##VIDEO ID:6EqRhtMd3cg## couple hundred years they live in town but they own all right folks marathon of Technology there so thank you uh with that it is 6:30 and so we will call to order the city of oroko Planning and Zoning commission meeting for November 14th first on the agenda here roll call commissioner Kathy Brant Rucker I'm here commissioner Wendy Phillips present commissioner Jim Richards present commissioner Jim Phillips pres commissioner Scott Sorenson present commissioner Colleen freed pres commissioner John Evans pres and for staff I'm not sure if we have for staff Phil Carlson from Stant I don't see on there we've got two participants so we have somebody on the iPhone there I don't know to be admitted oh close that and click on the iPhone and admit there we go so with that let's see we're in roll call for staff I'm not sure if we have Bill Carlson with us from stantech or if we have Joe Palin from stantech and Jason will not be Jason Baker our city administrator will not be here this evening next on the agenda for this evening is approval of tonight's agenda are there any changes or additions or delions from the agenda for this evening make a motion to approve the agenda second all in favor favor of approval of the agenda as written I I any opposed he the agenda is approved next is approval of minutes of October 10th 2024 are there any changes or corrections to the minutes or and they were both in your packet as well as on the website seeing none I will ask there's just a spelling correction on the final page okay uh meeting meing which is actually a word meing is what it's supposed to be for meeting November 14th okay that is under item seven old business a update it's the first sentence Phil is here by the way oh so Phil from Stant is here will yes good evening thank you hey Phil hey change for spelling on the M minutes from October 10th any other Corrections changes any anything all right is there a motion to approve make a motion to approve second so motion to approve the minutes as amended there with that one correction okay all in favor say hi hi anyone opposed okay Miss okay well you abstaining there we go uh minutes are approved from October 10th next we do have posted for 6:35 this evening the first of our two public hearings and I have it as 6:34 so we do have to wait till it clicks over for the posted time and for those who are new if anybody does want a copy we do have copies of some packets when we do have our public hearing we will be asking for people if you do want to speak for again so when you do if you we would like you to state your name and where your address is so that we can have that for a minutes almost Clos 12 seconds it's the joy of trying to uh schedule these things it is official we are 635 I will open the public hearing for the variants at 1215 West Center Street at 6:35 p.m. and is there anyone who would like to speak for or against the public hearing variance at 12:15 West Center Street and I do have to say this three times is there anyone who would like to speak for or against the variant at 12:15 West Center Street and one last time is there any one present who would like to speak for or against the variance at 12:15 West Center Street hearing none I will close that part of the public hearing it is 6 I still have 6:35 so okay Bill do you want to walk us through the staff report that was in our packets yes um Madam chair and Commissioners uh the request in front of you as you noted is a variance for the property at 12:15 uh West uh Center Street uh this property was up for a uh lot split at last month's meeting and it was pointed out that um uh the frontage on West Center Street being divided between these two lots uh is only 33 feet uh so each lot would have 16 1 12 feet of Frontage whereas 50 ft of Frontage at the street line is uh required by the ordinance and so that variance had not been officially applied for last month and so the applicants did come in and make that application and that's what is in front of you uh tonight um the as uh you may recall uh this is a relatively large piece of property and it would be divided north south into two Parcels one of which U has uh more than adequate Frontage on Cent street but the other one uh up on um uh on West First Street would uh only have the 16 1 12 ft of Frontage uh and uh but we understand they want to access both Lots from that point so both Lots uh would uh be uh short of the frontage required um this is a somewhat unique situation in that uh it splitting the property as they proposed is a logical way to do it to uh as opposed to uh creating two lots that come off of uh Center Street with that Frontage where there would be adequate uh Frontage so they want to take the the access off of um as with any variance uh you have to walk through the six conditions that are in your ordinance and I did that in um in our staff report uh I think that the commission could make findings that uh these uh conditions are uh are met and that there is a is a way to uh consider this uh property warranting a variance uh and that's in the findings uh with the recommendation for approval at the end of our of our report of course U variances are permission to break the rules uh the the city does not need to approve variances and uh you could recommend denial and the city council could deny this variance but there would need to be findings uh that you'd prepare and pass onto the council to support that denial citing those uh six conditions in the ordinance uh but as I say if you agree with the analysis and the findings in uh my report uh you could find that this does uh justify a variance I did offer an alternate an optional approach here uh such that a variance would not be needed and that is if a new cuac was built in uh inside the barge property currently the culdesac at the end of uh First Street ends of that property uh it's a smaller than typical culdesac uh not big enough for what most emergency vehicles would like for a turnaround say a fire truck uh it being about 60 F feet in diameter a typical cue saac is 80 or 90 feet in diameter of pavement with 100 foot diameter uh right away and that's what's uh Illustrated in the graphic in my report uh so uh certainly these uh uh the the property owner could install a new culdesac have it built uh and they would not need uh this variance uh that would come at no small expense but still it is a way to avoid uh the need for a variance um so there are u a number of uh issues conditions in the variance again that I went through and that uh I Then followed through with the uh potential uh findings of fact uh for this variance uh I would be happy to discuss any or all of those uh but the commission may have uh read this report and uh and come to your own conclusions about this I'd be uh happy to answer questions about it well folks anybody have questions for Stant or Phil up there we've got two sets if you look in your packet page five of six for this particular one lot split that's the recommendation with findings of fact for approval of the variants or on page six there was if we wanted to pursue the denial um I'll make a motion that uh we approve the variance second okay so we have a first and a second to approve the variance as written here on page five is that correct with these findings of fact any discussion on that the only discussion that that I want to point out is that um for the criteria in the state statute to be able to allow of variance all of those points believe there's six of them have been met right correct so that would be myut so all conditions have been met yeah and we've got 11 findings of fact that support the approval of it as well and the way the recommendation reads is we recommend approval of the variance to lot Frontage for the lot split on the Bart's property as depicted on the applicant sketch on the survey from Johnson and scoffield dated August 20 2024 with the following findings of fact and then it's the findings of fact for approval of variance numbered 1 through 11 any other discussion I don't know if I actually have to read those 11 into the record Madam chair it's sufficient to Simply refer to the written record that's in front of you so you could if you want but you wouldn't that's fine if I can go that way we're going that way any more discussion yeah any more discussion on that one or I will ask for vote all in favor of approval as recommended with the 11 findings of fact say I I anyone opposed and so we will recommend approval this does go to city council at their next meeting for final approval there yeah all right next on our agenda this evening is another variance and this one is posted for 640 and we are at 6:43 folks so we do not have to wait this time that extra minute so we have a variance at 415 mines Avenue Sun and at that I will open the public hearing for at 6:43 p.m. is there anyone present who would like to speak for or against the application is there anyone who would like to speak for or against the application we have I guess it wasn't posted in last month's minutes as told it was just or something should have been mentioned anyhow if you want to come up and say your name and address I'm Denise W and we live at 35 fth Street Southwest Oro and we couldn't find anything out about the information that's to be discussed here so it should have been posted in the paper and it I know it was posted on the website because the paper is the legal record that we have to as a city post and that's where we have to follow the time they also post it I know outside and they follow the posting but we can certainly have that reviewed and make sure everything was done I think they normally send a letter out to anybody within that anybody you just got the letter and we got to there was a meeting tonight and we didn't know what it was about you know and so what and that's come yeah well then I know the packet was on the website because I pulled my off the website my packet of information so all of the application was out there sorry my husband's that's right he couldn't find it I mean I I'll be honest I didn't look so but my husband he said he was UN to find it was there something that you wanted to speak to regarding the I guess we don't know what it is I mean you know that's come I'm like okay we will get into that here yep okay y sorry no that's okay good question good question that's completely fine um is there anyone else I think I've said that twice I have to say it three times before I can close the public hearing is there anyone else present who would like to speak for or against the application all right I will close the public hearing at 646 and with that I will just read through again this is a variance at 4:15 Minnesota Avenue South and it's to qualify for a larger accessory building is is what the stated reason for the variance and with that Phil could I ask you to walk us through the staff report right so Madam chair and Commissioners as you noted this is a request for variances uh from Barbara Shane uh at the single family property at 4115 Minnesota Avenue South and there are actually uh two related variances here uh as you may know uh the size of accessory buildings on a property is regulated by your code and there's a formula in the code based on uh lot size and for this lot that's just less than an acre in size uh it would be allowed 2,13 Square ft of accessory building so that's the first variance is to that uh total square footage of accessory buildings the second is that the code says you can have no more than two accessory buildings a garage and a shed two garages a barn and a shed Etc but you can't have three without a variance and so for a limited period of time uh Miss Shane is also requesting that uh the property be allowed to have three accessory buildings uh and a situation here is really a fairly Common Sense uh situation they have a smaller garage or I should say a standard siiz garage on site plus a shed so they have the two accessory buildings they're allowed they want to build this larger garage and uh have it built uh and then move the contents of the original garage into it which uh again is a perfectly reasonable situation but during that period of time they would have three accessory builds buildings and be over the code standard so uh those are the two uh requests uh involved here um this gets into a a little bit of a moving Target in that initially um Barbara Shane uh applied for a new garage that was 32x 64 or 248 Square ft um if uh but she had noted a potential for a small medium and large siiz garage and she put in why not ask for the largest size well that mediumsized garage 32x 56 um uh once it was built and the other garage taken down uh wouldn't need a variance to the total square footage so she a after my report was prepared uh she responded to me and said uh you know what I'll build the smaller one I I'll amend my application uh so that I'm building that medium-sized garage and I won't ultimately need a variance to the total square footage of accessory buildings on site so that in one sense makes the application uh easier because there isn't an ultimate variance to that uh involved here uh but uh in the interim uh while uh all three buildings are up uh they would be over that uh square footage and I won't quote all these numbers they're in my report but again the target we're looking for is 213 Square ft that she's allowed so suffice it to say that um with the new garage built and the old garage still there she's over the 213 once the old garage is taken down then she's under the 213 and and she would be good but in the in the meantime in that period And I suggest a year here in my report that they be allowed to build the garage and move the contents maybe it's 6 months maybe it's 9 months I don't know that would the commission may have an opinion on that uh but uh that's the the two variances involved here is the square footage uh maximum uh for uh a period of time and the number of buildings three versus two for a period of time so uh on this one as well I walk through uh the uh six uh uh uh conditions uh for a variance and uh again those are based on on State Statute uh and starts out that there are unusual conditions uh well there's nothing extraordinary uh but uh it certainly is a reasonable condition that uh you be allowed to build a new garage and have it up long enough to to move the contents uh and um the U uh other thing thing is that state statute use the term uses the term practical difficulties and certainly wanting to build a new bigger garage uh but only being allowed two bu two buildings at a time instead of three that would be a real practical difficulty to somehow move the contents of one garage out take it down then build the new one and move the contents uh back in uh that just seems to be a very unreasonable situation so uh putting all of that together our recommendation on these two variance requests are that for a limited period of time uh should be allowed to be over the size limit as well as over the number of buildings uh on the site but that after that reasonable period of time and I suggest a year but another time period might be reasonable as well uh that uh we recommend approval of those uh of those variances in my report there are five findings that would uh that would U uh support that and I should note that in the original report I was recommending denial of the variants because she was requesting the larger one uh and then once she changed it I issued the supplemental memorandum that you have in your packet and there are seven conditions excuse me seven findings of fact uh that would support approval of these variances so uh uh I hope you've been able to follow this and it's not typical that we would issue a report and then issue a supplemental one but in this case I think the applicant has responded very positively and agreed to stay within the the ordinance numbers here and uh I see that as a positive uh thing the other detail to note here is that uh they also uh measured again the existing garage and found it to be uh somewhat smaller than originally uh stated that doesn't uh change the the numbers here it uh uh again uh it would be over during that that interim period but it would come in under the uh uh the code maximum once that uh existing garage is taken out so uh again there is a condition of approval that the existing 480 squ ft garage on the site will be removed within one year after issuance of a building permit for the new garage or again as I stated whatever reasonable time period uh the commission feels is uh reasonable and then there are the seven findings effect fact in the supplemental uh memorandum and again any variance you don't need to Grant variances uh you could recommend denial of these uh but also craft findings that would address those six conditions for variance uh in the ordinance thank you Phill I I do have a question um so I believe a while ago we put in the conditional use permit because those were term limited more so than a variance is this not um I I think you're referring to interim use permit okay um yeah conditional use permit would run uh with the land and you're right what I'm referring to here could be considered an interim period or a temporary use uh U and rather than have a different kind of application it is permissible to attach conditions to a variance and so uh rather than bring in a different process here I'm suggesting that you uh can simply act on the variants with the condition that it has this time period thank you so I'll make a comment too because I I think we've set precedents actually the resident that was at the podium I think we did the same thing when they built a shed or I shouldn't say a a garage we allowed them to keep the old one until the new one was finished off so they could then move everything and then they we gave them a time limit then they had taken yeah and that was the adjacent property actually so yeah yeah so well in in general terms just to kind of keep us on track um in this kind of a setting we should have a motion in a second and enter into all of this discussion so I make the motion I make the motion that we Grant the variance with the condition that from the issuance of the permit to build the new garage that the old existing garage is taken down I'll second that and now that it's you have a time frame you wanted to put um let's say that I think I said one year from the issuance of the permit yeah because you're not going to do a whole lot between now and you know starting into spring so that gives them time to be able to build it get and so now we can Z is second yeah got it okay I just want to again confirm that it's the 32x 56 but that the they were going to construct correct that should actually be part of the motion I believe yeah yes and I could point out uh Commissioners that finding number four in my Revis in my supplemental memorandum does mention the uh 1792 foot garage which is the 32x 56 I was looking for that okay very good thank you Phil I see it on there one thing I might change is I believe with the last one it was we set the time not as when we allowed the permit but as to when the garage was beened so it was like six months after finishing Gage or something like that would you like to offer that as an amendment to the motion I think I would like to offer that as an amendment that the uh time for removal of the first garage is six months or after and approval of inspection right because that was the whole that was a that was a deal electrical thing that was a hold up on it so maybe it's three months I don't know what the best time would be but six would give flexibility who knows season will be at this point if you do it a year you're going to be winner coming up next year it Cho well I think I think that calling just on top of it because if you give a year from the issuance of the permit and let's say that we have a really rainy summer or something and they're not able to complete it to actually be able to do it from the moment of completion and the approval of inspection and everything is released six months from that date is a reasonable time frame one torn down yes that that sounds perfectly reasonable okay yeah I just want to make sure that we start on this okay that that doesn't get delayed that we have to have a start on the variant too you know so it doesn't go for a couple years before they start right well there there would be if I may Commissioners there would be two time limits here uh any variance approval is valid for one year okay uh after which it would lapse uh the the city council could extend it but the applicant would have to come in and request that extension so let's just say this is approved at U uh you know some meeting near December 1st so then next December 1st uh they have to apply for a building permit otherwise the variance lapses then they get the building permit start building and then the time limit you're talking about now for construction and after construction and inspection then that time limit would kick in okay so instead of one year so first what we're going to do is we're going to vote on the amendment that's what I to accept the amendment make sure we got it right which is is that the building the condition is that the building needs to be torn down within six months of completion of building and and final inspection approval final so that's the motion the amendment that we are voting on right now and you're good with that as a second yes okay I'll in approval I'll I if you approve the amendment as Wendy has stated there say I I any opposed so the amendment has been changed your motion on the floor now includes that change any discussion to the motion for approval of the variance okay so hearing no more discussion this is a recommendation that we would send to city council for them we are to vote we're going to recommend so to do that we need to vote all in favor of recommendation on the floor here say I I anyone opposed same sign so this will go to the next city council meeting requesting approval on that a question yes so if they approve that part of it is going to be we need a new driveway when would I apply for that permit after the approval of by city council or prior to it's a great question I am not sure the answer on that one Phil I don't know we included you know uh petition but I didn't pay for well and what makes sense to me is that if you get the variance approved by the city council you would have a reason to ask for a permit to to apply for a permit for a driveway if they deny it then you would have no reason to apply for that permit correct so I think that would be the timing of that because our driveway is really City street that we turn off onto and the garage is situated on the North side and we're proposing to build it on the south side and so we would rather have the driveway come straight off of Minnesota Avenue further down than you know winding through the yard right sense we have sticks all over the yard if anyone wants to look at where they are all right well thank you Youk you thanks Phil thanks Phil thank you thank you Phil all right continuing on with our agenda for the evening here no more public hearings new business we have a code enforcement up State and there's two addresses listed here 1153 Street Southwest and 240 Minnesota Avenue South anybody have anything specific to comment or move forward with the information that we've got here in the P I think the information in the packet is good for what's going on we know Marin N say they were just ceasing to dist orders until they got their permits in place right yep I'm both of them so okay there's no more discussion on that we'll move forward to Old business WSB project update and with that we did prior to this meeting had a one-hour steering committee meeting continuing to work on rewriting the city code to bring it into this Century with a city that has water and septic and so the the rewrite continues the journey continues that's all I can say is that lots of lines of code and hopefully at the end of all this process we have instead of having a city code written before cell phones were popular and when everybody had to have functioning septic systems we will have one that fits what our city needs and continues to maintain the character of what we know but while expanding hope some options for residents who do want to continue to yeah so next month 5 to 6 5:30 to 6:30 anybody is interested if there's a crowd I'll bring popcorn so yeah and then we will also probably be scheduling a series of half an hour meetings dates still to be determined on those yet just because there is there's hundreds of pages of code to get through and I know we all like to read but it does some of those it's good to have the discussions absolutely and then Wendy and I will be missing that meeting next month in advance so you would know about that okay thank you okay so everybody else please be here so that we have qu be able to in the meeting yeah I think Colleen you said you were traveling also oh no it was Jim he was sitting right here before you so Jim's not here next month either okay so we may have to are you g to be there next month for if the four of you are able to attend then you'll have Quorum everybody could check your calendars and have to let City know we'll figure it out be graveling so if somebody's not going to be able to make it make sure that you email in and yeah because we'll have to reschedule the meeting yeah yep we could still have the steering committee meeting but we would not be able to have pnz and you're not doing steering no can always come and listen in it's great fun yeah I might be gone as well okay that'll be the 12th correct yep yeah yeah I think I fly out that night okay so we will do we look at January yeah we will look at rescheduling that or just moving it out to January if Jim is for sure out of town yeah yeah hopefully I'll know tomorrow I've got that week for traveling for work again well hold off on pushing it out anding check your schedule and check everybody check your schedules yeah so I only have for one day but I don't know what day that is and then we do have the monthly incoming zoning apps so we do did get that list in our packet um hopefully maybe next month we bring this list and the next month's list and Jason can talk us through those as well if there's anything specific we need look he any other discussion I've got page I think it's done yeah if there's no other old business there or discussion on that I would you got a question oh it's not on your agenda but I do have a question before you would during the meeting I would just like to clarify a couple of things at some point so whenever that works while we're close to adjourning the meeting that would be the next thing yeah KK Barts You' SE in my face um regarding the various y thank you for that I'm just trying kind of trying to see where we're at as far as last month's of Planning and Zoning we had approval from the laot split and then we got to the city council meeting and then that was kind of put on hold because of the variance and so I I've got the variants I've got the I turned in the U survey includ including that last on Tuesday it wasn't the 10 days ahead of time so I'm just wondering how that all works can that be that one I don't know timing that we have to check with I mean it seems a little redundant to have to go back through Planning and Zoning us you not have to come back through City that should be on this coming Tuesday's council meeting both of these would be yeah okay I was afraid that maybe since I didn't have the official drawing that first go around and now I've got it and it wasn't 10 days that I'm going to have to resubmit and do that no you did it right you were within your time limits everything so shouldn't be coming back to us whatever everything that Tak I've got the easement included we're we're recommending to the city and it's on the council's agenda at this probably next Tuesday we'll do that right just want to make your I get it the part we can do here we've recommended so understand yep good question though very goodeggs in basket toj anyone else second over there all in favor say I oppos same sign and we are now officially adjourned at 709 where are you going one of several that's great get a chance to do a lot tell you what