Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Heat. Heat. We are live so you can go ahead and start the meeting. All his tentative meeting agendas can be attained by calling the planning division or by checking the m the city of website at mitankm.gov. Commission holds public hearings on land use applications for all land use applications and city for all the land use applications. [clears throat] The city notifies property owners within 400 ft of the site and post plans and information on mitanka.gov. For some applications, the city also places signs in the properties and places notices in the sun sailor. For a specific process standpoint, the commission makes recommendations to the city council on resoning subdivisions, conditional use permits, and amendments to the city's comprehensive guide plan, zoning ordinances, and subdivision regulations. We also make final decisions on site plans, sign requests, variance regulations, and expansion permits unless the requests are part of an application that must be heard by the city council. In that case, the commission makes a recommendation and the city council makes the final decision. From a broader standpoint, the city's comprehensive guide plan, zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, and the city's best efforts are the city's best efforts to codify the balance between individual rights, community responsibilities. Individual rights are easy to understand. Committee responsibilities are more subtle and the idea is that we the members of the committee agree to limit our individual rights for a common good of the group. The planning division, planning commission, and city council are charged with managing the sometimes difficult balancing act. We ask that you keep this broader perspective in mind as we review tonight's applications. To make the meeting more efficient, the city's boards and commissions introduced a new process of the public comments in 2026. If you would, if you'd like to speak to an item that's in the evening's agenda, please fill out a comment card located near the city's staff seating area. Be sure to include your name, the agenda item you would like to comment on. The cards will be collected before the hearing and I will announce the names when it's turn when it's your turn to speak. Each speaker will be limited to three minutes. Welcome, Roll call. >> Banks >> present. >> Brink >> here. >> Johnson >> here. >> Minion >> here. >> Sheer >> here. >> Shoemaker >> present. All right. Number three, election of officers. The first item on tonight's agenda is the election of officers. Um Susan, would you like to do a brief presentation? >> Yeah. Uh thank you, Commissioner Minion. So, just briefly, um for those that have not been on, uh the planning commission for very long, our bylaws, your bylaws, uh require that the commission hold an election at least once a year uh for officers. The bylaws also allow you to hold an election anytime there is a quorum of people. As you know, uh chair uh Maxwell uh was appointed to the city council uh earlier this year and vice chair um Waterman uh left us. It was his last meeting. And so we are without any officers. And so we do need you to hold an election this evening for both chair and vice chair. Um, just a quick note, the chair, and I think, uh, Chair Waterman talked about this at his last meeting, really, uh, it's a slightly different role than the planning commissioner in that your job is to ensure that our meetings run effect effectively, efficiently, keep everybody on task. You will also serve as the last commissioner to ask questions and offer comments after your fellow commissioners, whomever wants to, has spoken. the vice chair um would perform those same duties in the chair's absence. Um so that's really my presentation. We're just recommending that you uh elect both of those positions this evening. Um each position should be considered separately. Um Dana has offered to I apologize. Commissioner Minion has offered um to start this meeting for us. So he will be the person to kind of call for um nominations and walk you through this process. So I'll turn it back to Commissioner Minion. >> Is there a preference of what you do first in regards to the position? >> Uh typically we'd like to get the chair uh first. >> Hopefully the lights stay on. >> Uh does anybody have any recommendations? I'd like to nominate um Commissioner Brank for chair >> in that nomination. >> Sorry. Should we vote? >> Oh, excuse me. I meant Derek and I'm [laughter] sorry. >> Thanks. >> Thanks. So, uh, yeah. >> Any other nomin [laughter] any other nominations? >> Yep. We have to call for other nominations. >> We have a second. Any other nominations? >> I'd like to nominate Commissioner Minion. [laughter] I'm I'm here to serve and I'll do whatever you like. And uh if you want me to step aside, I'll step aside. If you want me to do it, I'll do it. But um I'm happy to do whatever anybody wants. I'm very open. It's a privilege to be here. So I'm just happy to do it. All right. Um is there a second for that one? >> Uh perhaps um if I if I may interject. So, we have a nomination of Commissioner Banks. Okay, it seems that Commissioner Banks is nominating someone else. So, perhaps we should ask Commissioner Banks if he if he wants um to um stand on that nomination or if he would um decline that nomination. >> I would decline that nomination. Very appreciative of the nomination. Thank you very much. Um, but yeah, I would I would decline that nomination at this time. Any other nominations? Okay. Nobody's volunteering all at once. All right. Is there a second for Mr. Banks nomination? >> The second. >> All right. Staff. So, we have a nomination of um Commissioner Minion made by Commissioner Banks, seconded by um Commissioner Shoemaker. I will call on that. Um Commissioner Banks, >> yes. >> Brink, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Minion, >> yes. >> Sheer, >> yes. >> Shoemaker, >> yes. >> So, that uh motion carries. So, Commissioner Minion will now be chair minion. And then if you want to call for uh vice chair nominations. >> We're looking for volunteers. Is there anybody that would like to make a nomination for vice chair? >> I nominate um Commissioner Johnson. >> Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay. And are there any other nominations? >> I would then ask uh Commissioner Johnson if she would be accepting of that nomination or if she would decline. >> I would. >> Okay. >> Wonderful. All right. Staff, please pull from the commission. >> Banks? >> Yes. >> Brink? >> Yes. >> Johnson? >> Yes. >> Minion? >> Yes. >> Shir, >> yes. >> Shoemaker, >> yes. That uh motion carries. So we have new um Chair Minion, Vice Chair Johnson, and we'll do just um Dana will move you to the um chair seat for the remainder of the meeting. Our [clears throat] next item on our agenda is the approval of of the agenda. Staff, are there any changes in our agenda? >> Uh, Chair Minan and commissioners, there is one change. Uh, it was my uh copy and paste air. Uh, the recommendation on um, and I apologize on the item 9 C. The recommendation on the front page is correct where we are recommending approval. And then on the second page it says we're recommending approval of a completely different uh address. So uh just making that change for the record that the front page is correct >> and no other agenda items. [clears throat] >> Thank you. May I have a motion to approve the agenda? I'll make the motion. >> I'll second. >> All right. >> I will pull the commission. Uh, actually, you can call for a voice vote. Um, Chairman Minion, >> can we get a voice vote on the agenda? >> So, all in favor would say I. I. I. The next item is the approval of minutes. And our last meeting date was >> June 18th. >> June 18th. Uh, commissioners, are there any changes in the June 18th minutes? >> No. All right. May I have a motion to approve the minutes? A motion to approve. >> All right. Motion Banks. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Shoemaker. Second. Um, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. All right. Item six, report from staff. >> Chair and commissioners, just uh one item to report from the June 22nd um city council meeting. They reviewed the concept plan for expanded adventures. If you'll remember, that's that office building on Roland Road. Um the the concept was construction of a six-story um senior um rental building there. Uh the council, much like the planning commission, generally concurred that housing seems appropriate for the site. Um, but there were several council members noted that the building is simply too big. Um, as uh conceptualized, there was some commentary that under the current office zoning, the zoning code would allow a 45 foot tall building, so not quite four stories. um and that maybe the um potential applicant should focus on um that being a limit uh for the size. So we will see um what comes from that. In terms of um next meeting, your next regular meeting will be July 23rd, so two weeks from today. And then the following Thursday, we have our annual council boards and commissions tour. If you've not already RSVPd for that, please do so either with staff tonight or with our um colleague Karen Tlega who has um sent out the messages. I wanted to just uh show you one thing that has come out today. We've spoke about it um briefly in the past. Um the city has owned a property and we were working with uh Ammani Construction on the construction of and then sale of two affordable um twin homes. If you go to Minnotonka Matters, um you can see um the actual listings um for those twin homes. Uh we've been inside them. They're lovely. um four bedroomedroom three uh bath homes. Um they are in order to uh purchase the home you have to be income qualified. This is an affordable housing unit. If anyone uh watching or anyone who views this later is interested. You are encouraged to reach out to the listing agent. There will be a lottery um drawing for the actual purchase of those homes. But again, you can find all of that information on minnotonka matters.com. And those are my updates. Thank you. Next, um report from commissioners. Does anybody have anything to report? No commissions, nothing like that. Excellent. Uh there are no consent agenda items tonight. Correct. >> Correct. So non-consent, can we skip over that ISO? All right, the non-consent agenda. Before before beginning the the cons before we begin consideration for non-conent items, I'd like to review the steps in the process and the public hearing procedure that will follow for each proposal. First, the item will be announced and the staff will report on the subject. The commission will then ask questions. Next, the applicant will be invited to make presentation or offer comments. Commissioners may ask additional questions at that time. After that applicant is finished, the public hearing will be opened to give anyone present the opportunity to comment on the proposal. If you wish to speak, please come to the podium, state your name, add address of record. We ask that you keep your comments brief. Try not to repeat the points that have already been made. Once everyone has spoken, we may allow speakers to return for additional comments at a larger at larger meetings. Neighborhood spokespeople are encouraged to give up to 15 minutes to present. The first item tonight's agenda is constitutional use permit with a setback variance for the accessory structure in excess of 12 ft high at 16801 Excelsia Boulevard. >> Thank you, chair. And just confirm, it is a conditional use permit that is being applied for. Subject property is 16801 Excelsier Boulevard which is in the southwest corner of the intersection of Excelsier Boulevard and Scenic Heights Drive. The property is 0.3 0.37 acres which is smaller than the standard halfacre lot. It is improved with a two-story Gamrell style roof home which was built in 1920 and it has an existing detached garage in the southwest corner that was built in 1958. The property uh will be subject to impacts along the right of way on the north and east side because of reconstruction along with the Excelsier Boulevard reconstruction project. Van Horn Construction is requesting a conditional use permit with a setback variance for a new detached garage over 12 feet in height at the subject property. The existing garage is 16x 20, excuse me, 16x 20 ft and the new garage will be in the same location. The new garage is 22x 24 ft. We have a code defined height of 16 ft and have a gamro roof which matches that of the existing home. This proposal requires a conditional use permit because the height of the structure is over 12 feet and requires a variance because the proposed location of the structure will not meet setback requirements. Based on the height, the setback requirement from the side and the rear yard is 16 ft. As proposed, the structure will be 13.3 ft from the sideyard and 10 ft from the rear yard. staff worked with the property owner to explore alternatives that would meet the setback requirements. First, we looked at the front yard and discovered that there are utilities, existing utility sewer and water that actually run through the front yard to the home. Staff looked at a rear yard, so behind the existing home. This would require significant site impacts such as moving the existing driveway to Scenic Heights Drive as well as it would not meet setback requirements. U the location of the home would ha excuse me accessory structure would have to be within 10 ft of the home which would make it defined as attached which actually has a larger setback requirement than being detached or more than 10 ft away. staff found that the proposed location reuses the existing uh developed portion of the property and is seen as the least impactful option. After reviewing the cup and site and building plan ordinances, staff finds the proposal meets all ordinances except for the setback with the variance uh meets that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan subordinate to the principal structure. is not anticipated to impact utilities, public improvements or safety, is architecturally compatible to the principal structure, and no trees are proposed for removal. We also found that the varian standards are met. It is a reasonable request. The proposal reuses the existing garage location. The garage is proposed at a reduced width compared to a standard 24x4 garage. This is seen as a compromise for the setback variance request and the proposed location is the least impactful. It's a unique circumstance referring to those challenges about relocating to other locations on the site and the neighborhood character. The proposal is not anticipated to alter the character of the neighborhood. At this time, staff has received no comments nor seen any comments on Minnitankka Matters or the project web page. Staff recommends that the planning commission recommend the city council adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit with a setback variance for a detached garage at 16801 Excelsier Boulevard. [cough and clears throat] And with that, the property owner and applicant are here and I stand for questions as well. >> Commissioner Johnson, >> just a quick question. What if any impact does the proposed uh reconfiguration of Excelsier Boulevard in the trail have on the property? So, it will not affect the property directly, just the right of way near it. So, there's going to be a trail and a sidewalk and then there will be I'll go to a image of it. There'll be a trail and a sidewalk and then there'll be a roundabout proposed in this intersection. Does it affect the placement of this accessory structure at all? >> It does not. The only thing that would be impacting the preliminary plans for the roadway is if they relocated the access. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um just one question or maybe clarification. Could you go back to the diagram that shows the proposed height? Yeah. here where it says a midpoint height to 16 ft and it also says approximately 23 feet high. Um could you kind of kind of clear that clarify that for me I guess is it the conditional use permit is based on exceeding 12 feet. Is that right? And then these two other heights maybe if you could just explain those a little more. >> Chair Minion Commissioner Brink. The code defined height is based off our definition of the building height which would be the midpoint of the roof. So that is halfway through the truss. So as you can see on the diagram it's saying the truss height is 12 ft. So half of that is 6 feet. >> And then below that it does say 10 ft for the wall height. So 10 feet plus the six is how we come to the 16 feet for the code defined height overall because of the calculation with the 10 ft for the wall height 12 ft for the truss it would be about 20 ft 22 feet for the overall height. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> A question. Um it relates to the height as well. I know we had looked at another property where we were concerned about the height and making it look like there was a second home on that property. And so I'm wondering if the same um design features can be achieved with a lower height and is there maybe a plan in the future for turning this into a living space or a rental space. Thank you. Chairman Minion, Commissioner Sher, uh, as far as accessory dwelling unit, there is a condition for, uh, CUPs related to accessory structures that it cannot become an ADU without going through the formal process. So, as of right now, I did speak with the applicant and property owner. That's not the plan. It's just for storage, but in the future, if they did want to, they would have to come back and ask for that. And then in regards to the height, this would be shorter than the house, which is another standard that we do look at. Uh the house, as I mentioned, is two stories. This would be roughly like a story and a half in comparison to like a home. >> Great questions. Anybody else? Okay. Well, at this time, the applicant is invited to uh make a presentation and offer some comments. Please state your name and your address. >> Terry Beavens, 16801 Excelsier Boulevard. And they have explained it quite clearly. My garage was built in 1958. There are structural issues that do not make it possible to even remotely not have a full tear down. Um, and while having to do that, that's the point in time in which to make the garage uh compatible with the house to create a much more beautiful space. And yes, storage is a requirement. At this current point in time, my garage does not fit a large SUV or pickup truck, which is problematic in this day and age. So, the expansion of the garage to accommodate larger vehicles is a necessity as far as also future resale. It is a onecar garage currently. Everybody else has two cars. So, we're trying to bring this up to date and create beauty and allow for some storage space because in a 1920 house, there's not a lot of that either. Do you have any questions for me? Anyone have any questions? Okay. Uh, we'll call you up if we have some more questions. Thank you for your time. [clears throat] Commissioners, any comments? All right. What's that? Go ahead, Mr. B. >> Yeah. Thank Thanks, Chair. Um I I would be in [clears throat] agreement with the staff's recommendation. um it does seem to be um impactful in terms of the trying to move it to a different location or trying to um you know [clears throat] navigate the the size of the the structure. Um I I don't see any issues and I would be in agreement with approving this um uh the CUP um in order to allow the variance for the height as well as the the setbacks. Uh, chair minion, if I if I could interject. Um, perhaps before we take additional comment, we need to open the public hearing to see if there's anyone in the audience that would like to comment. >> All right. >> But >> yes, ma'am. >> Uh, Commissioner Banks's comments are still still valid. [laughter] >> No, you don't need to. >> I will now open the public hearing. If you'd like to speak, please come up to the podium and state your name and address for record. Nobody's coming up. All right. Um well well that will close the public hearing. Um now I'll bring it back to the commission. Great job. Uh does anybody have any questions or comments? >> Sure. >> Um I would recommend approval as well and going with the planning commission. I think it's a it's really going to be an asset to the building. Um, and just always want to do my due diligence, make sure we're uh looking at how things relate to how they're placed on a site in relation to the home. Um, and I think that this does a great job of of complenting the existing structure. So, thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Brink. Yeah, I would uh yes, I would uh go along with approving uh as well. Um I I think it's really going to look nice. I mean, the the roof style is uh the same as the house there. It looks like they're both going to be getting new siding. Um I think it's just going to probably really spruce up the property, too. So, um all in favor of it. Anyone else? >> All right. It sounds like we're ready to make a motion. Uh may I have a motion, >> Miss Johnson? Commissioner Johnson. I'll make a motion recommending that the city council adopt a resolution approving the conditional use permit as well as the variance subject to the conditions stated in the draft resolution. >> May I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Second, Brink Banks. All right. Um staff, please pull the commission. >> Banks. >> Yes. >> Brink. >> Yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Sheer, >> yes. >> Shoemaker, >> yes. Chairman. >> Yes. >> That will be a recommendation um to the city council which will be heard on uh July the 27th. >> All right. On to the next agenda item. The next item on tonight's agenda, and I'm having a little computer issue. Here we go. The conditional use permit to allow accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square foot at 4915 Highland Road. Um staff, is there a presentation for this? >> Yes. Thank you, chair. >> This property has a history of previously approved conditional use permits and one variance. In 2007, the property was approved a conditional use permit for a full four stall garage measuring 240 square ft. In 2015, a pool variance was granted to the previous property owner for a front yard setback. And in 2016, a second cup conditional use permit was approved to the previous property owner for a pool house measuring 288 square ft. At this time, the property has an aggregate of accessory structures measuring 2,328 square ft. With the proposed new 384 square f foot greenhouse, the site's aggregate accessory structure square footage increases to 2,712 square ft. The subject property is 4915 Highland Road. It is 4.7 acres and is a wooded property. Is quite large compared to the standard approximately halfacre size lot in Minnotonka. It's improved with a 1.5story home measuring 6,665 square ft which was built in 1940. It has an attached three-stall garage. Property again has a pool house and a detached fourstall garage. Also has a wetland and a conservation over that conservation easement, excuse me, over that wetland. As mentioned, the property owner, Amy Hansen, is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a greenhouse at the subject property. The proposed structure will meet the 12t height maximum and will be used for personal use to extend the early growing season. A conditional use is required for residential property with an aggregate of accessory structures exceeding 1,000 square ft. After reviewing the conditional use and site and building plan ordinances, staff finds that the promo proposal meets all standards. Uh the total square footage of accessory structures is subordinate to the size the gross floor area of the home. This is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It's compatible with the neighborhood. This proposal requires no tree removal or canopy clearing uh and setbacks will be met and is not anticipated to impact utilities, public services, or public health and safety. At this time, staff has received no comments regarding this proposal. Staff recommends that the planning commission recommend that the city council adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for 2712 ft of accessory structures at 4915 Highland Road. And with that, uh, the property owner is here as well as I stand for questions. >> Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? >> Sure. >> Um, I had just one question. So, I didn't get a chance to get out to this property, but it seems like there's a lot of tree cover in the proposed area. And so, it says that there's no um disturbing of like vegetation and there's going to be a concrete pad. And so, I'm just I'm just wanting more detail about that because there's a lot of tree cover for a greenhouse. And it does say that there's supplementary lighting. So just a little bit of of understanding how this will fit in there and not disturb the tree cover and such. So that's all I had. Thank you, >> Chairman Minion. Commissioner Sher, uh, from the image, I did superimpose it to show the greenhouse, but there is a little bit of a nook. So there is kind of a little bit of an opening that this is going to be wedged into. Uh from my understanding what I I had the same questions about how are you gonna have a greenhouse without direct solar light. Um the applicant can also fill in but they explain that the supplemental light essentially is more reliable. So that is why that would be their source of lighting. >> Any other questions? Mr. Brinks. Mr. Banks. >> Uh thanks chair. Um, in 2007, the first CUP that was approved, um, was that CUP because it that structure was over 1,000 square ft or was that for something for a different reason? >> Chairman Minion, Commissioner Banks, the conditional use permit was required because of the size being over 1,000 square ft as well as the height being over 20 feet. So, excuse me, over 12 feet. The height of the structure was 20 feet. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Anyone else? Other questions? >> May I ask again the acreage of the property? Sorry, I didn't bring that up in an earlier question. >> Chairman Minion, that's all right. Uh, the property is 4.7 acres in size. >> Thank you. >> All right. At this time, sorry, I didn't see our problem. >> Um, just one last question here. The um um reason for considering is this is that the the aggregate uh accessory square footage is greater than 1,000 ft, right? And we're and this brings it up to 2,300 square ft. Is that right, >> Chair Minion? Uh Commissioner brings So yes, right now it's at that 2328 square ft. Yes. And then and then uh the reason for recommending approval is just that the >> the acreage of the site is so large that you know the intent of the ordinance is still basically being met I guess if it's the right way to say it. >> Yes. It's to further exceed that 1,000. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions? Sorry, I didn't mean to jump the gun there earlier. >> All right. At this time, the applicant is invited up to make the presentation and offer some comments. >> Please state your name and your address. >> Hi, I'm Amy Hansen, 4915 Highland Road. Nice to finally meet you. Bri has been great to work with with all my questions. Um, so yeah, I've lived here for many, many years, and for me, the greenhouse is more of just a passion I have. I love growing things and I'm a ma been a master gardener many many years have managed green houses owned green houses in the past so it's for me it's just more of a love a heart thing um and given like our property is just beautiful um it would just be gorgeous I would make it very cute and um given that it's so big as well there's plenty of room um to your point Miss Shear Gretchen um totally makes sense Bri and And I talked about the lighting situation. Like why would you put a greenhouse under a tree canopy? Again, for me it's like I'd have a greenhouse with with complete darkness just to have one cuz I love them. Um but again, it's more to for seeds starting in the early spring, which even if I had a greenhouse in an open field with no tree coverage, I would still need supplemental lighting. um because we don't get enough light unfortunately in Minnesota that time of year. So it's more in the early season time that I would use it a little bit in the summer, a little bit in the fall, you know, but it's more for early season. So, um I don't know. I guess I just appreciate you guys taking the time and hopefully I'll have a greenhouse and thanks again, B. It's been great to work with you. So that's all I have. >> Okay, hang on for a second. Commissioners, are there any questions for the applicant? >> Mr. Brink, >> uh, just one, maybe you don't have an answer at this point, but are there plans in the future for more accessory structures of any kind? Because this is about the third one, I think. >> Yeah, >> I don't see that happening, but if I did, I'd come talk to you guys, but I probably not. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Any other? >> Sure. So just for personal is this is like will you operate the greenhouse year round? >> No. >> No. Just in the spring for planting and then the plants would stay in there or you going to replant them somewhere in the property? >> Yep. I I start my own vegetables and annuals and perennials. >> So yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Any other questions? >> Okay. All right. Um >> well thank you. We'll call you back if we have more questions >> with no more. >> I have a question for staff. >> Yes sir. Okay. Thanks chair. So uh staff I do have a question. Um I know [clears throat] that the property is 4.7 acres. How much of that is buildable? chair commissioner there I don't have an exact number but basically there would be a requirement away from the wetland so about that far away and then they can't build within 35 ft within the front portion of the property and then they have 10 depending on what type of structure 10 or an aggregate of 30 so there there is a I'd say at least probably two acres that's builtable just on the safe side. >> Thank you. >> Commissioners, any other questions? >> Okay. Um, I will now open the public hearing. If you'd like to speak, please come to the podium. State your name and address for record. Nobody's rushing out. Is there anybody online? All right. Well, um I'll bring back the commission for comments. We'll close the public hearing. Does anybody have any comments they'd like to share? Shoeer. I would just say this one is feels like a pretty clean request just given the size of the property. And um I would I would say that while it notes that it's architecturally consistent, I would maybe argue that as a small item, but um beyond that, I would just say um I'm supportive of of of the approval. >> Thank you. Any other comments? >> Sure. >> Um I think it's a great way to use land. um having a nice greenhouse for vegetables and plants. So, I'm I'm and it's not going to negatively impact the overall site um too many structures considering how large it is. And so, I would agree with the um commission, the planning department's recommendation. >> Okay. Anybody else? Mr. Brinks. >> Thanks, Chair. Um, yeah, I would just like to add um I I'm in favor of >> [clears throat] >> um approving this uh CU, but um I do want us to be cautious about stating that we're okay with this because of the size of the property because um there's no we don't want to set a precedent. Um and and unless there is, you know, a calculation where we can say, well, if the size of the property is, you know, a certain size, um then [clears throat] um you know, we would approve something over the,000 square ft. Um I don't believe that we have anything in in our um that that dictate did dictates that that the size of the property is a factor. Um, however, I do think it's a um good use of this space. Um, I don't believe that, you know, the greenhouse is going to be intrusive. Um, we've already the first CUP was already approved and it was twice as large as um what we allow. Um, so I would agree with approving this. However, I do want us to be cautious about the size of the land being a factor. I think it's a good project. >> Thank you. Any other comments? What? All right. Well, I'd have to say I agree with Mr. Banks in that at first to me on paper this was an easy no. Um I had the opportunity to drive the property. I absolutely see the need for the greenhouse. Um I think the location is well put. Um my heart kind of lays the same place as I worry about setting precedences, but this is 4.7 acres. the location that it's sitting in is really tucked away, not only because of the trees, but because of the way the topography lays and the [clears throat] way the home is laid out. Um, I don't think the neighbors will really know that it's there. I don't think it'll impact anybody else around them. Um, and I'm very supportive of uh of saying yes to this. Um, there's uh there's a 4 1/2 acres is a considerable amount of land and this is a small little spot on a large area. Um, and it will really fit well in with the with the rest of the neighborhood. So, I I'll be in support of it. Um, got to find my way. Oh, well, we got this far. [laughter] I appreciate it. Life is good. Um, all right. I sense it sounds like we're ready for a motion. Uh, may I have a motion on this one, Mr. Brinks? Mr. Yes. I will uh make a motion that uh uh the planning commission recommend that the city council adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for 2712 ft of accessory structures at 4915 Highland Road. >> Nice job. May I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Second, Mr. >> I'll second it. >> Thank you. Staff, please pull the commission. >> Banks, >> yes. >> Brink, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Sheer, >> yes. >> Shoemaker, >> yes. >> Chairman Minion, >> yes. >> This also is a recommendation to the city council. They'll hear it at their next meeting, which is July the 27th. >> All right. On to item 9 C be our third item tonight. Uh staff, is there a presentation for this property? >> Uh sorry, let me introduce it. It is a conditional use permit for an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square ft at 12600 Orchard Road. >> Good evening, commissioners. Uh the subject property before you is located just east of Plymouth Road, south of Shady Oak Road, and north of Orchard Park. right here on your screen before you in red. The property was created in 1920 as part of the country homes edition. Uh the home shown on this slide here, um was built 30 years later in 1915. The detached garage, which you can see, and the rear edition in the back, which you cannot see, were added in 1985. The house and the garage are located at the highest point of the property with grades sloping downwards towards um Orchard Road in the south and then more steeply to the wetland in the north of the property. Uh the applicant, Philip Kavl, is proposing to demolish the existing garage which is shown um on the far left in yellow if my mouse will work. Um that garage is a 24x 24. Um and their plan is to construct a new 24x48 ft garage in roughly the same footprint with the uh addition or the larger area extending further down to the south. Um the proposed garage would be 1,152 ft in size, which exceeds the 1,000 square foot threshold and as a result requires a CU CUP, excuse me. Um after reviewing the application, staff found that the proposal was reasonable given the garage would meet all of the cup standards. Um the proposed garage would be subordinate to the principal structure. And if we can refer down to this table here, I can show you or walk you through the footprint and total area. So when you consider the footprint of the structure, um the percentage of the proposed area or proposed garage would only be 65% of the existing house. And then when you look at the total area, so that's all finished square foot footage, uh it's actually only 34%. So in both square footage or excuse me, in both uh total area and footprint of the structure it's subordinate. Um additionally, the garage is proposed to be 3 ft from the existing house given giving the appearance of one whole structure. Um with no tree removal, there is uh very few in sight impacts with the new garage being proposed. um the existing vegetation um to the south along Orchard Road and the setback of 200 ft also provide um a great bit of screening um to the surrounding neighborhood and um really we haven't really seen anything quite like this come in recently but other than the three uh oversized garages that we've had tonight. Um but just in terms of this proposed garage specifically and the um square footage of the house. Um regardless with that, the staff recommends that the recommend that the recommend that the city council adopt the resolution approving the conditional use permit for an oversized detached accessory structure at 126 Orchard Road or 12600 Orchard Road, excuse me. At this time there are no comments on Minnitonka matters or um via email comments staff. >> Thank you commissioners. Are there any questions? Mr. Brink. >> Thank you chair. Just a couple. Um are we good with the height on this? What's being proposed? And then also it it appears the sideyard setbacks are being maintained with where they are right now. Is that all good? >> Chair, commissioner. Uh that's correct. The height of the structure will be under 12 feet in overall height at to the midpoint of that peak or uh truss and the setbacks will also be met both to the side, rear and to the front. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other questions? >> No. All right. Um at this time, the applicant is invited to make a presentation and offer some comments. Hello, new chairs, commissioners, >> please. >> Phil kibble address 12600 Orchard Road, Minnotonka. Uh, if I may approach just with some supporting paper real quick. And do you guys need a copy of this one? >> How many? >> Okay. Three, four, five, six. And again, most of this you already have, but I think you just make a little more clear cuz I know that first page. >> Wonderful. Thank you. >> Difficult in regards to the tree cover. >> If you have extras, maybe they'd be helpful to the city. >> So again, not going to I know you have most of this information already. Like I said, it was difficult to see just with the setback in the trees. Uh sticking with our city strategic plan. I figured it was kind of a good idea just to lay it out in there since we're all so focused on that. Um pictures just reference the numbers within the uh first page plan there. Kind of the same as a lot of the other uh residents earlier today. Obviously, I was actually surprised to hear the garage was built in ' 85 because I would have guessed late 50s. Um, from the time that we moved in, we knew that it had to be a tear down with the walls. You can see through uh not only like a little bit of daylight, like you can literally see through them along with the mouse infestation when we moved into the house. Um, we've actually taken care of a majority of the house already. We still got one area we're still dealing with, but the garage, there's no chance of like trying to reconstruct anything there. Um, as far as the size, so there's a couple things in regards to that. As you'll see on the um the layout with the colors there for the house patio garage, the size of the garage, there was a couple reasonings um on that with not withstanding the biggest reasoning is from the medical side with the uh thought process and again I know I put it in a proposal um in regards to family being able to utilize the garage instead of as we've seen, you know, at past meetings also where we want to propose this and then propose an like a work room in the backyard and then propose a shed, etc. This kind of takes care of all that concept in one. Um, the ability to utilize the garage as kind of that work area too, even with the cars in there as is right now it's not. um even if we were to go to a twocar and that was conversation that was had as a family and with um the planning board was the concept of being able to utilize it without having to move the cars out and you know move tools etc. Um, like I said, it almost seems selfish in a way, but that's why we set it up the way we did it is so not only can we utilize it, but then as you'll see in the paperwork I provided you, is once we do move out, we set it up for the concept of when we resell, obviously, we've seen a lot of the houses in Minnotonka uh being torn down and rebuilt into newer, different models. The setup of this garage allows us very usable space not only interior but as you'll see exterior it straightens the uh curb lines out for lack of better terms. Um the current one was put in on a angle which didn't provide uh access from the front yard to the back patio. There's a walking path that you literally have to turn sideways to get past. Um, so this kind of straightens all that out and makes it the way, lack of better terms, it should have been probably from the beginning. But then additionally with the garage being built as such, regardless whether the new owners decide to use the house as is, you know, years into the future when we sell or if they do decide to build a new house closer up to the front property line like the rest of the neighborhood, um, they would still be able to keep that garage and utilize it, you know, as a garage instead of doing a tear down on that. So that'll be something that can remain into the future as obviously part of the strategic plan of the city of trying to, you know, build something and keep it, not keep building and tearing things down. >> All right. Good. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. Uh, commissioners, don't run away just yet. Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant? >> Sure. >> I have a question. Uh, thank you for the presentation. Um, I'm just looking at the access to the garage and and so there's a new path that's going down, which makes a lot of sense. So, you're going to have straight on access and it keeps a lot of that green space in front of the house, which is nice. Um, just a little confusion about the existing driveway. Does it actually go over the property line? Is that Am I >> the existing um Give me one second here. >> So, it's like a backup turnaround. >> So, yes, the existing driveway. So the property line is that bold line to the right of it as you're looking at it there. >> So it is a single car driveway that goes back opens up into a big open area and then an additional drive kind of into that garage. Um that the map or excuse me the survey um if you see the new garage is in the dotted lines. If you look kind of real close behind it there's a faded rectangle. That's the angled one with the current garage. And >> um as we put this new one in, even coming with a larger size, as you'll see just to the right of the dark driveway that's going into the existing garage there, there's a small triangle, not even all the way back to the back line cuz that's already cement from a sidewalk. >> So, we're taking out a small sliver of green space there. And in reality, we created more green space on that left side by removal of buckthornne on there. So then once the garage is in, we'll have that all um ground down completely and then resolded. So again, we're actually creating more space, which is what the goal was. >> I think it's great that it's moving away from the property line and opening that up. Um the part I was talking was on the east side of the property. It was just just for interest. Is it >> Commissioner, if I could add. So that is actually a shared driveway. So there's a property behind um the neighbor who's next to him. It's basically a stacked property to the >> Thank you, Bria. >> When they split the property, somehow the driver ended up on ours. >> Yeah, they access using the same frontage. >> I was just curious. Okay, that's all. Thank you. >> Yep. Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant? >> All right. Well, it looks like there's no more questions for the applicant. Um, thank you. >> Thank you. All right. At this time, I'll open the public hearing. If you'd like to speak, please come up to the podium and state your name, address, and record. No. No questions. At this time, we'll close the public hearing. All right, commissioners. Um, does anybody have any comments? Uh, can we anything to say? >> Sure. >> I I think this solution is elegant and I think it looks great. Um, I think it's really going to add to the appeal of the property um to the house and um like you said, you're going to not have a bunch of smaller accessory buildings. You'll have your ability to put everything all in one spot. I think it looks great. So, approval. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other comments, Mr. Brink? >> No, I uh concur with Commissioner Sher's um [clears throat] comments. It looks like a good project. Um um you know, I think the the green space is being, you know, maintained as much as possible and uh there aren't any trees being removed and it looks pretty straightforward. Looks like a good project. So, all in favor of it. Any other comments? Everybody's kind of quiet tonight. All right. All right. Well, I'd like to say kind of the same thing. I'm in favor of this. Um, I like the city's comments that it was consistent and harmonious with the neighborhood. Um, it's nice to see people invest in their properties and and I think it'll be a good addition to the home and a good addition to the neighborhood and I'm looking forward to supporting it as well. Um, I sense it's a it's time for a a motion. Would somebody like to make a motion? Mr. Banks? >> Yep. A motion that we approve [clears throat] um the CUP um request for the oversized detach accessory structure at 12600 Orchid Road. >> Thank you. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second. Share. All right. Staff, please pull the commission. >> Banks. >> Yes. >> Brink. >> Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yes. >> Sharer, >> yes. >> Shoemaker, >> yes. Chairman. >> Yes. >> All right. At this point, there is no other business that I can see. It looks like it's adjournment. May I have a motion for adjournment? A mo [laughter] go ahead. Please go. I have a >> motion to adjourn. A >> second. first second rank. All right, staff, please. >> Uh, we can take a voice vote. So, all in favor should just say I. >> All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> [music] >> Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat.