##VIDEO ID:BFHDSe65Y7c## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e you doing the meting minutes still no nice oh we don't have anybody Maggie's gone too huh all right I'd like to call the meeting to order for n Planning Commission Board of adjustment for Tuesday January 7th 2025 roll call please Tanny Mandell Sean Weldon Josh Young Gary Harris are there any additions or deletions to the agenda being none I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda second all those in favor I I I motion carries Sean okay somebody next to approve the meeting minutes for December 3rd 2024 are there any additions or corrections to those minutes there none no hearing none I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes second so moved all those in favor I I all those opposed motion carries next I is open form is there anyone uh present tonight that would like to speak toward something not on the agenda okay moving on we have no public hearing tonight uh our first order is new business uh site sketch review for m&b subdivision Eric Johnson um so the applicant is here um Eric if you want to come up pod you do Podium or desk and then tap on uh if the microphone isn't on there's a littleon think it's on right yes all right so um I don't know if you want to begin or me um basically this is a meets and balance subdivision application um been working with Eric and um Andy well let's go here from Hightech over the past couple months to come up with a certificate of survey showing um the lot area minimums after removal of all required elements from our ordinance our ordinance States things like 12% slopes need to be uh not counted in lot area and so we have a proposal here for um track a as total area with 12% slope over a 50 50 foot segment of 55,57 square feet buildable area of tra a 22433 um that would be the riparian track where the minimums are 40,000 for lot area and 16,000 for buildable so I think it needs on that aspect track fee having non- riparian access to Ed the lake um after the removal of the 20% slope over 50t segment we are at 40356 FT with buildable coming in at 32 389 um also meeting the um minimum lot size elements of the ordinance um not on this survey would be the site suitability for the primary and secondary locations I believe this application would be intended to come back next month for the actual subdivision so this is just a site sketch review right now do you have anything to add my main concern is I I've been starting this since July when you guys changed over Planning and Zoning or your administer planner city planner it's been a six-month process get to get where we are today and this 12% slope thing I think Stephen you said a lot of the reasons they have it is for sewer installation and I'm an Excavating business and anywhere on a I can put a sewer we can directional board to any spot and it's not an issue and if it's a side slope I I have an issue with this on residential uh just as a concern because every lot you have on the lakes are 12% I mean there every lot is 12% they're not all flat 2% Lots or 1% Lots so I would think that ordinance needs to be looked at a little bit maybe on multif family it makes sense but not on a residential so we did add the ordinance element of conversation to item number 90 for the ordinance Amendment um got some proposed language that might be applicable in this case as it relates to that 12% um coming up to this point now we uh recently just got the survey showing the removed areas and originally when we were talking we were thinking that that might be super impactful and negating on the opportunity to do a meets and bound sub um at this point I think we're meeting those minimums and so it's not um not a make or break factor in in your proposal yep my I guess my question is where where are we going from here I mean am I at the sketch plan review where is my next steps to keep going to get to this project because I wanted to start last fall but now we're waiting with Hightech till the spring to keep me a door opening to keep this project moving so Steve can answer that process process um you would just submit a new application for meets and balance subdivision prior to uh 10 days prior to the next meeting on February 4th for with that application I just sent work or do we need another one did you bring the physical copy with you today not today I have I have a digital version of that application submission of that and then we take it Forward under new business on February an opportunity to discuss any questions that you know yeah I mean it's just your opportunity to shoot shoot some questions off of us if we're open to it I don't see any reason why we wouldn't be sure um I don't know if anybody else has questions I mean it looks it meets all the standards so I don't think there'd be a problem yeah Andy you got so I guess yeah just for future reference and moving forward we did submit a land use permit along with another one so just for projects moving forward are we talking is this a you know because we asked the question to at the time it was Bethany and now to Stephen are we approaching this as a conditional use permit a variance just the typical land use what because this would just be a simple permitted use of the subdivision moved forward as a primary principal residence on track okay so the moving forward just not a potential future projects not necessar with Erica with anyone going just a question as a contractor we should be able to have this cleared up where we just kind of get some information inform up front like we had submitted for land use back in July when Bethany was here I know there was some transitioning going on and that was kind of what hindered this a little bit I'm fully aware of that and don't you know hold that in anybody's Court here but just so in this I guess future proposals would be a case by case analysis but in this case the the hurdle that we need to jump first is figuring out if we can subdivide it so that we can get larger than a 700 foot okay living quars otherwise we're held that cap on the paent parcel for this case but okay perfect that's all I got okay thank you yeah we'll bring It Forward U moving on to Old business uh The toppo Divide city council update do you want to go through these uh they're basically just memos if you guys are familiar with the okay any questions for him on any of those and then so toppo Thomas alen Holmes for the Thomas Allen Holmes variance application 0252 the application was tabled at the Planning Commission meeting in November um the applicant has now withdrawn his application and is choosing to move forward on two other lots that he's looking at can ating so that application is pulled and no longer a at this point okay did he make any indication that he wanted to come back and maybe do something about that or not on that particular lot with this application no so a new application I mean in the future because if he wants to go past the setbacks right no indication received okay uh 2024 Planning Commission calendar city council update so the Planning Commission calendar that I presented um um went before the city council uh they reviewed it at the December regular meeting of the Planning Commission um we had some discussion regarding deadlines for the application submission for the public hearings um and they tabled that analysis or a decision to be made setting those dates until the upcoming January meeting um so I'm providing just an update I did some comparative analysis into neighboring municipalities um and their public hearing deadlines to discover that our proposed five Friday prior deadline was not atypical um I attached some Communications and calendars from those municipalities in this packet sample average was 29.5 days prior to the public hearing date the sample range ranged from 16 days prior to 46 days prior for the cut off deadline um our propose came happily in the middle at 32 um days um I noted that while this is higher than average um those municipalities with shorter timelines have smaller margin for error on applications um or an application received too close to the publication deadline that application would risk being deemed incomplete missing statutory deadlines for notice for the next public hearing and causing the application to move to a future meeting date um that's in turn could cost the applicant an undesirable loss in time and money um risk is typically me uh mitigated by establishment of deadlines and an expectation that goes both ways um an applicant can rest assured that they're proposal will move forward and staff can rely on the completeness of the proposed application um in a timely manner um I did provide an example of a publication deadline as it relates to the application submission deadline for example February 4th's public hearing publication deadline to get into the echo has to be submitted by January 15th at 5: PM the current proposed application submission deadline was January 3rd for that February 4th meeting the lead time between those two is about 12 days for staff to um go through the application and determine what elements need to make it into the publication and the notices to neighboring properties um and I suppose that would be the eligible fat to trim if we were to move with a different date forward um if it is the desire to expedite the proposed administrative deadline for application submission there's that potential there um mitigating the the risk becomes the discussion um the less time afforded for review and working with the applicant the more unforgiving the publication deadline becomes increasing the potential for incomplete information being presented at a public hearing causing delay and worse increases the potential for error um one method employed would be those development review team meetings that I'm proposing um most municipalities who offer those make them also a prerequisite to application submission at this time I'm just proposing them only to the convenience applicants as they go through developmental plans with us to engage me so um talking to council member Hall who's um not here at this point yet um I did talk to him about maybe shifting that five Friday before deadline to four Fridays before and so at this point I'm just kind of seeking discussion from the Planning Commission as to how or if they want us to alter this the schedule and present that again at the January city council meeting to reflect four Friday's before leave it at 5: what would be your guys's take and guidance on that I guess it'd be based on what what your workload is right I mean what what what what's your preference again it all comes down to risk you know I don't want to rush through process um but if the feel in the community is that we need to to be um more expeditious on these applications and the deadlines and those cut off dates I guess there's lots of options that could present themselves if we move the date too close to the publication date like that 16 day that would be the city of brainer they have a uh a process for vetting applications earlier and engaging earlier so I mean we could look at making drts a prerequisite to applying so that I'm being engaged sooner so I know about the project um I wouldn't say that it's super required but if I get an application on a Friday and I have to get the publication and notice out the next Wednesday um that doesn't lead a lot of time for the unforeseeable sickness um leaves anything like that to then perform the review and get an uh an adequate notice out um I feel comfort with fora Fridays before I think I can handle that it's just more dedication then I guess at that point for me to make sure that I'm here every single one of those deadline weeks and time management then priority as well so um happy to entertain any recommendation or motion whether leaving at at five or or four so when you have to send out like notifications to Y for any public that type of thing is that play into a factor that at all or don't so the notice in the paper if I'm asking for a variance typically I would say you know applicant is applying for a variance to construct a water oriented accessory structure 10 ft where 20 was required from the ohw and so it's pretty simple as far as what needs to go into the notice um but if if that process is too rushed and say the not only proposing that 10 where 20 is required for the lake but also eight where 10 is required from the property sideline and I missed that on the publication now all of a sudden the application kicked to the next meeting or we're looking at a special meeting in that case so um it really just comes down to a diligent job in this chair so is U five weeks what we've had in the in the previously it was between four and five we were operating with the first Friday of the month and just to kind of provide consistency I was looking at just standardizing there is there isn't a big change with what we're talking about here right no so there were some months in 2024 where it was a four Friday before those ones might have felt a little bit more rushed I came in in August so I'm not familiar with all of them and you know the earlier part of the construction season tends to be a little bit busier for these applications need a motion on this to approve um a motion to um leave it as is or a motion to change it to four as I discussed with um Mr Joe Hall up to you guys but you you prefer five though yeah I prefer what uh that's good makes sense you know I five would be great for me but I'm also serving so we can't we can't do our work unless you do yeah five seems more reasonable to me because it's yeah no yeah person I have no problem with five okay no problem okay so do we do we do you want a motion to keep keep it at five is that what we're looking for all right I'll entertain a motion a second was the motion yeah second are you going to make we have to make the motion and then you you want to make the motion to keep it the meeting days at five: yeah I'll make I can make the motion I'll make the motion to keep the the meeting time at for the deadline at five o'clock five five weeks I'm sorry I'm looking at the time on here at five weeks five o'clock wouldn't give yeah I know I would thank you right all those approved I all those oppos motion carries hang on to that pce doesn't matter uh next Chris Pence and the ordinance Amendment well good evening Mr chair and members of the committee it's a pleasure to be back before you again um been working with Stephen uh this fall on some changes to the ordinance you remember we made some changes over the last couple years we've been given Direction by the DNR uh needing to get uh the city's ordinance up to meeting the minimum standards of uh of what shmin state rule 6120 would be and so we think we have the last piece of that puzzle here for you uh we'd be happy to uh walk through that with you tonight be happy to answer any questions um unfortunately the the version we're going to have to look at is going be up on the screen I've been I actually was able to get the last revisions reviewed by DNR yesterday um afternoon and then get it to get it to Stephen and then um so I didn't have a chance to get into your packet but uh just would like to kind of walk through that with you and feel free to ask uh any questions or anything that might come up um as we go through this we're going to try to we'll keep it at a somewhat high level um but um feel free so just as a reminder um what we're focusing on um with this ordinance revision is 2 a include a flood plane section compliant with Minnesota rule 6120 and so that's part of it tonight um we also went through and um made some updates and clarifications to the land use tables so that we know when we have a land use um in the table we have a definition that goes with it so now we know what that means we clarified I think some of the terms that were seem to be a little ambiguous um and clarifi that um and then another big piece of it was if you remember we have that section the ordinance called the pdb or that um the um plan development plan development district and so there was some confusion over that with the DNR it's it's very open-ended the way it is in the ordinance right now and would not meet the standards set by the state and so we've got some clarification of that that we think will help with that and so Stephen's going to kind of just scroll through here and Stephen if I missed something feel free to jump in and let me know uh the first thing we had to do was simply um looking at the PDD itself the definition we had to clarify that one was getting rid of the sentence at the end that says that it has no set standards specifications um with that that's would not meet the standards for the DNR if the PDD was located in the Shoreland of of the city and as a reminder just uh the Shand is that area within a th000 feet of a lake 300 feet to a to a river or stream um and so that's when we refer to that Shoreland that's what we're referring to when we talk about that so some of the things we had to do one was we had to add the PDD because it is technically a zoning district and so you see that on the far right column there and then we had to add uses as as far as permitted permitted or conditional or interm uses um and so if you scroll down what what we've done is we've highlighted some of the changes we've clarified uh some of the terminology for accessory uses in adult daycare um we've clarified um some of the things we had as far as a lot of type of different industrial uses such as like assembly plants and uh that we deleted those and and combined them into into one industrial category um we clarified what commercial storage units are when people wanting to build those for individual Sal so we got a definition of that and clarify that um put in place um dealing with with churches it's now we have that down as a house of worship um so it's it's it's a much more broader category that covers more than just a simple church that might uh come into the city um clarified gravel extractive uses versus gravel mining not all extractive use is for gravel so we wanted to clarify that um deleted some things such as historic sites you know I know there's some historic sites in town um and but that's typically uh not something that would need to be regulated to this ordinance uh we did add the you know industrial uses we know um eliminated the junkyard like manufacturing again those are more industrial uses got those combined together and again everything that you see on here is going to have a definition in the back of of the ordinance itself um let's see if we keep going we had to do some clarifying some definitions about uh the urban residential Planning Development which is the non shorland where that's allowed particularly related to the to the PDD district U wanted to clarify repression buildings being more of Business and Professional retail stores um you deleted services and there's there was uh some that we had in here that were um forther their essential Services you know those are services that the city provides um and so we want to make sure we clarified what services meant to their essential services and that you know they're allowed in all districts so if the city needs to do Services it doesn't need to come and get special permission from itself to put in the essential Services the city is expected to provide to the citizens in town here um again you'll see storage buildings deleted we just we relabel that up with that commercial storage facilities up top um so it's just really just trying to boil us down to a more I think simple and easy to understand um set of of expectations for the uses that are allowed and where and where they're allowed at within within this within the city so um I think that covers most of those I think doesn't it Stephen yeah I think it does um so anybody have any just any questions or any use of that table that you know you had any thoughts about or anything um just was really trying just more of a clarification piece on that was an issue that was brought up by you guys last time I was here last year was just making sure that that Ed table made sense for for Town and and again just remember it just because we looked at it today and and you know six months down the road something might pop up to be honest I got a call today um at the county from somebody who's interested in looking at the type of Permitting needed for crypto mining we really don't have a standard the orance right now on the county for crypto mining but we're probably going have to start thinking about that so ming for what crypto mining oh it's you know that and so it's something that the city will probably have to think about at some point how and where and what would be the standards for that or we don't yeah it's electricity and basically it's a big user of electricity and and loud it's very noisy you know for the adjacent community so folks around it so again things just keep kind of popping up it's a dynamic it's it's a very um type of thing that you'll always be identifying um things that come up but I think at this point this gives you a pretty stable groundwork upon which to work from so has the permitting changed at all on any of these so it's all stayed the same you just Consolidated correct y some we just deleted some and then when we deleted we just moved them into that in that table so that they would uh line up with what was there before so one thing that I am noticing here is school is a conditional use in all districts except for the PDD so if if the PDD wanted to yep we should add we should yeah I think we should buy yep yep I think we should do that for sure we'll make that change um and I think if we scroll down a little bit um one of the things that we had to add we changed we updated this I'm not sure if that was a typo from our last go round but um when we're looking at the buildable area for a single um GD Lake we had that 27,000 square fet and the size of the lot is 30,000 so it it was just a type one should have been 20,000 sare feet so we're just basically cleaning that up um as we saw that as a arrow Mission from the last ordinance revision round we did and then you'll see on the side there that we had to add the PDD um into these Cate into these tables now where we had the land use tables and this other land use District's minim what this really means is that when there's some times you're going to have some of these districts where they overlap so it might be a a commercial District but it's going to overlap with the Shoreland and so basically what we're saying on the right hand column with that PDD is that if you are um um overlapping into the Shoreland area and it's PDD as well that we would make sure we' follow the standards above for depending on the lake classification or the river classification is on that's all that that is saying um is just clarifying that uh and then we're saying with the with the with the the extra um with the four stars is that there was no currently right now the way that it's set up is that there's no lot area or lot with minimum for a non Shoreland um development in the PDD District so it looks it's more open-ended and giving the city flexibility to decide how they want to develop that it just can't be that open-ended in within a thousand feet of a lake or 300 feet to a stream so that's one of that's probably one of the bigger change the DNR really is focusing on with this or division is just clarifying the standards for the PDD when it with some shorland area and currently the only PD we have in town is um Grand View is Grand View and there's just a SLI of it is with the shorland anyway most of it is non already so this would be more if someone were to come to you down the road and say we'd like to rezone a partial to the to a ptd classification that's really what this is intended to deal with not as much what's happening today but what might happen down the road again you'll just see we had to just add the setbacks for the different Lakes um and and uh you know for lot lines and RightWay and Wetland Bluff etc for the PDD if somebody wants to develop that within the Shand area basically adding PDD to every table where they're designating districts correct you'll see the same thing if for septic accepting drainfield setbacks you just add the PDD category there and then the other setbacks as well it just mirrors up with what everything we've got there's a really the only the only change that I made and I I noticed because it says on this table I saw that when I was looking at this is that it says agricultural use that's a setback to the ohw and so what that is basically saying is that if you've got any sort of agricultural use like somebody decides they want to you know raise you know cattle or something along those lines that has to be 150 fet away from the ohw you can't run the cattle right up to the water's edge and so we also put that in the PDD if that was a situation it's only going to occur you know um in the potential osr and then the SR area as well as potential the PDD so just that's another DNR piece that we had to get in there for clarification again this is just clarifying for Building height and getting that resolved and taken care of and the same thing for your accessory structure when you require permits versus conditional use permits we just had to clarify that for the PDD as well and so now we're going to get more into um oh and we had impervious lot coverage as well so we're next we're going to get into the flood plane standards and so this is a requirement that um so the city has mapped flood plane um zones they're called The Firm um within the city those were adopted by the DNR back in 2015 they applied to countywide so applies to the county land as well I was part of that process when that happened and so really what that means is that uh the when FEMA working through the DNR came and established was called a base flood elevation for the different lakes and streams within the city and what that means whenever everybody hears that you hear about the 100-year storm event 100e flood that's that's what the term base flood elevation means and really it doesn't mean it happens once every 100 years what it means is a 1% chance that it could happen on any given year and so then um to follow the the the federal rules from FEMA stands out for on lakes Shore you have to add a any fruiter development on that lot has to add a foot of what they call freeboard onto that and it's called a ratory flood protection elevation that would be on a lake if it's on a river stream it's a foot and a half and so that would mean so basically what this is now saying is that your lowest floor of a of a structure of a residential structure has to meet that regulatory foot protection elevation and um and so that's really and what that means is not lowest there's a lot of confusion over what does lowest floor mean it's not lowest livable floor but it's the lowest floor of the delling so it can be a um a crawl space you know it can just be if it's a flab on grade the it has to meet that elevation basement and so and then if you have a situation say where there are some lakes that don't have the um have an established base FL elevation or a regory FP protection elevation then you go back to 6120 in the sh rules it requires that the lowest floor has to be three feet um above the ohw for that lowest floor if we don't have that data and so what this really is putting into place now the the the stetory and Rule requirement to have a flood plane ordinance and that's really important because people going to say I really don't want to do this this I don't like this well there are people in town that have um because they have a mortgage and they're located with one what considered the flood Fringe and so there's two aspects of when looking at a flood plane you've got the flood way which is the actual channel of a river or it would be the actual Lake itself that's the floodway nothing happens in the floodway I mean that's that's you just can't do anything in that then you've got the flood Fringe that's when people think about flood plane it's considered the flood Fringe and that's the piece that this that this ordinance is going to be regulating is that flood Fringe um and what's important is that if you're located in that flood Fringe and you get a let's say you get a mortgage from a bank the bank is going to make you get flood insurance and niswa and Crowing County and general is part of the state U the federal flood insurance program which basically means there's we get those folks who need that flood insurance get a subsidized rate and so um if it turns out that a community isn't implementing a flood plane ordinance and isn't trying to reduce risk and keeping people from building new out of the flood plane there's a potential that that FEMA could pull you out of the program and then you're you're I mean you hear of Lloyds of London I mean that really is your option of getting insurance is going through something like that which is extremely expensive and so it's really important why do we do this it's because it helps to maintain costs for people who need to be have the insurance for a mortgage but it also reduces risk for the city so that we don't have any um flood risk when people are building these uh these new structures not going to read you through the whole ordinance because that would be boring and it would take all night but couple things that I wanted to point out that are really important uh and it's it's it's some part that I think um the PE that is kind of hard sometimes to to deal with but so let's say somebody were coming in today and they and they want to build a new dwelling and it's within the flood plane what they would need to do is around the outside of the the foundation of the building where that building sits is they have to actually build a pad up to that Reg and then you have to build to that regulatory flot protection elevation it needs to be 15 ft all the way to the outside of that building and so um and so you it's kind of like you're building a little island in essence you know for where that is and so that and wherever that lowest floor is if you want a crawl space you're going to have to elevate higher right but then you also have to keep in mind you've got your building height limits that you have in the ordinance as well so you kind of have to balance both of those um but the the the ticket to that is and to think through what happens when you've got how many 50ft wi Lots you got in nah a lot right this County does too so if I got a 30 foot wi house and I got to do 15 feet on both sides the math doesn't add up so it needs it ends up meing a variance to be able to make that pad smaller and so um you'll see those coming through unfortunately in these situations where you have a narrow lot and they want to build up they're going to need a variance to and the DNR won't oppose that um they understand you know the restrictions that we have have what they're going to want you to basically um you know work and getting that pad built up to the best that you can um to do that so that's that is the if I if you had to say what's the biggest change that's probably it it's building that pad and so it's not like the pad doesn't have to be you know like retaining wall and have you know it's a gradual it can it can come up gradually like that and then it doesn't the pad itself doesn't have to be at the regulatory flip protection elevation but it has to be within a foot and that's when you when you build your foundation that that's what's probably going to Happ be a problem in areas where we have a 10 foot side setback it is absolutely it is so we have to be to allow for the slope on that too we'd have to be at 20 ft you've got it and so then they have we've from a county perspective and if I word to my County hat a little bit we've you know we've oftentimes said you need to get an engineer involved you know somebody like Dave to come in and how do we figure out how to make sure that we don't those issues when we're near the property lines what's the best way to stabilize those soils so we aren't you know causing you know impact going to the so we've you know I can remember we did one uh this summer up on North Long Lake it was over um near Paradise U Paradise Road North North Long by bir a 50 foot wide lot and they had to get an engineer involved to help figure it out because it was just really really that you almost have to have a database that you can go to to look at every property well and you and you do so it's actually on G flag that yeah so it is it is on GIS there's a layer you click and I always turn it the blue blob but it's it's a it's a layer that that FEMA has set where when you when you turn on the layer it'll pull up and you can see on a particular lot when they come in for a building perit or something you can bring that we can bring that up and so what's required what people have to do is that when they come in there's called these they're called Lake sheets and they they they get as part of the permit they get information filled out and it's provided says here's your base flot elevation and here's your ratory flip protection this is the elevation and when they're done building they actually have to have a surveyor go out and do a elevation certific could just to to bring that back to show you that it was actually built and that has to be on file that the city would have and then it's then at that point um the um that's opt up for audit if the DNR were to come in and look at say hey show us how you been handing on you know some the flood plane perly so that's when I talk about the blue blob that you see um where the property lines come to the lake everything south of that that's going to be your flood way when we talk about that and there's you know obviously it won't matter because it's in it's in the like bet any that's to perview the DNR um but um some floodways come out of that in certain areas where they have some of these Rivers like think about like with the Red River the valley over you over the Fargo area and there's very limitations on public land what you can do in that flood uh in that flood way the flood Fringe that's the area that you can see there that's got the fingers that's what we're looking for when we're talking about um the flood Fringe and having to meet that regulatory flood protection elevation that's what that's what when Steven is assessing that that's what he's going to be looking at and just to be clear for folks to know that just because you might be let's say I'm gonna be just north of that finger right there chance are good you're going to have to have a survey go out and verify that because this is an approximation that's not like guaranteed so um even if you're close to it you're out of it you're still close you're probably going to have to have a a Ser go out to shoot that elevation to verify where do I have to build to make sure I'm above that regulatory flood protection elevation right going pose a problem though too with your neighboring Lots so if you got a small lot and you're getting your variance for 10 foot now you're up higher the water run off of that's St water the example that we had on North Long Lake was that they had to have an engineer come in and say where's the water going to go because it was a 50 foot wide lot we had and frankly the where the water had to go was towards the lake it's like what but then the the agreement was that whole sh became a vegetative buffer and that was their storm water plan was to have the water go go in that diretion so it's challenging it is it's it's a very challenging thing but it's a it's a requirement that that the city has to follow how how accurate is the regulatory flood elevation uh data that you have that you have to go by where you constantly have to have a surveyor come in to verify if this is even accurate what I the the rule of thumb that we have at the county is that if you're building adjacent even if you're out of it but if you're building adjacent to it you have to have that information verified by a surveyor to be if you're if you're up you know if you're up it's it's really going to be based on the Contours you you're going to turn on the Contours that we have and you're going to compare that and and look our requires that you have a survey certificate of survey to get a building permit doesn't it it has uh Provisions that I can require one when I feel like it's necessary for a certificate of survey um my evaluation as it goes with like a land use permit is I would turn this layer on evaluate the flood Fringe as per trade and if someone were proposing to build a house where I have this Gra trffic information is just as is more important than correct so the county changed its ordinance back in May of 24 to require surveys for repairing permits now you need a survey okay so um and it's for this reason amongst other reasons you know it's it's you know I um Jim Kramer is our County Surveyor and um last year I was talking to him I said Jim so what said you I'd like our staff know how do we set ohws you what do we have to do what can you show it he goes I'll tell you what to do and he said what's that he goes go to school for four years and become a surveyor and then you can go do that okay so that kind of changed my thought on having staff have that ability to go out and do that uh we had a couple situations back in 23 where staff was helping um some some contractors establish ANW and it was wrong and so the house was built close to the lake everybody's fingers were pointing every it was everybody else's fault but everybody you know and so we ended up going through a very contentious after Thea variance process that got approved but everybody wanted you know this $750,000 house to be Ted down and move back to meet the the setback and and so the County Board just said we just don't we don't want any more of that we just we want to make sure that people can invest you know a million dollars in a house a $1,500 survey it's a probably pretty cheap insurance policy to make sure you put it in the right spot so going forward that's something that the county has implemented and um it's taking some bumps and bruises to get along the way because it's a big change for folks um but um I think going into our 25 building season it's become already pretty common place that uh they have those surveys done so and and if you if we if you go back to the ordinance and you scroll down um what you'll see is um there's some there are some other options that you've got for doing it and it and it's a conditional use permit and so there you can build on you know Build It Up on PST and pilings um you can depending on the situation I think if you go down Stephen to that to those three charts that we've got or the three tables so that so if you go back up I guess that gives you the idea of what that building pad looks like of how how it comes up like that it's not like you building a retaining wall but you could build a retaining wall to solve the problem I think you most people probably will have to to be honest yeah um and so but if you look down below on that on that one scroll it's a little bit right there that gives you some other option that you've got as far as um not having to build fill on there those just require a conditional use permit that would have to be be reviewed and approved by um you as a board before that we sub could be implemented so those really are like the the big ticket of if to summarize a flood plane that's really the change um that you that you need this has been reviewed by the flood plane staff at D and St Paul and they've already they've given us a thumbs up that it meets their standards um there's you know every time you work with the state they're always interested in trying to put you know higher standards in place I didn't put any higher this is just the minimums if down the road you decide hey you think CU so just as the heads up for you to think about um if you were to come in if somebody were to come in um today or let's say go try to get like a Federal Loan like an FHA loan and they're in the flood plane um to get their loan they need to be two feet above that base not a foot or a foot and a half to to get a loan and or to get a mortgage so if they find out that they've only Built at a foot at the RFP at a foot or a foot and a half they're not getting a mortgage they're going to have to figure out a way to elevate that again and so the DNR is now saying that they think that they're recommending that everybody should have to build two foot above that base elevation to meet that for those Federal loans it's it's something the county has decided not to do but it's something the city could definitely require if you wanted to so Steve when somebody comes in for a permit you automatically toggle that layer onto the I do the FR area just to take a look at so you can warn these people that hey problem I would I would argue I would tell you there's two layers you click on at least we do one is your flood plane layer and one is your just your NWI your Wetland inventory just let's just get a let's just see what we got common procedure it's on the checklist one of the first things you do so um so that's really kind of if we kind of scroll through this a little bit Stephen I can kind of hit some of the highlights um there are some flood proofing options you can do um so they've got a number in there I believe it's 576 so let's say you build a a garage that's 576 feet or less I think it's what's that size like a 204 20 by 30 almost 24 by 20 something like that they consider that to be a not a high investment building and so you can actually put flood proofing lubers on the side of the building so that if it does flood they open up and the and the building can get flooded inside without and you don't have to worry about the pressure and so you're allowed to do that like on structur that are 576 s feet or less on a freestanding building yep yep not an attached garage not correct it would be it' be basically an access like AAR the thing to keep in mind though is that when you're looking at rebuilding boat houses you have to you have to then even though you're rebuilding its current footprint and you're allowed to do that you have to meet the flood plate requirements so some of these boat hous are being built might need to be flood proofed and so and then there's also requirements in here that also talk about let's say you've got a you're in an area where you're building that 576 you know stat of square foot garage but you've got utilities you have to elevate utilities up to meet that so they have to put on pedestals to be at that regory flood protection for let's say a um a uh like for an AC unit or Al you know like air pump those sorts of things those utilities need to be elevated as well um and if we keep going down here Stephen um so these are some some of the conditional use permits like we talked about that alternative elevation methods that were mentioned before those require a conditional use permit um these are just the general standards as far as we kind of talked about you'll see in -116 um a lot of the stuff doesn't apply to the city because a lot of things that you have like say your fear in a city that's got one of the big Rivers like a Red River Valley there's an encroachment analysis that you can do that you'd hire an engineer like Dave to figure out you can't you can't increase the the flood in there can be no flood increase based on if you're doing that work in that flood Fringe and so there has to be there's some ele there's some engineering work to be done it's not going to it's it's not going to M so some of the stuff that you see in here is boiler plate stuff that we have to have in it's not going to have an impact on the city it's not going to have an impact on the county as much either um if we keep going down um there are some rules as far as subdivisions you can um you know create lots that have the flood plane in them just knowing you can't you have to have it it has to be such that um uh people would be still have a way to you know to build a dwelling on the Lots you have to take that in consideration the city does have the ability to deny a subdivision if it's determined if you look at number two if it's determined that the cost of providing governmental Services would impose an unreasonable economic hardship to the city you can deny uh any subdivision in the flood plane flood Fringe area if the city determines that to provide services would be unreasonable and and too costly that's part of the rule and it's required to be in the ordinance um there are some requirements as far as um utilities roads and bridges and railroads as far as where they can be located and their elevations that they're required to be at um we keep going a little further um there's requirements for manufactured homes and recreational vehicles as far as what they're allowed to do and and to be you know some of them they have to be travel ready so if there is a flood they have to you know they have to be ready to be moved off site if they're located in that flood Fringe area because you do have some you know um in areas there's there's campgrounds and that sort of thing where it's in that flood Fringe area and so they have to be prepared to be moved um if that's the case and then the administrative side you know every ordinance has requirements as far as what do you submit for an application and what are the duties of the administrator what are the record retention um you know those sort of things are all requirements that you'll see here recordkeeping um and then um yeah that's kind of a there's going to be there's there's there's times when um you look at the at the flood map that you'll see and it's it's just wrong and so people can hire a surveyor to come in and they can create um documents that are called Lomas which is a letter of map amendment to say I know you said this is flood plan on the map but it's really not it gets filed a FEMA they they actually will update the map there's lers which are called letters of map um it's it's a letter of Correction or revision where they will revise the map um and then there's things that can be done um by staff called um out is shones so there'll be times when you'll see here on a map you don't see that to bring it up but there'll be situations where um the flood plane will show on there but the elevation will show that you're you're out of IT staff have the ability to create that map uh and to give it to the give it to the proper and they can file that with FEMA and then they would be considered to be out of the flood plane on they're called an aish shown so that's allowed by FEMA as well to to help folks with that so those are ones that have to be like very obvious that you can see the elevation difference from where they want to build versus where the flood plane is but it's another option so there those are just some of the um administrative duties that um staff have at their disposal to help folks try to navigate some of these flood plane related issues so um there's variance criteria sometimes people might want to apply for a variance um very difficult to get a variance for flood plane related issues um it's it's a challenging thing to to approve a variance because it's not a practical difficulty like we've been show this is actually you have to show you have a exceptional hardship to be able to get a variance to doing in the flood way excuse me in the flood Fringe so do we have to wait for that letter of the correction to come through from FEMA before we can approve it does there has to be a you you actually will get a letter back from because our our FEMA office is in down in Chicago and you'll get a letter back from them from the um their section manager that'll sign off and say that yes that it's that has been approved so the typically the surveyor takes care of all that all the paperwork and then the city will be notified of that then you put that on record and then doesn't mean that they still aren't required they still the bank might say I don't really care you're still going to get you know flood insurance even if even if F says so the banks have the discretion when or when they don't require flood insurance so but yeah it's it is a process I mean work at the federal government nothing happens fast so it does take a little bit of time to for that to happen so that's why they introduced the out as shown so when the ones that just really really obvious it can be done locally and you don't have to um go through that process of getting a surveyor involved I think is that it even for the most part yeah and then there's just the non-control resection you know they don't want to continue non-conformities there's a procedure that allows you to uh you know certain thing like I think B is the most important um additions modification rehabilitations repair alteration um cannot increase the flood damage potential so let's say that somebody's got a a structure and it's located in the flood Fringe um they can't just go in and start tearing everything down on the inside down because there's a certain um there's a worksheet that you actually go through to say what the value of the house is and if they do that Rehabilitation there's a percentage that they can't go over and so it's really restrictive on when you're looking at um trying to rehabilitate or maybe remodel structures that are in that flood Fringe that are even existing um and that's probably the most challenging part because they're not going to come to you for a permit because you don't issue building permits you do land use permits and so you're not going to really issue a permit for the remodeling like you would if you a say a Brer or a backer so that's another challenging you know so there are definitely challenging parts of this um that are challenging to do in in communities that don't have um enforced the building code yeah there's a there's a works I actually watched the video on this with the staff of the county last week and it's it's it's a very it's just a challenging to do but it's a minimum standard that the city has to meet and then it just talks about what are violations and penalties of the ordinance and what are um REM is at your option to compel compliance if people choose to not follow the ordinance so that's the flood plane section um these are mandatory minimums yeah these are just the minimums so we have to adopt yeah you do you should have adopted it back in 2015 the county the county just adopted up updated our flood plan ordinance um in it would have been earlier this year so we're we're a little bit behind on that too we had an old flood plan ordinance it just wasn't compliant with the new set of rules that came out in 2015 so this is this is the line share of what the DNR is saying needs to be done as far as compliance to be a a minimum um ordinance to comply with the stage and the flood plane rules um I think we can go down a little bit further unless you guys have any questions for me on that one um we jump down to the PDD section I think Stephen which is 305 correct uh let's see here there we go there was oh some things that we adjusted for this section as well yep proposals for the lynon Lakeshore residential district there was ambiguous language in the setbacks portion of this right um stated as shown side sidey setback shall be a minimum of 30% of the total width of the lot at the building set back line um this is conf in with our 10 foot side yard set back minimum so we're just going with the 10 yard side and that's the minimum standard through this through this through the sh rules that 10 foot side set back so proposing a strike of d and e here yep then if we keep going one Stephen um I tried to highlight the changes so it be easy to find while we were scrolling through it but um this is the change in the PDD this is the section that the DNR um is concerned um about making sure so you'll see what we we Define now is that you have your PDD District Shoreland and you have your non Shand area and so for the PDD section basically it says that um if you're in the Shoreland area or the Shoreland for a PDD zone property you need to follow sections 2083 through 154 which is in the ordinance which is the Shoreland requirements in the ordinance and then if you look down at the section on uh the non Shoreland um nothing changed it just the same standards are there as it was before for um we just had to clarify what the standards would be if there was a pdv in the future in the Shoreland for for the city and I think was AR rest in the definition Stephen is that right I do believe so so the definitions were just more of a cleanup based on the there was the element as well that SL y um so we discussed the um provision in our ordinance here that says land below the ohw wetlands Bluffs Road right away in Road easements and lands with slopes exceeding 12% on riparian parcels and 20% on non riparian Parcels or land containing other significant constraints upon future intended usage shall not be considered in the minimum size of a lot when determining buildable area on the lot is well I guess some of that language was newly introduced the U underlined portions of it but um this element here from there to there seems a little bit um redundant because lands with slopes exceeding 12% on riparian Parcels are already regulated under steep slope standards under the Shoreland standards further up correct in the ordinance and so it's it's already being addressed and what elimination of that language would provide for applicants is a little bit less restrictions say someone has a rolling property um where all of it is 15% you might have a 90,000 squ foot lot that has you know most of it being removed from it but it would meet subdivision standards 12% isn't necessarily non-buildable it just has vegetation protection standards within Those portions dirt moving things like that that are a little bit more restrictive and already handled elsewhere in our ordinance so well I and I think it's important to point out too that when you look at the state St rules when they're talking about land excluded to determine your suitable buildable area for a lot they're looking at the ordinary high water level you know so Bas you can't include the lake Wetlands Bluffs those are really the three things that they're looking at from a state perspective these are all add-ons that the city has added on in the past and and I think what it does is that 12% I mean I don't think people realize the 12% slope it's not very steep I mean it's it sounds steep it's pretty flat and I think that's I think that's maybe you I think deleting that and relying on your steep slope definitions you've already got in the ordinance would more than handle any of these issues that you down with these Lots so this I think by putting in place would um definitely reduce the regulatory burden that you'd have on the citizens and developers within the within the city yet you still have adequate Protections in your ordinance currently to handle any situations where you have that 12% sloper greater that would have a pretty big impact on the gentleman who was sitting here tonight I think when he is going through his subdivision right I think it have it it would be a positive I think for him and I don't think it would be um any detriment to the you know to the city based on having this apply to the request he had for each night for his needs inbound subdivision yeah for example that was the leading cause for delay and his application coming forward is um working with the surveyor to get that 12% portion analyzed and um we have two different lot sizes in our tables above one being lot area and one being U buildable area right this ambiguous language of the minimum size of a lot um proposing just to Red determine that to exclude that from the buildable area but any portion of the lot above the ohw is lot area correct um we're just looking at removing portions there it'll just make it a lot clearer when folks want to subdivide property what it takes to be lot size and buildable area trying to make it easier um and not make it more um you know more honorous I think that's that's in my opinion I think when you look at that provision I think it's a little bit of an overreach you know as far as what it's maybe trying to accomplish and I don't think the benefit to the city is uh isn't there compared to the burden it would put on the land owner to try to build their property question this is everywhere in the because before 12 y it does yeah CU when you talk about steep slopes that only applies to stuff within a th feet of within the Shoreland of the city yet once you get out of that it doesn't apply and another clarification under the side Lots side lot lines um there was language in here that says it shall not contain bends or jogs unless topographic conditions necessitate a different Arrangement um a lot of times you know surveying and coming up with flat proposals and stuff you're not necessarily working with linear perpendicular lot lines sometimes they do Bend and Jog to accommodate lot sizes and in a way that makes sense for a buildable envelope um proposing just removing that and saying something a little bit simpler putting discretion at play um where want I mean when you look at we want straight lines as when we can but when it's not feasible or prudent it gives staff the ability to say yeah that makes sense I can see we jogging around because of topography or because maybe a structure that's on the adjacent property doesn't you I can't run it straight and so this just uh because I think that I'm not sure how many lots have been probably developed to be in compliance with that to be honest where I mean it's everything's a straight angle and straight lines it probably you know I think that doesn't really probably work at least from the county perspective that doesn't play out L don't work yeah more housekeep under line eight each lot shall be required to have a minimum of 33 ft of easement or Dedication that provides access rather than feet of Frontage on um that language allowing more discretion for if you are dedicating an easement in your subdivision like um Eric was proposing today uh it's not necessarily that the lot that is non- riparian has 33 feet of access or Frontage on where you're talking about like a a flag lot where you have the flag pole that goes to the to the road and you're stacking up entrances on that public road right next to each other um this just allows you to have have easement for Access and so otherwise because you it's not too often we've got a road there you can start putting lots lots lots you're going to need an easement to get in this section now allows that to happen for access to you know to developers to use an easement to get there just making it easier for folks to be able to use their property that was it for the subdivision section and that was one that Stephen brought up to me that was a really good observation on his part to to notice that and to want to make that change so and then you know we don't we don't have to go into too a lot the definitions are pretty a lot of definition you'll see in here were because the the flood plane ordinance has definitions that are required to go along with it or or that and so you'll see some of them in there um and then the other ones were just modifications based on the land use table to clarify what when we say a term in the language table you know what did we you know what do we what did we mean so um and definition and so for you guys just to look I mean if you want to you know Ste and send you a copy you know it's just identifying you know some of these terms that are used up in the table now that you now we know what they now we know what they mean so and you can feel free to look through these maybe between now and the next meeting if you have questions at the next meeting we have then we' be happy to work through those and you know answer those so a lot of things you going to see base flood elevation base flood you're going to see basement those are all definitions that required from putting in the flood plane ordance into place for the city so I mean I don't think we need to probably go through too many the definition that's something that probably would make more sense you guys to maybe look you know on your own but any questions anything that came up or anything that you think we need to address differently or or that because if what we've got before you today uh was working with a DNR staff on this um mon or yesterday and this would get the thumbs up from them to meet the minimum requirements of the state stwn rules the flood plane rules and there wouldn't be any further conditions down that need to be that would need to be complied with this would would kind of this is the goal we started out three years ago was to end up with that ordinance that would meet the state standards and you know going through this process public hearing city council review this would achieve that questions feedback things that you want to revisit and the changes much choice no that the pieces of it are will now yeah they are what they are but um um you know so that unless there's anything else that you guys would like to talk about or anything there um my my recommendation would be to um direct stepen to have a public hearing set for the February meeting and and then um based on the feedback there um to hear the from the public and get some feedback and if if it's all a go to hopefully send it to Joe and the council to put their approval on it so so again if they're minimum mandatories what correct what feedback could there be well there might be some you know there might be some folks who think there should be maybe there should be higher standards you it's and some you know let's just be honest some people are come in and you know they just most SL people just don't like new rules and I understand that um and so a lot of the public hearing isn't always as much getting feedback but maybe helping folks to understand what the changes are and why and the purposes and and you know what we're required to do as part from the you know coming from the state so you know when we went into this originally it was it was to re relieve us of the ambiguity in the old you know to answer be able to answer questions definitely rather than leaving it up for correct for grabs you know Y and I think that you know this is certainly done that you know I think we're very successful at it y I know last year though we talked about before Steve was with us we talked about uh fees you know for building permits and applic and I don't know if we Chang those or not I know we talked about it last year thinking that they weren't adequate amount of work that's you know involved that by staff and I think that's something that we have to look at too because you know you just looking tonight the different things that Steve has to go through when somebody just walks in to ask about a permit to begin with you know there's just there's a lot to involved so and he's a oneman show think the city what's that and he's a onean show yeah I call the one one man gang you know but if he becomes a Twan show then the need for money goes up even further so I I think that if we didn't change that last year it's something the city should look at is is maybe modifying our our fees or application fees so to cover some of this extra time yeah that was that was changed last year it was yeah it was value from a dollar value to a square foot I thought thought yeah because I know we talked about it but then it leaves us and goes to the council and I haven't followed it up since yeah okay good also I would just say with this and what we're doing is just the start I mean yeah we had a good meeting last week on it and also too you know I'd like to keep having Chris go through all of these until we get this dialed in because what Bethany was able to do is just get it started but as we identified there's probably at least 20 more things that probably need addressed real soon to alleviate some yeah some stuff right absolutely that's just not quite up to par that when people come up the counter would really help us out staff-wise to just get this stuff fixed well and I think you know when you as I talked to DNR you know staff about this and having done it for as long as I have it just needs to be simple it doesn't it just needs to be simple people need to understand what the rules are how do I do it and you know having somebody like Stephen here now who understands what to do and to help people do it I mean it it doesn't I think in the past it was seem to be kind of a mystery you know and and who you talk to is I get the right answer if I talk to so and so but if I talk to you I'd get a different answer you just want to be as clean as you can and and I think you know Joe brings up a good point is that you know and I mentioned earlier you know ordinances are a dynamic um document and when you identify things that need to be changed the smartest thing to do is to change it you know and and that lead comes right from the council and and gives that direction to you guys and then you if you still want to work with me I'm happy to help and uh it's been a great process I've personally learned a lot just uh myself going through this it's been really helpful and I've enjoyed you know working with Bethy was here and I've you know enjoyed working with Stephen as well and so I think you got a good foundation to start with right now I think is going we can at least now we can say we meet the minimums and then we can decide at that point you know there might be some things the ordinance that might exceed the minimums by the DNR and we might look at it and say is that what we want to a higher standard you know so I think those are maybe some of the questions we looked at are there some areas where we meet the minimums and we think we might want a little bit more just to make sure that uh you know protecting the resources and and the values that you know n find is important so but I I I would caution the only thing I would say is I think we want to get this part probably bottled up now and then I think we can begin to work on the next step after that I think would make sense okay so looking for a motion to present uh yeah this would be um like mainly just a discussion point right now um Next Step would be to schedule public hearing get notice out via paper for that occurrence for the general public to go attend and say yay or n to certain aspects of the proposed um and then make a decision on Final approval after that so um yeah what I what I can do next is you know based on this and I give it I'll remember I told DNR staff after our conversation tonight I would run it by them again um they're ready to give us the conditional approval following the public hearing and the proper Council review and all that um but what I can do is um based on just a couple cleanups that we identified tonight I'll get that done and then I'll get Stephen A marked up version and a clean version and I can get that to him this week so okay okay any other questions thank you thanks guys it's been a pleasure I've enjoyed working with you a lot it's been it's been a great process so thank you uh next item is city planner report so we had uh the recent organizational meeting um accepted Sean's First full term um so congratulations and here for full term now um starting February um um additionally in my report I had issued three different permits this last cycle here um an e911 new sewer connection and a lot line adjustment application between two neighbors um that's all I have for city planner report other than the obvious things I've been doing with ordinance regions so all right I want it to be helpful it's a monit a monitor right right there you can read all this stuff I know or make that my eyes aren't my eyes aren't good enough to read that yeah maybe something the council can look at maybe a bigger one up there yeah projector or something perhaps that's really hard to read when to stuff like that binoc that that one I can read I can see I can figure that yeah put that size up there whatever just a suggestion okay no more questions comments I'll entertain a motion to adjourn so move all in favor I all opposed motion carries we are adjourned what's that impetus is for them to go crazy with this St I remember wees they like need to raise it up got 5T I'm like are you serious that's going to be like thousands of yards of dirt yeah