[0:08] Chair: All right, it's June 13, 2023. We're going to call to order the planning commission meeting. Recording in progress. Oops, I'll start over. Um June 13, 2023. Uh we're going to call to order the planning commission meeting for this evening. [0:26] Chair: Uh first order of business, pledge of allegiance. [0:35] All: To the flag of the United States of America to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. [0:50] Chair: All right. First order of business. Uh we have elections of officers. So, we need a motion to elect the officers. Uh Matt was a chair previously. I'm the vice chair. Um I guess uh I'd nominate Jim as a chair. [1:10] Commissioner 1: I think I would stick with Matt. Okay. Personally, so I'd make a motion for Matt as chair and me to continue as vice chair. [1:23] Commissioner 2: I'll second that motion then. [1:25] Commissioner 1: And should we do a vote? [1:26] Chair: All those in favor? [1:28] Commissioners: I. I. [1:30] Chair: All right, we'll move on. Uh approval of agenda. So this is last meeting's agenda which was quite a while ago. So I just need I'm sorry. This is this agenda. [1:45] Chair: This agenda. Oh, I'm sorry. I skipped ahead. Yes. So approval of agenda here. Um, need a motion to move approve the agenda. [1:55] Commissioner 1: I recommend approval of the agenda. [1:57] Commissioner 2: I'll second that. [2:00] Chair: All in favor? [2:01] Commissioners: I. I. [2:03] Chair: All right. Next order of business, approval of minutes from November 9th, 2022. Uh, we just need a motion to approve the minutes from November 9th. [2:16] Commissioner 1: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. [2:18] Commissioner 2: I'd second. [2:20] Chair: All in favor? [2:22] Commissioners: I. I. [2:24] Chair: All right. New business. Uh, we have a review. Is Jennifer online? [2:36] Kim (City Staff): Yes, she is. [2:37] Chair: Okay. So, Jennifer, whenever you're available. [2:38] Jennifer (City Planner): There she is. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Uh so before us this evening, we have a request for a conditional use permit uh located on the property at 8495 80th Street North. Uh the purpose or the request for the use this evening is for agricultural production and an agricultural fence on the subject property. So I do have a brief presentation. So I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. [3:16] Jennifer (City Planner): All right. So, first question, it looks like it's up based on what I'm seeing as the preview. So, I think we're in good shape. Uh, so in terms of our request this evening, it is a little bit unusual. We don't we don't usually take a look at things uh related to agricultural production, but I'll explain to uh in a few moments just why we're taking a look at it. So, the applicant this evening, the applicant is the owner. Uh it's she her. Uh the property is at 8495 80th Street North. [3:48] Jennifer (City Planner): The property is zoned A2 and it is guided rural residential agricultural in our new comprehensive plan. Uh the parcel is approximately 9 acres. Uh the area that they are proposing to use for agricultural production is approximately 5.6 acres. Uh and the request this evening is for a conditional use permit uh to allow the uh continued use of the subject area that 5.6 six acres for agricultural production on the site uh with off-site sales, which I'll explain in just a moment. Uh and then also to construct an agricultural or deer fence around the perimeter of the agric agricultural plot. Once again, we'll talk about that in just a few moments. [4:28] Jennifer (City Planner): Uh we did notice a public hearing uh for this evening, June 13th. Again, the purpose is because we've got a conditional use permit request. So, the request for the cup includes the following. It's essentially the protection of the continued use of this portion of the property for agricultural production on the site uh to install a tost agricultural fence. Uh the the the fence construction I have a picture of in just a moment but is a proposed as a barbless wire essentially with 8 foot tall uh tposts. Uh the operations that they are proposing are uh an agricultural uh obviously production in that 5.6 6 acres that typically aligns with our growing season in the state of Minnesota uh which is somewhat limited although seems to be getting a little bit longer. Uh what they are proposing is that their field days would be Monday through Friday. Uh essentially sun up to some down just like our farmers uh used to and continue to do. And then farm market days uh actually this is reversed. I went back into the narrative. I'm sorry. The the field days are Monday through Thursday. The farmers market days are Friday through Sunday. [5:37] Jennifer (City Planner): Uh the farmers market days have a pickup around 6:00 a.m. and have a return at about 5:00 p.m. When we take a look at cups in the city, we've got a a specific section within our code that addresses that. It is in section 32-141. It establishes the criteria for establishing establishing that cup. We look at certain uh conditions or criteria be met. Uh there's also a couple other sections in the code. this this evening that that are relevant. 32-345 establishes the city of Grant as a right to farm community. Uh that is important in terms of what we're talking about tonight. Uh and then also given the right to farm uh nature of section 32-345, it does establish under certain circumstances where agricultural uses can request a cup. Uh while this use doesn't 100% align with that request, our code does allow us to take a look at things uh like we are this evening. If a CUP is granted, just like all other conditional use permits in the city, uh reasonable conditions can be addressed including site operations uh and then also things uh that are not under the strict interpretation of the code can be addressed. So, um, from that standpoint, for example, we've got a request this evening for agricultural production on a certain portion of the land. They would like to be able to take that product offsite to farmers markets. Our code doesn't address that 100% uh because obviously the way that agricultural production has evolved over the years, our code didn't really talk about how that that operation might look. So, from that standpoint, the cup uh is a tool that can address that. [7:24] Jennifer (City Planner): In terms of the existing site conditions, the property is an existing rural residential property. There is a principal house or a structure that's on on the property. Uh and there is also a barn uh that exists that would be used as part of the agricultural operations. The south half is an open field essentially which is where the agricultural production would be located. Uh there don't appear to be any uh wetlands per the national wetland inventory on the property. The adjacent properties are primarily used for rural residential uses. Do have an aerial which I think helps uh show it very clearly in terms of what we're what we're describing. So uh the property that has an X on it is the property that is the subject of the conditional use permit this evening. You'll see on both the east and the west side of the property are uh rural residential uses. Uh there may be some agricultural small agricultural uh uses going on, but they are predominantly used for rural residential. Uh the the area with the X is that portion of the property that they're proposing to use for the agricultural production. Uh and just south of the boundary is uh the school district. And you'll see along uh the southern perimeter of the site on the school site, there are a row double row of trees that were actually required as part of the cup process for the school when that went in. I I believe it was part of the athletic fields conditional use permit. So that southern side does have some screening that's already been established as part of that conditional use permit. [8:57] Jennifer (City Planner): In terms of the proposed operations, this is the site plan. You can see here that uh they've got the the principal unit identified the barn. You'll see that the fenced area that they're proposing around the the agricultural or the crop field uh is just south of that barn area and encompasses about 5.6 acres. Uh the purpose of the fence is purely to keep the uh deer from eating the crop essentially. So, uh, what we're looking at here is truly an agricultural fence, which is a little bit different than what we typically consider. And also, our code isn't 100% clear in terms of how we look at that. Uh, in terms of, uh, its construction, it's a Tpost with a a barbed barbless, excuse me, spikeless wire uh, that goes goes through from a construction perspective through those posts. So, um, from that perspective, we've got a little bit of language if we use the strict interpretation of it. We've got an 8ft maximum. We'll talk about that in just a moment. Uh, and then it comes down to where is that construction of the that fence located. Generally speaking, this is the layout and this is what they're proposing. [10:11] Jennifer (City Planner): So, uh, I mentioned that we've got the right to farm clause or language in our in our code. It does establish that you need an uh the right to farm sort of protections, if you will, come come into play when we're looking at five acres of contiguous area or or greater. Uh it doesn't actually specifically say whether it's a lot size or not, but in this case, uh we do have about 5.6 acres that are proposed for agricultural use. Uh it does have the same minimum lot size standards that are required for any rural residential property. So, the 300 feet of frontage uh does have the front yard setback. The sideyard setbacks of 20 feet are uh something that to take note of because we need to talk about that this evening. Uh in terms of the fencing and and those code requirements, if we use the strict definition of the fence, uh the they may be on the property line if they are six feet or less. Uh they cannot be within any right ofway. Uh they can be up to eight feet in height if they are outside of all yard setbacks or on the rear. There's a caveat that you can actually put it within 10 ft of the rear yard. So uh again those those standards come into play when we get a little bit further into the discussion. So terms of the dimensional standards the minimum lot size all of that checks out. Uh the proposed fence agricultural area is approximately 5.6 six acres that falls under our right to farm section of our code. Uh all other lot standards are met. So from a dimensional perspective, uh everything complies on the property. [11:46] Jennifer (City Planner): In terms of the fence standards, the city does uh have a section in the code. It's 32-315 for fencing. Uh it doesn't specifically address agricultural fencing. We have talked about this in the past. I think it might actually predate several of you commissioners in terms of how to address it. uh the tost construction is not exactly what uh probably the intent of the ordinance was and we have talked about this type of fencing as part of other conditional use permits or other tools. Uh so for example uh we talked about fencing and and agricultural plots as part of a previous major subdivision for example. So, uh, it's not uncommon that as part of a conditional use permit, we would look at, uh, the way or the use that they're proposing as agricultural and how we might protect that. So, uh, from that standpoint, there's a little bit of latitude. Uh but if we take the the fence standards and apply them directly, uh in terms of what we're looking at this evening, uh it does say that if you want to fence up to eight feet, that it needs to be set back from uh the the property lines uh by on our sideyards would be 20 feet. On the rear yard, it would be 8 feet because there is a provision that allows or 10 feet, excuse me, that allows you to encroach uh beyond the 50 ft. So if we take the strict interpretation, those would be the setbacks that would be required for that fenced area. [13:12] Jennifer (City Planner): Uh one thing to take into consideration and obviously I think we have a couple members of the public that are in attendance this evening. Uh you know the purpose of the fence is really to prohibit or or keep the deer out. Uh the fence is not a tool for screening. And so from that perspective, depending on what language or what testimony that we hear this evening, uh there might be something we consider there. Uh but this fence type would be very open. Uh it would not do anything to protect sight lines or or visibility of the activities from adjacent properties. It's just something to keep in mind, especially as we hear testimony this evening. Uh and it should be noted that even if this fence were to be set back uh 20 feet from the property lines that for example they could have a field road that would then be on the outside of the fence uh if if that would be you know beneficial. So from a agricultural perspective the agricultural activities can go up to the property line. We don't have setbacks with respect to where those agricultural crops can be planted etc. and and sort of the field roads etc can go within five feet of a property line. So uh as I mentioned the southerntherly property line also abuts the school property and uh it is buffered already by a vegetative screen that was required as part of their conditional use permit. [14:36] Jennifer (City Planner): In terms of the fence detail and hopefully you can see this it is a little bit uh pixelated on my screen so it might be a little bit difficult. You'll see that the fence post is identified as 10 feet, but that's because about 2 feet of it goes into the ground or a foot and a half goes into the ground. Uh since it's not set in concrete, they're pounded in or at least that's my understanding of it. Uh you can see that then the barbless wire, if you will, spreads or or connects between those posts. Uh and the intent of course is to keep deer out. So you can see then the lateral runs or the fencing part of it uh is a barbless non-spike wire that would be uh affixed and connected between those posts. [15:16] Jennifer (City Planner): In terms of the conditional use permit operations uh as I said this is a little bit unusual because we haven't had a request in front of us for a conditional use permit for the agricultural production side. However, I will say that I won't be surprised if we see a couple more of these come through in the coming years because uh obviously the the city in a lot of ways has transitioned to a a predominantly rural residential sort of use pattern. Uh and if we have some of these smaller agricultural plots that come in, uh I wouldn't be surprised if we might not see a couple more of these. Uh the property is homesteaded. There are no employees that are proposed as part of the operation. and it's all going to be managed and operated by family members. Uh, obviously there might be relatives that come to the site uh that are not living in the home, but the the homesteaded property and those residing on the property are part of the operations. Uh Monday through Thursday are are are expected to be field days, which would be a sun up, sun down type of situation, much like uh our our previous commercial farmers that have uh since ceased operations for the most part. Friday through Sunday again are those farmers markets days. Uh the intent is that they're actually going to have folks come in, pick up the product, bring it out to the farmers markets. [16:35] Jennifer (City Planner): That pickup happens at 6:00 a.m. and they return to the site and drop things off around 5:00 pm on those days. Uh there are no on-site sales that are proposed. Uh and all activity from a sales perspective would occur offsite at farmers markets that are in other locations and there are no other retail operations proposed at this time at least from the site. Uh we've had situations for example where we might have a seasonal roadside stand. Nothing like that is being proposed at this time as part of the pro the the cup application. Uh since we're looking at agricultural use, there's no city engineering uh review. There's no uh wetlands are identified on the site. We don't have any improvements from a structural perspective. Uh so we don't have any comments from them this evening. [17:15] Jennifer (City Planner): So, in terms of uh the proposed conditions that are in your staff report this evening, uh there there are about 11 identified conditions uh that I've proposed for discussion. You'll see that uh most of it is permitting the use because again we're a right to farm community and so that seems consistent with what we've identified and what they're proposing to do. Uh it does stipulate or identify a little bit about what their operations are intended to do with the farmers market days being Friday through Sunday. Uh it does identify uh the agricultural fence, but I did leave it blank for the side and rear the sideyard setbacks, the east and west, whether or not you believe we should maintain the 20 ft or whether or not there's uh some flexibility to move that fence line to allow for a larger contiguous area of crop production. [18:02] Jennifer (City Planner): Uh and then also that there it's their responsibility to get any permits that are necessary in terms of you know they're bringing agricultural product offsite selling it at a farmers market if there's any special permits or licensing that's on them to try or to maintain and and make sure that they have those proper permits. Uh it does specifically establish that no retail sales are permitted on the site at this time. If they if they wanted to do something like that in the future, they would need to amend the permit. uh in terms of those pickup days on Friday through Sunday uh that that they need to minimize truck idling to the extent possible. Obviously, they are in a rural residential area and do have neighbors. So, the idea is that we want to be good neighbors. Uh but also understand that this is part of the agricultural operation. Uh and all parking has to be handled on site. So, if they've got, you know, additional farm hands or folks coming to help them out on the farms, all of that parking needs to occur on their property. So with that, that's a high level summary of what we're looking at uh this evening. Mr. Chair, I will turn it back over to you for any questions. [19:27] Chair: Anyone have any questions on the planning commission? [19:30] Commissioner 1: Um yeah, looking at fences, um they got the Tost in the middle going down. Um I would imagine there's going to be some the corner posts obviously are quite big for support. Um I'm just look I was just there was one that went in similar to this not too long ago for it was um they had posts all the way down. So I was just surprised to see these are all tapst going in you know. [20:02] Jennifer (City Planner): Mhm. [20:03] Commissioner 1: Um but I don't think it makes a lot of difference in the middle except um I was just surprised to see that for the center posts although they are pulling from the end you know for support but um I don't think it's really of any big concern for anything. I just one thing I noticed right away and Okay, any other questions for Jennifer? [20:32] Commissioner 2: They're currently aren't using the site for farming like they propose, right? The current site's not being used for farming as far as you know, Jennifer, at this point. [20:44] Jennifer (City Planner): I believe, Mr. Chair, the commission that they have planted a crop this year. um previous owners uh just having been here for a while I know I don't believe were actually using it for agricultural production. They were primarily using it for just rural residential uses. Uh but I do think that they have planted a crop this year. [21:05] Chair: Okay. [21:06] Commissioner 2: And in your report you said the sixoot fence could go on the line. Is that a privacy fence or wasn't that is that where it wasn't clear? [21:18] Jennifer (City Planner): Uh Mr. Chair. Members of the commission, our our fence ordinance specifically says six feet would be permitted on the property line. So it could be of any construction type including a privacy fence. Um, so the eight foot we've got, it says up to eight feet if you meet the required stepbacks. But I think the intent of the ordinance, and we've talked about this as a commission and a council several years ago, was really about those privacy fences and about those larger structures and didn't really account for uh, for example, some of the like the horse uh, you know, fencing and those types of things. It's it kind of is more of a residential criteria for lack of a better way of saying it. So, this sort of agricultural type of fence isn't we've basically applied this ordinance to it loosely. Uh but generally speaking, it doesn't really talk about this type of construction. It's really more about those privacy fences, etc. So, it's a little bit modeled from that perspective. [22:19] Commissioner 2: And then uh if the if the 20 foot offset is used on the east and west, do they still have five acres of um area? [22:37] Jennifer (City Planner): Uh Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I looked at it and yes, they would still still need it based on the aerial and based on taking a look at it, it it appears that they would have about 5.1 or 5.2 acres of agricultural area. [22:44] Chair: Okay. Well, with that, uh, I would just like to maybe move to the public hearing. Just need a motion to open the public hearing. [22:58] Commissioner 1: I'll make a motion we open public hearing. [22:59] Commissioner 2: Need a second. Second. [23:01] Chair: All right. All in favor? [23:03] Commissioners: I. I. [23:05] Chair: So, public hearing is open. Uh, Mr. Just for those that are attending via Zoom, if they would like to speak uh under uh the public hearing at what is it Jennifer star 9 they they hit or raise your hand on the screen. [23:26] Jennifer (City Planner): Yeah, if you're on the phone at star9 otherwise on your screen there should be a raise hand symbol. [23:33] Kim (City Staff): Okay. No dab. There is a raise hand but that is the the applicant. [23:38] Chair: So at this point we will hold off on the applicant. Okay, gentlemen. Anything? [23:45] Mike Sakowski (Public): My name is Mike Sakowski. I'm a 30-year resident of Grant. My property abuts the east line of the applicant's property. Um, my house is set back about 900 ft from 80th Street. So with my, you know, deck and everything else, I would be looking basically at this fence for 24 hours a day. Now, there are actually two small wetlands on that property that I think they've actually tried to drain. There are um couple areas where they're u still some tall grass and things like that, but there are areas that are I would consider as wetlands on that property that they're tilling up basically. So how that would impact that I'm not sure exactly. [24:50] Mike Sakowski (Public): Um, but with that it's, you know, I've been looking I've been enjoying my vistas for a very long time now. And when I talked to the owners back this winter and they told us they were putting in a 10-ft fence, I know whatever. So, back in March or April or May or whenever it was when they started doing it, um, it's like, well, you probably need to talk to the city about that. And I had to end up filing a complaint to make sure that they stopped and did what they stopped what they were doing because they were putting in the Tposts without any braces and without anything else. [25:31] Mike Sakowski (Public): So, it's like it's if you've if you've looked at fencing of this kind type, there's a a pretty good example on County Road E just um west of Highway 61 where there's a lot of these small little farm plots and where they do have eight and 10 foot plant fences. It's it's not a pretty picture when you have Tposts and um the smooth wire fencing mesh or whatever it is. It's if you don't if they're not stretched, they're, you know, it's not something I personally care to look at. [26:15] Mike Sakowski (Public): Um, I'm personally 100% against, you know, having an 8oot fence on the property adjacent to me. They do have it planted. It's already under everything's been tilled and planted and crops are in and things like that. They are putting in a uh a normal smooth twisted wire five and a half foot high fence as they have been working on that for the last two or three weeks. Obviously that wouldn't um do anything for deer but personally um I find it kind of it's more than annoying because now it's like I'll be spending however long I stay here I'm going to be looking at this fence. Um whereas for the last 30 years I've had pretty nice view. You know, it's been very nice. The people who owned the property prior had horses. So it wasn't it's never been since I've lived there. It's never been tilled or anything like that. It's just been pasture pretty much. So um if I think of anything else, I'll come back. But that's all I have for for the moment. [27:09] Brian Bole (Public): Hi, Mr. Chairman. Um, yeah, my name is Brian Bole and uh I live just to the west 8375 um 80th Street and my concerns around the fence um are I have I have a few and I I do appreciate the the rural nature of Grant and um and also the uh the I did also read in the uh in the city documents the the bias towards maintaining a uh agricultural community here and I can appreciate that and also contained in those though were the standards uh through which somebody would operate a farm and while I there might not have been a agricultural quote unquote agricultural style fence contemplated in the city code Um I I think that's uh that distinction is new to me calling this a that this fence is somehow distinct from others. [28:18] Brian Bole (Public): There was a fence there. Um the fence was uh um containing the animals. There was horses and a donkey and some goats and that kind of thing that were there. and the residents that are there right now have done a beautiful job in restoring that fence to uh um a functional condition when it was in a lot of disrepair. Um the concerns I have around it are um I'm sorry I don't know this gentleman's name but the you you kind of brought up one of them and it's the tost being sunk 2 feet um and the amount of force that would be required vertically on that on that fence post to maintain its position in the soil um with the freeze and thaw cycle um doesn't seem to be I would think that it would need to be a deeper set post on there. [29:28] Brian Bole (Public): Um, I agree with that. Uh, if these owners read the city code and looked at the land when they were making their bids on it that they could be reasonably they could reasonably predict that they could use this for agricultural purposes, which I I don't have a an issue with at all. It's a different use than the neighboring property was used as when I moved in, but this is I moved into this this area because I like the rural nature of it. So, I I don't have a problem. They seem to be great neighbors. Um, it's I do worry though given the proximity of the fence to our house that any impacts that the fence would have, not the operation of the farm, but the impact that the fence would have on our property values. And really where that lies is that if it is to be a fence at the height proposed in the place proposed. [30:12] Brian Bole (Public): Um I would like to see some type of a uh um an engineer take a look at that to ensure that the fence is going to remain. Also in the city code it does talk about eyes and potential disrepair. Um that a fence would run into disrepair very quickly just with one freeze thaw cycle. And that really is, you know, I did look at the code and I saw that that uh in the code it contemplated the 20 foot setbacks and that's where an 8ft fence would go. Um, and as far as that two feet, I I I don't I don't have an opinion. I have an opinion about a fence being in disrepair and whether the fence is properly engineered to be in that in that position or in that place on the property. Um, other than that, the operation of the farm, um, sounds reasonable. Whatever they've done so far has not been obtrusive. Um, and the that's all I really have to add right now. That's that's all I'd like to add. [31:18] Chair: Thank you very much for Yep. Thank you. Do we have anyone online that [31:21] Jennifer (City Planner): Mr. Chair, there is one person on uh via Zoom. And if you would like to speak during public hearing, please star or push the raise hand on your screen. I don't believe this person wants to speak. [31:54] Chair: public hearing if you decide to um do we need to bring in the owner to speak during public hearing? Not during public. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. So, I just need a motion to close the public hearing. [32:09] Commissioner 1: I'll move to close the public hearing. [32:11] Commissioner 2: I'll second that. [32:12] Chair: All in favor? [32:13] Commissioners: I. I. [32:15] Chair: All right. Public hearing is closed. So, Mr. Chair, would you like to hear from the applicant? Yes, please. Thank you, Mr. [32:40] Mr. Her (Applicant): Can you hear me? [32:41] Chair: Yes, we can. [32:43] Mr. Her (Applicant): Thank you. All right. Thank you, commissioners. Uh, appreciate you all uh having this uh hearing. Um, I do want to address the 20 foot uh setback. Um, I think that uh it would to uh Brian's point uh uh my neighbor next door, I think that that 20 fence would actually be detrime detrimental to us. Uh I think it would cut down on our uh planning acreage. Uh and I think that to be really frank at that 20 foot setback it would uh because there is a current four 4T fence moving that 7 foot 8ft fence would lack of better words uh look horrible in terms of trying to make it aesthetically pleasing. [33:29] Mr. Her (Applicant): Uh what we're proposing is that the commission commissioners would would recommend us to put that eight feet right where the existing fence is at at that point. Um and really to you, you know, we try to be good neighbors. Uh consideration of the fence. Uh we have thought about the neighbors. Um I don't but they might not see that that way, but uh we have thought about the neighbors and this is the less probably the less invasive fencing uh that that we came up with uh in terms of keeping their fence. We could have proposed uh something more intrusive but u you know we like to be good neighbors and so I think this is is the less intrusive ways. [34:15] Mr. Her (Applicant): Um you know for us upkeeping of the prop property is definitely a key uh key component to what we do here in our farm. And so I'm sure the neighbors have have seen but we uh when we bought the property the fences were all crooked. And so part of what we like to do is uh upkeep of the fencing. And there's a reason why we didn't propose those corner posts really is, you know, one the aesthetic reason. Two is with deer's jumping or trying to pounce, you know, pouncing through those fence. There's going to be continuous upkeep in what we do. And so we're all every day when we get out in the field, we moni we we do a walk through. We make sure that if there's any cricket fence, any fence that needs to be repaired, we uh we ensure that that's done. So, I'd like to uh just voice that that comment out there that we we are doing our part, our due diligence to be good neighbors. Uh and so, uh really hoping that that you know uh that puts the our neighbors at ease on that piece. Um yeah, that's kind of uh what I would like to uh let the commissioners and of course our neighbors here uh know and understand what we're trying to do. [35:30] Chair: Mr. Hurry, when you uh submitted your application, the drawing you have has it at 290 ft wide. I think the property is 300. Were you submitting one or this for a 5-ft setback originally? [35:45] Mr. Her (Applicant): Uh I was not I was going off of uh what all the documents that we could find through uh you know uh previous deeds uh through Google Earth through through um uh any uh public resources that we could we could find. Um we did consider for uh potentially maybe I think between my neighbors property line to uh to where the fence is. It it may be you may be right. there's about a two feet or or a feet difference uh buffer zone between uh their property line and where the current fence is right now. So we we did keep in we did uh we were mindful of making sure that we're not approaching bordering right where their pop property line is. There is a small buffer zone between the two. [36:47] Chair: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Her? [37:00] Mr. Her (Applicant): If I could add something to that to um uh yeah, it's quite interesting uh that that uh the city of Grant, this is probably the first few uh uh uh conditional use on it and I do want to uh voice that you know as the farming uh changes in the need for more uh food for urban areas. I think more and more people are going uh to look for properties that are close to the city, which Grant is close to the city, a good proximity 15 minutes to the TW uh to St. Paul. [37:37] Mr. Her (Applicant): And so um I think that more and more uh folks will will uh start looking for properties and buying properties around here. And so um there's a need for it. what we're doing, we're we're um really fulfilling that niche of people uh providing accessibility to fresh homegrown food uh grown here in Minnesota. And so I think more of more and more of this conditional use permit will will come up and uh really for the commissioners to really consider that and to uh uh uh you know ensure that that everybody uh you know is is uh given kind of their their fair uh share of hearings on these. [38:10] Chair: Okay. Thank you. All right. I think um I did have a question just follow up for Jennifer on the um the comment about wetlands on the property. Are there any wet lines I identified on that property? [38:26] Jennifer (City Planner): Uh Mr. Chair, members of the commission, the National Wetland Inventory did not identify them on the map. That does not mean that there aren't any wetlands. Uh but I will say that we don't typically exclude those out of an agricultural crop field. Um once again this is a little bit different because typically we don't look at agricultural production as a conditional use permit. Uh but the area itself exceeds the five acres and the I mean if the whole thing was wetland that might be a different story but pocket wetlands in an agricultural field are pretty common. Um, and so from that perspective, we don't really get involved. And it's it's their their responsibility if there is a wetland that's protected in some way that if they drain it, etc., then they're dealing with Bowser. They're dealing with a watershed district. That's not really our agricultural is just a little bit different animal than when we're looking at, for example, a building. So, uh, but the National Wetland Inventory didn't identify anything, at least in my records. [39:27] Chair: Thank you. Was there anything with the 8-foot fence construction? There's no uh guidelines or engineering studies recommended at this in in this process. Is that correct? Just to kind of reiterate. [39:45] Jennifer (City Planner): Yeah, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. So, a couple things about our fencing. We don't have uh design standards. Some cities will in terms of opacity requirements, etc. We don't we don't really have those in our code. Uh there's typically a building permit perspective of if a fence is six feet or greater that it requires a building permit. In this case, I actually am not sure that they do. Uh but it's certainly something that we could have the building official take a look at um from a from a building permit requirement place. Uh the engineer doesn't typically get involved. It's something that when a six-foot fence is proposed, the the building official takes a look at and looks at the construction. [40:40] Jennifer (City Planner): So, uh that's certainly something we could put as a condition in here that they take a look at it. Uh the other piece of that I would say that this is where it gets tricky and I understand the the the residents, the neighbors perspective of, you know, this is the first time we've kind of talked about agricultural fencing. It's because typically it it just gets put up for lack of a better way of saying it. In fact, I think you referenced some of the locations where I I know it's present. It exists. Uh it's, you know, containing a agricultural field or a crop or it's, you know, got an area of animals or whatever it is. It typically gets constructed and it's not something that we take a look at in a lot of detail. So from that perspective, the code just really contemplates those types of fencing that are things like, you know, the privacy panels, the they require a building permit, those types of things. So just in terms of um you know, how our code is written, it's it's pretty it's pretty light in terms of design standards and what's required. [41:35] Chair: Question on, if you bring up now, are we still [41:37] Commissioner 1: We're in our discussion period. So, it's uh I I I said it right away when I was looking at this. And with these Tposts, um I guess I have a little bit of an issue with my scene when you get that high with these type of poles. I mean, you're not going to have any you're going to see the sagging, all the um it's not going to be a nice looking or I don't think it's going to be constructed that well. I've seen the orchard on Jeffrey and Jod or Jeffrey and Jamaica and they use posts all the way down and they weren't very close together and they're strung tight and they've stayed tight for years and they look very nice. [42:30] Commissioner 1: I just have a um an issue with these tost especially going that high with them. It's not bad if you're three feet out of the ground or four feet out of the ground, but you start getting up 8 feet and stringing a long distance with the wire. I just can't see it. You know, I'm comparing it with what we the city accepted um that orchard over on Jeffrey and Jamica and that was had solid pulse and they were I don't know how far apart they were but um I don't know if anything was required at the time or they just did it because they wanted to do it but anyway um that's one issue I have with these Tpost being that kind of a distance and that height of the fence and you you know, for aesthetic reasons, too. I'm sure there's a quite a difference in cost, you know, versus these tles versus putting posts in. [43:28] Chair: But, um, any other thoughts on that topic? [43:30] Commissioner 2: Well, that's what I'm hearing and I'm trying to picture myself there and, you know, a nice tight heads. You kind of look right through, you know, you think of the the winery on 96. Yes, you do have the bigger posts every so often, but the wires tighten that. I think that's what we heard tonight is don't want a bunch of sagging wires and the post tipping, and I'm sure the applicant doesn't either as far as keeping the animals out, but um and I know we have in in Jennifer's comments, one of them is, you know, maintained in good condition. Well, that's a little vague. I'm just trying to think how we how you better define that because that's a bit subjective as far as good condition. And I I hear what you're saying that, you know, these things are going to have to support a lot of weight unless there's a whole bunch of them. [44:19] Commissioner 1: Then all of a sudden you start seeing posts and not so much the fence. without having to engineer that, I would definitely say you'd have a lot less posts, you know, if you had um versus the T post versus, you know, solid post that you could actually pull from. [44:43] Jennifer (City Planner): Mr. Chair. Yes. So, I I'm obviously I haven't talked to the applicant, but I have a couple ideas about how we might be able to address it because I I certainly understand and can appreciate the the neighbors perspective of wanting to make sure that this looks uh well designed and and is properly maintained. So, uh perhaps there would be a way to say that uh a fence may be permitted, but a more detailed uh design plan needs to be submitted with post locations of how how close those posts are going to be located. Uh, and there might even be a way to suggest that uh the applicant, the the owner works with uh the city staff, including the building official, uh, to identify a a a design plan, if you will, of, you know, the spacing of the posts, how close they should be, if there needs to be any central anchor points, if you will, to keep it taught, those types of things. Um, I don't know if the applicant's open to that, but that might be a way to to move it forward, but also ensure that a design gets put together that that kind of meets uh the the concerns of of the neighbors and also allows them to, you know, keep their agricultural field in production. [46:09] Chair: I think the public hearing closed at this point, unfortunately. Yeah. Um, I think that's a lot better. That's probably a good idea, especially if if this is the first one and we end up having a few more of these, it'd be nice to have something we could refer to and say this is what works. I didn't hear a lot of uh against the operation. I'd be willing if it was a good fence to be maybe on the line even because that 20 feet could not get maintained in my opinion if it was a good maintained fence that we were comfortable with. I think I think that's a reasonable outcome. [46:47] Kim (City Staff): Mr. Chair and commissioners, the uh what Jennifer spoke of, those conditions could be recommendations conditions could be put in the draft CUP that Jennifer has put together for you. And uh it could also include the fact that that more working with staff and that more detailed design plan be submitted for the council meeting when this goes before the council at the end of June. I think have a timeline on that. [47:15] Chair: I I think that's a a good plan to go forward with. So, could we add that Jennifer in there? [47:20] Jennifer (City Planner): Um, yes. And then there's one other question I had is just um I I was reading through the actions requested and we talk about it in the report about the line of sight on it but I don't see anything in the actions kind of piece saying uh rema or maintaining that line of sight so there's not plastic put over it or anything to to restrict view. Um, is that another provision we could add in there if there's agreement amongst the planning commission? And I don't know the exact wording, Jennifer. I'm looking for your expertise on this, but uh just maintained so that it can't change from the wire with the posts. It it stays a visible fence or one that you can see through. [48:18] Jennifer (City Planner): Mr. Chair. I think the word we're looking for is opacity. It must remain uh with near 100% uh open meaning we don't have, you know, you can't put the you can't you can't weave a fabric between it or a plastic or or things like that that the intent is that that line of sight remains open. [48:40] Chair: Perfect. Yeah. Any other discussion on this? I think the last open item I see as far as the cup and and uh potentially moving this on to city council would be the setback on the sides. Um recommendation on that. I mean 20 ft is the the setback the official setback. Um the request was closer to the line. um discussion on that, thoughts on it. I'm kind of mixed on this one, so that's why I'm kind of looking for your guys's ideas. [49:32] Chair: Well, if they could put a six foot one on the line without it, I just my concern would be what's how is it maintained that side if it's not on the property line. And I'm just trying to think, okay, do I want that fence on my property line, if it's kept clear and it's kept tight and you're looking through it and you see the vegetables, I guess then we know where the line is and I know where the fence is and it's maintained. I just I just get my concern would be what would happen in the offset, if you will, if it's not on the line. [50:18] Chair: I kind of agree with that that if it's um maintained or put done right to begin with versus um putting something you know right on it. Um yeah I don't um [50:23] Commissioner 1: Mr. Chair I just have a question for Jennifer. Jennifer, do they have more options than the property line 5 ft that the applicant kind of proposed and 20 ft? Could there be a 10 foot required setback from property lines? [50:47] Jennifer (City Planner): Uh, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, yes. I mean, I I would say that we would uh want to tie it to some some reason, some reasonable reason, whether it's, you know, it sounds to me like there's an existing fence line that's out there. And so to me, the recommendation might be that we need to maintain the existing fence line. And so it sounds like that is offset by, you know, 3 to five feet, something like that, which is typical. Uh because obviously you need to be able to as a property owner maintain both sides of the fence. So uh to me it sounds like at a minimum we'd want to maintain it sounds like it would be a maintaining at the existing prop or existing fence line, excuse me. Uh which I believe it's probably set set back probably about five feet. [52:04] Chair: I think. So we just have to define the feet. Is it five? Do we know where that is or or is it maintain the current fence line? [52:12] Jennifer (City Planner): Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I think we could just rewrite it slightly for the condition to state that they need to maintain the existing fence line that they can't encroach further into the setback than the existing fence line. [52:45] Chair: Thank you. I think that Yeah. Thoughts on any other topics related to what we're seeing here? So, we have a provision maintain uh existing fence line. Uh the wording around having an approved plan before it goes to city council and then some sort of opacity type um language that's appropriate to maintain line of sight. [52:50] Kim (City Staff): Beyond I have four. [53:04] Chair: You have four. What was the fourth? What did I miss? [53:06] Kim (City Staff): Uh cond uh I have number one and Jennifer help me here. Fence permitted with a more detailed design. Two works with staff on structural issues and post locations prior to the council meeting and maintain the line of sight capacity near 100%. And then maintain the existing fence line. [53:23] Commissioner 1: That sounds right. I was probably lumping two together. You did a better job. I just wanted us to be clear. Thank you. When you were reading through there on the post, um um we're talking um locations. Yes. [53:30] Jennifer (City Planner): And Okay. And we're talking about different post and the tosts. I have not I Yeah. Mr. chair, members of the commission, I think it's potentially there might be different posts depending on working with staff including the city engineer and the building official to determine the best design and whether or not you know alternative or different posts need to be set, how close they need to be set, etc. So, I I think the the language as Ken Kim suggested it is flexible enough that it gives us a little bit of latitude to work with the engineer and the building official to come up with a plan. [54:02] Chair: I I think my that's where I'm at is is let the building engineer determine whether those posts are okay. Okay. If you're good with it. [54:23] Commissioner 1: I'm good with Okay. If they they go through and yeah, they should see the same thing we're looking at as Tost. [54:24] Chair: All right. Any last items with this? Otherwise, I need a motion to move this uh forward to city council with the four additional items. [54:40] Commissioner 1: So moved. [54:42] Commissioner 2: I'll second that. [54:43] Chair: All in favor? [54:44] Commissioners: I. I. [54:45] Chair: All right. Um storage ordinance discussion is what I see next. [54:56] Kim (City Staff): Yes. Jennifer. Um okay we are just starting a discussion on your storage ordinances. There is a current moratorum on all storage land uses. Um there was some confusion at the last December meeting when a application was put in for outside storage. The followup of that is that the city put in a moratorum to be studied and this is the first discussion that we are having. Jennifer just wants to have a brief discussion with you regarding direction and how you feel about outside storage. She will then be bringing a draft back at our next perhaps next meeting um which is I'll talk about that later. So okay, go ahead, Jennifer. [55:42] Jennifer (City Planner): Yeah, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. So Kim did a good job setting it up. Uh, I will tell you that I think that the conversation is going to be pretty short tonight because uh, we sent out a questionnaire to the city council to get some feedback from them so that we have a sense uh, of their direction before the planning commission gets too far down the road in terms of its work. Uh, and I've got two surveys back and they are diametrically opposed. And so I'm gonna need a little bit more from our council members before we can get into a really deep conversation about it. But there are a couple things that I think uh you can start thinking about. Uh and if you have any feedback about it as we as we talk tonight or after this and would like to pass it on, please feel free to just message Kim with it and we can make sure that it gets kind of combined with it. [56:45] Jennifer (City Planner): Uh the questionnaire that got sent out was was the purpose is really to try to get a better understanding of what what storage what exterior storage means to the city. uh because if you go to various communities across the Twin Cities, even across the nation, the way exterior storage is addressed and talked about is very different. Uh depending on what community you're in, some some view, you know, personal outdoor storage as, you know, the same as business storage and lumps it all together. Some have ordinances that are very specific to if it's a personal residential use. Uh exterior storage is limited to a certain amount, but it's treated very differently than if it's a business and how a business might be treated about its exterior storage. Uh some codes have provisions that detail out whether or not they're vehicles or trucks or tractor trailers, for example, and treat those very differently than if we're talking about goods or products or things that are not mobile or not on wheels. [57:48] Jennifer (City Planner): So, uh there's there's different ways of addressing exterior storage. The way our code is written right now is pretty general. Uh it does reference the fact that uh vehicles need to be licensed, they need to be operable. So it sort of ties that exterior storage also back to vehicles and those types of things. Uh but as we all know exterior storage can encompass a lot of different types of things and products. Uh so from that standpoint uh the moratorium went in place so that we could better understand it and study it. There's been a big shift in the marketplace towards folks looking for forest cities and parcels where exterior storage is permitted uh and where it's something that can either be permitted through a conditional use permit uh permitted as a principal use permitted as only an accessory use uh you know whether or not there's floor area requirements for a building and then an equivalent sort of amount of exterior storage. So there's all sorts of different ways to deal with it. Uh but right now the way our code deals with it is it just doesn't to a to a certain extent and it's very very loose. And so that was the purpose of setting the moratorum. [59:15] Jennifer (City Planner): Uh so in terms of the questionnaire that went out to the council, it really looked at some of those questions of do we treat personal storage differently than you know storage that would be for a commercial purpose that would generate income. You know, for example, uh somebody has a piece of property and they've let friends, you know, pay them a small fee to store their boats on a property, for example, over this the winter or uh you know, they lease a certain area of it and they get a conditional use permit for a certain amount of outdoor storage on a residential property. Uh those types of things um are in the questionnaire in terms of how do we look at them? Are they are they personal or are they business? Are they principal? Are they accessory? Do we approve them with conditional use permits or accessory permits? Those types of things. [1:00:03] Jennifer (City Planner): So, uh the the survey itself, like I said, uh hopefully we're going to get more comments back from from the council members, which will help set our direction in terms of a draft. Uh some preliminary things that that they did agree with, the two council members that I did get responses from, uh were the fact that there has to be a certain amount of outdoor storage for personal use that should be allowed, but we should be looking at it. Uh and then there was the question of whether or not exterior storage is really should be permitted anywhere outside of our general business district or those parcels that are down on 36. uh and if something is permitted uh from an exterior storage perspective that it absolutely should have a conditional use permit. So those are some of the things that we're looking at. Um in terms of the planning commission, as Kim said, the goal is that we will actually come back with a draft ordinance that responds to and incorporates a lot of the comments that we get back from the council members. uh and then you guys will get to to nash your teeth over it and kind of hash hush out the standards uh and and hold a public hearing about it uh so that we can eventually lift the moratorum. So with that it's not a whole lot of direction but that's the start of where we're at. So uh commission members if there's anything that comes to mind that you want to make sure that we we take a look at I'm happy to hear it. Uh otherwise, you know, feel free to email me after the meeting as well if something comes to your mind. [1:01:22] Chair: I don't have any immediate response, but I'm I definitely will think about it and and send you an email. [1:01:30] Kim (City Staff): Mr. Chair and commissioners, I'll just add to that. I spoke to a city official today and I I don't believe the survey was completed, but his thoughts on exterior storage, it the city wouldn't allow it um unless it was covered. Everything would have to be an accessory building. Um his thoughts were also personal outside storage would only be allowed for a certain amount of time. Um, Jennifer has not gotten that feedback yet because I haven't talked to her. But, um, even your own licensed boat, RV, um tractor trailer bobcat whatever it is you have would only be allowed to be outside and not covered for a certain amount of time. Um, and those were his thoughts. Uh, certainly we we can't get into that much detail at this point. [1:02:30] Kim (City Staff): Um but while thinking about what you would like to allow and see within the city of Grant, um a second piece to that is enforcement. Um that's key. It's it's really tough to put in ordinances that perhaps restrict some things when you you don't have people out on the street looking for those things. The city only um works off a complaint basis. Yeah. So, if somebody were to have their RV or their boat outside for more than 3 days, we don't have people out there counting days. A complaint would have to come in. So, when you're thinking about again like what you would like to see happen at Grant with Outside Storage, the second piece of that is kind of enforcement. And of course, the permitting is is very important as well. Um, with CUPs, we do as a staff, we do annual CUP reviews. So those things are looked at on an annual basis per the conditions that are uh set up in in that CUP. The other tool that we uh Jennifer has just recently put in with the city is an interim use permit. So those permits don't run with the land like a CP does, but it's for a certain time period. [1:03:55] Chair: Okay. Okay. Lots of considerations, business versus personal. I think you hit on all the points that I was thinking, but I'm going to take that away. And well, it'll be great reading for you guys tonight. Look at the current storage ordinances. Perfect. We'll do that. [1:04:02] Jennifer (City Planner): Okay. Thank you, Jennifer. Do you need anything from us today or can we respond? Okay. I I do not, Mr. Chair. As I said, if there's anything though that comes to mind after the meeting, please feel free to just drop an email to Kim and she'll make sure I get it. [1:04:08] Chair: Okay. Thank you. All right. Any old business? [1:04:15] Kim (City Staff): The only thing I have, Mr. Chair and commissioners, is there will not be a July meeting. Okay. The deadline uh has come past for uh land use application. I believe there will be an August meeting. I believe uh an application, a land use application is coming in next week and it will be complete. Um that date I believe is August 8th. [1:04:41] Chair: Okay. Thank you. With that, I would just need a motion to adjurnn for tonight. [1:04:46] Commissioner 1: Motion to adjurnn. [1:04:48] Commissioner 2: And I'll second that. [1:04:50] Chair: All in favor? [1:04:51] Commissioners: I. I. [1:04:52] Chair: thanks everyone. The meeting is closed.