Based on the context provided for the City of Hermantown and the names of the officials, here is the formatted transcript with speaker identifications. **Note on Identification:** The Planning & Zoning Commission is chaired by a member of the commission. Based on the roll call and city records, **Joe Peterson** (who is also a City Councilor) serves as the Chair for these meetings. **Eric Johnson** is the Community Development Director presenting the technical details. *** [0:24] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** thank you eric good evening everybody we would like to welcome you to the city of hermantown planning and zoning commission meeting for january 19th 2022 it's currently seven o'clock in the evening we're going to start this evening with a roll call of the commission members valerie rowlett [0:43] **Valerie Rowlett:** here [0:44] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** samuel clark [0:45] **Samuel Clark:** here [0:46] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** beth wenzloff buckley simmons and counselor geisler [0:53] **John Geissler:** here [0:54] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** thank you second off with this evening we are looking for an approval of this evening's agenda can i get a motion please [1:00] **Samuel Clark:** sam clark on motion to approve this evening's agenda [1:03] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** thank you for that can i get a second [1:05] **Buckley Simmons:** a second [1:06] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** thank you all in favor aye motion passes [1:11] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** up for number three this evening is the approval of the minutes of the november 16 2021 regular meeting can i get a motion for that please [1:22] **Valerie Rowlett:** motion to approve rowlett [1:24] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** thank you can we get a second [1:26] **Beth Wenzloff:** wenzloff second [1:28] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** thank you all in favor aye motion passes uh number four is public discussion is there anybody here this evening to speak on anything that is not on this evening's agenda not hearing any we'll move on to number five this evening's public hearings uh we have 5a an application by sumis construction inc for a special use permit for the construction of a twin home slash duplex on the lake road the property is located in an r3 residential [1:58] zoning district eric what do you have for us on this one [2:00] **Eric Johnson:** great thank you very much if i could ask um mr wicklund to uh put up the site location map please for this actually uh go forward the slide maybe number 12 or 13. [2:20] there we go thank you very much so what we have before us this evening this is a special use application for the construction of a two-family residence at the property it's located at 437x levitek road uh this essentially had been known as the outlot associated with this particular development that had been there for some time with the gross ridge development there currently it's vacant property i want to say plus minus 80 85 percent of this is currently wetland there is uh some upland area at the northeastern portion of the property that uh the applicant is seeking to utilize for the um for the town home mr ricklin if you can show me slide number 14 please [3:06] great so what we have in front of us here this is a conceptual drawing that um shows the uh the wetland area in that essentially pink color and if you look on the other side of the page there that's actually where the structure is proposed to be located there uh it does meet the requirements of the r3 zoning which does allow for for two family homes assuming that the lot is at least one acre in size and they meet the greater setbacks associated with it uh one thing i'd like to point out is um since we've had this um this drawing come forward here um there there has been a uh update to the wetland delineation map so there is some more wetland associated with this uh the wetland will uh basically get [3:54] into a little bit of the uh southernmost unit and um it will require that the applicants seek the minimum exemption for the portion of the wetland that they disturb this is a fairly common process that the city goes through 10 15 times a year on different projects that way what it is is each property if it has not developed in the past is allowed up to ten thousand square feet of wetland impacts uh by way of a nationwide permit so um what is um anticipated to happen is they'll probably be plus or minus five or six thousand square feet of wetland impact for the uh creation of the pad for this building once again that's just a process the applicant would go through [4:40] with the city acting as the technical evaluation panel for it so this property right now as i said this is an existing outlet associated with the gross ridge development it's approximately 6.2 acres in size it extends uh in parallels along the vague road access to this proposed twin home her two family home would be way of levake road once again up in that extreme north corner of the property that way as i mentioned previously the twin homes are allowed under the r3 zoning assuming they have greater size lots the minimum lot size for a two family twin home is a one acre in size this provided lot here is 6.2 acres [5:27] minimum lot width is 150 feet provided here is 700 feet minimum death depth the front yard that's essentially the building setback from the roadway is 50 feet that's what the applicant proposes to meet a minimum side yard is 40 feet the applicant's proposing that 40 feet on that northern edge and it's uh much greater than that obviously to the south and then um minimum distance the nearest uh condominium twin home two family home etc that way has to be 200 feet and this is much greater than 200 feet away from the nearest other twin home with it the property is the proposed living area associated with this unit and mr wicklin if you show me [6:12] the next slide please it's approximately sixteen hundred and forty square feet which you can see this is essentially the this would be the northern unit associated with that there's a two-car garage approximately a three-bedroom unit that way with a couple baths that way once again looking at plus or minus square feet of living area the minimum for the twin home is 792. so it greatly exceeds that as well as far as utilities go there existing utilities on the bake road the applicant will be responsible to connect to those under their own cost as i've mentioned from the wetlands uh there'll be a little bit more work they have to do as far as the technical evaluation panel [6:58] that's essentially an over-the-counter type of permit so they'll be just working with that with staff that does not need any sort of planning commission or city council approval associated with it and then lastly uh part of this and mr wicklin if you show me slide number 13. the vast majority of this property is what's in called the shoreland uh overlay area uh that's associated with an unknown creek that's uh located more to the south and east of this property so what you see in the purple is that's that shoreland area so as part of the special use permit they will also be getting a special use permit for grading and filling in a shoreland area once again this is a fairly common thing that we see as you can see even the home to the north is located within the shoreland [7:45] area what it is it just puts higher requirements on the grading and filling activities amount of time that bare soil can be left open in just the setbacks associated with any creek that way once again this either meets or greatly exceeds any sort of setbacks from that creek standpoint because it is a little bit further away so uh with that that concludes my presentation and be happy to answer any questions that planning commission may have [8:13] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** thank you very much eric commission members any questions or comments for eric before we hear from the public [8:21] **John Geissler:** mr chair i just have one question i'd like eric could you explain the process of the wetland determination and delineation and [8:30] technical evaluation panel [8:32] **Eric Johnson:** sure be happy to so what happens when um there's wetlands evidence on a site the city first looks at what's called the national wetland inventory it's publicly available data that's uh the city has access to by way of the st louis county land explorer so this property showed that there was the presence of wetland for the national wetland inventory uh what then happens is uh applicant or property owner is required to contract with the wetland delineator that's someone who has gone through training in the um basically the observance and delineation of these wetlands it's based on three different type of criteria it's the vegetation it's the presence of water and it's a [9:15] soil associated with it so in the case of this particular property the owner of the property engaged a a local firm msa to do the wetland delineation that happened approximately october of 2021 and they prepared that delineation that we saw originally with the map myself as well as other members what's called the technical evaluation panel that would be st louis county soil water conservation district as well as the state of minnesota and they're known as bowser the board of water and soil resources and then at the core of engineers being another present member but a non-voting what we do is uh after delineation has been submitted we visit the field and determine if that delineation is correct or if it needs to [10:02] be changed in the case of this particular project uh the bowser representative indicated that there appeared to be more wetland associated than what was shown on the on the drawing that we saw in the meantime msa has gone out there and redelineated the property that showed a little bit greater extents of wetlands on this site so uh what would then be required is once the assuming this project receives approval by the city council that the applicant or the owner would then work with that delineation delineator to submit what's called a basically a notice of impact as i had mentioned previously as each property if it's not already been impacted with wetlands can receive up to [10:49] ten thousand square feet of wetland impacts so that's what they'd be they would be uh looking for is what's called a de minimis exemption once again which is a nationwide permit which this would fall under and that's something that um i create what's called a notice of application then a notice of decision i send that out to the other uh other board members other tech panel members once again st louis county state and then the corps of engineers for any comment that they have and then after that 15 day period assuming there's no comments then i issue an approval for it does that help answer the question [11:30] **John Geissler:** great so there is essentially a process that goes through on this and any other site that has wetlands in the city that way [11:33] **Eric Johnson:** it's um generally it's uh it can be um [11:35] anywhere from like you know a three to five month process depending on where it kind of falls in the cycle that way [11:42] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** perfect thank you for that education and clarification commission members again any questions or comments before we open it up to the floor no questions not seeing any it is currently 7 11 in the evening we'd like to open up the floor for public discussion on this hearing if you'd like to please come on up state your name and address for the record [12:18] **Public Speaker 1 (Resident):** okay [12:34] i guess i feel like you skipped [12:45] [Music] um [12:59] um [Music] [13:17] um [13:33] um [13:42] [Music] [13:51] um [14:11] um [14:21] **Eric Johnson:** well great i can answer that uh i'll start with the access first this takes this driveway takes access off the bake it's located the extreme north end of this outlot and um hundreds of feet away from that cedar ridge right away that exists there sure are the monitors of pi not working otherwise i can go out with mine yeah joe if you can uh show that site plan again please uh next graphic down number 14. [14:56] actually i'm going to take that back go back to 13. so if you see where that where it says road that's essentially where that townhome sits and then the [15:16] yep that's correct that's correct yep with that and then in regard to the covenant uh covenants are always interesting with the city covenants uh uh the city does not uh enter into agreements with developers for covenants those are basically documents that have to do with the property owners themselves now i've i have brought that up to the applicant and it's basically their responsibility from the legal standpoint just to make sure that they're covered that way now as far as the the city goes that it doesn't meet our requirements dimensionally from the code standpoint yes it meets all those things so at least from a city standpoint it meets our requirements for a twin [16:02] home within that area the covenant thing is more legal that has to do between you know with this applicant and just to flesh out and to make sure that they satisfy the terms of the covenant that way does that answer your questions [16:15] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** thank you very much sir if you'd like to speak on this matter please come on up and state your name and address for the record if you could do it in the microphone that'd be great [16:35] **Public Speaker 2 (Resident):** and i am close they're going to be 42 on my property line and i'm happy to find it already addressed one problem [17:03] so with what was on the website about this has been done i do believe it is completely there is quite a bit [17:29] the other question i have [17:38] the ground level of the house in that one [17:42] **Eric Johnson:** i would ask the uh applicant uh mr sumas to address that if he has an idea i'll dial back to that wetland uh as indicated that the new delineation was done here this fall and um and once again it was reviewed by the state that way so um yes there will be some wetland impacts associated with it and there is a process to go through for that yep so with that but i would invite mr sumifs if he's able to answer that question regarding what they anticipate as far as how this would be built potential elevation of that relation to the roadway et cetera that way [18:25] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** thank you sir [18:32] **Jesse Stokey (Applicant/Builder):** come on up sir that'd be great and please state your name and address for the record my name is jesse and i'm the builder um as far as the first question i believe i i think i bought it from dusty molin's wife i believe her name's karen i kept drawing a blank here and uh we had before i bought it i purchased it i had talked to her lawyer her lawyer also name was karen and uh i hashed it out and it was i believe if eric might know this but it was an outlaw of the grouse ridge subdivision that's why it doesn't count for any of the covenants so as as whatever covenants is are in the girls right it doesn't apply to this law [19:22] yeah they had three or four different booklets that when before dusty had died that were you know this part or no i just know that there has been research done so yeah we talked it over we got our own lawyer their lawyer looked at it and it doesn't apply to any of the governments is what they thought partisans had determined um so that's i wouldn't have bought it if it said that applied and it was uh if we weren't sure if we could build on it and do what we wanted on it so um and then for your question typically uh we go we try to keep it level with the road but i don't know as far as i haven't shot elevation on our excavator hasn't been there um but obviously we [20:08] want proper drainage and if it's real low i'll probably have to bring it up and i know your garage is maybe two or three feet up in the air compared to that lot or i believe yeah so i'm gonna have to bring in phil to get proper drainage and i don't like i said we like to keep it flat with the road but if there's an incline we have to bring it up we have to bring it up so um no probably wouldn't i do the minimum that i would have to do because obviously the dirt is extremely expensive to haul in um but there would be no drainage onto your property because that's what you you know i'm not going to put it higher than you saw the water straining on your yeah and your property [20:53] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** anybody else can have commission members any questions for the applicant this evening [21:00] **John Geissler:** so so you're pretty comfortable that the covenant isn't an issue then [21:03] **Jesse Stokey (Applicant/Builder):** yeah um like i said when we when before i purchased that it was a four-month process i believe that we are going back and forth with the city with karen's lawyers with our lawyer to read off because dusty no his name is dusty it's not dusty that's his son right it's jerry gary gary uh before he died had had uh three or four different legal documents pertaining to this phase that phase out lots and obviously i didn't know what any of it [21:38] meant so we had her lawyer and then our lawyers look at it and they came to the conclusion that it was an outlaw and it didn't none of the covenants is pertained to this block and this is why he set it up uh gary put in two water lines two sewer lines it's all stubbed in already so he she claimed karen that it was already already approved long long many years ago and that's why he brought in all the water sewer when they redid that road [22:18] **John Geissler:** is that documented anywhere where the people in the development that are concerned about it could see [22:21] **Jesse Stokey (Applicant/Builder):** yes um i believe i have the paperwork and jody olson has another set of copy of the paperwork and then karen would [22:25] also so if they had more concerns yeah they could definitely talk to them and yeah but it's it's hard to wrap your head around because to be honest i didn't think any of it made sense and that's why i had other smarter people look at it so yeah [22:42] **Eric Johnson:** so so that's uh obviously i mean what when the city first saw that and read that in the development agreement that there was potential covenants that way that's what we alerted people to it that way and it appears that they've gone through the process to at least doing their due diligence to answer those questions as well in their head [22:58] **John Geissler:** okay okay thank you for that sir [23:05] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** thank you commission members any other questions or comments this evening [23:10] **Samuel Clark:** i just have one quick clarifying kind of goes with mr geister's question just with the wetland delineation uh having it had it done in the fall is there any how does how do the seasons change what that delineation might be for example we get a ton of snow in the winter and someone goes and does a evaluation versus you know a dry fall i mean how does that does that factor into what the wetland impact would be at all [23:45] **Eric Johnson:** you know that's why they have three different criteria between the the presence of water the soil and then the vegetation because honestly the soil is the biggest one they have what's called oxidized oxidization and they have augers that they come in and check it that way and um as mr sumas alluded to there's [23:58] really intelligent people out there much more intelligent than i am and that's why i lean on them particularly the state to verify these delineations so the um the typical delineation season starts in may 15th ends november 15th so they were within that window that's a recognized window by the waca which is a wetland conservation act so everything was followed properly at least through that uh the wca or the waca [24:32] **John Geissler:** and eric i had one question percentage-wise how much more wetlands is there percentage-wise was it just a small amount [24:38] **Eric Johnson:** it's probably added the uh there's probably about another maybe 10 000 square feet of wetland versus what was shown in that document there okay but what we do then is when [24:43] we do the wetland impacts is we just approve for the essentially building envelope and then generally 10 or 15 feet outside of that for the wetland impacts we do not allow wet and impacts of the creation of yard space so uh what we do is essentially what during that this notice of decision for the wetlands we delineate a line around it this is how much wetland impact you get associated with it [25:20] **John Geissler:** thank you [25:22] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** okay any other questions or comments from anybody [25:33] um [25:53] um [26:08] and that's [26:32] uh [26:50] [26:52] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** i understand and if i understand you earlier eric that doesn't the covenant part doesn't pertain to us tonight [26:58] **Eric Johnson:** you know i've talked to in the past uh we have two or three covenants on different developments here in the city and the city does not enforce covenants all that we do is a strict zoning yep and so if it does a project meet the zoning yes it does then at least from the city's standpoint it is something that we can approve [27:18] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** yeah we're looking at the zoning this evening and if the neighbors have a fight over the covenants that's on them okay perfect i just wanted to clarify that thank you very much uh we're going to close the public hearing on this at 7 27 p.m commission members any other questions or comments before i look for a motion [27:36] **John Geissler:** i'd move to approve 5a as written [27:40] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** we have a first can we get a second [27:42] **Buckley Simmons:** simmons with a second [27:44] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** we have a second all in favor aye aye aye anybody against not hearing any of the motion passes thank you very much for that this evening uh 5b is an application by jessie stokey for an amendment to the development plan slash pud associated with the pineview development for the purpose of modifying the planned pud to accommodate a two family home eric what do you have for us on this one [28:18] **Eric Johnson:** great thank you huh some of the uh planning and zoning members may recognize this because uh this is [28:22] something that we went through i want to say back in uh august or september so um back in 2005 when the pineview development had originally been platted that development was planted as a twin home community that all the lots in there were twin homes essentially in 2010 uh the owner of the remaining lots and the master developer at that time the twin home market was essentially non-existent so he engaged the city to uh review that kind view development and create essentially a pud amendment at that time which identified a handful of these lots then as single family homes for those [29:11] so what had happened is the plot the underlying plot did not change those were all still lotted out the way it exists today however specific lots had to be essentially combined for the purposes of building a single-family home and in the case of lots lots 19 through 22 that was the case so earlier this past year um the city had gone through and already made the um the approval for lots 19 and 20 for one twin home and so what the applicant has now done since that time is he has purchased the two lots adjacent to that and he is looking to do the same thing [29:58] that he did previously that these new lots lots 21 and 22 which uh in the past would have had single family home on it now will be utilized for one twin home so um essentially what this we're doing is the third amendment to this original pud and really bringing it full circle to what had originally been approved back in 2005. [30:26] uh i apologize i kind of jumped ahead of this uh this project is located in the twin pines uh development it's a twin pines uh street which is on the east side of uggstead road and approximately a quarter a third of a mile south of highway 53. [30:45] mr wicklund if you can just show a quick location map just for people's reference on that that would be helpful [31:02] great thank you very much as i mentioned there's uggstead road on the west side twin pine street exists and then these uh two lots that we'speak speak today uh exist right there where it says site uh maybe while you're just on that uh show the next document please this is the 2005 original plan development for it as you can see those two subject lots had that twin home on it so that's we're looking to create now again today is is to bring this back full circle for the the the owner of these lots to be able to build one twin home if there's any questions i'd be happy to uh answer them for you [31:49] **John Geissler:** do you know off the top of your head how many single-family homes have been built in there looks like maybe three or four joe could you go back to the uh ariel please does it think it's for and it's really at the far end of the cul-de-sac right and then next door to this one [32:15] **Eric Johnson:** yes next door is this yeah [32:20] **John Geissler:** i remember when this came up in 2005 and in 2010 well a couple months ago too [32:25] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** and a few months ago yeah yeah we've been here for all three of them [32:28] **John Geissler:** i think you were too [Laughter] [32:32] **Eric Johnson:** so yeah there's a believe there's two single-family homes right as you come into the development and then it's basically the uh the ones at the the far end there yeah so i wanna say this five or six total single-family homes in the [32:35] development [32:45] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** it's a nice little neighborhood i walk around in there quite a bit actually [32:50] **Eric Johnson:** yeah it's it's it's nice how it's worked out there's still those couple vacant lots to the on the other side of the street but for the most part this will um kind of start to close out this existing development [33:02] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** okay thank you for that eric commission members any questions or comments on this this evening [33:08] **Samuel Clark:** uh sam clark just one quick question is there a i guess a standard or how many times you could amend a few [33:18] **Eric Johnson:** i've not seen one yet i think the most i've seen so far is five so um that wasn't me it gets uh a little old and sometimes attorneys don't like doing [33:22] that because what happens is all of these then are filed against these properties and so when someone buys these things in the future instead of having a document that's eight pages thick at closing they have a document that's 40 pages thick and so um there's no limit that as far as i'aware of it's just uh a matter of a lot more paperwork to try we have documents that connor act each other conor [33:57] just making sure so that wasn't done sure it didn't affect the single family homes versus the twin homes versus what someone might want to do in the future [34:10] **Eric Johnson:** yeah i know that um i won't name the development but i think i i worked on the fourth and fifth uh amendments to it that was a little bit earlier in my career so i think we're we're starting to approach that here so nice [34:25] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** okay um no other questions or comments at this point we'll open up the floor for a public hearing on this at 7 34. [34:28] if you're here to speak on this matter this evening please come up to the microphone and state your name and address no thank you for that we'll close the public hearing at 7 34 as well commission members any other questions or comments on this no questions no questions not hearing any can i get a motion please [34:56] **Samuel Clark:** assuming i'll make a motion to approve 5b [35:00] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** we have a motion to approve can we get a second [35:03] **Beth Wenzloff:** i'll second that [35:05] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** we have a second all in favor all right motion passes thank you again for that 5c this evening is an application by titan premier llc for a preliminary and final plot for the subdivision of five acres into six lots the property is located at 5015 radar road and is located in our three residential zoning district eric what do you have for us on this one [35:36] **Eric Johnson:** great thank you mr wicklund if you can share the aerial photo with this one please as he's doing that this property has been for sale for some time it's a 10 acre property that's comprised of two [35:41] individual lots as you can see basically where it says radar road that is the the westernmost five acres and then we're not proposing anything on that site that's going to stay as it is uh what we're just looking at this evening is the easternmost five acres that front on the getcho road there um currently the house that exists on this entire 10-acre property does lie within this five acre site the applicant will be demolishing that home for the purpose of creating these six new lots mr wicklin if i can get the next slide please and maybe if you can rotate that if [36:28] possible thank you so we're doing is uh north is at the top of the sheet and the south is on the bottom there as you can see it says radar road so um as part of this plat or what the applicant is proposing is an is essentially a it's a basically a step above a lot subdivision that um this falls into a plat because it's a subdivision of land if an applicant or developer proposes to subdivide a property more than three times it requires that there's a plat because otherwise the city could do it from an administrative basis in the case of this project there's no proposed roadways for it it's [37:14] going to take frontage off the existing getcha road the way it is uh what the city is requiring as part of this plat this evening is if you look on the bottom where it says radar road right now radar road is a gravel road and the city only has 33 feet of right away typically we get 66 feet or half 66 feet of right away for all of our all of our roadways so the the city was requiring as part of this plaque that the applicant dedicate that 33 feet so now we have a full 66 foot right of way for that even with that subtraction of that 33 feet from the overall frontage of this each lot does exceed the 100 feet minimum width requirement for an r3 [38:02] our three properties are required as i mentioned 100 feet of lot width and a minimum of one half acre in size uh in the case of this development each lot's approximately 105 to 110 feet wide and each lot's about 0.61 or 0.62 acres in size so in both cases it does exceed our minimum requirements right now the utilities for this area end right down where the radar road and get your road intersect that's where water and sewer are so as part of this subdivision and in order to sell these lots the applicant is going to be required to extend the sanitary and the water to the north all the way [38:48] to the northern property line we've talked about this extensively as staff as well as with public works and the city engineer and what we will be doing is extending the um the water and sewer uh just on the other side of ghetto road within a 30 foot easement located on the eastern portion of this property so at the end of the day the applicant will dedicate that 30 foot of easement with the underlying water and sanitary sewer in it to the city for our ownership we've done that in a few other developments that way that way we don't have to get into the roadway surface and uh and and not excavate it that way [39:33] so um the building setbacks will still be taken from the actual property line so the um the homes essentially the closest the homes will be could be 20 feet off of this easement but we have seen that in other applications throughout the city that way a wetland delineation has been done on this entire 10 acres of the site the wetlands are not on this portion of the property they're on the other five acre lot so there are no wetland impacts associated with these six lots that way as i mentioned the utilities will be handled under what's called a utility extension agreement that's another document typically that the disco straight the city council that way but what that [40:20] requires is that the applicant hires an engineer designs those plans they're reviewed and approved by at least recommended to be approved by the city engineer and then a document is prepared a legal document outlining the easements the utilities etc and that's brought towards the city council for their review and ultimate action that way so as i mentioned previously this um proposed subdivision of the land it meets or exceeds all the requirements of the r3 zoning both in a lot with as well as a lot size all lots will take direct access on the ghetto road there are no rot lots that will take access on the radar road that way the applicant does not have to get into any sort of roadway [41:05] improvements along radar road right now i think there's maybe a total of five or six homes total that take access off of radar or ann carlo which sits back behind it that way so um for the most part this is a pretty simple subdivision of land that way and you know create six new lots potentially for our community that way [41:25] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** perfect thank you for that eric commission members any questions or comments on 5c this evening [41:35] **John Geissler:** i have one i was under the understanding that you couldn't have a structure without a primary residence which once he tears down this home it now has the other parcel it does have have the garage on there so he will need [41:51] to take that down as well and we will put that into and when it gets into the city council we can uh put that language in there as well [42:02] **Eric Johnson:** okay so the garage and the house supposed to come down yep because you can't have a garage as an accessory structure in some cases what we do uh in another project the person was going to be a builder one to store some of the materials in the garage we said that's fine you have to provide an escrow at the city it's a substantial known escrow with the sunset date that it behooves the person to remove that structure so we have one or two routes to be able to take things down that way now see i thought i read somewhere that that second lot would be sold with the garage that's a potential that way if he turn if he wants to turn the house turn that [42:38] right away so it's the same thing we can we have different methods and means to be able to handle that uh that accessory structure that way that's what we term a garage [42:50] **John Geissler:** okay okay and eric i had one final question to clarify they are all over 0.6 acres i know a half acre is the minimum but these all come to it shows on that one sheet point six eight but you're saying they're just point six [43:08] **Eric Johnson:** uh i believe they said they're all the same they're all the same exactly they're all approximately 106 or 110 by roughly 250 i think they're coming in around 0.63 or so uh just some quick math that way but they do all exceed the the 0.5 minimum so thank you [43:24] **John Geissler:** and mr chair i have one [43:24] question what about what about people on the east side of ghetto if they want to connect to water and sewer [43:35] **Eric Johnson:** we've talked about that before because that's what you start running into is in that case water is extended either getting into uh open cut or maybe boring under the road that way so right now i believe there's one or two properties on the east side there what the city can do is notify those people that this is happening and while you at least have an open trench for that work that's about the best time that people can try to bore under there [44:00] **John Geissler:** how do they do they just have to pay a utility connection fee and that's it [44:05] **Eric Johnson:** that's been a big question from the city staff to tell you the truth right now [44:11] that's a good move that's a good move i would do it in a heartbeat it's the closest thing you can find to a free lunch and honestly the city is looking at and it's a bigger picture looking at accessibility and availability fees just because of things like that we've had developers ask this as well when they hook up i should be reimbursed for that no you're not so yeah yeah but it is true because right now um standard fees are between water and sewer hookups are two thousand dollars plus or minus yeah i mean obviously there's a cost incurred with getting over there but you know this is this is a bigger question that the city is looking [44:57] at not only on some of these existing but um some of our mains that we have as well [45:05] **John Geissler:** and one last question is the sewer going to be gravity [45:08] **Eric Johnson:** yes [45:10] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** if you look at the map my brother's house was right where road is for ghetzel road so he was right across radar road from this this would be a nice little nice little addition to that area i i like it i think it's a great use of that spot yeah yeah high grass i mean i remember watching the guy back there cut that big lawn right there used to drive in circles with his john deere out there for a long time while we'd sit on the deck at my brother's house it's a beautiful site yeah [45:35] **Eric Johnson:** and and you know staff and the applicant looked at this for a long time and [45:42] you know was there different ways to subdivide this lot and realize more out of it and at the end of the day you could never make the numbers work right between the cost of purchasing the land which i think was in excess of 300 000 and then the cost of the utility work which will be another 300 000 plus it just couldn't make it work right and even on this um you make money at the end of the day but it's not much not much no so it's uh but it's honestly it's the path of least resistance yeah and uh it's it's nice six lots that'll be makes sense you're easy easily obtained lots [46:25] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** no i think it's a great spot yeah any other questions or comments this evening not hearing any i look for a motion on 5c yes i don't know mr wicklund is anybody in the waiting room on this [46:53] at 7 46 in the evening we'd like to have a public hearing on 5c is there anybody in the virtual world or in the room that would like to speak on this matter [47:07] sorry my screen doesn't work is anybody in there joe [47:15] **Joe Wicklund:** okay [47:18] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** not hearing any we will close the public hearing at 7 47 pm again commission members any questions or comments on this this evening not hearing any i'll look for a motion on 5c [47:35] **Beth Wenzloff:** i will make a motion to accept 5c wenzloff [47:40] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** we have a first can we get a second [47:42] **Samuel Clark:** i'll second that [47:45] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** we have a second all in favor aye aye anybody against it not hearing any motion passes thank you very much uh number six is continuing business i'm not seeing any no there's not uh number seven new business [48:00] **Eric Johnson:** i will just [48:01] give you a brief update um staff is going to be working on updating three of our ordinances that we have probably the two largest ones are as you may recall the city's been working with the airport commission jasby the joint airport zoning board uh what the city is going to be doing is updating our own airport ordinance for that so i'm for the most part it's going to mirror what has been done by jazbee but it'll be put into the city's format that way and be specific to the city so that's something that's going to be happening over the next couple months it will come before planning and zoning for a public hearing and then ultimately go to city council for their action so that's something that's in the beginning phases [48:46] another uh maybe bigger ordinance is the city has been working at the dnr on the up and the updating of our shoreland ordinance that we have uh right now we have an ordinance that more or less mirrors the dnr's lake requirements and as we all aware of with the exception of mogee lake we don't have any lakes here we just have streams so um we're working with them to have something that aligns a bit more with the dnr standard ordinance that they have we still at the end of the day want to protect our development interests that we have but still try to align a bit closer at the dnr so that's going to be a bit of a dance back and forth between those [49:32] we may ultimately end up with what we have but we just want to make sure that at least we explore different avenues and possibilities and uh before we you know finalize that and then lastly the city is going to be looking at our subdivision ordinance the city has recently been looking at some safe route to school grants and as part of that it requires if specific language in your subdivision ordinance internal sidewalks pedestrian facilities etc etc we do not have that language so we're going to be looking at that ordinance seeing as a way if there's if we're able to add some of those requirements that language into the ordinance that would then open up the door for some potential grant opportunities for us so once again [50:18] just starting that process it would go through the same public hearing you know vetting through pnz before it goes to council as well so those are kind of three ongoing ordinances that we're anticipating happening over the next quarter here so even if we don't have an actual application we might be here for some other things [50:40] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** perfect thank you for that uh number eight we have another one it's communications this evening [50:45] **Eric Johnson:** yes we received a communication from shannie shannon sweeney jorgensen uh attending her resignation from the planning and zoning so at this point as you know we have an empty chair um i believe we've seen received one application so far uh it is posted on our website and i'm anticipating um [51:04] probably uh referral that person to the city council in the next few weeks or if we get any more applications in that way so um it is something that we're looking it was in the newspaper too was in the newspaper as well great yeah perfect so but so far one application [51:25] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** okay uh number nine commission member reports uh valley roulette [51:30] **Valerie Rowlett:** none [51:32] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** samuel clark [51:33] **Samuel Clark:** none [51:34] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** beth winslow [51:36] **Beth Wenzloff:** no report [51:38] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** buckley simmons and myself nothing this evening we will look for a motion to adjourn mr geyser did you have no i don't know he doesn't have anything to say [51:49] i started mine too all right can we get a motion to adjourn this evening [51:53] **Buckley Simmons:** simmons with a motion to adjourn [51:55] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** can we get a second [51:56] **Samuel Clark:** thank you [51:57] **Joe Peterson (Chair):** all in favor aye motion passes we'll close this evening's meeting at 7 51 pm thank you very much everybody