##VIDEO ID:RNWJ-tFwS_Y## at 7 o'clock I'd like to call to order the Tuesday August 20 meeting of the mound Planning Commission this is a special SL rescheduled meeting call to order is over we have roll call please commissioner Aro here commissioner Baker here commissioner heel here commissioner Wacker here commissioner mecani here shair good here you have in your packet uh the agenda for tonight's meeting I do not believe we have any amendments chair would entertain a motion to approve the agenda is distributed motion to approve as as distributed second motion second discussion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I those oppose nay motion carries you have for you the July 2 2024 regular meeting minutes I assume you've had an opportunity to review them they were in your packet chair would entertain a motion to approve the minutes as distributed motion to approve as distributed second we have a motion to second we have discussion hearing none all those in favor sanify by saying I I those oppose nay motion carries board of appeals and adjustment planning case number 24-10 variance for accessory structure at 1703 Jones Lane applicant Jacob ker Miss reader thank you commissioner thank you all right good evening members of the planning commission members of the public I'm Rita trap the city's planning consultant uh the request uh the first request this evening is a variance for an accessories shedgarage at 1703 Jones Lane uh the property is located on the corner on a lot of record uh at the intersection of Jones Lane and Three Points Boulevard uh currently there is a single family home with an attached two-car garage um that project uh a house was built in 1984 um in 2020 there was a fence height variance and a public lands per granted to this property for the placement of a 6ot fence in the public RightWay along three points Boulevard uh the purpose of that was the if you read um the resolution uh the findings related to that fence and that placement of that fence uh we related to the fact that it was on three points Boulevard which is relatively uh busy there is a bus stop at the corner um and then also there's a topography difference between three points Boulevard and the property um and so they allowed a slightly taller fence than you normally would allow um just because um that provides the Privacy that they were looking for um this time the applicant is requesting a variance uh for the construction of 440 ft accessory garage shed uh on a floating slab in the rear yard uh the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 5.7 foot setback from the property line um and the variance is generally requested because of topography of the lot and so I'll walk through those elements in a moment comprehensive planwise this is guided load residential uh which allows for single family detached and attached housing types and the property is being proposed to continue to be used as a single family home uh this is considered an R1 single family lot of record um the accessories setbacks uh are based on the fact that three points is considered a front just like Jones Lane is considered a front uh so there's actually a 30 foot setback required um for the front yards so that's both streets um the interior sidey yard is 6 feet and the rear yard uh which is the Western Property Line would be 4T uh the lot is over 10,000 square ft uh which is the minimum required for an R1 lot uh the accessory structures in a residential districts are limited to the lesser of 3,000 square ft or 15% of the lot so for this lot that's um 1 1583 Square ft they are proposing 440 Square ft so definitely under the size allowed and I just wanted to note that um in case that becomes important in our conversation uh the front back setbacks as I said are required on both three points and Jones Lane um they are proposing a setback that meets the rear yard they are just uh not being able or requesting the ability to move that garage closer to the three points part of their yard um because of topography the next slide talks a little bit better about that the elevation of the property um it's about 950 ft on the Southern Property Line closer to where the garage is going going to be it's 942 ft they certainly could make changes to topography they certainly could take out trees um the question is whether not it's reasonable that they might want to put the garage in this location as opposed to having to regrade and change um the the topography in their backyard and take out some of the existing trees um so that's the request before you this evening um is to take a look at whether or not shifting that garage closer um to three points Mak sense given uh the Topography of the the fence that's already there the busyness of the three points uh Boulevard Street Building height wise um generally not generally the code requires residential accessory structures to be shorter than the principal building on the lot based on the information we've received from the applicant which is generally uh reviewed at building permit time the proposed garage will be shorter it's about 11 feet to the midpoint as opposed to 18 ft uh for the house the application was distributed in our normal and customary channels we didn't receive any comments about this application um before you the general practice is to discuss the requests um and then take one of the following options either table the request recommend city council approve the request or recommend city council deny the request staff had recommended approval and had findings of fact and conditions uh in the packet I guess the only really notable condition probably um that we had for this one is just making sure that it was clear um that there won't be any driveway to be accessed to this that it is truly just a detached accessory garage shed in the rear yard and there's not a driveway we wouldn't want to see a driveway back towards threep points um because that is the kind of Street it is and given the topography that's not intended so we wanted to see that as a specific condition to make sure that into the future uh that's a clear standard the rest of the St uh conditions are customary to what we normally do we certainly could add any other conditions if you feel like it is important um I know that the applicant is here and I think I'm aware that there are some neighbors so if you it isn't a public hearing but if you are willing to entertain it there may be other individuals who would like to speak as well with that I can answer any questions how tall is the fence between the structure and the street the fence is six feet in height but it is on uh the slope um increases between the property and 3 points so it's going to be at a higher elevation okay are you asking how much lower this slab will be than the street I would I can look at that I just can't answer it I'd have to zooming in on here isn't going to work I'll bring up the plans and I'll be able to answer that after yeah no my concern was just snow removal but if there's already a fence it sounds as that that's a move Point yes there's already a fence um on the property you can see it's kind of an x on the actual plans so question for so this is one of those in this location mhm this is one of those lots that has two fronts right yes so if this if the front was just where the driveway comes out over there right if this was the front this would be the rear and this would be normally a side would that be a five and five set back then or five and 10 or five the interior I'm just going to make sure I have it four the interior side yard is 6 ft right and the rear is four so if it's located between the front and the rear or the front building line and the rear building line it's it's 6 feet if the structure is 100% behind the the house then it's 4T but that has to do with this yes part yes so because of where it is if this was not and that was a 3 to be6 correct okay yes I it's just important those are little nuances so it would be because of this six and four yeah what it would be six and four is what you're saying four is the rear six are the sides okay there's some placement of the thing behind the structure but it would be less okay CU I think you know I don't I don't like these ones where there's two two fronts two fronts and especially where it's not like a residential street where you're facing out both ways right it is a different street a different type of street given the business of it fence there you're never going to see yep the shed yeah okay do we know how far the the setback is for the current shed that's there is this going to encroach further than the existing shed or well the existing shed is right there the edge of it okay so this would actually encroach further into the okay okay further questions for Rita further observations by the commissioner okay thankk you yes all right I understand there may be people in the audience interested in addressing commission let's do the applicant first uh is the applicant pres yes would you like to address the commission with any comments or observations or questions sir if you if you want to speak please come forward and uh please give us your name and your address hey my name is Jake ker and I live at 1703 Jones Lane it's my wife Sher um the only thing I have additional is I have some pictures if that would help because it is a really tricky kind of property can I point over on the there's a laser in front of you with the yellow button right there yellow button you push that that'll help you you can speak into the [Laughter] microphone uh so this uh the reason the existing shed sits right here and the reason we're asking to go here is this big BM here the elevation goes way way up to where here it's like 10 ft higher compared to our backyard right here so this is very minimal um dirt work if you call it compared if we had to dig into this and tear out three trees and dig way into this BM here um the fence sits up here it's a little bit wider of a uh what what do you call it right of way kind of compared to normal there's like 11 11 and 1/2 ft from the property line to even the sidewalk and then the sidewalk into Jones Lane and it is a little bit different of a corner lot than some properties um from from that BM and this this sits um our flat yard here which is where this shed would sit once it's flat like this is 5 ft lower than even the road so when the shed is up or the fence is another 6 ft up so it's 11 ft up from the ground here so the shed is really pretty hidden from any kind of visibility from the road or anything like that um then the only other thing I'd point out is we talked to um our neighbors behind us up here um we met with them the other day and just because it's kind of their their driveway comes out here they had no issues whatsoever they said they would be willing to come to the meeting if we needed them to but they were they had no issues with it um since the fence is there anyway so that's all I really have I do have pictures if that would help kind of see the pictures show a little bit about how steep this BM is here how it's already kind of flat right here um to put the shed there just makes the most sense and I I don't want to tear out these are three big mature trees and it is a pretty really big burm that we'd have to do some pretty serious retaining wall work and some water drainage work anybody on the commission want to see the pictures he's got can I ask a question for sure so on here it looks like you're at 5' 7 from the property line yes okay do you know how far you are from is that from the fence or is that from the property line or so the property it's from the property line so from this is the property line right here the fence is another and 1/2 ft up here this is the fence up here that's 7 1/2 ft off her property line so the fence actually sits on city property so we went through the process to get that approval and we did that because again the road is this much higher than our property so if we put a fence down here it wouldn't have done anything so the fence sits up on that BM up there so when you're looking at it you you'll actually be 133 ft from the fence um oh yeah yeah will'll be 7 and2 yeah 13 ft from the fence and then there's another four or 4 and 1/2 ft from the fence to the sidewalk right here they wanted that for the snow removal as she asked and then the back the rear uh is a four 4ot set back like she uh Miss trap said is 4 foot and we're going to stay 5 feet off the back rear yard where's the house is this where the trampoline is yes sir well real close trampoline sits right here okay I drive by it every day so yeah we I mean we we're obviously here because we want the shed right we won't dig into this hill if you guys tell us that's what we have to do then we probably would not do it because I I'm not going to move remove these trees and I I would be concerned digging into the the hill like here and the neighbor behind us as well I guess and putting up a retaining wall that would be 9 10 ft tall on our backyard right now our retaining wall right here CU this All Slopes up like this is 10 ft higher than right here this retaining wall is probably 3 and 1/2 ft M tall and then as it works its way down here that burm goes like this as it goes towards the shed it's only about 1 or 2 ft tall right here so to put the shed there we're just going to dig out a we would just dig out a foot or two of [Music] dirt okay anything further for the applicant thank you are there others in the audience that would like to speak to this proposal yes we need your name and address please sir good evening my name is John sundell and I reside at 1717 Jones Lane Mount Minnesota thank you we're here tonight due to a letter we received from the city notifying us of a variance request for the construction of an accessory structure next door at 1703 Jones Lane the property as most of you may recall uh my wife and I spent consider considerable amount of time last summer requesting a variance permit followed by an expansion permit for the remodel of our primary residents we are a little Beyond surprise to see the coers pursuing another variance request for their property given the Varity of their issue with us pursuing a variance for our home remodel project in 2022 of the cers were also granted a variance to add the fence that's been discussed tonight they have that fence out in city right away not on their property as the cers have stated before in Planning Commission meetings with this Planning Commission they are fully aware of the property and their setbacks as they understood all of these before they purchased the property back in 2009 both are requests both of our requests previously uh for the initial variance and expansion permits were denied on the following basis by the Planning Commission and confirmed in a split vote by the city council there were other construction design options to be considered which would alleviate the need for a Planning Commission or city council to issue a variance or expansion permit every option brought up to by our neighbors Planning Commission and the city council was were far less reasonable in the scope of work needed to be done as well as the costs that became prohibited for us as homeowners cost is not a consideration for practical difficulty as stated in city code section 12922 paragraph 3 economic considerations do not constitute a practical difficulty uh furthermore architectural limitations imposed on our existing home remodel costs due to those limitations management of on-site property Financial burdens such as removal of existing Landscaping trees extensive grading um an existing garage that could not accommodate our truck due to its size and did not none of these constituted practical difficulty a very specific example is it was brought it was thought reasonable by this group here in city council for us to remove two 85ft maple trees to accommodate your requested design differences for our expansion permit and variance permit so the the staff thought it was reasonable for us to remove 285t trees to move forward with our plans um the cers have other options for this accessory structure can we see exhibit one please on this exhibit here this is the the uh lot survey for the cers property this spot right here as we've seen before is where they're proposing to put their accessory structure there's many other options I spent 20 minutes thinking about they could option number one is just simply add on to the back of their garage option number two would be uh change the uh layout of their accessory structure make it a little deeper not as wide option number three would be just move it all so it's all no variants needed not any setbacks they're following the setbacks in the variance the ordinance that's set forth by the city the use of our existing home footprint could not be used or maximized as originally designed in our remodel plans as 7 ft of our existing garage was considered non-conforming in spite of the language within the city code allowing construction to top to allowing construction on top of non-conforming structure structures everybody told us we had to go back and redesign because we had other options to issue of variant expansion permit is to extend special privilege this is direct feedback from both the Planning Commission and the city council the concern was that you did not want to set that precedence callers have already had one variance for their fencing now they're asking for another variance they fully understood all their setbacks on their property back when they bought their property in 2009 um specifically the presence of extending spe special privilege where there are no other options it was further stated where does it all end if we do this where does it all end variance expansion permits are to be considered only where the homeowner is asking for the minimum where the scope of the project is concerned not the maximum this access this accessory structure plan surely is not the minimum an accessory structure can be built with a slope and Landscaping in the backyard as we've done on our property can I see the next please M trap mentioned that per the lot survey on the colage property the southwest corner was elevation 950 the northwest corner is elevation 942 that is an 8T difference not a 10-ft difference that the callers mentioned it's an 8 foot difference from corner to corner U this is our property col property is just to the north of ours this area right here that BM that the cers are mentioning we've excavated into that BM we've removed a couple trees and we've stayed compliant we had those options we made those choices if we wanted this shed that bad we made those choices to do that work they surely have options to do to do the same we're here tonight to confirm that this Planning Commission remained consistent in their messaging to not only our neighborhood but our community and what they can expect when they approach you as a sitting elected Committee in matters that pertain to interpretation of the city variance code we come here tonight certainly encouraging continued property improvements in our community that said our recent time and experience with you is such that we clearly see this project accomplished by simply a building permit this would mirror the same process we have followed with respect to the construction of an additional Garage on our backyard we're confident that if held to the same standards as our recently completed remodel project the variant expansion permit being requested would not rise to the rigor required by the Planning Commission for a variance or expansion permit to be granted there's a high level of subjectiveness to this process of pursuing a variance and navigating it is not easy the Optics to this are very visible to our community and consistency is a key to level setting the bar so we as residents can appropriately better be guided in what we expect in these matters in closing I asked myself why are we here tonight there's no variance needed to ERS had plenty of room to the south of their proposed accessory structure location could change the dimensions of their plant they could easily do an addition to the backside of their garage to create additional storage room they have options furthermore their plan is surely not the minimum a variant states that it's to be used as a minimum plan a variance is also for those that don't have options the callers have other options as stated earlier they could simply use a building permit for this addition thank you we have the questions for the speaker okay thank you you okay others in the audience that would like to address this request I speak one more time we'll give you one more shot come on forward um so I understand uh John's comments um just I do have the survey here it is 10 feet up on the back compared to the bottom is 10 ft down I think one of the major differences in my mind when I looked at this case I I had a hard time I was going to apply for this last year and I had a hard time because I was asking myself what's the difference between what I'm asking for and what they were asking for and there in my mind there was two major differences um one they went and excavated this entire Hill and ripped out all the trees and excavated before they even came to the city so they had this gigantic hole in their backyard with plenty of room to do their addition backwards and there was multiple neighbors that did not like what their proposal was going to look like in the neighborhood and it obviously impacted us what I'm proposing here impact impacts nobody it doesn't impact them at all it doesn't impact any Neighbors at all um that's it I guess that's just those were the two big differences I saw was they had already excavated everything can we already admitted yeah we can do that I can go excavate tear out trees and put in a 10ft retaining wall I'm not going to do that it wouldn't even look good on our property um and it doesn't impact anybody else okay thank you thank you can I ask a question yep I guess I do have one more question since you're up is there a reason why you couldn't just move it so you're totally 6 fet from from the I don't know what side of that is north side yeah so and angle it a little bit Yeah so this so the side set back correct me if I'm wrong Sarah back here if this wasn't a front a a corner lot right it's actually 4 feet back here it's 6 feet if you're building on the side of your house up here or and it's and it's four but it's 4 feet C you're in the rear of your yard no but that's a side yard setback yeah so the sorry so the side this would would normally be 4T thought you just said it was six I know that's what I was talking she she's saying it's it's four so garages that are if this was a a straight interior lot correct non Lake Shore non- through lot if the garage is located between the front building line and the rear building line Jake maybe if you can kind of show that on the uh here it's the corners of your the corners of your house right no in front that one and that one then it would be 6t if it's 100% behind that line then it's 4T but it's not a 100% behind it she's talking from front to back from front to back oh you tried to loc it oh I see side next to your house you have to be farther away from the side if I tried putting a shed right here it would have to be so the side yard set back would be 4T this is in that location behind the house it would be 4 feet if this wasn't a corner locked where it's where it's shown as so if this is an interior it would be conforming yes yes it was an interor we were off by 5 in okay yeah oh I'm confused and we did work with the staff to kind of minimize it again we you know originally we wanted to be back further this way we don't want to be 5 ft off but we understand um there's also utility easement there so instead of doing the 4 feet we did the 5T um and we could we could move further this way it's just if I go any further this way I I have to start tearing out mature trees I don't want to do that well I was asking cuz I thought it was a 6ot if it was an interior not 4ot yeah so if it wasn't for this it would be 4 feet here got it requirement okay further question for the applicant thank you sir thank you okay discussion within the commission can I speak excuse me can I speak one more time and briefly I just would like to clarify a few things um they mentioned and Sarah I think maybe you're not aware of this but this rear property line right here there's a drainage and utilities there requiring people to be 5T back with any structure that's a requirement not 4T one other statement is again the coers bought this property in 2009 they've told us with this Planning Commission how extensively they understood their setbacks on their property when they buy it they actually thought that maybe we should have done our homework better when we bought our house but they showed us told us how much they understood their lot setbacks but yet they want to talk about this that like it's an interior lot it's not it's cor lot they have a 30ft setback on this side and they have a 30 foot setback on this side yet they're requesting to put it into that setback position it's not needed they have other options you guys okay thank you for your comment okay just discussion amongst the commission anybody have any observations or questions I'm not sure if I'm the only one but if I am I'll take the the fall here R can you rehash for us what so if this was not a corner lot it would this would be conforming but because it is a corner lot the setback is what again 30 okay and actually um that's what 30 ft just you know looks like with the same size garage not that just because the other diagram that was up there was not correct it was saying as if the house this is 20 F feet off this is 30 ft approximately so if we had to move it to 30 ft that's where it would be on the lot um so what we were saying was if this was an interior lot it's four and four because it's located behind the house and we're saying behind the house from the perspective of the front of the lot m going backwards and so right now it's 30 ft because it is a corner lot and that's what the accessory structure setbacks say is that it needs to follow the principal structure setbacks principal structure setbacks say on a corner lot you need to have the house set back both dimensions um from it what is that blue item there sorry I can't see it on the map this one to left no to the left this yeah this one yeah yep I just took I drew the size of this and said if you going to put it at 30 ft so this is 20 ft this is 10 ft based on the surf I'm just using what the measurements are that would mean 30 ft back would be here just for perspective so it's the exact same size and this is where it would impact in the yard I just wanted it to be accurate since the other diagram showed it at this point and if it was at this point even with the house it would still need a variance because it's 20 ft back and the requirement is 30 ft back so just shifting it to be even with the house doesn't accomplish the a conforming structure did that make sense or did I make it worse so the option would be the bottom left hand corner smooth that out take out the trees right yeah excavate excavate excavate put up a retaining wall yes that's one option yep leave it where it is given the variance right just deny it those are the options kind of the three options I see the options would be to approve it at the variance that they requested or you deny it and if you deny it then they have the option to do whatever they would like um M um Mr Sher I have a question I believe the applicant said that they had pictures that they brought with them would we be able to um have an opportunity to just kind of look through those I would just like to get a view of the photos they have how are we going to show these pictures I think I have to put them on my computer I thought he said he had them Oh I thought they were physical he's got a thumb drive oh he's got a thumb drive no viruses yeah I was thinking they were physical no yeah this time it was just not liking dve yep oh that has a big ret well is that uh existing structure the going to be the same height as So the plan was this this shed was there when we bought the house sorry okay um this shed was here when we bought the house so the the plan is to do the Le he digging into this BM this BM at our property line is 10 ft but it goes way steeper up here MH um it it goes really high up to the neighbors I don't know the exact elevation but I'm guessing if this is 10 ft higher than here it's at least 15 or 20 it's a really Steep Hill So the plan is just to knock out this little bit of dirt right here that the existing shed is sitting on and then put it on this ground here which is flat and level on the backyard already so the shed would kind of come out to this stake here and sit right here in the little corner of the property um as you can see I guess we go back I guess my question was your existing shed is what what what height and what is your new shed height going to be yep sorry the exist this one is uh this retaining wall right here is probably 2 feet tall and then this shed's like 8 and 1 half so it's probably 10 1/2 ft T and again over on the side here this this over on this side the burm goes way up again to the road so right here this ground right here is sitting four to 5T below three points over here so by putting the shed right here it's pretty much pretty much hidden by by the you would see the rooftop a little bit of of the new shed you know you'd probably have a foot or two of this peak that would maybe stick above the fence um but I just again if if we look at the other pictures in that verm I just it it just doesn't make any sense on this property to tear out these trees are those the trees that would be removed I'm guess these are these three trees would have to be removed and we'd have to dig in to this um as Rita put a drawing to to not have a variance we'd have to be probably way over here and we'd have to dig out these three trees and we'd have to excavate back to where this is about 10 ft tall compared to this ground right here we'd have to excavate back and put um put a retaining wall in there I'm not here to say that that's not doable I just don't think it's reasonable with this property and I think if anybody came and looked at it they would agree but that's just my opinion obviously when when I look at this and I'm responding to your neighbor who was just up here I kind of feel like the two asks were different and I feel like what the cers are asking for will be less impactful on your view than it would be if they moved it over and dug into the to the burm to place it to make it conforming does anybody else have a feeling about that I well I I'm not sure if the view was part of the issue but for me I I do appreciate seeing the photos because again I think when we talk about the land use piece and the the hardship piece it does help me to see kind of you got a complicated yard I I'm not going to lie and I think I I can appreciate your neighbors concerns as well and making sure that we're consistent but again I don't think it's an apples apples comparison on the previous project that they were requesting versus this one um so that's kind of of where I'm leaning in my decision making process on this one but yeah I think for me seeing the visual has helped me kind of get a an idea of kind of the complexity of this yard but why wouldn't you just expand that area that footprint there is there a reason why just to put some more filer in there and build a larger shed is there a reason you couldn't do that where out out this way no just yeah where it is right now just expand it a little bit and build a bigger shed there so you have to bring it down onto the lower Lev um well I we could um this shed is already a non-forming structure so it's already when we it was there when we bought it it's already not beating the setback requirement so you're going to build two you're going to have two sheds no no we would remove this one we would remove this one and where this edge of this shed is the new one that's where that edge would go again okay to to avoid digging into this any further if you didn't dig down it would just be 2 ft higher that's all difference yes the yeah but it but as you go to this side to the right side to the right side it drops down right so you just couldn't put filter so either got to fill it in and build it up but then the shed would stick up way higher than my fence or I just dig yeah there it is I'd either have to fill all this in either way because it's nonconforming you'd have to have a variance okay and as soon as you tried to make that existing shed bigger size right he's in front of you anyway okay it doesn't there's no way to do it because it's not conforming because it's not okay thank you okay further questions for the applicant you have any other pictures you want to show us um we can flop through them quick and see if there's anything that catches your eye it's I mean that's kind of just the front view again the plans is dig this out and put the shed there is what we would propose I think I hit the last one I think pictures oh yeah I page will that current tree um in the new plan remain or is that one going to have to be this one right here taken down yeah and then there's a smaller one to the right of it my wife very sadly is would have to help me move it we don't this is more of a what's it called LR a tree Limelight it's probably a shrub that's a side but we're going to keep it and move it same with that one okay further questions or observations all right thank you sir okay further discussion by commission members well I gu my biggest thing is I don't I've told this before I don't like how we have the Zoning for these Lots like this in the corner one I think we've had this a couple times on like tuxedo and Wilshire the exact same thing where someone wanted to build something over there and it's like no one's ever going to be coming on to tuxedo or Wilshire from that side so why do we have it as a front it doesn't make doesn't make any sense to me so oh it we're doing code changes right so maybe we look at certain size of roads and look at it differently right versus the neighborhood street but because it's different if you're on a a street where there's it's not three points or it's not tuxedo or Wilshire right where you have houses that are residential right across the street and everything like that y like if I this changed for a little bit for me when you said that if this was an interior it be totally conforming Y which is the way I look at it when the when three points is right there okay so we'll note it because we're making the code changes anyway so and I don't know how you distinguish that if you're doing by the size of the street the volume of well I have to look at it it might be they if we're lucky all of these kinds of streets have the same functional classification and then you can look at functional class oh I just don't know off the top of my head if that's true but that's the easiest route is to say anything that's a collector Street and above is different than a local Street oh but we'll look at a map what's that what's a collector Street it's a street that's intended to connect the neighborhood streets and have that's like a three points of Wilshire tuxedo I just don't know if all of them are classified that way and they're the busier roads okay um and that's it's in the comprehensive plan so I could actually find out in a moment if I work through it but um that would be the if it worked out that would be the easiest and we just have to see what other streets are classified that way so I guess it would be if if it was a collector Street and their driv Highway was not on that collector Street could it was on a res that that's what I view it as okay I understand and we're doing those code changes anyway so we can certainly add it and then you can consider it okay any further questions or comments we'll read it okay you see on the board um the uh three actions that commission could take um recommending approval to the city council uh tabling for further information or recommending non-approval to the city council with specific reasons why uh you see on page 13 of your uh packet that uh staff has recommended approval of this uh request with six conditions and three findings of fact the chair would entertain a motion um I have a I guess I just have a question I mean if if nobody's seeming to jump on this motion here so it leads me to believe that we're all kind of thinking about it but if we were to table it and request special information I can't think of anything that I would need um to make a decision so I'm not sure if there's other folks who are considering tabling and looking at specific information or additional information yeah I can't think of any additional information I mean I think we've got all the information we need we just need to make a decision that's what we're here to do I guess I I'd be willing to make a motion I was just looking at the the stuff in here because I was trying to see if we could actually put something in here about you guys reviewing the corner lots for collector streets that's that would be better I would like to separate those okay I mean I can I already wrote it down so like in my I don't know if you know but between now and the council meeting we do an executive summary and it says Planning Commission discuss these things I can put that in there but it really doesn't belong in the motion per se um cuz we'll we'll put that on our list list of coaching that's a separate work I totally separate but I will capture the comments and it'll be in the minutes and in the discussion to the council as to some of the discussion you have so so that it it they understand that that was some of the thoughts that went into it okay well I guess everyone knows my view I I view it as an interior a lot so I would make a motion but I'll leave up to someone else if they want to I don't know if everyone else has the same feeling or not go ahead make your motion yeah start all right I will make a motion to approve uh planning case 24-10 condition for variance request or accessory structure given the the uh conditions 1 through six and findings of fact 1 through three okay you've heard a motion do we have a second I'll second it we have a second further discussion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I I those oppose nay motion carries i' like to go on the record is I think I was the Lone vote who approved the previous of gentleman various I did too we did too I think so we both her and I were the only on so paron what Mr Heel said was that he and potentially a wacker were the ones that recommended approval of the next door neighbors right so I want consistency yes I think there's because I do think the consistency piece and I I I do want to bring that up because I do think as a commission we do try to be consistent we need to be mindful about consistency and that was part of my thought on requesting specific information again to make sure that as we're reviewing these things we are consistent from case to case but as I noted previously with this particular case I do think that the Practical difficulty was met in the Coler yard just again based on the that so I I mean it's two different cases but again I I actually appreciate you coming to the meeting I appreciate you challenging us on the consistency and making sure that we are being accountable for that so I don't know how we capture that or how we can you know further ensure that different size shed it's quite large we're not going to have further discussion about this we're done we have had a motion it's been approved I think that Commission uh was just making a an observation U and you're certainly welcome to go to the city council and express your concerns uh this is not uh an action that is um a f comp plea by uh the Planning Commission it's a recommendation to the city council uh they will take that up either at the August 27 or September 10 meeting and I'm sure Sarah will let you know uh which meeting that will be um with this going forward correct re and I were just talking about that um we're not certain if it if we can turn that for next Tuesday um if if we're able to um we would send out notices tomorrow um otherwise it would go to the first meeting in September okay all right moving on uh planning case 24-11 um 6511 Bay Ridge Road applicant johnley of Minnesota decks this is a review SL recommendation variance for a new slash replacement deck all right just making sure I have the right one up uh all right uh this is a request for a variance uh as was stated on Bay Ridge Road uh the property is located south of Bartlett Boulevard it's near the intersection of Bluff Lane U where Bay Ridge and Bluff Lanes comes together this is a lak Shore lot and it also is a bluff lot um the bluff actually extends most of the lot um and so that's just notable in terms of it's uh difficult to do anything uh in the rear yard without impacting the bluff um currently there is a single family home with an attached garage and the applicant is requesting the variant to replace an existing deck that's on the property uh this is a lowdensity residential property um so the continuing use as a single family home is in conformance with the comprehensive plan it is an R1 lot um it is considered a lot of record uh and it is a Shoreland lot subject to the lake shore setback of 50 ft and as I said almost the entire house is in a bluff which impacts um the ability for them to do any construction outside of the bluff area uh as you know the lake shore setback is 50 F feet the existing deck is 47.9 Ft from the lake shore the new deck is proposed to be closer at 43.2 FT from the lake shore this is a bird's eyee view of the deck um I was having struggles describing it so hopefully you looked at the picture cuz it wasn't the easiest one to describe I just didn't want you to think it was a rectangular deck it's kind of a rectangular with a little extra um so the deck um is coming out 16 ft goes across 30 ft and then kind of goes at an angle to conect connect to the staircase um that's going down the side of the house um there's also a side elevation and rear elevation hopefully you saw those in the packet um they just kind of explain the why a little bit um so there are some windows on the back of the house and some of the design and placement of the deck is related to where those windows are to try and make sure um that it makes sense with the railings um and then also the side elevation uh one element that the applicant mentioned is they wanted to use standard size joist instead of having to do a custom um and that's one of the reasons for the extra Dimension it's a little bit longer the current deck is only 15t this one is 16 ft um and so that is the applicant's uh explanation for why for this property the other element that's a little unique to this property um is that the standard ordinary high water levation which we all know is 929.com line water level that's used um based on a different dimension it's the [Music] 9.29.19 point4 that means it's closer to the house which means if you set back these numbers from that number it'll actually be farther away if you went back to the 9 29.4 the only reason I really didn't want to even talk about this I'll be honest the only reason I mentioned is that I added a condition that said the setback number that if you approve this the setback number is to that 929.com make sure that it's set into the future um hard cover wise hard cover allows 40% um the proposed um hard cover is 37.8% um there is a little bit of discrepancy relative to just the quarter inch spacing for the deck and staircase um it'll all be worked out we're close enough um that we are fine and under at the 37.8% oops I went too far okay Publican Staff Agency review it was distributed as a standard um generally we received no comments the only comment we did receive from was from minihaha Creek Watershed District uh and because of the type of project it is uh minihaha Creek Watershed District had no comment as well again this is a variant so it is not a public hearing um but there may be folks in the audience that would wish to comment um similar to the previous uh your three typical actions of tabling if you need more information recommending approval or denial um staff recommended approval just because it's air fairly straightforward replacement and there are some extenda circumstances um related to the design of the house um and they're not making uh a significant change relative to it um but certainly the applicant can answer more technical questions I can answer general questions um and we have kind of proposed fi oh I didn't put proposed findings effect um so that I do have them they are pretty standard um just the idea that the criteria of the variants are being met uh replacing a deck is relatively um typical and it is reasonable in our mind to construct a deck that's trying not to block the windows and not affect that and also wanting to use standard um while economics alone can't be a consideration it is a factor that we can use it's just we can't have just the reason um for that for why you can or cannot do something so that's about four findings of fact I put the last two is they're up here on the screen I put the two combined okay because they're both but so there's three yeah all right I could make them four but nope I three we're good and I can put them back up when you I was just trying to keep it tally yes yes that makes sense so with that I can answer any questions that folks may have so I guess it's unclear of me are we here because we're going from 15 to 16 ft it's that one foot difference if they just ripped off the old deck or maybe I don't see a picture of what the old deck was the old one was 15t deep this on 16 summary says we're going from 47.9 to 4 there's an extra distance that's I'm not yeah yeah see where that is yes is on the side I don't understand what that is I had we had the numbers that we have on the survey oops sorry I'm moving around show that difference in that number the description um from you know from this is the survey you can see that it's 16 ft um I but the numbers are showing different numbers I don't have the explanation as to totally why I agree with you okay as something we I feel like I've been trying to clarify but I've always been not being able to clarify it but I do use survey numbers because they are done by a licensed engineer so that's what I've been focused on was the number is going to increase and we are going to have only 43.2 feet so that may be an a question the applicant can answer okay further questions or Com or comments for Rita okay hearing none is Mr schy around yes could you come forward sir then please state your name and your address John shetti 2930 County Road 101 South here for 6511 if that's what we're asking B drill thank you okay uh I think there was a it's the yellow button on the oh thank you yeah you have comments about the proposal um the I think that the question might be just simply that it was a little bit of an angle here as opposed to the lake and so there was a a question of as we come one of the lot or the setback lines is here and then the new depth is the 43 I believe this is what was quoted several Pages back so that might account for the the the question about the one foot difference but there's approximately a three foot difference if that's making a diff if that's explaining it very well so do I understand you to say that the new deck will be one foot larger correct in direction of the lake deeper than the existing deck correct okay and the existing deck has this area here and um and then we're coming over squaring this off a little bit in here so that part that that the trapezoid that says deck is that all the bigger the deck is right now uh it is here and here it's a two l oh correct cuz nowhere on here do you really see what the old deck looked like right that's that's where I'm getting lost on it okay so was the old deck not squared off on the right side uh right here is an angle and then here's another oh and then it has the same and by the way the the reason for this little small angle here is uh landscape steps come down immediately to the side the way so that's probably what the difference is cuz you're angling up like Clos okay questions for Mr shet did I understand you just say it's a two- Lev deck or did I miss the existing one as two Lev we are going to bring it up we'll be stepping out onto a platform and then down a couple of steps but the the original so that's if you look here right there you can see it better so you're going to step down then everything will be leveled correct yeah okay so it's one it's one deck it's not right and the elevation of this um of the home to be able to see the water line it's nice to drop that the love of the deck a little down a little bit so they can their sight lines okay further questions observations I think I have a question for staff so there's discussion in the package about the house or the deck excuse me being I think wider to accommodate the window setup in the home is that is the new that going to be wider correct is that right yeah that's not part of our consideration we're just talking about the depth with respect to the lake shore is that accurate yeah though the wider doesn't really Factor him because they are okay on the side step backyard it's just the lake side okay so it's really the depth that affects it however what I heard um the applicant mention is that the width of it may have what triggered the change in the setback because the wider part now is closer to the lake cuz the lake shore is uneven so that wi may have what triggered the 3T different even though it's only one foot deeper that makes sense and it is very hard to see that on that diagram okay further questions further observations thank you sir thank you does anybody in the audience want to approach the commission regarding this proposal okay seeing none you have your standard three options you might note on page 25 of the packet that staff has recommended approval of this planning casee with seven conditions and three findings of fact chair would entertain a motion I'll just make a comment I I think um my general philosophy I'm fine with what people want to do on their property on these sort of Minor Details as long as it doesn't impact neighbors or the neighborhood and to me I think that was kind of key in the last case as well um if these folks want to expand this deck a little bit and you know I guess the math makes it sound like it's 4 feet bigger but in reality it's one foot bigger that seems dominous to me I have no problem with it so is that a motion I guess if chair still looking for a motion Mr chair I would make a motion that the Planning Commission uh recommend approval to the city council in planning case 24-11 if I'm reading that right correct adopting the findings of fact as proposed by um it's on the screen findings of fact uh the proposed findings of fact provided by staff along with I don't the conditions um outline in the packet which would include working with staff to make sure hard cover concerns are addressed like there are seven 1 two three thank you seven seven uh conditions that was clumsy but I got through it thank you second we have a second further discussion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I those oppose nay motion carries and again we are looking probably to a city council meeting in September I correct SAR either August 27th or September 10th okay all right we will reach out uh if we're able to turn turn it we would reach out with mailings tomorrow for the Tuesday meeting we just have to see where our schedule lies but we're going to try um to we recognize that it's almost uh September okay for all the cases unable all right planning case number 24-1 have a nice evening if you haven't signed in please do so thank you very much planning case 24-12 this is uh an expansion permit for remodelhouse editions 5032 Edgewater Drive applicant Max windmiller of windmiller Design Studios Miss reader all right as you noted this is an expansion permit I think the last two were variances so that's a slightly different criteria uh this property is is located on Edgewater Drive near the intersection of Edgewater Drive and rosale Road um the house and the garage which were constructed in 1994 are non-conforming uh as they are located 8.9 ft from the East side property line uh which is the reason for the request um they are proposing actually a number of improvements on the property the one that is uh resulting in the need for an expansion permit is a rear deck uh and family room along the non-conforming East Side property line um the their current structure is at its closest 8.9 feet on the prop the house is not actually exactly aligned with the property line so at this point of the property it's actually 9.5 ft away from the property line so they are going to be improving the non-conformity even through though they are adding on to the rear of the property um the larger project also includes additional improvements uh all of which are conforming so that includes a front entry porch some canel levers in the front a basement expansion a garage Edition and a guest bedroom and bonus room over the garage so I'm not going to walk through those elements um because they're not what the ne reason is for the request you can see those in the application materials and certainly if there are questions uh we can talk about it um this is uh low density residential guidance uh again this is being proposed to continue to be used as a single family property uh this is an r1a lot I think the the last two potentially were R1 lot so slightly different standards um this was created as part of a 1999 minor subdivision so it is not a lot of record U which is part of the reason for some of the standards being different as well um Building height is the same um the front yard 20 ft they are meeting that requirement and they have met that requirement the sidey yard setback for this side of the property is 10 feet um and they believe that they were originally thinking it was less than that but because it is a non lot of record than it is held to the standard uh of 10 feet um as I said they are proposing a lot of different expansions the one that we are really here for is in the rear property yard um and so that includes an expansion an addition um and then a deck uh and so those will be this is where it is closest at this point at 8.9 ft uh the the house isn't exactly aligned to that property line so by the time reaches this rear point is 9.5 ft by the time we reach the rear deck it's 9.7 ft so um it is an expansion permit because we are in the setback area um but they aren't making it worse which is why it's not a variance uh I do want to note again we've been having a lot of fun lately Sarah and I about Bluffs so this lot is not a bluff um the reason it becomes important that we want to mention it to you is because the original survey said it was a bluff um but then we have have gone back and the current surveyor has verified it is not a Bluff based on the standard and the city engineer has reviewed the applicants and uh surveyors and confirm that he doesn't think it's a bluff either it becomes important because you have a topof bluff setback and so then it becomes important because if you do have a bluff then the family room has to be set back so many feet from it since it is not a bluff we are only being held to the 50ft standard so if I could have not gone through all of that I would have but because it was something that was of question and actually the applicant and staff spent a number of weeks back and forth trying to make sure we knew what was happening um I needed to tell you it uh so hopefully that made sense uh the maximum impious Service as you know for a non lot of record is 30% uh the existing hard cover on the site is at 48.4% they're actually proposing a reduction down under um that 30% maximum to 29.8% they're achieving it a variety of different ways um they are going to replace the Bist driveway with permeable pavers um as I think you're aware there's a reduction it's not 100% but there is a reduction uh in what we consider impervious they're going to remove the P patio in the rear yard they're removing a concrete walk on the western side and then also the deck if it is uh has the quarter inch spacing nothing underneath is considered perious so kind of the red highlights show uh where some of those things are located so they will be improving hard cover as a result of the project uh as I said before before they're doing a general redesign everything is going to be conforming uh the low floor elevation is going to be matching uh or above the 933 and 9523 so all the other additions I'm not going to really walk through um because they are all conforming and but for this project you wouldn't have seen uh any of the building permit information for those requests uh we did distribute this as typical and we didn't receive any comments um I don't have anything else other than the standard here's where we walk through the process and we've practiced it to other times so I can answer any questions that you may have um to clarify the project okay questions for Rita hearing none thank you yes okay do we have anybody in the audience who would like to approach the commission regarding this proposal yes sir please state your name and your address Max windmiller 245 rid viw Drive wetta Minnesota I am the architect for the project I work closely with the homeowners and the builders homeowner is here as well and our design team is here and then our Builders are here as well so um thank you so much for the project introduction s thank you for your help uh we worked really hard to take a condition that the owner inherited the house is skewed on the lot as was stated uh our our goal really is to be sensitive to the lot and to the conditions that uh we inherited here so the only variance is on the lake side and we feel that it be the impact will be greatly minimized from the street so it it really won't be anything that uh that would be noticed uh as we're restarting the whole house this is part of a larger addition as has been mentioned so this piece in the back should feel very seamless it's not our intention to do something wildly different where it looks strange from the lake side we really want this to integrate well and just improve the overall aesthetic and a drastic uh reduction in hard cover is also proposed uh which is uh I think good news for everybody okay questions from Mr windmill you none thank you I do have one quick one I know that staff reached out to neighbors and received no response I'm just curious if you folks have had any communication with the neighbor to the Northeast is mostly East I guess that would be um not me personally we could ask the owner if he's had any discussions but U no letters or communication sorry I think somebody else that's okay thank you thank you Mr [Music] W does the owner want to approach the commission for any reason okay anybody have any questions for the owner have you had any contact with the neighbor got get up and we'll need your name and address sir it's our protocol Pat pelstring 5032 Edgewater Drive um yes they received the letter and uh we talked to Neighbors on both sides and they were fine they've been well aware of what we've been doing what our plans are so as of yet uh I think it's all thumbs up soas e okay further questions for the owner thank you sir thank you thank you okay further discussion amongst commission I just hearing none uh you see on page 39 of your packet that staff has recommended approval of planning case 24-12 they have nine conditions and five findings of fact you also have the other two options that we've seen tonight several times all that said chair would entertain a motion I'll make a motion to approve uh the expansion permit for model house Edition planning case 2412 with the nine conditions and findings of fact on page 39 40 I second it I have a motion in a second further discussion no I just I really like it when people improve their houses um it's just it's a good for the neighborhood it's good for the property values it's good for everybody so I have no issues with this at all agreed thank you further discussion hearing none all those in favor signy by saying I I those oppose nay motion carries and again uh SAR will advise as to this recommendation going to the city council correct yes we're going to try and do August 27th uh rather than the September but we just have to see where tomorrow morning Falls in and if we all can get our work done because it gives us one morning to turn everything and that includes resolutions reports minutes notices we're going to try this make easier okay moving on uh 2024 Planning Commission thank you you thank you thank you oh crew oh Planning Commission term expirations right we have three members uh whose terms expire at the end of the year uh Mr Good Mr Heel and Mr Roser uh all of your terms expire uh on December 31st and uh I think what we've done in the past is if you can let us know if you have interest in in uh seeking reappointment and I'll go back to our notes from last year I don't recall megie do you did we send out the forms for them to fill out or is just them notifying us acceptable do you remember it was just notifying it was just no I went through last year and I think it was notification it a notification so we can send you an email you can send me an email y are you back in Mr don't sooner than later because thought if everybody is interested in staying with us then then we don't have to go through the um the process of the search process the search process and it's up State we don't want to do that that's not the point but if we know that we don't have to then we'll proceed in another Direction but just let us know and I'll reach out to to Nick as well okay Kathy what do you know well I actually have news that you might all enjoy hearing this is in regards to the construction on 15 oh yeah so it it sounds like they're hopefully going to have it all complete before Labor Day that that's the first section you know through Mound now the flashing lights won't be quite done yet but that whole area to cross will be um what is the the the lights are going to be added within the next month or two because phase two is that area right down across from you know like the drive-in as you get into so that phase should be done by the end of October there will you you'll still be able to get through it over there but um it's going to be smooth Salem through Mound hopefully by the second no later than the sixth so that big mound of dirt will be gone and well that's what we're hoping for all right great I I thought everybody would like hearing that I know with some of the construction on that road the in the middle they have these I don't know if I even call it a center Island they're more like a square but they're white and oh for the for the crossing I don't know if they're going to paint those or color those and I'm not recommending the people doing I don't know if it's a color issue or if people are color blind but I've seen more cars not see it and drive over it like just well I did I did it myself it's very hard to notice it and I don't know if it's a time of day thing my own color blindness painted the lines that's what I'm hoping there should be some type of curb painting or something because it's you see right out here you pull out here and you see one and I've seen cars pull out and just go b boom b boom b boom I'd like to do that because I don't like those yeah I don't know if they're going to stay white or if there's going to any more distinguishing workers but I have seen a lot of cars not notice it and just go right over it yeah well it's just such a mess over there you know people are just I know there's one there and then there is one down by the the drive-in that I've seen other cars kind of drive over yeah they will have yeah it's a weird thing to see I've missed it a few times myself I was that car they first put one in Down By The Narrows that was the first one they did down yes oh yeah M you're right it took a while to get used to it can I make a suggestion sure your so I gave this to Mayor Holt as well so in the next monthly newsletter whatever it is can you put what we're supposed to do when you go through the crossing both by the old Dakota Junction and this new one I know CU I think there's a lot of confusion it's a pedestrian Crossing that I've seen like bikers go through and put the stop sign up to tell people to move that that's been my concern all L because I think it's created even a a bigger problem because they they've always always had a stop sign on the trail yes I think they should make that stop sign gigantic I wouldn't trust you know that's such a busy street right there with with the a curb and then the light by Walgreens there's just a lot of stuff on there too and again that's County Road 110 so pedestrians have the right away but bikes still do not I I don't think that if there's a crosswalk crosswalk a pedestrian crosswalk but by Dakota Junction there's no crosswalk painted in the RO there so I don't think cars retain the right but now there's pedestrian bike Crossing there there will be crosswalk and then at that point that changes then not for biking I agree with everybody I think it's even more dangerous now because be now that the bikers mostly it's bikers that were concerned about you know they just race right through it and if there's a car that's turning out right there yeah I think it's dangerous and I think it's going to be Revisited but for now there's still a stop sign on the trail we are supposed to stop if we see a biker you know oh we are supposed to stop if we see a biker yes that's the new sign but I thought I always thought there would be I didn't know there was a difference between a pedestrian versus a so what I what I was told from Han and County was if the biker walks his bike across well but that's that's just nonsense but it's it's a pedestrian Crossing not a bike Crossing I don't I don't I don't think that's true I don't think that's true only because I deal with this stuff a lot Minnesota l is a person lofly operating a bicycle across a roadway or shoulder while using a crosswalk has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian yeah so a bike and a pedestrian are the same in a crosswalk and that's the confusion for everybody but it's not a crosswalk it's a pedestrian Crossing I think once they paint it it becomes a crosswalk it it'll be a crosswalk once they put the white lines okay well let's get them down because it is dangerous that's why I would like I would like this all just laid out in the newsletter just idea I think it is too we can put it on the website too that's a really good idea to put some information out about that yeah it's it's a tricky that where the curve is um is tricky I I use it a lot and I mean I don't I don't breathe through it but I stop you know I cry a little bit say a little prayer and then I go yeah well that's about to pray you know and you're looking both ways you see if a Biker's going to try to zoom through Jason that's a good idea I like that that is a good idea very good idea we will do that and put it on Instagram we'll get it everywhere we'll put we'll put you as the author no I'm notth I'm kidding you can be the author you write legal brief it's a great thing to bring up yeah know I think okay C anything else that's all I've got okay good news Sarah um it's been a busy summer uh uh spirit of the leges was great uh well attended uh helped by lots of people to to pull up a great event um special events have been very active this summer we're kind of winding down um however we do have uh fishing contest uh coming up on Saturday uh that uses Surfside Landing or Surfside park for their weigh-in station and and upcoming is the annual o uh incredible Festival will be coming up in September uh there is no dog days this year um and then we'll have a probably a little bit of Hiatus and then we'll go into tree lighting our Farmers Market's very active um uh so we still have uh the market that'll go till I think the second week in October I believe um we're busy as as you can see Maggie's with us this evening um our our colleague Jen uh accepted a new position with the city of Arden Hills so she left our left our building a couple weeks ago we miss her but we certainly wish her well Maggie was kind enough to help us with minutes tonight because we knew um we had three cases and we knew that because it's August that folks want to move things on as quick as we can so that's kind of the goal we're going to try and accomplish between now and tomorrow um other than that we're very very busy um I think Maggie and I are talking I think this has been one of the busiest Summers we've had um I don't know why um just lots of permits um lots of building permits lots of inquiries lots of people wanting to do projects lots of people interested in Lots um the I'm amazed the phone calls that that we we get and and people that want to buy houses and put additions on and all that so it's the real estate Community is very active uh in Mound uh and still is and so we spend quite a bit of time um providing information giving information meeting with people um explaining development review explaining the council introduction um we are moving forward at your next meeting uh in two weeks if it's two weeks 3rd you will be seeing the public hearing and the application materials for the project that's called minona Flats Lake Panka flats that is the proposal for uh three buildings uh with four units of condos that is proposed for the addresses of 2400 and 2420 Commerce Boulevard uh the council saw it uh as a council introduction several weeks ago this will be a major subdivision preliminary PL and a conditional use permit uh in a charland area um lots of lots of Parts Wetlands flood plane County Road uh lak Shore all those things but the development team has been working um for numerous months to try and find a proposal that seems to work that that they're comfortable with so we will be holding a public hearing um and we'll see where that goes sir I I got the notice just tonight about that I I tried to find the address is that going to replace existing structures or does it fit in between in the green space that's there currently yeah right across from all down the the shed yeah it takes on the shed the shed goes out okay but the building that's constantly being remodeled just to the self of that no that that's that doesn't include that that's we haven't talked about it yet but we'll be putting something on the website too you know so people will be able to view information in advance we we normally do that on the big projects um but that that I at least right now I think that's our only land use case doesn't mean that we won't Reed and I may have some things um to bring forward um uh other things the council at their last meeting uh last Tuesday did approve uh the conditional use permit for the library um there was uh additional information provided uh they did drop the building height two feet wow um they did follow up with investigating whether or not parking could be accomplished on the Bellar side um with we talked to the engineer they looked at it that that was not something that could be could be modified without perhaps affecting the the storm water uh plan as well as the rain Gardens and also adding potential hard cover um and then they also shared information uh about their um interim library and and how those uh discussions are are moving forward and they are are also continuing the discussions with uh the church yes for shared parking um so a lot of the questions that were were requested of the applicant team from the county uh was provided uh to the council the council ultimately did recommend approval of the library um was there any review or um Clarity for the resident on her tree yeah um yeah they did a shadow study um and uh met with the property owner I understand and and as I said they drop they dro the building height 2 feet um and then they I think there's still some question about whether the trees Will Survive or not because we do construction the dri line but they had uh a conversation with applicants and try to address what they could and then they also uh there was discussion about drainage in and around um shared property lines and uh that also was talked about in terms of what how that rainwater Garden will function where if it gets high water where it's going to overflow and where the existing drainage is going because there was concern from uh property owner as well so the city engineer was kind enough to provide an overview which which I thought was very very helpful for for the folks so so that project will be moving forward I think they said it's next year though right about construction is in 2025 right and that shadow study was really interesting to look at too how um they were not able to um accommodate a remote bookd drop um information was provided uh that their operation standards that's not something that they do anymore uh because of liability and and Staffing there will be a book drop in the lobby but they're not going to have a remote one and so that's just not that's not current policy for henpen County's library system and they they explain that to the to the council as well too bad what about the restaurant that was supposed to go into Commerce Place you reading my mind do you know anything about that I reading my mind I where I was going to ask that I I know that they are working on um under some current permits and there's a there's a big permit that's waiting to be issued uh I checked in with them a couple weeks ago and they were waiting for some of the space to be made available because that's going to be included in their in their um sack determination because they have in order to proceed they got to pay that and I think that's going to offset some of that so I'm hoping soon the council asks every meeting about that restaurant I'm just also SE area charge from the MC exactly got it so um and when you add seats and you go from something like retail to restaurant the the charges are quite heavy in terms of what that a sack unit is like one residential unit so it's that times whatever that gives you what that what that increase is and so that's part of the process so we check in as much as we can but they're they're working under existing permits and everybody's anxious to get to get are there deadlines on those or even deadlines on what we approved because it seems like it's been years um once the once a conditional use permit is is approved it's it's of record yeah okay yeah so even if I don't do it Magie could come in and do it as long as it's the same if something come something is substantially different then they'd have to come back for an amendment but they are making they are making progress it's just I think not as quick as we'd all like to see okay further I just want I'd like to um what you were bringing up with the events um in Le of dog days this year um because of the uncertainty you know it takes months to plan those things and when they were building the new playground down at Surf Side there was a lot of uncertainty with due dates and you know things like that so in lie of it at Surfside they're moving it this year to the actual backyard of the veterinary clinic and it's called West hacka pet paloa oh cute and it's going to be on September 8th from noon to 3: and there're prizes and fun food and things like that but it'll be a reduced size of it but they're still planning on a really fun event okay good yeah okay anything else to be brought up let me know if you have interest in reappointment email's fine okay he none sure and entertain a motion to ajour so moved second thanks everyone second thank you discussion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I iose NES thank you for attend