All right. I see by the clock on the wall it is uh 6 o'clock. I'd like to call to order the December 2 regular meeting of the Mount Planning Commission. Roll call, please. >> Planning Commission members, city council leazison Kathy Mcani. >> Hi. >> Planning Commission Member Sher Wallace. >> Hi. >> Planning Commission Member Nick Rosner >> here. Vice Chair of the Planning Commission Jason Baker >> here. >> Planning Commission Member Samantha Wacker >> here. >> Planning Commission Member Kristen Young here. Planning Commission Chair David Good >> present. >> You should have before you the agenda for this meeting as emailed by Sarah. We also have an amendment to the agenda which should for you. This is a an email and a graphic from David and Jean Fashion. >> Uh motion to approve the agenda as distributed plus the amendment from David and Jean fashion as distributed. >> Second. >> We have a motion to second discussion hearing. None. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Those opposed? Nay. Motion carries. We do not have the November 18 special reschedule meeting minutes. Uh staff recommends we table action. Uh and we'll address the minutes at the January 6th meeting. Um staff was extremely busy and uh needs a little more time to finish up um proofing the minutes. Chair would entertain [clears throat] a motion to table action on the November 18, 2025 special reschedule minutes to the January 6 meeting. Uh motion to table the November 18th uh meeting minutes to the next regularly scheduled meeting. >> Second. >> We have a motion to second. Discussion >> hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Those opposed. Nay. Motion carries. Moving on. Board of adjustment and appeals planning case 25-12. Mita. Good evening. I'm gonna just do the lights. You good with that? [clears throat] >> Yes. Thank you. >> All right. Good evening. Uh I'm Rita Trap, uh city planning consultant. Thanks for the opportunity this evening to present the request um from the applicant for a comprehensive plan amendment major subdivision reszoning and [snorts] conditional use permit. It is for a development that is uh called North Point at H Hallstead Bay. Uh just a little bit of housekeeping particularly for folks that are in the audience that may not have attended a planning commission meeting before. Um this is our typical review process. The chair is will is in charge and he will actually direct how we move through this. But just for an example, we wanted to share what our typical process would be. Uh I will start with a presentation of the requests. Planning commissioners then will ask clarifying questions, have an opportunity to seek any answers that they need. Um typically the applicant may present at that time and the planning commission has an opportunity to ask clarifying questions of the applicant. Then there is this public hearing. Uh tonight specifically, there's a public hearing for the comprehensive plan amendment and the major subdivision preliminary plat. Public hearing for the resoning and conditional use permit are held at the city council, but we can talk about any of the elements that I am presenting this evening. At some [clears throat] point, the public hearing would be closed. The planning commission would discuss the request and s take some action this evening. So, I'll be walking through a lot of these elements, but we do think it's helpful for those that may not attend a planning commission meeting on a regular basis to understand kind of what our operation will be this evening. Uh, also it's important to understand the role of the planning commission. They are advisers to this city council. The actual decision will be made by the city council at a meeting that has not yet been set. Um their goal, the goal of the planning commission is to hold the public hearings that we need to solicit input to start to understand the impacts of this project. Uh and then to evaluate the land use and subdivision requests based on the direction established in the comprehensive plan, the requirements set forth in city code as well as the standards set by Minnesota state statute. planning commission is much more of a technical advisory body that really looks at how the code the decisions that have already been made by the city um and provides feedback on those. Um so I just wanted to give those overviews before we dip into this project. >> Anybody have any questions about that? >> Thank you. >> Yes, thank you chair good. So an overview to this project. The applicant is proposing within mound a 9-unit condominium building, a 4-unit town home building, and then a single unit lot. Um, in this project, there's also an amenity building that I'll talk a little bit more about. This is actually part of a larger development project that extends into Minitrista. So, Minitrista has an additional 45 units uh on in that part of the city uh which includes three condominium buildings and then 15 single family homes. The applicant has received preliminary plat and land use approvals with conditions in Minitrista. So they are past the preliminary plat stage. They have not gotten to the final plat stage. So um because of the way that state statute works, each city needs to be looking at these things independently but also conscious of the other. Um and so this is the point where they are ready to have the city of Mound consider the portion of the project uh that is in our jurisdictional boundary. For reference uh this is the location of the project. Uh it's located on the south side of Bartlett Boulevard. It ha Boulevard. It has Lakeshore frontage on H Hallstead Bay. Um there are currently four properties which you can see in blue uh circled in red. Those will be replplatted into eight lots. And when I get to the preliminary plat section, I'll show you how the new lots will be configured. So again, to summarize, it's a lot of different actions this evening. So I just wanted to summarize them briefly. There is a comprehensive plan amendment. I will walk into a lot of detail about these in each one of these um process. So that's to reguide a portion of it to low density and a portion to medium density and we'll look at the maps to show and understand where those will be. There's a reasonzoning application to reszone the portion of the property that's R1 to R3 shoreline planning development. But I do want to note that technically the existing R3 PDA was for a different project. So kind of this is going to replace the one that was there. So, we're kind of reszoning the whole parcel to make it make sense for the project that is under consideration this evening. We do have a major subdivision preliminary plat, which will replat again into eight lots. And then there is a conditional use permit. Um, and there's two reasons for the conditional use permit. One, in mound, any plan unit development requires a conditional use permit. That's how we process plan unit developments. Almost all of our residential projects of this scale and magnitude are a plan unit development. All of our mixed use projects are plan unit development. Uh all of our um big projects like this have all been planning development. So the fact that it is is normal and customary for how the city of mount has processed and continues to process these types of developments. In addition, uh the city code is set up that in the R3 zoning district, town houses and multifamilies require a conditional use permit. So we'll talk a little bit more about that when we get to that section. The way I have it divided up this evening is a little bit more regimented than normal. going to try and have uh in between slides that give me a chance to pause uh and also make sure that we kind of get through each section because there's a lot of different pieces that we need to consider. So, I will start with existing conditions. As I noted in the location map, there are four parcels involved. Um some of the parcels are vacant and some of them have a single family home uh on the property. Uh the property 6639 Bartlett Boulevard which is on the far western side of this development had been previously contemplated for some type of development. This is something the city has seen previously. Uh this project actually adds a couple of more parcels than we had had previously. So this part project is bigger. I know a few of you have been around since the first time that we had this project. This project is bigger in size uh than we had seen previously um because we've added a few more parcels. You can best see that by looking at the comprehensive plan and what the existing guidance is. You can see in orange uh that is guided for medium density residential. That was the nature of the original project that we saw for this parcel. Uh this applicant has added on the three additional properties uh in yellow which are all currently guided low density residential. You can see that the density ranges for those are 1 to six units per acre for a low density project and 7 to 12 units per acre for a medium density project. I will walk in the comprehensive plan section how we're going to make the change. Right now I'm in just an existing condition. So we're just at where we are today. the zoning currently it is R3 PDA in the where the original project was going to be and again that reflects the fact that we had moved through all of the approvals um for a project a number of years ago uh and then there is the R1 which is the new lots that are added to this development obviously because this is on the lake this is all within the shoreline overlay district so that's kind of the background existing conditions I will move into the comprehensive plan amendment uh the comprehensive plan amendment is to reguide just a portion of the property. You can see the one and the two on the map. Uh what we are trying to do with the reguiding is we're trying to align the way that the guidance would be to what this project is. So where the condominium buildings are, we want all of that area guided for medium density residential and where the townhouse and the single family and the amenity build are, we want those guided for low density residential. Um this is required just to kind of get everything in the right spot. based on how we describe those two different types of land [clears throat] uses. So after the proposed amendment, there'll be 1.25 acres of medium density residential and 2.04 acres of low density residential. The proposed densities are in line with the proposed densities uh that are allowed within each of those districts. And as you can see, these are at the lower end of the densities that are allowed. Meaning medium density is is allowed to have 7 to 12 units an acre. This project is at 7.2 units per acre. So just above the minimum density for a medium density project. And even the low density residential is at 2.545 units per acre which is just in the 1 to six units per acre. Uh one thing that we will be talking about is the juxaposition of the metropolitan council density requirements and the DNR density requirements and those don't really align well together. So here we're just barely meeting the density. were kind of getting into the density requirements in the DNR. Um we're just barely getting into their density and they kind of are floating together. Um so those are some things to be aware of. One element which is new um because we haven't seen a lot of infill projects like this uh where we actually are dedicating a portion of a county road. We typically in mound don't have this happen very often. I don't remember the last time I've had to dedicate county road as part of a project. um we did not consider that as part of the density calculations because the road the right of way from the land will already be dedicated to the county. So from our perspective we hit our density numbers. Metropolitan council currently has a policy that says that right ofway amount which is not very much has to be added in uh and so that drops our density under seven units an acre which means it isn't medium density according to the metropolitan council. um our me our sector rep uh informed us that they are currently in a process of updating their policy recognizing that infill developments like this have these challenges and we're really we are doing what the intent is. Um and so the the recommendation just was if we were to move forward with this project that we time the submittal to the [clears throat] metropolitan council after they've already had this policy discussion and are ready to contemplate it in the manner that um makes sense or what we're already thinking. so I can provide more information. It's really a technical element as opposed to too much of a policy thing, but we also want everybody to be aware of that. All right, reszoning. This one's quick. Uh the request is to reszone all of the parcels to R3PUD. Um it allows for more land uses and housing types. Uh single family is actually allowed in the R3 district, so it doesn't it is a not a problem that we have everything zoned the same way. Um it'll be nice to have the whole project in the same zoning district. One note is that the single family homes will need to follow the standards of the R2 district, not the R1 or the R1A. So it's just something that's important to note when that property owner goes to build their house that that will they will be held to the setback standards that are the R2 standards. Right now there that is uh contemplating of being built separately, not as part of the rest of the development. uh one of the property owners that is participating in this project is retaining that piece of property to build a house on. Uh and so we just want them to be aware that they are required to meet those standards. So setbacks, impervious surface, all of those elements will need to be met. Preliminary plat. The whole site is 3.29 acres. They are proposing to replplat four parcels to create eight lots. Um you can see the breakdown on the table. One of the lots will be for the condominium, one will be for the single family home, one for the amenity building. Um, and then it is contemplated that each of the town homes uh would be sold individually. So each town home unit is on its own lot and then there is one lot that encompasses the land around the townhouse building. So that's how we get to eight lots. And then on to the conditional use permit. We'll spend a lot of time here because this really is where we encompass all of the site and design standards that we need to walk through. Again, as I stated at the beginning, conditional use permit is the tool that the city uses for any plan unit development in the city. Um, it's required for a shoreline plan unit development. Um, we included in your packet just kind of a reminder or a refresher for those that have been around, new information for those that haven't been involved in these kind of projects on why the city might do PUDs, especially in this case where we're talking of residential. Um, so the intention is to allow some flexibility to recognize unique challenges of a site and provide flexibility to have a mix of housing types or achieve some design uh requirements. Uh, and so that's something that's we included in your packet just for information. It also is required to allow town houses and multif family. Uh and this is really where we're going to establish all of the dimensional and design standards. U PUDS and mound are fairly flexible. Pretty much everything um can be accommodated through the use of the PUD. It just determines how much flexibility the city is interested in granting um in terms of all those elements. And we tried in the packet and I'll try today to just mention where flexibility is being granted through the PUD. Um because this [clears throat] is one of those cases where the city needs to be comfortable with what's being proposed because um you're really identifying on a case-by case basis what things are appropriate um for this particular development. So uses principal uses um permitted uses in the QD should generally be consistent with permitted or conditional uses of the underlying district. Um the R3 is the district as we noted and both all of the uses the condo, the townhouse and the single family home are considered um to be uses that would be allowed. Obviously I had a note before about conditional versus permitted. The accessory building is a little bit interesting. Our code doesn't exactly talk about an amenity building [clears throat] such as being proposed. There are a couple of examples, at least one example in the city of Mound where this exists. So, it's not like it doesn't exist. We just haven't seen exactly this use. Um, it's really an accessory building, but it's serving the entire project, not just an individual house. And it is on its own lot, uh, which we typically don't see. Um, and it can be allowed through the PUD. We just want to note that that it's a little bit different. Um it has an interior kitchen, seating area, dining areas, restroom. You can see the example of the floor plan. Um it would be exclusively for the use of those f those people who are living in the development. It's not meant to be a public facility. It's meant just for the people that are in the North Point Hstead Bay development. Um exterior wise, there are two patios uh one on the west and one on the lake shore. Uh, in terms of a long-term use, as I said, it's intended for all residents within development. The HOA agreement, which we haven't seen a draft of, but these are elements that we anticipate from the applicant would be included. We can certainly talk about other types of things that would uh need to be included in order to meet city requirements. But the HOA would limit the hours of use from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. On a shorter term basis, the applicant is requesting approval to use the building as a sales office for uh until the project is completed. And you can see the hours would be 8 to 6. Again, this isn't something that we've had uh as part of a project for a number of years. I I have not been involved in a project like this. I don't think Sarah has either. So, the ones that do exist predate our experience in the community, which is a long time. Um so we don't have a precedent that we can give you but it's something to be aware of that through this uh we would be approving the use of this and if that's something that is of concern we should have more conversation about it relative to lot sizes and yards. So now we're kind of working towards setback requirements. Um they are proposing for the nine-unit condo building reduced yard areas for all yards. You can see in the table um the minimum lot size is fine. The minimum lot width is fine. We've highlighted the front yard, sideyard, and rear yard. The biggest reason that this occurs is because of the requirement that it's related to the height of the building. So, we have not seen in many of our projects setbacks that are related to something about the building design. But in the R3 district, you have um two different potential standards. In this case, what applies is one and a half times the building height for the front yard, the height of the building for the sideyard, and the rear yard. And you can see what they're actually proposing. Um, so I just wanted to call that out because that is different than what we typically see or talk about. Um, the PUD is intended to allow for flexibility. Uh, and these most of these standards are related front and rear in particular are related to internal to the development as opposed to have external impact to surrounding properties. Obviously, the sideyard does a little bit. Um, and then distance between multiple dwelling unit structures. Um there's 76 proposed between the this the condo [clears throat] building and the townhouse and 74 to the next condo building um in the project. And then the fourunit building um this one is meeting all of the requirements for the R3. So I won't spend too much time on that because I have a lot of slides a lot of topics. So we can always come back if you wanted to talk more about that. And then the single family home as I referenced uh this is we basically have kind of a possible footprint but there really aren't [snorts] measurements provided. We can see where the setbacks would be applied. Um but this will need to meet our two repairarian lot setbacks at the time that the building permit is pose uh pled and there's been no requests for anything different variance wise. So we just assume that it'll work at the time that they propose it. Then the amenity building. Uh the city will need to determine the appropriate setbacks and flexibility. Um again this isn't something that we have specific standards for. Technically overall in the whole city accessory buildings uh typically should not exceed 1,200 square feet with a maximum of 3,000 square feet or 15% of lot size. The building is proposed to be uh just under 1,700 square feet. Again just as a reminder an accessory building typically needs to be on a lot with a principal structure. So this is different um and so this is a different situation that we need to think about and um contemplate. It is located between two single family home lots. So that is important to talk about as we think about screening and landscaping and parking and those elements. All right, I am going to move to the shoreland requirements. There's a few different topics with the actual shoreland rules. One is density. Um so density for shoreland is uh for planning development is based on tiering. You we the applicant city staff reviews needs to establish where three tiers are and we need to evaluate whether the density proposed within those tiers meet appropriate requirements. So the goal if you can imagine overall just stepping back is to have more density the farthest you can away from the lake. So near the lake we don't really want you know we want one or two units. As we move back, we can have a few more units. As we move farther back, if you could, that's where ultimately from a shoreline perspective, the best protection is to put most of the density farthest back. Uh, so based on the fact that this is Lake Minnetonka, the first tier is 267 feet and this two tiers two and three are 200 feet. So you can see on the diagram, um, we drew where the lines were so you could see it. So tier one really extends kind of back to where Holstead Avenue is. So all of the land from H Hallstead to the lake is in tier one. Um tier two is really where kind of going up the hill uh where the townhouse building is and then tier three uh includes Bartlett Boulevard and the condo building. So the way that we calculate the density is you take the area from that tier and you divide it by 10,000 square feet. So the idea is the preference would be that we don't have u more density than what a typical single family lot is required to have in mount. um you can transfer density from tier to tier. So if you don't put as much density in a tier, those units that you would be allowed can be added to the tier that is farther up. Uh so in that I kind of tried to explain it, but hopefully the table makes a little bit of sense. Um the maximum units allowed near uh in tier one would be a little more than four units. They're only really provide proposing the one unit. um then they have three units that they can transfer back up to the next tier where the town houses are. Um and so that's how we figure out whether or not the density proposed meets requirements or doesn't meet requirements. There's also a bluff on the site. Uh we have circled kind of where the bluff is located on the mound side of uh the development. It's to the the west of the townhouse building. Um so the as probably you know this area was originally used as a manufactured home park. It's likely that the bluff was impacted at that time as they tried to situate um the different homes and have a development there. Uh shoreline regulations technically say that you should have a 30-foot bluff setback for new development. Um right now we're only showing a 10- foot uh bluff setback at the northwest corner. Uh PUB can't allow for uh reduced setbacks. This is something that we talk about from time to time as we have development happen in mound um with certain areas that have bluffs. Also in the shorland regulations are open space. Uh the PUD requires 50% open space across the site. Uh and then shoreland requires 70% of the shore impact zone which is the first 25 ft um to be preserved. Right now we don't have open space information provided. Um and the shore impact zone we have a little bit of question and issue. It looks like it's preserved, but we also have the patios to deal with. Um, and so those are things to be aware of. Unit size. Uh, the city of Mound still retains having minimum sizes uh for different units. Uh, and that is something that is being uh provided for adequately from the project. The building height R3 standards are three stories or 35 ft for the condominium building, 35 ft or two and a half stories for the townhouse buildings. As you can see in the table, what is being proposed is a 50- foot building for the 9-unit condominium building. Uh 29 feet townhouse building and 17 for the amenity building. So if the the city can use the plan unit development to allow um that height to be greater than has is typical for an R3 project. Uh there is minimum required construction elevation. So the lowest floor meaning garages any livable areas. Uh and in this project because of the where it's located that isn't a concern. Even the amenity building located near the lake um is well above the minimum construction elevation of 933. All right. Access. Um this project is kind of split in half. On the northern off of Bartlett Boulevard is where the access is provided to the condominium building and to the townhouse building. I'm going to just grab over here. >> Yellow. Yep. That one's not ready. Um I just wanted to point out Bartlett Boulevard, there is going to be a driveway connection um that goes through Minitrista and then there's the driveway that goes to this townhouse building. Um and then on the south side, the access to the amenity and to the single family home is coming across H Hallstead Avenue. So, there's kind of two different ways for access. Um, the access has been reviewed by Henipin County and they're okay keeping it. There are some notes about making sure we have turn lanes, safety features. Um, and the fire um fire chief has reviewed um and we have they have elements that will help protect do fire protection as well. Um, so kind of the bluffs are the reason why we don't have any more access from north to south through the site. Parking wise, the condominium does include a below grade parking deck. Um, and the garage entrance is coming off um the side of the building and then there are seven spaces in front of the condominium building. Uh, in the townhouse buildings, each unit has a private twocar garage and then a driveway. The driveway is 18 by 20 ft, so is sufficient to hold a vehicle. Um, and then the code requirements are two spaces per per unit. Uh and then on the amenity building, there are nine spaces um provided uh for the amenity building uh to make sure that folks have the ability um to park near that building. There are trails and uh stairways connecting the buildings. Um it is a woodrip trail that is going down the bluff um to provide access from these buildings. Uh there is a sidewalk as well. Uh so that is providing access down into the lake and I think staff we staff mentioned um just the question of having more discussion about a wood chip trail and wooden stairs and whether long-term just maintenance of that is realistic or not. Um but it also ties into impervious surface. So, as as you all know from all of our work together, there's a lot of trade-offs that have to come together. Um, and we have to provide some guidance on what are the most important elements. But staff has a little bit of concern given the fact of where the wood trail is that it is on a slope. Um, whether or not that's really sustainable um and would be safety safety issues and whether that would you'd have to replace the wood chips all the time to keep it going. Um, so things to talk about. Um, trash and recycling will be stored inside all the residential buildings. And then there is an enclosure on the northeast side of the amenity building. Uh the landscaping plan um they're proposing to save about 47% of the trees and then there'll be planting of 19 new trees on the site. Um the plan meets uh generally the requirements for quantity and species. We do have a landscape architect that reviews these um and she's been asking for some she asked for some additional information. Um, as you are well aware, usually we just have that that ultimately that she approves the plan and make sure that the species that are picked and where they're located makes sense from a maintenance perspective, survivability, um, that we're protecting tree roots. Um, so she's taken a preliminary look at it. Um, but definitely has some clarifying questions to just answer. Uh screening has been something that uh staff has been concerned about particularly related to the amenity building um just because it is located immediately adjacent to an existing single family home as well as the proposed new single family home. Um and so making sure that it has uh that it is um screened as best we can. The parking lot is screened, the building is screened. Um and so right now there is some landscaping proposed um but more discussion may um be beneficial related to screening uh especially where given where the patios are. Um I do want to note there are slopes to deal with as well. Um and so that does make some of the choices. You can see some of the slopes um in terms of how the building got laid out and those are maybe conversations that are helpful uh with the applicant. utilities. Uh public water is available along along Bartlett Boulevard and Halstead Avenue. Sewer is available on Halstead Avenue on the Minitrista side. Um these plans have been reviewed by the city engineer as we know we've uh talked about. Um they always review and have a lot of comments from a technical perspective. They're comfortable. There are things that would need to be addressed, but they're not concerned specifically about the ability to serve the project as proposed. And then storm water. Um, Mihaha Creek waters waterershed district is the permitting authority. As we've experienced in the past, they like to have the city do its work uh and have some measure of that this project is something that the city is comfortable with um before they go through their permitting process. There are conversations that are um back and forth and I'll talk a little bit about what we've heard so far um from Minihaha Creek. Um, one element is that with the shoreline PUD, tiering, again going back to that tiering discussion, um, is used to determine requirements related to impervious surface. Uh, the maximum allowed is no more than 30% in tier one and no more than 30% overall. [snorts] Overall, right now, the proposal is at 34%. Um, and tier one is just under that 30% measure. So, um, that's always a balancing act between impervious surface requirements as well as what Minihaha Creek wershed district thinks are acceptable in terms of, uh, storm water management. Um, but it is something that we can use the PUD for or we can have more conversation about how we might address it. Um obviously we have some challenges with this site in fact that we have to have the driveway. We have to have extra fire access and turnaround for um the townhouse building because of the way [clears throat] that the site is arranged in the bluffs. Um so all of those things together. Um we're trying to balance all of those different elements for our project. And then there's a few elements uh snow storage, lighting, signage that we haven't had a lot of discussion yet with the applicant um particularly on the lighting and the signage. If there isn't any request at this stage, they would just need to meet what [clears throat] the code requirements are. Um, and that's part of the PUB. Uh, snow storage uh is a discussion we can have. Uh, given the way that they have designed the site, there are areas that that probably can accommodate, but we haven't specifically had that identified yet. All right. Into the review comment section. Um the plans have been shared with our typical routing of staff, consultant, agency and utilities. Um we have routed them different times with updated plans. Um as we noted in our staff report, the last set of plans that we received uh was on the 25th. So we have the comments that we have, but some of the comments that we will walk through today may have been addressed in [clears throat] the previous set of plans. Um and so that's one of the reasons why staff uh wants to start the conversation but doesn't think we can finish all the conversations this evening. Um because these some of these review comments may have already been addressed in the latest set of plans and some may not have and so we need to kind of work through those. But generally I will walk through um the comments. Um the DNR area hydraologist uh just as a reminder the DNR is a commenting authority. They are not an approval authority. they can provide comments and feedback and things that they hope the city will take into account as we review the applications. Um they noted again similar to staff that the open space is still an open question. Um there also is concerned about how we're going to protect the open space. Typically we see that as a conversation that comes as part of the final PLA process when we're actually looking at development agreements and HOA agreements and easements and things of that nature. Um so it's good to note but staff that's a future element if we move forward with this project. Um there is concern from the DNR about the lakeshore side deck encroaching in the short ordinary high water level lakes shore setback which is supposed to be 50 feet. They're in that number and so that's something that we um should be com having a conversation about whether that is something that we are comfortable with or not. Minihaha uh creek wershed district they have reviewed the stormwater plan and they are in communication with the applicant. Um there is more to be done in this area and as is typical with our process we anticipate more conversation. Um they are talking about having uh imperous impervious surfaces being routed to the right place. Um and this is something where they have been aware because again this project has also been happening with Minitatrista and so there have been conversations with that side as well. Um they have not raised anything more substantial of concern. Um, at this point, uh, Metropolitan Environmental Services doesn't have any facilities, so that's not of concern. Haden County provided comments kind of in three areas. One being right ofway and roadways, one being storm water and utility, and one being the landscape plan. Um, generally they again wanted the Bartlett Boulevard rightway. Um, they do allow the access, but noted the need for turn lanes. And then there's revisions requested related technical revisions related to actual pavement improvements. There are also technical requirements related to storm water and utilities. Those again are being reviewed by them, our city engineer um and we working through all of those elements. U most of these are fairly uh things that we're aware of. For example, no ponding allowed in the county right ofway, things that are customary to projects. Uh and then they made a couple of notes related to the landscape plan which our landscape architect will take into consideration. Uh the city engineer provided two rounds of comments. Um and they covered a lot of different topics uh in response to from the first round to the second round. The city engineer felt they did address a number of the comments. Um obviously we'll still need to work through those um and we will need to kind of pair down the list to what is still remaining from his list of requirements. Um after the first round of comments, the second round said, "Generally, we're moving in the right direction. We don't have major concerns. We feel like these technical things can be addressed." Um are as a staff, planning staff, we're always going back to the commenters asking them like, "Are any of these really significant that they're going to change the whole scope of the plan?" So far, um those have not been identified as changing the scope of the plan. They're technical things that they feel like they can address. uh Mountfire. Um the initial review address identified a number of concerns um related to the configuration of the access roads connections, hydrant locations. Um the applicant did meet with both Mound and St. Bonnie fire chiefs to address or talk about those concerns. They have updated those concerns kind of similar to what I said with the city engineer planning staff went to them and said are any of these major enough that you know we should be concerned that we shouldn't be moving forward with planning committ consideration and they said no we can still address these technically. So um that's where we are from a technical perspective. Um there are some technical issues with the plat um that need to be addressed. they're from the surveyor. Um things that are common, especially when you have a common interest community that need to be addressed. Um and then Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, there is there is discussion happening about a dock and what that dock will be, what it will consist of, what will be allowed. So the information that we have from LMCD because they are the ones that will oversee that, it's not [laughter] the city of Mount, but it is them. [clears throat] Um they said that there'll be one watercraft allowed per 50 ft of shoreline or four water cloud four watercrafts um if they're all owned and registered to the property owners. Um so information about docks is still ongoing but LMCD is at the table and having conversations so that the applicant is aware of the limitations relative to docks. um particularly related to rental watercraft and you know their goal is to not have uh too many boats being created from this project. So they're involved with that public comment. We uh mailed all of the notices to properties within 350 ft. It was posted on the city bulletin board. It was published in the Laker. The information's been on the city website. As of um today we've only received the one comment which you amended into your agenda. Um it is from a neighbor um who lives in the area. Um right now I have the seven things. These seven are the titles of each of their um comment sections. Um so you have that in front of you and the types of things that they're concerned about. Um and they are my understanding is a Minatrista resident um who is concerned about the project and so this is the the things that they have provided. Um, I won't comment anymore since you do have it in front of you and you could take a look at that in more detail rather than me summarizing their words. So, planning commission action this evening. As we stated in the report, this is a a big project. It's a complicated project, especially the part where it um goes across uh two cities and we have access coming from two jurisdiction. We have a lot of moving parts. We are asking this evening that you hold the public hearing um hold uh completely open and close it. um have for the comprehensive plan amendment and major subdivision preliminary plat. We'd love you to discuss it, identify what your issues are, your concerns, your questions um and [clears throat] then table it to the January 6th meeting. Um we feel like that will be better for all of us uh in terms of being able to answer your questions, provide information. Um I couldn't figure out how I was going to give you a list of comments since things are in flux with all of those commenting agencies. That was one of my challenges and I finally said I don't think will be very accurate and it'll feel overwhelming. So we want to take the time um to figure out what other information you need, what things do you have concerned about, provide the applicants and ability to answer them and also for us to work with the technical folks to say what is really needs to be changed. What are the concerns that they have? Um because we have been getting multiple um iterations and improvements which is great but it does make it challenging um for us at times. Before I end, um, public hearing structure generally, if it's okay, Mr. Good, just to kind of work through that. Generally, we ask each person to introduce themselves, name, and address. Your comments should be directed to the planning commission, not to the applicant. The planning commission is the one holding the public hearing. They're the ones that are interested in your input, your questions. Um, Mr. Good, Chair Good will take care of kind of routing how they will be uh walking through it. Uh only one person can speak at a time generally. I think be respectful of three minutes for your first round of comments. Um we just want to focus on new information and Mr. Good will kind of walk us through that and he will decide whether or not staff answers or the applicant answers and when we all do that. It may be that we collect a number of comments at a time before we start answering them. Depends on the complexity of the comments. So just as a heads up because I know sometimes people haven't been at a meeting before. With that, we are at part of the meeting where I get to [clears throat] try and answer questions um that you may have had from my first slide. Um so hopefully you remember what those might be. But I appreciate the attention um and happy to clarify, answer questions, provide more information. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Chair. Now that we've had an opportunity to drink from the fire hose, [laughter] does anyone have any questions or comments for Rita? >> Um, Rita, are we looking at a stormwater pond? >> Not on our side. There is storm water ponding on the miniaturista side. >> Oh, okay. Um my question would be um how many residents are actually is it proposed would be using that multi-purpose building the amenities building? >> How many? Well, there's um >> I mean how many units in total? >> Yep. I'm going backwards. All right. So we have um 93 and 14. They have um 60 73 >> 76. >> I was close. >> It's hard to do math on the fly. Yeah. >> 76 units between >> there's 45 units. Yeah. >> Okay. So, 76 units and you said they're going to have seven parking spots down by that building. >> Nine. >> Nine. Okay. So, nine parking spots and it's up on a bluff. up on the bluff >> that a lot of the units are >> the condo units are up >> the majority of the residents are up on the the bluff correct >> that will be using it >> well >> of the 70s >> no I understand the question it's just it's the mini side and the mound side so the mound side the nine residents yes the nine right >> and then the trristic side is a little bit different because of the way that they have that I mean it is up a hill not >> right right I the reason I mentioned that is because um it may be a deterrent of people walking down the hill and especially walking back up the hill if they've got their coolers and their their lake toys and stuff to I think the applicant said the or you said in your notes that it was proposed that most of them would walk to the building and I would dispute that as >> on the wood chips >> on the wood chips or you know if you've got coolers and bringing them down to the lake and thus where do the people park if there's only nine parking spots >> and does that I mean that's a lot of units 76 using that one building which you know is next to a residential house is that a concern >> I think I can speak to that. That's something for you guys to all have a conversation about. I mean, I'm I'm alerting you that that's the [clears throat] situation, >> right? >> Um I think right now if Yeah, I can't speak more. There's clarifying I can give >> what you guys think. But >> but I think right now we're on to questions that you need to understand the project and then afterwards there'll be discussion where you guys can >> work through that. But okay, >> if we can focus on what do you need to know or what does the public need to know so they understand the project which your question of the numbers is very on like how many people are we talking about. >> Um [snorts] >> I I have a question. Um did I read correctly that one of the buildings is going to be 50 feet height? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Well, didn't we amend our comprehensive plan or zoning that we were going to cap buildings at 35 ft? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Okay. Well, I have a really big issue with the 50 ft. That's why we redid that in our zoning and uh I guess when we amended our >> comprehensive plan, wasn't it? >> No, it's in the zoning. >> In the zoning. >> Yep. And if that's why it states in that slide what the max height is. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Y >> it's for that reason. >> Yeah. Right. It's 30 three stories are 35 ft. I believe that you when we did the mixed use that's where we made the change. I believe we did all mixed use everything at 35 ft. >> We have no 50 ft left, right? >> I don't think we did. >> I don't believe so. Okay. >> Because that was the challenge. Correct. >> The shoreline number as well. >> Yes. No, I totally agree. >> I didn't Did you see the Minotarista one? >> I didn't. >> Okay. >> May I want to ask the applicant about the Minotarista ones? Yeah. >> But on our side too, on the mound side, they're proposing a 50 foot. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Yes, ma'am. >> And then I I'm I'm sure all of between all the agencies, they don't seem to have a problem with 76 units suddenly using a couple of entry exit ways onto 110. That's a lot of added traffic right there. >> It is a county road and it's built to accommodate traffic. That's its point. So they do not no questions and concerns have been raised >> other than that is other than that's the reason they wanted to add turn lanes relative to the access in mount make sure that the there's a place for cars that are turning to stop and not be in traffic. So from a road perspective the road is designed to handle traffic but they did have those turning movements to try and prevent conflicts and address that part of it. Well, I just am imagining the one stop sign at 44 and 110, you know, where it's going to get pretty jammed up with 76 new units. I [clears throat] maybe I county roads, these kind of roads are designed for much more traffic than one development, but I understand why there's concerns about that that it will change the traffic patterns a little bit until people get used to it. Rita, is the marina going to be part of this development or is it is the marina going to be part of this development? >> You mean the docks? >> Yeah, the docks. >> The docks are part of the development. They would come off of the mound perspective because that's the only place that there is lakeshore. The LMCD, that's why there's conversation going on about what actually can happen. Um, and that's why their letter is important because it talks about um how it has to operate and that there are limitations to the operation. So, it's not it's not going to be a dock for all of them. It's going to be a limited amount of docks that they would be allowed and then there's going to be limits to how they can operate. Um, and that's what that kind of element is about. Um, but that's their LMC is the one that approves docks. >> So, it sounded to me as though there were going to be only four slips four. Is does that sound right? >> It depends on how they authorize it. Um, >> so four votes total for the neighborhood. >> Well, it I think having more conversation with the applicant would be helpful because there's different ways. The the the way that the letter response was you can have this or this. Which way the applicant chooses to go is not something I can comment on. Good. >> I had a couple questions. >> I've been waiting. Um, is it possible for us to get a copy of the minitristic side plat to look at to see the whole thing overall >> before next? >> Plat is the same. >> It's the What do you mean by the platin included the miniatures aside? >> It did with all the storm water and stuff. >> Everything. >> Where was the >> Where was the water retention you were saying? Did you see this? >> Yeah, that's what I'm looking. >> They have it right here. >> I'm just going to open up. >> Okay, >> that's it. >> Oh, my other my other question was this the heights and the setbacks that are relation to heights. >> Do you know what Minatrista allows? >> Okay. I'm assuming that they they approved the 50 foot height. >> Do we know? >> That's what we need to ask the applicant what their approval height is. I would suspect that you would keep the buildings the same. >> Okay. >> Um >> and also how they measured building height is >> the impervious measurements that you were talking about where it was like just under 30% for the tears and the >> is that excluding the single family lot? It's using the information that they gave us, which would be including the single family lot, but that would mean that when that project got developed, we'd have to make sure there was an updated number and they were still staying underneath that 30%. >> Did you So on here, like the storm water basin >> Oh, I just couldn't read that. Okay. are there in there. >> Okay. >> Um and then the last one I had was you said the side deck was in the high water area. >> No, the if I said side I >> It was written up there side too. >> The deck. >> Yeah, I meant the the one this >> the front deck. >> Yeah, that's just the way that it got written. >> Okay. >> This >> Yeah. And in the picture it looked like that was actually pavers, not a deck. I don't know if that was Can you have >> It's still subject to the 50 though. Can you have like a pavers in the 50? It >> a patio and a deck have the same lake shore side back. We do. >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Do we do we have a plan for storm water? Like how much water is actually coming through that area? because I believe it's it's there's more water than just what's >> the city engineer would have been reviewing and haha creek the storm water plants >> okay >> but I I there I can't comment on storm water other than to say all the plans have been submitted to the appropriate folks they haven't identified any issues for related to it >> and is your question related to the storm water pond we're looking at here >> right that these these ponds Yeah. >> Can handle the amount of runoff >> not only from the actual area but >> Yep. I understand your question, but I that's that's beyond the purview of the conversation. We rely on our technical experts to review that and say we're good. We have the information that we need to provide the information. I don't have I can't answer more questions about storm water. Sorry, it's at the planning commission meeting. We don't have the ability to have the engineers here. At the council meeting, they'll be there and can answer technical details. Sure. >> At this meeting, we just >> we have to rely on the knowledge that all of those things got sent. The city engineer has reviewed them every time they've come in and provided whatever concerns that they have and address those. >> Gotcha. >> More questions for Rita? >> Just one. How how significant are the changes between like the single family lot if they have to suddenly go to this new zoning? I might be asking that question wrong because I I scratched bad notes. >> No, that's okay. >> But but you were talking about earlier um that the single family lot would have to adhere to the new uh standards. >> It's not new. Well, this is a totally new house. So, it's more about making sure that the applicants are aware that when we go to review that building permit, it'll be using the R2 standards, which actually are lesser than the R1 standard. >> Okay, that's that's where I was going with that. Thank you. Yes. And where exactly is that new house being built? >> If you I don't know if it's easy. Right here. >> That doesn't make any sense to me at all. Um >> where the road is. >> Yeah. >> Is it one of the bottom three lots >> here? Let me just I'm going to move to a different diagram. Give me one second. Let's see that. I don't know which diagram is the easiest for you. >> The existing lots maybe. >> Yeah. >> Where it shows the existing lots. >> Well, and it's not exactly true, but generally this so this is generally where it's going to be, but this this >> road >> the road's going to extend and then there'll be a driveway. So it the lot doesn't exactly configure the same, but generally this is and this yellow right here, this is not part of the project. Just to make sure it sounded like maybe you were thinking they were >> that's what I I thought the new So >> yeah, those are house that's already in existence. It is just showing in yellow because this is the edge of the city of mound >> and our comp plan. So it shows it might read like it's part of the project, but it's really where the highlights are. >> The green. >> Yep. Right here. >> And then will H Hallstead Lane I know that was discussion earlier when they first came through. Is that going to be going all the way over to the new home that's going to be built crossing through that? >> I am gonna try and get you a diagram to actually I have the civil. Let me go back to that. >> All right. Hopefully you can look at this. Am I if I zoomed in too much, let me know. So this is Hollstead coming down from Bartlett. Are you following that? Yeah. Council member Mciny. >> And then it'll extend this way. And >> these are those three little lots you asked me about. Yeah. >> And then it's going to have a hammerhead at this point. So there can be turnaround and then there's a driveway. >> Oh, got it. Okay. >> And then there's a driveway going to the amenity building. >> Thank you. >> Yes. No, thank you for the question. >> More questions for Rita. >> Okay. Hearing none. Thank you very much. >> Yes. Thank you. Wow. >> Next, we'd like to hear from the applicant. [clears throat] Please state your names and your addresses. >> Yep. Sheldon Bird U with DJR Architecture and we are at 333 Washington Avenue North in Minneapolis. How about the gentleman behind you? >> This is their civil, I think. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Wayne Stark with Stark Engineering. I'm a civil engineer on the project and address is 32nd Avenue North Sock Rapids. >> Okay. >> All right, gentlemen. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Proceed, please. >> Thank you very much for your time tonight. Um chair and members of the commission. We appreciate that and your um and the u the work that we've done with um staff um getting us to where we are today. Um we um I think from a overall I think Rita did a really great good job describing the the project and um you know some of the inherent challenges with that property. Um, what I'd like to do is just do a quick overview of some of our goals for the project and also I can either respond to a couple of the anecdotal questions or or um, you know, wait for follow-up questions. Um, so big picture, we were looking to bring um a kind of a new community to the area and and by adding some quality housing that also has a connection to the lake. Um, doing that, we're trying to balance both the natural setting that we have before us between the the hill, the lake at the bottom of the hill, um, connections to the lake, as well as the trees and the bluffs and the and the natural kind of beauty that that has. um while also trying trying to provide some well-built and um and a variety of housing types for the community. Um to answer a couple questions about um particularly about the amenity building since that seemed to come up a number of times. Um we've sized it I think pretty fairly modestly. It's you know it's 15600 square feet. So that's the size of a, you know, maybe a one to two-bedroom house. Um, it's not designed to have all the residents, you know, and every summer day being down there at that time. You know, it's probably a couple groups of four um, you know, maybe 15 to 20 people between inside and outside. It would be like a comfortable where you don't feel like you're on top of other people. So, it's the size is I think right size for the amount the amount the the community that we have with the 76 um units um and knowing people's schedules and and how that that varies. I think that we feel really comfortable about the size that we're providing that it's roomy enough that you could have a a little event there, a little birthday party, something like that, and yet not we're not trying to house, you know, the whole neighborhood, let's just say, um, necessarily at one time. Um, and I think that that relates then to the convenience parking that we have. We have nine spaces there. Um, a lot of people can walk to the um to the area and obviously we have are providing some parking for those that either can't walk it or they'd prefer not to or if they have some things they want to bring down they can bring them down and and um and uh you know have that convenience. So, um the I think we generally speaking covered the dock area that we'll have a single dock with probably a potential for four um uh votes at that point. And um we haven't devised the exact um determination on on how and when it's used, but that's that's kind of under we're undergoing that um since there is a select few. And let's see, Wayne, anything you want to add relative to engineering storm water? >> Sure. >> Um, so yeah, as far as the the storm water questions that uh have been asked. Um, I can I definitely address those. Um all of the uh the storm water treatment detention uh for the project will occur on the Minitrista side with the runoff from the mound uh properties um piped to those those basins. And then there is uh about 17 acres on the north side of County Road 110 um that does that does drain flow through the site. Um, and so that's going to be collected and and run through the site. And then, but all of the on-site uh runoff uh storm water runoff will be directed to those. There's actually four storm water basins um on the Minitrista side that will u treat and detain that runoff uh to meet the city requirements as well as the Naha Creek wershed district uh requirements uh for this development. Um, one last item maybe I'll comment on just in terms of I understand that the um the building height for the condominium wasn't concerned. Um, two things about that. One is, you know, in in concert, let's just say with the taring that we have around the lake, we have uh kept the densities the lowest density closest to the lake and then tearing up a little bit as we go. Our our intent from the beginning was to keep the condominium buildings which are threetory on that north side off of um 110 uh because that's where we want the uh the density to [clears throat] be and also they are up the hill so they still have some nice long views to the lake so we can so those upper level units can take advantage of that. Um and I would just say that the the way that the building heights the building heights have been accepted in Minitrista um Minitrist and Mound do evaluate height a little differently. Um in this case the height that we're talking about for the condominium on the mound side the 50t is probably not what's going to be experienced by most people. Um, for instance, on the because there is a slope on the site, the up upside or the north side of that building probably is in the 32 34 feet in height. A threetory. The it is three stories on top of an underground garage. That's where all the parking we have, I think, plus or over two spaces per unit available. Um, plus the guest parking. Um, and so as that slight or as a slight as the site slopes down, then that does reveal some portion of that garage. I mean, we do have to get into it and things and and just based on the way that the city of Mountain um calculates the height did exacerbate or at least the description or the actual number that we get to by using the criteria we have for the height. We do land at 50 feet. Although for the majority of you were walking around the building, you wouldn't really realize that it's a height like that. >> So from 110 is it the building up on top >> the very top. >> So from 110 is it going to look like a 30? >> No, like a Yeah, exactly. Like a 32 foot building something like that. >> Okay. Is there somewhere in this packet um drawings of >> We did we provided some um packet the building the building heights are are in the lakes, >> right? >> Um there is notation though that [clears throat] that's not been verified in terms of you know this is preliminary information in terms of what those numbers are, >> right? >> So >> So when you're measuring from the bottom of you know let's say you're pulling into the garage >> from there to the top of the third floor that's what's giving you your 50 ft. >> Correct. And then we also >> the grade does slope up on the on the down side and onto the garage as well. So >> um >> you really only you only see that full depth at the garage door >> because the grade is sloping down. Correct. >> Yeah, I understand. >> Do you have the view from the front too? >> Uh yeah. >> Yeah. Sheldon, can you confirm which elevation this is because >> Yeah, this is what is this north facing? Now, this would be the uh east >> elevation where the garage door >> is the part that's facing Bartlett, right? >> Uh correct. >> Right. And if you add up what you're seeing, unless you're saying that the grade's going to be, if you add these numbers up on the side, >> 12 + 12 is 24 + 11 is 35. >> Okay? >> Plus 6 is 41, not counting any inches. >> Oh. Okay. >> So, so that is getting really tall. >> I mean, part of it, that's why I'm, you know, that we haven't verified it. We knew it was hitting a number. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Yep. >> So, so that's 41. Then you add another 11 ft down. >> So, on that side, yeah, I mean that it's actually probably >> over 50. Yeah. I mean that's where the average grade calculation the way mound does it and that's um we haven't verified it because we knew based on history that there was going to be some discussion about 50 feet or however many feet. Um so we didn't go through the effort to figure it all out in exact numbers because we knew that this would be a conversation. >> Okay. Further questions for the applicant >> for the for the condo building. Could you comment on the trade-off of height and number of units? >> Um let's see. So well okay so um we're looking at three stories. Um >> and we thought that being uh you know still giving us a little bit of density there but still being modest enough in size. It's not you know forward and fine story. Um the footprint also is important um relative to giving us um reasonably sized units. We weren't looking to do onebedrooms. People are not really interested in condos that are onebedrooms. So the con or the um actual unit sizes are sized to be comfortable that they're not overwhelming in size. Um and um and and I think that that speaks to kind of the interest uh for this development. Uh we do have a I believe a 10-ft ceiling on the um on the units. So versus maybe a nine. So it's slightly higher than maybe some other comparable buildings, but still within the realm. It's not it's not like cathedral ceilings, things like that. Um the the the flat roof was also an attempt to kind of keep the profile of the building down. Um, and you know, the the parapit probably could come down a little bit from a uh overall height, but we still I mean, we're still stacking up a you know, most of the height is really just the [cough] units themselves and and trusses in between >> two illustration of, you know, from a street like if you're coming down 110 towards mound, >> I mean, this is going to look really gigantic. We do have the um the uh I think the north elevation maybe that's yeah that would be the the look from 110 and we're I don't know 70 80 feet back from the property line and probably another 20 or so feet back from the actual road or more. >> And that black area at the top, is that >> just decorative or is it what's [snorts] >> it's a bit decorative, but it's also the area where the the trusses are. We're also screening if we have any mechanical equipment on top. We want to keep, you know, we want to be sensitive to that as well. Um, >> it's Yeah, it's probably another I don't know, Wayne, what would the property line to the be? >> We're probably closer to >> Yeah. 60 or Yeah, 60 or 70 at the closest point. Or actually to the 70 60 at least 60 feet from the rightway actually to the road. We're probably looking at another 20 ft. So at least 8. >> How many units are in that building? >> I just I'm concerned about it com I think what you've done with this really challenging site is really great. >> Um and I think you've made a lot of concessions from your initial concept presentation >> which I really appreciate. I am a real stickler on this height issue, trying to keep mound um quaint still and not overpowering >> things. So that that that's my biggest concern. I think you've addressed a lot of the other challenges. Um, but just from a I don't know about the resident right next door. I mean, it's just going to change the the view for for the neighbors to the >> I see to the east. >> To the east. Yes. >> I I would challenge you to see if you could go down a floor. >> Oh, okay. [laughter] really change the entire concept of your >> then that will probably be a problem for the Met Council that >> consider that. >> Why would it be a problem for the Met Council? >> Well, I think they had some density standards they were trying to >> Yeah, there's the density. I just said that to Sarah like how are we going to do the density if that's the case >> for the Met Council. >> So, we'll have to think about >> and that's based on zoning. Is that right? No, the comprehensive plan. >> Oh, >> this site was guided for medium density residential. So, we could request an amendment to go to all low density residential, but we've already been told that our even this project as like the density, not the project going even the way that we're doing is still not quite what they would like because we're supposed to be hitting >> um >> a higher number of units per acre. Like every project should come in at five or more units an acre. So it's this is always the kind of the balance that we have trying to figure these things out. >> And of course the Met Council is constantly pushing density. >> Correct. >> So that is always our challenge. >> Correct. So >> and we have very few sites. >> Right. >> And and they are now on a right with this one. They were like well this project has to meet your minimum requirements of five units an acre but >> it's going to be five in the future. Right. I need to look that part up. >> Okay. um that so those are the things that that I I'm not trying to say we can't do it just we have to think about all those things >> and we can look into some more information about that between that's one of the reasons for us suggesting we start today find out what the conversation is so that we can have more information at the January meeting >> I think the only thing that maybe I'd add is that you know we are I mean if there's any if there's a place to put something that's got a little bit of density up against the county road is probably that location. You know, we're a long ways away from where the lake is. We're still within the trees. Um we still have a pretty reasonable setback from that road as it is. Um and so I mean I think that it it fits in pretty well. We can see what we can do about you know a little bit of reduction in in height, but I think taking the floor off will be a problem. So, >> can I just ask for example, um, Minnetonka Flats, where where did we end up with height on that? >> They're in the They're in the 35 range, >> right? And that's >> and and they're and they're in the downtown, too. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> I mean, that height >> they're Yeah, they're there. >> That's >> They're close. >> I I know they're going to be very >> Seems tall. Y >> and and our Tessa is that 50. >> That one I'd have to look. That one is over 35. >> No, I think it was 50 because I remember when it went through, we were like, how did this happen? >> I can't tell you. I can look it up, but I can't tell you at this exact moment. So, we can have that information just for perspective. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> We approved a four-story building. Great. Yeah, I think we did that versus doing a specific height number because sometimes it's sometimes we say four stories, right? We may have at that time because sometimes, you know, when you first get a preliminary plat, >> you think it's going to be this and then there have to be adjustments and then I, you know, you don't want to approve 50 feet and two inches and have them come at 50 feet and three inches and then you have to go through a big thing. So, but I don't remember. We can look it up for next time. Further questions for the applicant? >> Um, so the two questions I had before were about the impervious calculations. >> Okay. >> Were you using the the lot the resident single residential and kind of what calculations were you using for that? >> Um, at this point we were based on the information that we had at the time um from the progress that had been made on that that was proposed there. we are looking at um um or I guess you could say doing a separate calculation for them. So they're sort of a standalone and then having the rest of the project that is within the say the HOA would would would um would be calculated on its own as well. Yeah, it I guess it would be good to know just so that when they come to go build it, all of a sudden they can't build the house because >> you're taking too much space. >> No, that happens. >> Um, and then the the front deck, how are you going to uh get back through the uh 50 foot >> set back for the deck? >> Yeah. What was what's what's contemplated there is a is a previous paver. Um I think based on the comments that we've had from the the DNR and the other um u criteria that we have um that was shared with us. Uh we will look at adjusting. I think we still would like to have some aspect of a outdoor area that's closer to the lake than the than the side. Um, so we're thinking that would be a a discussion for as we further develop the plans. >> Will you be doing any kind of um shoreline treatment to protect the shoreline? Any kind of vegetation along the shoreline? I mean, what is what is the plan along the shoreline? Uh we haven't talked about it in in depth at this point, but um we'll probably um those areas where we can where we don't know, you know, around the area where we have the dock, we'll have some protections there for sure. We still want to have some access to the to the lake. Obviously, everybody, you know, wants to have that that availability. Um, so we'll do what's what we can to um protect the shoreline because obviously it's a benefit for everyone living there too. >> Sheldon, can you talk a little bit about that trail with regards to the material with the slope and the bluff? I just I with respect, I don't know that that is a good surface. The the intent is that the flat areas would be you know a wood mulch. Um but then anything that's on the slope on the on the bluff would then be stairs would be wood stairs and um you know so that anything that has any appreciable slope, let's just say which would be you know a risk for some sort of runoff or or um you know the wood being washed out. We would those would be stairs or >> that just feels like it's a maintenance nightmare respectfully. Okay. Yeah. You know um >> well I mean alternatively we I we do we are very much interested in doing it as a pvious baby and so it also could be a gravel path or something like that that would maybe be a little more stable. So that's the overall >> Have you had an opportunity to visit with the building official with regards to the sidewalks and and layout and all of that. >> I reached out to him. I haven't heard back yet >> because I just one of the questions I wrote down for myself is I I didn't because it's not really with respect not my sandbox, >> but whether or not those sidewalks or trails if there what those ADA standards and how those come into play with a private development. I just don't want to lose sight of that. >> Yep. Yeah. Very good. >> Further questions for the applicant. >> Okay. Sir, if you have a question or issue then you can come forward but not yet. [laughter] >> Okay. Thank you gentlemen. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I'd now like to open the public hearing uh for the comprehensive plan amendment and major subdivision preliminary plaque. Those in the audience who would like to address the commission, um, please come in turn. Uh, please be mindful of, uh, Rita's comments about trying to limit your u comments to about 3 minutes. And if somebody has already brought up an issue uh and we've heard it uh please refrain from bringing it up again uh because redundancy can take a lot of time. >> Opened up. >> So that said, who would like to step forward first? >> Would you sir? >> I open it. >> Okay. So I opened it. >> Okay. Please state your name and your address. My name is Gal Pyramis, 6619 Bartlett Boulevard. So my house is uh to the east from the condo unit and it's a one and a half story house. So having 50 ft building next to it, I wonder how it will look like, whether it affect negatively uh the property. Uh and also the traffic. Uh so according to my understanding, it will be a driveway between my property on the east and the garage. Uh so I cannot imagine myself whether it's a good thing or bad thing. So, I'm I'm asking you, >> well, your property was the one I was looking at when I brought up the comment of how it's going to affect the views of the neighbors to the east. So, I can see why where you would have some concern. >> Okay. So, should they be concerned? >> Well, I mean, that's if you're comfortable having to the west of you a building that's >> previously I was offered that my land will be purchased and will become part of this project for me it's ideal uh other solution is not ideal but of course we cannot force nobody to buy my land >> so back to the developers I'm ready if they are currently yes I'm concerned >> okay >> thank Thank you. >> Who's next in the audience that would like to address the commission? >> Yes, ma'am. >> My name is Beth Rancub and we live at 6680 County Road 110 and we also own 6690 1110. So, our properties are um pretty much directly across from the 50-foot condo. So, I'm very concerned about that. And then um you know, I mentioned well from the street side it really only look 30 feet, but I don't know how you get three stories with 10 foot ceilings and then the mechanical stuff on top of that and say the building's going to look 30 feet. Um, I don't know how that would be possible. And then he talked about like, well, there'll be trees and I, you know, I guess I'd like to see more of that. Um, and then the traffic is just a huge concern. It's so much traffic now. And I know the planner said, "Well, the county roads built for that." But, uh, it's I don't even know how we'd get out of our driveway, >> you know, 76 units and they probably all have two cars and, um, I just think it's a tremendous amount of traffic right in that area and, you know, half a mile down the road, it backs up on that four-way stop already. Um, those are my concerns. >> Thank you, Beth. Who's next? Okay, seeing none, we'll try one more time. >> [clears throat] >> Seeing none, I'd like then to close the public hearing and planning commission will now uh discuss this project amongst ourselves. So like to open it up for comments, questions, perspectives. Fire away. Commissioner Mcananey, I see you are >> Well, I think I've made my points. You know, I I am concerned about height. I am concerned about a lot of activity going in and out of just a couple of entrances and exits. Um, and I don't know how you can remedy that. um because 76 units. Again, I think you've done a really great job with this really challenging um property, but I am concerned about the density even though I know that that's what's expected of us, but I am concerned about it. >> Other comments? >> Well, I just want to say I I agree with you. I think the the height's an issue. I think the traffic's an issue. We've just heard two individuals comment on that as well. And I'm trying to think how we can [sighs] ease that, you know, and I don't know, is there a way, and this might be a question more for the the developer, to get some 3D modeling and get that height more accurate to see what that's going to be, how high above the tree line, what it's going to look like from the street view. We just don't have that in the drawings and the documents tonight. And and I would agree, I think that this is a tricky location. Um, I think it's very aggressive with the amount of properties that are going in there. I also have a lot of concerns about the traffic. I Henipin County can tell me all they want that that road is designed to meet and accommodate that, but that's not accommodating the traffic flow. So, I I do think that your concerns are are valid. Um, again, I don't know how we ease that in any way, but if we could do something with 3D drawings to see what that height would look like. Um, I think that might be helpful to kind of ease some of that. Um, I'm a little surprised we don't see it now, but um, like I said, we just don't have it, I think, in the drawings that were presented. I'm just trying to think of a way to ease all of your minds and rendering it. >> Yeah. I I don't even care if it's a Lego. just to show me the road and a Lego house on where that's going to go. >> Okay. Other comments, sir. >> So, I I I often like to think about this from an economic lens from the city also. Um just retail strategy being part of my background just a big driver of the success of local businesses is density. And I also note that we are on the low end of the guidance for the dens for the the gu the plan guidance on the density and could could you help me square that about what where the council's mind is at um where we're not wanting height this big but is would we want to push is the does the council want to push back against the density and have the density go lower? Is that what we're trying to do? I mean, I I I think we'd have to talk to the entire council. I think we all have had our own thoughts on this. >> Okay. >> But I think that from a resident standpoint, I think we get a very big challenge of trying to keep Mound quaint and unique, >> but still um you know, try to encourage business. >> Um and of course, it's our residents that keep businesses um >> you know, flourishing. um we're here to to approve businesses coming in that we can't guarantee the success of the businesses. That is up to the residents. So, yes, I think that the city council has had a challenge. um and and we don't have a lot of developmental space available. But I think you know the challenge is to try to keep things um still appropriate looking from a driving standpoint. It's a quaint town still. >> Yeah. Um, and that certainly drives the height adds density, but um, I think we have been a bit opposed to anything over three. It It just looks so It doesn't fit. >> Would Would you be worried at all about having three Minatrista 50s 50 foots and then a mound lower? You would be worried about that? >> Well, yes, but I have no control over Minista. Minatrista is, you know, growing, going to be growing leaps and bounds. We have no control over that. So, our job >> that many of us have been elected to do is to try to somehow maintain Mound's charm, but still try to, you know, keep keep uh business wanting to come in. >> Thanks, Lissa. The only last point that comes to mind is just remembering that we as a metro area, as a state, are in a housing challenge, right? And we don't have a lot of redevelopment opportunities in mound. So, I just it my my only worry I I would love to I completely like the desire for potentially lower heights. I I would be worried if it were cutting units personally, but um I wonder if there's anybody >> and tax dollars. >> Yes. >> Right. I mean, overall city tax dollars. >> We just don't get a lot of opportunities to do redevelopments like this. And if we can house more families in the city, that's just something that's on my mind. >> It's it's definitely a >> Yeah. mind. Makes >> sense. Um, personally, >> I'll go next. Are you done? Good. Okay. >> Um, I'm [clears throat] worried about the imperous surface number and, um, the amount of storm water that would actually be treated. Um, Holstead's Bay is an impaired bay, which means it's getting too much pollution. Okay. And so are we then adding to that with this particular development without having folding ponds that can handle the runoff not only from the development but also from the across the street that you mentioned. And so [snorts] I think I mean my personal concern would be that that we are being stewards of Lake Minnetonka and specifically of an impaired bay like Holsteads. Um so that's you know and storm water runoff is the number one pollutant. So uh you know how do we as a planning commission expect then developers to do their part now because you are taking out 55% of the trees right is that what you said they're keeping 45% of the trees >> 47 and then planting some more >> and planting >> they're planting another 20 trees I think >> right but to to look at that side by side. What [clears throat] are you removing all of that imper all of that um non-imperous or impervious, [laughter] however we want to say that surface and replacing it with imperous surface. Um it's, you know, how are you balancing that? And I I know you said three holding ponds, but I I don't have any numbers, right? I don't know how much storm water you're going to be treating and how much it's going to be handling. And so I think that's that's a really important factor that you need to come with because I think as a city we have to be concerned about that as we approve projects because it's through us the planning commission that we expect developers to meet those those requirements. What are some of the types of things we can ask to improve this? >> Well, we can we can ask for more planting areas. We can ask for larger storm water holding ponds. Um, we can ask for more buffer area down by the lake. We can ask for rain gardens around the around the developments, right? That takes some of the the drainage. There are things that we can request that the developer does. um to address that. It doesn't always have to be holding ponds. It just needs to be a process for making sure that we're protecting the lake. And that's why I joined the planning commission was to have these discussions right with developers. And that I think is really important for this particular entity um to keep in mind. >> How much lake shoreline is there for this? >> 120 ft. >> 120. >> 120, >> but it's a lot of drainage area. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. I know. It's a big huge sw. >> Yeah. >> On the flip side, it's probably all getting drained in right now. >> Yeah. Yeah, but it has all that >> well it has that imper the impervious surface >> that is then and the trees >> that are huge at actually um sucking up that storm water and protecting the lake. So >> so my my challenge is kind of the balance between the med council and and us. M I mean I think when you start looking at the like this type of plan it seems like this is too big for what the Met Council wants us to be here. Like if this was at Art Tessa I think that cond would look great. I think it looks nice compared to I think it looks nicer in our Tessa building actually. >> Um but these people aren't going to be walking to downtown either. Right. You're going to drive and they're going to drive on 110 and >> bring traffic through the 110. So I just I don't know what the opportunities are to to kind of balance that with what the Met Council wants for density >> secede to um Wright County I guess would be our only [laughter] >> our only our only chance. Well, and I would add that having a taller building, right, is actually better for the lake because you have less impervious >> surface, right, versus spreading out our buildings. If they were, if it was [clears throat] a fivestory condo building, right? And I'm just throwing that out. >> One less building, >> you put it all into one building, you have more area >> to naturally soak up the >> Yeah. Yeah. to handle the storm water and you can reduce your imperous surface because if the parking especially is underneath. >> So, okay. Further comments, >> going once, twice. All right, please turn to page 17 of your agenda. In the bottom paragraph, you see a recommendation >> that reads and I'll read part of it. >> Do you have something? >> Yes, I do. If that's okay. >> Go ahead. >> Not to interrupt. But first, Sarah asked me to remind anybody who's leaving to sign in so we know who is here. So, out on the podium there's a place to sign in. Could I summarize what I heard before we do a recommendation? >> Would that be okay? >> Sure. This is what I heard as your issues and things that if we have things to address between I don't make any promises these will all get addressed but what I wrote down were building height to get the Trista information other projects in mound just so you had the numbers of like how tall buildings were um conversation of could it be set farther back just add a few feet um traffic access and movement I we'll try and get more information that's always a fun one to have a conversation about but we will try um storm storm water. I'm not other than getting some revised impervious surface if there are updated information like the lot one that Mr. Baker said. Um there is a storm water report in the website attachments if you didn't see that. Um so there is detail that exists um as we'll have further conversations. I wrote down the Met Council density question, the ADA sidewalk trail, the 3D drawing or some perspective so you can understand that the lakeore >> what >> or Legos. Legos might [laughter] >> lakes shore deck, the shoreline vegetation. Um, council member Wallace mentioned. Um, those are the things that I wrote down as if we could have information. You would all appreciate information between now and January. Did I miss anything? Because that's what I wrote down and that's helpful for me to know what our charge is to try and help you. And then a list of conditions from all the other agencies so we can really figure out what's going on. >> Okay. Well, here's my list. Yes, sir. >> I'm sure [clears throat] that some of it's going to be redundant. >> That's okay, but I'll add to mine. >> I had uh >> Are there alternatives to holding ponds for water remediation such as rain gardens and perhaps other types of um resolution? >> Okay. >> Holding pond adequacy. I think there's concern about about that. with storm water runoff concern if we cut density. What's the issue regarding economics locally? >> Okay. >> The higher the density, the more possibility of people utilizing goods and services here. I had uh concerns about adjacent property owners. um what what the vision of uh of of the new buildings would be as they step out their front door or their side door or their back door. Uh adjacent property owner concerns regarding traffic vision of buildings from across the road. I think there's a lot of interest in that. What's it going to look like? We we know that the architect said that it's going to be somewhat quote buried end quote. Uh but what does it look like from the road or across the road? What will be done to protect the shoreline? concern about trails and the surfaces on the trails. We already talked about the building height issue. I think that that's a big issue. We talked about concern about additional traffic. Concern about dock allocation. I can see quote lots of discussion end quote amongst the new owners about who gets what and how are we going to squeeze more boats down on that shore. >> I can just tell you that right now. >> Plan for storm water. We talked about the uh north side of the amenity building. Um, we talked about that extending into the um, high watermark. Um, whether this is pvious or not, I think the architect would like it to be a little more u dressed up than that. So, I think that needs to be addressed and we never talked about open space calculation. >> You are correct. We did not have a conversation about it. >> So, those are the ones that I had. >> Okay. Awesome. Thank you very much. Nice to walk out of here with the list. >> The the last I'll add is it's it's not in uh not uncovered by the list you just mentioned, but I'm really interested in the interplay of height, density, and the various drivers of density requirements that are overlapping. Um in particular, let's say, um what would happen if we wanted to uh honor the 35 foot height? um what what are some reasonable things that we could ask and how would that impact the number of units and I was tracking Matt council asks I was tracking density for our own comp plan and then also density requirements with respect to shoreline and those are all too much for me to track for this for this like what would happen if we asked for 35 ft. Um, so just helping get smart about what would change if we >> if we wanted to ask for a height reduction. >> Anything else? >> I do I do have one other thing that we talked about early on, which is the parking down by the um >> amenity building. >> Yeah, the amenity building. um he talked about having maybe 10 to 15 people use the amenity building, but of course you you're not going to regulate that. So the only concern I would have is that they're going to be parking along the road there [clears throat] if they can't. >> So adequacy of parking for the amenity building, that would be your issue. >> Yeah. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thanks, Rita. >> Yeah. Thank Thank you, Rita. >> Okay. >> Okay. Once again, then please turn to page 17 of the agenda. The bottom paragraph, I'm going to paraphrase it. At this time, no staff recommendation is being provided given the complexity of development and the proposed flexibility being s sought with the PUD. In addition, um staff just received on November 24 25 uh additional information. U staff, consultant, agencies, utilities have not had sufficient time to review and provide updated comments. So staff and I want to refresh everyone's memory. We do have an amendment to the agenda that is pretty substantive in terms of >> um concerns and so we would remand these to staff to review and uh and be prepared to respond to. I'm kind of surprised that the authors weren't here tonight, but uh that's their prerogative. So staff then recommends that we table consideration of the major subdivision preliminary plat and land use applications to the January 6 meeting of the planning commission. >> I will make a motion to table planning case number 2512 uh to the January 6, 2026 planning commission meeting. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. Discussion hearing. None. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Those opposed, nay. >> Motion carries. Unless you all want to hear a bunch of other stuff, which probably [laughter] not. Um, that would be the end of our discussion of this project tonight. Thank you for coming. >> Thank you for coming, everyone. >> Thank you. >> All right. You're warning us. [snorts] I know. How bright is it going to be? >> Adjust your eyes. >> Oh, okay. You might recall and I'm looking at the clock. Um, I think our rules say we will Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for coming. >> Thank you everyone. Thank you for coming. >> Very appreciate it. >> Thank you. I think our rules say that uh we will try to be done by 9:00. Now I'm aware that uh everyone has other issues in their life. Um but we did agree that we would be uh discussing exterior storage and I think I asked everybody to take the ordinance home >> and to identify those areas that you'd like to address. So that said, I think maybe the best way to do this is to go around the table and give everybody an opportunity uh to speak and to identify areas that they're uh concerned about or areas that they're um satisfied with. Uh and uh that said, let me start way down here and I'll start with you. Okay. >> Um I interviewed a number of my neighbors recently as I'm going to be reapplying for the position planning commissioner to see what their concerns were. Overwhelmingly they said get the junk out of the yards. >> Junk out of the yard cars uh storage overall. So, um I guess with that in mind, they said, you know, they don't have to build better, bigger houses, but they said you go into other neighborhoods and there isn't um a bunch of storage in yards. So, they're saying no storage. So, >> the individual you spoke to, they said no storage. >> Well, they said it just looks they drive through the mound and it just looks kind of junky. So that's this end of the table. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Well, it's probably the whole table, but >> Okay. Anything else? >> No. >> Sam, >> um I I glanced at it. I did my homework, but I didn't have a full view of it. I'm going to acknowledge that because the last two weeks went pretty quick. But I think this is I know we talked a little bit about it at the last meeting. And one of I mean it's just such a weird topic but I think the bigger part for me comes down to the execution of if we can't enforce it and so that's where I kind of get stuck. I agree there's parts where we have to fix it. I think it's weird to say absolutely no storage. I think it's finding the right appropriate recommendations or guidance on what is >> acceptable storage. But um I I still get hung up on the enforcement part and it kind of blurs I think my judgment on this topic a little bit but um I agree it's a problem. >> Um and I think where we need to maybe provide more guidance is what is acceptable storage. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Jason >> ready. >> Yes sir. >> Jason. >> All right. Um, sections E, F, G, and H on here all seem like they should go under section B, developed lots >> because when you're reading through here, >> you get to develop lots. That's the only place you can have any [clears throat] storage >> for the recreation vehicles, motorized vehicles, watercraft, all of the stuff on there. you can't have an undeveloped lot. So, it seems like it fits better under developed lots like have subsections under there. Um, we can talk later about like the maximum number of six. >> Yeah. >> One thing we don't talk about in here at all is we say they have to be operable. I don't know what operable means. Can I turn a car on? It can't. It's got no wheels. Is it operable? >> What's the definition? My understanding is they have to move on their own accord on the property. >> Should we put that in here somewhere? >> Maybe. Yeah. >> Good. >> Because it's different for other people. >> If it if it starts but it hasn't moved in six years, is it operable? >> You know, should you have some type of requirement of it has to move every so often? They can't just be sitting on blocks, but I can turn it on and it works. Um, we talked about last time that we don't really have a definition of if it's on pvious or impervious surface. >> Like if it's if it's a class five driveway, it's treated the same as parking on grass, which seems >> we should address that differently. Um I don't know what this whole section uh H is storage of special mobile equipment. I don't know what special mobile equipment is. That seems like we can just get rid of that whole section. I don't even know what would fall under that >> or or explain it >> or >> rightain in the definition. >> Would that be like a bobcat for example >> or a trailer or >> I don't know. Is it like all other? >> Could it be a >> if it doesn't fall into the rest of the stuff? >> Lawnmower riding lawnmower. I don't know. [clears throat] >> We're at a disadvantage because the field officer isn't here tonight. >> I think he was called to the fire department once again. >> Oh no. >> Um the other part was >> for lakeshore lots. We call out storage meets required setbacks and have no significant impact on lake views to adjacent lakeshore properties. Um I don't know what significant impact is like if I have to look over and I see it. Is it an impact to my view? I don't know. And normally we say that you don't have a right to the view to the lake. >> So through someone else's lot, >> right? Um, and then also I some of the things on here with five feet from the property line. I think that has to do then with whether it's a grass or is it paved or like class five like if my class 5 goes right up to the property line that's treated the same as if it's on grass. So I think it goes back to that >> setbacks. Where do members feel about hard versus soft? Well, I don't think we need to ask people to add imperous surfaces. >> Yeah. >> Right. Right. >> But maybe it's clarifying a designated area. >> Right. Your whole yard can't be a storage spot. >> Right. I mean, maybe it's uh >> it's the hardest. >> I don't know. I mean, you don't want to add impervious surfaces, >> right? >> So, how do you >> But you want to protect it, you know? I mean, I think the concern is is it >> is it screaming >> junk that's leaking fluids that's going to get in the, >> you know, so maybe it's speaking to that and providing that oh >> that clarity that it's >> right, >> you know, on the other hand, >> the surface doesn't matter. What matters is what's going onto the surface. >> Yeah, imperous surface is highly desirable for a lot of uses, >> you know, parking a boat, for example. >> Right. Right. >> So, I think we need to keep that in mind. >> Okay. And then the only other one I had on here was under the develop lots where it lists like recreational vehicles, motorized vehicles, says objects screened by tarp or other screening devices. >> I would take that out. Like I don't want something with a tarp over it. That seems like that is exactly what we're trying to get rid of. >> And we have a lot of that. >> Yes. >> Oh, by the way, >> right? >> I have one across the street from me. >> Yeah. Is that like a a paper garage is what I've heard is >> No. Well, it's objects screened by tarp. >> Oh, so it's not even any sort of structure. It's just covered by tarp or any other screening device. >> I don't know what we're trying to put into it. >> So maybe that's not a paper garage, quote unquote. >> I don't I don't know if that's what it's meant to be or not. We really don't even have Now you're saying that I don't even know if we have anything in here for >> that type of >> that type of >> is an accessory building. What is that? If you have one of those portable garages, what is that? Is that considered a shed? >> We have membrane structures. >> Membrane structure. >> We're talking about uh >> that would be a membrane structure in your >> We're talking about a frame with a tarp over the top. a member membrane structure >> membrane structure. You actually are one of actually one of the few cities that actually have specific regulations about that. >> So that's not listed at all in here in exterioral storage, right? That's somewhere else then >> in a sensory structures. It's it's in 194 different than a tarp though. >> Well, it says tarp or other screening device. >> Yeah. Well, then they might be talking about they us whomever >> like screening, you know, if you're if you're friends and nobody can see it. That might be, but I think if if I'm hearing you, you're what you're moving towards is that you don't think having a tarp over it is appropriate screening. It maybe that needs to come out. >> Correct. And if I throw a huge 30ft tarp over 16 things that counted as one in [laughter] >> the way I read it. >> Yeah. >> A mass of stuff. >> I only have one thing. It's just really big tarp. [laughter] >> That's it for me. >> Okay. So, I I missed the last meeting and I missed the homework. Um, just from a procedural question, um, are we planning on trying to make a decision on this in the next meeting? No. No. >> No. We're taking the feedback that we're hearing. This is just feedback to staff >> to review it >> and then then they take it from >> we're going to start >> and private feedback would not be welcome because we are a public >> if you look at it and provide feedback directly just to Sarah. Okay. We can still take it. >> Okay. Yes. >> So then I I'll I'll go ahead and take that feedback offline if I may. Mr. Good. Uh, in the definition of the code is special mobile equipment in the definition section on the screen. >> Okay. >> That that went back to Mr. Baker. [clears throat] >> When you don't know, sometimes you have to look in 1292 where the definition. >> Can you make that bigger? >> But you can't read it all that. >> So, I will do it, but then we'll have to just zoom back and forth. That's better. >> So, >> when you get to the end of the sentence, I can move it over. There's no in between. I've tried >> ditch. Do you want to read it? Do >> you want to just read it? I mean, it's like equipment. Do you need to read it or >> ask? Sure. I would I would like you to read it. >> All right. See, it says every vehicle not designed or used primarily for the transportation of persons or property and only incidentally operated or moved over a highway, including Oopsie. Oopsie. Hit that something. Sorry, just trying to get to the thing. Uh, including but not limited to ditch digging equipment, moving dollies, pump hoist, other well-drillin equipment, street sweeping vehicles, other machinery such as asphalt spreaders, batuminous mixers, yes, construction stuff, bucket loaders, tractors other than truck tractors, ditchers, leveling graders, finishing machines, motor graders, road rollers. I knew there was going to be a word I don't even know. Scarifiers moving equipment. >> Are they trying to >> That could be any number of things. >> This was written >> just considering it's that >> I don't even know what half those things are. >> So if we go back to where it's being used, the exterior storage of those things we just read >> shall be prohibited exclusive if they're actually having a building permit. So if you're getting your house built and you need something to dig, >> you can have it on there. Otherwise, you permanently can't have construction equipment >> on your residential zone property. >> Okay. Thank you. Why don't we call it that? >> Makes sense. >> Construction. >> I don't know. >> So that would go along with So if we indented E, FG, and H >> under the develop lots. >> Yeah, we >> then everything else after that is prohibited. >> Reorganization will be beneficial too. >> Okay, moving on. Did you want do you want some more? >> No, he's up. Okay, I'm up. I'm up. Okay. So, um, a couple of of notes is I think as a city we need to work with the police department on enforcement and we need to have specific guidelines for that like to to decide do you get one warning and then 30 days to rectify it and then in 30 days if it's not rectified you get a ticket right and you make it significant enough that it makes people change and I think That's kind of the biggest deal is if you just keep issuing warnings or talking to people and trying to get them to do it, then they know inherently you're not going to do anything. And I I can attest that for 13 years I've lived off of Noble Lane and nothing has changed during that time, even despite complaints. So, um I think that's huge. I think there needs to be a um smaller limit to the number of so on the developed when it talks about trailers, motorized vehicles. Um I was looking at some other cities that look at three as being the maximum. Um when it comes to some of these things like having a water and I I was thinking about it in terms of okay, you have a boat, you have an ice house. You have a jet ski, right? I mean, that's three items and they're not always there. >> Should I do a counter point to that? >> Sure. >> Because what's in here is for every 1500 square feet, you get one. >> Yeah. >> So, if you have a 10acre lot, you get three. >> That's where that number came in there. >> So, if you only have a small 50 foot wide lot 40, you know, 100 ft deep, >> you wouldn't get six. >> That's where that's where you got to kind of play with the numbers. And we don't know what the right number is. >> Yeah. So we know that people exceed that. So 1,500 square feet is >> what? Oh, give me give me what is that? 10 >> 30 by 50. >> 30 by 50. Is that what's our normal lot size? >> 5,000. >> Uh 6,000 is a is minimum. >> So that's four. >> 6,000 is minimum. And so that's four. >> Gives him four. So, so maybe that number needs to go up. So, maybe it's by 1,500 square feet. Maybe that's too small. >> Yeah. >> So, a normal lot you can have four things. Um, and that's 6,000 square feet. Well, what about the little larger lots, >> right? Then you go up to six if it's, >> you know, I get it if it's like acres and stuff and you've got the back woods you can put stuff on, >> but people aren't complaining about people storing in the back woods. right? They're they're complaining about people storing it on a normal lot size. Um and then something the setback of five feet from the property line is really small. Um if you What's our setback for sheds? >> Uh depending on location, if it's in the backyard, um four and four. >> Oh, it's four. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Except on a Lake Charlotte. >> Okay. Between the front and the back, then it's six. >> And maybe and maybe it's um a limitation that you you can't store in the front yard. >> I think the challenge too is we don't have clean lots either. I mean, there's parts where >> That's true. >> They're all funky, >> you know. So, I think that's hard to kind of say >> nothing can ever be, you know, on the side or in the front because for some of these houses that might be the only spot they got. Yeah, >> unfortunately. You know, >> I mean the definition. So, yes. So, yeah, that that is an issue. >> Um there are people that have multiple sheds um temporary sheds. Maybe it's a a greenhouse or a a tarp, a temporary garage shed or whatever. Do we do we call that out here? Uh that's limited in 129-194 in terms of the number that you can have for total. >> Yeah. >> Um accessessor sheds I think is exempt out of that, but it it would it normally gets in with your hard cover, but that's certainly something we can look at. >> But some of them are like movable, >> right? And to be clear on that, um, that like Spring Park says three recreational vehicles and they all have to be on hard surfaces. >> So if you're storing a boat, if you're storing a a ice house, you know, they need to be on hard surfaces or and having a designated spot like that makes it cleaner, I think, from a storage standpoint. So I guess what I would look at and there was uh I think it was St. Bonafacious I was reading um anything that makes it look junky you know like it had a thing like the whole purpose of this >> is is not to deteriorate property values. >> Yeah. >> Right. And so doing it in a way I don't think people are going to complain about something unless it looks junky. Right. you know, that's really subjective, too. We've had to >> we've had people >> who we've issued citations to, you know, and they they come up and speak on their behalf and >> they claim they've been working for a month trying to get things cleaned up and in their mind it looks fantastic. So, I think if we aren't really specific, you know, it's very subjective on what people consider acceptable and and not acceptable. So maybe that's just fluff language and maybe not not enough of a directive. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think that's a good way to put it. Um, so maybe it's just saying, hey, you know, if you're going to have your RV, if you're going to have your your ice house, that needs to be in a designated area on a designated hard surface or driveway or >> Well, it varies by house >> or by lot. >> It varies by driveway layout. It's it it's hard to >> regulate that I think. >> What is our authority to enforce? >> Say again. >> What's our what is our authority to enforce? >> We don't have any. >> We don't have any. >> That's the issue. >> So what do you find when people come up and talk about citation the authority? >> Well, it's >> that's another discussion that I think the council's working on. >> We are working on that. >> Yeah. >> What's the toolbox? what the what the enforcement is. >> Part of it is we're a statuto piece that we can't impose fines. We have to go through >> legal and then do a civic, you know, if we want to impose >> deep pain to our problem, you would do a civic, you know, you go to court civically or you can get, you know, OPD involved. But that's not easy either. you know, they're they're we're kind of in a in a little bit of a problem where it's almost like the perpetrators succeed, but the people complaining don't. You know, we're we're in sort of that. >> It is totally >> and it's really frustrating and it's like they're given all the chances in the universe no matter how many complaints we get. So that is something that we we talk a lot about and they talk about that in the police commission meetings and >> and do we know like what other how other cities are dealing with some of this? I mean are they having similar problems? >> Some other cities have statutory authority. >> Yeah. Yeah. Statutory a you know at Trista Statuto. So it's it all is there there are a lot of designations within what kind of city you're regulated in. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But I think the the bottom line is that I think we're trying to approach it multi-pronged uh you know whatever the workflow is better communication >> better quicker faster you know what is the what's the process to get from A to B to C um you know better enforcement >> better followup quicker followup and and some of it also is going to come down to staffing as well >> and cooperation between departments between inspect protections, uh, PD, our field officer, you know, because we all assist in that capacity and, you know, so and there is no cut and dried process that works the best. Everybody has a little different approach and I think every property is a little bit different approach but it's staying on top of it and and you know we I think we're all trying to work cooperatively and one is looking at just the exterior storage what we have that's just one >> piece of it the enforcement the staff time the you know >> because we are complaint based the followup communication I think all those things are being looked at. >> Yeah. So just to summarize my what I would recommend is I would recommend that we re-evaluate the number per square foot and that on a standard and to limit it that on a standard city lot that the maximum would be three. Um and I don't know if our average city lot is 6,000 or if that's just our minimum, right? Um, but I would say on an average city lot that you could only have three >> because you could do both, right? You could have the per square foot with a global maximum. So that small >> Yeah, that's kind of how it is written right now. But I would also clarify what counts to [snorts] that, >> right? Because you could have a trailer piled up with stuff, right? Junk. Is that one item or is that do you count all the junk that's piled up on it? So like for instance, if it's a boat on a trailer, I would say that's one, >> right? >> If it's a trailer with a topper with a bunch of other junk on top of it >> and a tarp on top of that >> and then a tarp on top of that. Then no, that's not just one. That's a heap of junk, you know. So, it's being very clear on that and also a designated area for those for that. >> Your entire yard is not you can't use 100% of your yard. >> Well, some some homes that's all they've got. You know, some homes you have a driveway that barely fits a car. >> True. True. True. you know, and and we just have so many unusual >> Well, and I think that the field officers can kind of make that call, but if you had a designated area where you were parking or putting all of this material, I think that's really the key, right? If you had that designated area. >> So, those those would be my comments as well as enforcement. >> Yeah. >> Kath, >> well, I am in 100% agreement with Samantha. I and what I would like to see is, you know, as I mentioned at our last meeting, we're really talking about trying to budget for whether it be a full-time or part-time that designates 100% of that time to compliance and to actually going out and you know, we get we are a complaint based city, but the frustration is we get they can complain 10 15 times and nothing changes. And we're all frustrated with that. All of us. Um, council residents, you know, it's just really, really frustrating. So, our goal for 2026 is to really see if we can get, you know, Andy does such a great job with the limited amount of time he has, but he really doesn't have probably the right amount of time that we need to have a successful compliant officer getting us results. So what I would like to see is if we can get that person in place. I'd like to take you know a six nmonth period and see what does get cleaned up. I mean some of this we've allowed to go on for so long be and I'd be willing to guess we all see the same properties. We all know what we're talking about, which properties those are, you know, and if you've got 5% of the prop properties that are really a problem, you know, if we can get those cleaned up, I'd like to see what this looks like going forward with actual enforcement and and and maybe it is going down to three per 1500 square feet. I don't know what it is, but I have a hard time making a decision on that because nothing's enforced. >> Right. >> Right. So if if we had actual true full-time enforcement within that job, whether it's halftime, >> well, that person could help to recommend a change to the ordinance, too, to clarify because if they're struggling to enforce because of language here, >> that would be something >> that is part of it. But but I think and I mean Sarah, you've been here for so many years. You've been through so so much of this. Don't you think that if we had somebody who can donate or devote 100% of their time to all the complaints that we get in a day and maybe we need to add that to be a full-time person? You know, we don't know because we just haven't. This hasn't been a priority and I think we all know that. But for us, it is a huge priority because it's just a challenge year after year after year. Nothing changes. So if you were going to put a number on it, what percent would you say is because we don't have the right regulatory framework and what percent is because we don't have the right compliance important. Is it >> I mean for me it could be 5050. I don't know because there's so >> that's understanding. >> There's so few cases that you actually see a result. >> Got it. >> So you know I think I think it's hard to dedicate a lot of time on this till we start seeing some results so we can actually make some informed decisions. based on that >> and and and again, I am, as I mentioned at the last meeting, I am probably a little more forgiving with this just because we have so many bizarre lots and we are a lakefront community, but I I do agree that we could clean things up significantly and still allow most people to have their stuff where they can fit it. Again, it's it's all about enforcement for me and across the board with everything with mount enforcement and OPD many times and we talk about this a lot too. >> Again, if the language isn't right, there's nothing they can do because they're going to get harassed or they're going to get called out. So, it's just such a frustrating uphill battle, >> you know, with all of this. But, you know, I appreciate that everybody's talking about this because >> this all goes into I think reinforcing the fact that we are on the right track and just knowing that we need to get more hands on with compliance. >> I mean, I would I would struggle to have a full-time person enforcing it because I'm sure Sarah's overwhelmed with all of her jobs. Well, there's a lot of budget budget things you have to, you know, there there's >> it's a big picture, you know, full-time your your benefits and we're dealing with budget, but >> yeah, >> I think we're going to do the best we can within our budget to try to tackle this problem and and at that point, I think hopefully we're going to start seeing a lot of these issues go away. But that's hefty hope. >> Well, let's hope you're right. >> Thank you, everyone. >> Okay. Anything else, Kath? >> Um, >> from from this standpoint? >> You mean >> from from the exterior storage standpoint? >> No. No. >> Okay. Anything else from anyone else on the commission regarding exterior storage? >> Is it a different process to address the issue if it's a visible environmental hazard or is it still default to complaintbased? So, if there's a car and it's leaking a bunch of stuff and it's been sitting there for three years or however long, I mean, does someone still have to complain and say this car is leaking anifreeze or can the city intervene because it's a potential hazard to the environment? >> Well, we have a a building in in mound that has all of the above that you just >> Well, that's what I was thinking about too. The the building that has >> and you know, nothing has happened. It's something absolutely every single day somebody is calling Jesse and saying what is being done about this? You know, it's just it's just ongoing. So, yes, I that that's a great question. >> Which building is it? >> What's the old >> car maintenance place, wasn't it? That we didn't we have Isn't it the one >> by Surfside? The It used to be a car facility. >> That's the one that you're talking about that leads U-Haul. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The old U-Haul Wayne 66. you know that's been in ownership now going on it'll be three years that maybe four years this December I think that was purchased and we have regular conversations about that building and the owner and what the owner plans to do and how we can get things speed sped up but you can talk to that there's nothing we can do to comply something to speed things up even with complaint So MPCA like Minnesota Pollution Control can't >> Well, I don't know if they I don't know if they've been involved yet, but I'm sure once they do, who knows what's underneath that building. There's probably barrels and barrels of >> I mean, they might be a phone call, [laughter] >> you know, stories. >> Yeah, I'm sure. >> Okay. Anything else? Hearing none, let us move on. We have uh city council liaison Kath. Anything for us? >> Um well, just so you know, because you were asking about this a couple meetings ago. So for the interviews um for the commissions, >> um this is going to happen. I'm not sure by the end of the day. It was going to be a workshop. It may be 4:30 or 5 for sure, but we were hoping to get 4:30 because we've got six applicants. So we can have 15 minutes per applicant. And this is for all parks um planning and docs. Um but I don't think they were able to get a hold of everybody to find out if that will be 4:30 or 5, but it will be next Tuesday and it's open meeting. >> So obviously anybody who wants to be there can can be there. Um and then I think at the end of the agenda is when we'll vote. on who will be um nominated. I I know you had all had questions about that. So, if that helps anybody and good luck to you. >> I'm studying up. [laughter] >> Just to clarify, however, um we have not noticed for uh planning commission uh list of possible quorum for for Tuesday's meeting. >> Okay. Well, >> this is why I I talked to Jesse or emailed Jesse this morning because I said I know planning commission is interested in the procedure of this. So, if you want to talk to that, >> you you want me to visit with Jesse in the morning? >> Yeah, maybe you should. I mean, if if a number of planning commission is going to planning on being there, then we'll have to put out a notice that >> Yeah. >> So, maybe >> I will visit with Jesse Jesse in the morning. >> Yeah. Yeah. And then the only other thing I want to mention is tomorrow is Noah's last day, >> uh, our finance director, and he's he's just one of those hard, you know, tireless workers who has been with us for, I think, 11 or 12 years, and he's just he's just a gem. So, he's really going to be missed. And he's really um moving up in his career career move. So, this is a really great career move for him. But, we're going to really miss him. He's been just awesome. >> Have you replaced him? >> Not yet. He just put in his reservation. >> Okay. >> And then I guess merry Christmas to everybody. >> Happy New Year. >> Yes, that. >> Okay. Uh Sharon, >> uh thank you, Miss Mcani. I will circle back with Jesse in the morning on that. Um so in the event that we have to put out a notice for a possible quorum if members want to attend >> and and that might go with parks, too. And I I don't I don't think that anybody I think there were two open spots on docks. >> Um but I I don't think there were any applicants for docks. >> I I mean other than the people who want to be revamping their >> Yeah. We'll visit generically about all three boards. >> Yeah. I mean because this is new I you know I'm curious too about the procedure and making sure it's accurate information for everybody. So >> Yep. Um, thank you. Uh, for anybody who was at Treelanding a couple weeks ago, it was lovely. >> Awesome. >> Um, I downtown just looked absolutely stunning. The group did a great job. Public Works Parks did a great job. It was great to see everybody out there. It was lovely. That that really has become quite a beautiful, just a spectacular event. And driving home when you see that, it's lovely. Um the other the other thing members may may recall at our concurrent meeting last I think February um and also was recently talked about I think at the council workshop a couple of meetings ago uh the the council is going to be looking at uh skinny up the planning commission going from 9 to 7 >> um because we through attrition uh and that includes the council liaison and so that ordinance is going to be on next Tuesday's agenda as well. And then clarifying, you know, the role of the liaison that they can vote and discuss and all that. So that is u moving forward as well. >> Oh yeah. >> Um other than that, happy holidays. Hope everybody had a great Thanksgiving. Thank you for your kind consideration for all the discussion this evening as well. >> Never a a meeting goes by that you don't learn just a ton. You guys all have so much knowledge. Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> We have a motion to adjourn. We have a second. We have discussion hearing. None. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Post. Nay. Motion carries. Thank you for coming. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.