but I hear that we're close enough here we'll go ahead and call tonight's meeting to order again thank you all for attending all right I'll go ahead and call the meeting to order is there a motion to adopt tonight's agenda SoMo all right to all in favor say aye aye aye any opposed hearing none agenda is approved and with that moving on to item three approval minutes approval of minutes of the February 28 2023 meeting anyone have any comments Corrections I do please go ahead on page seven um the paragraph that's the largest paragraph toward the top it's just a grammatical thing which should be a comma after the word this on the first sentence and then the building remained rather than building remainder and then on the third the end toward the end of the third sentence closing the parentheses after the word precedence and then page 10 of 10 at 8.0 updates it says there were no console liaison updates I would like to add this sentence because just after the voting results were announced the console liaison walked out of the meeting just to provide context for for that okay any other Corrections or amendments to the minutes hearing none I'd accept a motion to approve I'll move to approved minutes I'll second with the amendment start with the changes all those in favor say aye aye any opposed I abstain I was not here I will also stand I was absent that night sure all right thank you very much minutes are approved and we are going to move into item number four Planning Commission appointment of a chairperson and vice chairperson for the current term that we're in so I just like to to bring up that we're already at April kind of halfway into the meeting already so I'm I'm wondering if you would be willing to be the chairperson for the rest of the year since it's not going to be a full year I'm certainly not opposed to continuing to do it as I have in the past but again I certainly don't want to stand in the way of anybody who's interested in doing it that qualifies I have no objection to that but again I also don't want to stand in the way of anybody else either there would need to be a motion but I'll make a motion then no other discussion I'll make a motion that Tanner just extend his term as chairperson for the year 2023. a second I'm motion a second any discussion call for the vote all in favor say aye aye aye any opposed hearing none carries forward as the chairperson and then moving on to the vice chairperson I will make a motion to nominate Sharon Johnson as associate chair I will second that any discussion Motion in a second hearing none I'll go ahead and call for the vote all in favor say aye aye aye any opposed sure and I'm assuming that you are okay with it yeah I'm fine with the intent of moving moving up next That's Right Moving On yes all right so those are approved and we are going to move on to item five the commission interviews uh before we jump right into it um Glenn did ask to just give a brief statement so people understand why we're in April to continue our interview process just to give an update for anybody who's not up to date I also have a staff report that outlines that but I can let Glenn take it if he'd like to that would be perfectly fine I'll leave that to you too to refer you could do that and not fill in any blanks that I perfect thank you very much Mr chair members of the Planning Commission on January 31st of 2023 the term of Karen crepus expired although the Planning Commission recommended the reappointment of commissioner crepus to an additional term the city council did not approve the reappointment this created an open position on the Planning Commission to be filled on February 28th of 2023 the Planning Commission conducted interviews and recommended applicant Wanda McLaren to the city council to fill the vacancy on March 13th of 2023 the city council did not approve the recommendation again leaving an open position for commissioner City staff have re-advertised the opening and have received two letters of Interest or resumes letters of interest and or resumes along with the interview questions are attached in your packet for your review my recommendation is that the commission conduct interviews and make a recommendation of the city council to fill the vacant seat which will expire January 31st of 2026. all right I would like to fill in the blanks if I made please um the reason Karen krupus was not approved was stated that she had called then candidate for now councilperson Jim Smith a liar that is not correct and there was apparently somebody in the crowd of the meet the candidate forum who said that but it was not Karen krupas um this was when Karen was interviewed by Council after our unanimous recommendation um she was asked if she would apologize and that was tantamount to like saying when did you stop beating your wife oh you're not going to tell us when you stop beating your wife and so when she would not apologize for something she didn't do then the statement was well that tells me everything I need to know about her and that was given as a justification for denying our unanimous recommendation second time oh and I should also point out that when I brought this up to the council also stating my background as being on pnz for 25 years I was told things like um this isn't a good old boys club and there's no you don't have any um privilege to be on here just because you've been here a long time well I don't think in those terms I think of how can we serve the community by being unbiased not having an agenda but listening to people and reacting to what they bring before us in making the best decisions and we are a body of people who are individuals we don't have an agenda when we come into these meetings and we we often have different perspectives that sometimes are not in agreement but we are rational and calm and we come to some sort of decision and those who are qualities both found in Karen krupus and in Wanda so when she came oh and we are in a some of us seem like projection to me in retrospect because at first I wasn't aware of these it just is totally out of left field that she would not be care and crevice without being approved and then again with Wanda but I've been told we have a three to two majority which implies an agenda which implies not having an open receptivity to what comes before Council so it becomes apparent when Wanda was not let in and also won the Eda unanimously recommended somebody and that person was denied and somebody else was installed that this is somewhat of a farce especially given that Wanda's justification for not allowing her was that there were only two respondents there were only two candidates so in fact we've had three one of them did not show up but we had their information on their resume in front of us and we had intended to interview them so there were actually three candidates so now we find ourselves in a situation where we have two candidates not three and based on the reasoning for denying Wanda that seems like it would either we revisit what we've already twice approved which would be current crepus or and or Wanda or we table this if the real desire is more candidates if the desire is to install somebody that is after interviewing and our discussion and voting isn't approved then it's just a farce so that's I don't think it's fair to Eldon to interview him in under the circumstance I don't think it's right that we re-interview Joe who we interviewed already and made our decision if I need to I could tell you why I made that decision because I still remember a lot of the points that were brought up and the discussion um and I don't also want to make the council liable to some claims of misogyny or that strong independent women aren't welcome on the console because we've unanimously approved two of them they're both very qualified they're both very intelligent independent thinkers so I move that we either recommend again Karen and or Wanda or that we table this until we have more candidates if that's the real reason why we're doing this once again thank you for the history I'm assuming you're done thank you for the the update for everyone for what's what's gone on um I guess you did actually make a motion there so there would have to be a second for that and then discussion unless you want to defer to discussion prior to that but we will still have to go through the commission interviews point of order chair thank you can he please restate the motion because um again that was to me more of a statement than emotion yep it just didn't it toward the last sentence he had motioned in there so I wanted to make sure I didn't discredit that well I would like to I would like please I would like it rephrase please for absolutely notification right so it I wasn't intending to make a motion right then and there but to put for discussion that we should consider emotion based on what we think as unanimously would be the best which would either recommend Karen once again who should have an apology issue to her recommend Wanda who was quite overly qualified and a great candidate or we table this if neither of those two um people recommending them is acceptable then table this until we have more interviewees thank you for the clarification I have a discussion on those items I think I think we would need a motion um I mean we could continue with the discussion but but you're you're talking about suspending the agenda in order to do something else yes I wanted to give it the opportunity to give Glenn the respect to having the discussion for what he brought up but I guess at this point I would just make a motion to have a discussion based on Glenn's comments prior to moving on to the subject item if there's a second and those in favor of it I'll second that second all in favor for discussion all right any opposed we are open for a discussion chair can you clarify the motion for my recordings yes the motion was to have a discussion on Glenn's request yeah to discuss potential options given what we have before us for the candidate interviews okay thank you Claire God thank you yeah I think it's really clear I do we have that ability to re-recommend essentially one or if not two people who have already been interviewed and turned down by city council I guess without going into that question I know for me given given they've already been through it we don't know that they would want that every appointment either I respect your your comments Glenn on on that um again I think we all are in agreement with most of it since both times it was unanimous I don't think there's there's arguments from that standpoint um unfortunately I do also think we do need to keep moving things forward um again I think the clarifying for everyone is very important so they understand the process of what's been happening okay I have an I have an idea for a motion um it was clear that Karen wasn't approved on the personal issue and if we were to recommend her again I think we'd just be butting heads with that same issue Wanda there was no question about her qualifications so it was based on the concept that there weren't enough interviewees so I see her as a safe decision in terms of there's nothing no stain on her character in terms of perceptions of others and we're dealing with issues of trust and apparently we aren't trusted by some members of council or our staff because they have an idea about who should be on here and they want to install somebody that in our Collective wisdom we didn't prefer over Wonder Lynn I just want to ask are you are you positive that the reason that she was denied was because they said that there weren't enough candidates that was the statement made by a council member who made the motion to deny the request that was the justification given okay well I have copies of all the minutes for the last two years for the council meetings and for the Planning Commission meeting so if there's any questions about that we can go back to the minute so we can go back to them online too but if you're sure I'm having I'm having a little hard time finding that right now yeah I'm sure of that if I may uh please commission uh Miss McLaren was ultimately offered an opportunity to reapply when we reopened she did not reapply she didn't indicate to me that she had an interest in reapplying so that point of order might be something for you to consider and then secondly uh I don't think it would be out of order if you guys wanted to make a recommendation to the council to leave it open for another extended time in attempt to get more applicants I think that would also be a reasonable uh way to go another option would be to interview the candidates and if you're not satisfied with either of those then ultimately make a recommendation based on your level of acceptance or denial of the potential candidates that have applied if if they're not to your qualifications or what you would want on the Planning Commission as commit fellow Commissioners so there are a number of options available to you it just depends on what direction you want to go but I I don't want you to promote um Miss McLaren if she hasn't uh and that's kind of where I've decided that she's interested in doing it again so I was something similar so thank you for okay for putting that out there and I did speak to her after the meeting and because she said she was pretty frustrated and wasn't going to do this and I talked to her and said that you know this that seemed unjust and that she should and I at the time she indicated that she would I could imagine that she doesn't think it makes sense to re-interview once we've already done that and we've already voted for her you know just like a lot of this is a lot of waste of brain space and time to have to go through all this but um if if we're going to take the letter of the law of the reason for not accepting her being not enough candidates and I think the best of the options that Aaron recommended would be to reopen this and solicit more people and I would just point out that you know if the reason that that Wando indeed wasn't chosen because there weren't enough applicants and the other applicants shouldn't have been appointed that time either because that would disqualify him too right so it's it's like a charade to do that at this point um and we're wasting people's time I think and and again I wouldn't I don't argue any of that at all but I also know that in the interest of things we do need to keep moving things forward and get this commission back to a whole body and if we're dealing with if we're in the situation as as a result of other actions we still need to keep moving forward just like when we talk to Residents who don't always know what's you know how the process works we talk about let the process happen keep moving it forward and if right now what we have before us if the process is even though from council's words that there was not enough interviewees we've had at least one more new candidate come forward I think it to me my opinion is as we go through the process tonight I do agree that we we have interviewed Mr Ritter already I think it would be fair to give Eldon an opportunity and if we so chose to make that recommendation after hearing him as a new candidate in this round we can put that forward and what they choose to do from there we can do that I don't think that whole that hinders any time and if it's something that they approve then great we've saved some time as opposed to if they deny then that's you know then we're back where we started without any time lost in my opinion based on what we're looking at one more comment from me Mr chair last month's meeting had to be postponed or canceled because we had a lack of Quorum if we would have had that that seat filled we potentially could have held last month's meeting and got some business taken care of your agenda might not have been a thick tonight as it uh is if we would have been able to hold a meeting so another point to consider yeah Mr or two errands errands I have another commitment next month that I cannot get out of and so I will not be here so just so people know that I won't be here to add my vote to whatever happens then can I make ask a question um for discussion as opposed to doing this back and forth I mean I can I can pretty much anticipate what the result is going to be here say we go through with this vote now just projecting that what can can we not do something with city council I know we've done joint work meetings in the past over other matters I mean obviously you know our ability to vote on our nominees is being contested can we not come together with city council face to face instead of the back and forth every month and maybe try to cut through this in the past it's been very sorry no no in the past it has been difficult to always coordinate everyone's schedule and have special meetings to bring in all parties and have and have that discussion uh but I think we also need to respect the process that we do have and try to keep moving things forward as you said earlier that again if and if this is the back and forth yeah then that's unfortunately what what it is but if this is our current process I think we still need to again even respect the process to allow it to keep moving forward our city ordinance prescribes this process as the process to fill the vacancy the commission does the interviews makes the recommendation the council approves or or denies based on the factors and gets kicked back to the commission that was the current process at this point so and and I think the reality is and I hope Council sees this um that you know we are four months plus into this into this process uh hopefully something gets decisions get made and again and all we can do is is you know move and counter move can we add a recommendation to our recommendations essentially if they decline or turn it down that maybe we do suggest meeting just just to I mean it might cut through a lot of clutter just to be face to face but again if it's not in the current process right then we're circumventing that and I think again we just need to sure keep trusting in the process and hope that a result yield is my that's my belief but I used to have work meetings a lot with Council and we haven't had any in quite a long time and there seems to be just attitudes form that aren't based on even understanding where we come from what our beliefs are and you'd be surprised how much actual Common Ground there is on issues but there's a lack of trust and that's Behavior based from my perspective you know of what I'm seeing they have there are reasons for elect trust in us which I don't know and all I can say on that is in in the time when we're not in meetings to reach out and have conversations to try to find Common Ground outside of our regular meetings if need be for access but again I just I still I still see it as we we do need to keep moving forward with the process and we need to stay talking I'm not arguing your point said again that those are helpful and that you know it would be nice to have those again and get there but I think for this specific thing I think we do need to keep that ball rolling but that's just my opinion Mr chair please I have a couple of items um I think the first is is that you would you had talked about um interviewing Mr Holmes for this position and that we've already heard from Joe reader I'm sorry writer I want to make sure I get that right um we can't do that we have to I mean this is the process that we're doing if you interview one candidate we have to interview the other even though that Canada has interviewed before um simply due to a sense of fair play certainly okay so I don't think that that that is a tenable position to say okay we're going to interview one and not the other not to mention that um uh in the previous meeting there was two members that were not at that meeting that are here tonight who may want to even though we may have seen the previous Planning Commission give that person another chance to speak their piece yeah I'm not arguing that he that he shouldn't or couldn't I was responding based on Glenn's comments it sounded to me like you were you were suggesting that that was an option to interview one and not the other so I just wanted to clarify that oh absolutely I appreciate the clarification no I was trying to respond based on how Glenn's comments were to as an option or I guess to continue playing out based on what his comments were okay fair enough so my other my other point would be um you know there seems there's you know it doesn't even seem there's flat out is um a lot of hurt feelings and and a feeling of um that this is not going the way it should um I think that that we also have to consider another option which has not yet been discussed which is if if the commission really feels this way that you know city council doesn't have trust in in what we're doing the other option is just to not hold any appointment interviews and suggests that maybe city council just takes over all of the interviews going forward because if if um what our if our recommendations are going to be dismissed again for whatever reason that they do um that that maybe that's something that should just be taken out of our hands now me personally I don't feel that that's a good option but I think that um that at least has to be put on the table I would disagree with that last point which you're not attached to apparently but that we have we have this process and it's it's fair to have a body that has that's a volunteer group of citizens make these interviews and decisions for the people that we will be serving with and then it's up to council to agree or disagree and they should be transparent in their reasons but if we don't hold and conduct the interviews and make our decisions known then there's that one less level of process and transparency as to what what's coming before us I don't disagree I'm merely pointing out that if no matter what we decide it's not going to be accepted at city council and I'm not saying that it is but if that's the feeling then my feeling is is that like was said earlier we're wasting time well they have the opportunity to do the right thing just as we do and I don't want to circumvent that opportunity by seeding that to his out of our hands and I guess that's where I get I'm in agreeance I'm not in favor of again just saying well then you pick if you don't like it again this is where I go back to if this is the process let's trust the process keep going through it if this is you know as Luke as a former counselor Committee Member would say you know we work at Bethesda city council we are an advisory committee it's our job to give give a recommendation let's move forward with you know with our process give our recommendation what they choose to do with it from there is their choice and again we respond accordingly yeah I I agree completely that we have a process and I think we should use it whether it's um interviewing the candidates as I think I do agree with Randy in that if we interview one candidate tonight we should interview two candidates tonight because that's kind of the process that that I've seen yep and again and if I and if I miss book or gave the wrong impression Mr reader my apologies was not to say not to interview you it was more to just point out that we had one new candidate versus what we've had in the past is all I was trying to point out so if that's the way it came out I apologize it was not my intent as for the previous candidates um I don't know are either of them here this evening yeah curious okay I was just curious if you know if you were still thinking about going back and recommending one of the previous candidates because I wouldn't I wouldn't be in favor of doing that without somebody actually being here to say that they would be willing to accept that nomination and I wholeheartedly agree with that statement okay so with that is are we good to disclose the discussion ask this question last time when we interviewed the candidates we had a sheet of paper without the questions that we were asking and then I took copious notes and then these were book collections and I would have preferred to keep those is there a reason why those were collected welcome to human resources policy 101. burn bag so I need to make notes on my own paper instead of it should be in the packet that was in front of you tonight uh I've got two you can have one you know just a couple Pages after item five yeah we were provided a new question here so I Mr chair I was trying to confirm I know uh a month ago or so the uh city council proposed an amendment to the ordinance regarding the um trying to find the proper term here similar to what Randy was discussing of them making their own regulating boards committees commissions and appointments yep I do believe the council passed The Advisory body article that if I may just read it please do all board committee Authority and commission members Shall Serve in an advisory capacity to the council appointments shall be offered the offered to the council by the relevant body after a public posting and the vacancy and interviews of all applicants including verification of residency after which the council will approve or reject the proposed appointment at its discretion in the event of a rejection of the recommended appointment the council May return the matter to the relevant body for further consideration and recommendation or may appoint one of the applicants who was interviewed or appoint another if there were no applicants remaining from the interview pool at its discretion ultimately whatever decision you make tonight this is now the procedure that will be followed so what you discussed Randy is already technically in place to a certain degree to a certain degree to a certain degree yeah the word may is in there a number of times so I can't say that it's shall or must but the word may is in there so to some level as you've identified the writing could be on the wall or the council can send it back or whatever it may be yep any further discussion before we move on to the candidate interviews spinning our Wheels here no well always good to have discussion on things if we need to all right with that done item five commission interviews Aaron do you want to go ahead with that yes actually well you already want yourself to go to YouTube call uh the first candidate and conduct the interview if you want to sequester the second candidate we'll find him a comfortable conference room please and come get him uh when the time is correct certainly and we'll just go with the order then I have it here on my sheet then um so Eldon if you wouldn't mind going with Aaron for a moment Joe if you'd like to step up to the podium we'll go ahead and go through a series of questions thank you for your for attending again welcome back thank you just for clarification it is your last name is pronounced Ryder is that correct yeah it's writer right thank you so again A Familiar scene yeah being here the second time I took notes too and so I prepared a little bit more clarifications on what I spoke about last time and again like I said before the beginning of the meeting and I'll reiterate this a number of times today just because there is a lot here we want to make sure we give everybody opportunity to speak that you know we try to keep things it concises we can but still informative sure but feel free to speak at your leisure with that we'll just kind of do the same process I'll start with one and we'll just go around the horn again or just to keep things as simple as we did last time um again uh Joe why are you interested in becoming commission member for East Bethel well uh thank you for having me here again um my motivation for seeking to see it on the Planning Commission is represent the interests the local community and work towards sustainable development that preserves the unique qualities of East Bethel I believe that prioritizing the needs of existing residents and homeowners we can enhance the quality of the life in our community and Foster environment or small business and home-based Enterprise thrive one of the biggest challenges facing each basketball right now is finding ways to attract business or development that our community's needs such as a small grocery store family restaurants or even Boutique retail we also need to find ways to address the high sewer and water fees associated with the water treatment facility which has been a major roadblock on Business Development could you repeat that please I didn't get with you said in the last sentence I said um we also need to find ways to address the high sewer and water fees associated with the water treatment facility which has been a major constraint on Business Development as a Planning Commission member I would work towards exploring Creative Solutions to attract business and promote sustainable development in the era while maintaining the real character and culture of use Bethel I believe that transparency and fairness are critical to success of the Planning Commission and I would prioritize these values in my work on the commission I would also work collaboratively with fellow Commissioners and the city council to ensure that all voices are heard and that the needs of the community are being met I'd like to clarify what I mean about when I say sustainable development to me a sustainable development means a responsible approach to growth and development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs it involves balancing economic social environmental considerations and decision making with the goal of promoting long-term well-being and resilience this includes prioritizing local small-scale businesses home-based Enterprises protecting natural resources and preserving the real rural character of culture of East Bethel strengths and abilities would you bring to the Planning Commission uh there's a question I believe my experience and skills make me a strong candidate for the Planning Commission as a longtime resident of the area I have deep understanding of the community's needs values and priorities additionally my background in business and project management have given me the skills to effectively manage difficult tasks research complex information and work collaborative collaboratively with diverse groups of people one of my strengths is my ability to listen and incorporate feedback from others I believe that this is important to consider a variety of perspectives when making decisions that impact the community and I am committed to ensuring that all voices are heard additionally I've experienced in data analysis and research which I believe will be useful in making inform informed decisions and supporting evidence-based policies I also have a strong commitment to sustainability environmentally responsible development I believe that we have a responsibility to preserve and enhance the natural resources that make our community unique and I'm eager to work towards sustainable development that balances the needs of our community with the help of our local environment finally I have a track record of leadership and Community involvement including volunteering with local organizations I believe that my experience in these roles has given me the skills and perspective needed to effectively serve on the Planning Commission and work towards the betterment of our community as a Planning Commission member what do you believe your role is as representative of the city my role is to take feedback from the community and try to and follow through with the vision that that the residents want the hardest part of the balance is do we how do we how do we how do we balance development and pressure from developers to come in and Gobble up all land as fast as possible with the wants of the community prioritizing grocery stores development that's a big need for our community or even small retail shops or strip mall things that would all improve the business climate in our community recently the the city council was talking about a variance for a small businesses operating all the home he's been looking for position a commercial spot in our community you can't find any when you look around her East Bethel there's nothing available we have no open commercial space all the lands locked up by by land holders and it's not being developed as a Planning Commission we need to find ways to free up some of the space to allow small businesses to grow and thrive we should act as a business incubator we have people working from home we have people working from their workshops find ways to improve their position and get them to commercial spaces so that they can pay commercial rates I think I got this question last time it's my favorite what is your vision for the Highway 65 corridor well as a Planning Commission member my vision for the Highway 65 development Corridor is promote sustainable development that meets the needs of our community and preserves a unique character and culture abuse Bethel I believe that the current zoning regulations which open up the land within one mile East and West to Highway 65 to nearly unregulated development are excessive and do not reflect the needs or wants of the residents instead I'd propose a more measured approach to develop to development that focuses on enhancing the quality of the life of our community while also promoting economic growth this includes exploring ways to attract small business that align with the needs of the community such as restaurants family restaurants Boutique retail and other services that cater to residents I think everybody wants a bait shop yeah or a sports store I would also prioritize working with developers to ensure that any new development aligns with our community's vision does not negatively impact existing neighborhoods rural areas or natural habitats this includes being mindful of the potential for sewer creep beyond the water district and implementing appropriate zoning regulations that encourage responsible and focused development ultimately my my vision for the Highway 65 development Corridor is to promote sustainable development that enhances the quality of life for a residents supports local businesses and preserves the unique character and culture of East Bethel thank you you want to do question five please do you hold any rules that could place you in a position with the conflict of interest as a Planning Commission member examples Financial family relationships or group groups engaged in community matters as of right now there are no local issues that would Place me in a conflict of interest situation however I strongly believe in transparency and accountability in the public sector therefore I will make it a priority to be aware of potential conflicts of interest that may arise and promptly disclose them to the appropriate parties as a Planning Commission member I understand the importance of maintaining impartiality and working in the best interests of the residents of East Bethel I'll strive to maintain a high level of ethical conduct and ensure that any decisions are made any decisions made or fair and objective if any issues do arise I'm committed to handling them with transparency and integrity and recusing myself can I just to that question yeah please sure to the next sure yep yep um I am curious as to um a position that you currently hold which to me might be a conflict of interest and I'm wondering whether or not you would be willing to give that up in order to be a member of the Planning Commission I'm not quite sure what to speak of but uh if you're talking about man playing at deployment at Polaris no I'll be very clear then you are currently the moderator of a social media website um for the city and I kind of consider that to be a conflict of interest because as a moderator you can um control The Narrative of what is being talked about in the city um so my question to you is do you do you consider that to be a conflict of interest uh yes I do and last month I did um step down that position I spoke with the other moderators and I said that uh this was potentially causing too much interference and I did step down so I'm no longer a moderator of East Buffalo what's what's up okay thank you for allowing me to fill that out please yep that's a good question thank you for that mm-hmm so before we end other any any questions you have for us or anything you would like to add um I do um as a candidate for the Planning Commission I'm interested in knowing how the commission plans address ongoing animosity between both the commission and the city council I heard some ideas today about a work meeting and I think that would probably be you know a good idea to actually have heart to Hearts rather than speaking in official terms from maybe being misinterpreted you know having interpersonal relationships or even actively reaching out with a um reaching out to the people that maybe there's you know conflicting ideas with what my question is um as commission members what steps do you as a group plan to take to improve communication and collaboration between the two bodies and how do you propose to move forward in a way that benefits our community as a whole to answer your question yes that you know as you've heard we have talked about having those types of meetings we've had them in the past um again they don't always get agreed upon we've like I said had good meetings in the past we've had ones that that weren't as well were that wasn't there um I guess for me and again I'm not going to speak for the rest of the body uh as far as the communication back and forth whether it's during a meeting or outside of a meeting that's a two-way street I think we've been very clear we've been very respectable of everyone's opinion on it and in the opportunities when we've had to voice our opinions whether it be at least for me specifically during a public hearing or open Forum at city council when I had something to say I use the right Avenue to do that in without you know grabbing them out right outside the door or waiting for them or anything like that so use the appropriate channels but again when there's opportunities as well during things like Council report as a council liaison is meant for as part of that communication they're they're here to help from my impression they're here to help relay what happens in these meetings to their meeting and in the last few years again my personal opinion has been that what we've discussed or what the feelings were when going back and looking at the meetings was not reiterated back to the city council or at least in the manner that we did or it was brushed over especially when we had things with great importance so again I I'm going to throw that back and say that that is a two-way street and again that you know obviously it's welcome to have any conversation but again that I don't think we've ever closed that door to have that discussion and in recent meetings we have had lack of you know our liaison wasn't available when the council update was here I would uh sale so I'm just um I don't know surprised with a question that is asking us how we're going to improve communication it was you ever written down to you on maybe you want to restate it that's but that's my impression is that you're asking us how we're going to improve communication is that correct yeah I you know I've been watching all the statements being made I feel like there's a lot of real Sour attitudes on both sides and I don't feel like it's reparable unless people are committed to repairing it and and holding out and fighting is not serving the best interests of our community you know I I recognize that some of the new people on the city council might not have the same visions of people on this group but ultimately I know that they want the best for the residents of East Bethel just as all of you how they want to get there might not be the exact same but you know the goal is serving people in East Bethel and so ultimately you know the standoffish attitudes and it's on both sides I'm not going to say it someone and I hope nobody's shocked by that I think that I think we all need to you know figure out a way to just kind of drop it Mr writer do you think that you're part of that communication problem though also I feel like there has been a lot of factionalization in our city there's been a fractionalization factionalization okay of attitudes so yes I I am part of that right I I'm glad you acknowledged that because there are some things that you've said in social media one I can think of in particular is where you said that that Mr Terry came and demanded a new Leah liaison he did not demand anything I don't think Mr Terry has ever demanded anything in his life but that's what you posted on social media so do you think that's appropriate I'm well considered in my statements and I watch these meetings over and over again every meeting you have every minute and I watch the videos multiple times my feeling was he came off and he was saying this is not going to happen this is unprecedented and and that the words that were said saying there were just words that shouldn't be said in a professional setting they are they they're too toxic and they're not they're not seeking to find common ground and I'm saying this it's we need to work for the best interests of our community put personal politics aside the election was very passionate a lot of people got very passionate but the differentiation that people had to take it's done now we need to come together and focus on on the future and that's that's where we need to be you know and we can say well nobody's called Jim Smith the liar but it was implied and it's right in those minutes that was implied we can't do that to each other you guys don't like being called out like that then we shouldn't be calling anyone out people are here to serve the community they're different but they have good intentions and I think we need to focus on that and we need to get by passes I admit I haven't always been on the up and up with my communication but I'm not the only one I'm not I think that doesn't matter though what matters is what you say and what I say and what these individuals say also so you know I'll say right now I have a same world view as Mr Lewis as Mr Miller as probably Mr Smith I don't know his politics um I don't know Mr Lewis's in particular either but we have very similar World Views maybe some other people here don't um well let me express my worldview I live in a rural residential area and there was a development that was supposed to have 30 houses on it and it got turned to 230 rental units in about two months of time there's a lot of residents are upset with that and I should have slowed down this is why I want to be honest commissions try and slow things down when when they're moving too fast there's a lot of people that are really upsettable with that town home development yes we need it for for our water but it might not have been the best approach you know we lost a rogue Commission because they were trying to slow it down on on road surveys do you think that the property owners have rights to to build what they what is what is within the confines of what's allowed to build a to build a development that is so out of place in our community there's nothing like that nothing that's going to be a completely different type of Zone than anything we have but if but I'm gonna I'm gonna stop there for a second and and this is something we've come across again over over a number of years and this is where I go back to letting letting procedures and processes happen because we do have to allow what's legal to go on and as she pointed out you know a landowner property owner having the ability to do what is within their rights to do we do have to allow that I'm not going to bring up every example over the last decade plus but again there are those things so if a landowner sells to a developer and that area is zoned something specific and it fits the guidelines unfortunately it's not what everyone always wants and sometimes it is also still at the best interest of the city and we have to allow for some flexibility to allow for developers because if you pigeonhole them into something so small and so specific you might not ever get that and that's what actually pushes developers out based on you know past my past history from what I've seen so I'm just going to caution everybody to please remember that sometimes it's not always what we want on our personal beliefs but what we need to allow based on what is currently in the codes and yes if things need to change to change it but we can't change what's already happening and we've and we've been sued for that before and gone through that process and if we didn't allow businesses and landowners to follow through with that process which includes applying going through meetings here and sometimes meetings at Great Lengths it's not that we always want to be going through that but we have to we have to allow that just like today and again to again me even earlier allowing or asking letting Glenn speak his mind briefly on this topic but I how I also preach that we need to keep this process moving forward whether you know whether we all like like it how it's going or not we still need to keep moving forward because this is what we have before us and this is why again we are an advisory committee not lost on anybody here that again we work at the behest of City Council and for our city at large no one here I don't think has a Personal Agenda about wanting something specific somewhere anywhere and again I'll apologize if I'm speaking for my my council members out on a border here but again I think given my history here everyone has the intent of just trying to do what's what's best and what's right and what's legal so please keep that in mind too this is not always what we just want I don't mean to imply that you guys have confidence but we do need to keep moving this forward too okay well in conclusion I'd like to thank the Planning Commission for their time and opportunity to share my vision for East Bethel I believe that my experience commitment to sustainable development and local community involvement will be a valuable asset to the commission I'm excited about the potential to work collaboratively with other members of the commission and the city council to address the challenges facing our community including balancing the needs of property owners with those of the broader community if you grab foreign do we want to ask Mr Ryder to step out I think so I don't I don't pardon me for stepping in please I don't think it's necessary because he's already heard the questions yep I believe that was the um but I if if the committee wants to or the commission wants to have him move it don't bother me yeah I was trying to remember from our last meeting it's been a few months now so I couldn't remember if we sequestered I think traditionally we have okay now we can Grill Eldon turn the lights up all right Eldon we're just going to go through a series of six questions I'll start here we'll just go around the find the horn and answer so again thank you for putting putting in the time today uh why are you interested in becoming a commission member for East Bethel fairly simple fairly simple I was on the commission for quite a few years I missed it I quit and commissioned to help some underprivileged children to have a better life which I thought was more important than what I was doing but I do miss it you know I know most of you except for Gabriel pretty well you know me you know what I'm going to be like um I just like to be on it and I believe I know what I'm doing and that's why strengths and abilities would you bring to the Planning Commission well my first strength and Main strength is do what's right for the people of East Bethel that that's the main goal no matter what happens here whether I'm on the commission or not whatever is right for the people my strength is I've been chair I've been on the commission quite a few years I know like again I say I know everybody except Gabriel and um I feel I know what I'm doing as as a Planning Commission member what do you believe your role is as representative of the city do what's right for the people period 11 over 11 000 of them so there's a lot of work yep Gabriel what's your vision for the Highway 65 corridor hmm oh boy hmm well I was on the complaining commission when we first started this so and it's changed a lot and obviously what's happened has changed thoughts and everything else but I think we're down going down the right Road and uh hopefully we can get people to uh to come to East Bethel thank you do you hold any rules that could place you in a position of conflict of interest as a Planning Commission member I.E Financial family relationships or groups engaged in community matters no I mean I get along with pretty much everybody most of the time not all the time but um no big deal as a follow-up are you part of any social media Pages or anything that would happen I was getting there I was getting there I got your support so okay I'll tell you one thing I'm on Facebook and if you go on my site you'll see what I'm up against I mean you'll see what I'm about I don't want any conflict um most of my stuff is funny stuff and trying to be a joke well I used to be a clown I used to be Aqua Jester so but um no I there's too much of the garbage on Facebook it's I don't know how people can put up with all their garbage on there it's pathetic it really is okay thank you do you have any questions for us or anything else you would like to add well the only thing I'd like to add is I know like I say I know most of you I've been on the board commission with everybody here except for Gabriel and um you know what I'm like you know that I try and do what's right for the people you know that we've had our differences but we still work together and that's the main thing for the city thank you okay thanks Alvin thank you thank you all right well like last time we want to just uh send out notes and the notepad with write names and we'll just do a majority recommendation and uh Aaron you want to just come collect these and tally them for us again we'll do thank you double checking to make sure the YouTube video is still functional I don't know it's a job I learned today excellent connection I'm hoping it's working not just the name of that no I don't think you need to sign it but have Aaron come up and collect it and he'll tally it up but pass these in oh yes and you need our note sheets here's the notes okay all right I won't Peak Mr chair you have five votes for Eldon and one abstention okay great with uh with that then I'll make a motion to recommend Eldon homes for the Planning Commission for the city council review motion a second any further discussion hearing none all in favor say aye aye aye okay with what I'm staying we have a motion net pass this will go before city council at the next available one whatever that happens to be thank you yeah thank you thank you both again for your time and your candor all right and thank you audience for hanging through with this we are moving on to item 6A we have a public hearing variance with the reduction of side and front yard setbacks for drain field placement at 19141 East Front Boulevard Northeast Aaron whenever you're ready one second to get everything together here yep this one it will take a little bit of time for us um and I'd like to start out uh prior to even reading the agenda background information that be assured that I as the community interim community development director have reviewed this pretty extensively and uh would like to point out that the city in this approval process failed to follow the process so right out of the gate we want to be clear that a variance should have been sought prior to Construction um and therefore we will go ahead and ask for the variants based on the procedure and then the commission can make a decision based on that and the city will deal with uh the ramifications if it may be that are based on a decision so knowing that I will go ahead and give you the background information on May 16th of 2022 the city received an application from the owner of 19141 East Front Boulevard to allow to upgrade an existing outhouse to a Type 3 system for sub sewage treatment system excuse me subsurface sewage treatment system to make a cabin a future habitable residence due to the size of the one excuse me 0.17 acre lot the proposed system design included the placement of a box Mound which encroached on property lines and required the city permission or a variance for its use City staff subsequently approved the permit and the system was installed in July of 2022. during a final inspection it was noted that the installed septic box Mound was within the required setbacks and a variance for a reduction of the side yard and front yard setbacks should have been sought and approved prior to installation the applicant applied for a variance and after the fact for the setback encroachments City staff began gathering information in preparation for a variance for a public hearing inconsistencies were discovered in the existing survey from 2004 which was on file and the drawing submitted with the septic system permit application by the septic designer a site visit was conducted for the purposes of confirming some measurements and City staff concluded that the site did not match either the 2004 survey or the survey completed by the septic designer a new survey um City staff asked the applicant to provide a new updated survey if the new survey identified that the septic Fox Mound was not only encroaching on the front and the side yard setbacks but a portion of it was constructed in the city right-of-way City staff consulted with the city attorney to determine the best course of action to address the circumstances it was recommended from the city attorney that in it in addition to a variance approval hearing a license and use agreement would be necessary to authorize a use of a portion of the East Front Boulevard City right-of-way the applicant is requesting a variance reduction to the South Side yard setback standard from 10 feet to a zero to three feet the north side yard setback from 10 feet to a six to seven foot and the western or the front property line from a 10-foot setback to a minus 0.6 to minus 1.7 feet for placement of their existing septic box mount the system Set uh meets all other required setbacks for neighboring Wells when considering a variance it requires a three Factor practical test which you are aware of the first factor is a test of reasonableness which means that the landowner would likely use the property in a practical way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance in this case septic systems are required for a home to be considered habitable the approval of a variance would allow for this property to be used as a habitable residence the second Factor test of the test is uniqueness in the issuance for a variance is due to circumstances unique to the property and not caused by the landowner the uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of a particular lot in this case the property has limited space for a drain field due to the lot sizes created by 1920s era Platt there is an eight foot change in elevation from the front lot line the East Front Boulevard side to the ordinary high water level Mark at the shoreline Minnesota statute requires that a subsurface sewage treatment system be constructed in a Shoreland area must have at least a three three feet of vertical separation distance between what are called redox features or evidence of groundwater and Wastewater and the Wastewater saturated soils this property's redox feature was located at 1.5 feet or 18 inches below the existing grade at its deepest uphill location current setback requirements for Wells and structures in the DNR Lakeshore regulations also provide uniqueness the third factor is that the variants would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood this factor is used to consider whether the resulting structure or Improvement would be out of scale out of place or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area when applying this test to a setback reduction the visual impact or the use of a building or an improvement related to the surrounding dwelling is the emphasis of the assessment for example when thinking about a variance for an encroachment into a setback the focus is how the particular building or construction will look closer to a lot line and if that fits within the character of the area in this case the Lake residential zoning district has had significant number of septic variants issued due to smaller lot size as previously alluded to by the size of the 1920s flat also in this case a neighboring property 4640 East Front Boulevard was granted a license back in April of 2012. to use a portion of Sylvan Street I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly for the placement placement of a septic tank and piping in addition to a deep well in order to upgrade a failing septic system on the property due to limited size in 2012 Additionally the setback requirements were narrower than current regulations are a recommendation is for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing regarding the variance for the installation of the septic Fox Mound within the side and front yard setbacks at 19141 East Front Boulevard okay I prepared a resolution for your consideration which outlines all of those distances that I had previously provided I have a myriad of information for questions and I will bring up some maps for reference while we move on to the public hearing okay great and just before I open the public hearing as a reminder when you when you do come up again state your name and address speak into the microphone um please know a lot of the questions that you may you may have we will address after we close the public hearing during our discussion point but know that we are taking notes on what you're saying and we will try to address all those questions but we do want to also prevent the back and forth from the audience as well so we will do our best to answer the questions that you have in regards to it and this again statement kind of Goes Forth with all public hearing things tonight so uh with that being said we'll go ahead and open tonight's public hearing anybody who wishes to speak on behalf of of item 6A please come forth and state your name and address for the record test you're good first off I will say my name and address I brought a typed up version for the minute taker they watch online and take from there but if you want to give that to Aaron before you go he'll make sure that they yeah yeah all right so I'm Angela Rogers 19139 seasonal resident um I'm the one who is directly impacted maybe all of us are indirectly impacted um so here we go thank you for allowing me the time to share my thoughts who am I I'm the neighbor at 19139 which is the boarding property directly to the Sun I want to start by saying to Jim and Molly that my words today are not directed to them because I presume that following building code is the contractor's responsibility my words today are directed at the East Bethel system and the keepers of the system my goal is to get my perspective on record so that an appropriate resolution can be achieved I'd prefer to just keep reading through this and before engaging in any discussion so first of all my property space is very narrow and the lot is 30 feet wide near the septic box mount so if you think about that for just a minute 30 feet maybe many of your driveways are 30 feet my lot my entire lot in that area is 30 feet space on my lot is precious but that's just it space on every property is precious that's why East Bethel has systems in place to regulate what is and what is not allowed with spaces it helps people decide what to do with their space project I hope the system is meant for owners to have comfort with their space no matter the lot size big or small in my lifetime and I am a lifetime at this residence East Bethel has been very watchful and very engaged in space projects not so much in 2022. like Aaron said there's no debating on the system failure in this instance no one was minding the store many in the neighborhood watched in disbelief last summer this was not the watchful and engaged East Bethel of the past now the system is asking that I and others look the other way at these misses allow the system breakdown to continue by shuffling some papers that disregard what was overlooked just get everyone to agree that everything is fine move on never look back it might work for this Council to accept what's happened because it's just paperwork approvals get the documentation move ahead but decisions and execution of projects like this directly impact the property values the livability atmosphere we should all be striving to protect in East Bethel and on Lake the next area I'd like to go to is areas that I find that are incomplete in the resolution content the complete omission of a strategy for the original Outhouse on the property since the application approval through today is just mystifying to me I expect the committee to modify the resolution content to add specific and time-based measures to address the proper Outhouse removal next the comparison to the 4640 property is to me substantially irrelevant because that entire system is underground and invisible I expect the committee to modify the resolution content to add a relevant septic comparison that includes a septic box mound in the neighborhood preferably on East Front floor if a comparison is not available how is this completely subjective parameter measured anyways the septic box Mound is an unattractive structure and is clearly causing disruption already next the resolution States the property has limited space for compliant drain field this argument seems applicable only because the septic's mount septic box Mound is already built had this variance been proactively reviewed before construction alternatives to a drain field or alternative drain field designs could have been considered I have an alternative drain field design in my property where was everybody doing this the resolution refers next the resolution refers to poon Lake Beach several times a completely separate neighborhood across the lake I expect that Lake Beach references are removed for historical accuracy next attachment 5 which is the license and use agreement grants permission for a well and quote drinking water service why would the city allow for a well in the right-of-way well in drinking water does not appear at all in the resolution content expect that both documents would match preferably to remove the well clause and should be updated accordingly attachment 7 titled next attachment seven titled mpca certificate number 65 mentions capping of a shallow well none of today's documents mentioned capping the unused shallow will on the property I expect the resolution and or license to be updated to demonstrate either that the shallow well on the property was properly kept previously or will be capped now or will be put into service use next there is no way to properly enter 19141 from the road how is it possible for the East bevel system to allow for creation of a landlocked property it was not landlocked prior to these events I expect the resolution to be updated for the addition of a driveway to the property so that it is accessible from the road without the use of coons excuse me Street next there are some items that are being asked of the neighborhood and of me I am being asked to accept complete disregard to the minimum setback off my property line and to allow encroachment onto my lot normally variances are for instances where there are no other solutions for this septic box Mount there isn't a reason why this system wasn't proactively designed differently honoring the property boundaries and I want to pause off my script here for a minute to say I don't know if the contractor is here or the designer is here but their practice of removing the stake that was in the ground in order to place the septic mound is a questionable practice in my mind I don't know the contractor I don't know the designer that is a questionable practice next the neighborhood is being asked to accept complete disregard to the minimum setback off the city right away same thing there isn't a reason why this system wasn't practically designed differently honoring the right-of-way boundaries the neighborhood is being asked to accept that there's no way to enter properly entered the property from the road same thing there isn't a reason why this system wasn't proactively designed differently from the beginning to allow for property access major question how is the septic designer being held responsible for the role in all this isn't property access very Elementary the neighborhood is being asked to accept an unattractive structure when other options exist that could have been practically discussed and optimized prior to its construction why should I why should the community be asked to accept the East Bethel system failure finally thank you for your time my conclusion we all know that variances are supposed to come before construction and not after we also all know that the simplest solution for East Bethel is to record this variance after the fact push the paperwork and be done with it I'm not convinced to accept this simple solution your next question probably is well what solution would you accept well as an engineer and a problem solver I can come up with several Solutions ranging from starting all over again to finding novel solutions to rectify the current violations I expect city employees and septic designers to engage and generate the novel Solutions this variant situation is not resolved legal property and land rights are in question property values are impacted the resolution content is incomplete and as a neighborhood group we should understand how this impacts everyone the council cannot vote Yes to approve this variance thank you thank you thank you for all that you said you have a copy for Aaron yeah thank you and thank you for well put together concise clear hi I'm Rhonda Paulson 19138 East Front Boulevard I have to first ask Tanner knows what it looks like have you all been there to see what it looks like I drove by today actually I drove by once when there was a lot of snow on it but I drove again today since there was no smoke okay have you seen it yes I've seen it have you seen it I've not I have not personally seen it well I have pictures because I look at this every day out my front window I used to I used to have like I look at this every day oh my front window how many times do you look out your front window that's the first thing secondly is I feel bad for ambula she had no say on the encroachment of her property this little thing right here is where her property line is that that's that you know for years most common sense people know that when you do put on a project like this you're going to need a variance why wasn't it stopped if there's no variance why wasn't it stopped and as a community neighborhood and like I said I saw it every day people would stand out there and go what the heck is going on here couldn't answer it because nobody would say anything in regards to comparing Sylvan Street variances or do you know what I don't know how to say this in this case it's a license but but yeah the Barons request for the license yeah and and how it would um this is how I take it so I'm looking up my front door or front window I see this my house is on the corner I can look out and the property that you're talking about on Sylvan Street this is it it looks nothing there's no comparison it's a it's a eyesore everybody Drives By and you could they slow down to look at it so requesting a variance after the fact and as you said the city screwed up I expect the city to take care of this and as planning people I would say take it upon yourself to make a change do something about this don't just write it off and say okay it's been done here's the paperwork let's Let it go through we have a chance to change it they've worked so hard I've been in the community over 40 years in that one house we work so hard to keep up everything for building inspectors or God knows whatever inspector you want coming out and we got to get it done but this this isn't a minor thing to let slip by so on that note the only thing I have to say is please do something if you don't shame on you for letting it go by because you have a chance to change something and put this neighborhood back together this is it does not fit the neighborhood this is a small little neighborhood at a busy Street East Front Boulevard is a busy street especially since they put that back unit or those houses in back of us we have kids coming back and forth all the time and it's like it is just it's just I just have no words but if you want to take a look at the pictures I can certainly leave them for you and that's all I have to say is I think it needs to be gone there's other there should be other ways of putting in like a holding tank or something you can have a holding tank and still live there full time I'm sure of that but it's it's an eyesore and it needs to be gone thank you thank you I'd like to look at the pictures yeah please as what I can we do uh yep perfect let's pass them down yes thank you Rhonda anyone else wish to speak on this evening Commissioners evening um um here tonight uh we'll talk about this property my name is Steve Voss I live at 19303 East Front Boulevard for about 800 feet North so like 10 doors you know neighborhood to talk about doors so we're fairly close and obviously do drive by this I'm here tonight my wife and I are here tonight in opposition of the variants for for a number of reasons you know one thing Aaron do you have a drawing that came with the application yeah I can I can raise it all a little better I can bring that up this one is the one you're referring to I love those so this was this is the drawing um and and how I became involved is uh we were gone in August we came back and all of a sudden this was up and so I I had no idea what was going on it wasn't until I contacted staff and found the details um one of the things I want to bring out is is is is Aaron's talked about the fact that other mistakes made on the staffs end um you know one thing I want to point out is is uh in the write-up you know it talks about the the variance should have been sought and in fact it was sought and just wasn't caught by City staff and the the applicants and and Molly and James welcome to the neighborhood you know you're going to love this neighborhood um but I think there's a way to do this correctly that will appease the neighbors and meet the requirements and I'll I'll get to that at the end it's already been discussed but the the thing that's important here to understand is when the applicant came in you can see in a drawing it states of variance is required so the drawing presented to our inspectors not only do the inspectors not identify for themselves that they're setback issues but the applicant actually told them that variances are needed so it's you can make your own judgment but to me that's it's obvious that that as a city staff this was missed because obviously if this wasn't missed and the variance would have been applied for this one's been constructed and we you'd have a whole different way of looking at this and so what from experience on planning and and Council you know these things happen variance is coming after the fact and what I've always done and for most part the commissions and the councils always notice we just try it also look at what they would have done had this followed you know had this followed the procedure you know um so it's you got to keep your mind you know how do you consider the system as if it has been built yet what would we do um the three tests I want to kind of touch on on the right a little bit on the three tests and and I apologize to Aaron Aaron was new to the staff when this came in so when I say staff makes mistakes I'm not throwing Aaron under any bus so um but uh in terms of the the three tests I I do have disagreement with those um and a little bit that's been discussed um by Rhonda Angela the first one you know the septic systems are required for to be considered habitable that's true I agree with that approval is variance will allow the product would be used as residential use you can say that's true but there's also it was used as a residential use for the last 80 years you know so there is uses this is a change in use a change in residential use intensification but that that's true but there I just want to point out that that there is options other than this septic box at the at the West end of this property the second test was the uniqueness and I think everyone's going to agree this is a unique situation but the uniqueness of what we're looking at right now it states is not caused by the landlord and although I agree it wasn't you know intentional or anything you know Sinister about it but the reason why you're here right now is because this was constructed without the variance and without the setbacks proper setbacks and not constructed the way it was so I I disagree that was not caused by the landlord itself but again I don't want to point fingers that they're trying to do something under a table it wasn't to me it was clearly a mistake made out of the city's cities part and the last one that that you've heard already is is is whether this is out of place to change the character and the the reference to uh the 4240 Sylvan Street I was involved with that process 10 years ago that was a situation where they had to upgrade and it had no room and the only thing that could do is is to encroach into Sylvan Street and it has been mentioned all all this is subsurface it's also with um in that agreement that City ever needs that piece of property that they even have to move that they're expense so it was a way to work out for uh to situation there and I'm glad we did but this is quite a bit different in terms of of a license because it's it's a structure it's a structure every everyone at Street Drives By is going to see that they know is there so that's my disagreement with those three points but the biggest problem with this is as Angela mentioned it too is is if you can put up the picture again uh photo that shows the the box is the fact that the presence of the septic box on this West End of the property eliminates the ability to have a driveway to the house in fact I think there's only six or seven feet left for a walkway and so you can see there's a that stake on the left side of the box is I assume that's the corner property or close to it so that's what's left for a driveway and so other than the fact that you're really landlocking this property we do have city does have ordinances that a driveway is required and so I I would I would ask the question and obviously it's a legal question is is can the city even granted variants that puts the property in violation of another ordinance so that's the legal aspect but the Practical aspect of it is there's no driveway and so what I expect I'll hear and it'll be in the discussion as answering alluded to in this picture you can see it there's a there is I don't know what you want to call it it's been called so many different things over the years this this is called Street there's five of these along each front Sylvan Street's one of them and the properties that are owned by the city they're not properties they're they're not dedicated streets they're not right-of-ways they're there's all kinds of stories with these things why they were put in in the 20s all of them five of them are all maintained um two of them are actually used by the city uh for storm water and it's hard to see but right on the street there the little dark spot that's a catch basin and there's a storm water pipe that goes right right down that alignment into the lake and then there's a catch Basin across the street as well as connected and so there's two of these uh I actually live next to one of these streets and the one I'm next to has a storm serve too so there is a purpose for the city but this is and it's also used particularly this one um as access to the lake um more so in winter but in summers there's quite a few neighbors that'll come in there is one used to bring their canoe and row boat down in one spot so so it's used but it's it's city property historically that cabin has been very seasonally used it's not I don't believe it's insulated it's wide open it's been used as a summer cabin a likely traffic has used that access down to get to that house to the cabin um so I expect that one of the discussions will be is to Grant the this property owner access to give them a driveway which to me is not you know the city's not in the business of making sure every property gets developed particularly since it's a public streets and so that you know if if that's the route is taken to address the driveway issue I think there's a much broader discussion not not at this table at Council um there's a practical problem with access now with this septic system when it's installed it certainly can be put in a holding tank we have dozens and dozens of properties probably to have good holy things many along this street and so there is that option so what the problem is is because the city made these mistakes the homeowner put an investment into a system that may not have even gotten approved if it had gone through gone through and so you know this is not going to be an easy decision by anyone but there is ways to deal with this and um again this is a discussion at Council but I will just say in years past this is not the first time we've had issues we're building official as caused undue financial hardship to a homeowner and we've had to the city did compensate in the past so that's certainly something you know if the septic is to be removed I would expect the city going up to their mistakes that we made and fix the problem and the easy fix would just be say use the road so the city doesn't have to spend this money but that's not right from neighborhood and so I again Molly Jane's welcome neighborhood you're going to love it there is other options to make this light you know property usable the way you want that doesn't affect everyone else around the neighborhood so yeah that's all I know thank you thank you very much hi my name is Tracy Barrett and I live at 19200 East Front Boulevard so I'm like candy corner to the north of the property and I just want to go on record to state that I agree with everybody's statements here today um and I personally use that access to the lake to go kayaking that's where I go and at my age to lift my kayak up on my car is really hard and this is really important to me especially going into retirement to be able to have some activity on the lake that's easy for me to get to so that's my personal stake um but I just wanted to state that I I do agree with everybody and I think there's a better alternative I don't think it fits in with the neighborhood at all so I hope you guys make the right decision for us that's all I want to say thank you my name is Jim moscowick I guess I've the applicant my wife over there is Molly it could speak into the microphone I'm sorry you can raise it up you can move it whatever you need to make it comfortable a little higher thank you um I just wanted to say you know our intention was to come use the property you know uh get to know the people in the neighborhood the neighbors are fabulous uh you know Angela was the first person who spoke kind of totally so everything works in the neighborhood you know Rondo and my daughter smashed her finger in the in the screen door she was the first person to run over with a box of Band-Aids so I mean the the people are fabulous um you know we want to enjoy the view we want to enjoy the lake um but we also want to improve the usability of the uh the cabin you know we you know the girls won't spend the night there and honestly I haven't spent the night there yet either we want to improve the safety and we've done things to improve the safety um you know as far as I'm not gonna rehash what Aaron said but I just want to say that you know it wasn't uh you know I'll say that the the system was professionally designed you know it was permitted professionally installed it was inspected multiple times during the implementation by the city and and I just wanted to pass that on you know one of the points uh that was made was the view from the street um I think the folks who live in that neighborhood know that prior to us living there there were weeds across that entire section there weeds taller than of the height of the wood on the box mod which I think is what looks like four sections of six inches 24 inches um so so you know I'm just offering that you know we did not bypass any process you know we use professionals to have this work done yeah thank you anyone else wishing to speak during the public hearing for this if not I'll go ahead and close it Mr chair I do have additional information I can attempt to answer any of the items that have come up if you guys have additional questions I am certainly not a septic professional however I have done uh as you know a lot of research into yes this one to try and make this correct and as the mayor the former mayor alluded to uh I joined the city here June 27th uh not as a city planner and or a community development director I was enforcing ordinance violations if that makes any difference um so uh essentially after being promoted to the position that I'm in now the department has made procedural changes to address any uh submission of plans in any manner that the zoning department will myself give a final approval to hopefully circumvent any of these from happening in the future with that I was out in the neighborhood today um and took some photographs of some of the properties um to to address the essential character um question I have a wealth of septic information if we would like to go through that um so as as the applicant has pointed out this is likely 24 feet I think it is actually on the survey in height at this at the right of Wayside um this uh is a side view of the depth of the right-of-way 33 feet so you can see from the roadway to where the box is that is actually the city right of way um that's some considerable distance uh directly a couple doors down this row of Hedges which I'm assuming fills in in the spring and throughout the summer definitely would screen uh along the roadway it is probably in the right-of-way actually if the if the right-of-way carries down so that has been permitted at some point along the way uh this row of Arborvitae is around the corner I didn't measure the distance here but that provides screening along the property line this large uh piece of landscaping I believe the road right-of-way or the the edge of the asphalt is right in here there's a little bit of a ditch so I would also venture to Guess that this is probably located in the cities right-of-way if that 33 feet carries down that is about the exact same height as the applicant's septic box on the road Frontage side uh here is a four foot fence probably at the property line meeting a chain link fence at the property line here's more Landscaping clearly to the road Edge I'm assuming this fence is at that 33 foot Mark so here we have vegetation that's been permitted at some point along the way to be planted in there there's a couple of new oh excuse me a couple of new Evergreens planted here I'm assuming that's right at the property line it's pretty hard to see in there additionally here's some other ones a little farther down and you can see the road Edge those are clearly within there 's another row of some sort of vegetation um again not measured but definitely there a small fence with some Landscaping block another ornamental fence with some vegetation behind it another row of vegetation at the property line you can see the neighbor's fence comes to the property line and then that continues on I also see that there's the utilities right here so that tells me that's the end of the easement most likely um and then I just wanted to throw this out there as a potential option that might be matching character in the neighborhood of a four foot fence of some sort that would cover up the two foot uh box which would essentially make it matching character as you've seen up and down the street I want to go back to the beginning and provide a little bit of information regarding this lot um the document uh Mr VOS um referenced here shows that the neighbor's well is located here there is a state statutory obligation that the well be located 50 feet in some cases depending on the type of well or a hundred feet from any septic related items if it is I believe a shallow well this is the proposed location of a well for the applicant so you can see how the design the septic designer has proposed the location additionally with the application also included in the design that the outhouse has an obligation to be removed and the tank that is currently there needs to be capped off that is a requirement you can see soil borings were done by the designer and it was determined that the location best suited for because of the location of the groundwater or redox readings was at a depth of 1.7 feet at the hill as I mentioned in my report there's an eight foot drop in elevation from this side of the lot to the high water mark the back side of the lot we also have a requirement that any items of new construction be 75 feet off of the high water mark of the shore so um that I'm assuming had something to do with the the con the uh considerations in the design in reference to a holding tank holding tanks are required to be 50 feet from a well holding tanks are required to um also have some other standards as well as an improvement plan or a maintenance plan excuse me and in order to use a holding tank a variance hearing is a requirement by state or city city statute so we would be here holding a variance hearing for a holding tank as well if that were have been presented or should have been held a variance hearing for a holding tank itself ultimately I did some research into the holding tank as well as the explanation to as to why a box Mound was a necessity on this property this is a traditional Mound system this is taken out of the mpca manual that our building inspector uses and you can see this uh defined absorption area um is 20 feet under the ground the front lot line of this property is 26 feet if we would have put a traditional Mound on this lot the mound would have gone on to Street as well as Miss Rogers lot therefore a traditional Mound was not acceptable therefore that was proposed to be this box style mound in which the designer can here's another um diagram of the overview of what a mound does look like so you can see the absorption width has to be 20 feet we do have the reason we're here asking for our variance is because it has to be 20 feet or 10 feet off a property line 20 feet from a structure this system wouldn't work either and would need a variance so um as I've noted it doesn't really matter what system we were or would have been here for a variance for as the former mayor alluded to um a variance would have needed to have been sought and you should base your decision on what that this thing isn't there at this point and what is the best solution for uh to provide for the applicants to utilize The Cabin in the form that they want I was my understanding they were intending on upgrading and adding a small kitchen and an additional an actual bathroom to the cabin down the road not right now but to make it more usable in the meantime the septic system was a necessity and the addition of a well and including the distance to the neighbor as well as a definite consideration as you can see uh the common setback distances for septic systems uh within um a well depending on the type of well anywhere from 100 feet to 50 feet now I don't know what the neighbors well is if it is a deep well or a shallow well I don't have that information but according to the um application here I would assume that it's a sensitive shallow well and it has to be 100 feet from any uh septic related items and I'm assuming the applicant's proposed well is going to be a deep well and they have to be 50 feet from any where we where we are here achieving a 60 foot according to this design now as I said in my open this design didn't match the measurements that were on the uh survey that was submitted at the same time nor did any of those measurements match what the building official and I measured so we did require or ask the applicant to provide us a now version of a survey that properly places everything that is on the current lot the way it sits that is this survey as you can see um this is the property line between Miss Rogers and the applicant this is the front right away showing the 26 and a half foot with um this is the line of the Box Mound which shows that it is 1.7 feet over the property line into the right-of-way it is right on the property line according to this survey it follows the property line down this side and then ultimately ends right here actually there's a small Gap here so it is literally sitting right on the corner of the property not on Miss Rogers property but actually on the property line uh the distance here um also requires a variance there's just simply no room on the lot for anything and as I said before we would be here anyway regardless of whatever type of system was proposed on this lot because of the available amount of soil the distance or the separation medium that's necessary this box amount allowed them to gain enough Separation by piling soil higher on top of the 1.7 feet of depth that they found at that location in terms of my reference in the uh resolution to the property down the street um let me get the right address yep the one where it encroaches or on Silver Street that was simply provided as a reference to show that the city has granted a license to utilize a right-of-way in the past I'm not making the comparison that that that lot on Sylvan is the same as this lot this is just to show you that the city has done licensing of a right-of-way we're asking for or providing we provided the applicants A draft copy of a license agreement to use 1.7 feet to zero feet of the city right-of-way for this Construction the terms are exactly the same as the terms that were in the uh license agreement for the property on Sylvan so if the city needs to come through and improve the right-of-way it would be the obligation of the applicant to move it also um if we were to bring sewer and water into uh this neighborhood they would be required to remove that onto the off of the property and connect to sewer and water my other consideration when I was researching septic is there are some pumping requirements uh uh I'm not certain that even if the septic area uh was not here and it was moved back a little deeper on the property we would want a septic pumping truck sitting on East Front running a hose down the hill to pump a tank but that's certainly a consideration um But ultimately as I've said before um we'd be here for a variance regardless of what system was proposed on this site can you indicate where the will is on that drawing yes let me pull that up on um on this drawing yes Glenn I would have to compare so the neighbor's well is not noted on this this survey was just done for the applicants property they're proposing to put a well here at this corner of the house they have to be three feet from a structure or an overhang of a structure so they're probably trying to tuck that as close as they can in one one other item of information for you guys is that the city does not regulate Wells does not permit Wells does not test Wells does not have anything to do with Wells that's the Minnesota Department of Health we don't permit that in any way we don't regulate it we don't check it we don't that's completely a different process the city has nothing to do with that so I will go back to the drawing that the former mayor referenced to show an approximate location of the well as I've said this drawing to to my knowledge isn't 100 accurate but you can see the proposed location here the neighbors well here we're looking 105 feet to the corner of the house plus 15 to their well the requirement is a hundred and this proposed distance is 60 and I believe the statutory requirement is at least 50. let's Maybe let's get through this if we have questions and providing what was given in the application so yeah understand um and again uh I wasn't here when any of this came in nor was this any of my area of responsibility or expertise I am learning on the Fly and providing all the research that I have done for you guys to make a decision so I would uh again point out that um I have some information on holding tanks the state is saying that holding tanks should be utilized as a last resort um it talks about being a type 2 system which requires variance by our city code it also obligates the setbacks 50 feet from domestic water supply depending on the type as well as taking into consideration the wetlands that are nearby and then there's a small supplement here about the average cost and gallons and tank recommendations for those properties that aren't able to put in any other systems so you can see if they were to put in a thousand gallon tank if there were approximately 200 gallons per day just per use that would be about five days worth of use to need to be pumped so a couple weekends at the cabin and it'll be time to open it so certainly bigger tanks are available uh this is the basic information that I was able to get my hands on so great if the holding take was put in would that still impede the driveway you know well we would have to find a location that complies with the well the neighboring well and or the the well that's going to be put on this property so that um it is the proper distance also there's a number of considerations when it comes to burying it into the soil and where that high water or that Watermark is and I'm not a septic designer so there are probably some considerations there as well so you haven't really looked where the whole intake could go no I have not because it without a mound a holding tank has to have a variance hearing regardless it's not a not a approved system without uh City approval set all the information I got more but I think that's enough for you guys to consider thank you very much and the resolution I'm open to making any corrections additions it was just a mere uh opportunity for you guys to have a baseline uh to make whatever recommendations you want to that that basic information so all the information thank you everyone for your input wow um try to address and consider this information as we discuss there's definitely a lot to go through here I think it'd be fair to entertain a motion to discuss the item before having any motions everybody's looking at ideas I will make a motion to open up a discussion only for this uh item um discussion anybody want to take the floor first sure I'd be happy to um with your permission of course the way I'm looking at this these the mound is already built and the holding tank and the lift tank are also already installed correct to my knowledge yes regardless of whether or not we have to do a variance one way or the other is it possible to remove the um Mound system and just use the existing new tanks that have been installed for the mount system one is a thousand gallon tank and the other is 1500 which would equal 25 00 gallons which is good for like a small home which this is um so my feeling is even if we had to do a variance um if we were to do that particular item the only work that would need to be done as far as I'm thinking is the removal of the mound system is that is that correct isn't that is is that not a possibility to do it that way instead of remove the mount system remove the two holding tanks and then start the process over and do a variance for the holding a new holding tank um to answer your question commissioner hypothetically I suppose so I'm not a septic designer I don't know what the requirements are with a holding tank by itself I do know there's a built-in alarm system that has to work with a maintenance agreement that has to be filed and there are a number of things I miss I don't want to make an assumption yeah I think that's I think that's something that that the city should consider and um I mean I'll I'll I'll I'll let further discussion continue but my my feeling on this is uh to table this item um to look at other options for a holding tank and and and not this mound system um I appreciate you know the fact that there's concerns about you know the view um and and I I know totally what you're talking about my next door neighbor has a box system that they couldn't put in a mound system because their property was too small and it's almost six feet in height and oh my goodness is that a nice or did I not appreciate that um but nevertheless um I mean I have I have a lot of concerns um number one I don't like the fact that it's on uh city property at all period I mean if I don't know how if if it's possible to make minor alterations uh to the mound system itself so that you could maybe cut off the corner or what have you in order to make it smaller um again like you say I'm not a septic designer um but to me I I think I think there's there's definitely a lot of red flags on this particular item that you know should probably be um reconsidered going forward I know that that Mr Boss is suggested that the city should be on the hook for fixing the issue I my feeling is I I agree with that um because it's not it wasn't it wasn't the fault of the homeowner or even the designer that put this together the way I feeling I'm feeling about it um and I understand that mistakes can be made but but this one the ball was dropped and I got to tell you when I heard about it I was I always live it I I really was um but nevertheless um you know we we have some concerns about you know um you know the driveway not being there and so then um they're really gonna have to use um yeah Street in order to um get to their house which to me I I think is really not a great option um I think if if they're going to use you know that that road which I know that they're currently using um if if there was just a a holding tank I would have no problem with the holding tank or the truck coming by and and using that Coons side street to get close enough in order to empty the tank if that's what's required to your point about the holding tank if I may interrupt yeah that's not going to give them driveway access off of East Front Boulevard either they wouldn't be allowed to drive over a holding tank that's in the yard no no but to me it's the holding tank would still be underground and even though they couldn't drive over it you can still walk through it I mean we still have to address the fact that it doesn't have a driveway access then that doesn't alleviate the problem I guess I'm just right International Information so then what do we do do we license them to use Street in order to access their property get explore uh licensing them to use a sliver of Street until they can get Beyond The Box Mount and then obligate them to get back onto their property so 10 feet I mean they have approximately six feet between the box and their property line yep um a typical driveway is 12 feet wide it could be narrower 11 10. they make it 20 feet beyond the box and have to get back off of that licensed portion of Street to access their property can you bring up the same slide that the mayor the former mayor sorry I'm so used to calling the mayor the the diagnostic boss had mentioned um do this one no not the picture I'm talking about the the diagram the inaccurate diagram okay thank you this one that one so again if we were using those two holding tanks that are currently placed it seems to me that they're there should be plenty of space to put a driveway on the I believe that's the north side of the property to actually put in the driveway so to me to me you know I think I I think that that's you know a possibility to make that happen and and it would also remove the you know the mount system from public property and um again I I can appreciate that this you know the evil sight lines that that the mound creates but to me that's not what we should be addressing here today unfortunately um the other thing is is is you know I mean the other thought is you know you could vacate street but unfortunately since you already have the sewer system in there that drains off into the lake you couldn't put a mount system or even you know this box over there either even if we license them to take over that property so to me that's not really an option either um um those are my points I'll open it back up and leave it for anybody else to comment and I would just again remind everybody you know again tonight we're here for maintenance to focus on again if we would allow a variance in this and I know we've had these discussions in the past where again we you know try to input ideas about what we think could could should uh you know and it is acceptable as well to um you know not not vote in favor of it and still you know pass it to city council to review as well since they make the final decision as we are an Advisory board so just keep that in mind too as we're theorizing and thinking about different solutions we're not and just as Aaron said we're we're not subject designers we're not here to to debate that piece of it um so for an interest of time with everything else we still have on the schedule too I want to make sure we give this its due diligence but we stay within the focus of the variance as well um you know my my belief I'll be up front I lived in front of this property for 10 years Street has always been the access point for this property from what I could tell um there was never in fact actually I'm pretty sure I had the moment and full of times just to clean the clean up the Boulevard on the right of way to make it look decent because it was again minimally occupied from time and when there was Vehicles they were parked on Street which did impede some people from being able to access the lake at times that's just for some history and some context um yep that right there previous photo so um and again I don't want to contest my former neighbors again I'm not saying that I want to I would want to continue to look at this either that I'm in agreeance on I will say fresh wood looks cleaner than the stuff that was there prior in past but again I going back to the original intent of today's meeting for the variants yeah I can't I can't see that this would have been approved had it come before us before I think this is something where we would have probably done similar where we would have had a discussion at Great length and tried to help come up with ideas to give back for point of reference that they can go back to a designer to see what else is doable um again that's that's my feeling it obviously it is a very narrow property and so again to think about it having its own driveway access again it's hard to say because again it's never been even utilized or clean or cleaned and as you can see by the trees that's again they were kept to access it from there so it was it was negated weighing everybody used Street to access that property in the past I know like I said my feelings are I I wouldn't have approved this coming forth just seeing how it is again I also respect that you know we get to the city made a mistake I think we can stand behind that I think everyone should own up to their mistakes when they happen yeah I think unfortunately I think this one needs to go either up to city council to make a make a ruling or reach out or find out what the repercussions would be be a City attorney because although this does affect the neighborhood as well it could also affect residents and to what that financial obligation may be I think does bear a little bit of weight in the discussion but uh for my part I I couldn't see approving this variance at the time the way that it's coming forth to us right now or whatever that's worth like I said the first time I drove by this it was covered in snow and so I thought well what can you do it's there it's it nothing we can do about it and then I you know got all the information started reading it looked at the maps how close it was the property line and I thought no something different has to be done today I drove by and knowing about the property line and the marker and everything and I thought we would have never approved this and then I started thinking of ways to make it look pretty but we can't do that well in a better position it needs to be I guess one other thing I will add again and also still living on the street just on the other end end of the block and knowing that there are multiple holding tanks on the street some are cabin properties some are full-time habitants one of which is directly in front of my house and monthly the holy tank is pumped it is unsightly the smell is not preferred but it's a reality in the situation is it something I focus on all the time no did the kids know when it happens Yep they're there and gone within you know less than an hour the dog's bark it happens I hate to say it's a reality of the situation you know again knowing this property as well as I did living across the street from it for a while this very much was just you know power only cabin um and I just yeah I for whatever the context in history is worth that's my opinion on it and I just yeah I can't see we would have approved this variance at that time so I can't I can't approve a variance as it sits currently and I'm not going to recommend how we would do it otherwise because like Aaron and Randy I'm also told not a sewer designer right right in the number of years that I've been on the commission maybe five six I don't know um we I think that we we really lean towards just kind of giving variances after the fact if it's at all possible but in this case to me it just seems like it needs to be fixed too I'm really concerned about the the the driveway not having any driveway there and I mean that's a big barrier so we're asking or that would have to be asked for also I don't know what the safety concerns may be but if that Street or not if it were blocked if a tree fell over it or if anything made it inaccessible and you had to get a fire truck or ambulance whatever there it would be in that very great situation and I we wouldn't yes we would not have approved the variance um sometimes we do in those situations Grant one because of the uniqueness and what not but you also in those sense of circumstances don't have all the neighbors voicing negative opinions about having that there because impacting the neighborhood is one of the considerations so that all the reasons presented seemed very sound it wasn't like you know whatever sometimes when people don't like their neighbors and they have other agendas but this was just sound reasoning um so I don't see if we wouldn't approve it given it coming for us without being built and given the objections and such I don't see how we could just give it a pass and say let it go forward so I think it needs to be reconsidered whether that's how that happens in our process I'm not sure but I think Alternatives need to be looked at my turn I'm pretty much in agreement with you guys I do want to point out something in your background and information that you put on here uh just out of curiosity hypothetically we go forward we you know deny the variance um and have to come up with the solution and somebody's going to have to pay for the solution I'm reading in here about the site visit that was conducted and it says the city staff concluded that the site didn't match either the 2004 survey or the drawing submitted in the application does that say that the um the contractor deviated from the drawing that was presented that was permitted and thereby putting some sort of liability on them for this everything I will uh bring up the two items that I used for comparison for you to make your judgment based on that this was the sorry the 2004 uh survey in the file that was included in the application and what what about this was incorrect if I can ask well so then if I for instance if I just point out yeah um let me bounce to the next one so I can find a spot all right uh 12 feet there so so this uh um this survey wasn't done for the sake of having a septic installed back no this was probably in the file and used by the by the designer when they were looking at okay um placing this so uh their design shows here okay so here's an inconsistency their design shows uh 33 feet from the center of the street for placement um oops sorry uh this survey shows that East Front Boulevard was vacated and 30.37 feet were given back to the properties along that street um so that number sorry this distance should have been measured probably from the edge of the roadway to find the property line versus the center of the road now I don't know if they measured or if they just used this as a diagram I'm not 100 sure um obviously where this is placed this box is actually you know um well this where it says 26.63 right here that's the front of the property line they're showing 32 30 some feet there sure but that like you said that's from the center of the street when you have one like from Context from living in the neighborhood I can tell you the center of the street is not the center of the right away any anywhere there's a curvature or even a straight line it had been deviated when it went from a dirt road to a road yeah and there's multiple spots on this and we've had this come up with other properties on East Front Boulevard before about where that starts so then the new uh survey um shows um even more inconsistency 26.50 across the front 26.63 there's more distance there now I could I could uh attribute that to modern technology and GPS catching up and being more accurate than the old style of surveying since this was done real recently compared to the other um we want to look at any other thing on this uh particular that shows inconsistency sure I think I think my main point is really trying to find out what this uh what the drawing was that was submitted and what the differences between the actual installation you know so Gabe here's what was submitted yep here's where the Box ended up so quite a large difference is that what I'm yes correct okay approximately 30 feet so so are we like you know I know we've been talking about the city taking I don't think it's for us to decide sure who has fault here I think it's just obvious to point out that there's multiple areas where right things could have been caught along the way from a number of entities okay said there had been multiple inspections throughout the entire process so okay yeah and at no point are any of us saying that the homeowner property or you were being dubious in it at all again I can understand ignorance from from a homeowner standpoint of just falling through the process again what's before us is is a variance for the septic system and we're being asked to look at this as if it was just coming before us and the consensus I'm feeling from the committee is their commission that it would not have been approved at that time and therefore I don't think we could but again then we'll put that to a vote if there's a motion to approve or deny when discussion is ended thank you yeah I'll make a motion to um that we we recommend to the city council that that they do not approve this experience yeah so there's a motion to deny the variance is there a second a second any further discussion hearing none call for the vote all in favor of the denial say aye aye any opposed hearing none the variance is denied and again I don't can it go does it still go before the council yeah your denial will go in front city council for their decision thank you for the clarification yep and really we wish you the best of luck in this and whatever we can do to help along the way and thank everyone else for their words well and I'd like to add that too I mean this was a really long discussion but it's a very important issue so I think it was really worth the time for everyone everyone's input on this yes so with that and with time do you want to move along to item 6B another public hearing for conditional use permit Amendment for site expansion for a blast Inc at 21473 Johnson Street Northeast thank you Mr chair uh classic construction Inc on behalf of our family Holdings LLC has submitted a application for an expansion to a blast Incorporated located at 21473 Johnson Street in addition to a blast um our family Holdings owns uh choreo City Coatings I hope I pronounced that correctly currently operating in Elk River The Proposal consists of adding an 80 by 58.8 warehouse and storage addition to their existing building the proposed Edition would house interior storage and be staging for products awaiting powder coating or for pickup this property is zoned a V3 Highway Commercial Business which allows uses associated with General retail shopping a blast Incorporated was and is permitted to operate by a conditional use permit from 2004. which was approved November 17th of 2004. within this conditional use permit exterior storage is limited to essential business related material only as a condition of the permit an amendment to the original conditional use permit is required for the following reasons the business is legal non-conforming which means the business is legal because a conditional use permit issue has been previously approved however current so current city code does not allow for this type of business in the B3 Highway commercial business district therefore it remains non-conforming city council has the authority to determine if a legal non-conforming use can be expanded when a conditional use uh expands its footprint an amendment to the conditional use permit original is required the recommendation is to for you guys to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council approving a conditional use permit Amendment uh with the conditions set forth in the provided resolution 2023-27. thank you Aaron that all right I will go ahead and open the public hearing anyone wishing to speak on item 6B tonight please come forward to the podium state your name and address for the record seeing a long line standing up I will go ahead and close the public hearing at this time um I would entertain a motion for discussion I'll make a motion to discuss the matter before we move further a second I'll second oh thank you all in favor say aye all right hearing another posing we are open for discussion anyone like to start um thoughts I'm not really sure why this is a non-conforming use other than zoning says so but I mean in terms of type of business and where it is I don't see why it wouldn't make sense to have it there which informs my thought that this seems the expansion seems reasonable for the business type and would be in keeping with the character of the area Aaron from a city staff from City staff point of view was there any areas of concerns that jumped out to you guys on this no uh except for the large drainage ditch and utility easement on the east side of the property which the applicants has a satisfactorily addressed with the city engineer that was realistically the only concern that we wanted to make sure that they weren't placing the addition in the drainage and utility easement so they've been easily to work with and they've been applying correct based on history if we had any any complaints during the tenure of their cop I have no um documentation of the previous owner's conditional use permit history our family Holdings is a new owner of this property and inherited this conditional use permit based on the use we haven't had any complaints with the new owner okay but is the business still re isn't it just an expansion of a blast or is it a change of business uh the the intended use I I guess I don't want to misspeak the applicant as well as the owner is here but um they I believe they're going to relocate their powder coating business from Elk River to East Bethel right but so they have one site is that in addition to keeping the a-blast correct they're still going to do sandblasting in and powder coating all under the same roof at this point the conditional use requirement for storage is really significant in this issue because they're not allowed to have any store exterior storage beyond what is essential for Highway Commercial Business um therefore they're proposing this warehouse space to keep things stored indoors which wouldn't violate the ordinance for storage in the business district right I was just pointing that out about the business being there because any complaints it wouldn't it is in the change of ownership but it's the business itself hasn't received any no yeah no complaints yeah okay so if I'm understanding this correctly currently the sandblasting is being done on the property but now we're going to be doing powder coating on the property is that correct my understanding that's correct so we're adding a different type of business well industry-wise incorrect industry-wise sandblasting and powder coating or sandblasting and painting go hand in hand and I realize they're related but you're still it's still an addition to what was currently being done there correct that's correct okay any further discussion or I'm curious what you're getting at um as far as you know changing the business essentially yes they go hand in hand but there's going to be different things happening there sandblasting and spray paint are different I get it and I I'm are you concerned about you know well my only concern for that would be waste yeah again the applicant is here if you have questions regarding process I'm sure he'd be more than happy to answer that for you as is with the previous discussion I'm not a sandblast or yeah I'm not sure I'm not sure that that you know I mean it it would be a concern of mine but I I don't think that that dealing with the waste from the powder coating um is necessarily under the city's purview I could be wrong but my understanding that would be like the mpca or you know some other yes they'd be required to comply with all environmental correct concerns within the state yep so this variance is just about the um or the amendment rather it's just about the storage do you believe that they would have to make another Amendment as far as combining the two businesses to bring you know so they're asking for you to amend their current conditional use to allow for the powder coating and the warehouse expansion okay so this would just cover that okay so it's not just storage it's okay yep um if there's no further discussion I will go ahead and uh make a motion to approve a resolution number 20 23 Dash 28 uh approving the site plan review for the expansion of a non-a legal non-conforming use that two one four seven three Johnson Street Northeast East Bethel pin number08-33-23-34-0006 that's actually the second one um we've got to expand so we can approve what it's going to look like I can get you the number here Andy well I was going to say I was I was looking for it and that was that was what I had so 2023-27 is the resolution for the amendment to the conditional use permit all right I will amends my motion to be I'm sorry what was that number 2023-27 27 correct um for the same property or do I need to go ahead and no you are fine review the whole three three you know pin number for the condition so forthletes correct thank you yes you're welcome and there was a second I heard yes okay thank you all right any further discussion with the motion hearing down a call for the vote all those in favor say aye aye any opposed hearing none motion carries this will also go before city council the next available opportunity and with that moving right into item 3C it should be six B I believe yeah we still have to go back to the one that I had mentioned yes I'm usually doing this digitally lately so paper is just throwing me away which I gotta got ahead of um to save everyone time we we just approved a conditional use permit application for uh the expansion of a blast um at two one four seven three Johnson Street as a condition of an expansion to a conditional use permit is a site plan review I have conducted the site plan review and I'm making the recommendation that uh prior to issuance of any building permits for construction um all city engineer requirements be met and I would recommend approving the site plan review that is presented in your packet based on resolution there is a resolution resolution number 2023-28 there you go yeah so I will I will go ahead and make that motion for resolution number 2023-28 resolution approving the site plan review for the expansion of a non-a legal non-conforming use of two one four seven three Johnson Street Northeast use Bethel pin number08-33-23-34-0006 well done any this motion a second any further discussion hearing none all those in favor say aye aye any opposed hearing none also moved all right thanks for hanging out with us thank you thanks for staying fan is it choreo City like f like a play on your first name or choreographer it's still a play on the first name yeah got it thank you good luck all right one minute to reboot guys all right succeed I believe is where we are at now and this is the public hearing for zoning code amendments okay um page six nine at the April 3rd 2023 city council meeting council members Jim Smith and Tim Miller recommended amendments to various city codes which are contained within the zoning code Council directed staff to Route those amendments to the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and provide recommendations a draft version of the meeting minutes uh and the discussion has been provided for your review uh the also the draft uh version of the proposed changes to the ordinance in Red Line form are also included um you are to hold a public hearing and make recommendations based on what is provided to the city council for amending the ordinances as proposed right at this time I'll open the public hearing next to no one left in the audience and running up to the podium I'll go ahead and close the public hearing [Laughter] Elda did you have anything you wanted to say all right public hearing is closed Mr chance Alden I will go ahead and make a motion to open this up for discussion prior to motions do I have a second I'll second thank you all those in favor say aye aye and we are discussing all right all right Tim we want to take these one at a time anybody want to I would recommend picking them off one at a time um correct all right so in the ordinance let's start with a here identification and upgrading of substandard sewer sewage treatment facility so on uh that item page 74 of your packet uh the red line items are the items that are currently in code the items sentences added the non-red lined items are the proposed changes so the strikethrough just indicates eliminate that yep that's what it is right now and the proposal is to be what's not lined out um trying to read through this the first time uh what what is you know we're emitting a whole bunch of words to simplify it it almost I I just I don't see the intent changing I just see the verbiage correct in that there really isn't any change here I think it's I think the the intent if I'm interpreting this correctly because it's not my words and I this was not mine yeah my ordeal um is to make this more Layman's palpable but it's not changing anything but I don't well I'll I'll do you mind if I jump in for a moment so um I'm just gonna kind of go down these a little bit and and I'll start with a um the original it says systematically review existing records and determine which switch treatment systems are potentially you know substandard and I think the intent again I I'm I hate to say that because I'm I'm not a city council member but it looks to me that they just want to have it that the city will identify potential substandard sewerage systems rather than a systematic review in other words the city going out and engaging the residents and looking for those systems that may not that may be sub standard um I kind of agree with that I think that's that's not a bad change um as for B uh I don't really see that there's much of a difference because um it still says at the end that they will be encouraged to voluntary up voluntarily upgrade their system if it is found to be substandard so it's not you know there's there's no change there's no demand here yeah that the city do anything um they're just requesting it from the property owners um uh the third one C is when a building permit or variance is requested um my only concern on this one is is that um it says that if a property owner applies for a building permit or variance that affects the capacity of the sewage treatment system it's not to me it's almost um it's it's it has a little bit of ambiguity to it and and what I mean by that is um when an order applies for the building or variance that affects the capacities they must have it evaluated I mean how do you I mean so it's for every permit for every variance I mean there's no distinction say for instance um I'm going to build a deck right and I want to you know put that on my house well if the way I currently read this that means then that the city um could and I'm not saying it should because I think it's not really affecting the capacity of the sewage treatment system but again you know it's it's it's ambiguous enough for me that you know it's it's it's not clear um I mean I I think if you just made a slight change um in in in that if a permit or variance that affects the capacity of the sewer treatment system uh you know being the addition of a bedroom or the addition of you know kitchen a kitchen more living space right an add-on type of thing um so to me that just changing you know that where you know you're actually making a structural change to the original building would be appropriate that's just my feeling on on that particular piece um um do we want to address that now um well I think if we're again I mean because that's just that's just talking about the one the one piece right yeah if I may it's your chair uh septic design or septic upgrades are based on the number of bedroom capacity yeah believe it or not not bathroom so if a but not a bathroom or a kitchen it's per bedroom that's how the mpca evaluates the size requirements of a septic system right so in this case if they were to come in and apply for a deck permit we're not touching their septic system right because there's nothing to do with that currently we are not yeah it just has to do with um anything to do with the septic system existing capacity like they put an addition on the house and they put a family room in a bedroom capacity needs to change or it needs to be evaluated to determine if the capacity needs to change I think that that's what the I think that's what the proposed change is getting at is they're trying to avoid uh the Mis language in permits for instance a resident comes in and wants to re-roof their house well the city's not going to go out and evaluate their septic system just because they applied for a roofing permit exactly it is not clear on the old on the old boarding guide I like the attempt to change is to to clarify that from that point of view that's my understanding I guess one of my the one concern I have is back at a and it's right in the beginning that systematic review existing records versus City will identify potentially stand substandard sewage treatment systems I'm wondering what the original intent of systematic review existing for the existing records is in comparison to just the city will identify I wonder is that trying to let's say release some liability back at the city for not let's just say uh picking on an individual homeowner because this would give the city the ability to say well we can just look and see so we did and you're we're picking on you as opposed to this our process as a systematic review here's here's where we can show we've systematically reviewed them I can tell you how the current system works uh the city of East Bethel doesn't have the staff to systematically review um much of anything at this point and we rely on uh qualified septic designers and septic Pumpers who show up at your house when you call for a pump to provide us a report which shows that there is something broken something that needs to be fixed or an upgrade needs to be done we then get that report on a monthly basis from XYZ company which shows that there's a deficiency we generate a letter describing the deficiency we provide them with a copy of the report I would venture to say that about 80 percent of the time they already know that something's coming because they've been notified by their septic pumping company that something needs to be repaired yeah um there are occasional cases where a neighbor will call and complain that there's gray water running out on the front lawn and in that case we would go out and do an inspection to confirm the complaint and then it would generate a letter telling them that they have to repair their system within 90 days because of the type of violation that's happening now on the other hand the ones that come into us from the septic companies uh the homeowner can continue to operate that system even though it's broken as long as it's not spilling sewage out onto the front lawn or down the street or whatever and they're not obligated to fix it unless they're in a Shoreland overlay District I guess obviously there are environmental concerns with a broken system on the beach or a broken system uh near on the creek or anyone access to running water right and that is a state obligation yeah right well when they're when they go to sell the house yes then a change of ownership also triggers a compliance inspection and if there is a deficiency it has to be corrected or an escrow has to be set up so that the new owner has a guarantee that it's going to get repaired with that would generate a letter as well to the previous owner that there's a septic problem again they likely know it's coming already at this point so to speak plainly to this then from your position on these three changes does this improve or not like do the do these changes improve how City how City staff approaches these things to to um uh reiterate what you said is this specific language it doesn't change what we currently do so it doesn't it doesn't make your job easier or harder on either way I mean rewriting city code is additional work but yes it doesn't change the day-to-day function outside of the the day-to-day or outside of the busy work of having to make such change but beyond that no no change none of this language changes how the city would continue to operate or how it would be effective that's correct can I can I interject here and um I want to go back to the minutes that were brought up they were also noted in here on page 70. I'm just kind of going over what council members were discussing um regarding I'm just going to dive into it uh right off the bat Smith stated the reason he brought this up is because he was reading an older ordinance and the way it read was that if a resident wants to do something they had to pull a permit and a lot of people who worked on their own homes they either did not know or even if they did know were not interested in pulling a permit um and a lot of that verbiage goes on about to make it easier to have people not afraid to pull a permit um but then I go in and I notice a distinct change and see where you know even one word where it said when a building permit or variance is requested to if a property owner applies for a building permit or variance um it seems it seems like maybe it isn't necessarily just simplifying text to you know alleviate a homeowner's mind when it's time to pull the permit it's almost opening up a window to note you can just you don't have to pull a permit to do work so I'm you know being a licensed electrical contractor that's something that concerns me so and again the intent of this you know I I understand people work on their own homes but um there's a reason there's professional contractors too I think maybe that has something to do with this right but this applies only to sewage treatments right and so um again with the minutes saying um so for instance you pull a permit for that expansion the addition whatever it might be that's when the sewage treatment needs to be addressed and so now if a homeowner wants to add a bedroom change the layout whatever and it's it's supposed to be permanent work now knowing that you would have to go down this Trail you know I feel like this dissuades um at least what I believe to be the proper course of action just to you know not have to go through the actual current legal process you know um such as getting the potentially substandard septic system looked at but the if in the sentence Supply refers to if the permit affects capacity it's not if they pull a permit like they can or cannot pull a permit it's if pulling in a permit affects capacity of the sewage sure okay so so you're saying if if they do pull a permit to um do an addition do a remodel change the layout this would just negate the need to even touch the septic system if it didn't affect capacity but but again none of this changes how it currently operates it's a simplification of terms which to me is splitting here to be honest don't see you need to change them if it's not changing anything why go through the motions of changing anything so unless you're a licensed septic designer with the state of Minnesota you can't make alterations to a septic system yeah so if someone comes in with a building plan to put an addition on a home that's adding a bedroom we would automatically review the size of the septic system to determine whether it could potentially meet the capacity or not and if it does not we would return the permit back to or ask the applicant to provide us a plan from a certified septic installer designer to show that they're system can handle an additional bedroom yep I'm sure that clarifies and yeah I mean going back to the to the minutes in the example and again knowing that it's not actually changing anything yeah like I said it to me it seems like a practice in just a bit busy work to a certain extent but again if it's not going to actually do anything while I go through the process and if there are homeowners who are confused by it as they should be reaching out to the city to find out valid information on that as opposed to I think by actually making it into a simplified term I think you do open it up to more people's interpretation well I think it's like this well I think it's like that and then there's less chance that they're actually going to come to the city to find out what they should or shouldn't be doing because they took their own interpretation as opposed to what's currently there but again that's my opinion of it um do you want to keep going on that or do you want to move on to Item B are we are is this just for instruction only or are we supposed to make a motion and forward these recommendations to the council was just looking for your input feedback just in public feedback so this is for discussion only oh yeah on the proposal we're required to have a public hearing because it's an opening of the ordinances no no that's that's fine I just I just want to make sure that um that it is only a discussion item rather than something that needed to be acted upon um if you guys collectively decide you want to you would recommend striking a line through a sentence or a certain word and replace it with something I can bring those recommendations to the council well for me I think um I do have a change and it's on item C again um it says if a property owner applies for a building permit uh I would like to remove if a property owner applies um when a building permit or variance that affects the capacity of this sewage treatment system they must have it evaluated if the system is substandard they must upgrade it before the permit or variance is issued I'm striking if a property owner applies um and replacing it when a building permit or variance that affects the capacity and the reason why I say that is it's maybe semantics but um it's usually not the property owner who is making the application usually it's the contractor um I mean if somebody wanted to read this legally you could say well it wasn't a property owner who asked for the permit it you know I I realize I'm splitting hairs but to me it should reflect I think you're absolutely right on that um the intent of what we're trying to do with the changing of of this particular um ordinance for me the word if makes it sound like they have a choice um you can pull a permanent or not well it's it's not an if it's it's when yeah right when yeah and again I don't it probably beat the dead or dead this is why I go back to why why chain why go through the process of changing it all and open ourselves up to another interpretation or a difference of interpretation yeah if it's really not changing anything that's again I I know I'm kind of a stickler on that I just don't I do see it I do see you know D was completely added and that's actually something I mean worth considering if if none of the other changes at least you know are recommendable um D I think kind of stands out as something to um help the homeowners as they go like uh you know the city will much easier have an easier time finding these grants or even knowing about them so um I I do like the sound of keeping d as far as a change the other stuff I I also feel is you know it seems why change it a lot of information what recommendation would you like me to provide Planning and Zoning head next I don't have a problem either with as it was stated before or as these changes are made the advantage to the changes made to me is just making it easier to read for people that have a gazillion pages of ordinances to have to go through oh do we wanna should we make a recommendation that we we like the wording although it sounds like most people want to put a win instead of an if and I'd like to I'd also like to remove the property owner true true um just on that one I think it's fine in b Hai you do need a better an actual coherent sentence yeah because just removing that won't make it passes well to me when a building permit or variance is applied okay so striking if if a property owner applies for and exchanging that for when okay then you need to add some language to make the sentence work I I see what he's saying when a building permit is applied for yeah but you want to stick specifically when it affects the capacity of a sub service sewage treatment system which goes back to the original paragraph at this point of what we're already seeing on a split hairs and leave it open to the fact that if I apply for a roofing permit I think the city is going to make me upgrade my sewer system that's the big thing that's the right you need to make it clear that that's not the case sure I again I I'm in favor of not changing a b or c but adding d uh but that's my recommendation but I I do see what you're getting at Randy you know if we do keep that changed C and I understand what you're saying Aaron about um making the s you know specific change about when it affects the capacity you know like you were saying about the deck like the first interpretation seems like you could just oh you're you're pulling a permit let's look at your you know septic system so I think yeah I think C with Randy's modification is what I would recommend I guess I challenge that a little bit because it is in the beginning of c and right at the end of the first line with a potential substandard system unless I miss heard you isn't that what you were saying I think it's just uh the fact that they're revised Edition mentions that if it affects the capacity of it so whether or not it's substandard if it is going to affect its capacity then it'll have to be evaluated oh Glenn you had a concern about the verbiage that I am putting in there what change do you think needs to be done to make it a sentence that you think is proper after the word variance then just add is applied for yeah any building permit or variance is applied for that affects the capacity of the sewage treatment system I'm okay with that sounds like you have a majority with that here I've got it all scratched down okay let's hope it comes out the same other room there's a little grammar there too but whatever again this is you know a revision to a proposal so yeah which might not end in this final form either so yep okay so these are just recommendations back to City Council of them asking us to review it moving on uh Item B zoning section two eight architectural standards again this one is wherever you see a red line changes the proposal uh uh some of this wasn't affected At All by any of the recommendations in fact I think it's just item five has a striking strike through to just remove d 78. sorry this one was uh uh this is our uh has to do with agricultural storage I believe the a zone is uh agricultural so uh the the language there is um allowing for storage purposes uh structures mobile or temporary to be used for storage so this act this does change thanks to that this would mean a property owner along Highway 65 could put up a pole barn and store whatever they want on it right off well this is only for agricultural Zone only changes in the agricultural Zone on this this particular order this one yeah okay and we're not talking about a pole barn because it says specifically structures of a mobile or temporary or recreational nature um okay so for instance my I can't take my RV and and store all my junk in it yeah sorry I'm getting ahead of myself I'm thinking no but a green card could hold seed overnight sitting in a farm yard yeah right that would technically be storage and it's mobile so I think that's the that's the intent there wasn't a lot of um feedback given on the proposed changes there weren't any questions and it was just a work session discussion so but it is open to recommendation clearly this is uh again this is only addressing uh structures of mobile or temporary or recreational nature in an agricultural Zone and this is something I actually do have some expertise in and I think really what the intent here or at least I I've heard about it is is that we're talking about um buildings like our high tunnels which are actually mobile oh they are I mean yeah they're not permanent structures and so what the city does not want people to do is to put up high tunnels and use it for storage this is discussions I've had with them one of the previous um planners for the city so anyways if you're just wondering that that's really what it is it's about storage in a building like that or well thank you for the context that's good to know so if it's important to you you keep it and if it isn't you can drop it I I think the fact that you know we still have June does not adversely affect surrounding properties you know what they put inside their temporary structure they can store whatever I mean I had gotten ahead of myself I was thinking the detached accessory structures when I made my comment about that area right so I forgot this one was on the agriculture only I mean I'll just say personally um I kind of like to to drop it because we do have well we're not agricultural but let's say we were we do store things in our high tunnels over the winter it's important to have it there okay I don't have any opposites moving on yes sir all right see zoning section 14 detached accessory structures in 14 are you in 24. we're going down ABC and you're in from page 70. the ordinance amendments seven zero you mean 80. yeah we just covered 14. I'm up to exterior storage is that not where we're at at this point yes we should be in section item four pages so basically it's about the height of storage units well uh if if I remember the discussion about this was that um the uh storage height not what not necessarily with storage units but like a um the rear yard of a industrial uh business uh the as you can see item three there they were not allowed to stack or store items over 12 feet in height um the uh for instance uh um I can think of a couple of uh businesses that have storage racks that are already over 12 feet in height and um are ordinance uh enforcement is based on complaints and we haven't had any complaints so we don't necessarily want to open uh that if we don't need to but if you think of maybe an excavator or something with a boom that the excavator isn't any higher than a 12-foot fence but the boom sticks up over the top so we've got front end loaders that are 20 feet in height to the top of the cab from the wheels and sure so those that 12 foot limit is what was uh what was one of the concerns of the conversations so um item two that's uh again open for discussion um that is a uh an item that previous councils and or previous planning Commissions in a comprehensive plan had worked into um desirable aesthetic in certain districts within the city so also if you'll notice item four has B3 added B3 is our Highway commercial District if you look on page 81 all of the requirements for exterior storage on the B3 District have been scratched and the proposal is that they match the restrictions in the industrial district so we would essentially eliminate five and a B3 and the industrial would be combined into one providing for the same obligations or requirements or restrictions for storage so would four say um I District NB3 then storage that's the proposal correct okay so I'm really concerned about number two which is the maximum amount of exterior storage cannot exceed the square footage of the principal building um I'm really not in favor of scratching that particular piece um and if all of you are not familiar I will just bring up a company called CST and this was one of the things that that we were using to try to limit the idea of having that type of business go into East Bethel and into that if you own a nice bottle to just yes but the point being is that you know if you're just going if you're not going to have any restriction at all and that's kind of the way I'm reading this unless I'm mistaken is that somebody could own 20 acres have a 500 square foot building and the other 19 Acres as exterior storage I have a real problem with that and you know one of the reasons that that we wanted to limit the exterior storage was for issues like CST and you know we already have you pull our parts we've already got um I can't remember the name of the you know the wood place of Arts thank you um and there's other places as well that you know car dealerships where literally they've got a shack and then they would put all these used cars out there and so um you know one of the things that that you know and let's not even talk about the appliance recycler down on Highway 65 that we've had issues with for years um and so the idea behind it was that um we were trying to up the standards of the type of businesses that that were being built in East Bethel and because otherwise you know you're going to have car dealerships and junkyards and recycle places all the way up and down the business district um at least that's my feeling because we had we had you know quite a few people who had that interest um you know to put in a business that you know they really they just wanted to put up a little building and then have lots of exterior storage so my feeling is is um I would like to leave it the way it is um I I would understand if if you want to expand that um but you're still going to have my feeling is you still should have a limit as to how much exterior storage you're going to allow for a business that's coming into East Bethel because otherwise um you have to have you you have to present a reason to deny a business from coming in and just building what they want unless you want to go into you know legal issues with with that company saying hey you know you don't you don't have anything that says that we can't do this so um we're going to go ahead and do it and if you try to stop us we're going to take you to court again I don't think that's you know the main likeliness of happening but I still think it's a concern that that we keep yes some form of square footage and this helps give the city control when these things come before us I have an agreeance with everything you're saying correct adding to it if I can correct no that's fine but if somebody comes in and says that couldn't they just point to all the other businesses we have right now to have a lot of storage and not such a big building sure so discriminatory sure so it's you know what we colloquially call the grandfather clause so if if there is a company that already is not in compliance right then you can't really tell them to go away they're allowed to continue that use until either the property is sold or there's a change in the in the uh usage of the property so so I I can see somewhat of the need of getting rid of this with Aaron talking about some of the big machines that are required for some of these businesses and I hear what you're saying about you know perhaps we can just increase what's provided I mean um how feasible of a idea is that can can we explore that action you know a percentage you know no more than 150 percent 200 percent of the square footage of the building you know just to allow more freedom but not totally pull it off you know and and let whoever come in and say I think you end up running into problems down the road by by doing that because then people someone could come in with okay well I can't I can't operate my business in this spot because I need x square feet to do this and you only allow there and because of this percentage I'm stuck at this sure as opposed to more the blanket statement of it's not going to exceed and again we have to remember we're talking about the industrial district to begin with two where most industrial businesses are going to be in an industrial building and Warehouse as well and when you start adding this exterior storage again you can have this small shop and whatever you want on the outside right percentage-wise can start to get iffy depending on what you're talking about if it's lot size if it's based on square footage and percentage of that right but I mean right now it's just exactly what the square footage of the principal building is and so what I'm recommending is you know increase that to cannot exceed 200 you know just Ballpark and whatever 200 percent of the square footage of the principal building so it's it's you know it's not allowing that you know per se like you got a tiny little Hut and now you can you know it's not based on the lot size still it's still the principal building I mean just just for the sake of what was their intent can we meet that you know without taking the reins off completely nothing change it I I have a problem with adding B3 in this but we can Circle to that near in a minute but I I don't know I I'm okay removing the 12 feet in height I get that that makes sense that that's a reasonable thing uh I just don't see for the industrial again just keeping in mind just in an industrial park or industrial area and you know I again I'm not saying we're going to be Brooklyn Park but like picture driving is at 95 or something like that or 96 where it is just an industrial park and it is Big industrial buildings and there is not much for exterior storage at all almost everything is in their building and usually an industrial building has plenty of square footage so that's again my thought when just narrowing in on the fact that this is for the industrial district sure sure is it even necessary correct yeah now if there's a different area and where we want to put something then it makes sense to have more square footage fine um if if I can move from that point quickly yeah I would strike the and V3 because I think it's negating or it ends up removing big chunks I mean most of you know a is about the same as what's in in four B is close but it really is removing the last sentence of screw of of B saying screening to be achieved through a combination of masonry walls fencing firming and Landscaping and from what I'm recalling from when we went through the comp plan the last time we want that in the B3 to help with the industrial standards to have or to help create a uniform look instead of everybody doing just whatever they want and then we don't have those standards and that's one of those small pieces of control that we do have in dealing with developers and landowners as they want to move forward so if we're removing that that kind of again doesn't allow that piece if that makes sense could we be removing that if we're moving B3 to 64. because it's not when you when you follow the the sense about the screening piece of it it just stops at through the vision of the barrier which is the same sentence in B but it removes the last sentence piece of it about to be achieved so recombination of masonry walls fencing birming and Landscaping and I thought that was in V3 specifically because when and if and when those areas develop we want to have some design standards but then let's just turn two one B1 says the same thing I missed that you're right I missed that piece and where I was more concerned was because then it looks like it's missing all of C I don't know there's two three four parking I didn't see carrying the next page see this is to me it's just cleaning up it's the same controls are in there it's just in one it's just not duplicating it in another separate section and they're but you start taking out things like parking semi trucks trailers cannot be considered parked outside storage that's now going to allow that by removing this out of the B3 again there's there's different terminology up there but it's to to me again I don't I don't see this as being practical changes because if it's if it's not really changing anything why are we changing it why are we condensing it if it's already in there and there's not a point to make changes for something that's just already there and it's specifically for that District I think the intent was they spent did this was spending a bunch of time going through all this and trying to figure out where are we are we being redundant are we Kobe condenses so that it's not as refusing to try and go through all this because it's just like regulation after regulation but if it's codified into something a little cleaner and shorter then it doesn't seem as overwhelming but if we ever want to change something in a specific District would we have to then re-breaking B3 back oh yeah uh essentially once an ordinance is in place and business moves to town and is in compliance with the code and future commissions and Council decide to attempt to change the standard for Aesthetics compliance whatever reason we would want to change it and we would want to go back to a more strict standard those businesses allowed to um come in and or reach that like their standard we can't make them then comply with which is the grandfather or existing non-conforming so those are those are always considerations when you're making ordinance changes regardless of whether it's about storage or color of whatever and Architectural standards and chickens or no chicken like it's it's always a consideration when you make an art events change yeah and that and that's what I'm trying to prevent here with a lot of this again I just I don't see the need to make a change if there's not really a problem with it other than just trying to condense it it's already here the work has already been done why go through the practice of changing things or or condensing them if it's not really changing it it's not it's also not really simplifying it either if anything it's going to make make it more complex down the road and when you do make these changes like Aaron I pointed out we could potentially open ourselves up to something that we didn't want as a result of change when we didn't need to make said change and and granted when uh these ordinances were decided upon and passed I'm sure there was not agreement on the strictness of some of the standards and or someone probably thought it should have been even more restrictive and yet that didn't make it in so there's always room for there always has to be room for adjustment if you will when your community standard changes if you will you might need to look at amending something so that it can be achieved now if you want to maintain a certain level of aesthetic if you want to maintain a certain level of uh flow or lot setup or birming or trees or whatever then that's you can do that by not altering ordinances and sticking to that plan for a extended period of time as those lots fill up they all stay in compliance with that defined standard and that's how you achieve that look that's what city planning is all about as to the why of why I do this if we're going to change the exterior storage height you're going to have to change things anyway I mean it was just only why do we want to get rid of the B3 and put in a B1 or at a time but it's not the only thing that we're looking at changing so if there's going to be changes anyway why not do this simplification because I think in the future it's going to hinder us by not having the separate districts under different items which seems what majority of this is I'm again I'm trying to go through it if this is what you know city council wants again this is going through the practice and you know again if we're going to then yes these you know these are some of the things I'm agreeable to from my perspective and again I'm just one one voice but I just really I I have a hard time making change just to change and don't get me wrong I have zero issue with change it just needs to make sense and you know yes we're gonna open some things great okay you know we can it makes sense to you know have the exterior storage not exceeding 12 feet a night again while we're here that makes sense but majority of this to me doesn't I'm just again that's my opinion I got it we all have ours two two items in response I don't want to belabor anything um if you one would be one thought would be that not only do I own space horizontally but I also own space vertically and if I can stack something taller that means I don't need as much reach one one hypothetical the other is if I get as much reach as I want in both directions I'm just going to fill it up that's a whole nother whole other concept um in the proposed changes it doesn't change anything all of our light industrial Light business Highway commercial storage is all part of a conditional use permit we all know the conditional use permit processes by application and we can Define the terms of conditional use for storage so for instance a proposal comes in for a conditional use to have your hypothetical Randy of 500 square foot office or whatever on 19 or 20 acres well the conditional use can be defined so that it doesn't allow for 19 Acres of storage it can be reduced in the terms of the conditional use permit so that that conditional use Clause has not been removed on any one of these zones and if that is something that you are interested in delving a little deeper into the on a under four so four a if you were to combine industrial and B3 in the first sentence I would recommend exterior storage is permitted in the industrial one and B3 districts as a conditional use that then permits or obligates everyone applying for a business with storage to come in for a conditional use where you can regulate to some degree what's allowable through the public hearing process the application process the defining of terms if you will sure but if the language of the restrictions does doesn't restrict something can we not allow it as a conditional use you can you can name whatever condition you want in a conditional use permit I think that's true but then it it remains an ambiguous number again so therefore therefore I think you get into the problem of precedence which is you know company a you know like you say he says okay you can have 19 Acres of storage Company B comes along you say well gee you can only have one acre of storage with the same type of property I think they would have a case even though you're you know like you say it's it's a cup that um you're opening the door for them to say hey wait a minute you know you're not being fair to everyone by just giving your favoritism to this company rather than to all companies and so um to me it it should be you know either Define it or not even though you know you can change the the conditions of the use on each individual piece I still think that there should be an expectation yeah creating precedence which is I just wanted to point that out that that that ability to restrict is still in there it hasn't been removed so to some degree you can control okay the only thing I see that I I'm at least somewhat in favor of changing here is the height restriction I mean you're only going to stack as high as is reasonable and safe I mean as far as everything else it seems like why well let me let me I'm sorry please I'm just going to say I agree that um I'm fine with that too um my only question on that would be um do you want to have the extra exterior storage not be stacked higher than a certain height a certain height and the reason why I say that is because like the example that was said earlier you've got a boom truck that's over 12 feet right but being on the property you're not stacking that on top of other things in other words you're not building shells right that are over a certain height that you can just go ahead and stack all these boxes or whatever it is that you're like a third going vertical yeah your building is 30 feet tall in a commercial piece property and you're stuck to a 12 foot out exterior rack that doesn't make sense so yeah so so your zoning code defines the height of the structure allowable in each zone right which is 30 feet so if you want to your have your exterior storage height match the height of the allowable structure based on zoning code you're not really changing sight lines if the exterior storage is in the back of a building that's 30 feet tall and you permit 30 foot storage you're still not going to see it from the front of the building yeah just there are the standard is in there yeah so you wouldn't have to define a number at this point because zoning code already says building can exceed three stories or 30 feet yeah yeah just just uh an easy solution so we don't have to discuss what potential Heights could be and you couldn't say not to exceed permitted height or something if if that was uh reasonable uh solution to me that makes sense me too on just on that piece like I said otherwise everything else I'm seeing here in this item I don't I don't agree with scratching but so then the only thing trying to put this to bed a little bit um yeah are we all in agreement that you know we're the only thing that we're thinking about changing is is the height requirement or or are we all on different pages here I think that's the consensus of the group so we'd strike that because if we're not con consolidating I and B3 we'd have to strike it from both because it's it's separated correct so yeah you were absolutely correct in that yes okay yes thank you for the consent architectural standards age 83 let's see here scratching mixed use [Music] B1 B2 B3 on residential so does that broaden it then if we're taking off the description of you know mixed use B1 B2 B3 and non-residential uses I mean um so this was this was what was proposed um I see that in a um mixed-use limited business and non-residential were moved into building design requirements in a eliminating that header if you were doesn't need to be from the code yes got it what I hypothesize it's very similar language it was just moved from there to there is this just condensing language or is there are there any significant changes there are some changes um the changes are in terms of allowable material for the um exterior of buildings and I think there were some requirements scratched for um percentage of glass uh required in a B3 Zone in some of our zones we have a standard of the um 20 percent of the facade facing the public right away needs to be glass so some of those changes have been striked out and if I remember correct and I think another one in here too the uh architecturally enhanced Precast and place panel architectural concrete combination with other permitted materials steel siding and other comparable Superior materials approved by city council um again that to me that opens up the type of building again back into some of these areas and I'll go back to my earlier statement again about again having some control with with what comes in and how it's going to look so there is some uniformity again going back to when we open up the code the last two times and I'm pretty sure the conversation was had that this is this is not out of the ordinary language or design standards for what we were looking for in these districts with what neighboring cities as well so I don't again I don't see why we want to remove some of this as well as add the other building types again I think it it ends up removing some of our architectural standards and therefore some of our you know ability to create a uniformed look going through the city again that's my impression from past reviews of these items I don't find a lot of Merit to a uniform look going through the city in my personal takeout I mean I do like standards that prevent things that are not good but the most interesting neighborhoods that I walk through are where every house is different and has actually some sense of the personality of the owner rather than just everything looking like a cookie cut out of the variations on the same thing but we're not talking so much about the residential as we are the business and the highway Corridor right but if all these businesses look the same why is that desirable I guess to me having a again a I'm not saying that they all have to be identical but to have similar architectural standards makes at least look you know it okay to give a very generic term here here you know you're looking at a house that's you know got you know six different colors on the face of it here's as you're driving through the city it's here's a purple building here so it just it keeps changing so fast that all of a sudden it's it I don't say an eyesore but it's not a uniform look it doesn't look like it's all together that it was plan to look like like a hole every time we keep adding a piece or every time you you start with a five that 500 square foot building and then they decide to add onto it and add on to it and add on to it and add on to it and they keep doing it in a different design every time they add on to it and now you have Franken building but most of this is we're talking about industrial industrial areas and and and some of these things actually do make a difference for a business owner like like us when we um resurface their barn and and put up a little pull Barn I mean there was picky little things in here where we had to have like a line across because it was an architectural standard we had to have like three something three different things yeah and um we had actually designed that but anyway but if we didn't want that it would have cost us like ten thousand dollars more to do it and I think that's a burden for business owners that they want their places to look good and I think that this really does restrict it does restrict what they're allowed I think the code is as it's written especially this C here you mean currently or with these changes currently and so I'm saying it's good to strike on page 85 C you know especially these accent materials you know one of the highlighted items talked about in the work session was that um our current standard requires that there be windows on the face the sides and the rear of the building and because the um all four sides had to be equivalent exactly and there were some security concerns raised with being able to be behind a building and have be able to get into a building for security purposes through a window so to eliminate um uh I'm trying to see which section that was proposed in and there was one also that said you know the the materials on all the sides had to be exactly the same as the front um A5 page 83 new building shall be constructed so that exterior sides Be surfaced equivalent to the front of the building and shall be exempt from the requirement of Windows on the sides or back facade so that the conversation was about the intent was for secure business security better enhanced security so there may need to be some maybe word smithing in there because it says that they have to be equivalent except for kind of thing but I mean that can be worked out they wouldn't be equivalent if you didn't have Windows on the back but you know front so just sort of a language thing but sure but the intent was for secure to provide better security yep and again I'm not opposed to it because it's a minor changes but some of some of this seems like it's fairly significant in in what and what we had and again maybe I'm leaning too much on on what our intent was when we went through the comp plan the last two times for for that and how the you know the the vision of the city was going to look but that was a lot a lot a lot of meetings and a lot of back and forth and a lot of review and this specific language and I guess I remember trying to make sure we wanted to have a a good look to the city as people drove through it and I don't think it was done with the intent to you know make it harmful to the developers as they came through but I think that's what was in mind when we were discussing and going through a lot of this language at the time but I think it can go too far too right no I'm not not arguing again some of it shouldn't change this just looks like it's ripping a lot of it yeah and I think that's what the intent was when city council went and came up with his recommendations I mean everybody kind of has their reason for coming on Planning Commission right but my reason was having to go through that process with that pole building and and resurfacing our barn I mean to me at the time it's it seemed horrible to do that process and I think unnecessary some of the things that we had the Hoops that we had to go through yep and again and I'm not saying that there aren't some of those things and maybe a little more or little uh more condensed cleaning up cleaning up of it as opposed to some of the bigger chunks here is what I'm saying it just seems like they've kind of gone through a lot of this to cut it out and to allow I guess I guess I think even just going to the to some of the you know again the painted you know steel siding buildings and things like that along along the highway or off the highway I don't know if if that's at least what I envisioned for the city along the corridor but versus I mean again obviously current things are there existing and I wouldn't want to say someone to not have them but I think as as the I think being going back the intent was as it develops for new items coming through so not to restrict the current right that's all I have to say you know we're getting late and I'm pretty sure we're 50 minutes past our allowed time anyway pretty sure there's an ordinance about how late meetings that was midnight okay they expanded it again it used to be let's go so we have a mixed recommendation on this one or what is the what is the recommendation disagreement agreement we all agree about the storage height okay yeah yeah we're under the architecture yeah yeah I haven't found anything the trouble so I'll just report back that there was mixed yeah support and or concern for change is that accurate I think that's accurate foreign moving on I think that's all of them right I believe so okay we've got till midnight okay why are we quitting now let's not burn it up all right item seven Council updates Kevin if you'd like to present take your time careful careful what you wish for tomorrow when councilman Lewis is done I have one item before yep no just very simply who is seen anybody no no um bottom line would be I recommend watching it um ABDO presented the town audit which looked pretty good uh Lake Regional Park we got a discussion from the lady from I forget how to pronounce her last name from the county the county park planner uh past the fee schedule adjustments that you guys had already approved and park dedication fee and got into a discussion of cambia now the school district has concerns about it and they seem valid so there's going to be a presentation that the work I mean no it's going to be the May 10th meeting May 10th or May 8th eighth is Monday yeah yeah uh meeting with uh people from cambia It looks interesting but there are some concerns regarding the school district in particular and the impact fiscal impact on them so we're going to take them very seriously we're not too worried about the conduit financing thing it doesn't really expose us to any financial obligation like the bonds with the water and sewer thing did but it's just mainly the impact on the school district and how that redounds on the taxpayers of East Bethel because of the school district fall short the taxpayers have to make up the difference so that's the that's the connection there so that's about it can I ask a question no okay we're done um mentioned that the that you're concerned about the financial concerns from the school district and um superintendent is concerned about those sure yeah so was the concern that that they couldn't because I it was the same night but was the concern about um not having enough employees to fill the vacancy or was it just um that the school district has to hold on to the debt from students who are Wards of the state or or do you know well it's a good question the concerns are the ability to meet the staffing needs yeah I know to me that's a really big concern big one yep the second thing is what's the what's the reimbursement lag for expenses which in the case of the previous or initial rendition of Cambria yep or cambia was lengthy because of the state and problems with Candia the people are in at the Hills um and those and those are undefined at this point that's his biggest concern okay yep so we got it it's got to be much clearer for his benefit than it is right now all right thank you you bet any other questions I'm sorry I should have asked down here you sure you want to leave you get a couch just kidding Aaron you had something you wanted to add I do I'm looking for the availability of uh planning Commissioners for a brief rezoning special session next Tuesday evening I would need a quorum to rezone one parcel of property City to have to have a public hearing to rezone I'm available next Tuesday May 2nd yes what time are you looking um I I mean I can do our regular time at seven or we could announce we could advertise whatever works for uh everyone it should be a very short session to address a concern or a zoning rezoning request for a parcel of property so 11 pm to midnight then yeah I have a 5 30 meeting that usually goes an hour but I'm not sure so I have to put out a public hearing notice by 10 a.m tomorrow morning to satisfy the requirement to get it published in the newspaper by Friday or on Friday so that we can get the 10 days to get I will be here and we need four for a quorum need four yep I should be able to make anything after seven o'clock do you want to make it 7 30 just to make sure that you're good yeah I could try to run for sure yes I will you will definitely get a um an agenda just like any other meaning if it's gonna be short uh you know it is your half hour isn't going to mean much it's literally an emergency meeting to raise so okay I'll be there why not let's do it I will send out to that notice I appreciate it 7 30 next Tuesday call and remind me right here yeah Tuesday at 5 30. do you have anything else Erin that is it well then I'll make a motion to adjourn second we'll send a second all in favor hi hi [Music] oh