We're good. >> Good afternoon, everybody. I would officially like to call the city of Nisa special council meeting on this Tuesday, May 12th, at 3:30 p.m. to order. Um, we have one agenda item today, which is a
Grand View Lodge discussion. But before we begin the discussion on Grand View Lodge, I do want to address some concerns that I've heard repeatedly from members in this community over the past week regarding transparency surrounding this meeting. Um, for the last 6 months,
if you've watched the meetings or attended, you've heard me consistently emphasize the importance of proactive public uh, communication and full transparency from city hall. Yet, once again, we're here for a special meeting
and there's no information in the packet uh, that's available to council in advance of this meeting or the public. I just had a individual here from the public attending the meeting and he walked up to me and asked, "Hey, where's the packet?" because I can't stay long and I said, "Well, there's no information to share." Um, so I just
wanted to address that because I do think it does a disservice to all of us up here with election certificates, all of you in the public. When we call these meetings and there's no information and when we lack information um in the packet ahead of time for these
meetings, what it can do is it can create unnecessary distrust and people can start to speculate. maybe this is going on or that's going on in the meeting and I don't think that does positive for anybody. So I am going to make an impassion plea again uh to all
those involved that we should do our best to include information in the packet. And I printed off I came in early and printed things off that I thought were important to this conversation, including email exchanges that include potential topic discussion ideas as well as our meeting minutes
from a special meeting we held in August of 2025, which did address some things about how the city and Grand View and the public can all work forward, you know, together in a collaborative manner. Um, so I note that. Um, I also do want to note my disappointment
because it was just brought to my attention that our planning and zoning director, which a lot of the items we're going to talk about today, uh, he is not able to be a part of this meeting. He has a set schedule where he has to leave for personal reasons. And I think that we do a disservice when one of the key
department heads for the city cannot actually be a part of this discussion uh, for the members of the public, for Grand View, for us as counselors. Um, and lastly before we get going on topics, I did see a lot of communication on social media about this meeting today
and I think there were there were some things where maybe they weren't fully correct and so I did take the time to share because I wanted because my name was specifically mentioned as mayor and I just wanted to share that uh a portion of what I shared online with folks here in the room today that my understanding
is the purpose of this meeting is to discuss several long-standing code, permitting, operational planning and zoning items, and public access questions involving the Grand View property. Um, some of these issues did become a little more complicated uh last
summer in August following enforcement action letters sent to Grand View by the city and additional permitting questions were raised by staff. And that's why I called the special meeting which we held last August 19th of 2025. And out of there that the goal of that meeting was
to again discuss that as a city we are not here to be punitive to our business partners or our residents. Right? Our goal here is to work together collaboratively find solutions and um find positive ways to work through
things in the best interest of the city. And so out of that Grand View and the city were supposed to try to find time to sit together like before the end of the year. That didn't happen. um tried to get a meeting off the ground at the beginning of this year that never metriculated or made its way to council,
but here we are today. And so we appreciate all of you uh for being here, the folks that represent Grand View, the folks from the public, my fellow council members. Um and so with that, I'd like to get started with the Grand View Lodge discussion. And based on the meeting uh
invite that was sent um the discussion topics primary focus remains around the public access area uh that's within uh the property down at the end of the street. And then there are specific bullets under there around clarification
around ownership and intended use, particularly given the limitations during peak summer months, ensuring appropriate visibility and accessibility for life safety purposes, including first responder access during emergencies, and then managing vehicle access and whatnot. But public access
was one of the core items started. So, I guess normally I would call on our planning and zoning or public works um to come up and address, but since uh Mr. Timlin from planning and zoning is not able to be here. Mr. Blomer, I don't know if you have anything you'd like to start off with from a staff side.
Otherwise, I'd like to turn it over to Graan View. >> Can I Can I Sure. >> Okay. Um, I believe just from a uh working function of the meeting and to facilitate an open discussion with the
council in Grand View. Um, you know, it was intentional. it's, you know, state statute and maybe Maggie can speak to this. It was left a little open and vague. So, if there is a certain topic, um, something specific that we want to
talk about that we could because it is a special meeting, if everything was listed out exactly and we wanted to talk about something else, we would be prohibited in this meeting. So that that's why it was
>> just an open discussion without specific bullet points to be able to discuss what needed to be discussed. >> That would be correct, Joe. >> Is that Yes. Is that correct? >> Because if you list on there, I want to talk about Joe's red shirt. That's all you can talk about. And so I wanted to
make sure to um respect everybody's time on a busy opening season of summer that we can address all the topics that come about cuz we all know that we can go down rabbit holes and try and chase them to ensure that this meeting is productive for everybody.
Yep. Keeping it broad for the special meeting understandable. But again, public transparency is key and I will advocate for this over and over and I will do it at every meeting um until we get to a point where we are being fully transparent for the public. That is why we all are here to represent the people
to listen to the people and to ensure full transparency. Um so with that I guess I would like to turn it over if Gran View would like to approach with key topics that you got folks would like to start with um discussing here. This is a workshop to make sure we can get
everything in front of the council. Yep. If you want to just come up to the microphone and just state your name, that would be great. >> That'd be easier. You want to stand? >> Thanks. >> Okay. Well, good afternoon. My name is
Don Southworth. I'm the managing director at Grand View Lodge. Um I've been there now just over two years. Um so I think on the first note I need to say thank you um to each one of you. The purpose of this meeting was truly
because there were so many one-off conversations being had that I feel that it was getting mispersceived and going in different directions. And so truly this was about having the five of you here hearing the same
having the same discussion versus oneoff conversations and I think that that's extremely important um just given everything that's going on in the city but it's it's very important to us. So I just wanted to say thank you for taking time and and going through that with us.
Um, in regards to the topics, we didn't have a broad range of topics. It's truly about the public access and how do we move forward. Um, the public access was done in 1916. I think we all know the
history. Um, probably better than I do. Uh but it's getting to the point now where, you know, we were going to get fines for having a shed down there and it needs to
stay clear and not have um items there to restrict people from parking. And you know, the the stance that the law or the resort takes is the following. Our job is to keep our
community and our staff and our guests safe and the public access has become a topic of discussion for so many things. We can't put no one can put a trailer in um safely or you know you can back in
and take your paddle board or canoe and go through there. But really, is this public access more about utilizing the beach and being able to come there and enjoy the beach in that area, or is it about putting in water, crafts, and so
forth? Either way, we have to come to a partnership. Like we've I feel in the past couple of years, at least why I've been here, it's all about partnership and it's all about being a good steward, not just of the business that I was asked to come and
run, but it's also about to the community and to the city. And I feel like we need to find we need to find common grounds with this. Um because from a property perspective, it's difficult to monitor the area, take
pride in what we do. You know, ensure that our emergency vehicles can get in and out for all the guests that are down there. Ensure that the firetruck, if ever, heaven forbid, need to get water, be able to get there.
And then in the winter, we take care of that. We plow that space. We make sure that the community can get on and off the ice. So, I just want to find like we've got to find a common ground. If it is going to be deemed public access and this is
where the city wants to go, that's great, but then let's put some structure there. Let's put some structure. Who's going to own what? And because it's it's concerning. I know that the community needs that space and I don't want to take it away. That's not where I'm
going. It's just we have to find a common ground because there's not adequate parking down there for anyone to even put in their um water whatever they want paddle board or what
not and and park because you can't park on the side of the street because that becomes a a hazard as well because you can't get first responders in. So that's what the purpose of this was is how can we become how can we be partners
and true stewards of the community of the business and of the city with this public access. It's not about taking it over. It's not about any of those pieces. It's just if it's going to stay
this is the public access non-negotiable then we need to understand who owns what and we need for the city to take care of the area. You know you read on public accesses that they're they're open 24 hours. Well
maybe this one's not. But is that is there signage? Is there things that are going to provide it being safe? Because the resort's been monitoring all of that. The resort's calling when there's an emergency. The resort is calling when
cars need to be towed. The resort is sharing with people that's not a parking spot. The resort is filling the sand. The resort is plowing in the winter. And so I feel like there's got to be some common ground from a true partnership
piece because I don't think any of us here were responsible for any of this. But you know, we now have a situation where how do we move forward and how do we do this the right way and the way that our ancestors and the people of
this community who started this wanted it to go. So there was no hidden there's no hidden agenda. It's the public access. >> Um council member Freley, do you have a question or a comment for Miss Southworth? >> Well, actually I thought we came to a
conclusion last year at that meeting and that this was taken care of at that time um that we were going to go forth. I thought at that time we were looking at having a survey done to make sure the road is actually road that it would stay public
access that the barrier would stay there. Um I thought it was going to be as is how it was operating and has been in the past. U did I miss something in that?
>> Council member Hall I have the minutes too from the >> Yeah. No, I mean you're you're correct. I think um where the issues have come in is, you know, really with looking at some of the planning and zoning language, the little building that was
in and out there. Um uh some of that information, Mark, you know, and so we had talked about one thing, and that's maybe what Don's referring to. some of the conversations maybe that Stephen has had with Grand
View have been um different or had more different information than maybe we all got at the same time. Um also just to give a little history and back up over the last year, you know, there were a couple interimm city
administrators here. uh one of those gentlemen um was involved with with some of this that I would say um was not an accurate representation of what
of how we operate, how we want to operate, what we are trying to do as the city, as the leaders. And I'm not sure that that information well I I know it didn't get back to a lot of you but um
that being said we are [clears throat] here today to kind of set you know we're we're the leaders you know this is how we want to um engage with Grand View and really any business you know and really making partnerships. I mean, right off
the get-go, I know some things were, you know, Don mentioned, you know, oh, you would get fined for this. You know, my personal standpoint on this, we don't want to be heavy-handed towards any business, any resort in the area being
here, you go, fine. And that was some of the some of the information that um got distributed last year really without any any of our knowledge until until after it was distributed. And so that's where
I think some of the mixed signals have come and maybe that we need to get everyone up to speed on today on kind of the process, a little bit of the history of what's happened. So that's what I was trying to articulate at the beginning before Miss Southworth came up is that
as council member Hall said when we had the second interim city administrator last August, a administrative violation citation went out to Grand View unbeknownst to any of us on this council um basically um for placement of two uh
structures and barricade without appropriate permits and was going to requested that they take action an honor before a certain date in August or they would be fined $100 a day. So that's when I called the special meeting for
August 19th, 2025. I believe we were all present. Um Grand View was here. There were a number of topics on that special council meeting, but this was one of them. And as a council, we motioned to suspend the administrative citation
violation. and it was a unanimous vote and that Grand View and the city would sit down and exactly what Miss Southworth is asking find solutions to that specific what is it 50 ft or
whatnot of >> I don't think any of us still know it's 25 it's 50 we only do 25 there it >> so to try to build clarity um as Miss Southworth is me mentioning and find a
pathway forward. So, we didn't actually motion specifically, oh, it should be this way, this way, or this way. We motioned at that meeting to suspend the fines and allow a collaborative work session to occur, but that collaborative work session >> has not occurred. And now here we are
sitting um and the goal was let's get this work session done and let's find solutions before we go into the next high season, right? because as we all know the population here is going to swell and it's going to become very different. We had what 8 months to do this and nothing's happening. So now
here we are today, right? And so I think it would behoove all of us here not to kick the can down the road again because it's going to be Memorial Day before you know it. Um then we're into the high season and it's it's just a lot going on and we
have a responsibility to do things. Um, I know you want to say something else and I also want to acknowledge too that there are a lot of folks here that came and if you want to be heard too, we will give you the time to come to the microphone as well. Council member Hall. >> Yeah. And then just some more background
information on on that, you know, I have directly talked to um Chad, he's the head surveyor down at WSN. He's done survey work for both Grand View, the city of Nisa. really um dug into this, you know, into the survey work down
there. There's been multiple surveys. If you pull it up on the Crowing County GIS right now today, if Maggie would pull that up, I I mean, if you want to, you don't have to, but um it shows a 25 foot easement, you know, and so there had been some there had been some survey
work done that showed 25 ft. When Chad had dug into it, same thing. They don't know the tell all answer. um he can only find 50 feet. He can't find the title work for the 25, you know, when he went back and forth. So,
I would say at this point, you know, WSN, you know, um both, you know, [snorts] for the city and for Grand View, one common survey are working on it. um they don't know um because there
has been so much survey work in the done in the area what the true answer is. If they go back right now to everything, it still shows 50 ft. It it shows that's the information that that Chad had um on
that. That being said, you know, um, as far as like moving forward, you know, how Grand View has traditionally used the property, how the city has traditionally used the property is just what Don has explained too. You know, it
has traditionally been used as an access point to lake for somebody to walk down there, kayak, canoe, wintertime um to go out there. Grand View with their equipment, you know, has maintained the ice heave that comes in
there fairly often, all the snowplow removal, all the work. Um you can see in the picture, there's a large tree right next to the building there. If you can see in the overhead there, you know, uh, traditionally, I don't know how many years Grand View has had a storage
building alongside of of that. And and my understanding is it it's for like safety equipment, life jackets, stuff like that. >> Yes, we host all of our um water activities out of it. So, we have the life jackets there. They sign in and out
there. Um, the canoes, the kayaks, and the paddle boards. Okay. And and so with that building, this is coming up for us even to vote on. If you look at our current ordinances and stuff right now,
they have been talked about with uh portable structures, stuff like that. Um there actually has been an ordinance in the place in the city that have said even those need storm water management permits and everything. And it's like
it's it's a temp temporary building. A storm water is a is a permanent solution for a temporary building. That language is all stuff that Stephen and Chris Pence have been working through along with the commission, you know, that we're going to get to vote on coming up
here. So, some of the some of the background information on what Stephen put together in that letter and stuff too and some of the rules and guidelines that he was following within the city are currently even changing right now. And we have the opportunity to vote on
that to to honestly bring some common sense and clarity to some of these issues. And so, that is some of the information in the past that that Stephen has looked at. Um, as far as the fire department, I'll switch roles as
assistant fire chief. Um, Sean is not here today. Um, Richard Giki is in the crowd. He was the fire chief for 30 years, rough 20 years. um um that area, you know,
it's it's always been open accessible even with that building there corridor for us to get all our proper equipment down there to um to uh get a fire truck and our needs down there um to not only you know this
is this is also a misconception. We will use that access and corridor for anybody in the neighborhood. If a house starts on fire down east windon less west Lindon, that's where we're going to try and pull water from. That is not a
private fire corridor only used for Grand View. We will access that for any resident in the whole neighborhood. So, it's important for the entire neighborhood to know that and um to to get in there. It's it's not like a that
that's one question that's come up. That's Grand View's private access. No, it it's really protecting the whole neighborhood. Um we can get in that corridor with that space with that building like say how it's traditionally
been used. So I just want to give some of that background knowledge and information for everybody too. I'd like to ask go do a quick round robin with council to ask if you have any questions or need any clarity, but I also would like to open it up um if anyone from the public would like to come up and comment
because there are a lot of folks here um and I would like to try to keep us on a a good forward path. So, I'll start with you, Council Member Freley. >> So, Don, if a car had to be towed, is it because they parked there and we're trying to get access to the public beach um or the public access? It's not a
public beach. I understand that. Um, and if if I were to drive down there with my small trailer, with my paddle board, and I unload, my assumption there are no no parking signs down there, and I park
there. Am I going to be towed away? >> There's there's not anywhere to park with a trailer down there, >> right? And so what happens is the reason we put the barricades up that we could move
very easily was so that if there was an emergency or if someone did come in because we did have a gentleman come in and with his truck and unload a pedal board. The team the staff moved the barricade. It was just it wasn't I don't
know what it's like a wooden barricade. I can lift it myself but there's no parking down there. And if there is, it's not with anything for a trailer. So, it would block it would block the access and it would block the ability to turn around through the South Pole for
an emergency. >> Mhm. >> But you could back you could back the trailer in and unload and carry it across the beach to the water. >> Okay. Thanks, >> Council Member London. >> Yeah, this thing happened back in 1916.
Obviously, there's been a lot of changes, a lot of growth, u >> difference in vehicles than there were back then. Um, and it's my understanding that, you know, people who want to walk through there, no problem. Correct.
>> Correct. >> And you're here today with the city along with these other people to get a solution. And I appreciate that. Thank you. And I'm sure that we come up with it. um you know, let's get all the facts. Let's be open-minded and, you
know, together between Grand View and the city and other citizens come up with a good solution that's going to work and uh get it done. I realize you're busy. You're coming into a busy season and that but uh I think that uh between you and the city and the rest of the
citizens here, we can get this thing worked out in the best interest of everyone. Thank you. >> Thanks, Council Member Zan. Don, the property to the west of uh the actual road trip to that access
>> does is that public property or is that private property owned by Gran View Lodge? >> But it's private property. >> And the property to the east of that access uh adjacent is that prop is that public property or is that private property owned by Graan View Lodge? >> It's private property.
>> Okay. So, just out of curiosity, um, somebody that had a desire to come down there with any sort of trailer to drop off anything to be able to get access to that water access, uh, they would be having to reverse, they'd drive in, reverse out, or vice versa, or they'd be
coming on to Grand View Lodge property to make that turn around uh, through that parking lot on the east side. Is that right? >> Yes. >> And the barricades refresh me a bit. The barricades were established from the conversation we had
last year in August. Those barricades were there again to prevent folks from >> they were placed there to prevent folks from parking. So if you see where the beach starts, where that sidewalk is. So
cars like to pull all the way up and park and then they're everywhere. So most of our guests have a sign hanging in the windows so we can call them. But anyone who comes from local or the
community or anywhere else, we don't know how to get a hold of them to move their vehicle. But the goal is to keep that area clear so that an emer I mean emergencies happen quite often with the amount of people down there. So we've we have to allow our first responders to
get to the emergency. Looking at that GIS map from what council member Hall was stating that that storage shed that's sounds like it's been it's converted to storage but also multi-use for checking out rental
lake lakeside rental activities from what it sounds like. Is that on or off Grand property? Is it is it on Grany's property or is it to is it >> partial? >> It's partial. >> It's on both. >> It's on both. You guys have the ability to be able to
move the entire shed onto your property? >> No, we do not. >> Is it just based on the current size of that shed? >> It's the current size, but anywhere we would put it would be in a away. It would cause an issue because
the purpose of having it there was because all the guests come down that way. And so if we put it off to the side, then guests are going to be looking at the back of the shed and not know where to go. Um,
so it there's not really space. Um, and even with impervious coverage, there's not space to put a shed. Um, and that's what we're looking for for a seasonal permit. But I wasn't even going to go there today because honestly, we
just need to understand the public access and who's going to take care of it at this day because we've already had to make our arrangements cuz we're about to get busy. Um it's just really unfortunate that we're having this talk
now. >> Yeah. Um anything else? Well, I I think to Mayor Cardahan's point of there being public sentiment toward this, I mean, it's a 3:30 meeting regarding a workshop of open-ended
discussion items, which is now dialed into one. So, I appreciate one topic more than many for the sake of time. Um, I I recognize a gentleman in the crowd that uh is a part of the co family, Mr. Brett Coat that brought this up last
time um without seeing him or um conversing with him since I think last August when we were here. I mean there's three parts to this that I see. There's there's what state law says in regards to water. I believe it's a DNR piece in
regards to the waterfront access. Correct. Second piece is what is city city law regarding this? And secondly, what is what is Grand View/Public trying to mutually achieve here? Because I don't think that any of us want to walk away from not having a common sense
solution or prior to that approach. So, um I I think there's also another designated access east of that structure. You can kind of see the outline there as well, right? which is not obviously an access based on how those
roads and uh some structures are. So where do we go from here? Um now that we're talking about this again to be able to hopefully close this out and find a reasonable solution for everybody. So the residents and taxpayers of the community have access
to that. Actually anybody within the state in this country has access to it, right? Um, so we don't have uh vehicles there, trailers there, uh, Grand View Lodge assets there perhaps blocking it.
Um, where do we go from here? So, with that being said, uh, I understand you're going to ask Joe what his thoughts are, too. Um, I think Joe's made his points. Um, unless you have anything more that you want to add. I
guess I go back to all of us as a group, including folks in this room. Where do we go from here? So, >> let me council member London has one more item. >> You know, if somebody were to use one of these accesses in the summertime, uh, and they had a vehicle, you know, and
I'm not saying a big trailer behind a vehicle, is it reasonable that there'd be some place in area where they could park while they went paddle boarding? There's a few spots down there, but there's not there's that's the one thing that is lacking
down there is parking. Um, >> and I understand you got a lot of visitors in the summertime, a lot of traffic, a lot of vehicles. I was over there today looking around and place is packed >> and it's the first part of May, so I mean, >> but can I may I piggy back off that? Yeah.
>> Council member London, if you zoom out slightly. Um, no, not that far. A little bit more. just cover the main lodge and to the lake shore. Where within here is there public parking? >> So we
>> there's >> Yeah, there's no public. >> It's all the parking is all private. >> I'm asking questions. I know the answer. >> Yeah. No, >> but I'm asking questions so we can all understand them together. Right. >> Cuz we're not the DNR. We're not the
state of Minnesota that has the ability to monitor the natural resource access that's there. This city of Niswah last year, we understand uh under the interim city administrator that's passed. There was a fine assessed we we met um and that was suspended for
the time being. But the access is just that access. If the access is not being prohibited to those that want to access it, it appears to me as if it's more or less just a temporary access to do a launch
or to be able to get to the water. And these people that are going to access it, do they have the ability to sit and park within that narrow strip? >> No. >> Sure.
Um there's quite a few folks here from the community. Are there any of you that have any comments that you would like to share or pers a perspective to understand perhaps why there may have been you know kind of a a road barrier here between how things have been and
how we can find a solution to move forward. Does anyone please come up to the microphone and if you wouldn't mind stating your name um that would be wonderful. My name is Mark. I was a employ
to blame for the mess here, it's me. >> There we go. No, it's not. I was just saying if anyone's to blame, it's me. uh because I did more planning and zoning presentations in front of uh this board than anyone in the history of NISA. A number of them um were uh including the
area down there. Um I can tell you right now the survey is going to if you surveyed all the roads in the entire area of of Grand View, you will find roads that have been um um abated or have been um vacated. Um,
you will find roads that have been partially vacated, like half of it shows up in the records of being vacated. You will find you'll find roads that are not there, were never developed, and were never vacated. Um, you will find so and you will find the city streets are not
on city property in in many instances. So, it it is over time over hundred years of a resort, a thriving resort, and everyone was just trying to do the best they could. the city, you know, there's there's been changeover and well, I was in charge of there for about
30 30 34 years, something like that. So, we all did the best we could. And so, I can tell you like I proposed at one point in time that we make both of these accesses, the east access and the west access marked as pedestrian accesses
only because it was our understanding that it was a 25 foot uh the remaining uh roadway was 25 ft. Now if you go back a h 100red years you will find something that says that was 50 ft. You will also find um some of these vacated things
that happened in the 30s and the 40s and the 50s that were not recorded correctly. So, I mean, it is a a a uh a a lawyer, a title lawyer's um fantasy to get involved in this because they will
make a million dollars just trying to straighten out all the stuff that has happened because literally the main entrance road of Grand View is not built on city property. So, you you got all you know, these are the kind of things that existed. So what we did on the east
access is the there used to be a gravel road that kind of s that went that went down toward the lake but that was not on city property. So for years um well what we did is so you know we we took the road out. The city never maintained it.
It was just a path really. So what we did then is we put a a single parking spot there with a sign on it up on the corn on the on the west end of um of East Lyndon. So the very west end of East London and said public access beach
parking and you know it was there for many many years. I don't know if it's still there or not. Um I can tell you that virtually no one ever parked there because you know the intent when Mr. Baker laid this whole thing out. He was the original
developer of Grand View. He put all those 50-ft lots on the back side of the of of the roads. And so he said, "If people want to walk down to the beach, this will give them an access to the beach." Now, he wasn't thinking about the state of Minnesota when he did this.
He was thinking about these 100 150 lots, these 50 foot lots that are all over the place. I, you know, I'm so old and I was there so long I actually read some of the literature that some of the sales literature um that talked about this stuff, you know, that we we found
it in the archives. So, that's what and there are a couple of other um areas along Lynen that have that same there's a couple of other 50-foot accesses that probably have been taken over by the adjacent land owners because no one was
using them. So, I would say that that um the idea of a pedestrian access would you know because I I can I mean Lonnie can probably back me up on this and saying I don't think anyone many have or several have tried but no one has ever
launched a boat there with a truck in a trailer. I mean I was there one day when someone buried it up immediat you know he insisted he could. We said, "Don't do it." And and so he's starting to back up and we called the tow truck before he actually got stuck because no one has
ever successfully launched a vehic a a trailered um boat there. So, you know, some if you if we go back to the intended use of the whole thing in the first place, if we go back to the conversations over, you know, I've had them for 30 years um about what's the
best thing to do down here. Um there is no private parking down there. I mean, if it was if it was me and I was you, what I would do is I'd cut a deal with Grand View that says, um, let's let's uh let's let people park up on the uh conference center parking lot if they
want to come down and launch a canoe or or or use it. Do but but do an agreement in writing. I have a couple of agreements in writing. There's probably a conditional use permit someplace that talks about when we built the when the the pool or actually when we were building some other buildings over on
the east side talked about this pedestrian access and and calling it as such calling it for what it is and then setting the rules up. I mean, you know, again, I worked for the cos for 43 years. I'm not trying to steal anybody's beach access. You know, they're they've
been great corporate citizens of the, you know, of the community. So the fact I mean let's I think it's great that we're sitting down here. Let's no one needs to get excited about this. Um you know there's the practical reality also of stuff happens and what I mean say that is okay we had a little tiny shed
down there probably for a seasonal shed for years. All of a sudden someone said hey let's let's have a little bigger shed. >> Okay now we got a lot more business. Let's let's have a little bigger shed. And they're not thinking about the permit that's needed or something. They're just thinking about the practical reality of I got to get someplace to put on my life jackets. So
you and then you know it's appropriate that you know they get you get your hand slapped and say don't do that anymore and then just then you stop doing it. So but that's that's that's from someone who lived this all the time who understood the um intentions going all
the way back to when this was laid out. um the idea it's it is just not an appropriate vehicular access to the lake because all the parking if it is a 25- ft roadway which I I I believe the last two surveys that I had done both show that it's a 25 ft and that's the way
it's recorded with the county um then there's no pro public parking down there at all. So so this pedestrian access seems like a reasonable idea set some rules up about how it you know how it's supposed to be done. uh you know is it
24 hours what is it uh not every DNI not every public access is created equally so >> I have a question for you Mr. I so you had mentioned that you had brought forth the idea with like a past council about the pedestrian access. >> Yeah.
>> Is there do you recall right cuz I'm the newest one here. Why it did it? >> I put one in and the one on the other side um the at the time this was gosh 20 25 years ago. The um uh someone approached the DNR about it and the DNR
didn't want to take a position on it. So, and I don't know that they actually had jurisdiction on it because I don't I don't know that there's anything that says there is there has to be uh you know, every public access has to be a ve vehicular access. So, it died for the
lack of um of response from the DNR basically and also then it just stuff happened and life went on and and we never we never um formalized it. something I would ad, you know, like again there's a there's a sidewalk that runs across with that public access.
>> The reason for the sidewalk originally was there was there was just one little section of it is um the water came right down the city street, ran right across that and washed stuff out in the lake all the time and we're and and it's just it's not appropriate. Put that in there. It acts as a dam. We we took out some
some stud over to the west of that and it created a somewhat of a storm water plan. I would encourage you to think about without having to put in massive structures or anything. There's so much sand down there just to maybe it's a little swale off to the to the west
side, something to to just help with that storm water. If you want to talk about water quality, that's probably the best thing you could do there is figure out some way to divert more of that water to the west and and so it stays behind the sidewalk. Um, but other than
that, that's all I got. So, you know, I I'm taking responsibility for something that over that I was partly responsible for or mostly responsible for years. I didn't during my stewardship, I did not actually come with a written agreement with the city, but we managed to get along. So, um that's all I got to say.
Any other questions? >> I think council member Zan has something. >> As the uh self-proclaimed designated historian for Graan View Lodge, Mr. Roni, question for you. Do you have any recollection if there was ever any designated infrastructure there for an actual launch?
>> No. >> Was were was there ever I mean consider the Zorbus landing the whole day bay access for example there concrete infrastructure there in place has there in its entire lifespan has there ever been anything there? 43 years of me being there. No. All the pictures that
I've seen that that predate me. Um, no. There was there was never any structure there that that I've seen that that resembled anything to do with a with a boat launch. That's so as far because again, Mr. Baker said was was already all about, you know, buy a house on the
on the on the lakeside, walk down these accesses, use the lake. That's what this is that's what the neighborhood was all about. Council member Hall, do you have a question? I s see your lights on. >> No. Yeah.
Everything you know that Mark says, you know, is, you know, the history as I know it, you know, from being around Grand View and and doing stuff, too. I the only thing that I will add is I do know that since that sidewalk went in, I can't remember how many years ago, but
that has greatly helped with the storm water from the city, you know, even though once again, Grand View paid for it out of their own, you know, expense, but it has helped with our storm water. Um, right here, you know, it does show the
25 ft. Also, it has that big tree there, the little building that Grand View does have down there or whatever. Um it it it has no impact on the fire safety, the foot traffic, the access, you know, stuff like that. It it's just a
no impact. I I guess a question that I have again if if other folks want to come forward to the microphone, you're more than welcome to, but because I know last year there was some tension around around the public access with you know neighbors
that live in the in the community and you know it [clears throat] things happened here with city hall and with our planning and zoning. But I think the goal is how how can there be a solution where it's a win-win-win for everybody,
right? Where everybody feels, hey, this makes a lot of sense. Grand View can continue to operate and run the resort and service their customers the way they need to. The cities um being responsible and listening to everybody and considering everything and the folks that live around there on East and West
London or otherwise um feel comfortable and good with everything, too. So that's where I I don't know if anyone else here. I do see a lot of folks here wants to come up to the mic and and state anything, but your feedback is very important, right? I mean, we want to
hear from you. We want to find a way to walk out of this where like I said, it's a win-winwin for everybody, right? >> So, one thing just to say because of social media, I am I have no affiliation with anyone on this. I was I'm just here as a historian and as as a responsible
partner. We appreciate it. >> We got because I think you can you may help clarify some. >> So u my name is Fred Heidman and um been involved with the city for years
did work around Grand View for not as long as Mark was around but a long time. um have looked at the plat for the area and I'd hate to say this because it goes
against what I hope and and kind of want but I'm not I'm not sure we're using the right terminologies here because that that I think and I was hoping Tom would be here today the city attorney because maybe he could answer
it but there are as discussed there's that strip down to the lake. There's another one over in Grand View's treed area. And then there are others that go down the Lindons, at least on West Lynon, there's strips that go down to
the lake, and they're like 25 ft. the plat, if that's what they're called, from back in 1916, whatever, did not, if I'm not mistaken, this is where I'm I'm going to talk, but I can't back this up. I was hoping Tom would be
here. I don't think those are public accesses. They're private accesses for the people who have property across the street. Well, might it might technically be an ease. I'm not sure. They were drawn in.
The plats clearly show them, but they were they were there and it's been said they're for the lots that were across the street. That's what Mr. Baker planned and anybody else that did work along there. There's actually something
similar over along um over between where Four Seasons Resort is. um along that um from Holman's Point, not right at the point, but south of their ways going south, there's another similar situation like this.
There's similar situations on other lakes like this. And the city has, and much to my chagrin, it's not I'm saying this because it's history, not because I favor it, but the city has actually
had been has been petitioned numerous times by land owners on each side of these 25- ft strips and asked to have them, can't think of the right word, but nullified, vacated. And when they're
vacated, the property owner on each side got half of it and then it was gone. So, a lot of what I've just said goes against what I really kind of hope would happen with this, but facts are facts.
History is history. And now I know a lot of people along the West Lyndon. And if anybody has the right to have a voice about that, it should be the people along West Lyndon because they're part
of the plat that these are a part of. >> And is that is or is there two separate >> two separate plats? Mark, >> the descriptions >> here. Come on up. >> The description that I that I read about this some time ago. Uh it wasn't this one. It was another one. Um, but I think
there was some language in there that it really made it look like it was more dedicated to the public, but that could have been the streets. It's kind of a of a run-on sentence as they were getting to. So, it's hard to tell if it was the street and the that access or if it was
just the streets that were dedicated to the public. It was it's it's unclear. Someone smarter than I is going to have to take care of that. >> That's an old name on there. Carl Zapy. >> Can I see that? I eat my carrots. >> Yeah, >> appreciate that. Actually, you're a
historian today, too. We're all getting a history lesson. But on that note, I don't know top of my head, and maybe you do, Fred, or anybody on this council in this room. There is there is or not an association for East West London. Is there any?
>> I don't think it's technically not. >> No, it's individually owned lots. >> Okay. But those strips were quote unquote put there for those people, but it is not an association. They have no maintenance, anything like that. >> Please come up.
>> So, I do have I do have a couple and I can certainly wait, but I do have some thoughts about possible solutions. Um, primarily because I can be hated for what I say and you guys can still get along well. So, um, I can put something
out there and you can go, "Boy, you're a dumbass." But anyway, thank you. >> Hi, Jim Anderson. Uh, 4354 East London and a few other properties along there.
Yes. Um, we went around the barn on this back and I'm going to guess about 1990 um when Grand View wanted to swap locations of the east access and we went through the whole thing and the city attorney at that time determined that
these are dedicated streets and access to the lake and that you would have to go through the street vacation process which I can't remember if Gran View actually started that or not but the city council came out, looked at the whole thing over. Jim Glo was the city
attorney and determined that uh they didn't want to make the swap and they would have to go through the process of vacating streets and so on. And if you look at the plat, it's we went through this back in 1990, those are dedicated streets that go to
the shore of the lake. And so they're actually streets. And if Mr. Baker intended them to be something like a walkway or something. There's nothing in the legal plat, and I could be corrected if somebody has documents that show that's the case, but there's nothing in
the platinum lake park that says that these are limited uh just to walking paths. Now, if the city wants to make an agreement about this and work with everybody in the neighborhood in Grand View to somehow make pedestrian only or whatever, I guess that's what it will
be. But um from our standpoint on East London, uh we want to be sure these are remain open. Second of all, if you look at the plat, the width should be whatever the width of the street is shown on the plat. And I keep hearing 25 ft. I don't think that's correct. I
don't know, maybe you know more about that. And I know it's can be a >> Well, I think you got to think about the age. You know, what do the vehicles look like? But, you know, they weren't. >> Well, well, that's true, but the plat's
the plat. The width's the width. And if we get bigger cars, smaller cars, that has nothing to do with it in my opinion because it is the width. That's what was said in the law. That's where property lines are on both sides of the street like on any plat. And it's might be
1916, but it was surveyed. And I always think it's entertaining though that I think they could only do a north,southeast, west survey. That's why those those do lots are all kind of crooked as they go down. But but that's another point. But anyway, um that's my
point. I think these should remain open as to uh and I think they affect directly the property values of the north side owners and uh so >> Mr. Anderson, when you say um so you're on East Lyndon and you had mentioned
that the residents or the folks uh property owners on East Lyndon would like it to remain open. >> I don't think anyone's talking about closing it. So I guess I'm just asking for more clarity. What does that mean like to you or to you folks when you say remain open? Like does that mean you
guys um have had umbrage with the barricades being there or the shed or like I I just want to get more clarity for all of us here. >> Okay. Well, I'm more familiar or our axis is, should we say, would be more used on the east side. And so I think,
you know, the pedestrian access seems to be working. That's not a in reality there's no way to without a lot of cost to turn that into anything more than that. Um, and Grand View continues to sort of hide it and they I think their
swing set might even be on the uh the public. No. Okay. No swing set. All right. So, but the sign keeps disappearing and I you know, so be it. That's not a big deal. >> So, you just you'd like to see a sign there so it's more clear that there is a pedestrian
>> access. Yeah, I think there should at least be a public access sign. It's gone. Um but so that's >> you're talking about on the east side though, not the >> correct the the west side. I guess I think it's great they keep it open in the winter. That should definitely
continue. Otherwise, we're going to have snowmobiles driving all over our properties again. Um, and um, yeah, I'm not advocating we put a DNR public access there by any means. >> Um, but I think that it's important that
we that identify how wide that street is because um, it's not I think it's more than 25 feet and I don't think Grand View should be allowed to put buildings and structures on that. So, >> okay. So you do have a different perspective about the the shed being there and
>> right >> and the barricades, >> right? I don't I think I don't think anybody should be able to put permanent structures on on the access area. It's mostly Grand View that would do it, of course. But >> do you have any response? >> No, it wasn't permanent. Nothing's been
permanent that we've put there. It's just been seasonal. Well, I think that if you look at that shed, it's not you're not going to go down there and hook up a trailer and >> that's what we do every year because we clear that area for
everyone to get on and off the lake for ice. >> Okay. Well, I don't think the shed should be there. >> Okay. That way. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, if you want to state your name and your address. >> Hi, Mary Jetland. I'm a west, no I'm an
east lynon uh person as well as old government trail. Um, one of the things that I wanted to ask about is Grand View has expanded so much. The water traffic has increased
exponentially and there is no way to get for example a Zodiac or an emergency small boat out there in an accident and should there be at this point
because for example I'm very involved in the Gull Lake Sailing School and we own our own ramp there And it's not a I mean people aren't putting in wake or boats or anything like that, but we operate
all of our coach boats in and out. And from my perspective, seeing the amount of activity, seeing the experience of the boat drivers, which is a whole another topic that needs to be between
us and uh Granville, but the safety, if I were the code family, I'd be very worried about what I see on a regular basis in the last 5 years and the ability to get a an emergency watercraft
out there quickly with the amount of activity. >> So there's two. You're you're mentioning level of activity. You're specifically talking about guests of Granville or just people on G Lake. >> I'm saying that they're renting more jet skis out of Grand View. There are so
many more boats coming onto the lake right there from Grand View in and out of their docks. There are inexperienced people. Um, there are very inexperienced jet ski drivers. G Lake doesn't have an
extensive water patrol staff um to enforce the laws and I'm I live in Excelsier. I know how many accidents I know about from Lake Minnetonka
and things happen very fast. Very very fast. I think council member Hall wants to talk. I would just have one comment. Like I I hear what you're saying about the jet skis, but I don't know that that's like a grand view issue. I feel like that's there's a lot of irresponsible jet ski drivers on any lake you go on up here, right? But I'm
saying recognizing the increase in traffic and I'm I I definitely want to hear what Joe and the fire department say about this. But because there hasn't been an infrastructure to put a small boat in there,
maybe there should be because of the changes at Cran View. Let's I know Council Member How does want to say something quick. all just speak to the safety of it. Um is 3 years ago I believe now. Um the Lions Club uh
donated us the money to buy our first watercraft boat for stuff like this. A lot of you have seen it. We keep it over here in the fire hall. It is a small Zodiac boat. It's on a trailer, turf tires. Um we can actually physically pick that boat up by hand and carry it
through any yard, any property, anything. also too with our ATVs that we have, our track vehicles. We can drive through the beach, the snow, whatever. And so, um, we could pull up onto the lakeside of any house or any
residence, you know, provide there wasn't a steep hill and carry the boat around by hand and physically access the water. So that was the whole purpose in the intent behind the boat that the city owns is we do not need any sort of
formal access to launch our boat anywhere on a lake property for duck hunters, backwood, swamps, anything. So um that's I I just maybe a lot of the public don't know that information. We do have that capability and we require
no access of any kind. >> Think we have someone else that would like to Did that answer your question, ma'am? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Hi, my name is Don Music. I live on West Lynon Boulevard, not on the lake. So, I
use that access regularly. Um, I used to drive down there. I drive over to the east side one and I would park at Lon Lodge. There used to be a sign over by Lon Lodge. Rarely is there a car there in the middle of the day. So, I'll just take a spot. I know it's Grand Views
supposedly land, but it is the access. So, I just walk across and go swimming on their beach. Now, I go down to the one on West Lynon because the sign is gone over on East London. I assume it's not public. It's been taken over.
Um, I still drive. I park there. There's room for two cars to park. If [clears throat] it's 50 ft, there is room for two cars. and I walk out to the water and I swim. I use Grand View Beach
because their docks are on public access. They don't bother me, I don't bother them. I'm fine with that. Regarding the little shed, if it's okay to get a temporary permit
for Grand View to put a little shed there to store their stuff, is that going to set precedents so that if residents want to go down and store their paddle boards there for the season so they don't have to bring a truck and a trailer, can we get a permit to do
that, too? It's just something to think about because we're all the same, right? Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hi, Craig Wilford. I have uh two properties on East London, one on the
lake and then one off the lake. So, I got a vested interest in this. Uh why are we here? anyone. It's a bolt landing that really never got bolt landing attention.
So, if you if you want a boat landing, I don't know who runs Bob, the the group down by the beach, why don't you put a good boat landing in and boat land your guests boats? Just an idea. Now, in the winter, I
couldn't get on with a ranger because he had the barricades. It was a contest state. They weren't opening up for anybody but guests. So, I don't know what is all written in the old stuff, but what it was written that I could tell it said the the bolt
landing and the beach access was forever written on it. It's all I got. I'm bread coat. I kind of helped create this little mess. Um, I'm on East Lynon Boulevard. I came in and had an opportunity, a mayor, council members,
thank you today. Uh, talked with you this last fall. I sent you a letter, brought a hard copy of that. That kind of addressed all my concerns. I'm glad we all agree that uh the easements are here. They're going to stay. That's that's resolved. Sounds like um east
east London access. I'm a I'm on East London. I'm on the wood side. So, I'm I'm one of those original 50- foot lots that Baker sold with access to walk down that way. So, um we sold our lake cabin. So, that's my access. Um and, uh I think the west access is
equally important. It's it's highly highly used by vehicle traffic and ice fishermanmen throughout the winter. Um I think it's still a great access. Mark's absolutely right. Um Gramby could make a lot of money pulling people out of there if they wanted to let them go in there. They shouldn't. Um, it's not possible to
get a trailer in there. Um, but it's great for a kayak, a canoe, a paddle board, go down sit sitting sitting near your put your butt in the sand, put your feet in the water. My issue was over the couple years, the Grand View waterfront has changed. It's kind of shifted locations and it's grown and that's
natural. The resort has grown. What what really happened last year was, as I mentioned in the fall, uh there's kind of like a number of factors that combined to kind of create a scenario I didn't think was healthy. It is an access that goes all the way down. And
you know, they have the shed, then they had another little shed or a a storage tent, and then they had some kayak racks and paddle board racks and all the stuff on the beach. And then the barricades, and then they put the dock across the access so that you had to put your
paddle board in and go sideways 100 yards or swim that way. And really, it should they should have a clear opening there. He should be able to stand where that van is right there and have a clear 25 ft view straight out to the water. It's that simple. And it was just a
combination. And they were being can ask people in this room. They were being a little aggressive on monitoring the beach. And that's okay. It's a little push back because Ramsey does not have a public pool. We're not offering public chairs, but [snorts]
was a little bit intense. Um, so I I don't have a problem if like no vehicle uh launchings, but if you want to drive down there, Graview actually parks guest unit vehicles in the access if those lines are right because that's unit 221.
And by the time you have cars parking at the pool and then parking along 221, you only have about 15 feet between the two cars, especially if they're trucks. So, and then we do allow public parking on streets in Nisa unless it's signed. Um,
I talked to a long-standing police officer about it and it's the rule. It's unclear, but he's like, "As long as you got enough room for EMS and a firet truck to get by, it's allowed." And that really makes sense on East and West Linen because if you weren't allowed to park two tires in the grass, two on the
pavement, you you wouldn't have a birthday party, yard sale, a construction project. Um, that's just how you have to do it. You every day you go down there, you'll see a guy mowing grass and he's got a car and a trailer in the roadway. So, there is some of that parking on either side of on East
and West Lyn. And I don't think anyone in the community is encouraging tons of people to come in there, but it is a public street paid for by the public. Um, so I guess that's what I'm looking for is just acknowledgement that it isn't access that we have to keep, you know,
if you encumber the access on the sand with all the Grand View toys and and then crowd it with the with sheds and and put up barricades, you know, really gives a strong impression that this thing is closed. This is just Grand View now. And that's not the case. And I I
think but I think there can be there's no conflict here. I think we just have to solve some of these things. Graanby is going to thrive. The the locals will get their beach. Um, you know, people driving through if they want to just put their kids in the water for 20 minutes
on an 80°ree day could be great for that. Um, you know, and that's never been really a safety issue at Grand View. I I I worked at that beach a couple years. I I served or shadowed the board for seems like decades. Um, I mean, EMS safety is is
critical for our guests and the community 100%. Um, not been a ton of issues on that to my recollection. It's never affected profitability or guest satisfaction. That's never once come up in a board meeting. So, the access and grab can can both try.
Any questions? >> Any questions for Mr. Coat? Anyone [clears throat] else from the public? >> Are you coming with your suggestions? >> No. >> Oh,
only if it only if it get past the the early question. My name again is Fred Hidman and um this kind of lost my train of thought as I walked up here. Good grief. Um
I want to go back to the to what these accesses are. And Maggie, do do you have like the West Lynon where it goes down past where Gran View's maintenance is?
>> Well, we could just do it here. If I could walk over if you just scroll over a little bit. So again, I I don't know if this is 50 ft or 25 ft in the place where we're talking about, but
exactly what we're talking that is either maybe the same here or the east one east access here. >> And I remember discussing that last August. >> Yeah.
>> And if you zoom in on that one you're pointing out, Fred, there's a there's a structure that's on it, >> right? >> Yes. too. >> My my point of the whole thing is I just go back to the very basic premise
and that is that these were not designed for the public. They were designed for the people who owned lots across the street. They are the one that I pointed out is is 25 ft wide. That's that's what
the survey shows on that one. I don't know what the one we're talking about by Grand View's Pool Building and the Cabana and that I don't know what the width of that one is, but it's 25 foot was fairly common.
That one could be different. I don't know. But my point is in a way this is this discussion is not really for the public of Nisa. This is for This is about Grand View. The city may be having
some access to it. I don't know if the city owns it or not. They unless they bought it, they shouldn't because it was part of a plat. Wish Mark was here. But um so my point my point is just to keep it focused on what it really is. And
what it really is is some strips that were for people who lived there. I know some people who live along uh West Lyndon, they go over and they use it. They do not plan on driving their vehicle over
there. They know that a a grand people customers will use wherever they can to park, but they also realize that the these strips are
narrow, 25 ft, maybe 50 at the widest. They don't think about driving over there like it's a public beach and having a big parking lot. they're willing to walk over or and I'm not speaking for everybody on West London, but two or three that I
have had conversation with years past, they're like, we we expect to walk over there or take a bicycle or a golf cart, you know, we don't plan, we don't see this as a big public
beach with with the with a parking lot. And and so just my point again is this is about I think this is more about the neighborhood and not serving the public as a whole because I don't think it was ever platted that way.
>> Council member Frillley has something >> kind of but I was just going to address the public water access watercraft boat launch. Um this is so the state puts uh water access into two points. one is called a boat access, watercraft access,
and that has to have a permanent structure. Uh, but this one is considered a carry-on only. It's it's not it was not designed or put in uh for a boat launch to be put there. It's just carry-on only. So, I was just going to
clarify that. Um, so if I understand Fred correctly, uh, Mr. Coach, basically what you want is to be able to access that beach. Yes. Are >> are you want to add you want to access
the beach to use it so you can go there and access the water to go swimming whatever? Correct. Yeah, I have. >> Um are you are you stopped from? >> No, but it encumbered >> it was what? >> And how >> uh between the the use of the the two
there were two structures there plus paddle racks and kayaks and barricades. Um, as I've suggested in my letter that you sent out, I think simple whether it's pylons or or signage indicating that can't park in the public access. I
think that's welcoming and it solves the issue. Um, I take issue with the shed plus all the other stuff that goes with the shed out on the beach in the access area. It's kind of prohibiting public use or at least it looks like it's prohibiting public use. [snorts]
And then the dock and the water was kind of the last straw for me where it cuts it off. They just need it doesn't cost same money. You just redo your docks with 20 ft 25 ft between the two docks. Um I know that because I did my own docks for 20 years. Uh, I think that
solves all the issues, you know, and then you got to be the staff have to be adequately trained that, hey, someone might walk down here without a wristband, you know, encourage them to stay right there on that 25 foot access and enjoy the lake. That simple.
And I know the reason why the barriers, we put those in for uh for emergency access. I know that or we looked at that for emergency access. Um, so the barriers basically can sit there. They're movable. If you can move one, I
can move one. Is there are they separated? So someone could walk between them. Okay. So So no one's being stopped from accessing the beach. So the big thing is is is is there like a pier out there right now with the docks going out
for the boats? Correct. Oh yeah. Well, I was asking Don. Sorry. The barricade. Go there. Go there. The barricades though, are they separated so someone could walk between them? >> Yes. They're just to make sure people don't park there.
>> Okay. So, and but I think one of the sticking points is is the the the shed that's been there for many years, which is removed at the end of the season, summer season. Um, and I think that's a point of contention. Um, I agree that one thing we can do is put in
a sign there that says, uh, no parking, uh, public access, carry-on crafts only. Um, um, but also you do have to have an area where you can have uh for your
paddle boards and so forth. Um, but then the other the lady that was up here, I don't think it was Mary, >> Don. So, you know, I you know, because that's one thing we have to look at, too, is if if if we allow one person to do it, the next person might want to do
it, you know, but I don't know how that would go about. Um, so there's things that we have to look at and come together and go forward. >> Well, there's a gentleman that's been waiting to speak. Good afternoon. Uh Christian Mar. I'm on Dutchman's Bluff.
I just want to win the point that in winter the traffic is quite different in the usage than in the summer. So as you look at solution and what's the best for the neighborhood and for Grand View as well, there's a fair amount of traffic in winter back and forth, people basically getting out of the ice using
that road as the main road for that bay. >> Um so that's a different dynamic that you're dealing with in winter months with ice fishing. So the solution that you're describing, you want to factor that in. Summer, as has been mentioned by several residents. Um, uh, I think I
don't want to speak for everybody else, but, um, this is obviously a Grand View property access with a lot of, uh, folks that are there for vacationing and, um, you want to, uh, give an access for the folks in the neighborhood to walk in. I
totally agree that it's not a boat launch. I mean, anybody who's trying to do that will get stuck in the sand and that's not realistic. On the other end, you should have some signage to give access to people. So, if you want to go basically come with your kayak, that's fine. And then put your vehicles
obviously somewhere else, maybe by by the conference center that you can access to. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Did you have more before I >> That's basically what I was saying. We need signage there to stipulate what it
is and we need to figure out uh what the storage unit that the temporary unit that puts there. Um and I think that's where I sit right now. >> Okay. I we've heard from a lot of people. I don't know if you have any, you know, as we've been listening if if
you have any perspective, feedback or input, anything you want to share before I call on Fred again. >> Not at this time. Thank you. >> Okay. I have a I have a >> Oh, council members on >> Do we know where the city road ends? Does it end at the water line?
>> At the water line. So, so this is not in would we then make the reasonable assumption that this is not in the purview of Minnesota DNR? It >> is the DNR. It is a DNR controlled access. >> But that's that's where I'm trying to
grapple with because where where I agree with Mr. Co. This does not need to be a conflict. Let's find a solution. But this board cannot make any suggestions and it's unfortunate that Mr. Steven is not here to be able to provide some sort of guidance on this as
well as perhaps our attorney. But if there's two different varying governing bodies and mainly the state of Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources as well as this board here, where does the A decision lie from either two entities and where it takes
precedence? >> At the OW, it changes at the water. >> Yeah. At the high original high water mark, that's where the jurisdiction changes. So DNR water side city upward side but
it is an access pass for it but that's where all the jurisdiction changes at the H. >> So everything that we're talking about is is within the city of Yeah. for us to make a rule. >> So if if if if the line ends at the
water Okay. So you've got it's it's it's paved sand. So that sand part is basically you're telling me city property, correct? So is there a way for the peers to uh stop
at that 2550 foot whatever mark at the water's edge. I guess I would say for us that we should focus on everything from the water up, the dock, the peers and stuff
in the lake. That's really that's not our purview. >> That's that's we're outside of our >> right. I was just >> But but I I'll bring up another contrary point because my wife and I just finished building a new house. Our old our new neighbor saw where we're running our dock out. He thought we were going
to run our dock and lifts east through the water onto his proverbial hypothetical property line that goes infinitely through G Lake, right? Like we all kind of feel like is ours. Um, if if that is the case and there is
obstruction to some degree of of a I believe it's a float floating dock, correct me if I'm wrong, right? Of that structure there. Does that I mean does that not have limitations for those that would like to access it to some degree or some
capacity? That's all spilled out very clearly. If you guys go on the DNR website or whatever in the doc section, all those sight lines, things like that, that's that's all clearly defined on the Minnesota State DNR website. And once again, you know, I I see the point. I I
understand that. So, so to your point that is that is where it stops with our input and conversation feedback >> input and conversation you know the the dock and what is in the water is not in our jurisdiction so >> that runs under the >> DNR I would encourage that to be brought
up with the DNR and that's all spelled out with the DNR but I don't think that's anything for us to discuss or make a ruling on because it's outside of our jurisdiction >> and my assumption would be that the DNR would say that because that would be a quote unquote access the carryons that
the if if if I do bring a carry-on out there onto that access I have to have a way to put it into the water and my assumption would be that they would say that there could not be
a structure temporary a dock in my way or or you know and you know I don't but I don't know >> and they can let's focus on what we can focus on >> right from the water up and I think like I had said we need signage in there and everything there and work on the with the structure.
>> I just want to do I'm not trying to cut cut the conversation short or anything. So, but I just want to do a time check. We are almost at 5:00. We've been here almost 90 minutes. Again, the whole point of this uh council meeting to begin with is we were trying to find solutions that can work for everybody
before we got into the high season. Right. this this it's unfortunate this this this special meeting this workshop whatever you want to call it didn't happen much earlier in the year and here we are sitting at the middle of May and we're a couple weeks away from Memorial Day
weekend but right like the goal here is to find a solution View has a business to run um I think we probably all agree we want everyone up in our community to thrive right we want our residents to feel that they're a part of the community important we want Grand View to be able
to run a successful business um and do what they need to do because guests coming up here help you know it helps all of us right and that's important um I am hearing from everybody like Mr. Anderson other folks that came up uh Mr. coat, Miss Music. There is, it does seem
some uh a different perspective about Grand View having the shed partially on public property. But then when you look at the other side too, you can also understand why they kind of need the shed, right, to do their business. So it's like,
we're not going to worry about the water down. So let's just not talk about the docks. That's out of our jurisdiction here. Let's focus on what we can. Um, we have heard from council member Hall, who is the deputy chief of the fire department, that the barricades have been there previously because of
reasons for emergency fire. >> Yeah, we can throw them out away and access it, >> different things like that. So, it's as I'm sitting here listening to everyone and hearing from my fellow colleagues, hearing from all of you, this is like one of those times in life where I kind of feel like how do we find
a solution that is workable? Like I had said before, there's got to be a way that it can be a win-winwin for everybody here. And it's seeming like I don't know that there are still, you know, barriers here of how do we get there. Um I don't want to make everyone
sit here another 90 minutes, right? We want to be respectful of everyone's time. Um Fred, I know you have something else. Is it brief? [laughter] >> Yeah, I can keep it very brief >> because Bob is standing behind you and he wants to come up too and you've been up twice already. So
>> yeah, >> brief candy bar. Um, two brief comments. I live in South Coast, so I don't really have a stake in this, but um about eight years ago before most of your own city council and things. I was on the uh private committee for municipal lake park and uh I spent a lot of time down
in Minneapolis doing things too. Um this the park department of Minneapolis had um rented through an agency um storage like semi-trailer trucks they placed along the side of the river that has like capacity for little 3x3 foot doors
or whatever and they could put like 18 kayaks or canoes in it. If the city owned an entity or rented into you like that and put it down there then citizens could rent a slot. Grand View could rent as many as they want. But you might want to look into that. And uh one other
comment I'll keep it under next 60 seconds is there's a lot of different feelings and things here. I would suggest maybe the council give a and I don't think having heard this last August there was a lot of work been done. I would put together like a three
or four person committee and give and give Grand View permit for this season and give the committee like three or four months to come up with a a plan. You know what I mean? and it's maybe a council member and a couple citizens and one person from Grand View, but there's
a lot of unanswered questions here and I I don't think I don't see enough informed information to make decisions, permanent decisions. That's just my 10 cents. Thank you for your time. >> Thanks, Bob. Um, we are missing two key folks as we've mentioned. We're missing
our city attorney and we're missing our planning and zoning director. Um, >> if if I could, Mayor. >> Sure. I just just briefly and it's only because I I've been involved with a lot of this that I get
up here to speak. Um it I think there's been first of all I think just my listening to the audience it seems to me like there's a lot of common ground. I mean everybody has a little different maybe perspective but I haven't heard
anybody saying oh my god you know this none of this is going to work. This is all horrible. people want to see those remain and it's like how do we work it out? So I think there's been four or five really good points that people have brought up today
and I don't know that they can be addressed um without a having more knowledge about what exactly is the width is it 25 or 50 how much encumbrance is there if any um
is I I don't know and I'll ask Tom and Joe you guys would probably know better than I I cuz I've never asked. Are we absolutely sure that from the corner of the street down to the lake that that is owned by the city? Are we absolutely sure?
Well, but that doesn't matter. That doesn't mean any that doesn't mean the city owns it if it's platted as an access for neighbors. I mean, if the city hasn't gone through a league what does it
>> Okay. Well, that's a >> Well, how can it be a city street if it's 20 wide here? >> I got a couple things. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. So, Jim, and I I know you and you're a reasonable guy.
So, well, you have been with me. Council member Hall has something too he wanted to >> but so if it's a city street then we've got a big problem because it's obviously not 66 feet wide or 33 feet wide. So until we get until we go start at the
very basics and work that out, how do we move forward? >> Because Fred that that road has been there for 100 plus >> that the right of way grandfathered in >> last few years. >> That that's what I started with some of the history. WSN that both works for the city and Grand View has plotted it right
on the county GIS website. Right now it's it is recorded with the county at 25 ft. It shows it right here on the map right off the county website today. No, no, no. I I understand. Let me let me talk to I I talked to WSN, you know,
with with Chad and so there is this this issue back and forth. At the end of the day, what what does that really matter? Because we're talking about public use. Yes, I agree fully. We need signs. The
public needs to be able to use it. You know, some wayfinding signs and easy access for people to get down there. At the same point in time, the fire department needs a barricade up there so we can easily throw it out of the way to access it to service that whole area
with fire trucks. We need to do that at the same point in time. Um, the sidewalk put across there from Grand View, paid by Grand View. Yes, it it goes across there. It accommodates Grand View, but it helps with the watershed
off the city street and helps that as Mark addressed. So, that that's a win. I don't know that that's a uh conflict, but Grand View has helped control keeping the lake cleaner um by doing that. Also, too, many of you have brought up the wintertime over and over
and over. I am in the snow plowing, snow removal business, stuff like that too with the ice that comes in there. [clears throat] That is an expense and a big task. You know, one gentleman said it was shut down for the fishing contest. Yes, that's not done by Grand View. That's done by the sheriff's
department. The sheriff's department dictates the access on and off the lake during that day and controls it. That matter solely lies with the sheriff's department, not Grand View on that particular day. But that huge expense and Grand View working as good state
stewards and neighbors in the community keeping that open and taking that expense on solely, that's not something us as the city and sending Tom's guys out there to do that that we will do without that access. Um, you know,
snowmoilers, people on the lake, they'll try and drive up through anybody's yard wherever, right? I mean, my own yard, my own house on Nesa Lake. I have a snowmobile tracks for my boys up there. We get strangers, they just follow snowmobile tracks. They're going to be
coming up through everybody's yard without that. And so as a compromise, I look at it and go, okay, Grand View is doing the community and neighborhood a great service by this winter access, knocking down the beach, you know,
maintaining and controlling that as long as the watershed. And I I think everyone can agree with that, you know, from a public safety standpoint and stuff with that tree there and the property line 50 feet, 75 feet, so be it. Um, we're not
going to drive the fire truck through where that tree is anyhow. The tree prohibits that anyhow. So, it's a little bit irrelevant as far as like a safety corridor. Allowing Grand View to have a temporary building there so they can um
do their life jackets and provide their guests the best experience with that um throughout the town, not only with Grand View. We can go right out here and look at the caboose. The caboose is currently sitting on city property and it's for
the historical society. You know the mini doughnut stand. There are numerous cases throughout the town in Nisa where Niswah has worked with the community and business owners by allowing them to have either a temporary structure or a
permanent structure on city property just because it was the right thing to do or helped out. And so I guess that would be a little bit of my concession in why the building there, you know, for years Grand View has maintained that on
their dime, their dollar for the neighborhood. I agree it needs to stay open, maybe clear of other debris in that area. But I guess that would be my recommendation to move this forward is that we would allow just one building
along there, you know, off where that tree is and put signage up there, keep that corridor open, put the fence open, and you know, hopefully Grand View will continue doing what they have by smoothing the beach out, raking it out,
keeping that corridor open in the wintertime for snow deals. can't speak for them, but I from my viewpoint, I would say that would be one win for both sides. >> Is that a motion? >> Yeah. So, that would be a motion, I guess, if we wanted to turn it in that I would make for this.
>> Do we have a So, that is Do we have a second? >> I don't even know what that motion is. >> Okay. Can you want to repeat it? So, I would just make motion that we would allow Grand View to have their one structure in there um next to the building and Stephen had the size on it,
whatever, that it would be temporarily moved in there from let's say um April to the end of October and removed and that a barricade would go across that would say Nisa Police, Nisa Fire,
something like that on there that would be easily movable. and that the city would provide signage down there, some sort of signage that would say that it was a access path. Um, >> foot traffic only. >> Yeah, foot traffic only. We could come
up with the language for that to keep that corridor open uh for people to ask um for people to do it. Um, and I can't ask, but then I would I would just hope that Grand View would keep
you know, doing the the maintenance portion necessary in that area can't be an ask, but >> Okay. So, your just to recap, your motion is to allow Grand View to put one building um where they've previously had it from April through October so they
can continue servicing their customers on the beach. That barricades would still be down there, but they would be easily movable. that the city would pay and provide signage down there to show that it is uh public access
exact verbiage to be determined but basically sign barricades and one structure. >> Yeah, that would be what my motion would be. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Okay. So, motion by council member Hall, second by council member London. This
isn't a part of the motion because it's not us, but we have discussion before the vote. You did say you would hope Grand View would maybe to continue to maintain it as they have. That is a question we should ask Grand View. >> Yes. >> So, Grand View would be willing to do that
>> to continue >> taking care of that area as we have for years. >> Okay. So, now I'll open up to the rest of the council for additional questions and discussion since we have a motion and second on the floor. council members on >> is Graanby View willing to move this
location and to put it elsewhere to then be able to apply and obtain structure permit. Correct. >> We would do a seasonal permit, but there's nowhere else for it to go. It would have to go up closer to the building versus where it has been over the years. If this were to happen, it
has to go closer to the cantina. um could look at something smaller, but it it needs to be there because that's where the foot traffic is. That's how we get the life jackets on the kids. It's >> Now, this is your your guys' business.
I'm not trying to impede, but try to get imaginative here. >> Um has there been consideration for applying for a permit to expand that cantina structure to the west to be able to have a permanent structure there? If
we extended that, there is an access um exit for the pool there that cannot be. >> So if you Don, if you look up at the screen there where Can you please zoom in a little bit, Maggie? >> Yeah. No, actually where her cursor is actually that red line, right? If you
[clears throat] >> expanded that structure perhaps as wide as that and had it go to the northern edge of the building there, >> would that be a potential solution? I'd like to ask some just obvious questions before >> it would not be for this year. Um,
>> understood. But I don't I mean if that was the case that we had that space to utilize, but I think that's where all the >> that's where the building Yeah, that's where the >> building sits. >> So was that other cabin to the
northwest? Was that built before the the water park in Cantina? Because look at I mean it's on the access and granted I get there's a margin of error for the GIS. Okay. That's where the margin of error comes in. But where the red one is and
where the red line is and where my motion was was to sit in that exact area that you're talking about. >> That's where it's always been. >> That's where it's always been. >> Additional questions? >> Well, >> otherwise I'll go to the other two gentlemen. I can come back to you.
>> Yeah, that's fine. >> Okay. Do you have any questions about the motion and second on the floor? Council member London. >> It's fine. I think it's agreeable and I think the resort's willing to participate and get going on this. I think we should do it as soon as possible. >> Okay. Council member Freley, any additional questions or discussions from
you? Okay. I'll come back to you one more time before I call the question. >> Yeah. Let me just let council member Zan speak first and then you two folks can come up. >> You guys can come up here while I'm talking and get prepped if you like. Um,
but I guess Don, let me take I don't even know how far many weeks or months steps back. Like, can you enlighten us from your Grand View Lodge's true and honest perspective? And I understand Stephen is not here, but we hear these one-off conversations that
there's friction >> that there's what? I hear one-off conversations from folks within these walls and outside that there's friction between Grand View and the city for various reasons and perhaps the city and Gran View, which I don't think any of us want. Let's call the white elephant out in the room, the largest business in
this town, but it doesn't mean we give preferential treatment to Graan View Lodge to a greater degree than the doughnut shop right over here on Main Street. We have to find some sort of solutions. And this is a very unique situation because of how old and how
um unique the property is based off of Mr. Rome's comments. And he's absolutely accurate. It's been modified time and time again as well as your other properties and resorts in the community just as well as other people's properties in this community. Um and
downtown Niswah is no different. But is there can you tell us where it's last left with with [snorts] Steven in this particular situation with perhaps the barricades but also the shed structure?
Where where did he last leave off in conversation or for solution or brainstorming of what to do here? Um, first and foremost, I have heard the same about friction and I would hope
that this meeting was part of that piece because we've been working with Tom and Woods on other, you know, the road bonds that could possibly come up and I think everyone would agree Grand View has not been pushing back or trying to do
something without the city's approval, which is why we're here. Um, the shed is not down there. The shed was not going down there because it's gotten to the point my my question coming here today was what
are we going to do because this isn't a partnership. You know, we um I had made a comment that I'd like to talk who who should we talk to to talk about the public access and if I'm
correct that was in February sometime. Um Stephen called and we both took that as an olive branch to meet and so we met actually down at the access um >> in February.
>> In February we were in winter attire but each time we went to talk about things, it went elsewhere. It it even went so far as to a liquor license, which our liquor license has nothing to do with planning and zoning.
>> Can we pause there for a second? Yes. >> Can you elaborate on going elsewhere? Are you implying that the topic swayed from just perhaps that to >> other so many things >> years of impro um of the impervious
coverage. I mean it went back to things that I don't even I can't even speak of. And we were there just to talk about the public access. So, every time that we've asked to talk about something, it goes
it goes 5 10 15 other things deep that I can't always speak on. Um, and I would need more more data to be able to speak in regards to some of those pieces. >> That's fair. Um, but to close that
point, if I may, where perhaps what was the last conversation with Stephen in regards to this? >> Yes, the last conversation with Steven was that we would need to put the shed either in the uh grassy area where we
have yard games and so forth set up, which is east, right? This is >> Oh, on the east side. on the east side or we could put it all the way down to the west side in front of literally it would be in front of the cabins and we
can't put a guest >> sitting on a >> sitting on their desk. >> My curiosity was that were those two suggestions just were they made based off of his own discretion or was there any logic behind those two locations?
>> I can't I we should ask him. The conversation went in so many different directions that I chose to share that we needed to have this meeting or how can I communicate to the council that this isn't a partnership and we need to
understand because Grand View can't continue to take care of things, monitor everyone's safety, ensure that emergency vehicles can get to and from the areas. We can't continue all of this if we're not if we're not going to have
a partner. And so that's kind of I wasn't coming here for a shed. I was coming here because we need to find answers. This can't keep coming up. You know, we talk about, you know, the city had a comprehensive plan, I think, in 2019 where they embraced resorts. They
understood what resorts brought to this city. They understand that, you know, the city of Nisa is active now in the winter and exciting with stores that are open and it's exciting to be a part of
that and it's exciting about what Grand View's been able to do. There are people moving to Niswah now because of their experiences with Grand View. There's people purchasing homes because they've had a great time and an experience here
in the city and they're retiring here. I mean, that's ex that to me is exciting. But this is all over a fact that we want to take care of our guests and service our guests that are also contributing to the
city. So either way, whatever needs to happen, I just want to make sure that if we're going I want a partnership with this public access. It's not about a shed. It's about the fact that Graan View is spending quite a bit of money to
take care of that access to ensure that there's sand to ensure that it's safe. And so whatever decisions made today, I just want to make sure that either the city is now going to take care of that
and we're going to have that space showcased that that is the space that is the city owns and that it is not part of Grand View or we're going to keep it together and see it as a space for our community and for Grand
View guests to go back and forth. Okay, that's the purpose of this. >> Thank you. We have a motion and a second on the floor. Usually I just do one last pass for additional comments or questions. I would like to call the vote. Did you have something applicable to this motion quickly? Um because I do want to call the vote because we're
almost at 5:30. >> Is there anything you can say in your motion about addressing with the DNR the doc? >> We are we have already have a motion on the floor in a second. So that motion needs to be voted on. If we we can't make any motions about the DNR. That's out of our jurisdiction.
>> I'm just saying who will be responsible to follow up with. >> Yeah, we can. That would in theory it would be Stephen, our planning and zoning director, I believe. >> Okay, that's what I wanted to know. >> Okay, perfect. Um, I would like to call the question because we've had extensive dialogue with this motion. And second,
one last thing. Well, real quick, if Grand View is not maintaining that, you know, especially in the wintertime for just the fire safety, you know, the city of Nisawa, we would still want fire access there and then that would fall
on, you know, probably public works to maintain that area so we could get water out of the lake also in the winter time. So, just FYI, I just want everyone to know that. >> Okay. So, I'm going to repeat the motion again because we've had extensive conversation since it was motioned and
seconded. Um, the motion was to allow Grand View one building or shed um down in the area where they've previously had it between the months of April and October. Um, that there will be barricades, but they will be easily movable and that the city will provide
signage down there. Um, and that corridor will be kept open. So, that is a motion that was made. I I I know this is going to argue, but I have to make one comment because I feel like it's important before you call this vote. >> Go ahead. >> This is a tiny town with 2200 folks and
we have a staff that is 01% of that less. There's 20ome folks here. Okay. >> Does [clears throat] anybody here know what our planning and zoning department consists of? It's a department of one. >> And that gentleman's not here. So, I'm going to say to this out loud to the council. Keep in mind, we're making a
decision here without any consultation or conversation at a bare minimum from our planning and zoning uh director. >> With that being said, I would propose a different solution to this and not saying that this is a not
wise motion, but >> we need to vote on this motion. >> We do need to vote on this motion, but I I >> He's not here. No, this meeting shouldn't have happened without with he should have been here, >> but we are we're all here now. So, um and I think we can still say there's
been some progress in the discussions. So, >> okay. Um I would like to call the question. I'm going to do a roll call vote. Council member Freillley, >> let's start on that end, please. >> Council member Hall, >> yes. >> Council member Zan, >> nay. >> Council member London, >> yes.
>> Council member Freilley, nay. So we have a 22. Um >> I city has not >> uh Mr. Heidman, please be quiet. >> Mr. Heidman, I have to I'm thinking here. I'm thinking in real time. I feel between a rock and a hard place
because I, as I've said before, we want our businesses to succeed. We want to be good partners. We also want to be mindful and respectful of the broader community. Um, as I said at the beginning of this meeting, I I did have
concern that we were scheduling a meeting at a time when our planning and zoning director couldn't be here and our city attorney is here. And for that reason and that reason only, I am going to vote nay. So, motion fails. All right. I would like to bring forward another motion. Go ahead.
>> So, my motion is to commission a single task force committee consisting of Mayor Carneahan and Council Member Hall. I already wrote it down. I'm just kidding. >> Okay, I'll start over. To commission a specific task force committee uh that is
headed by Mayor Carneahan and Council Member Hall. Uh that also consists of our interim city administrator Maggie Wentler, uh planning and zoning Steven, and public works director Tom Blommer uh to find an immediate resolution regarding access
intimidation/restriction as well as a solution for temporary non-permitted shed structure use for business purpose with a proposed solution presented to the full council at the May 19th regular city council meeting. I got it written down. I'll give it to you after. I second.
>> Do we have a second? >> I second. >> Okay. Motion by >> Oh, I can't read. My eyesight's bad. Motion by Council Member Zan, second by Council Member Freilley, a commission to include myself, council member Hall,
Miss Wentler, Mr. Blommer, Mr. Timlin to look at the access and come up with a solution for our regular council meeting, which is next Tuesday, May 19th, and for council to be able to vote on it at that time. Yes. >> Okay. Is there any discussion with this
motion and second on the floor? >> Council member on. >> Yeah, I I I uh I missed one party at that uh one group at that party. So, um please include the Grand View Lodge group. I made an assumption. Sorry about that. >> So,
>> I amend I amend my motion to include Grand View Lodge in that mix as well. >> Okay. Do you amend your second? >> I amend my second. >> Okay. Any additional discussion? >> Okay. Okay, I will do a roll call vote. I'm going to start with you this time. You can't pass it. Council member Freilley, >> yes.
>> Council member London, >> yes. >> Council member Zan, >> I. >> Council member Hall, >> yes. >> Okay. Motion carries. >> I make a motion to >> All those opposed, same sign. Okay. Motion carries. >> I make a motion to adjurnn the meeting. >> Okay. Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> A motion to adjurnn is not debatable. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Okay. We are adjourned. Thank you everyone.