##VIDEO ID:RrPJ_qzIeK4## Welcome to the the October 16th 2024 meeting of the ad Planning Commission the city is committed to continuing to receive and hear your input on matters we have been collecting in public input through voicemail and our engagement website betterto together.org it is important you know that all comments that have been submitted have been received and read prior to the start of this meeting you do not need to submit the same feedback in another way all feedback is considered equally regardless of the way in which it was submitted tonight there is one public hearing individuals who want to provide testimony remotely for the public hearing can call 312 535 8110 and enter access code 2630 098 6460 the password is 5454 press star three on your telephone keypad when you would like to get in the queue to speak a staff member will unmute you when it is your turn please State your full name and address including unit number before speaking everyone is allowed up to three minutes to speak remember you do not need to call in or comment live tonight if you have already provided feedback also do not repeat information already presented provide testimony if you have new comments or information to bring forward okay call to order the ooc October 16th meeting 2024 uh roll call commissioner Aly here commissioner Padilla here commissioner Smith here commissioner John here commissioner phelp here chair Miranda here okay the first uh or the next item on the agenda is the approval of the meeting agenda do I have a motion to approve the meeting agenda motion to approve is there a second second all in favor say I I I I any not in favor say nay okay that passes the uh next is the approval of the meeting minutes we have the Planning Commission meeting minutes from September 25th 2024 motion to approve do I have a second second all in favor say I I I not in favor say nay okay passes okay we will now hear from residents in person who would like to speak about something not on tonight's agenda or scheduled for a future public hearing you may speak for up to three minutes after giving your full name and address including unit number the green light at your Podium will turn on when you have 30 seconds remaining the yellow light will turn on when you're out of time the red light will turn on I read this also let see here during Community comment the board commission or the commission will invite residents to share Rel issues or concerns individuals must limit their comments to 3 minutes the chair May limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic generally speaking items that are Elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community comment individuals should not expect the chair or commission members to respond to their comments tonight instead the commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting is there anyone here who wants to speak no okay okay closing uh Community comment we have one public hearing tonight see a 10.9 foot front yard setback variance from the required 38.2 ft for a garage addition to be 27.3 ft to the North Lot line at 549 Grove Street the homeowners are proposing a two-story garage addition to the east side of the existing attached garage Chris Aker assistant planner will present thank you chair members of the Planning Commission this is a request for a variance at 40 549 Grove Street from section 36- 439 of the Adina city code to allow a 10.9 ft front y setback variance from the 38.2 ft requirement to be 27.3 ft from the front lot line to allow a side addition to an existing attached to car garage the subject property is located on the south side of Grove here and it is adjacent to a culdesac it also has um Excel High lines along the east side of the property there's a 50 foot wide easement um that can't be built within along that easement area and then further East you have uh railroad tracks and on the other side of the railroad tracks are homes that are backing up to the railroad tracks so the only um directly affected neighbor by the request would be the property owner that is directly to the West who actually is um this setback uh to the property to the West is uh the one that sets up the setback requirement for 549 and they have a slightly deeper set back at 38.2 ft um from the porch of the existing home that's adjacent but to the front corner of the existing house it's 30 ft away because of the curvature of the cuac and then for the addition which is going directly east and that is this area right here um which is actually inset further from the front wall of the garage um that will be 27.3 feet away because as you go further east because of the culdesac that front yard setback starts um cutting deeper into the lot and you can see that with this graphic the pink area is the front yard area the setback is along here um the existing home is slightly non-conforming right here but then to add on to the garage um towards the east this red area is illustrates the overlap into to the setback area uh the purple dashed lines indicate uh the easeman area that can't be built on with the high line that goes through and then the railroad tracks further east so what the proposal is is that the garage currently is undersized for a two-car garage and they can't fit both of their cars in it they would like to add on um an additional garage stall they also would like to have sport court room behind the garage and then um above that they would have an office area the sport court would have would be open um above to below and you can see this um 3D view of the garage as you're looking South and then also um as you're looking North this would be uh the back wall of the new addition to the garage so this would be the section uh garage on the lower level new office space above and then uh that sport CT behind the rear elevation this gives you um site plan showing that addition to the existing [Music] house and then the new front elevation and East Elevation that is facing the railroad tracks so Minnesota state statutes and the ordinances require the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively to Grant a variance that the propos pro proposed variants will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance the purpose and intent of the front a setback requirement is to provide a consistent minimum space from structures to the lot line adjacent to the street however the code allows for deeper setbacks if somebody chooses to build further back on the lot which then affects adjacent properties who wish to um expand it can make another property non-conforming um which in this instance is the case the house is slightly non-conforming and then to go further east it it gets just um that much more uh non-conforming a deeper front yard setback is required for the property given the front yard setback to the neighbor to the west the ordinance does not account for the Deep curve of the culdesac with setbacks pushed deeper into the lot and misaligned with at the front of the home the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan the comprehensive plan guides the property at low density residential that will not change it continues to be a house it's an addition to the garage um there are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance the term practical difficulty means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not um permitted by the zoning ordinance the proposed use is permitted in the R1 single dwelling unit unit zoning district and complies with all zoning standards with the exception of the front yard setback the curvature of the culdesac and required setback forces the addition further south on the lot with an XL Energy High Line easement restricting uh much of the expansion opportunity that you would normally assume the lot would have the Practical difficulties are caused by the existing location of the home as it relates to the home to the West the required average front yard setback the RightWay based on the neighbors front yard ZB back and the impact of the culdesac curvature of the building placement the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances that are unique to the property not common to every similarly zoned property and that are not self-created the property owner was de the property was developed with a North front yard setback closer to the lot line than currently allowed given the neighbor setback additions to the property are affected by the required front yard setback established by the neighbor in the existing conditions of the lot which are not self-created will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood the front yard setback of the addition will allow for a logical extension of the existing non-conforming garage with all other zoning requirements in compliance the area affected to the east of the EXL energy Highline easement and railroad tracks so there's no uh affected neighbor directly adjacent to the Improvement staff does recommend approval of the 10.9 ft fronty setback variance from the 38.2 ft requirement approval is based on the following findings the Practical difficulty is caused by the required average front year setback requirement the culdesac setback impact and the existing location of the house there are circumstances that are unique to the property those unique circumstances include having Street Frontage with a culdesac affecting the buildable area on the east side of the lot a large Highline EAS affecting the side and rear yard of the buildable area and a railroad track adjacent to the east had this been a typical um home along a block where they're all lined up with one another like similarly zoned properties um it would not have required a variance because the front of the house would have been parallel to the front lot line and they could just simply match that and the proposer will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood the garage is of a similar design to the house with matching materials the addition will provide a garage setback similar to the corner lot uh from aalac any approval should be subject to the following conditions subject to plans and surveys date stamped September 9th 2024 compliance with the engineer's memo dated October 10th 2024 in compliance with the tree ordinance um there were a number of comments and Better Together Dina all of them were positive um we do have Brady Jensen Scott Palmer um who are the Builders of the project and then the property owners Brian and Abby heidman hope I pronounced that right um are here as well and I will stop and answer any questions you may have thank you very much great presentation any questions from the commission I just had one for excuse me for clarification it looks like in the overhead photos that the house to the West uh the north part the northern part of the lot to the West appears to be a sidey yard but does that not have anything to do with anything here it does I mean if you look at the front of the house it would be facing Garden Avenue so the front door does Face Garden Avenue it happens to address off of Grove and if you look at the definition of what the front lot line is it would be um this the narrower uh portion of a lot to um the street and this is corner lot there's nothing that dictates somebody where they can put their front door or where they can front their house but um from a definition standpoint the front would be that North Lot okay thank you any other questions no thank you very much planer now have MSP homes or the property owners present did you have a presentation no presentation at all okay okay um all right we will now hear from residents who would like to provide testimony individuals who want to provide input remotely for the public hearing can call 312 535 8110 and enter access code 2630 098 6460 the password is 5454 press star three on your telephone keypad when you would like to get in the queue to speak callers if you are watching the meeting on any other device or television please mute that before speaking so there's not an echo or feedback when you hear the pr on your telephone that you've been unmuted please begin speaking by giving your name and address including unit number for the record you will then have 3 minutes to speak remember it is not necessary to provide testimony if you have already provided comments via voicemail or Better Together d.org call in if you have new comments or information to bring forward okay so I guess first we'll have anyone in the audience seeing none um guess we should wait a minute um we can I did start the timer when you started talking and so we have about 15 seconds left if that works for you sure is there anyone on the line or no no okay nobody has joined the queue to speak at all so I think it's safe to proceed okay great thank you um all right then I do we have a motion to close the public hearing so moved second second all in favor say I I I I anyone not in favor say nay okay um uh the uh public comment has ended um now it's back to the commission um any any comments or discussion actually just discussion at this point yeah start with me want to start sure and then you can talk to this side there um well I think we have certainly provided variances for projects like this in the past for houses that are on culde saacs um where the front lot line kind of varies and um I do think this is um in harmony with the ordinance and in consistent with our comp plan um and the Practical diff difficulties they have they don't have the use of their sidey yard um because of the high power line um and I think this is also consistent um with the neighboring homes I mean there's just a slight variation to the neighbor of the West but it's very consistent with the street line so I don't see any issues with granting this variance personally okay great thank you quy yeah I I certainly would agree with this you know uh color sacks always are interesting because of the curvature and we certainly granted quite a few variances along these same lines in the past I think to um you know just a design of the home what's being proposed it makes complete sense you know adding a second car garage that's very practical I think that makes sense too I always look at the metrics to see what is the city standard compared to what the proposal is and one thing I certainly pay attention to is lot size and lot coverage and I think this design what's being proposed meets all those criteria and so um everything here just seems like it makes sense um of what the homeowner is trying to do as well well as the Practical difficulties of the culdesac and also you know there's the train tracks on the other side so there's very very limited uh ability to impede on anything um to the East and so yeah this is something that I'll be very in favor of uh approving today um I just had um one simple question I'm sure you can answer um the sport court and the office that are uh going to be built are they going to be fully plumbed not at all so there'll be no Plumbing it's not a future Adu um um okay I I fully support this I think it mean it meets all the variance requirements and it is unique in so many respects give my full support I don't really have anything to add I just I agree with the comments already made so leave it at that okay um my only comment is the uh well I guess two things one is the the image the generated image um seems compressed horizontally so it's kind of hard to tell what you know obviously the garage is narrower the truck is narrower than a truck would be so it's kind of hard to tell like spacewise what's happening um also looking at the diagram from above the um it looks like the oak tree is going to be taken out because it looks like the wall goes right through it no okay because that's what it looks like can someone speak to that on the is that a retaining wall that's going through there or I'm trying to understand the diagram yes so there is um an existing retaining wall noted on there and our surveyor had put a proposed uh um retaining wall on there as well our goal is to not disturb the tree or the critical root Zone at all we're going to do our best to make the retaining wall um not dig down in that portion and just kind of butt it up as close to the tree as we can without affecting it whatsoever it's a big tall tree it provides a lot of shade and they don't want to get rid of it and we're going to do our best to avoid that great thank you okay then I guess I agree with my fellow Commissioners I don't really have a uh anything else to say any uh and the feedback back on Better Together was was very positive and um they made some good comments so anyone have a motion motion to approve do I have a second second any further discussion no all in favor say I I I not in favor say nay okay passes thank you congratulations it's not always scary okay great well that concludes our our public hearing um next we have reports and recommendations no we have none okay uh Jared member comment anyone no okay um staff comments no sir no staff comments are we going to set a record tonight um okay I have a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn second oh I second okay thank okay all in favor say I I I meeting adjourned thank you [Music] Miranda for