Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> All right, I'd like to call the meeting to order for the Niswa Planning Commission Board of Adjustment for Tuesday, July 7th, 2026. Roll call, please. >> Baseman foot. >> Sharon Baseman? >> Sean Weldon. >> Josh Young.
>> Gary Harris >> Dave Reese >> Steven Timon >> Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? There are none. Being none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> All those opposed? Motion carries.
Next, to approve the meeting minutes for Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026. Are there any corrections or deletions to those minutes? >> No. >> Being none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Aye.
>> All those opposed? Motion carries. Next item is open forum. Is there anyone present tonight that would like to speak towards something not on the agenda this evening? And I think we have some people. Okay, awesome. Uh make sure the green light is on on the microphone, and then state your
name. >> Deborah Cruz, 25829 Centennial Lane. >> Okay. >> Okay. I have some. I apologize for the uh non-paved platform. State your name. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome.
So, good afternoon. My name is Deborah Cruz, and I live at Centennial Lanes, and I'm here um to request the board the zoning planning zoning board rescind the approval for the lot split uh of my next door door neighbor's property as one of the court required stipulations cannot
be satisfied. And because the split is inconsistent with recorded documents governing the subdivision and I believe with the city's comprehensive plan. Last of all, the owners of the property next door applied to for a lot split in violation of the covenants that run with
the land. They surveyed the land and when asked about the markers, they explained that they just wanted to know where the lot line was because they were trying to sell. Um no mention of splitting the land, nothing. Um and that made sense to me because they had a for sale sign out on their road.
The split was conditionally approved but not recorded at that point. So, fast forward to June. Over at the month, the split was recorded, the property was transferred to their real estate agent, then transferred to a builder that he works
with frequently, then transferred to an LLC. That last transfer that I'm aware of anyway was on the 24th and on the 25th I was told by the LLC member that he was already waiting for a building permit approval. I don't know if that's true or not,
that's what he told me. Um my first notice was the heavy equipment on my property and theirs on Wednesday the 24th approximately 12:30. I'm so nervous. >> [laughter] >> So, uh after the hearing about the lot or after hearing about the lot split
from the neighbor and it being mostly on their the driveway being mostly on their lot, I came immediately to city hall. And as I started looking into the process um and and what had transpired, I discovered several things that concerned me.
I work as a revenue tax auditor for the state of Minnesota, so my job requires me to be looking at documents and you know, records every day, but I certainly don't have any expertise in um land use. So, with that it only took me a few minutes
to find the covenants for Centennial Estates. And for those covenants, they were written by my dad and my uncle and they're in very plain language. One vote per lot. The lots may not be subdivided or split without prior written consent of all the landowners or lot owners. No
more than one residence may be constructed on each lot without prior written consent. There's a pattern here. Of all the landowners and the city of Missoula is not responsible for potable water. But anyway, uh second, the city's comprehensive plan emphasizes preserving
the character of existing neighborhoods. Centennial Estates was developed as a neighborhood of spacious country lots. Uh creating additional um residential lot changes that character. And most importantly, the fourth condition imposed by planning
and zoning was owners will verify continued future access to Centennial Lane. And I'll direct your attention to about the second to the last page, should be highlighted in pink. Number seven. The owners of lots 1 through 7 block 1
Centennial Estates and lots 3 through 11 block 2 Centennial Estates shall be granted the fee ownership and undivided interest in Centennial Lane on purchase. The ownership specifically granted to the owners of the original platted lots.
It does not grant or extend ownership rights to the newly created lots. And conditional approval that depends upon conditions actually being met. Uh if if the required condition cannot be met legally or practically satisfied,
then the basis for that approval no longer exists. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the commission rescind its approval of the lot split and take whatever action necessary to restore it to its previous condition. In here, I have declarations
of 13 of the 14 lot owners, 15 of the 16 because two of us have two lots, 15 of the 16 lots all opposed to this action. So, please feel free to contact me. Um we're going to try to be on the agenda at the next meeting.
Um but contact me with any questions. I gave you my name and telephone number and email. So, thank you very much for your time. >> Before I had another person, Stephen, do you want to give the rest of us a rundown? >> Sure. Uh so, the city has adopted a
comprehensive plan and land use ordinance uh of which the planning commission and board of adjustment reviews each application for any land use development, whether it's a conditional use permit variance application or a subdivision. Um after speaking with the
um I reached out to the city attorney where he indicated that if the applicant for that subdivision has or had obligations under their covenants to seek approval from those members that would and did not do so, that would not be a um city matter. It would be a private
matter that needs to go through the civil dispute process. Um so, when we reviewed that in October, we found that it substantially met the requirements of the ordinance for lot size minimums, septic system, um site suitabilities, and a wetland
delineation. So, that would be my response that I would have to that. >> Excuse me, can I ask a question? >> Uh sure. >> Okay. So, can you talk >> But we would like you so people can hear you. >> Okay. Yeah, I'm not I'm not I don't have that
quiet voice, but uh can you talk to the the planning and zoning condition four? >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> I would prefer to keep responses to an actual agenda item. >> Okay. >> during an open forum session.
>> Okay, but he asked about to give you the you know give him the lowdown on it and and how that condition was met is a big part of the deal. >> Understood. >> Okay.
>> Does anybody have any questions about This is regarding a lot split that was done to remember. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> This was a administrative subdivision split, right? >> Correct. >> Um It met all of the ordinance
you know the subdivision ordinance uh uh legalities and uh I don't know this seems uh In order for us to have had any information as to what background is on
so far as the HOA goes and the declaration, you know, that's that's that's beyond our scope as I see it, but >> But they don't have access to the file. >> Is there anyone else that Holly did you have some comments? Okay. >> I also have handouts that
Doug probably has already taken care of but if you wouldn't mind taking one of those that would be great. My name is Holly Holm and my husband and I own property at 25681 Centennial Lane. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm here because I have concerns and
several questions about the lot split at 25871 Centennial Lane. More than anything, I'm trying to understand the city's role in this process. >> [clears throat] >> When we purchased our property in Centennial Estates, we understood that neighborhood that the neighborhood was
governed by a recorded restrictive covenants. One covenant states that lots may not be subdivided without the written consent of all lot owners. My husband and I were never contacted for that consent. In fact, we didn't learn about the lot split until other neighbors told us after the new driveway
had already been installed. As I tried to better understand what happened, I reviewed the Planning Commission's minutes. I noticed that there was discussion about the access to Centennial Lane, which was it recognized as a private road. The city doesn't own it, maintain it, or
pay for the upkeep. The residents do. The commission also added a condition requiring the owners to verify continued future access to Centennial Lane, which leads me to several questions. If access to our private road was important enough to become a condition
of approval, why weren't the people who own and maintain it notified that the application was being considered? Can you explain the city's notification process for a meets and bounds subdivision like this? Who's required to be notified? And why weren't the owners of Centennial
Lane notified? How was future access to Centennial Lane verified? Was it through a recorded easement, a legal document, or something else? If the city considers restricted covenants and private road rights to be a matter of private owners, why was the
access to our private road included as a part of the city approval process? The Planning Commission also found that this subdivision would not have a neg- would would have no negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. I'd appreciate understanding what information the
commission relied on, especially since the residents who own and maintain Centennial Lane were never given an opportunity to provide input. I recognize the property owners have personal reasons for selling and I genuinely wish them well. My concerns are not about their decision
to sell, but they are about how this lot was how this lot split was approved and how the affected neighboring property owners. I respectfully ask that the commission to explain its role in this process, answer any questions, and consider how communication with
affected property owners can be improved. My hope is that the residents of Centennial Lane can leave with a better understanding of how this decision was reached, and how future decisions affecting our private road will be handled. Thank you. >> Any other questions, comments?
>> Um Chad people at Castle Realty. Um I'm representing the Boris's on their listing their house, and have been kind of worked with them on this here a little bit. And then I'm the one who bought the back lot from them, trying to help them out. They're just in a situation where he's just going through
some dementia issues, and he wants to get into a one-level home. So, we're just trying to help him out with that, and get him to a one-level living. Um he's um Okay, he's blind, and now he's going through dementia, which is going to make it a lot worse. So, we're just trying to help him all with that, and that's the
reason why he went through the process trying to sell the lot, um sell his house, and then looking at building a handicap more handicap accessible home. That's his goal. He had no idea there was covenants in this development. Um when he bought the lot years ago, uh
it was bank-owned, so nobody the bank obviously didn't know, so they didn't relay that to him. So, it wasn't like he's trying to sneak something by or do like that. He I I'd I'd be shocked if he knew. He would have He would have never done it, you know. He would never gone through the process. He would have just, you know, sold his house.
Um didn't know, so he split the lot, sold the lot, and we turned around and sold the lot, and that's when we applied for a permit with Price Homes to build on the lot. Started clearing. uh um Um Doug reached out and that's when we found out there was covenants, so uh we
just found out that like a week and a half ago. Um just want everybody in the neighborhood to understand that hey, we're not trying to sneak anything in here. It's just, you know, unfortunately this happened and now we're in a pickle here, so cuz it's we're just trying to ask for everybody's blessings. I've actually offered up I'd
offer up $20,000 to the road maintenance to help with the road maintenance just to give obviously everybody's blessing if I could get everybody's blessings to just go ahead and not be a battle through the whole thing, so. Um and maybe that kind of made my main points, I guess, and
and understand it's not really a city matter, so. Yep. Thank you. >> Good evening. I'm Charlene Megelbust and I own the property at 25702 Centennial Lane. I'm probably one of the newest residents there um having built a couple
years ago. Um the reason I bought the lot was really because of the covenant that we had in the neighborhood uh and that there was not to be additional construction on any of the lots that people purchased according to the covenant and actually
the place I situated my home would have been totally different if I thought that somebody could have buildable lots next to me when I sold it. I do know that some of our residents have up to five buildable lots on the land that they own. Um two plats probably. Uh and so
then I guess that can happen. Uh I'm concerned about those of us who purchased thinking that we were protected with this covenant and I'd like to, you know, research more and find out more about what a covenant actually means because apparently it
doesn't mean much. So, we're just very disappointed. I do appreciate the explanation from the gentleman, the realtor. Thank you for that. Just wanted to say, it just feels like a bait and switch, you know, not on the part of the council, but when you buy a
piece of property, when you get title, when your real estate agent investigates it and you're assured that nobody can ever build anything on any of the lots that are existing. It's very disappointing that many of us feel kind of tricked, you know, into the situation
that we're in right now. So, just disappointed about it and wanted to share my sentiment about that. Thank you. >> Our trouble lot 25854 Centennial. When we bought our property at the title company and in our contract
it states the covenants of that. You get a sheet of that for every owner. Anybody that closes gets that. I did. I'm pretty sure everybody else
that closed on a house in that area got that information. The lack of reading it is whose fault? It's the owner. If I split my lot and put a house in
front of mine cuz I'm set way back you would allow that because you don't care about our covenants. Long as I could have a drain field big enough and get a well in there. I don't think I know in the bottom of that thing and
we have that discussion, there's small print that says you have to look at your own area if there's any covenants. It should be about this big on that thing, not this big. So, that should be a change for the
future for you. Thank you. >> Anyone else? Okay. >> Uh Steven, what is the next step? >> Uh so, provided a couple options to Deborah at her first inquiry. Um first would be to present today at open forum
to address the board. Um second would be to call a special meeting if she wanted some type of action from this board. And third would be placement under new business at the August 4th if she wanted some type of further discussion, responsiveness, um
or direction from the Board of Adjustment Planning Commission. Um I do understand that she's also filed a document with the clerk for an appeal of the decision. Um and that would be subject to the clerk room placement on city council if that goes that
direction, so. >> Okay. And then the the opinion of the city attorney is that it is a civil matter and then we cannot His opinion is that we can't rescind because it's between the land owners. Is that what Right.
>> Administration and enforcement of private land covenants amongst owners would not be a role that the city holds authority in. Um development of property typically has several check boxes that an applicant needs to observe. Zoning approval is
just one of them and that's what this application uh facilitated is, does it comply with our ordinance requirements of lot size minimums. Um the conversation that occurred at that hearing did put that fourth condition on there. So, uh I've taken some notes on
the concerns from open forum to paint that I would build upon if it comes up on another agenda item for the city. Okay. Do we have any questions? Joe. >> So, they've asked a lot of questions, you know, tonight. And like you just hit
on some of the answers, but the biggest thing is you know, I don't know that everybody is understanding kind of the difference in the role of the city versus the role of the association and their own covenants. Is is that something I think that a lot of
this can be answered tonight. Is that something that you want to hit on or answer? >> Yeah, the obligation >> to help clear it up or >> Right. So, the the obligation of enforcement and administration of the covenants is those that are within and subject to the agreement is my
understanding of the thing without you know, paraphrasing from the attorney, which is difficult. I'm not a land use attorney. I facilitate the process in the application. Um But my understanding given the response that we received from the city attorney
is that would be something that you guys would want to handle privately outside of city business. The city weighing in on private matters gets tenuous. Um So, that's that was the advice is follow the civil
process for a resolution if you guys have any dispute on it. >> And so, that's the ask though right now for us to weigh in on a civil thing. The Or >> Correct. >> The >> No. That's not
not our ask. Can I say what our ask is? It's to weigh on in on Oh. >> Just for online. >> Yeah, sorry about that. Sorry, come up here. This was a learning curve for us. So, we learned about the covenants and how you don't administer those, but you did
request that they prove to you that they had continued access to the road. We believe that's not a possibility. So, I want to know, we want to know what allowed you to get over that hurdle? Cuz you put it in I mean, it was it was
the board's request that that you know, be talked to. So, what got us over that hurdle? >> You. So, open forum isn't a typical place for back and forth deliberation, but um
that's why I made the earlier comment that I'd prefer to be under an actual agenda item if anything, Stone. >> Yeah, sounds good, Mike. >> You I would say get on the agenda item and all the answers exist for these
questions in there. Fairly straightforward. >> Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Comments? All right. This is coming down to road access. Correct? >> Yes. They built a driveway off of our
road. >> Whether they have road access or access to get in or out to their property. That's the that's the question. >> Right. Right. >> You should. Okay. Well, we'll move on to public hearings then. Uh I'll entertain a motion to open the public hearing.
So moved. Who? Second. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. The first item is variance application 014-26 seeking a variance for the construction of a screen porch addition to an
existing residential a residence with a reduced lake setback of 73.4 where 75 is required to the ordinary high water mark of Gull Lake in the shoreline residential zoning district. Subject property is located at 22989 Old Government Trail, Nisswa, Minnesota
56468 PID 28260534 and 28260533. Owner applicant uh Tom and Barbara Votel. Uh do we have a representative to either you can go to the podium or the desk?
>> I'll go. >> Okay. Is the green light on on the There you go. >> Uh Travis Miller, Nisswa, Minnesota. Owner's agent for Tom and Barb Votel. >> Yep. Steven, your staff report. >> Thank you. Uh so we do have a variance
here uh for a uh reduced setback to the lake setback for Gull Lake, uh the OHW that is, uh for the construction of a screen porch addition, 73.4 ft where 75 is required as stated. Uh the applicant is also
seeking to construct two porches, one of which does not require that variance but is on the plan set that you will see in the packet here. Uh this property has an existing impervious coverage [snorts] footprint over the above allowance of 28.94
that I would identify as an existing non-conforming footprint. Um and the applicant is proposing a net reduction through removal of portions of asphalt driveway down to that figure of 27.78%. Um you can see on that certificate of survey those areas that are proposed to
be then removed. Um this property is serviced by central sewer. So no compliance inspection was required for this application. Uh a wetland delineation had not been submitted to the city for this application, although the national wetland inventory does not
indicate any areas that would be problematic to that concern. Uh condition for or condition has been listed for this evaluation to be performed, and either a delineation or no wetland letter be submitted to the city for this property. Um there are two parcels as you'll see
on this in the staff report and on the survey. Uh I believe that the applicant is proposing to consolidate those as well. Um and the proposing impervious coverage, if approved, will require implementation of a storm water management plan and shoreline
buffer, um of which there's been a preliminary plan set submitted for the the board to review. Um and also included on were some architectural elevation drawings of what this construction would look like at the end of the phase.
That's what I have for my staff report thus far. Okay. Uh do you want to give us a brief overview? >> Sure. Um could we turn to the page S1?
>> Yep. >> And then yeah, that lower >> The bottom? >> Yep, right there. Thank >> Got you. >> Yep. >> So we're proposing to add two porches onto this home. Uh the one on the top, which is the north side, um would meet all setbacks. Um the one on the bottom,
uh we're proposing to build over uh a bluestone patio that's in that area right now. And the very bottom of that corner is about 20 in over the ordinary high water setback, and then as it goes north, we're we're back
within setback. Um we would be removing the bluestone patio altogether and putting this porch in its place. Um, the patio right now, 27 square feet of that patio is over the setback towards the lake. And with um
if the porch were to be built, 11 square feet of that porch would be to would be over that setback line. So, we're netting less impervious coverage over the lake setback line. Um, and then being that we are over um, the impervious coverage total on the
two lots, um, we're proposing to remove an area of asphalt that would be to the east of that garage. That's kind of a parking area. So, we would restore that back to natural vegetation. Um, we have submitted a stormwater plan.
Um, there's currently quite a few um, rain garden type areas on the property that um, absorb a lot of the runoff um, from roof lines and asphalt and pavers. Um, it's a very well-maintained property
with, you know, it within those landscape areas, there's a lot of trees and vegetation in those areas. Um, there's a good shoreline buffer, um, on each side that has some of that same material and
vegetation growing in that those areas. >> Okay. Do you have any questions? >> I I went out there today and it looked made sense to me. >> The amount that's actually uh, asking for that that applies to the variance on the setback is really only a
little small triangle out there appears on this like two or three square feet, isn't it? >> Yeah, it's 11 square feet total. >> Okay, cuz the the drawings are kind of kind of small as what at But it looked like a very small amount. That's That's over the setback. >> All right. Yeah.
Can Can you >> to clarify. >> Yeah, can you tell me what the impervious coverage was before and after? I didn't I I can't find >> Yeah, the current imper- impervious coverage right now was 28.94%. >> Okay. >> And then we're looking to reduce it to
27.78. So it's a a net reduction of 472 square feet. >> Okay. >> And that's with taking out the asphalt? >> Correct. >> What was it with the asphalt? Do you remember? The If you didn't take out the asphalt,
would it stay at a net or is it over? >> It would It would increase because that >> Okay. >> of the The ports that we're adding on the north is over a deck area, and underneath that deck, I had Steven meet me out there,
and we looked at that stuff, and underneath the deck is allows water to drain into that area. It's not a hard surface underneath that deck. So we are putting a roof over that portion of the deck. Um we're still going to on these porches, you know, use the same type of
decking material. So you know, the roof will stop some of the water, but we're channeling that with gutters. But anything that would come through screens or whatever would still be allowed to, you know, soak into that area below these decks or below these porches. >> Steven, does there have to be an action
to deal with the impervious surface that it originally was over the limits, and you know, it's being decreased, which is a good thing, but I was just wondering legally if we need to deal with that. >> So it's hard to determine whether that's legal pre-existing impervious coverage.
Um, look at it under the guys that it is a just a non-conforming existing footprint um, and the applicant is demonstrating merit of trying to reduce it as much as as much as to a fractional foreign 72 square feet. >> I appreciate the move to you know, to
reduce it. I was just curious. >> And we we have already submitted to the county to consolidate both lots into one parcel. And we copied Steven with with those records, too. >> Okay.
Any other questions, comments? Okay. So, how a variance works is we have to go through uh, specific questions. It's either yes or no, and if there's a no to any of these, then it's a denial of the variance. >> Sure. >> Uh, first question is is the variance in
harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan? >> I'd say it is. Uh, the amount of the variance is so minuscule compared to the utility of the property. I just uh, I I don't see a problem with it.
>> I agree. >> Okay. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the city municipal court ordinances? >> It is. Again, for the same reason as number one.
>> Agree. >> Is the need for the variance due to circumstances to uh, unique to the property not created by the property owner? >> It is. I I noticed on the uh, on the aerials, too, that the house adjoining it to the to the bottom here is actually closer to
the water than this one is. Um I I don't see any impact. No. >> I agree. >> Four, would the issuance of the variance maintain the essential character of the locality? >> Yes, same reason as number three. >> It seems like there'd be no change to
the character of that property. >> Agree. >> Okay. Five, does the need for the variance involve more than economic considerations? >> No. >> Doesn't seem like it involves any economic issues. >> Yeah. >> I would say no. >> Agree. >> All right.
And that's it. Then I will entertain a motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve the variance application 014-26 seeking a variance for construction of a screen porch addition to an existing residence with reduced lake setback of
73.4 ft where 75 ft is required to the ordinary high watermark of Gull Lake in the shoreline residential zoning district. Subject property located at 22989 Old Government Trail, Nisswa, Minnesota 56468.
>> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> All those opposed? Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> I move. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye.
>> All those opposed? Motion carries. Uh next item is new business, none. Old business, none. City planner's report. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Uh so in Cindy planner's report I have 15 permits that have been issued since last we met here.
Um, most of them for some detached accessory structures and some trailer alterations. Um, couple fences and couple of new single family residences. Um, that's what I have so far. Working through some other miscellaneous things
getting ready for um, some upcoming zoning revisions for the 2026 2027 winter season. Um, working through a couple active enforcements on some complaints that I've received, so actively investigating those and working
through those as they come. >> All right. Any questions comments? I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. >> I'll move, so. >> Second. >> All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Meeting is adjourned. >> Thank you.