and i just because i don't want him to the condition of approval should be the existing accessory structure on the site must be moved to meet the 20 feet side setback or a variance must be granted and then that way that gives us some flexibility to review that portion of the request um that would have to come back at the next meeting but i think we could i think we could get that on the next meeting may i ask a question of the applicant are you okay with a delay in order to make it in a like versus it not being approved i mean with your two options right what are we talking about it'd be so the next meeting would be june 2nd so i would need a narrative from you because i can't make up the narrative for you um so i would just need a written narrative i could email you i was planning on taking the day off tomorrow um but i i'll for sure email you by monday maybe tomorrow if i come back variances are not a public hearing if they're by themselves so that part would um that part would be easy enough and i don't know what our official stance is on consent agendas maybe we could put that on the consent agenda if there is willingness tonight fair enough nope fair enough so then okay then i would be prepared to make a motion to approve this with the uh 7b adjustment that the applicant needs to either move the accessory structure or applicant needs to apply for a variance second that is that a motion that was a motion i said i would second motion i'll third it okay any further discussion all right all those in favor of approving the resolution um for a conditional use permit say aye aye aye opposed okay you gotta see the magic and it is a really nice street you live on i drove past there today and really nice streets so enjoy it i'll be in touch on monday okay thank you okay item 7a um anybody with um [Music] oh wait we're not done yet are we and we have e yeah sorry got ahead of myself um item 7e public hearing for preliminary plat and variants at 7310 rolling hills road do we need to read the staff report no no i'll concur i i've read it i've been to the site um so uh let's just go and open up the public hearing is there anybody or there's nobody in the audience anymore is there anybody online that would like to address this commission on the uh preliminary platinum variants all right one last time if you would like to speak at the public hearing please press r9 now on your phone or raise your hand via the reactions tab the raise your hand function we'll be there do that now and we do have one caller um iphone 2 and then unfortunately we're having technical difficulties so i will need you to call me oh you got it thank you hello iphone 2. yes this is paul hughes uh 7435 rolling hills river perfect go ahead and state your car i have a question regarding this property we live basically across the street from it and i'm curious as to the qualifications for the split i'm sorry what the qualifications for the split for the split of blood yes okay um our go ahead when we purchased our property with the lot split i don't know if it was 60 acres or whatever we were basically told that the lots that were split were going to be the lots that were here so i'm curious as to how we're splitting this lot into three i pieces it's only two yeah so um planning commission uh effectively to that so on 73 20 rolling hills that parcel will be split into two the reason why it's considered a three lot subdivision is because they are working with a adjacent property owner that has development rights and so they're going through a process to reassign one so they can do this split they are proposing no changes really it's just developing that lot line because there's already two houses on that property right yeah so that's basically just making it officially two different parcels right there they're not adding in a third parcel on that property okay i guess that's all i had thank you great thank you all right anybody else is there anyone else on the public that would like to speak last call i'm sorry on the zoom call last call for comments i don't see any other hands raised at this time mr char i'd like to make a motion to end the public comment i'll second all right all those in favor of ending the public hearing say hi opposed public hearing is closed all right commission discussion and recommendation may i yes so first i wanted to point out that i like the way that this staff report was drafted i think that staff did a really nice job of laying out the issues and presenting multiple options i think this was well informed well informed and well reasoned but also provided more than enough more than enough depth so i thank staff for this even with the synthesis and the report this is a pretty complicated matter so here the subdivision itself complies with the code the issue is these accessory structures so before i get there i do have a question why was the transfer of a development right required just for my my own continuing education can you please clarify that a development right is not only required to build but is it also required for a subdivision so so essentially the lot does did have a development right in terms of the they're able to build on it and so originally there were six development rates on a 60 acre parcel and those are all subdivided out and then at this point for them to further subdivide this lot that has this farmhand house they need to if they didn't have anyone around them that had an extra subdivision right they wouldn't be able to do it but they had actually two property owners that share a property line so they can plat the properties together basically combining it into a single lot essentially you can reassign the development rates from there it's a private sale agreement that they've worked through and so the property to east has 12 development rights currently and so they've worked out a sale where one development right was is going to be reassigned to allow for the slot split and then 11 like 11 rights will remain on that third lot that runs county road 50. okay thank you so there are a total of 12 accessory structures between lots 2 and 3 that are impacted by this application the accumulated footprint of the accessory structures exceeds the amounts allowed and not by some nominal amount either lot 2 is requesting a total of three thousand five hundred and sixty one square feet above the maximum more than double the amount allowed lot three is requesting a staggering fourteen thousand one hundred and thirty seven square feet more than what is allowed that's seven times the allowable amount by right and this is a significant departure so for a variance the city code provides that there must be quote practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance i do not think that the applicant has pled a good case for there being practical difficulties as staff noted the problem could be alleviated entirely by removing the accessory structures moreover the owner can still reasonably use his property as he or she pleases just with fewer accessory structures removal of some of these structures would not result in depriving the applicant of using the property in a reasonable manner up to seven times the allowable footprint for these structures is unreasonable this in turn would mean that the only practical difficulty complying would be financial the cost of removing the structure to bring the property into compliance now as we know financial difficulties don't cut it for the grant of a variance or quote economic considerations is not a practical difficulty as defined by corcoran city code section 1070.040 subdivision 2. on those grounds i vote to recommend a rejection of this application to the council though the analysis i think can stop at that prong i do want to give a little attention to the requirement that quote the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner and i'm quoting from our city code i think that on this point the land owners arguments are okay the history is unique to this parcel but as noted in the staff report it's not like it's a physical condition like a river running through the yard so in the same analysis i would be interested in hearing from my colleagues on this issue mentioned by the city attorney and noted in the staff report that the landowner in the context of a variance application means all owners of land over time so for example if a condition is made by my property's previous owner does that count against me as the current owner our code does not say require that a hardship is quote not created by the applicant it says landowner just the same the code says created by the land owner in the singular sense it does not read not created by the land owners plural i know that others may not share my excitement and enthusiasm for statutory interpretation but i think since the issue was raised it would be good to at least keep this in the back of our minds as variance requests are made i think that the application should not be recommended to the council i do not think that there are practical difficulties complying with the ordinances that are any more than financial thank you okay great anybody else all right did anybody go out and look at the site yes i'm familiar with it and i will be honest that if someone is intending to use it as a farm i don't understand why it would want to be divided into two parcels that is ultimately my question um but well they i know there are different families even though they are related um and the problem is always going to be transferring title ownership it's an ownership thing thank you i i understand his point why he wants to do it exactly with regard to that there was a question about whether or not the city would require them to build or to install another well um in my discussions with them i said look it i don't have i don't have an axe to grind in this thing i can understand why there was only one well to begin with but if i was an owner of one of these parcels regardless which one it is i would want my own well just out of security for my own my own private property or my own property because if the well goes out on one it'll go out on both we want that one go to the city council as to whether or not so what was the staff recommendation uh essentially the recommendation and i just want he is raising his hands i don't know if you want to call in the applicant um but the staff recommendation regarding the well is to have the state of minnesota review it if they're okay with it we're fine we just need a shared well agreement if it's not something that the state of minnesota is okay with then they need to get well on lot too okay okay now in my discussions uh with mr zoody zodie um as we walk through the property i i can't i'm sorry i just this is unacceptable okay i i don't know what size he's come in but trying to look at this thing an eight and a half by eleven with large property and small buildings and small print this is unacceptable for our use so someone's gonna have to bring up i can't i can't even tell what what what sheds these are but it would appear that the applicant is all right what what is on on lot three mm-hmm the one that goes north and south this one right here really long oh my gosh isn't that h there it is there's yeah i know i know what it is i can't see what the designation is oh that one's the one at the far back no no no no farther west oh e further west the skinny one that runs otherwise keep going left left left right equipment storage he had indicated to me that that is going to be removed yeah he said i'm open to removing e h and quant if necessary yes e yeah uh well what it now are you sure the quonset isn't no font that's f oh so the concept is right no no no that's wrong the quonset is on the southern property line yeah it is labeled what you have back there is a regular traditional pole building all right well this is the this is the survey provided by paul otto well otto got it wrong okay the quonset is actually on the southern property line it's a nice building it's functional um [Music] it's it's heated it's in good shape i have no problem with that there is nothing on this property line uh that you know interferes with a neighbor because the road goes right by there so this is just some grassland um [Music] so yeah this this long skinny one i would i would say should be removed this sec what what is the square one this one no up that's d but still on lot there you go d yup shed okay shed d you know it's kind of a big shed it's two stories tall um i didn't go inside i don't know what kind of condition it is in you know because as i look at some of this stuff here it's it's an issue of condition and usability um and access so you know yeah just you know i might say yeah make him remove that one long one but now you go to the north one the i don't know the the train booth the caboose the caboose um you know it's kind of deteriorated a little bit [Music] you've got that one shed up there on the north side solidly built lean to open-ended on on the south side but it is in the wetland and unfortunately maybe years ago you could get access to it now i was able to walk into there but as it continues to be overgrown and as the water tables seemingly continue to rise around here i mean i got trails i can't i can't mow anymore i could five years ago but i can't anymore um [Music] that building is just simply going to lose functionality but moving it out of the wetland isn't an option i don't know how you move a building like that with the staff recommendation was to tear it down correct or to move it are you talking about shed a up here yes um yeah basically remove or relocate it out of the wetland buffer area that would be the option at this point yeah um so i i think you know i i said you know what i i might just recommend you just decide whether you want you want to remove it um but there are certainly some buildings there where structurally they should be removed for the safety and health of of anybody who's out on the site but anything that has some functional use it could be saved so i'm i'm all for granting the you know the application as it is i don't really you know the argument to keep things you know rural um our history and stuff is great but i think we should all remember he is not a farmer this was built as a commercial farm and it was big back in its day it is no longer big the buildings don't serve a function uh for what he utilizes the property for having a garden and a couple chickens and some goats is not um so i could see the argument if you were to say you got just too darn many buildings you don't need it for for that but i guess for prosperity sake and whatnot i'm i'm willing to hey split the lot keep whatever buildings have value or use to you take down everything else but that you're saying leave it up to him basically well i mean we're not judges here right to determine the suitability of any building you know we're we're we're left with you got 16 000 square feet of buildings you're only allowed three so you tear down everything to get the three and that's it oh that's what you're suggesting getting wow well no i'm suggesting he keep him but he he determined which ones he needs to remove over and above that so yeah okay if my take on this was i don't like the government he's allowed to have him right now i know i know it's i know it's a little different than i'm remodeling a house and now they want you to fix all these other things that were out of compliance because you'll bring it up to code so i can think that's kind of the stance you're taking right is yeah i i i struggle a little bit with that with a built with some buildings that are sitting there so i i'm a little torn on that sure i just i i do i apologize for interrupting i just want to make it clear that the applicant does have his hand raised we haven't really addressed it it's up to you yeah you can what is fire i honestly got it tony can you please give me a call on my phone number it is uh 763-258-4272 what oh that's not an official all right he says yes he's calling me so again one more time twenty that was seven six three two five eight four two seven two there he is tony hey can you guys hear me yes okay um sorry i'm calling from the hospital so if you guys hear any overhead pages just i might go off i've been hearing the discussion i think i referred to content from my front neighbor i know that this farm was built as a initial 60 acre farm and i do acknowledge and i'm aware that there are a couple buildings that are probably too big for the purpose that i want to use um the idea is to you know my mother lives in a small house and i live in a big house and i want to use this opportunity to split the land and have title so there will be wealth within the family going forward as far as keeping the building i did walk through with the the counselor um that building which is i think e the long skinny one uh is gonna be removed because it's not in good shape um the rest of the building can slowly serve purpose i am not you know i'm a full-time hospital this may be halftime but i do intend to do some farming mostly gardening and then keeping some animals as a homestead so the square footage is a little bit more but we do intend to renovate some of the building for example the building in the middle we have you know decided to change the roof which we did because there was a lot of damage so i do consult with engineers if some of the buildings are not safe then we will remove them so that's the reason for the application and my other neighbors farmers from the east and the west are aware and they're supportive just to put that in there is was there any other questions you guys want to ask tony what is f-i-r-a-fyra what does that mean oh i think paul asked me for the apollo asked me for what was what should we call it and it was kind of a family nickname for me which means family and friendly that's all and i apologize natalie for putting you through all the i'm not familiar with all this process and i i initially did not know what the process is going to be so i think i might have been a little bit fit butt that time so no no you were fine was that all your comments for now is there any other questions from why's on the line all right i'm going to go ahead and end the phone call tony and we'll let you know if anything else comes up okay yep all right thank you mr chairman make a motion to end the discussion second all right all those in favor of closing the public hearing say aye aye aye aye aye all right the opposed the public hearing was already closed yeah yeah yeah this is the applicant yes but we could i will make a motion to support staff's recommendation um so we have two results there's resolution a and resolution b so both of them are proven in preliminary plot but one is denying the variance one is approving the variance so that's what i yeah the one that you're doing a is the one that approves the variance correct no no [Music] approves the variance that's when i highlight it i will make a motion to approve resolution b i'll second that motion all right any further discussion all right all those in favor of approving resolution 2022b approving the preliminary plat and approving of variance say aye aye opposed opposed not tonight because it's late but it would be interesting to further discuss the issue that you brought up for future what is the definition of landowner legally so just making a note of that but not tonight [Music] okay we are now done with our public hearings um is there any uh item 7c moving along plain project update anybody have any questions or comments nope nope okay i'm moving right along city council report counselor baron camp anybody got any questions nope i don't want to make it long but i do have a question about the uh any update regarding the writing of another ordinance that would prevent protesting in residential neighborhoods still under i haven't seen anything yet so i have not seen that at all from matt i'll ask about it one more time we're still working also on the uh the gun ordinance too um that'll be a meeting next week um but i know that meant a lot to you you've spent a lot of time explaining to me so just because i wasn't sure it was necessary just adding that comment okay i would agree not to make the night any longer but again on on the area hackerhorn 101 that development and such that developer brought that based off of requests from the virginia neighborhood those kind of things save as much screen we don't want to see it all of those things i also wanted to make a note most of the folks all except one that made comments were from the uh the neighborhood at the south side of romania and plymouth they have a wonderful community and such i i can't it's it's hard to continue to make that this is a that's a fill-in spot and the comments uh from the one person saying i'm going back on what i'm saying i think chair jacobs i think you all want larger lots and not so tight setbacks and those kind of things that's what i want but in that neighborhood down there i think it was everybody listening commissioner councilmember jacobs mayor mcgee and stuff talking with the developer neighbors everybody's involvement i wanted to give kudos to paul on the amount of time he listened to the neighborhood and what he came in he came in with your comments dean all you guys about the six plexes for town homes paul was taking notes i think he'll come back with something different but thank you for hatching them i know big time you guys means a lot [Music] what else no i just forgot that the other thing i was going to bring up related to that issue but i don't need to it's long gone now oh item number one um yep all right no further questions any other business all right item eight uh we have uh on the 12th you are on schedule all right i am on june 9th commissioner brummond anybody have any changes yeah all right uh i will note uh on june 2nd uh i will not be here i will be out of the country so i will not be here for the june 2nd meeting is that going to be a is it a is it a big meeting are we loading them up again but i believe it's just two items possibly three but i believe it's just two at this point okay well uh good luck to you all and uh i thank you all again for your time um i'll have a motion to close the meeting i'll make that motion i'll second all those in favor say aye aye aye this meeting is now closed all right so i forgot i was gonna bring up they said there's no impact to utilities my power went out y'all along with the other 1 300 people