[Music] [Music] [Music] Good evening. Welcome to the August 21st, 2025 meeting of the Minnotonka Planning Commission. The commission generally meets twice a month on a Thursday. The schedule and tentative meeting agendas can be obtained by calling the planning division or by checking the city website at minnotonkamn.gov. The commission holds public hearings on land use applications for which the city notifies property owners within at least 400 ft of the site and posts plans and information on the website. For some applications, the city also places signs on the property and notices in the sun sailor. The commission makes recommendations to the city council on reszonings, subdivisions, conditional use permits, and amendments to the city's comprehensive guide plan, zoning ordinance, and subdivision regulations. We make final decisions on site plans, signage requests, variance requests, and expansion permits unless the requests are part of an application that must be heard by the city council. In that case, the commission makes a recommendation to the council for the final decision. Anyone dissatisfied with a final planning commission decision may appeal to the city council by submitting a written request to city staff within 10 days of this meeting. From a broader standpoint, the city's comprehensive guide plan, zoning ordinance, and subdivision regulations are the city's best efforts to codify a balance between individual rights and community responsibilities. Individual rights are easy to understand. Community responsibilities are more subtle, but the idea is that we as members of the community agree to limit our individual rights for the common good of the group. The planning division, the planning commission, and the city council are charged with managing this sometimes difficult balancing act. We ask that you keep this broader perspective in mind as we review tonight's applications. Again, welcome. Staff, will you please call roll? Brink >> here. >> Hansen is absent. Henry >> here. >> Minion >> here. >> Waterman >> here. >> Banks is absent. Maxwell >> here. There are five of us seated tonight. All right. The next uh item on the agenda is approval of the agenda. Uh staff, I believe there's a change memo for tonight. Yes. Uh Chair Maxwell, there is a a change memo this evening. staff inadvertently failed to uh insert a condition of approval that's pretty standard for larger garages and that is that the uh home occupation uh can't be conducted out of the uh attached garage or detached accessory buildings. It's a it's a code provision but we have um added that also to uh the conditions of approval for item 8B. That is all. Uh, thank you, Miss Thomas. May I have a motion to approve the agenda? >> Make the motion. >> Motion, Henry. >> I'll second. >> Second. Waterman. >> All those in favor uh say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Uh, next is the approval of the minutes uh from the July 24th, 2025 meeting. Commissioners, any changes to those minutes? All right, I'll take a motion to approve the minutes. >> I'll make the motion. >> Motion, minion? >> I'll second. >> Second, Brink. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Uh, opposed. Motion carries. Uh, next on the agenda, moving right along. Item five is report from staff. >> Uh, thank you, Chair Maxwell. Just a report from the um city council's meeting of August 11th. There were two items on that agenda that the planning commission had considered. Uh the first was a flood plane alteration permit with a tree removal variance for a new house on Larchwood. Uh if you'll recall, uh they were removing one tree beyond uh what uh city code would allow. Uh the city council approved that application, the flood plane alteration and the tree removal variance. They did add a condition. Um some planning commissioners had um suggested that maybe a condition be added by the council uh for um replacement of the tree at uh 2:1. Um the council went even beyond that and it actually required replacement not of 2:1 for the tree but 2:1 for the caliber inches of that tree that was being removed. So I believe the tree was a 22 in uh maple. So in addition to the tree mitigation that is required just in general um that applicant will be required to replace an additional 44 in of deciduous trees on their site. Um then the other item was the marsh run three proposal. Um the council spoke about that item. There were people who um appeared in favor of the proposal and opposed to the proposal. Ultimately, the council did approve that project. They did add two conditions that staff um had not had in our resolution. Um first was that the applicant would work with city staff as well as Metro Transit to improve a bus stop that's on the property that's in pretty poor condition. um the applicant agreed to that and that secondarily that the I shouldn't say secondarily also um that the building must be designed and constructed uh as solar ready. Um so they added that condition. The applicant also uh agreed to that. We did meet uh with the applicant uh today just to understand their um timeline. They haven't decided yet if this is a project that they'll get underway yet this fall or if it will be pushed out to next spring. But I encourage everyone who is interested in that project just to continue to monitor the Minnotonka matters page because we will update that as permit applications come in and as they're approved. Um the next planning commission meeting is uh scheduled for April 4th but we are cancelling that meeting as we have no agenda items. Uh we will have uh >> September 4th. What did I say? >> April 4th. >> April 4th. Wow. Getting really ahead of myself. Um September 4th is cancelled. Uh we have a few items scheduled for September 18th. We simply didn't receive those in time to meet our legal obligations to get them on the September 4th agenda. So with that, I would turn it back to the chair. >> Thank you, Miss Thomas. Uh the next item on the agenda is item six, report from the planning commissioners. Does anybody have anything they'd like to report? >> Commissioner Minion, >> just a thank you to the city for the tour. I thought they did a great job and I know they put quite a bit of work into it and I was interested to see uh the work that goes on here and come to real life. So, great job. Thank you. >> Anyone else? No. All right. Um item seven is public hearing for consent agenda items. There aren't any today. So, we'll move on to the non-consent agenda. And before we start the items, I'd like to review the steps in the process. First, we'll announce a particular item. There are three tonight. Staff will give their report on the subject. Then the commissioners will ask questions of the staff. Then the applicant will come forward. They can make a presentation or offer comments as they wish. Then the commissioners can ask questions of that applicant. After the applicant is finished, then we'll open the public hearing to give anyone present an opportunity to give a comment on the proposal. So, if you wish to speak, please come up to the podium, state your name and your address for the record. Keep your comments brief. Try not to repeat points already made. Um, and direct your comments to the uh uh the um the commission. And then if there are questions for the applicant or for staff, we will get those answered after the public hearing has closed. Uh once everyone has spoken, we may allow speakers to return for additional comments uh if if needed. So the first item on tonight's uh non-consent agenda is item 8A, an expansion permit for construction of a new garage at 3706 Farmington Road. I believe Miss Rooney, this is your item, correct? Uh good evening, Chair Maxwell, commissioners. Um as you mentioned before you this evening is an expansion permit. Uh the subject property is located south of Minnotonka Boulevard and west of Shady Oak Road. The original house was constructed in the 1950s um with the garage being updated in 1990. Um with the house being constructed uh almost or I guess 80 years ago or so. Um it predates the city's zoning ordinance. Um so here is the full survey. As you can see, it's a 1acre parcel with the house in the garage along Farmington Road. Here is a zoomedin image so we don't have to strain any eyes tonight. So, the existing garage is highlighted in yellow. It's a 24x 24 garage and then the red outlines the area that they are proposing to expand the garage to. Um, so with that being said, the property owners are requesting to construct a 26x30 ft garage. So slightly larger than what is on site today. Um keeping with the existing non-conforming setbacks from the side and front yard. So as you can see here um from the side there's a little over an 8ft setback and then 32 ft from the front property line. Um given the property owners are extending the width and length along the non-conforming setbacks that expansion permit is necessary. Um if however the proposed construction were to jut back from the existing setbacks um to meet our requirements. So 10 ft from the side and 35 from the front um an expansion permit wouldn't be necessary, but that of course isn't the case and uh that would uh create a garage that would be a little bit unique in size and shape. Um so here's a little bit of a different image for you guys to see. So, this is the property um as of April 2025. You can see the 8ft setback from the side. Uh and then the 32 setback from 32 ft setback, excuse me, from the front property line. And then I wanted to also highlight that because of the width of the boulevard, it's actually the the front of the garage is 50 ft from the street there. Um I also wanted to include or highlight um so the yellow portion is indicating roughly um the shape of that the garage would take after the proposed construction if it were to be approved. So as you can see it's still at that you know 50t set back from the road 32 feet from the property line but it's pushed back towards the rear of the property. Here are just some elevations provided by the property owner and contractor. Um so staff finds that the request is reasonable um as the garage would again maintain the existing non-conforming setbacks, would be located roughly 50 ft from Farmington Road. The proposal would not alter the character of the neighborhood and would actually allow for the enhancement of the neighborhood um given the uh reconstruction would uh have new siding, roof and paint. Uh the request is reasonable for the continued use of the structure. And with that, the recommendation is on the screen before you. Uh I believe the applicant and the property owners are here for any questions as is staff. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Ernie. Hey, does anybody on the commission have questions for staff? No questions for staff at this time. Oh, yeah. Commissioner Minion, >> thank you for the uh drawing. It helped much better to have it on the screen. I was looking at a small screen, so the the drawings were very helpful. Thank you. Um, are we still within the 12 1/2 ft mid height rule? Are we still okay on that one? >> Excuse me. Correct. Yes, it meets all the height requirements for the accessory or for the garage, excuse me. >> Okay. And then as it looks it looks like the direction of the of the new building is not truly parallel to the property line. So we're actually increasing the setback as we add on. We went from 8'8 to 9'8. Is that is that correct? >> Uh so I believe what you're looking at here I think the garage itself is at a little bit of an angle. So it's not changing the setback at all. At its closest point it's 8 foot8 near the front. Um, but as it goes further towards the back of the property, it increases along the property lines. Just a little change in direction, I suppose, there. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> All right. I also have one question, Miss Rooney. It looks like this um proposal also uh double approximately doubles the size of the driveway and then we also have the bigger surface area. So, I'm thinking about impervious surface surface area of the garage. And there is a what looks like a little pond on the northwest side of that site and a neighbor relatively close on the south side. Is there are there any concerns from a runoff perspective or or um based on this proposal? >> Uh no. Based on the proposal, the the property itself has significant amount of imper or impervious surface. So we're not concerned about any of the impervious surface coverage with the proposed development. >> Thank you. Any other commission questions? All right. Right. At this time, I'll invite the applicant forward if you wish to give any comments or make a proposal on this item. >> Uh, good evening. My name is Troy Mason. I own Mason Construction Services. We represent the owners here. Unfortunately, the owners were detained this evening. They had plans to come, but work uh called and he's tied up in St. Paul. So, I am here solo. But um I just wanted to state that uh I appreciate the presentation. what you said is accurate to what we applied for. And um there's really no other uh questions, then there's no pretty straightforward with what we're doing. The the garage is actually extending further onto the applicant's property, not impeding any further onto what uh where it was built originally before it was even zoned. And um uh to your question of the impervious surfaces, I think we're at 6%. Long way from 25. So we're in really good shape there. And that's existing I think it's 8% as built. So um we would have loved to have encroached to the to eliminate that. However, there is actually a well uh that we were going to be making it even bigger, but we have to stay 3 ft off that well that is towards the house side to make it a it was originally going to be a 30x30 garage. So, we had to shift it down uh by a few feet in order to accomplish that as well, just to let you know. But, uh, the driveway will actually help with runoff, uh, from going to the neighbor as well by, uh, slightly raising the elevation and getting water going to where it's supposed to go instead of towards the neighbor's home as it is currently. So, the driveway will actually help with what we're doing from a runoff standpoint as well. So, any further questions uh, regarding anything that I can assist with this evening? >> Thanks, Mr. Mason. Any questions from commissioners for the applicant? Commissioner Minion. Yes, >> just a couple quick questions. The expansion going back, um it looks like the property kind of slopes down as it goes to the west. Is it is it just kind of slope down to the existing existing grade? There's no need for a retain retaining wall or anything like that? >> No. Well, according to what we've got figured out, um, part of the permit, there is a larger tree right behind where the garage is, but it's significantly leaning towards the street that we'll be removing >> as well because it just makes sense now to get rid of it so it doesn't fall on the new garage that we're building. >> But with that slope down, um, we have plans to address that and to have it, uh, so it's not going to pose any issue with it. it it doesn't slope as much down uh as far back as we're extending it, but pretty close after that. Then it drops off pretty quickly. Uh so it does it's not going to affect us from that perspective from how we have to construct. >> And then it looks a little bit too like you're going to going into the deck there kind of redo that a little bit >> there. There's a little walking deck between the house and the garage that Yeah, that'll that'll have to be rebuilt. We'll have to take it out, but we'll just It'll be basically like a pathway from the front of the deck going towards uh the existing deck off that north side of the home there. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Commissioner Henry, >> thanks, Chair. City staff, could you put the picture up with the the front view of the house again? Dro, are you going to have to take out that tree that's just to the left of the house when you put the drive? >> Nope. Nope. That is staying. Uh it's the tree basically at the peak line of the garage in the back. >> Mhm. >> That tree is about this angle right now. So um we're just going to eliminate that tree which was on the proposal and which has been approved for in notes from the uh submission of the plans and the permit. Um, one question that I had, I don't know if this is appropriate to ask or whatever, but uh, I was told we need to apply for a driveway permit now as well, uh, from what I saw online on it. Um, my understanding typically is that that's included in the initial building permit for what we're doing. But is that normal or is that, uh, what we need? Just it doesn't matter. or we're going to follow what we have to, but I just thought it would be included in our overall building permit that we're doing versus having to apply for a secondary permit. >> Uh, thanks, uh, Mr. Mason. Any other questions at this point for the applicant from the commission? >> All right, we we may have you back. I will have the staff answer uh your questions. You want to do that now, Miss Thomas? You want to do that after the meeting? >> Uh, Chair Maxwell, why don't we take all questions and then we can um address them at that time? >> Sounds good. All right. Thank you. Okay. >> Thank you. >> At this time, I will open the public hearing. If you would like to make any comments on this item, please come forward, state your name and your address for the record, direct any questions or comments to the uh commission, and we will get those questions addressed after the public hearing. >> Good evening. My name is Marcia Wilder and we live at 3712 Farmington Road. We're the other existing house just to the south of the ho house that has the proposed garage and we just want to go on record that we are fully supportive of the change of this. It's out our bedroom window and but it's not a big deal. So for whatever that's worth, we're fully supportive. >> Right. And I'd just love to give a little context of history because uh we've been in the property for 32 years now. 34 35. And uh Mr. Bill Heath, the grandfather of Mike Heath, the um applicant, um lived next door when we moved in. He built the house in the 50s as a single level basement house as you would do when you had money. Then you would increase that and build the top. So, we've known him for a really long time really. And it's a great family. So, we love the Heaths and uh we're fully supportive of the of the plan. I guess my one question is about drainage because a lot of water does go to the south. if you had that uh image of the plot there. A lot of water does go to the south and uh and it goes around that tree. So maybe this is for the contractor who's building things. I understand that the um garage is going to be elevated a little bit or raised that ground around it is going to be raised. So is that going to be a problem or will that help and enhance the runoff? And I'm hoping the ladder. So, >> and one other thing is about the tree that he mentioned that's at a big slant. I'm very happy that they're going to take out that tree cuz I've been worried about it falling on my house. >> So, good thing. Thank you. >> Any other comments from the public for this item? All right. In that case, I will close the public hearing. And uh staff, I don't know, Miss Rooney, if this is for you or for Miss Thomas. Um I heard two questions here. One was about drainage. Is drainage a concern towards the south side of the property? And second, is the is a driveway permit included as part of this or is that a separate application? >> Yep. So, I'll address the driveway permit first. So, a driveway permit is required because the increase because of the increase at the right of way. So, if the driveway were to be constructed with the same uh width at the right of way, a drive another driveway permit wouldn't be required. However, um that is what's triggering that that permit there. And if I could just add on to that, the drive while it is a separate driveway permit, it can be applied for at the same time as the building permit um concurrently. So the applicant can actually just upload that permit application as a um attachment right in their permit package. And then for the runoff um I am not sure on the specifics for uh the location that the property owners were were speaking to. I think perhaps if we had some engineering staff here was more familiar with the numbers on that we could give that. Unfortunately, they're not here. Um, I don't know if the uh contractor has any other information to add on that or staff here. [Applause] Uh, Chair Maxwell, I would just add that generally um during a building permit review when there's construction of a new structure, our NA our natural resources staff certainly um reviews these permits, but our engineering staff does also. Um the goal is always to not direct uh any additional water in terms of its um rate or volume off of a property than pre-existed. If there's an existing um issue, we would be happy uh to discuss with the neighbors to the south um and to the the property owners if there's an opportunity to to redirect if there's some some earth work already occurring. >> All right. Thank you, Miss Thomas. At this point, I will bring it back to the commission for any final questions or comments on this item. Commissioner Waterman. >> Thanks, Chair. Uh, no questions. Um, just overall I'm in favor of this. Um, you know, the lot and house predate the subdivision ordinances and really to the contractor's point, extending they're extending this addition into their own deck space. Um, no closer to the neighbors. I mean, the neighbors are supportive of it. really no change to the existing 8 foot set back to the south and the 32 foot setback to from on Farmington. So I agree this is this is very reasonable. Seems like a very straightforward u request. So I'm in favor of it. >> Anybody else? >> Commissioner Brink. >> Yes. Likewise. I I will just echo uh Commissioner um Waterman's comments. It's very straightforward. Existing setbacks are being maintained. Um I think with the new driveway and um it's going to dress things up a little more too. So um all in favor of it. >> Commissioner Minion. >> First off, thank you for the neighbors for coming and the contractor for coming. I It's always important to hear what the people living around things uh have to say and I appreciate your time. Um I'm no stranger to saying that I like larger garages. Um I drove the property. It's wellkept and I think it'll help uh people to store their odds and ends and stuff like that. Uh I really like the fact that the setbacks are actually increasing to some degree as far as their lines aren't parallel but they've got a little bit of pitch to them and the front setback is changing the same pretty much staying the same. So I'm I'm very much in favor of it. Thank you both for all coming >> Henry. >> Thanks. Echo everything else. It's a good project. Looking forward to seeing it complete. Uh, and I agree that I I like that this is not uh further encroaching into the neighbors and I appreciate neighbors coming in and giving your your support on this it your comments on this item. Um, I sense uh that we're ready for a motion here. Uh, would anybody like to make a motion um to adopt the resolution approving an expansion permit for construction of a new garage at 3706 Farmington Road? >> I'll make the motion. Uh motion Henry. >> I'll second. >> Second. Uh Minion. Uh staff, will you please pull the commission? >> Brink. >> Yes. >> Henry, >> yes. >> Minion, >> yes. >> Waterman, >> yes. >> Chair Maxwell, >> yes. Motion carries. Uh this is a final decision subject to appeal. If anybody would like to appeal this decision, you may provide a written request to the staff within 10 days. Good luck on your project. All right, next item on our agenda is item 8B. Uh, a rear yard setback variance for a garage edition at 4517 Woodhill Road. Uh, Mr. Inglesson, I believe this is your item. >> I do. Thank you, Chair Maxwell. So, our next item, just to give you some bearings here, is uh here's Highway 7 on the north side and then Woodhill Road. And for you local shoppers, here is the general store right across the street from the subject property. Looking at the lot, it is similar to our last one. It's pretty large. It's uh just under an acre in size, so it's almost double the size of what our Mitaka lot requirements are. A little a couple interesting things about the lot uh is that it actually served they don't access directly off of Woodhill Road. They connect off of this private drive uh that also two other property owners to the east also connect on. Uh the property is improved with a 3,000 ft home. It's two stories built in 1995 and has a four stall garage. Looking at the topography of the site, the high points are over here on the northeast and then down here on the southwest. It all drains towards this low area pond along the property. Uh, and speaking of where it drains to, this blue line that you're seeing on your screen is the 100red-year flood plane. It's a little unique because you'll see it sort of cuts here and cuts across the house. And that's because the house uh the low floor of the house is actually below the 100red-year flood plan, which we would not approve today, but this uh home predates our ordinance that has that requirement. So, the home is um there before that rule was in place. However, any new additions like the one that we're seeing tonight uh are subject to that flood plane rule. Also, you'll see on here in green uh is drainage utility easements. So, you'll see our sort of standard ones along the sides here. Then a rather larger one here on the north uh is one that we have there. And then looking at what we're having tonight, uh that chair Maxwell talked uh just spoke on was the applicant is proposing to construct a 1,120 foot attached garage addition. Uh what they're looking to do is uh reduce that rear setback from 40 ft, which you'll see with this red line, to 30.5 ft. Um just looking at the property, and you'll see this a little better with the next slide. It's the home is oriented a little bit uniquely. Usually you will see homes oriented towards the public road, Woodhill Road in this instance. However, for this one, it's oriented toward this private road towards the north. But code, our city code doesn't really look at how homes are oriented specifically when we're looking at rear front side property lines. So, per our code, we wouldn't call this um north property line the front. It's actually the one that abuts Woodhill Road cuz that's a public road. Making these two other lines sides and this one in the far east the rear. Even though it might appear a little bit like a sideyard to uh someone traveling or visiting the visiting the property owners here, uh our code would not say that. Say this is the rear, making this a bigger setback than what might be thought of originally. And uh looking at it here, we'll go here. This is a look at that how that home is oriented. So uh you're standing facing south, standing on that private drive. And then here's a look at where that new addition would be on the uh back side of that existing garage. Uh here's the floor plans that are not too exciting because it's a garage. So it's just a big empty space, but you can see it connects to this four stall existing garage. So if uh Commissioner Min, if you like garages, this one's for you. Definitely. I'll say that. Um looking at here's some elevations of the uh proposal. You'll see it ties in pretty well with the existing garage. a little bit taller than the other roof, but still definitely uh significantly under our max height of 35 ft. So, not a concern there. Here's a look at it from the south side and then also from the west. Uh now going into our variance standards. So, we have five different ones. I'll go through them, the first two pretty quickly and we'll talk a little more in detail on the last three. The first one is the intent of the ordinance. So the intent of the rear yard setback requirement is to provide adequate and consistent separation between buildings. Staff finds that it meets that intent. Uh the next standard is it's consistent with the comprehensive plan. So the comprehensive plan doesn't get very specific and detailed into setbacks and things like that. However, there is one part that talks about encouraging maintaining and pres uh encourages maintaining and preserving and enhancing single family neighborhoods. So staff does find this would be an investment into the property and definitely withdrew that investment with into the neighborhood. So consistent with that comprehensive plan and then our next one is looking at um the practical difficulties for the property. So the first one is that that is reasonable. So staff found that this is reasonable. A garage addition um on a property on of this size is definitely reasonable as because it is a larger lot. It's about twice the size again of what you'd expect. So, um, this large garage edition on a really small lot might not be as appropriate, but, uh, definitely looking at the size of this, it makes sense. It's going to it's not going to stand out. Uh, the next standard we have then is our unique circumstance. So, there's really two things that staff saw that are unique about this property. Number one is that orientation. So, here's a look at that house again going back to it. It really is oriented towards a different uh towards the north. So, making probably feel if you're visiting that that south property line would be the rear yard. um even though if code does not agree with that. And then the other part of it that is uh bit unique is the buildable area. So I talked about how this is a big lot. It's an acre in size. Uh but there isn't that much buildable area on it because that large flood plane. So on your screen you'll see all of the purple area is buildable. And of that buildable area, it's the parts that are rather narrow as you'll see here to the south or in a very inconvenient location. This area is in the main entrance of the home or the existing driveway. So, the larger buildable area really is where they've located and placed their addition. The last standard we have is neighborhood character. And the proposed garage addition would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Uh for a few different reasons. First off, looking at it visually, only 88 square ft of this addition is within that setback. So, of the total addition, that's 8%. So, a pretty small part of this is actually in that rear yard setback. Uh, another thing that staff went through to sort of look at Oh, here's a look at the visual that you'll see from the neighbors. So, this is facing south. Uh, this neighbor's about 93 ft away from the addition. And to the east, this one is 54 ft away. So, there's definitely some decent separation. And then next, uh, staff did look to see what could be done here, meeting code. So if and we did have several conversation staff with the applicant about different options they had in these runes that we went through. Uh the first is for a garage that would just need a building permit or first on your left hand side is what's being proposed. The middle option is something that could be approved with just a building permit. No special approval. Uh if it was a,000 square ft it just could be 10 ft away from that property line. So sign encroaching significantly more than what's being proposed. And then on the right hand side showing uh if they were to do the exact same size addition but a detached structure that would go through a conditional use permit process and would have a 15 ft setback uh and again would be significantly more impactful than what's being proposed. Uh and then the last item for this section is looking at nonconformities in the area. So as we usually do when we get these requests we look to see are there a lot of nonconformities in the surrounding neighborhood. And ironically, the two most the closest neighbors to this property both have non-conformities. Uh they're both legal. They both were approved because they were pre-existing the ordinances in places for their setback, but they have a 20ft and 22 ft setback uh both of these properties to these adjacent lines to where this addition is being placed. So, uh there the setbacks of these homes are closer than what this uh proposal would be for. So, with all of that to say that it's going to be consistent with all the homes that are nearby. Uh, before I get to staff findings, one other thing I'll note we usually talk about is input from the neighborhood. This one was a bit unique. Uh, staff didn't directly receive any input on this request. Uh, we post um applications online. Uh we also have our um uh we put sent out postcards to everyone within 400 ft and staff did not receive any feedback that way, but the applicant instead submitted some feedback from their neighbors. They went out before the they submitted their application and had them put down their thoughts about the request. So, uh the city did have four comments submitted by the applicant that were all in support from those neighbors that are nearest the project. So, um that's just an aside from the findings, but after looking at the findings, staff found that the proposal meets all of the variant standards as outlined in the staff report resolution. Uh also, uh so tonight, the planning commission uh staff is recommending that the commission adopts the resolution approving a rear guide setback variance for the attached garage. And because this is a variance, uh five affirmative votes would be needed for the request. So, that would be all of the commission tonight. With that, I hand it over to Chair Maxwell and the commission for questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Englesen. Any questions for staff? [Applause] >> Yeah, thank you. Um, in the staff report, it mentioned something about the 100red-year flood plane and there was going to be some additional excavation or mitigation. Um, when I look at the plan, I don't it doesn't seem to impact the the flood flood zone, but maybe you could explain that a little more. >> Sure. uh uh uh Commissioner Brink and Chair Maxwell. So, there is some very small uh excavation and filling that would have be uh proposed as part of this project. However, we've had a code change recently where flood plane alterations uh can be approved administratively. So, there was a condition put into the staff report noting that those um would need to be reviewed by staff and approved. Uh but it's a very very small speaking with the applicant and getting some preliminary numbers. seven cubic yards, which is a a very small amount of flood plane alteration for us. And they've been working very we've um had our um our water resources coordinator in a lot of the meetings, so he's very aware and >> we'll review that administratively. >> Okay, thank you. >> Other questions for staff? >> All right, I have uh Do you have one? Oh, okay. I have one. Um this is the largest garage I think I've seen. I'm wondering if there's anything in code um about the ratio of primary residence floor area compared to garage floor area. I'm thinking for ADUs, we have to have the ADUs sort of um what's the word I'm looking for? Inferior to the main dwelling. Is that also true for garages or is there not anything in the code about that? >> Chair Maxwell and Commissioner, we do not have any um size requirements for garages. You could build as big as you want. The only way we limit them is through setbacks. Uh, and then when there is a variance like this one, we do have a floor area ratio that we use our McMansion policy. But to shortly answer your question, no, we could have as big of a garage as you want. >> Thank you. >> All right. At this time, I will bring the applicant or invite the applicant forward if you'd like to add any commentary or make a presentation. >> Uh, my name is Bruce Balig. uh recently retired from uh Baligan Suns. That's the reason for my uh garage edition so I can uh pursue my hobbies. Uh anyways, 4517 Woodhill Road. Uh Drew did a fantastic job with the presentation and uh I can't really add a whole lot. Uh I do have Tom from uh Ber Construction with me if you have any questions, you know, directed spec specwise, but uh uh other than that uh the neighbors uh I did work with the staff quite a bit and we've bounced this around for quite a round and this has been the most positive plan we got. uh the detached uh nobody liked it and I and I'm very much about keeping character to neighborhood and that type of thing. I want a clean area and I don't want stuff laying around. Thus, it's going to be in there and uh it's kind of about it. So, yeah, I'm I'm Tom Anjam from Boyer Building. I'm here with Bruce and I came along to answer any questions you guys might have related to the plans or the details. All right. Thank you. Anybody on the commission have questions for the applicant? Commissioner Henry. >> Thanks, Chair. Uh, just a couple of questions. It looks like from the plan here, there's no fill that needs to be put in for this addition. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. So, you're just going to build the foundation up with blocks and then pour the foundation at the same elevation as the existing garage. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And how many new stalls are going to be in the new addition? >> How many >> How many stalls? How many cars would fit into the new addition? >> Uh, so we're talking uh will be okay, think of it this way, I guess. Double deep. That That's the goal of what we're trying to do. Instead of having a set here, we can go double deep. >> It would be about three stalls. >> Yeah, that's what you're getting. >> There's no there's no real additional overhead doors on it. You There is one door that's a side door. Uh, that's a like a typical man door. It's a double acting door, but it's not an additional overhead door. >> Okay, that's all I've got. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Sherman. >> Just curious, is there some talk of a business that the addendum got put in for the notes at all? Just kind of a radar thing. >> I can answer that quickly. Uh, no. There nothing is just sort of a standard thing the city puts in when we have a large garage project. more so to just put future owners on notice about that. >> Commissioner Brink. >> Yeah, thank you. Just a quick question about drainage. I'm assuming it's all going to be directed toward the south toward the corner down there where it's going to go into the lowland area, the >> retention pond, right? >> Yeah. Maybe you could just explain where that's where that's going to go. It looks like it's going to go down toward the 100-year flood plane eventually down there. >> Right. So, uh I'm going to have gutters put on it obviously and then uh the water will just kind of scoot around and like it has been it works its way down to the pond. >> Okay, >> that's how it goes. Uh presently uh prior to that >> there is another pond on the what east and then I did put a sink of culvert through there to enhance so we get more direct flow into the pond so the retain from the >> okay >> drainage on top. >> Thank you. >> I mean okay in essence there's no real change from what it the current conditions are >> right. >> Any other questions from the commission? Commissioner Henry, >> thanks. One more question. Just curious about this, but it looks like a great place to store some some cars, something else. Did you have some thought about having some kind of excavation below the grade so you can put elevators in to store twice as many cars in there as as normal? I'm with Commissioner Minion. If you've got a hobby that has cars, why not have more? >> Supposed to be brief, right? Uh be uh to be honest with you uh because of the flood plane issue and the water and that stuff I do not want to even encroach in on that. I just want to keep it everything up above. >> Sounds good. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. We may have you back after the public hearing to answer questions. >> At this point, I will open the public hearing. If you would like to make any comments on this item, please come up to the podium and state your name and your address for the record. All right. I don't see anybody who wishes to speak. So, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for any uh other questions or final statements. >> Commissioner Waterman, >> we'll go on this one again. Uh thanks again for the application. I'm in favor of this one as well. I think it's quite logical. Um really appreciate you taking the time to work with the city to look at those alternatives and and work with the neighbors. I know that that adds time to the project. I do think that's really that is actually really useful in variance cases like this. But I mean this is a the portion of the garage that would be in require that variance is is pretty minimal. Um really in that the city's in favor with this. I'm really interested in what the public feedback is and and uh it's telling that there was no one here opposed to it and we really read the letters in the packet and you know really appreciate soliciting neighbor feedback and it sounds like they're very much in favor of that. So for that and for the reasons outlined in the pack by staff I agree that this is valuable. There's an investment of the property. There are practical difficulties and there are the unique circumstances identified in that the uh sort of dure it's a backlot variance but de facto it's more of a sideyard uh consideration. Um so yeah overall I think this is very straightforward and I plan to approve this. Commissioner Henry, >> it's important that we have a diversity of housing stock in Minnetonka and houses with large garages are in demand. So, I think this is going to be helpful for diversifying the housing stock and it'll it'll enhance the neighborhood and I'm really glad that the homeowner that Bruce that you worked with you were proactive and you sent out those surveys or at least things for the neighbors to sign. It's important as commissioners to to get the pulse of how the neighbors feel about some additions and being proactive in what you did and seeing that the responses are unanimous in their approval of it, it really helps us make our decision. So, thank you very much for that. I'm all in favor of it as well. >> Commissioner Brink. Yeah, I think this is a good proposal and I I think it's um kind of ironic in a way that uh to avoid having to go through this variance that you looked at some other proposals, you know, the detached garages that would not have to go through this and the impacts from those um are actually more severe, you know, or not as desirable. So, it's kind of ironic how that happens sometimes, but like to thank staff and the applicant for going through that exercise at least and doing their due diligence. So, it's it's a good proposal. I'm in favor of it. >> Commissioner Minion >> echoing the same thing. Good job on kind of reaching out to the neighbors. Um I for some reason on this one, maybe you guys didn't. I pride myself on be able to visualize things in a two-dimensional to make them threedimensional. And I just struggled with this one for some reason. Anyway, I drove the property. I'm like, "This is perfect. You guys did a great job." And I had to physically go and actually look at it. I think you guys did a wonderful job of designing it. I think it'll fit your home well. I think it'll fit the neighborhood well. So, I'm very much in supportive of it and um good job. Thank you. >> You get to thank him. >> Uh I I agree. I am in favor of this one. I agree with staff's assessment that it does fit the um conditions uh for the the variance outlined by the city code. Uh so I also um will be voting in in favor of this. Uh, at this point I think we'll probably be ready for a motion. And this would be, let's see, what would be the the wording of this? A motion to adopt the resolution approving a rear yard setback variance for an attached garage at 4517 Woodhill Road. Would any of you like to make that motion? >> I'll make the motion. >> Motion, Minion. Second, Brink. Uh, staff, please pull the commission. >> Brink. >> Yes. >> Henry, >> yes. Minion. >> Yes. >> Waterman. >> Yes. >> Chair Maxwell. >> Yes. That is uh five votes uh affirmative which means the motion carries. Uh this is a final decision subject to appeal. If anyone would like to appeal this decision, you may provide written feedback. You must provide written feedback to the staff within 10 days of this meeting. Good luck with your project. All right. Next uh on our agenda is item 8 C, which is a resolution amending and replacing the existing conditional use permit for cemetery use of the existing properties at 33000 and 3228 Woodlon Avenue. And I believe Miss Reigns, this is your item. >> Yes. Thank you, Chair Maxwell. The subject property is actually two properties. They are generally located norththeast of the intersection of Minnitanka Boulevard and County Road 101 and directly to the east of Groveland Elementary. So again, two sites. Uh the top site is 3228 Woodlon Avenue. The southern portion which is about 3 acres in size is 33000 Woodlon Avenue. Together they're just under 4 acres. and they are separated by this drive. Underneath that drive, there is a utility easement. I mentioned that so you're aware that there will be some um improvement work to the storm sewer. That is a city project, not directly related to this. It's just with timing. I want to make that clear and that is expected for this fall. at the subject property, the southern portion was approved or excuse me, has a non-conforming use. They originally had the cemetery used since the 1880s, so for some time, over 100 years. Um, and in 2008, there was a proposal to expand that cemetery use to the northern site. At that time, in 2008, there was a single family home. So the proposal was to remove that existing home and then again expand that cemetery use to northern property with that with that conditional use permit. Excuse me. There was some conditions of approval. The first was related to sequential sales. So sales of lots had to go from the south to the north rowby row. So you couldn't move on to the next row until that full row was sold. There was also a condition for tree preservation plan which is shown on the screen. Um this required that certain trees could not have plots in their critical root zone area. You'll see that there's some circles that are open. Those are the critical root zone areas. And if those trees um declined in health or were removed, excuse me, if they declined in health, uh whether diseased or dying, they could be removed um but they needed to be replaced elsewhere on the property. I will note that the tree to the north here has been removed. It declined in health in 2004. Um and a replacement tree was generally placed in this area to the north. In 2011, there was also another amendment and this asked for flexibility in the sequential sales um phasing plan. So instead of going rowbyrow, it asked for the general southern portion to have just a general date of sales. So for 2011 to 2026 and any plots in that area could be sold in 2023. There was another amendment and that had to do with the northern half of the property asking for general blocking as before. So more flexibility with the sales um allowing the green portion to be sold in 2023 and the orange and in 2028. Tonight, the current proposal keeps elements of those previous conditional conditional uses permits, excuse me, um but does ask to include a cremation garden. Currently, those past approvals were for inground burials. This proposal is asking to include arrangements for cremations. The proposed cremation garden would have a walkway in an existing open area and it'll be near an existing tree, one of them listed for the tree preservation, but it won't have a significant impact on the critical root zone area. So, it's not considered a tree loss. So, this proposal proposing no tree removals. Uh there's no requirement for buffering. There's existing vegetation that were requirements of 2011 and 2023 approvals and that's generally on this northern edge of the property. This is just another depiction of the cremation garden. Again, showing the new walkway in the open area and some collibariums in the circular area. And there's some benches and then slated graves for crews. The colarium are appear to be about 6 ft and 8 ft in height. Uh we don't have specific plans showing the exact height, but just based off these renderings, that's how staff came up with the 6 and 8 ft. staff believes that this proposal is reasonable because the cemetery use has been on the site somewhat since 1880s and on both sites since 2008. Uh both sites already have a conditional conditional use permit for se cemetery uses. Cremation uh containers are something that are seen at many other cemeteries. This is not uncommon and would fall under that general cemetery uses. staff doesn't believe that this will alter the character of the neighborhood or the site. And lastly, uh staff is planning to keep the previous conditions of approval for the staging plan and the tree preservation. Staff received no comments for this project and staff is recommending that the com planning commission recommend to the city council to adopt the attached resolution amending and replacing previous resolutions from 2023, 2008, and 2011. And with that, I return it to you, Chair Maxwell. >> Thank you, Miss Reigns. Does anybody on the commission have questions for staff? Commissioner Minion. >> Um when we're basically sacrificing the difference between in ground and above ground, it looks like there's a higher number of um availability at this point. Is there a threshold here at all the city has to look at regards to like emergency services or anything like that? Is it is are have things been balanced to a point where they they're pushing more volume on the same surface that there's any issues in regards to just emergency services and getting in and getting things like that squared away? >> Chair Maxwell, Commissioner, um as far as emergency access, they have the existing drive which is sufficient. Increasing the number of um available sites would not require us to look at emergency vehicles. Um that's something specifically to the number that is not in our code. We don't have a limitation. >> Thought is there be more people blocking driveways and things like that. Not that there'd be more need with more bodies. Sorry. Just to clarify. >> And if I could just add to that, um Chair Maxwell and and Commissioner Minion. Um though the city reviews the cemetery use here and the kind of rows, we have not in in our other cemetery situations reviewed um the types of burials or how how um many people may be buried within one particular plot. So, I certainly understand where you were going with that, but we we have not reviewed um overall number of burials as part of a a cemetery previously. >> Commissioner Henry, >> thanks, Chair. This may be a question for the applicant too, but from the city's perspective, if the applicant would choose to pursue expanding the cemetery to the north, is that something that the city has opinion on be a policy? Could they do it? Could they not? What's what's the city's perspective on that? >> Chair Maxwell, uh, Commissioner Henry. So, if they wanted to expand the area of plots, they would need an amendment to their existing conditional use permit. So, they'd need to stay within the area to the most north showing shown in orange. If they wanted to go even closer to the property line, they'd need a amended cup. Or even if they wanted to go to the there's another property which is residential and has a single family home, again, CUP. >> Thanks. That was my question about if they acquired different property, but thanks for being more elaborative than I was looking for. >> No, I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Other questions? Commissioner Brink. >> Yeah, just to add a little bit to uh um Commissioner Minion's comments there about um with the uh the garden and the colarium there and um I think maybe even certain holidays where you may get a lot of visitors there. Is is parking any kind of concern here? I mean, is it just people just park on the drives there wherever they can or um or even out in the street out on Woodlon? How does that work? [Music] >> Chair uh Maxwell, Commissioner, uh I haven't heard of any complaints in this area, but I would imagine they would use the on-site driveways and then there is parking as you mentioned on Woodlon. So, yeah. >> All right. Thank you. All right. At this point, I will invite the applicant forward if you'd like to uh make a presentation or add any comments. >> Hi, I'm Jeff Walton. I'm the president of the uh Groveland Cemetery Association. We're all volunteers, by the way. And this um this request is something that um is really uh in line with the evolving trends in burials. There's more and more people being cremated today than there used to be. And all of our original plans were uh full plots and we've tried to do some accommodations to use the space and have come to the conclusion that we need to consider colariums as another option for um how we handle the the demand for the burials. We've placed it in a um a roadway that has been set aside for many years. Uh and our our plan now is to utilize that space moving forward for potential future colarium work. Our um our plan that we have in front of you is actually showing a round or an octagonal colarium plus a couple of curved colariums. And we um we would plan to put the foundations for those all in place. Probably just build the octagonal colarium to start with. Um it's going to be a learning process for us too in terms of what the demand will be. So um other things that we know about that uh we're going to have to do and we haven't done um up until this point in our planning is we're going to have to do soil borings because there was a house in the vicinity and these are not light objects that we're talking about putting in there. So we're going to have to do some soil borings. I don't expect that there would be any any change at all in terms of where we would locate it. Uh I think the spot that we've got is is pretty good. The um structures for the columbariums would be within the 2023 um area that that is allowed. Um we would phase it. I think we indicated that that we would we would do it in phases and some of the slant markers and things which surround it would um would be a a later phase for us. So it would be column barium first um the octagonal the curved ones then slant markers if they're needed and uh our plans in terms of when we would be looking to do this is that once we receive approval we would go out and get some um get some bids have some more specific drawings that show more detail um as far as what's going to be available to us. It'll be a um something that will be fabricated by a company that does this that that is their main business. There's a couple of them here in Minnesota that we will be working with. Um the other other thing to mention uh I guess in answer to one of the questions that came up is what do we do when there's a large event? And typically Memorial Day is a big one for us and we celebrate Memorial Day and have a have a service there. We work with the school next door. They have a lot of parking. We have a common gate that goes between their parking and Groveland and um we kind of share that they their people walk through the cemetery and um that serves as most of the parking. So, yes, there is some on the street, but you aren't getting complaints because most people are actually parked over in the school parking lot. So, and I'd be glad to answer any other questions that you have about this. Thank you. >> Thank you. Does anybody on the commission have questions for Mr. Walton? >> Uh, yes, Mr. Walton. Um, architect's renderings were great and the um writeups were really nice, too. Will you just expand a little bit on your vision for this and particularly like the materials and what you u kind of see it it uh developing when talking about the staging process and >> Sure. >> Um the description of the materials was was really interesting but kind of want to hear a little audible uh information from you personally. >> Yeah. And we actually went out to our membership to find out what the the rest of the people that that have family buried at Groveland thought about this. And we've put together on our our website there is a a separate page with u some visuals and a little multimedia slideshow of what our architect has has told us it will look like. And these are going to be based on things for u ICO or Cold Springs Granite are a couple of the companies that we would be working with that do projects uh in other cemeteries like Lakewood and others around here. the uh columbarium itself, it would be a granite and likely will be all one color maybe um maybe one contrasting row towards the top and I think our our renderings show that also a granite material. The entire columbarium will be granite and it's got to have some uh fairly significant foundations to keep it in place. um walkway from the existing service drive would be um some sort of a a permeable pa is what we're looking at to try to minimize the amount of runoff. And we've we've also made accommodations along each side of the walkway for um for doing some uh drainage into that. And that that's a question also that I would um send back to planning. you mentioned that there is going to be a project for um that's going to actually tear up our our driveway in September of this year to put in a larger storm sewer. And one of the things that we had discussed um when we originally approached the city um early this spring was possibly having a stub so that we could accommodate um any any kind of runoff and not not add it to uh the streets. And I don't know whether the uh the drawing shows a stub for us or not, but that's something I please if if it is something that can be included, it would be helpful for us. Um, and in terms of the um in terms of the capacity of of what we're looking at, it's it's going to be roughly uh let's say 100 cremation niches in in the colarium, which is a a little bit better use of the space than than trying to do everything flat. That's one of the reasons that we're we're considering that. and the uh I forget how many the the um curved collabariums the smaller ones which would be a later phase would add to that probably an equal amount. >> Any other questions >> to Mr. Henry's question? Um at what rate are you filling up and do you see the possibility of ever buying that home to the north and and adding that direction at all? Oh, I I wouldn't say that um I wouldn't say that anything is impossible, but a lot will depend on the um the cost of doing something like that. And are we filling up? Yes, we've we've been filling up. And in fact, the the property that um used to be owned by the cannons that was um brought in by conditional use permit in 2008 was at a point where where the cemetery was mostly out of space. Um we will probably be pressed um by the time 2028 rolls around, we won't have many spaces left for additional burials um in the 2023 section. So we're going to bump up against that now. But we've we've held um this space in reserve specifically for um doing this project and we've had it on our map to do a colarium for a while. And it turns out that one of the original locations that we had thought about doing it, unknown uh to the cemetery board was um probably right in the area where the connection for the storm sewer is going to be made um into the school. We didn't realize that in the '9s that the board had um worked with the city and and an easement was put in there because it was never updated on our maps. So, this works out better. Um, we'll release the all the space that we've had held um by the um towards the school which was held for a future column bar and we'll release that to just regular burials at this point. Um the only other the only other thing to mention is one element of the um conditional use permits has been involving the trees and trees are pretty important to us. Um we've been fighting a pretty tough battle for the last few years. And if any if you look wherever you drive today, there's a lot of dead trees. Um we're losing them to oak wilt and and to the ashbor, the emerald ashbor is getting them. Um even if you look over in your groanka park, there are some very large mature trees which have been marked for more than a year which are still standing and dead. and and we just had actually two trees creamed today. Um, so we're fighting a we're fighting a battle that's that's really difficult and we keep planting, but the large trees are going to take a lifetime to come back. So, >> any other questions from the commission for the applicant? Commissioner Henry. >> Thanks, Chair. Just to build on Commissioner Minion's questions, can you give us an idea with and without the Calibarian proposal? How many how many people could fit with and without the colarium? I just did some rough math. It looks like about 500 people could fit inside the columbarium with the ouary and all the other spaces. Is that correct? >> If we built all of them. Yes. Yes. And the ocuary um portion we didn't mention uh mention that at all. It would be essentially having an opening inside the core of the colarian. And there are multiple use um structures. We don't know how well something like that would would go over. It's more of a of a burial practices thing. Um you know, would your family want to have a full burial? Would they want to be cremated in the ground? Would they want to be in a colarium there? So, there's a lot of things where the the trends are are continuing to change. Um, I wish I had brought a different file with me so that I can answer your question. Um, it's not going to be maybe with the oiary it could be it could be 500 additional burials. more likely with the two column barrier um the curved ones and the octagonal one we might be able to do uh 250 to 250 to 300 again and it depends on whether we go with an 8x8 niche or an 8x2 and we really haven't made that call yet. not going to change the size of what's being put in there, but it it will change the arrangement. And we're visiting other cemeteries to see how how they do it and try to find out what their best practices are. Um, in terms of um how much space is left, we're we're we're doing about um maybe 50 to 60 full cemetery plots per year. uh or or burials per year, I'm sorry. And of those, a lot of them are still the full cemetery plots because they can put four um cremations in a single plot. So, we have a lot of people buying those specifically because they want a vertical headstone rather than than buying a cremation plot which has to have a flat stone. Um, so there's a lot of uh a lot of personal preferences of of the people that purchase um locations there and the trends are changing. They're really changing um moving towards the the cremation. So that's one of the reasons it's important for us to do this. >> Thank you. Again, can we go back to the bigger picture and what's the total number of people that could be buried in this, let's say, just this northern plot with and without the collabarium? >> I'm I can't answer that. I can tell you right now that there are about 3,100 people buried at Groveland and that's the total the total cemetery. We think that in terms of um at the current rate of burials, we will probably be out of space within maybe uh 10 to 12 years. That's our best estimate. Um on the map, uh the we have additional property. However, that property is a on a metro sewer easement. It's a 50-ft easement that's 25 feet on our property and 25 ft on the neighbor's property. So, even if we were able to purchase um the neighboring property, we we would have to deal with that as well. We we can't build anything on it. Um we do we do have bushes and things that we've planted there to try to do screening for the neighbor. Um we can't plant we really can't plant trees. Although there are existing trees, we we don't want to plant trees there because if they come through and have to dig it up, they'll they'll take all those out. So, we've worked with Minnetonka's arborists to come up with um what type of shrubbery and tall shrubbery will will survive there. Um so, that space is not available to us. So, the the hard question would be if it were to come up for sale, would we be able to afford it? And we would have to do some work to figure out would would it even make sense financially for the cemetery to purchase it and you know and use it for burials. It's going to have to cash flow. One thing about a cemetery is it's a business model that is guaranteed to fail. Eventually it will because we'll run out of space. And we've been trying to build up a um a um like a perpetual care fund. those are required in Minnesota if you're 10 acres or or greater or smaller than that. But we also know that um in order to keep things going when there's no longer income, we're going to have to rely on donations or you know having money set aside to be able to do the care. So we've been working pretty hard on that and this is all part of it. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> All right. We're I think we're drifting a little bit out of the the scope of our land use application here. So, are there any other questions from the from the commission based on that sort of land use uh perspective? All right. I may call you back if there are questions from the public hearing. All right. At this point, I will open the public hearing and I'll invite anyone from the public forward to make any uh comments on this item. Please state your name and your address for the record. All right. I see nobody is jumping up to speak, so I will close the public hearing. And now I will bring it back to the commission for any further questions for staff or comments. >> Nobody. Commissioner Minion, >> I like it. I think it's a good use of the land. I think it's a good way to uh slow down the growth in regards to needing more land. And um I like the layout and the with the description and the write up too as far as the materials they're going to use and I think it's going to be sustainable in regards to uh not having to be maintained a large amount of being putting into maintenance and stuff. So I'm in supportive I think it's a great project. >> Anyone else? >> Commissioner Waterman. >> I'm just acknowledging my support for it. I concur with Commissioner Minion. So, I'll be uh voting in favor of the what amendment to the C. >> Mr. Brink. >> Yeah, I'm fully supportive of this. I'd like to just thank the applicant for uh all the thought and time that went into answering our questions and putting this plan together and um yeah, it's a good good proposal and I will approve it. [Applause] Sure, I'll go. In addition to having a diversity of housing stock, it's nice that the city has a diversity of stock for burial plots, too. So, gives people additional options, and I'm all in favor of that. >> Yeah, I agree. in ground versus above ground to me for from a land use perspective is reasonable considering the height will be 10 feet or under and the neighbors uh have not expressed any um concern with looking at uh you know what's going to be a beautiful marble structure it looks like so I'm also in favor of this one sounds like we're ready for a motion would anybody like to make a motion recommending ing that the city council adopt the Should I read all of that? Adopt uh the amendment to the conditional use permit for the cemetery use at the existing properties of 33000 and 3288 Woodlon Avenue. >> I'll make that motion. >> Motion Waterman, >> I'll second the motion. >> Second, Henry. Staff, please pull the commission. >> Brink, >> yes. >> Henry, >> yes. Minion, >> yes. >> Waterman, >> yes. >> Chair Maxwell, >> yes. Uh, the motion passes. This is a recommendation to the council that will be heard at their meeting on September 8th. Uh, good luck on your project. Uh, all right. Uh, moving on to our next agenda, other business. I believe there is no other business. So then we'll move on to our final item adjournment. Uh would anybody like to make a motion to adjurnn? >> I'll make the motion. >> Motion minion. >> Second. Brink. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> I. Motion carries and we are adjourned. >> I don't