Call to order the Scott County Board of Adjustment meeting on October 13, 2025. First thing in the agenda is roll call and introduction. >> Commissioner Hussein is absent with notice. Commissioner Pika >> here. >> Commissioner Robbins >> here. >> Commissioner Huber >> here. >> Commissioner Bonhof >> here. >> Commissioner Henches >> here. >> And Commissioner Watson is absent with notice. >> Okay. In introductions to my far left, Brad Davis is our planning manager. Jason to him is Rachel Nosbush, our deputy clerk. In the audience, we have Marty Schmidt, our zoning administrator. I don't see Greg. Greg not here today. Okay. Nathan Hall, our associate planner, and Tom Wolf, our county commissioner. Okay. Next thing on the agenda is approval of some September 8th, 2025 minutes. Everybody in the board has a chance to review the minutes or is there any uh corrections or deletions? >> Mr. Chair, I've talked with the recording secretary and in both of these, but in this minutes, it says Ken Robbins and it should say Kent. She will make that correction. >> You have that correction? >> Thank you. >> Any other issues on the minutes? If not, do I have a motion to approve? So move. >> All in favor? I have a motion and second. All in favor say uh I >> I >> uh uh none in favor say nay. >> And I have one abstension myself. Okay. Only thing on our agenda today is a public hearing. Number 2025-068 request to approve a variance to reduce the 25- ft setback to 10 ft from a local road rightway verdict builders applicant and Gerald Jane oh I'm not I say this right property owners in section 9 of spring lake township and Nathan you going to report to us on this >> uh yes Mr. Sure. Um the uh subject property is a 62 acre property. Uh it's located on the southern shore of Spring Lake. Um the parcel is uh 100 ft wide. It's uh located um at the intersection of Raymond Avenue and Vergus Avenue. Uh the public roads wrap around the property. And uh the parcel currently contains a 940 ft home in in this area uh with an attached garage and uh the property is connected to uh sanitary sewer from the city of Prior Lake. Uh it's an unplatted property uh between two different uh subdivisions uh Thornton Point Thornton's Point here and Sunrise Island here. And uh it is an unusual shape with a road rightway on three sides. Uh so the applicant um by ordinance is required to maintain the setback of 25 ft all along uh the entirety of this uh public roadway frontage. Um Vergus Avenue uh terminates along the uh north side here. It uh serves a shared driveway and a few homes up there. Uh there's three homes uh down to the south on Raymond Avenue before that uh ends in a culde-sac. Um the uh proposed impervious service on the site is within uh the maximum of uh 25%. Uh so that proposal is meeting the requirements of the Scott County zoning ordinance. The applicant intends to uh demolish the existing s uh single family home and construct a new house uh with an attached garage. Um, in uh July of 2020, the uh Prior Lake Spring Lake Orderly Annexation Board approved a variance to construct a house on the subject parcel at 10 ft from a local street rightway and uh the early annexation board has now disbanded. Uh but the variance approval uh has expired because it was never acted upon. It uh is required that it is acted upon within one year uh or a variance will expire. And uh the previous um request is so this request uh request to uh reduce the 25- ft setback to the public road to 10 ft along the northern property line, northern rightway line. Uh the parcel was created prior to uh the subdivision ordinance and is considered legal non-conforming. Uh the parcel is atypical uh due to uh the shape of it uh due to having three sides that um front on the public roadway. Um in the past in uh 2018 a variance was approved um by the uh board to expand a legal non non-conforming structure by over 50% uh that was on Southshore Drive uh and to reduce the setback of that existing structure as well. Um uh the existing house uh that we have here on the property, it was created in 1956. Uh prior to the current setback requirements, making it a legal non-conforming structure. Uh the current house encroaches on the road right away. is actually uh quite close um into the setback currently and um the existing the other structures um adjacent structures are also uh non-conforming with the current setback requirements. Uh both Raymond and Fergus Avenue receive minimal traffic and um the parcel is large enough that the impervious lot coverage variance is not needed uh with the layout that the applicants are proposing. The proposed placement uh does allow greater space between the new home and the neighbor's existing house to the south. Um the existing house to the south is uh 2.2 two feet what the surveyor found from uh the shared boundary. And so having a variance allowing it to be placed further to the north uh proposed house further to the north uh does allow for greater separation and distance from that shared boundary line. Uh the natural resources department um uh did provide a memo um that was included in the staff report and uh it noted that the a grading permit will be needed for any soil disturbance on the property and the Prior Lake uh Spring Lake watershed district uh was also notified of this and they had no uh concerns or objections to the request. The Spring Lake Town Board has recommended approval of the variance request at their September 2025 meeting and uh Scott County staff uh is recommending approval of the variance request uh per the criteria for granting variances that are listed in the staff report. Uh Mr. Chair, I can certainly stand for >> Thank you, Mr. Hall. Any questions from this board regarding this variance? >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, >> go ahead. >> So, Mr. hold the the a variance was granted on this previously. Am I right? >> Uh correct, Commissioner Robbins, in uh July of 2020. >> All right. Uh so, uh there is some precedence for doing it now, right? >> Uh yes, uh Mr. Chair, Commissioner Robbins, the uh variance being issued previously there does provide precedent uh as does uh one of the previous variances that was also issued in the same area in the same >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Sure. >> Any other questions from the board? >> Not. This is a public hearing. Anybody like to address the board, please come to the podium and address the board. >> If not, do I have a motion to close the public hearing? >> So move second. >> I have a motion second to close the public hearing. All in favor say I. I. Not in favor say nay. >> Okay. Uh now what is your wishes on this variance, >> Mr. Chair? Uh it's a pretty straightforward request and it allows uh the applicant and the builder to build a house. Um as noted uh there has been a request previously that was approved. Um and for this committee we are always anxious and glad when the township has signed off on. So I'm inclined to approve this request. Second. >> We have a motion uh first and second to approve. All in favor say I. I. None in favor say nay. Uh variance has been approved. Okay. Um anything else from us? Okay. Do I have a motion to close the board of adjustment? >> So move. >> A motion. I have a second. >> I'll second. >> A second. I have a motion. Second code the board of adjustment. All in favor say I. I. All in favor say nay. >> Turn it over to planning. Good evening and welcome to the Scott County Plan Advisory Commission meeting of October 13, 2025. I'll uh start with the roll call. >> Commissioner Huine is absent with notice. Commissioner Pika >> here. >> Commissioner Robbins >> here. >> Commissioner Huber >> here. >> Commissioner Bonhof >> here. >> Commissioner Henches >> here. and Commissioner Watson is absent with notice. >> Thank you. Also present uh in the chambers this evening is at the end of the uh to my left is our Brad Davis, our planning manager. Next to him, our deputy clerk to the board, Rachel Nosbers. Uh Marty Schmidt, our zoning administrator is in the audience, Nathan Hall, um our associate planner, is here as well. And Tom Wolf, our county board commissioner, is over there in the audience as well. Um, our next item or is the approval of the September 9th, 2025 planning advisory commission meeting minutes. The commissioners all had an opportunity to review them. Are there any corrections, additions, or deletions to the minutes? >> Mr. Chair, I'll note the same addition that I did for the uh advisory. >> Okay. >> Noting uh uh that you've talked to the >> that I talked to the recording secretary and Ken will be changing. >> Okay. Perfect. Okay, with that uh correction uh could I entertain a motion to approve? Motion by Commissioner Oman. Second. >> Second. >> Second by Commissioner Pa. Any other corrections? Okay. All in favor vote. I >> I >> opposed. Abstained. >> One. >> Minutes are approved. >> Uh the next item is normally our consent agenda, but there are no items on our consent agenda this evening. So, we have a public hearing. It's number 2024-070. Request to approve the resoning of 120.54 acres from transition reserve district to transition reserve cluster district and preliminary and final plat of Porter View consisting of two lots and one out lot on 120.54 acres. Chris Cubis, applicant, and William and Gloria Henches, property owners in section 35 of San Creek Township. And I see uh Mr. Hall will be making our staff report. Good evening, Mr. Hall. >> Uh good evening, Mr. Chair. Uh this subject property is located in section 35 of Sand Creek Township. Uh the 120.54 acre parcel is uh largely open agricultural land uh along with a farmstead. Uh there is a wooded area and flood plane that surrounds Porter Creek as it passes through the parcel. Uh the property also has frontage all along the eastern boundary on Redwing Avenue, which is a gravel township roadway. The applicants are requesting to subdivide the property uh creating approximately uh 8 acre parcel on the north side of the creek and then also creating a uh approximately 5 acre parcel for the existing farmstead. and then um an agricultural outlaw that would encompass the remainder of the property. Um the parent parcel is currently zoned transition reserve. Um so the applicant is also requesting the property be reszoned. Uh the 2040 comprehensive plan guides this area of San Creek for transition which allows resoning to transition reserve cluster and allows for a maximum density of one unit per 10 acres. Uh the applicants are requesting the resoning along with proposed subdivision and uh by reasonzoning um they're able to create that buildable lot uh less than 40 acres along with the lot for existing farmstead and the outlot can continue to be used for agricultural purposes. Um, in all residential cluster subdivisions within the uh TRC district, at least 70% or more of the non-hydric land for 80% or more the non-wetland needs to be preserved in future development outlines. And according to the hydric soils map, the subdivision contains um 76.59 acres of non-hydric soils and the outlot will contain 64.47 acres of non-hydric soils, which is 84.2 2%. So it is uh certainly exceeding uh the preservation requirement of 70%. Uh primary and alternate septic sites have been identified uh on the plat map uh for the uh the northern lot here. And um the Scott County Environmental Services Department has reviewed the proposal for compliance uh with Scott County septic ordinance. And uh while the sites on the northern lot uh were found to meet the requirements of the county ordinance, uh staff found the required soil information for proposed sites on uh the farmstead lot uh were not included with the application. And so there is some more information that they will be looking for uh before completing their review. Um all the septic sites need to be found to meet the requirements of the septic ordinance uh prior to county board consideration of the plat. Uh no grading is being proposed as part of the plat. Uh any driveway grading grading for the home sites uh would occur after um building permit approval. Uh it's proposed that less than one acre is going to be disturbed. Uh so there was no need for uh to incorporate uh storm water volume control uh in the design. Uh wetland boundaries were delineated. Uh I noticed a decision was uh received uh for that and county regulations will be requiring conservation easements over wetland areas on lots that are less than 10 acres. And so um on the uh northern lot there will need to be conservation easements um surrounding and and protecting those wetland areas. Um the natural resource department also noted uh that there is flood plane on the site and uh noted that uh the home needs to be proposed outside of the flood plane and um also noted what the lowest floor uh permissible is. And if any disturbance is being proposed within the shoreline overlay district uh as when the home is built uh there will need to be a separate grading permit for that. That shoreline district extends 100 ft from the the top of bank. Uh Porter Creek is a protected water course and the Minnesota DNR uh was notified. Uh they have no comments uh regarding the request. Uh Sand Creek Township uh has reviewed uh this request uh and they have recommended approval of the request. Uh staff is recommending approval of the resoning preliminary plat and final plat uh based on the criteria in the staff report and subject to the conditions that are listed in the staff report that must be satisfactorily addressed prior to county board consideration of the project. Um I'll certainly stand by for any questions. Mr. Chair, >> thank you Mr. Mr. Hall, are there any questions? >> Mr. Chair, >> Commissioner Robbins. >> Uh, Mr. Hall, can you explain I'm justformational. What's the difference between transition reserve and transition reserve cluster? >> Yep. Uh, Mr. Chair, uh, Commissioner Robbins, uh, transition reserve. So we have um areas of the county that are guided in our 2040 comp plans comp plan for transition and uh zoning districts that apply there would be transition reserve which is one unit per 40 acre district. Minimum parcel size is 40 acres. In order to create smaller lots, smaller lots for farmsteads or to create a vacant lot as they're proposing in this uh project. Um they obviously want to create a lot less than 40 acres and so uh they need to uh reszone the property to transition reserve cluster uh which allows maximum density of one unit per 10 acres. However does not allow properties to be evenly split into 10acre parcels. It requires that density be clustered and um it also requires land to be preserved in future development outlots. Um and so those I would say would be the difference between the transition cluster. >> Thank you Mr. Thanks >> Mr. Chair. >> Any other questions >> the Porter view is it I see a stucker acres been crossed out. Uh, was there a Stucker development out there originally then or was uh Porter Acres the applicants or is it the >> Yep. Thank y Thank you. Uh um thank you for catching that. Uh Commissioner Pika the uh Stalker Acres in the that's listed you'll note that Stalker Acres is not listed anywhere else in the staff report. It is listed in the uh motion. That is a typo. Uh, Stalker Acres is a um project that we've this board has heard previously >> and uh so um if any of the commissioners uh note that um in your motion to make your motion that it is Porter View is the correct name. >> Correct. Porter view. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions for Mr. Hall? Okay. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to make comment on this application before us, they can come up to the podium. There is a signup sheet at the podium and please start with your name if you'd like to make comments. >> Yes. >> Oh, sure. Come on up. >> Thank you. Um, my name is Bin >> Rafferty. I live at just down the road from this proposed whatever it is. >> Okay. >> Split. We'll call it a split. Um I have a couple of questions cuz I'm I just don't understand any of this. >> Sure. >> So they're going to put divide it. So there's eight acres along the creek there. Is that a >> one of the lots? Yes. >> Right. One of the lots will be eight acres along the creek and that will be used for nothing or I'm sorry, let me get my head straight here. >> They were talking about putting a house somewhere, but I was unclear as to where that was, >> okay? >> Or what the 8 acres would be used for or why we were dividing it with a 5 acre homestead area, >> right? and exactly how that's all going to work with the 10 acres that's supposed to be the cluster. >> Right. We we can answer all those questions. >> Oh, yay. >> So, >> cuz I'm I'm in deep water here. >> No, no, no. It's Yeah. And and I'll have Mr. Hall come up and explain exactly what the proposal is and what the eight ar uh acre are and what the five acre parcel is and where the house is going to be. Right. >> Oh, that would be lovely. I'm I am like I said, I am completely lost as to what >> Yeah, exactly. So, so we'll be able to answer those questions. >> Great. And that >> Did you have another question? >> Well, I'm >> If you'd like to make comment, you're you have the floor. >> I just am concerned about the 10 acre minimum. >> Okay. >> Thing. >> We'll talk about that, too. >> Cool. All right. We'll see how it goes. >> Okay. Mr. Hall, if you could come up and address those three questions, that would be great. >> Yep. Uh yeah. Uh Mr. Chair, so the >> Could you speak up a little bit here in the middle of >> All right. I'll try to project my voice. Um yeah, Mr. Chair, the uh proposed uh proposal here is to create an 8 acre uh parcel on the north side of the creek. Uh that would be a vacant parcel. So, the applicant uh can probably talk more about that, but their intent would be to sell that property. This home, this lot, what they're doing through this preliminary plat process is demonstrating that they're not uh creating an unusable property. They are creating a property that meets all the requirements to be built on. Uh there could be a new home placed on uh block one, uh lot one. >> Okay. um as part of the requirements for a transition reserve cluster development. Um they can't just split off the 8 acre parcel and have the um uh you know 12 acres remaining. Um they would uh need to also create a parcel for the farmstead in order to meet those preservation requirements that are required in the transition reserve cluster district. And so they are required to create this other parcel for the farmstead. Um so there's only one vacant lot being created here, but there are two lots, one for the existing farmstead, uh one vacant lot uh that presumably would be sold to be built on. and uh the applicant may be able to speak more to their intent. >> Can you talk just for a second about the density as well >> and and what is the required density for this district and and how that that applies here? I think that's a question that is inherent in that. >> Yep. So, um in the transition reserve cluster district, the maximum density is one unit per 10 acres. Um but it's not possible uh in this area of San Creek Township anymore to split, you know, take an 80acre parcel and split it equally into eight 10 acre parcels. Um that type of development is not possible here in this uh area of the county. Um the requirement is to cluster that density um at a maximum one unit per 10 acres. Uh in this instance, it's one unit per 60 acres. Um and so they're um although they have smaller parcel sizes, they are well within the density limits of this uh requirements of the transition reserve cluster district. >> So the whole 120 acres are tied to that density to those two densities is what you're saying. >> Uh correct, Mr. Chair. >> So So that helps them to understand that and I think that was part of the question that um they had. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Are there any other questions or comments? >> Hi, my name is Chris Kubish from Kubish Realy and I'm working with the Henches family to help them create these lots. Um, Gloria and Vicki or I'm sorry, Gloria and William are the ones that own it and they have a son Joe Joseph that continues to farm. Their goal is to continue to farm, >> but they wanted to sell off one parcel on the north side that really isn't suitable for farming, you know, because it is kind of on that grassy hillside. Um they wanted to they wanted to keep the rest of the parcel all in one, you know, but the zoning requirements um required us to create another lot around the buildings. Okay. >> I'm sorry. Can you tell us why? >> I I'd love to answer that question, but I can't because that's what the the county required us to do. So the in for farming perspective, the family would have liked to just keep it one big outlot. >> Sure. >> But to follow the zording ordinances, we had to do that, >> right? >> You know, so the hench's family asked the same question, why, >> right? you know, so we had to explain to him why, you know, and um and Greg did a great job explain or sorry, Nathan did a very great job explaining it to us so we could pass that on to the Henches family. >> Um so, but anyway, that was the henchress's goal. >> Okay. >> So, thank you. >> That's very helpful. >> Mr. Chair, can I just ask? >> So, then I'm assuming that from what you've said, the rest of this is going to be farm. >> Am I right? They're going to continue farm practices. Yes. >> All right. Very good. Thanks. >> Thank you for your comments. Are there any other comments? >> I'll get there eventually. >> Oh, you got plenty of time. So, I'm Molly. I am at 21601 Redwing Avenue. And so, I appreciate the clarification of the residential lot. So, and I love that they're going to plan on continuing farming, but does this zoning change impact when the time may come that they're done farming? So, does it are we staying at one acre per 40 and one one household per 40 acres or is that when we'd be reszoning and looking at at least 10 acre lots? >> Good question. >> I'm just >> I'm going to have staff respond to that because it's a little bit of a future-based question. >> Did I make my was my question clear? >> So, the questions about the timeline? Uh it was more of like kind of like what's the future impact of the larger lot that's going to be farmed, but like with with the reszoning and the cluster, does that how does that impact the future what I would assume is inevitable of homes being built there? Is that going to be staying at one per 40 acre or is that when we're looking at one per 10 acre again? >> Yeah, I think I can answer that. >> Yep. So the um Yep, Mr. chair the um in the future. So, this doesn't set off any kind of timeline for when the property would develop. That would be up to uh the henches in terms of, you know, when they would ever want to do anything more uh with this property. So, >> um it's a one unit per 10 acre density um in this area. And so if they wanted to come back later and take an outlot, now an outlot cannot be built on uh by its definition, it's not a buildable parcel. Uh if they wanted to take this um outlot uh in the future and say we want to develop it at that time, if we're in the transition reserve cluster district, it's going to continue to be one unit per 10 acres. And so they've already used >> uh two of those densities. So potentially there could be additional I'm sorry additional density that they could use within that outlot. However, to create those lots of course they would need to uh meet all the requirements of the ordinance which would mean that they would need to meet preservation requirements as well. Uh there is quite a bit of hydric soil throughout the property. So I'm not sure they'd be able to get those additional uh 10 potential building eligibilities there. Um there's also limited road frontage and things like that. But yeah, potentially in the future if they were done farming, they could um come back, redevelop the outlot, but they would have to go back through this process as well. They would have to apply for a preliminary plat again, final plat hearing. Um everything would would go forward at that point. >> Did you have Mr. >> Chair Nathan? I think I heard her ask something different. I think her and maybe I'm not hearing well. Um I think her question wasn't with regard to the outlot. I think she was saying the rest of the land is agricultural now and he what happens to that later if he wants to develop it because I heard her say one in 40 or one in 10. And so I think she's asking what happens to the rest of the agricultural land if he decides to develop it. Is it under the one in 10 rule or is it back to one in 40? >> That's good. Yes. >> Yep. >> What was I closed? >> Yeah. No, that's what I was wanting to know cuz they >> Yeah. What happened? What would happen later? >> Yeah. >> So, I might be able to help answer part of that question. So, the overall this 120 acres is getting reszoned to one per 10. >> Okay. >> So, that means the overall density is 12 lots. >> Okay. >> 12 lots can go on this property. With this plat, they're going to create two lots. M. So, there's 10 more lots that the Henches family can plat somewhere on this property. >> Um, but what Nathan is saying is they can't just go anywhere. They're going to have to go in a place that meets our requirements for road frontage, >> meets our requirements for setbacks, meets our requirements for septic. >> Um, so there's limitations. So, we don't know today if another 10 lots can go on this property. Henches and Kubish would have to do a lot of site work to determine if you could even get 10 more lots on this property, but that would be the maximum right now is 10 more lots. >> Thank you. That was very helpful. >> Yeah. Thanks, Bren. >> Thank you, Nathan. And uh thank you very much for that. Are there any other questions? Oh, I'm Eric Newman. I live at 21101 Redwing Avenue, just across the division here. Um, if you look at the map, most of the farming land on block two is to the left, correct? And then on the right side is mostly native land and uh wooded areas. I guess just for a clarifying question is most of that area that is wooded and native land I'm assuming is going to still be the case under this change to the TRC correct because we have three plots if I understand correct the 5.21 21 which is the farmstead, the outlot which is already up for sale for the 8.14 and the remaining 106 is the farmable. So just want to making sure clarifying question just that the right half that is mostly wooded and natural resources native um property is going to stay and continue to be until you know another one of these meetings comes up if they want to divide further. >> I think Mr. Hall can address that as well. And so >> I'll I'll answer that for you. >> That's fine. >> So, um, >> you have to start with your name also. >> Oh, again. Chris Kubish. >> Thank you. >> And so for you guys to clarify, I'm going to use my finger on the here because I don't know how to do it on this thing. >> But >> right up here is where the lot the lot's going to be. Here. It's right up here. >> So, pretty much all of the tree area is going to still be maintained by henches, >> right? And that's all going to stay native. So, you got that plot to the left right there. Your left is prayer. >> Yeah. So, you got your the ravine that goes down here. >> Yep. >> You know, as a we can't control what the next land owner is going to do, but we plan to, you know, that's all going to be there. I believe the person that is going to be interested in is are going to be buying that property um you know for the trees and around you know so we don't see that anybody's going to be taking any of that down. >> So just to clarify there's the lot that you have for sale already. Yes. >> No, >> we're creating one lot and that's going to be sell sold off for someone to build a home in the future. >> Okay. The existing farmhouse or the farm buildings, they're requiring us to turn that into another lot to meet their zoning requirements, but they don't plan on selling that either. Yeah, the remaining lot is going to stay at >> and the outlaw is just basically they're going to continue to farm it. >> Where exactly is the 8 acres you I live right across the road. >> Are you here? >> Yep. That on Nort. >> Okay. >> Right across the road is that ravine that goes down there. >> Yep. The ranch ditch. >> So it's all to the north. >> We can't see what you guys can't see what you're if you could assist with this. You can show us >> right here. >> Right. The acres is right in. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Do I have to push a button? >> That's it. >> All right. So, it comes down here, >> there alongside this way, and right up along the ravine. >> Okay. Now, we all can see what you guys are discussing. So, they're not looking at building to the left or to the south of the drainage. It's only on the north side. >> We're creating the lot to the north. >> To the north. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Chris. I appreciate the clarification on that. >> Are there other questions? >> Okay. Please start with your name and there's a signup sheet at the podium. We're >> losing control. My name is uh excuse me, Nile Schwar. I live at uh 211051 Redwing Avenue and I am directly across from that property. So out of everybody I'm going to be see everything that's going on over there. Um, so a couple of questions I have is it's fine if they want to do this. I mean, I got no problems with that. I mean, I love the land over there. I hate to see this happen. But, um, mine is more on the road construction. You've got the dust coating. With previous lots that have been developed down the road, we get all the construction traffic. I'm the first one on the road. So, it's just so much dust and all these construction crews, gravel trucks, everything. They're just flying down the road. I mean, they're not they're in a hurry and I understand why, but that it is a big concern because we my place is the closest to the is very close to the road right there. So my so if you do you know go ahead and you know if they're proposing this I mean if it goes through I would like to see something done with the dust coating and you know whether it's like twice a year that they really maintain it you know I mean all the way up to the stop sign so that all that dust is you know controlled. I guess that's would be one of my biggest issues there. Um yeah, really that I guess everything else has pretty much been answered. You know, just the speed of the construction traffic and the amount and the dust controlling the dust cuz I've I've lost a lot of trees along there and I've got no protection from all that dust with all of a sudden you get hundreds of cars coming and going. So >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So clarification, Mr. Hall. It's a township road. >> Uh correct uh Mr. Chair, it is a township road and uh we do have uh representative from the uh township here tonight uh to answer any questions if you have questions regarding the the maintenance of the township roadway. >> Okay. Um well, my question would be is how often are they oiling during the season if the township is here? Someone from the top There she is. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Chad Sandy, San Creek Township. Um so San Creek Township has a uh has a dust coating um policy. um it's offered to all of the residents that are on gravel roads and um essentially what uh what's approved um in the past few years is that uh that the township performs the administration of the dust coating and that the uh that the residents can apply to have their um their dust coating taken care of in front of the residences and it's um it's 300 feet long um the width of the road and uh and then the township participates in 50% of that cost uh should they choose to do that. If they would like to have more done, they can do that. Um but then they pay the they pay the the full the full boat. Um, so if the uh if the construction were to cause that problem, you know, there's little we can do about it. But if the resident has chosen to take care of or to take advantage of the dust coating policy, um you know, one of the things that they could do certainly would be to um make sure that that it uh that it is taken care of in that in the spot that that uh that is affected. >> Okay. >> Um and we, you know, we don't necessarily as a township, you know, dictate where it's going to go. Um, we do have some other policies about about at our intersections and stuff like that about about how we do coat them. And and this one is uh the nearest intersection is Redwing and South Sutton Boulevard up there. >> And uh and that is um that is oiled um as a part of our dust coating thing. But there is a stretch of road there between um between that intersection and and Mr. Schwarz driveway that that would certainly be um untreated. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. I have a question for Township. Um, >> do you uh participate in once a year or twice a year? >> Our policy is once a year. >> Once a year. >> Yep. And we generally we generally have it happen um like the last two weeks of May or the first week of June depending on weather conditions, you know. Um and and our, you know, we've we've learned that that our kind of township road policy is is pretty generous because there's a lot of other uh townships that don't even do anything with it or nor do they participate in the in in part of the cost. And um by us applying it in the in the spring like that, our policy is is that we don't we don't um grade through it until after September 15th um of the year or if if a road condition came to came to pass that that required us to do so. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. P. >> Um Chad, is was there a did you say a dollar amount at 300 ft? Uh there is roughly there is it really it really varies but um this year I think it was $350. So um if if I recall so I think the township was essentially sharing 150 of it and then and then the residents the the balance >> but the cost of the sodium chloride goes up and down quite a bit. >> Sure. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hopefully that was helpful. Okay. Are there any other comments on this? You come back up. Nile Schwar again right across the road. >> And I understand the township's policy. I've been doing dust coating for 30 years. So I understand that they've already graded it and it's already getting dusty and it's going to be very very dusty now. all all winter long the roads are going to get washboard because they're going to get frozen up and it becomes quite an issue with with the rough roads when they start doing all of this traffic. So it' be nice to see that if they could do something about it whether it's grading it more a second coat of dust coating to try and control all of that dust during the construction that would be much appreciated. >> Okay, >> thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Any other comments? Okay. At this time, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> So move. >> Motion by Commissioner Hes, second by Commissioner Robbins. All in favor, vote I. I. >> I will entertain motion for action on this at this time. >> Mr. Chairman, based on the criteria for approval listed in the staff report. I recommend approval of the resoning of 120 acres from I have the right. Yeah, I think 120 acres from transition reserve district to re transition reserve cluster district and the preliminary plat and final plat of Porter view consisting of two lots and one outlot on 124.5 acres. Noting that this recommendation is subject to approval of the conditions listed in the staff report that must satisfactorily that must be satisfactory address prior to the county board consideration of the project. >> I have a motion by Commissioner Adams. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. And maybe make a note that the township has recommended approval. >> That's acceptable as an amendment, Mr. Chair. Okay. >> I have a second by Commissioner Hubert. Any other discussion? >> One one comment. Stucker Acres is in there again. Did you >> Yeah, he he said I said Porter. Yeah, >> thank you. >> He did it the correct way. Thank you. Any other comments before I call for a vote? >> All in favor of the motion before the board say I. >> I opposed. >> Motion passes. Thank you very much. >> Good job. Our next item is the planning manager report or update. I'll go to uh Mr. Davis for that. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioners, since our last meeting, the county board did approve two applications on September 16th. The county board did approve the preliminary and final plat of Stalker Acres. That's the project we've been talking about. That was approved uh in midepptember. That was in Helina Township. Also uh in October 7th they approved the reszone of 40 acres and a plimmerane final plat of Keeley edition that uh created two lots in San Creek Township. So those are the two items on your recommendation. The county board did approve. >> Couple of other updates. Um we officially received the Metropolitan Council's uh system statement for Scott County. That means that we and all other cities and counties in the Twin Cities region are now officially noticed that here's your here's your checklist. Here's the things you need to include in your plan update and you have three years to get it completed. And so that puts us at the end of uh 2028. We'll need to have a completely updated long range plan. We'll be calling it the 2050 comprehensive plan. I know many of you or some of you worked on our 20 30 and even 2040 plan. And so we do this every 10 years and uh we will start the process um probably most uh we'll start it in early 2026. We'll probably be holding a series of workshops with the planning commission and throughout the entire process, but starting in 2026 getting some um initial feedback, ideas, things that you think as a commission we should really focus on for the plan update. We also plan to meet with our townships like we've done in the past, ask those same questions. Um, so we're starting to lay that schedule out for 2026. We'll be doing some community engagement and survey work and focus groups and stakeholder meetings. So, we want to start putting that together and I'll share that with you when that gets developed. So, just letting you know that um the 2050 planning process officially begins now. And again, it's not just the county, but our our cities, too, are starting to think about it. Um, and so I we'll need to coordinate a lot with the cities and particularly their long range growth areas, their urban service areas where they plan to extend sewer and water. We'll really want to focus on that because that led to a lot of >> um discussion, I'd say, among our townships and cities recently. And so here's a chance for us to revisit that and look at where the city's plan to grow over the next 20 years as it relates to annexation. And >> Mr. Chair, that checklist is for back council. >> Yeah. So this is what they do every year after they do their regional plans, >> they boil them down by geographic area and for each jurisdiction they say >> from all our regional plans, the this is the information that's really important to your community. >> Is there a possibility we get a copy of that? Can we see that? I'll send an email with a >> that'd be great. >> Mr. Chair, thanks. Just so that I understand, this is the first step toward developing the 2050 comp plan. Is did I hear that right? >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> Yep. Thank you. >> So, more to come on that. And then the other uh update is in November, I think we have just a couple of two, three, no maybe now four items. So, it'll be a little bit more on the agenda, but we also want to do a workshop. We want to bring back that variance issue where we did not have a a survey of the property and that led to some um discussion between the neighbors. Y >> and I think you advised staff to look at whether we can avoid that in the future and require some surveys. Y >> and so we've done that. So we want to come back and talk through that with you before we uh hold a public hearing and amend our ordinance. So that will be a workshop in November. That is all I have for an update. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh anything else for the time before I adjourn? Okay. Well, thank you very much everyone, staff and and fellow commissioners. Uh entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. >> Motion by Commissioner R. >> Second. Sick range.