This transcript appears to be a meeting of the **Hastings Planning Commission**. Based on the context provided and phonetic similarities in the text, I have identified the speakers (including correcting "Hinsman" to **John Hinzman**, "Bows" to **John Moes**, "Deal" to **Nicole DePalma**, and "Sween" to **Rachel Swedin**). The presiding officer is addressed as "Mr. Chair" and "He" in the text, suggesting that despite Melanie Peters being the listed Chair, a male member (likely **John Moes** or a temporary presiding officer) is chairing this specific meeting. I have labeled him as **Presiding Chair**. *** **[0:01] Presiding Chair:** Commissioners, anything done? Okay. If not, we will consider those minutes to be approved. First up is our public hearing. This will be the city of Hastings ordinance amendment 2025-38, Churches in the Agricultural District, and staff report by John Hinzman. **[0:22] John Hinzman:** All right. Well, I don't need that fancy panel anymore. He just announced it for me, which is fine. Folks, what we're here tonight is to look at an amendment to the zoning code related to churches as a use within the agricultural district. Right now, churches are not identified as any of the type of uses shown before you. So, a church would not be able to operate within a district itself. The reason this is coming before us is we had an inquiry from a congregation that is looking for land in the agricultural district for the construction of a new facility and the current zoning ordinance would not allow for that to happen. So I'll start a little bit with the uses and how they are regulated within the zoning district. So each of our zones within town have different types of uses that are within there. Some are called permitted uses which means you can do them by right. There's no other approval necessary from the planning commission, council or staff. There's uses by special permit which are generally special uses in which a public hearing is held, notification of neighbors occurs, planning commission review and council approval. And there's conditions put on these to ensure that the operation of these type of facilities is in line with the neighborhood. We have interim uses which are like special uses but for a period of time and anything that's not listed above here would be prohibited within the district. So we took a look at the egg uses. We also had a review of this before our planning committee of council as well. The planning committee of council did not take a stance as to whether we should or should not include churches in the egg district, but they did direct staff to bring this before the planning commission to have them review the issue. When I take a look at the egg district itself, a couple of things come to mind. One, egg properties are unique because they are not served by city sewer and water. The purpose behind them is for agricultural of course and within the comprehensive plan there's certain areas that are zoned agriculture that in the comprehensive plan are going to be planned for something different something more intensive. So if you take a look at the zoning map that we have here everything that we have here in this lighter green is agriculture but not all the uses within here are what you would call agriculture. You've got areas along Glendale Road down here near County Road 54. You've got areas along the Lock and Dam towards the north part of the city and various other parcels that are scattered throughout including areas near the Kazmas farm on Pleasant Drive and areas north of County Road 46 just west of Riverwood Drive in the city. All these are zoned agriculture. However, within the comprehensive plan, only some of those areas are designated for long-term agriculture. The rest of these areas are looked at for other things like the areas we looked at along Pleasant Drive are more residential as well as the areas north of County Road 46. So in taking a look at these type of requests, we certainly didn't want to be put in the position of having an institution come in build a building and then be prohibitive towards the extension or more difficult for the extension of utilities and intensive development that we planned. So that was a concern that we discussed with the committee of council and was something that took into consideration when we looked at an amendment to the code here. Now, when you take a look at the areas within the city that are zoned agriculture and guided agriculture under the comprehensive plan, you only have a couple of areas and those are shown here in red. You've got the area here, Glendale Road, County Road 54, and then you've got this area over here on way east 4th Street, where you've kind of got a knob there when Fourth Street kind of takes a dog leg. Those are the only areas in town in which the land is zoned agriculture and within the comprehensive plan is guided for agriculture as well. So that was one thing that we were looking at. And when you look at the agricultural district, you've got a variety of things that are allowed within them. Some are a related, some aren't necessarily agriculture in nature. So what we did in going about this is propose some language for adoption tonight and that would be to add within the agricultural zoning district that churches would be allowed as a special permit which means a special use permit reviewed by the planning commission public hearing would occur but the site must be designated as agriculture on the future land use map of the adopted comprehensive plan. So, this would allow churches within areas that are that are zoned agriculture and plan for long-term agricultural use. So, that is what we have before us tonight. This is a public hearing. You can open that up at this time or I can stand for any questions. Thank you. **[5:31] Presiding Chair:** Okay, John. Thank you. We'll go ahead and um open the public hearing. Excuse me. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak? Come on up if you want to. Cool. If you'd like to, you sure can. And just if you could when you come up, just state your name and who you're with, address, etc. **[5:50] Paris Pash:** My name is uh Paris Pash and I'm with the Journey Church. Um I actually am a resident outside of the city of Hastings, but our church is located just Kitty Corner from here in the Hastings Arts Center. We've been renting there for about seven years. I have my associate who is also my successor here to learn the ropes of what it means to work with local cities and to fall in love with the city I've been part of my whole life. What we uh are doing is we're outgrowing our rented space. I've been a pastor in Hastings for 43 years and uh have had wonderful opportunities and want to be able to pass um a future for our young successor so he would have a location to have to house the church facility and we came across a piece of land that just seems to be ideal for that usage. We found out it was zoned agricultural, but we've also seen that there are other properties right in that area that seem to have a use. It's not residential, but there's lots of residential in the area. There's the United Heroes League. There's the VFW. Um and uh so that's one of the things we saw was this could be ideal for traffic. um it's still inside the city. Otherwise, we will have to go into rural areas and look for a location. We'd much rather be a city in Hastings. If I if you have any questions for me, I'm more than happy to answer them. It's it's an 11 acre spot for the for the church if that helps. **[7:37] Presiding Chair:** Okay, I'll open it up for any questions. We don't have a lot of speakers tonight, so we'll go ahead and do a little QA. Go ahead. **[7:49] Rachel Swedin:** Um, just wondering if you had considered any other existing structures. **[7:52] Paris Pash:** Yes, in fact, that was that's been my experience so far. Uh, I was a pastor for 30 years in the uh commercial property on Second Street just on the other side of the tracks, which is now Branch Line Church. I was the pastor of Christ Family Church. and uh I had to stand before this group and ask them to allow for the opportunity to have the church um in that facility and that worked out great. Again, 30 years, lots of wonderful growth there. But yes, we've looked at other properties. The building is the easier thing to locate. The building with adequate parking is where it comes into great difficulty. So, we need a little bit more space. **[8:41] Presiding Chair:** Okay, commissioners. Any other questions, Commissioner Swedin? **[8:47] Rachel Swedin:** Question for John. As we adapt the new zoning code, would this be inputed into it as well or would we be like like this goes into our old code? How does this factor into our new code? **[8:59] John Hinzman:** Oh, for the zoning code itself, yeah, this would be adopted within the new zoning code. The new zoning code that we had originally did not have churches allowed within the agricultural district, but if the council takes action, planning commission recommends action, then we would modify that in the new code. **[9:21] Presiding Chair:** Okay. Excuse me. Okay. Thanks, commissioners. Any other questions? **[9:30] Paris Pash:** If not, I'm okay. Thank you. **[9:32] Presiding Chair:** Thank you very much. Thank you for hearing our interest. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak? Nope. Nope. Okay. Nobody here. Nobody on Zoom. Nope. All right. Seeing no one else is here to speak, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and we will open it for general discussion to our commissioners. Commissioner Swedin, did you have something? No. Okay. Melanie. **[9:54] Melanie Peters:** John, which zones currently allow churches? **[10:04] John Hinzman:** Most of the zones within the city allow churches. They're allowed as a conditional use within I think all the residential districts, commercial districts, maybe industrial even. So most districts within town have churches allowed either as a permitted or special use. **[10:25] Melanie Peters:** John, can you remind us what are the most recent two or three projects that we looked at that were built on agricultural but were not farm per se. I know the storage facility was one and Spiral. **[10:41] John Hinzman:** Yeah, storage facility on Ravana and Spiral, United Heroes League property where Extreme Sandbox was. Those are the ones I can think of as of late. **[10:56] Presiding Chair:** Okay. Yeah, those are the ones that came to my mind, too. Okay. All right. And this, of course, would be not for a single property, but this would be for any any of those properties that meet that criteria where it's not designated to long-term, where short-term would be allowed. **[11:13] John Hinzman:** Exactly. Yes. This would not be in particular for a specific church, but would be a change within the code that any church that met these requirements could be allowed by special use permit. **[11:21] Presiding Chair:** Okay, Commissioner Moes, did you have something? **[11:21] John Moes:** Yeah, so you that's the right now the egg zones, the permanent egg zones are in the 2040 comprehensive plan. Is there any foreseeable signs of that changing in the next time that has to be reviewed? **[11:36] John Hinzman:** Yeah, Commissioner, we will be reviewing the comprehensive plan starting probably the next two years or so. And so there may be changes to that over time in the future in which properties that were designated long-term agricultural may not be in time. **[11:57] Presiding Chair:** Commissioner DePalma. **[11:59] Nicole DePalma:** Um this is for John, please. Um John only asking in fairness um would this be looked at for any type of religious building besides you know churches imply Christians so we'd be looking at synagogue temple. **[12:15] John Hinzman:** Exactly. Yeah. I originally had this done as religious institutions to be more general and I think that's what we'll use within the new zoning code amendment. Everything else in the city had the word church in it. So to be consistent with the current language, I use that. **[12:35] Presiding Chair:** Questions? Commissioners, any other questions? Commissioner Montgomery. **[12:44] Angela Montgomery:** Mr. Chair, I'll make the motion to approve the amending of city code chapters 155.21, churches in the agricultural zoning district. **[12:51] Presiding Chair:** All right, commissioners, I have a motion to approve. Commissioner Montgomery, do I have a second? **[12:53] Rachel Swedin:** Second. **[12:53] Presiding Chair:** Second. Commissioner Swedin, any new discussion? Further discussion. Okay. If not, all in favor say I. **[13:00] Commission Members:** I. **[13:00] Presiding Chair:** Opposed. Okay. That carries. **[13:06] John Hinzman:** Thank you. And the recommendation will go before the city council as a first reading on November 3rd with final reading and adoption scheduled for November 17th. Thank you. **[13:16] Presiding Chair:** Great. Thanks. Thank you for coming tonight. Appreciate it. **[13:21] Paris Pash:** Thank you very much. **[13:23] Presiding Chair:** Okay. Other actions. Dakota County variance number 2025-17, the MRCCA Mississippi Greenway Trail and we have a report by Justin Fortney. **[13:35] Justin Fortney:** Thank you very much. Um this Dakota County is responsible for the design and maintenance of the MRG—the Mississippi River Greenway Trail System—and they proposed to reconstruct a section to meet accessibility standards and improve safety. The existing trail has a grade of over 9% which is almost twice the accessibility standards for multi-use trails of 5%. And they also are proposing to do a couple other things including expand a very tight turn which happens to be the tightest turn on the trail system. Um so the review of this plan is been primarily administrative. Um there's two applications that are part of that proposal which is the vegetation removal and revegetation plan and land alteration plan. There is also three variances proposed because some of the proposals of the project aren't specifically allowed in the ordinance. This is a plan of the area overlaid with some of the proposals. Um and I'll I'll go through those. There's a trail resurfacing that will be outside of the reconstruction area. Um the delineation between that is shown with these yellow spinning marks there. um the area in between those all this will be totally replaced and with some of the improvements that I'll mention now. The tight curve is shown in this area here—that area will be expanded as you can see this black and orange line is the new trail layout and there'll be a reduction in the steep grade. There's going to be an overlook reduction. This area will be eliminated. It's kind of a extra long trail section just for an overlook which will be shortened up significantly. And there's going to be temporary vegetation removal which is shown in this green hash area in several different spots. And the purpose for that is mostly for grading activities. There's also some invasive species and and other items. There's going to be revegetation of course of anything that's been affected from the plan changes. The chain link fence removal and split rail fence will be proposed where guard rails are necessary. And the couple items that require a variance would be a retaining wall and that is where that red line is representing. Um there's a variance for using a retaining wall for reasons other than to address an existing erosion problem and to the height of the retaining wall which is limited to 5 feet and part of this wall would be up to 7 feet tall. And then the last variance would be for a paved trail in areas with a slope exceeding 30%. And that would include these three areas that those squares are pointing to. They're fairly small areas. Um they're more linear of course in layout. Um the general way that they've proposed to reduce the steep slopes is to lower the trail section by dropping the elevation in several areas—a couple different ways. Um depending on the situation and drainage it would be lowered into the grade as shown here or with the retaining wall. This is kind of representing an area where there's an existing retaining wall of varying heights. Um, and to lower the trail, instead of having up to a 20 foot tall retaining wall here, they're proposing to have a second retaining wall a little further down. The three variances like I mentioned would be construction of a hard surface trail on the face of bluffs greater than 30% and then the two related to retaining walls. Um as far as the retaining wall in a bluff of a steep slope, the existing trail sections are already traversing 30% slope in some areas. Realignment can't be done without still traversing the same slopes. The paved trail retaining wall grading and vegetation plan will mitigate impacts on the slope. This is a section of the trail similar to what I showed before with the area identified that it is greater than 30% slope and how the trail would go through that area. The area will be excavated with the second retaining wall and then the area outside of the trail would be gently sloped a ways away from the trail. Um to like I said, replacing or putting a retaining wall for a reason other than correcting an existing erosion problem is not allowed without a variance. Um a retaining wall will assure that the slope is stabilized after the realignment of the trails. A sound slope would not be possible without a retaining wall and if retaining wall were not used, there would be an erosion problem. And without a two-foot variance, then the retaining wall would not be substantial enough to lower the trail enough to meet the 5% grade. The variance review is outlined in the staff report. Um some of the most critical aspects I've put in the presentation and that is that the pre-existing trail location rises 60 ft in a relatively short distance. There would be practical difficulties in providing an accessible route with the strict letter of the regulations if that were required and the conditions were not created by the applicant and they are unique to this tract of land and won't generally apply to other proposals in the zoning district. And one new review for variance that just applies to the MRCCA area is that variances will not negatively impact the primary conservation areas, public river corridor views and other resources without conditions that would mitigate any of these impacts. Through a thoughtful design and revegetation plans from the applicants those impacts would not be present. Property owners within 350 ft were notified of the zoning variance request. I did not receive any comments from any of those letters. Also the DNR and National Park Service were notified. The DNR had a few questions for clarification on the revegetation plan. Additionally, they were looking for a statement to be added that an engineer would state that any of the proposed work being done would not affect Bluff stability. And the applicants will respond to those questions. Um, and staff is recommending approval of the variances with the conditions listed in the staff report. And there's also a representative from the county if the commission has any questions for them. I can stand for any questions also. **[23:12] Presiding Chair:** Okay. Thanks, Justin. So, quick question before I forget. So, those properties that are to the south there where it loops, what's the impact to those properties? Is there an immediate impact to any of those properties to their land—to any of the houses that back up to the trail? **[23:43] Justin Fortney:** Sure. Um, not to their properties, but they will notice some vegetation removal. Um, and I don't know if they would notice—I don't know what they all can see out there, but the trail is going to be aligned a little bit differently. And there's some existing chain link fences that will be replaced with split rail fencing. Um those would probably be the primary things that they would notice. **[24:19] Presiding Chair:** Okay. But none of those changes will be on their actual property. **[24:19] Justin Fortney:** Correct. **[24:24] Presiding Chair:** Right. Okay. So everything stays on county land. So their parcels will not be affected other than view because the memo early on mentions the removal of trees being a concern. And so that's always the number one thing that people always focus in on is what's going away versus what's replacing it. So, I wanted to know kind of what the impact—I know that none of the homeowners are here tonight, but make sure that their land's not affected negatively. **[24:52] Justin Fortney:** Oh, one is. Oh, okay. You're here. All right. Great. **[24:54] Presiding Chair:** I think so. All right. Sounds good. Um, so I just want to find out what the impact to their actual parcel is. **[25:04] Presiding Chair:** Okay. Perfect. All right. Commissioners, any questions? Open it for discussion. Commissioner Montgomery. **[25:12] Angela Montgomery:** Thanks, Chair. Yeah, I was looking at the same chart. My question, the very bottom, Justin, the picture that had the spinny yellow line—which thank you for the spinny interactive lines, that was excellent. Um, that was my question. Those trees there, would those not be a part of the property that would be getting removed and disturbed? **[25:34] Justin Fortney:** Um, well, they are—those are pretty close to the to the home itself. I don't know if Mike would let them come up here again. So, this red outline is the area of vegetation clearing. Um, so I'm not sure about those specific trees there on the bottom. **[25:54] Mike Adams:** Good evening, members of the commission. I'm Mike Adams. I'm the senior project manager for Dakota County Greenways overseeing this project. Um for this particular area up on top there, we are looking at doing a strict mill and overlay for that area. Um we will be widening that space. We've been working with the Avent property which is to the right of your screen there for tree impacts. Um we do believe we can get the trail in that connection without impacting those evergreen trees on the left of your screen there. That's what we're working towards. **[26:46] Angela Montgomery:** So my—thank you very much—my followup. So, say you can't avoid those. Would they be replaced with like-sized trees? And those I'm assuming have pretty good growth to them being able to see them so high in the elevation map. **[27:01] Mike Adams:** Yes. So, if there are impacts determined to those trees, we would work directly with those homeowners. We would have an appraisal process for either temporary grading easements or permanent easements and have that assessed and work with that homeowner on what those would look like. **[27:17] Angela Montgomery:** Awesome. Thank you for explaining that. **[27:24] John Moes:** Um, and so the the overlook, so that area that circle that's going to be completely gone or is there going to be and and vegetation replaced? Is that the plan? **[27:35] Mike Adams:** Yeah. So, we we looked at this area here and the trees along here are mature enough that this really isn't an overlook. **[27:45] John Moes:** I've been in there. Yeah, I agree. **[27:48] Mike Adams:** And so we determined that the real overlook really ends where we're proposing this area would be removed and then receded with a native prairie mix that our natural resource folks have determined should be there. **[28:07] John Moes:** Will those uh um picnic tables and stuff still be updated? **[28:11] Mike Adams:** We would move them to where the new landing is. **[28:13] John Moes:** Okay, great. Thank you. **[28:15] Presiding Chair:** Um, quick question if nobody else has one. So, my association up in Woodbury just went through this with the city up there when they decided to take out trees for a trail and I watched the whole process from the inside as far as the appraisal process goes and there were contests and attorneys and it went for a good year before they finally settled. So my question is for you is if a homeowner or homeowners contest the appraisal, are they contesting that with the county or are they contesting that with the city first of all? **[29:10] Mike Adams:** So they would contest that with the county. **[29:13] Presiding Chair:** With the county. Okay. So, the county would be responsible for working out that conflict if one existed because it's really hard to see it on paper, but when you see the trees removed from ground level, it can be jarring to say the least. Um and then that can create issues. So that's where my hesitation is is that I don't really have a really good idea of what's coming out of there potentially because you said you would hopefully not impact it but might have to and if you do then there's the and and so there's a little bit of gray area in there. So that's kind of why I'm a little hesitant right now to try to wrap my head around it from a homeowner's—from a landowner's—perspective because I've been through that process on the other side and that can get kind of sticky. you know, they like I said, we have one here tonight, but the others may not realize what's coming ahead and what that process looks like. So, I'm just wondering if the homeowners are aware of what that looks like. **[30:01] Mike Adams:** So, we too have reached out to the homeowners with individual mailers. Um before the ordinance changed, we thought we were going to do tree removals this fall. Um, now that's going to be delayed a year. Um, and so we haven't had any correspondence either with any of those homeowners. Um, at this point, like I said, we're we're working with the the Avent property to the right of your screen here. Um, they have had a change in hands in ownership of that property. Um, so that's where a little bit of my uncertainty lies tonight. Um, but as of right now, our initial plans show that there might be some temporary grading in these areas, meaning kind of that fine detail with turf, but nothing that would impact those trees. **[31:01] Presiding Chair:** Can you just for everybody just point out what you mean? When you speak of that property? Just point to it. **[31:10] Mike Adams:** So here's the Avent property that we've been working with. Um there are tree removals proposed with that. Um and as part of this, we're able to scoot the trail closer to their property, which minimizes the impact to these mature trees right along this area. **[31:30] Presiding Chair:** Okay. So that's the property you're referring to there, correct? **[31:30] Mike Adams:** Correct. Yep. **[31:40] Rachel Swedin:** Um, so I realize like you're putting in the retaining wall when you have and you're putting in new vegetation when everything's done during the project. What's going to be done to prevent like erosion, right? Or like a landslide like you have everything ripped up, there's no trees, what what what does the whole hill slowly slide into the Mississippi in the year that everything's ripped up if we get a lot of rain? **[32:10] Mike Adams:** Right. So certainly I think there's a couple of things. one, we would adhere to all of the erosion control that is required to do this work. Second is I think timing of year is pretty important with this area. We've had significant conversation of trying to do the construction of this project in the later months of the year. Um, think of your August, September, and October when typically we don't have those large rain events that we do in May, June, and July. Um, and certainly the retaining wall is part of that. And then the other portion is a lot of this trail is going to be down in a valley. We're cutting this down versus cutting away the sides slope. And so that too also helps us control that area more than if we were just kind of cutting down the bluff section towards the river. But this is definitely a challenging project to find the compromise between the safety concerns of a pretty significant slope around a very steep corner, the increasing use that we're seeing as we start to connect this trail on either ends, and then also trying to just meet our greenway standards all along trying to navigate the bluff as part of that. So there is definitely a fair share of compromise on all levels with this project. **[33:52] John Moes:** Yeah. Um so on the on the corner that you're talking about—that tight corner as you go around right up there—so, are you planning on increasing the sight lines better? Because when I've used that trail frequently and you cannot see what's coming up the hill or if you're going the other direction, you can't see. Is there are you planning on improving the sight lines so that you can have a better view of what's coming as you're coming to that in that corner? **[34:19] Mike Adams:** Correct. So, here here is the existing trail and this is that tight corner right there. By making this a large sweeping radius and straightening that out, you are increasing those sight lines. **[34:36] John Moes:** Perfect. Okay, good. **[34:40] Presiding Chair:** So, am I looking at it right? It's really hard to see from up. I mean, I've been on the trail, too, so I'm trying to visualize it in my head, but where those green bars are right behind the houses—yeah, those are right there. Those are all going to go away potentially. **[34:57] Mike Adams:** That is all going away. Correct. **[35:00] Presiding Chair:** All those trees. **[35:00] Mike Adams:** Yep. **[35:05] Presiding Chair:** Okay. So, you're just left with that little inner part, right? **[35:09] Mike Adams:** And then those will be replaced—right now we have a mixture of seed mixes and native trees in the area. What those are exactly I couldn't tell you. Um, but we've had our natural resources folks really looking at this whole area in terms of restoration and what we would want to do afterwards. Once again, this whole section of trail through here is being dropped very significantly. And so a lot of this grading you see is actually the upslope from that trail which I think helps the visual impacts of that. **[36:01] Presiding Chair:** Okay. All right. Commissioners. **[36:11] Rachel Swedin:** Okay. So you have a shoreline impact zone. I couldn't find anywhere in the report and honestly it's 114 pages, I could miss something. What are the expected shoreline impacts at the end of this project? **[36:26] Mike Adams:** Um, that really gets into these grading limits along this area. They do encroach into that shoreline area. Um and those would also be areas we're looking to restore after this. **[36:39] John Hinzman:** Mike, by shoreline area, you're talking about the shoreline setback. It's still quite a distance away uphill from the shoreline itself. **[36:51] Mike Adams:** Correct. Yes. Yeah. The shoreline is all the way all the way down the bluff, but it's a very steep area there. **[37:00] Rachel Swedin:** But so my question is just kind of like the blue area, right? Like as we're looking at this map, do you actually expect significant changes to happen to the blue area of this map? **[37:07] Mike Adams:** No. So these are the total extent of our grading areas. And so the further you get out from the trail, the more that is kind of feathering back into the existing landscape. But that is—that is an impact and that is part of the construction limits of the project. **[37:38] Rachel Swedin:** All right. Anyone have any other questions? I do. Okay. Sorry. So, with the revegetation, there's this whole section about like the pesticides as well that will be used. How much do you actually anticipate treatment happening to this area and like how frequently? **[37:55] Mike Adams:** Um, we try to minimize pesticide use as as much as possible. Um what can happen in a construction area that does take place over a growing season is you do get volunteer weeds that grow up in your soil. Those would need to be dealt with with a pesticide. Um but our plan really is to minimize that use as much as possible given the proximity of this site to the Mississippi River. **[38:17] Presiding Chair:** Um so I've been on this trail on a real bike and so you know no batteries or anything just a real bike. Can you allude to another part of the trail where you've made some of these same adjustments with the vegetation, everything where you already redone it because you've done extensive trail through over the past few years where I could say, okay, this is what it would entail. Would it be like down where Lake Rebecca or where? **[38:46] Mike Adams:** I think a really good example of a current project for us right now is our River-to-River Greenway up in Mendota Heights. Um that too is a trail renovation of an existing trail. I think it's as narrow as five feet in some areas. And so to bring that to a 10-ft trail is pretty significant. They have done extensive restoration work with their oaks and everything that border the trail. And once again, it is a compromise between what we're trying to achieve with our trails, which is no slopes more than 5%, 10 feet wide and these big sweeping corners. And in a lot of areas and similar to here, we look at what we want and what the impacts of that would be. That's pretty significant sticker shock in terms of those impacts. And then we start scaling things back in in terms of what we think is more appropriate for the area and as least impactful with still trying to get those percent slopes down to where they're more accessible for a large portion of the population. Um, and so I I think that's a really good example of yes, did we take some high quality trees out for that project? Yes, we did. But we also compromised not getting the slopes we were looking for in areas that were in excess of 13%. Now they're at about 8 and a half. So, it's better. Um, but it is a compromise in terms of trying to protect the resources that are along all of our corridors. **[41:11] Rachel Swedin:** Okay. So, I noticed just like the time that it is torn up. It's long like right like it's August to December and I would say it gets heavy usage in August and September at least. Are there going to be any like alternative detours on this trail or is it just kind of like closed figure it out? Like are we—are there signs going to be posted so we don't lose all of that traffic in one of our bigger parks? **[41:43] Mike Adams:** Yes. Um, so we we do have a detour proposed as part of this which would bring it along the roadway. Um, when we thought we were going to be doing tree removals this fall, Dakota County has several different groups that have this section as part of their 5K runs and their marathons and you name it. And so part of that timing is, as I mentioned before, to try and minimize the erosion risks, but also to have this available for your Thanksgiving Day event as well. And so that's really why that timeline was selected is it does allow us to get the necessary pieces done when we need to and try to minimize that impact of use. **[42:37] Presiding Chair:** All right, commissioners, any other questions? Commissioner DePalma, go ahead. **[42:45] Nicole DePalma:** Um, you mentioned retaining walls. Could you please again show us where they'll be and if you have any pictures or anything what they might look like? **[43:08] Presiding Chair:** Did you have pictures of the retaining walls at all on here? **[43:10] Mike Adams:** Correct. Yeah, it's the proposed one. The orange is the existing. And so our hope would be to pick something that is similar to the existing retaining wall that is there to kind of match that same type of look. Um we did propose a tiered retaining wall approach to this to try and avoid I think it was almost a 20 foot tall retaining wall—single wall. Um so once again that's just another example of the compromise of trying to get something a little bit more manageable and reduce the visual impacts of this infrastructure. **[44:03] Presiding Chair:** So that's the one on page—looks like page 97 has... **[44:12] Melanie Peters:** I have one on 34. Is that the similar one? That looks like railroad timbers almost. **[44:21] Presiding Chair:** 107. Oh, I see it. There you go. **[44:33] Presiding Chair:** Yeah. Okay. I have a question for Justin and or John as well at some point which we can finish with. I just on this condition five for recommendations says "amend the lease agreement." What does that entail? Like what is—how is the lease agreement getting amended in this case? **[44:56] Justin Fortney:** Um, one of the properties that the trail goes through is owned by the Army Corps of Engineers and the lease agreement shows the subject property is the exact trail layout that exists now. So, it just needs to be amended to show to cover the proposed area. **[45:15] Presiding Chair:** Thanks. Commissioners, any other questions? **[45:23] John Moes:** Yeah, page 107 has the actual wall on it. Or is it going to be that one? Is it going to be more like this one? This is the existing wall that's there now. **[45:51] Presiding Chair:** Okay. So, it's going be more like this one, not the one on 107. 107 is more of like a cinder block look. Isn't that what that is? **[46:05] John Moes:** I think this one is more timber—like railroad timber look. The one on 107 is more like a gray cinder block robust looking wall like that one. Or is that the same thing? **[46:14] Presiding Chair:** I think it's the same thing. It's just photos. Okay. Oh, I thought the same thing. Oh, never mind. Okay, so it is more blocky. Okay, so yes to both. **[46:27] Mike Adams:** Yes to both. **[46:29] Presiding Chair:** And that one's proposed to be how? How far? 27. You said almost 20 ft? It was—or was it right? **[46:30] Mike Adams:** 17. So it's a tiered... **[46:40] Presiding Chair:** Seven and five. Got it. Okay. All right, commissioners. Any other questions? comments for anyone? No. All right. So, we are looking at taking action on all three items. We can either do them individually or we can do them all in some. Right. Commissioners, if the commissioners are agreeable to approving all the variances in one motion, we can do it that way or you can separate them. It's your discretion. **[47:20] Melanie Peters:** Did we ask if anybody in the public had any questions or comments? **[47:26] Presiding Chair:** It's not a public hearing. No, although this is not a public hearing. I'm sorry. That's right. City council will be the— **[47:35] John Hinzman:** Yeah, that's right. Sorry. **[47:40] Presiding Chair:** We'll take those. Yes, I can do that. So, yes, this is not a public hearing, so we can't accept, you know, we're not accepting direct feedback. Um, but city council will have the opportunity for that in this particular one because it's not—Commissioner Moes, if I would just mention that this is not a public hearing tonight or at the city council meeting. Um, but you can ask if there's any comments still, right? Oh, okay. So, that that's typically what we do is we ask if there's any comments from the audience. Sure. Okay. Sure. Did you want to—did you have any—you want to come on up? Yeah, please. Come on up with your name and address and— **[48:13] Jim Kumer:** My name is uh Jim Kumer and I—can you put the original one back up there real quick? Just had a couple mostly a couple quick questions. **[48:26] Presiding Chair:** Then can you um—that's the one. Can you give us your address, too? Just so we can— **[48:32] Jim Kumer:** Oh, well, better yet, I can show you. Show me on here which one it is. I can—let's see. It's like right where that that tree is my backyard. Exactly. So, that tree is my backyard. There used to be two trees there. One of them died. So, the questions that I had were: one, how, if at all, will this affect the easements? It doesn't sound like you're planning on widening the path itself, but you are planning on moving it. So, if you move it over 10 feet, does that mean that the easement will also encroach 10 feet onto existing properties? Can someone answer that for me? Did you follow my question? **[49:33] Presiding Chair:** Yeah. I'm just looking at the—is the dotted the dashed line the new proposed location for the trail? Correct. So that's over further to the other. **[49:42] Jim Kumer:** That's actually further away. So it shouldn't really affect it. And I'm guessing that the city or the county in this case is going to maintain whatever easement they have, which I don't have any problem with. I just wanted to know and I know a couple of the other people who live along here are going to want to know too. **[50:03] Presiding Chair:** Mike, are you able to address that? Are there any additional easements you believe are necessary that would affect those owners over there? **[50:18] Mike Adams:** No, not at this time. We feel that by moving the trail inward here that gets us out of needing additional easement along those properties. **[50:27] Jim Kumer:** What I assumed. I just wanted to be clear on that. **[50:30] Mike Adams:** So, we're once again we're dropping the trail down and we're really moving it away from the property lines. **[50:35] Jim Kumer:** Okay. Okay. That'll be—that'll be interesting because I use the trail too as obviously many of you guys do. Uh the other question really was more a personal question and that is up in this circle area up here. Uh are you planning on changing any of the the the height of the berming? And I know you you mentioned some the different entities that you have to deal with and one of them that you didn't mention is the DNR whom I'm quite familiar with. I don't have anything to do with them but I've had dealings there before and I know they're very particular about the berming and sightlines if you will. Right now where we are we can still see the river and obviously I'd like to maintain that if we can. That's a value to the property. **[51:35] Mike Adams:** Yeah, we will not be adding to the berms as part of this project. In fact, they might even be reducing it up in this. I think so. I think when we grade out that area, our hope would be to smooth that out a little bit. And we'd like to use that grading to help reduce erosion all the way all the way down this trail here. There's going to be a series of stops for that water and collection to get that done, but adding height to the the berm that exists in that circle wouldn't be necessary. **[52:06] Jim Kumer:** No. Okay. Pretty much all the questions I had and I was kind of figured we'd have a couple more neighbors here, but my understanding was that you'd have be taking commentary. So, thank you. **[52:21] Presiding Chair:** Thank you. Appreciate it. That's good. Okay, perfect. All right. Anyone else wish to speak? You're good. Okay, got it. Okay, good. All right, commissioners. **[52:36] Rachel Swedin:** I'll make a motion to approve the three variances 2025-17 for MRCCA, the Mississippi Greenway Trail with the recommended conditions. **[52:53] Presiding Chair:** Okay, Commissioner Swedin on motion to approve. Do I have a second? **[52:53] John Moes:** I'll second. **[52:53] Presiding Chair:** All right, Commissioner Moes second. Any new discussion? If none, all in favor say I. **[53:00] Commission Members:** I. **[53:00] Presiding Chair:** Opposed? That carries. **[53:05] John Hinzman:** Yep. And that recommendation move forward to city council for final action on November 3rd. Thank you. **[53:09] Presiding Chair:** All right. Thanks. And I want to thank you for being here tonight, everyone. Thank you. Other business, John. **[53:14] John Hinzman:** Other business. Well, we do have a planning commission meeting scheduled for November 10th. We may—so, we appreciate—yeah. So, November 10th, our next scheduled meeting. We may be holding that. Uh there may be one ordinance amendment that we might be looking at. I don't know of any other action at this point. So, I'll let people know what's going on there. And another reminder that we do have two planning commission openings coming up at the end of this year due to term limits. So, we are actively looking for individuals that would like to serve on the commission. So, if you know of anybody or if anyone's watching that might be interested, uh, check out our website. We've got an advisory interest form and we're looking for people to fill positions. **[53:58] Presiding Chair:** All right. Thanks, John. Commissioners, any other business? Nope. All right. All right. Motion to adjourn. **[54:13] John Moes:** I'll move. **[54:13] Presiding Chair:** Commissioner Moes. Second? **[54:16] Rachel Swedin:** Second. **[54:16] Presiding Chair:** Commissioner Swedin second. All in favor say I. **[54:21] Commission Members:** I. **[54:21] Presiding Chair:** Opposed. We are adjourned.