##VIDEO ID:gd5lc74M3Hg## okay we call the meeting to order and do we have a motion to adopt the agenda a motion to adopt tonight's agenda as it reads is there a second I'll second that all right all in favor say I I opposed that motion passes and I think we're going to have an update now from councilman Smith good evening Commissioners Jim Smith Bethal City Council on October 14th we had a work meeting and we've been contacted by some residents over the the two storms that we had for wind to try to get rid of brush and stuff like that we don't really have a plan so we talked to Nate Public Works and we talked about different areas where we can maybe bring some the residents can bring some stuff so Nate suggested maybe Bondi park because that's a good siiz Park but it's not used a lot but then we'd have to have it staed also because otherwise it would turn into a junkyard we don't want to do that so we're still talking about that and then uh gambling we approved St Francis Youth Hockey Association for MC garage I don't know if you remember but  Rapids basically trained them on how to do the gambling part of it so that was really cool so now they'll be in there theirselves so that's a good thing then uh the final plat for Viking medals came for Capstone developer we approved that and also North Country Concrete for the cop we approved that and the fire department we uh found out that a lot of non-active members had access to a 911 app and so we changed that and those are no longer have access to that we changed the codes on the fire department as well because also it can be a liability type thing with people coming and going that shouldn't be there so that was important because we don't want the city to be liable for something that could happen so we changed that too so uh basically that's it okay thank you very much thanks can I ask a question Jim y so we've had a couple of things that were pretty lengthy in conversation here regarding conditional use permits one on a legal non-conforming and then we had more or less a followup as a result of that and I know eron I'm not trying to take words out of your mouth but you've you've made a few comments that I've I've heard that kind of seems to go against a lot of the code that we have or it circumvents it so I guess from a planning position I'm trying to understand as we work at the Bea city council right we're an advisory committee of residents to review things and and and present them to come forward I'm trying to figure out how moving forward best to help serve the city knowing if because I feel like the odd man out here very often that we have code we try to follow it or at least I I try to follow it I'm not saying that people don't but it seems we get a lot of requests and then they they they pass right through and I feel like there's not much like we don't seem to care about the code that we have and therefore is going to potentially create whether it be presidence or other issues as a result of continuing to do this so since I haven't been in attendance to those meetings because I don't always have that availability does that type of topic come up when these things come up or are they passing through or is it even being considered because I really it is circumventing the code if that's the case I asked the question because as as someone to advise do you guys not care about the code like I'm really trying to understand it so from at least your perspective see we care about the code too but it just depends on the situation even your own commission on the last one on North Country was about to six to seven to pass that we don't want to lose our businesses that we have here and some of this stuff is not I mean we need to change some the codes probably because it's too in my own opinion it's too picky for our residents I mean especially businesses we have a hard enough time keeping businesses we want to get more so we work on each situation separately and I understand what you're saying too because we have codes and stuff like that too but sometimes we must have to look at it and maybe change them because ordinance is the same thing got a lot ordinances you can have the same conversation in the ordinances as well I guess the problem that I the problem that I'm coming up with here though is that every time there is something or a one oneoff incident we're granting it and then there's immediate subsequent followup and then that in my opinion does create things like precedence versus yeah you know applicant ABC you're you know unfortunately at this time it doesn't work but we'll consider that or maybe if there's enough request then that's the opportunity to look at the code if it needs to be changed because we know that's a process as well because that also comes through this commission right when when ordinances and Codes start changing so I'm just trying to get an idea again if I should even be considering it or not when that stuff comes up because honestly it feels like doesn't really matter yeah well it does matter because in the first place we all do our homework on the council so we go out to the sites we look at them and different things you know what I mean that's how we make our decision on it codes like I say need to be changed ordinances need to be changed we look at each situation as its own personal thing and how it affects everybody around it and I understand what you're you're saying too because if you don't follow some of the codes why do we have them well correct and again I I bring this up because I think of like legal nonconforming if the code says that it cannot expand by any definition but yet we just expanded it based on how it was approved and I'm not saying that it shouldn't have been approved I'm saying how it was approved right certain stipulations wording things a certain way and just in in my personal opinion just saying that it's Marine isn't wasn't enough and that's what I guess what I was trying to get across and with that is I don't think that that was enough in that instance because in the scenario I had painted in the committee meeting or in the Planning Commission meeting was something very different than that and that was what I was trying to get behind because again I also try to help and advocate for homeowners business owners I'd love everybody to be able to do what they can however at the same at the same point at the end of the day if we have codes and I'll pick a dirty word CST right they were given the opportunity to follow through with their application because they had every right to mhm and it became a very contentious issue and as the message I know I presented every time someone came up with this you need to give them the opportunity to apply we can't just deny but there was plenty of people who just wanted to nope rip up their application and and because we allowed them to follow through the legal process that they were allowed to do right people thought that we were shoving it through and it's like no we have to let it follow through you have to let the process happen right and I guess I see the same thing here when applicants come before us in other instances we need to let these things happen when we need you know again somebody applies for something whether it's proved denied let the process happen but at the same point I it I struggle because it feels like there's a direct disregard for the repercussion of said set action so now if you have a legal non-conforming that you just allowed to expand what stops that from any other business what stops that from the small Ed car lot at the at the beginning of the city that now wants to expand into the lot behind it because the farmer selling the field and now we've got franchise dealership right there in the start of the start of the town because and he's got precedents to come back and go hey you allowed this other place to do this right but like I said each Situation's a different thing just like when you brought up the boat thing it wasn't just Marine it was boats and pontoons for storage so it goes with the cup if anybody comes and buys that lot they still have to follow what we put in place on that CST you brought that up I was part of that fighting them all the way what people don't know is they were going to be a Trucking terminal at the end we researched everything tons of us went through that took four months before we finally got him out of there that would have destroyed the whole North End of East bethl we do our homework on a lot of stuff like I said each situation has its own thing but I know what you're saying too because we don't want people coming and say well you did it for them okay then what's your situation you know what I mean we need to know what it is we need to change things if we need to change them like the ordinances and and and that's all and that's all well and good when we can find Solutions my bigger issue is when we can't right so I'm going to pick on that small dealership or that small car lot at the at the South End of the town and again now they come forward you ask them their situation and you don't like what they have or and it gets denied and then they sue and they come back and go well there's precedents here that you guys have done this before and you approved it for them but you wouldn't approve it for us right but see like I and now they're now we're now we're in a legal battle but like I said every Situation's different everybody's to happy now is majority of people why I don't know why I don't do that some people do but I understand what you're saying too because then they're come back and sue us but you better have a reason that you're suing us because we have a reason why we either approved you or we didn't yes but that is a reason though the Pres the presence becomes right I think you've made your point okay yeah are you done thank you no I you know teror um we understand your position we truly do and you know farbeit from me to be defending the city council um but but I think that they do have these discussions and understand that there's going to be exceptions to rules that's why we have our our hearings exactly okay okay okay did you want to have any final words nope okay we understand your position you guys want to say anything no thanks I won't cut you off okay all righty thank you so we will um thank you for your update and we'll go on to the approval of minutes have you guys had a chance to read the minutes wonderful yes um line six um it's Cory with a K right yeah good job um line 41 foot privacy fence with an entrance gate onto Ulus Street Northeast and one the cues SEC onto 230 um I think that should be on the culdesac not one the CAC I was confused there also I didn't know it said one on or on or whatever right uh so um I believe that is on the culdesac or should be on the cuac yeah and then line 47 The Proposal however verus indicated he would be constructing a build on the parcel someday I believe he's constructing a building and that's all I found thank you I had those same ones I've got one correction on 102 about halfway through where it said he he said that it is he is not against it but would just like them to be cautious I would amend that to he noted that he is not against this if there's a proper way to issue it but would just like them to be cautious okay all right no others all right is there a motion to approve the minutes as corrected motion to approve the minutes says corrected second I'll second that all right all in favor say I I and opposed that motion passes and we're going on to agenda item number five already thank you madam chair members of the Planning Commission trying to get to you to a location map here just for your reference all right um the city has received a uh variance request for a detached accessory structure to be placed nearer the front lot line than the primary structure at 18260 Filmore Street Northeast this property is located in the Oak Ridge Acres development within a single family residential zoning District the applicant property is nearly three acres in size however one of the Acres of the rear yard is Wetlands or lowlands and is a platted drainage or utility easement as well as an easement for overhead utility lines the property owner is requesting a variance for the placement of a detached accessory structure closer to the street than the primary structure due to the drainage utility easement through the addition and to the location of the septic placement on the property uh zoning code appendix a general regulation section 142f states that no accessory building or detach private garage shall be located nearer the front lot line then the principal building except where the lot is 3 acres or greater and the existing principal building is located a minimum of 200 ft from the lot line then the accessory building or detached private garage may be located closer to the front lot line than the principal dwelling but not closer than 50% of the principal dwelling setback this property is 2.94 Acres with the primary structure set back 90 ft from the front lot line this request does not meet the criteria set forth to allow the structure to be placed closer to the road so a variance would be required for the placement of the detached accessory structure the consideration of a variance requires the Planning Commission to consider a three Factor test for practical difficulty the first factor is a test of reasonableness which means that the land owner would likely use the property in a practical way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance it does not mean that the land could not be put to use whatsoever without the variance for example if the variance application for a building too close to a lot line or does not meet the required setback the focus of the first factor is whether the request to place the building there is reasonable in this case the property own is requesting uh to build the detached accessory structure in which she may keep Lawn Equipment in general storage this use is listed as an accessory use approved in the single family residential zoning District the second factor is that the land owner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property and not C by the land owner the uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of property that is to the land and not the personal characteristics or preferences of the landowner when considering the variance for building a building to encroach or intrude into a setback the first focus of this factor is whether there is anything particularly physically unique about the particular piece of property such as sloping topography or other natural features like Wetlands or trees in this case the property is unique and that is divided in half by an 80t wide overhead power line utility eement which is located behind the primary residence the rear lot contains a 75 acre Wetland lowland platted drainage and utility easement which cover covers multiple properties in the development there are also topographical challenges limiting the placement and orientation of the newly proposed detached accessory structure the lot is wooded with a 10-ft change in elevation from the front lot line to the utility easement line also the uh ssts or the septic drain field uh location is directly south of the primary residence in the area in line with or behind the front of the foundation line of the primary residence the third factor is that the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood this factor is used uh to consider whether the resulting structure would be AOS scale AO place or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding for example when thinking about a variance for an encroachment into a setback focus of how a particular building would look closer to the lot line and if it fits in that are fits within the character of that area in this case the proposed structure will replace a tarp temporary tarp building which does not meet city code the proposed detached accessory structure will not encroach on any other required setbacks the construction of a new detached accessory structure will provide an enclosed structure in which the proper owner can store personal property and screening all items from adjacent proper properties as is required by code in standing tree growth between the proposed detached accessory structure location and the front property line will Aid in screening it from the view of the public right away uh before I move on to the recommendation I just want to show you uh an areal of the property as you can see uh right down the middle of the property line is the overhead utility easement here is low lands and wetlands at the back side of the property the proposed Loc location is right about here and the drain field is located right here next to the garage I do have another map uh this is the topography map where you can see uh here in the culdesac where the driveway is located is about 9916 ft above sea level and it very quickly drops off to 910 9008 9006 and 904 as it approaches the utility easement so there's definitely sloping topography uh and this is a septic design uh and I also penciled in uh the location of where the 24x 24 proposed detach accessory structure is to go if the applicant were to attempt to put it behind the front lot line or the front uh line of the primary structure the only location is right on top of the drain field or back here near the easements Andor lowland or or drainage and utility easement which is uh virtually useless for their purposes the recommendation uh City staff's requesting the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and recommend approval to the city council for a variance for the placement of a detached accessory structure nearer to the front lot line than the primary structure with conditions as written in the attached resolution okay thank you very much I'm going to open the public hearing right now if the applicate would like to come up you could if you could just please state your name and address and then I'm Bridget pasta and my address is 18260 Filmore Street Northeast in East Bethal thanks for coming up sure do you gentleman have any questions no okay I don't think so great okay and you did you want to say anything before I close the public hearing um you know I mean Erin did a great job of um explaining it he came out and stuff and I was trying to figure out what what else I could do um and that's there's not really another option so he said this is the next step so that's what I'm doing great okay thank you very much I'm closing the public hearing and gentlemen if you'd like to have any comments um no I mean looking at the the maps that Aaron has provided uh there's there's not a lot of space for a detached accessory structure um uh you know I I think it's it's it appears to be a kind of a subtle reasonable place uh for a project like this to go on this property um going further back into the lot you can clearly see there's a lot more um difficulty which does an excuse but you know it's the reason this is come to a variance request and I think that it's um I think it's a reasonable request um is this size structure does this need slab is this kind of a heavy construction type the the actual design of the building is completely up to the applicant they could do a slab on grade traditional stick built which I think is what she has in mind um you could also do a a pole shed type building um but that's I guess for the applicant to determine as you can see there uh in the in the photo that I have there's a large grouping of trees there which uh if you drive into the culdesac the existing uh tarp building um The Hoop shed uh is barely noticeable from the U cuaac Already and that's it's going to replace that building so okay is there a secondary spot for drain field uh this house was constructed prior to the requirement of a secondary drain field location but we should always keep that in mind of having space right you you can however uh applying code to that doesn't isn't going to help us because they're only obligated after I think 95 or 96 to maintain that secondary location so this would be the expense of the homeowner and whether it's digging out the failing drain field or replacing it with a box Mound or that that's up to them uh that came into place in I think 95 or 96 so it's a great question Tanner believe it or not I do appreciate your comments um to the contrary or you know otherwise so do you have any comments on this nope okay well I I see it as a reasonable solution also would anybody like to make a motion on this um I'd like to make a resolution granting a variance for the placement of a structure nearer to the front property line than the principal structure for the construction of a residential detached accessory structure on property located at 18260 Filmore Street Northeast uh with the property identification number listed great is there a second I had one other question about a driveway how how are you going to access it so well there's a motion on the floor there need a second before any additional discussion I'll second it I'll second the motion okay thanks so this is an R1 Zone they're only allowed one driveway access so they're going to have to come into their driveway and make a left turn to get there however when my had I had conversations with the applicant uh it doesn't sound like it's going to be used for daily vehicle use it's going to be more for storage of garden tractor um General utility stuff but they would not be allowed a second driveway okay any other discussion okay all in favor of the motion say I I and opposed okay that motion passes this will go to the November 13th city council meeting I don't believe we're meeting on November 11th which is Veterans Day I think it got pushed to the Wednesday is that sound right Jim yeah I believe it's November 13th all ready okay uh this next uh let's see on September 25th 2024 the city received a variance application from Mr flagstead who wishes to build a 36 x6d detached accessory building on his property located at 4806 239th Avenue Northeast Mr flag St property is 4.66 acres in size and is located in the rural residential zoning District of the City Zoning code would allow flag stud an accessory building as large as 2,850 ft in size the proposed detached accessory building falls below the maximum building size requirement for a detached accessory structure however flag said would like to increase the sidewall height from 14 ft to 16 ft in order to get his camper or motor home inside and therefore is requesting a two foot variance for sidewall height Mr flag said met with City staff and it was advised that the current detached accessory structure regulations increased sidewall height from for to 14 ft and that the city has not granted variance variances for any sidewall Heights higher than 14 ft and previous applicants have utilized vaed trusses in order to achieve higher Overhead Door Heights flag stad wants the extra height to afford him the opportunity to place two taller overhead doors on the front of the detached accessory building staff verbally denied Mr flagstead original building permit request but did tell him he had the option to apply for a variance between 20 2014 and 2020 the Planning Commission and the city council reviewed and made multiple revisions to the detach accessory structure regulations including sidewall Heights raising sidewall Heights for detached accessory buildings from 10 ft to 12 feet and then from 12et to 14et in all residential zoning districts of the city city staff are unable to locate the approval of any variances for detached accessory structure sidewall Heights after the 2020 increase to 14 ft to hear request for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of the circumstances unique to the property or unique to the individual property under the under consideration and to Grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and the intent of the ordinance practical difficulties as used in connection with the granting of variances means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control The Plight that the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the land owner and the variance if granted would not alter the essential character of the locality economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties the consideration of a variance requires the Planning Commission consider the three Factor test of practical difficulty the first factor is a test of reasonableness which means that the land owner would likely use the property in a practical way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance it does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without a variance the second factor is that the landowner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property and not caused by the land owner the uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of property that is to the land and not the personal characteristics or preferences of the landowner the third factor is that the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood this factor is used to consider whether the resulting structure would be out of scale out of place or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding areas in this case it is the opinion of City staff that this particular request does not meet standards under the Practical difficulties test the Planning Commission should review the material hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to approve or deny the application to the city council thank you I'm going to open the public hearing and if anyone would like to come up um the owner if you'd like to come up please yeah so please state your name and address into the microphone Jason flagstad 4806 239th Avenue Northeast East B 5 okay all right so as Aaron pointed out yes I have a camper that requires a 14ot door you can't put a 14ft door in a 14ot sidewall so I need to have a taller sidewall in order to get it that's the reason for the height getting it out of my yard and getting into a building along with all my other stuff in my yard so would actually make my property a lot be more uh likable if you will it'll look a lot better and understanding that if we do this we have to have engineering drawings and everything else and the provider is prepared to do that have you considered a vaated seat yeah and if I did that then the camper sits right in the middle of my big build so in order to use it that way way it would it would waste a lot of space by allowing a 16t sidewall I could back the camper in along one of the sidewalls for the winter and that's not annoy versus right in the middle of the building have you considered making a little bit wider so you could put two Coler doors so it's going to go right there basically right see the 4806 it's going to go right there it's it's really 40 ft about as high as I can so I guess what I'm asking is have you considered how you could be in compliance with the code that's the only way I could do it is to put the campera in the middle of the building so that's why I asked for a variance to go up because I I have seen taller buildings I know Tanner talked about precedences before but I've seen taller buildings around the city and they were probably prior to these changes but um I'm simply going to use it for storage but I need it tall enough to you know use my my camper and then other item as well but if if I put my camper right in the middle of the building it's pointless to build it gentlemen do you have anything you like the as the applicant have you considered a smaller camper this is this is actually one of the smaller campers I've had it's my wife and my future uh winter home if you will it's aable cam um will you be needing a driveway to this then no it's only storage and you can see it sits basically come out the driveway it shut the door it's not really a garage just storage all the cars go up to the main his lot is large enough in size and his house is set back far enough off the highway he would be allowed to or the road he would be allowed to place it in front of the front line of the house it does meet that standard so the variance is literally just for the sidewall height closest part of the building would be like 400t from yeah he's far enough back to meet the excep it's all sheltered by trees anyone else have anything they'd want to say okay sir anything else okay then I'll close the public hearing any comments gentlemen yeah I understand it's frustration but there is a fix of you know he could have doors on the side and the big door in the middle so I'm struggling with this one okay so for right now the the public hearing is is closed um but if we need to bring you back up we will we certainly will okay uh yeah I'm looking at those numbers that's a that's a considerable um accessory structure in size um um and I'm sure the camper is like you said livable it's it's a big so um I just I'm having trouble with the logistics of a building that size not being able to house a lot of stuff um it was mentioned that the camper would fit in the middle but that would um ruin the point uh you said something along the lines of make the whole structure uh just not uh practical something to that nature um but I I think that Solutions can be made uh to the problem of being able to get access to the remainder of that uh structure proposed structure 36x 60 is uh that's that's pretty fair size uh and I understand that you know from uh from a certain point of view having the ability to put your put equipment in this building wherever you wanted to with the most ease yes that would be ideal uh but I don't think that it's grounds to uh pass the variance I think that with the current uh ordinance and codes that a solution can be made to getting to making this building uh practical and um following the ordinance so that's kind of where I'm at with this Tanner Corey I guess I'm just what what can I ask them what what side so you you plan on using the Gable land for the garage do you want me to open the the you won't need open and he can just come and speak okay okay great thank you once You' had a public hearing doesn't need to be open Oh no you're making walk yeah and so it would be that' be the 36 foot side I'm assuming right yeah and then so you could put I could easily put one in the center how how wide do you need for that 12 or 16 no that's it's a 12 wide by 14t tall okay so 12 because then you could put put 10ft door on either side of that you could technically you could then you would have to you know so it is possible I guess but you're looking at okay I understand which you want you want a 10 x 12 on one side actually I was going to put two 10 or 12x 14 doors right so it looks ni and symmetrical sure and and good looking so right with the uh what do you call it the W's coat around the outside of it okay okay before this gentleman has to walk back to his chair does anybody have any questions I'm sorry about making okay no sorry okay and I'm just this kind of some final words from me I I'm really struggling with um giving a variance on this also especially since we've we have several times I believe um denied the same request and worked around to get Solutions on how to make it work for the homeowner so we do have a hard time um saying no to people we really do we don't take this lightly and we haven't voted yet but that's just my opinion on this is that there I think that there's a solution to make it work does anyone want to make a motion um I'd like to make a motion to deny the variance to the standard detached accessory structure maximum sidewall height of 14 ft to 16 ft on property located at 4806 239th Avenue Northeast under the property identification number listed and Brian I'm so sorry but I I didn't hear the very first you said you make a a motion to um recommend denial of the of the variance Council makes the final decision it's not right we don't yeah we don't deny it it's our I apologize so you're recommending I would like to recommend yes a denial it only took me five years to figure it out okay I think we've got that right ER and is there a second yeah I'll second the motion thank you okay all in favor of the motion to recommend denial of this variance request say I I I and opposed so that motion passes November 13th the city council will make the final decision right and it's ultimately up to them there is no public hearing at that one uh there's a public forum early on in the meeting but there is no public hearing for each item during the meeting so I mean you can show up if you want to see the ultimate outcome um you also have the opportunity between now and then to make contact with your council members Lobby for your position um explain yourself uh they will the ones that make the final choice right and Aaron at the public forum he he would be able to have like three minutes to talk to that subject if you'd like to too okay thank you and the next item on the agenda look at that it's adjourn is there a motion to adjourn I'll make a motion to adjourn I'll second the motion all in favor of that say I I I opposed that motion passes and we are adjourned thank you for