You ready? Okay. All right. I'd like to call the meeting to order for the Nissa Planning Commission Board of Adjustment for Tuesday, November 4th, 2025. Roll call, please. >> Sean Weldon, >> Josh Young, >> Gary Harris, Dave Reese, >> Maggie Wentler, >> Steven Dimland. Are there any additions
or deletions to the agenda? >> I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. >> So move >> second. >> All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Next to approve the meeting minutes for October 7th, 2025. Are there any corrections or additions to those minutes? >> There were none in the packet for today.
We are still compiling those. Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes. >> So move. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed? Motion carries. Next item is open form. Is there anyone present tonight that would like to speak towards something not on the agenda this
evening? Move on. Moving on to public hearings. I'll entertain a motion to open the public hearing. >> So move. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Okay. First item is conditional use permit
application 025-25 to obtain a conditional use permit for the construction of a new commercial structure with a dwelling unit above a commercial use within the highway business zoning district. Subject properties located at to be determined common drive P214663. [Music]
Owner applicant Marthaler Deanna Trust and Kent Marthaler. I do have an update on this one. I received an email um request from the applicant asking to table this once more and he has also submitted a 1599 waiver
um for the um statutory deadline for a decision. So um applicant is requesting at this point a table motion from the planning commission board of adjustment >> for another month. >> One more month. Yep. He's changing the he wants to throw in the addition on
this and so he's going to work to get the architectural renderings um review of the floor plan to see whether or not we need to adjust the septic design and he'll bring additional submissions for review in December. >> Good questions.
I'll entertain a motion. I'll move to table conditional use permit application 025-25 for 30 days or for a month. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I I all oppose. Motion carries.
Next item is variance application 030-25 to obtain a variance of deviate from maximum tower tower height, maximum impervious surface and setbacks to residential zone property lines and structures within the public and recreation zoning district. Subject property is located at 25636 Main
Street, Nisa, Minnesota, P28110763. Owner applicant Nysa Economic Development Authority. Woody Crog from Verizon Wireless. Would you hear it? Okay. >> Make sure the green light is on on the micro we're pulling that we can hear
you. >> It's on. You should can hear me. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. uh uh Woody Krogue uh here representing the applicant Verizon Wireless uh uh in this uh variance and uh eventually
the conditional use uh application that's next on the agenda. >> Yep. Thank you, Stephen. Your staff report. >> Thank you, chair. So, we have before us a proposal for a monopole communication tower. Um first for this um request we
have to handle the variance application and address any deviations that are being proposed for this use from local standards. Um in my analysis I've determined that there's a few different variances that would be proposed to be deviated from. Um the public and
recreation zoning district has a 15% imperous surface maximum. The survey provided by the applicant shows the proposed for two parcels in question here to be at 47.02%. Uh the second dimensional deviation
would be for tower height of 190 ft where 150 is the maximum allowed. The third would be a variance for setback of nearest residential zone property of 70t 5 in where 500 ft is required for the construction of this tower. Fourth, we
have a variance for setback to the nearest property line of 33 feet 9 in where 190 ft is required for the construction of this tower. Uh fifth, we have a variance for a setback to the nearest structure of 9 ft where 190 ft is the
required for maximum or for this to height sorry. Um, and then the sixth and final variance that I determined in this review was for the height of the security fence to be 8 ft where the ordinance standard is 6 feet for the max on an over the counter permit type
process. So those are the variances. You'll notice in in most of them they refer to the tower's height. That's due to local controls in our ordinance that as tall as a tower is proposed to be, it should be set back from a property line, from structures, um, local road,
rightways, and things of that nature. Um, summarizing to these as the nearest as being proposed. Um, a little bit of background on this project. It had been before the city back in 2016 um and 17
and it was originally being proposed to be between the Ye old pickle factory and the ball field. Um that was later determined to be not feasible um for communication power due to grant funding that the city has received for that
land. Um the applicant has then approached the city of Nisa for an alternative location to provide better better cell service to downtown. Um, this particular topic has been before the city council and planning commission a couple times um, since my arrival at
the city here. Um, talked about the towers height. Uh, there were other locations that the city had considered through city council meetings. Um, there was a cemetery area, the recent acquired land at the intersection of 371 and county roads 13
and 77. Um those options were deemed not as beneficial for coverage. Um through analysis of propagation data provided by the applicant. Um the applicant has stated that there will be no lights on this tower unless required
by the FAA. Uh the applicant had since submitted documentation to us that the FAA is not going to require lights based on the tower's height. Um, city of Nisa's zoning ordinance also requires communication towers to be
self-supported in a monopole fashion and not be guide towers. Um, so that is what is proposed in front of you today. Um, for the security fencing around the structure and the proposed screening, um, this is proposed to have cedar board
with galvanized steel fitting. Uh the tower is proposed to be constructed using galvanized steel and a certified statement that the construction of the tower including reception and transmission functions will not interfere with radio, television or public safety
telecommunications is being required and has been submitted by the applicant. Um, I also put in the packet a copy of division 4 communication towers as it relates to all of the different standards that the city um requires observation of in an application. That's
my two cents from the floor at this point. Opening for additional questions that you or the public may have. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you, Stephen. Um, Stephen kind of touched on most of this, but
I'll uh and uh give a little brief history of uh how we have arrived where we are today. Um, as Stephen said, there was a a lease executed with the city. I think it was in 17. Uh, for whatever reason, Verizon never got around to
building it when this uh site came back into uh to the front burner in 2023. Uh I inquired with the city about proceeding and that's when it was discovered the proposed location with the equipment near the pickle and one of
the uh light standards at the ball field being replaced with the pole for the antennas and then the lights would have been put back on there. That was it was the pole that was in the grant area. The equipment area was not. So we did look at trying to move the pole closer to the
equipment out of the grant area. We also looked at the cemetery and the other property Stephen mentioned. Um but uh ultimately with Jenny, former city planner, I guess uh Jenny Max, we
settled on the fire department location where we're where have our application in here today. Um so that it was the reason we settled on that location. is the preferred location is that uh of all the pro proposed
locations, this uh location will provide the maximum improved coverage and capacity that Verizon needs for the downtown area as well as areas of poor coverage on the outskirts of going going out of town, I guess, to the north and
the uh the east that the city council had brought to our attention where they were hoping we could provide some relief and more coverage in those areas. So, uh that's also how we got to the 190 foot
uh tall tower uh proposal. The the higher the tower generally the further it can transmit and larger coverage area. Um so the uh the poll depicted here on the
drawings on sheet T1 of your drawings uh uh in your packets. So 190T pole with a 9 ft lightning rod and keeps us under the 200 ft which prevents having to light the tower.
uh regarding improved coverage and capacity in your package. You also have these uh uh coverage maps, propagation maps we call them that show the improvements from what is existing without the tower to the what will is proposed with the
new tower. So on the uh I guess the left here is the existing the red areas are the bad areas. This green area down here is the is what's provided by the tower cover of the existing site on the north side of the
golf course. You can see with the proposed tower, all of this new green and yellow area is all improved coverage uh that would be provided by this tower. And you can see how those the golf course down here and the uh the new
tower here will connect and uh the new tower will greatly take some of the stress off of that tower at the golf course. Um lots of safety issues with the tower. Um we uh in speaking with uh
Stephen earlier um if the if the city ever uh wants to uh see any of the towers get inspected on a regular basis uh uh and if we can always supply that latest report uh uh at the request of
the city whenever the city requests usually it's a two or three year inspection schedule where all climbers inspect every bolt and connection and everything involved with the tower. Regarding aircraft safety, as Stephen said, no lights based on our airspace
analysis where we're under that 200 ft. 200 feet or above, you may know automatically has to have lights with the FAA. So, 190 plus a 9 foot lightning rod keeps us under that 200 ft. Um radio frequency uh RF safety is a
common concern in regard to environmental effects such as uh health public health uh federal agencies SEC and others USDA uh OSHA etc uh are the scientific experts on RF safety
standards and uh the telecommunications act in 1996 expressly uh prohibits local authorities from considering those issues as part of the permitting process. Uh the act was submitted in your in your
packets on page 117. There's a highlighted paragraph that uh covers what I'm talking about there. Um so with uh considering this information, Verizon respectfully requests approval of the uh
variance application and uh getting a little ahead of myself. the conditional use application coming up next. >> Thank you. Is there anyone that would like to make a public comment towards this application? Hearing none, I'll close public
comments. Commissioner member comments. Do we have any questions? >> Well, Mine's only the health concern. I guess I know if there's any health concerns. Oh, it seems like they certainly uh between
the city and the and the Verizon people, we had due diligence in trying to locate other other spots for the tower. Uh appears that they've been pretty much exhausted, but um we need three
variances tonight. Is that correct? Three separate ones. So there was six total bullet points being varied from um you could choose to address them individually or collectively.
>> Collectively. >> I just have a couple questions maybe for you since this is being brought up here again. So when you're at the city council, um the tower that the fire department's using currently for the repeater will be able to take that tower down and put on
yours. Correct. Is that still the plan? >> We did discuss that. Yes, sir. Um, but uh there through the course of the conversations, the fire department uh or I'm not sure exactly who uh uh decided
they didn't want to move anything off of the existing poles back there onto the new tower. >> Okay. What about the >> So, we're not taking down the old towers. No. >> Okay. What about the generator system? >> And we would Verizon will have their own
generator as well. Not we're not going to use the that was also decided to not share a generator from on the city side. >> As I recall something >> that's been brought up and talked about, but I haven't heard what the outcome is on those.
>> As I recall, when when Woody and I were speaking, it was his legal counsel that said that that was not opportunistic to be sharing a shared feature. >> Correct. >> Yeah. And then the only other thing with the lighting on that um because we do
land helicopters there, I would want to double check with North and uh lifelink what they actually might prefer to have that lit. Uh we just landed one there within the last couple weeks. >> Sure. So along those lines, um we can do
what's called voluntarial voluntarily lighting uh which you know if uh you if the city decides that they would prefer a light on it, you know, uh we can certainly add that if that >> Yeah, I would just say Stephen that would be something for you to reach out
to both of them and see what their preference would be on that. >> Well, that certainly could be something that we discuss here. Um, our ordinance specifically states that they shall not have lighting. Um, so I suppose we could add that to the discussion tonight and see whether
or not that's another thing that we want to vary from in this case. Um, wasn't specifically noticed. Um, but it was proposed that the communication tower
had some dimensional deviations. Um, >> so I I think >> I would say that's a question we want to push back to North and Lifelink to have answered for us. >> Okay. Could we propose language as a structured condition to this variance approval that prior to Lanny's permit
issuance, we get the affirmation from um, who was it again? Did you say >> North Memorial and LifeLink come in and out of there? So something along the lines of um
let the determination of whether a light be present or not be based upon feedback received from North Memorial and Lifelink for or against. >> Yeah, I I think that needs to be a legitimate question that needs to be asked.
So, uh I just have a question on that. So if we proceed if after you're in u research uh can we have a vote tonight with that being a condition of the of the vote? Okay.
>> Yep. Besides the the letter from Larry Stark uh regarding the tower, did you have any other feedback from any other community members? >> That was the only public comment that I received in regards to this. >> Okay. And that right he asked about an antenna tree rather than the tower.
>> Yeah. Upon receipt of that, my my interpretation is that would be like towers that look kind of like a tree. Um >> Yep. We don't have any other native vegetation that is that tall being one consideration in the wings but >> and that's not feasible.
>> Not not at that height of you know that's two two and a half times higher than the highest tree around and it's yeah it's just it would be uh ideal killer actually. Okay.
Gary, do you have any questions? >> No, I think we should we have to deal with these five questions and the findings affect the issue of variances, but I think we're we should be doing this collectively rather than individually because they're all going to virtually be the same, I would think.
Yeah. >> Just to reiterate, you didn't hear back from Hills Crossing or any representative from Hills Crossing? >> No. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm fine with doing it collectively if that's appropriate. Seems like it is.
So, how we do a variance application is I have to go through these specific questions as we go down and then it's a yes or no from from the members here. So, um number one is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan.
Yes or no? >> It is. It's, you know, it's part of the downtown process, the urban urban lifestyle. So, I mean, facilitating business and communications. >> Okay, Sean, do you agree?
>> I agree. >> All right. Uh, number two, is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the city of Nisa court of ordinances? >> Can only be used for one purpose. Yeah. >> Yes,
>> I agree. >> Yes. >> I say the per the poll is it can only be used for one purpose and that's comm telecommunication. So >> number three is a need for the variance due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the property owner. >> I'd say it is because We've tried alternate locations. Um, this is getting to be about the only spot that it'll work. So,
>> agree. >> Uh, number four, will the issuance of a variance maintain the essential character of the locality? >> It will. The character of downtown is is unique in its own right. So, John
>> three sorry >> and five uh does the need for the variance involve more than economic considerations >> obviously yes >> yeah agree >> okay and no other pertinent findings
I'll entertain a motion I'll I'll move um for approval of variance application 0 D 030-25 to obtain a variance to six variance six bullet pointed items as as listed in the
U planners report and the findings of fact there's six items uh all each one requiring a variance and uh all all be according to the findings of
act and the conditions. There's there's conditions shown on in the report as well. There's four that are listed and then the fifth one would be I don't know what the the explanation would be for
the lighting. We're going to make that a condition. Correct. >> You want me to help you out and state what I have written down? >> Yes. Okay. Um condition number five that the lighting determination to be based upon a determination from North Memorial and light as to the presence for or
against lighting requirements. >> Agreed. >> Right. Did we get that? >> Second. >> All those in favor? I >> and I will oppose. All right, motion passes.
Uh, next item is conditional use permit application 031-25 to obtain a conditional use permit for the construction of 190 ft monopole communication tower within the public and recreation zoning district. Accepted properties located at 25636 Main Street,
Niswah, Minnesota. P28110763. Uh, owner applicant NISA Economic Development Authority. Woody Crog of Verizon Wireless. So this is just a normal. >> So now that we are past the variance, so
we're no longer um analyzing deviation from local ordinances. Now we're evaluating the use impacts and trying to mit mitigate them if possible through conditioning. Um so in my staff report for the CUP um the nature of the request is a
conditional use permit for the communication tower which isn't allowed use through a conditional use per path conditional use permit pathway in the public and recreation zoning district which fits the zoning designation of the subject property. um there are
minimal ways to um mitigate impact sitewise like screening wise for such a structure. So our ordinance has standards that the color of theru of the structure be either light blue or generally blending in with the
um sky behind it. Um whether it's blue sky, gray sky. So I think that the galvanized steel is as close without requiring painting of the structure um to what you might see behind it. Um
it is proposed to have a security fence around it which will um deter any type of um violation of that compound. uh there's a lease that would be needing to be executed between the city and the
applicant in this case for utilization and maintenance of that tower and its facilities. Um and we had had evaluated other locations none of them seeming feasible in this
case. Um, basically it other than what other things we've discussed tonight. Okay. Do we have any feedback for Stephen on some potential conditions? >> Do not what was your analysis with regards to
screening? Uh, I think that the um proposed height of the security fence around it was a good bonus from the applicant as a suggestion. They're also volunteering
the cedar board for for that. Um, how do you screen 190T tower? >> Yeah. Seven. What is that? Seven. >> Best 17 stories tall. I mean, that's that's height, isn't it? >> Yeah. Um, can I say say a word on that?
>> Um, I think your ordinance requirement is six foot on the fence. So, we're we're suggesting make it 8 ft, which will con at least conceal the equipment on the ground and all you'll be seeing sticking above the fence is the pole
itself. So, >> so you are putting cedar up on >> Yeah. 8 foot rather than the six foot required by the code. And uh we also kind of had it slid to the side of the fire department
building so it's it's going to be barely be noticeable. The base of the tower will be barely noticeable from the from the street. >> Any other questions, comments? Y being none, I'll entertain a motion. I'll move for approval of conditional
use permit application 031-25 to obtain a conditional use permit for construction of the 190T monopole communication tower uh etc etc according again according to the findings of fact
and the planners report and no conditions I guess other than you've agreed to a taller fence that's about it right >> there are four potential conditions in my part. Okay. >> Uh, one pause I forgot to take. I
because I I did it in the first, but I should offer it in the second. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a a public comment regarding the conditional use permit application? Okay. Just wanted to have that there.
Thank you. All right. So, we got that. We got the conditions >> back the conditional as presented. Second. >> All those in favor I. All those opposed me.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh, next item is variance application 032-25 to obtain a variance to construct a detached garage with reduced property line setback within the shoreline residential zoning district. Subject property is located at 4354 Mission
Road, PD 2834571. Owner applicant, Lakeland 5 Development LLC, Jordan Severance is a representative here. >> I'm Jordan Severance, uh, representing Lakeland 5 Development, seeking uh, approval for this variance.
>> Yeah, thank you. Stephen, your staff report. Thank you chair. So we have before us a application for variance again for a detached accessory structure within the um minimum setback distance from a property line. Applicant is
proposing to put a 1,856 ft detached accessory structure 11 ft from the property line where the ordinance dimensional standard is 30 feet for structures exceeding 1,200 square feet in size. Um so that would be the deviation aspect
of this. Um the structure is proposed to be served by limited use. Um holding tank system which is less than 150 gallons per day for usage. Inside the structure there's proposed to be just a bathroom. No living quarters. So we're not permitting a second structure
containing living quarters in this ask. It's just uh accessory use. Um the wetland identification has not been submitted to the city for the review, although the national wetland inventory layer does not depict any wetlands to be present on the subject property. Uh
condition has been listed for this evaluation to be performed and a delineation or no wetland letter to be submitted to the city. Um in this application, the applicant has taken storm water management mitigatory efforts and proposed a um landscaping
plan and areas for storm water retention. Um, that's what I have in my staff report. Opening it up to public and applicants. Okay. Would you guys give a brief overview of the proposal?
>> Uh, so we're looking to put a detached structure on the property. Um, we're wanting to get within the setback that's uh stated by the ordinance just because of various circumstances on the property itself. um the
southbound neighbor um to us their driveway is encroaching on our property um to an extent which is limiting where we're able to put the detach building and then also the nature of the lot uh narrows from 100 ft down to 80 ft towards the road. Um so we're kind of
limited as far as where our location is at to be able to uh get the desired size of the structure that we're looking for. Okay. >> Is there anyone like to make a public comment regarding this application?
>> State your name and address. Great. >> Yep. Mike Dan, 411 7 Sunset B Road. I'm a joining neighbor to him. I don't got nothing against Charlie, but I thought if you want to get some kind of a setback or variance, it had to be
some kind of a hardship. There is no hardship here because but I believe you're selling the property, right? It's is sold, right? So what's the hardship? So now I got to look at a building. He's profiting off this. And if you let this
go through, you know, not allowing him to have the 30ft set back, you open up a can of worms because I know two other neighbors that want to do that with these lots and I'll be the third one. and I and I can put up a lot of pole buildings on my property and maybe I'll do that and then I'll just sell my
property and leave too. Now, Mission Road is a beautiful scenery area. This is going to junk it up and we don't want that. And I think Dresser has a letter, too. >> Sorry. Yeah, we did receive a a letter
from Grasser and um his legal counsel. And I just know found out about this last week. I got the letter in the mail. I was in Pan Canal for 18 days. Lucky I got back a week early or I wouldn't even known about this. When I was trying to build my property, you guys said it
would take 6 months for me to get a permit unless I stayed with the original uh subject. They're already breaking ground. They're almost ready to pour concrete there. I don't know if you guys all visited the site yet. Yeah, it's quite the eyesore. That's all I got. Okay.
Any other questions, comments? Come to the podium and state your name. >> Good evening. My name is Jessica Brigman and I'm with the law firm of Spencer Feain. I'm here tonight on behalf of Mike and Amy Gesser to respectfully ask that the planning commission and board of adjustment deny the variance request
by Lakeland 5 Development. My clients would be here tonight, but Mrs. ressor had underwent surgery yesterday and is unable to travel and they thank you for your understanding. As stated in our previously submissed submitted statement of opposition, the applicant has not met the legal standards required by the city's zoning
code to be granted a variance. The 30-foot step setbacks in the Nysa ordinances exist to protect the character of the neighborhood, preserve open space, and uphold environmental safeguards. Placing a pole shed within 11 feet of the property line is a major
deviation from the purposely thought out existing setbacks of 30 feet. Review of the property on which the variance is being sought shows there are available alternative sites. Additionally, adjusting the driveway placement would meet the setback requirements. Alternatively, if the applicant was
willing to reduce the size of the building's footprint or driveway, a new pole shed could be placed at the proposed location within the current setback requirements. In short, there are multiple reasonable alternatives to granting a variance. What concerns us in addition is in light
of the reasonable alternatives appears this is a request. This request is one of economic convenience. M Minnesota state law is very clear that economic convenience is not a permissible reason to grant a variance. The choice of the proposed location over those others seem intended to minimize construction costs
or p preserve preferred yard space and not due to a legitimate hardship or unique physical characteristics of the property. Lakeland 5 development has not demonstrated any practical difficulty or unique physical condition that justifies granting this variance. They have not shown that this request is based on
anything other than economic convenience. Our other concern is that the approval in this case would set an unfavorable precedent, weakening the weakening the integrity of the zoning framework and inviting further non-compliant development that would degrade the quality and character of the neighborhood. For these reasons, we
respectfully request that you deny this variance in order to uphold the integrity of NISWA's ordinances and remain compliant with Minnesota state law. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Right, I'll close public comment.
>> Uh, do we have any questions for the applicant? >> Could it be placed somewhere else besides that spot? >> Not from any of the the other locations that we were kind of looking at for it. that was the most most reasonable
location for it to have the least impact as far as tree removal any stuff like that. There was a total of 10 trees that we were looking at removing for it. Um we had started doing block clearing and stuff. There was no permit that was required to be able to do that. So we had taken down four trees that were
already damaged in the storms in the last couple of months that were broken off and dead and then three other smaller trees that were removed. Um, so we had reduced the number of trees that we were ended up needing to taken down for the the location of the site. Um, so far it's just been uh a little bit of
the top soil grading and that little bit of tree removal. Um, that's kind of the progress that's been made on it. Um, simply because if the variance here doesn't go through, then we can still do a quick conferment for a smaller structure. But, um, we're actually trying to get the building at a a 15t
setback, not 11. Um the survey showed 11 feet on there, but I believe the I think the application had 15 on there. >> The application depicts a dimension of 11 ft from the property. >> 15 ft is actually the setback that we're looking for for it. So we're not trying
to push that all the way to the the 10ft set back from the 30. We're trying to go to about 15 ft. And that was the space that we thought was reasonable for uh the size of the building and the location of everything else on the property. The dimensions that I show on the actual
internal uh component of this structure are 32x 58. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> And if 15 ft were to be considered, would you be able to provide an updated certificate of survey? >> Yes.
>> Yep. Uh, you had mentioned that on the south, is it the southward end that you said there's an encroachment from a driveway from a neighbor? >> There is. I >> correct. >> Okay, I'm seeing that here. Mhm. >> Doesn't look like that'd be enough of an
encroachment to to really alter a building location on your property. But >> it's an encroachment just because of how it limits our driveway location for it, which also then limits the availability for building locations. >> But the setbacks are from the property
line, not from their driveway. So their driveway can be moved. >> Yeah. And I It's a public or a private road. It's not a specific driveway to one location. I believe there's three houses that are pertaining to that one. So, I I don't know how that plays into
it as far as with it not being just a private driveway but a private road itself. If you relocated your driveway, pushed it over further south the driveway. >> Mhm. Then couldn't you flip the building the other direction and then end load or
lo have your driveway the entrance to it coming from the east rather than the south. >> You know that it's still it may have to make that building a little smaller, but you'll you'll get it over closer to the driveway if you move your driveway left. >> Right. And the building location that we
have is more or less where the the driveway is currently furthest to the south as it sits on the property. that's the the furthest south that the driveway is at on the property. Um, and I said the the lot narrows from 100 ft down to 80 ft, which is just kind of
constricting us as we get closer to the road there. And we're trying to do this partway down the property. We're not trying to do it up uh kind of towards the lake. You know, it's not not meant to be an isore from the lake or anything
like that. That's just a a residential detached garage with a workshop in it. So, >> uh Sean or Gary, were you able to go out there before? >> I was. I was out there today. >> I took a look yesterday. Okay. Um, it
was hard to tell what was going on with one of the letters that was submitted uh was talking about the possibility that you've been grading over on off of your property onto the neighbor, but I don't know if that's >> you can't tell. Just look, you know, >> yeah, there's a tree separation between
our property and the neighbors of about 15 to 20 feet >> of just solid woods. >> There was stakes there that were ribboned off that show the property land when I was there. and it showed it. And there was a surveyor out there uh yesterday that was remarking that north
property line on the south property line. >> It was a bit fil. >> Yeah. How many yards of dirt would you say have been brought in? >> I that I'm not sure. I haven't been out to the site recently.
>> Okay. I think some of the concern that we're hearing is that you it's your trees. You're able to cut down the trees, but you're already grading the site and it's already staked off. And you said that if this were to be denied, it would still
go in that spot. It would just meet the setbacks. Is that what you just >> It would just be a smaller building, which abides by the the 10- foot setback rule. So, if we went to a smaller building, we could go closer to the property line than we're proposing right now. >> Okay. >> So, it would go there anyway. It would just not >> it's just a matter of the size that
we're wanting to do requires a 30 foot setback and we're we're trying to >> get that down to 15. >> Okay. I think one of the major problems that you that you run into on variances is
when it the neighbors are not agreeable to what what you're doing. It really makes it difficult on >> it does on us >> and that it's difficult cuz that north uh neighbor Mike Ger has four detached structures on his property but for some
reason us having one there is a big concern. Well >> each application is we have to look at application that's submitted that's >> Oh I understand. Yeah. >> I don't know. It looks to me like the solution is having a smaller building.
So, how so do you know like I can't see off of this how wide it is in that space? So, if you have to have a 30 foot setback, >> I thought you're talking. >> Can you blow that up, Stephen? On the >> Yeah, I can kind of help that. >> You're needing 60 foot of setback before
you can even put a building in. >> So, that location right there is the widest point of the lot and as it goes east towards the road, uh, it narrows down all the way to 80 feet. So from point A to point B there, we're narrowing 20 ft throughout
and being a partway down. We're going to be sitting at about probably about 90 ft there, just shy. >> So 90. So you're talking about a 30 foot >> building envelope would be 30 foot >> with
>> Yeah. So if you have if you have a 30 foot setback on each side plus a building plus a driveway going through it. >> Well, the driveway could go through the setback though. all the way to the lot line or >> no your drive your driveway that's existing now >> the driveway doesn't have to be within
the 30 foot setback >> does it >> is a much less restrictive setback so we >> that's a building setback that's not a driveway sir >> correct this would be a structural setback >> that's why I said before if you could you know move tuck your driveway down closer to the south property line and
rearrange the building over there you could you could probably fit a 30 30 foot wide envelope there >> they There's about 10 really nice tall pine trees, Norway pines, that are on that south side of the driveway there that we're trying not to remove um by
just moving the driveway simply for that Um, any more questions? >> No, I just agree with Gary. It makes it very difficult for us when you don't have neighbors that want it. Well, I mean, even to apply a
variance, there has to be something unique to the property that's barring its use. And to me, I don't see anything unique to the property that's barring it from meeting the setback. So, that's just my opinion. Either way, if we have no more
questions, I'll entertain a motion. papers looking for number application number plus my cover sheet here. Before we have a motion, do we don't we have to go through these items? >> You do?
>> Yes. Yeah. We have to discuss these. There's five items, you know, that we have to go through my sheet. >> Yeah, no problems. All right. Uh the first question is is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan.
Yes or no? >> I it's a stretch, but I' I'd say yes. It the ordinance does allow variances in situations like this, but um I'd say yes to that first one. >> Sean, >> I agree for the first one.
>> Okay. Two. Is a property owner proposing to use a property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Nisah city code of ordinances? >> That one I would have to say no because it's I think there's another building size that could be in location
that could be made on those properties. >> Sean, >> I agree. >> I also agree. Three is a need for the variance due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner. Again, I guess that would be yes because it is
it is a unique property, but it's the building. It's the size of the building that's that's the constraining >> and its location on the lot. >> Yeah. >> Uh number four, will the issuance of a variance maintain the essential character of the locality?
>> No, just because of the fact that the neighbors are are stressed over it. Sean >> agree >> and last does a need for the variance involve more than economic considerations.
>> Yes, I I don't think cost is involved. >> I think it does not either. Uh but we said no to two of the questions. So then it's a denial of the application. So I'll entertain a motion. I'll move denial of the variance application 032-25
based on the findings of facts submitted by the city and or by the staff and uh the the findings of our uh findings of facts are dealing with the variance the five five uh situation five items >> agree second
>> all those in favor I I all those opposed motion carries thank I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> Hello. >> Second. All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed? Motion carries.
>> Uh, next item under new business, administrative subdivision. Um, Rudolph Justin Rudolph. Hello Stephen. Thank you. We have before us a meets and bound subdivision application to
subdivide a shoreline lot um roughly in half for all intents and purposes at this stage of the conversation. uh proposing a lot line um between the north half and the south half as shown on the certificate of survey. Um the applicant has proposed to
um create pro riparian tract A which would be sized at 36,300 ft where 20,000 ft the minimum average width of that um by definition of ordinance is 65.34 ft where the minimum
would be 75 ft for a shoreline lot. Um, my analysis to that is this is this would be a pre-existing condition for the shoreline of tract A and the parent tract as a whole. Um, if the subdivision and that lot line were to be drawn in
there and approved, impervious on riparian tract A would be at 19.9%. um non- riparian tract B which is not having any shoreline thereof um would be proposed at 30,666
ft where 10,000 ft is the minimum uh for a lot that contains sewer available to it no on-site systems that is um the width at that point to that structure would be 126 sorry not structure width of that lot would be
126.72 ft where 75 is the minimum proposed impervious after the um structure that's depicted by the survey um would be constructed would be 24.8%
impervious. I have in the staff report the table that determines those figures and minimums for lot area and lot width. Um both of these tracks are are proposed to be served by city sewer. The current parent parcel has two residential
structures on there. one of them proposed to be removed. Um, permitted to be demolished at this point. Um, and both track A and track B are currently paying ERC connection fees of of two for
the parent lot. So, if subdivided, it would be one and one at that point. Um wetland identification for this application has not been submitted for review. Although the national wetland inventory does not depict any wetlands to be present on the subject property
and um WDSH has submitted a letter indicating no wetlands are present in your staff report post creation of the staff report. So that is now checked. Um these paid um findings of facts were
submitted by myself um indicating that this would not have any negative impact to um use on health, safety, general welfare. Um the tracks meet minimum sizes of sewer available. So we don't need sight suitability for septic
systems. Um proposed eventual uses of residence and tract B um size as shown on the survey I think 50 by 100. Is that correct Justin? >> Uh yes. >> Thank you. >> Um
yeah any other questions that you have the applicant has public has in the audience for this application? >> Yeah. Did we have any uh public comment? None. Okay, I'm trying to find it again.
Did Jake give us Did he submit a letter for this? >> He in this document here, there was an email. So, I asked him for comment. He provided a comment stating so long as the proposed lots meet the minimum lot widths and area for the lake
classification and septic classification, then I would have no comments. >> Okay. >> He asked if I could confirm and so I did. I'll vote. Do we have any questions? >> No, I do not. Okay. So, we're looking for a motion to
approve the subdivision is what we're waiting for. I'll move approval of the meets and bound subdivision application 033-25. Um again as u according to the findings of fact as submitted in this in the city
staff report and uh there's conditions potential conditions there's four listed in the se there's seven different findings fact and and four potential conditions for
the approval >> second. All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed? Motion carries. >> Next item under new business is a sketch plan review for Boberg. >> Good evening. Um, my name is Mark Reni.
Uh, and >> Hi, Dan Bullberg. >> Um, I am I'm here um and we are here today to talk about a sketch plan review for the Bowberg property that basically is, you know, the area behind the the
including the old lumber yard, the area behind those businesses that are on 77 on the north side of 77. You can see this um it's a it's a very significant um piece of ground. Um the Bowberg family has been um has owned this parcel
for going on a hundred years. I think it's in excess of 90 years. Um you know they are a one of the first families here. U they've been in business in this general area for a long time. Um this this is we've spent a lot of time going through this to say you know what are
some of the things that um services the community uh because this is not just about how the last dollar is made um it is actually what what's best for the community and what's economically feasible um and practical in this area. And you know there's not a we didn't
come in with a with an application today because we think this is such a significant piece of ground and there are unanswered questions here that we are at the same time that we are working through the the application process. Um you know we are working with you know
talking with the Minnesota Department of Transportation with the Crowing County Highway with the public works department of um of Nisa. Um we've also we're also looking at um you discussing this with we've talked to some of our neighbors
already about this. Um so um you know there's a need for housing in Niswah. Um there's a need for there's a there's a high demand for some additional um storage or highway you know that kind of office warehouse kind of you know the the type of um whether it's machinery or
whether it's the the stone yard that's there or you know something something in that area. And on the north end of this property, the big orange property there, that that a good bit of that is backing up to the Nisa um uh sanitary sanitary
sewer system spray field. So that limits the potential marketability and the you know the feasibility of using that for housing or for you know apartments or even single family housing or something like that. So, you know, it is more of
an of of a commercial industrial warehouse, you know, storage, something like that kind of space. Um, the blue space in the middle, um, you know, looking potentially at, um, at approaching the city and and and that could be something that has a little
higher density, whether it is duplexes or a an apartment building, um, maybe a combination of of those things. Um, there is the highway frontage in the orange. um that that um would have some additional um bis highway business um
applications to it. Um the the I don't know purple maroon uh not maroon I don't know mauve what color is that fuchsia I was looking for I was looking for the color on the color wheel it was there somewhere the fuchsia um looking at
single family u and potentially in those areas one of the products that we're looking at there are um some relatively modestsiz houses um could think of it like a patio home potentially that would be a snowboard related um there's a high I'm uh amongst my many day jobs that I
have um in since I retired from Grand View um I'm also a realtor um although I don't generally do just I do resort real estate I don't do um a lot of residential real estate but in in our activity that we have we're approached all the time >> with people who would like to have a a
lowmaintenance or no maintenance something that's relatively modest size they have a place in Arizona they have a place in Florida or they have a place in Texas or someplace else and they're looking for a place to spend their summers. They the lakes are becoming prohibitive for a lot of people. So this is a way for you know this is a way to
build a product to develop a product that is access that makes Nisa accessible to um a greater um number of people. I mean I think a couple years ago I looked and the average sale price for a house in Nisa was like $400,000
and I'm sure it's well over that now. Um I built a lot of those at one point in time at Grand View. So, I know the, you know, the the that end of the market is well taken care of. Um, but, um, you know, there we think there's a there's there's a market here that could be
served. Um, you know, and and that's really what that what that is all about. Um then on the there there's a potentially a little bit of business up in the the f in the orange that's in the in the souththeast corner and maybe a
little more business on the or or multifamily, you know, something that is a a duplex kind of a thing in the um upper left corner of that open space. There's a large wetland there in the middle. Um you know, we don't need any
incursions or encroachments on those. Um the reason again the reason we're coming here is because of the the his you know this has been like I said this has been in the family forever. The idea here is it's a complicated piece of ground. It's a complicated and rather than just cut
it off and say all right let's just take 12 acres to the in the kind of the left corner in the in the lower left corner in the the orange and say we're going to come in and do a uh a plan for some office warehouse that sort of thing. or come in and just do something along the
golf course. We think good planning dictates that we take our time, that we work with the city and we talk about things like how are we going to get sewer in here? Um is any of this can any of this be private roads? Does it all need to be public road? I know what your ordinance says, but there's some there's
some things where are we going to access 77? Um because um right now there's an approach road that that is um that is there and it's they're entitled for an approach road on the on the um on the very um I guess that's what is that the
north the northwest corner of this. So that lower the lower right hand corner of this that is uh that is that is actually that field approach is uh is there or that that's what we call the country a field approach but that approach is there and then the city has
expressed some interest and the county has expressed some interest in developing a um you know a what's a word I'm looking for a collector route a collector remember a collector street that would come um that would be the that would be accessing 77 up there um
with cursor is. So, um, you know, City Sewer, there's there's there's not City Sewer, um, you know, that's readily accessible here other than at Wendy's, there's a private there was a private arrangement made between Wendy's, the
developer of Wendy's, and the city um, where they pushed it under the road. Uh, potentially there's an easement that exists there and, um, we we could we could talk about that and we will talk about it with them. The other thing is if there's a collector road, does it does it dip to the south and and become
a frontage road and uh I'm sorry, dip to the east and and and connect up uh along the highway with um Hazelwood or does it carry on through um dip to the west and connect up with the road that serves the
Nisa Comets? So, you know, nothing we're doing here is um you know, there's no there's no recycling centers or um um industrial waste sites or I mean this is housing. This is h this is um midlevel
housing, you know, is what I would say. This is um consistently the businesses that are that would be the kind of planning we would do for these businesses. It would be something that would be um consistent certainly consistent with
what's in the neighborhood. Um so with the backage road plan that the city's got through here now does that match or tie up with that or >> Yeah, that's that's what I'm looking at is the information that was provided
concerning the backage road. This appears to coincide. >> It does. Okay. Yeah. And again, >> but there's flexibility, >> right? But and again with that access would require some condemnation of land. That's an eminent domain situation or something. That's something that the
city would have to do. Um you know, there's probably some some tiff financing that that we might take place for some of these some of these improvements. There's definitely either we do a development overlay district or a development district like we did like we've done before. or we've done one
other of those in Nisa which leads for a little more it's it's a little more open zoning but everything that's goes in there requires a conditional use. So I've I've done that I did that about 5 years ago with a project in uh connected to Graham View and it it you know it's
how we were able to work and if that still exists but so there may be an ordinance change or it may be a zoning change or you know there's things like that that might be required. We wanted to we want before we brought in something that's like, you know, you got to act on this today, we want to give
you a chance. We And we've also already met twice with city two or three times with city staff. Um and we're again we're working with um with the with the county as well. Dan, would you like to have some >> Yeah, I know that's I think you covered it really well. I think the idea was
just to get this in front of you, get some initial comments. Um any initial thoughts or feedback? I think the two biggest issues we're trying to work through and just make sure everyone's on the same page are on our 77 access and where does that go and then and then and
then the um the sewage connection and and what does that look like? Uh like we said uh for now we think the connection the best most logical path is to connect near Wendy's but there are other options. Um, and
then we think the best location for this backage road is is kind of where the city of Nisa has it. Um, but there's different opinions on that as well. So, we just wanted to put this out there and start to to get comments on it. I think the as far as the projects, like the
first project we plan to work on would would be the um the housing here, the the uh along the golf course lots. So, the the actual purple color, that's that's kind of phase one, if you will. So that's kind of what we would plan to bring to you first.
>> And again, but again, we don't want to bring it in isolation. We want to bring it with the idea because again, we have to look at if it's a development district that that allows everything with conditional use, then the city has some control. Otherwise, that you know, how does it meet that that zoning in that area? But
if we were to ask for reszoning, it's obviously something that's consistent with uh it's a it's a low inensity use. Um, you know, as most of these are relatively low intensity uses other than potentially the um the, you know, the multif family is a little bit more
intense uh intense use. Um, you know, the the stuff to the west of here is a golf course and we'll and and you know, that's going to remain a golf course probably for the next hundred years. Um, the stuff to the land to the north or west of here is uh city city sewer facility. So again, we don't see that
changing. Uh to the directly to the north we have Nissa Commons which again is that um kind of office warehouse or warehouse um thing and then of course we have the the frontage um there's some there's some frontage on 37 actually on
371 um where we have a couple um of improved accesses but I got a big hunch that the um the Minnesota Department of Transportation's not about to say oh yeah just drop it out on 371 head itself intersection
I got a big I got a big feeling that I know they're answered before I ask. So, um, questions, comments, thoughts, anything, you know. Um, so you're not looking at any what you call retail development in
here at all. I mean, the only retail I would think would be potentially, you know, what's on, you know, something that would be serviced off of the um the the collector road >> that's got visibility on 371. Yeah, I got you.
>> Cuz I mean, really, that's that's, you know, it's what it's what you really want is you want the businesses located between the highway and the >> That makes sense. Yeah. So, we think it's good planning >> um and appropriate.
>> I like it. I like the idea. I've been waiting for this to come in at some point. I knew it was going to cuz um Carl's pretty good friend of mine and I've known him for a long time. So, but >> yeah, >> he doesn't own the property anymore. So,
>> yeah, it's it you know it >> I I don't have a conflict of interest anymore. Well, it doesn't, like I said, it we think it it provides some opportunities, some stuff in this we need and and some market driven some market. >> I think this will be good for the city.
>> Anything else? Any any other questions? Joe, any thoughts? You Joe, you have a thought on everything, buddy. >> Right. Yeah. Um, no, I think it's great. Um, it'd be a great plan, great addition. you know, it follows the conversations that's been going for a
long time in this area. I do think as a whole the city um doesn't have just flat out doesn't have the zoning ordinances, the conversation, the talk, the plan put in place to do
something like this right now. um from the council level, we've talked about getting a um economic development board committee put together in this town to help with projects just like this. And you know, here's a prime example of it.
Um I I do think that this would be a good example to maybe for you guys even to bring before council to show the actual need of that to them, you know. Um and also to um explain um the mix use
right now in the highway business district. Uh mixed use um low, medium, high density that just doesn't even exist in right >> terminology in this town. And so that's I'll say a educational piece that needs
to be introduced here. But um yeah, I think much like this property, the property the city just produced to the south um is slash would potentially look a lot like this. And so um yeah, it's
it's uh it's what we need in this town. It follows the comprehensive plan that was put together. Um and also to you know um yeah, it's definitely a need. So, I'd be all in favor. But yeah, I
would say I don't know if you guys are interested in coming presenting something like this to council at a high level for all those decisions that need to be made there outside of this group as we move ahead with plans like this. I would say would be helpful. >> I think I think it makes it would make good sense for us to do that because you know your departments are going to be
coming to you and saying, "Hey, they're talking to us about this. They're talking to us about this, >> right?" >> So, I think that would make some sense. >> Yeah. And that intersection, I mean, there is another bad accident out there today at that intersection. And that thing's going to get closed as quick as MDOT can close it. So >> which intersection?
>> No, right out there at Hazlewood 371. So yeah, I mean, so I mean that's just I'm just on borrowed time before that all get shut down. And then the need >> for something like this would be needed for
>> everything with that road going through there. That's that's going to be a need sooner and later for the for the city. Um, it's also going to be a need for mindot. Mindot accesses that for their own pit, you know, back there by the city. So, >> right.
>> Anyhow, I think, yeah, I think this should be looked at, you know, on all different levels right off the get-go, >> but yeah, happy to talk to the council and meet with the council on that. >> Don't forget that there's some long-term there's preliminary planning going on
with water systems for the city, too, and it'll obviously going to impact costs and everything. So >> we'd be really close to we could be your first customer. >> Yeah, >> I could say that. You know, it goes hand
in hand this type of density with the infrastructure. They complement each other. They're going to help each other, you know, from a feasibility standpoint. So the density and city utility um
package road cost of that infrastructure um really depends on this level of density to make it happen. >> And so this is consistent with that. Um we've been encouraging the city to you
know look forward and establish the corridor as soon as it's able to. And you know this is exactly what's needed to help establish that sooner than >> between things like the accident and
things like which unfortunate and the idea that you know we we don't want to just develop that little road coming in off of off of a power substation across the power substation. That doesn't really help anybody. That's not good
planning. Um it's not good. it just isn't it's not the right way to do this. So that's why we thought we'd come here, prep everybody for stuff that's coming later, work together on this, work with the council on this, work with the department heads on this, and and then just work our way through
this and see if we can't get this roll. >> So, thank you. >> All right. Well, thank you very much for your time. >> Yes, thank you. Uh, moving on. Old business. We have none. City planners report. >> Thank you. Uh so as directed uh by
council and this commission, I've been working on a um markup change log for the uh chapter 20 ordinance taking into account the comparative analysis from Chris Pence uh comparing Crowing County's ordinance standards to ours. So
that'll be coming in to the DNR for review once I have the change log completed. Um provide them their adequate comment period and then we schedule public hearing. So, that'll be up and coming here in I'm I'm aiming for December for the public
hearing. I just have to get that change log out to uh DNR and then get their get their response. Um so, it could be December, could be January, but um that's coming around the horn here. Um in the month of October, uh we have
issued 11 land use permits and still have about a dozen that are coming in the door here. So development is good. I think everyone's just trying to crunch before the winter hits us. Um
a few large scale projects in the works here. So I think that all things are aiming towards some good development. Okay. Any other additional questions? Comments? All right. I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn.
>> Second. >> All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Meeting is adjourned. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, I'll get that. You have a few minutes. Just wait in the lobby. I got to bring my desk. Um I'm gonna sign the
loan boundary. Split application. Get your copy of that. Copy this pile and close off the