[0:00] e [0:43] all right do we have a motion to close just kidding all right welcome [0:49] everybody to the December 11th 2024 City V Planning Commission meeting on behalf [0:55] of the rest of the Planning Commission uh we welcome you here to those especially in person and also [1:02] those tuning in remotely say it each time but your curiosity your participation and your feedback is vital [1:10] as we navigate change together here in Nina specifically regarding the ways in [1:15] which we'd like to use our land so tonight is like similar nights where we have a public hearing we have [1:22] just one tonight and uh I'll give you some instructions before that begins um [1:29] actually we might not have much up to them but yeah just hold tight uh quick [1:34] rundown of the agenda just so you know what to expect is we'll have a call to order then roll call then we'll have an [1:41] approval of tonight's agenda as well as the prior meeting's minutes then we get into our community comment period which [1:48] is your chance for those who are here in person to testify about anything uh [1:53] that's not on tonight's agenda so we appreciate your engagement in doing that after that we have our public hearing [2:00] and I I will get into that uh more specifically once that arises but that's your chance to testify about the public [2:07] hearing that's on tonight's agenda and then we wrap up with reports and [2:12] recommendations chair member comments staff comments and then adjournment uh it's important to know [2:19] that any and all feedback that's made its way to the city has made its way to us and we consider that before we make [2:26] our recommendations for approval or denial without further Ado like to call the meeting to [2:32] order and then roll call commissioner Aly here commissioner [2:39] Padilla commissioner Smith here commissioner XA here [2:46] commissioner day here commissioner phel here chair Bennett here next uh we have [2:54] the approval of tonight's meeting agenda welcome a motion motion to approve [3:00] second all those in favor say I I so moved next we have the approval of the [3:05] prior meeting's minutes on November 13th motion to approve the minutes from the prior [3:13] meeting second all those in favor say I I I so moved all right next as I [3:19] mentioned we have our community comment period so this is your chance for anyone who here is here any of the six out [3:27] there if you'd like to you can come come to a Podium and you have 3 minutes to speak about a matter not on tonight's [3:33] agenda uh please State your full name your address and you'll see the light turn green when your time starts and [3:40] turn red when your time's out and we ask you to wrap up your comments then anyone here for that period of the [3:47] agenda see some yep side to side a tennis match all [3:54] right so we will move on we'll close that period of the agenda and on to our [3:59] public hearing so as mentioned we have one public hearing tonight it's a [4:05] variance of section 36 437 of the city code to allow for a 10.6 ft front yard [4:13] setback variance at 4701 White Oaks Road as with most public [4:19] hearings this is what you can expect so uh an applicant whether it's a [4:24] resident or a developer or whoever uh puts in a formal application and that triggers a 60-day period for us to make [4:31] a decision uh City staff does some research they put together a staff [4:37] report and they collaborate with other commissions or departments like engineering and they provide a [4:45] recommendation for approval or denial to us they use that report to kind of [4:50] prepare this presentation that you'll see tonight we have an exchange with staff uh get some questions answered [4:58] then we open it to the applicant to provide their own presentation if they'd like similar exchange and then [5:04] after that we open it to the public hearing which is your chance for those who are here in person and for those who [5:10] are tuning in remotely to testify about the matter after that we close the [5:15] public hearing turn it back to the Planning Commission and we deliberate and uh provide a recommendation for [5:21] approval or denial so before we kick off just for those tuning in remotely want [5:27] to make sure that you can get in the queue to par participate uh please call the following number [5:34] 312 535 8110 enter access code [5:42] 2634 069 5384 and then the password is [5:50] 5454 and press star three on your keypad when you like to get in the que to speak [5:55] you don't need to do that now but I'll I'll cue you to jump in the Que [6:00] a little later but without further Ado planner AER take it away thank you chair members of the Planning Commission the [6:07] request is for a fronty year setback variance at 4701 White Oaks Road the property is located on the North side at [6:15] the end of White Oaks Road culdesac this is the existing condition [6:21] survey of the property uh what you'll notice is that the red dashed line are [6:27] the required setbacks for the property and that the existing house in the front [6:32] overlaps into the required front yard setback as well as just a little bit into the rear yard setback currently the [6:40] house has a side loading tuck under garage on the west side there is more [6:46] opportunity to add on in the easterly part of the lot unfortunately uh their [6:52] garage is on the western leap portion of the lot where they would like to um add on a new garage the the existing garage [6:59] is under sized for their needs so this is the existing house it's up sort of on [7:05] a hill uh you can see that there's a driveway going up and it actually accesses the garage um in the lower [7:13] level basement level of the house here's the existing front elevation sort of a [7:19] corner side view showing that tuck under garage main floor and then the floor [7:26] above so this is the proposed site condition highlighted in yellow is that garage [7:32] Edition it will change to a frontloading garage they will also be doing some [7:38] remodeling and additions to the existing home um you can see in this area where [7:45] the overlap of the front yard setback requirement is on the existing home as [7:51] well as the a little bit in the rear uh and then just a little bit for that new [7:57] addition they tried the designer tried um different options um I was shown a [8:04] number of them that would be less conforming than this that would also go into the rear yard uh they try to keep [8:12] within the area that they could um but it will overlap a little bit in the [8:18] front yard um however the existing house is you know much further into the [8:23] setback you can see in the darker gray area are the areas that are being added [8:28] on to the footprint and then the existing is in the lighter gray um and then highlighted in this [8:34] light blue the dark blue is again the Edition portions of the house and the [8:40] existing footprint is in red and the highlighted in the lighter blue is the [8:46] what they're actually asking for a variance for for the new portion that will be overlapping into that the required [8:52] setb this is a landscape plan so this would be the finished look of the property when done [9:00] so lower level new garage much more spacious will allow the more opportunity [9:06] to store their cars and and other things uh so then above the garage they will be [9:12] adding a room which would be roughly in line with the first floor there'll [9:18] there'll be some steps um there is a difference in um the different levels [9:23] and then the um upper level there will be an addition towards the back but they [9:29] are keeping it within the rear yard setback because the first floor main [9:35] floor actually does overlap that a bit and then here are the elevations of the new house different um [9:43] views from the East uh from North [9:49] Northwest West this is actually um the Improvement as you would see it from the [9:55] most effective property that is adjacent um just to the West of it and you can see that the garage is actually [10:02] tucked uh under and that this would be that main floor living area above uh [10:10] this is the Southwest views of the home showing uh that new addition fronting [10:18] the street facing the street and then uh the view in context [10:24] with the adjacent neighbor so um four variants the [10:29] Minnesota state statutes requires that uh a request meet um certain standards [10:36] the variance would need to be consistent with the comprehensive plan it is um a [10:41] single dwelling unit it's low density it will remain as such so it does uh [10:47] conform to that requirement the variance would be in harmony with the general and purpose intent of the ordinance the [10:53] purpose and intent of the front yard setback ordinance in Idina is that anything that's built is is in kind of a [11:00] consistent uh front yard setback with adjacent homes or along the block unfortunately you can build deeper than [11:07] that and that's what has occurred in some instances and that can affect uh the front yard setback opportunity um or [11:15] the opportunity to add on because of the front yard set back um for some properties as is the case with this um [11:22] the ordinance also does not account for the Deep curve of the culdesac um which is pushes that [11:29] opportunity much deeper into the lot um you can see that this house is already non-conforming in the front and rear um [11:36] on the Eastern portion of the lot and we've had I think [11:41] two um requests that the Planning Commission reviewed this year where [11:46] there were challenges trying to build on a lot that was adjacent to a culdesac and I think even both of those had [11:53] garages that they were trying to load off of um the culdesac and the um it's [11:59] just it's a more difficult uh lot situation to try to uh design additions [12:06] to there are practical difficulties complying with the ordinance uh the Practical difficulties are caused by the [12:13] existing location of the home uh the requirement for average front yard setback and the RightWay um based on the [12:20] average and the impact of that called AAC curvature that the plight of the land owner is due to circumstances that [12:25] are unique to the property not common to similarly zoned properties and they're not self-created uh the house was built [12:32] where it was and or where it is and it was not as a result of anything that the [12:38] property owner um they did not build a house and it for whatever reason does no [12:44] longer conform to the front yard setback standard and their opportunity for adding on um building onto the house is [12:52] uh hindered will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood granting the variance will not alter the [12:58] ESS character of the neighborhood the front yard setback of the addition will allow a logical extension of the existing non-conforming home with other [13:05] zoning requirements in compliance um with the exception of the rear yard setback but they did they were conscious [13:12] of that and they did not try to uh continue that um non-conforming setback [13:18] the building addition will provide a deeper front year setback than the existing front of the home and in fact it's it's a very minimal amount of [13:24] encroachment that the new uh Edition will uh provide into that front yard [13:30] setback staff does recommend approval of the 10.6 ft front yard setback variance [13:35] for from the 44.8 foot requirement approval is based on the following findings practical difficulties is [13:42] caused by the required average front year setback requirement cesac setback impact and the existing location of the [13:49] house there are circumstances that are unique to this property those unique circumstances include having Street [13:54] Frontage along that cue act and having such a narrow buildable opportunity on [14:00] the western portion of the lot um had this been typical of homes along a block [14:07] lined up with one another in a typical lottin block situation um like similarly [14:12] zoned properties not so far away it probably would not have required a variance because they would have all been lined up um and that really is sort [14:20] of a the goal or part of the goal of the ordinance is that you don't want anything out in front of the other [14:27] properties that have already been in existence um Unfortunately they can build further back the proposal would [14:34] not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and the garage and home addition remodel are similar designed to [14:40] the house and with matching materials used the additions will provide a garage setback farther from the cuac than the [14:47] non-conforming home any approval to um the request should be subject to plans [14:54] and Survey dates stand October 28th 2024 in compliance with the engineering memo [15:00] um and compliance with the tree ordinance with that I will stop and [15:06] answer questions um the representatives that are present are Marco Vincent um [15:12] and Lyn shears they're both with streer thank you Chris any questions [15:20] from fellow Commissioners for [15:26] Chris uh I think this is a quick one would you please go back to the the chart that showed the buildable [15:32] area first one I [15:43] guess are you looking at yeah um just for clarity where is the 10.6 [15:53] measured so oh in terms of the the Varian is okay so the average is at [16:01] 44.8 the current front yard setback the closest corner I can't really read it yeah is really the difference between [16:08] what is required and where they're at and this is actually further back from [16:14] that um the 10.6 [16:20] is actually the existing structure yes and the actual variance for the new [16:26] construction is Tiny can't see how how tiny but it's pretty tiny it's pretty minuscule yes okay but [16:35] I mean there are some changes to the you know I don't know if they're going to be changing some of the roof line um in the [16:43] front on that second floor but any of those changes would be overlapping into [16:49] that current non-conforming setback but it's within this existing building footprint oh I see so that that's why it [16:56] needs to be there rather than just where the new where the new garage is is because there's probably or in the plan [17:03] there's some changes to the main structure also I got it okay thank you and on Better Together there was one [17:09] comment in favor today is there anything else we have not received any other comments thank [17:19] you any other questions yeah commissioner [17:27] f [17:36] 1940 that it all right thank you uh this is a chance for the applicant or [17:41] applicant team to either provide their own presentation or stand for [17:49] questions thank you yeah just come forward and introduce [17:55] yourself hello Marco Vincent I'm a project manager at treater thank you for [18:00] having me any [18:07] questions oh that was uneventful great uh thank you that oh wait we do [18:14] have one there we go thank you I'll ask a question um so you're keeping most of [18:19] the exterior of the structure uh correct we will be renovating uh the exterior structure [18:25] while maintaining the exterior walls um currently the plan is to um renovate no [18:32] more than 15% of the exterior walls of the existing exteriors okay I appreciate [18:37] you Remodeling and keeping most of the house that's all you're [18:45] welcome thank you thank you okay [Music] [18:52] so time for the public hearing as mentioned before what [18:58] as mentioned before uh to participate uh for those who are in [19:04] person we'll let you come but uh we'll let people jump in the queue and there's kind of a lag so we'll give them at [19:11] least a minute for that to catch up uh so I'll run through the instructions again that are on the screen call 312 [19:19] 535 8110 access code [19:25] 2634 069 5 5384 then enter the password [19:33] 5454 then press star three on your keypad to get in the cutest speak and while you do that uh we'll open it to [19:41] those who might be here in person I'd like to testify uh same instructions as before [19:46] you have three minutes to do so come up to either Podium State your full name and [19:52] address and when the lights red we'll ask you to wrap up anyone here for uh [19:59] public hearing all right see no one rushing [20:05] into it I guess we'll turn over to the queue do we have anyone in the queue no [20:11] okay we'll give it a minute sure or so yeah how about 30 seconds it's already [20:16] been about 30 seconds [20:42] it's been 30 seconds and no one has joined the queue so I believe it is safe to proceed entertain a motion to close a [20:50] public hearing motion to close a public hearing second all those in favor say I I I so [20:59] move the public hearing is close all right so turn it back to the Planning Commission uh to deliberate [21:06] anyone have any comments or potential [21:14] motions questions I mean yeah as as Planet rocker said this is what our third call the sack variance request [21:22] this year they're all kind of similar in the vein that you know we have an ordinance we understand its intent [21:29] um but they're always you know result in kind of a messy situation where averages [21:34] get messed up by one or two lots and we up like this very reasonable requests [21:40] and I see no reason not to [21:46] approve I would agree I think you know CU thex is always a curve and then your [21:51] home is usually a straight line and curves and straight lines there's always a part of it that cuts into it I think [21:58] the the homeowner really tried to fit the extra garage within that pocket and [22:05] I thought that was a good move the home itself was non-conforming when they first purchased it so there's not a [22:10] whole lot they could do about that unless they want to rebuild the entire house um I think this is one where you [22:17] know to commission a day you know we've seen quite a lot and um this one seems [22:23] like it fits really well for variant from what they're asking for so I would approve this [22:33] thank you any other comments or potential [22:39] motion motion to approve the variance as stamped on the drawing [22:48] stated whatever staff asked October second uh all those in favor say I I I [22:56] opposed all right MO has been approved good luck with the [23:01] project enjoy all right thank you everyone is as quick as it ought to have [23:08] been all right we don't have any reports and recommendations um uh so moving to chair and member [23:16] comments do we have any tonight yeah all right I just got a [23:21] really quick one just a brief update on the parking project for 2024 we are [23:29] uh on schedule actually a little bit ahead of schedule because we have um feedback now from Transportation Commission and from energy and [23:36] environment um so draft is complete reviewed it with uh [23:42] Carrie and Addison maybe a month ago six weeks ago sent the draft to [23:47] transportation to eec have their comments back so now the job is to [23:53] create the final draft and we'll have that routed to the team for review and [23:58] and then uh get it in the packet for our meeting on January 15th so we'll have a chance to talk about it on the 15th so I [24:05] guess the only question for you maybe chair Bennett is whether the Planning Commission should [24:10] receive a draft of or the final draft before the 10th so you'd have a chance [24:16] to read and and enjoy every word or whether and have more time or whether [24:21] just stick in the packet on the 10th and we'll talk about it on the 15th what do you think [24:29] I think I think the tenth is fine but if people wanted more time that's it it could be easily done because the thing [24:35] will be done in in a week anyway so no no extra work to do [24:41] that what do y'all think I'm fine with the to okay we'll [24:47] leave it at that then any other comments anyone [24:59] I think maybe just one quick update uh I don't know if anyone caught the email but the variance request that was denied [25:06] last meeting they're going for an appeal and we we were kind of split on [25:11] that one I think it's good to have times when we're split so we actually start at [25:18] start so that it brings attention to kind of the process and the conditions but I think most of us could see why [25:25] it's split and why they're kind of going for the appeal and just a couple comments I I rewatched [25:32] part of that meeting too and maybe the time is now to kind of [25:38] revisit that I know we also talked about having a more this just came up for work [25:44] plan stuff of just a more robust training on you know the codes as well [25:51] as the process in Idina too uh that typically it's a pretty quick onboarding [25:57] process here when you join the Planning Commission and it takes a while to have a thorough understanding of it but I [26:04] feel like some of the comments that we had that night kind of deviated a little [26:09] bit from maybe what the process of a variance is [26:14] and that's okay um but I can see why it's split and I could see why they'd go [26:19] for an appeal um a couple things that come to mind [26:26] was there's a notion of like if the law is very [26:32] clear you know the law is clear they should conform but that's that doesn't [26:39] preclude someone the chance for applying for a variance and or securing one so I [26:45] think even though if a law is clear like there is a process in place if someone [26:50] has a reasonable request and they meet the conditions at play and another [26:56] comment that came up was you know if if they did something else or they showed [27:01] an effort and I think we saw that tonight of like you know in that variance where they kind of fit that [27:07] garage as tight to those property lines as they could um but one of the [27:13] conditions with the variance is we're it's not our job to show that it could [27:19] be put to any like a different use it's just that that use that's proposed is [27:26] reasonable so I think we I think you know there's somewhat of a gray area with our discretion that we [27:33] kind of navigated but I feel like you can look at it the other way and I don't know that's why I sympathize with that [27:41] vote last week I feel like I would support their appeal again but that's just kind of how I voted that night but [27:47] as I relook at the conditions and see it it seems more straightforward than not but I don't know if anyone else has had [27:54] a chance to reflect on the vote or just felt like bringing it up no I'm [28:00] glad you did because I've been thinking about that a lot too after we received the copy of the the intent to [28:08] appeal and just reacting to what you just [Music] said and I think I was the one who made [28:15] the comment like If Only They had done AB andc I might have thought differently about it maybe maybe that [28:21] was unnecessary but I do think it's relevant because you know part of our job is to [28:27] assess practical difficulties and if a if a difficulty [28:35] exists but that hasn't really been grappled with at all I mean is it does it is it still a practical difficulty I [28:41] mean it seems like an interpret I'm not saying this is right interpretation I'm [28:46] saying an interpretation of that is you know if there's a practical difficulty that exists that you haven't tried at [28:52] all to remediate I mean is that doesn't seem [28:57] outside of the the box of what we have the discretion to comment on so I felt [29:05] uh you know thinking about it more I felt okay with that comment but I could also see how it could come off [29:11] as somebody trying to tell somebody what to do so I might have phrased it differently but I still think I still [29:18] think the observation is I also like part of it too was you [29:26] know a circumstance was unique on that property you know compared to neighboring properties but it's really [29:31] like similarly zoned property so I mean the fact that there was you [29:37] know like an impervious Road running through their yard I mean that's that's a unique [29:43] circumstance and in in itself is the Practical difficulty so I mean I can I can see it I just felt like bringing up [29:49] because I feel like lately we've kind of been sticking really with the books but that's not that's the whole point of the [29:56] variance is to find a way to not stick with the books if it's a reasonable request that meets [30:02] the conditions I just felt like some of the discussion was very future oriented [30:09] like around stuff that wasn't regarding the requests and some of it was maybe [30:14] not as accurate to our purview so just felt like it's worth bringing up and [30:19] maybe canu some discussion for training and other things too because a lot of it's like trying to understand the code [30:26] but it's also the process of applying it so any other [30:32] comments and the only you know I think there was a lot of [30:38] confusion about some of those pieces and not a lot of clarity about [30:45] how they could be dealt with or the backgrounds or the reason why they were [30:50] there or the reasons so I think it I too understand that we [30:57] kind went into the realm of the what may or may not be but there were there we it [31:04] was difficult to get any clarity about some of those pieces and that's what I struggled with if there was some clarity [31:10] it would have been easier I think but [31:16] because because we couldn't find the background of some of those pieces or [31:23] any kind of a um legal document about that road it was too nebulous for me um [31:32] you know and sometimes I think the discussion is good to have um not coming [31:37] down one way the other is saying but but to to understand why it's gray um and not necessarily you know [31:45] something we feel comfortable kind of approving so I think some of the commentary helps put it in its [31:54] place yeah no and like I said it's it's healthy we disagree that shows that we [31:59] have a good representation up here for the rest of the community but often times some you know like after some of [32:05] those votes we don't have a chance to like reflect or talk about it so just felt like I was thinking about it and [32:11] then I saw that email come through that they had an intent to appeal so um felt like it was worth bringing up [32:19] and maybe we can do that with some other things I know it's come up of revisiting you know projects a couple [32:25] years down the road and sharing success stories or horror stories you know as [32:31] the as one gentleman he's like I I'll stand corrected later but you [32:37] know appreciate us as good stewards but I think it helps the community understand too like when we make the [32:43] difficult decisions it's good to look back and show that hey this really scary tough decision ended up being a a win [32:51] for the community um anyways any other comments [32:57] yeah commissioner SMI yeah just a quick question what is the CU appeals don't happen often what is the appeal process [33:05] is it that's going to come back again for a riew so like if they were if it [33:11] got approved it would have ended with us and they would have been able to do what they applied to do but the appeal just [33:19] goes right to city council for final decision so it wouldn't come back to us unless they changed some significant [33:26] portion of theirs their request and that's just for the variance [33:32] I don't know if it's different playing a rocker with other things or if it pretty much just the [33:39] appeal of our final decision goes to the council right I mean it's an appeal of [33:46] the planning commission's denial of that particular request so it's not changing [33:58] thank you then after that I think if they can go to court they don't agree with city [34:04] council but that's pretty much it so does happen [34:12] yeah any other questions comments from [34:21] Commissioners looking forward to the Joint work session on the 17th to go over the zoning audit and finding things [34:28] and start working on [34:33] that I wasn't able to keep up with the city council's meetings but was there a [34:38] decision on The valy View uh property at all did that ever go through is there [34:45] any feedback on that or status Pizza [34:51] uh uh property that they wanted to build the final vote is the at the next [34:57] meeting next council meeting on the 17th finalized [35:03] yet public comments ended Sunday on the 8th but they did approve the uh parking [35:11] variants for Edinboro Park the Edinburgh Park Hotel to apartment conversion the last [35:21] meeting yes final comment you know we have commissioner Dave back on the commission kind of going forward uh [35:28] uh we had the two incumbents for City councils get reelected uh but always [35:34] always support uh Planning Commission is a great foundational experience for [35:39] anyone running and uh glad to have you back didn't lose you all right uh staff [35:49] comments no sir okay I guess there's one item left [35:55] motion close second all those in favor say I so moved the meeting's been [36:02] adjourned