She's listening. >> Okay, great. Well, I'm going to call the meeting to order and we're going to start with Pledge of Allegiance. I >> aliance 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. >> Okay. Do we have a motion to adopt the agenda? >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion?
If not, all in favor say I. >> I. And opposed. >> So that motion passes. And next up, we're going to have Susan Urkl. >> I'm so used to saying I or nay. I said that I'm like, "Oh my gosh, what is Hi
everybody. I'm Suzanne Cole, city council member." Um, I'm just here to update you on the last month's city council meetings, which have been pretty light actually. Um, we went over the budget, which is a big heavy thing that we're working on right now. That's a big
issue. Um, one of the issues that we are trying to resolve is some of the fees that residents have to pay. We talked about booster days and um how that went and thanked everybody. The seniors has invited all of you hardworking uh
commission members to our night to unite which is on the 4th from 11 to 1 over at Booster Park. So come on over, say hi to us and have some free food and good homemade food. Um we did approve the concept plan
for the Soder District. Um, let's see. Anything else? Uh, the airport is still looking for volunteers for their uh big Discover Aviation Days next June. So, if anybody wants to network with any of those people, come on. Well, the meetings are online, but some of them
are in person. So, u let me know and I will get you connected. Um, and the last thing, the voting for primary is open. people can come in and um do early voting right now. For mayor, we have Adam Miller, Joe
Ryder, and Arty Anderson running. For council, we have Tammy Gimple, Tim Miller, Jim Smith, Mark Duchain, and Dino Peretti. So, any questions? >> All right. Well, thank you so much. >> Thanks so much, Susan. Susan.
>> All right. The next thing is the approval of minutes. Does anyone have any corrections? Um I there should be a correction on line 35. It's got uh the liaison as Mundle opposed to Urkl. So we'll need to
correct that. Okay. Any other corrections? >> I did not see anything. >> If not, is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. >> Have a second. >> Second. >> Okay. Any discussion? If not, all in
favor of approving these minutes say I. >> I. >> And opposed. That motion passes. The next thing on our agenda is the public hearing for short-term rentals ordinance. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I have a
brief PowerPoint to kind of go through that that certainly planning commission members have have heard mostly me ramble on about before, but I'll I updated a few things, but um, we'll just
go from there. So again, tonight the planning commission is holding a public hearing about the possibility of adopting at the city council considering adopting a ordinance related to short-term rentals. Um in order for cities to pass ordinance amendments,
additions, changes, what have you. It varies a little bit from city to city, but fundamentally um because it relates to land use and some of those uh parameters that you would have to have a public hearing on those uh law changes.
So that's the purpose of tonight and ultimately the planning commission would make its recommendation uh to the council. >> Excuse me. Can everybody in the back hear Mr. Johnson? Okay. Okay. >> I'll move my mic here. I don't know if
that helps, but anyway. Um, let's see. So, I talked a little about the intention of tonight is to gather public comment on the proposed ordinance. Planning Commission will receive testimony and may recommend revisions um or the the concept itself to the to the
city council. Tonight, we're referring to the 724 uh version um as presented. Um and no final ordinance will be adopted at tonight's meeting. Um a little bit of background. Uh the
city council um began discussing the possibility of some ordinances related to the regulation of short-term rentals about April 2026 and directed the planning commission to explore the background the regulatory
framework. Um and they did that um back in May. They looked at what other cities uh do um concept about how it would be permitted and what uh size and scope of homes could be used and number of people
and such. Um so that was part of the genesis of how the version that's out there now uh came to be. So they then scheduled a public hearing for tonight that was in the city's newsletter. It was in the in the newspaper and then certainly be posted in various places.
Um, so, um, ultimately, if the city council adopts something, the new ordinance would only become effective once it was published. So, what's a short-term rental? I think we all kind of have a rough idea what those things are, but in in the general terms, it's a rental of a dwelling for
less than 30 days. We kind of understand those to be Airbnbs, VBOs, and some of their platforms. different from uh long-term rentals such as um probably hey I have a home I'm going to rent it out to a non-transient um
resident rent my house or rent my apartment for 6 months a year typical lease certainly different from hotels motel or or bed and breakfasts um hotels motel and bed and breakfast I think we all know but in bed and breakfast obviously you have the the the element
of serving a meal with those things. Why does it matter? Um in a lot of cities and including National League of Cities, it's identified as emerging land use issue. Um certainly it can provide income and tourism uh for th those owners and operators. However, it can
create conflicts of residential neighborhoods. um uh especially when excuse me uh can create conflicts in residential neighborhoods anticipated for owner occupied status areas. So um when you have a number of
homes that were most of our homes that were owner occupied, you have now people that are there only on a short-term basis and they may not view that neighborhood the same as as the resident does, so to speak. and the need for clear standards to protect residential
neighborhoods while allowing responsible short-term rentals to operate because certainly there's great operators too. Common concerns of these are changes the nature of the neighborhood from owners to long-term res and long-term residents to vacationers. There's noise and
different activity levels, um guests and parties, parking and traffic impacts, a party house or event type use which are which is commercial property, which is typically not allowed in your residential zones.
Um, we have reports of of weddings and parties being held and rented out for bigger events well beyond the scope of a of a Airbnb or VRBO thing. Certainly, absentee ownership challenges. Um, and
ultimately it's always a difficult thing to enforce either even it's just an interpersonal enforcement, but sometimes how does the city know what's going on on an immediate basis? You can't. So, it's always dealing with after the-act complaints. So, these are the common
concerns that many cities are dealing with or have dealt with. Um, in East Bethl, short-term rentals are not directly addressed in our code. Certainly, it's an oper it's a regulatory gap. We have about 20
listings identified um through publicly available rental platforms. I just looked at VBO and Airbnb and certainly there's some overlap and many tend to be focused in
around the Lake area. Um so there's no consistent standards for operation and certainly we've had had complaints Why is it different here? Um maybe in versus uh more urban areas. Um
East Bethl has a rural and semi-ural character which draws people out here. Of course, you have larger residential lot sizes. Most homes in the city are operating on septic systems and wells. A short-term rental can easily exceed that
capacity. Um impacts can vary by property location and size. A small lot on Lake will might have very different neighborhood impacts than a a 10acre parcel or even a halfacre parcel. Again, these are just some general
generalities. Many communities, what are other cities doing? Many communities regulate short-term rentals similar to what East Bethl is contemplating here. approaches include licensing, an interim use permit or conditional use permit, hybrid models where one's an
administrative license, another one might require council approval. Um, and they treat short-term rentals as a distinct land use impact versus other rental forms. Um, what I mean by that is, um, it's transient housing versus somebody
that is there for six months or a year where you wouldn't really know that it's a rental. short or long term. Um so in the model we're talking about tonight is a hybrid regulatory model where uh somebody who
wants to have a short-term rental um they could come in and get an administrative license. And our definition of administrative license for lower intensity would be um four bedrooms or less. Um I'm sorry uh three
bedrooms and less. and um that could be issued administratively. However, if they have four or more bedrooms, that would be require review by this or by this board and ultimately approval by the city council. Um
also the intention to distinguish between occasional rental occasional resents, residential rentals and higher intensity commercial style operations. Trying to balance flexibility with oversight. We want to let people kind of
do their own thing. Um, but sometimes you're just forced to have some kind of brackets around things and fees would be set by the city council annually. Um, enough to make them um, noticed, but you don't want those to be
too high. Um, I mentioned a little bit um, see if I might have skipped the page. Apologize. When would an interim use permit be required? Um versus somebody who wanted to show up and and get the
permit from us staff folks. Um when be the more than four bedrooms property would not be is not classified as homestead. So somebody would buy the property as an investment and they would be um presumably renting it out um for
this Airbnb VRBO type use. and then um for more than 120 rental days per year. So the intensity is is known at that point. Um an IUP would be required and involve a public hearing and ultimately city
council review to do those things. The rules that we're proposing have some operational standards, occupancy limits based on number of bedrooms. Typically, cities do two persons per bedroom plus one additional person throughout the structure. Um, they have to park off the
street. Septic system has to have capacity. You only get to rent the dwelling out, not yurts or tents or garages. Um, without, you know, special approval um and the city would want a prior inspection. We're not going to go through it, you know, with the fine
tooth comb, but we want to check for basic life, health, safety concerns, fire extinguishers, fires, fire alarms, smoke alarms, you know, egress windows depending on where they're proposing. So, I think some basic things,
some additional standards, the ordinance is proposing, um, no events or party house activities. So, if you have a uh some short-term renters, they are limited to only having three guests who are not part of the official rental
party. Um PE properties with swimming pools must first demonstrate compliance. There's a lot of statutory elements for swimming pools. Um, and if it's uh used as a commercial operation at that
point or a short-term rental, Minnesota statute requires uh various licensings from the state or county. Um, sometimes people will say, "Well, I'll close the pool." No. What does closing the pool mean? Um, you can
either, now there's some ways to certainly do that. board it up and, you know, put a substantial structure over it. Um, but that's different than just throwing a tarp over it or a pool cover. Um, we the planning commission talked about having a responsible party being within
an hour distance um or the owner um sometimes when you talk to complaintants or there's an issue arise, we want to be able to get a hold of somebody and who can respond. Um, we're asking for some ba basic recordkeeping.
um attendance or number of rentals only to the extent necessary to issue the permit and to track the permit and spacing requirements. Um certainly
residents who live on a street that might be inclined to be short-term rented facilities don't want their whole street to be rented out like that. So, um, one, uh, can only be issued within, uh, if
there was one issued, one can't be right next to it or within 250 ft. And if they do want to do that, then they got to come in and get an interim use permit. Doesn't mean it would be denied, but it just makes that that approval threshold uh, slightly higher for them.
So, being first is probably more important, I guess. But um inspection and compliance, I mentioned life safety, smoke detectors, CO2s, egress. The owner is responsible for the safety. It's not the city. It's not the renter, it's the
owner. Um and in our process, we would have some inspections, I believe, every two years, and there would be revocations or suspensions for non-compliance or a number of complaints. Um, so we want again good good
short-term operators. You know, there there's probably more than we know and they do great. Um, so questions to think about. Again, there's probably 10,000 questions to think about. So, so should short-term rentals be allowed in East Bethl's single family residential districts or
other areas? Does the framework of administrative license or intermuse permits provide an appropriate balance? Are the proposed thresholds, number of bedrooms, homestead status, rental days appropriate? Are the proposed operational standards sufficient to protect properties, neighboring
properties? Should other spacing requirements be uh implemented or certainly anything else you folks um or the public might want to talk about? So, um how to participate tonight? I know the the chair will do a great job doing
that, too. But uh um this is this is the typical thing about not just this short-term rental, but uh any public hearing. So with that, I'll zip it and uh go from there.
Okay. Well, I'm going to open the public hearing for this and I'm going to ask people to to come up and as Mr. Johnson said to please state your name and your address. Um, we're especially interested if you're a resident of East Bethl. And
please keep your your comments um brief and direct. It's not no need to repeat yourself. Often times we kind of get it the first or second time. Um, and if you could please keep your your comments to about 3 to 5 minutes, we we'd really
appreciate it. It's going to be a long meeting tonight, I think. So, we will start. Would anyone like to come up and talk about this short-term rentals issue? Now, I saw lots of people,
so come on up. >> Nobody else is >> you. There will be more. >> Um, my name is Suzanne Peterson. I live at 4820 South Tri Oak Circle in East Bethl. And I think a short-term rental thing is
really important. >> Oh, sorry. Can you now hear me? >> Is it I maybe I need to get closer. I get accused of being too loud, so I'm trying not to be. Um I am not that far from a a property, which is definitely a
problem right now. And we need to have some sort of control as a as a city, as an entity. I love where I live. It's great. I have wonderful people. But, you know, you can't have parties. You can't have crazy stuff. That's why we need the
ordinance. Uh, personally, the sharper the teeth and the more punishment for people who don't respect their neighborhood. I'm talking about owners now more than the renters, that's what I would that's what we need to do because there's nothing in here about what, you know, what teeth the
city has to deal with someone who doesn't want to comply. Um, but in I know other people in other cities talk about they've had the same issues. They have short-term rentals. They turn it into a party house. They do whatever. That's why we have to have it. Let's get
it done. Let's give it some teeth. I love where I live. >> Thanks a lot. Do you mind if I ask you a few questions? >> Oh, absolutely. >> So, um, did you get a by chance get a chance to read the ordinance? >> I did. >> And did you have any comments? Um, I think it is thorough and fair and I
think, you know, in keeping with the residential neighborhood where I'm at at least, we want to keep it feeling like a residential neighborhood, not a not a commercial district. Uh, I think it's it's very thoroughly done. I think it's fair because, you know, we do I like the
idea of extra uh restrictions on bigger houses that, you know, just because it would have a bigger impact on the neighborhood, but I also want people to have the ability to rent out their houses. I get it. You know, we all look for that.
>> Any other more questions? >> No, that was great. >> I I have one I Okay, go ahead. So the one that's by you, how often is it rented out in your just estimate? >> Oh, from before Memorial Day till after
Labor Day. Sometimes it's only, you know, like lately it's been, I think, longer term ones that are like a week instead of a day, >> but we've had weddings there. We've had postp prom parties where they park up the streets and there's trash. I've come home after dark and of course we don't
have a lot of lighting there. I love not having a lot of lighting. The problem is you got 10 people who don't live there who are walking in the middle of the dang street at 10:00 at night, you know? I mean, that's not okay. >> So, you think that it's used more than 16 times a year? >> Oh, without question.
>> Okay. >> Yeah, it's used a lot. >> Yeah. >> I I can't, you know, I live So, I live about a/4 mile away cuz I'm down on the on the point, but I walk the circle every day, so I know I know when people are there. It's one of the best things about the neighborhood. We have so many
walkers, so many great neighbors. That's probably why we are aware and why we'd really like to see some kind of control for people who are not respecting our space. That's not okay. >> Christine, >> uh yeah, just kind of to kind of follow
up with that. So it so what is the your biggest kind of, you know, grievance right now as far as what you would like to see to to change? >> I would like our neighborhood to remain residential. I don't. So, I don't have a problem if people want to rent out their
property to a couple people or whatever, but the people who are renting need to respect our neighborhood. They need to respect us. Fireworks at 2:00 in the morning, not okay. Drunken people walking down the street, not okay. Parking all the way up and down the boulevard. And so, you know, it's not
like you can't get by. But, and then I' I've picked up trash a little bit. It hasn't been terrible, but you know, you walk by. I mean, I pick up trash every time I walk around the block. Well, I come by there and there's, you know, 10 15 things to pick up.
My neighbors aren't pigs. So, I just want I want our neighborhood to retain its beautiful residential respectful character. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you so much. That was really fabulous. Yep. Thanks. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Who else would like to come up and talk about this issue? And as you get started, if you could just give us your name, please, and your address. >> I'm uh Dave Sakowski, and the address is 19519 East Front Boulevard Northeast.
And I live directly across from the event center. So, what only bothers me is your mouth. >> Want me to start all over? Anyway, I live directly across from the event
center and uh for sure every weekend uh it's very very noisy. People don't understand how their voices go across that lake. And >> they um when you say event center, what what do you mean by that? >> The event center? Well, I'm saying about
the big house across the water. Oh, it's a a VBO or Airbnb. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. The same that this lady just talked about. Same place. >> And uh anyways, we uh we're not allowed to uh put our air
conditioner on. So, we leave our windows open. So, at night it gets very loud and we like the breeze coming in from the water, but we don't like the noise. So, that's about all I have. >> Okay. >> Any questions? Anybody?
None. Okay. >> Okay. Thanks so much, Dave. >> Thank you. >> Hello. >> Hi, my name is John Gowski. Um, I own property on Tri Oak Circle at 1 19526, 1 9534, and 1 19542.
My properties are right next door to a VBO at 1 19520. Uh the one property has been in my family for 76 years. I've lived in East Bethl Bethl for 30 years. Um the PRO
property um has become a real issue for me and my family over the last 3 years which has prompted me to get to know all of you guys, how the city works, how ordinances are established. Um, we've enhanced our property, done a lot of things, all under the spirit of is it
reasonable, is it unique to the property, and does it change the character of the neighborhood with anything I've done. So, that's the perspective I look at this with. We need a short-term ordinance and code for short-term rental. There's a rental uh
code now, but not the the the one that Eric's proposed. So, we needed that and it should be consistent with that. Guys, you could say that I'm one of the people that's most affected by uh everything that Eric listed about what's wrong with the property um and how disruptive it
is, how it's invaded our beautiful place. But anybody here who's against this or for it shouldn't be here talking about what it means to me. It should be here. You should be here for your own and for the future of East Bethl because it could happen to anybody here where
private equity or somebody could purchase a property and create a party house, a bachelor party event, so on so forth. It's a real problem and we need to have the code established um and enforced. So that's why I'm here. I do
have some comments about the the draft um that Eric has proposed. The first one is that on Lake in specifically or any lake within uh East Bethl, I don't think short-term rental
should be allowed at all. There are many cities and lakes that don't allow it because when you live on the lake, as some of you might or you have lake property as some of you might or you've stayed next to a resort or a
campground, a lake is a little bit different place to live with uh property lines, with activity, with people, with everything. It's a different set of circumstances. So, my first comment is shouldn't be allowed on the lake at all.
My second uh comments have to do with some of the specifics in in the subdivisions, Eric. Um and they relate to the number of people that can rent a
short-term place. Um, so code subdivision 2A and 3A, Eric, you referred to splitting up, having a hybrid approach where you can rent your home with the
homestead. If you have four bedrooms or less, um, which according to my calculations here would could total seven people. um plus one or six or four
renters or eight renters plus one plus three you have 11 people. I think four bedrooms is too many. I think it needs to be three. That would put your maximum total of people at a rental property at
nine. Okay. So the one I think you um number 2 a that should be three is what I'm suggesting. three or fewer and then 3A for the interimm use permit
which is a different set of qualifications non-h homesteaded so on so forth um you know that that would be you know that would be four four or or more um however the extra guests uh I think would be should be should be two
um on that one so you'd have a total of uh 12 people plus depending upon the number of bedrooms uh of the homestead that the septic system can support. So, I've just scaled down the number of
people um that can do the short-term rental versus an interimm use permit, which is a different set of circumstances. Those are my uh a couple uh comments about the changes. Uh, subdivision 4.7,
adequate off- streetet parking shall be provided. I'd like further clarification as to what that means. I don't know what that means. Does that mean I can park 48 vehicles on the grass or what does that mean?
Um, the other comments I have about short-term rental licenses being issued as well as interim use permits being issued for this purpose is how does the license become revoked when
there are constant issues and complaints? How long does it take? And how are codes and code violations enforced in East Bethl? And how much time does it take?
Those are my comments. Happy to answer any questions you have. >> John, thanks so much for doing so much research and and your comments. Does anybody have any questions? None. Okay, you did it really well. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Thanks. Thanks for coming. >> Okay, who else would like to speak about this? >> I'm Dan Sherping and I live at 21835 Zro Street. I have a concern about property. The house is built in a swamp on Zumbroa
and 219th and you got about eight renters in there cars parked all over the street. >> Is that a is that a VBO or Airbnb thing or is that somebody that's doing long-term rent? >> Some old guy rented or rented it or bought it, but he has all these people
staying there. >> Okay. Yeah. And I think that this is kind of different. Would you agree, Eric, that um are you familiar with >> what kind of rental agreement he has? He doesn't have any. >> Well, >> go ahead.
>> Um, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, the issue there may be they do need to secure a typical standard rental license from the city. So, if can you tell me the address again?
>> No, they don't have it on mailbox. It's on it's on 219th in Zumbroa. on the west side of Zumbroa going south but the direction is still west and plus they tear the hell out of Zumba
to see it with forward but that's got nothing to do with this >> okay could I get your Could you just come over and I can get your name and I can >> I got it right on here >> okay >> is your phone number on there or
>> you check that out what about cars can you talk about cars worked with no license license and tabs, >> right? And those are things that you just need to um deal directly with the staff on. And it's I mean great that you came up here >> um to bring this up and now you you know
that Eric or um can you talk about cars? >> I'll talk about whatever you want at the chair since it's appropriate. >> 219. I don't know what the address is 2735 or 2755. It's hard to read that, but there's some foreigners living there and
there's about eight cars in there and I'm sure most of them aren't licensed in the same way that the one on 29 and Zamroto that should be all checked out too. >> Okay, Dan, it's really important to bring that um during business hours because this is a different issue than
what we're talking about. But it's all good >> that you brought it up. >> I just let you know. >> Thank you. To >> or to council. Yeah. >> Oh yeah. >> Okay. >> Thanks. We have another volunteer. >> Hi, my name is Marlon Sanvic. I live at
146 King Road, Wyoming, Minnesota. That's Lake Beach area. And as a lot of you know, we have a lot of people out there that also own two or three, four properties. And we do have problems with my basically what I am. I'm the property
manager. So, I'm in charge of everything. the Lake uh dock spaces and the clubhouse and everything. So, um, I'm pretty much involved in a lot of this stuff and I get a lot of people were concerned that these people that have two or three homes, they're renting them out like you said to I've been here
and here renting till who knows what and I hear a lot of it come to me about this cuz I'm kind of oversee all this that you know people are having parties down on the dock space cuz if you know anything about that area, everybody who lives there can have a can rent a dock
space there and we have people that own these places and they just some of the places aren't the best places in the world and they just kind of rent the place out so the people can get a dock space and I have a lot of complaints that um people that as you
said they shortterm they don't care what they do to our property you know they come down and they have parties out on the docks and they leave their cans and this and that all over so we have quite a bit of that in the Lake Beach area and we have B&B and some people don't like that
cuz they have two sides and they rent them out and so we do have that problem. >> That's really interesting. >> Um not good for you but interesting to hear that that even happens. >> Yeah. >> And >> so it's uh you know I know I've know
about three or four people that own probably four different properties there. And I'm not saying people all bad. It's like you said, it's but a lot of them are shorter term, you know, maybe 6 months, a year. And I think some places maybe just rent them out for the
summer so these people can have dock spaces. >> Um, everybody, if you know, everybody who wants they want to live on the lake >> and whatever they can do to get on the lake, that's what they're going to do. >> Okay. So, these are these are more long-term rentals that you're talking about. >> Yeah. Some of them I'm they're longterm
until they're bad and they can turn out to be shortterm. I mean, you know, they just rent them and all of a sudden, you know, people uproar because, you know, they're leaving stuff cans and they're having, like you said, they're having parties and all that. So, we we do have that in our area as some of you guys know.
>> Mhm. >> So, I just kind of wanted to bring that up. >> Okay. >> To let you guys know about that. >> Did you happen to get a chance to look at the proposed ordinance? >> No, I didn't really. just read this and decided to come here and was pretty interested in it cuz I have a lot to do
with what happens there. So, >> so, but um I'm glad we can do what we're trying to do to clean some of this up. >> Mhm. >> And that's that's what we need in our area because that's a nice area and we love our area and most of the people
there are concerned about what we do and and enjoy living there. >> So, >> great. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Marla. Does anybody have any questions? >> Did Did I understand what did you say that they're not necessarily renting a property? Well, like staying at the property, but they're renting the
property so they can use the dock. >> Yeah. >> We have we have a few from there. >> Okay. >> I mean, who are we? Like I said, who are we to say, you know, that's if somebody owns one, they pretty much can do what they want. That's why >> here we have to decide, you know, how do
we know that? How do people know that? I mean, I just know that because of what I do. >> Okay. >> And that, but yeah, we have we have a few of them um that do that. >> So, do they rent the dock out or they rent the >> Well, they can't they they can't just
rent the dock out. See, the thing is if somebody owns it, if like you own it and I rent it from you, I'll rent it from you, but the house might not be very good and you don't live in it. You don't do anything. You just rent it because you want that dock space to get out on the lake. >> Interesting. Interesting. Okay.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. So, do you have a a lake association that addresses this? >> Um, yeah, we have our our board >> and you know, and um we >> we do, but how much can we do as
>> a community? >> Mhm. >> You know, we have our president, vice presidents like you guys. We have our board. We meet once a month and um we talk about a lot of this stuff, but how much of it is in our authority can we do, you know? I mean, if somebody owns a
house, I mean, can we go tell them, hey, nobody's living in there. What are you going to do? I mean, you know, it's kind of one of these iffy things. >> Mhm. >> So, >> sounds like a whole can of worms to me for >> Mr. Johnson. Wow. >> But I really appreciate you coming.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Who else would like to talk about this? I know a lot of people signed up their names. There you go. >> Yeah. Hi, my name is Scott Sahhatu. Uh
live on 11612. >> Uh 1161 229th Avenue. Um the questions that I had was um I didn't see anything about uh acreage for people that uh have different size acreage. So that was one of my concerns.
>> And then uh also, you know, I I did look up properties in East Bethl for the Airbnb and the Verbo. >> And I did notice that the majority of them are on lakes um >> or on lakes or on Lake. Um, and I
just would uh like to know is has it been a problem or the is is that why that this is being brought up that is it and and if it is a problem is it just concentrated on these lakes on Lake.
>> So that was my questions. >> So personally, do you have any concerns around you or how it might affect you? that I have noticed. We live on 229th and um everybody has a lot of acreage, you know, 5 10 some people have 20 acres. So, we never noticed things like
that. >> And that's why I just I found it very interesting that this was being proposed in East Bethle. And then when I looked it up, I noticed that everything was uh on the lakes >> uh for Airbnb and Verbbo. And I just wondered if it was just issues that have
been commonly coming up with problem properties there on the lake. That's why we're here or I I just wanted to know why we're here. >> Yeah, I think that um you know we'll probably hear some of that tonight and and you did a lot of research on this. So thanks. >> Yeah.
>> Any questions for for Scott? >> Okay. So again I So your question on the acreage are >> Yeah. I just didn't see anything about acreage because like I said in East Bethl there's people that have you know small small lots and then there's people
that have uh larger properties that you know have 20 acres if not more. >> Are you thinking of setting a restriction or >> I would think I would think that if you would have more acreage I would think that there should be a little bit more leniency. >> Sure. >> You know that's that would that's what I would think. >> Okay. Sure.
>> Or common sense would bring it >> bring it to the table that way I would think. Okay, thank you. >> Yeah, >> thank you. Appreciate it. >> Who is next? >> Go ahead. Yeah, come on up. >> It's not quite exactly.
>> Well, come on up though to the the microphone, please. So, as long as they're kind of done talking, I live on Lake. I'm on 3940 Breezy Point. >> Were you guys notified about the development going in on the south side
Ham Lake for the 40 docks? >> Nothing on on this board. We haven't been. >> You guys were never notified by Ham Lake. Well, so this is a planning commission for for East Bethl. So >> I get that. But I I guess the question I'm asking is since they're developing
something on that side so mass I mean how much of East Bethl is the lake? 3/4. >> Yeah. I don't know. I guess that would probably be a thing for the city council if you're going to >> Ham Lake. >> Well, or East Bethl. I mean, if you if you're thinking that that East Bethl is
going to be affected, you could bring it. >> No, Lake's going to be affected. Not not easy. But so that's So you guys know anything about that down there? >> No. >> Yeah. I >> You do? >> If I'll Well, no. >> If I may. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Okay. Um, so no
cities when they do zoning amendments or comprehensive comprehensive plan changes, what have you. Um, there are some requirements that they notify the budding communities. That's good. Um, in most
other cases, if it's not that broad or it's just a development, there's no statutory requirement. They let other their neighboring communities know. So, that isn't something that we probably would have gotten any official notice
on. I've not seen it. Um, DNR probably was notified. >> They were. Um, so you know the the there's nothing that the city of East Bethl is going to be required to be notified about to the best of my knowledge.
>> Yeah, I I understand. I was just curious if anyone knew about had any objections to them putting in that and but it doesn't sound like anyone did here. So >> there's going to be a resort. >> No, a guy on the south side. It's a it's a Halberg. is got a big piece of property in the southside and they're
going to do a large uh wooden dock out to a 40 position dock on the south side of the lake and it's Ham Lakeside so has nothing to do with us or these guys. >> Okay. And we're going to keep the cross
talk off please just because when they're taking minutes um they need to be able to um find out who's speaking and and record it for the meeting please. Anybody else wants to come up and talk about
this or you came to listen? It looks like. All right, I'm going to close the public meeting unless somebody's rushing up. So, the public hearing is closed and now the board here is going to bring up
their questions and have some discussion. So, anybody? >> Um, yeah, I guess the enforcement part has been kind of standing out to me. The the draft is pretty well written,
but I mean, off- streetet parking, you know, I could imagine some of the narrow roads around East Bethl lined with cars because the rental unit is what the the driveway is not sufficient or what. I could see that
being who's going to enforce, you know, I mean, do we need to start registering plates of visiting vehicles and having or stickers or tags put in windshields? You know, I mean, enforcement, I guess, is where I think um the city's going to want to I think we would get a lot more
public support if we showed that this is how we're going to maintain these conditions of short-term rentals. >> Do you have any suggestions for the ordinance? Um, >> not to put you on the spot,
>> no, there was a lot to it. Um, a lot of the conditions laid out uh in the um what was it PC 2610 um addressed um the subdivisions that
were laid out. Uh so, okay. So, subdivision 12 I'm looking at says a failure to comply with all terms of this article constitute a misdemeanor and is punishable by up to 90 days in jail, $1,000 fine or both. Um,
you know, we could add to that stating that the owner uh will sign some sort of a liability um document which will kind of uh put enforcement of those in more or less the the express lane as opposed to uh going
to a council or whatnot. So, I guess that's uh off the top of my head. >> Is that something that you'd like to officially add then to the ordinance and maybe could come up with some wording by the time we get done for changes?
>> Uh yeah, I can work on some wording for that. >> Okay. You know, I as far as the parking, uh, Subdivision 9 does require a map of approved parking areas. So, if we could expand on that, say as
drawn up by the owner and approved by, that might also help um, constrict any sort of conditional or any sort of short-term rental getting out of control, I guess. >> I think that's really a great idea, actually. Um, so with their application,
they need to provide a map of the parking of off- streetet parking. >> Yeah. Yeah, I think that would help. >> What else do we have? Well, I'm concerned with the amount of
use. It got back to our original discussion and remember we started at so many days and then didn't we go to like a hundred and then when I hear comments that it's rented out every weekend and >> I wouldn't want to live next door to one either.
>> Mhm. And uh so that's a concern of mine is that I think the days um I fully agree with the comment about where's our bite when they're when they don't conform. I mean we already have
issues. I could bore everybody to death with my neighbor who has a junkyard and how the city cannot get rid of them or they continue to work on it and how it took a year and a half to get rid of a meth
house 500 ft from my house. And so what is going to be the teeth as the quote was used >> to control this? I think we have to come up with some firm things on that. Um, I don't want to ban
them outright. Um, because I'm sure there are some people that good renters and and good owners and they're used, you know, small, you know, somebody uses it literally for a weekend and takes their family to enjoy the lake. But I do
think we need to have a lot more with parking and bite for the non-conforming side of it and uh a resource for the residents who have problems with these units.
>> I wonder if that's a discussion for city council too, especially on how they enforce >> Yeah. But I I I mean the day thing I mean that that was in the back of my mind when we were talking about this. It's like I say somebody rents something out three times
a year is it's one thing but if it's being rented out 16 weekends in a row or longer during the week. >> Yeah. I don't even know how that works because if you have a house and it's homesteaded, meaning it's your place
that you live, >> then how do you rent it out 120 days? Where do you go? Right. >> When you're doing that in Minnesota. >> Yeah. >> You know, do you know, Eric, how that works? >> Could you could you repeat that? >> Okay. So,
for this to be eligible, it has to be a homesteaded house. This is where your primary residence is. No, it if homesteaded if for um an administratively issued permit. If it's non-h homesteaded, then they
automatically are defaulted into the uh interim use process, >> right? >> Yep. >> But so basically, how do you you get a homestead? I mean, it was just my understanding that this is your place of residence, >> correct? And if you're gone 120 days out
of the year, >> whatever the statute will dictate um as they define it. Um I I couldn't tell you the exact verbiage. I think it's it could be 120 days, it could be 180 days, or
what does the statute say for you? What is your um place of residence is essentially what it is. and um that law could change tomorrow. So, it's really using the term homesteaded generally
speaking is is is the better approach because the state could change what that means. Um I we can look at the ordinance but u or look at the statute but that might be a whole other conversation. Um I think we all generally know what homesteaded means.
um owner occupied your place of residence, you know, uh if it's owned by a third party and just intentionally meant to be a nonhomestead or essentially a commercial operation, well then you you'd kind of know. It's just
and it's an objective tool. Um because any of us can go on the county website and look at anybody's property and find out if it's homesteaded or not homesteaded. >> So, it's a very clear path, I guess. So,
>> when we were talking about 120 days available, does that mean 120 days that it's up on the VBO or Airbnb schedule as available that time or is that mean 120 days occupied? >> Well, that's a good that might be a clarification you folks might want to
talk about. Um, you know, somebody saying, uh, in item in section 3, subdivision two on the screen, um, is available for short-term rental. We use the term for the administrative license is
available for short-term rental, right? >> Not more than. So, it doesn't matters. It doesn't matter that it's rented, but rather that it is available >> on the schedule as available >> or yeah, you've you've got it listed. You've got it um
you thought a little bit about that is how do you how do you track some of that data? >> So simply in a lot of ways you have to take somebody's word for it. >> Yep. >> Part of that recordeping that you're talking about. >> Yep. The only other re real maybe
objective way to do it, you still have to take their word for it is if the city had a a room tax, you know, some I mean that way you can easily back do the calculation and say, okay, there it's a 3% room tax or something like that.
>> Then they'd be responsible to submit to the city that quarterly amount um andor to the state. Um, and then you'd be able to track that data a lot easier, but that's a different question, right? So,
>> I didn't see how much the administrative fee was for the license. >> We didn't we didn't put any any numbers in there at this point. >> Okay. >> Um, and maybe back to some of the other commissioner points if I if I may. Um
>> so um how to think about this? Uh the enforcement piece, you know, it's enforcement's never easy um for for for any kind of anything. Um, and so when we when we
wrote this, we tried to make a clear path for the city attorney and those staff people who are expected to enforce it. We know our legal system has a long
path and that's the way we want it. I mean, I think all of us in another wear a different set of lenses would say, "Yeah, that's appropriate. it's about due process and it's not necessarily meant to be fast. Um but that said, we
want to clarify that if there's repeated complaints under 2B um or nuisance conditions, which we which we define just above that
um and then they failed to comply, the city would certainly send the letter saying, "Hey, knock it off." Say it nicer. Of course, um we'd uh we'd call the person and should they should it should a second
violation occur, well then the city would um seek a revocation of that suspend or revoke that administrative license or earn use permit for repeated complaints and failure to comply.
you know, um if they still then do the short-term rental even after the city revokes it, um then what happens? Well, now you're back into
the court systems. You're back into the legal Eric is powerless. I I can't do anything more than send a letter. It's really going to be up to the the city and the city attorney to document what's going
on, file the criminal complaint, and then that goes back to number four on the screen, charge them with a misdemeanor, 90 days in jail, and it happens. Doesn't happen often, but it can happen.
>> So, you're you're relying a lot on just people's good faith to comply. What else can you do? >> Do you happen to know if Airbnb and V VBO could um refuse a a listing if
Acidius says you can't? >> I understand they do take that input. >> Do they listen? You know, I obviously they're into it to make revenue on it for their listing. Um, I know they have complaint forms and
I know they have those things, but they don't probably care quite so much about what East Bethl has to say. >> Yeah. But there's a vehicle to do that. >> There's a vehicle to do. >> Just like Google will fix the address on my Google map someday, right? >> Someday. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> I wish I could say, "Yeah, they'll listen to everything we have to say." But, you know, you you could certainly try and I wouldn't not do it. Mhm. >> I was thinking about the
the issue of like eight cars parked along a street and why that would be and I don't know if this is practical or not, but the reason that we thought you could have like up to two people per bedroom. We were thinking about families
that wanted to rent this. So perhaps if they needed to prove that it was a family rather than eight bachelors or eight whomever that aren't related, that's a different dynamic and more likely to cause the issues than a family
that is more self-p policing presumably and cohesive than and plus one or two vehicles at most versus eight. So, could that be a
>> You certainly could. Um, and my my my useless two cents of that though is how do how how do we as a city in enforce that from a do we make people bring birth
certificates? Do we I don't mean that glibly, right? But how do we how do we enable the owner to I I think I think that would would help but another thing is if maybe looking at
I'm thinking as I'm speaking a threebedroom one of the one of the speakers talked about maybe reducing it to three bedrooms being the administrative and then four or more being the IUP process because the IUP You've all seen those. You know,
those are pretty elaborate conversations where we'd require site plan, we'd require clear parking, we'd require, you know, all those all those elements. Whereas an interim or as an administrative use is a lot less probably a lot less cumbersome on an
applicant. But a three-bedroom home, how many cars could you really get most of the time? You might get three or four cars and most of the homes would probably have enough space to offre park that. Maybe not all, but probably most.
And >> what's simple for >> I think it's such an easy thing to get around. I mean, if I'm renting one and I want to throw a stag party, I tell my buddies, "Park over here and take an Uber." To me, that the parking the number of
cars is not going to control the event. If people had to write the names of who's renting each time, would that >> Yeah, we do recall. We do, if I'm not mistaken, we do have um >> ask them to
>> um >> That's enough. Thanks, Dan. >> We do ask them to uh keep track of I forgot where I wrote this. um of the occupancy
uh >> subdivision 9 number one, >> right? Yeah. Okay. So, we want to know um occupancy dates, duration, number of occupants, and contact information. Sometimes cities, they'll try to add
things to that list, you know, you get into might have some legal issues with requesting that data from somebody as a condition of a permit. Um, we
I think your point is is correct, but I don't know if we could ask for that data. How do we know somebody's related? How do we know somebody's in somebody's family? You know, what does that mean? It would be more like if there's a problem then you would have the documentation to go back because if a
stipulation was it had to be a family for the multiple occupancy they could get around it but then if there there were issues then they would be have violated that >> and then they just never come back. I mean yeah it's I'm I get it. It's just
tough to do it if you if you some some cities do say uh if you're going to have rental a general rental ordinance um no more than three non-related persons may
cohabitate in a home, you know. So, some cities do have that. Um, uh, could could you use that terminology here? Maybe. Um, >> but it really brings up, you know, what is a family? What's a relation?
>> And I don't know what those things mean. >> Yeah. Glenn, do you have any suggestions for putting in the ordinance? >> Not that haven't been shot down. >> Well, I I don't I think you're right. I think >> I don't know that we're going to come to
I think this you need to table this. I think there's more discussion that needs to be had. I think there's absolutely a lot that we heard tonight. I think for sure that I am I think there should be like a subdivision for Lake or or for the Lakes area. It sounds like maybe
IUP's across the board. If you're going to have a short-term rental in the Lakes area, you have to come and you need to get an IUP. Period. That's just the way it is because these are communities that sound like they're they have very close
they live very close to each other. Um the community is very close. They have limited parking space. They're on well and septic. Um they have other uses. It sounds like there's docks being used. There's a lot of community space. So
maybe in that section of our city that needs to happen in our outskirts, which again it sounds like not a lot of rentals are being happened like you had brought up, uh, sir, that there's there's not short-term rentals that are out there on the acres, which again, maybe there is. I I've someone's got the
horse and something I can go rent. I'd love to do that, but they're renting it on the lake. So maybe we should really kind of have a section for our lakes area and get it a little look at IUPs for those types of areas. I do agree that maybe we could make it stricter. Um
bring it down to the three bedrooms. Anything that is above that IUP. Again, I don't think we're going to get a lot of short-term rentals here. again, unless it's going to be in our lakes area, maybe here and there out in the countries for our um again, you know, uh
a country setting type setting, right? For maybe a I can't even think of anything off the top of my head, but um so I I do think we have some work still to do, but I think we've got some good information
from the community on some stuff. Yeah, I think it's the big ones that are the problem, you know? I mean, if it's just a family that comes in and rents for 2 days on a weekend, they're probably not a big disruption. >> Yeah. I mean,
>> but it's the, you know, >> having events, having >> it it's the disruption is >> Yeah. celebration. >> My buddies on a golf outing 25 years ago and there were 12 of us. You did not want us renting in your hotel. let alone a house.
>> And so we would go rent a house boat to get away from people cuz we could get kicked out of the house boat. But I really think we got to get some bite in the in the lakes area like you said. And and the other side of it is my son and I
and a few of his friends rented a place up by Max cuz we were deer hunting. >> It worked out awesome. Now that so I mean there's a situation where we rented this house that was kind of in the middle of Cucamonga but it worked out great for us cuz it was near where
we were hunting and we probably weren't bad renters until my kid shot a big deer that night. >> But if we had close neighbors it might have been a problem. So I I really think that the lake thing is a great idea.
>> Yeah. >> One thing if I could Um, so in in your city ordinance, um, see if I can make this work without too
much of a hassle. So, I mean, I I I think spending more time on it is, you know, certainly something absolutely you can do um and and probably well worth it. However, try to keep things simple at the end of
the day from an enforcement standpoint um is is really what I would encourage any ordinance to be um you know practical and and uh I'm not saying it shouldn't be but let's see um here we
have your Lake district map's not populating very well. Um and and so the question might be try to make it simple is anything that's within the Lake zoning
would be by interim use permit. Any kind of short-term rental is only by interim use permit. That way you have a definition. This is what it is. Um, and it doesn't matter if it's three bedrooms, 10 bedrooms, onebedroom. You
don't have to create any kind of new special maps. You simply use your zoning map. Anything zoned. Lake is interim use permit and everything else you could use your other standards.
>> Um, >> if you think that might get to what you're >> what you're thinking about. Um because these are where most of the rentals are obviously is what gentleman had indicated. Um and probably true of
course um another opport another another thing another possibility if it's more than just the lakes or just Lake you the city does have something called the shorland overlay zoning and you could say anything zoned
within shorland overlay is by interim use permit and that would address all of your lakes um lake areas um and so For me, it's just a question about what's the objective tool. Um, and you already have
that. So, just something to think about. >> Okay. Before we move on too far, Gerald, do you have anything that you want to add? >> No, not at the moment. But I do agree with you. I think um I would need to
spend a little bit more time on this. Um, yep. >> So, I'm kind of on the other side. I'd kind of like to to get a recommendation if we can to them, but what other things would or what would you like to spend time on yet? Then I
>> I guess my my only I would like it be to be narrowed down a little bit more. So I definitely want to reduce it to the three bedrooms. Um I do want to spell out some definitions in there so it's more clear. Um so they brought up the you know the adequate parking. That's a
good call out. But again, if we are going to be specifying an area like this, like we've talked about as far as the overland or the the Lake District where it's going to be IUPs, we're going to be able to define all of that specifically >> for the short-term rentals. So, I don't
know that that really is going to need to be defined any clearer because anything else should be have sufficient parking, right? Because it's going to be outside of those areas where there'll be plenty of parking available. Um there was another uh responsible party I think
I saw in there uh that I just had a question about that they yeah responsible party that person's designate designate a party owner who resides within five miles >> I think we did we change that to one hour >> no it was it did say five miles in there
and then later it said 1 hour so at the very beginning it's I had the same question too >> yeah I if I missed that >> so yeah if you just do a search for m five miles or something like that. >> Yeah. Then that's I apologize that's that should be edited back to the 1 hour
distance. >> Okay. Because it's in the definition. So there's a responsible party and then there's I I don't know if that's being the same as the permitter because the permitter can be an hour out
or the permit e and then there's the responsible party. So the responsible party would be the person designated by the property owner who resides within one hour. So I that's one clarification.
>> So it would be like an on call person. >> Okay. So that'll be changed to one hour. Okay. >> All right. Cuz I was like five minutes. Okay. Thank you. Um, >> so Christina, do you still want to to table this and discuss further at the
next meeting or would you like to make some type of motion for the things that you'd like to include for the Lake District? >> Yeah, I I guess if if everyone is kind of in agreement with that, I would I
Could could I ask one question? >> Yes. >> Um so if you think again so you have a a dated version here um on the screen depending what the what's in the handout and what's in your packet
notwithstanding my mistake. Um so this is this is what's attached to your resolution in your packet. um PC2609. Um so in the event you think um that
most of it is is great and good um uh you could adopt resolution PC260-9-09 which this resol this ordinance would be um it's exhibit A.
So if you make that motion for example um and then any edits you want to that would be attached to this resolution. You follow me? And yeah so >> um >> right. So I'm I'm kind of hearing two
things that we want to edit. Um one is Brian's idea about the map and then Christina if you're working on some wording for yours. Do we do we need two motions maybe for those? >> Whatever you whatever you feel
comfortable with. So for example, um a motion to approve the resolution as presented and then a second motion with any edits you want to the proposed ordinance. >> So we would make a motion to approve it
or recommend approval with edits. >> Correct. In effect. Correct. >> Right. So, Eric, can I get back to if a resident has a problem, how do they complain? >> You want to know how it really works or
what do you want me to tell you? >> Um, so in our city, um, we do require them to submit a complaint form. >> So, they have to come in. >> They got to Well, come in and there's some >> fill out the form >> requirements. Fill out the form, >> take the email on the process,
>> all that stuff. But that's really and the purpose of that is so you have bonafide complaints. Now doesn't mean that somebody who doesn't want to do that or just wants to talk to their council member or their planning commission member or what have you.
Those mean those aren't valid concerns. But cities have to have a process about dealing with complaints officially, >> you know. Um so that's that's what we do. Um, see that's why I think we need to really
have more strict rules because if people rent it out and it's a hell week, those people are moved on and gone, the renters. Yeah. >> And though and the citizens had to put up with it. >> Well, the teeth of this ordinance
at the end of the day comes down to really two things. You know, as like anything and here's your enforcement suspension and revocation isn't going to be the threat of revocation or suspension. That'll
happen. Okay. People get a little bit of rope to get their hands around their their tenants or their renters and, you know, knock it off and this and that. But as you get into the third violation, let's just say that's the parameter, which is
probably common sense to say. um the city council will likely revoke that license, likely revoke that, but that's not the problem. The problem is when they continue to rent and that's when you're going to fall
back down into item four um because they're then operating without a license. So, all of the teeth are there. It's just a question of how fast can that unfold. There is really no other teeth
that cities have than what is on the screen. I mean, I'd love to be able to, you know, knock on the door and put up a sticker that says you can't rent this and they're going to listen to me. Well, it doesn't kind of happen like that. Um, can cities
does the sheriff show up again the city uses the sheriff. Does the sheriff show up and start issuing citations to the renters? maybe, but that's a complaint driven that night or that day. Um, and how much leave. So,
it's a tough thing. I mean, it's so it gets back to me on record. Now, that's how we control from being a small rental to a big. It's like we don't have anything in there to differentiate between 10 people and a family of four.
Well, >> you do by the if it's if in the Lake district. >> Oh, >> maybe you say to the maybe another parameter is that $1,000 escrow, >> $5,000 escrow. I don't know.
>> Yeah. >> And people I I I'd have I don't know what the legality is. I would think that's reasonable. Um something the council could talk about. probably should check with the city attorney, but that's one more
>> piece of compliance tool that you could offer. I mean, if it's a hundred bucks, who cares, right? Um, but if it's a,000, $5,000, you know, that you get your money back when you no longer operate and you didn't have any violations. So,
it's not you're not forfeiting the money, okay? You're here's your permit, you give us your escrow. If you don't have any violations in this two-year window or whatever the term is, you get and you no longer want to do this thing. Well, here's your money back.
>> But if you're doing that very occasionally, it's going to take you a long time to cover that escrow. >> Well, I True. >> Do you have any suggestions, Corey, for editing? >> I don't know. I think we got to put
stricter rules on the size cuz I know I know that's the number one problem is the parties, not the little rentals. It's not and the and it's the parties that are
affecting the neighbors. >> So, how do you suggest we do that then? Yeah. Do you have like >> tell them to get a house vote? >> Oh, yeah. >> No, I don't know. I I mean honestly it's such a hard topic and that's where I struggle with making a recommendation tonight. >> I I think it
>> I mean we've got a good start but I think it's such a tough issue but I do know we're not the first city to come up with rules on these. I don't know. most of this most of them there's hundreds of cities hundreds of examples right
>> um in in the ones we looked at if you remember that we first started going through this we tried to pick the re regional you know the planes the inocas you know all the the ones and >> they're generally in the same realm as this really going to boil down to
>> if somebody's just not willing to comply there's not much you can do And then you're into the legal realm, the the the criminal complaint. And that's number four. >> Well, I think the ordinance needs to stand up for the residents that live around them more than the renters. The
perfect example is not one person who rents them came to speak tonight. I would have loved to have heard from one or two of them to hear their opinions and what they do to run a good VBO. So to me we have to the spirit of it has
to be to protect the neighbors >> short of a short of anything else. I mean we can do some research on it but some kind of escrow is an important piece. I mean what is the objective mechanism you can use here that
>> that you know we as a city can can easily say so when they come in for an application you know you know give us your insurance you know fill this form out blah blah blah proof of you know your septic systems in good shape you know all those things oh and by the way
$1,000 you get that money back at the end of this license cycle two years or whatever term we you guys want to come up with that if you don't have any violations, you get it all back. And so maybe they'll think maybe they get one
warning, you know, something like that. Um yeah, but it you have to have a mechanism to make the owner responsible for those tenants because the tenants will be gone. But I don't know what else you could
really do to be honest with you. Okay. Well, let's keep moving. Um, are you guys wanting to make this discussion? Do you want to make recommendations tonight or do you want to continue this discussion?
Mr. Tori, >> I was thinking about the escrow thing and if we are doing a separate or >> I think that should apply to the IEPs which is >> like specifically Kun Lake but not
necessarily to the administrative ones. >> Yep. >> Okay, >> Corey, you're still not comfortable. I can tell Brian. >> Yeah, it's uh these are great points. I like the escrow idea, you know,
something to try and have the the the permites, you know, a little more accountable for the people that they're letting into our community. That doesn't mean it's going to happen all the time, but it's a step in that direction. Um, you know, and I don't think we're going
to be able to weatherproof this ordinance. Uh there's going to be some something's going to be getting through. Um but I think this is a good it's it's a good rough draft. Let's put it that way. And >> and how much discussion is it going to
take to make it perfect? >> Exactly. So are we going to go for perfect or >> do we get the ball rolling? I mean I like the you know with IUP we can we can put some definition in that. >> Mhm. So, uh, maybe that's where we should focus
our attention moving forward with this. >> Jer, >> I have a recommendation which is we've covered a lot of important points. We have a general idea of what we want to do with this. >> If we put it off, the more we put it
off, the the longer the problems that exist currently, they're going to continue. >> Yes. >> So, we could create an ordinance. We could pass it. If it doesn't work, we could revisit it and re work it.
>> Yeah. >> At least we'd have something that can more quick more quickly address current situations. >> And so if we because I agree with that. I was just thinking of that as well. So maybe this is a right a very good point
and Terry same that we should probably get this moving. So we can start working on the issues that are in front of us now and adapt as we go. So how long do we then give the current short-term
renters owners to comply and to now go get a get a license, get an IEP. >> Once it's adopted, we'll send we'll post it and we'll send it to
the known renters as it were and let them know that they have come into compliance and 30 days would seem fair for them to come and make an application. >> Okay. >> Um probably want to give them some
grace period to you know okay these are new rules you know make sure you apply in the next 30 days that'll that IUP process takes a little time too. So, as long as you're in in in the throws of it, the enforcement is not that big a
deal. But we'll let them know in the interim that um don't have violations and follow the ordinance um short of the application. Um otherwise, it really won't help you out when you do get in front of the planning commission. So, we
can put that all in the in the in the in the letter which we would send. Um so, if you Just to piggyback maybe what I thought I heard you folks say is consider the resolution as presented um
with the ordinance as presented. However, um change it to um three you three bedrooms um or less would be potential
administrative permit. Um and everything else over that would be by interim use permit except everything in the Lake district would be by IUP. >> Right.
>> That's what I heard. I think it was >> and and there's a and with the application process to include a map of the off street park. >> Correct. >> So that's what I heard. >> So how come we don't want to do the overland to include the other lakes? I I actually Yeah, that's what I was going
to say. I I would I will make a motion to um except >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, if it's in in an overland district again, it'll be very that then again because we can revisit if it's
overstretching, I guess, right? We can is that something that we if it's >> it's up to you folks. >> Okay. So, yeah, I would like to do the overland district or yeah >> shorland overlay >> the shorland over overlay y as I
>> this is um I'm not sure the process here do we do we do one motion with kind of for those edits or >> you could that's fine whatever you're comfortable with >> okay >> um I will make a motion to approve resolution uh PC26-09
um as presented did with uh the change of adding the shoreline. Sorry, I got to go up and down here. Sorry, I don't have my right classes with me. The shoreland overlay district
where they will have IUP. It'll need IUP uh always >> process >> process for short-term rental. >> Did I hear that you also wanted to be three bedrooms, >> right? as well as amending that changing
it from four bedrooms down to three bedrooms for administrative license >> and the map >> parking plan >> of offite parking. >> Well, that will be with the IUP. So, IUPs will have >> No, no, it wouldn't be with the IUP. So, any
>> any IUPs will have a map. >> They'll have a map. No, but but anyone even the administrative licenses >> u maybe it's just require a require a map demonstrating off streetet parking. >> Yes. Okay. Map requiring off streetet
parking. >> I'm with you. I can modify that. Thank you. Go ahead. >> I have one other potential edit if I may, which is we never addressed a good point of changing guests from three to two. Whether that's something
we want to do as well. >> Oh, additional gifts, >> right? >> Was it three to two? Was it three? >> It was three. >> It was three. Uh gentleman suggested changing it to two. I think it was John. Um and
it seems like a good idea because if people have more than that, they won't and aren't a problem. It's nobody's going to know. But if there are more than that and it is a problem, there's a mechanism >> nonregistered guests from three to two, >> right? Because I mean, you're already
dealing with people that are guests as renters. So, it's almost could be like having more renters in there. >> Okay. So, we're making discussion within our motion here. Yes. >> Right. Um, any other discussions? Let's try this
motion one more time for sure. Okay, we will we'll get this we'll get this all in one, should we? All right. I will make a motion to approve resolution PC26-09 as presented with
amendment of the shoreland overlay will be IUP along >> in cool link district which I suppose all >> it's part of the y >> along with requiring
a map of parking for the administrative license, >> three bedrooms. >> Also amending the four bedrooms down to three bedrooms for the administrative license.
And then amending three nonregistered guests to two non-registered guests. >> That's your motion. That is >> is there a second? >> Other than one where we capped at the
days of 120. >> Are you wanting a clarification? We're discussing now. So, we're just going to have to kind of table the motion for a little bit. You want to discuss this? >> Yeah. Yeah. I I think that's an awful lot of days. I thought that before and I know I was
overruled and I do realize this is just an advisory board and council's going to hear it and can make adjustments >> but again we're going to be able because a lot of these are going to fall underneath IUP we're going to be able to
really is that can we >> well if you think if your ordinance says 120 days your IUP won't be able to reduce that without really good cause. >> Okay. Okay. All right. Then then you
better >> So if you want it to be 100 >> if you want to reduce >> you know you should clarify the number which you >> otherwise they're going to have to give we'll have to have a just reason for them to reduce it.
>> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Okay. What? >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Are you um So, we still have the motion. We don't have a second yet. I will second it. Any discussion,
>> Mr. Dorins? >> Do Do we want city council to consider escrow? >> That's a good discussion. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. Well, 1% of property value came to
mind, but maybe 6 is a little more reasonable. something to that nature. Sure. That that will take into account the >> the number of that the size of the house pretty much. >> Yep. It'll go off of there. Yeah. Good call. >> A property value being the home in the
property. Whatever the assess value is value. >> Uh yeah, we can use the what the county assess. >> Yep. >> The visible number >> or 1%. >> Yeah. 1%. Let's go with 1%. >> Well, so I mean if you have a $500,000
house. >> It's a $5,000 >> $5,000 escrow. Okay, I'm going to play the devil devil's advocate here and say that seems really high to me for somebody who's renting it out for >> 100 days or whatever. >> Okay.
>> Yeah, I just think it's high. >> I would agree. Especially some of those houses could be lot more value >> on the lake. So half a like 5% half percent. >> Uh we could uh remember why are we
suggesting escrow? >> I >> more skin in the game for the person that's renting it. >> Right. So >> to comply with the ordinance. >> Yes. To ensure compliance with whoever is occupying there. So
um point eight I mean 1% I think would scare because it's you know as long as they're dotting their eyes and crossing their tees that money isn't going anywhere, right? But if they're allowing for non-compliance and it's uh an amount
that's no skin off their back then it's really not >> leave it with council. I like it >> serving its its purpose. >> Yeah. But again, just arguing on the other side and not that I'm thinking of it at all, but let's say I wanted to to
do this with my property for me to have to put up a $5,000 escrow. That's a lot of money for me for my my VBO that I might be renting 10 days a year or something. It just doesn't seem reasonable from a point a business point
of view to me. Also, so you could have one bad renter >> and you didn't want that bad renter, but you could have one person that just creates a problem and then you lose that money. >> Mhm. >> Even though it it's not like you didn't
care. I mean, you just you you trust to their renter and they do something that violates the ordinance and then then you're out 5,000 or 8,000 or whatever the percentage would be.
>> So, there should be some balance. So, it's not honorous to the renter either, >> but it has enough to have them motivated. >> Thank you. That sounds awesome. Well, >> I think if you >> But for Excuse me. I apologize. If you
>> Go ahead. >> $1,000 probably would be adequate. I would argue. >> I I think the the the purpose of the of the escrow, which we deal with in the public a lot of ways, is
you're not going to solve a whole lot of hunks, but you want them to pay attention. and $1,000. I mean, if somebody's just going to thumb their nose at it, well, okay, they win. But now they're forfeiting $1,000. It's it's symbolic in a way. Will it hurt their pocketbook? Probably not. But it's
certainly symbolic. Um >> it's reasonable to me. >> Yeah. And or maybe it's maybe it's $2,000. Um but um in terms of non-compliance or penalties, we we would come up with a process that
they're entitled to. So the first violation, they're not going to lose their money. I don't think we want to do that either. It's is it is there a systemic problem with the with an operator that, you know, we would give them plenty of warning say, "Hey, you have an escrow on the table, right?
>> You're going to lose this, right? if you do this again, you know, so it's not an instant loss. >> Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. And did you want to make an amendment, Brian, to the motion?
>> Um, yes. I would like to amend the motion to include that an escrow is of $1,000 is in place um subject to conditions defined I guess as uh we move forward with the short-term
rentals um you know uh which will be mapped out uh similar to what uh planner Johnson >> Could you say that again? >> That again >> I could you say I didn't catch your last sentence. >> Similar to what uh Planner Johnson uh
was just detailing. >> Um yeah, I had I had heard um the resolution PC2609 um with the Charlotte overlay areas requiring an inuse permit. Four bedrooms to three bedrooms being the the shift
from or accessory, I'm sorry, administrative to IUP except in the Lake. I'm sorry, except in the Shoreland zone. parking requirements with maps, two non-registered guests, and a thousand dollar escort. >> That's the final amendment. Actually,
it's just a thousand. So, we we have that motion. We need a second for the amendment, and then we'll vote on the whole motion together. So, is there a second to Brian's amendment? >> Second. >> Okay, let's vote on Brian's amendment.
Any discussion? All in favor say I to $1,000 escrow. >> I. >> And opposed? So go no. Okay. So it's that motion passes
and then now we are going to vote on the motion that includes the amendment that Christina had put on. Any discussion? No. Okay. All in favor say I. >> I. And opposed.
>> Okay. And that motion passes also. So, >> all right. So, we'll take it to the council. >> Okay. >> We'll let them chew on this a little. >> Yeah. True, true. I really want to thank everybody for coming tonight. I mean, it's it was great for to hear all the speakers and thanks for listening,
everybody. So, we've got more fun if you all want to uh hear how a planning commission meeting goes. So, the next item is going to be a public hearing on soda storage. a conditional use permit and site plan
review. Thanks everybody. >> Good night. >> Okay. >> Well, again, good evening everyone. I have my little nose presented so I can't hard to not say that right. Um application before you this evening is a
request from soda storage. >> All right, they're here. Um thank you for your patience obviously. Um is for approval of conditional use permitted site pine review for existing self- storage facility facility located
at 20563 Aberdine Street. And the on the screen you'll see the uh site plan or the the site. Um the quest the request would allow the construction of three additional self- storage buildings together with related pavement, grading,
drainage, storm water, landscaping, lighting, fencing, and other improvements necessary to finish out their project. Um this is this is not a request to establish a new self- storage facility. Um this is located at this
location for many years. The present applications ex intended to authorize a continued operation of the facility and to establish current land use approvals um for further expansion. This this project's a little bit unusual
in its zoning review um and we'll touch talk a little bit about that um later uh is that was part of a nonconforming expansion about six years ago. So we'll we'll we'll touch base on that here briefly. Um,
again, the image on the screen shows the property and the surrounding area. Um, immediately east of Highway 65 north of 25th Street, access provided through the existing local roadway connection serving the property. No new public
streets or access points are proposed for this um application. Surrounding area contains mixture of land uses, commercial development along the highway 65 corridor, um city ice arena um just to the north, rural residential
properties located further to the east and wetlands and other natural um features are present around the property. Um again, the site contains three storage buildings, internal drive aisles, security fencing, lighting, storm water facilities, and other
improvements. Um the additional buildings as we'll talk about will be constructed within the existing development area. Um it would function as part of the current soda storage operation.
Let's see. So, here's a a generalized site plan of the three uh buildings um proposed their access on to Aberdine and um storm water ponding, wetlands to the northeast. Uh
they have an existing treatment pond to the southwest. Um and we're all probably pretty familiar with it, but that's kind of the general layout. The zoning at this site is B2, Central Business District, which is primarily
dedicated to accommodate retail, office, restaurants, recreation, and the like. Self storage is not specifically identified either permitted use nor conditional use within the B2 district. The existing storage is therefore historically operated as a lawful legal
non-conforming use. Um section 46 subdivision 04 however authorizes city council to consider other uses that it determines to be similar um to it uh permitted within the B2 district through a conditional use
permit process. That provision creates the threshold question presented by this application. planning commission. Ultimately, the council must determine whether the app of this particular existing self- storage facility based upon its own characteristics, location, and history
may be reasonably considered an other use similar to those permitted within the B2. Um, so your comprehensive plan, as we talked more about that, um, shows that the property in question is guided for future growth under the
city's current comprehensive plan. Uh the future growth area designation applies to land that may eventually accommodate development in greater intensities such as infrastru and infrastructure and urban services become available. They're generally intended to retain development flexibility while
preserving the ability to accommodate future growth. Um so that's kind of the the long and short story there. Try to be brief as possible for y'all. Um,
the subject property is located again near Highway 65 and has functioned as a commercial site for many years. The current application does not introduce new activity to the previously undeveloped land. Instead, it again, it concerns itself with continued operation. It's important to say those
things a couple times. Um, the approval history here, uh, let me go back to the site plan. I'm sorry. The approval history here, city council in in 2020 approved resolution 20-42 which was in your
packet. That site plan approved uh that approval approved the site plan generally as they're proposing today um and added those three buildings and storage areas. Um however, only one additional storage building was constructed. Substantial portions of the
expansion were not completed. Site improvements, landscaping, lighting, ponding, and other things remained incomplete. Um, the 2020 resolution approved the physical expansion of the site, but it did not change the B2 zoning classification, did not establish self-
storage as a permitted or conditional use. So the property basically continued to operate as a legal non-conforming use even after the partial expansion was completed. So from a planning standpoint, it's kind of a no no why
they did it. There was probably good reason for it at the time. Um but when you have a non-conforming structure, allowing a expansion of that non-conforming use is not a greatest practice. So, we're
trying to get that cleaned up as part of this from a conditional use standpoint. Um, staff believes substantial expansion of illegal non force without resolving it long-term zoning status is again not sound um planning practice. Um, cities
usually do try to end non-conforming uses and end non-conforming land use patterns. Um, I mean, that's what you do. That's why you adopt comprehensive plans. That's why you think prospectively. However, in this case, um
the council did approve this and it's been functioning as a effectively a commercial site for years and we do know the proposed land use um is um for future growth and development areas. So anyway,
um so in conferring with the applicant um this spring, boy, that spring goes fast, right? you know, that was like May or anyway, um, we talked about all of this and we said, "Look, you're probably best to go through a planning commission
process, conditional use permit to get your site into a sense of out of non-conforming standpoint and the CUP would do that. Um therefore they did take the steps to apply for a conditional use permit,
submitted all the paperwork um and thus the cup would would solve all those all of those issues. Um so turning just to the proposed site plan. Um let's see.
I know you've all had a chance to look at it, but for those watching on on TV and YouTube world and um three self three additional self- storage units north of existing
buildings, approximately 38,880 ft of additional area together with new pavement, fencing, um drainage, lighting, and landscaping. Um, these buildings will be incorporated into the existing storage operation.
Again, the pattern of entrance and access to the site remains the same. City engineer has reviewed the submitted plans, identified certain matters that must be addressed before grading and building permits would be issued. Nothing that would seem to be
problematic um for ultimate ultimately being achieved by the applicant. However, an NPDES construction permit um providing additional information on the infiltration basin requiring separation between the infiltration
basin and seasonal groundwater. They do need to update their wetland studies. Um they did do that in 2020. They typically have a 5year shelf life. Um but none of them seem to be problematic
uh to get those things done. um landscaping. See, as part of the city's site plan review, it it does go through a number of things to make sure the site is brought into
its best condition possible. Um in your packet you had a site plan um and a landscape plan and the applicant uh does have adequate number of overstory trees being 20 trees. Um as you see on the drawing in in various spots again I'm
not a landscape architect. I just don't ask me to interpret these things too well. Um they are required a number of shrubs and things to soften the view of them. Um they're a little light on their number of shrubs. Um they should they would probably have to increase those by
about 15 or 16 units. Um certainly landscape plan should be revised to um come into compliance with that but otherwise they appears to be acceptable. um the building appearance
and elevations. Um one of the one of the conversations at the time, I think back in 2020 was when you build your building that they would look like the masonry building. Well, whatever reason it didn't. Um so they built that one. Um
and so the next phase of the next three buildings would match the ones on the left, the the metalclad buildings. Um they they did provide elevate side drawing elevations um in the packet, but
sometimes pictures just do it better justice. Um and again, we have all probably driven past this many times. Um but if you haven't been on the inside, it seems very clean and tidy. There's a gate you can't get in, so I
can't really get in and greatly inspect, but as I peer through the gates, things seem look certainly look fine. Um, however, one some things to think about is um on the pro at the property there is barb wire and all of the lighting is
non-compliant. So, as you see on these buildings, you'll see all these exposed lights. Um, that one's a little better here. And in this drawing, you can see the the the barb wire. Um, both of those, if this were a new project today, would would
not be eligible to be installed. You do have a conditional use permit opportunity now to require the applicant to update all of their lighting on the old buildings and to remove the barb wire element. um on your on this
project. Let's see. To remove the barb wire element, let's there is an arm that's affixed there. They would have to remove that arm and and remove that. So, it's not a while I appreciate they wouldn't want to do that. Um, I think
it's a pass, in my opinion, it's a passonone security thing and really would make that corner um far more visually attractive, especially to the city's um hockey rink to the north. And all again, all of the lighting um is
non-compliant. They did not provide a phototric plan. They don't have any exterior lighting that's on posts. Um so they'll be required to provide a full phototric um and meet the 0.5 foot candle at the lot line. Um but the two
conditions to update all of the lighting um and the barb wires in your resolution. Um so I think in a nutshell that's the the the proposal and the application. Um your packet has a draft resolution
for support um with some basic conditions that you've always probably seen in the past. Um sorry if I have put that in the packet. Yep. So these are these this resolution is in
your packet. As I mentioned, the the the number of conditions that um are expected um to comply with meet all the city engineer requirements and satisfactory to any permit issuance. Um wetland
reviews and requirements shall be met by the applicant. Storm water management improvements shall be completed in accordance with approved engineering plans. All landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved landscape plan prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy for any buildings. So what that means is
they got to do all the work, not one building and then do the rest later. No, it's all of the landscape. Get the storm water stuff um completed and and the like. Um all current and proposed exterior lighting brought into compliance. All
barb wire fencing removed. Um any future expansion or modification would require um city approval. Um again it's by conditional use permit. So if they violate these, not that they would, you could claw this back for good cause
um and they'd still have to come into compliance. So anyway, that's a mouthful. It's a good project. It really brings the their facility into conformity with
or out of a non out of a legal non-conforming status. >> So that's the staff recommendation >> and that's it. Eric, do you happen to know where that
resolution from us would be? >> 116. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thanks, Christina. >> Okay. Eric, anything else from you? >> No. No. I'll find that for you. Okay, got it. Um,
I'm opening the public hearing for this issue of soda storage. Does anybody else Does anybody want to come up to the podium and talk about that? Okay, come on up. And if you haven't
already, sign your name and your address up on the sheets. You're coming up close together. Does that matter? Um let let's start separately to start out >> explain
builders or the owners. >> Mhm. Okay. The the thing that when when we have two and especially three people out there, it's really hard to keep track for the minutes and people tend to walk away
from the the microphone also. So >> Okay. >> Hi. >> Hi. I'm Rob Lind and I'm representing them as our project manager on this project. >> Um, first I just I think you guys are aware that this was an approved project back in August of 2020. The entire site
plan was approved. It was approved with four buildings, not just the one that was built, but it was approved exactly how it was shown with the landscaping and the fencing. The fencing's done. Uh, the landscaping wasn't done. Um, there was never a lighting plan that was
requested. So we did everything or the owners did everything that the city asked them to do at the time and it's a legal non-conforming use right now. So we are you know taking your recommendation and applying for a cup to kind of clean it up but you know a lot
of the things that you're asking seem to be kind of excessive based on the fact that it is an approved site plan. Um like the fencing is done so to remove the barb wire just driving here there's numerous places with barb wire. Typically when a site plan is um
approved and there's other phases you don't go back and remodify the site plan phases can be done and this I mean my understanding is it was approved as a site plan and one building was going to be built multiple other ones going to work were going to be built later and
there was never a timeline on that either. So it wasn't said that you know you have to build all four buildings now or this is going to expire in 10 years or anything like that. It was it was an approved site plan with four buildings. No expiration on when they had to be
built. So, um so let's see where else. So, the like the lighting, so the lighting on their um their LED wall packs, they're actually the same lights that you have on your building, identical to the lights on the city hall. Um, so the
lights between the buildings there's 30 ft and and I know you want like full cut off lighting is kind of the recommendation. So um they're on one side and they project so they you know um light up that entire 30 foot uh
between the buildings. If we had like full cut off lighting now we have to add it to the other side of the building too because they're going to just be you know they point down. So it's it's a lot of cost. I mean, just to just to bring in the lighting up, you know, I mean,
we're probably talking $15,000. Um, the fence is complete and it was approved with the barb wire. So, it's not like we need to do anything more with the fencing. The fence where it is is exactly how it was approved in 2020. Um, so if we had to redo the barb wire,
it's removing those top caps, but to take that top cap off, now you have to take the entire top rail off. So it's not just pulling the top cap off, putting all new top rail back on, new cabs. So again, it seems excessive. It seems like that some of those things should be grandfathered in already since
this was an approved site plan in 2020. Um so the wetland um I know there's an issue with the wetland being o the delineation is over 5 years old and I know that the LGU so the local
government unit can extend that and um I guess we would ask that you would extend it if we provided a letter saying that you know there have no been no significant changes have our delineator do that um they would just say that you know what they do basically I mean things get extended like that all the
time like um you know developments I mean that have multiple phases a lot of them take over 5 years and those wetland delineations are just you know can be renewed or it's up to the local government governing unit to extend those if they want. So I guess that's
what we would ask you to do on that portion of it. Um can I look at my phone because that's where my notes are. I want to bring up everything that I had. Um, so yeah, so we're not asking for an expansion of that non-conforming use.
That legal non-conforming use was already approved. So with the four buildings, so yes, we want to build more buildings, but it's not that we're asking to expand it. We're just asking to be able to build how that was approved in 2020. Um, so the lights, the
the barb wire, the wetland. Um, I know I saw some notes come back and forth how like, you know, the landscaping was never done. Um, there was never an escort created. Um, the maintenance agreement was never
done, but again, I don't think that we can hold the owners responsible for that because they did exactly what the city asked them to do. um they had a contractor at the time and that they hired and they did everything the city wanted. So at the time the city I don't
know why they didn't you know I've done other developments before and like erosion control the city comes out every 6 months and tells me what to fix or if you know with the storm water protection plan what to do. They would never let me get far enough to completion without
having all that done. So again, you know, I think it's it's nothing that they did that we can say that well now we have to redo it all because they didn't follow some of these rules. I mean, they they did everything they were asked. So, um I think that's pretty much
that I have. >> Were you involved at in 2020 then? >> I was not. I've been involved for like two months. >> Okay. >> So, >> cuz I am going to be asking about the landscaping. So, I don't know if the owners want to address that or if you want to. I mean,
when when we did this in 2020, I actually really remember this. Well, and we talked a lot about the the landscaping. >> Okay. >> And so, it surprises me that that it's kind of poo pooed right now that it was not an issue, and it is an issue. >> Oh, I think I think they're not saying that. I mean, they want to do the
landscaping, >> but the fact that >> why wasn't it done? >> I don't know if anybody just didn't make them do it. I guess they can answer that. I mean, I would have assumed that the city would have made them complete it before they issued a, you know,
you know, a certificate of occupancy, but I mean, so I don't know. I mean, so again, I I see that as a city issue. >> Okay. Does anybody have any questions for the >> Yeah. Yeah. We're going to do you first and
then we'll have the owners come up. Yeah, you mentioned about the uh fencing and that's something I'm very familiar with because I play hockey and rep hockey right there. Uh yeah, and the fence on that side of the building is not it's not really straight or it's not
uh good or pretty. Um yeah, >> sure. It might be like leaning a little. >> Yeah. And and for me it was a little bit of a safety because I had to park over there. >> Okay. Um, so that's something um
is something that that that either you can consider. >> Um, yeah. I mean, I think they definitely, you know, fix any fencing that's, you know, in ill repair. I mean, I would assume that that would not be an issue. I mean, I just think the taking all the barb wire down, I mean, should
kind of be grandfathered in since it's there. I mean, we're not adding any. Yeah, but we talking what? 16 years now. >> We're talking So 2020, six years. >> All right. Six years. >> Yep. Okay.
>> So, >> All right. >> Yeah. I mean, I don't know. Does legal non-conforming uses expire after a certain time that that you have to come back and get a CUP? I mean, I would assume that they last
forever. I mean, >> no, they do not. >> They do not. Okay. I don't know. But >> no, your legal non-conforming use lasts forever, but expansions are not guaranteed. >> But it's really not an expansion. >> Yes, it is, sir. It's an expansion. >> Well, it was approved before.
>> Your your your approval in 2020 expired. This was explained to your app to the applicants. You don't have to agree with me, and that's okay. >> How did it expire? I guess that's what I'm curious about. >> Nonfunction. So, if you don't do the project, your permits expire.
So like the So I believe a building permit was taken out in April of 2021. >> Okay. >> And for one building. >> Okay. >> That building was done. >> Okay. >> I mean all the fencing was I guess done back in 20 2020 2021.
>> Um any lighting. Yeah. So I mean again I understand that like the storm water stuff was never done but I assume if they were told to do it they would >> the applicant has the responsibility to perform the to the terms and conditions of the resolution they shouldn't have to
wait for the city to come and >> then again I think we're fine they're fine asking for a cup. We'd like to clean it up too. We're just saying that some of the issues you know considering the circumstances maybe could be grandfathered in. I mean,
I'm I think they're open to pretty much everything. I mean, just trying to clarify some of the history and Yeah. >> I I don't want to interrupt you. I apologize. >> Yep. So, I'm good. Any other question there?
>> I just have a question. So, then the fencing with the picture. So, is the fencing around all four of the new buildings around all? It's around all four sides and it does extend back to where the um
>> if you could put that map up there, I can show you. >> It doesn't go around the last building, but the plan showed it going up to the building. So, I guess when the building goes there, that section of fence would be removed. Um
so, I believe goes right there. >> Okay. And that's already existing fencing, >> correct? Okay. Yeah. So, it would just be that 170 ft when that last building went ran in. And I guess that's the other thing. >> If you could come up to the mic, please. Thank you very much.
>> Yeah. So, and I guess the other thing is I don't think they're wanting to build all three buildings right now. I mean, the I guess, you know, the landscaping, get that up to date, all the storm water, you know, everything there that needs to be done, whatever else you guys
require. But I I think the the goal now is just to build one building. So I guess I wonder how is that going to play into this? Are we going to run into another issue in five years that we can't have to come for approval again or would we just get a building permit for,
you know, the next phase for the next building? >> I guess we'll find out. All righty. Maybe the owners could come up. Um, you can come up, but if you want to both
>> come up together, but please speak into the mic and state your names. >> My name is Lucas Baron, one of the owners of Soda Storage. >> And Dave Nolles, uh, another owner of Soda Storage. >> And were you guys you owned the the
business in 2020? >> Yes. Yes, I I do remember. I think you were were you >> too? Oh, yeah. Uh, okay. So, couple the landscaping was not done. We were going to do that
when the whole project was finished. Um, because it's like peacemealing it, but if you if the city wants it done, we can, you know, because we can't go all we're not going to bring it all the way to the back where the buildings aren't built yet. And then when we first started, we were we were only doing one
building and then we're going to do this. The city said we didn't have to do the the pond until we did the the next building, which was I don't know if that's in the notes or whatever, but um and then >> what's your understanding on the
lighting? Why is it non-compliant? Actually, I kind of remember talking about lighting also. >> We did the light the lighting we did exactly as what uh we were told to do. So the I don't know the thing is about I don't understand the lighting like the
lighting that that the city wants is going to be less lighting in that area which you know we have breakins we have math addicts trying to live in units. I mean lighting is good for that area. I mean the hockey rink's not really lit up very well actually. >> Great.
>> Um but yeah so I I think those lights that you guys are asking for I think they go straight down I believe. So, it's going to be, you know, a darker area. So, I think more lighting is better for keeping crime out. >> Do you remember the conversation, Glenn?
You don't at all. Okay. I mean, I just remember that we the the discussion was about light pollution and maybe that's why the the lights are supposed to be downward facing. >> I mean, they they are downward facing. They're not like whatever. I forget what what the light
>> Well, they don't the lights go to the next building, really. Eric, >> I I your your lighting requirement is is two things. Um so even if even if you discount the
apologize even if you discount the old buildings and you and you build the new buildings you have to come into compliance with the full cutoff and the 0.5 foot candles. So no matter what the ordinance stipulates your all your new buildings have to be
in compliance. The question that I think that we're chatting about is the old buildings. >> So, which would probably cost a fortune. >> Well, I most of your most of your fixtures are probably old on your two
man on your two masonry buildings. Probably about due for it or maybe just put some shielding on them, which probably be actually more of a pain in the butt. Um, but your your power is run already. Probably go to more efficient lighting. probably save some money there
than the high pressure sodium ones you have on your on your masonry buildings. >> So you want less less light. So will that create le's a question will that create less lighting for that facility? >> Well the the question if there's if there's a security issue and there's
strategic points you want certain types of lights >> um then you maybe want to consider putting in some pole lights that are taller and spread light out more than just building lights that are 10 feet or eight feet above.
>> I don't know if we're um at a point where we can even get close to doing a recommendation. What do you guys think? I mean, do you want this discussion to go on or >> I mean, are are you willing to go with
the cup if we make a recommendation of whatever um Eric >> for the for the new building? >> Mhm. >> Yeah. Well, for the whole project. >> Yeah. I think I think the challenge for us too was like, you know, when we did the project before, you know, we had
planned on building one building, as mentioned, we worked with the city and genuinely did everything we thought we were supposed to and, you know, >> we wanted to be in compliance and and we felt very confident and we didn't even know we weren't until we reached out to Eric. So, that was a big surprise to us.
And you know, when we did that last one, we understood that, you know, we didn't have to build the retention pond until we built one additional building, which is what we're trying to do now. >> And, you know, you know, I have to look back in the notes too and, you know, thinking maybe
the landscaping was a piece of that as well, right? Where we as we build it out, we complete the rest of, you know, the project. And we totally respect the idea that the landscaping is a big portion of it and are certainly you know willing to to complete that. >> Yeah. Mhm.
>> Mhm. >> Madame Chair, if you're thinking that table this give the staff chance to sit down with the owners and say, "Okay, let's talk about a a true phasing plan
that will I don't think they want to be back in the same boat with the nonconformity, right? But but if we if we can outline a phasing plan um that is embedded in the cup that says okay you're going to build the
first building but no second building until everything else is done and there's give and take there. Um we could bring that back to you next month with a cleaner proposal. I would really like that because I'm just
hearing that a cop that we um recommend is not going to be acceptable to you the way it is and so why even go through this process right now? Um do you disagree? >> Well, I don't what what's not acceptable to us?
>> Well, it seems to me that, you know, part of the cup was that your lighting was going to have to be replaced. Um >> barbar wire. One of the big things was >> that's up to that's up to you folks to which staff would certainly recommend that
cities do retrofit requirements all the time as part of a conditional use permit. Um that that is a common practice that it is a give and take. So if they want to if they would seek a conditional use permit, which is which
is discretionary on the city's part, um then they should applicants typically tend to work with the city to bring the site into compliance. >> So there's give and take, but we could do we could have we could have that conversation,
>> right? It just seems to me that you know both sides here have kind of come out of the gate with with something attitude and um maybe you don't feel so, but I kind of felt that that you know you're saying that that we were on the builder
at least we've complied with everything we can or could or did and Erica is saying you didn't and >> I just don't feel and we don't want to be adversarial because we want to we want to support business. I mean that's really important to to me as a business
owner. >> No. Yeah, we want definitely want to comply. I thought we were the landscaping I would say for sure. We didn't I mean >> our I think it was like it was going to be finished as we did the whole the whole project. So that but that's >> not what the city said obviously. So
>> what's your schedule? >> I guess I have a just a quick question too. um on that lighting piece, you know, when we went through this before, you know, however many years ago at that time, was the lighting a requirement or no, not at that time, but it is now.
I couldn't I can't speak to what they what they expected. Was there was there a requirement for lighting? Probably. Was the parameter of what the lighting has to be different? Maybe. >> Yeah. Could they did require full cut off at the time? >> Yeah. >> You know, who knows? But it's a
requirement now and again condition those permits are discretionary. >> I guess I would just ask maybe for the consideration of the fact that we went through it at that time with the understanding that we were in compliance with lighting and it wasn't a problem then and as far as we were concerned we had approval to do this whole project
and we didn't find out until a couple months ago we didn't have approval. So, I guess I would just appreciate if you guys would consider the fact that if this all went as it was supposed to and you know before we wouldn't have this lighting issue anymore. So, I guess
that's the only thing I would just you know bring up and ask for some consideration on. >> Yeah. And again, what's your what's your schedule? When did you want to start building the next building? >> Yeah. I mean, whenever we can, you know, work with you guys for, you know, a plan and resolution to to move forward. So, I
mean, we're we'd be ready to go and, you know, we got everything figured out. >> And when are you guys planning to do the other buildings? Because I would hate for you guys to come back again. And we're going through this again. So, you know, I definitely do want you to work as a, you know, a phased plan of how
best to make sure you're not having to go back and redo lighting or fencing and and so forth. So, are we looking in the next 5 years to get these other three buildings up or you know again like what is >> just thinking farther ahead so we're not
like here again >> until they get filled up and then >> sure >> uh and then fill it up. I mean we could have done it a while ago but um rates went up and >> yeah rates went up. >> I get it. Okay. Yeah. cuz I would just hate for you guys to again come back
again and be like you know kind of you know >> I'd say >> blindsided like what we have to do what now again and >> right I would say our we would try to make a goal of like three years >> like build another one and then the final one another so in six years we
have everything is done I'd say six would be very reasonable it could certainly happen faster than that but I would just want to make sure we're >> you know have a little cushion maybe >> okay >> Eric Is that reasonable to have a a >> I mean there's some phasing is important. The challenge is once they
build >> it's the operational piece of it of the storm water and so you know okay you can you're going to have to build the storm water piece in order to build the first building you know because that's when you start adding those imp because right now all of that's grass.
>> Yes. So we understand that like the next building will we'll have to have that. So there's some pieces that are that have to go in, but could the landscaping wait? Yeah, maybe. But the storm water systems probably have to go in first. And um you So yeah, we can. So some
phasing that's clearly laid out. Yeah, you can do that. >> Okay. >> You want to come up to the microphone then, please? >> Be nice, Rob. >> Yes. I apologize if I came. Public speaking is terrible for me. I'm just
very nervous. want to do it. >> Um, so I guess my recommendation would be to do all the storm water, do all the build all the pads and everything because I would say they don't want to come in there with equipment again. So the phasing would just be the actual
buildings, but I mean since you have to do the storm water, I mean all the grading has to be done. You know, grass has to be established and however we build those pads, I think they'd be all ready to go for the next buildings. So there's no more dirt work that has to be
accomplished and then so then the landscaping I guess whatever you guys work out but as far as a construction I think that would make the most sense as far as site work. >> Okay. >> So >> okay
um the rest of the board here do you have any questions for the owners comments? Um, no. I was just the city noted that there had been multi-year inactivity with your previously approved plan. They informed
you of this. >> They No, they didn't actively reach out to us and say that this isn't active. >> Okay. Did they request that you request a a conditional use permit then? Well, when we reached out to Eric, that's when
this whole conversation started and we were actually quite surprised that it wasn't we were, you know, ready to go. >> Okay. >> Um I like the phasing idea. Um what your project manager just laid out, is that
uh is that course of action feasible? We'll have to see. I guess we got to get pricing, you know, for the pads that we're talking about. >> The only thing I guess that would be a question is like actually putting the, you know, two additional pads in.
Obviously, we put one in for the you know, additional building, but just to figure out if it makes the most sense the concrete or the asphalt. >> Oh, just the just the dirt just the dirt work. >> Yep. with the so no more has to be
called. Yeah, absolutely. >> Thank you. >> I do have one question for the the barb wire. What like how did that come into is that a new thing in East Bethl or what what's going on with the barb wire?
>> Okay. Do you want to answer it now or do you want to you're answer the city ordinance um city. I I show it to you, but uh if you'd like, >> it could just be a quick like they just
changed that. >> No, it's about it's I don't know if it's when the final change was probably 202021. bar boy and electrical fences are prohibited. >> So, so if you came in today,
>> yeah, >> you would not be allowed. >> I get it. I just seeing like what >> the >> And so what the city is saying is part of this give and take. >> Yeah. >> Come on up. and tell me about it. You
know something? >> I mean, is the barb wire kind of an aesthetic thing? I mean, like maybe on the, you know, maybe the on the road where you probably have less people trying to get over the fence could be
removed, but maybe the back area that's up to the wet land and the woods bar wire could stay where it's more of a safety concern. I think a lot of it aesthetic from at least in from a staff perspective it's probably >> the road area could maybe be
>> I mean the city has a I mean as people drive through our community as it were um barb wire might not be doesn't necessarily look the it's not that it's not necessary for x reason or y reason
but aesthetically this is this is your community what do you want it to look like Do you remember any discussion on? >> No, this is news to me. >> Yeah. And another one other thing I'm going to throw out there with the lights too and the guys you could tell me if
you know this would be good, but so I know the the full cut off is to you know eliminate the light pollution and so the buildings again there's 30 ft between them and the lights are on one side of all of those buildings and they project
so they light up both sides. So, but that light really doesn't go anywhere because it's stopped by the other building. So, there are two wall packs on the ends of each building. Now, those the light can you know drift into
neighboring property or um you know on the other side I guess it's into the woods and wetland. But if those were switched out to a full cut off, meaning that they're going to direct down instead of out, then it's I mean in a way it's containing the light on the
property because the ends aren't, you know, shining onto the street. >> Maybe as part of the maybe as part of the continued conversation, you guys could develop a a phototric plan that that would show some potential options. Um,
>> yeah. And I I definitely think that those are the that's the place to do those types of discussions. >> So, anybody else here? Okay. Again, um I don't want to come off as adversarial at all. I support you
guys. >> Um it just doesn't seem that we're at a meeting point yet. and if you can sit down with Eric and um hammer it out so that you can come back with a cup that looks good to you and looks good to us. Um the rest of you guys though, I mean
I'm just one voice here. So if you want to make a motion and approve it, um let me know. No, I think um you should uh either you just sit down with hand. Yeah. Yeah. Start it now.
Should we make a motion to table this till the next meeting is >> and I think the length of development and I think they clarified that but >> cuz I mean that's one thing I know you said that well we had approval but the
reality is designs aren't open-ended forever you know they're just not >> and I take a a clear direction moving forward again for for your guys's sake as well like that we have it >> it's it's set out for maybe just you know two more weeks and get it get it
laid out perfectly and then if it does take six years it's still it's written out it's we've got a phased plan >> um we can discuss the lighting you can discuss the the fencing come back and it it'll be >> comfortable for both parties then and it's
>> so we're going to have a meeting with all you guys >> no we'll always talk to Eric Just >> Eric. >> Just poor Eric. >> We need to launch Eric. >> And I think it is a great idea of, >> you know, clean up the one side. It's a good compromise. Lighting, same thing.
Good compromise. I think you can come up with some good plans and >> cuz I mean, you guys do have a nice business. Don't don't be disappointed by what happened tonight because I think it's nice and clean and neat and I drive past it every day and I think that
you'll continue to be that way. >> So, thank you. We appreciate everyone's time. >> Yes. No, thank you guys. >> Well, so we we still need a motion though, I think, to table this. So, >> yeah, >> if no one wants to make a motion, I will make a motion to table this until the next meeting. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> All right. Any discussion? >> Yes. >> Yes. Could you add to that that there's a lot of superolous information that we don't really need to revisit with the next packet on this? >> Yeah. >> Save a tree.
>> Exactly. >> What? >> Yeah. I I I'll do my best to cut it down because you'll have this packet and it'll just be an update. I presume we we'll have a photometric, a site plan, and an amended resolution. >> All right. >> Okay. Wonderful. That's the discussion.
I think you guys have a record um for the longest. All righty. All in favor say I. >> I opposed. So this um topic is being tabled until the next meeting. So thanks guys. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And then the next item on the
agenda you >> wait I sorry I >> I forgot to close the public hearing >> and we're going to have a public hearing now. a series of them and we do these separately then
>> um I think if you're if you're comfortable I suppose if I think about the way I'll talk about this we'll kind of bring them all together and then as you get to the public hearing and maybe as you open it up you simply say in public hearing
about the plat cup and >> yep I would love to do that >> y >> while we're doing the tax amendment first. I apologize. So, we'll do >> good suggestion. >> All right.
I'm I'm way ahead of myself. So, >> see, we're we're saving all this time for, you know, meetings that were short, you know. >> Yeah. Right. Okay. So, tonight the planning commission is being asked to conduct a public hearing to consider a recommendation to the city
council regarding a proposed text amendment section 47 uh of the B3 highway commercial district. City received an application from final approach uh Inc. requesting business requesting that business flex buildings
be added as a conditional use permit within the B3 district. The proposed amendment would establish tenant use limitations, identify prohibited uses, and define business flex buildings. Um certainly in your packet there is uh
exactly what this proposed text amendment is. Um, but I I did put it up on the screen. Um, so they're they're asking for to allow a certain type of building within this within a very specific zoning. In this
case, it's something called the business flex building. That would be allow individual tenant space to be occupied by permitted uses that are already within your B3 district. um and permitted uses within your industrial district except those prohibited and the
prohibited uses would be ones that are are um listed for example self-service storage like the previous applicant um truck terminals, freight terminals, logistics centers, things that are incompatible, create noise, odors and
the like um would not be permitted in these flex buildings. And ultimately it's important that we the city define what a flex building is. In this case the definition proposed um would be a commercial building containing one or more tenant spaces intended for office
showroom contractor and and the related uh uses. These are low impact employment oriented uses conducted primarily within the building. Um some of them are combining office service and storage
assembly um and distribution functions while maintaining a commercial appearance compatible with the surrounding development. So in a sense it's kind of a form based zoning it's a term used that in a general sense cities would say to well you can as long as
your building looks like this we don't really care what you do on the inside. Now, that's a broad brush, but it's kind of what the basis of formbbased zoning is. Um, so this is this is their proposal. It's important to state that this is a
zoning text amendment only. It's not a comprehensive plan amendment. It doesn't amend the future land use map. Um, it doesn't reszone any property. It does not change zoning district um boundaries. It doesn't also doesn't approve any specific site plan, plat,
building, you know, tenant or property specific land use application. You're really just amending your law. Um, so another thing to think about as you consider amending your B3 district for this text change, um, that it would
apply in all of your B3 districts. In this case, um it's not just this one site. It's it's this typically area um within your highway 65 corridor. Um there's not in terms of acreage, you
know, I didn't do that calculation, but you can see the the dark brown colors here um are all your B3 districts. So, um, as you think about this, this text amendment would apply not only in the final approach site, but also in these
other areas. Um, the the the tax amendment would only make these business flex building uh they wouldn't be by right, so to speak, but rather they'd only be allowed by conditional use permit. So they couldn't just do it, so to speak. They'd have to
come and ask the planning commission, the city for a cup, and that would give the city the opportunity to evaluate the specific building, the specific layouts, and would that fit in that in those other areas potentially. Um, uh, you would evaluate traffic,
building design, parking, uh, loading, landscaping, and other compatibility. Um so again it it it applies broadly. So, um, in your packet and then on the screen, this is your actual B3 district.
Talks of what your permitted uses are, uh, motor vehicle service station, your holiday gas stations, your your quick trips, um, hotels, motel, clubs and lodges, taverns and bars, you know, a lot of things, restaurants, retail
office. So these are the things that they can people can already do in those B3 districts um without coming and getting a conditional use permit. Um but by conditional use permit um they can come in and and ask for certain
approvals. One later tonight be a place of worship in the B3 district. Um schools, hospitals, retail, boat sales, you know, research facilities, all kinds of cannabis stuff. So the these are the things that would be by CUP. Um
and then how would this fit into that zoning? I'm sorry, that ordinance would be we leave it to the city attorney to really tell us exactly where it should be placed when you get into the codification. But you'll see things listed as conditional use permits A and
down the list through U on this page. And we would just add V to it. Um again, so you're really giving a cup for a not only the potential uses but also the building itself um is the critical mass.
So you really have two pieces of control. um in the B3 district with this by CUP also what would be permitted would be industrial uses um by conditional use permit. So if it's
an conditional used permit in the industrial zone, it would be by conditional use permit in this flex building. Um again the the goal here is is employment and occupational based op uh occupancy and the exterior building still has to maintain that commercial
appearance. The current zoning of the area for this in this case um is here. Obviously, this genesis of the of the request. Um, we talked about this uh last month in
the concept plan review. And then the land use future land use of this site is mixed use. So um in the mixuse zone um it's a broad brush of commercial,
industrial, office, retail um from a land use standpoint. So it allows a very wide array of of future uses as the city outlines it in its comprehensive plan. See
find one map here. Oh, I don't think I added that. Oh, there it is. Um, in this case, um, again, you've seen this, I think I've shared this map with you last month, is we know the neighborhood in in this area is pretty
diverse in terms of how it's used. You have industrial in the upper leftand areas, um, B3 district along the corridor and with the applicant, and you do have a mixeduse, uh, apartment building here. Um, so it it it it truly
is a a broad uh neighborhood. From a staff perspective, the proposed amendment raises a policy question for the planning commission whether business flex buildings should be added as a conditional use within the B3 highway commercial district. Um again, the proposed amendment would not make business flex buildings permitted by
Wright. Any future proposal would still require a CUP. Um through that process, you'd be able to evaluate sight specific issues, traffic, parking, loading areas, building design, landscaping, buffering, hours of operation, tenant mix, and
compatibility with other um neighborhood uh uses. You're really trying to preclude some of those other operations. And you do the ordinance does do that about logistics centers, freight terminals, salvage operations and the like.
Planning commission may almost wish may also wish to consider whether the proposed use is consistent with the character of the B3 district. Some business flex buildings may operate with fewer customer trips, more predictable business hours, and primarily indoor activity compared to B3 permitted uses
such as taverns, hotels, restaurants, and retail mixes. Um, so sometimes just the B3 use in of itself would be um far more impactful than a potential flexible building. um
at least with the flex building you would have an opportunity again to review those things through the cup. So in your packet there is a draft planning commission resolution um that that let's see hopefully I
>> it's on page 142. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Um recommending approval of the text amendment with a number of conditions. um uh in find I'm sorry with findings of fact. However, truly the only condition
is that um because it comes from an applicant not from the city is that it would be conditioned on ultimately all their other elements being approved. So, the city doesn't want to adopt an ordinance change
on one hand and then not have the application be approved or actually uh processed in the other. Cities do this all the time. Um, hey, I want to develop this site um grant approve my site plan,
but I also need a resoning. In effect, it's it's a similar thing. So, um that is truly the only condition. the rest of these elements are uh relate to um certain findings of fact um many of
those things that I had talked about. So with that um madam chair >> um on this particular one for the public hearing um this is really for input from city
residents of why they might not want this to happen, right? or for I mean other than just the the one business itself. >> Yep. This is a this is not necessarily sight specific. >> Mhm. >> So is this is this a good idea?
>> Right. So I am going to open a public hearing on this one item and the public hearing is open on whatever item it is the matter at hand. Does anybody want to
address this text amendment? Yay. No one. All right, I'm going to close the public hearing. At least the public has had a chance to speak on that.
Do you guys have any discussion? >> None. >> Well, it's good or done. Well, >> no, it looks No, this is what we were talking about last time of doing this type of thing, having a text amendment for B3. So, this is what we were
discussing. So, I >> This looks good. >> I'll make a motion to approve resolution number PC26-11 as written. >> Is there a second? >> Second. Yeah. Any discussion?
If not, all in favor say I. >> I. >> And opposed. >> So, that motion passes. Let's go on to the next item on the agenda, please. >> Easy for you to say, right? >> All right.
Okay, I know and I apologize again, Mayor and Madame Chair and Commissioners, a lot of this stuff might be redundant, but you know, as the record, I probably have things, so if I lose my track of my maps, you know, don't hesitate to
correct me. Um, okay. uh item. The next item before you is a combined review of essentially four applications submitted as part of the final approach uh development. Uh a preliminary plat, a final platitional
use permit for business flex building and site plan review um for proposed building and related improvements. my comments. Obviously, if I misstate that it it presumes that these are pending approvals from the the text amendment.
So, um the applicant's subject property is located sorry south of Ulysi Street and west of Highway 65. Uh the property is owned a B3 highway commercial guided mixeduse under the comprehensive plan. and
they're located with the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. The applicant is proposing approximately a 21,600 ft multi-tenant flex building together with parking, loading areas, municipal utilities, grading, drainage, storm water treatment, landscaping, lighting,
and related improvements. Um, for the purpose of tonight's review, the planning, zoning, and text amendment will authorize the business flexibility as a conditional use permit in the B3 district. The application for the commission therefore contingent upon
approval and effectiveness of that proposed effect effective date of that proposed text amendment. The proposed text amendment ultimately is not adopted. The condition use permit for the flex building ultimately cannot be approved
under the B3 district regulations. So as a council looks at this sequentially one has to go before the other. Um so the current zoning uh uh of the site again is B3 and is eligible for a
potential flex building uh conditional use permit. Um the land use of this area, future land use still guides this as a mixed use um uh which which facilitates a number of different types of commercial
industrial um capacity uh in the long term. Um it's it's in within it's within the city's Musa uh utility service area. Um so it's is planned for growth and development. It's kind of obvious at this point um
given where it is. um municipal water and sewer are available nearby to the site um can be extended to serve the development. Um and the previous finding by the council as well as you folks was that it's not a premature development.
Council did approve the concept plan, the same one you folks uh reviewed last month. So that was all viewed generally favorably. Um again the surrounding development
uh for uh the applicant um is shown. You have industrial in the northwest and commercial to the east and surrounding the property. Um certainly adjacent to a busy uh state highway.
The applicant has provided uh copies of the obviously the preliminary plat for city review and and the correlating final plat. Um thinking first about the the preliminary plat um it shows a proposed development outlots easements
access wetlands drainage areas and and the various subdivision framework. the original concept plan you saw last month. Um you had the lot one, block one and this general configuration and then there was a block two and there was a lot here and a lot here and talking with
the developer was it was better accommodated to leave all of that in outlot until a a better plan I should say better but a plan that's uh satisfactory to them and to the city potentially um was was better
understood. So, they're leaving it just as this this one development to the east as lot one block one. Um, the proposed site is approximately 10.23 acres. Again, zone B3. It meets
all of the city's lot with requirements and and setback requirements. Um uh axes will be provided by Ulysi Street as extended south from uh
extended from the south from 185th Street. There'll be a culdeac here obviously as shown. Um municipal water and sewer is in is in uh at 185th Street and will be brought to
the south. So preliminary plat um appropriately separates a principal development area from wetlands and other environmentally constrained areas. Most of this property to the west is is in wetland condition. Um there is a county
drainage I don't know if the word ditch is correct. um that runs through the west, east to west here. And um uh and the applicant actually even uh went above and be well comp moved
some of their uh their facilities to accommodate uh some endangered plants um in in in this area here. So um they've been good to work with and and tried to manage their site as best they can. Um
overall staff found the pimary plat substantially implements the proposed concept plan and uh provides a reasonable subdivision framework for the property. Um city engineer will review this again. Same with the city attorney as it as it moves forward. But
fundamentally it's it's it it term right? So, uh there's the uh there's the final plat. And the final plat terminology basically it looks for the final legal definitions of the property versus some of those more uh
nuanced elements and it it reflects the the preliminary plat before the preliminary before the final plat would be recorded. the city would get a a myar and uh it would again be reviewed by um city engineer and city attorney. We wait
for their blessing of course but certainly it it appears favorable at this point. So the preliminary plat and final plat are are are in good condition. Um the uh
let's see we skip that. Okay. So, turning to the conditional use permit element of this um of this application. Uh again, the proposed building is 21,600 square ft.
Let me just put that up on the screen so people have an idea of what it what might what they're proposing. Um it's designed as a multi-tenant structure. It could accommodate office showroom service research assembly. Um, and under
the proposed business flex provisions, cup is intended to allow this type of multi-tenent building certainly maintaining that commercial character, which I think it does. Maybe that's subjective, but it appears to me to be the case. Um
the individual tenant spaces would be would be eligible for occupancy by uses permitted in the B3 district and the light industrial uses. Um under the proposed business flex per the cup would not automatically approve every future tenant.
any tenant use requiring a conditional use permit either under the B3 district or the light industrial they would have to come in and be before you before they could uh be in this facility.
Um I won't talk about prohibited uses. We covered that a little bit. Um all of their operations would have to be uh indoors in effect. um storage of things outside, outside storage um
equipment, materials, trailers, containers um would be prohibited, etc. Certainly, routine deliveries and loading could occur within designated areas um but they could not interfere with parking, fire access, internal circulation.
The tenant administration owner responsibility here will be important for the owner um to ensure that um each of their tenants uh understand the terms of the cup um because the enforcement is ultimately on the owner and so they
should have a a clear vetting process for those potential um tenants. I'm sure they will. Um so cities use conditional use permit standards about um how it evaluates cups in this case. Um
does it impact surrounding properties? Uh again we talked a little bit about that a few times now. Again the surrounding area is pretty dense with uh res with industrial to the northwest and commercial uh B3
commercial surrounding it. traffic. All right, let's talk about traffic and we'll talk about traffic later, too. So, let's see which is the best one. I'm sorry. which is the best.
The applicant did submit a traffic review study. We received it received it today. I know they were working on it for a while. Um but in effect the concern that that the city has is is not just so much the internal traffic uh in
the site but rather how will it affect um the s the the sites to the north um I'm sorry for the bouncing um to where the holiday gas station is. city seeks to
have its lighting and interfaces to be level of service D meaning how long are the queuing times and it's expected that this development will not affect those queuing times and um so we received this traffic study and that will be forward
to the city attorney for review but the general element of it is is that it's uh not problematic um city will want to preserve its rights to say, "Hey, if something changes, the applicant would be required to do a new
traffic study or potentially make some investments in uh the area to accommodate their uses. Given that it's only 21,000 square feet, I doubt that would really create that much of a change. Um, however, as the rest of
their development expands to the west, um, uh, which would be part of a different analysis, that that could that could impact that. Um, looking for my civil drawings. We usually leave these two engineers,
but here we are. So, this drawing shows the approximate locations of the of the water and sewer extensions that will come down from Ulisses. Um uh not to mention the road itself. These will all have to meet city engineering specifications. The city
engineer has reviewed these designs. Um the initial report is in your is in your packet. Um certainly there is always some concerns and needs of of the city engineer, but generally um they all appear to be manageable. Um ultimately
we'll seek senior engineering approval um prior to council adoption. Um, and when they install these, they'll have to go out for bids and the city will have to approve all the plans and specifications um before it would be uh constructed.
Are there any potential impacts to property values um from this type of conditional use permit? Staff wouldn't think so. It's an attractive building. Um that's part also part of the reason you
have the public hearing to gain that other maybe other subjective viewpoint. Maybe we'll hear some comments but um again it's it meets the terms and conditions of a comprehensive plan for mixed use and and future development.
So water and air quality concerns there really are no no air quality concerns. Again, it the the flex building uh parameter restricts any noise or noxious odors and the like. I'm sure the
internal use in that building will be self uh limiting um for any of those air concerns. Um there will they the applicant has done extensive wetland delineation and studies. They appear to be in compliance
um and addressing any any things there. Again, the city engineer has reviewed their initial submission. We just got back their um wetland boundary analysis and if I recall it was it was
in in proper order. Um but all that would be contingent on final approval. Um so ultimately the condition of use permit um is found to be favorable from a staff perspective um and meeting what I think the intent of what these flex
buildings um was was meant to do meant to achieve. Uh where's my picture? So turning finally to the site plan review. A lot of this stuff is redundant. Um but two things that are
that are are not um are the parking and loading conditions that are there. Um and we'll talk more about this in the uh in the church conversation. Um
this west side of the building as you see you see all this parking here in front of those loading docks in front of those doors. um that is a bit problematic. We'll ask the applicant to to address how that can
be rectified with a updated site plan, updated traffic circulation plan. Certainly have plenty of room to manage that. Um and from a parking from a from a parking uh condition, they they have
more than uh adequately parked. So for every 350 square ft they need to have um one space. Um and in this case with that math they
need to approximately have 62 parking spaces. They're they're definitely showing uh over that approximately 195. Um but again there's some of them that probably will need to be removed or adjusted here about 38 or so in front of those loading
docks. We will ask for revised parking and and circulation plan um as part of this uh final approval for the council. Um their landscaping um I'm just going to talk about waste
enclosure real quick since it's here on the screen. Um the city does require proper waste enclosures and it's located in this island to the west of the building. Um may that may very well may be the best option for it. Um the east side of their
structure is the architecturally most what is the nuance the flavor of the building. So putting a a dumpster out there probably or in structure structure out there isn't the best. Um so this is where they're proposing it
and it would it would meet the city's rules for um uh enclosure. Um there's masonry and it would match the the building. Now the last thing I would offer is the
if I can find there's the landscaping. Um landscape plant appears to provide the required overstory and understory shrubs. The trees are concentrated in part near the northwestern corner of the development and may help soften the views from the apartment building.
Obviously, this apartment building is to the north and west. Um this will be a green space with these trees. on maybe they won't be planted in this exact spot, but there is a slope. Um, and then this is also a green area here. And along the east side of the facility,
there's all their shrubs. Certainly, it's a it's not meant to be a a park or anything like that, but they're meeting the minimum requirements of the the city's caliber, number of shrubs, and such.
the mechanical screening of the of the uh let's see there we go city would require that the all of the mechanical things the HVAC units that would likely be on the roof would be
below the parapit height in this in grayscale you can see this uh uh rooftop unit RTU and then also also there. Um the applicant did provide an updated drawing and that's this one. Um try to
enhance the west side um appearance. Um we just received that today. Um maybe some windows on this west side would would would add to that, but you know that it probably would would probably help, but it certainly
isn't attractive as it is attractive as it is and meets the specifications of the ordinance. So, planning commissioners, that's a lot to go through. Um, the the the plat and the conditional use
permit and the site all appear generally favorable. Um, in your packet, um, there is a resolution in exhibit O. I also put it up on the screen. Um beyond the findings
of fact um there's a number of conditions um that are carried out um as the site is further defined and further developed um city would review these things further.
namely the traffic circulation, um utility grading, um storm water management, um and the like. Want to make sure the applicant is responsible for ensuring compliance with
the the CUP by their tenants. No outdoor storage, no prohibited uses. Um that the site is actually developed as shown. um um there won't be allowed to be any changes to it if a window shifts here
and there, but that's one thing. But um so I'm happy to go through all of these if you'd prefer, but you certainly have them in your packet and uh um that's it. >> Okay.
Thank you. Um, the resolution is on page 294, and I'm guessing not all of us have had a chance to read it. It's kind of long. Um, and I would like us to read it before uh voting on it. But we're first
going to have the public hearing on this, which has to do with the approval of the preliminary flat plat final plat conditional use permit and site plan review for final approach east bethl
edition and business flex building. So, we're going to have a public hearing on that right now. The public hearing is open and if anyone um from the general public first would like to come up and give their opinion,
you are welcome to do so. And if no one is if anyone from Final Approach would like to come up, uh you're certainly welcome. And if you could just please state your name and your address. >> Good evening, Madame Chair, members of
the commission. I'm Brian Boss with Final Approach. I'm here to answer questions tonight. I don't have a lot of sales uh pitch to give you, but um I just wanted to be present and available if you if you had other questions. So,
>> fabulous. >> I should add I do have samples of our proposed building exterior if you'd like to see them. >> Okay. Does anybody have any questions for Brian? No.
>> Tired. >> Okay. >> Could I could I see the proposal? >> Sure. Could I >> Okay. Anybody else would like to speak to this issue? >> Okay. >> Um this is a sample of the exterior.
These are steel panels or metal panels. They're a little different in the sense that they're rigid and have a texture to them. They're not what you would see in a traditional steel building that would have corrugated steel. Um these have a texture and in many municipalities we've
substituted these where stucco or ephus was required. So it's got a much different look and they're in about 16 or 24 inch width panels. They're installed vertically. And this is just the skin of the panel,
but it's a it's an R24 insulated panel, so it's it's high efficiency as well. Um, so that would be the the charcoal color that you see on the drawings. The window and storefront frames would
be a black aluminum, pretty straightforward. the canopy and the areas around that the entrances that are black in color are an ACM or a composite panel that would
conform the the canopies and those stripes that are vertical. And then lastly, a wood grain lap type siding um that's interlocking something like that be installed
horizontal. So, just wanted you to be able to see and touch if you want to the actual products. This is a smaller sample of the big panel there. So, you don't have to carry the big one around, Eric. >> So, the horizontal is that the same
material basically as the vertical sighting. >> It's not um the horizontal or the wood grain product is is a composite product. Mhm. >> Um it's but it's not it's not metal. So
it's a plastic or a resin type product. Um it's interlocking install like a more of a residential looking sighting but it's it's not a residential product. >> How long does that last? Do you know? >> Longer than I'll live.
>> Yeah. That's what your answer was last time, too. Did I hear you correctly? Um that you said the panels are 24. >> Uh this one is not. But they they do make them in 24 in. They're very
actually they make them over 40 in wide. >> I mean the R value. >> Oh the R value. Yes, it's correct. R 23 something. >> That's amazing for that thin of a thing. >> Yeah. It's this is why we're interested in it. It's it's high efficiency and and
uh longevity is really good and so we've used them in other buildings and they perform very well. So I'll deliver this to Eric unless you all want to see it. You're certainly welcome to. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Pass it around, right? What are the walls? Is it a stick building or is it >> uh it's a steel steel building? >> Steel. >> Yep. So, it would have a steel framework. Uh and then of course we're cladding it with other products. >> Y
>> the wall insulation would be a a foam filled panel. >> Oh, nice. And then the uh roof insulation would be a combination of bat insulation layers that would um amount to an R49.
And uh so a steel roofing. Um so everything about this is maintenancefree and and longlasting. That's our goal here. And and uh in a in a way that's in a way that's looks good.
So, yeah, >> it's really nice. >> Yeah, it looks good. >> Thank you. >> Um, I don't have anything more to add. If you have more questions, awesome fire away, but I did want to mention I sure
appreciated Mr. Johnson's cooperation along the way. We've been moving at break neck speed and uh and we we've been uh cooperating nicely and so uh kudos to
him for his efforts to help me keep going on on a timeline. Thanks. >> Thanks so much. >> Anything else? >> No. >> All right. >> Thank you. Okay,
I'm closing the public hearing and on page 294 of 339 is a resolution that we may or may not be voting on. So let's take like
>> 229. >> So let's take a minute and read it this one and then it goes to the next page and the next page. I'll see if I can find the computer. Okay,
>> just got there. jump in the garden or not. I'd like to make a motion to approve the resolution PC26-12 as written. >> I'll second. All right. Any discussion? Well, this was a better plan than than
the the the last time. So, this good. >> Okay. >> Looks good to me. >> You're good. Okay. All right. All in favor say I. >> I. >> And opposed. So, that motion passes.
And we have another item to talk about. Bet you see some of the same stuff, right? Okay. And then this is on page 302 for us if you have page numbers.
>> Okay. Uh, Madame Chair, members of the commission, this next item is a request from Final Approach Development LLC for a conditional use permit to allow a place of worship within the proposed Final Approach Business Flex Building
located east of Ulissi Street and west of Highway 65. The property is proposed to be platted as lot one, block one, final approach, East Bethl Edition is zoned B3, Highway Commercial within the B3 district. Place of worship is allowed through a conditional use permit.
Renovation Church is the potential tenant proposed to lease approximately 15,000 square feet or about 34s of the proposed structure, a multi-tenant building. The worship area would accommodate up to 400 seats and the
applicant indicates that the initial lease would be for approximately 5 years. Um as we know the the the building and property being reviewed through a separate preliminary final and conditional use permit cipher review
applications. This application is limited to whether the place of worship may occupy a portion of the building and what conditions should apply to that use. Um again the area o occupants of um of that neighborhood um contains a
mixture of multifamily residential senior living highway commercials contractor business services entertainment uses and some undeveloped lands. Certainly the you've seen this now three times this evening but it's important to show it one more time. Uh
and the proposed business flex building is designed to accommodate multiple commercial tenants including parking, loading, maneuvering, landscaping, lighting, etc. Um let's see. The applicant proposes that renovation
church would occupy again 15,000 square feet and that the principal place of worship area would accommodate up to 400 persons. The church anticipates two Sunday services generally be beginning at 900 a.m. and then 10:30 a.m. together with smaller weekday and
evening activities. Um the application uh also outlines that approximately 195 parking spaces would be available during worship services. Um and a portion of that would be created by temporary temporarily using the truck
maneuvering and loading area during Sunday services. So this is the same area you see on the screen that we mentioned earlier. probably need some modification to uh better deal with uh truck traffic and and the like. However,
if this tenant is going to occupy 15,000 square ft of the building, that conflict might not be as much as one anticipates. Um anyway, um you've seen the site plan a few times now and the the building
layout um and how how their the tenant entrances may be. So ultimately the the the owner will have to work with the tenant to um define which space of this building is
going to be best used for all their uses. And the internal buildout of what that looks like is is we have not seen that yet, but again they want to accommodate up to 400 persons or so. Proposed place of worship certainly
would involve concentrated attendance during scheduled services with some limited activity during the week. um that operating pa pattern probably will be compliant or complement weekday other commercial tenants when service times do
not overlap with normal business operations. The church use would also um be primarily indoors would not involve outdoor storage, industrial noise, odor and dust. However, a congregation of 400 persons could could generate substantial
parking and traffic demand over short periods. conflicts could occur with if other tenants are during operating during those church services. I don't think they'll be problematic and it'll be up to the owner to manage those those
that push and pull between them. The city's parking plan parking standard requires one parking space for each three seats based on design capacity of the main assembly hall. So again, in this case, you're looking for 400 persons. So that minimum parking
requirement be 134 uh spaces. I mentioned 195 are shown. Um but there again there is that conflict in this area. Um our our approach at this point is submitting asking the applicant to
submit a revised parking plan and drawing that that shows how these things will all work together. Um, one option is to uh not stripe these spaces here. Um, and the applicant uh and the or the
tenant I should say would be obligated to um put up some temporary parking ropes bands. I don't know what it is, but thinking about that some more. Um, we'll ask the applicant to dwell on that
because that sounds easy in July. It doesn't sound so easy in January. >> So, we'll have to see kind of how that that might play out. They certainly have enough space. It's just a matter of how does it all function. Um, fire lanes, emergency access, overhead
door routes, and loading areas will have to be a little bit better determined. And I know they're that'll be something we'll ask them to do before it gets in front of the city council. Ultimately, it have to be approved by the fire chief and the uh city engineer. We have had some
preliminary reviews of that and and some of those are are favorable, but there still needs to be some tweaks, especially around this east side of the building for the turning radius of the trucks as they come around. if people are parked in this area, um that might
cause some conflicts. So, we'll have to uh have them refine that a little bit. We're pragmatic enough to know that it is never going to be a perfect turn lane for anything. Um but it it it needs a few tweaks.
Um things I haven't touched upon. Final plans would be reviewed by the building official for this structure um and how it's used in terms of its occupancy for for 400 persons. Um
basically in terms of of entrances and exits, egress and ingress, uh bathroom, number of fixtures, um probably is a little different than a commercial building of what one might otherwise anticipate. Um
so they'll have to come bringing that into uh compliance when they submit their building plans. Um there's a fire capacity of any kind of meeting space. We all have seen those occupancies. So we'll have to make sure
they're in compliance with that. Um water and sewer again would be served by the facil would be served to the facility. There is no current signage plan submitted with this. Um, I know the applicant is is thinking about that and
and starting to plan how they want to sign this building. Given that it's a multi-tenant facility, they would have to come back to you folks with a comprehensive sign plan much like it was the sign back from two meetings ago. >> Um, so they would they would provide
that. Talking about impacts on surrounding properties there, as it relates to the place of worship, probably none. Um the traffic study uh also indicated that it would not change the level of service um
by the holiday and its interface with 65. Um again, we just saw that traffic study today. We'll send that to the engineer, city engineer for review, but um level service D is the minimum and
they're well in compliance with that. um property values and building design. Again, there we've seen the building a couple occasions and the place of worship should not affect any other property values or or affect neighborhood
use, I guess. Um it's compliant with a comprehensive plan. Um again, the building is the is the key um for a for a flex building. And as long as they're doing things in the building that are consistent with those
rules, um the comprehensive plan should be met. Um church shouldn't generate any error war air or water quality problems. I wouldn't think. Um so at the end of the
day, our our staff recommendation is is that it should be approved. Um we have a number of conditions like the other resolution. um that uh most important one I think I mean they're all important of course
right um but if the the the traffic becomes a problem on Sundays for example that they'd have to revisit that um and make any necessary changes um sometimes churches or private and other businesses
they they're busy on a weekend and they start sending volunteers out to manage traffic. No, can't do that. So, we we do put a we do have a requirement that they would have to um engage the Ina County Sheriff's Office to uh to deal with any
traffic management that might be happening. Um but generally um positive and we have a number of conditions and that's our recommendation. >> Okay. Thank you.
Um, I'm get I'll hold have the public hearing and then I I do have a question about the on the resolution, but let's open the public hearing for this item. Does anyone first of all from just the
general public want to come up and talk about this item? And if not, uh, does anyone from the church or U Brian, anybody want to come up and talk about the project? >> And if you could say your name, please.
>> Uh, hello. My name is David Sa. I am the lead pastor of the church at Renovation Church. I just want to say thank you again to Eric for working quickly with us on this and and to to all of you for what you do. Um, no, no comments necessarily, but just want to make
myself available if you have any any questions >> and thanks for putting in a late night. >> Well, I'll Yeah, thank you for staying too. So, in the resolution, it says that outdoor worship services, amplified outdoor sound, festivals,
tents, food trucks, commercial rentals, and similar activities are not approved. Were you aware of that? um unless you went through another peritting process >> that there are no so no food trucks or anything outdoors ever allowed in the resolutions. Is that
what it says? >> He Yeah, let me read it then. is just says outdoor worship services, amplified outdoor sound, festivals, tents, food trucks, commercial rentals, and similar activities are not approved through this
conditional use permit and would require separate city review and permitting. >> Okay. I mean, that's pretty standard for what we've done in other cities. We don't really do outdoor worship with that many people, but sometimes we might have an event where you just bring in a
shaved ice truck for kids afterwards or something, but like in Blaine, we have to go through a whole permitting process for that particular event. >> But it is allowed if we do go through the permitting process. And >> it's that my understanding that it would be okay. >> Yeah, that's fine. We just did one
commissioners um for the Buddhist temple where they do an annual event and they just come and get a it's a temporary event permit, you know. So, >> okay, >> that makes sense. >> So, you're used to that process.
>> Uh Pastor Dave, um Renovation Church staff offered that you initially host two Sunday services with start times at 9 and 10:30 a.m. at your other locations. Uh after the initial services were implemented, what other sorts of
time slots were filled? >> What are the time slots fulfilled? Did you say? >> Well, I'm just wondering if you initially started with two services at your pre other locations and then after be somewhere between one and two. I think we put two on the application just to kind of be conservative, but it I
would say either one service at 10:00 or the two at 9 or 10:30. It's a little hard to guess how many people will come once we build it, but somewhere in between there depending on how many people show up when it's built. >> Yeah. But I was just wondering if um you've had to offer additional services
at your other locations. And >> at our main location, we have a lot of we have four services >> on Sundays. >> Yeah. It's a it's a large location, but on our second location, we just started in Short View, they have one service. So, okay. >> This would be significantly smaller than
what we have at our main location. Thank you. >> It will probably be three to 500 people somewhere in that range. Just if you're thinking what's the size of that location, >> still awake?
>> I'm wide awake. >> Good. Have you read through this the the whole um resolution? >> I have not personally seen the resolution. >> So I was just curious about I mean most of these seem pretty straightforward. I was wondering about if you're aware
number 14. Advertising signs, banners, portable signs, temporary signs, flags, and similar promotional displays are not permitted through this conditional use permit and would require separate city review and permitting.
And that would not include the permanent fixture sign, right? Because we'd be allowed a sign in the sign permit. >> Well, so I mentioned so the the applicant which final approach they they'll they're still planning to come to the city with a sign plan. I we don't
have a sign plan yet at all. Um so that's kind of the big piece of it. You know, where does it say >> re renovation church? I mean, you're entitled to that, right? Um, but as it relates to other banners and flags and things like that, yeah, there's
>> it's the same thing for us in other cities. We kind of >> know the drill. We got to go, we're doing a separate monument sign right now and we got to go through the whole process and so >> Okay. >> So, but if there's a temporary sign they want to put up, we have a city has a separate process for that.
>> Yeah. Just before we recommend approval, just want to make sure you're fine with what's in there. >> Yeah. Right. So, I >> mean, I agree. So, on Easter, you want to put some flags. Are they going to have to get a permit for that?
>> Like, when I mean flags, I mean, flags are it's not so much the American flag as it were. Well, no. >> It's like a bowhead banner >> rather these banners and and temporary I guess advertising is is probably the
better >> and thus the word, you know, advertising signs, banners, right? That that's kind of desire. >> We're just looking out for you. >> Appreciate that. I mean, when I went through this um
process many years ago, um there was something that I objected to and the and the administrator at the time said that, you know, we just do this on a complaint basis and it's like I I want to know what's allowed, what's not allowed and be able to do it,
>> right? >> So, I mean Glenn's question is, are you okay with this wording? Is it up there on the screen? >> Yep. >> Number 14. >> 14. >> I mean, the city can't grant signs like
that or flags or anything that's contrary to the ordinance by CU. >> I mean, so that's really what we're saying is >> that if there's something else somebody wants, they would have to come back, get a separate permit. >> That makes sense. That's pretty standard for us. So, no objections. Okay,
perfect. Any other questions? >> We're good. >> Awesome. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any discussion? Um I did have a question about the parking. I mean, it does look like if
you had to get a fire truck back there, it's going to be tough, isn't it? >> Yeah, the the fire truck. I mean, I don't want to put words in the fire in the fire chief's No. Um but their their concern is be able to get either
around the building as a whole or to be able to get the um apparatus arm over and to the other side. Um so we do want to see a a better design for that. We do in in your in your in your packet of
stuff. Um there is a there is some turning radius things in there, but as they come around that east side, they're hitting that that um row of parking on the east. So
>> there'll have to be a few tweaks on that. >> That's for the previous one, not this one, >> isn't it? >> Say that again. >> That would be addressed for the previous item. >> Yeah. All of it is going to be need to be kind of
part of their their parking parameters here. So again, it's as they come around this side and the turning movements just don't
work here and and to some extent even on the north. So, um I know the applicant's engineer is working with the fire chief to um better identify those turning lanes. And again, same with these areas in
front of the loading docks. Again, if if the place of worship is three4s of the building, it may it might not be that big a problem. Um condition number six is laid out on the
resolution uh says that the approval will be by the city before issuance of a building permit. The word city uh that's the engineer, that's affiliated staff, that's the fire chief, that's >> all of them. >> Okay. Just want to make sure >> it'll be in there ultimately they'll
provide a roll of plans and one of those will be C dash you know something and that'll show um turning radiuses and compliance with that. >> Um >> so yeah
>> yeah I just wanted to make sure that the the word city encompassed a number of positions. I know the uh fire chief um and uh city engineer wouldn't let that slide too far. So, >> I'll bet you were not sure that we were
going to be looking at this, were you? >> At what? >> That we were going to be looking at this. >> Why? >> At at this time of night. >> Oh, no. I actually did. I thought I think we're ahead of schedule. >> I think you're right. >> All right. Any other discussions on the
resolution? >> No, >> I can make a motion, but I've already taken two, so >> I take one, too. So, I'll have at it. >> I'd like to make a motion to recommend
approval uh of resolution PC26-13 as it's laid out in exhibit G. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor say I. I. >> I. Any and opposed.
>> So that motion passes, which brings us to agenda item number 10, I believe. >> Yeah. Um, Commissioner Commissioner Downey, did did you say 12 or 13? PC 12 or 13? said
one three >> and >> as it's laid out in the packet as 12 but on resolution it's 13 >> I might have mislabeled one but I follow it >> okay >> so the next steps for um final approach in the church that's going to a
um council meeting >> all of it >> in about two weeks. >> Yeah. And then uh so the challenge there for all of the council and certainly staff will be to kind of try to get these loose ends buttoned up and uh and
uh while the won't be public hearings per se, but we'll try to get through as fast as possible. >> Exactly. Okay. So, good luck at the council meeting, guys. >> What's that? >> Would it be possible to table this item for
>> I think it would be possible. >> Unless we can go quick. I this seems like it require a little more thought and time than the time of evening warrants for cogent thought >> is my concern.
>> What is it? >> One one >> one possibility though is that um I think you have a person here with wanting to give input. >> Okay. Okay. Oh, >> okay.
>> True. I'm speculating. Um but I I will >> Yeah, that's very fair. >> I would be brief. Um >> okay. So, uh planning commissioners, the last item before you tonight, at least
in terms of the action items, is um a proposed amendment to chapter 66, article 5 of the city code relating to administrative subdivisions. Um in your packet there is this there
are two red lines. Um uh and the first is an administrative lot split uh potential ordinance change. Um the current ordinance provides that a property may only be divided once through an administrative simple lot split process. That restriction applies
permanently regardless how much time has passed since the original lot split. Um over time that permanent restriction can become difficult to administer. It may require staff and future deci decision makers to determine whether a property or a predecessor parcel was involved in
some lot split years ago or even decades. The proposed amendment would replace permanent restriction with a 10-year look back period. Under that language, the property that has been involved in administrative lots split would not be eligible uh for another lot
split for another 10 years. So, it's it's nobody's going to be doing this to quickly subdivide their property, uh, trying to get around the city's subdivision rules. Um, if they wanted to make a subdivision, um, prior to that
tenure, they would just have to follow the city standard uh, subdivision process under chapter 66. Um creating a 10-year look back period would not reduce any um
lot size requirements, frontage, access, buildable area, septic system requirements, park dedication, or any other zoning or subdivision regulation. It just resets the clock for someone.
Um, we've had applicants uh come to the city probably well before my time. Um, I don't know if I had this before you with this with the Buddhist temple where they had their >> um, so I have no idea what they did 30
years ago or 40 years ago. So, >> how do you research that? We're not title analysts, you know, we don't have that availability. So, a 10-year window is is probably something we can dig around a little bit and get a sense of what's happened. Um,
second potential change um is is whom gets to or who who who gets to make a determination of a simple lot split. The ordinance um is a little confusing of
where the I'm sorry it shows it in red line. Um in chapter in section one here, the zoning administrator may approve this administrative subdivision with conditions. Um uh but the paragraph above that it says
a city council um shall reach a decision. And so that is a conflict in talking with the council um that that should be cleaned up. And ultimately
what they prefer is that they are um the final decider and that's stated in number two. Um the council shall consider the staff report findings and recommendations and may approve with conditions or deny the administrative subdivision based on compliance with
this chapter. Um so they're asking in part one above that that staff basically review the application, you know, make a staff report and a recommendation. But um uh the council is the uh final arbiter
of the decision. And so those are the two those are the two changes that uh council has asked you folks to hold a public hearing and to weigh in on. So that's it. Okay. Thank you. So we're going to have a public hearing
on this. I'm opening the public hearing. And would anyone like to speak to this issue? >> Now you have to. >> I'm Kay Anderson. I was here about a year ago. I'm still working on this. Um,
and I don't even know if I apply anymore because you told me I'm not on Meats and Bounds anymore. So, >> no, I don't know. What? I don't know. There we go. So, I'm going to talk about an ordinance that I probably doesn't solve my issue, but >> it might never.
>> It might not. Um, I can trace my grandparents my great-grandparents ownership of a property back to the 1800s. Okay? So, when we talk about what the land the temple is on, it was split in the early
1900s when grandma and great grandma and grandpa gave property to their son. And then in the 70s it had another split off it when my parents owned it because that's how they paid for their carpenter to do their house. So when you start
talking about one lot split or no no one lot split in the life of the property, it's really crazy. So I'm really happy that Eric brought this amendment forward and and and rewrote this because it
didn't make any sense the way it was. And um I've been struggling to figure out if I fit in it or not now that I read it. But um doing a PUD to split 20 acres into two 10acre lots. Um I'm already spending 8 to 10,000 to do the
PUD and the lot split, but that adds probably another 5 to 10,000 to it to do the PUD part of it. So it gets really expensive. So, I really appreciate the opportunity that lot splits are still here and that it's only a 10-year look back period.
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for waiting it out. >> Thanks, K. >> And appreciate your comments. >> All right. So, do you feel that you're able to Oh,
thank you people. The public hearing is closed. Okay. So, as for discussion, do you think that you can intelligently discuss this tonight or do we want to table it? >> I'm comfortable with it. >> Yeah, I don't I don't see any reason.
>> Let's discuss. >> Let's discuss. >> Sure. Well, it it seems fine. Uh the I mean is there a reason the city council wouldn't approved if it was in compliance with the chapter? I guess
I mean that was the one part that caught me. If for some reason they didn't approve despite it being in compliance, there's no appeal. So I mean is there a reason why they would do that? Otherwise, I think it reads fine.
Could you say that again, Commissioner? So, in terms of the uh the the new RIT um states that the city council shall consider the staff report findings and recommendation and may approve approve
with conditions or deny the administrative subdivision based upon compliance with this chapter, the city zoning ordinance and other applicable regulations. Sure. >> And then right after that, it says that the city council's decision is final.
So, I was just wondering if the city council was to not approve something despite it being in compliance with the chapter, the city ordinance, and other applicable regulations. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. So, just a disconnect in the in how it's written. So, >> I'm wondering if But is there any reason
why the city council would do that? Well, I think when you write an ordinance proposal, you want to give all the capacity you have to the council to make.
>> And that's why it says may approve >> or may deny, >> right? >> Um versus shall approve or shall deny. So, it gives the council that flexibility. maybe they've come up with something um that um
they feel isn't compliant or the city the zoning administrator might give a recommendation for denial um but the council might think it's fine. And so there's those ways the city
ordinance is looking to enable the decision to be placed on the shoulders of the council. Um their appeal from that would be to basically the court system if the council denied it. The council if it did deny something it
would have to have a good cause for denial, right? >> Um but is it possible? Sure. >> Yeah. Can't councils do these things, you know. Um,
>> and we can't think of every possible iteration with what may be come before us for staff recommendation. I mean, we might think it's great or they might think it's terrible. You know, who knows?
But that was also part of why maybe the ordinance as it is currently written in the strikeout zone basically says it's approved by the zoning administrator. So it's an administrative. It's either go no go. It's either yes or no. It's not a
gray area decision or in this case maybe it makes it a little gray with findings and this and that. We did do some investigation um with other cities when we when we
first brought this up to council and some cities do have it being subject to approval by the council. Some cities do have it being purely a staff function. Some cities don't allow minor
subdivisions at all. So, um, actually have a chart I can show you. So this was these are the ones we did talk to. So Anoka Blaine and the and the like. Um
so they everybody calls it a little bit something different. East Bethl calls it administrative subdivision. This is what these cities call it. Um talk about look back periods. Um ANOA didn't have any look back period. Um who gets to approve
it? In that case, it was a city planner. Um, Blaine, again, it's a staff review. Um, but the city administrator may the zoning may refer it to the council. Maybe they're uncomfortable with it.
Columbus, um, a look back period. It's not even applicable because they can't subdivide it. They can reconfigure a lot, but they can't create a parcel. Um, Forest Lake, um, it has to go
through the planning commission and the city council. Oak Park Heights, um, only because I worked there for so long, um, it was administrative. Um, and Still Water, um, there was no look back period, but they too had a mixed system. Some required council approval, some was
staff approval. So, >> okay. Any other questions? >> You good? >> I'm good. Thank you. >> Anybody else down here? >> Okay. So, there's a resolution on page
333 and 339. Does anyone want to make a motion on that one? It's exhibit B. I'll make a motion to approve uh resolution number PC26-14 as presented.
>> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> Second. Okay. Fabulous. And any discussion? If not, all favor say I. >> I. And opposed? >> I. >> Okay, that motion passes.
And do we have any staff update? >> No. >> Oh, no, we don't. Okay, >> great. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Oh, I'll say again. >> Okay. All in favor say I.
>> I. Opposed. All righty.