I'm trying to figure out what I can >> opening power options >> interest for four and a half million people >> freaking phones used to be a good just turn the switch. All right. I'd like to call the meeting to order for the Niswah Planning Commission Board of Adjustment for
Tuesday, December 2nd, 2025. Roll call, please. >> Joe Hall, >> Sean Weldon, >> Josh Young, Gary Harris, >> Averies, >> Angie Wentler, >> Steven. >> Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda?
>> There are none. >> Being none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. So move. >> Second. >> All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Next to approve the meeting minutes for November 4th, 2025. Are there any corrections or deletions to those minutes? Okay. Next
next meeting. All right. Uh next item is open form. Is there anyone present tonight that would like to speak towards something not on the agenda this evening? Hearing none. I'll move on. Moving on to public hearings. I'll entertain a motion
to open the public hearing. So move. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. All opposed. Motion carries. Uh, first item is conditional use permit application 025-25 to obtain a conditional use permit for the construction of a new commercial structure with the dwelling unit above a
commercial use within the highway business zoning district. Subject properties located at to be determined P 28140663. Owner applicant Marthala Deanna Trust Kent Dollar. The applicant here can come to the podium or the desk.
Oh, uh, your staff report. >> Thank you, Kent, and thank you, chair. Uh, so we have before us a conditional use permit application to establish a couple different things. A first and foremost commercial use on the ground floor of a proposed structure with a uh
dwelling unit proposed above it. Um the nature of this use um as proposed was inclusive of landscaping, detailing, storage, motor vehicle sales and snow removal with that residence above that
commercial use. Um my analysis to this proposal is that it is required for a conditional use permit in all of those proposed uses for business commercial retail and highway business motor vehicle sales warehousing potentially as
some plausible nexus to this use. Um and that dwelling unit above a commercial use is also a conditional use permit pathway. Um the application materials for this hearing have been updated to reflect the originally proposed future expansion that was not completely
supported on the original submission. Um this commercially zoned property does have neighboring residentially zoned property on the eastern half of the north property line. Um the nature of commercial to residential uses requires screening to be implemented andor
maintained. uh this particular property has a lot of native vegetation already present on the property. Um that would suff suffice for that screening requirement and that would just be something that needs to be maintained on along that boundary.
Um the proposed first floor elevation taken from the survey would place the first floor of the structure at about 1230. There's no FEMA impacts on this one. Um the wetlands were estimated by the surveyor. on this proposal and a
delineation was not performed prior to the application. So a condition has been proposed that that gets addressed prior to proceeding andor under a winter window for a uh wetland delineation to come in saying that this proposal is not going
to have any impacts or wetland conservation acts. Um the proposed well has been depicted by the surveyor. This proposed structure is now proposed to have a on-site septic system. Uh the septic design has been updated to
proposed other establishment design flow. Um so that's been received by staff. The mandatory connection requirement to city sewer for commercial projects has been reduced to projects within 500 ft putting this project outside that dimensionality for the
point of ingress or egress to the property. and an on-site septic system will be allowed subject to state and local sizing requirements. Um, there are no easements depicted by the applicant that would encumber the property.
This property was a subject location for a proposed backage road concept um mentioned in an originally obtained uh public works memo. The city engineer has also provided materials and comment pertaining to previous concepts for this
backage road. Um Dave I think brought a a rendition where he tried to overlay the survey with the proposed backage road concept. Um if anybody wishes to see that this evening have that available. Um,
next would be storm water management plan depicted on the applicant's certificate of survey was not an engineered storm water plan and was requested to be waved by the applicant. So I I did proceed to accept the application under that waiver. Um, due
to the proposed construction resulting in disturbance of one or more acres, a storm water permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency would be required for that disturbance. about in addition wrapping all of that around has been recommended that a a copy of the
approved permit be submitted to the city. Um the architectural plans do depict a power washing room and the commercial nature of the vehicle-based business and detailing may generate waste subject to state standards, permits and other
regulation for their handling. It would be the applicant's responsibility in this case to follow all of those state, federal, or other regulatory requirements. Um, I did put a note regarding the betus area in my staff report surrounding the proposed structure that if it's to be a
parking lot, then it must be designed according to the standards and section 20-18 included in my staff report for review. Um, and that in a nutshell is my summary of this application to date.
>> Do you have anything to add? >> Um, no, not really. I mean, pretty much what we've discussed thus far. >> It sounds like we got the septic thing all squared away now. So, that was the last piece. Good. Do
>> we have any questions? >> We do not. I guess >> big thing at this point is the backyard road. >> Yeah. Is this the smaller one is the same as the one you just handed that passed through here, wasn't it? The larger one.
>> It's pretty close. It's It's an approximation. So, >> that fits with the proposed development. >> It looked like it would probably just nick the corner there of that storm water. >> From what I saw when I when you showed
it to me, it kind of comes right around this and then follows the contour. north if that were to be a continued plan. >> So, but this site plan looks like it would be workable.
>> Other thing I saw some comments on uh previously on the storm water retention plan that was that was pond that was going to be on the side slope was >> I think retention runs alongside the
driveway. on both sides. >> Yeah. One retention area along this corridor here and then a second retention area proposed on this side. >> Okay. I think the nature of the engineer's comments and didn't paraphrase for him but
>> that yeah that also exceeds the impervious calculation too by >> I don't remember the number but fair amount >> most likely in this case that MPCA storm water permit that you'd be required to for disturbing more than an acre is
going to be more comprehensive than this would entail. Um, so I think to put a ribbon on that for the city, we would just ask for a copy of that permit once you obtain it from
MPCA. >> So you're saying that a storm water uh engineered plan's going to need to be done. Is that the what? >> You would you would be required to reach out to the MPCA to ask about their permitting requirements. I can't speak to them on their behalf, but I do know that an acre is a threshold that's
reflected in our ordinance. and you disturb an area of land an acre or more or potentially less than um then an MPCA storm water permit is required. So in this case your proposed buminous
um is slightly larger than an acre not counting the building. >> Okay so it's alluding to that you're disturbing it. you would also be disturbing the area where the septic system is going and and your storm water features would accumulate that figure to be
larger still. So okay then that would be condition number three that I had listed as potential conditions for this Okay. Any other questions?
>> That's it. >> Yeah, I'll entertain a motion. >> I'll move to approve conditional use permit application 025-25 to obtain Hold on. Hold on. Uh if you would like to make public comment regarding this uh application.
Okay. Just had to get that out of the way. All right. Sorry. Go ahead. >> I'll move to approve the conditional use permit application 025-25 to obtain a conditional use permit for the construction new commercial structure etc etc as listed in the in the agenda.
uh all according to the findings of fact as shown in the in the planning the planning report the city report and uh subject to the conditions that are listed in the in the staff report I believe there was eight seven of them
and I assume one of these yeah the wetland delineations number two so that would be it >> oh All right. Go ahead. >> Approve. >> I >> I >> All those opposed? Motion passes.
>> Thank you. >> I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> Move. >> Second. >> All those in favor? I. >> All opposed? Motion carries. Uh, next item under new business is site sketch review for Northland Center.
have any representative for North and Center? Yes. >> Just state your name for the record. Uh Tony F civil engineer with KLD. >> Stephen. >> All right. Uh provide a quick summary on
what we're here to review. Um these folks have approached us regarding a parking lot renovation for the Northland Center. This would be the facility that um just to name a few houses the subway Domino's um just north of the
intersection of Buddy Road 13 and 371 there. Um applicant has approached the city to discuss what they're envisioning for a renovation kind of addressing a few different things. uh parking stalls
congestion that they've been experiencing um and rejuvenating the storm water plan that they have. I don't recall the exact dimensionalities of what's existing out there for storm water and what's proposed to be out there for storm water, but in initial conversations I
remember that that to be significantly undersized as existing. um what this application would come before you guys for would be under a board of adjustment for a variance that would be required for this proposal as the projected impervious would be
exceeding the 50% maximum um I think the realm that it was landing at was about 65% um in order to do the adjustments that they're proposing um fix the grading and still retain the the parking and the existing conditions that they have but
making the situation better for parking and for that storm water. Tony, do you recall what the dimensions are for existing storm water retention out there? Offhand? >> Um, not offhand, but the idea we're
proposing would be to improve it, increase it um by a pretty large factor. the existing retention area there now is is landlocked and that doesn't have an outlet. Um so we're going to go in there and
improve it and um creating this new parking design and I'm signing off on it per se as the engineer. I need to make sure we have adequate storm water retention even though um from my understanding it's it
is working as it is now. um this can't provide really any calculations for it to to uh meet any kind of standards. So yeah, the the storm water would would be improved for sure.
Yeah. Another factor that was discussed as we were trying to conceptualize what variances might be needing to be applied for on the proposed parking lot layout um was the 5% area requirement of landscaping within the parking lot area.
Um I think proposed here we do have some landscaping islands that were being proposed in this concept. Um but original conversations made it [clears throat] seem like that might not necessarily meet the 5% rule and um I
brought forward the notion that could you propose anything along the perimeter as a I guess a a mitigatory effort for the landscaping requirements that we have in our ordinance if you were to apply for a variance. Um, so that has
been discussed. Just kind of seeking for the applicant's benefit any feedback that the planning commission board of adjustment may have as it regard as it relates to this proposal. >> Add a few. >> Absolutely. >> Sure. >> That a little better. Okay. Um,
I think Stephen did a well did a good job on explaining what we're trying to do here. Um, client came to me um looking to improve their parking area. Um, mainly increase it to to meet their needs.
Not um, not proposing any building additions or anything of that nature. Um, just simply increasing the parking. Uh, just give you some numbers. Uh right now there are about 45 stalls. Our proposed plan would bring it to 64
stalls. Um the max impervious allowed is 50. Existing right now is about 53%. And we're proposing 59%.
And then as Stephen mentioned the landscape right now depends on how you measure it but if you're just looking internal like existing is about 3.7% and what we're proposing is uh 2 and a half%.
Um not opposed to to meeting that one but it's kind of a double-edged sword. If we meet that internal 5% uh we're either losing parking or increasing the impervious. Um
so I'm not uh so I think what we have now it um does provide some some breakup and then again there's landscaping all along the building and then um along the perimeter of the parking as
well. One thing Stephen mentioned is that there is a public easement. I believe it's stated as a drainage and utility easement along Smiley Road and
proposing to encroach on that a little bit for the expanded parking. The only thing I can think of for that easement is for is for the drainage area or for like the drainage basin that does serve Smiley Road and some of
the neighboring properties to the north and east along with the access road on the south side. Um the sewer is
in the street. Um, we didn't locate any utilities in that easement. Uh, so not sure if that's part of the variance or not. Um, something for review anyways. Definitely something for review. So easements are one of those
things where it's like an applicant responsibility to denote any easements to fetter out if there's a beneficiary of the easements who they are and whether or not that's going to impede their ability to utilize and and use that easement for whatever purpose it
was granted for. We aren't a title company at the city, so we can't like do that search or certify it even if we could search it for you. But um I'd be curious to see it depicted on one of these documents. And I forgive me if
it's on here and I'm maybe I'm not seeing exactly what it is. Could it be this dashed line? Do you happen to know? >> Correct. Right there. >> Okay. >> Right where your cursor is. >> Um yeah. So if >> if my assumption is correct, um it is
for storm water. uh we are encroaching on it for the parking but we're also improving that drainage basin significantly. Um so from like an engineering perspective I don't see any issues. Um although I'm not
aware of any long range planning that would the city may have for that easement. Um I feel like Smiley Road has plenty of rightway currently sewers in there. So again, this is something for review.
Seem to remember in conversation when we had that team's meeting, we talked about some like quantifying the amount of treatment capacity of the storm water basin that you proposed and the amount that would be required for the impervious on the property. And I don't have the data in front of me, but I seem
to remember that it was like 9,000 cubic feet of storage, for example, that was proposed where about 4600 was required. Um, so my I guess hunch would be that if that is a storm water easement,
be curious to know what the purpose was, who it was granted to, and there might be some latitude on this is doing two birds, one stone. If you're sizing it more so than would be allowed for this property, could it be possible that that
might benefit the storm water purposes that it's there for that that easement has been granted for? Be interesting to know that data. Um, also some of the turf establishment
that you're proposing here goes into what is potentially depicted as Smiley Roads Rightway. That would upon receipt of an application just be something that I would ask that the public works director and department weigh in on. Um,
any further questions that you may have or things that you want to state or request information from the planning commission regarding >> uh, no, just wanted to make sure we're not missed anything, any any major red flags or any comments we should maybe address as we
proceed with the variance application. and just want to get in front of your eyes, you know, before that comes as well. >> Do you have any initial thoughts, Dave? >> Have you done any perk testing out there
to see what this would be able to absorb in these areas? >> No, the the so out there, the water table's deep. the soils are sand. I think we know that
we're not proposing um for the design like a high infilt in infiltration rate that's higher than the standard. Um so for design we'll probably use um 08 in uh which is like a
state standard for the soils. Um we will provide drainage calcs too showing the area that's this is serving and how the basin is performing. I think I think the big thing is is that
we are improving the storm water volume significantly over a factor of three as far as volume. Do do I see correct in the notes here too that you guys are pursuing a storm
water permit from MPCA as well? I see mentions of SWIP in here. Yeah, I think we're going to be over an acre. So, you know, BA basically we're going to have to show that this area is is not flooding or
impacting anyone for like a backtoback 100year event, you know? I don't not even sure what the the city requirement is. Maybe fiveyear or something. The state is less than that like one inch um 100 year event is you know like a 6
in rain event. So our standard is a one inch rain event for our for our purposes. [clears throat] But we could, you know, if if um mutually understandable, I guess if one of the conditions of the variance
was to perform a um filtration test at time of construction, but I'm not personally concerned about it. One other comment might be just to check
and see, you know, who the bene benefiting party is to the easement and then if it's to the city which would make sense then you know it's handling runoff from Smiley Road that would be the purpose.
>> Yeah. If you were to account for, you know, some reasonable amount of impervious coverage that's a uh contributing factor to that >> Yeah. >> planned >> Yeah. >> improvement and then then we could take
a look at that. See, >> yeah, I think someone somewhere along the way someone realized that this is a localized low area. I don't know if it was part of a Smiley Road project or how it came about, but it's a localized low area that does serve more than just this
site. So, fairly certain that's what it's for. And um yes, Smiley Road would be included in those calculations. Any other questions? I don't. Are the new parking parking stalls the same width as the existing
ones? >> You haven't changed that, have you? >> That's a good question. I know what we're proposing is the minimum requirement. >> Okay. >> So, >> 9 and a half of width and plenty of length, I think, is our standard for sizing. >> Yeah. I guess we're not proposing like,
you know, 11 or 12 or something really wide. Trying to get as many as we can. Quantity is at the at the expense of landscaping. But >> they say quantity number of stalls is at the expense of losing some green space
and some landscaping in there. >> Yes. For the internal >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. If if we were to increase the landscaping on on interior um we'd either lose parking
or increase in impervious and or decrease the and decrease the storm water area. >> City ordinance is okay with building parking areas within the drainage and and utility easements.
>> Really comes down to who the beneficiary is. As Dave said, if the city is the beneficiary of it, it might uncomplicate it a little bit more than if it's to a private entity. Um, definitely a conversation that would
need to be had about who it is benefiting, um, what the purpose was and does this project maybe have nexus that provides public benefit if it is just
exclusive to us. So which it is not. >> Well, if it's overly sized and providing some drainage from smiley at the same time, I guess that's okay. >> Something to beated. >> That's good.
>> Okay. >> You have no more questions? I think >> gives you a good view. >> Thank you for the time. Thank you. Uh, next item is the 2026 regular meeting schedule. All right. So, I put this on the agenda
under new business as we close up the 2025 season in preparation for establishing my calendar for next year. Um, just to write a similar conversation like we had at the end of last year around that formation. We are still
first Tuesday of the month. Um, I had questions for you guys as it relates to meeting start time. Uh, how do you guys feel about 6 p.m.? Do you want it to maintain at 6 p.m.? Would you entertain shifting that start time earlier into
the evening at 5:00 p.m.? Um, if so, that could potentially mitigate some staff time. Um, wanted to talk to you guys about that and see what your pulse was, whether that'd be an option to propose for me or not. If it's a non-starter, then I guess
>> What time were you were you suggesting? >> Would 5:00 p.m. work >> instead of six? >> I mean, I'm I'm open to whatever makes your job easier. >> Me as well. >> Doesn't matter to me. No, >> I'm retired.
What's your job? >> I'm I'm here. >> Okay. >> Yep. Yep. That'll probably be something that I um bring forward as a suggestion and recommendation. Then if we can mitigate some costs and staff time by doing so, I think that's a a win for the
city. Um the other aspects of the regular meetings are submission deadlines. At the end of last year, we had a couple discussions around submission deadline requirements. Uh the final calendar that landed had four
Fridays prior to the meeting. Um wanted to provide a staff summary of how that's been. I feel confident in that timeline. Um with still the same acknowledgement that it limits my uh ability to
provide notice out in the paper. It really crunches that time of when I get a application dead draft of how quickly I can turn that around and get that out the door. But generally this year it hasn't seemed to have been a problem. Um,
more time provides more flexibility. Um, but I suppose you guys don't really have as much weight as it relates to that established deadline as as I do, but
>> how do you want it okay the way it is or do you want it changed? >> I think it's okay the way it is, you know. Um, it it really just has that impact on flexibility. So
otherwise my recommendation would be to leave all the same except for the start time on a recommendation for um by city council. So >> okay, sounds good.
>> Awesome. That's that's what I had for that calendar item. Um >> Yep. >> All right. Uh, old business, none. The city planners report. >> So, had a another busy month here. Um,
have a about six permits that are coming in the doors, mainly for signs and stuff. I think the construction season is largely closed out. Um in previous month we had nine permits from single family residences,
some deck editions, fences, a sign in there and a shorland alteration permit. Um provide this commission uh summary that we have posted the um planning commission board of adjustment vacancy.
myself, Joe Hall, and Josh Young have hosted those interviews and have a recommendation to provide before city council for appointment of that. So, that'll be coming to city council coming up here in December. Um, you start that
person's first term if appointed. Um, that's what I have for an update from my department. a few enforcement actions that I've actually got traction on and closed out with voluntary compliance this month, too. So, some successes
around the around the horn. So, okay. Any other questions, comments? All right. I'll I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. Move. >> Second. >> All those in favor? I. All >> oppose. Motion carries. Meeting is
adjourned.