to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisibley and justice for all. >> Okay. Do we have a motion to adopt the agenda? Make a motion to adj the agenda. >> A second. >> A second. >> All right. Any discussion? If not, all in favor say I. >> I. I. And opposed. >> That motion passes. And do we have a council leazison on here tonight? I do not see one. Okay. So, then let's go on to the approval of minutes. Any corrections? Brian, I think you had something. >> Um, yes. Line 213, uh, states that the item was going to go before city council. Uh, but we tabled that one, so that line should just not be there. >> And Cory, >> yeah, I had line 115 under large properties. I had large homes. And Glenn Terry was not able to make it tonight, but he did want to clarify something on line 350. Um, it says, "Terry clarified that he is aware of the conditions of the resolution." It really should read, "Terry clarified that Mr. Zorn of SN is aware of the conditions of the resolution." It wasn't that Mr. Secretary himself was aware of the conditions. Okay. And I didn't have any. Christine, did you have any? >> I do not. I just have a question though. I guess I'm not sure who could answer, but why does it say also present and it's got people listed who are not present? >> They're highlighted. Yes. Um that they were not there. >> Is that is that what it means then? Is because they're highlighted yellow that means they're not there. >> Okay. All right. Just making sure >> they'll my understanding is that when they go to the final adopted version, they're placed on the web or wherever whatever historical book they're placed in, those will be deleted. >> So maybe they're like >> so they know to remember to delete them because for different reasons, some people may be at the meeting and some people may not. >> Okay. Okay. >> So like kind of people that would normally be there >> and so they know to remove those. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes? >> One more quick correction. Line Yes. >> 398 um >> shows that that item had passed unanimously. There was one vote in opposition, my own. So, >> okay. Thank you. >> So, actually the whole thing then um 397. Well, doesn't let me see here. >> Did I ask opposed? Do you remember? >> You remember voting? >> Absolutely. >> So then that should be in the the minutes that you had voted. >> Nay. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Yep. >> So yeah, that'd be lines 397 and 398 to >> Yeah. Perfect. Okay. So, I'm asking for a motion to approve the amendments of the approval of minutes with the amendments that we've given. >> I'll make a motion to approve the minute uh the the minutes with the uh >> correction >> corrections that we've uh called out. >> I'll second that. >> Great. Any discussion? If not, all in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? So, that motion passes. Okay. Next thing is we're going to have a public hearing on rental property ordinance amendments chapter 50. Mr. Johnson. >> Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Um and in your planning commission packet and on the screen um is a a set of proposed amendments to chapter 50 which regulate uh rental properties in your community. As we know, we're going through a uh short-term rental uh review process, and I know the council is uh going to be taking that up here shortly. We've had some um some internal challenges with that. Um good stuff, so to speak, to make sure things are are straightforward. And one of those things was maybe we thought that we should also update chapter 50. And the update is not substantive relative to the ordinance uh and who it's trying to regulate or what it's trying to regulate. Um other than to make a distinction between short-term in one hand and long-term or more traditional uh on the other. So what we're basically saying in in this proposal is um 30 consecutive days or more for which a license has not been granted by the city um would be would be the penalty if you will um or 30 days is what this would be applying to. Um, also it would clarify in part B section one that short-term rentals are regulated under a different portion of the ordinance. Um, being at this point we're speculating chapter 51. Um, so it doesn't change who it regulates. It won't change how it's regulated. Um, rather we're making a clarification between timeline of occupancy. So that's the really the upshot. We felt it'd be cleaner to the people in the future trying to interpret this >> and and the public as well and the rest of us. So that's our thought and that's it. >> That's it. >> Wow. >> Okay. Are we ready to open the public hearing then? >> If you are ma'am. >> All right. So I'm going to open the public hearing on this issue. If anyone would like to speak to it, please come up to the podium. State your name, address. I see no one coming up on this matter. >> You just want to >> No, this No, this is for the um rental properties. Uh it's an ordinance thing, but it was real short thing, but it's basically up there is the the changes to the ordinance. >> I have a question. Uh >> come on up, please. Yeah. And then just please say your name and this is really just for the minutes >> is okay. My name is Jackie Herren >> and your address 19541 East Front Boulevard Northeast in East Bethl, Minnesota. My question is is this in relate in relation to the VBO that is there are several on the lake. Is this in relation to that or is it in relation to something different? >> This is a something different. So, we did do the VBO last meeting. Um, so this is on long-term rental rather than VRBO. >> Okay. I'm aware it was discussed at a previous meeting. I was just wondering if this is a carryover of the same issue. >> No. >> Thank you. >> Do you agree? >> Yeah, they're related but not directly. I mean we're trying to just clarify a different part of the ordinance that so if you have a indirectly they're related but no so >> okay thanks anyone else want to speak to this subject if not I'm closing the public hearing on this and you find folks do you have any discussion I do not it's very clear. I do understand the driation of it and it I think it's because we are now doing a short-term rental agreement um and putting this in this is makes sense to kind of define it out. >> So sure separating the amendments. >> Yep. >> I agree it was pretty straightforward >> also. Okay. Great. Does anyone want to make a motion on this one? >> Madam Chair, we do have a resolution in your packet um PC2616. Um that >> Thank you. >> I even tried to be as short as possible. >> Okay, it's page 19 >> of 210. I'll make a motion to pass resolution PC261-16, resolution recommending approval of the amendments to chapter 50 rental properties. >> Perfect. And is there a second? >> I will second. >> Any further discussion? Fastest issue ever. >> Okay. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. So that motion passes and the next item is a public hearing on the Decark variance requests at 1 19533 East Front Boulevard. Mr. Johnson. >> Dan, this one's yours. >> Um, uh, thank you, Madam Chair, and commission members. Um tonight, uh planning commission is being asked to conduct a public hearing, consider a variance request for Daniel Jacqueline Decart at 19533 East Front Boulevard Northeast. Uh the map on the screen shows the approximate shows the location. Um Viking Boulevard is on the west side of this and uh talk about some of the zoning things here in a moment, but there are four variance issues associated with this project. A proposed garage would be approximately 17.2 feet from the east front boulevard where 25 ft is required and approximately three feet from the northerly side property line where 7 ft is required. The project also involves a required required ordinary high watermark setback for exterior stairs and a minor exceedence of the 25% imperous surface limit limitation. Um ultimately they're seeking to construct a four season room and a new deck. um uh in some future time and that would not be part of this variance. So um the let's see find a better picture here while I got it on on the screen. The the property is is in the Lake zoning district. It is in the Shorland Overlay and that's the dash line. Um and that Shorland over Shorland overlay zoning is what triggers the the 25% impervious surface requirements. So, I'll just skip that for now. Um, Here's a little bit better. Uh, let me see if I can zoom in touch. Um, their their proposed structure and garage would be here on the north side of their of their home. Uh the setback from the road is to be 25 ft and they're asking it to be 17. >> I apologize. I meant to say the right of way. >> Yep. Um, so >> and Dan, if you wouldn't mind, um, just refraining until I'm open the public hearing and then you can just correct him if you like and we kind of >> there'll be plenty of time to correct. >> Um, then the garage and the and the structure will be on the north side of the home and the setback requirements from the lake uh here are 75 ft. So we'll see a site plan here in a moment. The house was constructed in approximately 1957. As Ariel shows, it's it's an established neighborhood containing relatively small uh shallow lake shore lots. Again, the property is owned residential. Coonlake residentials within the Shorland overlay. It's guided low density residential. So, their proposed uses um are are basic in that area is basically for single family residential. Um, so yeah, talk about that's the general lay of the land. Let's see if I have here's the survey that the applicant did provide on the street side. um East Bul East Front Boulevard rightway. Um the required is 25 feet from from the edge of the home um to to the street. Obviously, that doesn't exist in today's uh the home is legal non-conforming as it is. Um on the north side, the garage will be approximately three feet in this north west corner from the uh property line and and closer to 7 ft uh which is the requirement on on the east side. Ultimately, staff would recommend that the garage not be permitted to extend further toward Eastfront Boulevard than the existing front wall of the home. Staff has also recommended the three-foot sideyard setback applied to the garage wall with only very limited roof and or gutter projections on the north side um of the home. Uh ordinance does allow a twoft overhang. In this case, um, we would want to see that limited to, you know, maybe 4 in or 6 in, just enough to take make sure the water c came off the gable end. Um, anyway, um, that's the general lay of the land in that sense. The proposed garage and the living space above it would have stairs proposed here on the east side of the structure um, or east side on the lakeside and that is initially proposed to be at 53.2 2 ft when the requirement is 75 ft. Again, the home and the current deck and things are legal, non-conforming. But to build into that again would require variance. That's why we're here. I'll I'll talk a little bit later about making a midpoint turn in the stairs such as in this point. Um, but that's something we'll touch on here in a little bit. And ultimately, um, we get into the the impervious surfaces of, uh, the property. the entire site um had cannot exceed 25% impervious in the shoreland zone. You know in their surveyor's calculations which we we take at face value um come in at uh 25.1%. So um what do you do? Uh it's there. Um let's see just do some elevations so you know what they're proposing to build. Um the applicants, the deck arts did provide these drawings. Um the front of the home is actually obviously in the upper leftand corner. Um uh again these are existing conditions um that they have and they're floor planned and I don't know how critical that is but this is the proposed uh as you see the structures on the see the north side of the home and wouldn't need a door because that also serves as their main entrance to their home and they would like to build some living space above above the home and when I talk a little bit about that overhang up here that would probably need to be trimmed down a little bit. Um, but you know, just enough to make sure water gets uh drained away appropriately. Um, some site some site pictures. Um, I don't know if I have any of these in any particular order. I'll try to go to the front of the house. Yeah, this is the front of the home and this is where the the garage would be. There is a large portion of that site already where the garage sits that's already impervious. Um so the garage would be here and it would be two stories in effect. Um you can see the lot line marker ser the applicants did have the site surveyed and so the garage would sit here and um that's is about where the three-foot distance would be. Um, again, another picture front picture of the home. Uh, this this is their one of their main entrances to their home here on the north side. North north side of the home. Um, and so they would still need to access that door um through the garage. Um, and another picture, another picture kind of the same. And this is the rear of the home. Um this look this faces this looks east. This is a side that faces uh the lake. None of this is anticipated a change under this application. I know in the future they're they're seeking to do other projects here. Um but that's not what's not being proposed today. Um in addition, this shed will be is proposed to be removed um as part of their project. Um, so it's kind of the lay of the land. See if I can find a Okay. So in order for the planning commission and city ultimately to consider a variance um city's ordinance requires the planning commission to address three specific criteria. All of three must be satisfied. The applicant did submit written justification addressing each of those criteria. Again reasonable use unique circumstances or necessarily not created by the applicant and uh the variance when changing the essential character of the neighborhood. Um the applicant states that an attached garage with living space above is a normal residential imp use and improvement would provide vehicle storage, general storage and sheltered access into the home. From staff perspective seems to be a reasonable land use in that neighborhood compatible. Um the essential character the applicant states that the garage is designed to match and complement the existing home will not broaden the home's lakefront profile and we use an already disturbed portion of the site. Staff also notes that the existing shed will be removed. The garage will not extend forward of the existing residence toward Eastfront Boulevard and the adjoining property owners to north have submitted a letter of support. uh staff would concur that it certainly would not change the uh central character of of the neighborhood. Um and finally, unique circumstances not necessarily created by the applicant. The applicant states that their practical difficulty results from the existing 1957 house placement that it's a shallow lot configuration. They have a well and a holding tank. If I remember, the holding tanks are in this area uh in front of the in front of the home and the well, if I believe it's is here, if I can see my Yeah, the well is just outside of that uh shed that would be removed. Um the applicant further states that locating the garage on the opposite side of the home for example changing it to this area um would conflict with living areas, utilities and site infrastructure. Um staff believes the argument is is the combined uniqueness of the is this combined effect of these physical and developed conditions. Uh not so much that it's a lakeshore lot. Um, obviously the owners didn't create this. Certainly they bought the home knowing certain conditions, but they did not create them. Um, so staff believes there's a reasonable basis to support the three practical difficulty criteria and those are outlined in your resolution. Um, however, the exterior stairs piece, um, the original layout that they provide is at 53.2 ft. Let me get rid of this. I don't know why that keeps coming up. And 75 ft is required from the ordinary high watermark. staff would think that um 52 53.2 foot setback is would be the minimum relief necessary to allow them to accomplish what they're trying to to do. Um, so what we're proposing that the planning commission consider andor the applicants that make a turn in this in this in these stairs instead of a straight down um development or straight down construction, have a landing and then make a turn and that would increase that setback to probably more or less about 65 ft. um and would certainly in create a very usable and meet the minimal relief required um under I think what would make most sense for a variance and defensible um I touch on their imperous surface calculations you know they're at.1% over the parameter it's hardly worth worrying about but it's important to note it um as they get into their design and construction finally I mean that could up or down another tenth. Who knows? So, but it was good they provided the data. Um, ultimately in your packet there's uh resolution PC 2026.15 and um and that's also I'll share that here on the screen. It's a lot of mumbo jumbo but it's true. What do we do? And um in summary, staff would recommend approval of this resolution. The garage would be permitted no closer than 17.2 ft from the east front boulevard right away and no closer than 3 ft from the northerly property line. The garage and the living space may not extend forward of the existing front wall of the residence toward the street and limited roof projections toward the northerly property line are allowed. Um but um we would suggest keeping them to about six inches and all drainage must remain on the property. The existing shed would need to be removed. Lakeside stairs should be redesigned with the midpoint and maintain a set of not less than 65 ft. Uh the impervious surface coverage may not exceed 25.1% and the proposed four season room and new deck shown on the survey are specifically not authorized through this variance. Um with these limitations, staff felt there's a reasonable basis for the commission to find the practical difficulty has been satisfied. Um so that's a lot and uh I'll leave it to you. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Right now, I'm going to open the public hearing and I'd ask anyone who's not the owner um of this application to come up and if you have anything to say, we'll get your questions, your thoughts, and then we'll ask the owner to come up afterwards and address those. So, does anyone who's not the owner want to come up and talk? And if you could please state your name and u address. David Sakowski, 1951 19 East French Boulevard, couple doors away from Dan and Jackie. So, uh, if you drive up and down East Front Boulevard, um, either north or south, everyone has a garage, but Dan doesn't have one, and he certainly needs one because to put his things in there like everybody else. So, it's not an isore for the neighborhood. I'm not saying that Dan's got a nice sore property. I'm just saying he needs one to put his stuff in. It's all I got. >> That's great. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Okay. Does anyone else want to come up and talk? >> My name is Jackie Herren. I live at 19541 Eastfront Boulevard Northeast. We are the neighbors to the north adjacent to their property. We are delighted at the thought of them having a garage. Um likewise, I also did a drive around the area in the vicinity and they are the only ones without a garage. Um on the right over here today, my husband and I came up with some other idea reasons why this is important. Um, this construction will make their property look like all the others in our neighborhood. It will it will improve it. It will beautify the neighborhood. And like my husband said on the way here, your tool blocks toolbox belongs in the garage, not the shed. Um, and having a garage keeps items out of sight, the neighborhood looking wellkept and tidy. Um, it would also allow, and I don't know if this is relevant or not, but for us, um, and for Dan and Jackie, I think having um that wall there would allow for more privacy as well. Um, and we feel that this project would be a great improvement to our neighborhood. and we hope that it passes. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All righty. Next one. >> My name is Tina Riley and I'm at 19525 East Front Boulevard. I'm their neighbor to the south. >> Okay. >> And I just wanted to say I'm all for it. No issues whatsoever. I think they should have it. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You guys are putting a lot of pressure on us. >> All right. Anyone else want to come up and talk? >> Okay, then. Will the owner come up? Hi, I'm Dan Deckard. I'm the owner. Thanks everybody for coming and showing your support. Um, yeah, this garage is small but huge for us. So, I just hope uh you can find it in your hearts to make our house a home. That's it. >> I have a question. Um, Dad, if you don't mind, sorry. The um space above the garage, is that going to be living space then? >> Not not right now. Uh, it's going to be storage. Um, got a lot of Halloween stuff that's in a storage unit right now that I need to move out of a storage unit. You know, change of season stuff. Uh, patio furniture, winter comes around, you know, moving uh different items. You know, it's just pretty much storage. >> Storage. um >> just for all the holidays and seasons um that come about. So, >> okay. >> Because the garage itself isn't going to be a lot of room for storage in there. It would be room for >> the car, which is huge and like the toolbox and things like that. But when it comes to stuff where you don't use a whole lot, that's going to be up upstairs in the upper level. >> Um like I said, I got a whole storage unit just full of Christmas stuff and Halloween stuff. I have a place for anything. So, >> absolutely. Is the So, is the asphalt driveway uh that's currently there, is that going to be like removed and then you guys are going to line it because it looks like it's >> if we can start the project this year, I don't think that the driveway because I'm going to keep that asphalt in place until all the construction is done because that's not the only thing I'm going to do. I'm going to resite everything roof. So, everything's going to be the total makeover. So, I don't want to wreck the driveway or the new driveway. So, it'll probably be in the springtime when I do the driveway. That'll be the last sign I do. >> Okay. >> So, I I'll keep that asphalt in. We'll do a soft cut like six feet out from the garage. And I also have the my builder here, contractor, Dan, if you have any building questions for him. >> Okay. >> But yeah, to answer your question, I will do a new driveway. I was just wonder just looking because I get well your neighbors here saying you know because I was looking how it kind of the the garage kind of sits a little angled kind of on your driveway but the existing one so obviously you guys have already thought all the way through that as far as fixing like making it look all aesthetically >> yeah okay don't go away yet because these >> we have other questions yeah we have other questions >> nothing addressed >> okay >> the I guess the only other question. What about this the turning of the stairs? Is that something >> I I was talking to Dan earlier about this and yeah, there's creative ways to make that happen. I'm sure we can do something that, you know, as long as How about this? What if my deck that's there right now, if we don't go past that, would that be sufficient? You know, because right now it's going past the existing deck that's there. I got to get my glasses on. I can't see that. >> So, but if we kept it within the footprint. So, this is the deck. Where is it? So, the deck line's right there. And the stairs are actually bumped out on the outside of the existing deck right now. But if we kept that inside of this line, >> I don't know if you're I don't know if >> you okay because right now I'm at 58 of the existing deck. >> I don't know if that is I mean from a constructabil I mean setbacks are one thing but from a constructibility standpoint how many you know you have so much rise and run and then when you're on the back of your new structure maybe you in theory want the stairs to even kind of come down this way. I mean, so maybe, you know, so you can get to the new I mean, so maybe there's some configuration you want to dwell on. >> Well, there's going to be a garage door in the back as well. >> Okay. >> So the stairs can't go down that way. >> Yeah, because to put the dock in and out, you just have to get a four-wheeler through here. >> So the only way to get around would be the garage door here. So if I came down the steps like this and turned and kept it within here and kept this lane open. >> Yeah. That way you that way you have some better usable space than one straight run. I mean from a cost standpoint you have all kinds of interesting things about what gives you more usable space. And so for example, if the commission and they said, "Okay, um yeah, the what I just drew on there is just an image of concept, you know, who who knows." Um just like the stairs as they're represented. It could these be done in five other ways? Yeah, probably. You know, so if you set a hard line of setback, then let the applicant just pick a way to accomplish that against >> That's what I was just going to ask. Um Eric is Does he have to have approval for that at all? It have to go through anyone at the city for construction >> for the steps. >> Yeah, they'll have to when they pull a building permit, they'll have to have the right, you know, tread height and depth and and that's going to be equate to the height of how tall that building is. So that could be a a 10 step, you know, I don't know how many steps is that if every step is 8 in, nine inches, you know, plus the tread depth, you know, every step's about a foot, you know, pick a number. >> Um, maybe you want a landing, you know, maybe, >> but that's not variance stuff. >> No, you if you guys just set the setback number and let the applicant decide how that is best accomplished, that's kind of meets everybody in the middle. >> Okay. I mean, yeah, we can be creative and figure something out there. So, it's not out so far. >> Again, my number 65 is an estimate. So, if you just said 60, you know, that probably be adequate for give them more difference in space versus, you know, trying to restrict it to 65 because I don't have scale. I'm just trying to ballpark it on a map. So, >> I was going to ask. >> Yeah. >> Okay. That's good though to remind us that you're being because you aren't going to have a lot of room on that one side to be going in the backyard. So, you will need to be getting your >> a Yeah. So, I'll need two garage doors so we can get something through there. Something happens to the well, we can get back. >> You got to get back >> whatever the case may be. Um, and that previous cover, Eric, was that I think that was with that proposed four season force that we're not doing right now. So, I believe we're under the 25%. >> I did talk to your surveyor. I did talk to your surveyor and we did >> Yeah, you're under um >> I'm not at 251. I should be 23%. >> Well, yeah. >> Um again, I take their surveyor's numbers at face value. I don't try to nitpick them so much. I can >> So, yeah, we're more up on that 234. >> That's with the four season edition would be 251. I I could share my spreadsheet with you, but I don't feel that would be >> Yeah, I think it's not an issue. >> I just I just don't want to one%. >> No, I don't think that's what >> that's not an issue. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, >> but if I don't address it in the report or if the commission doesn't address it in their findings and it turns out to be that, then we have to now we got a challenge on our hands. So, it's better that we just take it head on and check it off the list. >> Okay, that is all my questions I had at the moment. Okay. And me too. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Yep. Thanks everybody. >> Okay. The public hearing is closed and now we'll have our discussion. Maybe we can talk to the three issues of um I just had them here. Reasonless is one. Is it a reasonable use of the property? >> Yes. Um as stated, >> there isn't a garage and >> so yeah, I mean I think it's a reasonable >> everyone needs a garage. >> Yeah. And it's the essential character of the neighborhood. Will it change the essential character? >> No, >> not at all. I think it'll improve like every I mean, it sounds like it it's going to improve it. It's going to actually let it help it be aesthetically pleasing to the rest of the neighborhood. So, it fits in. >> Yeah. >> Then we come to the hard one, which is unique circumstances, right? Um because the applicant did buy the um buy the house knowing it didn't have a garage. >> Yeah, those lake lots are >> they're packed in tight and >> um those setbacks are are definitely um a lot of variances are going to be requested because of that. Uh but I mean it's I think that there's I think it's proper to go through this variance request it because of the size of the lot the house being built in 1957. Um I think that it's >> cars are bigger now. >> Yes. Um >> have more stuff. >> Yeah. >> Unfortunately. >> And you know he spoke to using heavy equipment in the back so he's He's going to make sure that he can still have that option available, but at the same time, you know, this addition will serve, you know, the reasonleness that we we found earlier, you know, and also give him a spot to park his car and put his stuff and seasonal decorations. >> Um, so I don't know if we should deny because of the uniqueness. Um, I think that it's, as we stated earlier, a reasonable request. Um, you know, I think he's trying to squeeze it in there as tight as he can and, uh, a lot of the conditions set forth in, um, the resolution address that. So, I think that if he's willing to meet the city on those that it would be a good approval to make. Um the only concerns I mean I love that he's put in the garage door, you know, to get through. That's super smart. Um is service of the well. Like if he has to drill a new well, how is he going to get back there? You know, that's going to be a struggle. But I don't know, maybe he can cut across the neighbors, you know? So, I just want to bring it up. I mean, to me, it's just a point. It's not a deal breaker, but it's something always to be concerned of. I mean, because it depends how old the well is and everything else. And then the one thing though that probably makes me the most nervous is the three-foot setback. And here's why. We've passed a fair amount of these, and I'm usually for all four of them, but we've never had one that close. So, it just makes me a little nervous that now we're setting precedent of three feet, which we've never done before >> in my time anyway. And you know, That that's just my worrisome. I love the design. I really respect what he's going through. And I mean that's my only worry. And I mean obviously the eve has to be shortened up. I think 4 in eve is too small. I wouldn't construct a eve of 4 in. I mean so now you're pushing it to 2 feet 6 in and why. So it's just for discussion I guess. >> Yeah. I I agree. When I saw the pictures it is close. >> Yeah. Christina. >> Yes, the um it is uniqueness. Well, yes. Um I guess two, but it's only one corner. The other corner is seven. >> So, it's not the whole But I hear you like that's a it is tough. It is tough. And again, these lots around the lake, right? >> But it's really two feet six say because you got to count the overhang. And the bottom line is if the next one comes in a month from now and it's 26, we got to approve it. >> And I'm just I just I just want it to be out there for everyone to respect that, you know, and I mean that's that's the stressful part of it. I mean the garage how wide is the garage? It doesn't look >> small. 16 wide entrance and the garage door. >> That's 16 is what it is. on the inside. >> And the inside. Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, it's not significant. I get that. >> But, um, yeah, you need a service door obviously. But again, it's if I sit here and vote for 26 tonight, I got to vote 26 the next one. >> Well, you don't. I mean, each variance is Am I Am I correct that that we're not talking about precedences with varian? There is always the implication of precedence but as the uh madam chair you note um every every site has its own conditions and challenges and this and that um your your another thing to think about while not uh always a hard and fast rule is granting the minimum amount of variance you c that's required to accomplish the project. So um don't grant too much that that is not necessary for the project. Just grant the minimum amount necessary to to accomplish what you feel is reasonable. >> That helps. >> Um and uh Commissioner Jorgensson said our ordinance um ordinance does have a condition of about overhangs and and some of those things. the measurement would actually be taken from the sidewall. Um, so whatever that's worth. >> So it'll be three. >> Um, but having a twoft overhang in that space would seem not reasonable. So again, >> right, >> chop that down to six would be again trying to find compromise to >> make it work. Um, and and the last piece of this is removal of that shed. um actually would would not that it's a mess or any sort, but would actually um make the back of that property much more open. Um and the last thing to note is the neighboring house to the south. Um, again, I know every shoreline's different and that shoreline extends out further than the applicants, but um, in terms of their, for lack of a better, maybe the more critical setback in that neighborhood might be the distance to the shoreline and they're not going that direction. >> So, whatever, more food for thought. Yeah, the neighbors to the north and south both spoke um favorably of this. Uh but Cory, I mean, you made a you know, if that neighbor to the north wanted to do something similar right on that same lot line. Um I'm sure the fire chief would have an issue with the nearness of those structures. Um but that's not the case. you know, I don't I don't want this to become a, you know, ours was their first type thing with development in in the Lake Lake lakeand area, but again, they they spoke with favor about it. Um, and there isn't an existing structure on the north lot that would uh really risk exposure should there be an incident. So, I like how you put that, Eric. U the minimal amount of variance possible to to kind of find a compromise Was anyone that able to actually drive by? I wasn't. >> Yeah, I went by. >> So, what what did it look like? >> Oh, it it's just like described. >> Well, I I know it doesn't >> Yeah, I think it would fit. I mean, it's not crazy. Like I say, I'm just a little nervous about future ramifications, but you know, it uh I don't think it's crazy to say yes on it. You know, >> I I hear and and you know, and again, the the neighbor to the north is is favorable for it to be within three feet of her property line. And if she wins the lottery and moves to LA and someone else moves to the lake, what if they're not happy with it being so close and they >> Well, it's there. >> It's there. So, it's >> um >> Yeah, they're lucky to have good neighbors. >> Yes, you are. You're lucky to have good neighbors. That helps a lot. >> It it does put it into perspective. Again, that lake area is tough because it, you know, it was developed, you know, it's an older home. It wasn't built with a garage. uh they they stuck as many houses as they could along the shoreline. They, you know, they're all on well and septic. It's, you know, they have these other uniquenesses that they have to now move into the the the the new updated living and and build around those needs. So um it it it does it does it's it's tough to know what the best choice and decisions to make are correct moving forward for future. Correct. That's a that's tough. Um but it makes sense like it all makes sense. Okay. Well, I'm still trying to get, you know, to the point of I think that it it is unique. I think that Brian made the best um this um whatever best argument at the at the very beginning of it, you know, I was convinced then and uh >> Yeah. Does anyone want to make a motion? Yeah, I'd um I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of resolution PC2026-15 uh with the um change that the stairs are located not less than approximately 60 ft from the OWM um as that's mentioned throughout the resolution and yes recommend approval to city council. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Yeah, I'll second it. >> Perfect. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor say I. >> I. >> And opposed. So that motion passes. And that will go to city council when? >> September 14th. >> 14th. Okay. And this is just a recommendation um to the city council that they approve it. All right. >> I said this is just a recommendation to the city council that they approve it. So the final decision is not done until you get to the city council. Now they won't have a public hearing like this. So they there is a public forum. So if you feel compelled you need to say something you can. Um our leaison is not here tonight. Hopefully they will get information through the minutes. Would you say Jim you'll get it through the minutes about kind of what the discussion went like? Okay. So, thank you >> for your time. Okay. And I think we'll go to the next agenda item which is a site plan review. >> Yeah. Have a great night. >> Thank you everyone. >> Thanks. Bye. Bye. So, this is a site plan review for outside storage of North Country concrete at 230 35 Ulysa Street Norththeast. >> And Mr. Johnson, you're going to have something to say, I'm sure. >> I Well, only because we have to, right? >> Yes. >> Let's see. Okay. Uh thank you again, Madam Chair and commission members. Uh the plan commission today is being asked to consider a site plan review for North Country Concrete. Um located at 23035 Ulissi Street. Um the image on the map on the screen uh shows the site highway 65 to the east and and uh just north of 229th and 230th uh lane. Uh the site is approximately 3.07 acres. It's presently undeveloped. It's zoned light industrial. It's is represented on the on the map uh in the in the gray area. Uh and is proposed to be developed as an exterior storage yard associated with North Country Concrete's existing business across the street um which is largely here between uh Ulyses and Highway 65. Um, it will include crush asphalt milling store as a storage service, perimeter fencing, gates, uh, driveway entrances, landscaping, site lighting, grading, and storm water improvements. Um, just to note, um, city council already approved this as an exterior storage use through resolution 202466 in fall October 2024. um for what they're proposing or what they are looking to do. Um uh therefore tonight's uh discussion is focused on site plan review. Um why they didn't take up the site plan at the same time, you know, I don't know. Um but here you are. Um so we won't we won't focus too much on the conditional use permit and those conditions and standards, but rather stay uh stay with the site plan review. All right, let's see. In that resolution 202466, the uh city council at that time adopted a number of conditions um for that site which will also are germanine to your site plan review and we really can't through your site plan review process tinker so to speak. Not that you would um but use these as your guiding principles for that site plan review. And we'll we'll touch base on on some of these as we go through it. Um so these would be either in addition to or in in in matching with your standard site plan review. Um I mentioned it the property own light industrial the future land use is guided. Um uh I didn't put that map on my in my packet. I apologize. Um but is is is proposed for future development. Um let's see if I have that. I'll I'll skip that. I'll come back to um yeah is future lanes also guides a subject property and surrounding industrial area for light industrial development. Um because this site sits at the edge of industrial district next to residential property. Um ultimately staff focused on the screening, lighting, uh fencing and and drainage issues. So the site plan that we have from the applicant and I will say on the out outset the applicant did provide some updated drawings uh late this afternoon and we would go through those um and certainly the applicant touch base on on those items, but I would suspect they relate largely to the comments that were in our packet in your packet or from the city engineer. Um, none of those concerns were material. Um, I mean, they're important, but they weren't uh something that I think would styy the project um in the end. Let's see. Just not doing very well with move moving >> these things around tonight. So, the existing conditions here, um, uh, again, the applicant's uh, primary business place of business is on the east side of Ulissi Street. And this is the area where um they would propose to put that that outside storage area. Um they did propose in the future a um potential area for septic fields and drainage in in this area. So they did do some soil borings and testing. And in the norththeast corner is where you'll see some uh storm water drainage facilities that we'll touch on here in a few minutes. Um, public works did review this proposal um and did not identify a traffic capacity concern. Streets within the commercial park are constructed at 10 ton standards. Um, you'll see in some pictures. Certainly, the roads have been there quite a while, but they were intended to accommodate industrial traffic. Um, let's see. the applicant uh and as part of your site plan review and the council's uh requirements sought to make sure they have screening um from the residential area to the north. Um and what the applicants in their fencing plan proposed a six-foot decorative wood fence on the north side of the site. Um the rest of the fencing will be uh chain link with some plastic slats through them for screening and that will match the rest of their site. Uh the north side would be a decorative wood uh screening. Um and that is also part of your site plan review criteria. Um the drainage plan and again certainly part of the city's engineer review um is proposed to drain all of the water to this storm water basin in the northeast corner. The applicant did provide all of the storm water studies and and engineering review. Um there'll be some there'll need to be some updates in and finalization of those things as you saw in the engineering report. Um but generally workable um from the city engineers perspective and we would catch up with any of those in the final uh before any final permitting is issued. Um there will need to be some maintenance in the storm water basin. the applicant obviously be responsible to maintain that storm water area um as an infiltration basin meaning the water will will percolate down um and over time um that'll need to be I don't know if the term dredged is accurate but cleaned out to make sure that still functions um so yeah there's the so the pro the water is not leaving the site onto somebody else's property the landscape plan. Um, if you recall in the in the council resolution, um, called for an overstory and an unders story. Again, I'm not a landscape architect. Um, but the applicant uh did do a good job, I think, of of not only with the fencing, but providing um overstory and understory. The overstory being um can't even read that. A Austrian pine and understory of of juniper trees. And actually junipers can grow to 10 to 12 feet tall. The Austrian pine probably closer to 20 to 30. Um I'll show you some pictures where they have some of these already at the site. Um so again, the goal of landscaping here is to be low maintenance, but also offer screening. Um, and in the winter the the pine will obviously being conifers will uh not lose their leaves. So anyway, that's about best I can do for you. Um, the lighting and the phototrics. Um, again, the goal with the phototric is to um I'm sorry. Try again. Spin this. There we go. Okay. The goal with the photometric um designed is to prevent light from leaving the site if as light pollution uh especially if how it affects the neighbors and what they have to look at out their window. Um the city's rule seeks.5 foot candles at the property line. um the applicant submission. Um and we talked a little bit about it probably still need a few tweaks. Um it's impossible to read at this scale. Just you just have to uh applicants provide a photometric. Um typically from their their their lighting consultants and in these areas um you can see these exceed a.5 foot candle at the property line. So how they want to address that, you know, they can put some additional shielding on the light poles um to or angling to some extent. Um but that's something they can address. Um their proposed light fixture is shown up here is shown on the screen. And it has a full cutoff light and that is compliant. And their proposed height, if I recall, I saw at 24. >> Yep. 24. >> Where did I see it? They were in compliance. It cannot exceed 30 feet. Um, there we go. Fixtures mounted on a 20 foot pole um and a three-foot base. So they're in compliance with the height and the fixture itself. So there can be some shielding on those fixtures um that will that will make that compliant. Um the applicant uh there were some concerns in the past discussion 2024 about the site being used for public parking. Um, and I don't think that's really something that is going to happen at the at the site. What am I doing here? Let's get out of here. Um, so they're they're not allowing public parking at at this property. There we go. Their sign their signs being proposed are not um significant. Um they're not advertising sign. They're not at proposing any any pylon signs. Rather, these are directional signs to their yard. Um and largely pretty innocuous. Um but that's their that's their sign proposals. And in the image on the screen, obviously tilted. Um, but you can see how their what that the balance of their fencing would look like. Let's see some site pictures. Um, I don't know if these are in any particular order. Um, let's just start with uh the site itself where this is proposed to go. Um, this looks down 20 two. Erin, could you tell me what street that is again? >> Yeah. Anyway, so >> Okay. Um, so the the the site itself is on the north side of >> Johnson Street. Okay. >> 230th Lane. >> 230th Lane. >> Yep. And so you'll see it's it's a vacant site. Um, just as you pivot around again, you'll see. And then this looks kind of northeast easterly and then this looks easterly. And their their primary business is is back here. Um, same image. Uh, again, their p this is the this is the the dead end to the north. This is the north end of Ulisses right now. and their other storage yard is is behind this fence and behind this wall of Austrian pine. Again, that's an image of what those current trees look like. Um, and then what's inside their yard and how they propose to use their yard um is storage of equipment, storage of trucks and trailers and again they're a concrete contractor. They have um a number of vehicles and and storage of equipment and so this is how they propose to use it. Um I don't think anything out of the ordinary for that. And then this is this driveway face looks to the west and would connect across this street um and into the storage yard. So across Ulisses and into and into that space. Um, I mentioned those trees. Obviously, they don't necessarily all start out like this, but, you know, they'll ultimately um mature and get to that stage and then the understory would would fill in some of those gaps and then and then the wood fence would be behind that. Um, so I think there's a a decent screening there relative to your ordinance. Um so with that uh commissioners staff would certainly recommend that the site plan is meeting your your your general parameters. Um there is a res there is a resolution in your packet um uh that >> it's on page 124. >> I'm sorry. >> Oh, I was just letting them know it's on page 124. >> Yeah. Um, I got to find it myself. I apologize. Um, page 124 of your packet. Um, I think I which outlined um recommends approval of the of the site plan review with these conditions. Um basically to quickly go down the list um resolution 2024.6 was the initial cup. Those certainly remain exterior storage would be germanine to the concrete company's business and not public parking. Um there is a discussion between should there be a 20ft driveway apron or 25 foot driveway aprons. I don't in visiting the site I don't know if there's going to be material distinction. Um if the city engineer thought 25 feet is acceptable. Um you know it would probably be just fine. Um the landscaping and fencing would be in accordance with what they've shown. Um landscaping would be maintained in a healthy condition. Uh we'd require a escrow to maintain those for a period of time. site lighting should comply with the standards. Um there's some adjustments they need to make. Um the engineer notes some adjustments to their drainage, storm water management, infiltration and and the maintenance agreements, but those are kind of typical. Um they that is a large storm water pond that should be more than adequate to control their water. Their signage plan is minor. Um and so with that staff felt that sub should be supported. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> And do we have a public hearing on this? >> You do not have to um as a site plan review. That's not something we publish or but welcome to open it up and do whatever you decide to do. >> Okay. Do any of you folks want to speak with the applicants here if they're here? >> Do you have any questions? Christina, >> we spent a lot of time on this last go around, so I'm pretty >> Yeah, you'll know more than me on this, right? >> Yeah. >> So, I'm pretty comfortable with >> Okay, Christina. >> Yeah, it sounds like it's Yeah, I'm good. >> I don't have any lingering questions. >> Nor do I. Okay. So, we won't be having a public hearing then >> and then no other discussion for you guys. >> I'll just say I remember the biggest thing, you know, it was a big deal for this city because the road is between the two properties and they can't combine them and stuff and >> but they're great neighbors. They're going to it's it's going to look awesome. They need it. They're going to stay in the community and I I I I'm excited for voting for it. I mean, unlike we voted another one of these about a year ago and I was past the property and the guy's using the site for his equipment but hasn't done any of the things, >> none of the fencing, none of the, you know, and I know this group is not going to be that way. >> So, I'm excited. >> Okay. I do have a question about the lighting. Is that um it's on all night then? Um, I don't I'd have to look at the ordinance. I do not believe the city has a requirement for dimming. If that's a condition you would like them to make, you could you could do that. Um, probably some security concerns. Um, however, in at 1:00 a.m. in the morning out in there is, you know, you could probably suggest they dim them or they shut off or maybe on minimal lighting. That's up to you folks. It is an industrial area. >> I mean truly. I mean, yes, to the north it's the residential. It's where I live, but there is trees, the fencing, the stuff they're planting. And with the lights pointing down, in fact, I have one of those lights I put up in my own yard >> and the way they cascade down, I have zero concern that they're going to be bothered with the neighbors of North because their homes are so far over. Yeah, I was looking at the the map here. It doesn't >> long backyards >> to get to the property line and it's going to be inside of that >> quite a ways. It you know and I'm sure you know that if it was a big deal those people could complain and >> could work with them to get more shielding if >> right >> light fixture. >> Yeah. All the way around is supposed to be half a candle. >> A.5 foot candle on the abuing property line. It could be up to point sorry one 1.0 foot candle at the public right away which is not in this case. >> So everything along the north would have to be.5. Um the light again I'm not phototric per expert but I've seen a lot of it and like we all have and um those full cutoff lights at 24 feet or so high um uh are they're intense right underneath it but once you get away from them um they do darken pretty fast. Um, if those were pivoted up and you were staring right at it, yeah, you'd be bought with something you want shining in your window. >> Um, but it's still a subjective perspective. >> Yeah, that was my one concern. But if they're going to take measure to be at 0.5, I think that's I think that'll uh I can't see it coming up as an issue with with the neighboring properties. >> Any other concerns or discussion? >> Does anyone want to make a motion? >> Brian, you were going to say something. You were just breathing. >> Just breathing. Yes. But while I'm breathing, I guess >> I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of resolution PC26-17 as it's read on exhibit I to uh city council. >> Is there a second? >> I will second that. >> Perfect. Any more discussion? If not, all in favor say I. >> I. And opposed. That motion passes. Number eight on our agenda. >> Thank you. >> So, this will go before the council also. >> Yes. >> 14th. >> September. >> August. >> It's crazy. >> 14. >> Let's see. >> Okay. The item eight um has to do with soda storage that we tabled >> and continued from last meeting that we had. >> Mr. Johnson, would you like to say anything? Well, uh, Madame Chair, commissioners, um, in your packet on page, um, 128 you'll see a copy of the letter that I did provide to the applicants. Um, asking them to follow up with those items that you folks did discuss on the 28th of July. Um, I did send an email to them on the 11th of August, but I have not received a response to either of my inquiries to them. Um, so, you know, among the potential options you could take is approve it, approve that resolution um, as presented, so to speak, with any edits you might want. You could you could recommend denial. Um but maybe the maybe the middle ground might just be table it one more time. Let's reach back out to them and say, "Hey, uh bring it back up next month." >> I did extend the timeline. One of the critical things that cities do in on page um 129 of your packet talk about extension of a review period under Minnesota statute 1599. Um cities are when you're dealing with land certain land use questions. You have so much time to make a decision. Um if we don't feel we're going to meet those timelines, the city has a right to extend that under the statute. So I I did do that and so you have another 60 days. So it's actually you're probably good until the end of October. But you don't want to push that. And nobody came tonight. >> Nope. >> No. >> Okay. So I would make the recommendation we table it because I have a question about after going past it on the fencing and I know Eric can't answer. So I would like to table the issue. I could I could show you one groovy thing if you want to talk about fencing. >> Groovy thing. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. More than you want to know. But I I did take the time to pull together a little bit of uh uh what other if I can find it. Let's see. Am I looking for soda storage? So, these aren't these aren't the greatest pictures, but looking at what um other other facilities are. This is this is uh the the public storage on 65 out of Blaine. Um no no barb wire there. Um this is in Woodbury. Obviously, you can tell it's Woodbury, right? Um along again and again along this is along 94. Um no No barb wire there. Um, go for storage. This is in East Bethl. Um, they do have barb wire in the backside. Um, but along their front facade, there is no barb wire. Um, this is the back side of that Woodberry public storage I showed you. Again, there's no barb wire there. Um, this is along 65. Um the Walmart in Blaine is to the right and then this is another storage. Again, no no barb wire there. Um interestingly those peers are collapsing but that's their deal. Um now they do have barb wire here at Storage World along 65. Um you can see it there. That's just north that's in that's in Ham Lake. >> Um and then this is in Wood this is in Lake Elmo. This is US storage and they do not have barb wire in the front of their facilities either. So a lot of them have this faux row iron black aluminum. So when when there's a conversation that says, "Oh, there it's barb wire." Yeah, sure it's still out there, but the more modern theme is not. >> So anyway, whatever that's worth. My more specific question was if you look go past their site, pretty much everything where they're going to work is fenced in >> and then there's a piece of fence that goes about 100 ft north and then it just dead ends. >> Yeah. Do >> you know exactly where I know where that is? Yeah. >> So, yeah. >> Does Why would that have to stay, you know? >> Oh, that's I mean that's something >> I would love for them to agree to get rid of that because >> you would look through to the pond and woods. I'll make I'll take some pictures of that for the next meeting. >> Yeah. And then, you know, obviously I'd like to see the bob wire off at least the 65 side. >> I didn't hear you. I'm >> I'd like to see the bob wire off the 65 side on the back. >> Yeah. >> I respect our concerns. People climbing on the dark side. >> And you can't see it because it's woods. >> There's a big swamp back there, too. That would be hard to get through, but >> But I wish they were here >> with crocodiles. >> Yeah. That's why I want to table it. >> So, I'm sorry I interrupted the the motion and >> I I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to table. Um, no, I missed Hold on one second. >> It was item agenda item eight. >> Yeah. Agenda agenda item >> eight until our next meeting in September. >> Is there a second? I'll second the motion. >> Any further discussion? >> It is called PC 2610 because it was agenda item six in the last meeting but >> PC 26-10 that would that would have been the resolution if if you considered it. So >> I think we could just go with agenda item 8 is >> clear now. Okay. >> Okay. Okay. So um all in favor say I. I opposed. So that motion passes and oh my gosh. Okay, before we adjourn, I am just going to ask our favorite city planner. >> Is there any way to make the packets smaller? >> Not really. I mean I sure I is it in terms of the material or is it the analysis or is it just >> No, the analysis is fabulous. >> Okay. >> Um it's just the amount of pages. Um that to me actually is a little overwhelming and and the reason I asked the question the way it did was like oh this is too much for me. I'm just really asking if it all has to be there. I'll give you an example. So when I had to go through this process on the other side >> in uh 2013 when we had to apply for variance to farm on a place that's been a farm for 80 years. Um I I provided financial information like kind of as supporting my business plan and everything to get this variance and all of that was published in the packet with my information and so yeah. Whoopsie. Um, but I'm wondering if if because something is presented, does it have to go into the packet? >> I try to call out some stuff like the sometimes I just forget. It's just a question of time. Uh, so we'll get an application in and often the applicants will bring their check and I take a copy of the check so I put it in the file and sometimes I start merging data together. Did I remember to delete the check? most of the time I do. Um or um another another interesting thing is we'll get a 200page wetland analysis. >> Exactly. >> Do you want to see the complete wetland analysis? Probably not. >> Um but maybe another commissioner does. And so where do we start stopping and starting with and and to be fair I mean isn't fair um for staff to try to it's easier for us just to provide it all than to try to start backing stuff out. Um well why did you delete that? Why didn't you share that? I mean, so it's some of that becomes a little bit of a ethical dilemma for us. And I know council or commissioner Jorgensson's question to me is, you know, can we can we do something like a couple page? I don't know, however you phrase that. It's like it's just hard to do physically not hard, but just to find the time to >> try to make it to >> streamline it, I guess. you know, the the last months um especially just seemed to be really really long. Do you think it's just the m the nature of the issues that we're talking about? >> Yeah, >> it was bad luck. >> So, next month, so the deadline for the application for September was just yesterday. Yeah, we're always a month ahead. Um and we do have a variance application on the table and a condition and a concept plan application for Cedarwood Estates. So, we'll have I think we're only going to have two things on agenda. One's a concept plan, another one's a variance. So, it won't be I think we got hit pretty hard here. >> Yeah. Well, and I'm not complaining about the number of things or there are the amount of work. Um but it is to me at least a little bit overwhelming about the number of pages. I don't know about you guys. Yeah, actually I spoke to Eric yesterday about it. Okay. >> And looking at more of >> And we didn't even talk. >> No, we did. We did it. And I was looking more like you, like of course the front page, you know, the proposal, some of the, >> you know, the very important pages, but you know, a lot of the >> big documents we can see up on the screen, you know, the the site plans and things, >> but like Eric said, you know, Christa might think differently than me. I want to see all the site plan pictures >> and I don't, you know, I might I might see them up on the board and I'm happy. So I I I respect his opinion, you know, of that. >> Gosh, Brian, why do you want to see everything >> and and it is true that these last few have really been significant compared to some >> agreed. I think past I just feel like we've been bombarded the last couple, >> which is good for the community. We're getting business. Great. >> There's no way to really pull out the important things like the resolution I think is really important for us to >> Yes. >> to get a chance to to look at that ahead of time so we know what we're >> correct >> moving on. >> I'll do my best. I'll again I do try to get rid of some stuff because like I said the this packet did have um the soda storage items in it, but I did take out the 80 page storm uh wetland report. Oh, thank you. >> So, I'll I'll try I'll I'll I'll keep trying to do that. >> Okay. And again, this is not a criticis. I think you're right. Yeah. >> No, it's just >> it's criticism of me. >> No, no, no. I understand. >> Okay. Anything else? Brandon, do you want to talk about it? You love the paper. >> No, I'm I'm good. >> Okay, good. Christina. Okay. Do you want to bring up anything with us? >> Uh only thing I would I would you mentioned uh at your last if I recall it was a short discussion about code enforcement >> and uh we did have one operator in the short-term rental world that was cited. So we'll we'll see how that plays out. So yeah, that brings up to me that other business that wanted to do exactly what North Country did. >> And that was about a year and a half ago, I think, when we approved it. It wasn't, you know, spring a year ago. >> And like I say, they're using the site, but they've done none of the improvements. >> And it's like, how come we're not out there doing something about that? The >> question of enforcement is always a challenge, but when you do have a compl legitimate complaints. There is neighborhood engagement with it. You know, that can certainly open up the the the push to more actively enforce. >> Right? >> See, I look at this a little different than a complaint based thing. And here's just my opinion. The people came in and applied just like a building permit to build this building. They build a building, they get a certificate of occupancy, they move in. So our people, staff are looking at it and then allowing them to use it. Well, they came in, they applied for this process. We approved it, council approved it. Is there no followup on the process being completed? When it comes to this type of things, >> how would we enforce it? >> Probably not. Well, I mean, I'm just saying that how would you enforce a house that didn't get completed? You have the same process, right, with that full permit? And like I I just think it's a little different than, you know, a person like me shouldn't have to go complain about it because they came in here, applied for this program, went through the steps, said they were going to do all that stuff, and then do we not Any followup? I mean, that's my question. >> Yeah. So, so the soda storage was the one that was most recent. Well, you >> why did you do these things? >> Yeah. From six years ago. >> Yeah. >> I suppose people whether it's a staff issue or it's a applicant issue, probably a little bit of you know, hey, where you at with this? >> Because to me, it should be no different than that building permit that's hanging in their window. North Country should get a permit for what they're going through here and then there should they shouldn't get to use it until they have it signed off >> by the city representative. >> That's a great question. So there is no like checks and balances. It's like so when you do come in and you get like an IUP or no one goes and be like, "Okay, yep, you did check that and you did check that and you did check that." >> So some of the challenges I mean short answer is you're both right. You know, there's there's no there's an ideal situation with that. That said, city still is a the muddy term of complaintbased system is a challenge. Um, you still have a staff capacity challenge. >> Why are you enforcing on me? Why are you not? And then we layer in things for like a conditional use permit >> unless there's an egregious violation. conditions, permits run with the land. So, but you still need to go and enforce and and say, "Hey, where you at with these five items?" Um, do things fall through the cracks? Absolutely. But how you don't have a cadre of people back here that are going to follow up on all those things. I think city would say, "Yeah, that'd be great if we did." But >> I think we need to move in that direction, though. Okay, North Country, we're giving you this. >> Yeah. >> But until somebody inspects it and says you can use it, you can't use it. And then we wouldn't be in the situation of this. It isn't soda storage the one I'm talking about. >> But like you say, they're using that property and they've done none of the fencing, none of the >> entrance work or anything agreed to do. >> I think it's an issue for city council then. I mean really to to bring it up with them to say if you think that these things need to be enforced to bring it up with them >> because they're the ones that drive. >> Well, I certainly would talking to a council member and saying >> they should not get permit for something like this until the final until an inspection's done. >> I mean, it only makes sense, >> you know. So, for example, the Dairy Queen that recently came through. >> Yeah. I can only speak to the work that participated in. And so they submitted their plan set, you know, you guys approve X, they'll then submit their plans, the big roll of plans. I'll go through them. Not I'm not looking for what kind of bolts are using in the wall or their structural steel or their electrical outlets. I don't care about that. I care about does their final submitted plan match what you folks approved. Does the percentage of glazing match? Does the Does the do the colors match? And so does did they put the right lighting on the building? Is it does it meet the spirit of what the city approved? And so when they go build it, we'll know. I'll know that's not approved. And so we do have probably with a lot of turnover, we also don't have some of that institutional knowledge following a project from start to finish. Um, so if if somebody if I left and somebody shows up and said, "Well, I don't remember. I don't know what we did with Dairy Queen." >> I know it's a big red spoon in the on the south side of the building. I know that was on the plan, but somebody else might not. Um, so that's probably also part of the challenge, but I try. I mean, I was just thinking the public could get involved with that, too. I mean, if people are hearing or attending their commission meetings and whatnot, seeing items move through at the council level, then they see a difference in I mean, that's where the public can >> exactly, >> you know, step up and take that role of enforcement. But I like how you put it, a complaint based system. If if it's not interrupting somebody's lifestyle or way of life, I don't see them going out of their way to something that is not what it's supposed to be. >> It's a balance. >> Any city it'll be a balance. I could drive up and down every one of including my own property find violations. I mean it's question of degree I think but there's clearly properties that need to be addressed and maybe that's one that we talk about it. There's nothing wrong with sending a letter saying hey because they had such a nice plan and the place would look so nice if they would have did it. >> Well, that's what those were the conditions. Guess what? >> Then they have to do it. So, >> have you said your peace? >> I guess. Yeah. >> Okay. All righty. >> We'll talk about more. >> Sounds great. >> You just email me the address and I'll I'll follow up. >> There you go. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Great. Is there a second? >> I'll second the motion. >> Any discussion? Not. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. So the meeting is adjourned. 8:30, right?