What's that? Oh, he's he's coming. What? 6 o' John's worried. All right. I'd like to call the meeting to order for the Municipal Planning Commission Board of Adjustment for Tuesday, August 5th, 2025. Roll call,
please. Joe Hall, uh Tom Pearson, Sean Welen, Josh Young, Gary Harris, John Fer, Dave Reese, Maggie Wentler, Steven Timberlin. Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda?
There are none. hearing. None. I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. So move. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Next to approve the meeting minutes for July 1st, 2025. Are there any corrections or additions to those minutes? There are none.
Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes. So move. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Next item is an open form. Is there anyone present tonight that would like to speak towards something not on the agenda this evening?
All right, 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. Okay. First item is conditional use
permit application 023-25 to obtain a conditional use permit to construct a detached accessory structure exceeding 2500 square ft and open space residential zoning district. Subject property is located at 4908 lower Roy
Lake Road P2110714. owner applicant Dullum Shirley and revocable trust agreement and Sandra Talgis is the applicant here tonight. You come up uh you can either go to the podium or you can go to the desk and
then state your name and then state your name. Um Sandy Tis Sandra Stephen your staff report. Thank you chair. Uh so we have before us a conditional use permit application again for an accessory structure that
exceeds uh 2500 square f feet. Um the dimensional structure would be 4440 ft as proposed 74 by 60 in size. Um this would be a detached accessory structure. analysis is that a CUP is required for
this because it exceeds that dimensional standard and it also exceeds the uh footprint of the principal residential structure on the same lot. Um the proposed first floor elevation on the survey places the structure at 1222 uh using the NAD83 DATM which is above
the FEMA elevation as required by those regulations. There are no wetlands identified using the national wetland inventory um noted on the structure as well. The delineation was not performed prior to the application and a condition has been proposed for that to occur prior to the
land use permit application. Um there were no easements depicted by the applicant through the property on the survey. Um and the location of the existing and proposed septic system and the well were depicted by the surveyor. Um this proposed structure is proposed
to be served by an on-site septic. Um chapter 28 requires mandatory connection when proposal abuts a road containing municipal sewer. There were discussions that commenced with the public works director um to um analyze that language
and an interpretation was established that if the proposal's ingress and egress from Nisa Lake lane is beyond 500 ft to the nearest connection point then this on-site system proposal will be determined viable by public works. um a
condition was proposed to the CUP. Um if the planning commission moves to approve that that if ever a um if ever this structures access is perceived off of Lower Royal Lake Road or if municipal sewer becomes available
on this Wild Lake Lane that the structure must be connected to a municipal sewer that the owner's cost and connection fees would apply at that time. Um, the exterior color of the proposed structure can meet the ordinance requirement that the color matches the principal structure on the lot. The
current principal structure is white as I understand it. Um, and that's just an ordinance requirement. Alternative to that would require variance, but um that's the summary of my analysis to this application this time.
Okay. if you could give us a brief overview of the uh proposal. Um, sure. It's a shed that will have a heated portion 40x60 and two cold storage eds on the ends um that are
one's 14 by 60 and the other would be 20 x 60. Okay. Uh is there anyone that would like to speak towards this application? Hello, my name is Joe Hall. I'm the
adjoining land owner to this property. I think it'd be a nice building tucked in the woods and be an appropriate use of land in the building and and uh yeah, be a nice thing for him. So, thank you
Anyone else? All right, I'll close public comments. Do we have any questions? Has there been any comments from the neighbors of join, you know, joining neighbors along the lake lane there?
No comments. For or against? Nothing. Yeah. I can tell you that I had some messages to me and asking if I needed support because they would be here for me. Um, and I said, "I don't think so." So, um, I didn't want to bother them at their
dinner time. Um, Joe was in our neighborhood, so I think Joe might be able to test some of them is right next door to him. Um, so neighbors are okay with it, though. Yes. Okay. Any other questions? There's none, I'll entertain a motion.
move to at the NESA planning uh planning zoning uh approve the conditional use permit application 023-25 and according to the staff report the findings of fact and the conditions that
are attached there too second. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Good luck. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
So move. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Uh moving on to new business. We have none old business topographic divide. Thank you, chair. Uh so we have before
us something returning to the planning commission as new information has been um provided to the city resultant from the city council meeting at March 18th, 2025. Um the applicant in this case would be Jethro Carpenter who was
looking to have a topographic divide from 2019 re-evaluated. Um and so at the at that city council meeting it was proposed that WHDS would go out and um well first off provide a
bid for what the work would cost for a survey redetermination of the topographic divide. uh they provided a proposal which was accepted by the applicant. So WDSH went out and commenced the work. Um in your packet right behind my memo is the um
evaluation from WIDSH and uh the resultant proposal of a pre-road construction and a postroad construction of topographic divide with drainage areas attached. Um we have our city engineer here as well to speak with
any questions as it relates to that. Um like the staff recommendation as a result of this is to adopt either of the pre-road construction determinations provided by the applicants agents or by wood sets in the attachments versus the adoption of the postroad construction option
determinations as those would consider anthropogenic features of the landscape or man-made alterations. Um in any case these evaluations were are proposed based on work completed by licensed and certified individuals in their fields of expertise. Um, if the planning commission file
finds merit that the topographic divide in 2019 should be replaced by any of the evaluations, it should make recommendation to the city council to adopt it by resolution. And then if the city council approves the recommendation to resolution, then the approval must proceed to the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources for their approval. And can I ask a question, Mr. Chair? Yes. Looking at your third paragraph there, Stephen, in your staff report or your memo to the planning commission where you say staff recommendation is to adopt either and then to go on. Um,
is is that to be said that you believe the planning commission should make a choice to do this to make a recommendation of the city council to entertain the topographical divide change or are you saying by that
paragraph if they decide to do it they should choose those options? Um I guess yes to both on the basis that I believe planning and zoning decisions should be made using the best of information available at the time of consideration
in any case. Um and I am looking at both proposal by the applicant and by WIDST. Um the applicant took the packet and the evaluation from WHDS and did an overlay of how they all compared as all four of
them and they are very similar. um not following the contour of 1236 but very much perpendicular to it. Um it would be my recommendation that if we move to adopt anything as an alternative to the
previously adopted one um to take the anthropogenic features or the postroad construction options and um I would hold the pre-road construction determinations above those would be but to be clear the planning commission
previously before it had this new set of data had recommended the city council not to revisit at the topographical divide and that's still on the table even with this new data in hand. Correct. I would say that to be correct.
Thank you. Do we have any questions for Stephen or maybe or Jethro? Actually, why don't we have um Paul if do you have any comments you'd like to make? I'll do that first. Hi David. Uh thank you. My name is Paul
Rasmmanson. I live at 2532 Bass Lake Road. Um uh we're here again talking about the same issue again. Um I'm not exactly sure why. Um I did send you a letter which I think
outlined my comments. I I hope you all received it and uh read it. Um, I do want to make a few points to highlight why I believe you should stand by your earlier decision that you made
it at the November meeting and deny the request to redetermine the topographic divide. Um, there is no new information that's been provided that should change your decision. It's always been very clear that there are multiple methods
available to determine a topographic divide. that's never been debated. You looked at uh back when the pl this plat was originally was reviewed, discussed the topographic divide, the
city made a determination, discussed it with the DNR and came up with a very reasonable well-reasoned decision, properly made determination of topographic divide. It was legitimate. is proper and there's no error. Of course, there are different
methods that you can use to determine the topographic divide and Mr. Carpenter has presented another one based on additional survey information. Doesn't make the original determination wrong, inappropriate, or that it's an error. It's just a different method. So, I don't think there's new
information available. We've always known that there are different methods that could be used. The new method, however, does favor Mr. carpenter because it would allow him to change the late classification and squeeze another lot into his development. He could have challenged or contested
the tographic divide at the time of the plat review. He didn't. He's a professional developer. He's represented by professional arch uh professional surveyors and developers. They knew very well the ramifications of the divide determination at the time of plat
review. And if the city commission had that information and knew that there was going to be an additional lot on Roy Lake, that this lot was going to be split in a couple years, which is probably the plan all along, they would have factored that into their decision, the other decisions that were
made during the platting process, plat review, such as the shape of this lot, which relies on a strange right angle driveway to get to about both these lots, which doesn't mean the doesn't need the doesn't meet the zoning
requirements to avoid the jags and bends in a lot. It also ignores the fact that the the plat approved a common access to Roy through the land for additional lots on the top of on the top of Bass Hill that that hill and Bass Lake
which then corresponds to additional boardwalks and permanent pier through the wetlands of Roy Lake and permanent peers into Roy Lake. You remember those discussions and those the the the what we what you went through were in the
original draft uh plat which had considerably more excess of lots and was ultimately allowed under the statute. The Could you Stephen could you turn to the to the alternatives? I think it was page
um 41 in your PDF. Different methods of determining the topographic divide have to consider the characteristics of the land, the facts and circumstances at the time and the
proper time was during the prop the plat consideration not years later when we're trying to squeeze another lot in and the changes were made to the thing. Can I I'm going to walk over to the to the diagram here because I think the result of the new determination by Windth.
If you adopt that, I guess what you're doing is saying that that's the divide for Bass and Roy Lake, but the which is great for Mr. carpenter, but it leads to a really obscure uh unbelievable and just just
inappropriate uh irrational result for the rest of some of the other lots of bas which is very very close to the original divide probably deep right so the original divide is very reasonable
Look at this house. It's on Bass Lake. It's a few feet from Bass Lake. Overlooks small hill of Bass Lake, but right about Bass Lake. There's a dot on Bass Lake. You've probably walked this land. If you don't, you should go walk it. You can walk this land. This is Bass
Lake. There's no there's a reasonable interpretation that person here the land owner would expect that the Roy would be the
derive the lake shore restrictions and yet look at your Mr. carpenters would suggest that that house is a royal devel that's that's bizarre and it's wrong.
It's wrong because you're not considering the facts and circumstances of a lot. Remember, you've got bluffs, Steve Hills, the national two unique situation.
You decided during the plan process review process the appropriate divide. Nothing that has present been presented should make you change that or should allow you to change it. Mr. Carpenter
hasn't even presented a basis for the change, a justification, no rule that would allow him to change it. Nothing. He just wants to change it so he can sneak another lot into the development
that he wasn't allowed to do during the planning process. You shouldn't allow it to be done. It sets a terrible precedent. And the results are that you're going to have many more lots in Bass Lake that
are now going to be using the Roy Lake designation. and that is just contrary to the objectives to what you should be concerned about with respect to this land. Thank you for your consideration. So I
ask that you please reject the request to redetermine the tomographic divide. Thank you Jethro. Uh Jethro Carpenter with Northstar Land
Company. Um not a whole lot to say besides that. Uh we had the topograph done three times, right? and the only one or four times including what the city planner at the
time determined and she's the oddball one out. So like the law of averages wouldn't allow that certified engineers that do that for a living are I don't know what else to say. I um
Paul's obviously emotional about it. his example there of if that house the reason why his house or his dad's house there is um it could be 100 foot lot if they use Roy Lake if that's what the lake that they
were utilizing there's a road between there so I don't exactly think that's a terribly good example but um just to stay on track we had it done three different times all the topographical divides you can see are similar
Um, and the cities was outside. It would be like asking uh the city planner what her favorite color is and she says a square, right? She just didn't know. I don't think she did it maliciously. She just didn't understand the question.
And she didn't ask for help to be able to make the termination. The DNR's basically I talked to them about it. Essentially, they're hands off. They're not going to they will look at it, but unless you go
from like, hey, we want to put 50 foot wide lots in or we want to do something that is completely outside the parameters of what is allowed, they're not going to be involved in the deal of um determining where the divide is. That's why they didn't determine where
the divide is. They put it on the city to do that. But I'm happy to ask any questions if you guys have any. Anybody have any questions for Jethro? Not at this time. Not at this time. He had another person that submitted a
comment just join the Zoom meeting as well. I'm not sure if they intend to. Um I'll let them decide, but just an FYI. Okay. Um, I think there's a little bit of confusion from the pre and just talking. Um, there's a little confusion from the
pre and post divide. Dave, could you maybe give shed some light on the changes from what was submitted originally to what we have before us now between the this particular one that shows these
two divide lines. Um so the difference between these two the significance of it is really what's what is the um basis for
um determining topographic divide? what's the intent of the ordinance um when doing the preliminary work prior to
subdivision. And so the choice of that really kind of seems to be the uh prominent one is it should you be using pre land alteration topographic divide or
using a divide that's based on land alteration. And you that was something that we described in a memo to the city in uh some detail. Uh and after reviewing
with uh Crowing County Planning and Zoning just to see what their approach to that would be and it was firmly using uh pre-development landscape to determine topographic
divide. So you can see the difference. You want me to go up and point it out, Dave, or should I go point it out so they That's fine. Sure. Yeah. between the green and red lines. You can see there's a gap in the middle there. And that
essentially right here is where we the tray down to access right. So after we graed this trail along here, this water from here rains towards Roy, right? You
know, same. So the only difference is prior to us putting this water that this water currently support you know so this little chunk right here
prior to that it so basically what they're saying green line is pretty like up right you know the red is after we braided this trail right at the bottom.
This little chunk of now brings towards Roy Lake where previously drinks and this 1236 pond is right here all the way along
essentially turning the fast ally. um not the case. Okay. Um Joe, I'm not sure if everyone here is in tune with what happened in the city
council side of it. Can you give us some background on after it left us, what happened there? at the city council, it came before us, you know, obviously two conflicting reports and that's when we recommended,
you know, um to have Woods do what they did, go out, provide the proposal, put this plan together to put this kind of the rest, you know, have it taken a look at at Jethro's expense and provide this
report before you. So, um, our thing was, you know, we're not the experts, but we have Woods here. Let's have them rule in on this to, you know, um, to see what the correct thing is, you know, um, the math, the surveyor, the contours,
you know, um, it pretty much lines up with um, forgive me, who is the other surveyor involved with this? Land design solutions. Yeah, land design solutions. So, so it lines up with that. Um, and and that was our request.
Go out, let's get let's get Wood Seth's opinion on this and and see because because the two models were so far off and different, we said, "Hey, let's do this." So
okay, you know and and then and then it was to go back through the process, come to here, talk to the DNR and uh you know, go back through it and re-evaluate it. You know, basically our thing was
if there was wrong information, bad information, whatever, we want to know and determine it and figure out what what the correct line is or should be by having Woods Seth review it all. If I can add to that, Mr. Chair.
Yeah. Um the idea obviously excuse me as Joe said was that the council wanted its own independent evaluation done by its engineer but didn't want to pay for that and so uh Jethro agreed to pay the bill
for the engagement that the city did with WDs. So, as much as it's important, I just disagree with something that Paul Rasmusen said in his letter, which was that Jethro engaged Widsth. Jethro didn't engage Widsth. The city did.
Jethro paid for it as part of the expense for the city to evaluate this. But the WDs information is independent information. The client was the city for WHs. So what you have there is independent information gathered on
behalf of the city for your evaluation. Okay. Do we have any more questions? Uh questions, comments? Um this project goes back some time at this point. Three three of the existing
planning commission members were here when this whole project was in and before us. And we filled this we filled this room multiple times talking about this project with um people from the
neighborhood and around the lakes. And I think there was a lot of there was a lot of discussion. There was a lot of uh um feelings both positive and negative from from from from the public and and from
even uh from staff. And I think the project came to a resolution at the end where we made agreements with the developer to develop the plat as we have it today with uh much different than the original one that came in. uh
concessions were given I know on dock do dockage and slip numbers things like that and there was a give and take through the whole process and it finally was determined and it was it was approved and it was passed by the planning commission it was passed by the
city council um the project was constructed almost immediately and uh we ended up with I I think the long and short of This is that the grading of the
site with that trail changed did change alter the the the divide line. There's no doubt about that. The question comes down to theoretically uh all the work that was that was gone
through the the analysis of the original uh water watershed divide and getting this plan approved according to the number of lots that were of were allowed because of that square footage that determination from the original divide.
Uh I'm I I I'm not comfortable at all about changing it just because and due to construction of the project and we could if we were to change this today and then you went in and and you did some more grading tomorrow somebody else
did and they come in and they ask for another divide change. I just I I'm very uncomfortable with doing that. So, um, I may be wrong in this, but I don't think so. Um, could I comment?
Yeah, absolutely. A couple things. Um, one is I'm not asking you guys to change it to what after postgrading. If I had a choice to put the trail in, I wouldn't. If I had a
and as far as like the concessions back and forth, the reason why the plat was approved because it met the ordinances. There was no variances. There was no anything that I there was no favors done
to me to allow this to happen. It it met all the ordinances the reason why that it was approved. There obviously was motion involved, right? you know, when you have people that talk about stuff that aren't
necessarily facts, right? So, um I I'm not asking you guys to change it based on any of the road. I mean, in fact, if you look at it, the post or the pregrading is more favorable to me.
Like, it it is. So I I just I I somewhat don't understand the fact of like concessions are made. If it was me, right, I if anybody made concessions, I'm in the boardwalk
business. I would put individual boardwalks out on Royal Lake. Those lots would be from a financial standpoint are worth way more money. They are. So I want also to try to do the right thing
at least or what the public opinions of the right thing. So I I feel like if anything I made concessions I didn't want to put that trail in. I did to put the docking out on Roy Lake because that was the consensus of the planning
commission where they wanted to see it. not where I wanted it to be, but that was where that So, I'm here to figure this deal out. I just would like numbers don't lie. They don't
like the way the water drains is the way it's drained for the last I I don't know how 50, 100 years or however long it's been since that property has anything that's happened to it. So, it Those
are the facts that that's the way the water drains. The topographical divide. I can't help that your prior planner I like I said I don't believe she did maliciously but you couldn't contrast them more. They don't even go the same
direction. Like I I asked the city council to go out there to see the property to understand like to see it firsthand like you can't explain it without seeing it sometimes of the way the water flows. It there's
steep grades there. There's no argument. I mean water runs downhill and that's how it works. The reason why photographic divide but anyways I'm rambling at this point in time. I'm sorry. Thanks for taking up all your time. Mr. Chair, if I may. Yep.
Jethro, in fairness, um I want to reiterate a point that was made when you came with this the first time, and I think the planning commission heard me say it, so I'm sorry for repeating myself, but that was almost a year ago when this plat process was going
about all of the process. It was which was one of the more involved plats that I think I've ever seen for all of the conversation all the times in front of the planning commission, city council. We went through a lot as everybody knows.
I don't know how many people know what you and I know and Kevin McCormack knows and Britney Cotner would know if she was here to say it that this issue came up and this issue was one that was debated back and forth about that topographic
divide and at that point faced with the realities of the situation what I recall is that you elected to accept that though you didn't like it you and your engineer agreed to accept it that way and so I have a little bit of a problem
now. Not that anybody asked me my opinion, but just to set what the conversations were at that time. This was not an issue that escaped scrutiny at that time. This was an issue that, in my opinion, you decided to to accept as
part of the overall processing of this plat. And you're free to disagree with me if you don't remember it the same way. But that's been my problem this whole time was that that discussion got had, it got debated, it got churned and you decided to accept it as part of the
overall plat approval. So it is hard for the city now, new staff, some of the same planning commission members to come back years after and now question that when that was really a relevant topic at the time that you agreed to accept. And you might disagree
with what you remember on that, but that's what I recall. And that is the problem I've had with this this whole time. You know, there's another there's a letter in the file from the DNR to Britney, the previous planner,
uh, from Dan, Miss Danielle McNeel from the DNR, and she's replying to this to the divide that was in question at the time. and she said thank you for providing your determination of the topographic divide
for parcel 218 etc in the city of Nisa based on the review of available elevation data the twoft contour lines that was available to your engineers in the city and everybody I concur with the city's
determination the agreed upon topographic divide of 1236 ft navd88 datam should be used to determine appropriate standards for potentially future development of the par of the parcel. And I believe that's what the
city attorney is referring to. You you agreed with that as well at the time. And and I don't you know blaming the previous planner that she made a mistake. U the DNR also made a mistake then concurring with her as I see it.
Yeah. I tend to agree 100% with you. I'm not I'm not saying that happened. I just appears that way. it according to three different engineers they did but and Tom I I I disagree that
I just accepted the deal but we can agree to disagree I have no um I again I agree it wasn't yesterday so I'm not uh um if you hadn't agreed you wouldn't have gotten your plan approved
well you know that I how do you know that. Well, I don't want to go back and find out again. So, we we bled over this project and I don't want to do it twice. It met your ordinances. That's why it
got approved. Anything else? Yeah. Any other questions for Jethro? All right. Thank you. Hey, I appreciate you guys' time. Thanks again. Thanks, Stephen, could you give us a little bit of So, we have your past memo.
We are determining and here's here's my issue. Like the city we said no, it went to the city council. The city council said, "Okay, well, if you pay," and it was expensive. How much did this how much did it cost to have this redone? Was it 15 grand? 11 or 12, something like that. Okay. So, the
the city council required him to pay 15 grand to do this. He comes back to us and we say, "Oh, sorry. You know, they had you do this, but you know, it redetermined that it was this way when it was wrong." I I I just I think we're we're I mean, I'm I'm can't I'm not in a
position to argue with an engineer because it's not my purview. So, I I think we're kind of in a rock and a hard place where we said no, city council said yes, we need to redetermine this. So, my question to you, Stephen, is what what whatever what options do we have to make here?
like um so I guess you have a few options in front of yourselves here. Um upholding the previous um one and providing recommendation to again um uphold the one from the plat
approval. Uh you have the two proposal from the applicant um Kevin McCormack and Westwood. You have the two from WHSAT. Um so you have options to provide recommendation to city council for or against any of these options. Um
I guess if we backdate to the previous time that this material was in front of you absent the width revision and evaluation. Um I guess you're it's my understanding that your recommendation to city council was based on the information provided in
response to at the last time it was before you. um and the DNR comments that were attached to that, the engineer comments that were attached to that, the responsiveness to um the engineering files that were provided by the
applicant to our engineer for evaluation, the shots that were taken and whether or not that was enough conclusive data to make a determination and responsive to I guess that recommendation from engineer and staff at the time. Um, fast forwarding to when
it was in front of city council for review and the onset of sending our independent engineers out for their evaluation so that they can capture um their own shots. How many shots do
you think you guys took out there, Dave? Several hundred, you know, if not thousand. And would that be more than what was provided by the applicant at the I think there's an exhibit in the packet that shows the shots that we were given
that are highlighted in yellow. So on this exhibit there was 534 field too shots taken by the applicant and the ones that were highlighted were what was provided for us to review on the CAD file in summary of that statement. And
so time was before even before we um had engineers were failing to be able to provide complete conclusive data on where the topographic divider whether these shots which were taken kind of sporadically on the southside here up here through here. All of that data was
provided to our engineer. And so now fast forwarding the city council sent them out to take their independent shots and provided their analysis in the original attachment. Um, and you can see them overlaid by
the applicant uh to the best of their ability in this exhibit where you have the WSN post construction, WSN pre-construction, and Westwoods pre and posts um overlaid on top of each other again to the best of the applicant's ability based on the
information provided in the woods evaluation. So, can I speak to that? Just so everyone's clear, this is and Jethro, you can speak up if you'd like to, but this is like a PDF
movement of our lines. Yeah. Kind of in general vicinity of your lines in this this isn't a document that we produced, right? Okay. I want you guys to know that.
So it's at best an approximation this exhibit most uh accurate I guess wood set proposals would be based on their documentations up here and their overlay
as it relates to the contours to etc. Did you have a question? Yeah. Can I just make an observation? You're it seems like people are trying to compare apples to oranges. The original determination of topographic
divide was based on what the 12 36 degree line art developed line which is one method. Jethro and subsequently windth used a different methodology completely to
determine to topographic divide. So you compare your You're talking about the detail of the engineering work and survey work that uh Jethro and Winth used versus a completely different method that was used in the initial
determination by the city and the DNR. Both are legitimate. One isn't doesn't mean one is wrong. They're just different. And so you're it seems like people are trying
to compare and say which is right and which is wrong. They're both right. It's just a different methodology. Both correct appropriate methodologies. The determination that was based that was made and agreed upon and negotiated back when during the plat discussion
is correct based on the methodology that was used. Nothing wrong with it. Yes, there are different methodologies that that could be used but demonstrated that based on more different use of technologies and so forth. Absolutely.
So be it. I still argue and I think the point is the original determination was properly and appropriately made. it was relied upon and we should move forward and develop a change that now in order to squeeze
another lot in that it wasn't originally uh anticipated or would not have been approved during during the review of the plat. That's my that's my comment. Maybe that helps. Thank you for chair. Yes, Stephen. Can I just kind of follow up on the the question that that Josh asked
you? Mhm. As we see it, uh the planning commission can now either make a recommendation to uphold the former denial. That's the one thing,
right? If the planning commission wants to make a recommendation to change the topographical determination, then your recommendation is that based on preconstruction determinations, right?
Correct. But in your you go on to say provided by the applicants or by width. My recommendation is that if you decide to make a recommendation to the city council to change this, that it be on
the pre- road construction conditions as determined by WIDS, not by the applicant. WIDS is our expert. Would you agree with that, Stephen? I guess that one uh is whether or not the applicant consents to that too would
be kind of something that I would consider. Um our response to the applicant's proposal was inconclusive because of the amount of shots provided for review. Um and the ones that sapphire are proposing are you know
independent data that again yeah is is from our professionals. Um, I wouldn't make the statement to say that we should put one on top of the other, but um, again, my recommendation
is either of the pre-roads um, without a horse in the race as to which can I ask one question just for my own knowledge with this maybe for Tom and for Stephen in the city and our ordinances and rules on something like
this as we move through, you know, in the the cont or the the agreement, you know, with the uh developer in the agreement form, you know, uh I'm as I'm sitting here thinking when you go and purchase a property from like a title
company or something, there's a airs and omissions page something like that within that too. Does the city have any language like that in any of the contracts that was done with Jethro or any sort of timeline provisions where
this speaks to that it can't be addressed again or it can be or you know I'm just wondering what what do our rules speak um to in this situation as it relates to topographic divide in chapter 20 of our ordinance there is a
specific section that refers to it that would be section 20-23 on the screen here. I'll zoom in so that it's uh visible for everybody. Um first part of it talks about zoning district designations. The second part of it talks specifically about topographic divide. It states when a
parcel is in the shoreland area of multiple lakes or rivers, the topographic divide parenthesis which way the water flows on the parcel and parenthesis shall be used to determine which lake or river classification is used. um in conversations with uh as it
relates to county ordinances and the the natural topographic divide, I believe that to be the language that is included in crowing counties. Um where I have the mouse cursor here, there's a insert of the word natural. Um airing on
my my recommendation that you know we should be looking at pre-road construction and not considering anthropogenic features, man-made alterations to a landscape. Um, so that would be where our ordinance speaks to how a topographic divide
should be applied to a parcel when that parcel exists in an overlapping area of multiple classifications. Is this the same language that existed at the time of this? I don't believe that this language has
changed. I this is uh ordinance number 24 for series um the revision document from February uh where I uploaded the Munic code the change log where you would see any alterations at this time between the last time that it was this
ordinance was applied for um well since since my time here. So the alterations that you see stricken through were what language was replaced. Um language that is highlighted and underlined as that which has been
replaced. So um I'd have to I guess review what the topographic divide um analysis was. We can try to look at 2021's. I don't know which ordinance number one was adopted.
Uh I can certainly go and grab that if this body would like me to at this time. I have a was language written in the um agreement between the developer and the city on you know whatever
whatever contract was drawn up for that what for you know for when going out at this time. No originally back when this was done what? Yeah. Was there was there some sort of contract drawn up, you know, like a
development agreement contract, you know? Um, no. Okay. No development agreement. I don't believe that language has changed. That language doesn't give any guidance about how determined topographic divide.
I would seriously doubt that that has changed in any of the ordinance changes that have happened since 2021. But no, there was no agreement. No agreement. No written of any kind. No development agreement. No.
Okay. Um questions. We have somebody online. Yes. This is Brad Berkeland. Um Okay. Would you like to make a public comment?
Yes, please. Sorry. suffering uh symptoms right now. But I also um sent a letter in and some of the thing that I've heard tonight I have
direct evidence and I was involved that there that totally conflict with some of the things that have been said here. First of all, I know by experience that that new ordinance language was put into place
when Chris Pence did the review with Bethany after the topographic divide was done in 2021 cuz they got in a car accident the day the meeting that that was a topic which was 2022
November 1st. I got hit driving up to the meeting of um I just know I know for a fact that it was not there beforehand. I was the one who spoke with Danny McNeel
about this topographic divide in the first place and it does it it is not true that Britney Cotner was the only one involved here. Danny McNeel
put a stop to everything and require without approval from the DNR. At one point in this preliminary plat there was uh they were making assumptions that there was the road was a topographic
divide but they did not have DNR approval for that. So without a DNR approved topographic divide, the more strict of the two lake standards are what apply to the to the parcel.
So these Danny McNeel I had a long discussions with Danny McNeel and she went to her regional manager Cliff Bentley in Two Harbors. She consulted him. He consulted Dan
Patrick in St. Paul, the land use specialist about this exact issue. They gave their recommendations and they had an outline of how a topographic divide could be determined. This was a valid
This was a valid way to make a topographic divide. What they're doing is they're all of these areas of steep slope, regardless of whether it's on Roy Lake or Bass Lake, they've decided to make those NE classifications because they're
more sensitive to the water flow and they could have a potential to erode. So, they wanted a topographic divide that was going to stay in place for many, many, many years. And that was the
purpose of this divide. It was completely valid. It went all the way up to the state Dan Petrick and it it was approved concurred. Whether or not it met state minimums is irrelevant. It is valid and it did not the ordinance did
not have that language where it says in parentheses which way the water flows. There's no state statute that was added after the fact. So, and then the the the issue of the data and new
data. There's really no new data that we've gotten during this whole updated process. The LAR derived elevation contours are not that far off from any of the ground survey work. So the whole issue is just whether or not you're
going to determine the topographic divide by the literal drainage divide or whether you're going to use a different method which the local governing unit has the right to do. By default, everything would adhere to the natural environment standard. They can do what
they want with it. It is a completely valid one. the language was changed without much I don't know that there was much talk about that that they put that in probably just because of the crowing county data
or ordinance. So those are my comments. I it's just it's hard to listen to say that Britney was the only one involved in this. So that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay. So, what we have based on what the city attorney said is we either have to uphold the original denial. Somebody has to make a motion for that or change to pre uh the pre-road construction via the woods. Is that correct?
Hello. City administrator and while I'm new to the table, um I've been listening to some of the conversation and I just do I do think it's incumbent upon the planning commission to if uh it went up the city council denied it and then denied it with some conditions as in
we're going to seek with analysis. I heard some comments that might be taken as well, we're just going to go with the old uh information. Uh I do think it's incumbent and uh relevant that the planning commission do consider
uh the new information that is in front of them. How that impacts your decision, of course, that's up to you. uh but to have a applicant incur um significant expense and then I'm hearing some comments back as far as well you know
back yesterday year back yesterday year back yesterday year and I totally understand that because I was not here um I just want to caution the planning commission uh to at least consider the information that's in front of you because the city council did request that the applicant provide that
information. So I think it be incumbent upon you to at least consider that in your decision making. Okay. Do we have any Sean? Do we have any questions? Gary John I'm just taking a I was not privy to
anything. So this is like information over be the jury here to figure out in my mind where everything is where everybody's coming from. So, I'm just kind of taking it all in. And so, what do how many lots are we trying to get out of this?
Oh, one is going to change by one. Jamming it in there or whatever. 26 acres. It has six lots on it. hardressed to find a spot on the lake that only has 26
that has lots. Yeah, but it is it is a lot. We hold on. We don't want to have conversations between people in the audience. Thank you. Um,
this was a very difficult piece of property to develop. You know, all the good property disappeared years ago. We're left with what's left what's left over on the plate and
the difficultiness of this particular project and this particular land. um you know it it went through a long process here and um but I'm I'm not it's not
that I'm I'm not in favor of new information but what I am I'm still very concerned about the fact that we had a process that belonged to your that that defined a a particular a set
of datim like the 1236 watershed divide and that we're going to change that at some future date because of construction. I'm still I'm still extremely uncomfortable with that and I said it before and I'll say it again. Um
the DNR was in concurrence with with the the location of the of the divide. Uh it's been detailed in in descriptions and and uh legal uh legal
courses and distances on on uh on the exhibits and and uh I'm I just um I I'm still very uncomfortable ch changing changing the horses here in the mid in midstream. No.
Well, the the other part that I'm still confused about coming in this new is why city council recommended that he has a new survey done. So, were they expecting something different by having,
you know, the results changing? That's my that that's that's what I thought because that's is the city council went there and did a site visit and they determined that it it it wasn't right. Is that is that correct? or that was what they thought at the time, just walking around.
Yeah. I mean, I toured the property with the rest of the council and and the staff and stuff. We walked around and and looked at it and from being on site looked at it. Uh just going, "Yeah, this part of the land is higher than this. We
have conflicting information." We had a whole special meeting out there with the last city administrator. There was a whole group. It was a pretty big thing planned that we walked around. Um we had surveyors on site you know also with us
at the time you know pointing out pins and stuff and and after walking the site we go yeah there's a discrepancy here between the information and then from being on site it's like yeah we can see
that it appears the land's higher in one area than the other within the discrepancy and that's just like okay we also aren't the experts. That's why we have WSN. And it's just like same thing. We're not going to be the jury on it.
We're we're just looking for the facts. That's why that's why we said, "Hey, let's have WSN take a stab at it and and see and and see what their results are because they're the experts for the city."
So, that that that was our thing. We we didn't know either. we weren't going to make a decision, but we did do our due diligence by going out there. So, with these results and being that they're post construction,
has it changed what you believe to be what what you saw was post construction. You were on the site after after the the trail was graded. Correctly. Correct. I mean over the years, you know, I've been on the site, you know,
different times before Jethro even owned it. You know, I was on it before any work done when another person was buying it. But yeah, after, you know, just from me looking at it, um um the trail is put in there, what I
think, unless I'm mistaking the line that we wanted to see and what WSN showed, unless I'm mistaken, is the pregrading line that I would say in my own opinion would be the one that that I
um was under the understanding that the council wanted to see was the was the line from WSN to see the preg grading line, you know. So, does that make sense? Yeah. So, the the pregrading line is
what everybody approved this plan off of. Right. Right. Now, the line has changed because it's post construction. I mean, is that what I see? And I mean, is that why that green line is all of a sudden different from the red line is because there's been grading
being done there that changed the line. The gradient move moved the divide from the green to the red. Right. Yeah. That's what's that's correct. Right. And so
distinction there is that it changes the area calculation. Yes. right on each side of the divide that you choose. So, there's going to be an increased area to the to the left of the between the
green line and the and the red line. That increased square footage is going to be added to the to the square footage that the number of how you determine the number of lots. That's really what this comes down to. Is that correct or not? That is not correct.
You go to the one that shows 1236. All we did is overlay to try this black line right here. This would be north right from north
line. The purple line, right? So really all we're talking you can take the red line out that's the I'm sorry the purple line out that is the post that was
[Music] if I could clarify for just a second the red and purple state that they are preconstruction and the blue and green state that they are post construction we're really talking about black line
right which was the city determination the 1236 and the pregraating line by WS or West doesn't mean they're very
close so I don't me I don't think it particularly matters the grading that was done for the trail doesn't impact the field and the lots again are huge right so they're two and a half acres it isn't we're not many
hairs like we got 5,000 3,000 square feet. We're going to be able to get another barge. Does that does that make sense or answer your question? The difference is the black line to either one of those other two lines is the actual difference.
If you seen that site really hard, right? Engineer survey or whatever. March. Okay. Thoughts? Go back to whoever did the plat came out. It's kind of after the fact that
for me I'm just struggling with the you can't have like the city council can't tell Jethro you need to incur all these costs. They come up with the the survey and you say well I I just reject those costs but I I reject their analysis and then you can't Paul makes a good point saying well there's different
methodologies determine where this line is and it already was predetermined. So I I don't know that's that's the part I can't get my head wrapped around either. Why why have them incur those? So again, as has the
difference in the lines changed how we should think, but they're done at two different times. So I that's that's what I don't understand is and and the city council is going to make the final decision here, right? So we're just making a recommendation. That's another thing to consider.
With respect to the cost though, if there's a question about that, the city council thought it made sense to get their own independent review on this, but didn't feel like it wanted to pay the freight for that. And so the applicant decided to do it. And in doing
that, he, for lack of a better way to say it, gambled that that information would be favorable for what he's asking in this consideration. And it was well that's that's what I'm trying to
figure out. Was it I that I'll leave it to you to to determine that and ultimately the city council. But any heartburn that you might have over the fact that the applicant bore the cost of the city's independent review. In my opinion, you shouldn't have heartburn
about that. That was all part of of the agreement that the city thought it needed independent review. didn't want to go forward on this without independent review and didn't want to pay the bill. So, the applicant swallowed hard and said, "I'll pay the bill and I'll take my chances."
But it isn't I mean that's true, but it for me it isn't just just about the cost. It's also that the city said, "Well, we're going to go with an independent source with Seth to make that determination for us and they did." Right. So, they rendered an opinion. Yes. I guess I have a question again for
my own clarity too. Everyone talks about there's different methods to do, you know, and multiple engineers have come up with this line. I don't know what the original method was or how that was how
that was. Can anybody speak? We've heard that there was a method, but can anybody speak to that method that was followed by Britney? Who who knows that information? I have the email correspondence from
Britney and Danny in the packet here. Oh, it's the wrong mouse. Let me go to that communication so you can kind of review the approval. This was Britney's email to the DNR stating that the city of Niswah feels the topographic divide should be the
elevation line. All lots below the given threshold would be required to meet any lake standards whereas the remaining area would fall to the GD lake standards. A second topographical divide was considered on the southern portion of the property. However, no elevation contour or ethropogenic feature was
determined to meet the requirements of such a division. and she asked for the DNR's thoughts where um one of the commenters discussed those. That doesn't speak to how she came to that determination. Do we know that,
Stephen? Well, it it does. I mean, she used the elevation line of 1236 ft for that determination and that was from the survey information, that elevation line. So she they looked at the elevation the
highest elevation point and determined that was the defy and those that elevation was based on the LAR uh elevation surveys and so forth. And maybe if Brad Burquist is on the phone still he he might have some backout here
but you know that was the methodology that was used to determine that topographic divide based on the elevation lines. different methodology was used by Windset and Carpenter. They used very
similar the the questions the city council had there was you know do do we understand my understanding of what the city council was saying was okay Mr. carpenter, here's your determination, but we don't understand your determination, your measurements, your
your what you're providing to us. So, that's perhaps why they sent it back and asked for Winth's uh analysis on this methodology. But that doesn't get to the question. No one even asked at the city council level, why are you even asking about a different methodology when the
methodology that was used in the initial plat review and and and everyone agreed to at the time that that's appropriate. There was there was no determination that that was somehow in air or or deficient by any
means. So does does that help? Is that No, not really. May I my my question is for Stephen actually. Yeah. So, Stephen, do you agree that the methodology used by uh the DNR and initially to determine the topographic
divide was based on the 1236 um elevation line as the method? Is that your question? No. No. So, my question is for Stephen. Do we know um where Britney got that survey or the lior where where did that
information come from? Was that something provided from Jethro? Was it something from the GIS mapping online? That that's my question. Where where did she get her original data from? Do you know that information? My understanding is that this document
came from county GIS Crowing County using the LAR on file at the time. Crowing County. Okay. That's that's what I'm asking where it came from. If it was an actual survey done on site or just something offline and the county will tell you that this might not be exact. I mean, they'll tell you, right? That that Yeah, I guess you know,
I guess that's what I'm trying to aerial surveys. Right. Right. Nobody on the ground from these. It's just aerial surveys. Yeah. Yeah, that's my question because I guess I've never known this information and I'm not sure if everybody does. Yeah.
May I add anything? Or Danny McN Danny McNeel explained to me that they she and Britney walked the property. They first looked where the they walked up to the high point where the drastic elevation changes stopped
where they'd be more likely to be able to control water flow. They determined the 1236 elevation contour to meet that criteria. Then they walked Bass Lake Road for the lower portion and they determined there was no topographic
divide that was going to divide. The road did not meet their criteria. Yeah, I understood that from the from the email from the correspondence that were provided, but they weren't they weren't shooting elevations with a GPS like an engineer would be. I mean, they were just walking it,
right? But the purpose was not to get an exact drainage device. The purpose was always to protect the sensitive features and the water flow. So, it it wasn't about just meeting the state minimum
standard. It was about making a divide that's appropriate for this topography and for these special lakes, for this particular parcel of land. And they had criteria. The DNR had their criteria and
that's what they followed. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, do we have enough information? Are you comfortable making a motion? I'm not making You're not He's not comfortable making a motion. So, we have we have two options. Uphold
the original denial. Number one. Number two, change to the pre uh pre-road con uh construction uh provided by Witsth on the Toppo Divide. Right. Those are our two options that we're going to be recommending. Or is there a third option that we
abstain from making a recommendation? Okay. But your third option is post, right, Stephen? Yeah. The and you know there's four proposed alternatives here. So two pre
two posts. Um the previously determined one by Danny and Britney in 2021 on that email. Yeah, that was Yep. That was the first one. Uphold the original the pre from the applicant post from the
applicant. Pre from Woodsth, post from Woodsth. Okay. What is the change in the square footage of the development lot by the change in this divide? Does anybody have that
information? You mean the square footage of the lot, right? In order to This determination would not change the square footage of the lot. That would be a separate application required by the applicant for a subdivision. So that is not before us at this time. What is
No, I recognize that. But that's the goal for this thing is changing the the divide and so that they can come back and ask for a lot subdivision. Sure. So, you know, one one goes with the other. So, well, I just want to know what the number is.
Yeah. And it can and originally if if we're talking about the original discussion, one of the discussion items was the strange jogs on those lake lot, right? That we now there's going to be is going to be attached to that other one. So, there's going to be two, but they're
using the same the same road, but this it still exists that there is strange jogs to make that happen. Yeah. So you could make an argument like that. We're not even getting into that, right? We're not even getting into that discussion. That's that's a future discussion.
Right. So this is just about the topographic divide. Right. Right. I'll make a motion that we recommend to the city council that we stay with the planning commission
uh recommendation of of uh 2024 um and that we deny a change in the topo the divide line. Okay. Do I have a second? for discussion.
Does a motion need to be seconded to have discussion? Yes. Yes. I think it was. Who made the second? I don't I don't We haven't had one yet. We need You need a second to discuss. Okay. So, there's a second.
Anyone want extra discussion? Gary, you have some discussion? No. Do you have a No, no discussion. I made the motion. Okay, you made the motion. We have a second. All those in favor? I. All those against? Nay.
Can I abstain? Well, I I guess I just from hearing everything, I I don't know why we're changing from what you originally said. So, I would I would probably go back to the uh staying with the original.
Okay. not knowing enough about it, but three to one. That's right. Okay, so motion passes. Yes. Okay. Yep. All right. Next item is a city planners report.
Thank you, chair. Uh for the August report, I have uh the permits approved here. It looks like 11 land use permits uh for accessory structure additions, accessory structures, some shoreline alterations, um new decks, new septics, typical
stuff. I have a slew of applications that came in after the fourth year. So, processing those as we approach the end of construction season. Um, still awaiting a follow-up correspondence from um, Chris Pence regarding a comparative analysis to land use regulations as
compared to Crowing County's ordinances. So, I'll provide an update once that information is available at hand. Okay. Any other questions, comments? All right. I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. I'll move. Second.
All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries. We are adjourned.