going to call the meeting to order. And do we have a motion to adopt the agenda? So moved with the change. Yes. So we are going to move number six to the end of the agenda. So that will be quite a long discussion. Any So we have a motion with the amendment. A second. Second the motion. Okay. Any discussion? And all in favor say I. I. And opposed. And that passes. Okay. The next thing we have is the council leaison update. Good evening. I'm Brian Mundle, your city council leaison. Uh city council update. Uh we had uh the public hearing for uh changing the structure of the EDA that had to be separated between two meetings. Um, so the final update on that, some members of the EDA or some members of city council did choose to replace citizen members of the EDA with regular council members and reduce the EDA from seven members to five members as the citizens members terms end. So eventually it would just be five council members that be on the EDA. Uh the site plan and CUP for the second building on the country hearth site was was approved. Uh East Bethl has a has hired a new fire chief, Mr. Jeffrey Celocha, with an official start date of today, May 27th. Our fire inspector, Ben Uden, was promoted to deputy fire chief. Uh and booster day is coming up July 19th. uh volunteers are needed for the event. It could just be for an hour or as much time as you'd like to commit. Uh if anyone is interested, you can visit the east bethylboosterdays.com and find some more information there. Uh so any questions or comments? I was just going to ask, do you do you have any questions, Tanner, about the EDA? I guess I make sure I understood you right. So, we're basically phasing out the EDA with city council or citizen members with city council. Yes. Can I ask what what prompted that or where where that comes from? It was not from me. I I fully believe that citizen members, especially some of the members, current members and past members on the ED EDA were very exceptional people and brought forth new ideas, new information and uh their unique contacts from their professional um careers and uh losing that uh to just have council council members serve on it. It is effectively just a echo chamber. Yeah. I guess to me then I don't know why we even have an EDA and just put those items on your agenda at city council. Just personal opinion. Yeah. Yeah. No, it uh uh part of it was last year there was only three EDA meetings that were scheduled and some members of the uh city council thought it wasn't very effective as it was set up and that they would just handle it themselves. Thank you for the information. Yes, thank you. Um yeah, I noticed this packet which is like 107 or more pages. Um there seems to be a bunch of superolous information um that I don't know how much time staff is spending to research these but for example we have a simple three lot split which is either going to be three or two lots. it would seem uh pretty straightforward and there's all these pages about different kinds of developments um that have to deal with like 20 acre developments, flexible residential development. So, it's a lot of extra stuff that we don't need. Um I I think that lot split uh and Kendra, you can correct me if I'm wrong, that sits next to a wildlife preserve. Is that the one that we're talking about? Yeah, that's Grace's project and yeah, I think um that is in our uh SNE area, she said. So, it's got some complications to it that I think she felt it was important that the commission understand. Yeah, it from my from my understanding because it bordered the wildlife sanctuary that uh there's different rules that have to be applied to it that even just on the surface it looks like it should be an easy split because it sit sits next to there's additional rules and hoops that you have to jump through. Right. I'm not disputing that. It's the flexible residential development. Um these pages that were researched and added to this that have pretty much nothing to do with that in terms of this particular thing. And that's one of numerous examples like the barn dominium thing has like eight I think different types of barn designs and a Menard's color steel sighting thing. And it's just like one more as far as how the packets are put together. Uh you know that council members don't do that, right? I I can take that information and uh pass it along. Yeah. My my point actually is partly that if there's a lot of research that goes into doing that that isn't germanine to this, you know, in front of us, maybe not spend so much time with that is is all. Yep. I I can take that concern and speak to the appropriate people about it. Thank you. No problem. Okay. Anything else? Thank you. Thank you very much. No problem. And always as always, thank you for your service and we appreciate you. Thank you. Okay. The um I think we bypassed the minutes. I didn't have any corrections, but if we need to. Yeah. Did you have any corrections? No. No. Anyone have corrections? No. Okay. I'll move to approve the minutes as readed. Perfect. Second. And all improve all in favor say I. I. I. And opposed. So the minutes have been approved. The next thing on the agenda is the interview of the planning commission candidates. We have two people that are applying for um do you guys want to take this? Uh yes. Uh we have two applicants for the planning commission. Um one applicant Elden Elden Holmes is not able to be present today. So I have provided um his letter of consideration to the commissioners to review. Um the other applicant is Christina Pagnik. Uh she is present and able to be interviewed. Okay. So Elden Holmes was given a list of the questions that we're going to be asking the candidate that's here tonight and he has answered it. So there you go. And I'm pretty confident everyone sitting on on this commission right now was here the last time he was up when the last seat was I don't know. Were you Brian and Corey? Yeah, I think he had applied when and I apologize. Her name escapes me at the moment, but u Diana Diana, thank you. Uh I think they applied at the same time. Okay. So just for what it's worth being we've gone through some of those similar questions. But okay, we're here tonight to recommend up to two open seats, right? So, we have two open seats and we have two applicants and we can recommend both of them or we can recommend one of them or none of them. That's what we're going to do. Um, I will give you maybe a minute to just read this letter from Elden if you choose to. Okay. So, now we're going to ask Christina, and I'm sorry I don't know how to say your last name. Pena. Okay. If you could please step up to the podium. And generally what we do is we we have a a list of questions we're going to ask and we're going to stop start with Brian is going to start asking you a question. But could you please say your name? Sure. Yeah. Uh my name is Christina Piaak. Um I moved to East Bethl in 2018. I can just give you a quick little background if that's okay. Uh with my husband Alan and my son Colton. We live just right up the road here off of 160 or excuse me 160 off of 65 on 229th. My son went to school at the St. Francis High School. Um he has since graduated, went off just to play football at uh NDSCS and now he's off adulting. So, it's just me and my husband. Um, so we've been here for um a good eight years and uh just uh love the community. So, I'm actually from the south side of of the city, so being on the north side has been a little was an adjustment to begin with, but now that I'm up here, I really enjoy it. So, great. Um why are you interested then in becoming a commissioner member for East Bethl? Absolutely. So um recently actually we had to file a variance to do a home project. So um through that process I was part of the planning committee or planning commission uh to present the idea um and then I was at the city council. And so through this um and witnessing like the transparency dialogue and and and the thoughtful decision-m just made me kind of really spark my interest in getting involved in the community. So, um, it got me excited to be part of being part of the change. And I just thought maybe as a as a like a newer I, you know, eight years is maybe not super long to be in the community, but a newer um face to the community and new ideas, I could I could bring something a little extra to the to the the commission. Thank you. Great. Uh, what strength and abilities would you bring to the planning commission? Absolutely. So, um, I worked in healthcare for the past 16 years. um not on the medical side but I work in claims and finance and auditing. So a lot of strategic planning a lot of um an analysis that sort of thing. Uh but most uh I would say specifically that would kind of correlate to on the commission is um effective communication. So that uh again I would draw back to um you know as a commission member you know leveraging my my expertise in facilitating open dialogue. Um again ensuring that the community's needs are met effectively hinging the strong relationships among um members um again just uh creating those trust right trust trust amongst um not only our community members but our our city leaders too. So I think um with my years of experience with again working amongst many many teams and um across cross functional teams and such like that I have a strong background in that. Great. Thank you. as a planning commission member, what do you believe is your role as a representative of the city? Um, so um I' I've never thought of this was a great question. I'm like, wow, what a great question. When it was asked, I'm like, what is my role? So, um, I see my role as being kind of again a bridge between the city's vision and and and the residents. So, um, again, this was very new to me. I didn't realize the um maybe the complexity of certain things that you needed to have to to defile variances or to what is required or what steps need to be taken. So um again creating simplicity for our our our community members um being able to speak to them in a way that they understanding what needs to happen next. So again being that um that person that I can not only relate to kind of what they're going through but again just bridging that gap for them. So that's what I would like to be as a as a commission member. So Christina, what is your vision for the Highway 65 corridor? Another great question. Never thought of that one, but um I was like, well, my biggest top priority, I think, is safety. Um I don't know for anyone else, but that is my my vision um is just been there's just alarming accidents on on Highway 65. So, I guess as far as I didn't think anything bigger than that as far as businesses or um to develop it or not develop it uh develop it, I I I sit I I'm kind of on the fence on that, but I think right now um just the high rates of accidents that continue to happen, um the traffic safety, I I think there needs to be some sort of initiative to to get that under control. I don't know if it is higher police presence. Um I know putting in overpasses is not quite effective or cost effective. We can't be putting overpasses everywhere. But um again, just some some way to reduce the speed, some way to bring more safety to the Highway 65. Um that is my top concern um with me driving it daily, with my son driving it daily, with family members and such. That is my concern for Highway 65 at this point. Yeah. and and when we talk about the 65 highway 65 corridor, we are kind of talking about the um development of businesses or not so much too and and what's your feelings on that? Again, I'm kind of in the middle. I I I do see like the quick trip is wonderful, right? Everyone loves a quick trip. That was a great development. Um I I do like the small community though. So, I do I don't um I I don't want to bring too much up up north that it we lose that small community feeling. So, I love the convenience of it and I I know some of the community members would love those um an extra grocery store or um maybe another um big box store, those types of things. Again, I guess if it fits right and the community is requesting it and they and there's a need for it, by all means. But again to balance out that uh the the the balance of the life that we have up here to make sure we're we're keeping everyone in mind when we're considering those things. Thanks. Do you hold any roles that could place you in a position with a conflict of interest i.e. financial familial relationships or groups engaged in community matters as a planning commission member? I do not. No. Um, do you have a preference for which term that you serve? The partial term expiring in 2026 versus the full term expiring in 2028. I would be willing to do the full term, uh, 2028. Again, I think it'll just give me more exposure um, since I'm so new to this. So, I would be willing to absolutely take the full term and learn as I go. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Before we end this, do you have any questions of us? Um, I guess I I would be curious on how you guys chose to get on the planning commission if like something happened like for me like I said I I started I I even consider this because I had to file a variance. So that kind of brought me here. So I was just like is there something that you you're you know you always have been in this this is a passion for you or is there something that you kind of drove you to be part of this the commission yourself? Uh yeah, I um started my family here in the city and I wanted to become more active in the city as and volunteer where I could to help out and learn more about um this community I've decided to raise my family in. Perfect. For me, I started with I had to call city uh engineer at the time with a question about a property next to mine and started having a dialogue and questions and then it was, hey, you know, we got an opening on roads. Why don't you come check that out? And then 6 months later it was on another commission and then I saw kind of what was going on. This was back in the late early 20 or 2000s and there was a lot of change going on at that time, a lot of turmoil and shakeup and there was an opportunity to put some of my knowledge to use and again being fresh similar to you. Same same same mindset uh you know over time you definitely get a get a better feel for it. The one thing I would say if you are appointed is keep in mind we all started somewhere uh we all started not knowing what some of the terms are definitions are and you know again I'll just say this I'll say it to you and I'll say it to every every resident as well we're residents too we're not elected this commission is volunteer just giving our opinion based on what the rules are set before us. it is on, you know, we work at the behest of city council. So, again, we're an advisory group. Uh but yeah, it's uh it can be rewarding, it can be difficult all all at the same time. And all you can ever do is try to offer the best advice or information you can based on what you have in front. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I worked in public service so water for my career. Retired. I've seen a lot of good things and bad things happen to communities with public service, public works, city hall, all kinds of stuff. So, I just thought it was a pretty good tool. City could use me and maybe maybe not do what I want, but learn from what I've seen the good and the bad, you know, and so yeah, it's been pretty exciting to get out here and help. And uh that's what I'm looking forward to be able to if I can help somewhere. Yeah. Yeah. And and all different backgrounds help. Wonderful. Yeah. And I was similar to to you in that I went through a variance process with with our farm that's on Highway 65 and it wasn't a it wasn't a real easy thing to do it in my mind at the time and so um here I am. Yep. Okay. I moved here in 97 and wanted to be involved and thought planning zoning would be a good fit because I have an architecture and construction background before fine art fine artists and also I thought I could bring u no pre like listening to what everything is presented to us and making decisions rather than having an agenda that I wanted to push. I thought that would be a good quality to have here. So that's pretty much it. Thank you. Thank you. That's Yeah, that's Thank you very much. Absolutely. Absolutely. I have no other questions. So Okay. Thank you. Perfect. Um normally we send the applicants out. But um I think what we should do now is we're going to have we have two pieces of paper. One for the full term, one for the partial term. So write on the top full term on one and partial on the other. And then if you could please write a name under the partial term and a name under the full term. And you do not have to full fulfill both of or fill both of them. And then Grace will be uh tabulating these. Whenever you're done, just fold them and send them over, please. Yeah. P. Yes. M. Grace, two more. Okay, so again, um, Grace is just going to tabulate them and announce it. Now, this is just a recommendation to the city council. Do you know when city council is going to be talking about this? Um, it will likely be the June 9th meeting. I believe the Yeah, the next city council meeting on June 9th. And there are no more interviews, are there? They just kind of look at what we've done. Yes. Yep. We haven't received any other candidates at this time. Right. Well, she tabby said I just wanted to say and I I appreciate everyone's answers to the last or to the to Kristen's question and it just it uh coinciding with Brian's update on the what's going on with the EDA. I would say everyone's responses here was the exact reason why we advocate for or at least I advocate for residents at large to be involved in the in these commissions like such as EDA planning etc because it does bring the opportunity to have multiple different people from multiple different backgrounds. Exactly. Which is a collection of our residents and not just the elected but but the rest of the masses to have an opportunity to put themselves out there to do such things. And although it may not always be the most efficient thing, it's still well worth it and a good resource. And I hope the city council hears this and reassesses their decision-m. Yeah, I I think that this this is our biggest strength as a planning commission is all of these vastly different um ideas about things and generally we come to consensus about things. Okay. All right. We've received five votes for Christina for the full term and five votes for Elden for the partial term. Okay. Great. So, again, it's it's a recommendation from the city council, but um thank you for showing up tonight. Should we do a formal motion on it to or just as is? If you want to, you certainly can. I just posterity. I guess that I'd make a motion to recommend appointing Christina to the full term and Elden to the partial term. Okay. And is there a second? Second. And any discussion? Okay. All in favor say I. I. I. And opposed. So that motion passes. So congratulations. Next thing on our agenda is the number seven. It's a Okay. a request by the applicant DND construction and Grace, are you going to be announcing this or is Kendra? This one's mine. Okay. So, this is a public hearing. Uh Dan McConnell is the applicant. He's purchased the property at 21476 Johnson Street, and he's applying for a site plan, a conditional use permit, and four variances to allow um exterior storage for equipment on the north side of this lot. The property's guided commercial, and a zone B3 highway commercial. The site plan is for just that exterior storage. There's no changes planned to the building or existing parking lot. And the site plan and uh only meets the ordinance standards if both the CUP and several of the variances are approved. Uh exterior storage is a conditional use permit in the B3 district subject to specific performance standards that are outlined in the ordinance and I'll talk a little bit about those. There are four variances and I'll talk about each one, but just in summary, the first variance is to allow storage in the front yard. The second variance is to allow exterior storage more than twice the square footage of the principal building. That's one of the cup standards. The third variance is to allow a six-foot fence in the front yard. And the fourth is to allow a chain link fence. Interestingly, our code specifically allows only three types of fences. Two of which are walls, not fences. Masonry, brick or wood. It does not allow chain link fence. Exterior storage uh is shown in that shaded area on this. So there would be a gate coming in from the existing parking lot and then a second entrance coming off this culde-sac. Uh there is existing right ofway but this is a right-of-way easement. So this is right ofway and he's got uh shown a zero setback. We'll talk about that. Um but again without the variances you cannot approve the site plan and cup variance number one as I said uh the code says that you can't have storage in the front yard and the front yard um is this line. I just thought it would be helpful to draw that line. It's the front of the building. It also strangely in my opinion can't be in the sideyard. So the only place outside storage could be on this lot is in this area without a variance. This is where the septic is. So really in order to use outside storage, uh he does need a variance. The second is the size of the exterior storage. As I said, he's got 31,000 square feet roughly of storage area. The existing building is 5600 square ft, which the code then says the maximum amount of square footage he could have is twice that, 11,226 square feet. uh he's about six times just for context about what the code would allow. Um so again using this lot uh does require both of those variances. The next two variances uh are not required to be approved to you could approve the site plan and CUP even if you denied these next two. The variance number three prohibits a fence in the front yard, a six-foot fence in the front yard. And as I said, this uh you can see these dots. This is the chain link fence. Uh it comes again at a zero foot setback in this zone. Um we did outline in the staff report in order to meet the spirit you could approve a variance but pull it back to the curb line which is right here. um that would um uh not comply with the code still and would still require a variance, but it would be consistent with at least the edge of the parking lot. So, that's something you could consider. Um number four is a variance to allow a chain link fence. And this is actually kind of an interesting part of our code that um I I talked about in the staff report. This requires a variance uh to have a chainlink fence except that if you made it an 8- foot fence, you could do a chain link fence. And I'm not really sure the logic there. By cup, you could get a chain link fence. So, uh, you know, I think we've outlined conditions for approval and denial for you to consider for each of these variances, but it is very common to have a chain link fence um with this type of outside storage. Um, because of the durability of that fence, wood fences when you have heavy equipment can sometimes be damaged. So, um, the last thing I would note is that the city code does require as part of the screening, not only the chain link fence, but landscaping around that storage area. And so, um, the plans do show some trees along Johnson, but not on the other sides. And so, we have included a condition requiring some landscaping on the north and the west. the commission could talk about there is some tree removal that's happening that perhaps could be more strategic and save some trees rather than requiring new plantings. But um in any case uh the ordinance does include 10 standards for the conditional use permit approval. The staff report outlines sort of some findings of fact that you could use. Um it uh if the standards have been met, the variances uh would also need to be granted. In the packet are the city engineers uh comments and if you should approve it, the draft resolution for approval does include compliance with the city engineers memo. Um and again, this is a lot of variances and so as I said, there's a combination of things that you could do. So, there's the site plan, um there's a conditional use permit for exterior storage, and there's the four variances. And really, the first two you do have to approve in order to approve the CUP and site plan, but the second two you have some flexibility that you could modify conditions. For example, if you denied the fourth one for the chain link fence and said he had to put a board fence in, he could still do the project. He would just have to change his fence, if that makes sense. So, you have three options tonight after you open the public hearing. You can recommend approval of the request. We've got a draft resolution. You can modify that, but it's a starting point for your discussion. You can deny it and the staff report does include uh potential findings of fact that you could uh adopt or again there's a combination of you could find that some variance standards have been met, others have not. And I would just uh remind the commission that the variances are the the application that it really is the burden of proof is on the applicant to show uh that they meet those variance standards. That is the highest um discret one of the highest discretionary actions you have. So the applicant is here tonight as well, Madam Chair, and I know be happy to answer any questions and I'm happy to answer questions if there are any clarifying questions before the public hearing. Okay, my head's spinning. There's a lot. I know you talked about a large packet, but there's a lot going on with this request. Okay. Okay. I'm going to open up the um the public hearing right now. So, would anybody like to come and address the issues here? The applicant on this? Yes. Just on this property. Okay. Do you guys um we're still we we still have the public hearing open right now. Are there any questions that you guys want to ask the applicant? I have to admit this is complete. Oh, what kind of business is it? So, yeah. Would you mind um coming up if do you mind? Sure. And just say your name, please, and your address. Uh Dan McConnell. The address is 21476 Johnson Street Northeast. I live in Princeton, but that's okay. We won't hold that against you. It's not my choice. So, and so it's dirt work or Yep. Yeah, we do excavating. Uh we typically don't have a lot of stuff there. Most of it's out on job sites unless we need to get it repaired or it's maintenance. And then part of the reason why we need such a big yard is we have a semi in full boy and in order to swing around and to get through you need a pretty big area to make the corner. And then with the layout and where the garage door is on the shop on the on the building we need we would basically need to need to be able to swing in in order to back in to work on any of our semis. So which we don't have very many but just makes more feasible sense that way. Is the property No, we closed on it April 2nd. So, we've pretty much just been utilizing the office and just some stuff that fits inside. And then with the chain link, if we need to go to 8t to get rid of that variance, we can for sure 8t and no problem with the slats in it for screening purposes. Yeah. Yeah, we're planning on doing that anyways. Okay. I get my question was based on what what you were describing there. Uh, one of the bigger issues I take is the six times the exterior or or five, but three actually. It's 3x. Yeah, because the building square footage is Yeah, it's six times the building, three times what's allowed by code. That's good clarification. Three times what's allowed by Sorry. Yeah, I was referencing the Yeah. of the building being at six versus the two that's allowed. What you just described though is needing the area for turnaround. So, I guess my follow-up question is having the site available. I don't see an issue with having more room than needed to have the area. To me, the storage comes down to the size of said items in comparison to the structure. So, if the structure is um I forget up top or without digging into it, but yeah. So, if it's 5,500, but you're and we allow up to 2x of that, let's just round numbers, call it 10. Yep. If you're not exceeding 10 in my mind, I don't care if it's on this section or that section. As long as you're not exceeding two, right? Then it's not as big of a deal for me. And you want to chain link your your whole side property, that's that's a different story. And I can I can get behind side storage for due to the fact that the septic's in in the rear and you can't do anything there. I'd have a little bit bigger issue with with being giving you the allowability of or granting a variance for the allowability to use all of that to pack it in with as much equipment as you can. Yeah. No, that's and but but you see where we go with that and that's how the devil gets into the details. Yeah. If we say yes to six of the building or 3x of what the city allows. Y we've now given you that ability and then that could potentially stay within a variance or within condition or go away with conditional use. But if we grant it for you, we set precedent for someone else and so on and so forth. So yeah, if you think that the amount of square footage that your equipment total takes up, is that within that 2x do you think or is it more than that? I would say somewhere in there between what we can fit inside and what we can fit outside, but I would say less than 10% of the time would anything be there. Most of it's always out in job sites. So, it might be there for or might have a couple excavators there for a couple weeks until we go to the next one or something. It's not and we don't we order all of our pipe per job that all gets delivered to to the job. So, it's not a lay down yard for any of our materials or anything either. So, if I was to say If it was my voting on that and if I had made a recommendation but I did not grant the variance for the extra footage or for the extra storage, would you still be able to op do you think you fall within that too or are you close or you absolutely need more than two? Yeah, we need more than two. Basically with a semi we need to be able to loop around and then on top of that we need to be able to move maneuver around and unload equipment and have room for that. And I'm not saying take away the availability to have the space of six times the structure. I'm saying even though you have the space of the 6x, you only get to use 2x. Oh, you're saying like be able to still do the yard with the fence and gravel and everything, but only utilize certain amount. Correct. You have all the available space, but you only need Yeah, the 2x of the building. If your equipment falls within that, I don't see a need for a variance in requesting greater storage than 2x of the structure and we can eliminate one of the variances because just having the space available is different than utilizing all of the space. Yeah. Does that make sense? Yeah, that would be that clear. Yeah. Am I No, it makes a lot of sense. I was just going to ask Kendrick is that that you have a I don't know how we would monitor that. Mhm. Well, as as a city, we've always been a complaint driven process. I mean, the reality is, I mean, I've been doing this a long time and I have a husband. If I give you that much space, you're going to fill that much space. Yeah. I mean, we still need to be able to maneuver around, right? You know, so I appre I understand the the point and and we've talked about um that too, but I think if if you're comfortable with the fenced area, you're comfortable with the variance. No. Once that is that there's no way we're going to see what's back there behind that chain link fence. So whether you are by default approving that variance if you approved that chain that fenced area in my opinion. But then we're granting the ability to do that when we're not comfortable with that by your statement just because he has 50,000 square feet and he only needs to use 10,000 of it. So, let me clarify. I still think you need the variance, but you can condition the variance on you can only use 11,266 square ft of storage and the rest must remain open for maneuverability. And does that variance carry on to that makes it more complex? I guess that would carry on with the land. Who might decide to really fill it up then? Right. And that's why I don't like the added variance of of giving the I don't mind him having the the room. His land is his land whether he turns it around on grass or class 5, what have you. But as long as the amount of his storage is not exceeding what's allowable, but you're saying the variance is necessary, but it could be conditioned that he could only use the 11,200. Yeah. I mean, I think this is outside storage area when it's behind that fenced thing. uh and you can condition that variance to say you can only use a certain amount of that. I I mean without that once that's fenced in it does run with the land it just becomes I think a problem that we have to monitor. So I think the more appropriate approaches to condition it on you can only use the 11,000 square feet for storage and the revast remain must remain open for maneuverability. Right? and we don't have to he doesn't have to mark this up and say this is the only place I'm going to store stuff because things change, right? I mean, you move things around. I I just think that we're here tonight for the variance. Um to say we don't need a variance. I to me I guess it's already implied in the code. So why are we adding why are we adding something back in that's already there and then restricting that? That to me seems like more work than necessary and potentially opens it up. Yeah, obviously that's my professional recommendation. The planning commission can make their whatever recommendation you like. Yep. Well, and actually I I I like your solution, Kendra. I mean, you're the one that that's that is stating that the variance is needed, but I would like to condition it so that it's not going to be carrying on for with the uh property. Yeah, I I have a hard time understanding that, but we can keep moving on. Well, do you other gentlemen have anything on this particular variance? Because I've got some questions on the other ones, too. No, no, I don't. Okay. I guess I'm just a little concerned about the um chain link fence with the slats. Um so then are do you have neighbors? I'm sorry I haven't been I haven't driven out there. It's an industrial complex. The neighbor across the street does sand blasting and then rack construction is right there and then Cedar Creek Automotive, but nobody I'm at a dead end and the sand blasting guy stares at our place. But okay. So you're thinking that it it fits in with the neighborhood. Have you guys had a chance to look at it? I I know the area, but I guess to me number three goes away if he's already saying he's going to go to eight feet. And that's again another one less variance, one less thing to to muddy the waters with. Madam Chair, yes. Just to clarify, to go to 8t, he needs a conditional use permit that we didn't publish for. So he would have to come back if we go that route. Just so everybody's clear about that. I'll go whatever the easiest route is. It's up to the commission, but I just want to be clear that it doesn't go away. It just comes back with a different process. Yeah. So, um, with with our industrial parks, you know, we're kind of trying to uplift the the vision there and, um, so I am a little concerned about the chain link fence and slats, but that's what the neighborhood's doing. Yeah. Actually, none of the neighbors in the area even have privacy fencing for any of their outdoor storage. But it wouldn't look good. I wouldn't do anything that would Yeah. I mean, you just don't want it looking like a junkyard stuff lined it. Mr. Terry, uh, my concerns are more about where that is set back from the road and then what type of fence it is. Yeah, I guess it's just the industrial grade chain link fence that has slats in the middle of it, so you can't see anything. the trees, you really wouldn't be able to see anything. Um, but the setbacks, I believe we hired we hired a a surveying company to do the design work and everything. And they're at the utility ement, I believe, is what they said based off of what they went off of. Um, and the reason we had it at that was just to utilize as much space as we could because in the west side of the property with having to dig in the infiltration pond, it limits how far we can go back. So, being more forward is the preference. That's what I'm hearing. Yeah. Yeah. We're limited with what we got the storm water plan and everything. Okay. Kendra, what what are your comments on the the fence? Yeah, I don't have the history for um why the city doesn't allow chain link and perhaps that's it. It's the aesthetic piece. Um, but I do know that this is the B3 district, but it allows industrial type uses like D&D. And I I do know that um uh chain link fence is tougher with heavy equipment than a board fence. Um but you know if this variance were denied for the chain link fence um he could just install a board fence that doesn't need a variance or he could um come back and ask for a conditional use permit to do a 6 to 8 foot an 8ft fence in the front yard and that standard is lower. There's really conditional uses or permitted uses. So, it's really you guys have been here longer and know more about why chain link fences aren't permitted. Um, but I do know to your point uh there is outside storage that's not screened and there is outside storage that's contained by chain link that doesn't have slats. So, from a uh city perspective along our our corridor, I think it's important um based on what your code says to screen outside storage. So, it's really you know the history. Yeah. The thing about this property is it's pretty well screened by the environment that it's in other than the you know direct neighbors who are al also businesses but it's you can't see it from the highway. Um it's farm fields to the other side woods. So it's to me this isn't such a big deal in terms of the type of screening as as just that doesn't become a hazard the placement of it for any utility or activities the city might want to do on that road. Okay. Do you guys have any other questions of our applicant? No. Uh, so I really thank you for coming up and answering our questions. And does anyone else have any comments that they'd like to come up on? Okay. So, I'm going to close the public hearing on this one and let's have our discussion first. You guys talk and then I'll ask you some questions. anybody? I really I went past the site. It's not I don't think it's going to deterior. The place looks vacant now. The grass hasn't been cut. You know, they'll be moving in making it actually look better. The only thing I think that we should follow staff's recommendation on that front line. And I don't I was trying to figure out here how much it is, but what Um, it's on page 37 in line with parking lot versus the more forward line that he had. I mean, he would be losing a little bit. I I I just can't tell from the thing if it's 5T or 3 ft or but I just think it would be more consistent with the site in the street and more than likely someday the street's going to continue on and so then that would be straight all the way along in the future. I concur with that assessment. So that is which here's your here's your difference. The yellow line should be the end of the utility, right? That's for no parking public utility and you're talking bringing it in here. So those are what? Four foot pieces each. 4 8 12 16 ft. That's that's how that's where my brain goes with it. Yeah. I think it's just moving the fence over 10 ft. Um the dimensions on the plan aren't great, but it's it's at an 11 foot setback right right here. I guess I for me I don't have any like if it's within that yellow line where the utility easement is. I wouldn't it just gets pretty tight to the curb. You're not going to be very far away at more and more stuff utilities are getting buried in the curb. Somebody's going to come through and run more fiber in the sidewalk, you know, in the boulevard. I would like to keep that boulevard to what it is, just like that drawing up there. I don't think that would still turn his truck and go through. True. That would be that's the only thing I would change from my perspective. Kendra, do we have to make one motion to make all of our changes to the resolution all in one fell swoop? Sure. Yeah. For better or for worse, that's how I prepared it for you. You certainly could um break them apart if you'd like to, but the draft resolution does um include everything in one Yeah. item, but you could certainly take each variance. I think that's what we'll do is we'll just go down the line. So it it starts on page 42 of the packet starting with variance one and that uh addresses the exterior um storage and the amount of it. Does anybody want to change what's on the resolution, scrap it all together or allow it? I think I stated my point earlier. I don't see a need for variance. One, as it's already implied based on city code, and I think we're just creating more work and more things to follow. I mean, there'd be nothing wrong if he said, "Hey, I just want to fence my property." And then just used 2x of the building. We're a complaint driven program in the city, you know, and it's for them to follow through the rules, not for us to sit and monitor. I just don't know why we would add another variance and more work to it and create precedence in something in the future if not needed when it's already implied. That's my way. I said I'm leaning your way. Yeah. Um other comment. Okay. So, we're just going to not require a variance. Scratch variance one. Yep. Off of the resolution. or deny. Well, variance um one Yeah, maybe you don't need any of them. Variance one, just to be clear though, is allowing storage in the front yard. Oh, then I'm I thought we were talking about the square footage. I thought we were too. But if but if you want to say just put it in the rear yard, he's got plenty of room in his rear yard if he's only going to have 12,000 square feet. I thought we were aiming to allow for the sideyard which gives him the maneuverability that he needs. That is number two. But we're not exceeding the amount of allowable exterior square footage and therefore the variance for the additional square foot. That's the variance number two. Not need. Okay, that's two. Okay. So, variance number one, we are going to insidey yard put it in as it is. Scratch number two. So, approve one. Mhm. Deny two or not deny scratch it. Remove it. Okay. And then number three is the variance um prohibits fences of six feet in height or less in the required. It says requested a variance which prohibits fences of 6 feet in height or less in the required front yard. The fence for the pro proposed exterior storage is located 0 feet away from the front lot line or rightway eastment where 78 is required. And then um the resolution is written that that that finds it acceptable for the reasons. So this is uh Commissioner Jorgensson's comment that this is the one you would say you would approve it for a 34 foot setback which would bring it to that curve line. That's what you want. That was just what I would like to see. And is I guess now I'm questioning is it the front curb line or the rear curb line? Because there's two different ones, right? See, like this is the utility line. Here's the front line. There's the back line. That's why I'm seeing such a distance. When you drawing, it shows the front one where your cursor is right now. This one? Yeah. The Okay. The forward one because that's the one I saw farther back was this. Correct. Okay. So, now we're only talking about a 4 foot difference there. Right. If I go to if I turn the road around. Yeah. There you go. Let's go forward. Okay. Now, we're only talking about one curb section. That Okay, that I can get behind. I was thinking we were I think you I felt like you were taking a lot away on the other side. This curve. Okay, that makes sense. We were looking at the north curve line over here. Okay. Not the staff recommendation. You want to move it out closer to the street and keep the jog in it. He recommended just bringing it where it hits the Oh, she was talking the inside one. You were talking the outside to just make this straight fence line. It just seems to the one in her drawing is this one back here. Okay. And what we were you and I were just discussing was this one the more forward. So, it's it's splitting the difference really. Right. Yeah. You I can't see it very well on the screen, but you mean this line up here, wherever that is. the white the whiter part to the right of the cursor there. That's about four foot difference. Yeah. Yeah. The roundedness of it. Yes. Would you still have the swing ability if it was in a couple feet for about five feet from where you were thinking? Okay. Okay. You're okay with Yeah. Yeah. this same page over here. Okay, great. So, so number three is okay and then number no no it's moving the with the more forward how how would we word that? Um the the parking lot in front of the existing structure curb line curve line the nearest curve line to the front of the structure to the road. But just to be clear, you're now moving it closer to the street than he's proposing if you line it up with the curb line next to the parking. No, his his was on the utility easement. I So like I'm looking at page 47 in the packet. The red/ yellow line is where he's proposing it up to the utility line. If I'm understanding this correctly, staff recommendation was to bring it in on the north side of the entrance matching the curb line. Cory and I are discussing on the south of line of the entrance, that inside curb line, right? But what I'm saying is that's closer than he's proposing it today. Okay, here's this fence today and staff I was saying move it to this curve line and you're saying move it out closer to the street. No, then in that case, no, we would again not need it then. I think what we're looking at is figure two in the staff presentation is what we're wanting to achieve. Right. On page 37 still? Yes, on page 37. No, Kendra, you're right. We're discussing moving it forward, but based on inaccurate information. So I that case I'm I'm not opposed to where he has it just sitting, but that's just me. I'd rather not see it go in farther to reduce his move turnability. Right. So what are you wanting to do on variance three? Approve it. I say do it. Okay. Well, this figure two, are we all looking at figure two? Right. the one that's up on the screen currently. So the fence line is beyond the parking lot curve, right? The one I'm talking existing building. It is I guess only showing three spaces. But yeah, this doesn't it's cut off too much. You can't see the curb line that's like right here. Okay. There's this note here. But so that curb then in the this line top right corner then here that's the fence uh is marking as the line to where the fence would be moving north to south. So the staff wanted they wanted to come into this. He's right here and they wanted to come into there to match that curve line and then continue on. Whereas I guess I was fine with it on the line that it's at. In fact, it already bumps in here at the at the not culde-sac. Yeah. Leave it. So, nothing. So, no variance or we would scratch variance three or no, he needs approval for three. Sorry, we've gone back and forth. Yeah, we're going to actually Dan, we're going to call you up in just a minute, I think, and make sure that you're clear and we're clear and it's all workable for you. Okay, so three we're leaving in as is. Four is about the chain link fence with the slats and I'm hearing that you guys are okay with that. I'm still not clear on what you've done with three. I thought we were looking at doing that with that yellow or that red line there. Are you saying that we're not we're putting it back to where it's drawn by the applicant? Right. So it's zero setback. Correct. Uh I'm not board with that. Okay. I'm I'm advocating for that where that red line is. I thought we were approving where the red line is or we were okay with where the red line is. Right. That's what I thought we were, but they're saying that they want it without that red line, but back to where the applicant drew it right to the zero lot line or a setback line. If I'm understanding correctly, what they're proposing is moving that red line and putting it to where the applicant has it farther to the east, which is right on the edge of the setback or the easement rather. Kendra, from our comments, do you think we have a good picture of what's going on at? Yeah. So, um it's confusing and I think what's confusing a little bit is that um this dark line is the right of way line, but this is the right-of-way easement and um this fence the applicant surveyor erroneously showed a setback of 11 ft from because he measured it from the easement. This is the easement. So this fence is really at 21 feet from the lot line here and zero from the lot line here because this is the right of way line. So moving it really just brought it closer to creating sort of a street edge that aligned with this curb line. That's what we were thinking, but still gave him the bulk of the storage that he wanted. And I do hear sort of a split where I hear um a desire to move this back. uh and a desire to leave it as it is. Um so I do think we need clarity on that third variance where the majority is at for the recommendation and the red line is where he wants it. No, the red line is where staff was recommending. This these dots here are where he's proposing it. Okay. Okay. You can see that gray area. That's what we were unclear on for I was not understanding the drawing there, but you see that It might help if you give context to why that location is important with regards to the easement. Yeah. And I think that's where it's a little confusing. It is outside of the easement uh in this zone. It is on the edge of the street easement here at a zero setback. But it's a street easement. There's no drainage and utility easement beyond this. So, public works does not like this sitting here, but it's not in anything. Eventually, Johnson's going to be extended and this uh easement will be deleted, but there's this easement right here that's the DNU easement, and he is outside of that. So, what I was trying to do, and I I I appreciate that I didn't do it well, is I was trying to create a front setback line by moving it back. And maybe the landscape one shows it a little. No, it doesn't. But that's what I was trying to accomplish by that. That was the reason to to put it in front of you for consideration. Um, but the fence is still in the front yard either way. And it is outside of all DNU easements. So, you're saying as he proposed it, it doesn't interfere with any utility. Corre correct. Oh, then I'm back with you guys. Yeah. Maybe applicant. Yes. So the three would be okay. Yeah. To leave in as read. Are we all in agreement? Maybe. I think we are. Okay. Yes. This is a tough one. I mean, this is an important thing for Dan and and this is why we that's why we're taking the time to do it, right? Okay. So, we're all in agreement, I think. Yep. on three is staying and four is the chain link fence with the slats. I'm good with the chain link fence at 6 feet with the slats. Yeah. So am I in that area it's it's clearly hidden from the corridor. It's tucked in there. I think six feet would be suitable and it's it's based that okay with it is based on the context of the neighborhood. It's not like anywhere in the city that would be great. But in this particular location, I think it's fine. Just for a discussion point and any argument for 8T over six feet. I'm just thinking if it's industrial equipment, 8 ft might screen better than six. Screen from what is my question because there's nothing really to screen from except the guy across the street. neighboring businesses. I guess traffic flow from th from those businesses there. Keep keep prying eyes out of whatever is behind there and people don't see Oh, look at that big piece of equipment. Let's jump in. Well, that would be at his discretion if he wanted to do that. But I don't think we should between six and eight. Make him do that. Not to exceed eight. Yeah, I did that between six and eight. I think I said I said for conversation. Okay, great. All righty. So, I think what we have is a resolution almost exactly that you wrote up. Uh, so the variance number one, we're just going to keep it as is. We are proposing um dropping the variance number two completely. Yeah, I think um you are recommending approval of the resolution as drafted with the um recommendation that uh variance number four is unneeded because the applicant promises to comply and I will run that by the city attorney before it goes to council. But I will share your recommendation. Variance two. Variance two. Yeah. Y yeah. Okay. Um if you don't mind, can I bring the owner back up? Uh, do I have to open up the public hearing? No, you can ask him about the application. Dan, if you wouldn't mind coming back up, please. I just want to make sure that you're okay that if you think that you can comply with this and if you're understanding what we even talked about. Yeah. Yeah. I I think we can move. Yeah. Giving the amount of equipment in the available space, which would be 6x the building within the 2x allowability that is already in the code. Correct. Yeah. And I think, you know, part of our concern is just that we don't want this variance to go on with the other owners and we've all talked about. Yeah. I don't plan on selling anytime soon. I just bought it. So, no, but it also creates precedence for any other businesses that would also say, well, hey, wait a minute. You gave them X. I should be able to. Why not? Yeah. No. So, that's why I'm trying to avoid creating any future precedents on on other things. But based on your original description of what you needed the available space for was not to fill that much. So I don't want to grant that much availability for any future X. Yeah. No, that's that's fine. And actually when we set or when I came here to talk about it, there is no requirement as long as it's not outside storage. So it sounds like I could have just paved the whole thing or done all class 5. But since I wanted to fence it in, it' be outside storage. So that's why I filed for not that I needed the whole area for storage, but the area you needed to basically utilize it. Do you foresee any issues with what we're discussing then? No, I don't believe so. Great. Well, I thank you for your patience. Um, this seems to us like maybe it's a lot of discussion. It's nothing compared to what you put into it. I know that. So, this is important to you and we understand that. Yeah, I appreciate it. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Does anyone want to do a motion on this? If not, um I'll make I'll make the the motion then. So, um I move that we will uh present the uh resolution as has been prepared almost completely, but we will be dropping the variance number two which is on page what page is? 42. 43. Yeah. 43. So where it says whereas the applicant has requested a variance from section 24 sub subdivision 4.8 2 of the zoning ordinance with limits exterior storage maximum square footage two times square footage of the principal building. The 31,450 ft of exterior storage is proposed to be roughly 5.6 six times bigger than the existing 5,613 square ft building on the lot and and then it goes on to whereas we are dropping that section. Second. Any more discussion? No. If not, all in favor say I. I. And opposed. Okay, that motion passes and we have So, thank you again, Dan. Jar, just for clarification, a lot of times the only reason why we ever kept the public hearing open with the owner was just because we've had so many things in the past where there was back and forth. Otherwise, with the owner, we used to in longer history, we would close it then, have the owner come up and address, and then there'd always be these back and forth follow-up questions. So, we just started having them do it at the end to keep it open instead of Oh, absolutely. Yeah. I just didn't know if I had to open it up again or not. Okay. So, the next item is going to be um Sho Construction. So, and who's presenting that one? All right. This is a public hearing for a concept plan review for a three lot subdivision along 217th Avenue Northeast on the north side of that road. The applicant is Tom Carile of Sher Sherco Construction. Uh he's applied for a concept plan review for Cliffs Anderson Acres. He has proposed a three lot subdivision. Um, this property is one lot. It's zoned and guided rural residential. Uh, the property to the west is rural residential. The property to the east is a part of Lynwood Township and the property to the north is uh the Mickelson Wildlife Management Area. Um, this property because it borders that wildlife management area is also within the sign significant natural environmental area overlay. Uh this property is 19.44 acres. Uh the applicant is requesting feedback on the concept plan before applying for a reasonzoning PUB preliminary plan and preliminary plat which are the next steps in the platting process to uh subdivide the lot. The city's discretion in approving or denying a concept plan is based on whether the proposed subdivision meets the development standards outlined in the city code and comprehensive plan. Uh there are many standards uh and they're included in the packet. Uh the discussion on that uh the Anoka County Highway Department has reviewed the subdivision. Uh their comments are in the packet and they've noted that they would want 60 ft of rideway for the full length or full width of the parcel. This is the concept plan. It is three single family homes on three lots. Um the concept plan does meet the development standards um for lot width, lot area and um density outlined in the city code um for rural residential development. Um staff in our review has found that the proposed three lot subdivision does not meet meet the subdivision standards outlined by the comprehensive plan. So for a con or for a subdivision, it must meet the requirements for density in the city code and the comprehensive plan. And this is um not meeting that requirement in the comp plan. Uh the comp comprehensive plan establishes an average density standard of one unit per 10 acres. Uh this proposed subdivision has a density of one unit per 6.48 acres. Um staff recommends that the applicant update the plan before applying for a reasonzoning beauty preliminary plan and preliminary plat. Um staff would find that a two lot subdivision meets these requirements or the applicant could review the flexible residential development standards provided by the Met Council um and bring the subdivision into compliance with those. Uh the planning commission has two options. Uh you could recommend approval based on the applicant submission, the staff report and other evidence um to recommend approval for the concept plan um for the subdivision um with conditions. These conditions may be that the um ordinance standards would be met for a two lot subdivision um and a draft resolution has been included in the packet. Um on the other hand, the planning commission could recommend denial um based on the applicant submission contents of the staff report and other evidence. Uh the planning commission could recommend denial of the request if they find that the development standards that the the the development standards have not been met. Um and the commission should clearly identify findings of fact for a denial. Um findings of fact have been provided in the um draft resolution. Thank you. I'm going to open the public hearing for this um item and would anyone like to speak to the issue? Is the applicant here? So, um first of all, we'll just kind of ask you to to say a few words and then we may have some questions for you and could you please state your name? Sure. Uh my name is Jason RDE. I'm with EG Ruden Suns. We're the land surveyors working on this project for Shero Construction. Address is 6776 Lake Drive, Lino Lakes, Minnesota, our company. Okay. Um just a little bit of background. We did our due diligence prior to preparing the sketch plan and that we uh had the wetlands reviewed. There are no wetlands on site. We had soil borings completed for all three parcels and uh this is a very buildable parcel. The piece that I take exception with is the uh comp plan density of one unit per 10 acres. I don't understand this. Uh I've got three decades of plats in East Bethl that I've worked on that have used a 2 and a half acre density and this feels to me like the uh goalpost is getting moved. I don't understand. It doesn't feel right. Uh there's nothing that uh has been done consistently with us in the past. I've seen uh a series of changes in staff over the last three decades. I've worked with uh all of them well. Uh but this is out of left field to me. I don't understand it. That's what I was going to ask you about if it doesn't seem consistent with anything that I've worked on in the past. Not at all. I don't understand why do we have R our R standards if we're now we're going to say that it's a one unit per 10 acre density. Why does R exist? Uh to me this is wrong. Straight up wrong. Okay. And you've had that discussion with staff. Uh yes. Okay. Do they identify when or what changed then from your perspective? they're saying is that staff that the city has operated incorrectly for years and inconsistent with the comp plan, right? That's what she's saying. So, I look at the comp plan and the comp plan I think it has a 2020 resolution number. So, this comp plan's been in place for roughly five years, right? So, that means the last five years of plats I've done have been wrong. That totally blows it up. Okay. So, um, you're wanting three Yeah. things here and and we're, uh, as a city, we're recommending two. Yeah. It follows our our zoning. I drove one through one of my plats on the way here tonight that we built last year that was approved under these standards and they're building homes. What changed? Okay. They were told it's an oops that the city's been doing it wrong for 30 years. I don't buy it. Okay. And are you the owner or the developer or are you both? Neither. I'm the land surveyor. I'm the land surveyor. So that's why I have a vested interest. Uh the applicant is here and is more than willing to speak uh to this same issue, but this doesn't sit well with me at all. Uh I've worked on my name is on many of these plats on the walls in here. My name is Jason RH and very much worked with this city for decades and to have this curveball thrown is is wrong. Okay. In my opinion. Okay. Gentlemen, do you have any questions for the surveyor before we go on to the applicant? No, I appreciate and I can respect the comments. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And is the applicant here? Would um would you mind coming up and talking a little bit and we may have some questions for you if you could please say your name too. Tom Carile Sho Construction 21501 Humber Street Wyoming Minnesota. Okay. So you're the owner of the land in the development. Yeah. Okay. Okay. What would you like to say? Well, I think Jason said it all. Okay. He didn't leave me much uh meat on the bone there, but he said it all. I mean, the facts are the facts that we do need what the code says. And now we're bringing up a comprehensive plan that's into the picture. There was some talk about the SNEP uh overlay. I don't know if that's in the comp plan or if that's actually an ordinance, but the property is all high. Um, there's no wetlands, so we're it's not even a marginal site at all. So, I mean, it should be as easy as it gets. How long have you owned the property? I bought it about oh probably three months ago and I and I did email with Kendra before I bought it. I have those emails but they don't I mean like I said Jason said yeah I mean that actually kind of that gets to my question is when you when you bought this did you have the impression that you could put three in? Absolutely. And what gave you the impression? Well, I can give you the copies of the emails that I had with KRA so forth. And it again, it's it's in your current code. So much frontage on the road, which we exceed, which should be a good thing, I would think. Okay. So, no, I didn't do it. Yeah. And this was my first goound. So, it was only just recently that that was brought to your attention after Yeah. Once we got this um what was just a Friday or Thursday or whatever day it was and I knew that uh Mr. Art was headed this direction from our previous previous emails. I didn't know why exactly until we got this. So therefore, that's why we did all the, you know, the borings on three lots and did everything because to our knowledge, the rules or the ordinances never changed. It's just which still which still technically happened. It's just not in complian with our comp plan. That's right. and your comp plan. I I again I don't don't like to talk legal, but I mean my attorney tells me that that's not played unless it's an ordinance. I don't understand. Okay, Glenn Brian. Yeah, I'm kind of confused about this too. We have a zoning ordinance that as has been stated permits a 2.5 density for rural residential. Um the comprehensive plan guides our zoning but it isn't doesn't supersede our zoning and our ordinances and the ordinances permit 2.5 density. So I'm bit confused about that as well. Okay. Well, we'll have some questions. How many acres is the site total? 19.44, I believe. And the lots are 6.28 or something like that. They're all averaged out. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And it's open field, so no wetlands. Some nice roll to it. We got some trees on the perimeter. The wildlife refuge is in the back. Yes, that's true. We're not approaching on that after anything like that. Okay. Okay. Well, thank you. I'm going to close the Oh, go ahead. Sorry. Please come up and um state your name and your address. And had you signed the sheet yet? Yes. Okay, perfect. My name is Kay Anderson. I live at 4819217th Avenue. I'm the neighbor. I sold the property to the guy. Okay. I had no idea that this was part of the SNA because the only map that I found that showed the SNA and unfortunately one of my brothers swiped it out of this packet when I showed it to my family the other day. But I have been to the state's website, the metro council's website, the watershed district's website, the East Bethl City website, the print out maps. None of them show this with that SNA designation on it. There's one, the one my brother swiped that shows the woods as part of the SNA. And the 100y old farm fields are not oak savannah. And the latest stuff that came out from the state in 2021 shows it's no longer oak savannah because it's grown in in that part of the area. If you go to the other part of the farm, my brother got a letter from the county for his 80 acres which connects to Fox Pond and he has been told that's Oak Savannah and they're interested in talking to him about that. I didn't get that letter. So, um, the next acre is 20 acres. It's got the farmstead house on 10 and the other 10 I'd like to break off so I have money to pay to fix up my house so I can sell my house because it's too much for me to take care of. There's too many oak trees falling down. So, the woods are no longer oak savannah. They're mixed hardwood, mixed wood, probably 60% maple, 20% cherry, and 10% um oaks, which are falling over because they're all big and old, and they the new oaks have not regenerated because there's they don't grow in this climate. Um, and then the rest is a little bit of pine and stuff. So I too was taken back when I went to split my farmstead 20 10 off the 20 and was told I need to do a PUD. Was that just recently? Yeah, I need to do a PUD for to split the 20 into two 10. And um and hey, my woods are a beautiful thing and they're not going to get taken down by anybody. I fought with my brothers for years who have the maple syrup operation. You cannot cut down the dead trees. That's where the piated woodpeckers live. I'm going with the power company now under the power lines. That's where the indigo bunting has its thing in the raspberry bushes. The rens are in the piles of wood in the front. Ask me what the bird is. I've seen it. Okay. So, I'm not looking for somebody to come into my property and raise all the trees or everybody. I'm looking for somebody who wants to have a piece of woodland that has the most unique birds and has the tree the deer and the whatever that walk through. It's the it gets to the roads pretty close to where the the woods are on the other side of the road so it can go past the monk's house and make it to the big swamp from the big swamp to the north to the big swamp to the south. I did all that. So, um, but it's very confusing to me that none of these maps show that that you have to know that you have to go to some little space in in here that's not shown on the map to find out that your property is affected and has to be a PUD to split a 20 acre into two 10 acre plots and pay the $15,000 or whatever it is to do that. So, there's a lot of confusion here. I also am confused. Okay. And um I would appreciate it because on the other side of in Lynwood there's 21 houses on 60 acres. That's right. Yeah. I was cheering for three houses on 20 acres. Okay. So that's my question is so you're you're in support of of support of it because I mean as a neighbor you're not objecting. As a neighbor I'm going to have one house on 10 acres because that's what I want, right? So, um, I'm a little bit confused with the long process and all of the how inaccessible the information is that this your property is covered by this particular thing because who looks up SNA when you're not designated as an SNA on a map. That's my point. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mary. It U K. Right. Okay. Does anyone else want to speak to this subject of the subdivision with three parcels in it. In nobody in the audience, we are going to close the public hearing and now we're going to have some discussion. And ladies, thank you for your patience over there. Um, what you think? Well, uh, this is Grace's project, but just I want to just clarify something. So Minnesota state law, the Minnesota statutes say you have to adopt a comprehensive plan and you have to comply with the Met Council rules. We don't like it. It's an some people might say an unfunded mandate, but that's the law. You adopt the comprehensive plan and then your zoning ordinance is required to implement your comp plan, not the other way around. So, if you have a comp plan that says 1 per 10, you have to have a zoning ordinance that does that. We don't know why your zoning ordinance doesn't. So, we reached out to the city administrator and the city attorney to say, "What's the skinny?" Because this is not great, that we have a code that directly conflicts with our comprehensive plan. And so, um, that discussion said the same thing. the comp plan. In fact, I think every land use attorney that I work with and have for 30 years will tell you in Minnesota in the seven county metro area, the comprehensive plan takes precedent over the the zoning ordinance. And so the zoning ordinance has to match the comp plan, not the other way around. We're bringing it forward because we are also concerned. We certainly understand Jason's uh story about having done teen projects in in East Beth. We don't doubt that. But what we're saying is our job is to tell you what it is today and what the results of violating the comprehensive plan standards are and the met council rules are and then let the council make a decision about how to proceed. When you are in violation of your comprehensive plan, there are potential consequences from Met Council withholding funding and things like that. We may decide as a city that we don't care, but it's our job to tell you what the law says and uh give you our best advice in consulting with the city attorney and the the city administrator. We don't disagree though. This is something that should be corrected one way or the other. So if our density is one per 10, our RR should not say it's one per two and a half. Right? What the reason that we included the flexible design guidelines in the packet is because I suspect some of you may not remember those are in the comprehensive plan and that is a tool to get more density. Um that's a tool that our comp plan allows you to do to get some more density. It doesn't work well in the rural areas and I don't think uh the applicant is probably interested in that although I don't know if he and Grace have talked about it but it's some information. So this is a concept plan. It's not approving or denying anything. It comes through to you so we can talk about this. It comes through to the council so they can have that policy discussion and um move from there. Does that provide context at least for why Grace's staff report says what it does? It does for me. um even though I'm with Glenn that from from what we've done in the past that that you've been able to shift things around underneath you know the comp brands of plan is this great big umbrella and then the little zoning we shift things around and it's okay to put three um that are less than 10 acres here and more um acreage in other places. Go ahead. Yeah, I'd like to say that the comprehensive plan is a mechanism foisted upon us by Met Council that we would like to have as a city nothing to do with speaking from my perspective at least that we have to go through a lot of time and energy periodically to update and they have no vested this council has no vested interest in the city. They have their own grandiose ideas of turning everything into a highdensity housing and they have their own agenda and they were actually only started as a means to deal with water in the metropolitan area and their mandate has just gone way over the top. They're not elected. We are a city. We are reasonable people and we've been working with standards in our zoning ordinances we spend a lot of time to create that work for developers for residents. We're not trying to please a elite group that has nothing to do with what's going on here. So I'm not really moved by the argument that we have to follow our our zoning ordinance has to follow. It's a guide that we create to help us make our decisions. But it to me legally or or whatever and that's you know I'm just speaking on my own behalf here. Our legal things that we respond to are the zoning ordinances. If we want to change our zoning ordinance to reflect that, we have to have meetings and discussions and do that. But at this time, we created a zoning ordinance. Everybody's been following that. And it's it's not fair to the applicant or to anyone else until we change that zoning ordinance to say that's no longer valid. We have to go to this comprehensive plan. There you have it. Okay, there you have it. Any other I again not an attorney, not legal advice from my own basic research really and I and I agree comp. I've been through a couple of comp plans now in 2010 and 18 or whatever it was. Yeah, it to me the comp plan has always been, you know, the long-term the vision. It's a guideline. It was guiding us towards what they thought urban sprawl, etc. was going to bring or do. Uh, at the end of the day, if our code reads one thing and we have precedents, I'm I'm in line to lean on a the precedence and two the the code. And if we haven't updated it, then we need to, you know, obviously yes, I agree. correction on one way or the other needs to be made at a future point, but at this moment in time, we have a conflict. And in the world of conflicts, if you're anybody's asking my opinion, we go with the code over the comp plan because the comp if the code was supposed to be updated and it wasn't and it hasn't, then we're in my mind, we're obligated to follow the code that we have in place because that's what our residents would be going by is the code, not the comp plan. The repercussions on that are on the city. Yes. Not not the applicant. Yeah. Especially when they've been guided to that or Brian. Uh yeah, it's um you know, the city has erroneously approved subdivisions in the past, but like you said, that's that's precedence. Uh I'd like to fall in line with the comp plan, but if we've gone past it in the past, uh I don't see why we should uh draw the line all of a sudden. Um, is it possible to request amendments or changes to the comprehensive plan? Well, that that comes in at the end of the decade. Yeah, it's a 10ear thing. Okay. I can't remember. The city designs the comp plan, right? The city designs it, they submit it, it gets approved or not. So, really the onus was on us when we designed the comp plan and submitted it. Yeah. But the it won't get approved. The Met Council requires no more than 10 units per acre in the rural area. Period. Um but again for tonight, I don't I I'm not speaking for Grace, but we share your concerns about how we got here tonight, but it's our job to bring these forward. So you can certainly say based on what we've done in the past, we think a three lot subdivision should be approved. Now the next part and Grace can talk more about this is the significant natural resource area which is also in the code as well as the process. Here's another one we might talk about tonight that we don't like what the code says but it is what it says. Um and so we can talk a little bit about that because I think it is important that the applicant understands that process is not a simple subdivision and again it is not good practice to ignore the code or the comp plan. So, do you want to talk a little bit about what this theme is, why we have it, and what the process is for us to clarify? So, the significant natural environmental area overlay. Um, Kendra and I have tried to really track down kind of how this came to be with the city. Um, and there's not a great paper trail on that. Um, determining how certain parcels were put into this overlay and how certain parcels were excluded. Um this parcel is in that overlay. Um and that means that additional steps are required to subdivide it. Um as noted a PUD is required to subdivide um parcels for development in this uh overlay. So the applicant would need to do a PUD concept plan. Um this would also need to get reszoned to PUD. uh we need a PUD preliminary plan um and a preliminary plat before doing the PUD final plan and the final plat. So it's several steps in addition to um the typical platting process um because our city code um states that when you have a property that's in this overlay area, you have to follow the development standards for a PUD. Um again, this is an area where it's many steps. Um, but that's that's what the code says currently. So, just to be crystal clear, so you're saying that that applies to this um this parcel and then several as mentioned by U. K. Anderson, several parcels along this um this road. Yes. Are in that overlay. Um it's it's noted on our um GIS that's accessible on the city website. We have the GIS map that has that overlay on it. Um, but yes, this parcel is right. But I'm thinking that we really don't have to address that ourselves right now, do we? I mean, we can say either that that we think that three um three pieces in here would be fantastic and recommend it and and we we actually don't even have to address that overlay because that's not our job anyways, is it? That in the end if if it doesn't comply to that, it kind of goes to a stop anyways, doesn't it? Yes, that's those are future steps. So tonight, yeah, you're just addressing the concept plan as presented. Yep. Okay. I mean, the good thing about the SNE is that the PUD I would say does give us a little more ability to be flexible on density. Um I think you're still not in compliance, but there's some language in that zoning district that maybe we can But we're not even there yet. But I can't imagine this is the first time there's ever been a conflict between a code and a comp plan. And I would assume like anything, finding reasonable solution in in the middle is probably best practices. Yeah. I I it's important to raise it because I have two cities where again I don't want to go down a rabbit hole tonight where we didn't talk to the Met Council but the Met Council got involved and um uh without being asked and uh we weren't councils were not able to move forward with projects that we were trying to move forward with. So it's just important that we don't want to change our comp plan right now in the middle of this. We're going to have to do that in a couple years anyway. So, we want to find a solution that makes sense. And so, um, ultimately the council needs to weigh the, uh, riskrewards and make a decision. And I think exactly I have a sense of how that might happen, but it's our job to lay those out. Right. Sounds good. If we're looking for a reasonable solution, I'm looking at that aerial map and wondering how could that possibly that particular parcel be in an SE snee overlay when you've got this big development area to its immediate right. You've got nothing on that parcel. I mean, it's just all cleared. Yeah. So, what are we talking about? We're talking about a I mean I I love nature. I live on Cedar Creek. I'm very concerned about keeping that a traffic flow for animals. Uh this is not that. It borders to the north, something like that. So that makes sense why that would be on that overlay. Perhaps to the south. I'm not quite sure what's going on there. But that particular parcel if anything should be an exception to that just on the nature of what it is and also what it is to the east of it and across from it is the thank you. Yeah it's our understanding the applicant was trying to come come up and give reference established by an NOA County Conservation District the DNR and the Met Council. I think we were told that these are these areas and that's I we suspect why this ordinance was adopted. As Grace said, the paper trails a little bit light. Um but that's what the code says is that this came from them and in part it's to protect areas next to um these native areas. We agree. We looked at it too and said what's the significant natural resource? And my suspicion is these agencies wanted it to be restored to some native vegetation. I don't know. Well, they should buy the property and do what they want. Look, I I I don't know if you were here when this section of the code was adopted. I wasn't. So, I don't have the context. We did our best to find that. Our job tonight is to say this is what it says. Sure. And we appreciate that. And that's what you're paid for. Like, okay, Tom, did you want to come up? Um, if you have something to say, please do it in the microphone. Uh, just a question then, I guess, if we're going to go down the road of going through this PUD process. You know, it's spelled out as a three-step process for the SNA PUD concept plan review. That concept plan would look no different than what you're looking at today. I don't want to come back here for another concept plan with you. Okay? Honestly, you know what's going to change? Nothing. Nothing will change from an environmental standpoint. This is agricultural land. There's already one curb cut that's already there. There will be two additional curb cuts added at the county's discretion of where they want it. Um, but I get we're going to have a preliminary plat. We're going to have a final plat. if we need to make mention of a reasonzoning to PUD through that process and can do it simultaneously. I doesn't sound bad, but to come back for another concept plan review, I would like that to suffice for tonight. Okay. Well, I think that you're going to probably get a pretty easy um recommendation coming from our commission. Um and um but this is a great place for you to have the the floor to to say your things. Um the next time will be at council meeting but they don't have like a public hearing like this. So there's a public forum where you have three minutes to say something at that. Okay. So does anyone want to make a motion on this? I'd like to make a motion to approve the lot split as presented with of the applicant. Yeah. Of the applicant. And I don't know what other wording I would need to add to that. I know. I was trying to find that also. Basically, I mean that's what it is. So, the motion is to approve the the applicants request request. Yeah. For the three the split into three lots as designated here before a second and try to make any amendments. Does it make sense to try to add in his last comments of if an additional PUD if this worked in if tonight sufficed as I I have no idea. You're nodding in approval that I I would say let's add that piece to save them the trouble and bring in the legalities or check the boxes of the legalities that we had a additional one for planned unit development. Does that make sense where I'm going with that? Okay, Tener, thanks a bunch for All right, I accept the amended comments. Um, T, thank you. And you ladies have the um the the motion. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Okay. So then this is going to um the city council on what date do you know? June 9th. June 9th. June 9th. Yeah. Okay. And again, this is just a recommendation. Um, you're the public hearing is kind of done, but there is a public forum. Yep. Thank you for your time and understanding as we work through it. All right. I think Okay. Okay. So, the next um item is on Greg Underdoll for garage size metal sighting and impervious surface. So, who's doing this one? It'll be me. All right. This is a public hearing for variances. Three different variances. One for a single car garage, one for imperous surface coverage within the Shorland Overlay District, and one for metal siding at 138 Laurel Road Northeast. Uh Greg Underdoll is the applicant for these three variances. Uh he is proposing to build a single family home on this property. It's a through lot. It has 60.5 ft of frontage to the west and 60.5 ft of frontage to the east. The property is within the Lake Beach neighborhood. It's zoned Lake residential. It's also guided Lake. Uh the property is 27 acres and it is within the Shoreland Overlay District. Um Lake is just to the north. If you can see on that image, it's that blue line um or the blue portion at the very north of that. The applicant is requesting three variances. The first variance is to allow a 12x34 ft singlecar garage. Uh this garage would total 408 ft. The city code requires a 24 ftx 24 ft garage. This is a typical twocar garage totaling 576 ft. So the applicant is proposing a narrower garage with more depth. The second variance is to allow an imperous surface coverage of 27.6% of a lot area. The city code currently limits impervious ser surface to 25% within the shorland overlay district. So this would be an overage of 2.6% on this lot. The third variance is to allow metal siding on the proposed residential structure. Currently, city code requires exterior walls of single family residences to be similar in appearance appearance to normal wood vinyl siding or masonry. This is something we'll discuss later with the barnaminiums um the siding um but as that has not gone through council yet. We have to look at the code as it currently is. Um these are three separate variances. So the planning commission may approve one, two, all or none of them. uh approving one variance does not require the approval or recommending approval of one variance does not require recommending approval of another. These are all to be considered separately. Um this is just an image of the proposed metal siding that the um the applicant has discussed with me. Uh he has not told me which style he's leaning towards, but he's told me the brand, which is true log. This these are all of the siding options that they have. Just thought I'd include this visual. Um, as we've talked about before, uh, with a variance, the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they have a practical difficulty that can only be remedied through the granting of a variance. Um, there are three standards to be met with these practical diffic difficulties. Um, the first is that the request is reasonable. Um, that the applicant is proposing to use the land in a way that makes sense. um and that their request is reasonable. The second is that their request is due to a unique circumstance that is not or that is unique to the property and not caused by the land owner. So this is often something physical such as the presence of a wetland um the presence of significant trees or something to do with the slope of the land. Uh those are often unique circumstances that would allow uh something to be considered for a variance. um financial financial reasons do not alone constitute a reason for a variance. Um and the third standard is that the variance if granted will not have a negative impact on ne neighborhood character. So it won't look out of place or out of scale with the surrounding uh neighborhood. I've provided finding of findings of fact for the approval and denial of each variance for each of these standards. uh those are in the staff report and are noted on the draft resolutions. Um so yes, just as a reminder the you have three or you have options here. So the first option is to recommend approval of all three variances at this property. Uh you'd recommend this if you find that all of the variances meet all of the parts of the practical difficulties tests. On the other hand, you could recommend denial of these variances if you find that they do not meet the three prongs of this test. Um and you may also recommend a combination of approval and denial. Approve two variances, deny one, vice versa. Um these are again to be considered separately. Um and the resolution can be modified to reflect the planning commission's recommendations. Um if uh when you find those Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So I'm going to open the public hearing for this one. Does anyone want to come up and talk about this item? Is Okay, great. If you could just Did you happen to sign? I did. Okay, great. My name is Maggie. Well, I am Greg Underdoll's daughter. Um he couldn't be here tonight. They do have a resident in um Florida. Um he's building this kind of as a cabin um place to stay in the summers while he's here um with my mom. Um, one of the reasons of the variance for the single car garage not as big is because this was a double lot that he made into one. So, behind this, they already have a structure with a single car garage on it. Um, so that is one of the reasons why he's looking for a smaller garage that's going to be attached to the existing home that they're going to build. Um, the other thing I'm not exactly on the size on why that is different. Um, and for the siding is more so for maintenance on that. Okay. You're a good daughter. Well, it's close to us and my kids are super excited for them to be close in the summers. Great. So, does anyone have any questions for It's Maggie, right? No. Okay. Thank you for coming up. Anyone else have anything they want to say on this item? If not, closing the public hearing. Any discussion? Any objections? Um the metal sighting um staff couldn't identify circumstances unique, which would um you know, then that's something that we would have to consider. it doesn't pass that prong of the of the three factor. Um, maintenance I I guess that makes sense. I mean, metal siding is a lot easier to to take care of. And I guess I don't have that much experience with it, but um, can we see it past that that part of the of the uniqueness? I mean, I don't I'm sure it would what they call it? True log steel. I'm sure it's going to look, you know, 20 feet away, it'll probably look fine as you get up close. And then there's also the presidents that would come with that. Um, other than that, I don't see a problem with uh the other two variance requests. But it is a good point that that you brought up that it doesn't comply with all the the things that we are always looking at. Yeah. May I I'm I'm with you. the on the in the three-factor test again reasonable certainly um character of the neighborhood possibly but um but the you know the the true hardship and due to the fact it's easier material that only actually leans onto a financial piece and then therefore it does not meet that side of it. So um can't get behind the third one on that. Um, don't know if I can get behind the impervious square square square feet as well. Uh, again, it's it it's being caused by him to create more space to take it up. So, and we've had enough things come before us before where we've had, you know, people have had to get creative to try to get to their 25%. This is also in that shoreland overlay district. Again, precedent is not something I want to mess with lately, let alone in that even being that close. being that close. I just I I think we've had other people we've had to had to deny for. We've had people who took a bathroom remodel project and tried to rebuild a house on it, you know. So, we've we've seen all sorts for inches. Yeah. I hate to say it. Um, I guess I'm I'm not as opposed on on the smaller garage being that there's, you know, other structures there, but he could then keep going slightly smaller to not be as deep on it and reduce that impervious square footage. So, um, I can't really get behind any of them to be honest. I guess maybe the smaller garage I suppose it fine with the small garage. I I could get behind that one, but it's lessening, not greatering only because he's got others. Cory, were you going to say something? Oh, I I don't mind it. I went by the site looks and you know, it's vinyl covered steel is what it is. I don't know. I'm not against this project. I don't think it'll look out. in the neighborhood. Yeah. But but knowing that it doesn't overland, I hate to jump off that Yeah. I guess if it if it's vinyl coated, I guess to me that's also vinyl to a certain extent. So I could get behind an argument there. I just Yeah. On a true basis of if it's metal and it's not already there, then it's again our job to enforce what we have sitting in front of us and help make those decisions. But at that point, do you need the variance for it? He would need a variance if he wants it, but I can't see I I can't see the the uniqueness not caused by himself because there's other reasonable materials that he could go with or other products that aren't metal that have longevity to them and it's just a higher cost. I can't I can't it can't pass the variance test for me on that factor. Well, I'm on the siding. It says the exterior walls shall be similar in appearance to normal wood, vinyl sighting or masonry. And that word similar to me gives enough scope when you look at those samples that it looks very similar to wood or vinyl. It looks better actually in those pictures. Um, but it certainly looks similar to wood or vinyl siding. So I think it meets that. So it wouldn't need a variance to begin with. Wouldn't need a variance, right? is my thought. Um the smaller garage I think in that area smaller is generally better um because we have small lots. So I'm fine with that. The impervious surface I don't have enough information to assess what the need is for that. Um I can answer that. Okay. Please come back. Please come up. So, with this property, he brought the two lots together, and there's already an existing structure, like I said, with the smaller garage already on it. And he has to count that concrete space that's already built on that second lot that he made one and that's,00 square feet not livable already counting towards his perusious ground. So, that's why he's asking for that extra percentage to remove it. I mean, it's not our job to say what to It's brand The people he bought it from just built it on there. Um, they owned multiple lots. Their existing house that they lived in was next to these two lots. They sold that a couple years ago, kept the two thinking they'd use it from living in the cities and coming out for the weekends. Um, they decid they they didn't, so that's why they ended up selling it. They did just put in this pavilion. It's a covered like patio pavilion with a single car garage on it. So, he would hate to tear that down because it's brand new. But that but but that'd be the thing he would have to weigh out is what's what's more beneficial to him in that sense. Mhm. So, I I get it at wanting to have a structure, etc. But at the same point, if that's if that's the differentiator between removing that and then he gains the footage and now he has a bigger attached garage or attached garage with its own patio area to the size that works. And that's another solution. But again, I'm not here to try to give those. Yeah, I think the way the lot is and the way that he could put a structure, it wouldn't work really that that well on this lot to build what he's looking to build um with the two because the lots don't come straight. You can kind of see they're kind of angled in there. So, for him to put to tear that down to even build something that would be what they're looking for wouldn't really work super great either in that space. Has your father been working with staff or have you been? My father. So, I'm kind of coming in blinded a little bit. Okay. Nope. That's fine. So, it's been He said that he's talked to all the city. He's talked to all these these girls about what he's been wanting to do and he's he's voiced his concerns on all of them. So, I don't know if you guys can help represent him a little bit on um because you got you guys know probably way more than I do. Okay. Yeah, we we'll be asking them. Okay. Thank you. So, um, yeah, Grace, were you working with the applicant then? Yes, Kendra and I have been working with the applicant, but because it seems to me that you guys are like, it's okay if we if we if we recommend it that somehow we've gotten past the hurdles. So, how would you get past that um 2.7% or whatever on the impervious surface? Yeah, this is one that's definitely discretionary. Um, I did try to find or provide findings of fact for both approval and denial. um the presence of the existing structure on this end of the lot. It was existing when they bought the property. It was on there already. So that's something where yes, the applicant could reasonably perhaps remove some impervious from that structure or the the paving there. Um that is an option. Um but also it was there when the land was purchased. So that was the the leg I was using to um stand on there. Um but it again it's discretionary. Um when it comes to impervious, he has very few patios or walkways or uh he's gone with the narrowest um driveway possible in the zoning district. Um so there's very little impervious elsewhere other than that structure in the proposed home. Um, okay. To my way of thinking, it's a very small amount of a percentage that you could argue perhaps is part of the uniqueness of the property. And it just seems like such a waste of time and energy to try and adjust things to, in this case, to try and meet a number. It's semi- random. I mean, has a reason, but it to try and meet that at like a 2% or 3%, whatever it is, just seems like too much effort to be worth making a big deal about. But every time somebody wants an extra 2%, do we just give it? Well, everything is unique to the property. And that's what I'm saying here. there there's no reason to just generally give somebody an overage unless there is a reason that's unique to the property or for you know and this is a unique circumstance of something already built that they didn't build if they wanted to build all that from the whole thing that would be a different matter but they're trying to build something on the property they're dealing with something that's already there why make them have to tear that down just for like a 2% overage. Well, they could also propose a smaller house then to create the proper square footage. I guess I'm getting back to he he's still creating it himself and that's the the sniff test and the variance. I just I can't get it passed. I don't want to tell somebody how big their space should be. that seems reasonable to this property just because I want to meet some arbitrary number of that's 2% or 3% difference. Yeah. And and again, I I would love to have a perfectly straight driveway, too, but whoever I bought it from couldn't go over a certain amount, so it goes wide, narrow, wide. I I don't I didn't make the rules when when it happened. I'm just trying to trying to understand it and not create precedence every time someone says, "Well, but I want this. I want an extra bathroom in my in my house. So, I want a bigger house. I mean, in in theory, he again and I don't want to tell him to build smaller. I wish everybody to have everything everybody wanted, but I'm just going through with what our guidelines are and how I treat variances. And so, I know for me, I I just I have a hard time even though it's close. I I do, but how many times have we you give give and then look at what's the new standard, right? But the request is reasonable. it doesn't have a negative impact on the neighborhood. There is a unique circumstance. So, it's then it's just a matter of a a number, but it meets actually the three criteria to meet. Okay. Brian or Cy, did you want to jump in? Oh, wow. And then just um I'm comfortable with the the variances as they're requested. Also, any more discussion? Did anyone want to make a motion? You can make your motion if you want to. Okay. See where it's going. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the variances as requested with the staff supported um commentary or suggestions. Is there a second? I'll second that. Great. Any more discussion? Just reiterate my same points that I've already said. I I feel like this is something that he could avoid because he's creating it. He's creating the need for it himself and therefore it does not pass the variance test in my humble opinion and that's appreciated. Okay. So, all in favor say I. I. and opposed. I There's two eyes and three or three um in favor and two opposed. That motion passes. Okay. And to the applicants. So that is going to city council on June 9th. June 9th also. And again, so this was kind of the chance for you or your dad or somebody to say something and then there won't be another public hearing. And that's just a recommendation. Thank you. Okay. And then the next one is from Mark Fours. All right. Thank you everyone for bearing with us. Um this is a public hearing for a rear yard setback and imperous surface coverage variances at 144 Laurel Road Northeast. Uh so this is two variances. Mark Fors is the applicant. Uh his property is zoned Lake Residential in the Lake Beach neighborhood and it's guided Lake. The property is within the Shoreland Overlay District. Uh similar to the previous property, the lake is just north. Um this property is 222 acres. Uh this is a unique situation because the applicant was issued a building permit for this property or for the structure on this property in April of 2024 and a certificate of occupancy was issued in November of 2024. So this structure is currently standing. Um staff was alerted of this um this by a neighbor um and has been in contact with the property owner ever since. Um the reason that this is something that it we're um that an after the-act variance is being sought for is because um this property does not have the same protections as a property that had has a variance would have or a property that is a legal non-conforming use would have. So if this or the structure were to be damaged um the homeowner would not be able to repair it. Similarly, if uh the homeowner goes to sell the home and a realtor or anyone else is doing their due diligence, they would find that this property is not protected as others with um in the city are that have been granted variances. So, this is why we're here today. Uh there are two variances uh that are being requested. The first is for a rear yard setback of 9.3 ft. uh city code in the Lake residential district requires that the rear yard setback is 25 feet. So this is a 15.7 foot reduction of the rear yard setback. The second variance is to allow an imperous surface surface coverage of 25.09%. Uh similar with the last property, the city code limits imperous surface to 25% within the shoreland overlay district. um on this property. This means that there's an overage of nine feet. Um so a very small overage. Um this is these are two separate variances. So the planning commission may find that one both or none of them meet the ordinance standards and recommending approval of one variance does not require recommending approval of the other. Um this is the site. This is the as built for the site. So things that are currently on the property. Um this is again subject to the practical difficulties test. First that the requests both of the requests are reasonable. Um that the requests are due to unique circumstances on the property that are not caused by the land owner and that uh the variance if granted will not have a negative impact on neighborhood character. One of the city engineers comments was about the drainage on the lot. On Monday, the applicant emailed me a narrative and photos of the drainage on their lot describing how the elevation of the lot is below the elevation of the road and the water drains into the property, not into neighboring properties. These pictures were provided to me, so I've included them here. The planning commission has options. The first is to recommend approval of both variances if you find that both variances meet all three prongs of the practical difficulties test. The second is to recommend denial if you find that the practical difficulties are not met for each of the variances. And the third is to recommend approval of one and denial of another if you find that the practical difficulties test was met for one but not the other. Um the findings of fact are for approval and denial are in the draft resolutions and they can be modified to reflect the planning commission's recommendations. Okay. Thank you. So, we're going to open up the um public hearing on this one and your mark. I am Mark. Okay. Come on up to the microphone, please, and state your name and your address, please. My name is Mark. I'm sorry. My name is Mark Fors, 144 Laura Road. Um, so this is a tough situation. Uh, my wife and I are pretty upset about the whole situation, as I'm sure you'll be hearing something from our neighbor, too. Um but the fact of the matter is that we did submit all required paperwork for setbacks and sizes and everything else. Um received permits um to build. We we did make a I well I'm sorry. Um so we did submit um all the required surveys um building plans, site plans, um everything else. Uh it was approved um by uh the city inspectors. Um and um you know so had we known that there was an issue with the setback, we would either a change our design which would include moving our septic because that was the main constraint was we couldn't build anywhere but where it is. There was an existing septic already from the previous structure or uh which you know which obviously bro up driven up the cost um or just scrapped the project and just continued on with their seasonal cabin. Um as to the overlay that was a bit of a shock to us when we actually had that come in. Um so but we were working under the assumption our lot was 100 by 100 which is what the county says it is. Um and that's why we ended up with the 09%. We had done been doing the math all along to make sure that we made many changes to our house plan trying to get it to fit into this 2500 square feet when unfortunately we only had 2492. Oh well, you know, um and we could have sliced a couple of feet off here or there or something, but you know, that's what happened there. But so unfortunately, of course, it's built. It can't get moved. Um and for us to move it, my back of the envelope calculations, it would be somewhere north of a million dollars uh for demolition, reconstruction, and that's even if a bank would even give us a loan to do that, which probably would not happen. So, else is there. We can't move it. Um and and and I'm sorry that this happened, but you know, we move forward in good faith and got all the signatures that were required. questions, gentlemen. No questions. You said you referenced a Noa County uh survey. Um did you did you hire an actual survey crew? Well, we did hire survey crews and that's from the built from. Okay. Um and now the previous this is the same company that did the pre the the first survey um was you know as proposed um but the city asked for an impervious calculation as part of that. It wasn't until this issue came up that that Grace asked for a imperous um a survey that also did the impervious um and We found out, oh, it's not 10,000 square feet. If you actually look up our property on Ela County, it says lot size 100 by 100. That's what I was referring to. That's what we were using as our calculation. We had no reason to know that because our lot was a little oblong and a little crooked that there was a little bit of stuff cut off. But again, if we have to do something, we can do something. But that's that's not a problem. What would that be? potentially shrink or remove the sheds in the back corner. It would basically remove if you have a 4x4 apron in front of the one of the door utility door sledgehammer and an afternoon with the work will take care of that but it's 09% and what I also point out as you look at these calculations they all say plus minus which means they're rounded. So could be he rounded things up too much or down too much somewhere and and it actually is 24.98. I don't know. But so I guess I'm I would be surprised if you know based on the previous conversation that % is going to be a problem. We didn't do it intentionally. So again, we thought we were following all the rules. Right. Right. So, okay. Um, no other questions of the applicant and there's somebody else that's going to be talking, do you think? Okay. Okay. Mark, thank you very much for all that information. Okay. And who else would like to come up and talk? Okay. If you could please speak into the microphone. And if you could let us know um first if you could say your name and address and then I'm Marsha Carson and I'm at 151 Maple Road and this house is behind my house. And so ma'am, I'm just going to ask you to to address why why you think these variances shouldn't be um given to Mr. Fors. Why why do I think what why these variances should not be recommended? So, if you take I took a little piece of paper and I cut it out and matched this house with this and I moved it right up here and it just right real right onto the garage. I can't see that that could interfere with anything. This house didn't have to be built, right? So, we're we're going to be talking about these these variances. I know, but this house is I stuck a bamboo hole in there and showed that it was six feet from the fence that's here and the fence and the fence was crooked. It goes it jump out into my yard. And when we had um our own fence before that, they asked us We want to take it down and they would put up a white vinyl one. There's one on the other side. Now you see on this picture it's got this brown fence. It's straight. the picture that you sent me in the mail that came with your flyer that you told us about this meeting and I meant to grab that picture, but there's a picture of the um lots from above and you can see the line. It runs not Maple Road and not Laur line that runs all the way through there. It should be straight. It's not you know this fence that was straight. It was replaced with that starts closer to the house at the north side and it comes in, it jumps into my yard on the south side and then it ends and there's a space in there, but I had um when the surveyor was working on it. We didn't get to talk to him afterwards and um anyhow, I could see that he had some stakes stuck in there that weren't ready. So, I tied a string to the post that the fence had been previously connected to and down to the other end and allowing for the fact that the fence that's on this side of me was they allowed an extra like almost a half foot in there. except that there was a little um rebar shape in the ground. And so if you tied that onto that and you ran it down to the other end and put to the post that it was connected to, it makes a nice straight line. But it that's not how the fence. So you're wanting him to move the fence. Well, yes, but that's not I'm going to bring that over over there and show you this. I have got I have got 50 foot 50t of land between my foundation and I've got six foot on the other. Okay, you're going to have to speak into the microphone, please. And then and then this one. Okay. See the you to see how close that is. I mean, this house is built just right right on. Yeah. And we can see it from here. So, anyhow, um anyhow, I I wrote something out here and it's double spaced. It's not very long. Can I read it to you? No. Um I think we understand what you're That Yeah. Well, you know, I've been in and I was talking to Aaron and I didn't get a straight answer out of him. He didn't answer my question and came and brought me a survey and that was supposed to answer my question and I went and I still didn't see that there was any indication that that back um setback had been changed and it hadn't been changed. So, this has been going on quite a while then. Pardon? This has been going on quite a while since Aaron was here last summer and while they were building the house and then I talked to um Nip um Schwarz or whatever. I think that's his name. Anyhow, he said he'd come out and bring me a copy of because I asked for a survey that had the setback written on it because nobody had given me a straight answer on that. So, he came out and he gave it to me and I said, "Why isn't the setback written on there?" But if you If you get it off of A1, which I'm not going to do that, but but somebody did pull that up and accidentally got this said the 25 foot setback on there. And that's what I wanted to see. And he says, "Oh, yes, it's on there. I see a 10 foot setback." I said, "That may be where they say they built a house, but that's not the setback. You know, it's a 20 foot 25 foot setback." And then we went into a meeting on one of these city meetings on the 23rd of September and that is when Aaron was sitting over there and he was talking about this other property that you're talking about just before and when but he said the setback was 25 ft and I asked him I said can you repeat that please he hadn't said that to me before and he said yes the setback is 25 ft and he said we talked before but we're going to talk again. But anyhow, um, so that is the first time I knew what the setback was and somebody had actually confirmed it to me. Now, this this is standing in the way of the citizens rights to know what's going on and to be able to object when it's conceivable that it could do something good. Absolutely. You know, I mean, if we're talking after the fact, I don't want this house here. I want it moved. You want the house moved? Yes. And besides, now I've got another question for you. I was told that that Mr. Bowen owned this house and then this construction companies also named Bowen, but the people at the at Oprah County did not ever they didn't know the name. They just And so this mark, you know, but why did Bowen's name on the survey? I I just don't understand. Okay. Okay. So, what I'm hearing from you is that you want the house moved. And is that true? Yes. Because look, they could have put the house right here. They could have attached it to this garage and these containers. There's only a 10 foot um setback on these. But then the drain goes by the largest setback. There is no no problem with the way this house is on there or on with this little blue house on there. Okay. No, there's no reason that that could have been done and that that would have been back where it should be. It's that you know they didn't need to infringe on the 25 foot set back. Okay. 25 ft and six feet are way different. And it depends on what is the overhang on the roof. If the if the overhang on the rope is more than two feet, I believe it is, then you have to count back too. That's why it's six feet is what? Okay. I think we we understand definitely what you're So, and and there's no reason that I should be so upset about this. Sure. This should have been handled properly by the people that are employed down here. Okay. Um so we'll Yeah, we'll be asking them in just a second. There's a 1913 case action that could and I don't want to go there. Okay. You know, so anyhow, and I I'm just very confused because I thought that Bowen's name was on here and I thought he didn't report the buying a house to the city hall. And so I don't understand why why do I have B's name on the survey? Okay. Well, we will ask those questions then. Okay. Okay. I do thank you for for speaking up very much. I mean, this is your chance to because the neighbor in that little garage next door to me, I tried calling a guy by the name of Green. He wasn't available, but he sure didn't return my call later. Not the next day. Never he never called me back. So, you cannot run a city like this. You have to go by the rules. Otherwise, just get rid of the rules. There's no point in them if they are not going to follow them, you know. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um Mark, would you like to come back up? Yeah. Have any followup questions? Um so if you could speak into the microphone, please. Question. Yep. Okay. So there's a number of things. So first off, the fence was also permitted and inspected and is on the property line. There is another fence on the previous property that you were looking at that's a white vinyl that's set back a foot from the property line and there is a gap there. That's not my fence. Okay. All right. So, that would be explaining why they're not in a straight line. Part of the fence is mine. Part of the fence belongs to Greg. Yep. Um 16 inch deep. By the way, um we are um we actually started this whole was with a 10 foot set back and then the city said, "Well, you got to move your foundation back a little bit through the septic tanks." And they kind of split the difference and that's what we ended up at 9.3. So we my my general contractor Dustin Bowen uh whose name was on the surveys because that's ordered the surveys. Um so that's where his name came from. But he called up and he talked to Aaron and Aaron said, "Well, that's a slab, not a foundation." He said, "Yeah, that's fine. Just and move it back a little bit then it'll be fine. So even at that point we were still laying flags this issue could have been addressed but it wasn't. So we went ahead with the construction and now we're here. Yeah. I think I understand very well your frustration and and the frustration of the neighbor. Yeah, for sure. Okay. Where's the on the right here? Okay. So, when we originally bought the property, there was a small cabin, seasonal cabin, and there was a a well in front of it and then there was a septic tank and then about a month after we bought the place, we got a letter from the city saying well septic was okay, we were probably going to replace it anyway. So, that's when we put this septic up here and then that well had to That's why over there that was way back when we first bought, right? And then we built the garage, right? And the existing structure was still here. We got some variances for that because at the time it was a 10 foot sight set back. Now it's a seven. We got the variance for the seven and we moved it up a little bit because that's why we put the house here because existing septic here and the existing structure here and the and the well needs to be serviced, right? So, we need to be able to get and we've already had them out to service it a couple of times. Um, did you guys installed well? Oh, we had it installed. Yeah, there was a on one of those old really old sandpoint went. Yeah. Yeah. So, we went back through the records as part of this process. So, the first time this this property shows up on the city records is 1946. So, whatever building standards were back how that was built, but yeah. Or they lack of or lack of. Yeah. My wife likes to joke that this is was a cabin that or her dad would have built. Yeah. So, so I think that's maybe addressing some of the questions that Marca brought up. So, thank you. Yeah. Thank you very much. Um I don't think I do have a question about that. Okay. Go ahead. Now, I have a survey for my property. Mhm. And that it shows that the house is 50 foot from the the foundation of the house is 50 ft from the lot line. And you can figure out that it it's probably correct down on the north end, but on the south end it's not that fence is on my property. And and we've had and we've had that fence. It was there before I moved here and it still gate on it still attached to that post down at. And so you can see where it was hooked up, you know. Okay. And I think that's an issue that we won't be able to address here. So do you do you guys agree? Yes. Yeah. That's more of a city thing. Um but not the planning commission. We're going to be addressing the the variances. It's fine that that you brought it up, but but this commission can't address that particular issue. And what what the rules are that I found on the computer was that that the fence can come up to the property line. So, it shouldn't be on top of the line, right? And and again, that's not something that we can discuss here over the line, but it is like probably six inches over the line on the property. So, Yeah, that that'd be something to bring up to to the city during during business hours and they can they can look into that. Yep. So, you're saying people here? Yes. Right. Not for this commission, but Yes. Yeah. For for a property. I've got a survey, you know, there was a survey done before I bought the place and I'm we haven't moved anything. Yeah. But we won't be talking about that tonight. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I think our public hearing is still open, isn't it? Okay. I'm going to close that unless anybody else wants to come up and talk. We are closing the public hearing. And gentlemen, I'm sure you're not going to be staying around for the barnaminium, are you? I don't even think anyone should be probably because that's going to take more. You might want to table it shorter meeting. Maybe we could do that. Um, did you have anything that you wanted to add to this discussion? Um, well, it's a city to me. It's a city-caused problem. Um, staff should have I don't remember. Did this come before us or it's it seems very I recall that when the garage came, but not the home. Not the home. And the home is the issue here. And that may be where the issue came in is they they look up the property and they see a variance already tied to it and that variance was for a garage. And again, I'm not giving Aaron excuses and I'm totally making a guess here, but yes, that would be that would be the how in my opinion, but so we're trying to clean up a mess that the city staff should have avoided, it seems. It's so I'm really not moved by the need to with the 0.9% difference. Like I mean you could probably reservey that and make it work. It's such a small error that I don't know why we're dealing with that one. But the setback one, we have to solve what the city staff should have and I don't know what our options are. So, so Kendra or Grace, what are your comments to that on on the setback? Yeah, it's a significant um encroachment that should have been caught during plan review and it was not. Um, this is something that I think um, had it been addressed according to the code when it came in could have been, you know, the house perhaps could have been located somewhere else on the lot. It is, it's now where it is. Um, we don't, you know, want to set precedent granting after the fact variances. U, that's not, you know, something that we want to be doing. Um, but this is something that Kendra and I came into, um, by previous staff. Um, and again, the house as it is now is not granted those same protections as other properties that have variances. So, it will be an issue when he goes to sell the home someday if the house is uh damaged and needs to be significantly repaired. Um, it's not an ideal situation to be in. Um, so that's Yeah, I think that's But he doesn't have a lot of choices right now. Not a lot of choices. Yes. It's not I mean moving the house isn't feasible uh really. um doesn't have a ton of options for he could remove impervious surface. That is something where he does have options to do that in certain in in some areas. Um I think that's least of our yeah least of the issue here. Um as for the setback staff doesn't see a ton of realistic uh ways to deal with this other than granting the but you could support um the variance. I yes I I could Yes, we could support the variance. Yes. which is also probably consistent with a lot of other setback variances in the neighborhood. I think it's pretty clear that at the time city staff thought the setback was 10 feet because they made the comment let's get it to 9.3 right and they have to be I don't I don't recall by memory I used to younger remember the setbacks for wells and and septics and that came into play too so this is it's complicated on these lots yeah I wish I could go back and understand the reasoning or how this came to be. Uh but I we we tried we tried to find anything we could and there was nothing much out there. So I know I know in my 15 years and Glenn you've been here long longer than I have. It's pretty rare when we've had after the fact variances come before us. The last time I remember we had one of these and it was in this area of the city. Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong. I thought we tried to look at it in the scope. I'm leaning on our own precedences here and say I thought we leaned on the idea that if this were coming before us today not having been built, would we have approved variance or not based on what's there? And for me, hearing the applicant's timeline of when purchased to garage to reconstruction of or septic to then reconstruction of home. And again, Grace, I'm going to lead on you guys. Realistically, with where I mean, does does the does the applicant story line up that there really is not a reasonable position to put the home otherwise given the location of well, septic, and lot lines? Yes, I'd say that. Um, I can't pull the exact timeline out of my head right now, but with how it sounds and what I've seen in the file, um, yeah, I think even if this was something that came in and it was, you know, brought before the planning commission, I think there would still be some sort of variance issued for us. Yeah. Do doing the following the bouncing ball for for me again, everything was fine and compliant with variances, etc. up to the point of installation of well and septic. And that leads him back to just the cabin. Correct. Am I right in that timeline? Not I'm getting ahead. Not that. The cabin was the last thing to be or the the rebuild was the last piece of this puzzle. The septic was in before the cabin or before the reconstruction. Yes, sir. Okay. That's what I was getting at. So, if I'm following, you did you bought it legally fine. You got a variance for the garage, legally fine. You put in a new well, legally fine. put the well and the septic in before the garage. Okay, thank you. It furthers my point. So, thank you. But yes, those were both put in compliant garage. You asked for variance was granted built. Now, we're down to the cabin. So, to me, I'm trying to put myself in that timeline of let's pretend the house wasn't built. You came before us, said, "Hey, I want to rebuild. This is what I'm trying to do." Right? What would we have done at that time? And then I have to sprinkle in, okay, there was a somewhere an error done internally. And then I have in my head I have to outweigh the cost of what does it cost the city to try to correct that if we were to rectify it completely versus would we have approved it or not. So thank you for helping with the timeline. I just I'm trying to put myself in that spot of what would come up and in the discussion earlier, you know, could have pivoted, could have looked at alternatives and or not done the project at all. Um, yeah, but we were told go ahead and so we did and and that's fair and reasonable. I'm under no argument of that. I'm just trying to do my due diligence in the process. So, thank you for your patience as I walk myself through that. So, so with that, what do you think? I in this case, I would have to be in approval of of an after the-act variance given both possible city error, wherever that may have been and why, we don't know. And yes, if they were trying to come before us hitting the three-factor test, I think it's pretty close. It'd be hard not to given again the clerical error. Uh, as far as Yeah. 0.09, I agree that's pretty minimal. I'm not looking to have somebody deconstruct again some forgiveness in the fact that from the city side there was something there and the lot survey, etc. So, okay, I can be reasonable in that. That's my impression on that. But again, if this was coming before us, I'd probably push it to the Just know I would push that to the 25 to say do what you can to ease that up to get it to the number that you're supposed to be at. No sledgehammer. No sledgehammer required for my position on that. So Brian, you usually come up with something to argue against from a positive aspect. Oh, well, thank you. Um I yeah I mean uh whole after the fact that this is brought on by a neighboring lot. So um I'm just wondering about that the building permit. Do we know that the city issued that? Oh they would have Yes. The the city issued the building permit. There's a signature dated April something 2024 on there. Um yes. Okay. Um, you know, I was um because this an after the fact um I it occurred to me would this have come up had the neighbor not said anything and to that the neighbor does have a point because this is where you know the obvious uh why this is brought before us right now. So, um, but when I followed the timeline that Tanner just laid out, um, that that fits pretty well. Um, I can see a clerical mistake at the city's end where 10 ft was considered rather than 25. Uh, and um, you know, I'm I know I make mistakes and I could see that fitting very well. So, I was thinking the sledgehammer, but um the plus minus symbol on this survey uh does actually have a value. We don't know what that value is, but 0.9% seems and you can r in the parenthesis there of rounded. Um so, uh you know, it's an after the fact. It's it's before us and yeah there's there's a lot of resource would have to be committed to uh get that rear set back to 25 ft and I don't know that that's going to be a wise use of our of our resources. Yeah because again we're going to the resource thing if let's just say the city was somehow deemed and found responsible after the fact and we ended up incurring said costion dollars etc. Keep in mind that's every resident absorbs that. That's not you that's at the if it is a fault of the city that goes on everyone and that's part of where at least for me my decision-m process comes into play of do I and or also want to be responsible to say everyone needs to pay for X on set thing or a million dollars in the budget correct I'm going to make a motion to approve the two variances before us what a great motion is there a second I'll second that okay any discussion if not all in favor say I I and opposed. Okay. So, that motion passes and this is going to city council also. Yes. On June 9th. Okay. And remember again that this is just a recommendation from our um commission that the city council approve both variances. And then where are those council meetings take place? Right here. Okay. On June 9th. And again, there won't be a public hearing like this. If you need to say something to the council, there's a public forum, but you only get three minutes at the very most. Thank you. Okay, we're at the barn dominium. I'm going to make a motion that we table that to another agenda that's shorter than this one where we could spend the time it requires. I have not been tuned into the barn barinium um conversation. Brian, do you think that it's going to be a great hardship for the council if we table this? I would say for a good discussion for this that you're probably going to take an hour and being as it's uh almost 104 quarter to 10, we've been having the almost a three-hour meeting now. I I think it'd be to the most benefit to table it. Okay. And uh possibly we could you could schedule a special meeting in two weeks just just to have this on the agenda. Um if that's possible to be done. Well, how you know how critical is this that it gets done, you know, before the the next meeting? That that depends on which council member you may ask. From your general opinion, is there is there a specific driving force that there is nothing relying on a barnaminium ordinance to pass for another thing to be passed? Are there barnominium? Are there applications for barnuminiums lining up or not that I've been told that this is an ordinance that some members of the council want to have passed just to have a barnuminium ordinance and Okay. Okay. Well, I just, you know, I don't want to disrespect the city council y um and, you know, act like we're kind of dragging our feet or anything. Um, I do think it's a good idea first to not have the discussion tonight. I'm really at 10 o'clock. I want my speech. Yeah, at 10 o'clock. I don't blame you. We want to have a uh I believe that you should do your due diligence. Take the time it needs to be discussed because uh city council certainly had our I think we took three at least three meetings to discuss certain portions of it. And so it it's you're going to have a discussion. I'll say that and it won't take five minutes. Do they already have their mind made up? I mean I guess I'm asking is our discussion important? I believe it is. Well, I know but I mean I'm just asking an honest opinion. Do you do you think that our discussion is going to make much difference anyway? I can't tell you that. Okay. Um I believe that you should definitely have your say because this is why we have a plan commission and I my personal opinion I want your opinion if you see you know second set of eyes that if you see something wrong with it or something egregious or you you want this or you don't want this whatever I I want to hear that I want to hear from citizen members. Yeah, we have to discuss the com. Yeah. Yep. Good, good, bad, or otherwise. And I I I will second the motion to table. Okay. And I would prefer to um before Well, here's a discussion then. Um I would prefer to have put it in a regular meeting rather than have a special meeting. Okay. That that was just a suggestion that for discussion sake. I'm I'm sorry to catch up. I I'm with you. I would prefer in a regular meeting. If it's going to be a joint special meeting, I would like the city council in attendance and then we we we knock the issue out. I I don't think it's important enough to have a joint meeting. Okay, good to know. Okay, so there we are. So, we um have a motion and a second to table this. And all in favor say I until the next. Yeah, I was. Yeah. Um all in favor say I. I opposed. Okay, that motion passes. Motion to adjurnn. Second. Okay. Uh, any discussion? All in f favor say I. I. And opposed. Okay, that motion passes. Thank you everybody for all your discussion of you. It says,