The pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> You know, you're paying attention. >> [clears throat] >> Next item is roll towel. >> Yep. Uh, Commissioner Jorgensson >> here. >> Commissioner Perrell >> here. >> Commissioner Bees >> here. >> Chair Ha >> here. >> Commissioner Lewis >> here. >> Commissioner Larson >> here. >> Carlson. Um, Mayor Hib >> here. >> Uh, planner Nash >> here. and myself, Natalie Johnson. That completes roll call. >> Thank you. Next item is to approve amend the meeting agenda. Does anyone have any changes or additions to the agenda? >> I'll make a motion to approve the meeting agenda. >> Commissioner Perrell made a motion to approve a second. Second by Commissioner [clears throat] Ke. All in favor? >> I >> I next item on the agenda is to approve amending the minutes from January 27th, 2026 regular meeting. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as written for January 27th, 2026. >> Uh, I can second that. Motion by Perl and a second by Commissioner Carlson. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for vote. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppos. Motion passes. So next item is public hearing for one or 870 190th Avenue Northwest. Jason Jones is applying for a interim use permit for extended home occupations for landscaping and snow removal. So we'll have uh the planner present the project. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So Mr. Jones has applied for an interim use permit for a home extended business to allow for landscaping and snow removal and concrete work. Um he is currently operating a business on the site and has been um um the city has taken some code enforcement action against that primarily related to one not having an internet use permit but also um [clears throat] selling salt to others from the outside. as part of um that action he has applied for his intersection that's located on the property. Um there is currently still an accessory structure also on the far south side of the property near the rear setback line. um that building, we don't have any survey work on the property, but that building from aerial photos appears that it likely may be um violating the rear setback line. He is um Mr. Jones is working to address that building under the abatement agreement that he has with the city, but he's also still exploring options on that, whether um um to get a survey or not to see if it can meet the setbacks or not. and then potentially get a building a permit for that building. Um so specifically though, what we're reviewing is the extended home occupation. It'll be in that accessory building that's um shown in your packet. He does live on the property. The um the the property is on a paved road. U Mr. Jones has stated that his father and here are the only employees that are ever on the property. They do have some other employees that go to job sites and work directly at other job sites. Um and then equipment is brought to those job sites for the use of those employees. The um he did ask for the possibility of parking some um equipment down on the concrete pad that's basically under that um building on the south property line. Your ordinances do not permit outside storage of equipment, supplies or products. It does allow for some [clears throat] um outdoor parking of business associated vehicles, but we would need to have more specific information on spec, you know, what those vehicles will be, how many they would be. Um and I think we need to explore more first what needs to happen with that building. Um there are no retail sales proposed as part of the current application. So there wouldn't be people coming in as there have been in the past to obtain products as an expense. And um I think that's generally it. One item uh to consider is that you can set hours of operation um in an interim use permit. That can be challenging for a business that does do snow removal because if it snows in the middle of the night, they need to be able to leave the site to go out and do snow falling. But um you can set hours of operation. With that, I think that's all I have for now. I think Mr. Jones is here somewhere. Here he is. And I'd ask him to come to the podium. [cough] State his name and address and anything I didn't cover. >> Jason Jones, 8704, 190th Avenue Northwest. Um, only thing I really have is as far as the snow removal goes, like we had stated, the machines are all on properties all winter long. So, they're not even on our property. They're they stay on our shopping centers that we do. So as far as like hours of operation and stuff, the only people that leave the VPN. So other than that, we're just [clears throat] most of the stuff is just our our trucks or trailer and then we build the job sites. We don't just doing the concrete bond landscape >> when it's not winter time. >> Yep. >> Where are those are those still? So, some get rented out to other companies and then in the past we have put them on that back slab like we like you stated on the south side of the property. There's trees all around. You can't see it from any roads or neighbors or anything like that. So, it's not visible to anybody unless you're physically on my property and then they go back on the properties before the lease fall. Miss Nash, are you pulling it up on there so we can see the top? >> Yes, I did. Challenging to see. >> Looks like you got two screens up there. >> That's interesting. I don't know why those either. >> Is it possible from the back computer you can maximize the one? >> Well, we minimize the >> or minimize the other one. >> Yeah. I think it's in the back. So, this is the accessory building that um that he would like to use to store the equipment in the business. And then the one that he's talking about um that we're still investigating the setback status is down here. >> Okay, Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So is that a building and a slab or just the slab in the back corner there? >> So there's a slab and then there's a structure in top. >> So it's just a shed. So it's only got three sides to it is open. So it was very self storage and then black. So the machines you started the summer on the right side of that building >> on the back there on the back property where that structure she's got her cursor >> down there. >> Yep. We also put up a few new fences and we're going to put up an additional one as well once the septic gets finished. >> Did you get that survey yet? >> Um I have somebody looking into it. I don't believe it is. So, I just got the permit for to take it down in my mail this afternoon. So, that as of right now, unless something changes, but from what I can see, I don't think we're far enough back. But I have it just like I said, I just got in my mail, so have it done. >> Any more comments? >> Clarify on that survey. You said that you got to pay the permit in order for >> it's a demolition permit. >> Oh, okay. I was we was asking about the survey and I thought that's >> Yeah, that's what we were waiting on, but it looks like we're not I I don't believe we are. So, I still have like one other thing I want to check out before I correct 100% on that. But as far as if not, the permit has already been like I already reached out to get the demolition permit as part of an amendment that we made. So that's been taken care of and they just responded this afternoon with the pavement structure on there. >> And that's for the the just the building or the concrete slab as well. >> Uh just the building the concrete slab is there was nothing that we see that we would have to take that. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, absolutely. Questions on the commission have question this time. Thank you. Well, we'll open a public hearing now to receive public comment. So, all persons that want to comment should make the comment from the podium and provide their name and address. [clears throat] This is >> Hi, my name is Wendy Stam and I live at 86729 Avenue Northwest. I am the closest neighbor to Jason's house. He's running his business out of his property and it's never been an issue for us. I mean, our master bedroom, his driveway goes along here. My master bedroom is over right on this side. I've never heard traffic. It's never been an issue. He keeps his yard immaculate. I just want my husband and I support him in his business is what I'd like to say. I hope that you do grant his Thank you. have any other one court at 8783 across the street and just on the west side. So I have a couple questions regarding sort of infrastructure and how things are going to be handled. you know what type of material is going to be stored at this location and if it's hazardous material is it adequately contained [clears throat] according to state law. Um what's the traffic impact this past winter has not there has not been much traffic preceding that there has been a lot of traffic and a lot of it's heavy heavy trucks going in and out and I'm concerned about the impact to a residential load with that sort of heavy trucking building anymore. So, I'd like to know what the expectation, what should I assume is going to be the amount of traffic and how heavy are the trucks that are coming in and out and who is ultimately responsible when that breaks the road down because that will happen over time no matter what. Um, so you talked about operation times and in the winter because of snow pretty much 247. Um outside of that, so what's the timing expectation? Um is there lights that's are that are involved? Um and I think that's those are the areas of concern that I have is it how can I expect to get a response to these questions? We'll discuss that the plan. >> Should we get the rest of the comments in? >> Yeah, we'll get the rest of the comments and then Okay. We can answer the questions that come up. Might be similar questions. Yeah. For me also. Um I'm Eric 935 Kuna. Uh the roundabout in the over in the corner. Uh similar concerns. Uh there's a talk about the salt on the property previously. Um what's the groundwater impact on that as a as a neighbor? Um what it it impacts my family's uh well-being that way as anything has been tested as a result of this. as a business that's not been operating in compliance and didn't uh reach any uh didn't contact the city to get any permits or anything else previously wants to say that they're going to fall in compliance and keep in compliance. What are my options as a neighbor if salt comes back and the business is operating with that uh moving forward? How long until I get something resolved in that manner? um you know how many bobcats or whatever else are we talking about on the on the property oil changes happening there are we following all those uh policies as far as the state's concerned with hazardous risk basically health and and roads are the same concerns I have thank you >> thank you so have any other comments that are not you've heard Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> Um, we did receive two emails regarding this public comment for this property. One was from Wendy and Michael Seam. So, Wendy already spoke um so I won't review that one. The um second one was from Jerry Bonai and um he lives at 8796 190th Street and he said, "Dear [clears throat] members of the council, I am writing to formally express my strong support for Jason and his proposed business J services. Jason has been my neighbor for the last six [clears throat] years. I believe this business will be managed with the highest regard for residents. I urge the council to support this request. Sincerely, Jerry. All right. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> Um, so I think per the abatement agreement, there's no more salt to be stored on the property. Is that correct? >> There is not supposed to be any more salt store. Yes. Any more comments from the public hearing before we close it? >> [snorts] >> can close the public hearing and then we'll act upon the request from Jason Jones. Um we can have a planner respond to the questions that came up that [clears throat] you know the answers to. >> I will try. I don't know the answers to all of them. >> I can answer. >> Sounds great. Um maybe maybe better if Jason just comes up and answer since I'm sitting here. Uh first one as far as environmental effects. Um I dealt with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. They came out. I was not breaking any municip any laws other than not having an independent use uh permit. In the state of Minnesota, we just have to follow the same rules as self storage as our city and our county. So, as long as we're following those, which I was doing, I had drain socks around everything, drain tile, everything was protected. Um, Wendy gets her water tested every single year. Um, she has six years to show that there is no pollution that has changed anything in her water whatsoever. Um, as far as heavy machinery goes, the machineries that are going down there are no heavier than the 17 garbage trucks that come down my road every day. But as far as when it comes to the south and stuff, that stuff will not be those trucks will not be coming down. So it'll be my truck and my trailer. Um, the Mona machines that I'm starting to scale down. So the skid loaders, they're, you know, right now we own 13 of them. I'm expecting to probably own nine after the summer. um that takes up the same amount of space as like three vehicles. >> Can you comment on the timing and the >> the timing? I'm guessing that was more from when we had the salt sails with the trucks coming up and down and then obviously most of the time that was being at night. Um when it's snowing since we're not I'm not even usually at home. We're all gone. We're you know using our machines and our sights. Um, if I come home or my dad comes home, that's it. But I mean, again, I own a fivebedroom house, so I'm not coming with my machines constantly in and out throughout the evening. It' be me coming home to sleep or, you know, and again, no public sales of anything as far as products go or anything like that. So, I think that's where some of the concerns go to as far as the roads and on the pollution control. >> So the abatement agreement you have with the city has covered most of these concerns. >> Yeah. So everything we're finishing up our season. It said we're not to bring any more salt on the property. So finishing that out. Um hopefully we have some more snow so we can finish it up. Um then after that we'll be taking the bunker down. So I think would be like I said I'd like to put the machines where that is. Does anyone on the commission have any comments, questions? >> Thank you. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. [clears throat] So I think one item that um somebody had questioned in the public comment portion was regarding what happens if if he started doing some of those things again. So at that point he would be in violation of the abatement agreement that he has with the city. And if the city issues an interse permit with the draft terms that are in and conditions that are in the permit that are in the packet and those are subject to change as the planning commission discusses it and the city council as well. But the city could revoke that interim use permit so that he couldn't have business there anymore. Um, and that would take additional enforcement action for the city to go through if that was the case. Um, that said, it seems like he I mean, he signed the payment agreement and it seems like he is is making an effort to scale down the business's impacts on the neighborhood. Um, and I'm happy to review the draft conditions with you or Yes, [clears throat] we can review them. >> So, and just for the public's benefit, because I think most people probably don't handle it or use permits every day, but they are exactly that. They're interim. They're only granted for certain conditions and a certain period of time. Um, so I'll walk through the draft conditions that are in the permit right now. And normally I I don't spend much time going through this as the planning commission knows, but I think might make some sense here. So, the first one is that the property needs to be in compliance with the application that he submitted and his application specified. Um, a number of different items. It has a lot of questions in there. He talks about that he's not going to be having a cell phone there, etc. Um, it can only be operated from within the accessory structure shown in the site plan on exhibit A. So, that I'm looking at the uh findings and recommendations and I don't have number two as you have number two. >> I left the wrong one open. >> Okay, thanks. >> I was beginning to worry. >> Sorry about that. >> That's okay. >> You have a lot on the agenda tonight. >> Yes. Okay. Thank you. Well, that that will help clarify my confusion. Thanks. [laughter] >> Um, okay. Number two is only the property owner and not more than two employees shall be permitted to be on the site. Um, and the way the city's ordinances is that's at any one time. So, people cannot be coming there picking leaving their cars and picking up equipment either. Um, now we could have more employees. They just can't ever be there. The um condition number three is the subject property shall not engage in sales on site of any type. Plant materials and similar items that might be sold or installed as part of the business shall be delivered directly to the job site. Number four, all business activities shall incur within inside the 60x40 accessory structure. Number five, the accessory structure near the south property line shall be demolished no later than June 30th, 2026. Number six, um installation of a new IS or remediation of a non-compliant ISTS shall be completed not later than May 31st, 2026. Um and then there's some time frames on when those new ISTs permit be applied for. Um, number seven, no salt sales or storage shall occur on the property. Number eight, no concrete shall be made on the property. Any concrete use shall be sent directly to the offsite project. No concrete wash out is permitted on the property. Number nine, all materials, equipment, [cough] and parts used for the business shall be stored in the accessory structure. No outside storage of any items is permitted. >> Chair. Yes. Yes. >> This is where I'm seeing a problem already. He's commenting about bringing additional equipment back after the winter and storing it on this slab that's outside. And that would be violation of number nine right off the bat. >> And that's the item I mentioned that we might need to talk about and you guys will need to decide if you want to stick with the way I drafted it. >> Okay. >> He's he's asking for that possibility. >> Oh, okay. Your ordinance does allow for that possibility as long as it's equip as long as it's vehicular type of equipment and it's >> [clears throat] >> um specified in the permit. Okay. >> Um number 11. All personal property stored on site shall be in compliance with the outdoor storage regulations for residential properties outlined in the city code. Number 11. No sign is permitted to be installed unless a proposed sign is first presented to city staff for approval prior to installation. City staff may approve the sign installation administratively. Your ordinances do allow for a small sign for home extended businesses. He hasn't asked for one. So just specifying what the process would be if you wanted to ask for one. Um, any change or intensification of the property use or activities not permitted by the interim use permit issued shall require an amended IEP. No other businesses shall be operated from the property and no unauthorized outside storage or materials or equipment shall be permitted. Um, number 13, noise levels which constitute a nuisance shall be prohibited as regulated by the MPCA's noise pollution control rules. Number 14. No liquid, gaseous, and solid waste resulting from these shall be discharged into the soil, water, or air until the specific method and means of discharge have been reviewed and approved by the appropriate county, state, or federal agency. Um 15. No on street parking shall be permitted related to the extended home occupation unless it was otherwise agreed to in the IEP. Number 16, the property shall be in compliance with all state, county, and city building codes and is subject to review and approval by the city building official. 17, the property may be reviewed for compliance upon notification of the city. And then 18 are the um termination um circumstances. Again, I mentioned this is an interim use permit, so they do terminate. Um, so first off, it would have a fiveyear expiration for a time frame. Now, anyone who has an IEP can apply for another one prior to that time frame ending um if they're still operating the business and would like to keep doing so. And then that would be um considered by the planning commission and city council if those um uses are still allowed at that time frame when they're reapplying. Um, you would terminate upon violation of any conditions under which the permit was issued, if the business no longer if the owner of the business no longer lives at the property or if the property owner sells the property. Um, if it's discontinued for a period of one year and this isn't doesn't apply to a part a specific part or use of the operation or a single event when the remainder of the business is ongoing. So if he for example stopped in this case um doing concrete but was still doing landscaping and snow plowing. Um that permit still goes on even though he stopped doing the part. Um there are um there's a condition number 19 stating that the city council may revoke an interuse permit following notice and hearing upon violation of any condition of the IUP, any city ordinance or any other law of any other applicable jurisdiction. So under that situation, the city would provide a notice that to somebody that they're violating conditions 2, four, and 10 of their permit. Um ask them to come in for a hearing to um discuss that matter and then make a determination of that. And then finally, condition number 20 is a wordy one. Basically saying that if the city's doing any enforcement related to this um interim use permit that those bills would go back to that top >> and so those are the job conditions right now. >> All right. Thank you. So just going to discuss these conditions on commission. Anyone have comments, >> Mr. Chair? >> Yes. >> Um, the accessory structure that might be on the property line is still an unknown whether or not that's too close. >> It sounds like it is going to be too close. So, >> it's looking like >> he's planning to demolish. Yep. That was >> wonder. This is part of this. >> So, [clears throat] this won't be covered by the >> No, it's in the IEP, too. >> Um, that was in line item five. >> Yes. Okay. >> I'd like to question Nash in regards to the size of the accessory building. Is it already currently at its as largest it can be for the size of the lot? >> I do not know the answer to that question. >> Okay. He's wanting the outside storage too, but wondering if we could put up more. >> Mr. Chair, can I answer that? So, property is less than 5 acres. Is that correct? Yes. 4.9. No, it's 5 acres. Exactly. All right. So, Tim, it's 5 acres or less is uh 3200 and this looks like it's 2400 square feet by 60. >> So, there's more room ordinance. Now, if you would like to give them the ability to do that addition, um, we would have to add a little bit of wording to this for that to be allowed to be specified that it's a 60x40 [clears throat] structure. >> So, we'd have to modify item four where it says 60 by 40 >> or >> should we ask him what he'd [clears throat] like to do about that? >> As far as what? I'm sorry. Well, you've got availability to add to your structure >> option. Again, um I'd say this to Sydney as well is that this isn't meant to be forever. It was I had a business partner that had done some not so great things and I'm just getting out of that right now and trying to get things moved and figured out um during that phase. So, um, as of right now, it's I mean, if the money was there, yeah, I would absolutely love to expand to have a bigger area, but at the current time, there's not. So, that's just kind of what I'm working with right now. And again, most of our stuff, like, as far as goes inside, we don't really have anything inside that 60x 40 for as far as work stuff. Most of our stuff is just our skid loaders and our trailers. So what what would be stored outdoors? >> The skid loaders and the trailer. >> So nine of them and in the trailer. >> Yeah. >> And that's during the summer months. >> Yep. And then they're gone starting usually end of October all the way till April. End of April. >> And they can't be seen from the street. Is there any setback requirements for exterior storage >> needs to be screened? >> Screening would have some space and Outdoor storage generally is not permitted. It's just that you can specify a number of business associated vehicles that are parked outside. So, as it's currently worded, you can't store anything outside. It says no or outside storage on item not. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes. Uh I believe we have in specific circumstances designated exactly like an amount of equipment presenting. Um and if it's on a specific pad that's not seen by anybody, I guess I would be okay with allowing that just very specifically the amounts. >> Suggestions. Well, what if he has nine in a trailer? Then put nine in a trailer and if it goes to 10, it's >> Can you say for any kind of certainty that all of your equipment would fit on the current path that's that's at the property? >> What? >> I guess I would add to that that it's operational equipment. >> Yeah. Do you see any additional >> equipment coming? Just those things. >> No. >> Okay. It'll be that or less. >> Yeah. It'll be that or less. Correct. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> I would be okay with it just saying whatever he stores on that concrete slim. I mean, the number I guess doesn't really matter. And who's going to enforce whether it's nine or 10 besides somebody who's probably upset about it? >> And if he parks it there for a day, you know, is that bad. >> So, I guess I would be for just being So, we just have to specify the size of that slip. >> I I would ask you not to do that. So one year ordinance right now says that um all equipment and vehicles shall be stored within an enclosed structure. The intersected vehicles that may be parked outside. Um, also in the event that um, you know, what seems reasonable now, and I'm not saying this will happen here, but I can tell you in other cases that, um, I've experienced a lot of scope creep, if you will, or that number keeps expanding, if there's nothing that if there's nothing that says the specific amount, then it's harder for the city to take any enforcement action if it was getting off. So you recommend putting us number [clears throat] >> Mr. Chair. >> So the homeowner you have a number that you would feel comfortable having. >> I would say if you guys want an exact number at the moment it' be nine machines and two trailers. >> Two trailers. >> Correct. One's a flat bed and one's a dump trailer. Two trailers and nine cheese start on the bed. >> And you said nine skid loaders, >> correct? >> More questions. >> So, you're going to just remove number nine then and change that. >> Reward item. >> Yes, I've actually got item. >> Yeah. What do you have for [cough] [clears throat] >> any other items in question? >> Is that are the abatement and the IUP or just the IUP? >> This is just the IUP. the the city already entered, >> right? >> Right. >> A question about uh item C on 18. It says u if the property owner sells the subject property, I think we usually have an exception for selling to that. >> Um I'm not aware of that. It sticks to just the one. >> Unless they're an owner of the business. That's different. >> So then that happened to you they would have to apply for a new >> they'd have to apply for an amendment. >> An amendment. Yeah. Amendment >> potentially. Yeah. Any other questions? Someone ready to put forth a motion? Uh I'll uh the motion to approve based off the changes to the listed and that the um all the payments are >> I'll second that motion. >> A motion by Commissioner Carlson, second by Commissioner Peril. And any further discussion? Seeing none, it's call for the vote. All in favor say I. All [clears throat] say motion passes as stated by commissioner Carlson. And so your IOP will come to the council at the next council meeting. Correct. Thank you for that. Now we'll move on to the next item on the agenda. It's for 21360 xenon street west. Chad Pawson is applying for a interim use permit for extended home occupation for tire installation at the address that stated. We'll have the planner present the project. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> So, Mr. Thompson has applied for an IEP for an extended home occupation for a tire services business. He is purchasing the equipment from another person down the road from him who currently or in the recent past had a tire services business. So he's proposing to do this on within this accessory building that's shown on this pen here. Um similar to the last one, there are um a number of conditions proposed as part of the findings. Um important to note here is that in this application the tire service will occur on site. Um but the applicant has indicated that they would be doing this under um appointment only. So there would not be walk-in [clears throat] traffic or people just driving into it. Um, that said, he did propose hours of Monday through Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 pm as part of their application. [sighs] And I is Chad Pawson here this evening. Would you like to talk about what you're doing? Sure. >> Um, I was given an opportunity. One of my neighbors has Northro tires. Um had a current um permit to operate. Um basically bought his equipment, not technically his company, but um trying to start it up for me and my son, something for us to do kind of on the side. Um so I didn't get contacts, but he was willing to kind of share some of the information and kind of help us build something here. Um like I said, by appointment only. It's everything's indoors. Um, it's not going to be traffic wise any typically more than I have. I have an 18-year-old son who brings friends over, so it's probably more less traffic than that. Um, uh, outside storage, there's not going to be any. I got plenty of buildings for disposal of tires and recycling. Um, not doing any mechanical work, just tires. So, um, working on insurance and all the other things that go along with it just to make it all super legit. And it's pretty easy, I guess. >> Thank you. >> And uh, does anyone on the commission have a question? >> We're good. >> I guess one question. Yeah, I'm sorry, Mr. >> Yeah. What is the plan for tire disposal? >> Tire disposal, uh, there is a company out of St. Francis and I anti um, they'll take up a minimum to 100 tires. So, when I hit 100 tires, I call them up, re recycle them. Um, previous location, this business, he stored his tires outside outside, and I don't I'm not going to. Um, like I said, I got barns and other buildings that are definitely tuck them away. I don't I don't want to see him as much as anybody else want to see him. So, um again, there's not any excess vehicles. There's not a tire truck or anything that way coming and going. So, no one there anyway. So, >> so you plan to store them in in the buildings there, >> right? Uh I had a couple left over from him. They're in a barn and you would have to look for guardians. Um there's the building that I'm putting in is a 48 by 80. Um the building to the south of the property is a 36 by 90 which is perfectly good for that storage too. Um I just kind of got to move some my trailers and stuff around when spring comes. Make a hole for them. So [snorts] until we get enough tires and recycle them. I mean there's a fee to recycle. So it's you just you just got to build up so you get enough quantity and get a better rate of getting your done. So, and no semis, I'll put it that way. All small passenger vehicles like one tons and lower. So, we're not getting anything like >> you have tires delivered to your >> typically um majority of the tires I'm buying from a wholesaler in in Roseville and I pick them up my own vehicle. Um if they come out with a vehicle, it's typically a small box van or like a little one ton van. So, it's usually something small and so it's not a big delivery truck. Um, my driveway is more than adequate to make the size of a bigger vehicle, but um their road vehicles are pretty small. So, >> what hours of operation would the vehicle be delivered? >> Typically midday. I think the delivery times are like 11 and 1. And that's it. I It's I'm I'm thinking I'm going to maybe four or five sets a week kind of deal. I'm not looking to grow this to a discount tire where I'm constant flow of people. I mean, it's just just me and my son doing this. So, it's >> um I'm going to direct a question towards one of the recommendations on these findings we've got here. >> Yes. >> Uh number eight, tire service shall um allow no more than one customer vehicle parked outside the accessory zone. Is that going to be an issue? >> Not even a little bit. Um I mean by appointment only it's you know the person is there um everybody that Dave had dealt with and and set it up the same way. It's literally appointment only. I'm not going to have somebody dropping vehicles and be one and gone one and gone. So >> So you do the service while they're on site? Yeah, typically. I mean, the the other option is um people would drop vehicles off basically at a set time, 5:00, they drop them off and they come up here, go bootleggers, have lunch or dinner, and then come back, get their vehicle, questions. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you. [clears throat] Okay. So, now we'll open the public hearing and if there's any from the public that want to come, please uh come up to the podium and provide your name and address. There's no no comment from the public. Does anyone from the commission have further comments? I'd make a motion to uh approve. >> Public hearing. >> We'll close the public hearing before we make the act upon it. >> Okay. So now uh Commissioner Bees, >> I'd make a motion to approve the IEP with conditions set forth. >> Okay. Okay. So, I had the Commissioner Bees made a motion. I had a comment though on item number five and the recommendations. It sounds like that one worked for the he said all it says all business activity shelter inside the 48 by 80 accessory structure. This does not have an exception for tire storage. Is that part of the business activity? >> Yeah, I marked Mr. Sure. I marked up the same thing um while he was presenting because I would ask that he um that site plan that you provided that was >> that you mark up a [cough and clears throat] new one and indicate >> the tire storage would be in a different building. >> Okay. >> So amend item five >> y >> to allow tire storage in a another building. So should we phrase it that the business activity shall occur or the retired changing shall occur in that building and start building according to the site plan? >> Yes. Oh, I'll word that. >> I would amend my my motion to uh accept that word. Okay. Include that wording in this. >> I'll second your motion. >> Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Bees, a second by Commissioner Peril. Any further discussion from the commission? No further discussion. We'll we'll vote on this. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. None opposed. Motion [clears throat] passes. So your thing should come up here at the next council meeting. Then I should send an amended uh photo of the storage spot in for you. >> Yes, you can email that to me. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> So, these amendments will be in the time it gets to the council. >> All right, we'll go on to item C. [clears throat] Item C is Palamino Estates H Midwest LLC. Kyle Wrestler is proposing two items here. The first item is a conditional use permit for a play block and the second item is a preliminary plat. So we'll let the present this planner present these two items. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. So on the screen is um a copy of the culinary plat. So as you stated there are two items here. There's the culinary plat itself. Preliminary plats are sort of the first step in a subdivision process, but it's also the most important step. This is the step where a developer does get their um bucket of rights, I would call it, to be able to keep moving forward and um finish the the subdivision process. The second step after a preliminary plan is they would come in with their final plot. So they would any comments that we had maybe had um in the planner and engineer comment letters, a lot of them tend to be of a technical nature. Adjust this little thing in this direction. Do this. Um those items would be cleaned up and they'd bring back their final plat. So this is the most important step here. Um related to that because they are asking for a flag lot. Um, and the flag lot is is this lot number three back here where we call it a flag lot because it looks like a flag pole here with a flag hanging off of it then. But so where it has just a skinny access coming out to a road rather than full frontage onto a road and under now then's ordinances that requires a conditional use permit to be granted. So, what they're proposing is to take this property that currently has um one home in this location and to carve that into a total of four lots. So, three new lots. The three new lots would all gain access from 210th Street Northwest. Um, we do have a situation on this one where in every plat that we're looking at today where because of winter conditions, our septic inspector has not been able yet to test the um septic sites. So, that remains as a condition that will have to be dealt with before final plat if um that's approved. Um, but otherwise, the the lots appear to meet the city's requirements. Um the county has looked at it and did not have um any comments that were not um you know that weren't easy to address. I guess I'll say it that way. And um just generally speaking, it's um it meets the the city's ordinance requirements. They are also still finishing up some review as well as part of this. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes. >> Quick question for Miss Nash. Um, so if you look at the uh I don't remember from the reading on how many uh acres we have, but the existing where the existing house is and the amount of structures in there, how [clears throat] big is that lot and how many structures are there? >> I don't have that information, handy. I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. >> [clears throat] >> It's um >> 23 acres. >> That was one of my concerns as well that I was going to ask just because they're going to need something to allow for those buildings to stay apart and not be removed to make that a smaller lot if they ever truly needed to [clears throat] remodel or something. Right. That's a lot of buildings. to where the existing house is. How how big is that? >> It's 209,000 square ft. So that is um >> for the lot. >> Yeah. two five. >> Yeah, it's like 4.85 or something like that. [clears throat] >> A good view of the buildings. Um, we have a few of the buildings on GI probably. [clears throat] So, there's a home, a swimming pool, little barns, and a couple other accessory buildings there right now. >> So, if this lot was over, >> yeah, it looks like 4.8 is more accurate. I think we can just add that as a condition to the culinary class that they need to um address either the lot size of lab one or apply for variances as needed. Um you did do similar variances for the Leico East project about a year ago >> because it was >> um Mr. Mr. Bracler, would you like to >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Um, Commissioner, I don't have the calculator in front of me either, but I believe that lot is set to be over 5 acres. I believe if we divide that out by the 43,000 square feet in an acre. I think we come out to just over 5 acres. >> 43,560. >> Yeah. Do we have a anybody with calculator present? >> You did just exactly 209,000. >> You divide that by 43560. We get 4.797. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I guess I would like to make a couple of points as it relates to this preliminary plat. Um the first item is that ideally you know this project hadn't planned for that flag lot. Um the flag lot was something that came about because uh we are trying to avoid that second driveway onto Highway 47 and that was one of the goals of now that I believe the terms were that additional driveways were discouraged or to be avoided. And so in an effort to avoid that additional driveway, although I did have a verbal from uh Department of Transportation, Mindot, to put that driveway out there, that was one of the items that we were trying to do is to avoid that to stay um within the good graces of of the council and the city of Now then. And so that is how the flag did come about. Um, regarding the existing buildings, obviously Now then does like to preserve its rural character. Um, to the best of, you know, everyone's abilities. I know there's a really good-looking barn out there. You know, I think it would be a shame to see a 100-y old barn get completely torn down on account of a couple of ten of an acre not meeting the requirement, but that's not for me to decide. Of course, I would leave that up to the council, but I would certainly um make a strong case for trying to get a variance approved in that situation. >> Anyone have any questions? >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, I guess is an option open to move that southwest corner, you know, a little bit further west to get the needed couple, you know, tents. It gets very tricky with the way that uh I don't know it could be looked at but I know you know there's certain ordinances with the lot lines need to run parallel with the roads. Cindy would probably have better input on that but uh I know that >> it looks nice. >> Yeah. Yeah. I know it was very carefully orchestrated to get this arrangement. >> Yeah. >> Obviously >> I did actually have a second inquiry if if I'm allowed to do so. I know that there will be a condition of use permit potentially issued for this flag lot. Now, um I'm wondering if that would affect my ability or a future owner of the property at the existing farmhouse to potentially apply for a conditional use permit to operate a business. I know that the previous resident, Mark Smith, was operating um his masonry business out of the farmhouse there um with the use of a conditional use permit. And I was just wondering if that would affect my ability to get a conditional use permit or if that is really only just following the flag. >> That CP would only be following the flag lot. >> Okay. Okay. And that's all I have. >> All right. Thank So we'll open the public hearing up. Does anyone from the public have a comment? If you do, please welcome to the podium and state your name and address. [clears throat] >> Hi, Craig Gistler, 5453 Berry Valley Road Northwest. And now then, um, we live basically around the corner on the dirt road not too far from the only question I have, single family residential housing. >> Is that what would be proposed to go in there? >> Yes, sir. nothing multi- family >> absolutely not. >> Um and if there is another conditional use permit for a business that would be a separate issue, I'm assuming at a separate time. >> There are quite a few businesses already being run. Some of them may have conditional use. Some of them may not. I know of three on that road already that are being run. Don't know whether or not one of them has it, but I'm pretty sure the other one that has two being run out of the house, but we'll leave that for a separate time. But as long single family homes, um, pretty close to 5 acres. Uh, I would think that that's in my world close enough, but you know, we have just under six. So, but as long as we keep it at that distance and they're not breaking it up into halfacre lots, that would be a huge concern. That's the only thing I have to say. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else have a comment? >> Yes. >> Excuse me. Gerald Hill, 5488 210th Avenue. Um, so I may be a little ignorant on this, but my understanding is they're all residential lots as of tonight. >> Okay, cool. Um, as far as the buildings on the main lot, um, most neighbors that I know lived in that neighborhood for 20 years roughly. None of us have ever had any problems with the buildings there. So, I would hate to see expenses incurred just to have him remove those. And I have nothing to gain or lose from this, but bottom line is is we drive by it every day. We're used to it. Um, my only concern would be the other gentleman. We have several businesses in this neighborhood already. So, I wasn't sure if this was a drywall company that eventually is going to be moving in. Um, >> no. >> Okay. That was my only concern cuz like I say, we have at least two or three businesses and I don't know that once uh people get their permits that anybody ever follows up on the rules as far as what they agreed to. So that's my main point. If there is businesses going in eventually, um if it becomes a problem, I'd like to see a little teeth in some of the approve when you approve things that uh get followed through other nest. No problems. Thank you. All right. Thank you, >> Bonnie Wara. 20843 St. Francis Boulevard and Kitty Corner from that. So, what business are you going to be running out there if you occupy that place? >> Um, my wife has told me I will not be occupying that place. That was just her her orders, not mine. But, uh, my plan is to basically uh just develop those three lots out the back as shown on the drawings and then sell the farmhouse. And so I have no plans to operate any businesses and uh certainly the conditional use permit is just strictly for the flag lot and has no impact on anybody operating the business. >> Okay. And then none of those three lots are going to be group homes like going in right next door to me. Right. >> I still haven't gotten any paperwork on that one yet. >> Has that been approved or not? Just a question for the council. >> From where? uh right next to my place to the north >> on 47 proposal. >> We haven't received any I don't know if that comes to that doesn't come to the planning commission. >> Mash, are you able to answer that question? >> I can attempt. So, first off, I don't know where your address is, but um >> 2084 I'm kitty corner from the lot you guys are looking at. >> But what is it? 208 >> 20843 St. Traps little farmhouse, big barn. >> Okay. So, I'm not aware of anything. Um, I can tell you that under state law that certain size of group homes and I think it's five or six residents, Natalie, six is your your recollection. We have to treat them as a single family home. So, there isn't any permitting that goes along with that. They're basically state law preempts anything locals do in that regard and they can go in. Um if it's more than that then it's treated as a multif family and then it would follow the local jurisdictions ordinances for multif family uses. >> So you have no say in it as far as city >> if it's six or less we don't. >> Wow. Okay. That's all I got. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Any other comments? >> [clears throat] >> My name is Zita Sony. I live at 21118 St. Francis Boulevard Northwest. Um, from what I understand, there would be three lots that would be 5 acres, correct? And then one that would have a variance if there were going to be four lots in there. Is that right? There's currently one applicant for a conditional use permit for the flag block and then >> which would be the one that's for something. >> It's for having a a long driveway going into it. >> Oh, okay. So, the the the lots are not necessarily 5 acres. So, the city's ordinances require a minimum of a 5 acre density. So you take the total of the original parcel and divide that by five acres and you get that they can have four lots. Now some of the lots are smaller and some are larger. >> Oh okay. >> Have to be a minimum of 2 and a half acres. >> Uh that's what I was that was one of the things I remember that they could go down to 2.5. >> Yeah. >> Okay. That's one thing I wanted to know about. Um I'm assuming that each one of those would have a well and a septic system then. Mhm. >> Okay. Um and then um when would that development begin? >> Likely in 2026. Now uh keep in mind that that it's you know there's not any roads going or road improvements, but certainly those lots could be buildable shovel ready uh likely in 2026. >> Okay. All right. Um it seems to me from what I'm understanding to um that the taxes for the rest of us will increase because of the density. >> No. Um that would not impact your taxes. So your market value impacts your taxes >> and it doesn't um this development doesn't necessarily raise or lower your market value. However, when I talked to the assessor, he said that they they actually do comparative analysis on other um pieces of property that are being sold and your proposed taxes will go up according to that. I've already been told that >> by Eric Gold. >> If they're comparable, they do. So they compare they look at different they look they compare different properties through the community and if if the if the property values if your property could be sold for more >> and maybe you bought it 20 years ago they do gradually increase it over time. >> Try 36. >> That's what I guess [laughter] at any rate. Um so that's part of what I'm I'm looking at. And then of course, and this is just a general thing, the other thing he said to me was that this is Eric's focus that um they they basically view your property according to what they consider the best use of that property. So best use to me would mean that it's being developed for family homes. Is that what you would assume? I don't really know that I can answer the assessor question unfortunately. >> Okay. Well, it's what impacts what you're talking about. >> So, and it's just that I just got my proposed taxes and on my parcel on one of my parcels of land it tripled >> from one year to the next. So it makes a difference and I wanted to make sure that that was actually put out there that people understood that. [clears throat] But um so I think that's basically it. And then the price per lot is determined by you whatever you're selling each piece for. >> Yeah. Potent. Yeah. It's uh determined by the market. >> Okay. You know the demand. All right. >> That's what I need to tell. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Any other comments from the public? >> Tom Johnson, 5233 Bree Valley Road, just to the south. Uh, what are the sizes of the lots? I know there's three of them. Three that are being sold. You know the acreage. >> Yeah. So, the the smallest one is um, could you put it up there? So, >> sorry. I thought it was still up there. I've been pointing this to this for a while now and realize you guys couldn't see it. I apologize. So, the smallest one is this probably shows it best. Is this one in the northwest corner it is um it's about it is the two and a half acres basically. The one in the northeast corner that needs a little bit of buffer from um St. Francis Boulevard is slightly larger than the 2 and 1/2 acres. The parcel with the existing home is just under five as we discussed. And then this one that's in the back is the largest at um it's probably about 12 acres actually, but it has a lot of wetlands and unbuildable area associated with it along with that flag pole driveway. So they do vary >> y >> in size. Is there any special requirements for extra buildings on the two and a halfs under three and 12 acres? >> Um, depending on the size of the property, they all there are different amounts of accessory structures that the person can construct. >> Okay. Where would we find that information? >> It's on the city's website and in >> Okay. That's all I have. >> Does anybody have a copy of that? I feel like that's like the third time that we've been asked tonight and we should have a copy of that. So, here you go. >> Yeah. >> So, Mr. Chair, could I ask you for next time? Do you have a copy of that? So, we can answer that question. >> You knew the answer earlier, >> but I don't know. I just know Brad at 5173 Northwest. How many roads are coming in off of 200 lane driveways or whatever? >> There would be three driveways coming in. >> Three driveways. Are they going to be tired? >> I don't know if they'll be tired. >> Um certainly the two shorter lots would have tar driveways. Um that flag lot, I believe the way that statutes are written would be permitted to have a gravel driveway if uh that occupant chose to do so. Okay. >> I I don't know that 100% but that's my thing. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other comments? >> Um I was just saying I I don't know much about these processes but as far as roads are concerned. >> Sorry Eric 18935. Um, is there any concern about roads being, you know, eminent domain or anything like that in the near future with those smaller lots uh being under 2 and 12 acres or in the near future? >> No. Um, could that happen? Obviously, it could happen. >> Okay. But um right now we're still waiting on formal comments from Bend and if they have anything in their um official mapping process or plans they would they'll certainly let us know as part of that. >> Okay. I appreciate the information. >> Thank you. >> All right. I got those answers. So it says that there's a minimum of 300 ft set back from the center line of a local or arterial streets. Lots of 10 acres or more have no limit on square footage. lots on five acres or less than or five acres to 10 acres. um have a min maximum of three allowing a total of 6,400 square ft and then um less than five and over two and a half maximum of two with a total allowable of 32 and the maximum height. Yes. Anywhere else? More else >> less or one more. How about the two? >> Less than uh Okay. [clears throat] One and a half to two and a half acres. Less than less than 2 and 1 half acres. Maximum of one allowed with not to exceed 2400 square ft. >> No sizes aren't permitted in this area. >> Well, it depends on the setbacks. So if >> well less than two acres >> well she said both those lots were two acres or two and a half acres. >> One's two and a half. >> Okay. >> Um so they would be allowed as an accessory building with the exception that they are 300 ft back from a center line of roads [clears throat] which >> Mash if you pull that up. Are they 300 ft from center line? >> Probably not. >> I I don't know that they are. They might not be allowing any accessories. >> It's It's risky. You're not on screen again. I'm working on it. Um cuz it' be eight. So these are 350. Just over 300 ft. So they probably Wow. Barely a lot. >> No, cuz then they take the rear step back. >> Yep. That's my 312 ft or something plus the center line. That's tight. >> Theoretically they could vary. Um, [cough] [clears throat] >> I'm back again. So, um, it sounds like the conclusion likely on those lots up by 210th would be that if they're not complying for a building, then they probably wouldn't receive a building, which I think [clears throat] is perfectly acceptable. Um, I would like to just circle back to the idea of our newly found information that on a less than 5 acre lot or a 4. lot. >> Um, you know, I am going to be running into a build a problem with the size of that large barn. And, um, I would just like to see if we could try to kind of hash that out here this evening to discuss what my chances are going to be to, you know, get a a variation for that. >> So, you would need to apply for that. So, then we'd have to come back at the April meeting. >> Okay. >> Or the March March meeting, I guess. Um, wouldn't this be something he could have just done with uh a surveyor and they can figure out something for that? Maybe. And we I was kind of pre-drafting a condition. So, another option is that we include a condition in your review tonight. Um, the one I drafted said that the developer will need to either one, remove accessory buildings, two adjust sizes, or three apply for a variance for the accessory buildings. Um and then otherwise he would have to change the room flat but um that would give the option to come in and ask for that um kind of as a separate process or concurrent with the final plat. >> Um would it be possible for me to gauge the interest of the pling zoning council to see if you guys would be in favor of that at this time? I can't have you do that because um they need to wait until there's a full application >> before them and they have heard and considered that. >> Mr. Chair, get those. >> Yes. >> Miss Dash, can you just talk about what happened with the Leicos? I think that's probably the most applicable and it's only less than a year ago and tell them how that worked out. >> Yeah, so the Leicos um did a plat um they were actually approved several years ago for the plat and then um for a whole bunch of different reasons. they took a long time to bring in the final plaque and when that final plaque was coming in um that was also a situation with theirs it was even more complicated because they had an actual road going through it with buildings that were too close so they had not only too many >> but they also had setback issues [clears throat] um and they did apply for that variance and work today >> well that's good so that would be a separate public hearing for variance Sure, I understand that. Okay, very good. Thank you guys. Thank you. There's no further comment from the public. We'll close the hearing. Last chance. [snorts] Right. Close the public hearing and act upon the applications. You have any comments from the commission? Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> I guess I I just I do see the flag lot as as a reasonable solution to not having more accesses to county road. So don't see any better way to do it than what we see there. >> Highway. >> Yeah. This is >> our very fun scenic fun. So I I think that's a reasonable solution in this case. >> You have any additions to the recommendations besides the one you mentioned? >> Well, we'll have you take these in two parts. So the conditional use permit first. >> Okay. >> Um and I have no changes to the draft conditional use permit recommendation based on for the flag. >> Any comments or a motion on the conditional use permit for the flag lot? >> I guess I would make a motion to approve the flag lot. >> Motion by commissioner and I'll second that. >> Second by commissioner for the approval of the conditional use for a playoff. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for a vote. All in favor say I. I. >> Any opposed? >> Motion passes. Okay. No. Consider a motion for the preliminary plat for the Palomino Estates. There any further comments on the recommendations from the >> Yes, I would add a new condition and probably insert it um at the top in front of the rest of them because the conditions [clears throat] kind of are things unique to this flat and then things that are um routine to every flat in order. So, um would add a new condition at the top that the developer will need to either remove accessory buildings, adjust lot sizes, or apply for a variance for the extra accessory prior to final. >> This will be a threepart condition option to do. >> Yeah, it's it's an optional. Yep. And and again just calling your attention, there's two three conditions in here actually that are um related to some pending stuff still. So that um wetland review isn't complete again because of seasonal conditions. Um they're not able to do that kind of work at this time of year. So we anticipate it will be similar enough to what is shown to still be fine, but the boundaries might change a little bit. Um and so but that needs to be completed before they apply for the final plaque. Um similarly, septic sites need to be able to be reviewed um before that final plaque can be approved as well. And then we are still waiting on comments from menot and hopefully we'll have those before we go to council. Okay, from the uh planner, do we have any further comments from the commission? >> I'll make a recommendation or I'll make a motion >> to um approve the the preliminary cat with the changes and three options that were discussed. Motion by Commissioner Peril. I'll second the motion. We have motion by Peril, second by Hopwell. And any further discussion from the commission? Seeing none, we'll call for a vote. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes. Your flat will be processed and moved to the council that the conditions need to be met for the added conditions for the building. You may need to apply for retardants if you plan to do that. >> Thank you very much. Now I'll move on to item D. Viking [clears throat] Estates Automatic Companies Incorporated is applying for three for four separate items here. There's the comprehensive plan amendment, >> a reszoning and a variance and a preliminary plan. >> So we'll have the plan represents the plan. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Bear with me while I bring up one more exhibit for this one. So, thank you. This one does have four applications that are associated with it. I'll walk through each of these separately and we'll start in the order that they have to occur in. So, first off, all developments must meet the requirements of the comprehensive plan. In this case, this property consists of two PIDs. Um, there's this one small P over here, and then there's this larger P that encompasses this property as well as this little corner on the east side of County Road 47. >> You can see >> State Highway 47. >> State Highway 47. Um you can see that there's two colors on this map and this is from the um zoning map but the comp plan mirrors it. So we're going to use this here. So the property that the portion of the property that's yellow is zoned and guided for rural residential transition that allows for 2 and a half acre lots. The property >> two >> two acre lots. The property that is red [clears throat] um is guided for commercial. So, both of the two corners of the intersection. Right now, the purpose of the comp plan amendment and the reasonzoning are [clears throat] to take the part that's red that is on the west side of state highway 47 and change that to yellow. So, that would also be rural residential transition. Um the comp plan amendment is um something that takes a little bit of a extra process because you are in the Met Council's area. We typically have to do adjacent community review. Um and then once the city council would approve a comp plan amendment, we have to send it to the Met Council for their review and approval, which can take 60 days or so after that point in time. Um given the size of this amendment which is quite small uh mech council has waved adjacent community review so knowing that the county and uh mind both have to comment on this um and it doesn't really impact any other jurisdictions um they were fine with waving the adjacent community review on this one. So, we are not waiting through that typical um extra process to hear from all of our neighbors that we might hear on other or might have on other things. But um so that that's what this part of the application is. The next part is a variance specifically for this lot that's here in the southwest corner of the proposed plat. the slot number one. So, the ordinances require that you would have your frontage basically be off of the if you're a corner lot, which this is, fronts on both street A and street B, you have to have your frontage off of the one that's narrower, and then you have to have 300 ft of frontage. So, the problem is is there's a wetland here. Um, and then if you put the um the frontage on street A instead in many places on the lot. And if you go straight down, you don't have that 300 feet of depth that you would be required to have for that. Now, this one happens to be on a curve. If you took it more at this angle, of course, they have that 300 ft, but that's the purpose of the variance is basically to reorient how this lot um is treated so that the driveway can come off of street A and it can front onto street A rather than fronting onto street B. Then there's the preliminary plan itself which is obviously the more interesting of all of these. Um so they are proposing 14 single family lots and the construction of two streets. One street would intersect with um high road 22 in this location. Um, it would come through here and end in a culde-sac, but then there would also be this segment of a street B that would be stubbed down to serve property to the south. We didn't require it to be stubbed to the west because this area is a lot of flood plane and um, Fort Brook is running through there as well. So, this part of the plat is impacted by both flood plane and shorland concerns. So, it only has the one sub street to the south. The um similar to the plan before this, um there are um still some items that we can't review at this time like septic systems and those will have to kind of wait until weather conditions and improve and we're not so snowy and cold. Um but there are 14 lots. There's a gas pipeline that's running that's obviously really impacting the design and layout of this site. There's a number of wetlands leading through this property. Um, and generally speaking, the lots appear to meet the city's zoning ordinance requirements. I'd be answering questions that you have. So, we're here to make comments. Grant Radaker companies I can answer any questions that you've got. I give it a try. >> Mr. Michael, I'll ask you a quick question. Um the size of the lots, are they all two acres? Do they meet that minimum requirement? >> Yes, that was a key. Thank you. I'm actually quite poor changing that tiny little piece from commercial to the real residential. That'll make things a lot easier over there. >> You got a lot of fun going on there. >> I'm sorry. >> There's a lot of fun going on through that property. >> Uh at times. That is my understanding. Yes. You have any other things, anything to add to the planner's comments? >> No, I have none. Uh, we continue to work at it. Um, soil borings uh have been done for model soil. Um, there's three pisometers, pisometers. I'm not sure the exact pronunciation. Uh, they've been installed. They're being tested now and those results will be forthcoming. So still [clears throat] looking at all the subjects like some >> correct as Miss Nash said those uh are still yet to come. >> I don't believe any of those results are yet. So some of these sites can find a suitable side. >> Correct. And we have um built into the language of the conditions, we have that contingency built in that in the event that maybe there's only enough subject sites actually available for 13 lots instead, they would have to redraw the PL. 13. >> Would that come back? Does that go straight to find? >> That could still go straight to find the PL because it's really just losing a lot and changing some lot lines. >> As of now, the 23,000 square feet have been met. The building pads, there's enough square footage on each of those lots to achieve a home. So, I'm I'm optimistic that engineering will do it. Commission. >> Okay. So now we'll open the public hearing. All persons should make their comments at the podium and provide your name and address if you have come. >> My name is Lori Mary. 19520 St. Francis Boulevard. We are the property immediately to the south and our property line runs all along that south edge. Um the way our property is and I don't know if you've got Yeah, if you can look at that at that view. Okay. Our biggest concern is the driveway. Um, you can see the lot is is odd shaped as it comes out to the highway. And the way the driveway has to go, it's literally within inches of the line that was staked. They were out a couple of years ago to stake things out. And if the flag is literally inches from our driveway. So, and we don't have the option of moving the driveway because there's a drainage ditch that runs just a couple of feet off off of the south side of our driveway. >> Right. We're aware of that. And there's actually an easement as well. >> There is >> over this property. Um it shows up. >> Um it's really hard to pick out on here. Got to see which it's right here. It's kind of noted in a light gray and you can't I know you can't read it in the audience, but it says there's a 10 foot wide easement for document number >> such and such. >> Okay. >> And that's um running through that property. So, >> okay. >> The driveway appears to be I mean there is the easement there, but you can see on this existing condition survey. Let me zoom in a little more here. the drive because the surveyor picked up the driveway. [cough] So the you can see it's like like maybe barely crossing over the line right in that area. >> Okay. >> But there is an easement over it. >> Okay. That was our biggest concern. >> Yep. Um if you reach out to city staff and have them get you in contact with me, I can get you a copy of that document. >> Okay, sounds good. Thank you. Other comments Thomas 1954 West we're on the wetland side the southwest corner where it's us >> I'm sorry. property line u as it's shown ours you're going to have [clears throat] to go scroll down a little bit to catch up to where you're at. Okay. Yes. Where the we're the very far in the southwest corner of your development where that that acreage that comes off of there and that you can see where that tree line kind of runs through there. And you know it's kind of tricky because the terrain or anything else. Is there going to be a fence along that property line or you just going to let it transition that? >> I mean, >> it'll it should just stay the way it is. We don't have any plans of meling in those trees or >> Yeah, because I mean, it's wonderful because it's a great sight barrier. I mean, it's it's land we can't do anything with, but it does create that barrier because we knew that sooner or later this was going to happen. Um, Ron is doing a very good job. So, I'm not really worried about that. The only other concern that I personally have is about traffic because where we turn into Ford Brook off of 22, it can be NASCAR Central and depending upon what happens at that intersection, because we all know that sometime in the future, MDOT's going to put a roundabout there and that's just going to speed up that flow of traffic. So, if you're coming from the east on 22 to turn on to Ford Brook, it can be hairy because the road is so narrow there. So, I I just got some concern about that and how it relates to where you're going to be turning into this development. But other than that, the only other question I have is individual models. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, yeah, that was about all I had. It looks like a good development for us. It's, you know, the best of what the worst case could have been. You know, it could have gotten really crazy, but we're glad about that. But that just wondering about the the uh that that southwest corner and seeing how that was going to transition into that drain because like I say, where the property line is goes up on the other side, it's kind of crazy there. But okay, any other comments? on the commission have a comment question asked about the turn lanes coming off of 22 I believe on that plan there was some com that [clears throat] I think they reserve the right to make them right in right out. >> They reserve the right. Um, so they said that they would require an eastbound high road 22 right turn lane to be constructed for the proposed city street access. They um didn't say anything about a left turn being required. Further comments, we'll close the public and we'll act upon this these four items. >> [clears throat] >> I'll make a motion to uh to for the comprehensive plan amendment of states to make a motion to accept that as written. A motion from Commissioner Harrell to accept the comp plan amendment on each of these four items separately. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Second from Commissioner Bees. >> Any further discussion on the comp plan amendment for commercial to seeing none for vote. All in favor say I. I. Motion passes. Motion on the reszoning which is a in conjunction with the same. I'll make a motion to accept the zoning change that follows the comp plan amendment. Second, Commissioner Carlson. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for vote. All in favor say I. I. [clears throat] >> Oppos. Motion passes. Now item three is the variance for the lot number one. So east side of the lot. >> I'll make a motion to accept the um variance for this lot. >> Motion by commission per accept the variance for the lot with the wetland. >> I'll second it. >> Second by commissioner bees. Any further discussion? [cough] [clears throat] Seeing none, we call for vote. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion passes. So final motion is for the preliminary plat. Any recommendations planner from what we've seen so far? >> No, I do not have anything to add or change in the conditions. >> Mr. chair. >> Yes. >> I [snorts] guess the one thing I have is is um at what point kind of going back to the road at what point does it make sense to have a bypass for the westbound traffic? >> It's up to the county. >> Yeah. I mean, I I don't Yeah, I guess we can't recommend that, but it just uh I do worry on that road on on some of those places where you're turning into the side of streets that uh you have people not paying attention and not uh slowing down. But, >> Mr. Chair, >> yes, Mayor, >> but they they do have a stop sign right there. So, if they are coming west >> Well, that is true. Yeah. >> So, in this particular case, it is it is that stop. That's a good point. >> It should be again if they put that eastbound eastbound lane in >> that's fine. >> It should take care of the motor. >> Yeah, >> it shouldn't be an unsafe condition. I'll put that. >> That's true. I forgot about the four-way stop. Is the large enough >> for the turn lane? >> Yes. >> So, they they will have to analyze that as part of their um revisions to the plans. And if it's not then they may need to dedicate more land but >> is that included in our recommendations? >> Indirectly it is. So the way we do this is that we have um that um condition number seven incorporates by reference all the comment memo. So the county memo as well as well as my city engineers memo. And then other conditions in here tell them that they need to update their plans to address the comments in those comment memos. And if they need to do an oxide oxide easement to address a comment, they need to do that. They need to if a comment or a series of comments had some cascading effect where it might impact how the lots are drawn or even the number of lots, we can do that. So, um, we kind of wrap those together that way. Sounds like that's a fun. >> Yep. >> Any other questions, comments? >> Like to make a motion. >> I'll make a motion to uh except eliminate that would be >> [clears throat] >> I guess adjustments made additional that planner matches commented on. So chair or commissioner bees made a motion to accept the plat as ordered by planner and second >> and commissioner Carlson seconds the motions. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for a vote. All in favor say >> I. Any oppos? Motion passes. All four motions have passed. So, we'll have the to the council now recommendations. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. We move on to item three, ordinance amendment for minor subs. So this is a public hearing on ordinance amendment and we'll let the planner present the >> thank you. Um, so at a a meeting back in I think it was December, you looked at draft language to potentially change the minor subdivision process. Um, this would help to align it more with some of the other ordinance conditions that you have because some of them apply to everything but don't lend themselves very well to a minor subdivision process. Um, so the main things that come out of this is that it would make clear that a parcel that is going through minor subdivision process needs to be on an existing road. Somebody can't be subdividing something off when it's not on the road. Um, clarify that it needs to meet the comply with the terms of both the zoning ordinance and the subdivision regulations. And while you've been requiring that, um, there's frequently misconceptions from people that a minor subdivision should just be something where I can draw a lines on a map and have it be approved. Um, the exception to that language that I didn't have in the draft that you saw in December, but I've added since is to propose that we add a carbo to allow for people to that qualify for a minor sub subdivision to accept them from having to do the wetlands functions and values assessment and the establishment of wetland partners. That is one of the items that we get the most push back on, especially from the um the residents who are trying to carve off one additional lot on their properties. Um you don't have to do that. It's certainly something we've been requiring. What many of you may not know though is that the Upper Round River Wershed Management Organization, whose requirement that's in your ordinance now used to be their requirement, they changed their requirements. So, they're no longer requiring this. So, this is something that you can back off on now and be in be [clears throat] in sync with what the Upper River is requiring instead. Um the next one would be main goal out of this would be to limit the number of lots that can be created by a minor subdivision to one new parcel and any larger subdivision would need to be platted. One of the reasons we would like to see this is because once you hit that three parcel threshold is when storm water requirements typically start kicking in. Um because of the amount of accessory structures that you allow for people to put on their property, the size of the parcel, the amount of impervious surface they can have, it makes sense. Um all of these minor subdivisions that are of this three block kind of nature are getting trapped in this situation where they don't they think it's a minor subdivision, but they have to do all of this extra work and it doesn't make sense to people. So, this would just make it a lot more clear for them. Um, and separate them out and put them back into a planning process. >> And then, um, that's that's basically the main purposes of it. And otherwise, the language is basically the same with the except for that one change that I made to try to exempt out that well, functions and value statement. um as part of the zoning ordinance process that we're going through right now. Um that whole wetland section is one that um Shane and I will be proposing that we scale back to just be what the upper ground river is. And so at that point we'll catch the rest of everybody from not having to do those requirements. But this was an easy way right now to while we're still going through that process to give an exemption to those people who are doing something small. Thank you. Is that the extent of the [clears throat] >> open the public hearing allow anyone to comment on this ordinance amendment? from the commission have a comment from the public have a comments. I guess my question is these aren't actual changes that are taking place but now these are just something you guys are trying to propose or try to get a direction to create correct >> no this is changes to specifically the minor subdivision process >> okay so this these are the changes that would come into our ordinance >> well this yeah this and this is just process not actually performance standards at this point >> that's what I was fig okay that's what I was trying to clarify >> yeah thank you >> how many people here I've ever tried to use that minor supplication process. Anybody want >> I have >> we had to do a lot on the configurations. >> Yeah, that's none not quite the same. >> No, >> same deal. But it does work quite well the way it was cuz if I did it then it but you got to have the basis for it to begin with road that's got to be there and things work out very well for you >> and the major change is taking it from two additional lots down to one >> right it really reduces the case of how valuable it's going to be to me because Not too often are you going to need that that split lot split like that. Now that'll probably drive that down to about zero. There won't be very many of them happening >> there. The the difference or the the hard part is that um and we have a subdivision that the planning commission looked at as a minor subdivision in December I think it was and that had situations with it where they're still struggling to meet some of the requirements. Um, we had it come out of planning commission with all of those as kind of contingencies and we're going to finally get it on March city council agenda. Um where if if the process was clearer and and where they're getting hung up is the storm water stuff because once you hit that threshold with that amount of dirt work and impervious surface you have to do the storm water requirements. >> You have a awful lot of water out there. Really you start looking around looking at >> Yes, you do. a whole lot more than you think there is. >> So, a couple of cases that are coming up with [clears throat] some sewer issues that will be real interesting before we get done with them. So, I didn't realize that we had lots like that in now, but we had some things that were done years ago that pretty poorly thought out. This goes back probably before we even had P&Z, you know. So, it's really different. [clears throat] And the guy called me up and told me he wanted to look at this parcel. And I went down the parcel. I couldn't see what he was talking about even. Finally, I got to looking and oh yeah, there's a building down in that hole down there. and there was but >> okay if there's no account from the public we'll close the public hearing will act upon this minor subdivision ordinance does the commission have any comments on the changes here. >> It might limit the amount of people coming in because it's only one lot, but uh there's a lot of bullet points in this information that make a lot of sense for a lot of good reasons. So I think it's something that's going in the right direction. the exception for the upper Rome River wershed rule changes sounds like good thing to incorporate in so we can be aligned with that instead of more restrictive than it part part of that ordinance I think uh some years ago there was quite a few 40 acre chunks around that. Okay. And what happened was was the bank would not finance the land. I don't care if we went to the bank. We don't want land. That was that point in our financial situation in general. You couldn't you couldn't borrow the money. But if you could set your house off just that 5 acre lot, then you could borrow the money. And usually there was a whole lot more money in the house than there was in the land because the price of our land was so low. And that's what created some of this this whole how that came about. It's really hard to to fathom it. But u I bought one parcel that way and it was a 40 acres and they had set off just that five acres for the house and that's why they had done that. really weird, but you got two tax statements just on the the same 40, but that's how how it comes about. So, >> it seems like you could still do that with this chain. >> Yep. You could still do that. That would be one spot that would be good. Although I I don't know depending on you'd have to find something that would probably now the price of farmland has come up immensely you know compared to what it has been and uh so I don't know how all that's going to you know juggle around now but uh there has been some really high prices on this given farmland and now then in the past few weeks so It's went up probably uh I don't know I heard I heard numbers close to 15 grand an acre on some of them. So that's a pretty high price to buy for a lot you know. Does anyone have any comments on this uh restriction going from three to one that might be overlooked here that still allow [clears throat] Seems like if there was a really very large parcel maybe there also coordinator discuss. >> Yeah, I mean they're separate parcels. >> Yeah, there's one large parcel that's more than 40 acres, right? [clears throat] >> But again, they'd have the storm water. So, >> so it's still >> and it's actually a lot more work for them to do it when they're figuring that that's a real thing out after the fact. >> Your opinion that the planning process is easier for that? >> It's normal and expected as part of that process and again people think a minor subdivision should just be throw a line on the map. Another motions changes through I guess I'd make a motion to accept the changes presented We have a motion by Commissioner to accept [clears throat] the proposed changes to the minor subdivision ordinance. A second [clears throat] from Commissioner Lewis. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for vote. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes. That one go to the council next meeting. Okay, we'll go on to item F, ordinance amendment for feed schedule. This one is a shorter item. We'll let the staff present. The reason that we're making this proposal is just because of the cost of postage and you know paper supplies for getting all of these out. It was estimated for the the distance that we need to go out at the cost of about 75. >> Can you explain a little more about the uh the zoning letter $75 fee will cover? It's a requirement [cough] for all public hearings. >> So, we have to mail it out and you can I don't remember the exact distance of >> um >> well that that is something we send we charge directly onto the escros. I think the zoning letter is the one where people will um typically it's commercial properties or um not typically single family homes but [cough] we will end [clears throat] up getting a request to provide what they call a zoning letter and we didn't have a fee schedule a fee for that. And so that um letter typically says things like this property is zon this. It's in the flood plane or it's not in the flood plane. um maybe a few other different items from the files and we're providing information typically to the title company that they use for the closing of the property. >> So how is this cost covered through this? >> It it um wasn't so we would kind of try to >> we just did it but we just did them. Yeah. >> So it's covered by the taxpayers. >> Yes. Yeah, it's it's very common to charge a fee and think of it in terms of like u if your title company was calling for an assessment search and we charge a fee for that. Very similar to that process. >> This fee was the what you kind of from typical >> from having to do some research on some of them. It's mostly like realtors that are calling a lot of times property owners. I just want to know exactly how is it own and how can I sell my property questions? >> Mr. Chair, quick question. Does it seem like a reasonable fee? Are we are we price gouging at $75? Should it be less? So, I'm just asking because I don't have knowledge of this. >> Oh, I think it's reasonable. >> It is. And truthfully, it's still on a complicated project, it still won't cover your cost. >> So, some most of the time it'll cover it, sometimes it won't, >> right? >> It sounds like it's a pretty fair feat then at that point. >> Yes. I I think you're maybe the $75 you might be slightly higher than some other communities, but it's mostly probably because those other communities have looked at that updated. So, >> we'll open the public to see if anyone from the public wants to comment on this zoning letter. See any comments? We'll close the public here. I will act upon this one from the commission recommendation. I'll make a motion. to accept the new zoning to our schedule. >> So, you want it as awarded? >> Yeah. >> $75 standard and so we have a motion second. >> Second from Commissioner Carlson and the motion by Commissioner Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for vote. All in favor say I. I. >> Motion passes. We do have another new business [laughter] item on our schedule. >> We have a we have a applicant here. So we have to let them. >> So we have a witness >> 21881 Picker request for a minor subdivision. We'll have to plan out these. >> Thank you. So >> not quite on there yet. Um this is a minor subdivision. It is a um situation where the parcel is not quite 40 acres. Um there's a little chunk that's out down here. He has an Mr. Lumpard has an existing house up in this location and he would like to carve off one lot. It's a really challenging site because first off Pineker Road runs through it. Pineker is um >> fun. >> It's what? >> Windy. It's fun. >> Okay. [laughter] I wasn't going to use those words. What I was going to say is Pineker is a road by usage. You don't have u it's not a platted road. You don't have an easement for it. >> So as part of this um he has to provide an easement for Pineker road. Um the west side of this land is unbuildable wetland. Um and most of the east side is as well. So there's a little bit of upland left here. And um they are um trying to um demonstrate that they'll be able to meet the requirements to um have another lot here. Right now with what we have, the new lot um has not yet demonstrated that this that it meets the city's requirements in section 10-3-5. that is documented more in the letter from Shane Nelson um specifically in his letter um condition for comment number two. So he said that based on the information provided, they have demonstrated that they have compliance with the one acre with at least one foot of separation to natural soils, >> but they haven't demonstrated compliance yet with the 23,000 square ft of land with 3 feet of separation. So, they do need to revise this buildable acre survey um to try to get to that point and and prove that out. They can do that through some grading if necessary. Um, so what I do have is findings here for you kind of similar to the one we did in December where we were kind of in the same position where some things were not yet met in a minor subdivision. So what I've added as a condition here and I put it in bold is that the applicant must address the items in those comment memos. If the comments from city engineer memo are not satisfactoryy addressed, then this recommendation from this group would then turn into a denial of the minor subdivision if they can't show that um that 23,000 square ft of separation. >> Mr. Chair, >> can I uh Miss Nash, so looking at that plot of land, uh and there's a lot of high ground right there along the road. So, if it was graded, is that I'll say that darker area is that the does that mean the 23,000 square feet >> if that was graded down and and brought up, you know, taking the high soil or the the high piece of land and grading it down, would that meet the requirement? >> That I don't I don't know. Um they the engineer didn't provide that level of specifics to what they would need to do to this. Um part of it too is they got to watch what they're grading because they can't impact their septic sites either and we're going to need to test those septic sites. So um because we're again sitting with that winter condition here. So that's still sitting as a condition as well. So it might be braiding and bringing in some dirt to reach that point might be something that's possible >> up behind >> here. >> Um I think that's partly meeting the other requirement. >> It's it's quite a bit lower. sub >> and the applicant is here. >> Well, we can let the applicant come and present anything. >> Planner Nash, are you finished with your >> Y? >> Okay, Mr. Chairman, [clears throat] members of the commission, planner Nash, staff, Mr. there. My name is Mark Lbert, 21881 Pineker Road Northwest. That's my house at the top of the drawing. In answer to the question, the 23,000 foot rule, the dark hash and the light ash in the back are more than one acre to meet the buildable requirement. As you can see, the dark area is much more than half of the total hashed and dark area, which is 23,000 square ft. 43560 being the full of the acre. The top of that ridge that goes along Pineker is 25 24T higher than the surrounding edge of uh Bible area wetlands. Um we are a family. We are not a developer. We bought this property with the hopes of developing just selling off splitting splitting off half of it. And that's basically what we've done. Um gosh, I mean this is this is simple in my opinion, much simpler than many of the items you guys [laughter] had to deal with tonight with the with with all the the public hearings and multi-lot stuff. Um, I would be open to answer any questions that you have if is anybody familiar with this parcel >> because um the the the I'm I've I've heard that in the 40s and 50s that there was a gravel mining operation on this 40. Is that correct? Does anybody remember or know any of that? >> You can see by the evidence, you know, I mean, just look. May I approach the map just to show a couple of things here? >> Would it be better if I go to an aerial photo? >> No, this this will be fine, actually. So, this is that big ridge that runs along Penker before you get up here to the curve. And in all truth, this is pretty wet. There's a city ditch that runs through here. I've been working with the city for for a little over a year now trying to figure out a time because part of the plan from the maintenance department is to come in there and dredge that ditch out and get the water to drain better. Nonetheless, this will never be buildable over here. This whole 40 over here is not buildable. This 40 down here is not buildable. There's a couple of small uh homes down here um along the road. If you're familiar with the road, this little carve out is a nice neighbor, but that's what separates that few acres away from the 40 that I purchased. Um, so there's a there's an old road actually. It's more of a trail now than anything, but it's embedded going all the way back here and ultimately makes its way all the way up to the north end of Pineker Lake. uh uh the the person who bought this 40 after we had purchased this has continued that that trail on up. But uh it it provides really good access back here. So even without much grading, this dark area is it exceeds the 23,000 square foot uh requirement. >> [clears throat] >> Is there a easement for that ro? >> Well, here's the deal. When I bought the 40, nobody said anything about it. And we went here and we bought it and I got went through the building permit process and and we built our home up here. Uh when I'm doing this, I find out that this uh road uh was struggling trying to find rightway or easement or or any of those requirements from years gone by. I had my title company go back council [sighs and gasps] meeting minutes back into the early 60s trying to find if it was ever at rest. I talked to a maintenance member of staff um who was reaching out to a previous owner council member to try to find out what had happened. This road used to go and go straight up and and and tie in up there before this was put in, but there's never been any recording or or any of those kinds of things. So, as called out and it's on the is on the separate drawing. The new call outs for this road and everything are listed on the on the secondary plan drawing um that that calls all of this out and talks about uh you know doing that. So I' I've had to bear that cost and time and expense of of all of that to try to give the road back to the city who owns the road, but not really. [laughter] So, you're welcome. I don't know what else to say. [laughter] >> Okay. So, you mentioned there's uh some neighbor uses part of that property or >> No, that's the that's the little triangle at the very bottom. There's a little house right alongside the road there. >> I was talking about the the path going to the 40. >> There's no buildable back behind there either. He bought that as to make his yard bigger. He lives up on a culde-sac coming up off of the the road up there. He had a small lot up there and then decided to buy that because >> whatever. And I didn't need 88 acres. I needed that 40 and there's nothing to do or build back there. >> So So the neighbor doesn't want to access. >> Well, look. So you can see >> he's got access off of this. He's the barn up there. >> Okay. >> Just to the east on the north property line. >> The barnet >> right there. Yeah. He now owns that that 40 that connects to Pener. But you can even see from from and if you go back to what is it 2006, you can see it. But this is there's a pair of green gates on this big approach right here. >> There you go. >> And this is that big ridge that goes along here. And like I say, it's it's it truly is 25 ft high. But you can kind of see how that rail that trail meanders. It kind of splits this little little pond thing here and makes its way back up and ends up back in here. And I think tied into a very old step before this act was ever carved here. >> Anyone from the commission have any questions? >> This is probably not unusual for an open because I think road over there they some time to rebuild that and they couldn't find where anybody ever acquired the required right away for the size of the road. [clears throat] >> Yeah. So >> and it's a standard 66T rightway. You know it's no big deal. >> But 66 is pretty good. >> Oh yeah. I mean, you know, prior and probably back when this was more of a trail than a maintained roadway accessing a a gravel pit, you know, it was probably just that 33 foot meets and bounds descriptions from post Lewis and Clark doing that survey work. I'm not kidding. I mean, >> yeah. >> All right. Well, thank you. >> Thank you. have any more comments on the positions here? >> Yeah, one other thing I'll just call your attention is that um we don't have the weapon function and values assessment for this project either. Um but theoretically based on the minor subdivision process, the city council could exempt them from that. So Mr. Libert could send me something in writing asking to be exempted from that and then when this went to council I make that request. >> Thank you. >> Have comment or make a motion on this. I'll make a motion to approve the minor subdivision as stated by the planner here with the conditions that have been put in the document is currently written. [cough] I'll second. I guess we have a motion by help on the second by Commissioner Bees. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we call for vote. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposes we should be ready for the next council meeting. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Our last item is recommendation for planning commissioner selection process. [clears throat] So there's a vacancy on the commission now. So open [clears throat] to a process for recommending [snorts] we can interview the candidates to get in. I think the council currently has it open for 30 days from going to the last council meeting, was it? >> Do you remember when it was? >> It was 30 days. Um, we did have some signs printed. It's been all over Facebook and I believe on our website and again there's a couple of signs out saying that we haven't opened yet. >> As of today, we have two applications. I was going to ask, do you have any applications? Shoot. Okay, so we have two applications. And then we um how do we want to handle the interview process of the commission recommendation? >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> Is it possible that we can talk about how it's been done in the past maybe as an example to kind of start to create a juices flow in here for discussion? >> It's been done all ways. >> What's that? >> All different ways to be honest. >> Um about eight years, maybe 10 years ago, it was a was a questionnaire from the p from the commission itself. Then somewhere in between there it went to the council directly and then we were given people from the city council. >> So the council just made the decision. >> Yes. In the past probably five to six years >> when we got on. Was it a portion of the council that interviewed or the whole council? >> Can't remember. Uh I think it was well it might have only been partial but it might have been some people wasn't >> I think we were we were told who the [clears throat] applicants were at the comm the meeting >> but we didn't have any interview or they were doing it through the council but 10 years back it was an interview process through here with our recommendations on who we wanted sent to the council and the council was then there able to make their recommendations on who they wanted to appoint. >> Interesting. >> And that was based on the application alone. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Because well, the reason that we were asking for this is because we went back through everything and we could not find any process that was consistent or nothing that was written down. So about 10 years ago, the the coun the commission here interviewed all applicants um and then made a recommendation who to um point to the seats and I believe the council at that time then uh would review the information that they had for the applicants and they you know based on what we decided because they we interviewed people that asked questions on what their background was >> Did you do it as a as a whole commission or did you select a subcommittee? >> No, it was a whole commission. I literally sat in front of the whole commission. [laughter] >> Was it a special meeting or was it a >> N just during a a current meeting? It was during a current meeting. If >> I could give any input on it, at the end of the day, this commissioner is going to work with you guys. >> Great. So, I always want to be able to say, you guys do the selection and provide a recommendation back to the council and say, "Here's the person we recommend and here's why." >> Yes. Just like we do with all of our >> Just like you do with everything else. >> Yes. And that's how when I was brought on, I don't He's He's been here quite a long time. So, >> you've been here a while. [laughter] >> Just showed up and he became part of the commission. That is about 10 years ago is about how it went for me. Yes. And then somewhere in between there it changed without I guess without any question. Just >> Well, there's no no process for it. So nothing's wrong. >> No, great. >> Yeah. >> Uh are there rules around having like an interview process during this meeting? I guess I don't know that that >> you're not open. >> Yeah. Right. You definitely can't if you do it as a as a committee here. So, >> right. >> So, there there's certain questions you can ask in an interview process just required by state law. Certain things you can't ask. So, as long as we're not violating that, you should be able to ask questions. They have an application they've already filled out. So, it would be additional review that ask additional questions. >> That's all I guess. >> Um, >> may I chime in a couple? >> Absolutely. So irregardless of what you decide to do for a um interview process, I do want you to know that next month's meeting will not have as many items as this month, [laughter] but we could have some very interesting items on the agenda. And so they could again generate a number of members of the public. So how you structure the interview process could be important. You might want to consider maybe having a separate work session maybe before the regular meeting to do the interviews potentially just so that you can have those folks get in here and be able to be interviewed and stay if they're interested or leave if if they need to. It just seems it could be a little clunky to try to do interviews before a couple of really heavy um development topics. But you're suggesting doing a interviews before like all the public hearings. >> Well, before the meeting. >> Before the meeting, like hold the meeting at 6 or something. Okay. >> For a work session to do the interviews potentially. Because otherwise you're trying to do them either before you do the public hearings and you got this whole room of people here or you make everybody wait until the end of all of that and just like now where you're kind of wanting to be done at 9:00 >> rule somewhere we got rid of that rule >> I think it would make sense >> to do it where you don't have all the applicants together. I don't know is there have any feelings about that? having, you know, having it be kind of the one applicant at a time. So, you're getting kind of true answers and they feel a little more free to >> talk. >> Maybe, >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> All right. So, you could take this and just going with Mr. Nish's recommendation. Start the meeting at six o'clock. You could bring one candidate here at a time, do the interview process before the 7:00 meeting starts. >> Right. >> That's good. Right there. And then you could have on your and that's the work session agenda is to do the interviews and then as part of your regular meeting agenda you could recommend a person to the city council >> as a formal action. >> We have to broadcast the interviews. I would say no. >> Well, as a work session, isn't it open to the community to come in and watch? >> It would be it would be a public meeting. People can come in. Do you Natalie, do you typically um broadcast work sessions on the council? Uh the city council had chosen years ago to broadcast the work sessions. >> Mr. Mayor, would you like >> the broadcast the special meetings? >> I think the work sessions >> because we've done that in the past with >> we we made it just a standard rule to broadcast everything we've done. So we and it's been easy and transparent. So nobody can say it's not transparent. So, my recommendation is just videotape and put it out. >> Yep. >> You're doing a standard interview. Um, and there's nothing nothing sensitive for information. >> They're going to be on video once they >> So, I would recommend you just stay with that standard process and it's worked out just fine. >> I agree. I think that's exactly what we do. >> Sounds fun, doesn't it? Sounds like consensus is to have it at 6:00 before the [laughter] before the next meeting everybody at 6 o' just making sure [laughter] >> at least it's not every month you know that that >> six o'clock works fine for me I guess I just wanted to bring that up >> um could we could we say like six o'clock if we have applicants versus if we only have three applicants, maybe we could do >> when does the position close? It's already been open, correct? >> Yeah, it's it closes just before the next meeting. >> Well, I'm just thinking like can we can we kind of make it so I mean what happens if we have two options for six o'clock? That's a long time. >> You have time to gab with your other fellow insurers >> except that we have to notice it >> and we have to notice it. We have to notice it three days ahead of time. I might get a few applications in between. I was going to say I mean because if we have four applicants we could do that in 30 minutes couldn't we? [clears throat] >> Typically 15 minutes a person. >> You have to be a naysayer don't you? >> All right fine. >> My recommendation is 15 minutes a person minimum. [clears throat] >> Dang it. >> Minimum. >> Try to seven foot sound like an hour is going to be enough. >> Yeah. Right. >> Very slow. >> Okay. >> You could modify it though. Say if you had six candidates and you could say it's going to be 10 minutes at least. You could get enough of a flavor. I don't think you're going to have six candles. >> I That'd be a great day. Not going to lie. >> So, we can just allocate the time accordingly happens. >> Could we do that? Would that be okay with you? Is it going to be okay? >> As long as we're still hosting it, it's okay. >> Yeah. >> You can allocate us with the time. Um, one other question though. Um, this is a partial um partial year, partial, what do we call it? >> So, term >> term. That's what I'm looking for. >> Oh, it's a partial term. >> So, yes. And we'll make sure that it's known for that or whatever. But, and then if the person wants to continue on, it'll be the same. They have to do an application just like the rest of you have done. >> Just fill the end of the truck. We need to make a motion on this or >> I would recommend it. We're looking for your recommendation. >> Okay. So, the council will have to approve our recommendation then. So, we'll we'll have to put a motion together out of our information. presented here. Summarize it. [clears throat] >> I'll do that. >> Um, we'd like to set up work session for 6 o'clock if we get six applicants um for the six o'clock before the meeting uh in March. If we get less than four applicants, so three applicants, it would be preferable to be start at 6:30 interview process. >> We should give that many. >> No. >> We have proper notice or >> I make a motion to do that. >> Well, and do you want to amend that to say that we will then make a recommendation council >> as an item on the part of the agenda. Yes, absolutely. That's what we discussed. Yes, >> I would agree to that. >> Are we going to have standard interview questions that we ask everyone exactly the same thing? >> I think that's a good idea. >> I'm just going to put those together. >> Well, I think what we're going to probably end up doing is throwing out the questions while we're sitting here and >> can we do this? Can each applicant or each commissioner provide three questions prior to that works too? maybe give them to staff see if she can summarize and then you can divide them up so you don't have redundant bushes. >> Yeah. >> And we can have it typed up and ready to go. Because this is what I want to do with this. Once you have your motion, it will be a policy. It will go into your planning and zoning commission policy so that next time we have to fill a position, someone knows what to do. >> Okay. >> So recommend a motion to add >> questions. Oh yes. Um, I can amend my motion to uh include three questions per commissioner so we have them ready for interview process. >> And will we have the applications still applications, right? We'll have those. >> We'll have them with our packet for >> commissioners should send their questions to the city clerk for >> yes please >> and it's probably worthwhile to review the application before putting questions down so that we don't just ask questions that are on >> I can send you a blank one so you can review >> I just filled one out that I can answer those questions too >> we have a to this motion. Motion by a second. Second by Commissioner Beast. Any further discussion? Seeing none of [clears throat] the motion by send this to the council for approval. >> All in favor say I. >> I. I [clears throat] >> motion passes for the council one item left on the agenda. >> Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. [laughter] >> I'll take a motion.