Everything's good with you this week. Very good. >> Right. All right. >> All right. I would like to call the meeting to order for the NISL Planning Commission Board of Adjustment for Tuesday, September 2nd, 2025. Uh, roll call, please. Josh Young, Gary Harris, >> John Taylor,
>> Dave Reese, >> Maggie Wentler, >> Steven Templan. Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? >> There are none. Uh being none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. >> So move. >> I'll second. All those in favor? I. All
those opposed? Motion carries. Next to approve the meeting minutes for August 5th, 2025. Are there any additions or deletions to those minutes? >> There are none. Uh hearing none. I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. >> So move.
>> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I I those opposed? Motion carries. Uh let's see. Did we approve the minutes or did they skip over that? >> Okay. Uh next item is open form. Is there anyone present tonight that would like to speak towards something not on
the agenda this evening? All right. Hearing none, we'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 those opposed? Motion carries. All right. First item is variance application
024-25 to obtain a variance to expand a pre-existing non-conforming residential structure within the Lynen Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Subject property is located at 3945 West London Boulevard, P282202571. Owner applicant, Bunton family, Rob
Rosinski. Is it applicant or Okay, if you can come to the uh table or the lecture and whatever you want and then state your name for the record. >> Uh Robert Rosinski. >> All right, Stephen, your staff report.
>> Thank you, chair and commission. Um we have before us a variance application to expand a residential structure to have a second story. Um a survey provided by the applicant shows the structure at 9.3 ft from the closest property line
defining it by statute as a non-conformity. So the variance would be required to expand it upwards. Um we have in my analysis here um the land owner owns both this parcel and the parcel across the encroached lot
line uh the existing and proposed impervious are proposed to remain at 25.2% slightly over the maximum. So that would also be included in the variance ask. Um the applicant also provided a storm water management plan inclusive of
a shoreline nommo buffer that would be implemented as required by the ordinance. Um structure expansion itself meets all other setbacks such as the ordinary high water mark road rightway. Um and then there's only a minor amount of
vegetation alteration required to facilitate the upward um as discovered during the site visit with the applicant and the land owner. Um that's a really a concise analysis that I have for this particular application.
>> Can you just give us a brief overview of the uh project? >> Yes. Uh so um essentially we don't want to change the footprint of the house at all. um any of the uh um like Stephen said um
look for the impervious. Thank you. Uh none of the impervious will change. Um essentially we just want to add four dormers to the already upper level um of the of the building just to create some um bedroom space and and some egress opportunities
up there. Um, so very minimal um, living space addition. Um, yeah, I guess that was that's pretty much it. We I approached even essentially just because it was altering the the roof lines, not thinking that it was even going to be
needing a variance. Um, but then, you know, we discovered that the latest survey was 9.3 feet. Um there was an older survey back down in 2000 that did not uh state any specific distances other than it showed that it was within the building envelope, but um obviously
that was an older survey and and and whatnot. So So yeah, so that's essentially it um is essentially just trying to go up with it pretty minimal. um make any improvements that we have to as far as storm water like like the I believe is the west side that we would
add gutters and control the water that would go off to that side that is not there right now. But u but otherwise that's that's about it. Pretty simple. I wish I had a better explanation of why it's a hardship but it really I really don't other than just that the 9.3 ft.
Okay. Is there anyone that would like to make a public comment? You can come to the desk here and then state your name and then make sure there's a little green light on there that's on. It's on. Yep.
>> Uh, good evening. My name is Tom Jensen and I live at 3933 West Lynon Boulevard. So, I am the next door neighbor on the west side of of the Button property. And um we've been there 60 years now. And I
remember when that house was built, the original owners when they did, one of the things they really regretted was that it did not have good air flow north to south because of the attached garage on the back. I think in addition to providing a little bit better living space for this, I think having the
dormers on the roof will help create better air flow so that it's just going to be a more functional space as well as a little bit larger. It's not changing the impervious coverage. So, we're fully supportive of this addition.
>> Thank you. Thanks. Any other comments? All right, I'll close public comments. Do we have any questions for the applicant? >> Any How about you you own the property?
The Buntons own the property on the other side on the east side. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> So, okay. Obviously, no neighbor problem there. So, >> okay. Um because this is a variance request, we have to go through a list of questions which is filled out in the
application. Um so we'll we'll answer these questions as we go when we go through the um the motion. >> Okay. Uh so the first question is is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance a comprehensive plan?
It it is >> I would agree it's uh because of uh there's no change in the footprint or the setbacks at this point. >> There's no problem with this. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh two is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the
city of Nisa court of ordinances. Yes or no? >> Yes. Same as same answer as number one. >> I agree. Three is a need for the variance due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. Obviously, it's an existing structure and it's just being built on. Nothing is
being changed. We're just changing something with the the roof. Adding the dormers >> was a technical problem with the surveys. So, >> I add adding to the use of the property without altering the existing setback. So, I think that's good. >> Agree. Will the issuance of a variance
maintain the essential character of the locality? It will it will add to the aesthetics and the use of the home and it matches the neighbors neighbor house to the west that the gentleman that spoke has got second second story
living quarters there. >> I would agree. Does the need for the variance involve more than economic considerations? >> It does. It again it improves the use of the existing property and home and the survey problem was not caused by him.
>> All right. I would agree. Uh I do not believe there's any other pertinent findings. So with that being said, I'll entertain a motion. I'll move to approve a variance application 024-25 uh to obtain a variance to expand a
pre-existing non-conforming residential structure in the London Lakeshore residential. Um uh this would be all according according to the findings of fact that show in the planning in the sub in the report and uh
there's two two conditions shown in the in the report as well the potential conditions so it would be subject to those. >> All right I'll second. All those in favor I I >> All those opposed motion carries. Good luck with the project. >> All right. Thank you very much.
Next 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 property is located at to be determined Commons Drive P2814663.
[Music] Owner applicant Marthaler Deanna M trust Kent Marthaler is the applicant here. You can go to the podium or the table whichever you prefer. Stephen your staff report.
Thank you chair and commission. So, we have before us a conditional use permit for the construction of a new structure on a vacant lot zoned highway business. Um, physical address would be to be determined upon application for an E911
address point uh Commons Drive. Um, conditional use permit application is for the construction of a 74x 112 um, which is an 8,288 foot commercial structure. Um in the application it was listed the use of the
structure would be um having having multitude of uses um landscaping, detailing, storage, motor vehicle sales and snow removal uh with a dwelling unit above the commercial use. Um, also
included in the architect plans was a 10x74 um, square foot awning. That my analysis would be that uh, this is an allowed use for a few different reasons in our land use chart. Let me go
to that on our page here so I have the right application on the screen for everyone. Um, so this would be a business/ commercial retail use in the highway business owning district. Um, so there's a conditional use permit
pathway for that. Motor vehicle sales is also a conditional use allowed in the highway business district. Warehousing um if if alluded to under the storage aspect of the application would be an allowed use. Um, dwelling units above
commercial uses in the highway business is also listed as a conditional use permit. So kind of multitudininess for um the uses that are proposed with this. Um the application materials did also depict a future expansion that is not completely supported by the submission
materials being that there's no architect certified plan set submitted for the expansion. The proposed I think it was a 74x40 edition. Um my interpretation of that is that if that is included in what the applicants are seeking today that we would maybe
want to table and require additional submissions for that if if that is the goal to go through in this public hearing. Alternatively, that could be something that we can talk about through a subsequent cup application to facilitate that uh expansion in the future. Um, this commercially zoned
property has neighboring residentially zoned properties be on the eastern half of the north property line. Our ordinance has screening requirements. So that's where that becomes impactful from a commercial use to a residential use. Um there's there happens to be in this
proposal um hundreds and hundreds of feet of wooded land and a wetland between that. And so I don't imagine that that's going to be a hurdle to um the applicant in this case. The proposed first floor elevation given off of the survey um is based on the LAR materials
at,230 uh ft for the elevation. The wetlands were estimated by the survey. It seems um a delineation was not performed prior to the application and the condition was proposed. Um we do have on the survey a proposal
for the well location. Um the orientation of the building um depicted by the survey conflicted with the elevation drawings and plan set uh drafted by the applicant's architect. I did put in a bold there that we would need clarification required. Um for
example, the west elevation showed a shorter end of the um structure with the two large garage doors. the south being the longer version with the furthest being the
awning area. And my question would be how is this structure um specifically oriented on the survey versus the architectural renderings. Um I suppose we can open that up for response if you guys have it. You know, I know Kent is
on virtually too. I can see him there as well. And I think he's unmuted if you wanted to weigh in. Uh, can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, so the orientation of the um the overhead doors of the shop would be
facing south, the double doors. Okay. So, west elevation would become south elevation. Is that correct? Looking at it from the south. >> Um, say that one more time. So then the west
elevation would become the south elevation if you're peering at the at the structure from the south >> I believe. Oh I see. Yeah from the Yes, that would be correct. Yep. I see that now which you're talking about. Yep. >> Thanks.
Uh let's see if I can pull it up on the screen here as well. And then the south elevation as shown there. I given the drawings I imagine that that would become the east elevation and so on. >> Correct. >> Okay.
And I can have Travis change these too, of course, and submit them so they're correct. >> All right. Um [Music] um let me go back up to my staff
analysis. Uh the proposed structure was proposed to have on-site septic. Um we do have attached to this um packet item a memo from public works that states that this structure must be connected to the forest main on Hazlewood Drive as required by ordinance.
Um, an on-site sis septic would not be allowed without a variance in this case. Um, would that be something that you guys concede to is connecting to city sewer? >> Was the question was the question are
are we in agreement to connect to the sewer? Is that the question? >> It is. Um no it's we would not because it's cost prohibitive. >> So that would uh the notion of not connecting would be
against chapter 28 of our ordinance where it states that it shall be required to connect. Um in my opinion that would be requisite of a variance. um
and subsequent approval. So that'd be a separate application for public hearing um or a table of this potentially. >> Okay. We if I would have known if I would have yeah we could have submitted that had I known that that was a requirement but
um we would need to complete a variance at that point. I mean if the if if the city road project or whatever you know ended up coming to fruition and you know the sewer was ran through and the
stubout I mean I I would agree to hook to the city sewer at that point. So the the backage road element there was another notice note that I had in my staff report here. Um the property was a subject location for proposed
backage road also mentioned in the public works mill. City engineers also provided materials and a comment pertaining to previous concepts for the backage road included in the packet. Um obviously if this road were there the
connection point would be probably closer for this structure to be served by the city sewer. Um it being absent then we are reverting back to the language that is in chapter 28 for proximity to a point that can connect um
with the commercially zoned property uh if it's within a th00and ft from a connection point or a road that contains it. um then structures like this would be required to connect. I know that it is a long way um and that it might be
cost prohibitive to do that. Um at this point we'd be up against the ordinance language that is in there and looking at the notion of if you wanted to do a variance application uh proposing what your practical difficulty might be for that.
Um that's you know a separate statute that we have to hurdle that through. Um I know that the the connection was something that was discussed on the previous time that this application was on the agenda. Um sub subsequently withdrawn. Um but that element and
ordinance language hasn't changed from then to now either. Um so it's not a a new requirement at this point by any means. Um but getting around it takes a variance. Um and the practical difficulty um all of those
considerations and findings of facts to be established as uh in the previous agenda item for tonight. Um how do you as the applicant wish to proceed from here? So, so what he's saying if you if you
can't if you're if you're going um if you're going to try to do an easement or I'm sorry, uh we're talking about the easement for the roadway and the existing force main connection, you have to do a variance request on top of that. So, we as a commission can say table it
and then you can go get that information or request that permit at the same time when we're run when we're doing this again. Um otherwise it would be tough for us to say yes because we have I mean we have Tom and then we have Dave um raising the
concerns about attachment and what our ordinance says like we can't just ignore an ordinance. Um so that's what that's what Steve's saying. Um, so we can I mean I can go through the regular process here where I ask you to kind of describe the describe
it and then we kind of make the feedback, but it's up to you if you want to continue with that with the knowledge that we might say no rather than just tableabling it and being able to get all the information that we need to be able to make an application.
Does that make sense? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. The typical process too would be to handle any variance asks that are pertinent to a conditional use permit application prior to and ideally get through an approval for a variance and then handle the the
conditional use permit. Um, and so but we want to get we want you want we want to have you all the information that you can get so you're you're doing what you need to so you're not coming back to the meeting you don't have what you need. So, do you have any feedback you'd like from Dave or Tom?
Because they're both here. So, maybe you would like to ask them a few questions if or if you have wanted some clarification on any issues. >> What What is the as far as the variance? What are the conditions that have to be met for a variance to be approved?
>> Um, I'll put up the variance application here. So there's questions on the variance application uh pertaining to statute 462 357 that identify uh zoning controls and how
to get um how to propose what your practical difficulty is is what it's referred to in ordin or in statute. It's just loading here. So there's page two. So this would be this the relevant statute that handles um applications
that don't conform to ordinance standards. Um the applicant should be prepared at public hearing to explain the unique hardship for the proposed variance. Um practical difficulties are defined as the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official
control. the plight of the land owners due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the land owner and the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. Um one thing to consider there is economic considerations alone do not
constitute a practical difficulty. Um so cost prohibition of a notion of connecting alone cannot get an application through for variance approval. um that's just not something that the planning commission can corroborate on is yep we agree because
there's a economic consideration here. There has to be more to it. What is the what is the play? What is the practical difficulty? Um these are the questions that are kind of mirrored in the findings of facts the planning commission um discusses and and finds
upon motion of approval or denial. Um some of them that are important are you know like number one what are the practical difficulties give us some examples in that. Um some people choose to handr write this in some people do see attached and type out a narrative
for that. Um and then number three is the need for a variance due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the property owner. Um I'm not just highlighting these two out of any of the others. They're all important questions to have answered, but um they
assist my planning commission then in coming up with a responsive finding a fact for an application that doesn't conform. So, do you have any questions? >> Uh I don't know. No, I guess not. >> Okay. Do you have any Do you have any
questions for for Dave or Tom? Yeah, both Tom and Dean were both here. >> Not at this point. Not without reviewing the variance. >> I mean, I did tell Stephen a week ago or so that, you know, I was not willing to connect to the sewer. It would have been nice to know that the variance would
would have needed to be addressed and by chance we could have submitted that. But um I guess if you want to t if we can table this um until um we can submit the variance if if that's applicable to do and come back.
I think on my staff report too, I had a um I would certainly encourage you to review the other analysis that I had in my staff report such as parking and loading clarification on certain things like that if we do table this and result in that motion. Um one thing I think I had in here is there's an action
deadline based on statute 1599. Um application for the cup was received on 85 of 25. 60 days from there under statute lands on 10425. That will be before our next regular meeting. Um and so what I would do
to get around that is administratively extend this and I can send you that in writing and an email just to extend the deadline under that statute so that we can be heard at the first meeting in October um without you know getting under the
gun on that statute. So, um definitely a motion that could be made for tableabling that and adjourning so that you can get an application in. Think about those questions and how you'd get around these um that that statutory hurdle of practical difficulty for
variance consideration. Um and then we could take this up again in in a month's time. >> I don't know how you're going to get around question number five though. You have to be aware of that. or come back for a variance. And number five, the way
things are now, it's it's basically cost prohibitive that you want to do it. It's going to that's going to we're going to we'd have to turn down the variance. >> I think what he what Gary is alluding to is not question five on the application, it's question five on the findings of facts that we prepare.
Does the need for a variance involve more than a economic consideration? Okay. We have any other feedback for the applicant? >> Dave, did you get all your your you have any more open questions? >> I think uh Stephen included okay our
comments in their packet. So, you know, mainly we were commenting on the backage road routing and we have an approximation of where that would cross this property. So um in the future that
may be um a possibility for a sewer route but um otherwise it's existing that he would have to you know consider connecting to um with regard to
a variance. >> Yeah. Tom, did you have anything to add? >> Okay. Is that location of the backage road that shows on there does that is that in conflict with the layout for this condition
>> drawing right there? >> I haven't seen one that's overlaid. >> Yeah. >> So, this is a estimate from Dave as well. >> That's a sketch just trying to sketch that in based on the >> red line there. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Based on the study that was completed. >> Okay.
So, we were just taking a look at their site plan and seeing how does that relate to that. >> Yeah. Okay. >> You know, it's not perfect. It's just a sketch. >> No, but it's not going right through the
building. So, >> okay. >> Yeah. Any avoidance of waste, I guess, in process. And, um, keeping your long-term goals in mind is always my goal as a planner, too. um keeping your goals at the front of my mind and also trying to marry that together with the
community goals as well in the comp plan and package road proposals and figuring out, you know, how do we get everyone to the same finish line? Um if this drawing from Dave is accurate, I mean, there's less impact other than to your driveway um for the notion of, you know, how you
enter your property. Um this drawing, you know, it is rough. doesn't show what the actual width would be of a proposed backage road. Um but it was a a concept in in and of itself. Um that hasn't come
to fruition, but um still I guess a goal that may be attained as a community in the future. Um about all I have for that. Okay. So, uh, the applicant is asking to
table at this time then. >> Yes. >> Okay. I'll entertain a motion. >> I'll move to table conditional use permit application 025-25. >> Second. >> All those in favor?
>> I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. That's it. >> All right. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> So move. >> Closing the public hearing. >> I'll second. All those in favor? I. All
those opposed? Motion carries. >> Moving on to new business. Uh, accept the resignation of Danny Mandel. >> Yes. Sorry. We reject. >> So what uh what are we doing? What's the process now? Are we posting that? >> They take a question. Uh the process
moving forward for that would be to um accept the resignation. That acceptance from this committee would move forward to city council where we would motion to post the vacancy um and advertise that create an
interview process um as designated by ordinance in our application form and then fold that out to fill the seat. >> Okay. and we nominate a vice chair.
>> Um, yes, >> we're doing that now. >> Yes, >> I would nominate Sean Weldon as vice chair. Sean in his uh >> he's not here but to respond but >> so in his note today that he did not
would not be in attendance tonight he said that he was not interested in the vice chair position >> and I nominate Gary Harris for the vice chair right Gary stopped being on purpose last year so but to fill the fill the void >> you want to do it John
>> the who now >> you want to be vice chair >> the what >> vice chair >> why don't you give >> advice shot at it. I bet is there any choice? >> I don't think so. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I know.
Ninate John as vice chair. >> That's kind of live. Yeah. Okay. No problem. How long is it? >> How long is what? >> Vice chair. >> As long as you're on. >> When did >> just what? January. >> What year?
>> Yeah. It's a reelected position of chair and vice chair every year. Oh, in January. >> Only for a couple months. >> Yeah, right. >> No, that's no problem. >> Okay. >> Okay. John accepts. I'm writing it.
Bold. Can't change. >> Who? >> I I >> They just voted for you. >> Thank you. >> Motion carries. Uh, old business ordinance discussions
with Chris. >> All right. So, we have gotten some material from Chris Pence. >> Did we make our [Music] >> Yes, we did. We did not. I'll make a motion
that should be worded exactly the way Steve. Thank you >> to accept the resignation of >> I'll second and then all those in favor I >> sure >> thank you. Sorry guys.
>> No problem. >> Okay. [Music] >> On to old business I guess. >> Yeah. Old business ordinance discussion. >> So uh we got some materials in from Chris Pence. um he was contracted to do
an ordinance comparison report from um Crowing County's ordinances to city of Niswah's ordinances attached in the packet for review. Um two documents, one of them being a report summary um where Chris kind of provided an introduction general summary of various
sections um that could be uh discussed. Um I think that they are all you know some things that I can agree with. Um, I I guess at this point it's time to start getting more into the details of
what could change with the ordinances and gain discussion and conversation from the planning commission about what is the goal for moving forward on these things. Um, we have um compliance inspection requirements that were listed as a difference. Um,
currently NISWA requires a compliance inspection for all properties uh with a septic system. The county requires a CI or compliance inspection only for um for all permits and public hearing requests in the shoreland district um following
Minnesota Shorland rule. So where we require it even in open space residential more than 1,000 ft from a lake or uh or from a riverine system um you know the county is a little bit less
restrictive. Chris's note there uh echoes that the city may want to consider updating the ordinance to follow the county ordinance in that regard. Um, another thing that is unique to the city of Niswah is a principal structure, principal residential
structure size requirement. Um, the city has minimum sizes for those structures while the county does not. Um, Chris's recommendation for that would be to uh not change that section of the ordinance. It makes sense in a more urban setting to have that control in
place. Um, I tend to agree with with that. Um under section 20-89 there are some key differences that he noted here um that the city addressed. The first is that lot line setbacks for septic system drain fields to property lines and
wetland setbacks be addressed. Um the county requirement for sideyard setbacks is 10 ft to the tank and the drain field while the city requires setbacks of uh he's noting 15 to 30 feet depending on the zoning district. Um, in that
regard, I recall that we went through a ordinance revision this spring um, altering that. So, um, we can strike the sideard setback aspect of that. Um, we did achieve his second statement there. It is his opinion that those
setbacks are excessive and and should be reduced to 10 feet across all zoning districts uh, that I would mark as achieved. Um, the wetland setback for the city is 30 feet. the county is 15. Um he says that it should be noted that there is no state standard for wetland
setbacks and that can be a control established by each local government. Um he feels that 30 ft is excessive and that a 15t setback adequately protects the wetland and leaves more land available for development. Um I think
that 15 ft does provide a element of you know screening of silts and fine particulate matters from entering those water systems, those wetland systems. Um
open for a candidate for for change. Um, does this body want me to go through each of these and seek discussion as we go through each or do you guys want me just to keep reading the material to you? I guess I I want to kind of hear what you guys have to say about these at
the same time. So, anywhere that you guys want to feel free to pipe in, you know. >> Yeah, I I don't I mean, we read through it, so I don't think you need to review everything. Um, >> any specific recommendations? No, I thought I thought the boardwalk would
probably be a really good ad to to not allow roofs or canopies. We didn't really address it in the city ordinance. I think that would be a overall I I I agree with most of what he said here. >> Okay. >> To be honest with you. So,
>> okay, you can highlight that one as a, you know, an emphasis, too. >> Yeah. >> Um, any other elements that come out and strike you guys? Um, I know one thing that I encounter a lot of uh in my day-to-day work with the community
is accessory structure sizes. That would be the next item there. Um, section 20-93. Um, the city has decided to regulate those a little bit more strictly than the county government has. Um I feel like there may be
other other performance standards and and uh not necessarily performance standards but dimensional standards in the ordinance that would protect from things or other mechanisms to to regulate them differently. Um
how do you guys feel about the direction in current ordinance of accessory structures? The county is what is it like 10 x 16? Is that what they're >> They allow for a couple freebie sizes. Um I think it's I think it was 10 x 16 or 160 square feet combinations of uh in
the previous language, but I think that they upped that in nonshorland areas. Um >> since I've come to the city of Nisa, I think it's been increased to I think 320 square feet, a combination of two of those. um really can become impactful
when you have um somebody that strictly doesn't understand local controls and ordinances and buys a carport for example from Menards. So rather than having something that is a potential violation or
enforcement action required, it does allow latitude for someone in my department to you know say okay that's your freebie. You know this is you get one unpermitted structure up to a certain size and requirement. Um that could definitely be a potential
opportunity if that's the desire of the community and this board. Um certainly something I can take forward to city council to gauge their appetite and start drafting language. Is there a size requirement that strikes you guys um as
acceptable and district perhaps even um I know that it's kind of a nuanced question. Um, highway business has its own highway business and commercial central business rather. Uh, both of those two districts have accessory structure size requirements that are unique in our
ordinance. I don't know if that was highlighted directly in um in his notes here, but it does not seem that it is. But I've noticed language like that. So taking feedback from you guys and then coming forward with
revision of language using that feedback would be great. Um is are these um the analysis from Chris is this being is this entire document being given to the city council to review for their opinion as well? >> It is and it was given at the at a
recent special counsel meeting. Okay. >> Um, with the notion that it was coming here, it was a open-ended agenda item for that meeting and so I included it into the packet for them. >> Okay. Well, it doesn't seem like there's any one way or another opinion on the sides
for the accessory structure here. So, I think maybe would be best if we got feedback from the city council and then we can proceed. Open the open to recommendations from them as well. It seems >> okay. Any other sections that were in the
summary that you want to call out or in the um more in-depth ordinance comparison chart that people want to hone in on in this discussion? We've had a really good relationship with Chris in the past on on our land use ordinances, you know, when we're working on them for a couple
years >> and uh and he's the he certainly is the expert on all of this stuff. For us not to go with what his recommendations on here would be a would be a mistake. >> I agree.
So, I guess that's our feedback. We we agree with his recommendations. >> Awesome. All right. Fantastic. Any guess uh city planner city planners report. >> Awesome. All right. So, in the month of
O August, um we've had 12 land use permits approved. um had one that uh was an after the-act septic and guest quarters conversion permit issued. Um it's kind of a success as a result of um
ongoing enforcement action and didn't get a permit for this. You need one. So that's kind of a celebratory thing that has been culminating um over the last year. Um we had also just the run-of-the-mill single family residences
with garages and uh sewer connections. Um some residential additions, uh demolition and and vacating of a of a lot. Um rain is starting. Um fences, just some
general stuff. Um other than that, uh nothing super unique from my department at this time. Okay. Any other questions, comments? All right. I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. So move. All those in favor?
>> I I All those opposed? Motion carries. We are adjourned.