[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