I see it's 6 o'clock. I'd like to call the order. Tuesday, November 18, rescheduled meeting of the Mound Planning Commission. Roll call, please. Planning Commission Council Liaison, Kathy McEnany. Hi. Planning Commission Member Sherry Wallace. Here. Planning Commission Vice Chair Jason Baker. Here. Planning Commission Member Drew Heil. Here. Planning Commission Member Samantha Wecker. Here. Planning Commission Member Kristin Young. Here. Planning Commission Chair David Good. Present. You should have received the agenda via email from Sarah.
Are there any changes to the agenda? Hearing none, the chair would entertain a motion to approve the agenda as distributed. Motion to approve the agenda as distributed. Second. Motion to second discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion carries. You also will receive via email meeting minutes of the regular September 2, 2025 meeting of the Planning Commission. Are there any changes to those minutes? Hearing none, the chair would entertain a motion to approve the agenda as distributed.
Motion to approve minutes as distributed. Second. I have a motion and a second discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion carries. Board of Adjustment and Appeals. We have a plan in case 25-11. Good evening, Chair Good, members of the Planning Commission staff applicants, and guests. I'm Sarah Smith. I'm the planner. And I will be presenting an overview of the first variance case that we have on tonight's agenda. Planning case number 25-11 is for a lakeshore variance for the property at 5459 Bartlett Boulevard. They are requesting removal of an
existing pervious paver that's on the lakeside of the property. Turn the lights. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks for your indulgence. It will make it a little bit easier to see. The property owners recently purchased the property at the subject address. And they are requesting a variance approval to replace that existing hard surface patio on grade with a pervious at grade deck in the same location. The existing improvement, which is basically a lakeside patio,
was constructed by a former owner. It is not meeting the lakeshore setback. It's also contributing to hardcover. And the Fassenson family recently purchased the property earlier this summer. And they would like to replace that existing at grade landscape patio with a non-roofed, no hardcover underneath, at grade deck with quarter inch openings in the same location. And so because the existing structure is not meeting current setbacks, they do need a variance to allow replacement of that structure
in its current location on the rear or south side of their property at 5459 Bartlett Boulevard. Next slide, please. Included on the overhead, you'll see the location of the subject plot. It includes an existing single family home on the south side of Bartlett Boulevard. It's zoned R1, guided low density. There is an existing house on the property. There is also an existing detached garage and guest cottage on the property. There was an approval back in 2017 for a previous owner
that allowed them to do a expansion permit by putting on a garage addition and a master suite. It also allowed hardcover on the property up to 45%. Next slide, please. Included on the overhead, you'll see what I would call a enlarged version of the structure. Basically, this is the house. This is the location of the existing patio. It's also the same box that they are proposing to take up that concrete or landscaped patio and replace that with a pervious at
grade deck that would not count towards hardcover. As depicted on the survey, you'll see that the existing house does not meet Lakeshore setback. Therefore, this existing structure, which is about 14 feet out extending from the south side of the house, also does not meet the code. I think one of the important things to remember, specifically with this particular case, is that this structure is coming out. It's contributing towards hardcover. And it's being replaced with an at grade structure very similar. But it will remove that
square footage that's currently counting towards their overage on the subject property at present. As is noted, this is a lot of record. We do allow 40% hardcover subject to best management practices. The property has about 45% or was allowed 45% hardcover as part of the expansion permit. Information provided by the property owners representative is we think they're about 43% to 44%. But with the changes that they're proposing to make specifically with the replacement of the hard deck to a soft
deck in the same location, it will actually bring hardcover down under the 40%, which we view as favorable as staff. Included on the graphic, you'll see some of the changes that they're proposing to make, hardscape removal with some landscaping, the existing pervious patio, concrete pad below, as well as some removal up here. Those are all tasks or items that they're looking at removing so as to get them under the 40% allowance for a lot of record. As is normal and customary, we did
route the application to staff consultants departments agencies. We did receive a comment back from the area hydrologist from the DNR who reviewed the variance and offered a recommendation that if the variance was to be recommended for approval and approved by the council, they would offer a courtesy comment that we include a comment to require a shoreline buffer to help minimize wave action to compensate
for the setback, but basically to help with the overall encroachment into the lakeshore setback. We did provide that information to the property owner who expressed that they are receptive. They're also very mindful of improvements that are being made to the property as they want to incorporate as many improvements related to water quality and stormwater management and soft improvements to improve the overall environmental and ecological conditions on the property. And we, again, view that as favorable. The Planning Commission's role this evening
is to review the application with the applicant, see if there might be comments from folks that might be joining us as adjacent property owners or neighboring property owners. As is normal and customary, we did send out notice to folks that are in the subject area. We went down a couple of lots because we feel that they would be the most impacted specifically on the lakeside. I have not received any comments, but we could have some folks here other than the comments that were received back from the DNR and comments of no comments from Hennepin County.
Those are the only responses that we've received on the variance request. The Planning Commission can consider the application with the recommendation of approval that's been offered by staff subject to findings and conditions. If you feel that there's additional information that's required, you can visit with staff and or the applicant and or the representative about that. And if you're comfortable moving forward with the recommendation, then that recommendation would be forwarded onto the City Council for action at an upcoming meeting. I believe the applicants and their representative, Mr. Scott
Gates, are here. And I'm sure they'll be happy to respond to any questions that either members of the Planning Commission or any of our guests or staff may have. As I indicated, we as staff did offer a recommendation of approval in the planning report to include both findings and conditions. And that does include the condition recommended by the DNR to incorporate a landscape natural buffer. And with that, I will be happy to answer any questions. I also just want to point out from a housekeeping perspective that we are monitoring the 60-day clock. If we do need an additional time,
I think we have until on or around December for the Council to make the decision we would execute a 60-day extension. But we'll see where everything goes from this evening and moving forward at a future Council meeting date. And I will be happy to stand for questions. Questions or comments for Sarah? I have a question, Sarah. So my understanding is that a deck is considered hardcover. So how did versus a patio, how did you calculate that? So the patio existing counts towards hardcover
because the water does not go through. When that comes out and a deck goes in, as long as it doesn't have a roof, it has quarter-inch openings, and it doesn't have landscaping with plastic or anything hard underneath, we do not consider that to be hard. So therefore, the replacement of the existing patio coming out and the new deck that's proposed results in a decrease of hardcover in the square footage of the current footprint. Have we seen the design for the deck? Do we know it's not
butting up close to that? I mean, that might be a good-- We haven't received the building permit yet, but that's why in order for it to be not counted, that has to be demonstrated. But I think Mr. Gates or the property owners will be able to weigh in on that. But that is one of-- I would say that that's one of the highlights of the proposed change is that we're going from hard to soft with the new deck. And it's still on grade, and it's not getting any bigger. Well, and I wonder if that needs to be in the recommendations. As we go forward,
it's that it can't have-- Yeah, it needs to qualify as pervious. Right. Right. It's a good comment. Right. Sure. Thank you, Ms. Wallace. Further questions or comments for Sarah? And then another condition you did talk about is permits from other agencies. So they would be required to get a permit from the MCWD. Either a permit or a waiver, if it triggers their amount, the watershed gives us a little bit of discretion for soil disturbance that if it falls within certain boxes, and we don't think it meets-- we can approve it. But if we're-- But it is within the--
But it's within the purview. Yes, it's within the watershed district. We have an understanding with their staff. Certain small things don't trigger it. But if we feel that it's close, we have them reach out to the watershed. Yeah. OK. Yeah. Is recommendation for a buffer? Mm-hmm. Talk to me a little about a recommendation. It doesn't sound like it's mandatory. It's not mandatory. But we have seen this in a recent case earlier this year when there was work in the bluff and or the bluff impact zone, whereas kind of a countermeasure for activity
that's occurring in there, it's a mitigation strategy. So that is something that it's not new. We've seen it before. So if they were not to put the vegetative buffer in there, would that cancel the variance? Well, if it's included as a recommendation condition-- It's a conditional recommendation. Yeah. Unless it gets removed either as part of planning commission or council. But from our perspective, we think it's reasonable. And again, I think that was also the impression I got from the property owners as they also thought it was reasonable. A lot of people landscape the shoreline.
But they're here. You want to have a visit with them about that. I would comment on the buffer, too. I think you need to be a little bit more specific on what type of buffer you're looking at. I mean, are we talking 10 feet, 5 feet? I mean, because really to get the benefit of a shoreline buffer, I think the DNR recommends something like 15 feet or whatever. So it might be something. We have received previously, I think, the list of shoreline recommendations for buffers that we've provided previously.
But I would say that's probably in the realm of it. But that's why it does say in there that it's subject to review and acceptance by the city. Right. Right. I don't know what our guidelines are for that. But it might be something to look at. Good point. [END PLAYBACK] OK, further questions for Sarah? Hearing none, amongst the planning commission, any-- Thank you, everyone. Any comments? If they want to talk, I'd like to hear about their dot compliance. We're going to address the audience here in just a minute.
Oh gotcha. OK. I don't think I have any more. Is the applicant in the audience? And would one of you like to come forward and address the commission? Please. Sure. And our custom is to ask you to state your name and your address. Yep. I'm Scott Gates, 4407 Wheelshare. I'm the representative for the applicant. I think the staff did their usual wonderful job at outlining the concerns and issues in the project. I would note that there are elevations. It's kind of hard to see them propose
side elevation with the deck and the current existing elevation with the patio. So that may help get a little bit of a view. You asked about the plan. Planning commission member Wallace-- and we haven't submitted a permit yet, but we did submit the elevations and that kind of thing with it. So I'm happy to answer any questions for you. Questions for Mr. Gates? Yeah, I'd like to ask, what are you thinking for the deck? Will it be like a maintenance-free deck? Will it butt up to each other?
Some of those have the things where there isn't a quarter-inch gap. It'll be a quarter-inch gap. That's a requirement of the impervious consideration. And that's really a condition, effectively, of the approval. The maintenance-free, I believe, ends up being less than two steps. So it's about 16 inches of height. We'll not have a railing on it as the plan. There might be some planners, boxes, things like that that would be part of it. At the same time, I'll maybe address your question
or comment on the buffer. Staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but their primary concern was they wanted a little bit of a buffer because there's a slightly higher mass. It's not at grade. It's a little bit above grade. They wanted a little bit more screening than mitigation, if that makes sense, than managing water. So a buffer-- most of the time when they speak buffer, they're talking about managing water shed. This lot's really level, so we don't have a lot of flow-- some, but not a lot of flow to the lakes.
I think it would be more plant-- get a little bit of height for some plants to soften that shoreline. OK. Further questions for Mr. Gates? Very good. Thank you for coming forward. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address a commission regarding this variance request? Seeing no hands in the air, I assume no. OK, further discussion amongst the commission. Any other thoughts or comments anyone would like to make? I think it's a pretty simple one. Pretty simple one. [INAUDIBLE] The variance. Yeah. I like it going from non-pervious to pervious. That makes sense. So--
For example, and they're building in the same footprint as they're not. Yeah exactly. Encroaching any further, they're reducing hardcover. Exactly. This is a win-win. And it's going to look nice. OK, on page seven of your agenda, you see that staff has recommended approval of the lakeshore variance with four conditions for findings of fact. So I will make a recommendation to approve planning case 2511 lakeshore variance, including staff recommendations one through four, plus an additional condition
that the new deck meet requirement for pervious, plus the findings of facts one through four on page seven. You hear the motion. Do I have a second? Second. We have a second. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion carries. Ma'am. Thank you. For the folks that are with us, we are planning on including the variance on the November 25 city council agenda because we have a recommendation of approval subject to findings and conditions. From the planning commission, it's our intent to include it on the consent agenda. And so it will be acted
on along with a handful of other housekeeping related type matters with one motion, one second, except unless somebody wants to pull it for questions. But that's scheduled for next Tuesday. We'll be sending out mailed notice tomorrow. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thanks for joining us. [RATTLING] OK, moving on. Planning case 25-13, expansion permit, news slash-- [INAUDIBLE] Placement house. [INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE]
[INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] Take your time. We don't want to crash. [INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE] I'll take your break for. Chair Good, members of the commission, my name is Mia Collerado Mansfeld. I'm a consulting planner with HKGI for the city of Mound. I will be presenting on the expansion permit request at 2971 Cambridge Lane. The property is located on Cambridge Lane on the east side of Cook's Bay. The house that is currently there today was constructed in 1914 and is nonconforming on the rear and north side setbacks. The request is for an expansion permit.
The applicant is proposing a new replacement house to be constructed predominantly in the existing house footprint on the lot. The proposed house will add a second story and-- [INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE] Is this better? Talk louder. OK, I will talk louder. Be a surgeon. [INAUDIBLE] Thank you. OK. The applicant is proposing a new replacement house to be constructed predominantly in the existing house footprint. The proposed house will add a second story
that maintains the existing nonconforming rear setback of 9.84 feet and the north side setback of 1.4 feet. The proposed house will decrease the nonconforming hardcover on the site, but will still be over the 40% limit for a lot of record. The proposed new construction will expand the footprint of the house from 1351 square feet to 1,551 square feet. The areas of expansion are all occurring in conforming ways. So on the diagram here, the letters
show where these changes are. A is for the patio, which will be reconstructed slightly smaller. The green is the new house on the screen. And the red dashed line shows where the existing house is that will be removed. So there is a accessory shed in the southeast corner that's going to be removed. That's letter B. The garage is going to expand to the south and east, where you can see letter C. Similarly, the southern edge of the house and garage are going to shift slightly closer to that southern property line, still conforming with the setback.
The existing stairs on the rear of the house are going to shift slightly, again, still conforming. And they will be replacing the driveway with permeable pavers. The property is guided by the comprehensive plan as low density residential, allowing for single family attached and detached housing. The applicant is proposing to continue using this property for a single family home. It is zoned as an R1A, single family residential property. The lot is considered a lot of record, and it is also a lakeshore lot.
A few other existing conditions on the site. The minimum lot area for an R1A lot of record is 6,000 square feet. This property has a lot area of 4,005 square feet. So you'll know it is smaller than the minimum area. It is also located adjacent to Brighton Commons, which means that although the rear setback of the house is nonconforming to the property line, it still is conforming to the lakeshore setback, located about 60 feet from the ordinary high water line due to the Brighton Commons being
between the property and the lakeshore. Here you can see in the top image the existing house, and then below that the proposed expansion house, again, with that red line showing the overlapping footprint. As mentioned earlier, the proposed construction will increase the footprint from 1,351 square feet to 1,551 square feet, again, in a conforming manner. The existing house is one story, and the proposed house will be 2.5 stories. It will meet the maximum 35-foot requirement as the proposed height is 31 feet,
so it's under that limit. And the expansion permit is required in this case because adding that second story is increasing that nonconforming area, but it is maintaining the existing nonconformity. It's not increasing that distance there. And again, the patio on that northern side is also nonconforming. It's being replaced with a slightly smaller setback there, but still nonconforming. Here you can see the setbacks, the required setbacks. So front yard, side yard to the south, and ordinary high water line
setbacks are all being met. And the existing rear setback and that deck setback are being maintained at the same level of nonconformance, so 9.84 feet in the rear, which is less than the 15 feet required, and 1.4 feet for the deck, which is less than the 6 feet. It's worth noting that the building itself is at 7.5 feet, which is conforming to that north side setback. [BEEPING] Pass the benders. Hardcover on the site is currently 64.69%. The limit for a lot of record is 40%. The applicant is
proposing to replace the driveway with permeable pavers, and this allows them to reduce the hardcover on the site to 48.31%. So while this is still nonconforming, it is improved from the existing conditions. And again, the entire lot is a smaller, lot is a smaller lot than the normal lot size for an R1A house. It's also worth noting that the access to the adjacent property to the north requires use of a portion, a northeast portion, of this property in order to reach their house
as the road Cambridge Lane ends at this property. These images-- the blue house is the house we are-- of the applicant. And then it is also where the road ends. So that northeast corner is required to be some sort of accessible surface for that house, limiting the ability to fully remove impervious surface on that area. Yard encroachments-- there are several allowed yard encroachments per the city code. The applicant is proposing a bay window on the second story
rear wall. The code allows bay windows as encroachments so long as that they are no greater than eight square feet and that the setback of the principal wall conforms to district setback requirements. As noted, this is a nonconforming rear wall. But given that, we have determined that the principal wall is 9.84 feet, so long as the bay window meets that eight square foot requirement, then it would be an allowable encroachment
into the yard. Measurements on the survey show that the bay window proposed is approximately 11 square feet. So that would need to be reduced to eight square feet in order to be allowed. Similarly mechanical equipment is an allowable yard encroachment. There are AC units and a generator shown on the south side site plan here. Those are allowed so long as they do not extend more than two feet into the yard setback. And they also may count towards hardcover. Stairways similarly are an allowed encroachment, provided they do not extend to a
distance of less than two feet from any lot line. And that the entrance structure, so the stoop or uncovered porch, does not exceed 32 square feet. And in this case, the stairways are conforming to those requirements. And finally, eaves are also an allowed encroachment into setbacks. You're allowed to encroach two feet. And then any portion of an eave exceeding that two feet will count towards hardcover, unless there is existing hardcover underneath that eave. So you're not double counting. The minimum flood elevation
required for Lake Minnetonka is 933 feet. The proposed elevations for the basement, first floor, and garage all meet this requirement. It should be noted that the plans do show an elevator and elevator pit. And so there may be additional building code or flood proofing requirements that apply to this. And as noted earlier, the access to this property is a little strange due to the configuration of the roadways. And so it is recommended the applicant
coordinate with the Public Works Department on construction parking, staging, the delivery and storage of materials in order to ensure that the roadway remains clear and provides access and safety to all road users. This diagram here shows the northern portion of Cambridge Lane turns and joins Leslie Road and does not connect south to the southern portion of Cambridge Lane, which is accessed via Manchester Road. So that's why we recommend that they coordinate on construction parking. As it's customary, the application
was distributed to adjacent property owners, staff, consultants agencies and private utilities. Comments received have been incorporated into the report. There is a note on the construction access concern. And now, as Sarah explained earlier, the role of planning commission is to discuss the request and then can ask for more information or recommend city council approval or denial with findings of fact. And I will take any questions. OK, questions for Mayor? Is this the house where you go kind of-- it's up to the back by the garage. The road's back up to the garage.
Can I have a side road? I think so. I think it is, yeah. It's all-- it goes back. Why don't you go back to that picture? Yeah. That's the picture. Yeah, that one. That's how you get back to the house? Yeah, the blue house here, then that northern property that requires access via their driveway. It's a really tight access. Other comments or questions from you? Thank you. So I guess I have a question on the bay window comment that was on there. So you can't have a bay window more than eight feet when it encroaches on a nonconforming, right?
Into the setback. In the setback. But they show eaves, which are actually setting going further than the bay window. So the eaves can go into the setback, but the bay window-- Eaves can encroach into a setback two feet. But the bay window is not encroaching more than the eaves. The total square footage-- my understanding of the reason is that they don't want to have a bay window in quotes. That is so much that it's adding that much space, livable space to the room, which is why they're narrow. So it's not about the depth. It's the combination of the depth and the width, making sure that we don't end up with
basically a bay window. That's the entire length of the room and adding onto the livable area. So it's not really about-- it's not a hardcover. It's about you can't use a bay window in order to add all this extra square footage onto your site and that's into the setback area. Thank you. I'm so proud. Further comments or questions from Mia? Hearing none, thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Is the applicant in the audience? Would one of you like to address the commission? Need your name and your address, please. My name's Erica Way, 202 Water Street, Suite 202 Excelsior, Minnesota.
I'm with Landshoe. We are the applicant and we are also here tonight with the property owners, Tim and Joan Kenny. Erica, can you raise your voice just a little? Yes. You never tell me to do that. So we are here for questions. OK, any questions for the applicant? [MUSIC PLAYING] Do you happen to know, Erica, what the elevation is of the elevator pit? Because the house is like at 9.34. The lower level elevation? Yeah, so this is actually a sort of a tricky situation where this house actually has no basement.
It is a slab on grade. And it's a slab on grade with a built up floor system on top of it. So the elevator pit actually is not lower than the slab. At the same level. You're the second one I heard. It's kind of a new thing, right? So the pit is at the same elevation as your slab? Correct. OK, thank you. OK, further comments or questions for Erica? Thank you, Erica. Hearing none, thank you, ma'am. Would anybody else in the audience like to address the commission regarding this expansion
permit? Good evening, all. My name is Trent Sims. I live at 2957 Cambridge. It's a property that's north of this spot. I've been in this house since 2010. And as Mr. Heel had mentioned, this is a very tight access property to get to my property. Now, I've known Tim and Joan for that amount of time as well. They have not been there full time. They're only there part time in the summertime. So access has not been a problem. However, when they are there and they have cars in their driveway, it is very difficult for me to get in the driveway. I often tow trailers, half the back trailers up
into my driveway. With this road, that part of the Cambridge Lane is only about 10 feet wide. So I don't have a ton of radius to get trailers backing up in there. If I have any extra cars in there, anybody else basically, every time they try to back out of my driveway when they have cars there, they mention how difficult it is. My main concern is just the garage. And just if they were ever to have a car parked in their driveway at that point, they only have a 20-foot clearance to the road right now. My truck is 21 feet. So if they have anything big like that
and they do have SUVs, if they're not right up to the garage, they're going to be basically encroaching on the road. I understand it's not going to happen all the time. And we've worked well together in the past with if we have problems that I don't have any issue with asking to move a car, if I need to do something like that, and they've been very willing in every aspect that I've ever asked them to. However, in the event that they do have a car, it's going to be very difficult to get in my driveway, especially with a trailer, which I use at least once a month, if not more. That's honestly my only concern. One thing I want to ask is if any of you guys
have visited the site and seen how close this is and how tight it is, I know that the pictures will show, but pictures don't always do it justice. This is a very tight spot. I generally have to use basically the yard that's towards the woods there in order to get a trailer into my spot as of now. So my biggest thing is just the driveway, just having cars in the driveway, gaining access to my house. That's going to be my biggest concern, leaving 12 feet for me to get any vehicle in. Like I said, I drive a truck.
It's a big vehicle, and that's a tight space. So just voicing my concerns today about that, and that's honestly it. I'd like to ask if you guys are OK. If I invite my father up here, he does have vested interest in the house as well. He knows about this stuff a little more than I do, and I'd like to get him his two cents in if that's all right. Can I ask you a question, sir? When you say leaving 12 feet, what do you mean? What's that? When you say leaving 12 feet, what does that mean? So on the lower map here, they have-- I don't know what that states-- 12 feet from that cinder block wall that comes on that curve there. That's what they're giving me for clearance. And that's a change--
It's in the top corner, just under the green. And that's a change from how it is today? It's-- I don't know what it shows now. That's not necessarily a change, but the problem is if they have a car in the driveway here, and especially one here, now I'm going to be limited. Because of the way that their house is now, they really can't park a car here. They do still, which is totally fine with me, but when a car is there, it's even more difficult to get in. They are giving themselves a few more feet when taking their house out just right here. But often enough, it's going to have a problem. If they have a car here, it's going to leave me a really tight space, especially if I'm backing up
out of my driveway around a blind corner. So where's your house in this picture? So my house is up here. Up there? Yep. OK, and the road that you're coming in off of is down here. So you're coming in there. So this is a road that's only about 10 feet wide, because it's a right away access road. So this is about 10 feet wide. And it comes up here. And the retaining wall's to the right. I'm sorry? The retaining wall's to the right? Yep, retaining wall's to the right. Yep absolutely. So I have to turn left around the retaining wall to hit it. Absolutely. And that road ends basically in line with their property line as well. So it's-- So is the property--
Is the property in the road? No. No. No, the part of the driveway for Trent's property and process the Kenney property. Oh OK. That's correct. Their locator is in the road. That's what I thought. I'm sorry. Their survey state is in the road. Oh yeah. That's what I thought. I go by it. I'm sorry. I was not clear on that. It's all paved, because it doesn't-- So it's sort of coming. Part of the road is at 20 feet there. Yeah. Yeah that's-- Which is even allowing you less area. It's like the driveway and the road are all commingled. It's one big mess. It's like one big, but you know-- Absolutely.
It's just a big-- Yeah. [LAUGHTER] So yeah, it's-- And the fact that the garage is going closer to the road is a concern. That's my concern. That's your concern, is that-- Now, if they don't have a car in the driveway, it's fine. It's not a big deal. Right. It's when-- in times that they're going to have a car. And now that they're going to be there full time, I can see that happening more often than not. And where would be secondary parking to the driveway? In that scenario? For them? For anybody? Well, it'd be along Manchester Road. Manchester Road? Yeah. OK.
And I'm assuming-- do you have an easement for that area right there? That's what you're-- I believe there is. Yeah, so they can't block it, right? No. [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] I understand it falls under prescriptive easement. Yes. No. No? I heard a no over there. It does not. I-- I'm not able to speak to it. Oh OK. So the 12 feet, is that just kind of like an honorable 12 feet, or is it actually somewhere documented? Because what if they move out some day and someone moves in and isn't as friendly of that 12 feet,
could that be an issue in the future? I think those are perhaps questions for the property owner and the neighbor. OK. Yeah. It has separate private matters, but we're-- Yeah. Well, in that case, how would it be something for the future? If I'm talking to somebody that's going to buy the house, you know, in the event-- if in the event that they sell their house and like they're saying, the future tenant comes in and says, well, too bad. Sure. You know, it's not between me and them. It's between-- that's why he-- that should be something that's documented. So definitely affect the marketability of the property owner. Here's what we're going to do.
Yep. Are there more questions for this gentleman? I have no question. For him? For him, yes. Go ahead. So-- and maybe it's also for Sarah. Is there-- is there any plans to finish out Cambridge Road, or is there a reason you cannot move the driveway north on Cambridge Road? There's a hill. So all of the utilities run down Cambridge Lane from the upper portion of Cambridge. That used to be one road. They cut that off, and all the utilities are within that hill because the upper part of Cambridge Road is about 20 feet higher. Yeah. And so all of that hill
right there is all utilities. So they can't expand it anymore. I mean, that would be-- if we could do that, that would be fantastic if they were to go further in and actually be able to drop the utilities further and push that retaining wall back. That'd be great. It wouldn't be a problem. If you're asking, is there any plans to expand that road, not to my knowledge, but I don't know that anyone's asked the question, but I do agree. There is definitely slope in and around that area. I think those walls are city walls, but I definitely-- No, they're-- no, they're ours. They are yours. Yeah. Oh OK. I stand corrected.
They were done in 2003, I think, in Denver. It seems like a weird-- we have a lot of problems. [INTERPOSING VOICES] That would-- that we can certainly correct that. OK. So that would be a question for public works engineering, but not to my knowledge. You know, that's the first question I have is how come the road wasn't extended. Right. There's probably other related issues that I think Trent was talking about that may play into why it hasn't been. Yeah, the water main for my house is in that-- right after-- Yeah, right on top of that concrete wall for about two feet.
Yeah, it was. OK, any further questions for this gentleman? Yeah, thank you. Well, I'm looking at the future detailed projects for-- through 2029, and Cambridge is not on any of them for any kind of mill overlay or reconstruction. Yeah, I kind of figured. Yeah. They just redid most of those. Yeah. It's just a handful of years ago, so I can't imagine it would be doing that now. Further questions or comments? I'm sorry. I don't have any. Thank you. Thank you. The gentleman with his hand up is next. Thank you. My name is Tim Kenny.
I'm the property owner along with my wife Joan. Can you give us your address Jeff please? Yes yes sir. 2971 Cambridge Lane is the address in Mound. We also have a home in St. Paul, which we are selling and moving out here full time. We bought the property in 2003. We lived there about four to five months out of the year, and now that our children are grown, we have decided to make that our full-time home, which was the plan all along. As Trent mentioned, we've gotten along very well with our neighbors over the years. Trent's actually parked his trailer and
his truck in my driveway over the winter a number of times, and we've agreed to that. He's mowed our commons for us. He's got a big lawn mower. We've watched his kids a couple times, so we get along great. I will say on this property, a couple things. I am a lawyer. It is Torren's registered property. There is no recorded easement across the property. There is no ability to develop a prescriptive easement. Having said that, we specifically worked, and we're spending more money to move the location of the garage south four feet,
which increases the geometry between that retaining wall, which was, I believe, Tom, you built that, right? I did. Yeah, so Tom is Trent's dad. He originally owned the property, bought it a little bit before we bought our property, and used it as a rental for a number of years before Trent bought it from his dad. And there was an issue. The retaining wall had collapsed. A tree had, I believe, fallen onto the property, and I think Tom bought it out of... Yeah, I'd be happy to give you the other thing. Yeah, but he can give you more of that history, but he actually negotiated with the city
to build that retaining wall. Originally, I think it was going to be built much taller and farther north than it is, and it was stepped down to decrease the cost of it in terms of how that was built, which caused that retaining wall to be very close to our property line. We are purposely attempting to move the geometry of the house to increase the amount of room. We want to be able to enjoy our property, and we may park there, but we've always been able to work things out. When they have parties, sometimes they park on our driveway.
We've had people who probably park a little bit on Trent's driveway when we've had people out there. We've always worked through that, but I wanted to make the point that we are purposely moving at four feet south, which increases the distance, even though we're coming out seven or eight feet towards the street. The reason we're doing that, we have three grown daughters. We're hoping they're going to come visit us with their families, and we do want to have enough bedrooms to accommodate everybody, so we do need that space to be able to put in two bedrooms on the second level
to accommodate our family. We also plan to park in the garage most of the time, but unlike now, where we actually use the garage as a bunk room, and we park the cars in the driveway, but we do anticipate having guests, and we will have to work through making sure people don't block. We've also hired one of the best architects in the Twin Cities, LandShoot, which is phenomenal. They will be the builder, and we've impressed upon them the importance of when we are doing this project, we have to make sure not only Trent, but
our other neighbors have access, and we're not creating any issues during construction. I think all of these things together for us to be able to enjoy the house, we need to be able to build the house. We want to be able to live there full time and have our family be able to visit, and friends be able to stay with us. We are very mindful of that tight space, but that's the way we bought the property, that's the way Tom and Trent bought the property, and there is no easement. So we're doing our best to mitigate that in terms of how we're moving the
structure of the house and building it out. I'm happy to answer any questions about that, but that's a little more context for you. Questions from Mr. Caddie. Is the garage that you're building here, is it a three car garage? Is it a two car garage? It's going to be a very tight two car garage. Okay, so it's not an oversized garage? No, it's going to be, I think, smaller than our current garage a little bit. Okay. It's a very narrow lot. It's a 40 foot wide lot, so it's 20 or 22 foot wide by 20 or 22
feet, something like that. It's a very, very small garage. Just enough to get our two cars in, too, basically. Further questions from Mr. Caddie. And on the north side, there's seven and a half feet to the lot line. Are you planning parking in cars on the north side? Is that driveway that goes into this? No, most of the time we do not intend to have that. Okay. But the reason we're not, I think Sarah mentioned this, normally there'd have to be a buffer between the property line and the parking lot, but if we did that, Trent couldn't drive across. So we can't reduce the pervious cover to
allow the continuous pavement to allow Trent to get into his property. So we could reduce, I mean, I could, we'd be happy to remove that if that helped with the pervious. We've removed a lot of, there was even more pervious cover when we bought this property. There was a concrete pad, there was a lot of stone mulch, there was a dog kennel. We've removed as much as we could as we went along, and the current sidewalk, we took it from being completely pervious to a, impervious to a pervious sidewalk. So we, too, like the prior applicant, you know, we're putting in gutters,
which we don't have because of the roof structure. We're going to try to catch as much water coming off the roof as we can into a, you know, into the garden. We have a number of plantings we plan to add as well, but that's the other issue is the patio is currently a deck, which is pervious. But because it's within two feet of the property line, we were advised we couldn't have a deck. So we have to make it a patio to have that be a usable entrance. That's the front entrances through the patio. And we'd love to have it be a deck, then
it would be removing that hardcover, but we've been told we have to have, we can't have a deck there. So there's a lot of patio right on that north side there. Yes, that is currently a deck with four inch gaps or half inch gaps. Well, I see the patio, right? I'm sorry. I'm just trying. I'm looking next on the side of the garage. Yeah, right there. Right. So that we're putting in so that Trent can drive across into the property. We could remove, you know, a chunk of
that if we didn't have to do that. Well, I wonder if Trent has concerns that cars might park in that area. That's within our property, though. Like we should be able to park right there as long as we're not blocking his access. We can park a car right here and not black his access. I think his concern, and I'll let him speak to it, is if we park here, you know, a 16 to 20 foot vehicle, we're right to the line. And I get that, but I also get cars are the size they are and, you know, it's our property and we should be able to
park there as long as we're not blocking him. And the little triangle up at the top is the access that Trent needs to get to his property. Well, we've drawn that for illustrative purposes. I mean, when we're not parked there, he's going to have a lot more. He's going to have tons of space to get in and out. If we're parked there, obviously we're going to have to either move the car if we're blocking him. But again, we're planning to park in the garage now that we're living there full time in the garage will be a garage. It's only if we have guests. But again, when we each have parties or things we
adjust to each other. I mean, his folks, some of his guests have parked literally in our space right behind us on the street. And I've had to go over and ask to move it. But that's kind of how neighbors have to get along and work through things that we've always done it very well up to this point. Okay, further questions or comments from Mr. Kenny. Here you go. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Now, sir, would you like to address the commission? My name is Tom Sims I live at 70 birch blood road in Tonka Bay. I was the one that bought this house originally in 2003 not original but
because it was I think it was built 1965. How do you work this? Yellow. I turned it off several times. So back in the day somebody else on this property, and this was a cinder block wall that that regardless of who let the trees grow on it, the trees grow on it and it caved in this wall and tipped over on this guy's house, and he packed up in the middle of the night, moved out. The city was after him to rebuild the
house rebuild the wall. He decided to pack up and move out. So it went into bankruptcy and I bought it from the bank and then I worked with the city to get this wall built right here so Cambridge Lane. In theory stops right here. But if you go to the north side of Trent's property this right here is a hill that's about 20 feet high in Cambridge Lane is up here, and then it comes to a curve right at the right at the curve there and stops and then this is a right away where the city has its
utilities that comes downhill, it's and it's downhill. So, I was working with the city at the time to figure out what kind of wall we had to build here and this is pretty much the only thing we could do. It stops right at this wall. I think Trent's. I don't know if this easement if this is an easement or a city property. Don't know. That's all right away to the best of my knowledge, it's just, it's undeveloped. So it's not Trent's with it right away over the top. So his, I think the back of his lot line
is the same as the back of Tim's lot line. So, we had to go out with this, with this wall in order to put eight feet of camera what they call the kind of screen underground to retain this wall so that it wouldn't interfere with the utilities that were that are in the underneath underground right here. So, that really restricts the access into Trent's property so right now, the existing garage corner is right here.
And when you come around this corner you pretty much have all of this to get your truck and trailers and whatever else keeping in mind that these guys are lakeshores so they do pull trailers boat trailers, you know whatever they want, you know, trailer to all his big lawnmower in and so we got about 50, we him has about 60, 50, 60 feet of driveway right here to turn something around in here is like next to impossible and you need all of this space just to
get access to this house. My concern is, I still have an interest in this house too so I have a concern about future marketability theater ever put this house on the market somebody's going to come in here and go really. I mean, with this limited access if you will, it cuts across this corner, that's the corner of the garage. That's the corner than the proposed garage. So if you drew a line, here's the edge of Trent's parking area and you drew a line across where he comes in right now.
That's, that's not, I don't think where the proposed garage is going to be up on top there. Yeah, let's go down. This red line is the red dot is the existing garage. This is a proposed garage. So where he comes in right now he's got this much room for access, which kind of cuts a corner right here. Now, Tim had said that there are no recorded easements and there aren't, but it does qualify as a prescriptive easement, meaning it's been used for what it's being used for for 50 60 70
years unopposed and notoriously as what they word in the legal description. So according to my attorney, I had a discussion with him yesterday and he said absolutely it's a prescriptive easement. What does that do for it? I don't know. Personally, I would rather sat down and reviewed these plans with Tim and Joan and their developer before coming in here and voicing my concerns, but that didn't happen. I invited you four times over the last two months to do that.
Your son wants the house. I've asked to sit down and review this and it hasn't happened. So I don't know what to ask you for right now other than maybe more time to go sit down and meet with Tim and Joan and their developer and see what we can do about this, if anything. Trent doesn't have a problem with this house. I mean, it's a monstrous house for a little tiny lot, but that's Lake Minnetonka. That's the way it works. There's another one up here on the north side that looks over. So he's got this rambler in between that's going to have these two behemoths
looking over the top. But I certainly don't want to get in the way of them building their house and their property, but I am concerned about this access issue. Okay. Thank you for your comments. We have questions for this gentleman. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to approach the commission regarding this request? Seeing none. Discussion of the expansion permit request amongst the commission.
I just I have a question as to it seems that there is a big road issue and access issue and I don't know from a city perspective how that happened. You know, something happened there. That's not something that will have that history. Right. Right. But is it is it is it a city issue? Is it a city issue that we don't have access to these two homes?
There is access. It's just a part of the neighbors property crosses this property, but based on the configuration. Historically, I understand that's how it looks. Does that happen a lot within the city? On the island. There's where there's yeah. Okay. We have roads that are that are plotted that aren't built. We have driveways that are built in right of ways that are giving access. But it's I wouldn't say it happens all the time, but it certainly is
something that has happened. But is with only seven and a quarter feet of frontage on a street is that could they come back and say I want a 10 foot frontage on the street. It's a street. It's Cambridge Lane. Is that what you're calling this area? There's seven and a quarter foot of. I think those are right. I think that's what you mean. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I
certainly think giving up giving a land over seven and a quarter feet of frontage doesn't seem to the side. I think that would have to be something that would need to be pursued with public works and engineering. You know, could that be extended in that outside of our right for tonight. Right. You know, certainly if there's opportunities, the venue for that I would think would either be an improvement project or public lands permit because we have had people extend driveways and right of ways. We have done that before, but that's not
part of tonight. Right. Because they're within the 20 foot setback. It's just that part of that 20 foot setback is actually is directly there within their setbacks. Correct. On that side. They're not in their step axis on the north end. Which are not related. That doesn't relate to the easement issue. That shaded area that is their property. Correct. Yeah, I think they're trying to illustrate in the diagram kind of the fact that they are recognizing that there is a driveway. That is their property. That is their property. That's where they're
illustrating like 12 foot wide path. Because it helps all of us understand. Exactly. So let me clear that's their properties and they have a right to do with it. Just the difference there. It was just mostly to make sure that we recognize the fact that there was a. But everything above north of that pervious papers like. Paved right now on their side. So it's almost like a driveway. Like a driveway parking area. What was the number on? You took impervious right now.
I can't tell somebody. It's coming down but it's still over the. He's a narrow road. But I don't think reducing that's going to benefit. No, no, I'm just I wasn't saying that. That's right. It's really. I mean the fact that they could take out all that north pervious because it's not a benefit to them. But that takes away the ability for them. Sim Sims to drive down here. Yeah. Yeah. If there's no cars parked there. That's what I was thinking. Yeah.
For the comments. I think this is a really weird one. I'm just going to acknowledge. And the only reason why and where I struggle with this one is from strictly a land use perspective. They're meeting all the requirements. It's private property. My concern again is and again I can appreciate you guys putting the new garage further south to try and be accommodating to that. But again my concern is if we approve this. In the future could it become a bigger issue and could we create a new hardship for the resident who lives at the north.
But I think from a land use perspective it's meeting everything for the approval. And I don't know if that potential for future hardship falls more on the city council decision. That's what I'm kind of struggling with this one because I think it. I don't want to tell people how to use it. That's the issue I'm having. I mean the garage is coming out further. I could see it again creating a future issue depending on if the residents swap and that's not a land use decision. So I. But I guess my argument does. Even if they had the
garage seven feet forward. They have every right to park their car all the way back to the street. That's exactly right. Exactly right. But I think. But that's why I was asking. It creates a can create a hardship for the area north. But but again I don't know how we address that from the planning commission perspective. I think we just address what the variance is. That's it. That's all we're here for. Not to worry about whether it's 17 feet 10 feet. I mean long as the serve property and it's implied to the variance I think that's that would be my concern. I'm not going to sit there and say well it's 12 feet is 20 feet.
That's that's where I stand. I mean the driveway currently is hardship. You know even without adding the additional to your driveway. So who's driveways are hardship. Pardon me whose driveways are hardship. Oh for Trent Trent. Yes. Yes. Currently it is because he has to use their. So it's going to be added problem with the garage but it's already hardship now. Yeah exactly. And so is there an option then for Trent to take that to the city and request.
We request more roadway. That's what I was asking. Yeah right. I mean I think it's the only I mean I think that would be my that would be my advice to. I was told by the city absolutely not 25 years ago. Well I was 25 years. It's a different city you know. Underground you know what's going on with the sewer and everything like that that has a lot to do with it. But certainly Ryan could maybe be at the meeting on. He might already be going to be at the meeting on Tuesday and that would be
something you could. Who's Ryan. Public works. Oh yeah. Yeah. All right. Kenny you had one more comment. Thank you. I appreciate weighing these concerns I would say though. You know what we've heard is a concern about driving a trailer into the property not driving onto the property we're doing everything possible to accommodate that versus our ability to build a house that we're going to live in for the next 25 years and accommodate our family. So I appreciate we do want to make. I'm confident Trent and I can work and
Joan can work out if there's anything blocking Trent's access right. But I think when you trade off the us being able to build the home and you know we've been in the house for 23 years now versus a trailer having access and being able to turn around easily I think it weighs a little bit in our favor so I'm happy to address that at the city council. When I think about balancing those which we do on the law all the time balancing the interest we're trying to ensure his interest of access we've purposefully
planned it to increase you know the geometry I recognize it's coming out a little bit it's coming down which I don't know what the actual distance is it may be actually the same when you actually do the calculation but there should be more than enough room to get into the property. So I just encourage you to consider there's the balance of interest is a trailer versus being able to be able to build a house that we can live in your round with our family so I mean just the
fact that you illustrated that in these diagrams kind of tells me that I mean you do care about having a healthy relationship with your neighbor you know what I mean. I think it's just such a weird situation. Yeah, no, I get it. I think you've done what you can to be accommodating. Yeah, it's not any of our fault, the way it was planted for sure and how that lane was developed so. So I guess I'm less concerned. I think you guys are trying to work it out but if you ever sell if they ever sell. What's where's it put the city with only
seven and a quarter feet of frontage on a road. Like if a new owners, if you sell something happens, and they say you can't drive on our property. Where does that leave the north property. I come back to the city and say I have to have frontage I don't know if that's an option. Yeah, no, I appreciate that but you know, we've invested in this property for 25 years and being robbed of the ability to enjoy that is a pretty significant thing, I think, versus what may happen in 25 or 30 years when we die, you know. Yeah, I just think it's something the
city's gonna have to address the attorney and public works. Yeah, but again, conformity, you know, improving conformity everywhere except in those couple spots and we'd improve the conformity on if we could leave a deck. We wouldn't have the issue with the pervious cover on, you know, where the word. So that's because of the code not because of us. So we've, we've improved the conformity across the board. Every which way except for that, you know, the lake shore where the where the wall is, but it's currently there. So,
and we are absolutely on board with all the conditions that were identified, you know, in terms of looking at the bay window. I think we're not fully appreciative of that issue. And they've already started redrawing that part of it. So, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kenney. All right, further discussion amongst the commission. Yeah, the way I see it, this is private property. There isn't an easement. So you're looking at the occasional situation where he's driving a trailer.
And the concern is the variance from the mean of how often is a trailer going to be, is that going to be an issue by your parking in the, in the driveway. So, I don't see how we can deny this. And instead, weigh the concerns of the occasional trailer. Like to say, this isn't only the trailer just driving my truck. People backing up.
I'll give you one more shot. Go ahead. You know, we threw out the example of driving in there with a vehicle and a trailer as an example. That's all it was. And I think we're getting too hung up on the idea that this is a trailer versus a house. It isn't. It's accessibility and it's marketability. And there's all kinds of different things that are going to be affected here. Somebody said, how did this happen years ago? Well, you know, if we have issues
that are going to affect Trent's house, the last thing I want to do is get in the way of Tim building a house. You know, him and I got along great for seven years too, and I still owned it. I don't want that. I would like some time so we could sit down with them and review the plan and see if there's something different. We can do with that. Seven, eight, nine extra feet of garage is coming out that is going to hinder his Trent's accessibility and marketability. So I think in most city situations, you
don't approve a project for the benefit of one neighbor that is to the detriment of another neighbor. Normally the routine. I don't want to get hung up on a trailer, but there are issues here with future. Let's say marketability, if you want to call it that. Now we talked about utilities with the cities again. It's twenty two, twenty three years later. Yeah, maybe the city had looked at it different. That's going to take some time. That comes down as a slant like this from the upper hill to the lower hill. Hey, if they could hit that edge and
drop it straight down and come out that direction and you know, that would open up the backside of Trent's property and you have no accessibility issues anymore. But that's going to cost city thousands. It really would be a Bolton and Mank discussion. Bolton and Mank are city engineer. It would it would cost a lot of money for the city. And as they said, it's not on the future. Right. Right. Through twenty twenty nine. So is it an issue that you need to make
a decision on this second? Like I said, I'd love to sit down with Tim and Joan and their developer and see if there's a different way. It's something we can come up with. I can't even tell you what it is right now because yesterday last night is the first time I've seen this plans. So I just would need some time, I think, with all of us together, put our heads together and figure out if there's a way to work around. Thank you. Thank you. OK, for discussion amongst the commission. Hearing none, we have on page twenty one
and twenty two of your agenda. Recommendation from staff to approve this expansion permit with six conditions and five findings. You've seen a slide previously that indicates we can take one of three actions, table the request. If we did that, we need specific reasons why. To approve the expansion permit or recommend denying it. Chair would entertain a motion. I mean, I'm comfortable moving it forward, but I think it would be
interesting to have Bolton and make way in on. You know, is that something you can just make a phone call to get information on or is that something we would need to discuss in in the council meeting? I think we could do some preliminary work in between, you know, if a motion moves forward this evening before it gets to the council. So my understanding is that if my memory is good, you guys are not if we get a recommendation tonight, you want to go to the meeting in December. Isn't that correct? So right. If my memory is good.
And so that we would have a little bit of time, you know, if the planning commission offers a recommendation between now and it gets to the council. Would we have a planning meeting before then? Would we have a planning meeting before that? Before the night? We have planning commission meeting on the second. Yeah. But but again, I think that I don't think I have to come up or perhaps more for the council rather than the planning commission. I would agree with that, Sarah. I you know, I think from a planning standpoint, I can't see us not approving
this, but I also would like to see how we can somehow acknowledge that. You know, there are some issues with this area that maybe it is more appropriate for the council to review in the city. But I just I can't see us not approving this one and moving it forward. But acknowledging to that it's just a quirky little area. One of many. Right. Right. And it's not new. I mean, it's been that way for a long time. And it was purchased that
way. Right. Right. In place. Doesn't mean that it's not time to maybe have the city just look at it and review it. But I don't know if we can put that in our recommendation that while we approve it, it's we just acknowledge that this is a there's additional matters that should be reviewed. Not by us. No, any conditions should be related to what the applicant needs to do. Right. Make the motion and then recommend separately that the city look at information. But the council will be naturally reading your minutes and writing information and won't necessarily need
and have a public hearing for folks to come in, too. So it would be caught up. No, it's not. OK. OK. Right. And the information and the discussion today will move forward. And then Councilman McEnany is very apprised of that since she's here. So that's one of the reasons we have a great representative here is that they can communicate on to the council the concerns in your sense of. OK. Further discussion. I guess I kind of agree with Ms. Wacker that from a setback perspective, everything we would approve it.
I just don't understand where this puts the Sims homeowner from a perspective with the city. And I'd like to have know what that is from their perspective on Bolton Bank. Right. Or a legal perspective on why we have a lot that they can't have access without going through another driveway. Well, they have access. Well, it's just they have access by going on someone else's property. There's no easement. Yes. So if they come back and say they want to put a fence in there, what does
that say? Right. Then you can't get a bike through there. Do they go back to the city and say, you guys got to make access to us on Cambridge Road? Yeah. I don't know that we've never had anything like this before. I mean, this is for sure something matter. Somebody at Bolton and Main can either say we can accommodate this or the reasons why it can't be. And usually it's underground infrastructure. They also come up with maneuverability in terms of vehicle size and what the roadside is and what the turning ratings is and that sort of
thing to really look at. I mean, I think the homeowner is trying to accommodate as much as possible by putting all that expensive permeable pavers in on the north side to allow that when they're not parking there. And the time also hopefully the party, the neighbors can maybe get together between now and before if we receive a recommendation before it would return to the council. So for sure we can connect on Tuesday. It would be the first property owners to schedule. They have asked that it's if
we get something through tonight's meeting, then we would go to the meeting on the 9th of December. That gives you a little bit of time to noodle it around somewhere. I'm sure you've done this for a very long time. Consider all the possibilities. And you have been really thoughtful in keeping your neighbors best interest at heart. So thank you for that. Okay, Jared like to once again. Ask for a motion. Perspective that on page 21 and 22 of
your agenda, you see the staff is recommending approval of this expansion permit with six conditions and five findings. And again, we have three choices. I've cited them earlier. Chair would entertain a motion. I don't know what to do. I honestly don't know. If you want to make a motion to come. We're kind of quandary here. I'll make a motion to approve it. Yeah.
You're making a motion to approve the expansion permit with six conditions and five findings. Like you said, it's specified by staff. Am I correct? Correct. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. Do we have further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed? Nay. I'm gonna say nay because I was just gonna ask for something but that's fine. I'll just put it in my comment. Okay.
I was gonna ask that between now and like the next two weeks we get the City Public Works and Bolton-Mank to understand what the implications are for the Cambridge Lane, where the utilities are, and what the homeowners rights are to access to that lane if the southern homeowner is not there. I think that's reasonable. In this
situation, is this something you talked to Jesse about or do you want me to have a conversation or how do we move forward with this? Yeah, we'll have a visit with City Manager and Public Works Director and I would anticipate that all that information would be crafted into the executive summary detail when it comes to the Council in several weeks. Great, thank you. Rewinding back to the motion. So I guess I put nay out there
and that's my reasoning, I guess. And then I guess in addition to that, then I guess could you keep the Sims homeowners involved in the discussion with them? That would be just Sarah, I think. With the discussion with Bolton-Mank and the City Public Works. So that they don't get the information, you know, the day before the City Council meeting, they should be involved understanding what the implications are for Cambridge Lane. Make sure that the
whole owner is in the loop. Yeah, it's a matter of what you do when you say it that way, like they're not going to be at the meetings where we have these conversations, right? Like they would not be at the meeting with the City Attorney and the City Engineer. No, I understand that. But you want, you're asking us, instead of just having in the City Council packet, that when we have a conclusive information, we would send it to both properties. Yes. That we can do. Yeah, I think it's the awareness piece for the north property owner. Okay. Let the record show that the motion carried. And staff has, I think, adequately heard
the additional comments about concerns, correct? Mm-hmm. We have five to two. Okay. Thank you. We don't need a motion for them to do that. No no. Okay. It's just the comments that get taken. Just comment, say the real one. Gotcha. Okay. Let's move on. Thank you. Thank you. Good conversation. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Review discussion of the 2025 work plan project. Review discussion of City Code section 129-3012. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Members may recall on the preparation of the work plan earlier this year, one of the items tasked with the planning commission is to take a look at our exterior storage regulations. And we put this on tonight because I think what we'd like is maybe is to gain some insight from members of the planning commission about specific areas that you want us to look at. One of the things that we keep hearing
is we allow too many units. So I think that would be something that would be helpful for us. We do not allow parking on undeveloped lots unless they're combined with principal parcels. A couple of years ago, I think the planning commission, if my memory's good, offered a certain number. And then I think that the council may have pulled back a little bit on that number. And again, that's all from memory. But I think giving us some direction in terms of is that font and center, what we want to
be looking at is too many units, an issue for members of the planning commission and the council. The other, I think, area that comes up a lot is some people feel that front yard parking, if we didn't have front yard parking, overall appearance is a little lighter, recognizing, of course, that we have a lot of small lots. We have a lot of teeny lots. This is a good indicative of one. Where really the only parking that might be available is front yard parking. I think that's something that we would
like some direction on as well. Where stuff can be parked is also good. But I think giving us some direction on where members of the planning commission feel our rules might need some evaluation and or some tightening and or a look would be helpful for us so that we can do some due diligence with regards to study and reports and see what might work for us. We did ask our code officer to join us tonight.
He is being an assistant fire chief today. He's assisting with... He's playing bingo. He might be calling bingo tonight. He was not able to join us. We certainly can invite him back. Again, this isn't anything that's going to be worked out in one night. But I think we're just interested to hear as a staff where members of the planning commission feel the rules are. For me, I think it's the number. I think lesser would be better. Is six too many specifically on when you've got medium sized lots?
Some people think that's okay. But anyway, so I'm curious to see what members think we should be looking at specifically. I have some opinions. I live on a very interesting street. No Belaine. It seems to be public tonight. One of my concerns is that there are homes that exceed the six on my street, basically. So even if we have it, like let's say we say it's three or four, we give a number.
Well, what if people aren't doing it? Well, that falls under the category of we barely enforce the ordinance as we have now. Right. And overall, we have conversations about this all the time in our meetings because it's so frustrating to go through all these efforts and trying to make attempts to make some changes and nothing is enforced. So what point is it? I mean, I appreciate that. I feel I'm a little more forgiving on this front just because our demographics are so
bizarre and mounds and our lot sizes are so varied and mounds that, you know, I mean, if you have a family, I mean, I have a million cars in my driveway, you know, a work vehicle, my kids, you know. So what point do you not have enough room in your property to accommodate a family of, you know, fours vehicles? So I am a little more forgiving on this and most people disagree with me being this forgiving. But I recognize a lot of our issues over
on the island and even when you get into three points in some areas, you know, even over by your area, by Harrison's, you know, there are just some really tight lots that I want people to be able to live their life without massive restriction. Sure. You know, sure. Sure. We have to balance that against the aesthetics of having six cars in some guy's lot or lady's lot with, you know, a cover over the car who's got leaves all over it stuck in the side of
the garage. And that is a blight issue for sure. Like we have three points. Like we have across the street and the van. Yeah. Well, and it does say they have to be operational, but I know for a fact that there are some non-operational vehicles. Right. The environmental piece. Yeah. And so it's like if we're not going to enforce the ordinance or, you know, provide a ticket or give them options, right? Okay. Here's how you do it in a way that aesthetically is a little
better, right, for other people's property values. But then why put the time into changing an ordinance? Yeah. I've had conversations even just the last two meetings, you know, our compliance officer, Andy, you know, he stretched really thin. I mean, his main job is a fire. Sure. And we are looking at trying to add to our budget to bring on even a part-time compliance officer that can devote his complete time to this.
And that's part of our issue in trying to get these looked at as there's just nobody available that can be doing this full-time. So a question regarding that. I happened to have Andy in my yard the other day. And I said to him, "Hey, what's going on on the corner?" And he says, "Well, I'm working on it with him." Well, I've lived there. I've lived there for almost 14 years, right? And that is the exact same answer. And things aren't changing. In fact, they're maybe
getting worse as far as the-- And I appreciate that. You know, part of our goal for Jesse and, you know, with his staff is to follow up with people, which has been pretty rough on some of these ongoing issues that have happened. It makes us all look like we're not being attentive to resident needs. And part of that is within following the ordinances. We really can't do that when you're not following up with the resident in the complaint, because
we're a complaint-based city. So the residents make a complaint sometimes three, four, five times in a two-year period with very little feedback. That's our challenge to Jesse is find a procedural way to-- within the dynamics in City Hall, how can we best accommodate-- you know, obviously, Jesse can't call every single person back that calls, but you know, Sarah may be at front. You can have a-- every Friday. Here are two-year issues. We know the names. We all do, because they're all-- we get
the same calls all the time. And then what can Sarah feel? But as long as people are getting feedback, it's so frustrating when they are getting any. Well, and I've gotten that feedback multiple times, right? But nothing's happened. But nothing's happened, right? And so then at a point, do you have an ordinance with a penalty associated with the ordinance? Well, penalties-- you know, we can't assess monetary penalty, because we're a statutory B. I mean, we've talked about--
I don't know. Trying to make things painful as possible. We can't-- What does that mean? It says fines? Well, I mean, at this point, we cannot assess fines. But let's-- So what do we do? So do we have this-- or an open-- I don't know. That's why it just keeps getting raised. So correct. Year after year. Yes. Well, can we just kick in the-- I mean, if the cast has fines, we don't have enforcement officers. We don't have-- So what are we going to do? Enough pain associated with a third phone call back saying, you know, we've asked you to make these changes. Yeah, I mean, do what? Look, this is a frustration with all of us.
Yeah, so what? OK, you called me three times. I know you can't do anything to me. All right? Exactly. I'll just keep doing what I'm going to do. Exactly. There's no incentive to doing anything. Exactly. Or to fixing the behavior, and it's clear, because I've lived there for 14 years, right? Exactly. So what's the plan? Well, I mean, the plan is we've had several conversations about this. And when we sit down to come up with our master priorities for 2026, this is top of my list. We had a long conversation with Jesse in last week's meeting about this.
He knows what we're trying to accomplish. And that's simply, we want results. You know, when there are complaints, valid complaints. Yeah but-- OK. I mean, Drew, I understand. It's very frustrating. What I might suggest we do is do what we can do, and that is look at the current zoning criteria. Yeah. And if you see something that you think ought to be changed, make a note of it. Yeah. And next commission meeting, we can-- Oh, that's a good word.
Yeah sorry. We can address those. Let's do that. Talk about the detail. OK. If we all-- that's a homework assignment for us. Because that's what we can do. Yeah. All right? I think we can do recommendations on council and have further conversation about it. Right. I think that's a good idea. And I think that-- I think what I'm hearing you say, Kathy-- and correct me if I'm wrong-- is we just need to keep calling. And that just makes my head want to explode. It makes me want to explode. Because I think everyone's gotten complacent now.
They're like, no one's going to do anything. So why would I waste my time calling? Look, we deal with this on a daily basis with residents calling and trying to get results. So again, this is top on our priority to make some changes going forward. Can we impound vehicles? City or no property. City or no property. City or no property. We're going to-- We're going to-- We're going to-- Please, can't property. And then why aren't we calling and having stuff-- But they don't even do that down at Surfside when there's glaring infractions happening. So let me-- It's just an ongoing frustration. So can the city or no impound vehicles on mowed personal properties?
Well, I don't know. That's a good question. I'd have to get-- I don't think so. I don't think so. That's on course, but-- And that would have to-- that would fall under-- Right. If we lower the number of vehicles that can be parked in the front yard, then that neighbor can call or no and say, look at the ordinance. You can only have four vehicles on the front yard and they have 10. At that point, I don't even know if or no would come straight out and-- So you just-- There has to be due process with it. There's no doubt about that. Yeah. And I'm sure there'd be conversation between the city and-- I mean, you've got the code and then you have enforcement. Yeah. And then you have-- Yeah. So it's-- And what the tools--
And then all the legal ease that happens in between all that, which is a real problem. There's not a real size fits all. Mm-hmm. Okay. Unfortunately, we are discussing issues that-- From the polls. Are beyond our control. Yes. Yes. We all acknowledge that there are many frustrations. Can I ask a question about the actual-- Yes sir. So before we take our homework assignment on here, I do have a question because part of it's even unclear to me. There's impervious and non-impervious, which non-impervious is pervious, right? Is there any difference-- because I can't tell the difference through how we've written
the code. Parking on grass versus parking on a non-paved driveway. It's class five. Yeah. I think everything in here, there's no distinguish between parking on grass or parking on gravel. Parking on hardcover on improved surface has been one of the issues is, first of all, does it make it look more organized? It identifies where the parking area is, but it adds hardcover. Yeah. On a driveway, whether it's gravel or pavement, is still considered hard. Wait. Say that again. Parking on gravel or--
Right. If your driveway is pavement or gravel, we consider that to be hard because it gets banged down too much that there's no runoff. So whenever it's listed in here as non-impervious we're talking about grass. Probably or soft. Or bare-- Or soft. Or can it be pavers with the impervious pavers? Yeah. It would be hard. Oh, that would be even-- But a lot of people park on grass. But you were just saying pavers weren't hard in that scenario we just had. They have non-impervious pavers that let's go through. There's like echo stone and unistone. There's special pavers. Oh, there is where. There's super expensive pavers that
would be non-pervious. That would still be-- Standard break is impervious. Yeah. Echo stone, unistone, or another type of pervious is pervious. Gotcha. Because it goes-- Yeah. So that part, I guess, is unclear in here when you were talking about pervious impervious non-impervious. Yeah. What we're talking about. Right. If it's grass or if it's-- like if I have class 5 driveway-- Well, I don't think you have to park on a hard surface if you can park on grass. But is there a difference between some of this stuff that says when they're not-- they're
on parking on non-impervious, does that mean grass or does that mean class 5 that's been driven on? It's not-- It's not a clear-- Because it's not the way that we-- OK. So that's a clarification? Yes. A clear as much. Yeah. Yeah. OK. Clarification would be helpful. And honestly, sometimes just having a designated area-- Organized parking. Like organized parking, right? Where you-- it's closer to your house than it is to the road or something or to your neighbors, you know?
That you're actually making it part of your-- Like a parking pad. More than other people say convenient. Yes. Versus just parking something on the grass. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Along the roadway, you know, you park it along the roadway, you have space between your house and where you're parking, but everybody else, that's all they see, you know, is your parking vehicle. OK. We all have our homework assignment. Thank you. We've raised a couple of good issues. Please mark them down. Thank you, Professor. I am. He's keeping us. He's keeping us on task.
I'm happy to have you. Please mark them down. Yes. For sure. So that we can address them at the next commission meeting. Yep. OK. Homework and 48.10. Any further comments regarding the work plan project? Moving on. City Council liaison and staff project update report. City Council policy for commission appointments and reappointments. I'll just provide a brief update. Ms. McEnany can sure chime in, of course. The City Council adopted a new policy, I
think, at their 25th of October meeting, I think, that's the right date. The 28th? Yep. Is it on there? Oh, there it is. Yeah. And so the new policy moving forward is that the City Council will be doing the candidate interviews. They will not be done by the commission. So that's a new policy. I think I sent a note out as information just to let the folks know. Shouldn't have been new because that was what was talked about at the joint workshop earlier this year. We do anticipate that those interviews are going to be taken place, I believe, at the
December 9th meeting or as part of it or in advance of. The Council's directive is that both existing commissioners who want to be reappointed and any new candidates, everybody's going to be interviewed if that's the direction the Council goes. I think originally we thought maybe it might be a letter, but there is an application that should be filled out. It's on the website. We have one of our members that's seeking reappointment.
And so that should be completed by the 24th. But yeah, as soon as convenient. Yeah. Good luck to you. You know, a lot of the reason we're doing this, I mean, Mayor Holt has wanted to do this since he started on the Council, is that we all have to work towards keeping interest in our volunteerism. And you know, if we end up with somebody, and I'm not pointing fingers at anything, I'm just saying, what if you end up with a retired engineer who
has been in this field for 40 years versus somebody who just has an interest in city planning? You know, we want the opportunity to get the best, most qualified people who can add to our making decision. And I mean, everybody here does a great job. I don't think anybody's pointing fingers. It's just, I think Mayor Holt, and I think all of us agreed that, you know, we all have to campaign every four years and try to hold our job if we want it. And he feels strongly that commissions
should do the same. And remember, we did talk quite a bit about this at our joint meeting. Right. That this was going to be happening. It might be a nice thing to involve the commission chairs in that interview process, because the person might have some pointed questions for, you know, regarding how the commission operates. That's not in the policy. But Sarah would be there because she's, I mean, you're the planning commission.
She's a staff leader. Right person. So, you know, you would be there. But that's a good point. I will bring that up. Well, and I do think collaboration, you know, with the commissions is a great thing. And if you hired the right people to hire, like you're paying them, if you enlist the right people, then, you know, it will give you more comfort in delegating some of those decisions. I mean, in the past, you know, we get handed the forms and we
don't get an opportunity to talk to anybody. It just really is backwards in every city, according to Jesse and does it this way. It goes through the city council. And it makes sense. Yeah. Because you have to rely on those decisions. And rely on the recommendations coming from people we respect and trust. Yeah. Right. And I would recommend giving the chair of whatever committee the right to sit in on those meetings. Yeah. That's what Sherry just said. I think that's a good idea. I'll mention that. That's a good idea. I mean, whether it's written in the policy or not, the council can decide to do that.
Yeah. Yeah. No, I think that's. Okay. Further comments about really appropriate about this issue. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. McEnany. All right. Do we have anything else, Sarah? Reminder. Excuse me. I should ask. Yes. The first time is McEnany first. Council Member McEnany, do you have anything? I don't have anything from past meetings. But remember the tree lighting is Thursday. And they've been down there just working their tails off. They're really going overboard this year. It's going to look really beautiful. And that's from six to eight. And then remember the free Thanksgiving meal. If anybody has wanted or desired to
donate their time or monetarily, it's going to be held at the Legion on Thanksgiving from 12 to 4. Also looking for volunteers to help serve or clean. And then there's a holiday luncheon for the Mound Rotary. That's going to be December 16th at, I believe that is going to be at Lafayette. I'm pretty sure it's Lafayette. From 12 to 1, it's $30. And it's their annual holiday luncheon to keep people updated on their success stories and fundraising efforts. Would you, could I just make
one comment before we close? I know we're at the point. I just would like to say to Sarah, I have recently gone through the permitting process. And I need to give kudos to Sarah because her response time on any request right her follow through, I mean, she is top notch. And I really want to give her kudos for that.
And our longest serving employee. Oh, yes, 20, is it 28 years? Or no, Collette, Collette's the longest. 28 years. Thank you. How many years? 24. It was a pleasure working with you. Well, I mean, it's complicated. I mean, what she does and what she looks at. My side yard is really my backyard. I mean, it's just crazy, right? Stuff. And I have really good support, too. Yeah correct. Well, but your communication. All the people that work with me. Yeah, but your personal communication is top notch. Thank you. I just wanted to share that. Okay, anything from you, sir?
No, I'm good. Thank you. Everybody have a great Thanksgiving. Come to Tree Lighting on Thursday. It's going to be beautiful. Yeah. Yeah, they started the 15th. parking rules will start the 15th. So they started. 2am to 6am. I'm aware my roof is coming off my garage. I know. It's rough. You know, it's hard when you see no forecasted snow. Yeah, and then we can't park on the street. Luckily, I could be a bird who will. Okay, next meeting is Tuesday, December 2nd at 6pm.
Are there any information items? The Halstead Point applications will be on the December 2nd meeting. So we'll have public hearing for those. I heard they just passed over. Is that the old trailer park? Yes, North Point on Halstead Bay. Okay good. And they did just pass on the minute Trista side. They have additional approvals several months ago. Yeah. But they just had a big conversation on Monday. I happened to watch the meeting for another reason and I heard that. Yeah, I think one of the things too is
that if we ever want to have the watershed present at the planning commission meeting, they would be happy to do that. At planning? At planning, at council, at, you know, I know they do periodically at the council. But at planning, it would be, yeah. Okay, any other information items? Hearing none, Chair would I entertain a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Second. Motion to second. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion carries. Thank you for coming.
Thanks everyone.