Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey buddy, how are you? Good. Hang in. Trying to So sorry for your loss. Yeah, I was Don't lose a brother. It's terrible. So terrible. You weren't thinking you were going to be here. We just flew in last night. Yeah. Don't lose your brother. It's easier to bury parents. Much easier. It's okay. What do you do? It's part of life. Just hard. It's going to take a bit. Yeah. He was like my brother, I think. Okay. So, you guys were close. Well, and I mean the whole family business and companies, he was the construction guy and they built and I got all these young nephews that have to take into those steps and nobody like you should calculate it, but you can't. Not ready. No, just Yeah, you never are. No, I'm not. You never are. But it's okay. It is what it is. Yeah. It is what it is. It's nice memorial. Hi, sweetheart. I don't know. There's like 700 people at the funeral home. It was stupid. Yeah. Never seen so many people. How you doing, buddy? I'm all right. How you doing, big guy? Pretty good. Full of energy, it looks like. Yeah. He's a very convincing one. You nervous, Noah? How's it going? Good. You're not nervous? Perfect. Smart boy. No worries. I'll be honest. Does your hockey stuff start soon now? Your hockey camps? I just got back from Where were you at? Down in Blaine. Nice. Was it good? Yeah, it was awesome. Lots of kids. Yeah.

So, this week, but it got cancelled. We cancelled it because we didn't have enough kids signed up. But in this case, power anyways. Oh, God is good, huh? Yeah. Oh, crazy. Okay. You like it? You like what you're doing? It's good. Happy. Feel better. I've got a week left on a project. I'm only one other small project to do. And then then all of your energy goes there. 90%. It probably will never be done. I get it. Because you're going to be like, "Okay, I'll help you. Well, Noah's going to be bothering you for a while. Well, just teach them. Leave it with him. Where is everyone at home? I'm getting nervous. That's right. Oh, and you'll keep buying them 100%. I hope so. Should follow his lead. I maybe, but I told him he should just make me I talked earlier. We did have a Well, you can be a partner. You just got to put a lot of money forward for No one responded that they couldn't come or everybody responded. Do you hear money for He has not. He He is a very good boy and I'll be the first I know you do. You always convince him I'm evil and No, I don't. I just am like listen to me. Right. Super Bowl. Yeah. I don't know what's going on. I'm always trying to educate him. I want him to win. I want him to win big. Me too. Me too. But he whether he wins big or not, it has nothing to do with you as far as you're getting none of the reward. I totally understand. Cuz we talk about that. I'm like, tell him to go. He'll build his own wealth. I fully understand that. No, we're proud of Noah. That's no question. No question. You've done big things, kiddo. He's done really big things. No, don't

tell him because No, it doesn't. I I break it right down. I'm like, "But you're still an idiot." Right. He's like, "But I'm like, but you're still an idiot." So he's like, "Ah, in a very nice way." Just four. Four. What's going on? How you doing? Good. Good. Well, and I could I was going to I guess abstain. Yeah. But that doesn't mean I'm not counting for qu if I just abstain. Right. I guess so. But hopefully one more person will show. Good point. We need four Sarah. Yes. We'll wait just one or two more minutes. Give them two minutes. Yeah. Jill, you're probably Oh, wait. You can keep talking amongst yourselves. just thankfully. Oh, great. Hi. You can hear me? I can't. Sorry. I logged in and I had to go use the restroom. Oh, yeah. No problem. Um, just so you're aware, you're on my phone. We can't get our webcam working. So, I'm going to just try to put you somewhere where you'd be near a microphone during your part of the meeting. Um, and then if you need to say

something, I'll just try to watch. Okay. Yeah. And Sherry Arens is going to be there with Westwood and I'm really just a backup in case there's I'm looking right at Sherry right now. So, she's here. Perfect. So, she'll take the lead for us. If you need me, holler at me. Okay, sounds great. Thank you so much. You like it? Yeah. Thank you, Claire. [Music] You know, I have my name etched in that spot here. Just kidding. Creatures of habit. We'll see how this one goes. If it's not, we'll just switch chairs. I could even sit on that side. You could. That'd be a big one. That' be a very aggressive move if he saw him sat over there. Wayne's always been my right-hand man. I today he's your left. He's my left. And then I'm Today you're dyslexic and you have left and right confusion. All right, we will call the meeting to order. First thing on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the May 27th, 2025 planning commission meeting. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve. Thank you. A second. Second. All in favor say I. I. oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Next thing on the agenda is approval of the agenda. We have a motion to approve the agenda. I'll move. Second. All in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. All right. We will go on to our new business. Tonight we have five public hearings. Our first public hearing is a request to consider a conditional use permit to operate a car/truck service and repair shop in a B2 service

business district located at 1701 West Lincoln Avenue. And I will turn it over to Clara Beck for a staff report. Thank you, Madame Chair, and thank you to all of our applicants and everybody who's here in the audience tonight. Um, Jill, do you think you could switch my screen for me over? Oh, nope. Okay, wait. Oh, goodness. Just the first one. So, your first two cases that you have on your agenda um C20253 and the preliminary and final plat for um centerpoint edition. Those are related items. So, they're going to be um hopefully reviewed mostly together, but they will be separate public hearings because that is what is required by state law. So, um first up is our conditional use for this project. Um the applicants are um required to seek a conditional use for the use that is going to be at that location based on the zoning which is B2. Um an interesting fact that you may note from the zoning map. Um Jill, can you skip ahead to the to this case please? One more. Okay. Um, I'll back up a little bit. So, our our location is the current location of um Pine Plaza. Quilting Quilters Cottage has already moved, I believe. Um, but that's where they were located. Uh, this site is going to be purchased and redeveloped to be a Lewab Tire Center. Um, and it the lot, as you will see during the platting process, is being split in two. Um, but the specific use for tire sales, basic car repairs, things that go along with

that kind of a use in a B2 zone requires a conditional use permit. So, that's what we are doing first here. Um, this site is zoned B2 with a small chunk at the very bottom of the parcel that is zoned um, R4. This is a holdover from a previous platting process that did not clean up that zoning. Um, so we're going to operate as if that zoning is cleaned up because at our next planning commission meeting, that's what we will do. We will make sure that this entire lot is zoned B2, which is the intent. Um, however, right now, technically, our zoning map does show that the very bottom of that parcel is is um R4. Uh so the proposed findings for this um request for the conditional use um all criteria were met by staff review. We did not see anything that indicated that this would be any kind of a dangerous use, a use that would um change the the nature of the area in any way. there are no historic or um any um landmarks that are of significance in the area. Uh so essentially it will be continuing uh the commercial nature of that use. So, um staff does recommend the approval of the conditional use with the condition that uh once the platting process is complete and the lot split is done that the city be made aware of the new parcel and um legal description of the of the lot that will contain the tire center so that the conditional use can be attached to that. I'm happy to take any questions. We also have um the applicants in the audience. So, is one of the lots going to just be sold off or what is the intent of that

piece of property? Do we know? I believe it's just for future development at this time. Just development. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. I will open it up for public hearing. If you have any comments to make regarding this application, you can come up to the microphone, state your name, where you live, and you can state your comment. John Clard, I own JK Sports. When u when would this start as far as the redevelopment of the parcel? Right. I do not have that information. I believe it's in 2026. 2026. 2026. Okay. Uh, another question. What about the uh road in in in front of there? Obviously with a lot of lot of traffic. Is that something that's going to be looked at? That that frontage road is not good right now. Yeah, that's also a question outside of the scope of the planning commission. So, essentially what'll happen is is once we um approve and or deny this application, it would go up to the city council um and the city council has the final authority um on it. And at that point, they also are the ones that make the decisions regarding roads. And obviously there's city roads and I, you know, county, state, and I would assume that that would be a city road, but I'm not, I'm not sure off the top of my head. So the council would be the the body to ask that question to, I believe, address that during the platting. This one is just the conditional use. Yep. So what Clara said is that question also

could be addressed during the platting. This is just the conditional use. Okay. So the platting will be the next public hearing like in just a few minutes. Okay. And I don't know if this pertains to it, but if we are looking at, you know, sewer, water, and that type of thing, I would assume that we would be notified if they have to shut electricity off because obviously I can't operate if I don't have power. So, would we be notified? I would I'll let Clara speak on that, but I would assume that the city notifies any uh businesses that never happened since I've been with the city that that kind of notification has been if if electricity is going to be shut off, I would assume that Ottertale Power would let anyone affected know. Okay. But that's never come across my desk. Well, it has it has happened to us when they were working in the mall. They didn't tell us and I I'm sitting here when we were making jackets. I'm sitting there paying employees to sit on their butt because we had no electricity and they couldn't run machines. So that's the reason why I asked the question. We're going back late 90s, early 2000. But so that was that's the reason why I asked the question. would we be notified so I could plan appropriately not to tell my embroidery people to come in or screen printing if we're not going to have electricity. So that's the only questions that I have. Okay. Thank you. Any other public comments? All right, we will close the public

hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion. Any questions or discussion? If not, someone want to make a motion. I'll make a motion. Second. Make a motion to approve with the conditions to approve all with a conditional use permit. Um, and you want a second? Yep. Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. Oppose. Same sign. All right, that is approved. We'll move on to our second public hearing which is related. Um, and this is for the preliminary plat and final plat of the same property. Turn it over to Clarbec again for staff report. Thank you, Madam Chair. You go forward two for me, Jill. Oh my gosh. Now backward many and one more. All right. Um so this is the replat of this lot. Um, as I mentioned during the conditional use permit discussion briefly, um, the intent is that this parcel will be split in two. Um, the applicant is Houston Engineering on behalf of the Schwab Tire Center. And again, we do have u representatives of the applicants here in the audience should you have very specific questions about um, the platting process. Uh, we also have Josiah Roststead with us from Moore Engineering. more engineering um is doing the city engineering services for us now. So, this will be a nice opportunity for us for us to get to meet Josiah as well. Um but from the staff re

review perspective at 1701 West Lincoln Avenue, um they have been approved to move forward with the preliminary and final plat. Uh there were a couple conditions that were um suggested by the um engineering group's initial review which were to update utility easements along the internal lot lines, the west property line and along right ofways prior to the plat being recorded. Um I also noted that they should update and resubmit their SWIP um which is storm water management um paperwork and permitting uh prior to issuance of a building permit. I have since learned that they have already submitted that paperwork so that can that condition can be struck. Um and then maybe to somewhat address uh Mr. Clint's comments from earlier regarding the right of way um that frontage road there. Uh it has been requested that this um group dedicate um right of way to the city. Um, in this case, it has the city has only had access access through an easement. Um, this would dedicate the right of way specifically to the city. And maybe I will let Josiah come up and just talk a little bit more about all of the requirements here. Well, thank you for the introduction. Um, like Claire said, I am Josiah Rosed. I work for Moore Engineering. Um, so just going to walk through a little bit about what we did. Um, our intent here was to review the preliminary and final plaid in accordance with the ordinances that the city has uh in place. And so really, I don't know if you guys have the document that we put together. Basically, we put this document together that just lists what are they required to submit in order um for this application of a preliminary and final plat. One thing to note is that preliminary and final plat are uh

allowed by ordinance to be submitted simultaneously. And so that was one question that initially came up and I just want you to know that is uh allowable per the ordinance. Um not going to go through this step by step um just because most of the things were checked off. I'll kind of hit on the items that Clara had pointed out here. Um a couple of the items like the um pedestrian ways utility easements. According to the ordinance, they do require them along all of the property lines and um somewhere in 10 um 10 feet along certain roadways and somewhere u 5 ft each side on interior lot lines um stuff like that. And so um along with the frontage road um as Claire mentioned that was or currently is just under an easement that the city has access to. And so as a part of this process as they're going through here, um we recommend again doesn't have to be, but we recommend that that is something that at this point would be kind of cleaned up so that when road infrastructure, utility infrastructure does need to get completed, the city has the right to do that. Now, now you do in an easement, but typically within your public rightway, it's it's easier to manage some of that. Um, I do want to note that we did receive an updated preliminary and final plot from the applicant that already included that information. And so I don't know, Claire, has that been sent to everybody? I know that came in. I think it is in hard copy on their desks. Okay. So, yes, all of the items that were mentioned here, even as recommendations, most of those have actually been updated prior to this meeting. So, um, with that, yeah, outside of that, uh, everything else was included. And so I don't really have uh a lot to say on this one. So appreciate your time. Thank you. All right. Anything else on that? Okay. We will open this up for public hearing. If anyone has a comment again, you can come up, state your name and where you live.

All right, without any comments, we will bring it back to the commission for discussion. Anyone have any questions, concerns? All right. Do we have a motion? I'll make the motion to approve. Approve with with the conditions as outlined by staff. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Second. I will second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. Oppose. Same sign. All right. Motion carries. We'll go on to our third public hearing and request to consider a variance to add a six-foot covered porch in the front yard of a R21 and two family residence district located at 1222 North Lake Street. Turn it over again to Clara for staff report. Thank you, Madame Chair. One second here. Let's get our um she'll go to the chrome. All right. The case before you here is a variance to allow for a 6-foot front porch to encroach into the front yard setback of a home in an R2 zone. Um, per city code, we require that there be a front yard of um up to 30 feet in our residential zones. um with new construction or newer plots that have

been put together. Um however, this home was built in 1910, which was well before our zoning code. So already it is further um further forward toward the street than you would maybe see with a a newer construction home. So basically anything that the homeowner is going to do to this home is going to encroach into that front yard. So, the request is for a variance to allow for a 6-ft um covered porch to be placed on the front of the home. Um that would also shift the front door of the home from the side where you can kind of see it there off of the driveway um facing the the street. So, um the request is based on the fact that the home was built in 1910. Any updates that the homeowner is going to do is going to encroach into the um front yard. It's um significantly in line with most of the other homes on the block. So, the addition of the front porch would add just a few feet putting it um slightly from a bird's eye view putting it slightly ahead of the over other homes, but certainly nothing out of character with um with the area. So, staff review um suggests that we approve it without any conditions. Um Jill, I don't know if you can just go to that recommendation. Oh my gosh. Sorry, this thing is very touchy, apparently. Oh, that's the wrong variance. Um, we'll ignore that. So, the request is to approve the variance to allow for a 6ft covered front porch in the front yard in an R2 zone for uh 1222 North Lake Street. And we do have the applicant in the audience should you have any questions. Thank you, Clara. We'll now open this up for public hearing. If you have any comments, come up and state your name and where you live and um you can provide your comments.

All right, without any comments, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion. Anyone have any questions, comments? Who's the applicant? Oh, hi. I noticed the second picture showing the covered porch. It eliminated the driveway. Is that something you're actually considering? That was just AI. Okay. I know that's not part of, you know, the the variance you're you're requesting. I just wanted to double check and make sure nothing we did here would be implying that uh we you know, off-screen parking where you don't need it. Yeah. So there's a property the property to the south looks like that it extends past the front of this one existing your property does it shoot out already or just looking at the aerial it looks like to the south does it I'm saying the south house sticks out already yeah farther yeah if you would look in a straight line either awnings or stairs steps are already sticking past nose property. So, this like Clara said, this would probably stick out a couple feet farther, but wouldn't in my opinion would not restrict any visual blockage, right? Being in the middle of the block like it is. Yeah. Yep. Yep. It's still set back in my opinion far enough to the point where it's not going to be blocking any view for the neighbors, right, or obstruction in the street or anything like that. That would be that would be my concern and I don't see that. Any other discussion? Does anyone have a motion to approve with? Make a motion to approve the variance that he's asking for with no

conditions. No conditions. I have a second. I'll second that. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. All right, we will go on to our next public hearing and request to consider a variance to reduce a 10-ft parking setbacks to 5 ft along the property lines and to 0 feet between uh two parcel ID numbers uh by Division 25 LLC at 528 Western Avenue. I'll turn it over to Clare Beck for staff report. Thank you. This is another set of related actions. Um, this is a variance based on the plat that you'll be reviewing next. Um, maybe it would have made more sense to do it after, but I did it the same order that we did the first one. So, um, essentially, uh, we have here 528 Western Avenue, which is was most recently the Burger King closest to the, um, I94 exits here in Fergus Falls. Uh the proposal is to redevelop that lot as two separate parcels. Um in order to do so uh and and for those two parcels to be able to share parking facilities because they will be related businesses or at least um complimentary businesses. In order for them to share parking, which is an allowable um use in our city code, we do need to remove any setbacks for parkings in between the two newly created lots. Then the applicants are also requesting that um they be able to uh put parking facilities or at least black top 5 ft closer to the parcel lines than we would normally allow. In the B2, we have a 10-ft setback. They're asking for a 5-ft setback. Um when you look at the the businesses that are operating in that area, the way that

they have their parking lots laid out, um visually it's a it's a minimal change from from what we would have required initially. Um but it does allow for better traffic flow for them for their two colllocated businesses. Um and also taking into account an easement at the bottom of the parcel that leads through to um the American. They do access their parking lot um through this this parcel. that easement would remain in place. Um so that is the variance request um just for those parking setbacks between the new two new parcels and then around um the sides of the newly created parcels. Thank you, Clara. All right, we will open We have the applicants here too. Sorry. Okay, perfect. We'll open this up for uh the public hearing. If you have any comments, you can come up to the microphone again, say your name and where you live and provide your comments. All right, no comments. We will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion. Any questions for the applicant or questions regarding the variance for Clara? Yeah. Clara, could could you just show us or show me since I'm asking where the pinch points are of the the zero foot setback and reducing from 10 to five, right? Um like where's the where's the where's the line splitting or like like can you just point where we're suggesting the setback should be should be reduced relative to the line lines that we're discussing? Um, yes I can. Um, so here is where the the zero foot would be. You know, is there that's a lot line splitting along. Yeah, this would be the

lot line. They're splitting along this kind of center line. And then uh this is the parcel line. So here would be the five foot setback. This is where they would um be having a traffic flow go through for like a like a drive-thru. Okay. And this is so north is up, south is down, correct? Okay. Yep. And then similarly on this side, this darker line is the parcel line and then likewise a five foot set back. Obviously, this is an entrance there. Does that help? That helps. Yeah, if I'm not mistaken, there's something of a slope that's on the east boundary line anyways that goes up to uh the hotel, right? Yeah. Thank you. Yep. Does this repotting require any storm water considerations? We Well, the plat's the next. That's right. That's right. Yes. So maybe this is this is what it is. Yep. You're right. Any other discussion regarding the variance? Do we have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the variance as stated. Okay. Second. I second. Any further discussion? Just want to note that I'm abstaining from the vote. It's the owner of the lot is my client, so I'll abstain from voting and discussion. Thank you, Ryan. Any further discussion? Just a curiosity question. So, the parking, I'm assuming there's parking with the Burger King existing building, um, which comes up against the other parking. Does it get to be any issue with that closeness proximity of those two? Do you want to comment how much how much

space is between the two parking areas for each building? Um, good evening. I'm Dave Carland with uh Venture Pass Partners and Joe Ratic is here with me as well. He's a project engineer. So, I'm not Are you talking about on the on the bottom on the south end? Is Well, I see the parking spots on the on the new building, but I I can't really make out the parking spots on the existing Burger King. That's going away. Yeah, the existing Burger King is not going to be there. All right. Oh, Burger King's going away. No, never mind. Anybody wants some playground equipment, we've got some. Okay, we'll donate. Interesting. Any other discussion? All right. So, we had a we had a motion. We got a second. All right. All in favor say I. I. I. Oppose. Same sign. All right. Motion carries. We'll go to the last uh public hearing and request to consider a preliminary plat and final plat for the same property. We'll turn it over to Clarbec for staff report. And because Josiah did such a nice job with the other one, I might just turn it almost directly over to him after I just um say very briefly that again this is uh the same site. It is a related Wow, why did that get so loud? Um related action. They're going to be splitting this lot into two um based on the approval of the variance. They can have those co colllocated parking facilities for the two businesses that they hope to have colllocated there. The easement is going to remain in place. Um and yeah, Josiah, if you want to just dive on in. Perfect.

Well, thank you again. Um I I'll go through a very similar uh preview here for this site. So overall they did submit everything that they were required to. Um it is allowable to do a preliminary and final at the same time. Um one of the big things we talked about was that variance that passed. Um I I do want to note the existing Burger King is actually their parking was closer and so they are making it better as a part of this project. So, um, as I go down, um, we just had a few items of things that they needed to identify as part of the plat. Um, I believe those are getting addressed. Um, I heard the question about storm water um, as a part of this process. So, um, what they will need to do is they will need to apply for a swip permit. Um, because they are disturbing more than one acre of land. They do not need to provide storm water management as a part of this project because they do not produce more than an acre of additional impervious on top of what's there. Obviously today existing it's all asphalt for the most part along with the building. And so um that is not a requirement um of this development. So I just want to point that out. We did note that in our review um as we were going through that. Um, outside of that, um, one thing and and I'm actually going to call them up here to just, uh, kind of discuss their plan here. Um, we identified, um, they should have interior a 5ft interior utility and drainage easement between the properties. Um, and I guess I'll let them just give a little explanation on that one, um, as to u, it sounds like you guys are hoping for variance on that. So, I'll let them explain that and then leave it up to you. Thank you, Josiah. Absolutely. again. Dave Carland, I um thanks for having us. I didn't get a chance to say hi. Great day to drive up here and we've got another project that's almost identical we're doing in Alexandria. So, having fun in this part of the uh this part of the country and

uh Claire's been doing a great job accommodating. You know, we've got a really aggressive schedule and we got kind of a um we hear it snows pretty early up here, so we're trying to get this project in the ground August 1st. So thanks firstly for accommodating us on that variance and just secondly allowing us to expedite this and we it was a little bit of a loop coming back in with this replat. We had originally intended to have the both the buildings on the single lot but our tenants pretty adamant that you know particularly just for real estate tax purposes and the like they like to have their building on a single lot and that's also something that you know lenders prefer. So, it was a little bit of an about face and that was a little bit of what was driving the uh the variance again. But relative to the um the plat and I I I think it's I think Josiah would agree it's pretty boilerplate to have, you know, an interior easement, but in our case, it's it's not necessary. It's not needed. And I mean, you wouldn't believe the title survey. There's just a bunch of easements and stuff that we're dealing with here anyway. it's just cleaner not to have an easement there if it's not needed or necessary. So, I don't know that it's a variance. I just think it's a condition, you know, to the plat that we would uh request be eliminated. So, did I properly did I'll maybe just add a little more color. So, the easement we're talking about is along the common lot line. We have exterior easements around the perimeter of the property, which is standard for platting. And then most cities require an interior lot line easement. So if you have two houses being built next to each other, there would be a common easement down the middle for small utilities and the like. Um here that easement would be running through our parking lot. So it's just an incumbrance that we're asking to be removed just because it's never going to be able to be used. So that's the request. Sounds good.

Thank you. And it was a condition of approval of the preliminary plat. So I guess technically we're asking for that condition to be correct. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicants or for staff regarding this request? All right, I will open it up for public hearing. No comments. I'll bring it back to the commission for discussion. I guess I just want to say uh Dave and I didn't catch your name, Joe. Thank you for choosing Fergus Falls and developing a property that is much overdue to be developed. So, appreciate it. I'll just note that given that there's already easements on the two, you know, two of the exterior lot line for plot lines, I don't see an issue with not making them have one in that interior plot line. I don't see any issue with it either. I don't either. Any other questions or comments? Otherwise, do we have a motion? I have a question. Could be a silly question. The easement that we're talking about would be, you would think, dedicated for plowing in or potentially underground utilities or assets, but it's a shared parking lot, right? So, I mean, visitors come and go. There's no, you know, it's open to the public. They can drive wherever they want. We're not giving I mean I want to think about the full idea of you know easement and and what that

may be needed for. Um well well as part of the as part of the development we're going to have a declaration there's going to be a reciprocal cross easement for parking ingress and egress. So this is separate. This would be a easement to the city for the purposes of utilities that would never need to go there. I see. So, it's just cleaner not to every time you're doing title not to have to explain to a tenant or a lender or whomever that nothing's going on in this easement underneath the parking lot. Okay. Yeah. It does not restrict access or anything like that. No, no, no. Doesn't restrict any utilities or anything to that effect. I mean, we need the utilities to the building, so we'll make sure they get there. Yep. For sure. All right. Do we have any other discussion or someone want to make a motion? I can make a motion to approve the plot as presented striking the I think it's a five foot utility easement for the city down the center of the dividing line. So I think it would be approval of the preliminary and final plat for the property with no waving the requirement for an interior lot line easement. Correct. Better said Sarah. Second it. Second. Any further discussion? All right. All in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Thanks again. All right, the next thing on the agenda is a proposal um uh regarding shorland management. I'll turn it over to Clara.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's actually two proposals. Um I just did not update the um agenda appropriately. The first request is related to shoreland management. Um, we've been working on those updates with the DNR for I don't know, it feels like going on forever now. And, um, just the back and forth that's required along with the con like consistently being added changes that the DNR is sending. Um, I touched base with WSB who's done some work with us on strategic planning in the past and they have handled shoreland management updates for some other communities. um they have provided a propo proposal to finalize our shoreland management updates um with the DNR and then get us to a point where we can do the final public hearing and accept those changes at the council level for a not to exceed amount of $5,000. Um working with WSB to finish those uh those required changes from the DNR is just going to be hugely capacity adding for us. um it's very time inensive for staff and we just there aren't enough of us to um do what needs to be done to finish that project to the um to the standards of of what the DNR is requesting. So WSB is willing to make those updates and then present them to the um planning commission and council in such a way that they'll have a a table that shows what the DNR standards are, what our current um shoreland management ordinance is requiring and then what those changes would be. Um and then planning commission can decide from there if those are acceptable changes to make. Um so that's our first request. Second request is similar but um more related to updating our city code to be friendlier for different kinds of housing um housing footprints, things

like that. um Minnesota Housing Partnership and the Minnesota Greater Minnesota Housing Fund um have developed programming that is also capacity building for smaller communities uh to be able to take a look at their their zoning code and determine um where some pain points might be for new housing development, ways that changes could be made. um they are uh able to do that work funded by Minnesota Housing Fund um up to $5,000 and um are ready and prepared to do just an initial audit for us and then a presentation to our planning commission of um their auditor's findings. Brienne Rothstein is their is the um certified planner that they have uh on on retainer to do this work for um communities who choose to take part in their uh capacity building programming. So two different requests for you. Um one of them would require budget that would be the um shoreland management. We do have professional services budget still available in our planning commission budget. Um, and then Minnesota Housing Fund would be uh doing the uh would be paying for the um audit on our on our zoning code for housing related updates. I'm happy to answer questions. I haven't really looked in to this a whole lot, so you're going to have to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe kind of the basic requirement of the city is to be compliant with the DNR's shoreland ordinance, right? And so we had talked previously about like, well, why don't we just adopt it? Yes. And um then obviously we're compliant with it because we just we're just going to say

the same thing. Uh-huh. Uh, and we've decided to not go that route. Um, previous planning commission, yes, they did discuss, um, they did discuss just wholesale adopting the shoreline management ordinant that the ordinance that the DNR has available for cities to adopt. Um, felt that that was that that could cause problems for us locally. Did not want to give up that local control. So, chose not to go that direction. Now, city staff did quite a bit of work in the recent past trying to redline our existing code to conform with the DNR request. Yeah. And I thought the planning commission had approved those changes. We did and then we sent them to the DNR and they sent more changes. Okay. So, that so that's that's kind of where we sit today. Y and um was it just that we took so long to incorporate those? Nope. I think that they must I mean I I can't speak for the DNR but they must make continual or ch they must make changes and then it's like every time we send something to them they find more things that they find out of compliance and would like us to update. So, so is is the the the additional changes that they're asking for that's what's going to tax the bandwidth of current staff or is it that you think this is going to just keep on going, you're going to have multiple iterations of this or is it a combination of both those? I I would say it's a combination of both. Okay. It's getting it's getting the ordinance cleaned up first the way that they want it and then going through and making further changes because it's it's to things like density requirements and stuff that just requires like a lot of technical review and I first of all don't have the a planning background necessarily like I'm not a trained

planner so some of that is harder for me to do without that background and then it's again it's just Jill and me in in community development and the back and forth with the DNR really does take a decent amount of time. And you said we have money in the budget this year to do this? We do. Yes. Has city council been able to weigh in on this expense or has it not been ripely before them? Nope. Um, I would be requesting this through planning commission and um, since it's not to exceed $5,000, I would think that it would be within planning commission's perview to use that money from the planning budget. Um, but I will check with the city administrator and if he would prefer it go to council, then I would take the request to them. I think it's important and noted that this is within the existing budget and this is not an additional expenditure outside of what has already been budgeted. Correct. We have had So the reason that we have I don't know if extra budget is necessarily like the right way to say it, but the reason that we have funds that have not been earmarked for something else and could be used for this review is because we've had changes in um how we're managing our GIS department. We initially had um a chunk of money in our budget that was set aside for updates to our GIS um which planning commission and then the GIS department were splitting. Uh but now that we've shifted to from in-house engineering to um using more engineering uh a lot of our our GIS needs are being met through that partnership. So we have that's where that money is is a little bit more flexible now. Okay. And did I hear correctly that this is something that we can approve as an

expense? It doesn't go up to another higher reviewing level if you want to call that city council. Is that what I'm hearing? I I would say that that's accurate. Okay. I could be proven wrong. It has happened before. And what is the overall expense that you're going to use? Is it not to exceed $5,000? And do you have already numbers that have been given to you that this will cost you? They the the amount the number so it's in your in your packet. Their proposal is is not to exceed 5,000. So they included some um hourly Yeah. hourly rates. Uh, I don't know if they gave an estimate of ours, but but the option does exist to simply adopt the DNR shoreland management ordinance and then we would not be doing these updates. We would simply just strike our old shoreland management and incorporate the new. Well, I guess my my only I I have a couple things. We've probably spent more than $5,000 in your staff time dealing with thus thus far and we'll probably spend that moving forward. It sounds like cuz it's like this neverending wheel that you're on. Um it feels that way. It feels that way. Yeah. Um, it's also I you know there are a lot of things that get put on your plate that a city planner would would do and and without that training and expertise it's not fair to you uh to expect you to to do that either. Um, but my only question is is that I I guess I'm like a little confused as to why if the DNR is saying that we have to be compliant with their ordinance, like what authority do we have to come up with something other than what they already have? Great question. And that's

one that we have posed to the DNR in various ways um a couple different times and the response is simply that it is required that we be compliant and they say that the DNR would then come in and um if if we were not meeting those standards then the DNR would come in and um enforce those standards. Now that said, I am unaware of any community in which case that has like actually taken place and at what cost is that enforcement then? I don't know. Sarah and Clara, do you remember the basis for the decision of not just incorporating the boilerplate DNR requirements? I feel like com Commissioner Kildy maybe had some concerns. It had I can't remember. We had some dimensions in our existing code that she felt it was well she and and other commissioners felt it was important to um continue to maintain like the DNR had different restrictions for height. We wanted to be able to have more flexibility with the height of a building that that sort of thing. So it was it was more of a a resistance to um to enforcing standards that uh we had not initially set ourselves. Mhm. Um, I guess my my thought is is that I support this request, but I would like to take, if we possibly could, maybe one more month before making a decision on it. Okay. And I will take it upon myself to maybe educate myself a little bit more about what the city's requirements

are versus what the DNR is expecting of us. Sure. and figure out maybe what the pros or cons would be of just adopting the shoreline ordinance or not. Okay. Before we move forward with the $5,000 sense, I don't know thoughts. Or we could just go forward with it, too. I just don't know. Part of the review that WSB would be doing is pointing out exactly where our code differs and where the DNR would be requiring that we make changes. Um, so th so they would be pointing out those those those pieces that we would be hoping to maintain and then it would be up to us at that point to decide, you know, do we do we continue to maintain the requirements that we had initially set or do we adopt what the DNR is requiring and then kind of go from there and decide, you know, does that concern us that the DNR could come in and enforce different restrictions? Has anybody reached out to uh Virginia Mountain Iron? She re she references them in her letter. No, I have not. Because what would be different for them than it would be for us. Zoning codes are are different everywhere. But yeah, I don't I don't From the DNR's perspective. Oh, that's for the housing the housing one. The housing audit. That's the second piece of this request. Oh, okay. Gotcha. So, it would be I I I would be in favor of of approving the 50002 with some assurances from DNR that they're going to give this their final and best look at it and not come back with, oh, by the way, we want this, too. And I don't I don't know if it's even possible to get that from them. We don't

have any control. We don't I don't have any I know. So that's that's just that's the hesitancy, right? Is we're spending money to do things that are at the end of the day we're still going to be out of compliance with. Well, I think I mean WS they have experience doing this. Yes. Yeah. And they know what they're doing and so I think maybe I have a little bit misunderstanding is that there it's not a just you have to be compliant with our shoreland ordinance. the DNR has certain things that we need to be compliant with. So what they would do is essentially look at our existing and peace meal in and they would do all the the formatting like the very the just the technical pieces of it that is so time inensive for us locally. Yeah. Mhm. So whether we spend it locally or we hire someone, there is really no I mean either I take like two to three weeks of my normal time and and I'm the one that does this and then I can't answer people's questions about garages all day or just kidding too. I I I think like I yeah like I said we've probably already spent $5,000 in your time and we're going to spend that moving forward. you know, the fact that we don't have a city planner, that this isn't within Clara's expertise, that I have empathy for you. I have things on my desk that aren't in my expertise, and it's Yeah. Sarah, do you still feel like we need to push this for a month? I I I'm reconsidering after it's June right now. Yeah. And I don't I mean if if you give someone a couple months to do the review and submit the DNR and have a little back and forth, we'd be getting close to the end of the year. I would think I would just approve the up not to exceed 5,000. Yeah.

Is that a motion? Yes. A motion to allocate $5,000 within the existing budget to uh go towards conforming our ordinances. the DNR's requests with the consultant WSB. Thank you. I'd like to ask one one more question. Okay. Um, for permits involving shorland issues, yes, those don't those inevitably go before someone at the DNR to opine or approve? Not necessarily. Um, a lot of times that review starts locally and they defer to that local review. if they they will get sent copies of permits that are done, but they don't they don't necessarily do that initial approval. They'll step in if um like a variance is requested, something like that, but otherwise, no, that's local control. Okay. I also believe once once the person would get in the water, that would be in the DNR's purview, right below that ordinary high water mark. Yeah, that makes sense. But but I think outside of that, I think it would defer to the city. Yeah, which is where the question then comes in of of the you know at what point do they come in and enforce any differences in our city code, right? Because they're not the ones that are doing that initial permit review. That's why the question's been asked a few times of the DNR of like what does that actually look like when it comes to the point where we've got one thing in our city code but your you know state requirements are otherwise and that's where the answer just hasn't been super clear. So, we have a motion. Uh, before we have any further discussion, I just want to see if we have a second on the pending motion and then we can have further discussion after that. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay. Any further discussion? All right. All in favor say I. I. I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries.

Thank you again. you guys. Um, all right. You and the now the second request. Yep. The housing the housing audit which would we would not be expending any funding. That would be Minnesota housing fund providing that as part of their capacity building program. Okay. Okay. I make a motion to do that then. I'll second. That seems like a no-brainer. All right. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. All right. Number five, council update on standalone garages and residential districts. Yes. The um the update I have and the habit that I am forming is to come back before this body every time the um city council is making a decision that is different from what you have um suggested that they make. Uh that has occurred here with the discussion about standalone garages. Um it was not a unanimous vote at at this level um at the planning commission level. Um, so the city council uh heard some members of the the public um some of whom did come to our planning commission meeting uh one of whom did not and chose to send the language to the um to the city attorney to bring back to allow for standalone garages and residential zones. there are not really there wasn't a lot of direction given. So I think it there will be several more meetings worth of back and forth about what that actually looks like ending up in our city code. But um that's where that's where we are today. It will not be sent back to this body. Um council very

clearly sent it to the city attorney to do that work. But I figured I would give you an update since it was based on your recommendation. So, the nature of that work, would that be to develop an overlay district or how what is what was those marching orders? I'm just curious. The the motion that was made, and I I don't have the exact language in front of me, but it was to send it to send to the city attorney a request to allow standalone garages in residential zones. They may have even indicated R1. I am not positive. So there there was it was really it was very broad. So um there was some discussion similar to this group about using conditional use permit but I do not believe that that language ended up in the in the resolution that was made in the future. Um is that resource I would assume that resource is open to us. Uh, if we wanted the city attorney to draft a certain ordinance, um, we could request the same, I would guess. So, yes. Yep. The city attorney represents this this group as well. Yep. So, then in terms of process, that's going to go right back to the council and um it will not be before us for further consideration. Correct. depending on how it gets put into city code, you would be the approvers of any conditional use. But again, without that direction, I just I don't know what it's going to look like. I am I mean, I'm in contact with Ralph, the the city attorney. We're, you know, we're talk I sent him the the work that the planning

commission had already done, so he has that on file and can reference it. Um but uh it it will come down to I guess what the council decides they would like to see added. Well, if anything because Ralph is drafting a proposal that'll go back before they've already discussed this at two committee the whole and council meeting, right? And and it isn't unanimous at the council at this point. They haven't approved any additions or anything like that. So, we don't we truly don't know anything about what it's going to look like at this point. Right. True. Yeah, I from what I recall was uh Ralph Niklamo was was directed to draft an ordinance permitting it, but the method on how to get there and even permitting using the word permitting is a scratch, but um on how to get there was left um wide open, right? So he, you know, he would come back with something that says I don't know what. Right? because you know it's like a client coming to you say I need you to draft me a contract what does it need to say um just make it happen just kind of yeah and he's being paid to do that right and he may have to go back they'll debate it again whether to do a conditional use permit or not and then there'll be another iteration of that and that'll be expense I believe correct yes that's how it would probably go and there would readings of it at the council level and an opportunity for readings for people to make comments about it. Um, we do not require as part of our ordinance updates a public hearing. So, that would be uh at the discretion of the mayor to allow for comment, but they could come and talk at open forum. Yes. Yep. Yeah. If it's not on the agenda. Yeah. Yep. So, that's that's the update. Um, I

will keep you guys informed as best I can as that continues. Uh, just because I I do think eventually you'll see something back in front of you. Um, in conversations that have continued beyond the council meeting, it does seem as though they are also interested in adding some other bits and pieces to the code that I I think are going to overlap with the housing audit that we are going to be embarking on. So, I I'm I will be interested to see what the what the connection points are and how we can best continue to have this group be serving the council and and and have that back and forth. All right. Any other thoughts or comments from the commission about it? Well, I when this first came to us, the very first meeting we had, there was some discussion about sending this back up to the council in the affirmative. Yes, there are ways of doing this. Is that your is that your wish? Is that what you want to happen? Do you want garages in a standalone sense? Not adjacent, not across the street, but maybe across town. That kind of a of a thing. And what I'm recall from the last city council meeting on that issue was they had some debate among them and the debate, don't quote me, but let's say it lasted 10 or 15 minutes, 10 minutes. They, you know, came to a conclusion as to what they wanted, which was to have standalone garages. Not quite on how we're going to get there, but they approved it. And prior to that there were was a couple months I think where this sort of got bounced around you know in this in this group right several months a lot of debate and it felt to me I mean I think that process generated a

lot of could have generated information for the council their constituents were probably reaching out to them perhaps we don't know that but what took several months to kind of resolve and debate here felt they were able to make a decision on in a very short amount of time and you know at that meeting. So, I guess I'm just wanting to be mindful, careful with time and careful when the council has a request to us, you know, that it's kind of described in a way that we can, you know, action or response accordingly to know like what is their interest and how can how can we help the council decide, you know, what information they need to get there. Mhm. Just so that it's a very, you know, more efficient efficient process. So, Mike, I think what you're very nicely saying is we spent a lot of time that we didn't have to spend because they didn't accept our thoughts anyway. Is that kind of what you're saying? Well, I think there wasn't really clear direction. We had an email from one council member, you know, Leighton, telling us that he had a friend who wanted to build a standalone man cave garage and that we were to make it happen for his constituent. And outside of that, as we explored that, as you know, you you you were the one that drafted it, there are all these other issues that come up, right? um that it's not as simple as just allowing someone to have a standalone man cave garage when you're looking at the whole of the city. So, it would have been I think what what you're saying is it would have been nice to have some clearer direction from the council. Um and you know it was at the end of this process the last meeting too when we had um any real feedback from you know any

land owners uh outside of this one situation. And again I I always stand behind I never think it's good to make policy changes to make it fit for one certain situation when you're not looking at the whole um you know all all this all the different factors that could impact your decision. So, um I still don't don't think it's a good idea. I think there are a lot of cities that don't allow it uh for very good reasons. Uh I think you know, but well, and to I was going to say this is an issue that has some first blush appeal and only by going through that whole process. I mean, people have changed their positions and changed their minds. And I I don't even think uh in the amount of time that it's been up at the council level, like I think you could have these different council members with each a different conception of what it even means, you know, because there's even even amongst the u the people, you know, in the city, there's like, well, what if it's just a one-off for when my lot's too small to build a house. What if it's just across the street because that's where I want to build mine. Well, I want to build mine 250 ft away, so maybe 300 feet should be the limit, you know? So, there's just a slippery slope on that stuff. But, well, and and something that maybe kind of to to Mike's point, but maybe like a counter is I think the reason that the conversation happened so quickly at the council level after they got a recommendation is because they didn't do all of that background thinking about, well, what happens if we do an overlay? happens if we do conditional use because as we see they have given no direction to the city attorney they just said put this in code well how do we get there so that I think that's one of the reasons that conversation was had so quickly is because there wasn't that deep work that went into it I may still get to that

point can we make us just a informal suggestion to the council that you know or at least provide them access to the comments that we did receive during our process, you know, like Habitat for Humanity letter and and those others. I did give them all. Okay. You did I gave them all the minutes from from the discussions that we had, the draft language that had put been put together, um the habitat letter. Okay. Uh I think that's I think that's everything I stuck in. in the in the public hearing hearing comments too where you know there's there's speakers in favor as well but I just for for the sake of the folks who submitted those you know if this is now with with the council we should make sure they have that information. Okay. Okay. That's all I got. Thank you. Thank you guys. All right. Well, anyone have anything else? Oh, I just one more question on that. Now, the does the council ought to provide a basis to our commission on how their decision would would ultimately differ from our recommendation. Correct. Or is that just or or do they have to provide a reason? I don't think they have to provide a reason. as opposed to like a some sort of a variance approval or something that's we make findings on. This is just purely a recommendation that they can take or leave. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, sounds good. But yeah, maybe to Mike's point too, it it um I think it's mutually beneficial if there's good relationships and communication between the city council

and the planning commission because um absent that uh there's a breakdown in getting things done, right? Y yeah. So yeah. and and as you know, as the staff member who's kind of like going back and forth between both groups, I I am feeling a disconnect between what the council's wishes are and then what's actually happening like on the ground level here when we're doing the actual work. So, I I'm not sure how to to bridge that gap, but Well, is is there one person that conveys their wishes or is it multiple people who convey their wish? The only way that they officially convey their wishes is through some sort of a resolution or a vote. So they've they voted to allow standalone garages and that's that's the whole that's it. So like how to do it? None of that is part of it. And when will that be clarified or I suppose as soon as the city attorney gets language in front of them and they say, "Well, that's not what we wanted." and then unravel it from there. Got it. That just seems backwards, but yeah, it'll be it'll be the same discussion that we had, but over a longer period of time with Yeah, thank you. That's that's what I'm the vigorous debate that they had at one of the last meetings was point by point almost a reflection of the very first meeting that we had where we thought well what about you know we're kind of grabbing thoughts out of the air about you know that because there's a kind of a political not nature to the approving it but there kind of is it's about the character and the look and what do we want for our community and that can be answered up at the council Um, I want to be charitable in thinking

that the entire process down here helped spur people to pay attention to what's going on into in the city and then talk to their city council member and then that helped generate the debate that they had at one of the last meetings. But I also think just proposing the simple question to council, which is what they got at the last meeting, and them deciding what they want to do, what the plan should be, you know, what they want for the community, um, was effective and ultimately where I think some of these questions are going to be going anyway, you know, because they're going to just have the debate, which they did. I felt like they took a lot of what we discussed and in about 10 minutes just figured out what they wanted and in some ways it's going to be it's going to come back to the council because there's not great you know direction. I think if you know you were reading the room um by the end you probably would have saw that the majority would have voted in favor of a conditional use process for for garages just a case by case basis. Yeah. which I thought would have been the language that was given as the as the moving on point, but that that wasn't the language that they that council ended with. They did not include conditional use permit. So Ralph, who wasn't at the meeting, is playing catch-up and trying to figure out, well, what direction do we go with this? So I I think he'll end up at the conditional use permit point, but I I don't know for sure. he may have a different idea of what he wants to bring back to the council. So maybe next time when we get a request regarding something like this before we spend months, discussing it and and spending time on it, we send it to the council first for them to give us feedback on that request. U

you know that could even be done I think at a committee of the whole meeting. it doesn't have to be done, you know, um they don't need to take official action on it. It's more so before we waste our time. And you know, councils in the past, planning commission would make a recommendation and they would see the work that went into that and they would agree with that. Yeah, there was a level of respect there, but there's no respect here. And I'm just going to flat out say that, right? And so, you know, I think there's a lot of us like we're volunteering our time, you know, and um and I, you know, I don't we none of I appreciate you. So, none of us want to waste our time. And I think there's just a that's the I I I it's a it's frustrating, you know, from our perspective is that it was very rare, very rare for the city council in the past to make any decisions that did not follow the recommendations of the planning commission because we are the ones that are supposed to be doing the grunt work, that are supposed to be doing the background work to make sure that we are providing sound recommendations to the council. Uh but you know obviously there's been a track record here where they do not take our recommendations. Um and so that's kind of where my prior comment was. It's like how do we how do we address that issue as a as a whole? And I think maybe going to them first on some of these issues before we spend time on them to get direction from them which seems a little backwards but it might be necessary here when you have this type of city council. Is this a discussion that we can invite Ralph to a meeting where we can, you know, kind of dig into what recommendations he's going to bring to the council? We can ask him. Yeah. Uh, and I think it's maybe just

conversations like members of this commission, you, you know, can have conversations and express your frustrations and concerns with city council members and figure out how do we make this relationship better so that we're complimenting each other and that there is a level of respect there. And um, yeah. Yeah. So I Jason Burns, the young man that was here the night we discussed all this. I had heard through the grapevine that he I don't know how but received permission to put his garage up on his vacant lot. No, that's what I had heard from a reliable source. We don't currently have still don't have I mean I think so so um if if that is the case I mean we we just don't have any credibility at some point there um there is a lot of misunderstanding about city process that training and time on the city council should be helping our council members with. Um but I mean as we've seen from from council members who join us here that there's that learning does not seem to be happening. There's a lack of understanding from city council members themselves on what the process is. Yeah. So they they may truly believe that because they have told the city attorney to put something in city code that that means that it's legal now, not remembering that there's an entire ordinance updating process that requires notice in the newspaper and for the reading to happen over two meetings before it is actually a legal thing that they have done. Could have been a misunderstanding by the by Jason or whoever, but um that's also possible. Yeah.

All right. Well, you guys do very good work. I appreciate all of you. Thank you. We appreciate you, Clara, for sure. With that, I'll make a motion to adjurnn. I'll second it. All right.