to approve the agenda motion motions made in seconded to approve the agenda as printed any discussion hearing none all those in favor say I I I opposed motion is carried thank you do we call for people from the
audience in this we do not Mr chair um hopefully everybody got their packets in time enough to peruse the the minutes from November um nobody has any additions or
Corrections look for a motion to approve the minutes from November 19th motion second motions are made and seconded any discussion hearing none all those in favor say I I oppos motion is
carried public hearing I like to look for a motion to open the public hearing for Jeffrey and rayan Berg motion motions I made in second end to open the public hearing all those in
favor say I I I opposed motion is carried take it away Matt all right thank you Mr chair this is an after theact variance setback request for the for a structure from the center line of a public road uh zoning on this property is all IM immediately adjacent
properties are zoned to egg General um its residential number of buildings on um on the property the new structure was intended to replace an old out building that was damaged due to a collapsed roof so seeking a variance to the road
Center Line setback um it would encroach approximately 23 ft into the 125t road Center Line setback of hund Street South it be about an 18% reduction of the setback um the structure is approximately 102 feet from the center
line of the road and uh 69 feet from the right of way uh before constructing the building the applicant assumed that the road Center Line setback was 100 ft and provided um the following practical difficulty in complying with that
setback because it's been built it would basically essentially have to be torn down and moved and rebuilt uh as with um all after the fact variance requests um the Minnesota
Supreme Court statfold case provides uh additional criteria for um you to consider uh the first being if construction was complete the construction in this case is if there are similar structures in the area there are uh the benefit of the municipality
of enforcement compared to the burden on the applicant if his compliance was required uh so the staff opinion here would be that the 18% setback reduction uction is minimal there's a there's a row of trees between the structure and the road um that would limit any impact
of the road and the RightWay uh in this case the burden on the applicant would outweigh the benefit of of enforcement in this instance uh and this does not speaking with the applicant does not appear to be an intentional violation um and just I don't I know I haven't really
spoken about how to determine whether something's intentional or intentional and in in my case I if I were to ever come to you and say that something was intentional it would be like if someone asked for a permit for something and they asked for all the ru all the rules and then they maybe did something
completely different so if I had have had a conversation before that's something that I present to you in this case it looks like it was um an honest mistake really the whole point of having this road Center Line setback um is to make sure that we have acept ible safe
efficient transportation system um specifically for future road projects um for um snow removal things of that sort um in this case it's pretty minimal uh
reduction in that setback and there are trees in between the road and the building any questions for me at all was there a building no there was not a building
permit and talking with the applicant um what it sounded like is because that's because a building was damaged he could build a new building essentially it's not in the same location but that was kind of the
understanding it's smaller would the distance that they needed to be from the road been on the building permit it would have been yes part of the building permit yes would have been broughten up for sure yep and it looks like if I'm looking at this correctly
it's 23 ft yeah just looking for to prevent something down the road and if that was uh building for building wouldn't it be built on the same footprint if yeah typically that's how that works like if say we've had we've had
buildings that are damaged where someone will come in for a building permit to rebuild their structure um will wave the fee if it was due to a fire or a um snow load or something like collapse RI to snow um and then yeah that would
be basically rebuilding in the same footprint I have no questions well if nobody has any questions more questions for Matt or for the applicant look for a motion to close the public [Music]
hearing motions in made in second to close the public hearing any discussion hearing none all those in favor say I I I opposed motion is carried I have a sheet somewhere of findings of
fact and all that okay thank you okay number one one is granting the variance in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Clay County Land Development code
yes is the requested variance consistent with the Clay County comprehensive land use plan yes yes did the applicant establish that there are practical difficulties in complying with the strict letter of the
Clay County Land Development good yes yes do exceptional or extraordinary circumstances exist that apply to the property in question yes and that do not apply generally to other properties okay we got a
yes would the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Clay County Land Development code deprived the applicant of Rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance yes yes is a variance being granted the minimum variance that would alleviate
the Practical difficulty yes does a variance request meet all the below criteria no variance shall be granted where any of the following conditions are not met adequate sewage treatment systems or water supply capabilities can be provided yes yes
that'd be non-applicable the plate of landowner or hardship is not due to circumstances created by the landowner yes yes the land owner constructed constructed the structure without a permit or conferring with the Land
Development code however the plate of landowner or hardship imposed by the county for requiring compliance would outweigh the benefit of compliance the essential character of the locality would not be altered or there would not be significant adverse
effect on the surrounding properties yes and Mr chair I think there's one above that about zoning District C the variance would not allow a use that is not already allowed in the
zoning District yes yes there would not be significant adverse effect on public health or safety yes yes there would not be S significant adverse effect on public health or safety as there would will be no impacts
to traffic or the traveling public yes okay in addition conditions May beo imposed in the granting of a variance a condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to
the impact created by the variance any done deal he see there any plans to take the old one down not that that it's already kind of destroyed yeah right right yeah it's coming down I I mean it looks nice
but okay okay based on going through everything and the board not coming up with uh any additional things needed look for a motion to approve or deny make motion to
approve I'll second motions have made and approved to approve the variance and any discussion or further questions hearing none all those in favor say I I I opposed motion is
carried variance is granted thank you moving on any unfinished business Matt um I suppose under here I could give you a code update or development ordinance update um so the Planning Commission in
December did hear chapters 1 through four just reviewing the draft chapters 1 through four um which essentially um covers everything from just the introductory Provisions
non-conformities what development is and isn't zoning districts um talks about our four based zoning districts in chapter 2 chapter 3 talks about the overlay zoning districts that would include like flood Hazard zoning and
Shoreland um and then the big chapter was the use regulations so that um essentially allowed uses by zoning district and then any special kind of standards for those uses uh in well tonight they will be
looking at Chapters 5 through 8 uh which include basic just general development standards um in terms of of uh area dimensional setback access development um fencing parking signs
trees and things like that um subdivision regulations and then just Administration and procedures so kind of going over the roles and duties of uh the Board of Commissioners the board of adjustment the Planning Commission um as well as
procedures for variances and use permits uh and uh amendments as well either amendments to the text of the ordinance or the or the zoning map that kind of the process for
that also uh enforcement of the ordinance and then the definitions chapter so that's kind of what's going to be looked at tonight uh at the Planning Commission level uh there's some uh component of the ordinance that
would need to be reviewed by uh the state because they pertain to State rules so like Shoreland would be one uh flood flood plane flood Hazard areas would be one uh feed Lots would be one as well I don't anticipate a whole lot
of comments on any of those from the state just because a lot of the work that was done uh in those three in those three areas was to um amend the current ordinance to better
match the state rules so like a feed feed Lots is a kind of a perfect perfect example of that just looking at what's in statute and what's in Minnesota rules and making sure that our ours matches what that is and I know that that's been
kind of a desire uh uh the of the Planning Commission to to make those changes so we're more in line um with the state uh State Statute and state rules so that uh after that I think there's a possibility that there might
be a County board workg group session um that would have to be called by the chair but I know that's been been floated as as a possibility and otherwise it would just go then to the board for they can hold as many kind of
public hearings on it as as they want um once we kind of go through that if this board is interested and if we have a um light schedule for February I'm happy to dive into more
detail um in February yes yeah I would I'm hoping that by April they would be be out so yep that's my hope that would make this an exactly 2year project
so yeah any questions at all this is all online as well so um it's all on the County website and it's should be pretty easy to get to if
you just go to Clay count mn.gov um it should be in our Spotlight yes right here look at that and if you click on that it it'll bring you to this page where you can basically read a little blurb about it and then to
the actual draft I's see Klay County's is 12 12 or 2012 is when it was last done yep uh how often does the state do it well the state I mean State statutes and state rules are kind of updated as
the legislature sees it um so sometimes we'll have to do an update or an amendment to the ordinance because a rule has changed or a statute has changed and so we'd want to update our
to some sort of significance yes yeah yep MH yep so it's it's kind of done like for example a prime example of that would have been um when uh cannabis was was legalized and they were setting up
the um basically the um regulatory framework for um both the use of Canabis and then also the um propagation um production sale of
cannabis we over the last summer update amended that 2012 ordinance to incorporate um that because that was a big statute change at at the state level so yep so the last time that it was it
was a major overhaul it's been amended many times since then but um since 2012 but the last time that there was a major kind of I would say overhaul to the entire code Land Development code was in
2012 it's not like so many years and they do it and then the counties try to follow suit to adopt new stuff NOP there's no really set schedule from the state like Shoreland rules haven't really been updated since the 90s
yep so any other questions at all moving on to new business um I guess the only thing that I would say for new businessle a couple things um I
know well Joel with you uh it's um kind of serving as our interim chair here uh there will be uh elections on the Planning Commission in February um
so in March we'd likely have a new board chair which very well could be Joel um and so look for that in March um I think with that too I'm happy to um or if you
feel that it's been beneficial to keep doing those that we do like a little training every now and then where we'll look at past cases past variances and um we can definitely keep keep doing that I think that's been beneficial so
okay all right unless we get as many variance requests as like Becker County we can keep doing those so y and other oh the only other thing I might add is that there's with um Ezra beay now being the
commissioner uh there's an opening for a rural resident on our Planning Commission as well yep they meet at 7 yep I think that would be beneficial yeah yeah
yep so if anyone is interested or except Tim I know you've already kind of Tim served his time that was a good endorsement of the planning that would the Planning Commission is more involved with uh decisions
regarding um the conditional or inter interim use permits um and making recommendations to the board on zoning map amendments and changes amendments to to our zoning ordinance as well
yeah yep you ultimately kind of have that that body is kind of the deciding body on some of the more major land use decisions that happen in Clay County please be sure to use your microphones if you're involved with like
developments and stuff like that how do you how do you how would you avoid conflict of interest so in statute if you're involved in developments um you technically wouldn't be able to serve on the Planning Commission at all no oh okay so i'
probably be out then y however there's been realators active realators that have served on yes Planning Commission so it what is your definition of a developer I can see a realtor that be more
vague but uh I intend to be involved with actual development of land in the future y best is steer clear oh you are Rural and you are east of nine I am but so you're in West
Becker so you qualify I don't need no fingers getting pointed at me for yeah I would say it's if you're actively involved in development have been or are interested in doing so it's probably a goodidea idea to yeah that
goes before that that's yeah a lot of those decision development went before them didn't it is that y okay yeah yep yep any other questions for me at all all right okay hearing uh no
questions and no other business uh look for a motion to adjourn to approve motions made and seconded to adjourn all those in favor say I I I opposed motion is carried meeting is adjourned