The primary topic of the meeting was Planning Case Number 24-13, presented by planning consultant Marita Trapp. The proposal involves developing a 12-unit, four-sale condominium complex on a 7.9-acre site, combining two existing parcels. Although much of the site is classified as wetland and not buildable, the development aims to optimize the limited buildable area. The proposed development includes three two-story buildings facing Commerce Boulevard and three stories facing Lost Lake, with a boardwalk and shared Homeowners Association dock arrangement.

Commission members were particularly concerned about the project’s density. The development’s proposed density of 9.2 units per acre exceeds the Shoreland overlay district’s maximum of five units above the ordinary high-water level. While the Planning and Development Unit (PUD) could accommodate this deviation, questions about density and open space calculations arose. The commission emphasized the need for clarity regarding these calculations, given the site’s unique conditions.

Parking was another significant issue. The development plans to provide private two-car garages for each unit, but visitor parking is allocated along Commerce Boulevard. This arrangement raised concerns, especially since Commerce Boulevard is a County Road with restrictions on overnight parking from November 15 to April 15. The commission questioned the adequacy of this solution, particularly during winter months when snow removal could further complicate parking availability.

Jim Ghoully, representing the development, explained that the parking arrangement under the building was a necessity due to site constraints. The proposal initially intended to position parking behind the buildings, but the site’s design and regulatory requirements necessitated the current plan. Ghoully assured that snow removal would be managed by a local contractor, with costs included in the Homeowners Association fees.

The commission also discussed the proposed building setbacks and variances. The front yard setback requirement of 15 to 25 feet was not met in all cases, prompting a request for a variance. Additionally, concerns were raised about the shoreline setback, with the applicant proposing a minimum of 25 feet instead of the typical 50 feet. The commission stressed the importance of adhering to pedestrian access requirements and ensuring covered entrances for accessibility.

Architectural design compliance was another topic of interest. Trapp confirmed that the proposed buildings would adhere to the maximum height limit of 35 feet and meet the regulatory flood protection elevation. The commission further examined the landscaping plan, which includes 12 deciduous trees and native seeding. The landscape architect raised questions about maintaining certain features, particularly on slopes and accessibility.

Stormwater management was also addressed, with the proposal indicating a 45.3% impervious surface coverage. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is responsible for reviewing the stormwater management plan, and the applicant must comply with the district’s requirements. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requested a density tearing analysis and open space preservation numbers, while Hennepin County’s transportation department emphasized that stairs and retaining walls must remain off the public right-of-way.

Public comments were solicited, but none were received prior to the meeting. The commission held a public hearing to discuss the project further, with staff expressing a favorable view of the application, contingent upon addressing additional conditions to enhance the project. The density tearing analysis, which assesses the number of units permitted based on distances from the ordinary high water level, was a focal point of the discussion.

The commission’s deliberations highlighted the balancing act between aesthetic design, regulatory compliance, and practical concerns such as parking. While the overall sentiment was favorable towards the design, particularly the concealed garages and boardwalk proposal, parking remained a contentious issue. One member expressed that the lack of onsite visitor parking was a significant drawback.

The meeting concluded with motions regarding the conditional use permit and preliminary plat for the development, both including various conditions aimed at enhancing parking availability and ensuring compliance with local regulations.