bring [2:09] forward [2:12] okay call to order the O October 16th [2:16] meeting [2:19] 2024 uh roll [2:22] call commissioner El here commissioner [2:25] Padilla here commissioner Smith here [2:28] commissioner J here [2:31] commissioner phel here chair Miranda [2:38] here okay the first uh or the next item [2:42] on the agenda is the approval of the [2:43] meeting agenda do I have a motion to [2:45] approve the meeting [2:48] agenda motion to approve is there a [2:52] second [2:53] second all in favor say I I I any not in [2:58] favor say nay [3:00] okay that passes the uh next is the [3:03] approval of the meeting minutes we have [3:05] the Planning Commission meeting minutes [3:07] from September 25th [3:09] 2024 motion to approve do I have a [3:11] second second all in favor say I I [3:16] I not in favor say nay okay [3:21] passes okay we will now hear from [3:24] residents in person who would like to [3:26] speak about something not on tonight's [3:28] agenda or scheduled for a future public [3:30] hearing you may speak for up to 3 [3:33] minutes after giving your full name and [3:35] address including unit number the green [3:37] light at your Podium will turn [3:39] on when you have 30 seconds remaining [3:42] the yellow light will turn on when [3:44] you're out of time the red light will [3:45] turn on [4:00] I read this also let see [4:04] here during Community comment the board [4:07] commission or the commission will invite [4:09] residents to share relevant issues or [4:11] concerns individuals must limit their [4:12] comments to three minutes the chair May [4:15] limit the number of speakers on the same [4:17] issue in the interest of time and topic [4:19] generally speaking items that are [4:20] Elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be [4:22] addressed during Community comment [4:24] individuals should not expect the chair [4:26] or commission members to respond to [4:28] their comments tonight instead the [4:30] commission might refer the matter to [4:32] staff for consideration at a future [4:33] meeting is there anyone here who wants [4:36] to [4:39] speak no [4:41] okay okay closing uh Community [4:48] comment we have one public hearing [4:53] tonight see a 10.9 ft front yard setback [4:57] variance from the required 38.2 F feet [4:59] for a garage addition to be 27.3 ft to [5:03] the North Lot line at 549 Grove Street [5:08] the homeowners are proposing a two-story [5:10] garage addition to the east side of the [5:12] existing attached garage Chris Aker [5:16] assistant planner will [5:20] present thank you chair members of the [5:22] Planning Commission this is a request [5:25] for a variance at 40 549 Grove Street [5:28] from section 36 6- [5:30] 439 of the Adina city code to allow a [5:34] 10.9 ft front yard setback variance from [5:36] the 38.2 foot requirement to be 27.3 ft [5:40] from the front lot line to allow a side [5:43] addition to an existing attached to car [5:46] garage the subject property is located [5:48] on the south side of Grove here and it [5:52] is adjacent to a cesac it also has um [5:57] Exel High lines along the east side of [6:00] the property there's a 50 foot wide [6:03] easement um that can't be built within [6:07] along that easeman area and then further [6:10] east you have uh railroad tracks and on [6:13] the other side of the railroad tracks [6:14] are homes that are backing up to the [6:17] railroad track so the only um directly [6:21] affected neighbor by the request would [6:23] be the property owner that is directly [6:25] to the West who actually is um [6:30] this setback uh to the property to the [6:32] West is uh the one that sets up the [6:35] setback requirement for [6:37] 549 and they have a slightly deeper [6:41] setback at [6:42] 38.2 feet um from the porch of the [6:48] existing home that's adjacent but to the [6:50] front corner of the existing house it's [6:53] 30 ft away because of the curvature of [6:55] the [6:56] culdesac and then for the addition which [7:00] is going directly east and that is this [7:02] area right here um which is actually [7:05] inset further from the front wall of the [7:08] garage um that will be 27.3 feet away [7:12] because as you go further east because [7:14] of the culdesac that front yard setback [7:17] starts um cutting deeper into the [7:20] lot and you can see that with this [7:23] graphic the pink area is the front yard [7:26] area the setback is along here um the [7:29] existing home is slightly non-conforming [7:32] right here but then to add on to the [7:34] garage um towards the east this red area [7:37] is illustrates the overlap into the [7:40] setback area uh the purple dashed lines [7:45] indicate uh the easan area that can't be [7:47] built on with the high line that goes [7:49] through and then the railroad tracks [7:52] further [7:55] east so what the proposal is is that the [7:58] garage current L is under sized for a [8:01] two-car garage and they can't fit both [8:03] of their cars in it they would like to [8:05] add on um an additional garage stall [8:09] they also would like to have a sport [8:10] court room behind the garage and then um [8:15] above that they would have an office [8:17] area the sport court would have would be [8:20] open um above to [8:23] below and you can see this um 3D view of [8:28] the garage as you're looking South and [8:30] then also um as you're looking North [8:33] this would be uh the back wall of the [8:35] new addition to the [8:38] garage so the subus section uh garage on [8:43] the lower level new office space above [8:46] and then uh that sport cart [8:50] behind the rear elevation this gives you [8:54] um site plan showing that addition to [8:57] the existing house [9:01] and then the new front elevation and [9:04] East Elevation that is facing the [9:07] railroad [9:09] tracks so Minnesota state statutes and [9:12] the ordinances require the following [9:14] conditions must be satisfied [9:15] affirmatively to Grant a variance that [9:18] the propos pro proposed variance will be [9:21] in harmony with the general purpose and [9:23] intent of the ordinance the purpose and [9:26] intent of the front yard setback [9:27] requirement is to provide a consistent [9:29] minimum space from structures to the lot [9:31] line adjacent to the street however the [9:34] code allows for deeper setbacks if [9:36] somebody chooses to build further back [9:39] on the lot which then affects adjacent [9:41] properties who wish to um expand it can [9:44] make another property [9:47] non-conforming um which in this instance [9:49] is the case the house is slightly [9:51] non-conforming and then to go further [9:53] east it it gets just um that much more [9:56] uh non-conforming a deeper front year [9:59] setback is required for the property [10:00] given the front yard setback to the [10:02] neighbor to the west the ordinance does [10:04] not account for the Deep curve of the [10:05] culdesac with setbacks pushed deeper [10:08] into the lot and misaligned with the [10:10] front of the [10:12] home the variance would be consistent [10:14] with the comprehensive plan the [10:16] comprehensive plan guides the property [10:17] at low density residential that will not [10:20] change it continues to be a house it's [10:22] in addition to the garage um there are [10:25] practical difficulties in complying with [10:27] the ordinance the term practical [10:29] difficulty ult y means that the property [10:30] owner proposes to use the property in a [10:32] reasonable manner not um permitted by [10:35] the zoning ordinance the proposed use is [10:38] permitted in the R1 single dwelling unit [10:40] zoning district and complies with all [10:42] zoning standards with the exception of [10:44] the front yard setback the curvature of [10:46] the culdesac and required setback forces [10:48] the addition further south on the lot [10:51] with an XL Energy High Line easement [10:53] restricting uh much of the expansion [10:56] opportunity that you would normally uh [10:58] assume the would have the Practical [11:01] difficulties are caused by the existing [11:03] location of the home as it relates to [11:06] the home to the West the required [11:08] average front yard setback the right of [11:10] way based on the neighbors front yard [11:12] setback and the impact of the culdesac [11:15] curvature of the building [11:17] placement the plight of the landowner is [11:20] due to circumstances that are unique to [11:22] the property not common to every [11:23] similarly zoned property and that are [11:25] not self-created the property owner was [11:27] de the property was developed with a [11:29] North front yard setback closer to the [11:31] lot line than currently allowed given [11:33] the neighbor setback additions to the [11:35] property are affected by the required [11:37] front yard setback established by the [11:39] neighbor and the existing conditions of [11:41] the lot which are not [11:43] self-created will the variance alter the [11:45] essential character of the neighborhood [11:47] granting the variance will not alter the [11:49] essential character of the neighborhood [11:50] the front yard setback of the addition [11:52] will allow for a logical extension of [11:54] the existing non-conforming garage with [11:56] all other zoning requirements in [11:58] compliance the area affected to the east [12:01] of the XL Energy Highline easement and [12:04] railroad tracks so there's no uh [12:07] affected neighbor directly adjacent to [12:09] the Improvement staff does recommend [12:12] approval of the 10.9 foot frontyard [12:14] setback variance from the 38.2 foot [12:16] requirement approval is based on the [12:18] following findings the Practical [12:20] difficulty is caused by the required [12:22] average front year setback requirement [12:24] the cesac setback impact and the [12:26] existing location of the house there's [12:29] circumstances that are unique to the [12:30] property those unique circumstances [12:32] include having Street Frontage with a [12:34] culdesac affecting the buildable area on [12:36] the east side of the lot a large [12:38] Highline easement affecting the side and [12:40] rear yard of the buildable area and a [12:43] railroad track adjacent to the east had [12:45] this been a typical um home along a [12:48] block where they're all lined up with [12:50] one another like similarly zoned [12:53] properties um it would not have required [12:55] a variance because the front of the [12:57] house would have been parallel to the [13:00] front lot line and they could just [13:01] simply match that and the proposer will [13:04] not alter the essential character of the [13:05] neighborhood the garage is of a similar [13:08] design to the house with matching [13:09] materials the addition will provide a [13:12] garage setback similar to the corner lot [13:14] uh from aalac any approval should be [13:17] subject to the following conditions [13:19] subject to plans and surveys date [13:21] stamped September 9th 2024 compliance [13:25] with the engineer memo dated October [13:27] 10th 2024 in compliance with the tree [13:30] ordinance um there were a number of [13:33] comments and Better Together Adina all [13:34] of them were positive um we do have [13:37] Brady Jensen Scott Palmer um who are the [13:40] Builders of the project and then the [13:42] property owners Brian and Abby hman hope [13:45] I pronounced that right um are here as [13:48] well and I will stop and answer any [13:51] questions you may [13:52] have thank you very much great [13:54] presentation any questions from the [13:56] commission [14:00] okay I just had one for excuse me for [14:03] clarification it looks like in the [14:04] overhead photos that the house to the [14:09] West uh the north part the northern part [14:13] of the lot to the West appears to be a [14:16] sidey yard but does that not have [14:18] anything to do with anything [14:21] here it does I mean if you look at the [14:23] front of the house it would be facing [14:26] Garden Avenue so the front door does [14:28] Face Garden Avenue it [14:29] happens to address off of Grove and if [14:32] you look at the definition of what the [14:34] front lot line is it would be um this [14:37] the narrower uh portion of a lot to um [14:41] the street and this is corner lot [14:43] there's nothing that dictates [14:45] somebody where they can put their front [14:48] door or where they can front their house [14:51] but um from a definition standpoint the [14:54] front would be that North Lot line okay [14:57] thank you [15:00] any other [15:01] questions no thank you very much [15:14] planer now we have MSP homes or the [15:17] property owners present did you have a [15:20] presentation no presentation at all [15:23] okay okay [15:26] um all right [15:29] we will now hear from residents who [15:31] would like to provide testimony [15:33] individuals who want to provide input [15:34] remotely for the public hearing can call [15:37] 312 [15:39] 535 [15:41] 8110 and enter access code [15:45] 2630 [15:47] 098 [15:50] 6460 the password is 54 [15:54] 54 press star three on your telephone [15:57] keypad when you would like to get in the [15:59] queue to speak callers if you are [16:02] watching the meeting on any other device [16:03] or television please mute that before [16:05] speaking so there's not an echo or [16:07] feedback when you hear the prompt on [16:09] your telephone that you've been unmuted [16:12] please begin speaking by giving your [16:13] name and address including unit number [16:15] for the record you will then have three [16:17] minutes to speak remember it is not [16:19] necessary to provide testimony if you [16:21] have already provided comments via [16:23] voicemail or better together.org call in [16:27] if you have new comments or information [16:28] to bring [16:30] forward okay so I guess first we'll have [16:33] anyone in the [16:37] audience seeing none um guess we should [16:42] wait a [16:43] minute um we can I did start the timer [16:46] when you started talking and so we have [16:48] about 15 seconds left if that works for [16:50] you sure is there anyone on the line or [16:53] no no okay [17:14] nobody has joined the queue to speak at [17:16] all so I think it's safe to proceed okay [17:19] great thank you um all right then I do [17:21] we have a motion to close the public [17:23] hearing so moved second second all in [17:28] favor say i i i i anyone not in favor to [17:31] say nay [17:33] okay [17:36] um [17:38] uh the [17:40] uh public comment has ended um now it's [17:43] back to the commission um oh any any [17:47] comments or discussion actually just [17:49] discussion at this point [17:51] yeah start with me want start sure and [17:56] then you can talk to this side there [17:59] um I [18:02] think we have certainly provided [18:05] variances for projects like this in the [18:07] past for houses that are on C [18:10] Toc um where the front lot line kind of [18:14] varies and um I do think this is um in [18:18] harmony with the ordinance and in [18:19] consistent with our comp plan um and the [18:22] Practical diff difficulties they have [18:25] they don't have the use of their sidey [18:27] yard um because of the high power line [18:31] um and I think this is also consistent [18:34] um with the neighboring homes I mean [18:36] there's just a slight variation to the [18:38] neighbor of the west but it's very [18:40] consistent with the street line so I [18:41] don't see any [18:42] issues with granting this variance [18:45] personally okay great thank [18:48] you [18:50] Quincy yeah I I certainly would agree [18:53] with this you know uh col saacs always [18:55] are interesting because of the curvature [18:58] and we certainly granted quite a few [19:00] variances along these same lines in the [19:03] past I think to um you know just a [19:08] design of the home what's being proposed [19:11] it makes complete sense you know adding [19:12] a second car garage that's very [19:14] practical I think that makes sense too I [19:17] always look at the metrics to see what [19:20] is the city standard compared to what [19:23] the the proposal is and one thing I [19:25] certainly pay attention to is lot size [19:27] and lot coverage and I think this [19:29] designed what's being proposed meets all [19:30] those criteria and so um everything here [19:34] just seems like it makes sense um of [19:36] what the homeowner is trying to do as [19:39] well as the Practical difficulties of [19:41] the culdesac and also you know there's [19:43] the train tracks on the other side so [19:45] there's very very limited uh ability to [19:47] impede on anything um to the East and so [19:52] yeah this is something that I'll be very [19:53] in favor of uh approving today [20:00] um I just had um one simple question I'm [20:03] sure you can answer um the sport court [20:06] and the office that are uh going to be [20:09] built are they going to be fully [20:12] plumbed not at all so there'll be no [20:15] Plumbing if not a future Adu um um okay [20:20] I I fully support this I think it mean [20:22] it meets all the variance requirements [20:25] and it is unique in so many respects my [20:28] full [20:32] support I don't really have anything to [20:34] add I just I agree with the comments [20:36] already me so leave it at [20:42] that okay um my only comment is the uh [20:47] well I guess two things one is the the [20:50] image the generated image um seems [20:53] compressed horizontally so it's kind of [20:55] hard to tell what you know obviously the [20:59] garage is narrower the truck is narrower [21:01] than a truck would be so it's kind of [21:03] hard to tell like spacewise what's [21:05] happening um also looking at the diagram [21:08] from above the um it looks like the oak [21:13] tree is going to be taken out because it [21:14] looks like the wall goes right through [21:16] it no okay CU that's what it looks like [21:19] can someone speak to that on [21:24] the is that a retaining wall that's [21:26] going through there or I'm trying to [21:29] understand the diagram yes so there is [21:31] um an existing retaining wall noted on [21:33] there and our surveyor had put a [21:35] proposed uh um retaining wall on there [21:37] as well our goal is to not disturb the [21:40] tree or the critical root Zone at all [21:43] we're going to do our best to make the [21:45] retaining wall um not dig down in that [21:48] portion and just kind of butt it up as [21:51] close to the tree as we can without [21:52] affecting it whatsoever it's a big tall [21:54] tree it provides a lot of shade and they [21:56] don't want to get rid of it and we're [21:57] going to do our best to avoid [21:59] that great thank [22:01] you okay then I guess I agree with my [22:04] fellow Commissioners I don't really have [22:05] a uh anything else to say any uh and the [22:09] feedback on Better Together was was very [22:11] positive and um they made some good [22:14] comments so anyone have a [22:19] motion motion to [22:22] approve do we have a [22:24] second [22:26] second any further discussion question [22:29] all in favor say I I I not in favor say [22:34] nay okay passes thank you [22:43] congratulations [22:45] down it's not always [22:49] scary okay great well that concludes [22:55] our our public hearing [23:00] um next we have reports and [23:03] recommendations no we have [23:05] none okay uh chair and member [23:09] comments [23:12] anyone no okay um staff comments no sir [23:18] no staff comments are we going to set a [23:19] record [23:20] [Laughter] [23:21] tonight um okay I have a motion to [23:24] adjourn motion to adjourn second [23:30] oh I second okay all in favor say I I [23:37] I meeting adjourned thank you commission [23:40] [Music] [23:57] Miranda for