e spe i' like to call the meeting to order for the niswa Planning Commission Board of adjustment for Tuesday April 1st 2025 roll call please Sean welon sorry no Josh Young
re Makey wler Sten Timlin are there any additions or deletions to the agenda there are none B then I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda second all those in favor I all opposed motion carries was turned on
next to approve the meeting minutes for February 4th 2025 are there any additions or deletions to those minutes fa none you none I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes so move second all those in favor I I all those opposed motion
carries next item is an open form is there anyone here tonight that is speaking towards something not on the agenda this evening moving on to public hearings I'll entertain a motion open the public hearing so move second all those in favor I I all oppos motion carries all
right first item is conditional use permit 0 9-25 to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an addition to an existing commercial structure for expansion of use in the highway business zoning District the subject property is located at
24535 Hazelwood Drive P ID 281 4509 owner Jeff and Ellen schwabble will be the applicant can you can come to the desk or you can come to the podium
whoever our representative is [Laughter] if there two of us we'll just stand okay sure all right Stephen your staff report thank you uh so we have a conditional use permit for the construction of a
commercial addition to an existing structure within the highway business district um for this property a conditional use permit would be required for this use um this proposed business is currently served by an on-site septic system um in the expansion that would be
also then converted to city sewer so connection fees would be determined based upon forecasted water use um half may be paid upfront at the permit application and the remainder would be subject to metered readings at the end of the first year um the applicant did
do a u winter Window app um winter window agreement for the Wetland delineation and the septic compliance requirements of the application for this particular addition they are proposing a addition of 864 ft to an existing structure sized at
3368 Square ft uh there was not an architect certification accompanying this application u a recommendation side to that aspect is I would recommend reviewing and clarifying the language and the application checklist as it relates to new commercial business or
buildings versus additions to existing um previous surface coverage on this property is at 15% where the maximum is 50% in this District uh there are no residentially zoned properties surrounding this so that does not come
with screen screening requirements all these setbacks appear to be met as proposed um with storm water management plan attached as well um any new signage should be in compliance with uh table 20- 509.com
and new stalls located in the sidey along the north property line um water meter installation would be required and can be purchased from the public works department um that's all I have for my staff analysis on this application okay will the applicant give
us a brief overview of what uh your project plan is sure um uh what we propose to do is to um add one additional service Bay to our existing building by doing that we're going to
tear out we have a box inside of our big box right now the existing little box serves as our office our customer service area and also our bathroom um and so we propos to remove what's inside
and turn that into an additional service Bay we'll put a a service bay door on so the existing building will have three service bay doors on the front and then on I call it the south end of the building um that's where we will add on
a 24 by 36 foot addition um and that will house our offices a very very modest customer waiting area um break room for our staff
uh bathroom and um some part storage so we'll add that on first and then once that's complete we will go to the phase where we tear out the existing um office and then connect the
two buildings so we'll move into the office and then tear out the existing and turn that into a bay and then open up the buildings connect the buildings just tear out the wall so and do a facelift and the whole front of the building will have a face a a nice
facelift it's going to be a good enhancement to the look of it from the street it should transform the appearance of the building we also um uh intend to um expand our pavement um to
clean that up and provide a a cleaner and safer surface for people to park on okay uh if anyone would like to make a public comment towards this application this is your opportunity right hearing then I'll
close public comments commission member comments we have any questions not made sense to me no I like what you're doing thank you I improve that the neighborhood there thank you we're really excited we think it's really going to be a nice
Improvement to the community and it's going to be great yep I think it look great thank you all right if we have no other comments I'll entertain a motion I'll move for approval of the conditional use permit 9-25 uh according to the plans that have
been submitted according to the with the planners city planners report and the list of conditions the conditions that are in the staff report and the findings of fact and the
findings and facts I'm very sorry second all those in favor I I all those opposed motion carries good luck on your project thank you very much thank you thank you next item is interim use permit 01 0-25
to obtain an interim use permit to place temporary commercial structure within the central business zoning District the subject property is located at 25435 Main Street P ID 2811 0643 owner applicant honeymoon Properties LLC Chris and Michael
French are applicants are they here this evening you are all right you can come to the podium or the desk then just state your name my name is Michael French y Stephen your staff report thank you chair uh so the
applicant is here to request an interim use permit for a temporary commercial structure as Allowed by section 20- 178b of the NWA Court of ordinances my understanding that the applicant wishes to place a trailer on the property in between the mutually owned property line
of parcel 28110 643 and 28110 644 primarily on the southern of which um this application would be uh for a property zoned Central Business um the structure appears to be all setbacks
on the site plan there is a zero foot lot line setback in this District um so we just need to make sure to fit within that parcel uh the uh um proposed commercial structure will not exceed 8 feet by 14 ft in size the
um structure will have a minimal impact on impervious percentage and the storm water management plan that was provided by the applicant for this use is proportional to the proposal versus the entire property uh no additional sign edges proposed in this application any signs proposed in the future must meet
ordinance requirements um landscaping and seating to be included in the final design for permit application uh there's no electric or water uses that are being proposed in the structure and a kitchen if proposed in the structure should be Prof professionally installed and will need
to meet state requirements for the handling and serving of food um the interim use permit I put in my analysis would be a recommendation to expire at the sociation of business as presented or the transfer or sale of the property uh the application itself did have a u
spot for that information to be provided to us but it was left blank um so that would just be a recommendation and seeing if you um you probably didn't know what it meant expose I didn't sure so those would be just common triggers uh you could also
propose a different date like if you wanted it to be through such and such a date that would be another means um but in my review of other interim use permits it would be what's the best way I mean I I guess I
don't I'm not sure what you're saying so it's hard for me to navigate and suggest what the best route would be um that would maybe implicate myself in my city role however um standard other iups have phrasing saying the cessation of
business or the transfer sale of property so if you were to sell the property that doesn't greenl the next person to use that for the same use so sounds good um copies of all required inspections licenses and permits
required by the state should also be submitted to the city at the start of that business so that's what I have for my analysis okay Mr French if you could give us a brief overview of what you're proposing well this is this is my son and I think he already purchased a
trailer at 7 by2 so it's under the uh I think he wants to add some things to The Venue that he doesn't he's not able to do in the the bar uh which is for family stuff you know Beverages and popcorn some other stuff out
there that to offer that for people that want it so it's just kind of an extension of what he's doing but in a non-alcoholic way except for when they need to use that for an event for outside uh when they have one of those
big uh events where the bands come in and play and then they'll probably use it for that but mostly it's to gain to expand and the business profile so just food items
beverages all right is there anybody uh from the public that would like to make a public comment towards this project this application hearing then I'll close public comments commissioner member comments do we have any questions no just one U Mike is that uh
will the trailer be taken out of there in the fall then and stored someplace else or there for the winter I'd expect it would be yeah yeah okay kind of that's what they do with the slushy the air I'm sure it'll be
REM okay that sit just about where there's a fence across there now I think that's where he plans to put it that's where the trailer would be right where that fence is yeah okay okay yeah I'll pull up on the screen here the site plan that was submitted
with the application so the trailer location originally there were two options that were proposed one being out here which would block site path from the alleyway and maybe obstructing cospot potential safety concerns and then the alternative site here uh the revised site plan from
the applicant shows just the proposed on the southern parcel so you own both this property and this property if I understand right yeah can't really tell by looking where anything's at on that but so you have this ramp here that comes down off the
deck and the proposed location would be back behind that ramp right so it's in here is a fence I see I see where how it's yep North Arrow would be pointing to the the key of building would be right is
that square of that's not yeah Mur is that mural now that's up there now mural would be right along this face okay it won't get covered that's my daughter's mirror so we'll keep that open for the people to
see but it'll be right back there okay if there's no other questions I'll entertain a motion I'll make a motion to uh approve the interim use permit 01 0-25 with facts and findings and conditions
put forth by the uh planning I'm G keep going second just waiting for the second you got it we got it a second okay all those in favor I all oppos motion carries thank you we got a no wait a
minute thank you so much yep uh next next item is variance application 01125 to obtain a variance to construct a principal structure at seeding ordinance standards of Dimension ratio for ground floor living area to attach storage space 200% where 150% is allowed
and the Shoreland residential zoning District subject property is located at 4659 4639 Mission Road P 28350 682 owner applicant John Gren or Jack Gren we have Jack online here I do can
you uh can you see me and hear me both good I really I uh I truly apologize for uh for not being there we're it's a I saw your forecast up there for 6 to 10 inches tonight and it's I'm in Apple Valley uh it's snowing heavily here but
uh I also own own a home on uh 21748 Tall Timbers Road so and then this is this is another property that I own over on Mission Road so uh so I apologize for not being there and uh thank you for for listening to to my request commission
and staff thank you uh Stephen your staff report thank you uh yeah so we have in front of us a a variance application to construct a principal structure exceeding ordinance standards um in this case reiterating the 200% is
proposed where 150% would be allowed for the dimensional ratio of ground floor living area to the attached storage space uh this particular property is um a recently subdivided vacant lot um that
this applicant came through forward with um let's see the ground floor of this structure would be 600 square feet of living space and 1,200 squ feet of shop upstairs would be proposed to be a 40
by4 living room and a 15x 14 bedroom meeting the minimum required 50 foot of livable area required for a principal structure on a vacant lot um upon receipt of the proposal to
construct the proposed future house and garage that is on the survey dated 21825 within this structure the livable area must at that time be either reduced below ordinance standard of 700 Square ft or uh subsequent subsequent variance
be pursued at that time uh for this application and the subdivision we had a site suitability for um two SE septic systems a primary site and an alternate site by the owner's authorized agent um that must be designed and submitted at
the same time as the land use permit for this structure uh the impervious surface coverage that's proposed at this time does not require a storm water management plan and so that's what I have for the extent of my analysis on this variance okay Jack could you give us a
brief overview of what you're proposing sure sure happy to um just by by the way I'm I'm president uh one of RJ Ryan Construction done in the cities and uh so I always have to have some kind of a project going so I uh I own the property
over on Tall Timbers but um uh my wife and I walked down Mission Road often and I don't know if you're familiar with it at all but I uh there was a house that was there a home that was there and uh I met the people and actually their daughter called and said hey my my parents are getting old would you would
you consider purchasing the property so I did it a couple years ago my wife and I purchased the property and have completely renovated the existing home there and uh then we kind of cleared it of any Fallen dead and broken trees and everything else and cleaned it up and
have planted uh grass and I just decided that it'd be nice to uh I have we have uh five children uh grown children and uh so I got the idea that I would just kind of split this property into into three possible lots and um so um we'd
like to maybe build some uh couple more homes on it and everything but I thought I'd start I'd like to start off with building kind of a a storage place and a shop and a and some some living quarters on it with the plans for future home on on that lot and then we we also have
plans for lot another home on the other on the uh other lot that's there too so I did just bring it through the uh the uh the counsel and stuff I purchased some additional land to uh to my NE from my neighbors just so I could meet the uh
property sizes and everything else so we got we got that all approved so so that's that's what I'm looking for is just to uh see if I can build this uh storage building and have some uh some overflow living space and everything else for uh for the time being
and this just works out to be kind of a practical size so that's kind of what I'm asking for so I can store a couple boats and a couple antique cars in there and and do a little work okay is there anyone that like to
make public comment towards this application one could state your name and address please uh my name is Steve wmer I live at Tall Timbers at
47516 Mission Road and I have no objection to Jack's uh proposal um and the neighbors that I've talked to have no objections either I can't speak for them all but uh
Jack's done a wonderful job with the project that he did earlier and I'm sure it will be a great addition to the neighborhood thank you thank you st I I do I do want to say I'm not building a metal building I I uh I did have
Travis Miller um who's done a bunch of work for me and I think the the plans are in the U in the packet uh so I would build it as a not not a metal building but I match the U the existing structure that's that current the current house
that's on there so when we do build the build the home it would uh it would match that okay uh questions do we have any questions I do not anybody on this side kind of a unique property over
there it is I was when you were subdividing it I was out and looked at it too yesterday I was out again that's so I I think what you're doing there it's in the property right in that neighborhood I think it's going to be
really I I I think it's um going to be good good for it and good it's it's a unique property and I think this will work it is it uh am I right and I thought I read something in the packet that when the future houses are built that then this one will be the living
units will be given up and this will turn all into storage is that correct no I'll probably keep the upper the upper level for sure and probably at least a uh an you know an office and a bathroom and everything on the on the on the first level so I won't give it all I won't give it all up I designed I
designed it so it's got a sec second floor some some living space in a bedroom and kind of a living room area okay great and that would be something that I would navigate with the applicant at the time of permit application for the house just to affirm that the livable area within that accessory structure okay can meet the gas quarters
minimals so sure okay um so this is a variance application so this is a little bit different than the others earlier this evening um as a part of variance application we have to list off U there'll be five sometimes six questions
and then we as a commission will be answering them as we go through it okay um so number one is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan I would say it is um because it allows the modern use of the
property um to properly enclosed storage that with buildings that uh match the the surrounding development as well okay do you all agree with that question agree uh number two is the property owner proposing to use a property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by the city niswa code of ordinances again i' I'd say yeah it it is and it's pretty much the same answer as is number one it's question
one I would agree I agree uh number three is the need for a variance due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner what do we think on that question it is um my opinion would be
that it's a future development of the property uh for joint family use right and for storage equipment of their boats and Autos is a is positive for the neighborhood positive for the project agree I agree uh number four will the issuance
of variance maintain the essential character of the locality um I would say yes we already had a neighbor uh speak to that fact and uh based on the drawings that we have I would I would say it does just same as Gary when
I took a drive out there and looked around it I think it would be a net benefit I agree agree uh number five does the need for variance involve more than economic considerations it does that U it adds to the orderly
development again of that of that particular neighborhood and uh controls the storage of of equipment and boats and cars I would agree agree and there is no other pertinent
findings so with those um questions asked and answered would someone like to make a motion okay I'll make them you were talking most of the time well um I'll move to
uh approve the variance application 0-25 and to obtain a variance to construct the principal structure exceeding the ordinance standards dimensional ratio for ground floor living area to of 200% versus 150 in the charland residential
district located at 4659 Mission Road and 4639 and owner John and Jack grin and that's according to the staff report the plan submitted the findings of fact and
uh U and the conditions listed there's the two of them listed in the report second all those in favor I all those opposed motion carries thank you all very much I truly appreciate it thank you thank you thank
you next item is variance application 01225 to obtain a variance to construct a new 168t water oriented accessory structure and remove existing structure at ohw and the Shoreland residential zoning District subject property is
located at 25181 Pine Lane P 28206 37 owner applicant Adam Price there I'm actually Chad people fing for Adam you do want to make that trip up here with the snow stuff so I'm filling in for Adam okay uh people
all right thank you Stephen your staff report thank you all right so we have in front of us here a a variance application to construct a new 168 foot water oriented accessory structure on the lot um and in this on the survey there is a boat house that's currently
on the property I'll put it up on screen here that is on that survey as to be removed um so this subject property on our survey has two existing sheds or water oriented accessory structures however you want to um term them but two structures within the Shoreland Impact
Zone um where our ordinance currently has a maximum of only one allowance of that of 120 square fet so a variance application in this case would be to construct an oversized water oriented accessory structure survey proposed by Bogart and Peterson and Associates dated
117 of 24 um shows that structure meeting all setbacks and so it's just a size element to that structure that we would be looking at at this time as we can see from the photos provided by the applicant the structure is largely damaged by Ice Hees in this
location and so the proposal would be to move it backwards meeting all of those setbacks and uh sarily remove this um this request happens to lessen the non-conforming status of the of what is
currently existing on the property um that structure that is non-conforming at the ohw and the other shed proposed to be removed by survey uh must be removed at the um at the time that this other structure is constructed uh storm water management plan for this property had
been submitted at the time of a principal residence structure that was permitted in 2024 um so as we add more impervious surface to the property um storm water management just becomes a facet of that new impervious surface so um I would
work supposed to work with you during the permitting process or the applicant in this case um to ensure that there are storm water management elements and features relative to the construction of the structure if so approved um that's the extent I have for
our staff report for this particular app could you give us a brief overview of The Proposal yeah basically just take the existing structure remove it um it's 12 x 14 right now and we' like to turn it move it back 10 feet away from the
lake and also 10 feet off the property line kind of Meet the standard set back um make it more a little more conforming than what it is now and obviously rebuild it because it's pretty rough shape right now okay is there anyone here that would
make a public comment towards this application now you can just come to the table here yes okay uh let's go here so then everybody if we have people listening in make is a light on on the microphone
okay do you want uh oh my name is Bob Reichenbach and I live 25229 East Clark Lake Road okay roughly two Lots North of where the request is okay um yeah I guess I'm questioning the size of the
existing structure whether it's based on the original Foundation or what has been kind of created by Nature um and I would not have an objection
with what he's proposing except for the size what's there now realistically is under 100 square F feet okay that's about it I don't think it should be a I don't I don't object to
the building I just think it should be held to the size that's there now okay that's about it thank you any other comments okay I will close public comments commissioner member
comments what is the size of the existing building um you have that Steve I thought it was 12 by I'm going up memory so I said I kind got thrown in here tonight I didn't have time to run back to the office and grab all I do believe it was 12 by 14 is what the applicant
proposed it to have been um I suppose I can go on GIS real quick here and and see if the county assessor has a side in that they have established for it yeah surve or not it does not you can also use a revamp tool on the gis s it's pretty
accurate now yeah looks like about the same thing from the survey what's showing on the survey here but it appears be for sure 14 ft in length uh as we can see with the shadow it's hard to determine exactly where the
edge is on this side um looking at the roof and the shadow here Peak would probably be about there so 11 feet maybe 12 it's it's hard to say um something that I can try to look at here if they have it under
field card and so I suppose at this point it's so we have a structure that's right on the ohw so there's two sheds that are located on the survey that would be to be removed um I would say that the cumulative size of both is probably
exceeding the proposed ask of the 12x 14 once this field card downloads it should have more information from the assessors I didn't see a second shed when I was out there but has that been removed already do you know Chad no I didn't the other smaller
shed's been removed yeah okay yeah so here they just show a garage on the field card of 912 ft so that would be this one here it does not show any sizing for those accessory
structures down near the lake so is that what I had on the application P yep that should be what it is then if you could state your name and address please uh Kurt bomgardner and actually actually we're 2567 right next door to the riken
Box the we met with the Sheila Yankee the assessor this morning the shed is actually assessed to us or is actually on our tax assessment for our taxes that's not good that's why you're not seeing it when you just pulled that up
it's not on there okay it's on ours so that's being corrected because right now our property line goes through a section of that shed mhm so it's this was an old property that was two lots it's now it it's always been two lots
but it has been tax assessed as one lot with a cabin and two the other two out buildings okay so um the reason you're not finding it when you pull your records up because it's on our lot it's listed as being on our lot
so um I'll pull up the field guard in the meantime here for for that norn L yeah um in reference to it we're not opposed to what Chad wants to do it's going to be moved off the lot line which is what
we want anyway because it overlaps it right now so um we're not opposed to the like Bob riken bachet said he's not opposed to the structure so um and it appears that the size of it is probably
in accordance with what Chad has explained so but I just want to clarify why you're not finding it maybe you don't have to pay for it anymore well that would be that would be really good because that's why we had the assessor out there today so just to make sure that on the record and this one has it
on the record correctly so okay yeah get some free storage from the new one yeah yeah yeah well have to work that out with with the builder so anyway I just want to make that clarify that for you thank you for your clarification yeah
fi card from that Northern property shows a storage structure at 12 by 16 so 192 square feet in size for that it does not show what or where that feature is but that would be from that
Northern property line so okay questions I'm just going back to you're you're your next door to that or you're two down so then do you have a you have a bat house
or okay okay so we came up that it's 12 x 16 is what they're that's what the assessor has for a storage structure on this lot and and if we look at that property it's hard to say
what that feature might have been well this one right here if it was joined as one field card it could have had elements from both properties um but the survey dated 11724 and having done a site visit there were for sure two sheds down near the lake this one being one of
them the one that's still standing on the ohw so okay any questions from this side okay so this will be like the last application where you have to go through these list of questions and then answer them as a commission um number one is variance in
harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan it is um you get a replacement of a non-conforming damaged water you know building there now boat house that's screaming to be
removed um uh with a building of relatively the same size as what's being taken out so all appropriate setbacks are positive okay agree with that agree uh number two
is a property owner proposing to use a property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the city of Nisa code of ordinances again I'd say it is brings the property in conformance with current requirements that are of the
ordinance y I would agree agree is a need for a variance due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner again this is an existing structure that they're removing and replacing so agree uh number four will the issuance
of a variance maintain the essential character of the locality will it seems like it' be an improvement we're taking a dilapitated building down and building a new one agre agree okay five uh does the variant does the need for the variance involve
more than economic considerations again it's go ahead does vastly improves the location in the area I think I would agree okay with that I will entertain a
motion I'll make a motion to approve the uh variance application 012 d25 uh to obtain a variance to construct a new 168 square foot water oriented accessory structure remove existing structure uh
uh at the prary high watermark in the Shoreland residential zoning District along with any uh conditions or facts and findings of the staff report okay I have a second second all
those in favor I I all those opposed motion carries thank you quick quick question so that we don't have to pull permit now to build that next one right just that right you do need to pull that this week then thank
you all right with that I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing move second all those in favor I I was opposed motion carries uh next item is under new business extension request v-
02324 Peg Fon thank you uh so this was a extension request that I received just via email I told the applicant I would bring It Forward on her behalf to this uh meeting this evening um so the email was in the packet um the applicant ran into some
contractor scheduling issues and our ordinance has a requirement to come in and pull a permit within six months of a variance approval and for the work to be completed within a year unless extended by this commission um so miss Fang is at this time requesting an
extension um with uh plan to get it in September or October for the outdoor work done concrete forward and then work through November December and January to finish the inside um I think an extension of a
year would suffice that timeline as proposed by the applicant okay I have no objections anybody else what was the term again yeah okay okay we need a motion motion yes
yeah entertain a motion I'll move approval of extension request variant 0 23-24 Pig p second all those in favor one year I all those opposed motion carries uh old business none city
planners report thank you uh so we had a um land use Essentials training myself and Gary had attended last week at sourcewell down in Staples um so thank you for trying to attend that if you could um so there is an annual training requirement in our ordinance for this
Planning Commission um if you missed out on this opportunity just connect with me after this meeting and we can come up with an alternative Source world does put this particular training on twice a year once in the fall and once in the spring so there will be another opportunity coming up in about six months or so um as for permits approved
in the last um I guess two months since since last we met they were a couple boundary line um lot line adjustments and seven permits that were issued for things like maintenance addresses um new addresses single family
residences and some um additions trand alterations things of that nature just last week I had five additional permits applied for within one day so I think business is ramping up as picking up snow is thawing things are getting busy which is
great okay and then there was an ordinance Amendment for chapter 28 um regarding sewer and the holding tank requirements in NWA um one of the elements of that was to remove the holding tank requirement of a conditional use permit through this commission and that passed city council
and was published so is now in effect all I have in my report okay we have any questions I have one question have we had any more discussion on doing site visits again yes we have um and I did
have additional um opportunity to discuss it with the training at source wall uh last week um kind of what the hurdles would be I feel personally from city planner perspective that it provides a lot of great perspective to
this commission to see things on site um it sounds like when you are on site there shouldn't be discussion it's more of a element to discuss and and um well receive discussion information from the applicant so that then this body is a
little bit more prepared um during the meeting with that perspective so um I would be all for organizing that putting out notice as required by Statute um and documenting attendance and things of that nature um just
because I see that that would provide a lot of Great Value to this commission so where are you guys at on well so so the last time we had to I mean there's concerns about open meeting law um how would that's the main concern that's the
main concern so what was uh what is the mitigate how can we mitigate that when you were at the source wall training you had asked uh that specifically came up that question and the attorney that was putting this thing on he was really good that was a really helpful session by the
way his name is but that particular question exact you know came up and and his opinion was the same as we've heard before don't have sight visits if you have a quorum who can go out there we've got five Planning Commission members so two
people could be there but not three well and it can complicate it if it were ever to be perceived that a decision is being made on site before the actual public hearings occurrence that that would be an element of concern so um the fewer
the better but um you know coming from a planning and zoning department where these were Common Place the Planning Commission Board of adjustment would all go out there and have you know an itinerary itineraries are you know great from someone who's super type A that
likes to be on those types of things but if discussion extends at one particular site and then you're delayed to the next that doesn't really afford that applicant the same amount of review so it's it's uh something to be structured if we want to be entertaining it as a quorum meeting so um personally I like
doing it the way we're doing it individually you know when you get a chance and and uh the people are more than happy to talk to you when you're out there so I mean nobody feels imposed about it maybe they're but this F most
of them are schedule better than I TR to fit it through others would you be opposed to um having two members that would be interested in doing the site visits and then they go with each other so we're not at Quorum would that be something that you're
interested in y if ever there's a quorum I just need to be know that that's going to happen well in advance so that I can Pro post notice of that quum so you have a quum you're gonna you're going to break the open the requirement is 10 days that uh you know with our current
application timeline um we are for Fridays before which is giving me Monday Tuesday Wednesday to put out notice for this meeting's occurrence um if someone dead drops me an application on the same day as the
deadline uh that would not really allow onsites to occur unless we were doing so on you know right before this meeting um our start time is currently six o'clock so whether or not we did a onsite on a different day or this day I guess would
be heavily dependent on when the application comes in how much notice I get so um I know that in previous planners in this role um site visits were scheduled around the 5:00 hour if we
had a dozen applications on one month um you imagine going around 12 different sites in a little hour window that might just adjust the time that the meeting actually starts but um I'd say 15 minutes is pretty pretty standard pretty
hurried up on a on a site so if we had four it'd be you know a happy time but um but it just comes down to how many we have in front of us on any given day so okay well Gary likes how is what are you what are your thoughts I I don't
mind it how it is I mean I can go on my own time and okay I probably get it done in half the time that would be most of the time you know we've got the packets come out when before I go look so I know you've got the information so uh whether
anybody's home or not there to talk to with the applicant the owner's home I don't doesn't make a whole lot of difference I don't think because you're out there to examine the facts and not what his motivation is because it's it's all paper already so true on occasion
you'll go out there and sometimes they won't have anything marked yeah there's a couple of times where I'm like I don't know what they're talking about so took me 20 minutes to find the one last night on the Mission Road there I couldn't figure it out um has there been any feedback with I mean we'll
we'll go at random times are they kind of fine with that knowing that we could show up at any time I mean not you know tours right but um during the middle of the day it's pretty well received um when they submit an application it comes with the
acknowledgement that there may be a site visit that occurs by this body whether it's as an Quorum fashion myself as City staff going out there to prepare analysis for the application or you guys to you know evaluate it for your perspective um and I one of the elements
of this job that I just happen to love is you know the engagement with people a lot of times you can go all on site and the conversation evolves into you know from the shortterm goals for to their long-term goals and you can really kind of level with people um
so kind of a takeaway or a drawback to the Quorum element is if we out there on an itinerary it's kind of like you're slamming through them and you don't have that personability aspect so um I went to three of the
four I was pretty familiar with big a anyway so I didn't bother that I went to three of the four yesterday I spent maybe an hour hour and a half total and nobody was home there wasn't there was there was somebody working on the Clark Lake place the contractors were
there there was a lot of lot of mud and stuff in there too so I didn't get very deep into it but I was able to see the the shed and that's about all I wanted to view personally so I would recommend at least letting the homeowner know a time frame when we're going to be there
especially if we're going there as a for um or individually yeah individually too if you have the um desire to reach out to them like say we we aim for a certain particular time and that doesn't work out um I could always give you their
contact and say what time you they also feel like they have to be there five different times one two four times yeah five times if you go there's pros and cons to either case obviously um I don't
know is it is is it if we were to we go out there now and we go out there by ourselves and we set foot on the property and go and look around um is that considered trespassing or I mean it should be part of the part of the application is that we're going
to have access to the property to view I mean suppos well and I have that and that's get shot well not necessarily probably not but I I have that so that makes them comfortable if they see the city in this one thing you know but best
practice whenever you're on site go to the door knock on it sing Happy Birthday to yourself in your head give them that time to answer the door knock again um if you have a card place it in the door but proceed with your site visit so uh that can be alarming sometimes you know
it's whether someone didn't hear you knock so just do your best effort to make your presence known approach the door talk to them and I usually try that but there wasn't there was obviously nobody at any of these three except a contractor yesterday so is there is there a particular time that you two
like to go or is it squeeze it in squeeze it in I mean is it weekday okay so okay so it's weekday and is it between 8 and 5 usually I went yesterday instead of today because there
was snowing it supposed to be snowing okay well how about just like Twilight you know until until it's still light out and is it a week before the application usually two weeks before when no I usually wait till I have to pack
it okay well I think we're kind of narrowing down when we would be there so they were giving a fair notice you talking about yeah week before give the homeowner a notice it's it's never pleasant when people show up unannounced so and I also encourage like
if you guys are going out I mean we all have each other's phone numbers if you have one other person that wants to come with you then they can jum along just so they know if we wanted to do the quum route one way that I could do the notice and we could just kind of backtrack it from the start time of 6:00 for every
application that we have we try to budget we could even try a bunch of time leading up to that let's say half an hour for each particular property and say I have four applications that means that we meet here starting at 4:30 3:30 whatever the time is based on how many
applications we have and if we start to realize okay we have way too much time here and we're starting to discuss banter things with open meeting law that might just not be great we need to then disseminate and meet at the next site at the scheduled time and then shorten it
up on future um notices moving forward um but you know I say we I sto my my city day here at 3 to accommodate site visits or we start at noon I would have that when I put out my notice a
knowledge of how many applications are going to be on the agenda so we could still accommodate same day as public hearing but if we get too much into the day side I don't know what that looks like for you guys also so yeah well that's it sounds like we're good how it's how it's going for right now most
cases you don't even have to set foot on the property you know most of these things are driveby you sit there and you pull up in front you look around and you're back in you know a couple different positions take a peek at it that's really all that I ever want to see like that's enough but but it seems
like it's better if we it's better for the applicant if we at least take a squint at these sites because I think it's better for them in the meetings otherwise we're just guessing absolutely be an easy addition check this box if
you'd like a call ahead um yeah yeah that's not a bad idea probably get checked every single time which I mean I would myself you know but well whatever long as it if it gets too entailed you know we just won't do
it it's what it comes down to that's where the structure yeah yeah yeah I had one that that was there over an hour last year okay well whatever like the takeaway is that there's a lot of value to come from you
guys going out there seeing the whether it be in a quum forum or not I think good for the applicant if we go but you know it's are we then on the same trajectory for continuing as is without scheduling forums fine sound sounds like it is for
now and then we can always reevaluate people all about building it forward so however however we evolve it I think I think you're putting something in the application information that you give them that we may visit the site I
it's say within on the application and in the ordinance the right to within a week before the you know before the meeting okay all right uh if there's no other questions comments I'll entertain a motion to adjourn I I got one comment
sure just related to the ordinance on Mission Road you know with uh with the size it's a conversation Steve and I have had several times and you know something for you all to look at um but an ordinance change uh just because you
even amended it tonight to uh look at and revisit the size of the auxiliary structures and kind of go back to U more comprehensive with the county if you guys are all up the speed on that yeah
we have uh I guess myself and um Joe and my previous Le on Jesse um and feedback from the council is just to kind of come up with continuous Improvement for all of our ordinances um identify opportunity for clarification evaluation as to whether
or not certain language is um contradictory or just generally not fitting the needs of the city at the time um one of the elements is the accessory structures that has been voiced that um we should take a look at
evaluate discuss um are the sizes appropriate are the principal structure sizes appropriate um the ratio for this particular applicant that we heard tonight of 150% of the ground floor living area to the attached storage um
all of those things are on the horizon I think more in the immediate quarter but um ordinances are oftentimes in this role a living entity um fitting the needs of the time so that you are properly administering land use so that
one person's enjoyment of their property doesn't impact another person's use and enjoyment of theirs um so yes accessory structures principal structure sizes all that stuff can be discussed and we can hold public hearings into Infinity for ordinance
revisions um one thing that can be dangerous I guess on staff side of it is if we're constantly evaluating it constantly changing it eventually it might be nice to take a step back and stop changing it so that people are
experiencing the Whiplash effect of Planning and Zoning when that type of stuff goes on obviously we don't want to be um taking up one particular section and changing number six in that section if we're opening one up we should open it up discuss it evaluate each bullet in
that section for legality and whether or not it fits our current plan whether it be the comp plan or just the community in general currently we have a comp plan and that's been addressed as um through like the downtown master plan thing
maybe it's isn't 100% what the community wants and needs and maybe we open that book again uh it's currently set to expire in 2030 and so in the upcoming years that would be um another thing another part of Planning and Zoning that is the leing
Beast so yeah so specifically to the auxiliary structure that was recently changed I don't know if you all know that it hasn't been all that long ago that it was changed to currently what it is
but like you like even with tonight's applicant um it didn't fit within that and in countywide um I believe that it fits better with going more with what the
county has versus the city of Nisswa and I'll say just that's the way we used to and go back to that way um you know John I think you know of this but um yeah it it's something that I think that we all
should look at but the one that I would like to see get changed um because that is a common issue a common question coming forward and tonight was a perfect example of it you know why let's look at this rule because we just voted to pass
it tonight you know so what what is the difference the county versus nisell do you know what the so fo is coming here from growing County the the requirements for a principal structure principal residential structure um wasn't as
universally applied for um the requirements that I've experienced here there's two sections in our ordinance that pertain to that aspect section 2083 which I navigated to here um has three elements to it um this
third was the most recently altered phrasing in here um a lot of time ordinance amendments are more of a reactive thing when we start seeing a lot of variance applications for
something like this that's usually an indication that maybe that language needs to be changed and that's probably the um the slower easier way to do planning and zoning and ordinance amendments we don't want to be introducing language that is flooding
this room every single time we have a Planning Commission meeting because we are than subverting the overthe counter permitting process um if we got a lot of applications to exceed this dimensional
standard that successfully passed via findings of facts by this body that might be an indication that that language needs to be Revisited um and either revised eliminated added to any of those Amendment potentials so uh the
other element of principal structures is that you um cannot put an accessory structure on a lot without a principal residence so that'd be 20- 93 go to that here um accessory structures may be only
be constructed on a lot containing a principal structure the footprint cannot be larger than the footprint of the principal structure unless a cup is obtained so that's not prohibiting that use um it's just saying that if you want a 10,000 square foot accessory structure
it's just a different pathway so that this body can review it um public hearing goes out for that structure especially with that you know just pulling a number out of the clouds here size for the neighbors to provide their comment and uh for this body to put
reasonable conditions on that permit um we have a cumulative size maximum as well for accessory structures on a lot not to exceed 2500 square ft except in the osr district where a conditional use permit is required so
and all that language is new in the last couple years you know and so you know 2500 square foot it's not very big anymore for people with a couple pontoons or boats or stone Beals you know to store stuff in and so that's some of the language
also the multiplier of the living size to the garage size that was also new um restrictive in that so you know a lot of these you know just like we saw the night Lake home cabin places they might have um you know their lake house on
this side of the road and own uh another adjacent lot on the other side of the road that they might want to park their boat their whatever in and to have it you know it might be 10 acres but it doesn't matter the lot size you're still Limited at 2 200 square feet when
there's all the other setbacks the previous coverages and stuff to go to and not to allow it bigger than 25 100 square fet that's just not that's not much of a structure anymore for people to store in so that specifically I think maybe that was your
question is the square footage in the multiplier of the house along with you know having a dwelling on it all that language has all been changed in the last just four or five years so if I
call a lot of that was directed by having I think there was a a big push for like the shell type buildings correct and a couple of lots that or like a half acre and then they're putting massive structures on it
like a like a like a machine shed and technically it wasn't their primary residence there across the road and then that that I think that's where it came from is is I yeah it came from uh really a multitude of thing in you know from my viewpoint you know a couple people but
it doesn't fit the it doesn't fit her City doesn't fit you know what we're doing I mean tonight is a good example of it you know and like Stephen said more people coming in in the last several years that I know of just with
um customers that I deal with um it's a it's a bigger issue and it it really only kind of exists here Cross Lake has a similar rule but other than that I don't know of this rule existing anywhere else peat County wide stuff
like that so yeah but they're even more lenient on on what you can do over in link Shore you're on the commission I think this he's on the commission lore this but you can have an auxiliary structure without a
dwelling even on a separate out out lot yeah yeah but I mean okay yeah it's just it's something that I would like to see changed in this because I don't I don't think it fits with what we currently have going so I don't know how we do it
talk about it as a panel here get that discussed to move on yeah what what how would you like to go about doing that would you like to meet with staff and then kind of hash out some ideas I mean Stephen and I have met I I yeah my recommendation is more to follow the
county guidelines you know we already have the prvious coverage stipulations the setback stipulations all all of that but if somebody owns a 10 or 20 acre parcel and they want to build a 4,000 sare foot building I don't think anybody
would have a problem I my you own the property my thing is you own the property you should be able to do with within reason with all the other confines and build that and not be limited to doesn't matter you own 20 acres you can still only build 2500
square feet I'd like to see that go away right yeah sure and and that and that's the way nisah always has been up until a couple years ago well to uh I guess avoid the notion of you know discussion of specific language and and stuff we
were just kind of talking at a high level at this point I would say that there's a couple different mechanisms for an ordinance amendment to be proposed a member of the public could do so individually to come up with language to that they would propose to change any
section in our ordinance too that then we could react to as a body you could engage City staff to do some review of the language and um come up with an alternative uh that we can propose at a public hearing so that we can put that
notice out um get feedback on any different versioning of it we can hold a public hearing consecutively and continue it if we get feedback saying well five of six people in the room don't like the language P well let let's take a trigger to change the language
and and polish it up for a subsequent public hearing um any time we do an ordinance Amendment this conversation really highlights the importance of what language we're putting in what type of structuring we're putting and is it a permitted use is it an allowed use is it
a conditional use or if it's on this table here and doesn't have anything in that cell it's a prohibited use you can't get a variance for a prohibited use in the state of Minnesota so it really comes down to um
diligent knowledge of what you guys are entertaining what language you're proposing to introduce and how impactful that's going to be moving forward again out of interest of avoiding Whiplash or you know introducing language and then five years later we get rid of
it I think I would love to be here for the Long Haul and eventually have an ordinance that makes sense that we can just add things to as they need to be added to rather than changing things here and there but again it just kind of
comes down to um holding the public hearing figuring out does the language fit and if you're not comfortable with it don't provide recommendation until you are comfortable with it if members of the public are you know not liking this maybe some elements are are slam dunks
and we just say you know eliminate that section's alterations from this ordinance and move forward accept that and then we take it to city council have the U vote from them and then put notice in the paper and way we go and we just kind of
polished this living document forward um but keeping that in mind that language that you introduce tells me how I need to do my job and how I administer and enforce the ordinance so um really marinate on on that so I would
just start by copying Kwing counties and have it more aligned with that that that' be my recommendation did we look at these we did look at this comparison when we were working with Chris but yeah we talked about did size of the
structures and the percentage of garage that wasn't an element of this change all the highlighted versions here are was talked about so there was nothing from at least this most recent yeah this was something Chris had also
spoke of that we might want to look at but it wasn't talked about this last time had a discussion about we did and and that was there's a list of this future stuff that need to look at so to kind of back up even when Bethany was here there was kind of a list
already being creative of ordinances that probably needed to be looked at or changed that had gotten adjusted in the last several years that maybe is not in line with stuff and that's hence bringing Chris on and then moving forward with Stephen now there's
still this ongoing list of things like this that have been identified that were um there were a lot of maybe um reactionary decisions made here um before a lot of your time on this board due to developments in the area
different situations that um some some changes got made like Stephen was saying a little quicker without the proper thought process going through and now that we've identified them and and Stephen has said yeah you know this this
is something people are coming in and like I say again tonight we already had one this would have been an overthe counter permit just a couple years ago and at the county level it would have been over the- counter permit and it wouldn't have had to go through this process so just a prime example that's
why I bring it up because this this is actually happening more often than we realize in our town in in something that I would like to see addressed and follow more of the the county guidelines and and that's what Chris had talked about
too and I will just I want to make a note just from past practice too sometimes we put these more restrictive things in place to have it come to the Planning Commission to know what's going on and where we can make improvements or not and then we go back and revise it
whether it's right or wrong but those things have been done in the past I mean most most revisions are going to be reactionary based on what's Happening so okay yeah for examp on one of these you know like if say this wasn't a structure
say they wanted to put a 10,000 sare foot on a 10 acre lot that was residentially zoned like open space residential for example um our ordinance currently allows that to happen through a conditional use process um
maybe without opening up the floodgates we'd look at these cells here because just like the table above under Section 2093 oh I scrolled too fast um anything that doesn't have a pathway to permitting is prohibited
so maybe a halfway ground would be the discussion of adding those elements to be a conditional use to get in front of the Body for that so that it's not where we are um getting a variance or a prohibited use um so that would be I
guess in light of mag's comment the the you know a pathway forward to get a Le lease reviewed to make sure that um people feel heard neighbors feel heard that they were able to attend a public hearing they uh provided their comments
whether it be for or against a lot of times people come in and and you know are a little heeded against and I always encourage you know I provide all comments whether it's for or against the any any notion um because a lot of times the the fours don't get heard enough
so uh one potential would be to add you know or open up these here to be more of a conditional use and less standardized you know it's just if the goal is for me to be able to issue an overthe counter permit then I
come to these sections and evaluate the proposal against what standards we've adopted and so that tells me how to do my job on the data today and just acknowledgement that that language is very important on that aspect so we could also reach out and have Chris help
us with this too because really that's what he's done has gone through a bunch of this stuff and helped us get more in line with stuff that wasn't looked at by somebody like him you know and has kind of I guess I'll say got us in different
situations that we don't want to be in is that a fair assessment correct well well it's just like tonight you know we just approve that which great I I think it should be approved but now how how can we sit here and not
approve the next one too and so if we're constantly doing that that tells us we need to look at ordinance yeah but each each project is unique though for instance the one that was in here tonight that's a that's a unique neighborhood where he is any decisions in Planning and Zoning he in another
spot where you had or case bye you had Tinker toy is right down the street you'd never allow that well you but explaining that to the population why that's different they don't always understand that that's where if the rules were more in line with hey it
doesn't it's not allowed because of the perious coverage issue it's not allowed because the setback issue we all we still have all these other ordinances and rules in place why it may not be allowed on their property you know to take a look
at so just just saying I I agree with you we we should look at this sooner than later and try and get some of this corrected right and whether it be engagement with Chris pensan or you know an individual staff thing I uh going to be
coming into a busy season with the construction season starting up here but um some of these changes like you're saying we don't want to be um it's hard to say 100% but prohibiting any type of or obstructive of development but we want it to be
sensical development and we want it to fit some type of adopted plan um like the comp plan that's where a lot of these ordinances get driven from and written from um on a planning side so um happy to take a stab at it if you want
to engage me to do that happy to reach out to Chris Pence that would be more of a city council um recommendation and maybe we table well not I guess this isn't even an agenda item so we can put it on new business to provide recommendation for
an ordinance Amendment pertaining to certain sections I can start drafting that up and if the choice comes to engage Professional Services that comes out of the budget which is another consideration so
um yeah I'm here so happy to do whatever it is that you guys want but uh might be best to put this on new business for mace meeting and then bring certain SE sections on that living list of these
are ideal things to address accessory structures principal structures I can bring that list forward and you guys can see it see what we're talking about whatever okay if there's nothing else I'll entertain a motion to adjourn so
move all those in favor I I all those opposed motion carries we are adjourned for