Stephen, I just want to make sure you can hear me. Can you nod your head? Perfect. Thanks. Steven, have you started the meeting? Because we can't hear you. Can you hear me now? Now I can. Perfect.
Apologies. I was uh muted. So that apparently mutes everybody. So, um I will restart my staff report for this purp here. Um as stated uh by Chairman Young, this application is related to an
interimm use permit to open a daycare/preschool program in the Shorland Residential District. Um the subject property is located at 6226 County Road 13, BID 28240575.
Um the owner applicant is Riley Fabian and Terry Fabian for Ponder School. Um this use is um applicable to our land use chart within the land use and development ordinance uh with the daycare fitting the best definition.
Daycare as stated here um does include preschool programs and so that's the application that we're applying this interimm use permit application under. Um the applicant is pending the state approval for the operation of this business. There is proposed to be 14 kids attending the school. Um this
residence will have nobody living at the property and there would be three employees proposed, a teacher, co-teer and a chef for morning and lunch. Um the septic system size for the property was designed and installed to accommodate a design flow of up to 450 gallons per
day. Minnesota rules chapter 781 establishes the design flow for other establishments and the capacity proposed is assumed to be as follows. Sourced from Minnesota rules. Um for each child there's 23 gallons per day expected. For each employee there's 15 gallons per day
for each 8 hour shift. Um the total proposed would be 367 gallons per day and that fits underneath the design flow for the system. So an upgrade would not be needed. Um, all of the criteria for a conditional use permit must be considered as well as additional
criteria when an interimm use permit is proposed as follows. I snipped the relevant sections of the ordinance for review of the planning commission. Um, so we we need to ensure all of these things and as well as the additional
review criteria for interim uses. Um, one of the requirements for an interim use permit is a termination by change in district. So, that's an automatic trigger for an IUP getting um, terminated unless it's reapplied for. Um, there was proposed to be a cleaning
service commission to perform necessary work on the weekend. So, that would be outside of the Monday through Friday proposed schedule for the daycare. Um, applicant proposed closure of this use annually during two weeks of the summer. and uh copies of all required
inspections, licenses, and permits shall be submitted to the city as a requirement for this application. Um, and that's what I have for my staff report. Uh, does the applicant want to give us a brief overview of uh the
permit request? Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Um, a brief overview of the program or like what just what you're proposing. So, um, so I'm proposing that
the house that we bought will become a preschool that will operate between the hours of 7:30 and 5:30 um, Monday through Friday um, for up to 14 kids. We'll be using the detached garage as
our art studio and the interior of the house as our other classroom areas. We'll put a fence around the property as well. It's my understanding uh having some previous family members that went through this at the state of Minnesota that there is quite a bit of regulation
that you need to go toward uh to be able to offer a daycare. Uh, is that correct? Yes. Right. Yes, there there is. Um, we already have our fire marshal approval. I've already had my first meeting with the licensing officer and so far there's
no improvements to the property or home that need to be um made. Everything is up to code. And as soon as I have my loan from the entrepreneurial fund, which I can't obtain until after this
meeting and the permit is obtained, um then we'll finish purchasing our items. And once we have our items purchased, then we basically call the licenser back and we're ready to go. So, we don't have a bunch of work to do on the property in
order to get it up to par for the standards for the licensing agency. Okay. Does anybody have any questions? I don't either. Has there been any communications with neighbors on this?
Probably. I've received no comments formally from any of the neighbors in in response to my notices. Um I did get an inquiry from the um Croing County Highway and mostly related to parking and as we can see from the aerial image
there's quite a bit of frontage and parking area available for um coming and going drop off and um there just would not be any allowance issued by the city for on street parking on the county highway. But um that's outside of our jurisdiction.
Just curious Okay. Well, if there's no other questions, comments, I'll entertain a motion. I'll move u planning zoning uh commission approved the interim use
permit 013-25. uh as according to the to the planners report as submitted and uh and the findings of fact in in our in the packet and uh and all will be as well with the with the proposed conditions the
potential conditions uh as as also listed in the packet. I'll second that. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed. Motion carries.
All right. We are approved. Thank you. Yes. You're welcome. Thank you. Next item is variance application 014-25 to obtain a variance for reduced setbacks for locating a fence along the
property line within the setback to the ordinary high watermark level within the shoreline residential zoning district. Subject property is located at 26350 Edna Lake Road, P2803682. Owner applicant Shane and Megan Brewer or Shane and Megan here.
Okay. If uh one of you or both of you can come to the desk and state your name. Hi, I'm Megan Brewer. Stephen, you're a staff reporter. Thank you. Uh so we have two requests in front of us here. Um one would be a variance
for reduced setbacks for locating a fence along the property line within the setback to the OW. Um and the second of which is a conditional use permit for a fence not meeting ordinance standards along with property line setback to the OW. Um the requirement of the
conditional use permit I found to be kind of unique but it is um in our ordinance as a requirement under 20-529. Um so I the can fill out both application forms for your review. Um as conditional use permits follow a
different statutory process. Um, fencing ordinances allow for um, fences that shall not exceed 72 in in height. Um, cannot be erected where they create a visual safety hazard. Um, no fence shall be erected within 10 ft of the shoulder of any public road or within 1 foot of
the ride ofway. And all fences must meet the OW setback or if houses are in line no closer than the front of the house, whichever is greater. Um, no barb wire fencing is allowed except in OSR when it's used for agricultural purposes. Um
so in this case in review of the site conditions the house was I believe at about 30 ft from the OW and the more restrictive allowance in our ordinance would place the setback at 100 ft from the OW. Um the applicant proposes a
practical difficulty as shown in the app in their application that the purpose of the fence is for privacy between their property and adjoining properties which would not be achieved under the current ordinance given the proximity to houses to the shoreline. Um and as I stated the house is located approximately 30 ft
from the OW proposed to be a unique circumstance for their property. Um, an alternative option that was considered was to plant trees which the applicant found to be inacc inadequate for maintaining security for their family and pets and proposes that the option
would not provide the desired level of privacy. Um, the applicant states that the construction of a fence located 20 feet from the OW would not affect the adjacent property owner's view of the lake and the impervious surface coverage on this lot is estimated at about 20%
but less than 25%. And so a storm water management plan and shoreline vegetated buffer are recommended and the applicant may coordinate completion of that with myself if issued a permit for this. Um, again, putting in the evaluation
criteria for a conditional use permit would be all I have. We did have a comment from a um neighboring land owner um that was provided um in your packet and on screen there.
Um owner of 26320 at the Lake Road, Aaron Sen sent an email earlier this afternoon. um stating that he had a sprinkler system that might be impacted by the fence line based on its placement. Um
there's a line drawn on site that appears to be very close, not right over it and um problems as it relates to that. That'll be the only comment received on this application. Okay. Uh, is there anyone that would
like to make public comment regarding the variance application? Uh, please come to the podium and state your name and address. I am Lisa Gibbs, 26364 Ed Lake Road. Um, I just have a curious, we're just wondering if the fence is going to go
all the way to the road. um if that's the case, part of their uh tarp shed is right on the property line. If not, just a little over. So, we were wondering if they were going to move the tarp shed or
Okay. Oh, she'll she'll address it to us and then we'll kind of refer back. That's all I had a question about. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Okay. If the applicant will give us kind of a brief overview of the request and we can ask you some questions. Um, so
Steve did a great job of kind of summarizing. Um, so we're just looking for that variance to get to the 20 feet from the OW. Uh, we did have everything surveyed with Lakes Area surveying. So as far as the concerns from our, uh,
neighbor about the sprinkler system, you know, that should be accounted for with our, um, what we had previously done with Lakes Area Surveying. Um, right now we do have a line in place just where the survey marks were put. So, that's
probably what they're talking about. Um, in case you guys are wondering about that. Um, and then obviously we would keep it on our property rather than having it directly on the line. Um, to address Lisa's concerns, um, we were not planning on going all the way to the
road, just a a privacy fence that goes basically just between the closes. Are we aware of what the roadway setback is from Edna Lake Road? So the roadway set back for a structure would be 20 ft from any local road right away, 50 for a
county highway, but in this case 20 20 have did you get uh some feedback from Jacob? Yeah. Did you did you ask for it? Yes. Yep. He was inquired and notified of the public hearing with the notice and the
and the fence and such. So, no response received. Okay. Commissioner member comments. I don't I went out there looked at it today and that that makes sense to me I guess.
Questions down this way. Isn't the fence there? Are the fences going to be there? I assume it's the orange line that's drawn on the exhibit. It's where your where you want the fence to be the proposed lines. U that looks to me like
it, you know, I could put a scale on it, which I'm not doing, but it looks like it's 5 10 ft off the property line. Is that what you're planning on doing with it or? Yes. And so this Are you referring to figure two? Yeah, this thing with the orange on it. Oh. Oh, sorry. Sorry, I've got a whole separate
thing. Um, so that is, um, yes. So that's kind of a crude drawing of of essentially what we would be doing. It's just off the property property line by a couple of feet. The ordinance require side setbacks on
fences? No. Could be on the line if they wanted it or close to it. Inch over. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Is there anything regarding what side of the fence goes towards the neighbors? Uh, I would advise that you're able to maintain it sufficiently. Like, um, if
you need to replace a board, say you're using cedar planking, um, make it so that you can actually replace that board without going into a trespass situation with your neighbor. If you do, very proximal to the property line. Give yourself some space between the property
line and the fence to work on it when you need to. Looks like all the buildings are pretty close to the lake here. Neighbors, too. So, I I went out there this afternoon and the white it looks like
you had some stakes up. That's kind of the proposal. There's a white stringer attached and Okay. Yep. So, uh those stakes that you see there are from the surveyor. Um so, that is the property line right there. Okay. Any other questions?
All right. If there's no other questions, I'll entertain a motion. We have to go through the five. Right. Um, so as a part of the whenever we do a variance application, we have to go through these list of questions and answer yes or no as a commission. Uh, so that's what we're going to be doing
here. Um, what impact will the proposed use have on the health and safety and general welfare of the occupants of the surrounding neighborhood? Does anybody have any Josh? I think you're looking at the cupid findings effect. I'm sorry. Versus
the variance. Yeah, sorry. No worries. There we are. Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan? There we are. Yes. Yes. Why do you think that is?
The existing home is is located close to the lake as it is and uh the I think the ordinance allows the fence fencing to extend within 20 ft of the OW or to the front of the houses approximately. So
the ordinance is that it needs to meet OW setback or if houses in line are in line then no closer than the front of the house. um in in interpretation of that language that tells me that if the houses are at each 50 ft from the OW
um then it would be the structural setback of the OW which in this case for recreational development lake is 100 ft. I'll put the section that's relevant to that on the screen here. Um it'd be 20-529 fencing and item D. So it says
all fences must meet OHW setback or if houses are in line no closer than the front of the house whichever is greater. So in the case of houses at 50 ft the structural setback for a fence would be 100 ft for an RD lake. If the houses were at 150 ft then the structural
setback for those fences would be 150 ft because that would be greater. In this case, the house is at 30 now, but the survey is kind of loose. It shows it as an exhibit. It's really not a certificate of survey, you know,
right? And I would have located the house. And in the application submission, I did wave the requirement for the full-blown survey um because the impervious surface was logically beneath 25%. And here we're not talking about anything structural such as a dwelling or septic system, anything impactful as
far as that goes. We were talking about getting the boundary line identified and the survey shows the posts placed by the surveyor on site. So, okay. So, basically, it's because the the house is as close as it is to the lake as well as the neighbors and uh uh
the fence won't exceed going past the front line of the houses as you as you view it in the field. Is that correct? Fence won't extend past the front where the houses are on the on the setback from the lake now. So, our house
is at 30 ft. Um, so we're proposing 20 ft just so we've got a little bit more privacy between the two houses. So, it would Oh, it's a 20 foot step. That's it. Yeah, I
know. Okay. But that's not going to block off the view from the neighbor's house. No. So, um, and I did take pictures, so whoever, um, wasn't able to come out, I've got pictures of, um, what things look like from either side. Yeah.
Um, yes. Saw those in the packet. Yeah. Okay. We Okay. That I I didn't think it would obstruct. I mean, I that was one thing that I was Oh, that's fine. From when I stood there, if I was on the the
north side, I feel like it would um just as I'm going on on the property line. 20 ft wood. Yeah. So, I mean, if you if you chaps agree, I mean, it is, but I I'm going to say no. But if you overrule me, then it's
that's how we do. It's it's majority rules. So, no, I guess so. Well, it it sounds like the fence according to the ordinance or the options. It should be no closer to the OW than the houses are the line of sight
with the houses, right? Is that correct? Well, that's the way it sounded to me anyway. Without a variance to the dimensional standard in the ordinance. No, I'm saying okay. So, we have to roll call it then. So Danny
say in harmony. Okay. Yes. No. Yes. Okay. And we'll move on to the next one. Uh two. Is a property owner proposing to use a property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the city NISA court of ordinances? Again, it comes back to not
opposing not being obstructing the view of the neighbors. I think is if it's not going to do that, then it is. So, essentially the same is yes. Yes. Yes. Okay.
Yes. No. Okay. Yes. Okay. Three is a need for the variance due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner. Well, the house again it all comes back to where the houses are existing right sitting close to the lake. So, right. And that obviously is
not was not your creation. So, yeah. is is is I would say is for that John John yes okay or the planning commission finds the issuance of variance will or will not
maintain the essential character locality well it will why do you say that we just have to have a description well I know one of the other neighbors also has a fence up okay doesn't seem
bother anybody. I mean, it didn't look like it was in the way of anybody's view either. Okay. Yes. From Danny. Yes. Gary. Yes. John. Yes. Five. Does a need for the variance involve more than economic considerations?
Uh, it doesn't seem like it involves any economic considerations. Economics got nothing to do with this. I Okay, everybody's in agreement. Uh, six. Any other pertinent findings? I don't believe so. No. All right. Motion supposed to be just for
the variance and then another one for conditional use permit. Correct. Another item. Okay. Uh, next item is conditional use permit 015-25. To obtain a conditional use permit for a fence not meeting ordinance standards along the property line within the setback to the ordinary high
watermark level with the shoreline residential zoning district, subject property is located at 26350 Ednet Lake Road, P28030682. So, we kind of have to go through the whole process again for this next part. So, could we include the dimensionality proposed from the OW?
What's that? Can we include the OW proximity proposed of 20 ft to that motion? Yes, Maggie. Josh, we we need a motion on that variance like a physical motion. I know we went through the findings of fact, but we
need a motion on that before you can go to the cup. Okay, I'll con consider a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the variance application 014-25 to obtain a variance for reduced setbacks for locating fence along the property line within a setback ordinary
high watermark level with the shoreland residential zoning district subject property 26350 at the lake road. I'll second. All those in favor I will be a
no. Motion passes. Uh, next item is conditional use permit 015-25 to obtain a conditional use permit for fence not meeting the ordinance standards along the property line within the setback to the ordinary high watermark OHW level within the shoreline residential zoning district subject properties located at 26350 Edna
Lake Road P 28030682. So, this is kind of a continuation. So, I'm not sure if you have to go through a whole staff report again. I don't believe I do. Again, it's just a formality required by ordinance subsection F requires a conditional use permit for all fences not meeting the
requirements of the section. I did provide proposed findings if you motioned to approve the variance which you did included in the packet. Okay. Um I will ask the audience if there is any other uh public comment. I can do that
again. No. Okay. Uh, anything to add, questions? Oh, nope. Okay. Then I'll entertain a motion for the conditional use permit. Move move approval of conditional use permit
015-25 according to the uh conditions or the findings of fact in the staff report and the uh conditions uh proposed conditions if any. Second. All those in favor? I I All
those opposed? Motion carries. Y I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second. All those in favor? I I motion carries.
Uh, next item under new business, chapter 20, land use development. Stephen, you chair. Uh, so last month at the regular meeting, it was proposed to bring forward some topical sections of chapter 20 of the city of Nis code of ordinances that may
be candidates for review in in an upcoming ordinance revision phase. Purpose of this discussion is for commission members to provide recommendations to the city council on whether or not the section's language should be revised and if so with what intent and direction um through day-to-day utilization of the ordinance,
permit processing, communication with land owners and contractors, as well as discussion with the planning and zoning leazison to the city council and other planning and zoning administrators in neighboring municipalities. I've compiled a list of sections for review during this meeting as follows. Um
section 20-23 which is conflicting regulations. Sections 20-82 land use chart 2083 principles and residential structure size requirements 2089 through 2091 relevant to setbacks. Um should I
continue reading all the section numbers or just list them off? I'm I suppose I'll continue. I'm halfway through. Uh section 2092 uh buildings max height allowed and frontage on a public road. Uh 20-93 accessory structure size setback
and permit requirements. 20-97 impervious coverage limits and percent of land coverage. 20-137 RIP wrap standards and assorted sections and topics such as planned unit developments, mixed uses and signs. Um
this list is not intended to be exhaustive of all potential revision areas. Uh just meaning to foster discussion at this commission. Um, I'll pull up the ordinance on the screen here so we can kind of take a peek at each of
them. Um, Yes, we do need a bigger TV. I need a bigger. Uh, so I'm just high level cruising through some of the sections. Obviously, this is not, you know, a super formal like going into each one and diving in, but just seeing whether or not the
language in here is in harmony with the commission's ideas moving forward. 20-23 talks about conflicting regulations such as uh the determining a zoning district designation where a parcel lies between um or within two land use districts.
Um in that case then it shall be classified in the zoning district which encompasses the larger percentage of that lot area. It also allows for when a parcel is in the shoreland area of multiple lakes or rivers the topographic divide which way the water flows upon the parcel shall be used to determine
which lake or river classification is used. Um kind of a broad statement in the second section of that. I just kind of wanted to see if that was um if there was any recommendations or alterations that could be proposed or if we dream
past it. Moving on to the next one, which is the land use chart. I I guess I just have maybe a couple statements, you know, um uh I think uh anybody jump in here,
but Stephen uh as maybe to back up actually two steps to give some background information. um back even when Bethany was here um uh she had started taking a dive into all these ordinances, you know, with
Chris Pence changing stuff, doing stuff. Um by no means did that get done and complete. Um and you know, that results in this list as just a starting point for stuff that still needs to get done.
Um, also too, you know, just like tackling this one. Um, you know, without I guess I don't know that anybody up here is experts on writing zoning stuff, you know, and changing.
Um, I just know with discussions with Stephen, um, as we compare ourselves to other entities, let's just say Crowen County or another cities, um, some of these, um, that he's pointed out, um,
sets the city of Nisa apart versus, uh, um, being more in line with the majority of area of different area um jurisdictions um in their zoning meaning you know
let's just take another one the ripat standards um right now the way our rip wrap standards are written I you know I can speak to that one directly I know of no other area you know and Dave's kind of
shaking his head yes too uh Nisa is kind of out on a limb on that one I don't you know if we go to pequat cross lake crowen county lake shore um there there's not another place that matches the standards in the language we
have written for that and and so I I don't know if going through each one of these and um trying to determine ourselves on bringing them up the speed is the right thing. It's just more of hey um we we don't really align with with
what's going on out there you know. So you take the RIPRAP standards, you look, you know, um we're one of the I think seven different jurisdictions on Go Lake. Our standard is completely different than the other six and it really doesn't jive. So are we more
liberal or less less? I mean it just it actually doesn't make sense, you know. So, what it says is like behind uh rip wrap, for instance, everyone knows you drive around the lake, there's rip wrap and then like a sandy beach area behind that.
Um, every other jurisdiction will allow for that except for the city of Nissa. That would be not an allowed use of something like that. It just really doesn't jive with the with the properties out there. It doesn't jive with what's going on. Also too, it's in
um conflict um with past permits that have even been given over the counter here at the city. So, it hasn't it hasn't even been followed. You know, I I just pulled that one out because I'm pretty familiar with that one just as an example of what we're talking about with
all of these. And so, um, yeah, I I'm not sure what everybody wants to do, but that's just more of an overview of all these, Stephen, you know, without going through each one to kind of give background knowledge. And and also too, maybe to be
fair, like if we had a couple side by side, you know, I don't know, we take Crowin County or something and put up there so we so we know what the difference is. we we know what our assist but we don't know without knowing what we might want to correct. it might
be kind of a hard exercise to do and or guidance and feedback, you know, um is it something that we say, "Hey, we want to bring in outside help like Chris Pence has done for us in the past and is that the best direction to go?"
No matter what we do right now, these are kind of the top 10 that uh or Stephen uh people coming in, landowners, contractors, whatever to go get a permit and they're like, "We can't do what?" It's it's a
um kind of frustrating kind of a an inconsistency that has been kind of modeled your ina over the years on these and and versus coming back and just doing variance after variance. It's like
the these really need to get looked at and get more um I guess in line with a what we've actually been permitting over the years because it first doesn't align with the permits that we've given and b it doesn't
necessarily even align with um other standards that we have in our or own ordinance and it doesn't align with maybe like even county standards and and some you know with um other state and and DNR standards. So, kind of as a
broad topic, if if that helps kind of what we're looking at, that would be my input to start with. Yes. As discussed, um some of the things that are unique to NISWA as it relates to comparison to Crowing County's ordinance would be a vegetative buffer
requirement, landward of the rip wrap. um that is determined by a score sheet that um staff goes out. Myself, I would go out and evaluate the vegetated status of the shoreline. Um the result of which is comes out to be either a 10, a
15 or a 20 foot nommo buffer. Um the shoreland model ordinance from the DNR recommends a 10-ft nommo buffer, but that is not per se required by Minnesota Shorland rule. Um, that is a requirement that is not present in Crowing County's
ordinance. Let me just make sure of that because it they have done some ordinance revision since I was there. I do not locate that in there. But they do have more general housekeeping requirements such as the landward extent of rip wrap
cannot be more than 10 feet from the OW. The height of the rip wrap cannot be higher than three feet above the ordinary high water um elevation. So there in lies the differences as it relates to our ordinance and the difficulty that I encounter as staff is
I have to administer and enforce the ordinance as it's written. I cannot issue an overthec counter permit without observing these requirements. And so that would be um I guess just one of the tangential items that for discussion. So we've got nine of these
I mean, should we, as you were talking, should we have like three comps or maybe more like county? I'm thinking of like a matrix where you'd have like hours, the counties could be
complicated lake and we can look at the matrix and say and and do that. Well, and then I'll also say these nine are the tip of the iceberg. So, these are the nine on the sheet tonight, but this
isn't, you know, this, you know, um, and I'm not sure how many people were here on this when Bethany actually started down this process, but, um, yeah, this is still the tip of the
iceberg. And so, it's it's how are we going to handle this going forward? You know, do we want to just seek outside help, you know, with it? because this is this will be a an ongoing process, you know, um the torch was kind of handed
off to Stephen to keep working on this and and since he was here, he even identified probably even more than what Bethany knew. And then also to you know, you just take the rip wrap standards, you know, um once again myself going and
talking to Stephen going, "Well, hold on a second. Six months ago, the city of Nestle had just issued this permit that's directly in violation of this standard. And so, you know, I'm not I'm not, you know,
pointing fingers at any employee or past employee or whatever. It's just I think it's our duty to make it um tracked, cleaned up, efficient, and and um and easily followed language as we
move forward. And and like I say, it's just one example. My recommendation would probably be to you know get some outside help and or um I've mentioned to some other people this would be a bigger topic of
conversation too is you know on some of this just going okay you know the county has done a lot of work on getting their ordinance and not that we just blindly adopt theirs but that might be a better baseline for us even to start from
versus our current plan because a lot of these we don't even know the last time they were looked at or touched. There's not like a there's not like a recorded date on when any of this stuff in the city of Nisa has been looked at per se
on a lot of this stuff over the last two years though when Chris was here Chris Pence correct and we've been going you know we went over this ad nauseium you know just month after month like building heights and you know I know we talked about building heights maximum heights but some of this stuff is
outside of what Chris did so that wasn't full comprehensive This is still in addition to a lot of this stuff is in addition to what Chris has already looked at. Okay. Like granted I can go along with that but there's some things on here that we did look at you know
well so we did adjust certain elements in the last revision phase like the land use chart we introduced standards and touched on definitions for different uses maybe clarified or combined different uses that were appropriate to do so. So, some of these did get touched, some of these did not. And the
and the scope that we commissioned um Mr. Pence for last goound were to resolve a couple areas of non-compliance or or I guess conditional approvals on previous ordinance revisions. We needed to adopt FEMA flood plane standards and we needed to address standards in the
plan development district. Um and then that was rapidly onset from my onboarding. And in those few months, I had conversations with Chris about items like this, you know, that have been tallied up as I've been dealing with,
land owners, um, contractors, and just stakeholders in the community about, um, you know, does this make sense? And then we've had those discussions. One example of that would be the 12% slope, um, analysis for subdividing a lot from one
lot into two. Um, and so ordinances like chapter 20, as I said last month, are they're very they're very much a living document based on the needs of the community. And um they're all beholden to state code. Um certain
things we can be as restrictive as we want on to a limit. you know, obviously we can't be illegally restrictive on things, but um other times we can't be less restrictive than the municipality of the county that we're within. Um at the end of the day, this chapter 20 is
the one that I live and breathe in dayto-day and the standards that are written in there um structure the permitting process more than anything. And so just intended to have a conversation. I guess we started diving into certain sections, but we
don't have to take that dive today. Um, I guess we're just looking at whether or not you guys wish to dive into each like one in particular, one that's not on this list. Um, and see if you would like to provide recommendation to the city
council to commission and go through another revision phase. Like I said, it's very living. Um there might be uses that are proposed as we go on like crypto mining that we haven't thought of in the city of Niswah. And so if it's something that we
um are experiencing and and constantly encountering land owners as being you know we're getting variances left and right for fences for example. I'll just pick on that. then you know that might be an indication that the language should be evaluated candidly,
objectively and seeing whether or not it makes sense to continue along that pathway. Um less restrictive, more restrictive. Yeah. And and what what's hard for everyone to know is unless we have some
other language side by side to go, yeah, this one makes more sense for the city of NESA or our current one makes sense or this one over here, we don't, you know, I think to be fair to everybody without option A, B, or C or kind of
knowing what what is being done, you know, it's it's tough to it's tough just to say what the what it would be. It's just I think it is fair to say that the top ones that Stephen has put together, it's something that
um he um deals with on a daily basis where people are coming into the counter, you know, hey, why can't I do this? What is this here? Why why is this here? You know, um I can go
down the street and I can do it. my neighbor got a permit in the city of Nessa two years ago to do this. Why can't I do it now? Did the rules change? No, the rules didn't change. Well, then what's going on? Those are all the conversations that I think looking at
this um to try and help mitigate and make it easier um for staff and for contractors and homeowners to I guess um have a consistent answer. um I think is
why that this should be a priority to take a look at you know um it's um e even as we move ahead you know um the city has purchased more land out there on the highway you know behind Mind
DOT's planning stuff through here some of these ordinances you know highway business district we're going to have to look at them you know and from a city perspective this is kind of the group that, hey, let's put the ordinance is together. Let's let's look at these
rules so it makes the most sense on what's going on and start to have some of these conversations um throughout the city. Um I guess is the bigger picture. It feels like when Chris was here, he was cleaning up a lot of the inconsistencies and the gray language
that was in the ordinance. And as he went through it, that's what he was clearing up. um goal. That was the goal was that was what the goal was. And I think sometimes as a commission, we're we're insulated by what Stephen like let's say you're talking about a person that has a different permit and they
come in like, well, why did this guy get to do it? We don't know any of that conversation. We don't know that's going on. We just see what's what the applications are. This person wants a variance application. We don't know about the 25 different people that applied for that because it's really not given to us. I think as a commission it would be really helpful to know some of
that background information that you're going through or maybe some past history so we can make a better judgment on how to change things around. Um like you're talking about rip wrap that's your I mean that's your mo that's you do that all the time. We have no idea right that
that's a huge issue um for for contractors like we we're insulated by any of that information because we don't know and and that's how this list got generated from this. Exactly. It's just, you know, Steven's at the counter, somebody comes in on any
one of these nine items that he started with and going, "Sorry, my hands are tied. This is what the rules in this said." But but why? Because it says that. Well, well, what's behind it? You know, I can go
down the street five miles this way and do it or up the street five miles this way and do it, but why can't I do it in this way? There's no the because it was written. Well, why was it written? When was it put in there? Well, that got put in in 1990.
Okay. You know, that's, you know, a long time ago. Um and and so I think that's what we're bringing up here um to to try and start that conversation that this this is going on. This is happening. It
is taking place and and this is a starting point of stuff that needs addressed. It's just for you all to have a better understanding. Is it bringing on, you know, my opinion would be to try and bring on somebody like Chris again because I think he's done an excellent
job. And when he left, by no means was he done with it. It was just that chunk, but we still have many sections within within the city to keep going through. And that would be my recommendation is
to define those and having them keep going through and reviewing that. Um, the only thing I'd add to that though is like I'm surprised we're not memorializing when things get updated. So that was a that feels like a miss. We
do sit here and go through lists like this at the same time. And so this is not my day job, but like I mean our code probably have a retain when things get updated. So, we have physical copies of old ordinances. And so, I can go back
and look at the language from 1982 and try to compare it to the language of today. A lot of the section numbers uh were organized a little bit differently, but that was something that Bethany really strove for is getting things organized into residential. Okay, these are all the standards for residential
rather than looking uh all over the 140 pages of the ordinance to find out how to put up a fence. And I I know I'm picking on fences a lot, but you know, one of the things is is um we have that change log. When I sent
this last most recent chapter 20 version to Municode, I did send them and ask them to post the um the writeup version so that we can track what changed when. For example, the land use chart. These uses that were highlighted and stricken through are the languages that were gone
away with the highlighted language and um underlined language is stuff that got introduced. And so that's I guess the goal is to to keep the change log rolling forward so that the visibility is there. Yeah.
What one one item if if we're going to go through all this, I think having Chris dive into this our current uh wording and and we know then we talk about oh are we sure we want to use the word and here you know just going
through this every sentence where it's going to cost Nisa taxpayers a lot of money if he's if we're charging for him to go through every ordinance where we can't just do some broad jump and just adopt another that makes more sense. That's rather
than having him go word for word through this ordinance and spending so much time on it, adopt more of a a high view look of it and adopt the whole thing instead of, you know, getting a recommendation from him about just replacing all the language for this rather than nitpicking what we already have in the essence of
time and money. Sure. One risk that would be associated with that is unintended consequences. For example, fences. Say we adopt Growing County's ordinance as a whole. Um, fences have a height maximum of 4 and a half ft where our ordinances allow
72 in um, six feet in height. And so what we might do by adopting an ordinance from another municipality is all of a sudden adopt a lot of non-conformities in the community. So that would be one cautionary um word of guidance to this commission
is potentially engage section by section and not say go through you know like start at the top and on page one and get to page 141. That would be very expensive if he's diving into every single word and letter. Um but generally
speaking in in in fencing for example we have item six here that says that fences shall observe all these standards. If it does not observe these standards then the permit or the use shall require a conditional use permit.
Well in ordinances if you're not meeting a dimensional standard that's a variance. But our ordinance triggers to two different public hearings as was the case tonight. um a variance hearing, find bindings of facts as it relates to that statutory requirement, and a conditional use permit as it relates to
the evaluation criteria stated in our ordinance. Some of that language I could propose right now that maybe maybe a variance alone is the more appropriate pathway is that unless the goal is to have all those additional
evaluation criteria that come with that conditional experiment. And again, happy to entertain any suggestions. Um, but when I work daytoday with people, all of a sudden I, you know, I know right away if they're proposing closer than the
required setback, I got to get them here for a variance. And then in reading that section, it also says I need a conditional use per hidden language triggers a second public hearing, a second recorded document that's required. Is that the intent? These
these are all listed numerically here though. They're not these aren't listed by ranking of where you've had problems. One, two, three. This is correct. Number one's the worst. Seconds of correct. Yeah, that was just numerical scanning through the ordinance. At the end, I just said assorted sections and topics
because I wanted to keep the memo at a one pager. Well, it might be best if you were to generate another list that's that's priority list, you know, rated triage and planning commission triage for having the problems and bring those
problems to us so that we know what what it's causing for the for the public and yourself, the staff. Yeah. And I think that's kind of what he's done without going, hey, this client or this person did this, you know. I guess one of the
things I would challenge maybe everyone up here to do is, you know, let's take one that's not on here, I don't think, is the sign ordinance for Nissle, right? The signs. I I would say right now, if I challenged everyone to go home and read the sign ordinance and then really read
it, study it, A, try and figure it out. B, try and understand it and apply it to a business in town or community and we come back next month. There's six of us
sitting here. I bet none of us would align on the interpretation of it, what it really means, and how to apply it, and then why even part of it makes sense or what we're trying to accomplish with
that. I would venture to guess even in that one we'd have six completely different responses you know in in looking at it with just you know with just the area of signs it just
see that being an example if people wanted to go home that would kind of give a a taste or a flavor of what we're trying to explain I guess I guess that's the best way until you dive into it a little bit and actually read it and go,
"Wait a second. What am I reading? What does this mean? Well, how does somebody get a sign? How does somebody change a sign? Okay, you you need the square foot of this. You you know the open-ended interpretation on it." And then you and
then drive through town and go, "Well, that's non-compliant. That's non-compliant. Well, that's non-compliant. Well, we're letting them do this and none of it meets the ordinance. So, like, what are we doing?" So, I I guess that would be my challenge right now. And that would probably be a a good example of what Steven's up
against. Yeah. For example, just scanning through the sign sections, there's 12 pages of language in there. Uh we do have a lot of land districts that we define the uses and the sizes of each one process for some of them like area
identification signs have to be processed by an interim use permit. Um, and that 12 pages does not count all of the ones at the bottom in the definition section where it literally defines what is an area identification sign. So, I mean, it's it's a it's a hefty section
of the ordinance. Um, for someone that doesn't spend their days in local ordinance evaluating and interpreting, yeah, that'd be an undertaking to try to make sense. People scratch their head when they look at some of the stuff. But, um, that's why I'm here to be
engaged and talk about it. Um, as it relates to signs, I don't really have um super suggestive changes other than um what you guys You're never going to come up with a signed ordinance that
doesn't require variances from time to time. You know, that's just the way it is. No, but just I mean it's so um I've been fighting with signs having a business in town forever putting a sandwich board out. I mean it it
literally makes a huge difference in our business whether we do it or not and you know there's those same people put them out. Our employees hate putting them out you know and that's why I think people that don't need them don't put them out but people that need them put them out.
Yeah. But are we doing it against the ordinance? Probably. But we continue to do it because it our business needs it. Well, that was that was just changed recently for downtown.
But but I mean it's you go to like Crosby. That's a great example. We we've got a we've got a a store in Crosby. There's no no one cares. know you do it because I mean business is what I mean this is you know if you got a special going on you put the sandwich if you
don't I mean it's even I mean obviously you know the comment that I got one time was well you should have bought on Main Street well there's nothing on Main Street for sale so you know I pay taxes I pay you know everything comes around sales tax all that stuff comes around so
I mean it's it it's it's frustrating for us but yet we need to do it I mean I've got to the where I said I'm going to let her abandon park it out there every day, you know, but you know, you know, it's just it's you wouldn't be the first one. No, I know. But it's not it's it's that
important to a business or at least our business. So, I mean, it's it's something that I agree that we have to look at not just signs, but everything. It's like I'm on, you know, Lakeshore. Lakes Shore is different from here. It's almost confusing sometimes is Lakeshore,
you know, won't allow this. we do, you know, and you're literally a a sign apart, you know, I mean, sure, and now all of a sudden everything changes. So, I I agree that, you know, again, I I I think that
when we go through these ordinances, we should really look at what our neighboring communities are doing, if it makes sense, and maybe they're, you know, I don't know if we want to be more liberal or conservative with our our ordinances, but I think um I think at least we
should take a look at what they have in order to figure out if we're too conservative. Or if we adopt, like you said, a big section, maybe we want to take the more liberal approach when it comes to ordinances. You know, instead of a 42
inch fence, we go with the 72 because that's what we got and hasn't bothered anybody there. That just takes more off your plate. Oh, why don't we ask Stephen to for the next several meetings pick
one or two hot bite hot button items, you know, like number one, what's what's the what's the biggest thorn in your saddle and bring that to us next time that and maybe the second and give us the alternatives and what you think should be the change the suggested
changes to the ordinance to try to resolve some of these problems you're having. So, and then at the same time, we'd have comparisons with what's going on at Lakeshore and you know, Grecy Point every place else. The only thing I want to be cognizant of is Steven's
time. You know, he's a department of one and they're getting very busy and I realize that and and asking that even doing a couple, you know, without knowing, you know, like let's say we do the signs that's just 12 pages in this law and then to compare it or whatever.
I mean, you you might be asking them to do days worth of work to just do a couple. And so that that would be my only kind of push back on having Stephen dive into that so we could all see. Once again, I would time spent, dollars
spent, you know, engaging somebody else, taking a bigger section. um you know um we we might be better ahead just because asking Stephen to do some of this you know we don't know the time commitment required it's it's much
greater than we realize do so a lot of this is directed like I mean we can't hire Chris Pence I mean a lot of this has to be directed by the council if if if the council wants Chris to look at something I think we're fine with it
no mouse needs to Yeah, they need a recommendation from us to do it, right? They need a recommendation from us to do it. And I think we're all in agreement that we would be fine with that. Yeah. But it see, you know, we we've been working on this for two years, two and a half years. It's been over with now for
what, six months, whatever. Y and I think everybody was glad that we got to where we did because we're feeling better about the ordinances and it was going to solve many, many questions that were coming up every day. and all of a sudden it's coming right back and we're gonna hire Chris to there's somebody,
you know, a consultant to to go over again what we just finished doing. But but I don't think that's what you don't understand. He didn't get through he didn't get through all of it. He only did certain sections of it. He didn't go every through everything. You know, like
Stephen said that that's the thing. He he didn't go through all these things with a fine tooth comb. He just did certain topic sections. You know, Stephen can kind of hit on that and and I think that's that's the myth. We're not talking about going through and
rehashing. We're not asking work that was just done. Correct. You know, because some of it work, you know, like some of it like again, we get back to building heights. I mean, we talked about that maximum size and impervious surfaces that was all covered and we changed the building. Change it. We
changed them. I think we changed them. Yeah, we did. Isn't the maximum building height 30 feet now? Yep. It was 25. It was 25. Okay. So, I mean, but but also to, you know, a 30 foot building. It really doesn't do anything. You're
you're over twotory, but you're you're not quite threetory. So, also too, what other municipality or governing agency has it set at 30 feet there? There's not one that I know of. And so
like if somebody can go out and go somebody else has it set at 30 feet. Sure does. Lake sure does. 25. I think Proing County had a standard one, but not saying that it's right or wrong. Right or wrong. I'm just saying that I'm just saying the number that was picked,
you know, um why. Once again, I'll I'll be the person that asks why. It doesn't it didn't really help anything or solve anything because it didn't allow for a three-story building. So, it wouldn't be prohibited to get a larger one. That
would be a variance. Someone could apply for a variance, for example, in highway business for a 60 foot tall structure. At that point, it it no longer allows for an over-thecounter permit to be issued. There's other considerations obviously with a something significant like that. Building code becomes more
relevant, fire safety, all of those things, right? But then all of that can be structured through the variance process if that proposal did come forward. Um the styles now are like 10 12 roofs. So I mean you get to a twotory
and they want to put you know a different pitched roof on it and all of a sudden that throws you over. So now you're right. You know what I mean? Well, in the past, we've had people come in, I think the last, what was it, three, three years ago, they were looking at apartments, and I think they ended up building that apartment over in
Baxter that they were looking at here. And part of the reason why they didn't come here is because they can't add the third story, and then they couldn't cash flow if they couldn't get past the third story. Correct. Now, some people might argue that they don't want apartments here. And that that I mean, I I get that
view. Yeah. So in in my opinion, some of that height ordinance was because of that like they they want to restrict apartments being built in this. So they're going to set it at 25 to 30 feet or whatever. So it's impossible to do it. But but then my question is, you know, also to is this in line with
comprehensive plan now, right? Because last time the comprehensive plan that was done, the number one biggest thing from everybody living in this town was um housing, housing needs, affordable needs. So here we go. We don't want
apartments, but also too, are we listening to everybody living in this town? Because according to the comprehensive plan, that was the number one need. And here we're saying we don't want it. So I don't think we're saying we don't want it. I'm just saying I'm just using that as an example that it
doesn't jive either. It doesn't jive with comprehensive plan. It doesn't jive with all the meetings the last time that was done and put together and you know and we're we're conflicting again. And so that's why I think some of this needs to have a a bigger dive. I'm not saying
that we need to fill up this with apartments either. I'm just saying, you know, um none of this stuff has ever meshed very well. And if we're supposed to be starting with a comprehensive plan, do we need a new comprehensive plan? Is that where we start? You know,
or are we going to actually use that to determine some of these rules? Well, then if we are, they should kind of align versus versus um compete with each other. That that would be my that would be my take on some of this, too. You're
not going to get a lot of community engagement if it's not controversial. So, if it's controversial, then this place will be packed. I mean, then then we'll get lots of feedback. If it's like the sign ordinance or whatever, we might not get a lot of engagement because not a lot of people care
except for you. Don't don't bet on that. The business people probably care, but the people that are living in this like like me, I mean, I don't even notice the signs when I'm driving through. You probably notice them wherever you go because it affects you directly. The the last time the sign thing was talked about, this place was packed out. That's
how we got the 12 pages. There was standing room only in here the last time the sign ordinance was brought up. Well, whatever. So, it's some items are controversial like that. Like any anytime you do development on a lake, it's going to be controversial no matter what you do.
So, yeah. All all I'm saying is I don't think that we can just go status quo and keep going. It it's just not working for the city. Um we're out of date. We need outside help. We're not redoing what Chris already did for a whole, but as we
continue to look ahead, you know, look at behind us, we're not exactly to um, you know, in complete control of what our highway is going to look like running through this town, how it's going to change, how it's going to
impact. And, um, rather than being reactive, I would say that, you know, challenge everyone here to be more proactive. Let's start looking at this. Let's start talking about this. What's going to happen when these frontage roads get closed? What does this town
need? You know, um, you know, even if it's not an apartment, what if it's some other structure that's threetory, you know, a hockey arena, something like that into the town. Um, you know, and to
Yeah, I guess everything's been reactive and I challenge us to look at it different as we move ahead. So we we as a commission we'd like to recommend uh have Chris Pence look at some of these are we are we coming down to that
are we having Chris Pence request to engage Chris Pence to see to engage Chris but I think as I think I would like to add a caveat that that we need something really specific and concrete right a scope and especially time uh because we don't want to waste a lot of
money either We would like to know how much we can spend, how much we how much Chris can spend on this. So it's efficient. Yeah. Exactly. Rather than government. But it all comes back to Stephen again. Right. Right. You know, he's got to pick out he's got to
pick out the specifics. Here's here's we're having problems here, there, there, and there. These my challenge, Stephen, is Phil's gonna come back to Stephen throwing something out on the table for us maybe at the next meeting. just just bullet items of priority one, two, three, four, five, you know, and
then go from there and then we can start talking Pence and consultants or whatever that that you if you need to satisfy these things that make sense or yeah um I'm not asking you to spend a week at this just you know you should be
able to yeah I can I can start engaging him talking to you know a is he available for you another revision phase over this summer. Obviously, things are getting busy both here and at the county where he's employed. Um, but I can reach out to him, gauge his interest, start
talking those high level pain points like rip wrap or um fences and just kind of come up with a bulletized list, bring it back to you guys for recommendation. I just like to hear more from you where the problems. Yeah, we want to aid your work. So it's not so it's not a huge
long process for you to be going taking three days to do something to engage with us what you want from us. So at that to that I would say you know there are like I could prioritize some of these things land use chart for for
one example. Um we allow dwellings for multif family use call it an apartment building through a conditional use pathway in five different districts technically six because SR and LR are combined in one column. The uses are the same for each. um it offers up a
conditional use pathway for that use processed as a PUD. But when we go down to planned unit developments for residential nonshore, the list gets
shrunken to only allow that PUB process for residential use in the nonshoreland district. So let's pick on highway business downtown outside of the thousand ft from a lake. all of a sudden highway business that se has dropped off
and we prohibit that use. So as I work dayto-day in the ordinance coming up with identification of contradictory uses either in my mind there should either be a C under this
column for that planned unit development pathway or a dwelling multif family use or the C should be removed because it's conflicting. So those those are the daily heartburns when I find an ordinance conflict where I have this
language that says okay this is a pathway and it's an allowed use but then I also have the other side of the coin that you know other you know neighbors can come forward and complain saying you can't allow that that's prohibited and here's why. So those those ordinance conflicts are I guess to me priority
number one. Now scanning through all 141 pages to tell you where all those ordinance conflicts are. That's that's the undertake. That's the that's going to be the timeconuming aspect and it's going to be you know you identify them as you come to them and that's where
this document as many times as we touch it it becomes very living. Um, and one thing I would caution against is creating an a system where we are constantly adjusting it and fine-tuning this and that because that's when you're
at danger of creating additional conflicts because you're changing it too much and then you create this whiplash in the community of this is allowed, this isn't allowed, and then people got to, you know, stay more engaged um to identify those things. But we don't want
seasons of an allowed use and now's your go time and then all of a sudden we have 30 different applications for that and then we switch it back because the pendulum is constantly in flux. That's I guess not what would be ideal. Yeah. I mean the whiplash has been happening in
Nestle for years, right? I mean you know just the changing of the positions there unfortunately you know the city's struggled keeping one person here. you know, that's created whiplash, you know. So, I agree that's what we do want to
stop, but we still need to change it just like you pointed out, you know, and he doesn't necessarily know until somebody walks up to the counter and asks the question, you know, on where to find it. But if we just take something even even easier and strip it down, you have the rip wrap on the standard, would
there be any reason why we would just take the language that the county has and adopt it to the city and go, let's just do that because that's more in line with everything. It makes more sense. That one as a whole, is is that one that
we would think that we' just move from here to here potentially. I need that direction from you guys. It's It's hard for me to say we should do this because I had an application yesterday and I really want to get this guy rip wrap without all of these standards that that implicates me as the planner. It really
needs to be a community goal for the language that I can take and apply not just for that one applicant because I don't want to conrue favoritism or pet projects or anything like that. It really just needs to make sense. Could
we do it? Sure. there's a process for that and maybe what the some of these some of these sections as we go through an ordinance revision as I tabled out different sections that we can dive into maybe we decide yes let's touch that ordinance language that section this
time and we really need to spend more time to have good language in this other section and as we move forward to provide a recommendation to city council to adopt an ordinance and put that language in then we just cross off that those specific sections that were the
easy ones and then we continue working and keep our nose to the grindstone on the harder ones like signs. But here's my question then. Who's driving the bus? Is this group driving the bus or you? So then I think you know after that then you know in my mind that's what we're trying to figure out. Who's who's
driving the bus? You know can we help you out? What is your recommendation? Right. the the rip wrap the the rip wrap warrants that we have a fact it hasn't been followed in the city of Nisa we know that permits have been given it it
hasn't been followed um tons of conflict it's just it's it's a bad one right now um so changing that out does that help you to change to the county you know so
if if right now if gets more in line with all the permits that have been given out prior year time and is more in harmony with you know we walk across the street to NES Lake if we look around Nestle Lake which ordinance is in more
harmony the counties or the cities you know and that's where I think that we we need to know you know like you're asking you know what what helps you I think that's that's at the end of the day the goal that everyone's asking you know that Gary's asking, you know, what helps
you with this, you know, and and that would be that would be the question, you know, um just boiling it right down what what helps we need to make a step forward to make it better. And so, how do we how do we start this? I would say
establishment of a scope. Um in the analogy of who's driving the bus, I would I would say both this commission and city council are driving the bus. I operate more like, I don't know, traffic signals and stop signs based on things
that are, you know, that I'm engaging on the day-to-day basis. Um, so I can go back to the council and say, "Here you go. We're going to drive the bus. we're going to say, "Yep, we want to adopt the counties here and start at the county level or at the council level if that's
what everybody wants, you know, but um um somewhere a decision needs to be made and we and we need to make a decision. So, if we got to go back to the council, I'll go back to the council and say, "Okay, here's the scenario. Here's this conversation. What does the council want
to see?" Throw some AI at it. I don't know that we've specifically had much discussion about rip wrap as well. It's just an example because it seems like we're homing in on rip wrap is the number one item here and I don't know that that I think we're picking on it. We're not I understand
why Steven doesn't want I mean he shouldn't he he feels like he shouldn't be the dictator in in Nisa saying well I don't like this and I don't like that. I mean that's your role. You were elected. We weren't. So, if you as a city council want to direct us and and direct us what you want us to do, I think we're fine
with that. Yeah. And what the problem though is people come into the counter and go, "My neighbor just got a permit a year ago from this city and now you're telling me I can't do the same thing. What happens? I got one from Bethany. Now you're in here. Did the rules
change?" No, the rules didn't change. That's bad policy. Only the person changed, you know, and that's that's what the issue is. We we've got to correct that. That That's what's going on. That's that's just the facts, you know, and and that's what's going on. And it puts him in a in a very tough
spot. So, just not to get Yeah. We can't change what happened in the past, right? No. All we can have change now is what Steven does. Somebody comes in looking for a permit and he either says yes or he says no. If you say no to them, then they come in and ask us for a variant. So, we need to change the rules. Then,
you know, if if this has been allowed and it was okay and the city was allowing it, never following this rule, well, why do we have the rule if it's never been followed? Change the rule. You know, some of those things we have to really hone in on whether or not it's there by
statutory rule or maybe rules. I'm going to pick on septic systems. Um Minnesota chapter 7080 has all the standards for residential systems. um the county can adopt more restrictive language and the county has adopted more restrictive language, but there's also language in
um Minnesota rule that says that uh local municipality within a county cannot be less restrictive than the county's adopted standards. Um and so some of those rules, you know, it's it's hard to say when you look at any specific section and subsection in here, some of that
might be more restrictive language. Some of it might have been driven by a rule. And so that's where the rubber meets the road on an ordinance revision is can we change this section. Well, I think that's Joe was making the point and that's why he was using for Crowing County as an example. I mean, if they're doing it rip, then there has to be a
reason why we're more restrictive. So, what is it? And as we as we come up with a close to a final document, then we would send that off to the powers that be for comment. um anytime you touch the shoreland ordinance, it has to get signed off by the commissioner and get,
you know, their approval or guidance on it. They might say, "Well, it looks like you are proposing to change this language and you can't and here's the statute says why you can't change that language." And so, really just getting the ball rolling down the hill, talking about different areas of the ordinance
that are, you know, problematic, haven't been observed, whatever you want to call it. and then taking a dive through proper process, holding the public hearing, putting advanced comment notice out there
and seeing if it sticks and passes this body, goes to city council, passes that body, gets published in the paper, and now it's code. He wants to talk about signs. [Laughter] Okay. So, um why don't I bring this
information back to the council? Sure. Yeah. And then have them help give some direction moving forward. But it sounds like the body is open to the idea of engaging a consultant be it Chris Pence or it seems like that's like the
most efficient way to get through it but provides benefits. Hopefully it's not the meter just doesn't keep running and running and running. Seems like the number one item though is conflicting regulations. Correct. Well, I picked on that title in
particular um just because our ordinance like I showed with the multif family dwelling. There's there might be language that goes like this and points to it's allowed, it's disallowed, and so it's in conflict. And so, and this was
an area these are areas that that we just we didn't just finish with Chris Pence, for instance, and in the last code chapter code review. Correct. Certain ones we did, but that's because it had subsections that were also adjusted like definitions and land use chart. Land use chart, we combined
different uses like commercial or business/commercial retail rather than um specifically calling out retail use. We bundled it and changed the definition to be a little bit broader application um from retail stores. use those same
conditional use areas and and where that's allowed through that pathway and put that under that new definition that was adopted. So, super I'll go back to the council and get some clear guidance. Joe and commission, do you want to
assist Joe in this by making a recommendation to see what we can do to hire a consultant? I wouldn't name somebody just in case it doesn't work for Chris. Um, but do we want to do that to assist Joe in his conversation with
the council? What do you think would be useful? Yeah, to just go back and probably have um this conversation at the council just with these bullet points, whether it be RIP wrap or auxiliary structures and just go here you go, we need to give
some clear guidance on what we need to do to help Stephen out to help this board out to move ahead. So that you that you guys, you know, consensus would be maybe to look for an outside group to help, but then also to look for
direction from the council on priorities on what needs to be changed, what wants to be changed, because like I say, coming down the city bought the land south of town. That's going to impact rules. This highway stuff's going through that's going to impact rules.
Stuff is going to need to happen. And so I think it would be appropriate to start at the council and say, "Okay, here you go. Here's the task. We want you guys to focus on highway business district for instance or the sign ordinance or whatever and get that direction from the
council." Does that make sense, Maggie? Yes. You know, let me throw something out just for historical purposes. Um, you know, we've got downtown, we've got Niswah as it always is. It's got the
Niswah feel and you know, the vibe to it. And then we've had this property south, the bridal property, the airport, but now the city owns the north half of it and the other's for sale. It's going to go up for sale or it is for sale. Maybe it's been sold.
But 15 years ago, I was working with some developers out of Elk River who bought that property under contract from RLE, the people that owned it, and they were going to develop it into a mixeduse development. And um I was just retiring
from my business in in Minneapolis, and they they hired me for the last year to work with them on that project. And so I was representing them at at the planning commission council up here at that time. And that if you go back in the records,
there's whole different a whole separate subdivision ordinance and and development for that area was developed as the it was going to be the new downtown Niswah where versus the old we still had the old Nysa that everybody's
come to, you know, love and live in. And it was going to a lot of things would have been done much differently in the new downtown than here. Uh so far as types of stores, you know, where you could have stores that were were um um
big box, not big box stores, but but gap stores and you know, that aren't allowed in downtown basically. And signage would be different. And there was going to be mixed use. There was going to be uh some uh uh assisted living. there was going
to be some medical staff, some of some shopping center, some town houses and just a mix down there. Uh unfortunately 2009, 10 and 11 just buried that thing and so it's gone. I've still got files that are about this thick, but it's gone
forever other than there is something in the city of Niswah files and records if you go back and find them. For example, in our comprehensive plan that we have in effect and adopted right now, central business district was um where as we
know it um on our future land use map guided by the comp plan. Uh this is designated the historic central business district and the central business district was airing towards this region. But there was a there was an outcry even
back, you know, 15 years ago for something different than what's downtown Niswah. But yet you want to keep Niswah the way it is because I mean there's a mystique in this Nisah that nobody else has been able to capture except Niswah over the years, you know, but there is
also a need for other types of environments and more modern environments if that's what you want to talk about. Shopping areas and different kinds of stores and different facilities. We're looking at a hotel with a water park and there was all kinds of big some big things were going
to happen down there. Um, you know, the world changed on us. But, uh, that kind of brings us back to this. And I think I think there's more of a need now that the city especially owns that half of north half of that property. And we know that the city
needs it for its own infrastru infrastructure, a lot of it for fire and police and water and whatever, you know. Uh but there's still going to be a lot of property down there that could be regued, you know, to much more along what you're talking about. You know,
it's m much more of a modern feel to it. Uh I don't think anybody wants to get like Well, not even it's not even a modern feel. It's not even to lose what we have in NESA right now. or ordinance doesn't even
allow us to duplicate what we have going on here down there. Yeah. Right. So, it's not I'm not in favor of box stores. I'll say that. And bringing but to keep the NESA feel and duplicate that down there. Our ordinance
currently doesn't really allow for that to even happen right now. And that's where yeah, we need to do a a bigger dive into what and the plan a plan at that time wasn't to duplicate downtown. It was have something entirely different, right? But something that blended in and it's happening at Grand
View. U all of, you know, the old cabins that are down there, they're all being removed. They're all going to be replaced with twotory, you know, modern condominiums. The same thing's probably going to happen at at Craig's now. That's been sold. and and they've got
different they're already I've heard some ideas of what's happening down there and that's all going to be modernized and and so that end of town needs to be developed differently you know right anyway so okay I don't even know why I threw it
out but just for historical purposes that's that's we appreciate that was interesting yeah I didn't know that didn't know that it was the six flags that was they talked about coming in there right yeah a lot of people don't know that but yeah Yeah, but in and one of the reasons why it got shut down is
because it didn't meet the height ordinance because it's going to be too high once again or 30 feet. It it was a but that's past history. But back to Maggie, well, you know, that comes back to McDonald's wanting to be where Wendy's, right? They just couldn't live with the low arches, right? You know, it
was the signed ordinance that killed it. So, uh, on the other hand, we sure need to find a use for that property. So, do we have to make any recommendations, Maggie, on our end or no? I would say it would be up to Stephen or Joe if they think that that would help the conversation for the council to
approve moving forward with something. Yeah. Maybe some sort of recommendation to the council, you know, for some guidance, some direction, whatever. I if there's if there's conflicts in the existing regulations the way they're printed now, we've got to change those.
I mean, that's our duty to be, right? But I don't think we as a board know what those conflicts are. Steven does. So, okay. So, the motion, what is the
motion? Do we even need a motion for Joe to bring Maggie said? Yeah, we need to have a motion. So, so Joe can bring it to the council. Okay. to recommend a conversation at the city council regarding an ordinance revision of chapter 20 identifying sections but not limited to
those in this manual and I can attach this memo and we can have the same conversation but with that body. Okay, that sound okay? I don't know. Repeat it.
um perhaps to recommend to bring this conversation to city council to um initiate an ordinance amendment related to chapter 20 land use and development. Maybe you help me out if there's a better phrasing of of that.
Are we going to add something that with the with the possible um uh inclusion of a of an outside of a consultation outside consultant to help us such as we've had for the
others chapter 20 ordinance because that's going to be an expenditure item. So yeah, Maggie will come up with something good. You got that Maggie? It's all up to you. 8:00 tomorrow morning, we'll have the magic in our hands. So, well, maybe not
that soon, but do you want me to add something like a priority list set by staff or um Yeah. Yes. something. Okay. Yes. Yeah. Priority list. Yeah. Prepared by staff.
Good. All those in favor? I I Who actually made that motion and seconded it? Gary. Gary. Okay, second. Yeah, we can't have Stephen making it, can we? No, I made it. Okay, Maggie, I'm so sorry
about the start of the minute of the meeting of the That's That's all right. I just will need to know who made some motions at the beginning because there won't even be anything on the recording. I got those down. Okay, wonderful. We'll touch
base then tomorrow. And Oh, we're not done. We still agenda. No, that was new business. Old business none. Now we're on to city planner support. All right. Thank you. Uh so in the last month since we last met, I've
issued 12 additional land use permits from again accessory structures are kind of a big item. Uh right now new new family residences are kind of on the uptick as everything's kind of thought out in the community.
Um uh so yeah, 12 permits issued. Um some septic systems, sewer connections, um getting some of the winter conditional use permits and variances coming forward for their land use permits at this time. Um I did provide the city council with some three
specific well four I had two different growth options but budgetary scenarios. Um one involving a 10% reduced budget for my department. uh one being flat only including you know cost of living increases and then a third option for
what would be like a wish list or a growth opportunity. Um provided those three to city council got a little bit of feedback from them. Obviously budget for 2026 is a little ways away but we're kind of grinding those gears to come up with what makes sense for the department
budget moving forward. One of the topics that was brought up was um city council's stapened um planning commission stapen whether or not there'd be any um options to look at that. The city
council was looking at trimming 10% as one of the asks was 10% from the department budget. Well, was is that something that this body would volunteer or entertain or provide recommendation on? Um, so I promised um council and the
new mayor that I would bring that forward and just to see how you guys feel about that notion. Um, not requiring of a of a motion per se, but just fostering that conversation. See
where you guys are at. Better hit me with that one one more time. Yeah. So there's a 10% reduction in what in I believe you guys get $80 per meeting and so Oh, I see. In our in our in our gigantic pay. I see that was
go along with anything. If it saves the city money by God, then we should do it. I It doesn't make any difference to me one way or the other. So if we go back to completely voluntary, that's what they want, right? That's going to save the city city's budget like have
added. How's that? Any other comments or won't be many other I'm sorry if I talk to you for but you're for the others. Seems like you could let Stephen know later too. You can provide me feedback individually
if you want. Okay. You have mine there. Well, that's all I had for the planners report is those things and then day-to-day ongoings with permits and coming up with suggestive sections of the ordinance for the revision
process. Um, yeah, things are ramping up very quickly. This isn't related. Can you give us an overview of what's happening with the uh Jennyax? Some of us maybe don't know. Uh, our personal leaison present might be able to be best
on that process. Yeah. Uh, Jenny took a different position with a town down in the metro and I believe her last day Maggie is officially the 23rd of May. May. Yes. But, um, these last few weeks um she's on vacation time, stuff like
that. So, Kiki, um the city clerk has um taken over um um with some of the interm roles and positions um currently right now. And as a
council, we are looking um to bring in an outside kind of interimm person to just um help um evaluate the city's structure and needs. you know, to move ahead as we um
explore all the different options and needs of the city in a in a administrative type person or uh clerk and uh the city um labor attorney is really kind of
guiding those steps directly step by step for the city on doing that. So, that's kind of I'll say a recap of where we're at. Um, source well be I'm sorry. Will source well be utilized to to fill
in I I don't think right now. Um, you know, there's uh or for planning. Yeah, I we've been in talk with, you know, the league, you know, down there. um they have a lot of great references
too for us that they've provided um to help find an intern person too for something like this. So yeah. Okay. Um I mean not saying that they might be but not right currently now but that's kind of the kind of the update that So they
posted the position? No, no position has been posted or anything. where we are currently right now is just an intern, you know, just we're just looking for somebody from the outside to come in and help during the intern process until we
figure out um you know uh what would be posted. Um uh a learning a lot about the government and the proper steps to go through stuff like this. And so, like I say, the uh city uh labor attorneys really kind of
guiding this process and the proper steps to take during the trans the transition period. Okay. Any other questions, comments? I have one. Yes. Um, I just wanted to, sorry, Stephen, you didn't mention it, but I just want to make everybody aware
that the council and the city staff is hosting a town hall meeting on May 13th, which I believe is a Tuesday, um, from 5 to 7:00 at the community center. So, all are welcome to attend and ask questions and um, see what the city's got going
on. Thank you. All right, there's no more questions, comments, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Motion carries. We are adjourned.
Thank you, Maggie. Gary. Yes. I'll leave it. Thank Thank you. Stephen. Okay. Have a good night, guys. Yeah. Bye.