I'll call the meeting to or to order and I think we will have a quorum then once our new members sworn in. Um is there a motion to adopt the agenda? I'll make a motion to adopt to the
agenda. In a second. I'll second the motion. Any discussion? And here comes Glenn. So all in favor say I. I. I. and opposed. All right. So, that passes
and then Councilman Mundle, would you mind coming up, please? I can do that. Thank you. Hello, Glenn. I expect it's for my report that you want me up here. Yes, please.
All right. Uh Oh, I'm Brian Mundle. I'm your city council leazison. Um, first off, I want to say congratulations to Christina for your appointment to the planning commission. You have a very good, excellent, knowledgeable board of people to work
with here and I wish you all the luck. Uh, just a couple things as far as it relates to the planning commission. Council is looking into putting together a business advisory council made up of
local business owners. Uh that's still very early in the planning stages that uh but it's something that council's looking into to have a better relationship with business owners and see what they need, what they
don't, etc. So, uh, staff and council is starting the process of redesigning the city website. Uh, every so many years with Civic Plus, we have the opportunity to redesign the
website, do updates. Um, I know Carrie has a long list of wants and needs that she wants to incorporate into the website. Um, it sounds like some things could be uh some big changes to it where
it may be down the road right now, but uh we've we're talking about getting all the records scanned in all the property records, housing permits, and once that's done, it could be a possibility
that a resident could just go to the website and look up their paperwork on the website rather than have them come city hall and take up staff time. Would that be open to anybody or you'd have to have like a password for your particular
document or I'm I'm sure it would be open to everybody, but I don't know the specific public documents. Yeah. I don't know the specifics if you have to register or but it's very early days on
that too. So yeah, it's interesting. Yeah. Um, so Booster Day is July 19th. There'll be all sorts of events planned. There's uh three different bands, some different events, car show vendors,
pancake breakfast, food trucks, kids activities, uh, kids inflatables. The parade is back this year and the fireworks will be at dusk. So, hope to see everyone out there and uh talk to
your neighbors, bring them along, just get a good crowd out there and enjoy our city celebration. So, that's about all I got. So, is there any questions or comments? All right. Well, I wish everyone here a
safe and happy Fourth of July. So, thank you. We'll see you next month. Thank you. Thank you very much, Brian. You're welcome. Okay, we're going to go on to the approval of minutes.
Are there any corrections? I couldn't find any. I found a few on So, it's our page two, line 36. It said the commission reviewed the letter of recommendation. And I think that should say that commission reviewed the letter
of application because there wasn't a letter of recommendation that I know of. And then on line 44 it says she noted um that she has a strength in effective communication. I think it just should be effective. That's a little picky thing,
but Mr. Terry, do you have any? Nope. I don't have any. Okay. Okay. Motion to approve the minutes with the amendments. Is there a second? A second the motion.
Any discussion? If not, all in favor say I. I. And opposed. That motion passes. Okay. And then the next thing is the swearing in of our new um planning commission commissioner.
Yes. At last night's city council meeting, the city council approved the appointment of Christina Pagnik to the planning commission based on the recommendation made by the planning commission at the May 27th meeting. Miss Pagnock's term will begin today and end on January 31st of 2028. Miss Pagnak is
present tonight to take her oath of office and to assume her seat on the East Bethl Planning Commission. Please read the oath of office and raise your right hand. All right. I, Christina Pagnak, I, Christina Pagnak, do solemnly swear or affirm do solemnly swear or affirm that
I will support the Constitution of the United States of America that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the state of Minnesota and the state of Minnesota and faithfully discharge the duties as a member of the city of East Bethl Planning Commission and faithfully discharge the duties as a member of the
city of East Bethl Planning Commission in the county of Anoka and the state of Minnesota and in in the county of Anoka in the state of Minnesota. To the best of my ability. In the best of my ability. So help me God. So help me God. Okay. Well, welcome Christina. We're
glad you're here. Thank you. Glad you did it. Thank you. Okay. Uh two things. Grace, there's on your microphone. There's um It's really puffy. Do you have a thing? Yeah, I don't have a There's one right here.
Um Maybe just sit back. I think it'll pick it up. Just don't get too close because you're going to be talking a lot tonight, right? Well, here. You got it. Okay. And then the other thing is,
have you posted for another commissioner then yet? We have not. Um, but I will check with our staff and see if we will be. Okay. There were no other applications from before. As far as I'm aware, there have not been that happened before I came in, but um, I will check
with Carrie and our other staff to to check on that. Yeah. If we could get that going as soon as possible. Did you want to say something? I was just curious what happened with Elvin. We approved. He was not. Yeah. So, we recommended his approval and the city council um did not
appoint him as a commissioner. Okay. Okay. Um and I was just going to encourage you guys that are on the commission to see if you can find somebody who might want to apply to that you might think that would be good at
this. I think it goes a long way, right? As somebody. So, okay. Okay. Let's go on then to the public hearing which is a request by the applicant Alec Jensen of um EB Commercial LLC for variance at
outlaw Avivage EB second edition. And is there the the list of names of people that are going to speak? Okay. Thank you so much. And Grace, are you going to be doing all the presenting or is I will be doing the first two and
Kendra will be doing the barnaminium hearing. Perfect. Thank you. All right. This is a public hearing for a variance for the location of a development monument sign at Outlaw A of Elage EV second edition, their subdivision. The applicant for this variance is Alec
Jensen of the Elvage Development Group. This is a variance request for the location of a development monument sign within 20 ft of public rightway on outlaw A in Elvage EV second edition. As seen on the image, this sign will be placed east of or the request is for the sign to be placed east of Sand Hill
Parkway and north of 189th Lane at the intersection. The property that this sign is proposed to be constructed on is zoned and guided mixed use. The surrounding properties are guided and zoned the same. Highway 65 is to the west and Viking Meadows it the Viking
Meadows subdivision is to the north. This is not the most accurate aerial imagery as a substantial amount of development has been done in the area recently. For example, the roads are pretty much all in for Elivage. This property is 5.61 acres and it is an
outlaw which it means that is part of a subdivision but it must be platted at a later date in order to be considered buildable. According to section 12-1C of our city code, outlots are unbuildable and a condition of the approval of this variance is that the city council would
authorize the applicant to build this development monument sign on this lot. Lot A has been identified for commercial development in the future, though staff is unaware of any immediate plans to plat and build on this lot. The request is to allow the placement of this development monument sign within
three or three feet from the property line along Sand Hill Parkway Northeast and 4T 10 in from the property line along 189th Lane Northeast. This variance is required as development monument signs cannot be or must be placed at least 20 ft from the public rightway. In this case, the public
rightway extends up to the property line on this property. This site or this sign location encroaches approximately 17 feet towards Sand Hill Parkway and 15 feet towards 189th Lane from what is required by the code. It is worth noting
that this sign location is outside of the 30-foot sight sight triangle that staff uses to assess whether um objects near the corner of a road would impede on traffic visibility. Staff has not identified concerns regarding
traffic visibility at this intersection with the addition of this sign. There is also a utility easement 10 ft west and 10 ft east of the fire hydrant pictured in red on the image. The city engineer has stated that the proposed location keeps this uh sign out of this easement.
The fire hydrant is temporary and removal depends upon when utilities are extended to the north. Um, this easement is not pictured on the site plan, but it is pictured on the final plat for this subdivision. The approximate location of this monument sign was shown in the materials
submitted during the platting process, but the approval was not explicitly given in the development agreement, which is why this variance is being sought. Staff has looked at the possibility of reorienting the sign to reduce the encroachment and discuss this with the applicant. Uh, there's a poss there would be a possibility the sign
could be oriented towards the corner. Um, but the applicant has stated that reorienting the sign would not allow it to be visible from both north and southbound traffic as this current orientation would allow it to be. This is a quick look at the design of the sign. Uh, it's pretty standard for a
development monument sign. Staff has found that the sign meets the standards established in chapter 54 of the city code for signs. This is a quick look at the current conditions at the site. On the left, you will see um the current proposed location for this sign. Uh the fire
hydrant is pictured on there. The bottom image is what a driver may see heading north on Sand Hill Parkway. The property lines are not visible, but can be assumed that the edge of the sidewalk is approximately where that property line would be and the sign would be about 4
feet behind that. The two images on the right are the alternative locations for the sign that the applicant mentions on page 21 of the packet. The top location uh would be on the other side of 189th Lane. So just over the street to the south. Uh this location the applicant
states is not usable due to concerns about the right of way and also the proximity to the wetlands. The image on the bottom shows an alternative location to the of the sign um that would place it along Baltimore Street to the north uh the north entrance of Elage. This is
pictured on page 25 of the packet. Uh this would allow the sign to m be outside of the 20 foot um setback but it would require a retaining wall according to the applicant. The variant standards for approving a variance um are the
practical difficulties test and the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they have a practical difficulty that can only be remedied by a variance. The three standards that we use to evaluate this are that first the request is reasonable. So the applicant is applying to use the property in a way that is sensible but not authorized by
the code. The second is that the request is due to unique circumstances on the property that are not caused by the land owner. This is often something like sloping topography or the proximity to a wetland that impedes where the applicant may place um or may how the applicant may use their land. The third is that
the variance if granted will not have a negative impact on neighborhood character. So that uh variance will not make uh the the variance is not for a request that will look out of place or out of scale in the area. Findings of fact for each of the three standards
have been provided in your packet. The planning commission is requested to open the public hearing and um may recommend approval of this variance based on the applicant submission, the contents of the staff report, public testimony, and other evidence. If you find that all three parts of the
practical difficulties have been test have been met, planning commission may also impose additional conditions to the approval and may modify the draft resolution as you see fit. The other option is to recommend denial of this variance request if based on the
contents of the staff report, the applicant's uh materials, the public testimony, and other evidence, you deem that this request has not met the uh practical difficulties tests. I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay. No questions for right now. Okay.
Well, thank you very much. And I'm going to open the public hearing. There is a public hearing, correct? Yes. So, would anyone like to speak to this issue? Okay. Please um come up and Did you sign
this sheet? Okay, great. If you could just um say your name and your address, please. My name my name is Will O'keefee. Uh 3020 France Avenue in St. Louis Park. Uh I work for
Bader, which is part of the development team on this project. Um and mostly I'm here to be a resource and answer any questions you all might have. Um this is a challenging uh site. We've been working on uh as Grace uh alluded to a
number of scenarios for how we might um put a sign in a place that meets all of these standards. Um and given the large right away um coupled with some of the easements in the area um and also wanting to make sure that we have
something that is visible as a sign. Um we found that this was really the only viable location that we could come up with. We don't take it lightly to come to you all. Um you know the locations that were in consideration that were outside of uh you know issues pushed it
further in towards the center of the outlot which as we look at it as you know really stewards of the city's goals for the commercial uh that we're trying to bring in. that would be limiting. Um, you know, the further that sign goes
into that lot, it may impact who wants to be there. Um, we've been actively marketing it and continue to do so. So, uh, I am here to answer any questions you guys might have. Thank you. So, if you put the sign in, then would it also affect whether somebody could build
there, do you think? Well, if we were to put that sign further into the outlaw, yes. um in the current location that we've proposed. Um I think we don't have any concerns about that. It's partly why it's pushed where it is. Um is to make
sure that we're giving the most flexibility for that future uh development for the commercial person. Thanks. And gentlemen and lady, any questions?
Um the alternate on Baltimore. um what are your concerns with that? So, we do have some concerns about proximity to wetland there. Um the other things that you see if you drive by there, and it's a little hard to tell in the picture, is uh the Capstone Viking Meadow
development that Grace mentioned, they have built a massive wall in that area now. Um and so that's probably 12 feet up out of the ground. And it really between adding in probably a $50,000
retaining wall based on our plans in addition to the monument sign, we wouldn't really have much visibility. Um, we've only have visibility in one direction. And it's again hard to tell in the picture, but it ends up being recessed pretty far back into the
corner. So that visibility coming south, you wouldn't ever see the sign. So that would be a primary concern. Thank you. Yep. Nothing else. Okay. Well, thank you very much for your input.
And I'm closing the public hearing. And I'm sorry, I missed it. Um, Grace, does this the staff have a recommendation on this? Um, staff did not give a recommendation on this. Um, we don't find many issues with the
possible sighting of the sign. Um, there would possibly, as we mentioned, be a way to angle it. So, it's encroaching less on the setback, but again, then we'd be losing some of that visibility. Um, so staff didn't make a formal recommendation, but um, this does seem
like a sensible request. Okay. Are there any practical applications of the easements or setbacks that would be affected by the sign not in terms of a rule but in terms of usage
of those? Yeah, I've checked with our city engineer and he has mentioned that um with the proposed location of the sign, he does not have any concerns regarding the easements. A condition of approval of this variance would be that if additional right ofway does need to be taken at any point um and the sign
were need to be demolished or moved uh the city would not be liable for that. That cost would be incurred by uh the applicant and you've discussed that with the applicant. Um that is something that was in the packet and on the resolution. So
yes. Well, I think with that condition in place, um it does seem sensible. Uh I I see about the uh the angle of the sign, um you know, a lot of north and southbound traffic. So, if it's at a 45 to that, it's going to it's going to
reduce that visibility. And so, I think with that condition in place where the city is not going to be held liable should it need to be removed or relocated, uh I see no reason to not recommend this to council. So, are we looking at It doesn't have
the page number on it. Can you put the drawing up of which one we're discussing the photo? Okay. So, is the sidewalk under the sign in this photo? The sidewalk is to the south of you. Do
you see those double lines there? That this is her sidewalk right here. No, but going north and south. See, there's below this side. If you move your pointer down to the line right here, this line right here.
Is this a sidewalk? Sidewalk on that part. That's topography lines, isn't it? Yes, those are topography lines. Uh the lines here are for utilities. Okay. Y our public I ran this by our um public works manager and he did not express any concerns about
future sidewalks in that area. But there's the sidewalk right here. Okay. I just was wondering if that was a sidewalk. Yes, there is sidewalk here and it will I get that. Yeah, but I'm talking north and south. That was my only concern.
because there's enough room to put one there behind the curb. Correct. In the right way. Yes. That would be placed in the public ride ofway, which is Yeah. Here. Okay. Does anyone have any concerns about this?
If not, do we have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the variance uh request for the um setbacks of the sign with the um stipulation as indicated by staff regarding if in the future there
needs to be any um removal of the sign. It's not the responsibility of the city to pay for that. Is there a second? I'll second the motion. Thank you. Any discussion? Uh uh yes, Commissioner. Is the
recommendation for approval with all of the conditions in the draft resolution in the packet, not just that one? I didn't read those. I I would assume that's fine unless there's some objectionable requirement, but I didn't find that
page, so I don't know. Take a look. Page 12 of the PDF. Grace has drafted a draft resolution with four conditions of approval. Got it. And number four is the one you specifically commented on, but I assume
you meant uh including all four of those conditions. Just want to confirm. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. So that motion passes.
And again, thank you for coming today. Thank you very much. Okay. The next item on our agenda is a public hearing for request by Tom Babino for a variance at 239 Aspen Road. Yes, this is
a public hearing for a front setback variance at 239 Aspen Road Northeast. Tom Babino is the applicant for this variance request. He is requesting a variance for his front yard. This property is zoned and guided Lake.
The surrounding properties are also zoned and guided the same. This property is within the Shoreland Overlay District. It is a through lot with frontage on Lakeshore Drive and Aspen Road. The driveway and the front of the house would be facing Aspen Road. Uh this applicant is proposing to demolish
an existing home, garage, and accessory structures and build a new single family home on the property. Uh the western edge of this property is approximately 45 ft from the shore of Lake. Um and staff and the applicant have found that the existing home appears that it would need ex uh extensive repair in
order to be livable, which is why the applicant is seeking to demolish and rebuild. The request is to allow a front yard front yard setback of 15 ft along Aspen Road where the city code requires a front setback of 25 ft within the
Shorland Overlay district uh for property zoned Lake. The garage portion of the home would be 15 ft from the property line along Aspen Road and the rest of the structure would be 23 feet from that property line. Uh the well is located in front of the home and
the septic is located to the south. The applicant is working with our building official to resolve concerns about soil compaction and the location of the proposed septic site and that will be addressed if this project does progress. The lot has a significant slope towards the lake which is an element of this
applicant's request. Staff has found that the approximate grade for the slope is around 30%. The proposed structure is 35.7 feet from the rear property line and 77.3 feet from the ordinary high water level. It
does meet the setback requirements in this zoning district. It is also below the 25% threshold for imperous surface. This request has been sent for the sent to the DNR for comment and the DNR has replied stating that they do not have comments on this request.
The standards for reviewing a variance um are the practical difficulties test. Uh the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they have a practical difficulty that can only be remedied by the variance. All three standards must be met. The first is that the request is reasonable. The second is that the request is due to unique
circumstances on the property that are not caused by the landowner. And the third is that the variance, if granted, will not have a negative impact on neighborhood character. Findings of fact for each of the three standards have been provided in your packet. The planning commission may open the
public hearing and either recommend approval if you find that all three parts of the practical difficulties test have been met by the applicant or recommend denial if you find that um the three prongs of the practical difficulties test have not been met. I'm happy to answer any questions and a
draft resolution for approval and denial have been included and may be modified to reflect the findings of the planning commission. Yes. I'd also like to note that the um practical practical difficulties narrative that the applicant submitted um that was included in the packet is
outdated. There is a more recent one um from May 30th. I believe the one in the packet is May 20th. Um that after we had um changed the setbacks and pushed the house further back from Aspen Road. Okay. Thanks.
All right. I'm going to open the public hearing on this issue and would anyone like to come and speak and we usually ask people who are not the owners to come first. So if you have any concerns or pra praises come on up. Um but and we are going to
ask you to sign your name. The woman in the back there if you could come up please state your name. It's right here. Uh and you can do it after you're done. And so, but please state your name and
your address, please. Um, I'm Vicky Bugby. Address is 8:16 Emerson Drive on that piece of property on that. Okay. It's sort of like a triangle block and they're in the center
and I'm on the far side facing Emerson and my neighbor is on the other side facing she's at the tip of the triangle. So, she's like Lakeshore and Aspen. Um, her only concern is how close they might be to her, but that would be on
the north side that I didn't hear any setbacks on. Okay. So, you're not speaking for yourself, but for a neighbor of yours, right now, the setback to Aspen, we're all fine with that. Okay, that's fine. And you, but you live in the neighborhood also? I live on the other side of their
property. Okay. She lives on one side, but she's not in very good health. Okay. So, what are your feelings about it? I don't know how close that's actually going to be to her property line. I just know she's a little bit concerned because um my understanding they're
going to they're very nice people by the way, but they're going to have a two-story house and she's got a one-story house. So if it's gets close to their line, her line, but to be fairer, on the other hand, she is right up the sidewalk, right up against that that property
line. So I'm just saying she might be concerned about it, right? Okay. Sorry. That's all good. Um I do appreciate you're coming up and if you could please sign your name and address there. Okay.
Yes. And then would anyone else like to come up and speak? Okay. Thank you. And while Vicki is finishing up here, if you could just say your name and address, please.
Uh Tom Babino, property owner at 239 Aspen Road. Okay. And Tom, what would you like to say to us? So, in response to Vicky's concern, um if you go back to the map that you were just The setback limit
the proposed house is 7 ft. Our setback is right now the house proposed. And if you could um come speak into the microphone, please. Okay. So you Yeah, we're 10 feet away from Ellen's
property. And okay, if we could just not be talking back and forth because we have to get it into the minutes. Okay, go ahead. And so essentially what we're asking is to set the house farther away from uh Lake uh by 10 feet. So we
are close closer to Aspen, moving it away from the lake. And if we were to move it farther towards the lake, we would be impeding on the view of um Ellen's property to the north of us,
which was Carol's concern. Um the other the other factor is there's a huge white pine that's on the property on the north side right here. And if we were to shift the house 10 ft in that direction, we would
have to pull the tree down. And I really don't want to do that. Um the other factor is the natural slope of the lot. It's a pretty steep slope and we're trying to set the house more on level ground on top of the slope rather than um having to haul a bunch of
fill in and building a big retaining wall when it's not really necessary. The other factor too is the existing house to the north of us right here. They're they're closer to Aspen, you
know, than we are. And so um I uh that's I guess the basis for our request for the variance. What are the dimensions of the house? Um
30 ft by 45. Okay. So it's I mean it's not an enormous house. We can't do a walk out there because of the redox line. Um so we're building I think a pretty modest twotory house there and there's really just not a lot of real estate on top of
that hill to to shift it um farther south because of the setbacks for the septic. And so we we pretty much have maxed out um you know what we can do on that lot. Where will the where will the well be on the site then? The proposed
well is right here. Okay. And you can see there You know, there's setbacks for there's a um sand point. There's another well over there and you can't see it on this, but there's a there's another well. So, the
the septic is well outside of the wells. Yeah. Okay. The garage, is that going to be a standard? I've seen some tall garages. I guess that's where my concern is. It's a twocar garage and the second level
continues over the top of the garage. Okay. So, the garage is within that 35x 45 dimension footprint. Um, no, the the garage is um let me see
if I the dimensions The garage is 900 square feet. It's a two two stall garage, but it's too deep. And it's an it's an attached garage. Yes.
And you said there's a story on top of it also. Correct. A living living story. Yeah, it'll be an open area. Okay. So 900. So, it's a 30x30 garage with um Okay.
Do you have any questions, Glenn? No, I appreciate the actually setting it farther away from Lakeshore Drive to preserve views and rather than push it further. I mean, all
the reasoning for putting it there seems valid to me. I like preserving the pine. Um I think it was well conceived for the site. I do have a question. Sure. So I drove
past. Yeah. And um there's an existing the existing cabin is there. So, so are you asking for that extra five feet? Well, it'll be 10 feet, right? Because it's is it is the home sitting at 20 feet or 15 feet currently? The
current house um is it's in line with the existing house right now. Yeah, I can't I can't remember. Is it 15? Um I'm trying to look for Okay. Um, so I was just curious
on are we is it because you want a larger you're putting a bigger footprint for the house. So we're needing to be closer to Aspen. I get the backyard. There's no I agree. There's the slope is way too steep and to have to bring in that's that's that
is very reasonable. So right. Um, so I like removing the the property that's there, the the home that's there and rebuilding right in that same spot. obviously elongating it, but so I'm assuming you're going bigger, so you're
needing that extra. We are. Okay. Yeah. Um, but the house is set it will be set back, you know, 15 ft from Aspen. I think the neighbor's house is set back 15t as well. So, it's in line with their
house. So, it's not going to be out of line with the rest of the neighborhood. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Just just trying to understand the existing house is 16.5 from the right of way. Okay. Okay. How long have you had the
property? We bought it 2023. Couple years. Okay. So, when you brought it bought it, did you investigate being able to rip the the existing one down and and what would be required to to put
up a new place? We did not. We didn't understand the full extent of it until we, you know, had been familiarized with the property and what the regulations are and useful. Yeah. So, the entire existing structure
is going away. Yes. Yeah. That's what I thought. We're looking to improve the property. Yeah. It'll be great. So, I'll say that I'm I'm not entirely convinced um
that putting it within 15 ft um is a good thing of the road. And I'm just wondering what other solutions there might be for you. Yeah, we'd have to haul in a lot of fail to push it out over that um that slope
and it' be a big retaining wall there. It's just the house is set back 23 feet from Aspen and the garage it comes out from the house. Okay. Yeah. And that is further from the
property line yet. Yeah. It's on the west or that portion. Yeah. So, it's like in the middle of the lot. I drove past, too. I I don't think it
would look out of place, especially with the neighbors. And again, I really like the idea of not having a giant retaining wall in the back. I think it'll look actually better. Mhm. You know, having a slope in our backyard
existing Brian Um, I guess I'm since you said it, I I don't know if I'm terribly comfortable with that encroachment, but um um have you considered
an 800 foot garage. I mean, a smaller garage perhaps. I mean, 900's a giant garage. I mean, I've I've I understand that, you know, a big garage is nice to have. You can
fit all your toys in there. You have work space, etc., etc. I'm just wondering if if 900 ft is um necessary. Um so, it's a twocar garage right now.
I I don't think a twocar garage is unreasonable for asking road. Well, no. You said it's to double deep. What did you say? Two car deep. It is. And because we can't build a basement, we could build a lock out. Um our utilities
are located in the garage. There's going to be a cement shelter in the garage, a storm shelter that's going to occupy probably a quarter of the garage because we wanted a basement. There's a tornado. I want somewhere to go. That was really the only option we had. So,
will you be able to fit two cars in the garage and the the storm shelter? Yes. Yeah. Two car garage or two cars from Aspen. The storm shelter is set. Okay.
I hadn't considered that. Yeah, that's okay. So, onethird of the entire structure is the 15T setback. The other two/3s are 23, I think. And that one/3 is the same
setback as the house to the north. So that's consistent with what's built and the neighbors and I see what the problem is. It seems reasonable.
Um the unique circumstances I think uh maybe encourage uh requesting this variance and I don't think it'll negatively impact the neighborhood. So well I think the whole area is unique, right? I think so.
All righty. Does anybody else have any questions for the applicant? If not, I'm going to close the public hearing and I thank you very much for coming up. Okay. Do you have any discussions or questions for Grace or
Kendra? Is there a motion? I don't have any motions, but I can make one if need be. I don't even know how to do motions. Yes. All right. I'll make a motion to approve the setback variance with any
there any staff recommendations? Uh they've been included in the approval resolution the conditions of approval. All right. With the staff recommendations as written. Is there a second? I'll second that.
Thank you. And any more discussion? If not, all in favor say I. I. I. and opposed. Okay. So that me motion passes. So this will be a recommendation to the city council. At the next meeting it will be brought up. Do you know what
that date is? July 14th. July 14th. Okay. So again this is just a recommendation and city council may decide what they decide but we do recommend the approval. Thank you. Okay. We have another public hearing coming up
to consider a zoning ordinance amendment to regulate barnaminiums in East Bethl. Thank you, Madame Chair. Uh this item was tabled at the last meeting and is something that the city council has
identified as a priority and we've been working on this draft ordinance with them for um several months. So, the draft that is in front of you tonight, um um sorry, I'm trying to get my slideshow
and it doesn't want to go up there. Um so, we'll just skip it. Uh you have the packet. So the um the uh public hearing tonight is to consider uh a code amendment to uh uh allow barnaminiums which are defined as
a single family detached principal residential structure dwelling with attached shops or storage areas and usually built uh using postframe construction. And so the main issues that uh council has discussed are size
limitations, architecture, and concerns about potential home occupations. That's a pretty common reason people are building them. They they think that they can run a business out of their home if they build a barnaminium. And we do have home occupation standards that allow it
subject to conditions. Um, and so as we talked with the council, we did recommend updates to several sections of the zoning ordinance, definitions, general regulations related to home occupations, the general building standards, the detached accessory
structures, and changes to both the agricultural district and the rural residential district to allow barnuminiums only in those districts. The council really felt it was not appropriate to allow that type of a structure in like the Elvage development, for example.
Um, some of the concerns that were raised by the building official relate to the pole barn structure itself and concerns about how that would meet the building code standards for residential construction.
Um, the foundation type options um are permitted by the building code. When you build a pole barn for a living space, it's different than when you build it for your horses. there are different construction standards and so the building code knows that this is kind of
a hot topic lately. So they've provided and I've provided you some information in the packet standards for how postframe construction needs to be built for a residential dwelling unit. So just so residents know it's a different structure than you would build for your storage barn, but it is still allowed as
a postframe um uh building. That does require us to make some changes to our building code which currently requires a continuous foundation for residential structures. So our zoning ordinance, I said building code, but I meant zoning ordinance. So that's one of the changes
proposed. And then we needed to update the definitions for accessory structures to clearly uh identify which structures which uh conditions apply to attached versus detached um structures. and uh uh barnaminiums and you probably
know this run the gamut. There are barnaminiums that look like single family homes and there are barnaminiums that look like garages, right? And you can buy all of them at Menards or any other place in town. And um the city council felt like it was important to
have some minimum standards for architecture to ensure that it's not just a metal building. So, they limited those upgrades to just the front elevation of the homes. And so, this ordinance uh went to them a couple times in March and in April. And this is the
draft that they felt comfortable with uh holding a public hearing at the planning commission um for your feedback. And so, you've had this for a couple weeks, so I went pretty quickly through it, but happy to answer any specific questions. We had a lot of discussion at the council. Some of you may have watched
those discussions, but I'm happy to answer uh any questions about this draft ordinance. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to open the public hearing for the barnuminium topic. Does anyone want to come up and
talk about it? Nope. Okay. That being the case, I'm closing the public hearing which we've done that duty for the city council. And then
gentlemen and lady, do you have anything that you want to um ask Grace or Kendra or bring up? I have a question about the definition barnaminium. I don't know what is meant by a single
family detached structure because a home is detached by nature. Detached from what? Yeah, that's our definition. A single family detached home is in our code today. That's what a single family home is as opposed to a single family
attached home was it just which is a town home or a twin home. Oh, okay. And then it seems to me that it should read residential dwelling structure rather than residential structure dwelling. Where is that Glenn? That's the first
sentence. A single family. It says oh it's um section one page 35 definition of paramedians. Okay. But they keep striking out structure and
putting buildings everywhere else. Right. But just if you're going to put that in there. No, no, no. I'm just saying like it's I was just looking at that. It just goes back in the staff report. The red line. Uh I think you're right is that it does say both structure
and dwelling. And I don't I think that's an error. So, I need to look at that. I don't think we want to say both. Yeah, they're they're flopping those. They're using structure and building, but they're striking out structure in lots of places and saying building. So, do they want structure to be building,
right? So, that would solve it to strike one of those words, but if you were going to have them in there, I think it should be residential dwelling structure. Because the structure isn't dwelling. People are dwelling. The residents are dwelling.
So those two words should be tied together and then it's a structure. Yeah, I think I need to look at that. I think structure is the the term um uh that we use um to define buildings. that definition is in there. We use building
and structure interchangeably and so we were trying to update that and I think maybe a red line didn't come through. All structures all buildings are structures but all not all structures are buildings. We're talking about that. So the I just it's a good
catch and I just need to uh look at it to make sure we're consistent. So I would highlight that definition um and correct that one way or the other for consistency. The other thing I had a question about was on section two on the next page.
There's an example of a 2,000 square foot house with a 1,000 foot attached garage could only use 500 square ft of the attached garage for the home occupation because it's it but it says 50% of the gross living area.
So unless the 2,000 square foot house with the attached garage, 1,000 of that 2,000 square feet is the garage. At first I read it as a 2,000 square foot house with an additional 1,000
square foot attached garage, which in which case you could have 1,000 square foot of home occupation. But if that 1,00 square foot attached garage is parked with 2,000 square feet, then you're correct. You could have 500
square feet for the home occupation, but it just wasn't clear the way that was written. Yeah, I think that's a I think that needs to be corrected. The the idea was that um so we will correct the math, but the idea just to be clear is you can have a really large
accessory portion in a barnaminium, but you won't be able to use that for your um um home occupation. And so we just wanted to highlight that. But I think the math I think Zeke's got an error in the math there. So we'll just have to correct that.
Um, so thank you for calling that out. Okay. Well, Glenn, I appreciate you reading all of this. I apologize to the um commission that I haven't had a chance to go through all of this yet. So, thank you. So, I have a question. The building department adopts a
building code. Is it the UBC they go by? Um, I think in Minnesota there's a state building code. You have you pick one to adopt, right? And I think they adopt Minnesota building code, I believe. So, what does in Minnesota's building code
say about these? Are we following what they're saying? We are, but we do have to change our zoning ordinance because our zoning ordinance has a different foundation requirement that's not required by the Minnesota building code. So, I did include um the
state building code handout, but they do allow barnaminiums um or shases sometimes they're called. Um and they do talk about the the foundation, the firewall. Um are you building official? Right. Believe it or not, I'm
a certified building inspector. Okay. I thought so. So, uh, not to get too far in the weeds, but, um, the main issue with these is that you do need a a firewall between the storage space and the house, which is not typical in a pole barn. And so, the construction methods, not only for that separation
there, but in the roof, add significant costs. And then the foundation um, uh, does need to be different than, again, like I said, a traditional pole barn. So, the building code hasn't actually been revised, but they have provided
guidance um uh on the residential code. Actually, it's Dole and if you know, they've started to get involved in things that they don't think they need to be involved in, but that's a different issue. But they provided a nice uh cheat sheet um which is in page 46 of your PDF about how that building
code allows this postframe construction for living space. Okay. And so we're going to allow these per this on page 43 on small lots, halfacre lots.
They'll be small, but we would Yeah, we talked with the council. They were more concerned about ensuring that it's only in the two rural districts and and not in the So it can only be in the A and the rural res Yeah. rural residential
zoning districts. Um and so that's what they um 46 of the packet. Um it doesn't they were less concerned about the lot size just because those districts tend to have bigger lots. There are smaller ones in those districts, but they tend
to be our bigger lots. But there are developments in those zones that do have small lots. Yeah. Correct. Right. And one other thing that came up that I'll mention is that um we did talk about this at the council too. It's possible that there's a rural subdivision
that a developer built that has covenants that would prohibit this. So, this doesn't, you know, you still have to follow the covenants from the development. But, if you don't have development covenants and you have a 1acre lot in the rural uh district, you could um build the barnaminium. But we
kind of doubt that a developer 10 20 years ago would have had foresight to talk about barnaminiums. No, but sometimes the covenants do have specific standards that just by virtue of what those standards are would without without specifically prohibiting a barnominium would prohibit a
barnaminium because of you know material standards um window requirements, things like that. But yeah, it just I just want to mention it that theoretically there could be a covenant that would restrict it in those two zoning districts, but
our city code wouldn't. Mhm. So, our building official has reviewed this and approves it in his opinion or recommends it. Yeah, we went back and forth a little. He had a lot of concerns, frankly, about it. And, uh, so
we did go back and forth. Council sent it back. We worked with him. Uh, and, um, I think Nick is comfortable with this. I wouldn't say he approves of it, but, but he's comfortable with this language. he feels like it protects um the health and safety of the community
and allows this option for residents. Right. So, he's not so much uh interested about the aesthetics, but his is health and safety. Correct. The foundation, the firewall, those kinds of things. Mhm.
So, Cory and I were just briefly discussing, you know, um the issue of having this on smaller lots. I mean, and and I'm thinking in in a development and if somebody puts one in in between two nice houses and then they're going to have this barnaminium,
I'm not so sure that's a great thing. No, that's that's sort of personally I I think they should be an option for people, but I think they should be bigger lots. I mean,
not not half acre, not even one my opinion. Oh, yeah. And just after the recent discussions we had, if somebody were to request the variance for a setback for for a barnuminium, I mean,
yeah, that could put a large structure in a small area. I mean, that could be that could have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Well, I think they got the size. Yeah, we tried to scale it um
using that existing table so that the rural residential district does have a minimum twoacre lot size for a new lot. And in our example, we just said if you have a three and a half acre lot, um you would be allowed a thousand square feet.
um an additional 2400 square feet. So you could kind of works through how you could do it. That does um um that table sort of does limit some of the square footage. Um but due to the size of the lot, remember our
accessory space is tied to our lot size. So you couldn't do the biggest barnaminium if you only had a twoacre lot. But yeah, you're right. I mean the whole purpose of these is a lot of garage space. Mhm. It's a garage with an attached house in most cases. And I have a question that I noticed
they put 14 ft. Many of these people are going to come in and request 16T sidewall. So, how did they come up with 14? I think that's what it is today. I don't think we changed that.
14. What page is that on? Commissioner 43. 43. Are they pre-made at 15 ft? Is that why that would be an issue? Pardon me. Are they pre-made as 15 ft? I'm just
wondering why why would they come in with wanting 15 ft? 14, you mean? Or 16? 15. Why would why would somebody want a 15 foot for a tall motor home to get in? Yeah, it's for the door the the higher get a higher garage door. Yeah, we did not. The council did not change that. We
we are that is what it is today. Exactly. Um and you know with a scissor truss, could you get a big enough door in there? You could. Does have some additional cost for a lot of not every motor home. They've gotten pretty big, but for a lot of them. But yeah, that's
a fair comment. We just approved one earlier this year. with, you know, they we recommended a scissor truck in the truss and the guy didn't want to do it and he 16 foot walls. And so I can tell you right now that's going to be a major half. I mean,
if you're building barnuminium, a big one anyway. It's because you want to put big stuff in there and you're going to want 16ft walls with 14t garage door. So, do you think that they it should say
16 ft and then I'm just bringing it up to when Brian council gets it, they can discuss it. Yeah, that's I I'm just looking at some of the examples. Funny that Menards doesn't have the height on these cut
sheets. And again, not selling Menards. just had good examples. But um you know that's certainly something the commission could give some thought to. The other alternative is you know you can do it with a 14 ft sidewall. You do have to be creative about the design and
be thoughtful about the design and maybe there's an additional cost for that. And um but if the council thinks and commission thinks that larger sidewalls are appropriate, we could you could recommend maybe specifically for barnaminiums a
different height. But this is the 14 ft is what's in your code today. And what it would mean is anybody who wanted to do something larger would have to come in and ask for a variance and show that there's a hardship. But again, if you're granting a lot of variances, then you got to look at your code and say, if we think that's okay,
maybe we just think it's okay. And that gets back to just my personal feelings that they should be on at least 5 acre lots and because they're building them for big stuff. Hence, I hope my best friends aren't
watching this because they would beat me with a stick that I want some restrictions on it. But, uh, that's just the way I feel. I mean, I think, you know, they're they got their place.
Would it make sense to have the higher walls on the bigger areas and the smaller? That's kind of what I'm saying. Yes. On the smaller areas. Yeah, that's kind of my feelings. Or you could make a driveway that's 2 ft
below grade. with wing walls. I know. But I would agree about the doing it on larger acres because otherwise you're going to with 16ft sidewalls stand out from the rest
of the closer homes around you. Yep. Not so much of a problem when you're isolated more with more acres. Christina, what do you think? I I think you guys have all have great points. Um
uh this this is a new a new area. So, um I kind of lean towards the idea of like barnominiums are usually larger acreage type of building structures. So, um, it it, yeah, that's why I I
definitely lean towards kind of Corey's way of thinking of they're they're putting large toys in those or they have reason to build these, which is usually they have acres, they have they have room, they have, uh, land for them. But,
um, these are these examples are a little different than what I was thinking, I guess, for what was in my head for Yeah, because that one almost looks like a house.
Yeah, I mean there's a real um variety. Um I work in a lot of cities. I'll tell you the one on the upper right is the one I see the most. I've I've only seen one that I can think of that looks like the two on the right, but they exist. I mean, it just really depends on what
your goal is for it. Um very true. I mean, like Like the example on the left, like that would that would be just fine on a halfacre lot, right? That looks very very nice and reasonable. It just has a very large garage. You wouldn't know it from the outside, though. It it
looks nice. Well, in the garage, like to the point about the the door size, that's to scale with the house, right? All of these examples, I think the garage doors to scale with the house, but sometimes they're not correct. Yeah. I'm thinking
of those beautiful pictured ones where they have, you know, it's just gorgeous big big doors and stuff. So, but yes, this gives I guess it's just to give the residents good um they have they have options. They have options.
But yeah. Yeah. I think that picture on the right is deceiving because if you build that, you're not going to put small doors like that. You're going to go much higher. or want to. I have a friend that has one that literally parks a semi and trailer
race snowmobile trailer type. I mean, the thing is ginormous. I mean, I don't even know if it fits in our stuff here. So, you know, he thinks they all should be a goal, but I think that, you know, again,
he has 80 acres. So, um I don't think you need to have 80 acres to have one. Mhm. But, um I do think it should be like five. Yeah, I agree. The parcel size. I think
if the paraminium is, you know, to scale with the lot size, I think. Yeah. Okay. I just worry about the the condition that might come off where it's it's clearly not to scale. It's trying to fill the whole parcel, and that's
something I don't think we want. So, I like the idea of varying the maximum sidewall height with that parcel size. That's a again, that's that's more to scale. I mean, five acres, it's considerable amount of land as opposed
to a half acre, right? So, council's going to have a lot of work on their plate. Yeah. Well, and they they've talked about this a lot. Um I like the idea, too, of at some point raising the sidewalls. Maybe at the 5.0
or more acres. They've got some conditions there and we could say 16 foot there. It's on page 44. Any other things you guys want to recommend to the council?
No. Well, I brought this up last meeting, I think, but there's a stipulation about matching the existing house, like the siding. And so, there was a
question, can we use metal sighting on these? And then what I brought up was that there were some examples shown where they have wood grain, a wood grain look to the metal sighting. And to my mind that matches the existing
whereas just regular sheet metal doesn't. But it would seem like if you use something with a look like that that could be permitted. Yeah, I think if it looks um what would they say on that page?
similar in appearance material with the approved list. Um they also mentioned they uh state that they require hidden fasteners for a more residential appearance and later on it says that the metal sighting may be
used if it complies with concealed fasteners. Is concealed fasteners any different than hidden fasteners? No, but we will change that to be consistent. And that's exactly why I think if we have an exposed uh fastener, it has a
very agricultural look, which is fine in some applications, but if it's your house, the council felt pretty strongly that they needed to be concealed fasteners. And um you know we did talk about specific um architectural design and they just felt that you know
frankly metal should be allowed throughout the city that metals come a long way and so this does change that in anywhere you can have metal siding as long as it's a factory applied coating and has a concealed fast and it's not standing seam. But then for
barnaminiums, they did add the extra condition that um it needs to have some complimentary material like brick or stone on the front facade that they could use metal siding of a different style like shake. So the white example
has um board and bbatten on the porch, but then you see above the garage they've got shake and that they felt met the intent of the code. So they did add those changes as well. um but didn't specifically say it needed
to be um wood grain or anything like that. Although I think when you start looking at these, they tend to have more um the texture um and more of a lapsiding look
on these examples here versus the one on the right which is I think a standing scene. That's what I was just going to ask. So, so the one on the right, would that Do you think that that would adhere to their standards? It would not. It would not because there's not a uh brick or correct something. If
they changed on the front, I'm not sure where the front of this is, but the front if they if that gray lap uh Wayne's coating paint, it's just a paint color on this one, but if that was brick or stone, that could potentially mean it. I mean, I didn't do the math to make sure it's 20% on this one. It might not
be quite enough to be 20%, but that could meet it. I do think that looks like, you know, it's a rendering, so I can't tell. But it looks like standing seam. I'm not sure that that's um metal siding. That would comply. I mean,
okay. Okay. Well, I'm not hearing a lot of ideas bubbling up here, but I I do think that we have some consensus on the height of the sidewalls. Should we make a recommendation to the city council?
And would that be just a a motion or do you think Yeah, I think here's what I heard and tell me if I'm right. I mean, um, uh, Commissioner, uh, Terry had, uh, two notes that we need to correct about the definition of the Barno is, I think, repeating itself with structure and
dwelling and to check the math on the, um, in the staff report on the amount of uh, home occupation space. So, we will do that. And then what I heard was a desire to limit barnominiums in the egg and rural residential to lots at least a
minimum of five acres in size and then to allow by right a 16 ft sidewall height. No, I don't think so. I mean I don't think that we were saying that they have to be um limited to five acres or more. Okay. I don't know if we have
consensus about that, but if they they are in five acre, then they can go up to 16 foot on the sidewalls. Am I That's That's where I was coming from. Tori, you might have some difference on that less than five. I
struggle with it. I know with struggle with it. on this side. If it were up to me, I probably think maybe 2 acre would be a minimum or two and a half,
but there might be some convincing argument to go smaller. And I don't know what that would be. Yeah, I think that there they've put a lot of discussion into this about and and allowing smaller acreages, but I
don't I think that Corey has made a a great point about needing 16ft walls um so that we don't have a bunch of uh IUP applications coming up. Great.
Okay. So, Kendra, do we need a motion or just a suggestion? I think you should I'd like to have you make a recommendation to the council um to recommend approval of the draft ordinance with those uh two changes from
uh Commissioner Terry and what I think is a condition that um barnaminiums in those districts will be allowed a 16ft sidewall height if it's on at least five acres. I don't know how to write that yet, but I know So, I'll make that motion then to um that that we make a
recommendation to approve or that they they approve the um ordinance with the corrections that Mr. secretary has brought and that if there is a barnuminium on a acre lot
of five five or more acres that the minimum sidewall will be 16 ft maximum maximum maximum sorry maximum is there a second second okay thank you and is there any
more discussion If not, all in favor say I. I. And oppose. Okay, that motion passes. And that didn't take an hour and a half as I thought it was going to that one night at least. Okay. And speaking of which,
Grace has informed me that there are no items yet for the July meeting. So, we will likely not have a July meeting unless something urgent comes up, but the deadline for you. Go ahead and explain it. The deadline for planning applications or
land use applications for the next planning commission meeting has passed as of yesterday. So, um it is unlikely that we will have a meeting next month. Okay. And even if we had applications for the planning commission, do you know
how long we usually keep those open? for commissioners. Yes. I'm do not know how long we usually keep those open, but I will check. I'd say you hopefully maybe within the next month or so. Um and then we could do interviews and send
it to the council. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else want to talk about anything? No. Great. We have two people in the back that are here consistently that could be on this board. Yes.
See, I'm racing forward. All righty. Is there a motion to adjurnn? I make a motion to adjurnn. Oh, okay. I second. Any discussion? All in favor say
I. I. And opposed. So, we are adjourned. Oh, here's the