meeting. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> No. >> All right, folks. It's 6 o'clock. >> I got >> I'd like to call to order the Tuesday, January 6, 2026
meeting of the Mound Planning Commission. Roll call, please. Someone >> com uh council liaison, planning commission member Kathy Mcinany. I, >> planning commission member Nick Rosner >> here.
>> Vice Chair Jason Baker >> here. >> Planning Commission Member Drew Heel >> here. >> Planning Commission Member Kristen Young >> here. >> Planning Commission Chair David Good >> present. >> Wow. >> Let's look next on our agenda. We have
nomination and election of chair and vice chair for 2026. I would like to open the floor for nominations for the position of chair. >> So I will make a motion to nominate uh
>> Mr. Good as chair for the planning commission 2026. >> I'll go ahead and second that. >> I have a motion and second nominations >> hearing none. I call the nominations closed for chair. Like to open the nominations for the position of vice
chair and in doing so I'd like to nominate uh Jason Baker. >> I second that. >> Further nominations hearing none. I declare the nominations closed. You have in front of you two
documents. These are per our work rules. You need to put a name of a nominee for chair and put an X by that name. And then down
below, put your initials. And if you'll hand them over this way, I'll make sure the secretary gets them and she will give us a uh account. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> And it's not the secretary, it's our esteemed planning person. Director. We have a unanimous vote for David Good to serve as chair and a unanimous vote
for Jason Baker to serve as vice chair for 2026. >> Congratulations. >> Congratulations and thank you for your service >> and thanks for doing such an awesome job. Thank you. On behalf of Jason and myself, thank you for your support.
Moving on, we have review and approval of the agenda. We don't have any amendments. Chair would entertain a motion to approve the agenda as distributed unless you have any changes or concerns. >> Motion to approve as distributed.
>> Second. >> Motion to second. Discussion. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Those opposed, nay. >> Motion carries. Moving on. We have two sets of minutes for your review. We're going to take them separately. The first
is a special rescheduled meeting minutes of November 18, 2025. >> Are there any changes, concerns? >> You had them in your packet. >> Okay.
Hearing none, chair would entertain a motion for approval of those November 18, 2025 minutes as distributed. >> Make a motion to approve of the November 18th, 2025 minutes as distributed. >> Second. >> We have a motion and second discussion.
>> Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> Those opposed? Nay. >> Motion carries. Next, we have minutes of the regular meeting of the planning commission on December 2, 2025.
Any changes to those minutes? Hearing none, the chair would entertain a motion to approve the minutes as distributed. >> Motion to approve as distributed. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Discussion >> hearing none. All those in favor signify
by saying I. Those oppos. Motion carries. Moving on. Board of adjustment and appeals planning case 25-12. >> Miss Rita. >> All right. >> The TV is beautiful, but my computer and
the TV are not jing. So, sorry. We're going to have to work through the planning packet that you guys have in front of you, and that's probably our best course of action. So, we did do the PowerPoint that I have that I'm going to talk about um in the order of the packet. So, hopefully we'll match
together and my thing's all jammed up from everything we've been trying to do. Just give me a second. Um so, give me one second to get it functioning again as we've been playing technology.
It'll probably be something really simple when we finally figure it out. Like, right, one button that if we just pushed would work perfectly. All right. So, thank you. Uh, I am Rita Trap, planning consultant for the city. Um, the case before you um is a um project
that involves four different actions and we'll talk about all of those this evening. For everybody in the audience, we did want to I just wanted to do a little recap. Um this act this item was on the December 2nd um 2025 planning commission meeting. So at that time we had a full presentation about the
project and its elements. Uh we held a public hearing for the comprehensive plan and the major subdivision preliminary plat. The commission discussed the proposal and tabled it with having a request for additional information. So, I will walk through a little bit about the project tonight just to make sure everybody's somewhat
aware of what it is, but I will focus more on the areas that the planning commission wanted additional information. Um, relative to any additional public comment, it's at the discretion of the planning commission and the chair whether or not you have additional public comments. Um, and I know the applicant representatives are here this evening. And again, that's up
to you if you want to have additional comments from them or clarifications from them. Um, so with that, I'm going to do a little bit of an overview just to set the stage. Um the project is located on Bartlett Boulevard with Lakeshore on Halstead Bay. Um the
project involves uh a combination of uh development in Minitrista and in Mound. Uh so on the Mound side, there'll be a 9-unit condominium building, a 4unit townhouse building, and a single family lot with an amenity building right on the lake shore. Um the miniaturista part
will have 45 units that are across three different condominium buildings and then 15 single family homes. Um at this point the applicant has received preliminary approval for plat and land use approvals with uh Minatrista. So they are ahead of us in this process. We are now at that
same stage of considering whether or not this project is appropriate for mound and if it is what kinds of conditions you would like to or the city council would like to place on it. So, um, in your packet hopefully or you had a chance to look, we did have an overview graphic that gave a little bit of an
orientation. It was beautiful. Um, at just to kind of verbally do that, uh, near Bartlett Boulevard or County Road 110 will be the 9-unit condominium building. Um, behind that as you go down the slope would be a 4unit townhouse building. Um, and then against the lake
shore, there's a single family home that actually will be developed separately from the project. Uh, it has its own property owner. Um, and we don't have specific plans for that. We have kind of a general layout of what they're thinking and then an amenity build an amenity building.
So, the request again just to summarize it is a comprehensive plan amendment. Um, and that's just to kind of reguide and change the guidance for this property. This part of this property was guided previously for a project um similar but not exactly the same as this project. And so, we're trying to we need
to make the adjustments to the comprehensive plan so they match. So where the condominium building is, which is a a higher density project, we show medium density residential. Where the town houses and the single family are, we show low density residential. So this property development area has both.
We're just trying to reconfigure it to match what is being proposed for the project. Uh there is also a reasonzoning application and that would reszone from R1 to R3 shoreline planning unit development. With that, I do want to note that a portion of this project has
historically been R3 shoreline plan unit development. So, we are continuing or expanding it to meet the entire project area. Uh, a major subdivision preliminary plat. So, this is what creates the actual lots. Um, there are multiple lots involved here today. Uh,
there will be eight lots. Uh most of those will be one for the condominium building, um one individual each, uh for the townhouse, uh one for the single family, one for the amenity building, and then kind of one overall that uh goes around those units. Uh so those are
our eight different lots. The primary element we will be discussing today is related to the conditional use permit. The CUP is the process we use for any type of shoreland development such as this. Um it is also required for the town houses and multifamily. So a
conditional use permit just means that staff and the um city council planning commission want extra time and effort to review a particular project. Um it just gives us the opportunity to evaluate the project and provide additional conditions um given a location of a
project within the community. So the supplemental information that we received uh it I'm going to I believe uh we tried to do as I said my presentation in order of the planning report. So first I'm going to talk about building height. Uh there was a concern raised about building height uh by the planning
commission at its last meeting. The applicant has made revisions to try and reduce the height in this in all of the city of mound. The maximum height is three stories or 35 feet. Uh the applicant is proposing a front uh facade
height of about 40 feet, just over 40 feet. Um I didn't provide exact measurements just because it's always a little bit difficult to get exact measurements given the fact that we look at the average grade of the front and the back and that's not really what we need to finalize today. What we need to
finalize is just the idea that this building can be taller than what the city allows. So generally they've decreased the height by about 3 feet to just over 40 feet. the rear facade has decreased about four feet uh to just about 46 feet. Um I do want to note on the back, one thing that's important if
you look at those elevations is to remember that this building will sit behind the townhouse as you're in the lake. It'll be the single family homes, then the townhouse, then the condominium building. So part of the view of it will be disrupted by the trees in the townhouse building itself. Um from the
rear it looks like a four-story building. From the front it primarily looks like a three-story building. Uh the applicant did provide um some visual. Hopefully you had a chance to look at it that kind of provided what it will look like from the road. Um there is a setback from the road. And again,
there's also the what I'll call a driveway that is in front of the condo building between Bartlett building and the Bartlett Boulevard and the condo building that connects to the condo buildings in Minatrista. So that is also separating the building from the actual
road. Um there are trees and newly planted trees. Um the trees in the diagrams primarily if they're there are the ones that are staying and the kind of lighter ones are ones that are going to be planted. Um but as we had noted there's some things that don't quite jive with our understanding of the
landscape plan. Um but that's kind of in one area but you can kind of see from their visuals what they intend or think that the building will look like from Bartlett Boulevard. You also asked for clarification about Minitrista and other buildings in mound. Um so from our
review of the city council packet uh in Minitrista the building heights there um they hold to a maximum of three stories or 45 feet in height and they didn't have any concerns about the height and so how the buildings as proposed for them in Minitrista uh meet the
requirements. Um and so they also don't include the basement level garages. um that's their how they handle um building height in mound. We can handle it two ways with this project. One is that we can just look at the Bartlett Boulevard view. Um we also have a provision if
it's a normal typical shoreline lot. We would take the average grade of the front and the back and then look at those building heights. Um and so there's kind of two ways you can do building measurement. I think from a visual perspective, we all understand about 40 feet and three stories is what it will look like in the front. um and
four stories 46 feet in the back. Other mound projects are Tessa was approved up to 48 feet um just for perspective and Harrison Bay Senior Living was approved to 39 and a half ft. So I know it's sometimes helpful to just have an idea
of what buildings are um and so those are the heights of those buildings for comparison purposes. Obviously those buildings are bigger. This is a 9-unit condominium building. Those buildings have a lot more units in them. So just remember that as you think about the height and the bulk of those buildings.
Um this building is different in size in the fact of the number of units that are contained in the building. So building height I'm going to move on to imperous surface. Um imperous surface the reason it came back to you is a little bit about clarification that was
asked for the from the planning commission. Uh one uh request was that the updated uh calculations did not include lot three. So for the overall calculation they did remove lot three. Uh the proposed now would be 35.5% of impervious for the entire project
versus 34%. Um hopefully if you understand the kind of the project there's a fair amount of open space in lot 3. So that was bringing their overall uh percentage down. Um but it's still our maximum is about 35%. So we're still kind of in the range of what we're
seeking. Um, when you actually get to the taring element, um, the taring is a little bit different. They still included lot three, so I can't really tell you what the impervious surface is in um, tier one because lot three is still included in that. Um, but again,
kind of proposed overall, it's 29.5%. I should note, and if unfortunately you can't see the diagram, the tierings don't actually meet match the lot dimension. So for example, tier one, lot three extends in both tier one and tier
two. So how the open space of tier of lot three affects the tiers is something I can't really talk about, but generally they're aiming for about 30 to 35% with impervious. There was a lot of discussion about the amenity building itself. Uh it was
reconfigured uh particularly the dock or the deck patio area was reconfigured to try and move the structure out of the ordinary high water level and the kind of setback from it. Um so they were reduced in area below that. Um it's more
of a pvious paver. Um there is now a pvious paver trail or connection between those areas and the proposed dock. Um, right now they're at 50% impervious with the pvious oh sorry the pvious pavers
they uh equated at a 50% imperous rate. So that's a lot about the amenity building itself. Um relative to traffic and use. There weren't any changes about traffic or the use of the building. Um the applicant did note as I said in the packet that um they still expect many
HOA members to walk down to the building. I don't think it's particularly large in size and there would be some storage for folks for certain kinds of things that they would be able to leave down in that building. Um, but I don't have a lot else to talk about relative to that. That would be something if you had um if you needed more information or have more
conversation to have it directly with the applicant. Moving on, open space. Um, Shoreland PUD requires 50% open space. Uh, they are they are proposing 61.2% 2% open space.
Uh the only thing that staff is concerned about is the technical reading of the code and the way the shoreland management rules read. Um the 61.2% includes lot 3. Uh and so that helps get you uh over 50%. But the way that the
code reads is that if lot 3 is contributing it, then the homeowner would need to be potentially part of the homeowners association and they would need to preserve their yard area in perpetuity and make sure that they don't ever um build into that yard area. Typically, when I see developments, a
single family home is not included in the open space unless it's like a townhouse structure where you only own the structure and the association owns the rest of your yard. That's not what's being proposed. So my recommendation is that lot three shouldn't be included in the open space. Um because I think
that's a challenge that lot probably is operating separately than the town homes the c but that's a discussion with the applicant that we need to have and I'm not particularly concerned. I'm just flagging it as something we need to figure out and make sure that if the development were to be approved. it's
clear for staff and for the applicant and for the property owner of lot 3 how that contributes or doesn't contribute to certain things and what are their limits to what they can do with their yard. That's our biggest concern is that there isn't confusion moving forward about what you can do in that property
and that we're limiting it in some way that u folks didn't understand. So um that's kind of a technical element um but certainly if you have thoughts on how it should be handled um certainly worth a conversation and clarification. Similarly or related to open space
there's something called the shore impact zone and that's the first 25 ft from the ordinary high water level. The way the shoreline regulations read um is that 70% of that area should be preserved in its natural or existing state. That's the term it's used um from
staff in this recent set of plans that we received in preparation for this meeting on the landscape plan and only on the landscape plan. There's a beach and a retain uh retaining wall shown. Um and that staff doesn't comply with the idea of something being in its natural
or existing state. Um, so our recommendation is that consideration should be given to removal or we need more clarification from the applicant about how those things um are providing something that we're not understanding. This is the first time that we've seen
uh a beach or um the retaining walls and it could be that as plans have developed there's a reason for it but we haven't had that conversation. Um so that's something that we wanted to flag. Landscaping wise, there's some discrepancy on a technical level that we
just need to fix um about how well trees will survive. Similarly to what I mentioned with the beach and the retaining wall, there's a new swale that's shown next to the amenity building. Um that uh again showed up in the landscaping plan. Um our landscape
architect spoke with the city engineer um and talked about it and there's clarification that needs to happen on that. So that's a technical element that needs to be resolved. um and we have conditions about that resolution. Uh but we also want to see how we can preserve an oak tree um that's on the corner of
the swale. So landscaping wise, most of those are technical recommendations and some of those need to be done in coordination with the city engineer, but those are new elements that hadn't been in previous plans. Um so we have some things that need to be resolved.
I'm just taking a pause for a second because I was a lot talking. Okay. Traffic-wise, um, County Road 110 is a county road. It is an A minor arterial. So, in terms of functional classification, it's near the top in terms of its how it's supposed to
function within our community. It's really designed for moving traffic. It's not meant for local access. It's meant to move people from one community to the next community. Um, so with that, that's really where, you know, I said at the last meeting that it's really designed to accommodate development and the kind
of additional traffic this would generate, um, is not something that should overwhelm the road. That being said, I understand on a local level, it will change the dynamics. Cars will be added, there will be challenges, and things will have to get adjusted with ways that people move through this. Um,
because if you go from no development to housing, there is going to be a change and there will be an increase in traffic. But that is what a minor arterial is meant to do is to take traffic from local roads and put it on there and uh move it from community to community. So Henipin County and City of
Mound have reviewed it. Um generally as I get to the comments, both Henipin County and City of Mound engineers have generally signed off on this project. They've felt like the applicant has mostly done their technical improvements that they want. Um and they've just they've asked and the applicant has
responded with additional turn lanes um to improve traffic flow. One other element I know from other projects um and one reason I think it's good is that there is the connection between the mountain and minitrista side so that as folks from the townhouse and the condo you know if it if it is challenging to
get out and go a certain direction they have another way to get through. They could go to the miniaturista exit on Hallstead and get on to county road 110. And we know from other projects that people change their patterns based on how they know traffic flows in the area. Again, I'm not saying it won't be a
change. I'm not saying it may be challenging at times. Um I'm just saying the reality is this is what this road is designed to do. Um and this is low and medium density development. So um snow removal. Uh the applicant has stated
that the majority of the development has ample locations for snow storage and generally we would agree. My only concern is that you shouldn't be putting it in parking areas um because that's what they're there for. So, it is sometimes helpful for staff to understand so they can communicate later where snow storage is supposed to go and
also to make sure the homeowners association knows that they're responsible for removing it if we get so much snowfall in a year um that it has to be removed from the site and that's a cost that they may have. Um we're just trying to prevent things in the future um from there being a problem. So,
generally, uh, snow storage is typically something that we just have to make sure that people are aware of as an issue to address site lighting. I I'm going to skip I mean, I can do signage. I didn't put in my presentation. Signage, they're proposing signage. They're going to meet the code. They didn't ask for any
variations. Um, so when signage comes in, we will review it uh against what the code requirements are. Uh, site lighting. They are proposing lighting. I do want to note some of them are street lighting versus lights on the exterior of a building or on driveways. Uh
relative to things that are on buildings or on driveways. Uh the code limits any kind of of light to not be brighter than 0.4 foot candles which is a unit of meas measurement for lighting uh at the property line. Generally there's
compliance with this project. The only issue is along the western lot line of the amenity building and so there needs to be some adjustments to the placement of those lights to make sure that they aren't extending onto the residential property that's outside of this development right next door. There are
some if you really looked at the lighting plan there are some numbers that are higher. Generally those are next to streets where we would expect them to be higher. Um so we aren't flagging any of the lights that are really meant for street purposes. Um, we're really flagging things like in the amenity building parking lot, there's a
light that probably either needs to be moved or adjusted so that it doesn't have light that spills over um to the next property. And then relative to trail surfacing, um, the applicant is now proposing to use permeable pavers instead of wood
chips. Um, and so there are stairs and trails that connect the amenity building to the townhouse building to the 9-unit condominium building. I'm not going to spend a lot of time, but I do want to note a little bit about review comments. So, one of the actions staff took after the last planning
commission meeting was to share the latest set of plans that we had with all of our agency partners. And then we sent an email that asked them to review their list of comments um that they had had previously for us uh against the latest set of plans and let us know if there
was changes to their comments, if they had any new concerns. Um and so what we tried to summarize in the report was the information we got subsequent to that email. Um in general my analysis or summary would be generally people feel like the applicant is responding to
their technical comments making changes to address those concerns and that we continue to move in a way where the concerns that technical reviewers have are being addressed. Um there is a change with Minhaha Creek wershed district. the applicant actually has
applied which is different than when we were at the meeting. Um and a few things just to note um right now well the latest information we have is that it's uh the application has been deemed incomplete. I wouldn't note that except for I think the reasons they're deeming it incomplete address some of the
comments that we had received. So I just wanted to highlight that. Um one is that Minihaha Creek will be uh requiring them to delineate the off-site drainage area that discharges into the project site. And I know there have been concerns from adjacent residents and neighbors that they weren't accounting for that
adequately. So Minhaha Creek is asking them to do that and adjust their model so that they can evaluate how that off-site drainage that comes into this project site is going to be handled. Um there's also a comment about vertical separation. Um and they need to make sure that there's a disconnect um
between the buildings um and the the hundred-year flood and the buildings. So again, Minihaha Creek is just at the beginning of their process and as you are aware, we generally go first, they come after, but they are starting to work through those elements with the applicant. Um the DNR area hydraologists
felt that most of that their comments had been addressed. Um the Henipin County, they didn't really have any additional comments, their conditions. It sounded like we've started to move forward on addressing their comments. Uh the fire department did meet with the applicant and they asked them for changes and the applicant has been
working on those change did make those changes. Um and then uh public works will just get involved to make sure that the systems make sense between the to the two cities. Um the engineer uh who had the most comments said generally his comments have been addressed. He had a
few from the recent set of plans. there was like three um and then the whole the new swale E needs to be more uh more investigated more information u because that was in the latest set of plans that we had received so I mentioned the comments just to show
the fact that we're moving on the technical part of this uh the technicians can provide things that make sense and meet our requirements I think you still had a lot of questions that were more on the planning side more of the aesthetic side and how did this fit with this community um and those are
questions that you all um can provide input on on whether or not the project meets um the intent of the code. Uh I've provided all of the technical information I can. Um but you still have kind of those questions because it is a PUB. Um there's an opportunity for you
to shape and uh how this project comes together. Um we're asking tonight that you discuss the request. Um take one of the actions you you kind of know, table it, uh recommend approval, recommend denial. Um, I guess generally staff feels like from a technical perspective,
the applicant is addressing our comments and moving. Um, there still may be reasons that you feel it doesn't fit what the code and the comprehensive plan intent is, and that's fine. Um, from staff's perspective, we're not sure what additional information answers those
questions. So, it may be time for you to kind of talk about it and make a recommendation one way or the other. Um because there's not a lot of new I don't know what new technical information may solve. Um but maybe there is and that's what tonight is about for you to assess and say do I have all the information or
not? Can I make a recommendation? But from Sarah my perspective and Miia's you know they're moving forward and we're maybe at a point where we need to see if we can figure out where we feel on this and have the city council also have an opportunity to think about the project. So, with that, sorry again about the
technology because I had, you know, the slides would have been beautiful and I'm excited about the new TV. >> I just wish it would have worked. Um, but it >> worked this afternoon. >> Yeah, it had it had worked. It just I wasn't here. We didn't test. Um, so we'll find out what it is. Hopefully, my
verbal descriptions were enough. I apologize. I know the graphics are great, but I can answer questions um that you may have or things that I miss talking about. >> Thank you. questions or comments for Rita? >> All right, I have a couple questions
more just for my knowledge. Um, what is this? What is the swale like? Is that just used to hold water? >> That would be a technical question you should ask their engineer. >> Oh, okay. >> Generally, it's a drainage element. >> Okay. >> And I don't want to purport to >> is that like a detention pond?
>> I usually This is what I I feel. But again, you should ask We should ask the engineer. Generally, I think of a swale as a thing that collects water and moves it and then it has an outlet of some sort. And I know our landscape architect expressed concern about where what was coming into the soil and what was
leaving the swale and the city engineer looked at it and felt that also there was additional information that would be helpful. But that should be the extent of what I say on a technical level about sw. >> All right. Um the second one is around the MCWD. Yeah,
>> they're asking for to delineate the off-site drainage that discharges into the project site and incorporate that into storm water models. Is that they have to know how much water is coming in and then where that's going within. So my understanding and again
engineering technical questions they can cl clarify if I'm inaccurate but my understanding has been there is a certain amount of acreage that's north of Bartlett Boulevard that is coming through this site today as we are today and MCWD is going to be asking them to
identify what that is what's coming in and how it's getting handled because the drainage has been coming through the site and it's going to continue to come through the site. So again, >> okay. >> Well, it must eventually go to the lake, right?
>> So again, that would be a great engineer question for them to answer. That's my understanding. >> Well, I got a question then for the city on that. >> So, um, if I'm looking at the the map, right, then >> the map, >> the the layout. >> Yes.
>> Um, it looks like there is a left turn going west. >> Oh, boy. into the first lot and a left turn going west into the second driveway. But both of them going east don't have turn lanes. Was that intentionally done
for some reason? >> You mean right turn lanes? >> There's there's a left turn lane if you're going from east to west out of >> Yep. >> into the first driveway. >> Yes. >> And there's also a left turn lane into the second driveway.
>> Yes. But if you're going from east to west, >> from west to east, >> from west to east, from y from coming in from Minitrista and you're making a right turn, why isn't there a turn? >> There's no turn lanes at all for either of those. >> All right. I don't have that detail of a plan in front of me. I
>> Well, it's the one you gave us. >> Yeah, but on my PowerPoint, we take things, >> but um assuming that's correct, and we can verify, make sure that's correct. Assuming that it's correct, I would guess again not traffic engineer done these is the concern is is that as a
left turn you would be waiting for traffic to have to come by you so you can cross. So it's more important to have stacking for the left turners than it is for the right turners who can come to the intersection and most of the time make a free right turn without having to worry about other traffic. Not a traffic
engineer but that would be my and those are information that we can verify for other people. I'm just doing my best with the knowledge I have from planning. >> Okay. And maybe that's right. I was just it seemed logical you'd have like one turn lane for right and one turn lane for left. >> It probably but the question is do you
have enough right of way for all of that to happen? So if you didn't have enough right over >> No, I mean instead of two left turn lanes, one left turn and one right turn >> given the So if if you're coming from the Minotarista west to east, you take the the entrance that's got the right
turn lane versus the right turn lane. >> Oh, you're saying like one of them had a left turn and one would have a right turn. And >> I think though that house said is I think also there's a topography issue if I remember correctly. And so my guess right isn't there a topography coming
out of mound going west that you would want to make sure sight lines are good enough. >> Yeah, I guess there is a little >> and so you'd be more concerned of making sure those left turners are stacked and safe than the right turners coming in. >> Okay. >> Again, great questions that we can
verify my responses. >> I just know there's a lot of concerns about the traffic. So >> there is a lot of concerns. Yes. Um but there's also the reality of anybody coming out of the development has multiple ways and as I said if it becomes for them at least people coming
out if it becomes too difficult they have two different choices that they can based on what they know of traffic patterns you know it might be over time they realize that it's better to come out on Holstead than to try and come out um which means that they would be more safely moving also which would help um
Bartlett Boulevard. >> Yeah. I was just thinking that if you're coming out and you're turning left, either either driveway now has a turn lane to your east. So, you're going to have to look around a turn lane. >> Yeah.
>> If you're turning west versus I'm not a traffic engineer, though. >> That's me either. >> Okay. >> Good questions and we can verify my responses. I just those are my my best estimates on the wise.
>> And then were they still was Minha Creek wershed district still okay that the the deck goes into the setback or is that a city decision? >> That's a city decision with commentary from the DNR. >> Oh, okay. Further questions for Rita?
Further discussion amongst the commission. Okay. Hearing none. We have already had a public hearing about this project. I am u willing to have limited commentary from individuals
in the audience if they'd like to approach the commission. And as you do so, sir, I need your name and your address, please. >> Sheldon Berg, uh for um 333 Washington Avenue, Minneapolis, and thank you for your time. Um thank you for
consideration this evening. Um chair and members of the commission. Uh a couple things I guess I'd highlight. The last thing was the traffic question that that um the planner was reviewing. I think that her response is correct that the question is really the left turn
movements into the um development were the concerns and those were the stipulations that we heard from Hen Hen County on the um traffic movement and that was their concerns. We accommodated that into the project and it's obviously
reflected in the plans that we have now. Um the um uh I think you heard at the beginning don't have the graphics but uh we did make adjustments for the height um bringing that down and I think the graphics that were requested I think
adequately show um you know that the building is at a minimum it's over 100 feet back from the road and even on the because of the angled road that's in front of it it's up to 140 or 150 ft on the other end and so it does set back
quite ways and then there is landscaping and parking and things in front of it. So that think the overall appearance of it, it's not like you're downtown and there's a 40 foot building that's right next to the sidewalk. You're, you know, half a block away or more. um in in in
this context. Um the other items um I think I can say that um as far as any of the outstanding items that are remaining that either are new comments to us or are ones that
we're still working on. We're in process of those. We have agreement with u making continue making that progress and the changes to accommodate any of the technical questions that we have. Um the question about the overflow for the
storm water coming from the north that's on the Minatrista side and it's being accommodated by the new um four um basins that we have um in on on that side the what's been called the swale on
the east side of the building that's within mound um that's to help accommodate and add a little assurance to for our single family um neighbor um in terms of any of the um water that may come off of the roofs or the the kind of
the townhouse area to help mitigate any potential um flowage um that's to the north of their property. That was something that we're adding in to help um assuage any of those questions that they might have. Um and it obviously
does add a little more um retention potential for the for the mound side of the project as well. Um I think those are the highlights. Um and as far as the uh uh open space
question, we can verify that and get that information over to you. So let's calculate both ways. But um since we're over 10% for the whole entirety of the property, taking their parcel out probably won't greatly affect um the
overall percentage being clear of the 50% requirement. So, uh I think that's all for now unless there's any questions that >> All right. Questions for this gentleman? >> Sure. >> I don't have a question. And I just wanted to um I was really concerned
about the height >> and I really appreciate um you know you you really addressed our concerns and also the fact that you gave us this visual, >> right? >> So we can really see the perspective from 110. >> Yep. >> And I think that um
>> that helps a lot camouflage. >> Sure. >> The height with with the landscaping. So I think it looks like a really nice project. >> Great. Thank you. >> Okay. Other questions or comments for this gentleman? >> Thank you.
>> Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Further discussion amongst the commission. >> So we're just approved the conditional use permit. >> We'll be on that. >> All four.
>> Thank you. >> Did you want me to come up and answer any questions about that? >> No, not to me. That I thought it was just C C. Okay. >> What page is that on that we're >> Yeah, they start on page 20. >> Okay. >> The recommendations with the first being
the plat uh and then followed by the conditional use permit. >> That's right. >> Uh and then the comp plan amendment and the resoning. And there's conditions and also recommended findings of fact for each of the four applications.
Okay. Further discussion. >> Um, I guess I got a question then for if we're going to make a >> condition that lot three not be included as part
of the open spaces calculation. Would that be part of the plot, the conditional use, the PUD? Good, Michael. Michael, good. >> So, a condition uh like that would be part of the conditional use permit
because that's what will continue into the future. So, the plat once the lots are created, we don't usually spend a lot of time on the preliminary plat um resolution. So, the conditional use permit is the way that we would encompass that topic. >> Did that make sense? >> Yes.
>> Okay. I said I don't see the recommendations >> and then as part of the cup one of the conditions that you had was the sand beach improvements and retaining walls be removed >> is that due to
creek wershed requirements? Oh, it's uh the shoreline regulations that we have in our code and is actually from the state as well talk about how the shoreland area the first 25 ft behind the ordinary high water level should be 70% of it should be retained in its
existing or natural state. So from our perspective creating a beach and creating a retaining wall doesn't meet those requirements unless there's some reason that they need to be there. But um those only showed up in the newest set of plans
that we had uh received a few days before the packet was prepared. >> Further questions or discussion? >> Okay. Hearing none, I'd like to refer you to page 20 of your agenda. And I'm going to read you two paragraphs.
Recommendation. The planning commission is requested to discuss a land use and subdivision requests and recommend approval, recommend denial or table the requests so that the applicant and staff can provide additional information.
Staff recommendation is for approval of the requests to include conditions and findings of fact and I think uh Sarah went through those with you. At a minimum staff recommends the following preliminary list of conditions
and findings of fact be considered as I said with the planning commission's recommendations. Please note that the conditions and findings proposed are preliminary and subject to change as review and discussion of the development
project continues. Any questions about those two paragraphs? Hearing none, then the chair would entertain a motion regarding planning case number 25-12. >> And I remind you that this is either
approval, denial, or table. >> And we're doing these separately, right? I think I think we can do them all at once. I think >> I mean the project doesn't really survive if we take them apart. >> Yeah, you could. >> Unless there's
stand up recordings. >> Is there a reason Mr. Baker you felt? >> No, I just >> Yeah, I think because they are interrelated with each other. If you if you would approve one but not the other, the project still can't operate. So included in the recommendation should be
the conditions and findings of fact and toto. >> Yes, >> correct. >> Yes. Unless there's a reason someone feels strongly not to, I would just do it in one here. Um did we say
Is the reszoning findings effect part of the comp plan amendment? Is that what that is? >> So we have >> potential conditions >> conditional use permit. >> The potential funding of comprehensive
plan amendment. At the top of page 23, there are findings. Correct. >> The top of page >> bottom of page 22. Yep. And top of 23. >> Yeah. >> But there's findings of facts for the comp plan amendment and resoning and
subdivision plumary plot. But there's no reasonzoning conditions, right? >> There are not because of resoning can't have conditions. You can't conditionally approve a reason. That's making sure there's not. >> Yeah. No, I appreciate that. That was if that was the nature of your question. There are not conditions. >> Okay.
All right. Well, I guess I'll make a motion to approve the comprehensive plan amendment major subdivision preliminary plat conditional use permit for the planned unit
development in the shoreline overlay district to allow for multiple family dwelling unit structure and townhouse in the R3 zoning district, including the conditions found
on page 20 through 22 plus the condition of excluding lot three for open space calculations and the findings of fact on page 22 and
23. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Discussion second. Is that right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yep. You're fine. She She was asking a different question but related but not
to you. >> Further discussion. >> I got nothing. >> Okay. Hearing none. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> Those opposed? Nay.
>> Motion carries. Thank you. Congratulations. >> And you know that you'll be in contact with Sarah about >> city >> additional issues plus city council >> the city council hearings. Yeah. We have to coordinate all that. >> Exactly.
>> Yeah. >> Good luck technology tonight. >> A lot of hand signals. >> Thank you. >> If you haven't done so, please sign in. >> We did. We did. Great. Great. Thank you
very much. >> Byebye. Thank you. >> Okay, moving on. >> Old slashnew business. >> Old slashnew. >> We have discussion and action on the 2026 planning commission work rules. They were in your packet
>> and they included in red suggestions from staff. >> Yep. Um uh some of it's kind of housekeeping. Um there's really not a lot of meat to it short of we did
>> um amend out the the re the new process for interviewing. Uh so that that's now in the purview of the council following the adoption of the resolution and the ordinance. Um
and and then taking out as exhibits the former resolutions. Uh so it's it's been skinnied up a bit. Um and so this I think reflects current stuff right now. I don't know if there's
other things you want us to be working on in those work rules. Um, I also should note that uh, and I don't know that I saw it here, but I know it's in the ordinance that our number now is officially seven.
So, as was talked about um, at the joint meeting with the council that uh, due to a a was a resignation of a member um, an appointment of a new member. The thought was to bring the number down from 9 to
seven and that includes um our city council representatives. So we now are a group of seven instead of nine and that ordinance was adopted by the council and it was published. So we are now a family of seven planning
commission members and your staff and our guests. But I I'm not sure if there's anything else that jumped out at folks. >> Yeah, it's pretty. >> I just noticed one
>> uh nit 4B on page 26 of the agenda. It just says by email and telephone to notify of absence. Perhaps one would suffice. >> Yeah. Um or I guess maybe it's or long as I hear. I mean most everybody does
email. Um, I'm fine with if you want to do it by email. I'm also fine by phone. So maybe it's not and >> could be by phone or email. >> Or let's do or >> and most of you are really good about doing that and letting us know well in
advance of absences which is also very much appreciated. >> Any other comments or thoughts? Well, we have that one suggested change. >> So, should I make a motion to So, I'll make a motion to approve the planning
commission work rules as submitted by staff >> with the update of B work rule 1B by email or phone. >> Perfect. Second. >> Thank you. >> Have a motion to second. We have discussion
hearing. None. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Motion. Um. >> Those opposed. Nay. Motion carries. Okay. We have 2026 regular meeting cancellation and scheduling of special
and rescheduled meetings. >> You find that on page >> 24. >> 24. So your February 3rd date is caucus. So the recommended rescheduled meeting date
is the 17th of February, which also would be anticipated the our annual work session with the council. As of now, I don't think we have any applications. Um, so I think at least where we're at
right now, I think we could utilize the the regular meeting for the joint concurrent workshop. Um, if something comes in, um, we try and fit it in or or figure that out, but as of today, and today's the 6th, we don't have any applications filed or pending. So that
does hopefully give us that time for the meeting on the 17th. Um that meeting date also assuming that you guys are good with that would also be put into the plan or into the city council's meeting session at their
meeting next week on Tuesday. Um the second one is the an annual thing. Our night to unite in August is always on the first Tuesday. We always move that to the third Tuesday so that folks can um partake in their night to
unite community neighborhood activities. And item C, this happens from time to time as well. Um election is the first Tuesday following the first Monday. Um and so our November 3rd meeting is uh
requested to be cancelled and a replacement be scheduled for the third uh Tuesday in November which would be the 17th. So those are the three dates that we would uh recommend the planning
commission change for 2026 as part of our calendar that we know of as of right now. There have to have changes. >> Okay. Um discussion about this >> the Tuesday, February 17th. Did we
already have that on the calendar for the joint meeting? >> Um that has been the last couple of years that has been the preferred date. >> Okay. Um I don't know if it's on the councils yet, but at least for the past couple of years, we've met in concurrent session at our second meeting date.
That's because we otherwise it scooches into March and we like the February. Okay. >> So in the event something changes, we'll let you know. But that is the preferred date and I propose that to the city manager earlier in the week. So it should be on it should show up on your agenda or report in the upcoming days.
So, I will make a motion to approve the regular meeting date cancellations and scheduling as distributed in the agenda. >> Perfect. >> Second. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We have a second. Discussion
hearing. None. All those in favor signify by saying I. Those opposed? Nay. Motion carries. City Council update. >> I do not have an update. It feels like Ian since our last meeting because it
has been. >> Um, congratulations to Krington um for the going through the interview process and you did a great job. >> Well, thanks >> saving your saving your job. >> Thanks for the great candidate
>> and I hope the chick >> chick doesn't bounce. How many candidas were there? >> Uh, four. >> Oh, wow. Wow. Four. >> And they were all excellent. Candid. >> Really? >> And she got sworn in today by the city clerk. >> Yeah. >> Great. Okay. Any congratulations. And then I think you'll probably bring it up
too, but the polar plunge, if you haven't >> signed up to be jump or to participate or add financially to a team, you have a couple weeks left. It's January Saturday, January 31st at noon. >> Yeah.
And hopefully the last couple years we've really amped up the I think every year we've given the most. So hopefully this year we'll go up too. It's a lot of fun. We've had good weather the last two years. Keep our fingers crossed. Are you going to be jumping this year?
>> I don't know if I can find somebody to jump with me. >> You haven't been committed yet, huh? >> Yeah. I'm >> Maybe Sarah Lens. >> Yeah. Well, Sarah Lens has done it before. >> Are you? >> Yeah. Sarah Hens has done it before. >> We started talking about it. Yeah, we're thinking about it. >> Team Sarah's
>> take it from Betsy. >> Yep. >> Maybe. >> I enjoyed it. >> Maybe Rita and her colleague. >> I think I I was like, >> but I had a great time >> and your costumes are >> Yeah, we did have fun costumes.
>> Yeah. >> And that's all I've got. Happy New Year, everybody. >> Same to you. Thank >> Thank you. >> All right, Sarah. Any comments from you? >> Uh, nothing really. Um it's it's just busy end of year. Um
uh we've been working a lot of us on the on this project and turning things around and lots of lots of uh engaging with other agencies and keeping our folks in informed uh agencies, consultants, you know, keeping things
moving, timelines. Um, we have a couple uh building permits uh the that are getting ready to issue the the Warner variants uh in for the reconstruction of the house in the bluff that was is being released in the next couple days. We have a couple asbuilts we're working on.
Um a remodel project with some minor expansion we're working on, but lots of inquiries the last couple of days. So, it it has not slowed down. But um but H Hallstead's been keeping a lot of us busy. North Point. So, but and and I
hope everybody had a great holiday season. >> Good. >> Just want to mention that um Minhaha Creek Watershed District has a planning meeting coming up uh later.
I think it's later this month. Um, I was invited to attend on behalf of the commission and uh, it's it's not a long deal. It's an hour and a half in the morning or an hour and a half in the afternoon. So, I do plan on attending. I
just wanted to let you know that. And if there's anybody that is uh, very interested in coming, um, I suggest you call the watershed district and register. >> Yeah. and let us know as well because we
can't have a quorum there. So I if anybody else has has interest in attending, we have to we have to notify it that way. So it's not a a notice of possible quorum. Um and our team met with the watershed. >> I was just going to say it is January
27th for anybody considering going >> both morning and evening sessions. >> 27th. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So let us know um that we met with the watershed. Was it the summer? Were you at with that? We their team and our
team met kind of as a as companion agencies and sister brother agencies talk about what's working, you know, what we can do better and also getting into programming with comp planning and that sort of thing. and and so uh which is really nice to
maintain those relationships because it really helps for us as staff persons as well. And we had our team and they had their team and it was really nice and they walk through uh you know some of the things that they're working on and a lot of their projects that they that they've really done a great job of
implementing and also the up upcoming stuff with the their water plan. We talked a little bit about that about how their water surface water plan has to coincide and be in concert with our comp plan process as
well. So, we talked a little bit about that. So, >> um and if you'd send that to me, I will circle back with some other team members in terms of who's going from from our team as well. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And and we're going to be gearing up for comp plan stuff soon. So,
yay. Okay. Um, >> that's all I have. >> Any further items from anyone on the commission? >> Hearing none. Chairman would entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. Second. >> We have a motion to second. Discussion
hearing. None. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Those opposed. Nay. Motion carries. Thank you for coming. >> Thank you everyone. Did you want the pen?