The hammer's been dropped. I see it's 6 o'clock. I'd like to call to order the Tuesday, November 18, rescheduled meeting of the Mount Planning Commission. Roll call, please. >> Planning Commission Council Liaison Kathy Mcaney. >> Hi. >> Planning Commission Member Sher Wallace >> here. >> Planning Commission Vice Chair Jason Baker >> here. >> Planning Commission Member Drew Heel >> here. Planning Commission Member Samantha Wacker >> here. >> Planning Commission Member Kristen Young >> here. >> Planning Commission Chair David Good >> present. You should have received the agenda via email from Sarah. >> Are there any changes to the agenda? Hearing none, chair would entertain a motion to approve the agenda as distributed. >> Motion to approve the agenda as distributed. >> Second. Motion and second discussion hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I oppose. Nay. >> Motion carries. >> You also received via email meeting minutes of the regular September 2, 2025 meeting of the planning commission. Are there any changes to those minutes? Hearing none, the chair would entertain a motion to approve the minutes as distributed. >> Motion to approve minutes as distributed. >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Discussion. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Those opposed? Nay. >> Motion carries. Board of adjustment and appeals. We have planning case 25-11. Good evening, uh, Chair Good, members of the planning commission, uh, staff, applicants, and guests. I'm Sarah Smith. I'm the planner, uh, and I will be presenting an overview of the first variance case that we have on tonight's agenda. Uh planning case number 2511 is for a lakeshore variance for the property at 5459 Bartlett Boulevard. Uh they are requesting removal of an existing pvious paver that's on the lake side of the property. >> Turn the lights. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Thanks for your indulgence here. We'll make it a little bit easier to see. Um the property owners uh recently purchased the property at the subject address and they are requesting a variance approval to replace that existing uh hard surface patio ongrade with a pvious atgrade deck in the same location. Uh the the existing improvement which is basically a lakeside patio was constructed by a former owner. Um it is not meeting the lakeshore setback. It's also contributing to hard cover and the Finsson family recently purchased the property uh earlier this summer and they would like to replace that existing at grade uh concrete or landscape patio with a non-roofed no hard cover underneath uh atgrade deck with quarterinch openings in the same location. Uh and so because the existing structure is not meeting current setbacks, uh they do need a variance to allow replacement of that structure uh in its current location on the rear or south side of their property at 5459 Bartlett Boulevard. Next slide, please. Um included on the on the overhead, uh you'll see the location of the subject plot. Uh it includes an existing single family home on the south side of Bartlett Boulevard. It's zoned R1 guided low density. Uh there is an existing house on the property. There is also an existing uh detached garage and guest cottage on the property. Um there was uh an approval back in 2017 for a previous owner that allowed them to do a expansion permit by putting on a garage edition and a master suite. Uh, it also allowed hard cover on the property up to 45%. Next slide, please. Uh, included on the on the overhead, you'll see uh the uh what I would call a enlarged uh version of the of the structure. Basically, this is the house. This is the location of the existing uh patio. Uh it's also the same box that they are proposing to take up that concrete or landscaped patio and replace that with a uh pvious atgrade deck that would not count towards hard cover. Um as depicted on the survey, you'll see that the existing house does not meet Lakeshore setback. Therefore, this existing structure which is about 14 ft out extending from the south side of the house also does not meet the code. I think one of the important things to remember specifically with this regard with this particular case is that this structure is coming out. It's contributing towards hard cover and it's being replaced with an atgrade structure very similar but it will remove uh that square footage that's currently counting towards their overage um on the on the subject property at present. Um as is noted this is a lot of record. We do allow 40% hard cover subject to best management practices. The property has about 45% or was allowed 45% hard cover as part of the expansion permit. Uh information provided by uh the property owner representative is we think they're about 43 to 44%. But with the changes that they're proposing to make, specifically with the replacement of the hard deck to a soft deck in the same location, it will actually bring hard cover down under the 40% which we view as favorable as staff. Um included on the graphic, you'll see uh some of the changes that they're proposing to make. hard hardcape removal with some landscaping uh the the the existing pvious patio concrete pad below um as well as some removal up here. Uh those are all tasks or items that they're looking at uh removing so as to get them under the 40% allowance uh for a lot of record. Um as is normal and customary, we did route the application to staff, consultants, departments, agencies. We did receive a comment back from uh the area hydraologist uh from the DNR who who uh reviewed the variance and offered a recommendation that if the variance was to be recommended for approval and approved by the council. They would uh offer a courtesy comment that we include a comment to require a shoreline buffer um to help minimize wave action to compensate, you know, for the for the setback, but basically to to help with the overall uh encroachment into the lakeshore setback. We did provide that information to the property owner who expressed that they are receptive. They're also um very mindful of improvements that are being made to the property as they they want to incorporate as many improvements related to water quality and storm water management and soft improvements from it to improve the overall environmental and ecological uh conditions on the property and we again view that as favorable. Um, the planning commission's role this evening is to review the application with the applicant, see if there might be comments from folks that might be joining us as adjacent property owners or neighboring property owners. Uh, as is normal and customary, we did send out notice uh to folks that are in the subject area went down a couple of uh a couple of lots um because we feel that they would be the most impacted specifically on the lakeside. I have not received any comments, but we could have some folks here. Um, other than the comment that we've received back from uh the DNR and comments of no comments from Hannipan County, those are the only responses that we've received on the variance request. Um, the planning commission can consider the application with the recommendation of approval that's been offered by staff subject to findings and conditions. You can if you feel that there's additional information that's required, you can visit with staff and or the applicant and or the representative about that. And if you're comfortable moving forward with a recommendation, then that recommendation would be forwarded on to the city council for action at an upcoming meeting. Uh the I believe the applicants and the and their representative, Mr. Scott Gates are here and I'm sure they'll be happy to respond uh to any questions that either members of the planning commission or any of our guests or our staff may have. As I indicated, we we as staff did offer a recommendation of approval uh in the planning report to include both findings and conditions and that does include the the condition recommended by the DNR to incorporate a landscape natural buffer. Um and with that, I will be happy to answer any questions. I also just want to point out from a housekeeping perspective that we are monitoring the 60-day clock. Uh if we do need an additional time, I think we have until on or around December uh for the council to make the decision, we would execute a 60-day extension, but we'll see where everything goes from this evening and moving forward at a future council meeting date. And I will be happy to stand for questions. >> Questions or comments for Sarah? >> I have a question, Sarah. >> Yeah. Um, so my understanding is that a deck is considered hard cover. So how did versus versus a a patio, how did you calculate that? >> So the patio existing counts towards hard cover. Yeah. >> Because it the water does not go through >> right >> when that comes out and a deck goes in. As long as it doesn't have a roof, it has quarter-inch openings, and it doesn't have landscaping with plastic or anything hard underneath, we do not consider that to be hard. So therefore, the replacement of the existing patio coming out and the new deck that's proposed results in a decrease of hard cover in the in the square footage of the current foot. >> Have we seen the design for the deck? Do we know it it's not butdding up close to that? I mean, that might be a good >> um we haven't received the building permit yet, but that's that's why in in order for it to be not counted, that has to be demonstrated. But I think Mr. Gates or the property owners will be able to to weigh in on that. But that is one of that's the I would say that that's one of the highlights of the proposed change is that we're going from hard to soft with the new deck and and it's still on grade and it's not getting any bigger. Well, and I wonder if that needs to be in the recommendations, you know, as we go forward is that it has to it can't have the >> Yeah, it needs to qualify as pvious. Right. >> Right. Right. >> It's a it's a it's a good comment. >> Right. Sure. >> Thank you, Miss Wallace. >> Yeah. >> Further questions or comments for Sarah. >> And then another condition you did talk about is permits from other agencies. So they would be required to get a permit from the um MCWD >> if if either a permit or a waiver if it triggers their amount. The the wershed gives us a little bit of discretion for soil disturbance that if it falls within certain boxes and we don't think it meets we can approve it but if we're >> but it is within the >> but it's it's within their purview. Yes, it's within the watershed district. Yeah, we have an understanding with their staff like certain small things don't trigger it but if we feel that it's close we have them reach out to the wershed. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Y >> this recommendation for a buffer >> talk to me a little about a recommendation. Is it doesn't sound like it's mandatory? >> It's not mandatory. I I but we have seen this in in a recent case earlier this year when there was work in the in the in the bluff andor the bluff impact zone whereas kind of a a counter measure for activity that's occurring in there. It's it's a mitigation strategy. So that is something that it's it's not new. We've seen it before. So if they were not to put the vegetative buffer in there, would that cancel the variance? >> Well, if it's included as a as a recommendation condition, it >> it's a condition or recommendation. >> Yeah, it needs unless it gets removed either as part of planning commission or council, but >> from our perspective, we think it's reasonable, >> right? >> Um and again, I think that was also the impression I got from the property owners is they also thought it was reasonable. A lot of people landscape the shoreline, >> but they're here. If you want to have that, have a visit with them about that. >> I would comment on the buffer, too. I think you need to be a little bit more specific on what type of buffer you're looking at. I mean, are we talking 10 feet, 5 feet, you know, I mean, because really to get the benefit of a shoreline buffer, I think the DNR recommends something like 15 feet or whatever. So, it >> Yeah, we have something >> we have um received previously. I think the list of shoreline recommendations for buffers that we've provided previously. Okay. >> But I would I would say that's probably in in the realm of it, but that's why it does say in there that it's subject to review and acceptance by the city. >> Okay. >> Right. Right. I'm just I don't know what our what our guidelines are for that, but it might be something to look at. >> Good point. >> Okay. Further questions for Sarah? Hearing none um amongst the uh planning commission any >> Thank you everyone. >> Yep. Any comments? >> I if they want to talk I'd like to hear about their doc plans. >> We're going to address the audience here in just a minute. >> Oh, gotcha. >> Okay. >> No, I don't think I have any. >> Okay. Uh is the applicant in the audience? And would one of you like to come forward and address the commission, please? >> Sure. >> And our custom is to ask you to state your name and your address. >> Yep. I'm Scott Gates, 4407 Wilshshire. I'm the representative for the applicant. I think the staff did their usual wonderful job at outlining the the concerns and issues in in in the project. Um, I would note that there are elevations. It's kind of hard to see them. Proposed side elevation with the deck and the current existing elevation with the patio. So, that may help get a little bit of a view. You asked about the plan um, finding Commissioner Wallace and we haven't submitted a permit yet, but we did submit the elevations and that kind of thing with it. So, I'm happy to answer any questions for you. >> Questions for Mr. Gates? >> Yeah. I'd like to ask um what are you thinking for the deck? Will it be like a a a uh maintenance-free deck? Will it will it butt up to each? You know, some of those have the things there where there isn't a quarter inch gap. >> It'll be a quarter inch gap. Okay, >> that's a requirement of the impervious, excuse me, pvious consideration. Um, and that's really a condition effectively of the approval. Um, be a maintenancefree, I believe. Uh, ends up being less than two steps. So, it's about 16 inches of height. >> Okay. >> Will not have a railing on it as the plan. There might be some planters, boxes, things like that. that would be part of it. Um, at the same time, I'll maybe address your question or comment on the buffer. Uh, staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but their primary concern was they wanted a little bit of a buffer because there's a slightly higher mass. It's not at grade. It's a little bit above grade. They wanted a little bit more screening than mitigation, if that makes sense, than than managing water. >> Okay. >> So, a buffer, most of the time when they speak buffer, they're talking about managing water shed. This lot's really level, so we don't have a lot of flow, >> some but not a lot of flow to the lake. >> Okay. >> Okay. I think it would be more plant get a little bit of hype for some plants to soften that shoreline. >> Oh, >> further questions for Mr. Gates. >> Hearing none, thank you for coming forward. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. >> Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address the commission regarding this uh variance request? Seeing no hands in the air, I assume no. Okay. Further discussion amongst the commission. Any other thoughts or comments anyone would like to make? >> I think it's a pretty simple. Pretty simple one. Various. >> Yeah, >> I like it. Going from nonp pervious toous. That makes sense. So >> pretty simple. >> And they're building in the same footprint. They're not >> exactly >> encroaching any further. They're reducing hard cover. >> Exactly. This is a win-win. and it's going to look nice. >> Okay. On page seven of your agenda, you see that staff has recommended approval of the Lakeshore variance with four conditions and four findings of fact. So, I will make a recommendation to approve planning case 2511 lakeshore variance um including staff recommendations 1 through 4 uh plus an additional condition that the new deck meet requirement for pvious >> plus the con the findings of facts one through four on page seven. >> You hear the motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> We have a second. Further discussion hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Those opposed, nay. >> Motion carries. >> Ma'am, >> thank you. Uh for the folks that are with us, we are planning on including uh the variance on the November 25th city council agenda because we have a recommendation of approval subject to findings and conditions and from the planning commission. It's our intent to include it on the consent agenda. Um and so it'll be acted on uh along with a handful of other housekeeping related type matters. um with one motion, one second. Um except unless somebody wants to pull up for questions, but that's scheduled for next Tuesday and we'll be sending out mailed notice tomorrow. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. Thanks for joining us. >> Okay, moving on. Planning case 25-13, expansion permit, new slash replacement house. Set it up on that corner. >> It is a little >> Take your time. We don't want to crash. >> I'll take your word for it. >> Uh, chair. Good. Members of the commission. My name is Mia Colorado Mansfield. I'm a consulting planner with H HKGI for the city of Mount. I will be presenting on the expansion permit request at 2971 Cambridge Lane. The property is located on Cambridge Lane on the east side of Cooks Bay. The house that is currently there today was constructed in 1914 and is non-conforming on the rear and north side uh setbacks. The request is for an expansion permit. The applicant is proposing a new or replacement house to be constructed predominantly in the existing house footprint on the lot. The proposed house will add a second story and >> they said they can't hear. No. And yeah, pull that up towards you. >> Is this better? >> Talk louder. >> Okay, I will talk louder. >> Be assured. >> Thank you. >> Okay. The propo the applicant is proposing a new replacement house to be constructed predominantly in the existing foot house footprint. The proposed house will add a second story that maintains the existing non-conforming rear setback of 9.84 ft and the north side setback of 1.4 ft. The proposed house will decrease the non-conforming hard cover on the site but will still be over the 40% limit for a lot of record. The proposed new construction will expand the footprint of the house from about from 1351 ft to 1551 square ft. The areas of expansion are all occurring in um conforming ways. So on the diagram here, the letters show where these changes are. A is for the patio, which will be reconstructed slightly smaller. The um green is the new house on the screen and the red dashed line shows where the existing house is that will be removed. Um so there's a accessory shed in the southeast corner that's going to be removed. That's letter B. Um the garage is going to expand to the south and east where you can see letter C. Um similarly the southern edge of the house and garage are going to shift slightly closer to that southern property line still conforming with the setback. Uh the existing stairs on the rear of the house are going to shift slightly again still conforming. Um and they will be replacing the driveway with permeable pavers. The property is guided by the comprehensive plan as low density residential allowing for single family attached and detached housing. The applicant is proposing to continue using this property for a single family home. It is zoned as an R1A single family residential property. The lot is considered a lot of record and it is also a lakeshore lot. Um, a few other existing conditions on the site. The minimum lot area for an R1A lot of record is 6,000 square feet. This property has a lot area of 4,05 square ft. So, you'll know it is smaller than the minimum area. It is also located adjacent to Brighton Commons, which means that although the rear setback of the house is non-conforming to the property line, it still is conforming to the lakeshore setback um located about 60 ft from the ordinary high water line due to the Brighton Commons being between the property and the lake shore. Here you can see in the top image the existing house and then below that the proposed expansion house again with that red line showing the overlapping footprint. Um as mentioned earlier the proposed construction will increase the footprint from 1351 ft to 1551 square ft again in a conforming manner. The existing house is one story and the proposed house will be 2.5 stories. Um it will meet the maximum 35 foot requirement as the proposed height is 31 feet. So it's under that limit and the expansion permit is required in this case because adding that second story is increasing that non-conforming area but it is maintaining the existing nonconformity. It's not increasing um that distance there. And again, the patio on that northern side is also um non-conforming. It's being replaced with a slightly smaller setback there, but still non-conforming. Here you can see the setbacks, the required setbacks. So, front yard, sideyard to the south, and ordinary high water line setbacks are all being met. and the um existing rear setback and that deck set back are being maintained at the same level of non-conformance. So 9.84 ft in the rear which is less than the 15 ft required and 1.4 ft for the deck which is less than the 6 feet. Um it's worth noting that the building itself is at 7.5 ft which is conforming to that north side setback. Manders >> hard cover on the site is currently 64.69%. The limit for a lot of record is 40%. Um the applicant is proposing to replace the driveway with permeable pavers and this allows them to reduce the hard cover on the site to 48.31%. So, while this is still non-conforming, it is improved from the existing conditions and again the the entire lot is a smaller lot than the normal um lot size for an R1A house. Um, it's also worth noting that the access to the adjacent property to the north requires use of a portion, a northeast portion of this property in order to reach their house as the road Cambridge Lane ends at this property. Um, these images, the blue house is the house we are who of the applicant and then it is also where the road ends. So that northeast corner is required to be some sort of accessible surface for that house limiting uh the ability to fully remove per imperous surface on that area. Um yard encroachments. There are several allowed yard encroachments per the city code. Um the applicant is proposing a bay window on the second story rear wall. The code allows um bay windows as encroachments so long as that they are um no greater than eight square feet and that the uh setback of the principal wall conforms to district setback requirements. Um as noted this is a non-conforming rear wall but um given that we have determined that the principal wall is uh 9.84 84 ft. So long as the bay window meets that 8 square foot requirement, then it would be an allowable encroachment into the yard. Um measurements on the survey show that the bay window proposed is approximately 11 square feet. So that would need to be reduced to 8 square feet in order to be allowed. Um similarly, mechanical equipment is an allowable yard encroachment. There are um AC units and a generator shown on the southside uh site plan here. Those are allowed so long as they do not extend more than 2 feet into the yard setback and they also may count towards hard cover. Um stairways similarly are an allowed encroachment provided they do not extend to a distance of less than two feet from any lot line and that the um entrance structure so the stoop or uncovered porch um does not exceed 32 square ft. In in this case the stairways are conforming to those requirements. And finally eaves are also an allowed encroachment into setbacks. You're allowed to encroach two feet and then any portion of an eve exceeding that two feet will count towards hard cover unless there is existing hard cover underneath that eve. So you're not double counting. Uh the minimum flood elevation required for Lake Minnetonka is 933 feet. The proposed elevations for the basement, first floor, and garage all meet this requirement. It should be noted that the plans do show an elevator and elevator pit and so there may be additional building code or flood proofing requirements that apply to this. And as noted earlier, the access to this property is a little strange due to the configuration of the roadways. And so, um, it is recommended the applicant coordinate with the public works department on construction, parking, staging, the delivery, and storage of materials in order to ensure that the roadway remains clear and provides access and safety to all road users. Um this diagram here shows the northern portion of Cambridge Lane um turns and joins Leslie Road and does not connect south to the southern portion of Cambridge Lane which is accessed via via Manchester Road. So that's um why we recommend that they coordinate on construction parking. I don't know where Ariel. >> Um, as is customary, >> the application was distributed to adjacent property owners, staff, consultants, agencies, and private utilities. Comments received have been incorporated into the report. There was a note on the construction access concern. And now, as Sarah explained earlier, the role of planning commission is to discuss the request and then um can ask for more information or recommend city council approval or denial with findings of fact. And I will take any questions. >> Okay, questions from May. >> Is this the house where you go kind of it's up to the back by the garage? The roads backslip to the garage. Kind of a side road. >> I think so. >> I think it is. Yeah. It's all It goes to the back. Okay. >> Go back to that picture. >> Yeah. >> That way. That's how you get back to the house. >> Yeah. The the blue house here. Then that northern property that requires access via their driveway. >> Really tight access. >> Okay. Other comments or questions from Mia? >> Thank you. >> So I guess I have a question on the the bay window comment that was on there. >> So you can't have a bay window more than 8 ft when it encroaches on a nonconforming right >> into the setback >> in the setback. >> But they show um eaves which are actually setting going further than the bay window. So the eaves can go into the setback but the bay window can't into a setback 2 ft. >> But the bay window is not encroaching more than the eaves. >> The total square footage. The my understanding of the reason is that they don't want to have a bay a bay window in quotes that is so much that it's adding that much space livable space to the room which is why they're narrow. So it's not about the depth. It's the combination of the depth and the width. making sure that we don't end up with uh basically a bay window that's the entire length of the room and adding onto the area. So, it's not really about um >> it's not a hard cover. It's about you can use a bay window in order to add all this extra square footage onto your >> site that's into the setback area. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Further comments or questions from Mia? Hearing none. Thank you, ma'am. >> Thank you. >> Is the applicant in the audience? Would uh one of you like to address the commission? >> Need your name and your address, please. >> My name is Erica Wei, 202 Water Street, Sweet 202 Excelsier, Minnesota. >> Okay. >> And um I'm with Landshoot. We are the applicant. And we are also here tonight with the property owners Tim and Joan Kenny. >> Erica, can you raise your voice just a little bit? >> Yes. >> You never tell me to do that. >> Yes. So, we are here for questions. >> Okay. Any questions for the applicant? >> Do you happen to know, Erica, what the elevation is of the elevator pit? because I the house is like at 934 >> the lower level elevation. Yeah. So, this is actually a um sort of a tricky um situation where this house actually has no basement. It is a slab on grade and um it's a slab on grade with a builtup floor system on top of it. So, the elevator pit actually is not lower than the the slab. It is at the same level. >> You're the second one I've heard. It's kind of a new thing, right? Okay. So, so the pit is at the same elevation as your slab, >> correct? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Further comments or questions for Erica? >> Thank you, Erica. >> Hearing none. Thank you, ma'am. >> That's it. >> Would anybody else in the audience like to address the commission regarding this expansion permit? Good evening y'all. Uh my name is Trent Sims. I live at 2957 Cambridge. It's a property that's north of this spot. Um I've been in this house since uh 2010. Um and as Mr. Heel had mentioned that this is a very tight access property to get to my property. Um now I've known Tim and Joan for that amount of time as well. um they have not been there full-time. They're only there part-time in the summertime. So, access has not been a problem. Um however, when they are there and they have cars in their driveway, it is very difficult for me to get in the driveway. I often tow trailers have to back trailers up into my driveway with this road that's that part of the Cambridge Lane is only about 10 ft wide. So, I don't have a ton of radius to get, you know, trailers backing up in there. um if I have any extra cars in there. Anybody else basically every time they try to back out of my driveway when they have cars there, they mention how difficult it is. Uh my main concern is just the garage and just if they were ever to have a car parked in their driveway at that point, they only have a 20ft clearance to the road right now. My truck is 21 ft. So, if they have anything big like that and they do have SUVs, if they're not right up to the garage, they're going to be basically encroaching on the road. Um, I understand it's not going to happen all the time and we've worked well together in the past with if we have problems that uh I don't have any issue with asking them to move a car if I need to do something like that and they've been ready and willing in every aspect that I've ever asked them to. Um, however, in the event that they do have a car, it's going to be very difficult to get in my driveway with uh with with especially with a trailer, which I use at least once a month, if not more. Um, that's honestly my only concern. You know, one thing I want to ask is if if any of you guys have visited the site and seen how close this is and how tight it is, I know that the pictures will show, but pictures don't always do it justice. Uh, this is a very tight spot. I generally have to use basically the yard that's towards the woods there in order to get a trailer into my spot as of now. Um, so my biggest thing is just the driveway, just the having cars in the driveway, gaining access to my house. Um, that's going to be my my biggest concern. Leaving 12 feet from me to get a any vehicle in. Like I said, I drive a truck. It's a big vehicle and that's a that's a tight space. Um, so just voicing my concerns today about that and that's honestly it. Um, I'd like to ask if you guys are okay if I invite my father up here. He does have vested interest in the house as well. Um, he's knows about this stuff a little more than I do and I'd like to get him his two cents in if that's all right. >> Can I see a question for when you say leaving 12 feet? What do you mean? >> What's that? >> When you say leaving 12 feet, what does that mean? They have so on the on the lower map here, they have a a number that states 12 feet from that cinder block wall that comes on that curve there. That's what they're giving me for clearance. >> And that's a change in the top corner of the green. >> And that's a change from how it is today. >> It's it's I don't I don't know what it shows now. That's not necessarily a change. The problem is if they have a car in their driveway here and especially one here now I'm going to be limited because of the way that their house is now. They really can't park a car here. They do still which is totally fine with me but when a car is there it's even more difficult to get in. They are giving themselves a few more feet with taking their house out just right here. Uh but often enough it's going to have a problem if they have a car here. It's going to leave me a really tight space especially if I'm backing up out of my driveway around a blind corner. So, where's your house in this picture? >> So, my house is up here. >> Up there. Okay. And the road that you're coming in off of is down here. So, you're coming in there only about 10 ft wide because it's a rightway access road. >> Yeah. >> Um, so this is about 10 ft wide and it comes up here >> and the retaining walls to the right. >> I'm sorry. >> The retaining walls to the right. >> Yep. Retain wall coming in to the right. >> Yep. Absolutely. So, I have to turn left around the retaining wall to hit. Absolutely. And that that road ends basically in line with their property line as well. So it's it's uh >> So is the pro is the property in the road? >> No. >> Okay. >> No, the part of the driveway for Trent's property and crosses the Kenny property. >> Okay. >> Their their locator is in the road. >> That's what I thought. >> Their I'm sorry. Their their their survey state is in the road. >> Oh. >> Oh, that's what I thought. I saw that. >> Sorry, I was not clear on that. It's all paved because it doesn't >> it's sort of counting part of the road is at 20 ft there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's >> which is even allowing you less area. >> It's like the driveway and the road are all coingled. >> It's one big >> It's like one big but >> Absolutely. It's just a big >> slide. Absolutely. So yeah, it's it it they're >> and the fact that the garage is going closer to the road is a is a concern is what you're that's your concern is that >> now if they don't have a car in the driveway, it's fine. It's not a big deal, >> right? >> It's when in times that they're going to have a car and now that they're going to be there full-time, I can see that happening more often than not. >> And where would be secondary parking to the driveway >> in that scenario >> for them? >> For anybody? Well, it'd be along uh Manchester Road. >> Manchester Road. Okay. >> And I'm assuming Do you have an easement for that area right there? That's what you're >> I believe. >> Yeah. So, they can't block it, >> right? >> I understand. It falls under prescriptive. >> Yeah. >> No, I heard a no over there. It does not. I I'm not able to speak. >> Oh, okay. >> So, the 12 feet, is that just >> kind of like an honorable 12 ft or is it actually somewhere documented? Because what if they move out someday and >> yeah, >> someone moves in and isn't as friendly of that 12 feet. Could that be an issue in the future? >> I think those are perhaps questions for the property owner in the neighborhood. >> Okay. separate private matters that >> yeah we're >> well in that case how would it be something for the future if I'm talking to somebody that's going to buy the house you know in the event if in the event that they sell their house and like they're saying my the future tenant comes in and says well too bad you know it's not between me and them it's between that's why that should be sitting something that's documented definitely going to affect the marketability >> here's what we're going to do Are there more questions for this gentleman? >> I have no question >> for for him. >> For him? >> Yes. >> Go ahead. >> So, and maybe it's also for Sarah. Is there is there any plans to finish out Cambridge Road or or is there a reason you cannot move the driveway north on Cambridge Road? >> There's a hill. >> So, so all of the utilities run down Cambridge Lane from the upper portion of Cambridge. >> That used to be one road. They they cut that off and all the utilities are within that hill because the upper part of Cambridge Road is about 20 ft higher. >> All and so all of that hill right there is all utilities. So they can't expand it anymore. >> I mean that would be if we could do that that would be fantastic if they were to go further in and actually be able to drop the utilities further and and push that retaining wall back. >> I that'd be great. It wouldn't be a problem. >> Yeah. If you're asking have is there any plans to expand that road? Not to my knowledge, but I don't know that anyone's asked the question, but I do agree there is definitely slope in and around that area. I think those walls are city walls, but >> I know it's there are >> they are Yeah. >> Oh, okay. I stand corrected. I I thought that >> they were done in 2003, I think. It seems like a weird do we have a lot of that anyway that would that we can certainly correct that >> that would be a question for public works engineering but not to my knowledge. >> Um you know I that's the first question I have is how come the road wasn't extended but there's there's probably >> otherual other related issues that I think Trent was talking about that may play into why it hasn't been. >> Yeah. Yeah, the water man for my house is in that at the right after >> Yeah. Right right on top of that concrete wall. That's about 2 ft into the woods. >> Okay. Any further questions for this? >> Thank you. >> Well, I'm looking at the um future detailed projects for through 2029 and Cambridge is not on any of them for any kind of mill overlay or reconstruction. Yeah. So, I kind of figured they they just redid most of those. >> Yeah. >> Just a handful of years ago. So, I can't imagine they would be doing that now. >> Further questions or comments? >> I don't have any. >> Thank you. >> The gentleman with his hand up is next. >> Thank you. My name is Tim Kenny. I'm the property owner along with my wife Joan. We actually bought >> Give us your address. >> Yes. Yes, sir. 2971 Cambridge Lane is the address in Mound. We also have a home in St. Paul, which we are selling and moving out here full-time. Uh we bought the property in 2003. Um we lived there about four to five months out of the year. Um and now that our children are grown, we have decided to make that our full-time home, which is was the plan all along. Um as Trent mentioned, we've gotten along very well with our neighbors over the years. Um Trent actually parked his trailer and his truck in my driveway over the winter a number of times and we've agreed to that. He's mowed our commons for us. He's got a big um lawn mower. We've watched his kids a couple times. Um so we get along great. Um I will say on this property a couple things. I am a lawyer. Um it is Torrance registered property. There is no recorded easement across the property. There is no ability to develop a prescriptive easement. Having said that, we specifically worked and we we're spending more money to move the location of the garage south four feet, which increases the geometry between that retaining wall, which was I believe Tom, you built that, right? >> I did. >> Yeah. So Tom is Trent's dad. He originally owned the property, bought it a little bit before we bought our property and used it as a rental for a number of years before Trent bought it from his dad. And there was an issue. The retaining wall had collapsed. A a tree had I believe fallen onto the property and I I think um Tom bought it out of maybe out of >> I'd be happy to give you the history. >> Yeah, but he can give you more of that history, but he actually negotiated with the city to build that retaining wall. Originally, I think it was going to be built much taller and farther north than it is, and it was stepped down to decrease the cost of it in terms of how that was built, which caused that retaining wall to be very close to our property line. Um, we are purposefully attempting to move the geometry of the house to increase the amount of room. Um, we, you know, want to be able to enjoy our property and we may park there, but we've always been able to work things out. When they have parties, sometimes they park on our driveway. We've had people who probably park a little bit on Trent's driveway when we've had people out there. Um, we've always worked through that. Um, but like I wanted to make the point that we are purposely moving it four feet south, which increases the distance even though we're coming out seven or eight feet towards the street. The reason we're doing that, we have three grown daughters. We're hoping they're going to come visit us with their families, and we do want to have enough bedrooms to accommodate everybody. Um, so we do need that space to be able to put in, you know, two bedrooms on the second level to accommodate our family. Um, we also plan to park in the garage most of the time, but we unlike now where we actually use the garage as a bunk room and we park the cars in in the driveway. Um, but we do anticipate having guests and we will have to work through, you know, making sure people don't block. We've also hired one of the best architects in the Twin Cities, Landshoot, which is phenomenal. and they they will be the builder and we've impressed upon them the importance of when we buil are doing this project we have to make sure not only Trent but our other neighbors have access and we're not creating any issues during construction. So I think all of these things together for us to be able to enjoy the house we need to be able to you know build build the house we want to be able to live there full full time and have our family be able to visit and friends be able to stay with us. We are very mindful of that tight space, but that's the way we bought the property. That's the way, you know, Tom and Trent bought the property. Um, and and there is no easement. So, we're doing our best to mitigate that in terms of how we're moving the the structure of the house and building it out. Um, and I'm happy to answer any questions about that, but that's a little more context for you. >> Questions for Mr. Okay. >> Is the garage that you're building here, is it a threecar garage? Is it a twocar garage? >> It's going to be a very tight twocar garage. >> Okay. So, it's not an oversized garage or >> it's going to be, I think, smaller maybe than our current garage a little bit. >> Okay. >> It's a very narrow lot. It's a 40 foot wide lot. So, it's it's 20 or 22 foot wide by 20 or 22 feet, something like that. It's very very small garage. Just enough to get our two cars into basically. >> Right. >> Further questions for Mr. Kenny. >> And on the north side, um there's 7 and 1/2 ft to the lot line. Are you planning on parking in cars on the north side? >> Is that driveway that goes into >> No, most of the time we do not intend to have that. Okay. But the reason we're not >> I think Sarah mentioned this. Normally there'd have to be a buffer between the property line and the parking lot, but if we did that, Trent couldn't drive >> across. So we can't reduce the pvious cover because to allow the continuous pavement to allow Trent to get into his property. >> So we could reduce I mean I could we we'd be happy to remove that if that helped with the pvious. We've we've removed a lot of there was even more pvious cover when we bought this property. There was a concrete pad. There was a lot of stone mulch. There was a dog kennel. We we've removed as much as we could as we went along. And the current sidewalk, we took it from being completely pvious to a impervious to a pvious sidewalk. >> So, we too, like the prior applicant, you know, we're putting in gutters, which we don't have because of the roof structure. We're going to try to catch as much water coming off the roof as we can, um, into a, you know, into the garden. Um, we have a number of plantings we plan to add as well. Um, but that's just the other issue is the the patio is currently a deck, which is pvious, but because it's within 2 ft of the property line, we were advised we couldn't have a deck. So, we have to make it a patio to have that be a usable entrance. That's the front entrance is through the patio. And we'd love to have it be a deck. Then, it would be removing that hard cover, but we've been told we have to have we can't have a deck there. So, >> so there's a lot of patio right on that north side >> there. >> That is currently a deck with 4 inch gaps or half inch gaps. >> Well, I see the patio right. I'm sorry. I'm just trying I'm looking ne on the side of the garage. >> Yellow >> right there. >> Yeah, right there. >> Right. So, that we're putting in so that Trent can drive across into the property. We could remove, you know, a chunk of that if we didn't have to do that. Well, I wonder if Trent has concerns that cars might park in that area. >> Well, that's within our property, though. Like, we should be able to park right there as long as we're not blocking his access. >> We can park a car right here and not block his access. I think his concern, and I'll let him speak to it, is if we park here, >> you know, 16 to 20 foot vehicle, >> we're right to the line. >> And I get that, but I also get cars are the size they are and you know it's our property and we should be able to park there as long as we're not blocking him. >> And the little triangle up at the top is the access that Trent needs to get to his property. >> We've drawn that for illust illustrative purposes. I mean, when we're not parked there, he's going to have a lot more. He's going to have tons of space to get in and out. If we're parked there, obviously, we're going to have to either move the car if if we're blocking him. Again, we're planning to park in the garage now that we're living there full-time in the garage will be a garage. >> It's only if we have guests. But again, when we each have parties or things, we adjust to each other. I mean, his folks, some of his guests have parked literally in our space right behind us on the street, and I've had to go over and ask to move it. But that's kind of how neighbors have to get along and work through things. And we've always done it very well up to this point. Okay. Further questions or comments from Mr. Kenny. >> Hearing none. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> Now, sir, would you like to address the commission? >> Sure. >> Good evening. My name is Tom Sims. I live at 70 Birch Bluff Road in Tonka Bay. I was u the one that bought this house originally in 2003. Not original, but this is I think it was built in 1965. How do you work this red button? >> Yellow. >> Yellow button. >> Cuz I turned it off several times. So I remember. >> So what? >> Yellow. >> Back in the day, somebody else owned this property. And this was a cinder block wall that that regardless of who let the trees grow on it, the trees grew on it. caved in this wall and tipped over on this guy's house and he packed up in the middle of the night, moved out. The city was after him to uh rebuild the house, rebuild the wall. He decided to pack up and move out. So, it went into bankruptcy and I bought it from the bank and then I worked with the city to get this wall built right here. So, Cambridge Lane in theory stops right here. But if you go to the north side of Trent's property, this right here is a a hill that's about 20 ft high and Cambridge Lane is up here >> and then it comes to a curve right at the right at the curve there and stops. And then this is a rightaway >> where the city has its utilities that comes downhill. It's and it's downhill. So, I was working with the city at the time to figure out what kind of wall we had to build here, and this was pretty much the only thing we could do. It stops right at this wall. I think Trent, I don't know if this easement if this is an easement or it's city property. Don't know. >> That's all right. To the best of my knowledge. It's just it's undeveloped. >> So, it's not tren with a rightway over the top. Okay. >> So, his I think the back of his lot line is the same as the back of Tim's lot line. >> So, we had to go out with this with this wall in order to put 8 ft of can't remember what they call the kind of screen underground to retain this wall so that it wouldn't interfere with the utilities that were that are in the underneath underground right here. So, that really restricts the access into trans property. So, right now, the existing garage corner is right here. And when you come around this corner, you pretty much have all of this to get your truck and trailers and whatever else. Keeping in mind that these guys are lakes shore, so they do pull trailers, boat trailers, you know, whatever they want, you know, trailer to haul his big lawn mower in. And so we got about 50. We him has about 60 50 60 ft of driveway right here. To turn something around in here is like next to impossible. And you need all of this space just to get access to this house. My concern is I still have an interest in this house too. So I have a concern about future marketability. If they ever put this house on the market, somebody's going to come in here and go, "Really?" I mean, with this limited access, if you will, it cuts across this corner or that's the corner of the garage. That's the corner of the the proposed garage. >> So, if you drew a line, here's the edge of Trent's parking area and you drew a line across where he comes in right now. >> That's that's not I don't think where the proposed garage is going to be up on top there. >> That was not >> Okay, let's go down. That one right there. >> This red line is the exa red dot is the existing garage. This is the proposed garage. >> So where he comes in right now, he's got this much room for access, which kind of cuts a corner right here. Now, um Tim had said that there are no recorded easements, and there aren't, but it does qualify as a prescriptive easements, meaning it's been used for what it's being used for for 50, 60, 70 years unopposed and notoriously is what they the word in the legal description. So, according to my attorney, I had a discussion with him yesterday and he said absolutely, it's a prescriptive easement. Um, what does that do for it? I don't know. Personally, I would have rather sat down and reviewed these plans with Tim and Joan and their developer before coming in here and and voicing my concerns, but that didn't happen. >> I invited you four times over the last two months to do that. >> Your son will own the house. >> You did. No, he did. >> Okay. But that was my >> I've asked to sit down and review this and it hasn't happened. So I don't know what to ask you for right now other than maybe more time to go sit down and meet with Tim and Joan and their developer and see if we can do about this if anything. Trent doesn't have a problem with this house. I mean it's a monstrous house for a little tiny lot. But that that's Lake Minnetonka. That's the way it works. There's another one up here on the north side that looks over. So, he's got this rambler in between that's going to have these two behemoths looking over the top, but I certainly don't want to get in the way of them building their house on their property, but I am concerned about this access issue. >> Okay, thank you for your comments. We have questions for this gentleman. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to approach the commission regarding this request? >> Seeing none discussion of the expansion permit request amongst the commission. I I just I have a question as to it seems that there is a big >> road issue an access issue and I don't know from a city perspective how that happened you know >> something happened there >> that's not something that will have the history >> right but is it is it a is it a city issue is it a issue that we don't have access to these two homes. >> There is access. >> It's just a narrow part of the neighbor's property crosses this property >> based based on the configuration and historically has done that as I understand at least that's how it looks. >> Does that happen a lot within the city? >> On the island there's >> where there's okay >> we have roads that aren't that are platted that aren't built. We have driveways that are built in, rideways that are giving access. Um, but it's it's I wouldn't say it happens all the time, but it certainly is something that has happened. >> But is with only seven and a4 feet of frontage on a street? Is that could they come back and say, "I want a 10-ft frontage on the street because it's a it's a street. It's Cambridge Lane." >> Is that what you're calling this? Yeah, it says there's seven and a quart of >> they insist that need to be extended so they have more fun. Is that something? >> I I think those are right. I think >> I think that's what you mean. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I mean, >> and I I certainly think >> giving a giving a land owner 7 and a/4t of frontage doesn't seem >> to the realistic either. >> I think that would have to be something that would need to be um pursued with public works and engineering. um you know could that be extended in that's outside of our our realm for tonight >> right >> you know certainly if there's opportunities the the venue for that I would think would either be an improvement project or public lands permit because we have had people extend driveways and rightways we have done that before but that's not part of tonight >> right >> right >> because they're within the 20 foot setback it's just that >> part of that 20 foot setback is >> actually >> right >> is the right way. >> They're within their setback >> correct >> on that side. >> On that side >> or they're not in their step axis on the north and the >> rear which are not related >> that doesn't relate to the easement issue. >> Correct. >> That shaded area that is their property. Correct. >> Yeah. I think they trying to illustrate in the diagram kind of the fact that they are recognizing that there is a driveway. >> That is their property. >> That is their That's what Mr. Kenny says. That's where they're illustrating like 12 foot wide >> path that was on there because it helps all of us understand something. >> So I want be clear that's their property and they have the right to do with it. It's just the is that >> that difference there that uh >> it was just mostly to make sure that we recognize the fact that there was a >> that needed to come across there. >> But everything above north of that pvious paver is like paved right now on their side. So it's almost like a driveway. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> it's like a driveway parking area for both and a road. >> And what was the number on um >> impervious surface right now? >> 48%. >> It's coming down. >> Tell somebody how >> it's coming down, but it's still over the >> still property, but it was a narrow road. >> But I don't think >> reducing that going to benefit. >> No, >> no, no. I'm just I wasn't saying that. >> Yes, that's right. It's really >> I mean the fact that they they could take out all that north per pvious because it's not a benefit to them, but that takes away the ability for them than Sim Sims to drive down here. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> If there's no cars parked there. >> That's what I was thinking. Yeah. >> Further comments, what you think? >> I think this is a really weird one. I'm just going to acknowledge that. Um, and the only reason why, and where I struggle with this one is from strictly a land use perspective, they're meeting all the requirements. It's private property. >> My concern again is, and again, I can appreciate you guys putting the new garage further south to try and be accommodating to that. But again, my concern is if we approve this in the future, could it become a bigger issue? and could we create a new hardship for the resident who lives at the north? But I think from a land use perspective, it's meeting everything for the approval. And I don't know if that potential for future hardship falls more on the city council decision. Um I >> that's what I'm kind of struggling with this one because I think it >> I don't want to tell people how to use their property. That's the issue I'm having. >> That's their property. I mean, the garage is coming out further. >> Um, I could see it again creating a future issue depending on if the residents swap, and that's not a land use decision. So, I >> But I guess my my argument to that is even if they had the garage 7 ft forward, >> they they have every right to park their car all the way back to the street. >> That's exactly exactly right. And but I think that's why I was asking. >> Yeah. It creates a it can create a hardship for the area up north. But but again, I don't know how we address that from the planning commission perspective. >> I think we just address what the variance is. >> That's it. That's that's all we're here for. Not to worry about whether it's 17 feet, 10 feet. I mean, as long as it's their property and it's inclined to the variance, I think that's that would be my concern. I'm not going to sit there and say, well, it's 12 feet, it's 20 feet, it's you know, >> that's at least that's where I stand. I mean, the driveway currently is a hardship, >> you know, even without adding the additional to your driveway. So, >> because he has to go in >> Whose driveway is a hardship? >> Pardon me. >> Whose driveway is a hardship? >> Oh, for Trent. >> Trent North. Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Currently, it is because he has to use their property. >> So, it's going to be added >> problem with the garage, but it's already a hardship now. >> Yeah. >> Exactly. Agreed. And so is there an option then for Trent to take that to the city and request >> Yeah. >> request more roadway. >> That's what I was asking. >> Yeah. Right. Um >> I mean I think that's the only >> I mean I think that would be my that would be my advice. >> I was told by the city absolutely not 25 years ago. >> Well I was 25 years ago >> and it's a different city now. But underground, you know, what's going on with the >> sewer and everything like that, that has a lot to do with it. But certainly Ryan could maybe be at the meeting on He might already be going to be at the meeting on Tuesday and that would be something you could >> Who who's Ryder? >> Public works. >> Oh, yeah. The head. >> All right, Mr. Kenny, you had one more comment. >> Yes. Thank you. I I appreciate weighing these concerns. I would say though, >> you know, what we've heard is a concern about driving a trailer into the property. Um, not driving onto the property. We're doing everything possible to accommodate that versus our ability to build a house that we're going to live in for the next 25 years and accommodate our family. So, I appreciate we do want to make I I'm confident Trent and I can work and Joan can work out if there's anything blocking Trent's access, right? >> But I think when you trade off the us being able to build the home and you know, we've been in the house for 23 years now u versus a trailer having access and being able to turn around easily. I think it weighs a little bit in our favor. So, I'm happy to address that at the city council. But when I think about balancing those, which we do on the law all the time, balancing the interests, we're trying to ensure his interest of access, we've purposfully planned it to increase, you know, the geometry. I recognize it's coming out a little, but it's coming down, which I don't know what the actual distance is. It may be actually the same when you actually do the the calculation, but there should be more than enough room to get into the property. Um, so I I just encourage you to consider there's >> the balance of interest is a trailer versus being a be be able to build a house that we can live in year round with our family. So, >> and I'll just say that accommodating. >> No, I mean just the fact that you illustrated that in these diagrams kind of tells me that I mean you do care about having a healthy relationship with your neighbor. You know what I mean? It's just I think it's just such a weird situation. >> Yeah. No, I get it. I think you've done what you can to be accommodating. >> Yeah, it's not any of our fault the way it was platted for sure and how that lane was developed. So, um >> so I I guess I'm less concerned. I think you guys are trying to work it out. But if you ever sell if they ever sell, >> right, >> what's where's it put the city with only seven and a quarter feet of >> frontage on our road? Like if a new owner if you sell something happens and they say you can't drive on our property where does that leave the north property? >> Do they come back to the city and say I have to have frontage? I don't know if that's an option. >> Yeah. No, I appreciate that. But you know we've invested in this property for 25 years and being robbed of the ability to enjoy that is a pretty significant thing I think versus what may happen in 25 or 30 years when we die you know. >> Yeah. I just think it's something the city's going to have to >> address. The attorney and public works are going to have to address. >> Yeah. But again, conformity, you know, in improving conformity everywhere except in those couple spots. And I we'd improve the conformity on if we could leave a deck, we wouldn't have the issue with the pvious cover on, you know, where the where. So that's because of the code, not because of us. So, we've we've improved the conformity across the board um every which way except for that, you know, the the lake shore where the where the wall is, but it's currently there. So, >> okay. >> And we are absolutely um on board with all the conditions that were identified, you know, in terms of looking at the bay window. I think we were not fully uh appreciative of that issue and they've already started redrawing that part of it. So, okay. Thank you. Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Kenny. >> All right. Further discussion amongst the commissioner. >> Yeah. The way I see it, this is private property. There isn't an easement. >> So, you're looking at the occasional situation where he's driving a trailer. And the concern is the variance from the mean of how often is a trailer going to be uh is that going to be an issue by your parking in the in the driveway. So I don't see how we can deny this if it's um and in and instead weigh the concerns of the occasional trailer. I'd like to say this isn't only the trailer. Just even driving my truck in there is difficult. The people backing up out of the driveway is difficult. This isn't just a trailer situation, >> right? >> I'll give you one more shot. Go ahead. >> You know, we threw out the example of of driving in there with a vehicle in a trailer as an example. That's all it was. And I think we're getting too hung up on the idea that this is a trailer versus a house. It isn't. It's accessibility and it's marketability and there's all kinds of different things that are going to be affected here. Somebody said, "How did this happen years ago?" Well, you know, if we have issues that are going to affect Trent's house, I'm I the last thing I want to do is get in the way of Tim building a house. You know, him and I got along great for seven years, too, when I still owned it. I don't want that. I would like some time so we could sit down with them to review the plan. See if there's something different we can do with that seven, eight, nine extra feet of garage is coming out that is going to hinder his trenability and marketability. So I think in most city situations, you don't approve a project for the benefit of one neighbor that is to the detriment of another neighbor. That's normally the routine. I don't want to get hung up on a trailer. But there are issues here with future, let's say, marketability, if you want to call it that. Now, we talked about utilities with the cities. Again, it's 22, 23 years later. Yeah, maybe the city would look at it different, but that's going to take some time. >> That comes down as a slant like this from the upper hill to the lower hill. Hey, if they could hit that edge and drop it straight down and and come out that direction and and uh you know that would open up the backside of Trent's property and you have no accessibility issues anymore. But that's going to cost city thousands. I mean hundreds of thousands. >> It really would be a Bolton and Mink >> discussion. Bolton and Mer city engineer. It would it would >> cost a lot of money for the city and I you know >> and as I said it's not on the future >> right >> through 2029. >> So is it an issue that you need to make a decision on this second? Like I said I'd love to sit down with Tim and Joan and their developer and see if there's a different way. Uh it's something we can come up with. I can't even tell you what it is right now because yesterday last night is the first time I've seen his plans. So, um, I just would need some time, I think, with all of us together, put our heads together and figure out if there's a way to work around. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Further discussion amongst the commission. Hearing none, we have uh on page 21 and 22 of your agenda a recommendation from staff to approve this expansion permit with six conditions and five findings. You've seen a slide previously that indicates we can take one of three actions. Table the request. If we did that, we need specific reasons why. approve the expansion permit or recommend denying it. Chair would entertain a motion. I mean, I'm comfortable moving it forward, but I think it would be interesting to have Bolton and Mink weigh in on, >> you know, is that something you can just make a phone call to get information on, or is that something we would need to discuss in in the council meeting? Um I think we could do some preliminary work um >> in between you know if a motion moves forward this evening before it gets to the council. My understanding is that if my memor is good you guys are not if we get a recommendation tonight you want to go to the meeting in December is isn't that correct? >> So right if my memor is good and so that we would have a little bit of time you know if the planning commission offers a recommendation between now and it gets to the council. >> Would we have a planning meeting before then? Would we have a planning meeting before that? >> Before the 9th. >> We have planning commission meeting on the second. >> Yeah. >> But but again, I think this would have to come or perhaps more from the council rather than the planning commission. >> I would agree with that, Sarah. I you know I think from a planning standpoint I can't see us not approving this but I also would like to see how we can somehow acknowledge that you know there are some issues with this area that maybe it is more appropriate for the council to review in the city but I I just I can't see us not approving this one and moving it forward but acknowledging too that it's just a quirky little area. >> One of many, >> right? >> Right. And it's it's not new. I mean, it's been that way for for a long time, but >> and and it was purchased that way, right? It's >> in place. >> Doesn't mean that it's not time to maybe have the city just look at it and review it. But I don't know if we can put that in our recommendation that well, we approve it. It's we just acknowledge that this is a there's additional matters that should be reviewed not by us. >> No any condition should be related to what the applicant needs to do. You can make the motion and then >> recommend separately that the city you know look at information but the council will be naturally reading your minutes and information and won't necessarily need necessary >> and have a public hearing for folks to come in too. So it would be caught public hearings. They're not public hearings, but we do do notifications, >> right? And the the information and the discussion today will move forward and council member Mackin is very apprised of that since she's here. So she can also, you know, that's one of the reasons we have a great representative here is that they can communicate on to the council the concerns and your sentiments. >> Okay. Further discussion. I guess I I kind of agree with Miss Wacker that from a setback perspective, everything >> we would approve it. I just don't understand where this puts the Sims homeowner from a perspective with the city and I'd like to have know what that is from their perspective on Bolton Bank, right? or a legal perspective on why we have a lot that they can't have access without going through another driveway. >> Well, they have access. >> Well, >> it's just >> they have access by going on someone else's property. There's no easement >> and no easement. >> Yes. >> So, if they come back and say, you know, if they want to put a fence in there, >> what does that do to >> Right. Then you can't get a you get a bike through there. >> Do they go back to the city and say, "You guys got to make, you know, access to us on Cambridge Road?" >> Yeah. >> I don't know. that we've never had anything like this before. >> Yeah. I mean, this is for sure something Matt or somebody at Bolton Mink can either say we can accommodate this or the reasons why it can't be. And usually it's underground >> infrastructure. >> They also can look at maneuverability in terms of vehicle size and what the roadside is and and what the turning radius is and that sort of thing to really look at. >> Yeah. >> But I mean, I think the homeowner is trying to accommodate as much as possible by putting all that expensive permeable pavers and on the north side to allow that >> when they're not parking there >> and the time also hopefully the party the neighbors can maybe get together between now and before if we receive a recommendation before it would return to the council. So for sure when can next Tuesday it would be >> yeah at the request of the property owners to schedule they have they have asked that it's >> if we get something through tonight's meeting that they would go to the meeting on the 9th of December. >> That gives you a little bit of time to noodle it around some more. I'm sure you've done this >> for a very long time. Consider all the possibilities and you have been really thoughtful in keeping your neighbors best interest at heart. So, thank you for that. >> Okay. Chair would like to once again, >> sorry, >> ask the commission's perspective that on page 21 and 22 of your agenda, you see that staff is recommending approval of this expansion permit with six conditions and five findings. And again, we have three choices and I've cited them earlier. >> Chair would entertain a motion. >> Usually do these motions. >> I don't know what to do with >> I I honestly don't know. If you want to make a motion, you can. >> Nobody wants to make a motion. We're kind of quandry here. Well, >> I'll make a motion to approve it. >> What do I need to say? >> You're making a motion to approve >> the expansion permit >> with six conditions and five findings like you said >> as specified by staff. Am I correct? >> Correct. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We have a second. Do we have further discussion? >> Hearing none. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed? Nay. >> I'm going to say nay because I was just going to ask for something, but that's fine. >> Do you want to >> um I'll just put it in my comment. >> Okay. I was going to ask that between now and like the next two weeks we get the city public works and Bolton Mink to understand what the implications are for the Cambridge Lane where the utilities are and what the homeowner's rights are to access to that lane. >> Yeah. >> If the southern homeowner I think that's reasonable. Yeah. >> In this situation, is this something you talked to Jesse about or do you want me to have a conversation or how how do we >> move forward with this? >> Yeah, we would we'll have a visit with Okay. um city manager and public works director and you know I would anticipate that you know all that information would be crafted into the executive summary detail when it comes to the council in in several weeks. >> Great. Thank you. Okay. >> Rewinding back to the >> motion. So >> I go ahead. >> So I guess >> I I put nay out there and that's my my reasoning. Okay. >> I guess >> and then I guess in addition to that then I guess could you keep the SIMS homeowners involved in the discussion with >> with them? That would be to Sarah I think >> with with the discussion with Bolton Mink and the city public works >> so that so that they don't get the information you know the day before the city council meeting they should be involved understanding what the >> implications are for Cambridge Lane you >> understand it's just a matter of the idea when you say it that way like they're not going to be at the meetings where we have these conversations right like they would not be at the meeting with the city attorney and the city No, I understand that. >> But you want you're asking us instead of just having in the city council packet that when we have a conclusive information, we would send it to both property. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> That we can do. >> Yes. Perfect. >> Just want to clarify. That's good. >> Yeah. I think it's the awareness piece for the north property owner. >> Okay. >> Let the record show that the motion carried >> and staff has I think adequately heard the additional comments uh about concerns. Correct. >> Mhm. >> 5 to 10. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> They don't we don't need a motion to for them to do that. >> No, >> it's just the comments that get >> taken. They've heard what we think they need to do. >> Gotcha. >> Okay, let's move on. >> Thank you. >> Good conversation. >> Thank you. bought a funky house and we just got here. >> All right. >> Review discussion of the 2025 work plan project. Review discussion of city code section 129-314 exterior storage. >> Thanks for coming. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you guys. >> Uh members may recall uh on the preparation of the work plan uh earlier this year, one of the items tasked to the planning commission is to take a look at our exterior storage regulations. And we put this on tonight because I think what we'd like is maybe is to gain some insight from members of the planning commission about specific areas that you want us to look at. Um, one of the things that we keep hearing is we have we allow too many units. >> Um, so I think that would be something that would be helpful for us. We do not allow parking on undeveloped lots uh unless they're combined with principal parcels. A couple of years ago, I think the planning commission, if my memory is good, um offered a certain number um and then I think then the council may have pulled back a little bit on that number. >> And again, that's all from memory, but I think >> giving us some direction in terms of is that is that front and center what we want to be looking at. Is it is too many units an issue for members of the council, members of the planning commission and the council? Um the other I think area that comes up um a lot is some people feel that front yard parking if we didn't have front yard parking overall appearance is a little lighter. Recognizing of course that we have a lot of small lots, we have a lot of teeny lots. this is a good indicative of one, >> you know, where the really the only parking that might be available is front yard parking. >> Um, I think that's something that we would like some direction on as well. um where stuff can be parked is also good, but I think you know getting us giving us some direction on where where members of the planning commission feel our rules might need some evaluation andor some tightening andor a look would be helpful for us so that we can do some uh due diligence with regards to study and reports and and and see what might work for us. Uh we did uh ask our code officer to join us tonight. He is being an assistant fire chief tonight and so he's um sustaining activities >> helping I think he's calling he might be calling bingo tonight. So he was not able to join us but um we certainly can invite him back again. This isn't anything that's going to be worked out in one night, but I think >> I I think we're just interested to hear as a staff kind of where members of the planning commission feel the holes are. >> Um, for me, I think it's the number. I think lesser would be better. Um, you know, is is six too many, specifically on, you know, when you've got medium-sized lots. Um, some people think that's okay. Um, but anyway, so I'm curious to see what members think we should be looking at specifically. >> I have some opinions. >> I live on a very interesting street, Noble Lane seems to be public. Um, one one of my concerns is that there are homes that exceed the six on on my street basically. So, even if we have it like let's say we say it's three or four, we give a number. Well, what if people aren't doing it? Well, that that falls under the category of we we barely enforce the ordinances we have now, >> right? >> And you know, we have a conversations about this all the time in in our meetings because >> it's so frustrating to go through all these efforts. >> Yeah. >> And trying to make attempts to make some changes and nothing is enforced. So, what point is it? >> I mean, I appreciate that. I I feel I'm a little more forgiving on this front just because the our our demographics are so bizarre and mound and our lot sizes are so varied and mound that you know I mean if you have a family I mean I have a million cars in my driveway you know a work vehic work vehicle my kids you know so at what point do you not have enough room right >> in your property to accommodate a family >> of you know war's vehicle. So, I am a little more forgiving on this and most people disagree with me being this forgiving, but I recognize a lot of our issues over on the island and even when you get into three points in some areas, you know, even over by your area by Harrison's, you know, there are just some really tight lots that >> I I want people to be able to live their life without massive restriction. >> Sure. you know. >> Sure. Sure. >> We have to balance that against the the aesthetics of having six cars in some guy's lot or lady's lot with, you know, a cover over the car who's got leaves all over it stuck on the side of the garage >> like that issue >> like we have. Sure. Like we have in Three Points >> like we across the street from me. >> Yeah. Well, and it does say they have to be operational, but I know for a fact that there are some nonoperational vehicles, >> right? The environmental piece. >> Yeah. And and so it's like if we're not going to for enforce the ordinance or, you know, provide a ticket or give them options, right? Okay. Here's how you do it in a way that aesthetically is a little better, right? for other people's property values. But um then why put the time into changing an ordinance? >> Yeah. Right. >> Well, we have had conversations even just the last two meetings. You know, our compliance officer Andy >> Yeah. >> You know, he's stretched really thin. I mean, his main job is a fire. >> Sure. and we are looking at trying to add to our budget to bring on an even a part-time compliance off officer that can devote his complete time to this. And that's part of our issue in trying to get these um looked at is there's just nobody available that can be doing this full-time. >> So, a question regarding that. Um I happened to have Andy in my yard the other day. >> Yeah. And um I I said to him, "Hey, what's going on on the corner?" And he says, "Well, I'm working on it with him." Well, I've lived there. I've lived there for almost 14 years, right? >> And that is the exact same answer and things aren't changing. In fact, they're maybe getting worse as far as the >> and I appreciate that. You know, part of our our goal for Jesse and, you know, with his staff is to >> follow up with people, which has >> been pretty rough on some of these ongoing issues that have happened and makes us all look like we're not being attentive to resident needs. Um, you know, and and part of that is within following the ordinances. Mhm. >> We really can't do that when you're not following up with the resident >> in the complaint because we're a complaint based city. So the residents make a complaint sometimes three, four, five times in a two-year period with very little feedback. We just that's our challenge to Jesse is find a procedural way to within um you know the dynamics in city hall. How can we best accommodate? You know, obviously Jesse can't call every single person back that calls, but you know, Sarah may be at front. You can have a every Friday here are twoyear issues. We know the names. We all do because they're all we get the same calls all the time. >> Um and and then what can Sarah feel? You know, but as long as people are getting feedback, it's so frustrating when they aren't getting any. >> Well, and I've gotten that feedback multiple times. Right. But but nothing's happened. >> But nothing's happened, right? And so then at at a point, do you have an ordinance with a penalty associated with ordinance? >> Well, penalties, you know, we can't assess a monetary penalty because >> you So you have >> a statuto B. >> I mean, we've talked about >> trying to make things full as possible. >> What does that mean? >> Assess fines. >> Well, I mean, at this point, we cannot assess fines. So by having this or no hand that's why that's why this keeps getting raised correct >> year after year. >> Yes. >> Well, okay. We're just kicking the I mean if he can say that's fines. >> We don't have enforcement officers. >> So what are we going to do? >> We don't have enough pain associated with a third phone call back saying, you know, we've asked you to make these changes and look this is a frustration with all of us. >> Yeah. So what? Okay. You called me three times. I know you can't do anything to me. All right. Exactly. >> I'll just keep doing what I'm gonna do. There's no there's no incentive to doing anything or to fixing the behavior and it's clear because I've lived there for 14 years. Right. >> Exactly. So, what's the plan? >> Well, I mean the plan is we have we've had several conversations about this and when we sit down to come up with our master >> priorities for 2026, this is top of my list. We had a long conversation with Jesse in last week's meeting about this. He he knows what we're trying to accomplish and that's simply we want results. You know, when there are complaints, >> valid complaints. >> Yeah. But I mean, Drew, I understand it's very frustrating. >> What I might suggest we do is do what we can do and that is look at >> the current >> the current zoning criteria. >> Yeah. And if you see something that you think ought to be changed, >> make a note of it. >> Y >> and next commission meeting >> Oh, that's a good we can address if we all that's a we can do. >> Yes. All right. >> For sure. And then >> send the recommendations on to council androach, >> you know, have further conversation about it. >> Right. >> I think that's a good idea. And I think that I think what I'm hearing you say, Kathy, and correct me if I'm wrong, is we just need to keep calling. >> And and that's just that just makes my head want to explode. >> It makes me want to explode because I think everyone's gotten like complacent now. They're like, "No one's going to do anything, so why would I waste my time calling?" Look, we we deal with this on a daily basis with >> residents calling and trying to get results. So again, this is top on our priority to make some changes going going forward. >> Can we impound vehicles? >> City of Orriv and then why aren't we calling and having >> but they they don't even do that down at Surfside when there's glaring infractions happening. So, it's just an ongoing frustration or no impound vehicles on mound personal properties. >> Well, I don't know. That's a good question. I'd have to get I don't think so. And that would have to that would fall under uh if we, you know, lower the number of vehicles that can be parked in a front yard, then that neighbor can call Oro and say, >> "Look at the ordinance. You can only have four vehicles on the front yard. May have 10." At that point, I don't even know if Oro would come straight out and so you just call >> there has to be due process with it. There's nothing about that >> and I'm sure there'd be conversation between the city and >> I mean you've got the code and then you have enforcement and then you have you know so it's and what what the tools >> and then all the legal ease that happens in between all that which is a real problem >> fits all. >> Okay. Unfortunately, we are discussing issues that >> are beyond our control. >> Yes. and we all acknowledge that there are many frustrations. >> Can I ask a question about the actual >> So before we take our homework assignment on here, >> I I do have a question because some part of it's even unclear to me. >> There's impervious and non-imperous, which non-imperous is pvious, right? >> Is there is there any difference because I can't tell a difference through how we've written the code. parking on grass versus parking on a nonpaved driveway. Yeah, >> it's class five. >> Yeah, >> I think everything in here there's no distinguish between parking on grass or parking on gravel. >> Parking on hard cover on improved surface has been one of the issues is, you know, first of all, does it make it look more organized? You know, it it identifies where the parking areas, but it adds hard cover. >> Yeah. Parking on um on a on a driveway, whether it's gravel or pavement, is still considered hard. >> Wait, say that again. Park on gravel. >> You know, if you're park if you're whether your driveway is pavement or gravel, we consider that to be hard because it gets banged down too much that there's no runoff. So whenever it's listed in here as non-imperous, we're talking about grass >> probably or soft >> or bare soft. >> Where can it be? Pavers with the impervious pavers would be hard. >> Oh, that would be even >> But a lot of people park on grass. >> But you were just saying pavers weren't hard in that scenario. They have non-imperous pavers that lets >> Yeah, they have there's like echo stone and unisone that you can >> That's what I'm asking. You can do the non-pervious patches that would still be >> standard brick is is is impervious. Yeah. >> Echosone, unisone or another type of pvious is pvious >> because it goes >> like a sponge. >> So that part I guess is unclear in here when you're talking about pvious, impervious, not impervious. what we're talking about if it's grass or if it's if like if I have class 5 driveway >> that's the I don't think you have to park on a hard surface if if you can park on grass >> but is there a difference between some of this stuff that says you know when they're not they're on parking on non-imperous >> does that mean grass or does that mean class 5 that's been driven on >> it's not it's not >> it's not clear >> because it's not the way >> okay so that's a clarification needs to be made >> clarification Yeah, >> clarification would be helpful >> and and honestly sometimes just having a designated area >> and I don't even >> organized parking >> like organized park parking right where you it's closer to your house than it is to the road or something or to your neighbors. you know that you're actually making it part of your inconvenience more than other people's inconvenience by having >> parking something on the grass. >> Yeah. Or right that >> along the roadway, you know, you park it along the roadway. You have space between your house and where you're parking, but everybody else that's all they see, you know, is is your parking vehicle. >> So, >> okay, we all have our homework assignment. >> We've raised a couple of Good, good issues. Please mark them down. >> Thank you, professor. >> I am too. >> He's keeping us keeping us on task. >> Please mark them down. Yes. >> So that we can address them at the next commission meeting. >> Okay. >> Okay. Here we go. >> Homework and 48. >> Any further comments regarding the work plan project? Moving on, city council liaison and staff project update report. City council policy for commission appointments and reappointments. >> Um I'll I'll just provide a just a brief update. Um Miss Mciny can can sure chime in. Of course, uh the city council adopted a new policy I think at their 25th of October meeting I think if that's the right date. >> 28th. Yep. Yep. Is it on there? Oh, there. Yeah, there it is. Yeah. Um, and so the new the new policy moving forward is that the city council will be doing the candidate interviews. They will not be done by the commission. Um, and they so that's a that's a new policy. I think I sent a note out as information just to let the folks know. Uh, shouldn't have been new because that was what was talked about uh at the joint workshop earlier this year. Um, we do anticipate that those interviews are going to be taking place, I believe, at the December 9th meeting or as part of it or in advance of um the council's uh directive is that both uh existing candidates who want to be or existing commissioners who want to be reappointed and any new candidates, everybody's going to be interviewed uh if that's the direction the council goes. Um they I think originally we thought maybe it might be a letter but there is an application that should be filled out. It's on the website. >> Uh we have one of our members that's wants to seeking reappoint and so uh that should be completed um >> by the 24th >> by Yeah. As soon as >> 4:30. Yeah. >> Good luck to you. you know, you know, a lot of the reason we're doing this, I mean, Mayor Holt has wanted to do this since he started on the council, um, is that, you know, we all have to work towards keeping interest in our volunteerism. And, you know, if we end up with somebody, and I'm not pointing fingers at anything. I'm just saying what if you end up with a a retired engineer who's been in this field for 40 years versus somebody who just has an interest in city planning. You know, we want the opportunity to get the best um most qualified people who can add to our making decision. And I mean, everybody here does a great job. I don't think anybody's pointing fingers. It's just I think Mayor Holton I think all of us agreed that you know we all have to campaign every four years and try to hold our job if we want it and he feels strongly that commission should do the same. >> So >> so and and remember we did talk quite a bit about this at our joint meeting. >> Right. Right. >> Um that this was going to be happening. Y >> it it might be a a nice a nice thing um to involve the commission chairs in that interview process because the person might have some pointed questions for you know regarding how the commission operates and >> that's not in the policy >> but but Sarah would be there because she's >> I mean you're the >> you're the planning commission >> she's established point person. So, you know, you would be there. But that's a good point. I I will bring that up. >> Well, and I do I do think collaboration, you know, with the commissions and is it is a great >> great thing. And if you hired if you hired the right people hire like you're paying them um if you enlist the right people, >> then you know it'll give give you more comfort in delegating some of those decisions. >> Yeah. I mean, in the past, you know, we get handed the um >> the forms and we don't get an opportunity to talk to anybody. It it just really is backwards. And every city, according to >> Jesse and >> does it this way. It goes through the city council. So, >> and it makes sense because you have to rely on those decisions >> and and rely on the recommendations coming from people we respect and trust. So, >> right. I guess if it's an option, I would recommend giving the chair of whatever committee the right to sit in on those meetings as well. >> Yeah, that's what Sherry just said. I think that's a good idea. I'll I'll mention that. That's a good idea. >> I mean, whether it's written in the policy or not, the council Yeah, the council could decide to do that. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I think that's >> okay. Further comments about >> really appropriate >> about this issue. >> Thank you. Thank you, Miss Mciny. >> All right. Do we have anything else, Sarah? Um reminder, >> excuse me, I should ask. >> Yes, defer to me first. Okay. >> Council me uh council member Mcnane, do you have anything? >> Just I don't have anything from past meetings, but remember the tree lighting is >> Thursday. >> Thursday. And the uh >> they've been down there just working their tails off. They're they're really going overboard this year. It's going to look really beautiful. >> Uh and that's from 6:00 to 8. And then remember the free Thanksgiving meal if anybody has want or desire to donate their time or monetarily um it's going to be held at the Legion on Thanksgiving from 12 to 4. Also looking for volunteers to help serve or clean. Um and then there's a holiday lunchon for the mound Rotary. Uh that's going to be December 16th at I believe that is going to be at Lafayette. I'm pretty sure it's Lapia from 12 to 1, it's $30 and it's a it's their annual holiday lunch. >> That's a really >> to keep people kind of updated on their success stories and fundraising efforts. >> Yeah. >> Would you would you could I just make one comment before we close? I I know we're at the point. I just um would like to say to Sarah, I have recently gone through the permitting process and um I need to give kudos to Sarah because her response time um on any request, right? her follow through. I mean, she is topnotch and >> I really want to give her >> kudos for that. >> And our longest serving employee in Mount Yes. 20 is it 28 years? Oh, >> no. Colette. Colette's the longest at 28 years. And you're how many years? 24. >> It was pleasure working with you. >> Well, it I mean it's complicated. I mean what she does and what she looks at and my sideyard is really my backyard and I mean it's just crazy right stuff >> and I have really good support too have to your communication >> all the people that work with me but your personal communication is topn I just wanted to share that. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Anything from you sir? Um, uh, no, I'm good. Thank you everybody. Have a great Thanksgiving. Come, come to um >> tree lighting on Thursday. It's going to be beautiful. >> Yeah. >> Winter rules are in effect, right? >> Yeah. They Thank you. They started the >> parking rules start the 15th. So, they started >> 2:00 a.m. to 6 a.m. >> Okay. >> I'm aware my roof's coming off my garage. >> I know it's it's it's rough. And you know, it's hard when you see no forecasted snow >> and then we can't park on the street. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Luckily, I have good neighbors who will >> Okay. Next meeting is Tuesday, December 2nd. >> Yep. >> At 6 PM. Are there any information items? >> Uh you the H Hallstead Point applications will be on the December 2nd meeting. So, we'll have public hearing for those. >> I hear they just passed. Is >> that the old trailer park? >> Yes. manufactur north north manufactured housing on >> north point on H Hallstead Bay for the mound side. >> Okay, >> good. >> And they did just pass on the minute side. >> They have conditional approvals several months ago. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> But they just had a big conversation on Monday. I happened to watch the meeting for another reason and I heard that. So, >> um Kathy, one of the things too is that if you if if we ever want to have the watershed present at the planning commission meeting, >> um they would be happy to do that. >> So, at planning >> at planning at council at you know he I know they do periodically the council but at planning. >> Oh, that would be >> Yeah. >> Okay. Any other information items? Hearing none. Shar would I entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Motion to second. Discussion hearing. None. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed. Nay. Motion carries. Thank you for coming.