I PL alance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all thank you all right Council we've all had a chance to take a look at the regular agenda do I have a motion to approve the regular agenda please I'll move to approve the agenda as thank you John and a second second council member Carr I council member rag hi council member Geer hi council member tuy mayor Huber all right thank you Cam consent agenda we've all had a chance hopefully over the last week to take a look at our bill list and some of the things that are on the consent agenda I would entertain a motion to approve that consent agenda please make that motion second Bob council member car hi council member Rod hi counc member Grier hi CC member tuy mayor H hi thank you Kim first up gentlemen is the well it's a variance request for tri X 89th Street I'm sure you've all had a chance to take a look at uh Jennifer's memo here looks like we're dealing with after the road is removed about 0.9 acre this gentleman would like to know if for interested in perhaps granting a variance so that he may build I would assume a residential home on .9 Acres any questions on this is Jennifer online she there I don't even think she's on yet yes she is is she hi Jen are you there I am good evening Mr Mayor members of the council hi Jen say can you uh talk us through our our memo here just real quick this looks like a pretty simple one but if you've got some insight to share sure so the applicant I believe had a purchase agreement with uh the property owner uh and they contacted the city and went through what we have as the other land use application process uh so that we could do an analysis to determine if the property was uh buildable or how we would look at it since the lot uh was created many many years ago uh so staff went through that process dug into the records uh and came to the conclusion that while the lot absolutely predates the adoption of the ordinance in fact I believe it probably even uh predates uh the Metropolitan Council getting uh the sewer powers that it has today in terms of minimum lot sizes uh that it doesn't meet our second exception criteria which essentially says that uh lots of record that were created prior to the enactment of our ordinances need two and a half acres so in this case we're dealing with an approximately one acre property uh when you take out the roadway obviously you're left with you know 085 or 0.9 whatever it ends up being once that area is out uh that's clearly substandard in terms of our minimum lot sizes uh and several of our other lot area criteria so uh my interpretation of our ordinance is that in this case this lot would not be buildable uh even though it was created uh well before the enactment of our our minimum lot size standards so uh that was communicated back to the applicant and then obviously the applicant said that they would like to explore whether or not there would be any interest from the council uh before they were to move forward with trying uh for a variance from various standards on our on our lot size requirements so that's a very brief overview obviously I'm happy to answer any specific questions but I think that sums up the process pretty pretty accurately to date real good thanks Jennifer any questions for Jennifer as I said this one looks pretty cut and DED but go ahead Tom I I had a conversation with Jennifer just me Jennifer you want to go over kind of what what we talked about a little bit or do you want me to um sure I can give you an overview of so uh council member Carr and I spoke briefly in terms of there's essentially two ways that you could go about this I if there's an interest from the council's perspective in allowing uh lots that are approximately an acre or or under that two and a half acres uh we do know that there are some some of those that still exist in the community that have not been built on but that were created many years ago uh there's essentially a couple different ways that could we could go about it obviously we could entertain variances from specific standards uh to demonstrate that a lot uh even if it is substandard in in terms of area that there's adequate area still to site a septic system uh the well a house Etc so obviously that would be much what is in my my review letter in terms of you'd need to go through that variance process the second way would be to look at initiating some kind of uh text amendment process like we've done in the past to review whether or not there uh should be a second exception standard for lots that are smaller than even the two and a half acres uh provided certain criteria are met obviously that criteria to be established because we'd be looking at a text Amendment so there's kind of two different ways we could look at it uh if uh these smaller substandard lots are something that the council would be interested in in looking at how they could become buildable go ahead um yeah and I looked around Grant I part of our ordinance allows there's a lot of tiny Lots up by with in different places but if the house burned down I talked to Jen suddenly it happens they can still put their house back up that's not a problem but there are a lot of small Lots there's a whole bunch of them down in inberg court inberg court owned by a trust um and they could be combined some of them but if somebody were to go in there and say I want to buy a lot there's a PID we went through this on a property on Jamica where the the house was sold had a small Lot 2 acre House 2 acre lot houses on that 8 acres in behind dad wants to buy it for the kid so we got to combine it then afterwards he he took and he transferred the 8 acres to him so the house again is sitting on 2 AC lot I'm saying well we can't do that and then our attorney said well it's got a separate ID so uh you know you know what do we do and I'm a little concerned with some of the Lots out there that could be and and my only concern for me is that having people do that and having come forward to us what do I do I go well uh we have rules and that's but you're still Jennifer Kim we're all going to have to spend time with that and I'd like to try to head that off I don't mean at this particular moment we can deny this and that's or do whatever not give them a variance that's fine but maybe we should revisit it so we don't have to revisit all this every time it happens and we can have some and I don't know the exact mechanism I leave that up to you know the attorney and Jennifer Kim's advice whatever whoever we can throw in Our advice and come up with a method because we do have a lot of those small Lots left that are not built on okay well that's not on the agenda let's go ahead and look at this as a as a a yes or no there's no vote taken here so this gentleman wants to build on a 0.9 acre lot there's in my opinion obviously they haven't been out there and done any soil borings putting two septic system system systems into a09 acre lot will be quite the accomplishment but that's the only way it could be built on also we have some met counil agreements we've agreed to throughout the years as well as our own ordinances that clearly State this lot is not buildable now if you'd like to have a discussion about these smaller Lots later on sure yeah no problem let's bring it up later on when we talk about putting things on the agenda and we can discuss it at that point yeah and that's what and that's what I just said so good good good good good so so so it so we'll talk about that later in uh staff disc or uh Council discussions absolutely John how you feeling about this one a no or yes on the variance it's pretty cut and dry in my yeah so no I would say no no Bob no Tom well I'd like to abstain because I would I'd rather go through the process rather than tell somebody no right away okay that because it it might might be we come up with something so with the existing rules right now no je yeah no no okay let's move on guys thanks Tom we'll talk about that once we get the staff updates all right Brad looks like Europe up are you with us got to switch screens I am there he is got you Brad good to have you back see your smil in face looks like we're going to talk first about an assessment hearing on no wood drive to improve the street go ahead Brad we are mayor members of the council tonight I'm seeking a motion by resolution to declare estimated cost in schedule a public assessment hearing for the nolwood drive Street Improvement project um as you know the project was initiated by a petition by the adjacent property owners and is following the Minnesota state statute 429 uh procedures on special assessments to date the following procedures have been completed the city council adopted the feasibility report at the June 27th 2023 regular meeting a public hearing was conducted on the August 1st uh 2023 regular meeting following the public hearing the council ordered the public improvements and authorized the preparation of plans and specifications uh the council accepted the plans and specifications and ordered the advertisement for bids at the January 2nd 2024 regular council meeting and bids were received uh last week on May 2nd 2024 so the improvements are anticipated to be partially funded by the special assessments to benefiting properties in accordance with the city's assessment policy the total benefit of amount to be assessed is estimated at $299,825 there are eight total buildable units the assessments per buildable unit is estimated at $2,426 the city of Grant is contributing Street Maintenance dollars in the amount of $1 16,43 to the cost of the project assessments are proposed to be paid in equal annual installments over 15 years at a 4 and a half% rate for each parcel beginning in January 2025 the assessments may be paid in whole with no interest charged if the entire assessments is paid prior to October 31st 2024 so City staff is recommending scheduling the public hearing uh at the June 4th regular council meeting um so with that said I would entertain any questions from the mayor or the council just real quick Brad just the one I probably always ask this one uh the 2198 36 on the eight total buildable units that is prior to our contribution of 16431 or is that after our contribution that is uh your contribution is not included with that 219,000 so the 16,000 needs to be subtracted from the $219,000 great so yeah nice thanks Brad I appreciate that yep you back gentlemen yeah let's do it hey a ro roads are working and people are getting them done and the process is great always driven by the residents we do not send you a letter and tell you when to do your road you tell us when you want to do your road that's what makes the difference up here citizen driven do I have a motion to approve 2024 I think it's Z six thanks John yes I do thank you John second and Mr Geer council member car hi council member r hi counc member Geer hi council member tuy hi mayor hubber hi thanks Kim all right consideration of resolution 2012-07 Municipal support for Highway 36 County Road 17 am I ever glad to see that Brad go ahead uh mayor members of the council tonight I'm seeking a motion to adopt a resolution approving uh Municipal consent supporting the County's preferred con concept drawing and continuing the development of final plans and right away acquisition necessary for the construction of the Highway 36 in Lake Elmo Avenue intersection Improvement project uh Washington County uh in consultation with its Partners mandat the city of Grant City of Lake Elmo have engaged in an intersection study process since 2021 to identify and evaluate potential improvements to the intersection as part of this process Washington County has conducted numerous meetings with all of its stakeholders including the public through open houses and neighborhood meetings so through all these efforts a preferred concept known as the overpass with button hook ramps Alternatives was developed now I don't know if I can share my screen with you or not let me see if I can do that I'll share the map with you oh I cannot share it Kim can can you share the map that's in the packet or not or or we can just skip it as well be a to share with the public um Ken can we get that up or not ah the old days when we had a projector the old days welcome to Grant everyone we're to scan it okay perf hey Brad while we're waiting I quick question shoot do we oh we lost him there he's still there do we did did I've been asking people are asking me that that live down that street a couple of questions and they're just wondering if that one house is that still going to be removed by eminent domain or is that house going to stay no as far as I know there's no properties being taken uh Residential Properties being taken as part of this project uh council member cars so before you start could you just have a brief summary of the initial um designs that were uh proposed yeah so the the drawing that I'm showing you right now is is pretty much the original concept that the city of Grant um uh had approved way even before the 2021 project uh uh intersection study kicked off and so this concept is uh County Road 17 or Lake Elmo Avenue is that grade um through the intersection with with Highway 36 uh with a bridge overpass uh over County Road 17 and then a couple access points these button hooks is what they're calling them with a right in and right out um onto East and Westbound Highway 36 onto the frontage road so that's how you would access the uh the highway uh they did look at a couple tight diamond interchanges and roundabouts and other types of uh intersections here um but ultimately uh the county decided that uh you know through the public engagement process and meeting with both cities that this would be the uh the preper preferred concept for for this project just to kind of bring back our memories a little bit Brad from all those meetings we had the tight Diamond was going to require the 60th Street the frontage road there to be routed up over for the most part our business district and then cut cut across Lake Elmo take the property that Tom had just hinted at and come back down uh to the South back to 36 and rejoin 60th Street that tight Diamond had a much much higher impact I would say on the city um in many different ways would you agree with that that is correct mayor I think the frontage Ro kind of cut through schisis here and and came up I think it's 62nd Street right or close to the back property line of these properties that are adjacent to 62nd Street and then came back down and and joined uh existing 60th Street somewhere in this location here so yeah there there is uh uh with this option there are uh none of those impacts to properties and we also would have been on the hook as I understand for building not only doing sound studies but building sound walls there and the city would have had additional expenditures uh for that type of a project and the house that was scheduled to be taken uh they just moved into three months ago and put in a brand new septic so this is a this is a very nice thing to see and I'm glad the county and uh I'm pretty sure Lake Elmo is going to see it this way as well and move forward so I I'm sorry to interrupt you I just wanted to hit those those other uh preliminary plans that we had Brad and just sort of mentioned the impacts of ecv this plan yep thank you very much I appreciate that John Bob Mr Geer no questions for me okay just a couple of couple other notes on this um Kim and I spent Kevin how many meetings did we have Fran meon how many meetings did we have on this you got tired of seeing us after a while didn't you never yeah yeah no you did after a while you kind of did but that's okay we came to a great conclusion I think that Lake Elmo is also happy with the expansion there the safety features of it their ability to do a little bit more with the northern portion of their access there I'll leave that to Lake elil to explain um but uh I think that their administrator the last talk I had with him was pleased with this and was pretty sure the council was going to be happy as well so I'm just glad it all worked out like this guys I didn't want to go down and knock on that door and say hey we're taking your house because it would have come on us right it it always does so anyway looking for a vote or a motion let get my glasses on 2024 triple number because it's not numbered yet Brad I believe it's 07 it is 07 okay I wasn't sure if you guys were doing something special there that'd be fo7 all right real good gentlemen I will move to approve 20 24-7 second second council member car hi council member ro hi council member Geer hi council member tuy hi mayor Hubert hi thank you Kim okay now we're to the big one here consideration of Washington County cooperative agreement a trail connection from ideal Avenue to the Middle School to the east on County Road 12 with a lot of information has come up on this one we've got a lot of interested people here and uh from the new information that we've learned I'm gonna say I like it Kevin thank you mayor members of the council thank you for having us tonight as stated my name is Kevin Peterson I serve as Washington County's design engineer I'm joined tonight as as also mentioned by county commissioner Fran Miran he represents this area also as noted we're here to discuss um an off-road Trail opportunity on County Highway 12 um just real quick overview on the current construction going on so work underway now will extend um really near the Wildwood library in mamei all the way East to to very near Kimbro essentially where the work is stopping now um this project includes replacement and addition of storm sewer drainage improvements roadway and Trail reconstruction um a new stoplight at eastn hallum near the gas station there just west of the fire station um and then also an asphalt Trail extension from Hilton to Ideal um the low bid for this work in came in at $7.3 million it was the largest roadway construction project that our County Board awarded this year um you know to develop and get to this point we held several Community engagement events open houses uh most recently we held one on April 9th to really gear up the community for construction so certainly happy with the attendance there and excited to get things going so on the manner at hand um as stated we're here to with an opportunity to construct an off-road binous Trail um from ideal Avenue to the stoplight at the Mami Middle School um you know I'll be blunt um you know this is obviously a border area ideal Avenue is the border between Mami and Grant um just for reference the city of Mami is contributing over $640,000 as part of their Coster to the county construction project that I mentioned earlier um a small portion of that is actually extending the trail from Hilton to Ideal so continuing the trail from ideal to the stoplight at the mamei middle school entrance provides an excellent opportunity to get kids and pedestrians east and west and that stoplight really represents the safest way to cross that busy County highway so by connecting this again we're we're adding really safe Crossings on both sides of Ideal Avenue um you know I'd be remiss if we didn't hit on cost as well um so our team estimates the cost of this just over th000 ft of Trail um from ideal to the middle school at around $36,800 um utilizing the County's cost parti participation policy excuse me which requires a 50-50 cost share that would put the cost um on Grant and the county at just over $158,000 each um that said uh through the community feedback and engagement that we held we did hear a lot of interest in this Trail um so the county solely applied for outside Federal grant funding uh we were successful in this grant request and were awarded $256,800 um essentially 80% of the $36,800 cost um so what that does is it brings each County or each each cost share down to $30,000 um the county as a practice we share that grant funding with with our partner agencies um so really with that mayor members of the council thanks again for having us in the opportunity to present this and discuss this Trail segment uh we've done a lot of great work together frankly between us and the city here um and we feel really strongly that we've done everything possible to lower costs um for this Trail um additionally we've also really eliminated any long-term maintenance requirements as a city of mamidi has agreed to plow this Trail as well um the county is not equipped to plow Trails we rely on all of our city Partners to do that and in this case Mami has agreed to step up and plow this segment of Trail so um with that I'm happy to hear any discussion and I'll stand for any questions yeah just real quick Moni it's not that Grant doesn't want to do that we don't have the equipment so for us to go out and purchase Capital Equipment in order to do a segment like that would be really cost prohibitive it would really wouldn't make sense for us but I will Echo what Kevin said here we have done a lot of good projects together and working with these guys at the county whether it's with Fran whether it's with Wayne um the head over there uh has always been a pleasure I am thrilled that at first we we kind of look like we were alone a little bit like hey we need some money for the trail and I'm like okay anybody else going to kick in here I know it's in Grant and all but then when the full story comes out it's like well this is a community effort this is all the way across and grants uh really the only big thing really built in Grant is the schools and we're pretty proud of that overall so yeah for me this one isn't too tough but quick question for you uh curbs on that there's going to be a curb running along that I would assume a concrete curb and system there yeah the project under construction proposes to actually narrow the County Highway slightly and then add concrete cbon gutter to the stoplight okay and where is that where is that water going to that water will be part of the new storm sewer system the water will drain to the West um there's a new storm water basin in the Southeast corner at Hilton trail that will treat that water before it leaves the site that's why you've been doing the improvements over there oh those okay I was wondering her about that so we've got curbs how about improvements at the school entrance itself it seems like the kids are going to be going across high speed for lack of a better term a highway here an undivided highway so how about Improvement sir yeah mayor um you know the signal that was put in there I believe in 2022 is that was set up for this pedestrian Crossing so that is again the safest way for us to get kids across busy County highways and as I understand it the school uh led a safe rout to school program and has also applied for grant funding to develop their trail system within the school grounds okay so that's was really where I was going there is no trail system there yet and it's really not planned yet but they are applying for some funding on that correct yeah because that's that's the the parents get pretty packed in there and it's hard to really have good Sidelines when you're going around all those Corners so uh good to know on that uh gentlemen other questions here Tom yeah Kevin we talked a little bit about also there's an extension we had a community group that came forward one at a light on the county Ro no that's not going to work but I at that time I mentioned why don't you talk to whoever's planning 12 to see if you can get a sidewalk and you want to explain what's been going on with that on that topic yeah mayor council member um the county also you know utilizing our own efforts has applied for our own safe routes to school Grant to actually extend the trail from the mamei Middle School stoplight East to Inwood way um you know it's actually common that trail segments like that are built with developments um you know unfortunately that didn't happen here we tried um understood um but so so we are pursuing grant funding for that we're actually expected to hear next week or the week week after so fingers crossed on that um but that you know similar to this would also have to be approached as a county cost share policy item so we may be back to discuss that at some point did you have a question oh yeah so the East Inwood that's not part of the 7.3 million original project that's going to be separate yeah Mr mayor council member um we are reconstructing the roadway but this Trail segment will end at the mtoi or the Middle School Entrance stop light so it will not not go east of there at this time okay okay and to be clear you know we will be constructing the segment we're discussing tonight actually next year in 2025 based on timing we weren't able to get it into the current project so we will be constructing that separately next year if if things are approved here not if things go well you've been working on this since what 2016 17 roughly and you started all the way out when you were almost at the lake weren't you when you started this yeah I mean ultimately we've constructed County Highway 12 from the county line Century Avenue All the Way East almost to Kimbrell over the past six years so we've made some significant Investments here and many of those frankly we're pedestrian centered right I mean with this Trail connection you could easily walk to to I think it's Walgreens or CVS in Ramsey County you know with the with a safe connection no it's it looks it looks good it really does John yes I was going to ask um the grant that you received from the federal government why do they arrive at that number instead of the full 316 I'm just curious why they give that amount so specific uh and when you submitted the entire 316 I assume why did they do that yeah council member the grants we secure are they're through the regional solicitation program which is administered by the Metropolitan Council these grants require a 20% local cost share so they're only 80% grants um and frankly we got a similar Grant of much larger scale through the same program for the reconstruction at Highway 36 in Lake L Avenue so same program um same 20% local match um just obviously a much larger scale and different project all right thanks like they want us to have skin in the Gand Kevin I I found this entertaining um what was the cost of the trail to go to the the new development if we go farther east didn't you say it was like a million dollars you applied for the grant yeah council member I did do some digging and I have it here bear with me um so the million dollars I quoted was the trail from ideal all the way to Inwood so the section that's yeah from the mamei Middle School to the east is you know in that $550,000 range okay so if we if that was successful then you might be coming back to us for a little bit we may yeah okay yeah we again would have to approach that project under the the County's cost I just have something to talk about in general I mean we did talk about we got we got a got some money from the state first time in a long time we're using it for safety issues and stuff we kind of allocated some of that but now this is going of come up and you know to me this is time is of the essence that we need to get this done uh gar rails haven't been out here for over 100 years so we have to wait a little longer to put those in again and get this project done Andor the other one which we don't know about yet may not even happen um I think that's great I think it's great to have sidewalks on both sides I know somebody in here had somebody killed on Hilton Trail back in the day I had a friend killed right in front of the high school uh it's dangerous I don't want the kids you know distracted drivers Young Drivers it's it's really our busiest bustling little spot and so I don't anticipate doing this anywhere else in Grant but that spot being part of the community not having a a sidewalk to Nowhere basically um would not make any sense to me so I'm I'm glad we're here talking about this and I had a chance to vote on it so thank you yeah um that brings up a good point money um how we're going to handle this Kevin do you have anything else to tell us or maybe we're going to go ahead and switch to sort of an internal discussion here that's been very informative so hang out don't leave we might call you back up for for money questions or something here um Tom's right we've got Public Safety funds there's just over $100,000 in a public safety fund um not the co funds the public safety funds very very different account so just over $100,000 in there now the interesting thing is after looking at the budget very closely we have a line item in there where we had put money over seven years back of memory service properly and what we were doing was banking money toward County cooperative projects we were waiting to hear from you guys on some of these projects so we're kind of trying to save up a little bit we've got $2,000 and then that's been sitting there for years for years so um I know that we have people in the audience we have an Educational Foundation booster Foundation if you will uh primarily based in the city of Monami that has talked about raising money um you know we've got we've got $20,000 sitting in the Cooperative County account we have over $100,000 in safety funds I don't think from my perspective it is reasonable to have considering those circumstances and what seems to be the sentiment among the council to have an educational booster group from another city give us money to get this done when the County's done so much hard work monam is kicked in I think that we can afford the $3,000 in total and I think it is a good use of $20,000 that's been sitting there for years and years and the $10,000 coming out of the public safety fund seems to me to be the way to go comments gentlemen thoughts on this I AG well I I agree with you but the fact that they're willing to kick in 15K speaks the commitment of of the of the residents and the importance of them for the project so right and and it's a safety Factor we've heard some pretty compelling stories on the safety Factor I've seen these kids dancing across the street and that's what they do I've given kids rides home that live an ideal when my daughter was over there my son was over there giving them rides when we went to pick up my son and my daughter so yeah I I would think that the city of Grant to put these dollars toward this use is a good use of this uh we make sure kids get to school safely and uh yeah I just I like the overall feel of it and I like mamei kicking in well and since we know about the other maybe Grant um you know the sentiment for me obviously I think this is a no-brainer and whether the Comm monia Community canit you know wants wants to you know give us money or not I I'd just put that aside if we can pay the 30 grand be done but the other one that's going to be a little bit more probably um but I just I mean I I don't want them coming back in two weeks and asking us I'd be for that one too as long as we get the grant money yeah well so I just I think I'd like to know what the council thinks of that well I think I'd like to wait until they see the project for me I'm not making any promises till I see the project in theory I agree with that in theory yeah in theory it's a good idea Theory that's enough yep the Bob Kim y Mr mayor council members I will just note that uh The Cooperative agreement that was uh in your Council packet had been reviewed by the City attorney as well as the city engineer and it is ready to go tonight okay are you looking for a motion on this Kim I most certainly am can I ask one more question Mr Mayor sure um when it's talks about um no maintenance are we we're not committing to re repay it are we all right that's all I needed I I Ser I saw Fran ja said no that would be another one of those discussions right Kevin yeah mayor council member um the the county completes any major maintenance of trails by practice um you know minor maintenance would be expected to be done by the locals but we can handle that case by case too okay so thank you sir great um so does any other council members have comments or I can make a motion if I just want to make sure everyone has their chance to do we have a number on this SCH it's a Cooperative you are just make the motion and go to agree with the Cooperative agreement okay so you good John anything for you oh okay um I I would like to make the motion to approve the Cooperative agreement to approve the the Washington County cooperative agreement waston I second council member Carr absolutely yes council member ro hi council member Geer hi council member tuy hi mayor Huber hi thanks Kim and thanks everybody for coming this one uh once we got all the information it was kind of a kind of a no-brainer so appreciate it all appreciate the work the county has done on this cuz I know you guys are really working it over there by the way I got a call from the Monami fire department today they're not happy with you tearing up their road in front you probably hear from that guy Mr Mayor would you like to take a five minute recess for I think we should yeah because we got a lot of folks here that may not be interested in some of the other stuff that we have going on so why don't we take five minutes and folks can just kind of if you want to shuffle out or if you want to say it's up to you uh we'd love to keep you but if you don't want to interrupt the meeting and you got dinner to make it's probably a good time to do it now so 5 minutes everybody staying might be exciting everybody's interested go ahead and call our meeting back into order at 7:18 I hope that clocks right 78 so Ken just let us know when you're back to recording and we'll get them moving on we are live our city planner Jennifer has Camp no that was a break I can call those back and forth thank you um Jennifer has camp we have the consideration of the preliminary plat Elliot Crossing and we've got a public hearing so Kim do you need a motion to go into the public hearing or how do we handle this we haven't had one of these in months uh Jennifer does her staff report and after she's done with that if you have any questions of her we then open the public hearing ah fantastic him a Fountain of Knowledge without her I don't know what would happen Jennifer are you there I am hi Jen May MERS of the council welcome back uh I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen I've got a presentation to walk us through I'm hitting the wrong button so I should probably share my screen see here there we go all right so as you mentioned uh we have an application before us this evening for a preliminary plat and we also have two variances that are associated with uh the requests this evening uh the proposed preliminary plat name is Elliot Crossing uh the applicant this evening is Mike rean uh he is on behalf of more development and then also there's a gentleman by the name of Mark on uh behalf of Fenway development that is also participating in the plat uh in the application this evening the subject Parcels are generally located uh Southwest of the intersection of CASA 12 and Casa 17 uh it's approximately 194 acres in size so fairly large subdivision that we're taking a look at uh the zoning is A2 um the there are four Ps that are associated with the application so it's slightly irregular in shape which we'll take a look at in just a moment uh and as you noted we do have a public hearing that is scheduled for this evening so uh the applicant is proposing to sub divide the property into 18 Lots uh we've got essentially two block config variations that are associated with the subdivision one is on uh the Westerly Parcels uh that is block one and is proposed to be configured into 12 Lots uh there is an easterly subdivision portion uh that is proposed to be subdivided into six Lots although I will note that one of those lots is already a lot of record which we'll look at in just a moment uh the two blocks are not proposed to connect so this is a little bit of a unique situation from from the standpoint of we've got two proposed C culde acts they are separated uh but adjoin essentially an outlaw so uh the roadway is not proposed to connect both of those uh blocks within the subdivision uh each lot much like we've looked at before uh in similar types of projects will be custom graded Custom Homes will be constructed uh the r lot sizes range from approximately 5 acres to uh just over8 Acres uh they will be subject to architectural design standards uh in a homeowners association that will be associated with these two blocks in particular uh and each lot will be served by a private well and septic system as I mentioned there's two outlots that are associated with the proposed subdivision outlot a actually contains three of the golf uh course holes that are associated with the Indian Hills Golf Course uh that reconfiguration if you all recall happened in 2020 and 2021 there was some regrading that went on out there they relocated three of the holes uh because the prior location were flooding flooding and so obviously it was affecting uh the playability of the course so the outlaw now uh Outlaw a will contain those three golf holes uh that were reconfigured a couple years ago uh when we went through that process in 2020 and 2021 the three holes were actually just put into a easement area uh with the idea that eventually they were going to develop the subject Parcels uh and then as part of that they would formally plat it which is what they are proposing to do this evening uh in Outlaw a Outlaw B lies south of the pro the proposed culdesac that's identified as Street a which is on the preliminary plat uh that outlot uh is very irregular in shape which we'll take a look at in just a moment uh and uh there's a reference to the fact that it would be landscaped and managed by the HOA but no specific plans were provided with respect to the preliminary plat uh and it is quite irregular in shape uh as I noted the two culdesac uh both connect to County Roads so one is casat 12 on the North uh the other is Kasa 177 which is on the East uh so both culdesac uh actually are required to get access permits from Washington County uh which the applicant has noted uh that they've been working with Washington County on what improvements to the county roads would be required in order for that to happen uh the county has indicated that new turn Lanes on casat 12 would be required uh for that culdesac uh and from to the best of my knowledge nothing on Casa 17 would be required as a result of the six lots that or the five Lots that would access from from uh kasat 17 so uh in both cases uh the culdesac lengths exceed the maximum permitted which is 1,320 Ft as a result there is actually a variance request that is associated with each culdesac to exceed uh our maximum permitted length so as an overview here is the proposed plat uh you can see that we've got the easterly culdesac connecting to casat 12 it runs north south uh as opposed to the culdesac that is coming in from Kasa 17 on the east side of the project uh and that will run east to west uh you can see from this configuration that Outlaw a adjoins and is what is adjacent to both of uh these uh blocks that would be subdivided the called thex as they are designed do not connect through that area uh it's a bit difficult to see probably on your screens but I would note for folks watching at home or in the audience that uh along this uh easterly border of the culdesac that runs north south uh if you can see my cursor the the fen which is a wetland complex uh that the Browns Creek Watershed District uh has identified as being significant um and has a preserved Wetland designation uh does require uh increased setbacks for any development that occurs on the that particular parcel so uh we've got basically the golf holes and then we also do have some significant Wetlands that are on the site uh that had to be contended with as the development design got put together so uh the existing conditions we covered a bit of this it's 194 acres plus or minus uh historically it's been used for a mix of agricultural production uh the gulf holes were relocated uh there's some natural areas and then there was a a historic Street line uh from the early 1900s that went through the property uh the the station was Elliot Crossing which is where the name for the proposed project comes from uh and which is kind of cool and would hearken back to the history and the parcels as I said actually have quite a bit of wetland mix of wetlands uh and uh Woodland areas particularly as they're associated with that Fen area so the you can kind of see from this aerial the outlot if you can see my cursor it does come through sort of these easterly Parcels those three holes then uh BCT the two lot configurations or block configurations um when we went through that if you recall back in the day we talked a little bit about how the there's a conditional use permit and a planned unit development uh that were associated with the Indian Hills subdivision which are the subdivisions that lie south of uh this particular area and we essentially just amended the conditional use permit to add those three holes and that Outlaw area and we did that by an easement description so essentially this doesn't change anything from that perspective except for it does put that area into the outlot so the property is guided rural residential Agricultural and it is zoned A2 in in this case we look at uh rural residential types of uses uh accessory uses that would be conducive or compatible with rural residential uh development in this case they are proposing a development that is consistent with that uh and it does meet the density requirements of uh 4 per 40 or 1 per 10 whichever way you want to look at it uh when we go through this we we do basically a two-part analysis we have the subdivision standard section uh and then we also have the zoning dimensional standards in this case uh we do have easements that have been identified and dedicated on all the Lots which are shown on the preliminary plat uh our lots are generally complying with all the standards except as noted which I'll walk through in just a moment uh there was a note within uh the review that one of the Lots actually did not comply with the frontage um and that is incorrect I think it was a a a typing error on my part uh and so all the lots are complying with that Frontage requirement uh in terms of uh the lot uh line standards we do have a requirement that lot lines should be basically straight or radial to culdesac in this case we do have one particular area between Lots three and four on black two uh that does have a slight jog which you can see on this graphic uh it also happens to be associated with lot three which is slightly substandard and by slightly I mean it's about 50 square feet under the requirement to meet the 5 acre so uh staff is recommending that there's just some minor adjustments to this particular lot and this area to make sure that we're complying with that side yard lot line standard and then also the area standard uh but a very minor adjustment in terms of the flat uh all of the Lots in Block one and block or block One Meet the standard uh lot minimum lot area minimum lot width so it's very straightforward from that perspective block two uh again it's a correction to the frontage everything does meet for the frontage perspective uh and we do have that slightly substandard lot size uh that we would request be adjusted just to ensure that we're meeting and complying with that standard as well as that sidey yard lot line standard moving on to block block two we've got this uh somewhat uh irregular situation it actually is somewhat similar to what we talked about earlier during the concept plan but uh lot six that's associated with that block uh is actually an old outlot from the Indian Hills subdivision uh it is identified if you go back into the the records from the 1970s it was part of the cup and the Pud uh the applicant actually was able to provide a document from the 80s uh that explicitly uh accepted Outlaw B out of that PUD and cup uh so from that standpoint uh it was no longer subject to uh the the the covenants or the rules that were established for the cup and the the Pud and so as a result then we took a look at it from uh is this an existing lot of record in this case the parcel does exceed five or 2 and A2 Acres it is 5.35 Acres so it meets our exception standards uh and within that exception standard we do then provide some additional exceptions from lot uh Frontage in particular uh and lot size Etc in this case we would be looking at an exception from the lot Frontage standard uh but it does comply with those exception CR criteria uh as I said there is that Wetland complex that goes through the center of the site uh I'm sure some of you recall when we were looking at the golf holes that the Browns Creek Watershed District in particular was very interested in making sure that that Fen uh that Wetland complex is uh protected and that uh any development is as far away as possible from that Wetland area um obviously that plays a little bit into the variance discussion which we will look at in just a moment but uh essentially those natural features are certainly significant uh and and dictate sort of how the development could be laid out uh in terms of our standards with respect to lot remnants Outlaw a really isn't a Remnant in this case because it's providing a specific function it has the golf holes it is tied into that conditional use permit and pudd uh in terms of the golf course itself Outlaw B is is the Outlaw that is contiguous uh to lot five and block two um it it shares just a very small border it's about 40 feet on the side yard that it shares with that lot uh and then it is quite irregular in in shape and size uh there's a note in the applicant's narrative that this the where where this outlaw is that no further subdivision can occur in this area uh and that only one lot would be permitted um and so there's a little bit of a is there an issue from that perspective or not uh but that Outlaw B doesn't necessarily comply with our standards because typically we say Outlaws either have to be adjoined to a lot um or uh there needs to be an acceptable plan to the council with respect to that Outlaw obviously the idea being we don't we want to know what could happen to it in the future and then also how it's going to be maintained uh the culdesac streets as I mentioned both of them require a variance from our standard uh you can see by the pink and the blue that we're looking at on uh Street a uh there's about a 675 foot 678 foot requested variance from our standard the the length would be about 19 1,998 or 2,000 feet in length uh Street B uh requires a variance of about 556 ft um in both cases uh the the applicant has indicated the presence of both the Gulf holes and the wetlands being the main justification for why they're requesting the variance from the standard uh and in this case uh obviously to access sort of the the the further in or the deeper parts of those Parcels obviously you're likely to exceed that 1320 U maximum length um however obviously we have to look at the variant criteria uh with respect to whether we can justify that that extension so um the the applicant has indicated that that initial lot um especially for Street a uh can't be further subdivided so part of the challenge is you have to get across that easterly parcel and to get across that parcel to access the other areas is over uh 1300 feet in length as it stands so from that perspective to access the developable area or the subdividable area that you're going to exceed that length uh and that then the presence of the uh golf course and then the wetlands in that particular area make it non-conducive to being able to connect the roadway uh to the other block or block one uh and so from that perspective staff's really looking for some additional discussion by the council uh with respect to whether uh you believe it's met criteria for a practical difficulty whether there's there's clearly challenges Associated the with the Wetland uh but whether or not the exceeding the length is Justified on Street a as for Street B the main justification for that again is tied to the fen and the existing Wetland complex that's out there uh and then also the ability uh to obviously you wouldn't want to cross once again that Outlaw a which contains the golf holes so from that perspective we're looking at sort of the same justification for both uh SL slightly different uh little bit of a nuanced difference between the variance request for Street a versus Street B but both of them are tied to that golf course location and then also the wetlands all right in terms of the overall design of the culde acts if we take out the the length uh analysis out of it as they're designed they do meet uh the city specification and the standard uh Brad has reviewed the plans as well and provided uh a memo uh they will be required as we work through this process to comply with all of uh the recommendations of the city engineer but as it stands they are meeting the specification for with uh you know shoulders uh you know pavement with all of those things um so moving on to the dimensional standards the density uh as I noted uh there's about 194 Acres that exist they are proposing 18 units uh so we're looking at um about on average 10.8 acre lots we've got a 1 point or one per 10 requirement we are complying with the density standards as it's proposed uh we would uh suggest that we put a condition in the preliminary plat and the final plat likely as well that no further subdivision is permitted uh in in this case uh to ensure that we're complying with that density standard uh as I mentioned all of the lot sizes do comply with the standard with the one exception uh which is just shy of that 5 acre Mark uh and we would suggest that a minor modification happen to that lot line um and I think by straightening it out we would likely get up to that 5 acre uh threshold all the Lots meet our buildable areas requirement which requires that we have one acre a buildable on all Lots uh as I noted there's a correction to the staff report they are all meeting the lot Frontage requirement as it's designed uh in terms of the septic design each lot has a primary and a secondary identified uh I will note that I did not receive the preliminary review uh Memo from Washington County that typically looks at our our plats or excuse me looks at the septic uh initial septic results to determine whether or not uh it looks uh everything looks good so we would recommend that that that move forward uh and that we get that information uh but as it stands the design does include a primary and a secondary on each lot um so in terms of that lot six block two that is the one that was the hold over from Indian Hills uh we did look through the the exception criteria at as it stands uh it does qualify for the existing lot of record uh and it would be accepted from the frontage requirement as a result of it uh just with how the the language and the ordinance has been uh rewarded over the last few years uh the city engineer has looked at it there's a recommendation in his his memo uh with respect to how the access to that uh lot would occur and extension of the right of way uh so that uh instead of the looping driveway that perhaps it come straight off the end uh I do know that there were some reasons uh from the applicant's perspective to to construct the driveway as they proposed on the plat um and so I do believe that that is something that could be worked out uh between now uh and the next either the next version of the preliminary plat or the final plat either way uh I think it's a pretty minor piece that we could resolve uh the city engineer is taking a look at the storm water and the erosion control he provided a brief overview of his recommendation in his uh memo uh obviously our standards are also subject to the Browns Creek Watershed District uh which obviously has some very strict requirements especially because we're dealing with that Fen on the subject property so in terms of uh the engineering standards which is typical we referen the fact that uh in the in the draft conditions that all of the engineering comments must be uh addressed and if necessary updated preliminary plat document must be prepared uh to reflect those recommended changes uh we are recommending that we'll follow up with Washington County to get written documentation of the recommendation for the roadway improvements so uh the turn Lanes on wash or on casat 12 excuse me uh and then also just a confirm that nothing is necessary on kasas 17 um and then also that we would not want to Grant any final plat until we have the preliminary review from Washington County for those septic sites to ensure that all the lots have a primary and a secondary uh drain field on them so this evening what we're looking for from uh the city council is uh some uh discussion on the variance requests for Street a and Street B uh and then also with respect to the configuration of Outlaw B and what an acceptable plan for that Outlaw B may be uh and then the modified access to lot six and block two as recommended by the city engineer um so with that we also went ahead and drafted uh several conditions with for your consideration uh many of them are as we've seen in the past um but obviously some of them are specific to this application uh including making some minor adjustment adjustments to make sure that the preliminary plaque complies with all of our standards so I'm not going to go through all the conditions but would' be happy to discuss any of them uh if you have questions so with that Mr Mayor I am going to turn it back over to you uh for any questions you guys might have that was complex Jennifer thank you for covering that in such detail um your conditions look good to me but let's uh let's see what the council has to say first Mr geord was up there um yeah so Jennifer for the the first two variances for the cues saxs um I I couldn't find anything in conditions that address that like what mitigating design features would would be proposed to mitigate the extra culdesac length so Mr of the council there's no uh there's no conditions per se associated with that what would happen is uh if you're if you're accepting of uh the variance in the next uh resolution because of course we don't have the resolution before you this evening the resolution would be in your packet there would be findings related to uh the the criteria of the Practical difficulties Etc uh as to why we are permitting the additional length so there's not really a mitigation per se it's more findings related to uh the fact that the the variance from that standard is acceptable and that practical difficulties did exist and those practical difficulties in this case uh would likely be associated with the Wetland the fen uh that's on the site and then also the three golf holes that are on Outlaw a makes sense okay the let's talk about variances for a second they're they're granted by a council rarely but they are granted as a result of practical difficulty resulting from the land it is not an uncomfortable situation for a land owner it is not a problem where they want to build something there is a practical difficulty with the land in this case bronze Creek and I'm sure even Federal authorities would be very very concerned if anything were to happen to their Wetland there you'd be surprised how concerned they get about these Wetlands they're very very strict with them so that would be a practical difficulty that would preclude him from connecting those two so the only way to really mitigate that is to would be to Grant some sort of a variant perhaps with conditions perhaps not but that's the way something like that would be handled further questions Mr geir so we can we can determine those conditions yes we will perhaps uh ask the developer and the owner to provide uh certain assurances in order to uh provide that variance Tom yeah my history with all the developments we've done too is a quarter mile is really what they want because that's how far emergency responders would have have to carry their stuff if the road was blocked so does the Washington County Fire EMS got to sign off on this too especially since is a variance I don't know the answer to the question yeah so Mr we are members of the council in the past uh you have requested review by uh our fire uh and also e other Emergency Services uh to review it and provide us their comments in this case we haven't done it yet but if that is at your direction this even we can certainly do that before uh a resolution would come back before you on your next meeting so and we have certainly done that in the past thank you yes that is definitely something on a road this length surrounded by an awful lot of trees some open areas sure there's a lot of wetlands but a stiff stiff stiff West Breeze um and a spark could could be a problem in this type of uh development um I have considered uh what Jennifer just said and talk about it beforehand I've got some notes regarding having uh the fire chief in charge of these areas and I believe they're both Monami if I'm not mistaken uh to provide uh his input on the plat as laid out the inability to get between the two developments without coming down and around and uh getting his input on this um that would certainly be something that I would uh I would provide for for if I were to consider the variance moving forward um other questions Bob John you okay at this point for me I'm sorry no questions for me okay real good John what are you thinking yeah I guess the variances make sense with making sure that they're five acres and then the um I I believe that we should probably talk to myi to determine if they agree on something yeah we could actually make it a condition in fact and general could put it on her conditions which would probably be the best way to handle it Tom well I think she just said that so we got to do it now if we do it is that what you're suggesting we have to do it now at at the end here let's let's keep no I understand that but I just want right today tonight we need to do it we put it on yeah we put it on okay thank you yeah that's how we handle those we put it on now um so Jennifer I'm going to keep going I got a couple other questions for you if it's all right councel I'm going to jump in here um bronze Creek we've had an awful lot of flooding in this area and this develop will not be far from a ponding area that we had to pump out and when I say we I mean Mike uh stepped in and did a lot of pumping in that area to protect some of the homes on in the Sunny Brook area um the opinion of have we heard from bronze Creek on this yet or it has not been submitted to them yet I would assume so Mr Mayor members of the council it's my understanding that it has been submitted to them but it is still working through their permit process and review process and of course one of the conditions is that the watersheds always approve of how they're handling the water I'm concerned because we're we're really putting in because of the difficulty of the land we're putting in a lot of hard surface a lot more than we normally would in 8 10 homes right with with the length of the streets is what I'm talking about right I would say that the the length of the street is certainly longer than what we've looked at in the past so certainly associated with that there would be an increase in impervious um obviously that all has to be uh looked at from the storm water management plan perspective and I I know I I am with you that Browns Creek Watershed district is incredibly strict uh especially in this particular area area yeah they spent an awful lot of money in that area to do the mitigation so that's why I just wanted to kind of run that by you and make sure that we're all cognizant of that um The Outlaw B you discuss that very quickly Outlaw B normally we have out lots that are attached to develop Lots so that they can be maintained that type of thing and that is that still what you consider a loose string in terms of how Outlaw B is handled maintained maybe yeah Mr Mayor members of the council typically we require outlots to be either adjoined to a neighboring adjacent parcel so that it has some ownership um or that there's a specific specific plan for how that Outlaw is going to be maintained and restricted from development in the future so in this case um it's south of the new culdesac and it's quite irregular in shape uh and there's not a specific plan for how it would be managed so from that perspective uh you know I think the way that it's drafted is to say that we either need an acceptable management plan that you're comfortable with or there needs to be a way to reconfigure it slightly so that it's adjoined to uh a lot and is managed and is is part of another private lot so that's typically how we look at it okay and I I'm sorry I I perhaps missed it was that one of the conditions in there the handling of the out Lot B with the HOA or a lot line Readjustment there or a road adjustment so I have it as a discussion item and then thought depending on what your preference was and the direction to the applicant that we would then place it as a condition in the in the the draft conditions essentially okay okay okay so that's something we can talk to the applicant about um one more time and just CU feeling a little slow lot on the plate here uh in Lot Number Eight the holdover lot can you run the council through that just one more time so that we understand the history of that and and how that works so it's actually it's lot six with block two um it is at the end of 69th Street uh that was uh historically part of it was initially platted I should say it was initially platted as part of the Indian Hills subdivision and was subject to the conditional use permit and the Planned unit development that were associated with that that subdivision in the 80s that parcel was removed or accepted from that planned unit development and conditional use permit uh and as a result is now subject to is this a lot of record or is it not and so once again we go back to the you know does it exceed two and a half acres it does in this case was it created prior to uh the enactment of the ordinance in this case it does and it did and so essentially then it follows that it is uh eligible for those exceptions provided it can meet the other standards so in this case it's 5 .35 Acres uh there's definitely one acre most defin most likely one acre of buildable area on that parcel it can site a septic system primary and secondary drain field n a well Etc so from that perspective even though it doesn't meet the lot Frontage requirement that's one of the exceptions that we provided for uh if it meets that existing lot of record criteria and so in this case because it was taken out of that conditional use permit and planned unit development um it it is eligible for that exception um only other things that I have are one or two questions for the applicant so gentlemen unless there's something else that you'd like to speak to Jennifer about um we should probably open our public hearing and hear from our public gentlemen that sign me good good okay Kim do you want a motion to move into uh public or into our hearing here yes please gentlemen make a motion do I have a second to enter into the hearing and Mr R council member car hi council member Rock hi council member Geer hi council member tuy hi mayor H hi thank you Kim I'd like those who would like to comment on this new development uh that is under review right now the plat that's under review to come on up to our microphone stand here please uh put down your name and your address for us please um just so that uh we have that record in case we need to get back to you with facts or other things that you might like to talk about so go ahead um public hearing is open Mr Mayor I will note we do have people on the line okay well let's see if we can get some people from our audience first and then we'll go right to the people on line is there anyone here for the public hearing ladies gentlemen all right very good then oh we have a gentleman standing come on up sir and if you would sign in for us on the sheet there and tell us your name uh Matthew Eddie and I live at 760 Lake Elmo Avenue North so the East caac will be in my backyard M the road right next to our property and a house sitting on the back Edge Ed I guess my first question is um are cluster developments legal or are they not legal in Grant I would let our planner handle that question I don't believe this is a cluster development frankly but I think our planner might have something to say on that I think it's a good question so Mr Mayor members of the council uh we do not well I well first of all I wouldn't say that this is a cluster development what we require is a minimum of five acres for all newly created lots and the overall density in a particular project or area or or 40 acre cannot exceed four dwelling units per 40 acres so uh the best example I can give is like on a 40 acre parcel uh you can have three five acre lots for example because those meet the minimum lot size and then the remaining lot is 15 Acres or 25 acres excuse me so from that perspective um you're allowed to go down as small as 5 Acres that's our minimum lot size but the overall density cannot exceed four dwelling units per 40 acres what you just described is a cluster development okay by definition is a cluster development and that monstrosity across the street from me the white hill whatever it is the one on the other side of Lake Elmo Avenue on the so the east south east there you go that not only is it a cluster development but during the process and again I was ignorant to the process and was unavailable for the Browns Creek meeting but when they came out with their notification for public comment I was out of town but it defines that as a cluster development and I kept the card and I'm not sure why but for this day appar that that is defined as a cluster of element and should have never been built that way but I'm extremely concerned that though that we exactly what she described you people aren't going to own those golf holes that is set aside as part of a park and if you look up any definition of a cluster development it's putting dwellings on one side and leaving the other area open for a different purpose in this place it's playing golf I don't mind that if the owner of the land develops it I would just like it done according to our current laws okay and I it was hard to tell on the the screen the where the entry point is off of Lake Elmo Avenue but that the entry into the other development eventually someone's going to be killed there every time we turn into our driveway make a left turn as we're going north on Lake ELO Avenue if there's a car behind us nine times out of 10 they skirt around us drive on the Shoulder Through the right turn lane and scoot back in eventually someone's going to be turning left into the neighborhood or pulling out and there's going to be an accident and I'm concerned that the same scenario now you're going to add another Street just beyond that car is going to be coming out of the new development or turning off of Lake ELO ad going south to turn in he's going to be slowing down either my neighbor is going to be pulling out of his driveway seeing that it's clear and the car is going to pass him on the left and kill him so I know this you know there's a way to get this done properly but what I saw is not legal in Grant and that there has to be a better way to develop that line that land in conjunction with the rules that we currently have in place thank you Jennifer confirm for me that the Lots go from 5 acres to [Music] 18.76% no very good let's go ahead and switch to our internet callers then we're so high-tech Kim see here we have yeah hello hello you're on uh thank you mayor and Council um I'm going to keep following up on the golf course can you me I apologize um for not being able to tr this how does the sir can you hear me sir yeah sir can you hear me can we get your full name and your address and Grant please sir yeah is Greg freg 9411 Joliet Avenue 1974 grad of wiro Elementary and 1980 grad of Mami there you go okay go ahead Mr uh Greg uh Mr frel please go right ahead sir sorry about that thank you I just always try to follow the money so I don't understand the golf course and what deal was cut that has part of the golf course being part of the property that allows it to be added to all of this to get the um acreage requirements and I and I'm sorry if I'm dull but it seemed to me that it was that parcel that helps to create the problem of um the length of the culdesac and my final piece of this is a shorter culdesac just means less money for the developer at the end of the day and so there seems to be a lot of just interesting pieces to this um that don't fit based on trying to force this and a lot of parties that I don't understand how they fit together okay so if if I may go ahead and summarize that s uh the parts that we're going to be able to answer you're concerned about the golf lots that were placed into an easement and now they are associated with the overall development property in order to meet in order to meet the sizes is do I understand that correctly correct is those if it's an easement it's not an ownership which means somebody cut a deal with the potential intent to pull this into this to do this development and that's concerning okay uh real good on that because we have a question of that type of importance I'm going to go ahead and bring Jennifer back on it Jennifer I don't really want you to answer that question in terms of his legality but I'd like you to describe the situation which this easement created in is being used if you would please so I I'll do my best to answer um from a from an ownership perspective all of the land is owned by the same owner including the area that has the current easement for the three golf holes so there wasn't a separate deal that was cut so to speak the whole 194 acres is owned by the same the same party and so the current currently when they relocated the holes uh the relocated holes were um shifted slightly from their current location so the where where they were prior to 2022 or in 2021 I think is the actually the date they actually did also extend onto the subject Properties by easement and so this could still remain an easement and the fee title could stay underneath it so to speak much what much the same way as we have uh Lakes sometimes where the lake lots will extend into the lake if you will perhaps not the best example but it's the one that's coming to mind at at the moment but the land itself is all owned by the same property owner so there wasn't to my knowledge which obviously I am not part of the deal if you will but to my knowledge uh there was no that nobody had to transfer or purchase the the golf course rights if you will because it's all owned by the same individual the same party so the easement was owned by the that same party so that easement was attached in other words Jennifer if I might in order to create a somewhat larger lot to 194 acres is that just a simpler explanation for it it was joined as an it it's not even Jo like the fee title of the whole land the whole underlying parcel is all together the 194 Acres which includes three existing golf holes is all together as it stands today by the same owner whatever because hang on a second hang on so when you're looking at your overall 40 acres to four homes and the 5 acre minimum are you able to have a 40 acre parcel give an easement to 10 acres of it and still put four homes on four acres or are in 10 acres and not on the easement property right be be because you don't you may own it but if you've given an easement to it you don't have the right to it so you're forcing the density into the rest of your acreage which seems to me to be against what it is that we're trying to do with those minimum requirements yeah um it's an interesting proposal and frankly sir um that may require uh a lawyer to answer it I don't want to stick my foot in my mouth but it's not four houses per 10 it's 4 per 40 and if the 194 acres is attached to this and one owner owns all of it that can be considered part of the density is my understanding of it now whether or not it needs to be addressed further than the attorney I won't I won't even go there because I don't know but I understand your point Thank thank you very much I appreciate that I will just tell you having been retired and these are the kind of things that I used to look at that's exactly what you start doing 10 years ago in order to position yourself for things today to do these sorts of things thank you thank you sir somebody was looking ahead then do we have someone else anyone else if anyone would like to speak uh under the public hearing raise your hand no we do not okay real good if there's no one else in the audience we're going to go ahead and close down the public hearing once twice three times okay need a motion to close our public hearing gentlemen motion to close hearing thanks council member car hi council member ro hi council member Geer hi council member tuy hi mayor Huber hi thank you kid all right right let's jump back into it here the last question that the gentleman uh on Julet Avenue asked I cannot answer if anyone here can add some light to that anyone on the counil or any of our professional staff U might be nice to be able to answer that it seems a little complex to answer at this point at least without incurring any legal issues Tom well first of all the existing Indi Hills Golf Course is a PUD which we don't allow um which means you probably can't run water from the water tower R to those lots I would assume I'm just kidding it's just a joke not a very funny one but it's kind of a joke um so the uh so we don't allow puds we did start going to this uh 5 acre minimum lot size as Jennifer described um that's never been called the cluster development however there's been concerned with cluster developments where we leave these large acre Parcels in the middle of 5 acre parcels and Victoria stations in my backyard and then all of a sudden somebody could come in there and say hey we want to build one acre lots and have a community septic and a community well and it's like well we don't allow that not long I'm sitting up here we're not going to allow that and so this is just what we've been doing forever I understand what he's trying to say I don't think that's the case in this point um I I'd have to research it a little bit more uh to see what exactly he's talking about I have nothing in front of me but yeah we we don't we don't allow cluster developments and I would support that's correct and I would I would for my part defer to an attorney on that I am not an attorney I'm not sticking my foot in my mouth like that yeah but I I have an opinion so oh no opinion is great thank you that I can share my opinion you're very welcome thank you I appreciate that I would allow an attorney to do it for me because I'm not going to share don't know what I'm talking about 24 years I do 24 years sitting up all right let's keep going here guys the uh the first one not really cluster development as we classify them that I'm aware of this next question Jennifer's hands up have an attorney handle it Jennifer I just want if I could just add one point um to the conversation uh in terms of the cluster slash you know we've got this outlaw situation on this particular project the total acres is 194 Acres which means that one per 10 you could have 19 Lots in this case they're proposing 18 lots and and so there's one one unit if you will one dwell one density unit that Still Remains so the way from a planning perspective that I look at it is the outlaw that has the golf golf holes on it at the moment we know those are golf holes but if the golf course goes belly up for lack of a better way of saying it that Outlaw could become a lot and you're still at your one per 10 right so that's why the no further subdivision statement is made because that outlot would be the only other opportunity for there to be a unit which would still comply with our one dwelling unit per 10 acres so it's currently used for the three golf hes or golf holes excuse me but that's a private use that we can't require that it remains a golf course if the golf course closes then typically what happens in a lot of these conversions is they go to the lowest residential use if you will which would be a residential unit so just in terms of the density of the overall 194 Acres that one unit remains which is part of the reason why the out Lot B is a bit of an issue and why we typically don't let out lot remnants like that um exists we require them to be joined to another lot for that reason because we don't want there to be any confusion that it could be a unit later on so I don't know if that helps but that's sort of the some of the background it does Jennifer and it makes perfect sense and we're following our development rules as written and we continue to do that um what I'd like to do is just kind of move through this a little bit you've all had a chance to take a look at the conditions that Jennifer has laid out on culde saxs this long I think several members of the council would like to see the before I grant a variance on this have one of the conditions be a letter of the governing fire department whichever area this is I'm pretty sure it's Mami complete um and have that fire chief sign off on these culde sacks and make sure once he takes a look at these plats he's going to be able to access that no matter the conditions or at least reasonable conditions so a letter from the fire chief and that would be part of the uh part of the conditions as set Tom well we have joint so I think i' talk to both of them and see who wants to go out and do it CU we have joint response so they probably and that's right on the edge of Stow water so it might be good to do that I'd let them handle this what I'm trying to say yeah Terry's already told me he's not going to have steart involved he wants to do it himself so there you go well information I didn't have right we'll leave that leave that to them okay and they can figure it out between them so um that's one of the conditions I think we've got some agreement on that one um you know Jennifer you've been pretty pretty thorough as always on these conditions um again my main concerns are hard surface uh the culdesac Varian that will be be required that outlet needs to that outlot b needs to be handled and of course Bron Creek's going to come through and uh and take care of that hard service so just a concern not a condition gentlemen do we have other conditions that you'd like to see in here or anything else that's kind of of note or concern Tom well I think Jennifer had some we could go either way on stuff you know up to the applicant or anything we prefer Jennifer does it is it really concerning to you could we go either way maybe whatever the applicant wants as long as it's one or the other what are your thoughts on that then we don't have to make those decisions with respect to Outlaw B well whatever the little tweaks are like they can move the road they can move the lot they can combine Lots all that I mean do we care I mean is it necessar okay so as long as the applicant does one A or B of those options that you listed we' be you'd be okay with that right and if they come up with a third um you know if they come up with a management solution of how that you know if it's a detailed landscape plan if there's a specific you know deed restriction I don't know what it looks like uh but obviously this will be back before you uh at the June meeting and if that's the solution that that would be in front of you also to make sure that you're okay with that but any any any one of those three solutions is po you know potentially viable or two solutions you combine it or come up with a management plan or shift the road or whatever it looks like okay that's good enough for me so you could assign it to the HOA is what you're saying you'd be okay with that making it okay so the HOA can step in on that one that's fine I mean if the roid needs to go there the RO needs to go there that's going to be up to the applicant so if the HOA is the best solution the HOA is the best solution right okay anything else guys Jennifer are you looking for any action by the council this evening uh no well I I'm looking for a general if you're comfortable with it so we can prepare the resolution of it sounds like approval um we would go and get the feedback and review inwriting from um the fire and emergency services so that would be back before you with the resolution of approval at the next meeting if that's as we're directed um the other thing I would mention is actually one of the residents uh during public testimony mentioned the access and I did want to reinforce the fact that we will try to get in writing from Washington County uh what they are recommending for the improvements to both County Roads to make sure that we've got that documented as well in terms of that access point and that's that's pretty standard procedure I see in here the the county has already called for turn Lanes out on 75th Stillwater Road right correct yeah that's what I understand and let me just ask a quick question here the county has improved some of the access to the roads flowing West off of off of Lake Elmo there as we come down the hill um is there any other considerations that you know of I don't from the county to perhaps flatten that Hill I know they looked at it some time ago to try to make that a little safer there I've heard that in the past as well but not to my knowledge um once again it is part of why I will absolutely follow up before our next meeting with the county to make sure that we're we've got everything that we've got it we're we're understanding exactly what they're looking at in terms of that access point on on on Kasa 17 yeah and I wonder if Brad or even perhaps you I'm not sure which would be more appropriate uh the one rote off there and I forget the the number on it uh has that warning system for traffic coming up or down those Hills to warn those people coming in I wonder if that would be appropriate here I can't tell I think the gentleman made a good point I can't tell where exactly this is on 17 so if if they're close you're going to have sort of a a double issue there so um something that maybe we should reach out to the county and see if we can get some feedback on that maybe Brad's more appropriate in this case stand for I'm not sure well I I will follow up with them after this to get it documented exactly what their recommendations are for both County Roads um and then also inquire about that same warning sign at the same time and I can Loop Brad in if needed yeah fantastic that's fantastic Jennifer other than those things I think the council it was pretty darn happy with what you had done the work you had done the developer had done in terms of laying this out you're doing about the best you can with with the wetlands stuck in the in the middle of it and uh you know um watersheds are pretty jealous of those things so they don't want you messing with them and this looks like about the best we're going to be able to do here so with the conditions we've put in um the uh fire chief uh if he wants to be presented with this and he does uh to produce a letter agreeing with this and then the just the other minimal Direction I think we gave you I think the council can probably recommend this going forward with Jennifer's assistance Mr Rock I think so yeah Mr Mayor and council members again I would just like a processed question answered by Jennifer and Jennifer in the past we have absolutely discussed these things added conditions uh brought the resolution back uh to the next meeting um can we go ahead can the council make a motion to preliminary approve the preliminary plat based on your conditions and bringing the resolution back next month um more I mean I think we're we're just looking for yes to a certain extent if that makes any sense but really what we're looking for is it sounds like it's a positive uh recommendation to prepare a resolution of approval and get that information from because only because we don't know what the fire chief is going to say so in this case we really should have that review uh and then that will be in your packet with the resolution at at the next meeting I what I'm getting to is uh per the council manual I mean action items um are listed out my thought is can we and Jennifer this is on you um could the council do a motion to direct you to do a resolution to bring back at the next meeting yes okay perfect thank you as as long as those conditions are in there I see no problem with doing that Jennifer obviously it would be moot if we could not get those things accomplished correct right okay Let's uh let's go ahead and do what Kim recommends here we'll turn it into an action item and we will take a first and a section second to go ahead and ask Jennifer to prepare this and bring it back to us at the June meeting prepared and ready to go yeah I'll still move good second second thanks John council member Carr hi council member Rod hi council member Geer hi council member tufty hi mayor hu you bet nice job on that one guys all right that's a tough one but well done Jennifer appreciate all the work on that all right done with that we have no action items for a City attorney any new business none unfinished business none staff updates nothing Jennifer is not saying she has any so I think we're good there city council reports what do we got from the guys Tom well I got Jennifer per conversation um you're like you could go either way on the uh on bringing the one acre lots maybe maybe making some kind of recommendation for a text Amendment or something for ordinances um addressing the 1acre Lots Ian some of the 1acre Lots I looked at I mean I mean they're nice little build of lots I mean I hate to say they they can't build on them so I mean I think maybe addressing it maybe addressing as a council will save us some future headaches and less issues for anybody coming in buying one anything we I just don't want why are you know I don't want to go getting dragged into court saying well you you did them no you know I I just don't want to deal with it yeah it can be tightened either way well that's she she said halfway either way so I I would just soon uh like to keep those 1acre lots with and Jennifer brought this up I think she was exactly right obviously you got to have septic there's certain conditions you have to have septic the um you know your your setbacks have to be different you can't have the setbacks the larger lots have and I i' defer to her to come up with three four whatever it is so if you do have a 1acre lot and you don't meet that criteria well then it's not a build of a lot we don't have to decide we don't have to give a variance we just it's just not a build of a lot because there are some left I mean I was kind of surprised when I started looking okay so John you want to throw it on there and have a discussion about Tom's topic here yes next month real good Bob makes sense to me and then I would I would like to have uh Jennifer just kind of come up with an idea on that trly defer to her so we have something to talk about if that makes sense yeah okay well I guess mayor council members what you're asking for is Jennifer to come back with an ordinance um at the next meeting just a discussion I to start with yeah just just to see what she thinks cuz maybe she'll noodle it and say yeah I don't think we should do anything I don't know but we talked about it kind of not very long ago so I just defer to see what she can come up with yeah Jeff I'd love to hear how we could tighten that up I don't want to see one acre lots I don't either the purpose of it for me would be to tighten it up we don't need one acre lots we're going to make a lot of people upset with one acre lots so I'd like to talk about it but I'll end up tightening it uh from my perspective anything else for City Council reports guys nothing else community calendar I think it is Bob last Bob you want to read the the community calendar or not you can pass to you can pass it to John John community calendar please midi Public Schools board meeting Thursday May 9th and May 23rd mamei District education center at 7.m Stillwater Public Schools board meeting Thursday May 9th Stillwater City Hall 7.m and Washington County Commissioners meetings Tuesdays at the government center 9:00 a.m. thank you John and before we adjourn I'd like uh I'd like to offer the floor to Bob tufty Bob tufty has been with the city working on our pione commission being a volunteer if you see flowers around this building it's Bob and his wife he has put service into this city for I can't even imagine how long 25 30 40 years Bob was appointed here when we lost one of our Council people and he s a fantastic fantc job he's been a real source of strength and stability and Bob unfortunately is going to be leaving us so I think he has a couple of words to say on that matter yeah I'd like to thank everybody here for helping me during the years I've been on involved in City business so like to start with John and say uh John you served on the Planning Commission before coming onto the council and you have been really amazingly good as a counil u I'm proud of you good friend H uhoh oh now I'm going to get you uh you introduced me to a lot of your friends in your home where you invited me to come over and uh a lot of those people are still friends with me now like them a great deal uh and I appreciated that I just want you to know that no thanks you got me started in City business I'm sorry are you blaming them Bob or thanking comes a hammer now uh anyhow some of the things that you did for the city that I'm aware of I'm sure there's a lot more but uh you allowed me to get our street ped out and I've been grateful ever since that's we needed that Des desperately so anyhow uh also you did some things that most people don't know about Tom has been and me too but gone down to uh state capital and we would uh campaign or be a part of a group effort to get some things done the way we wanted them done and for that I'd like to thank you too well you're welcome it's a great enjoyy the activity Jeff or should I say Mr Mayor Jeff's good please please no more of that served on Planning Commission he served on the city council he's currently the mayor and uh has done uh quite a few things that most people probably aren't aware of uh he got this building reconditioned it was in pretty poor shape and we were having trouble with windows and doors and all kinds of stuff and he has been the most active person in getting the roof repair siding done uh a legal sidewalk because we weren't legal uh he took care of that he put the got the parking lot black topped uh windows were replaced so he's taken on quite a few things uh to make this the more enjoyable place to come into our jobs so thank you thank you Bob I appreciate that my hands still hurt from doing pounding sorry oh there's one other thing that he's done that really did a lot of great things for the city of Grant he was on the commission for cable TV and he has worked really hard in that role and some of the things that benefited the city uh I he could run off all this better than I can so I'll let him do it if he wants to okay two mons for that thanks though Bob I do appreciate that I wish you would uh Jeff Kefir is a personal friend now uh we served on the uh Planning Commission together is with John and uh uh he's become involved in certain things trying to smooth over rough spots on how we operate things like that he's a really good good guy and he and I go to breakfast every so often and I hope we keep doing that I love it so anyhow you guys are all friends that I didn't have until I got involved here but I'm really proud of you and then Kim over there she has done more things and people ever know about to help the city of Grant she's kind of responsible for handling a lot of things that Jeff gets involved in uh gets him on track and stuff you know he needs it so anyhow with that uh I've been very proud to do different things for the city of Grant because I'm proud of Grant I'm glad that we moved here 20 some years ago and I've enjoyed myself as being a part of the city so thank you and don't you forget to come back for your plaque too we got a really nice plaque for you coming so you got to come back to that presentation okay oh wow don't forget about us genuine imitation gold leaf on that no no no we're springing for the big thing anyway that's all we have tonight thanks everyone for coming uh a little more complex than usual it was good to see all your faces um let's go ahead and call for an adjournment this evening please I'll make motion to adjourn you shake you sir you got a second that hi hi hi hi hi thank you thank you all Miss Bobby you're not going