##VIDEO ID:EC3awt-ys54## to order for the Planning Commission Board of adjustments dated Tuesday September 10th 2024 and we will start with a roll call Peter if you do the honors Iris here Brisbane here Weaver here Ty here Zer here all right and we'll move on to Pledge of Allegiance if we all could rise please I pledge the allegiance to the FL of United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all thank you and we have an agenda for today if we have any amendments or a motion to approve the agenda so moved second we have a motion and a second all in favor say I I any opposed okay motion has passed and then we will move on to the open for portion if you are in the audience and your topic is not already on the agenda but you wanted to share something please approach the podium state your name and address and feel free to share lacking anyone coming up we will close the open form and we'll move on to approval of the August 14 2024 Planning Commission uh meeting minutes or have any adjustments do we have a motion or adjustments I'll make a motion to approve I'll second that we have a motion in a second to approve all in favor say I I any opposed motion of minutes has approved and we will move on to new business so the first topic is a variance application v2410 for BC Construction LLC we'll begin with the staff report review Madam chair members of the board notice was sent out pursuant to Minnesota statute 462 for the public notice requirements for variance application 2410 for BNC construction Aspen Lane Lot 82 and 83 of the fourth edition to Breezy Point Estates the property is zoned R3 which is original neighborhood and currently is not serviced by Municipal sewer system hookup the applicant has filed the appropriate application the applicant has paid the appropriate fee for the application and public notice was not given to the DNR as the property is not within the Shoreland overlay District the applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum non-conforming lot size requirement of 16,000 Square ft to approximately 15, 314 ft for considerations to construct a residential dwelling some summary of the property includes the property was platted or subdivided in 1963 as the fourth addition to Breezy Point Estates prior to current land use ordinance adoption and minimum lot size requirements the property is in a residential neighborhood the adjacent neighbors properties are similarly developed with single family year-round residences the city has established structural setbacks with respect to minimum residential structure sizes and the proposed project appears to meet both these standards this property did have a prior variance approval for a similar structure uh variance approvals expire if not acted upon within 6 months per Breezy Point chapter 153 the applicant did not act on the variance in the approved time frame with the allocated time frame and that Nar nullified the prior variance Sunset Clauses on variances are common language in ordinances it provides a mechanism that allows communities the opportunity to review prior variance requests if they are not acted upon in a timely fashion for example if a prior commission granted a variance for something that that does not meet today's standards the commission does retain the power to not allow the variance request based on today's circumstances for example if someone wanted to do an act of variance that was approved in 1989 would that really be the same thing approved by today's standards considering the length of time between the prior variance application approved approval and the STA the staff recommends the commission consider approval of the request as the project appears to meet all other development criteria as it did in the prior variance request that concludes the staff report if you have any questions please ask all right uh we will move on to applicant testimony if the applicant would please approach the podium state your name address and feel free to share your application details um thank you uh my name is Chris Cullen I own BNC construction and uh I did apply for variance last year and it was approved and I didn't realize there was a six-month uh Sunset which respectfully I I can understand why it's there uh so today I am here to reapply I've got a different uh slightly different design it's a patio home it's a two-bedroom 1 and A2 bath um you'll notice there's noall ways all 36 in stores it's got a nice um uh Four Season porch and a one- stall garage off the side of it um it uh is going to be built with SIP construction which is extremely efficient for energy and um is going to be an affordable home for uh one level living so I think there's definitely a a large um demand and and a big shortage for these types of homes for um people that require one level living um it'll be it'll have LP siding um shingles and it'll look uh very appealing from the from the roadside so um so the uh the hardship is obviously we had um you know the zoning has changed many times the lot is no longer buildable um so today I'm I'm here to ask for a variance so that I can move forward with the project and um build a nice home so you had mentioned a one car isn't it a two-car garage uh it is a one stall I saw that I had on there yeah Yep this is a one stall so or uh let's see what size is it maybe is a I was I had a couple plans on it and this one actually might be the yeah you know what I guess I'm calling it a one it's a 16t door on the front so I guess you could you know maybe fit fit two in there but it is it's a 20ft wide garage um with a what is it 30t deep I think is what I have so so I guess you could you could call it a two stall I guess you know one and a half two stall so yep and that the garage will also be um you know finished with SIP and insulated so it'll be a nice heated garage as well so the county has to approve the sewer correct and well location I would assume correct yep and I do have I I do have a septic design that's already been completed um so and ready to apply so which which would which would include two uh sewer locations and meet all standards there no thank you yep thank you and we'll move on to the public hearing portion so if you are seated in the audience and would like to share any input please approach the podium state your name and address and feel free to share is that just for that yep okay we'll close the public hearing portion and move on to deliberation and findings um I'll begin with some findings of fact so the Planning Commission shall consider the following in its decision to make written findings concerning the variance approval or its denial number one we look at the strict interpretation of the or ordinance and would it be practical or impractical because of circumstances relating to lot size shape topographic or other characteristics of the property that were not created by the landowner and we find that yes the lot would be considered undevelopable due to the current lot size um number two we look at the deviation from the ordinance with any attached conditions will it still be within keeping the spirit and intent of the ordinance and yes the structures location is conforming the dimensions meet the residential structure size requirements number three the land use created by the varians is permitted in the zoning District where the property is located and yes we find it is in a seasonal yearound residential use and that's allowed in the zoning District Number Four The variants will not alter the essential character of the locality and yes we find that the proposed request is residential similar to the adjacent neighbors and shares the same kind of setbacks as a residence across the street and then number five the variance is not for economic reasons alone but reasonable use of the property does not exist under the current ordinance and yes we find without the variance the landowner would not be be allowed to develop the property um in reviewing the findings um we under the area of any recommended conditions we find none that we need to add at this time so um I do remember this last year we spent some time reviewing everything um essentially it's fairly similar to what it was last year I know that we looked at sewer conditions road driveway all of those things is there anything new that anyone has concerns about or would like to review could we put in there if it's approved that it is built per the plan cuz we've had the instances in the past where we've approved something and and it wasn't built for the plan absolutely yeah they are required to build to the plan that they submitted to the city um if they deviate from that plan they would need to come back in I think it would be best to put that condition on there just to specify that so yeah and it's it's the SI panels I don't know if you're familiar with them but they're like kind of like ice cream I was think like an ice cream sandwich together so I order my kit and like once I get it it's there's no changing it so all right we've had incenses in the past we can I mean we can certainly add it in just put it in there I think so so we'll add that to number one as as a recommended condition any others um so Peter um if I read this right so it has to be a minimum of 16,000 sare ft correct okay so y like if he had over if he had 16,000 or more he'd just proceed over the counter per minut okay so then it's a little bit shy of what it should be yep it's about 15,000 square ft so you know couple hundred square ft short and a little bit of history on that on the city um requires variance from those sizes because obviously the city has so many small platted lots and I think they just figured out what size they kind of wanted to start looking at it with more of a microscope you know or pulling to the planning board saying hey is this a good lot to developers and if they didn't have good road infrastructure and stuff like that you guys could certainly say you know this isn't a good spot to develop in you know so it's kind of an extra catch point or safety Factor so that that area there what's that that zone there it's R R3 R3 okay R3 yep okay all right do we have any motions I would move the uh approval of application number v- 24-1 or- 010 and just for clarification with items 1 through five with the additional item of building according to the attached plan so we have a motion do we have a second second then we have a second I'll in favor say I I I any opposed motion has passed all right and we're going to move on to the second new business which is a variance application V2 24011 and we will start with the staff report on that Madam chair members of the council variance application v241 for Greg brendam mu on Aspen Lane Lot 3 block 3 Breezy Point Estates the property is zoned R3 unsued original neighborhood the applicant has filed the appropriate application the applicant has paid the appropriate fee for the application public notice of the hearing was published in the newspaper and to the property owners within the required mailing distance uh public notice was not given to the DNR as this property also is not within a Shoreland overlay District the applicant did have the required pre-application and meeting with the zoning administrator the applicant's request is to is for a variance from the minimum non-conforming lot with requirement of 75 ft to 65.3 Ft for considerations to construct a residential dwelling summ summary of the property includes the property was ploted and subdivided in 1962 as Breezy Point Estates prior to land use ordinance adoption and minimum lot size requirements the property is in a residential neighborhood the adjacent neighbor properties are similarly developed with single family yearround residences the city has established structural setbacks with minimum residential structure sizes and the proposed project appears to meet both these standards however the property does not meet the minimum lot width requirement to be considered for an over-the-counter residence unit allowance this means the property will not be allowed a residential structure unless a variant to wave that requirement is granted this property again this is common language in the ordinance to restrict the amount of development on substandard Lots provided the board deems that such it also provides a mechanism that allows communities the opportunity to review and determine if the property size is appropriate for the residential structure proposed there are many lots that exist within the city that are much more sub standard in size and are also not considered developable this slot based on the application material the size and the performance standards at this time appears to support the spirit and intent of the ordinance to allow development of a residential property meaning the lot appears to have the capacity to support a reasonably sized residential unit staff recommends the commission consider approval based on the plans submitted with the application that concludes the staff report and if you have any questions please ask it's a it's a sewer lot isn't it there may be a typo in there um yes yes it should be that whole area SE yeah that's what I thought we'll update that in the staff report thank you does that change the minimum lot withd that does not no still 75 ft it would the lot area but they meet that so but that's a good question because yeah if they weren't sewered they do have to have cuz for the two sites like Mr Cullen had on his so y so this one much different than the well not much different but just specifically looking the ordinance requires 75 ft minimum lot width for residential structures the applicants at 65 so but it does appear everything else is within code correct everything else meets performance standards and setbacks correct and thank you for the catch on the sewer hookup the impervious it says 30% that allowance in that residential district yep whereas in the other ones are usually 25 to 20% on some of them so a little more aggressive zoning classification here being it's a smaller lot or the city sewer hookup actually allows them to bump up they get a 5% coverage allowance because and the general thought beyond that when that was put in originally was they don't have it to take up a bunch of space in their yard for a septic drain field so they can parlay that square footage into the size of the house and driveway any questions okay thank you we will ask the applicant to approach and state name and address and share your details please hello my name is Greg Bren mule I grew up in southern Minnesota I live in St Paul I was uh up here golfing with my buddies and felt welcome in the neighborhood and uh I realized it's a little bit big but I designed a little home to go in there that I think fits nice and fits what's happening us on that road and um yeah I would like to I would like to build a little home here so about a few of the neighbors everybody was really nice and I grew up in the country so I think I'm sick of the city a little bit and uh okay I thought this I thought this lot was really nice so that's what I'm asking to build is this two stories in part of it uh in the back part okay and I see I just said to Peter there's 30% impervious the elevations look like you have some sidewalks would that go against the impervious it's included it is overhangs sheds and um and driveway oh I guess I don't see any sidewalks I see driveway and according to the elevations you you have a lot of doors is it it's not a twin unit is it no the the the the front block the 37x 30 is just open just a open floor concept living room and kitchen dining area and then the patio doors out to the back um the ones to the right I just wanted to try to let in light for the golf course and easy from the driveway yeah oh was there a blue actual blueprint submitted then or um for like the the floor plan and everything I guess I'm not it am I missing that um I can I mean we don't have floor plan elevation was the was requested the yeah the yeah the back part is just uh bedroom bathroom bedroom and then Second Story same thing simple we don't have a floor plan included in this because we wouldn't really be looking at as far as you know how many bedrooms bathrooms he'd be having and stuff like that that'd be something more up to the building official but absolutely looking at the exterior dimensions and the and the height of the structure for considerations for sure unless there's something additional the applicant wants to submit for a floor plan we' take it into record at this time so [Music] um what the heck so as far as the setbacks it's everything has fallen in that place okay yep yep on the survey they have uh and I I would recommend that the board you know if approving on this you know again just specify to commit to the footprint he's said you know because that is true every once in a while somebody you know they're like hey technically I got approval for the for the lot CU that's what they're here for today they're not necessarily here for the size of the house they're here for the board to lift you know like like right now if you guys deny this they build nothing it's an unbuildable lot and and that certainly could be an appropriate answer if the board feels that way um if this was perhaps on a neighborhood that is was less developed and had less infrastructure available to IT staff would possibly more incline that direction as well too but it seems to have a lot of good things going for it there is a well on the as well current well and you can certainly request uh interior footprint if you would like um that's something I didn't capture from the applicant at the time just because of the the scope of the project of what they're looking at is he wants to put this square footage out here with this three-dimensional envelope and and they can't do it without variance from lot width so now would that shed become a problem I think he was proposing to move the shed to the back they the back corner bottom right hand corner yeah location to move existing shed I'm still confused on the impervious though well this is just a rendering so the architect probably took some Liberties and put it that in there that doesn't that's what he's doing either so still my question is there isn't a square inch of sidewalks so then if we approve it the way that it is then he's got to build it to this so then he doesn't get any sidewalks yeah I wouldn't do sidewalks no sidewalks no patios no so you got three patio doors and no no patio so well it's if you look at the ground it's really he can do what he wants it's his property right but it covers impervious you add sidewalks but if he doesn't want to have a patio outside he doesn't need to have them yeah just that the plan shows it and well the this is the plan right here this is a rendering right that some architect Drew and probably took Liberty in putting in a sidewalk oh to make it look good yeah yeah the what you see on there is the driveway which is covered in the impervious calculation that's the driveway there okay oh okay all right well Peter says you you enforced impervious so there you go correct if the impervious surface standard are not met the applicant would be back before the board with a request for that or they would be required to reduce their allowances to that okay and I'd just like to specify for the record to the applicant we did go over that in quite a bit of detail that sidewalks count decks count overhangs um looking at the site plan too there is an allowance of that shed a small shed like that does not have to meet the um exterior lot line setbacks as the res resence does so that's why if you if if any of the board members are wondering why that shed is sitting out there is because storage sheds per ordinance can go up to 3 ft from the property line for a small shed yes so if any sidewalks don't require permit technically but they require meeting impervious surface standards so yeah they um you know seen it happen where people have maxed out and the answer is they don't get sidewalk you know or come back and ask the board for that and any more questions thank you thank you next item is the public hearing so if anyone in the audience would like to share input feel free to come to the podium state your name and address and share with the group just concerning this yes my name is Anthony soer I am the property owner to the south of this uh lot that is being proposed to be built on um I just wanted to share some of my concerns with this um I also own the lot to the north east of that property and I have a contract for uh Douglas Peterson property to the Southwest um I guess my main problem with this property is the fact that the rules were already in place of what was required to build and instead we're just making considering making an exception so that somebody can build something that's bigger than as allowed than that was already stated when they went to purchase the property um I don't really see any kind of hardship in the use of the land of why he would have to get a bigger area to build there's nothing stopping him from fitting the rules of what has to be there for the size um I also feel it sets kind of a precedence for other Lots in the neighborhood that instead of following the characteristic of what's in that neighborhood which is mostly 1,00 to, 1400 square foot houses that now we're going to build houses that go 5T from the lot line which if you would see my property puts the house side of the house and driveway right next to my kids tree fort it is pretty much in my backyard also where the driveway is placed it would shine lights every time somebody came in the driveway into our master bedroom um I feel that um sorry I had notes I'm not really good at this I feel that um mostly that the uh rules were established of what could and couldn't be built there for widthwise in the beginning and uh I feel like a variance just sets a precedent for any other land owners that they can build whatever they want as long as they come in and get a variance where there's rules for a reason there's there's a characteristic to the neighborhood that was the reason I moved up here that's the reason I bought up here I didn't want a Housing Development around me and it's kind of turning into that and unfortunately I feel like the uh the rules on if this was approved would be kind of bent to fit somebody's wants instead of what it's supposed to be thank you I do have a question for you so is your concern the size of the home or well the fact that there is one even being put on it cuz the size isn't it doesn't appear to be an issue it's the fact that the lot itself isn't wide enough per code to build something at all the fact that it pushes a proper 5T even closer to mine when that was already established that there I'm sorry that there shouldn't uh that there's a restrict on size already so it pushes it 5T closer to me even more which the rule stated already of what's buildable and what's not okay I don't know if I answered that correctly I'm not very good at this that's perfectly fine so your concern is that it is getting closer to your lot line it's closer to my lot line and I feel like it set a precedence for the neighborhood of you can you don't have to truly follow the rules you just come get a variance and build bigger than you want to I mean all the houses in that neighborhood are pretty much one level 1,00 to 1400t Ramblers now we're putting a twostory house 5T over where they're supposed to be towards me and if you looked at his renderings I have Windows in a in a driveway that will light up my driveway in back of my house every time he pulls in so what he's proposing to build here is allowable on that lot and in the neighborhood that this is in what he's asking for is to be able to build because his lot width isn't 75 ft wide so it was platted in 1962 and that's why he's here for the variance so then it's an unbuildable lot so then every other lot in basically Breezy Point that is.2 acres is unbuildable so then would that make I just purchased Douglas Peterson's property and his is 1,000 square ft so now that this is passed then can I build something there well if we decide that his 10 9.7 ft being short of the 75 ft that's required then you would have to come in and get a variance as well I understand that's the point of the meeting is is for that but what I'm saying is if you come into it knowing that this is an unbuildable lot y you already knew it was an unbuildable lot you you're buying it on the pretense that you hope that you can get something that you want in there yep and then just like you bought the other Lots potentially to sell later maybe for someone could potentially buy I mean I don't know why he's doing this obviously he wants to build this place to come play golf cuz it appeared you like the golf course in the area but the the variance here is for the 75 ft and if we just are black and white and say nope all these lots are unbuildable that doesn't do anything for anybody I mean that's why he's here for a variance and we wouldn't we shouldn't allow anything no you would need to have the minimum required size to build then you can't build but that's why we have variances that's why we have this whole entire board sir I understand that but so if you understand that then that's why he's here is to get that variance if we didn't allow any variances in the city a lot of people won't be able to do a lot of things I understand completely I don't know why you're getting so defensive I'm not being defensive I'm just explaining to you why that's there but you're from what I'm understanding is you're saying right now it's unbuildable soltion no one should ever be able to build on it ever no they just have to build a smaller footprint it has nothing to do with the footprint sir okay it has everything to do with a lot width the size of the building can fit there no matter what even if it was 75 ft that house could still be built there okay nothing changes I think what we're saying is he could build a tiny home on there and he'd still need the variance because the variance isn't about the size of the home it's can you build at all on that lot is what we're looking at I I understand in to my understanding it's an unbuildable lot and I I understand the reason we're here is for his variant to make it a buildable lot mhm but if I bought a lot knowing it was unbuildable I would know that it's probably not going to be able to be built on just like the the lot attached to Douglas Peterson's is a thousand square ft less than it's supposed to be to be able to be built right so I would never assume that I'm going to have something built on there and that's apparently the difference between you and him CU he's thinking I'm going to take a gamble I'm going to buy this lot to see if I can go get a variance to get it built I guess it is thank you yep is there any excuse me sir is there any concern about the slope I see it drops like 3 ft there's no rundown issue you don't think well there there would be if the runoff of the roof would come down because it does slope I I don't know the exact height but it all does slope down towards my driveway so the runoff off the roof would come down into my driveway oh I see they have it doesn't really show where I am in the rendering is the right this is your driveway though right if you go to the survey down just a little bit or up I should say right where the word block Breezy block is that your driveway yes that's on there yep his property line pretty much touches the edge of my driveway I mean he is right on the left side of my drive way how much distance is between your house then and the property line I I haven't measured I you want me to just estimate yeah take a guess I mean two more withs or six or 10 the are you speaking about the house and that that the property line in my driveway so here's the property line right Y in your house sits in here somewhere how close is it to that property line I would say say probably 24 ft okay the WID of the of the red up there is 65 or 75 so you can see yep I don't have any more questions okay I thank you yep thank you anyone else okay we will go ahead and close a public hearing we'll move on to deliberation and findings and I'm going to begin with the findings so notice of decision and findings of fact the Planning Commission shall consider the following in its decision and make written findings concerning the variance approval or its denial number one we review if it's a strict interpretation of the ordinance would it be impractical because of circumstances relating to lot size shape topographic or other characteristics of the property that were not created by the land owner and yes we find that the lot would be considered unavailable due to the lot width two the deviation from the ordinance with any attached conditions will still be within keeping of the spirit and intent of the ordinance yes we find that the structure's location is conforming the proposed structure Dimensions meet residential structure size requirements number three the land use created by the variance is permitted in the zoning District where the property is located and yes we find it's a seasonal year round residential use it is allowed in this zoning District Number Four The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality and we find that the proposed request is residential it's similar to adjacent neighbors and has the same setbacks number five the variance is not for economic reasons alone but for reasonable use of the property would not exist under the ordinance and yes we find that the variance without the variance landowner would not be allowed to develop the property as according to findings 1 through five um following our recommended conditions I've modified this as um we brought up that we wanted to make sure that we commit to the current um impervious coverage and and plan that's stated in the packet so those are the current findings so in reviewing it I would say does anyone have any issues with impervious coverage or the plan itself okay so then looking at lot size um we reviewed the findings if we deny it this means that it would be an undevelopable lot however many of the Lots in that area we have developed um even though the lot size is what it is due to the 1960s regulations or or property that at that time it was developed um any questions or concerns that you have about this I I hate to keep bringing up this drainage thing but it says here drainage stle back gutters to flow to the front so in other words they're going to run to the road I assume can we can you put in there a rain Garden yeah absolutely I mean it's it's a absolutely you know um construction projects are required per law to condense all their runoff onto their own property believe it or not there's violations everywhere throughout the state but if a neighbor sues another neighbor and that's what it would be like if they came and said hey we're draining this on the property we would say that's that's a civil issue just like if a neighbor was parking an automobile on the neighbor's property but um the board um get a little bit apprehensive and delving into some of that because that can put you know um I would certainly you you could make a condition to say all runoff must be contained upon the applicant site property you know but that's certainly it's the law just like the impervious surface coverage it just held out different like the um runoff is probably one of the most common complaints you know just everything's packed in so right um you know or if you wanted to you could you know the board could deny it and tell the applicant to come back with a a an engineered or landscape architecture drawn plan guaranteeing that all the storm water runoff remains on this property um we didn't get that far in discussion with this because it's not a Lakeshore property but I've definitely seen those you know on lak Shore properties where um the folks that we had here last month mhm so but I think just a a simple condition stating you know the applicant must contain all storm water management on site is sufficient could we specifically request that there's a Swale on the south property line to hold that water on his property or would it be easier and more simple just to stated how you did two things with that is you know that gets me a little bit you know cuz we start designing you know if he gets into a 100e storm obviously the neighbors aren't happy with this you know and that should not happiness doesn't make an effect on you know whether it meets variance criteria or not but I I've been in these situations you know where all a sudden if the board does put a certain size to it and then it's over in a rainfall event you know potentially the city of Breezy Point could be liable because we assigned a quantitive value to the size of that Detention Facility so very good question you so this might be a question for you or a comment but we're ultimately at this point just stating yes he can build this footprint which fits inside the envelope he's at his impervious coverage the Landscaping plan Andor how it's constructed or what it actually looks like after the fact you're going to take care of when he comes in for a building permit absolutely so Y in my mind the the 30% is the 30% this is the footprint like what the house looks like on the outside how tall it is still has to fit into all the correct rules um like I said it was just a rendering that an architect Drew based on what he told them the architect probably didn't even look into what the ordinances are for Building height or anything like that in this specific location in my mind our job right now is does this footprint work and in my mind the footprint works well that's what I look at is that's not really our job at this point because we're if they had met the the WID we wouldn't be looking at the house plans exactly you know we're looking at one single issue do we allow somebody to build on a lot that is of that with do we make a variance for that is it within the Conformity of the neighborhood are other Lots similar is that a buildable lot is does it meet um the look and the feel and the essent essential character of that neighborhood um I have a question and I probably should have checked the address but I believe down the street um Joe maybe you would know there's a a it's a two-story home that light blue one it's kind of narrow and Tall then neighborhood um looks very similar to me um I'd have to see it yeah but I think it's a narrow lot as well um I should have took the house number down and look at that but I'm just I'm trying to compare if that house was built on I mean are these all 65 ft Lots on that street several of them are further down yep um so they vary in with 65 75 so forth yeah when they plowed them in 1962 they just oh okay yeah they did whatever fit for their plan that was my concern of that and I should have looked into that but that house as it sits you know is that on a a 65 ft lot and that house is more narrow where this one um seems to be more sprawled out on the lot itself so that's what I'm wondering if that was allowed at that particular house you know got a variance to build on that little lot it's my you know are you seeing that the other house was taking up more space on the lot than this one or well I would say just on his drawing it looks more spanned out or this other house down the street was basically just more narrow and twostory up right but he's meeting all those proper setbacks well I mean that's just saying it we didn't do a variance on it so must have yeah I'm just curious you know cuz we're not I mean again the size of the house doesn't really matter because it's meeting all the setbacks it's legal right but I guess is is there there been other variances allowed to build on on a plot this size absolutely mhm okay we do that great I would say yeah frequent okay beware if he was proposing to go over like if he wanted to overbuild his lot and go to like 35% you know then it'd be like it's like no that's it's a total overbuild for the lot you know but he's doing he's got a smaller lot he's still staying within the 30% and he's staying within his 10-ft sidey yard setbacks and actually the driveway meets the setback because driveways get a 5- foot setback so he's in conformance with all of that but very good observation you know just to look at the you know the neighbor and stuff like that you know yeah if this thing's like a three story it yeah it's it doesn't it doesn't pass the smell dest with that but you know seems like he's got it fairly dialed in well I would make a motion to approve the variance with the five findings and then adding two new conditions one that we just commit to the the four plan and impervious coverage that's in the packet and number two that all normal storm water management runoff would be contained on the property do we have any seconds I'll second it we have a second all in favor say I I I any opposed so for record I believe we had three eyes and two Nays MH motion has passed and moving on to new business number c conditional use permit application c244 for city of Breezy Point we'll start with with the staff report Madame chair members of the board subdivision application c244 the city of Breezy Point 8319 County Road 11 for Lots 32 33 60 and 61 of the 13th edition to the Breezy Point Estates the property is Zone public as is owned by municipality the applicant has filed the appropriate application for a conditional use permit the applicant has addressed the appropriate fee for the application public public hearing for the notice was published in the legal newspaper and to the property owners within 350 ft public notice was not given to the DNR as the property is not in Shoreland overlay District the conditional use is a request to construct a fence exceeding 72 in in height the summary of the property includes that this 13th edition to Breezy Point is located Northeast of City Hall it is in an undeveloped plat adjacent to North Pinewood Drive and North Birchwood the the property and adjacent properties were ploted as residential lots in 1964 the zoning classification again is public much of the adjacent properties are also owned by the city of Breezy Point the public zoning district is a common zoning designation for most city-owned properties this zoning this zoning District exists to allow uses related to Municipal Services related to City operations these uses include parks recreation areas Open Spaces Municipal Wastewater facilities and cemeteries and not inclusive to just those uses the two lots 59 and 58 to the adjacent project that are owned by a private property those are currently zoned R3 these lots are currently [Applause] undeveloped I did meet with the owner of those lots and showed them where the stakes were in relationship to the p uh property boundary this afternoon due to the scope of the project area and Survey require requirements for the conditional use permits lot 59 closest to the boarding city property was resurveyed to verify the property boundaries to ensure that the city property project stays on city property which has been done public zoning classification requires a conditional use permit for any fence that is greater than 72 in in height and that is applicable in all zoning districts in the city any zoning District requires a conditional use permit for fences over 72 in in height this conditional use permit pertains only to the fence height and not to the Garden portion of the project is a general use that's already permitted and that's permitted in all pretty much all zoning classes in the city this means the commission only needs to look at the design of the fence in regard to the height of the fence the applicant has met with the zoning administrator for a pre-application meeting to present their plans site topography access and lot configuration appear to be suitable for the proposed use seems to be consistent with the comprehensive land use plan which has encourages development in the areas within this zoning classification and the property with whichin the public zoning exists the conditional use is allowed under the land use ordinance section 15364 uh based on the information presented this time the staff recommends approval of the variance with no conditions um we uh the Public Works supervisor Joe zeran's here to speak on the project from the public works perspective if if you have any questions please ask him if you have any questions on the staff report please ask me in general why somebody's going why does somebody come need to come in for special privilege for or special permission for offense that's so tall is it's a common thing to have in zoning ordinances so somebody doesn't get in a dispute with their neighbor and build a 35t tall steel fence which does exist you know in places so it's a good thing it says you know if we're starting to get over 6 feet night let's come in just take a look at it yeah it's looks fine you know um especially in the day and age of vrbos I saw one property they draped uh with a camouflage military netting like 45 ft tall in the tree because the neighbor had cameras up very strange but you can see the challenges with that so but uh that's a little bit more extreme but you know some of the rules are there to um kind of disuade those type of projects but this looks pretty straightforward we got a survey and then um the uh within your packets is also an interior layout of the garden space to see where the perimeter of the fence is going to go so thank you if you have any questions please ask Peter can I just get some clarification here the survey is for lot 59 correct and that is a privately owned lot yes okay yep there's two lots in there that are so we surveyed that one to make sure we knew where the boundary was for their property to stay out EX exactly cuz City's got everything else around that and I just wanted to clarify that and make sure I wasn't looking at this incorrectly no and that's a good like usually most cases we're surveying subject property but this one since it's so extreme they just have a little island in there so yep yeah kind of a silly question Joe is it like regular chain Ling fence black or just galvanized or whatever galvanized does anyone have other questions before we address the applicant I kind of do but I don't know that it pertains to the chain link fence I guess I'm just need some more background information on this um so there's four lots that are city-owned here that this is going to go on is that correct yeah Deb's doing a fantastic job of pulling it up I apolog going be in the yellow right what's that it'll be in the yellow ones correct yep yellow is City own or Project Specific site you know city owns even more than that so one of these will be on each lot um that would be a good qu Joe can go over that as part of the presentation on in the packet for the layout my my brain was going to parking sure so that was it and I would just make sure I just would look at the height of the fence you know that's the specific exactly so that's why I wasn't sure if I should ask that is so true though I mean like with parking that's something that it's like you know there is decent parking around but associated with that but mhm you know if if if it neighbor complains the only Power the board really has on the or the only scope that you really want to focus on is whether or not you want yeah exactly like do you want a 72 do you want a 96 feet high or 96 in high that type of thing so yeah okay very good sorry oh that's does anyone else have questions before we approach with the staff applicant I can see what you're saying Teddy is this four of these one in each lot I mean it doesn't matter no it's just one right I don't know we're here for the fence yeah well you couldn't fit four of them on each lot okay but for this presentation we're just going to stick to the fence going yeah yeah okay well then we are going to move from staff report to applicant testimony so if the applicant could please approach the podium and I think that's you um my name is Joe zeren Public Works supervisor um this project has been in discussion for approximately 10 months just going off the top of my head um the park committee came to consensus that this was a project they wanted to do um the city council approved the project a budget was produced the location was identified with knowing these private property in that area could be uh right on the border of it and it need to be investigated more thoroughly uh we understood initially we were looking at 6ot fence uh the desire was 8ot for deer protection and that led us to this point here so um any questions I'm just curious Joe how will the selection of people who mine the garden how will that be done or hasn't that been determined that will be determined I believe tomorrow ah or or Thursday Thursday never mind we're we're having kind of an open house discussion um cuz it's still in the process of forming rules sure regulation um if we get Construction done this fall it won't go into use until the following spring cool Madam chair um so this is ultimately for Animals more or less to keep out from eating the vegetables or whatever else is growing in there is that the purpose of the fence most animals that can't climb it through it primarily deer right so that's why 6 foot is kind of the chosen hun eight um six would be might work um I I think the the group advising on it Felt 8 would be a little more secure in their experience versus their personal experience was 6 foot right okay any other questions on the defense thank you yep and now we would like to invite uh the general public to approach the podium state your name address and any questions concerns or thoughts you'd like to share wello my name is uh great Harvey and uh we own Lots 58 and 59 uh we just came up tonight to take a look at uh at uh what was going to be going on as far as this fence and um we would actually entertain if if the city wants to buy those lots from us um we'd be willing to sell them this sounds like this fence is starting to become a kind of a bad deal is is your home or house currently on one of those lots no they're both empty or vacant yeah okay yep we can't make a decision on purchasing no that's that's fine okay yeah right me a attack out I just thought I'd bring that up you know it uh the Lots in all reality being pretty much nothing to us right if it's something that help that can help the city U be more than happy to work with it yeah I would advise you to go to the council meeting and let them know that as well okay very good thank you thank you hi Gail Arie I'm the chair of the park and W board and so I'm just here to add a little um anything you need to know about the Gard and it is one garden and raised beds and in inground plots and wow that is something where I can't believe you're here and said that because because of the new City Hall Park and wreck is going to put all our efforts into making City Park enhanced with the new city hall around it that's where we think we should put our efforts so if you were willing to to donate those lots we would make great use out of them I guarantee you we would love it so if you have any other questions um I can answer them right now we're having our meeting tomorrow we have our guidelines done I'm a member of the Cross Lake community garden for the last four years I've looked at every other Garden within 50 miles of here um the 8ft fence is highly recommended by everybody the ones who don't have it have deer going over it um so we thought let's do it right the first time and um we were it's going to be something we're all going to be very proud of I think it's going to be very exciting so hopefully you guys will get a plot in there we'll be starting taking applications January 1st I think you kind of answered my question I was since you had experience with it other um Community Gardens size of fence are all of them around that same height or can you explain more of what um what prompted the 8 foot then there have been deer that have gone over six foot fences so and then there's some with barb wire 6ot and then two more feet of Barb Wire stretch across and that's kind of a hazard if kids or something climb up it or and ugly too and ugly so we don't want it to look like a prison um we want it to look like a an inviting community garden so we you know we we went the extra mile with the 8ft fence even though we need we had to get a variance for that but that seemed like what is being done in all the successful Gardens and brainer and and everywhere else so you have four lots and this is taken like kind of go down the middle of the four is that how that goes yes exactly yeah goes right down the middle so you have and the door will be at the front and it'll be right by the new parking lot um when City Hall and you know comes out a little further now it's going to be perfect short little walk and then we're going to have um five uh handicap like lower raised beds and the off thee walking path they'll have access to a door there to get in and around and it'll all have um wood chips around it and then we have a 36 or 32t uh inch 8X fours and then 10x 20 INR lot plots with with wood chips in between so usually it's just one big swath of dirt and it's really hard to know the difference between the plots so we saw what would fit in there and um Joe's been great and his team to work with us and uh it's all been leveled now so you can see that we're just waiting for it to settle and then we're bringing in dirt and we got donations of um the wood chips and we got donations of an arbor and uh Pelican donated the Women's Club donated so we're just getting started and it's looking really good so we'll be excited to see who shows up at our meeting tomorrow night at 4:00 here Thursday Thursday Thursday I keep saying tomorrow and it's Thursday before our park and wck me yeah I hope I don't show up tomorrow and nobody else does anything else does anyone have questions thank you thanks anyone else yeah I um this probably isn't the right place to ask but when you're looking at everything on kro 11 to the east side of the airport storage which would be just to the north of the subject property has there been any consideration on zoning or like rezoning some of that to be CU I think right now is at all R3 um has there been any consideration to resoning any of that to you know I don't know just when you look at it on that whole everything north of there to have that residential doesn't doesn't fit in but I think it's a great idea for the garden but just something to think about I guess so has there been any consideration on resoning any of that or nothing's been brought up to us no so okay that's all I had thanks thank you all right we will close the public hearing and move on to commission deliberation action and findings we'll start with the findings upon review of a conditional use application the commission needs to consider these findings as required in sections 153.11939 public and the request is appropriate under Section with Park areas D the use with conditions would not be inous to the public health safety welfare decency order Comfort convenience appearance or prosperity of the city um and we find that that is is true that it would not be injured um we also look at the following that must be considered a conditional use should not be injured to use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purpose permitted on that property nor substantially diminish or or impair property values in the immediate vicinity also B the conditional use would not impede the normal and orderly development and Improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses that are predominant in the area C the conditional use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community um just as a note the use that's being proposed addition to public infrastructure is at a cost to the public that is approved by city council uh D the conditional use will have vehicular approaches to the property which are so designed as to not create traffic congestion or an interference with traffic on surrounding public thorough fars and we found the proper the proposed use is proposing to use the existing Road City Road facilities e adequate measures have been taken to provide sufficient off- street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use we find that propos the proposed use is proposing to use the existing property City Lot F adequate measures have been taken or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odors fumes dust noise vibrations so none of these con constitute a nuisance to control lights and signs in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result and we find that the proposed use is keeping with the parklike character of the neighborhood G the conditional use will not not uh result in destruction loss or damage of a natural Scenic or historical feature of significance and we find that there's no Scenic or historical features that have been documented H the conditional use will promote the prevention and control of pollution of the ground and surface waters including sedimentation and control of nutrients there's no significant source of stone water modification that has been noted in regards to use of a fence the following recommended conditions would exist which would be number one that the fence would not exceed a maximum of 8 ft so those are the current findings for consideration I make a motion to approve C 24-4 with that one condition all second we have a motion and a second all in favor say I I I any opposed motion has passed um moving on is there any old business for the the agenda uh any staff reports excuse me thank you madam chair brief staff summary report is uh the current city administrator resigned uh last week effective last day was Friday um there will be a special meeting tomorrow to address the questions of bringing uh interim administrator in to bridge the gap before um what the city council wants to do with that uh that's about as far as plugged in with that as I am uh there is a article in the um the echo times that I have printed off if anybody has any questions we can certainly give you a copy of that to read or you can pull it up online next October or this October uh we probably will have a variance hearing the deadline not until Friday this week so I have a couple people they're pretty much kind of right on the right on the getting ready but you know if they if they can't get their survey in and stuff by the deadline we won't be able to hear them but I think at least one of them will so that's update from the staff if you got any questions on that certainly let me know all right and moving on to any commission reports just a minor adjustment to the agenda to say commission report all right meeting has been adjourned thank you