we will call the town board meeting for November 18th 2024 to order uh first item on the agenda is the agenda Patrick Mr chair there are no additions or deletions from staff on this evening's agenda uh board have anything no nothing hearing none I need a motion to approve the agenda I'll move to approve the agenda as stated I'll second all in favor say I I I opposed and then on item three is I need approval payment of the bills I signed off move to approve payment of the Bills second motions made second all in favor say I I I all right item four is the approval of the prior minute meetings from November 4th 2024 anybody have any corrections I did not see any no I reviewed those and they looked fine I can make a motion to approve the minutes of November 4th second all in favor say I I I all right item five is a consent to agenda item we have I believe six if the what's the board's pleasure uh there was a minor correction made and staff made that correction on on U five is it 5c let me go back up here uh just note that it was there was an error in the actually was 5f uh one of one of the certificates had the wrong name on it and they fixed that before the meeting today so the records will reflect that it has the proper certificate for the uh for the to of white bear so move to approve all second all right all favor say I I I opposed all right moving on item 6A this is North Oaks old business joint Powers agreement I'm going to throw this one over to my educated colleague Chad okay did you receive the redline version I apologize for the lateness I time kind of got away from me received it I didn't see any red lines did we just added the 125% actually we did a couple of things uh yeah we on the paragraph uh page one section one we added 125% of the tier one residential water rate as the U as the rate to be charged then on uh page two still part of section one added language that indicates that the city will be responsible for the construction of the large capacity water meters construction installation of them of those meters and and then the town after the town accepts them will be response for maintenance of those meters uh and in the event the town decide at the town's discretion they decide they need to be replaced the city will do so and also in um section 2B on page three I clarified that b is and boy B is and boy okay uh that all repairs the town's uh that um all repairs and maintenance for which the city is responsible pursuing to the terms this paragraph shall be completed in a reasonable manner basically I think we a little concerned that uh the maintenance obligations of the city weren't clear under 2B and we just made it I try to make it clear make it make clarify the fact that the city is responsible to maintain its own uh water system and I am very pleased to report that there is movement going on with securing a an employee to provide maintenance to the North Oaks water system so we were concerned um I feel that they it's moving in a direction now that's so we have not sent them the final version because we haven't it yet well what I did do was this I got a call from their from their City attorney and she requested I send a copy of the proposed joint powers and I said it with with the understanding had not been approved by the board so at least they've got a start on it so those are the changes I made to the Joint Powers we we uh reviewed on November 4th and you verified that 125% that was what should we were going to use yeah yeah okay I mean to be honest with you I was wondering if we would create a special rate for them but 125% seems make makes sense of the tier one mhm it did to the Utility Commission as well that went through the Utility Commission for recommendation correct they recommended okay uh you had mentioned there's movement now on someone to handle the maintenance end but what about the uh skada and water beating readings and they they even moved on that at all because you can have all the maintenance you want we're going to get the reporting it's true um baby steps Mr chair yeah well otherwise does that mean if there is a report to us we would have to pass it on to whoever is supposed to be doing this in the time being correct I just hate being in the middle man because something gets dropped we're I think we had assumed I mean at least in the early going of this agreement uh there was going to be I mean it's not going to be a clean Break um I think I don't think we are going to be helping them along for a certain amount of time so that we so that we've got Comfort on both ends and it's okay to It Go and that that's I do understand that and that's beyond what we're trying to prove tonight so yeah is that on our agenda is that on our agenda for the exec meeting to discuss this next steps believe so and if it's not we'll add because the stuff that the chair talked about about you'd like to have a discussion about that because this is should not be a never ending date I totally agree they've had how long years two years two years so now we're coming down to two months so not even actually a month and a half I I I have I'll make a motion based on the town attorney's review and recommendation to approve the joint Powers agreement with the city and North Oaks with the stipulation that we continue or that accept that but I'd also make sure we have that further discussion at the uh ex meeting yep second that all right motion May second any further discussion hearing none all in favor say I I I all opposed all right moving on item 6B is the stable properties yes Mr chair the Eda board just held um its meeting right before this one it made a recommendation to the Township Board to accept the appraisal that's been submitted and that is in your packet um subsequent to further discussion of the appraisal uh relevant to real estate transaction that would be handled in a closed session uh Chad I know we've talked about this before we don't have to sell at an appraisal value no you do not but we can obviously try to sell for more if we counter offer yes so that's still on the table but we're kind of getting on into the what a closed session would be but no you're Mr chair you're correct there's there's no obligation to sell it for the for the appraised value all right uh board have any questions on the appraisal no look very thorough they always are all right hearing none I need a motion to accept I'll move to accept the appraisal report of the stable property I'll I'll second that all right all in favor say I I I all opposed all right moving on item 7A this is a public hearing so I need that's a concerning a uh lot split on Stillwater Street I need a motion to wave the reading I'll move to wave the reading that was properly published second all all favor say I I opposed all right then I need a motion to open up the hearing I'll move to open the hearing second fav hi I I'm a little failure here on my computer all right uh who's going to start this start Mr chair so before you tonight you have a minor subdivision they're requesting to split an existing lot into two parcels uh the map before you and on the screens tonight is the buildability plan uh you also have the survey for the minor subdivision itself in your packet before you tonight uh just summarize the meeting memo before you uh this current parcel has a house and two accessory structures it would be split into two um parcel a is proposed to have the existing house and the two garages remain on that parcel a lot line would run north to south splitting that parcel into two and parcel B would then be located on the East half uh that would be vacant and available for future development there is a wetland on the south side of the property that would be essentially 50/50 split between parcel a and parcel B uh the properties that are proposed before you tonight uh would meet the size the impervious surface coverage requirements as well as the width SL Frontage requirements of the township uh these Lots would be zoned one as what they are own currently so these would be um able to continue in the case of parcel a to be single family residential or for parcel B uh be developed as a single family lot in the future uh parcel B would have approximately 2100 ft of land outside of required setbacks uh those include both the setbacks from the lot line um all the frontages since you have the alleyway as well as uh the two streets um then you'd also have a setback from that Wetland um in order to meet the township requirements for elevation above uh flood level or storm level elevations um the applicant proposed and prepared a buildability plan which is that second map in your packet before you tonight uh that shows uh the grading and future work that would have to be done to allow future development on the site uh that blue area shown as the cross-hatched on the plan uh shows a future house pad driveway um basically any sort of develop in the future uh that area totals just over 1,800 Square ft for future development on that site um and then that would be compliant again with setbacks and other requirements of the township which way was the driveway going is it going east or South there's no driveway shown on there but which way would it access uh you could either go to the north to the alley or you could go uh towards Park Avenue to the east okay I think likely you'd go towards the alley based on you know laying a house down there but you do have options all right uh this lot since it is a minor subdivision does trigger uh Park land dedication as found in your subdivision ordinance uh since there is no Park land identified in our comprehensive plan uh fee and L would be required instead of land uh that value would be 3500 and would be required to be paid by the applicant um we do have other comments from agencies and staff including meeting memo um engineering Public Works had a handful of comments uh those have since been addressed by the latest plans before you tonight uh the options you have are to either approve with findings as well as conditions or without conditions uh you could also deny with findings for denial or you could choose to table for further review uh the recommendation from the Planning Commission was to approve the request um there is a draft resolution that includes those conditions of approval and if you want me to summarize those conditions um the proposed minor subdivision would have to adhere to the survey dated and received by the township on 117 2024 uh they would still have to add erosion control measures and stabilization notes onto the survey regarding that existing gravel driveway that would be removed as requested by The Watershed District uh they would have to pay the required Park line edication fee as we discussed of $3,500 um and any future development on that proposed parcel B would have to adhere to the Watershed rules at time of application uh four utility connection fees for water and sewer on proposed parcel B would have to be paid prior to any sort of connection five any future development on Parcels A and B shall have the lowest elevation of any buildings be 3T above the 100-year storm elevation as required by Town ordinance um you'd also have to have a geotechnical report reviewed by the township prior to building permits issued issued for future development on parcel B um 5B the existing gra driveway as discussed earlier would have to be removed and 5c future development on parcel B would have to adhere to that buildability plan reviewed here tonight that is dated 118 2024 um condition six they'd have to acquire any other permits condition seven they'd have to adhere to any required rules whether that's federal state or local then the last condition they would have to pay any fees or escrow associated with this request it that is it isn't that enough right Steve were you at the yes yes I was uh I there was a lot of discussion they had issues with it after uh this was the second time it uh yeah so we had reviewed initially in August uh there's some outstanding review of the storm water issues on the site that engineering and Public Works asked for uh their engineer the applicants worked with our engineer uh then came up with this buildability plan that you have seen before you tonight Mike Johnson also attended this at least the second one he didn't have any issues for the Planning Commission that he was overly concerned with so they recommended [Music] approval any questions EV yeah did the 35 foot setback from any rideway in the town including alleys was there any discussion has there been any discussion recently on looking at the setbacks we have so few alleys none of these meet the set none of the homes garages structures on this alley meet to set back requirement H I'm thinking we should have the Planning Commission take a look and consider that does it make more sense to go with a 20 versus a 35 this is a full siiz lot exceeds 12,000 ft² buildable area which is the key yet the building pad is less than 2,000 square ft pretty small if that setback changed it would give them a little bit more flexibility for you not say maybe a little larger house um those are my com that's my question I guess uh comment that would not uh that setback if it were to be changed could be wouldn't reflect on this what we're looking at tonight that could be a if it were to be changed that could change the setback in the buildable area uh when they decide to build a home there correct so was there Steve was there any talk of allowing variances on this newly developed lot or not no there was no usually if it's if it's at leastone right if it meets the buildable size we don't normally jump in with variances the unique one about the thing about this slot is is has the great big Wetland yes which has been a source of discussion for many many years as I recall um and they're working around it they're meeting setbacks yes right see anything else no all right if there's no other questions of Evan looking for a motion to open the public portion of the meeting I'll move to open the public portion of the hearing second I'll fa say I I I all opposed anybody wants to speak to this we need you to come up to the podium state your name and address for the record hi Scott Montgomery you want my home address or the address of the property uh your address I'm I live at 4806 200 Street North in Forest Lake good to see Ed and Tom and Chad you know I was I was thinking the same thing Tom on that setback if you drive up that alley every garage is right on the Alley it's not even a couple feet off it seems like they're right on the Alley so I I didn't want to apply for a variance I was hope I was thinking about it but I thought somebody told me it wasn't it wasn't going to be a problem or it wasn't going to be possible to get a variance for that setback so is it possible I don't know it would help Well normally our variances used to be based on hardship but now they moved to reasonable use of the property when you have reasonable use that pad could fit a certain amount of size of a house with a garage without any variances so then you have that battle to try to prove why it you you need more you need more setback it probably wouldn't meet the standards set by the state to approve a variance it wouldn't it would think it would as far as it's a brand it's a brand new open lot so you you've got a building assuming it's approved it's it's got a footprint you could build a house to meet setbacks where's your hardship yeah there's There's no practical difficulty yeah understand that it's just the size gets squeezed down and and exactly I little closer would to the alley would be reasonable or or or yeah and I understand and and that's why I thought you know again we have what a couple of developed alleys can we just do a planning review of the alleys and what the setbacks are thinking is maybe the rules should be looked at and so alley situations be different than you know a street situation which would in this case you know and we like to look at the character of the neighborhood anyway because we have so many different areas in the township that are unique so that all comes into play too so right right yeah I mean there's a lot of them that are grandfathered in because they've been there forever right I mean yeah I agree the best way to handle it would be simply to review our our own ordinances decided we need to change the headback inad doing it one one at one at a time we're just as is as is as okay if we need more room could we come back well then you'd probably have to have a a plan and a building and a you know a full application for a permit so okay that makes sense you're not precluded from applying for a variance in the future right just saying to build on there could maybe come in and they could always come in just that I wouldn't promise it so to be clear that what what Tom is recommending though is that we look at that part of the ordinance correct yes and that's totally outside of what you're what you're talking and that's the best way to do it yes okay any questions for me uh bo have any questions I have any all right thanks Scot okay hello I'm Sue helverson and I'm at 2645 Stillwater Street and I want to let you know that um well I got a uh built a garage back in 2000 and had a variance for my uh driveway and it's 20 ft and mine's probably the more generous one of most of the alley I don't think anyone has a 35 foot setback and it's worked very well you can easily park a car in front of the garage so that's all I have to say all right thank you so anyone else going once going twice all right I looking for a motion to close the public comment portion I'll move to close the public comment portion of the hearing second motions made in second all in favor say I I opposed all right if there's no further questions to staff uh what's the board's pleasure well based on the Planning Commission and review I'd consider adopting uh the resolution approving our request for a minor subdivision to split an existing partial into the two parcels and this would be along with staff recommendations yes outline you recommend to adopt the resolution presented tonight Y correct uh yes I would support that resolution yes second Steve's agenda supporting that resolution all right motion B second all favor say I I I opposed good luck Scott thank I can I make a another motion uh to have the Planning Commission at a future soon as possible her future meeting uh take a look at a zoning ordinance Amendment considering the setback from right of ways that are defined as alleys in the township and uh just give us an overall setback review be before I'll second that is it not more reasonable to have the planner do some work before it gets to the Planning Commission as far as present it to the simply because they're going to send it they're going to say well we don't have enough to make that decision without some background so if you don't mind I'd rather have the planner do that's what I wanted to do yes little planner research on alleys you're really saying the motion would be to direct the planner to study this issue and report back to the commission yes commission okay to the Planning Commission are you up to the task EV only for you thank you for I'll I'll second time's motion then all right motion man second all in favor all right moving on uh we have one more agenda item is this discussion regarding Rush line appointe yeah which was probably Scott and he bailed on us right he did um now to be completely Frank um I don't know if it was much of a priority for for Scott's time and justifiably so I mean it's such a small little sliver of the township that's involved in the rush line but um I was I was asked by um the group to see if we had an elected official that was interested in fulfilling this obligation I was going to offer it to Tom but I'm good till the end of the year that's right um so I don't know if you want to wait until our new board member comes on or maybe you want to fulfill it temporar for any discussions that happened between now and the beginning of the year or what's the board's pleasure isn't the rush line whole issue kind of just fizzled here for a while not nearly as hot as it used to be they were having regular meetings to get together they're not doing that anymore are they not as much those are reason even appoint anybody right now they're asking us they're asking so so Mr chair I I would prefer to table this item and discuss it at the exec meeting okay for a little more background because I don't know where it's for the reason we just said I don't know where it's sitting I don't know what the priority is I don't know what they're looking for um Once Upon a Time our staff planner was on that committee I believe yes and so it was at a staff level versus an elected official so I I don't I don't know what all these be done but let's talk about it the executive that's sounds good to me I vote to table it okay a couple groups that have met on that basically a staff level and then the elected official level so uh did you make that motion I did I second all right motion second all favor say I I opposed all right we have no added agenda items we have open time anyone like to come up to the podium you can give your name and address and say whatever you want be famous get on camera here's your chance sure we've never got a student yet to do it that's right yeah you'd be the first you want to get up there and talk Trailblazer all right hearing no one for open time I need a motion to receive agenda material and supplements so moved second all fa say I I and then I need a motion to adjourn at 7:25 so moved second on f i you came to a great meeting because it only left in 25 minutes yes good choice done