Proving the agenda and the meeting minutes. >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> And a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> I. >> So carried. Moving on to new business.
Staff? >> Thanks, Mr. Chair. The first item on the agenda for the Planning Commission today is the review of a standard preliminary plat, Little Creek Woods, in accordance to the Cook County Subdivision Ordinance to create 11 conforming parcels in the
FAR-3 Zone District on two parcels. The combined parcel total is 60.87 acres. Both parcels are entirely within the FAR-3 Zone District. This is a standard platted subdivision proposed for conforming to the FAR-3 Zone parcels.
And there is a shoreline classification associated in this area for a public water course, Little Lake Creek, which runs through the parcel, and the land within 300 ft of the river is classified as shoreline. This preliminary plat application is for a standard plat to create 11 conforming
FAR-3 Zone parcels within the proposed Little Creek Woods plat. The preliminary plat application shows the private road will include a crossing of a public water course and will be a dead-end road with a hammerhead turnaround. Each parcel has a conforming 100 by 100-ft
build site with exception of Lot 1, which has a conforming 100 by 200-ft build site. Lots 1 and 2 are bisected by the Gunflint Trail and the private road respectively. For zoning considerations and background, this property is located within the shoreline area of a public water course in the Forest Agriculture
Residential Zone District. The principal purpose of the FAR-3 District is provide for permanent and seasonal areas at a medium density. Lot requirements for the FAR-3 Zone District are 5 acres minimum lot area and 200 ft minimum lot width. The parcels were rezoned recently at the
request of the project proposer in early 2026 from the light industrial zone district to FR-3. In your packets, we cited the Cook County subdivision ordinance, which outlines the preliminary plat submission information requirements. The preliminary plat application includes a
narrative, a preliminary plat map, the wildfire resilience plan, the stormwater and erosion and sediment control plan, the wetlands delineation, and identification of septic sites. Additionally, land services requested additional information regarding the proposed method of crossing for the public water course.
In this screen, you can see the zone pattern for that area. So, the gray area is the light industrial and the yellow is the FR-3 and the white is FR-1 zone districts. The red arrows are pointing to the two parcels included in this preliminary plat
application. For a stormwater and wetland review, in June of this year, the Wetland Conservation Act approved wetland delineation with minor revisions to wetland boundaries. The revised delineation will be needed to be used for the remainder
of the project. The current stormwater pollution prevention plan doesn't quite include the wetland delineation updated information yet because that was updated kind of concurrently with the pollution prevention plan. Um so, that would be something to be
amended later on. In July, the applicant submitted the large site stormwater permit application and that's currently under review in the Cook County Land Services Office. Uh Cook County Land Services staff have also identified several stormwater permitting items to be resolved. Um so,
that could be resolved mostly separately through that large site stormwater permit, but that's summarized in this section of the staff narrative as well. There was a memo regarding ongoing concerns about the culvert design raised by Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District staff
with regard to the open span open bottom span culvert as well versus the dual culvert system, which we'll go into in a little bit more detail later. And Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District found the erosion control plan to be adequate and made recommendations regarding what kind of plants could be included for seed mixes
for reestablishing vegetation. For staff conclusion on the wetland and stormwater area of the application, the preliminary plat has not been updated to reflect the updated wetland delineation map, although revisions to the delineation map are unlikely to affect
the road or the plat layout. It is important for the accuracy of the data to update existing plans with these revisions. All applicable stormwater, wetland, and permitting requirements must be satisfied prior to construction of the shared access road and before final plat approval. The attached memo included in with your
packets does provide additional detail regarding those requirements. With regard to the septic, every parcel has two septic sites identified. They range from a type one septic system. Most of the lots are type two septic
systems and a type three septic system for a couple of the lots. In this chart, which was not put into the staff narrative itself, what I wanted to use this for was just a comparison. As you saw in the
preliminary plat map, lots one and two are both bisected by roads as earlier referenced. The language in italics there is from the drafted Homeowners Association agreements, which stipulate that there wouldn't be any improvements allowed on lots 1A and 2A, which are
those smaller parts of those lots, which were just naturally a part of the landscape with regard to this land's layout. Lots 1, 2, and 12 are all also within shoreland area. So, that's kind of stipulated in this area. And there's also the term vegetative screening being
used from the Gunflint Trail. This came up in earlier discussions with the project proposer that the Gunflint Trail is a historic scenic byway. So, we wanted to ensure that you won't just see a long road with lots of houses coming off of it in the plat and try to include some version of
vegetative screening from that road for lot 1. Here's a visual of some of those lot characteristics. Also, lots 9 and 10 include a shale pit, which the applicant provided a photo of in their application. And here you can see lot 1 is the lot
with probably the tightest options for building locations. It's a little bit more narrower, 100 ft by 200 ft square is easily within the setback areas identified on their survey, meeting the road and the stream setback requirements.
And lot 2A is nestled between the river and the private road, but 2B is where the bulk of the building site for lot 2 would be. Those are the two parcels with a little bit more uniqueness to their size, configuration, and layout.
The road length is over 2,800 ft long with a hammerhead turnaround. The applicant did include in their application correspondence with Maple Hill Community Fire Department, and they wanted to be able to check the road essentially once it was completed to
ensure that they'll be able to get their emergency vehicles down and that that turnaround will be adequate. The public watercourse crossing is also obviously a part of this road design with culverts. Wetland regulations are met with this road design. However, we
just want to see the wetlands delineation map incorporated as updated version in future documents. And the bluff layer is just a reference layer. At this point, it has not been field verified by land services staff, um which should be done later on just to
confirm for folks. Uh this is an example of what the road layout looks like. The road is following the north property line coming off the Gunflint Trail where it crosses the stream and then heads uh south from there. And this is a location in the road
layout where there will be a culvert to allow for drainage connectivity from the north side of the road to the south side of the road. The wildfire resilience plan is a new requirement in the Cook County subdivision ordinance. This was added last year as we were uh making
amendments in particular to the open space type of subdivision requirement. We wanted to be sure that if we were having higher densities of residential development in more rural areas of the county that we had an opportunity to talk about potential wildfire mitigation [snorts] risks um in the planning stages
of those lot creations. The application did include uh the completion of the checklist that our office had put together for satisfying this requirement to allow us to have this conversation essentially. Um the Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District did do a review of
that. Um what you see on the screen here is the from the Cook County Community Wildfire um mitigation plan. It's a It's a very long Yeah. Cook County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. There we go. Um the purple areas are identified as a wild
wildfire urban interface and some of the highlighted text is language from that community plan essentially just recognizing that there is a lot of ladder fuels in this area and mitigation measures for the community in this area to think about.
Um obviously spruce spruce budworm impacts have increased that hazard as well in recent years. Uh I think part of having this as a part of the discussion is to speak with a developer about what could
be done as the property is under single ownership or as it goes into separate ownership with 5-acre lots, how do we help future property owners understand that they're in this planning area and if it's significant enough, um is it reasonable to have some version of
mitigation done before it goes into separate ownership? This is the first plat application that the planning commission has reviewed since we've had this provision. And so this is I think the higher benefit is having the conversation how this plat would be seen
maybe versus other plats. Um my take on it is that these are 5-acre lots and so property owners will be more dispersed on the site and better able to manage their own defensible space. I do think that there could be something done in the homeowners association documents
with clear information for property owners notifying of them of being in this planning area and potentially talking with the developer further about what potentially doing some removing some of the ladder fuels on the lots where those might be present if
that is feasible while the road is getting put in. We haven't had time really to talk more further about that yet in this plan, but there's some some different conditions that we threw out. I think some are maybe a a little more than we need at this point, but I think it will be a
a good discussion point for us to discuss further in a moment. Um and that oh also due to our own wildfire activity in our area, our emergency manager and firewise coordinators were unavailable to provide
us feedback on this. Obviously, we're in the emergency operations room right now, so um there were higher priorities during this processing for that. Um and those are some of the potential conditions that we've outlined. I think the disclosure statement for future
property owners could be a pretty easy addition. Um and uh demonstrating that road access and especially that hammerhead turnaround is preserved in the future um would be real key um ways to fold this intention into the plans that we have
before us. The public watercourse crossing, as I mentioned earlier, it's Little Lake Creek. Uh it has a lot of water quality studies happening at the moment with the Soil and Water Conservation District and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. And this is the private road river crossing. The top photo there is the
Soil and Water Conservation District's example of the single-span open-bottom culvert uh that they believe this design would be preferable to the two uh culvert design that's proposed for this crossing um primarily to reduce debris jams would
would be one recommendation that they had. Uh for the preliminary plat review, Border Lakes Surveying provided the preliminary plat check on behalf of our department and provided some recommendations to be updated into the preliminary plat map.
Um and then the draft HOA declarations are also included. I pulled out some of the items that um you know, stood out to me as I was going through that document. There I didn't see anything in there that was incongruent with current zoning regulations.
Uh the county attorney's office did not have time to review that document yet, but it's a little We don't really need that reviewed until final plat. So, it's just helpful at this point. Uh for public noticing our office did publish this public hearing in the Cook County News Herald. We did send out 31 letters of
notification to adjacent property owners as well as county departments and the DNR hydrologist and other relevant entities. We did not receive any written comments and there's just the technical memos that have been hinted at during this presentation and also included all within your packets.
Cook County Recorder's office and the Board of Lake Surveying, Cook County wetland specialist and the Soil and Water Conservation District. First up recommendation for consideration, the planning commission should hold the public hearing for the preliminary preliminary plat today and
review the information provided. There are several items that do need revision for the preliminary plat and staff would recommend that we talk about the items for discussion today after holding the public hearing and provide the applicant time to have that preliminary plat updated with the new wetlands
delineation map, update the storm water plan where it's relevant and the the survey according to Board of Lake Surveying comments as well should be updated. The final plat has been
submitted for the August meeting. The Cook County subdivision ordinance does allow both of those plats to be approved at the same meeting provided that the preliminary plat has had a public hearing at a meeting before that and that's what today's meeting is. That's only feasible if there's not
significant changes to the final plat. So to date there's nothing that has changed the configuration of the lots. So at the moment I don't see a reason that we can't stay on that date but you know obviously we haven't even had a fruitful discussion yet.
For discussion items or the outstanding items from our department's perspective, the preliminary plat corrections from the surveyor comments and the wetlands delineation should be updated so that our preliminary plat has the most accurate up-to-date version of what would be
uh approved. The wildfire prevention plan, I think having a conversation with the planning commission with the applicants of what would be acceptable or how can we try to better um you know, integrate this into our planning efforts if it's feasible.
Also, the stream and road crossing, a discussion about the crossing design if there's a preference um supporting you know, the knowing that there is a technical preference for the single span design and seeing if there's some uh flexibility with that. The county
attorney's office needs time to review the drafted HOA agreement before the final plat, so that's not needed for the preliminary plat, but knowing that the final plat is on August 12th's agenda. Um that needs to be feasibly able to be reviewed before final plat gets approved. And then there's the developer's
agreement. I wanted to pull out it's a tool in our toolbox essentially uh for the county and the developer to put what conditions might be approved on paper and we lay out kind of timelines and um expectations for how the county can
ensure that what is on these designs gets built out. Uh good example of that is the Maple Hill Community Fire Department wanted the ability to come out and drive the road to sign off on it essentially for their vehicles. Um that's a hard thing for us to track and so if we had a developer's agreement
that laid out to the developer and with us and the fire department indicating who to contact when and how to check that box essentially. It's just a better communication tool, not trying to add an additional um unnecessary step into this process.
Uh we've also drafted several potential conditions. It really was more of I view it more of a menu of conditions to look over rather than all those conditions necessarily being pertinent um based off of how today's discussion goes, obviously that feedback will help us know what to put together for the August
meeting for a more, um, formalized version of potential conditions. Um, for example, conditions 11 through 15 were specifically about the wildfire prevention plan action items. Not all of those may be relevant or needed for this
type of residential subdivision, but I wanted them available for your discussion. And then as a reminder, that's what the plat looks like. Um, the black areas, uh, could also, um, be updated at some point too if we can get out and have a field, uh, review to
verify those. But overall, that's what I've got for your presentation. >> Thank you. >> It's a lot. >> Um, open for public comment? >> Mhm. >> Would anybody from the public or is a
developer here? >> There was. Maybe you. >> Do you have anything you'd like to add? Come state your name and address for the record, please. >> Good afternoon, uh, ladies and gentlemen. Uh, Howard Hedstrom, 90 County Road 60, Grand Marais, for Maple
Hill. Um, I'm the developer. Got with my team behind me, a couple of them anyway. Charles Drovall is from North Superior Land Surveying, and John Loy from MSA. They've done a tremendous amount of
really good work on this project. Uh, also on my team is Byers Harren, uh, who's done did the draft of the HOA agreement, plus, you know, in the background giving good advice and and counsel. So, um,
trying to get this, uh, get all the ducks in a row and the boxes checked and doing it in the right way and and not missing any, uh, corners or T's crossed and I's out and things like that. Um
So, that I'm I'm curious at the stream crossing we we had worked with the DNR >> [clears throat] >> and excuse me, got approval for a dual 6-ft bottomless culvert >> [clears throat] >> to cross the creek.
I got a frog. Um Subsequently, uh the as Neva pointed out, somebody locally said, "Gee, what about a beaver building a dam?" And they kind of came in at the 11th hour and and said we they
would prefer a single span. Uh we by that time gotten some quotes on culverts and big culverts and bridges and some of the preliminary uh costs on bridges look like if we have to go to a full-width span, a bridge would be preferable to a culvert.
Uh a 14-ft open-bottom culvert is a pretty big piece of machinery. And be being a culvert, um it has to be quite long because a bridge you can put abutments in and you can be 22-ft wide. If you have a culvert, uh depends on the
fill above it to get the two-to-one slope, you you got to be out there 50 ft, 60 ft uh end to end of the culvert, which makes it a a pretty big uh device. So, uh we and it was kind of 11th hour. We were
pushing to get the the DNR permit application in just to meet the deadlines of getting on the agenda for the 22nd. We had to have our stuff in for the agenda for next month's meeting. Uh trying to it's an aggressive time frame,
but it's doable. We've got, you know, 99% of the work done. It's just some tweaking now. And and we just had said, "Well, we have to make a decision which way we're going to make this DNR application." And so, we decided on the bridge uh design. So, we're kind of going down that route.
Um all discussions with John afterwards and you know, if if we get this approved, if there's still some latitude there, we may look at uh the two culverts versus the the one bridge. Um I
The DNR and the waters people uh the cost is not a criteria for the crossing. Um cost is a criteria for me. And so, I'll we'll look at what's acceptable and what the best uh cost alternative is and and still have a
good design. You know, knowing that that all that water and all that creek goes through [clears throat] goes through a thousand feet of four-foot culvert just downstream. Cuz the whole mill is tiled. Most of the stream goes through a culvert um
through the mill property to south of there. And and then when it crosses County Road 60, it goes through a little box culvert that's I didn't measure it, but it's probably uh 8 6 4 by 6 or so. I mean, it's not too big. Um
but you know, new regulations and we we we get that. So, we'll we'll comply with what's necessary. Um still working on talking to several contractors, several clearing contractors, you know, I um
it's just my nature because I I do stuff and know stuff and I'm good at managing projects that you know, I'm kind of self-managing the road project and the bridge project. And right now, I'm still in the um gathering costs stage and and seeing
who's available and who can do the work and and that not all that is firmed up at this uh particular time. But you know, I've had plenty of conversations and and uh there there are in there's not a
rush. I mean, I know if we have to buy a bridge, uh we're looking at several options. I mean, the lead time of a bridge is probably 6 months. So, um if we get the if it is a bridge, we can probably get the abutments in and be for September
15th, but the bridge won't be there until next spring. Sort of thing. If we can do culverts, you know, maybe it'll do faster, but those are some of the variables that I'm dealing with and and pluses and minuses and it like like Neva pointed out, there's a lot of things we could be discussing.
She's just back from her vacation and I think swimming pretty hard upstream, I'm gathering. With with, you know, the press of the office and her new job and and the things coming at her and plus, you know, what the county's going through with the with the fires up north
and so, um there'll be more discussions and we'll be So, I I believe that John and or MSA and and Charlie can, you know, if there are some tweaks to whatever we do, they can have that done
by the final draft final final. I'm happy to answer any questions or >> Yeah, um >> [clears throat] >> one was the um you just said you had worked with the DNR to come up with the two culvert system. >> Yes. >> understood correctly?
So, that's what they had recommended to you or >> looked at what we could do. >> Right. >> I mean, the the stream uh the bank full width is like 13 ft. >> Okay. >> Uh we asked the DNR the question if we do that with two 6-ft culverts and they
came back and we have the email that said, "Yeah, you can do that." Upon review from uh Neva's office at the local office here, they said that we would see we prefer we wonder about a beaver damming up the culverts. There's no evidence of beaver work there because pretty fast flowing right
through that area but like I said we we said well if we have to do a single span you know basically we're kind of pushed to doing a bridge so we and we being 11th hour and there's that that uh
engineering work to do all the work you know from this plan to that plan is significant so that was kind of a push to get all that done to the and then submit it to the DNR because for this process we had to have that permit application number ready even though we
you know they still they're still under review so you know we John and I just said okay we have to make a decision we have to get this work done so we decided bridge uh so that's kind of where we're at >> But on your business property you've got it tiled in a 4-ft pipe under the
property >> Right >> and you've never had beaver problem >> still flowing >> Okay >> Yeah >> Is >> even though fish >> they claim can't swim through culverts in between the sections of culvert
through the property there's trout >> But you know that's I'm not >> in a normal but the >> that argument that that whole thing is sailed I mean we're I'm happy to go with the the recommendations that are proposed >> And the recommendations that are
proposed saying with the culverts originally >> Well right >> I've been >> single >> laboring under the idea that we have to have a bridge you know Neva's presentation indicates there may be some flexibility in thinking of the culvert or bridge so we'll have those discussions >> Okay >> Yeah
>> Yeah I'd like to see that stay open and then um >> Me too >> Someone else said did you have something else >> Well you said you'd like to see the outcome I would too >> Oh yeah >> Yeah >> Um and then another question on the uh
the septic sites was that just um looked like it was vault privy only? Was that Was that where I read that? >> Surely on that I I I knowledge of septic sites is limited. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I'll come up here. >> Okay.
Also, please state your name and business and >> Uh >> address, please. >> Charlie Troval, North Shirley Avenue in May. Um yeah, so as how we were directed to do it was on lots 3 through 10, just the vault
privy sites were determined on them. That's not saying that there isn't suitable soil for something else. It was more of the fact of trying to not beat up on trying to figure out where to put sites without knowing where someone will build on a lot in the future. I
mean, when we We We do a lot of these subdivisions and very seldom does the actual site you find end up being the site that's used by the homeowner during their build-out. So, that was the the reasoning for that. It wasn't that privy sites were done because that was the only thing there. It was done as that
was the >> That answers my question. >> easiest way to do it at the time. Intentionally though on lots 1, 2, and 11, we made sure to find something more on those ones because those were the lots that had more restrictions with setbacks and bluffs and smaller build
areas and all that stuff. So, that's why those ones had the had the um the type 1 and the type 3 septic sites determined on them. >> Okay. >> So, and same deal too. Like, you know, the type 3 on lot 11, it doesn't mean that you can't find a type 1 somewhere
on the property. You know, I mean, or on that lot. I mean, you could go spend all day out there digging holes and probably find something, you know, there's potential for that. You know, not saying you can't, but not saying you can't. >> Right. All right, no, I understand >> And that was all done by a licensed septic contractor. >> Yeah, no, I understand that. >> That's my what I know of it because I was with mapping the sites as you did
it, so. >> I too have done a lot of projects, not IT projects, and don't don't box ourselves in. >> advice for planning and zoning uh is and I've done a couple other subdivisions before the the administrative and you have to find the septic sites.
And then the homeowner somebody comes and buys a lot, builds a house, they find their own septic site. So, it's it's uh and I understand where she you don't want to create a subdivision that doesn't have a septic site. However, it's money spent
and time spent that it doesn't have much utility. >> Right. I just I was really just trying to understand the context of why you made the decisions, the state of the things you did, and you've answered that question, so I appreciate it. >> you. >> Um and then
with regard to I know the computer spit out this bluff stuff, but you know, I was looking at the DNR definition, right? And and that's their computer that created this. >> If I may, Mr. Chair, I can speak to
that. That's not the DNR's bluff layer. It's ours and it's just a reference layer. All that it's querying for is shoreland areas that have a 30% slope or more. Then we as staff go out and verify that it is meeting the remainder of the bluff characteristics, which is why it needs an onsite verification. >> Okay.
>> Yep. >> Thanks. So, if if if you find it's not because it's doesn't fit all the other other characteristics. >> Sometimes there's not bluffs where that layer is referencing. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Basically, it's used for Charlie's purposes and our purposes to to locate a
road that wasn't near the bluff or steep. >> Yep. And if you'll notice, too, you'll see that like the proposed build sites are intentionally tried to be as far away from those as possible and you know, in a flatter part of the lot and not, you know, being super tight up against those potential bluff areas. So,
like Neva said, it's a it's a tool for us to try to avoid because that at least it has that 30% characteristic, so. >> Right. Yeah, makes sense. Others on the board? Questions? >> I guess I'm curious, Howard, if you have
any thoughts before we discuss it as a board on the wildfire mitigation aspect of this. From your perspective. >> You know, I I've got a little history in wood and forest. >> [laughter] >> So, up until about 6 months ago,
this most of the forest, you know, between here and and probably Popular Lake or beyond, it kind of known as a fest- asbestus forest. It's aspen, birch, you know, some balsam, spruce, but really it it's not very fire prone.
With uh with the this outbreak of spruce budworm, which is the worst in my lifetime, uh there is major concern. And everybody in the county ought to be concerned.
And and uh it's bad. It and and I acknowledge that. And so, you know, as we do our our site clearing, the road clearing, you know, there is a significant there's a there's a pocket there basically in lot two
that's a lot of dead balsam. And we'll probably just take it out because why and it it's gone. I mean, you can't you can't start the new forest till the old forest is gone. So, let's get it out of there. Um and selectively going out and cutting spruce
and balsam, wouldn't that be wonderful? We got a million acres here. You can't it's not possible. It's not doable. Even on 5 acres, I mean, you're it's a it would be a major upper undertaking to, you know, go knock down
uh all that wood. I mean, my my son just talked to him, he made a decision to hire a somebody to come in and just knock down all the spruce balsam around his house because it's it's dead. It's a danger. Let's get rid of it, but you know,
uh in the general forest and even at Fay Acres it it's uh it's it's a it's a bad deal. Yeah. But, you know, otherwise you know, it is aspen, birch, or some maple toward the east end of the of the property. Uh
Um I didn't even see it, but uh Charlie said there's a white pine or two in there, too, but which are healthy and and uh so, yeah, it's it certainly fire is top of mind right now. >> Anything else? >> Anything else? You know, having a road
in there and accessible to fire trucks, it'll be easier to fight fight a fire if it comes. >> Mhm. >> It'd be an on the stream. I mean, it's uh you know, the there's there's no reason you couldn't do uh the sprinkler systems like they
do, you know, around many properties where it's dangerous, so. >> Yes. >> Um not to beat the culvert to death or anything, but [laughter] um >> I know it's coming. >> Um maybe a question, too. Have you guys
looked at a buried box culvert? We did I was worked on a project that did that down for the access road at Wolf Ridge. >> Yeah, it's it's uh when you get to cement, I mean, the the the six, you know, is on the hierarchy
of cost, you know, steel is cheaper than cement by a long ways. >> Mhm. >> And then, you know, smaller is cheaper than larger. Um you know, then uh then you run into uh you know, the cost equation. You know, can you do a bridge more
And And I think it My wife would like a bridge. She said, "Oh, that'll be cute in there." So, >> [laughter] >> you know, so well, we'll see, but you know, >> And bridges are very effective open >> Yeah, and it it would it'd be a very nice crossing that I agree and, you
know, so up until a few minutes ago, I was kind of resolved to that, but uh if there's an opening to revisit that, I might use that opening. >> Okay. Um I'm sure DNR will ask for it, but one thing um we talk about things that need to be
done by by a PE, the stream count bank bank full width calculation and the design flows for the crossing. >> The MSA MSA's got all that expertise and spent countless hours on that, didn't you, John? >> I'm actually a little surprised 13 ft
seems pretty wide for for that stream, but that's okay. I don't know what the tributary area is on it, so it's hard to say. >> Certain things I argue about and certain things are so far beyond my realm that I don't argue about it.
>> Okay. That's all I have at this point. >> Brenda? >> I don't have anything right now. >> Well, I'll beat the culvert thing to death. >> [laughter] >> Just for clarification, you mentioned that the
the width for an open bottom culvert would be 50 to 60 ft or whatever. >> 14 ft. >> Oh. >> Oh, no. I don't mean the width, the the >> The width the stream width >> slope on either side >> culvert the open bottom culvert or a bridge, the abutment width would be 14
ft. A A culvert would be 14 ft. The DNR was happy with two 6-ft culverts. Um yet to be determined, but then the bridge the road width is 22 ft. Sure. That's the requirement. Um
so you can build a bridge so you can have 22 ft between the the railings. If you have a culvert that has to be filled on top of that, and then of course by the grade you might have quite a bit of fill, and then you can't have that come down like
this unless you put you could put a end on a culvert. It these are all times you know it this equation, but otherwise if you have that slope that is the the higher the fill, the more the slope, and it gets to be a long culvert. >> Right. So, my question is
if it's an open bottom culvert or two round culverts, is that slope different or is it the same? My point would be >> No, it same. >> So, you'd end up putting the same amount of fill, the same amount of slope whether it's a open Correct. Or 6-ft.
So, the 6-ft could potentially be just as expensive to bring fill in and >> Uh uh uh >> quite a bit of fill right there. We there's a there's there's between what we have to cut uh especially on the east side it it's quite a embankment there. So, it's not a lot of fill to to move
around. I mean, you have to move it around, but it has doesn't have to be hauled in. >> So, then again the the other part of my question would be is the is the expense for the open bottom culvert significantly different the culvert itself as opposed to the two 6-ft? >> Yes, 14-ft you know it's heavier gauge,
a lot more iron. It's more expensive, yeah. >> Okay, just wanted to understand that. >> You know, understand too that I'm not arguing cost. It it's just it's as I go through my mental exercise cost comes in. When I'm talking to you and the DNR, cost is not allowed to be
talked about. You just be the best we can do. Does that make sense? >> Yep, absolutely. Okay, so best we can do is is the you know, so >> If you if you decided that ought to be a bridge
>> We wrote laws and regulations that say you're you're able to do these certain things and so you should be able to operate within those certain permissions and not have someone else driving you to gold plate a solution. This >> I don't have endless time to argue. I
mean there's time frames involved. So yeah. >> No, no, I just it's it's I'm just saying that Um we're we're honor bound up here to to enforce regulations in the law, right? >> Yeah, yeah. And I am too. Yeah. >> And and yeah, and and so we're all wanting to do that, but I'm just not
wanting someone that's sitting in an office deciding, "Hey, this is really pretty way of doing this that I'd like to have done." And you know, and and then you don't get to say, "Hold it. That's a way more expensive." That's not >> I I I cost I'm my advice my advisors tell me that I can't use cost as a as a
justification. So it >> Not as the sole justification, okay? Money it says it right in our ordinance. We we'll go through it in in variance, right? Money can't be the sole reason for the decision, okay? But that having been said, if you're within the regs
as and the DNR said this is you know, this one works and that one works and it's cost it's a better choice for you from a financial point of view, yeah. There shouldn't be any problem with that. Not that the other shouldn't be discussed. >> Yeah. >> But I'm just I'm just you know, when you said as good as it can be, I just sort
of was you know, like Ooh, hold on here. I just don't need someone who's got Brad's pretty good idea wasn't what my customers wanted me to do. >> Yeah. >> What they wanted me to do was solve the problem that they brought to me in the most cost effective way. >> we will solve the problem and it'll be within the regs and it'll be nicely
done, you know. >> Okay. >> I've been working on bridge designs and and it might be the most cost effective solution too. So I you know, I've kind of resolved I was resolved to that until Niva's presentation, so I'm a what if guy. I mean, I I just keep
going. >> Right. Mr. Chair, can I just clarify a little bit? So, uh our ordinances don't stipulate the crossing type, which is why my presentation gave you that framework that it did. The
information that you have in your packets was provided by qualified professionals, not people just sitting behind a desk. And I just want to clarify that representation, how that was done, because our Soil and Water Conservation District and MPCA staff have both had boots on the ground in
this site. The bankful width and the width of the culverts is not just looking at the water that's in the stream, but looking at the analysis of the bank of the stream and how far it would take for those banks to get flooded beyond their banks. And that's why it's quite often much wider than it what it would seem like when you just
see a small stream and why it's so much bigger than what it really is. The main reason for that single span versus the two culverts was referenced as a debris jam, not necessarily citing, you know, recognizing that there are other areas that the stream is culverted.
Uh you know, we understand that, but also trying, we're trying to create a road and ensure that this development is going to be done in the best way possible, essentially. We We're not trying to create something that we know is going to be creating headaches for future
property owners. That would be why we have design standards for roads, so that they be such a certain width. And so, that is how this gets incorporated with this plan. So, and that's why it's, you know, I'm leaving it to the planning commission. It's not us as staff with regard to what's in our ordinance as to
what that stream crossing type is, but it is a part of the road design, and I do think it's fair for us to talk about that and with how much money goes publicly into improving the conservation resources in our area. Um if we know that there's some small design changes that can be aligned with those
conservation priorities. I think it's uh very well worth our time to talk about and and vet out whether or not that's a reasonable addition to the plan. >> Yeah, I didn't mean to disparage anyone, by the way. Just not well said, certainly on my part. Um
Okay. Anything further? Um anything you'd like to add in addition? No. >> I'll point out one thing. Um on the comments on the the surveying plat check, whatever, those um
suggestions have all been done on the final plat. You know, a lot of them were more final plat orientated anyway. Um the mathematical suggestion was done on the preliminary plat, but a lot of the notations seemed more final plat orientated, so those have been taken into account and made on the final plat
when you do see that. So, just wanted to point that out. So. >> Yep. Thank you. All right. >> Have a good team. >> Yeah. That's surprising. All right. Um If you're done, I'll just open it up. Is
anybody else any other public comments? Okay, seeing none. Close public comments. Um Board members, anything in particular that you see? >> Um I am
probably over analyzing, but I'm looking at the application stating that there was primarily aspen and birch, but upon further review, it's noted that it's balsam fir. So, I'm wondering if their wildfire
resilience plan is going to be adjusted based on that new information. >> Sounds like we're going to be having those discussions, yes. >> Yes. >> of the plan development.
>> When I first wrote that, you know, Aspen birch is a cover type and it's expected that this spruce and balsam mixed in. >> Yeah. >> Which up until lately here it's been up and down factor. When you look at the hillside or any
anywhere where you have view shed and you see that brown standing all over I I am it it eliminates my opinion of uh fire prone. >> Yeah, I mean I think it's an interesting conversation how much of that falls to a
developer when they're >> Yeah. >> creating the site. I mean because it it interfaces with long-term thinking, right? I mean this development is going to stand for >> Yeah. >> 100 years, you know, so or more. So the forest is going to change and regenerate and
there's on the one hand dealing with the site today and we're in a pertinent moment to discuss it and there's what do you do on the back end in a home owner's agreement and and what sorts of things do you bake into the cake of this development, right? And I think that's
the tension to my mind is how much do we ask the developer do today >> versus the home owners that >> are going to develop as they develop over time, right? >> If I if I heard Neva's narrative correctly, it's more toward that uh making sure that >> home owners
>> subsequent home home owners or buyers are aware and have the the the information and data to work with. And I am certainly amenable to getting that rolled in there. >> I also assume by some of these building sites that would take out some of the a
lot of that, too. >> Mhm. >> So. >> And having a road in there gives you access and the ability to get to an area that's, you know, difficult to get to currently cuz there's a creek running through it, so. >> Right. And as you're building houses, I mean, it's a lot easier to deal with >> Yeah.
>> that vegetation while you got equipment in there than >> Well, firewise would dictate you'd have enough clearing around the house to you know, give you some protection as well. >> Mhm. >> But I think it's a good, you know, we're I think we're all talking around it, but to have that in the HOA agreement because
>> Yeah. >> that actually gives you something to hold on to, you know, as a group of people going forward rather than if this was just 11 individual property owners, there's no way to coordinate amongst each other or hold
each other accountable on your property, right? >> Right. >> Um any further discussion amongst the board? So, the um final action on this one is >> Staff's recommendation was to table this
application to give us more time with the applicant to correct the items that need to be updated. It'd be nice to have a preliminary plat version that has the complete wetlands delineation that's in there, as well as the revisions that you've made to the surveyor comments. Doesn't have to be all printed off or
anything, just a a nice final version for the planning commission to review. Um typically, we would want to approve something that's looking, you know, as accurate as possible. Um and then that will also give us time to maybe hone in a little bit more on an update to that wildfire plan of what what feels like
maybe a revised version and how we can kind of talk about that. And again, from my perspective, this feels different than let's say a proposal that is in a little bit more of a remote area, further away from the fire department with a higher density of development. And I think that this planning
commission will be well suited in future um platted discussions to see how different sites might feel differently. But, in this location, as has been pointed out, the road should certainly help gain more access to that, and especially maybe honing in a little bit more specifically about where the
tree types differ, and maybe where those higher like more fuels reduction areas could be as a part of the like you mentioned that just site prep is you have the equipment in there already for clearing the road, maybe just knocking out some of those more dense spots. It's It's not the
whole property, that's for sure. That's why the aspen birch reference was kind of in that other forest type the more you go what east, so. >> And it seems like we also have some asks of the county attorney if we're tabling it to look at the HOA agreement and if there's
a recommendation to do a developer's agreement, I guess is the other thing in this packet, so. >> Yeah, and again, it'd be nice if we could get the time of our firewise coordinator to get their feedback. I think that really would have helped inform our discussion a little bit more from their perspective.
>> And if we table, we'll likely see them both at the same time. Is that what I'm they'll come back and we'll approve both? >> Yep. Yeah, I think reviewing the final plat is still [clears throat] feasible in August because there's been nothing from this preliminary plat review that is changing the way the lots are laid out essentially. We're more so having a
conversation about design or conditions, so. >> Yeah, and I I feel like we have had that in my time on the board where we let a preliminary plat go through and there was enough discrepancy that lots changed and the the plan meaningfully
changed. I'm less concerned about that with this the way these lots are drawn, so. >> They're really just notations, additions, and stuff like that, so. It didn't seem too material. >> Yeah, like like I said, I kind of would argue that they're things that don't aren't included on a preliminary plat,
they're final plat items, but I won't argue. Okay. >> I definitely on just to to beat the dead horse, the culvert in my opinion. I'm I'm not an expert in culverts, but I do have a double culvert, you know, on an old forest road on my property and that thing plugs up. It's not two 6-ft
culverts, but if you've got a dense forest around it, stuff gets in there and gums it up, beavers or no, you know. >> 90% sure there's going to be a bridge, but >> Yeah. >> It kind of opened up my mind a little bit. It's It's mostly a bridge. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> All right, so then there was a motion to table. >> And after a motion to table is made, then there's no further discussion. >> Correct. >> All right. >> Okay. >> Do I have a motion?
Or do you want to have further discussion? I'm not trying to put anybody down. >> You're looking at me. >> [laughter] >> I would propose I would move that we table this discussion for this time related to this plat as it stands, allowing it to be presented at the next meeting as a
along with the final plat at the same time. Is that good? >> Yeah, very good. >> Thanks. >> Do I hear a second? >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Thank you. >> Thank you for that. Thank you for your
your good comments. >> Thanks, Howard. Thanks, Charlie. Thanks, John. I got treats in my Anybody need treats quick? >> Nothing good. Nothing good. >> That was a lot. I got to plug in over at the city hall, so I'm charged. >> I got my charger.
>> I can save this for next time. >> Yeah. Are we Are we still rolling? Oh, we're still rolling, by the way. >> Oh, yeah, we should adjourn. >> Yes, but if What's that, Diana? >> Have a meeting. >> Can we have 30 seconds? >> We need to adjourn. We should adjourn.
>> Motion to adjourn? >> All in favor? >> Uh I will make a motion to adjourn. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Thank you. >> 30 seconds. 30 seconds. Oh, [laughter] Has he been up to come to the meeting?
freaking Deep Lake is like a huge culvert. That culvert gets damaged by >> Summer brains are scrambled. >> And that [laughter] is a