[Music] [Music] [Music] Good evening. Welcome to the June 26, 2025 meeting of the Minnotonka Planning Commission. The commission generally meets twice a month on a Thursday. The schedule and tentative meeting agendas can be obtained by calling the planning division or by checking the city website at minnotonkamn.gov. The commission holds public hearings on land use applications for which the city notifies property owners within at least 400 ft of the site and posts plans and information on the website. For some applications, the city also places signs on the properties and notices in the Sun Sailor newspaper. The commission makes recommendations to the city council on resonings, subdivisions, conditional use permits, and amendments to the city's comprehensive guide plan, zoning ordinance, and subdivision regulations. We make final decisions on site plans, signage requests, variance requests, and expansion permits unless those requests are part of an application that must be heard by the city council. In that case, the commission makes a recommendation to the council for decision. Anyone dissatisfied with a final planning commission decision may appeal to the city council by submitting a written request to city staff within 10 days of this meeting. From a broader standpoint, the city's comprehensive guide plan, zoning ordinance, and subdivision regulations are the city's best efforts to codify a balance between individual rights and community responsibilities. Individual rights are easy to understand. Community responsibilities are more subtle, but the idea is that we as members of the community agree to limit our individual rights for the common good of the group. The planning division, the planning commission, and the city council are charged with managing this sometimes difficult balancing act. We ask you to keep this broader perspective in mind as we review tonight's applications. Again, welcome. Staff, please call roll. Minion here. Waterman here. Banks is absent. Brink here. Hansen here. Henry here. Chair Maxwell here. There are six of us seated tonight. Um, next item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. And, uh, Miss Thomas, I believe there's a change memo for tonight. Uh, correct, Chair Maxwell. There is a change memo this evening for items 8B, which is 5501 Nucket Place and 8C4705 Glendale Road. The change memo consists of um comments that the city staff has received uh via email or via our Minnitankka Matters port hole for those um those applications. Thank you. May I have a motion to approve the agenda considering the change memo? I'll make the motion. I'll second. Uh motion Henry second. Minion second. Uh all those in favor say I. I. All right. Motion carries. Next is the approval of the minutes uh from the June 5th, 2025 uh meeting. Commissioners, anybody have any changes? No. All right. May I have a motion to approve the minutes? I'll make that motion. Motion Waterman. I'll second. Second minion. All those in favor say I. I. I. Motion carries. Um next we have report from staff. Uh thank you again chair. I actually have several um items to report on uh this evening. Um first is with regards to a project um the Pulk residence on Larchwood Road. We sent out notices several weeks ago that that item would be on this evening's agenda, but it did not make it onto the agenda. We're um dealing with some plan changes. We failed to send out postponement notices by postcard. We did update the website and sent out an email blast to those subscribers, but if anyone is here for uh the Pulk residents on Larchwood, I apologize that will not be on this evening's agenda. We will send notices um in the future. Um second is the uh council update. The council considered three items on their last meeting. um that the planning commission had made recommendations on. First was the Tammy edition, a two lot subdivision on Robinwood uh road, uh Hidden Valley Road edition, again, two lot subdivision on Hidden Valley Road, and the interim use ordinance. All were approved by the council per the planning commission's uh recommendation. Want to give you an update on the uh zoning ordinance work. We haven't done an update uh for a while. Those of you that are on uh the workg group uh did get this email, but I'll provide it for uh the rest of the group. So, a couple of things going on with that. First is we have two surveys that are happening right now. Uh a visual preference survey which is again on Minnotonka Matters under the zoning ordinance. I encourage everyone who's here this evening, uh planning commissioners included, uh to go and and take that survey. what a visual survey is, it's a series of uh diagrams or or photographs and and gauging responses to different setback requirements potentially from uh front property lines, uh different types of housing, um whether it's uh duplexes, triplexes, uh quads, uh small apartment buildings, and we have photos of those types of units that are already in the city of Minnetonka. So, I encourage you um to do that. that's open to anyone. Second, we'll be conducting a phone survey with uh Morris Leatherman. They're the company that has for um well over a decade conducted our annual um communitywide survey with all sorts of questions about all sorts of things. But this survey um will be specific to zoning ordinance work and the zoning ordinance update. It will be administered to about 250 to 300 folks aimed at getting that statistically significant um response. Again, similar questions about housing type um bikable and walks walkable access to commercial areas, other amenities, lot sizes, all sorts of things that would be in the zoning ordinance. Um so that will be happening in the next few weeks. Uh Summerfest is coming. We're going to have the zoning zone tent at Summerfest. You can stop by uh take that visual uh preference uh survey. Planning staff will be there. You can ask all things related uh to zoning. We are in the um more near the kids area. So, um hopefully we'll be lots of fun. Um and then finally, the calibration work uh with the city's consultant and planning staff is nearing completion. calibration is really looking at zoning districts and uses in those zoning districts and um what we have currently, what we might want to have in the future. Um when that work is done, we'll be um going back to our uh community work group and our staff work group and I'll have another update at that time. But so even though you haven't seen it, there's a lot happening uh with the zoning zoning update. I'm almost done. I um uh on your calendars you should put uh Thursday, July 31st for the annual planning commission city council EDAC tour. Uh we've moved it up a month, hoping to get a little more uh participation in there. Um you should have gotten a save the date and will get um an email invite, a calendar invite uh soon if you haven't already. We plan to meet at Ridgedale Commons Park at 5 uh p.m. Uh have a meal at that time and then we'll be actually traveling more in the northwest corner of town but seeing a variety of things. Um Amira Villa town homes which are under construction, some naturally occurring affordable rental uh what I used to call the Gates of Carlson uh apartment complex there but is now called Arrive. and we'll be visiting Blue Horizon Energy um which is also located in that general area. They are a solar energy business catering to businesses and institutional uses but headquartered here in Minnetonka. So that's what we have on the schedule as of right now that's subject to change um certainly but some interesting um places. And then um last but not least a final plug for our home energy squad visits. um the the free portion of that, having someone come out and and do an energy audit on your home um that will expire on June 30th. So, there's still a little bit of time uh to sign up for those. The audits will always be available. It's just that the city's um covering of those costs will end at the end of June. And then finally, your next meeting is scheduled for July uh the 10th. So, thank you for indulging me on that longer than typical uh report. I turn it back to the chair. Thank you, Miss Thomas. Uh the next item on our agenda is a report from planning commissioners. Commissioner Henry, you got something to report? Oh, thank you. Nothing to report. I just like to follow up with Susan Thomas rather lengthy city briefing for sure. You may do. Thank you. Uh one of the questions is the city was providing free energy audits from the the home energy squad. It's ending June, end of June. Do you know any statistics on the the number of free audits that we had budgeted for? And did a lot of the citizens of the city take advantage of that free audit? Uh, Chair Maxwell and Commissioner Henry, um, these numbers may be a little bit off. We have a lot left to give. Um, but we did, uh, give three about 300 this year, which is significantly more than we've had in the past. like to put a plug in there, too. We're trying to reduce our carbon footprint, and as being on the sustainability commission, if we all do our part, we can we can add up to a larger reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Plus, it saves you money. We had it done and we found a lot of things that were could be improved on our house, so it made a difference. Anything else to report from commissioners? No. All right, let's move to item seven, which is the consent agenda. The city staff places items that are considered routine on the consent agenda. So, no staff presentations or applicant presentations will be made. We will hold a public hearing and then approve all items on the agenda with one motion subject to the staff conditions of approval. So, before voting, I'll open the public hearing. I'll announce we have one item. So I'll announce the item. If anyone wishes to have a separate discussion on that item, uh we can do so. Um we will remove it to the we will remove it and have a have a discussion on it and then vote on the remaining items. So I will now open the public hearing. And the first item on the consent agenda is item 7A, a request to rescend the Ridge Square North sign plan at 12977 Ridgedale Drive. Does any commissioner wish to remove this item for the from the uh consent agenda? Any member of the public wish to remove this? All right. As no one wishes to speak, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, may I have a motion to approve the items on the consent agenda? Yes, Commissioner Waterman. Chairman May, I just add a comment on this one. Not looking to pull it. Uh, yes. Okay. Thanks. So, um, somewhat related to this, I happen to receive, um, unsolicited feedback on Ridge Square and the aesthetic. I would just encourage the applicant to work with the city on the aesthetic. Um, people I've talked to generally don't like what was done with the South project. Um, and actually like the original look. So, uh, just might be worthwhile kind of talking with the city. It's it's harder to read the signs actually. Um, and the aesthetic, like I said, isn't really that great. It's funny that it has come up after they did the construction. So, I just want to throw that in there for the record, but I'm not recommending we pull this and have further discussion on the sign plan. All right. Thank you. Um, may I have a motion? I'll also make the motion since I interrupted the flow there. Okay. Motion Waterman. Do I have a second? I'll second the motion. Second. Henry. Staff, please pull the commission. Mian, I. Waterman. Yes. Brink. Yes. Hansen? Yes. Henry? Yes. Maxwell? Yes. This item is a final decision subject to appeal. If anyone would like to appeal the decision, you must provide written uh notification to the staff within 10 days of this meeting. All right. Next item is uh next on the agenda is the non-consent agenda. And before we begin consideration of these items, I'd like to review the steps in the process and for the public hearing that will be followed for each proposal. So first, the item will be announced and the staff will give a report on that item. Next, the commission will ask questions of the staff. Then the applicant will be invited forward to make a presentation or to offer any comments. Commissioners may then ask questions of the applicant at that time. When that is finished, the public hearing will be opened and anyone who would like to speak will have an opportunity to comment on the proposal. If you wish to speak, come to the podium, state your name and your address for the record. We ask that you keep your comments brief. Try not to repeat points already made. Direct your questions or comments to the commission. If you have any questions for staff or for the applicant, I will get those answered after the public hearing has been closed. Once everyone has spoken, we may allow speakers to return for additional comments if there are um more. All right, with that, the first item on tonight's um non-consent agenda is item 8A, amendment to the Bonaventure Shopping Center sign as it pertains to 1641 Plymouth Road. Staff, please make your presentation. Uh chair and uh oh, I have a very finicky mouse here. Let's see if I can get it going the right way. Okay, thank you. Um, Bonaventure uh, shopping center you may not have known before the staff report was built uh, back in the 1970s uh, as a kind of an interior facing mall and over the last several decades it has become an exteriorfacing mall, but the sign plan uh, approved at the same time as the building construction originally in the 1970s. that's been amended over the years such that right now the sign plan generally allows for um larger tenants to have two wall signs. One on the facade where their door is and then typically one on the east facade that would face uh Reddale uh center. Smaller tenants are allowed just one sign on their actual entry facade. As the commission is likely aware, uh Wineside, a restaurant that had been located in the southeast corner of the building has closed. Uh that uh restaurant space did have a sign on the south facade of the building. I believe it's still up there uh as of uh last week. What will be coming down as the space is currently undergoing a remodel uh set to open in the upcoming months as forked. Uh Bob Tinsley representing Fork has requested an amendment uh to the sign plan to install a blade sign on the southeast uh side of the building rather than that just sign facing uh southward. Mr. Tinsley has owned and operated and and consulted on many restaurants in the metro area over the years. Champ, Sports Cafe, uh Zalo, and uh Bachio just to name a few here. Staff supports uh the use of a blade sign uh for three reasons that were outlined in the report. First, um in our opinion, uh the blade sign has really been attractively designed, enhancing the aesthetics uh of the building itself. It would creatively provide uh visibility from both the south and the east. And if this property were not governed by a sign plan, this blade sign would in fact uh be allowed just under the sign ordinance. So for those three reasons, we are recommending uh amendment of the sign plan for Bonaventure specifically as it pertains to um this tenant space. So, with that, I would turn it back to uh the chair and commission. Thanks, Miss Thomas. Does anybody on the commission have questions for staff? I don't see any. So, at this point, the applicant may come forward and give a a presentation if you like. I'm here. Hi. Hi. Is there anything you'd like to add? Uh Bob Tinsley. We're just um kind of in our last months getting ready for this and we've kind of gone back and forth and it was really with a lot of help from um uh Julie and Susan as far as figuring out how to work this out so that we could have visibility there and I think we came up with a great option. So I just want to thank them for their help. Thanks. Mr. Tenzy, would you just add your um business address for the record, please? Uh 1641 Plymouth Road. Thank you. Does anybody on the commission have questions for the applicant? No. All right. So, at this point, I will uh open the public hearing. If you'd like to speak, come forward, state your name and your address for the record, and then direct your questions to me, and I can get them answered for you. Does anybody like to come forward on this item? I don't see anybody, so I will close the public hearing. and then I'll bring it back to the commission for any questions or comments. Commissioner Henry. Thanks, Chair. I agree with the city's assessment to this one. I think it's really attractive and for the other reasons they mentioned it has south and eastern facing visibility and that it is allowed under the the sign ordinance or would have been if this wasn't governed if the bond venture wasn't governed under the current sign plan. Just one question for city staff. We sometimes talk about revising the the signed plans or signed ordinances. Has there been any thought to revising this one or removing it? So, this is falling under the city's general city sign ordinance. Uh, Chair Maxwell and Commissioner Henry, this uh, particular building may be difficult to resend the plan on in that um, the signage on this property, but for forked um, really exceeds what would be allowed under the sign ordinance. Um, typically, uh, a property owner would come to us when they realize that their sign plan is is not allowing what the ordinance would allow. In this case, I think that um the signs that are there would be um negatively impacted by uh rescending the sign plan. Very insightful. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from commissioners? Commissioner Henry. Thank you. Since I'm still here, I think it's uh it's worthwhile. So, I'll be in favor of this one. All right, I'm seeing a lot of nodding, not a lot of comments. So, I think we're ready for uh a motion to Where's my uh a motion to adopt the resolution approving the amendment to the Bonaventure Shopping Center sign plant as it pertains to 1641 Plymouth Road? Like to make the motion. Motion, Henry. Do I have a second? I'll second. Second, Waterman. Uh staff, please pull the commission. Vignyan, yes. Waterman, yes. Brink, yes. Hansen, yes. Henry, yes. Chair Maxwell, yes. Motion carry. And again, this is a final decision subject to appeal. Good luck with your project. All right. Uh, next item on the agenda is item 8B, a front yard setback variance for a pool house at 5501 Nantucket Place. Uh, staff, please make your presentation. Thank you. Uh, good evening, uh, Chair Maxwell and members of the commission. Before you this evening is, uh, an application for a variance at 5501 Nantucket Place. The subject property is located at the end of the culde-sac on um the road there. It's just lo it's located just south of Excelsier Boulevard and just east of Purgatory Park. The applicant is requesting a variance to the front yard setback for the construction of a proposed 14x4 uh pool house which is uh highlighted in red on the screen before you. City code standards require a 35 foot front setback for uh accessory structures. However, the applicant is proposing the pool house to be located 24.5 ft from the front property line and 12 ft from the back of the curb. And then the next couple of slides on the screen before you are just some images that were provided by the applicant and their contractor. So this one is an aerial view which shows the location of the existing pool and pool apron. Um and then here we have some elevations of the proposed pool house. And then here are just some different views. So you can see it from the culdeac from the house itself and then also from Purgatory Park. And then lastly just some images on site that you can see there. Uh where the proposed pool house will go. Um there's looking out from the pool to the culde-sac and then the next pictures are looking from the culdesac towards the house. Um so just going back to this I want to talk to um the variance review by staff. So when staff reviews a variance application um the main question we ask is if there's a practical difficulty on site. Um and in determining that there's three questions that we ask. So is the use reasonable? Are there unique circumstances not caused by the property owner? And will the variance adversely affect the character of the neighborhood? So, for a variance to be granted, all three of those criteria must be met. So, upon review, we determined that this case does not meet all the criteria. More specifically, um it's not reasonable because it's inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance. Um there are no unique circumstances uh to the property as the yard could accommodate for the proposed pool house in a separate location. And then lastly that it would alter the character of the neighborhood um by our standard in the code as it would impact the existing building lines and the separation between structures and the roadway. Um, so I can certainly understand where they're coming from and wanting to have a, you know, pool house and have some shade on these super hot summer days that we've been having lately. Um, but from a TA staff perspective, I have to apply the code as it's written. Um, and so therefore, um, we're recommending denial of the request. However, a revision to the location of the pool house um should it meet all the required setback standards could be approved by staff if we have some kind of revised plan there. Um so with that um I just wanted to show one more aerial view so that you guys can see the site you know from uh top down and uh the recommendation is on the screen before you. Staff is again available for any questions that you have. The applicant is also in attendance if you have any specific site questions. Uh, thanks Mr. Rooney. Uh, anybody on the commission have questions for staff? Nobody. All right. I have I have one just sort of a wording question. The staff used the term pool house. The applicant used the term gazebo. Are those two um interchangeable in terms of code or is one um regulated differently than the other? They would not be regulated differently. Um maybe the Phillips can speak to how it's different in what they see in the building plans, but regardless of how it's used in the staff report, we'd still have we'd still enforce it by the same setbacks as in code. Yep. All right. Thank you. Um, Commissioner uh, Hansen, you have a question. Yeah, maybe. Thanks, Chair. Um, when we say neighborhood character, I think this house is in like it's in a culde-sac. So, what's the is it the 400 ft radius or is it like the three or four houses in the culde-sac? What defines the neighborhood in this instance? That's okay. If we can phone a friend, too. I might I might phone a friend for Susan Chair Maxwell and and Commissioner Hansen. Um neighborhood character just as you said, it's kind of it's nebulous. Um and so in in this case, we would have looked at Nantucket Place that really is it's a one road. It it is comes in. There's not a lot else surrounding it. So we would define that in this case as the neighborhood again from our perspective. Thanks. Other questions for staff? Commissioner Wman. Thanks. Um, if this were some sort of other type of structure, I mean, it looks like this is going to be constructed and built. I've seen other types of maybe pre prefabricated gazeos that or, you know, maybe I I suppose are permanent. Does that change anything or just by virtue of it being an accessory structure that's installed that has the same impact? It would have the same impact. if you're correct. Thanks, Commissioner Henry. Staff, in the the applicants application, they wrote a couple of times about the uh that the the neighborhood is adjacent to a park. And does a city have any differing criteria with front yard setbacks that are in a culde-sac or adjacent to public lands like this or are they subject to the same front and sideyard setbacks that all other houses and other neighborhoods are subject to? Yep. Uh Susan, correct me if I'm wrong, but from how I've been reading it lately, uh there is no difference between um a house neighboring another house or a house neighboring a park. It's all applied the same. So, it would still have to require with our 35 foot setback. And I would just add to what Ms. Rooney said, and she's absolutely correct. We don't have a variety of different uh setbacks depending on what you're adjacent to when you're in a property that's zoned R1 residential. Um that is something that you as a commission uh can take into consideration. Um that's that's why they're asking for a variance um this evening to ask for a deviation from those um very specific setbacks that we have called out. Thanks for the update. Anyone else? All right. Uh, at this point, um, I'll invite the applicant forward to add any comments, um, or to answer any questions that the commission has. Uh, please state your name and your address for the record when you get up here. I'm Dan Phelp, uh, 5501 Nucket. And I'm Katrina Phelp. Same address. Perfect. Uh, is it okay if I address staff just for a second? You, it's a very posit It's a compliment. Sure. Yeah. Uh Riley, I don't think I've ever had a conversation with somebody that was more pleasant and professional and then, you know, with you on the opposite side of the issue effectively. So, it was uh your staff is very professional and it's just been it's been a pleasure. It hasn't it hasn't been difficult, you know, so we understand. Um so, I guess to start, uh Katrina and I lived in Minneapolis for many years. we got married and when we were looking for a place to move um we were we selected our current location after taking a stroll around Purgatory Park. Um we loved backing up to the park. Um we have a lot of strong feelings about the park. Um but when we moved here, I think what we took for granted, uh we're both from very small communities. Uh I grew up in Wakonia when it was 2500 people and I went to school with mostly farmers. It's way different today. um she uh grew up in was a farmer. Yeah, she she was a farmer. She grew up in a very small community as well. So I think what we took for granted is what it takes to build community uh when we moved here. Um so we've done a lot of investment in our house. Um primarily with the intent with our discussions where are we going to you know invest in our property? They've been to you know we wanted to put on a front porch because we wanted to you know make reasons to interact with our neighbors. Uh we wanted to put in a pool because we wanted to give the kids in the neighborhood a reason to come and visit our children. We have three. Uh one is a kindergartener at or sorry she will be a kindergarter um at Scenic Heights. She's uh our other is going to enter third grade uh at Scenic Heights and our 2-year-old Jack will um hopefully go there as well. um they would be here today, but they decided to play with their neighbors and uh save worms from the from the recent rainfall. Um so we're we're asking for this um for a couple of reasons. Um it was always our intent to put something here. Um granted uh in our application it was um a little bit odd. Um we we actually thought it was approved at the time. Um, but the reason we selected this location is because we have three kids. The culde-sac becomes a gathering place for the children of the neighborhood. It's probably the most colorful culde-sac in all of Minnotonka half the time because they draw it with chalk there all the time. Um, but this allows us to both keep an eye on the pool and the culde-sac at the same time cuz we have a 2-year-old and a um all the other kids that run around the neighborhood. we kind of end up being uh the location for people to gather, which is our intent um to be that location. Um and I don't know, I guess you could talk about the letters and you know, we weren't sure. Um you know, it's hard to sort of quantify the community that you've helped cultivate and are now a part of. Um but we were very, you know, humbled and excited when our neighbors all kind of came out and came to bat for us. Um, so you can talk about that a little bit, I guess. Sure. So, we didn't ask our neighbors to, we didn't go out and say, "Hey, can you help us with this?" They came they came to us when they got the the letters in the mail and said, "We support you. Is there anything we can do?" And um the people who live across the culde-sac, Paul and Pamela, they said we'd show up, but we have our 10-year-old granddaughter's birthday party, so we'll give you a letter. And so, they their letter is included in there. um our next door neighbors, uh Pete and Donna, who are right next to us. So, so they're um I guess the the two closest, they said, "What if if there's something we can do, please let us know." And they also provided a letter as did two other people on the street and one of our neighbors is here today as well. So, we feel very special to have the community around us and to have that support from them. I think the other thing um we've looked at putting it in other places on our yard and it's um the the grade on the yard makes it hard to build like on the other side for example. We'd have it would be disruptive to our neighbors and disruptive to our property to have to build that up um in order to put a structure there. So, in addition to the fact that it's a safety issue for us um to be able to watch our kids in both spots where they like to play, it's it's also much more difficult and requires more uh investment and would be disruptive to the neighborhood to put it in another like on the other side for example. Yeah. I guess the other thing I would say is I know that front yards are defined by kind of what meets the street. Um, for all practical purposes, we've always thought of our house as that's kind of the backyard backing up to the park. Um, our front entrance is on the uh driveway side of the of the building. So, when you actually pull up to the property, like we can for for our practical use of the property, that's kind of our front yard and then kind of our backyard. It's kind of an an odd lot being at the end of of the culde-sac. Um, so yeah. Uh, we also have the letters. Uh, we weren't sure if they were all passed out or not. We have letters for everybody. Okay. We have those included in our change memo. Wonderful. I wasn't sure what that change memo was until you when you mentioned it. Um Okay. Thank you for considering things for what you do for the city of Matitoka. Yeah, we appreciate it. It's a great place to live. Do you have any questions or do Yeah, we may have Anybody on the commission have questions for the applicant? Uh Commissioner Hansen. Yeah. Um as you guys have worked with the city, I'm sure you guys have been equally grateful back. Um, what are just looking at the picture the overhead picture of your house are am I thinking about this right that to like to the upper right of the h of the house is where the alternate site is being talked about like I get where you guys want it. Mhm. But I don't think I'm understanding like the grading work comment. Oh, sure. So, I just want to like if you let's say we had to build it somewhere else. Sure. Where's that grading site? I'm not asking you to commit to anything. I'm just trying to follow what basically think about where the pool starts. It basically goes there's steps down behind it. That's just a very steep grade. Yeah, right there. Those that's those are steps that go down. Okay, I'm with you now. Yeah, gotcha. I thought those were steps that were coming down from the pool, but that's where I was wrong. So, makes sense. Well, they are they're coming down from the pool. That's correct. Yep. Yep. Commissioner Waterman, thanks. Um in the our packet um the letter that you wrote in the city, it mentioned that there was an error in the initial permit application. Yeah. Can you provide any color on that? Uh that's uh yeah. So we actually brought the original site plan. Um so when we put together the site plan um you know we hire contractors, we work with professionals. We because we don't know what we're doing, right? Um and so they submitted a permit on our behalf and in the design work um the area that's located on the you want to pass these out. Is it okay if we approach and pass these off? Well, we can show on here. You can show it on here. Um in that original plan um there was basically a gazebo um in that spot. plan. So that was and in in our original plan, it says gazebo uh in the proposal of 256 ft. Um so we thought at least that that area was approved. So then we went and ahead and built, you know, spent our budget to build everything with that in mind. Um so that was our original intent. Um so we're a little we were a little surprised when it became an a placement issue. um because you know everything that's been told to us. Granted, you I'm not blaming anybody. It's it is what it is. Um so we were a little bit surprised that that the issue was where it was located because we had already built everything else and that was kind of the last thing to build. Um so we thought when we were submitting a permit, we were just submitting it for electrical or something of the sort. I didn't know it was about the location. Um great. Thank you. Yeah, Commissioner Brink. Yeah, thank you. Chair Maxwell, I just have a question about, you know, pool pool house, gazebo. Um, the structure itself is that is it like a place to store things or is it more just open, you know? Yeah, it's it's more to be open. It's most mostly just a screen a bug-free zone where we can play games and cards after it gets dark and really buggy and then also provide some amount of shade during the day. um just because there's a lot of direct sunlight. So, yeah, it's nice if we can sit in the shade and, you know, keep an eye on the kids. And the plan is to have it's it's going to be screens. Yeah. And and some plastic so that we can use it for eight months instead of just the Minnesota summer. So, it's it's not a storage shed. It's, you know, we're gonna play games with our kids and our neighbors and yeah, that's get shade and get free and I think a bug free space. The reason we call it a gazebo and not a pool house is cuz when I think of a pool house, I think of like has a bathroom and it has other amenities. This is just, you know, maybe it has a ceiling fan in it cuz there's electric out there, but it's just Mhm. I mean, we're trying to kind of recreate our cabin experience um from when we grew up with going up to my grandpa's cabin. Um and just play cribage out there basically. Um Okay. Thank you. Mhm. Commissioner Henry. Thanks, Chair. So, it sounds like you worked with the city and they proposed an alternate location that would be in this picture north of the pool. Is was that correct? Um, no. I don't think we've had anything proposed yet. Okay. Yeah, I shouldn't say proposed, but in the in the write up, the city said that there it didn't present a practical difficulty and that there were places within the in the buildable area that could be free of any variances that would be required. We didn't talk, we didn't have a discussion about that, so I don't know what they were thinking. Yeah, this is a question for staff. Could you answer that, Miss? Yes, I can answer that. So, there wasn't a proposed location that was discussed between staff nor the applicant. It was more so that if a location was proposed outside of the required setbacks and we reviewed it at that time, we could provide a a different outcome rather than what is existing here. But we hadn't discussed like okay if if this is the opposite or if this was you know the alternate location then that would work. We that wasn't discussed. Okay. Yeah that uh that sounds reasonable and I don't want to speculate too much on here. We're we're we're supposed to look at the application at hand. But if you had to build it on the backside you said that one of the hardships would be that you have to negotiate that steep slope that's going back to the north. That's right. I mean it we've looked at it. Um the problem that we really run into is the the decking for the pool is already constructed and the so we would have to tear that out. Um which and tear out the boulder wall and tear out the boulder wall and and I mean we basically budgeted for this in a certain way. Um and we built everything except for this piece of it which also closes the fence. Um and so it would I don't think we would be able to. Um, and it would just require a lot of waste and it's I think if that were the decision, we probably just wouldn't build something. Um, because I it's just too it would be very wasteful. Um, and the grade has always been there. We had to put the boulder wall in to hold up what was there. It's we've always had a very steep sloping yard and so it's not we didn't create a steep slope. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thanks. We may bring you up after the public hearing, but Sure. And if you have any specific questions, we do have our architect here and also the landscape designer. Thank you. All right. At this time, I will open the public hearing for this item. If you wish to speak, come forward. Give your name and your address for the record. Keep your comments brief. Direct them to me, and then I can get them answered after the public hearing. Hi, my name is Allison Bang. Um, I'm a neighbor to the Phelps. Um, I'm at 5525 Nantucket Road. I'm at the top of the culde-sac at the or top of the street. My family is somewhere out there running around. Um, my kids play with their kids. And if you don't mind, I'm just going to read my thoughts because I'm a little nervous. Um, so, yep. I uh from what I understand, their proposal is very thoughtful and aligns with the character of our neighborhood and does reflect a genuine effort to make improvements while respecting the surrounding properties. Um I have had a chance to learn more about their plans and I appreciate that they've taken the time to involve us as neighbors and as friends. Um I do appreciate that they've taken the time to involve us and to be transparent throughout the whole entire process. This isn't something that has come about in the last week or two weeks. This has been like a year plus. So, um, we feel their pain. In other words, in my opinion though, this variance won't negatively impact our property values or traffic or overall quality of life in the area. In fact, it may really enhance it given all of the um, kids in the area and how we all gather down at the Phillips house. Um, I do see it as a reasonable request that supports both our homeowners needs and the integrity of our neighborhood as a whole. And so I deeply hope you guys um consider the proposal and in um to approve the variance. So thank you. Thank you. Who else wants to speak on this item? All right. I don't see any more movement. So at this point I will close the public hearing and I will bring it back to the commission for any further questions or comments. Who wants to start? Commissioner Hansen. Maybe just a question for staff. Um probably just wording choice, but do we know if the slope uh to the north of the pool, if I have my directions right, is a steep slope by definition? I do not off the top of my head. Susan might be able to answer it a little better than I can. Uh Chair and and Commissioner Hansen, give us a minute. We can do a quick look. Um, as you know, um, there's visually steep and then there's what we, um, define as steep. I don't know that that Yep. I'm with you. Take your time. But we we will take a look. Yeah. Question. Question for the city. Um, my mind keeps going to the uh overhead plan view talking about the setbacks where it talks about the proposed 24 ft 5 in. It's going to the property line for that measurement, but do we know what the number is the for the closest point of the gazebo uh pool shed to the actual curb line, the actual affected area that uh snow will be going to, garbage cans will be going to, um visibility closer to the road. Is there a number that you can throw us out? Yep, Commissioner Minion. Uh it's about 12 ft from the proposed edge of the gazebo or pool house to the back of the curb. Thank you. And I'm going to hop in just for one moment here. There was a question about steep slopes. I ran a very quick calculation. It does not meet that um threshold. It's around 16% and 20% is what the steep slope requirement is. Thank you, Mr. Englesen. Uh Commissioner Minion break. Uh thank you. Um just a followup to um uh Commissioner Minion's uh question there. Maybe this is a question for the applicant, but um there is a boulder retaining wall right there. I mean, does the construction of this gazebo require um re-shifting that, pushing it closer to the curb, or is it all intended to be built behind the the boulder wall? Should probably just serve it here. Sorry. Um so yeah, there is a there is a retaining wall that's built up on that side of the So that's uh two tiers. Um they're kind of eyebrow walls. Um and then it's a flat space on top. And so then uh and uh so it would be built just on the flat area that's was sort of originally designed to hold that. Um the other um question on the snow removal. Uh generally uh I don't think it would affect snow removal because it's already has that boulder wall. So it's much elevated and set back and generally the snow ends up kind of towards the end of the culdeac and like outside of our property line generally cuz part of our property line is a temporary easement for the culde-sac I think uh in our property line and it they've never p pushed snow over there in the seven years we've been here we know they push it to the end of the road cuz the kids built fort there built forts there every every winter fort there yeah so no change to the to the boulder wall that's there it would just be placed on And that's speaking to the that whole area is flat and ready to go cuz we'd always designed it with that in in mind. Okay. Thank you. There's Who else? Commissioner Waterman. I'll go. I don't have any questions. I think I'll move on to comments. Um, thank you so much for for coming tonight and participating in this and and your investment in your home and in Minnetonka. Um, it's always funny when we when we look at these variance uh requests. Um, I I tend to uh have a not a lot of difficulty when there's variance requests that are pretty pretty deep, you know, not just a couple feet, but this this goes pretty far into it. um such that you know ordinarily I I really like to not set new precedents and and I think that the the um standards that we have and the ordinances are pretty wise for keeping separation. Um so I was coming into this thinking know this is you know it's probably I'll probably agree with the city to deny. Um, but as I in this meeting and just really hearing your presentation, but especially seeing the neighbor comments and hearing the neighbor comments, um, which I find exceptional for a variance of this size, that really I think is the purpose of these meetings and it makes me want to try to find a way to disagree with the city and approve the variance. Um, so my it it's challenging because I I do think that the culde-sac presents a pretty unique opportunity and the park purgatory park on the west presents a unique opportunity. Maybe it's not a practical difficulty, but I don't think that it's an unreasonable request. As I look at this, as we see where that culde-sac is, I I would I could see how you could think of this as the backyard rather than the front yard. Um, in terms of the intent of the ordinance, the ordinance is about keeping um, ensure consistent building lines within a neighborhood. And I think that maybe this culde-sac in the park because there won't be anything else built there and you're at the end of the culde-sac, maybe that is is kind of what keeps it reasonable um, and it keeps it consistent. Um, and of course, I mean, the neighborhood character, we've we've heard a lot about that in terms of um, you know, sounds like it's a great meeting place for the loca for for the neighborhood. And, um, so with with those packaged together, it sounds like we have a little bit of uphill battle because we need to if we disagree, we need to say why. It's tough. You know, maybe as we talk about if anyone else agrees, there might be some other reasons to approve, but that's where I'm leaning on this one. Thanks, Commissioner Waterman. Who's next? Commissioner Henry. Thanks, Chair. [Applause] I agree with Commissioner Waterman where I really enjoy the process of coming in for these meetings. We can read the packets. We can make a preliminary decision based on the information at hand, but then coming in, we hear the personal side of it. So, the the role of us as commissioners is to is to weigh all things. We take the city's input. We take the the the citizens input. We give it our best shot and we do what we think is best for the community. As the chair reads in every planning commission meeting, we have to codify a balance between individual rights and community responsibilities. And to that we are all beholden. And it's it's difficult. And the reason why this is on the non-consent agenda item is because we do have to make a decision on this one. And I look at it, it's almost like we have to compare the quantitative and the qualitative. As the as a city ordinance says, the city may approve a variance only if the application meets all of the variance standards. And subsequently, the application must be denied if any standards aren't met. So, we have to look at the three of the of the points that Riley brought up. And the first one, the intent of the ordinance. The city stated that it wasn't consistent with that because of inconsistent building lines and separation between roadways and structures. That's something where, as Commissioner Waterman said, there's a little bit of area for for debate. Is it consistent? Is it not consistent? There is some room, I think, because it is on a culde-sac and it does butt up to the park. Like you mentioned, you use this as more of a backyard than a front yard. So that one I I can see the city's point of view. I can see the applicant's point of view too. So really most of these when they come across the commission I think we have pretty things set in mind like you said commissioner waterman if it's within a couple of feet maybe there's some room but this is what 10 ft and that's significant. So can we can we can we justify it enough in this case? I'm not sure if we can, but I really trust in the city's opinion, but I also trust in the process. We as commissioners, we come here and we give our comments. So, short answer is I don't know exactly how I'm going to vote on this one. I like to hear more of what the commissioners say. And it's not that that common where I just lay it out to say I'm almost 50/50 on this one, but it's it's pretty it's pretty much that way. The second one, if it's consistent with the comprehensive plan, the city said maybe because it enhances the neighborhood. I look at absolutely it does enhance the neighborhood. You talked about the the character of the neighborhood. I'm all for creating community and I love that you guys wanted to put a front porch on your house because I'd like to invite people in to my home as well. And so I really applaud that one. uh the culde-sac as a as a gathering space I think is a really good idea and that the gazebo between the culde-sac and the house where one responsible adult can monitor both areas I think from a safety of the children playing there that's a really good idea too these may be quantitative but in my mind they're really critical in in answering this question so uh to me I think that can be answered and the third of a practical difficulty any unique circumstance city says No, I that's a little bit hard to wrestle with because I look at you could put one of these up on the north sides, but as after talking with the applicant, they probably wouldn't because there is maybe not an inherent practical difficulty, but because of the way that the structure is built out with the deck and with the grade, the slope may be far away from the culde-sac. It sounds like they wouldn't do it. I think it's important as having a pool with children to have a nice place so they can cool off, but that may be beyond the scope of what we're talking about here. Something that wasn't brought up that I think is important to bring up is something that is in alignment with s in the ordinance in the first place. We have a front yard setback for a reason and one of the reasons is public safety. As everybody probably is aware, what happened at the park tavern in St. Louis Park was a tragedy and two people lost their lives. The purpose or the reason, one of the reasons was because you had an very grossly irresponsible driver in close proximity to people who were in this case they were dining. So when somebody asked the question of how far is the separation between the edge of the building and the curb, it's 12 feet. And that's one of the things that gives me pause because I could I could I would hate to see it. It be horrible tragedy, but I could see an irresponsible driver texting something else could happen. 12 feet is a very short distance to cover between the road and where children are are lying down possibly sleeping. So from a public safety point of view, that's what really causes me pause and I hasten to to contribute to that. I do not want to have anybody get hurt. So that's where I'm sitting on this one. And again, I I can't say definitively if I'm going to vote for or against it, but I needed to make sure that all the the commissioners hear these concerns and some of the my justification for this. So, I welcome everybody else's comments. I'm going to listen intently. I'm going to hear what you have to say, and I'll I'll make the best decision that's best for everybody. Thank you, Commissioner Henry. Who's next? Commissioner Minion. I'd like to thank you for coming tonight. I'd like to thank your neighbors for standing up for you. It's really nice to see and it it uh is always good to hear the input from the neighborhood and the support from the neighborhood. Um, I agree with Mr. Henry so much. The, uh, the 12T is a real stumbling block for me. Um, if it was just a few feet or something that was just a little bit, um, I could see maybe maybe going for it. But, um, the 12T is a problem. Your home is beautiful. Had a chance to drive it. You've done an excellent job of making it nice. The other thing that kind of stands in my mind is when we when we make these decisions is is that um you're the one that's before us today, but sooner or later you're probably going to sell. Sooner or later your neighbors are going to sell and the neighborhood will change over that physical building will still be there. And I really appreciate the codes and the variances that our city has set up. Um so I'll be I'll be voting to side with the city on this one and denying it, but I appreciate all you've done. It's a beautiful beautiful property and I encourage you to continue to work with the city. We are so blessed. I've worked with them on other things before I sat here and uh so encouraged and so blessed to be able to work with the people I've worked with. I know you'll find a great solution working with them. I wish you well. Thank you, Commissioner Minion. Any else? Commissioner Brink. Yeah, I echo the comments of uh Commissioners Henry and Minion and U uh Waterman as well. Um this this is a tough one. Um, you know, I can go either way on this, too. But I also appreciate the concerns about public safety, and this is here for the the long run, the long term. Um, I'm also a little um a little more um I was going to ask if that alternative site is could be investigated just a little more. It doesn't look like it was actually maybe by the applicant it was, but not really uh with the staff. Um, I think what I'm getting back to here is um um where the variance can be approved, but it has to meet um all of the variant standards, and it clearly doesn't. And that's where I'm uh uncomfortable with this. But um um if this does get denied tonight, I would like to see if that alternative location could could be looked at a little bit closer. Um but I thank you so much for for coming and presenting here. Commission, you don't do you have anything to say? Well, I I think I'd lean into yes here tonight. And I um I kind of I hear Commissioner Henry, that's a pretty thoughtful comment about the safety. And then I think about um what I heard from the applicant at least tonight is like they want to be there to wash their kids. And um you know, I'm totally hearing the idea that hey, maybe this spot on the north side actually fits in. Who knows if it fits in right now, but it doesn't seem like that's going to help watch the kids in in this instance. And that's maybe a 20-year period in time versus a 50-year period in time. Um, I also think that for me like the way the culdesac and the driveways all come together here is unique. Like it their driveway like we've all mentioned has nothing to do with a culde-sac. The culde-sac has essentially become a weird version of a playground that doesn't actually have a playground in it. And so, um, I I kind of think about Minnitonka has this little little pocket neighborhoods throughout, and this is a circumstance that's going to impact three homes. And so, when we find an opportunity to build a deep rooted community amongst three homes, that that can spread pretty quickly. And so here we have somebody, a group of neighbors that unanimously is supporting this. I'm trusting those neighbors that they'll do the right thing and and be safe and continue to foster that community and it'll become a part of the culture. I also think that when we just follow these uniform arbitrary 35 foot setbacks or 25 foot setbacks, we end up with kind of in my opinion, and it's just my opinion, but we end up with a lot of stuff that looks alike, and we kind of lose the uniqueness that um people drive by and say, "Oh, that's kind of quirky." I definitely wouldn't want that, but it's cool. Um and so that's just where I'm headed. I I think I totally get where the city's at. I just think I would support the property owner's right to develop their property in this instance, and I want them to do that. So, Does anybody else have any follow-up comments or follow-up questions? Commissioner Waterman. Thanks, Chair. And I'll be done. Um, just the one observation, Commissioner Henry, that was the observation point is really good. It seems like there's also they have the retaining wall um, right there. So, that might also help. I mean, that's already existing. I'm just looking at in the pictures. That might help blunt some of that. That was my thought too with the safety concern that you made. Um, there's that retaining wall there and the elevation difference. So, it's unlikely that a car is going to jump the curb and run over a kid sleeping in the gazebo. So, from my perspective, it's yes, it's maybe 12 horizontal feet, but there's also vertical feet sort of in this uh in this calculation. Um, does anybody else have comments? It's I I don't know that we're ready to take a motion to either approve or deny. Does anybody feel strongly one way or the other on the commission here? So, I'm just I'm just reading. I don't I I do feel strongly like I I would like to get this approved. Um I'm just looking at our options just on the fly here. It sounds like, speaking from my perspective, like if if there were a if there were a vote to concur with staff and deny the variance, we need a simple majority. If we disagree and we would want to make a motion approving the variance request, we need Wait, we're I I was reading it a moment ago. I think we need five of us. Am I four? Okay, it's just a majority. We need five. We need five. Okay. So then some of that I don't know if that informs because it sounds like we have two that would be against but so I I I don't know if that really goes anywhere but if there were a motion to um maybe for the staff if there were a motion um that I could propose what would I say like disagreeing with the staff's recommendation and proposing a variance approving the request do I then need to like list specific items or has that sort have already been encapsulated in our commentary. Uh, Chair Maxwell and Commissioner Waterman, um, you you could make a motion, city staff's recommendation and just vote no on that, but that doesn't get you to an approval. Um, you an option would be to recommend or not recommend to approve the variance. Um, what I would you like me to comment on what I heard? Please help me. You say yeah. What I heard from um commissioners who may support this is that the proposal is reasonable and would not impact neighborhood character given the location at the end of a culde-sac and adjacent to Purgatory Park and that the situation of the house and existing improvements relative to front property line including the location of the existing driveway present a unique circumstance. Sounds really good. Really appreciate that. Why don't I let me I'll stop talking and kind of let open it up to the rest of the commission. Commissioner Hansen, do you have something to add? You're smarter than me, so you go first. Um I think at this point it might be worth pulling up that in sort of what are the conditions for required for approval of a variance and then if you could again just summarize what you've heard so far in our comments um whether or not we have any grounds to stand on once we consider them all together because each of us I think have spoken to one or another of them uh and then we can go from there. Did you have anything to add besides before we do that? Um, other than I think by my understanding this is a a final action and so just to make clear I think the if the homeowner hasn't heard it they can appeal this decision but we'll help with that too. So that's correct. Uh, if I may, Miss Rooney, did we have a slide with the um the um criterion, the state statute criterion? I know we do for the next presentation, but I'll I'll list those off. So, there there are three criterion. Um, first is the intent of the ordinance. Um, which again I I heard that this meets the intent given the location at the end of the culde-sac and adjacent to Purgatory Park that there's not an existing building line that we need to be concerned about. So the first is the intent. The second is consistent with the comprehensive plan which as um Miss Rooney outlined and it was in your report this is kind of a a value ad to to the neighborhood. So those are the first two criteria. The third criteria is practical difficulties which has those three subsets um reasonleness, neighborhood character and unique circumstance. So I I think that um these two points that I read before that I can um uh and I can read them again um get to all of those five criteria. Now, I just want to read a um comment from one of my We're kind of emailing each other to make sure that we're encapsulating what you're what you're saying. Um if you would like to first take a vote to um deny the request and see if you have you might be able to see what kind of votes um you have, if that makes sense. I don't mean to muddy the waters, but I I like I like that suggestion to first take a motion to agree with the staff to deny it and then if that fails, then to put forth a motion to approve it. So, I think I think we're ready. Anybody have further comments before we go forward with that that path? All right. Would anybody like to make a motion to adopt the resolution denying the front yard setback variance for a pool house at 5501 Nantucket, please? I make the motion. Commissioner Minion, do I have a second? I'll second. Second, Brink. Uh staff, please pull the commission. And so, just to clarify, a yes vote on this means yes to deny the variance. Okay. Um Minion, yes. Waterman, no. Brink, yes. Hansen, no. Henry, no. Maxwell, no. So, that I heard four nos, two yeses. So, we don't have enough votes for to have that pass. That that resolution fails. If we are to go forward with a one, two, three, four. We don't have enough either to have a resolution that passes potentially. Should we just go forward with making that motion and see what the result is after everybody has Yeah. Chair, my my recommendation is that you go forward with that motion. That also then gets it on the public record. So, if the applicant chooses to appeal to the city council, they have that on the public record. And then if well but once we'll get there once we get there let's do I have a motion to to adopt a resolution approving the front yard setback variance for a pool house at 5501 please I will make that motion motion Hansen I'll second second waterman staff please pull the commission minion no waterman yes Brink yes Hansen Yes. Henry, yes. Maxwell, yes. That is five votes. The motion carries and that is a final decision by the planning commission subject to appeal. All right, good luck with your project. Okay, moving on to the next item. Next item on our agenda is 8 C. Um, a preliminary plat with variances for Corman Nolull, a two lot subdivision at 14705 Glendale Road. Staff, please make your report. Uh, thank you, chair. So, our next request, uh, just to give you some bearings on where we're located here is Eden Prairie Road and Glendale Road. The properties at that corner. Uh some other easier maybe bigger things that people maybe know about is Glenn uh is Gatewood Elementary School and then also uh Glen Lake Golf Course is just over here to the east. Uh and then in between it's obviously in between Highway uh 60 County Road 62 and then Excelsier Boulevard to the north. Here's a look at the existing site. Uh it is just under an acre at N9 acres. Uh it is zoned R1 and guided low density. The topography of the site is relatively flat as you look at it. Uh this area right here on your screen is the highest point and there are two depressions, one here on the north and one on the south. Uh looking at drainage, it uh it generally drains to those locations but also off the site. Uh but looking at topography, there's a total of 10 ft of elevation change over the course of the entire site. And the steepest area here is just a just a little bit over 14% grade change. So it might look rather steep because these are 1 ft contours. We're more used to seeing twoft contours. Uh but it is not as steep as this probably appears compared to our usual plans that we see. Um also looking at this existing site, uh it does have three right ofway frontages. Two of those are local city streets, Chaste Way and then Glendale Road. And then also has a county road u county road 4 in Prairie Road over there to the east. Um, oh, one other thing I want to add here is, uh, the site is has most of its trees located around the outside of the property. There are a few located here in the middle. Um, but there are a few on there. And, uh, looking at the trees, there are 45 regulated trees, 37 high priority and eight significant. Uh, also on the site, uh, there is an existing building. There's a home there currently. Uh, and then also a 240 square ft shed here just on the south side. Here's a look at that existing home. Uh it is a rather old one. Originally built in 1908 per our records and uh had a major remodel though in 1970. Uh it's two stories. Uh the two the first and second level are about 1,600 ft². The lower level is a little under 1,000. Here is a look at what the applicant is proposing tonight. Uh so as said earlier uh it's a var it's a request for a preliminary plat with variances. The proposed homes would be accessed off of Glendale Road and the grading for the site is actually pretty minimal compared to some other ones we have. They've located the homes in the center of the site where it is fairly flat and where the existing home is located. So as far as with grading for the site, it's um pretty small compared to what we often we might see in different projects. Also, they have proposed uh two storm water locations on the site. Uh one in the northwest and one in the southeast. Uh uh water would drain to those areas obviously as you can see through the arrows on the screen. Uh they're also uh for tree removal that was in the staff report. They are going right up to the maximum for high priority. 12 is the max that's allowed. They are proposing 12 uh per our staff review uh for high priority and then one significant tree would be removed as part of the project. Uh this is our table that we always look at whenever we have a subdivision. So we go through it and look through them every single time. Uh this uh application the the request actually meets a lot of those different standards that we have. Lot widths. It meets pretty easily. Lot depth. It meets um also pretty pretty easily. And there's quite a bit of buildable area on this property uh and meets the buildable area dimension requirements. The one area that it does not meet is the lot area requirement of 22,000 square ft. Uh we have u two lots are 340ish square feet short on both of those. So that is where the variance comes into play. So we talked a lot about variances. I have this standard up. It is a little bit different than the other one because it's from our subdivision section. So we did not scroll to it because it's a little different. So we couldn't uh show you that in good conscience. Um but I'll talk a little bit through it too. I know my colleague uh Miss Rooney talked a little bit about this but I'll just go through it again quickly. Uh first off as we talked about before I think the important thing I highlighted here is that a variance may be granted but is not mandated when the applicant meets the burden proving that so all these three standards need to be met and then at that point the commission may approve a variance. It is not required or again mandated. So we have other requests that come through like conditional use permits where um there's a legal requirement to approve those or site building plans um where if those standards are met but varants are a little different you are not required to even if the standards are met then available though to do it. It's eligible for it. Uh looking at the standards uh there's three just like the last one we sort of three main ones like we talked about the last one. One is that it's a reasonable request. Uh that's going to uh looking at functional and aesthetic justifications for the request and that's also going to improve the uh improve the neighborhood and property. Number two, unique circumstance. Is there a unique circumstance to the property uh and not solely based on landowners convenience or economic considerations? And then C in neighborhood character uh which would uh would not adversely affect or alter the essential character of the neighborhood which we talked quite a bit about our last one. So we're back on that one and uh that is really the crux of this one. That's uh where staff has uh looked at this and had probably the most difficult one. I think there might be areas of things you can there might be merit available for the reasonable unique circumstances but in staff's review and staff's opinion it does not meet the neighborhood character requirement. So, we talk about neighborhood character and those who've seen a lot of my presentations, I like maps and I like numbers and I like percentages. So, uh I looked at multiple different uh definitions of neighborhood because I think again it's everyone has sort of a little bit of a different definition. So, this first one is just looking at all the properties that are either directly adjacent or kitty corner to it. Um the subject property is has this teal outline and then ones that are in that orang-ish color are conforming lots. the ones that meet city code that are 22,000 ft². As you can see, there's several that are rather large, too. Um, but all those ones are conforming and there are only two directly adjacent or kitty corner to the property that are non-conforming. So, a little bit over 70% of them conform to the requirements. Going out a little bit farther, 400 square ft is our mailing notice requirement. So, these are people who legally have to be mailed a notice whenever a project comes through. Um, that percentage goes a bit lower. that u we'll round up 57% of them are conforming lots uh and for and 43% are uh non-conforming. So again it gets a little bit closer to it but still there's not a majority of properties that are non-conforming. And then the last one um 400 ft and 1,000 ft on adjacent road. That's another standard we have within our code that we use sometimes to look at neighborhood. And looking at that 58% of the properties are conforming while 42% are not conforming. And that's sort of a been a standard that staff has looked at usually um as a tipping point. Is there more than half of the neighborhood that's non-conforming when we look at this neighborhood character? Um so and with this one in all those different areas, it was never under 50% that were conforming. There was always under that for the non-conforming amount. So with that, staff is uh recommending that the city council approve the resolution denying the request for the the preliminary plat and variances. Um the findings are that the proposed variance would not be consistent with the neighborhood character that standard C as the majority of the residential lots in the area are over 22,000 square ft. For our vote tonight, uh we'll keep it a little bit simpler than our last one. We just need a majority vote of the planning commission to for a recommendation for approval or denial. Um and with that vote, um again, it's just a flat majority. And this is a recommendation to the city council. This is not a final decision. Uh if uh Miss Thomas could assist me, we did have something that we received from the applicant um right before this meeting that we weren't able to get into the change memo um but was something that they wanted to share as part of it. And there were some things within the change memo too. Uh there were some um notices there were some comments from neighbors and then also from the applicant too. So um I hope everyone took an opportunity to take a look at those beforehand. But with that, I turn uh the mic back over to the chair and commission for additional questions. [Applause] Thank you, Mr. Ingolson. Um, is there is this going to be added to the minutes for the meeting or is there a way this the public will be able to see the content in this uh handout? Yes, Chair Maxwell. Uh, we will add that as the an attachment to the uh report that goes to the city council. Okay. Thank you. Does anybody from the commission have questions for staff? Commissioner Brink. Uh yes, thank you. Um I have a question. I I think uh further on down in your report, it it talked about rightway dedication for both the city and the county, and I'm wondering how that affects the uh the numbers in the table that that you presented, particularly the the lot areas. Thank you so much for reading the report closely. Yes, there was. And that's a very interesting uh change to this that we don't run into too often. Um the basis of the variance request is occurring regardless of that dedication. Um if there was no dedication of right away, the applicant would still need a variance. So that's an important part to know. Um there might be a differing opinion. If this was caused by government entities acquiring right away um but I have a slide here to talk about that. Um here's a look at the preliminary plat as if this request was approved. There would be two areas of right of way that would be acquired that would reduce the lot size. There'd be one off of Eden Prairie Road that the county has made a request. There was an attachment with a letter from the county talking about their request uh for additional rightway. It's uh 7 ft if I'm not mistaken. And then over on the other side, Chastic Way, um the city of Mitaka actually would also make a request for additional right ofway. Uh 10 ft. Chastic way is um a narrow street as it is and a narrow right ofway. though this would be getting us closer to that conforming amount for future projects. Um, also I showed the buildable area on here and I did do another chart cuz again I like my numbers and I like my charts. So on here um they the request even with these dedication so if the city council approved this request uh the request would fairly easily meet all the standards I talked about before a lot with flat depth buildable area. Um, but that what would happen is the variance would be greater than what's currently being requested. So it'd be a the lots go down to around a little bit over 20,000 square feet instead of the 21. Other questions for staff? Commissioner Minion, will you talk a little bit about the likelihood of those additional reductions of the lot size? Someone you talked about it was uh the county had written a very nice letter. Um what do you think will the city and county both be looking for more land or more space for these lots? Commissioner Minion and chair. So planning is an interesting point where that um with compared to a lot of other requests where the city can make this um requirement as part of a condition of approval requiring additional rightway. So we've done that with u multiple projects. If you remember back Tonka Flats we just had a few weeks ago. Uh there was a tiny bit of city requested right away and also some from the county too. So this would be similar to that where the city would put that as a condition of approval requiring it. And um I would say it isn't a percentage chance. It be 100% chance. This is what the city and then the county would put in there as a condition of approval if this was approved. Commissioner Henry. Thanks, Chair. In the writeup, the applicants talked about, and I think the city mentioned it, too, about the I think it was mostly the applicants about the possibility of acquiring enough land to make sure that both of the lots were 22,000 ft². But then, this may be more of a question for the applicant too versus the city. And I see that heads are nodding, so I probably should ask them about that. I know that one cannot be compelled to sell to a neighbor if if you need that. So just from the city's perspective, was there any discussion about that and what came of it or is this a question better asked to the applicant? Your gut was right, Commissioner Henry. I would leave that to the applicant. So I will have you uh ask them that question when they're up to chat. Maybe a hypothetical then. So, if the applicant was able to negotiate a deal with the neighbor to acquire as much land as necessary to have at least 22,000 ft per lot, then would this not require a variance? Commissioner Henry, it still would require a variance. Uh, even if that additional area was required, I would say it'd be looked at a little bit differently because at that point, the city's request for additional rightway would be creating the variance. So um I have some knowledge that the applicant can share a bit more about that conversation but um that was brought up where again if there's a little bit of land purchase there and then these the two uh dedication of rightaways created the need for the variance that would probably be a different conversation and a different review. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? All right. At this point, I will invite the applicant forward if you'd like to make any comments or additions to the staff presentation. Please state your name and your address for the record through this process. Um, we've had tons of conversation. He sure he dreads my emails and my phone calls every single day. Um but with that said um thank you for all your help going through this process. So um all right so as we worked through the process we had the three we had the three legal standards that we had to meet. um reasonable use. I think we have that one relatively set. We would build houses that meet the neighborhood that relatively fit in in with the neighborhood. Um unique condition that right ofway is where we where we started to we went down back and forth on many different conversations, but essentially going to your question about acquiring land. We started there and while going to that point we we could have we we discussed with the neighbors adding enough square footage to get above that 1acre line. When we in parallel with that happening, our survey company actually contacted the county. They notified me of the the land the county would be taking back and the the land that the city would be taking back likely. So that kind of killed that conversation of we're going to need a variance regardless because even though we could make it over an acre for a period of time, it would only be for that quick period of time and then through this process we'd lose it. So that was kind of how that came to be. Um trying to skip through the things that Drew covered here. Um, so I I I think Drew, can you happen to share the the the graphic that I I shared today? So the one thing that we kind of disagreed on as we went through the process and I I say that in just in fun is how how we calculate um what the neighborhood is. And while Eden Prairie Road and further north and south may be partially considered the neighborhood, I I would consider the neighborhood the Chastek Way Road and then the Glendale Road back and forth. Um those neighborhoods or those those properties in this area are clearly smaller. So the way that I calculated them, um too many notes here. um 19 of those homes out of the 30 30 there are actually non-conforming at this point. Um so two of them are for some reason withheld from calculation. One is, I believe, city- owned and one it was a nonprofit, which I don't know why that would make it not part of the neighborhood, but maybe the city owned it could be considered a park or something like that um in the future. So, that that's how I came to to my calculations that are in there. Um and then if you go obviously our calculation of 400 feet with my rudimentary tools didn't quite meet his exact we're we're very close there. So it's about 50% of the neighborhood is conforming 50% isn't depending on where you're measuring from and what tool you're using. So, um yeah, the um let's see here. So, the other thing that I think is kind of significant is is that as you walk down Glendale Road, our if if we were to be approved, our properties would be um 155 ft of frontage and 165 respectively. If you go through the whole neighborhood there, that's actually larger than 90% of the rest of the properties. So from the street that's sign that 370 feet square feet of difference or shortage is probably not noticeable. Um so that that that's kind of my thought process there. Um, with all that said, the one other comment, and I know this is not legally binding in any way, shape, or form, but one conversation we had, Susan mentioned it at one point, Drew mentioned it, is that the 2040 plan is leaning towards a little bit more dense properties and that they're working through adjusting or potentially adjusting the minimum lot size throughout the next year. So theoretically next year this might not even be a conversation. So with that said, I went through the uh through the uh 2040 plan and that's the notes that I shared today. I I spent that time this morning um doing some research and pulled out all of those notes. So there it's really just comments along the lines of improve or using underutilized land and underdeveloped land and starting to utilize it. So that that's kind of the again the thought process there. Um let's see here. So yeah, I guess the the other thing to state is that the 2040 comprehensive plan prioritizes infill, flexibility of lot size, unlocking underused parcels for smart development. In my mind, this project meets every one of those goals using highquality design, preserving natural resources, providing appropriately scaled homes on lots that would be would not be larger than the rest of the neighborhood or than the majority of the neighborhood. Um, I guess with that, is there any questions? Thank you, Commissioner Hansen. Sorry, just I think I missed the start. Can I get your name? Oh, it's all it's all good. I think I missed it. No, Jesse went um 5328 Spring Lane Minnotonka resident for 15 years. Any other questions for the applicant? It looks like not at this time. We may bring you up later after the public hearing for more questions or comments. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thanks, J. All right. At this point, I will open the public hearing. Um, again, if you'd like to make comments, please come forward. State your name and your address for the record. Try not to repeat points already spoken. Keep your comments brief. Uh, direct your questions, comments to me. And then after the public hearing closes, we'll either bring back up the applicant or ask staff all the questions that we hear during this public hearing. I see some discussion. Okay, someone's moving. Hi, my name is Phil Bulmier. I'm at 5809 Chastic Way. I am the neighbor to the south. Um I guess I guess uh yeah. So I have the 0 93 right right on the south of it. I was approached by uh the developers here, the builders um to sell a portion of the norththeast part of our land right by our driveway. Can't really see it, but it's northeast right on this on the northeast section of our land there. Um there was discussion about it. Um, it came down to whether it would affect me or not. Um, whether it would affect the usability of my lot, the usability of what I have envisioned for my lot as well. Um, I have a driveway that kind of goes from Eden Eden Prairie Road through to Chazec and it runs the whole length of that. And on that northeast corner, um, yeah, on that northeast corner, I have there is a small shed. Um, and my plan was at some point to build some kind of a shop or something there. Um, the conversations that I've had with with Mr. uh Jesse on on that on his purchasing it and I understand now that that he may still need a variance thereafter. So this might be a moot point but um you know currently that spot is where I push all my snow to push all my leaves to. It's it is it is what I'm using it for. Um, but then also when I build this new shop on that norththeast corner, um, if that lot were to be if that that 700 square feet, as small as that seems, if I was to do that, that would then kick in some of these setbacks that he is now dealing with. Um, so the conversation of, you know, whether or not I wanted or was willing to sell that land, I am for the right price. Right. So, and and so the numbers may or may not have made sense to him, but at the same time, it does the land that he was wanting to buy does affect me long term um going forward as well. You know, if we have two, you know, $1.5 million homes that are built or one, you know, whatever that is, increases my taxes, increases all my neighbors taxes, and that doesn't just end next year. it goes for the rest of time. And so, you know, this does affect what we're doing. Um, I guess the the biggest thing is that I I was I I am and I I am and was willing to sell some land for the correct price, but the price that was offered wasn't even covering, you know, my attorney's fees or anything else. And then what I have to go through, I have to change my mortgage. I have to change my P. I have to do there's a lot that more more that goes on to it for for the number that was talked about. So, um, I don't think that that conversation is completely dead. I think it just needs to be redised with him is kind of where I'm at. So, anything welcome. Please state your name and your address for the record. Thank you. Lacy Chamberlain, 47 uh 59 Hamilton Road. We used to live on Chastack Way here. And I just wanted to offer my support for the points pointed out and probably hit on number two and number three a bit more cuz I think the beauty of Minnotonka is really the neighborhoods and the breadth of the you know neighborhood that it has. So wanted to again just offer our support that we think keeping this as a lot is really helping maintain the character of the neighborhood and also um you know the uniqueness of it as well. So feels like the split is really you know I'm not sure aligns with the criteria outlined as much um versus maintaining that character so that the neighborhood can continue to really thrive as a place for children and homes and families with the school right there. So just appreciate you listening. Thank you. All right. I don't see anybody else moving. This is your last chance. All right. Uh it looks like we're uh have no one else who wants to speak. So, I will close the public hearing and I will bring it back to the commission for any questions for the applicant or staff or comments. Who wants to go first? Commissioner Hansen. I'm lead off. Um, maybe just a quick question for Drew as I've thought about the kind of the the multiple processes for for acquiring the land a little bit out of the scope, but is it no matter what happens, will the city and the county come looking for more additional right of way in this instance? And I don't think that matters. I'm just kind of curious right now if the application is approved. Yes. Got it. So, it's just this just this one triggering point that opens the door for the city and the county to step in and Yes. Uh, Commissioner be aggressive. Commissioner Hansen and Chair, this is comes with all plats. Whenever there is a plat, that's an opportunity for to uh there's a lot of roads within Mitanka and throughout the area that have non-conforming roads. I mean, as you have, we've seen through this application, we talked about this house being built in 1908. roads were quite a bit different at that point uh than they are today. So during these times that's when um legally the city has the right to make that as a condition. Commissioner Waterman. Thanks Chair. Uh thanks to everyone who who spoke and uh to the developer who's looking at this property and looking to invest in Minnetonka. Uh to the neighbors who are providing their feedback and these letters. Um, so I I I see why the city is following the guidelines and had to recommend um denial. Um, and I was chewing on that. you know, there's um for the reasons listed in the packet, which I think was pretty clear, and then also just kind of getting some of the clarification about less than 50% of the neighborhood being non-conforming and and um of course the point the point is well taken about what where we're headed with some zoning and and the the comp plan, but I mean, the ordinance right now is still the ordinance. Um that said, I mean, there are so few variances here. It's it's so close. I mean, this this property just seems like it it should qualify for subdivision. And I think that's what these kind of meetings are for and and applying that judgment. Um, it's not just meeting most of the the the kind of the buy the numbers, check the box standards. It's really exceeding a lot of those. It's I mean, we're not running into the tree protection ordinance, which um we've we've been able to subdivide a fair amount of properties. Um, but I I'm always concerned about running up against that. Um, and it's not happening here. This would uh this this would allow for some more roadway access. Um even though there less than 50% of the neighborhood is non-conforming. I mean still there are a fair amount nearby that are uh it's an interesting point about the frontage. Like it'll have more than others in the neighborhood. Um so I similar to before and I feel like I rarely disagree with the city and I can't believe there's two tonight. Um, I I I disagree. I think that this property um could and could be subdivided and and I would support a variance. Um, and I I just don't think it will have a a tremendously adverse impact to the neighborhood. Thanks for going first. Anybody else? Commissioner Hansen, I I would probably piggy back off that um on first read through of this. I would, you know, it's kind of it's so close that feels like you're within the margin of error or standard deviation, whatever nerdy math you want to use. Um, so I mean based upon that, I think I supported it. And then I mean, honestly, the this is probably a property that needs a little revitalization in my mind. Just how it's sitting today, it could kind of have some life breathed back into it a little bit. So, um I probably would be willing to support the subdivision tonight. Who's next? Commissioner Brink. Uh just quick uh question for the applicant. Um is the intent for each lot to have its own driveway or there was some talk in the report about a shared driveway too. Yeah. So, these are proposed dwellings with with two sh or two separate driveways. And the one thing I'll say is that there's quite a bit of buildable space, especially on the lot to the left, and we can shift it around or turn it as necessary. So, I think we're flexible there. This was just, you know, something we can get in front of you to see show you what we've got. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Commissioner Henry. Yeah, they don't make it easy for the applications that come in front of us. There's there's a lot to weigh in this one and the city as usual has done a very thoughtful job in quantifying the rationale for their decision. Going back to the three criteria, is it reasonable? uh the city made the comment that it probably is reasonable or they said maybe. Is there a unique circumstance? You could say, well, there's just short of the the lot size necessary to to avoid a variance. Although you have the the city and the county taking some more lot space, too. But then you have the neighborhood character and the city did a a pretty thoughtful job to say why in their opinion it wasn't in character with the rest of the neighborhood. if over half are conforming and this one wouldn't be conforming. That's it's a it's a valid argument in the language of the variance if it's appropriate or not. The language states that if it's not solely for the landowner's convenience and solely because of economic conditions I look at that as a very compelling argument and the crux of this do can we can we approve a variance? Yes. Is it in the city's best interest to approve a variance? In my mind, I don't think it is. If we look at the the character of the neighborhood, we we mentioned about people move to Minnitaka because of the large lot sizes and a lot of the tree coverage and solely to to to develop a land because they can because we can approve a variance. Does that make it appropriate and the right the right the highest use of the property to do so? In my opinion, I don't think it is. a beautiful house could be built on here, almost one acre with some of the the gentle sloping terrain, and that would be more in in line with the character of the city. So, I would welcome uh know the commissioner mentioned that we should redevelop the property. I think it's it's it could be appropriate to do so, not with two lots, but with one, having it blending in nicely with the rest of the the neighborhood, I think would be a great use of this property. So, I would fully support that. But as it's written, I agree with the city's recommendation that I I will not support this. Commissioner Minion, no, I'm the one vacasillating. I'm really big into when we can take our lots and and divide them up and make more homes for our community. And it's really important on many many levels. Um but I think the city um it's one thing to look at a piece of paper and to look through and review the paper that we have. But um and the numbers that were brought up from the applicant to the city, the discrepancies that they have is how they they count them up. Um but I have to say when I drove the property and looked at the property first, I thought it was a great idea to divide it. But when I looked and rethought through what the city had provided about the neighborhood character, um they're all larger lots there. This would make a difference in how the community, how the um neighborhood drives, how it looks. Um, I'm a bit torn to be honest and um, I'm leaning towards supporting the city's position of denying it, but um, I don't know. To be honest, I have to say I don't know. I'm I'm leaning towards the city's deal, but there's so many great reasons to support this division as well. Sorry for not having a firm answer for you right now. Any other comments or questions? Commission Hson, I'll just I I totally hear that and I totally agree. There could be one big house here. In 40 years, if you drive by and there's two houses there, you're not going to know any difference in my opinion. That's just my opinion. I'm an idiot. You are still smarter than me, but it's a low bar. So, I I take that longitudinal view and say like we go through St. Louis Park and there's all these houses packed in and it's we're not St. Louis Park, but this is still going to be a pretty decent sized lot. 22,000 ft. We're so close. So, 40 years from now, I don't know if the next set of residents would recognize that. Again, that's just my opinion. Commissioner Brink. Yeah, I I'm kind of I'm kind of in a quandry just like u um Commissioner Minion there. I could go either way on this and I I think there's very strong arguments in both directions here and I I you know empathize and respect all of those. So I'm uh yeah, still trying to make up my mind here. Uh when I looked at this, I was thinking about the 2040 comp plan and where do we want to go as a city and then considering that we have a a effort ongoing to redo zoning code and part of that effort will likely be to reduce the minimum lot size. I see not just 40 years down the road, you're not going to notice, but in two or three years, it will likely be possible to do this subdivision without any uh variances or with less variance than there is now. So, I see it as in 10 years it's going to be subdivided by somebody probably. This is speculation, right? But um um but that's sort of what I was thinking that what the city is looking for in 20 the 2040 comp plan is is increasing some density, decreasing lot size where appropriate where it does not change the the character of the neighborhood and that's really character of the neighborhood. Do you have a comment? Thank you chair. You got my wave down. Um I should have mentioned this earlier. I heard a few comments from the applicant. I just want to clarify. I don't know if this will I don't think this is going to be earthshattering. Um, one comment that I'll get to and then I'll get to another one. Uh, the first one was the properties that were reviewed in here. I just want to make a note that it was a city-owned property that is currently used for storm water. A school-owned property that is much larger than 22,000 ft². Uh, a golf property too that's county owned that wasn't included and then a church. So, those weren't included in that calculation because of the fact that those are not looked to have single family homes in the future. Um but then a bigger clarification I wanted to first make um the applicant submitted some items that are talking about the comprehensive plan and if we are talking about a variance from the zoning section which is chapter 3 we would say it has to be consistent with the with the land use comprehensive plan because this is a variance from the subdivision section. The land use section doesn't apply. So these are the sections that are included in here. It's a little different than the usual variances we have. One other thing I will note is that we are currently talking about today's city code, not any hypothetical future ones. I know that we talk and uh Miss Tossk can um add on to this cuz she's been leading that process. Um I would be cautious to talk about what future zoning requirements might be because that is something that is currently not in place. And tonight we are looking at our current zoning code and looking at how that currently sits. Um, we none of us can say exactly what that future zoning code will be, but we need to look at the one that's currently in front of us. Thank you, chair. Yes, chair. I I would just add on to that for anyone who may be viewing. Again, we're at the beginning of our zoning ordinance update. Um, we're looking at all things zoning, including lot size. We don't know where all of this will end. It may end in something different. Um, but I I just want to caution everyone about um thinking or knowing that we're going to be at a a different area in in a year and a half when we get through all of that. We we don't know where we're going to end up. We're at the very beginning. Thanks. Yes. Acknowledged. Consider me chastised. Um but but my point was 2040 comp plan is is pushing towards infill of lots where we can and potentially um allowing flexibility to have smaller um smaller lot size as long as it doesn't change the character of the neighborhood. I also am I could go either way on this one really. I feel like when we're when you're driving by on the street really I'd see the the width at the right ofway makes more um of an impact and the F the floor area ratio makes more of an impact in my mind of when I'm driving by than the pure square footage of a lot. You could have a deep lot but from the street it might not look any different. And so in my mind, the fact that this meets and aligns with most of the properties uh in the area from that perspective, from with that that setback, um that is a a a good definition of how this fits in with the the rest of the neighborhood were it to be um subdivided. Then the other thing I want to talk about with neighborhood character was part of this that what I've heard in the neighborhood comments is the charm of this. Um, and it's a house that's built in 1908. And I think if you take that down and replace it with something else, that will feel as you're driving by like the character of the neighborhood is changing without doing any subdivision, it it will feel different when it is um if it is uh rebuilt. Uh so those are my my two comments, I guess, on uh neighborhood character. If anybody else has any u rebuttal, feel free. I can acknowledge that. Commissioner Henry, thank you. Not so much a rebuttal, but in addition to some that which already was mentioned earlier in the meeting where we mentioned that there is a a commission that's looking or a group that's looking at redoing the zoning plan and the city mentioned earlier in the meeting that we have a couple of ways for the city or for citizens to provide feedback on that. So we have on Minnitonka matters on our website there is a visual survey. So I'd encourage every citizen of Minnitankka to go out there and make their voice heard. The reason why we have a a panel looking at the zoning ordinance is because that could be in accordance with the will of the people and the people need to speak to make their voices heard on this. And there's also that phone survey. So please don't hang up when you hear that there's uh the phone survey about the change in the zoning commission. Your voice matters in this. Thanks Mr. Any other comments? Otherwise, I think I would propose that we do the same thing we did in the last uh the last item where we uh vote on whether or not to agree with the staff and then if that doesn't pass then we go on the the next path. All right. If there are no more comments, um I will take a not um a motion to recommend that the city council approve the resolution denying the form of cold preliminary plat and variances at 14705 Glendale Road. Who would like to make that motion? I'll get us going. I'll make the motion. Uh motion Hansen. I'll second the motion. Second. Henry staff, please pull the commission. Minion, yes. Waterman, no. Brink, no. Hansen, no. Henry, yes. Maxwell, no. That um motion fails. Um, so at this point, can we do should we make a motion to approve it or should we just let the council take this that the motion to deny failed and they can do what they want with it? Uh, Chair Maxwell, if you are ready to make a motion to approve it um recommending approval, I think that would be helpful um to the council. Again, this is a variant, so we would need some guidance on um the findings. I took some notes again if you'd um I may need a little bit help out in the unique circumstance and again because this is in the subdivision ordinance as Mr. Inglesson noted the variant standard is a little bit different. There's just three prongs instead of five prongs. So uh again I heard and grouped reasonableness and neighborhood character together noting that many neighborhoods in the surrounding area do not meet minimum lot size already. Um and so reasonleness and neighborhood character. Um unique circumstance. I hope you don't recall that this one I do think the unique circumstance is that it's.99 acres. I don't know if that creates like I just don't want to open this up to like oh every meeting it's like well we're only at 0.9 then point8 but like that's just so close. So and and we can certainly reflect that in your um your motion. Certainly. I mean, that is my rationale. So, Commissioner Henry, did you have something to add? Well, we just need to take this as it's presented to us, but recall that if this does get approved, then city and county will be taking some more land, too. So, that'll have to be an additional variance with a smaller lot size, too. So, just what you mentioned will be happening soon. All right. Uh, and then was um neighborhood character one that you had notes on as well, Miss Hall? Uh, Commissioner Maxwell and, uh, Commissioners, Chair Maxwell, pardon me, and and commissioners. Um, as I did in the last variance, I think, and sometimes staff does also, we group those two together. it's reasonable um and would not change alter neighborhood character because many properties in the surrounding area already do not meet those minimum standards. So it is acceptable to to group two of the three prongs together. All right. Thank you. Would anybody here like to make a motion approving? Go ahead, Commissioner. I just have one other comment. This is not a bombshell comment. It's just a since we're going down this path. This is a minor point. I just want to pull something that Commissioner Brink was was saying just about the regarding the driveways in that there would be access like two new driveways off of a road. I think it's relevant just cuz I again I'm sensitive to the next full acre almost full acre lot you know people looking to subdivide and it's like oh we're trying to jam in and and you've got driveways and shared driveways. I think that's one more reason that this makes a lot of sense. So, I just wanted to pull that all the way across since we're probably proposing a recommendation uh to approve the variance. And I would make that motion to approve uh the variance. So, this to recommend that the city council approve. Thank you. All right. Motion, Waterman, do I have a second? I will second. All right. Second, Hansen. Staff, please pull the commission. Minion. No. Waterman, yes. Brink, yes. Henry, no. Hansen, yes. Maxwell, no. So, that also fails. Um, so we'll let the city council do with that as they will. You're welcome, city council. Uh, all right. Well, uh, that will be heard by the city council on the July 14th meeting and Chair Maxwell and just for the members of the audience, all of the discussion here, um, your motions, all of that is reflected to the city council. So, um, the city council will see um, your thoughts both for and against the project. All right, that brings us to our next item, other business for which there is none. And then the last item is adjournment. Uh, commissioners, do I have a motion to adjurnn? Make the motion. Motion, Henry. I'll second. Second. Waterman. All those in favor say I. I. I. And we are adjourned. Have a good night. [Music]