I typically do my own okay we'll call the meeting to order and do we have a motion to adopt the agenda I'll move to to adopt agenda as it reads is there a
second all Second Great and uh any discussion not let's go um all in favor say I I I opposed being none that passes and on to the approval of minutes does
anyone have any corrections NOP no okay I only had one it's on line 267 really small typo say she stated she liked it says she she stated he liked Terry's idea that's
it did you catch that I got it okay yeah I had a few actually that I found two but I forgot it at my printer so we'll just forget do you want to email me tomorrow um yeah they were just real minor okay like way instead of
weight instead of way things like that I I'll email them to you okay okay um do we have a motion to approve the minutes mov with the correction Corrections and the second I'll second
all right all in favor say I I I opposed I will stain okay so those minutes are approved and now we're going to go on to the public hearing section Mr Burke yeah give me one moment
here the right page 11 all right thank you madam chair members of the Planning Commission on junee 12th 2024 the city received an application for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 10 ft to 5T for
the placement of a detached accessory building at 20738 Tyler Street Northeast the applicant's property is located in a single family R1 zoning district and it's in the Hidden Haven Country Club Estates
development accessory structures are and approved D accessory use in the R1 zoning District the property is recorded at 87 acres and would permit one detached accessory building at a maximum square footage of 11,000 square ft by
the East Bethal zoning Cod well placement and septic locations do not interfere with the placement of this detached accessory structure in any other location on the property all properties in the Hidden Haven Country Estates
uh have a platted drainage and utility easement on all property lines of the perimeter of their property the city does not permit the placement of structures in drainage and utility easements the property has a 10-ft easement along the rear property
line to hear requests 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 individual property under consideration and to Grant such VAR is only when it demonstrates 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 a variance means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control The
Plight to the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner and the variance if granted would not alter essential character of the locality and economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical
difficulty the consideration of a variance requires that the Planning Commission consider a three Factor test of practical difficulty the first uh factor is a test of reasonableness which means that the landowner 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 a reasonable use whatsoever without the variance in this case accessory structures are in approved accessory use in an R1 zoning District placing the accessory building
as required by ordinance would not deny the land owner reasonable use of their property there is an 85 foot uh there is 85 ft of rear yard on this property well placement and septic locations as I stated before do not
interfere with the placement of the detached accessory structure and other locations in the rear yard the second fact 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 a piece of
property that is to the land and not the personal characteristics or preferences of the land owner in this case the property is 182 ft in depth and the house was placed 48 ft from the front RightWay leaving 85t of rear yard a majority of the Lots in
the development are 3/4 to 1 acre in size there is a small Grove of trees stretching across the rear property line the third factor is that a 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 surroundings in this case every lot in the Hidden Haven Country Club EST States has a 10-ft drainage and utility easement following the perimeter of their property there are other accessory buildings in the rear yards throughout
throughout the development however none required a variance for placement and the proposed accessory building placement is to the rear of the house and in combination with the tree cover the accessory building would not be visible from the right
away the Planning Commission should review the application information hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council to approve or deny the variance request to reduce the rear yard setback from 10 ft to 5 ft for the place of a detached
accessory structure thank you okay so now we're going to have the public hearing on this would anyone like to come and speak about this matter you'll have to open it I don't have to do that right no I'm you just have to call call for an open okay I'll
I'll open the the public me hearing okay no one wants to speak okay if not then we will close the public hearing and now we're going to have some discussion and I think we are not making
motions for a discussion yeah anybody want to say anything can I ask about that like there's a photo in here with what looks like the yard sticks and the pink tape and that's the proposed location where
does that chain link fence in relation to that I'm my assumption is the chain link fence is on the rear property line that splits between the golf course and this parcel okay so that's that's within that easement that would be right on the
property line okay so that 10ft easement comes in past that from from the fence towards the house okay as as you can see on the drawing uh the applicant has submitted the 10t easen is this dashed
line mhm and he is proposing to split that as essentially by putting the shed 5T into the easement oh I I didn't realize that was the shed such a small proportions don't look right me I
don't think it is proportionate to the to what's going to be put there or what's proposed to be put there this is more um probably representative of the width and uh length of what's proposed it's 16 by 32
correct um if that's what it shows if that's what's on the drawing that's what is y MH mhm I don't person I don't see any practical difficulty in going in I I don't see why he why he needs to go into the five the five feet into it I guess
that's the the struggle I have here there's I don't see a reason to Grant a variance as that he can't meet the Practical difficulties he could move that five feet closer to the house and be within the utility he's SP or be outside
of it and not need a variance do you know why he wants to have it that far back he would like the five extra feet of his rear yard okay and then on his application he states that by moving it 5 feet deeper it can be hidden
better I I agree with you Tanner I think that that um my recommendation when we make one for you guys to consider would be to deny it due to the 10ft easement everybody else in that area is abiding by it and by moving it 5 feet and
there's no hardship involved if we don't move it then we are allowing him to just not follow what we currently have in ordinance so um I think it's important that unless there's a difficulty for the land owner that we should follow the ordinance is any one here seeing a
reason to um advocate for the variance not without trying really hard okay I'll make a motion to deny is there a second a second okay any
further discussion if not all in favor of the motion to deny the uh variance say I I I and opposed okay being none that motion
passes the motion to deny passes and goes the recommendation to deny will go to the uh City Council on August 12th I believe is the date thank you thank you okay Mr ber is going to go on to the next
item thank you again Madam chair members of the Planning Commission on June 12th 2024 the city received an application from Randy Crumpler owner of grumer Properties LLC and boatworld for a conditional use permit for exterior
storage on a parcel at 21125 Highway 65 Northeast which he had recently purchased the parcel is adjacent to boatworld uh the boatworld parcel at 21155
Highway 65 Northeast Crumpler was wanting to extend the exterior storage of boats and pontoons from Boat World The Boat World business onto the adjacent parcel both Parcels are located in the B2 zoning District whereby city ordinance exterior storage and exterior
display of merchandise associated with retail sales is identified as a conditional use requiring a permit after reviewing the zoning code staff have identified that boat sales are called called out specifically as a conditional
use in a B3 Highway commercial Zone only and not as a permitted use in a B2 Zone retail sales and service conducted completely with inside a structure is permitted in a B2 Zone
however um I have attached uh the zoning code uh which is page 23 for you for reference staff have determined that bolt world's use of of 21155 Highway 65 Northeast is a legal non-conforming use and has been
continued through transfers of ownership prior to rezoning of the city uh section 05 sub section two a non-conforming use may be continued including through repair replacement or restoration maintenance or Improvement
but not including an expansion our non-conformity statute is on page 27 for your reference the newly purchased parcel at 21125 Highway 65 Northeast has no legal non-conforming designation and should
conform to our current zoning code Crumpler is proposing a new retail operation occurring inside the building on the parcel however it is not boat or pontoon sales but wanted to extend storage of boat world's exterior storage onto the new
lot uh section 24 on page is the zoning code for exterior storage in the B2 that is Page 31 for your reference under the current proposal the exterior exterior storage and display of boats Andor pontoons would not meet the conditions
of city ordinance and the expansion of the non legal non-conformity is not allowed by city ordinance or Minnesota State Statute without a variance Crumpler has advised City staff that he does not want to combine the two lots and would that would which would
necessitate data variance as well due to the non-conforming classification section 46 sub4 o does identify that other uses similar to those permitted in this section as determined by the city council as a
conditional use so in reference to that uh potentially boat sales could be recognized as a conditional use exterior storage not associated with retail operations happening on a parcel of property in a B2 could also be considered a conditional
use however it's not connected to the retail sales happening on the parcel of property the Planning Commission should review the information hold a public hearing and recommend to the city council uh approval with uh current exterior
storage requirements approval with alternative conditions or denial of the conditional use permit for exterior storage the applicant is here and I'm sure he'd be happy to answer some questions okay thank you all right so
we're going to open the public hearing now first of all does anyone want to speak to this before the owner comes up and if not then if you could please come up and just uh kind of let us know um well Madam chair if I if I could I
think it's appropriate we can close the public hearing at this time and then just have him up here but it just that way it doesn't leave it open and we don't to close it later well I'll I'll close it when he's done okay okay thanks I I made a drawing where I
want to store I can hand it out that's okay please thank you so you'll see I have on the a yellow area that would be a fence line a green area where like to take out exists right now and the Checker Red
Zone be area where i' like to put okay go ahead uh yeah so right now I'm relying on driving down to uh near the movie theater of 18553 for storage of boats uh that property is going to go away from me in the next year and a half
and I won't be able to store the boats there I need that amount of space to maintain the current business size and appointment that we have is basically equal to this area I gone out there and it's much more convenient than the round trip of six miles back and forth the so
that was a general idea that I just want to make it easier for us I would like to landscape this to open it up so I can drive through the property from between the two buildings AC see historics in the back and just F off along the the line you see
there and then keep the business open the driveway front area for visibility my daughter would like cont with me start a store selling Marine Products out of there so something separate from that from the storage area can you start over
now just kidding no I was going to like where did I start it so this would be the building would be a separate entity Al together but related product yeah okay on the on the new property or the old property just
just this building right the old property I don't know what old property is sorry I won't be selling boats out of the building that the 2125 the one on the south here so from what I understand is you're not
interested in combining the two lots but essentially you're going to have what you want to do is have your own driveway connecting the two you say uh yes yep i' I would combine the two laws if that's what I had to do but I always
like to hedge against something going wrong one day so I was hopeful I could sell it if I needed to by not you know one large property sure so essentially you'd lease it but you're one entity that owns to would Le supp por the land back to other entity exactly to create the financial
interest yeah yep how uh how tall is that proposed fence that you talk about here the yellow line uh the the current fence that I have is a six foot fence with Barb Wire coming off of it so I'll just continue that or even reuse that and mo it
around I think what you're what you're leading to is screening versus yeah containment what is our what is our requirement for screening for exterior storage page 33 of your packet has all of the requirements for storage exterior storage in the
B2 33 spills on to 34 mhm if the city council ended up denying this U what would what would happen with your property do you think probably the same thing without storage and I would just lose a lot of money it's a gamble I was willing to
take I went uh I came to the city over a year ago and discuss the property and we thought it might be a good possibility that could actually get approved it's sold in between me discussing it with the city and uh and being able to buy it so it came back for sale again A year later here and I said I'm just going to do it was a little bit of a risk on my
part but I was hopeful that it would work yeah I was I was going to say had you considered you know buying it contingent to getting an approval yeah I didn't want to miss out again so if it happen it is what it is right Y is there the a septic system or a well or
anything in the fenced area for the can I point out where the septic system so there's a new septic system that the people who built the L three yards go did here here's the drain field here these two are here these areas here there's nothing here there's one off that
created two okay nothing this is just open there's a little bit of a leveling that have to be done right there so is that drain area going to be removed towards the road towards dport no yeah I need to I would want to
leave this here run off snow moving what not for the storage so as far as Landscaping you did talk about you know trying to make some sort of access there but what about storage on all the all the vegetation there all the grass like I'd imagine
you'd have to do away with most of that yes we I we had to do that on other areas of our existing property where we'll have to go through and remove the sprinkler system and lay down class five or something whatever is up the code for that how's your business doing since you
moved there it was a good move to move up there from where we were at good anyone down here yeah I have one question so basically what you want to do is you're running out of space to store bullets based on the demand that you're
seeing in your business so if you weren't able to have that expansion it would cause you to have to turn away business absolutely so are you renting property right now where you're storing your other boats you said over by the movie theater yes
okay so they're just they're selling or they're doing something else the the current owner is planning on selling in the next year okay no one else okay I think we will close the public hearing then thank you and any
discussion from the commission have a number of items that we need to clarify so whenever you guys want to hear those I'd be more than happy to provide those go ahead we would love so um this expansion is an expansion of a legal
non-conformity right so moving sales onto a lot is an expansion of the lot um this is this in front of you is a conditional use permit this is not a variance request so if that is the direction the city would like to to go
the applicant's going to need to apply for a variance in order to expand his business onto the other lot ultimately boat sales that are occurring on a parcel that is not related to the retail sales
happening inside the business is a conditional use permit question that the council can answer because the council can grant an other use not a not uh not a primary use approved in the zone so what I'm what
I'm getting at is boat sales is a is a B3 it's B is not a B2 yeah so the council can approve a conditional use per permit for boat sales in an alternative business
Zone in this case we're not talking boat sales we're talking boat storage yes exterior storage is a condition use of the business happening on the property I'm not sure how we overcome all of these particular hurdles I haven't
thought this one through yeah um nor would I know uh I may have to do some research and to see if this is uh how we would word things if we were going to approve um exterior storage on a lot
that that's the business is not it's not related to the business that's Happ happening on the parcel that our code is not uh not set up for that to happen so ultimately the council can decide whatever they want you guys can provide
me with whatever conditions you want to recommend um I do know that Mr kumler has been looking for other storage options as long as I've been uh employed by the city um this so far has been the closest
for him um but it does have its own challenges section 4640 mhm to me this seems like the most
sensible solution for the business owner and it's only technicality which are important but that would cause one to
hesitate but as far as a a sensible use and that we want to encourage successful businesses in the city I think it's a great idea the only thing I would perhaps recommend is
the the fence separating the storage from the what's currently the c i building have some kind of better screening than just a chain link or whatever kind of fence but have a visual
barrier like planting or something so that um from the highway and from the business that would be going in there it doesn't just look out into boat storage but that other than that I like
the idea I would like to hope the city can make it work yeah me too um if you guys can take a look at page 27 of your packets it talks about non-conformities and it says only exceptional cases of expansion or
um um intensification of a non-conforming use will be permitted and only after City approval of a variance and so what I'm looking at here is that you know this is an exceptional case in my opinion that um this is a really good business been here a long time and we'd
like to accommodate if possible but it seems to me that that you're not seeing how it is possible right now I'm I'm not saying that it's not possible I just don't know if requiring him to apply and get a variance for this
expansion onto the other lot is the right direction to go uh or is approving a conditional use permit for ex exterior storage that's not associated with the business happening on the property does the council have the right to do that because exterior
storage is a conditional use in any of our business zones so the hiccup I have is that in a B2 the exterior storage in a B2 can only be associated with the operation happening on that parcel and if these
are kept as separate Parcels then the retail operation happening in the building is not associated with the exterior storage that's my that's my broad question that maybe the council would need to answer is would they
approve that as a standalone conditional use instead of a condition of the business right because the conditional use would go with that property forever correct as a standalone because they're not adjoined
Parcels it's a separate parcel and in order to adjoin the parcels that's an expansion which requ a variance so as you can see we're working our way in circles and I don't know how we break the circle until one or the other is approved I don't know how we we uh we get that to that point and I thought I
read I could be wrong that if you join the parcels in something like this then you can't split them apart later is and allow them to be still legally non-conforming they would have to become conforming that that's a question of the
variance if if uh the city wishes to allow that to happen I we've seen other cases where um a variance has been approved and we've seen other cases where variances were
denied for this exact same non-conformity uh situation so Tor you're the guy that knows all of the know of these things I'm running through a few scenarios in my head here so I if I speak off the cuff feel free
to correct me anywhere along the way here all right I'm just trying to run through a couple scenarios in my head if one let here it can't be an expansion if it's the same NLC that right it's an expansion of the business right from that
aspect I'm trying to think from from the O ownership piece to the lease piece versus the storeage right it's not an expansion of the neighboring property to the north if it's his business and it's allowed exterior
storage and he's leasing it back to any individual to operate whether it be 1% or 99% of said location that's still his business and he's got a lease for another tenant in said building and he's got exterior
storage and that's just part of his operation right his 1% of the location is for exterior storage of said things and then then it's not an expansion of one business as opposed to being just an exterior storage and a sublease to boat
supplies right and I I'm I'm trying to run my insurance head through here about uh uh you know uh you know insurability things like that that's I guess part of where my brain runs with with this from that aspect
uh am I is that even remotely close if I'm trying to fit a square peg in a smaller round hole that's what I was thinking that made sense yeah I I think that you know we we've had conversations with Mr kumler over other lots that there wasn't a
structure on and we wouldn't allow strictly storage to happen on those lots either without some sort of sales Hut sales lot sales something okay so hypothetically let's just say that this structure doesn't exist on this lot this
is just an empty lot although it's right next to his proper property it's no different than the one across Sims that we've said no to for the last three years okay basically yes I mean it's however convenience yes I think that
this makes sense we just have to figure out what is the proper sure procedure to make it happen and and and I see what you're saying with that however the scenario isn't that it's a empty lot there is a set structure right so and again as formality as it is right and a
quick back story with insurance you always have to have some sort of financial tie to it otherwise you can't Ure something that's insurability that's at its core um a lot of times we'll see commercial businesses where someone owns a vehicle and it's titled personally and they'll do a $1 lease back to a
corporate Corporation as a you know forther small LLC now you've created a financial tie to it and now you can ensure it underneath the business when it's titled personally similar but different I'm trying to take the same approach here to say okay let's just say
you have throwing two or three entities into this mess but okay one entity you as an individual you own this lot and you lease it to company a company a has a file cabinet and the desk and work exterior storage similar to the lot to the north of your other property which
actually is storage but that's one entity that you now have that is hey we're here for exterior storage you have one client and that's boat world and you allow them and you're leasing that space to them that is fenced and there's your exterior Storage Company in your small file cabinet and desk in one corner of
the building and the other 99% of the building is leased to Company B just happens to be your daughter who's wants to do boat marine products Etc does that check the boxes if there's exterior storage allowability maybe I'm getting too
colorful I'm just trying to trying to run through the Gambit here in my head that's how I see it at the moment but again I could be missing I think what it comes down to is um what is what is your uh and the council and the citizens
of East bethl what is your palatability to allow for exterior storage for something that isn't happening on the parcel of property based on how the zoning code is written that's really the question now
if you're okay with that then maybe a conditional use permit for exterior storage on this parcel although it's not associated with the business makes sense if that makes sense but you think because it's connected to the business that a variance should be required then
you could make that a condition of your conditional use permit that to in order to expand the non-conformity onto another lot it should have a variance I well I would just like to say that you know I would like to see it happen um I don't know how much work it's going to
take on your part to do that and you got a full plate already obviously um but I'd like to see it happen if we can um we've grown quite a bit we have a lot more residents we have a lot more people using the lake we have a lake the
need for boat storage and this you know in the in East bethl is increasing well this is more about sales if I remember correctly this isn't even stor this is just ret this is inventory of bought product ready to go and deliver storage for new
okay I'm sorry I misunderstood it's exterior storage for just being there but it is it's their product or either sold items or ready to sell items but growth in that same aspect is there because more people are moving out here are going to be buying boats to utiliz
the lake um we have Lake George we have Lake um and this is becoming an area you know going north of 65 from Ham Lake is growing quite fast and I agree with you Sharon that if there's a way
that we can make it happen um that we try try to do that to you know help him really you know do well in his business the one thing that that I see on the negative side is you know this is going
to be someday a Prime Property and so do we want to be expanding that business there maybe maybe that's the benefit of not you know pushing to combine the two lots is then it's easy to sell and pull out of it and uh allow it to be its own
lot versus just you know B World already looks like it's two combined Lots if not more but so that goes back to the Beth Marine days but that's a different story yeah cuz Cups have terms that have to be
renewed correct they do not can you set a term on a conditional use you cannot you cannot you set conditions just the condition and if the conditions are violated then it could be removed for violation of conditions but you can't
set a limit a time frame that's an interim use permit can a condition be that this is only good until the lot is sold like no once you once you assign a conditional use permit to a parcel of
property the conditional use permit Authority remains with the parcel of property for Forever Until It becomes conforming if it became legal non-conforming at any given point right and then it's reduced to a conforming then it can't be brought back to a non-conforming correct you guys are
getting it finally it only took me 13 years and so believe me now that the city is growing as you've identified we have a number of legal non-conforming properties and this scenario is not going to go away so
this is a this is a I think um if I may pleas um I I want to bring your attention to the parcels where Mr Crumpler has eluded to the fact that he's already storing so you can see them
here you can see here and Randy do you have any more no that they on now that's the one that I'm and those are non-conforming now those would have all been grandfathered in okay long before
yes I had to come here okay and so someone then uh approved exterior storage um but it sounds like the applicant's intention is to discontinue
storage down here and move it closer to his business up here which is reasonable I mean it helps us with creating a conforming lot down on the south end too so I this one has a lot of
benefits but it has a lot of hurdles we got to figure it out just in an overall landscape if this was was approved somehow does it help can we even and would it benefit to put language in that
if this is approved under a conditional it's as a result of knowing that another lot is that it's bringing another lot into a conforming standard exactly so it's a trade that to to help avoid precedent or no no it's a different parcel with a different parcel ID that I
just that's why I have to ask I got a so you're losing the lot that you currently are storing on or trying to sell all the properties selling people CL okay thing's open do you want to buy
both yeah no gring for options no it's not an option yeah is anyone smart enough to make a motion on this so I mean I think I simplified it to to kind
of help you guys out you know is would you recommend to the council a conditional use permit for exterior storage on a parcel with a retail operation that doesn't match what the storage is that's literally what it comes down to and if
you're okay with that but you want the variance to satisfy that expansion of the then then recommend the variance if you don't want the variance then don't recommend the VAR I'm just those are some options for you I I for what a I
almost don't want a variance because I don't want to create precedence for something down the road and have something that's there obviously you kind of came to me and I'm formulating it in my head in real time but I I think I almost like what I had proposed earlier of subletting the land he's
going to you I don't know if that makes sense but you you form a small LLC for exterior storage and you're leasing it back to yourself or to your one company to another and then it's again now that property has two entities on it you're basically a storage exterior storage
company with one client and said other business and so so exterior storage companies aren't part of conditional use allowed businesses right it's just the fact that if you've got exterior storage associated with retail sales and
services correct so in in light of that like you'd have to have it you know her retail business and then you know like you were talking either sublet the property and we we there' have to be the okay yes we're we're going to allow you
despite what our code says you know have exterior storage associated with exclusively retail sales and services and I don't know how we'd I'm just I'm trying to draw the line to not tie it to the neighboring property the
fact there's common ownership and the fact that the next door property has this I'm trying to I'm trying to break that apart to pull that element away so that way just it happen stance at that point that it's that's the person that they're
who's taking up all the exterior storage if that was the case if that was something that could be done I don't know I'm just like I said I'm trying to break it apart so we don't have that expanding piece to this it just you know be no different than the fact that he's leasing land to the South farther yeah
so unless there's a way to copy whatever was done there that made that doable hence he was here so and following what Tanner is saying to do wouldn't that fall in line on page 33 under number five with the B2 districts
then if he's subleasing from the new parcel that has a different business and we would approve a conditional use permit for the exterior storage um he would just have to do the limit to the the rear yard and shall not
exceed the square footage of the principal building which seems to be pretty small yeah that one so that's where we get the hiccup on that and that's that's B3 isn't it that's not it's B2 yeah that's where we have the hiccup
there so tenner I I mean I think it's a good idea what you're saying but I'm concerned about us kind of telling Mr kumler how to run his business and I mean kind of in through this whole thing and the legal fees that you would have and setting up another business and kind
of going through it yes sir can I make a why don't you come up to the please yeah Crumpler properties doesn't own Boat World boat world is GRC nmc Inc it's a totally different company so I can I lease kler properties owns that big
building there and leases it to uh to Bo World Crum properties could be in the business of storage yeah so that's where I was so you're okay with that yeah yeah I wasn't trying to tell a guy how to do it I was just trying to create the difference than okay so that would then resolve
the B2 District allowing them to have exterior um storage because Crumpler properties then would also be the same business but then we have the square footage of the however exterior storage in a B2 district has to be associated
with the business happening inside the principal structure on it's chaotic to say the least and can I make an effort at a motion go for it I'd like to make a motion to approve a conditional use
permit for exterior storage on parsa 21 125 Highway 65 Northeast that differs from the business that would be occurring on that
property in recognition of the unique and special circumstances pertaining to both properties okay is there a second I'll second that great any more
discussion I need to follow along with that before I say I yeah I I have a hard time with talking about the other property because that directly ties it back together and I think that's where we may get in trouble in the future with other properties so we have a leave it pretty General and
big yeah okay do you want to continue on with your motion amend it there's a motion a second so there will to uh entertain ideas on how to amend it to make it better and yet inclusive of what
we're working with so at this point do we um do we just leave it there the motion discuss so we discuss it and I can amend it if something comes up in the
discussion okay okay if we if we saw it wasn't going to approve but there was a feeling of it there would somebody could make a motion to amend the motion there'd be a second of vote on that and then there'd be the vote on the new amended
motion if I think I ran that through in my head sounds good if Randy was here you tell me otherwise maybe if we're going to vote on this motion correct yeah we do if that was the case unless someone called the question I just I don't know what the
language is on it quite yet in my head here I'm just you can you can also die you can also be amended there are many ways true yeah bug do it say instead of having to amend a motion you could withdraw that
emotion that motion and then you could submit a new motion and then that way we wouldn't have to have that probably be easier yeah so let's achieve consensus on what that should read and then we can
decide how to put it Forward what do we need to do to improve it I know I don't want to say anything about tying the neighboring property because I I don't think that it although the the storage is is extending from
there I feel like it can still be separate I like the idea do you want to approve a conditional use permit for exterior storage on a lot or not that's simple you start you can ignore the fact that there's a business on there the council can make that choice do you want to see exterior storage as a conditional
use on a standalone or not and it can be on there forever it will be there forever if that is the case um I'll take a run at of motion if he's if Glenn's willing to withdraw sure if you're willing okay you have to withdraw are you withdrawing that I'll
make a motion to withdraw my motion so moved do we have to vote on that too no okay good no if he's withdrawing it that's right that's withdraw perfect okay I would like to make a motion that uh to the city council for approval with
the current existing storage requirements and approval with alternative conditions if they can be sought within city regulations and ordinance if they can be obtained within
city regulations and ordinance because currently we can't meet those right and the city council has to decide whether or not that's something we're going to be able to do so the current regulations for exterior storage I think that was on 33 that was the footprint of the building so that is
going to give small amount exterior storage is limited to the rear yard and shall not exceed the square footage of the principal building okay so that Li so he's going to store probably two pontoons on that yeah I'm sorry uh if he tries to meet
the code um we're trying for you okay um let's see you can make different conditions for exterior storage that is an option I was just going to say so let me rephrase my if I still can um I would recommend this make a motion to recommend the city
council approval with alternative exterior storage requirements so approval of a conditional use permit of a conditional use permit yes for the property being
requested okay uh can you want to name your alternative conditions I am no fencing I was just going to say let me get to the screen fencing alternative conditions would
be um per applicant's plan per applicants plan and not um being restricted to the square footage based on the additional property found on the
parcel and not being required to the the structure the structure on the property does that make sense yeah so you're essentially agreeing that what he's provided you is what you would give as a condition and you're ignoring the rest
of the requirements okay so what is the motion then I don't want to say that I think what she said was she was making a motion to approve the conditional use permit with alternative
conditions that um replace the exterior storage fencing and screening requirements with the applicant's proposed fencing and exterior storage and screening plan
perfect and removing the or uh the the square footage requ square footage requirement requirements I think that's that's assumed by the applicant requ request the applicant the only thing I would add in there that it's screen
storage okay so um do I I can write that up no yeah because I I think that um it's really important that we you know let the council consider that because they've been a long time business do we have a second a second fabulous any more
discussion if I think there's one condition that worries me from the public service side is that the drainage Pond doesn't get crept into the bolt storage so I don't know if he would have to put the way he's got it he's got it
marked off on red but if he could you know I don't want to say put another fence up but just to sure you know a curb perhaps some type of a I'll take a look at the recorded plat
or the the County's plan and see if there's a identified drainage and utility easement there the city does permit the placement of fences in drainage utility ements as long as they are um permeable uh however if we would need to
do maintenance if that was dedicated to the city uh we would take the fence down but we would not be responsible for replacing the fence so I'm just trying to get myself to that lot here yeah there it is just wonder could you invert the fence then to just instead of being
on the exterior of it to the interior of it or ask okay s so I originally drew that with a fence on that side of the the drainage Pond but then I realized when we snowplow and try to move things out of the way we're end up end up ramming that fence that area is going to
be way too soft for 15,000lb fork Clift to drive on it's not going to be an area that can been approached on um and that's why that's why I've drown it that way at first I thought a fence on the other side make more sense because I knew you would ask if I'm going to wreck the the drainage ponds of the property but uh yeah it's not really an option to
do that okay thank you and whoever drives the forklift might have a yeah and drive them off the property okay any more discussion if not we'll vote on this uh all in favor of the motion to approve
the conditional use permit with the conditions right conditions that we um stated say I I opposed being none that motion passes and thank you for your patience one with us City what August 12th city council
yes it'll move to August 12th to the city council meeting for or the 20th I'm sorry the applicant has asked for it to be be moved another two weeks because of availability so we will move it
there thank you and good luck thank you yeah thank you okay the next item up is a variance thank you again Madam chair members of the Planning Commission
um the address 2063 University Avenue Northeast the applicant is requesting a variance for placement of a detached accessory structure closer to the street or RightWay than the primary structure due
to Wetland restrictions on his property property is located in a rural residential zoning District uh zoning code appendix a general regulations Section 142f states that no accessory building or detached private garage shall be
located nearer the front line than the principal building except when there is 3 acres or greater and the existing building is located 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 5.37 Acres with a primary structure setback of 125 ft from the front property 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 a
detached accessory structure the the applicant's property is over 5 acres in size however nearly 2 acres are Wetland Wetland or lowlands extending from the northeast corner of the lot diagonally to the South property line uh section 66 255 requires a
minimum building and septic setback distance from a delineated edge of a wetland at 25 ft additionally since this variance request is for the placement in the front of the primary residence according to section 427b sub 2 the
front yard setback distance for structural placement in a rural residential zone is 40 ft therefore if a variance for this placement is approved the detach accessory structure would need to meet the minimum 40 foot setback from the right away the consideration of a variance
requires the Planning Commission consider a three Factor test for practical difficulty would you guys like me to read the pra the three factors all over again or should I just okay here we go in this case accessory structures are permitted uh and a permitted accessory
use in the rural residential single family zoning District a septic system is located on the north side of the property uh in this case of the second Factor uh the property is over 5 acres in size however nearly two acres are
wetlands that extend from the northeast corner of the lot diagonally to the South property line uh Wetland setbacks are identified in code AS 25 ft from the delineated edge of the Wetland land uh the third factor is essential character
and in this case there is standing tree growth between the proposed detach accessory structure and the front property line which will screen it from the right of way the Planning Commission should review the request hold a public hearing and recommend approval of the variance to the city council as
presented in resolution 2024 49 thank you Mr Berg and we will open the public hearing if anyone would like to come and speak to this if not we will close the public
hearing and start our discussion I don't see any other decent place for exterior storage here other than what's proposed so this is the the Wetland overlay that shows the what I tried to describe as the nearly 2
acre Wetland from the northeast corner to the South property line the proposed location of the building is right here you can see this is the house and the current garage it must be a minimum of 25 ft from this delineated edge of the Wetland and must be 40 ft from the right
of way line here uh if you look at the applicant's property there's already some area there that prematurely May have been cleared for the potential he had exterior storage in that area on his property but
that is the general location of where the proposed building would be placed if you look at it uh the septic treatment system is up here and the well is at the back of the house realistically there is no other location on this property right
that a detached accessory building could be placed so what like I can see the dimensions of it the 72x 46 is there any other detail as far as like what type of building material is going to be used is
going to be sided you know kind of to match the house or is it just it would follow the rest of the it would have to fall into the architectural features required by code building code to it closely needs to match the existing structure on property
color uh style taller correct what is the size limit for this property oo um be over 1100 based on that is a that is a complicated math problem that I need a calculator to do so anything
over I don't want that I want this one yeah he would not be permitted to build something bigger than zoning code would allow so since this property is 5 Acres or larger
um at 5 Acres you get 3,000 square feet 3,000 uh square feet plus an additional 240 square feet for every increment thereof so if it was six acres it' be 3 you get yeah so you do the math and that's how you figure
out the appropriate square footage so yeah right now this the proposed building is 3312 yep so we're over is that what I'm hearing sounds like it's a little
over um you said 240 per 10th is that you said what was the extra 240 per increment so every quarter every quarter and he's got1 and although that's what's proposed that doesn't mean that that's what's
going to get approved he just needs to know that the location can be there and then once we get the application we can work on the allowables and Architectural requirements and those if you look at the resolution I believe I put a statement in the resolution that
obligates him to to meet all other zoning code requirements which would be size height yeah shape so he may potentially have to shrink yeah your your real question is can it be in front of the house or not exactly that's that's the question in front of you and the size is going to be determined by by
by zoning code I'd say B based on past variances I mean this does fit all three factors in the test and in the past when we've approved similar it has been with front yard screening whether it be by nature or otherwise so and as you can
see there's plenty of tree growth here you likely can't even see his house from the right of way unless it's fall and those leads are all gone it's also in the very northwest corner of the city does anyone have any issues with
this I'm just curious as to it says proposed shop but earlier we were discussing something about exterior storage so I'm just wondering what just what they called it it's a detached accessory building right
for oh because um exterior or or for uh accessory storage is an approved use in um a residential zone so we would love it if individuals residents wouldn't store their things
outside and so having a detached accessory building to store those items to keep them out of the public right of way is an approved use right I just seen shop I was just wondering if it's like a home business or something
that that's so he is not indicated that he would run a home business and that is one of the questions on the building permit application for a detached accessory structure larger than 2,000 square feet is do you intend on running a home business again that is not the question in front of you the question in front of
you is can the building be in front of the house if nobody has any um any reason to be against this I'd like to make a motion please do okay okay go ahead I would like to move um to approve uh this variant request as
stated in the proposed resolution number 2024 d49 is there a second I'll second perfect any more discussion if not all in favor say I I
opposed there being none that motion um is approved for a recommendation to the city council okay and we have one more
variance thanks again Madam chair members of the Planning Commission uh property owner Carl Mitchell is requesting a variance from the sidey yard setback standard of 25 ft to 10 ft on the self property line of his residence at
23785 marman Street Northeast for the placement of a detached accessory structure the applicant's property is 1.45 acres in size located in The Meadows of Fish Lake subdivision and in a rural residential zoning District
according to section 427 b1c the sidey yard setback in the rural residential zoning district is 25 ft this request for a reduction to the setback is due to grade and existing elevations on the property when The
Meadows of Fish Lake subdivision was graded by the developer back in 2005 each home site was raised in order to achieve walkout basement elevations the applicant's property has an 8ft elevation difference between the front of the house and the rear yard due
to the elevation changes a Terrace Boulder wall was constructed to support the driveway and parking pad which limit buildable area available in the sidey yard Additionally the subsurface treatment system or septic system is located in the Southeast corner of the
rear yard limiting the depth of the lot area available for the detached accessory structure to be placed in order to meet the setback requirements for the septic system of 10 ft as well as zoning regulations of section 142f which states that no accessory building
or detached private garage shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal structure a side yard setback reduction would be necessary The Meadows of Fish Lake subdivision has a platted 10-ft drainage and utility easement on the sidey yard
property lines of all Lots the city does not approve the placement of any structures in drainage and utility easements the consideration of a variance requires the Planning Commission again consider the three Factor test for practical difficulty first factor is
reasonableness which means that the landowner would use his property in a practical way but cannot do so under the rules in this case detached accessory structures are in approved accessory use in the rural residential zoning District per city ordinance the second factor is that the landowner's problem is due to
circumstances unique to the property and not caused by the landowner in this case there are zoning regulations restricting the placement of accessory structures in the front yard the rear yard location of the subsurface treatment system limits the depth at
which lots are have buildable area third factors is the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in this case there are multiple detached accessory structures constructed throughout the meadows of Fish Lake development the accessory structure will be used for General
storage allowing for personal property to not be visible to ajoining Lots or the city RightWay as required by section 243 Suba and by maintaining a 10-ft drainage and utility easement distance throughout the development the proposed structure would not alter the essential character
of this neighborhood Planning Commission should review the request hold a public hearing and recommend approval of the variants to the city council as presented in resolution 202 24-50 thank you Mr Berg and now we're going to open the public
hearing Mr Mitchell would you like to come up okay so if you could just um state your name and your address when you get up here please Carl Mitchell 23785 Mar Street's my address um so bad are should clean it up a
little bit the yard there so throw some seed down we're working on it we're working on it I have a lot of going onh so um currently we building a deck um on the back of the property right here um Carl you're going to have to stay at
the podium or uh the record will not keep Sor yeah it's okay um we're building the deck there um on that side we basically want to also keep the other side of the yard for our kids we have a three and a halfy old one halfy old um and the water table is also super low
like when we put the fence in we're hitting water 30 in and like currently right now with the deck um I got approval to do diamond Piers because I can't get my postal Digger past 30 in um um the water table is a little bit higher on this side as well
um we tried to move it back so we' have two garage doors there and it just encroaches on the house we try going to that 25 foot Mark um kind of why we want to put it a little bit closer to the property line aesthetically it looks better my
neighbor he's okay with it he doesn't use that side of his yard for anything it's just a slope with sambers so um some grass but yeah as you can see that's kind of my drawing there um what we would like to
do so how far are you from the side yard line then I would like to go 10t what is this right now on the bottom right corner that's within that 10 foot yeah what's that this is a septic system setic Mound okay so is there was there a
variance for that too there is not they only are required to be 10 ft from okay got it it's just the detached accessory structures correct okay so as you can see again here's a dash line with the 10t drain Eng and utility easement required on all Lots in
the subdivision uh Mr Mitchell is requesting to bring his structure from 25 ft right to that 10- foot drainage and utility easement line uh in order to be able to get around the boulder wall maintain this the proper setback distance from
his subsurface sewage treatment system as well as still be able to access uh the building from the front side that second or that first picture I had up um I took just the other day uh and you can see the elevation
difference here that the property owners are dealing with out there uh and if you can see the yellow flags way back here on the other side of this fence uh that is actually the front and rear of the proposed structure that far back from
the right of way so and that that 10t Mark is further this way as it would probably be right here y now what you can't see on this uh image is the neighbor also has the same 10 foot but this as you can see the slope is going up this is the neighbor's septic mound
as well okay so that property is aside from a septic system not usable to the neighbor for anything other than the septic system do you know how many feet it is from the structure to the wall then how much that passage is that retaining wall
um I would say right now the proposed location is about 25 ft so it would move in to about 10 ft if it wasn't approved it' be really close that's another reason why like on the the the drawing there actually I want to just bump the
shed out because if I were to try actually making a square right there um I wouldn't be get to the backyard cuz the our side's fenced in there's a little gate for the garden to get back there but the other problem that Meadows of fish lake has is because it was built after
1997 it's required to maintain a secondary septic drain field and where is that on this site um so Mr Mitchell's building is going to go where the secondary drain field was proposed but he does have another secondary site on
the other side on the north side of the house so it' be where the playground is correct and one of the hardships is that land is too low to want to put a large structure on correct otherwise he'd be asking for a variance in the front yard okay does anyone have any questions
for Mr Mitchell okay thank you thank you and we'll close the public hearing and have our discussion that anyone I'm ready to make a motion I don't have a problem with it I
I if there's 10 foot on each side there's a 20 foot easement through you know when you really look at it there's enough space to do future needs and that is a that's a development requirement now uh and all new developments so that will be maintained
through any new development through the city is at least a 10 foot drainage and utility easement on either side of the property line so that should the city need to do maintenance or uh power companies come in and bury lines or MCO wants to move some cables between here
and his neighboring Lots that's what that utility easement is designated have to write in a new second location then for future drain field on something like this if we did approve it so the variant will get recorded to the property uh
which will then document that that secondary site is no longer what was approved as a secondary site or designated as a secondary site so hopefully the next person coming along will realize they need to relocate uh
the drain field to another side okay does anyone have an issue the only one I have with it is and again I'm not saying I'm not in favor of this I just I have to at least say this
is so he's asking to move into 10 feet so 15 what does that bring the that be 10 feet on the one side based on the same shape would be be 30 by 32 essentially with plus you know minus
the notch the only part only part I take I take issue with on the practicality piece of it is he could not need a variance and build a smaller garage so I just have at least say that for the sake of the
variance I don't know if anybody else sees that or not or maybe that it just again still have to be careful with some of these variances to make sure that we're within within Spirit of it Spirit again I want to give people what
they want to I just yeah any issues down this way Erin can you confirm that that size is within a that that's an approved accessory size for oh my goodness so this is very deceptive this is like a
920 foot deep lot this is a this is he would easily be able to put that size of a structure yeah the size is that is the part my my one issue I take with the variance request on this is he wouldn't need a variance request if he was requesting a smaller garage and
therefore the the practicality differ or issue isn't related to the land at this point now it becomes related to the size of the garage that he wants he's creating that issue at that point yeah I I get what you're saying it just it without it it does limit what
he's allowed to do correct it's not he can't right it's the size that he wants to go right if he moved it though the wall impedes his access L exactly y y and obviously but if it were
smaller you're saying that okay alternatively right and again and I'm and usually the first one to say I don't want to try to tell someone how to do it however alternatively if this was quarter turned and you ran it this way you could go
over that distance and if you brought back that Notch and just did a square you could still be 25 in and you're losing whatever the whatever that difference is on the front to give yourself the axis around the the
boulder would you like to ask m Mitchell if that's a possibility again I'm more stating it just for the conversation of we have a variance in front of us does that still fit the need I'm asking this body does that still fit the spirit of a
variance of practical difficulty if it's manageable he could be asking to put it in the front yard on the North End as well and reing for that not arguing that so but I could say the same same thing here again again is it does it have to have an improved service to get to it
then it does not okay it does not although he would be permitted a second driveway because he's in the rural residential zoning District he will need to come in and get a permit for a second driveway should he want to put an access on to um marman
Street I does does the answer to your question make any difference on on how you're going to vote if you think again I guess I was more looking for the for the opinion of this body if if it still sees it that way yeah at that again I again I'm truly asking I'm not
trying to be clever about it I'm just again I want to make sure we're being true to the spirit of variances with the amount of that we get and with creating precedent I just really want to make sure we're and that's exactly why I ask your opinion too yeah again again I'd
love to approve this too I just really I wanted I wanted to get an idea of where everyone else sees sees that as well because again it is possible I'm not saying I want you to have to have a smaller garage it just this goes to a bigger issue of when variances come up how far do we keep going and what do we
consider pra public hearing notices were sent to the entire neighborhood actually beyond the entire neighborhood I have zero calls and you have zero people here tonight speaking against the variance as well so that's another consideration and this is kind of a normalized building
within that neighborhood El there's actually larger build larger buildings in that subdivision than what he's actually put more things in it yeah um I have one comment on that because you were asking opinions yeah I was more discuss so my opinion is um you know I think the
responsibility of this body is to make sure that we're following ordinances and code and we're doing what is recommended by our planning team I mean they're the people that know what to do let um and when that is met I hate to infringe on a resident's ability to put
in on their property what they want if it doesn't violate a city ordinance so um spirit for this yeah I mean it's their property they should have if they're going to put an accessory structure it should look like they want it to look as long as it's meeting code it should be what size they need and
want as long as it's meeting code so um you know I read through this at home and by the time I was done I've already written the motion on the top no and I'm with you like I really just go back yeah right I mean it's all right here you
know I mean and I agree that it fits the city parameters up to the point of wanting the variance to be closer to the setback right requirement and if and if the request for a variance is practical difficulties not brought on by the property
owner exactly does but does the size of the garage and again I'm saying this more for at large for more for future reference here but does the size he's requesting is that not a practical difficulty created by the landowner and therefore wouldn't need a
variance if he built smaller well I think um you know when inin is talking about and with the drawings that he's given us with the elevation of the property and the amount of you know him stating he can't even put a pole down for a fence 30 feet that
um I have I feel comfortable and I have confidence in the recommendation of our planning department as well as the statement made by our resident that um you know the variance as attached to this packet that um our
city staff is recommending um outlines their recommendation of putting this through which gives me the confidence that that size building is fine and there would be no NE necessity for it to
be any smaller or relocated and and that that's just my opinion you know as being on the planning department because I we want to meet the rules we have to follow ordinances and we need to keep our residents happy so um when we have
variances to me like this one I see it as a really simple um request understanding that you know a lot of times we do have to have variances for purposes that you know when we have these Wetlands every property is
unique again abs absolutely I I don't take any issue with that I just want to like I said try to start getting an idea of is this is this a practical difficulty created by the land owner by choosing the size of the structure that
they want that's my only like thing I want to put out there for that y so although variances are um reviewed Case by case I would point out a variance that you all recommended approval uh
1900 block of Fourth Street where a resident asked to place a even much larger detached accessory structure in the front of his house because he didn't want to put it in the sidey yard that was very thin in my opinion on
practical difficulty or reasonableness that was approved although each variance should be heard Case by Case Case by case and that's you talk about setting a precedent and I when it comes to variances I don't I don't see that necessarily as creating new president that's why we have the
ordinances if we went and started changing ordinances I could see that as yes now we're really setting precedent but um as Aaron saying you know Case by case you know when I look at this yes it could be smaller but then again you're now we're we're shrinking what he's
allowed to have and you know we don't know his needs specifically and if that's what he proposed because he's got plans for it and he's allowed to do it I have no problem with you know recommending approval for this okay and in defense of Tanner I mean I
do understand exactly what you're saying because we I think we started this year um questioning whether we really had to adhere to those three tests and I think we understand now that we really do have to to to do it and I understand how you're yeah like I said I'm not trying
to challenge I'm not trying to say he shouldn't I'm not trying to say which way I'm going to vote on I really I just it seemed like a good enough opportunity it was clear enough one and I I remember the one you were talking about I don't think we that one I think that one came with discussion as well um and I don't
know if it was a 5 on or 70 on that one but again I just I saw this as an opportunity I really just wanted to get that out there because that is something that I I've questioned over the years when we've when we've approved and not approved stuff of at what point is it
truly brought you know that it varies because like I said we we just had somebody who had you know the one previous they had Wetlands MH it's slightly in front of the house you know handful of things but in this scenario the size in my opinion is determining how
far he's trying to go with it so could he be able to do this could he be able to do something else and therefore it's not of you know not doesn't qualify under a variance because it's not a practical difficulty not created by so the other item that I will point out is
that this this variance request is to reduce the setback and that is a proposed size so we still need to review the building permit we still need we need to review everything yet to determine just like the previous case
just because that's what the applicant is proposing doesn't mean that that's what they're going to get he's asking for placement um that's the that's the that's really what the question is here okay commissioner johnon I would like to request we close discussion on this and
I would like to make a motion great you're on fire I'm on fire I had a lot of time on my hands yesterday okay I would like to U make a motion granting a variance recomending or recommending granting a variance as
written in the attached resolution 202 24-50 is there a second second perfect and any more discussion okay so to the motion all in favor say I
I I and opposed I okay the motion passes and that will go to city council when August 12th August 12th okay thank you Mr Mitchell very
much okay I think we have a city council date at this point good evening good evening commissioners Jim Smith East bethl city council last night we had a work meeting in brck the repair
guy we uh he we had one written complaint he's been in business for like 13 years and between him and his neighbor where the difference was they I guess
have worked it out so we as a council decided to approve prove it but they're going to work out like a contract and we're going to try it out to see to make sure everything works together so we're given an opportunity we don't want to kick businesses out of our city that's
the whole thing and any time that I've been past his place it looks great and uh so we want to give him a chance so that's what we're doing and then the the rooster thing came up again yes and we decided
we talked uh about that and Aon going to check with surrounding cities to see what their type of ordinance is on roosters and he'll get back to us and then we'll talk about that one later again so no decision on the roosters yet no they're still running
around and then uh for the variance on the trailer park situation was denied and the variance for in the ingr swimming pool we approved well they moved it correct yeah yep they moved it
and they came back with a lot of information for us so it was great what they did and pictures so I mean it's it's a lot better yeah and a lot more easier to understand than when it was first uh brought to us but that's all I
got and with the trailer park that I mean it they're still wanting to work with the city right that's our goal and we want to work with them because I don't know if any of you guys have been in there I have and they really have improved it I mean before it was just to be honest
it was a dumpster yeah it was terrible so that they're trying to do that so we want to work with them exactly because I mean it benefits all our residents and stuff too so hopefully they will do that we can work together to fix it so that's
all I got thank you Mr SP thank you Jim thank you thanks okay is there anything else that we need to discuss if not I'll entertain a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn second second okay and all say anything
all in favor say I I opposed we are done for the night thank you