[11:23] You ready? Okay. All right. I'd like to call the meeting to order for the Nissa

[11:27] Planning Commission Board of Adjustment for Tuesday, November 4th, 2025. Roll

[11:32] call, please. >> Sean Weldon,

[11:33] » Josh Young, >> Gary Harris, Dave Reese,

[11:36] » Maggie Wentler, >> Steven Dimland. Are there any additions

[11:40] or deletions to the agenda?

[11:53] » I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda.

[11:56] » So move >> second.

[11:57] » All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed? Motion carries.

[12:00] Next to approve the meeting minutes for October 7th, 2025. Are there any

[12:04] corrections or additions to those minutes?

[12:06] » There were none in the packet for today. We are still compiling those.

[12:12] Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes.

[12:15] » So move. >> Second.

[12:16] » All those in favor? >> I.

[12:18] » All those opposed? Motion carries. Next item is open form. Is there anyone

[12:22] present tonight that would like to speak towards something not on the agenda this

[12:25] evening?

[12:28] Move on. Moving on to public hearings. I'll entertain a motion to open the

[12:33] public hearing. >> So move.

[12:34] » Second. >> All those in favor?

[12:36] » I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Okay.

[12:41] First item is conditional use permit application 025-25

[12:45] to obtain a conditional use permit for the construction of a new commercial

[12:48] structure with a dwelling unit above a commercial use within the highway

[12:51] business zoning district. Subject properties located at to be determined

[12:55] common drive P214663.

[12:59] Owner applicant Marthaler Deanna Trust and Kent Marthaler.

[13:05] I do have an update on this one. I received an email um request from the

[13:10] applicant asking to table this once more and he has also submitted a 1599 waiver

[13:16] um for the um statutory deadline for a decision. So um applicant is requesting

[13:21] at this point a table motion from the planning commission board of adjustment

[13:27] » for another month. >> One more month. Yep. He's changing

[13:30] [snorts] the he wants to throw in the addition on this and so he's going to

[13:34] work to get the architectural renderings um review of the floor plan to see

[13:38] whether or not we need to adjust the septic design and he'll bring additional

[13:41] submissions for review in December. >> Good questions.

[13:49] I'll entertain a motion. I'll move to table conditional use permit application

[13:54] 025-25 for 30 days or for a month.

[14:02] » Second. >> All those in favor?

[14:04] » I I all oppose. Motion carries.

[14:09] Next item is variance application 030-25 to obtain a variance of deviate from

[14:14] maximum tower tower height, maximum impervious surface and setbacks to

[14:19] residential zone property lines and structures within the public and

[14:22] recreation zoning district. Subject property is located at 25636 Main

[14:26] Street, Nisa, Minnesota, P28110763.

[14:31] Owner applicant Nysa Economic Development Authority. Woody Crog from

[14:35] Verizon Wireless. Would you hear it? Okay.

[14:42] [clears throat] >> Make sure the green light is on on the

[14:44] micro we're pulling that we can hear you.

[14:46] » It's on. You should can hear me. >> Thank you.

[14:50] » Good evening. uh uh Woody Krogue uh here representing the applicant Verizon

[14:54] Wireless uh uh in this uh variance and uh eventually

[15:01] the conditional use uh application that's next on the agenda.

[15:06] » Yep. Thank you, Stephen. Your staff report.

[15:08] » Thank you, chair. So, we have before us a proposal for a monopole communication

[15:13] tower. Um first for this um request we have to handle the variance application

[15:19] and address any deviations that are being proposed for this use from local

[15:25] standards. Um in my analysis I've determined that there's a few different

[15:29] variances that would be proposed to be deviated from. Um the public and

[15:34] recreation zoning district has a 15% imperous surface maximum. The survey

[15:38] provided by the applicant shows the proposed for two parcels in question

[15:43] here to be at 47.02%. Uh the second dimensional deviation

[15:49] would be for tower height of 190 ft where 150 is the maximum allowed. The

[15:55] third would be a variance for setback of nearest residential zone property of 70t

[16:00] 5 in where 500 ft is required for the construction of this tower. Fourth, we

[16:05] have a variance for setback to the nearest property line of 33 feet 9 in

[16:11] where 190 ft is required for the construction of this tower. Uh fifth, we

[16:15] have a variance for a setback to the nearest

[16:19] structure of 9 ft where 190 ft is the required for maximum or for this to

[16:26] height sorry. Um, and then the sixth and final variance that I determined in this

[16:31] review was for the height of the security fence to be 8 ft where the

[16:35] ordinance standard is 6 feet for the max on an over the counter permit type

[16:40] process. So those are the variances. You'll notice in in most of them they

[16:45] refer to the tower's height. That's due to local controls in our ordinance that

[16:49] as tall as a tower is proposed to be, it should be set back from a property line,

[16:54] from structures, um, local road, rightways, and things of that nature.

[17:00] Um, summarizing to these as the nearest as being proposed. Um, a little bit of

[17:07] background on this [snorts] project. It had been before the city back in 2016 um

[17:13] and 17 and it was originally being proposed to be between the Ye old pickle

[17:19] factory and the ball field. Um that was later determined to be not feasible um

[17:24] for communication power due to grant funding that the city has received for

[17:28] that land. Um the applicant has then approached the city of Nisa for an

[17:33] alternative location to provide better better cell service to downtown. Um,

[17:39] this particular topic has been before the city council and planning commission

[17:43] a couple times um, since my arrival at the city here. Um,

[17:49] talked about the towers height. Uh, there were other locations that the city

[17:54] had considered through city council meetings. Um, there was a cemetery area,

[17:58] the recent acquired land at the intersection of 371 and county roads 13

[18:03] and 77. Um those options were deemed not as beneficial for coverage.

[18:09] Um through analysis of propagation data provided by the applicant. Um the

[18:15] applicant has stated that there will be no lights on this tower unless required

[18:18] by the FAA. Uh the applicant had since submitted documentation to us that the

[18:23] FAA is not going to require lights based on the tower's height. Um, city of

[18:30] Nisa's zoning ordinance also requires communication towers to be

[18:34] self-supported in a monopole fashion and not be guide towers. Um, so that is what

[18:38] is proposed in front of you today. Um, for the security fencing around the

[18:44] structure and the proposed screening, um, this is proposed to have cedar board

[18:48] with galvanized steel fitting. Uh the tower is proposed to be constructed

[18:53] using galvanized steel and a certified statement that the

[18:58] construction of the tower including reception and transmission functions

[19:01] will not interfere with radio, television or public safety

[19:04] telecommunications is being required and has been submitted by the applicant. Um,

[19:10] I also put in the packet a copy of division 4 communication towers as it

[19:15] relates to all of the different standards that the city um requires

[19:18] observation of in an application. That's my two cents from the floor at this

[19:23] point. Opening for additional questions that you or the public may have. Okay.

[19:31] » Okay. Thank you, Stephen. Um, Stephen kind of touched on most of this, but

[19:36] I'll uh and uh give a little brief history of uh how we have arrived where

[19:43] we are today. Um, as Stephen said, there was a a lease executed with the city. I

[19:48] think it was in 17. Uh, for whatever reason, Verizon never got around to

[19:52] building it when this uh site came back into uh to the front burner in 2023.

[20:00] Uh I inquired with the city about proceeding and that's when it was

[20:04] discovered the proposed location with the equipment near the pickle and one of

[20:10] the uh light standards at the ball field being replaced with the pole for the

[20:15] antennas and then the lights would have been put back on there. That was it was

[20:19] the pole that was in the grant area. The equipment area was not. So we did look

[20:23] at trying to move the pole closer to the equipment out of the grant area. We also

[20:29] looked at the cemetery and the other property Stephen mentioned.

[20:34] [clears throat] Um but uh ultimately with Jenny, former

[20:40] city planner, I guess uh Jenny Max, we settled on the fire department location

[20:46] where we're where have our application in here today. Um [clears throat]

[20:54] so that it was the reason we settled on that location. is the preferred location

[21:00] is that uh of all the pro proposed locations, this uh location will provide

[21:07] the maximum improved coverage and capacity that Verizon needs for the

[21:12] downtown area as well as areas of poor coverage on the outskirts of going going

[21:18] out of town, I guess, to the north and the uh the east that the city council

[21:22] [snorts] had brought to our attention where they were hoping we could provide

[21:26] some relief and more coverage in those areas. So, uh that's also how we got to

[21:34] the 190 foot uh tall tower uh proposal. The the higher the tower generally the

[21:42] further it can transmit and larger coverage area. Um [clears throat]

[21:48] so the uh the poll depicted here on the drawings on sheet T1 of your drawings uh

[21:55] uh in your packets. [snorts] [clears throat]

[21:58] So 190T pole with a 9 ft lightning rod and keeps us under the 200 ft which

[22:04] prevents having to light the tower. uh regarding improved coverage and

[22:10] capacity in your package. You also have these uh uh coverage maps, propagation

[22:15] maps we call them that show the improvements

[22:18] from what is existing without the tower to the what will is proposed with the

[22:24] new tower. So on the uh I guess the left here is the existing

[22:31] the red areas are the bad areas. This green area down here is the is what's

[22:36] provided by the tower cover of the existing site on the north side of the

[22:40] golf course. You can see with the proposed tower, all of this new green

[22:45] and yellow area is all improved coverage uh that would be provided by this tower.

[22:51] And you can see how those the golf course down here and the uh the new

[22:55] tower here will connect and uh the new tower will greatly take some of the

[23:02] stress off of that tower at the golf course. Um [clears throat] lots of

[23:08] safety issues with the tower. Um we uh in speaking with uh Stephen earlier um

[23:15] if the if the city ever uh wants to uh see any of the towers get inspected on a

[23:21] regular basis uh uh and if we can always supply that latest report uh uh at the

[23:30] request of the city whenever the city requests usually it's a two or three

[23:34] year inspection schedule where all climbers inspect every bolt and

[23:40] connection and everything involved with the tower. Regarding aircraft safety, as

[23:45] Stephen said, no lights based on our airspace analysis where we're under that

[23:49] 200 ft. 200 feet or above, you may know automatically has to have lights with

[23:53] the FAA. So, 190 plus a 9 foot lightning rod keeps us under that 200 ft.

[23:59] » [clears throat] >> Um radio frequency uh RF safety is a

[24:05] common concern in regard to environmental effects such as [snorts]

[24:09] uh health public health uh federal agencies

[24:13] SEC and others USDA uh OSHA etc uh are [clears throat] the scientific experts

[24:20] on RF safety standards and uh [clears throat] the telecommunications

[24:25] act in 1996 expressly uh prohibits local authorities from considering those

[24:32] issues as part of the permitting process. Uh [clears throat] the act was

[24:37] submitted in your in your packets on page 117. There's a highlighted

[24:41] paragraph that uh covers what I'm talking about there. Um so with uh

[24:48] considering this information, Verizon respectfully requests approval of the uh

[24:53] variance application and uh getting a little ahead of myself.

[24:58] the conditional use application coming up next.

[25:02] » Thank you. Is there anyone that would like to make a public comment towards

[25:06] this application?

[25:11] Hearing none, I'll close public comments.

[25:14] Commissioner member comments. Do we have any questions?

[25:20] » Well, Mine's only the health concern. I guess I

[25:25] know if there's any health concerns. Oh, it seems like they certainly uh between

[25:30] the city and the and the Verizon people, we

[25:36] had due diligence in trying to locate other other spots for the tower. Uh

[25:42] appears that they've been pretty much exhausted, but um we need three

[25:46] variances tonight. Is that correct? Three separate ones.

[25:51] So there was six total bullet points being varied from um you could choose to

[25:58] address them individually or collectively.

[26:04] » Collectively. >> I just have a couple questions maybe for

[26:07] you since this is being brought up here again. So when you're at the city

[26:10] council, um the tower that the fire department's

[26:15] using currently for the repeater will be able to take that tower down and put on

[26:19] yours. Correct. Is that still the plan? >> We did discuss that. Yes, sir.

[26:23] [clears throat and cough] Um, but uh there through the course of

[26:28] the conversations, the fire department uh or I'm not sure exactly who uh uh

[26:35] decided they didn't want to move anything off of the existing poles back

[26:40] there onto the new tower. >> Okay. What about the

[26:43] » So, we're not taking down the old towers. No.

[26:45] » Okay. What about the generator system? >> And we would Verizon will have their own

[26:51] generator as well. Not we're not going to use the that was also decided to not

[26:56] share a generator from on the city side. >> As I recall something

[27:03] » that's been brought up and talked about, but I haven't heard what the outcome is

[27:06] on those. >> As I recall, when when Woody and I were

[27:10] speaking, it was his legal counsel that said that that was not opportunistic to

[27:14] be sharing a shared feature. >> Correct.

[27:18] » Yeah. And then the only other thing with the lighting on that um because we do

[27:23] land helicopters there, I would want to double check with North and uh lifelink

[27:29] what they actually might prefer to have that lit. Uh we just landed one there

[27:34] within the last couple weeks. >> Sure. So along those lines, um we can do

[27:40] what's called voluntarial voluntarily lighting uh which you know if uh you if

[27:47] the city decides that they would prefer a light on it, you know, uh we can

[27:52] certainly add that if that >> Yeah, I would just say Stephen that

[27:55] would be something for you to reach out to both of them and see what their

[27:59] preference would be on that. >> Well, that certainly could be something

[28:01] that we discuss here. Um, our ordinance specifically states that they shall not

[28:06] have lighting. Um, so I suppose we could add that to

[28:11] the discussion tonight and see whether or not that's another thing that we want

[28:15] to vary from in this case. Um, wasn't

[28:22] specifically noticed. Um, but it was proposed that the communication tower

[28:28] had some dimensional deviations. Um, >> so I I think

[28:33] » I would say that's a question we want to push back to North and Lifelink to have

[28:37] answered for us. >> Okay. Could we propose language as a

[28:41] structured condition to this variance approval that prior to Lanny's permit

[28:46] issuance, we get the affirmation from um, who was it again? Did you say

[28:51] » North Memorial and LifeLink come in and out of there?

[29:03] So something along the lines of um

[29:09] let the determination of whether a light be present or not be based upon feedback

[29:14] received from North Memorial and Lifelink for or against.

[29:20] » Yeah, I I think that needs to be a legitimate question that needs to be

[29:23] asked.

[29:47] So, uh I just have a question on that. So if we proceed if after you're in u

[29:54] research uh can we have a vote tonight with that being a condition of the of

[30:00] the vote? Okay. >> Yep.

[30:09] Besides the the letter from Larry Stark uh regarding the tower, did you have any

[30:16] other feedback from any other community members?

[30:19] » That was the only public comment that I received in regards to this.

[30:22] » Okay. And that right he asked about an antenna tree rather than the tower.

[30:26] » Yeah. Upon receipt of that, my my interpretation is that would be like

[30:30] towers that look kind of like a tree. Um >> Yep.

[30:34] We don't have any other native vegetation that is that tall being one

[30:38] consideration in the wings but

[30:42] » and that's not feasible. >> Not not at that height of you know

[30:47] that's two two and a half times higher than the highest tree around and it's

[30:51] yeah it's just it would be uh ideal killer actually.

[30:59] Okay. Gary, do you have any questions?

[31:07] » No, I think we should we have to deal with these five questions and the

[31:12] findings affect the issue of variances, but I think we're we should be doing

[31:16] this collectively rather than individually because they're all going

[31:19] to virtually be the same, I would think. Yeah.

[31:24] » Just to reiterate, you didn't hear back from Hills Crossing or any

[31:26] representative from Hills Crossing? >> No.

[31:28] » Okay. Yeah. I'm fine with doing it collectively if that's appropriate.

[31:35] Seems like it is. So, how we do a variance application is

[31:41] I have to go through these specific questions as we go down and then it's a

[31:44] yes or no from from the members here. So, um number one is the variance in

[31:49] harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan.

[31:54] Yes or no?

[31:59] » It is. It's, you know, it's part of the downtown

[32:02] process, the urban urban lifestyle. So, I mean,

[32:07] facilitating business and communications.

[32:12] » Okay, Sean, do you agree? >> I agree.

[32:15] » All right. Uh, number two, is the property owner proposing to use the

[32:20] property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the city of Nisa court of

[32:23] ordinances?

[32:26] » Can only be used for one purpose. Yeah. >> Yes,

[32:31] » I agree. >> Yes.

[32:36] » I say the per the poll is it can only be used for one purpose and that's comm

[32:40] telecommunication. So

[32:46] » number three is a need for the variance due to circumstances unique to the

[32:50] property not created by the property owner.

[32:56] » I'd say it is because We've tried alternate locations.

[33:02] Um, this is getting to be about the only spot that it'll work. So,

[33:08] » agree. >> Uh, number four, will the issuance of a

[33:13] variance maintain the essential character of the locality?

[33:20] » It will. The character of downtown is is unique in its own right. So,

[33:28] John >> three sorry

[33:32] » and five uh does the need for the variance involve more than economic

[33:35] considerations >> obviously yes

[33:38] » yeah agree >> okay

[33:43] and no other pertinent findings I'll entertain a motion

[33:52] I'll I'll move um for approval

[33:57] of variance application 0 D 030-25 to obtain a variance to six variance six

[34:04] bullet pointed items as as listed in the U planners report and the findings of

[34:12] fact there's six items uh all each one requiring a variance

[34:20] and uh all all be according to the findings of

[34:25] act and the conditions. There's there's conditions shown on in the report as

[34:32] well. There's four that are listed and then the fifth one would be I don't know

[34:38] what the the explanation would be for the lighting. We're going to make that a

[34:43] condition. Correct. >> You want me to help you out and state

[34:47] what I have written down? >> Yes. Okay. Um condition number five that

[34:51] the lighting determination to be based upon a determination from North Memorial

[34:56] and light as to the presence for or against

[35:00] lighting requirements. >> Agreed.

[35:08] » Right. Did we get that? >> Second.

[35:12] » All those in favor? I >> and I will oppose.

[35:19] All right, motion passes. Uh, next item is conditional use permit

[35:25] application 031-25 to obtain a conditional use permit for

[35:29] the construction of 190 ft monopole communication tower within the public

[35:33] and recreation zoning district. Accepted properties located at 25636 Main Street,

[35:38] Niswah, Minnesota. P28110763.

[35:42] Uh, owner applicant NISA Economic Development Authority. Woody Crog of

[35:46] Verizon Wireless. [clears throat] So this is just a

[35:52] normal.

[35:56] » So now that we are past the variance, so we're no longer um analyzing deviation

[36:01] from local ordinances. Now we're evaluating the use impacts and trying to

[36:05] mit mitigate them if possible through conditioning. Um so in my staff report

[36:11] for the CUP um the nature of the request is a

[36:15] conditional use permit for the communication tower which isn't allowed

[36:18] use through a conditional use per path conditional use permit pathway in the

[36:22] public and recreation zoning district which fits the zoning designation of the

[36:26] subject property. um there are

[36:32] minimal ways to um mitigate impact sitewise like screening wise for such a

[36:38] structure. So our ordinance has standards that the color of theru of the

[36:42] structure be either light blue or generally blending in with the

[36:48] um sky behind it. Um whether it's blue sky, gray sky. So I think that the

[36:52] galvanized steel is as close without requiring painting of the structure um

[37:00] to what you might see behind it. Um it is proposed to have a security fence

[37:06] around it which will um deter any type of um violation of that compound. uh

[37:15] there's a lease that would be needing to be executed between the city and the

[37:20] applicant in this case for utilization and maintenance of that

[37:25] tower and its facilities. Um and we had had evaluated other locations

[37:33] none of them seeming feasible in this case. Um,

[37:42] basically it other than what other things we've discussed tonight.

[38:02] Okay.

[38:09] Do we have any feedback for Stephen on some potential conditions?

[38:18] » Do not what was your analysis with regards to

[38:22] screening? Uh, I think that the um proposed height

[38:29] of the security fence around it was a good bonus from the applicant as a

[38:35] suggestion. They're also volunteering the cedar board for for that. Um,

[38:42] how do you screen 190T tower? >> Yeah.

[38:46] Seven. What is that? Seven. >> Best 17 stories tall. I mean, that's

[38:49] that's height, isn't it? >> Yeah. Um,

[38:53] can I say say a word on that? >> Um, I think your ordinance requirement

[38:58] is six foot on the fence. So, we're we're suggesting make it 8 ft, which

[39:04] will con at least conceal the equipment on the ground and all you'll be seeing

[39:10] sticking [snorts] above the fence is the pole itself. So,

[39:15] » so you are putting cedar up on >> Yeah. 8 foot rather than the six foot

[39:19] required by the code. And uh we also kind of had it slid

[39:27] to the side of the fire department building so it's it's going to be barely

[39:32] be noticeable. The base of the tower will be barely noticeable from the from

[39:37] the street.

[39:43] » Any other questions, comments?

[39:47] Y being none, I'll entertain a motion. I'll move for approval of conditional

[39:53] use permit application 031-25 to obtain a conditional use permit for

[39:59] construction of the 190T monopole communication tower uh etc etc according

[40:04] again according to the findings of fact and the planners report and

[40:13] no conditions I guess other than you've agreed to a taller fence that's about it

[40:17] right >> there are four potential conditions in

[40:19] my part. Okay.

[40:24] » Uh, one pause I forgot to take. I because I I did it in the first, but I

[40:28] should offer it in the second. Is there anyone in the audience that would like

[40:30] to make a a public comment regarding the conditional use permit application?

[40:38] Okay. Just wanted to have that there. Thank you.

[40:44] All right. So, we got that. We got the conditions

[40:47] » back the conditional as presented.

[40:51] Second. >> All those in favor I. All those opposed

[40:56] me.

[41:00] » Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you.

[41:07] » Uh, next item is variance application 032-25 to obtain a variance to construct

[41:12] a detached garage with reduced property line setback within the shoreline

[41:15] residential zoning district. Subject property is located at 4354 Mission

[41:19] Road, PD 2834571. Owner applicant, Lakeland 5 Development

[41:25] LLC, Jordan Severance is a representative here.

[41:37] » I'm Jordan Severance, uh, representing Lakeland 5 Development, seeking uh,

[41:41] approval for this variance. >> Yeah, thank you. Stephen, your staff

[41:44] report. Thank you chair. So we have before us a application for variance

[41:49] again for a detached accessory structure within the um minimum setback distance

[41:56] from a property line. Applicant is proposing to put a 1,856

[42:01] ft detached accessory structure 11 ft from the property line where the

[42:04] ordinance dimensional standard is 30 feet for structures exceeding 1,200

[42:09] square feet in size. Um so that would be the deviation aspect

[42:14] of this. Um the structure is proposed to be served by limited use. Um holding

[42:21] tank system which is less than 150 gallons per day for usage. Inside the

[42:26] structure there's proposed to be just a bathroom. No living quarters. So we're

[42:29] not permitting a second structure containing living quarters in this ask.

[42:34] It's just uh accessory use. Um the wetland identification has not been

[42:39] submitted to the city for the review, although the national wetland inventory

[42:43] layer does not depict any wetlands to be present on the subject property. Uh

[42:47] condition has been listed for this evaluation to be performed and a

[42:51] delineation or no wetland letter to be submitted to the city. Um in this

[42:56] application, the applicant has taken storm water management mitigatory

[43:00] efforts and proposed a um [clears throat] landscaping plan and

[43:04] areas for storm water retention. Um, that's what I have in my staff

[43:10] report. Opening it up to public and applicants.

[43:15] Okay. Would you guys give a brief overview of the proposal?

[43:19] » Uh, so we're looking to put a detached structure on the property. Um, we're

[43:25] wanting to get within the setback that's uh stated by the ordinance just because

[43:31] of various circumstances on the property itself. um the

[43:37] southbound neighbor um to us their driveway is encroaching on our property

[43:42] um to an extent which is limiting where we're able to put the detach building

[43:47] and then also the nature of the lot uh narrows from 100 ft down to 80 ft

[43:51] towards the road. Um so we're kind of limited as far as where our location is

[43:56] at to be able to uh get the desired size of the structure that we're looking for.

[44:04] Okay. >> Is there anyone like to make a public

[44:07] comment regarding this application? >> State your name and address. Great.

[44:12] » Yep. Mike Dan, 411 7 Sunset B Road. I'm a joining neighbor to him. I don't got

[44:19] nothing against Charlie, but I thought if you want to get some kind

[44:24] of a setback or variance, it had to be some kind of a hardship.

[44:29] There is no hardship here because but I believe you're selling the property,

[44:33] right? It's is sold, right? So what's the hardship?

[44:38] So now I got to look at a building. He's profiting off this. And if you let this

[44:43] go through, you know, not allowing him to have the 30ft set back, you open up a

[44:48] can of worms because I know two other neighbors that want to do that with

[44:51] these lots and I'll be the third one. and I and I can put up a lot of pole

[44:56] buildings on my property and maybe I'll do that and then I'll just sell my

[45:00] property and leave too. Now, Mission Road is a beautiful scenery area. This

[45:05] is going to junk it up and we don't want that.

[45:12] And I think Dresser has a letter, too. >> Sorry. Yeah, we did receive a a letter

[45:19] from Grasser and um his legal counsel. And I just know found out about this

[45:25] last week. I got the letter in the mail. I was in Pan Canal for 18 days. Lucky I

[45:30] got back a week early or I wouldn't even known about this. When I was trying to

[45:34] build my property, you guys said it would take 6 months for me to get a

[45:38] permit unless I stayed with the original uh subject. They're already breaking

[45:42] ground. They're almost ready to pour concrete

[45:45] there. I don't know if you guys all visited the site yet.

[45:48] Yeah, it's quite the eyesore. That's all I got. Okay.

[45:53] Any other questions, comments? Come to the podium and state your name.

[46:02] [clears throat]

[46:04] » Good evening. My name is Jessica Brigman and I'm with the law firm of Spencer

[46:08] Feain. I'm here tonight on behalf of Mike and Amy Gesser to respectfully ask

[46:12] that the planning commission and board of adjustment deny the variance request

[46:15] by Lakeland 5 Development. My clients would be here tonight, but Mrs. ressor

[46:19] had underwent surgery yesterday and is unable to travel and they thank you for

[46:22] your understanding. As stated in our previously submissed

[46:26] submitted statement of opposition, the applicant has not met the legal

[46:30] standards required by the city's zoning code to be granted a variance. The

[46:34] 30-foot step setbacks in the Nysa ordinances exist to protect the

[46:38] character of the neighborhood, preserve open space, and uphold environmental

[46:42] safeguards. Placing a pole shed within 11 feet of the property line is a major

[46:47] deviation from the purposely thought out existing setbacks of 30 feet. Review of

[46:52] the property on which the variance is being sought shows there are available

[46:55] alternative sites. Additionally, adjusting the driveway placement would

[46:58] meet the setback requirements. Alternatively, if the applicant was

[47:02] willing to reduce the size of the building's footprint or driveway, a new

[47:05] pole shed could be placed at the proposed location within the current

[47:08] setback requirements. In short, there are multiple reasonable alternatives to

[47:12] granting a variance. What concerns us in addition is in light

[47:18] of the reasonable alternatives appears this is a request. This request is one

[47:21] of economic convenience. M Minnesota state law is very clear that economic

[47:25] convenience is not a permissible reason to grant a variance. The choice of the

[47:29] proposed location over those others seem intended to minimize construction costs

[47:34] or p preserve preferred yard space and not due to a legitimate hardship or

[47:38] unique physical characteristics of the property. Lakeland 5 development has not

[47:43] demonstrated any practical difficulty or unique physical condition that justifies

[47:46] granting this variance. They have not shown that this request is based on

[47:50] anything other than economic convenience. Our other concern is that

[47:53] the approval in this case would set an unfavorable precedent, weakening the

[47:57] weakening the integrity of the zoning framework and inviting further

[48:00] non-compliant development that would degrade the quality and character of the

[48:04] neighborhood. For these reasons, we respectfully request that you deny this

[48:07] variance in order to uphold the integrity of NISWA's ordinances and

[48:10] remain compliant with Minnesota state law. Thank you for your time.

[48:14] » Thank you.

[48:18] Any other questions, comments? Right, I'll close public comment.

[48:26] » Uh, do we have any questions for the applicant?

[48:33] » Could it be placed somewhere else besides that spot?

[48:38] » Not from any of the the other locations that we were kind of looking at for it.

[48:43] that was the most most reasonable location for it to have the least impact

[48:48] as far as tree removal any stuff like that. There was a total of 10 trees that

[48:52] we were looking at removing for it. Um we had started doing block clearing and

[48:57] stuff. There was no permit that was required to be able to do that. So we

[49:00] had taken down four trees that were already damaged in the storms in the

[49:03] last couple of months that were broken off and dead and then three other

[49:07] smaller trees that were removed. Um, so we had reduced the number of trees that

[49:11] we were ended up needing to taken down for the the location of the site. Um, so

[49:16] far it's just been uh a little bit of the top soil grading and that little bit

[49:21] of tree removal. Um, that's kind of the progress that's been made on it. Um,

[49:24] simply because if the variance here doesn't go through, then we can still do

[49:28] a quick conferment for a smaller structure. But, um, we're actually

[49:32] trying to get the building at a a 15t setback, not 11. Um the survey showed 11

[49:38] feet on there, but I believe the I think the application had 15 on there.

[49:42] » The application depicts a dimension of 11 ft from the property.

[49:46] » 15 ft is actually the setback that we're looking for for it. So we're not trying

[49:51] to push that all the way to the the 10ft set back from the 30. We're trying to go

[49:55] to about 15 ft. And that was the space that we thought was reasonable for uh

[50:00] the size of the building and the location of everything else on the

[50:02] property. The dimensions that I show on the actual

[50:08] internal uh component of this structure are 32x

[50:12] 58. Is that correct? >> That's correct.

[50:15] » And if 15 ft were to be considered, would you be able to provide an updated

[50:20] certificate of survey? >> Yes.

[50:22] » Yep.

[50:28] Uh, you had mentioned that on the south, is it the southward end that you said

[50:32] there's an encroachment from a driveway from a neighbor?

[50:34] » There is. I >> correct.

[50:36] » Okay, I'm seeing that here. Mhm. >> Doesn't look like that'd be enough of an

[50:42] encroachment to to really alter a building location on your property. But

[50:48] » it's an encroachment just because of how it limits our driveway location for it,

[50:52] which also then limits the availability for building locations.

[50:57] » But the setbacks are from the property line, not from their driveway. So their

[51:01] driveway can be moved. >> Yeah. And I It's a public or a private

[51:06] road. It's not a specific driveway to one location. I believe there's three

[51:10] houses that are pertaining to that one. So, I I don't know how that plays into

[51:15] it as far as with it not being just a private driveway but a private road

[51:19] itself. If you relocated your driveway,

[51:23] pushed it over further south the driveway.

[51:27] » Mhm. Then couldn't you flip the building the other direction and then end load or

[51:32] lo have your driveway the entrance to it coming from the east rather than the

[51:36] south.

[51:40] » You know that it's still it may have to make that building a little smaller, but

[51:43] you'll you'll get it over closer to the driveway if you move your driveway left.

[51:47] » Right. And the building location that we have is more or less where the the

[51:52] driveway is currently furthest to the south as it sits on the property. that's

[51:56] the the furthest south that the driveway is at on the property. Um, and I said

[52:01] the the lot narrows from 100 ft down to 80 ft, which is just kind of

[52:04] constricting us as we get closer to the road there.

[52:08] And we're trying to do this partway down the property. We're not

[52:13] trying to do it up uh kind of towards the lake. You know, it's not not meant

[52:17] to be an isore from the lake or anything like that. That's just a a residential

[52:23] detached garage with a workshop in it. So,

[52:30] » uh Sean or Gary, were you able to go out there before?

[52:33] » I was. I was out there today. >> I took a look yesterday. Okay. Um, it

[52:38] was hard to tell what was going on with one of the letters that was submitted uh

[52:43] was talking about the possibility that you've been grading over on off of your

[52:47] property onto the neighbor, but I don't know if that's

[52:50] » you can't tell. Just look, you know, >> yeah, there's a tree separation between

[52:53] our property and the neighbors of about 15 to 20 feet

[52:58] » of just solid woods. >> There was stakes there that were

[53:01] ribboned off that show the property land when I was there. and it showed it. And

[53:05] there was a surveyor out there uh yesterday that was remarking that north

[53:09] property line on the south property line.

[53:12] » It was

[53:19] a bit fil. >> Yeah. How many yards of dirt would you

[53:23] say have been brought in? >> I that I'm not sure. I haven't been out

[53:27] to the site recently. >> Okay.

[53:33] I think some of the concern that we're hearing is that you it's your trees.

[53:39] You're able to cut down the trees, but you're already grading the site and it's

[53:44] already staked off. And you said that if this were to be denied, it would still

[53:48] go in that spot. It would just meet the setbacks. Is that what you just

[53:50] » It would just be a smaller building, which abides by the the 10- foot setback

[53:54] rule. So, if we went to a smaller building, we could go closer to the

[53:57] property line than we're proposing right now.

[53:59] » Okay. >> So, it would go there anyway. It would

[54:00] just not >> it's just a matter of the size that

[54:03] we're wanting to do requires a 30 foot setback and we're we're trying to

[54:08] » get that down to 15. >> Okay.

[54:12] I think one of the major problems that you that you run into on variances is

[54:18] when it the neighbors are not agreeable to what what you're doing. It really

[54:23] makes it difficult on >> it does on us

[54:26] » and that it's difficult cuz that north uh neighbor Mike Ger has four detached

[54:31] structures on his property but for some reason us having one there is a big

[54:37] concern. Well >> each application is we have to look at

[54:42] application that's submitted that's >> Oh I understand. Yeah.

[54:47] » I don't know. It looks to me like the solution is having a smaller building.

[54:51] So, how [clears throat] so do you know like I can't see off of this how wide it

[54:57] is in that space? So, if you have to have a 30 foot setback,

[55:01] » I thought you're talking. >> Can you blow that up, Stephen? On the

[55:03] » Yeah, I can kind of help that. >> You're needing 60 foot of setback before

[55:07] you can even put a building in. >> So, that location right there is the

[55:11] widest point of the lot and as it goes east towards the road, uh, it narrows

[55:15] down all the way to 80 feet. So from point A to point B there, we're

[55:21] narrowing 20 ft throughout and being a partway down. We're going to

[55:26] be sitting at about probably about 90 ft there, just shy.

[55:32] » So 90. So you're talking about a 30 foot >> building envelope would be 30 foot

[55:37] » with >> Yeah. So if you have if you have a 30

[55:41] foot setback on each side plus a building plus a driveway going through

[55:44] it. >> Well, the driveway could go through the

[55:46] setback though. all the way to the lot line or

[55:50] » no your drive your driveway that's existing now

[55:53] » the driveway doesn't have to be within the 30 foot setback

[55:57] » does it >> is a much less restrictive setback so we

[56:00] » that's a building setback that's not a driveway sir

[56:03] » correct this would be a structural setback

[56:05] » that's why I said before if you could you know move tuck your driveway down

[56:09] closer to the south property line and rearrange the building over there you

[56:13] could you could probably fit a 30 30 foot wide envelope there

[56:16] » they There's about 10 really nice tall pine trees, Norway pines, that are on

[56:21] that south side of the driveway there that we're trying not to remove um by

[56:26] just moving the driveway simply for that

[56:51] Um, any more questions? >> No, I just agree with Gary. It makes it

[56:55] very difficult for us when you don't have neighbors that

[57:05] want it. Well, I mean, even to apply a variance, there has to be something

[57:11] unique to the property that's barring its use. And to me, I don't see anything

[57:16] unique to the property that's barring it from meeting the setback. So, that's

[57:20] just my opinion.

[57:25] Either way, if we have no more questions, I'll entertain a motion.

[57:46] papers looking for number application number plus my cover sheet here.

[57:59] Before

[58:03] we have a motion, do we don't we have to go through these items?

[58:07] » You do? >> Yes. Yeah. We have to discuss these.

[58:11] There's five items, you know, that we have to go through

[58:23] my sheet. >> Yeah, no problems. All right. Uh the

[58:29] first question is is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of

[58:32] the ordinance and comprehensive plan. Yes or no?

[58:38] » I it's a stretch, but I' I'd say yes. It the ordinance does allow variances in

[58:44] situations like this, but um I'd say yes to that first one.

[58:50] » Sean, >> I agree for the first one.

[58:52] » Okay. Two. Is a property owner proposing to use a property in a reasonable manner

[58:56] not permitted by the Nisah city code of ordinances?

[59:00] » That one I would have to say no because it's I think there's another

[59:05] building size that could be in location that could be made on those properties.

[59:10] » Sean, >> I agree.

[59:11] » I also agree. Three is a need for the variance due to

[59:15] circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner.

[59:20] Again,

[59:24] I guess that would be yes because it is it is a unique property, but it's the

[59:28] building. It's the size of the building that's that's

[59:31] the constraining >> and its location on the lot.

[59:35] » Yeah. >> Uh number four, will the issuance of a

[59:38] variance maintain the essential character of the locality?

[59:42] » No, just because of the fact that the

[59:45] neighbors are are stressed over it. Sean

[59:50] » agree

[59:53] » and last does a need for the variance involve more than economic

[59:57] considerations.

[1:00:00] » Yes, I I don't think cost is involved. >> I think it does not either. Uh but we

[1:00:05] said no to two of the questions. So then it's a denial of the application. So

[1:00:10] I'll entertain a motion. I'll move denial of the variance application

[1:00:14] 032-25

[1:00:17] based on the findings of facts submitted by the city and or by the staff and uh

[1:00:23] the the findings of our uh findings of facts are dealing with the variance the

[1:00:28] five five uh situation five items >> agree second

[1:00:34] » all those in favor I I all those opposed motion carries

[1:00:38] thank

[1:00:42] I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

[1:00:45] » Hello.

[1:00:49] » Second. All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed? Motion carries.

[1:00:56] » Uh, next item under new business, administrative subdivision. Um, Rudolph

[1:01:12] Justin Rudolph. Hello Stephen.

[1:01:18] Thank you. We have before us a meets and bound subdivision application to

[1:01:22] subdivide a shoreline lot um roughly in half for all intents and purposes at

[1:01:27] this stage of the conversation. uh proposing a lot line um between the

[1:01:31] north half and the south half as shown on the certificate of survey. Um the

[1:01:37] applicant has proposed to um create pro riparian tract A which

[1:01:43] would be sized at 36,300 ft where 20,000 ft the minimum average

[1:01:48] width of that um by definition of ordinance is 65.34 ft where the minimum

[1:01:54] would be 75 ft for a shoreline lot. Um, my analysis to that is this is this

[1:02:01] would be a pre-existing condition for the shoreline of tract A and the parent

[1:02:05] tract as a whole. Um, if the subdivision and that lot line were to be drawn in

[1:02:11] there and approved, impervious on riparian tract A would be at 19.9%.

[1:02:17] um non- riparian tract B which is not having any shoreline thereof um would be

[1:02:23] proposed at 30,666 ft where 10,000 ft is the minimum

[1:02:29] uh for a lot that contains sewer available to it no on-site systems that

[1:02:34] is um the width at that point to that structure would be 126 sorry not

[1:02:39] structure width of that lot would be 126.72 ft where 75 is the minimum

[1:02:45] proposed impervious after the um structure that's depicted

[1:02:51] by the survey um would be constructed would be 24.8%

[1:02:56] impervious. I have in the staff report the table that determines those figures

[1:03:03] and minimums for lot area and lot width. Um both of these tracks are are proposed

[1:03:08] to be served by city sewer. The current parent parcel has two residential

[1:03:13] structures on there. one of them proposed to be removed. Um, permitted to

[1:03:17] be demolished at this point. Um, and both track A and track B are currently

[1:03:23] paying ERC connection fees of of two for the parent lot. So, if subdivided, it

[1:03:30] would be one and one at that point. Um wetland identification for this

[1:03:35] application has not been submitted for review. Although the national wetland

[1:03:38] inventory does not depict any wetlands to be present on the subject property

[1:03:42] and um WDSH has submitted a letter indicating no wetlands are present in

[1:03:48] your staff report post creation of the staff report. So that is now checked. Um

[1:03:58] these paid um findings of facts were submitted by myself um indicating that

[1:04:04] this would not have any negative impact to um use on health, safety, general

[1:04:09] welfare. Um the tracks meet minimum sizes of sewer available. So we don't

[1:04:15] need sight suitability for septic systems.

[1:04:19] Um proposed eventual uses of residence and tract B um size as shown on the

[1:04:25] survey I think 50 by 100. Is that correct Justin?

[1:04:28] » Uh yes. >> Thank you.

[1:04:31] » Um

[1:04:35] yeah any other questions that you have the applicant has public [snorts] has in

[1:04:40] the audience for this application? >> Yeah. Did we have any uh public comment?

[1:04:47] None. Okay, I'm trying to find it again. Did Jake give us Did he submit a letter

[1:04:53] for this? >> He in this document here, there was an

[1:04:58] email. So, I asked him for comment. He provided a comment stating so long as

[1:05:03] the proposed lots meet the minimum lot widths and area for the lake

[1:05:07] classification and septic classification, then I would have no

[1:05:10] comments. >> Okay.

[1:05:11] » He asked if I could confirm and so I did. I'll vote.

[1:05:20] Do we have any questions?

[1:05:24] » No, I do not. Okay.

[1:05:34] So, we're looking for a motion to approve the subdivision is what we're

[1:05:37] waiting for.

[1:05:43] I'll move approval of the meets and bound subdivision application 033-25.

[1:05:49] Um again as u according to the findings of fact as submitted in this in the city

[1:05:55] staff report and uh there's conditions potential conditions there's four listed

[1:06:03] in the se there's seven different findings fact

[1:06:09] and and four potential conditions for the approval

[1:06:15] » second. All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed? Motion carries.

[1:06:25] » Next item under new business is a sketch plan review for Boberg.

[1:06:44] » Good evening. Um, my name is Mark Reni. Uh, and

[1:06:49] » Hi, Dan Bullberg. >> Um, I am I'm here um and we are here

[1:06:55] today to talk about a sketch plan review for the Bowberg property that basically

[1:07:00] is, you know, the area behind the the including the old lumber yard, the area

[1:07:05] behind those businesses that are on 77 on the north side of 77. You can see

[1:07:10] this um it's a it's a very significant um piece of ground. Um the Bowberg

[1:07:17] family has been um has owned this parcel for going on a hundred years. I think

[1:07:23] it's in excess of 90 years. Um you know they are a one of the first families

[1:07:27] here. U they've been in business in this general area for a long time. Um this

[1:07:32] this is we've spent a lot of time going through this to say you know what are

[1:07:37] some of the things that um services the community uh because this is not just

[1:07:41] about how the last dollar is made um it is actually what what's best for the

[1:07:46] community and what's economically feasible um and practical in this area.

[1:07:51] And you know there's not a we didn't come in with a with an application today

[1:07:56] because we think this is such a significant piece of ground and there

[1:08:00] are unanswered questions here that we are at the same time that we are working

[1:08:05] through the the application process. Um you know we are working with you know

[1:08:10] talking with the Minnesota Department of Transportation with the Crowing County

[1:08:14] Highway with the public works department of um of Nisa. Um we've also we're also

[1:08:21] looking at um you discussing this with we've talked to some of our neighbors

[1:08:26] already about this. Um so um you know there's a need for housing in Niswah. Um

[1:08:31] there's a need for there's a there's a high demand for some additional um

[1:08:36] storage or highway you know that kind of office warehouse kind of you know the

[1:08:41] the type of um whether it's machinery or whether it's the the stone yard that's

[1:08:45] there or you know something something in that area. And on the north end of this

[1:08:50] property, the big orange property there, that that a good bit of that is backing

[1:08:55] up to the Nisa um uh sanitary sanitary sewer system spray field. So that limits

[1:09:03] the potential marketability and the you know the feasibility of using that for

[1:09:08] housing or for you know apartments or even single family housing or something

[1:09:13] like that. So, you know, it is more of an of of a commercial industrial

[1:09:19] warehouse, you know, storage, something like that kind of space. Um, the blue

[1:09:24] space in the middle, um, you know, looking potentially at, um, at

[1:09:29] approaching the city and and and that could be something that has a little

[1:09:32] higher density, whether it is duplexes or a an apartment building, um, maybe a

[1:09:38] combination of of those things. Um, there is the highway frontage in the

[1:09:43] orange. um that that um would have some additional um bis highway business um

[1:09:48] applications to it. Um [clears throat] the the I don't know purple maroon uh

[1:09:54] not maroon I don't know mauve what color is that fuchsia I was looking for I was

[1:09:59] looking for the color on the color wheel it was there somewhere the fuchsia um

[1:10:04] looking at single family u and potentially in those areas one of the

[1:10:08] products that we're looking at there are um some relatively modestsiz houses um

[1:10:13] could think of it like a patio home potentially that would be a snowboard

[1:10:16] related um there's a high I'm uh amongst my many day jobs that I have um in since

[1:10:23] I retired from Grand View um I'm also a realtor um although I don't generally do

[1:10:28] just I do resort real estate I don't do um a lot of residential real estate but

[1:10:32] in in our activity that we have we're approached all the time

[1:10:36] » with people who would like to have a a lowmaintenance or no maintenance

[1:10:41] something that's relatively modest size they have a place in Arizona they have a

[1:10:44] place in Florida or they have a place in Texas or someplace else and they're

[1:10:48] looking for a place to spend their summers. They the lakes are becoming

[1:10:51] prohibitive for a lot of people. So this is a way for you know this is a way to

[1:10:55] build a product to develop a product that is access that makes Nisa

[1:10:59] accessible to um a greater um number of people. I mean I think a couple years

[1:11:05] ago I looked and the average sale price for a house in Nisa was like $400,000

[1:11:10] and I'm sure it's well over that now. Um I built a lot of those at one point in

[1:11:15] time at Grand View. So, I know the, you know, the the that end of the market is

[1:11:20] well taken care of. Um, but, um, you know, there we think there's a there's

[1:11:24] there's a market here that could be served. Um, you know, and and that's

[1:11:28] really what that what that is all about. Um then on the there there's a

[1:11:32] potentially a little bit of business up in the the f in the orange that's in the

[1:11:37] in the souththeast corner and maybe a little more business on the or or

[1:11:43] multifamily, you know, something that is a a duplex kind of a thing in the um

[1:11:48] upper left corner of that open space. There's a large wetland there in the

[1:11:53] middle. Um you know, we don't need any incursions or encroachments on those. Um

[1:11:59] the reason again the reason we're coming here is because of the the his you know

[1:12:04] this has been like I said this has been in the family forever. The idea here is

[1:12:08] it's a complicated piece of ground. It's a complicated and rather than just cut

[1:12:12] it off and say all right let's just take 12 acres to the in the kind of the left

[1:12:19] corner in the in the lower left corner in the the orange and say we're going to

[1:12:23] come in and do a uh a plan for some office warehouse that sort of thing. or

[1:12:27] come in and just do something along the golf course. We think good planning

[1:12:31] dictates that we take our time, that we work with the city and we talk about

[1:12:36] things like how are we going to get sewer in here? Um is any of this can any

[1:12:40] of this be private roads? Does it all need to be public road? I know what your

[1:12:43] ordinance says, but there's some there's some things where are we going to access

[1:12:47] 77? Um because um right now there's an approach road that that is um that is

[1:12:54] there and it's they're entitled for an approach road on the on the um on the

[1:12:58] very um I guess that's what is that the north the northwest corner of this. So

[1:13:03] that lower the lower right hand corner of this that is uh that is that is

[1:13:08] actually that field approach is uh is there or that that's what we call the

[1:13:12] country a field approach but that approach is there and then the city has

[1:13:16] expressed some interest and the county has expressed some interest in

[1:13:21] developing a um you know a what's a word I'm looking for a collector route a

[1:13:26] collector remember a collector street that would come um that would be the

[1:13:29] that would be accessing 77 up there um with cursor is. So, um, you know, City

[1:13:37] Sewer, there's there's there's not City Sewer, um, you know, that's readily

[1:13:42] accessible here other than at Wendy's, there's a private there was a private

[1:13:46] arrangement made between Wendy's, the developer of Wendy's, and the city um,

[1:13:51] where they pushed it under the road. Uh, potentially there's an easement that

[1:13:54] exists there and, um, we we could we could talk about that and we will talk

[1:13:59] about it with them. The other thing is if there's a collector road, does it

[1:14:03] does it dip to the south and and become a frontage road and uh I'm sorry, dip to

[1:14:08] the east and and and connect up uh along the highway with um Hazelwood or does it

[1:14:15] carry on through um dip to the west and connect up with the road that serves the

[1:14:20] Nisa Comets? So, you know, nothing we're doing here is um you know, there's no

[1:14:27] there's no recycling centers or um um industrial waste sites or I mean this is

[1:14:32] housing. This is h this is um midlevel housing, you know, is what I would say.

[1:14:39] This is um consistently the businesses that are that would be the kind of

[1:14:43] planning we would do for these businesses. It would be something that

[1:14:46] would be um consistent certainly consistent with

[1:14:52] what's in the neighborhood. Um so with the backage road plan that the

[1:14:59] city's got through here now does that match or tie up with that or

[1:15:03] » Yeah, that's that's what I'm looking at is the information that was provided

[1:15:09] concerning the backage road. This appears to

[1:15:13] coincide. >> It does. Okay. Yeah. And again,

[1:15:15] » but there's flexibility, >> right? But and again with that access

[1:15:19] would require some condemnation of land. That's an eminent domain situation or

[1:15:24] something. That's something that the city would have to do. Um you know,

[1:15:27] there's probably some some tiff financing that that we might take place

[1:15:31] for some of these some of these improvements. There's definitely either

[1:15:35] we do a development overlay district or a development district like we did like

[1:15:39] we've done before. or we've done one other of those in Nisa which leads for a

[1:15:44] little more it's it's a little more open zoning but everything that's goes in

[1:15:47] there requires a conditional use. So I've I've done that I did that about 5

[1:15:51] years ago with a project in uh connected to Graham View and it it you know it's

[1:15:57] how we were able to work and if that still exists but so there may be an

[1:16:01] ordinance change or it may be a zoning change or you know there's things like

[1:16:05] that that might be required. We wanted to we want before we brought in

[1:16:09] something that's like, you know, you got to act on this today, we want to give

[1:16:13] you a chance. We And we've also already met twice with city two or three times

[1:16:17] with city staff. Um and we're again we're working with um with the with the

[1:16:22] county as well. Dan, would you like to have some

[1:16:25] » Yeah, I know that's I think you covered it really well. I think the idea was

[1:16:28] just to get this in front of you, get some initial comments. Um any initial

[1:16:34] thoughts or feedback? I think the two biggest issues we're trying to work

[1:16:37] through and just make sure everyone's on the same page are on our 77 access and

[1:16:43] where does that go and then and then and then the um the sewage connection and

[1:16:48] and what does that look like? Uh like we said uh for now we think the connection

[1:16:54] the best most logical path is to connect near Wendy's

[1:16:58] but there are other options. Um, and then we think the best location for this

[1:17:04] backage road is is kind of where the city of Nisa has it. Um, but there's

[1:17:09] different opinions on that as well. So, we just wanted to put this out there and

[1:17:12] start to to get comments on it. I think the as far as the projects, like the

[1:17:17] first project we plan to work on would would be the um the housing here, the

[1:17:22] the uh along the golf course lots. So, the the actual purple color, that's

[1:17:26] that's kind of phase one, if you will. So that's kind of what we would plan to

[1:17:30] bring to you first. >> And again,

[1:17:34] but again, we don't want to bring it in isolation. We want to bring it with the

[1:17:38] idea because again, we have to look at if it's a development district that that

[1:17:42] allows everything with conditional use, then the city has some control.

[1:17:45] Otherwise, that you know, how does it meet that that zoning in that area? But

[1:17:49] if we were to ask for reszoning, it's obviously something that's consistent

[1:17:53] with uh it's a it's a low inensity use. Um, you know, as most of these are

[1:17:57] relatively low intensity uses other than potentially the um the, you know, the

[1:18:02] multif family is a little bit more intense uh intense use. Um, you know,

[1:18:07] the the stuff to the west of here is a golf course and we'll and and you know,

[1:18:10] that's going to remain a golf course probably for the next hundred years. Um,

[1:18:13] the stuff to the land to the north or west of here is uh city city sewer

[1:18:19] facility. So again, we don't see that changing. Uh to the directly to the

[1:18:23] north we have Nissa Commons which again is that um kind of office warehouse or

[1:18:29] warehouse um thing and then of course we have the the frontage um there's some

[1:18:33] there's some frontage on 37 actually on 371 um where we have a couple um of

[1:18:39] improved accesses but I got a big hunch that the um the Minnesota Department of

[1:18:45] Transportation's not about to say oh yeah just drop it out on 371 head itself

[1:18:51] intersection I got a big I got a big feeling that I

[1:18:55] know they're answered before I ask. So, um,

[1:19:00] questions, comments, thoughts, anything, you know. Um, so you're not looking at

[1:19:06] any what you call retail development in here at all. I mean, the only retail I

[1:19:11] would think would be potentially, you know, what's on, you know, something

[1:19:17] that would be serviced off of the um the the collector road

[1:19:22] » that's got visibility on 371. Yeah, I got you.

[1:19:25] » Cuz I mean, really, that's that's, you know, it's what it's what you really

[1:19:29] want is you want the businesses located between the highway and the

[1:19:33] » That makes sense. Yeah. So, we think it's good planning

[1:19:38] » um and appropriate. >> I like it. I like the idea. I've been

[1:19:43] waiting for this to come in at some point. I knew it was going to cuz um

[1:19:50] Carl's pretty good friend of mine and I've known him for a long time. So, but

[1:19:53] » yeah, >> he doesn't own the property anymore. So,

[1:19:57] » yeah, it's it you know it >> I I don't have a conflict of interest

[1:20:01] anymore. Well, it doesn't, like I said, it we

[1:20:05] think it it provides some opportunities, some stuff in this we need and and some

[1:20:09] market driven some market. >> I think this will be good for the city.

[1:20:15] » Anything else? Any any other questions? Joe, any thoughts? You Joe, you have a

[1:20:20] thought on everything, buddy. >> Right. Yeah. Um, no, I think it's great.

[1:20:25] Um, it'd be a great plan, great addition. you know, it follows the

[1:20:29] conversations that's been going for a long time in this area. I do think as a

[1:20:34] whole the city um doesn't have just flat out doesn't have

[1:20:41] the zoning ordinances, the conversation, the talk, the plan put in place to do

[1:20:48] something like this right now. um from the council level, we've talked about

[1:20:52] getting a um economic development board committee put together in this town to

[1:20:58] help with projects just like this. And you know, here's a prime example of it.

[1:21:03] Um I I do think that this would be a good example to maybe for you guys even

[1:21:09] to bring before council to show the actual need of that to them, you know.

[1:21:16] Um and also to um explain um the mix use right now in the highway business

[1:21:23] district. Uh mixed use um low, medium, high density that just doesn't even

[1:21:29] exist in right >> terminology in this town. And so that's

[1:21:34] I'll say a educational piece that needs to be introduced here. But um yeah, I

[1:21:40] think much like this property, the property the city just produced to the

[1:21:44] south um is slash would potentially look a lot like this. And so um yeah, it's

[1:21:54] it's uh it's what we need in this town. It follows [snorts]

[1:21:59] the comprehensive plan that was put together. Um and also to you know um

[1:22:06] yeah, it's definitely a need. So, I'd be all in favor. But yeah, I would say I

[1:22:11] don't know if you guys are interested in coming presenting something like this to

[1:22:14] council at a high level for all those decisions that need to be made there

[1:22:18] outside of this group as we move ahead with plans like this. I would say would

[1:22:21] be helpful. >> I think I think it makes it would make

[1:22:23] good sense for us to do that because you know your departments are going to be

[1:22:26] coming to you and saying, "Hey, they're talking to us about this. They're

[1:22:29] talking to us about this, >> right?"

[1:22:30] » So, I think that would make some sense. >> Yeah. And that intersection, I mean,

[1:22:33] there is another bad accident out there today at that intersection. And that

[1:22:37] thing's going to get closed as quick as MDOT can close it. So

[1:22:41] » which intersection? >> No, right out there at Hazlewood 371. So

[1:22:45] yeah, I mean, so I mean that's just I'm just on borrowed time before that all

[1:22:50] get shut down. And then the need >> for something like this

[1:22:56] would be needed for >> everything with that road going through

[1:23:00] there. That's that's going to be a need sooner and later for the for the city.

[1:23:04] Um, it's also going to be a need for mindot. Mindot accesses that for their

[1:23:10] own pit, you know, back there by the city. So,

[1:23:12] » right. >> Anyhow, I think, yeah, I think this

[1:23:16] should be looked at, you know, on all different levels right off the get-go,

[1:23:21] » but yeah, happy to talk to the council and meet with the council on that.

[1:23:25] » Don't forget that there's some long-term there's preliminary planning going on

[1:23:28] with water systems for the city, too, and it'll obviously going to impact

[1:23:33] costs and everything. So >> we'd be really close to we could be your

[1:23:37] first customer. >> Yeah, [laughter]

[1:23:40] » I could say that. You know, it goes hand in hand this type of density with the

[1:23:47] infrastructure. They complement each other. They're going to help each other,

[1:23:53] you know, from a feasibility standpoint. So the density and city utility um

[1:24:01] package road cost of that infrastructure um really depends on this level of

[1:24:07] density to make it happen. >> And so this is consistent with that. Um

[1:24:14] we've been encouraging the city to you know look forward and establish the

[1:24:21] corridor as soon as it's able to. And you know this is exactly what's needed

[1:24:28] to help establish that sooner than >> between things like the accident and

[1:24:33] things like which unfortunate and the idea that you know we we don't want to

[1:24:40] just develop that little road coming in off of off of a power substation across

[1:24:45] the power substation. That doesn't really help anybody. That's not good

[1:24:49] planning. Um it's not good. it just isn't it's not the right way to

[1:24:54] do this. So that's why we thought we'd come here, prep everybody for stuff

[1:24:58] that's coming later, work together on this, work with the council on this,

[1:25:01] work with the department heads on this, and and then just work our way through

[1:25:04] this and see if we can't get this roll. >> So, thank you.

[1:25:08] » All right. Well, thank you very much for your time.

[1:25:10] » Yes, thank you.

[1:25:41] Uh, moving on. Old business. We have none. City planners report.

[1:25:48] » Thank you. Uh so as directed uh by council and this commission, I've been

[1:25:52] working on a um markup change log for the uh chapter 20 ordinance taking into

[1:26:00] account the comparative analysis from Chris Pence uh comparing Crowing

[1:26:03] County's ordinance standards to ours. So that'll be coming in to the DNR for

[1:26:09] review once I have the change log completed. Um provide them their

[1:26:13] adequate comment period and then we schedule public hearing. So, that'll be

[1:26:17] up and coming here in I'm I'm aiming for December for the public

[1:26:22] hearing. I just have to get that change log out to uh DNR and then get their get

[1:26:27] their response. Um so, it could be December, could be January, but um

[1:26:32] that's coming around the horn here. Um in the month of October, uh we have

[1:26:37] issued 11 land use permits and still have about a dozen that are coming in

[1:26:42] the door here. So development is [snorts] good. I think

[1:26:47] everyone's just trying to crunch before the winter hits us. Um

[1:26:53] a few large scale projects in the works here. So I think that all things are

[1:26:57] aiming towards [snorts] some good development.

[1:27:04] Okay. Any other additional questions?

[1:27:08] Comments? All right. I'll entertain a motion to

[1:27:12] adjurnn. >> Second.

[1:27:14] » All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Meeting is

[1:27:18] adjourned.

[1:27:26] » Yeah.

[1:27:37] » Okay. So, I'll get that. You have a few

[1:27:41] minutes. Just wait in the lobby. I got to bring my desk. Um I'm gonna sign the

[1:27:45] loan boundary. Split application. [clears throat]

[1:27:50] Get your copy of that. Copy this pile and close off the

November 4th 2025 Planning Commission/Board of Adjustment

Transcript