##VIDEO ID:Z-_dcw8BAUg## I would like to call to order the Tuesday February 4 meeting of the mound Planning Commission this is a regular meeting roll call please Planning Commission member main here Planning Commission member Nick Rosner here Planning Commission member Jason B here Planning Commission member Samantha Wacker here Planning Commission member young here Planning Commission member heel here Planning Commission chair go here okay let's go back up to swearing in of planning commissioner by uh Jesse Dixon and I believe that's you drew that's me hel to your own party do you want a picture for your archives youv I Drew Hill I drew Hill do solemnly swear do solemnly swear I will support the Constitution of the United States that will support the Constitution of the United States and of the state of Minnesota and the state of Minnesota Faithfully discharge the duties of planning commissioner of the city city of Mound and Faithfully discharge the duties of the planning commissioner of the city of mound to the best of my judgment and ability so help me God to the best of my judgment and ability so help me God all right thanks bu I'm going to have you sign this too and then do you want to turn yeah there you go now it's official you like those in 8 by 10 I should I should Mar them up at sell after these right did you suck your stomach in dang it here he goes are insulting me okay we have uh before you U on the table uh two amendments to the agenda uh these are letters column letter one and letter two chair would entertain a motion to include these two amendments to the agenda for tonight's meeting so motion to approve the agenda for tonight's meeting including the two letters from the applicant um as handed out letters one and two second we have a second discussion hearing n all those in favor signify by saying I I those oppose nay motion carries okay you had before you you in email form that I assume you have read uh the Planning Commission minutes for the January 7 2025 meeting does anybody have any additions Corrections subtractions hearing none sure would entertain a motion to approve said minutes motion to approve minutes of January 7th meeting as distributed second I have motion to second discussion hearing none motion carries Board of adjustment and appeals Planning Commission case number 24-20 review SL reccommendation variance and public lands permit applications after the fact for construction SL Landscaping project at 4756 kildair Road and undeveloped Longford Road applicant Katherine Benjamin of Dreamscapes Natural Pools owner Michael KZ Salazar Miss Sarah uh good evening uh chair good members of the Planning Commission uh applicants and guests uh and fellow staff uh my name is my name is Sarah Smith I am the uh development director for the city and I will be providing for you an overview of two applications that we are going to be reviewing this evening related to improvements uh on the property at 4756 kildair Road uh and also within the undeveloped Longford Road RightWay uh the applicant is Kathy Benjamin of Dreamscapes Dreamscapes Natural Pools and the owner of the property is Michael Jimenez Salazar um I believe we have the applicant present this e I'm sorry I think the owner of the property uh is present this evening we have two applications that we are going to be discussing this evening um related to improvements that took place um on the uh Lakeside of the property in general and I we're going to put up a PDF of um the other document please there we go thank you Jesse um on the on the overhead um what you'll see is the location of the property uh at 4756 uh which is shown here um it has Frontage on improved kill air uh it also has uh Frontage uh on uh Lake motanka Black Lake uh you'll note and as as was mentioned in the planning report there is a principal lot which includes the existing single family home this is an undeveloped right of way uh that extends uh from side Lot line to side Lot line within this lot and also adjacent lots and then there's also two Lakeside Lots so this has a p this has a PID this has a PID and this is right of way currently there's a single family home on the property uh that includes an attached garage the request uh that we are going to be talking about tonight is considering an after the fact variance uh and a and a public lands permit for improvements uh that were constructed on the property and in the right of way without uh approvals from the city um this is an after the fact variance uh so we are looking at a constructed project uh but we do need to consider them uh as applications and that's how we've reviewed them land use uh in the zoning ordinance this is a single family lot designation of R1 um it is also uh low density residential guided in our comprehensive plan uh and that use will continue with the current use of the property uh how we are here this evening um there was a on-site agency meeting that was uh that was undertaken I believe in August um that included uh technical evaluation panel members which is um various public agencies including uh the city The Watershed District um hennipen County Bowser mini haa Creek and the DNR to evaluate uh site improvements that had been undertaken on the property and in the right of way without procuring uh permits um from from Mound or from other agencies uh with regards to things that we learned uh at the site visit uh where the contractor was present is that there wasn't a violation of the of the Wetland which is on the Upland part um that was that was done based on field evaluation that was done by members of the te which is again is a technical evaluation panel but it was determined that the the site activities that had taken place specifically on the lak side did two things first first of all the improvements were constructed um on the property and in the right of way without improvements um for those activities they can be summarized in general as a staircase leading from the towards the top of the lot extending down to sort towards the bottom of the lot that allows access to uh the existing dock it's important to to also comment that our activities this evening for these application is all Upland things that are below that are in the water or um along the shoreline are not in the city's purview so our review tonight is taking place related to up what I call Upland improvements um based on field evaluation uh when we were there on site which was also been demonstrated by topography um shown on the the new as as Built construction but also demonstrated in henpen County GIS information is that the slope on the property um is classified as a bluff and a bluff according to the city code has a handful of definition there has to be a certain rise and run within a certain distance there's a toe there's a top um generally speaking activities in a bluff are regulated and restricted and most uh if not all structures have to meet a 10- foot setback and so information that's been shown on the survey is not only did um construction take place in the bluff uh but it also took place both on the applicant's property or the owner's property rather um and in the right of way and of course anything in the right of way um requires what's called public lands approval now with regards to the Shoreland regulations which is where the bluff regulations come from um there are certain activities that are allowed generally speaking an uncovered 4T staircase for the purpose of providing access up and down a slope um um that doesn't have a roof on it and that is placed in the most visually inconspicuous location and causing the least amount of disturbance that's an allowed Improvement um so again had that come in um those are typical things that we would review if something's coming in and going back out we would review number one whether or not it was same and similar or number two whether or not the scope of that project required additional permits and so that's kind of why we're here this evening um uh next next uh next uh slide please so on the left hand side um uh as shown uh in the photo that was provided to the city uh from the from the applicant I believe M Mrs Benjamin um this shows what I'd call Pre pre-site conditions and so you can see that there was an existing staircase um that kind of came down kind of in the middle of the slope um there's this is kind of the lowland this is right here is going to be um kind of the start of maybe the Wetland area activities and and then you can see uh the scope of the activities that were undertaken um again a a 4-ft staircase and it's uh based on information shown on the survey that was also um discussed with the property owner is that the is that that stone staircase is 4 feet so that would be consistent I wouldn't say that's exactly in the same location but I would say it's probably in the general vicinity of where the former staircase um was and you'll note that that the there's private lots and then there's a city lot and then there's private so this these improvements were as I've mentioned undertaken both on private land uh owned by the property owner and on the on undeveloped RightWay um other activities that took place um uh involve retaining walls um ground cover Boulders plantings basically a fairly expansive landscaping and hardscaping project um that that supplement and support the 4-foot uh stairway system the the most important um uh statement being is that it is a bluff and so because it's a bluff uh activities are more regulated than a non- bluff and certain activities require permitting in the form of uh either for sure a public lands permit maybe a building permit but also um the need for approvals if in fact the it's it's greater than what's normal and customary for construction of a Stairway and that would be a variance next slide please please so this is the uh a graphic showing the uh uh a snapshot of the proposed survey that was um provided uh to the city um from the from the property owner um at the request of the city following our August meeting and you can see um just I'm just going to point out a couple things this is the ordinary high water mark you know here's one lot here's one lot here's the undeveloped dway and then here's the principal lot um and then you can see the the the walkway that's that's that was constructed it basically kind of starts here and ends down here and then you can see the the supporting walls um landscape they're actually Boulder walls um the survey surveyor also included both top and bottom of wall elevations um so basically it was a a a fairly expansive and detailed Landscaping project um that was under taken uh without permits and again um I think there was perhaps a misunderstanding about who who was getting permits or if there was permits needed but at the end of the day you know work work in the shoreline and and the bluff generally requires some sort of Permitting and that this is not the property that's owned or operated by the private property owner it's owned and operated by the city even though it's it's basically used for the purpose of this slot um as as was indicated in the staff report the new the new Rockway is constructed of basically flat stone um other supporting improvements they Boulder walls um and then there's some sporadic placement of Boulders the applicant did confirm with the city um that the ground cover while it has a landscaping rock it does have Filter Fabric underneath it it's not plastic so water is able to to filtrate through um and so therefore that does not count to towards hard peever um as part of the staff review we did note um a couple things uh with regards to there's a a section or two of the of one of of the main wall I guess I would say that are slightly over 4 feet and the reason that's important is that um retaining walls that are for that are over 4 feet require a building permit uh and they also require engineering and so again these were this was information that was provided by the surveyor uh you know one one suggestion would be is you know they may want to meet with building official to to evaluate those elevations in terms of how they were measured um if in fact it is deemed to be that those walls um are over the four feet then our our recommendation that was included in the in the planning report was that engineering be be provided um from from a professional license engineer to accommodate the extra height and then they would have to go through extra building permit after the fact to accommodate that rather than rip the wall out and put a new wall in um because we're we're trying to minimize um disturbance additional on the site uh rather than what's already taken place with the Landscaping project um again uh that that was a a comment that was provided in the staff report as a condition um we did visit with the building official and and they confirmed that the same information that I've provided is that any wall over 4T uh requires engineering and requires a building permit it's not a landscape Improvement um there was some additional information uh provided by the applicant today that was provided as part of the addendum uh two documents that talk about I think it it was certainly uh uh stated that it was their intention that all those walls would be four feet and in terms of where they were measured from and how they were constructed that will just be have have to be something that gets worked out um it's important uh that I also share that the the city's variance cannot give a variance for that height of that wall because that is a building code requirement and we we're not able to we're not able to address that with a variance that that's going to have to be modified or fixed either through modification and or with the submittal of engineering if it is determined that that wall height um is exceeding the four feet or if other walls are exceeding four feet so I I did make that comment um in the planning report as well um next slide please um we talked about the constructed improvements generally speaking all constructed structures have to maintain a 10- foot setback from a top of bluff and you'll see on here um as highlighted on the over the toe of bluff was determined by the surveyor to be here um the top of bluff was determined to be right here and then the surveyor also showed the 10ft top of bluff and so you'll see that basically everything from the toe to the top of the bluff plus the top of bluff setback is called the bluff Impact Zone and that's where that's where activities are are more highly regulated generally speaking we we advise keeping improvements out of those out of those area and minimizing any sort of activity um unless it's a a generally speaking a replacement type of activity um the as we understand uh the the walls were installed uh for stabilization probably to assist with the the uh Stone uh stair steps system that was installed next slide please um hard cover is allowed on the property subject to uh the conditions in the code up to 40% uh as we talked about the areas that are uh that Encompass the the the retaining wall Rock I'm sorry retaining the landscaping rock rather uh the applicant did confirm that it's landscaping rock with Filter Fabric it's not plastic so therefore the water is able to filtrate down um they are well under um the the 21 or the 22% according to the submitted information that was provided uh next slide please a retaining elev retaining wall elevations we talked a little bit about this just a few minutes ago but we do have a slide on it um there are a couple sections and they're primarily towards the bottom um of the wall uh that are slightly over for for for 6 in 8 in plus or minus that are over that 4ft threshold and therefore that that's the triggering of the need for a building permit and Engineering um uh what we recommended um is that the owner representative will need to contact the building official to talk about the retaining walls related to the building code requirements it might be helpful if a field evaluation is done and and coordinated between the involved parties so that the building official can see uh the constructed improvements um as I've indicated the submitt of a building permit um uh with engineering is preferred over wall modification if it is deemed to be uh if the wall or walls are over the four feet so as to minimize uh further disruption and disturbance of that slope um if if in fact the if it is needed and there is a need for modification I think we would have to evaluate how much modification how much alteration would need to be done in order to evaluate whether or not um there's going to be impact on the remaining improvements and I think that's just something would have to be vetted out generally the the simplest way is just just to submit the engineering um public Staff Agency review um we did as normal customary we referred the application to um involved depart departments staff public agencies um several of these agencies were involved um with the original sight inspection done in August um one of the discussion points that came out um at the on-site visit which is included as a a comment and a recommended condition um is because of the activities that took place and and the site disturbance and the fact that there was vegetation that was similar to what was probably operating as a beffer um it was talked about that a a tradeoff to balance the activities without um and also to improve conditions about the uh implementation of a natural Shoreline buffer um from the edge of the shoreline up to the toe of the bluff with using appropriate plantings and and uh uh grasses Etc um that provides a natural buffer to to when the water comes down which is now probably it might be coming at a little bit different rate um but to Capt it hold it before it discharges um into the shoreline that was talked about as a as a reasonable approach um and and it's very likely that that would have been talked about had we seen the applications at the front end um specifically due to the scope and the the um the scope of the project on what was being done um we talked to D DNR staff about that on site and then further as I was working on the report and uh it was it was reasonable uh condition that we thought was appropriate for for the property um we also uh recommended that the area that where the where you'd come down from the stairs that you walk to the dock that that could be left um non- buffer and so that condition is included um as as part of the city's recommendation Planning Commission consideration of the activities this evening um there you always have a couple of of actions that you can take following uh completion of your discussion either as a Planning Commission but also with uh the applicant Andor folks that may have questions you can table the request and ask for more information if that's needed uh you can recommend to the city council uh that the requests requests be approved with conditions as identified and any additional conditions that are identified by members of the Planning Commission uh with any recommendation it is also uh encouraged and required I should say recommended rather that findings of fact related to the recommendation be provided uh with the applications uh you also uh if you feel if you feel that the uh that the request decision should be not to approve or deny um again a record with conditions uh and or findings of fact for that recommended denial are also uh recommended uh if that's a direction that the Planning Commission wishes to go staff uh did recommend approval both of the public lands permit um and uh the variance and we've included uh conditions and findings of fact for both uh permit applications the proposed findings of fact for the public lands uh we listed three a staircase previously existed on the property in the subject area and was replaced by an ongr staircase constructed in a similar location two a staircase is allowed in a bluff for the purpose of providing access to the lake shore and number three the undeveloped portion of the Longford Road RightWay that bisects the house parcel from the lake Parcels which are owned by the pro which are owned by the property owner is not being used by the public and is generally in use as the backyard for the owner proposed findings of fact for the variance uh and staff's recommendation for approval the criteria or criteria in city code section 294 are being met a staircase is allowed in a bluff for the purpose of providing access to the lake shore a staircase previously existed on the property in the subject area and was replaced by an ongr staircase constructed in the general vicinity the request to add steps to reach the lake is in harmony with other uses in the area and fits the character of the neighborhood and R1 district and lastly the establishment of a natural buffer helps provide water quality protection in the subject vicinity we had a handful of listed conditions uh with staff's recommendation for approval uh that was included in the planning report um and those are listed on the overhead the property owner is responsible for all costs associated with the applications uh number two that's a summary that the require the resolution is a or resolutions plural are required to be recorded uh and that that the responsibility of the owner unless they want the city to record in which case the the fees are paid for by the escrow um number three uh the owner designated representative shall reach out to Safe built uh who is the building official formerly known as mpec to evaluate the retaining well project as it applies to the building code requirements and permitting if needed uh number four a natural buffer shall be required from the shoreline Edge to to the toe of the bluff with the exception of a 4ot path from the bottom of the staircase that plan to be submitted to the city for review and acceptance by the owner or representative shall include a proposed design to incorporate natural plants and grass uh SC that are appropriate for the Wetland Shoreline condition alternately the plan could be prepared by by one of the city's consultant with the involved cost to be paid by the owner and then five any additional comments or conditions from the council staff or members of the Planning Commission or agencies and we're we're good um I will be happy to answer questions um from members of the Planning Commission um I see the owner is here uh other just some other points of housekeeping uh as is normal customary we did send mailed notices out to um neighboring Property Owners um we could have some folks here um additionally uh while the public lands permit is not subject to 6 day the variance is and I think the city has until honor around the 17th of February to take action on the application um unless we extend uh our ability to make that decision for an additional 60 days as was noted in the planning report we will be executing the 60-day notice um in advance of the uh anticipated deadline of Honor around February 17th and I'll be happy to stand for questions from members of the commission staff or guests theity you have comments about the applicant's assertion in letter number one that this is not a bluff um respectfully uh staff disagrees with that assertion um we have a definition of bluff in the zoning ordinance uh it has a handful of condition or of of uh points that have to be met for a bluff and how you calculate the bluff um when we were on site it was everybody's General understanding that we based on uh visual but also topographic information on this henan County website is that it appeared to be a bluff um the math that was done um shows it to be a bluff at least our preliminary evaluation uh the city engineer believed it to be a bluff um the the survey work that was done uh on the applicant's behalf or the property no's behalf shows a toe of bluff top of bluff and um the top of bluff setback so uh our determination is that we believe it's Bluff okay so with regard to the retaining wall height if I understand correctly the suggestion is the applicant apply for a permit and then engineering will review height the what is there and make a recommendation in terms of what ought to be done if anything is that correct um for from a process standpoint I think the the first step would be to uh for the applicant to reach out to the building official and perhaps arrange for uh an on-site visit to take a look at the the walls that were constructed and and the survey information that was submitted to evaluate and Visually see what what was constructed and how it was measured um because there's a we don't really know what what the survey are used you know there there's rules and building code in terms of what's going to be the bottom and what's going to be the top and where you measure from but um I would think that would be an appropriate step is that the building official so would the building official also um get into the weed with regard to this assertion that planning and um landscaping material between the Rocks actually push the Rocks up over four feet I'm going to have to refrain I think that's a building code evaluation um because it it's all going to be according to the building officials evaluation of where the walls are and where they are now you know if if something got pushed up or something that that may or may not be so but at the end of the day if those walls are over 4T depending on how they're measured and and and how they're being measured according to the building code there could be uh building permit requirements needed and again this isn't a new this isn't a new regulation building code requires a building permit for any wall over 4 feet so which is why sometimes Landscaping we see walls slightly under but that will be determined in cooperation with the building official uh with the applicant at or owner how far over four feet have they 6 I think one was I thought six 68 in plus or minus two two Boulders two Boulders B okay and maybe you can switch all to Boulder I don't know but um okay okay further questions for Sarah Sarah could you just describe this scenario of the undeveloped Longford Road right away I mean it's just seems a little strange to me about this undeveloped road that over time becomes a deao backyard I I could you just describe how that comes about we have these in numerous locations of Mound and many cities have them but unless they've been vacated um they are still ploted right of way and and we've got them we see this from time to time you'll say there's an undeveloped ride of way putting a driveway in an undeveloped ride of way um but the road exists it's being used primarily by the property owners um and that's I would say that that's somewhat standard and normal but you don't you don't have the ability to put improvements in property that's right of way without getting approvals to do that unless the the uh unless the um undeveloped right away was vacated and it were there similar improvements in the right of waves previous to this I would based on the I would say that that staircase probably was in there before okay yeah I mean I don't I don't have a pre-existing survey so I don't know but just if you look at the two graphics that were um side by side they looked to be somewhat in the same it was definitely kind of towards the middle coming down I wouldn't say that it was in the exact same location but it's certainly there was a staircase on the property that was providing access to get from the house down to the Shoreline and and based on information that that was shared with me and you know visually it it it certainly appears that perhaps those staircases that staircase former was probably was in need of some TLC okay so as far as you can tell it's not this Improvement that made it into a deao backyard it had that character previous it was there before yeah that was I mean there was a staircase there before yeah I think we need to figure out get data determine whether it's 6 in or 8 in get a measurement and we'll go from there I mean I don't see how we can make a decision whether it's invariance or we need a you know a variance or it's within code until we get that measurement I mean that that's a certainly some discussion you can have with the property owner and applicant as part of discussion That's The Bu The 68 Ines we're not yeah we are correct me wrong we're not discussing the building permit part of it though we're discussing the RightWay and the oh I'm Sor okay I'm if the building perm CH the height of the wall is something different that's going to have to be addressed by yeah uh by the building inspector it has to be done either way has nothing to do with what okay going either way it's going to have to be adjusted okay either way it's going to be a building permit issue it will either need a building permit or it won't if it's all if it's deemed all to be under 4 feet and doesn't need permit if if any portion of the wall either has depicted on the survey or field verified based on how they determine Wall height by the building official if it's over then then those would have to be modified and one way that's that's done is you can physically alter them or you can some have engineering done to demonstrate that walls are structurally sound okay thank you sure okay other questions for Sarah Sarah what type of City Consultants do we have uh we have a City attorney we have a city engineer and we have a city planner and we also have a as part of the city city engineering staff we also have a wetland um specialist that that handles most of the Wetland matters for the city okay so owners can use City in engineers and say a pay a certain rate or what for an the cost that we incur for an application such as this for review of IT those costs are paid for by their by their escrow that they submit um if if the applicant uh wants to have work done with regards to the restoration plan that can be done but they will pay for those costs of that preparation of that plan sometimes that's a reasonable approach because we have to review it either way so if it's something that's done by the city you know the city's comfortable that it's being done according to the way the city wants it done but at the same time everybody you know there's there's many qualified people that can prepare those plans and there's many qualified Wetland laners and surveyors as well but we have to review it and check it anyway okay great thanks sure okay other questions for SAR other comments about this request I see that the uh owner is here would you like to address the commission um if you would please come forward to the podium uh give us your name and your address please good evening my name is Michael Hima Salazar and um 4 756 kill their Road Mound Minnesota and uh I just want to thank you guys for your time first and foremost um thank you Sarah for all the work that you've done the team and I know we've you know it's it's been a lot of hands on deck I initially reached out to Sarah on uh June last year June 17th to be exact uh sent her all the renderings of the project the project actually changed quite a bit it was initially um the plan was to to put some sort of a a pool back there and she sent everything back and then so we you know sat down with the the contractors and everything changed right so we said hey here we can really just only do a staircase um it was unbeknownst to me with the the the public RightWay that was something that came kind of in after the fact so I apologize for that a question that I do have and I think something that was brought up to me see if there was because I know some neighbors kind of mention it taking ownership of that I think that's something we kind of discuss amongst the neighbors because it's it's uh it's vacant it sounds like or it it would have to be vacant so that's the terminology is that um it the has that right of way would have to be vacated vacated and that's a that's actually a statutory process um that you you can initiate typically those types of activities if in fact it's extending to more than one property um often times the the majority of the property owners will get together and say Hey you know it's not being use there are the the there are requirements and procedures that um come into play that have process with them um number one any water that or any right of way that ends a buts or terminates a public water it has a higher level of standard and a longer a longer uh review period um it's 60 days by certified mail to the DNR um the test is that there's no public benefit for the city keeping it and I'm paraphrasing a bit um and it requires a city council public hearing um preceded by two weeks published notice um in the paper um in addition to public notice being provided to all affected Property Owners um affected Property Owners has been um interpreted to mean everybody in the plat so whatever plat this property came from we would notify all Property Owners within that area in addition if there's Utilities in there um if the city thinks they have a reason that they want to keep it if they even think they might use it for something if they deem it that it has public benefit but there's certainly a process you can go through um again um it requires updated survey work um signature by all owners uh and if you have a majority of all property owners that can that sign uh then it's a regular majority if the council so chooses to approve that um otherwise it's a super majority um but the process is actually set set forth in State Statute uh but our process is it comes in it gets sent around to agencies Consultants Public Utilities for uh determining if everything's here and then we we set a schedule for review to number one determine do we have to utilize that 60-day uh certified mail notice for the DNR or does that not apply in this case this is going this way but I don't know where it goes if it goes to water this way then that would apply um if it's not if it's not providing access to public water or Wetlands or whatever that definition is then then it's a shorter period of time but we still have to publish in mail it's just it's just that adds a little bit longer component okay so yeah thank you thank you Sarah for that Sarah oh if I can just ask one quick question was that RightWay ever intended to be part of the the comments on Black Lake I just was nobody really I don't know um it's interesting because the it's it's hard to say I don't know the history of that um but it's certainly there's there's lots on the bottom side and there's lots on the top side in in in Mr Salazar's case so it just cuts right through the property but they're not it's not all on property it's p81 p82 and p83 I'm just visual again make sure I understand right away piece and I'm I'm around the corner on the the comment on Black Lake so I know I know where your house is I I passed by quite a bit actually but um we are on the comment so I'm just trying to relate it to kind of how the comons are and I thought maybe it was intended to be part of the commons I I'm not I'm not able to answer that it's not um you are deemed to be private lure right you because you're not part of the commons program you're doc you're doc per goes through lmcd so um it it's just one of those things it's probably just the way the plat was laid out right because west of there there is that same road yep but there's a marsh in between the two so I don't know if at one point that Marsh was filled in or they look they're going to do a road to it who knows it's I mean it could depending what the history is without looking at all the Aerials but the wacka which is Wetland Conservation went into effect I think in 90 or 91 which is basically when all the Wetland rules changed yeah and there's no anticipated City use to that right away about which about which you know yeah and that's kind of what I was thinking to what I can't say is whether there's Utilities in it or not or I mean I don't know um I don't think I've been made aware that there's any plans to improve it maybe Jesse I would only offer that that's where the uh vacation process comes in we wouldn't be in position make that determination of doing that we generally don't go out of our way to to do that until there's an application of some okay thank you okay questions for the applicant okay thank you sir any other comments um no thank you so much everyone for your time I really appreciate it i' I've learned a lot so thank you God bless you guys thank you so much thank you for your time thank you okay further discussion of the project amongst the commission else want to speak the back anybody else excuse me do anyone else want to speak ma'am are you here to address this project no I'm not oh thank you okay you have on page eight and nine of your agenda uh recommendations from uh from the city uh staff recommends Planning Commission recommend approval of a the variance and B the public land's permit there are five conditions and there are five findings of fact regarding the variance and three findings of fact regarding the public land's permit any discussion regarding ing staff recommendations I I don't have an issue with it I think looks nicer than it was there before um I don't think that right away is ever going to be used based on the way it looks I don't know if there's utilities there or not um but if there was utilities there you'd have to dig up the old staircase as it was either they um like I said that we're not here to judge the size of the boulder that's the building permit so I would be approved I would be in favor of uh approving the Motions so you make that motion I just going to let anyone El see if I have any comments first anybody else have any comments so if we approve the variance do they have to come back and get another variance for the 4 foot we can't um that's a building we can't we can't Grant a variance for a wall height um we allow walls I mean whether or not it has engineering or it doesn't the it's it'll be allowed if the public lands permit and the Varan would be improved for the project however we cannot Grant a variance for a building code requirement so what that means is if there is a modification that's needed or if engineering is needed to address the any Wall Part that that doesn't meet that four feet then they either have to modify the wall or they have to provide that engineering for it h it has to be met those are two separate events yeah it's it's like it's what I call a a follow-up action you know it's kind of like if you're required um oh it's a good example um if fire rating is required we can allow you to build close to lot line but we cannot wave fire rating of wall because that's a building code requirement so it h they have it has to be um figured out in cooperation with the building official I mean best case scenario is that when they get out in the field how they're constructed they don't need a building permit worst case scenario something's over and has to be modified and as I said the simplest is going to be and that's our preference is um is that if is that a permit would be issued after the fact but they have to supply the engineering signed by a professional engineer and I don't know exactly what that entails but we've seen that before y um and if if in fact modification is needed out in the field I think we would need to determine whether or not that was for lack of a better word um more expansive than needed and then we'd have to figure it out if we have to amend amend the city's approval okay okay thank you just waiting further discussion just so I can clarify the the stairs are in allowed use on a bluff so I mean that's not a v the variance they requesting so it's primarily that it was after the fact and has the public lands use I get but the what exactly is the variance the variance is for the alteration in the bluff for that for the I see Landscaping project that was undertaken I see in cooperation with the staircase that was done where the um what was what would be normal and customary is if a wooden staircase was there and a wooden staircase replaced it mhm because that would be consistent with minimizing impacts on on the bluff same size same location um not any not a lot of alteration that destabilize or affect the bluff okay this how it was constructed was a fairly fairly complex Landscaping grading site alteration activities onr Ong grade stairs that were put in so that's perhaps more than that's certainly more than what was there before mhm um and so work in the bluff uh and placement of structures in the right of way as well both of which I think I think the RightWay is in the bluff and uh Mr Salazar's property is in the bluff as well makes sense yeah I I agree with commissioner Baker looks nice looks good they puta put a lot of money into it so I mean certainly an improvement the way St away undoubtedly stabilized lot better than the wooden stuff that was there before yeah right I got to agree I think that that wouldn't staircase I mean I don't want to go down it anyways but I do think even just seeing the the wooden staircase I think that the materials used probably did improve the engineering a little bit and I I'm comfortable with it but yeah I I do think it lookss very nice all right I will make a motion to approve planning case number 2420 variant and public land permits including the recommendations on on page 7 and 8 1-5 as well as the variance findings of facts 1-5 on page 8 and the findings of fact for the lands permit 1 through3 on page nine sorry eight and nine are the two pages second okay we have a motion and a second discussion did I hear the explicit approval of both yeah I heard okay then yes forther discussion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I those oppose nay motion carries thank you for attending folks thank you okay moving on we have the city of Mound volunteer recognition special event on Monday February 24 uh yes um it's been a couple of years but um you should have received uh an a email invitation from uh city city manager Jesse Dixon a week or so ago um uh talking about the volunteer recognition event which is Monday 20 uh February 24th it's in a couple of weeks um it's going to be uh at the Surfside Bar and Grill and there's a a a kind of an informal program but um current members of the commission um recently retired members of the commission uh the members of the city council staff and so it's a we haven't had one for a couple of years two years now and so um Jesse's been working on the coordination of that of that event and so uh we if we can so sorry have I I'm sorry this my first time here what are next steps or what I have to do um as was written in the in the planning report the the Planning Commission makes recommendations to the city council and in the form of um uh a resolution recommending uh approval based on staff's recommendation that will be forwarded to council at an upcoming meeting um it's either going to be on the 11th or its next meeting um the fourth Tuesday of February not sure yet but we'll let you know yeah so the permit is appr the permits are approved the Planning Commission is a recommending body okay the city council makes the decision so the information that they've reviewed and that you've submitted and that we've prepared will be put together in the form of a formal report that will be uh provided to the city council with a request for action on the variance and on the public land permit we in addition we do mail notice again like we did for this meeting um I don't know yet if we're going to be able to turn this around for next Tuesday's meeting um you and I can talk about that it might be helpful maybe to have some of that maybe some of the additional information about the retaining wall may be um talked about before we go to council um we only have one day to turn applications between this meeting and the council generally speaking uh the applications that occur at the first Tuesday of the meeting which is of the month which is tonight go to the fourth Tuesday sometimes we can turn them I don't I just don't know if we can based on Project loads but we'll we can speak tomorrow sure thank I wait for your follow thank you everyone for your time have a great night God bless you guys thank you so much and um just just so you are understanding the city council respects and takes the planning commission's request seriously so um you know because it passed tonight hopefully everybody will see that way at the council meeting and you'll be able to move forward from there thank you so much thank you guys good luck thank you have a nice evening yes thank okay so Monday February 24th yep what time is that Jesse do you know it's in it's in his email yeah it's in the email so I think it it's like 6 to 8 that it and did everybody get an invitation good good and for the record it's always been done every two years to capture you know in between it has cycles for we lost a little bit during a couple years during Co um but we're back on track and then we we invite the the folks that just recently left us and then we actually went because we lost a member the year before we extended that invite to that member as well but it was a really nice event last time it was very good snacks yeah it it was I'll have to say really nice and it's a great opportunity for the council to recognize all the good things that all of you do um uh with spending your time with with uh with us and doing all work and uh it's not an easy job being a planning commissioner and I know it it I know the council sincerely appreciates it starts at 6 and there's a brief program at 6:45 it says there you go okay uh questions on that moving non City Council leas on C anything a couple things um well you know it's the beginning of the years but the council has spent the last two workshops prior to the meetings um you know discussing our our outline for 25 or 2025 priorities and then we'll finish it up um next Tuesday the workshop is always right before the meeting and we have come up with a few um um items that we're bring planning on bringing to the Joint Planning Commission meeting so hopefully everybody has some great other thoughts to bring and hopefully we'll learn a lot together and plan a lot no it's kind of nice that Jesse you're here because I'm going to give you a little input from our water situation we did uh Jesse with uh the help of Bolton M did put together a letter that the council all signed um um and sent it to Governor Waltz requesting additional assistance in securing um funding for the water treatment plant you know and as you may remember in 2023 we got um appropriated 10.3 million and that's we're using that right now for the designing of the of the um treatment plant but we still need 30 million and I don't think we got anything in 2024 did we maybe 10,000 well no there wasn't a bonding bill um there was one that was written but never it never made it didn't make it through both Chambers so nothing from the state um so that's a lot of money um so individually the council all sent letters to representative Meyers and also Senator Johnson and you know the squeaky wheel gets theg grees so if any of you have the inclination to go ahead and forward a letter looking for their support um which is what we all did for the other we we would greatly appreciate it all the residents would because they do read the letters and and Jesse what are we out of all of the number of s there's many cities n right asking for position and we actually are pretty close in line to the top so we annually apply to stay on the states the public facility authorities um intended use plan for grant funding towards clean water sorry drinking water uh projects they they do clean water and drinking water there was 880 some OD drinking water projects currently being assessed um we're 185 is on the on the list so we'll be reapplying again uh within the next couple months and because manganes last year was we classified as an emerging contaminant we've we bumped up the list it used to not be which is a tough position when that is your problem and the state didn't consider it to be one for funding purposes so we're up there and we are in the fundable range as it is so when we get to the point that we maybe are trying to bridge that final Gap grant funding is an opportunity because of that so and just so we don't get too excited about what might come this year and I might be wrong in this Jesse correct me if I'm wrong but they're only looking to set aside 18 million the state so with so many cities looking for assistance it's a drop in the bucket um so we're hoping that it will actually happen this year so we can get something is there a form that to fill out or what is the process of submitting a letter to them uhhuh um I sent an email back a couple years ago at the time Morrison was the and I sent it to her office she did respond back with a really nice response um so I do know that it got there via email you would write your you know letter from your heart and then just send it on to and this year it would be to Senator Johnson and Johnson and then Andrew Meers is our rep okay where would the plant be it where's the plant is there an existing plant that would get torn down and rebuilt or there is no existing plant uh it's Soro uh behind there there's a there's a large uh wooded area up um Baker park so there's a wellhouse right there and then there's the water tower so it's back behind the water tower is the intended position okay so it'll be shielded and I mean water plants don't really make noise but it is a residential area so to have it set back is kind of nice yeah Jesse as part of that process that you guys send information in kind of piggybacking on the other question with the contacting just from a process standpoint I'm just curious do they do we also include any um samples from residents who have experienced it because I know there's a lot of people who like to go to social media and post the pictures of their faucets Brown coming out um but I don't know if they do any level of Chemical Testing to say the certain areas or Pockets have higher levels of it I mean I we check our water all the time but it's because we have a pool so we're always checking like the manganese and all those chemical levels but if there's something like that where residents can provide consistent sampling to show that it's you know occurring I don't know if that's helpful while we test um at least annually and more recently quarterly at the actual well as it comes out of the ground and and when we do submitt maybe not on some of these letters but we submit various funding applications we usually include that cuz to demonstrate that we're exceeding you know allowable levels but okay no I do think it's good knowing I didn't know that you tested directly from the W so I think that that's good because I know there's other variables with homeowners um age of pipes things like that that that make a difference but I just wondered if there was any other any other efforts that could be made by people who wanted to to to to help out I mean anything helps um but but I as part of the communication to our reps um been kind of kicking around something that could maybe go to Residents directly with some more of this information um just to make ease of use you know um I don't think it's necessarily even about what each individual letter say it's just really just the amount of communication I mean you can only ignore so many right not that I'm accusing anybody upside ignoring it but I mean trying to make it so that it's front of the list and and I will say to to everybody I've talked to our local Representatives know that this is the biggest issue um but there's not so much money to go around yeah but they take it seriously and they are very empathetic to us and you know they have been working at on their behalf but again there's a lot of people that need this in their towns so we feel really fortunate that Jesse and Bolton and make and mayor Hol have worked so hard to keep us on the top of the list or getting close to the top of the list so we won't get overlooked in the future are individual letters better than a petition I'm I'm thinking should I get a petition in the neighborhood or should I have everybody send a letter why I don't think there's ever too much communication going up to St Paul there can never be too much I would say it's probably just human nature it's probably easier to do if one person is willing to do a petition to get people to sign it then people are busy and they don't know how to go to websites and and submit letters so if you would like like to do that that would be amazing in your neighborhood and it would go a long ways okay I'll add two if I may just feel free to to call or email City Hall and I I'll be happy to we have drafted letters at this point already language so I'd be happy to pass along that if you want to just add some signatures I mean that's perfect that's great okay Kathy anything else no that'll do it thank Sarah anything oh I have a couple things thank you Kathy for for your summary um uh we if you all remember we have a our next meeting is actually in two weeks um it'll be the annual concurrent special meeting workshop with the members of the city council um annual activity we'll be looking at um doing a kind of a look to 24 and and the activities that we've completed uh as well as looking towards 25 and projects uh that the council and the Planning Commission want to include on their list um if there's things that members uh want to bring to staff that you like to have talked about or included on a list um you know certainly reach out to staff and you know we can uh coordinate those activities we'll do we do generally an overview of what we did last week sorry last week last year um and and the things that we got done and the things that we didn't get done and and things that we think are priority um you may recall at our last meeting I think one of the discussion points is taking a uh in-depth look at the work rules um um uh in terms of kind of a new refresh approach uh it because the documents some of the ordinances go back to the 90s I think we looked at and and you know so appointment process what happens if we have more than one candidate what happens if we have more than one all those types of things um again they're always learning things um and so uh that's on our list uh for staff and and I think the Planning Commission uh thought that that was a good idea as well um some other things that I think we'll be talking about is you know prioritizing what's first what's second what's third um not only from the commission but from the staff we you guys got a lot done last year you know we did the mixed use ordinance we did the Adu we did the EMV we did the solar um and we also did signs and so that that's a lot um plus some big some residential projects and and you also you know held meetings for uh the minona flats which was a fairly substantive Pro project so a very very active Planning Commission year last year um that meeting starts at 6 and it's here um if you're not able to attend if you can kind of let us know um soonest that would be great um the the council appointed uh Sher Wallace uh to to the Planning Commission she'll be joining us in March uh she was not able to be with us she my understanding she had uh uh a trip she's wasn't able to attend this evening due to personal commitment so um other things kind of happening uh zoning ordinance uh we was updated by uh the city clerk to include the new ordinances and so that's in draft form we'll be taking a look at it just to make sure that hopefully everything got in there um that needed to be in terms of adus and cannabis and uh mixed use and emvs and and so we'll have a couple set of eyes on the code to take a look at that um other things kind of happen in um I uh we're working on the new website a lot of us are actually uh that's headed up by our Deputy city manager that again is a council project and they're super excited about that um uh activity in in office still is is remains quite High um uh both for building permits and development and um special events so with that um I I don't think I have anything more anything from members of the planning commiss is there anything going on with that property that's on the Minista Mountain border on holstead on 110 um nothing new that I'm aware of um the council did a council intro about maybe a year or so ago um I I think oh I think it was in June July August that they were looking at a a concept but that we haven't seen anything since then to my knowledge well basically what they were doing is they were making the a Trista side look just beautiful and then in the mound side they were allowing you know like not nice looking things so saw construction trucks on the Minista side yeah yeah so we asked them to go back and come back with a better defined look for the mount side of the project and we they haven't come back yet cuz the mountain side is the lake side but that the topography on that is really rough too that's yes it is that's the challenging part of it and they were willing to you know boot mound in the butt again just so we'll see if they come back and hopefully it'll look a lot nicer I'm still waiting to make that reservation at that brand new restaurant and Commerce Place any comments on that um they are work I don't have anything looks other I don't have really good sort of I know they're working on um getting their uh sack evaluation done by MC and they were um waiting for things to move around in there and that information I talked to I think the property owner a couple weeks ago and that's that's the newest information I have but that's been sort of the same information for two years yeah two years I mean yeah two years it more watch the space is that what it is pull the permit okay keep your fingers crossed find a new restaurant okay uh anything further Sarah um not that I'm aware of I I think that covers everything thank you again okay any comments you want to make Jess nice to have him here though thank it is nice to have you here hearing none any other matters to be brought before the commission excuse me has everybody met Sarah yep me oh yes we did I think last last time Sarah is there a third meeting or second meeting third third meeting all right okay hearing none chair would entertain motion to adjourn motion to adjourn second be a motion second discussion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying iose nay motion carries thank you for coming thanks everyone