Well, this is not We'll call the meeting to And the first thing we'll do is have the pledge of allegiance to the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for its nation. At this time, I'll ask the clerk to take the role. here. Commissioner Ho here. Commissioner Be here. Commissioner Carlson here. Commissioner Lewis, she called in and said she was going to be ill and could not attend. Commissioner Perry here. Commissioner Jorgensson here. and your interim administrator Natalie Johnson is here and planner Nash here. Roll call is taken, sir. Okay. Thank you. The next thing on agenda, we're going to approve or amend tonight's agenda. Have a motion for that. I make a motion to approve the agenda as written. Commissioner Hip made a motion. Sec. Do we have a second? I'll second. Commissioner Bees makes the second. All in favor say I. I. Okay. Motion carried. The next thing is uh we don't have anything for the last meeting. We removed the minutes. They were not prepared yet. Okay. Okay. Uh the next thing we'll do is this time we're going to open our public hearing. And the public hearing is for uh a variance on 22511 B Street Northwest. Uh this is a the property up there. Uh is there anything you want to say about that, Cindy? Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is a a variance that the city is processing related to this property. it um was constructed an addition to an existing property was constructed and now that building has two dwelling units in it. Your ordinance technically only allows a single family home. The purpose of the variance is to recognize it as a single family home with conditions on it that include a deed restriction restricting the use of it to only being able to be used by the one family. Um, so I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. The city attorney is recommending approval of this variance and um, I think that's all that really needs to be said about it. Okay. I'll ask the question. All the mailing been mailed out to the land owners? Yes. Okay. Uh, do you have any questions here on the planning and zoning? No. No, no questions. Okay. Is there anybody out in the audience would like to address this variance? Okay. Again, I ask if there's anybody on plans on have any questions. Yeah. None. Does does anybody have any idea what this does as far as the tax on this parcel and this house? Does that going to be treated with some kind of special favors then or No, it would still be taxed based on valuation. So, whatever the house is valued at would fact would be what is kind of controlling. Um and theoretically since it's larger it would have a higher valuation and then as such tax more and now the other thing is I suppose what did that sewer business end up being on that? Did they the septic? Yeah, they must have be two separate sewer systems. There are two septic systems. And if you're not going to use one of them, they're using both of them. They have a lot of kids or what? Yeah, they got some little They have family living in the other part of the building. Yeah. A lot of sons living there. At least he's got one little girl I've seen probably about three, four years old. I I guess the reason I I notice it is the last tax statement have just come out. They seem to have a real liking to go quite high lately. So I think they're really going to notice that, you know. a lot of money and of course you got to live someplace so you know that's what it amounts to. Okay. Thank you. Is there a uh is there anybody in the crowd has anything they'd like to bring up about this variance? There's no more response. We'll close the public hearing. Public hearing is closed. Now we'll act upon it. Uh first of all I I'll make a motion to uh uh pass this variance. Uh some this is further discussion. Somebody like to second this motion. I'll make a second. Commissioner Pero seconded. Now have further disc. Anybody have any discussion? Any questions to ask about this? And it's pretty clear the way that lawyers got things wrote out for us and stuff that uh way going to be handled. There's a uh also some uh stipulations in there. Uh do we want to go through those stipulations? Um no, I don't think we we need to. that there there are there is a deed restriction that will have to be filed and agreed to and recorded against this property. Um and they're not allowed to lease it um to other parties outside of their you know outside of their family. Um and that's sort of the the gist of it. It's a variance, so it is going to run with the land, but subject to those conditions. Does anybody have any idea how old that original house was in that? Oh, can't be too old. I don't have that information with me at this time. It's got to be quite a few years. Can you now did that did that not come off of an Elverse track to begin with? Can he where did Bob Bob buy that land from Ellsworth there or what? You don't know. How long's that house been there? 40 years. Where? Yeah, that was my dad. Oh, that was your dad's. And how long's the house been there? 50 years. How many years? Some of that information is public knowledge through that county. Okay. Well, anyway, uh I'll call for the vote unless there's more discussion on it. Mr. Chair, yes. But if this creates a precedent for other people um in terms of somebody asking for that to occur like preemptively, no, it does not create any kind of precedent. Okay. Your ordinances wouldn't allow it. So So just the city's mistake. So then it that's why it's recommended for approval by the attorney. Yep. Okay. Any other questions? If not, we'll call for the vote. All in favor say I. I. Oppos. Next thing we're going to go to our on pay business when the uh that's on the lexical property up here. They're asking for a variance. unless our planner here if she would discuss this. Go ahead. So this is a carryover from your last meeting where you provided us with some direction on how you were interested in proceeding with that variance request that they have. Um so in your packet is a um set of findings with proposed conditions that would allow for that to occur if approved by the city council as well. And what I came up with for conditions based on your discussion last time is that um the lot line. So I hope you can see the screen. This is the same exhibit we had before. Um the lot line that is between these two lots right now would need to be moved over um enough that this building would still um be set back 20 ft from wherever that revised lot line is. And then if that lot line is not moved then building number five which is that number um in all the other drawings that we have needs to be removed from the property. The second condition is that buildings one and f one through five, so all of them may remain on lot one for the purpose of continued agricultural use until the occurrence of any of the following events. The first being that the buildings may be maintained but may not be replaced or expanded. At such time as any building has been removed for any reason, no building may be constructed in its place. Um so eventually then over time um as buildings deteriorate to a point where they're not usable anymore you know then these will start to fall away. Um the applicants, their successors and assigned shall not use the buildings for uses other than for agricultural purposes because that's why this variance is being requested except that not more than two of the buildings totaling not more than 3200 square ft may be used for other personal accessory building usage or as may be permitted in the city of now then's zoning ordinance and any amendment there too. Um at such time that 214th Avenue, which is the platted rightway here that's being used as a private driveway for now, is improved to a city road standard and has been accepted by the city. Then building four and five, so that's these southern two that are um within the drainage and utility easements and very close to that rightway would need to be removed at the sole cost of the property owner within six months following written notification of the city to remove the buildings. And just for everybody's recollection, there is not any current plans for 214th to be improved to a city road standard. Um the applicant shall enter into a deed restriction. Um restricting the future use of those buildings as outlined in that findings of fact that's subject to the approval of the city attorney as to language and form and shall be reported against the property. Um, and then the standard condition related to that if there's a need for the city to go out and do any enforcement on that that whoever owns the property at that time needs to reimburse the city for all um cost that the city has and in divorcing the variance and the deed restriction. So with that I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. Mr. Chair, yes. So you mentioned the deed restriction. Is that uh need to be done the same time as this? It would need to be done um before it's um finalized and reported, but we haven't drafted the deed of restriction yet. Okay. So, we can approve this with it. You can because the attorney then would just draft one that says basically what's in here. So, that is something that is counter signed and recorded. Okay. Does any want to address it? Yeah, I'm Gary L from the trustee. Yeah, appears to be green. So, I'm Gary Lester. I'm the trustee. Um, we reviewed this. I think it's set out as recommendation two in the packet and we very much appreciate the um all of your work on this. That's acceptable. So, I don't know if moving the lot line will be doable because we've gone through the process with the county and all those steps. So, I understand this gives the option either move the lot line or move building number five. Yeah. And that decision will be made relatively soon as we get that all finalized. I think it'll be the building will get removed because I think moving the lot line will be we have to go through a bunch of steps that we've already gone through. But appreciate that allowance and um yeah, we just appreciate doing this for us and I think this should resolve the issue. So thank you. I know what one time Corey thought talking about build on lot two, but you realize when you combine these lots, you won't be able to build. If we combine the lots, that would be a problem. Yep. I don't think that there will be a combination of the lots. This will allow the buildings, all but number five, to remain on that other lot. So, I that's good. And we understand if he would combine those it would result in that other process of of limitations on that bill on that lot as well. So how long do you think it'll be before you make the final decision? I think the decision is probably done that we won't be combining the lot, but um that wouldn't be part of this process and we'd address that. But I don't foresee that we would combine the the those two lots because it would result in basically the whole subdivision process having to be redone and that would be a complication that I as trustee would not look at favorably because it would result in a whole number of of um processes. But that's something we would address. I'll address it with Corey and Chrissa. And I guess if they had a hard feeling about that, which you know, a strong feeling about combining, then we would address that right away. But I we've talked about that. And I don't believe that's their wishes. So yeah, thank you very much for this. What this is affect us here this way. I understand he doesn't want to combine the two lots and the way Yes, Mr. Chair. The way we have written this, they would not have to combine the two lots. Um, we simply wrote it. So, it would be two separate lots in that area. Um, and where there's kind of a nuance is related to the building number five that is on the shared lot line between those two lots that they would have a choice to either remove that building or move this lot line to a point where it's 20 ft away from that building. And they can make that choice before we get to recording. Okay. Before the council meeting. No, before we go to record the plat. It's it's laid out in here as basically an option. Okay. Do we have any more discussion here in the planning zoning about this? Simple question. Just wanted to to clarify this this um findings says recommendation number one and two. They're basically going to be as one through the findings here. We don't we're not removing one of these recommendations. Correct. On page 82. I do not have it as page numbers. Which one are you referring to? That's under the finding. Oh, yep. We're not removing any of those. So, those are this is two separate situations, but that makes sense. Yeah. Okay. So, recommendation one. I just was trying to remember what Yeah. Okay. Um, so that's specifically related to number five, encroaching within the drainage and utility easements and yes, so we're recommending denial of that piece of it and then approval of the rest of this with conditions. Yes, just to kind of separate that piece out. Yep, that makes more sense. Just for the records, I think there's 18 recommendations here. Do we have to go through these or those are the findings? Those are the findings. No, no, we don't need to. Any further discussion? No, Mr. P. Yeah, commissioner. I think these agree with what we uh discussed last month. So, I think they're pretty good synopsis of what we decided last month. You want to make this a motion then? Yeah, I'll make a motion to accept these uh findings of fact as written. All second. Okay. M second it. Any further discussion? See none. I'll call for a vote. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion carried. Thank you very much. Okay, next on the agenda is the uh intern use permit for the original hockey mom's brownies and uh we'll go to our planner and let our planner tell us what she has there. Sure. Thank you. So, uh, last month you may recall that based on the accessory building being proposed to be constructed first, the planning commission had recommended denial to the city council. Um, the owners did approach um, at the city council meeting and propose an alternative that they'd like to consider. Um, a big concern, as you can probably appreciate, for them is that they would construct a, you know, a nice expensive home first and then apply for the interim use permit and find out that maybe the city wouldn't grant that. So, they're really looking for that um comfort to know ahead of time that they once they do everything that they would still be able to get that interim use permit. So the uh city council sent it back to the planning commission for your consideration given a fact situation of they would be constructing the house first. They would want to however start construction of the footings and foundation of the accessory structure while they're out there doing the grading and some of that. We are able in speaking with the building official to issue only a footings foundation permit. so they wouldn't be able to continue on the accessory structure and then set out the terms and conditions for an interim use permit to operate the commercial bakery on that site. So this draft before you tonight lays that process out and that's why there's conditions related to order of building construction and such within this interim use permit that might be not be typical in an IUP. But um the you know with with that willingness of them to um change their plans to meet the intent of the ordinance to have the house built first um the council felt it was appropriate rather than making a decision on the denial to send it back to you guys for further consideration. Mr. Howard, would you like to add something with this? I could I appreciate uh Tony Howard 1944 134th Avenue in Andover really appreciate the time and effort that you guys have put forward in this um and yeah it just you know we kind of changed our plans to kind of meet the ordinance what it really amounts to and to move forward with the foundation only for the uh commission uh the the bakery and the storage facility. Um, it really helps me a lot because it's just a matter of economies of scale, let's put it, because there's a lot of dirt to be moved, a lot of class 5 driveways to put in. So I don't have to have people come back and and even you know getting the electrical brought in and just everything just it really helps me a lot to have that security one to have that the um being able to have that comfort zone that I will be able to move forward with that bakery but also that um it's just the economies of scale really helps me a lot to know and just to have be able to do that if we even put into grade. It's just a big plus to move forward. And it's really a long-term thinking. If you remember last time, it's really long-term thinking. This is not even a five-year plan. This is my son and my daughter is going to take it over. My wife and my son are actually partners in the business. And it's really long-term thinking for the city of Navan. You know, it's gonna have a pretty good tax base for you guys. And um it's not going to be detrimental to your city for sure. And I stand for any questions, Mr. Chair. Yes, Commissioner. Yeah, I just I I What's the timeline for getting the bakery up and running in now then? I think in uh what you have drawn up there is two years from uh but it's not going to be that. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. No, I I think it's a great property for it. I think it's a good use of it. Um I think it works well for both parties. So, I'm definitely in favor of it. So, I just wanted to just state something in I guess understanding of I'm fine with the property having the building, the storage, the even the the bakery. I was just under the assumption based or made a knowledge that because there isn't a primary residence, he couldn't file for the variance because there's no primary residence. So there what did the variance and the accessory building. So you need the residence before you can have the accessory building. But those two items could actually be put up at the same time. You just cannot run the business or have the variance for the business prior to certificate of occupancy. Am I wrong? Well, um because that's how I understand it. I wasn't totally following but um I can step back and explain it better. I might be able to clear the I was following and then I lost it somewhere. Let me let me try. In a normal situation, if if someone's building a house and wanted a pole building on the property, that process can happen pretty much together without a problem. It's when they're asking for the c the the variation to run a business. Now, they have to have the residence there and a certificate of occupancy before they can have that IUP or CUP. So okay the biggest yeah that might is my understanding I can't speak to what any past interpretations are or have been what I can tell you is the building official will say that if if you have two buildings start at the same time say and the accessory building is ready and gets done first he can't not issue a certificate of occupancy for the building correct because it's a building code issue. If it's done, it can be issued a certificate of occupancy. And so then you have an accessory before you have a principal. Yes. But they still couldn't apply for a variance to have a business run out of it because they don't have a residence. Isn't that is that am I understanding this correctly? Yes. Um, but the what we did here then is they still they have the IUP. If this is granted, they would have the IUP, but they still can't really use it until um they have a certificate of occupancy for their home. Yes, that's what I'm saying is yeah, they can con you can construct these two buildings at the same time, but you cannot get a certificate of occupancy. You cannot get a variance to start the business until you have a certificate occupancy for the residence. I don't know about that though. We we actually un like a different type of scenario. We do that all the time um with other types of interim use permit. So somebody might apply for um take a raw piece of land and they want to construct some type of a business that has an interim use permit. We don't have them build the building first and then come in and ask for the IUP. They ask for the IUP if that's if their intended use is going to be that um some business that requires that IUP on a residential lot. No. Oh, okay. That's Yeah. No, I don't. I'm just using as a different example. Okay. because to me that's similar that we don't make somebody build the building first and then the I think what's what's wrong with this scenario is that he's trying to build a business run a business on a residential lot which is totally allowable in our codes but but he would do it after the um after the single family home is constructed then he can get the building permit to construct the rest of the accessory building. So, he would be having this um it's the single family home would be up. The difference from what you're saying is is that he doesn't have to take that leap of faith of building a single family home not knowing if the city's going to approve an inter permit for the business. And that's where I kind of likened it to my example of if somebody wanted to use a commercial property for a use that required an interim use permit. Um we would look at the site plan for that commercial lot and their interim use permit at the same time and then they and that makes sense. But what's holding this property back is well the residential home. I think you're not building both simultaneously mainly because of making finances work. Okay, that's part of it. Yeah, but it's also is that kind of where you were going is why not build both and Yeah. Yeah. And I think it's if it's financial, I understand it, but I was it's partially fine. So partially I'm 67 years old and I only have so much motivation. So Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I thought I thought Yeah, we're not restricting. That's what I thought we were doing and I was like this doesn't seem right. We are restricting the accessory building. Well, yes. And but you can build an out building. You just couldn't have run a business in it until you have the residence there, right? That's what I mean. Yeah. I mean, if it's just an out building, it's just an out building. No, you cannot build an out building while you're building your residence before there's a principal building. But couldn't you build them simultaneously? Why not? No, you can't build them simultaneously because people stop and they don't finish. So, you have to have a a certificate of occupancy before you can complete an accessory building, right? Because the building official can't hold back state issuing a seal for one while you're waiting for the other one to be done, the one that's supposed to be done first. So, um yeah. Okay. So that was what we were denying it on last time was that their the order was well and they wanted to run the business at that time out of there which makes it a commercial before Yeah. before the home. But but what we're saying is it even goes as far as you couldn't just put up a pole building saying I'm going to build a house. Yeah. So you you kind of have to do it this way. But yeah. Got it. That's what I was making. And so we're allowing the foundation and all that work which is fine. Yeah, because that doesn't complete the building. Correct. And and the building official is able to issue a foundation footing permit only. Got correct. So he can withhold the building permit. It's withholding of the CO that becomes the the issue. There's 14 recommendations I believe here that Cindy has. And also at the council meeting it was brought up that they check into a lawyer how to handle this. And so the lawyers been involved in this too to handle this the proper way. Yes, we did consult with the city attorney on the sequencing of it and he thought this would work. So it the way the way it he can't put up only the foundation there right now. That's all he can do right now until he had obviously of the building the house and he he's okay with that. He just he knows there's quite a bit of expense getting people to come in do all that plans they gave me all that is correct that's a lot of work to get that house done so this really helps me a lot getting even the footings to grade to do the things I need to do on that property we don't have to read the recommendations you come in okay uh is there any more discussion here I'll just commission finish up I have no reason to deny the IEP no reason if that's what he wants to do after he gets his residence up. I see no reason why. It would be a reason problem. Any other questions? Yeah, Mr. Chair. Mhm. Yeah, we need to correct the findings line one where it has the wrong uh extended home occupation for R or R or R or R or R or R or R or R or R or R or solar. We do need to correct that. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Are there any other questions? Seeing none, would somebody like to make a motion to accept this? I didn't. I'll move approval as recommended. I'll second that. Okay. Commissioner Spe made it. There's a second by Commissioner Perrell. Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor say I. I. All in favor. Thank you. Good luck. Appreciate it. Uh the next thing here on the business, the new business. What do we have pl for that? We do not have any new business. Okay. Well, this that be the shortest meeting we've ever had. I'm not going to argue. The mayor is going to be so bummed. Don't tell him. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to adjourn. Okay. Commissioner Pearl made the motion. So, we have a second. I'll make a second. Okay. Commissioner P second. We are journ. This is not wor.