about to make a How you doing? Turn around before I make it. I know. >> I know. I'm make a motion to have you >> thrown out. >> Yeah. >> Motion. >> Okay. >> Well, I'm glad. >> Yes. Really glad. >> So Jay's not here tonight? >> No, Jay's not here. >> Absent. >> Absent without us. Yeah. >> Perfect. Okay, we're ready. We good? Okay. I call to order the Scott County Planning Advisory Commission meeting for Monday, November 10th, 2025. And we will start with roll call and introductions. >> Commissioner Husin >> present. >> Commissioner Pika is absent with notice. Commissioner Robbins >> here. >> Commissioner Huber >> here. >> Commissioner Vanhoff >> here. >> Commissioner Henches >> here. Commissioner Watson >> here. >> Thank you. Uh, also present is Brad Davis, our planning manager at the end of the podium here. And next to him is, uh, Rachel Nazbush, the deputy clerk to the board. And also in the audience, I see Marty Schmidtz, our uh uh zoning administrator, Greg Wagner, our principal planner, and Nathan Hall, our associate planner, and Tom Wolf, our county commissioner, is over there as well. Um our next item of business this evening is the approval of the October 13, 2025 minutes. Uh the commissioners of Hall had an opportunity to review the minutes. Are there any corrections, deletions, or additions to the minutes as printed? Hearing none. I will entertain a motion to approve them. >> So move. >> Second. I'll >> second it. >> I have a motion by Commissioner Robbins, second by Commissioner Huber. Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll call for a vote. All in favor? >> I oppose. >> The minutes are approved. >> The next item we have is our consent agenda. All items listed are considered by the planning commission to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a planning commission board member or a member of the public so request in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda to be considered separately. >> I entertain a motion at this time to open the consent agenda. >> So move by commissioner >> Robins second by Commissioner Sanchez. All in favor vote I. >> I. >> The item we have this evening is a request. It's number 2025-072. Request to approve the preliminary plant of the Zach edition consisting of two lots and two outlots on 40 acres. Nicholas G and Nicole L. Zach, applicant and property owners in section 7 of New Market Township. Would anyone like to have that removed from the consent agenda? Okay. See no one wants it removed from the consent general. I will entertain a motion at this time to approve this item on the consent agenda. >> Mr. Chair, I move we approve the consent agenda as written and noting that the town board has recommended approval. >> I have a motion by Commissioner Huber. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Commissioner Robbins. Any discussion? Okay. At this time, I'll entertain motion to approve the single item on the consent agenda. All in favor, vote I. >> I. I. >> This item has been approved. So, if you came for that tonight, this has been approved and by the board. Our next item um on the agenda is uh number 2025-074 and it has been moved uh and continue to uh future date. And just so you know what it is, it's a request for an interim use to construct a detached accessory dwelling unit, an ADU for a family member, David and Shannon Creekley applicants, and Kenneth Tupi property owner in section 32 of Cedar Township, Cedar Lake Township. So that item has been uh continued and a lot be considered this evening. >> Right, Mr. chair. Will that then is that the continuation of we will see that again in December and then if it's not there it'll roll to January. Is that right? >> Right. Correct. Thank you >> to a date coming in the future. So we will move on to the second item we have this evening on public hearings. It's number 2020 20 or 072 2024 requests for the reszoning of 79 acres from A1 Agricultural Preservation District to TR-C Transition Reserve Cluster District and preliminary and final plant of Sutton West consisting of four lots and one outlet on 79 acres. Chris Kubis and Randy Kubish applicants and Joseph W. Henches Proper in section 26 of San Creek Township. And I see that uh um Mr. Hall will be making the Stanford Court. Good evening, Mr. Hall. >> Good evening, Mr. Chair. Uh the subject property, it's located in section 26 of uh San Creek Township. Uh we can see it's in the vicinity there of Sutton Lake. It is uh bisected by South Sutton Lake Boulevard. And the property is largely agricultural. Um there are wetlands on the property including over at the west end of the property along with some wooded area but is largely productive acreage. Uh the eastern side of the property is where our focus is going to be here tonight. The area is guided by the 2040 comprehensive plan as transition reserve which allows for uh the property to be reszoned to TRC and uh the maximum density in the TRC district is one unit per 10 acres. Uh there are preservation requirements. um at least 70% or more of the non-hydric uh land needs to be preserved in a future development outlaw or 80% of the non-wetland land preserved in a future development outlawed. Um at this property here, they used a calculation for non-wetland land and um it was found that the subdivision contains 75.7 acres of non-wetland area and the outlot will contain 60.7 acres of non-wetland area which is 80.2%. So just meeting that 80% non-wetland requirement um preserving that non-wetland area in the agricultural outlaw. So we can see that uh due to the prevalence of the hydric soils and wetland on the parent parcel uh the property is limited from developing at that maximum one unit per 10 acres. Uh here we essentially see it at one unit per 20 acres is what is proposed. Um the uh due to the triangular shape of the area being subdivided into lots here on the eastern side of South Sutton Lake Boulevard, uh we see that there are unusual shapes to the lots. Um there are some unusual proportions and dimensions of those proposed properties. Uh but the applicants have demonstrated these lots can accommodate as is required by Scott County zoning ordinance. they can accommodate um 5,000 foot homepad and two septic sites. Uh so that does meet those requirements. Uh there was a question about lot 4 uh which is the southernmost parcel here. Um on this previous preliminary plat it showed that it showed this uh 150 foot setback line. Um actual setback required there is 30 feet from rightway. And so on the new the setback is uh properly reflected on the new preliminary plat map here. And that allowed them to uh shift uh reorient uh the home pad on lot 4 uh allowing them to keep a further distance away from that wetland area uh meeting the 35- ft buffer. Uh now due to the shape of the lots, the future owners might be unable to accommodate uh accessory buildings. So um applicants on um at least on the northern three lots um future homeowners on those northern three lots should be aware that they'll need to take care when they're uh arranging their home site. They're typically uh rural property owners are looking at building accessory building a few years after they build their home. So they will need to take care uh to make sure that they're going to be able to um arrange the site in such a way that they'll be able to accommodate that accessory building in the future. Now, um primary and alternate septic sites, um they have been identified on the uh on each parcel. Um and that has been reviewed by Scott County Environmental Services Department uh for compliance with the uh septic ordinance. Uh it was found to meet the requirements, but um the department did note uh that uh they would like there to be um document there should be access across this easement across the wetland so that this lot for does have access to their septic site on the other side of that area. And so they did note that in their memo that was attached to the staff report. Uh the proposed uh uh plat is uh close to Lake Sutton, but uh it does not have any frontage on the lake and so uh Minnesota Department of Natural Resources was notified and uh they noted they did not have any comments regarding the plan. Uh the developer has uh prepared a resource management plan to address site grading, erosion control, storm water management. Uh under the plan, there is an infiltration basin uh to be created in the northeast of the parcel uh to capture and treat storm water uh increased runoff from the impervious surface. And uh Scott County Natural Resources Department has reviewed this. They have provided a memo that was attached to the staff report addressing um items that need to be revised and additional items that need to be um added to or clarified on the on the plat map or RMP. Um and the conditions listed in their memo are um have been added as as conditions that need to be satisfied prior to uh county board consideration. uh the Soil and Water Conservation District. Um they're also uh reviewing this on behalf of the Prior Lake Spring Lake watershed district and um they have additional rules um that the applicant needs to comply with. And so they're working through that process with the watershed district as well. And we'll need to enter in with a enter into a development agreement with the watershed district that is distinct from the three-way development agreement that uh San Creek Township and Scott County the applicant will have. Um San Creek Township um did meet with the applicant uh last week and recommended approval of the request. uh but they noted that they would not be supportive of any variances for future outuildings uh on the property. So if in the future um applicants came forward, future property owners came forward and said that they would like a variance uh from some setback requirement so that they could place their um place a larger outbuilding uh that they would not be supportive of that those types of requests in the future. Um staff is recommending approval of the request uh subject to conditions uh list in the staff report that are to be satisfied prior to county board consideration of the plant. And I'll certainly stand by for any questions. Mr. Chair, >> Mr. Chair, Commissioner Robbins. >> Mr. Hall, I take me back for a minute. There's there seems to be one lot that's a regular in this lot four. And I think what you said is that future owners might have trouble constructing a building there or uh and and another accessory building on that lot. And if I heard you right that the Sand Creek Township said they would not consider any uh motions for a variance on that. Now, am I wrong or tell me how that works >> for lot four? >> Mhm. >> The irregular one. >> Yep. Uh Mr. Chair, uh Commissioner Robbins. Yeah. Uh lot four, uh is is a regular. Some of the other lots of course are somewhat irregular as well, but um if care is taken, they they could conceivably have larger outuildings on those properties. Um here we see on lot four. Um I think it would be very difficult to fit an out building in the future. Um and we can see the home pad here uh is just very tight between the septic site which is 20 ft away. That's the minimum required 35 ft uh from the wetland. And so um likely that future owner will not be able to have an accessory building on that property. And uh the township wanted to uh make it clear that, you know, this is a uh future kind of buyer beware situation that they would not be supportive of requests in the future if um a future owner wanted a variance from the side setback line or any other setback. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. >> Mr. Chairman. Mr. But the township recommendation form we has uh says that the township recommended approval with the following conditions. No approval for any variances for future outbuildings. So are they asking us to put that into the conditions under which we would approve this or not? >> Um >> yes. >> Um yes. Um Mr. Chair, Commissioner Henches, uh, San Creek Township is, uh, we do have represent San Creek Township here and, uh, so they might be better suited to, uh, clarify, >> please, >> uh, what the township board meant regarding their their comments. >> Can we get clarification on that? Good evening, Mr. Chair. >> Evening, >> board members. Um, that's pretty much exactly what we are uh um attempting to do here. Uh you you know me from being in front of you several times in the past years and and a lot of them are for variances and um and um although you know we're as a township we're fully in support of the of the ordinances and the clustering ability, you know, and what you can do with them. It's just that um every once in a while you kind of find a weakness in some of the ordinances and and uh in in our opinion um as a as a township board um all of these lots are somewhat irregular and uh and and so you can see that that what would happen is that um you know maybe somebody would purchase the lots thinking well you know this is going to be a piece of cake to be able to have an outuilding and everybody out in that part of the country um it's right in my own neighborhood. Everybody wants one and and everybody all the other J adjacent property owners, they all have out buildings and so um if if they can fit it in there without requiring a variance, then that's fantastic. You know, more power to you. That's what it's designed to do. Um but if not, uh we we would appreciate that being a condition of of that just so so that they're aware. And again, it's it's just uh fully, you know, fully transparency, you know, full transparency. So, all right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other questions for uh Mr. Hall at this time? >> Okay. This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to come up and make comment on this application before they may do it at this time. Um, I'm Randy Kubish. I uh Kubish realy. We represent uh Joe Henches and uh the Henches family along with his mother uh Gloria and and father Bill. Um, this was a question that came up uh at uh the township meeting. It's a question that came up as we were going through the platting procedure. Uh, each of the lots are two two and a half acres or more. Um, I brought this up to uh at the township meeting. We had done a development called Farmers Bluff on County Road 7 between Union Hill and Bell Plane. right before you go down in the prairie and bell plane off to the left. And all of those lots were one and a quarter acres or smaller. And uh the reason we did that development is so people could go out just outside of El Plane and build a house and an out building. And pretty much everybody did in that development and everything fit on there with that acreage size. Um I I do you know how to pull back up that map? >> The um >> there you go. zoom in on that corner. There you go. Yeah. In front of the building pad on lot four. Uh the building pad is 5,000 square ft. So it's 50 by 100. And uh 5,000 square ft is bigger than any home that would be built with the attached garage. So, somebody could choose to build a house that was, you know, had a 700 foot garage, which is pretty much a standard size threecar garage, and they could build a 1,200 square foot footprint of a twostory. So, now they're just under or around 2,000 square ft. So, that would leave another 3,000 square feet in that area that could be used for an outbuilding. And the outbuilding maximum on a 2 and 1 half acre to 5 acre lot is 3,000 square feet. And there's an awful lot of outuildings that get built that are 30 by 40. So that's 1,200 square feet. And there's definitely enough room to accommodate an out building on a house on lot four. >> Yeah. Can can I just So what you're saying is is that it it it would be difficult, but if the house itself were smaller >> That's right. >> in terms of square footage, then the outuilding could fit on this triangular lot. Is that what you're saying? >> Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. without any trouble. >> Thank you. >> Yep. And I have uh stood up here to be in front of you if you have any questions. >> Okay. See, have any questions for Mr. Kubish? >> Well, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else like to make comment the application at this time? >> Entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Motion by Commissioner Henches. Second. >> Second by Commissioner Robbins. >> All in favor? I >> I public hearing is closed at this time. I'll entertain it. >> Mr. Chairman, >> conversation first. >> Sure. Absolutely. >> Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple I have one question. As it was just explained, uh the owner of the property when they buy it could decide to put up a smaller home and >> put an out building on, >> right? But so how do we guarantee that to protect the county and the and the township guy puts up a 5,000 square foot home then says, "Oh, I still want to put up my out." >> Whoops. >> Well, how do we know that they're not how do we how do we know that can't happen? How do we prevent that from occurring? What is in the can we make that part of the motion then? Is that what we can do or >> Well, I think that um what the township and and they can come up and correct me is that if uh outuilding can be put on the property on any one of these lots without a variance, they're fine with that. >> And he's shaking his head. >> Yeah. So, and I think what Mr. Cubish was trying to illustrate is that there's possibility that even on the fourth lot that there possibly could be a out building put out there without a variance and so it could comply with that so and still comply with what the township was trying to do. it and I but I really would like to see the township language in there because how many times do we get somebody in here that's built something and then they after they're in here and they say wait a minute or I wanted to do this this and this and now I find out I can't and I already bought the property so that shouldn't hurt anything if they can do it >> then that's fine and I think I think >> that was my lead in because we've experienced before >> right right >> we've had that >> we should put that in >> we've seen that movie a million times Yes. >> Yeah. And and I I'm and I think it's I think it's a good one because it still allows people if they can do it without a variance to put it on the lot >> and then um gives direction then and down the line. Did you want to comment? >> Mr. Chair, I think if you are to attach a condition like that, you are providing direction. I don't know if we can proactively make a judgment on a future variance for pieces of property. I know. >> And so I want to caution you that putting a outright prohibition on all variances on these four lots may be problematic from a legal standpoint, but you can certainly send a suggestion that a future board may not support a variance, >> but I don't know if we can outright prohibit it today. >> Well, Mr. Sheriff, if I could, >> Brad, but we can pass this motion here and include uh the sentiments or or the motion from the township. Can we not? >> You can you can do that, but I I don't want the planning commission to state tonight that all variances are going to be prohibited on >> there. There's a condition required. >> I don't think we can prejudge a future board of >> Thank you for the for the console on that. So in terms of how to do that and in in what form it would look like I I know what you're saying too. Absolutely. With the with Yeah, you can >> the right words. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Good. We have understanding on that. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Any other discussion? Um if not, I'll entertain a motion at this time. >> Mr. Chair, based on the criteria for approval listed in the staff report, I recommend approval of reszoning of 79 acres from the agricultural preservation district to the transition reserve cluster district and the preliminary plat and final plat of Sutton West consisting of four lots and one outlot on 79 acres. Noting this re noting that this recommendation is subject to the approval conditions listed in the staff report that must satisfactoryy be addressed prior to county consideration of the project and noting that the um the recommendation of uh the Sand Creek Township is included in the recommendation. >> Does that make sense? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Brad, you all right with that? Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. I have a motion by uh Commissioner Robbins, second by Commissioner Henes. Any discussion before I call for a vote. Okay. All in favor of the motion before us say I. >> I. Say no. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Our next item this evening is the planning manager update. We're going to do the uh workshop site plan review before that. >> Yeah. All right. >> That before >> we'll do my quick um planning manager update and then we will break for a workshop. >> Okay. >> So, um since our last meeting, there's only been one item that has gone to the county board for final approval. That was the final plat of Red Rock Industrial Park. Demcon is the applicant there uh in Louisville Township. That's the site of the anorobic digesttor. Um news here. No meeting next month. We have uh no pending applications coming our way. No meeting. >> We're going to give you the holiday off. >> Oh wow. >> No meeting that's ever happened. >> I don't know if that ever happened. >> It's been a while. That's >> as long as I >> It's been a while. So no meeting in December. >> Um we're likely to have uh several items for January because we won't be meeting in December. And remember, and we'll send you a reminder that uh we'll elect new officers again as we do every January meeting. >> So, keep that in mind. >> Okay. >> Um and then after this meeting, we have a couple of our county surveyors in the audience here. We're going to break to a workshop and talk about um surveys and surveying and lot lines and setbacks and all the things that we've been talking about the last couple of meetings. >> Right. Very good. Mr. Chair, Mr. Sure, if I could, Brad, is there anything I don't think there would be, but >> because of the government shutdown, have any of your activities been curtailed or harmed by that at all? You know, the one major thing probably is some um FEMA determinations and that has impacted just very early consultation with some developers and they've been inquiring about some FEMA information and that's been slowed down a little bit, but really it hasn't slowed down a a project. It's just slowed down some inquiries. That's been about it. >> It looks like the Senate's going to pass it. It's going to go to the House. I doubt I'd be surprised if the House didn't pass it. That's all I have for an update. >> Okay. Thank you very much. And then uh >> anyone else have anything? Okay. Well, at this time, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. So move. >> Motion by Commissioner Robbins. Second. >> Second by Commissioner >> Huber. All in favor I.