[Music] [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] I will call the meeting to order good evening and welcome to the February 20th meeting of the minona Planning Commission the commission generally meets twice a month always on a Thursday the schedule and tentative meeting agendas can be obtained by calling the the planning division or by checking the city website at minaka mn.gov the commission holds public hearings on land use applications for all land use applications the city notifies Property Owners within at least 400 ft of the site and posts plans and information on the city website for some applications the city also places signs on the properties and places notices in the sunso newspaper from a specific process standpoint the commission makes recommendations to the city council on rezonings subdivisions conditional use permits and amendments to the city's comprehensive guide plan zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations we also make final recommendations decisions on site plans signage requests variance requests and expansion permits unless these requests are part of an application that must be heard by the city council in that case the commission makes a recommendation and the council makes the final decision anyone grieved by a final Planning Commission decision May appeal to the city council you must submit a written appeal to the city staff within 10 days of this meeting from a broader standpoint the city's comprehensive guide plan zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations are the city's best efforts to codify a balance between individual rights and Community responsibilities individual rights are easy to understand Community responsibilities are more subtle but the idea is that we as members of the community agree to limit our individual rights for the common good of the group The planning division the Planning Commission and the city council are charged with managing this sometimes difficult Balancing Act we ask you please keep this broader perspective in mind as we review tonight's applications again welcome staff please call R minion here Waterman here Banks here Brink here Hansen here Henry here chair Maxwell here uh the next item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda staff are there any changes we have no changes this evening uh may I have a motion to approve the agenda I'll make that motion a second uh all those in favor please please signify by saying I I I I motion carries uh next is the approval of the minutes from our last meeting May I have a motion to approve the minutes I'll make that motion I'll second the motion all those in favor say I any opposed motion carries uh next on the agenda is a report report from staff uh chair and Commissioners a report um first from your uh the council meetings that have occurred over the last uh couple of weeks since you met on January 27th the council reviewed some conditional use permits for accessory uh accessory Apartments accessory dwelling units on bantis Point Road and Highway 7 those were on the consent agenda and approved per your recommendation they also reviewed the tree removal variants and the associated fines um with a new construction on Prospect Place uh the council did not change any of uh the fines as presented by staff they uh concurred with the Planning Commission that this was likely just a mistake on behalf of the property owners but they did not want to set a precedent for other property owners and and quite frankly for other developers um who work in town I would note that all of the fines have been paid and and the uh building permit has been issued so construction has started on that home on February 10th uh the only item on that agenda was related to The Mills Town Home Project um just the finalization of the final plat um some vacation of easements that will be obsolete upon the final plat so really the final step to creating the Lots um where those Twin Homes will be constructed uh two meeting announcements the meeting uh the first meeting of the community work group for the zoning ordinance update will be held next Wednesday uh at 6:00 pm. we will report back to the commission at your next meeting about the the work of that work group um commissioner Banks is representing uh the Dei Commission on the workg group and commissioner Hansen representing the Planning Commission on that work group your next meeting is scheduled for March uh 13th we do have several items pending for that agenda some may fall off but uh if they don't it will be a a pretty big um meeting I'd also like to uh welcome commissioner Scott Brink uh to the group he was appointed by the council in uh January for a two-year term uh replacing uh former chair uh Su and uh Scott I know most of the Planning Commission um got a little bit of background but if you'd like to give it to the rest and and our uh large viewing audience that would be great yeah sure um I'm Scott Brink and um I'm just really excited and uh grateful that the council selected me to um serve on the commission here I um excited about joining uh largely because um most of my career I'm retired now but my career lead leading up to that has all been in local government in uh you know Public Works engineering related capacities for from different municipalities here in Minnesota and Colorado as well so um it's just great to be plugged back in with local go government and the community I live in and and I'm really excited to to serve and get involved and and uh help the the commission and Council and the city as a whole just uh go forward with great things so thanks for having me that's all I have chair thank you welcome commissioner Brink we're happy to have you uh next is item six report from Commissioners does anybody have anything to report this week commissioner Henry thanks chair uh just as a member of the sustainability commission I'd be remiss in my duties if I didn't report that we're putting out or it's sponsored by the sustainability commission we have the 2025 minona sustainability Awards and it's open for applications and the categories are energy landscape waste reduction water young adult and that means anybody within the city who lives or works in the city if they have any kind of plan that they like to submit to the sustainability commission we're going to vote and then have some awards for those who embody the the culture of the sustainability so looking forward to having all those applications coming in and we can give the awards out Susan do you remember when we're planning to hand the awards out yeah chair Maxwell and commissioner Henry I think that the commission will be voting on the awards in March to be handed out uh at the city council meeting during Earth week um I can also tell you that we have received several applications already so and we would love to have more oh good yeah again the deadline is February 28th so it's coming up next week commissioner Hansen yeah this is maybe a a question or a call out for Miss Thomas um I feel like in maybe one minute or two minute ago of minaka memo um um I saw maybe a survey for Highway 7 is that a thing that our residents can fill out like a survey on or they can learn more about what the state is doing along Highway 7 Corridor here yeah chair Maxwell and commissioner Hansen I apologize that I don't have a lot of background on that but I do know that if you go to minetonka matters um which is um website kind of associated with minona uh mn. go you can uh certainly hear more about the project about the plans uh for Highway 7 and weighin also um residents are always welcome to uh provide comments to our Public Works director um will Manchester or the city engineer uh Phil Olen again this is It's a state highway project but obviously being in minetonka um we will be very uh plugged in to what's going on there any other reports from Commissioners all right so we'll move on to the next uh item on our agenda uh consent agenda there are no items tonight so we'll move on to item eight which is the non-consent agenda before we be begin consideration of the non-consent items I'd like to review the steps in the process and the public hearing procedure that will be followed for each proposal first the item will be announced and staff will report on the subject the commission will then ask questions then the applicant will be invited to make a presentation or offer comments Commissioners may ask additional questions at that time after the applicant is finished the public hearing will be opened to give anyone present the opportunity to comment on the proposal if you wish to speak please come to the podium and state your name for the record uh the first item on tonight's agenda is a variances and expansion permit for additions at 17310 County Road 101 this is uh all right uh staff we're ready for your uh presentation thank you chair maxel so this is for Varian and variances and expansion permits for the Johnson Residence at 17310 County Road 101 this is generally West W of Grace Bay Marina on Lake minona subject property again on Lake minona uh the property was platted in 1887 and the single family home which is the current home uh was constructed in 1893 so the property and the structure predate the city's current or the first excuse me zoning ordinance which was about 196 5 when that was created so this structure is considered non-conforming again meaning it doesn't meet today's standards you can see on the image this green line is the top of bluff so this property has a steep slope otherwise referred to as a bluff when it is running into a body of water um and then this dotted line is a 30ft setback so that's showing that we also have a Shoreland District setback of 30 ft from from the top of bluff that this property would not meet the structure today and then we also have sidey setbacks of an aggregate of 30 ft so that means each side yard needs to sum together to 30 this one is 5.12 this other side is 14. 38 so together it's under 30 and then the front yard setback since this is County Road 101 is 50 ft um currently it's about 28 29 ft away from the front property line this proposal is for two variances and two expansion permits two variances would be the aggregate sidey yards um since this property does not already meet that the variance is for this garage and first excuse me Second Story Edition um to be moved back away from the front so there's more maneuvering area in the drive are driveway excuse me um which requires a variance the front yard setback from 50 ft to 35.25 Ft and then on the Westerly setback from 25 because the 25 and the 5.12 would be 30 so from 25 to 11.31 and then the expansion permits uh would be for this side which is already at 5.12 which is less than the minimum requirement of 10 and from the top of bluff as you can see these additions are within that setback of the bluff so both the additions are three of them one's over the garage so you only see two boxes um require that expansion permit this proposal um has been brought forward by the architect Steve Urban from out of box architecture he's applying for the variances on behalf of the property owner the variances are for the garage Edition on top of the garage it's a second story and then a staircase Edition um as we have a new commissioner and just to refresh everyone I'll explain the difference between a variance and an expansion permit uh so generally the difference is if there is or is not a non-conformity at the property so variance is asking for a request that would create a non-conformity when a practical practical difficulty exists on the property so that's your is it reasonable is it unique will it alter the character of the neighborhood and then that requires a special permit expansion permit is saying that there's already a non-conforming at the property non-conforming excuse me status at the property and the request is to utilize that non-con it not encroach further to create a larger non-conformity uh for this proposal staff's not concerned about the expansion permit again because this proposal is not encroaching any further than the existing setbacks of the structure um for the variance staff finds the proposal to meet the variance standards it's reasonal reasonable um increasing increasing maneuver maneuvering area in the front yard um it's good for safety uh the proposal will increase the floor area ratio from 0.19 to 0.2 which is lower than the area highest of 0.27 uh so that's reasonable and then the garage will be increased in size to 24x 24 um which per Planning Commission policy is considered a standard size garage so they will be meeting that as well that policy standard uh the uniqueness of the property there is a limited area on the property where they could build and meet setbacks so again outside of this green dotted line and then inside of these red setback lines um actually this setback is too close so it should be back here so it' be just a small area that would actually be buildable for today's standards and then altering the character of the neighborhood because of the uniqueness of this property we don't anticipate it it will alter the character of the neighbor [Music] based off the size of the additions this is not considered a Redevelopment which would be the increase or removal of more than 50% of the existing gross floor area um this is important because if it is considered a Redevelopment then it needs to meet the tree protection ordinance for the tree removals this um again is not considered a Redevelopment however they will be meeting the tree protection ordinance although they are removing two trees one near the deck and one near the existing garage both are being removed because of loss because of the area needed to construct those two um the deck and the garage Edition um uh so there will be mitigation required for those and those will be reviewed at the time of the building permit so they're not on the plans today but it's a condition of approval that we will make sure is followed oops so again staff finds the uh request reasonable meets the mcmansion policies based on unique circumstances uh not expected to alter the character of the neighborhood and will meet the expansion permit and variant standards so staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt this proposal with that a return you chair thank you Miss Reigns Commissioners are there any questions for staff no questions uh so at this point uh we'll I'll invite the applicant forward to make a presentation if you like uh please state your name uh when you come up to make your presentation good afternoon uh my name is Steve Urban erban and uh we have one little minor change which uh uh I have to explain nothing's changed on the floor plans the site plans are anything but it has to do with the elevations of the proposed building uh the addition the U situation was that we took a look at the roof the existing roof on the uh existing building and it became obvious to me and the structural engineer that we should replace the roofs it's just you know 80 or 70 years old and it was time to do that so basically all we're doing is changing the elevation a little bit as you can see um from a gabled end to a hip end which uh actually even fits the neighborhood even better so we're we're trying nothing else changed Es as far as uh the the planning the the uh site work and so on uh the um and that was my decision by the way you know it's if you're going to put money into the house like this let's put a new roof on it and that's exactly what what we're doing I did talk with Kevin the building inspector about it and uh he just got back of course from Jamaica and uh uh we talked about it and he said no once you get approval uh then we I'll go through the plans and how you're doing it so it's not really an issue at all on on the structural part so other than that any questions thank you we may call you back up for questions uh in a bit okay you're welcome uh I will now open uh public hearing anybody who would wish to speak come to the podium state your name and address for the record please keep your comments brief try not to repeat points already made open public hearing any comments all right I will close the public hearing and now we will take um comments or questions from the Planning Commission yeah commissioner Hansen yeah spring training so I can bat lead off um I mean thanks Jer uh in general I think this is a I mean pretty interesting project given the age of the the home and what year we're talking about when this kind of all came to being um so I think given the nature of the lot and um how they're working within what I'll call the confines of the lot in the property I find this to be just a a pretty nice and straightforward design and um I think that the idea that it fits within the the existing character of the neighborhoods totally spoton so pretty pretty straightforward in my mind um and uh I think investing in a new roof sounds like an awesome idea sounds like the right thing to do so kind of pair all of that together and would look forward to supporting this commissioner Henry thanks chair I have a couple questions for City Staff first too and could you confirm that if they did try to make let's say a new build on this lot and made everything conforming is there any buildable area or would it be so small that may put a dog house or something on there too or did you do any calculations with that or because that wasn't what the proposal was then it the point is mood chair commissioner I did not do a calculation um based off the size it would be smaller than our code Stander allowance today which is a 20 by 20 40 by 40 one of the two sorry just to follow up on that I think um the buildable area there would be some but certainly you would be looking at other types of variances on the project I don't think that there's a way to to construct a a home on the property without variance of some kind yeah it seems like the 30 foot setback from the steep slope or the bluff and then the 50 Foot from 101 there's not much buildable area on there okay that's good to know and just to confirm that City staff that you worked with the applicant and you've heard about the proposed changes to the roof and you guys are okay with that too uh chair and and Commissioners um to be honest no we had not heard about the changes to the roof line until this evening so um that is a little bit concerning to City staff because um this packet was published with a certain design um and this design is different um if I may ask the applicant a question chair yes you may Mr um I heard that the footprint of the building would not be Chang changing um and you said the floor plans would not be changing can you confirm that the total floor area would not be changing the uh plan that you see on the site is exactly what we're building on in other words uh other than the garage going on top of the garage we're not building out from anything that's not already there so does that answer the question uh chair no no not exactly I'm I'm specifically talking about um the Second Story um there were um you know Gables um Gable Windows um can and I don't have the floor plan for the Second Story I need to confirm that the Second Story itself not not the footprint but the usable space there is not increasing could you repeat that I I just want to get it in my mind to get the right answer certainly um the city has a floor area ratio um restriction when um variances are proposed and so we have calculated the floor area ratio based on the plans that were previously given to us the usable space first floor and second floor and so my question is in changing the roof line here is the usable space of the second floor increasing no the second floor the is right on top of the existing building that is there so uh are you asking is the total square footage changed is that what you're asking me uh yeah chair Maxwell I'm I'm going to be anecdotal I'm thinking about my grandma's house you know she had the the real sloped roof and and The Gables sticking out and that second floor that whole area wasn't usable I would have had to be about two 2 feet tall to get underneath that roof line and so that area wasn't usable but if um she raised the walls that little area under the slope roof would become usable so that's my question and I I realize it may um seem like a strange question but it does make a difference in terms of floor area it does make a difference a matter of floor area if in fact that over the garage we changed everything we didn't change anything over the garage so when you get to the other area of the existing building the actual upstairs area outside walls are there but the way it was framed with the collar beams and so on the the walls come up and then they the ceiling turns in so the floor area below it is there but I question how usable it is if that's the case simply because you had this little thing there the only change that we probably made in reference to your question was the roof over the outside area or the uh next to the deck that particular roof would not hold and we were concerned about the drift load on it as it is why it hasn't fallen to start with that we built over that so yes I guess the question is the question to answer is did we add a couple Square ft in the front of the building taking that roof off that we were concerned about drif load and build straight up yes we did that you can see that in the uh the perspective that we got here so I so whatever 100 square ft or 150 square ft that is I guess uh the answer would be we added some square footage on the second floor taking off the roof we were concerned about and building it straight up oh thank you Mr Urban um Miss Thomas this seems to me something that we need staff to review before we can vote on it if the proposal has changed compared to what staff reviewed yeah chair Maxwell that would be U my suggestion Miss Reigns and I were um just speaking about that we see a little bit of a a difference in um the Western elevation here um and and because what was published and what has been available to neighbors to comment on is different than now what you're being requested to vote on I would give the applicant the option to either um move forward with the um application as it was proposed in your packet initially proposed um or to to table the application to your next meeting I think that if it's something that staff finds that we're we're still comfortable with it's still under the floor area ratio um I I don't um I see it more as a a consent agenda item since you had no comments on it this evening but I am I'm uncomfortable um with the Planning Commission acting on something that has not been part of the public record previously so my proposal then would be we continue with comments on the application that we got not discussing the the roof and then for the next meet if we would potentially table table after we've given comments and that the next meeting um after have staff has had a chance to review it then it could potenti should be a consent agend item I agree with that I do have a question uh you may ask um since we're talking about the front elevation we have no problem of taking the roof off on the lower level and putting a new roof that will structurally hold the drift load and then make that elevation what you've seen on your plans if that be the case it may look goofy but hey sometimes we got to do what we got to do Hi and then there will be no extra square footage okay thank you for for those comments we will con we will make comments here um on the proposal that we received uh and then I would so we'll have the the commission make comments uh and then if there if you would make no changes we could vote on it with no changes and if you wanted to put in a different proposal for next week to change the or the next meeting to change the roof line we would consider that at a future meeting thank you are there any other questions from or comments from the commission actually another question and for the applicant if you're okay to come back up I'm just curious with this change in roof does that change the overall height of the house in your opinion looking at this hip versus a Gable that does look like in my opinion it's going to raise it up a little bit but I like no the hip actually brings it down if you take a look at the plans you've got the Gable goes up so the the hip of this roof is not any higher than than the you know the slopes are the same so it's not any higher than the peak except there are no Gables on this because it's a hip roof so therefore the walls are actually less probably five or six feet in height less than what's existing but what you're asking us to do is come back and put a higher Gable back on that front entrance if you take a look at the uh let's see it would be the uh North elevation and that's what she's talking about is that that hip thing right there what and there's a little uh uh lean to up against that and we were concerned with the drift load of the snow coming down why it hasn't fallen down you we're lucky but uh so we changed it just because obviously you put this kind of money into a building you don't need to have all these sad things that that could happen from the past so that's the only thing that we changed but we would be willing to go back and put that elevation exactly the way it is now if the we have to follow the gables on the two ends we won't put a hip roof on we'll just put a pitched roof on just like you got it here yeah thanks for the answer to the question I'm just curious of the overall height of the the roof and you've answered that so thank you okay Miss Thomas uh chair if if I may um again I I'm I my ad my advice to the Planning Commission is to make sure that when you are acting on whatever it is that we're acting on we have the we've been able to provide that to neighbors as public notice and that um we've posted that we've given the public the opportunity I would um point out uh you have this drawing that the applicant provided and if you look at the West and East elevations you will notice um this is kind of what we were getting at or what I was trying to indicate there's clearly a difference between the west elevation and the East elevation in terms of usable square footage uh on the drawings that you have right now there's a a a wall that continues straight up on both of those elevations so clearly a square footage change not to suggest that staff will be um that that will put this over the floor area ratio or that it will be problematic but it is not something that staff has had an opportunity to review may I answer thank you m Thomas uh ER there any other comments or questions from the commission Comm Hansen well I look forward to reading the minutes this will be fun um I'm going to withdraw my previous comments of supporting this I think what I would lean into into Mrs Miss Thomas's statement and say like we don't redesign projects on the Fly here and actually what I think we we would rather prefer is that the applicant comes back with the project they want that they want not one that's redesigned on the fly so if this is what they want awesome submit it to the staff follow the normal rules and then we take another crack at it in two or four weeks the so I'm personally not comfortable with I'd prefer retable this not comfortable with making a call on different versions tonight even I wouldn't even talk about this anymore so we make a comment no we're going to um we're going I'm going to look for a motion uh tonight are you ready to make a motion commissioner Hansen um unless other Commissioners want to I know Mr commissioner Banks Banks thanks chair just a question for staff um if with the proposed changes that we haven't had a chance to review uh that staff has not had an opportunity to review um just curious if you do find that um the additional if there is additional space if that additional space um goes over the the ratio would that constitute a know variance to go through or what what would be the process if it does go over that ratio uh chair Maxwell and commissioner banks that would then uh go over the floor area ratio policy which is sometimes called the mcmansion policy there would be another action then that would the Planning Commission would be asked to do and that is to wave that policy okay thank you thank you Miss Thomas I'll take a motion from the commission I I'm going to look to miss Thomas here I think what I'm sensing from my f Commissioners is a motion to table and come is that okay I'll make a motion to table item is it 9A 8 8 a okay 8 a sorry is there a second second minion uh all those and do we have to do we have to pull the audience or pull the commission or is it a we should pull the commission yes uh staff please pull the commission minion yes Waterman yes Banks yes Brink yes Hansen yes Henry yes chair Maxwell yes uh that is a um a decision to table this item uh until we have uh the final uh proposal from the applicant reviewed by the staff uh and then the that's the last item for our uh consent agenda so we'll move on to the next item on our agenda which is other business there's nothing there then we're on to item 10 uh which is adjournment a motion we adjin is there a second oh second second water all those in favor I sorry we are adjourned [Music]