I'm calling the meeting to order and we're going to start with the Pledge of Allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> Okay. >> [clears throat] >> We have a motion to adopt the agenda. >> Make a motion to adopt the agenda. >> Great. Any second? >> Second. >> Any discussion? If not, all in favor say I.
>> I. >> Any opposed? That motion passes. And the next item on the agenda is Suzanne Erkel. Suzanne? >> Good evening, everybody. I'm Suzanne Erkel, the city council member with a
city council report. Um I'll start with a did an update to the cemetery policy. Nothing major changes, just some small shells to wills and mays to shells to mays, that kind of thing.
Um our attorney contract will be started We'll have our new attorneys on June 1st, so we're looking forward to that. Uh Capstone withdrew from the final final um plan that they had submitted that
everybody voted against, so everybody's happy about that. We tried to make a purchase um an area on Sims Road and we had a temporary agreement and they we got outbid, I guess, from what I understand.
Um so verbal contracts are not always good. Nexus, as you know, lost their license, so that will be empty. Uh what they will do with it is um everybody's unsure of yet. Um at the EDA meeting, we had somebody
submit a market research um that talked about how much money the city is losing by not having certain businesses here. And um we did get approved money from the state
and from the feds for our um next tower for the schools, so the schools can have some clear water finally. Any questions? Questions? Okay, that's all I got. >> Thank you so much.
>> Thank you. >> All right. >> [clears throat] >> The next item is the approval of minutes. Does anyone have any comments, corrections? >> Uh line 192, um redundant use of the word use.
That's all I could find. >> Thank you for that. Okay. Any other corrections? Do we have a motion to approve the minutes? >> Make a motion to approve the minutes. >> Great. And second? >> Seconded.
>> Thank you. Any discussion? [clears throat] If not, all in favor say I. I. Any opposed? That motion passes. And the next item on the agenda is up to you, Mr. Johnson.
>> Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair and council members, commission members. Uh what you have before you tonight is variance request at 255 Laurel Road related to setback from lot lines and proximity to structures as codified in
the city ordinance chapter 74 and referenced in the statement of the sole of the rules chapter 780-73. And I'll do my best to move through this quick cuz I know you have a lot on your agenda. So I won't go through it blow-by-blow, but we'll wander through
some maps and and get to the meat of it. So as I said, the applicants are Colin and Chris Lindberg of 255 Laurel Road. Um they're requesting a variance to allow a failing replacement of a failing septic system. The property as shown on the map on the
screen is approximately 100-ft by 100-ft residential lot in the Lake Beach area. Uh the request again include requested setback for septic tank and drain field property lines and in the existing residence.
The submitted materials identify three main setback reductions. The holding tanks are proposed uh to be 6-ft from the property line and those are on the north side of the site where 10-ft is typically required. The drain field is proposed to be
approximately 13-ft from the residence where 20-ft is typically required. And a portion of the drain field is also proposed approximately 1-ft from the easterly property line where 10-ft is typically required. Uh so why are they seeking this
variance? Again, they uh have a failing septic system. The site certainly is constrained by its small size, the existing improvements, the neighboring well locations. Um to that to that point uh we had on the
previous map um the neighbor to the west has a shallow well. And that is on the west side of their home and the current septic field is in is in the rear of the the applicant's property.
So, they need to move this septic field to a different location or drainage field and their really their only location they can presumably find is is on the east side of the property. Um because of these constraints applicants indicate there's no fully
compliant location available that satisfies all of the required separation distances, so thus the variance. Um so, we we we always approach variances in city ordinance by they have to meet three tests. Um and in we recall those three tests
are does not I'm sorry. Three practical difficulty tests. First is it a reasonable use of the property? Certainly the applicants are seeking to replace a failing septic system not in serving the existing residence. They're not seeking to expand the facility
beyond what they need. Um they're not trying to serve a different property. Um so, certainly from that standpoint it's it is a reasonable use of the property. Um secondly is the circumstances generally unique to the property? Are
they facing something that anybody else in the similar in the neighborhood would not face? And generally speaking there there all of the lots there are constrained by size, ages of septic, well locations. But in this case,
um that well location on the west side of the neighboring to the west at 265 um is also within that setback challenge of 100 ft. So, by that test they meet that that definition of
it being unique to the property. Um it finally would the request of variance materially alter the essential character of the surrounding area. Um certainly the property and its use if approved would remain uh residential in nature. There's no
increase in density. Um and the reduced east side setback is adjacent to the public right-of-way. Um which is certainly not somebody else's home or or well location. So, that 1 ft um isn't
doesn't appear to be as critical. Bounce back and forth a little bit with some of these maps. Um the site zoning is zone CL and it also is a river is a Lake District with the Shoreland
Overlay Zone. Um they're at 255. And certainly that is an old neighborhood. A lot of these houses have original septic systems. A lot of these houses have um uh shallow point wells.
Um and it's just part of the part of the nature of that part of the community. Um So, it's certainly compliant with the zoning. The future land use is similar to the site um zoning.
Um it's guided single-family low arch- I'm sorry. It's guided low-density residential. >> [clears throat] >> And the applicants are certainly not proposing to change any of that. Go back one more time to >> Um, I'm going to talk a little bit about
this one foot right away line to set back. Um, I mentioned it's it's less concerning for lack of a better word because the city's right away is is there. The city has a If I'm not mistaken, it's a 50 foot
right away between that and the property across the street. So, it is not going to impact somebody else's home and likely not somebody else's well. Um, we'll touch base that on that a little bit further. >> [clears throat] >> City did receive a comment from uh, the
neighbor who resides in this property uh, indicating a concern that uh, this application would this affect their well. Um, uh, they they I'm understanding they have a shallow point well, too, which also
required a 100 foot set back. So, you see two concentric rings on this drawing. Um, the red would be the approximate south end of the septic field they proposed and the blue would be 100 feet from the north end of the septic field they proposed. Appears to be out of a
100 foot right of or 100 foot distance from this person's well. Similar to the property on the on the west. At this point, I can't speak to the property to the south or the property to the north. Those would ultimately have to be verified. Um, but um, that's something that would
be caught caught up with in the uh, in the permit application. >> So really it comes So if the city has two tests, one is it meeting our variance standards of practical difficulties and in short our staff believes it does. So we have to pivot to the other the other concern that staff
has is if it's not meeting the 20-ft setback, which is the standard established by by the MPCA as shown on the chart in yellow here, they're allowing they make it very clear
that setbacks from property lines can be varied. They don't quite make it as clear that struct- properties can be varied from the 20-ft setback. So what the city is saying and what we're proposing in the resolution is 13 ft may be workable,
but the applicant needs to provide information through their permitting process that it's still meeting the standards found in subparts 2 A through D. And if you read through those, basically it's it's requiring the applicant or their contractor to meet all treatment
disposal dispersal methods to conform to all federal, state, local regulations but for the setback. That the treatment and dispersal processes must prevent sewage or sewage effluent contact with humans, insects, or vermin. The the concern with the reduced setback
from 20 ft to 13 ft or presumably even lower is that could that seep into the home into the basement? Would there be a pressure issue? You know, we don't know. We're not designers, so we're just trying to account for that. Um And subpart C talks about treatment and
disposing of sewage or effluent must be in a safe manner that adequately protects from physical injury or harm. If you have seepage, if you have some kind of intrusion into the home over time. Now, it's not going to warrant for 50 years, but is there is there a practical timeline
involved? Um, is that the contractor would be stating that it it will meet that part C test. Um, so uh
that is largely the the issue at hand. Um, it meets all of your variance requirements from staff perspective. Um, we think that the setbacks to the north and to the east are reasonable um, for the for the septic uh tanks and the 1-yd
distance from the from the right-of-way. There is Here is an image. This is the applicant's front yard looking north and it and the new septic field would be in this area. Um,
the lot line is probably parallel or just west of these trees somewhere. Um, it isn't always the roadway. So, given those distances, it it it should be okay. I'm speculating. Um, ultimately the city building official is
going to need to be the entity to sign off on this. So, it is not me. Um, it's the city building official. So, if the applicant shows up with a plan that says, "Hey, here's the 13 ft. We believe it meets all these tests.
Here's our acknowledgement. Here's our certification of this." The building official has indicated that he would be comfortable issuing this permit. So, that kind of is is the the staff position on this.
Um It's a lot to interpret from a state code requirement. Um perhaps there are communities that have issued 13-ft foot setbacks. Um some cities don't offer setback. The rule is 20 ft. Why is it 20 ft? Again, we didn't write
the rule. We're just trying to interpret. Um So, to boil all that together, what staff had prepared for you and then your packet um is a resolution um that basically summarizes all those
things and grants uh or proposes a granting of variances for all the things they had sought uh with the condition that prior to um uh number one, I won't I won't I'll skip number two. I think we're covered on that. Um
for existing wells. Um but number one talks about making sure when they submit plans and specifications for installation that their contractor is is warranting to the city that it's meeting those tests.
So, if it fails, it is not the city holding that burden. Um rather, it's their designer and the installer. Um I part in yellow I'd ask you just to ignore. I was thinking about this. Wanted actually if you wanted to talk about it, you could talk about the
adjacent wells, but I think we can catch up with that in any permitting process. The applicant should probably find out where those wells are um if they come to that point, but so, that's kind of it in a nutshell. I know the staff report
was lengthy. So, >> [clears throat] >> Okay. Well, thank you. Anything else? >> No. >> Okay. Perfect. I'm going to open the public hearing for this.
And I'd like first anybody who is not the owners that want to speak come up. If you have any questions, then we'll have the owners answer [clears throat] them. Does anyone who's not the owner want to come up and speak?
Okay, Jim. And if you could And Jim, did you put your name and address on the paper? >> You want me to move this over there? >> Uh no, we're good. You can just keep it there. >> Okay. Jim Smith.
22620 Davenport. Uh the Lindberghs contacted me probably a couple months ago. Maybe it's longer than that even now. I don't know if you can hear me, but >> There you go. >> Uh and with this issue. And I think all of us that live in
[clears throat] the area know that it's an issue over there. It's unfortunate. We didn't create it and neither did they. And I've been working with the septic guy, Josh from [clears throat] Casper. And I've talked with Eric
and Lindberghs. And what Eric presented is basically the only thing that we can do with it. And the wells are an issue. So, the Lindberghs too, if you agree [clears throat] with us to do this,
that they got to put in a new well, actually too, and a deep well. Cuz right now they have a shallow well, that's like everything around the area. And so, I mean it's quite a process. And for them, I mean I understand they've been taking and doing their laundry
elsewhere. So, I mean, it's costed them a lot of money. And I mean, I feel bad about it. I didn't create it, neither did they. >> Mhm. >> So, I'm hoping that you guys will consider this because over there, like I said, everything I
believe at one time was just supposed to be seasonal living. Well, over the years, now we've got full-time living. >> Mhm. >> A lot of the septic systems weren't made to do that. So, and fortunately, I think they have one of them. So, but like I say, we do
have an an answer for it. We just have to approve some variances to make it work. I've talked to Josh at Casper. He says the system that he plans on installing will work. So, I just want to let you know. So,
I've been involved with it for a little while now, same with Suzanne. So, that's my take. Any questions? >> I appreciate it. Um I I am concerned about the the 13-ft versus the 20-ft from the house, and how
what are your feelings on that? >> I I was concerned at first about that, too, but they have what they call, I believe it's a pressure Is it a pressure? >> Pressure bed. >> Pressure bed for the drain field. And I talked to Josh about that, and normally on a drain field, you have like a
whiffle ball around the whole perimeter of it. This is just on the bottom. So, the system's pressurized, and it's forces it down into the better rocks, the liquids. So, the chances, it it could happen, but chances of it going
out are slim versus if you have a regular drain field system, it could go anywhere. So, I feel good about that, actually, myself. 13 ft, I have no issue with it, personally. >> Anyone else have any questions?
>> Um how far is that Do you know where the water table is in relation >> I honestly don't, no. But I mean the septic guy, he knows where all that is because you got to be so far from modeled soil and stuff like that, so everything can
drain, so you don't get into the water table. >> Right. But usually there the idea is that it goes and evaporates like >> Right. >> rather than being pushed down, so >> Yeah, I'd be honest, I don't know what that is.
Can't help you. Anything else? Okay, thanks. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you, Jim. Okay, anyone else who is not the owners want to address [clears throat] this? If not, would the Lindbergs come up, please?
And when you come up, um you can both be together if you'd like. Just state your names and uh speak into the microphone if you can. >> Hello, I'm Nicole. >> Curtis. >> And your last names and your address, please.
>> Lindberg and then 255 Laurel Road. Um I wrote up a little letter here to kind of explain the last 2 years of our lives to help maybe better understand where we're coming from. Um so good evening. My name is Nicole Lindberg. I'm here with my husband
Curtis. Um and the realtor who sold our house to us, uh Eric Lindberg, is also here. Um first, thanks for taking the time to hear our request. Um we understand that variances are not granted lightly and we appreciate the opportunity to explain why we're uh requesting this variance.
Uh this has been an ongoing process for over 2 years. During that time, our septic system has continued to deteriorate and become increasingly problematic. Rather than improving, the condition has progressively worsened leaving us with a situation that is no longer sustainable.
We're not requesting a variance because we simply want a different septic design or because of personal preference. We are requesting a variance because our property creates a practical hardship. Our home sits on a 100 by 100 foot lot as Eric showed and the required setbacks
cannot realistically be achieved within the physical limitations of this property. This request is based on the characteristics of the land itself. It's not something we created and the lot dimensions and surrounding constraints leave very limited options.
We also understand that East Bethel has previously recognized the challenges associated with other properties in Lake area and other historically allotted neighborhoods with smaller lot sizes. City records from a prior septic variance approval at 138 Laurel Road
Northeast noted that the neighborhood has significant number of septic variances due to the age and the neighborhood and the limited lot sizes. While we understand every application must be evaluated in its own merits, our property presents similar challenges
involving a small lot and physically uh limit limitations that cannot be reasonably changed. Additionally, while researching septic standards and constructing properties in neighboring Midwestern states with similar land uh characteristics including Wisconsin, Iowa and the and
the Dakotas we found examples where smaller setback distance are permitted um than the 20 foot standard being applied in Minnesota. So, you're you had talked Sharon about, you know, the 13 foot. We've seen 10 feet be the norm in other neighboring um cities and states
surrounding us. States surrounding us, not cities. While we understand Minnesota and East Bethel have their own standards and every system must be evaluated individually our research reinforced that engineered systems and site-specific considerations can allow
flexibility while still maintaining safe and effective water waste treatment. This further supports our understanding that a reduced setback can still provide a safe and responsible long-term solution when a unique lot constraints exist.
We love living in our house. If we did not, we would not have gone through this for the past 2 years. We want to make this work. We've made significant sacrifices to stay in our home and to reduce strain on our failing system. For the past 2 years, we've significantly reduced our water our
water usage. We do all of our family's laundry at a laundromat rather than at home. We were advised approximately 2 years ago to not drink our well water and since had been purchasing water from Culligan. We have been unable to use our water softener.
Uh and the condition of our system has become so limiting that we cannot comfortably have guests or family over because of the additional water use creates concern. The septic system has backed up into our house already on one occasion, which is disgusting.
We have been pumping the septic tank approximately every 3 months compared to every 3 years, which is another financial obligation. These adjustments have affected our daily lives and created ongoing expenses and limitations for our family while we have attempted to responsibly manage the
failing system and remain in our home. We've also attempted to identify a solution that maximizes or minimizes impacts to neighbors' properties and preserves existing conditions where possible. The neighboring property directly west of us at 265 Dahlia Drive
in East Bethel, they have health concerns and they're not in a position financially to relocate their well, which is why we're asking for this variance. We believe the proposed solution allows us to address our hardship while minimizing the impacts surrounding on their surrounding property.
We would also respectfully ask the commission to consider the long-term practicality of holding tanks as an alternative for our property. We understand that holding tanks are approved and approved option in certain circumstances. However, unlike
engineered septic systems, a holding tank does not provide wastewater treatment and instead functions primarily as a storage system which requires ongoing pumping and removal. Holding tanks were developed for situations where wastewater treatment systems could not reasonably be
installed due to site limitations or environmental concerns. In our situation, we are proposing an engineered system specifically designed for constrained site conditions that is intended to provide long-term wastewater treatment and management rather than
continued reliance on storage and repeated removal of wastewater. For our family, a holding tank would create an ongoing and indefinite dependence on repeated pumping, monitoring, alarm systems, and long-term costs.
Those responsibilities and expenses would continue not only during our ownership of the property, but would also transfer to the future homeowners. We believe that replacing one long-term hardship with another does not provide the most practical or sustainable
solution for this property. The proposed septic system includes multiple safeguards designed specifically for a constrained site and a high water table conditions and is intended to treat and manage wastewater while complying with the applicable
performance standards. We believe a long-term treatment solution better serves both the property and the surrounding community than a system that relies on continual storage and repeated removal of wastewater. We are not asking to avoid regulations or create an exemption for convenience.
We are requesting reasonable consideration due to a unique hardship associated with the size and configuration of our property. The proposed system has been engineered to comply with applicable requirements and the requested variance addresses
a dimensional limit limitation that cannot realistically be overcome. Our family wants to remain in the community we love and move forward with long-term solution to a problem that has affected us for years. Thanks for your consideration. >> Thank you.
Okay, and we're just going to ask you to step here. We will have some questions for you. >> Sure. >> Anybody questions? >> Um did you been working with Josh at Casper? Mr. Smith was telling us and he speaks
highly of the system that he has he has designed uh for your situation. >> Yeah. >> Did he speak to it specifically with regards to the um the Minnesota subsections uh A through D? >> Um so
he he did have a conversation about how he's installing a septic system like he would at any other place. The only difference is it's 13 ft from the house instead of 20. Can he predict the future and make sure that everything's going to run smoothly? Of course not. Does he have faith that this system is
actually going to work as intended? He does. Which is the only reason why we're here requesting a variance because we don't want sewage water into our home. >> Thank you. >> Yes, quick question and sorry for your pain. I know this is not a fun situation
to be in. Um but I am curious, how many bedrooms do you have and how many people do you have in your household? >> Yeah, so we're a three-bedroom house with one bathroom, which is already problematic, but we're we're making it work. Um there's four of us. There's my husband and I and our two children. We have a 16-year-old and a 12-year-old.
>> Got it. Beautiful, thank you. And I assume as a follow-up that the septic system that they're proposing is designed for a three-bedroom home of your size. >> Correct. Yep. >> No [clears throat] other questions for the Longbrook's. Okay. Well, and do you have any other questions for us?
Okay. Well, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> And anyone else want to speak to this issue? Yeah, come on up, Jim, please. >> I forgot to ask Nicole and them, did Josh do a soil
boring? >> Yes. >> You did? >> Yep. >> So, that should be good for the water table. He should be having He should know exactly where that is, huh? >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I'm closing the public hearing and
do you folks have anything that you want to discuss? >> I actually uh you know, I have a sewer and water as my background. So, I reviewed this, went past the house, and I have no concerns with it. Um I respect the opinion of the neighbor
who has concerns, but due to her being, according to this, uh circle being more than 100 ft away, I don't think that we'll have an issue with it. So, um I truly if which I res- with what they've been through, I am sure they're
going to pump it on the regular program like you should, and that thing will last them a long time. It'll last them many years, you know. There There's no doubt in my mind it'll last 30, 40 years, and I'm I'm confident with the design set before
us of working well for them. So, I'll be voting for it. >> Okay, thank you. Brian? >> Um Yeah, I mean, this would be a tough situation. I mean, we want what's best for the residents. Yes, and this is a
practical difficulty. Uh the part that caught me in this write-up was that um without technical certification, approval cannot be given by the city. And I'm wondering if that's going to hold us up on this. Um Eric spoke to
um with that then the proprietor of that certification would then be responsible should something go wrong. Uh but without it then the city's going to be stuck holding that, and I'm I guess that's where I'm I'm kind of caught right now. That's kind of making
me think that maybe we're not allowed to do this just because we're not having a technical certification state that this isn't going to adversely affect the surrounding area. >> Is that something that can be part of a resolution? >> Commissioner, um
maybe if I maybe if I understood what you're saying correctly. I Maybe I missed it. Um So, what we're suggesting in the ordinance or in the in the draft resolution is that um the Casper's, let's just say it's them. Um
can provide us their certification that it meets their their design meets these parts A through D um which aren't high tests to meet. I mean, they're practical, they're reasonable things to to comply with.
Um and then that would get our building official comfortable with issuing the permit. That's what he needs to say I'm good with this. Um because the city through his office
can't be the one to certify it. Rather, he will rely on his license relies on Casper's license. Um so, we're trying to say um in terms of resolution that um the applicant's contractor will
provide that certification at prior to the issuance of the permit. Um, if I understand septic uh, contractor, I think they all have a state surety bond. I think they're all required to
carry um, some securities with the state in the event there's a default or in the event there's um, a claim. Um, and those have to last X number of years. Will this system last 50 years? Probably not. There's going to be a
reasonable lifespan of any septic system. But, I think from a city perspective, if the contractor will certify that it's that it's all going to work just fine and meet these tests, I think we're comfortable with it from
staff perspective. >> Okay. All right, then yes, um, if those conditions are going to be met, then yeah, I >> Um, if I answered your question correctly, I have a clearer Okay. >> Forgive my misinterpretation of that statement. Um,
but yeah, as long as those are met, I would say we should recommend approval of this. >> On here? Any questions? >> I'll just add my perspective. I I agree with the staff's recommendation, but that also we should make sure that they confirm those two neighboring locations
of the wells, um, so that there's you know, concern, excuse me, with that, but otherwise I agree that this seems like the most logical option considering the constraints of their lot. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Um, on page 32 of 63 is a
resolution proposed. Does anyone want to make a motion on that? >> Uh, I'd like to make a motion. That the planning commission recommends approval of the variances associated with the replacement septic system at 255 Laurel Road Northeast subjects to the
conditions outlined in the draft um mentioned on page 32. >> Great. And is there a second? >> Seconded. >> Great. Okay, any further discussion? If not, all in favor say I. >> I.
>> And opposed? Being none, that motion passes. So, great. And then this will be going through the city council at which meeting? >> First meeting in July June. >> Okay. Thank you for your nice presentation.
Okay, the next item. Number six. Mr. Johnson. >> Yes, yes, yes. Here we go. Here we Um That doesn't help you. >> [laughter] >> Uh
let's see. Okay. Uh thank you again, Madam Chair, members of the commission. Um Tonight before you is a site plan review submitted by I am I'm going to butcher this. Uh uh Wat? >> Wat Lao Saikhoraram.
>> What he said. Uh for the property located at 4904 217th Avenue Northeast and it is a Buddhist temple. Um the request involves construction of approximately
a 6,400 square foot open-sided pavilion or shelter structure over an existing concrete slab associated with the temple property and a previously issued conditional use permit. The structure is intended to support religious, cultural, ceremonial,
fellowship, and community activities associated with the existing place of worship use. So, um one procedural clarification uh really there >> There are two things before the the council or the city uh
related to this. Uh one is a site plan review, and that's that's something that is truly before the planning commission tonight, but the other thing is an administrative subdivision, which ultimately is in the venue of the city council to consider and take an action on. Um
And I'm not you're not something you have to to engage tonight, but I'm going to share that with you so you understand some of the background and and why it's important um nevertheless. So, um Right now, the the temple property
um it consists of two parcels. Uh this uh parcel to the west, which is smaller, and the larger parcel to the east, which is larger, I believe 39 acres and approximately 20-some acres. Certainly, it's in the write-up. Um but
for the general overview right now, um the exact acreage aren't too important. Um they also own this home, this old farmstead here, and there's some accessory structures here. Um and so, the the use of this um
uh shelter building relates to the the temple itself and their activities and their house of worship. And and so, it's use it's associated with the property next door. Um in this home in this on this side of
the property, the the applicants reside. The again, I'm using the probably the wrong term, but monks live there. And uh Let's see if I can get rid of that. Make it bigger. And so, they reside here and they
do what they do here on this property. Um, but they cannot have this large accessory structure that serves a different parcel. In addition, they already um go awry of the total accessory structure
size on this parcel. So, what what the approach here is is to um move this property line to the east, bring this building into better
alignment terms of its uh actual parcel use with the with the temple. And then, they would have the full capacity for an accessory structure uh uh and meeting those size requirements. Um, so that is why they are proposing a
subdivision of this land to meet those those parameters. Let's see if I can find a colorful map that uh shows that. That doesn't help, yeah. I got to remember to bring in my mouse.
I can't stand these pads. All right. Okay. Uh let's see if I can pivot it. Uh so, this is the final result of the two parcels after they moved that lot line. Recall that lot line was was was was here.
And it's basically being reconfigured to this point on the east. Um, and so it won't trigger any other park dedication requirements or or or significant subdivision requirements. Um,
but that's why they are proposing this subdivision at the same time. Um, from a zoning condition and CUP background, um, this property is zoned uh, rural residential.
Um, this is the entire property as shown. Um, there is also an overlay zoning district of of a of a significant natural environmental area. None of where they're proposing to
build or have built, um, is certainly it's within that area, but um, is not covered by trees. It's not wetlands. It's It's none of those things. Um, the city's um,
significant natural environmental area doesn't go by um, parcel side parcel lines. It rather is where is it affected by the actual type of natural space. Um, so it it's comp it's zoned rural
residential with that overlay. Um, and the city's comp plan also guides it to remain rural residential. Um, or low See, here's the rural dent the rural residential
area. You can still see the temple and this and that. So, the land use parameters aren't changing. So, where does that leave us? So, what we know is in 2022, the city the temple um did
construct want to construct that temple. And so, that they applied for a conditional use permit, and they were granted this in 2022. And so, this is what they are are operating under. Um houses of worship are are allowed as conditional use permits in the rural
residential zone. But, if they want to build a new permanent structure, they're required to go through a site plan review, and that's what's before you tonight. And that's stated in there um in their conditional use permit.
Um So, in looking at the site plan and the proposed building, well, let's just look at the site. If you haven't driven over there, which many If you don't find yourself this is what the temple looks like. I think I took this obviously
look how not green it is, right? So, uh and then um this is the slab that's there, and this is looking south from not not I'm just south of the of the county highway. This is looking south. When that shot of the temple was also
looking south. I did the catch a picture with them both in it, I think. Yeah, you can see the temple kind of over here, and then uh slab to the to the east. Hopefully, that's somewhat helpful.
Um and and remember that again, so it's basically a gabled roof. It's it's not uh architecturally complex. Um so, what they're proposing from a design standpoint is
here and they propose they have a annual festival and I'm just calling it that generic term and other outdoor events related to their to their temple of their place of worship. Um they have adequate parking um
at the site. They installed all this. Um it's all installed now. They just put this in over the last couple years. Um they have very large septic fields to the south. Um all this is already open space. Um it's
not a woods. It's not a wetland. Um it's not re- it's not it's not laying any new roads, any new parking areas. There's no proposed lighting. There's no proposed electricity extended to it. Um so this is basically as they say a uh
pavilion and it'll be a standard pole construction from their contractor. This gives you a flavor of it. Um I think we've all seen them and uh I think uh ultimately we'll we'll we'll say if it's approved, you have to match
the color of the shingle on your on your building so you have some cohesiveness so anyway um so in the resolution that's in your packet um is something staff uh has crafted and in in in a nutshell
overall staff finds the request to be compatible with the rural residential district provided the structure remains accessory to the temple use and subject to the proposed conditions we we we did put in that draft and I'm going to share that um
on the screen and then I'll be quiet. Um the the important thing is um item number three um that the the activities conducted within or associated with the shelter
shall be limited to religious, cultural, etc., etc. Directly associated with uh the temple. Um, uh customarily approved principal place of worship located on subject property and it's conditionally used permit. And what
we're saying is it's just you can't use it as a rental space. You can't just be holding events there that are not directly tied to your to your place of worship. Um, we know this because it is zoned rural residential. It's guided for
residential use. Our conditional use permit relates to a religious purpose. And this is what they are asking for. Um, I would recommend that the staff recommend that you clarify this in the in the site plan
review. Um, they have 20 of festivals a year that are related to their religious use, fabulous. You know, um but it's not uh renting it out for non-related entities or regional events and and that's what it's all about. So,
um so that's staff's recommendation as you saw in the packet, um generally for approval with those conditions. >> That's it. >> Thank you so very much. >> [clears throat] >> I'm opening the public hearing
for this item and does anyone want to come up and speak to the planning commission about it? No one other than Waterloo. Okay, so >> [laughter] >> Yeah. Thank you. And could you please state your name and
your address? >> Sure. My name is Dustin Kume C. Um, >> [clears throat] >> the temple's address is 4904 217th 217th Ave Northeast. I live in Medina, which is 8745 Lilac Trail in Medina, Minnesota.
So, I'm just like the chairman somehow for the past 12 years cuz my mom was a dying wish for me to help the temple. Hence, I'm here. But, uh >> [clears throat] >> we're trying to create a a a pavilion so that when we have a festival,
um you know, families and friends and neighbors have a comfortable place to, you know, sit down and listen to music and enjoy festivities. And anytime we have a festival, we're obviously we're respectful of the community, our
neighbors. We use usually send letters out, announcement, and invitation. So, you know, it's not just for Buddhist communities or, you know, participants or members. It's, you know, anyone that wants to attend
the festival. So, that's why we're trying to build a outdoor pavilion just so it's a place where we have comfortable cuz right now we have tents and sometimes it's not, you know, comfortable with tents with wind and everything else. So,
you know, it's it's also safety concerns with, you know, uh uh with the pavilion being constructed by a licensed contractor as well with the, you know, architect and plans being drawn and so forth. So,
and Eric, I want to thank you for you walking me through this whole process because I have I have no I don't know anything about planning, building, anything. I'm a financial advisor for a living, so I'm just trying to help out as a volunteer. >> You must have You missed a meeting, apparently. >> [laughter]
>> And thank you for your time. And I mean, if you have any questions, feel free and you know, and you Anybody's here or, you know, commission. >> Um I do have a question specifically about that uh clause where it talks about the activities have to basically be um
attached to your church. Had you had any plans on renting it out for weddings or anything like that? >> No. So, we've had festivals uh once a year. So, it it's from the temple, the club and parade. It's just, you know,
you know, it it's kind of like Easter when it, you know, comes to uh, you know, Christian Um so, it's very much like Easter. So, it's, you know, festival that and we have New Year's, uh which is mid-April, usually like Leo Shen Thai, Cambodian, uh the same New Year.
But, it's not as big. So, usually the Bon Pchum in late June, it's a bigger one where everyone's invited, you know, you know, neighbors, you know, friends, family, people out of state. So, it any activity festival comes from, you know, master himself
planning and, you know, creating this event. So, this there's no renting it out for wedding or car show or anything like that. >> Okay. Just wanted to see if if you had any plans for that. >> No. >> Okay.
>> Right now, it's just once a year. So, it's just religious. >> So, then it'll be two two times a year, you think then, for your >> Uh maybe two times a year. Right now, we're talking about um the New Year, Leo Shen New Year in April.
Then the June one, the uh the festival in late June. So, right now, the plan is just to have two. >> Mhm. >> And obviously would apply for a permit through Eric as well. >> And about how many years have you been doing it with tents then, do you think? >> I want to say past like maybe 3 years, 3
4 years. >> Okay. And as far as you know, there's been no noise complaints? >> Um we've had none. So, and usually we send invites out, uh notification. We know pretty much all our neighbors. And we would uh invite them over and say, you know, "Please come in and join
the fun. We'll usually feed them, you know, free food, drinks, and whatever, you know. And Kay and all the Andersons, I mean, I think Ben Anderson is a nephew of uh Kay and one of her um one of his aunts. He actually drew up the the the survey
for us for for no cost. So, the neighbors have been very, you know, supportive and helpful and and very kind, you know, to our festivities. >> Any questions? >> I have a comment.
Uh last June, I believe it was, I attended one of the services there. >> Mhm. >> You should go. It's like stepping into another world. It It feels like you're at a Laotian Buddhist temple. >> Yeah, inside's really cool. Like,
outside doesn't do any justice. >> Yeah, you have no clue. And you walk in, it's just you're transported to another world. It was People were very friendly. >> Yeah. >> They had an amazing array of food after the service. Um >> Yeah. >> It was >> Oh, thank you. Yeah. >> It was great.
>> No, we encourage everyone. We invite everyone. So, uh like I said, we're respectful people and of religion, so you know, we want to not interrupt anyone. >> It's also It's a great asset to the
community and they're it's very crowded. I guess people come from pretty far apart. >> to. >> Yeah, the the one in June, people come from California, Tennessee, Iowa, Texas. So, you know, it's pretty well known because
the Buddhist temples, they all like talk and know each other. So, they kind of support each other, like, you know, attendees and friends and family. So, it's It's a big event. >> Yeah. >> We enjoy it. I mean, it's It It's just a lot of fun. Like, it's mainly just families and and and friends. so it's
just fun activity for everyone. >> Lindsey, anything? >> No no comments for me. Sounds like a wonderful activity. >> Thank you. >> Gentlemen? >> No. >> No comment. No. >> Okay, great. Well, I thank you very much for your time. And if you could please write your name and address on that
paper before you get done. Um >> I was the first one. >> got Okay, perfect. Okay. >> Thank you for >> Thank you so very much. >> sir. >> Okay, then. I'm going to close the public hearing. And do we have any discussion? >> I don't see a problem, so >> Yeah, my only question is with the
merging of the two parcels. I think that's part of this as well. Is there any thing to consider with regards to the conditional use on the one parcel? Does that extend onto the second once they merge? >> Well, that's a that's a really good observation. Um
when they made their application, they had um I suppose the city considered it as a unified land use between the two parcels. Um them splitting it shouldn't make a
difference. The city did not record As far as I can know, the city did not record the CUP onto um parcel A or parcel B. Um And with this
shelter going onto the main structure, it should even clarify that further. >> Okay. >> Um the whole religious land use law is complex. >> [laughter] >> Um and I won't profess to
say a whole lot about it, but I think where the city is really laying its uh cards on the table simply saying, "Hey, you want to do this? Great. Using for using it for associated house of worship uses? God bless you. Have fun."
You know? >> So, then >> [clears throat] >> in your in your opinion, is the subdividing the best solution then? >> It's really the only solution short of a variance for the >> Right. >> from the the size limitation. Um
and then if you look at that, how do you address those practical difficulty questions? So, the subdividing is at the end of the day the easiest tool. Um it it doesn't create any problems for the city that we can see. Again, it
doesn't it just moves a lot line from the west to the east. Um and it frankly in a lot of ways city probably can't deny it in in some sense. Um those are administrative. They meet the tests. City really can't
say no. Um but for a good cause and in this case there isn't. >> So, how much is it costing then for the applicant to do the subdivision and >> Uh in terms of the fees from the city? >> Mhm.
>> Well, >> A lot. >> A lot. >> Yeah. >> The reality is here is they're going to have fees in one way or another if they want to through a variance process probably would be higher because I'm going to have to have the city attorney involved in that in that drafting of those permits. In this case, um a
variance application, I'm sorry, a lot subdivision or lot change, the application fee is $1,300. $1,000 of that is escrow. And so, we don't incur expenses >> You said 1,300 not 13,000?
>> 1,300 correct. Yeah, they get they get that back I think. >> Okay. >> We even chatted about that the other day so. It there's no way around the fee structure of something like this. We don't bill for our time, your time. It's just is there out of pocket costs
for the city. The applicant mentioned that they have one friend who did the surveying. Um so really doing this quite affordably. >> Mhm. Okay, thank you.
>> Oh, there you go. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve the um site plan review. >> Okay, and did you want to add any stipulations or anything in there? >> Uh as submitted.
>> Okay, perfect. Um page 53 of 63. >> Yep. >> Of the packet. It's right here. Is there a second? >> I'll second the motion. >> And you're okay with your resolution then? >> Right. >> Okay, perfect.
Any further discussion? If not, all in favor say I. >> I. >> And opposed? Being none, that motion passes. >> I I'd like to add our festival this year is June 26th through 28th. So, if you want to help out, stop by.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> Okay, and then this will be going to the city council at the next meeting. >> Yep. Not tomorrow, but in June. >> June 8th. >> Yep. Okay, thank you. >> Thank you.
>> And now we're going to discuss short-term rental concepts and possible regulation structure. All right. >> Mr. Johnson. >> Okay. Um I don't have anything to show on the
screen. Uh so, really I'm just coming back Oh. Um from the conversation we had last month. I mean, there certainly is a memo in your packet that talked about some of those
issues that maybe you folks don't want to talk about. Um you're not asked to approve this draft of ordinances tonight. Um rather um provide some other guidance or maybe some
changes you would like in them. Uh that we can then hold that public hearing. I would post that in the in the newspaper um next month. Uh interested parties um could show up and
we'd go through that ordinance in detail and somebody could give their feedback. Um certainly the planning commission could give its feedback then, too, um in addition to tonight. So, the goal is to say, "All right. Is this about right? Is this package of stuff kind of close? It's not
perfect, but is it kind of what we like?" Um and then let's hear more comment from the public and maybe it needs more refinement or a wholesale change, whatever you folks want. Um so, that's kind of the goal tonight. Um and so, I've received uh some comments
from uh Commissioner Crescenzo and Commissioner How do I How do I Pagli Pagli Pagli Pagli? How do I pronounce her name? >> Oh. >> Pagli Pagli Pagli? Uh and so, I tried to incorporate some of those, but um
uh in in some of the narrative here. But essentially, I think where you left it was um still talk about administrative license versus interim use permit framework. Talk about should you allow accessory uses for
short-term rentals, spacing and separation requirements, and finally some operational standards. My two cents is in the packet. Um So, I think that's kind of where I'd leave it for you to hammer out and say what what you like,
what don't you like, and I can give you my two cents again. So, I'll with that I'll maybe pass on. So. >> Okay. Okay, and I don't think we don't have to have an open public hearing now, right? And when is
the next city newsletter coming out then? >> Oh, I think they're trying to get a deadline out here next week for turning in applications or or articles from staff to uh Carrie Frost who puts it together. So, it'll be We will have
another one later. Um in the season. >> Right. So, I'm just concerned that we might miss uh with the next newsletter coming out, we might miss there being enough time for people to get notice of the meeting for our next one. >> that's possible. I mean, we're required
by statute just put it in the newspaper. Um >> The newspaper or the newsletter? >> Newspaper. >> Okay. >> the in the city's legal newspaper, and that you might as well throw it out the window for all the people who see the legal notice, right? And um
So, I'd have to check with Carrie and say, "Hey Hey, we're considering something, but I don't know what the timing of that might be. >> Mhm. >> Um we can certainly put it on our website, and there's other tools of
social media that are out there that I think we could probably access. Um I'm not the best person for that. I'm old school. I don't I don't have Facebook. I don't have any of those. But other people do, and you folks do, and we can maybe get that out to the world. And
we do have a few people we do know operate an Airbnb type thing, and I think we can reach out to them specifically and say, "Cuz we want your rental." >> And I think that would be helpful. >> Um So, yeah. >> Okay. Comments?
I have a couple. Um First one is the I think the staff did a great job. I appreciate very much the the updates. I think it's heading in the right direction. Um my one question well, one of a few questions. Uh the
10-day limit for how long they can have rented the the Airbnb or or VRBO. I wonder if we should open that up cuz I think of um in Blaine at the sports stadium, they have like golf events, and the professionals will be there longer
than 10 days. And so, perhaps we want to consider capitalizing on that in a financial way, but just, you know, allowing the East Bethel community to be able to hit have some of those participants in our community for the time. And so, that
would allow or in that we would need to have more than 10 days. >> What do you think would be a reasonable day length for that, Lindsay? >> Um I mean, I don't know exactly on on golfing, but I was thinking closer to 20 days, maybe. I don't think a whole
month would be I think that's a lot, but what do you guys think? >> I was noting the same thing, but I didn't even know why they're what's the point of trying to limit the time, because what if somebody If you have a property on Lake, and
somebody wants to rent it for a season or a month or two or whatever, why would that not be a good thing? >> That's true. >> In fact, it seems like that would be better than having an influx of random people.
You know, to have one consistent renter would be a good thing. >> Yeah, that's a good point, especially if they stay under the 120-day, for example, limit of their permit. >> Right. >> Yeah, that's true. >> Eric, do you know why 10 days came up?
>> a lot of cities that have looked at this, they their intent of this is to make sure it stays short-term rental. And if it gets into, let's just say 30 days, the city has a different tool for that. We just have a traditional rental license.
Um also, if it's meant to encourage uh vacationers or encourage other commerce, um maybe that's shorter-term rentalers rent renter
renters uh might be more inclined to see it as a vacation versus, "Hey, I'm just renting here to live here for X period of time." But, you guys make good points, too. It's a But, what's the difference? Um
but, I think that's So, maybe the compromise is, "Well, give Put 20 in and see if it works, you know?" >> Mhm. >> Start with 20. If it doesn't work or it's too much, too little, you can always You can always change it.
>> Yeah, we could get the feedback from the community, too, on >> Yeah. >> if that's the right balance. >> Not to nitpick, but I would If you're going to go with that range, I would say 21, cuz it's a full three weeks. >> Okay, there you go. >> 21 days?
>> There is any more on that, um I also wondered about the the homeowner needing to be within 5 miles of the home. I think that's kind of a tall ask because most people are renting it out because they're not necessarily, I mean, yes, largely they'll be out of town, so we have to
figure out that, but but to ask them to be within 5 miles, that's why wouldn't they just stay at their home at that point? So, um I would say within a reasonable driving distance so that they can attend to issues and that we can define what that means, but I'm thinking within, say, a couple hour drive, perhaps.
Um or some other version of that. My other I've seen as well that people say or a reasonable surrogate, but that becomes tricky. Um but you know, I wanted to open it up to the committee to discuss, you know, how far
away from the home do we want the owner or the permit owner to be. >> Right. I'm thinking a reasonable surrogate would be good also. >> Agreed. >> You know, one thing of having some kind of parameter of distance,
you don't want absentee owners. You don't And sometimes they become out of sight, out of mind. Maybe you simply say must reside within Anoka County. And that's a big county. You could be living in Blaine, that's far more than 5 miles, but it's very
definitive. You're kind of centrally located to some extent in that. Um but also it does give you does have a relief parameter of if you're not within that, you you can appoint a
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a third party. And so, what tends to happen is people rent these things. Again, 90 The vast majority of them are are without issue. We We that. Um but in times when there when there are problems
there needs to be somebody who's responsible and we need to be able to get a hold of them, too. Not, "Oh, I'm on I live in Florida or I live in Illinois and I rent this out in the summer." Um and I will I'll be back in 2 weeks and
we'll talk then. Uh-uh. You're either you live in the county or you appoint that representative that's responsible and that's the rationale. >> Mhm.
>> Is it perfect? No, but maybe in Anoka County if you live in Anoka County that could be the sell side of blame. I mean, that's 20 miles away. Um but at least it's a defined space, you know. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I generally agree. I think it it's tricky to force them to be
living within a certain area. >> can. >> Um >> You may. >> I mean, we can, but is that the >> Sure. >> the best thing it it >> Yeah. >> concerns me as well just because, you know, if you're renting this place out it's either your permanent home that you're on vacation you're going to rent
it out or it's, you know, your second home and you're renting it out for for that purpose, in which case you largely aren't going to if it is your second home you're largely not going to be in the area. So, then that's where the the representative needs to be within said >> distance. >> Yeah.
And doesn't they don't have to be living within it, but they have to be within a certain distance of the property. >> And they can respond. >> Yes, exactly. So, that'd be my feedback to the staff on that. >> I would rather see a responsible person be a time as opposed to a county or
>> Yeah. >> um miles because I look at it as if something was happening and the sheriff department was called and they wanted to see somebody on site. >> Mhm. >> You know. >> Ooh.
>> What? I just don't know how could I mean looking at ordinances and say 20 let's just say 20 minutes. Whatever. >> Yeah. >> How how do we define you know, I think driving here to to to QuickTrip in town. We know that takes
less than 20 minutes. >> Yeah. >> But where does that 20-minute window cease? And and to be fair, are we going to be anybody there with a stopwatch? No. Um but so at that point having a distance parameter
is just cleaner. >> Or geographical. >> Yeah, it just you you have to just Anoka County it's definable. There's no ambiguity about it. There's no there's no >> Well. >> great test about it. >> good because the border for the county
is >> Yeah. >> 5 minutes away or not even from here. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Or or you could say a boundary of roads or you could say >> Yeah. >> or Anoka or what's the county to the west? That was that's not Scott that's south. What's
the county to the west of here? >> Sherburne. >> Sherburne? I mean you could you could define it within >> How about a radius of mileage? >> Yeah. That's fine. Something that's from a point of >> Yeah.
>> center you know, or or within 10 miles of the >> of the structure >> of the or or of Anoka County border or something. We can come up with something that's just definable and easy. >> I was thinking of a radius from unless it that's too complicated radius from
the property. >> That would be best, yeah. >> It seems like that's what you're trying to do. I would just challenge the 5 miles is a little tight, but >> It is. >> Well, every city has somebody on call. >> Mhm. >> And League of Minnesota Cities
defines defines their distance in time. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> of response time. And that's why I would go down that path because that's already a standard. >> Yeah. For emergency vehicles. >> Yes. Well, no, for it's for non-emergency too. I mean, it's like
a sewer backup. >> Yeah. >> You know. >> Yeah, for crew that have to show up >> Yeah. >> in the middle of the night when it's 20 below, right? >> league expects somebody to respond in 2 hours. I mean, that's the rule. >> Yeah. >> And so, that's where I think something like this is
a pretty reasonable standard to say to an owner, "We need somebody to respond to some I mean, what if the place is on fire? You know what I mean? It's burned down. Maybe they want to see the representative come to the site. Everything's under control
now, but if they would come >> to get here in 20 minutes or 30 minutes from pretty much anywhere in Anoka County or Sherburne County or Chisago County by and large? >> No. >> Okay.
So, that's a full minute or so, 45 minutes? >> You know. >> Probably by and large. >> Yeah. >> You know. >> Getting closer. >> Within an hour and at that point, just having a geographical marker is just simpler.
>> I'd say within an hour would be reasonable. >> Yeah. >> I mean, emergency service, you know, I mean, we call it the golden hour. I mean, >> Yeah. >> we'd like to have things handled by then, so. I think it makes sense that a
representative could be present within you know, an hour of whatever may happen to be a utility failure or something requiring first responders of some sort. An hour would seem reasonable because what are they really going to do other
than relay the information to the property owner? I mean, you know, they're going to say, "Hey, I'm here." And that's about all they can do. So, >> So, within 1 hour? >> Mhm. >> I would be good with that. >> What do you think? >> Okay. >> Okay.
Okay. >> So, that's the responsible >> The responsible party. >> Exactly. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Perfect. And then the next one I wanted to inquire about was and I appreciate the staff's help with, you know, the um secondary structures and and potential
in particular um in-law suites, but then it made me wonder about there are a lot of Airbnb owners that are offering their RVs >> New. >> for rent on their properties. So, we should evaluate if that's something that we
want to allow or not. Um it's not currently in consideration. So, curious for everybody's opinion. >> Yeah. >> Um I guess I didn't consider that when I read principal dwelling on a site. Um >> Nor did I. >> But uh
that doesn't mean some people won't try for that. Um There are empty lots. If you park an RV on there, does that become the principal dwelling? So, >> Yeah. It's interesting, yeah, perspective, too, but I've seen people where it's their permanent home, but
then they will continue to live in that, but they'll Airbnb their RV that sits in their driveway. >> I don't think that's the intent. My take on it is I don't think that's the intent of what you're trying to enable. No. >> I agree. >> RV use.
>> Um accessory structure, if it's code compliant, it's it's designed for full-time habitation, septic, insulation, you know, it's got meets the building code, uh maybe. But, those probably will still be few and far
between. >> I mean, I generally agree. I I mean, but you know, on behalf of the city, I think it's better if we limit it so we don't perhaps allow RVs, but it is happening and so we should evaluate it and and make a stance on it.
>> If you don't like it, I would encourage you to put a note in here that simply says rental of RVs is not >> Yeah. >> permitted for permits or whatever. >> I mean I think it's really good to discuss it. Uh as a farm we get emails
probably once a week from companies wanting to set that type of thing up on our property. >> And they're going to try to pump out their systems and you know where can we hook up our water and none of these properties are designed for
these things, you know. >> Right. >> That's what the state parks are for. That's what county parks are for. That's what you know. Anyway. >> Yeah, and it I mean it enters all sorts of other concerns with making sure sure the RV is properly
this you know handled as far as their water and switch, so seems like it opens a new can of worms that we don't want to worry about. Um but yeah, thank you for the time. That was my my couple of questions. >> Did you I know we chatted a little bit
about the interim use thing and you know, I think it's worth it's worth my my opinion is is not as important as your folks is, but just there's pros and cons to having an interim use piece and and a more
administrative piece and you know when you have two regulatory pathways that can be complex and you want to make it simple for people. Um but on the flip side you know, when there's big structures with a lot of bedrooms that can have a lot of impact on neighbors, maybe you
want to have those a few more layers of review, so that's why we came up with with the two tier or the two process and maybe it should be five bedrooms. maybe should be three bedrooms and I don't know. That's so that's just why
we proposed it the way it was. >> I think it made sense as long as it's not too much burden to the city to have it as two separate. I know they mentioned that it is a little bit more, but manageable, but it seems like it's appropriate just based on the difference in in what the
events we'll call it events or the rentals would be for for larger homes versus >> Yeah. There'd be more cars, there'd be more use, there'd be more people milling around and which isn't bad, but on the same token
it's just different than a small little home. >> Great. >> I had a question about um on page 63 number three of the interim use permit term. And I brought this up last time when we
discussed it. Why would it matter if the per- if it wasn't used for 180 consecutive days? >> Oh, yeah, yeah, you were right. Um why did we leave that in there? Uh duh duh So, I think when we were
thinking about interim use permits and how they're issued here in the city, there is a complexity of do interim use permits run with the land or do they run or do they do they have a termination date inherent in their issuance? >> Well, you have a 5-year term for that.
>> Right. So, that was the first part of That's the first part of it. The second piece of it is if somebody's going to um not use it um on a within that 180 consecutive days, um having that stew out there
um for them using it once a year, it just seems that it's inconsistent with having that permit in the first place. Either use it or let's get rid of it. Um it's certainly a choice. Um but if they're not really going to
use the permit, especially if you're not going to have a total number of Airbnbs. I mean, that's something else to talk about. Do you want to limit the number of air of these units? Um So, if somebody
has a permit, and you have a limit of them in the city, and somebody's not using it, let's let's either get rid of the limit or let's get rid of the 180-day concept. >> Well, the point I'm had made about that was if somebody who just wants to rent
it out during the summer, then you've got uh a lot of time where it's uh >> question also might be what is the term use mean? Um Hey, I've I've been trying to rent it out, but nobody booked it. Does that mean I'm not using it? So, I think that's one more
clarification we might need to add. But if you want to get rid of it, that's totally okay, too. >> I I also don't see you, but the mechanism to over- of oversight for that would be >> Could you say that again?
>> The I don't see what mechanism for oversight for the city >> Well, we do have or an ask or earlier in the code that requires them to provide, when we ask them for uh their occupancy.
Um Let's see. >> But do you have that much staff time that you can be reviewing all these things? >> we don't think it's going to be a lot. Short answer is no, but how do we control these otherwise? Um
If you're if you guys are comfortable not having a 180-day parameter, that's okay. It's it always can be put back in. It can always be changed. >> I would be comfortable on a year. I mean, if somebody doesn't rent it for a whole year >> Right.
>> Annual permit is a more reasonable to me. >> Yeah. >> That makes sense. >> Cuz I cuz I do think we're going to end up putting a feet away from another one. And if this guy keeps getting a permit and this lady wants one but can't get
one, this one's never getting rented. We're going to run into something there. >> Yeah, that's a good point and we can come back to it, but the um I think I don't think we should limit like um two houses being next to each other not being able to be rented. I
think it's perfectly fine as long as we're not hitting that noise complaint or any other issues that we're concerned about, but we can come back to this point and finish off the the first, but I agree I mean, changing the 180-day to a year or taking it away completely
would be fine for me. >> Are we kind of in agreement on the 360? >> I think that's reasonable. >> Are you able to do that then, please? Thank you. And then the having two houses next to each other, it's not like you're against having two houses
>> I am. I I don't want to see a street of rentals. I mean, that's exaggerating your point. >> Sure, yeah. >> But I I think that I don't I just don't want to see a whole bunch of them. I would think even the people who live
in the Creek Beach area don't want everyone rented out. >> Yeah. I don't know. It seems like a rare situation personally, cuz most of those people are living there permanently, right? So, then >> Yeah. >> that means they all would have to decide
to to leave and and rent their places out. So, to me it seems unlikely. But, I mean, maybe we put a limit, but it seems like, you know, having two next to each other would be fine, but to your point, maybe we limit it at I don't know, five or three or whatever the number is, so that we don't end up
you know, getting, like you say, a string. >> Right. >> But, I don't know. I It'd be unfair for, you know, two neighbors to not be able to offer it just by proximity, but >> I think that makes sense. It's kind of an extreme you went to with the whole string, but I I understand what you
mean. I mean, if we're going to let it two houses, why aren't we going to let 10 houses? Yeah. Some sort of a cap on that for a neighborhood of some sort. That's the secret. That's where, like I said, I would love gets back to my point last time to
like have whoever did the survey on the cannabis, you know, the attorney come out with this plan. This is what most cities do. I would like to see more of a big culture proposal of what other cities do.
Are there other cities that have done things on this? >> Or perhaps staff has a recommendation on >> I I I know if I So, on on page 62, um subdivision seven of this, you have a big yellow space there right there that
um So, from what I heard, I think you folks I thought I heard that okay, you're comfortable with no spacing right now. Um Um And so, it would just be
basically a We wouldn't really There would be no spacing requirement. Um And so essentially subdivision 7 would be deleted at this point. >> Could we add to subdivision 7 maybe stating adjacent lots?
Um >> Yeah, it's up to you. Yeah, absolutely. >> Have a certain distance between them. Uh you planted a seed, Coin. I'm thinking if a whole street is available, and let's just say the graduating class of 2031 rents the whole street. Um you know,
that would be within subdivisions if we don't address that. So, it it might be uh kind of a good safeguard to have some sort of a proximity with uh adjacent um buildings or a special request needs to be made kind of
clarifying uh activities that might be taking place. Something to that nature. >> If it was, say, as an example, 200 ft from the the rental unit, you can't have another one within 200 ft.
Then, you could have them in the same neighborhood, but it would be spaced out kind of farther away. And it'd be pretty random to try and turn it into a cluster of of those things. >> Yeah, it was a
a hypothetical. Likely wouldn't come up, but um But yeah, I think uh 200 ft uh the beach, you most lots there are less than 100 ft wide, right? So. >> Lake Great, they're 100 probably. >> Yeah,
no, those are. So, uh maybe take that kind of a lot size into consideration with this uh um the spacing requirement in subdivision seven. >> So [clears throat] maybe like 250 then
you would have to alternate or you wouldn't be able to have adjacent ones at 250 ft. >> Right. >> I don't know. I mean that's where I still think, you know, we should give them a little more grace cuz in this special circumstance people might want to do it but they're next to each other
but I get the the not wanting to have too many in a cluster but you know, stand by, you know, wanting to allow some flexibility for those people that do just happen to be next to each other. >> pretty restrictive on how many people can be there. >> Yeah. >> I mean it's
>> It's true. >> two per bedroom and three guests per >> Mhm. >> unit. >> No. >> Is three guests too little? >> It's true. That is pretty small if you're have a family of five. >> Exactly, you know,
that came over for just the day, you know. I don't That's a tough one, too. >> Right. And that's a fair point to me. We probably could consider opening that up but then if you're restricting it on that then why also add the restriction of we can't have two houses next to each
other? You know, if you're already limiting how many people can be >> Right. >> legally in the home. And the general purpose of, you know, the rentals being not for events that they should be just for rentals. >> So from a maximum occupancy standpoint
it's should not exceed two persons per bedroom. So if it's four bedroom they can have eight >> Right. >> plus one additional occupant. So they could have nine. >> Nine. >> Um and then three >> Unless they had an IUP. >> Doesn't it say three
>> Unless they had an IUP. And then it would be more. I mean if they had more than four bedrooms. >> Right. Right. Right. So it's a function of the number of bedrooms, regardless of the method. So, if they had three bedrooms, they could have six people plus one. So, they
could have seven people as as registered guests. They could also have three people who are not registered guests be present at the short-term rental at any one time. So, people come over and visit, you know. Again, it's not intended for a party or
an event. Somebody might have a guest or two over for the day, and that's fine. Um But again, it's still a function of septic capacity um in some way. Um maybe should it be four persons who are not registered guests or two? I I don't know. There's There's got to be
some some number that makes sense some sense. Um try to think about, you know, like go with my family, we're really not having guests over. I mean, I'm in a different city or I'm in a different area. What guests am I having as a
as a guest of a guest, you know, I I don't know. Seems odd to me, but I'm sure it happens. >> Do you [clears throat] know how where it says further limited by septic capacity? How's that How's that is measured or certified?
>> Yeah, we would So, under under Minnesota rules, they every 3 years somebody has to have their septic system pumped or and and we have to have the record of it. So, um when it was installed, it we should have a record somewhere of the size and number of bedrooms it's
qualified for. Um and then are they maintaining it effectively? So, um when somebody would apply for a permit, we'll want evidence of that pumping and that or evidence of the size if we don't have it already on record.
So, it's not it's not a subjective parameter. It's sized for three bedrooms, and that's it. So, if they show up and say, I'm going to have a five bedroom. I want to have five I got five compliant
bedrooms." Yeah, that's fine, but your septic only says three. >> Right. >> So So that's that's the that's the limitation. >> What if they have a holding tank? >> Well, I guess in that point, you know,
if they want to fill up their holding tank, then they can have two persons per bedroom plus one additional person. >> I just bring that up because >> You know how that's going to go, right? >> My in-laws had a holding tank and they pumped it on a Monday and their son, my
ex-brother-in-law, went up there with his buddies. >> Filled it up? >> Eight guys filled it in one weekend. >> Oh, wow. >> And so [laughter] they were not happy. >> Mhm. >> And the alarm goes off. >> Yep. So I I mean, that just makes me think of that. >> something you might want to consider, um
if you have neighbors that are next to each other and so back to the subdivision seven thing, um no short-term rental shall be allowed within 250 ft of another license or approved short-term rental. Maybe you even give yourself some capacity that says
um So the first operator's there and then then the neighbor wants to come in, maybe the neighbor that wants to come in can only be done by an interim use permit. As a as some kind of mechanism of control. So you can't have two administratively
issued permits. The second party has to have it by IUP. >> [clears throat] >> It's a possibility. Gives you some more control and and gives them a way to approach it and gives you some chance to review it.
They may be needing a IUP anyway as that second home, but that point, what's the difference? >> [laughter] >> I really look forward to hearing from people who rent them, to be honest with you. >> Mhm. >> Cuz we could sit here and talk till midnight about possibilities, but I
would love to hear real life stories. >> Yeah, and the community, too, because, you know, if they're using Airbnbs today, they're going to have a perspective on what's going to, you know, benefit them or do what they're looking for. Yeah. >> What would you like me to kind of say in that just the 250 and just see what
happens? You can always change it. >> [clears throat] >> I like the 250 and the interim use permit if within the 250. >> And then 360 days for the um subdivision 11 instead of 180. >> Got you.
>> So, if they don't use it within a year, >> Yeah. >> you're okay with that? 365. Well. >> 360 in a circle. >> [clears throat] >> And I'm just a little bit concerned about um I'd I'd love it to go in the newsletter
um to announce it to people. >> I will check with Carrie and I'll I'll send you all an email if that's possible. And basically, it's not that this ordinance has to be in there. It's rather >> Announce it in the meeting. >> Announce it in the meeting and we're taking your input. >> Right. So, I'm thinking that maybe we do
it the month after next if it's >> I'll check with Carrie if she thinks we can do it. I'll just write a short blurb and I know she's always looking for things to put in there. >> Mhm. >> So, I'm more than happy to ask. And uh invite people to the meeting and >> Okay, well, how about if we can get the
newsletter out in time, then we'll have it as soon as possible the the meeting as soon as possible after that. >> Now, we'll do it in July. >> What's that? >> If if I get it in the newsletter and I get it out in time, we'll have the
the work the public hearing in end of June. And if not, we'll have the public hearing at the end of July. >> Right. >> Is that what you're saying? >> Yes. >> All right. I can deal with that. >> Okay. Any other things? >> I think we're good.
>> All right. >> As always, we thank you. >> Oh, just you guys got to be productive. It's great. >> So, um we have a staff update coming up. >> Oh, well, we have a newsletter coming up, so
>> Yay. >> the newsletter. [laughter] We can We can put that in, but no, I I think that's enough for you. I have anything fabulous to share, well, next month we'll might have an application for
um I don't know if it'll be a concept plan review. I'm sorry. It'll be for concept planning um for a Um so, if you know where the movie theater is, the Imagine movie theater,
um there's some property to the south that's vacant. Um there's two apartment buildings there. In your mind's eye, if you can see that. Um there's somebody who's interested in buying a parcel that abuts
65 and converting it to um mixed um or multi-tenant industrial facility. Right now, it's zoned B3. Um so, what are the possibilities of a rezoning or a text amendment for that space?
Um so, that'll be in front of you. Um we'll see. >> Hm, that's [clears throat] interesting. >> It's interesting because your B3 district in some sense could be more intense than a light industrial use. I mean, so if you look at your code
you know, a B3 can be far more busy than and a light industrial use. I mean, our brain we tell oh, industrial it's these smoke stacks. It's the No, go if you drive over there, you look at what your actual industrial zone includes. They're actually really nice quiet occupants
occupied buildings. So, it's it's strange the way that kind of works. But, anyway, that's coming at you. >> So, how many data centers have applied? >> Yeah, no, none. I think that would be a tough sell out here. >> Mhm. >> I think that requires a lot of water
um for cooling. >> Mhm. >> And and just the price of land here per square foot for something like that is just I would think blows that out of the water, but I haven't heard any of that.
>> Okay. >> So, your rules your city's rules don't have anything pro or con about them. So, if they show up, I don't know how we'd address it. >> I did have a question and I probably should have asked it for council update.
Who owns the Nexus building? Does that Nexus group >> It's their Yeah, they're >> Okay. >> based out of the Twin Cities. Yeah, they >> 2 years >> the Duluth area if I'm not mistaken. Um I just did a little bit of research and they have a conditional use permit
>> Okay. >> from the city. And so, we'll >> Which goes with the property, right? >> Goes with the property. And so, where we're at is city administrator may saw him on the news um properly noted that, you know, we're
watching and hopefully that things get worked out. >> Exactly. I mean, so from what I read it they're they're not abandoning it completely. They want to work these things out. >> Right. >> I mean who knows? >> Yeah, it's out of I mean they're
licensed by the state. >> Mhm. >> So, we don't have a whole lot to do with it. >> Mhm. >> For good or for bad. >> Okay. >> That's a tough That's a tough business. >> Mhm. >> It is. >> So, that's all I got for you.
>> Nothing else. Is there a motion to adjourn? >> Motion to adjourn. >> Okay, thank [laughter] you. Uh second? >> Second. >> Any discussion? All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. Opposed, no. The meeting is closed.