##VIDEO ID:x_Py5J5_LRI## e e e e e e e e e e e e e two three months right on both of them are coming from a county where it's very busy ring is very busy just they just don't pay well enough no right all right I'd like to call the meeting to order for the Nell Planning Commission Board of adjustment for Tuesday October 1st 2024 roll call please Danny Mandell Sean welon Josh Young Gary Harris Dave Reese Mankey wler Steven Timlin are there any additions or deletions to the agenda no being none I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda no move second all those in favor I I all those opposed motion carries next to approve the meeting minutes for um September 3rd 2024 are there any additions or deletions to those minutes none hearing none I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes no move second all those in favor I all opposed motion carries all right next item is an open form is there anyone not uh want to speak towards something not on the agenda this evening Joe good evening I'm here to talk on behalf of property um with an address of 251 97 Hazelwood Drive uh the Peterson property um last month uh you guys had gone through a variance process with them um to I believe give them a variance for septic into another building there and one of the requirements was to move a little shed on the property and the deadline was sometime this week correct to take action on getting that building moved um I'm here just to ask to push it off one more month um during this process um we've been working on it getting survey work done um the permit that was issued on this property in the springtime by Bethany also kind of contradict some of the stuff going out there in the storm water plan and so we've met on site with Steve um to kind of go over this stuff and so I'm just asking to push off any sort of Regulation this month um to allow for um additional work to be done with surveying and whatnot that we need to do on the property to get everything um in order and then we will come back uh for an additional variance in November so yeah so as I understand it to the um option that the landowner would like to do is to leave the shed in its current location so triggering a survey to find out exactly how far away it would be from the road RightWay to come forward for a variance and it might be possible that there's additional asks for corre um features relative to a shorel alteration permit so bringing it through one hearing um and I think that they are looking to be on the um the December Planning Commission meeting so applying by the deadline for that meeting okay in terms of um wanting to set that back a month for that requirement for the shed what's my opinion on I think it's you know viable they have been coming forward in good faith and working towards uh proposal for it um they did look at costs to move the shed and and damage that would be done to the shore for grading and dirt moving and stuff so I think it's feasible to entertain it for another month okay so you just need a motion to approve is that what you're asking for cor okay does anybody have any questions okay I'll entertain a motion I don't I don't have the numbers or anything the dates or or the address but I assume Maggie can fill that in so um I'd move approval to uh extend for an extension until when I think it was a month 30 days November 90 days or 30 days I would say the deadline for the Planning Commission meeting of um in December which I believe would be the 7th of November 6th okay thank you Jenny I'll second G's motion okay all those in favor I I all opposed motion carries sounds good thanks is there anyone else all right no I just saw her get up okay U moving on to public hearings Iain a motion to open the public hearing so move second all those in favor I I all those opposed motion carries all right first item is variance application 022 d24 to obtain a variance for the construction of a sign exceeding dimensional standards within the central business district the subject prop property is located at 5445 City Hall Street P ID 281 1754 owner applicant Brandon Headland is Brandon here no okay he will not be here this evening I'm assuming all right uh your staff report so this would be a request for a variance from the um ordinance section 20-59 for minimum sign standard requirements for the construction of a 60q foot 13t tall sign in the commercial business district where the maximum allowed is 32 square ft at 12T tall uh this sign would be consistent of six tenant panels measuring 12 in by 63 in and the proposal would be to illuminate it by downcast light um the central business district design standards table um at the bottom of page four starts off to talk about the amount of freestanding signs this would be the removal of the one that's currently existing out on the street and construction of one um um downcast light is allowed without a variance so in this case the only thing that we would be asking for a variance to is the dimensional standards um from 32 square feet maximum to 60 square feet and 13 feet tall um where 12 ft would be the Max uh if You' like to make public comment regarding this project please step towards the podium and state your name and address see none I will close public comments commissioner member comments do we have any questions I assume this sign the new sign is going in the same place as the old one you're replacing it is that correct that is I understanding because there's nothing I couldn't find anything in the packet that shows the location for it so so they had a survey exemption um when they applied for it um sign by the previous city planner on 88 24 so the the survey requirement was waved um it would be required to meet the um setback and be on the property not within the road right away however no I saw that but there was just no there was no just Maps or you know any sketches at all of where the sign was this picture of of the sign I that was an example sign an example that's on another site so it's okay but it does go same same location the other as long as it's on the property correct okay in their application they they made a note that historically if you look around the city there is some other signage that is over the 32 square ft I didn't get a chance to look around do you know which ones he was referencing I think they noted that one next door is okay there is one two the uh to the east of theirs right now that is significantly taller than the dimensional standard of 12 ft have there been any comments on the request from adjoining properties in there or not I have received none okay any questions no one thing I noticed is that the building's got a lot of windows and doors on it there isn't much of a place on the building to be adding signage to it so um I guess I can see the reason for it but yeah how many tenant I'm I'm unaware how many tenants are in that space do you know I'm not sure how many tenants are in there um but there would be a total of six panels proposed on this 76 okay yeah so as you know we have to go through these questions on the variance as you all have scanned through this before before we start is there any of these questions that you would say no to before we kind of start going down the list no no John do you have anything any objections to any any okay okay well let's go down the list then and we'll start so is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan what do you all say yes yes yes we need a reason we need a reason yeah this is Central Business this Central business business district retail and office space um and uh office facility with multiple rental spaces and uh the signage is necessary and I can't see putting on the building so so it's I think it's necessary to improve the recog recognition in this in the urban area number two is the property owner proposing to use a property in a reasonable Banner not permitted by the city code of ordinances they are yes yes I would say we could probably Kitty back on what was just stated that there's not a lot of available space for signage on the structure as it [Music] is number three is a need for the variance due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner is I would say yes again um as we already alluded to the the ability to put signage and then have enough space for the tenants to advertise effectively for the public to see them yes yes four will the issue of a variance maintain the essential character of the locality I would say yes when the the drawings that he submitted it looks like it will be a nice Edition and match kind of the surrounding areas five does a need for the variants involve more than economic considerations again yes for all the topics we had talked about previously with the the other questions organ or yeah the organized I think the identity of the space is important in that area so any add additional discussion no n none all those in favor I all those opposed motion carries who made the motion nobody nobody Gary made the motion we were just talking about the sixth question oh all right you want me to make a motion okay I'll make a motion to approve the variance for the construction of a sign exceeding dimensional standards within the central business district subject property is located at 5445 City Hall Street P ID 28110 754 and the applicant owner is Brandon Headland second would you like to include the conditions that the staff recommended or add any any additional ones yeah we should probably have those staff recommendations included staff conditions yep potential conditions would you like me to read off the four no okay just before second Sean Sean second okay all those in favor I iose Mo car uh next item is variance application 023 d24 to obtain a variance to permit uh building a new 39 3,923 ft dwelling meeting all the setbacks without the removal of reduction below a 700 square foot of an existing non-conforming dwelling of 1,359 Ft within the Shoreland residential district existing non-conforming dwelling at 83 ft from the ordinary high water mark where 150 is required the subed property is located at 63 85 Clark Lake Road PID Sean 6385 Clark Lake Road thank you Steve your report thank you uh so the proposed again is the construction of a new principal dwelling as shown on survey um this would be a dwelling larger than 700 sare F feet on a riparian lot and typically would involve the removal of a non-conforming structure to bring this property into Conformity with our quote of ordinances the removal of this ex existing structure would require safeguards or erosion until soil stabilization occurs and would be typical in demolition or soil disturbance on a riparian lot proximal to Wetlands um this would be an economic consideration in my analysis um the distance to the ordinary high water elevation per the survey dated 127 of 23 is 83 feet the wetlands delineated by Ben Meister from Meister environmental LLC on 9623 have been shown on the survey dated 12723 and is very near to the O ohw closest to the structure um there is a proposed new septic system that would service both of these structures both the existing dwelling and the new proposed dwelling um the existing septic tank is within the building setback and would need to be sufficiently abandoned per Minnesota rule 7080 2500 um the proposed new principal structure does mean meet all setbacks um the construction of a second dwelling unit on the property would require a no maintenance Shoreline buffer near the shore um this is a natural environment Lake and in my site visit there was a um thorough buffer already in place of vegetation on the property uh I did include a couple exerpts from the ordinance uh such as the definition of a guest cabin versus guest quarters um a guest cabin would have a maximum height of 15 feet in Building height and I also included the definition of a building height as this existing structure is a walkout example so we would be looking at uh 15ot height Max from the lowest adjacent grade to either side of the of the Contours and that would be my analysis the DNR also did provide comment at the end of the staff report which I included so the 15 ft's got to be from the walkout level so Building height is defined as mid peak on an angled rof like this um when there's a walk out you have 10 feet or less or difference from that grade to the bottom level of the walk out um the slope on this property there's probably six seven8 feet so the 10 ft is negligible we would just be looking at lowest adjacent grade on either side um to mid peak um talking to Peg at application intake she said that they might be looking at doing some rough work in the future um and advised on that analysis that we would be needing to keep that mid peak beneath that 15 foot if that were the case Pig you want to briefly uh decide um The Proposal sure so um we have my husband and I have owned this property since 2006 and um we would like to move up here full-time but the property as it exists um isn't something that we can age out in and so um we got our survey and um building envelope is really small um which is what it is I guess so the home that we want to build is all one level so that we don't have to deal with stairs and um we're adding a garage that's what a considerable amount of the square footage is the actual living space is pretty similar to one the one level is of the current structure and um we only want to have a master bedroom and guest bedroom and um be able to have our family we have children with um families of their own come visit and stay in the the gas quarters when they come visit and um when we initially started doing this we weren't sure there was going to be enough space in the building envelope so we did approach our neighbors to see if it' be possible to purchase um some additional acreage but that did not uh work with their plan and so we went ahead and met with the architect and this is what they came up with and we thought we would pursue um the process we do have a builder that would like to start building in the spring when the snow or the frost line comes out and um we could move forward so that we can be up here um within about a year and a half is what we're planning right uh if there's anyone that like to make public comment towards this application this is your opportunity are none I'll close public comments commissioner members do we have any question questions for pig you do you have somebody I have you come to the podium and make sure the little green lights on and state your name and address yeah good evening my name is Dwayne blank my wife's name is Carolyn we happen to own uh the property surrounding uh Steve and Peg's property uh we also have some property down the Lakes Shore uh that was formerly tax forfeited and we purchased during the uh tax forfeit sale which was classified by the county as buildable and and uh different zoning uh classification so it's it's kind of in limbo if we can do much of anything so we appreciate the process that Steve and P have gone through uh one area that uh we thought was a little deficient is the buffer requirement uh in which the report says that uh there's significant uh vegetation growth for the uh buffer zone mentioning trees in particular well all of those trees happen to be on our property not on their property causing uh or providing the buffer uh and maybe just back up a little bit we we purchased the the property U to begin with with one parcel and you may be familiar with with the uh property's history and that it was planted as the town site of borac or the town of morac and over the years the the uh plant has been uh vacated uh and we ended up with a significant part of it over the years as property became available we added to the original amount that we had purchased I think in 1970 we've been around the area a long time uh so that was one concern for us and uh of course uh variances can SN snowball and we thought maybe it will snowball our direction as uh they have worked on satisfying the V variance or excuse me satisfying the uh comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance uh we'll have to do the same as we have acquired the property uh for uh long-term security uh if we need funds that will'll be able to uh draw on the investment we've made over the years in terms of the property and so uh we we happen to be looking at what's the highest and best use of our property as well and we did visit with Stephen Peg about that uh the negative uh issue for us is the statement about buffer zone that buffer zone should be on their property uh or we have some sort of collaborative effort to improve it the trees that are there now that are on the property line uh I planted over the years and so they there not just simply natural growth but the an effort to Mark the boundary of the property as well as to provide a buffer of some sort as well uh it's it's always interesting you know what a yard the uh exraction that that becomes distraction in that uh uh you know you see it through the trees and whatnot and so that's that's our concern if if we have any real substantive term we would hope that they can meet much of the ordinance requirements is absolutely possible U we've not studied their request uh for a variance but the one number that sticks in my mind is the 83 foot sitb in new of satisfying the ordinance requirement of 150 ft but anyway we wanted to uh register I guess our Our concern we support them in in uh utilizing their property as as long as they can satisfy as much as possible all of the ordinance requirements because I know we're going to be faced with that as well any questions uh yeah I have a question so on on the gis map there your property is to is to the North or I guess Northwest is that if I understand Dwayne is your property over here that's um all all set okay and so the shoreline buffer as would be implemented by this document the shoreline rapid assessment model would be on that portion of Shoreline owned by the applicant if a guest quarters is present so the entire stent from the raran shoreline from this corner here to this corner yeah um being implemented in perpetuity on the ask so um the trees that I witnessed on my site were these ones here um the ones on the applicant Shoreline so when when they're just when they're when we're talking about the buffer strip specifically it's about the ohw from the water not necessarily from your property line yeah correct yeah and the buffer for the land itself is that the top of the the picture there as such uh there is uh significant uh vegetation associated with a dying ba of water uh that that Cattail growth and the likes of that has continued to in uh creep uh outwardly so it's become a wider strip and provides a much better buffer today than it did 50 years ago okay yeah I think there's a couple of other pictures that are are more Telltale in terms of property lines and the trees that are exist today yeah thank you no more questions no questions okay my name's Sandy poop and I'm at 653 Shady Acres Court and I just had a question in terms of if a variance is granted is there anything that can keep the um this current building from becoming an Airbnb or rent it out or you know the plans are to have the family come but once you say sure go forward with the variance then can that be treated as something that can be rented out um used as an Airbnb that was really my question blowing up our ordinances here so on the screen here if I can get the zooming to cooperate with me here definition for dwelling guest cabin means a freestanding structure not for sale or lease that contains sleeping spaces and functioning bathroom facilities in addition to those provided in the primary dwelling on the lot a guest cabin shall not be permitted if guest quarters exist on the lot does that answer your question okay all right uh commissioner member comments do we have any questions um I only had one on you're going to modify the existing building with different sighing and to match the the new building so they both would would be the same style and they blend in better together right and we did talk to Steve because we weren't sure um when they like well we would put a new roof on it as well they might want to increase the pitch just slightly because there's not much of a slope and the snow builds up so they might want to raise it I don't know 10 inches maybe at the most um the contractor will have to figure that out and and he's already spoken to us about the maximum height so if we run into a problem we would come and talk to him before we did anything but the contractor thinks he can stay underneath that the 15 ft m y long as you're long as you're aware of them what the Restriction is so you're going to have very little tree destruction or that it appears you're just going to move some existing smaller apple trees or something like that correct um so where the um new septic system is it's right where our apple trees are so those will have to be moved and the bushes there um but uh we did plant some red Pines uh kind of over by our fence line and we probably will move those out but they'll stay on the property we'll just relocate them on the the property okay I also like to add that on my site visit the new septic system will be further away from the ohw than the old one right it will be in the building envelope so we are um remedying that situation and it'll be a shared septic um they'll will decommission the old one we have to move the well as a result because the current well is right where the new septic is going to go so they're going to move the well back behind the new structure okay got your bases covered okay any other questions we acknowledge the DNR comment submitted on Monday September 30th Dave do you have any questions okay all right so we're going to go through the same questions as we go through here um number one is a variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan yes or no yes yes yes why why is it and residential zoning allows for this type of variance in Residence that's that's been applied for uh two is a property owner proposing to use a property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the city Nisswa Court of ordinances yes or no yes it sounds like it's going to be family use y great three is the need for the variance due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner yes or no I would say yes again it's an odd shape and there's an existing structure on there number four will the issuance of a variance maintain the essential character of the locality yes yes yes property um it it it's Unique and and the building will continue to to uh be unique and fit in with the neighboring homes there's very few neighboring homes there so um Mr blank and and probably the nearest neighbor so and you will be improving the older cabin to match the new build so does a need for the variant involved more than economic considerations yes or no I would say yes again it has uh it's to do with the the shape and the ex existing buildings that are present and six any other pertinent findings I do not know of one so after we go through those questions we all answered yes uh does anyone want to make a motion i' move to approve variance application 0 23-24 uh to obtain a variance per to permit a building of a new 3923 foot foot dwelling meeting all the setbacks and without the removal reduction uh below the 700 ft of the existing 1359 foot building and according according to the conditions of the the city staff report and the conditions there in was there a DNR one yeah one question on that so we have the buffer the Shoreland vegitation buffer strip and I think when Jake wrote in his letter did he specify distance like a length because it it's kind of generic no so there is not a um generic one um it comes down to a analysis of the shoreline um so there's three scoring areas Shoreline whether it's a roading or not if it's eroding or unstable starts off with a negative already then we look at si1 and si2 so the first 75 ft and second 75 ft for ground cover as well as trees and shrub cover coming up with a score that determines the distance of the normal buper that should be implemented so we're going to be using the rapid assessment model correct the staff okay you have a second all those in favor I I all is opposed motion carries good luck with your project next item is variance application 024-0003 second access of a 5ft width to the shore to facilitate motorized access to the staircase landing near the base of the steep slope property zoned open space residential district subject property located at 4293 Roy Lake Drive pad 281627 owner applicant George lamb I say that right leham leham George if you like to come to the desk there and state your name and address good evening good evening evening uh George lehan 4293 Roy Lake Drive thank you Stephen your staff report thank you so the proposal here is to um repair a pre-existing St like walkway that goes down to the lake there is a staircase alongside a guest quarters located about here on the property and I can show you that in the picture as well so this is the existing staircase also shown in image number two and a Meandering pathway that comes through the heavily wooded steep slope um that has been experiencing some erosion that I was able to capture in a picture there um George came forward with a request to amend this slope due to the erosion wondered how to fix it um upon which we discovered that there's already a walkway down there so I uh issuance at the staff level of a uh Amendment or repair to a second walkway without a variance um that was pre-existing when George acquired this property was discovered so moving forward to propose by the applicant that a 5 foot wide walkway or motorized access to the staircase located about 25 ft from the ohw at the bottom of this slope I was standing at where that um motorized vehicle would stop typically um as presented um Bluff and steep slope vegetation standards are stated in section 20-34 um talking about removal of trees in a steep slope being limited to dead down or dying diseased trees um talked to the applicant about the notion of a uh lift that would go alongside the existing staircase or removal of the staircase um he posed that that would involve removal of those healthy trees and um that is the proposal for that dirt moving standards are stated in section 20-35 um that would be limited to um Shoreland alteration permit for purpose of a walkway creation um it also does state that under Section 20- 1352 C private roads and driveways must meet the structure setback so this would be a motorized access that is within that setback um the section 20-1 141 is the standards for stairways walkways lifts and landings um stating that there shall be no more than one under item number three only one stairway or walkway shall be allowed within the shore or Bluff Impact Zone um they shall not um divert in more than one direction um so the switchb being another element of that going through a steep slope for his access to this Lake body um and and final bullet point in my analysis was that this pathway was pre-existing an applicant had come forward in good faith due to wash out occurring and errosion occurring on site that he's trying to fix and prevent so okay George you want us give us a brief overview of the project you're proposing well I've got this Trail going down to the lake and um basically wash outs haven't been too much of an issue until this year and I just I've come up with a way to improve the drainage on it um to we feel get rid of the wash out down there um it's a trail that's been there since we bought the place and just want to improve it it's not going to change you know location or anything it's it's going to just improve what is there and George unfortunately for you everybody in the crowd is now left so we have nobody to have a public comment so open and close unless Jenny wants to say something then I'm sorry then we have nobody else here to [Laughter] complain all right commissioner member comments do we have any questions for him no I I live about four doors down from you I thought you were here to talk about erosion on our road but I'll talk to you about those yeah we'll just keep talking nothing will get resolved side side the point see what you're trying to do makes sense and just to just to clarify that you're planning on you're trying you're going to try to pave the upper portion of the trail where it comes down and makes a elbow with a little bit of a softening of that curve you're going to pave down to that point which would be majority of it would be beyond the 75 foot yes the majority the between 70 and about 110 ft and then a little bit around the radius around the curve understand that's where most the erosion is is up in the top pardon me I say that's where most of the erosion this year is up well the top portion of that it's all along the top yes from the top Yeah Yeah Dave do you have any thoughts um I was just wondering about hard surfacing and where that was being proposed what's the plan for that point rest of the SL down pardon me I what is your plan from the where the paving would stop oh from where the paving stops to all the way down the rest of the way it' be the same thing probably crushed granite crushed granite yeah and but they're hopefully the way we're looking at there won't be much water washing down it just you know okay we'll have the water carted off diverted before that okay well Crush Granite is a good material so it helps it interlocks with all the crushed material it's a lot better than and the rounded it's great stuff so yeah it's got some body to it yeah all right uh since we have no more questions we'll go through our questions again for the variance and then we'll work our way through it so uh number one is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan I would say yes yes why well you need access so you're wanting access you want to be able to access your own property so right and and it will control the erosion a little bit better than what he's got right now and it's going to be Improvement on that uh two is a property owner proposing to use a property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the city court of ordinances yes yes yes it only uh only provides access to that the limited area of the Shoreland area so it made improves the access by fixing this up and allowing it three is a need for the variance due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner again yes that pathway was existing yes four will the issue of the variant maintain the essential character of the locality uh I would again say yes yes it would be an improvement as we're fixing the erosion issue at the same time as doing the project so five does a need for the variant involved more than economic considerations again yes there is a steep slope present that the property owner has to mitigate it gives it gives them the useful access to the property so so all right hearing all that can I entertain a motion can make a motion make a motion um for variance application 024 d24 to obtain variance um permit the access second access of 5T width to the shore facilitate motorized access to the staircase landing near the base of the steep slope property is located at 4293 Roy Lake Drive applicant is George lehan and then three conditions along with the three conditions uh construction shall be substantial conformance with presented plan deviation from the presented plan will require modified approval by the Planning Commission a storm water management plan must be submitted at the same time of the application for Shoreland alteration permit and number three present vegetative buffer of at least 20 feet must be maintained to perpetuity between the the ordinary high water mark and the proposed ramp to facilitate screening and vegetative mitigation you'll be given this stuff so you a second all those in favor I I all those opposed motion carries thank you sir good luck on the project yeah that's got a little piece of heaven out there so yeah that's a great piece of property I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing move second all those favor I all oppos motion carries uh moving on to new business so we are looking at coordinating with Chris pensan who had assisted in previous ordinance revisions of chapter 20 um looking to uh bring items into compliance such as feema flood plane standards um reanalyze ssts lot line setbacks and others um clean up some of the definitions and do some general housekeeping in the ordinance um Chris did submit a proposal here um illustrating short-term updates some of the top priority updates such as cannabis which is coming right around the corner on January 1 getting an ordinance in place and um coordinating with him to assist us in the creation of that um long-term updates would include revisions and updates to the land use table definitions the subdivision um section of our ordinance the future status of the PDD district and the zoning map update um post cost for this would be um 7500 as presented um looking to have a timeline so that it is presented to the Planning and Zoning Board at the December 2024 meeting um so we are ready to hit the ground on January 1 can you allude to why the FEMA flood plan and the STS lot lines are kind of a priority sure so FEMA I believe was a DNR requirement that we Shore up on our flood plane section of our ordinance um the ssts aspect of the ordinance rision would be to bring the um restrictions down to code to reflect 7080 um to a 10- foot side yard setback across all districts where currently our table 20-8 under section 2090 of our ordinance illustrates various setbacks depending on where the septic professional is standing and creating a design um it would simplify it and make it a little less restrictive more in line for um standard across you know City County what people are familiar with um and in the process of issuance of a permit for something that was hugging a lot line like that I would require you know illustration of where that's up that lot line is anyway um so more restrictive standards unless you guys can maybe provide any light as to intent for the 2015 30 25 depending on where we are um we' entertain that but looking for a recommendation to change that on the short term as I'm looking at a couple permits that are you know needing a variance otherwise so okay so we have the proposal here and what we need is a motion to submit the proposal or what do we for the Chris Pence aspect yeah yes okay we have any questions about anybody have a chance to look at what the proposal is and then cost Yeah okay or just to make a recommendation to the council to accept this is that correct that's right all entertain a motion if there's no questions so I'll make a motion to uh present the chapter 20 code of ordinance revision discussion uh the bid I guess is a is that what we call it a but bid and estimate to make the changes present that to the council for approval is that good enough or do we need to keep going no I think that sufficient and do we have a second will figure it out she's writing so it must be good [Laughter] okay do I have a second second second he's he's first Sean's first all those in favor I all those opposed motion carries Dan seconded uh old business we have none city planners report for October 2024 there were six permits issued um well sorry for September 2024 for the report in October um couple more that didn't make this list the state data was good through 826 like 926 like that um of this last month and I've had a couple more permits come in the door for more development new houses and decks things like that housing permits are few and far between these days yes see what happens after the election I guess yeah all right any other questions comments I'll entertain a motion to adjourn so move second all in favor I oppos motion carries meeting is adjurned e e