[music] Heat. Heat. All right, I'll go ahead and call the meeting to order. Good evening and welcome to the March 26th, 2026 meeting of the Minnitanka 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 planning division or by checking the city website at minnotonkamn.gov. The commission holds public hearings on land use applications. For all land use applications, the city notifies property owners within at least 400 feet of the site and posts plans and information on minnotonka mn.gov. For some applications, the city also places signs on the properties and places notices in the sun sailor. From a specific process standpoint, the commission makes recommendations to the city council on resonings, subdivisions, conditional use permits, and amendments to the city uh and amendments to the city's comprehensive guide plan, zoning ordinances, and subdivision regulations. We also make final 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 uh the commission makes recommendation a recommendation and the council makes a final decision. Anyone agreved by a final planning commission decision may appeal the decision to the city council. If you wish to appeal, you must submit a written request to city staff within 10 days of this meeting. From a broad 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 the sometimes difficult balancing act. We ask that you keep this broader perspective in mind as we review tonight's applications. Again, welcome. Uh, additionally, to make matter to make meetings more efficient in 2026, the city's boards and commissions have introduced a new process for public comments. If you wish to speak at tonight's meeting, please fill out a public comment card that's available at the speakers pod. Nope, over by the staff over over there. Um, be sure to include your name and the topic you wish to address. Uh the cards will be collected before the public hearing item a little bit later in this meeting and I will announce your name when it when it is your turn to speak. Uh and we are I believe tonight we're also going to test out a threem minute time limit actually just to kind of get accustomed to that. So uh couple new things but uh I apologize in advance if for any uh mis mis misprononunciations. And with that uh staff please call roll. Sure is absent. Banks. >> Absent. >> Oh, sorry. [laughter] >> I was looking for him. Brink >> here. >> Johnson >> here. >> Minion >> here. >> Chair Waterman >> here. There are four of us tonight. All right. Item number three, um, approval of the agenda. And staff, I believe there's a change memo. >> Uh, yes, Chair Waterman. Uh, change memo all associated with item 8A. We received two comments from area residents and then the applicant also uh submitted a series of graphics um they would like the the planning commission to have in advance of their conversation. >> Great. Thank you. Uh so recognizing that change by may I have a motion to approve the agenda with the changes noted by staff? >> Motion. >> Motion minion. >> Second Johnson. Uh all those in figure all those in favor please signify by saying I. I >> All right, motion carries. Actually, before moving on to number three, I just one other comment on this. Uh it it has been a while since we've had a meeting with this many non-consent items. Uh thankfully, we've or not thankfully, we've we happen to have a few a fewer commissioners up here. Um but my thought is, you know, I know we've all sort of read through the packet, a lot of good information from the city staff. I would encourage us, you know, in terms of moving the meeting along, um, to ask questions, ask questions if there are things that really will move us forward to an opinion, um, and, you know, really looking to getting the applicants and the, uh, any public input. Um, but of course, you know, there's information we need, uh, we we've got to get it. So, with that, uh, we can move on to item number four, approval of minutes from, uh, the March 5th, 2026th meeting. Uh, commissioners, any changes? No. >> Okay. No changes. I may have a motion to approve the minutes. >> I'll make the motion. >> Uh motion Brink. >> I'll second. >> Second. Johnson. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> All right. Uh motion carries. Next up, report from staff. >> Uh chair and commissioners, I have a few items to report from the uh city council meeting. They have met twice since your last meeting. Um they reviewed the Hennessy flood plane alteration permit. You'll remember that was for a pool on Ford Road. We also had a lot line adjustment. Well, it was essentially a lot line adjustment and some vacation of easement along Liner Road. They also reviewed uh adjustment and vacation on Oakland Road and then the Opus building, if you'll recall, the removal of that um one of those buildings and platting there. All of those uh items were approved uh by the council per your recommendation. two upcoming meetings um to remind you of your next planning commission meeting will be on April 16th. So we have a a two-eek break uh here. And then the boards and commissions dinner, we're going to keep plugging that uh April the 22nd um the following Wednesday following that um planning commission meeting. If you have not already RSVPd um to Sarissa in our admin uh department, please do so. or you can give Julie or I your uh RSVP and we'll take that on. And then lastly, I wanted to say that there's always a lot of work that goes on here and in front of the cameras at planning commission meetings, but there's also a lot of work that goes behind that um screen back there. They keep us live. They keep everybody who calls in on. They keep our microphones on and keep us moving. And tonight, sadly, uh, Ben Helm, who's been with us for a couple of years, this is his last meeting. So, we want to shout out to Ben just for making us look good. Hi, Ben. [laughter] And that's my uh that's my last comment. Uh, Chair Waterman. >> Great. Thanks, uh, thanks, Susan. Uh, and thank you, Ben, as well back there. Um, all right. Item number six, report from planning commissioners. Commissioners, anything to report? Nope. Okay. Uh, moving on to item number seven, the consent agenda. Uh, for the consent agenda, city staff places items that are considered routine on the consent agenda. No staff or applicant presentations will be made. The commission will hold one public hearing and approve all items on the consent agenda with one motion subject to the staff recommended conditions of approval. Before voting on the consent agenda, I will open the public hearing, announce each item, and ask if anyone wishes to have a separate discussion or vote on that item. If so, the commission will then remove that item from the consent agenda and hold a separate hearing on it after voting on the remaining consent agenda items. I may allow informal questions without removing an item from the consent agenda. So, I'll open a public hearing on the consent agenda and the first item is item number 7A, an expansion permit for a second story addition to the existing home at 15120 Belvoir Drive. Uh, and it requires four votes. Uh, commissioners, anyone wish to remove this item? Any member of the audience wish to remove this item and have a discussion? Okay. Additionally, the next item 7B front yard setback variances for a garage addition to the uh existing home at 5642 Scenic Drive. This one also requires four votes. Uh commissioners, anyone wish to remove this item? >> Oh, sounds like a question. Commissioner, >> one comment. Um, as I read the report, I think it's in addition to the home that the garage edition was previously approved. >> Is that correct, >> chair? That's correct. >> Good. Okay. Uh, any member of the audience? Okay. As no one wishes to speak, I will go ahead and close the public hearing. Uh, commissioners, may I have a motion to approve the items on the consent agenda? >> I'll make the motion. >> Motion. Minion. I'll second. >> Second. Brink. Uh staff, please poll the commission. >> Brink, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Minion, >> yes. >> Waterman, >> yes. All right. Motion carries. Um and I believe those are 7 A and 7B. These are final decisions of the commission subject to appeal. Uh if anyone would like to appeal the decision, they must provide a written request to city staff within 10 days of this meeting. Uh good luck with your project. Okay, moving on to item number eight, the non-consent agenda. Uh, before we 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 and then the applicant will be invited to make a presentation or offer comments. Commissioners may ask additional questions at this time. After the applicant is finished, the public hearing will be opened to give anyone who has filled out one of those cards the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Uh again, if you wish to speak at tonight's meeting, please fill out a public comment card which is available over there. Oh, wait. Right there, right by uh city staff. Uh be sure to include your name and the topic you wish to address and they will be collected uh before the public hearing item and I will announce your name when it is your turn to speak. I apologize for any misprononunciations. We ask that you keep your comments brief and try not to repeat points already made. Once everyone has spoken, we may allow speakers to return for additional comments. Uh at larger meetings or at larger meetings, neighborhood spokespeople are encouraged and will be given up to 15 minutes to present. Uh, the first item on tonight's non-consent agenda is item 8A, conditional use permit for a detached accessory dwelling unit at 15815 Minnetonka Boulevard. And this is a recommended recommendation that the city council adopt the resolution denying the request. It requires four votes. And uh, Mr. Inglesson, I believe this is your item. >> I do. Thank you. Thank you, chair. So, our first item here, it's located on the west central side of Minnotonka, right off of Minnetonka Boulevard. Here's Minnitankka Boulevard and Tonka Wood Road. If you're looking for another landmark, uh over here is Bethlehem Lutheran Church. And there is the subject property. Subject property is rather large for Mitaka. It's uh over an acre at 1.35 acres, zoned R1, and uh guided low density residential. Here's some looks at the existing site. Uh it is improved with a single family dwelling that is two stories with an attached garage and it's 4571 square ft. Uh and then right next to it, you can just see it off to the side of the building. There is an accessory dwelling unit that is existing. Uh here's a better view of the backside. You can see it's in similar architectural style as the home. And per the applicant, it's been there since the 1970s. So it's been there a while. I also don't have a picture on here, but there's also a 100 foot shed in the backyard. Here's a layout that we have of that existing ADU. Uh, again, two stories and it is um it's about 9 a little bit over 900 square ft. On the first floor, it has a living room, kitchen, bathroom, and then laundry. And then the upstairs just has a one bedroom. Here's some views from the public from the existing site. Uh, for reference, there's the vehicle that I was driving out there. And here's the existing home. And then there's that existing ADU from Minnitonka Boulevard. Looking for Mitankka Boulevard about 170 ft away. So, pretty far. And then on the side, here's Tonka Wood Road. From here, you're actually 300 ft away. So, quite a bit farther. Something to note here. So, right now, this is vacant, but there was a proposal last year that some of you were on the commission saw. Uh, there was an approval for a subdivision that area. So, right now we do see this as vacant. In the future, it's expected there'll be homes in here in this area. Here's some more views from the south uh from Nullwood Lane. Uh this is the back side of the property. There's that existing ADU and there's the home. I did show this picture just to show there's one very small area that you can look through and actually see it, but the most of the majority of that southern property line is covered with existing vegetation. So, it's pretty buffered from uh Woodnull Lane. just that one area you can sort of peek through there. A couple um elements about the site. First, looking at the flood planes in the area. There are flood planes on the property, but they're rather far away. At least the nearest ones are 60 ft away and the other ones are over 100. So, pretty far away, but there's flood planes in the area. Also, looking at topography, it's rather flat. The high point is here on the where the existing home is, drops down away from there towards the north and south. So, um, but when you're on the site, it's a rather flat area if you went out by there. And then getting us to the request. So, they are requesting to demolish that existing ADU that's uh hit a little bit over 50 years old uh and then de uh create a new one to um build a new one that you'll see on your screen. Here's an example of it. If you as you look at those plans, you can see it's in similar architectural style as the existing ADU and the existing home. It would be two stories and and 30 feet tall from the grade to the top of the pitch. Here's a look at that location for it. So here in this red outline is the existing ADU and then in this sort of purple color will be the proposed one. So in the similar location but moved a little bit away from that west property line. Also, you can see here too um you can see distances from the um both the north and south property lines, but also important to look at here from the neighboring property sort of screen between there. So, really when we're looking at viewpoints, we're looking to just the north, west, and south sides of the property. Here's a look at the floor plan and also some architectural plans for the proposed ADU. So on that uh first floor you can see they have a screen porch, two stall garage and then a wet bar. Uh if you saw previously there's a pool on the site. So something that can be used during that time. And then on the other side you can see the second level which includes a k a full kitchen, living area, bathroom and then two bedrooms. In total the total square footage would be over 2300 square ft that includes all areas of the ADU. That's how we'd look at this for code. I know sometimes when you look at realer.com they'll talk about finished space, things like that. For our code purposes, we look at all of it. Um, we're really getting at the massing of the building when we look at it for city code. And then also, I talked about the height of the structure. It'd be 30 ft tall, which would be 6 ft taller than the existing home. Staff had been talking to the applicant for quite a while. It was last fall, I think, the first time that we had a conversation about the property, talking about the ordinance, talking about the requirements, um, size things came up. Another part that came up in those conversations was landscaping ways to even enhance it more to make sure that it was going to be screening an additional from what's currently out there. So with that, the applicant did re uh did suggest and provide information for a couple additional landscaping ideas. One is a 16 ft spaded tree. You can see that in this light green on here. And then off to the side, uh they show what it looks like existing with the site and then what it would look like with the proposed. So, additional screening in the winter that would probably block that uh proposed structure a bit more. They also recommended they also added an arbor vite along the west side of the property. They already have some on the east side, but this along the west side would screen this structure from the those future homes we talked about that would be constructed on the western properties. So, with any request, we always look through the requirements for sizes. And when we go through the one for this request, it uh is pretty specific with the sizing, but adds a nice twist to it that's different from what we usually look at. So, the city code limits the ADU to 1,000 square ft or 35% of the floor area of the principal structure, whichever is less. So in this case 1,000 ft would be the lesser one but we put this on here just for reference so you can look at some other items. Um also the height is not to exceed the principal structure which is 24 ft. So when looking at this request um you can see that it exceeds all of those different numbers that we have there. However, this is different versus our usual request that require a variance. This one does not. So per city code, the council may but is not required to approve ADUs that exceed the size and height limits set by the conditional use permit standards if the structure would not result in unique adverse impacts to the neighboring properties. So as outlined in our in the report, those are things you can look at. Property size, distance from adjacent homes, screening elevations, elevation changes, all those different things can be considered as part of this. But the important part is and sort of similar to the variance even if those standards are met the city is not required to approve them. Uh it's important to note that's a may approve if um if so deemed. Uh then looking at the largest approved that was something an exercise that we did as staff looking at what have we done previously. So 2002 was maybe an interesting number. That's right around when we changed our ordinance to allow detached structures. So that was sort of a date that we picked out. And when looking at the square footage, um, they're quite a bit smaller than what's being proposed. So the largest attached ADU we've had is about 1500 square f feet. The largest detach was 1,50 ft². So quite a bit smaller than what the one that's being proposed tonight. Also, we looked at that percentage. So that comparison, you know, is this structure going to be about the same size as existing home on the site? Will it be smaller? Will be comparable? Um, there's only one that really stood out as the one that's 71%. An important note for that one was that it was actually for a remodel of an existing structure. It had a lower garage, upper level, so it was an existing detached structure and they converted it to an ADU. So it was already there. It wasn't new. Of the new builds, 38% was the highest percentage that came up. And then looking at the max height, 24 ft was the highest one that I found. And then there was only one that was approved that was taller than the existing structure. And that was an existing structure that's already there. So it was another conversion, not a new build. So another part that we wanted to talk about tonight is the ADU ordinance intent. So we have those standards we talked about before, but also what's this what's sort of the intent of this ordinance when you're looking at it. And one of the important goals of the ADU ordinance is to limit ADUs in size so that they appear and function as an accessory to the principal dwelling, not as a separate standalone building. It was not intended to have it be a way to put another house on there. It was really intended to have in the name an accessory dwelling on the property. So considering this goal, another exercise staff did was looking at what do homes look like in Minnetonka. What's our typical home here? The median home size is 3,152 ft. Um looking comparable to how he'd reviewed this one. And with that, this structure would be 776 ft smaller than that size. Um but an important number was that it this structure would be larger than 17.6 6% of the homes, not edus, the homes actually in Minnitonka, which is 2,349 in total, bigger than that many homes we have in the city. So, with this project, we sent out a mailing notice to 34 different properties to let them know this was coming forward tonight. We did get a few different ones as you saw in the change memo. In total, we had five different comments come um sent to us. four of them were in support of the project and then one additional request um was neither really in support or against. It was just asking for additional information to make a decision and all that information is in the change memo then also in your report as an attachment. the applicant um in looking at staff's recommendation, the applicant has tried to minimize potential adverse impacts of the ADU by locating it away from the property lines, then also locating it u behind existing vegetation and then also even adding exist adding vegetation to increase the screening. However, city staff had found that the applicant's proposal is not consistent with the intent of the ADU ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is to allow secondary dwellings that are clearly accessory in both appearance and function to the existing residents. The proposed ADU would sign significantly exceed the height percentage of the principal structure and size limits outlined in city code. These discrepancies create a conflict between the proposed ADU and the ADU ordinance regardless of the structure screening. As such, staff is recommending that the council adopt the resolution denying the conditional use permit request for an accessory dwelling unit at 15815 Minnotonka Boulevard. With that, I turn it back over to the chair and commission for questions. >> All right. Uh, thanks, Mr. Englesen. Uh, commissioners, any questions for staff? Commissioner Johnson? >> Yes. Um, if I noticed that this is a acre and a third and it backs up to Woodnol Lane, I believe it is in the back of the property. Would it be possible because it does appear to me that this is a primary structure. This so far exceeds the ordinance standards and every way. Could they build uh in the back of that lot and access it off of uh Wooden No Lane? I think it is. Mhm. Commissioner Johnson and uh Commissioner, I haven't looked specifically at all of the minimums and things, but just looking at quickly, it appears that that's something that could be done here. And if you're looking at a little bit of history, if I'm not mistaken, this and the applicant can probably talk more about this. I believe these was actually two lots before that might have been combined. So, um I think it's clear these are big lots. Obviously, where it's located would not be allowed by city code as it would be, um you know, not setbacks. It' have a regular lot lines. Um, but that would be a potential option to look into more, but I don't have I haven't gone through fully looking at it this time. >> Sure. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? Uh, at this time, the applicant is invited to make a presentation or offer comments. Free to come on up. >> All right. Welcome. Uh, please provide your name and address for the record. >> Yeah, absolutely. Good evening, members of the commission. My name is Paul Fischer and I am the property owner at 15815 Minnotonka Boulevard, the property in question for this ADU application. Thank you for the time to speak tonight to provide some additional context to what was submitted in our conditional use permit application as well as to respond to several of the concerns raised by the planning department during their review. The first item I'd like to address is why we are pursuing a path that requires city council approval for a larger structure rather than just staying within the standard ADU requirements outlined in the ordinance. The answer is straightforward. We currently have an existing ADU on the property that we are seeking to replace due to its age and to better align it with how we would like to use the property. In addition to replacing that structure, we also need additional garage storage space. With our family of four and two children who will be driving, it's important to us to keep our vehicles out of sight, secured, and protected from the elements. Expanding our existing 1941 twocar garage is not feasible as it sits immediately adjacent to the east property line. In 2017, we made a significant investment in our property by adding an additional large pool area, which we use extensively during the spring, summer, and autumn months. We'd like to enhance that space by further by adding a screen porch, allowing us to enjoy the area without full exposure to the elements and the insects. From both a financial and site planning perspective, it makes far more sense for us and for the surrounding neighbors to combine these needs, a garage, a porch, and an ADU into a single structure located in close proximity to our home while still maintaining the separation that we have appreciated with the existing ADU. However, combining these three functions results in a structure that exceeds the ordinance's standard size limits for ADUs. As you know, the code provides an alternate path for approval in these situations. Drew referenced it in his report, and I just like to highlight the passage that the city council may approve a larger area where the additional size would not result in undue adverse impacts to neighboring properties. In evaluating where this standard is met, the city may consider things such as the size of the property, the location of the ADU relative to homes on adjacent properties, whether it would be reasonably screened from adjacent properties by existing or proposed vegetation, elevation changes, or linear distance. The intent of this provision is clearly to provide that properties that do not fit into the standard ADU model have a pathway. I am here to explain why our property and this application fall squarely into that. category. The proposed structure exceeds the standard sides because it serves three functions. A garage, a screen porch, pool support space, as well as the ADU itself. On the main level, the garage and storage storage areas total 696 ft. Additional main floor space for the poolside serving, laundry, a restroom, and the screen porch total 600. Together, this use accounts for,296 ft or 55% of the structures total square footage. The upper level ADU compromises 10,080 square ft or 45% of the structures total square footage. While the code requires the structure to be considered as a whole, it's important in the context that nearly half of the building is not dedicated to the ADU living space, but instead supports the primary residence and additional outdoor living areas. The code directs the council to consider whether the structure would have an undue adverse impact on neighboring properties, taking into account lot size, placement, and screening. Our property is 1.35 acres, which is 2.7 times the minimum lot size for an R1 property in Minnotonka. Based on Henipin County data, the average R1 lot in Minnotonka is approximately 73 acres, meaning our lot is nearly twice the average size. This provides substantial additional space to accommodate a larger structure without impacting our neighbors. Placement is equally important. On page one of the illustration that's up here on the screen, um we call out distances to neighboring structures. The minimum distance from the proposed structure to any neighboring structure is 128 ft. The next closest is 162 ft. to the west. Distances to the planned Tonka Flats development range from 237 feet to over 300 feet. On page one and page two of the illustration, we provide aerial views of approved detached ADUs from the last 3 years on properties over 1 acre in size. In no case is the minimum distance from the approved ADU to neighboring structures greater than the minimum distance achieved by the placement of the ADU in our application. This is not to say that these projects, some of a conforming size, some larger and council approved, should not have been approved, but it asks the question, if the ordinance holds distance to neighboring homes as a paramount point of consideration when making a determination of approval, does this project not greatly exceed that metric, even when including conforming structures in that consideration? In addition, the structure is well screened by existing mature vegetation along the full perimeter of the property in it. We will also supplement that by proposed screening. The new structure will actually improve setback conditions compared to the existing building and will be less visible overall. Importantly, as of this meeting, no neighbors have submitted objections. In fact, the city's received four letters or online comments of support, including one from the developer of the Tonka Flats property that shares the entire West property line and will be constructing four homes on that site per the recently approved development plans. Height has also been raised as a concern. The structure includes a garage, which necessitates a greater height. It's important to note that surrounding homes, both existing and planned, are built to modern standards, allowing heights of up to 35 ft and are significantly taller than our 1941 home. While the proposed structure is slightly taller than our primary residence, it remains below what is allowed under current zoning and below the height of every neighboring home that is adjacent to our property. Given the substantial distances, screening, and the fact that all adjacent home heights are in excess of this proposed structure and our primary residence, the height does not create a negative impact on adjacent properties in any way. I'd also like to address the planning department's concerns that the structure may not appear subservient to the primary home. I respectfully disagree. The design and materials will match our existing shake shingle yellow home and create a cohesive appearance. From Minnitonka Boulevard, the structure will read as a carriage house with garage doors and windows above. From the south, it will appear and function as a poolside structure centered around a screen porch that opens directly onto the existing pool patio. The building has no traditional front door and access to the ADU and pool function areas is through the screen porch contained within the backyard fenced area. Its width is significantly less that than that of our primary residence and is only visible from the north and south where it is seen adjacent to the much wider existing primary home. Its placement closer to the home than the existing ADU further reinforces its role as an accessory building. Finally, I'd like to address the issue of precedent. And I understand the concern that approving a larger ADU could set an example for future applications. However, this proposal is supported by extensive detailed analysis, distances, lot size comparisons, screening, and context. The bar for the approval is high, and that same level of scrutiny can and should be applied to any future application. The code is clear on the variables for consideration of a larger structure, and each and every structure will need to be considered separately. Approval of this project would not be based solely on achieving one of the conditions, but on the totality of conditions that make this property a candidate for a larger ADU. Given the size of our lot, the distances to neighboring structures, the strong neighbor support, and the fact that this structure combines three functional uses, we believe this is a clear and appropriate candidate for approval under the council's authority. Page three which is up is an of this illustration is a proposed motion of adoption of approval for this project that clarifies the specific points to this application. It is my request that you consider adoption of such proposal for approval to clear the path for council review and approval. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Great. Thank you. Uh commissioners, any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Johnson. >> Um Mr. Fisher, did you consider perhaps having the garage as a separate addition to the main house and then lower the ADU and decrease its size? >> Um, there's nowhere to put a garage that isn't going to be a great distance from the house. So, combining this structure with it puts it in an appropriate proximity to make it useful on a day-to-day basis, which it would be. [groaning] Thank you, >> Commissioner Minion. >> I'll make sure I don't go too far in the weeds here. It's >> okay. >> But you did bring up the point in regards to framing and framing techniques. Um, I'm in support of your project. I think you've brought a number of good things up, but I do have some issues with the height. Um, and I'm a little concerned. six feet is much farther than what we normally would would go for. But you actually brought up the point of the framing techniques saying that you needed to use modern standards for framing and that's pushing you elevation. Will you talk a little bit why you're doing that? Assume you're using trust choices and you're using things like that that are taking you your elevation higher. Um, have you given consideration to using other other uh there's no framing layout and I don't want to go that deep in the weeds but it's a point that you brought up >> and I think there could be some efficiencies made there. Will you kind of talk about that kind of paint a little picture for us as far as uh what that thought processes? >> Yeah, if it's possible I have our builder here who's going to be able to speak to that in a much clearer way than I am capable. Is it all right if I defer to him for that question after we're done with uh anything else for me? >> Thank you. Commissioner Brig. >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fischer, for all your for your presentation and all your thought and hard work that went into this. Um, kind of echoing uh the other commissioners, were there any efforts to make this just a little bit smaller? Um, per the per the code, you know, whether it's square footage or the height, we're kind of way over what uh the intent of the ADU ordinance is about. And uh I'd be a little more comfortable if I, you know, saw that there was some effort made to just downsize, maybe get the numbers down a little closer. Or it could be, as Commissioner Johnson had asked earlier, if there was another way to do this, whether it's, you know, build, you know, off a separate lot from the street to the south or could you just expand on that a little more, please? Thanks. >> Yeah. Um, I mean, expanding off the back is, you know, we we did, I think it made reference, we combined that back lot, which was at one time a separate buildable lot, um, with ours to preserve the view that we have out the back, the green space in the backyard. Um, and it's a feature that's incredibly important to us to have the use of that backyard. Uh, dividing that lot up or I'm not quite sure of the mechanism to do it to add the structure to be code compliant. Um, you know, it creates a conflict with that desire and it honestly puts this structure in a much more visible place than it would be if it was simply adjacent to our house. It's putting it out in what is now green space that, you know, while the neighbors are not using it, they are welcome to look at it. We have a lot of wildlife that moves through there and it takes it from a space that is going to be of much more utility to us and puts it in a space where it's more obvious and of less utility to us. So, I'm not really sure of the value of having multiple structures around um versus just putting these together and keeping them close to the existing home. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? I I think Commissioner Minion had a question and your builder was going to join us. >> Paul, I'm Paul and Paul is also the builder. >> Paul, welcome. If you just uh state your name and address. >> Paul squared. Uh my name is Paul Cameron. from the builder and and the developer of the adjacent property of Tonka Flats. So, I have a certainly vested interest in how this outcome is resolved because it does have impact on our our property. It is 10 ft off the property line right now. Moving it another 17 ft away is an advantage to those property owners that I will end up selling these homes to. Also, the screen would be available, which today there wouldn't be because it's such a tight spot. As far as the height, um, Commissioner Minion brought up, uh, the existing home was built in 1941 and as such, you can imagine it has floor joists, not trusses as you had mentioned. So that's a narrower floor space. Um, on the main floor and the second floor, um, to be compliant, um, the standard B procedure today is to have trusses. Yes, we could put joists in there, but then we have a lot more difficult in the HVAC to be able to to properly um condition the space and with unconditioned space below the ADU, we need that RV value space below it. So that's why the trusses need to be standard from that perspective. Um the the ADU requirements is that the ridge line be lower than the house ridge line of the original house. Well, they have a situation that's not of their own making that the house was built in 1941 before the city of Minnitonka was even incorporated. So, that makes it kind of a a tough spot because there wasn't them that that made that height of that existing structure. Every structure around this house will have likely a 35- ft building height, which is really a 40ft peak ridge line. So, we're much below what's allowed in the zone, but it is higher than the existing house for those reasons. The main floor is 10 feet because the garage space with the overhead doors and he has a pickup. You want to put the pickup in there. So, it's a higher door. The second floor is 8t, which is uh excuse me, 9 foot, which is kind of a standard height for a living space. So, that's the reasons why it's different. Does that answer your question? Um, what I'm looking for is some way to reduce that 6 ft down to something more palatable. Um, and I'm not going to go through the design of of how you want to frame this. >> Um, I understand the reasons things you brought up. I actually live that every day with a a cup on my own property that I didn't go large enough with. And so you are you are hitting me right between the eyes with your needs. Uh I understand the need to have a larger garage and and one that's actually functionable and usable, especially if you have even a smaller pickup or a smaller SUV. Um but I I'm just being completely honest is that I'm I'm struggling with I like the project. It's very well done. You presented it very well. Uh but um there's the issue of setting a precedence is is important, but the issue of 6 ft's quite a bit. You couldn't ask for a better scenario for this to be successful. I think uh all the screening and the way things are going, but I'm still struggling a little bit with the overall height and I'm kind of interested in hearing uh whether people have to say what their feelings are. Um and I'm my hope is is that there could be opportunities to reduce that. But that's a >> question. If I if I could just pause you. I just want to I want to make sure we're keeping this to questions. We'll do the public hearing and then we will get to comments. >> Yep. >> Um and so I look at it from perspective of the overall neighborhood. Every house is going to be a lot taller. >> So is it fair or unfair to subject this house to be that based on that criteria given the distances and the screening? Um but I understand what you're saying. Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Actually, yeah, my commissioner, my fellow commissioners had had some good questions, the same ones that I would have asked for some of them. Okay, I will know now go ahead and open the public hearing. Um, I don't Were there any comment cards at all? No, no comment cards. Um, anyone wish to comment on this in that? Okay. Uh, well, with that, I will go ahead and close the uh public hearing. Um, I guess next I'll bring it back to commissioners and now we we can do some comments. So, Commissioner Minion, by all means. Mr. Drew, I believe you're driving. Will you bring up that sheet that talked about the ADU overall heights? I believe the applicant made some good uh references of the 35 ft high and it's a it's a strong argument, but will you talk a little bit more about what the code says that the ADU heights are just to kind of bring us back around for me? Thank you. >> Sure, Commissioner Minion. So unlike a lot of requirements we have in the city where we set a certain height for structures and usually in with pitched roofs, it's to the roof midpoint. That's how we typically measure height in Minnetonka. However, for the ADU, because it's an accessory structure, we're not as worried about how tall that structure is by itself. We're looking at what that looks like in comparison to an existing building on the property. The sort of thought process behind that is that your accessory dwelling should be smaller or shorter than your main dwelling. So it looks and appears accessory to it. Uh so that's what the standard has and then allows again for those taller than that if you go through that list of different things or if you find some rationale for why that is the council may approve them higher. So again a little different than our usual one. It's not a solid height. It's based on that existing structure and that height. Um one other thing too and this is a little off topic from your question commissioner minion. I know uh Commissioner Johnson asked about if it could be subdivided to the south. I did some really rough calculations really quick here. It looks like if it was to be large enough, it would cut right through the pool. So, probably be very difficult to subdivide right now. If that was sort of a rational or thing we're thinking about, just wanted to share that info. >> Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. >> Um, my thoughts on this are the precedent that it would set. This is so far in excess of the 1,000 square foot limit that the code says. It is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan that this be accessory not an additional uh main structure. It um I understand why they want it. I do not believe at least in my experience that the you know fact that the house is existing house is lower should be uh reason to approve this. When you've got something that's 2300 feet, 2376 and the limit is 1,000. If you really want to as a city allow ADUs that are of that size, change the ordinance. This will open the door to a number of other cases because as we looked at the 1500 square foot one and why you did that. My second point is the existing landscaping. You can't reasonably police that. You can have a landscaping standard, but the city, most cities do not have the capacity to go out and inspect to maintain that those that coverage that that screening is still there and still functional. Um, it may be there now, but when you approve something, you're approving it for the, you know, lifespan of that ADU. And so personally, I have some real strong feelings that this is not accessory, but that it is a second uh structure that could function completely on its own. >> Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Brink, you had some comments. >> Yes. Thank you, Chair. Um could you pull up the uh city code standards again? Yeah, thank you. I echo Commissioner Johnson's uh concerns with the size of this um and that they're just exceeded so greatly and it would set a precedent for anything else that we any other ADU that comes in for approval later in the future here. And I go back to what has been approved in the past and that um uh the largest approved since 2022 um for a detached um accessory dwelling was just a little over was 1,52 ft which is just barely over the th00and square ft uh similar similar with the height you know 6 in over the um city code. So um yeah the precedent concerns me. It's it looks like a great project. I mean, I wish there was another way you could do this. You know, what's been me mentioned is suggested maybe other alternatives to do it, but uh um it's hard to go along with it when the standards are just exceeded by such great amounts. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Brink. Other comments? Okay. If not, I'll go. Um there is a lot unique about this. It is a quite a big property. uh it does not this wouldn't have an undue impact on neighbors. Uh the developer whose neighbor supports it. Um there's a fair amount of support by neighbors and that that concept of the the home being from 1941 and having relatively low structure is is intriguing. Um and there's just a lot of work that went into this. Um, overall I have to concur with what the fellow commissioners are saying and what the city staff is recommending that um the the intent of the ordinance is is to have this be an accessory. And I don't think we've really seen um items like this go quite so far outside of the standards and deviate from both the recommendations on square footage and height um by quite so much. Um, so, you know, just really to Commissioner Johnson's point, I I do think we're not always concerned with precedent, but I do think um this really could open the door. If there's something in the new uh zoning eventually that wants to address that, especially for these like large lots where this might work, that's great. This this one's just so far outside the ordinance that um I I would agree with the city on this one. Um, with that, I mean, I'm trying to Commissioner Minion, do you have any other comments because you were saying you were you were thinking about this. So, just before I propose a motion and then we can kind of figure out administratively what we want to do here. >> I um not to put you on the spot. >> No, that's fine. I look at the there's no adverse effect the neighborhood and that's really important. The scale of things is really important. Um, it's it's the 177 ft from the street. I like to look at things of what are you going to look at? Well, really the impact of the neighborhood is not what you're going to look at in your backyard, but what are the general neighborhood looking at? To me, those are all things that are that really make this I would be easy to favor this. I understand when you're talking about the square footage and and um I can't tell you every time I pull in the garage I I wish I I worked with a guy named Drew who's wonderful with the city and uh I wish I would have gone back and gotten a larger garage. I did a cup but I didn't do a large enough. So, I am in favor of building a larger structure, but this the height to me I think would look out of spa out of space. If we were going to have 35 ft homes heights around this and this was it just doesn't make sense. We're going to have some odd looks. So, I I'm going to have to as much as I don't want to agree with the city, I have to agree with the city. And uh I appreciate you guys' input. It's I'm kind of vacasillating a little bit. So, I appreciate it. >> Thank you. Okay, with that, it sounds like we might be ready for a motion. Does anyone have one? >> Commissioner Johnson, would you like to make a motion? >> Sure. I would make a motion that the planning commission recommend the city council adopt the resolution denying the request. >> Uh, motion Johnson. May I have a second? Second, Brink. >> Uh, staff, please, please, please pull the commission. >> Uh, Brink, >> uh, yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. Minion, >> yes. Chair Waterman. >> Yes. Uh that is four votes. So that resolution passes and the that will go before the city council on I marked it down. Uh April >> April 13th. >> 13th. Let me just mark that down for all of these um for review. Okay. Uh, second item on tonight's non-consent agenda is item 8B, preliminary and final plat of Oakland Estate second edition, the two lot subdivision at 1915 and 1929 Oakland Road. And this is a recommendation to the that the city council adopt the resolutions approving the request. And I believe this is Miss Rooney's item. >> Yes. Thank you, chair and commissioners. Um, as you mentioned before you this evening is the subdivision request for the properties at 1915 and 1929 Oakland Road. There's a couple of slides in here. Get to where we need to go. Um, the 3.44 acre property is currently uh located east of Highway 494, south of Highway 394, and accessed off of Oakland Road. Uh the property is currently zoned R1 single family residential and is guided as lowdensity residential in the 2040 comprehensive plan. Um the parcels are currently unplatted um and were most recently subdivided I believe in the '7s. The southernmost parcel at 1929 is improved with a single family residence that was constructed in 1942 where the property at 1915 um just to the north was never improved with a single family home. So, it is vacant. Um, the highest elevation is currently where the existing family house is at at 1929 with grades slowly dropping down towards the wetlands in the back, the side of the property and the front. Um, the high or the lowest elevation, excuse me, is in the rear of both properties to the north where the wetland is located. And you can pretty clearly see it here. Um, the previous owners, Rena and Martha Martha Anderson, owned the parcels from 1983 until when they sold their property, uh, this past January to Lake West Development. Um, so last summer, uh, staff confirmed that 1915, um, was a legally buildable lot of record, although it is significantly encumbered by, um, the wetlands, uh, flood plane and setbacks for the property. So, while both lots are buildable currently, uh the proposal to subdivide is essentially to create uh a little bit of a larger lot or more buildable area at 1915 Oakland Road. So, given the request um to vacate the existing easements and the complex legal descriptions that would be created with just a simple lot line adjustment, um we have decided to treat this as a subdivision. um also to you know intended to create a clean and uncomplicated recording with the county. So no additional lots are being proposed here. We're just simply moving the lot line um and creating a little bit of a cleaner product. Um so as I mentioned it is uh the applicant is proposing to redevelop both properties. Um this includes that lot line adjustment. The lot line will be moving about 45 ft southeast of where it's currently located. um right around here and then the tail end of it instead of kind of coming up to a point will go parallel to this lot line here um till 1937 and these properties just to the north of that. Um as part of the constru or the proposal includes uh the demolition of the existing house at 1929 along with the retaining walls that are in front of both parcels as well as the construction of two new single family homes, one on each lot. >> [snorts] >> Um so some of the proposed conditions and I apologize this is a little bit maybe a little bit hard to see. Um I can try to zoom in if necessary. Um there the grading and excavation on both parcels will be centered uh to the south. I know both of the properties are quite large but none of the grading will happen to the north where those wetlands are. Um, in addition, each lot will have its own retention basin for storm water management that will be designed um with the building permits that come in, if they come in later on. Um, we'll go on to the next one. In addition, there will be two new driveways constructed. The existing driveway at 1929 will be removed and a new one will be put in just south of the existing. And then the new property at 1915 will be supplied by a horseshoe shaped driveway that will have two access points. This is permitted for parcels that are over 110 ft in length. This property is I want to say almost 500 if not more feet in frontage. So they have more than enough frontage to have two accesses there. And then as I mentioned, there are two retaining walls on the site. It's a little bit hard to see, but there's one that's right here. It's an wood wall, wood retaining wall. Um, and then there's another one to the north right around here. Those will be removed. Um, and the grade will slowly drop from the foundation of these homes to Oakland Road. Only one new retaining wall will be installed and that'll be solely on the property at 1915. So, none of the retaining wall will be in the right ofway there. This is kind of another view. Um, I took this from Google Maps. So this is the retaining wall to the north on 1915. This is a roof identifier of the property line, the existing single family home. You can see here the existing driveway that will be removed and the retaining wall to the south east at 1929 here that will be removed. Um so both of the properties were going to be over one one acre. Um so therefore the removal thresholds do not need to be met per our code or per our uh tree protection ordinance. We wanted to show those here just so that you have an idea of what will be going on on site. And although that the tree removal will be above what we allow again we are not required to uh enforce that part of the code uh seeing as the properties are larger than an acre. Um, in addition, I'd like to note with the removal of this retaining wall, a number of trees do need to be taken out. Just with the removal of the wall in and of itself, if the developer were to leave the retaining wall and the city were to have to come in to remove it, those trees would be taken out regardless. We find it to be a little bit u more reasonable. Anyway, um, and then lastly, um, we have our, uh, required standards. So, the proposed lots meet all of our standards per our um uh excuse me uh dimension uh requirements here for area and width. Um so there are no concerns in terms of planning on those items. And then with that, the recommendation is before you. Staff is here for any questions as well as uh the applicant from Lake West. >> Uh great. Thank you, Miss Rooney. Uh commissioners, any questions for staff? Commissioner Brink. >> Uh yes. Um have you received any feedback from neighboring residents who've been notified about this uh project? >> No, we have not heard any comments from the neighborhood on the project or proposed. Yep. >> Commissioner Minion, >> we talked a little bit about the comment that if you remove the retaining wall, you have to take out more trees. the the wall that you showed, the the picture that you showed looks like it might impact the root zone of some of those trees. Um it's a pretty high number of trees being removed. Will you talk a little bit about why that is? If you take the wall out, what what that kind of impact is, why that's happening. >> Sure, Commissioner Minion. I I'll just kind of um clarify some of my explanation from earlier. So because the properties are both over 1 acre in in size, they're not required to meet our removal thresholds per our ordinance. When we were evaluating the property and in terms of bringing it before you, you all, we wanted to ensure that we were kind of addressing all aspects of our code. So what I had tried to explain earlier perhaps poorly was that with the removal of the retaining walls, a certain number of trees have to be removed like you said because they'll impact that root zone. So those would be taken out regardless of whether the city is doing that work or the applicant is doing that work. Now, we found that because they're removing the retaining wall and doing that work and therefore removing those trees, it is more reasonable um even though they don't necessarily need to meet the ordinance requirements. >> Excellent. I appreciate it. >> Uh just one question. Is this one of those where since all the standards are met, we're effectively obligated to approve it? >> Yes, Chair Waterman, that's correct. Great. Thank you. >> Okay, no other questions. Uh, this time the applicant is invited to make a presentation or offer any comments. >> Welcome. State your name and address, please. >> Thank you. Good evening, chair and commissioners. Uh, my name is Kelsey Thompson. I'm with Lake West Development at 14525 Highway 7 in Minnetonka. And thank you, staff, for the presentation. Um, I'm just here to answer questions if you have any. I really don't have a presentation prepared. Um, pretty straightforward application and you have any questions, I'm here to stand for those. >> Thank you. Questions, Commissioner Brink. >> Um, yeah, just a question on the grading of the property. It looks like the the proposed new homes are kind of out about back to the rear of the property, which I believe it looks like it slopes down toward the wetland there. Um, and there's a been a wetland protection area, I guess, that's been established there. I just wanted some confirmation that we're not looking at doing any grading to the north that's going to impact the wetland. >> Correct. We are um conforming with the setbacks and with the buffers of the wetland and no grading will be taking place where it's not allowed. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Okay. we might have you back depending on if there are other other questions here. Thank you. >> Uh with that I will now open the public hearing. It sounds like there are no looks like there are no comment cards on this one. >> Any other last chance? Okay, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Um I guess we'll bring it back to the commission for any questions or comments or if anyone wants to make a motion. Commissioners, Commissioner Johnson, >> I would be willing to make a motion that the commission recommend that the city council adopt the resolution approving the preliminary and final plat of Oakland Estate second edition subject to the conditions stated in that resolution. >> Uh motion Johnson. May we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Second. Brink. Uh staff, please pull the commission. >> Brink. >> Yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. Minion, >> yes. Waterman. >> Yes. Uh the motion is approved. Um that item will be heard by the city council again on April 13th. Uh good luck with your project. Okay, moving right along to item 8 C uh conditional use permit and site plan review for parking lot addition at 18301 Highway 7 and 18407 Delton Avenue. This is a recommendation that the city council adopt the resolution approving the request. Uh Mr. Inglesson, I believe this one's back to you. >> Thank you, chair and commission. So, our next one here is a pretty well-known area. It's in the southwest corner of the city, and it is Minnetonka High School. So, it's just south of Delton Avenue, which is south of Highway 7. Um, looking at the campus, you can just see a small area on this picture. It is 97 acres in size. So, it's a very large campus. Obviously, one of the bigger uh areas in the city, if not the biggest, I'm trying to think now, but very large. But the area we're looking at is just this little half an acre lot. It's shown on here on our screen right now as an individual lot. The school district's currently in the property in the process of combining it with the other lots. Um so, we'll talk about it right now sort of as a standalone, but sort of in the process of not being a standalone anymore. Uh here is a look at that existing property. Um on the you can see the front side of the property on the lefth hand side then the rear yard on the right. Uh it used to be a single dwelling residence. Uh the home is currently vacant and in 2025 the school district purchased this property with the intent of expanding its existing parking lot. Uh if as you're looking at those screens you can tell it's a rather flat uh flat site in the front and then even in the backyard. However, just over where my mouse is on the screen, it's a ridge where it quickly drops off and gets pretty steep back there. And here is a look at that existing parking lot from the school. Here's that home and the subject property. Um this area is a 19 stall parking lot that was approved in 2016. So school district's been slowly moving over that way. Uh in total there's over,00 parking stalls at Minnitankka campus. So it's a rather small part of their parking lot but it's one that's um the newer ones that are again just adding a bit more to the site. Getting to natural features of the site, there's really two main things um when you're looking at it. First one that I want to talk about is the slopes. Uh there is on the back side or the south side of the property a steep slope. So roughly here's where that house is. Here's that ridge I was talking about. It gets very steep there. Uh 44% is what we came up with as staff when we're looking at it. 20% grade is what the city considers steep slope, which is generally which is what we have as undevelopable really unless you have meet some certain requirements. over 30% is really a no-go. So 44% very very steep. However, this green line shows where that top of slope is. So everything to the left is steep and everything to the right is not. So you can see this where it's being proposed is outside of that steep slope area. Also the second part of the natural features is the 100red-year flood plane. There is some on this property. You'll see it in blue, but that is over 30 ft away from the proposed additions, which meets setbacks from the flood plane very easily, about three times farther away. Another thing we looked at was wetlands. There are wetlands across the um uh Minnitonka High School campus. However, they're about 100 ft away. So, this one that you're looking at, here's a screen showing it on adjacent properties and on the Minnitonka uh school district property. Uh but again, over 100 ft away. So wetlands were not a concern when staff reviewed this request. And then lastly is trees. So the Minnitaka High School campus is densely landscaped with trees and shrubs. Uh they have a lot of trees, especially around that uh western side of the site with that large natural area. And due to the size of the campus, a full tree inventory was not required for this application. But based on the grading plans, the proposed project would remove 29 total trees, 24 significant and five high priority trees. I don't have a number here of the percentage, but it would be very very very low of the entire site. So when staff reviewed this, it would easily meet the tree protection ordinance. So despite a number, I just want to assure you with that it's significantly under the tree removal limitation. And then uh looking at the proposal, here's a look at that. Um what they're proposing to do is expand that parking lot again from the existing one and then just over to the west. They're continuing with the angled parking that they had uh on the um existing parking lot that was approved in 2016 and just connecting it. So, a very natural and intuitive expansion of that. Uh it would add on 16 spaces, but they are losing a couple with this with these new drive aisles. So, it's a net total of 14 additional spaces to the uh large parking lot. This site is subject to storm water requirements. So, as a way to accommodate that, the applicant is proposing a new storm water chamber. The new chamber is shown in dark blue on the bottom of your screen, and the existing one that was in is constructed in 2016 is shown in light blue. This new blue one would actually connect to that old one. So, they would work together uh sort of in tandem. Uh but it would be not underneath the site. It'd be actually in the existing parking lot, just so you're aware. So after review, city staff are recommending that the city council adopt the resolution approving the conditional use permit and site plan review for a parking lot expansion at uh 18407 Delta Avenue. Uh really for three reasons. First, the proposed parking lot expansion is an appropriate use of the property and it meets the conditional use permit and site plan review standards outlined in city code. Number two, the proposed parking expansion is intuitive and meets the parking and loading ordinance requirements. And then lastly, the request meets the requirements of the steep slope ordinance. With that, uh this request again requires four votes uh for recommendation for approval. And I'll hand it back over to the chair and commission for questions. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Inglesson. Uh commissioners, any questions for staff? Commissioner Johnson, >> this is maybe not relevant, but what are they going to do with the steep slope in the property beneath that? That's part of this lot. >> So, that area uh Commissioner Johnson and Chair, so that area will be not touched. They're adding retaining walls along here. So, really that's not going to be the attempt to really not impact that slope area. Um, if you're talking about longer term things, we do have the applicant here tonight. they might be able to share a bit more about if the school has any plans for it. Beyond that, >> I was just concerned about the possibility of students um uh driving a little bit too far and going I'm familiar with the property. It is a very steep slope. So, if there's a retaining wall, no problem. >> Commissioner Brink. Yes. Thank you, Chair. Um it appears the uh school district has owned this property for some time with the intent of uh putting parking here. Um the properties to the west are are similar in size. Does the school district own additional properties to the west for even further expansion? Uh Commissioner Brink, I'm not aware of them owning other properties, but we do have the school um a school representative here tonight who can maybe answer a bit more about that and maybe future questions too. >> Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Minion, >> you know where my heart is. You know what question I'm going to ask. So, anytime we tinker with uh drive lanes, parking, and we've got children around, high volume of children. We talk a little bit about the thought process that went into making sure that pedestrian safety is okay and and that uh I really like the question about the retaining wall. It's uh it's another safety point for me. But will you kind of just give us a a quick uh overview of what goes into the process and making sure that the uh the kids the the the the uh all the pedestrians are safe. >> Sure. Commissioner Menion and chair. So I'll talk from a staff standpoint. When we have our review for projects, it's reviewed by several different members. Um not just planners and engineers, but also our fire department. Um we have police department there too who look over these. So, they look it over for all those different reasons. Also, in addition to us, uh they feel comfortable with what's being designed here. I do realize it's a large parking lot. There's a lot of ways, but it is really an existing area. So, they're sort of building on to what was previously approved. Uh if you do have more detailed questions about the school with uh Pro, again, I hate to go back to him, but we do have the school representative here who could talk a little bit more about that. I know there were some things, one resolution there that we wanted to talk a little bit about more with parking and making sure those were safe. So, there's going to be some additional conversations with the school uh making sure the site is safe. But as far as with this plan, staff didn't have any concerns. >> Then one more about storm water. Uh I like the fact that they're adding extra tanks. Are those holding tanks or those leeching tanks? Do they actually have a weir in them that uh go out into the storm system or or how is that set up? And I I see that they're adding more impervious service. It's great to see they're adding that, but how is that water handled after it disappears from the surface? Commissioner Minion and Chair, I know my limitations as a planner. I will not get into the detail of the storm water chamber. I know that they are storm water chambers, number one, and number two, I know that our uh storm water specialist has reviewed them and he feels comfortable with where they're at. That's as much as you'll get on me on record. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. Uh no questions on my end. So, at this time, the applicant is invited to make a presentation and offer any comments. Sounds like there might have been maybe a question for the applicant. [laughter] >> All right, welcome. Can you just uh provide your name and address? >> Uh I'm uh Paul Bis uh executive director of finance and operations for Minnotonka Public Schools uh 5621 County Road 101 here in Minnitonka. I'd like to thank you um chair and members for uh reviewing this for us and thank city staff on behalf of uh superintendent law and uh board chair foss and the school board for working with us to make this possible. Uh this was a a piece of land that we bought a year ago. worked with the homeowner uh uh to um uh actually the the person who was living here passed away and the the the property was somewhat distressed and and we purchased it for a fair price and looking to add this on. There's been a question that you had about uh is does the district own addition of parcels to the west? We do not. Uh, one of the things in looking at the parcels to the west that some of the things you've talked about here with the slope or that city uh, staff pointed out with the slope and the steep slope in those areas. It's kind of it's almost like football shape down there in terms of it's we're kind of on the skinny end of the football on the on the east and it kind of bows out a little bit as you go further west. So, there's from a a construction standpoint, there's probably not a lot of utility for the school district going into parcels to the west. Uh the uh at some point in time, I don't know if the city is going to be building a trail along uh Delton Avenue. Um we have uh I I know there's some things in the plans or whatever, but we made sure that the retaining wall is set back similar to what we've done with the city on the east side of the of the high school property where we made sure that we put in an retaining wall uh there where was this was is a retaining wall that actually is more ornamental just to kind of put a book end on the other side of the of the site. Um but uh we set it back far enough to make sure that that would be able to have construction of the trail system going to the west if that ever is is built or comes up for for uh use uh or construction at a future time for the city. Um I don't have a whole lot of other uh nuggets of genius or anything like that to tell you about this this pretty straightforward u proposal. Uh if there's any questions about the storm water pond, I'll defer to Brent Belter from Inspec Engineers. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Uh commissioners, any questions for the applicants? Commissioner Minion. >> Sure. Let's hear about the storm water. I'm concerned. And uh if you would maybe talk a little bit before that about the retaining wall. I think our heart is kind of in the same place. It's just making sure that a car can't drive over that and get in that steep slope or uh children can't get over the edge. I'm assuming that retaining wall is going to be standing up a little bit proud. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Yes. And it's going to be required to have a railing on top. >> Perfect. That makes me feel much better. Could you >> just give you give us your name and address? >> Yeah. Brent Bolter. Um I work with the civil engineering company. Uh the address is 1 Parker Lake Road in Weisetta. Uh to answer the question about the storm water management, those those those chamber systems actually do percolate into the ground. However, during heavier storm events, there is an elevated outlet and it does get to the storm sewer system just during those heavy rainfall events. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Any other questions for me? All right. Thank you. All right. Uh, seeing no other questions, I will now open the public hearing. Uh, seems like there are no comment cards on this. Anyone else want to comment on this item? All right, seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing. Um, bring it back to the commission for questions or comments or a motion if we're ready for one. Commissioners, what are your thoughts? >> Commissioner Minion, >> I like it. Seems pretty straightforward. I appreciate all the thought that went into it. appreciate the information you're able to share and I'm in support of it. >> Right. Thank you, Commissioner Brink. >> Yes. Uh echo echoing Commissioner Minion's uh comments there. It's a very straightforward project. Looks, you know, well done. A lot of thought went into it with uh protecting the slopes back there. And um I really like the proactive nature with the underground storm water chambers uh incorporated into the plan, too. So, um, yes, I'm all in favor for this. >> All right. Thank you. All right. Commissioner Johnson, anything or no obligation? All right. Uh, it sounds like we might I'm also in favor of this. I guess I should clarify. Very straightforward. Um, so with that, would someone like to make a motion? This would be on item 8 C, conditional use permit, uh, and site plan review for a parking lot addition at 18301 Highway 7 and 18407 Delta Avenue. And this would be recommendation that the city council adopt the resolution approving the request. May I have a motion? Motion Brink. >> Yeah, I'll recommend that the city council adopt the resolution approving the conditional use permit and site plan review use permit for parking lot expansion at 18407 Delton Avenue. >> Thank >> second. Minion staff, please poll the commission. >> Brink, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Minion, >> yes. Chair Waterman. >> Yes, that motion is approved. And again, that will be heard by the city council on April 13th. Thank you for coming and good luck with your project, commissioners. We good to keep going. All right. Um, moving on to item number 8, conditional use permit for two 10 resident licensed residential care facilities at 2000 Hopkins Crossroad. Uh this is a recommendation that the city council adopt the resolution approving the request. And is this Miss Thomas? Is this yours? >> This is uh Chair Waterman. Uh thank you. This 2 and 1/2 acre uh property is located south and west of the I394 Hopkins Crossroad interchange. It's zoned and guided for lowdensity residential use, but it's never actually been uh used as a typical uh residence. The Oaknull Elementary School Building, uh, which is the northerly two-story portion of the building, was constructed in 1920. If you've been by the site, there's a 1920, um, brick, uh, notation on the wall there. Um, a classroom wing then was added, this one-story wing was added to the southside in the 1950s. Then 30 years after uh that addition, the school was closed and the building was repurposed as an adolescent residential drug treatment facility and that use um just ended of that use of the building and the site just ended a few years ago. It's been vacant. The building itself is centrally located on the site with parking lots to the north and east along the county road there. And the site is relatively flat uh from the county road to the front of the building, but there is a 20ft rise from the rear of the building to the rear property lines. And most of the properties u mature trees are located within that slope. There are a few on the north property line. You see some shown on the south property line, but those are actually offsite and and um just showing here on on this aerial in the fall of 2025. Those of you that were with us will recall that the Excelsier group representing English Rose provided four concepts for the planning commission and city council's review for redevelopment of the property. And two of those concepts uh contemplated retaining um and renovating the oldest portion of the school building. Um I would say that that was a direction from city staff to to really look at that. Um the other two uh sorry I'll just wait one moment. Uh the other two uh concepts contemplated removal of that building, but all four included construction of at 10bedroom licensed residential care facilities for residents living with Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. During the concept review process, members of both this body and the city council indicated general support for this type of residential use of the property. Um noted that they understood that it might not be economically feasible to retain the oldest portion of the building, but did encourage the applicant to explore that option. The group did consult and we included some information in the written report uh with both a construction company and an affordable housing developer who actually specializes in historic reuse projects but simply found that the cost to refurbish to bring this building up to uh current standards whether it was for office or commercial use or to convert it to housing were just simply um too great. And so the Excelsio group now has uh submitted their formal application again uh representing English Rose. This plan calls for the removal of the entire building and constructing two 10bedroom uh licensed residential care facilities. The homes would each be one story in height and just under uh 8,000 square ft in size. They would feature common spaces such as the kitchen, the living rooms, media rooms, some dedicated staff area. In addition to those 10 bedrooms per building, the homes would be served by uh 20 parking stalls, generally located in the same area as the existing uh parking on site. to accommodate all of this work. Um, grading and tree removal would occur. Two to six feet of excavation would occur uh in the north and central areas of the site, including some modification um to the base of that existing slope. Then there would be excavation uh needed to create three raid gardens located on the property. two uh generally on the east side along Hopkins Crossroad and then one really serving as a a natural feature in the community um garden outdoor space. Um these three basins are required in order to meet the city's storm water management rule uh for the property. Conversely, there would be some small areas of fill near the easterly parking lot of the southerntherly building. This grading work um necessary to accommodate again the infrastructure and the buildings would result in um removal or impact to six high priority trees, four of which would be on the rear slope and two near the proposed um parking lot. This does meet or is under the thresholds that are allowed by the tree protection ordinance as I outlined in your staff report. Um staff uh supports the conditional use permit request really for three reasons. First, the use is reasonable and appropriate. It's zoned and guided um for residential use and licensed residential care facilities are residences uh primarily. Second, uh the site and buildings have been thoughtfully designed at least in the opinion of staff. Um they are very attractive. of the buildings are centrally located. They're away from the roadway. They're away from existing dwellings on any side of them. The amount of parking actually exceeds city code requirements quite quite a bit. And the driveway offers the best sight lines um to the county road. Um there was some suggestion that perhaps a connection to Timberline Road, Timber Hill Road. I'm going to get it wrong. The road immediately to the north. um that that might offer a good um connection point. But if you were out there, you can see there's just enough of a rise when you look south from that roadway um that this proposed access is actually a a better one from our engineering and public works staff. And then finally, the proposal does meet all conditional use permit standards. Those standards were outlined uh in your staff report, so I'm not going to go through them now. They generally talk about the number of um the amount of building space per resident, the number the amount of total lot space um per uh well it used to be per resident but now it's just per uh facility um parking thing things like that that we think about with licensed residential care facilities. So to conclude a a kind of a short presentation here, staff does recognize that removing that school building that's been in place for hundred years over um will certainly visually change that that corridor um that may be disappointing, but we do think that again in the opinion of staff, this proposal has been very well thought out. It's very attractive and it meets all city code requirements. And so we do recommend that this body recommends the council uh approve the conditional use permit. And with that, I would turn it back to Chair Waterman. >> All right. Thanks, Miss Thomas. Uh commissioners, any questions for staff, Commissioner Johnson. >> This is my neighborhood. This is the school my husband and some of our neighbors went to as a grade school. Um and um one thing I can tell you for sure, I drive that all the time. Timberline Road is a very narrow, curvy road. It is not suitable to uh you know address this property or serve it in any way. One thing I would love, it's not legally required, it's just sentimental, if they could somehow retain that oak null sign that's in concrete or the 1920 um and somehow put it on the property, you know, as a marker for what's been a really cool neighborhood school. I've talked to some people who went there. Um they could walk there. There was a swing sets and that in the back. Um, but I love the use. I love the proposal. It is so suitable because it goes on to Hopkins Crossroads. It's close to 394. Family visiting uh the residents there could easily get there. Um, it it meets all of my sort of mental criteria. >> Johnson, if I may, we we should focus on questions. Uh, sorry for the interrupt. I I can answer a a question that I heard in there and I'm sure the applicant will also um talk about this. Um the applicant is committed to um retaining that school sign building as well as the 1920 marker. They've actually met with members of the Minnotonka Historical Society. um they have agreed to the historical society will um design a plaque that the developer is proposing to purchase and they will have that available at some public area um of the property and I'm I'm sure I maybe stole some of um Miss Ker's thunder, but um yes, that has been um considered and agreed on. If there are additional questions, feel free. All right, Commissioner Min, I don't want to jump in. >> Um, will you give me a quick education on the difference between a rain, let me get it right, a rain garden and a holding pond? Uh, Commissioner Minion, Chair Waterman, I will do my best as a like we call ourselves pees here, but pretend engineers instead of um practicing engineers. Um, the city rarely sees holding ponds constructed in our community anymore because our um storm water management plan requires some type of infiltration. We want water to get back uh into the soil for a lot of reasons. We want um pollutants to filter out of the soil and so rain gardens are areas that are designed to allow for that infiltration. There's many different best management practices that would achieve that. But in these residential settings, we simply um usually see a rain garden. It's it's not just a depression. It's engineered. designed in order to do to do that work. Um, does that answer the question? >> Perfect. Thank you. >> All right. Other questions for staff? Nope. All right. None on my end. At this time, the applicant is invited to make a presentation or offer any comments. Welcome. Please give your name and address for the record. >> Sure. Jill Kinder with the Excelsier Group, 6655 Court Lawn Circle South in Golden Valley. Well, thank you to staff and the um commission for the opportunity to come back after um we met last fall um and went through our concept plan review. We have um been evolving the site plan based on feedback from the neighborhood that we got at this commission, from staff, and from the council as well. Um, so I'm glad the site plan is up. I wanted to point out just a couple of features, evolutions of the site that um may be interesting. So I think the first thing um is the evolution of the the building plans themselves, the the homes. Um, our architects helped us get to this point of a kind of clustered look on the homes versus a longer linear home, which we think really helps to um, break up the massing, make it feel very inscale with surrounding um, single family residential homes. Um, and then functionally it works really well for English Rose who will be the operator of the homes as well. Um, let's see. Uh the Thompson's uh referenced the grain gardens. Um I will point out that the central rain garden, we will be building that into a um community feature. There is a secure fence area all around the rain garden, creating an outdoor amenity space for residents and families. It's got a walking path that circles the rain garden and crosses it as well. Um there will be benches and some outdoor seating areas, some elevated um planters and create really a nice secure space for the residents and their families to use. Um and then also as was mentioned, you know, key item of discussion we presented to both the city council and the planning commission last fall centered around the desire to pay homage to the existing school building if it couldn't be incorporated into the final project. So we have been working with the Minnesota or the Minnotonka Historical Society and um we'll be working with them to document and photograph the building. Um they will be designing the plaque which we'll put in a in a publicly accessible space hopefully adjacent to um that Oaknull School sign. And then we'll be um salvaging some of the bricks from the building as well and plan to use it to line the sidewalks um going up to the front doors of the homes and then to incorporate it um to some extent at least on the monument sign um for the community as well. So, those are just a few of the features as the project has evolved that I wanted to point out that incorporated the feedback that we've gotten from you all and then I'm available for any additional questions. >> Thank you. Uh, commissioners, questions for the applicant. Commissioner Minion, kind of the same question. Do you see any [snorts] holding water in that feature area? Meaning after it after it migrates down, will there be any standing water in the particularly the area closest to the residences where some people live? >> So I don't even have my pretend [laughter] engineering degree. Um my understanding is that the feature one will be um uh will get and retain more water than the two that are closer to Hopkins Crossroad that those will be less deep. Um, so I think after a rain event, yes, but they they'll be designed to be able to dry out as well in between rainfalls. >> Okay. Um, I remember this project well and I I really appreciate all the work you guys have put into this. You've gone over and above and did a great job with it. Um, I looked and one of the things that really bothers me is putting a concentration of uh people who are u mentally compromised next to a busy road. And we had brought up the point before about some sort of a physical barrier whether it's a hedger row or a fence and I dialed deep into the drawings and I was having problems reading some of the small lettering >> when I drove down deeper. But will you kind of talk a little bit is there any hedgerros or physical barriers planned along the busy street? >> Um not along the busy street. Again the access points from the outdoor amenity spaces. So, um, residents who are in the sun room and can go out onto the deck if they then can go into the courtyard and that is all within a secure fenced area. The front doors are on um a controlled access alarm system. Um, along Hopkins Crossroad, we set the homes pretty far back from Hopkins Crossroad. Um, we explored the idea of hedges and fences as well. Um, you know, we've got two rain gardens on either side and they really need to be in that location based on the site grading. Um, so, you know, that keeps us from being able to have an end to end property to property fence all the way across Hopkins Crossroad there. Um, a solid hedge. I mean, we talked about arborvite, but with snow removal and the salt and everything that's going to come off that road, our landscapers are saying that's not going to survive. So, um, really don't think I mean, we and English rose as the operator feel really confident with the security measures that they have in place, their history of operating and never having an elopement, I believe Joshua calls it. Um and then also allowing creating a secured area with some within the um accessible outdoor area is completely cons secure. Um we feel comfortable not having anything additional on Hopkins Crossroad and really there wasn't a good solution for accomplishing that. >> Believe you had a handful of conifers along that area but I didn't see any fence or hedros. So uh thank you Thank you, Commissioner. Other questions for the applicants? Commissioner Brink, >> uh, just a quick question. Uh, what do you anticipate for a schedule? Like just when you start, uh, >> digging? >> Sure. We are, um, anticipating, uh, acquiring the property in June. So, we'll start the site work right away, probably two to three months. Hope to begin construction um, in August or September. We've actually decided to build both homes concurrently whereas we had originally intended to phase them. So we'll build them at the same time to the point of being fra fully enclosed at which point we'll pause on one while we finish the other. That will allow us to finish the landscaping, take care of any of the loud construction activity. And so then um you know it'll be great for the neighbors, but it'll also be really great for the residents so that move into that first home that they won't have um loud construction activity happening next door and it'll allow us to complete the landscaping. Um, that home construction will probably go through spring of 2026, wrap up landscaping, I'm sorry, spring of 2027, wrap up landscaping and everything around um, summer of 2027, and then we'd hope to start on the interior construction of that next house um, once the first one is fully leased. Uh, and you know, so by next summer, both homes should look done and beautiful from the outside. And then, um, probably sometime in, um, early or in 2028, the final second home will be complete and ready for residents to move in. >> Okay. Uh, just one more question. Um, I believe recently it was the county that did some reconstruction work out there in Hopkins Crossroad. Is that all finished up now? on the site your site plan morphs in good with that. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Minion, you to follow up. >> Will you talk a little bit about the time frame and mitigation efforts when you do the demolition? So, what can the neighbors expect? What can the city expect uh regards to how that uh demolition will start, the time frame, and then uh noise mitigation, the process of hauling things out? Are you going to be doing grinding on the site? are you going to be pulling it all out dumpsters? Just kind of kind of paint us a little picture of how you see that happening. >> Yeah, that's a great question. Um I can't say that we've gotten through all of those details yet, but typically um you know, we'll do the selective demolition, right? So that'll take a little bit of extra time to for the bricks. Um I think buildings usually come down pretty quickly. So, I would say it's going to be less than a week of building demolition noise. Um, and we would be happy to work with the neighbors to put together um like notices so we can give people heads up on what they can expect, when construction will be happening. Um, we've got a good relationship with um the neighbors that have been engaged in this project and a list of all the surrounding um property owners from the city. So, we'd be happy to send out notices or set up sort sort of email communication or something that way as well. >> Commissioner Johnson, >> just a question. Um, the neighborhood I belong to, it has an association, this Sherwood Forest Neighborhood Association. Have you been in contact with any of them? >> Yes, Ethan Adam, who's also on the Minnetonka um historic committee, he and I have met um and so we've been in contact. Yeah, >> good. Thank you. >> Okay, looks like no more questions. Um, thank you. We might have you back depending on if there are other questions at the end. >> Thank you. >> All right, I will know. Go ahead and open the public hearing. There any comment cards on this? We are not going to Yep. >> Chair, there are no comment cards, but I received an email during the >> Okay. Okay. >> So, I didn't get it into the um change memo, so I'll just read it here and it will be included in the items going forward. I'll >> thumbs >> um says, "I live just around the corner from this site and am strongly in favor of this project and the planned use of the lot space. English Rose has a good reputation and the services they provide are well suited to this location. As a neighbor, I'm glad to know that this kind of facility will be quote in my backyard and hope to be involved with the staff and residents in some fashion. Great. Thank you. All right. Anyone else on this item? Okay. Uh seeing no one else, I will close the public hearing. That brings it back to uh the commission for any questions or comments. Commissioners, what are your thoughts? >> Commissioner Johnson, >> it appears from the staff report and the presentation that this meets all of the conditional use standards. And so a motion to approve the project with by somebody would be appropriate. >> Okay. Is that that that's a motion? >> I'll make the motion. Sure. To um make a motion that the commission recommended the city council adopt the resolution approving the conditional use permit for a 10 resident licensed care facility at 2000 Hopkins Crossroads. >> Great. Okay. Motion Johnson. Any other motions or any second or any comments? >> Um, I'll just make a a comment here. Um, >> this this need a second before the comments are made. >> Sorry. >> We need a second. >> Okay. So, how So, I'll >> just say a second and then ask for Thank you. >> Okay. Second and then what? What's the >> Now you can >> Now you can have comments. >> Okay. Now we can have comments. All right. There we go. >> Okay. Yeah. Just a comment. Um, yeah, this site proposal was, uh, vetted quite extensively by the planning commission and city council last fall, and it's, um, it's really cool to see how this has evolved into a into a great site plan. Um, it's it's a terrific use of the property. Um, um, the proposed buildings and the layout for the property is is excellent. Um, yeah, we look forward to seeing this get done. >> Thank you. All right. Other comments? >> Sure. Let's move forward. >> Well, Commissioner M. Sorry. >> I either way I was just going to say I'm very much a supporter of this. Um I really do think it's an improvement to the neighborhood. I appreciate the uh the approach that um the developers been been so in much contact with the uh city and with the residents. They've done a really great job putting this together. Um it meets so many of the standards, does it well, and it's it's really something that's needed for our community. It's kind of fun to think about how this has gone from being a a a school for young children to now a uh place for people of all ages to uh find a rest bed. And it's uh I think it's going to be a quality addition to our community. And I I thank you all for all your work you've done from the city to the applicants. >> All right. Thanks, Commissioner Minion. I agree as well and I know this is there have been a few uh bites at the apple on this with uh not just this site but uh previous sites as well. Um so I think it's a it's a seller project. Really like the um kind of the homage by using the brick. That just means like I don't have the as much of the personal connection from growing up but I I really like that you have this 100red-year facility and they're going to take the brick and make it part of the new uh new facility. That's that's phenomenal. And then I I I actually have to comment. I really do like the idea of building both structures at the same time and then not finishing one. I have not heard that. That's that's pretty exceptional. So, but yeah. Um so I'm in support of this as well. So now we have already had a motion. We have a second. So I guess staff please call or please call public commission. >> Yes. Uh Brink, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. Minion, >> yes. >> Chair Waterman, >> yes. Uh the motion passes. Uh and that will be heard by the city council on April 13th. Good luck with your project. Okay. Moving on to item number nine. Other business there. There's no other business, right? Okay. Then item number 10, uh, adjournment. May I have a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> I'll make the motion. >> Motion. Minion. >> I'll second. >> Second, Johnson. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Motion carries. We are journ. Good night. >> [music] [music]