the tone board meeting for August 18th, 2025 to order. First item on the agenda is the approval. We're going to do a little bouncing around this evening. Yes. Because uh Ramsey County is going to have a presentation and they've graciously uh allowed us to run through most of our agenda. So, we're going to try to get through all that before we recess for them to give their presentation. So, we're going to probably move, let's see, items 8, B, and C up into the right after the public hearing and before the Ramsey County. And then I believe we are going to table item 6A. That is correct, Mr. Chair. Board of any other changes or corrections? No. All right. hearing. None. I need a motion to approve the agenda as amended. I'll move to approve the agenda as uh amended. I'll second. Motion made in second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. Item three is I need a motion to uh prove payment of the bills. I signed off a move proven to pay the bills. Second. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. All right. Then item four is approval of prior meeting minutes. This is from August 14th. Anybody have any changes? I didn't see any. Did you? Uh, Mr. Chair, I I want a slight correction on page two or actually page two of the minutes under the item 5970 Highway 61. The last paragraph said that Arer made the motion to approve the exception and she also seconded that. That would be incorrect. I did the second for that. So, just make that typo change. You got it. On that move to approve the prior minute meetings with that change. Second. All in favor say I. I. I. All opposed. All right. Item five is a consent agenda item. Uh the board have any issues with these or can we go with them? I'm fine. I'm fine. I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda as as written. I'll second that. All in favor say I. I. I. All opposed. All right. That motion carries. All right. We're tableabling item six. So we're going to go right to our first public hearing. This is uh Bald Eagle Boulevard. Uh start with I'm going to need a motion to wave the reading. I'll move to wave the reading that was properly published. A second. All in favor say I. I. I. And then I need a motion to open up the public hearing. I'll move to open up the public hearing. Second. All in favor say I. I. All right. Andrew, you going to run through this for us? Yep. Town board, it's great to meet you guys officially. My name is Andrew Buchet. I've recently uh been hired with TKDA. Uh been here about two months. So, it's good to have a formal introduction. I know I've met some of you at the uh prior planning commission exec committee, but it's kind of nice to just be here with the town board as a whole. And so, we've got four items uh for public hearings tonight. The first is a rear yard setback variance for 5630 West Bald Eagle Boulevard. And this is an application submitted by the owners of the property. The grants variance request is to reduce the rear yard setback in the R1 um and shoreland management area which is subject to a 50 foot uh rear yard setback from the 100red-year or 1% um annual storm chance elevation. There were two previous variances that were approved in 2001 and 2010 to construct the existing deck. Uh the first was basically to establish the deck and then the second various variance in 2010 was to um connect the uh a portion of the deck to the existing portion that was already constructed. Uh so the current variance request is to convert the existing deck to a threeseasons porch which would require footings to be installed and requires a variance um just because those footings will be encroaching into the setback by about a foot and a half. So the applicants are requesting a variance to reduce the previously established setback from 99.8 ft to a proposed 98.2 ft. Other than that, there are no changes really proposed. Um the sideyard setbacks will be the same and then the applicant has also uh proposed to remove portions of the patio pavement area so that there would not be an increase to the impervious surface amount. So that was not part of their request in this. It is just a variance for the sideyard setback or the rear yard setback. My apologies. And this is just kind of a survey of the property. You can see the patio pa area towards the east of the property that's going to be removed. Um it was a condition we kind of set the expectation early that we did not feel that the town board would support increasing the impervious service amounts. So they should take um as many as many opportunities as they could to reduce that without having to ask for the uh coverage variance. And so variances are subject to uh criteria in 9-6.4 which the applicant has satisfied all four criteria four applicable criteria. The first is that a covering a porch or adding a residential addition as I would kind of describe it is a reasonable use. Uh these circumstances were not created by the homeowner. Um the variances that were previously granted occurred prior to the current ownership. Um the proposed modification will not alter the neighborhood character and there are no practical difficulties due to economic uh difficulties. And then the fifth criteria applying to solar energy systems is not applicable to this request and staff finds that the applicant has satisfied all six findings of fact required to be made uh before the town board can approve a variance. Um these are attached to your packet. The department of natural resources, Ramsey County, Rice Creek, and the building official Mike Johnson were all given um ample notice to comment on this and there were no comments received. The DNR just requested that we provide them with um written notes of the final decision within 10 days of the board meeting. Um with that being said, the town board has the following options for the request. The first you can approve the request with or without conditions. Uh the conditions are found in your packet and we can go over them in a little bit. Second is to deny the variance with findings for denial. And then third is to table the request for further review and study. And I do have the I believe the applicants are in attendance. Yep. Matt, you want to come up and speak at all? Hang on a minute. We're going to we're going to open up here shortly. Um the requirements there are what, six of them? Yep. Basically that uh let me pull up my report. You can reference those. Actually, [Music] it looks like four of them. Four. So, there's four criteria essentially that apply to variances. First is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, not permitted by an official control. uh we took the position that an enclosed porch or a residential addition would be a reasonable use in the R1 and that there are similar these were similar cases that were permitted elsewhere within the vicinity. So we felt that that was a reasonable use. Uh the owner was not being granted any special privileges that others have been denied. Uh the second is that the plight is of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the land owner. um the variances that were previously approved were under different ownership. So the applicant has not had a hand in creating the circumstances. Uh third is that the variance will not alter the essential character. Um residential addition is very much in line with kind of the common things that you know people do in the R1 suburban residential districts. And then the fourth is just that the um economic insiderations alone cannot constitute practical difficulties. Um, this is really just an attempt to enjoy the property to the same degree that others have while understanding kind of the sensitivity that the shoreline management area requires. Um, and then as I mentioned, the fifth one is just uh a criteria that applies to solar energy systems. So that's just not a part of this request. And then the six findings that the town board will just have to make is just starting with number one. Without the issuance of a variance, uh the provisions of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoined by other properties in the same district under the terms of the ordinance. Uh there's multiple homes along Bald Eagle Boulevard and Bald Eagle Lake that have garages, structures, and homes that do not conform to the setback ordinance. So evidently there was a time where those were approved and permitted at some point. Uh second is that the special circumstances and conditions have not resulted from the actions of the applicant. They're not the ones that constructed the deck. They're essentially trying to um essentially just invest in their property and try to do things that they think will improve the value of it over time. Uh third is that the granting of the variance will not confer any special privileges that have been denied to others in the same district. That was one of the things that really you know we looked at what was around the area to kind of see if there had been previous variances approved. And then uh the other three are that the proposed action will not unreasonably increase congestion on public streets. Uh the use is not intensifying necessarily. This isn't necess like adding additional density or having more people living in the house. Um this is just kind of to provide additional space for the existing occupants. Uh fifth one is that it will not increase the danger of fire or endanger public safety nor will it unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. So staff just felt like um with the applicant narrative and the conversations we had and then the um just examination of other properties in the area, we felt that uh these criteria were met. All right, Steve, were you at the I was at the planning commission meeting for this one. Uh it was pretty straightforward in their opinion and there was very limited discussion uh on this particular item. I went and saw the property today and I didn't see any issues with it. Uh Andrew, was it brought up either with the water shed or uh our building inspector about runoff now because of a hard surface roof? Was there any concern about um water staying on the property from the run off the from the building? Not on from the roof necessarily. That was one of the reasons we did um Mike Johnson did bring up, you know, the fact that this is within the shoreline management area. That's one of the reasons we felt very strongly about not allowing for an increased imperous surface amount. And since the addition, you know, with the installation of footings would be doing that, that's why we felt like the applicant had to take some actions to mitigate any potential concern on their property. All right. So, if there's no other questions of the board, I need a motion up for public comment. I'll move to open the hearing for public comment. I'll second. All in favor say I. All opposed. Uh the applicant's here I believe if you would like to come up to the podium just your name and address for the record. Matt Grant 5630 West Bald Eagle Boulevard Lake Township Township Township. Yeah, I know. Trust me, I have a zip code that's not white bear, so I get them all over the place. Uh this I guess this is pretty straightforward. Um obviously we deal with a lot of properties on bald legal and properties on bald legal are expensive and we try to accommodate when people try to improve them. It it it bodess well for the whole community. So uh you have any questions Wes? No. All right. Great. Thanks Grant. All right. Anyone else want to speak to this? Going once. Going twice. All right. I need a motion to close the public comment. I'll move to close the public comment portion of the hearing. I'll second. All in favor say I. All opposed. That motion carries. All right. If there's no other questions of Andrew. Andrew, you want to spell out specifically what this variance is? Yep. This variance is to reduce the required uh rear yard setback by 1T6 in so that it is no less than 60 uh 98.1 ft from the ordinary high water level as permitted by ordinance 35. Um, and really we've got a recommendation to approve for the town board to approve the variance subject to f four conditions if you'd like me to read them out. Uh, first is that the four here on Yep. Okay. Yeah. Uh, why don't you just so we have a month for record? Yep. First is that the applicant shall construct the addition uh according to the plans dated August 5th, 2025 reviewed with this request. This would establish the uh building footprint not to increase from the existing um sorry the structure shall not increase the building footprint. Um so no additions essentially beyond uh converting the existing deck to a threeseasons porch and then establishing the rear yard setback as no less than 98.1 ft from the ordinary high level or water level. Number two, the applicant shall obtain all other applicable federal, state, and local permits. Number three, the applicant shall adhere to all applicable federal, state, and local ordinances and regulations. And four, the applicant shall pay all fees and escros associated with the project. All right. Any other questions? Otherwise, what's the pleasure of the board? I'll make a motion to approve the variance as as noted by the planner along with the uh recommendations listed on page 65 of our packet. Okay. All second. All right. Motion made a second. All in favor? I I All right. Good luck, Matt. All right. Moving on. Um our next public hearing is let's see get out here. Liel Street. Again, I'm going to need a motion to wave the reading. I'll move to wave the reading that was properly published. Second. All in favor say I. I. I. All right. Then I need a motion to open up the public hearing. I'll move to open the public hearing. Second. All in favor? I. All right. It's all yours, Andrew. All right. Thank you, chair. Tonight, we have an application, three applications for 2301 Liel Street. the first and it's going to be in this order just because there are g the zoning amendment would have to be approved u for the conditional use permit to be approved. So the order will be the permitted use standards permit, the zoning text amendment and then the conditional use permit. And the permitted use standard is for the use of warehousing. The zoning text amendment is proposing to change the definition of limited outdoor storage. And then the conditional use permit is for the outdoor storage use uh which would be accessory to a permitted use. Uh warehousing is a permitted use in the light industrial district. uh the zoning text amendment to change the definition of limited outdoor storage uh from the maximum storage amount of 3% which was previously established. Uh the applicants amendment would allow for up to 80% of an existing storage lot to be used for storage through a conditional use permit. That would not necessarily be the entire site, but it would be the area that was previously used for storage. And then that would be applicable upon the date of passage if it were to pass. Um the conditional use permit would have to follow third just because if the zoning tax amendment were to be denied, you wouldn't be able to change that maximum percentage from 3% to anything else if the zoning text is not approved. Um, at the January planning commission or June planning commission meeting, this was tabled because the planning commission and staff wanted to see an upper limit on the storage amounts, a landscaping plan, and additional screening details. Uh, we've worked with the applicant to address those items. And in the July planning commission meeting, uh, the planning commission gave all three applications a positive recommendation. Sean Hilton is the contact person for the applicant. Um 661 Stadium Drive LLC. Uh Matt Duffy is also here as one of their representatives. Um this is applications related to National Construction Rental looking to open a warehousing business. Um the request of grant would allow the applicants to lease the property and locate their business National Construction Rentals in the township. They are proposing for the first application the permitted use standards permit the use warehousing to provide storage to operate a leasing and rental business for safety and security materials supplies with the outdoor storage lot being used to organize and facilitate distribution of temporary construction materials. fencing, barricades, sandbags, windcreens for government, residential, and govern uh commercial customers. The plan commission gave the permitted use standards permit a positive recommendation subject to the conditions of approval attached to the resolution in the staff report. The second application, the applicant is proposing a text amendment to zoning ordinance uh number 35, section 3-59. uh the use itself of outdoor storage accessory to a permitted use is already an established use as a conditional use. So the only um text amendment that the applicant is requesting is to the definition which is what sets that maximum at 3%. Um the italicized is kind of what the applicant originally proposed. We workshop that a little bit to basically set the maximum storage amount through a CU process. Um, as a planner, you try really hard to make sure zoning amendments in particular do not pertain to just one property and that there are other properties that could feasibly use this uh could be could benefit from that definition change. Um, so we kind of looked to see what future needs were going to be necessary and if there was a way to kind of meet the applicant and the township pathway in allowing for, you know, that use to expand, but also give the town board some control over how much storage they want to see through a conditional use permit process. Um, the plan commission gave the a positive recommendation to the zoning text amendment as amended and attached to the draft ordinance in the staff report and I reference it later. The third application would be for the conditional use permit for the use limited outside storage to operate um essentially the staging area and material holding uh for the storage and leasing business itself. um the use of the existing outdoor storage would again be for the inventory of temporary construction materials. These are things that are really designed to be outside and withstand those elements. So I think it'd be very different than if say like a roofing company were to be storing that kind of material outdoors. I I think those are product like this is these are products that are designed to kind of weather that and the intention is if you know the materials are returned in a usable manner to continue reusing these. So it would also be anticipated to be a low waste volume generating business. Um, the CUP has to be secondary to the primary use because the township does not allow outdoor storage as the principal use, which is why they're also doing the primary you or permitted use standards permit for warehousing. And these are just kind of aerials of the existing site. Uh, right now there is a truck repair operation that has a previously granted conditional use permit for limited outdoor storage. Initially, we tried to work through to see if the existing conditional use permit could be amended, but because the use is discontinuing and a new use uh is going to be taking place, we felt that a new conditional use permit had to be applied for, which is also why some of the language that was in the initial version of the zoning text amendment just removed that entirely because it wouldn't have applied to this proposal. How did they get in a limited use for outside storage? Um, it was granted as a conditional use in I believe the 1980s. All right. So, any idea what percentage that was? Uh, it was at the 3% if not mistaken. Okay, Matt, correct me if I'm wrong? No, it was 1993 and it was actually that was theory you could have used but there was no limitation of the right and then the discontinuation of the use also made that that cup no longer valid because there would be a new use that was subject to and so aerials of the property uh as I said truck repair businesses they're now from my understanding they are looking to move on from the property at some point, which is why they've kind of started the conversation with the applicant to kind of begin a transition if this were to be approved. And then this is um copy of the survey. I had them basically identify what the area that is going to be used for storage is. And then I tried to compare that to the lot size and I got approximately 72% of the area is being proposed to be used for outdoor storage at least based on this amount. Um they have the ability to go up to 80 through the conditional use permit but that is also a condition that you guys can kind of decide. Um after reviewing all of their materials they have produced a landscaping plan and I believe it shows some improvements. The existing screening and fencing all appears to be in good shape. Uh there are several mature healthy canopy trees it looks like on site towards the back of the property. Um and you can kind of see along the western property line as well. Um keep going through and this is kind of an example of what some of their other properties look like and how they're stored. Um, I think one of the expectations is that they're going to be limited to the height of the screening or landscaping as far as what will be allowed, like what amount of height of storage will be allowed. It won't be allowed to exceed the screening. And the town board essentially has three applications again to act on. The first would be the permitted use standards permit. The second would be the zoning text amendment. And then the third would be the conditional use permit. And with that, I can kind of open it up for questions on the zoning ordinance text change. Mhm. Um the planning commission wanted to make sure that the town attorney had a chance to review that. Did Chad have a chance? Yes, I have. And the language as written, that's acceptable. Acceptable. Okay. And the other thing we wanted to also just confirm was that we could use the conditional use permit itself to set the maximum storage amount. And Chad, I believe that that was something we could do as well. Yeah, you can do that as well. Awesome. It's the purpose of a conditional use. So you guys would like this is you're not locked into setting 80% for every single one. You can weigh kind of the application materials as a whole and then decide those percentages on a case-byase basis. No, Steve. No problem. I'm good with it. Now, um I guess if if you calculated at 72, I'd feel more comfortable at setting it at 72, but that's kind of up to the board also. And we also like the applicant is in attendance as well if you have any questions for them. I mean I Chad and I obviously the way Andrew's explained this there's a number of buildings on the Bible edition that we've had a battle with about outside storage and now this isn't going to be in no way having them all hit the floodgates to come in and want to do the same. You are you are changing this the ordinance so they could all come in and apply for the cup. Yes. But we don't have to give it right. Well, you know, you don't have to give a cu. No, you don't have to grant the cup. But if you're not going to grant it, you better have good reasons not to. You have to have We're not able to adjust the percentages, you know, for each. Well, that's as Andrew pointed out, you can adjust. That's why you're doing a cup because it does allow you to adjust percentages for each property. Okay. And you have discretion from that standpoint. That's what I was looking for. Yeah. All right. Any other questions, Andrew? All right. Right. I need a motion to open up for public comment. I'll move to open the hearing up for public comment. Second. All in favor? I. I believe the applicant's here. Anybody want to come on up? Name and address for the record. Uh my name is Matt Duffy, 2301 Liel Street. I'm the attorney representing the applicant in this in this application or these applications for you tonight. I'm happy to answer questions. I can um I I prefer to answer questions, but if there's a presentation you like me to give, I can certainly do that as well. It's up to you how you want to proceed. We got a long agenda tonight. So, sorry. Uh just a couple things. Now, obviously there's no construction equipment. There's no construction equipment. Um what National Construction Rental does is they lease barricades, fences, sandbags, things like that to construction sites. If there is a fire, they they do it for safety and security reasons. They do it for events. Like if you go to a concert and they have those barricades that kind of keep directing you a certain direction, that's their business. So their business is designed to to have these materials come and go. They don't sit very long. They move quite, you know, quite frequently. And so the idea here is that, you know, they're stacked very orderly because they need to know where those materials, how much of one material, piece of material they have so they can know what to deliver and how to deliver and whether they need to use one site's material, whether they need to contact another site to supplement what they can bring. So there's a lot of organization. It's it's it it I know from the pictures it sort of looks like it's could be some random, but it isn't. It's very organized. It's very well maintained. And the idea is that they can easily access and move the things around. There is a piece of equipment that does operate to load the trucks and unload the trucks. Um, as I understand it, it's a it's a front forklift loader. Um, it's bought in the normal commerce. So, all of the noise restrictions are that are part of their vetting process when they're approved by, you know, Mandat or not MDOT, but the National Highway Safe Transportation Administration and all the other regulatory agencies. the noise is is is metered to that standard. So they're they they're all bought within that. So this piece of equipment will unload and load the trucks. There's anticipated to be three to four trucks there. Uh you know, Andrew asked us to for the outdoor storage amount and he calculated at 72% which is about what I calculated at. But there will be there will be three or four trucks stored alongside the building too. I did not include those as part of it. And that that piece of equipment might be stored there too. Depends on where they're going to keep it. So, I didn't include that as part of the outdoor storage because right now there's trucks and things parked there. What are you storing inside? Pardon me. What are you storing inside? Um, basically any material that can't be outside. It would be um signage. It would be um other things. I I I know I don't know all of the things they store inside, but there are zip ties and all sorts of other things they they keep for their customers use that become part of the order that they have. And then there's a staff in there that loads the yard, organizes the yard, loads the trucks, keeps the trucks working, those kind of things. So, it's there's going to be, I think, five or six employees there that will be using it for office. They'll answer phones to be able to deliver things to sites. So, it'll be um uh it'll be taking in orders and fulfilling those orders there. And whatever they need to store inside, they will. I can get a list for I just don't off the top of my head what it is. I'm just curious because I believe it's a sixoot fence now. Pardon me. Is it six foot fence now? That's correct. Yes. I saw somewhere there there may be plans to increase that to eight potentially. Yeah. Uh the Sean Hilton who's the manager of this will be the manager of this particular facility up here uh is is going to come and evaluate all once it's in once it's being used and utilized to see what needs are going to be there. Um the feds itself right now doesn't have screening on as I understand it. They proposed to put a screening opaqueness to match the the city's request for or excuse me the township's request for an opaque 100% opaqueness. There was a a picture that we submitted that's from the Orlando facility that will look very similar to that. I don't know if it'll be identical, but it'll be very similar to that um in function. Um the idea is that these yards are very well organized. They're very um amunable to other properties around them. They're not they don't have a lot of noises. They don't have a lot of smells. They're very uh they're very compatible with other uses around them. So, well, I was just curious because you're more than outside storage. There's going to be a lot of truck traffic. So, I is there a I I know somewhere in there you're considering maybe down the road paving the area to keep the dust control down potentially. Is there a plan for that just to keep dust control down for now? Um right now, as I understand it's a gravel lot and so there isn't a lot of dust. It's been pretty well established that there. Okay. If there is, I mean, obviously there's things they can do. They can wet it. they can they can spray it with water and keep it thus that becomes a problem. I don't anticipate that because I don't think that's a problem now unless it's never been told me that it was a problem. So, um the paving aspect they might do that at some point in the future. Um that would require a permit from the city or the excuse me the township as I understand it would require a permit for that. There would be some additional study about hard surface and potential impacts to any you know any water bodies in and around the area. And so obviously we'd have to do that and there's some MPCA regulations that we'd have to comply with. So the answer right now is they're not planning on it, but if it does, they'll come back to the township and have to comply with whatever requirements. There's no fuel storage, is there? No. Okay. And if I can just kind of um expand on some of the things uh Matt provide, we had questions about the vehicle traffic and the truck traffic as well. And from what I understand, we're anticipating two to three delivery trucks, two to three round trips per day per truck, leaving and returning from the facility during business hours. The most likely location for unloading or loading is the parking surface immediately adjacent to the rear of the building at approximately the northwest corner. This location enables the loader to access the truck safely, distribute the inventory in the storage area without unnecessary obstacles, including the truck. So, is it safe to kind of say that like the trucks are also an extension of the warehousing business to a degree and that the storage amount is also intended for kind of maneuvering maneuverability and just allowing those trucks to kind of make the necessary movements that they need? It's like a fancy boneyard. Well, only because obviously to the south of this property is the Benson Airport and in about 10 years is it Patrick? that's gonna come that's going to come back to the town. So, that's going to be a a major development there. And granted, we'd like like to keep you there as long as we can, but I also want to make it compatible with when that project eventually goes, too. Now, obviously, it's 10 years down the road. A lot of things can change. But but that's why we're also concerned about screening and fencing and and because when we first did live audition, I hate to say I was still around. But uh we were concerned about outside stories because it can look kind of trashy and we had neighbors complain about it. So we just want to make sure we do our due diligence on this one. I understand. As I understand it, the property to the east is a bus storage lot. There's uh lots of buses there. I don't think I I think it's safe to say that this use will not be as nearly as intense as that at certain times of the day and I'm not school buses are very important part of our life. I get it. So certainly not trying to equate them. Steve, any questions? No, me either. All right. Thanks, Matt. Appreciate it. All right. Is there anyone else that would wish to speak to this application? Hearing none. All right. I need a motion to close the public portion. I'll move to close the public portion of the hearing. Second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. All right. Well, if there are no other questions, uh you want to handle the permitted use standards permit first? Yep. Staff and uh the planning commission recommend town board approval of the PUS request for warehousing subject to the conditions attached to the resolution in your packet. And I can read those out if you would like. So for permitted use standard there not a lot to read is there we can just defer to the packet. There's just some draft condition. There's things that they put seemingly in each of the permitted use standards uh resolutions. Okay. But we can just uh refer to that. You can just refer that to whatever page that's on screen. Sure. Uh just so we're on I'm referencing page 93. Yep. Okay. Um I'll move to adopt the permitted use standard as noted in the packet on page 93 for this uh uh location. I'll second. Motion's made and seconded. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. All right, that passes. Then the next one is the zoning text. Staff and the planning commission recommend town board approval of the zoning ordinance text amendment request as proposed by the applicants and revised by staff to read as section 3-59 limited outdoor storage shall be defined as raw materials or finished products stored outside of a light industrial building not to exceed 3% of the site screened with 100% opaque fence constructed of material which complements the buildings. Materials shall not be stacked so that it exceeds the height of the fence. The fencing shall be complemented with landscaping on storage lots existing prior to the date of adoption, which in this case would be August 18th, 2025. Storage is permitted not to exceed 80% of the existing storage yard area. I don't know. I have full confidence in our planner. Does the board feel more comfortable going with the 72? as to your comments. Well, the fact that we have control over the percentages going forward, I guess I was okay with it. Yeah, I was okay with it myself. You could keep the 80% in the zoning amendment, but then from my understanding, you would be able to drop that to 72 for the conditional use permit, which is what they're showing. All right. Well, that makes sense. That that appeases all of us, doesn't it? Yeah. Chad had comment. you know, board member uh Artner when she asked me a question. It uh I looked at this again. I do have something that does bother me now that based on on your question. Okay. And I would say it right now says uh the proposed language fencing shall be compleimemented. Okay. On storage lots existing prior to than today's date, storage is permitted not to exceed I would prefer you say may be allowed not to exceed 80%. The lawyer in you actually makes sense. I I like it. Yeah. A different context than allowed. Yeah. Allowed gives you much more flexibility. So I would recommend instead of saying permitted, maybe allowed. That is for the text change. The text change. Yes. All right. I'll move to adopt the the uh zoning ordinance text change with the attorney's addition of whatever you just said. The wording. The wording. Do you want me to read it, please? All right. I don't I think it's a good idea. All right. As I understand, it's it's going to read as follows. Raw materials or finished product stored outside of a light industrial building not to exceed 3% of the site must be screened with 100% opaque fence constructed of material which complements the building. Material shall not be stacked so to ex so it exceeds the height of the fence. Fencing shall be complemented with landscaping on storage lots existing prior to then today's date would be August 18th 2025. storage may be allowed not to exceed 80% of the existing storage yard area. Make that. Perfect. Perfect. I'll second that. All right. Motion's made in second. All in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. And then the last one is the conditional use permit. Yep. And staff and the comm plan commission recommend town board approval of the conditional use permit request with the following conditions. One, an opaque fence shall be shown on the site plan in accordance with the definition of limited outdoor storage in township ordinance. 35 to screen from uh adjacent properties. Two, no more than 80% of the total existing storage lot area is to be used for limited outdoor storage. Sorry. Three, the proposed use shall have no negative impact of noise, glare, or odor effects on adjacent properties. Four, the proposed use shall abide by all township ordinances, including the nuisance ordinance, as amended from time to time. Five, the project shall secure any applicable local, state, and federal permits and comply with the requirements of said permits. Six, the project shall comply with any applicable local, state, and federal rules and regulations. Seven, the applicant shall pay all fees and escrows associated with the request. And number eight, a landscaping plan shall be submitted to the town board for review prior to approval of the CU request. And that one came in a little bit later, but it was added as um an attachment. And again, like I said, if if our planner is 72, our applicant has already uh said that they're comfortable with 72. I would prefer that to be 72 only because obviously this is a a big change for the liable edition and I don't want to be giving away more of the farm than we are. All right. So based on that, I'll make a motion to approve the uh conditional use permit request uh with uh the condition number two being no more than 72% of the ex total existing storage lot area to be used for limited outdoor storage. I'll second. Motion's made in second and all in favor say I. I. All opposed. There you go, gentlemen. All right, moving on. Our next public hearing is 5925 Otter Lake Road. Again, I need a motion to wave the reading. I'll move to wave the reading. It was properly properly published. A second. All in favor say I. I. I. And then I need a motion to open up the public hearing. I'll move to open the public hearing. Second. All in favor? I. All right. Again, Andrew. All right. Town board. In case you're not tired of hearing from me yet, uh 5925 Otter Lake Road, they are requesting a variance to the sideyard setback. The variance request is to reduce the sideyard setback in the shoreland management area. Um unlike the previous one, it does not have an additional setback requirement because it is within the shoreline. It just subscribes to the regular zoning requirement for R1, which is the 10-ft sideyard setback. Um the current variance request is to allow for the paving of the existing unpaved driveway to be installed which would require a variance uh just because the township does consider driveways to be structures. And so in order to build a structure within the setback, they would need a variance to reduce the previously established uh 10-ft sideyard setback to zero ft. And this just kind of shows you the existing setbacks and coverage. Uh front the side the setbacks outside of the rear or the side are the only ones that uh the sideyard setback is the only one being changed to zero. Everything else is staying the same and there are no applicable um it doesn't intrude on any other setbacks. And then the previous amount of uh surface coverage was approximately 8%. We would expect that to go up by about 10ish%, a little closer to 11, which is still under the um 25% requirement for the shoreline management area. This is just kind of um an existing image of the property. I can zoom in a little bit better just so you can kind of see where the gravel driveway is. And from my understanding, it's going to be a like forlike replacement. The only change is that it's going to be paved, which is why it requires the variance. Next one. And let me just go over uh again the four or five criteria that apply to variances. We have to go through them. The solar energy one is not applicable. Um, a paved driveway is a reasonable use and was originally constructed. The original driveway was built prior to the homeowner obtaining ownership. Um, I looked through GIS images and then basically confirmed with the electronic uh real estate certificate when the owner purchased the property the exist the driveway had been existing for decades prior. Um, the circumstances are not the result of the owner. The variance would not provide special privileges beyond those that the uh community has commonly enjoyed and will not unreasonably increase um danger of fire, traffic, or impair property values. Um, we sent this out to Rice Creek, Ramsey County, and had review by Mike Johnson, the building official, who required that the property corner pins be exposed uh, prior to inspection just to confirm the uh, pavement will occur on entirely within the property itself and not spill over to the adjacent property. Um, other than that, Ramsey County required a driveway permit, which the applicant has already applied for and received. Um, so with that, I'll take any questions. What's the exact dimension that the new pavement will be off the property line? Um, it's going to be, from my understanding, it's about 3 ft from the property line, but once you get closer to the house, it would have a zero foot uh setback, which is why they're requesting the variance. Is that And the applicant is here as well if you want to ask questions. It's always been town policy as long as I've been around. We don't allow any zero net gain. It it always has to have some sort of a setback. Uh zero, I think, is is something we just don't allow. We have to show some kind of improvement on a on a a structure like that that's non-conforming. Steve, they even talk about that. No, because I think they bought into the fact that it was pre-existing for the pro for the current property owner. So, they didn't create it. It was there and it was a shared wall expense with the existing neighbor or prior neighbor. I'm not sure which, but I think it w existing neighbor, but I'm correct me if I'm wrong. I think they are looking to move on from the property. So if they were to do anything like this, it would be the same kind of process, but that's not at all part of the request right now. Well, I think also because of zero clearance, you can't legally work on your property without being on the neighbor's property because there is no there is no and there is like a retaining wall that kind of goes along the shared property line that's jointly owned though, right? or they she owns her portion, he owns a portion on his and and it's always great when two neighbors get along, but then eventually one neighbor goes away and then it then it gets ugly again. Uh was there anything else brought up on that, Steve? No, right now it's dirt, right? It's gravel. Yes. And part of the reason for the variance request is just the ability to control water. Um, the goal would be to kind of slant it in such a way to move the water to a different point of the property, but still keep it on site. The issue that they're just having now is kind of with the way the current driveway is, all that water flows in back towards their their structures. And I think in my conversation with the applicant, um, both them and the neighbor have had, uh, issues with water in their structures. Beth, comments, questions? You know, I went and looked at it. I didn't realize that there was I I was under the impression that there was enough of a pitch on that, but I guess I missed I should have walked all all the way up, but I I did the viewing from the street. So, I apologize. I could have, but you know, you you always want to be careful about going on someone else's property. And I I tried to do the same thing from the street, just kind of visit, especially like at times where, you know, there are big rain events just to kind of see. And that seems to be something common I've observed in some of the properties that have unpaved driveways. All right. So, is there a reason they can't maintain that 3T all the way down? There there's a number of ways to control water runage, whether it's pavers or drain tile or whatever. Um, I I think it would for me it would be easier to swallow this kind of a variance without going to zero lot line. So, that's my personal opinion. So, a as the if you go into the vision of their paving this, what you're proposing is in front of their garage where the issue really is up against the retaining wall that they don't pave it right up to the retaining wall and leave a buffer Yep. of pavers or grass or whatever. Okay. Like I said, only because foot like the three foot like putting that as like a zero setback. Is that kind of like the issue? Well, yeah, because it supposedly starts at three, but it goes to nothing. So, would it be more amendable if, like you said, you know, maybe within that three foot there's something like pavers, right? You you can do a number of things there that don't doesn't have to be solid surface. Like I said, it when when when down the road when one of the neighbors decides they're going they're moving and now the next neighbor wants to work on his retaining wall, he technically is not on his property. Right. So either way, I I I think we could avoid a hassle for somebody else sitting at this table, not me hopefully. But uh I like I said I very rarely do we ever allow zero lot line anything any any structures. I believe that occurrence is maybe in hand because I think Andrews mentioned that the neighbor plans to sell. Well we'll get to them in a minute to but if that is if that's the case it's already about to occur. Yeah. And it's just another reason why I I get really I don't want to have the town involved in a a match of neighbors and then we're going to have to justify why we allowed this. All right. Any other questions of Andrew? No. All right. Then I need a motion to open up for public comment. I'll move to open the hearing up for public comment. Second. All in favor say I. I. Now the applicant, you can come on up. Uh name and address for the record. Hi, I'm Candy Close. I'm the owner at 5925 Otter Lake Road in White Bear. Okay. Well, do you kind of understand where, at least I'm coming from when you It It's no different than having a deck right at the property line or a building right at the property line, if it's a driveway, you the it it it creates a problem where the whether you or the neighbor wants to be on their property, but they have to encroach on someone else's property to do any work, right? Um, I do have the new neighbors have moved in and I was able to get her comments. Oh, you can enter we can enter it into for the record if you just want to give it to me. So, what should I do? Why don't you hand it to me? We'll enter into the record. Perfect. And this one from one of the other neighborhood. All right. We'll we'll make sure that the record. We have a picture of it. I mean, I remember the driveway now, but I I would like to know at the top. But do you have any pictures of that retaining wall where it is? Sorry. Okay. Ariel shows it best. Andrew, did you take any or not? Not from the site itself. No, I can have that prepared next. Yeah, I told myself I should do that. There's a drawing that helps. Let me just go to the packet real quick. Hard to tell. Yeah, this is the neighbor's retaining wall. Mhm. That way. Yeah. And then that's corner. That's mine. That help you? Wish I had locked. I couldn't looked at it. Um I have the same It's really hard. You have to go back to the podium so we can get you on on mic. I, you know, I understand what you're saying and we've already had those issues and we've not gone for them. Um, sometimes it makes practical sense to do things sometimes. I just I agree with you that I don't want it to be an issue later on because it can be and drainage is an issue and I get that. Andrew, did Mike have any comment about having the pavers have it paved right to the wall where there would be more of an issue of drainage or not? He expressed that drainage would be an issue just with like the imperous surface increase, but not necessarily with paving the driveway to the property line. Just wanted to make sure that we were aware that changing it from about 7.8% to 18.8 would potentially change how drainage is affected on the site. Okay. All right. Any other questions of the applicant? All right. Thanks, Katie. Were you able to see the um area she was talking about? Yep. Okay. Otherwise, it's the 35 foot length, right? Yeah. All right. Anyone else wish to speak to this? Going once, going twice. All right. I need a motion to close the public comment portion. I'll move to close the public comment portion of the hearing. Second. All favor say I. I. I. All right. What's board's pleasure? I spoke my piece. Well, it it doesn't it allowing the um impervious surface or impervious surface there. It's not going to impede the ability for you to get out of your garage. I know at the planning commission meeting it was a tight the concerns was it was tight, but whether it's paved or whether it's paving blocks, you're still going to be able to get out of the out of your garage. And for the reason uh that the board chair mentioned, it has been a I forgot all about it has been a concern in the past on borders on neighbors lines of of property. So, uh I would move that we we do not allow it to the property line. I just don't know how to say it. So So would you want to reduce it zero foot set back to Yes. It's just a matter of how much can we three Well, three feet. ft. You still back your car out. Your car still sticks out 3 ft past the tires. Your tires are never going to run on that asphalt to start with. No. So, it doesn't affect. So, were you reduce it by 3 ft on the side? Well, if they keep a three-foot uh sideyard setback for the the whole piece of that uh that driveway, that that would suffice for me. And then because say, you know, they wanted to put permeable pavers within that. They could still do that. It wouldn't be a structure because it wouldn't be paved. Correct. Correct. That would also address Mike Johnson's concerns that now that whole area will still drain and not pond on that driveway or ice up or whatever. So, Mr. Chair, if I may, what you're basically saying is you want to keep the improperable surface 3 ft from the boundary line. Correct. That's correct. And that's my motion. I'll second it. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. If you figure that out, you can talk to Mike. They'll he'll explain it exactly how. We're going to stay three feet. from the line with the asphalt with the asphalt in that ft which means the two and a half that's going to be which is the neighbor's property is going to have that goes up against the wall otherwise you're all set to go all right you got to come up everything's got to be on the record these Sorry. Um the one from my the new neighbor, she has absolutely no issue with me paving up to the wall. No, I understand that. And she could have all the issues in the world of you not even paving it and and we take that into consideration. Okay. But it's our final decision on how we allow you to do it. Okay. Okay. I But it's great that you you're getting along with them. So that's that's a plus. What the board chairs are saying is there's a town policy, correct? maintain a three set. We want to do everything right. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And Candace, I'll be in touch with you and Mike just to kind of go over the next steps. Thank you. And then last thing, is this just as we kind of address future ordinance amendments? Is this something you would like us to kind of look at in terms of how we address this going forward with any potential and if I think if you look at our history, we've been as long as I've been around, we've been pretty firm on that. So, or or at least lessening the nonconformity. We never we never like to see it get worse. We'd like to see it get better. In fact, this is consistent with one we heard not more than two months ago where it was right on a lot line. Yeah. and we said no, it was already already done. Already done and made them remove it. Asking for forgiveness, not permission. So that's coming up. All right, let's move on. Uh we're going to jump to 8B. Did we close everything out? Did we close the hearing and everything? Awarding the sales of our Oh, we got one. We have one more hearing. What? One more. 7D. 7D. 7D. Oh, I knew it was going too smooth. Getting really excited. We can suspend it. Never mind. We can suspend it and come back. All right. Again, I need wave the reading for this. I'll move to wave the reading. It was prop properly published for public hearing 7D. I'll second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. All right. Then I need a motion to open up the public portion. I'll make a motion. Sorry, the public hearing. Open the public hearing. Second. All in favor? I. All right. All right, town board. We got variance requests for 20 two variance requests for 2670 and 2670 Southshore Boulevard. The 26, they're both commonly owned by the same person. Uh the 2670 Southshore Boulevard is requesting a variance to the rear and sideyard setback as well as the impervious surface maximum. And then the 2674 Southshore Boulevard property is requesting a variance to the sideyard setback for the purposes of creating uh a joint driveway serving the properties. Um the variances are required to allow for the construction of a paved driveway replacing the entire unpaved driveway serving both properties. Uh previously there was a joint access easement that served both properties but when the owner took ownership of both properties as the grtor and the grantee of the easement um that ceased to exist after that happened. So a new easement essentially would be required so that they have access to the right of way because essentially without you know that easement in place they technically do not. Uh this is just kind of showing what the existing setbacks coverage are for the properties compared to the R1 standards. Um the proposed setbacks for the 2670 Southshore property, they were they would be asking for a zero foot setback to the side and rear. And then the 2674 property would be asking for a zero foot set back to the side to allow for that shared driveway. Um this was previously established through an easement agreement as I mentioned before as soon as she took ownership of both properties that ceased. Um and so the only other variance request would be to the 2670 Southshore property for the proposed lot coverage. uh they are proposing to add about 10% um the it is within the shoreline overlay or the shoreline management area and so that's about 8% over the total lot area and this is just a description of or this is a survey showing that easement area and I can zoom in a little bit further if that's easier to and this just shows that there are two existing houses um the driveway is the location of the existing unpaved driveway. So the footprint would not be changing. Um the only changes would be that they would be paving it. Pavement it paved uh surfaces are considered a structure. That's why they are requesting the variances for the sideyard and the rear yard setbacks as well as the impervious surface. Sorry. um owner commonly owns both properties. Uh criteria 1 through 4 paving is a reasonable use of the property within R1. Um this is not the result of the owner and no um attempt alteration of neighborhood character is proposed with this devel with this proposal. Um is very similar to other requests that have been made in the area and economic difficulties are not a consideration in this request. And the fifth criteria applying to solar energy systems does not apply. Uh 9-6.4 requires six findings of fact to be made. First is that strict enforcement would deprive the owner of commonly enjoyed rights. Second is that special conditions are not the result of the owner. Third is that no special privileges granted that has not been granted to other property owners. Fourth does not increase the congestion on public streets. Five, it does not increase the risk of fire or increase uh risk to public safety. And six, will not diminish property values. Uh this was provided to Ramsey County, which required a driveway permit and a detour plan cuz Southshore is a one-way street. Um we've been in contact with both the county, the applicants, contractors. They've been out doing door hangers, I think it was. Um but that from my understanding they've satisfied everything in that requirement. Um Rice Creek did not have any concerns as this was exempt under their residential provision. Um building official requires that e the basically the new easement be in place. So in the event that say she the owner sells one of the properties, we want to make sure that both properties have adequate access to the easement to access the right of way. You essentially can't uh have a property that does not have that access. And Andrew, what's the frontage on the fringe is South uh Shore Boulevard. No, but I mean how how wide are those lots? Uh 49 and 40, aren't they? This is kind of a really weird lot. It's one rectangular one and then a very kind of like oblong half rect like half triangle combined with a rectangle. Originally this these were three separate lots which is how the easement described them. Um so at some point there was a subdivision of some sort or the lots changed just because that's uh a very strange configuration in my opinion. It's usually because families owned them and well the only reason I asked would a lot line rearrangement help clear up some of this or not. That's what I was thinking. I would say I think you'd have to be very particular about where you put the lot line because I think that you would run the risk because this 10-ft setback would still be applicable to each side and so I think you potentially run the risk of creating a non-conforming lot through that. Okay. Well, I just kind of came to me only because one person owning both lots, they could so they could do that to help for future resale if that cleaned it up. But if it doesn't work, I I think we'd have to look at it further, but my initial impression is just looking at that distance between the two. I don't I wouldn't expect that. So much for brainstorming. Hey, that's part of brainstorming, especially on the spot. I know. Is it ever going to be just one house on the whole lot? Oh, hang on. We'll get there. Okay. Sorry. All right. Anything else, Andrew? Nope, that's all I got. All right, Steve, again, were you on this one? Uh, I was. And the question I have really had to do with the new easement that's all been has Chad had a chance to look at the new proposal? I did review it and is not acceptable. Wow. For the following reason. you the present agreement has the proposed agreement has drafted has the same problems as the existing agreement doctrine of merger. It's easy to change though. Instead of calling it an agreement, you simply call it a declaration. Okay? And your attorney simply has to change it to declaration. Easy to do. Change it. Just change a couple of words, a couple of paragraphs. You'll be fine. But that's how you have to do it as a declaration, not as an agreement. You can't have an agreement with yourself. Yeah, I disagree with myself all the time. Well, that's another problem. So I mean that's and that's how we do it. When you own a small property and want to create create an easement or a restriction, it's a declaration. Are you Yeah, it is. Did you discuss that, Andrew? As bad as I said that to we discussed the doctrine of our did not get to have this kind of extensive. All right, we we got to we got to we got to control this otherwise we're never going to get the minutes down. Sorry. I apologize. All right. So the answer is it's the easement is not acceptable. So my question really is to do is it the best can with this be approved without that being made or do we table it? Uh you can make it in l you can you can condition it on on re on preparing a declaration of easement to be approved by the town attorney. So if I can just point to condition five. Should we change that language then from shared a driveway access easement to the declaration language he suggested? Declaration of easement. Yes. Does that satisfy Oh, yes. Yeah. All right. Is that it, Steve? Yep. That was my question. So, oh no. So, we Anything else? Is there ever is this a plan to be a one house at something? Hang on. Hang on. We do you have any questions of Andrew? No, I'm good. Andrew doesn't open it up for public. All right. So, so if there's no other questions of staff, I need a motion to open up for public comment. I'll move to open the hearing up for public comment. I'll second. All in favor say I. We got to do this or I get in trouble. All right. Now you can come up to the podium. And now Beth, you can Oh, I need a name and address for the record. Michaela Ort, 2670 and 2674 Southshore Boulevard and Carter Ort. Okay. Now, what would you like to talk about? I'm curious. Is this at one point going to be all one house in these? No. Always separate as one ages. Sometimes it's good to have each other's spaces. I don't go through. Genius. Kids. Yeah. Adult children. Okay. I was just curious. I do have Mr. Chair, if I may. Neighbors. Is there two separate tax parcels? Yes. Okay. That makes sense. I do I do have um neighbors approvals and went to our ab budding neighbors. So I have that as well. Make those part of the record. Yep. Thank you. Well, as you saw just from the last one, especially shared driveways. Yeah, it we always it always comes back to bite us. Now, Chad, how did we handle the one on West Baldo Boulevard, the the Love property? That was a shared That was a shared driveway. But then keep in mind that in the Love case that was a it was shared simply because it was already an existing prescriptive easement which you know had not been legally established but it was clear from the facts that it was a prescriptive easement and therefore the holder of the what's the prescriptive easement the neighbors to the north had the right to use the driveway. So that's that was that's that's why we allowed a joint driveway in that situation. Okay. Plus the fact is that driveway existed well before you know the well it's pretty much similar to what we got here. So Oh yeah. Did they make a declaration? No, they didn't have to. They they could they didn't need to because the the only reason you need a declaration here is because you own both parcels. Yeah. Agreement. In that case, the you know there there were two separate parcels, two separate owners agreement. Yeah. Yeah. And you well know I don't know what they are if be perfectly honest you the one that the chair has brought up I don't know if they I think they finally did do an agreement but that was a prescriptive easement between two separate owners. Can I ask a quick question? That's why we're here to Chad. Um, if we were to sell one of the properties, would we have to get some sort of different language as an agreement or can we just sell it that declaration? That's why you use the declaration because if you use an agreement, you'd be creating a you'd be creating a document that is automatically invalid. Okay. But the declaration survives. Perfect. So, no, you do it once, you're fine as a declaration. Thank you. equipment. I said, is there any other utility easements we have to discuss uh here? Are there utilities? No. Okay. Like I said, neighbors are great until they're not great and then shared driveways can get really ugly. Yeah. And now you're shoveling half a driveway. But that's the only thing that concerns us. But there really is no good option for this. It's not an issue until we sell it. And yeah, and it shouldn't be an issue ever. So you think. All right. Uh, any questions, Steve? Nope. I'm good. Beth, no. Any else to add? Subtract? No. All right. Thanks, folks. Thank you. Uh, anyone else here wish to speak to this? Good evening. Paul Kellyer, 4150 Hill Air. I'm about 200 ft directly east of their property and they're good uh good for the neighborhood. They've been putting a lot of money and effort into both houses. They've been doing a retaining wall and stuff like that. So, um I'm in favor of what the request is. They do need a asphalt driveway. Every time it rains, what they've got is wash it into that new Southshore Boulevard. Thank you. Oh, it's not ours yet anyway, Paul. Little head. Yeah, not ours yet. Thanks, Paul. All right. Anyone else? All right. Uh, I need a motion to close the public comment portion. I'll move to close the public comment portion of the hearing. Second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. All right. If there's no other questions of staff or the attorney, Steve, you comfortable with this one? I am. I'm I'll make a motion to approve the variance with the con with the condition. I don't know if there's a condition that the attorney uh noted um under is it number five? Number five, uh where we change it from uh an easement or to a declaration. I guess if I may. Yes, sir. I would suggest if I read, the applicant shall record a declaration creating a new driveway a new driveway easement serving both properties in a form approved by the township attorney and recorded well actually you already have it recorded in there. So yeah, this the applicant shall provide a declaration governing the shared driveway uh which which serves both pro both properties in a form approved by the township attorney and recorded with the Ramsey County Recorders Office. That's my motion. Perfect. It's great having an attorney with us. Yeah. What he said. Yeah. Whatever he said. So moved. Yeah. Second. All right. Motion's made in second. All in favor say I. I. I. All opposed. All right. You're off. Thanks, folks. Thanks, guys. Have a great Okay, now we can move on. What I was trying to get to patience on it. And the other thing I just want to add is that uh we hear about permeable pavers stand the need to have standards. And I think that, you know, this shows why we're going to try to, as part of those zoning amendments, come forth with some new language on permeable uh paver standards. Remind me to talk to you later about permeable concrete. Yeah, that's a new thing coming. You can stay there and I'll All right, we're going to move on to ordering the sale of our improvement utility revenue bonds. What page are we on? Yeah. Where are we at? I got to go back. What number is this? Eight. Oh, eight. Okay. We have Chris Hogan here who conducted our bond sale this morning. Uh she is with Baker Tilly, our uh fiscal consultants, and she will present the results of those bond sales. Thank you, Mr. Chair and board supervisors. It's a pleasure to be here. Chris Hogan, director at uh Baker Tilly, serve the township as the municipal adviser. I'm here to present the results of the bond sale that happened earlier this morning. So, the township sold 4,625,000 general obligation improvement and utility revenue bond series 2025A. Proceeds of those bonds are going to be used to finance various street improvement projects and the related utility improvements. The repayment term of the bonds is 10 years. The debt service of the bonds will be paid with a combination of general edorum taxes, special assessments, and revenues from the town's water, sewer, and storm utilities. So, this is the indicator uh when we started the part of the process here and we put the bonds and uh structured the bonds, we were projecting a true interest cost and we call it a tick of 3.82. 82. So that would have been early mid July. Uh last week we always like to update shortly before the sale. Look at the current interest rate environment. Uh we were projecting a true interest cost estimate of 3.15% and the waiting bid actual results came in at a 3.115%. This is the list of biders. There was eight biders which is a fabulous turnout. So there's eight biders. The winning bid at three the 3.115 was Robert W. Baird. You can see how close really how close the bids were, especially the top four there. This is uh just a snapshot of the bond sale pricing. So there's 10 maturities. Um the coupons are higher than the yields, which means that creates um a premium. So the bonds sold with a premium of 4 almost 61,000. That premium is a result of the coupons being higher than the yield. So they they sold the bond at a higher dollar price. So we were able to use that premium to reduce the borrowing amount. So the par amount of the bond issue went down. Um part of a public sale is you get the bonds rating. So we went through a rating process. Tom and Pat and I were on the call with S&P. So they sent out an agenda. We walk through the agenda. Um, I like to talk a little bit more about this because it's really an essential part of a bond bond sale. So, you get the bonds rated for a number of reasons, but primarily it's a it shows the township financial strength and ability to pay the bonds. This is what um serves as an independent third-party assessment. So, investors who are interested in purchasing or bidding on the bonds know the um the credit quality of the township. And the stronger the rating, the lower the interest rate cost. So the lower cost of borrowing essentially. So um I'll just say the township received a rating of double A plus. That's the the second highest notching that you can get as a rating. You can get a AAA. The next one down's double A plus. So that's an a terrific uh rating score. Um, again, I like to highlight some of these things in the credit credit rating report because it's something that's really important and it really is um a strong credit report for the township. So, um, they S&P provides a report and these are just going to highlight some of the credit overview and the highlights that they noted in that report. So, they noted the the overview. They said the economic stability with close proximity to both Minneapolis and St. Paul um um pro um local gross count county produce is well above well above the national and county levels reflecting the township's status as a satellite community within the suburbs of the Twin Cities. Strong financial performances with expectation the township will continue to maintain strong reserve levels at 5.2 million or 75% of their general fund revenues. The township's ability to strategically play off debt within a shorter time frame while keeping costs manageable is a credit strength. Additional credit highlights they identified was robust income levels, financial stability and operating flexibility, management practices include realistic budgeting practices and formal financial policies when adopted long-term financial plan. Uh and then moderate debt burden burden. However, the township's pension liability is is very low compared with other Minnesota peers. And they always give you a few indicators on what you could do to get an upgrade. Uh they identified only a couple economic metrics or nominal reserves increase or the debt decreases. So based on the pricing and the lowest true interest cost, I would approve the resol I would recommend approving the resolution awarding the 4,390,000 general obligation improvement and utility revenue bonds series 2025A to Robert W. Baird and company based on their low bid of 3.1152. And now happy to take any questions. Can you appear at our budget and levy meeting and say everything that you just said, please record. So, how much was the amount reduced by getting a better rating? 60. Um, it wasn't so much kind of two questions there. So, the bond issue was reduced because of the premium pricing. So, we did lower the it was we marketed for 46 4,625. we ended up ended up um being 4,390 that's in the award resolution. Um so that's the premium pricing. The question second part of that question if I understand you right is what's the benefit to the credit rating. Is that what you're saying? So, um, it's always hard to say exactly, but I would say if you were to be one notch lower and in cost, I'm not sure how to put this in a cost, but it you're double A+. So, the next rating down would be a double A, um, maybe two basis points. So, how that equates to dollars in this issue size, I'm not sure I can give you that. Well, either way, it looks very good for the township and our compliments to our staff because this is uh their due diligence is what got us here. So, yes, Steve, any question coming? No, I'm dick pink at this point. Respecting worse. That's I'm good with it. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Chris. Got anything to add, Tom? No. Um I'm happy with it. I'm sure our residents will be too. That's up to you to explain it to them. No jokes. I'll cut back on the joke. All right. Hearing no questions from the board. Um, we need a motion on awarding the sale. Correct. Yep. Is this the verbiage? I'm looking for it. Is this it? Yep. That's it. Oh, it's also on the pages. You got it, Steve. Yep. All right. I'll make a motion to approve the resol resolution awarding the sale of 4,390,000 general obligation improvement utility revenue bond series 2025A. Uh, and that winning bid was to Robert W. Bden Company, Inc. I'll second that. All right. Motion made second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. Thank you. Thanks, Chris. All right, we got one more so we can then we can get to Ramsey County. This should be a quick one. This is uh item 8C, the Volamo Joint Powers Agreement. Chad, you had a chance to look this over? Yes, I've read it over and actually I was kind of involved because I sit on the board of directors for Volamo, so we've been through this also. I didn't see any problems with it. Board have any issues? Nope. Then I would need a motion to approve the JPA. I'd move to approve the JPA as noted in the packet with Palmo. I'll second. Motion B second. All in favor say I. All opposed. All right. What are we going to do? I need a motion to recess our board meeting so we can have Ramsey County Sheriff's come up and give their public hearing. Ramsey County. Ramsey County. I'm sorry. Did you see the sheriff? Ramsey County public hearing. Okay. Late. I know. That's my bedtime. I I'll move to sus to recess recess the uh township board meeting of August 18th. That would be at 8:23. 8:23 to have to have the uh Ramsey County presentation. I'll second it. Motion made a second. All in favor say I. I. Quick break and then we will resume after their presentation. Yes. Okay. You folks come up ready to go. All right. I'd like to call to order the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners. Roll call. Um, Jenzing here. Magguire here. Merry is excused. Miller here. Moran here. Jean here. And Ortega is excused. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Commissioner Jeang, would you read the land acknowledgement? Um, thank you, Madam Chair. Every community owes its existence and vitality to generations from around the world who contributed their hopes, dreams, and energy to making the history that led to this moment. Some were brought here against their will. Some were drawn to leave their distant homes in hope of a better life. And some have lived on this land since time and memorial. Truth and acknowledgement are critical to building mutual respect and connection across all barriers of heritage and difference. We are standing on the ancestral lands of the Dakota people. We want to acknowledge the Ojiway, the Ho Chunk, and the other nations of people who also call this place home. We pay respects to their elders, past and present. Please take a moment to consider the treaties made by the tribal nations that entitled non-native people to live and work on traditional native lands. Consider the many legacies of violence, displacement, migration, and settlement that bring us together here today. And please join us in uncovering such truths at any and all public events. Thank you. Thank you. Per Minnesota State Statute 16311, subdivision 5A, Ramsey County will be vacating or transferring a highway to Whitebear Township, Southshore Boulevard, County Road 94, between Bair Avenue, County Road 160, and County Road F, County State Aid Highway 12, is to be transferred to ownership by Whitebear Township. Ryan Isacson, director of Ramsey County Public Works, will give a brief presentation of the jurisdictional transfer. Good evening. Thank you, Madam Chair, commissioners, and friends. Thank you for helping us perform this hearing tonight. Uh I'll take you briefly through jurisdictional transfer, what this is and the the journey that we've been on together with the township and then uh I'll close with some next steps. As noted in my presentation, uh like many road projects, this has some history. We've been in conversation with the township and others since 2002. Um there were a number of funds that were brought to bear in this project including some state funds. Um our project folks have talked about this as an interesting example of engagement during COVID. um the the challenge of developing the scope and that it is different from most projects and there was important it was important that all of the residents were really uh invested in the final outcome of the project and so um the engagement was very extensive u and the response from the community here in the township in particular was overwhelming and very clear and it pointed us in the direction of what you see that has been constructed already uh working with between us and the township, we've developed a memorandum of understanding which then evolved into a cooperative agreement between uh the the county and the township. Um, and that laid out the understanding of we were building this road in a particular way and with a particular scope and that by doing so, the township would then take it when construction was completed and there were some stipulations that I'll get to in a minute about what would happen post construction. Um, construction began in 2022 and we went finally got through the final punch list items uh just the beginning of this year. Um, I know that punch list item took a little while and we appreciate the patience of your residents. Um, the normal course of business in a turnback is when the agency that is giving a road over to another another entity, the road that is giving the road out over um tends to pay for everything. It pays for the project development. It pays for the construction. and it pays for the rightway and that's with the intent that this other entity is going to be owning and maintaining that road in perpetuity post construction. That's how this has worked out. As I mentioned, there were some stipulations that we agreed to. One probably the most notable is um that two years after we complete this turnback, the county will be in contract with the township to maintain the road. uh at which time after two years the the township will take over uh maintenance of the roadway. Um and and I guess it's important to note here that the township will own the rightway for the road as well as maintain the trail and all all other aspects of the rideway upon turnback. Um as we've talked before, a number of us have talked about jurisdictional transfers. There are a few jurisdictional transfers underway right now and they are not exactly straightforward paths and so where we're at today is we're holding the public hearing. Um that's that's the step we're at. Uh tomorrow assuming that the the township board accepts this, we go to the county board with a request for board action. the board takes an action which then adopts the actions and re resolutions and the combination of the township board and the county board's actions are then combined and sent on to MEDOT and that comprises the the they'll record those and at that point the township is the proud owner of Southshore Boulevard and the jurisdiction is transferred. Uh, at this point I could regail you with lots of other tales, but I know that it's late in the evening and um, if there are any questions or concerns that you may have, I'd be happy to entertain those. Commissioner McGuire. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, um, Director Isacson. Just curious, uh, when you said that we'll maintain the road for two years after the turnback, uh, I see that that involves snow removal and street street sweeping. Say that five times. Street sweeping. Um, is there any would there be anything else really that was that would need to be done when you say we take care of maintenance of the road? So, typically when a when a road's been reconstructed to this degree, Yeah. No. Yeah. You're keeping it clean, you're you're taking care of whatever issues may arise. That being said, you know, if there is something that's required for us to do, we'll do that as part of ongoing maintenance until that 2-year time period. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I'd like to open the public hearing regarding the jurisdictional transfer of Southshore Boulevard, County Road 94 to the White Bear Township. Uh Ramsey County is a welcoming, accessible, and inclusive organization. The public hearing is a space for the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners to hear from many different points of view. While providing public testimony, we ask that speakers be respectful and refrain from using language that may be harmful to others. Your testimony will become part of the public record for today's public hearing. There is no vote taken for the public hearing today. For those who are here to speak at the public hearing, when you are called to speak, please state your name and city of residence before making your comment. You will have a limit of three minutes to give your testimony. Chief clerk Yang, do we have anyone signed up to speak? Um, madam chair, commissioners, country manager, um, as of today, no one has provided any any, uh, written testimonies and no registrations. Okay. Thank you. All righty. Uh, well, I'm asking the room, is anyone here to speak regarding the jurisdictional transfer of County Road, Southshore Boulevard in White Bear Township. Please come on up. 5435 Peterson Road. Uh, as as a board member of the township, I'm still a little uh concerned about the contract for the maintenance agreement. I don't think we've seen anything in actual writing. Um, we understand plowing and and street sweeping is is part of that two years. I think there was a discussion that we would uh take over that responsibility and have Ramsey County reimburse us. I think that's kind of the discussion we've been having. And also uh we have a a town policy with our new roads within three years they get a seal coat that that preserves and helps strengthen the length of that that new road. And there's been no discussion of that either. And that's obviously an expense over and above plowing and street sweeping. So if the board would like to see some this contract spelled out and if that's in there or not, that's one of our concerns. Thank you, Director Isacson. Um, is there any Oh, no. I guess Yeah. I mean, if you um have a response, then you can otherwise we can always follow up afterwards um to any testimonies that you have. I think it'd be better for us to follow up. I I I do know. Okay. Sorry. Getting closer to the mic. Right. Um I I I misunderstood that they're not voting on this on this uh this um tonight. Nobody's Nobody's voting on this tonight. So, we'll make sure to get all of that information. We are going to reconvene after you folks are done. Oh, our board meeting is not over. So, you're voting on this tonight. We are going to vote on it. Okay. Okay. Yes, please. Uh, Mr. Chair, um, my understanding is that our our deputy director of program delivery has been talking to Dale, your public works superintendent, and I don't know if they've arrived on a dollar figure. I know that they've been going back and forth about what that cost is, but we're open to whatever that number is to reimburse you for it. That's not a an area of concern for us and so it's been a function of just getting to a number between John and Dale. Well, that's true. But when we reconvene, part of our agenda is to accept the road back and the contract agreement. And we, as far as I know, we don't have one. So, I'm confused as to how we accept the road back when we don't have a contract agreeing maintenance. Yeah, I'd have to get you. Okay. Under the statute, right, there's no there's no requirement of acceptance. Um, we do need they do need to do it because there's going to be a contract to do that, but under statute, we can revoke and it goes back to them, right? By matter by operation of the statute. That's always I'm not saying we should do that, right? You know, I'm aware that that's what the statute provides in all jurisdictional cases, but that's still something that we tend not to do. We try to work it out. Um, if we were to pass the resolution tomorrow, that would be right. So, just let me be clear, Mr. Chair. Um, is it about an actual written signed agreement or is it about an agreement in principle on a dollar number? Is that I would refer to our town attorney on this one, but yes. Yeah, I it's a Yeah, I know that there's a number kicking around. I just Yeah. So then it's director. I'm wondering if the best way for us to pro proceed as this is a public hearing to get the the public testimony. If if perhaps we could request that you would stay to answer questions in the city council's meeting for so we can continue with the public make sure we get all public testimony. Does that make sense? So continue the conversation. I just want to make sure in case there was anybody else who wanted to testify that we captured that as well. Okay. So, is anyone else here to speak regarding the jurisdictional transfer of County Road, Southshore Boulevard? Good evening. Uh, my name is Steve Rzek. I'm on the also on the Wiper Town Board. I just have a question as it relates to the storm water issues at Bair and Southshore Boulevard. Um, there has been an ongoing issue of resolution. uh the water has not been uh dissipating like it was supposed to and I just want to make it a point that I I'm not sure that's been cleared up as far as the final resolution uh before the turnback happens because it's a problem that was created with the with the uh reconstruction and it's something that I'm as a town member I remember I do not want to bear the cost if it isn't working. So, as you consider this, I would like you to keep that clear that if that is an ongoing issue, I I saw the notes that all the punch lists were completed and but I have not been assured that that has been cleared up uh as it as we are here tonight. So, I just want that on the record. Thank you. Thank you. And is there anyone else here to speak regarding the jurisdictional transfer of County Road Shore Boulevard in Wiper Township? No. Okay. So, I will given the questions and the testimony that that has been given, uh the conversation will continue, I believe, in the city council in in this the township's um continued meeting and the director will be here to answer those questions. Um as there is no one else to provide public testimony, this public hearing is closed. Thank you. Are you there? Hello there. What' you drop your pen off by the podium if that's what you're No, that's not the one. Do you want to use mine? No, I got one. I think I have a couple of pens in here. I have a cool gel pen, too, if you want. All right. Was that enough time? Oh, plenty. All right. I need a motion to resume our town board meeting of August 18th, 2025. So, moved. Second. All right. Item 8A. Um, I'm going to need some guidance from our attorney. this we need an acceptance and approval of the Southshore Boulevard 2-year maintenance agreement. Well, uh, Mr. Chair, as I understand the statute, there is no requirement that the town actually accept the road back. Other words, is there's no I should say there's no condition that that the town accept the road as, you know, as part of the turnback. But I also believe the statute states that the road must be complete, construction must be complete before the turnback can take place. And in addition, you still there's that 2-year uh requirement of maintenance. So, it'd be my advice that the town board stay any further action on this matter until such time as first of all, it sees the ad sees the resolution or ordinance adopted by the Ramsey County Board. So, we know the exact language and know exactly what you're accepting. Plus, I think there still needs to be an issue. There still needs resolution of is the road complete? Is the project complete? Well, I know uh Steve brought up some good points. We've we've had drainage problems on that road forever and this is a major one on on that intersection. So even though they say the punch list is complete, we'd like to make sure that there's no outstanding issues that we're going to be responsible for in the future. Yeah, it it it's a major uh concern as as infiltration into White Bear Lake itself, which we're desperately trying to maintain its water quality. And with a storm water situation that has been overflowing the road on a number of occasions, it just needs to get clear clear who's going to take care of it if it if the current fix is not acceptable. And Mr. Chair, I would point out that the handout submit uh provided by the Rams County Commissioners uh page three states 2022 project completed new storm water infrastructure. Has that been I mean you can put anything in writing, but has it been has that been accepted? I don't know. And uh board member uh Rusek, I think that's a point you're making. Has the has that has the storm water infrastructure been completed? Yes. Uh it's come up numerous times over the last year and a half that they are still working on a solution and they've tried numerous fixes and I don't know have any asurances that this one has been fixed and I I want the asurances if it was up to me in writing that it's going to be a county issue until it's resolved in total. Um, and it has to be in writing in my opinion because I've had times change, people change, and it doesn't get done if we don't have it documented. Which is why Maya's recommendation is town attorney to postpone any action on this until you've seen the final resolution of the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners. All right. So, we've got a couple of bullet points. um the storm water and also I think um seal coating is one of mine and then obviously I think between Dale and Brian they've worked out some numbers for uh maintenance agreement and I don't know if that's something that again if it's paid upfront in total and then we just take it over. So all those things I don't think the board's going to feel comfortable doing anything until we see all that in on paper. Yeah. And I Yes, I agree with that because like I said, people change. Um, you know, we've had other county projects that were thought to be understood how it was going to happen and then new management comes in either here or at the county level and it's changed and if it isn't in writing, it's not documented, not done in my opinion, needs to be codized. Uh, Brian, do you have anything else to add? I got a couple. So my understanding is that we have a signed cooperative agreement between the township and the county post construction which agrees that the county would maintain the road for 2 years. Okay. So if we're talking about is the construction complete, the answer is yes. We have released the contractor. The contract is closing out. So the construction is complete. That being said, are there lingering issues? That would be maintenance and that would be our responsibility. That's something that we can work through, but they will continue to be our responsibility as specified in the signed cooperative agreement between us for the next two years. And I commit to you that we can solve these problems together in the next two years. Is that more of a Rice Creek watershed issue then with with the drainage from the Bair Southshore Boulevard intersection? What we're concerned about that that's where we're having some drainage issues there. You I know you signed off on the contractor who did the road, but I'm saying is this still concerning uh Rice Creek wershed? Do they have still have issues with this? Not not that I'm aware of, but this the Beller issue is not something that I'm super familiar with. I'm aware that there are other issues around the township that involve water. Yeah. I think if you're will Dale knows what those issues are and if you're say you got staff they're willing to work through this to make sure that and our engineers and your county engineers can figure out that the solution that's now in place solves that problem. It's not an issue any further. But right my concern is is that it's not it's a another temporary fix. And if it isn't in writing, then it's an argument as to who's responsible to going forward. And I don't want to be held accountable if it was created by the county reconstruction. Respectfully, I think that we can look at this and not know whether it is uh helped by our construction, not related to our construction, related to a different township infrastructure issue, or some combination of all of those. But I'm willing to try to figure these things out as part of maintaining the road. But I think we all need to come together and figure what those pieces are. So, will we see some kind of maintenance agreement before the uh Rams County Board officially turns the road back? Well, our board action is for tomorrow morning. So, I'm going to say no. Okay. I thought there was some time there. My understanding was that we had a co signed cooperative agreement which says that we will cover maintenance for the next two years. It doesn't specify a dollar figure. Correct. And it didn't necessarily me specify and I guess you could tie the dollar figure. It specify that the maintenance would be handed back to the township to perform. That wasn't in there either. That was something that evolved after the cooperative. Then you there was a desire for you guys to perform that versus contracting it with something else. Have you seen this co-op agreement? Oh yeah, we signed it two years ago. But that was the original You're talking about the original construction agreement, correct? For the construction of South Boulevard. Yeah. That's the one where the um the costs of the roadway were responsibility of the of the county, the costs of utility infrastructure, storm water uh and water were the responsibility of the township. Okay. Would this have to be updated? Because obviously now the dates have changed. So technically if the road is ours tomorrow, then that maintenance agreement goes from tomorrow for two years. So shouldn't that be part of that? Sure. Keep in mind the the two years is actually statutory on a road turnback. It's not has nothing to do with the contract that was the the memorandum between the township and this and the county. It has to do with the statute. And if I could, sir, I'll just just to be clear, tomorrow isn't the day. You take your action, we take our action, we send it to mendot. Mendot records it and at that point you are the owners of social. That's what I was wondering because I thought there was some time in so there are some steps before us. Okay. And just to be clear it is a cooperative construction agreement but they're intimately tied to the jurisdictional transfer because if not for this jurisdictional transfer we would not have built this road this way. That was a stipulation. Just for clarity. All right. Thank you. Is there a reason why the timing is so tight? I mean, it seems like we've got some issues. Seems like what a week or two would solve everything. Is there a reason why we couldn't put this off? Well, how what are we looking at in terms of time between tomorrow and when Mindok gets the clear on it? That's probably I would guess a month at best. I think that's your interim time to work on this. If if we need to delay our board action, we certainly can. I try not to do that to our board. No, I I get that, but it seems like we had a few issues and it it seems like we're awfully close. Yeah, I think we are. And respectfully, I I thought we had everything solved coming into this and so that's why we put the time frame so close. We can we can delay it, but again, I think to your attorney's point, you're not required to act on this. Ideally, you need to act on it to make the the the paperwork work for uh for Menot. Yeah, you're you're correct. Yeah, I all right. Well, obviously we are we don't have a choice here. We're going to have to table it for a future meeting because we don't have that documentation in front of us. So, so we'll let the staff hammer that part of it out. Um, so I need a motion to table the acceptance of the uh maintenance agreement. I'll move to table the acceptance of the maintenance agreement with Ramsey County and the turnback of Southshore Boulevard. I'll second. Motion's made a second. All in favor say I. I. I. All right. Uh that ends our regular agenda. We do have open time if anybody still is really interested in any of this stuff. Hearing none. I need a motion to receive gender materials and supplements. So moved. Second. All in favor say I. I need a motion to adjourn at 901. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Thank you folks. Thank you. So Brian Brian or Terra, either one