April 8th, 2025 planning commission meeting to order. Will everyone please rise for the pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you everyone. All right. First item on the agenda tonight is the approval of the agenda. Do I have any requests for changes to the agenda this evening? So move. All right. Do I have a second to approve the item? Second. All those in favor of approving the agenda say I. I. Approved. Approval of minutes from the meeting. Oh, way back in February. February 24th, 2025. Any concerns about the minutes or requests for edits or changes? Not seeing any. An entertaining motion to approve the meeting minutes. Motion to approve the meeting minutes. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor of approving the minutes say I. Opposed. Minutes are approved. All right. This evening we have one public hearing. This is actar Peterson variance BOA 2025-037887 Shamrock Trail. This is a request for approval for variance to allow a 100 ft shorelance for Mitchell Lake for an addition to a single family home where 150 ft is required. Little report on the project, please go forward. Good evening. Thanks for your patience tonight. if you could state your name for the record and tell us about your request, please. Sure. I'm Ner. This is my husband. And I'm Alex Peterson. And we're requesting, like you said, the variance uh of 100 ft uh set back from the lake. And I first just want to thank uh Jeremy, Sarah, and and the staff for for helping us through this. Um they've been great in in helping us put all this together. um and trying to get our requests done. We Yeah, we do have a PowerPoint, but I I'll show that in a minute. I think the background behind it was um the property was purchased our house was built in the in the early 50s. Uh it was the only house on the lot. Um and my father-in-law had purchased that house in 93 and he built his home in 2007. And when he had I guess going back when he had purchased a lot we thought that there was um the variance was granted the variance was granted at that time for 100 we we thought 100 ft. So, we had been planning the last couple of years um on this addition um as our family grew and we needed more space. Um we decided that that we would do this and and through the planning stages we we had been was thinking that 100 ft was accepted. Um so we kind of built the house um or the the plans of the project on the 100 foot and we had I thought had we thought we had some approval um through the through the city additional language. Yeah. Yeah. and and and through that um found out as we had started the project in November um that we didn't have the current setback and and so then the kind of the project stopped at that point. So so at that point there was some wording um and something back in 1993 um that it seemed a little bit out of order. kind of very routine things. So, let's give us a board. But essentially, just for context as well, the current house sits about 108 ft. So, it's really just a matter of it's less than 10 ft from our current home built before the current ordinances. Um, so just for a little bit of context and as you can see from the pictures, the shoreline comes at an angle. So the 100 foot subject is is requested but what would not be needed along the interior shoreline because of the nature of the shoreline I think we can it's helpful we just got some some images um thanks um so again it's about 20 ft from the lakeside uh the current zoning restrictions are we're actually currently not align with that as it does because of the nature of the home. Um, and this allows us to essentially build in the least obtrusive way. So, we've investigated other ways of doing this and this was uh the best option for keeping in character of the neighborhood and also with the least obstructive um property both at an angle pretty severely from the back. Um and so building up didn't really make any sense and there are reasons to be explained um in the letter but um again the for us the critical thing here is that the setback was requested in 1993 with the purchase of the property as a condition and it was um at that time approved and then there was a different process that was not public. Um and so we were working with the city um Jeremy Sarah and others to make sure that we're doing what we can to maintain the quality of the land and the water. Um and we in addition to this we have we have a history of the land. So um like um like explained the three properties every decrease in how many trees 100 trees um over the last 30 years even prior to the building of any of the properties. Um and we've done a lot of work on showing as it is and we're happy to comply with whatever um the city has recommended so that we can maintain the quality of wine because it is our lake after all. Um and there's uniqueness to the property which is also explored in the land. Yeah. So I think I think the uniqueness part of of this is the the house it's kind of an upside down house. our our our current our current kitchen is in the basement. Um there's no main floor living um master bedroom or you know primary bedroom kitchen without stairs. And a little more backstory behind it. When my father-in-law purchased the property, he broke it into three lots. He has three children, Nadia, his sister Sara, and we have a special needs brother-in-law. And I think the idea back in ' 93 was someday everyone moved back to Minnesota um and we all wanted to live so we could kind of take care of her brother um who has who has who has needs. So also within planning this house um as my in-laws are getting older um we wanted to have some accessibility for her brother. Um he's he can't go up and down the stairs. it wouldn't it wouldn't work really well just really from for long term it seems like that um that was part of our future vision for for the property um and we've been at Mitchell Lake for my whole life more yeah more um and so we are committed to the area and plan to stay there for a long time so we're wanting to invest in this property um this is not a short-term venture for us and we want to do it in a way that um really allows one matches the structure of the other homes in the neighborhood. It is the 1950s when it looks like that. Um, and so we're hoping that this actually brings it along with um the rest of the homes in the neighborhood. Do you want me to skip ahead to the images? Yeah. Or well, I guess um, you know, and then the three key things that we um that are expanded on the letter we'll just touch on briefly. Um, you know, we we really focus on reasonable use of the property. We feel that the addition is a reasonable addition. It isn't gargantuan. It provides for again a very average number of bedrooms and bathrooms for the lakeside properties. Um it doesn't obstruct views. So we'll show some of those photos later on, but a building in other places. Uh one kind of creates an unusual structure that two also is is an obstruction both from the lake um for the homes across the lake and then for our home here today. Um and then like I said, the character of the neighborhood. we really just want to match and fit the rest of the homes um as well were built a lot later, some of them in the '90s. Um and so this this really modernizes it. Um and then practical difficulty like like we talked about being in the front of the home there um utilities. We share space with our neighbors. We and we also have shared driveway. So we kind of explored all of that. And uh actually um in front of the home is uh the public trail and and that's where the 100 plus Harbor right next years. Um, but we we didn't think it would make sense to be any closer to that trail as well as um and we we also have an active well up in the front of our yard too. So, it caused some issues as all of them probably attest to um utilizing being able to utilize that for for the water services that we currently use for this helpful. Thank you. The other thing we wanted to add is that we are planning a um area of vegetation along the shoreline. That was again something that was advised by the city um to support um the water quality as well as to prevent shoreline erosion. And so we'll we'll do that along the we actually already have a little bit so we'll just do that in a little more organized way but along the entire shoreline. Um so this is a view from the front. So that's that's the trail on the other side of that. Those are the trees. Um they're obviously older than our than the home. Um and those that's just an example of something that we've done. So this is from Dave and Molly who are our direct neighbors um from their porch. So our house, you can't really see it great, but it's it's kind of beyond those trees. Um so through this process, we've talked to the jackets making sure that that we weren't intruding on anything from them. uh we don't want to be a nuisance to anybody. Um so so through this process over the last year, we've we've had Dave and Molly's um full support in this and and we just wanted to to make sure that we're not causing any issues and you can you can see a little bit of the roof light as well. So So if you were to go up, it would be a little bit of an um would be a little bit of an obstruction. And then there's not as much distance between our home with the jackets as there is on the other side of the property as well. So, in exploring that kind of like moving to the side, it didn't that didn't make as much sense um for the property and it would have been a little bit more of an inconvenience as well. So, this is a picture from the lake um was taken back in February when it was frozen. Um you can see a little bit of the we currently have a little buffer there, but but we're looking to expand that um as we work with Lorie and Sarah. I think it help it also helps to see kind of the horizontal sight line. So the home from the front you can only see the first story but because of the severe drop off you can see kind of like the basement the basement floor and the main floor. Um so going up would really be an anomaly and all the other homes are kind of in line with that. So that's that's what we meant by that moving moving up would be kind of strange and also just the shape of the home. It doesn't um it it didn't seem to be as reasonable of a use of the property as the plan we proposed. Here's just kind of a picture between the two houses and currently like you can see there's very little to get in the way of the runoff and from the closest point is it from the closest I think it's 108. Yeah. Yeah. 108. Yeah. Thank you. So it's 108 from that closest point. Um, so it's really not that much further and yet we believe that the um improvements to the shoreline would be better than what there is currently. And then as you move out, we have a lot more space. So that's not quite as far. And that's actually shown really well in this first picture here. We will also use some some of when we take some of the material out to build the house, we will actually lessen that slope a little bit. Um so it's not such a severe um grade down to the lake and and then with the buffer we feel like we worked with the city a lot on it Sarah and her little grading too if there questions about that. Thank you for your presentation. Any initial questions? Okay. Thank you. We'll go to the city fair report. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Oh, we take a city report, please. Yes. Thank you, chair and commissioners. Uh so as Nadia and Alex uh described their variance request is for a 100 ft setback from the ordinary high water level on Mitchell Lake. Uh the current setback of the house is 108 ft. Uh that house was built in the 1950s and predates all of the shoreland ordinances. Um as Nadia and Alex mentioned, there is a bit of a complicated history with this process. Uh so back in 1993, this parcel, there's the three watts on Shamrock Trail, uh went in through the subdivision process um and at that time requested variances both for um lake lot widths as well as setbacks from the ordinary high water level. It was a bit of um a multi-layered process. When I went back through in 1993, it went to planning commission. Planning Commission recommended approval of a 105 ft setback for this lot. Uh, city council um approved the property with a 105 ft setback of the lot, but then after the city council meeting, it went to the board of adjustment and appeals, which was the deciding board for variances at that time in 1993. And the board did not grant that 105 ft variance. They for this house at 7887 Shamrock said that the uh permitted setback is all existing points along the existing structure which is not how we typically write um setback variances today. When we write a setback variance we say that setback is 100 ft from this point or 150 ft from this point. Um so that created some confusion understandably as to what had been approved if you go back through those notes. So with that 100 ft uh variance not being granted um and the very restrictive language that currently exists for the property of all existing points um of the existing structure as being the setback that really prohibits Alex and Nadia from making any improvements on their property. So that's one of the pieces that we're um looking at here tonight as well as that setback from the ordinary high water level of 100 ft. Uh so when we're looking at variance criteria, we're looking for um a number of items to make sure it's consistent with our comprehensive plan and our city ordinance. Um staff feels that this uh proposed variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan as the uh setback itself is not um that much larger from today's current standards and the uh addition of the vegetative buffer and that additional um plantings will help improve the water quality which is part of our comprehensive plan is looking to improve water quality within our lakes. Um staff also feels that this uh variance is consistent with the intent and purpose of the shoreland ordinance. Again, the existing setback is 108 ft and the new setback request is 100 ft. Um to the general viewer, they're not going to notice a 108 versus 100 ft difference as they're out on the lake enjoying the water. Um and one of the balances with the shorland ordinance is to protect natural resources while also um providing opportunity for residential and commercial development. So allowing this modest um additional encroachment into the ordinary high water level seems to strike that bath as well of protecting lake uh Mitchell Lake as well as allowing for some residential uh reinvestment in the area. Um, as Nadia and Alex also mentioned, um, their desire is to bring this house into the character of the neighborhood. Uh, the rest of the western shores of Mitchell Lake developed in the mid to late 1990s. Their house, uh, being built in 1950 does stick out a little bit in terms of that age. Um, and in terms of other setbacks on the lake, there's been other houses and developments on the east shores of Mitchell Lake that were built prior to the shoreland ordinance. So, having this particular house encroached into that ordinary high water level setback is not atypical of the lake. There's other properties that predate the Shorland Ordinance and the setback request is not out of line with what that average setback is for all of those houses that both predate the Shorland ordinance and weren't developed after the Shorland ordinance. So, it'll fit in with the neighborhood character that we already see out on Angel Lake. Um, it's a reasonable use of the property. It's a current single family home. They're planning to continue to use it as a single family home and to make it function better for their family and um there is some practical difficulties with this lot. Um putting aside the practical the difficulty of the wording and the prohibitiveness prohibitiveness of uh that current wording for that setback. um that there is a bit of an inlet on Mitchell Lake that impacts all of the houses on Shamrock Trail where the the shoreline does come in quite a bit um from other uh areas on the shoreline and so having a 150 ft stepback along that inlet is uh very constrictive in that area. Um and it's not uh Mitchell Lake has a relatively uniform shoreline with the exception of a couple of inlets. This being one of those inlets. Uh so with all of that in mind, uh staff feels that the proposed um addition and improvements and encroachment into the setback are consistent with comprehensive plan and with the purpose and intent of the shoreland ordinance. And staff tonight is recommending approval of the uh variance request for a 100 ft setback from the ordinary high water level with the conditions as outlined here in the staff report uh in front of you tonight. Uh so tonight uh the planning commission has the options to either approve the variance as it is um with the conditions as outlined in uh the April 28th staff report or to deny the varian request. Thank you. Any questions for the city question? Yeah. So I noticed that we didn't get a response from the watershed district. If we decide or we move forward and the water district come water district comes back later with comments, could that impact the permit that's being requested? Uh thank you uh Mr. Taylor for that question. My understanding is if the wershed district would have issues with the development, they would work within um their own permitting process um for any potential land alteration that may happen on the property um and work through that process. [Music] Mr. Chair, if I could supplement that a little bit. Um the watershed district, we're just asking for comment based on their impact of from the various perspective. They don't have any approval authority on any waiverss or variances. They would provide just comment. Um and as Sarah mentioned, um they do have a a permitting process themselves. So that's how they would enact any um changes to the plan if they had any. But uh we're confident moving forward that um we've addressed most of the what we'd expect to see from a wershed district comment. Any questions for the city? Mr. Chair, Mr. Park. Yeah. Um Sarah, could you elaborate a little bit on the design of the vegetative buffer itself? Uh the applicant seemed to agree to that, but it wasn't part of the application package. And so, who's going to be responsible for the design? What are the goals of that? And who kind of provides that, installs that, manages that? Thank you, Mr. Farm. Um so the vegetative management uh plan um or the applicants will provide a plan for that offered. They will work um along with city staff potentially um working with a contractor who specializes in uh landscaping and vegetation to present a vegetation management plan. that is an application for um installing uh native vegetations like this that is run through our engineering department. Um and so staff will review and approve that plan and make sure that it is consistent um with the intentions of uh water quality, providing native vegetation um and having all of that be within the buffer area. So the applicants will provide that plan. um staff is very collaborative in providing feedback of drafts along that way. Um and usually a consultant is involved. Thank you. Mhm. Mr. Chair, just making the supplement, but um we anticipate that vegetation um including low um low plantings up to taller grasses to provide some habitat for our pollinators and birds in that area um meeting kind of the goals of the the shortland orbit. So, we would expect low to medium height vegetation um native species um to help kind of stabilize that shoreline. Other questions? All right. This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to come forward and offer comment for this project, please do so now. Good evening. if you could state your name for the record. Hi, thanks. My name is Chris Bedkkey. Uh, I just want to take an opportunity to uh get in front of you and first of all, thank you for uh allowing a great family here to stand up in front of you and and uh go through their plans. I am not on the lake, but I'm directly across the road from from them and and you maybe consider me as a character witness coming towards us tonight as just highlighting the fact that this uh family uh is really a huge asset to the to the neighborhood. Um I can go through a number of examples, but I just want to reiterate and maybe get on record and obviously I'm a little bit biased, but just highlight that this is the type of family that I think would want to invest in. Um, you know, in the winter, Alex, you saw the driveway, Alex stumbles that, but he snuggles everybody's driveway. Anyone wants needs help, he's the first one there. Nadia is the first one to ask if she can help in any way possible. And I just bring this up just again to reiterate the fact that this is a a family that is not looking to um take a a property and turn it into an investment uh property and quickly flip it or anything. This is someone or these are two people that want to invest with their family, the the community. So, I appreciate you taking allowing me to take this time to share that. Thank you. Thank you. Would anyone else like to come forward? Good evening. Can you state your name for the record, please? Paul Bstrom. Paul Thomas working with owners on the design of property. Been working with staff. They've been just unbelievably helpful. Um, we're definitely responsible with water run off. That's right. We're working with the staff with Lori and uh staff and uh what we're we're excited to do is um take care of existing problems with all the runoff right now because a lot of just go right to the lake. We can give that after. Okay. Don't worry about it. So, you can take one home. Yeah. Take them home. Um but right now there's just a lot of runoff right to the lake and um we're going to take care of the um the water run off from also the driveway that comes around and there's a pipe and it just goes right down the shoreline and we're going to uh we're going to abandon that and slow the water down um and build the driveway up a little bit to addition out to the front cuz we're doing a garage up to the front of the property um which might be rear depending on some people think it has a lake leg set to be the front but anyhow um so we're going to take care of that water run off. We're going to have some uh some piping for the gutter system. So, we'll go ahead and have that up at the high side and run across the property and then we'll have it um just slowly run into the lake and and then into that buffer zone. Um but we've stored all kinds of probably 15 20s that have worked with the homeowners and we uh we've still done this one just practical. So, if there's any questions with design or anything we could have done differently, I'm happy to answer them. Thank you. Appreciate your comment. Thank you. All right. Without object. Good evening. Sand drill. If you can say your name for the record, please. Good evening. Dave Jack. I live at 1700 George Moran Drive. So, some of those pictures you saw were from my deck from direct neighbor of Alex and Nadia. My wife Molly and I have lived on the lake for approximately 12 years. Um, I've been on the Mission Lake Association board for 11 years and was the president for 4 years. So, a little bit familiar with with some of the blame artists. I can't speak to a lot of the policy stuff, but I did want to just speak to the fact that um from the beginning of the process, Alex was Allison, Nadi were both um super inclusive uh asking Molly and myself what we thought of the plan, showing us the plan, asking for input, even kind of walking over into the area, taking a look at the sight lines to make sure that what they're proposing, you know, worked for us um as their neighbors. And so, I just really appreciated that part of the process. Um, I'm also really looking forward to the uh the shoreline buffer that they're talking about putting in like this adds to the natural beauty and having been on the lake association board for a while, I really understand the importance of that. Um, we have a buffer along our property which is right next door. Just want to voice my support for uh their plan and how they went about it. Thank you. Appreciate your comments. All right. I don't think I see anyone else. Right. Entertaining mo a motion to close the public hearing. I'll move to close the public hearing. All right. Motion Commissioner Duncan to close. We have a second. Second. Second. Throne. Commissioner Taylor. Commission. Commissioner Taylor. Where was he? Commissioner Grody. Second. All those in favor of closing public hearing say I. I. Opposed. Our public hearing closed. Further discussion on the request. I'll just say that I think the um improvement of the shoreline and the buffer zone outweigh any issues that might the eight additional feet closer to the input uh might cause uh support project. I'll second that. I think it's a reasonable and responsible approach to doing something and I think it's within the reasonable use of the property and other properties on the lake. So I support it. discussion on this lake is a great great great project. I I also concur with that chair. Just looking at the areas of the lake all the way around the lake, it seems like most all other properties do have some significant vegetation between the home and the lake and and these lots are naked, if you will. And so I think this will help tremendously. I think staff is spot on by recommending a vegetated buffer zone. And I think that would go a long way. All right. Well, I would anyone like to make a motion this I'll make a motion to approve the variance to allow a 100 foot shoreline setback for Mitchell Lake for an addition to a single family home with conditions as recommended by staff represented in the April 28th, 2025 staff report. I have a motion for approval from Commissioner Duncan. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Commissioner Kirk. All those in favor say I. Opposed. Would anyone like to abstain? All right. All right, you're moving forward and I must have made you scared that the broadcast is not working. That's going to be 1993 confusion again. But I will sign it'll have it and there's recording. So, but nice job and nice presentation. Thanks for the way I like mentioned that you're inclusive. I think that was really smart to reach out to. So, good luck. [Music] All right. Uh, planners reports this evening, Mr. Chair, if we have no report tonight. All right. Any members reports this evening? All right. Can I take a motion to adjourn the meeting? It's a motion to do. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. All right. Meeting is journ. Thanks everyone.