##VIDEO ID:bpVdlzpyF8U## e e e e e e e all right I'd like to call the meeting to order for the N Planning Commission Board of adjustment for Wednesday November 6 2024 roll call please Tom Pearson City attorney Jesse Z Danny Mandell Josh Young Gary Harris John Tor Dave Magie wentler Steven Timlin are there any additions or deletions to the agenda there are not being now I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda so move second all those in favor I all those opposed motion carries next to approve the meeting minutes for October 1st 2024 are there any corrections or additions to those minutes there are none here none I'll entertain a motion to approve minutes move second all those in favor I all oppose motion carries next item is an open form is there anyone that would like to speak tonight towards something not on the agenda yep you will yep okay um hi yeah yeah come to the podium and state your name Scott Peterson and I would like to get an extension on my permit that had from a year ago today um I got a addition that I want to put on the side of my house I can provide a little bit of uh substance to this as well so okay um Mr Peterson came to the counter uh this last week to apply for a land use permit against the variance that was approved on 116 23 um our ordinance states that laps of variances shall um require a extension if if there's no action in Reliance on the variance within six months or failure to complete the work under a variance within one year again un less extended by the board of adjustment um failure to do so shall avoid the variance and so believe he's in front of us asking to have an extension for that variance that would that be for another year uh not it won't be a whole year no but yeah but that'd be the max yeah yep a second second extension shall require public hearing move to Grant the extension and for the record the uh property address I believe to be is at 26216 Ed the lane n correct I have a second second all those in favor I all those oppos motion carries um I have a question about the fee the fee the fee for an extension yeah um there wouldn't be there isn't okay okay only for public hearing which um just be so cool we can pick up conversation on the permit tomorrow thank you all right thank you anyone else okay since we have some people here for the new business I'm just going to go to that right now instead of going through the public hearing um so the new business this is a top topographic divide redetermination proposed by Jethro Carpenter to alter the previously approved determination made in 2019 for initial plating of Roy's Landing let's um let's have I guess what's a would you like Paul would you like to speak now or would you like to do it after after we get some more information what would you prefer okay why don't we why don't we have let's let's I'll give you an opportunity after we have um more information for you so Jethro or representative if you want to come to the I'm uh Brad person the attorney for Jethro and Northstar and I just wanted to kind of frame the what I believe the position is and then we can never Engineers talk about the actual math or the engineering but I think the issue is if it was just on Roy Lake which is where the land is the bonding line adjustment would be approved automatically it meets all the standards the issue is it's it's close to Bass Lake which has a more restrictive standard of lot size and lot area and lot width and so I I prepped not not that he already didn't see know this but I showed Tom the what I believe the right standard is which is when you have competing or two Lakes districts within the same proximity of each other the DNR says or suggests that you should look at the topographical divide and look at the drainage which is what your staff has done we just believe that you've done it incorrectly and what our engineer will show is for all the land that we're looking at that's going to be divided it all flows towards Roy lake so that Lake should apply not Bass Lake which is uphill but I'll have him show the map and the math but it's our understanding that the DNR centers are saying that if the water flows towards Roy apply Roy standards if it if it flows towards bass apply bass standards and I think that's what your staff tried to do but I don't think they did it correctly but he'll show the math better but does that make sense um for transparency sake Steve why don't we go through kind of give us an overview in case somebody's coming in and they don't know what's going on absolutely um so the city of niswa had been asked by um Mr Carpenter to review a topographic divide determination um that was made by the city and approved by the DNR in 2019 um meets and bound subdivision application was submitted the summer and had previously been on the agenda for August 6th however the applicant had requested it to be pulled from the agenda at that time to provide additional information to the city um I attached the previous staff report um prepared for that meeting uh as well as um suggestions recommended by the DNR the City attorney and the city engineer um I believe that the statement is when we are looking at any land within a th000 feet of a water body it comes down to the lot size minimums for subdivision of that property whether it be riparian or non riparian along those standards of either NE Lake natural environment recreational development or general development Lake um so the proposal is to re-evaluate the 2019 topographic divide that was determined between the city and the DNR and approved on all fronts um that defined the topographic divide at the 1236 contor um Jethro has submitted two different um topographic divide proposals one being pre-grading and one being post grading uh for work done out in between blocks one and two of the plat Roy Landing um I asked them to Define it by meets and Bounds rather than um the original proposal of just a uh a line on a map that way anybody that's a license surveyor can go out there and recreate that line um so we have in front of us two proposals if the commission is swayed to reevaluate that one preading and again one post grading and again to clarify it's not a proposal it's where the dirt is now it's it is the The Contours but our engineer will show that to you more accurately when we you want him to come out but it's not a proposal it's just the land as it sits today okay aw chairman and Commissioners the purpose of this drawing the purpose of this drawing is to show a drainage divide between Ray Lake and Roy Lake and I know this isn't a really large aerial photo but this is what the drainage divide was originally created on so I don't know who created it but this is what was sent to the DNR now excluding the yellow line and the Red Arrows so somebody drew this black squiggly line on here if you watch if you follow that around that's actually following a contour well what I'm trying to show you is that the yellow line is actually the drainage divide so if water falls on one side goes to Ray Lake if it falls on the other side it goes to Roy Lake because the original drainage divide shows a contour going around the high point which isn't the same thing as a drainage divide I think they may have had good intentions but it wasn't drawn correctly so the purpose is for Jethro to show that the water on this side of the yellow line down south and west drains South to the general development Lake not the natural environment Lake that's on the purpose of this so let me know if you have questions sure I'm Brad wiling from Westwood Professional Services um on your findings of fact um as we we want to pop to that quick you have under um number two is the proposed use able to meet the standards of the N code of ordinances and you have said no there findings of fact you said yeah for which question again uh question two question two so this again this staff report was prepared by um um previous city planner taken from August's meeting okay um so she answered no based on the topic graphic divide set at elevation 1236 for the city of niswa and approved by the DNR on 92221 Shoreline classification of the parcel is natural environment and is subject to the standards and setbacks listed for natural environment Parcels in the Nisa code of ordinances so this staff report was responsive to the request for a topographic not a topographic but the actual meets and balance subdivision under the logic of the previous topographic divide analysis so the topographic divide as on the screen there um that was determined back in 2019 determined that all Lots below the given threshold of the contour line 1236 would need to meet the natural environment Lake standards the current proposal for that meets in bounds without a topographic divide redetermination means that the land of that elevation needs to meet any standards and so the proposal to split it that lot into two 100 foot lot widths would not meet that ordinance standard of 200 fet width again yeah what we're trying to explain or argue is Brad's saying that the 1236 contour line is not a topographical divide they just had the wrong terminology it's just wrong it's wrong science so what he's trying to say is every inch of the proposed lot split area is south of that yellow line meaning all of it drains towards Roy and that finding on that email from staff which of course they're not Engineers I know Dave is but he didn't I don't think help with that email um there it was just wrong it was applied wrong they tried to do the right application but they didn't do it correctly every inch of that plat of that proposed subdivision is south of or Roy lake side of the yellow line so according to the DNR standards it should you should apply Roy Lake standards not the more restrictive standards to the to the West does that make sense he can explain it better again but that's what you're trying to say right right the area of concern drains to a n drains to a general development Lake not a natural environment Lake because and the the the findings of fact that were originally done assumed it drained to a natural environment Lake which meant it wouldn't meet the ordinances but it's actually draining to a general development Lake to the South I remember in the past when we were talking about this is that we it's part of this the city ordinances that we can't have um or you're not supposed to have funky designs where you're having you know lines jet off this way and then Jet off that way I'm not seeing that in any of this documentation we were going through it do we have any feedback from staff specifically about I remember that in the past when this had come up before our subdivision guidance for um a design plan does say that lot lines should be substantially at right angles to both a shoreline and to a road without jogging or bending in different directions so that could have been conversation back then okay I'm not sure but that would be like a variance if a line worth then to jog um also we're not as a Planning Commission we're not privy to the conversation that attorneys are having you know I don't I have no idea what went went on there so maybe you can um give us some feedback I guess chair um and Planning Commission excuse me I really haven't had any communication with Brad person he sent me an email yesterday telling me that he'd be here today and uh giving me a heads up to speak to with the presentation that's just made a question I do have though is to ask anybody from your group and Brad I don't know that you were involved at the time but whether Brad wants to answer this or Jethro or Kevin um this was an issue that was among the whole universe of things we were talking about five years ago with a pretty hotly considered flat application this issue was among the issues that was discussed at that time um whatever science you've developed now I assume you didn't have at that time and didn't get and my question that I think would benefit the Planning Commission is why are we talking about this now when that issue was really abandoned five years ago should I however you want to do it uh Jeth Carpenter 1562 237th Avenue St Francis yeah I mean it's fairly simple we actually did try to provide the information for Britney at the time and so Kevin it's a long story right that I don't really need to I don't feel that it's great use of our time but essentially what happened is we were Pro trying to provide the information in fact it came up from one of the Neighbors about this overlapping Shoreland District right and I feel that it the best policies just to address this stuff at the time right so we go to address it in fact I told Britney I'm like hey let's just figure it out right you know I asked her to go out to the property I hired Kevin McCormack to create a drainage plan for it prior to it getting I say believing to get the drainage plan done she determined that the 1236 contour and I tried to explain to her again you don't know what you don't know right so if you guys wanted an appendix surgery right I don't know that I'm the guy if it's emergency I'd try to help you probably call the paramedics not probably sure that I would try to perform that without having somebody that is certified in right so that's what we were trying to do she made it clear that 1236 was what was going to be they weren't going to address or look at anything else and unless that I would sue the city which again I I don't I'm I'm a pretty simple guy right I don't feel that it ever helps to have attorneys involved in type of stuff Brad is here because he's better at articulating stuff than me not for to have an attorney here that being said the reason why they got addressed now is because at the time it clearly couldn't they were not willing to and the fact of the matter is that people are emotional about stuff but numbers don't lie right so the stuff drains towards Roy Lake there's zero question about that I would inore you guys to go and look at it and if you want to play a g aach ball on it and see which way the ball rolls or whatever we should try there's as exactly a zero possibility that the water doesn't drain towards uh Royal Lake for where this property is and it's unfortunate because Britney she just it's not that she's a bad person she just you don't know what you don't know and that's kind of the deal yep Jethro um this issue came up five years ago and you didn't like the determination that's correct isn't it you didn't agree with it I of course I I wouldn't say that I didn't agree with it I would say that it wasn't what I thought was correct but in instead of making an issue at that point you decided to walk away from that issue took the approval that you got granted for that development that plat approval and then acted in Reliance on that moved Earth out there and now you're back here after all of that is said and done to try this again do am I saying that wrong if I'm putting words in your mouth of what you're saying I'm just I would say you are putting words my mouth that where we moved dir was not I did want to put that trail in that was something that was required right so in order for us to sell Lots we had to grade that trail um so we did again we did a post survey with the property right trying to to create a drainage the drainage divide originally and it was clear that it wasn't going to be entertained um that being said there's you the the dirt didn't change right it goes the same way right so I don't know what the argument would be if if it drains if it walks like a duck it talks like a duck it's a duck right the water drains towards where like I don't know what more what good ad used to to argue back and forth of what was done this or that it all I'm asking is is if the water towards drained towards Bass Lake which is what we believe it does if there's another engineer that would argue a different way and has valid reason we're more than happy to entertain it or hear it um other than that I I don't know does much good to continue to go back on what was previously well I it's relevant at least to me I don't know about anybody else but it's relevant to me that you would get an approval and the approval would have been that long ago and now you'd be back to peace meal this when it was an issue at the time that you walked away from I I don't believe that I walked away from it but everybody has a title to opinion I'm good thank you okay um Dave could you do you have any feedback to provide since we have an engineer sitting here here um from the standpoint of numbers don't lie yeah that's kind of the world that Engineers live in so the topography should be what the Topography is whatever the surveyer shot out there um with the right kind of software you should be able to determine you know what direction um surface water would flow off of a landscape the somewhere along the line we were asked to to validate what the what the surveyor uh interpretation of what the um divide was on the information that they were given and provided to us and it was um not not like the whole survey okay it it included shots over here over here here and over here so we said we can't do it um with the cat file that we were provided it just wasn't you know complete enough and that's provided in the packet we highlighted the shots that we got with the cad file so at that point you know the city um had us step back from this because really validating what another licensed professional is providing to the city they're certifying that the information is true and accurate ready for the purpose of uh whatever it's intended for to meet the city ordinance so at face value I think all of that being said this just boils down to um you know is the city going to allow um a change in a topographic divide based on when this platting occurred originally or based on how it's been altered with the grade that took place because that does change the Divide location as shown in the drawing that they provided so I don't know if you could bring it up but the there was no grading exactly zero grading that took place in any of the property where we're can trying to split this lot off no drainage has been altered through grading or any sort of a thing for any of that property you're looking to subdivide this lot here lot block I don't you have I think you have it in there um where the drainage change with the post pre and post right Y and so you can clearly see it there you go right so that that this one is post grading um right so the if if you show on the pre- one you'll see I think they shaded it right right so that how Trail here which was required for our development line um during the grading process of us having to put that in it altered the drainage of no argu at no point we ever say that it didn't but we're talking about this parel right here doesn't contact any of the breing whatsoever and it's hard to put it in perspective but ft wide it's 50 ft or 70 ft from any sort and I don't even know you go to the other one I think it's far than it might be50 from where anything change right see at this point here it's still the same so no gra just to be clear the drainage did not change a single bit on this parcel due to anything that happened on the there's there's two exhibits here the one the pregrant and one the post grading and obviously between pre and post there was grading going on in there because it's the elevations the country lines had moved yes correct but you just said there was no grading I I'm a little confused here because after you graded it obviously the you know the The Divide line changed right this new line so that's the new that's the Divide but what it did was it it actually removed a littleit but it was moved because because Earth was moved between what's out there now and what was there before correct did it drain fors really in both cases and the Shaded area the the Shaded area in both cases drains the same exact way there was no there was no change in any grading on the proposed lot that we're creating there was exactly zero grading and exactly zero change in the the way that the water drains due to it what you're trying to solve now is by adding additional property to this particular area that that's been that he going to have a proposed subdividing into an extra lot at this point is that correct think there's Sorry Brad person again there's some confusion there was grading to the South and and East or sorry West that didn't change the the topography or grading or Contours or drainage at all of the shaded area that's the point of the whole discussion here the law says the standard says that we're trying to say is if the drainage of the Shaded area flows towards Roy Lake which it did before and post all the engineers are agreeing to that you're supposed to apply Roy Lake standards state law Roy Lake standards say that you can do the slot split period there's nothing else to think about I don't know what else I I push back on that because I think there's a little bit of credibility challenge here that for me at least the commment thread that I have each time you come in here is that there's some City employee that made a mistake you know and it's a whether it's on this project or a personal project where you got caught doing something it was some City employee that dropped the ball or did wasn't a good communicator and here we are and you're trying to tell me that this is it's simple it's it's just numbers there's there's a I'm struggling with the with the The credibility of the information that's being provided whether or not this land was moved once twice three times and and so it's not simple it's frustrating this keeps this this keeps coming in here and there's a lot of history and and I'm struggling with with what's being shared is true or what we're asking is it's I don't believe there's any standard that talks about whether five years ago something was promised that's not the standard at all the standard is and you're welcome to have any expert or staff or anybody go out to the site and look at it go look at the Shaded area it's not hard to see if there's been dirt moved there in that area it has not been and like you said put a ball botche ball down and see where it falls it falls towards the Roy lak's uh Lake that's the only math we should be looking at not who said what went in five years ago that's not the the law does not say that's what we're supposed to look at the law says where does it drain if it drains this way that lot is plenty big to to divide it in two that's the only that's the math what being said though that calls into question credibility is if this was just this easy as you say yeah then Brad Wilkening would have been here five years ago to tell us just how easy this was and and your client would have been fighting harder for an additional lot because there's economic benefits so it is a little bit hard to swallow the idea that it is just that easy because if it was just that easy five years ago then this would have been fought for and that is a problem that I struggle with and I don't agree with you that it's just that easy what I think what I would say is you asked earlier and I didn't answer but I'll answer now was I in Brad wiline involved in the decision five years ago and no is the answer easy to second guess things now but if if Brad and I would have been the two Brads would have been involved with Jethro back five years ago we would have known the standard and applied it and we would have argued that's plenty big to have two lots it's the Royal Lake standard not the Bass Lake standard andt I wasn't here and then dirt wouldn't have been moved that you're asking people to say it's not a big deal it didn't change the face of anything nobody knows that you can't autopsy whether or not that actually did change any of the considerations here and that's part of the problem and and and it's hard not to think that that was part of the plan which is to go move some Earth out there and then come back here for this now I'm not pointing fingers at people but the point is it's easy for any of you to sick here and say well it just got done over here and it doesn't matter it didn't change the face of this you don't have any proof of that well what I'm asking is if you if not saying you personally but someone from the city whether it's Dave Reese or some of your staff you could go look and see if there's large trees in that area meaning dirt's not moving it it someone could make a finding a fact rather than just assume we're lying to you nobody assumes you're lying it's just a question again uh when you make a statement like you did about this is just that easy and that anybody should be will understand this it it it kind of fails in my mind in the context of everything we kind of talked about here you don't want to go make your independent look at the property you could no I'm not rolling botchy balls down your client's property no okay you know there were there were many factors that went into the determination of how many Lots were going to be in this plot not just square footage of mod of land here uh this first time this came through the planning commission there were many Lots in this piece of property this what we ended up now is just you know it's a very small part of what first proposals were and with the access to the lakes and the runoff to the lakes and the the the number of docks and everything else that were involved in this thing that's that's where the number of lots came from and it was approved on the planet the lines the div line the topographical divide line was accepted by the developer at the time that this plat was done and the number of lots that we ended up with in the Plaid were based on not just that but many other factors again like I say it's access and trails and and Roads and and dockage and all kinds of things and it went on for months and you know to just simply go back now because you want an extra lot and move a line a little bit you know to pick up some square footage in here that's that appears to me what's going on and I just I I can't imagine U coming back with a for meets and bound subdivision of this particular lot would be a separate submission I assume we're not talking about that tonight correct but you know whether or not that would even be approved I I don't at this point I don't know what to say but it just seems like we went through all of this once before and and the lines and the topography and drainage areas and everything was was well established at the time that the plat was approved and you know everybody signed their name the city signed it and the developers signed to it and um to go back and now and say well we don't like it anymore we want another lot that's just I don't I don't see it personally I guess I would just you have a history that I don't have so I can't speak to some of your history but we're just saying that now that we have Brad wiline involved he's saying that the 236 contour line is simply not how you create a divide it's not that is not how you depict where the water flows it was just wrong it might have been stipulated to but I don't think it was done with intention or knowledge that's what we're trying to say now I don't know that would have made any difference whether that divide line was pre or post here at the time because there were so many ramifications on this flat on deciding where number of lots what we're going to have again like I just finished saying that would have made any difference we're not speaking to other things we're just speaking to the actual contour line we're saying the he could say it again explain it again but the 236 contour line is not at all how you create or show or prove where water flows it's just simply wrong um Paul do you want to make a comment yeah thank you uh I'm Paul Rashon 25211 Bass Lake Road um a lot of the comments I was going to make have been discussed here tonight uh but I would reiterate a couple things I was thinking about uh I have been here through this long process it has lasted over many years uh there were several issues that were discussed and uh uh at length with respect to the approval of this final plat uh the the top go top divide determination was one of those I know that uh the DNR was involved in that decision and commented on that decision I think that's in the records as well it was not just an inexperienced staff person making that decision it was a decision that was talked about discussed and included outside uh of consultation from the DNR um uh that decision as we've talked about was relied upon uh and there were many factors in the final plot decision including one of the most important that hasn't been discussed yet is even the shape and size of this uh lot uh it's a a convoluted shape that includes bends and curves uh that was uh uh allowed in order to provide access to public right of weight Roy Lane which is way on the top of this lot now what uh that probably would not have been allowed in the final claing if there were two lots involved instead of the one so now you've got two lots that are going to be relying on this convoluted uh driveway right away with no access to private uh to public uh right of way uh that's important because when these with this was first uh submitted there was much discussion whether the developer needed to provide public roads to these lots and he came back with this design that uh Pro allowed him to not provide public roads to all these lots and he the the final plot was approved and now he comes back with wanting to force you to change your topographical divide determination and he gets a second lot without having to provide that public road and the public uh uh access to the right of way and I think that is a really material item that hasn't been discussed here yet tonight um I think allowing someone to come in and force you to change a determination that was made in good faith and was relied on by all parties in the complicated determination of the final plot and all the factors that were involved at the time would say is wrong in this instance and I think it would set a terrible precedent to uh encourage developers to engage in some really destructive behaviors destructive Behavior I think is contrary to the uh uh uh intent and of the zoning ordinances um there is no reason to allow uh Mr Carpenter to go back and uh Jam in even more Lots uh than he has uh he he was allowed as many Lots as he possibly could at the original time it just seems like this is a really sneaky way to uh get uh uh the very things that would have been prohibited by the orces at the time of the final Pro plot approval so thank you for your consideration of this matter uh I think it's important tonight but I think it's there's some bigger issues involved here that we need to think about thanks okay uh any other comments okay so right now the commission has to make it we don't often do top I don't think we've ever done a toppo divide redetermination um you briefly touched on it so we have to as a commission make a decision if this is yes or no and then does that go to the city council right so the process forward um if the Planning Commission finds Merit that the topographic divide previously made should be replaced by either proposal it may may it may make recommendation to city council to adopt either of these proposals by resolution then if the city council approves the recommendation by resolution that approval must go to the DNR for ration and evaluation if so passing all of these then we would be bringing this topic back to pursue a subdivision at any means so okay and if the Planning Commission decides that we do not want to do that they have the opportunity to go to the city to appeal a decision made at the Planning Commission can be appealed okay it's a recommendation either way just a recommendation okay all right well do we have any other questions from um commission members John Gary Danny I'm still a little conflicted between the fact that we had a there was a topographical divide determined that you know prior to the plat prior to the grading then afterwards it's changed so to me it's still as obvious that if you grade it and the lines are changing so the what the topographical divide is today really doesn't make a whole lot of difference than what it was what the plat was approved on so you know you got two different things here we either going to recommend that the Divide line be changed or it doesn't and if it does it still doesn't probably has no ramifications on what's going to happen to subdivision of these lines no well I'll entertain a motion either way if there's no other question so if if it's a yes or no we have to make a determination just for the record I'll make an or I'll make a motion that the determination that we that we recommend to the city council that they do not uh redetermined topographical divide of this property I'll second all those in favor well now we can have discussion would you like to have more discussion I don't know okay I we have I think somebody in the audience out yeah Joe speak who dat your name yeah Joe Hall just real quick uh just being involved five years ago with it you know just sitting and listening the only thing I would encourage you I believe that the DNR had the ruling on all this back then with Britney and I would just maybe encourage you just to kick this whole issue back to the DNR and get it off you guys and the council and everybody because I think that was the determining Factor so maybe that's just my outside advice is to send this back to the DNR and let them rule we did to reach out to the DNR for input as well um prior to the August one uh the current hydrologist over there is Jacob free um he did have a comment that he provided into the packet here I will pan to it I think he he recommended no change he was pretty silent on recommendation he says the DNR has no comment about whether a revised topographic analysis or determination should be allowed to be considered or whether the analysis is allowed to consider recent human made changes to a property topography however with that being said when considering whether to approve the proposed meets and BAL of division the men the DNR recommends taking into account the following considerations whether a revised topographic divide determination was made using the best available information that is practical and feasible what implications of proposed change to the existing topographic divide analysis would have on overall Visual and water qualities of the nearby lake whether the proposed subdivision is in harmony with the existing approved plat of Roy Landing uh Roy landing's findings of factor approval and conditions so more of those comments are related to the subdivision aspect of it rather than the whether or not a topographic divide determination should be entertained I am almost to it for the screen here on screen now are we are we in the middle of a motion right now it's further discussion discussion so I I actually tend to agree I would appreciate the DNR and that's what we um encouraged at the time for them to get involved and make the decision right because they have the the staff that has the ability to that I would imagine to be able to determine that stuff but they just don't get involved that's the thing so if you went to them and said hey we're going to put a 50 foot wide lot there they would be involved in it because that doesn't meet their standards but they don't they just it's whatever you present them Danny mcney is who was the DNR hydrologist at the time when she address it she told me and they didn't make the decision the DNR didn't make the decision the only thing the dnr's role in the process is is to confirm and they would have confirmed it either way unless you said hey we're going to put a 50 for wde lot something that doesn't meet the DNR standards for lot area or something along or basically anything that is outside of what the DNR would allow for it so yes it would be helpful if the DNR I agree would because it really put Britney in a position of making a termination that isn't in her wheelhouse right so I I mean whether or not um believe the facts I would I would highly encourage you guys to go out and look at the property if there was and if somebody's suspicious if there was grading or something you could clearly see there's trees I mean stuff that just doesn't that just wouldn't be there if there was a grading issue um but that's that is kind of the situation it it the grading didn't get changed there there's nothing I is one more comment I'm Sorry Brad from Westwood the yellow line is a representation of which way the water goes to each Lake to change that substantially would be incredibly difficult if you could pull up that earlier one that showed the drainage divide there's one tiny little area on there that used to drain North which now drains South and the only reason that happened is because he built the trail and he deliberately graded that so that it would not go to the natural environment Lake see that's the that's the original before he did any work and then if you go to the next page there's a tiny there's that little bubble so there's a small area that now drains South instead of north but it it it's such a slight difference it's basically because he built the trail which was part of the original agreement it's it's relatively I think it's inches in difference but to make a major change to this drainage divide would be just incredibly difficult you'd have to move massive amounts of material and and the reason why and the reason why that it drains South now it has nothing to do with that it's because there's a a slope right that off of the side of our Trail and if you were to if you were to run the water off of the backside it would create an erosion issue it is it is nothing I mean it's strictly a practicality to make sure that you don't have erosion is why that the trail and again it's sloped like one inch or two Ines from the outside of the trail to the inside where you can control the water so it doesn't erode it's so I mean that is that was by default but Brad is 100% right in order to create like the glaciers is what made this not somebody in a in a Bobcat out there cutting a trail in completely different so good I have a I guess a question for the applicant over here in this region of blue that's the cross-hatched area where the line is separated right um this is the you know it's not there but the pre-grading topographic divide and then the post grading topographic divide is that correct has there been any analysis on this slope here as to whether or not a bluff is present at any point there is not yeah that that we did I'm sorry sorry Kevin MCC design Solutions uh that we went over in the original planning process that was part of the question in some of this toppo area here we actually did physical toppo in that area before any of this grading took place just for that particular particular question do we have a bluff and where does it stop and end thank you um does any of the commission members feel that so there was a a question if if more DNR information would be helpful in your decision about the Topo divide would you say that that would help no no no no I I I think we come back to what City attorney was talking about you know five years ago or four years ago whenever this came through it I remember it well but um this was not a problem at that point I I don't understand it and all of a sudden now we're we're dredging this back up again and I understand the reason is that you want to get another lot but I don't know that that's I don't know that that's in the benefit of the city okay I guess my main question is is there is there a downside to reconfirm I mean if everybody's confident that the topograph of your ride is correct right and that's what you would want from your city staff is for them to administer the ordinance and the deals correctly is there it doesn't cost anything I I don't see a downside of reconfirming if if it if she's correct it's a mute issue right it goes away if it is not correct then we have to go through five other scenarios in order for it to happen that could plausibly something could come up in an ordinance or whatever that would not allow it but I just I don't see a downside of being right is there ever a time where you don't strive to make the correct decision I think everybody thought that was a correct decision at the be five years ago though when this plat came through you may not look at it now now is but but if it isn't I mean is there my point is is there a downside just to double Che no I know moveing divide line one way or the other I don't think impacts any negatively let's explore it and just see if it does but when it's connected the idea that it's it's it's here before us before us tonight with the with the an ulterior motive if you want to use that is is to create another lot you can't do you can't create that other lot without doing you can turn it down this isn't asking for you I recognize that I'm just but it's literally my point is is if it was wrong we'll find out if it's not there's nothing to worry it just goes away I mean there's I just can't see a downside of confirming that your staff was correct unless it's that unless it's an emotional decision because again Engineers live in a world where numbers don't lie I don't I don't I don't know if I see the Merit of of discussing it anymore so if if you have kind of a determination made and you want to make a motion we have a motion on the on the table and we have a second is there any more discussion no no okay I'll entertain we have a motion and we have a second we have a second all those in favor I I I opposed no thank you guys thank you tell you what I think later all right moving on to public hearings I'll entertain a motion open the public hearing so Mo second all those in favor I I all oppos motion carries all right first item cat yeah you guys have election hangover don't you yeah uh first item is variance application 0252 4 to obtain a variance to permit new dwelling with rudu side yard setbacks within the urban residential district the subject property is located at 25483 Twin Twin Leaf Circle P 28205 64 applicant owner Thomas Allen Holmes LLC you want to yep uh either one hi I'm Tom Dean uh 11261 from brooklane Dayton Minnesota s me your uh staff report so the applicant is requesting a variance from section 2089 structure setback to construct a 2,99 squ foot single family dwelling with attached garage the lot line setbacks proposed um that would be less than the 10 foot required are 2.8 ft from the Southern Property Line 2.3 feet from the Western Property Line 2.7 feet from the north property line um my analysis is that decisions in Planning and Zoning by the Planning Commission and by City staff are to be made based on the facts of each case relative to the specific property in question um there had been no evidence provided by the applicant that a formal agreement via public hearing has been reached between the applicant in the city to allow for redu reduced lot line setbacks within this development I performed Research into chapter 20 of the Nisa code of ordinances Minnesota state statutes uh the Minnesota common interest ownership act the development agreement the conditional use permits that were recorded and other plat related documents revealing no indication that this proposed site plan could be allowed without a variance for the specific proposal or an amendment to the conditional use permit or some type of ordinance Amendment each of these three options would be impactful in separate ways a variance would be required for any structural proposal encroaching upon lot Lines within this and other developments unless a conditional use permit or amendment to involving discussion Bings a fact and conditions that outline an agreement for a quantifiable reduced setback allowance within the development between the parties of the city and the Planned unit development this would be impactful of the entire development and would require its own public hearing for this proposal in particular to be permitted without variance the findings would need to allow for less than a 2.3t lot line setback as that is the most encroaching setback as proposed on the west line uh many properties in this development share lot lines with their neighbors and this should be considered finally an ordinance that structures allowance of setbacks below those listed in section 2089 when certain standards are met for example a development allowing zero foot lot line sets may look at spacing requirements between individual Lots increase open space requirements and several other factors such an action May structure future development processes however developments where individual lot lines share common lot lines or individual Lots share common lot lines such as this particular development would remain um my analysis talks about thinking forward to a time when the development of this particular plot has taken place all lots have been sold into private ownership and the development is or the developer has taken their lead setback structuring would be impactful for proposals like this or rebuilds additions any new construction of like guest orders or accessory structures on the Lots um the applicant in their application um answered the first question related to practical difficulties stating that precedence has been set by the city allowing 12 of 34 homes that the applicant has been has built to have setbacks less than 10 feet the applicant was in the understanding it was Zero lot line setbacks um my analysis is that that would be more of a complaint related to another property and does not relate to this property and proposal in particular precedence cannot be set by actions taken on one property that guarantee the same result for another property what another property receives a variance for a permit for or other is relative to the property in question at that time and is irrelevant to the property in question and do process must take place and a practical difficulty must be found um Minnesota State Statute 462 357 defines a practical difficulty as a situation where the property owner cannot use their property in a way that is permitted by the zoning ordinance due to unique circumstances presented by the property uh this particular property that the applicant is uh acquiring or seeking to acquire a variance for does not happen to share common lot lines with other um individually owned properties it's surrounded by open space um I think that provides a little bit of Merit because there's no possibility of another structure getting built within 20 ft of the property line or the proposed setback of 2.3 feet um the Declarations and Covenants of this plat on page 18 under section two AR architectural control committee states that all structures must have proper permits and comply with all setbacks in the plans as appr as approved by the city of nisah it goes on to say in section six that any and all construction alteration remodeling or installation is subject to the ordinances of the city of NWA and other applicable ordinances statutes rules and regulations in conclusion my determination is that this lot would otherwise need to meet a 10- foot sidey guard setback for the proposed dwelling that's the summary of my analysis as it states okay thank you so um I think where where I'm up here is so I'm not I'm haven't not the developer I think it was um you know and the Lots had sat vacant for a long time we were approached to build in in the neighborhood and so as we came in we did a little research I mean I've been building for 30 years I've done development but I haven't been in a neighborhood where we've had you know all the com I've been in neighborhoods with common space but say it's a backyard or it's all one contiguous area it's not not lots that um you know have open space between the Lots right most ones I'm used to is lot line to lot line and I understand sidey yard setbacks and when we started I think we've been in there four years roughly or so and staff was different um um we went in to do some clarification you know I called once my project manager called another time because we have um we're more of a production Builder you know we have really four Lots or four home plans with different variations you know we saw that a couple of them you know look like they would encroach that that those limits and but we've seen this open space right uh the common area I guess let's call it and and we were told told that well you know the design was to keep it open and and basically that you could build up to the property line never checked never did anything and so like I said I think for us we had already built 12 out of 34 then we had this home um we we had a buyer we have a buyer the house is sold we thought we could build this plan just going off of past history in the four years um we came in and app for a permit and and you know Stephen said hey you don't meet the setbacks and and so that was really the first to our knowledge that we we couldn't build you know and and we would get it if it's a common lot line and I think if you look in there the 12 homes that are built currently that are you know less than the 10 foot setback I think if you drove him through the neighborhood I don't know if you'd be able to notice him you know I I I do understand the I mean I think it's a nice feature of the neighborhood having the open space between the Lots um I think for us we're just really we're not arguing the 10- foot setback but just what was presented to us before and the only proof I have you know is is verbal I don't have anything in writing if we did even back an email I wouldn't know how to to dig it up but but I'm really looking at as as a precedence that we have done you know I'm a little I think maybe a little disagreement um I mean I think Stephen's done a great job I think where we disagree as a standpoint I do think precedence does play a role in this decision and I think our homes you know on on the rear and in the right side we have a 50 foot open area and then on the left which would be the only side we would have a neighbor there is a 20 foot open space in between so I think it'd be a different situation if we were asking to encroach 10 feet and the neighboring home was 10 feet as one item but I think the second and the most important there is there is precedent you know that that we we did Build 12 houses in there already I don't think it would uh you know detour anybody's value a neighbor value and and and maybe it's the property but I think I think a little bit of it has to look not only a lot you know yes has a lot separate but look at as a whole neighborhood you know the entire development is anyone that would like to make a public comment Joe Hall again um just make a comment on this or any of the other developments for instance like when Grand View developed over there Garden Cottages up there in the golf course you know and I believe even uh from some of the work I've done on this development I believe believe maybe if we look back it was talked about doing a lot line plot adjustment at the end of the development much like Grand View did when they put all theirs in I know after all the houses got set they went back and replotted and tweaked the property lines to make everything kosher at the end and I don't know if that was talked about with this one on the front end but that has been done in the city in the past and just seems like maybe that would make sense in this case also would that be like a kind of like a postage stamping where you kind of wrap the house as it's existing um to reduce the lot line around that house yeah correct so I know like I say I can tell you that how you know that's what happened at the end of Grand View you know whatever that was three four years ago in there and also if I recall early on with different people and staff I kind of remember some conversation with that with this one with the developer just at some meetings that I've been at but maybe that would be a suggestion to help with this build and other non-compliant Lots on the property already yeah I I appreciate the comment because I said the developer I mean it was a defunct project and then I'm buying it from a family who who bought it out of foreclosure and that gentle man's passed away so I I don't have any history of it until we hold a permit four years ago you know so I I not even tempt to tell you I had any discussions to know what happened when it was platted I got two things um this is a cic plat it's like tow houses condominium so that this particular lot I assume is surround surrounded by an outlaw space is that correct because we don't have a copy of the plat here so I can't tell but right this particular lot is um I can pull up a plat map here showing the others and so the the one thing we do have here too not I mean I did research it when we bought it so the owners of the property you know I kind of looked at the design said this seems like a a town home Associated and maintain project um but it it wasn't in the documents to have it Associated maintained the family that that owns it you know they came in wanting us to look at more young families um with the school uh opened up keep maybe the neighborhood more vibrant year round so everybody's home home their lot is their responsibility to maintain it and and we do have you know patio homes in there but we also have homes you know there's there's families living in there too so I don't I don't know all what that's what we building I don't know what the initial you know desire was when it was platted pouse plats many times will have the Lots blocked out within the outlots or within they may may have a separate Lot number but instead of an outlot for the open space but uh those are usually made so that the units can be built within that particular lot and they can transfer title to that particular lot they don't you know they don't get the the open space but um many times those the buildings are you know just fit the envelope and I've I think it would depend on the the the conditions the Declaration of the cic whether or not the buildings could be allowed to go into up to the lot lines you know the zero lot line for instance I don't know what this one says we haven't haven't had a chance to research it but I think Stephen can add but he can't find any documentation of that so it's based off of then the city 12 others in here that also do not meet the setbacks is that what you were saying yes and I don't you know for the years I've been sitting here I don't remember ever dealing on a variance for any one of those were these just issued by staff yes so my understanding is that they were issued by staff and some when I did the when I looked at the gis overview I mean some of them were within 3 feet of each other yeah and they shouldn't have been is my what I'm getting from it and they they should have at the 10 foot setback and for whatever reason something got missed and 12 of them don't meet the setback but this one I mean has an outlaw around it the ones I'm talking about are ones that are right next to each other yeah standard like residential lot there's there's a shared lot line and the concern is I mean if if we're going to keep on coming back to this are we going to have 25 more variances that we go through because I'm not yes for for me that doesn't really meet the the what what the the reason for variance is where we're doing it to an entire development rather than going back to the drawing board if that's what we want and I I think if uh not going any further than tonight so where I'm I'm in a on on this home here right we it we we had it sold right it was a pre-sold home we just went off of precedent so you could you know is it air I don't know we made an assumption right just because of other other homes um and we never thought we had to ask for a variance if I knew that so now I have a home you know a buyer that's selling their home and we have a commitment to get it in right in a time frame and so that's my urgency I think if this were variance you know were to be approved then you know either I'm going you know ask uh you know ask where you guys would like to move forward is if I see some other there are some other Lots um you know nine I think you have nine other remaining lots and and that you know would they need a variance or then I at least know coming in to say hey what we had from precedents before our assumption was incorrect and we can't get a variance I would go and look at all my building plans and maybe I got to come up with a new plan right to fit these out but where where my urgency and and here on the variants and is that I do have it sold and I have a a buyer that you know either we need to we need to cancel and and they need to do something different there are not very many Lots in this development it appears that that there's open space completely around the Lots yeah is this kind of so if you were to look off of Red Leaf Court we have no home sold there yet and then and um if you're just to pull the page up a little bit broadleaf uh lot one block six is open um and then lot two of block eight is vacant and then there may but they have shared lot lines they have shared lot lines so we wouldn't have even asked for a variance there we would have held it back because I understand you I mean there's safety right you you you know fire code Etc um so Josh I think to going back to the point that you made earlier about identifying the multi multiple Lots within this specific development need to be addressed to be able to make it uniform across the board is it worth considering trying to use this one as an example to be able to spearhead the rest of it or to put this through on the variance and then to go back and to be able to get it addressed across the board and Steve if you have any thoughts on that please I think if we were if we were to Grant a variance on only a lot that that has no shared lot lines I think that's that could be done um I had another comment too I was looking at the documents that you submitted and uh this is um the house has been pushed there's a drawing the plan that's that was originally printed and then it's been pushed out it looks like the garage is being enlarged and something in the back was built out so this this building footprint was has been enlarged to kind of to go up you're gobbling up space on the lot because of this lot of the house en llarge but that's going to be two looks like two two two car garages it' be four car garages in in this is that correct so it is a larger Garage in the neighborhood we have some larger three stall garages that that so we've only added I believe eight feet to this width yeah for our garage and then in the back portion so the garage is larg that that is true and then in the back that's a sun porch that we put on many many of the houses have that sun porch this plan in particular is called the Serenity and I don't have the exact count but I would guess a third of them are serenities in there no the only the only thing out the point that I was going to try to make is that in a lot of cities and other places not nwap you know I'm from TN City area for instance uh most of the cities have ordinances where they they don't only allow three car garages and at Max and I don't know if that's the case in this one or not I was going to ask if there somebody had any knowledge of that we have like some things talking about accessory uses that are attached to a dwelling um for example an accessory structure that's attached cannot exceed 150% of the floor plan of the livable area in the dwelling so like say you have a 1,000 ft house for portion you could not have a 1,600 square ft attached garage that the max would be500 with that MTH and I think if you're to pretty close on the math I want to say we're around um got to think if you take 24 times 40 and it's not 20 I'm going to say you're 800ish on the garage even if it was 900 in off the house is about 1,760 feet the floor plan displayed there kind of shows it pretty but it's going to have four it's going to have two double garage doors on it that correct uh yes um I'm not four garages appearing from the street it'd be two double doors yes yeah there it is I couldn't remember we added we added eight feet from our traditional Frey that's in there could you could you modify that to have a single garage door on that second garage is that's you're you're looking for extra storage space I assume in here like you could boat over on the side or something without having yeah I think right now it just has two double 16 foot wide doors you know so it is just going to be two doors but they're the two wide I sure could ask the the owner or the buyer you know I should say of that and and get it and we can move it around we could we could throw a window in it um I do know what you're saying some some neighborhoods uh well you could end up having nothing but garages after a while you know so just a you know it's tough as much so I'm as I do I do I got to develop in the city and um another one there the argument is that has a lot of town homes with only 440 square feet and there's not enough to put it in and I think this gentleman just has um or this this uh couple you know they just have some boats and some things they'd like to just have inside versus out in the driveway we're not I don't think we're not in a position to sit and require you to limit your garages because if there's nothing in our ordinances that you know we can't do that anyway but just for perception yep I do agree and I can have that discussion yeah so one thing I have a concern about so we were talking about Grand View Lodge where we went in retroactively and we moved some things around for it to fit I can't I don't remember that specifically um I'm not sure if it's quite I don't I don't know what the ownership structure was if you would go in afterwards and go to all these different um homes don't you need all of the owners to agree to change the plat and sometimes you might get one guy that says I'm not doing it and and that that is the case so I'm not sure on the details but it is you know that common area is owned by the HOA so we do have a few other houses under construction but there are 33 homeowners that would all need to voteing would be impossible yeah and and I get any time when you have a number of people like that um and I I I'm sure I talked to the um the HOA you know president and and secretary and and I sure could I could sure could ask him to send a you know questionnaire out uh the one thing where I'm in a a little bit of urgency is my time frame to get it built plus weather right now our weather's down we're going to get the holidays and and uh not that maybe that's important but I guess I'd just love to see what you know that's why I was just asking for this one particular lot okay and the replatting in my analysis would be kind of the same thing you'd have to come through public hearing um if you're if you got total Buy in from all the people to sign up on a change would not a conditional use permit amendment that allows for some type of standardizing of a reduced setback where then we don't have to come forwarding statutes get involved you'd end up spending 50 Grand to do that you know right that always cost more than you think I agree um and and and I think maybe the one not only the Precedence but it do being that does have the open space around around three sides of it right maybe unique circumstances to some other you know different different requirements that people have asked for these you uh gentleman in the back you have I'm Steve Dallas 4 25473 twin Leaf Circle so I'm the house next door um I just think he's pushing it um right to the edge um there's bigger Lots um and and I'm not going to sign off on changing lot lines you got one no already so um it I just think putting for car garage and squeezing it to two feet I mean I can stand in the back corner and put my hands on the property line in the in the corner of the house so um I guess I'm just I think he's pushing I guess I'm struggling if we would go through this I'm struggling with the third one where is this unique to the property and I'm not really sure that it could be that it could be um I think it is unique that it does have this this apron around it where some of them are sharing a continuous line but since this was already a pre this is a pre-plate um subdivision I'm not sure if you can say that it's Unique when it was kind of designed for it to meet the setbacks and that's what it says in the um I guess what's the word I'm looking for that it's supposed to meet all the setbacks in the in the covenants so well that's what variances are for I understand I just don't want to be in a situation where we're doing 25 variances because I don't think that's really the intent of a variance either yeah I think what's going to happen here is that this gets if we approve this some the next somebody else is going to come in next time and they're going to also build a house that tries to fill the entire lot and we're going to have we're going to be dealing with these every single month so I don't know I'd like to see the size of that building reduced but you move them to a larger lot if there if there are any maybe one that the other well not I'd have to check one off other all the other LS are there any other lots that are that have no shared FL lines like this one are there well there's one to the north right next to it it was um lot two is that's built on that's that's fella just talked right or a lot blocked to I mean one of4 there's got up into block one you know 15 14 13 I don't see too many David do you have any concerns with this specific in terms of drainage well I think um you know there it should be looked at the original plat to see if there's a lot of these plats were written so that there is a drainage easement along the lot lines common lot lines so you know if you start encroaching with building envelope within that you're defeating that purpose um and then you know I think u g was spot on and looking back into the covenant's Declarations take a look at what the intent of the development of each lot was to see what that says but the the outlots were to be preserved for things like drainage and storage of water my eyes aren't good enough to see that the the flat the sidelines and the side and the rear lines in the fronts if they have drainage and utilities went on them does every have one there's one listed at the bottom here let me try to zoom so there is a drainage and utility easement 50 ft wide by 29.25 ft um just south of out lot D just around around the back LS L lights another one just sou of broad Le drive for 44 feet from the rear of um see that's something you watch out you can't you can't be building into those drainage and utility ements that are dedicated on the FL so yeah and you might not see that on this particular drawing it's usually in a detail in the plat off to the side that shows the level of detail of the drainage and utility easements along a common lot line you know it's maybe five feet either side of that common lot line is where the drainage and utility eement Lin that come survey surve that would be on the recorded plat recorded should be a detail somewhere information there most places they require put them on on the Plaid drawings but it's could have that surprised not seeing it but I like said not knowing when that was completed but I think on the survey I don't recall seeing it we do have some documentation from the time the platting um would that be impactful to this current variant ask yeah they don't show on the certificate of survey so but that's may or may not be question if 40 to 50% of these are already incorrect over the last few years what is the standard that the city has been using to approve these I mean somebody's had some information to get 50% of them wrong in the per this I would agree yeah that's why I brought it up before I wonder because I don't remember seeing any of those what's been looked at to approve those it just just seems odd that 50% of these would already be in and be approv without so so obviously else had some knowledge that maybe the setbacks are different in this or some other information that we might be missed and Steve you don't have any of that you don't I mean you're brand new so I did some extensive digging into the um development folder reading minutes of the establishment the development agreement declarations and Covenants submitted for that I found nothing that would indicate a less restrictive setback to be allowed um now as the element of Precedence perhaps Tom could correct me if I'm wrong but um prior practice on a different property whether it be to a administration of an ordinance or even you know plausible you know fault on administration of an ordinance I don't think that that really has a bearing on this particular as of this property perhaps I'm correct but could you speak on precedence at all time precedence is a discretionary thing it's not a it's not a binding thing I think it just depends on the situation it it seems to me that there are some more steps that could be taken to try to plan this out that this might not be quite right for you at this point and that might include that might include uh toning down that garage it might be some other things maybe the thing to do uh would be to make a motion to table this and direct staff to talk further with the applicant about how this might be possibly reconfigured sounds like the applicant might have some conversation with the potential buyer um but if that were to happen I think we got a 1599 clock ticking here and that would require the applicant to go ahead and wave that clock that's a good recommendation I and additionally look at the root cause of the other other properties that are there too to correct this if I understand correctly are you asking me to pursue on the other 12 alleged ones and enforce upon those after the fact variances well have to make a decision answer to that is no but what's done is done it' be interesting to know where it came from though yeah yes this one is just this is specific applicant I we can this particular one you know you talked about it before and you're push the boundaries on this are picking the you know the width of the building out by 8T on that extra garage so but providing variances to people are it's really important how the neighboring properties are involved in these things too usually you you have to have the in many places you have to have the approval of the Neighbors on all sides you know andly just uh even if you take the 8 ft off on that built it's not going to it's going to fiddle and change one lot line it's still be requ well it still would require a variance but it wouldn't be VAR and I think not that that uh I'm again you know so let's just say your table so then that's next month before you come again right right so um I mean not my desire right you know but I mean you guys are going to I guess to tell you what I table it um probably just really going to end up scrapping this project I think it's at least we have an we have a series of questions that we are required to go go through for every each each one of the properties and you know number number five on it is does the need for variance involve more than economic considerations and that's really unfortunately you'd fail that particular one because you know in order to make a sale you're you're wanting the variance and so yeah so it's it's for me I think as much as I mean build a lot of houses right so I'm not that that but I'm also then I got I don't know if I have 30 days for for the buyer Right Way buyer the way is you know they they have to find a new spot right and I is but if that's the case that's you know to say got to table it but you know I know be coming back if I didn't it's that would be the reason you know I think we need some more information as to what future Lots might be in are people looking for the [Music] same the same considerations from us you know if it's a lot of if it's only one in the entire plat that fits the same you know what you're doing here maybe something could be you know worked out on that but I we don't know that I don't I mean I have I have agreement I me it's easy for me to say I figure out I don't own any other Lots but I do have an agreement schedule that I plan on building all of them I've been able to yeah to keep up to my responsibility of building a number year do you foresee sidey yard setbacks being an issue on any of those other lots and proposals to build well be so pull back you the um go back and it would be uh it was locked you went to Lo three and lock two at the corner T and we had a buyer that wanted the same house with only a two stall BR on it it didn't fit and and we just told them there was up front we say like this house it isn't going to here some other so I wasn't even come in on that and ask for a Vari just to me it would be just a unique situation you know made an assumption that that it was you know we could go to the L and made a commitment to build a is there a home on l one block four no no there's nothing that one's empty too nothing so chances are we'd see somebody would be in your for me I'm not going to building right but I understand it be a ton of different circumstan the homeowner something com we're just trying to get a handle on how many times would we be going through this that's all I mean me better be it be better if you don't have an open between then then it's a m issue have I'm not against variances on you know getting a building to fit on a lot but when it's wide open like it is and it's just that this building envelope has just been pushed to the try to fit the entire you know lot frame that you've got here so and I I realized that you were under the influence that or under the impression originally that you could build right to the lot line zero lot line on the sides and that's you know that's unfortunate we came in I mean presenting it wasn't like I for Vari we just thought one other one other quick thought for you all when I'm sitting here thinking about this we have to remember that Stephen is looking at new rules that were approved this last February four years ago the rules were different um in relation to this with sidey setbacks and stuff and also had a lot of contradictory language and this is one area that Bethany cleaned up with that rule change that we just voted on this year so we would have to go back to what the rules actually said years ago because that's a good point I that has changed so in my review to that's that's the Playbook that this plat would be governed by the one back in 2006 yeah everything's grandfathered so I think maybe that's missing no know well in my review I did go back through those previous versioning I found again nothing that would be allowing of I mean when Chris when Chris Pence looked at that I think there was some redundancy but I'm not sure if if like the 10 foot rule I think that's been pretty Universal and I don't think that planed unit developments was an article that was adjusted at that time PS have flexibilities right and usually those flexibilities would be hammered out in the um public hearing process hammered out in the conditions findings of facts and discussion in minutes it should have been in the development contract maybe it wasn't but you're probably better off getting you know T having this table than denied go back to the drawing board and see if you can re remodel the the house design to fit a little bit better and then maybe come back and ask again so I I agree I I'm I'm fine tabling it but I think the question would be you know so if it's a three style garage the neighbor you know and it's just reduced 8 ft similar to a lot of H build I'm still I know the the pork to the rear the critical element of it and even at 8T it's still going to give me a yard set back issue um I mean the common lot line the existing might can keep it 10 ft off you know over on 18 that property line there's 50 ft there but I still would be tight within a variance um you know I'm not going to have 10t on that side nor the rear so you know if we allow if we allow somebody to fill up this particular lot space with a building and then we say well it only the applies to those that are that have no adjoining Sidelines side lot lines um that still wouldn't stop somebody else on one of the regular lots that that have a joining Lots one to say well they get a variance over here and you know so I want one on this lot over here and then next thing you know it's you know we're in the bag and that's why I'm asking the question because I think just by drinking the garage porch you know that element I'm more than happy to ask for it to be Ted but you know I I'm just trying to get a you know understanding still require that variance and isn't going to work then probably I'm probably not going to come back to another meeting I'll save you guys the time too I just trying to have some clarification so appreciate that I'd be interested to know how many Lots in there that well and there may be there may be a solution right is there a decision um do we need a motion to table or yeah I'll make I'll make a motion to table Us varant application uh may I interject though if that's going to happen then Mr then Tom needs to agree to uh give us a 1599 waiver because if you table it we're going to go past that clock yes yes so he's got to agree to that I agree that I can get you one in closing thank you we have a motion do we have a second just maybe ask one thing what are you looking to gain for taing this like do you want staff to do something do you want the advocate to do something like like yeah I I'd like I'd like to see the applicant come back with a building that fits the lot a little bit better than what what's been submitted I think this is pushing the envelope on this particular one um but in the meantime if we could get the other Lots in the development that have been done in the past to see where they're sitting on those lots you must have certificates of survey for all of the building permits that were issued you know I had every address you know and it's we could take a look at that and see what's been done on the others you know if there's we don't know if they were given variances of one foot or two feet or8 feet or 10 feet you know well I don't I don't I've built every home in the neighborhood so we have not asked for a VAR no I I know but permits were issued though Bas based on a certificate of survey yeah good enough okay yep do I have second all those in favor I I all opposed motion carries to table good luck thank you uh next item is ordinance Amendment 026 d24 to adopt an ordinance Amendment modifying chapter 20 of the nisah court of ordinances section two uh 20-90 septic system setback septic and drainfield and feet within the city of niswa Stephen all right so this part of the public hearing is to adopt the attached revision to chapter 20 of the city of niswa code of ordinances that shows what is being removed from the ordinance and what is being added elements changed on table 20-8 under Section 20-90 would be relative to the lot lines and the required setbacks for AC septic system both the tank and the drain field uh Minnesota state code 7080 um has a minimum of 10 ft and this would be reflecting code in the change any questions and I entertain a motion this a motion to approve or recommend motion would be to recommend 26 24 I'll make a motion to approve approve ordinance Amendment 026 d24 to adopt an ordinance Amendment modifying chapter 20 the nisah code of ordinances regarding section 20-90 septic system setbacks septic and drainfield in feat within the city of niswa recommendation to city council that would be the recommendation that a second John seconds John seconds all those in favor I I all those oppos motion carries next item is ordinance amendment 02724 to adopt an ordinance Amendment modifying chapters 8 and 20 of the niswa code of ordinances regarding cannabis THC within the city of niswa Stephen thank you this portion of public hearing is to review the proposed ordinance amendments again to chapter8 and 20 of the code of ordinances as they relate to cannabis businesses and land use within the city of niswa um chapter eight will structure how an applicant will apply for lure within the city utilizing the model ordinance from the office of cannabis management as it relates to cannabis businesses within the city of niswa chapter 20 will designate where as in which districts these uses can occur while also determining whether it will be a permitted use interim use conditional use or allowed use the first one uh would be an ordinance mending chapter 8 relating to cannabis business regulation um how well a uh applicant would be approaching us for lure um staff had recognized the highway business district as a candidate to regulate these with a interim use permit um interim use being subject to expiration based on you know uh an owner changing like ownership changes things like that uh a new application would then need to be received rather than a conditional use which runs with the property questions I got a question on the whole philosophy of it okay so did we and that's what got us to this well I I realize I realize that but but I from what I understand is the local municipalities can adopt the rules for control of whether this is you know both medicinal and recreational and recreational is that correct Mr attorney that's correct that's you know um is it possible for the city of nwat to say no to cannabis entirely nope only one to this point we already we already how long was the moratorium a year two yeah two years it expires January there's been there's been a moratorium on this from the city Side as long as I've been on Council how long are you allowed to have a moratorium on it we got extended janary so now it's coming up in January 1st y well December 31st is probably right because the recreational use was just improved this last year so which is why we have to get a push there before it gets too close so like is there with did the moratorium create any kind of pent up demand pent up demand not for not for the product don't put me in that corner [Laughter] Danny I mean there's a couple things that there's no P there's a couple things i' stopped during that time frame I think you guys are aware of schafers pulled some products from their shelves that they already had spended money on uh roundhouse now all indications they're not even going to be moving forward with anything now because they lost their chance um there's what a window of a couple months or a year to be able to get a permit in grandfathered in more or less considered right so in this particular ordinance versioning is more about cannabis business than those low potency hemp Edibles and salzers that were pulled from those shelves just for the record this um whether whether the city has a right to say no to it entirely is that something that would have to be a referendum of at a at a St level in to the public to voters or is this something that already passed by state yeah it's not enough no we were given one card we just kept pushing that card down the line as long as we could now we got to cross our Bridge sorry fellas we tried so what are and lady I didn't read this word for word The Proposal here oh trust me um how far away from the school can we have this uh we are proposing yeah I believe from a school 1,000 ft for a school which is the most that we can allow yeah so 1,000 from a school 500 from a daycare 500 from a residential treatment facility 500 from an attraction within a park that is regularly used by miners including a playground or athletic field and uh 1,000 ft from another cannabis retail business and how many that would be page seven only one so section 2.6 limiting of registrations we to limit the number of cannabis retail businesses to one with no fearer than one registration for every 12,500 residents so if crowman county has one active cannabis retail business registration for every 12,500 residents we not required I get that right yeah oh wait hang I'm playing this back if uh we can get a business down in brainer I think has happened already set one here yeah there's a dispensary right from by Dollar Tree over there on 210 with the Chinese buffet where the Chinese buffet used to be that's a dispensary now okay the Chinese buffet is gone yeah bummer oh sorry no not not a problem even Commissioners um yes this is still one of those trying to figure things out as we go uh we believe that if the county were to issue their for licenses that they um by their calculation then we wouldn't be required to issue any but it's going to be one of those who comes to the table first if someone applied in thisa before they issued theirs we'd have to entertain that and then that would count against their count so it's a very awkward scenario but uh we do have to allow at least one for every 12,500 so we're just operating under that assumption and trying to to provide the right mechanism to you know provide the process to go through and what's our numbers around here one one per 12,500 you said right so it's one just one I mean retail business that's about the that's our limit here yes yes for cannabis specifically not for the THC low potency that's a separate section that we have here but for the retail dispensary all right Stephen do you want to go through the THC portion because we we did keep it separate but do we want to do separate motions for each item or it on your agenda I'm not sure um it's on my agenda just as one I don't know if we have the option to split it out or just well I mean yeah I can go through the the low potency hemp one well um so that would be see again an alteration to chapter eight businesses um introduction of some definitions of low potency hemp elbl and others um a license would still be required from the state and from the city however as it relates to um what type of use we would be looking at an allowed use in three different districts um that would be Highway business Central Business and uh public Recreation should should the ask come down the pipe for low potency hump Edibles or sers at such items as the pickle so are we having to have two motions for this or is it is it going to be two like it's on the on the agenda right now we're going for let me look at the agenda here it was just one item okay or the bundle just make a motion to suggest for the city council to adopt the Cannabis okay do we also want to go through chapter 20's version the land use table which is the the final one here so the first two coordinance packets were chapter eight the final third one in the packet talks about where we're changing items in chapter 20 that being section 20- 82 the land use chart which designates where and what type of use it is for example summarizing um the language in chapter eight which designated the highway business as an interim use for cannabis businesses all defined by office of cannabis management excluding low potency and then cannabis low potency being the allowed in those three said districts just want to get through that before we get to our motion that we're talking about chapter 20 as well okay make a motion yeah all right make a motion to adopt ordinance Amendment 027 d24 this an an ordinance Amendment modifying chapters 8 and 20 of the nispa code of ordinances regarding cannabis THC within the city of nispa do I have a second okay all those in favor I I all those opposed motion carries we've already gone past new business so believe that leaves me with City Planning report uh uh can I entertain a motion to close the public hearing so move second all in second by Danny all those in favor I I all opposed motion carries okay perfect uh City planers rep board thank you um so in October of 24 we have issued 17 land use permits um that data was good through the 30th of October I've issued several since then um examples of these were just accessory additions new homes um ssts upgrades controland alterations um sewer connections amidst them as well um so yeah 17 through the 30th since the last report additionally to the city planner report we've been working with um community and the downtown master plan committee to um kind of further that down the road we just had a listening session last week where members of the public were present and voiced their concerns and kind of heard what the request for proposal originally entailed um got some good feedback we launched a survey well would that L to survey using rgis online um we received 246 responses um there was quite a mix of of representation in there I think 15% of the representation were businesses downtown um about 45% being residents um some visitors Steve when are you guys going to share that data we've asked with set to put it on that same website the argis online so oh um we do have a PDF kind of summary that was provided by woodf um that is going to be linked to that website so I give with C at the chamber maybe and fire that out to the those business owners that were here just to be proactive sure knocked down one of those dominoes that were obviously stood up at that meeting I can definitely forward that off to Kelly and it's ra so yeah absolutely that material okay anything else no I'll entertain a motion to adjourn no move second all those in favor all right close oppos motion carries we are adjourned [Music] pleas