Here we go. Y All right. 7 o'clock. We will call the town board meeting for May 19th, 2025 to order. First item on the agenda is the agenda, Patrick. Changes. Uh no additions or deletions from staff, Mr. Chair board have anything? No. No. We need a motion to approve. Move to approve the agenda as submitted. Second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. All right. Item three is approval payment of the bills. I signed off. Move to approve payment of the bills. Second. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. All right. Item four is approval of prior meeting minutes from May 5th. Anybody got any changes? I didn't. I saw none. Move to approve the minutes of the May 5th meeting. Second. All in favor? I. I. All right. Uh, five is consent agenda. We have five of them. Is the board okay with them or somebody want to pull? Nope. I'm okay with them. I'm okay. Need a motion to approve? So moved. Second. All in favor? I. I. All right. Moving on. Item six is old business. This is Polar Lakes Park baseball field. Who's going to take that one? Me. Mr. Chair. pleases the board. It's just uh these are two cleanup items basically that were kind of uh left to be completed. The 6A piece of business is merely approving a change in the cost by about $1,000 for the purchase and then uh Supervisor Rusek was going to discuss the park board bylaws real quickly. Yes. Um we'll finish this one first. I suppose I'll uh I'm the staff leaison to the park board and I'll move to approve the updated quote from for 32,5133 from Bellson Outdoors for the purchase of the ADA accessible bleachers for the polar lakes baseball fields uh with the funding coming from the community park improvement fund. Again, this is just um an update that was already prior prior approval was received in April from the board, but the cost has changed since we um first said we would do that by 2000 some dollars, I believe. I'll second. All right. Motion made second. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. All right. Then the next one, Steve, the bylaws. Yes. Uh the park board uh has been working for about two years to put together, it takes that long, to put together um uh some bylaws and also update an ordinance u establishing some rules for our Polar Lakes Park. And it's went through the draft process and uh it's also been shared with our users uh to see if there were any things that we were missing and the end users uh understood where we were at. they had nothing that they would recommend and so it was approved. However, there was some discrepancies between the some language in the bylaws and the ordinance. Uh two two little minor clerical errors and they were both fixed. And so this is just to update that the park board bylaws are now in its final state and ordinance 99 is established for uh the use of the of the parks. Any questions? Uh so that's till we revise it. So we still need a motion to approve that. We do. Yes. Definitely. Sure. I'll make a motion to approve the uh park board review and recommendation on the bylaws and accompanying ordinance establishing the park board. Second. I'll second that. Motion made second. All in favor say I. I. I. All opposed. Thank you board. Motion carries. All right. Item seven is the public hearing concerning the park 35 project. I need a motion to wave the reading. I'll move to wave the reading that was properly published. A second. All favor say I. I. Opposed. And I need a motion to open up the public hearing. I'll move to open up the public hearing. I'll second. All right. All in favor say I. I. All right. Uh Larry or CJ, who's going to take this? U. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tonight we have the final plat for the major subdivision of Park 35E at 53000 Centerville Road. Similarly to the former board meeting, I'll have a presentation to put on the screen if it cooperates with me here. Um, there were some changes that we will show with screenshots from their submitt. Uh, technical difficulties, but we'll keep moving. So, the applicant is proposing to subdivide their property into the previously seen lots one, outlot A, B, and C. the they applied for a final plat on April 25th. The application was deemed incomplete on May 1st due to the missing approval of the preliminary plat and a development agreement. The preliminary plat was heard at a public hearing and was approved on May 5th. The revised final plat was received on May 7th and a final P public hearing and action is being taken tonight 519 with a 60-day review period ending on June 14th. July 14th July 14th, excuse me. Thank you. 15th. Currently, the property is vacant as we know in the light industrial zoning district. The preliminary plat was approved at the past board meeting with conditions. Lot one will host an industrial building at 13,456 square ft. A 5.73 acre conservation easement will be protecting a wetland area in the northwest corner of the property. Outlot A will accommodate a future building. Outlot B will consist of existing wetlands in a drainage easement. And outlot C will accommodate a future building. There is a proposed trail that runs from the north to the south that is required by the township's comprehensive plan. The conservation easement and this trail are um meeting the requirement for parkland dedication. So there's no fee for park land and as a condition of preliminary plat approval that trail will be constructed during development of lot one. As for the landscaping, lot one and outlot A show proposed landscaping. Proposed landscaping as a condition of the preliminary plat approval as well will be installed during the development of lot one. This includes a mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees on the north u in the center north of the property. Some existing trees will remain mo mainly coniferous [Music] trees and then I'll have Larry discuss some items regarding grading and erosion. I'll work on this. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair and town board, the grading uh proposed on this slot um is similar to what you saw at the last meeting with the preliminary plat. Not any significant changes from um the plan that you saw at your last meeting. Um utilities, same same thing. the uh utilities are proposed um to to follow the the plan that was provided at at your last meeting including the water main connection to the north and tying in um on the north end. Um sanitary sewer connection to the existing um sanitary sewer on the site. Um so similar to what you saw at the last meeting. Um next oh site site access as as you recall there's two access points from uh Centerville Road that would be built with phase one and um would include some turn lanes that would be installed with uh with this phase. Again, no changes to um the plans there. In that regard, um the um we have reviewed and provided our comments in the packet for um our engineering review. Um the developer has provided some responses that uh um we haven't fully evaluated yet. Thank you. Yes. So, as stated, we have submitted comments. The comments are included on a memo dated 5:15 2025. The property meets all of the ling requirements. So, there's no concerns um from my perspective regarding um lot size setbacks, uh parking usage, etc. The landscaping, it does meet all of the landscaping ordinances and then they did add additional landscaping with phase one uh as rec as requested. Um tonight you have the options to either approve with conditions of approval if you'd like, deny with findings for denial, or table the request for further review and study. A development agreement has not yet been finalized. the township and the applicant are working together and um have been in in conversation regarding the details of the development agreement. However, none has been finalized and there are outstanding comments on that memo 51525 that were required as a conditionary condition of a preliminary plat approval. So, the applicant shall resolve those as well um either before approval of final putt or as a condition of the final plat. The staff is recommending to table the item to allow the applicant and staff time to finalize a development agreement and discuss the outstanding comments. Now, if the board has reviewed the application and feels comfortable approving, um I do have a resolution drafted that we can go through. So, there is something prepared if that's the route you'd like to take. And then as we are discussing, I'll try and get this up on the screen again so we can um look a little bit more closely at some of those plans. But are there any initial questions? Uh maybe one of Chad. Can we uh can we approve the final plat without the development agreement being finished? You can. The statute states that you can either approve it if all conditions have been met or you can approve it if there's an agreement with the developer appropriate assuring that performance of the under of the remaining open conditions have been satisfied. So the question is what are the open conditions left and what kind of insurance do we have that they'll be completed? If it's just the development agreement, I think that's that wouldn't bother me because we're pretty close on that. At least I feel we're close. I'm not going to change it much change it to be honest with you. CJ, you want to go over what outstanding issues we have besides the development agreement? Sure. And Jim and Larry, you can jump in at any point if you have a comment as well. Um there were um this memo is included in your packet as well. Well, it's idea what page that is? Uh, yes, I can find out. Like 199, I think. 199. Be wrong. 79. You're you're May 15th one. Exactly. It's uh page 79. Okay. if that's the one you're referencing. There were comments from the public works department uh regarding the memo that was included as preliminary condition of approval. Um and as as stated earlier, they have they have responded, but these comments have not uh been fully reviewed by staff. Um, public works also commented regarding the landscaping plan just mentioning that mentioning that the species are good choices for fast growth. Um, the oaks will be short when planted and the annual growth is slow. So, it's typically between 6 in and 12 in a year. And then that the plantings are below the retaining wall and mentioning that um providing some above the retaining wall would provide immediate cover. There were some items uh missing from the preliminary plat showing a drainage and utility easement for the trail system which would provide the township access for utilities. [Music] There were comments regarding water main easements um and the widths of the of said water mane [Music] easements. And Jim, do you have any comments regarding the storm water um plans? Comments? Yeah, there's there's several components that we're working through on the last pieces of the storm. Um they're listed out. Nothing is that can't be addressed. Thank you. Does that mean these easements haven't been filed yet then? I'm sorry. Could you say that again? That means they haven't been filed obviously. Don't they have to file them with the county? they'd be a part of the plat. Okay, I did get the screen to work for me. Thank you. Um, so this is the the landscape plan. We just focused on the north side. There's other slides that show the rest of the landscaping plan, but if you wanted to kind of I don't know if you wanted to walk through the north side. Sure. Yeah. So, this is against the um northern property line. um show the pink shows where the trail is, the light blue shows where retaining walls are and or will be and the yellow um if we could zoom in just slightly. Um I don't know the way I can do that. That's okay. Um the yellow shows where new trees will be planted. They also are showing existing trees which I have not highlighted there. Um on the south side of the retaining wall, there are some coniferous trees shown there as well, the tall skinny ones. Um I'm not exactly sure of the proper terminology there, but it is included in the flat documents. And then where we have a an easement um on the east side, no plantings will be there because it's a utility easement. So you'll see a small gap in in landscaping for that reason. Yep. Right there. But this is all planting below the retaining wall. Correct. Um on the west side where the the small round ones are, those are below the retaining wall. There's a that's above the retaining wall. There's a mixture in this area below the retaining wall where the retaining wall kind of ends and then the coniferous here along the the curved portion of the retaining wall or above the retaining wall. Is there a reason that line doesn't extend more towards the east? This line? Yes. Um, excuse me. That's that's more of a screening effect for the neighbors than the stuff down below by the trail. And that would be a good question for the applicant, at least. And what what kind of trees and tree or shrubs are those on the top part? That'd be another question for the the applicant. I don't they have more details around the species that we could provide. Otherwise, they could maybe chime in on that. Excuse me. Are those the ones noted in Dale's comments? So, the honeyloust and autumn blaze maple. There's there's that's the mixture over on this section. Um I think there's some coniferous as well in that mix. at De's comments are below the retaining wall on the on the north side towards the house and there's going to be some mixtures of oaks in there. Looks like some oaks. Okay. If if the board is comfortable with the um the plans shown and before you tonight as an a condition of approval, um a condition could be the final plat um is subject to the revisions as noted in the staff comments dated 5:15 and those would need to be resolved before recording with the county. So if any of these outstanding comments are um could be addressed following approval, All right, Beth, questions, comments? Um, I think the landscape plan as it stands, um, it's kind of in conflict with the permitted to use standard we've got with regard to not diminishing the value of these homes. I don't think the screening goes nearly far enough. I really think we've got to do better than this. Um they you know especially with when you consider all the problems they put up with the dust and everything this what are they going to do to help these people? I mean it's just this to me is really not going to cut it. Are you talking down below or up above? Both. But mostly up, you know, up top is where you need it. And I I just don't see this as being a real benefit. I think it's going to detract from their homes and value. Steve, again, the landscaping was it was the key heartburn the last time we talked. I there's been some improvement, but I I guess I'm, you know, I read what Dale wrote about above u and my computer is not catching up on that what he exactly said, but um I'd like to see some more screening because it's not going to help anything with the people to the north if the for years. That's the truth of it. And one of the things that the I saw was some decorative um screening that some somebody had thought about. Did was there any I'd like to know if there's any consideration for any other kind of uh uh buffer there for the uh residents. Right. So other than that not there's no questions on anything else. No, I think they said they can uh work those things out. It's just the landscaping piece that I'm not sure we can work out without having more conversation. So, well, I'm I'm always lerary of contingency. Yeah. I mean, I don't I don't like these things out there when we're assuming that they'll be taken care of and sometimes they get dragged on or uh not addressed as the board would like to see. Um some things are out of our hands. Obviously, if there's Ramsey County is one that likes to drag their feet. Um, but North Oaks was well aware that they had to do buffering around the residential portion of the project. So I Well, we'll we'll open it up for the public, but I'm I guess we'll have to see how the uh developer wants to approach that, but it looks like now it's just for the board's sake, it's just landscaping. That consensus. Mhm. I want Yes. So I I want to do as much as possible so that I I I understand that the big aspect is I might have the A and B's mix up the the laps one but I don't want it to sit there for seven years and have no development in the north. I even by the developer own statement that the climate is not necessarily great for um occupancy or building. Well, we don't know what's going to the future is that five or seven could be longer. Not that you want it longer, but I don't I don't want it sitting there empty. So, more we do now, the better. Period. Chad, with our ordinances and our u how how we uh explicitly say what they need to put in for trees, sizes, how much leeway do we have? I don't think we actually have an ordinance which states how what what trees we have to put in. Well, I I think on industrial though is there a an ordinance to how many deciduous, how many overstory? I I think we have something that gives them a guideline but there was always an intent that you know the residential and the light industrial would have a buffer zone. I mean, you can go back through all the meeting minutes and it was indicated it should have always been buffered. And that's just common sense that you wouldn't have a nice residential area and then, you know, it's industrial. The only problem is that was then, this is now. So, we're I know, but we've still got it, you know, in the permitted use standards. We're we're we're bound by what we can legally make them do and what we can. I mean, I think we pushed we pushed landscaping as far as we can. And Mr. Mr. Chair, may I um the township does have landscaping requirements aligned in a policy um that was adopted by the board in 1992 when in 1992 we might want to read that one of 1992. Um that is on our list of things to look at um in the future that we will bring forward to you. But the requirements are met based on that policy. So that policy states that for example one overstory deciduous shade tree per 2,000 square ft of total building area. Um also one coniferous tree per every 2,000 square ft of total building area. They shall be a minimum of 6 ft high. One ornamental tree per every 2,000 square foot of building or per every 200 feet of sight perimeter, whichever is greater. It doesn't allow for anything with terrain, does it? because you've got a very deep almost ravine- like that you know the terrain is very steep does I mean that's that's really nice for you know like road but it doesn't really cut the mustard for this situation right I don't have the full policy in front of me but I um from what I can recall I don't remember seeing anything regarding specifically um intense topography lots so that would be something we should look at in the future as well which is why you we need in the future to look at this as a conditional use permit instead of a permitted use. Conditional use permits allow allow you to customize the per, you know, the permit approved to deal with situations like this. Well, if North Oak still owns the portion that's above, you know, it seems like there's some question of the ownership. Well, I think according to an email I got from the attorney last Thursday that I don't they you actually own the entire 56 acres or you have an entity you control that owns 56 acres. Is that correct? Well, wait. We're going to we'll get to the public here in a minute. I don't want I'm sorry. I should That's unfair. But so let me let me let me ask the question this way. Are make this statement. If I understand the attorney's statements correctly, the applicant does own the entire 56.4 acres. So, was North Oaks included? Well, my understanding was North Oaks was included on the application. So, there's a question to me of who is it joint ownership or one entity owning? Well, my understanding of why North Oaks was on that on the application was the fact that at the time the application was made, the applicant had not purchased Endeavor or what White Bear Land Holdings, White Bear, Thank you. White Bear Land Holdings hadn't purchased the property yet. They were simply they were still purchasers. They now own the fee title. That's what my understanding is based on representation I've received from the attorney. Maybe I'm misunderstanding that and that's something that that the applicant should clarify tonight. Who owns what? But my understanding is that they now own all the property. Yeah. But they at one time had buffering and now they do not. Yeah. But the buffering was when North Oaks still own the property. So you can tear out the buffering and and they bought homes understanding that they had buffering with an industrial area. Well, I hate to say this, but unfortunately this is the facts. This is the reality of the situation. North Oaks may have promised the homeowners certain buffering would remain, but that's not but what North Oaks promised and what the township can enforce are two different things. They may have a breach of contract this I mean they may have a contract claim against against North Oaks but we can't enforce that contract. How do we hold them to it? Hold North Oaks to it? No endeavor. Well, they're not a part of that contract. I know, but the thing is there's some buffering owed and right now they've got, you know, their properties are impacted and I really I understand the situation. I sympathize with the homeowners. The pro the question comes down to is what can the town the township legally require endeavor to do? And we push that as far as we possibly can. There's two things here. the original proposal and the original development has gone away. So, anything that was promised then is basically off the table. And that's the problem here is that this whole tracked, when I say tracked, I'm talking about the residential and the industrial. They're done in they were done in bits and pieces. Now, if you had if you if at one point in time they had you had one overall agreement for the entire for all the property that North Oaks owned, that would be different. But we don't it was done in bits and pieces meeting planning commission meeting minutes that buffering was always to be included because of the situation of you know butdding up against light industrial and I understand that I'm simply but I still have to go back to the fact that under our ordinances under the township ordinances we can't enforce that buffer. Whatever promises were made, whatever representations were made, we can't at the time that the residential project was approved, we can't enforce, we cannot enforce that now against Endeavor because they were a they weren't a part of that representation, but their project still is impacting their values. I understand that and that's part of the permitted use and that would they would be in violation of that. Well, I I still have to go back to the fact that we've pushed the permitted use power as far as we can. Well, then it's a really poor example of, you know, Met Council guidance on dealing with residential and and, you know, the like industrial. This is just poor which and it's really unfair. And I'm not disagreeing with you one bit. I'm just dealing with the reality of what we're allowed what we have the power what we being the township have the power to do. Mr. What should they have done with the buffering? I mean apparently North Oaks didn't keep their promise. But well again Beth, you got to remember that's a whole different project. I understand that. But the point is they're suffering. I I I get that. That's why we're trying to do our best with landscaping now. What we have now, everything before that is just is gone. We can't do anything about it. Well, we got to do better than that because they need to be buffered from it. Well, unfortunately, there's not much we can do for at this present moment because this project, Endeavor's project, is judged solely on what the existing ordinances are. Are you guys willing to work with the neighborhood at all? We got to wait. Okay. But that's why I going to I come back to the to the comment I've made before that in the future we need to look at our zoning but whether or not we should cons whe whether or not we should deal this deal with these kind of projects as conditional uses and not permitted uses because again conditional uses give you much more give you more leeway give more power to customize the project to these kind of issues. Permitted uses do not. And this gets back to Chad when you explained that the last meeting the uh applicant who was North Oaks LLC first came in for a grading plan. They had the legal right to take down their trees and that's what they did. They took down their trees. Now, a lot of those trees were screening for the neighbors. I I get that. But they had the right to take them down and we can't stop that. No, we we cannot enforce something cannot enforce a requirement that is not that does not appear in our ordinances or appear in state statutes. That's one point that is extremely clear that municipalities such as the township are cannot that okay let me let me put it this way and this is the ordinances drafted by the township or by any municipality are interpreted against the township or the municipality because they drafted them they adopt them. So we are what we say what we draft what we drafted are what we're bound to deal with and there's nothing in our ordinances that allow you to require endeavor to go beyond what the landscaping plan that they proposed is. I mean I I again I understand what the pro what what what the concerns are. I understand what happened here the but it still gets back unfortunately to what powers do you have and you don't and you've taken the powers you do have and pushed them as far as you can sorry go ahead Larry Mr. Mr. Chair and town board, I think um one of the powers that you did execute as a as a part of the preliminary plat was requiring additional landscaping for this area as built as a part of uh um phase one. And I think it's uh fair for you to look at whether their plan is appropriate and to provide comments back to the developer on the appropriateness of the landscaping plan that they've pro provided within the parameters of our own policies and ordinances. You know, and I was going to say almost what he said is that I think we need to hear from the developers at this point because I listen to what you said. said, I listened to what Beth said. I listened to what Chad says and and I looked at the ordinance and there's not a whole lot of wiggle room truly other than other than goodwill to what's happening to those people to the north. And I guess we need to hear from the developer if there's any uh other options that they would consider in landscaping. I think that's the biggest. All right. But I'm getting a sense of the board it's we're just down to strictly landscaping. Correct. To to any other issue outstanding issues. I I think some of the staff things that we can be worked out. Um I do have a question Chad. If we do okay tonight, those outstanding issues and not a development agreement, can a building permit be issued? Well, I think that's the whole point of getting the final plat approval is that with a final plat approval, they can apply for a building permit. Okay. But is that going to hold it up because of of Mike not feeling comfortable some of these things not addressed or not? That all depends on whether or not he can whether or not those issues are issues that a building permit can deal with. Okay. All right. If there's no other comments from the board, I need a motion to open up for public comment. I'll open make a motion to open the uh hearing for public comment. I'll second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. All right. Developers, I guess obviously you see where we're coming from. If you want to come up, maybe you can help us out with this. Yeah. Just uh name and address for the record, please. So, my name is Evan Madson and my address is 6317 Mildred Avenue. Did we lose it, Larry? On my computer. I don't have his presentation. CJ's trying to get it up. Flash drive, too, if that works. I can give you a flash. I don't. Or would you like me if I email it to you, Larry? Will you be able to get it? Yeah. Okay. I just emailed Larry your presentation to share on the screen. Technology is great when it works. Printed them out today. We can go old school if you want. No. Okay, there you go. Perfect. Thank you. You want to go to the next page? That'd be great. Next slide, please. Oh, I'm sorry. Can you get to just the landscaping? I think that's the only thing we're interested in. We've seen the PowerPoint. So, okay. I was just g going to say the one item that's uh new is we're seeking approval for subdivision permitted use applications conditioned upon execution of a development agreement and prior to the issuance of or satisfying staff comments prior to the issuance of a building permit. So we're not trying to avoid any of these items. We're trying to work through them with you. Um and we wanted to make you aware of that. Um so if we want to go right to the landscaping, I'd like to invite Mark Crown back up. Mark is our engineer on the project as well as a landscape architect. And there was quite a few questions that were um kind of asked and raised throughout um that discussion there. And I wanted to kind of highlight why we picked each of the species and kind of determine their location. Um so from a minimum standard standpoint, um we feel like we're going above and beyond that. We're proposing to plant 12 foot tall Austrian pines. And Mark can tell you about why he chose that species. Um and then up on top of the retaining wall um is a row of juniper. So almost function as a living wall to screen. And so um Mark, I guess you wanted to talk a little bit more about why you uh picked those specific species and their locations. Sure. Um so on the east side or the Could you identify yourself, please? Oh, sorry. Mark Kromic with Alliant Engineering Landscape Architect. Um and uh with uh at uh 7 through3 uh Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis. Um so where the um Pathbends to the north there um we have uh three a blaze maples and then um Bur Oak there. Autumn Blaze maple um uh or hybrid maple of red and silver maple grow fairly quickly. Very regularly used maple tree. Nice fall color. Um, one of my favorite trees. Um, Burr Oak. Um, are again where she's got the cursor or Larry's has the cursor. Um, I guess I also should point out that, you know, this area uh here along the property line, there is fairly significant existing trees and there's there's a number of um uh evergreens in this area. And as we go farther to the west where the house has more of a white flag, maybe it's a patio pool area, the white there, it turns to be more deciduous and box elders and things. It's a little more thin as you get beyond the uh existing evergreens. So that's why we used um the deciduous trees more over on the east side where the the evergreens are. And then as you move beyond where the oaks are, we have um the the 12 foot Austrian pine. They're very similar to Norway pine, long needle pine. They hold the branches to the ground better than Norway pine. Um that's why we're we we we use those over some of the other pines. Um and then uh so we got 23 of those. Uh some on the south side of the trail, some on the north side of the trail. Um and then the the gray line there is the existing retaining wall. Um, as we uh move to the west, uh, we use Madora Junipers to help, um, screen the view of the couple homes that are on the west. Um, I'd like to point out that the building that's getting is up for approval is approximately 700 ft south of that common property line. So, it's a significant distance. Um, your ordinance I do I've been doing this for 30 years and your ordinance is as strong as anybody's as far as the number of shrubs and trees. Actually, your shrubs are higher than most that I see project grove and Egan, you know, everywhere. Um, and I also point out that when they do come back for their next building, you'll be able to review that landscape plan. And because it's my understanding that your code doesn't um require any plants on this lot because it's not part of what's being platted. There's no proposed building at this moment, but it's my understanding they'll be, you know, back soon with a building. And um so this is essentially over and above what's required by code and um there'll be opportunity to better screen um this area and buffer this area when with the we come in with the plans for this this north parcel. How tall are the junipers? Uh they're uh six foot. Is is there any room there to burm before you plant anything? Um, it depends on the final plan, but uh, probably not. If if the building was if the second phase building was adjusted a little bit, would that help that area to to burm or with more trees or taller trees? Possibly. But I'd point out that the uh, the building that they're contemplating is a kind of a single facade along there. they won't be looking at a a truck court as what was showing on the the plans that are in front of you tonight. So, it in that in in that way, I think it's it's uh much more it's much better for the the homeowners and their view to the site and the activities going on because my point of view about the other board, but it's great. You're doing a great job of screening on the trail, but that's pretty much below the the line of that big retaining wall. So that may screen some of the retaining wall, but it's still not going to screen anything looking over towards the building. That's that's what I was going at. That corner that that seems to be the sticking point if we get something taller there. Yeah. I think just to speak candidly, part of what's really challenging about this process is we're kind of being asked to insert landscaping out of uh the typical process. The typical process being with the building and with the construction. Um, no, we totally understand it, but we this board appreciates you guys trying to work this into it, which technically you're right, we wouldn't have to do anything there, but I think just as a good neighborly thing. We're trying to make this work. So, yeah. I mean, I also think it should be recognized that um the conservation easement sets any future building back significantly. Um, if we were following zoning ordinances, we could build 35 ft right up to that property line, right? And any building with the conservation easement is three times that distance back. And so I'm not sure that's been recognized or really acknowledged yet. And so the conservation easement really is a key component of the buffering for this project. Would you be interested at all in taking some of this landscaping that you're putting front of your building and putting it on that hill? Because I think you'd have you they'd get a lot more benefit from that kind of buffering. Which hill? You know the big hill that their properties are on on Pine Hill. There's a very large hill. Some of your landscaping. Would you ever consider putting it on their hill because it would buffer a lot faster? Um on as a goodwill gesture on their downs slope you're saying? Yeah, sure. I think we'd be open to that if you want to move trees around to buffer. I just it's kind of a subjective. How do we go about that? Well, I'm just think, you know, from that basis, I think we'd get a little farther along in the buffering. And if you're going to, you know, buy trees anyways, I don't know, would you guys be willing to, you know, how about we talk trading trading trees and buffering? Cuz that's the issue. I don't think that changes a sight line, does it? It does. If they put it on that hill, they don't have to, they won't see it. Cuz what all you The big issue is them not having to see your building. Yeah. Well, but that's never going to happen. They're going to see the building. I know. But here's the thing. If you do buffer on that hill because it's so steep, they won't see it. I'm just asking maybe we can work out a solution. We can be creative. Keep in mind though that the hill you're talking about is not on Endeavor's property or I'm sorry, White Bear's property. White Bear. Uh it's on the homeowner's property. So that would require that they obtain either a license or an easement to bu to place those trees on the property. That's what I'm saying. Let's be if we can be creative, let's try it. It doesn't hurt to try it, Chad. And everybody and everybody's happy. They don't, you know, they may not have to do as much landscaping. And if we're willing to come to a solution, let's give it a whirl. I am not against trying. Okay, so we're clear on that. Right. I'm just pointing is trying within the real within the parameters of what we're allowed to do. That's exactly you know but let's see how you know but even some sort of of process for that wouldn't happen until they go to put the other building up. Would it Chad? No. No. This is all remember you're approving a plat for this entire 56 acre propert. That's true. But we can't approve a plat that's not on the plat. I mean, you're you're talking approving something that's off the property. Table it for just Let's let's stop a second here. Okay. The plat you're approving consists of lot one, out lots A, B, and C. That's the entire plat. And since outlots A, B, and C are part of the plat, you can require they do that. It is part of the property. Don't focus on lot one only. Focus on the entire property because that's what you're platting. But what what she's proposing though is outside of that plot it is on private property that these residents have and that's my point and we have not discussed it up till now and I don't know if I want to step into that that we are now landscaping private property for a another property. I understand that we're treading a fine line here. we are walking a fine line, but I guess if we can be creative and everybody benefits. I mean, it's like, you know, maybe we can help them. They don't have to. There's a reasonable trade here. I mean, if you're willing to consider it and you can talk to the neighborhood, I'd like to see everybody just work it out cuz the issue is they need to be buffered. And I think the intent had always been that there would be buffering between a residential and a light industrial and I don't really want to be cruel to you but it's like you know I feel their pain and I think you understand it too if you were in their position. So it's like if we can be creative like table it talk about it bring it back could that work? There's moral rights and there are legal rights and and they're within based on what Chad said, they are within the legal rights of our ordinance as it sits. I'm not disagreeing that I'd like them to work it out with the neighbors. Don't get me wrong there. I just don't know if that's where we want to be. I'm for working it out, but we need to hear what he has to say, I guess. Okay. My name is Joe Bergman, uh 885 Lynwood Avenue. So, I I can appreciate what you're saying and I think we've demonstrated along for the last several months. We're working trying to work as collaboratively as we can with staff and taking the feedback that we've gotten in our our meetings with the neighborhood to try to accommodate as best we can all of the varying demands here. And I think as I'm just thinking you might owe a little payback for all the dust and again and stuff that they can't put up with. I mean, you know, you're asking us to pay back for something that we didn't just pay it forward a little I get it. And I think part of the challenge we keep running into here is I know we're trying to focus on the building we're putting up 700 ft to the south right now. I think everyone is aware that we have a second application in that's in front of the planning commission on Thursday. Mhm. that is involving a building that's right there on this end and that we've rotated to sort of provide that buffer from that and to prevent sort of that not only the visibility of the trucking activity but presumably buffer the visibility of the buildings behind it of all any any dust or anything like that. But what you're asking us to do here in terms of trying to work with individual neighbors on this plan is is really something that probably comes along with that next building because I think what we're trying to propose here is again as Evan noted we're going kind of in our minds going above and beyond what is required by the policy and sort of would be atypical to build. Now, we're trying to give that on the understanding that there's a concern that what if something doesn't happen on the second phase. I I understand that concern. That's a fair concern, but we're also three days out from presenting another project there that's going to be constructed on the same timeline. And so, the idea that we're going to it's not really a viable option for us to table this to negotiate some side arrangement that we can't paper at all with the township as part of a development agreement. No, but you kind of owe them a little bit. They suffered last year, but they don't. I know they don't, but I'm asking for some goodwill. I'm not letting go. I think we're we feel like we're providing that by again going above and beyond to provide trees now that would normally these are again 700 feet away from the building we're building. And then we're putting we take all the building all the trees from the building that we're proposing to put up in the southwest and then put them all up here if you want them. But then we're just kind of we're we're having a hard time trying to figure out how to I'll just say this. take it to heart that you, as you said, you're having this other project 3 days from now with the planning commission. And do you believe that this subject is going to come up again? Absolutely. So, 100%. So, whether it's the next one or this one, let's try the best we can. I think we're I think we've been we've demonstrated that the the whole whole time. I think we're just trying to say let's not get all the way out of order on what we're required here. And so again, I think we've tried to engage and take the feedback and revise our plans to accommodate and address the concerns of everyone involved, all the stakeholders involved. We're coming into a highly charged situation of which most of this is not our making, right? A lot of this dates back nearly a decade and we're sort of trying to make the best of it. But I think all we're asking for is some acknowledgement that all we have done as an applicant is exactly what we said we'd do. We respond quickly. We listen to we have meetings with the neighbors, try to take their feedback, we try to incorporate it as best we can within the realms here. And so when we say or we understand what's coming up in the next round of hearings, we understand the conversations that we're going to have. We we truly do. We understand we're trying to work creatively. I appreciate that you're coming up with a creative solution here. I just think from our perspective at this point in time, we need to stick to the project that we're at. And again, what we're providing here is kind of the best we can do until we get to the next project because there's we're not in a position to make the kind of commitments I think that you're asking us to make in regards to neighboring properties. How much sway you get with Mark Hogi? Maybe he could help you out. Yeah, I I could try, but again, that's not going to solve solve this, right? like this this is a problem for the next building that's coming up in three days that we're going to talk to all the same people have the same conversations and then we'll be in front of hopefully be in front of this town board having the same conversations with you. So I I I'm rambling a little bit but I I appreciate you hearing us out and taking us uh at our word here when we say we're happy to continue working with the township to try to find a solution that uh that works for as many people as possible. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right, I'll open up for the rest of the neighbors. Anybody want to name and address? Steve Beck is 11:04 Pine Hill. Um, thanks for having us. Um when we look at that corner there uh above the wall uh if you look at how many feet above sea level it's level with the my walk out basement's walk out basement. So when we're standing there we're at that same height. So you put a sixoot tree there that's nothing. So, my idea is more like uh I'd like to see starting all along that um retaining wall 20 to 25 foot two rows of Norway pine trees. that would give me some um screening and that's uh no one everybody's talking about uh uh according to the policies of this of this uh township but it's more like these are the ordinances so that's all we have to stand on is ordinances North Oaks never promised me anything Hansen Builders never promised me anything I think North Oaks knew that if they if if they don't grade first uh and then uh they won't have to provide any buffering because it'll be gone. So, North Oaks ain't stupid and know North Oaks this ain't their first rodeo either. They know what they're doing. So, um the ordinance is uh uh and it's 9-34F. uh the proposed use shall show sufficient landscaping to screen undesirable features and to enhance the development. So undesirable features are headlights, tail lights, the building, trucks, signage, dirt, noise, dust, and smell. So we need some screening here. And if I'm not mistaken, the last meeting two weeks ago, I left with the idea that if the Endeavor plan or the North Oaks plan doesn't get approved here today, they got to come back and do this again. Now, that's just money out of their pockets, and they're willing to risk that. And so, um, I I would not be satisfied with six-foot junipers when I think North Oaks took down 50 foot Norway pines and now we're going to get six foot junipers. Let's put some big pine trees up there. I got Spencer Olsen, 1131 Pine Hill Lane. Um, I think that was good discussion, Steve. Appreciate that. I I have a question maybe for you Chad or just the broader board, but um are there grounds to deny the application if the board isn't satisfied with the landscaping or like what are the legal limitations that they have in approving or tableabling or denying the application? Legal limitations are those base the town board cannot go beyond what's required by the ordinance. In fact, the section that was just cited 9.3.4F 4F. That's part of the permitted use standard app ordinance that's already been granted. That was granted at the last meeting. So, it's too late to So, we accepted the landscaping plan was presented in the last meeting. The board did pushed it as far as it possibly could legally. Okay. So if they say that they don't want to do any more screening, the board can force them to board can try, but it's it's a Now you're getting you're now you're asking me to give legal advice, hypothetical legal advice that really I would not give at an open meeting because it involves potential litigation and that's an issue that should be dealt with in a closed meeting. So, unfortunately, I would like to answer your question, but as the attorney for the town, it's in the it's in the town's best interest. I don't say anymore. Okay. Not like that. I don't like that concept. Don't like it, but that's the way I see it. Yeah. Well, I would just say the landscaping plan is better. I agree. The trees really would need to be higher to have any impact. So really trying to get to that 20 25 foot range. I had brought up a buffering fence of some sort if that's more cost effective. That would be in that 15 to 20 foot range. I thought that should have been considered. Um in my view, those trees should extend along the top of the retaining wall to protect some of the other houses along there. The trees aren't that dense um back there, so you can still see the developments. So, I guess I would just encourage the the township leadership to, you know, make every effort, which I I see that you're doing, but um to try to stall this process so that we get a better landscaping plan that meets those permitted use standards, which in my view are not being met with this plan because they just don't provide adequate screening to the residences. Thank you. Anyone else? I guess uh BJ Schultz, 1108 Pineal Lane. Uh one thing I wanted to say to you about the trail position on like the northwest side. Um the bad thing about it is that you're just chewing up land to add trees, you know, either any screening at the bottom of the wall, too. And for some residences, like the wall itself is like a it's like its own structure. It's just so big, you know. So, I was wondering if we could reconsider where we put the trail because I feel like that would help like and at least buffering the wall itself, which is only a fraction of the bigger problem being the trees on top of the wall. But, so something I wanted to bring up because that's something that you guys are willing to discuss. That that trail is in a spot where it's the only place it can go. There is there is no other option. It can't go along the freeway and we don't want it going through the parking lots. That is where the trail is pretty much got to go, right? It's just a bummer because you're just chewing up land to add more screening. So, it's like Well, but a lot of that screening will I'm hate to say it, but it will at least buffer the wall. It's not going to help the screening will buffer the wall. Well, along the trails, all that screening along the the trails will help buffer some of that wall, right? But the biggest part of the wall where it's 20 ft, there's no there's no trees on the bottom, you know. So that's where because at the end edge of the trail you have swamp. So you can't put any trees in the swamp obviously. So so for Lori, you know, she is like she has no no screening whatsoever, period. You know, because there's nothing on the bottom of the wall, which would take years to grow up anyways. And then there's these little ones on top of the wall, but you know, that's that's nothing. So um so something to consider as well. Um I just want to bring up. And then um feel like they kind of said everything I wanted to say, but um the other night I it was like 11:00 p.m. And I was watching the people leave Heras and uh from second shift and it reminded me to you know I know there was discussion that uh this particular building would not have second shift but is there something uh in the township ordinances or something that says that it will not have a second shift or third shift because when everybody was leaving I mean Hurus is like 3/4 of a mile from our house now but now there's no blockage so it's I can see everybody leaving And if if uh that northern building that's being proposed in three days, you know, if you do have third shift or second shift and everybody's leaving at 11 PM, that's going to be the worst. Um so people are going to be pretty mad because you're going to have parking lights and and lights as well. So I don't know, is there anything about that that can be discussed? Yeah, correct me if I'm wrong, but light industrial has to go with the uh uh with the use has to go with the operating hours. I think we've already had this discussion. Yes, we have. Yeah. Yeah, you're right though. It should Mr. Chair. So So there would be no late shifts. So Heras h can do that though. They're considered manufacturing. That's a different zoning. Yep. Yep. Okay. And trust me, I I know at 2 230 you don't want to be on that road because they're not very nice coming in and out of there either. Right. Right. Um, yeah, I I think that like the the per permitted use standard, sorry to keep going back to this, but the one that still jumps out at me is the property was like standard 9-4.4F. Um, the proposed shall not depreciate the value of adjacent properties. I had a realtor tell me that our property value dropped $50,000. Take it for what it's worth. I have that's not like on paper, but there's no question that this is going to either impact our property values or impact the ability to sell our homes, which you have seven families that want to do, by the way. Um, so as that last point, I need to clarify something. 9-4.4 is for conditional use permits. Okay. Again, permitted. Yeah. So, I that's the problem here is that right this is not a conditional use. So, is there anything about decreasing property values that is still not in permitted uses? No, not in permitted use language. Only in the conditional use language, the language you cited. I feel like I missed that at the meeting two weeks ago. Why? But but again, you got to go way back to when you bought the house. It was zone light industrial. Everybody in that whole project knew it was light industrial. This was going to happen. And it's not it it's not that it's not going to happen. It is going to happen. We're just trying to make the best of we can. And so far, I mean, they I think they're they're tweaking and bending to try to make some of this stuff work, especially I think what's coming on Thursday is a good proposal, too. But I haven't seen the full logistics of it. It's going to happen. We can't possibly screen you people from the buildings. There's not There's no way in the world that's going to happen. You can't put up enough trees. You wouldn't be able to put up another building. They had enough trees. It's too late for that, Beth. I I don't know. You got to get over that. So, what about a wall? Sorry to interrupt. What do you mean a wall? Can they put up a 15 or 20 foot screening wall? The decorative screening wall you're talking about on top of But you're talking about something like a soundboard on the freeway. Yeah. That would be a little extreme for us to demand that all Industrial has to put 20 foot walls around them. There's no provision in the permit in the ordinance that would allow us to require that. It would almost have to be their their goodwill to do it. I don't think so. What is the what is the the the screening between a a industrial park and a residential neighborhood? It just feels like it's not really just feels like this subjective thing we're all just searching for that is just not even concrete, you know, like they've already moved the buildings back farther than they than they they had to. They they could have encroached more. Well, they encroached the land towards our house, though. I mean, but but the buildings themselves and like I said, right now we're asking them to screen a building that's not even up yet. So, and they are trying to go that far. It I don't know how we're going to make you happy without this might just be a phase two issue before you can before that building gets up and we can get more screening in there. Yeah. It just seems a little sneaky that they're pushing phase one and then phase two it's like, "Oh, we didn't we didn't address it because we didn't have a chance to or you know, you can see it from our perspective. It's just like it's kind of like going back to the um the the clearing. If somebody would have come out to our houses, they might have been like, "Oh, they're going to take all the trees and move the earth towards our house and build a giant wall." Like, this is going to cause some problems, you know? And I I wish that that somebody would have done that. And I know it doesn't make any sense at this point, but I just hope that look moving forward as we're looking at this next building in our backyard that there's just some preliminary like red flags that are like, "Hey, we should we should think about this cuz this is going to get sticky and people are going to continue to be mad. I mean, we have parking lot in our backyard with nothing, you know? So, the trees are awesome, you guys. The trees are great. They're just at the bottom of a hill. Like, they don't do anything. come to our house. You're welcome. Come over for dinner. We will gladly have you. And and again, the the problem was the grading plan. And right, I we've said it before. I've said it before. The town did everything it could. I I get it. And the grading plan, but we couldn't push any farther. I know. I know. It's a huge bummer. It is. It's a huge bummer. Well, we agree with you on that one. More than you guys even can imagine. It's not. It's more than houses in our backyards. I wish it was houses in our backyards. And I can't plant trees. There's the slope. Like, I just There's nothing we can do to help mitigate ourselves. We This is why we need your guys' help. So, I know you I know you know this, but it's worth saying again. So, thank you. Hi, Diane Pango. Pinkle 1120 Pineh Hill Lane. Thank you for listening to us again. Um hey, I just wanted to go back to the trail. Um CJ, you mentioned that the trail is required by the comp plan, correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay. And I did reach out to um Gail Seabourg um with uh um the Met Council as well as Emma Emma De'vorak about the trail and just to get their input because you at one point at a meeting said that we could try to amend it but amendment would take months to go through that process and it was too late for that. um the reply that I did receive back from that in regards to the trails um both indicated they did review the slide presentations as well as um watching um the meetings that we've had so far and they both indicated in the slide presentations um there are local trails and um uh while the 2050 regional parks and trails policy plan strongly encourages trail connectivity across systems local trails are generally outside the Met Council's jurisdiction jurisdiction so It does kind of fall with the White Bear Township with going forward with this trail. Um if you wanted to make an amendment um to this, it would be something that the council would have to decide on and agree for agree to and then you would reach out to me council and she said the process for that would take anywhere from like 30 to 60 days. Um, so when you are talking about the trail and you're saying it's required by the comp plan, um, the Met Council is saying since it is a um, uh, local trail, it it it something that can be worked with, worked through. This is part of the master plan for our compound. So I I don't know if I can I don't know if I'd call it a local trail, but that's that's very nice of Ramsey County or Met Council to say 30 to 60 days cuz the last time it was 9 months. Okay. So yeah, but they did say there is a process for that and since it is um the local trail, it is something to be considered. So, I did want to bring that up um as a possibility um because if we were to remove the trail, that would then maybe create a possibility for doing a burm to put taller trees in that space versus a trail. So, I'm looking at this as an alternative as a place to put screening. It would save you guys a ton of money to not have to do the trail and the pieces that have to go with that. And then, and I know some of us would like to ride our bikes along the trail. That would be that would be great. Um my dog would probably really like it, but he would attack most of you. Um but um I was just looking at a consideration of a reconsideration of removing the trail and using that space for um additional screening because the screening that we're looking for not only blocks the vision, not we're only lot we're not only looking for it to um block us from the building. We know we're going to see the building, but we're thinking about the parking lot lights. we're thinking about the noises from the building and the traffic and things like that. So, the buffer does more than just block us from the building. So, just something that I wanted to mention for consideration. Thank you, Mr. Chair, if I may. The comp plan is already in place. More importantly, Endeavor's development was proposed based on the existing comp plan. Under statute and law, they're bound to meet the existing comp plan and but we're also bound to make sure they meet the existing comp plan, but we can't change it midway in a midway mid-stream on a project. Whatever the plan, whatever the comp plan, whatever the zoning was at the time they proposed it is the comp is the zoning and the comp plan that has to be dealt with and considered in approving the project. You can't force them to change their project now based on on You can't force them to halt their project while we consider a change to the comp plan. That is illegal and would get the town sued. All right. Anyone else? Hate to end it on that. Well, I missed my job. Sounded like a legal opinion. It is, but that's one I can give because there's clear case law on that. Right. Uh, my name is Donald Williams, 5734 Meadow View Drive. I'm not addressing the landscaping plan. I'm addressing the traffic that's associated with this. I know it's going to come, but I've got some concerns. And, uh, first question I have for Larry. Uh, do you have a slide that shows the southern progress of that trail? Where does that come out? This the southern this the connection of the trail is south. Yeah, the trail the trail goes from east to west and then turns south and then it's it's off the slide that that ties up into Herrera, correct? Click hide. So it follows along on the west side of the buildings, comes up, crosses their access points, and then goes uh between the wetland and the pond and connects to a trail that's already built on Heras. Okay. My my question is whether it came out on Centerville Road at some point. Does not. Okay. Um yeah, eventually. But with existing trail. Okay. Um I've been a township resident for 39 years. I typically travel Centerville Road several times daily between County Road H2 Highway 96. Since 2018, the traffic on this stretch of road has increased dramatically. It has more than merely doubled or tripled and in doing so has become much less safe. Last fall, a good friend of mine was killed while commuting home from his work on a bicycle. Whether permitting, he did so every business day for more than 15 years. So he wasn't a casual biker. He was experienced. He was over 70 years old. I'm guessing he had accured more than a million miles on his bicycles. Just this morning, there was a report of a person being rescued from a car in a pond at 5200 Centerville. I was unable to get any more information before this meeting. The intersection of Centerville and County Road H2 is now a four-way stop with the addition of development on the west. The southbound stop sign at County Road H2 does not meet code. It has never met code. Oh, what code are you? What code are you talking about? the intersection between Centerville Road and County Road H2. Okay. What what code are you referring to? Let me finish. The pavement markings are a full car length past the stop sign. All you have to do is look at the northbound to see how it's done right and look at the southbound to see how it's done totally wrong. The county does not seem to be in any hurry to connect their error. It's not uncommon to see vehicles roll through without stopping. I routinely slow down signal while making a left turn about a quarter mile south of that stop sign. Two months ago, in a space of one week, I was passed twice on the shoulder while doing so and passed on the double yellow at 7 a.m. by a white Cadillac Escalade. I bought a desk, a dash cam. Just south of the railroad track, Deer Hills Drive intersects on the west. About half of the cars roll through that stop sign without a full stop. Speed limit is 50 miles an hour from H2 South for about a mile just before the railroad tracks where it turns to 40 miles hour. It is two-lane with a very limited number of right turn lanes and no left turn lanes. There's a significant number of vehicles driving 10 miles or hour more than the speed limit. I would urge Whitebear Township to request that Ramsey County take three actions. First, demand that they bring the southbound stop sign at County H2 up to standard and then request that the Ramsey County Sheriff and that can come directly from the board. Increase enforcement on that patch of road and do a traffic study to support an immediate request to reduce the speed limit to 40 miles per hour. All right. Anyone else? Just uh a point of contention because now Conra J is going to go through three roundabouts which is going to divert some traffic because of the access to the freeway. Now, I don't know if this study's been done and what that's going to do for Center Road, but the last traffic study I saw, uh, I want to say Cable Road is only 60% capacity. It's it it's what do they call a commuter? I don't know if that's the correct term, but it it is it it has been gone through some traffic studies. For the township to fight the county to do anything on that road is a no-win situation. We can't even get them to do county roads that are right in the heart of the the township. Uh now that doesn't stop anybody else from trying to mount something, but that that's a tough one for us. But obviously, we're not here tonight to try to revamp Central Road and Traffic Studies. That that's not what's on the docket. All right. Is there anyone else to speak to this? All right. One more thing, then we're we got we're going to roll. You got to come up. Okay. Sorry. Does the township require a landscaping buffer or a buffer between that? I feel like I don't have that question like solidified in my brain. What do you mean require a landscaping buffer? Is there is there a requirement for there to be a buffer between residential and the I don't know if they use the term buffer or landscape policy is no it's just how many how many trees are supposed to be with the the application. Correct. That's correct. There's no um buffer requirements relating to sorry to no screening requirements relating to two zones adjacent to one another. So what I'm reading is the permitted use standards. So that's the requirement. Yeah, it's in there. It's clearly like there needs to be screening. You're talking about permitted use standard. Yeah. Just in general. Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Chair, may I? Yes. Um there is for building two they'll need to apply for another permitted use standards permit. So while per the permitted use standards permit was approved for lot one a second one will be reviewed for lot two. So that conversation in the future. Well that's exactly right and I thought that was brought up earlier but we're going to be looking at this whole thing again. So can that be changed to a conditional use permit or no? Well, no. Here's the problem is that you're not the town is not allowed to change zoning after an permit is is once a permit is filed and accepted by the town. When I say accepted, if it meets all the requirements of the ordinance, we have to accept it. Once that's accepted, no, we cannot change zoning at that point in time. It has to be done before any permits are granted. Okay. So in the ordinances, is there required screening between those between light industrial and residential? No. Nothing. Is that unusual to have that? I mean, I feel like that's just kind of like Beth was saying, common sense, you know, like No, because that, like I said, they they specify so many trees for size of building, they don't specify where it has to be. Right. Right. I get that the landscape side of it, but just screening in general, whether that's like a wall or No, we we screen dumpsters, we screen mechanical, we screen a lot of things, but we don't we don't screen the development from everybody else. Weird. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Last chance. We got to This is getting them I've talked enough about trees, but we understand they're important. I mean, you know. All right. Um, 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. I. All opposed. All right. Anyone do you board have any other questions of staff? I don't. And then it's just a matter of if does the board feel comfortable with approving this? If I may, Mr. Chair. We have to keep in mind that all the conditions that were part of the resolution adopting the the propo the um preliminary plat have not been met. So you should not approve a final plat unless as part of the resolution you include language that requires the developer to execute an appropriate agreement assuring performance of all those remaining issues that have not been dealt with. But CJ, I thought that's what that proposal was, wasn't it? Um the language in a draft and again it is a draft so this can change um Chad is this sufficient all staff comments as noted in the staff comments document dated 5:15 shall be addressed prior to the issuance of any local permits and the final plat for P park 35E is approved subject to revisions as noted in staff comments document dated 5:15 and I would that's very very close Okay, one one last point. And that the developer will execute an agreement assuring the township that those that they will perform and fully perform on those points on those issues. And that would be the responsibility of the applicant. Exactly. Provide that agreement. Yep. Mhm. Is that clear with the board? I cannot repeat it. I'm not going to try. Mr. Chair, I printed out the um drafted resolutions. May I? Sure. Sure. In case you'd like to look, but then we're gonna have to add some language that Chad just talked about. Thanks, CJ. Well, CJ, looks like the only outstanding that's not involved with staff is Rams County with the turn lane. Am I reading that right? Say that one more time. I'm sorry. the uh turn lanes Ramsey County. Uh that's the only outstanding uh besides just staff recommendations or staff reviews. Mindot. Yeah. Um Mandot and Ramsey County will need to Okay. Provide approval for those. And may I add to number seven after discussion tonight um that states the applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the township as part of the final approval. I'd like to recommend the staff would like to recommend including fees and letter of credit within that development agreement as well as part of seven just so I it says the landscaping out outlot A shall be constructed during construction of phase one development of lot one although it was stated earlier for part of this that there's more landscaping as it relates to the is that you call that outlot a that's going to be brought up Thursday night. So this is not really accurate. I don't want that to be all inclusive that this is the only landscaping that they plan to do. Well, that's what we've seen there. But but phase two is going to be another proposal where we can review landscaping. Again, if you read it, it says landscaping of out lot A shall be constructed during the phase one. Would it be appropriate to add a reference to the date of the um the plat that we received? So saying the landscaping on outlot A as shown in the materials reviewed tonight. Yeah. And then any additional ones that would be a separate Okay. Okay. Well, that makes sense. Yeah, I I I can see where you can misread that. We're all on the same page that there is more to discuss landscaping in phase two. Okay. All right, Chad, you anything else to add to this or No. No. So, is this going to just be the motion to approve this? Just adding what Chad added, which I can't repeat. Let's verify that with CJ. This is the um I I guess you'll call this the uh what you have in front of us this major subdivision resolution. Is that what it is? This does not include what Chad asked to be added to it. Correct. Language. That's correct. Um so additions would be including fees and a letter of credit development agreement. adding language regarding the landscaping as reviewed with the materials tonight. Got that. And Chad's recommendation of requiring the developer to execute an agreement assuring the resolution of any outstanding items from the preliminary plat approval. Yeah. Assuring performance of the performance remaining conditions performance. Performance. All right. Um we we handled the variances before. Correct. So, this is just the only thing in front of us now. That's correct. Okay. All right. What's the board's pleasure? Well, oh, tableabling it. You're for tableabling it. I'm for tableabling since we're they're going to be in planning commission on Thursday. We're going to have a discussion the executive board. You know, Mike seems to have questions. We have some outstanding issues. I'd kind of like to table it till it's all cleaned up. Well, you're going to have to make formal motion for that. May I clarify with um attorney before proceeding? Um the if the final plat is tabled tonight, would the second phase of development still be seen at the planning commission meeting? Sure would be because it's a it's a separate plat. Sure. I mean, yeah, I'm sorry that came out wrong. The second phase is a it's a completely separate plat, completely separate proposal. So, no, it it would be independent of what we're doing tonight. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Can I understand? And the landscaping for that project would be at the same time as this one. Well, okay. Right now, you're only looking at the development plan for the first plat. Yeah. Right now, the first plat only involves Well, it involves outlots A, B, and C, and out and lot one. Lot one being the key. Yeah. Uh the second the then proposal that you that'll be reviewed by the planning commission on Thursday night is for phase two which would be lot two and so that's a totally independent plat that has to stand on its own. I thought I understood that they were going to do the landscaping at the same time for both and I if I misunderstood correct me. Well, okay. There's a landscaping plan in place for this phase one. But, and if I'm mistating, CJ, you tell me. The second phase will have its own landscaping plan. Mhm. Independent compo totally independent of the phase one landscaping plan. I guess I just thought they were doing them both at the same time. And if I misheard it, I apologize. You know, practically they may be doing the work at the same time, but legally there's separate separate obligations. I get that. But the thing is it's like we would have an idea of what they're doing with the second project. I'm just asking if we could hold up till we've got a little more information. My understanding is Mike, our building, you know, our building inspector has some questions. I just think we're not tidy enough yet. Well, whatever questions Mike has, we got to make sure they don't involve building code issues only because building code issues have nothing to do with the plat approval. Okay. See, that's that's the problem. I I don't know what what issues Mike has. So, I can't tell you can't in advise the board whether they're planning whether zoning issues or strictly building code issues. [Music] You still want to make You still want to make a motion to I'd like the table just because it seems a bit messy to me. All right. Motion's been made to table. Do I have a second? All right. Motion fails. Steve, I'd like to make a motion to approve the major subdivision request for uh the final plat for 5300 Centerville Road. The partials listed uh in the agreement. I could read them if you need those partial IDs. part of the record. Part of the record uh with the additions uh as added I believe to include fees and letter of um of whatever it is. I can't read my writing. Letter of credit and also uh noting in 7D the landscaping on outlot A shall be constructed during construction of phase one as of the agreement as of tonight. Uh phase two will have to be dealt with as phase two moves along singularly and also um adding what the town attorney has asked to what is it you want to something assuring the performance what you call I can read the language again this is right out of the well they're okay I will point out that uh under section under section 5.9 of the proposed development agreement. There are there are requirements for for financial security being 100 bond 110% of the proposed costs. And as part of the note, additionally, the developer shall be responsible for all typical development fees identified in township fee schedule adopted by township code. So that's part of it as well, but I think that language needs to be clarified as part of the development agreement, but we can do that. But the the thrust of the development agreement is to include all fees. Well, I can't wait to read Megan's minutes. Yeah. Right. I don't know if that answers the question. Not Yeah. So, that is my motion. Okay. All right. Just before you vote on it, just so we're clear, here's what the statute says. that you can approve it but as closing condition execution of appropriate agreements assuring performance by the developer of all those outstanding conditions. Yes. Noted. Plus that will be in the minutes now. So all right that's your motion. Yes. Pretty longwinded. You want to repeat it? No. Do I have a second? I'll second it. All in favor say I. I. I. All opposed. I All right. Motion still passes. We are going to move on. Getting uh late. All right. Item 8A is new business. It's the holiday 5970 Highway 61 request for variance of ordinance number 33 signs. Who's taking this? This that would be me, Mr. Chair. This request was heard at the April 24th planning commission meeting. The commission reviewed and recommended that the board approve this request. The subject parcel is located within the general business zoning district on the north end of the township. The property currently contains a holiday gas station with an unleted canopy and a they are approved for including a diesel one as well. There's also a convenience store and a car wash. They have recently rebranded to be a Circle K. However, they are rebranding back to a holiday. Um, understanding that I believe it is the same ownership. An amended permitted use standards permit was approved for the property in 2023 to include that diesel canopy. The applicant also recently applied to install new signage on the property. Most of the signage was approved and was um compliant with the signage ordinance, ordinance number 33. However, they do need a variance for to erect four directional signs on their property totaling 16 square feet of signage that will direct traffic at the entrance and exit points um to ensure trucks are following the proper route to get their diesel fuel. Section 313 of this signage ordinance permits only two on-site directional signs intended to facilitate movement of pedestrians and vehicles within a site. A variance from that section is required. Figure one of the packet shows you what those may look like. Variances under the signage ordinance aren't like a typical zoning variance where they require public hearing and a plethora of conditions. Rather, they do not require public hearing. However, there are a few items to evaluate. The strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property or sign under consideration. That criteria is met. Um the subject is a property lot on Highway 61 and County Road J East and actually has three access points which creates um an increased likelihood of vehicle vehicle conflict or vehicle pedestrian conflict. These signage these proposed signs would potentially mitigate that conflict. The second criteria is such variances shall be granted when it is demonstrated that such request will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Um that criteria is also met. The variance is intended to direct automobile traffic and truck traffic to navigate the property. Economic considerations alone cannot constitute the hardship. It doesn't appear that that is the case. and variances shall not be granted for any sign that's not permitted um in that district, which directional signs are permitted in the B2 zoning district. So, all criteria set forth by the ordinance appear to be met. Um staff and agencies were forwarded for comments. The Minnesota Department of Transportation replied having no comments or objections to the signage as long as it's not within any right ofway. The building inspector um noted that signage is not permitted in the right ofway. These comments were a result of a um unclear site plan. We asked for a revised one where they showed that it would be 10 ft from the property line, not within the right of way. Township public works suggests um reducing the amount of signage necessary. The original application for this did show six directional signets whereas now the application is for four directional signs rather than six. their watershed had no issues. County staff um would want to see more information on the signage so that it would not impact traffic entering and exiting. I do believe that was also regard to the um the potential. Can you run through how it works? I use this gas station all the time and it's interesting. Yes. So, there are three entrances, correct? Yep. One on 61. Sorry. Can I ask you where I'm specifically looking for? When you're going on, you know, when you're going northbound on 61, you you come in. Yes. So, their proposed their approved diesel canopy is going to be located on the east side of the property. Okay. So, they'll be directing truck traffic to use the two outer entrances in a single direction. So, it's I'm not certain if that direction is entering from 61. I think that would make sense. They would be entering from Highway 61 going around and exiting County J. And their intention as stated at the planning commission was to um keep the truck traffic along the outside of the property or outside of the building. Well, trucks can move how they wish. The the signs are just Okay. Because there's a car wash there. So, you can come in, you can either gas up or if you're a truck, you're going to go around it and on the east side of the building. Correct. That's correct. And back side. How much how much space have you I mean literally how much cuz most people usually come, you know, like go around here. Although the school buses tend to park facing Highway 61 and blocking it. So that should be interesting if you can get them to stop. But will you be able to go? Will there be enough room for people coming in to go out at the second entrance, more east side, more easterly one onto uh Yes, there would. Um, and I can refer you to the plans from that diesel can diesel canopy in the future if you'd like. Well, I know, but this is showing the actual traffic patterns. So, you're talking about between that canopy in there. Oh, mine was blurry when I was pulled it up. That's what I was asking her to tell. Yeah. You know, they come in like this and a lot of times they gas up, then they come around and go out this way because this one can be a little fraught because if you're making a fast turn, there's been conflict here. Most people like to go out here. Like that's they don't want to make the left turn on the westerly, right? Yes. Isn't that where the signs are posted? Yes. To make them follow through and go out right there. Correct. I I was that's what I was verifying because I couldn't see it when I pulled it up. That's why I was asking for clarification. [Music] Yes, that's why they wanted more directional sign signage, too. DJ, was there any talk of uh painting the asphalt? Obviously, it doesn't work in the winter, but there was no discussion at the planning commission regarding um striping or any pavement. I'm sorry, but some people have to be cattle through. It's true. This one in particular, as as mentioned earlier, the planning commission did review this request on the 24th. The conversation was main mainly around um lighting. There will be no um extra lighting surrounding the signs. Um the intent of the signs which we have discussed and the impact on any neighboring properties. Uh there is a neighboring property that uses the same access to the south and that access would not be impacted by the trucks traveling through there. it would not be stopping and blocking uh that entrance. Uh the planning commission recommended approval with the following conditions that the sh signs shall be constructed in accordance with site plan received on 4925 and reviewed with the request resulting in no more than four signs um at 48 in x 28 in in size. They shall be erected in the identified locations submitted on the plans and the signs shall not be located within any public easements. Another conversation that was had at the planning commission was regarding any monument signs. Uh currently the Wiper Township logo is not on any monument signs. Any ex So as a condition recommended by the planning commission, any existing or proposed monument signs must include the name and or logo of White Bear Township as required by ordinance number 33 section 3-15. And I do remember having that discussion. Did they I mean that was only if they were going to modify that monument sign. Correct. Correct. And there was no further communications about modifying. So, we don't know if they're going to or not. All they're looking for is directional signs. Now, that's what my question was going to be because I'm I brought up the monument sign because it does not properly reflect the requirements of our ordinance, but this was con, as I understood, was constructed prior to that. So, but it's clear they're not we're not approving any to that monument sign, just the directionals. That's what you're looking for or they're looking for. I would recommend then changing this com uh recommendation or this condition, excuse me, based on your clarification. Instead of saying any existing or proposed, saying um if the monument sign is reconstructed, reconstructed or remodeled, then it shall meet those requirements. I think that's I don't think we could force my understanding was Chad, you can't force they're not touching an existing sign uh that doesn't meet our current standards. So we can't force them because they're doing something else at the site to meet our our sign standard for identifying Wiper Township. Only if there was some connection between what's being proposed tonight and the sign. It doesn't sound like there is. So the nexus is the term they like to use. As long as it's clear that that's they touch it, they fix it. That's my All right, Beth. Any other questions? No. All right. Uh, seems like pretty straightforward. Do I have a motion? I'll move to approve the uh is it a variance? Is that what we're a variance to ordinance 33? Variance to ordinance 3. I can't read it. It's a problem. 33. Um, this one. Well, it's just the thing got so small I can't see it anymore. Got a little button when you blow it up. I'm blowing it up. I'm getting there. All right. I even ought to do that. Well, changes here. It's right at the very bottom of my pile. No, I have it here now. Uh request for a variance for ordinance number 33 signs to allow for four directional signs on site. uh making it also that they are not to touch the monument sign unless they uh change it to meet the current township ordinance. I'll second. All right. Motion made second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. All right. Moving on. Uh 8B park board recommendations. This is a park facility reservation policy. Yes. You going to take that, Steve? I sure can. Uh the park board uh again had been working on on this park facilities reservation policy for about two years. Uh the board saw it as a preliminary draft prior to this and the request was made to meet with the users uh to see if there's anything uh that could be changed or not correct. We did that. Uh, and then the park board submits it to the board for final approval as there were it's in its final form. The only thing the board besides approving it should uh comment on when they want to put it into uh play. The recommendation is for calendar year 2026 and beyond. and the fees are listed in the uh policy. So that would be my recommendation. Did those fees come from um reviewing other communities and yes the fees? Yes, there was a study done of of multiple communities as what they charge for the use of their fields. And these are relatively low and they're relatively already low of probably the over the last two years these were two years old already. Um, so we thought we'd start with this and see where it goes from there. That was a All right. Any questions? More good work by the park board. So, you're just looking for what? An action? Yeah. To motion to consider. Yeah, I'd make two. To approve the facility reservation policy and also establish a date when you want to put it uh 2026. Yep. Looks like you did a good job. I'll second that. All right. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. All right. Moving on. Improvements. 2024-2 Portland Woods. Larry, you going to take this Jim? Mr. Chair, members of board. The next three are the street projects. Uh 8C is the Portland Woods improvements. That was project 2024-2. Uh we are very pleased we had seven biders which is a a very good number of biders for the project. Uh North Valley was the low bidder at 204,085.19. Those bids ranged from about 204,000 to 282,000. A very tight area that was below the engineers estimate. Um we reviewed all the documents that they submitted and everything is acceptable and again uh very pleased with the outcome of the bidding process. Uh we are looking for three actions tonight. One would be to receive all of the bids. The second would be to award the contract to North Valley in the amount of $24,85.19. And the third would be to authorize TKDA to perform the construction services for an amount not to exceed 28,500. All right. Any questions or comments? Yeah. Did you take them all at once or No, I think we have to separate motions for three. Okay. I'll make a motion to receive the uh bid for the improvement for the 2024-2 Portland Woods for North Valley, Inc. at $24,85.19. Well, let's take the first one first. You want to Isn't that the first one? Receiving the bids. Receive bids. Yeah. But then you want to receive all bids. You got to receive them all. That's why I asked you. Okay. Receive all the bids. Pardon me. I'll second that. All right. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. All right. Then you can do the award. Um Okay. So, um I'll make a motion to um accept the awards for the project improvements. That'd be for North Valley and the Okay. Oh, yeah. Okay. North Valley. Do you want me to name them all? No, just North Valley. Just just the one that you're going to award it to them. All right. We'll award to North Valley for 204,8519. I have a second. I'll second that. All favor say I. I. And the last one Anderson uh 2024-3 Anderson Lane. No. No. Uh to have TKDA proceed. I I don't know about the amount. We might have to negotiate that. Yeah. We just have to blindly agree to this, Jim. Okay. Well, let's accept that. T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T TKDA is going to um let's see. Award uh will authorize TKDA to proceed with construction services. Have a second. I'll second that. All favor say I. I. All opposed. All right. The next one is 2024-3 Anderson Lane. Again, Mr. Chair, members of the board, we are very pleased that we had eight biders, which is a excellent number for this project. Uh, North Valley was the low bidder at [Music] $497,63.11. The eight biders ranged from $497,000 to 644,000. Again, this was below the engineers estimate. Um all the documents received were reviewed and they're in compliance. And the third component would be to authorize TKDA for construction services for amount not to exceed 81,300. All righty. Any questions or comments on that one? No. I'll make I'll make a motion to adopt the uh receive the bids. Second. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. That motion carries. I'll make a motion to award the contract to North Valley Inc. in the amount of $497,63.11 as a low bid. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. All right. Last one. Steve. I'll make a motion to authorize TKDA to proceed with the construction services for a uh cost not to exceed $81,300. Ouch. I'll second it. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. All right. Then we have item E. That's the improvements for Jenny Lane. This was formerly known as Silver Fox area. Okay. I'll make a motion. You want to go through that one first? Sure. And again, uh, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Excellent. Uh, eight biders. The dress contracting was low at 1,978,82.94. The range was from 1.979,000 million to 2,425,000. Uh, excellent uh, results. Again, we've reviewed the documents. everything complied with the requirements. And the third component would be to authorize TKDA for construction services for an amount not to exceed 254,700. All right. Any questions on that one? All right. Uh, first one, I need a motion for receiving the bids. I'll move to receive the bids. I'll second. All in favor say I. I. I. Next. Make a motion to adopt the resolution awarding the contract to Drestle Contracting, Inc. in the amount of 1,978,82.94. Second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. And then the last one, Steve. I'll move to authorize TKDA to proceed with the construction services for this project at a cost not to exceed $254,700. A second. I don't know. That seems like a lot. All in favor say I. I. I. All right. That concludes our agenda. As an as an aside, Mr. chair. Um I was told today that um TK should have ideas on interest rates for bonding on these projects by the executive meeting on the 30th. And hopefully that market matches how aggressive the construction market is. We're counting nickels. Yep. All right. We have open time. We have a rep from White Bear Press. Name and address. My name is Logan Gillon, 1259 Europa Avenue North, Hugo. Um, so surprisingly not about uh the big one tonight, but more about the holiday station store. I have a question about that. I was out in the hall for a little bit on that one, but this one comes from my mom who lives nearby. We frequent that station store quite a bit. Um, is this going to greatly affect traffic on Kairo J because there's already the first student bus hub there? Um, you know, now these signs are going to be on that north edge and I know like I think 61 it's a pretty sharp like turnoff into the gas station. So I don't see a lot of trucks using that one. Do we kind of know what the future holds in that regard? Press hat is kind of half off for this but not all the way off. the uh at the night that they presented this to the planning commission, that question was asked and and they were unsure, but they did not expect a lot of traffic. Okay, that's but Okay, good to know. Um relative. Yeah. Yeah. Unless you're going to build a canopy for diesel and trucks and you don't expect traffic. Okay. Um on that not um if we if the member of the public reaches out for meeting minutes regarding that request from 2023 there may be more information on truck traffic with the request that was approved in 2023 for the diesel canopy. Okay in those minutes let's get on the record CJ you have been indispensably helpful tonight. Thank you. um uh quite separately um and this is press hat all the way off. Um I don't remember the man's name here about the increased traffic on Centerville Road. Um and he mentioned a double yellow line passing. Uh I just want to noted that um I had a close family member who was in a terrible car accident in 2004 on that road when someone crossed the double yellow line. This is not a new issue. So, I don't believe the board should consider that tied to current developments. It's it's been an issue and I understand the issue with the county um pretty intimately on getting out. You know what? It's everybody is just driving so aggressive now. It's everywhere. It's just not center of a road. It's it's pretty frustrating. And the using a shoulder as a bypass lane. I like I couldn't help but laugh. Ha. Like it's I mean not funny, but yeah. Solid white lines are just a suggestion. Oh yeah, apparently. Yeah. So I, you know, not speaking as a member of the press there, I do want as a citizen who uses Centerville Road, I do want that on the record that like that's been going on for a while, people crossing the double line there. And that's not necessarily anything that this current landscape or board is responsible for. In my personal feelings, again, not as a member of the press, crossed all my eyes, got out of all my tees. We're good. Uh Logan, this is not going to be a good year anyway with the all the commotion going on in Car J. Now we've got a development coming and we're still working with North Oaks company because we we need to get some water meters put along that road. That road's going to be a little bit ugly for at least a year now. I hope that you all watch this meeting and that the camera catches my lack of hair. Thank you all. I didn't I don't know anything about land contracts. So, um it's been a learning experience. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Yeah. Thank you. An education. All right. I need a motion to receive agenda material supplements. So moved. Second. All in favor say I. I. I. I need a motion to adjourn at 857. So moved. Second. All in favor? All right.