--------- Hey, Andy. Uh, just testing audio. Can you hear us? Yes, I can. You hear me? Perfect. So when you moved back to the other house where you were living in Yeah.
Oh, I see Don Jacobson. Yeah. He sold his house already. Yes. They going to [Music] Is that all it was? I would say very long. Yeah. Where are they going? I don't know. I haven't spoke to you before. That was on the lake.
No, he's on. I didn't know where he live. Yep. See, he's my backyard. You guys live by the big building over there? Yeah, that's my backyard. Well, you got the big one in your backyard. Well, there's a little swath
woods between it, so I don't really see it. So, is the winner I see it, but and Don Don going to assisted living there? I assuming that's what his deal is. They had to put in a ranch by I'm sure that he just can't live there by himself. Well, and his house is levels and it's
upstairs. Comes a time. I know. I had to leave mine 10 years ago. Just the way it is. I'm not Ready for tonight? So I should go over there after
dinner for anyone that wants to go. It's like open. So it's open houseicopters. Are we doing racks for like 50 bucks for a donation? You can ask but that's been a few years.
I use the phrase of past. Do you know who I am? All right. I'd like to call the special meeting to order for the Minnesota Planning Commission Board of Adjustment for Tuesday, October 7th, 5:30 p.m. Roll call, please. Joe Hall, Sean Weldon, Josh Young, Eric,
excuse me, Gary Harris, Maggie Wetler, Steven Dimble. Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? There are none. I don't know. Being none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. So move. Second. All those in favor? I
I. All those opposed? Motion carries. U moving on to public hearings. I entertain a motion to open the public hearing. So move. Second. All those in favor? I I opposed. Motion carries. All right.
First item is variance application 028-25 to obtain a variance on landscaping requirements and amend previously approved parking and loading site plan within the highway business zoning district. Subject properties located at 23930 Smiley Road. P I 28230559
282 30560 28230561 owner applicant Schaers of Nisa is the applicant here you can go to the podium or the desk whichever you prefer. Evening evening
I'm Monty Morz. I'm an agent for the owner. Okay. Staff report. Thank you chair. Uh so we do have a variance here uh and an amended site plan from the applicant uh regarding the parking lot requirements
in our ordinance. Uh the variance request would be to reduce the green space within the parking lot to 1.92% where 5% is required. Um proposing additional green space options at the perimeter as shown on the revised survey. Um, we also added to the packet
a um engineering drawing showing the island that is proposed to remain. uh conversation that I had with Monty this afternoon after his conversation with the engineer for the project um said that the survey alteration where we
would be adding two spots back in front of the existing spirits of Niswah building were actual design requirements for his engineered storm water plan. Um, so the island depiction on the sodomore consulting document would be the
ultimate um, landscaping area for that curb island. Um, originally when this was in front of us earlier this year, we had two islands within the parking lot area and the one that is western most or eastern most, sorry, um, has been
removed from the concept as proposed. Um, let's see. So uh strict adherence to the language above uh from the ordinance in my staff report shows the that the green space is
required within the parking lot amounting to 5% of the surface area and the creative solution provided by the applicant and conversations and development review team would be to introduce area adjacent to the parking lot uh to offset that requirement. Uh
that's the sum total that I have for my review and taking any questions. Does the applicant have anything to add? Um, no. Other than we were um responding to two items of concern. The original design showed, Stephen noted, the two
islands in the original plan. And the one island was simply created to um establish a um a barricade or some space around a light post and a drain.
And um with the request of the owners, they wanted that removed for snow removal purposes, which makes a lot of sense in that big parking lot. And uh the other island is was established um primarily by the um
engineer record Chris Sonmore for uh structure to establish the the ingress and egress for the vehicles um bringing in deliveries.
So vehicles, trucks are supposed to come in through and down across the front of the parking area, turn up to the north and then back down into the new uh loading dock. So if we have them go, it can't go down
there and they go around the other way, it's harder for them to turn around. Makes it a little bit more difficult. It's not quite as easily navigated. So the structure was there to create that and it also is it part of the design is
it is uh collecting a lot of the storm water from the parking lot in that it's not just a grass island. It's actually it's a it's a retainage area. Um and there's a drain there. So instead of
having drains out into the parking lot, um it is in that island. So when um Brian from the city kind of came looking for an opportunity to find some more parking space, we saw the plan. He said, "Well, we don't need that much island
there. Can't we just make parking spaces?" We had to a certain degree felt like we needed to, you know, look into the idea and um and thought well uh talking with Stephen the biggest issue
that he we could find was we had this um landscaped area or I can't remember what the ordinance exactly reads but the percentage of green space in the parking lot um was being removed and um to do
that we thought came up with very creative ideas to create some adjacent property to the parking lot to be uh committed to uh green space um allowing for um some landscaping around the parking
lot. And uh that made sense to the owner um to create those buffer zones. And so we thought, well, let's see if we can get Brian some more parking by doing that. And then in conversation with Chris Smour, we realized that that that
particular island can't move. Um we needed for the storm drain and we needed for the control the um traffic control. Okay. Uh is there anyone that would like to make a public comment
hearing? None. I'll close public comments. Do we have any questions? No. Um, are you um are you saying that we were going to take the island out before and now we're now we're not? Is that was that the last statement?
Well, we were looking to um first of all, we want to take the small one out on the eastern side. And um for for snow removal purposes. And the other is we were willing to make
it smaller to add some more park and However, the engineer says we can't. So, we still need a variance to remove that that smaller um uh
one on the east on the on the east side. And um and have less than the required the 5%. Correct. Yeah. Okay. So, it is it it is still requested you want to take that island out though. Yeah. Yeah. And then in return, we're looking at a 10ft
new strip along the along the outside of the batuminous or the curb there, right? What um what type of materials are going to go in there? Grass. Okay. You're not going to put it in bushes or bine any pine trees or anything like that. Okay.
Okay. If there's no more questions, uh because this is a variance as a board, we have to go through these u I guess it's five questions and then we'll proceed. So um the first question is is the variance in harmony with a purpose and intent of the ordinance a comprehensive plan? Yes
or no? Um I I I'd say it is. Um, I think the added landscaping, the 10 foot wide strip along the east edge of the Batuminus, uh, offers, um, certainly offsets the loss of the the island that was in there, the little bit of grass
that was there. Um, I think the truck drivers are also going to be happy with that. So, yeah. Yeah, I would agree. Agree. Number two is a property owner proposing to use a property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the city of Nisa code of
ordinances. Again, I'd say is u the added 10 foot wide strip adds beauty to the area or somewhat of I'd like to see some maybe some shrubbery or something along there just for so there's a vertical break but um but it
uh I think the impact of the beauty and the traffic improvement to the site probably exceeds the loss of the parking island. So I would agree agree. Three is a need for the variance due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the property owner. Again, it is um particular site lends itself to a to a variant such as this and um I think with the the ability to add the flexibility where you can add some green space to the edge of it kind of offsets
it. Agreed. Will the issue of the variance maintain the essential character of the locality? It will for the same reasons that we've discussed on the others. Agreed. And last, does the need for the variance
involve more than economic considerations? It does. The the alternative may actually cost more, but this is going to look better. So, agree. Yep. I agree. Any other pertinent findings or questions?
If not, I'll entertain a motion. I'll make the motion. I'll make a motion to approve the variance application 028-25 to obtain a variance on landscaping requirements. Am I on the right one? Yeah. An amended previously approved parking and loading site plan within the
highway business zoning district. Subject property is located at 23930 Smiley Road. You want me to go through the PIDs? No. No. Owner applicant Schaers on this one
with the findings of facts and the staff conditions. Yes. With the findings and facts. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
Thank you. I entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Moved. Second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn the special meeting. So move. Second. All those in favor? I those opposed.
Motion carries. We are adjourned. Part: 2
focus on All right. I would like to call the meeting to order for the NISA Planning Commission Board of Adjustment for Tuesday, October 7th, 2025, 6 PM. Roll call, please. >> Joe Hall, >> Sean Weldon, >> Josh Young,
>> John Taylor, >> Dave Reese, >> Nat Wetler, >> Steven. >> Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? >> Yes, actually. Uh, item five, approval of minutes. We do not have minutes for the September 2nd or September 12th
meeting. So that'll be added into next month's. >> Okay. I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. >> Second. >> Sorry. 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 toward something not on the agenda this evening? Okay, moving on to public hearings. I'll entertain a motion to open the public hearing. >> So move. >> Second. >> All those in favor?
>> I >> I. All those opposed? Motion carries. >> All right. First item is a continuation on conditional use permit application 025-25 to obtain a conditional use permit for the construction of a new commercial structure within a dwelling unit above a
commercial use within the highway business zoning district. Subject properties located at um to be determined common drive pad 2814663. Owner applicant Marthaler Steven. So the applicant is not here today. I've had communications with the
applicant this week um and I am providing to the spotty a recommendation to table this once more. Um new information has come forward from the public works committee regarding the sewer connection and a recommendation will be forwarded to city council as it relates to the connection distance that
might affect that application. So I would recommend tableabling it to next month. >> Do we have a cut off date for another table? So, statute 1599 had a 60-day determination date which has been extended administratively by the department. Okay.
>> Any questions? >> No. >> I'll entertain a motion to table. >> Move to table conditional use permit application 025-25. >> Second. >> All those in favor? I I All those opposed? Motion carries.
I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> So move. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I. All those opposed? Motion carries. All right. Moving on to new business. Uh sketch plan review for Marshall D.
You can come to the podium or the table, whichever you prefer. Good evening. >> Yes, >> I'm Jody Doo. >> This is Jody. >> Hi. >> Um, we are owners of the piece of
property described in the agenda on uh Bass Lake between Lake Hubert and Round Lake. and we are wanting to get a road into the property to begin
some cleanup and reforestation. It was severely damaged by several storms, you know, over the past years. Um, we have to deal with wetlands. We've been going through the crowing te for
that and we have their I guess semib blessing at the moment. Um we've put in a made a formal application for wetland uh covering or >> replacement.
>> Yeah, abatement. Yes, thank you. >> And uh we expect to hear something on that by about the end of this month, I'm guessing. Um, our next step is before we decide to put a road in is whether we
have a viable property there um to develop. Um, it is impacted strongly by wetlands. Um, and we're probably going to ask for some
easements uh for the wetland setback. Um and and basically what we want to do right now is see if we're on the right track and see, you know, see if we have any
obvious red flags that we need to address because I don't really want to invest a ton of money in a road if it's not a viable property to begin with. Um, we have the certificate of survey
done by Stonemark Survey. This is the preliminary. We haven't got the final yet. Um, it it actually has two building envelopes that are quite compressed
by the 100 foot setback from the lake and the 30 foot setback from the wetlands. >> Mhm. So, we're going to probably attempt to get a variance on the wetland setback
to the county uh mandated 15 ft. Um, we talked to the TE about that and there's a response from Nichollet um, tunnel up in here that they are
favorable to that from a county standpoint, but of course it's up to the city to, you know, determine that. Um, we have a very rough sketch of a potential structure
which may or may not reflect the final dimensions. It's probably the final dimensions will probably shrink some, but uh we have an architect that we will be working with.
Um, and we will try to fit things in with the uh wetland and the ordinary high water setback. Um we have had a septic designer out to
look at the property and he did some borings and did some I haven't I haven't received a write up yet, but he was saying it was favorable. there was probably a place to put in a mound system or sept septic.
So, right now, like I said, I want to we're just kind of looking to see if we're on the right path here. Um, and if anybody sees any obvious red flags that we need to address.
>> Sure. If I may too, I'll uh speak a little bit to the conversations to date. So, I met with Marshall and his wife Jod out on on the subject property here. Um, kind of steered them towards TP for a replacement plan for a driveway permit to, you know, ingress egress of the
property being that it's landlocked except for this access path up here. Um, this property does appear to be severely limited by setbacks. Um, there's a couple different setbacks depicted on the survey here. We have our 30-foot
setback in our ordinance and we also have the 15t growing county setback depicted on the um survey as it relates to proximity to the house. Um again, this is a very rough draft of this of the house. Um but the closest proximity
to the wetland would be 9.8 ft to the lake. It looks like 102 ft as proposed. Um and 99 ft to the septic. Uh our ordinance is very protective of wetlands. um we have that more restrictive setback of 30 feet. We also
have a asterisk beyond that setback table saying that no excavation, veg removal or um filling is allowed in the wetland setback. So noting that um we have a a few building envelopes here um
and most likely a need for a variance to propose what the um dues are looking to do. So, um, in my conversations with them, they wanted to be conservative in their approach. Uh, they don't want to execute on this wetland replacement plan without,
um, an idea of what they're getting into with the variance bucket for their property as well. So, kind of running both of those processes concurrently. Um, and so they're here tonight for the sketch pan review to get your feedback. >> Yep. >> Okay.
We have any questions? So the one I guess you call it the top is that where you pref your preferred spot for the house because there's that it says proposed house and then the other ones are saying building envelopes. >> Uh that would be our preferred location.
Um we would like to stay as far away from Nashway Road as we can on this property. >> To me it makes sense to go with the northern building envelope um due to impervious surfaces. Uh picturing a
driveway that traverses all of this distance, meanders around the wetland, hopefully not um impacting it further, causing more replacement. Again, with the we don't regulate wetlands at the local level here for city, but um you
have to go through what's called sequencing where you try to minimize or mitigate any impacts. So the longer the driveway is, the more impervious is going to be um which has its detrimental impacts if we exceed certain thresholds
on impervious. So closer to the point of ingress eress might be beneficial for many reasons. Seems like if you extend it southward more then the envelope gets even smaller. >> Yeah. Mhm.
that um the drawing that's up there with the with the L-shaped the house or structure is that showing is that at 15 ft or you at nine okay you're at from the set or from the wetland And you're at 9
>> 8 or 10 and 10 and 15 about. >> Yeah. Like I said, that you know is a very rough design. >> Yeah. And >> no, we're just splitting >> that uh at this point is a 24 foot width on the structure. At that point, it
would probably go down more like to 20 ft. But once we get around to working with the architects on it, you know, because I basically I I have a CAD program from 1986.
Um, and that's what I did. I just sketched some rooms, put some things in there the way, you know, we kind of want it to be. Didn't pay a great deal of attention to optimizing sizes. I just put in some sizes. So, I suspect it
would probably get smaller. >> Was the is the the wetland shown on here was that recently I I'm not seeing it. Was it recently delineated by >> Yeah, it was Mitch Brinks services >> started this spring and went through and
delineated >> and uh we've had Stonemark come up back out and remark all of the uh previous survey monuments that they put in. And so, you know, we're getting we're getting things
lined up and uh Mitch is dealing with the uh wetland credit side of things. Um and just waiting for the an approval from the Crowing T. >> But when you're when you're doing the
mitigation, it's mainly just for this driveway. It wasn't for the the wetland that's near where they've been building. The the only wetland we're uh remediating is on the on the 30 foot lot. It's approximately or 4,100 square ft roughly.
>> Okay. >> Um and we're not touching any of the other wetlands. I really don't want to start dealing with other wetlands as well. I, you know, I want to do as little
impact on this property as we can because we kind of want to get it to recover back to where it was, you know, at least with some trees and, you know, decent coverage. Yeah. Yeah. That was devastated. My wife
and I walk on Nashway and we walk on that road behind there when we're I live in the neighborhood there. So that was just there was a toothpicks. >> I mean >> if you look at the GIS images from like 2007 I think it is. It's all solid
woods. >> Yeah. >> And you look at today and it's prairie basically. >> Okay. Are you going to try to have your replacement wetlands or add on to to the
existing wetland that's delineated or >> we I discussed with Mitch a little bit about possibly doing a wetland replacement down in that um wetland a area, >> right? it probably would be prohibitively
expensive to um comply with all of the state regulations for creating a wetland. And so I'd pretty much taken that off the table. >> So you'd find a they'd find a find a replacement offsite someplace. >> Yeah. That's how
>> function on another publicity or something. >> You buy credits from a bank in in the local bank service area. >> Yeah. >> That offsets it. >> Yeah. Yep. >> I can see what you're looking at, though, because it's kind of made to order in this little >> I was kind of looking like it could just Yeah.
take that little notch that's sitting inside of that one and just add to it. >> There's a lot of engineering that go into whether you're doing a restoration to get those credits. >> Everything looks easy on paper. >> Yeah. >> All right. Well, what what do you think?
You want to give them some direction? From what I'm seeing, I I would be fine with it. Looks to me like you're, you know, you you're doing the right things. You have so far. >> Well, that's that's what we're trying to do. You know, you've been up here for a lot of years >> and I know what I know what costs are
involved with surveying and mitigation and delineations and everything else and so I know I know you've already got an investment here. So, >> Oh, absolutely. And it keeps growing. So >> yeah, >> but before I reach the uh the road the
driveway building stage which is going to be a big jump in expense. >> Yeah. >> You know I really want to have a good idea that we can do something with this within the next, you know, year or two
and uh have a a nice property that uh we can enjoy. We have to be careful we don't mislead you here too. So, >> you know, it's uh >> yeah, >> you know, it's kind of between a rock
and a hard place. You're either going to spend the money or you're not, >> but until you get a formal application with us, you know, we >> we really can't say come out. >> We understand that. Like I said, all we're looking for right now, we're not looking for a yes or no.
uh we're looking for do you see any red flags that you know we need to address to move this forward to the uh application stage and then I I understand where we need uh
some better architecture on the structure and um elevations and formal plans and things like that and that will be the next step in the process here. But, uh, other than that, you know, if
it's if it's hopeless, I'd like to find out now before I start spending more. >> Actually, it's not hopeless. I would I I would hope that you get this worked out because it >> be a really nice site once you Oh, it's a beautiful It'd be a great place and and it's good use of the property. It's
a nice It's a very nice site and it has a lot of potential for being able to, you know, make it even nicer. So, >> it's been it's been in the family term. >> Well, yeah, it's been in my family since the early 1900s.
So, >> it will be a will likely be some sort of a variance. And part of that application is saying that it has to be something unique to the property that's making you having to do that. And from what I can see, this is really the only spot you
can do it. From what you're saying, if we want to get 100 ft from the lake and we want to have certain feet from the wetland here, I mean, otherwise it's unusable. So that's part of a variance application process where is it something unique to the property that
you're not creating and it is. So >> yeah, >> agree. >> Yeah. >> Do you have any questions for us besides what the feedback we >> I mean other than the you know it's just nice to get up in front of you and you know explain our case here and you know
um we'll probably see you again with a formal application in a few months. I'm guessing >> I'm hoping. Let's put it that way. So, and I really appreciate, you know, all the help Stephen has had given us, too. So, it's really, it's been very
cooperative up here and just, you know, enjoying it, you know. >> So, >> thank you. >> Do you have any other questions? >> Every day we're learning something. >> Yeah, this is now my new full-time job, by the way.
>> I thought I was retired. I guess not. So, um, yeah, other than that, I don't have really anything else. Um, we'll keep in touch with uh Stephen and update him as things are going and follow through with the process. You know,
probably won't happen next month. Maybe the month after we'll be ready to uh come up and with a formal application. >> Awesome. Yeah, >> that sounds good. >> Okay, >> thank you. >> Good winter project. >> Well,
>> yeah. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Yes. >> Uh, next up is a sketch plan review for Dan Marin. >> Thank you for allowing me to uh to present my sketch plan. Um, Steve and I have already uh discussed a lot of
things uh in regard to this, but just a little bit of background. Um, back when, uh, Jim and Ted Dulham had that 80 acres split into large country lots, uh, I bought four or five of the lots off of
18. And before I purchased it, I it was reszoned from R1 to R2, which was that the zoning at that time for single family versus multiple. And I think PD PUD was also a possibility. So, and it's
25 years ago, but I always had an a notion that this might be a nice large piece because it's so close to Niswah uh that it would have some future value. And uh through the years uh I've I've
become aware and of several uh uh studies that were done. There were there was one in 2002 and one in 2007, both that focused on Niswah. And of course, those are older now, but uh both of those recommended that uh the city
promote affordable housing or home ownership programs and explore possibilities of developing affordable new housing. And uh then there was subsequently a uh one by Crowing County for directed at workforce housing, which
is essentially entry-level housing as well. And that's kind of where I've always thought this this uh property could could have a good fit. Um and I think there's
you can see the site there now. Um, just to fill in a little bit, uh, early in 23, Jenny Max contacted me with a letter and said that the city might have some interest in purchasing that for some
city offices. And as our discussions followed, it it became clear that I was more focused on trying to create something for workforce housing. and Jenny was exploring the possibility of a private public partnership
uh through a I think a community community I can't remember what the what the title was but she was working on that and I met with her and uh your planning person at the time uh and
they seemed amanable to working some way that because I I I see a big a heavy lift here in trying to keep my land costs reasonable enough so that once we add
construction to it that I'm able to deliver these units to the market on at to at an affordable rate and I I think that's going to be somewhat less than 300,000 for and I' I've actually got three plans a onebedroom a two-bedroom
and a threebedroom all on basically the same footprint. Uh, and that's where we arrived at the at the these lots and it would all they would all be duplex units. Um, and this this represents uh 50
units, but from uh my discussions with Steve, I understand I'm going to need some sort of a variance because the the units that are lined up on Centennial Drive or Centennial Lane, uh there's supposed to
be some sort of a setback from from the uh perimeter of the development, but it makes sense to me if you're there's already a 20 foot building setback drawn into this survey
um by Chad Connor. And it makes sense if you've got a a road running the length of your of your property that that would be the obvious place to put some of your units. And Steve, maybe you can define that.
It's it it would require that my lots be set back from the edge of the property. >> Sure. Yeah, I can touch on that. >> Yeah. >> So, our um PUB standards have two different setbacks that are applicable.
Um one of them is 15 ft to the lot line of the perimeter of the plat. Um that no lot line can be within that 15t to the perimeter buffer area. Uh second setback that would apply is the um dwellings have to be 50 feet set back from the
perimeter. Um so this proposal where we have these units along Centennial Lane which is currently a private um privately maintained road. Um these lot lines are at a zero foot
setback where the structures are at 20oot setback being proposed. So that would be one aspect requiring a variance to proceed with these units along that corridor. um also proposed and correct me if I'm
wrong but like the the travelable area of the road is proposed at 18 ft where I think our surface in our road standards are 22 feet um 20 ft uh for actual batuminous and then 2 feet maybe it's 24
ft 2 feet of aggregate along the edges um so that would be another thing that we might need a dimensional variance to be heard on and approved improve before moving forward. Um, this original sketch here which shows the pies-shaped
um lots was a I guess version 1.0. >> One of our iterations at at trying to maximize the the density. But if you go down then you see that we discovered there's less frontage on the road with a
more conventional rectangular lot. Mhm. >> And this originally would have required a variance for access to a public road 17t 7 in where 33 ft is required by local ordinance. So the new proposal of having these duplex lots um being linear
to the face of it is actually a better iteration, more conforming to the ordinance standard. So that's one thing that got um eliminated right off the bat there. And I I I guess again I I uh spent some
time over the years, one of the first times I met there's a fell by the name of Randall Art who I don't know if any of you are familiar with him but he's from out east and he he literally wrote the book on conservation uh
uh development and I enlisted him to help me come up with a site plan and we've spent probably the last two or three months almost on a daily basis going back and forth. Uh he's the one that made it a no outlet road so that
it's not going to absorb traffic from uh through traffic from other areas. He's also provided uh uh a connection to the property to the south or to the east of it which looks like there might I don't know if that's
developable or not. There's there's a lot of wetlands directly east of this property, but um I think that's shown on there, isn't it? That that dotted line. Do we have >> I think you have an actual survey document in here where we had like the
buildable envelope depicted. Let me locate that here. >> Maybe it was >> past these sketches. There we go. >> But we we did provide for future access. Um, but I just just to read some of some
of the language in our uh back and forth emails. Um, he says his original layout had a 50-foot rightway standard in the northeast even in snowy Maine which has
weather similar to what we have. Uh, your region started out historically with SE surveyors using four rod roads. Rod being 16 and a half feet, four rods 66 feet. Ours always use three rod
roads. Frugal, sensitive New Englanders. Uh apart from Midwestern tradition, four rod street right ofway widths, there is no real need for this as our long experience with 50 foot three rod rights
of way here in northern and New England prove. So it it's it's as though that going with an additional 66 feet, it adds eight eight feet of driveway on either side for every one of these units. And it doesn't seem seem to me to
make sense. Uh and at one time uh you did have a standard and I I think I shared that with you Steve the old road standards. This uh let me see here. This
this one that does allow for 50 foot right away on the bottom instance and it also allowed for 18t right 18t paved on the bottom too. >> And that was the 1998 city council iteration of our road standard.
>> Yeah. Of course, through the years, I've been gathering information from the city for planning and zoning and and it's been difficult, I suppose, to get it all in an upto-date thing, but it was uh fun that I was able to meet with Steve and bring some of these things up up to
speed, but it it isn't uh since you used to accept it as a as a standard, I'm hoping that maybe you will see that see your way to to accept it for a standard on on this site plan and of course uh all all through this
thing I'm I'm trying to again maintain uh as minimal costs as I can to be able to present these to the market and uh at at Steve's uh referral I got a hold of
Eric Sharpentier the Crowing County H director who who directed me to a contractor called Levelville construction or level contractor contracting and he's built in Brainer
entry level housing nearly I think around a hundred units in an area uh called Brainer Oaks and a lot of those lots they they bought for $15,000 and my biggest question is they had
whack and sack to the city of Brainard $1,500 a unit The connection fee in Nisa is nearly 12,000 a unit. That's nearly what they paid for the lot alone and that's going to be absorbed by my land
cost. I don't know if there is any uh flexibility on what those connection costs are. Uh we're all I'm also aware with Steve's calculation that there's going to be a $50,000 uh in lie of park contribution expense
involved and that will be part of my land cost. Uh I I just want to make sure this thing can be doable and I don't know what your response to those things if they're written in stone or or uh I I I would really like to
provide this for the city. I think it's something that's been demonstrated is in is has been in need for a while. And uh I'm I'm also discovering uh in in uh having these things this close to town that there may also be a
need for empty nesters that might be interested in some of these uh smaller units. So I'm I'm just want to present it and see what your thoughts are. Do we have any questions? Did you So, when I'm looking at this
Centennial Lane is a private It's a private road. >> Okay. Um the only concern that I would have being that it's a private road is there's likely some legal um descriptions on those other property
owners. And when we start doing variances on private roads, which may eventually be a public road, you might run into some legal um ground, >> right? I was hoping for some guidance from you. Maybe you've been there and done that. Uh I'm not exactly sure where
to go, but I've sp spoken with one of the owners along that road, Holly Holm, who is evidently the treasurer to take care of that unit. And the reason I'm connected with her is because from time to time they call me and say it needs to be graded. Can you kick in? And so I
have, you know, but it's private to one extent, but uh and and that's the other thing I would I I guess I would need to have that road improved up to up to the uh chainlink fence corner on the on the
cemetery, which is, I believe, probably the northeast corner of the cemetery's property. uh and it's directly across from mine and that's where I've I've uh spaced the entrance to this project, but that would have to be brought up to city standards.
And um maybe you can give me some idea where I would have to go to would I have to go to all of the owners of that or is that something the city could you know who they all are? I assume um you know I I don't know if we can put
together a letter asking them. It's my it's my opinion that since they have to all kick into a kitty to do periodic maintenance and I don't know if they do dust control or what what other expenses they have in relation to that but that
if there were if a portion of it I don't I don't know how many millennial feet that was probably 600 feet or 500 feet if uh if that were paved and taken over by the city um I would think they would welcome that It would re it would be a reduction
improvement to portion of the road and a reduction in their annual expense. It makes sense to me anyway. >> It appears to me that these are all going to be private roads and not going to be public.
Um, the only way you could only way that the city I think would be involved and I I think it's our policy not to build projects up front and and bond them back to the developers anyway. I think is is that pretty much our
it's kind of an unusual for us to for the city to be providing the upfront costs for development. Especially >> typically the way it goes is um you know
the improvement cost to city standards is borne by the developer. Um if a city uh does take over the project to bring it up to city standards then uh the cost
would be assessed to the benefiting properties >> and >> so it's sometimes done that >> and building to city standards in most cases is is much different than building private private roads for instance. But
wouldn't uh wouldn't the fact that this is has been a wellused gravel road already include much of the base that would be needed to bring it to city standards? >> Um I I don't know what the condition of that road is or how much gravels on it.
Um, if it if it does have a good alignment and grade and thickness of base, then that would help contribute toward the city standard potentially. Um, but that would all have to be
evaluated and if it needed to be widened or um designed so that it would meet the city standards then, you know, that could add to the add to the cost.
>> And what what would I need from the the other people that live along that road? Would I need some sort of if it is now a private road? And I understand uh Jim and Ted Dylan did that so they didn't have to put a road in. I mean it was a I mean I put in a gravel road. They It's
an it's a big expense. >> Yeah. >> Put into city standards. So the fact that he kept it they kept it private versus public. >> It's a it would have been a money thing. Um, and >> if private roads converted over to
public roadways are sometimes done by petition and then it follows the special assessment process again. And so, um, if you got all property owners along that Centennial Road, including yourself, to
engage a city with a petition, bring it up to city standards, then uh, it would follow that process. That's Minnesota statutes chapter 429. >> Okay. But would there be a po would there be a chance of doing just the
portion we need to access my property with the with the agreement of those people that live along that road without actually that being a petition to bring the entire road up to city standards? I think you would have to probably get
um engage an attorney as was mentioned to prepare uh the legal documentation that would give you the right to improve that private property that's owned by
somebody else. you would gain a a permanent easement over that private property granting you the right to improve a public roadway on it. And um you would probably have to have some
individual agreements with those people because at this point nobody here knows you know what their individual rights are or obligations for maintenance. >> Right. I I asked her if she had a an agreement
amongst the owners for maintenance of that road or what can be done with it. And I I've never received anything from her. So I'm not sure if they have they have a a road agreement, but uh it you know I've I've done some development in
St. out and and typically uh I don't know whether NYSWA has the ability to to borrow that money on a municipal bond and charge it out as an assessment over 20 years or whatever.
That's was common in most other areas and typically it's charged half half of it the the benefits one side and the other half benefits the other. You're charged by the front foot for what you own. Uh that's that's what I've seen
done. And isn't isn't that kind of what you were saying? >> Yeah. And that's the assessment process that I was speaking of. And then you would feasibility study would lay out the proposed improvements, the potential costs and how it would be potentially
assessed. and all the property owners that would be impacted by those assessments and benefited by the improvements would all get an opportunity to participate before, you know, it really gets into the process
deeper and everyone would have the opportunity in a preliminary improvement hearing to speak up and and say if they were for this or against it. And is that something that the city could initiate or >> Well, I'm not
>> Hey, I'll jump in quick. So, the city council um right now is talking about all the road standards. 2019, to give you some history, 2019, the city changed and did not allow any more private roads to be built in the city.
>> Okay? >> But also too, they didn't allow for any other options either for roads like this and then some of the other streets. So right now the council along with Tom Blommer the public works and Stephen and stuff we're talking about different road
standards as we do our road bond projects because we're running into I'll say a lot of unique situations in the town whether it be um something like this or a property that's real close to the water and we're looking at
introducing some new road standards you know in the city of Nisa. None of that has been talked about or established, but the need for other options, width, sizes, all that does exist for many different reasons that
have come to light in the recent uh road bond projects that we're looking at in 26 and 27. So this is a conversation that um we just had a workshop a couple weeks ago that was a big topic of
conversation uh that come up in that um right now having a public road off of a private road that in itself is interesting also I won't speak for that group but knowing some people that live on that road nobody
plows it nobody maintains it nobody does anything it's just kind of a a trail and when it gets It's too bad. Some of the neighbors I think try and pitch in and fix it up as far as I know from property owners that live on that road. As far as the city of Nisa, like you were talking
about with municipal bonds, there's nothing set up in the city and that has not been done before in the city to do that to help promote growth and development. However, one of the other things right now that the city council is moving towards looking at figuring
out is a economic uh development committee plan to work um through projects like this and to look at this, you know, whether like Dave said um with um with bonds or all all sorts of
different stuff to help to look at being able to put things like this in our community. But once again, we're at the front end of establishing that for the town. Um, so I don't know if that gives you some information. I guess a question
for you though, your goal would be to have this all public. You're not looking to have it as private. >> I would prefer to have it public. >> Yeah. So then, yeah, right now I think that'd be more
of a question for Tom Blommer, you know. as far as the road standard goes in a I don't know how they would do it currently right now having a public road coming off of a private road. I don't know that that bridge has been crossed
anywhere else in the town. >> So that's interesting to >> Yeah. So so right now that's kind of a unknown that I don't I don't know that anyone's seen before. >> Well, one of our ordinance requirements is under urban residential PUD standards.
>> PUD, right? Um, subp part G access. It says every PUB must have adequate direct access to a publicly maintained road. Internal roads within the PUD shall be public roads unless due to slopes or other features. The city engineer recommends that a private road network is preferred.
Um, for this subject property, we do have a public road to the south of it. That's county road. Um I don't know what highway dis like grown county highway uh department would say regarding intersections that are that proximal to
each other. Looking at your at your survey I mean you have 542 feet from here to over here. If we look across the road we do have Twin Leaf Circle and Norway Lane. Could ingress egress occur off the county
road? That'd be a question for them. And I guess I didn't consider that because it seems like uh County Road 18 is a considerably busier street for ingress and egress. It I think for for say from a safety standpoint, it'd be
preferable to come off of Centennial Lane. Um, but I I you know, I'd be willing to do whatever you might suggest to go in the direction of improving that lower
portion of it up and up into the end of your your side of it from on the cemetery. >> Yeah, that distance for what you're asking for for improvement of Centennial Lane. Um, if I had to spitball here on the east side, we have 1,038 ft. And
looking at your drawings and comparing that, that's about at the point where it starts to bend westward. So here, maybe about half of that distance, 500 ft of improvement of Centennial Lane that would be required to get in there. That's not counting the units that are
further north than that Eastwood Court as labeled on your drawing. Uh, where we have those driveways coming in off of here. >> Okay. and how that >> you boil it down to our ordinance standards and what all things you might need a variance from. Um
if you're really stuck on the, you know, less than 66 foot right away, we'd be looking at maybe a variance to that standard. Although it's just a a standard in in practice, it's been adopted. It's not, I don't think, codified in ordinance per se. We do have a table that talks about culde-sac
widths and radiuses. Um, which brings up another interesting proposal that you had in in your packet here. You have trees in the middle of your culde-sac as opposed to batuminous. I find that very interesting
and conservative for, you know, environmental stuff. >> And and again, that was one of the suggestions of Randall Art. He said that simplifies your snow removal in the winter. you're just plowing the roadway around uh the the turnaround instead of having
to back up and go back and forth and clear the whole thing. >> My question would be, what type of turning radius is required for city vehicles, you know, plowing for one, um or fire trucks for fire safety,
school buses, if a school bus was to take this route, can they get through there with that amount of clearance and trees? What does that look like? could be a question that I >> Right. I Well, I I think the the one that you show as your new standard is a 60 foot diameter outer diameter.
>> And what actually he drew on mine was something I found in the ordinance was 68 ft. >> You see that here on this diagram? >> Quick question. Okay. >> Is this property part of the original PUD? No, it was excluded from it.
>> Centennial estates. >> I mean, basically, you know, to kind of sum it up a little bit for you, um, you're exactly right. You know, you're you're looking at all the comprehensive plans that have been done with the city all the way up to the last one. The number one thing that's
come out of all the comprehensive plan is affordable housing in the town. That's been the number one goal written right in the plan. It says it right there. So I think it'd be a great pro project. However, you know,
that is what the citizens have said over and over every time they they do one of these plans and have the meetings. However, the way that NISLA has been set up, even from the sewer connection fees and stuff like that, um has been the exact opposite. So now where we are in
2025, we have a town that needs developments like this in it, but we have a set of rules that actually restrict it to the point where um you summed up my presentation,
>> right? Where where there's not where there's honestly not a great path going forward. And we're seeing this on multiple levels at the city council, even with the property. The city of Nisa just brought, you know, with a lot of the zoning um things that we're working
through. Stephen and I just had a conversation about a bunch of this, you know, um here about 3 weeks ago, too. And so, um, the city just has a lot of work to do on the front end on trying to
make the comprehensive plan actually fit the rules because right now they don't. And that's where we're at. >> Okay? >> You know, when you when you look at to kind of sum it up, if that's kind of a a fair way to >> Well, I'm presenting you with a plan
that I think does fit your con comprehensive plan as far as entry level housings. uh and workforce housing. And I'm I'm willing to do something with this if we can meet somewhere in the middle. I uh but I see that there's
there's some hurdles. One is is getting uh that that portion of Centennial Lane improved uh so that I can enter off of it. Um but if do you should I be contacting the people along that road or is that something the city would would
contemplate doing? it'd be much more official. >> That would be on you. >> Yeah, I would say that that's a developer um responsibility is to seek the property right to ingress egress. Another thing that you could do concurrently to approaching those folks
would be uh to reach out to Crowing County Highway as to the potential of ingress egress off of County Road um 18. >> Okay. >> Um just to explore that option if if they cross it off and say nope, that's not an option. all that. >> I mean, should I have an attorney
determine what who who who on that road owns the if it's a private road >> that has the say over what can be done with it? I mean, >> you might need to get somebody like an attorney or >> title company, >> someone to give you definitive
information on who has rights to that right of way. >> Okay. >> Okay. because the city and who can grant that to you if they are hold of it? >> I mean, I I can >> You're probably going to want to have a
what you call a neighborhood meeting. Get all these people together that have that are using Centennial Road now and sit down with them and and make your make your pitch as to what you propose to do with this property and see if they're all in line with you. If they
aren't, I mean, you've got a big battle, you know. >> Right. Right. And that that does seem to be the biggest obstacle to even going ahead. I don't know if the the rightway thing was a big would be a big problem to go into 50ft rightway. >> And I think your road with I think the
new one is 20 is it 20 feet with two foot on either side. That that's not an issue anymore. 18 to 20 that's not going to bother me. But it's that right away that really it balloons everything out. and of course the ability to to build
onto uh Centennial Lane if we can get it improved as such. Um but that'll be so that that'll be my next step is to get that going. And then of course we got to find out if we got water on the property. In in my previous in my current
professional experience, when we've had to deal with private roads for our business, the legal ramifications get very deep because some properties will have a different legal description on what their easement access is and some will have different it could be all sorts of different things that you have to deal with.
>> Okay. >> Um, so I think Stephen was talking about going off of County Road 18 might be your best bet forward >> just for just just for simplicity sake. But then wouldn't that be the wouldn't I have to go to the state of Minnesota county >> county highways county much more complex
process >> growing county >> oh that's be a lot easier process >> oh it would be okay >> at the end of the day >> okay well then maybe that's that's the way we need to do it but of course we have a couple of little wetlands down on that south part of the property we'd
have to figure out how to get up in there >> and I would refer back to what Dave in his email some of the stuff that that we would need to see um you know a plat application with the land surveyor with the preliminary plat and PUD for us to make a really good view of what you're
planning. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Ultimately we'll need a concrete survey showing you know a lot of different documents like what the road um topography and grading is going to look like what the proposed layout is on the preliminary plat um all of those
things. This is kind of step one is posting these sketch plan reviews for platting processes. Um what does the city sewer look like that's getting thrown through there? So if you jump over the hurdle of ingress egress to me that's you know with any planning and zoning on a vacant lot the the first
step is ensuring that you have the right to ingress and access that property. Second thing is are there financial hurdles that need to be addressed and and left over? for example, building out roads that are meeting the public standard. Even if you get a variance to
width of rightway, um if you want the city to maintain that, that becomes a very significant thing is that you need to have it engineered and built up that >> talked to Anderson Brothers. They know your your standards, I think, very well. And I've already gotten a kind of a
rough bid from them. So, I'm sure I I'll be able to maintain your whatever your standards are there. just a matter of getting stuff on the site to let it fit and getting that ingress egress. Um that's that's I think think is the biggest hurdle at this point.
>> Sure. And then financing becomes a consideration also. So there's a development agreement that gets formulated as we go through this process. Um that talks about what is the cost to engineer this road out or to build this road out throughout whatever network you're proposing.
>> Wouldn't the Anderson brothers have engineering repairs? I mean, wouldn't they know where to put them? >> They'd be able to get you started. The developer agreement, as I understand it, is dri written by the engineer and our city attorney for what is the projected cost. It has to be, I think, 125% to 200% of the proposal cost.
>> And Dave, you and I had the conversation. I'm just I'm just now trying to gather even ballpark estimates of where how these costs are going to impact the >> for a public roadway um a new public roadway or even a conversion of an
existing roadway to city standards to be adopted by the city. We'd recommend the city require uh a PE professional engineer design that roadway to ensure it meets city standards.
>> And but I don't have what that peed cost is going to be. >> And then I think I need the same thing for sewer, right? And I need the same thing for water distribution. So those are all professional boom boom boom adding more and more cost. I I don't I
don't want to leap into this thing unless I know I can make it to the finish line. And it's kind of like this gentleman who want just get an idea. Is this am I am I foolish going in this direction or or do you feel it's something worthwhile pursuing because it's something the city has wanted and
needed for a long time. >> I think I can't speak for everyone, but I think we're all open to having more development. I think that's great. Um, and like what Joe said where a lot of the area residents are wanting, you know, lower income opportunities to be
able to afford a house. I I think we're open in that respect. >> Okay. >> I can't speak for everybody. >> Oh, I Yeah. Okay. >> I mean, I just I >> Well, I'll continue to to work on that access and and see what we can do in that respect because that seems to be
the next big hurdle and then we'll go from there. >> Yeah. Just appreciate your input. Well, you might consider simplifying your project here a bit though. We talked they talked about it before coming off the county road if you came off right across from the existing Norway lane and
you had a road that that worked its way up you know past those those wetland areas down there that you wouldn't be able to build right there but you could get up in here and then you could have another culde-sac coming off a short culde-sac to feed some properties so that you your lot your s your bu
buildable lots back up the centennial lane rather than loaded >> right >> and that would cut your cost down on roadways as well >> but typically the developer pays for the road. >> But I think one of the the goals of
conservation is to maintain as much open space and that means to have your your roads which are a big expense and all of your infrastructure which usually follows the road be at a minimum. And so we're coming up through no man's land off of
18. Uh, I suppose you, you know, I guess it was just a it was just a nice thought that we'd keep keep some of these units further, you know, from an audible standpoint and visual standpoint with some woods separated from 18. Seemed
like it was a good good way to approach it, but I know all that depends on coming off of uh Centennial Lane, >> but hey, is sewer available along the county road there? sewer is on the south side of u highway. So
>> we got to get we got to get it across the road right there across the highway. >> So I guess we got to get it up the hill anyway. So maybe that's another possible way we could look at it. But you think that'd be a lot easier going and I Who would I contact at the county? >> Uh county highway department. I can get
you a phone number and some contact information for them. Um, another thing that I'm thinking of as as we're exploring the option of coming off of 18 is that might allow you more ability to observe the perimeter setbacks from Centennial, leaving that buffer period
area along Centennial. I don't know if that's exactly what you're aiming to propose, but um, if you came in off of there, you might be able to cross off a couple other variance asks that might be reasonable. So >> well there's numbers of consulting
companies in the area Brainer Baxter up here Pekquat that you can go in and talk to individual you know private companies and sit down and get some estimates from them as to what a preliminary plant would cost what a PUD or preliminary just to get through the
preliminary plat stages and they give you estimates of what their what the engineering fees would be and along with that they'd be able to develop some prelim preliminary costs for roads, sewers, things like that at the same time. >> Okay. >> And then you might be, you know, you at some point you're going to have to spend
the money. So, >> okay. >> Cost on how do they bid out that stuff per foot on a improved city street? >> No. I mean, you know, >> real generalized highlevel numbering,
you know, that you can do, but you know, until you really put a pencil to paper and have a layout um that, you know, you want to build um then then you can start putting real numbers to it.
Cost of the infrastructure, cost of designing sewer, water streets, you know, to a city standard. Um, again, you really got to know, you know, what's the scope of the project and there's topography, soils, all kinds
of stuff that are going to >> if you're if you're going to have private roads in there, you know, if you want them to city standard, what that means really is that at some point in time, the owner, the people that are living there could petition the city and the city would take over the maintenance for the road. >> But they
>> because it's up to their it was built to their standards with >> section. just ask a maybe a stupid question, but could you ingress the the site on a one-way road and eress on Centennial Lane?
>> The same legal questions, I imagine, would come to light there, whether or not you have the ability to egress your property onto private property. You'd also end up having to build Centennial Lane, >> improve it up to the point where it
connects to it, which is, you know, that's going to cause that's a that's a lot of road frontage, a lot of road expense with no load on it, >> right? >> You would complicate it a a tinge more also because if you're ingressing off the county road, you're going to have to get the same ingress egress approval
from county highway for an entrance there. uh city standards. Dave, I assume that there's some is there a length that the maximum length of a road that if they came in from Norway and kind of snake their way up through here, is it a/4 mile or 660 or something that's
that's limited? >> 1,200 ft. I think from what I've read and >> going back to the one that you researched that has been amended, you know, typically those reduced rightaway,
reduced width streets are in a limited length situation, limited traffic. They're not through road. >> Right. Right. Right. >> Uh they're basically a dead end. Three dead end roads. a low traffic volume, low number of units
>> um to go down from 66 to 50. >> Um so it's kind of that that's the criteria that uh a lot of the cities that I've worked for have used uh to kind of be flexible
in certain situations. Otherwise, you know, there's been a lot of debate, a lot of discussions about right away width and what it needs to be. And, you know, almost all the cities that that are in Lake Brainer Lakes area and
throughout the state use for Rod Road or 66 foot wide rideway. And uh depending on other things that come into play, sometimes it's even wider than that if there's like public trails or walkways
and things like that. >> Okay. So my approximate 1120 lineal feet of roadway would be for servicing these units would might qualify for a variance
to 50 foot right away. it. We'd have to look at that and see if you've got quite a few units in here. So that's a lot of traffic and so um you know when we that have to
be taken into account would have to be a planned unit wouldn't it? >> Yep. That's >> the only way you can make this work is with you'd have to use a planned unit what's called a planned unit development. Well, that and that's and I is what what is is that a conditional use? >> Yep.
>> Of course, that's assumed that that's what I'd be asking for as well. >> If you if you weren't going to do something like a PUD, if you're going to try to do this with just existing access and and and variances, you know, to get
get your alternatives away from the city standards. Uh that's not going to work because in order in order for us to the city to give a variance to you for something there's there's some criteria that we have to discuss every time we did it earlier tonight if you so there was a variance given tonight. Yeah, we
had a special meeting >> and I think the key to yours and you've you've hit on it a number of times is that cost is so vitally important and I know that cost is important but one of the conditions of a variance is that cost
has nothing to do with the with the with the reason for the variance and >> but in reality it >> but in reality it is >> reality it controls >> but if our answer as a planning commission is no to that you don't get your variance as simple as that. Yeah, we can't rest our decision solely on an
economic dis >> Well, not solely. I'm I'm hoping one of five different categories. >> Oh, okay. >> But it's and it's the last one. It's number five. It's the one that >> that that will be the stumbling block in a lot of cases. >> Okay. >> Because cost cannot be the reason for
doing asking for the variance. >> Yeah. Have you figured >> have you figured into your your process how much the road itself is going to cost? >> Yes. I think the road was uh 72,000. That that that to me is very reasonable. >> That's about right. But that's that's
without before you're you got to do clearing and grubbing and you got there's a lot there's a lot of trees in here. So I mean you're you got a lot of other expenses. >> Oh, I I know there's done development. So I know kind of what's involved in >> that road expense would probably double or triple from that.
I don't want to I don't want to hold you any longer, but I appreciate your listening and and uh hopefully we can find some way over that stumbling block and and get to the meat of the thing. >> I just offer this for your own benefit. That's what this sketch plan review is
for is, you know, just to get some feedback. And it's great that you have a a estimate from paving contractor, but I've sometimes seen that those estimates are for basically the aggregate base and
pavement. So I look at that very carefully. It it could easily be double. >> Yeah. It doesn't include grading removal of stumps and all that organic matter that needs to come out. >> Right. Well, I'm becoming discouraged,
but I'll try try to keep uh excited about it. I'm going down to Florida for several months, so I've got stuff to think about, but if I need to do anything with you, I think we can do it electronically. >> We do have virtual options. >> Okay. Thank you very much.
>> All the requirements for like PUDS is in the ordinances, so you can take all that with you to for homework. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Uh, next item is an administrative subdivision for Barasoft.
Thank you. I don't see the applicant here and they're not in the virtual meeting. Um, so I suppose I can take a stab at my staff report and get feedback from you at this point. Um, so we have here a uh meets and bounds subdivision application before us
uh for a track just up the road from this gentleman's property on Centennial Lane. Uh the ID would be 28120599. The acreage of this parcel, the parent parcel would be 3.8 acres. They're looking to split it roughly in half.
Have provided a survey for review of that. Um they've done site suitabilities for primary and ultimate septic system locations. Proposed an easement along the south corridor of their uh property of 33 ft for access to
tract B. Um there was not a wetland delineation submitted to this and so I structured a uh condition into the approval. If you guys decide to move forward with this approval, um that delineation is done
prior to final sign off by the city. Um they both track A and B appear to meet our lot size minimums and widths. Uh so I don't see much for
holding back on those fronts. just the kind of wetland delineation done otherwise they jump through the other requirements that we have like state suit stability for septics. >> So track B has access to it. >> Uh track B is proposed to have that 33
foot access easement strip on the south side of tract A >> south there. >> All right. >> Can we assume that there's no wetlands in that strip? >> No, we cannot assume. We need to do due diligence >> just like just like theirs.
Okay. So, we're looking for a motion then. >> Yeah. Motion or discussion? >> Just Okay. Yeah. I don't see an issue like you said in your um bindings of fact it doesn't meet all the standards.
So >> does this the current property owner of the whole thing >> hold an easement or right over Centennial Road so that it provides
access ultimately to a public highway road. >> So the Popler connects on the north end and Boundary Road 18 connects on the south end. um without doing the legal review for them as to their rights for
their property that they're utilizing currently. It's kind of the question if they have a property right for that tract as it exists with the parent parcel and they wanted to grant it to the child parcel tract B legal ease that I'm not familiar with
that side maybe it's a prudent thing to just if your intent is to approve this we don't have any other issues with it but given all the discussion about access to a
private road or public road and not knowing what this one really is or what the rights of these people have might say approved upon condition upon them having right to convey that
something such like it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to establish access to track B. It's not the responsibility of the city to >> provide that something like that. Very proposed conditions for >> doesn't come back to the city.
>> I'm surprised that that road doesn't have a maintenance agreement because I know in transactions that I've done that banks won't even loan on properties that don't have some type of maintenance agreement because they want to know that there's
access at all times, >> right? especially for like certain types of lending, FHA loans and things like that. >> Regular, even conventional, I've had them ask for it. >> I don't know. Is this is this so sketch plan review? Do you need a motion on this or do we need
>> It's not a sketch plan review. This is a >> This is a administrative subdivision. This is meets some bound >> approve, deny table for the applicant to answer some of your questions or make a decision at this point. >> Motion need a motion, right?
>> Approval. >> Yeah. >> Or disapproval. Okay. Um, I don't see any reason to table here. So, I'll I'll make a a motion to that we approve the meets and bound subdivision application 029-25.
Uh, according to the uh findings of fact that's submitted by the plan by the city staff and the conditions. There's three conditions shown and we'll add a fourth condition to that being that the owners are to verify the future access to Centennial
Lane. Will >> you say that again? I'm sorry. >> That the owners will verify continued future access to Centennial Lane. >> Is that what you're thinking? >> I don't know. Dave, do you think that's I was trying to get to? >> Okay.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Just in case. Just in case. Yeah, that was the place. >> Yeah, >> perfect. Thank you. >> And do I have a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? I >> I. All those opposed? Motion carries.
Uh, moving on. Old business. We have none. City planners report. >> Thank you. So, we have had a busier month in September. uh issued 15 land use permits. Uh kind of run-of-the-mill, a lot of storm water management plans
this year or this uh month, I should say. Um classic single family residences, um accessory structure additions, UV 911 addresses, and um yeah, things are kind of picking up again this week for additional permits
getting submitted before snow starts flying. I hate to say it, but otherwise things are pretty busy. Um going through aside from permits approved uh ordinance revision phase um given the guidance from uh city council after the
recommendation from the planning commission to uh initiate that ordinance write up um going through and marking up some changes to chapter 20 as proposed by the consultant. um kind of calibrating on that and should have a
final document for sending out to the DNR for their preliminary approvals and scheduling of a public hearing upcoming at this this winter season. So, >> what was the ordinance change for? >> Chapter 20 talked about um a few
different sections. I can see if I can pull that document up, but it was the Chris Pence um ordinance evaluation. There was a comparative analysis between city of Niswah's ordinances and Crowing County's ordinances on things that relate to land use and development, primarily focusing on the shoreland
areas um to calibrate our standards to those neighboring municipalities. Um had some good feedback in there, some other good feedback that I've taken and recommendations that I'll be bringing forward aside from that. um just kind of
picking through the ordinance and identifying pain points as we go. >> Okay. Any other questions, comments? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So move second. >> All those in favor?
>> I motion carries. Meeting is adjourned. That was a fun fascinating we this process we call