[Music] good evening it's 7 o' we'll call the meeting order Kev would you take the rooll please yes I will thank you Mr chair commissioner LaRon here commissioner wager here commissioner Steeler here commissioner Gerard here commissioner Young here commissioner Miller here and we have one absent yes very good we're asking for aable please stand and join us for the Pledge of Allegiance Al to the flag of the United States of America the for it stands one nation indivisible andice for all before we go any further tonight I'd like to introduce you to J Jordan Layman she has been a intern for the planning department for the summer uh recent University of Minnesota graduate and she will be presenting one of the uh uh agenda items this evening so Jordan welcome to the Planning Commission we look forward to your input and just so you know don't get used to her she's done Friday so you're welcome and we wish you well glad to have you here with that the chair is looking for a motion to approve the agenda as presented or with changes make a motion to approve the agenda I have a motion and a second second second all those in favor signify by saying I I I oppos no I wish had wished to remove items three 5 b and 5 C from the agenda however I vow to the will of the group uh you can pull them under the consent agenda vote okay thank you sir so chair is looking for a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented or if someone would like the item removed so be it Mr chair I would like to approve the consent agenda removing for separate considerations item 5B and 5 C I have a motion with uh to pull items 5B and C so we would have the consent agenda would be just item eight approved the Planning Commission meeting minutes from June 12th 2024 so I have a motion do I have a second I'll second all those in favor signy saying I I opposed extensions very good all right uh item 5B Susan you asked that to be pulled yeah um staff on the Autumn Hills Apartments they're asking for the variance to have a shorter than usual uh parking Lane they want to go 18 ft instead of 20 and the comment in the staff report was that um cars vehicles and trucks could overhang the sidewalk um so that the driving lane was clear um I I I don't think that's a good precedent or a good standard for us to set um one of the joys of having kids is that you get to experience other places and uh I've just spent a week dodging vehicles that overhang the sidewalk um I think that if if that is something that is a problem and the city does not require a sidewalk in that area then we would better off be better off not requiring the sidewalk and instead saying no you you don't need a sidewalk there and we will have our code required 20 foot long parking spaces I I'm concerned with with the precedent that we're setting and the and and it comes up on on Shadow Creek also um so I'm I was I just if you could help me understand that please Mr chair members of the commission the proposal for this case and having problems getting the image up is to replace the parking with the same side they're not changing the sidewalk other than handicap uh facilities going in for the pedestrians for to the new sidewalks to the building uh yes big vehicles come back over a sidewalk and potentially block it I didn't see a value in making them enlarge the parking lot when they have garages to the South sidewalk to the north that I didn't even think there was room that they could change the layout when it's really a repair and replace in place so it's somewhat I would say challenging to get it bigger unless we want them to tear out the sidewalk and move it back three feet or two feet and then replace the sidewalk and they were not proposing that I understand that the challeng is with the site but I also understand that once we have allowed this and have stated it and and say yes and and it's not a problem in the future these things have a tendency to grow over time that's and and there's the image Abby found it kind it work y thank you Abby so the existing spots are 18 ft long and the proposed spots are again 18 ft long and with the garages to the South there's now the drive a might be 24 or 25 ft so maybe they'll be a little longer room there but the existing sidewalk is not being proposed to be changed along the north side how many you need 24 fet in the drive aisle right yes and right now you got 26 plus yeah down and it might be about 25 by the garages As you move East so they could stripe them to 19 ft well there's 2439 or stripe them to 19 ft but there's still be going to be Vehicles backing up to the sidewalk it doesn't change that I am just concerned that that not become the standard for the city I hear what you're saying commissioner young it is a legal non-conformity that state law and our code would allow them to maintain I but I hear you saying that you want to State at least for their record that 9 by8 it should not be the standard that we're using or that we rely upon in the future that is absolutely correct thank you any other comments on item 5B I do Kevin um Abby um I say I hear you say it's a legal nonconformity but they are proposing to redo it and since they're proposing to redo it we can instill or change what we are doing there right we could ask them to make it bigger if we wanted to I believe we can ask them I'm not sure about the legal requirement because our code does say that they can maintain it including replace it and so I I'd have to check our code section specifically but I'm fairly certain our code allows them to maintain repair replace in exact without us obligating them to come into con we could ask them no okay because you can see on every car parked here on the images we have they are well over the sidewalk most of them other comments hearing none chair is looking for a motion to approve the site plan review item 5B autum Hills Apartment do I have a motion and Mr chair just be clear there is a resolution of the packet for that item 9 2401 just so do we need uh two motions one to approve this or no approve the resolution it's approving the resolution all right and that and that has all the conditions of approval thank you for educating me happy to help chair is welome for a motion to approve 5B resol uh site plan review for Autumn Hill departments Campbell property 70612 Street Southwest resolution number 09-11 d24 d01 I'll motion to approve do I have a second I'll second I have a motion and a second any discussion hearing none all those in favor signif saying I I I opposed no no we have two NOS motion carries for to vote if I heard this end correct it was all y okay yep all right item five C Shadow Creek Estates 6152 202nd Street North final plat PUD final plan site plan review Susan you ask this one to also be pulled um I've got got several questions and and a concern but what can I help you with Susan well the concern is that if there had been if we had had concerns about the final PL and and the Pud um they've already started their work and I realized that the city council uh made the decision to grant them that but again I'm I'm concerned about if if this is going to be the way we're going to be doing business in the future that that's a concern can can I dress side first yes please they requested and were granted a grading permit with the understanding there was no guarantee of approval of V this next phase that we're in now they're just prepping the site no utility work no Street work till all these approvals go through they're just grading and they did some tree removal uh it it's not our goal to do this separately because there's more reports more approvals more documentation it's our goal to have this all ideally be all wrapped up in one set of approvals everything's approved then they start the grading in the site work with the winter with winter coming they asked and rece granted a Grady permit to get started earlier that's why we are we are at where we are at right now again I'm just concerned about how how we move forward um in in the report I understand that um it is a non-conforming first is the entire property part of our final PUD or is the horse stable area excerpted from the final PUD no that um Mr chair members of the commission the horse facility horse stables and the northeast corner are in the Pud um one second Susan please but the property to the West is not correct that's second parcel the second parcel and that's no approvals no nothing for that okay so we're only on the right side correct correct thank you one of the things that historically as a Planning Commission we have tried to do is when folks were doing puds or when folks were doing variances we were trying to make things better um if if there was a variance um and they had significant impermeable area we tried to make sure that that there was no or very very minimal impermeable area in return for the variants or on a PUD that there is significant public use I am very concerned about the grazable area um because yes there have been horses grazing all the way to the property lines of those homes to the north in the past and um it is their long-term plan to not be able to have the property to the West be used for manure management as they do now and the Washington County rules are pretty clear um you need two grazable acres per animal unit a h is an animal unit um if we go forward and um approve this my concern is that we are setting ourselves up in the future for a significant problem as an aside I think that when they do significant grading they need silt fences and they're doing significant grading on the arena um and there are no silt fences so if that that concerns me that if we are doing this as a final PUD we're going to be setting ourselves up for a real challenge in the future um with respect to the number of horses and and we essentially turn this into a feed lot um and and and that's let me go let me go there first and your thoughts on that please a couple things the final PUD and final PL are very consistent with the preliminaries that were approved last year and so they have brought forth now their final plans including the building plans consistent with what was approved a year ago by the city council and I brought my my concern forward then too and and that hasn't changed as far as the grading and the number of horses uh the applicants here Mr Christenson it might be better to pose those questions to him but I understand your concern about grazable acres and number of animal units and those kind of things I don't have a great answer but maybe Todd can speak to that um then for staff could we on the 25 foot setbacks yes those are setbacks from the curb is this are are the the buildings that we're we're approving tonight is there a our sidewalks planned in that subdivision yes on uh believe just the north side of the new Street okay how wide are the sidewalks and the um and do the sidewalks above the curb there's about a one or two foot buffer or Boulevard Boulevard thank you and then it's a six foot wide sidewalk okay then I'm getting back to the length of parking right um it becomes an issue because there's no way that you can park the pick them up trucks so that you have sufficient space to pass in front of the truck to get into your house or garage and not overhang the sidewalks um and just so I I I throw them all out there can ium certainly I'm sorry please uh I'm reviewing the plan the sidewalk is in the RightWay and then from the and so then there's a one foot I was I need to be correct I think the sidewalk is almost right against the curb on the North side and then there's about a 1 foot uh Boulevard between the edge of the sidewalk and the property line and then from the property line to the front of the building is believe 20 ft so they unless you have a boat a trailer or a long pickup there should be enough room between the front of the structure and the sidewalk to not overhang any of the sidewalk what I'm reading here is that the requested deviation is 20 ft to back of curb or sidewalk Edge so there there will be sidewalk Edge on that side all right thank you that's and back of curb is on the south side thank you that's there's no sidewalk that's really helpful um there are some numbers in here that that don't add up um on the the Landscaping yes um on the Landscaping there are 91 overstory trees in your in your materials not 98 as St ated and um you've got 18 under story trees not 15 is stated so the numbers there's just an incorrection in the numbers um it does say in here that you're asking for a new landscape plan corre if we approve the finals this evening how will the city um enforce a revised requirements for landscaping please uh Mr chair members of the commission that's one of the conditions it's 18 H I think is the I'm looking at my report and part of the reason for the change is also is some of where they were proposing trees would be over underground utilities so they have to be moved and then we will be working closely with the applicant and their landscape architect to fit in as many trees as possible even appears on the North side uh on the north side of the ditch that's on the north side of the or sale that's on the north side of the north buildings up along the north property line there's room there for tree planting so before we say go they will have a landscape plan that meets the engineering requirements and meets planning requirements for tree count and Tree location and I seem to remember that when we my final question is I seem to remember when we were first talking about this plat the commission was concerned about parking in this area and that if folks have company or um they're in one of their homes and they have a teenager or two where would cars park and I thought that and again I'm old and I forget but I thought that we had requested that there be some areas where party parking or visitor parking would be because this is a very tight area U Mr chair members of the commissioner you're absolutely right it is very tight the only spots that we could identify that are possible for parking are along the east side of the north south street at the West End otherwise there's driveways everywhere there's no place for any on street parking and that will I think have to to be their own their own reality and the HOA will have to maybe get involved if there becomes a problem and which means the city will get the phone calls also but they're they're short of having them remove a couple of units and put in a overflow parking lot there is really no spot to add parking except on that East end or West End east side of the driveway or road okay then I fully fully fully agree and support the request by Public Works not to plow this area yes they they they are they don't want it it it will be a nightmare yes thank you very much I appreciate any other questions for staff Mr chair if there are any other questions the applicant is here if need to be I do have a couple questions um Susan hit a couple of them so it's no big deal but there for the longest time where I would say they're kind of separating block one from the horse farm there was a trail that we discussed ad nauseum yes um and now it has disappeared it if I may they are it's on the plans they are building a trail that'll come up starting you know but it looks like that so start about here where my mouse is okay and then go across and then up the how about is there any chaning go to page 48 or the report well I was having problems with that I can if you need all right it's on the very first sheet of the plan set and it's on some of the other plan sheets and it will go up to the park on the north side of the plat the north see the northwest corner of the plat side there you go thank you yes and then there was is it one of the conditions as we went past down by the Wetland there or the storm right there it was supposed to go to the east here all the way through somewhere right along here um forever there was a trail there if I made the changes now it's going to become a sidewalk along the south side of the West Town Homes and then a sidewalk along the north side of the new Street out to good view that way because of the wet land and trying to go through Wetland that was not really feasible so the alternative was to have the sidewalk alternative along the new Street and and my only other well I have two actually now all of a sudden we appear with a 7 foot fence I don't recall a fence ever discussed anywhere on this site there wasn't initially but that was suggestion I I don't know if the developer suggested or staff to to provide more screening to the homes to the north there's four backyards there on the East End especially to provide privacy and separation and what's wrong with a six- foot fence for privacy I I don't have well it's just one foot of height that's all but I I didn't have any major heartburn of seven but if you think that's Too Tall and six is fine commissioner yes ma'am on this property I don't know if you've been there today or this week they are right on the backs of some of the sheds and and apperences of those homes and um I would be supportive of 7 feet uh especially since this is going to be a a radical enough change for the folks that are are living to the north there if you're good with it Susan I would have expected you to say no to that well I'm I'm just looking yep that's good cuz yes I did stop there today and um that's really all my questions but as we know whenever we build and we're near nature and it smells like nature um no one's ever happy and they're stunned that they drove by a house farmed here to buy something and now there's going to be horses here um well it' be fun to look at I I I have no problem with the horses being there um my my question is how do the residents you know how do we make sure they know that they've bought a place that is adjacent to a horse farm you don't I I I don't know of a way to enforce that or make it a a legal require I mean you're the guy who said have to deal with it we just sit up here Kevin go ahead I'm sorry Gabby I just will State for the rick of the property will have an HOA and so I think it would be my hope that the Builder that the developer has teamed up with would be educating the new residents of the conditions around them um but sometimes that that can help at the onset of some of that Ed Early Education but I do hear what you're saying we do have that on all of our Fringe neighborhoods yes we also have the airport near this site also which we get plenty of complaints Kevin just curious why we don't have uh the trail the sidewalks and this fence as part of the conditions they are shown in the plan set and we're approving the plans as a whole so you have conditions that approve those plans specifically plans as presented the numbers that I'm looking sorry where it says we're approving the plans I know we do but let me find it number one typically it's our first condition of most of our resolution the final plans okay yep number two in the second part any other questions regarding Shadow Creek Estates hearing none the uh chair is looking for a motion to approve or deny Shadow Creek Estates at 6150 202nd Street North for their final plat PUD final plat site plan review do I have a motion Mr chair Mr chair just be clear there's two motions there's two actions you can do them all once but there's SE two motions you know you shouldn't give us two months almost three months off you know know we're all out of practice all right so I'd be looking for a motion for the final plat first think Kevin had it I if we have a motion a second can the applicant then answer questions from us or we can have the uh applicant ask questions now no bring them forward you have questions good evening gentlemen I have just for the record a name state your name and address for the record please um Todd Christian 6150 202nd Street Forest Lake Susan um could you please help me understand how you're going to be dealing with the um questions regarding horse management that I posed to you what what question exactly are you posing one um the County requirements for 2 acres per animal unit and second manure management especially as you develop the area to the West well the uh I believe we have a conditional use permit for the farm I don't know I don't believe so but I mean we've historically been there um I you know we have we have a full staff of people there that take care of the horses and and the Stalls the paddocks you know we have boarded horses there they all have paddocks they all have plenty of room so it's it's really a professional business it's not just a Stockyard I understand that you have really great staff you Shadow Creek has a has a long excellent reputation we had we had 40 kids come through elementary kids Junior High kids come through there on summer camps this year so I I'd really you know as far as the manure goes um that's an evolving thing that we've been working on right now we're spreading it on the West Side eventually we'll just be storing it and Hauling it over to Dan Taylor's Farm so probably once every other week we'll probably probably haul it over to dams so that's kind of where we've been going with that it is going to be an issue and um that the comment regarding um a very large number of dwelling units um to the immediate North is is going to be a comment and yes you can as you are dry lot most of those horses now with you know there are some very limited grazing but um we have plenty of grazing it's not limited we have plenty of grazing for the horses we have there's been a lot more horses there than there are now so there's plenty of grazing that is not an issue we have three different veterinarians we have everything from horse massagers to trainers to everything housers it's not two horses in the backyard of your house I understand it's a business so so you're you you have the the two acres per per animal unit um I really don't know to be honest with you okay thank you yep chair is looking for a motion for the final PL for shadow Creek estate 6150 202nd Street North do I have a motion Mr chair Kevin I'll make a motion that we recommend to the city council approval of the proposed final plat for Shadow Creek with the seven conditions yes I have a motion do I have a second I'll second it I have a motion and a second any discussion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed abstentions I'm going to abstain sir motion carries five with one abstention give me a second okay I'm looking for a a motion for the final PUD final plan site plan review for shadow qua Straits at 6150 202nd Street North Kev Mr chair I'd like to make a motion to recommend final PUD including site and design plans of the city council with the following 24 conditions and seven attachments I have a motion I have a second I'll second that I have a motion to Second any discussion heing none all those in favor signif by by saying I I I opposed abstentions I'm going to abstain sir motion carries five with one exension good luck with your project thank you your turn item 6A is a public hearing variance for a septic system for John go 7451 190th Street North resolution number 09-11 d24 d02 the way this will work this evening is that the city staff will present the application as they understand it the Planning Commission members will ask any clarification questions uh that they may have we will then ask if the applicant would like to um add anything to the conversation uh and after that we will host a public hearing I'll give a few more details during the public hearing right before the public hearing we will close the public hearing at that point it'll come back to the Planning Commission um for a final decision uh on variances we are the final decision um there is one exception if someone is uh not pleased with the decision they can appeal it to the city council if there is a fee I believe it's a couple $100 um and you have uh seven business seven calendar days to file the appeal so that being says I I I believe Jordan you're presenting yep it's all yours all right um so the applicants Tatiana and John go um the owners of 7451 190th Street are seeking to replace their current septic system because it's failing um their current SE uh system is right here in yellow um it was agreed upon um purchase said the seller would construct this new septic system and they employed Ben Zer of Zer soil testing who um was tasked with designing this new system he proposed that the uh new system be located in the northeast corner of the property which is up here in red um but during the permit plan review process the property owners were notifi by Washington County that there was a unmapped wetland that was identified in the Northeast um which is this Green Dot line up here um the Sweatland is 44 feet from the proposed site which presents a problem for the applicant because the required setback for a septic system from the Wetland is 75 ft um the property owners are requesting a variance of 31 ft from the unmapped Wetland to the East and Zer says that there's only two suitable locations on the property for a septic system one is where the um proposed Northeast location is in red um which is preferred as it consists of native soils with um better drainage and ability for wastewater treatment um the other is where the current system is in yellow over here um but this is not preferred as it consists of clay soils which is deemed less suitable for septic system and require more soil correction and Grading so staff reviewed this variance application and found that the conr struction of the septic system is a reasonable use of the property and the need for the variance AR from arose from circumstances unique to the property and was not created by the landowner as they did not create the shape of the lot and um they did not know about the location of the unma or they did not know about the unmapped Wetland prior to purchase of the property um and staff believes that this variance uh will not have negative impacts on the public welfare on neighboring Properties or the Wetland as the new system should provide better protection of the area as it um better protection for the area and um groundwater um as it will be compliant with current standards so staff recommends approval of the requested variants by adoption of the resolution um number 91142 and just to note this resolution was revised to add the three conditions of approval I'm sorry can you repeat that last part it was revised um this resolution was revised um to add the three conditions of approval so the handout you have is the updated one the one in the packet that went out we forgot to put in those three conditions thank you questions of our perel Jordan I have a Don the distance from the well to the proposed Mound I see is 65 ft which is appears to be closer than the existing was what what's our limits on that maybe I missed it when I was reading through this but um I don't know so I would refer this question to Ken I believe the standard is at least 50 feet 50 okay okay other questions of Staff heing none is the applicant present do they wish to add anything I ask you to please come up state your name and address for the record my name is John go uh address is 7451 19th Street north um just one slight correction I think is that the existing Mound um As I understood wasn't failing according to Washington County but um it doesn't meet their current updated um regulations I forget when it was built exactly but so it's failing the new requirements but it's technically still working we're able to to use it or I think it would have need to be replaced before we we moved in um and then I it was you can see it I don't know if it was mentioned but the existing Mound um was is closer to a Wildland than this one would would would be my last comment is we don't really care where it is we just want to have a septic so that's it any questions to any applicants sorry sorry um Kevin no I don't have a question to the applicant I have a question to staff any questions for the applicant thank you thank you Kevin so my question to staff is if it's not failing and it's working properly Washington County do they have a requirement that says you have to remove it if it's my understanding Mr chair and members of the commission at a point of sale Washington County requires a septic system inspection testing and if it's not up to current standards then as a condition of the sale the county requires that be either upgraded or replaced and that was the case here could we verify that somehow because my understanding is unless it's not if unless it's not working properly or unless it's not in good working condition there's not a requirement to replace a properly operating system at this time in Washington I I don't have the exact words but yeah the I will say I know this replacement was a condition of the sale of the property and John and his partner recently bought the property the previous sellers escrowed the money to have this new septic system installed because of the county requirement um it was definitely this is not why it came up but it's definitely our experience that when we were looking for houses this was a common thing that came up that the septic need was no longer complying with old standards I was going to say I I don't have the words about why exactly it didn't pass the standards but it was my understanding from talking to zery was that the water wasn't treated the way it should the way newer septics treat the water there's some s additional treatment stuff so I think Washington County believes that it's like bad for the environment the way it is currently or something like that sort of a vague statement Y no I understand so U my experience has been uh there's two things there's a compliance and there's an inspection what a lot of people out there do when they sell their house is they do a compliance even though in a lot of cities you don't need to have a compliance you have to have an inspection done if your system fails then you have to replace your system however some cities do have a point of sale compliance inspection that's required I'm not sure that Washington County requires a compliance inspection at a point of sale that's all I'm asking and if we could verify that I understand you escrowed or the seller escrowed the money for you that's great um but just to be clear I wanted to make sure if Washington County actually requires a compliance as point of sale for every house that's sold in the city of Washington County that's not my understanding I don't we don't have that information tonight we certainly can do some further investigation with the county um in regards to when their requirements kick in and bring that back to the Planning Commission okay that's all I'm asking thanks any other question I do have one more regarding the existing Mound system you said that they could use the existing mound area to put in the new system it would just cost more and it would be a little bit more challenging versus the proposed system where they're going to ask for a variance um it would require more like soil correction and Grading and they it was said that the soil that is where the existing Mount is not as suitable for like Wastewater management and treatment um for a septic system as opposed to the other but it could be done there because it's a mound system yeah it could be done okay and it also be be a little closer to they still need Varian because they're too close to the white land on that side on both sides oh yeah West well it just looks like there's more land there that they could move it around sure sorry we got all night sorry so um again I wish Ben zerki were here because he'd be able to speak more precisely about this but what he told me was that the existing location if you put a septic there he said that it could fail in the next like two three years because of the soil and it would it could fail catastrophically and because of the soil type there it's a big risk so that that was what he told me I'm not I'm sorry I'm not an expert but um he made it seem like it's it could work but it but there's a risk okay I'm just asking questions well and then one last thing is that uh if the variants were not approved I don't know how this works like with the the construction of the septic and and the weather we just want to beat the winter because I think Washington County doesn't yeah okay thank you I'm questions no problem interest in it because we have a lot of money I'm sure you do nope thank you all right this is a public hearing excuse me we ask if you wish to speak to this application come up to the lectum state your name and address for the record spend a couple minutes giving us your thoughts on this application once we have heard from everyone in the public that wishes to speak we will close the public hearing and it'll come back to the Planning Commission for uh further discussion and um motion so with that I'll open the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. does anyone wish to speak to this application can do we have anyone online or is there anything to be read into the minutes uh no and no thank you I'll ask again does anyone wish to speak to this application and can there's still no one online still no one all right we'll close the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Commissioners what's your pleasure to jard if I might just add um I did find uh commissioner Miller on the County's website that a complaints inspection is required at uh point of sale okay perfect thank you I'll make a motion to approve the resolution 09112 402 and with the following three conditions that are stated I have a motion do I have a second I'll second it sir I have a motion and a second any discussion any discussion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I oppose extensions motion carries unanimously good luck with your project thank you welcome to the neighborhood yep we move to item 6B this is also a public hearing it's a variance for a porch Edition for Aaron Wilson and Steven cren 919 Northshore Drive and resolution number 09 1 1-24 d03 Ken are you presenting yes I am all right see if I better Lo with my plans I'm just having a heck of a time here just a minute not it we don't need that one anymore [Music] let's try this so as you introduced my my computer's not playing nice the applicants Aaron Wilson and Steven Ken have requested a or made application to the city for variance for a sidey yard setback for the property of 919 Northshore Trail the I'll display for you okay have put the images up the uh to put a porch Edition on the lake side of the home that would there's the property thank you Abby and there's all sorts of images there the again existing there's the proposal the existing conditions there and then this next image shows the proposed addition going out towards the Lakeside the request for the side variance is because the existing house has a 4.7t side yard setback to the north and they want to add the porch Edition which is shown in the light gray there matching that same side yard setback this image two shows some of the areas that are in a darker gray that they would be removing to help with the impervious surface coverage on this property and they actually with the proposal would be reducing that by about 2% % which is great so and that they initially thought they needed a variance for but they don't because they're improving the conditions on in previous so the focus is on the proposed side here Z back thank you Abby so again the addition there is shown includes a deck and a porch both with covers over the top uh this would be the image uh viewed from the lake and then they had some other images prepared all sorts of images of how this will look and again the the key question is uh and the request for the variance is to again have the addition lineup with the existing sideart set back of 4.7 ft uh we shared this uh application with primarily our building inspections department and Nate Moes our building inspector had some comments about the requirements for meeting fight fire code Type construction because if approved this would be less than 5T from the side property line I've shared this with the project architect and he is aware of that uh the Watershed District noted that it's a small project wouldn't require any major permitting from them more any more than any standard uh building permit would for any project we did notify all the neighbors within 350 ft uh the initial mailing went out with a the site address is incorrect but it got out to the neighbors in the area uh with their application materials they submitted two letters of support from The Neighbors on either side those are included in your packet we did not receive any other comments other than the two that were with the initial submitt so the question for the commission is and what staff worked through was the findings of fact that are required for approving a variance and those are on it's page three of the report page 112 in the planing commission packet and I think the commission is well aware that the code says that the Planning Commission shall not recommend approval of any variance application unless it finds failure to Grant the variance will result in Practical difficulties for the applicant in staff's opinion primarily mine looking at this I didn't I don't believe this request meets all the criteria which are items a through D or e e e thank you in the staff report each of the five criteria for that finding for granting the the finance for granting a variance so for example the criteria one says because of particular surrounding shape or topographic conditions unique to specific parcel or land a practical difficulty to the owner would result as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out and they they have a unique situation I I am not denying that with a 4- foot 7 foot setback and I understand the request and the idea to extend that wall out at that same setback but when it is it's possible to build an addition with a 10 foot setback uh and they still have a reasonable use of the property with some type of an addition and even what they have now I view that as a a mere inconvenience and not a practical difficulty for the applicant they have as I said a reasonable use of the property they can have more use of the property with an addition that would meet setback uh and I I've outlined all these again in the report uh it certainly would not appear to either type of addition would be in injur injurious or harmful to the neighbors uh fortunately the property to the north there are no structures immediately near that part of the lot however you know there is kind of a gap there between the structures if they ever they the properties to the north and east want to build now we get the potential Properties or structures getting closer so in summary uh it's staff's opinion that the request does not meet the criteria all the criteria for variance approval so we're recommending that the Planning Commission move to approve the resolution in your packet and that is for denial of the VAR request that would allow a 5 foot 5.3t side setback variance to allow the construction of the porch Edition covered porch Edition as shown in the plans with that I will stop and take questions the applicants are here the applicants architect is here as well to answer questions probably provide some additional comments question for staff hearing none would the applicant or the architect wish to uh speak to this application to your application welcome to the Planning Commission thank you please state name and address for the record please sure I'm Aaron Wilson property owner at 919 Northshore Drive Steven cren 919 Northshore Drive thank you property H and I'm Ryan Andrew with r firm a residential designer not licensed yet um just want to make sure are we going to be able to you're going to ask us questions after this as well we can they may okay okay did did you want to make a presentation I just have a statement I might want to show a few things can I plug in here yep so can slide from the podium to the there was a couple of studies that weren included in your pet that I wanted to share with you that to drag it unless you do you have access to our entire well let's see if this works I just P it's always a little dicey when you're presenting from the left turn to be honest let's give it a try technology at its best I have the we do have 13 attachments yeah from your application yeah there was other images that I didn't okay oh you do have all okay but I didn't include them in the initial pack you were there and then you just disappeared okay so I saw it you had your statement and that looked like some images that's correct I was just trying to Ard it flash for a minute otherwise if you wouldn't mind I just want to refer to a couple figures that weren't included in the packet let me but they were included in our application hang on okay thank you if you want me to find them hang on a minute okay oh there now you're coming back that's not me oh you unplugged yeah okay all right hang on no we don't want that one we were just there just a minute I'm going to step out for just a moment if that's okay Che sorry for the technical difficulties it's partly me too this isn't unusual okay you know if you think this is first time we've had a wait no I thought no no just what where where Ken failed you is that he should have told you he should have come with a little story to tell why we're trying to get to you know be a little more interesting or if there's something that you want to say if you before you get your yeah if you want to give a statement while I'm figuring this out talk that's kind of part I wanted to refer to that like as I gave the statement I wanted to flip to that figure um which I have open on my machine ready to go here oh do you want should we try it again no I don't think well let's try that's the best option at this point um good TR are you able to open I'm trying okay thank you he had it and we lost it wait for it oh the display settings um yeah can I just come really quick sure no that's okay mess it up oh uh but that's your computer I don't want to touch your computer that's fine yeah do you want like to get underneath there or what you do you have a thumb drive it's only on here no what I want to refer to is our variance application because in the packet it did not include some of the figures that I wanted to refer to yeah so as long as you're able to open up yeah yeah so we should just be able to find should I just be able to I can just find a little guy here okay it's not bad all right I'm going to try to extend my screen because I want to um refer to some noes that I had while you guys can look at the actual so what we're gonna be looking at is what you last Thursday y okay first time in a while really like the way I was the no just noit hold on like and now I'm on [Music] a for two years unlimed us all the time work this oh yeah it's absolutely free pay the 200 bucks it's free for two years Falcon Stacy um now my computer's like frozen so it's not helping you pay $100 a year and you have to for two years but once take off and you can play the part three you can walk y um you can make times I know week can advant or whatever on the other one but I just go up with a couple friends and play but and I can find their keep heck do I I mean more they also right oh yeah do you want to come show me which one it is you want me to display I just tell you what page number as well is that okay what's that what page number I've got the page number in the packet an our packet or your subal so here's your subal thank you yeah cocktail I lived in 6ot and 10 foot yeah we're going to look at figure i j if you don't mind just kind of opening up a few of those imagine and then I'll just refer to which one when we're ready okay thank you sorry for the delay now Ryan I got to get it on the camera okay there we go okay there we go thank you good evening Mr chairman and me members of the Planning Commission thank you for the opportunity to speak before you regarding our variance requests for the property at 919 Northshore Drive we deeply respect the city's zoning guidelines and fully understand the importance of maintaining the character and safety of Forest Lake Community however we believe that the unique circumstances of this property along with the thoughtful design and substantial improvements we are proposing warrant approval of this variance we are requesting a 5.3ft side yard setback variants for the construction of a screened in porch as Kendon mentioned um that would extend 16 ft towards the lake aligning with the current 4.7t sidey yard setback of the existing house it is worth noting that this the structure is uh set back further from Forest Lake than any of the neighboring properties um adjacent to them and there's ample room to add a new addition towards the lake within the confines of the lake side setback um in response to the staff uh report recommending Deni um we would like to respectfully present the following points number one unique property characteristics create practical difficulties this property like many others in the vicinity is non-conforming to it due to its small size less than the required 15,000 square ft and existing sidey setback requirements of less than 10 the home was built in 1962 before current setback regulations were in place the lot size shape and the high water table create significant constraints that are unique to this parcel and beyond control of the owners the design and structural layout of the existing house make it practically difficult to comply with the 10t side setback without creating structural ramifications por Aesthetics and functional challenges to the new addition alternate studies were submitted with our application to show what both is 6 foot side setback if you want to flip to figure H please um would look like uh we also have a couple of renderings as well of what that looks like as as you know um current non-conforming properties with sidey yard setbacks of 6 feet or greater are allowed to align with that existing um envelope wall at 6 feet um we also looked at um another study if you want to go to figure um j i through J which was the 10t setback so there we've got a a study that shows what that looks like um I think the elevation is a fairly good one we also have some renderings as well if you want to go to the next I don't have them all open so it'll take me a second uh should be yeah study renderings thank you so there's a great shot of what it looks like if we match that sidey yard setback of of 10 ft that that code calls for um the proposed 4.7t setback maintains the same lines as the house which is critical for functional costeffective and safe construction this practical difficulty is not a mere inconvenience but in necessity due the structural realities of the site we've got a um you know in in variance request it talks about um certain unique conditions regarding um topography or vegetation what it doesn't talk about is a water table that's less than three or four feet from their slab on grade so um if we're able to utilize the existing footings on the corner of the house we're going to be better off structurally by by utilizing those those Corner posts and building off of that um number two the proposed use is reasonable and consistent with the neighborhood the variance we're seeking is not excessive many neighboring homes also do not meet the current setback in lot size standards and the proposed screen porch in addition is in harmony with the overall aesthetic of the neighborhood it is a modest extension of the existing home designed to improve livability and enable the owners to age in place a goal that aligns with the needs of many homeowners in the area number three circumstances are unique to the property not created by the landowner um the house is current location and its non-conforming setbacks existed uh long before the current owners P purchased the property in 2011 they were not aware of any sidey setback requirements when they purchase the property um these conditions are inherent to the lot and were not created by the homeowners the proposed addition respects the existing layout maintaining a continuity that is structurally and aesthetically sound denial the variance would not correct any of the pre ex preexisting non-conform either uh this project number four has no Dental impact on the public welfare or or neighborhood character as as Ken had mentioned um and um I will say however to the city code comments um I was not prepared to usually typically those were comments that we would get when we apply for a permit set um right totally want to comply with all city codes here absolutely um I did Overlook that 5 foot requirement for um the side yard setback for a fire rated um assembly so this this this request that we're asking you is for the variance to be um basically at uh 4.7 ft or greater from the property line so we'll be able to make that adjustment during permitting and bring that out to 5 feet um so I will say that um um basically in light of City comments after initial code review the project will be designed permitted and constructed to comply with all building codes ensuring that it will enhance rather than diminish the value and appeal of the property and surrounding areas number five last Point consistency with the spirit and intent of zoning ordinance the purpose of zoning ordinance is to balance the interest of homeowners with the preservation of neighborhood character and Public Safety this variance request is in keeping with that purpose granting the various variance will not compromise the intent of the setback requirements as the addition is modest in size POS poses no safety risks and aligns with the EST established character of non-conforming homes in the neighborhood more than enforcing a 10 foot side setback would first furthermore we are reducing the overall impervious surface on the lot demonstrating our commitment to responsible environmental practices and compliance with City goals showing our commitment to our community the Lake City standards and longevity of the home in conclusion we are asking the Planning Commission to support the expance request based based on the Practical difficulties imposed by the lot's unique circumstances the reasonableness of the proposed use and the absence of any harm to the community or neighboring Pro properties and also the fact that the variance is consistent with the spirit of the zoning orian we believe this proposal is reasonable and thoughtful approach to improve the property while preserving the character and values of the forest lake neighborhood thank you for your consider consideration we respectfully request your approval of our proposal and variance request thank you question to the applicant is the property unusable without the addition does it work for you I'll let you speak to that it's absolutely usable um it the house is very minimum square feet we have aging parents that we'd like to provide you know kind of additional cover and just a little bit more outside room for our guests we um we we actually as Ryan had mentioned you know went through some thorough conversations with both neighbors especially the one that words it's more impacted on the northeast side where that we're asking the variant and they're in full support no concerns so I hope that answers your questions I I'll I'll add to that it's only a thousand excuse me we are live on TV so so that's one of the reasons we ask everybody comes to a microphone so the thousands that are watching experience it well I will also there's one that's watching for sure but um I will add that uh the finished square feet is only 1,000 square ft so you know it's a two-bedroom house it's very mod it's small um let's be honest right it's a small house it's 1,000 square fet um so you know no I mean does it work for them what do this certainly could be better well yeah but but it wasn't big when you purchased it it you know it was no but we're on the lake you guys understand Lake life for on here you got lots of you know holidays and guests and and you know Gatherings and that was the intent of our purchase and you know is to try and enhance it a little bit without having to dump a ton of money into our rebuild which we did explore and decided not to do there's a number of commission members members who live on the L I know so I thought the head's not yeah we know we're well versed on the issues yep so how many square feet does this add on to uh 16 by 24 just B math on that 300 350 350 roughly yeah okay 384 about 400 ft 400 square F feet excuse me you said that when you do your your permit you're going to bring it in so that you'll be in compliance yeah you'll be in compliance so if you're bringing it in that means that you're not using the corner Foundation either you're bringing it in or you're not yeah it's only 4 in from the corner six so so to get 5T we're going we're basically would make that adjustment on the Fly and permit to go from 4.7 ft that was approved to more than five so we can actually have a screened in porch wall there rather than a fire treated wall I believe it has to be at least 6 feet well Mr chair members of the commission for the fire code the difference happens at 5 feet the six foot rule comes in if the existing wall was at six feet setback sidey yard and they wanted to do an addition with the 6ot we wouldn't be having this conversation they would just be in building permit but since the existing walls at 4.7 there's no provision in the code to say you can maintain the 4.7 foot but there is language if it's six feet or greater you can maintain that existing or extend that same side yard set back Kevin um question uh I'm looking at a photo on 124 of our packet it appears the garage roof and the house roof are split is it not attached it's attached on your drawing it shows it as one that might be a shadow it's it's attached it's just a different twoin okay and then towards the front of that H site I see there's another building that appears to be into the boundary lines even closer is that a accessory dwelling building or what is that so it is it's a uh it's a single unit dwelling um it has it own property number the both dwellings have its own PS okay but when we purchased the house it came as a double um so you own both properties yeah we own do you rent that out or what is that uh it's we use it as an office kind of just spare bedroom for a guest okay uh and I might just add that I believe you you told me that it was actually the regional cabin was actually up there next to the streets side so if if I'm so are the Cal so these are two partials so are my impervious calculations done as this as one partiel or two Parcels as one parcel Mr ter far we knew it was all one parcel there was not separate ID numbers we I I don't when I checked on the Ramsey County it's only one it's only it's only one I I it's only one it's one two property ID yeah they have two addresses there's there's the United the USPS has them for two addresses but it's only one property it's only one p ID yeah but you checked on the Washington County website correct you said Ramsey oh I'm sorry don't scare me I live in Ramsey it wouldn't show up on the map look done Ramsey just making sure you're paying attention Susan another thing I'd like to add just to clarify it's Northshore Drive um yeah yeah so the main parcel is 919 that's where we live that accessory structure back there is 921 but our in good faith commitment in exchange for the variants is reducing their Imperial surface over the both properties yeah but but our our impervious surface rules are both a percentage and a maximum y okay and the maximum is 3,750 Square ft and you're a little over 18% over that with what you're proposing so in terms of telling us that it's a a really significant decrease in your impervious surface that's going to have a an A positive effect on water quality I'm not going there what we're saying is it would be a reduction of what it what it is now and that yeah that's correct after our discussion with with Ken and and uh shooting targeting for that percentage we obviously acknowledged I think we're at like 34 some percent um before we started this process and we were able to get that down now it's still not under 30 uh or 31 um but at least it's on its way and it's a it's a significant Improvement I would say um' got percent so my question is what is the difficulty pushing this structure little over four feet to the east west west not not not necessarily doing this but taking the whole structure and moving it four feet what is the Practical difficulty it's slab on grade now I just want to make sure I understanding correctly so uh take the whole thing meaning the whole porch and shift it four feet to the West well so uh on their floor plan um one of the things that they're trying to achieve here is and what makes this project comp complicated in this design complicated is it's a split level so there's three risers between the lower portion and the upper portion uh they would like to have access out on of their uh bedroom window out onto their porch towards the lake um which to me seems reasonable um living on the lake and and so by doing that and shifting it another four feet if we if we look at that 10 10 foot side setback however you want to look at it with the rendering or the section or the plan uh it it it makes that space b basically unusable completely unfunctional um and so far as to not even worth doing the project I would say um and I guess when you look at um some of the renderings where we do show what that 10-ft side setback looks like to me that doesn't uh that's not in unison with the character of locality whatsoever um it's a architectural monstrosity and absolute train wreck um because I think as as you have acknowledged there are several Parcels that are less than 5 feet or six feet from the sidey setback so code has obviously tried to address these properties and show some some leniency and some flexibility with those side setbacks now I wish we had a six foot side setback because we wouldn't be here um but I I guess at the end of the day we are asking to align the structure now we totally acknowledge that this is a conversation and um maybe we don't get everything that we ask for but are we able to meet in the middle somewhere it might not be a line it might not be 10 ft but can we um agree that since the property is non-conforming we could consider a six foot side yard set back in this condition one of the things that we try to do is to to to grant that stuff happened um we've had two um major changes to our zoning code since yall brought the property and and we noticed those things but we also try and reduce the number and amount of non-conforming things in the community we try not to make more nonconforming things we try not to make things worse and and I agree with staff's assessment of this project and whether or not it meets the spirit intent and language of our zoning code um I'm I'm I'm trying hard but I'm just not convinced that this is a good variance for us to to approve and and while I really like that the top picture that's there it's it doesn't it's not showing how close other properties really are and and I I I I tried hard but I I I do agree with with staff on on their recommendation so this would be the only acceptable solution to them putting a screened in porch on is what you're seeing on the screen right now is that at a 10-ft setback what on the screen it's correct M you can go further to the West if you want if you want the same side he's just saying it it messes up his roof lines and and uh the aesthetic look but trying to you know trying to match the depth of the roof trying to match the extent of the Eve um trying to just match it so it looks like it's always been there I think that's our goal as designers is to make something feel like it fits um and as soon as we're trying to kind of push this uh you know round Peg through a square hole it it it falls apart so um looking at the 6foot study you know it's it's manageable I think the design intent is still there it respects City's code for allowing that six foot side setback for for non-conforming properties and the reason why we wanted to include this is because um we think it is worth considering and we would like to ask you if it's not the 4.7 side side yard setback that's being approved perhaps we could consider a six foot side yard setback that would be completely consistent with city code for non-conforming houses that don't need sidey yard setbacks cam what other variances if they they did the six foot what other variances would be required Mr chair members of the commission just be for the sidey yard setback reducing it from 10 to six and what he's Ryan's indicating is as I touched on earlier is in our non-conforming code we do allow homes with a six foot side yard setback to continue with that same six foot setback without the need for variance so they're they're viewing that as kind of a compromised position and for us it's only 16 in off of the corner so is it you know it's not five and 5.3 it's less than one and a half fet away from the corner and if I may it sounds like because of the building code requirements the sidey yard setback would be at least 5T with what they're going to do and so now so that reduces it that by default reduces it some and now there the question is it could push to six feet or 10 feet or not at all this this is the six foot image I believe on the screen I guess we just we understand the importance of complying with the city's zoning guidelines and maintaining the Harmony in the neighborhood um we just want to express our flexibility in working with with you to achieve a solution that balances both practicality for the homeowners and adherence to zoning up regulations without the minimum six foot will kill the project and think about other Alternatives and this is really what we thought was best practice good faith neighbors approve six foot other questions to the applicant I do have to host to public hearing also so any questions right now thank you thank you for your time as well appr thank you this is a public hearing we ask if you wish to speak to this issue please come up to the Lector and state your name and address for the record once we have heard from all parties uh we will then close the public hearing and bring it back for a further discussion and decision by the Planning Commission so so open a public hearing at 8:24 p.m. is anyone wish to speak to this application anyone wish to speak to this application Ken do we have anyone online or anything that needs to be read in to the minutes nothing additional Mr chair we have two letters from the neighbor on each side correct it's already in our packet that's good enough correct okay and no one online correct no one all right I'll ask one last time does anyone wish to speak to this application and still no one online correct having no one online and seeing no one moving forward to the Lector close to public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Commissioners what would you like to do can could you if we go to this if the six foot was discussed again and we allowed them to go the six feet my understanding is they wouldn't the only variance that would be required would fall under that guideline of what if the existing house was six feet that they can cons continue that line along so we'd be allowing six foot and there's no fire coat issue there's no correct anything else right just to be clear I'll read the language for you additions to detach single family and two family dwellings not meeting the required sidey yard setback but not less than six feet from the side Lot line may have an addition at the existing sidey yard set pack so again if the house was at 6 foot they could put a six addition on with a six foot setback just go through building permit no variance required so what they're proposing is if they're going to have to move it a little bit because of the fire code if they move it to six foot to kind of somewhat follow that six foot rule that's already in the code that still needs a variance because it's now at 4.7 feet but it's less of a variance than what they were initially asking for Kevin um but we're only voting on The the application in front of us correct you can take Deni this application they would have to come back with a new application or appeal it or appeal it however if we were to table this that would allow them time without going through an additional permit fee an additional start over process to bring back the request for a six a variance to a six foot correct yes and or with that if that's the direction the commission wants to go you could direct staff to prepare information to bring back at a future meeting for with a resolution of support that you could adopt they wouldn't necessarily have to bring new materials we know all the all the material or all the we would need a new site plant it'd be a modification well they they have included three different site plans they had the 4.7 six foot and the 10- foot options I did not include all those in your in your packet I already we already have all those but I don't know that there're being value and continuing the public hearing and having them come back if the direction of the commission is we're okay with the six foot setback staff could just be directed to bring that back in a updated Report with a resolution to approve that variance without a whole bunch of extra work and that would be subject just on a consent agenda could be we pull everything on there anyway so I'm just saying we could try we don't always pull everything CH you you can grant the variance and something less but you can't Grant more so tonight you could Grant the variance to the 6 foot because it's less than what is being requested so they my math math is hard they're asking for 4.7 so since we're since you're going toing the variant exactly you you could take that action tonight in motion and then direct staff to bring back the resolution memorialize we'd have to bring a revised resolution back with the six would approval Kevin so if our thoughts are we're okay with six we're talking about 1.3 to 1.7 difference we have to determine is that really that important but I think that is important you got an adjacent property that someone might want to rebuild and down the road that's where it becomes a bigger deal and if if if for instance they were to sell the property and and the folks that bought it just decided to start over they could use the footprint that is way unconforming as long as they build on that same footprint but the footprint of the deck isn't considered the footprint of the foundation is it it would be because they're going to put in foundations for the deck I aren't they just putting in post put footing in I it's it's going to have a roof on it oh just a couple of post puttings yeah probably hel here since we're so close to the table so there wouldn't even be any concrete down there Butch at the new addition porch area and to address the concern of commissioner Miller if you grant a variance for 4.7 for 16 additional feet that would be a vested land right for the property that if somebody wanted to rebuild in the future it's part of the structure they could build that as structure MC Manion at 4.7 yeah makes sense go there you know I got it I I think it was a p forunate deck and it wouldn't matter I I have a struggle with six because six becomes the property right moving forward and that's just try and get a firefighter in there and not to push it to the city council but if we reject it they can appeal it to the city council go and and I would be happy to attend the city council meeting and explain my personal reason for it commissioner young can you speak into your microphone please I apologize and and I would I would if if if that appeal were to happen I I would be happy to attend city council and explain my reasoning not not the commission's reasoning well I think they would probably review this meeting I would hope I I don't know how they go about their business but I I would hope they would um in cases of appeal we try to include minutes or draft minutes summary of the meeting the discussion certainly the vote that was taken Mr chair for me is there any thought I was starting to sense and see some head nods on a consensus but are we too early to ask that question if there is a consensus hey I have a question on that so if we Grant the six foot if they were to rebuild they can rebuild at six feet yes MH on that whole side no just on the area that they would be just with the part with the six foot set pack so so if they decided to change that from a porch in a patio to an enclosed part complete enclosed dwelling yeah they can do that yes which is why I struggle come up to the microphone I guess it's commission's option if you want to take more comments or not is that okay I I just want to reiterate that that's not the intent here there's no no future planning with you know militia's intent to add on condition space in the future they're they're just simply trying to add on the screen porch and that's it I I totally understand we're not concerned about them but if they sold it yeah somebody else could do that I understand and we don't know what the future that's part of the challenge of being here is is we we've got to pretend like we have these crystal balls and we know what's going to happen 5 10 20 years from now on this property that we are now setting the legal standard for MH because right now if they rebuild that the existing house they could build the same distance from the sidey of 4.8 ft or whatever it is right come up much furthere to the lake if they got a building permit within 180 days of the time of the destruction yeah so a tornado hit it or a fire and you could meet the impervious requirements yeah so they they could be at 4 point some feet on the one side and the other side would have to be 10 at least 10 yes what I'm told all the time by municipalities is it's not acceptable to just merely reuse the footprint and the foundation of a house um excuse me to reuse merely the footprint um of the house um basically the requirements at that point is that you reuse the foundation um which as a block wall a CMU block wall it's not preferable as a architect or designer to reuse those those walls so I would say there is absolutely no possibilities of them uh using a helical Pier to construct a wall at a later date that's not the case of reusing the structure they get a vested land right to build 4.7 ft from the property line so the whole property could be scraped if there was a fire or another Act of nature the property could be scraped and they can build that structure two feet four two two stories 4.7 feet right on that property line thank you for clarifying that and so that is the concern is the long-term implication and that was the original building plans is that the length of the building right now would collapse and we'd go up we've already had the plans drawn and we had them reviewed prior to Ken so we've considered that option as well but not going that this way I think this is kind of middle ground but I have to say I did not know that that it became uh the new side so but my understand they bulldoze it they got to comply with they bulldoze it that's different if there's an act of nature that destroys it and they submit a building permit within the time allotted by city code and state law bulldo the house someone comes in they want to bulldoze it build a new house they got to comply with all the correct correct I misunderstood yep well except for the 10 by 16 area except for that 10 X6 area if that's granted a variance yeah that would be a vested land right against the property further discussion Commissioners could we add a condition that they could not rebuild with the six fo setback you can't but you can get really specific in your variance you can say a variance a 6 foot variance for a 16 by 26 open unenclosed screen single story screen port and deck and deck and then what could you know I mean that's a way for us to protect our you know the approval in the future future owners certainly not them right because they they want this but then future owners when they come in and we see them enclose it or they get a building permit to want to expand it go out go up we can say no you don't have that land right you only had the land right for the six foot encroachment or the six foot setback for the 16x 26 single story screened in deck and patio but you have to be really specific and so I think that that would be you know it could be at this point a direction to staff to bring back those documents to memorialize um because you'd really want to make sure that the approvals are very much in line exactly for what you're wanting today is what you would see in the future as well CU if we do something my opinion if we do something like that whoever's going to build is going to push just closer to the lake ba based on the view of the adjoining neighbors um so I would think it'd be pretty impractical that they'd want to put a screen porch in the middle of their house but you know I've seen a lot of stuff on the lake just come with a onto Cruise it's just a Breezeway it's just a Breezeway in in the middle of the sh I mean I grew up in have one of those cheer director if you're specific in that variance request of a 6 foot setback for a 16 by 26 um they could move that whole house and then have that screen porch Offset you know they'd have to meet the 10 foot for the new if it was a new home not these folks the future people that are going to scrape it and rebuild because that's not going to happen never mind but do you see what I'm saying it doesn't necessarily say that screen porch has to be exactly in the this location that screen porch could be anywhere on that property this is a 50 foot lot they're going to build whoever comes in is going to build edge to edge at a setback 100% yeah I well yes and and and honestly improvements to our home sites are there's nothing wrong with that those are good things they increase value for you they increase value for Neighbors I don't see it as a bad thing the concern we have from a from a Planning Commission is is fire those sort of things that whether it's six foot or 4 foot it's still tight and so I have a real hard time saying yeah we can do it at six but we can't do it at four I mean to me that's not a big difference personally that's all I'm sharing and because the value I think is there and I understand it's it's not a big difference but again the stuff that we do has sets precedence it well it does except that when it comes to variances there's no precedence we decide on each and every individual case it's specific to each property isn't that correct staff that that is that yes and no yes it depends that is the idea but but you've been here just as long as I have and and it's well you know you gave them the three feet but now their three feet is blocking my view of the sunrise so I need another two feet and it's just two feet I do know that all right and and it's just two feet so and we've been here done that and it's it's I agree 100% which is why these things are so very difficult they are very difficult and and they do have practical use of their property and they could build a screen porch that would not require a variance and um and so as I said earlier I agree with the staff analysis of this request and my inclination would be to approve that staff analysis and to approve the resolution that we were presented tonight however realizing that y'all do the late thing um well I don't okay I don't have to worry about setbacks on 20 acres um I'm I'm trying to find a you still have setback Susan don't you dare come in here for VAR for TR put truth planning Commissioners don't get special treatment 20 acres are t yes that that's truth but if I can't figure out a way to put what I want beating all the stuff I'm just stupid I think that condition on the six foot variance is very fair didn't even expect that we would even cover that today planning Commissioners I'm will to make a motion to table all right and that would allow staff to come back with a resolution they have heard our comments and our concerns it would not be denying so that we would not be requiring them to come back with a whole new variance request we have done that in the past all right before I ask for the second um our are you on pagent for a six foot setback reluctantly yes because y'all do that like thing Mr chair if that's the case it'd be clearer or easier for staff to have that clear Direction and what you're looking for and what would be bring back for in the future all right so let's make it go Kevin if there's a consensus but since we maybe have a consensus or maybe we have enough votes to do this we actually can make a motion to approve the resolution with the changes versus tailing it and having them come back to us with a memorial a resolution memorializing the action right my concern is making sure that we get it perfectly right on the Fly here okay I'm not that good okay all right so before I asked for a second we I I haven't made the motion yet okay I said I would consider that if we if that's it is where the group is I better put charge up my hearing age a little better are are we in a general consent take a straw pole for the six feet yeah with the memorialization as Abby said that way ex Dimensions blah blah blah blah 16 by 26 screened in single story open un enclosed fully screen P gck that probably is shown on the screen y exactly all right is that within is that within yeah we'll make sure to to reference because I think I hear you're wanting us to bring back the formal documentation we will definitely use the site plan to get the exact dimensions down for you not one inch more we'll probably even get that height to the top of the Gable if you'd like well and I think that that is wise I agree all right I I I wouldn't have said it if I I mean we're going down this route right so we lock or tight youour you to think about as you're doing this further decreasing your impervious surface um one of the things that that we hear complaints about all the time and I see city council member husnik here that he hears is is the water quality in the lake and impervious surface and Lawns right up to the edge of the lake you're making your own trouble okay so um Mr chair yes I do make a motion that we table this um action this resolution tonight and that we direct staff to come back to us with um a new resolution that is the six-foot setback and the 16 by 26 screened in porch with bells and whistles screened in porch in De fully screened in porch and Deck with the congruent roof line um as stated earlier and as um proposed in one of the applicants drawings I have a motion to have second I have a second I have a motion in a second a table's a nevat motion all those in favor signify by saying I opposed motion carries we are done with uh once we do a t we are done with discussion of the issue um until it comes back to us that's how the whole Robert Rules of Order the token one I know um works and do we have an idea when it going to come back we don't have another meeting scheduled in two weeks this would be your only item on your agenda well we certainly can um well well we wouldn't have to come back if it meets no you it's still a variance oh that's right Mr chair yes we're kind of late uh it might have been cleaner to have a resolution to approve it with a six foot setback and then ask staff to bring that back in a formal resolution for adoption rather than tabling having a staff bring it back we know the intent until it's adopted it's it's not adopted it's not approved were we a bit late here yeah unless you want to reopen the item I don't think you can yes anyone who voted for the item can make a motion to reconsider anyone who voted I on this can do a motion to reconsider on the on the table so since I made the motion I will make a motion to reconsider the immediately previous action I have a motion uh that the same person's got doesn't have to be looking for a second I'll second it with the reconditions on it reconsider reconsiderations on the table any discussion all those in favor sign by saying I I I we've backed the freight train up try this again okay beep so I I don't want to put words in the mouth if somebody go ahead can if it's the consensus the commission make a motion to approve prove with a 6ot sidey yard setback rather than the requested 4.7 subject to all the conditions then discussion we talked about the footprint in the building height and following the plans that were one of the submittals in the packet and then we will bring that final resolution with all those conditions back to you to formally get it adopted in the meantime they can start working on final building plan and getting ready to submit for the building permit okay all right again head again Mr chair I make a motion that we approve a six foot side yard setback variance for a 16 by 26 screened in single story for single story open unenclosed fully screened porch and deck nicely done at the property yes y yeah you're good I have a motion this particular property that has been under consideration for 40 minutes I have a motion do I have a second I'll try it again sir yes sir I have a motion and second any discussion on a motion hearing none all those in favor signif by by saying I I I opposed extensions motion carries unanimously we will bring that back for formal blessing good luck with your project thank you as we as all of us Goot around will be watching it L I knew some of you guys were I drive by you folks all the time there will be a bar [Applause] so P to know Robert's Rules of Order one of them well now you know two thanks guys yes thank you for so much of your time I appreciate it thank you for thank you working be in touch don't forget your water bottle sir you think there's water in there I just assumed I'm sorry all right we will move on to uh item number 78 a local affordable housing aid Abby are you presenting I am a couple discussion topics tonight um some policy based things that we just need a little Direction on so we can keep moving forward so tonight the goal is Planning Commission to discuss and help provide some recommendation these things will end up going to the council probably funneling back down in different ways but tonight first up local affordable housing aid I know I brought this to the commission um it's been a while but I believe it was after the state had passed the new legislation that would help Metropolitan local governments develop and preserve affordable housing to keep families from losing housing and to help those experiencing homelessness find housing so this is a new state tax that um disperses to the city so some of the estimates that were coming out for 2024 were about 210,000 we actually certified it in but it was only five months for 113,000 this year um 2025 estimates though are about 325,000 and we stay in that estimate range of about 3350 each year um and that we'll keep getting that each year until that uh tax if the state decides that tax goes away we get the dispersements twice a year so next year if we get 325 it's going to get split 175 and you know I don't know easy mouth 168 whatever it is um so there are certain qualifying projects the state says that we can use them for emergency rental so to provide direct assistance for emergency rental housing of a priority to those that make 50% or less of the area median income new construction or Redevelopment so we can partner with or we can provide Direct assistance to support construction acquisition again um we have some Maximum thresholds for that area medium income we're really targeting that 50% area median income and then Rehabilitation so opportunities to assist in Rehabilitation of Aging I put in their rental but aging housing stock so we have two different programs that we can use rental and owner occupied what's interesting in the rehabilitation is you see that most of the other programs have that um aiming at uh less than 50% of the Ami with a with a maximum of 80% Ami the owner occupied Rehabilitation increases to 115% of the Ami still has a but has that lower priority of that priority of less than 100% Ami that's different and new and there are really no programs quite available for that 115% Ami we'll keep talking about programs here in just a second yeah for the rest of the the commission Forest Lakes Ami is I knew you were going to ask so I've had trouble determining Forest Lakes Ami because we quoted Washington County's Ami in the 2020 compr or the 2040 comprehensive plan did I bring my comp plan with me it didn't bring my comp plan with me I'll get that number I looked it up the last time and I've I forgot it's fairly I mean I want to start like spe specific one for Forest Lake um I might be able to as we're discussing um I knew you're going to and I apologize for not having that Abby before you go any further can you spend one minute we have some newer members on the commission explaining what Ami is Ami is the area median income so it's the average income um or the median income of households in the community so there is a dollar threshold and I knew Susan was going to ask and I should have had it and I apologized that I don't I should it up I apologize it's low less certainly less than $100,000 I want to say it's probably floating around that 60 or thousand potentially um thought it was around 62 I apologize that's all right um so our 20 240 comprehensive plan does identify some related goals and objectives to improve and maintain existing housing units um we would consider City funded activities aimed at Rehabilitation or acquisition um for maintenance and increase the availability for new affordable housing we don't necessarily have comprehensive plan goals and objectives that relate to that emergency rental housing so not to say that we couldn't put our money in those programs but um leaning on our kind of new construction Redevelopment or Rehabilitation is what we said we would probably be doing with funding in the future so we do we have identified a partnership opport with Washington County Community Development agency Washington County CDA already provides a direct emergency rental assistance they already provide funding for assist with funding for new construction or Redevelopment and they do have programs available for rental Rehabilitation to that 80% area Medan income threshold the one area that they don't um have would be that owner occupied Rehabilitation but Washington County DDA has said that any city that is interested in developing a program for the owner occupied Rehabilitation they certainly leave up to that 115% they certainly are willing to discuss that with cities so tonight discussion with the commission first thing that I'm just wondering off a cuff if the planning commission's interested in um the city council the city staff partnering with Washington County CDA to administer these programs um I'll make this one a little easy for you we can't use this money for staff so we have to find somebody that will take our big bag of money and do these things for us um because I can't hire anyone to do it for us so um I think our options are to partner with the county or to start exploring other nonprofit organizations and I'm just wondering what the commission's thoughts are in terms of does it stay in our community if we partner with wey stay within our community yes Susan we had a prior partnership with habitat oh um and it was for the houses on good view um in fact they just if you drove good viw they just ripped out all the scrub um right on good viw but it was that area where we had a partnership with habitat okay council member host may remember that by sidebar on that we got a code complaint about that and had to get them to mold it okay but but that was where it is the program was so we have had maybe existing Partnerships out there that we should probably take a look at um have perhaps gone dormant um it was just before Co I think um or before Co and I thought that one or two of the properties um were were developed um I don't remember it was um land trust or or what but I know that there was a partnership oh but it could have been maybe a land trust okay so that I'll look into those that would be something that I would strongly encourage that we take a look at um are the Commissioners familiar with Habitat for Humanity and and their requirements for teaching people how to take care of a home their requirements for Sweat Equity um their requirements for helping the next person too um it it to me it it gets at helping homes be affordable but it also helps build community um sure I'll look into um that uh previous partnership and just what other kind of potential Partnerships there could be in terms of their programming and how it could align with some of those things um I it I would still imagine that the that the commission would want us to explore our options with the other um County agency in terms of trying to find the programs that we can utilize to get our money out right I mean that's really what we want to do more than anything but we can look at are you proposing hiring a consultant to do that no thank you no that's a recommendation I was to say would it be it' be a lot smarter to p on along with the county to help save you leg work here and work together to come up with a a better solution or more of a opportunity to disperse this yeah funds yep great can can you help me out here Abby I mean it I don't mean about sound flippant that this isn't much money but $300,000 doesn't go real far these days it doesn't what what's kind of realistic on this is it is a habitat where we give them funds to buy materials or pay for an electrician maybe get one or two houses a year I think we we have a and so we I'll get down to a little bit we can hop here to Aid dis dispersement recommendations so again our what we can use oh jumped ahead too much there what we can use them for is emergency rental new construction or Redevelopment or Rehabilitation so let's just say 300 $100,000 $300,000 on the new construction of let's say an apartment building is it's nothing it's you you're looking at 1% of your total cost right you're you're but 1% and you get you know 50 units 100 units maybe that's a a way we want to go the uh ways that I would suggest the city really explore are those Rehabilitation options we have a lot of naturally occurring affordable housing in our community everything in kind of what I would call Old Forest Lake so west of downtown South of 8 north of 97 we're really looking at a highly concentrated area of older housing stock that is is increasingly affordable because of its age those properties are probably in there are a lot of those properties that are in need of Rehabilitation you give a a homeowner that has 100 $150,000 house a $115,000 you know low interest no interest loan that can go a long way $300,000 and you have $15,000 loans what's that somebody do quick math 20 20 you know residents that you're putting back into the into the existing lot of cities have that and they also have requirements when they do that where the people have to live there for certain per period of time and it's forgiven or you know they don't just give it to them yeah they don't just give it to them and say here you go fix up your house and then sell it right yep um can we not use it as down payment assistance with anyone like can the city use it as grants for down payment assistance no um well no I don't think so that new construction potentially if somebody needed some assistance with a down payment on a new home but I don't believe we can use it for down payment assistance and these are areas and our our thank you for looking it up um our Ami is 48,000 there we go and that was 2022 48 168 my guess is that we're well below 50,000 still for our average median income in in the city um I know that Washington County Social Services um knows of Elders who would like to be able to stay in their homes and for a lot of reasons that is a good thing but their homes may need assistance um may need upgrading on fire code safety may need upgrading on doors maybe upgrading on some bathroom rooms and I think that that would be a really great place for the city to to use these funds is to work with Washington County for elders that they may have identified that meet our Ami requirements um to help them stay in our community so that would be in that Rehabilitation be that rental or owner occupied yeah I mean and I would and my preference is that it be owner occupied um I my my preference is that um we have a significant a really significant amount of rental property as it is um they some of it on the books and some of it under the radar um and those are run as as businesses looking at at a at a profit motive and what I would prefer to do is to help homeowners Elders in our community be able to stay here we we need their wisdom we need their history we need we need the the things that they provide our community that are very unique um valid great Point Susan I agree with you and I guess I I'd be interested to hear in other from other people in the um commission if if you if I gave you a big hot of money right now if I just said here's $300,000 do you want it to go to that one big project or are you is there a preference to that one big project here's all 300,000 to go to the $3 million apartment building or is there more of a desirability to try to disperse it out through the community for rehabilitation projects I'd be more for the individual Rehabilitation projects I would suck on that as well R it around yeah I think with the big projects there's no guarantee that the price is going to make the price is going to be affordable still for low-income people well you only give the money though for the I mean you we'd have to develop parameters for all of this and the county has parameters for some of these programs and so um I I don't want to necessarily spend a lot of time going back and looking at a habitat partnership or a land trust Partnership if if kind of the Ive is no we we really want to see you know the 15 people in this room I don't know if but not not the 15 people in the room but like we want to see our local residents owner occupied we want to put money at a low cost or a a potentially a no cost if maybe it's a forgivable loan program um but we'd rather see our money going that way than necessarily one big project um I see some heads nodding I've heard from from a few of you that you're you're more inclined to say yes these rehab programs are something that we need and we'd like to see the money going that way the city would have to give it to them can they charge interest yeah and and they can re get interest on it then we'd have to we have to chat with yeah the county and really see um I've developed loan programs in the past where they're revolving loan programs where you put your money into your big pool of you know your big pot and then the interest and then you you can give more again later um the state's going to keep giving us money as long as this tax is here it's $350,000 each year even if there was a a nominal percentage I'd assume some of that nominal percentage we'd want in need an agreement to share with the county because they're they do are going to provide Staffing for us they do have staff to do this already and they do have a tax levy that can help support some of that but over time if programs like these are successful ful we're going to need to help offset those costs them um but yes I think that all of these things are ways that we'd like to see the money going back into the community I you know with the county you know I know like with their septics if you replace your septic they'll do a low interest loan they take it out of your taxes uh for five years twice a year now it might be a little steep for some of these people but it it seems like they've got an awful a lot of mechanisms that would be pretty easy to move forward versus trying to do something but I'm also in favor of um especially if we can leave this money down in U The Heart of the City I'm not going of call it the Old Town The Heart of the City you know because there's a lot of nice houses that could use a front porch or maybe need a bathroom or they need something but they're nice houses and reable lots and and this is I mean just it I've seen a pattern in communities um there's a lot of interest people want to move to Forest Lake there's great amenities it's a great quality of life um we're starting to see people and you see it already and you've seen it for a while around the lake that people will buy the The Little House on the lot and then they'll come back and they'll build out right and so you want to find a ways to put money into these properties to make sure that you're preserving that housing stock that is more affordable to your teachers to your you know your interns to well I mean that's that's really what it comes down to so so I'm hearing moreover you would support Rehabilitation projects it sounds like owner occupied versus maybe rental um the only question I would have then is the um state says they're going to kind of have that priority to households ear earning 80% area median income but they would go up to owner occupied up to 115% as I mentioned earlier there are no programs in that 115% range are you favorable to us looking at expanding that program up to that 115% um which you know is a little over $50,000 it's still not a a ton of money um or do you want to stick with the existing programs that really look at that below 100 per Ami I I I'm fine going to 115 primarily because 50,000 I don't know what kind of a house that would buy I'm trying to do the math in my head but I don't think there'd be too many in town that would be affordable you'd have to be in it for a while 10 12 years I would have no problem going to 115 and I I'm not looking to help somebody purchase new what I'm what I was hoping was that our person would be in the rehab the the rehab would they would be there U for instance they need no sting they might need a new roof they maybe need grab bars in the you know some safety things in the in the house um now that I'm doing the forever well at the Y there are I'm I'm seeing a lot of my peers that would really like to stay in their houses but they don't know how to finance a wheelchair accessible or the grab bars or or some of that and and you all have heard it and you all have lived it with either yourselves or your parents this The Limited income is not what they were making when they were were working and so my my preference is that we stay with the the 80% but if we don't have anybody who's interested up to but not not go out searching 150 let's search for that let's see what we can you know make of available and um this is a this is a this is a super opportunity for us to help the folks that built this community but they also have to qualify too yeah qualify and there should be a limit yeah yeah 115% Ami is the limit you don't get all300 right oh yes well those are things consent on 80 versus 115 either way doesn't make a difference I think I think what I'm hearing is folks are okay going up to 115 you wouldn't give a single person 300,000 you we'd want to establish some parameters that were giving grants loans whatever they end up being and we will'll explore our opportunities with the CDA and their programs that they have but essentially that you'd want to try to maximize the amount of Grants and Loans each year so that we're we're putting it back in lots of hearts in the Heart of the City and owner OCC niely done owner occupied seems to be the consensus owner yes I do have rehab owner occupied all right I have enough Direction on that that's going to go to the council um I don't think it'll be at their next Workshop because I think the packet might already be finalized but um really soon we'll be bringing it to the council before then we'll start conversations with the county and we'll see what what kind of programs we can figure out they already have some that exist whether or not we have to develop new ones I'll bring that back to you so any any final comments for Abby on this subject otherwise we're going to move to the Met Council image all right we'll move on to item uh 7B the Metropolitan Council image 2050 public comment imagine imagine imagine 2050 public comment period so um imagine 2050 is the me council's planning process that identifies a vision and goals and it sets policy foundation for land use housing Transportation water resources and Regional Parks um they do this through the lens of these cross policy areas of climate Equity natural systems health safety and well-being all of this means the Met council is kicking off its every 10-year planning process and this really is the start of a number of years now that you will hear us coming back and saying hey we're doing some comprehensive planning what the Met council's doing right now is setting the rules and guide book for our update to our comprehensive plan I know it seems like it's kind of crazy because it's 2024 and that's going to be the 2030 plan but we have to have that plan adopted in 2029 in the next year or so they'll come out with system statements we'll just start this process right but all this starts with the Met council's draft plans that they've set out and I'm bringing them to the commission because there are areas in which I believe that the city needs to provide comment on I've taken the time to review the draft housing the draft land use plans for you I think I included a hyperlink in case you guys needed to fall asleep before uh before you were prepping for this meeting but there's a few areas I identified in the packet that I wanted to bring up to you so in the land use policy the section on community designations the M council is proposing to remove the emerging suburban community designation for those of you that may not be aware that is our community designation what they look to do is reclassify the city of forest lake to a suburban community um and that would be increasing our minimum net residential density from 3 units per acre to four units per acre we knew this sort of thing was going to happen where growing Metropolitan Community and as much as we didn't like it we knew that we were going to continue to be asked to increase our density so for a few of the members that are newer on the commission the Metropolitan Council says Hey suburban community you all that new land area that's building everything south of Headwaters um on average if that all that new land area that's being built you have to develop it Citywide for units per acre um It's Tricky I'm not going to lie It's Tricky net net we'll get into net in a second but yes not acreage um so one hey met Council we're not thrilled you're taking away our emerging suburban community designation I would like to offer those comments to the Met Council I want to see if the Planning Commission is in support of that we obviously bringing these to the council as well I don't know if you want to discuss these one by one but I'm kind of here tonight to just see if the commission is in agreement with where I'm heading with some of these comments to the council met Council so how do you guys feel about going from emergency emerging Suburban to Suburban three units breaker to four units prer Kevin you can start because I'm going to take a breath before I comment we are recording I think I'm not sure if the designation I'm not sure if the designation going to make that much of a difference only because almost every new development that we look at as a PUD they're looking at four to five units per acre anyways uh some of our zoning we've already allowed that or more so to me I don't think it's the end of the world thank you now I've had my second so we cut our lot sizes in half y uh last year in the uh residential area that'll be developed the mxr1 down to 7500 which gives us in theory six units per acre and we can't hit three units per acre with 7500 foot lots to go up to four with all of the wet we got we we'd have to build tow houses only so whatever you have to do to get them off your back to keep it down at three I'm in favor of I I should be more diplomatic but Susan's going to be no I'm not no I'm not because um they are requiring us to have a density and the kind of housing that requires city services that we are paying the Met Council for on a regular basis through the transit tax but we do not have all right we we also do not have the kinds of um opportunities and areas to put in the the grocery stores and the ancillary facilities requiring that are requiring that kind of density if we have that kind of density we're going to need significantly more park space which oh by the way is not exed out in their net density calculation um we do not have the the the the city services the police the fire Glory knows there is no way that you're going to be providing water and sewer out to some place like where I live um in my grand potential great granddaughters lifetime um there is just so much of our community that cannot be water and sewed and it it's not a good thing to have a well on every one e acurate lot um so I think that um not only is our community character one of a rural community we also have really valuable food producing land and the net Council recognizes the environmental and health benefits of locally produced food we do not have the infrastructure and will not have it in the very long future to support the kind of density and transportation Water and Sewer that such that that would require this is nuts so what I'm hearing you say is you're not in support of the residential density increase from 3 to four units per acre and you would like us to prepare comments in relationship to that yeah and I agree with that too it's I just don't think the Met council is going to change their mind so that being said I I hear um so this is a concern right and I I agree with every statement that's been said so far um I I say it sometimes in a much more diplomatic way especially when sitting with our sector representative like Ken and I were today um one of the land use policies that I wanted to bring up that I do want to comment on because this is very much in relationship to how it is we're to meet these regulations so net density allowances allows us to take out Wetlands water bodies it does allow for public parks and trails to take that out public open space um arterial roads are right away and other developable Acres that are protected by local ordinances so like steep slopes it doesn't allow us to take out storm ponds well we all know that we have increasing storm water regulations and heavy clay soils so when you have heavy clay soils and you need to infiltrate water your pond has to get bigger we can't take that out and that's a problem and that's one of the reasons cheer Gerard that we're having trouble Meeting those even three because we can't take out storm water ponds we can't take out water body buffers and setbacks we can't take out local roadways and these are areas that are not that can't be developed I can't put a home on it we can't build more homes you just looked at Shadow cre States tonight that's a 7 acre gross developable piece of property we we took out some things for um the trail and whatnot uh some Wetlands but we have 46 units on there and we barely met the minimum density requirement for that land use District so this is another area I want to provide comment to the Met Council and will be providing me if the council is in support um providing comment to the Met coun that essentially says we need greater flexibilities we need to be netting out some of these things that are local constraints in the development program to show we're actually probably Meeting those density requirements we're just not meeting it to the standards that they're asking if that makes sense and Abby there are times when um being um being Ultra diplomatic uh is read by the council as being weak no as as being acquis descent to their needs and um perhaps stronger language without being rude yep is absolutely appropriate in this instance I will yeah I will let you know um Ken and I did meet with our sector representative um a little about a year ago um former administrator Patrick and I met with our um Gil cedarberg she is our representative on the District board or the district council um they are aware of these issues that we're having and the frustration that the city is having in meeting requirements that are mandated by a body that isn't elected that's hard and yes there are some Regional goals and policies and we can support those things but we also need a little bit of give here so and quite frankly we don't need to meet our housing requirements until freaking 2040 and there is no penalty if we don't right commissioner to my right here you've been very quiet in this discussion I'm ready to go I'll tell you I agree with you I I think our community it has a lot of wetlands it's hard to be uh resourceful to meet their needs with all the Wetland we have again with all of our storm water run off in different things um to create that plus again uh echoing what Susan said to be able to run water sewer out to these areas where they're wanting to do developments plus police protection fire protection and all that other stuff out there is I think they need to take that into strong consideration when you start looking at these other Suburban areas as you go out around the City I they got to have the same issues we have don't they and how do they how are they dealing with it yeah so um I um there are two areas that the Met Council has has really started to open up um this through this planning process that I actually will say I'm I'm happy about met Council staff is starting to recognize that there are sub Regional challenges in meeting their requirements so this year when they did their population forecasting any community that was impacted or anelia on the edge of what was impacted by the White Bear Lake lawsuit so we were actually included because we were on the edge of it um our growth did not grow at the same rate as other Metro sub regions um because it cannot because of what's gone on with the with the that lawsuit and the water issues that are having in this region so the Met council is starting to look at these areas um they've talked with LOL Lakes they've heard from LOL Lakes the exact same comments I know that Hugo has also had conversation I've had conversations with Hugo I don't know to what extent they've had conversations with them at Council but um that being said they have been in working groups they're hearing regionally that you we have to be looking at um these neighborhoods so to say these areas Northeast kind of metro area is all facing the same challenges and so I am thankful that they're identifying that and so one of the things that they have identified one of my subsequent slides will bring it up is some sub Regional what did I how did I put it sub uh performance for um sub Regional flexibilities so I'll come back to that at that PO why I'm concerned about that though I'm happy they're doing they're starting to see that you can't treat Northern Washington County Northern Anoka County the same as you're treating Southern doota County we're not the same it's different topography it's different land you know all of those things what that means I'm not exactly sure but that's where I'm I want to really put into these comments these density calculation standards and what we net out really needs to be I need to be able to tell them I can't meet this requirement I'll give them five of our last subdivisions and show them why it is I can't meet it and it's not because we're not making lots small and it's not because we're making big roads it's because we've got Wetlands that we got to work around which yes you get to net those out but if the Wetland goes like this this part isn't really that developable right um so I'm seeing a lot of heads nodding that you report at least some comments around hey we need more flexibility in what we're netting out and quite frankly Forest Lake is is not the community that one thinks of as apartment Haven okay we have more than our share of large apartment buildings we have we have we have built all the apartment buildings that the North Metro needs um and we just happen to have them right here and and we've done it for for the sake of density but we do not have the infrastructure in our city to properly support those apartments all right we don't have the police and fire resources to properly do that we have no inspection requirements we have no regulations to protect the folks that are in those apartment buildings um and so we are apartment building out uh and quite frankly that's the only way when you do the math that we could possibly meet their average density for the community I'm going to skip over uh the one here there's one other a couple other land use policies that are of concern one is um this and these are areas that I'm concerned because there's vagueness in their plan one is the practicality analysis of development and demand they're add plan says local governments need to plan land uses that are realistically marketable within the planning period focusing on plausibility and long-term viability so did I miss something that this is for 2050 and we're supposed to be able to predict that all so um and I can see that in our I can see how a statement like this has been generated when I even look at our plan and how we met our density requirements in our plan yep but I want to raise this as red flags of what does that look like to local governments and how are how what standard are we really going to be held to and we might not know that for a while but putting them on notice of this concern now I think is going to be helpful for us to have those conversations in the future the other one is this Performance Based Regional and subregional flexibilities they're going to establish criteria in partnership with local governments um as part of the work plan of where we can have flexibility so one area that I've started to talk about flexibilities and Susan touched on this some we have a lot of apartment buildings not just the big ones that have gone up we have a lot of buildings apartment buildings that were built in the 60s 70s and 80s and they don't count towards our community density I want to I already started the conversations with the Met Council you're asking communities to meet the density requirements on all new density all I've got is corn fields or wheat fields or whatever whatever we're growing out there beans or or whatever it is ducks ducks in our Wetlands um I I need I need to be able to count some of that existing density because it's it's not adequately showing we we actually are a community that might be low on single family and we shouldn't be denied new single family if we can't look at that old stuff that make sense I I find the phrase in partnership with local government in Partnership laughable um although it tells me that perhaps they are going to begin Partnerships with local governments and um in in the the comments I would look forward to seeing more description of what that partnership looks like you're not skeptical are you me all right and then the last one is our housing the housing policy so um the Metro coun the the Met Council has identified identifies that there is a future affordable housing need um metrowide and then they take that future affordable housing need and break it up by jurisdiction and say Hugo you have this much loo you have this much Forest Lake you have this much and you have to kind of break that out and show how it is you we could achieve our future affordable housing by total acres of land trust me guys if you could see a lot of these tables um so they're changing some of the provisions this year that we need to look at different options for how we gu guide land and um I'm concerned that right now if we used our existing math and our existing tables we wouldn't meet their requirements it's essentially going to require us to either increase the minimum densities in our me medium residential high residential mixed use residential districts of a minimum of 10 units per acre or it's going to end up requiring us to play around with some 12 units per acre and 8 units per acre I'm just letting you know this this is one I'm not as familiar with but our met Council sector representative said please take a look at this you may want to provide comment yes Susan basically what I'm seeing here is that they're saying you're going to we're going to tell you that you need y number of dwelling units at 30% Ami yes and do you tell us 30 you tell us where you're going to put those 30 dwelling units it's not quite that so let's just say it's 30 units um and it's much more than that um but let's just say it's 30 units we need to show where we're going to have at least 3 acres of land guided for a minimum of 10 units per acre we need to have at least three acres in the community guided at a minimum of 10 units per acre to meet that 30 so basically you want a 5 Acres with a 150 I believe unit of apartment building on that 5 it's not saying that that is where it's going to go it's saying if you have to have 500 units in the medium density requirement you have to have 50 acres guided through your community to show you could accommodate those 500 units it's a math equation that I'm not prepared to describe without a whiteboard and Maps unless all of our land was built on and sold out we wouldn't have to worry about it right um we would have to worry about it at the time of Redevelopment but Redevelopment um so so like right now and why this is of a concern is our medium density residential district actually doesn't have a minimum density of 10 units per acre it's six units per acre so we have to adjust that or look at guiding other lands elsewhere let's just say the magic number is 500 our existing comp plan rate now I can tell isn't guiding enough sufficient acreage so I wanted to put you on notice that that was another area that I will be providing comment on yes Susan Okay 30% Ami or 50% Ami is 25,00 ,000 a year all right that's what you're making $25,000 a year the guideline is you never spend more than 30% of your income on your housing your rent okay so where we are going to find a developer who is willing to have apartments at $8,300 because I just played with the math here $8,300 a year divided out by 12 um that's less than $1,000 a month there is no way that we will ever have a developer anywhere in the metropolitan area unless the city is subsidizing or the Met council is subsidizing those apartment rents you want to go back to that local affordable housing aid conversation yeah well there's only $300,000 I know that I know that and and okay so just doing the math I don't don't care how many units we try and cram into an area unless we have a Japanese I mean all of our 600 square foot apartments are renting at considerably more than a th000 a month you're looking at $700 a month just so you know oh wow so it's even less than I yeah math I can do yeah well so I'm I'm sorry this I love aspirational goals I love I love stretch goals um but they have to be real some reality someplace in this solar system much less in Forest Lake all right so this one just needs to be completely rethought and what I see they are doing is cities you have lot you provide lots of acreage for lots of medium and high density housing and somehow magically some of that will become affordable yeah it's saying guide it not necessarily it has to build that way um I regardless um right now if we looked at our existing comp plan we wouldn't be able to meet these requirements which means that we're going to have to play with our com our our future land use in this next go round to try to put in more density in the community more medium to high density in the community and um yeah so I don't care how much we guide this it will never those that's 700 that's at 50% Ami they're looking at 30% Ami here Susan I don't think that the uh policies in place but I don't think that they're established with the belief that it will happen I think what they're asking is to set the parameters and create an environment that it could happen okay but what happens then is they are asking us to change the to Essen to to meet this and guide this any development that we have in the future is going to have to have a significant amount of apartment buildings or more dense development well you can only get so dense and as Paul mentioned and you mentioned um that Shadow Creek is pretty freaking dense for Forest Lake and I would not argue with I don't believe that anyone would say that that is what we believe the character of forest lake or the community um that Forest Lake wants itself to be um I I this this is this is very very difficult I understand that's why I brought it for comments are due by October 7th um if you are that passionate about it I did include that hyperlink anybody can make comment they have a series of public hearings um you can go in person you can make comments online what I'm doing right now with you is having this conversation to then go to the council uh with a prepared comment letter the council agrees to it and the mayor the authorized mayor to sign it I'll get you all a copy so you have a version of it but these will be the touching points of areas that I have identified and I believe I hear that you agree that these are areas of concern for Forest Lake and bringing this um up to them now um before any sort of adoption should giving it to both our sector representative and our council member representative are high on the priority list so there are some of us that have trouble accessing our for city of Forest Lake GMA accounts well we don't offer Gmail accounts well those city of forest like email accounts they can fix it for you y fix mine last week all right I will I will try again yet again we can we have Support Services give caner a call we will make sure that we get you guys the services you need to to have that communication open so um on that note that's all I have for discussion but I do have some staff updates but I don't uh want to jump ahead uh chair J so just my last closing comment so Shadow Creek which we've decided as no parking we won't plow it as a city um and if they're sitting on top of each other that the trucks May overhang the sidewalk the density is almost nine per acre for that size lot and that is not forcely and they get the smell manure all day I I actually don't think it got in at nine I think the net density on it was at nine or was just 86 is what I got just with your quick math yeah I took the raw land and divided it yeah no I mean it was just above so there's one wetland in there that the minimum I'm on a generous side the minimum density in there was six units per acre and I want to say it was just it was just made seven so we're we're that those are some of those challenges that we're having had we been able to take out that roadway had we been able to take out that storm Pond that storm Pond's fairly sizable for that um you would have seen that number jump pretty significantly from that seven units per acre then if that jumps up how does that balance out all our other numbers but you're you're the Susan's point right you're only going to be looking at multistory buildings in order to get that kind of density with that kind of Ami it it the ma doesn't work to get 10 to 15 years an acre well the projected Ami will go up obviously by 2050 hopefully yeah it can double and it's not enough for today I know all right I'll be a good boy now to build on 10 ACR all right any other final comments on uh what subject are we on the Met Council reimage image imagin imagine imagine imagine it's so so who has you have two staff updates I do but yeah I do they're all on me I haven't seen you guys for a while so we have some policy things just to run through really quick these are true updates but my question for you is did you want I know you know we go around the room with updates do you want to see if uh our esteemed council member has updates before me uh no he can wait okay all right oh that's cold well we're still on the agenda we are um so staff updates just a a couple here that are listed cannabis based businesses as many of you probably know the state of Minnesota passed uh recreational cannabis use last year Don you're looking at me like you don't know what you're talking about I was not aware of that um but um and it doesn't allow us to prohibit cannabis uh sales within the community we do have to license um at least too because it's based on population city council has started to have conversations about the licensing aspect of cannabis based businesses but the next step in that process is really to start talking about zoning and use and where we would like to see um these kinds of businesses not just retail businesses that brick and mortar where you can of a better word a pod shop um but also growth facilities um you know where where do we want to see them how do we want to see what kind of performance standards so you I this through this fall and early winter we'll be bringing that back before you we're working hand inand with our legal council though on that one um our goal my goal would be to kind of what are that high level policy where would we like to see these and then see if we can't go rob some performing standards from other communities so it doesn't take us through inventing the wheel but just know that's coming forward um and then also code enforcement um update as many of you know the city council uh passed administrative citation program earlier this year um as of August uh we had had 112 uh zoning Code Enforcement cases this year um we have a little over half of them closed um this is your team working on Code Enforcement and we lose Jordan next Friday um so we know that there's still a number of Code Enforcement cases is out there it's um you know we're we're aiming for compliance we don't want to have to site Property Owners but we have issued some citations nine of them to date I'll also let you all know that part of this has been a little tricky for us in that code enforcement was a part of the Building Inspections Division for a long while um and we did find a backlog of 400 cases that went back to the start of 22 so we have really been trying to cross reference all the systems of where we've been managing code enforcement and how we've been managing code enforcement um but letting you know that um it we're working through our code working with our new code enforcement program we're fine-tuning it and refining it each time we're kind of running into roadblocks but we are getting our systems um up and running and have I think done fairly well this year for it being kind of our first year with a more robust program um let's say goodbye to Jordan next Friday I was also just going to give you an update on the city administrator search but I don't know if uh council member husn has anything to share at all I can just kind of fill you in we had a meeting next door right council person hnik if you would please come up to the lect turn you know that the audience that's online is just waiting for are they really as you all know we had a meeting right next door because we had to kind of compress everything here you guys were using the the uh office here tonight but uh basically what it boiled down to is that uh we've kind of boiled it down to like four finalists out of about six or so and we're hoping to have a u uh the interviews and not done by the I we're going to try to get it done on the 30th of uh September that may change a little bit depending on schedules and that kind of thing so the process now is to notify the the finalists that um that they are finalist and that um now they can do background checks and that sort of thing and then after that that all becomes public uh up until this point it's all uh you know we work with numbers and that's about it but uh this is our second go around with uh admin with looking for an administrator as you well know and so this has been going on for months I can't wait to get it done and uh so we can get on with some other business here for the city of forest lake and uh it's uh you know until you meet these people and do the interviews and all that uh but it'll be another uh full day uh with uh uh department heads and and the councel and whoever is interested so that's our most immediate thing going on right now so you're also kind of working on a budget right right we're working on a budget we are working on a budget and we're trying to settle on on what's going to happen there we do have to have that uh done I think on the 22nd we have to at least submit it um the budget by the 22nd of September I believe that's the right date yeah your your next regular council meeting you'll vote on the prary and that's the time we we set a budget and hopefully we can moderate a little bit by the time it gets to December we can as you well know we can lower it but you can't change it Upward at that point so um yeah so those are two those are the two big things to live with that budget I'm sorry and whoever is elected next year has to live with that budget that's right that's correct so anyways that's kind of a quick summary of what happened tonight and uh so um of course you guys will be person know and the other thing too uh thanks for all you guys do you got to make some tough decisions here and uh I did it for 12 years and and uh working with Paul and Susan and and uh you folks so it's been a long time ago so anyways any other questions that I can help you with or or muddy the water chair Gerard if I might just piggyback on uh council member hnk's um budget mention there is at this point budget in uh in the budget for another person in the planning department um guess they've seen this hooligan bunch of planning Commissioners and think that you need more order it's not the case um but our staffing in the uh Community Development Department is at 2014 levels and we continue to just be asked to include more services including in 2025 if this position has funded some airport assistance and so um just know that you might be seeing other faces if that budget is passed with that Staffing in 25 all right good have a good evening thank you y thank you thank you do we have uh council person Roberts online are Lea on no sir okay back to you Abby anything else uh no sir Jordan do you have anything to add no sir well wishes and where are you heading back to uh Fridley I think she might career-wise oh or school school no just find of more work she's already a graduate okay this was our first taste on local government good luck in your career yeah thank you sir anything for us I think we've had plenty this evening thank you for your truly thank you though on your diligence for going through that variance request is sometimes they want what they want and it just doesn't quite fit but you gave it a good discussion and I can live with it compromise if you want to call it that Kevin uh couple thoughts that I think can better our community and I don't know if this is a council issue or if planning should bring it to council uh rental licenses uh we have a lot of challenges with rentals in our community and I think a simple rental license we had a minimal fee at least gives the city some Authority that we don't currently have and the second thing that came up and I thought about as we were looking at that variance request is when you look at the impervious surface and all those issues and this particular house had a gravel driveway once they do their thing and we give them their permit and six months down the road if they decide to put an asphalt driver in or concrete driver in we don't require any permits I think we really need to look at having driveway uh permit driveways permitted it versus just somebody just putting one in and what do you do then now it becomes an Enforcement issue right and and then you got to try to get someone to tear it out so I think we should look at having permits required for driveways we do I see people putting driveways in all over without permits well they're supposed to get a permit okay I didn't realize that but I didn't I'm with Kevin it was my understanding uh you only needed that for a new driveway not to replace your driveway the policy has been since I've been here if you're Chang changing widening even replacing especially when you're working in the RightWay next to the street we want a permit because we want to check setbacks we want to verify impious and I don't I don't think I it's on the website though is it that way I mean where where someone's going to drive put a driver in and they have to get a permit we'll take a look at that um we definitely can do better at at proactive education about our permitting I'm sure there's a lot of activity that happens in the community just like after 4:30 p.m. and chick exactly no and I get it I know we have limitations but that just made me think about it again because usually what happens yeah Susan nothing Don no Jesse nothing nothing sir thank you and I have nothing based on that the chair is looking for a motion to adjourn everybody wants to stay no right so not even 10 yet yeah the chair is for a motion to I'll second it I have a motion and I have a second it's non-available motion all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed abstentions motion carries thank you all for participating in a lively discussion this evening [Music]