All right, I have 7 o'clock. We will call the White Bear Town Board meeting for July 7th, 2025 to order. Uh, first item on the agenda, Patrick, do we have any changes to it? Well, I've got a proposed change. You can do with this what you'd like, Mr. chair, but if it pleases the board um for the flow of this evening's meeting, I would recommend moving 6A uh down below uh state fair parking discussion as an added agenda item. Um so if we got folks that want to clear out of here after all the rest of this business is taken care of, we can have that discussion uh as an added agenda item. Right. that and I would uh suggest we move open time in front of our closed session. So if we have to we have to empty the room for closed session and then they don't have to come back. So board have anything? I do not. Me either. All right. I need a motion to approve the agenda as amended. I'll move to approve the agenda as amended. I'll second. All in favor say I. All opposed. All right. Item three is approval payment of the bills. Steve, you sign off. I did move approval of payment of the bills. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. All right. Then I need a motion to approve the prior meeting minutes from June 16th. Anybody got any changes? I I saw nothing. Move to approve the prior minutes of the June 16th, 2025 meeting. Second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. All right. Item five is a consent agenda item. Looks like we have about seven of them. Uh board okay with them or you want to pull any of them? I'm okay with them. I'm I'm fine with that. I need a motion to approve. So moved. Second. Second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. All right. Then we're going to go right to our public hearing. There you go. Uh I start with I need a motion to wave the reading. I'll make a motion to wave the reading as properly published. I'll second. All in favor say I. I. I. All opposed. All right. Then I need a motion to open up the public meeting. Move to open the public meeting. Second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. All right. CJ, you gonna go with this? I am. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll pull up a presentation as well to get us started as we continue. Apologies for the delay. Tonight before you is a rec a request for the final plat for the park 35E phase 2 [Music] final plat. So at the last meeting we approved or the board approved a preliminary plat. Um that's okay. Thank you. Um, the park 35E. Excuse me. I'm going to pull up the presentation and then I'll begin. Thank you. [Music] Okay. Okay. The request is from the developer Endeavor Development requesting approval of a final plat which was initially received on 627 with revisions received on 77. That is today. The staff did review the original um application and materials and they have been forwarded the 77 review. If the board wishes to approve this item um it would be contingent on review of those submitts today since staff did not have time today to um really look into those in depth. Do we have just a synopsis of what they are? Uh, the edits are mostly to things like um they're mostly to things such as sorry, we're doing some captions here. They're mostly to items such as uh typos or changes to the sheet um names or easements and such like that. Um there's no significant changes though to the concept. They submitted the same existing conditions as before. It's located on the west side of the township between the county road, Centerville Road, and Interstate 35E. Currently, it's three undevelopable lots that have been readressed from their phase one, resulting in 5310, 5200, and 5124 Centerville Road in the Light Industrial Zoning District. Approved with phase 1 is a single lot with one building and three outlots. Initially, they proposed two future buildings in outlot A, one future building in outlot C, and a vacant outlot B. The trail running north to south um was also approved to be installed during phase one as well as the Centerville Road turn lanes required for both accesses onto their property. Approved at the 616 town board meeting was a preliminary plat for proposed lot 2, outlot C, and outlot B. Proposed lot 2 includes one building at 104,000 square ft uh oriented east to west which is different from the phase 1 process. Outlot C shows one future building at this time. They do not have plans to proceed with this. Um at the moment and outlot B would remain vacant for storm water drainage and such. Also approved was a conditional use permit for truck trailer storage with 100% opaque screening and no more than 3% of the subdivision is permitted to have storage. Additionally, a permitted use standards permit was approved for warehousing and office. The exterior rendering is as you've seen before. This is a view from the northeast corner looking south. Proposed lot 2 also does meet the requirements for landscaping. Following discussion at the last town board meeting, the applicants did revise their landscaping plans and removed the weeping willow trees to the northwest of building the proposed building. It was replaced with um multiple conifers. On lot two, there will be 96 coniferous trees, 31 deciduous trees, 15 ornamental trees, and 306 shrubs, which significantly exceeds the landscaping policy from 1992. Tonight, the town board has three options for the major subdivision final plat request. You may approve with or without conditions, deny the request with findings for denial, or table the request for further review and study. Based on staff review, the recommendation is for approval with conditions. In your packet, you'll have conditions one through 9A. A change to tonight's recommendation would be to add a resolution stating that the final plat is approved subject to staff review of the revised civil set received today 7725 and the resolution of any staff comments resulting from that staff review. Other conditions recommended include that the applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the township. All signage must meet the requirements of our signage ordinance number 33. All county and state approvals must be obtained and shared with the township prior to any issuance of local permits. That includes building permits and grading permits and such. An easement vacation must be recorded with the county prior to or concurrently with the recording of the final plat. We have received a request for an easement vacation. The applicant shall record the final plat within 12 months of the preliminary plat approval that resulted on 61625. The proposed major subdivision, preliminary, and final plat shall adhere to the plans submitted to the township and reviewed with this request. The applicant shall acquire all local, county, state, and federal permits and shall pay all fees and escros including the fees required in the phase one and phase 2 development agreement. Are there any questions for the staff? Um I basically uh phase one and phase two are going to be under construction at the same time. Correct. So outlot C as it as it's portrayed there. That's going to be some future development. I'll address it to her to start with. Um yes, it seems that they would leave that lot for potential future development. So, as construction goes on, is that going to be uh covered over so that the people to the north aren't going to have nothing but a dust bowl? I mean, is that is that covered? We did receive um erosion control plans. I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of that, but the applicants can speak to that. Uh we'll ask the applicants that then Okay, that's Beth. I want to find out what she wants to find out, so I'm good to go. Uh when you look at the the nine uh requirements here, the one on signage, um there's nothing for the building sign. There's no monument sign. We haven't received any sign permit applications. All right. So, but that's part of the if it's a monument sign, isn't that part of the final plat? They wouldn't need to apply for it at the same time. They could apply for it in the future. I it's just something I just don't want to see overlooked or forgotten about. Absolutely. When signed permits do come into the township, they are distributed for staff comment between building inspection and planning. So, that's something I would review um before approving that permit. Okay. Um other than that, uh there was another one. Uh the vacation easement that's got to be recorded with the county. Is that something that would hold up the final plat? um it would be recorded with the final plat. So, and then it would be up to the county to review once again. Okay. And that easement um vacation is just due to the change in lot lines. There's an easement that runs around the edges of all the lot lines. And the lot lines for that third proposed building lot um were moved north. So, they'll have to vacate the easements and now they're replatting easements in a different location. All right. Uh, any other questions of the board? CJ hearing? None. I need a motion to open up for public comment. I'll move to open up the public portion of the hearing. Second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. Applicants are here. You want to come up and address a couple of the questions we have? In case I rambled on, you know what I'm asking about outlot C and you just want to identify yourself for the record? Yeah. My name is Matson and my address is 6317. Uh to answer your first question on erosion control um so we submitted a swift plan as part of our civil plans and in that swift plan it includes seating all the areas. So there will be mot throughout the areas where is that like a hydro seed? Yes. Is that similar to what you did at the beginning of this project uh along the the big slopes and stuff that because the residents in the north you know they that was a big issue was all the dust and things and then you did seat it or whatever you did and it eliminated a lot of the dust issues. So yeah, so that that would be part of these efforts um particularly for um it's a little confusing but the third building's lot um because that will be sitting intell that's outlot C correct not really kind of sort of it was and then it changed and now it's technically park 35B outlot A second edition okay as long as you know it's changed all right yeah and then to answer the question on uh the easement vacation um outlot A where CJ has shown in green there um on the first platting it was slightly lower because there was four buildings and so we have to vacate the drainage utility easement um as CJ was describing that borders every single lot so it's conforming and so it's part of our platting efforts that we're having to vacate it any questions no thank you well the discussion was brought up about signage, obviously building signage, but the monument sign also. Do you have a spot determined for that? Yeah, so we're getting ready to submit our plans. Um, it's going to live on the northern drive lane, the monument sign, and we'll be following all the the town ordinances for uh monument signage when we Is it on the north side of the driveway or the south side? Uh, I believe it's on the north side. Okay, there's room there. It seems like there's wet land there right away. So, it's a very tight area to fit signage in. like the southern drive line for example, there's no room and so the the north drive lane is where the opportunity is. Um it's going to sit um perpendicular to Centerville, so it won't be running um parallel to it. So there makes up a little space, but to your point, it is very tight. There'll have to be some um foundations that are made to accommodate that. Is that a lit sign or not? Um it'll probably have one light shining up on it. Okay. But very minimal lighting. All right. Any other questions? Um, I have a question. The land and I apologize, but the landscaping plans have tweaked and changed over time. It's And maybe it's in there, maybe it isn't, but what's the uh guarantee for the trees that you're putting in there? I mean, is there like a two-year? How long are you going to make sure that they stay alive, I guess, is what I'm part of the development agreement. So, we're putting up a letter of credit to guarantee the performance there. Yeah. So, so that'll be covered in the development agreement. Correct. Yep. Perfect. Okay. All right. Any else? No. All right. Thanks, Evan. Thank you for your time. All right. Anyone else you'd like to speak to this? I know we have a couple residents here. Just need name need a name and address for the record. Good evening. My name is Steve Bakus at 11:04 Pineal Lane. Um, I know we're moving forward. Um, I'm just wondering, um, no one ever talked about the Centerville Road reconstruction. Do we know when that's about to take place or is that too hard to tell? Well, there you're talking about the hands of Ramsey County. The turn lanes you're talking about, right? Right. Yeah. Yeah. The turn lanes. Okay. They may be able to give us an update. He's looks Evan wants to talk about it. So, when you're done with your other question, maybe you can come up and address that. uh it you know we're getting closer to uh some sort of start date and I don't has anybody even tried to figure out when that might be and then if you're going to start then how long is it going to take and when are my trees on the north west corner going to get planted and then while we're building is there any provisions to do any further mitigation I know sounds like we have some erosion control, but hours of construction, is there ordinances for that or is that open for discussion? And then I think as we move forward, we'll probably have uh more discussion on the lighting. Uh even I hope that it doesn't go in and then it's not um desirable or it's undesirable. So, those are just some of the questions I have. All right. Thank you. Uh, developer, you want to address a couple of these? Why don't you just start on uh Well, obviously you guys are anxious to get going, so I imagine Yeah. So, I can start with timeline as well as turn lanes. So, turn lanes are going to be constructed concurrently with the construction of both buildings. Um, so we received approval from the county that'll be happening here very shortly. um construction of the project as a whole. Um building one and building two, they're going to be slightly phase just because we have to go through the building permit process for building two. So it'll be almost simultaneous, but you'll see building one construction activity picking up here shortly. And then immediately following final approvals, we'll submit for a building permit for building 2. and the construction will take place um a couple weeks after um that process. Um so it'll be happening here pretty shortly. The timeline for construction um it will happen pretty quick uh in the sense that you'll see the walls go up and then a lot of the activities move inside. And so to uh answer your question on timeline, first two to three months they'll be primarily site activities we'll call them and then all the activities will move inside. Um and these are all tip up panels. Correct. These are pre-cast buildings. Um steel structure. So once the the pre-cast and the steel is up um fire sprinkler electrical activities will be happening inside. Um I believe that one of your questions was landscaping. Um and so for our projects, landscaping um goes in as as soon as possible, meaning that once the the curbs are in, once the paving is in, um landscaping will immediately go in. And so our goal is to get the landscaping in in 2025. Right. So, do you think this project will obviously it's going to go into 2026, but yeah. Um, so looking at building one, our goal is to uh deliver to the client beginning of Q2 2026, but a lot of those activities are inside at that time. Yeah. So, construction or targeting to be completed early 2026, January, February, depending upon construction. Is there irrigation for all the the uh plantings? Um so we minimized irrigation just given the water concerns. So there's a variety of planting types. Um so irrigation is limited to uh the sided areas which are really along the roadways and close to the building. What about your plant? You know the plantings you're putting in. You're going to need to get those established. Yeah. So we we do have to get those established and as part of our development agreement, we're we're guaranteed to perform upon that. So if things aren't taking or surviving, we'd have to take appropriate measures. Well, you need to regul You're going to have to do some regular irrigation. That's why I was just asking, you know, like you got a plan for that. Water trucks or you had a lot of you got a lot of landscaping. I was just curious. Yeah. I mean, we would have to pursue measures like that if they were required. Yep. Okay. the uh other I think part of his question had to do with the hours that of construction so that they're serving the neighborhood. Um you follow the town what is the 7 to 7 to 10 isn't it? What can they be on site doing? Yeah, I believe it's 7 to 10. I can confir I know the the 7 to 10 during the week I think the weekends run I want to say 8 to 8 or something and Sundays are like pretty pretty shallow. It's like 10 to 6, something like that. But okay. Is that what you were looking for, Mr. Bakus? Yeah. But that's in that's part of the town ordinance. Yeah. Yeah. Ordinance. Was that all the questions? I apologize. I can't remember if I Yeah. Okay. All right. Thanks, Evan. Anyone else? Hearing none. Going once. Going twice. All right. I need a motion to close the public portion of the meeting. U make a motion to close the public portion of the hearing. I'll second. All in favor say I. All opposed. All right. Are there any other questions of staff? Um I maybe Chad uh development agreement. I did receive a draft from their attorney. There are some issues that I have to talk to TKDA about because their view of what public improvements and our view of public improvements don't agree. So, is that something that would be finalized before the final plat is recorded? We'd sure like to, but you know, we've we've got to we've just got to iron out these difference of opinions once and for all. Well, is this different from the first one? Actually I used the first one as a model and it's the only the big difference between the first one and the second one is the fact that there are is very few public improvements on the in this second phase but there are some public improvements and there's a disagreement with what those public improvements are. Okay. So CJ, you're pretty comfortable that these nine requirements will be handled and we're not we're not going to have anything outstanding. I am and I would um amend to add that um to insert a new number two resulting in 10 conditions. Um with how the phase one is going and um has went, I am confident we can get the development agreement squared away. Um and we will need to finalize that staff review of the plans submitted today. Those plans submitted today were in response to staff comments that they received. um a week or a couple weeks back now. Um so we will just need to have one more staff review cycle. Um but like I said as since phase one went off went well, I wouldn't see any problems with phase two. Yeah, we'll get it done. Yes. Yeah, we absolutely. All right. Any other questions? The board? Uh what's the board's pleasure? Well, I'll I'll move to Kept fill in the blanks for me, but I'll I'll move to approve uh the major subdivision final plat for 5310 Centerville Road Park 35E project subject to now 10 conditions plus uh the added resolution piece for review of the material that was submitted today. 77. I cover it, Chad. Yes. All right. Do I have a second on the motion? Second that. All right. Motion made second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. All right, gentlemen. Thank you. All right. Moving on. Uh 8A is a memorandum on variance requests regarding legal non-conforming uses and structures. Moratorium. What did I say? You said memorandum. Close enough. Yeah. Uh who's g CJ? you going to start with this or Chad? I can give some background on what the issue is um and then Chad can fill us in on state statute um regarding moratoriums. So, we've discussed this a few times before that there are a lot of applications and inquiries from residents as of late and the past few years regarding um variances for structures and uses that are currently not conforming to the ordinance because they were established prior to when the ordinance was adopted with whatever regulations they're requiring an a variance from. Now, when you compare our non-conforming use section of our ordinance um to state statute, we are following state statute. Um we are permitted to to not require expan or not allow expansion of these uses. However, we also do have the option to allow for expansion of these non-conforming uses through a proper process. Right now, our ordinance does not have a process for that. We don't have any sort of um variance that we could allow or any sort of um administrative process that could allow for these people to expand their uses. For example, a paved driveway within the setback. If they wanted to add an extra parking pad to the opposite side of the setback toward the interior of their lot, that would be considered expanding the use. And we currently don't permit that. Uh, this also has come up with um people improving their boat houses that currently have flat roofs. They want to pitch the roof, but that expands the height and we currently don't have a process for them to do so. So, we've been charged by the board to begin looking at that ordinance and making those updates, which staff is currently doing, and the planning commission will be reviewing some suggestions at the 7:24 meeting this month. However, even that being said, we continue to get calls about this. Uh, for example, last week alone, I got three calls from people wondering if this is something they could do. So, I let them know that we're in the process of updating the ordinance. One of our options instead of just saying no, you can't is a moratorum on this. So, we can't accept variances. And that's where Chad comes in. Yeah. And that's the whole purpose of moratorum is to allow staff the time to review the ordinance and come up with new language because one of the problems is this is until you adopt the new language the old language is in effect. So anyone that comes in has the right to be considered under the old language. And I I CJ accurately described what the problem is. The fact is that the existing non-conforming use ordinance does not allow for expansion of a non-conforming use. And that doesn't I'm not saying that you should allow for it, but sometimes expansion is makes sense such as the case you saw where the young couple wanted to build a second story on top of their garage to build a playroom for their kids. You couldn't do that. as CJ just described, it can't be done. Or put a pitched roof on a flat roof uh lake lakeside built boat house. You can't do it because it would ex it would expand an existing u non-conforming use. So I think cons reconsidering your ordinance makes a lot of sense. But the problem is if you you know you really need a moratorum to give you time give the give staff the time and the board time to review this. So you're not not caught in a situation where how to put it becomes what it just become cumbersome. So we're going on a not so much cumbersome it just becomes really confusing for people and for staff what do we apply and I don't think it provides the board an opportunity to be consistent in their oversight as well. Yes. I mean you you you just need the whole point of a mortorium is to give staff and the board time to look at this issue in a manner that's reasonable and and rational instead of having to do this in the one one one one uh one application at a time. Chad, how does this moratorium differ from the one we did five six years ago? It doesn't. So it's the same principle. same principle because that that was when they were turning the language from a hardship to reasonable use of the property was pretty difficult practic Yeah. Yeah. Well, they what they Yeah. When they basically reverted to the language they had before that court case came down, but yeah, it's it's the same same reason for doing it. Okay. But essentially isn't isn't the issue where we've got problems basically in specific areas. I mean, you can I mean, like literally where all the backas housing is, I don't think there's much there except for the people want to take a onecar garage and make it a twocar garage, which we've done often. Yeah. But, you know, the problem is grant, you know, v the variance statute, I think, in my mind creates a a real problem in that it just says reasonable use. What does that mean? is the existing use of reasonable use. Uh, and I know some some attorneys feel that reasonable use is basically anything you want to do. Um, so it I guess the whole point is right now the ordinance doesn't give staff the flexibility. you know, it it kind of handcuffs staff because you literally the answer has to be no, you can't expand the use and then they say, well, you know, then they they argue hardships and everything else. Well, you're just getting, you know, this is the same problem we had we were talking about about a year ago, uh, actually almost two years ago with Evan and lot splits. you know what are you know we're we're we're doing this in a case by case basis and not always creating rational reasons for what for one case to the next. It's time to get some kind of uniform method of dealing with these issues and creating some framework that would allow people to expand the non-conforming use in a reasonable manner. So this gives us a legal pause. Exactly. It's a legal pause to give you time to think and work out a framework to deal with it. How did this come about now? Because the timing is super poor because now is when people want to be building. Well, that's the that's why it came about because again the example of the of the couple that came in and wanted to wanted to build a second second story on the garage. Mhm. Well, they couldn't because that would violate our ordinance. Plus the fact is our ordinance itself as you did seem to have some inconsistencies inconsistent issues or procedures that have to be straightened out. Well, the biggest thing is the township has all these little lake homes. They have all these new developments with big houses. We have houses on the lakes and we have a a mixture of of types of housing and types of lots. So it it's going to be a tough task for staff to sit down and get a uniformity when we've got all these clusters of different kinds of housing. So it's not going to be an easy thing to hash out. It's it's not but creating a new looking at re reviewing the ordinance and creating some standards to what what what expansions are allowed and what expansions won't be allowed in non-conforming uses will solve the problem you just described. Well, at least we'll go a long way towards dealing with the problem you just described. It's not going to We can't solve every problem, but it'll go a long way to resolving the problems. Do we have a a somewhat of a timeline how long we want to Well, you can you can do it up to a year. The mortorium is up to a year, but I CJ can comment on this. I don't think you'll want to use an entire year to redo this. U may if you do set it for a year, Chad, is there a way to um remove it the moratorum early? Oh yes. Once you adopt we did for example 90 days but we only needed 60 or if we did 120 but we only needed 90. The moratorum is the the year. Okay. Once you redo your ordinance once you've achieved your goal which is in this case reviewing your your variance ordinance. Once you've adopt the new ordinance then the mortorium would would uh would fall away and that would be on a board meeting when we adopt it. Yes. Okay. Based on timeline, um since a moratorum does require a public hearing, um notice to be in the paper and online as well as to notify anybody with open applications that this would affect um to get it in the paper for those 10 days. You would be looking at a an action being taken on August 4th to implement a moratorum to implement the moratorum. And then the review process for this would look like a couple planning commission meetings for their review and workshopping this the the draft language. Then it would come to the board um for approval or tableabling in a 60-day post if it's the change to the ordinance after that anyway. Well, not under this statute. Okay. This statute uh under the statute dealing with um with moratoriums, it's actually pretty quick. Okay. And oh no, I'm talking about as we get further along and we're um Yeah, that's correct. So once it would get to the town board, it would require a public hearing. Um and if the item is tabled for further review by the board or staff, uh correct me if I'm wrong, Chad, but the public hearing would remain open until that next meeting. That's the actual change in the order. Yes, that's right. All right. Well, but either way, we're safe at setting this moratorum at a year. Yes. And hopefully staff we can get this resolved before that. Yes. the board feel comfortable with that? Very comfortable here. Now, again, you can't adopt the ordinance until you actually publish, right? Well, I I guess we're probably just looking to confirm a motion to for staff to proceed with the the process. Now, I got to tell you, there's there's a couple points you need to keep in mind. First of all, any applications that are already in have to be considered. And when I say applications have been accepted, they have to be considered be you know if they right now so the ordinance the moratorum won't affect those and plus the statute has an internal inconsistency which I need to make the board aware of. All right. The one section of the statute says that a municipality and the town is a municipality under the under the under the definitions of the statute. Uh may authorize a study to be conducted or hold um or has scheduled a uh hearing for the purpose considering adoption of amendments to in comprehensive plans or official controls. Well, zone, you know, zoning is official control. Then it goes on to state that a statutory city or home charter ruled city may adopt an interim ordinance for the that regulation or or restricts or prohibits a housing proposal. Well, variances are a housing proposal. So the question that I thought I had understood but now I think about it I think is is in is unclear is do you have the right to adopt a moratorum that deals with variances on residences. I would say yes, you do because the it says statutory or home route may adopt. Well, you know, I guess what I'm trying to explain and not I'm not doing a very good job of it is the fact that they throw this clause in the statute that doesn't seem to be necessary because it already has been dealt with earlier in the same statute. So it's my opinion that if you adopt a moratorum it covers variances for even including residential structures modification residential structures even though the statute may imply otherwise. So uh just let you know that there's a possibility someone's going to raise that argument and I think the answer is no. The moratorium covers everything. Well that also begs the question we're gonna we're gonna move to start the procedure tonight. Does that mean any application coming in after tonight will not be accepted because we're already No, no, no. It's you have to hold the hearing the hearing. Okay. This is a grace period till it's Yeah. finalized. But then again can make you know so we're clear that even an application that comes in before the hearing still is considered under the old ordinance and the old ordinance would have you know my interp I wouldn't readress that. Well, it could it could it you're readressing anything involving variances. Okay. But again, the problem is right now actually I take any well it could be variance but right now really focusing on nonconforming uses. I I I I should withdraw that it's not variances. We're not really we're not really looking at the variance language per se. We're looking at the non-conforming use language which doesn't permit expansion non-conforming uses. Okay. All right. So, timeline, CJ. If we get staff to start on this, how soon would we would this come to the board for a proposal or actually it would be a resolution for a be an ordinance? A moratorium. It's a it's an ordinance. Okay. Um for the moratorum, you would see something on at the first meeting in August, Monday, August 4th, to take action on for the ordinance update. Then it'll initially go to the planning commission on the 24th of this month for the initial discussion and discovery of what this issue is and what the options may be. And then the planning commission will have that discussion and staff will take that feedback and uh create a draft of what a potential ordinance update could be. It'll go back to the commission at the end of August. And I can't speak for the commission, but if they decide to make a recommendation at that meeting, it would go to the board at a public hearing at the second meeting in September, which would be se Monday, September 15th. That'd be the earliest the town board would see it is Monday, September 15th. If the board chooses to table it, it would come back then in October 6th. Um if approval is if the proposal is sufficient approval may happen even then but I wouldn't expect the earliest the mortorium would be effect go into effect is September 15th. Is that what I'm getting? Oh, excuse me. Sorry. The earliest the moratorium would go into effect is your next meeting in August. Okay. That's what I'm looking for. Yeah. And then the earliest we would have this process completed would be um I'd say the earliest would be end of September, but it may take longer for work. It's aggressive, I'd say. So, I'd say probably this winter at some point. All right. Well, is the board comfortable with this procedure then? Yes. So, basically, Chad, you just want a a motion for for the board to have staff proceed with um timing and Yes. You want to formulate that one, Steve? I'll go try. If I can make a suggestion, I can suggest some language. Simply the board will dropped a motion directing staff to proceed with preparation of a moratorum to reconsider for the purpose of reviewing and studying the present non-conforming use ordinance. Well, that's my motion. I couldn't have said it better. All right. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. All right. Good luck, CJ. Thank you. He doesn't need luck. Yeah. Moving on. Hey, Brooks. Uh 2627 Southshore Boulevard. Potential lot split. I know Davey handed some stuff out. You want to come up to the podium? I think your name and address for the record for us. Airman, board member, council, businessman. His name is Chad. Yeah. CJ, my name is David Brooks. I live at 2627 Southshore Boulevard in Lake Fair Lake, the township for 55 years and it's been a good 55 years there. Uh I gave you a packet. First one is just a picture of the site as you can see. It was too big to put on that that deal. And then I have some I better go over the Would you prefer to project it or have That's the house on the uh deal. A little bit about myself. I'm a developer develop mostly in St. Paul historic buildings and this is not an historic house. I'm saying that just because that's what I do. Uh some of the Bayport uh uh town house and Warden's house we moved. Uh I bought a whole house on White Bear Lake that's 120 years old and redid that. And I'm in rehab and I I got a couple buildings on the historic registry of the National Registry and I got a lot of buildings on the state registry. I like to take old projects and put a new art and lung into them and put them back on the market. My daughter came across this. Now, if you go to option one, it's about I'm asking to split the lot. The lot is 128.5 long by 162 ft deep. If you cut the option one, if you cut the lot in half, it would be 10,000 square ft. 75 10,000 ft² roughly for each lot which I know it's not you know it's 12,000 ft² I know that uh there's two lots right in back of this they're both 8,000 square ft on four street uh that would be one option the other option option number two you'd see is to take a little bit more off of one lot and put it where the house is that'd be 12,000 and go for one variance uh to build a house on the other lot. This is next to the 150,000 square foot wetlands that the county has. I don't think anybody will build there. So, as far as curb cuts from Fourth Street all the way down to your property, it's roughly 430 ft with no curb cuts. The house on it has a curb cut off of Fourth Street to their house. So, there's nothing on the front of Eagle Street. Uh, I'm here just to see what the temperature is with the console. I mean, it's uh, you know, it's not a big project, but it's a project and I'm in White Bear and uh, I would I would redo the old house with the siding and the windows back to what it was. You know, in the meantime, I'd build a different house on the other lot. Steve, I know this is the first time we've seen it, so could uh Steve, thoughts? My first thought is it's awful tight. It's tough. How? What? It's tough to split that size-wise. It's tough for the the township to split it. Yeah. Yeah. It's so If you It's small. If you've left the 12,000 If you left the 12,000 piece and the city's got what is it? Oops. I got that wrong. Okay. Uh I'm sure the township wouldn't give me a thousand square feet on their on their land. No. But if if it's if it's not a split and it's it's you know it's going to cost a lot of money and time and energy to do it. So I mean if there if there's the council says absolutely not then it's absolutely not. I mean I can I can live with that. Uh I just uh saw the project and I thought it was a good project and uh there's houses there's lots that are 8,000 square ft around it. It's not like I would be starting something different if I if I had the 12,000 one that is existing and an 8,000 one there. There's two 8,000 lots right in back of it. Yeah. It's not I the area has the $8,000 lots, but I know the ordinance. Yeah. I was going to say I I wouldn't dispute that because it's that's fact. But doesn't mean that's comfort. Yeah. And we're not trying to uh follow bad precedent either. So I I understand. Well, and usually the town doesn't feel comfortable uh doing lot splits and creating a substandard lot. Cuz now what happens is now you want to put a house in there. Now all a sudden they want uh variances for the sideyard setback so you can fit a house on it. So we create more variances. That's why our hair goes up when it looks like you we're creating a really small lot. Yeah, granted I've done it before. I know the lot sets and I know the house I could build and I know I know that. But it's it's a matter of your temperature is you don't do it. That's it. Well, and you just heard what we're going to go through now with nonconforming and Yeah. Yeah. I know. It's a big piece of property and you got roughly 500 square ft down Eagle Street that there's nothing on it. And I thought if I could save the old house, it was way in the back of the lot. It's not up in the front of the lot and put another house. There'd be one house on Eagle Street and 500 square feet. To me, it's okay, but I'm not on the town board. Yeah. Beth, questions, comments? Um, I have to say I'm not really in favor of, you know, I live on a lot that's 80 by 130 and honestly, that's tight. You know, you're looking into your neighbors. It's There's no neighbors on this land. I I know. Oh, I walk by that place every day. Yeah, it's it it's a wetland. It's open. No, no, I know. Trust me, I know play about that wetland. I Yeah, I think it overflows in that yard, which I could correct, but doesn't matter. It's It's the split. We've turned down so many people though with similar with larger lots. So, I guess I wouldn't really be comfortable with going ahead with this one. It's fine. Not that I mean, I love the fact that you're going to renovate there. I miss the guy's garden. It was a great garden ide it's it's not a historic house but it's a it's a pool house in White Bear and developer will tear it down. He'll build a big house there. That's what that's what it's going to be. That's what happens. That's what that's what's going to happen. It's a great neighborhood though. And I can live with that. It's an idea. Just another one that didn't work. You're pragmatic. That's a nice way to look at it. Well, actually going in overtime. Well, but Dave, we appreciate you coming forward to us because like I said, if you would have ran this through the planning commission and tried to run it, it's just going to be out of pocket expense and you might want to get a temperature here. It probably went the flu anyway. But yeah, let's say it's uh below zero temperature. Yeah. As long as I've been turned on, you know the pump house you in my front yard, you're not going to have access to that. Okay. Just kidding. Just kidding. That's how you play hard ball. There will be a gate party in your bump house. Thank you, sir. On there. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Dave. Bye. Okay, moving on. Uh, state fair parking discussion. Uh, yeah, Mr. chair, we're getting a little bit of an earlier jump on that this year. Um I think all parties are involved are in favor of a repeat of the way things went last year. Um went very well. The board requested that um the homeowners association's over in that neighborhood take over management of replacing and um just keeping on top of no parking signs out there after our public works department would place them. uh they'd also would be taking them down, but the between time uh the homeowners association would be in charge. So discussing this with the parties involved over there um and it was great too. The other the other thing that I'll mention is that uh the board requested that if there were any complaints by residents uh or people participating or finding that this no parking was ownorous to them that those complaints go to the homeowner boards and they did um I think we got about a half a dozen calls last year from people who were upset about it. Um they they made contact with us once we directed them to the home the HOAs over there and we didn't hear from them again. Um, was that forwarded off to Ramsey County Sheriff's or not? No. Nope. What was the complaints? I'm curious. Mostly inconvenience. Oh, yeah. So, so tonight, uh, have you had discussions yet this year? So, you're head of the game. They're they're they're okay with the way it worked last year. They don't want any changes and they put it in writing that they are had in writing last year. We will put it in writing this year cuz I don't deal on verbals. I I understand. And you said the same thing last year 12 months ago. That is correct because there's misunderstandings when it's he said, she said. And I I want it firmly agreed that that they'll take the calls and that they'll take control of the parking situation once we sign a map that outlines the whole thing. Whatever they did last year should work. Yep. And the language that Chad put together for us was uh per the authority of the township board. uh signs will be placed out by public works department on day before this parking begins. Township retains authority for these roads and signs and with the input of residents place the signs to control state fair parking. Has have we been notified that that is going to be a parking ride lot again this year? I I don't Oh, actually, you know what? No, not by the state fair. You're right. So, that is something that we should check up on just to make sure that that's still going. Yeah, they've been tweaking some of those and so it might not. That one was well used. It was very well used. Yeah. All right. So, this is justformational. Yep. And you're proceeding with the getting the paperwork. I don't know if we need a resolution on it. Do we? I mean, I've got the language that the homeowner association boards will recognize and adopt. Do we need to do something? I don't think so. I I thought it was all staff internally last year. If I remember right, I was supposed to repeat the same process. If it ain't broke, let's don't fix. Yeah. Broke, don't fix. That's easy. Thank you. All right. Uh, let's see. The last one we have, uh, North Oaks Joint Powers Agreement. Yeah. How do you want to start that one, Patrick? Well, it has been a challenge. Um, as we've reported to the board frequently over the last couple of years, we have been working through the establishment and ratification of a JPA between the city of North Oaks and the township. Um we were just told recently um within the last 10 days that a key component to the work that we put in um on this arrangement is being refused. Um the placement of meter pits um on the uh western end of the township in order to regulate and management water flow and be able to read. Um, we were have been told that they, the city of North Oaks, do not want to put these in. There's no value for them at a million dollars is what the estimated cost of the project is. So basically what I'm here to get is direction from the board as to how you would like us to proceed as staff knowing that you know probably the most important part of the project is being refused at this point. So well let me let me ask you Chad a question. Sure. the the joint powers agreement as it existed, not the new one because it didn't adopt the new one, I guess, but the the one that was in existence had a a termination clause at terminated May of 2025. May of 2025 was proper notice provided to them that we were that we are invoking our right to terminate the joint powers agreement. Two years ago, we did two years ago. No, we don't have to get any more notice. It's gone. And and so where have we done anything wrong? We haven't. We haven't. So I I What's the ne let's let's just make an assumption here that it um moving forward our position is to invoke the termination clause of that agreement. What notice do we have to give them at this point? None. We've already given it to them. What What does that involve? Shutting off the water. Literally. I I don't think that that's probably the best course. Um and I think you know that too. No, I mean I'm just I'm just playing devil's advocate. What is No, I mean Yeah. Go ahead, Pat. Okay. I So Chad and I were kind of talking about this beforehand about how to handle this going forward with things the way they are. Um I believe that um and I'm happy to do it. Uh the next discussion that we have with our our friends to the west of us uh I can ask very bluntly if their intent is to bypass uh installing water meter pits uh as it is called for in our JPA. And if they're going to refuse to do that, I'll give them notice. Whatever the whatever the board's comfort level is about giving them notice. I I I I mean I I I think they're being unreasonable. And the other thing the other thing about this I'm sorry Ed. The other thing about this is that this has been known for over two years now and then within the last two weeks we're told that they aren't going to adhere to this part of the agreement. We were under the assumption that this joint powers agreement was taken to their board and was uh ratified or signed. the city. Now, now we find out that it's not. Yes. So, obviously they're in violation of the JPA, which is expired now anyway. So, well, they're not in violation of it because it doesn't exist anymore. Exist. What's the downside? I mean, if we just It's like, you know, well, the downside is that side of North Oaks doesn't have water. Maybe that's what they need. You know, you know that's I mean honestly they won't react to anything from a time perspective. Pat, how fast could they put those meters in? Oh, I don't know. I mean Dale and I have been probably estimating had they begun in the early part of the spring, they might have had them in place by the end of this year. So it would take basically a calendar year to do that. And there's been no no initiative positive or negatively until recently. I I thought Dale said they had a engineer working on it. Yeah. There's what 13 going to be too much of a burden. There's 12 of them. Yep. Nine on Centerville and three on what is that? Birch. I forgot where the other three are. The nine on Centerville. The ones. Yep. Yeah. I mean, so again being devil's advocate here. So, if we decided that our best action was to to terminate water, do those residents in North Oaks that are our water customers, we do we have do legally do we have to notify them that their water is turned off? No. Or or to the city with the joint powers agreement? Because they're not our customers. They're they're literally keep in mind that we don't have a contract directly with the with uh individuals with those individuals. The only gray area is that is the fact that when it comes North Oaks property such as the condominium project, we agreed to expand the JPA to include them. But even that I don't you know it's still subject to the terms of the JPA. I mean it's a it's a contract between ourselves between the township and the city. They you know those individuals really don't have well they're going to claim they'll probably make a claim that the beneficiaries of the contract but the point being is that we don't owe them any legal duty. Uh, one possibility is simply go to him and say, go to North Oak and say, "Okay, you have 30 days to explain to us how you intend to to to uh report to us how much water you're actually using, how we can bill you, because right now we don't have any method of billing them." Well, that was part of the reason why the the meters were a big deal. Exactly. So we can control consumption and supply and so we can control our regulations if this lawsuit ever decides that we have to start rationing or or if they can at least hit that 7090 number. Y we have no idea to know if they're even doing that if they're just taking the water and we're not we can't there's no way of us counting. I mean the whole pit was based on the model of shore view. Yes, exactly. We didn't give them anything new. Okay. So, going with what you said, 30 days to see what their plan is. So, if their plan is Well, thank you for letting us know. And it's we're not doing anything this year. Stick with us. Maybe next year. That's up to the board to decide. The board, if you wanted to, you could cut them off. really don't want to do that. No, I know you don't. But I really would like to have them be a little bit rational about this and sit down with us and get this, you know, hashed out. Here's the problem. The longer this thing sits without any resolution. There's an implied contract to continue to supply water. you know, it's it's creating a real gray area that's just going to create conflict and and potential legal legal uh dispute with the city of North Oaks. How how is this piece going to affect that uh agreement? Part of the new agreement, isn't it, to provide water, fire suppression or the fire hydrants for this new development that they want to do in there? Is that all wrapped up in this thing, too? Yeah. Well, it's not in our best interest, in my opinion, to continue this charade that they're doing. I think you should cut their water off. I mean, you you can't get their attention otherwise. I know it's the residents are suffering, but because it's not their board or But you hate you hate to persecute the residents when it's probably the HOAs and the city council that can't get their stuff together. Well, do you want to talk to like a news reporter and it's like laying out in the press? I mean, they're not paying attention. I the big the the bottom line is we have to protect our own residents. We have we have only so much water and if we can't meter what they're using, we could eventually end up trying to uh ration our own township residents. I'm not doing that. And we made a good faith effort to to work this out and and I haven't seen anything in return. I would suggest that we give him a 30-day notice to justify You better speak up. Sorry. I would suggest that we give them a 30-day notice to respond to us as to why uh it is in the interest of this JPA to not have these meter pits installed immediately. But you said immediately is a year. Give them a break. 10 months. That's still they've already had a year to do it or two years to do it. I suspect there's my own opinion that there's the residents are not being kept in the loop on this. I can't prove that. That's none of my business. But we deal with the council and in as to Ed's point. I thought we were led to believe that this was adopted by the the North Oaks city council. So were we. And to find out that it wasn't is is still their problem. All right. Well, Chad, if we uh pursue that, that would be on your end to draft a letter to send an email, a letter to the uh city attorney explain. No, what do you want me to tell her? Um, we're turning off your water. Okay. How about you? We have 30 days to hash out this JPA. That's it. Well, that's what we're working on. And actually, I I'd narrow the issue. You have 30 days to inform to explain to the town how you intend to meter the water that is entering your boundaries from the township. Okay. So 30 days they write us back and say well we're going to have a different plan in a year. Well then it's not acceptable. Well and then with at the same time tell them and by the and give them a deadline by which they have to have a this system in place. Well, that deadlines don't seem to work. Well, then then actually you're they're for you're you're they're kind of forcing you forcing the township to say, "Fine, if you're not going to cooperate, if you're not going to work with us, then why are we we're not going to give any water, period." I mean, it's really what it comes down to. I it's it's I hate to I hate to see their residents suffer for someone else's negligence, but I didn't elect the city council of North Oaks. That's that's an internal issue, but they're dysfunctional. They're Let's I'm not going to go that road. They have a acting city council and mayor that is negligent to the citizens and it appears that you've got a dysfunction you know like we've heard before the HOA and the city council have issues. Yeah. I was trying to avoid talking about the HOA because that's a different piece of we're dealing with the government. The city council this JPA is with the city. It is with the city. Yes. And the residents are the ones that are the the victims here. That's true. The bad guys look like us because we control the water. But the narrative is is that we have given all our notices to the city of North Oaks of our intent to to uh change how the water was um distributed to them and they've taken little to no action that we can see. But one thing is how we how has the town been billing them for water since January 1st? How are you? Just um um just getting meter reads with staff right now, 440 properties. And more, I guess one thing that bothers me, if they won't put the pits in, then what's going to say they're going to adopt ordinances that follow a water conservation ordinance, right? They've already shown they're not willing. Well, I don't It's not that they're not willing, it's just they don't seem to care about monitoring it. They're just they're still running wild like the water's free. I mean, they do have a to to to Beth's point, they do have a different form of of of government there. Two entities that that share responsibility at some point, but that's not our problem. Our problem is we have a joint powers agreement with the city of North Oaks which we have fulfilled our terms as far as we I can see and notified them of our intent to alter that original JPA. They've taken nothing to heart. I think maybe what we should do is you, me, Bridg should have a discussion on this. Tell them about the board's intent to sever this relationship. Can you give us an idea of potential of this of of your council changing its mind about the installation of a key component of the JPA and register what it is their responses? Well, at least if is is that the stumbling block? Is that the only reason they didn't sign this? No, there's some smaller. So, they approved it like a month ago contingent upon further discussions between attorneys that when they get it app or when their attorney said everything was fine, they would reconsider it for they're just playing for time. There's this small tweaks and those those have been dealt with. is the major stumbling block is the meter pits. Yes. Which again, I'm going to ask if if this what affects thought I turned that the North Oaks company's request for this new development. Did we did we the township agree to to provide water there separate from the joint powers agreement or is that part of the new new one? It's all governed by the terms of the JPA. Okay. got it in because actually it wouldn't be a bad idea to tell okay I would recommend that we contact North Oaks company or wherever they call themselves now and and indicate to them that but because of the lack of JPA do not expect any further connect connections. Yes. because they are including those that have already already they may be relying on on cuz they were before us and they talked about the need to have Lake Johanna couldn't provide fire service and that we would agree to do that but that was under the understanding that we had an agreement with the city of North Oaks as I I understand it with a joint powers agreement that doesn't exist so I think we have to let them know that they got to talk to the city and get that squared away Before we touch them, I I I would say Kevin, me, Chad, Bridget, start out with a discussion and then judging from that discussion, we determine whether or not we should serve notice officially. So that big development on right across from Park Eject is deadly affected by this. But you know what? It's not our property. That's It is not our property. That's why I'm saying there's an urgency on their part to get something to satisfy us. I think we'd be wise to let North Oaks company know what's going on, that there's no agreement at this point in time. Okay. Because I don't want someone to argue that, you know, we led you on. Yeah. I I I want to have the discussion with the other two parties. Okay. That's fine. That's fine. All right. So, staff's going to run with this for at least the time being so we can get some kind of resolution here. We'll have something in place by the end of this week. All right. Thank you. Okay, we'll let it rest. All right, moving on. Uh, that ends our regular agenda. Open time. Looks like we're pretty quiet, so I'm going to ask that we vacate the premises so we can go into close session with our attorney. Do you want to let uh Lisa know? Yep. motion to come out of close session uh for the discussion of the White Bear Fire Department litigation. I'll make a motion to come out of close session after discussion of the I'll second it. All in favor? I opposed. Chad, you just want to give a synopsis? The board was in closed session for the purpose of discussing the litigation between the city of Wiper Lake and the and the township regarding the terms of the fire service contract. Take this back. No, you can keep it. Uh reading. I already read it. Okay. I need a motion to receive a gentleman and supplements. So moved. Second. All in favor say I. I. I need a motion to adjurnn at 8:35. So move second. All in favor? I take down