Welcome everyone to the Jul the June 20 I'm getting ahead of myself the June 25th 2025 city vina planning commission meeting on behalf of the rest of the commission we are grateful you are here whether it's in person or those tuning in remotely I say it every time but your curiosity your participation and your feedback is vital as we navigate change together here in Edina specifically regarding the ways in which we like to use our land. So, tonight we have two public hearings and I will go through the process of what to expect for those a little bit later. Uh, but it's important to know that any and all feedback is considered by us. It makes its way to us through a variety of means. Whether it's emails to the city council or to the planning department or to the planning commission, it'll get to us. But probably the most effective way for you and others to engage with this related change is through the city's engagement website which is ww. betterto togetherina.org. You can go there and see a variety of planning and land use related topics and kind of the point different points in the process of those whether it's upcoming something that's in process or something that has been approved and it's a good good chance they added a map feature about a year or two ago so you can kind of see where you live and where other changes might be around you. Again, any and all feedback that gets to us, we commit to you that we consider it as we make our recommendations for approval or denial tonight. Uh for what to expect, the agenda ahead of us is a call to order followed by roll call and then we have approval of tonight's meeting agenda followed by the approval of the prior meetings minutes which is both the prior planning commission meeting and a work session. Then we have community comment which is your chance to speak about a matter not on tonight's agenda. And then we have the two public hearings and there's a way in which you can participate both in person or for those tuning in remotely. And we'll get to the information on that once we come to that matter. Then we end with chair and member comments, staff comments, and adjournment. So without further ado, let's call this meeting to order and then roll call. Commissioner Nelson here. Commissioner Elky here. Commissioner Padilla here. Commissioner Smith here. Commissioner Day here. Commissioner Bournestein here. Commissioner Felt here. Commissioner Honaman here. Chair Bennett here. Next we have the approval of tonight's meeting agenda. If there are no proposed changes, I'd welcome a motion. Motion to approve the agenda. Second. All those in favor say I. I. I. So moved. Next we have the approval of the prior meeting minutes. This is both from the regular meeting on May 28th and a special work session on June 11th. Similar motion to approve both meeting minutes. Second. All those in favor say I. I. I. So moved. All right. Next we have the community comment period of the meeting. And this is your chance for anyone who is here in person to testify about any matter or issue or concern that's not on tonight's agenda. You have three minutes to do so. You can come up to either podium, state your full name, your address, and when the light turns green, that means go. And then when it turns red, we'll ask you to wrap up your comments. Is anyone here for community comment? All right, I'm seeing a couple shakes of the head and just stairs. So, we're going to move along. We'll close the community comment period and move right to the public hearings. So, what to expect for a public hearing. Similar process for both of them tonight. uh when someone proposes something that doesn't quite conform to the current code or zoning ordinance or whatever, uh they have to apply for a variance or some sort of deviation to do what they'd like to do. Uh staff takes a look into all of the related information. They put together a staff report with facts and findings. They consult other departments, commissions, etc. And within this staff report is what we review prior to this meeting. Staff then kind of contains that into a presentation which you're about to see. Uh then we typically have a back and forth with question and answers but we will open it uh directly to the next part which is the applicant if they have their own presentation or if they don't then they can stand for question and answers too. Once we go through that, then we open it to the public hearing. And that is your chance for those who are here in person and for those tuning in remotely to testify. Uh for those tuning in remotely, just hold tight again. Once we get to that part, I'll provide you with a telephone number to call into. After that is done, then we take it back to the commission to deliberate and we provide a recommendation for approval or denial of the request. So with that, we'll turn it over to planner Aer to talk about the setback variances for 4004 Grimes Avenue. Thank you, Chair, members of the planning commission. And then sorry, before that, uh, Commissioner Felt would like to share something and make a move. Yes, I have to recuse myself from this variance hearing, so I'll leave the chamber. Thank you. and then uh we'll yell at you to return or have someone come out and get you. Okay. All right. Oh, we're good. You can go. Thank you, chair. Members of the planning commission, the address is 400 Grimes Avenue. The request is for front yard and sideyard setback variances. This is the existing home. Um, existing street photos, a little closer view, and then a further view which gives you an idea of the context of how the home um is on the lot. The properties to the north are at a higher elevation. As you go further down to the very end of Grimes, they continue um to decrease in elevation. So, it's not a flat block where all of the homes as they are lined up, you um can see them from end to end, they go down the hill. Um gives you a little different perspective on how the h the lot and the house sits on the lot. So, this is a site survey with um the proposed improvements. What they are proposing to do is add about 4.8 ft onto the front of the garage. Currently, the garage is very shallow. It's about 16.9 ft deep, which is pretty shallow to try to uh park a car inside the garage. They're unable to actually shut the garage door and walk around the car from the inside. So, they'd like to add to the depth of the garage. And the reason why the garage is so shallow, a previous owner um did some improvements to the inside of the garage. They reduced the depth by adding a mudroom and a laundry room area. And then behind that is a kitchen and there's always been a kitchen there. So there is really no opportunity to go behind the house. Um the house is non-conforming uh in terms of both sideyard setbacks. The minimum sideyard setback required for this lot currently is 18t 8 in total with no less than 9 feet on one side. So you'd have 9 feet on one side, 9 feet 8 in on the other. In this situation, the north sideyard setback is five feet. The south setback is 6.3 feet um with a little over 11 feet for a total of sideyard setback. The home was built in 1953. There were no variances granted for it. It conformed at the time. So, um currently with changes to the ordinance, both the north and south sideyard setbacks are non-conforming. Um, there is an alternate setback standard in the ordinance that allows the extension of a non-conforming setback on the same floor with a limited amount of encroachment either equal to what's there right now or 200 square ft whichever is less. So, the variance they're asking for for the garage extension is just out the front. It is not um asking for any sort of variance from the north because they're able to use that alternate setback standard. Now, the second variance that they're looking at is they'd like to add a second floor above uh the existing it's a rambler um above the main floor and at the existing non-conforming set of 6.3 ft instead of the 9 ft that would be required. Um because there is no floor above that main floor, they cannot use that alternate setback standard. They have to indent it um to what the current setback requirement is. So, this isn't the entire length of grimes. I couldn't really fit it on there and still um be able to see really what's going on. But you can see that the homes along Grimes are all lined up. Um the average front yard setback that's required between the two homes is, I think, like 34.8T or 34.75. Um the average along the block is a solid 35 ft. So they may they may vary just a little bit, but they're all relatively lined up with one another. And that includes all the new homes, existing homes on the block. Um any new home has mirrored that um existing 35 ft setback. So again, here's that site survey. There is also a porch that's being added on, but that does meet the setback requirement. does overlap the front yard setback, but you can have a porch that encroaches by 80 square feet and that's well within it. So, regarding the compliance table again, north sideyard setback 18.8 ft with no less than 9 ft on one side, they're existing non-conforming at 5T. East front yard setback, um the average between the two homes on either side is about 34.8 ft. They're proposing a 30-foot setback. uh 30 feet is actually the minimum required in a new undeveloped subdivision in Edina, but we so rarely have that situation. It's usually a situation where it's an existing neighborhood where the average setback affects um the properties. South setback uh city standard is 9 ft. They're looking at maintaining that 6.3 foot non-conforming setback and then the remainder of the requirements um they're well within the minimums. So this is the basement level. There really are no changes. The main floor as it exists today. You can see the shallow garage depth and then the remodeling of that original garage um from a previous property owner uh with a mud room and a laundry room. And then there's the kitchen behind that. This gives you an idea of the depth of that garage. It looks like they've actually tried to make as much space as possible um in the existing garage. And then this is the proposed main floor with that extension out the front. Does show you a darker grade in area. This is the square footage of the area that overlaps the sideyard sepek as well, but there is no variance that's required for that. And then the second floor addition that they're asking a variance for, which this is the portion of the sidewall that would be encroaching into that setback area. And then the larger portion of the addition would be inset um and away from that south wall and does conform to the setback. It would be this area that is u right above that existing non-conforming setback. So here are the front elevations, the existing house as it exists today and then the proposed addition above and then the addition of the garage. It'll be moving forward. You can't really see that. um if you're just looking at it uh straight out as front elevation. They will be changing the garage door, so it'll be one garage door and it shows you that porch addition that does also conform. And this is a southside elevation, what is existing there currently. And then that um second floor edition which actually translates to sort of a half story because the um closest portion of that building area is right here where the south facing the wall is. The homeowner um wants to have as much south windows exposure as they can. And that was really the purpose of moving that um addition so that it's in line with what the existing sidewall. um otherwise it's not maximizing um their opportunity for that. And the rear or west elevation as you'd be looking at it from the backyard and then the north side um addition and this is that front edition of that existing non-conforming sidewall into the front yard area. It's a little over 4 feet. And again, some proposed and existing streetscape. You can see that the elevation starts going further and further down. And then this is existing with the photos and then what they're proposing. So a case can be made can be made for both denial and approval of this project. The following primary issues for uh variance denial are as follows. Um azonian ordinance requires that a variance shall not be granted unless the following findings are made that um that there um are specific and unique characteristics of the property. the front yard setback. Uh, regarding that, staff believes that the perver purpose and intent of the front yard setback ordinance is to maintain a consistent front yard spacing to the street for homes along a block. In general, the homes align with one another along that side of the block. They're at about 35 ft. The front wall of the subject home conforms and the addition to the garage is proposed to be closer to the street than the other homes along that side of the block. And the proposal will decrease the setback of the front wall of the subject by 4.8 ft. Sideyard setback. The south sideyard setback requirement is currently 9 ft. Can be achieved by indenting the second floor edition further than what they are proposing. Previous plans submitted to staff did illustrate a conforming second floor addition. So it's not a condition that um the lot um is driving the need for the variance. The second floor setback request is to accommodate a design for maximum south-facing windows and light exposure which is self-created situation and not result of some unique aspect of the lot. Um would the variance be consistent with the comprehensive plan both um for approval and denial it would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. uh the property is is um low density residential and that uh designation will remain. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning district. The regarding the front yard setback, the applicant is seek seeking to improve the interior of the home and wishes to further expand to the east of the main floor. The location of the existing garage does not allow for a front yard addition to meet the requirement of the zoning ordinance. A remodel prior to the current owners purchasing it did carve out that space in the interior back of the garage or the mudroom or laundry room. And the remodel made the length of the garage very shallow. The homeowners proposed to remove that laundry room and space um and maintain it for storage. The owners would like to keep it. However, um there appears to be opportunity for expansion into the interior of the garage space um by eliminating that proposed storage in order to not um request the variance. Regarding the sideyard setback, the homeowner desires to add a halfstory addition above the south portion of that house. Plans are shared with staff illustrating a centered second floor addition that conforms to the side setback. It has been demonstrated that a conforming solution could be uh accomplished for the property that the plight of the land owner is not due to circumstances that are unique to the property and may be created by the landowner. The property is not unique on the block and is consistent with front yard setbacks as compared with other homes along Grimes. The homes along the west side of Grimes are evenly spaced along the street and the second floor can be accommodated without the need for a variance. The variance if granted may be possible may possibly alter the essential character of the locality. The variance may alter the essential character. Um the additions are well outside the max the minimum setbacks and may encourage other similar properties to request similar variances. The following are findings for denial. The proposal does not meet the standards for a variance. There appears to be an opportunity to expand the interior of the garage space and it is possible to accommodate a second floor without the need for a variance and there are no practical difficulties preventing the interior remodel of the garage or second floor expansion. When considering the property, there are no unique circumstances present. The property currently conforms to the front yard setback and can maintain the required front yard setback for that second floor edition. Granting the variance may alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Um the additions are well outside the minimum setback standards. So on the alternate um in terms of supporting or approval approving a variance uh the variance would be in harmony with the general and purpose intent of the ordinance. Um, regarding front yard setback staff believes that the purpose and intent of the front yard setback ordinance is to maintain that existent front spacing on the street along the block. All aspects of the front facade conform to the front yard setback with the exception of that garage extension was which is about 19.8 ft in width. But the remainder of the house will still be at the setback at the required setback and even inconsistent with the remainder uh of the homes on the block. Given the grade changes along Grimes Avenue um higher elevation down to lower elevation, it's not a situation where you can easily ascertain that there are differences in setback given um you aren't looking at one flat even front yard uh setback plane. So, regarding the sideyard setback, um those have changed since 19 since the 1950s when the home was originally built. Um the ordinances at that time allowed narrower setbacks and you could very easily have built a a twostory home at that setback. Um so it is a rambler currently, but at the time of original construction, it didn't have to be. Um and it's existing. It's non-conforming. The homeowners are hoping to maintain um a rambler that is um instead of a tear down rebuild, it's more sustainable for them um to add on to it and enjoy it um with more current or modern amenities. Uh it in terms of the comprehensive plan, yes, it it does conform to the comprehensive plan. Again, it's a low density residential um uh designation. The property owner proposes the use in a reasonable manner permitted by the zoning ordinance. the front yard. Um, regarding the front yard, the applicant is seeking to improve the interior spaces of the home and wishes to expand further to the east to accommodate enough space to comfortably park a car, which I think is a reasonable um given the shallow depth of it. And they really don't have any other alternatives with the exception of trying to go further back. They're already um confined to the north because they are non-conforming on the north side as well. In regarding southside setback, staff finds the southside setback request to be reasonable. The ordinance allows a matching non-conforming setback on the same floor as the nonconformity. The ordinance does not apply to that second floor addition um if there is no second floor. Uh there has been discussion in the past on the part of planning commission members whether that's a reasonable approach to allow people to do that because um I guess we've had a every time I get calls from people that would like to add on to a second floor on their home. They automatically assume they can just do that um without having to worry about insetting the sides or the front or even the rear if there's a problem with that. Um, but they can't. The alternate setback standard does not apply. Um, and the home currently doesn't function to the standards of what the homeowners would like and what you know the current need is for them. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed additions will reduce setbacks only along the front garage width with the remainder of the home at the required front yard setback and the second floor will match the existing non-conforming setback from the south sideyard. So, they're not getting any closer to what's already there. Yes, it's going up, but it's it's not reducing the setback to the side. So, regarding approval findings, um the front yard setback has a practical difficulty caused by the location of the existing non-conforming garage and the shallow depth. There are limited if any options available for a for a conforming garage expansion. It is reasonable to allow a matching second floor expansion. The request is reasonable given that second floor would have been allowed at the current south setback in 1953 when the home was originally built. There are circumstances that are unique to the subject property. Those unique circumstances include keeping the home by remodeling and adding a small second floor um which is both practical and sustainable for the neighborhood. And the propose proposal will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. There are similarsized buildings and non-conforming setbacks within the Morningside neighborhood. With that, I will stop and answer any questions you may have. Any approval should be subject to the following conditions. Subject to the plans date stamped May 23rd, 2025 and compliance with the tree ordinance. And with that, I will stop and answer any questions you may have. We have the um homeowner here, Melissa Schaefer, as well. Thank you, Chris. I guess before questions, just to keep things going quicker here based on feedback, I guess we'd just open it right now to the applicant who's here if they have anything they'd like to say or just simply stand for questions, both staff and the applicant. Just introduce yourself. Hi everyone. I'm Melissa Schaefer and this is my home we're talking about. All right. So, does anyone have any questions for staff or the applicant? Uh we'll start all the way down, work our way over. Uh thanks for that presentation. Um my question kind of is around how does this happen? I know we have a house in our neighborhood that the same thing has happened where they've taken garage space, made it, and as you mentioned, a non-conforming garage. Obviously, this happened years ago with a pri prior uh uh owner, but is it is it a permitted addition? Was it permitted? And and you can just change the use of your garage into and make it non-conforming and not have it for car storage? There actually isn't from a zoning ordinance standpoint, there's no dimensions listed what a minimum garage space is. So yes, you can change. So I mean, is it a non-conforming or is it conform? I mean, you mentioned that in the comments, but Well, it's non-conforming in terms of setback on the north side. In terms of space on the inside, it's only 16 feet n. No, understood. But is there there there's no you're saying there's no dimensions? Not really for a parking stall. If you're talking about parking standards, that's a compact if any space for a car. Okay. Um yeah, and the option is to remove the mudroom and and that and just go back to what the way it was. But uh I guess that's really all I had as far as the second floor addition. How far would it need to be shifted to the north to be um well, it's still going to be too close to the southern edge of the property, but how how far would that addition need to be pushed north? There it's 6.3 ft. It have to be 9 ft. So, they're asking for 2.7 ft, but not all of that second floor. They've indented it. It's just a little a portion of that right southside that's at that. That's all I had. Thank you uh plarker for the presentation. Um just curious on the nonconformity on the north side. Um it says that 5T is not conforming. Um and it should be at least 9 ft. Is that because it's going to be two stories tall is why or is it with the Rambler it should be 9 feet between homes? It's all based on lot width now. The wider the lot it's a sliding scale in terms of the requirement. Um, and that changed I want to say 2015. A garage could always have a side a 5ft sideyard setback and then it would be the interior other sideyard of the living space that you know depending upon the lot width could be five feet or would require up to 10 feet. But in 2015, it ended up changing so that it's a sort of a split between the two, but there's a minimum on one side and it all of it increased in terms of required set sideyard setback. Gotcha. Would the height have a factor too? Would the height if the height went up it would increase the setback requirements now? No, it used to prior to 2015. That was part of the ordinance. That was another sliding scale uh requirement. Depending upon how high it was, you'd have to provide additional sideyard setback. And in 2015, it was determined that we were just going to have set standards for lot widths. Wider the lot, the more setback you'd have to provide. But that in turn um ended up all of these, you know, older homes, a lot of them ended up being non-conforming for sideyard. Gotcha. Thank you. questions this way. All right, it's for the applicant. Thanks for being here. Um, can you just explain the transition from the conforming second floor to the non-conforming second floor because the staff points out that they were presented with a proposal that met the setback requirement and then it changed. Um the first proposal did not was actually submitted prematurely. we had not finalized anything and I think in the desire to be efficient with the whole process and uh it it ended up submitted to the city and I when I because for the homeowner it's it's also um balancing what what you're investing in this property and what you're getting in return. So I hadn't found the right point yet and you know it's continuing to be a process but uh the first the first design did not meet that for me. Um what would you say I mean could you articulate what you think the impact to your plans on the second floor would be if you had to conform to the existing setback requirement? Um if you could see the changes, it's rather dramatic. We have a central fireplace. Um so in order to sh to Oh, thank you. So if we shifted over um the size of the addition would have to be increased significantly and a hallway would be added and then oh it was more square footage than we needed. But we were enclosing the chimney stack because there were complications around where that came out. I So this is your January. Yeah. So, so and then so the result would be the our bedroom, the master bedroom would stay on the south side, but it would be halfed. And I and then the less usable space on the north side would be cut in half by the fireplace and also a bunch of lost wasted space with a hallway going around the stairwell. I don't know. It just never made a lot of sense to me. It was It was more space than we needed in the wrong type of space, if that makes sense. Sorry, I uh So, um I'm going to wager a guess because I'm having the same conversation with our house. We have a 1950s Rambler with a chimney right in the middle. you have to have minimum clearances around it for hallways. So, when it's right in the middle, in order to make all of the math work, you end up expanding your renovation and it's basically just hallway space that you have. So if what she's saying is if I think what you're saying is if you pulled up what's planned south pulled it north then in order to be able to get up the stairs and around the chimney you have all of this extra additional space that wouldn't be terribly practical for the bedroom. But it's a function of clearances around from hallways and um from that fireplace stack. Thank you. Unfortunately, that was still clear as mode for me for looking at this plan here at the second floor plan. Um can you go back to the main floor? So you were you were correct that the setback was originally the second floor was designed with the setback current standards in mind um and to keep it as economical as possible. it this space would have um you know this this now would be like the south wall. So that would give us this space to work with with for bedroom closet and bathroom which becomes a pretty tight space and then because of this is the main floor. I'm imagine this. I'm talking about the second floor because this this one shows this is the fireplace right here. So then with this smaller space, we'd have to access it through in the new stairwell code. The stairs need to be a little bigger there because they were built in the 50s. So we would go up the stairs to the second floor and then need a hallway here. and this extra and then we had all the extra space around the fireplace here and we'd entered the master over here. So, actually the way the plan that was drawn up at that time, we were going to have uh almost 800 square ft of unfinished space upstairs that we had no need or use for and a hallway that I didn't want because of a chimney. So on the second floor is that is it a dormer window? I don't know. The the three feet that sort of isn't getting set back right there at the bottom. That's mostly a function of roof line and window, right? It's not you're not going to walk. It's like a dormer, right? So it's so it's aesthetic rather than just having the wall be straight vertical. Um it's not the entire right. So, it looks like there you've got an extra sort of three feet of I don't know bay window kind of area, but I think that's because it's a a level plan and not an elevation that if you looked if I'm understanding correctly like the person standing right in front of that window at the south isn't going to have a 8ft ceiling clearance or whatever. Correct. It's coming up in this size. Thank you. Thank you. So, we're saying that if if you didn't jut that out though, right? Just this piece down here, that we have to add more space to the north of the stairwell in order to conform to you said hallway requirement. Well, I mean, yeah, just clearance and to conform to the desired square footage. Okay. To to the desired square footage, but not a required square footage. Right. So, like what you wanted for a desired square footage. Um, what because that's that's I'm just that's an important distinction of desired square footage versus required square footage for clearances and and whatnot. I don't know exactly what the clearance ordinances are around the chimney and the fireplace. Um, but it shrunk the the size the living space too significantly. for me to be comfortable with the investment in the project. Okay. You have any other questions or anyone because we can take some of this back to when we discuss after the public hearing? I just have one for Chris. Um, am I correct in understanding that sort of the baseline standard setback in a dinina um would be 30 ft? Correct. In a new undeveloped subdivision, if there were no other homes like right next door or down the block. Yes. Or if we didn't have this weird funky math that makes everybody's lot different, it would be 30 feet, which is where they're going to land if we approve this. Correct. Thank you. We have any other questions for either party? All right. Thank you both of you. Just so this is a public hearing. So we will move to that portion of the meeting. So for those who are here in person and those tuning in remotely, let's start with those remotely and then give you time to wait because there's a a lag between broadcast and what you see real time. So for those who would like to participate remotely, please call the following number 3125358110 and enter access code 2865 819 9306. The password is 5454 and then press star three on your keypad to indicate your interest and speaking. All the information's on the screen. If you can read, just follow that, too. We will give it a minute or so for you to catch up. And while we wait, we're actually going to just turn to see if there are anyone any any interested person here in person that would like to testify. So, you can come up to either podium. Same as community comment. Just state your full name, your address, and you got three minutes or up to three minutes to speak. Is anyone here in person that would like to testify? All right, please come forward. Um, hi, my name is Tara James. I have lived in Morningside for about 33 years since 1991, um, when my parents moved here. So, I currently live in 4003 Kipling, which is directly behind this property. And I just want to let everyone know that I am supportive of this plan for the addition and for the garage. Um, when you look at the property, you really don't see the garage from the top of the hill. It's like behind a bunch of bushes and it's behind a really large newly constructed home. Um, there's also a newly constructed home directly across the street from it. And then when you're looking up the hill at it, because of the hill, I don't really think you would see the 5T. And honestly, I would rather see a garage that's tastefully done than have their cars sitting in the driveway all the time. So, I have no problem with that. Um, I also think the second story with a dormer, I don't think it's going to look poor. Um, I think it's in keeping with the neighborhood. Um, I currently live in a house that was built in the 1950s. I'm not prodevelopment by any means. My house has never been renovated. It's like a 2,000 foot house. Um, my sister lives in 4010 Kipling. She also is in a 2000t house that has not been renovated. My mom is in 4026 Kipling. She is also in a 2,000q foot house that does not have a second story. And we are all here today to say that we support this. We do not think it alters the character of the neighborhood. Um we think it will look nice. Those are my family members. Um they're here to show support. So this isn't a massive development where they're knocking down a house. We would much rather have this um renovation that's tastefully done. So that's all I want to say. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak? All right, it has been well over a minute. For those who might be tuning in remotely, is anyone in the virtual queue? They are not. So, I believe it is safe to proceed. A motion to close the public hearing. Second. All those in favor say I. I so moved public hearing is closed. So now we take it back to the planning commission to deliberate then make a recommendation for approval or denial thoughts anyone. All right. I could somewhat start us off here. Um if I understand correctly if and this might be a question before I give my comments I guess. Um, if a new home, if this was, if this was a tear down rebuild, it could be built 30 feet from the front yard setback. Oh, would it have to be 34? 34. Okay. All right. Um, overall, I think I really appreciate when the city puts together uh case for approval and denial. And you know, we have to certainly weigh the two. Um, I could see and and appreciate um that, you know, the cars can't fit into this space. Uh, cars are being built now a little bit bigger than usual. And so I purchased a car a few years ago and now have to squeeze it in to fit into my old home garage. And so I totally get that and we certainly want folks to, you know, park their cars in their garage, right? And not be on the driveway. And this is not like a massive massive truck. It's it's it's a practical vehicle, right, that we that we have now. A lot of the development occurred, it seems, from previous owners, right? Just shifting and and and and making smaller renovations over time that now the garage is much smaller than it was before. And so, you know, that's unfortunate because now you're in a position where you're like, "Okay, how do I make an adjustment to this now to make my uh vehicles fit?" Um, so I could see the practical difficulty there. Uh, I appreciate that it's not a tear down rebuild, right? We're just making a small change um to give a bit more, you know, 5T in the front, which I think is is is not bad at all. And for this home to be conforming it, you know, just based on the chimney conversation and some of the notes, it would be extremely costly to do that, right? To to squeeze everything in such a way that it would hit all these setback requirements. And at the end of the day, the home may not be as as functional or sellable or, you know, to a a future owner. I know when I was looking for homes in your diner, flow was a really important factor, right? It had to feel good. There was no dead spaces. You know, the home seemed like it was built properly. And I think the homeowner is trying to get their home to a place where it feels good. It's economical. It's efficient. I certainly don't want to put too much of a burden from a cost perspective to say, you know, squeeze your walls in XYZ feet, push it up this way, move your chimney. Those things are very expensive to do. and what they're asking for it seems minimal. Now, the question of precedence is is is an important one too, right? Because if we say, "Sure, you know, five feet in the front, not a big deal." And then someone else on the block says, "Hey, you know, I just bought a truck, you know, and I want to get 5T too." That could be tricky, right? And it's I'm sure it's going to come here and we're going to debate it. Um, but for from what I could tell the homeowner is trying to do, trying to just get a little bit of a space so that the home makes sense from what was previously built upon. I'm leaning more on the side of yes. Um, because I think they're doing their best to make it practical. They're not asking for a whole lot and I think the end product would be a better designed home with better flow. So, that's kind of my thoughts at this point. Uh I'm I'm very open to hearing what what the rest of the commission has to say. Thank you Quincy. What's your day? So let me begin by saying framing my comments and that I'm part of the club of the 1950s less than 2,000 square feet uh home club. So I understand where you're coming from in that regard. So um you made a lot of good points there, Wincy. I wanted to hit mainly on precedence as you talked about it. Um, this project reminded me a lot of a project we had, I believe it was in the Morningside neighborhood a few years ago. Um, I believe it was before Claire, David, Paul were on the commission. Um, but there was an owner that wanted to add on to his deck in the back of his house. And he just wanted to add on, not too much, a few feet and close port a portion of it. And it was going to bring him over the impervious surface requirement by 1.3% or something like that. A very minimal minimal amount. Um, and we had a lot of conversation about that one, a lot of support from the community. I mean, we got kind of rigged over the coals over how can you deny I mean 1.3% that seems really trivial and stupid, right? I mean, that's not a lot. That's barely anything. Um, but you know what I think we really landed on in terms of like what was the finding effect that we could that we could what was the finding effect um to meet the requirements of a variance? And here the thing that sticks for me and I don't think it's going to alter the the character of the neighborhood. I don't think there's anything in that regard that's a concern here. Um I think it will look beautiful. I think it fit in with neighborhood great. The practical difficulty barrier for the second floor edition is what sticks in my mind the most. Um, I could maybe reconcile the garage one a little bit because there was actions of a previous owner to modify that space, but building new and then not conforming to to um setback requirement really mainly because of the only because of the cost factor which is you know when we were trained on planning commission not something we're solely supposed to consider like I mean there's it's one thing but if it's just economics that's not really supposed to be the deciding weighing factor. Um, so I I'd like to hear further discussion on this piece around the practical difficulty of the second floor. Um, because I think that to me is the biggest hurdle uh that we need to overcome for this variance. Anyone? All right. Claire. Um, I guess the second floor piece is the easiest piece for me to get around because, um, I think as a home owner when you buy a property, thinking you can add on within the same footprint, just going vertically is sort of a maybe a default lay person's assumption. I don't know the origin of why the step-in, but as I sit there and think about it, when you step in, you're creating different loadbearing walls, you're creating different roof lines, you're I mean, it is a significant expense. And I think it is a reasonable sort of belief that if this is my house to add another exact same on top because my house exists and is valid then to me I think as a homeowner that's fair. Um, and it is a huge expense and I I would be sort of curious how the history if if um city staff could sort of point us in maybe some of those discussions or directions because it would be interesting what was the purpose of creating that sort of differentiation. Um I think for me to um Commissioner Day's point about precedent I feel mo our setback codes are super complicated for every property and using the sort of city standard if it was an empty lot in a new subdivision right which doesn't exist but as the city standard if it is not if it's within that then I think it's passing the litmus test of what we think as a city is is a reasonable setback. Um we talk a lot about preservation and environmental concerns and um impervious surface and all of that. This house is well within it. It seems in my mind to be a very reasonable addition. Um it looked like the car actually like you've cut part of the garage to get your hood of your car under. I'm a terrible driver. that would be a disaster. So, I'd like you to be able to pull a reasonablesized car um into your garage. And um so I don't have a problem with this on on those two points. Okay. I would I would just say I mean I hear you, but I would ask you know what grounds if we go along that line of thinking what grounds we have to deny any variance going forward. I mean really again there's the practical difficulty here is purely financial and I'll reiterate that we're not supposed to consider mainly that but there is you know they could conform to the code and a reasonable homeowner would think that they could build a patio by Lake Cornelia close by and think that there's probably they're probably fine doing that because other homeowners around them do that but then we say hey actually there's the setback requirement from the body of water. But I don't Hold on a second. I'm just saying the the thought process of the home it's really reasonable for the homeowner to make that assumption. Yes, I agree. But that shouldn't sway our decision-m process here. Just because they think they can doesn't mean that then we should grant the variance because that's a reasonable assumption. But if in 1953 it had been built as a two-story house, it would have but it wasn't. Right. But so what you're saying is is that the nonconforming existing floor plan can't be added to. And for me that's really challenging. The impervious surface applies to every lot in the city. It's not this sort of mathematical geometric game of based on your neighbors. And so I I think we're asking people to start having conversations with architects and planners and start dreaming in a universe where they can't possibly really know what the rules are is challenging. Um, and you're right, if money was no object, you know, or not consideration, the homeowner could decide, I don't want to sink 700,000 into a $500,000 home, they could walk away, sell it, and it could be a tear down. So like that's the push and pull. And so that's why I'm getting comfortable with it because it's meeting the minimum threshold of what we as a standard as a city have decided. And I think an addition in this circumstance or a variance for this garage is very different than a deck or a patio which changes the imperable surface. And that's what the variance was. Right. Well, I I said I could reconcile the garage piece, but I'm I'm certainly not saying that they can't add on to their ex existing footprint, right? That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying this particular variance, this particular little jut out. Just that non-conforming piece is what they can't do, right? So, I'm not saying that they can't add on the second floor, right? And um but to me, this is more of a the process is broken, so we should fix the process and change that part of the code. As planner Aer said, there's been discussion about amending that and changing that and making that possible to do going forward. We should do that. But in the meantime, I don't think I don't I don't think we should continue to work around that. Um until we do that, right? We should we've identified a hole in the code. We should fix that and not work around it. Thank you guys for your thoughts. I I think this just illustrates the tension and complying and with the complexities of our code. Um, is there any other discussion around this or does other people have any other comments and support or approval that they'd like to or denial that they'd like to share? Quick, I have a comment, but you want to go first, David? Sure. I guess um you know consistency is not an allconsuming value for this group but I think uh I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be but it's probably good for us to be consistent on the whole rather than not. Um although there's always going to be cases, every case is a little bit different. So consist consistency can be hard to achieve sometimes. But I can't recall a time in the few years that I've been involved in this when we have failed to approve a second story edition immediately on top and on the same plane as a non-conforming first floor. Just can't think of one. Um, not to say that's right or wrong, but that's has been our practice in the past. And I think the thinking generally is along what Commissioner Honaman was saying was the practical difficulty is that the foundation was built where it was and it no longer fits the current code. I find that I find that persuasive. having a little more trouble with the east side of the building with the garage because also we and I typically tend to not allow variances where there's design preferences or self-created choices within a structure and the preference for what the garage has become rather than turning it back to a garage seems like a design choice. Um, Commissioner Hanaman brought up the 30- foot test. I think that's really interesting to think about and I think it's useful particularly in a neighborhood like Morningside, but I Morning Side, but I do struggle with trying to use that same thought process in a thought process in a different neighborhood in a different situation where the setbacks are going to be really wildly different and all of a sudden there's a feeling that well, as long as it's 30 feet, it's going to be fine. And I I don't think that's what you were saying, but that's something that I would I would be concerned about. Appreciate the participation of the neighbors. I think the the garage no challenges with character of the neighborhood. I think it's a great point that particularly given the elevation and the landscaping, it probably wouldn't be noticed. Most of the building is fine. It's just the garage that's sticking out a little bit more. So I mean I that those to me would be sort of mitigating factors to why uh I would think differently about this than probably every other project that we've seen that had design preferences requiring a variance. So those are just my thoughts. Thanks. I'm in support of the project and um I think there are a few differentiating factors from um what Commissioner Day brought up. I think this is living space as opposed to um the issue that you were talking about um which was a patio. Um, so I think that that's that's a differentiation and I also would take exception to the fact that um we didn't I don't think we unanimously um denied that variance. So I don't know that we were all on the same page about that anyway. So um so I it has my full support. Back to you all. Well, for me this isn't a hard one. Um, I don't think this meets the legal standards, so I'll be voting no. Uh, totally reasonable the way you're thinking about it. I think you're thinking about it from like a homeowner's perspective. You know, that makes sense. Um, from applying the legal standard that that I think applies to variances. I also think it's actually a pretty easy decision. Um, if we're talking about being consistent with past decisions we've made in similar circumstances. Um, when I listened to most of the presentation, again, against the legal standard, not against the reasonable standard of a homeowner's perspective, um, it struck me as as basically these requests are being driven by personal preference. Um, just a desire to have more space, uh, for reasons that are reasonable. Um, those are whenever we've had similar projects being presented with that kind of dynamic, I think we've almost unanimously denied the variance, even though we've been super honestly sympathetic in most of the cases to what someone was trying to accomplish. Um, that's kind of the framework I'm having a hard time getting my mind out of here. With respect to the garage, a previous garage that was totally adequate in size existed and was taken away via personal preference, the previous owner. I think that kind of just proves that um, a trade-off was made and a trade-off could be made to revert it back. Um, I understand why that wouldn't be maybe desirable or generate the most return on investment, but it it makes it feel like it's discretionary and and driven by personal preference rather than practical difficulties associated with complying. Um, with respect to the second floor, a little bit different. Um, but also as I listened to the conversations seemed more about um what would improve flow and and be best from a from a layout standpoint and also max maximizing investment. Um I again very sympathetic to those desires. I just don't think they meet the legal standard that we need to apply. Um, and and the the thing I was struggling with is, you know, we get these requests from time to time. Um, when usually when we do grant a variance, there's something about the property that makes it basically impossible to comply. Um, and I'm just not seeing that in this instance. I would personally worry just based on my own voting history on variances that I couldn't logically um vote to approve this and then not vote to approve every other request that came in being driven by the same dynamics. I don't think I could fairly apply the legal standard to anyone else who just for a personal reasons wanted to make their property better than the code was going to allow it um to be. Um and I've personally voted against almost every single one of these even though I've been very sympathetic in the past. So for my own personal consistency and I think for fairness for others um you know I have to I have to be consistent and vote no against this one. There's nothing in the law that says that if someone wants to encroach via patio that's not permitted but if someone wants to do it with living space it is. Um I just don't think that's a distinction we can draw either. So again sympathetic but I got to be consistent. Any other comments? It's just a question for the chair probably. So, um, if a person wanted to support one and not the other, what do you think? I don't I don't get a sense of how this is going to go. I think we proceed with maybe a full motion at first and well I mean, we could do Yeah, we could do an option. We could do a motion on one and then proceed to a motion on the second. Correct. Cuz if one gets denied, then it could be taken up with, you know, the city council. Correct. So the variance application is for the plans that have been submitted. So it's not like you can peacemail the approval for one variance or another like you can't approve one and okay deny the other both for that based on the plan. Anyways I I have just a couple quick comments. So, as you can tell, there's a difference of opinion up here, and that is perfectly fine. That means you're represented well. You want your residents and your volunteers that are guiding land use to differentiate on where they stand with things. Uh there's this thing called discretion, and usually show a pyramid of discretion. Variances are usually toward the top with a little less compared to comprehensive plan amendments or zoning amendments. However, there is discretion and if you know like our job is to kind of steer on how someone would like to technically break the law, right? Because what people are proposing here doesn't conform to a code. That's what comes up here. That's our role. So, either everyone just doesn't do anything and conforms or they come to us with what they would like to do that doesn't conform. And that's where our discretion comes to play based on a variety of experiences, personal, you know, stances and opinions and principles and, you know, consistency. So, I guess I mean for me personally, usually as what Commissioner Elker mentioned, when we have a non-conforming lot and someone tends to stay within that and make a reasonable proposal, I see practical difficulties in in simply complying with the code, not just because of cost, but because of like functional and structural considerations that then also drive cost. And it is interesting as you point out and you pointed out just the history of the code and how somehow it seems like we're now going to try to start going back toward what it used to be of allowing a little more density in the city. Um, but we're not here. We're not there right now. But that does go into our discretion, right? And at least for me and staying consistent, I would be supporting this one. The garage is a struggle for me. However, it's not as much because it's you it's at least with how the code's written, it's was this a self-created situation? And this was the prior homeowner. So, it wasn't self-created. So, for me, for them to like provide something reasonable, you know, reasonable is going out instead of taking away a mudroom that was already built within. So that's the part of the building that's going outside of the footprint, but that's just where my discretion is and I support this fully. I guess I'd welcome a motion for either approval or denial. I would uh move for approval of the uh setback variances for 4004 Grimes Avenue based on the uh staff findings in in the report. Second. And we'll do a roll call vote. Commissioner Nelson. I. Commissioner Elkre. I. Commissioner Padilla. I. Commissioner Smith. I. Commissioner Day. Nay. Commissioner Bournestein. Hey. Commissioner Honaman. I. Chair Bennett. I. The motion passes. Congratulations and good luck with your project. Thank you everyone for a good discussion there. And now we are on to our second of two final public hearings. So we have commissioner or not commissioner community what is it? Community development coordinator Addison Lewis here to present on 316 Madison Avenue subdivision with variances and then yeah. Are you getting mirror? What else? I don't know where she go. What the heck are they doing for so long? Right, those tuning in, we're just waiting for the other commissioner to return. to protect the neighborhood. Yeah, I can get a foot longer. Okay. I mean, all right, Addison, you can take it away. All right, we're going to resume, everybody. All right. Good evening, chair, commissioners. Um, this is a request for subdivision with variances at 316 Madison Avenue. Uh the subject property is located in northwest Edina uh in the president's neighborhood uh in the R1 zoning district. The property currently contains a single family home right here with a detached garage. Uh and the applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into two lots for the purpose of constructing a uh a new home here on the southern portion. Uh just a quick note about the applicant. Uh, Homes Within Reach is a nonprofit community-based organization that creates and preserves affordable home ownership opportunities for working households in suburban Henipin County. Uh, they are a partner organization of the city for our affordable ownership preservation program. And they help families earning less than 80% area median income to become homeowners by acquiring, remodeling, and selling properties through a community land trust model. Uh this means that the clients they work with uh purchase the home and then lease the land at a nominal fee which reduces the mortgage down payment and closing costs. Um so that would be the case with this home. The home would be sold to an incomequalified buyer and they would lease the land uh from homes within reach to ensure that uh the property remains affordable long term. Uh so with the proposal uh comes the following requests uh for preliminary and final plat to replplat the property into two lots. Uh a variance to allow lot area of 5,988 square feet and 64 square feet where 9,000 square feet is required. A variance to allow lot width of 40 um of 45.96 ft for both lots where 75 ft is required and a variance to allow lot depth of 130.27 ft for one of the lots where 130.57 ft is required. Um so here's some photos of the property as it is today. The home there on the right is the existing home on the property. Um, and then the new home would be constructed in the area kind of between those two homes. Here's another view of that area there. And then here's a a view from um the back of the property from the alley. Um, so here is their proposed survey. So, you see the existing home there on the north lot and them showing how a a home could fit on the new proposed lot here on the south. Um, from what they're showing, a home could fit on here without requiring any variances to setbacks, building coverage or impervious surface. Um, see here again that the dimensions of the lot are about 46 feet wide by 130 ft deep. uh they've provided some rendering showing uh what the home is going to look like. Um though I will note kind of the design of the home isn't really what's within our purview here tonight. It's really just about those lot size variances. Um so here is our compliance table showing the minimum lot area, lot width and depth requirements and how that compares to the two proposed lots. Uh so again the minimum lot area in this case is going to be 9,000 square ft and so variances are required for both lot one and two where they're proposing lot area of 604 ft and 5,988 ft. Uh the minimum requirement for lot width is 75 ft and again the two lots are both proposed at 45.96 ft. And then uh the default standard for lot depth is actually 120 ft. But in this case since the median of all lots within 500 ft is greater than that the standard becomes the median which is 130.57 ft. Um so uh in this case lot one meets that and lot two is just short. So Minnesota statutes in section 3698 of the zoning ordinance require that a variance shall not be granted unless the following findings are made. uh the variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Uh there are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. The term practical practical difficulties means the following. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. Um, so in the staff report, I've done some uh provided some analysis um outlining how I believe that the requests do meet this criteria. And I'll just give kind of an overview of those findings here. Um, so the lots in the neighborhood were platted prior to Edina's existing standards for lot area, width, and depth. Um, the lots in the original West Minneapolis Heights plat were all approximately 130 uh by 46 in their dimensions. Um so that's consistent with what is being proposed by the applicant. Um the property was originally platted as two lots. So this uh proposed plat would reestablish those original lot sizes. Uh 12 of the 18 other properties on the block have approximately the same dimensions as those being proposed. Um so that's reflected here in the graphic. All these ones in blue are ones with um consistent lot dimensions as what's being proposed. And then here's just a table showing you kind of the width, depth, and area. Um that those are all approximately 46 by, you know, 130 give or take a foot here or there. Um and so the minimum lot standards um in the ordinance do not reflect the existing characteristics of the neighborhood. Um we find that the request would also advance the following comprehensive plan goals. Um so in the land use chapter of the comprehensive plan we have goal number one is to encourage infill and redevelopment that optimizes the use of city infrastructure complement community character and respond to needs at all stages of life. In the housing chapter of the comprehensive plan we have goal two that says encourage the development and maintenance of a range of housing options affordable to residents at all income levels and life stages. Promote owner occupied units over rental units when providing affordable housing. And goal four, support the development of a wide range of housing options to meet the diverse needs of and preferences of the existing and future Edina community. Retain and expand housing ownership options while also supporting a balance between ownership and rental households. Um, so with those findings, staff is recommending uh approval of the request subject to the conditions here on the screen. They're the same as the ones in your staff report. And with that, I'd be happy to take any questions. Thank you, Asen. I guess we'll kind of follow suit and open it to the applicant to provide their own presentation or simply stand for questions. Also, you have your own presentation, great. If not, just sit stand tight and we'll Thank you. I'm Brendalano Wilkkey. I'm the executive director at Homes Within Reach. I do not have a presentation. I'm here simply to ask answer any questions that you may have. Thank you very much. Do we have any questions for the applicant andor staff? Commissioner Honman, did I miss a better together link or public comment or is this not an option for there or were there just none? It it you know what it maybe wasn't linked in there. Um but we did not receive any comments on better together um as of this afternoon. Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Smith. Thank you. Uh question for the applicant. Just really really curious about this. Um so it seems like a home is built on the northern half if you will. Um it almost feels like it's foresight where it wasn't built in the middle where it would be way more difficult to subdivide. But any kind of history like background on the ownership or or why the house was is currently built where it is um and not you know more central to those two lots. Any any any kind of history there you can share with us? What I can tell you is the home was owned by the Schmidt family. They raised in that small home they raised nine children and when we purchased it was a two-bedroom home. So, we reconfigured it and um it technically could be a three-bedroom, but it is being used as a a two-bedroom with a den um with the ability to finish off the basement, we added egress windows so that our home buyer would do that. Um but the entire time that the it was in the Schmidt family from raising those children to um one of their daughters who had become a a nun um ended up leaving that calling and moving back into that home after her parents died and then it went from her to a niece who lived there. but it's it's just always been a vacant kind of lot next door that's been used for a garden um community space. When we purchased it, it's as you see, it's unkempt. Um so, the goal was to either see if we could put this back into the two lots it originally was and increase affordable home ownership options in the city. And if that doesn't happen, then we'll address it and make it into one big beautiful yard. But truly the goal is to increase home ownership. Um, as we did work on the other home and we're remodeling that, we had a lot of neighbors ask what we planned on doing. We've always been forthright to tell them that the goal was hopefully to get the lot split back to two lots and build and uh they were all supportive. They came to our neighborhood meetings. We had no issues. So that's really what we're trying to do. Gotcha. That's a that's an incredible uh background there. So, the Schmidt family owned the two lots. Okay. Gotcha. And and now you guys are trying to think about how do we split it to get, you know, more more more homes on those two spaces. Correct. Thank you. I am more of just a this is really pertaining but the house that you did remodel then it will that also be at the 80% less than 80% AMI correct and we have an identified buyer for that home we just can't sell it because of the issues around title and mortgage until we decide how this lot will take place any other questions else have any? Oh, yeah. For Addison, actually, um, could you just remind me what what law requires um the lot area in lot with standards that we're looking to deviate from? Is that that's just like the standard? Yep. Those are just the standards for the R1 zoning district. So, yep. Every district we have standards for minimum lot area width and depth. Y so 9,000 is is the default. If this were a neighborhood where the median within five of all lots within 500 ft was greater than that, then it would be greater than 9,000. But okay, um 9,000. Do you remember when that those standards were passed into law or became effective? Yeah. You know, I I don't know. I would guess it was maybe with like the 1970 code that we're looking to update here because most of most of the areas of Edina that were developed prior to that have lots that do not meet the these standards. Yeah. And the existing you said the existing neighborhood has a lot of basically smaller parcels that are like way way smaller than what the current code contemplates as being acceptable. Right. So this is kind of showing you the original West Minneapolis Heights plat. And every single one of these is about 46 by 130. Yeah. Which is what they're proposing to return it to. So here's Madison Avenue. Here's lots 10 and 11 right here. So that's the property. And that's why you have on the 300 block, you know, 12 of the 18 other properties still have those dimensions today. And so just over time, you know, some of the other lots have been either combined like a lot of these other ones are are doubles just like the subject property, right? where it's um you know 92 feet here, here, and here. Those are all double lots. So, and and were those lots like those small ones compliant with a pre-existing version of the code? Is that why they're so small? Yeah, likely. You know, this was just likely the standard at that time. What I'm betting at is that at some point like the the city decided that those lots were wildly too like were way too small and they and they didn't want lots to be that size anymore, right? I mean, that's what I'm getting. Yeah. Okay. And they So now if a lot that size would basically be wildly out of compliance with what the law dictates minimum is supposed to be. Yeah. likely when these new standards were adopted, you know, a lot of Edina was still developing. So, yeah, for new subdivisions, correct? The city had made a decision that 9,000 ft for a minimum lot area, 75 ft of width, that that was the standard they wanted going forward. So, I'm just I guess I'm no one else is probably struggling this, but that's fine. I am. What why is the plight um due to circumstances that are unique to the property? The the other thing I'll kind of add on that, you know, is this kind of comes back to our challenge of having a single R1 district for all of Edina, right? Like this kind of highlights that where um you know, I mean, the median within the neighborhood shows you that, you know, this means this means over half of the lots in within 500 ft don't even meet the standard. So, we're saying, you know, most of the neighborhood is non-conforming, right? Um, so that's just kind of a challenge when we have a single R1 district that's intended to apply kind of a one-sizefits-all to the whole city. Yeah, I get it. I mean, I just don't think it's up to me to decide that the law is stupid and doesn't make any sense. I think that's up for other people who actually make the law, not me supposed to apply it. And that's kind of what I'm Yeah. I I think someone said they that they think that's too small and they made that decision that it's supposed to be bigger. um it might not seem like it makes any sense anymore or that it's not consistent with where we want to go, but I think the solution to that is is to change the law um instead of just not apply it. So, for that reason, that's just the context behind my question. But thank you. That was really helpful. I don't have anything else. Any other questions? All right. See none. Thank you everyone. It's a public hearing. So like the previous process, uh we'll open it to both those who are tuning in remotely and those who are in person. For those who might have joined since the last one, I'll provide you the following information. To get in a virtual queue through your phone to participate, please call the following number. 312-5358110. Enter access code 2865819 9306. Enter the password 5454. Then press star three on your keypad when you'd like to get in the queue to speak, which is now. So, we'll give it at least a minute. And while we wait, we'll open it to those who might be in attendance in person that'd like to testify. If there is at least one particular person, um, please come forward, state your full name and address at either podium and you got three minutes to speak. Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Steve Brown. I live at 5528 Halifax Lane. I actually hadn't intended to speak this evening. Uh, and part of the rationale for not feeling the need to speak is I think this is a slam dunk. This is just a wonderful opportunity to have a permanently affordable home. We don't have many of those in Adina. It just seems like, as I said, kind of a no-brainer that we should do. The conversation that just took place I think deserves perhaps a little additional commentary. There are many people who believe that the motivation behind increasing lot size was racially driven. a desire to keep certain kinds of people out of the community by ensuring that the lot size was large enough that certain people couldn't afford that lot. That's a history that can be debated, but it is something I think we should keep in mind and not use as an excuse for denying this particular project. So I feel again this is a slam dunk. I would urge you to approve it. Somebody Sorry, somebody's going to have a great opportunity here. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is anyone else who's here in person that would like to testify? Seeing none, are there any people in the queue virtually? There is not. And it has been over a minute so I believe it is safe to proceed. Welcome a motion to close the public hearing. Motion to close the public hearing. Second. All those in favor say I. I. I. Public hearing is closed. Thank you for testifying. Bring it back to the planning commission to deliberate here. It the lot dividing recombining kind of strikes me a little bit like marriage and divorce. It's really easy to do one and really hard to do the other in the city. Um I lean in this circumstance very heavily on the neighborhood and the neighbors. This is going back to what three4s if my math is somewhat accurate of the neighbor to be consistent with three4s of the rest of the neighborhood. Um, I agree that we have laws that we're working to try to sus out um and make less um sort of universally applicable to all parts of the city. This part of the city, Morningside, parts of, you know, um Browndale neighborhood in there, they all don't conform currently. Um, and I don't see that as a bad thing. I think that's part of the character of that particular neighborhood. Um and in this case returning it to regardless of the end user although that I commend that I think it makes a lot of sense. It's too easy here to combine and then there is no real proper recourse to separate in these neighborhoods in Adina. Thank you. I'm all in favor. comments going down. Mr. Smith, thank you. Uh I think for me at a really high level, I would approve this uh request. Um when I look at this uh you know as we kind of heard we have one R1 code for the entire city and we know some parts of the city based on all the research that we've done on different projects the lot sizes are a lot smaller. As we push more west it gets a lot larger. Um, when I look at this and from the images, you could also see that the sideyard setbacks were probably not even conforming. There were homes really built up next to the next property line. There were some really big homes and a small lot. So, I'm guessing too that um the floor area ratio or the or the impervious surface coverage was probably also out of whack, too. Where I'm going is, you know, at that time when these homes were built, uh, it was just a different time. You know, codes were different. Now the codes have been updated, right? And so now we have, uh, uh, setback requirements, front side, impervious coverage ratios, minimum lot sizes. We've kind of standardized something, right? so that for lack of a better word the wild west doesn't continue throughout the entire city right we we want to conform to that now there's a whole history I'm sure of why we settle on the codes that we have today right um based on a whole bunch of different factors but we have a code which is good and I think we should always have a standard and I think that makes sense however when I look at this property and where it's located and what's around it and what was the original intent and the original idea, I see subdividedness as being something that's consistent with what's happening in that region. And so even though it doesn't conform to what our minimum lot sizes code today is, it fits within the scope of what existed then and it seems like it would make a lot of sense. you know, um, again, as a body, I think we have the discretion to kind of factor in a bunch of different ideas, including bigger ideas of housing, affordability, these kind of factors that as a city we are driving in that direction. And you know, per the uh testimony today, of course, you know, we have an opportunity here to to move more in that direction. And it seemed like this one makes sense to me. And so from my perspective, I I think this is uh an approve from me. um given the totality of history, what's around it, goals of the city and balancing that against the codes that we have today. So that's just my my uh take on it. I'm um in support of this project for a variety of reasons. Um one I think um we have uh a variety of guiding documents that we need to be looking at. One of them is the comprehensive plan and I think this very much follows the spirit of the plan. Um I digress for one minute and say um thank you to Addison. I think it was a great presentation. It was very informative. I appreciated the maps, the current and the future. So it was very helpful. Thank you very much. Um, I also think it's important that with no developable land, we have to be creative. We have a housing crisis and it it's imperative that we consider all options within the framework of what we're supposed to be doing here. So, I think that accomplishes this goal. And I think when you look at um the slide that you just showed us was very helpful, but there was also one in the packet um that had I think a wider view of all the lots in the neighborhood. And there are many many many that are um that have been subdivided. So this is hardly a one-off. This is hardly an exception. Um so for all of those reasons and the greater good of the community, um I'll approve I'll vote for approval. Thank you. Commissioner Elar, do you have something? Any else? I'll just say I mean I don't really disagree with anything I've heard so far. I agree with everything that Steve said. Um, Commissioner Honan, uh, Will, I think you made a great point in terms of the plight of the land owner and how we interpret that. Um, but as Commissioner Padia said, there's a confluence of factors here in in my mind, right? I know I just was a stickler with the last piece on the variance there. This is where we talk about where Jimmy always likes to talk about discretion. I feel like I can at least once a meeting favorite topic is is discretion with variances. This one is a discretion tips the scales more heavily in favor for for me. Right. So before I couldn't get there here and because of what we're aiming to achieve um the utility of our current zoning in terms of how it allows us to meet the goals of the comprehensive plan stuff like that. I mean it it really constricts us from from meeting those goals like Commissioner Pia said. Um and this was if this was the previous owner had combined the lots and then decided that they wanted to subdivide them again later then I would say no. But this this was this was put together by a previous owner into one one big lot. Now they want to divide it, put two two houses here. I think that's a great opportunity. And again, that discretion piece just tips the scales here in my mind. Yeah, I think that I think I agree with you. I think that aspect of it is the plight that's not due to circumstances unique to this particular I think that history and exact the way the structure is sitting on this lot meets that criteria. Um, I think I can get around to voting for it for that reason. Um, I don't think that ex that the the concerns I expressed or if you're I don't know if you were suggesting they were like a desire to sort of implicitly maintain a racist status quo. That's completely false. So, I hope you weren't suggesting that. Um, and it's certainly not. So, I think I do need to make that point. Um, if that were I mean I think if the whole code is racist or something like that, that's a big problem. um that the council needs to address and change. So, it's I think just because you did bring it up, it's important to say um not coming at it from a maintaining racism perspective. That's not what's driving any of my comments. And if anybody knew me, they'd know that was true. Um uh it is a problem that the code diverges so significantly from what we're trying to do in the city. And this group, I think, strays too far from its purpose when it decides that standards don't really go if as long as it makes sense, it's a yes. And that's that's not what the planning commission's empowered to do. That's the job of the council who run for elections and get elected to set the law. And so whenever I feel like we drift that way to well, it made sense to me and it seems like good idea. So yes, that's when I sort of have an impulse to say no because I think it should force the the lawmakers to actually look at the law and ask Does it make sense? And if it doesn't, change it. Make it better instead of putting this body in a position of having to make all these exceptions all the time when something does make sense globally but is just like not conforming. So I actually think it makes sense to for people to vote no sometime in this group because it might create a little bit of tension that people who actually were elected to make these changes would then respond to by fixing the ordinances, making them better. Um, so I I just did think it was important to kind of put that context out there. I do think there are circumstances unique here that can justify getting to a yes. And so so I'll vote for it for that reason. Well, thank you for saying that because you're absolutely right. Sometimes a no from us is important because it is forcing the people who create the laws and who are elected to to think through that. and that while it makes another hoop for folks to jump through to take an, you know, appeal or move to the next step with city council, it's an important step. So, thank you for saying that. No other comments. I have three. One to respond to what you just said. So, so for people that don't know planning commission, we apply the law. We also do help make the law and change law. We don't have to wait for the city council to kind of tell us to do that. We can try to fight for certain things to be on the work plan that we get assigned to us each year. We usually table some topics and have staff put those together to convince city council to put those on our work plan so we don't have to just wait for them. We can also be the change as well as residents who are watching. Send us emails if you think there's an issue with something. We can put it on our work plan so behind the scenes we can help change a lot. So Addison, could you bring up the screen that has the conditions of a practical difficulties? Yeah, not this one. Sorry. Go that one right there. Okay. So, so for me the prior variance was easy because number well one two are are hit on and then three it it easily met I two I's and three I's for me. This one um I feel like it meets the first two very well. They're proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance and that doesn't mean that they that they have to show it could be put to a different use or a different design whatever it could be. It just means what they're proposing is reasonable. Is it reasonable? Yes. Is apply to the land owner due to circumstances unique to the property will address that. I agree. The variance if granted will not enter the central character of the neighborhood or the locality. So the prior variance I think that was easy. So for me historically I I would to be consistent I would not support this variance. Um and that is because through the history of subdivision requests we have compared to just a variance subdivisions have even more discretion. And typically it wasn't necessarily the motivation to subdivide which tended to be just someone making money off of the opportunity. It was the character of that neighborhood. So, I would air on the side if this was the only lot that wasn't subdivided on a block and all the other ones are the small lots, I would support it. But if there's a substantial part of the neighborhood that had this mix of different sizes, to me, that was an important character of the main of the neighborhood to maintain. But my my position, I guess, over time has changed. And I think it it changes because of how the comprehensive com comprehensive plan conflicts with some of this. When we approved the comprehensive plan, it was basically we promised to the community, we're not going to do anything in the single family neighborhoods. We're going to focus on, you know, the commercial nodes. But I think where things are going and what they've said about the comprehensive plan being outdated the second it's approved is some of the other parts that Commissioner Pado were mentioning and that is to create these opportunities that are achieving other goals within the plan and the vision and for me like I think it was a very persuasive case as to why this is important that I see that it doesn't change the essential character of the neighborhood by shrinking it. And if you shrunk all of them, I think it's just maintaining a part of the neighborhood and not totally altering it toward a negative. So, I don't know, there's some history there, but I fully support this. And I think it's important to always look at this screen and make sure that your decision uh follows these points. Any other discussion or comments? Welcome a motion by anyone. A motion uh a motion that or motion to recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat with variances to lot area and lot width for both lots and variance to lot depth for lot two subject to the conditions in the staff report. Second. Um all those in favor say I. I opposed. All right. Motion carries unanimously. Good luck with the project. Thank you for bringing it to the table. Thank you staff for both uh for the effort on both public hearings and for the residents who testified. Really appreciate your uh feedback and your engagement. And now we will move to the next part of the agenda which is wrapping up with chair and member comments. Do we have any Mr. Padilla? We had a work session um two weeks ago I think um uh where we talked about um we saw a slideshow um that Bill is it Bill Narn um showed us um talking about a potential underpass under France Avenue Gallagher. Um, so I think we were he suggested that um we do a memo or have some kind of a um communication to city council about this. And I don't know if anything has been done on that or if there's anything we actually do want to do to um I don't know if those who weren't there got a chance to watch listen to it. I was not there and I did not listen to it. Uh David um will Merryweather any thoughts in terms of moving it forward the discussion that we had or putting it? I appreciated listening to um Bill Nandorf our development director. There was a lot of background and history on it and I was able to ask questions that I had not heard the background before and there were four different options um one of which was my favorite and I but it can't be done because of the cost and I over the past couple of weeks I've driven down France Avenue over that area twice. So there and back there and back. So four times total. And all of a sudden see that dip in France Avenue, you know, cuz I really wanted to have pedestrians at street level and the cars go down, but that whole street does really dip down five feet. And so in order to do that, it would have to be like three mega blocks of France Avenue to make that happen. Um, I'm just going to say my opinion at the end of that was like whenever we can separate pedestrians and cars, I am all for it. And I don't know if we're going to get I mean, I think we might be able to email council individually, but I don't I don't know if we'd ever do it as a Well, I I think it was my impression that's what he was asking us for to to to speak as the planning commission. How many of us were there? Can you There's four of us. Okay. So, Commissioner Dave made the point just that and I think we decide at the time we were I think we were agreeing that from a planning standpoint. We thought it looked good, right? Is that that's kind of the consensus that the four of us were reaching. Commissioner Day was saying, was there a quorum? I you know, I know we didn't take a vote or anything like I know we didn't take a vote, but does it make any sense for for the commission to think about whether a majority of the commission would want to write a letter or something like that? I procedurally I just don't I don't know. The other thing I would add is I the one I was thinking about that meeting more after we had it um and I was remembering back when this br like the bridge idea came up in the first place and we all did at our meeting think it looked good from a plan. There's a lot to love about it. I think from just like a planning perspective um certainly would be a huge improvement. The one part that we just didn't get a lot of information was the paying for it perspective. I know they started talking about how much it would cost but I think it would dip into tiff. Is that right? or would you and we just didn't get clarity on that point and I remember that's what kind of came up the last time in front of this group where it wasn't clear whether we were stepping outside of our of our province to start commenting on how to finance something and so if we were going to write something personally I would just limit it to to a planning focus right um and not weigh how to finance it because I think that requires a broader view into the city's finances that we don't have or that I personally don't have and we're supposed to weigh in on things from a land use issue and not from a financial Yeah, that's not our that's not our job. Well, I was going to suggest that everybody should listen to it, but the problem is it was a highly visual event and just listening to it is probably going to be close to worthless. No, but the the it is on um it's on the website. You can look at the whole there's a video recording of that conversation of his slideshow that he showed us. Yeah, I suppose that would be better than nothing because I mean everybody should before we your decision obviously what we do about it but everybody I'll just say like I won't I won't be supporting I've looked through the slideshow I was at previous meetings and I mean if you don't recall there was a sketch plan for the related site in the community room so it wasn't even televised and that was kind of snuck into there so it's like a lot of this has had just a a strange disconnect connect with the public too. Mhm. And I didn't agree with any option then and don't agree with any option now. So like I I'm just I won't participate. I'll still watch it to catch up or at least listen to it. But I mean my mind's pretty made up on that matter. So whether it's something that we send out of, you know, a vote, which is usually what we do with like a memo, usually it's one of us commissioners that's part of a specific movement or basis for a work plan item that's leading it that we do this. We tend to not I guess there are there are times where we support a memo, but most of the time it's something that one of us or a group of us is leading a charge on and we send a memo to the council. So, this is unusual. Then we vote on it that say should we forward this to the city council. Seems like a minority of the planning commission informally viewed a presentation and thought it was a good idea. Yeah. then it's probably not a good idea for the commission as a whole to to write a formal letter in instead individual commissioners are free to write emails and stuff like that just like they always would be. What's the So is that's kind of Yeah, I I think that's a good plan for now and then maybe we can revisit on the next meeting if everyone's had a chance to review the material and listen to it. What just you made me curious just in one or two like what is I'm always curious to know what your opinion is on these types of things. Why is it that you I I could save it till when we pick back up in a couple weeks when people have a chance to review. Yeah, sure. Whenever the right whenever the right time is. Can I just ask what what was the general consensus of the four? It sounded like the four agreed on something. Was it lowering the road and making the or we spent a lot of time talking about an underpass, right? A pedestrian pedestrian pedestrian and bicycle. So two parts of but two parts together that would be an underpass and I'm perfectly fine if if we leave it at this I think but two two points I one I think Bill is expecting something from us because he did ask that so I think um Jimmy if you want to let him know that nothing formal will be forthcoming that's perfectly fine. Number two, um he and Carrie or whatever did go to the trouble of calling this meeting for the planning commission to attend for an hour and a half and the fact that um we didn't have a quorum um I think shouldn't take away from the fact that so many people did show up and listen to that presentation and we had a discussion And that doesn't take away from the fact of how valuable that discussion was or how much that we learned or the fact that we shouldn't be having further discussion or moving that forward or backward or whatever you know you know how to clarify I just want to pick back up on this conversation next meeting after everyone's had a chance to review it that's fine and listen to the thing. So I I wouldn't say we're just ending the memo support right now. So do you want to hold off then on contacting? Yeah, I'm I I can give him an update as to that's what our plan is. But then I just I mean he went to the trouble of presenting it. He deserves Yeah. Oh yeah. at a minimum some feedback. Th this this topic came up I bet 10 years ago and there was a discussion to put a bridge over at that point and being on the transportation commission at the time I and I can say this to two but at that time I was not in support of the bridge due to mainly due to the cost and I I thought an underpass would have been a great idea. They said there's way too expensive to do an under underpass. No way will we ever look at that. So I mean it went went through that whole piece and he discussed all that. Okay. So, I I'd be happy to review that and and look at it now and and see, you know, we tried to narrow the lanes. That's when we narrowed the lanes and tried to make the passing over the um street narrower, extending the walk times, things like that. But traffic's probably gotten more has increased since then, too. So, yeah, I'm happy to review that for next meeting. So yeah, if everyone can plan on that, we'll just plan on reconvening about this matter next meeting, probably during the same time. You remember when did they say it was actually going to the council? Did they say a date on that? I don't know that there's a date, but there are signs all over the area that talk about um the community has until the 30th, okay, to provide input, okay, of this month. Of this month, okay, so community input is being accepted until till the 30th. Okay. And I don't think we meet until the end of July. I'm sorry. I don't think we meet until the end of July. Correct. Well, it's just when the deadline of committee comment. I don't know if that's because the city council talks about this matter beforehand before our meeting, but we can look into it, I guess. Do you happen to know, Addison, or anyone? Um, I don't off the top of my head. I'll see if I can find it here quick. Okay. Any other community or sorry chair member comments, staff comments, any updates or um just that our um contract for the zoning code update was approved by the council at the last meeting. So, um I think we're going to have a a kickoff work session with you all. Where's the confetti? Budget cut. I don't know. So, that'll be coming up. Uh we'll do a work session here soon. God, there's just cake in that room later. Okay. No, that's cool. Thank you, Addison. That's great update. That's good news for everyone in this city to be very frank. With that, I'd welcome a motion to motion to adjurnn. Second. All those in favor say I. I. So move the meeting has been adjourned. Thank you everyone.